Your Brother Has Something Against You: Carson and Keller on Matthew 5:23
Image by Mitchell Orr
“So if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother ...”
Conundrum Briefly Stated
In Matthew 5:23, Jesus develops his teaching about murderous anger in an unexpected direction. Having stated that anger (v. 22) makes us just as liable to God’s judgment as murder (vv. 21), Jesus’ focus appears to shift in v. 23. How exactly does v. 23 develop his teaching about anger? What is the connection between vv. 23-26 and vv. 21-22?
Context
Let’s step back and consider the context.
In the “antitheses” (Matthew 5:21-48), as they are commonly called, Jesus shows how, with several worked examples, he both upholds the OT law and fulfils it (see 5:17-20 for these emphases). In each example, he presents himself (“but I say to you,” vv. 21, 28, 32, 34, 39, 44) as the one who now has the unique authority to draw out the ultimate meaning of God’s commandments, viewed in the light of their fulfilment in the radical righteousness and love of the kingdom of heaven.
The first example (5:21-26) concerns the sixth commandment against murder. In the OT, murder made someone “liable to judgment” (v. 21). It was a capital crime. Jesus states that anger, the attitude underneath the act of murder, also makes us liable to judgment (v. 22a):
“But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment.”
Then he develops the idea in two ways in v. 22b-c: (1) He shows how anger expresses itself verbally with insults like hraka (“bone head!”), or moros (“fool!”); (2) He ups the ante by stating that such anger makes us liable to the fire of hell: “Whoever says ‘fool’ will be liable to the hell of fire.” In other words, an apparently much smaller offence (insult rather than murder) now receives a much greater punishment (hell, rather than the death penalty).
That shock factor is important. It is intended to jolt us into asking, How is it that anger is so serious in God’s eyes? What is it about anger that makes it tantamount to murder?
Then, in vv. 23-26, Jesus develops this teaching with “two little parables about reconciliation” (France, NICNT, 202). The first little parable (vv. 23-24) concerns the urgency of being reconciled with a Christian “brother” who “has something against you.” The second concerns the urgency of being reconciled with an “accuser” (perhaps a business associate?) who is pursuing a legal suit against you likely to lead to conviction and imprisonment.
So here’s the conundrum again:
How do the little parables relate to the danger of being angry? More specifically, how do v. 23ff. (urgency of leaving gift, being reconciled with brother/accuser etc.) relate to v. 22 (anger is so serious it will send you to hell)? In what way does v. 23 introduce an inference from or confirmation of (the possible senses of oun, “therefore, so, then,” which introduces v. 23) the truth expressed in v.22, namely that the person who is angry with their brother or sister is liable to the judgment of hell?
Two Views
This is one of those interpretive decisions that is not typically noted by commentators, so it is easy to miss the fact that there are at least a couple of ways of understanding the shift.
Option 1
Takes “your brother has something against you” (v. 23) to mean “your brother is angry with you.”
Followed by Carson, Matthew (EBC Vol. 9, 183); Grant Osborne, Matthew (ZEC, 190); Charles Quarles, Matthew (EGGNT, 56); Keller, Forgive, 185.
Don Carson (Matthew, 183) explains: “neither illustration [vv. 23-24 and vv. 25-26] deals with ‘your’ anger but with ‘your’ offense that has prompted the brother’s or the adversary’s rancor. He elaborates: “the connection with vv. 21–22 is powerful. We are more likely to remember when we have something against others than when we have done something to offend others. And if we are truly concerned about our anger and hate, we shall be no less concerned when we engender them in others.”
Quarles (Matthew, 56) ties this interpretation to the meaning of the word “against” (kata): “Kata with the gen. (sou) denotes hostile opposition.”
Tim Keller follows Carson (referencing him) in his book Forgive: Why Should I and How Can I? (185): “The first surprise is that Jesus does not give his listeners an example of when they get angry … but rather, ‘This is what you must do if you have made someone else angry.’”
Summary: The theme of anger carries over from v. 22 to v. 23, by being conveyed by the phrase “your brother has something against you” (N.B. only Quarles is explicit about how the theme of anger is conveyed by the phrase).
Option 2
Takes “your brother has something against you” (v. 23) to simply mean “your brother has a grievance against you.” The phrase is not understood to mean that the brother is angry, but that he has a ground for grievance or complaint.
The theme of anger is carried over from v. 22 to v. 23 somewhat differently than in Option 1:
“Your” anger is the cause of your brother‘s grievance. Verses 23-26 are about the repenting and forsaking of this anger.
Verses 23-26 function as anger’s positive counterpart, namely the love that seeks reconciliation with an aggrieved brother. Since in Jesus’ interpretation and fulfilment of the commandments, he typically has in view a positive, expansive understanding of God’s will, and not simply a negative, restricted one (e.g. “you shall not murder,” “you shall not commit adultery”), this is consistent with his understanding of the commandments through Matthew 5.
These ideas are obviously closely connected, and if combined represent a dynamic movement away from anger towards love.
You will find one or both of these emphases in Lutz, Matthew 1-7 (Hermeneia, 240); France, Gospel of Matthew (NICNT, 203); I. Howard Marshall, Gospel of Matthew (NIGTC, 232); Craig Blomberg, Matthew (NAC, 108); Allison, Sermon on the Mount, 70; Stott, Sermon on the Mount, 86.
In summary, whereas Option 1 understands “your brother has something against you” to imply that your brother is angry, Option 2 understands the phrase to imply that your brother has been on the receiving end of your hostile anger, anger that must be overcome in the light of Jesus’ warning in v.22.
So, which is the more plausible understanding of how the theme of anger lies behind v. 23ff., given that the word doesn’t reappear at all after v. 22?
The problems with each option
What do you make of Option 1?
I think there are four problems with this view:
In Option 1, the locus of anger shifts from “you” (v. 22) to “your brother” (v. 23). However, since in v. 23 Jesus urges “you” to decisive action in the light of the threatened judgment against anger of v.22, the natural inference is that he is calling “you” to deal with your anger. The burden of proof rests on showing that “your brother” is himself guilty of anger.
The phrase “have something against you” is read to mean “is angry with you.” But the phrase “have something against you” (echo tis kata su) is a general one that simply means “to have cause for complaint against you.” It does not convey the idea of anger. It conveys that there is a ground for complaint or grievance. “Something (tis)” is a placeholder, standing in for the cause or the ground of the complaint or claim (should the context be legal).
For example, in Revelation, the Lord Jesus “has against you” (echo kata su, same phrase) losing your first love (Rev 2:4), a few things (Rev 2:14), and tolerating the woman Jezebel (Rev 2:20). In each case, as with the other churches with whom the Lord conveys his displeasure, something, or some things, are highlighted that are sinful and require repentance.
The same phrase in Mark 11:25 (“when you stand praying, forgive if you have something against someone [ei echo tis kata tis]”) also simply points to a ground for complaint or grievance. Since Jesus calls for forgiveness, the cause of the grievance is, likewise, sinful.
In Acts 24:19, Paul is defending himself before Felix, and uses the synonymous phrase—with just a different word for “against” (pros instead of kata)—“if they have anything against me” (ei echo tis pros ego). He uses a particular form of echo, “to have” (the rare optative form, echoien), which deliberately casts serious doubt on being able to find something against him. Note—and this is important—he is not suggesting “what they have against me is spurious.” He is suggesting that “they don’t have something against me.” The implication, as in Revelation 2 and Mark 11:25, is still that the phrase “to have something against someone” is to have legitimate grounds for a complaint or a charge against that person. Paul is simply challenging the idea that such a ground or cause exists in his case.
The phrase does not convey the idea of anger. Of course, someone who has a complaint or grievance against someone may be angry. But the phrase itself does not convey the aggrieved party’s anger, but that they have a ground or cause for complaint or grievance.
“To have something against someone” is, therefore, similar to the English idiom “to have something on someone,” but with the possessor of the “something” being himself or herself wronged by the “someone’s” sin or crime.
Used within a legal context as in Acts 24:19 (see also LXX Job 31:35), the issue becomes one of legal liability and mandated judgment. That is the context in Matthew 5:21-26, one of guilt before (God’s) law, leading to liability to judgment, which is why the second little parable (in vv. 25-26) is legally framed. The point is not that anger is something that can be legislated within human courts. The point is that though anger, unlike murder, obviously can’t be thus legislated, we must not think that we will thereby escape liability to divine judgment for our anger.
To summarise this second critique of Option 1: Nothing in the phrase “have something against you” implies anger on the part of the aggrieved party, and parallel uses of the phrase rather suggests that it points to the wrongdoing and guilt of “you,” whatever that wrongdoing might be. Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, the recollection points to your guilt, guilt which makes you liable to God’s judgment (Matt 5:21-22). It is for that reason that one’s recollection at the altar demands urgent action in seeking reconciliation.
Option 1 understands anger as something that we can “engender” in others (Carson). Though it is common to talk in terms of “making” someone angry (Keller), it is problematic. Nowhere in the Bible is anger or hate portrayed as something that we are able to engender in somebody else. And here, in Matthew 5, that idea obscures the tight connection with murder, which is critical to understanding Jesus’ teaching. Do we engender murder in others, or make people lust (Jesus’ next example)?
I understand why, experientially, or phenomenologically, Carson and Keller could be drawn to this language (and it is idiomatic in English to speak of “making someone angry”) but it is problematic both within the immediate context, and the broader biblical narrative. “Each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is full grown brings forth death.” (James 1:14-15)
In fact, it is quite possible that the Bible’s archetypal story of anger and murder in Genesis 4 lies behind Jesus’ instruction, a view argued by Dale C. Allison, The Sermon on the Mount: Inspiring the Moral Imagination (New York: Crossroad Publishing, 1999), 62-64. Whether it does or not, it is certainly generative for what the Bible says about anger and hate, especially within the context of the family (e.g. 1 John 3:11-18). Cain’s anger is engendered by his false, disordered worship (Gen 4:1-7), and is enflamed within the context of God’s gracious words of instruction (Gen 4:6-7) and his brother’s “righteous works.” (1 John 3:12). Nothing in the narrative implies Cain himself is ever wronged. (You can read a brief meditation on Cain’s anger and violence here.)
Remember that Jesus teaches that anger makes us liable to hell (v. 22), and that Option 1 assumes that “your brother” is guilty of such anger. You’ve provoked him, and he is now angry. Nevertheless, it is apparent from v. 26 that if you don’t urgently seek reconciliation with your brother or accuser then you will be the one in danger of judgment.
To be fair, I don’t think Carson understands v. 26 to imply such a fate. He says that it “is part of the narrative fabric and gives no justification for purgatory, universal restoration, or urgent reconciliation to God.” I think these disclaimers are intended to rule out what Luz (see below) calls the text’s “depth dimension,” with prison functioning parabolically for a much worse fate at God’s eschatological judgment. It’s true that it offers no justification for purgatory or universal restoration. But if v. 26 implies the judgment of hell for the angry person, it most certainly urges reconciliation (with both one’s brother and, thereby, one’s God).
Indeed, there are several indicators that the human drama recounted in the second mini parable loudly whispers a greater divine, eschatological drama, with the prison image of v. 26 echoing the divine judgment theme of vv. 21-22, and thereby emphatically underlining that the person who fails to deal with their anger will end up in hell. And once we see that v. 26 functions as an inclusio, reaffirming the emphasis of vv. 21-22 that a murderous, angry person faces God’s judgment, then the aggrieved adversary clearly does not function as the angry person in the story. And if the adversary of vv. 25-26 is not the angry person, then presumably neither is the aggrieved brother of vv. 23-24, since “your brother” and “your adversary” play parallel roles.
So, what are the indications that v. 26 ultimately refers to God’s eschatological punishment of murderous anger? (1) the immediate context of God’s judgment against murder and anger (vv. 21-22), implying that Jesus is still concerned with God’s judgment against anger, and not simply a human judicial punishment; (2) the broader context of divine, eternal punishment against disobedience to Jesus’ instruction in the Sermon on the Mount (see especially the next antithesis in 5:27-30 and the consequences of disobedience in 7:13-29); (3) the parallel passage in Matthew concerning repentance, forgiveness, and reconciliation, where Jesus explicitly states that the prison image denotes his Father’s eschatological punishment (18:34-35); and (4) Jesus prefacing his statement in 5:26 with the words “truly I say to you,” a phrase he invariably uses to introduce solemn, divine eschatological realities (France, NICNT, 203-4; Lutz, Hermeneia Vol. 61A, 241), and which here echoes his “but I say to you” in v. 22.
What about Option 2?
As I see it, there is only one problem with Option 2:
On this view, v. 23 no longer seems to be dealing with anger itself, but with its consequences. In fact, vv. 23-26 are two vignettes about the urgency of seeking reconciliation for harm done, rather than for anger per se. As such, some commentators think that these “little parables” may indeed have originally existed independently of Jesus’ teaching in 5:21-26, and are used here in the context of anger, with minimal adaptation.
Therefore, just as there is nothing in the phrase “your brother has something against you” that implies your brother is angry, so there is nothing in the phrase itself that obviously conveys that his grievance relates to your anger. Indeed, the “something” in “something against you” seems to expand the possible scope of harm caused.
Repenting of anger entails seeking reconciliation
I think it’s apparent from the problems I’ve outlined above that Option 1 both takes more interpretive leaps, and more problematic ones. Option 2 does not present such significant difficulties.
But, if Option 2 is to be taken, it is worth probing the logic behind Jesus’ shift in emphasis and whether seeking reconciliation (vv. 23-26) is indeed simply the way to deal with anger’s consequences, or whether it is more than that, and involves dealing with anger itself. If so, the shift from v. 22 to v. 23 is not as big as it initially seems.
What is this anger that is punishable by hell? It is very closely tied to murder (5:21-22). That much is clear.
Like murder, anger dismisses someone, it dispatches them. In view here is anger as hostility, despising someone in your heart, dismissing them as an unpleasant, unwanted encumbrance. Angry insults and contemptuous dismissals (v. 22) are an expression of a heart of hatred. This is important to note: dismissive words, like murder, express a heart of anger and hatred. It is this fact that broadens the scope in v. 23 to “your brother has something against you.” This generalisation, via use of “something,” doesn’t move beyond the theme of anger, because anger and hatred of another can express itself in all sorts of harmful and destructive words and deeds.
With that in mind, think again about how v. 23 builds on v. 22. If you are angry with someone and have dismissed them, then they are thereby alienated from you. They “get the message.” Your angry words or actions have sent them away. Since you have dispatched them, they are inevitably alienated from you.
Therefore, the situation Jesus presents in v. 23—the urgency of seeking reconciliation with “your [aggrieved] brother”—certainly reads very naturally after v. 22 as the result of “your brother” having been alienated by “your” anger, since alienation, being rid of someone, is precisely what murderous anger expresses and achieves.
If you murder someone they are gone forever, even if you repent and replace your anger with love. But if, by your hatred, you alienate them, then their alienation continues to testify to your hatred until you actively seek reconciliation with them.
That is why vv. 23-26 are, in fact, not just about dealing with anger’s consequences, but about dealing with anger itself. What is at stake in vv. 23-26 is whether your hostility is a settled state of antipathy towards “your brother.” The logic is this: If I do not seek reconciliation with him, or her, I demonstrate that my hatred remains active, and that love does not rule my heart. And, as John puts it, no murderer has eternal life abiding in him (1 John 3:15).
Leave your gift at the altar
With the command “Leave your gift at the altar and first be reconciled etc.,” Jesus is saying more than “this is urgent; drop everything and be reconciled.” Two factors speak to how high the stakes are:
The example Jesus gives, as some commentators note, is totally impracticable. Jesus is speaking to people in Galilee, and the altar he is referencing is the altar in the Jerusalem Temple. Therefore, the rather absurd scenario is of a worshipper who travels 80 miles to Jerusalem (about a week’s journey), leaves the sacrificial offering in the temple by the altar—the very thing they have presumably travelled to do!—makes the arduous journey back home to Galilee, seeks out their brother, repents and seeks reconciliation, makes the long journey back to Jerusalem and picks up where they left off, finding their offering still there at the altar. The absurdity of the scenario makes Jesus’ point—“this is so inconvenient and costly, but you must let nothing stand in your way. I cannot stress how urgent this is.”
That “nothing” includes legally mandated temple worship. Jesus’ particular illustration—the worship prescribed within OT law—is hardly accidental. He is evoking a powerful, biblical trope concerning the performance of ritual sacrifice in the context of unrighteousness and oppression. God hates it. The continuance of it, where love for one’s brother or sister is lacking, is a mark of hypocrisy (one of Jesus’ concerns in the Sermon on the Mount). Leaving the gift at the altar and first seeking reconciliation emphasises that reconciliation with your brother is critical to any claim to the ongoing worship of God.
I’ll let Calvin and Bonhoeffer have the final word, as they speak very powerfully to this point:
“When he tells those who have injured any of their brothers to return to a good understanding with him before offering their appointed gift, he means that as long as by our own fault we stand at variance with our nearest, there is no open access for us to God ... God does not welcome or recognise as his children those who refuse to be brothers with their fellow men.”
“When a man gets angry with his brother and swears at him, when he publicly insults him or slanders him, he is guilty of murder and forfeits his relation to God. He erects a barrier not only between himself and his brother, but also between himself and God. He no longer has access to him: his sacrifice, worship and prayer are not acceptable in his sight ... If we come to hear the Word of God and receive the sacrament without first being reconciled with our neighbours, we shall come to our own damnation. In the sight of God we are murderers. Therefore ‘go thy way, first be reconciled with thy brother and then come and offer thy gift.’”
Share:
