21 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: 22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. (Matthew 5:21-22 KJV)
William Burkitt’s Commentary
Here our blessed Saviour begins to expound the spiritual sense and meaning of the law, and to vindicate it from the corrupt grosses of the Pharisees:
Where observe, Christ doth not deliver a new law, but expounds the old; doth not injoin new duties, but inforces the old ones. The law of God was always perfect, requiring the sons of men to love God with all their hearts, and their neighbor as themselves.
In this exposition of the law, Christ begins with the sixth commandment, Thou shalt not kill; where he shews, that besides the actual taking away of life, a person may violate that command.
1. By rash anger.
2. By disgraceful and reviling words.
Thence learn, 1, that every evil motion of our hearts consented to against our neighbour, all unjust anger towards him, all terms of contempt put upon him, are forbidden by the law of God, no less than the gross act of murder itself.
Learn, 2. That wrath and anger, without just cause, hath its degrees; and according to the degrees of the sin, will the degrees of punishment be proportionable in the next world.
Learn, 3. That self-murder is here forbidden, and in no case lawful, man having no more power over his own life than over another’s; though life be ever so miserable and painful, yet must we wait God’s time for our dismission and release.
Thomas Scott’s Commentary
Verses 21-22: To illustrate his meaning the divine Teacher proceeded to vindicate several of the commandments of the moral law from the corrupt and partial interpretation put upon them by the Scribes; which tended to show, that their rule of righteousness itself was beneath even the actual attainment of his disciples. It had been said by or to them of old time, “Thou shalt not kill.” Ex 20:13 God had of old given the law; and the tradition of the elders had made this gloss upon it, ‘whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment.’ By this it was implied, that nothing except actual murder was prohibited; and that this was to be avoided mainly from the dread of the capital punishment to be inflicted by the magistrate. Thus they explained away the extensive spiritual import of the command, and led the people to overlook the awful curse of God denounced against transgressors. But Christ, the great Lawgiver and Judge, speaking with less terror, but not less authority, than when he delivered the commandments from mount Sinai, declared that “whosoever was angry with his brother without cause, would be in danger of the judgment.”
All excessive anger must be proportionably “with out cause;” and all the settles into revenge, or vents itself in words and actions, contrary to the law of loving our neighbor as ourselves. We ought to be angry at sin in ourselves and others, and to show our disapprobation of it according to our relation to the offender: we should seek his humiliation and reformation by proper means; but not his hurt in any respect, at least not in our private capacity. Inferiors, servants, juniors, are all brethren in this sense; and he that is angry at another without cause, or above cause, “shall be in danger of the judgment.”
It is a sin deserving of a punishment more terrible than that inflicted by the ordinary courts of justice on the murderer; and consequently it calls for repentance, and needs the mercy and forgiveness of the new covenant. Moreover, whosoever uses contemptuous or opprobrious language in the heat of his passion, calling his brother “an empty worthless fellow,” or “a wicked and abandoned profligate,” and such like, would be in danger of punishment proportionably more severe, according to the degree of virulence or malignity contained in such revilings.
The different courts of justice, and the different kinds of punishment in use among the Jews, are supposed to be referred to in these expressions. By one court, it is said, the criminal was condemned to be beheaded; by another, stoned; and by another, burned in “the valley of the son of Hinnom,” which was considered as a sort of type or emblem of the fire of hell.
The original word is Gehennah, which is Hebrew or Syriac, and signifies the valley of Hinnom. There idolaters burned their children to Moloch; and after this abominable practice was put a stop to, the valley was by every means rendered as filthy and vile as possible, and a fire was there constantly burning to consume the rubbish carried thither; and at length, it is reported, that it became a place of execution for criminals.—‘Hence this place, being so many ways execrable, it came to be translated to signify the place of the damned, as the most accursed, execrable, and abominable of all places.’—Mede.
The word is frequently used in the New Testament; and always for hell, or the place of final punishment or misery. Mt 5:29; 18:9; Mr 9:43,45,47; Isa 30:33 Of this punishment the conduct above described was deserving, and to this the criminal would be exposed, according to the degree of his crime, unless repentance and forgiveness intervened.—this shows both the need which all have of the gospel, and the strictness of the believes rule of duty. ‘These words, vain and foolish, when used by men assisted by the Spirit of God, or speaking by virtue of their office, out of a spirit of charity, and an ardent desire to make men sensible of their folly, do not make men obnoxious to this guilt; Ge 3:1; Jas 2:20 but only when they proceed from causeless anger, or ill-will towards them.’—Whitby.
‘Minerva, in Homer, forbids Achilles striking Agamemnon; yet gives him leave to reproach him, and counsels to contumelious words.’—Hammond. This is heathen or classical morality!