Benton-Goldsmith Debate

Benton – Goldsmith Debate

On “Fools”

Can Christians use this word in confrontation with others under any circumstances?

Proposition #1It is right to use the English word "fool" when referring to peoplewho act like the Pharisees of Matthew 23.
Affirmed: Terry W. Benton
Denied: Mark Goldsmith

Proposition #2:It is never right to use the English word "fool" when referring topeople who act like the Pharisees of Matthew 23.
Affirmed: Mark Goldsmith
Denied: Terry W. Benton






2009


Benton – Goldsmith Debate
1st Affirmative

Proposition #1It is right to use the English word "fool" when referring to peoplewho act like the Pharisees of Matthew 23.Affirmed: Terry W. BentonDenied: Mark Goldsmith Proposition #2:It is never right to use the English word "fool" when referring topeople who act like the Pharisees of Matthew 23.Affirmed: Mark GoldsmithDenied: Terry W. Benton

These propositions are agreed to and will be discussed in this order. There will be three exchanges each per proposition and the length of the debate will involve no more than 3,000 words each per exchange. Mark has agreed to discuss this issue with me and I will begin my first affirmative.

Defining the Proposition

It is right – means it is proper, scripturally acceptable, within bounds of righteous behavior and within bounds of God’s authority.
“to use the English word “fool” – the word in English by which the Greek word “moros” has come to be translated into the English language.
“when referring to people” – means when speaking of or to certain people, these are certain people who are qualified by the next phrase in the proposition.
“who act like the Pharisees of Matthew 23” – the Pharisees were notorious liars (John 8:44f) and hypocrites who deserved to be called “fools and blind”. Indeed they were fools and blind and there are people LIKE them today who need to hear these words of rebuke.

The Proposition Related To Matthew 5:20-26

We will consider the context of Jesus statement that “whoever says “you fool” shall be in danger of hell-fire. Of necessity, we will have to consider whether Jesus had something specifically in mind, a particular use of the word that does not incriminate Him in His own behavior in Matthew 23 and other places where Jesus DOES use the word. We want to know if Jesus sinned because He used the word, or did He NOT sin because He was speaking of a particular use of the term, not an absolute forbiddance of ANY use of the term. If the context shows that Jesus was not forbidding ALL use of the term, but a particular use of the term, then Jesus did not sin. But, if Jesus was forbidding “whoever” to use that term ever at all, then Jesus and Paul and many other Bible writers fall into danger of hell-fire. They all sinned on this particular point. It is inescapable that Jesus SINNED if He was forbidding ALL use of the word “fool”, because Jesus used the word frequently, even within His sermon on the mount. My opponent will have a hard time rescuing Jesus from the sin of hypocrisy, and the sin of violating this righteous rule. The Savior had to be righteous, without sin, in order to pay for our sins. If Jesus sinned in using this forbidden word, then we are still in our sins and our hope and faith is in vain. A sinner cannot pay for our sins. Only the spotless lamb of God could pay for our sins. If Jesus said “whoever says “you fool” under any circumstances will be in danger of hell-fire, then Jesus said it, violated the rule, and is in danger of hell-fire. Mark will have to show that Jesus either:

1) did not have to do right, or
2) did not have to do what he said “whoever” (everybody) would have to do (Matthew 5:22), or
3) will have to admit that Jesus and Paul did wrong and sinned, or
4) will have to agree with me that Jesus was NOT forbidding ALL use of this word (fool).

If he says that Jesus did not have to do right (#1), we will prove beyond doubt that He did have to keep the Law and be completely righteous. He had best not choose to take that position. If Mark says that Jesus did not have to do what He said “whoever” (everybody) would have to do (#2), then we will show that Jesus did have to submit to everything He said was righteous. Mark had better not choose 1 and 2 above. But, neither would it be good for Mark to choose number 3 above. That is self-evident. However, other than 4 above there is no other alternative. My proposition says:

It is right to use the English word "fool" when referring to peoplewho act like the Pharisees of Matthew 23.

I affirm that proposition because: 1) Jesus did not sin, and 2) the context of Jesus’ statement in Matt.5:22 shows that He was forbidding a CERTAIN use of the term, not ALL use of the term. So, if it is the case that Jesus was forbidding a certain use of the term and not ALL use of the term, then we can show that Jesus did not violate the rule of righteousness when He used the term in a legitimate way in a different context from what He forbade in Matt.5:22.

The Context of Matthew 5:22

The subject matter is how the Pharisees handled the issue of MURDER. Jesus is going to show that murder in the heart is also reason to be brought before God’s council and judgment. First, disciples of Christ must have a righteousness that exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees. Their righteousness was superficial and external. The law forbade hatred and certain types of anger and bitterness (a form of murder in the heart). Jesus said you have heard them forbidding murder, you don’t hear them forbidding anger
with his brother. Anger or internal rage is what precedes murder. The Pharisees would condemn Cain for murdering his brother, but righteousness according to God’s law would have forbidden his raging anger that had no justifiable cause. God condemned his attitude. Sin was “crouching at the door” when Cain’s countenance had fallen. When pouting turned to jealous anger. Jesus is saying that rather than it just being a sin to murder, it is a sin to be in an uncontrolled state of anger, and to then express that anger in words like “raca”. Here is anger, short of the act of murder, but anger expressed in indignant terms to murder a person’s self-worth. Consider this word “raca”.

RACA

Nabal is an example of a case that should come before the council. He was hurling the kind of degrading insults that Jesus and righteousness would forbid. The Pharisees would have overlooked this, but would have acted on murder alone. David realized that Nabal’s contempt was murder in the heart and deserved the death sentence as much as the act of murder.
1 Sam 25:39
39 When David heard that Nabal was dead, he said, "Praise be to the Lord , who has upheld my cause against Nabal for treating me with contempt. He has kept his servant from doing wrong and has brought Nabal's wrongdoing down on his own head."
What Nabal had done was “hurl insults”, which is what is involved with “raca”.
1 Sam 25:14-17
One of the servants told Nabal's wife Abigail: "David sent messengers from the desert to give our master his greetings, but he hurled insults at them. 15 Yet these men were very good to us. They did not mistreat us, and the whole time we were out in the fields near them nothing was missing. 16 Night and day they were a wall around us all the time we were herding our sheep near them. 17 Now think it over and see what you can do, because disaster is hanging over our master and his whole household. He is such a wicked man that no one can talk to him."

INSULT
Nabal had responded to the polite solicitation of David's men with an insolent refusal. David was intending to avenge himself, but Abigail, Nabal's wife (and later David's), successfully appealed to him not to take vengeance with his own hands. When that decision was made, "the Lord smote Nabal, and he died" (1 Sam 25:38).
Numerous passages in the Psalms call upon Yahweh to act against the psalmists' insulters. In Ps 69 the psalmist says, "the insults of those who insult thee fall upon me" (v. 9). Here the correlation is between insults to God and insults to the people of God. It is on the basis of this correlation that, after eloquent expression of the insults that have been given him (v. 20), the psalmist appeals to God to pour out His indignation upon those who have insulted him (vv. 22-28).

This correlation, however, does not warrant vengeance by the insulted person. This is clear in David's case against Nabal. Indeed, Lam 3:30 tells us that it is good for a young man to "give his cheek to the smiter, and be filled with insults" (cf. Matt 5:39). The principle of reciprocity is clear here (cf. Lam 3:61-66), but it is balanced by the recognition that we also have sinned (v. 42), by appeals for modesty and educability (v. 40), and especially by the assurance of the compassion of God (vv. 31-33). Similarly, one is a fool who reacts passionately to insult (Prov 12:16); a wise person stays calm when insulted. Passionate retaliation for insult is always wrong. This advice concerning reaction to insult is both followed and developed by Paul, who endured insults "for the sake of Christ" (2 Cor 12:10).

Jesus' explication of the true meaning of the law in Matt 5:21 moves from the prohibition of murder to the prohibition of insult. Both the murderer and the person calling another "Raca" count the object of their act, a person made in the image of God, as of little worth. That the correlation of relationships to people with the relationship to God is operative here too is clear from the subsequent saying about leaving the altar to make peace with an offended brother. Gk. ‎raká ‎is a transcription of the Aram. ‎rêq¹°‎. This Aramaic insult, in turn, is related to Hebr. ‎rêq‎, an adjective meaning "empty," to which the vocative ending is added (TDNT, VI, 974 ). It very likely meant "empty-headed one" and thus something like our "block-head." (from International Standard Bible Encyclopedia)

It is a difficult word to trace down, but it seems to come from a word of contempt that is essentially “spitting” at a person with a word of contempt.

Raca
vain, empty, worthless, only found in Matt 5:22. The Jews used it as a word of contempt. It is derived from a root meaning "to spit."
(from Easton's Bible Dictionary)

Now consider that Jesus is taking the topic of MURDER by degrees.

Chaldee ‎reeyqa‎, "worthless, vain man" (James 2:20; Judg 9:4; 11:3). Expressing contempt of one as at once despicable and worthless; three degrees of angry bitterness, and of corresponding punishment, are described Matt 5:22. (from Fausset's Bible Dictionary)

Now, if Jesus is speaking of murder in the heart by use of bitter and angry words, then is He forbidding the use of the word under all circumstances, or is He forbidding the kind of expressions of contempt and anger that uses such words to murder the heart and spirit and worth of another person? For example, is it contemptuous anger to tell an atheist that he is a fool if he cannot see God in His creation? (Psa.14:1; Rom.1:20-22). No! It is not the word itself, but the way the word is used that determines whether it is lawful or unlawful.



What We Are Not Debating

We are not discussing the propriety of using murderous words spoken in bitter hatred. Though Jesus used the words “fools and foolish” He was not speaking these words out of personal hatred to murder their self-worth but to awaken their sense of direction. “Don’t be a fool” is an appropriate expression when trying to awaken a person’s sense of objectiveness and balance in thinking clearly about their direction and end-results.

We are not saying that it is always, under all circumstances and all motivations, right to say “you fool”. There are clearly times when motivations are murderous in nature. The use of the terms “fool” and “foolish” out of such personal anger and hatred are clearly not authorized and are clearly forbidden. However, there are other circumstances and motivations which would make the terms quite proper and appropriate. We will talk about some of those appropriate circumstances later in the presentation of evidence.

What We ARE Debating

Because of Goldsmth’s misuse of Matthew 5:22, he is logically forced to argue that Jesus is in danger of hell fire. Why? Because the passage says "WHOEVER" says "you Fool" shall be in danger of hell fire". Jesus said it (Matt.23). So, Jesus is in danger of hell fire. Is that right? Not at all. But, if Goldsmith is right in his usage of Matt.5:22, then it is inescapable that Jesus is in danger of hell fire. The fact of the matter is that there is a contextual matter that speaks of the REASON such terms may endanger one. It is not THAT a certain word is used, but HOW and WHY a word is used that puts one in danger of hell fire. We can say without reservation that Jesus did NOT violate His own rule. But, GOLDSMITH misuses the passage and misunderstands the point Jesus was making.

It must be remembered that Jesus’ comments in Matthew 5:22 were made within a context where He was condemning unrighteous anger (5:21-26). Whereas the Pharisees condemned murder, but overlooked the evil emotions and attitudes that sometimes led to the shedding of innocent blood, Jesus condemned both the actions and the thoughts. Instead of dealing with only “peripheral” problems, Jesus went to the heart of the matter.

Like the unrighteousness that characterized the Pharisees’ charitable deeds (Matthew 6:1-4), prayers (6:5-15), fasting (16-18), and judgments (7:1-5), Jesus also condemned their unrighteous anger. [NOTE: Jesus did not condemn all anger (cf. Ephesians 4:26; John 2:13-17), only unrighteous anger.] It was in this context that Jesus warned against the use of the word “fool.” Jesus was not prohibiting a person from calling people “fools” if it was done in an appropriate manner (cf. Psalm 14:1), but He was forbidding it when done in the spirit of malicious contempt. He “warned against using the word fool as a form of abuse” that indicated “hatred in one’s heart toward others”. As in many other situations, it seems that the attitude, rather than actual words, is the focus of the prohibition.

The issue here is that anger is associated with murder. Do not lose the connection between verses 21 and 22. Jesus is looking at the command, "You shall not murder," and is giving the background for it. If you are going to obey this command, it is not enough simply to have never killed anyone. The condition of your heart is what is being examined before God. You can be a murderer in your heart even though you have not carried it out in your deeds.

Jesus simply says, "It isn't the issue of murder alone; it's the issue of anger and hatred in your heart. You cannot justify yourself because you don't kill, because if there's hatred in your heart, you are the same as a murderer." Jesus taught that anger is the root of murder and, consequently, merits equal punishment. Our Lord was saying that what goes on inside of you is what God judges. In terms of the judgment of which you are worthy, you may never kill anyone, but you are just as guilty in God's eyes.

1 John 3:15 (NKJV) Whoever hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.

Though anger is a serious sin, there is a righteous anger that we need to talk about, even though that is not what Jesus means here. For example, there was a time when Jesus took a cord and started driving people out of the Temple (Jn. 2:13-17). There are times when God's indignation reaches its absolute limit and explodes in vengeance. There are also times when a believer has a right to be angry. In fact, I believe that the holier we get, the angrier we should be getting about some things. Abortion, injustice, lying deceit and hypocrisy should arouse righteous anger in us. We ought to have the kind of anger that is not sin: "Be ye angry, and sin not..." (Eph. 4:26a). There is a right kind of anger.

When Christ got angry, it was not because someone hurt his ego or thwarted his will. He got angry when he experienced sinful behavior that was harmful to the person and to others. And his anger was without malice or contempt for the sinner:

Keep in mind that we are talking about a particular KIND of anger. There is “righteous indignation” kind of anger, and there is carnal anger. Jesus’ anger was righteously motivated, concerned about truth and righteousness, not a personal insult to his pride that stirred carnal anger. So, as we are connecting Jesus’ words in Matt.5:22 to the contextual subject of “murder”, we are forced by the evidence to consider:

1. Jesus was speaking of carnal anger like Cain had and the contemptuous words like Nabal used out of carnal anger.
2. All anger is not wrong. Jesus was righteously angry at times, yet without sin (“be angry and do not sin” – Eph.4:26).
3. All uses of the word “fool” are not wrong. It is wrong when it is used out of personal hatred and contempt, but Jesus was not wrong, nor was Paul wrong to use it out of righteous anger or out of a loving desire to awaken a person to the danger of their direction of behavior.


Conclusion:

It is right to use the English word "fool" when referring to peoplewho act like the Pharisees of Matthew 23.

Terry W. Benton
1st Affirmative: Benton-Goldsmith Debate on Fool







Benton – Goldsmith Debate
1st Negative

Mat 5:22 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. (KJV)CONCLUSION:IT IS RIGHT TO HEED CHRIST'S WORDS WHEN HE SAY THAT SAYING THOU FOOL, SHALL BE IN DANGER OF HELLFIRE.MARK GOLDSMITH







Benton – Goldsmith Debate
2nd Affirmative

Proposition #1It is right to use the English word "fool" when referring to peoplewho act like the Pharisees of Matthew 23.Affirmed: Terry W. BentonDenied: Mark Goldsmith

You will notice that Mark Goldsmith signed on to deny the above proposition. That means that he denies that it is right to use the English word “fool” when referring to people who act like the Pharisees of Matthew 23. So, inasmuch as he denies that it is right to use the word “fool” and his proof is Matthew 5:22, then it follows that he believes that Jesus did wrong in Matthew 23 when He called the Pharisees “fools and blind”.

Mark thought he was clever to simply quote Matthew 5:22, but the above proposition is not about Matthew 5:22. It is about Matthew 23. It is there that Jesus called the Pharisees “fools”. I affirmed that Jesus did RIGHT, and Mark signed on to deny that Jesus did right. To be in the negative of the above proposition is to say that Jesus did wrong in Matthew 23. So, unless Mark changes his position, he is denying that Jesus did right in Matthew 23. This means that his Jesus did wrong and died on the cross in danger of hell-fire. Because of the nature of the proposition, it turns out that it was not a clever move for Mark to spend one of his whole negatives just quoting Matthew 5:22. We already affirmed our belief in Matthew 5:22, but the proposition affirms also that it is right to use the word “fool” in the way Jesus did in Matthew 23 because Jesus did the right thing when He spoke to the Pharisees with this word.

The reader should observe that Mark wasted his opportunity to state why he is in denial of the above proposition. He has now only two more chances to state why Jesus was wrong in calling the Pharisees “fools”. I don’t believe that Jesus was wrong, as my proposition and first affirmative shows. However, I took the time to explain the harmony between Matthew 5:22 and Matthew 23. I took the time to show the connection to “murder” in the heart that the word can have if one is “angry with a brother without cause”. I showed the connection that words spoken in murderous anger can have, and I showed that Jesus was not using the word “fool” in that manner when He used it often in other settings and circumstances. Because I took the time to show the meaning of Jesus’ statement in Matthew 5:22, I was able to show that Jesus did not act the hypocrite when He used the word “fool” in a justifiable manner in Matthew 23. Mark opted to merely quote Matthew 5:22 without harmonizing the verse with Matthew 23. So, he really accomplished nothing except to affirm that Jesus did wrong by default.
Now, if Mark wants to leave it at that and merely quote Matthew 5:22, he will have clearly exposed himself as in error regarding the proposition as it relates to Jesus and Matthew 23. A debate proposition is designed to focus on the truth or falsity of the proposition. Whereas I took time to prove the validity of my proposition as it relates to Matthew 23, Mark merely quoted what I already quoted as proof of my proposition. I already affirmed the truth of Matthew 5:22. What the proposition is about is to show that in other settings, when anger without cause is not behind the word fool and murderous hatred and rage is not behind the word, then in those circumstances there are proper times to use the word “fool”. I demonstrated that Jesus and Paul were right to use the word, and we are right to quote those words to similar people. For example, it is proper to say to an atheist that he is a fool if he thinks this world and life all happened by accident. Psalm 14:1 says, “The fool has said in his heart, “there is no God”. If a person is behaving in the same manner as the Pharisees, it is proper and right to tell them that they are “fools and blind”. I know that is right, because Jesus did right when He said this to them, and He told us to follow His example. He told his disciples to “beware of the leaven of the Pharisees”. Well, if we are aware of what their influence and doctrine is like, then we are in position to judge by their fruit that they too are “fools and blind”. If we can beware of the leaven of the scribes and Pharisees, then when we detect it in certain people, then we can say what Jesus said in Matt.23 to those people.

It is inescapable that Jesus SINNED if He was forbidding ALL use of the word “fool”, because Jesus used the word frequently, even within His sermon on the mount. My opponent will have a hard time rescuing Jesus from the sin of hypocrisy, and the sin of violating this righteous rule. The Savior had to be righteous, without sin, in order to pay for our sins. If Jesus sinned in using this forbidden word, then we are still in our sins and our hope and faith is in vain. A sinner cannot pay for our sins. Only the spotless Lamb of God could pay for our sins. If Jesus said “whoever says “you fool” (under any circumstances) will be in danger of hell-fire, then Jesus said it, violated the rule, and is in danger of hell-fire. Mark will have to show that Jesus either:

1) did not have to do right, or
2) did not have to do what he said “whoever” (everybody) would have to do (Matthew 5:22), or
3) will have to admit that Jesus and Paul did wrong and sinned, or
4) will have to agree with me that Jesus was NOT forbidding ALL use of this word “fool”.

If he says that Jesus did not have to do right (#1), we will prove beyond doubt that He did have to keep the Law and be completely righteous. He had best not choose to take that position. If Mark says that Jesus did not have to do what He said “whoever” (everybody) would have to do (#2), then we will show that Jesus did have to submit to everything He said was righteous. Mark had better not choose 1 and 2 above. But, neither would it be good for Mark to choose number 3 above. That is self-evident. However, other than 4 above there is no other alternative. My proposition says:

It is right to use the English word "fool" when referring to peoplewho act like the Pharisees of Matthew 23.

I affirm that proposition because: 1) Jesus did not sin, and 2) the context of Jesus’ statement in Matt.5:22 shows that He was forbidding a CERTAIN use of the term, not ALL use of the term. So, if it is the case that Jesus was forbidding a certain use of the term and not ALL use of the term, then we can show that Jesus did not violate the rule of righteousness when He used the term in a legitimate way in a different context from what He forbade in Matt.5:22.
Mark’s Jesus in Danger of Hell Fire
Mark Goldsmith argues that Jesus is in danger of hell fire. Why? Because the passage says "WHOEVER" says "you Fool" shall be in danger of hell fire". Jesus said it (Matt.23). So, Jesus is in danger of hell fire. Is that right? It is right ONLY if Mark is right about his understanding and application of Matt.5:22. But, Jesus is not at all in danger of hell-fire when we do not divorce Matthew 5:22 from its CONTEXT to the subject of MURDER and degrees of ANGER and EXPRESSIONS of ANGER. But, if Goldsmith is right in his usage of Matt.5:22, then it is inescapable that Jesus is in danger of hell fire. The fact of the matter is that there is a contextual matter that speaks of the REASON such terms may endanger one. It is not THAT a certain word is used, but HOW and WHY a word is used that puts one in danger of hell fire. We can say without reservation that Jesus did NOT violate His own rule. But, GOLDSMITH misuses the passage and misunderstands the point Jesus was making, and through his misunderstanding of Matt.5:22 has found himself in the position of having no way to justify the words being used by Jesus, Paul, and other Bible writers who in turn expected us to judge by people’s fruit that they are “swine” (Matt.7:6) or “fools” (Eph.5:15; Psalm 14:1; Rom.1:20-22).

If He is condemning the use of the word at all in any context, then all other places it is used in the Bible is inappropriate. But, He also told us on what basis that He recognized the Pharisees as fools so that when we see someone acting the same way we will know that JESUS would call them a fool. If I see a Pharisee today who lies intentionally, but that same Pharisee does not repent of his lies and insists that others never use the word "fool", then I know I'm looking at someone Jesus would call a fool, and that Jesus would like for me to follow His example and make the same observation He would. At any rate, Mark cannot escape the fact that by being in the negative of the PROPOSITION and drawing the false conclusion that Matt.5:22 says and means to never use the word “fool” in reference to people, he has in fact made Jesus a SINNER and put Him in danger of hell-fire. If not, why not?

Did Jesus Have to Fulfill All Righteousness?

Did Jesus have to keep the Law and do right? Indeed Jesus came to fulfill “all righteousness” (Matt.3:15), and in His Sermon on the Mount He was telling of “righteousness” (Matt.5:19-20). So, if Jesus had to fulfill all righteousness, then Jesus had to keep the righteousness of what He said in Matthew 5:22. Goldsmith argues that Jesus was the Son of God and did not have to keep His own rules, but Jesus had to keep the Law of Moses. So, according to Goldsmith Moses had a law that bound the Son of God, but Jesus did not have a law that He was bound to exemplify. We wonder if there were any other rules Jesus spoke in the Sermon on the Mount that Jesus did not have to follow, even though He had to keep the Law of Moses perfectly????

Sin is transgression of the Law (1 John 3:4). In order to claim that Jesus was sinless, He had to have kept the Law perfectly. Thus, He was subject to the Law. Likewise, to claim that Jesus was RIGHTEOUS, He had to do all that was RIGHT. Abraham asked, “Shall not the Judge of all the earth DO RIGHT?” The answer is always a resounding “Yes”. Jesus would do right so that He could be a fitting, perfect sacrifice for us and to show us how to do right by following His righteous example.


Ps 89:14
14 Righteousness and justice are the foundation of your throne;
love and faithfulness go before you. NIV

Isa 11:5
Righteousness will be his belt
and faithfulness the sash around his waist. NIV

Jer 23:6
This is the name by which he will be called:
The Lord Our Righteousness. NIV

Jesus came to speak the words of righteousness and to exemplify that righteousness. His actions in Matt.23 were not out of harmony with His words in Matt.5:22.

Goldsmith is in the negative of this proposition: It is right to use the English word "fool" when referring to people who act like the Pharisees of Matthew 23.

Thus, he is saying that he denies Jesus did right in Matt.23 and anyone who copies what Jesus did will also do wrong, be in violation of Matt.5:22, and thus be in danger of hell-fire. We anticipate that Mark will simply spend every one of his posts simply quoting Matthew 5:22 with no explanation of the text or context, and with no attempt to show how there is harmony between what Jesus said (Matt.5:22) and what Jesus DID (Matt.23:17). He will have denied the proposition and thus made Jesus a sinner, and will have destroyed his own chance at salvation, because a sinning Jesus cannot save us.

Marks’ Approach like “Swear-Not-At-ALL” Approach

Marks’ approach is to simply quote the verse (Matt.5:22) and make no effort at harmonization. It reminds of the fellow that thought he would take the position that you can make no vows “at all”. In a debate with someone he decided to just quote the scripture “swear not AT ALL”. His opponent would ask if it was alright to vow in court to tell the truth. The man would respond “swear not AT ALL”. His opponent would then ask, what about marriage. Can you take a vow in marriage? The man would respond “swear NOT AT ALL”. His opponent would then ask if you could sign a “promissory note” on a house or car, and the man would just respond with “swear not AT ALL”. When his opponent called the man’s boss and told him that his employee did not believe in any kind of sworn contract or agreement, the boss quickly cut the man’s pay in half (just to see his reaction). The man came storming into the office and said, “What do you mean by breaking our contract and cutting my pay in half?” The boss grinned and said, “Didn’t you say “swear not AT ALL”? “We have no sworn and binding contract because you said I must not swear at all”. The man hung his head and said “well, I didn’t mean AT ALL”. Instead of looking at the context and showing the harmony between the text and context of “swear not at all”, he should have looked at the context and other passages to see what his sugar-stick verse really meant and how it does harmonize with other verses. This is exactly what Goldsmith is doing in this debate. His approach is just as unreasonable as the “swear-not-at-all” approach of some gullible people. The old adage applies in both situations: “A text taken out of context as a proof-text is only a pretext”. What is a “pretext”? It is something really phony that is used or rather misused to get something else one really wants.

Pretext:
1. something that is put forward to conceal a true purpose or object; an ostensible reason; excuse: The leaders used the insults as a pretext to declare war.
2. the misleading appearance or behavior assumed with this intention: His many lavish compliments were a pretext for subtle mockery. (Online Dictionary)

Likewise, Mark Goldsmith is hoping you will look at certain words in Matt.5:22 devoid of context or how that context relates to other things Jesus said and did, in hopes of you drawing the wrong conclusion based merely upon the words themselves. Exactly like “swear not at all”. The conclusion some want you to reach by just the words themselves, devoid of context and comparison to other verses, is that you can never swear under ANY circumstances. Likewise, Mark wants us to dismiss the context and other verses and conclude that it is NEVER right to use the word “fool” under any circumstances with reference to another human being. He would have to say that it is fine for God to do wrong, but never right for us to do wrong. We hope that Mark will continue to simply quote Matthew 5:22 and leave it at that throughout the whole debate. Such a game plan will mean:

1. On the basis of Matthew 5:22 it is never right to call the Pharisees “fools”.
2. Jesus called them “fools”. That was not right.
3. That would have been a perfect time for the Pharisees to bring Jesus before the council on the basis of such unlawful words and had Him executed justly on that basis. Why did they not use that as their justifiable reason? They all heard Him use this term that deserves hell-fire. It would have been right, according to Mark to kill Jesus on the justifiable grounds that “whoever says ‘you fool” shall be in danger of hell-fire”.

Mark does not seem to know how to debate a proposition. Putting up an unrelated verse, making no comment, and failing to comment on the verse within the proposition means that he fails to show any justification for denying the proposition. If he cannot show what was wrong with all my arguments, then he cannot show that he has used Matt.5:22 in a proper way. His role in this debate in the negative of this proposition is to show point by point what was wrong with the textual and contextual arguments I made on all the scriptures I offered as proof of my proposition. His strategy will only show to the reader that he is just as unprepared to prove his belief as the man who misunderstood “swear not at all” until it got down to the pay contract he signed with his employer.

Since Goldsmith answered NONE of my arguments, NONE of the scriptures I offered, and hoped merely that posting “swear not at all” or rather “whoever shall say ‘you fool’ will be in danger of hell-fire” is enough, then we are happy to have so easy a task before us of exposing his “swear-not-at-all” position as most empty of contextual reasoning and common sense.

I have proven that my proposition is correct:
It is right to use the English word "fool" when referring to peoplewho act like the Pharisees of Matthew 23.
Terry W. Benton




Benton- Goldsmith Debate2nd Negative

The Proposition:
It is right to use the English word "fool" when referring to peoplewho act like the Pharisees of Matthew 23.Affirmed: Terry W. BentonDenied: Mark Goldsmith
______________________________________________________
Mark Goldsmith’s 2nd NegativeMat 5:22 "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. (New American Standard Bible)Conclusion:It is wrong to call someone a fool according to Jesus Christ.Mark Goldsmith







Benton-Goldsmith Debate on Fools
Benton’s 3rd Affirmative

The Proposition:
It is right to use the English word "fool" when referring to peoplewho act like the Pharisees of Matthew 23.Affirmed: Terry W. BentonDenied: Mark Goldsmith

Matt 23:17-19
17 Fools and blind! For which is greater, the gold or the temple that sanctifies* the gold? 18 And, 'Whoever swears by the altar, it is nothing; but whoever swears by the gift that is on it, he is obliged to perform it.' 19 Fools and blind! For which is greater, the gift or the altar that sanctifies the gift? NKJV

Jesus did not violate the rules of righteousness. It was right to call the Pharisees “fools”. Jesus did the right thing.


Rom 1:20-23
20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man — and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. NKJV

Paul was not violating any rules of righteousness. It was right to say that unbelievers were “fools”. Paul did the right thing.

Thus, I have proven my proposition. Mark did nothing to disprove it.

Terry W. Benton


Benton-Goldsmith Debate on Fools
Goldsmith’s 3rd Negative

The Proposition:
It is right to use the English word "fool" when referring to peoplewho act like the Pharisees of Matthew 23.Affirmed: Terry W. BentonDenied: Mark Goldsmith

3RD Negative22But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother[b]will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,[c]' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell. (NIV)Conclusion:It is wrong to call someone a fool according to Jesus Christ.Mark Goldsmith






Benton-Goldsmith Debate on Fools
Goldsmith’s 1st Affirmative

Proposition #2:It is never right to use the English word "fool" when referring topeople who act like the Pharisees of Matthew 23.Affirmed: Mark GoldsmithDenied: Terry W. Benton

22But I say to you that everyone who continues to be [ad]angry with his brother or harbors malice (enmity of heart) against him shall be [ae]liable to and unable to escape the punishment imposed by the court; and whoever speaks contemptuously and insultingly to his brother shall be [af]liable to and unable to escape the punishment imposed by the Sanhedrin, and whoever says, You [ag]cursed fool! [You empty-headed idiot!] shall be [ah]liable to and unable to escape the hell (Gehenna) of fire. (Amplified Bible)Conclusion:It is wrong to think you are equal with Jesus Christ and think you can disobey his warning and call people fools. Mark Goldsmith





Benton-Goldsmith Debate on Fools
Benton’s 1st Negative

Proposition #2: It is never right to use the English word "fool" when referring topeople who act like the Pharisees of Matthew 23.Affirmed: Mark GoldsmithDenied: Terry W. Benton

I am happy to engage this first negative to the above proposition. Mark Goldsmith is affirming by the above proposition that what Jesus did in using the term “fool” in reference to the scribes and Pharisees was most sinful for a human being, putting himself and any who follow His example here in danger of hell-fire. To excuse Jesus’ behavior here Mark says that Jesus is God and can do whatever He wants. I beg to differ. God cannot LIE. Even though He is God, He cannot LIE. Yet, it would be a lie to say that He had to fulfill “all righteousness” (Matt.3:15) and then turn around and not fulfill it on grounds that at that moment He was acting the role of God instead of a righteous man. It would also be a LIE for Jesus to say “whosoever” and then exclude himself and Paul from his “whosoever” commandment. Either Jesus had to fulfill all righteousness or He didn’t. You cannot argue the matter both ways.

Notice the Proposition

It is NEVER right – this means that is was not right when Jesus and Paul used the word “fool”. It is NEVER right –is what Mark is affirming.
It is NEVER right…when referring to people who act like the Pharisees of Matthew 23.

a. It is NEVER right to get angry at a brother. The same direct language is used for this issue as for the “fool” issue.
b. It is NEVER right to get angry even though JESUS and PAUL got angry.
c. It is NEVER right to get angry even though Paul said “be angry and sin not”(Eph.4:26).
d. An atheist would ask Mark Goldsmith to explain this contradiction.

Jesus says you cannot get angry, yet He got angry, and Paul says you can get angry without sinning. Mark can camp on Matt.5:22, but that only has him in conflict with the context and with other passages. If he does not explain the contradiction, all he has done is simply shown the readers that he is unreasonable and he does not help solve textual problems and demonstrate how to properly harmonize the contexts with the rest of scripture. Atheists are delighted for him to camp on Matt.5:22, because they see the words as in contradiction with other passages. They are delighted for Mark to camp on Matt.5:22 and they will camp with him there and also camp on other verses like Matt.23:17 to show that Jesus was truly in contradiction with himself and cannot be the Son of God. Mark is helping them. Why? Because he makes no effort at harmonizing Matt.5:22 with the passage in his affirmative proposition. His proposition says that it is NEVER right to use the word “fool” and yet Jesus uses it. It would be interesting to see how Mark explains his contradiction to an atheist.
e. Whether he accepts MY explanation and harmony with the passages or not, he still has his own obligations to others to show that there is NOT a contradiction. So, if he would camp on the first part of the verse (Matt.5:22) about anger, he has a problem explaining Jesus and Paul’s behavior and contradictory words, or if he camps on the last part of the verse, he has a problem explaining Jesus and Paul’s behavior and contradictory words. Either way, Mark Goldsmith is not helping his proposition by merely quoting Matt.5:22. His proposition refers to Matt.23 and he has not explained the discrepancy between Matt.5:22 and 23:17. If he says, on the basis of the wording of Matt.5:22 alone, that it is never right to use the word “fool”, then his readers will have to conclude that Jesus sinned. Jesus violated the rule of righteousness to NEVER use the word “fool”.
f. Paul violated the rule of righteousness to NEVER use the word “fool”. Therefore, if Mark Goldsmith is correct in camping on Matt.5:22 the way he has, then he has automatically given the Pharisees a REAL justification for having Jesus crucified. All that would have been necessary, instead of raising phony accusations against Jesus, was to raise the REAL issue that Jesus called them “fools” and Jesus’ own words say that such a person deserves worse than death. Also, by leaving his proposition hanging like he has and not defending the validity of Jesus’ words to them, Mark has shown that Jesus was indeed a SINNER and not the spotless Lamb of God.

The sum of Mark’s comments upon the meaning and application of Matt.5:22 are as follows:

IT IS RIGHT TO HEED CHRIST'S WORDS WHEN HE SAY THAT SAYING THOU FOOL, SHALL BE IN DANGER OF HELLFIRE.
It is wrong to call someone a fool according to Jesus Christ.
It is wrong to call someone a fool according to Jesus Christ.
It is wrong to think you are equal with Jesus Christ and think you can disobey his warning and call people fools

The sum of Mark’s comments on Matt.23, which is part of the PROPOSITION, is nothing at all. In other words, he felt no need to explain the action of Jesus or Paul in using the word “fool”. His comment 4 above indicates that Jesus, because of His Godhood, did not have to do righteousness or submit to the will of God while in confrontation with the Pharisees. In other words, Jesus could pick and choose His own morality. When He wanted to break a rule of righteousness He could simply put on His Godhood hat, and when He said “Which of you convicts Me of sin?”, if anybody brought up a matter, Jesus could say, “Well, I was wearing My other hat then. I can do what I want when I’m filling a role as God. Only when I’m filling my role under the Law as a human am I obligated to follow the rules of righteousness”. This is what Goldsmith would have us conclude as we try to sort through the matters of what Matthew 5:22 appears to say on the surface, and in trying to compare that surface understanding with the other words and actions of Jesus and Paul. He would have us believe that Jesus did not have to do right when He wanted to put on His Godhead hat. Yet, this man had to follow the Law of God through Moses as a human in order to be the spotless Lamb of God. In Matthew 23 he is not spotless. He is sinning and violating the rule of righteousness He himself spoke in Matt.5:22. Unless Goldsmith can explain WHEN Jesus needs to do right and when He does not, we would be left having to take up His challenge “Which of you convicts me of sin?” and answer that He violated His OWN standard of righteousness.

NEVER RIGHT TO GET ANGRY?

Now, let me play the same game on another topic within the same verse (Matt.5:22). The verse reads:
Matt 5:22

22 but I say unto you, that every one who is angry with his brother shall be in danger of the judgment; ….ASV

Now, to show how simplistic and unreasonable Mark has been throughout this debate on “fool”, let us see how it works with the subject of “anger”. For illustration purposes let us suppose that we are debating the following propositions:

Proposition #1: It is right to get angry like Jesus and Paul did on occasions.
Affirmed: Terry W. Benton
Denied: Mark Goldsmith

Proposition #2: It is never right to get angry.
Affirmed: Mark Goldsmith
Denied: Terry W. Benton

Mark would simply quote Matt.5:22 and consider his case proven. He would have to keep quoting the verse, giving no attempt to explain the kind of anger, nor to harmonize the verse with other verses such as those in which Jesus was angry or where Paul said “be angry and sin not” (Eph.4:28). Goldsmith would be most unreasonable to rest his case fully upon one statement that he does not even explain in its context. Yet, this is precisely what he has been doing in this debate. He answered NONE of my arguments and scriptures, so he did not disprove my proposition. My proposition was sustained by contextual considerations and other scriptures, one of which was the main scripture in BOTH of our propositions. Yet, Mark did not even attempt an explanation of that very key verse (Matt.23:17). He is simply misguidedly doing as the “swear not at ALL” person. He can do that, but his opponent will be blowing him away with many pieces of evidence that Mark is completely ignoring. The swear-not-at-all guy will be blown away by the total evidence and the contextual evidence of his very own passage, and likewise the person who says you can NEVER get angry and camps out on Matt.5:22, and likewise with Mark as he camps out on Matt.5:22 and claims that it says that you can NEVER use the word “fool” in reference to people who are making foolish choices and decisions. Consider again how the “NEVER-be ANGRY” person would use the very same arguments and the very same approach as Mark Goldsmith.

His comments on the subject of anger would boil down to four comments:

1. IT IS RIGHT TO HEED CHRIST'S WORDS WHEN HE SAY THAT WHOEVER IS ANGRY WITH HIS BROTHER SHALL BE IN DANGER OF THE JUDGMENT
2. It is wrong to GET ANGRY according to Jesus Christ.
3. It is wrong to GET ANGRY according to Jesus Christ.
4. It is wrong to think you are equal with Jesus Christ and think you can disobey his warning and GET ANGRY WITH PEOPLE.

He would position his whole debate on one verse that he refused to explain, and he would misuse it to say that you can never get angry in a righteous way. Some gullible people might be impressed with how simple and scriptural his position was. After all, it is exactly what Jesus said. No need to consider anything else, right? The problem is that there is a contextual KIND of anger being overlooked, and there are those other passages that show Jesus getting angry. One would need to explain whether Jesus was in violation of His own words and how to harmonize Jesus’ statement in Matthew 5:22 with Paul’s statement in Eph.4:26. Has Mark done enough just by quoting Matt.5:22? Has he REALLY proven his proposition that it is NEVER right to get angry? Of course not! All he has really done is taken a hard-nosed position that only appears to have Jesus’ support behind it, but is really just a misunderstood statement that contextually means a particular kind of anger, not all anger. He has merely rested his case on a superficial reading and is actually out of harmony with all else that is said on the subject. Now, I don’t know if Mark would say it is always wrong to get angry, but if he would be consistent, he would have to. The same verse that he thinks means to never say “fool” could also be taken to mean to never get angry. Is it right to simply quote Matt.5:22 and make no attempt to harmonize it with other scriptures or to even explain the context of the words? No! Mark is just as obligated to define his proposition and harmonize Matt.5:22 with Matt.23:17 as all other “Christians” are. However, in Mark’s case it is something he feels a need to avoid doing because it tends to cause him problems with his understanding of Matt.5:22. Earlier we illustrated Mark’s problem with a person who took the “swear not AT ALL” position. Both Mark and the Swear-not guy had a scripture with clear words. Both stood behind their single scripture. Both failed to define the words and associate the words in the single sentence to the contextual topic, and both failed to harmonize their single sentence with other verses that seemed to contradict their single sentence. Sometimes a single sentence does not mean what it appears to mean.

NEVER RIGHT TO SWEAR or TAKE OATHS?

“Swear not at all” – appears to mean what it says, but when put back in context actually means “swear not commonly of the worthless kind at all”. When put back into its context it does not forbid all oaths, but all worthless and insincere oaths.
“Whosoever is angry with his brother shall be in danger of the judgment” – appears to mean what it says, but when put back in context actually means “angry out of jealousy and hate like Cain which precedes the act of murder”. It does not include righteous anger like Jesus had when He turned over the tables and drove the money changers out of the temple. Righteous anger is right. There are sins that ought to arouse anger in us. But, a person COULD stand their ground on Matt.5:22 in spite of contrary evidence that it is never right to get angry with a brother. Such unreasonableness is precisely what we are seeing in Mark Goldsmith’s determined effort to camp on Matt.5:22. He can camp there, but no one is impressed with how he harmonizes things that contradict the position of strict wording. Might there be a contextual consideration that would tell us something significant about HOW the word fool is being used? Is there no obligation to harmonize a strict reading with other verses that contradict the strict reading approach? Obviously the connection to murder means that Jesus is discussing types of MURDER. Physical murder, murder in the heart, and murder with words of contempt.
“Let not many of you be teachers” (James 3:1) – appears on the surface to mean what it says. Would it be applied correctly if there were a whole congregation of dedicated and wise individuals to come in and tell that group that not many of them should become teachers of God’s word? A straight-forward reading of James 3:1 would say that it is wrong for that whole group to be teachers. If a brother camped out on that one verse, would he have understood and applied that verse correctly if he made a rule for every congregation that there not be many teachers in any one congregation? Remember, we are looking at the words and they specifically say: “Let not many of you be teachers”. If one were to play the same game Mark is playing with Matt.5:22 they would have to. They are not doing justice to the context of the expression, nor with the rest of the scriptures.(Heb.5:12). All we are saying here is that anybody can play the game Mark is playing with Matt.5:22 and be as unreasonable about many other specific wordings that SEEM to say one absolute truth. All of these things have a context that causes us to refrain from the simplistic reading to an attempt to make sure we understand the context and the contextual meaning of the sentence in question.

WHAT MARK IS AFFIRMING

Mark’s proposition is not about Matt.5:22. He is supposed to be proving that it is never right to do what Jesus did in Matthew 23. Regardless of what he thinks of Matt.5:22, his obligation is to prove his proposition.

It is never right to use the English word "fool" when referring topeople who act like the Pharisees of Matthew 23.Affirmed: Mark GoldsmithDenied: Terry W. Benton

Has he proven that it is NEVER right to use that word? Has he proven that even when Jesus used it, it was wrong? If it was not wrong when Jesus used it, then his proposition is wrong to say “never”. If it was not wrong for Paul to use the term, then Mark’s proposition is wrong to say “never”. If Jesus and Paul were wrong because Mark’s proposition is right, then Jesus and Paul did wrong and sinned. If Jesus sinned, we are all still in our sins because a sinner cannot pay for our sins. If Paul was wrong and sinned in using the term, then we cannot believe anything he wrote. In the next post by Mark, I expect that he will continue to ignore all of this, answer none of these matters, and continue his pattern of quoting Matt.5:22. The reader will now see this maneuver as harmful, not helpful to the truth of his proposition. At least it will be in print for all to read for years to come, and we will be happy for people to see how the “swear-not-at-all” kind of stance is most illiterate regarding context and harmonization of scripture and will avoid using that unreasonable technique to answer the problems involved. If that is all that is accomplished, it will have been worth the effort, even though it has been, so far, the easiest debate I have ever engaged.

Terry W. Benton




Benton-Goldsmith Debate on FoolsMark Goldsmith' 2nd AffirmativeProposition #2:It is never right to use the English word "fool" when referring topeople who act like the Pharisees of Matthew 23.Affirmed: Mark GoldsmithDenied: Terry W. Benton22 But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause[b] shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, ‘Raca!’ shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be in danger of hell fire. (NKJV)
Conclusion:It is wrong to think you are equal with Jesus Christ and think youcan disobey his warning and call people foolsMark Goldsmith





Benton-Goldsmith Debate on Fools
Benton’s 2nd Negative

Proposition #2: It is never right to use the English word "fool" when referring topeople who act like the Pharisees of Matthew 23.Affirmed: Mark GoldsmithDenied: Terry W. Benton

Note that Matt 5:22 ends with "whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire." On casual glance one would think that Jesus and Paul sinned and are both in danger of hell-fire. Notice how they appear to violate the above statement.
Matt 23:17 Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold?
Matt 23:19 Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift?
Luke 11:40 Ye fools, did not he that made that which is without make that which is within also?
Luke 12:20 (KJV) "But God said unto him, Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee: then whose shall those things be, which thou hast provided?"
Luke 24:25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:
1 Cor 15:36 Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die:

Throughout this debate Mark Goldsmith has ignored everything, and has chosen to merely quote Matthew 5:22 without explanation and/or any attempt to harmonize his chosen verse with the context and the rest of scripture. Thus, his part of the debate is devoid of substance that pertains to explaining his proposition or answering the many problems I have confronted him with in the process of this total debate. His chosen tactic has been to simply station himself on the words of that single verse, just as the “swear-not-at-all” fellow did in his debate.
Other Observations About Matthew 5:22

Matthew 5:22
[Thou fool] Moreh, probably from ‎maarah‎, to rebel, a rebel against God, apostate from all good. This term implied, among the Jews, the highest enormity, and most aggravated guilt. Among the Gentoos, such an expression was punished by cutting out the tongue, and thrusting a hot iron, of ten fingers' breadth, into the mouth of the person who used it. Code of Gentoo Laws, chap. 15 sec. 2. p. 212. – Adam Clarke Note: These Persian and Indian “Gentoo” laws were some of the oldest preserved laws in the world.

Furthermore Clarke adds:
‎There are three kinds of offences here, which exceed each other in their degrees of guilt.
1st. Anger against a man, accompanied with some injurious act.2dly. Contempt, expressed by the opprobrious epithet raka, or shallow brains.3dly. Hatred and mortal enmity, expressed by the term moreh, or apostate, where such apostasy could not be proved. – Adam Clarke

Clarke Quotes Dr. Lightfoot as explaining the words and the background for Jesus’ statement:

The FIRST is causeless anger, which he thinks too plain to require explanation; but into the two following he enters in considerable detail:
"The SECOND. Whosoever shall say to his brother 'Racha,' a nickname, or scornful title usual, which they disdainfully put one upon another, and very commonly; and therefore our Saviour has mentioned this word, the rather because it was of so common use among them. Take these few examples:
"A certain man sought to betake himself to repentance (and restitution.) His wife said to him, 'Rekah, if thou make restitution, even thy girdle about thee is not thine own, etc.' Tanchum, fol. 5.
"Rabbi Jochanan was teaching concerning the building of Jerusalem with sapphires and diamonds, etc. One of his scholars laughed him to scorn. But afterwards, being convinced of the truth of the thing, he saith to him, 'Rabbi, do thou expound, for it is fit for thee to expound: as thou saidst, so have I seen it.' He saith to him, 'Rekah, hadst thou not seen, thou wouldst not have believed, etc.' Midras Tillin, fol. 38, col. 4.
"To what is the thing like? To a king of flesh and blood, who took to wife a king's daughter: he saith to her, 'Wait and fill me a cup;' but she would not whereupon he was angry, and put her away; she went and was married to a sordid fellow; and he saith to her, 'Wait, and fill me a cup;' she said unto him, 'Rekah, I am a king's daughter, etc.' Idem in Ps 137.
"A Gentile saith to an Israelite, 'I have a choice dish for thee to eat of.' He saith, 'What is it?' He answers, 'Swine's flesh.' He saith to him, 'Rekah, even what you kill of clean beasts is forbidden us, much more this.' Tanchum, fol. 18, col. 4.
"The THIRD offence is to say to a brother, 'Thou fool,' which, how to distinguish from racha, which signifies an empty fellow, were some difficulty, but that Solomon is a good dictionary here for us, who takes the term continually here for a wicked wretch and reprobate, and in opposition to spiritual wisdom: so that in the first clause is condemned causeless anger; in the second, scornful taunting and reproaching of a brother; and, in the last, calling him a reprobate and wicked, or uncharitably censuring his spiritual and eternal estate. And this last does more especially hit the scribes and Pharisees, who arrogated to themselves only to be called ‎chokamiym‎, wise men, but of all others they had this scornful and uncharitable opinion, 'This people, that knoweth not the law, is cursed,' John 7:49. (from Adam Clarke's Commentary).

Now, if Lightfoot is correct, and it appears that he has proven his case, then Jesus is not forbidding the word in any and all contexts, but is forbidding the haughty and arrogant way that the Pharisees had built themselves up as “the wise men” and scornfully treated others as worthless cursed fools. This is what Jesus is condemning. He is not condemning the use of the term in ANY context, but this MANNER of using the word (which, like murder, totally dismisses the worth of a human life). Keep in mind that Jesus and Paul used the same word, but not IN THIS MANNER.
Albert Barnes comments on Matt. 5:22 this way:

In this verse it denotes a degree of suffering higher than the punishment inflicted by the "court of seventy," or the Sanhedrin, and the whole verse may therefore mean, "He that hates his brother without a cause is guilty of a violation of the sixth commandment, and shall be punished with a severity similar to that inflicted by the court of judgment. He that shall suffer his passions to transport him still further, so that he shall make his brother an object of derision and contempt, shall be exposed to severer punishment, corresponding to that which the Sanhedrin (council) inflicts. But he who shall load his brother with odious appellations and abusive language shall incur the severest degree of punishment, represented by being burned alive in the horrid and awful valley of Hinnom." (Barnes Notes).
Barnes observes further:

The amount, then, of this difficult and important verse is this: The Jews considered but one crime a violation of the sixth commandment, namely, actual murder, or willful, unlawful taking life. Jesus says that the commandment is much broader. It relates not only to the external act, but to the feelings and words. He specifies three forms of such violation:
1. Unjust anger.
2. Anger accompanied with an expression of contempt.
3. Anger, with an expression not only of contempt, but wickedness.
Among the Jews there were three degrees of condemnation: that by the "judgment," the "council," and the "fire of Hinnom." Jesus says likewise there shall be grades of condemnation for the different ways of violating the sixth commandment. Not only murder shall be punished by God, but anger and contempt shall be regarded by him as a violation of the law, and punished according to the offence. As these offences were not actually cognizable before the Jewish tribunals, he must mean that they will be punished hereafter, and all these expressions therefore relate to degrees of punishment proportionate to crime in the future world-the world of justice and of woe. (Barne’s Notes).

Consider also from Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown:

What precise degrees of unholy feeling toward our brother are indicated by the words "Raca" and "fool" it would be as useless as it is vain to inquire. Every age and every country has its modes of expressing such things; and, no doubt, our Lord seized on the then current phraseology of unholy disrespect and contempt, merely to express and condemn the different degrees of such feeling when brought out in words, as He had immediately before condemned the feeling itself. In fact, so little are we to make of mere words, apart from the feeling which they express, that as anger is expressly said to have been borne by our Lord toward His enemies, though mixed with "grief for the hardness of their hearts" (Mark 3:5), and as the apostle teaches us that there is an anger which is not sinful (Eph 4:26); so in the Epistle of James (James 2:20) we find the words, "O vain" or 'empty' man [‎oo ‎‎anthroope ‎‎kene‎]; and our Lord Himself applies the very word "fools" [‎mooroi‎] twice in one breath to the blind guides of the people (Matt 23:17,19) - although, in both cases, it is to false reasoners rather than persons that such words are applied.
The spirit, then, of the whole statement may be thus given-`For ages ye have been taught that the sixth commandment, for example, is broken only by the murderer, to pass sentence upon whom is the proper business of the recognized tribunals: but I say unto you that it broken even by causeless anger, which is but hatred in the bud, as hatred is incipient murder (1 John 3:15); and if by the feelings, much more by those words in which all ill feeling, from the slightest to the most envenomed, are wont to be cast upon a brother: and just as there are gradations in human courts of judicature, and in the sentences which they pronounce according to the degrees of criminality, so will the judicial treatment of all the breakers of this commandment at the divine tribunal be according to their real criminality before the heart-searching Judge.' O what holy teaching is this!
(from Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary).

Matthew Henry observes of this passage:

Matthew 5:21-26
The commandment is exceeding broad, and not to be limited by the will of the flesh, or the will of men.
1. Christ tells them that rash anger is heart-murder (v. 22); Whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause, breaks the sixth commandment. By our brother here, we are to understand any person, though ever so much our inferior, as a child, a servant, for we are all made of one blood. Anger is a natural passion; there are cases in which it is lawful and laudable; but it is then sinful, when we are angry without cause. The word is ‎eike‎, which signifies, sine causâ, sine effectu, et sine modo—without cause, without any good effect, without moderation; so that the anger is then sinful, (1.) When it is without any just provocation given; either for no cause, or no good cause, or no great and proportionable cause; when we are angry at children or servants for that which could not be helped, which was only a piece of forgetfulness or mistake, that we ourselves might easily have been guilty of, and for which we should not have been angry at ourselves; when we are angry upon groundless surmises, or for trivial affronts not worth speaking of. (2.) When it is without any good end aimed at, merely to show our authority, to gratify a brutish passion, to let people know our resentments, and excite ourselves to revenge, then it is in vain, it is to do hurt; whereas if we are at any time angry, it should be to awaken the offender to repentance, and prevent his doing so again; to clear ourselves (2 Cor 7:11), and to give warning to others. (3.) When it exceeds due bounds; when we are hardy and headstrong in our anger, violent and vehement, outrageous and mischievous, and when we seek the hurt of those we are displeased at. This is a breach of the sixth commandment, for he that is thus angry, would kill if he could and durst; he has taken the first step toward it; Cain's killing his brother began in anger; he is a murderer in the account of God, who knows his heart, whence murder proceeds, ch. 15:19.
2. He tells them, that given opprobrious language to our brother is tongue-murder, calling him, Raca, and, Thou fool. When this is done with mildness and for a good end, to convince others of their vanity and folly, it is not sinful. Thus James says, O vain man; and Paul, Thou fool; and Christ himself, O fools, and slow of heart. But when it proceeds from anger and malice within, it is the smoke of that fire which is kindled from hell, and falls under the same character. (1.) Raca is a scornful word, and comes from pride, "Thou empty fellow;" it is the language of that which Solomon calls proud wrath (Prov 21:24), which tramples upon our brother-disdains to set him even with the dogs of our flock. This people who knoweth not the law, is cursed, is such language, John 7:49. (2.) Thou fool, is a spiteful word, and comes from hatred; looking upon him, not only as mean and not to be honoured, but as vile and not to be loved; "Thou wicked man, thou reprobate." The former speaks a man without sense, this (in scripture language) speaks a man without grace; the more the reproach touches his spiritual condition, the worse it is; the former is a haughty taunting of our brother, this is a malicious censuring and condemning of him, as abandoned of God. Now this is a breach of the sixth commandment; malicious slanders and censures are poison under the tongue, that kills secretly and slowly; bitter words are as arrows that wound suddenly (Ps 64:3), or as a sword in the bones. The good name of our neighbour, which is better than life, is thereby stabbed and murdered; and it is an evidence of such an ill-will to our neighbour as would strike at his life, if it were in our power.
(from Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible)

As any honest observer of the context and connection to the primary subject of “murder” can easily see, it is the way the term is used that makes all the difference. The Pharisees would use the word in hateful disdain for others, while Jesus and Paul used the word in caring frustration at willful ignorance. The Pharisees dismissed people out of haughty anger and hatred (a form of murder in the heart). Jesus appealed to them out of anxious care to awaken them to the danger they face if they do not wake up and wise-up. The same instrument (a knife) can be an instrument of murder in the hands of an angry vengeful person, or an instrument of life in the hand of a surgeon. Likewise, the same instrument (the word “fool”) can be an instrument of murder from the mouth of a hateful and angry person, or it can be an instrument of life from the mouth of one in loving frustration trying to awaken a foolish person to an awareness of the danger of their course of life and thinking. Goldsmith is denying that this word can ever be used at all, and condemns the use Jesus and Paul made of the word. He refuses to see the surgical use of the word from their mouth or pen, and is content to condemn them on the basis of Matthew 5:22. Actually, his goal to only to find a way to condemn me, but has unwittingly condemned Jesus and Paul in the process.


What Has Been Proven?
1. All anger is not forbidden by Matt.5:22. Only ‘murderous” anger is forbidden. Righteous anger is not under consideration in this verse. Jesus did not violate this verse by being angry on occasions.
2. All use of the word “fool” is not forbidden by Matt.5:22. Only “murderous” use of the word is forbidden. A righteous use of the term is not under consideration in this verse. Jesus did not violate this verse by using the term in Matt.23 and other occasions.
3. Jesus did not sin against Matt.5:22 when He used the word “fool” in Matt.23, and if He did not, then Mark did not prove his proposition.
4. Paul did not sin against Matt.5:22 when he used the word “fool” in Romans 1:20-22, and if he did not, then Mark did not prove his proposition that it is “NEVER right” to use the word “fool”.

Conclusion:
We are glad to show that Mark’s stance is exactly like the “never get angry” people who stand on Matt.5:22 AGAINST the context and total evidence, and we are happy to have shown that his one-verse stance is EXACTLY like that of the man who would only quote “swear not AT ALL” to bolster his position that it is wrong to ever make oaths of any kind. When this debate finishes, and Mark has only ignored the evidence and quoted Matt.5:22 out of context, you will know who teaches the truth on these propositions. God bless those who read all in search of truth.
Terry W. Benton



Benton-Goldsmith Debate on FoolsMark Goldsmith' 3rd AffirmativeProposition #2:It is never right to use the English word "fool" when referring topeople who act like the Pharisees of Matthew 23.Affirmed: Mark GoldsmithDenied: Terry W. BentonMat 5:22 "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. (New American Standard Bible)Mat 5:22 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. (KJV)Mat 5:22 but I say unto you, that every one who is angry with his brother shall be in danger of the judgment; and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council; and whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of the hell of fire. (American Standard Version)Mat 5:22But 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. (21st Century King James Version)Mat 5:22But I say to you that everyone who continues to be [ad]angry with his brother or harbors malice (enmity of heart) against him shall be [ae]liable to and unable to escape the punishment imposed by the court; and whoever speaks contemptuously and insultingly to his brother shall be [af]liable to and unable to escape the punishment imposed by the Sanhedrin, and whoever says, You [ag]cursed fool! [You empty-headed idiot!] shall be [ah]liable to and unable to escape the hell (Gehenna) of fire.(Amplified Bible)Mat 5:22But *I* say unto you, that every one that is lightly angry with his brother shall be subject to the judgment; but whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be subject to [be called before] the sanhedrim; but whosoever shall say, Fool, shall be subject to the penalty of the hell of fire. (Darby Translation)Mat 5:22But I say to you, that whosoever is angry with his brother, shall be in danger of the judgment. And whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council. And whosoever shall say, Thou Fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.(Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition.)Mat 5:22But I say to you that(AN) everyone who is angry with his brother[b] will be liable(AO) to judgment; whoever insults[c] his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, 'You fool!' will be liable to(AP) the hell[d] of fire.(English Standard Version)Mat 5:22 But I tell you, if you are angry with a brother or sister,[b] you will be judged. If you say bad things to a brother or sister, you will be judged by the council. And if you call someone a fool, you will be in danger of the fire of hell. (New Century Version)Mat 5:22 But here is what I tell you. Do not be angry with your brother. Anyone who is angry with his brother will be judged. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,' must stand trial in the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire in hell. (New International Reader's Version)Mat 5:22But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother[b]will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,[c]' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell. (NIV)Mat 5:22`But I tell you this. Anyone who is angry with his brother without having a good reason, will be judged in court. Anyone who says wrong things to his brother will be judged for it in the big court. Anyone who says "You fool!" will be judged to go into hell fire. (Worldwide English (New Testament))Mat 5:22 But I say to you, that each man that is wroth to his brother, shall be guilty to doom; and he that saith to his brother, Fie! shall be guilty to the council; but he that saith Fool, shall be guilty to the fire of hell.(Wycliffe New Testament)Conclusion:It is wrong to think you are equal with Jesus Christ and think youcan disobey his warning and call people foolsThus, I have proven my proposition. Terry Benton did nothing to disprove it.Mark Goldsmith




Benton-Goldsmith Debate on Fools
Benton’s 3rd and Final Negative

Proposition #2

It is never right to use the English word "fool" when referring topeople who act like the Pharisees of Matthew 23.Affirmed: Mark GoldsmithDenied: Terry W. Benton

As we come to the close of this debate, I would like to thank Mark for agreeing to engage this debate. Even though he said nothing to explain the proposition or any of the scriptures, he was willing to go on record in a debate and allow that his name be associated with this debate for years to come. Regardless of what I think about the wisdom of how he chose to approach this subject, he is to be commended for agreeing to leave a record of his faith in a debate that cross-examines his position. There are others that will not do as much.

I’m sure that in ignoring all that I said and even in ignoring the statements Jesus made in Matt.23:17, Mark felt that this one passage (Matt.5:22) sizes up the whole subject to him. He camped there and never left the side of his companion verse. We have to at least admire his loyalty to that one verse, even though he misunderstands it. We would likewise admire a man who thought it a sin to ever get angry and based his whole conclusion on the same verse Mark based his view of the “fool” issue upon. Both Mark and the “Never-get-angry” person would have the exact same misguided loyalty to a misunderstanding of the verse, it’s context, and it’s harmony with other scriptures. Yet both could do as Mark did in this debate for the exact same reasons, yet both will still not have done justice to the text, the context, and the harmony they should feel obligated to explain relative to passages that contradict their position on the one verse.

In this debate, Mark never answered one argument of mine while he was in the negative, and he never answered anything I offered while I was in the negative. It is most unusual that when a man’s thinking has been shown to be erroneous, as erroneous as the “Never-get-angy” guy, and as erroneous as the “Swear-not-at-All” guy, to continue to ignore all arguments and all contextual evidence and all contrary evidence in other passages and keep the same stubborn course. So, although his strategy must have seemed suitable enough to him at the moment, the total record will surely be something he wishes he had engaged differently in the future. In fact, his part was quite foolish in view of the verse in his proposition that he never mentioned. Nevertheless, the part I offered in the debate will be convincing and harmonizing to the passages in question and others will surely be profited by this study.

How shall I spend my last negative in this somewhat strangely conducted debate? I will spend my space to show the fallacy of the “never-say-the-word-fool” position. When I have finished Jesus will have been exonerated from the common accusation that He violated His own words. I will also show the fallacy of the thinking of my opponent in this debate and of others like him.

False Arguments My Opponent Made and Others Make

It is wrong to think you are equal with Jesus Christ and think youcan disobey his warning and call people fools

Answer: I can follow His righteous example without thinking I am equal to Him, and if His example is righteous, then it is not disobeying Him to follow that example, it is obeying Him to follow His example (1 Cor.11:1), and I make it a practice to be VERY careful to only call real fools, like Elymas and the Pharisees, “fools” with care that I am not violating Jesus’ warning in Matthew 5:22 about using the term in a hateful, angry and murderous way. In this regard I study the reasons Jesus called the Pharisees “fools” and see the word as a surgical word of caring rebuke and righteous anger at sinful and hardened dispositions, and avoid using the word as a murderous weapon of uncaring hate and unrighteous anger. Jesus shows us that the same word can be a helpful, yet painful surgical word in the hands of soul-doctors who seek to save, or it can be a murderous word in the hands of those who care not for other’s well-being. Words like “fool” can be like a knife. In a surgeon’s hands it is calculated to do something painful in order to do ultimate good, but in the hands of the angry and uncaring it can be a weapon of murder. It is the latter that Jesus was warning against in Matt.5:22, not the former.

Secondly, I make it a practice not to haphazardly call “people” in general fools or any other uncaring name or insulting name. In the rare times when I do use it, it will be calculated on the basis of the hardness and wickedness of the person I hope to shake up and wake up for their good. A Pharisee or an Elymas (Acts 13:10) in our day are hardened liars who clearly have a sinful and hardened conscience or no conscience at all, and are intent on perverting the straight ways of the Lord. When I am 100% sure (“by their fruits you shall KNOW them”) that I am dealing with a hardened LIAR, then and only then will I bring out the words Jesus and Paul used for such hearts. Jesus and Paul did not go around calling people in general “fools” or “sons of the devil”. But, on occasions they did because it was the right thing to do. I have studied their principles, their character, their behavior, and learned from them to spare such terms for the right times for the people who need those words of calculated rebuke. So, if you know somebody that was the recipient of these terms from me, just realize that I was 100% sure the time, the person, and the reason justified the terms.

Thirdly, Jesus expected His disciples to size up a person and judge whether they will trample your precious, saving doctrine as “swine” would do to pearls (Matt.7:6). This means that He expects us to make judgments of this nature. If we can make such judgments that we are casting pearls before swine, then we can also judge dishonest hearts by their fruits and know that we are dealing with a person or persons who will trample your saving message and turn and rend you as a swine would a person who was trying to give them something of value like pearls. Jesus COMMANDED us to make such needed judgments. Therefore we can and must. But, if we can determine that we are dealing with swine, then we can also determine when the word “fool” might be most useful and needful to use as Jesus and Paul did. Jesus did not warn against using the term at all, but of using it in murderous anger.

The Holy Spirit (God) was informing people they were fools THROUGH Jesus and Paul. You do not have such revelations from God.

Answer: The Holy Spirit informs us through the fruit of a persons observable life and behavior. The whole book of Proverbs is written to give us wisdom and to detect when we and others are being a fool. The Holy Spirit informs us as to why the Pharisees were “fools and blind” so that we will be informed when we or others are being “fools and blind” as well. The Holy Spirit informed us that liars are fools, so that we can know when we are being a fool or dealing with a fool. Many of Jesus’ parables are designed to inform us when we are being a fool or when others are being a fool. We can process the information a certain person puts on display and draw from the information the Holy Spirit has provided and know that we are dealing with a fool. For example, we can listen to a man say “there is no God”, process the information the Holy Spirit gave us in Rom.1:20-22 and Psalm 14:1 and conclude that this man is a fool. If not, why not?

The Holy Spirit gives us a training school for knowing the difference between wise and foolish. The whole Bible is designed to help us be wise and to know when we and others are being foolish. The man who laid up his goods for many years to eat, drink, and be merry, but made no preparations for his soul and eternity was openly identified as a fool. We take that Holy Spirit information and can easily determine that if a man is not preparing for his soul to meet God he too is a fool. Likewise, we take the information Jesus gave us about the lying Pharisees, process it, and then when we run into similar liars today, we know we are dealing with modern Pharisaic fools. Consider other ways that the Holy Spirit has trained us to recognize the wise and the fools.


Prov 23:9

9 Do not speak in the hearing of a fool , For he will despise the wisdom of your words. NKJV - This tells us that we can determine a fool by whether he will appreciate the wisdom of our words. Jesus said to make a judgment in this regard. Am I casting pearls before swine who will trample the pearls and turn again and rend you (Matt.7:6)? So, the Holy Spirit is clearly training us to look for the indicators of whether we are dealing with swine or fools. So, the argument that only the directly inspired may use the word “fool” is a false argument. The whole Bible is the Holy Spirit’s training school for us to exercise our senses and know that we are either being a fool or dealing with a fool.

Prov 26:11
11 As a dog returns to his own vomit, So a fool repeats his folly. NKJV
The Holy Spirit tells us to look for whether a person repeats his foolish act, such as lying, cheating, slandering, etc. Those who keep repeating their sins are clearly fools. The Holy Spirit trains us to recognize the fruit and recognize who is a fool.

Ps 14:1

The fool has said in his heart,"There is no God."NKJV
Obviously, the Holy Spirit wanted us to listen to what a man says and from that determine that he is a fool. We do not have to be directly inspired of God to know when the term “fool” applies.

Prov 10:18

18 Whoever hides hatred has lying lips, And whoever spreads slander is a fool .
Obviously, a man who spreads slander is lying about someone. Lies and slander are sinful and marked out for hell. If we can recognize when a person is slandering someone, then we are told by the Holy Spirit that this person is a fool.

Prov 15:5

5 A fool despises his father's instruction, But he who receives correction is prudent.
Again, the Holy Spirit had these things written to observe things in people that indicate that they are fools. The Holy Spirit would not have given us such training in this matter if He intended for us to never use this word.

Prov 18:2

2 A fool has no delight in understanding, But in expressing his own heart. NKJV
The Holy Spirit is training us to identify fools. If a person doesn’t want and appreciate understanding, knowledge, and wisdom and learning it, then the Holy Spirit is training us to know the characteristics of a fool. He is not training us to never use the term, but to recognize a fool and be able to tell him so when the time is right.

Prov 29:9

9 If a wise man contends with a foolish man,
Whether the fool rages or laughs, there is no peace. NKJV
Here the Holy Spirit is telling us some common responses we will get from a fool as we contend with them. They will get mad and rage or they will try to laugh you to scorn. The Holy Spirit is clearly training us to know and recognize fools and wise. Jesus did not come along in Matt.5:22 and tell us to disregard all that training and that a new plan would be to never use that word again. He tells us how we are not to use that word in anger, hatefulness, and slander, and then He shows us in example and word how and when to use the word properly. Again, Jesus did not violate Matt.5:22. The Holy Spirit did not have Jesus and Paul violating a rule of righteousness.

Other Historical Insight


Chapter Eighteen
‎In regard to St. Matt 5:22, we remember that the term 'brother' applied only to Jews, while the Rabbis used to designate the ignorant, 2533 or those who did not believe such exaggerations, as that in the future God would build up the gates of Jerusalem with gems thirty cubits high and broad, as Reyqa, 2534 with this additional remark, that on one such occasion the look of a Rabbi had immediately turned the unbeliever into a heap of bones!
Again, the opprobrious term 'fool' was by no means of uncommon occurrence among the sages; 2535 and yet they themselves state, that to give an opprobrious by-name, or to put another openly to shame, was one of the three things which deserved Gehenna. 2536
(from Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, Alfred Edersheim)

The “Reyqa” is the same as “Raca”. Edersheim was tracing this word to the historical context and found that a Rabbi used it in a most hateful way with a look that could kill if it could. Thus, the connection to the subject of murder. The word “fool” was sometimes a hateful way to try to destroy or “put another openly to shame”. Thus, again, this is showing that it is not the word itself, but the USE of the word in an angry and murderous way that Jesus was condemning in Matt.5:22.

In “Hard Sayings of the Bible” the authors note:

5:22 - "you Fool!" Merits Hell?
But was "You fool!" actually regarded as being such a deadly insult? In this same Gospel of Matthew the cognate adjective is used of the man who built his house on the sand (Matt 7:26) and of the five girls who forgot to take a supply of oil to keep their torches alight (Matt 25:2-3), and Jesus himself is reported as calling certain religious teachers "blind fools" (Matt 23:17). It is more probable that, just as "Raca" is a non-Greek word, so is the word ‎moore ‎that Jesus used here. If so, then it is a word which to a Jewish ear meant "rebel (against God)" or "apostate"; it was the word which Moses in exasperation used to the disaffected Israelites in the wilderness of Zin: "Listen, you rebels; must we bring you water out of this rock?" (Num 20:10). For these rash words, uttered under intense provocation, Moses was excluded from the Promised Land.
Whether this was the word Jesus had in mind or not, he certainly had in mind the kind of language that is bound to produce a murderous quarrel: chief responsibility for the ensuing bloodshed, he insisted, lies with the person who spoke the offending word. But behind the offending word lies the hostile thought. It is there that the guilty process starts; and if the hostile thought is not killed off as soon as the thinker becomes aware of it, then, although no earthly court may be in a position to take cognisance of it, that is what will be the first count in the indictment before the judgment-bar of God.
(from Hard Sayings of the Bible)

Conclusion

Did Mark Goldsmith prove this proposition?

Proposition #2

It is never right to use the English word "fool" when referring topeople who act like the Pharisees of Matthew 23.

If it is “NEVER” right to use this word, then Jesus and Paul were sinners. If Jesus and Paul were exceptions then the proposition is wrong. If Matt.5:22 does not condemn what Jesus and Paul did, then the difference is in the context of how the word is used, not the fact that the word is used. But, if it is sometimes proper and right to use the word as Jesus and Paul did, then the proposition Mark signed is false. We have proven that Mark signed a false proposition.

Before I had even finished my last negative Mark was boasting that he had avoided “secular reasoning” and that he stayed with the spiritual text alone. He was trying to explain that his strategy was correct in this debate. The fact of the matter is that Mark used no reasoning at all. He explained nothing at all. He harmonized nothing at all. He answered no questions at all. His strategy was as foolish as the brother who used the same verse to teach that it is wrong to ever get angry. His strategy was foolish and disappointing to those who read and wished for him to expound and explain the very passage in his proposition that he ignored and that actually refutes the position he takes on Matt.5:22. Clearly, Mark did not prove his proposition, and I have clearly shown that it was false. May the reader be wise and gain much from this study of the subject of the biblical usage of the word fool in various contexts.

I also hope that by providing harmony of text and context that Jesus is exonerated from the false charges that He violated His own words, and that He is honored and glorified by this study. To God be the glory forever and ever. Amen!

Terry W. Benton





The
End