Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What does 'without cause' mean in Matthew 5:22?
Executive summary
The phrase “without a cause” (Greek εἰκῆ, often translated sine causa) appears in some English translations of Matthew 5:22 (notably the KJV/NKJV) but is omitted in many modern critical editions because key early manuscripts either lack it or show mixed evidence; textual critics disagree on whether it was original (see Papyrus 67 and manuscript surveys) [1] [2] [3]. If included, the phrase narrows Jesus’ prohibition to anger that lacks justification; if omitted, the statement reads as a broader interdiction against anger itself, with implications debated by scholars and traditions [4] [5].
1. The textual question: was “without a cause” original?
Manuscript evidence is split: some of the earliest witnesses—Papyrus 67 among them—omit the phrase, while many later manuscripts (and the manuscript tradition behind the KJV) include it; scholars like Daniel Judd and Allen Stoddard have documented that many manuscripts do contain the phrase even though the oldest extant papyri sometimes do not [1] [2]. Commentaries and critical editions note that “without a cause” is missing in “many of the best MSS,” and that its presence may reflect an early smoothing of what otherwise sounds like an extremely strict teaching [4].
2. What does the phrase mean linguistically?
The Greek word behind “without a cause” is εἰκῆ (eikē), glossed in Latin as sine causa and translated in the KJV as “without a cause.” That adverb appears elsewhere in the New Testament and normally conveys acting “without reason” or “for no good cause,” so if original it would limit Jesus’ rebuke to unjustified anger [3].
3. Two reading-options, two moral messages
If the phrase is original, Matthew 5:22 can be read as condemning unjustified, irrational anger specifically—leaving room for “righteous” anger or anger that has legitimate cause—an interpretation cited in some modern defenses and devotional readings [3] [6]. If the phrase is not original, the stronger reading—“whoever is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment”—frames Jesus as extending the moral law into the heart, making even anger a serious moral failing in itself [7] [6].
4. How traditions have handled the difference
Different Christian traditions and translations take different stances: the King James and New King James include “without a cause,” while many modern translations omit it, following critical Greek texts that favor its absence; some Eastern Orthodox editions preserve a reading equivalent to “without good cause” in their Greek tradition [3] [5]. The divergence has led to theological discussion (and sometimes apologetic responses) about what Jesus permits or forbids concerning anger [1] [8].
5. Theological consequences and debates
Those emphasizing the shorter reading argue Jesus is addressing the internal root of violence—warning that contempt and slander lead to judgment—so omitting “without a cause” underlines a high ethical demand on believers to discipline inner attitudes [6] [4]. Those who retain “without a cause” point out pastoral and scriptural tensions: if Jesus absolutely forbids all anger, how do we account for scriptural examples of righteous anger (e.g., Jesus in Mark 3:5 discussed by commentators)? Some scholars describe this as an open textual and theological question [1].
6. Historical and interpretive context: “fool,” Gehenna, and rabbinic background
Matthew 5:22 pairs the anger clause with insults (“Raca,” “fool”) and the threat of judgment or Gehenna; scholars show these paired motifs reflect a broader Sermon-on-the-Mount concern about internal disposition and speech, and rabbinic parallels help explain why insults were treated so severely in that milieu [9] [10]. Whether “without a cause” is present, Matthew’s intent is to push readers to consider inner motives and the social consequences of contemptuous speech [9].
7. What to take away as a reader
Available sources show there is no unanimous textual consensus: early papyri like Papyrus 67 omit εἰκῆ while many other manuscripts include it, and scholars continue to argue both sides [1] [2] [4]. As a result, interpretation depends partly on which textual tradition and theological lens you privilege: a narrower prohibition against unjustified anger (KJV/NKJV tradition) or a broader moral demand against anger as such (most modern critical translations and some scholars) [3] [7].
Limitations: current reporting in the provided sources documents the manuscript variation and interpretive debate but does not settle authorship or provide a final textual-critical verdict—scholarly disagreement remains [2] [5].