Jump to content
IGNORED

Did Jesus really say we'd go to hell for calling someone a fool?


unworthyservant

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  26
  • Topic Count:  61
  • Topics Per Day:  0.03
  • Content Count:  9,602
  • Content Per Day:  4.02
  • Reputation:   7,795
  • Days Won:  21
  • Joined:  09/11/2017
  • Status:  Online

7 hours ago, unworthyservant said:

I'm curious what others think of the instance in Matthew 5:22 where Jesus says "whosoever shall say "thou fool" shall be in danger of hell fire. For years I've heard people who believe that you can call folks all kinds of things but calling them the word "fool" is at least worse than the others and in the extreme can doom one's soul to hell. I believe this is a classic example of taking a phrase or word spoken by Jesus out of context and that's how many misnomers begin. Now, before looking at the entire discourse and putting this phrase in context, allow me to divulge on the idea that there is a word (fool) that is at the heart of the matter. First, Jesus never said the word fool. It didn't even exist in his day. it is a word that was in use in 17th century England and first appears in the Bible when the writers of the KJV of the bible used it as a translation from the Greek moros, from the earliest know transcripts. Now Jesus spoke Aramaic, so we don't actually know the exact word that the Greeks translated moros but the point is, does anyone think that God entrusted the writers of the King James Bible to translate a word that's use would damn one soul? What if they had decided to translate the word as "idiot"? Then, by that reasoning it would be OK to call someone a fool but not an idiot? And while we're on words what about Raca? I've never heard anyone call someone raca. Actually, while raca is actually the word used in the original Greek and was left untranslated in the KJV. It is actually not a Greek word but believed to be a Greek spelling of the Aramaic word reka which literally meant "empty one" but was probably a slang for empty headed or or in other words foolish. So why would they choose to translate moros to foolish and leave raca, which is a Greek word with very similar meaning untranslated. Now to look at the context, I'll not reprint the entire chapter here but will quote from Verse 17. "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them. 18For I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19So then, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do likewise will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever practices and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven 21Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, ‘Raca,’ will be subject to the council. But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be subject to the fire of hell." (The underlining has nothing to do with anything other that when I copied and pasted the verses from the Study Bible online, that is how it came out). So looking verse by verse we first see that in verse 17, Christ states that He did not come to abolish the law (another subject in itself) but to fulfill it. Then in verse 18 He goes on to state that " Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."(KJV, sorry about the use of multiple translations but it seemed appropriate given the subject) This should put to rest the question as to whether we should obey the "law". Christ came to fulfill the law but Himself stated that He did not come to abolish it. But to the point at hand, it's simply context. He goes on the state that "whoever breaks one of the least of the commandments and teaches others to do likewise will be called least in the kingdom of Heaven and whoever practices and teaches them will be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven". So, Jesus is admonishing us that we must do our best to obey the Old Testament commandments. In verse 20 He says (as he often did) that unless our righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees you will never enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Notice He doesn't say if we have more faith but unless we are more righteous. (Again, another discussion for another day). Now comes the question at hand. Christ begins with quoting the law about murder and then says, "I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to punishment. Again, anyone who says to his brother raca, will be subject to the council, but anyone who says "you fool" will be subject to the fire of Hell." Some translations use the word and instead of but in the last line.  Since the earliest existing Greek manuscript only says δ, which isn't really an and or a but as we know them but what's called by scholars a  conjunctive discourse marker and is in itself neither adversative (but) nor continuative (and). Most scholars agree that it should be considered to be continuative as usually in the Greek the adversative  would appear as the conjunctive αλλά. That said, all Jesus is doing here is clarifying the underlying meaning of the law. He begins with the Law concerning murder and then goes on to explain that not only is murder a sin but the anger and it's manifestations, such as the calling of names is also sin. Just as when He taught us that not only is fornication and adultery sin but so is the underlying lust that leads to them. So, it's not a comparative about words or punishment either for that matter but simply Christ further explaining sin. And to think that all this controversy is due to a little word that had it's beginnings in the KJV, BUT.


Few dare recognize 'adaptions' and errors in transliteration from Aramaic. Greek is OFTEN wrong. The Masoretic is different to the Septuagint in many places. Yeshua was saying that if you DISMISS a person that He came to save, then you will answer for it 'In the council'. That means the Throne Court of all the holy ones and humans that get appointed there. That should be threat enough to get people to be careful what they say about another. I have been a recipient of such, and I can tell you it is not only soul destroying but also goes flatly against the Love of God.

Do justly, love mercy and walk humbly with your God. (today's message to me)

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Mars Hill
  • Followers:  25
  • Topic Count:  6
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  2,679
  • Content Per Day:  1.41
  • Reputation:   3
  • Days Won:  16
  • Joined:  01/19/2019
  • Status:  Offline

no He never said that.  He said if you have called someone "stupid" you're a lawbreaker....and need a Saviour.

  • Thumbs Up 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Mars Hill
  • Followers:  25
  • Topic Count:  6
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  2,679
  • Content Per Day:  1.41
  • Reputation:   3
  • Days Won:  16
  • Joined:  01/19/2019
  • Status:  Offline

Just now, Debp said:

While we won't be condemned for calling someone a name, I think it's best to watch our words.   This helps us inwardly, I think.   Also, it's more loving to others.

I think His main point was we were all condemned already.   :)   That  must have been an astonishing statement to  those used to  judging their  own righteousness by their keeping of the  Law.  To have to consider something so "minor" in our own minds, which almost everyone must have done at some point, was enough to convict us as lawbreakers must have been challenging :).

We know now that the Law, as perfect, good and right  as it is, was given BECAUSE being born in sin, NO "son  of Adam" could be called "righteous" based on keeping the  Law.  The Law was given as a "child trainer"....to lead us by the hand to  KNOWING we needed Him.  And the  only way  we could ever be "righteous" is by Him giving  us HIS righteousness.

He was speaking  into a culture, led by "religious" men who had missed the point and been teaching righteousness was in keeping the Law. 

There is only ONE who was declared righteous by keeping  the Law.   And that sinless one, Jesus Christ, then paid the debt of death OUR sin and iniquity deserved and earned the legal right to cover any  who would  come  to Him with  His own righteousness.  The first Adam failed the test....the last Adam retook the test and passed it.

 

Quote
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many.

 

  • Thumbs Up 1
  • Loved it! 1
  • Praise God! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  24
  • Topic Count:  40
  • Topics Per Day:  0.02
  • Content Count:  1,459
  • Content Per Day:  0.61
  • Reputation:   2,377
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  08/23/2017
  • Status:  Offline

9 hours ago, unworthyservant said:

I'm curious what others think of the instance in Matthew 5:22 where Jesus says "whosoever shall say "thou fool" shall be in danger of hell fire.

21 “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the court.And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.  Matt 5:21-22 NIV

22 ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι πᾶς ὁ ὀργιζόμενος τῷ ἀδελφῷ αὐτοῦ ἔνοχος ἔσται τῇ κρίσει· ὃς δ’ ἂν εἴπῃ τῷ ἀδελφῷ αὐτοῦ· Ῥακά, ἔνοχος ἔσται τῷ συνεδρίῳ· ὃς δ’ ἂν εἴπῃ· Μωρέ, ἔνοχος ἔσται εἰς τὴν γέενναν τοῦ πυρός.  Matt 5:22 SBLGNT

Raka is basically a run of the mill daily insult.  It seemed to be an insult of one's intelligence.  I.e., Perhaps something like the old "Hey blockhead" or the more modern "Hey dumb-<expletive>".   In contrast, More, seems to have an implication about one's morals or value as a human and some uses of it and related words pertain to the ungodly.  It is perhaps more related to our more theologically based insults telling someone where to go or referencing their status with regard to spiritual condemnation.  As far as I can tell, Raka is an insult and More is potentially a curse depending on the tone and intention of the speaker.

There seem to be two general approaches to this passage by different comentators.  The first is that Jesus is giving three escalating things which are all subject to judgement to death.  Being angry, being angry enough to insult (Raka), and being angry enough to call down judgement on someone (More), are all capital offenses spiritually speaking. The second is that Jesus is pointing out that anger itself can bring similar consequences to murder.  Merely insult someone and you'll face legal consequences.  However, call down judgement from heaven on them and you'll face that yourself.

I tend to fit within the 2nd group.   My best guess at the general meaning is this.  It contrasts annoyance with deep intentional anger.   Calling someone a blockhead or the like can set you up for a lawsuit for slander in the eyes of man.  Intentionally telling someone to go to <theological term deleted in this context> puts you in danger of it yourself in the eyes of God.  I think the comparison Jesus is setting up is being angry enough to murder with being angry enough to  curse someone.  It's one thing to be annoyed with someone.  It's by far another to be so angry that we see someone as subhuman, worthless, and worthy of God's judgement.

Anyway, that's a short and quick set of thoughts.  There's potentially more to be considered by the context of the surrounding passages and the potential use of the same word "brother" in this passage as is used later in the NT for believers.

 

 

  • Thumbs Up 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Non-Conformist Theology
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  118
  • Topics Per Day:  0.06
  • Content Count:  4,361
  • Content Per Day:  2.35
  • Reputation:   2,109
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  02/25/2019
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  02/03/1953

11 hours ago, unworthyservant said:

I'm curious what others think of the instance in Matthew 5:22 where Jesus says "whosoever shall say "thou fool" shall be in danger of hell fire. For years I've heard people who believe that you can call folks all kinds of things but calling them the word "fool" is at least worse than the others and in the extreme can doom one's soul to hell. I believe this is a classic example of taking a phrase or word spoken by Jesus out of context and that's how many misnomers begin. Now, before looking at the entire discourse and putting this phrase in context, allow me to divulge on the idea that there is a word (fool) that is at the heart of the matter. First, Jesus never said the word fool. It didn't even exist in his day. it is a word that was in use in 17th century England and first appears in the Bible when the writers of the KJV of the bible used it as a translation from the Greek moros, from the earliest know transcripts. Now Jesus spoke Aramaic, so we don't actually know the exact word that the Greeks translated moros but the point is, does anyone think that God entrusted the writers of the King James Bible to translate a word that's use would damn one soul? What if they had decided to translate the word as "idiot"? Then, by that reasoning it would be OK to call someone a fool but not an idiot? And while we're on words what about Raca? I've never heard anyone call someone raca. Actually, while raca is actually the word used in the original Greek and was left untranslated in the KJV. It is actually not a Greek word but believed to be a Greek spelling of the Aramaic word reka which literally meant "empty one" but was probably a slang for empty headed or or in other words foolish. So why would they choose to translate moros to foolish and leave raca, which is a Greek word with very similar meaning untranslated. Now to look at the context, I'll not reprint the entire chapter here but will quote from Verse 17. "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them. 18For I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19So then, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do likewise will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever practices and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven 21Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, ‘Raca,’ will be subject to the council. But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be subject to the fire of hell." (The underlining has nothing to do with anything other that when I copied and pasted the verses from the Study Bible online, that is how it came out). So looking verse by verse we first see that in verse 17, Christ states that He did not come to abolish the law (another subject in itself) but to fulfill it. Then in verse 18 He goes on to state that " Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."(KJV, sorry about the use of multiple translations but it seemed appropriate given the subject) This should put to rest the question as to whether we should obey the "law". Christ came to fulfill the law but Himself stated that He did not come to abolish it. But to the point at hand, it's simply context. He goes on the state that "whoever breaks one of the least of the commandments and teaches others to do likewise will be called least in the kingdom of Heaven and whoever practices and teaches them will be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven". So, Jesus is admonishing us that we must do our best to obey the Old Testament commandments. In verse 20 He says (as he often did) that unless our righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees you will never enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Notice He doesn't say if we have more faith but unless we are more righteous. (Again, another discussion for another day). Now comes the question at hand. Christ begins with quoting the law about murder and then says, "I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to punishment. Again, anyone who says to his brother raca, will be subject to the council, but anyone who says "you fool" will be subject to the fire of Hell." Some translations use the word and instead of but in the last line.  Since the earliest existing Greek manuscript only says δ, which isn't really an and or a but as we know them but what's called by scholars a  conjunctive discourse marker and is in itself neither adversative (but) nor continuative (and). Most scholars agree that it should be considered to be continuative as usually in the Greek the adversative  would appear as the conjunctive αλλά. That said, all Jesus is doing here is clarifying the underlying meaning of the law. He begins with the Law concerning murder and then goes on to explain that not only is murder a sin but the anger and it's manifestations, such as the calling of names is also sin. Just as when He taught us that not only is fornication and adultery sin but so is the underlying lust that leads to them. So, it's not a comparative about words or punishment either for that matter but simply Christ further explaining sin. And to think that all this controversy is due to a little word that had it's beginnings in the KJV, BUT.


There are consequences to what we do. If we call someone a fool, we will suffer. Note, I didn't say we'd suffer forever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  16
  • Topic Count:  104
  • Topics Per Day:  0.04
  • Content Count:  3,776
  • Content Per Day:  1.29
  • Reputation:   4,746
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  03/31/2016
  • Status:  Offline

11 hours ago, unworthyservant said:

No, he never said that.

He was showing the danger in his Sermon on the Mount of believe that your actions alone make you in or out with God.  That's what the people had been taught for too long.  

Jesus was taking some sinful behaviors and showing how they start in the heart.  

He was talking here of murder - pretty much everyone listening to him was NOT a literal murderer.

But Jesus showed that hate, anger, bitterness, and contempt to the point of verbally lashing out those feelings against someone makes you just as much a sinner and IN DANGER of hell as the next guy.  Not GOING TO hell, but in danger just as much as any sinner.

These people had been erroneously taught that as long as you didn't kill someone, you were good.  Jesus said you weren't.

  • Thumbs Up 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Senior Member
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  96
  • Topics Per Day:  0.06
  • Content Count:  645
  • Content Per Day:  0.38
  • Reputation:   298
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  08/11/2019
  • Status:  Offline

7 hours ago, Kristin said:

No. We are saved by grace. We learn to not call people fools by Grace. He changes us slowly but surely. 

 

7 hours ago, Kristin said:

No. We are saved by grace. We learn to not call people fools by Grace. He changes us slowly but surely. 

Sorry, somehow I copied your reply twice. I have received so many replies to this post that I will not be able to answer each individually. I am answering yours because I'm puzzled as to why you think my post has anything to do with being saved by grace. I totally agree. As for calling someone a fool, my point had nothing to do with calling someone a fool except to note how by a simple translation of a couple of words "Fool" and "but" many have come to the belief that somehow calling someone a fool is a greater sin than some others, when in reality the word "Fool" has nothing to do with it. Christ was simply pointing out to those who thought they were so righteous because they didn't murder that it's also a sin to call someone names in anger. The point of the post was to point out that we should take the entire context of what Christ said before zeroing in on a word and making it the subject. That's all. Has nothing to do with grace or following the Commandments.

  

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Senior Member
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  96
  • Topics Per Day:  0.06
  • Content Count:  645
  • Content Per Day:  0.38
  • Reputation:   298
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  08/11/2019
  • Status:  Offline

7 hours ago, Blood Bought 1953 said:

 

May I ask...... Who do you think the “ Fool” is ?

 

As to who the fool is, my post has nothing to do with who the fool is. The Bible has much to say on that subject but you miss the point. THERE IS NO FOOL in my post. It is about how we can get hung up on a word and how a couple of simple translation choices have made some people believe that Jesus is condemning the use of a single word. I was simply pointing out how this kind of misunderstanding could come about because of the translation of just a couple of words that may or may not have the meaning which many ascribe to them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Senior Member
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  96
  • Topics Per Day:  0.06
  • Content Count:  645
  • Content Per Day:  0.38
  • Reputation:   298
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  08/11/2019
  • Status:  Offline

7 hours ago, Justin Adams said:

Few dare recognize 'adaptions' and errors in transliteration from Aramaic. Greek is OFTEN wrong. The Masoretic is different to the Septuagint in many places. Yeshua was saying that if you DISMISS a person that He came to save, then you will answer for it 'In the council'. That means the Throne Court of all the holy ones and humans that get appointed there. That should be threat enough to get people to be careful what they say about another. I have been a recipient of such, and I can tell you it is not only soul destroying but also goes flatly against the Love of God.

Do justly, love mercy and walk humbly with your God. (today's message to me)

Thank you Justin. I didn't go into some of the details that you mention but you are the first to recognize the meaning of what I was saying.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...