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.
How have historical and contemporary Bible commentators (e.g., Augustine, Calvin, N.T. Wright) explained 'without cause' in Matthew 5:22?
Executive summary
Scholars and commentators have long debated whether Matthew 5:22 originally included the Greek adverb translated “without a cause” (εἰκῆ / “without cause”), and interpreters have treated that phrase in at least two ways: as a later softening addition in some manuscript traditions, or as an emphatic moral tightening when retained (textual-critical view summarized by Metzger and others) [1]. Early Fathers show mixed evidence—Origen and several patristic witnesses omit the phrase, while others echo it—so Augustine’s explicit treatment is not prominent in the provided materials and Calvin and N. T. Wright are not quoted here directly on this particular phrase in Matthew 5:22 (available sources do not mention Augustine’s, Calvin’s, or N. T. Wright’s specific exegesis of “without a cause” in the provided reporting) [2] [1].
1. The textual problem: some manuscripts include “without a cause,” many do not
Critical commentators note that the final words commonly rendered “without a cause” are missing from many of the best Greek manuscripts and may have been inserted early to soften Jesus’ strict teaching; B. M. Metzger and modern textual-commentary traditions argue εἰκῆ was likely a post‑second‑century addition intended to reduce the apparent rigor of the antithesis [1] [3].
2. How early commentators shaped the debate: mixed patristic evidence
Patristic quotations show disagreement: Origen (2nd–3rd century) is cited as quoting Matthew 5:22 without the qualifying phrase and even suggests the phrase “was added by someone,” which textual critics use as internal evidence against originality [2]. A sampling of early Fathers (not exhaustively listed here) shows both inclusion and omission, which has left later readers and translators split [4].
3. The “softening” theory: why scribes might have added εἰκῆ
Several commentators argue scribes inserted “without a cause” to avoid an ethical demand that seemed impossibly strict—Jesus appears to forbid anger categorically in the antithesis, and a gloss making anger punishable only “without cause” reduces the absolute tone. This explanatory hypothesis is precisely the one Metzger and other textual critics favor in assessing the variant [1] [3].
4. Interpretive options when the phrase is retained
When translations keep “without a cause” (e.g., KJV/NKJV), many commentators and preachers read Matthew as condemning unjustified anger while allowing for some justified, measured anger; popular devotional and sermon literature uses that reading to balance moral rigor with pastoral common sense [5] [6]. Study and translation notes also stress context: the “But I say to you” antitheses contrast Jesus’ moral intensification with earlier law‑summaries, and translators debate whether the contrast targets verse 21 specifically or the broader command [7].
5. What the provided sources say about Augustine, Calvin, and N. T. Wright
The current set of sources does not provide Augustine’s direct commentary on the specific phrase “without a cause” in Matthew 5:22; Augustine is cited more generally in other contexts in these materials [8]. Calvin’s Matthew commentary is available in the corpus listed, but the provided excerpts do not quote him about εἰκῆ specifically [9] [10]. N. T. Wright appears in interviews and discussions in the results, but those items do not address Matthew 5:22’s textual variant (available sources do not mention Augustine’s, Calvin’s, or N. T. Wright’s explicit treatment of “without a cause” in the sources provided) [11] [12].
6. How modern commentators and translation teams handle it
Translation notes and modern textual commentaries (UBS/NET/Metzger-style apparatuses) tend to omit the phrase in critical editions because of early manuscript and patristic support for its omission; other modern translations follow the critical text and render simply “whoever is angry with his brother” without the qualifier [1] [2]. Evangelical and devotional sites that keep the phrase often cite manuscript variance and historical tradition while offering pastoral readings that allow “just cause” for anger [2] [6].
7. Implications for exegesis and preaching
The variant matters not merely for wording but for ethical emphasis: omitting “without a cause” yields a stronger, more radical prohibition of anger in Jesus’ ethic; retaining it narrows the prohibition and aligns with a tradition that accommodates some justificatory contexts. Readers should weigh textual-critical arguments (manuscript and patristic evidence) against theological and pastoral aims when citing this verse in sermons or doctrine [1] [3].
If you want, I can pull direct quotations from Calvin’s Matthew commentary, Augustine’s sermons, or N. T. Wright’s published writings to see whether they explicitly address εἰκῆ in Matthew 5:22—the current results simply don’t include such explicit treatments in the items you provided (available sources do not mention those specific expositions) [9] [8] [11].