Indeed, as is taking away from His words or adding to them to make them say what obviously is not the case. And in the case below, making this a blanket condemnation against all invectives would make the Lord, John the baptizer, and Paul, just for 3, into committing sin. For if you think "fool" qualifies as a unlawful attribution, how about,
Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold? (Matthew 23:17)
when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? (Matthew 3:7)
Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? (Matthew 23:33)
Then said Paul unto him, God shall smite thee, thou whited wall: for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law? (Acts 23:3)
“But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, ‘You good-for-nothing,’ shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.
In context it is referring to unjust anger and its expressions, and in no way censures all such language any more than the preceding verse condemns all killing;
Ye 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: (Mat 5:21)
In the KJV 5:22 it says
But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. (Mat 5:22)
The "without a cause" is missing in so-called "better manuscripts," which are considered better under the premise that older are better, but the later mss could well be more accurate copies of even old mss which wore out.
Someone debating this in a CARM forum stated,
I did the research (BibleWorks 9.0; Logos 5) to identify which early mss had εἰκῆis (without cause) or not.
"Without cause" is not in Sinaticus A, but is in Sinaticus B. The entire verse is missing in Sinaticus C, D.
"Without cause" is not in Alexandrius, but that is because the entire verse is missing in all three mss A,B,C.
"Without cause" isn't in Vaticanus A, but the entire verse is missing in B,C,D! [he labels all the above as corrupt texts]
"Without cause" is in the Sadihica Egyptian Greek Text as well as the Aramaic Peshitta.
"Without cause" is in the Old Syriac Curetonian as well as the Old Syriac Sinaiticus.
"Without cause" is in quotes of Matthew 5:22 in the Early Church Fathers Irenaeus and Commodianus:
the man also who is angry with his brother without a cause- Irenaeus of Lyons. (1885). Irenæus against Heresies. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (Vol. 1, p. 408). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature
not angry with thy devout brother without a cause-Commodianus, The Instructions LXXX, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol IV, page 218.
Cyprian, in his Epistle LIV, doesn't have "Without cause" but then he omits most of the verse, giving only a summary of it.
the Lord says in His Gospel, “Whosoever shall say to his brother, Thou fool; and whosoever shall say, Raca, shall be in danger of the Gehenna of fire,”-Cyprian of Carthage. (1886). The Epistles of Cyprian. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), R. E. Wallis (Trans.), Fathers of the Third Century: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Novatian, Appendix (Vol. 5, p. 340). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company.
Another commenter here writes,
In the newer versions, “without a cause” is missing in the older MSS and so the teaching, if isolated, becomes a blanket prohibition against anger and that there is no cause or reason for anger that is justifiable. As we know, the Bible is full of places where the anger of the Lord was kindled. So, we know that no all anger is sinful – such as the Lord’s righteous indignation. So, this passage makes it unclear about that and could possibly cause confusion if a person is not knowledgeable about how to study the scriptures deeper to find out more about the subject. “Without a cause” is really a disclaimer or a “qualifying” clause that makes the teaching more clear. Some may argue that the words were not in the originals, but they really don’t know that either. So, to be safe I would go with the KJV and NKJV reading.
In a previous post I agreed that it is entirely within God’s province to call a fool a fool. But I don’t agree with any explanation that negates a clear command of the Lord Jesus Christ. He prohibits saying to a brother ‘You fool.’ If you believe that only applies to cases of unjust anger, what can anyone say to you? For me, it is a command of Jesus, and I would never, ever, risk His wrath by disobeying.
Plus, I never have cause to say to anyone’s face, ‘You fool.’ Showing the love of Jesus Christ takes precedence over labeling others a fool. I read the following in the 5th chapter of Galatians, and it inclines me to find kinder, gentler and more patient words to use in such situations:
13 For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. 14 For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 15 But if you bite and devour one another, take care that you are not consumed by one another.
16 But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh. 17 For the flesh [g]sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you [h]please. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law. 19 Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: [i]immorality, impurity, sensuality, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, [j]factions, 21 envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. 24 Now those who [k]belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.
Let's not forget, also, that Jesus is teaching the religious leaders as well as the disciples that obeying the "letter" of the law cannot make one perfect and righteous. He was showing them the "spirit" of the law and that was where the self-righteousness collapsed. You don't commit adultery? So what, you commit adultery when you even look at another woman and lust after her. You don't murder? So, what, you murder when you hate someone or disparage him by calling him a fool. We might be able to say we don't break the letter of the law, but our deceitful heart is exposed when compared to the spirit of the law. The law was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ.
I have enjoyed many of your responses over the past few months. However, I would respectfully disagree that the above is a solution for the apparent trouble with this passage. Frankly, this is one of the milder difficulties Jesus presents. Tearing one's eye out seems monumentally more severe.
Notice, hermeneutically the story line commencing with the Torah (Pentateuch) has not developed to include Gentiles at the point of "According to Matthew". If Paul is correct that the Law is not yet "done away with" (Heb.) and we are not grafted in until the blood is shed (Eph. 2), then Jesus is in Matt. simply teaching more of the Law to the Jews.
After all, Matt. 5:48 puts the cherry on the sundae. And, the Law is ultimately found to be impossible to fulfill (Acts 15). Thus, we are here reading someone else's mail, not tenets for "Christian Living". This hermeneutical error has long plagued the RCC which focuses heavily on "obeying" the words of Jesus...only to fail miserably at every imaginable level.
And, for someone to repeat the so-called Lord's Prayer, while ignoring the final phrase, does incredible injustice to the demands Jesus was actually presenting. Talk about not taking Him seriously! But, the evangelical community has failed to distinguish the Gospel of Jesus Christ as grace, alone (Rom. 3, Eph. 2) and instead followed in the footprints of Rome.