The KJV (King James Version) often uses "in danger" whereas the meaning is that of being "bound by" whatever is connected to the word. This word appears four times in verses 21-22 as the ancient Greek word "ἔνοχος" ≈ "hold in, bound by, liable" and means, literally, "holding in". In legal terms it means "guilty" which is the meaning of the modern Greek word "ένοχος" (EH-no-khos) ≈ "guilty".

• "εν" ≈ "in" and "ἔχω" ≈ "hold".

Possible play on words:

• "ἔνοχος" ≈ "hold in, bound by, liable" from "εν" ≈ "in" and "ἔχω" ≈ "hold".
• "εν ὄχλος" ≈ "in the crowd" where "ὄχλος" ≈ "multitude, crown"

Consider:

• ... in danger of the judgment ...
• ... liable of the judgment ...
• ... in the crowd of the judgment ... (wide area, not the narrow gate)

The translation "in danger" assumes a certain viewpoint. The original meaning of "bound by" or "liable for" does not assume a viewpoint.

• Is Jesus "in danger" of the "judgment".?
• Is Jesus "in danger" of "hell" "fire"?

Liability:

• Is Jesus "bound by" or "liable for" the (promise of the) "judgment".? He may need to "fulfill" or "complete" it.
• Is Jesus "bound by" or "liable for" the (promise of) "hell" "fire"? He may need to "fulfill" or "complete" it.

Translators who assume a viewpoint can limit or change the intended meaning of words that have more than one meaning or viewpoint.

The ancient Greek word "ἔνοχος" ≈ "hold in, bound by, liable" and means, literally, "holding in". In legal terms it means "guilty" which is the meaning of the modern Greek word "ένοχος" (EH-no-khos) ≈ "guilty".

• "εν" ≈ "in".
• "ἔχω" ≈ "hold".

The "judgment" involves "division" or "separation". Jesus will address this in more detail later in the Sermon on the Mount at the start of chapter 7.

Some important "separations" or "judgments"

• Fish (sea creatures of every kind), Seventh Kingdom Parable in Matthew 13:47-49
• Sheep and goats (land animals), Parable of the sheep and goats. How about pigs?
• Birds (no separation!); Not one will fall. All will fall.



More: Matthew 7:1-2 Here comes the judge, but just barley

More: Matthew 25: 31-46 Parable of the sheep and goats

More: Psalms 1: Here come the pigs

More: Matthew 10: 28-31 Taking care of the sparrows

The ancient Greek word "ὀργίζω" ≈ "to anger, to irritate, to become angry" and is from "ὀργή" ≈ "temper, disposition, anger, wrath". Anger is passive until one takes action on that anger.

• Did Jesus ever get "angry"?
• In his first coming, did Jesus ever get "angry" such that people were physically harmed?

There is a possible play on words of "anger" with "oath", an important word in a few verses.

• "ὀργίζω" ≈ "to anger, to irritate, to become angry".
• "ὁρκίζω" ≈ "swear an oath" and "ὅρκος" ≈ "oath".



More: Oaths and vows and wells

More: Oaths hidden in a creed

The ancient Greek word "ὀργίζω" ≈ "to anger, to irritate, to become angry" and is from "ὀργή" ≈ "temper, disposition, anger, wrath". Anger is passive until one takes action an that anger.

This word in this form is used one time in this exact form in the GNT (Greek New Testament) (here) and one time in the LXX (Septuagint).

The ending of the word allows a play on words meaning "remain angry". That play on words, here a suffix, is used often in John and translated as "abide" or "remain" and is directly translated as the "Meno" in the "Meno Paradox" from Plato.

More: Meno Paradox: Seeking to learn what you do not know

• Abstract potentiality: Are you "liable" if the "anger" is only in the mind?
• Abstract potentiality: Are you "liable" if the "anger" in the mind is noticed by others?
• Concrete actuality: Are you "liable" if the "anger" is acted out?
• Is there a middle ground?
• How likely is that an abstract potentiality of "anger" will become a concrete actuality of "anger"?

[Judas]

Discuss: Would this verse be appropriate in a liberal church since it has Jesus making reference to "hell" and "fire"?

• Would a church allow someone without a degree to be pastor?
• Would a church allow Jesus be a pastor?
• Would a church allow Jesus to preach?
• Would a church allow Jesus to preach about "hell" and "fire" and the "devil" or "Satan" directly from the Gospels, quoting himself?

[Apostate church at Laodicea]

The words "brother", "sister" and "mother" are used by the people in the usual human sense. Jesus appears to have a different or alternate definition.

• If "Allen" is a "brother" of "Jesus" (fellow believer brother)
• and "Bob" is a "brother" of "Allen" (physical brother)
• then is "Bob" a "brother" of "Jesus"?

The equivocation here is based on sliding the definition of "brother".

Discuss: Is it an equivocation to claim that one is male because one has made oneself appear to be male? As Aristotle says, one must clearly define what words mean to both detect an equivocation and destroy a logical argument.

More: Equivocation deception between names and meanings

More: Aristotle

Jesus provides a definition of what it means to be a "brother", "sister" or "mother" of Jesus. Assume the following using the definitions of Jesus.

• "Andrew" or "A" is a "brother" of Jesus or "C".
• "Bob" or "B" is a "brother" of Jesus or "C".

Can it be assumed that the human definitions of "brother" applies to what Jesus says? That is:

• If "A" and "B" are each a "brother" of Jesus,
• then are "A" and "B" "brothers" of each other using the definition provided by Jesus?

Do "brothers" in Christ need to be directly related? Is everyone related through Adam and Eve? That is, not Adam and Steve.

Discuss: Does anyone in the GNT, or thereafter, ever call Jesus a "brother"? Is Jesus a "brother"? Explain.
Discuss: Does Jesus ever refer to himself a "brother" of someone else? How about in this (and the next) verse?

If Jesus calls you a friend if you do the will of the Father, and you do the will of the Father, is Jesus a friend of you? That is, is it commutative.

More: Equivalence relations: race

This aspect of separate relations between Jesus and each "brother" or "sister" will come out in a few verses after the "angry" verses in terms of Jesus being the "head" and the believers or "brothers" or "sisters" being each a "hair" of the "head".

There is a denomination named "Brothers in Christ".
Each "hair" can be "black" (not clear or indistinct) or "white" (clear or distinct).

More: Matthew 5:33-37: Hairs of the head

More: The sorrowful annoyance of hairsplitting

• Quakers: Call everyone "brother", or "sister", as applicable.

Notice that "father" is missing. Why? The literal meaning might be that the father of Jesus, Joseph, had passed away. Is there a deeper meaning?

On the other hand: If "A" is a "brother" of Jesus, then is Jesus a "brother" of "A"? This is a commutative property.
Suppose the "brother" is Jesus. Could being "angry" with Jesus make one "liable" "with respect to" the "judgment"?

If "A" is a "brother" of Jesus, then is Jesus a "brother" of "A"? This is a commutative property. There is an important non-commutative aspect.

Story: There were four brothers and one sister (the youngest). The youngest brother made a claim later in life.

• If any of the brothers yelled at the sister, that brother got in trouble.
• If the sister yelled at any of the brothers, that brother got in trouble.

Do you see the non-commutative aspect of this story?

• If you are "angry" at "the" "brother" Jesus, then you get in trouble.
• If "the" "brother" Jesus is "angry" at you (or what you did), then you get in trouble.

The English word "raca" comes from the ancient Greek word "ῥακά" ≈ "idiot, fool, good-for-nothing" which comes from Aramaic (similar to Hebrew) word "ריקא" ≈ "worthless person".

The ancient Greek word "μωρός" ≈ "foolish, stupid" and is the source of the English word "moron". The modern Greek word "μωρό" (mo-RO) ≈ "baby, infant".

A play on words of "moron" was used 9 verses earlier in the "salt of the world" verse.

Is using "raka" or "fool" like taking the Lord's name in "vain"? The LXX has "pure" for "guiltless". Can one be "pure" and, yet, not "guiltless"?

☐ Take the name of the Lord in vain (deception).
☐ Use the name of the Lord to deceive (others).



More: Exodus 20:1-26 The Ten Commandments

The words "raca" (Aramaic) and "fool" (Greek) appear to have the same meaning. How serious is it to call or label someone a "fool" who is, for all practical purposes, a "fool"? What about "foolish" jokes?

• The word "raca" is an Aramaic/Hebrew word. This word would be used by people speaking/understanding Aramaic. The "council" appears to be the Jewish religious structure but could be any bird house.
• The word "fool" is a Greek word. This word would be used by people speaking/understanding Greek. Who is the "brother"? Why might calling a "brother" a "fool" important?

The Aramaic word for "raca" can be a play on words with a Greek word meaning "rag" as in a "band-aide".

One interpretation:

• The Aramaic "raca" refers to the religious establishment that primarily spoke Aramaic and studied Hebrew (similar but not the same) and thus, little Greek. Calling them "raca" would force the "council" to take action.
• The Greek "fool" could refer to Jesus who apparently spoke a lot of Greek and some Aramaic (and some Latin). Calling or considering "brother" Jesus a "fool" might not be a good way to avoid "hell" "fire".

This idea that Jesus spoke a lot of Greek (as did the population at that time) goes against what pastors are taught and what theologians expound on that Jesus (and the disciples) spoke and (some) read and wrote Aramaic (a more difficult language to read and write) which was then translated into Greek (a language much more easy to learn to read and write).

Discuss: If Jesus spoke primarily Aramaic and not Greek, how did so many play on words and double meanings get into what Matthew wrote? These play on words and double meanings do not appear to be in the connecting text written by Matthew.

Details are left as a future topic.

• If you are "angry" with Jesus, are you "liable" of the judgment?
• If Jesus is "angry" with someone, is that someone "liable" of the judgment?
• If you or Jesus calls someone "raca", an Aramaic word used by the religious establishment, as Jesus will do (figuratively) in a few verses, are you or Jesus "liable" of the "council" (as Jesus will be during the crucifixion week).
• If you call someone a "fool", and that person is doing something "foolish" , is that someone "liable" of "hell" "fire"? Are you "liable" of "hell" "fire"?
• If you never call someone a "fool", are you safe from being "liable" for "hell" "fire"?
• If Jesus calls someone "fool", a Greek word used by Jesus and others, is that someone "liable" of "hell" "fire"?
• Where does Jesus call others a "fool" or "foolish" (in Greek)?

[5 of the 10 virgins, house built on sand, servant, bad salt, etc.]