. . .

3. Matthew 5:22.

Mt. 5:22 acquires its true edge only against the contemporary background.

Linguistically it should be noted that like the Hb. חַיָּב the Aram. אִתְחַיַּב, which lies behind the fourfold ἔνοχος (→ II, 828, 30 ff.), is not followed by a ref. to the specific court but to the penalty to which one is subject (or the obligation or guilt incurred). This is supported by a second linguistic observation, namely, that neither ἡ κρίσις nor the original Aram. דִּינָא means “court” or even “local court”; דִינָא means “trial,” “verdict,” “penalty,” so that ἔνοχος ἔσται τῇ κρίσει (Mt. 5:21b) does not mean, as commonly thought, that “(the murderer) is subject to local justice” but that “(the murderer) comes under (capital) sentence,” cf. Ex. 21:12; Lv. 24:17. The phrase has the same meaning in Mt. 5:22a and similarly ἔνοχος ἔσται τῷ συνεδρίῳ in Mt. 5:22b means that “he deserves the death sentence from the supreme court” and ἔνοχος ἔσται εἰς τὴν γέενναν τοῦ πυρός that “he deserves (to be cast) into hell.” Mt. 5:21b is thus a continuation of the bibl. quotation in 21a and the three phrases which follow in 5:22a–c do not refer to three different courts, the local, the supreme, and the divine (hell), but are simply three expressions for the death penalty in a kind of crescendo. If, as is likely, ὀργιζόμενος refers to the expression of anger in the word (→ IV, 841, 32 ff.), the first three parallel phrases in Mt. 5:22 all refer to the sin of the tongue against one’s brother, while the second three all refer to the death penalty.

The following translation is thus suggested: (21) “You have heard (in the reading of Scripture) that God said to the fathers: ‘Thou shalt do no murder; the murderer shall be punished (with death).’ (22) But I say unto you:

Any man who is angry with his brother

deserves to be punished (with death).

He who says to his brother ‘Thou blockhead!’

deserves to be condemned (to death) by the supreme court.

He who says: ‘Thou idiot!’

deserves to suffer (death) in hell.”

Jesus establishes a new divine law when He opposes His ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν to the Word of Scripture and proclaims in threefold repetition that the term of abuse which is regarded as harmless though spoken in ill-humour is an offence worthy of death. It is on the same level as murder and deserves the same and indeed a severer punishment, namely, the imposing of the death penalty by the supreme court (which obviously carries with it expulsion from the national fellowship) and even the penalty of eternal death. This paradox of unparalleled sharpness19 is designed to bring home to the hearers the terrible seriousness of sins of the tongue in God’s eyes and hence to save them from having on their consciences the everyday ill feelings towards their brothers which might appear innocuous but in fact poison relationships. Membership of the coming kingdom of God and its order is demonstrated by taking sin seriously in this way.

As regards authenticity, attempts have been made to show that 5:22c is secondary as an extension of 22b, or 5:22b β, c α (as an accretion to 22b α, c β) or more commonly 5:22bc as an elucidation of 22a. In answer to the main objections that there is no crescendo from wrath to insult and that the Sanhedrin is not a higher authority than the local court23 one should consider what is said about ὀργιζόμενος → 975, 22 f., κρίσις → 975, 11 ff. and συνέδριον → line 2 f. In addition to what is noted → IV, 841, 32 ff. one may also observe that in any case the speech (ῥακά, συνέδριον, γέεννα, γέεννα τοῦ πυρός [gen. for adj.]), style (parallelism) and outlook (→ 974, 16 ff.; → συνέδριον) of 5:22bc are all distinctly Palestinian, and that Jesus judges sins of the tongue with similar severity elsewhere (e.g., Mt. 12:36 f.), even regarding them as the very epitome of uncleanness in Mk. 7:15b.