Confusion on Anger

So in the sermon on the mount Jesus says “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” (ESV Matthew 5:22). But in Psalms and Ephesians we are told to be angry by king David and Paul? Psalms 4:4, “Be angry, and do not sin; ponder in your own hearts on your beds, and be silent. Selah.”. Ephesians 4:26, “Be angry and do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger,”. Looking for some help with understanding this. Sorry if the paragraph is a little off, I’m writing this on my phone. Thanks

I have on bibleref. I am confused because Christ says anger is wrong, and then it seems like it is encouraged in other passages.

I think the issue Jesus is dealing with here, is the propensity for people to think they are being faithful to God by adhering to some Law (do not murder) while harboring anger and hatred in their hearts. Jesus’ point here, and throughout this early section on the Sermon on the Mount is that God is looking for people to follow the spirit of the Law, rather than the letter. So, acting as if someone is behaving righteously of saying, “I havent committed adultery, therefore I am righteous” while lusting after women or looking at porn, they should see those thoughts and lusts as still a violation of God’s Law. Or as people commonly say today, “im not hurting anyone!” God wants us to follow the spirit of the law that seeks to please the intent of the law…a desire to turn away from sin both inwardly and outwardly.

As for the other verses you mentioned, I think the point here is that we will all experience times where we get angry. And sometimes, rightly so. However, we are called to deal with that anger in a healthy way rather than letting it stew and turn into bitterness. We are called to reconcile or strive to control our anger rather than letting that anger control us.

In sum, I think the anger Jesus is talking about is the uncontrolled anger that turns to bitterness and causes someone to despise their brother or sister. This is why Jesus goes on to say that if you have a gift for the Lord but are holding anger against a brother, go be reconciled first before offering your gift. God wants us to deal with the sin in our hearts rather than excusing it by suggesting that because we havent acted on those thoughts or desires that we are honoring God’s intent of the Law.

I hope that makes sense.

For a practical example, suppose someone has a conflict with a spouse. Perhaps one person has a right to be upset because they were lied to or were treated unfairly. There is nothing wrong with confronting the person and dealing with the issue. Sometimes conflict is exactly what is needed. However, that is different from allowing that anger to turn into bitterness, hatred or rage. Constantly dwelling on how the person wronged you and focusing on the incident continually so that you develop contempt and lack of forgiveness is wrong. You can be angry, but at the same time should try to bring about reconciliation while remembering that you also have sinned and God has forgiven you. You should allow that anger to motivate you to bring about a resolution that helps you both to move forward in a healthy direction.

The ESV has done some serious damage to this verse. It omitted a critical phrase "WITHOUT A CAUSE". That is a very serious omission, since it changes the meaning completely. But that is not all.

Here is what is in the KJB, and it would be supported by the Received Text:
But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

So let's compare the two, clause by clause.

1. "That whosoever" changed to "that everyone". BIG DIFFERENCE.

2. "without a cause" omitted. BIG DIFFERENCE

3. "shall be in danger of the judgment" changed to "liable to judgment". BIG DIFFERENCE

4. "whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca" changed to "whoever insults his brother".
CLOSE ENOUGH. [Note: "Raca" means senseless, empty-headed person]

5. "shall be in danger of hell fire" changed to "will be liable to the hell of fire". BIG DIFFERENCE

Here is the meaning of "liable" -- "likely to experience (something undesirable)". But that is definitely not what Christ said. "Shall" means "will have to: must".

And why change "hell fire" into "to the hell of fire" (as though there is another hell)?

So you can see that the ESV is just ANOTHER CORRUPT modern bible version, attempting to lead you astray. Now you know where that belongs.

I'd like to see one Christian who never gets angry. This just means don't hold on to anger and don't let it lead you to worse things, like insulting a brother or deriding him as a fool. Get rid of the anger before the sun goes down; before it has a chance to fester.

Paul isn’t condoning anger he’s saying as himans we get angry but he’s saying get over it quickly don’t let the sin go down while your mad at someone it has a way of lingering Paul wasn’t condoning anger at all

a Jesus eas not saying if you ever get angry your condemned either he was doing the same thing Paul was bringing to our attention that when we let anger , grudges , personal issues between each other fester it leads to sinful actions against each other it’s like our emotions can become a conduit for sin

a if I’m angry with someone long enough I’m much more likely to take some action against then speak some bad words against them ect it’s hard to not express anger outwardly we can for awhile but eventually we act out from it shout and scream sometimes even get physical ect

a Jesus addressed thkngs he knows we struggle with and is calling us to repent of these things when they happen also there is anger that’s not wrong

if I see two young teens beating sn elderly man anger isn’t an inreasona le response . But if I’m angry because someone did or said something against me or I didn’t get what I wanted then my anger is inappropriate

It’s hard to grasp the Bible by only a verse at a time there is much detail and nuisance to most of it. Getting angry isn’t going to condemn us embracing and harboring even feeding the anger is going to cause us a lot of serious problems and struggles and may well lead us astray

Paul is saying even when your angry for a moment don’t sin and “ don’t let the sin go donwn on your anger and give Satan a foothold in your heart and mind

If you read it more like this makes more sense

“I therefore, the prisoner in the Lord, beseech you to walk worthily of the calling wherewith ye were called, with all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; giving diligence to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

Wherefore, putting away falsehood, speak ye truth each one with his neighbor: for we are members one of another. Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath: neither give place to the devil. Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labor, working with his hands the thing that is good, that he may have whereof to give to him that hath need. Let no corrupt speech proceed out of your mouth, but such as is good for edifying as the need may be, that it may give grace to them that hear.”
‭‭Ephesians‬ ‭4:1-3, 25-29‬ ‭ASV‬‬

he’s saying if course we all get upset and angry as himans but it’s not something to keep hold of let it go quickly “ let not the sun go down on your anger nor give place to the devil “ if I let my anger fester it gives Satan an opportunity to poke me and harass my mind and heart but if I forgive he can’t really use it against me Paul’s instruction is here at the end of the chapter

“Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamor, and railing, be put away from you, with all malice: and be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving each other, even as God also in Christ forgave you.”
‭‭Ephesians‬ ‭4:31-32‬ ‭ASV‬‬

One verse at a time approach neglects the teachings and wisdom and overwll
Message I n the on chapter at a time approach

Yeah, Dino hates to see his corrupt modern versions exposed for their attempts to deceive the reader and change the meaning of Scripture. Well when you support corruption, then you have to answer for that. Enough has been posted about the corrupted "bibles" and no now no one has any excuse.

Not to make this a translation debate, but this is pure nonsense. The Received Text was formed by Erasmus and some of the earliest manuscripts used to develop this text dated back to the 11th century Byzantine texts (about 1000 years later than the earliest manuscripts that made up some of the other texts used today in translations). I think it’s odd that people use this text to argue for the superiority of the KJV when Erasmus, himself, created the Received Text to argue for the superiority of the Latin Bible over all others.

In any event, there is nothing wrong with the KJV or the Received Text. However, to suggest that other versions are “corrupt” because they use much earlier manuscripts that date back nearly a millennia earlier than the texts Erasmus used is inappropriate. There is a reason modern versions have some slight variations from the KJV. It’s because we have discovered a lot of very early manuscripts since that time and the earliest writings of these letters in the Bible suggest that later transcripts likely included some “notes” and added phrases that were not present in ALL of the earliest transcripts that we have found.

If you prefer the KJV, thats fine. But suggesting this person is being deceived by corrupt texts is not true. If I have 1000 people copy a letter and the first 100 copies of that letter say one thing and letters 950-970 say something else, the odds are that the earlier ones are far more likely to represent the original than the latter ones. This is why textual critics made the changes….not because of some attempt to deceive people.

Since you are revealing your ignorance about the subject, you would be further ahead to say no more.

Erasmus did an EXCELLENT job and those who came after him continued to refine the text.
THE TESTIMONY OF J.H. MERLE D’AUBIGNE DISPELS THIS MYTH
The following quotation from historian J. H. Merle D’Aubigne demonstrates that Erasmus had access to more textual evidence than his modern detractors admit:

“Nothing was more important at the dawn of the Reformation than the publication of the Testament of Jesus Christ in the original language. Never had Erasmus worked so carefully. ‘If I told what sweat it cost me, no one would believe me.’ HE HAD COLLATED MANY GREEK MSS. of the New Testament, and WAS SURROUNDED BY ALL THE COMMENTARIES AND TRANSLATIONS, by the writings of Origen, Cyprian, Ambrose, Basil, Chrysostom, Cyril, Jerome, and Augustine. ... HE HAD INVESTIGATED THE TEXTS ACCORDING TO THE PRINCIPLES OF SACRED CRITICISM. When a knowledge of Hebrew was necessary, he had consulted Capito, and more particularly Ecolampadius. Nothing without Theseus, said he of the latter, making use of a Greek proverb” (J.H. Merle D’Aubigne, History of the Reformation of the Sixteenth Century, New York: Hurst & Company, 1835, Vol. 5, p. 157).
Is the Received Text Based on a Few Late Manuscripts? (wayoflife.org)

Erasmus was fully aware of Codex Vaticanus, and rejected it.

Yes, unfortunately, what the OP presented was GROSSLY MISLEADING, and this has become a matter of the Received Text vs the Critical Text of W & H (which continues today). Even the International Standard Version has "without a cause".

anger is wrong if it is birthed in hate. Jesus was angry in the Temple, turned over tables, and chased people out with a cord. Righteous indignation. HE was right in what HE did and did not sin doing it in anger

Righteous anger is being angry with sin.

Emotions by themselves are not evil and it's impossible to remove them. Think of a newborn.. Emotions are just natural.

Another example would be a wife being jealous when her husband is cheating. Well they created a covenant and he broke it. But having envy of your neighbor's car is another thing.

Yeah but we aren’t God, I’m talking more about anger amongst humans. It’s hard to conceptualize us with righteous anger, because unlike Jesus we don’t know perfectly what is right. I don’t know, this is just why I’m sort of on the fence with this passage, though I totally agree with what you’re saying

It depends on the kind of anger one expresses. There is a righteous anger that is not wrong. Scripture teaches us this:

Ephesians, Chapter 4

26Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath:

27Neither give place to the devil.

Anger based on hate or evil reasons is wrong, but righteous anger is not. Jesus Himself revealed His righteous anger when He through the money changers out of the Temple.

Be angry but sin not which would be that you are angry for how you were treated, but you forgive them, and do not want revenge on them, and do not call them any name, or anything else that may offend them.

But being angry with someone where you do not forgive, and want revenge, or any sin concerning them is not right.

We cannot help our emotions for it will come up so if our anger in these cases we are offended but how we handle it is the deciding factor.

While living for Jesus we might get angry at the sin, and rejection of the truth by the world, but we do not sin concerning it by calling them a name, or wanting bad to happen to them.

Which Jesus said love your enemies, and feed and clothe them.

Which we love people no matter how they treat us and to be mad at them in the wrong way is wrong.

Judge not lest you be judged which do not judge in a condemning manner such as saying you no good sinner for you have sinned, and looking down on them as no good, for then that judgement will come back on you for the sins you did.

And God forgives our sins so we have to forgive other people and not be angry with sin.

Jesus called Judas Iscariot friend after He betrayed Him and was not angry with him with sin, which He was the first Christian, and that is how they should act.

When Jesus was on the cross He said Father forgive them for they know not what they do and was not angry with sin.

Which He was not angry to not forgive them, and wanting revenge on them, which is anger with sin.

Be angry but do not sin and do not let the sun go down on your anger for get rid of it that day.

And the Old Testament be angry but sin not but ponder on it in your heart, and be silent, which means do not make an open show of it which would be to go against the person.

Here is the answer:

But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. Matthew 5:22 (KJV)

Jesus was our example, was he not ? We are told to be angry and sin, which is not right? We have the Holy Spirit and His fruits in us. Self-control?