Church Fathers Commentary Matthew 5:20-22

"For I say unto you, that except your righteousness shall exceed [the righteousness] of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven. Ye have heard that it was said to them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: but I say unto you, that every one who is angry with his brother shall be in danger of the judgment; and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council; and whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of the hell of fire." — Matthew 5:20-22 (ASV)

St. Hilary of Poitiers: Here He makes a beautiful entrance to a teaching beyond the works of the Law, declaring to the Apostles that they would have no admission to the kingdom of heaven without a righteousness beyond that of the Pharisees.

St. John Chrysostom: By “righteousness,” universal virtue is meant here. But observe the superior power of grace, in that He requires His disciples, who were still uninstructed, to be better than those who were masters of the Old Testament. Thus He does not call the Scribes and Pharisees unrighteous, but speaks of “their righteousness.” And see how even in this He confirms the Old Testament by comparing it with the New, for the greater and the lesser are always of the same kind.

Pseudo-Chrysostom: The righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees is the commandments of Moses, but the commandments of Christ are the fulfillment of that Law. This, then, is His meaning: Whoever does not fulfill My commandments in addition to the commandments of the Law will not enter the kingdom of heaven. For the commandments of the Law save from the punishment due to transgressors, but they do not bring one into the kingdom; My commandments, however, both deliver from punishment and bring one into the kingdom.

But since breaking the least commandments and not keeping them is one and the same, why does He say above of the one who breaks the commandments that “he will be the least in the kingdom of heaven,” and here of the one who does not keep them that he “will not enter into the kingdom of heaven?”

Observe how being the least in the kingdom is the same as not entering into the kingdom. For being “in the kingdom” is not to reign with Christ, but only to be numbered among Christ’s people. What He says, then, of the one who breaks the commandments is that he will indeed be counted among Christians, yet as the least of them.

But the one who enters the kingdom becomes a partaker of His kingdom with Christ. Therefore, the one who does not enter the kingdom of heaven will not share in Christ’s glory, yet he will still be in the kingdom of heaven—that is, among the number of those over whom Christ reigns as King of heaven.

St. Augustine of Hippo: Alternatively, “unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees,” that is, exceeds that of those who break what they themselves teach, as it is said of them elsewhere, They say, and do not (Matthew 23:3). It is as if He had said, “Unless your righteousness exceeds theirs in this way—that you do what you teach—you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.”¹

We must therefore understand the kingdom of heaven here to mean something different than usual, a kingdom in which there is room for both the one who breaks what he teaches and the one who does it—the one being “least” and the other “great.” This kingdom of heaven is the present Church. In another sense, the kingdom of heaven is spoken of as that place where no one enters except the one who does what he teaches, and this is the Church as it will be hereafter.

I do not know if anyone can find this expression, “the kingdom of heaven,” so often used by our Lord, in the books of the Old Testament. It belongs properly to the New Testament revelation, kept for the mouth of Him whom the Old Testament prefigured as a King who would come to reign over His servants. This goal, to which its precepts pointed, was hidden in the Old Testament, though even it had saints who looked forward to the revelation that was to be made.²

Glossa Ordinaria: Alternatively, we may explain this by referring to the way the Scribes and Pharisees understood the Law, not to the actual contents of the Law itself.³

St. Augustine of Hippo: For almost all the precepts which the Lord gave, saying, But I say to you, are found in those ancient books. But because they did not know of any murder besides the destruction of the body, the Lord shows them that every evil thought that harms a brother is to be considered a kind of murder.⁴

Pseudo-Chrysostom: Christ, wishing to show that He is the same God who spoke long ago in the Law and who now gives commandments in grace, now places first among all His commandmentsⁱ the one that was first in the Law—first, at least, of all those that forbade injury to one’s neighbor.

St. Augustine of Hippo: Just because we have heard, Thou shalt not kill, we do not therefore consider it unlawful to pluck a twig, according to the error of the Manichees, nor do we consider the command to extend to irrational animals. By the most righteous ordinance of the Creator, their life and death are subservient to our needs.⁵

Therefore, this commandment can only be understood as applying to man—and not only to another man, but also to yourself, for he who kills himself does nothing less than kill a man. Yet those who have waged wars under God’s authority have not acted contrary to this commandment, nor have those who, charged with the administration of civil power, have inflicted death upon criminals by the most just and reasonable orders. Likewise, Abraham was not charged with cruelty but was even praised for his piety, because he was willing to obey God in slaying his son.

Those whom God commands to be put to death must be excepted from this command, whether by a general law or by a specific command at a particular time. For the one who serves the command is not the slayer, any more than a hilt is to one striking with a sword. Nor can Samson be acquitted for destroying himself along with his enemies for any other reason than that he was secretly instructed by the Holy Spirit, who worked miracles through him.

St. John Chrysostom: The phrase, it was said by them of old time, shows that they had received this precept long ago. He says this so that He might rouse His sluggish hearers to proceed to more sublime precepts, just as a teacher might say to an indolent boy, “Do you not know how much time you have already spent merely learning to spell?” In the phrase, I say to you, mark the authority of the legislator. None of the ancient prophets spoke this way; rather, they said, Thus says the Lord. They, as servants, repeated the commands of their Lord; He, as a Son, declared the will of His Father, which was also His own. They preached to their fellow servants; He, as master, ordained a law for His servants.

St. Augustine of Hippo: There are two different opinions among philosophers concerning the passions of the mind. The Stoics do not allow that any passion affects the wise man, while the Peripatetics affirm that passions do affect the wise man, but only in a moderate degree and subject to reason—for example, when mercy is shown in such a way that justice is preserved. But in the Christian rule, we do not ask whether the mind is first affected with anger or with sorrow, but from where that passion comes.⁶

Pseudo-Chrysostom: He who is angry without cause will be judged, but he who is angry with cause will not be judged. For if there were no anger, teaching would not be effective, judgments would not stand, and crimes would not be controlled. So the one who is not angry for a just cause is in sin, for an unreasonable patience sows vice, breeds carelessness, and invites both the good and the bad to do evil.

St. Jerome: Some copies add the words “without cause” here, but in the true reading,ⁱ the precept is made unconditional, and anger is forbidden altogether. For when we are told to pray for those who persecute us, all occasion for anger is taken away. The words “without cause,” then, must be erased, for the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God.

Pseudo-Chrysostom: Yet the anger that arises from a just cause is not truly anger, but a sentence of judgment. For anger properly means a feeling of passion, but the one whose anger arises from a just cause does not suffer any passion and is rightly said to be passing sentence, not to be angry.

St. Augustine of Hippo: We also affirm that one should consider what it means to be angry with a brother, for a person is not angry with a brother when he is angry at his brother’s offense. The one who is angry without cause, then, is the one who is angry with his brother and not with the offense.⁷

But no one of sound mind forbids being angry with a brother so that he may be corrected. Such emotions, when they come from a love for what is good and from holy charity, are not to be called vices when they follow right reason.⁸

Pseudo-Chrysostom: But I think that Christ does not speak of anger of the flesh, but anger of the heart, for the flesh cannot be so disciplined as to not feel the passion. So when a person is angry but refrains from doing what his anger prompts him to do, his flesh is angry, but his heart is free from anger.

St. Augustine of Hippo: This same distinction exists between the first case presented here by the Savior and the second. In the first case there is one thing: the passion. In the second, there are two: anger and the speech that follows from it, as in, He who says to his brother, Raca, is in danger of the council. Some seek the interpretation of this word in Greek and think that “Raca” means ragged, from the Greek ραχος, a rag. But it is more probable that it is not a word with any meaning, but a mere sound that expresses the passion of the mind, which grammarians call an interjection, such as the cry of pain, “hen.”⁹

St. John Chrysostom: Alternatively, “Raca” is a word that signifies contempt and worthlessness. For where we, in speaking to servants or children, might say, “Go,” or, “Tell him,” in Syriac they would say “Raca” for “you.” For the Lord descends to the smallest trifles of our behavior and bids us treat one another with mutual respect.

St. Jerome: Alternatively, “Raca” is a Hebrew word meaning “empty” or “vain,” as we might say in the common phrase of reproach, “empty-headed.” Observe that He says “brother,” for who is our brother but the one who has the same Father as we do?

Pseudo-Chrysostom: And it would be an unworthy reproach to call someone who has the Holy Spirit in him “empty.”

St. Augustine of Hippo: In the third case there are three things: anger, the voice that expresses anger, and a word of reproach, You fool. Thus, there are three different degrees of sin here. In the first, one is angry but keeps the passion in his heart without giving any sign of it. If he then allows any sound expressing the passion to escape him, it is a greater sin than if he had silently suppressed the rising anger. And if he speaks a word that conveys a direct reproach, it is an even greater sin.

Pseudo-Chrysostom: But just as no one who has the Holy Spirit is empty, so no one who has the knowledge of Christ is a fool. And if “Raca” means “empty,” then as far as the meaning of the word goes, it is one and the same thing to say “Raca” or “you fool.”

But there is a difference in the speaker’s meaning, for “Raca” was a word in common use among the Jews, not expressing wrath or hate, but rather expressing a casual familiarity, not anger. But perhaps you will say, “If ‘Raca’ is not an expression of wrath, then how is it a sin?” Because it is said for the sake of contention, not edification. And if we ought not to speak even good words except for the sake of edification, how much more should we avoid words that are in themselves bad?

St. Augustine of Hippo: Here we have three tribunals: the judgment, the council, and hell-fire, which are different stages ascending from the lesser to the greater. For in the judgment, there is still an opportunity for defense. To the council belongs the delay of the sentence, while the judges confer among themselves what sentence should be inflicted. In the third, hell-fire, condemnation is certain, and the punishment is fixed. From this we see the great difference between the righteousness of the Pharisees and that of Christ: under the former, murder subjects a person to judgment; under the latter, anger alone, which is the least of the three degrees of sin, does the same.

Rabanus Maurus: The Savior here names the torments of hell “Gehenna,” a name thought to be derived from a valley near Jerusalem that was consecrated to idols, filled in ancient times with dead bodies, and defiled by Josiah, as we read in the Book of Kings.

St. John Chrysostom: This is the first mention of hell, though the kingdom of Heaven had been mentioned some time before. This shows that the gifts of the one come from His love, while the condemnation of the other comes from our own sloth.

Many, thinking this a punishment too severe for a mere word, say that this was said figuratively. But I fear that if we cheat ourselves with words here, we will suffer punishment in deed there. Do not think, then, that this is too heavy a punishment, when so many sufferings and sins have their beginning in a word; a little word has often led to a murder and overturned whole cities. And yet it is not to be considered a small thing to use a word that denies a brother the reason and understanding by which we are human and differ from the animals.

Pseudo-Chrysostom: “In danger of the council” means (according to the interpretation given by the Apostles in the Constitutions) in danger of being part of that Council which condemned Christ.ⁱ

St. Hilary of Poitiers: Alternatively, he who reproaches one who is full of the Holy Spirit with being empty will be brought before the assembly of the saints, and by their sentence will be punished for an affront against the Holy Spirit Himself.

St. Augustine of Hippo: If anyone should ask what greater punishment is reserved for murder, if evil-speaking is punished with hell-fire, this obliges us to understand that there are degrees of punishment in hell.

St. John Chrysostom: Alternatively, “the judgment” and “the council” denote punishment in this world, while “hell-fire” denotes future punishment. He denounces punishment against anger, yet does not mention any specific punishment, thereby showing that it is not possible for a person to be altogether free from the passion. The “Council” here means the Jewish senate, for He did not want to seem as if He were always superseding all their established institutions and introducing foreign ones.ⁱ

St. Augustine of Hippo: In all these three sentences, there are some implied words. In the first, since many copies read “without cause,” nothing needs to be added. In the second, “He who says to his brother, Raca,” we must add the words “without cause.” And again, in “He who says, You fool,” two things are implied: “to his brother” and “without cause.” All this forms the defense of the Apostle when he calls the Galatians fools, even though he considers them his brothers, for he did not do it without cause.

1. City of God, book 20, ch. 9
2. cont. Faust., 19, 31
3. non occ.
4. cont. Faust., 19, 30
5. City of God, book 1, ch. 20
6. City of God, 4, 4
7. Retract., i, 19
8. City of God, book 14, ch. 9
9. Serm. in Mont., i, 9