Historical context: The Covenant of Moses allows for a judgment seat at the household level with the head of household. This comes with a burden of the shepherd’s moral obligations. Sometimes the jurisdiction is above the household, because it involves sin against someone outside the household, or the matter is rather grave and threatens the shalom of the wider community. The next level is clan elder. There are a few more layers, and then the Sanhedrin. Ultimately, we all face God’s judgment seat in Eternity.
In our passage, Jesus has just said that one’s personal moral purity must exceed that of the Pharisees and Scribes to enter His Kingdom. He’s going to continue that theme in a series of pointed reviews of ancient prohibitions that the Pharisees and Scribes routinely violate for any number of false justifications.
Having established that God’s Law is binding until His Return at the End of All Things, Jesus goes on to explain a few laws that are included in Moses, but predate Moses. These go all the way back to Noah. No one on earth should dispute these basic moral boundaries. But the real problem is not the more obvious restrictions on human behavior, but the sinful nature that drives them.
Humans have always had a prohibition against murder — unjustly killing a human. It goes all the way back to one of the first things that happened just outside the Garden of Eden, when Cain killed his brother, Abel. It wasn’t the killing, but the lack of justification that defiled the earth; it was innocent blood. This remains a major element in divine justice. There must be an accounting for all bloodshed, human blood in particular.
Oddly enough, the one clearly stated principle in the Genesis 9 narrative about Noah is that unjust bloodshed must be balanced by justified bloodshed. That is, whomever holds moral authority is obliged to cleanse the land and their community shalom by executing the murderer. The act of murder defiles the blood of the killer while it’s still in his veins, so it must be shed to restore peace with God (shalom). Thus, whomever takes human life must face a trial before a valid judgment seat, to determine if it was justified. That was part of Noah’s Covenant.
In ancient Hebrew thinking, God is the source of all wrath. When a justified executioner performs his duty, it is always in sadness for his own part. The wrath and anger is not his, but God’s. We seek the divine Presence in our lives. To take up anger without that Presence separates you from God and puts you on a path of damnation; it’s you asserting your human evaluation in place of God’s revelation. You’ll end up facing that seat of justice one way or another. If your unjust anger leads you far enough to slander someone as worthless (“Raca”) in front of the community, you should face the Sanhedrin. It is you who threaten the Covenant shalom. However, if you come to the point where you utterly despise someone, it’s obvious you have rejected everything God has revealed about Himself, and you’ll face His judgment seat in Eternity.
How do you deal with people who disappoint you morally? Seek the Lord first while you still walk this earth. He will move your heart to the right answer, based on a calculus that includes things you cannot ever know as a mere human. He protects and covers our lives in ways we won’t understand until we see Him face to face. Our duty is to maintain loyalty through suffering and confusion in this life.
But notice how Jesus turns that in the next verse. It’s not about your anger. He talks about becoming aware that someone else is angry with you. That’s because what He advises is a redemptive act for the brother or sister who struggles with murderous anger in their souls. If you do all you can to preserve shalom and it doesn’t solve the problem, then you have ensured that you aren’t the problem. That’s your duty before the Lord in order to maintain ritual purity.
It’s not in your hands to correct that murderous anger in others. But if their anger does come from the Lord, then you had better make peace with them before it gets to the community judgment seat. Make sure you’ve done all you can do according to your convictions, because the Lord holds you accountable. On top of that, the Covenant community will tend to play it safe by squeezing you for the last penny when it comes to protecting shalom from defilement. It’s too late for appeals to the victim’s mercy when you get to the courts. (They were obliged to notify you of their complaint for some days before taking it to court, not least by trying to persuade you to make some kind of recompense.)
So the issue here is not just the rules of performance. Everyone carries some small measure of the shepherd’s moral obligation for the flock. If you cannot place your human needs in the same basket as those of the covenant community, you don’t belong under the shalom and moral covering they provide. The Pharisees and Scribes were notorious for seeking their own without mercy in every situation, doing everything possible to cut corners and seize unfair advantages. This included hiding from the common public things they used in the courts to gain those advantages.
They taught that petty anger and contempt were justified against average Jews, because they pretended to be of a higher moral level. Why, they actually studied the traditions of the elders, so they were superior! The Talmud teaches this even now, and it was wrong when it first raised its ugly head before Jesus came along.
When Jesus said that one’s righteousness must exceed that of the Scribes and Pharisees, I had always had the impression that this was a high standard, implying that no one could do it. But upon reading your commentary today, and seeing how Jesus focused most of his condemnation on the Pharisees, I had the idea that maybe this was a low standard, meaning that Jesus fully expected that some people could achieve the necessary righteousness, although maybe a different sort of righteousness than what the Pharisees were pursuing. This impression seems to agree with other passages, such as the following.
“Now when Jesus saw that he answered wisely, He said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” But after that no one dared question Him.” ~ Matthew 12:34
“Which of the two did the will of his father?” They said to Him, “The first.” Jesus said to them, “Assuredly, I say to you that tax collectors and harlots enter the kingdom of God before you.” ~ Matthew 21:31
“Pursue peace with all people, and holiness, without which no one will see the Lord.” ~ Hebrews 12:14
In addition to these passages, something inside me says that it is necessary to uphold some kind of standard in order for one to grow closer to God. But it is not the standard that is commonly put forth by Christian sources, which is like a modern version of the Pharisaical standard.
If this is true, then this would suggest that there are two kinds of righteousness, much like there are two kinds of sin, as mentioned in 1 John 5:16-18. I would presume these would be legalistic righteousness and righteousness through faith. But I cannot think of any scripture that specifically makes this distinction.
Also, if this is true, then this is one of the most neglected interpretations of scripture there ever was.
Could you explain this distinction any further?
First: “sin unto death” is one of the most disputed phrases in the New Testament. In the context of that chapter, John is talking about eternal life — “He who has the Son has eternal life.” To me, that would indicate that a “sin unto death” proves that one does not have eternal life, does not have the Son. It’s the kind of thing consistent with those who live outside of faith. You pray for them to come to Christ, but not for them to simply stop sinning, because the latter changes nothing that matters. You don’t pray the same for a brother in the faith as you do for a sinner outside of covenant faith.
Keep in mind that John’s Greek was notoriously simplistic and he lacked the vocabulary for what his Hebrew mind understood so clearly, so you have to read between the lines.
Consistent with my other teachings, I insist that “eternal life” isn’t spiritual birth, per se, but refers to life in this world consistent with divine revelation, consistent with Eternity. When it comes to divine revelation, the goal is to commit oneself wholly to the Lord from your heart. That is the definition of living consistent with Eternity. Failure is part of being mortal, so the righteousness of faith is the existence of faith itself. It’s manifested in a burning desire to please the Lord, and it can grow, regardless of capability.
There is another kind, a social righteousness that is rather capable, so far as anyone can discern, and fulfills the law code of any valid covenant. It may be rooted in faith, and it may not. We give it time, trying to cultivate that desire, but we hear a lot of talk about the particulars in the meantime. That’s adequate for fellowship, though, and we tend to uphold it as far as it goes. We hold out a law code for those who cannot quite grasp faith. That’s consistent with the general idea behind Red Pill, in that some women insist that we give them the law handling, because they aren’t morally developed enough to handle grace and faith. Thus, we give law to people who can’t handle faith.
The Pharisees and Scribes were complete scoundrels. Their “law” (the Talmud) was an excuse to cover deeply sinful commitments to fleshly self. Their “righteousness” was a joke, but it was a joke on them, since they insisted that their kind of righteousness was what God wanted. If you couldn’t beat their brand of righteousness, you were morally dead. Jesus was being sarcastic about them, and some of His audience would have snickered about this, while others would have been shocked, but most would have been at least a little intrigued.