Is it anger period or just misdirected anger that a sin?

[Kelp]

Abelard asks (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=2403470&postcount=48):
Please, where is anger differentiated from misdirected anger?

Well, for starters unless that distinction is implied, I don't understand how we are to read Ephesians 4:6 "Be angry and do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger," If not it becomes "sin and do not sin". :hrm: Seems pretty obvious that at least there is a form of anger that is not a sin.

[Faramir]

In Romans (1:18), for starters, Paul talks about the wrath of God. So God can get angry, God can't sin. Therfore anger (or at least not all anger) is sin.

[mossrose]

There is a form of anger which is not sin, which is what I understand that verse in Ephesians to be referring to.

That would be a "righteous" anger, an anger against sin, against that which does not glorify God.

The example of Jesus clearing out the temple would be one I would look to. He was angry at the way His Father's temple was being desecrated. The holiness of God was being dishonoured.

I don't know about you, but I get angry at the result of sin on this world. I get angry when I hear the Lord's name being taken in vain. I get angry when I see how God's righteousness, holiness, grace, love and justice are impugned by the people around me.

This kind of anger is a good anger. It helps us to not get complacent about where we live right now. It helps us remember that sin is the cause of all the world's ills, and that the people around us are lost without a Saviour.

If we forget that, and don't get angry at sin, then we are searing our consciences and become tasteless salt.

My 2 cents.

[Abelard]

Well, for starters unless that distinction is implied, I don't understand how we are to read Ephesians 4:6 "Be angry and do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger," If not it becomes "sin and do not sin". :hrm: Seems pretty obvious that at least there is a form of anger that is not a sin.

I do not see anything about misdirection.

In Col 3:5-8 though, Paul clearly includes anger in a litany of other sins. He appears to think that all anger is sin, but was wise enough to realize people need a graduated approach if they are to succeed in achieving personal holiness.

I think this provides a lot of clarification to Eph 4:6.

[Little Shepherd]

Looking at the Greek, I only see one word that's the same letter-by-letter between Col 3:8 and Eph 4:6, and a couple others that might be the same word w/ different endings. Not sure if any of them correspond to anger, so . . . I propose someone who can actually read Greek should chime in and let us know if the words translated "anger" in both passages are the same. It wouldn't be the first time important semantic information was lost in translation(the KJV "thou shalt not kill" comes immediately to mind).

[faithymom]

From what I understand, it's how we respond to (or in) our anger.
I think anger, like all other emotions, should be judged on what we do with it.
Out of anger I have chewed someone a new one...I have dealt with an issue that needed to be cleared up...I have also chosen to deal with my own part in things and the anger dissipated...
Different responses to the same 'feeling'.

[mossrose]

From what I understand, it's how we respond to (or in) our anger.
I think anger, like all other emotions, should be judged on what we do with it.
Out of anger I have chewed someone a new one...I have dealt with an issue that needed to be cleared up...I have also chosen to deal with my own part in things and the anger dissipated...
Different responses to the same 'feeling'.
Yes, I agree.

The sinning comes when we react out of anger and hold grudges and bitterness in our hearts.

[Sparko]

I do not see anything about misdirection.

In Col 3:5-8 though, Paul clearly includes anger in a litany of other sins. He appears to think that all anger is sin, but was wise enough to realize people need a graduated approach if they are to succeed in achieving personal holiness.

I think this provides a lot of clarification to Eph 4:6.There is such a thing as "context" Abelard.

scripture must be interpreted in light of scripture. Reading other scripture it is clear that not all anger is sinful.

also Eph 4:6 says:
6one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all

so I think you have the wrong verse there.

[Little Shepherd]

also Eph 4:6 says:
6one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all

so I think you have the wrong verse there.:rofl: That might also explain why I didn't see more than a single clear(to me) similar word btw the 2 verses I looked at. That was one of them. Oops.

[Abelard]

It's a tricky bit of Greek, but the commentaries side with anger always being a sin 100%. I don't see a single interpretation that reads Eph 4:26 as justifying anger under any circumstances.

From the IVP New Bible Commentary:

4:26 introduces the main topic of the passage: anger. The NRSV’s ‘Be angry, but do not sin’ entirely misses the force of the original. It is not an encouragement to righteous anger (indeed all anger is condemned in 5:31); it is a warning, ‘If you become angry, beware! You are at sin’s door!’ If in the West anger is regarded as a sign of manliness, Jewish tradition was more aware of its divisive, satanic, and corrupting power (see the incisive criticism of anger and its dangers in Testament of Dan 1:18-5:2). Anger, and the related sins of vs 29 and 31, are the epitome of socially destructive and alienating sins, and so characteristic of the old creation.

[Sparko]

It's a tricky bit of Greek, but the commentaries side with anger always being a sin 100%. I don't see a single interpretation that reads Eph 4:26 as justifying anger under any circumstances.



really? not a single one?

It took me 5 seconds to find these commentaries:

Be ye angry and sin not (ὀργίζεσθε καὶ μὴ ἁμαρτάνετε)
Cited from Psa_4:5, after the Septuagint. Hebrew, stand in awe and sin not. Righteous anger is commanded, not merely permitted.
--Vincent's Word Studies.

Take heed of anger and ungoverned passions. If there is just occasion to express displeasure at what is wrong, and to reprove, see that it be without sin.
--Matthew Henry's commentary

It is implied here:
(1) that there “may” be anger without sin; and,
(2) that there is special danger in all cases where there is anger that it will be accompanied with sin. “Anger” is a passion too common to need any description.
--Albert Barnes' Notes on the bible.

Be ye angry, and sin not - Οργιζεσθε, here, is the same as ει μεν οργιζεσθε, If Ye be angry, do not sin. We can never suppose that the apostle delivers this as a precept, if we take the words as they stand in our version. Perhaps the sense is, Take heed that ye be not angry, lest ye sin; for it would be very difficult, even for an apostle himself, to be angry and not sin. If we consider anger as implying displeasure simply, then there are a multitude of cases in which a man may be innocently, yea, laudably angry; for he should be displeased with every thing which is not for the glory of God, and the good of mankind. But, in any other sense, I do not see how the words can be safely taken.
-- Adam Clarke's commentary

Eph 4:26 - Be ye angry, and sin not,.... There is anger which is not sinful; for anger is fouled in God himself, in Jesus Christ, in the holy angels, and in God's people; and a man may be said to be angry and not sin, when his anger arises from a true zeal for God and religion; when it is kindled not against persons, but sins; when a man is displeased with his own sins, and with the sins of others: with vice and ....
-- John Gill's exposition

Eph 4:26 - Be ye angry, and sin not--So the Septuagint, Psa_4:4. Should circumstances arise to call for anger on your part, let it be as Christ's "anger" (Mar_3:5), without sin. Our natural feelings are not wrong when directed to their legitimate object, and when not exceeding due bounds.
--JFB Commentary

[Abelard]

Matthew Henry? I'm sure Henry was a nice guy and all that but it's not a critical commentary and all your stuff is pretty old. Biblical scholarship has advanced quite a bit since the eighteenth century.

The Greek is difficult, and apparently not translated well. My own Greek is pretty creaky, but I asked Jaltus to drop by and see if he could lend some insight. In the meantime I will slow down and work a bit more carefully.

[Sparko]

Matthew Henry? I'm sure Henry was a nice guy and all that but it's not a critical commentary and all your stuff is pretty old. Biblical scholarship has advanced quite a bit since the eighteenth century.

LOL. after you claimed you couldn't find any commentaries that said that anger was not necessarily a sin, I find several, and all you can do is complain that one of them is "old"?

hey you know what? the bible is old too. let's just toss it out and write a new one.


The Greek is difficult, and apparently not translated well. My own Greek is pretty creaky, but I asked Jaltus to drop by and see if he could lend some insight. In the meantime I will slow down and work a bit more carefully.

The greek is not translated well? How do you get that? Just because it doesn't say what you want it to say?

[Abelard]

LOL. after you claimed you couldn't find any commentaries that said that anger was not necessarily a sin, I find several, and all you can do is complain that one of them is "old"?

hey you know what? the bible is old too. let's just toss it out and write a new one. Commentaries differ in quality and in purpose. When you are interpreting scripture, you look for critical commentaries - which dear Matthew Henry is not. And yes,some scholars are better than others.

And scholarship improves with age. We don't use two hundred year old encyclopedias either.


The greek is not translated well? How do you get that? Just because it doesn't say what you want it to say?What I said was the translation is tricky. It was the authors of the IVP commentary that said "the translation completely misses the force of the original", so apparently there is a problem.

I asked someone to help because I don't have the capacity to do this justice. I doubt you do either, so I suggest you try to rustle up some expert assistance too. I don't see the point of getting into battle of incompetencies.

[mastralvarado]

Commentaries differ in quality and in purpose. When you are interpreting scripture, you look for critical commentaries - which dear Matthew Henry is not. And yes,some scholars are better than others.

And scholarship improves with age. We don't use two hundred year old encyclopedias either.

What I said was the translation is tricky. It was the authors of the IVP commentary that said "the translation completely misses the force of the original", so apparently there is a problem.

I asked someone to help because I don't have the capacity to do this justice. I doubt you do either, so I suggest you try to rustle up some expert assistance too. I don't see the point of getting into battle of incompetencies.

If what Paul said was true, then Jesus (PBUH) was angry when he took down the temple merchant's tables (Matthew 21:12). And therefore, Paul was promoting violence, a new law or telling God what to do.

Else there is a contradiction. Sin and not sin.
Biblical Ethics is restricted to Christians only

[Abelard]

Matthew 21:12 does not mention anger.

Vengeance and judgment are other possible interpretations, and both are divine prerogatives mankind cannot employ.

[papas]

Umm, if you think Jesus was never angry, think again:

Mark 3:5 "He looked around at them in anger and, deeply distressed at their stubborn hearts, said to the man, "Stretch out your hand." He stretched it out, and his hand was completely restored." (NIV)

Also, if you think that Jesus didn't clear the Temple, or rebuke the Pharisees with anger countless times, you're only kidding yourself.

[Abelard]

Umm, if you think Jesus was never angry, think again:

Anger, vengeance and judgment are divine prerogatives.

[Sparko]

how can anger be a divine perogative if it is ALWAYS a sin, as you keep saying?

[Abelard]

how can anger be a divine perogative if it is ALWAYS a sin, as you keep saying?

Because God's anger is righteous. Man is incapable of righteous anger and vengeance because we cannot judge people's hearts and intentions the way God does, and so our judgment is faulty. Our anger is always sinful because it requires us to judge unrighteously

God is the only righteous judge, and therefore the only one permitted to be angry or vengeful.

[steamer2]

Abelard asks (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=2403470&postcount=48):

Well, for starters unless that distinction is implied, I don't understand how we are to read Ephesians 4:6 "Be angry and do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger," If not it becomes "sin and do not sin". :hrm: Seems pretty obvious that at least there is a form of anger that is not a sin.

Someone once said: "The best way to be angry is to be angry at nothing but sin."

For instance, I can be angry at alcohol because of the broken families and marriages it can cause, not to mention liver disease which alcoholism often leads to. I become angry at alcohol, because of the harm and human suffering which often is a by-product of alcohol.

[Sparko]

Because God's anger is righteous. Man is incapable of righteous anger and vengeance because we cannot judge people's hearts and intentions the way God does, and so our judgment is faulty. Our anger is always sinful because it requires us to judge unrighteously

God is the only righteous judge, and therefore the only one permitted to be angry or vengeful.

that's quite different than what you were saying earlier. Now we know that anger cannot be a sin if it is righteous. But you don't think we can ever be right about it because we have faulty judgment.

So it is no longer whether Anger is always a sin, but whether we can feel a righteous anger. Is that correct?

[Abelard]

I like it better than this idea of misdirected anger, Sparko, but you can't leave out the concept of judgment. There is no anger without judgment, and one who judges is no longer righteous.


Do not speak evil against one another, brothers and sisters. Whoever speaks evil against another or judges another, speaks evil against the law and judges the law; but if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge. There is one lawgiver and judge who is able to save and to destroy. So who, then, are you to judge your neighbor?”
(James 4:11-12 NRSV)

[Little Shepherd]

I like it better than this idea of misdirected anger, Sparko, but you can't leave out the concept of judgment. There is no anger without judgment, and one who judges is no longer righteous.
Let me get this straight. People can't make right judgments(even though they're commanded to in the Bible) because they don't have God's omniscience. Because of this, the very act of judging makes a person unrighteous. However, this statement of yours very much is a judgment, and last time I checked you're not God(nor do you otherwise have access to omniscience). So by your own logic, this judgment of yours makes you unrighteous, and therefore you can't possibly have made a right judgment, being unrighteous and non-omniscient and all. So . . . your judgment isn't to be trusted, and I can call your argumentation exactly what it is -- illogical, unbiblical, indefensible, self-refuting crap.

Did I miss anything? :blush:

[Abelard]

Did I miss anything? :blush:

I assume you mean other than grace and humility? You missed the fact that we are talking about judging the righteousness of others, not rational judgments or logic.

You missed Matthew 5:21-22 where Jesus equates anger with murder.

Matt. 5:21 “You have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, ‘You shall not murder’; and ‘whoever murders shall be liable to judgment.’ 22 But I say to you that if you are angry with a brother or sister, you will be liable to judgment; and if you insult a brother or sister, you will be liable to the council; and if you say, ‘You fool,’ you will be liable to the hell of fire.

You missed John where he says anger prevents righteousness

James 1:19 You must understand this, my beloved: let everyone be quick to listen, slow to speak, slow to anger; 20 for your anger does not produce God’s righteousness.

and Paul:

Col. 3:8 But now you must get rid of all such things—anger, wrath, malice, slander, and abusive language from your mouth.


1Tim. 2:8 I desire, then, that in every place the men should pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or argument;

Eph. 4:31 Put away from you all bitterness and wrath and anger and wrangling and slander, together with all malice,

Gal. 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are obvious: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, anger, quarrels, dissensions, factions, 21 envy, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these. I am warning you, as I warned you before: those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Even if we roll the clock back to the 18th century, use a bible that was translated from the Greek into Latin and then back into Greek and then finally into English we can't find a positive word about anger in the New Testament.

Nor can we find an argument in favor of judging others. It's clear that anger and the judgment of others is part of our sinful nature and does not contribute to righteousness.

[Sparko]

I like it better than this idea of misdirected anger, Sparko, but you can't leave out the concept of judgment. There is no anger without judgment, and one who judges is no longer righteous.

more out of context scripture quoting?

OK let's play dueling scriptures

after condemning the man who was sleeping with his step mom, Paul said:

1 Corinthians 5:12 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=53&chapter=5&verse=12&version=31&context=verse)
What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?


You are judging right now when you claim that someone is sinning when they are angry and they can't judge rightly.

God gives us moral codes and tells us what is good and bad. When someone breaks those moral codes (like sleeping with his stepmom) we are able to use God's guidance to judge rightly. And yes we can be angry at such sin.

[Abelard]

I prefer a more reasoned approach.

1) The two principle commandments in Matthew 22:37-38 are a litmus test. I don't think anger is compatible but the point is arguable.

2) What did Jesus preach about anger? AlI I can find is Matt 5:22. Never did Jesus speak a positive word about anger.

3) What did the Apostles write about anger? I find four and a half verses against anger including the second half of Eph 4:26. Again, we find no statements approving anger save the possibility of the disputed half of Eph 4:26.

4) Look at Ephesians as a whole and examine the cotext of 4:26. The purpose of Ephesians is to contrast how Christians should act as contrasted to Gentiles.

Paul is writing how Christian behavior differs from the Gentiles, but being angry doesn't sound like a difference. Anger was considered sinful and corrupting by the Jews, so encouraging Gentile behavior would be counter to Paul's purpose in writing the epistle.

Ephesians was written to be read aloud, and all of the verbs are imperative. This is why I said it was a tricky passage. The use of the imperative mood has been found to be highly nuanced. (http://www.forthright.net/basic_greek_language_study/a_review_of_the_imperative_mood.html)

What we can be sure of is that this a forceful statement. It could well be sarcastic or rhetorical. It is definitely not a simple direction though. We should also consider that Paul may be paraphrasing Psalm 4:4:
When you are disturbed, do not sin; ponder it on your beds, and be silent. Selah”
(Psalms 4:4 NRSV)

Here is an article I have found that supports the Sparko hypothesis (http://megaloi.blogspot.com/2007/12/ephesians-426-31-its-all-greek-to-me_15.html). I really am listening to your position with careful consideration, and I am always ready to correct my position.

Keep looking for a Greek expert. Somebody has written a Master's thesis on this verse.

[Sparko]

Don't forget that the bible is not just the New Testament, and also that Jesus came to give us examples to live by, not just words to live by. His example shows us that we can indeed judge right from wrong and that we can get angry at evil and not sin.

I think it is very easy for us to be angry in the wrong ways, letting the emotion drive us into sin. But I don't think that it is always the case. I am angry at people that support and actually condone abortion, for example. But I don't let that anger drive me to violence or even suggesting such.

[Abelard]

Don't forget that the bible is not just the New Testament, and also that Jesus came to give us examples to live by, not just words to live by. His example shows us that we can indeed judge right from wrong and that we can get angry at evil and not sin.
The Bible is not just the NT, but now we must interpret everything in the OT through Jesus Christ. If an OT interpretation is inconsistent with Jesus it should be rejected.

We can judge right from wrong rationally, but judging other people's actions is different. People can make horribly wrong choices for righteous reasons.


I think it is very easy for us to be angry in the wrong ways, letting the emotion drive us into sin. But I don't think that it is always the case. I am angry at people that support and actually condone abortion, for example. But I don't let that anger drive me to violence or even suggesting such.Anger is a term often applied to other emotions. If you do not want to physically harm people who condone abortion, anger is probably not the correct term for the emotion. People often say they are angry when they are really feeling terrified, sad, humiliated, or almost any other emotion. Anger just happens to be a socially acceptable term for almost any emotional reaction.

[Sparko]

The Bible is not just the NT, but now we must interpret everything in the OT through Jesus Christ. If an OT interpretation is inconsistent with Jesus it should be rejected.

We can judge right from wrong rationally, but judging other people's actions is different. People can make horribly wrong choices for righteous reasons.

Anger is a term often applied to other emotions. If you do not want to physically harm people who condone abortion, anger is probably not the correct term for the emotion. People often say they are angry when they are really feeling terrified, sad, humiliated, or almost any other emotion. Anger just happens to be a socially acceptable term for almost any emotional reaction.

I know what anger is and anger does not always mean you want to do violence.

you keep wanting to move the goal posts and redefine words to suit your goals.

[Abelard]

I know what anger is and anger does not always mean you want to do violence.

Ok, what is anger? In the link I provided - in support of your interpretation btw - the author demonstrates Paul may be talking about up to three different definitions of anger in this scripture. How does your personal definition compare?


you keep wanting to move the goal posts and redefine words to suit your goals. The only goal is to reach an understanding of what Paul intended. I believe I've confessed my limitations, used a decent hermeneutic and brought all relevant research to the forum. The fact that more questions are raised as one gets deeper into scripture is to be expected and not evidence of some semantic chicanery on my part.

[Sparko]

it seems pretty simple to everyone but you abelard. You are the one equivocating on definitions and stuff.

1. Christians can judge rightly when they base their judgments on scripture.

2. You can be angry at evil without it becoming sin. Anger is an emotion. Emotions themselves are not sinful. Applying them in a wrong way is sinful. You look at a beautiful woman and fall in love. That is not a sin. If you let that love turn into lust by letting your thoughts turn to sordid ideas, or if you apply that love to someone who is already married, etc, then it becomes sin. If you are angry at someone and let that anger turn you into a crazed maniac, then it is a sin. Or if you are angry because of some selfish reason, then the pride is a sin.

If you are angry at evil and it spurs you into action to stop the evil by, for example, protesting, then that is not a sin. If you take that anger and murder someone, then it becomes a sin.

It's pretty simple. you need to use context.

[Abelard]

it seems pretty simple to everyone but you abelard. You are the one equivocating on definitions and stuff.
Aquinas spent an entire chapter on anger in the Summa Theologica. If it seems simple, it is because you have not engaged the subject in depth.


Christians can judge rightly when they base their judgments on scripture.Christians can also judge incorrectly when they employ facile hermeneutics, oversimplify, and point to proof texts instead of attempting a proper exegesis.


It's pretty simple. you need to use context.My 6:45 am post today was entirely context. I may be wrong, but I have supported my ideas with scripture, interpretation and history brought together in a generally accepted hermeneutic process.

[Sparko]

Aquinas spent an entire chapter on anger in the Summa Theologica. If it seems simple, it is because you have not engaged the subject in depth.

Christians can also judge incorrectly when they employ facile hermeneutics, oversimplify, and point to proof texts instead of attempting a proper exegesis.

My 6:45 am post today was entirely context. I may be wrong, but I have supported my ideas with scripture, interpretation and history brought together in a generally accepted hermeneutic process.


well, I and others disagree with you and have also presented our arguments using scripture and commentaries. so at this point I see no further need of discussion. you are always welcome to believe what you want to.

God Bless,

Sparko

[Abelard]

Amen. I look forward to comparing thoughts with you again soon. Our conversation has brought me to some interesting intellectual destinations I might not have otherwise visited.

God bless you.

[papas]

Anger, vengeance and judgment are divine prerogatives.

Jesus was a human during that period...

[papas]

Because God's anger is righteous. Man is incapable of righteous anger and vengeance because we cannot judge people's hearts and intentions the way God does, and so our judgment is faulty. Our anger is always sinful because it requires us to judge unrighteously

God is the only righteous judge, and therefore the only one permitted to be angry or vengeful.

Not according to the Bible, see 1 Corinthians 5 (or 2 Corinthians 5)

In any case, Psalm 4:4 :


In your anger do not sin; .. (NIV)

A bit pointless to argue this just because you want to be right...

[Abelard]

A bit pointless to argue this just because you want to be right...

What I'm saying is read the entire statement.

Eph. 4:25 So then, putting away falsehood, let all of us speak the truth to our neighbors, for we are members of one another. 26 Be angry but do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger, 27 and do not make room for the devil. 28 Thieves must give up stealing; rather let them labor and work honestly with their own hands, so as to have something to share with the needy. 29 Let no evil talk come out of your mouths, but only what is useful for building up, as there is need, so that your words may give grace to those who hear. 30 And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with which you were marked with a seal for the day of redemption. 31 Put away from you all bitterness and wrath and anger and wrangling and slander, together with all malice, 32 and be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ has forgiven you.

I see this entire paragraph as an admonition to replace anger with something edifying. Verse 31 seems clear enough to me.

[phase]

When Christ threw out the money changers from the temple he was furious at what had been done at the temple. I have very little doubt that he still loved the money changers but was angered at their actions.

[Kelp]

Yes, there is no doubt that God gets angry. The question is: should we who are mere creatures and not holy as He is get angry?