"... Is it possible that Jesus was simply being hyperbolic? Perhaps, but if that is the case, then it is odd that he would invoke an actual law that was tried in Jewish courts in verse 21. Such an interpretation leaves us in the difficult position of understanding that "liability to judgment" in verse 22 means something entirely different than it means in verse 21. Keener, similar to Derrett, has argued that Matthew 5:22 refers to the heavenly court, rather than 'the Sanhedrin,' that is, the Jerusalem governing body. His argument, too, is mostly based on very late rabbinic evidence, which speaks of a heavenly Sanhedrin. It is also important to note that verses 23-26 quite clearly depicts a human court. If verse 22 does not, then it is odd that it is surrounded by verses that do envision a human justice system. Moreover, Keener's argument leaves aside altogether the possibility that neither a heavenly court nor the Jewish governing body known as 'the Sanhedrin' are in view in this passage, but rather, a local synagogue council. I suggest that this third option is preferable, and best reflects the historical setting of Jesus's rural Galilee, where trials were held in synagogue settings. How could an earthly court be expected to judge anger? This problem has not gone unnoticed by interpreters. Some scholars have, however, noted some potential parallels in the sectarian documents at Qumran. 1QS 6:24-27, 7:1-5 contains [parallel] rules and penalties ..."