Frank from Dallas writes:

“Jesus stated that anyone who calls his brother a fool is guilty enough to be thrown into the fiery furnace (please forgive me if I am not getting the wording exactly straight). And yet, on occasion aren’t there some brothers out there that are…well fools-primarily because they don’t have a teachable spirit won’t receive correction and continue doing dumb things even though it just gets them into trouble? Am I misunderstanding this verse” Hey Frank!

How are the Cowboys looking for next season? Any chance enough of the team will make bail before kickoff?

Anyway great question; a lot of people really do not understand what Jesus was saying here and your question gives us a great opportunity to point out some often neglected aspects of interpretation and application of Scripture. First, the whole issue of the “fool” and “folly” has to be understood in the broader context of Scripture. Solomon in the book of Proverbs has much to say about “the fool” and clearly has no problem applying this appellation to an entire category of human beings. As you note above (and as we detail in our book “Proverbs on Wealth and Wisdom”), the “fool” is not a clown, but a rebel. He is a fool, just because he insists on living life according to his own rules and ignores God’s. As such his life is full of pain, frustration, poverty, and self-deception.

Clearly, if God, through Solomon gave us so much identifying information about the “fool” He intended us to be able to identify such people so that (1) we would not emulate them and (2) we would not associate with them. Thus we MUST be able to do more than just have a “theoretical” understanding of what constitutes being a fool, we must also be able to recognize such people when we meet them. After all, if we cannot say, “This person is a fool” how could we ever then decide not to become like them?

That being said, we then have the Lord Jesus’ comments in Matthew 5:21-26. Again, as we have stated repeatedly, “context determines meaning.” If we want to understand what Jesus was saying here, we need to look at the overall context of His remarks. In this case, He had just finished affirming the abiding relevance and application of the Old Testament Law. Then in verse 21 He shows how the contemporary Jews were failing in their application of that Law by giving an illustration based on the sixth commandment. “Thou shalt not kill.”

Jesus said that being angry with your brother makes you guilty before the courts and that calling him “raca” (Aramaic for “fool”) makes him guilty enough to be convicted by the supreme court (the Sanhedrin) and calling him “fool” (in Greek-moros) is enough to make him guilty enough of eternal damnation.

There are several things possibly going on here some of which are a bit hard (at least for us) to understand. There seems to be an increasing penalty from simply being angry with one’s brother, to calling him a fool in Aramaic and finally calling him a fool in Greek. From the research we did in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia we do not find historic precedent for this type of judicial process. In other words, Jesus does not seem to be referring to actual judicial practices of his day; i.e., people were not arrested or convicted of calling each other “fools” in either Aramaic or Greek, let alone for simply being angry with each other.

Perhaps instead it ought to be understood that Jesus is making a statement about what the courts OUGHT to be doing, if in fact they were ruling properly according to God’s law. In other words, being unjustly angry with your brother is as sinful as murder; calling him a “fool” in the local vernacular is even worse, but announcing it in the universal language of the day is the ultimate. He certainly is trying to show that for all their external conformity to ritualistic religion, the Jews of His day were in flagrant violation of the Law of God; they could not console themselves that simply because they refrained from actual murder, they were innocent of violating the sixth commandment. Certainly, the Pharisees saw themselves as morally superior just because they avoided certain sins. Certainly, one of the prime purposes of this entire passage is to show that they were all guilty of sin. Thus the main point of Jesus’ comments here is to strip away the false piety that the Pharisees used to justify themselves.

But if Solomon called some people “fools” how does that square up with what Jesus said here? Well, we would suggest that in calling a particular person a “fool” one is making a moral judgment about their nature and character. Remember, the word “fool” is not really the equivalent of us saying today, “You idiot!” When we hurl that insult at someone, we are disparaging their intelligence; meaning that their words or actions are stupid, ill-informed, irrational, etc. While this is a serious insult, it does not carry the same connotations that the term “fool” had in Jesus time.

As mentioned earlier, the “fool” was a moral reprobate, in rebellion to God, devoured by his own appetites and therefore headed for temporal and eternal destruction just because he refused to accept admonition, correction or rebuke. Thus to call a man a “fool” in the Biblical sense is to call his salvation into question; more than that, you would be denying the very possibility of his salvation.

Clearly, there are people we all know who fit that category today; men who reject the law of God, spit on the gospel, living dissolute lives and are headed for destruction. To call such a man a “fool” would not necessarily be in conflict with what Jesus was saying here. After all, it is not inappropriate to call a man who lies habitually, a “liar.” However, if you are angry with your brother because you have some unresolved conflict with him, and in the heat of the moment scream out “you fool!” then you WOULD be violating what Jesus was addressing here.

The context is clearly about sinful anger and hurtful words. The term “fool” ought to be understood as one of the most destructive and painful accusations one can make against another because it implies that such a person is beyond redemption. But who are we to make that statement lightly, just because we are angry with someone? To do so is blasphemy because only God can make that kind of assessment. In His righteous wrath, He does bring His eternal (and temporal) judgments against wicked, foolish men who deny His righteous rule. But that is HIS right as the final judge, not ours. For us to issue such a declaration is implicitly to assume to ourselves the prerogatives of Divinity. Hence, someone committing such an offense is in fact blaspheming and therefore guilty enough of eternal damnation.

Let me see if I can illustrate this with a common example today; why is it that we rightly see the phrase “God damn it” as blasphemy? Most people do not really understand why it is wrong to say this; it is just something “good” Christians ought not to say. However in reality, the reason why “God damn it” is blasphemy is because we are calling down the eternal wrath of God just because WE are angry, impatient or frustrated! God’s damnation is real; it is eternal, and there are some things that really do deserve His condemnation. But it is usually blasphemy for us to say this just (at least 99.9% of the time) we are not thinking about God’s righteous standards or His eternal judgment, but rather that we are outraged at something; and hence we are taking His name in vain! We are judging by OUR standards, not God’s and invoking HIS name to do OUR will. That my friend is blasphemy and taking the Lord’s name in vain.

I think it is the same with calling our brother a “fool” in the heat of the moment; this is not just an insult but rather a moral judgment; a moral judgment we have no right to make.

For the sake of discussion, let’s compare and contrast calling a man a fool in the sense that Jesus meant to calling a man a “bastard” today; they are similar but not equivalent. The word “bastard” was once s a perfectly “good” English term which simply referred to a person whose parents were not married. Today, the word has very negative connotations; so negative we do not use that word anymore in polite company. If we want to make a statement about whether or not a person’s parents were married when he was born, we today substitute the word “illegitimate.”

But originally, that offensive term (just writing it makes me feel “uneasy” as I am sure it makes you feel reading it) was just the normal, English word that applied to certain people; it wasn’t a “bad” word any more than “illegitimate” is a “bad word” today. Granted, in previous ages when there was a moral consequence to fornication, to identify a person as a “bastard” was hurtful; just because it meant that such a person was outside of mainstream culture. Nobody likes to have their shortcomings pointed out; even when the “pointed” remark is true!

Over time, in popular usage, the original English word came to have a moral connotation as well as a technical definition; since a woman, who bore a child out of wedlock, was usually of poor moral character, her “illegitimate” child grew up in an immoral environment, without a father to teach and correct him. Thus by the time he was an adult, he usually lived an immoral, self-serving life. This is clearly what Hebrews 12:8 is talking about; “illegitimate children” (the actual Greek word here is the English equivalent of “bastards”) grow up without discipline and therefore tend to live godless lives.

Thus today, when some men call other men “bastards” they are not usually referring to a person’s parentage but rather to their character; i.e., implying that they are a self-serving, nasty person with no regard for others. The reason why this word is SO offensive is that it is asserting that the other person is of poor moral character. Seldom, if ever do people use this word to insult another’s parents. The meaning has changed.

But as offensive as the term “bastard” is today, it STILL does not have the same quality or intensity as the word “fool” had in the first century. A “fool” by definition was unsalvageable because he was uncorrectable. Not even the word “bastard” has that implication; i.e., even self-serving, egotistical, cruel persons with no regard for others MIGHT one day repent!

Thus the most offensive term we have today does not even begin to carry the depth of moral condemnation that the Biblical term “fool” does. Therefore, to hurl it against one’s brother, simply because one was angry, frustrated or irritated with him was not just blasphemous towards God but the most destructive thing one could say to one’s brother. To say such a horrible thing lightly, just because one is angry or upset shows complete disregard and contempt for another human being. This I think is what Jesus was getting at in Matthew 5:22.

Our word “fool” does not carry this same connotation. In fact, it has taken us three pages to even define the word and therefore it is not unreasonable to assume that when we use the word today, most of us do not have the Biblical definition in mind at all. When we call someone a “fool” we usually mean that they are acting stupidly or irrationally. In medieval times, Kings used to have “fools” who entertained them; they were the stand-up comedians of their day. Today, we can “fool around” meaning just acting silly or having fun (and of course there is as seriously immoral aspect to “fooling around” as well).

Remember, translating from one language to another is never a simple task because there is not always “one for one” equivalence between a word in one language with a word in another. The word “fool” may be the best translation we have available of the Greek or Hebrew terms, but it is not and exact equivalence.

OK, now that we have done the background work, is it ever legitimate for a Christian to use the term “fool” in describing another? Yes, I think there is. Jesus called the Pharisees “fools” in Matthew 23:17-but as the incarnate God, He certainly has the right to pronounce judgment that we might not have. Yet clearly, there were some people He could legitimately call fools and expected His disciples to recognize the appropriateness of His description. The apostle Paul clearly calls idol worshippers “fools” in Romans 1:22, thus we have at least one divinely approved instance where the term can be rightly used. Paul also uses the term “fool” in 1 Corinthians 15:36 to refer to “Christians” who deny the bodily resurrection. And there are other examples in Scripture; sometimes using the Old Testament definition of “fool” and sometimes using the more contemporary Greek definition as a “block-head” or “stupid” (much as we would use the word today).

However, we do have in the New Testament at least three distinct incidents when some men are legitimately called fools; (1) Pharisees who denied the Messiah (2) Idol worshippers and (3) “Christians” who denied or ridiculed the bodily resurrection (most likely because they had adopted some form of Greek philosophy).

In each instance, a moral evaluation was being made; never was this simply an insult hurled in a fit of temper, but a sober evaluation of serious doctrinal error and the stubborn refusal of men to repent of that error. Thus, there may well be cases today when this same kind of thoughtful evaluation is perfectly appropriate.

For example, a man who teaches heresy, and refuses to repent, might be convicted of that heresy in a church court. Rather than repent and change his thinking, he insists on maintaining his error. This man is a “fool” and could be rightly called such, not as an insult, but as an assessment of his character.

Another example might be a professing, baptized “Christian” who stubbornly insists on live according to his own rules and ignores God’s law who then finds himself in trouble time and time again. Furthermore, he refuses to receive counsel, correction or rebuke, fulfilling all the requirements of the “fool” in Proverbs. Perhaps there is no church court to convict such a man of his “folly” (perhaps because he belongs to a church which does not even have church courts). Such a man might well be considered a “fool” after the steps of Matthew 18:15 are followed in so far as they can be. One might even say to such a person, “You are living like a fool” without violating our Lord’s instruction in Matthew 5. One certainly has the right to end all association with such a person (Titus 3:10).

Finally, one might well say, in general, “There are many professed Christians who are fools” and this could be an apt and accurate description. However, specifically applying this generality to a particular person risks the judgment Jesus warned about and therefore ought to be avoided. After all, we will be judged by the standard we judge others. If we declare that “So and so is a fool” we are likely to find that God will then judge us as we have judged our brother. We might have made here an accurate assessment of a person’s moral character, but the risks are very high. We cannot see the heart and ought to be very careful in any assessment we make about another; simple humility and charity ought to make us cautious in such things. Perhaps the best way to deal with that kind of person is to carefully bridle our tongues and learn how to say, “So and so is ACTING like a fool” (cf. James 3:2).

In conclusion, remember that the basic Scriptural principle regarding speech is that it is ALWAYS supposed to build others up, not tear them down (Eph 4:29) and that we will be judged for every word spoken. Hence, insults by definition are never appropriate for Christians because the whole point of an insult is to hurt, rather than heal. Christians are supposed to love one another and help one another become what God has called them to be. Thus we must not intentionally try to hurt one another with our speech.

Yet, having said that, simply because a word hurts, does not mean that it is sin. If our motivation is to call evil, what God calls evil, and to bring our brothers and sisters back from sin, it might be perfectly appropriate to identify their sin for what it is, even if it “hurts” them in doing so. This is a recurring problem today where Christians cannot seem to find a balance; they KNOW they are not supposed to intentionally hurt one another, but often err by refusing often to call sin, “sin” and therefore help bring a brother to repentance. Instead, they often refuse to confront, even in love, and their brother then continues in his error, storing up judgment for himself. This is not dissimilar to a parent who refuses to spank a disobedient child; they are so concerned about causing their children pain, that they do not correct destructive behavior. Their feelings have taken precedence over their duty to raise a child in the “fear and admonition of the Lord.” As a consequence, they will face judgment one day when their child grows up to be a dissolute, immoral, disrespectful “child of hell.”

Let us be blunt; a man who commits adultery and does not repent is an adulterer. A man who lies and does not repent is a liar. A man, who steals and does not repent, is a thief. None of these words carry the same amount of emotional connotation as some of the culturally offensive terms we discussed earlier. But all of these words correctly identify unrepentant sinful behavior and we can RIGHTLY use them, IF our purpose is to call such men to repentance. We are not being judgmental or hyper-critical or nasty IF we look to our own hearts and recognize our own sinful temptations (Gal 6:1), and then reach out in love to our brother to win him back from sin.

And therefore, if a man is resisting God, living contrary to His law, refuses to repent, will not hear correction then it might well be appropriate to label his actions “folly” and even go so far as to call him a “fool” just as long as we are trying to bring him to repentance, and not just hurling an hurtful insult. This is called, “speaking the truth in love” and something we all need to work on.