Curran D.

Bishop

A Biblical Theology of Anger

Christian attitudes towards expressing anger come in many varieties. A friend once told

me that a mentor of his who had been married for over forty years told him the secret was,

“whenever you feel the aggression, vent it immediately! Don’t let it build up.” It seems that

there are some obvious problems with this philosophy, depending on the intensity of one’s

definition of “aggression” and how one actually vents that aggression. It seems common in pop-

theology among some Christians to make a pendulum swing to the opposite extreme, however;

some (perhaps unreflectively) seem to take the attitude that anger is beneath Christians who

should accept all circumstances as the will of God. A more complex spin of this idea would be

to say that certainly there is a place for anger, but it should always be excised in a calm outward

demeanor, which restores inner peace. Here too, however, the nature of the reality of the human

struggle with anger suggests that a less simplistic answer is needed.

Christine Dentemaro and Rachel Kranz, in Straight Talk about Anger, put forward a very

nuanced and appropriately complex picture of proper expressions of anger. They present a series

of case studies demonstrating various attitudes towards anger, and use these to analyze the

factors and presuppositions in these attitudes. They observe first that some people assume that

the presence of anger means that someone has done something wrong—either the person

experiencing the anger is wrong for having felt it, or the person who caused whatever

circumstance occasioned the anger is in the wrong. If they do not want to judge the other’s

actions as wrong, they will likely see their own emotions as inappropriate and repress them.1 In

considering this distinction, which they call “Justified” versus “Unjustified” anger, they use the

1 Christine Dentemaro & Rachel Kranz, Straight Talk About Anger (New York: Facts On File, 1995), 48-49.

1
case of Mary Ellen, a woman who is frustrated at a friend, Lissa, who has broken several

appointments. If a person is predisposed to see the presence of anger as a sign that something is

wrong in a moral sense, their first instinct will be to justify their anger. If they cannot find a

good reason for it, they feel they have no right to the emotion. “They believe they need an

excuse for doing a ‘bad’ thing—getting angry.2 Dentemaro and Kranz suggest that instead of

justifying, the person is better off to start by accepting their anger, arguing that it is a natural

human emotion which can have many productive uses. “It may be giving us a signal that

something is wrong, alerting us to a problem or injustice, or helping us to become more

independent and self-loving.”3

In their case study Mary Ellen would identify her emotion as anger towards her friend.

She would then trace the anger to the broken appointments. Dentemaro and Kranz point out that

for some people this awareness is sufficient to dispel the anger. If this is not the case, further

exploration is necessary. Having identified the circumstance causing the anger, Mary Ellen can

ask herself why that circumstance makes her feel angry—in the case study it is that the broken

appointments make her feel insignificant. At this point Mary Ellen can decide what course of

action to take in responding to her anger: share her feelings with Lissa with the goal of bringing

behavioral change; share her feelings with Lissa without a specific agenda; choose not to pursue

the next engagement with that friend; or decide that Lissa has the right to cancel plans and that

this in no way reflects on her own significance. “Whether Mary Ellen decides to talk to Lissa or

not, there’s one thing she won’t do, if she follows this approach. She won’t tell herself that she’s

being silly, stupid, selfish, or bad for feeling angry with Lissa.”4

2 Dentemaro & Kranz, 49.

3 Dentemaro & Kranz, 50.
4 Dentemaro & Kranz, 52 – emphasis theirs.

2
 Here we encounter a problem with Dentemaro and Kranz’s reasoning: they are ignoring a

reality of the nature of anger; some anger is a sin problem and is in fact silly, stupid, selfish and

bad. To substantiate my claim though it will be necessary to examine some biblical texts and

terms to determine if this aspect of Dentemaro and Kranz’s view of anger is in keeping with the

biblical data, or if it is not—as I contend.

There are four primary words used for anger in the New Testament: aÓganakte÷w, qumo/ß,

ojrgh, and parorgi÷zw. We shall briefly consider each of these. Other words used in the New

Testament for anger, but beyond the scope of this paper, include ma¿comai, pikri÷a,

prosocqi÷/zw, cola¿w, and emmai÷nomai.5

qumo/ß and its derivations occur some 20 times.6 It connotes a strong anger, rage, or

wrath.7 In all occurrences in the Gospels and Acts qumo/ß is applied to humans and is a wrongful

emotion or attitude. In Rom. 2:8 Paul writes that for those who are self-seeking and do not obey

the truth “there will be wrath (ojrgh) and fury (qumo/ß)” implicitly from God. In 2 Cor. 12:20,

Gal. 5:20, Eph. 4:31 and Col. 3:8 qumo/ß occurs as part of a list of wrongful attitudes. In Heb.

11:27 it is attributed to the wicked Pharaoh. In Rev. 12:12 it is the emotion of Satan; later in

14:8 and 18:3 it denotes the “passion” of the whore Babylon. In Rev. 14:10 and 19, 15:1 and 7,

16:1 and 19, and 19:15 it is applied to God and often associated with the drinking of his wrath.

qumo/ß is applied to God frequently, and is naturally a just emotion for him if Scripture applies it

to him. However, it is also applied to humans in most of its occurrences, and in these cases is

always either applied to a villain or included in a list of attitudes Christians should not have.

5 See Ross S. Banister, “The Psychology of Anger in the New Testament,” Masters of Theology Thesis (Dallas
Theological Seminary, May 1978), 20-27, for a brief examination of each of these terms.
6 Glen Taylor & Rod Wilson, Exploring Your Anger: Friend or Foe? (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1997),
109.
7 William Arndt, A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, ed.
Frederick William Danker (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000) (BDAG), 461.

3
 parorgi÷zw occurs twice in the New Testament (Rom. 10.19; Eph. 4.26; 6.4). In Rom.

10:19 God provokes the Israelites to anger with a foolish nation as retribution for their sin (this is

a quote from Deut. 32:21—while there is some textual variation between the wording of Rom.

10:19 and the text of Rahlfs Greek Septuagint, the word itself occurs in the same form:

parorgiw◊). In Eph. 6.4 it is used to forbid fathers to “provoke” children to anger.

ojrgh/ and its derivations occur 42 times in the New Testament.8 BDAG lists both a sense

of strong displeasure with a focus on the emotional facet; and a strong indignation directed at

wrongdoing, with a focus on retribution as aspects of the word.9 It is both condemned—in Matt

5:22 (“everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment”)—and commanded—

in Eph. 4:26 (“Be angry...”). It is frequently applied to normal men, but is also applied to Jesus

in Mark 3:5. As a verb (ojrgi÷zomai) is applied exclusively to humans (the one exception being

the dragon in Rev. 12:17), usually with negative connotations. We can see a contrast between the

application of the verb to men and the noun to God in Rev. 11:18 where the e¶qnh wÓrgi÷sqhsan

(“the nations were angry [vb.]”) and God’s ojrgh/ (anger [n.]) comes. We should note that the

verb is applied to the king in Matt 22:7 and the masters in Matt. 18:34 and Luke 14:21, all of

which represent God in the parables in which they are found. We should further note that the

imperative occurrence in Eph. 4:26 (“Be angry and do not sin”) makes it clear that it is possible

for a person to orgi÷zomai without sinning. Most frequently the noun refers to the “wrath” of

God; but it also describes something which Col. 3:8 (in a context immediately following the use

of ojrgh in v. 6 to denote the wrath of God) says must be put away by Christians. James 1:20

even states that “the anger (n.) of man does not produce the righteousness of God.” The

distinction between noun and verb may not be particularly significant; what is significant is that

8 Glen Taylor & Rod Wilson, 109.

9 BDAG, 720.

4
while ojrgh occurs frequently on the part of God, the same root on the part of man is frequently

—though,it is important to note, not exclusively—negative.

The last word we shall consider—aÓganakte÷w and its derivations—occurs eight times in

the New Testament.10 It is applied to humans and to Jesus, always in contexts that indicate it to

be inappropriate in humans (though, obviously, not so in Christ). The exception is 2 Cor. 7:11

where it is the product of “godly grief” (to\ kata» qeo\n luphqhvnai) in the Corinthians.

Banister notes that the term focuses on “indignation or controlled anger. An outburst or

explosive anger is not intended.”11 From a brief word study we see that anger on the part of

humans is frequently—though not universally—condemned as wrong; or, we may say, it is

frequently viewed as silly, stupid, selfish and bad.

The most common words for anger in the Old Testament are the nouns hDmEj (“wrath”),12

PAa (“nostril, nose, face, anger”),13 and sAoA;k (“vexation, anger”),14 and the verbs sAoD;k (“be vexed,

angry”),15 and h∂rDj (“burn, be kindled, of anger”);16 all of which are frequently translated in the

LXX by derivatives of qumo/ß and ojrgh and have similar nuances.17 As a more thorough study

of these terms would be beyond the scope of this paper I will accept these basic definitions as

sufficient for our purposes. I will now briefly survey select passages before making a more

thorough inquiry into several of the most significant.

In Genesis 4:3-7 Cain and Abel bring offerings to the Lord. The Lord has regard for

Abel’s offering while Cain’s receives no regard. Cain is very angry (h∂rDj) about this. The Lord

10 Taylor & Wilson, 109.

11 Banister, 20.
12 Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, The New Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English
Lexicon, Reprint (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997) (BDB), 328.
13 BDB, 60.
14 BDB, 495.
15 BDB, 494.
16 BDB, 354.
17 Banister, 12.

5
questions his anger, saying “If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well,

sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is for you, but you must rule over it” (v. 7). It seems that

the Lord is saying that Cain’s anger is inappropriate because he was merely receiving the lack of

regard his actions warranted. We must determine if this is an accurate understanding of the

Lord’s rhetorical question. Hamilton argues that the best way to make the text of v. 7

understandable is to apply the interrogative Sh to both MIa clauses.18 Thus, v. 7 should be seen as

two rhetorical questions, “isn’t there acceptance if you do well, and isn’t sin a lurker at the door

if you don’t do well?”19 Cassuto comes to essentially the same conclusion based on the

repetition of byIfyE;t.20 Because of this repetition it is necessary that both clauses have the same

time referent, and so the focus must be general: God is asking Cain the reason for his anger

because, “There is no cause for it; you have only to do well and then you will be able to stand

firmly on your feet....”21 Cain’s sacrifice was not “doing well” and so sin is crouching at this

door in the form of unwarranted anger, which will seek to master him. We know from the next

verse that Cain gave into his anger and was indeed mastered by it. Thus, God was saying that

Cain’s anger was inappropriate, and further, that its presence should warn him to be on his guard

to master it.

A fuller survey of anger in the Old Testament would be valuable but is beyond the scope

of this paper, so we shall turn now to a survey of select New Testament passages. Jesus seems to

condemn anger in his statement in Matt. 5:22, “But I say to you that everyone who is angry with

his brother will be liable to judgment.” We need to look at this teaching in more detail. It occurs

18 Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1-17 (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Erdmans Publishing
Company, 1990), 226-227
19 Hamilton, 219.
20 U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis: Part I, from Adam to Noah, Genesis I-VI 8 (Jerusalem: The
Magnes Press, The Hebrew University, 1978), 209.
21 Cassuto, 212.

6
as part of the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5:2-7:27) which occurs early in his public ministry,

and outlines the themes that will run throughout his ministry. The statement is part of a section

on anger (Matt. 5:21-26), which immediately follows Jesus’ explanation that his ministry fulfills

the law (5:17), and heightens the demands of righteousness (5:20). It sets the stage for a number

of expansions on the Law of Moses, focusing on lust, divorce, vows, revenge, and love for

enemies. Jesus teaches that, while Moses condemned murder to judgment, he condemns even

anger to judgment. We need to carefully understand what anger means in this context. In each

of the following expansions on Mosaic law, Jesus takes the physical manifestation of a problem

in action (adultery, for example) back to the internal root of the problem (“looking at a woman

with lustful intent” – v. 28). The condemnation of anger in 5:22 is part of a linguistic unit of

three parallel statements, responding to Moses’ statement, each of which represent an

intensification from the previous: Moses said that murder leads to judgment / Jesus says being

angry with your brother leads to judgment / abusing your brother’s intelligence (“whoever says

to his brother rJaka¿ [‘numskull, fool’]”)22 leads to the council / abusing your brother’s heart23

leads to hell. This is not anger in a vague sense, but derogatory anger toward a brother. Also,

given the upscaling seen in each of the other examples of lust, divorce, etc. in which the

restriction is being moved from the outward manifestation to the inner emotion, this anger must

specifically be the malicious anger the outward expression of which is murder. However, given

the “ramping up”24 going on in the two following parallels in the verse, this anger is probably far

22 BDAG, 903.
23 mwro/ß is defined as “foolish, stupid” but with more of a relation to spiritual matters, “somet. also w. the
connotation of an obstinate, godless person” (BDAG, 663). See also, Dan Doriani, Matthew, vol. 1, Matthew 1-
13 (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2008), 144.
24 Doriani, “Gospels,” lecture notes, February 2, 2009. We should note that the ramping up is of what is
condemned, not of the punishment. “The judgment” must refer to God’s day of judgment, and “the court” (or
“the Sanhedrin”) must refer not to the earthly Sanhedrin—who did not rule on such matters—but to the heavenly
court. Thus, “the hell of fire” is merely a rhetorical, and not an actual, intensification over “the judgment.”
Craig S. Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Erdmans Publishing
Company, 1999), 184.

7
more subtle than just the contemplation of murder. Rather, it is unjust hatred of the brother in

one’s heart.

Jesus view of anger is clearly more nuanced than just condemnation. He is described as

having anger (ojrgh) at the hypocrisy of the Pharisees in Mark 3:1-5. He demonstrates anger in

his cleansing of the temple in Matt. 21:12-13 (see below). But in these cases Jesus exhibits

anger for the sake of others.25 The anger he condemns is selfish and—on some level—

destructive to others. While there is certainly appropriate anger, in Matt. 5:22 again we see

divine condemnation of a form of anger which is not appropriate due to its selfish focus which

demeans the object of the anger.

In our brief study of ojrgh above, we noted that it is almost universally negative when

applied to humans. We turn now to the exception to this rule, Eph. 4:26, “Be angry and do not

sin.” This verse occurs in the second half of the book (Eph. 4-6), which—to generalize—may be

seen as practical applications of the theology presented in the first half (Eph 1-3). Paul opens

this practical discussion with his exhortation to live in the reality of the unity of the body of

Christ (4:1-16) and then turns to describe the personal behavioral manifestations of this reality he

has just described (4:17-32). The first part of this (vv. 17-24) contrasts the reality of the new life

in Christ with the life of (unbelieving) Gentiles. Paul then turns (in vv. 25-32) to dealing with

practical maters of how to treat one another in order to benefit both the individual and the whole.

The admonitions in this section tend to pair a negative command with a positive contrasting

command (“having put away falsehood, let each one... speak truth with his neighbor,” v. 25; “let

the thief no longer steal, but rather let him labor,” v. 28; “let all bitterness... be put away from

you.... Be kind to one another,” vv. 31-32). Understood as a similar parallel, v. 26 would reverse

25 Doriani, Matthew, 143.

8
the negative-positive juxtapositioning thus: “[positive command:] Be angry [negative command:]

and do not sin; [direction of how to avoid sin:] do not let the sun go down on your anger.”

This opening clause is a direct quote of Ps. 4:4 (4:5 in MT and LXX), and to understand

how Paul uses it we must understand how David used it. Ps. 4 opens with a cry to God,

reminding him of his steadfastness and pleading for response (v. 1 [2]). David then addresses his

enemies in v. 2 (3), decrying their wickedness and reminding them that God protects the

righteous (v. 3 [4]). V. 4 (5) of the Psalm comes on the heels of this warning as a call to

righteousness (as is made more clear in v. 5 [6]). In v. 4 (5) both the Hebrew …wz◊gîr and the LXX

ojrgi÷zesqe (the identical word used in Paul’s quote) are in the imperative. While Delitzsch

understands it to mean, “if ye will be angry beware of sinning,”26 Hoehner translates more

simply, “be angry but sin not.”27 Hoehner argued earlier of the Greek text that both imperatives

—ojrgi÷zesqe (“be angry”) and mh\ aJmarta¿nete (“do not sin”)—must be accepted as

commands, with the second having slightly greater emphasis due to the mh/.28 As it would not

make any more sense in Hebrew than in Greek for the first imperative to be permissive (“if you

must be angry”) and the second jussive, this reasoning seems most accurate. Hoehner notes,

however, that this positive imperative does not require that the addressees be continually angry;

citing Wallace,29 he notes it would be best to understand them as iterative or repeated action.30

26 Franz Delitzsch, Psalms, trans. by Francis Bolton, Commentary on the Old Testament, vol. 5, by C. F. Keil and
F. Delitzsch (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2006), 68.
27 Harold W. Hoehner, Ephesians, An Exegetical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002), 620.
28 Hoehner, 620.
29 While Wallace suggests that “when an attitude is commanded, the force of the present imperative will either be
ingressive-progressive or customary; when an action is is commanded, the force of the present imperative will
usually be iterative” he notes that, “It is... difficult to distinguish [the iterative usage] from the customary
present.” Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar, Beyond the Basics, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), 722.
As ingressive has the sense of “begin and continue” (Wallace, 721) it seems clear that this is not the intended
meaning, given the next clause stipulates temporal limitations for the anger. Thus, the hard-to-distinguish
iterative or customary both seem appropriate here.
30 Hoehner, 620.

9
Thus we see David not condemning his enemies anger in general, but calling them to not allow

the anger to become sin, as part of his appeal that they turn in repentance to the Lord (v. 5 [6]).

Following his quote of the Psalmist, Paul offers guidance for how to keep the command:

limit the duration of the anger. O’Brien, citing Plutarch, notes the Pythagorean custom that two

conflicting individuals must embrace in reconciliation by sundown.31 Thus, apparently Paul is

quoting a proverbial saying. As such, it is not necessary to be taken in strict, literal terms, but

rather as a provision that the anger must not be allowed to fester, but be dealt with and reconciled

promptly. The thought is continued in v. 27 with the reason for it: to give no foothold to the

devil. Therefore anger, which in some form is not a sin in itself—for the Ephesians are

commanded to it—nevertheless, when left unresolved, gives Satan inroads into a person and a

community.

Paul continues with parallel commands aimed at protecting the community: thieves are to

do honest work, corrupting talk is to be changed for edifying, and the Holy Spirit is not to be

grieved. Then in v. 31 Paul instructs the Ephesians to set aside “all bitterness and wrath (qumo\ß)

and anger (ojrgh\) and clamor and slander.” As they were just told, “be angry” this may seem

contradictory. The reasoning can be seen from the verse as a whole, with the ending, su\n pa¿shØ

kaki÷aˆ (“with all/every kind of malice”). All five terms which are to be put off are joined

together by the malicious character Paul is referring to.32 This is malicious anger which is to be

put off. As noted above, Christ expressed anger (thereby sanctifying it), so anger cannot be

condemned per se; but Christ’s anger was never malicious. The Ephesians are to put off anger

and any other form of maliciousness, which makes clear that the anger in question is malicious.

31 Peter O’Brien, The Letter to the Ephesians (Cambridge: William B. Erdmans Publishing Company, 1999), 340.
See also Hoehner, 621.
32 Hoehner notes, “the adjective pavß with anarthrous singular nouns refers to everything belonging to the class
indicated by the noun and is thus translated ‘all sorts of, every kind of, every form of.’ ” Hoehner, 637, quoting
BAGD 631; BDAG 782; BDF §275 (3); MHT 3:199-200.

10
 It is common, though for human anger to stray into selfishness and maliciousness. When

Christ is angry, he is justly angry. Again, we see this in his cleansing of the temple in Matt.

21:12-13, and its parallels in Mark 11:15-17 and Luke 19:45-46. In all three passages Jesus

quotes Isaiah 56:7—most fully in Mark 11:17—in stating his reason for is actions (and his

anger). Isaiah 56 opens with a call to Israel to “keep justice and do righteousness” (v. 1) in

anticipation of the extension of Israel’s hope to the nations. Vv . 6-8 make up the the paragraph

which contains Jesus’ quotation, identifying the foreigners who join themselves to the Lord (v. 6)

and stating that God will bring them to his holy mountain to make them joyful and accept their

sacrifices (v. 7). This is what it means that God’s house “will be a house of prayer for all

peoples.” V. 8 reiterates that the Lord who gathers the outcasts of Israel will gather sill others to

himself. However, the temple system of Jesus’ day is failing to do this. Rather than being a

means of drawing the nations to God, it has become a system for keeping the Jews distant from

the nations. The activity of the moneychangers reflects a system which, rather than encouraging

the worship of the nations, is making a business of their attempts at sacrifice. Jesus’ actions are

not the product of selfish pride and anger, but anger at the injustice of the way the temple system

is being prevented from serving its life-giving function of drawing the nations to the true God.

We may extrapolate that where human anger is focused on defending God’s justice it is

appropriate.33

As Hoehner notes though, when God is angry, “he is always in control of his anger.

Unlike God, however, people have a tendency to allow anger to control them.”34 This was why it

was important that Cain seek to master his (unjustified) anger—lest it control him. Even when

human anger is justified it is natural for it to get out-of-control; thus the care with which it must

33 See Doriani, Putting the Truth to Work, (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2001), 195 & 206.
34 Hoehner, 621.

11
be treated. Even when God’s anger is focused on protecting his own name, this is appropriate

jealousy of his holiness. There is no analogue for jealousy in human anger: humans may be

angered for God’s justice or holiness, but not their own pride. We should point out here that

human anger for God’s justice will also include anger over situations where God’s justice is

abused through the unjust treatment of other humans (as modeled in Christ’s anger over the

mistreatment of Gentiles).

Because of the nuances of biblical anger, Dentemaro and Kranz’s suggestions for

examining one’s own anger are useful. It is quite possible that if a person is feeling anger they

are justified in such anger and need to find appropriate—and prompt—means of dealing with the

anger. If they dismiss their anger as illegitimate in and of itself without first examining it as

Dentemaro and Kranz’s suggest they may be ignoring something important. Submitting such

anger to the rule of love, as articulated in 1 Cor. 13, may be a helpful way to determine if such

anger is a matter of difference of personality or opinion, or actual injustice. If it is injustice

against the individual who is angry they should again consider if it is most loving to the person

angering them to confront them, or to not confront them—true love may dictate confrontation

(Dentemaro and Kranz do not articulate clearly enough a rubric for determining if confrontation

is needed). If such is the case, or if the injustice is being committed against someone else, they

must confront the person, according to the patter laid out in Matt. 18:15-20; noting that a spirit of

love and a desire to bring restoration must be the guide to such confrontation, resting in the

reality that God is with them in this process (Matt. 18:20).

It is also quite possible, however, that a person feeling anger will examine their feelings

and come to the conclusion that their anger is not justified; either it is selfishly focused on

themselves and not some aspect of justice and holiness, or it is maliciousness towards the

12
offending party. In such cases the only appropriate response is repentance for such anger and

seeking the Holy Spirit’s help to master their anger rather than allowing it to master them.

Dentemaro and Kranz do not seem to allow for such possibility. While they do acknowledge that

a person need not act on their anger, they make clear that a person’s anger is never unjustified.

Such a view of anger, however, fails to acknowledge sinful anger as such, and leaves the angry

person without the emotional and spiritual solace that comes through repenting of sin. If the

anger is indeed a mater of sin, failing to acknowledge it as such will actually prevent the person

from appropriately dealing with it and, instead, extend and complicate their struggle.

13
Bibliography:
Arndt, William. A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature. ed. Frederick William Danker. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.
Arnold, Bill T. and John H. Choi. A Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2003.
Banister, Ross S. “The Psychology of Anger in the New Testament.” Masters of Theology
Thesis. Dallas Theological Seminary, May 1978.
Brown, Francis, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs. The New Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and
English Lexicon. Reprint. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997.
Cassuto, U. A Commentary on the Book of Genesis: Part I, from Adam to Noah, Genesis I-VI 8.
Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, The Hebrew University, 1978.
Dentemaro, Christine and Rachel Kranz. Straight Talk About Anger. New York: Facts On File,
1995.
Delitzsch, Franz. Psalms. Translated by Francis Bolton. Commentary on the Old Testament,
Vol. 5. By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2006.
Doriani, Dan. “Gospels.” Course at Covenant Theological Seminary. Spring 2009.
-- Matthew. Vol. 1, Matthew 1-13. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2008.
-- Putting the Truth to Work, (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2001.
Hamilton, Victor P. The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1-17. Grand Rapids, MI: William B.
Erdmans Publishing Company, 1990.
Hoehner, Harold W. Ephesians, An Exegetical Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker
Academic, 2002.
Keener, Craig S. A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew. Grand Rapids, MI: William B.
Erdmans Publishing Company, 1999.
O’Brien, Peter. The Letter to the Ephesians. Cambridge: William B. Erdmans Publishing
Company, 1999.
Taylor, Glen and Rod Wilson. Exploring Your Anger: Friend or Foe? Grand Rapids, MI: Baker
Books, 1997.
Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar, Beyond the Basics. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996.

14