Don't Do As I Do. Do As I Say.

[Miles]

.

In Matthew 5:1-2 we read: "When Jesus saw the crowds of people there, he went up on a hill and sat down. His followers came and sat next to him. 2 Then Jesus began teaching the people. He said":

Matthew 5:22
22 But I tell you, don’t be angry with anyone. If you are angry with others, you will be judged. And if you insult someone, you will be judged by the high court. And if you call someone a fool, you will be in danger of the fire of hell.

Yet in Mark Jesus does just that; he gets angry with people.

Mark 3:1-5
1 Another time Jesus went into the synagogue, and a man with a shriveled hand was there. 2 Some of them were looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, so they watched him closely to see if he would heal him on the Sabbath. 3 Jesus said to the man with the shriveled hand, “Stand up in front of everyone.”
4 Then Jesus asked them, “Which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?” But they remained silent.
5 He looked around at them in anger and, deeply distressed at their stubborn hearts, said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” He stretched it out, and his hand was completely restored.

And in Matthew insults others

Matthew 23:17
17 You are blind fools! Can’t you see that the Temple is greater than the gold on it? It’s the Temple that makes the gold holy!

And calls them fools.

Matthew 23:17
17 You are blind fools! Can’t you see that the Temple is greater than the gold on it? It’s the Temple that makes the gold holy!

So what's the deal here?

Jesus gets a bye on being angry with others, insulting them, and calling them fools? He can be angry, insulting, and call people fools all he wants, but if we dare to we'll be punished, and possibly end up in hell.



.

[Purple Knight]

Jesus gets a bye on being angry with others, insulting them, and calling them fools? He can be angry, insulting, and call people fools all he wants, but if we dare to we'll be punished, and possibly end up in hell.

It's a logical impossibility to have a non-relative moral system without a judge. Now, the judge can be fair and judge himself, but since he's the judge, legitimately and in truth having that power, he can also excuse himself, judging himself to be in the right for the same actions, and doing so isn't wrong unless you say the judge doesn't actually have that power.

Now, if the judge doesn't actually have that power, and no one else does either - if there is no True Judge - then morality is relative and nothing can be wrong anyway. We can still punish murderers, but if the murderer doesn't see his actions as wrong, we're punishing an innocent.

You can have a collective True Judge. You can have right and wrong be a vote. However, this is the same to the outvoted minority as it is to the angry man who burns in Hell while noticing (hence his anger) that Jesus can be angry and remain unpunished for it. In this case, just as in the first, some people simply have no say, and others get to judge them unilaterally.

You can also have a non-sentient True Judge. You can have right and wrong inscribed upon the fabric of the universe, as one of the immutable laws of physics or constants. However, because the minority may be correct now, independent of anyone saying they're not correct, it's also independent of you saying they're not correct and morality is therefore unknowable. No one can know it. I can't know it for the same reason. Morality is independent of what I think it is, too. Morality also might be something illogical and/or generally considered horrid such as declaring same-species procreation a sin, requiring you to procreate with ligers using whatever means you must, you dirty homospecial. Remember, the minority can be right now, or no one can be right and everyone can be wrong.

The best-case scenario is that there actually is a True Judge, and he's fair. That's ludicrously unlikely. Most people are disastrously unfair when given the least little bit of power, and that's all we have to go on as far as direct evidence.

Imagine if you will that the Bible is knowably fiction. I certainly do; I believe it probably is fiction. There's a reason its writers didn't portray the sort of fairness you're asking for: It's simply inconceivable that anyone should behave that way.

[2timothy316]

Here is the best explanation, in the study notes on the side.
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/b/r1/lp-e/nwt ... &v=40:5:22

It's not just anger or being wrathful. It's the kind of anger that leads to harmful action. Compare Ephesians 4:26, "Be wrathful, but do not sin; do not let the sun set while you are still angry."

It's also not the kind of name calling such as just calling someone a fool. Calling a person a 'despicable fool' was much more than that. To use that term was judging a person that they deserve everlasting destruction. Like telling someone to "Go to Hell!" or "I hope you die in Armageddon." These are unacceptable. Compare Ephesians 4:29, "“Let a rotten saying not proceed out of your mouth, but whatever saying is good for building up as the need may be, that it may impart what is favorable to the hearers."

PK is not entirely wrong. Jesus who will be the world's judge does have the right to determine who will be cut off to everlasting death. However, calling one a fool and blind is not the same as calling one a 'despicable fool'. I don't know of a scripture where Jesus calls someone a 'despicable fool'. If Jesus did, since he is the world's judge, I guess he'd know if a person truly was a 'despicable fool' deserving of everlasting death.

So is it a case do as I say and not as I do? Not that I can see. It is a case of don't be like those I call a blind fool though.

[1213]

...

Matthew 5:22
22 But I tell you, don’t be angry with anyone. If you are angry with others, you will be judged. And if you insult someone, you will be judged by the high court. And if you call someone a fool, you will be in danger of the fire of hell.

...

Mark 3:1-5
...
5 He looked around at them in anger and, deeply distressed at their stubborn hearts, said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” He stretched it out, and his hand was completely restored.

...

Matthew 23:17
17 You are blind fools! Can’t you see that the Temple is greater than the gold on it? It’s the Temple that makes the gold holy!

...

Matthew 23:17
17 You are blind fools! Can’t you see that the Temple is greater than the gold on it? It’s the Temple that makes the gold holy!

So what's the deal here?
...

By what the Bible tells, it is not clear was he angry with the people, or with the wrong things happening, but yes, he is in danger of judgment. And when his case is taken in front of the judge, the judge sees he told the truth and telling the truth is not a problem.

[Purple Knight]

I don't know of a scripture where Jesus calls someone a 'despicable fool'. If Jesus did, since he is the world's judge, I guess he'd know if a person truly was a 'despicable fool' deserving of everlasting death.

I would challenge anyone to construct a moral system without a Judge. If there is no Judge - if my judgment is exactly as good as yours - then how can you ever condemn me even if I commit murder?

If you're constructing a system of rules, and even if you somehow make those rules clear enough that anyone looking would be able to apply them to any situation and get the same result, you've made yourself the Judge as you created the rules. If you are not the Judge how about my rules, which are exactly as good as yours since your judgment is no more inherently morally valuable than mine?

I used to think that the solution to this was agreement: Whatever rules agreed upon by two or more parties, together, fairly and under no duress, were morally binding on those parties. This passes a basic smell test because it allows us to live in societies and have different rules. If you shook on no crack cocaine, not wanting the detriment to society of having crack cocaine in that society, then you took the drug anyway, that would be immoral. This is a concept often called consent of the governed, but it would also apply to libertarians fleeing lawless ghettos to lawful suburbia, then insisting that they should be allowed any drugs they please; they do not desire the environment free use of any drug imaginable creates, wanting to reap the benefit of the laws against drugs while taking drugs themselves. This is large part of what I mean by fairness, another part being that rules must apply equally to all.

But who has decided that the handshake - consent - is important? Who has decided that fairness is important? Well, I did. You see, I made myself the Judge. If my judgment is not more morally valuable than the libertarian's, he can tell me to puke off, fairness is not important, only rights are important, and I can't pass judgment on him, even if he's ruining my society by bringing drugs to it, wanting the safety of my drugless society instead of the ghetto society drug use creates while insisting he has the right to take drugs himself. No rights were violated by him, he says, only by me, so he is moral and I am not. My society is more desirable but again, what Judge gets to say that having a nice society or a fair society (druggos go live in the environment drug use creates) is more important than respect for rights? If I'm not the Judge I can't say that. I can use force to keep him out of my society for practical reasons but it's not moral.

[JehovahsWitness]

DID JESUS CONDEMN ALL ANGER TOWARD ANYONE?

MATTHEW 5:22 a - NWT

However, I say to you that everyone who continues wrathful+ with his brother will be accountable to the court of justice ...

In Matthew 5:22 Jesus was not condemning any feelings or expressions of anger towards anyone. He specifically qualifies his comments to fellow believers ("his brother" ). The context and language indicates he is referring to misplaced anger as a result of harboured animosity.

Note the following commentaries :

In Greek there are two words for anger. There is thumos , which ... is an anger which rises speedily and which just as speedily passes. There is orge, which was described as anger become inveterate. It is the long-lived anger; it is the anger of the man who nurses his wrath to keep it warm; it is the anger over which a person broods, and which he will not allow to die. - William Barclay

Orge does not refer to an explosive outburst of temper but to an inner, deep resentment that seethes and smolders, often unnoticed by others. - MacArthur

Further the verb is used in the perfect tense, denoting a continuing situation or state. Thus while orge is not of itself wrong (scripturally it finds expression in God's righteous indigation) such a feeling for a fellow believer is entirely inappropriate as it implies a judgement which violates the principles of the Christian living. The context supports the above conclusion as it speaks, not of a passing insult but of a spiritual condemnation such as only God is in a position to make.


CONCLUSION: Matthew 5:22 does not condemn all anger but condemns harbouring wrath against a fellow believer and in principle overstepping ones rights by sitting in judgement over anothers standing before God.

RELATED POSTS

Did Jesus sin when he threw the money-changers out of the temple?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 99#p976999

Did Jesus condemn all anger [Mat 5:22a]? [this post]
viewtopic.php?p=1044172#p1044172

Was Jesus guilty of name-calling?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 42#p926542

Would Jesus be banned from most internet forums?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 31#p756231

Did Jesus promote violence?
viewtopic.php?p=839068#p839068

To learn more please go to other posts related to

WAR , VIOLENCE and ... "BAD JESUS"

[JehovahsWitness]

Jesus gets a bye on being angry with others, insulting them, and calling them fools? He can be angry, insulting, and call people fools all he wants, but if we dare to we'll be punished, and possibly end up in hell.

Yes thats about right. Scripturally, Jesus can read hearts, he is Gods appointed judge and executioner and has the authority to condemn or forgive anyone he chooses. You and I.... not so much.

Any questions?

[Miles]

Here is the best explanation, in the study notes on the side.
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/b/r1/lp-e/nwt ... &v=40:5:22

It's not just anger or being wrathful. It's the kind of anger that leads to harmful action. Compare Ephesians 4:26, "Be wrathful, but do not sin; do not let the sun set while you are still angry."

It's also not the kind of name calling such as just calling someone a fool. Calling a person a 'despicable fool' was much more than that. To use that term was judging a person that they deserve everlasting destruction. Like telling someone to "Go to Hell!" or "I hope you die in Armageddon." These are unacceptable. Compare Ephesians 4:29, "“Let a rotten saying not proceed out of your mouth, but whatever saying is good for building up as the need may be, that it may impart what is favorable to the hearers."

PK is not entirely wrong. Jesus who will be the world's judge does have the right to determine who will be cut off to everlasting death. However, calling one a fool and blind is not the same as calling one a 'despicable fool'. I don't know of a scripture where Jesus calls someone a 'despicable fool'. If Jesus did, since he is the world's judge, I guess he'd know if a person truly was a 'despicable fool' deserving of everlasting death.

So is it a case do as I say and not as I do? Not that I can see. It is a case of don't be like those I call a blind fool though.

I only checked out the first item in Matthew 5:22 "But I tell you, don’t be angry with anyone." in your linked explanation, which references 1 John 3:15 "Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has everlasting life remaining in him." as an explanation of it.

Matthew 5:22 (New World Translation)
"However, I say to you that everyone who continues wrathful+ with his brother will be accountable to the court of justice; and whoever addresses his brother with an unspeakable word of contempt will be accountable to the Supreme Court; whereas whoever says, ‘You despicable fool!’ will be liable to the fiery Ge·henʹna."

Thing is, of the 62 versions of Matthew 5:22 I checked every one of them, 100%, uses the word "anger"/"angry" in the verse. Not one of them uses the word "wrathful" or suggests hate. So there's absolutely no reason I should care what else the New World Translation says. And I don't. Obviously the NWT has chosen to step outside long-established translations of Bible verses so as to make them conform to its theology rather than deal with them head on. My sympathy for JWs who are faced with such duplicity.


.

[Miles]

MATTHEW 5:22 a - NWT

However, I say to you that everyone who continues wrathful+ with his brother will be accountable to the court of justice

As you can see in post #8 your Bible doesn't carry any weight with me, and why.

Jesus gets a bye on being angry with others, insulting them, and calling them fools? He can be angry, insulting, and call people fools all he wants, but if we dare to we'll be punished, and possibly end up in hell.

Yes thats about right. Scripturally, Jesus can read hearts, he is Gods appointed judge and executioner and has the authority to condemn or forgive anyone he chooses. You and I.... not so much.

Jesus, you say. Just where in the Bible (any but the NWT) is it said that "Jesus is Gods appointed judge and executioner and has the authority to condemn or forgive anyone he chooses"?



.

[2timothy316]

[Replying to Miles in post #8]
Wrathful...hate, either word works for me. I don't care which word is used. What matters is what Jesus talking about. If you want to narrowly focus on only one scripture, in fact your replies to all posts have been very narrow, but that is up to you. I did notice that you didn't comment on the other scriptures that give a clearer picture of Matthew 5:22, but is to be expected of a person that uses exegesis to interpret scriptures. You have a chosen dogma and THEN go looking in the Bible for prooftext to support YOUR dogma. You do know that prooftexting is frowned upon and that exegesis is the worst way to read the Bible right?

On the other hand, there are others that use the whole Bible and many translations to get a complete picture of the message from the Bible. Including terms of the original Greek language. Doing all this to understand the what the Bible teaches us and not what we can get the Bible to say in order support in our own personal dogma, as you're doing.