In Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, one of the first commands that Jesus emphasized was about name-calling.
But why did Jesus gave this command such a prominent place in this timeless message?
“You have heard that it was said to the men of old, ‘You shall not murder,’ and ‘Whoever murders shall be guilty before the court.’ But I say to you that everyone who continues to be angry with his brother or harbors malice against him shall be guilty before the court; and whoever speaks [contemptuously and insultingly] to his brother, ‘Raca (You empty-headed idiot)!’ shall be guilty before the supreme court (Sanhedrin); and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be in danger of the fiery hell.”—Matthew 5:21-22 (AMP)
There is much more to this passage than most of us realize. Within this passage can be found the degenerative process that led to the murder of Charlie Kirk. This passage contains the warning signals that led to the murder of thousands of Jews during the Nazi Holocaust. Within this passage is the tragic key to what led to the murder of millions of unborn babies through abortion. Within this passage we can see what led to the genocide of an entire tribe of people in Rwanda.
If we don’t learn the lesson of this command, murder could arise and take root in the hearts of any of us, as it has in the hearts of so many before us.
It is the violation of this command of Christ that also empowered and perpetuated slavery in the United States, and if we do not learn the lesson of this command of Christ, our own disobedience could lead us into another civil war.
Let’s look closely and really try to understand this command of our Lord Jesus.
Prolonged Anger
“You have heard that it was said to the men of old, ‘You shall not murder,’ and ‘Whoever murders shall be guilty before the court.’ But I say to you that everyone who continues to be angry with his brother or harbors malice against him shall be guilty before the court”—Matthew 5:21-22 (AMP)
Here, Jesus links prolonged anger with the act of murder. He does that because if we entertain thoughts of harming someone, in God’s eyes, it is the same as if we had committed the act.
We know that because of what Jesus said about adultery just a few verses later.
“You have heard that it was said, You shall not commit adultery. But I say to you that everyone who so much as looks at a woman with evil desire for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”—Matthew 5:27-28 (AMPC)
In the same way, if we think about someone with evil desire to harm them, then we have already committed the act in our hearts.
When William Branham was commissioned into the ministry in 1946, the angel said, “You will preach to multitudes the world over and thousands will come to you for counsel. You must tell them that their thoughts speak louder in heaven than their words.” (Jorgensen, vol. I, p. 237)
We may have flashes of anger against someone, but we are commanded not to allow that anger to remain in our thoughts and our hearts.
“Scripture says, ‘When you are angry, do not sin.’ (Psalm 4:4) Do not let the sun go down while you are still angry.”—Ephesians 4:26 (NIRV)
“Turn away from anger and don’t give in to wrath. Don’t be upset, because that only leads to evil.”—Psalm 37:8 (NIRV)
When anger is allowed to continue in our heart and our thoughts, then Jesus points out that it leads to name-calling. This is the next step on the path to murder.
Name-Calling
“and whoever speaks [contemptuously and insultingly] to his brother, ‘Raca (You empty-headed idiot)!’ shall be guilty before the supreme court (Sanhedrin)”—Matthew 5:22 (AMP)
As anger seethes in our hearts and that fire is stoked in our thoughts, the next step toward violence is name-calling. When we first read this part of Jesus’ command, we may not see why Jesus makes such a serious matter out of name-calling, but it is more serious than feelings of anger. In the first part of the verse, Jesus said that anger makes us guilty before the court of judgment. But here we see that name-calling is even more serious because it makes us guilty before the supreme court. So, obviously there is an escalation. This is a more serious crime.
Why?
The answer to that question can be found in the meaning of the derogatory name “Raca” that Jesus uses in this command. Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words tells us that “Raca” means “empty.” “It was a word of utter contempt, signifying ‘empty’ intellectually.” “empty-headed.” The dictionary goes on to say that “As condemned by Christ, Matthew 5:22, it was worse than being angry, inasmuch as an outrageous utterance is worse than a feeling unexpressed or somewhat controlled in expression.”
What name-calling does is it devalues a person. Calling a person an “empty-headed idiot,” or a “moron” for example, reduces their worth, making them something less than a human who is worthy of honor and respect. It dehumanizes them.
This is dangerous because if we label a person as something less than human, then we can very easily rationalize committing violence against them.
You will see this pattern in many, many acts of violence against people.
After Charlie Kirk was killed, a post appeared on X declaring, “Another chud bites the dust.” A “chud” is a slang term used online to refer to people who are dismissed as having no good qualities at all. The online Urban Dictionary describes “chud” as “a particularly mean insult; it should not be taken nor thrown around lightly.” It is also particularly used to label “a conservative republican. someone who is either racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic, fascist, a boot licker or all of the above.”
On the bullet casings recovered at the crime scene, there were engraved messages that seemed to label Charlie as a fascist.
When people are dehumanized through name-calling, it re-brands them as something worthless. Then violence against them can be justified, because, after all, they are no longer human in the eyes of the name-caller.
The “N” Word
During the time of slavery in America, people justified despicable acts of violence against black slaves because they saw these black people as less than human.
In the 1857 case of Dred Scott, ruling against the rights of slaves, the Supreme Court wrote this in its decision:
“We think … that they [black people] are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word ‘citizens’ in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States. On the contrary, they were at that time [of America’s founding] considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the Government might choose to grant them.”
“They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order … and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit.”
Thankfully, society now has largely banned the use of “the N word” that had been so effective in dehumanizing black people in the past.
It’s Only a Fetus
The abortion holocaust that has taken the lives of millions of unborn children might never have been possible without name-calling.
The forces of evil realized that people could be much more easily persuaded to murder a child in the womb if they did not think of it as a child. In order for abortion to be accepted in society, the child had to be dehumanized. This is why the unborn child is never called a “baby” or a “child” by abortionists. The child is first labeled as a “fetus” or a “clump of tissue.” After dehumanizing the baby with this relabeling, then killing it can be more easily rationalized.
Labeling People as Evil
Jesus goes on to describe an even greater escalation.
“and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be in danger of the fiery hell.”—Matthew 5:21-22 (AMP)
The consequences went from judgment for prolonged anger to more severe judgment for name-calling, until finally the threat of condemnation to eternal hell for labeling someone a fool.
But why is the judgment for this labeling so severe?
The reason becomes clear when we look at the original meaning of the words that Jesus used here.
While “Raca” dehumanizes a person and labels them as worthless. The word for “fool” here is much worse. It actually labels the person as evil. It is an attack on the person’s heart and character, labeling them as morally depraved. This is the kind of name-calling that happens, for example, when someone is falsely labeled as a “Nazi,” a “fascist,” a white supremacist,” or a “racist” in today’s social climate. This is declaration that labels the person as irredeemably evil.
Scapegoating
This kind of name-calling lays the groundwork for violence against the people who are labeled in this way. Once people are labeled as evil, it becomes very easy to rationalize violence against them because, after all, these people have already been labeled as worthless, sub-human, evil, and irredeemable. It is very easy to convince ourselves that these people deserve to be harmed. They deserve to be hurt. They deserve to die.
The next step in this progression of evil is to blame these people for what is wrong in our lives and in our society.
If, for example, a political figure in America is labeled as a “threat to our democracy,” as Donald Trump has been labeled, then violence against that person can be easily justified. It is easy to commit violence against a person if you come to see that person as the cause of your problems or a threat to your way of life.
If then the president of the United States declares that “it’s time to put Trump in the bull’s-eye,” as Joe Biden did, then violence against Donald Trump can proceed with the full endorsement of the government.
If someone is a threat to our democracy, the logical conclusion is that it is now our patriotic duty to exterminate them and remove the threat.
When the killer of Charlie Kirk was asked about his motive, he reportedly said, “There is too much evil in the world,” and that Charlie Kirk “spreads too much hate.”
For this shooter, the dangerous name-calling had done its work. Charlie Kirk was first dehumanized in this shooter’s mind, then labeled as evil and harmful to society.
Extermination
In 1930’s Germany, Jews were dehumanized as an inferior race; they were condemned as evil; and finally, they were blamed for the economic problems in Germany and falsely accused of betraying Germany during World War I.
Unresolved anger and prejudice led to name-calling. The name-calling led to labeling the Jews as evil and harmful. This led to the Jewish Holocaust and the murders of millions of Jews.
Genocide
In Rwanda, the Hutus and the Tutsis were two tribes of people who lived side by side. They worked and laughed together. Their children went to school together.
But then young Hutus began to be taught in school that Tutsis were inferior to them, and that Tutsis should not be trusted, even going so far as to say that Tutsis had no place living in Rwanda.
As Immaculée Ilibagiza, a Tutsi herself, writes, “they were taught to dehumanize us by calling us ‘snakes’ and ‘cockroaches.’ No wonder it was so easy for them to kill us—snakes were to be killed and cockroaches exterminated!” (Ilibagiza, p.86)
It wasn’t too long before calls for the extermination of the Tutsis were broadcast over national radio in Rwanda.
“These Tutsi cockroaches are out to kill us. Do not trust them … we Hutus must act first! They are planning to take over our government and persecute us. If anything happens to our president, then we must exterminate all the Tutsis right away! Every Hutu must join together to rid Rwanda of these Tutsi cockroaches! Hutu Power! Hutu Power!” (Ilibagiza, p.37)
Many people have heard of the genocide in Rwanda, but not many people realize that it started with name-calling, in violation of Jesus’ command.
The Solution
With His command, Jesus also tells us how to resolve offenses before these situations degenerate into acts of violence.
“So if you are presenting your offering at the altar, and while there you remember that your brother has something [such as a grievance or legitimate complaint] against you, leave your offering there at the altar and go. First make peace with your brother, and then come and present your offering.”—Matthew 5:23-24 (AMP)
This may sound counter-intuitive. It might not be the way we would normally react, but Jesus tells us here that if we become aware that someone feels that we have hurt or offended them in some way, then *we *must take the initiative to go to that person and make peace with them.
The guiding principle of this command is restated in Romans 12:18:
“If possible, so far as it depends on you, live in peace with all people.” (ISV)
We may not feel that we have done or said anything to offend them, but that doesn’t matter. What matters is that they feel offended. When we become aware that someone feels that we have hurt them or offended them in some way, then Jesus says it is up to us to go to them and to resolve the problem.
It seems popular today, in our very divisive environment, to say, ”If you are offended by what I say or do, that’s not my problem.” But it is! Jesus says that it is your problem to resolve the offense and to restore peace. Offenses must never be allowed to fester into prolonged anger that could lead to violence.
Remember these words of Jesus:
“But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
“Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!”—Matthew 18:6-7 (KJV)
In his way, Charlie Kirk spent his life obeying this command of Christ. He went to the college campuses where thousands of young people disagreed with him, and he allowed people to confront him with their disagreements. As they talked, he brought clarity where there had been confusion. He brought reconciliation where there had been animosity. He made peace with thousands of young people, clearly explaining the principles of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, reconciling them to their Savior. He was so successful in making peace with young people, that it turned the tide of the 2024 US presidential election as record numbers of young people voted to restore conservative values in our country.
Yes, Charlie was killed in the end, but he was killed by a young man whose seething anger was left to fester. This anger led him to label Charlie with dehumanizing names, eventually coming to the conclusion that Charlie was a threat that needed to be eliminated.
The death of Charlie Kirk underscores the importance of obeying the command of Christ to make peace with those who feel that we have wronged them.
There is No Time to Waste
In His command to us, Jesus tells us not to delay taking action. There is no time to lose.
“Come to terms quickly [at the earliest opportunity] with your opponent at law while you are with him on the way [to court], so that your opponent does not hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you are thrown into prison. I assure you and most solemnly say to you, you will not come out of there until you have paid the last cent.”—Matthew 5:25-26 (AMP)
According to Jesus’ command, it is up to us to reach out to those who have felt wronged by us and to give our best efforts to make peace with them. As Charlie found out, there are many unexpected benefits that can come from obeying this command.
Obeying this command can lead others to Christ.
Obeying this command can make friends and partners out of enemies.
Obeying this command can open doors of opportunity that were previously closed to us.
And obeying this command can calm anger, avoid future conflicts, and change our society.
May it be so!
**References: **
Ilibagiza, Immaculée (2014). *Left to Tell: Discovering God Amidst the Rwandan Holocaust. *Hay House.
Jorgensen, O. (2019). Supernatural: The Life of William Branham (Vol. I). Supernatural Christian Books.
Wikimedia Foundation. (2025, September 19). Dred Scott v. Sandford. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford
