“You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder, and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.’ “But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, ‘Raca!’ shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be in danger of hell fire. “Therefore if you bring your gift to the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, “leave your gift there before the altar, and go your way. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. “Agree with your adversary quickly, while you are on the way with him, lest your adversary deliver you to the judge, the judge hand you over to the officer, and you be thrown into prison. “Assuredly, I say to you, you will by no means get out of there till you have paid the last penny. (Matthew 5:21-26, NKJV).
It's the Thought that Counts
This is the first of five "you have heard" passages in Matthew 5 (Mt 5:21,27,33,38,43), and coupled with each counterpart "But I say to you" or "But I tell you", it is the Lord's understated but emphatic method of declaring His preeminence and authority over the Law of Moses. This was one of the reasons "…that the people were astonished at His teaching, for He taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes." (Matthew 7:28, 29, NKJV).
The scribes, on the other hand, used "precedent" to make a point or argue for this or that Scriptural interpretation. Jesus did not. Instead, He simply and unequivocally stated the correct meaning of the various Laws He mentioned, without relying on any prior citation or decision from some august or credentialed source. This would have been beyond arrogant if He were not Messiah, the Son of God, and the author of all Truth. His authoritative stance in this is one of the many proofs in the New Testament that Jesus claimed to be God. As C.S. Lewis wrote,
The scribes, on the other hand, used "precedent" to make a point or argue for this or that Scriptural interpretation. Jesus did not. Instead, He simply and unequivocally stated the correct meaning of the various Laws He mentioned, without relying on any prior citation or decision from some august or credentialed source. This would have been beyond arrogant if He were not Messiah, the Son of God, and the author of all Truth. His authoritative stance in this is one of the many proofs in the New Testament that Jesus claimed to be God. As C.S. Lewis wrote,
I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: 'I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God.' That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic -- on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg -- or else he would be the Devil of Hell.
In the six verses referenced above, Jesus is establishing the following as bedrock truth:
- Evil intent is equivalent to evil action (But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother…)
- Evil intent is worthy of judgment (whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment)
- Evil speaking is equivalent to evil action (And whoever says to his brother)
- Some evil speaking is worse than others (whoever says to his brother, ‘Raca!’ shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be in danger of hell fire.)
This was a radical interpretation of ancient Hebrew jurisprudence that had rested upon centuries of precedent. It would have indeed been astonishing to anyone in His audience who was paying attention, and understood exactly what Jesus' declarations were overthrowing. I can hear the murmurs in the crowd. "You mean to say that that just feeling or saying something is equal to the doing? What's next? Merely thinking something? Who does this Man think He is?"
Of course, the Law was always about both intent and deed, thought and action, but the Rabbis over the centuries lost that distinction, focusing exclusively on the letter of the Law and not the spirit. Although His listeners may have thought that Jesus was laying a new foundation, He was in fact, reestablishing the original.
Of course, the Law was always about both intent and deed, thought and action, but the Rabbis over the centuries lost that distinction, focusing exclusively on the letter of the Law and not the spirit. Although His listeners may have thought that Jesus was laying a new foundation, He was in fact, reestablishing the original.
And it is because the "thoughts and intents of the heart" are always what has been in view in regard to the Law that we are totally incapable of keeping the law. That is why it was always intended as a "tutor that would bring us to Christ", the Savior whom we so desperately need. The prideful in His audience were angered by the Lord's astounding proclamations on many levels. One, that He dared to say such things. Two, that He would put Himself in a position of such authority over them, and three, that He was destroying everything they relied upon to think themselves better than those cursed people who did not know or follow the Law. It is ever the case. Humanity's long war against God has from the beginning been motivated by the same impulses of pride and self-worship, summarized in nine simple words screamed impotently from earth to the heavens: "WE WILL NOT HAVE THIS ONE RULE OVER US!"
As to why saying "Raca!" ("empty-headed") was worthy of more severe judgment than saying "You fool!", I believe the answer lies along the same line of reasoning. Insulting another's intelligence (head content), however bad that is, is less arrogant than condemning his moral and spiritual state. In ancient Hebrew, the implication of calling someone a "fool" was equivalent to saying that "God has forsaken" that individual. It was putting a fallen human on the judgment seat of God, for only God Himself can determine whether He has cast someone aside forever.
The Lord then proceeds to emphasize His teaching by offering two practical examples and with two respective remedies. The first paints the picture of someone piously rendering to God worship, or homage or sacrifice with the stain of having offended or being at enmity with a "brother", e.g.; someone in a close relationship. The cure: "First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift." Why? Because it's not only the thought that counts, but the entirety of attitude that counts before God, the Holy and Righteous Judge. Proper worship of, and adoration for God is incompatible with harbored hostility and lack of forgiveness toward a "brother". The only One who has the right to be offended by sin is God Himself. If there is festering offense and lack of forgiveness, God is not on the thrown, you are. Just like declaring someone a "Fool!".
The second example illustrates the principle best described as "don't let the sun go down on your anger". The longer an offense in either direction is left unaddressed the more infected it becomes. No one in any human interaction is completely guiltless. No one. "There is none righteous. No, not one." Mutual recognition of that fact is best accomplished with the most ameliorative effect early on, through humbly seeking agreement with your adversary (presumably someone not as close as "your brother"). Otherwise, escalation of hostility is inevitable and drastic consequences are incurred.
And Jesus' final point in this passage: all unforgiven offenses are always paid in full (Assuredly, I say to you, you will by no means get out of there till you have paid the last penny). There can be no deals struck or bargains negotiated in God's perfect justice. As every last "jot or tittle" of the Law must be fulfilled, so must every "jot or tittle" of debt be paid. This aligns with the Lord's statement later on in this same sermon, “For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. “But if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses." (Matthew 6:14, 15, NKJV).
Our forgiveness in Christ is to be reflected in our forgiveness toward others. How could it be otherwise? And if it isn't, if we hold onto offenses from others or are ourselves chronically guilty of offending others, can we truly be Christ's?
“Therefore the kingdom of heaven is like a certain king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants. “And when he had begun to settle accounts, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents. “But as he was not able to pay, his master commanded that he be sold, with his wife and children and all that he had, and that payment be made. “The servant therefore fell down before him, saying, ‘Master, have patience with me, and I will pay you all.’ “Then the master of that servant was moved with compassion, released him, and forgave him the debt. “But that servant went out and found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii; and he laid hands on him and took him by the throat, saying, ‘Pay me what you owe!’ “So his fellow servant fell down at his feet and begged him, saying, ‘Have patience with me, and I will pay you all.’ “And he would not, but went and threw him into prison till he should pay the debt. “So when his fellow servants saw what had been done, they were very grieved, and came and told their master all that had been done. “Then his master, after he had called him, said to him, ‘You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you begged me. ‘Should you not also have had compassion on your fellow servant, just as I had pity on you?’ “And his master was angry, and delivered him to the torturers until he should pay all that was due to him. (Matthew 18:23-34, NKJV).
