"Be ye Angry and Sin not." Eph. iv, 26.
By Stephen Pierce
By a misapprehension of the true meaning of the above Scripture, and also of some others of a similarly received import, some have doubtless been led if not into a fatal error, at least into a very injurious practice. It may be proper here to examine some of that class of Scriptures, referred to above, in order to ascertain their true meaning. The Lord says, [Matt. v, 22.] But I say unto you, that whosoever is angry with his brother, without a cause, shall be in danger of the judgement. But the inquiry is made, What if he has a cause? The inferential reply is, anger in this case would be admissible. This however is not according to truth. There is satisfactory proof from numerous other passages of Scripture, that no such inference should here be drawn. It is true, the first careless thought, without thinking of other Scriptures, might lead us to infer as above; but we should be careful not to draw an inference, till we know there is no positive declaration of Scripture to contradict it. Here the critical will inquire, if the phrase, "without a cause," in the above quotation, is to be left without any meaning. I answer, It shall have its true and full meaning. It is admitted that the conduct of a brother may be such that there is cause for anger; or else the phrase would be without meaning. But the only question on this point now is, Who has a right to execute, or even exercise that anger? Truly none but the Lord has any right to execute it; since it is written, Vengeance is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord. Rom. xii, 19. And none but the Lord has any right to exercise it; for again it is written, "Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger be put away from you." Again, [Mark iii, 5,] it is said that Jesus looked round about on them with anger. This passage is sometimes adduced to show that Christ himself indulged in this passion; and of course it would not be improper for us, his followers, when there was sufficient provocation, to imitate his example in this as well as in other respects. If this were correct reasoning, then we might as well assume the prerogative of judging; this being also the Master's prerogative; for he expressly says, [John v, 22,] that the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son. Should we follow him in this respect also? Most certainly not; for he expressly commands us not to judge. Judge not that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged. We understand by this, that in this imperfect mortal state, we are wanting in capabilities to judge rightly. Hence by making one unjust decision, we expose ourselves to God's judgment for that wrong, though the guilt of no other sin lay upon us. Although Christ has not, in so many words, given us, with his own mouth, an express command not to indulge in anger, yet inspiration has given explicitly, this command by Paul and David. Hence it is no more our privilege or right to be angry at our fellows, than it is to judge them. We have the same authority respecting one that we have respecting the other. The important inquiry now is, What is the true meaning of the Scriptures above quoted from Matt. v, and Mark iii? Respecting the first: Jesus was commenting on the instructions of Jewish teachers. They had taught that whosoever should kill, would be in danger of the judgment. But he informed them, that only to be angry with a brother, without a cause, would expose them to that. If there were a cause, no doubt the sin would be mitigated, and if they had no more light, on this subject, than this Scripture imparts, it might possibly be commuted to a sin of ignorance; so that if they lived up to their best light; and lived previous to the time of cleansing the heavenly Sanctuary, and the blotting out of the sins and errors of God's people, they might perhaps possibly escape the judgment of God, by having this sin of ignorance blotted out, "when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord." As to the second in Mark iii, The inquisitive will doubtless inquire, Why are we not allowed to imitate Jesus in the exercise of anger? The question might as well be asked, Why are we not allowed to execute anger? or why are we not allowed to judge? The reasons are obvious. First, to have our minds subject to the exercise of that passion would be a source of continual disturbance to us, and could effect no possible good to ourselves or others; but rather be a perpetual source of evil to all concerned. Second, in either case we expose ourselves to the judgment of God. Our ignorance and imperfections wholly disqualify us to act in these capacities. Nor do I apprehend we have a very clear perception of what that anger was, which Christ exercised; for, after mention was made, that, "he looked round about on them with anger," it is added, "being grieved for the hardness of their hearts." From this, it is reasonable to conclude that the word, anger, does not exactly express the emotion, which at that time exercised the mind of Jesus. Wherefore this qualifying phrase was thrown in to modify the sense of that expression. The paucity of language was unquestionably the cause of this. To be grieved at the hardness of men's hearts, would be nothing wrong in us; but to indulge in anger, according to the common acceptance of the word is contrary to divine requirement. It is reasonable to our understanding, that the Master of the house has duties and prerogatives peculiarly his own. And though his servants and children are required, on general principles to imitate his excellent example, and have many privileges and duties in common with him; yet whenever his acts are disciplinary; or are used in the administration of justice; in these he stands unique and alone. "The government shall be upon his shoulder." "One is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren." He is the great Teacher, we are the learners. It is objected that "Jesus was made under the Law," and "knew no sin." And whatever would be erroneous or sinful for us, would have been so for him, while he was here as our example. It has already been shown that our extreme ignorance disqualifies us to have anything to do with that which pertains, absolutely, in any way, to discipline or government. On the other hand his immensely superior knowledge and understanding, perfectly qualified him to perform all that pertains to both of these. Hence, as he "knew what was in man;" rather as he "knoweth all things;" he knew, when, for what87reason, and in what sense, kind and degree, to be angry, on the principles of perfect justice and righteousness. Was there any sin in this? None. He knew full well how to exercise a just and holy anger. We know not how to exercise anger without its being mixed with sinful passions. Therefore this indulgence is forbidden us by strict commands, but was perfectly fit and right for him, on the principle, that it is perfectly right and just for a teacher of a school to administer salutary discipline and government, even though it be mixed with corporeal punishment. But has any scholar in the school, a right to do this? Certainly he has not. We know not how to do the thing right: He does; therefore it will do for Him, but not for us. It is said by some, that anger has very little to do with the spirit of love, meekness, gentleness, quietness and forbearance. We understand that it has nothing to do with it. It is their complete opposite. They continue, and say, "But when manifested, it should be against sin or wickedness with which it has no fellowship." I think that anger has some fellowship with sin and wickedness: it being part and parcel of the same. But if the pronoun it which next precedes the word fellowship, represents the word spirit, the remaining sentiment is then correct; for the spirit of love and meekness, &c., truly has no fellowship with sin, or wickedness. The same subject is continued, and it is said "In this view of the subject anger is no sin, but a virtue." The above quotations were adduced from the fact that Jesus was said to look round with anger; and that God is angry with the wicked every day; and the argument is, that it is a virtue to imitate the example of these divine personages. But who has ever assumed the privilege of imitating the example of Christ in making the scourge of small cords, and using it in the manner he did? John ii, 15. And who would argue from hence, that following this example was a mark of deep piety, or unusual virtue? This, in the Master of the house, who had power to command and enforce, and whose peculiar right it is to punish all offenders, is perfectly fit and right; but in us, his dependent subordinates, it would be an assumption of power, not at all justifiable. The idea that we should not imitate him in all his prerogatives, may be new to some; it is a thought quite modern to the writer; but the Spirit and Word have reproved respecting the subject, until it was thought best to investigate more fully, the word of truth respecting it. As some may inquire to know wherein we should, and wherein we should not imitate the Master, the proper reply is, We should imitate him in all things which the Bible enjoins; and we should not imitate him in any thing which the Bible prohibits. Some may object to the sentiment just expressed from an expression in Rev. xiv, 4. "These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth." This passage has been understood by some, to mean that the class of men referred to, would imitate the example of the Lamb in all his acts, and that to perfection. That they will follow him thus in all his imitable example may be inferred; but it is not expressed. If we look at the meaning of the word whithersoever, which Webster defines,—to whatsoever place; then this objection at once vanishes. The passage will then read, These are they which follow the Lamb to whatsoever place he goeth. Thus we see, this passage has reference more particularly to localities, to which they follow him, than to example, in which they imitate him. Here the inquiry is made, What localities? It can be made to appear that the class of men spoken of in Rev. xiv, 4, is the last generation of saints, the remnant of Israel. Zeph. iii, 13. Therefore they live at a time, when having an understanding of truth pertaining to the heavenly Sanctuary, they will by faith or belief in this truth, follow the Lamb to whatsoever apartment of the same, it may be necessary for the Great High Priest to go, in his work of cleansing it. From thence, out to bless his people. From thence to his location on the white cloud, when the cry will be made, Thrust in thy sickle and reap; for the time is come for thee to reap, for the harvest of the earth is ripe. We now return to a more particular examination of the Scripture which heads this article. Perhaps the commonly received opinion, from the construction of the language is, that we have permission to be angry, but are forbidden to sin. If the language expresses this, it expresses more; yea it even expresses an injunction or command that we should be angry. Do we believe this? I trust not one of us; for God has given in his word, commands, precisely opposite to this. Ps. xxxvii, 8. "Cease from anger, and forsake wrath." Why cease from anger if God enjoins it? or even permits us to indulge in it? Why forsake wrath if it be justifiable? Such ideas are absurd. Again Col. iii, 8. "But now ye also put off all these: anger, wrath, malice, &c." In the above Scriptures we have express commands, to put off, to cease from, to forsake, anger, wrath, &c. Still the language of the text is, "Be ye angry and sin not." Here says the sceptic, the Bible contradicts itself. But we say it certainly does not. Such a thought would be the most distressing to a believer. There is doubtless some error either in the translation, or punctuation of the common version. Professor Whiting gives the following translation: "Do not sin by being angry." By this translation, we have almost a complete change in the meaning of the passage. It shows that being angry is sin; and it commands not to sin thus. In his margin it is expressed interrogatively, as follows: Will ye be angry and not sin? As if he asked, if it were possible to be angry, and not sin by being thus. Here we see by comparing the punctuation of the text and the margin of this learned man's translation, he understands that inspiration had nothing to do with the punctuation of the Bible. Professor Goodrich in his Greek Grammar, fifth edition, page 2, says: "Greek was originally written in capitals, without any spaces between the words." Of course there was no room for the marks of punctuation. He then gives us the first verse of the first chapter of John's Gospel, except the last simple sentence, as an example, in capitals, without punctuation. He then gives an example of the same in smaller Greek characters with punctuation. He then says, the smaller characters were formed from the larger ones between the seventh and ninth centuries, for convenience in writing. But we rely not on human testimony, alone, to show forth the truth, relative to this passage. We will introduce the 31st verse of Eph. iv. Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, &c., be put away from you. Do we believe that Paul in writing five verses contradicted himself? If he were uninspired and altogether reckless of his reputation, with his powers of mind, it would scarcely be deemed possible. But these were not the conditions under which Paul wrote. He was inspired; and the word of the Lord is not yea and nay, but yea and amen. The peculiar structure of language is such in some passages, that a slight variation in the punctuation materially alters the sense: in others, their structure is so simple, and their meaning so obvious, that to give them the right punctuation, would result as a natural consequence, and the true sense of the original be intuitively known. Thus of the passage under consideration, by changing the period point at the close, to an interrogation, the sense is nearly reversed. So it is then reconcilable with other Scriptures, which at first would seem to be contradictory. One more Scripture will be used in the close of this argument. In Gal. v. 19-21, Paul gives us a catalogue of sins which he there calls the works of the flesh. Here we see that wrath, which is defined, violent anger, belongs to that dark catalogue, the doing of which will for ever exclude the doers thereof, from the inheritance of the kingdom of God. The writer's belief for a long time differed from the sentiments here expressed; but with sorrow now he sees, in this respect, the error of his former years. A man's practice will be likely to correspond, somewhat with his honest belief. It is said that "Anger resteth in the bosom of God." To this class I find no promise in all the Bible; but to the opposite character, the meek, there are many great, and precious promises. The meek shall eat and be satisfied. Ps. xxii, 26. The meek will be guide in judgment. Chap. xxv, 9. The meek shall inherit the earth. Chap. xxxvii, 11. The earth feared and was still, when God arose to judgment, to save all the meek of the earth. Chap. lxxvi, 8-9. The Lord lifteth up the meek. Chap. cxviii, 6. The Lord taketh pleasure in his people, he will beautify the meek with salvation. Chap. cxliv, 4. The meek shall also increase their joy in the Lord. Isaiah xxiv, 19. Preach good tidings to the meek. Chap. lxi, 1. Blessed are the meek. Matt. v, 5. It was in view of the momentous period of time which has now overtaken us—"before the decree bring forth, before the day pass as the chaff, before the fierce anger of the Lord come"—that the Prophet exclaimed, Seek ye the Lord all ye meek of the earth, which have wrought his judgment; seek righteousness, seek meekness: it may be ye shall be hid in the day of the Lord's anger." Dear brethren, will we give heed to these solemn truths? Will we cherish a disposition of carefulness to investigate truth and resolve to practice it as soon as the mind is understandingly convinced in regard to it? Such and such only have any claim to the promises.