In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus Christ supposedly says:
“You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder’…
But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject
to judgment…” (Matthew 5:21–22).
The command forbade illegal killing - murder. He stretched it to condemn anger -
the logic is that anger leads to murder.
That is nonsense. Indifference or objectification can lead to murder faster than anger can. Only a very small percentage of angry people commit murder.
The theologians gaslight with all that. One thing they say is that Jesus is addressing the root of murder not the rate. But the fact remains that they suppose he is claiming that murder is the extreme outward expression of anger. But that does not justify saying that a command to physically not murder refers to emotion crimes - having and harbouring bad feelings that lead to murder.
They say he is teaching in a hyperbolic way - that this rhetorical style intensifies the ethical demand rather than functioning as literal equivalence. Really? There is hypocrisy there. No theologian would dare try to justify Jesus if he used hyperbolic language against a race or women. But it is okay when he is attacking us through a feeling we all have!
They say he doesn’t equate anger with murder in terms of social harm or legal
consequence. Instead, he places both under divine judgment, suggesting that
moral accountability begins in the heart. But the command is legal for heaven's
sake!
Many scholars note the Greek terms used (e.g., “Raca,” an insult meaning
empty-headed). The emphasis may be less about fleeting anger and more about
sustained hostility and dehumanizing contempt. But that is not clear is it?
From a modern psychological or criminological perspective, the statement
amplifies the danger of anger and thus amplifies how we might handle an angry
person. It stirs us to anger against them.
It is grossly irresponsible to expand a minimal commandment that way. Once contempt and anger and contempt are treated as much the same in any way, legal, social, spiritual or religious the seriousness of murder is diminished.
Jesus also said that if one goes to the altar with a blood sacrifice then one must first make peace with enemies - physically go to them. Sacrifice was offered for sins such as anger. An animal lover would be more angry with you if an animal has to die over you. And the violence of the blood sacrifice cannot be rationalised away. It is not going to help but worsen. The animal is punished by proxy for sinners - that is twisted and abusive.
A reasonable or good teacher would not try to stretch a commandment like he did. He would explain the dangers of anger properly and clearly.
Human nature has a tendency to psychological inflation or word inflation. That is why hyperbole in a justice or moral case is so dangerous. People end up overreacting to words such as anger. Anger itself hides a lot of its reasons and force so that is understandable. Plus evil and danger are often interpreted as being in the hands of superior malevolent powers. While we may deny that evil is a substance or force, part of us acts as if we suspect it is.
Anger from our experience escalates and explodes.
Plus we deliberately make certain words mean more than they do. If we make ourselves see anger as worse than what it is we think that is a way of making people less likely to unleash it.
Saying anger is immoral is one thing but adding to that by saying it is incompatible with the infinitely good creator of the universe who takes it very seriously is just another conduit for and expression of word inflation.
We see fear and anger as natural. They exist even in dogs. Yet there as a taboo around them - especially anger. Jesus was another one who condemned them knowing that that only leads to people channelling them some other way and disguising them.
His teaching on anger paradoxically, for several reasons as we have seen, was just a form of anger or malice itself.