Matthew 5:21-26.pdf

My last post (on Matthew 5:13-20) showed, among other things, how the Sermon on the Mount begins to progress backwards, chiastically, corresponding to the Beatitudes. This was proposed and outlined in the Matthew 5:1-12 post. The subject matter of that portion of the Sermon was named after its corresponding eighth Beatitude in Matthew 5:10-12 (H. “Heavenly Reward for Righteousness”). This next pericope (Matthew 5:21-26) corresponds to the seventh Beatitude in Matthew 5:9, headlined as G. "Peacemakers called Sons of God.”

Here we can see how the concept of “peacemakers” is readily applicable to the content of Matthew 5:21-26.  Peacemaking in 5:9 is directly related to the focus on reconciliation - or the opposite, consequences for unsettled offenses in 5:21-26. In this pericope, we may observe (at least what may be likened to) civil cases within the context of a renewed Israelite messianic kingdom community. These cases are also tied by the Lord directly to the temple cult. These offenses are seemingly portrayed as if the crimes are committed by and against members of Jesus' messianic kingdom community in the land (and seemingly prior to the destruction of the temple in AD 70). In post-Pentecost hindsight, Christian readers will understand that those who are truly Peacemakers are motivated internally, based on the mercy, grace, and love which come from the Holy Spirit dwelling within us. While we do not derive the power & strength to carry out God’s will from external threats of public civil judgment & sacrifice, neither do we deny there are God given (and even eternal) consequences for those who choose to disobey the Lord. (Read the book of Hebrews if you may doubt this.)

Before moving along into the details, I want to quickly say that I will be characterizing this, the first of Jesus “but I say unto you” sayings, in a three-fold manner in each case:

Convention: (in this case, the 6^th Commandment: Murder)

Corruption: (in this case, that one offense is what is solely regarded as worthy of guilt and subject to the court of civil judgment)

Correction: (in this case, Jesus’ discourse in Matthew 5:22-26)

·      In 5:22a, the present middle participle for the verb to be angry may be intended to indicate this is a self-provoked anger. That is it refers to the type of person who is easily (as if self) provoked to anger.

·      In 5:22b, the Greek ῥακά is apparently borrowing from Aramaic and refers to one who is totally lacking in understanding — ‘numskull.’

·      In 5:22c, the Greek μωρός, means stupid, nonsensical – ‘moron.’

It is interesting that, at this point in the progression in Matthew 5:22c, there is a definite shift from the place of court trial to the place of sentencing and judgment. The Greek γέεννα, comes from Hebrew referring to the ‘Valley of Hinnom.’ However, its actual meaning arose as a figurative extension of that place where rubbish was then currently burned, but also where idolatry and child sacrifice, notably to the god Moloch, took place during ancient times. In other words, the symbolic condemnation of that place for its wickedness came to be extended as a reference to “the place of final judgment” where the wicked dead were punished in Sheol/Hades.

The outline clearly shows how, in Jesus’ mind, the messianic community that centered upon the worship in the temple (central B terms), could never be separated from the civil cases of societal offenses (outer A terms). I will simply leave it to the reader to observe the intricate structure of Jesus’ discourse and allow it to speak for itself.

If we can see how the civil aspects of the offense continue from Matthew 5:22 into Matthew 5:25-26, then we may likely also see further implications regarding the punishment for the wicked (dead?). In this case, the sentence is put in terms of being in “prison” with the implication that the sentence is for a very long time, “until whenever you should pay the last penny” (assuming that payment is even possible).

Some Church Fathers interpreted Matthew 5:25-26 in ways that suggest post-mortem punishment, including the idea of purgatory or a form of post-death suffering:

1. Tertullian (c. 155–220 AD) – In De Anima (Chapter 58), he seems to interpret the passage as referring to a state of punishment after death for unrepented sins. He connects it with the idea of the “prison” being a place of postmortem suffering.

2. Cyprian of Carthage (c. 200–258 AD) – In Epistle 51, Cyprian discusses how those who fail to reconcile and do penance may face consequences after death, though he does not explicitly define purgatory.

3. Augustine of Hippo (354–430 AD) – Augustine, in Enchiridion (Chapter 69), interprets this passage as possibly indicating a temporary state of punishment, aligning with the idea of purgatory. He sees the “prison” as a place where those not fully purified must endure some suffering before entering heaven.

4. Origen (c. 184–253 AD) – In his writings (Homilies on Leviticus and Commentary on Matthew), Origen discusses the concept of purification after death, interpreting Matthew 5:25-26 as a reference to a temporary state where souls are refined before reaching full communion with God.

While these Church Fathers directly tie this passage to post-mortem consequences for sin, whether temporary (as in purgatory) or eternal (as in damnation), I personally tend to think about post-mortem judgment in terms associated with solely eternal consequences. In this context in Matthew, where there seems to be some sort of temporal earthly messianic community involving persons seemingly still in their physical bodies with the tangible possibility of working off their sentences, I am more open to the idea that their punishment is temporal, not eternal. It might be that, since they have not yet confirmed their wills through death, their knowledge, choices, and belief is still incomplete. Thus, their status before God is still open to the possibility of repentance and redemption. I do not currently believe there is such a possibility for those who have confirmed the trajectory of their lives and wills after death. That is, after death, everyone is subject to the judgment according to works where it will be shown as to whether they were faithful (justified) or not in relation to God’s covenant.

This brings me back to one final observation. That is, according to the Beatitude in Matthew 5:9, Peacemakers will be called “Sons of God.” I think it is important to note how this consequence of our earthly lives - the bestowment of a divine familial relationship status (being called/named “Sons of God”) is directly related to our actions in relation to our “brother” (4x in Matthew 5:22-24). I take “brother” as a reference to a member in good standing / right-standing” (i.e., “justified”) in the new covenant community. We understand there is a real sense in which we, who have the Spirit, are now the Sons of God. So, it is incumbent on us to act accordingly, as sons of the light. We ought to treat one another as beloved brothers and sisters, and fathers and mothers in Christ. We should never relegate reconciliation to maybe one day a year prior to Great Lent. That way, when the Day arrives, the truth of “Christ in us,” the hope of glory, will be clearly seen and known.