Exegetical Brief: Two Bad Words: Ρακά and Μωρέ in Matthew 5:22

Abstract

What role do the two bad words, Raca and Fool, play in the lesson Jesus is teaching in Matthew 5:22? Is Raca a worse bad word than Fool, so that Jesus is ultimately emphasizing that even the smallest outbreak of anger—calling someone a Fool—is worthy of the fires of hell? Or is Fool a much worse bad word than Raca, so that the logic of the verse proceeds in an ascending fashion small insult should land you before the Sanhedrin, but a really big insult will bring you hell? Or is the relationship between the two bad words of some different sort?

Jesus' purpose in adding those two statements in the verse wasn't primarily to emphasize increased punishments for progressively greater sins. That could be seen as militating against the larger point of this section of Matthew 5, where he is making the case that one ought not view sins as greater or lesser; one should view all as worthy of God's damnation. Yes, a focus on gradation at this point might unduly emphasize distinction at the expense of recognizing that Jesus is simply trying to nail home a single point: anger in all of its manifestations is sin, and sin brings judgment.