Jesus was Angry and Called People Fools: Can We?

By Mark W. Christy, PhD

In Matthew 5:22, Jesus declares, “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.”[i] At first glance, it would seem that Jesus stands against anger and especially condemns derisive name-calling. This, however, must be considered more deeply in light of Christ’s anger against the Pharisees who were more concerned with breaking the Sabbath than with healing a person as well as His words to the Pharisees and teachers of the Law when he called them “fools,” “whitewashed tombs,” and “brood of vipers” (Matt 3:7; 12:34; 23:17, 27, 33; Mark 3:5; Luke 3:7). Was Jesus in violation of his own word? This article will consider this question and offer a biblical response.

During his teaching ministry, Jesus had many seemingly harsh words and hard teachings for the Pharisees and other religious leaders as they constantly sought to undermine His ministry. While teaching at a synagogue on a Sabbath, Jesus opted to heal a man with a withered hand despite consternation of the religious elite who were waiting to judge Him for having broken the Sabbath by displaying such mercy (Mark 3:1-4). Unfazed by their disapproving glances, “looking around at them with anger, [and becoming] grieved at their hardness of heart, [Jesus] said to the man, ‘Stretch out your hand.’ And he stretched it out, and his hand was restored” (Mark 3:5).

Specifically, Jesus is angry at these religious leaders due to their “hardness of heart.” Those who have such a heart are portrayed in the Bible as being either unable or unwilling to perceive the truth. Typically, this expression is associated with those who fail to properly understand that Jesus is the Messiah (John 12:40; Rom 11:7, 25; 2 Cor 3:14). Similarly, it is also used of disciples who remain unaware of the significance of Christ’ s miracles (Mark 6:52; 8:17). In the Old Testament, the phrase referred to people who stubbornly refused to heed the message of God’s prophets (Jer 3:17; 7:24; 13:10; etc.) With this in view, Christ’s anger was directed against the Pharisees because of their sinful reluctance to believe in the Messiah which was demonstrated by their legalistic righteousness and lack of love for the crippled person. It was, therefore, a righteous indignation against evil that, though truly felt, was held in a controlled manner by the Lord to such an extent that He never acted out against the Pharisees and instead applied His effort to healing the crippled person.

Jesus’ anger against the Pharisees and other teachers of the Law can also be seen in the monikers He often employed against them. As mentioned in the introduction, these unflattering names include “whitewashed tombs” and “brood of vipers.” In Matthew 23, this list can be expanded to include “hypocrites,” “son[s] of hell,” “blind guides,” those “full of robbery and self-indulgence,” those “full of…lawlessness,” and “murdere[rs of] the prophets.” With such a list, it should be obvious that Jesus’s underlying anger is once again pointed directly at the hard-heartedness of these men and their refusal to believe in Him. The evidence of their heart’s condition is so apparent that Jesus simply attaches labels to their actions while also pointing to direct evidence of their sinfulness. Within His scathing denunciation of these religious leaders, Jesus even employs the term “fool” (Matt 23:17).

In their commentary on Matthew 23:17, W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison offer only two possible explanations for Christ’s use of the word ‘fool’ given His imperative against its use in Matthew 5:22. In their words, either “Jesus is, because of special status, exempted from the prohibition or…5:22 pertains only to brothers.”[ii] The first option must be rejected for several reasons. Christ as man was required to live under the divine law which applies to all humanity. Likewise, He would have sinned by breaking any command and thereby advocating indirectly through His example that His followers break God’s law. Finally, Jesus and the apostles repeatedly direct all Christians to follow Christ. Given this direction, those following Christ’s example should be allowed, within appropriate parameters, to attach disparate names upon those like the Pharisees.

The second option, which understands Christ to be telling brothers not to call each other a fool, seems to make better use of the context. In Matthew 5:22, Jesus “forbids not all anger but the anger which arises out of personal relationships.”[iii] In the verses that follow (vv.23-24), Jesus argues that restoring a relationship with an offended brother is more important than performing religious duties. Next, in vv.25-26, Jesus advocates reconciliation of those who have personally offended another.

Given the primacy Christ places on relationships, He is focused on relational anger and not anger concerned with sin and unbelief that exists outside a direct personal connection; this anger is directed solely against those who have offered offense to the one who then responds in anger. Unlike those who display this anger (and all people have found themselves among these), Jesus sets a completely different example for how one should compose themselves when receiving personal offense: “while being reviled, He did not revile in return; while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously; and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness” (1 Pet 2:23-24).

Despite the foolishness (to put it lightly) displayed by those who sinfulness led them to become murders of the Messiah, Jesus withheld such a condemnation since He Himself had been the recipient of their sinful act. He simply refused to retaliate when His ego may have otherwise been involved. From His actions as discussed so far, it would seem there is a place for anger but not when one’s ego is involved. To confirm this, it may help to examine several Scriptures.

Paul, in Ephesians 4:26, tells his readers that they can indeed “[b]e angry” and such anger is “not sin.” Even so, he adds the warning that no one should “let the sun go down on [their] anger.” In the context, Paul is addressing Christians and knows various disturbances and disagreements will arise among them, and these will naturally give rise to feelings of anger. Even so, Paul is well aware of the human condition to such an extent that he sees the certain potential for sin to follow along swiftly unless believers have preconditioned their minds to refuse to allow anger to remain in their fellowship. In a similar vein, James says, “[E]veryone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger” (1:19). Here, James is advocating against “angry tempers” which Paul condemned in 2 Corinthians 12:20. Such anger, which has self at the center and which only focuses on personal offenses, is the “anger of man” which “does not achieve righteousness of God” (James 1:20).

As opposed to unrighteous anger that is merely concerned with the self, righteous anger, like the indignation of Christ against the religious leaders in Matthew 23, is entirely correct because it is an anger that is concerned first and foremost with holiness of God and His gracious efforts to save sinners, even those who despise His efforts by sinfully refusing to repent and believe in His Son. For such as these, Jesus rightly labels them fools among the others monikers that He assigned to them.

Given that Christians are called to follow Christ’s example, one has to consider whether or not there is an appropriate time to label someone a fool. Of course, the previous discussion would certainly prohibit such an action where one’s ego is involved. But, what about other times? Turning to the Scripture, one will find many descriptions of a fool. A fool abides in his/her anger (Job 5:2; Prov 29:11), denies God’s existence (Ps 14:1), rebels against the Lord (107:17), despises wisdom and instruction (Prov 1:7), hates knowledge (1:22), displays dishonor (3:35), remains wise in his/her own mind (12:15), loves evil (13:19), mocks at sin (14:9), feeds on folly (15:14), ignores discipline (17:10), speaks perversely (19:1), loves strife (20:3), etc. From this abbreviated list, the label of fool can be rightly applied to anyone who is living in sin and failing to walk in obedience to Christ.  Before one opts to apply this label directly and personally to a given individual, however, one should carefully weigh their motives to determine whether or not such a decision is rooting in the same love that Christ displayed in His desire that all should repent and turn from their foolish ways.

In conclusion, Jesus’s indignation against the religious leaders was directed against their sinfulness and stubborn refusal to repent and receive salvation. While He was certainly angry on behalf of God, Jesus was also in a very real sense angry on behalf of the Pharisees and their cohorts because He deeply desired that they turn from their wicked ways. As followers of Christ, there may be times when it is appropriate to speak a little more coarsely with hardened sinners in the hope that such direct talk will lead to their repentance. Nevertheless, the imperfection of the flesh mandates constant vigilance against the very real possibility that the root of any such course language may indeed be the offended ego which sinfully cares more about personal offense than offense given to God and the salvation of lost sinners.

[i]All Scripture references are taken from NASB1995.

[ii]W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, Commentary on Matthew XIX-XXVIII, Vol. 3 of A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew, eds. J. A. Emerton, C. E. B. Cranfield, and G. N. Stanton (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1997), 291.

[iii]D. A. Carson, Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount and His Confrontation with the World: An Exposition of Matthew 5:10 (Grand Rapids: BakerBooks, 1999), 45.