The Sermon on the Mount, Section 42 D, Anger

Section 42 
THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT
 (A Mountain Plateau not far from Capernaum) 
Subdivision D. 
RELATION OF MESSIANIC TEACHING TO OLD TESTAMENT AND TRADITIONAL TEACHING

MATT. 5:21-26
Anger

"But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire." Matthew 5:22

These are hard passages to think about because they inevitably lead me to check my spirit and fall short.  Surely I have justifiable anger and what to do about that?  How does one know what is justifiable? Am I to loan to irresponsible, ungrateful people?  Should I be giving handouts to the random beggars at stoplights locally?

The window is narrow according to Jesus--if my brother has something against me, I need to seek reconciliation.  The standard is also my brother's anger.  Does this mean that I am to appease an unreasonable brother--one who may have something against me that is not accurate, logical, or fair?  I don't know.  The lines between modern psychological concepts like abuse and enablement and loving one's brother are blurry.

Sorting what is culturally acceptable and what's Biblically ideal is tenuous.  For me, it's an area I'm having to continually navigate in a myriad of circumstances.  I don't know what resources beggars in ancient Israel had.  Does our modern governmental assistance negate or change the requirement because in Israel the private religious community was the sole provider of welfare? Is it different in our modern culture where there is no accountability or personal connection to the individual?  It seems irresponsible and burdensome to hand resources to people who lack accountability or relationship with me when there are places they can go that do have resources and accountability.  For me, it changes the picture, but then again, I haven't spent much time one-on-one with the homeless, drug-dependent, or mentally ill.

To think these things through is painful.  Am I doing enough?  Could I ever?  How should I process these statements beyond guilt for not measuring up?  I fear that I will turn the law to my own purposes as the Pharisees did, reinterpreting it in ways that are self-serving.

Or am I taking it way too far out of its original context?  The Believer's Bible Commentary clarifies that the passage speaks against three specific types of unrighteous anger:

1. "The first is the case of a person who is angry with his brother without a cause. Most people can find what they think is a valid cause for their anger, but anger is justified only when God's honor is at stake or when someone else is being wronged. It is never right when ex pressed in retaliation for personal wrongs."

 Me: so it's okay to be angry if the offense is against God or another?  If so, then I can mentally justify many types of my anger, but is this the point?

2.  "Even more serious is the sin of insulting a brother." -BB

Me: so insulting words are worse than feelings of anger?

3. "Finally, to call someone a fool is the third form of unrighteous anger that Jesus condemns." BB

Me: the elaboration stresses the context is moral foolishness. So I am not to tell someone they are morally foolish, relegating them to hell, as in "God damn you!"  Is it that I am not to wish this on anyone?  If so, that's easy.  I wish hell on no one, but it still is unclear to me.

"Anger" is only one letter short of "danger" because danger always lurks beneath anger. You might be able to disguise it temporarily, but if anger is brewing inside you, it will lead to danger, for murder begins in the heart. -Jon Courson

We should note that while sin has stages, God takes note of it from its very first germination in the heart, and that a man's soul is imperiled long before his feelings bear their fruitage of violence and murder. -Fourfold Gospel