Truth Magazine

By 

Thank you for your kind remarks. Be assured that I shall prayerfully consider your admonition and criticism. I need conscientious godly reproof. Your letter helps me to reflect and causes me to pray for wisdom and judgment in “handling aright the word of truth.” Truly, “a soft answer turneth away wrath” (Prov. 15:1), “and the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle to all men” (2 Tim. 2:24).

What follows below is not an attempt to justify myself or to “prove” that your letter is off target. Rather, I believe you have raised some issues that need to be addressed. Numerous sound, sober, solid citizens in the kingdom feel as you do. Therefore, I urge you to hear me patiently and thoughtfully that we may be of the same mind and may “with one mind and one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom. 15:16).

First, you underestimate yourself. You state that as “a woman” you “do not presume to teach (me) how to teach.” Your attitude is admirable, and I appreciate the “meek and quiet spirit” which prompted your words, but do not hesitate to instruct me or anyone else. Aquila and Priscilla took mighty, eloquent Apollos and “expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly” (Acts 16:24-26). Many good and wise men have been led to ruin because they did not have (or else did not heed) the sweet counsel of a godly friend. “The sweetness of the lips increaseth learning” (Prov. 16:21). “Let the righteous smite me; it shall be a kindness” (Psa. 141:5). “He that hateth reproof is brutish” (Prov. 12:1). “He that hateth reproof shall die” (Prov. 15:10). “He that refuseth instruction despiseth his own soul” (Prov. 15:32).

Second, my “tongue in cheek” sarcasm in the Paher exchange was an attempt, in part, to humorously defuse his stinging words. Brother Paher made, as a review of his letters will show clearly, many fairly uncomplimentary remarks. Rather than respond in the same manner, I chose (whether wisely or not) to show that fellows who go around preaching “peace and love” and condemning “bullyism” are not immune to using harsh, censorious cutting language. Did you also write to brother Paher and object to his “derogatory and debasing remarks”? Did you reprimand him for his “ridicule” and “personal remarks”? Was that person who is “very strong and well indoctrinated in the Bible” also “disgusted” with brother Paher’s insults and charges? I am not asking for an answer, but some of us who have to endure the taunts and accusations of others are a little weary of being criticized for our efforts while “derogatory and debasing remarks” against us are either excused, ignored or both.

Third, if you cannot recommend GOT because of its “personal exchanges,” how do you handle the biting satire and scathing sarcasm of the Bible itself? “Ye stiff necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost” (Acts 7:51). “Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel” (Man. 23:24). “Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers” (Man 23:33). Are “very strong” brethren “disgusted” with Paul’s “personal remarks” against Elymas, “O full of all subtlety and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness” (Acts 13:10)? Demas, Diotrephes, Hymanaeus, PhIletus and Alexander are all cited and indicted for their evil deeds and doctrines in stem, strong terms (1 Tim. 1:19, 20; 2 Tim. 2:16-18; 4:10,16; 3 Jn. 9,10). Paul referred to some men as mutilators and “dogs” (Phil. 3:2). He wished they were “cut off” and used a play on words regarding the cutting of circumcision (Gal. 5:12). Surely, one who is well indoctrinated In the Bible will recognize these blunt, personal references. Will he be “disgusted” with them? No, of course not; so why should he be offended by similar situations today?

In 1 Kings 18:27, Elijah sarcastically chided and “mocked” the prophets of Baal. Are heathens and idolaters today to be spared thee derisive remarks? Hear and feel the lash of Paul’s words in Titus 1:10-13. “For there are many unruly and vain talkers and decolvers, specially they of the circumcision: whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for fifthy lucre’s sake. One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are always liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith.” This magazine has never featured stronger words than those. Further, Paul said, “These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee” (Tit. 2:15).

Any rascal could use the above passages to justify his malicious meanness. The Lord will judge, but Jesus Himself used words that offended, shamed and filled His enemies with “madness” (Lk. 6:11, 11:45, 13:17). What do those “young in the faith” think of Jesus when they we such reactions to the Lord?

Fourth, and finally, I received three long distance phone calls from Texas, Kentucky and Ohio and six letters from Texas, Kentucky Wisconsin and Arizona commending the material in the Paher review. Counting noses does not approve me, but brethren who are as equally concerned for truth and righteousness as you are deemed the efforts profitable and helpful.

Obviously, you agree with what I and others teach, but you disagree with the way we do it. Here is part of the solution. You and others who feel as you do should submit articles which deal with these and other sensitive and controversial subjects. Since what we say needs to be said, why not deal with these vital matters the way they need to be dealt with? The pages of GOT are open to all who can find a better way to speak the truth. If we say the right things in the wrong way, then you and others should say the same things in the right way. We do not insist that our way is the only way. We only insist that what we say must be said; therefore, you say it in a way that will not be offensive or disgusting or harmful to those young in the faith, and we will print it. But say it! If we are not saying it right, then you say it right! If you can reprove and rebuke sharply without causing disgust, perhaps we can learn to emulate and imitate your manners. Let me, though, issue two words of caution: (1) Do not become more mannerly than the Lord and the apostles, and (2) remember the sage advice of the late and lamented Luther Blackmon, “There are a lot of ways to skin a cat, but no matter how you do it, the old cat ain’t gonna like it.”

Again, thanks for writing. I shall treasure your words in my heart and seek to be a better Christian because of them. I trust that you, too, will weigh what I have said on the scales of God’s word. May the Lord bless you in every pure endeavor for truth.

Larry Ray Hafley

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 4, pp. 115-116
February 21, 1985

By Jimmy Tuten

Many times the Bible speaks of removing boundaries (Prov. 22:28; Deut. 19:14; 27:17). Solomon said emphatically, “remove not the old landmark. . .” (Prov. 23: 10). A landmark was considered a sacred thing that helped perpetuate family holdings and was used as a means of protection against deceit, error, and confusion. It might be a rock, a post or a metal stake. Sometimes they get lost, misplaced or obscured. For example, a metal stake in one corner of our property line that the church owns has been determined to be completely engulfed in an oak tree. The tree simply grew around it! We know where the line is, but we can’t see the stake. Therein lies the purpose of a landmark, i.e., to help one know where the boundary is and to help us identify an area where we have liberty. For example, I have the liberty to mow the grass up to the property line between my property and that of my neighbor’s, but no further. He might like me to mow his side of the grass, but I am not at liberty to do so!

When Jehovah sets a landmark n His Word, that means that there are limitations and restrictions attached to it. I have the right and the privilege to move within a certain area of God’s Word, but I cannot tamper with it, nor change what is set. I can move only within the area or boundary set by God (Tit. 2:1; 2 Tim. 1:13).

Some Examples

In 1 Kings 12:28-30 we have the example of Jereboam changing things set by God. He changed relating to the worship of Jehovah: the place of worship (Dan and Bethel), the priesthood, the period of worship and even the object of worship. He should never have moved God’s landmark. Matthew 15 records the fact that the Jews in Christ’s day changed God’s law regarding one’s duty to parents and their devotion to God (“with their lips,” vv. 3-9). Again, stakes were moved. False brethren spied out the liberty of first century Christians by moving God’s boundary regarding circumcision (Acts 15; Gal. 2:1-5).

The fact that there are ancient landmarks of doctrine goes undisputed (Jude 3; Tit. 2: 1). It is obvious though, that some have been converted to and are following landmarks that are really obstructions standing in the middle of the road of truth! The greatest need among our brethren in the area of doctrine is to clear away the rubbish of some current thinking on the original truths of the New Testament! I know that to do so is to bring certain consternation that will shock and disturb us. But some of us need to be jerked into reality when it comes to attitudes toward God’s Word and each other. It is

never right to accuse those who are trying to be faithful with removing ancient landmarks, when they are only taking away later accretions. Regardless of the obscurities that men have placed in the way, we cannot dispense with the truly ancient landmarks of God’s Word. To forsake God’s Word in any area is to forsake the authority behind it (Jn. 12:48; Mk. 7:9).

The Landmark Of Sin And Mercy

There is one area where the process of removing the boundary of sound doctrine is in great suspect. Things that are uncertain in sound regarding sin and mercy are rippling through our ranks with discouraging shockwaves. Some have loosed themselves from the boundary marker of God’s Word and appear to be floundering. The only solution lies in going back to and holding to the pattern of God’s Word. God has definitely driven a stake, or landmark, regarding sin and mercy. The floundering upon the waves of uncertainty comes not from the lack of a landmark about sin, but from our own rationalizations. The landmark appears obscured and hidden to some, but it is there nonetheless. Some have simply failed to hold to it.

In 1953 1 sat in a class taught by Homer Hailey. We were discussing the “way that is right and cannot be wrong” concept as opposed to what “appeared reasonable, though uncertain. ” What he said was so deeply burned into my mind that I have never forgotten it, nor strayed from it: “Boys,” he said, “when you find yourself wandering in the area of uncertainty, always come back to the stake of what God has said and you will never believe nor teach false doctrine. ” That advice needs to be passed on. I say with no intended disrespect toward any preacher: there are some who need to go back to the landmark about sin that God set 1,900 years ago. I am hearing things about sin and mercy that cannot be found in the Word of God! Some of these things may sound reasonable, but are they scriptural? I judge no man, butfrom what I am heating ancient landmarks are being uprooted, even though pleas of “that’s not what I mean ” are being heard. If some of our preaching brethren do not believe what they are saying, then they should not say it! The precious body of Christ must not be ruptured by statements and cliches that are divisive, regardless of our right to say them. Brethren, I beg you and I implore you, place your hand on the stake of God’s teaching about sin and forgiveness, and desist from making the reasonableness of certain conclusions that are questionable disruptive to our peace and harmony. Look with me at God’s teaching (an ancient landmark) concerning sin. Can we alter or move the stake?

Sin And Forgiveness According To The Bible

(1) What Sin Is And Is Not. The definition, “missing the mark,” generally defines sin. The Bible describes it as “all unrighteousness” (1 Jn. 5:17) and “lawlessness,” or being without law (1 Jn. 3:4). While there is a great deal said about “sins of weakness,” all sin reflects weakness (cf. Gal. 6:1, “overtaken”; 1 Cor. 3:3, “manner of men”; 1 Jn. 2:16, “lust,” etc.), there are sins of omission (Jas. 4:17) and comission (Rom. 7:14-25). The Bible speaks of rebellious sins that would involve unrighteousness, lawlessness and commission (Heb. 10:26). Sins of ignorance (1 Tim. 1: 13) and violations of conscience are likewise categories of sin (Rom. 14:23). But nowhere does the Bible speak of sin as depravity, nor due to depravity though some brethren border this concept in that they teach “a Christian will sin daily” (cf. 1 Jn. 2:1-2). Too, the New Testament does not speak of “momentary sins,” “minor sins,” “everyday sins,” or “incidental faults.” To speak of sin as “incidental” or a “good deed left undone because of circumstances beyond our control” is to remove an ancient landmark (Vanguard, Vol. 8, No. 3, p. 19).

(2) The Consequences of Sin. Sin alienates (Eph. 4:18), causes one to be “dead” (Eph. 2:1,5), and separates from God (Isa. 59:2). One may not understand when a sin separates (1 Jn. 1:8), or how a sin (darkness) can exist while one walks in the light (1 Jn. 1:7-9), or even how long mercy is extended between the time we commit a sin and the time we confess it, but his lack of understanding gives no right to advocate that some sins do not separate. This would be removing the landmark!

(3) Attitudes Toward Sin. God hates sin because He is light (1 Jn. 1:5), He is just (Rom. 3:26) and His very nature causes Him to disapprove of evil (Hab. 1: 13). Since God Almighty hates wickedness (Psa. 11:5), should we not hate it as well (Psa. 119:104)? Do we really understand that the very nature of God causes Him to be grieved when we sin (Psa. 95: 10)? Can we not see that we are to walk in the light even as He is in the light (1 Jn. 1:5-7) and that we are to be holy like the Father (I Pet. 1: 15)? Why then do some minimize sin with speculative reasoning? Our attitude toward sin should be to abhor it and abstain from every form of evil (Rom. 12:9; 1 Thess. 5:22). This “even as he sins” business that we are hearing so much advocates automatic coverage of certain sins (ignorance and weakness) committed by the Christian. This is the removing of a landmark. God forbid!

(4) One Sin Condemns. If one sin that is not forgiven by repentance and confession (conditions that God has laid down) does not condemn the Christian, then please tell me: how many must I commit before I am condemned? Are we going to use a pen knife on James 2: 10? Are we going to ignore the one sin condemnation of Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5), Simon the sorcerer (Acts 8), etc.? There is not a man alive who has the right to say that God will not condemn a Christian over one sin. To do so is to tamper with ancient landmarks.

(5) The Solution For Sin. “He that covereth his transgressions, shall not prosper; but whoso confesseth and forsiketh them shall obtain mercy” (Prov. 28:13). Blessed indeed is the man “whose iniquities are forgiven” (Rom. 4:7-8). God has driven two markers or stakes regarding the boundary of forgiveness for the alien sinner and the Christian who errs. He tells the alien to believe on His Son (Jn. 3:16), to repent of his sins (Acts 17:30), to confess with his mouth his faith in Jesus Christ (Rom. 10:10), and to be baptized for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38). This is what God says and I preach it regardless of the reasonableness of God showing mercy to the alien who dies on the way to the creek before he is actually immersed! God has not given me the right to say that He saves the person who sincerely tries to do God’s will but somehowfails to do so! Whether Jehovah does or does not extend mercy in this situation is the business of Deity and I will not remove the ancient landmark by postulating my opinion.

When it comes to the Christian, I know that he is not perfect (and all that is implied therein) because God says so (1 Jn. 1: 10). I know, too, that I do not have to sin because by Bible says so (1 Jn. 2: 1). I am not perfect, so if I sin I have an Advocate (1 Jn. 2: 1). That Advocate says I must confess my sin to be forgiven (1 Jn. 1:9). Just because I do not understand how specific or detailed repentance and confession must be does not give me the right to say that the Christian cannot confess all his sins. This is removing a landmark! It is straying beyond the boundary. This business that some Christians’ .sins are automatically covered by the grace of God without repentance, confession and prayer, i.e., instantaneously and constantly cleansed unconditionally (the only condition being “walking in the light,” which to some simply means a “penitent attitude”) tends to: (a) minimize sin, (b) give a false assurance to the Christian as he sins, and (c) will lead to fellowshipping Christians who practice doctrinal error such as instrumental music in worship, etc.

At the risk of being redundant let me say as emphatically as possible that God has not revealed what He will do with the Christian who dies while guilty of some sin of ignorance before and without repentance for that sin in some given hypothetical case. Those who are uprooting landmarks in this area have no right to say that the well intentioned will be saved even as he sins. Nor do I (as one who is in opposition to that position) have the right to say that God will show him no mercy in the judgment. Let’s leave the landmarks where God placed them!

Conclusion

I think a lot of the confusion would be eliminated if our brethren who have been criticized for saying what they claim they do not believe would be more careful in what they say. I feel that their love for unity and peace obligates them in this area. It is not too late to mend fences by careful, prayerful concern regarding our speech, our attitudes and our brotherliness. Let’s stop confusing the issue with our rationalizations and hypothetical examples. Go back to the stake and remove not the ancient landmarks.

I liken a lot of what has happened to a parable that I am going to call the “Parable of the Watermelon Patch.” Once a certain farmer raised watermelons for a living. Soon, however, a group of boys in the community found the location of his secluded field of fruit, and began raiding the patch. Against his better judgment, the farmer finally agreed to try a plan suggested by a neighbor. He placed a sign at the edge of the field, reading: “one melon in this patch is poisoned.” The next day, when the boys saw the farmer leave for the market, they headed for his melon patch to feast on his luscious fruit that brought such delights to their taste buds. They were startled to read the sign posted outside the enclosure. Just as they were leaving, an idea popped into the mind of one of the boys. He took a piece of chalk from his pocket and altered part of the message. When he finished, the sign read: “two melons in this patch are poisoned.” Laughing hilariously, they left. The farmer returned and found himself in a predicament, for now all the melons were unsafe for use, for he could not be sure which of the melons the boys had contaminated.

Is it interestingly possible that both sides of the current issue under discussion (sin and forgiveness) have made a similar mistake? By agreeing that one of the “spiritual melons” in the Garden of God’s Word was not true, they have made a fatal blunder. One says that the “every , sin must be repented of and confessed” position is a “yo-yo” religion. The other says that the automatic cleansing of the “even as you sin” position gives a false assurance to the Christian as he sins. There is confusion. Who is right? In the story, however, neither the farmer nor the gang of boys had really poisoned the delicious fruit. The analogy holds true for many Bible subjects. Whoever the false teacher is and whatever he says to make his opponent look ridiculous so that he will look right, still does not change God’s Word.

“Boys, when you find yourself wandering in the area of uncertainty, always come back to the stake of what God has said, and you will never believe nor teach false doctrine.” God help us to follow the wisdom, experience and judgment of the sage who gave this advice, for it is biblically founded!

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 4, pp. 104-106
February 21, 1985

By Gary L. Fiscus

My wife told me that two first graders came into the school library. Both children had notes pinned to their clothing. When asked what the notes said, the two replied that they did not know what they were for, or who they were to! They were not the least bit curious.

When I was a child, kids slapped stickers on each other’s backs. They read, “Kick Me,” or some such thing. If I were wearing a note pinned to my shirt, I would surely want to know what it said! Seemingly, these little ones could not care less.

In the Saturday Evening Post (Vol. 256, No. 8, November 1984), Dr. Lewis Thomas writes an article: “Making Science Work!” It is prefaced by a subtitled statement, “We need . . . the brightest and youngest of our most agile minds, capable of dreaming up ideas not dreamed before . . .”

He writes of scientists who are up against barriers. Those barriers come from people saying, “. . . give it back . . . it doesn’t really work, we’ve tried it and it doesn’t work, go back 300 years and start again on something else less chancy for the race of man.” Dr. Thomas, of course, refutes such a postulation.

Now consider the parallel of the above paragraphs. What have they in common? A need for young people to activate curiosity; and the apparently void, empty, and mundane mind of some young persons who could care less about knowing what is going on!

Please understand that I am not categorizing all young people as being devoid of curiosity. Many kids are curious, and they show it. I am concerned, however, when anyone, young or old, develops such a status quo acceptance of anything that comes his way. Let’s look at this problem from a Christian’s point of view.

The child of God understands his search for spiritual development is based on “the old paths” of God’s word (Jer. 6:16). He knows nothing will change as far as the authority is concerned. In Ecclesiastes 1:9, Solomon advises “there is nothing new under the sun.” We, as Christians, recognize our finite knowledge and wisdom as men compared to the infinite intellect and wisdom of Jehovah. The Hebrew writer says:

In the same way God, desiring even more to show to the heirs of the promise the unchangeableness of His purpose, interposed with an oath, in order that by two unchangeable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we may have strong encouragement, we who have fled for refuge in laying hold of the hope set before us (Heb. 6:17-18).

His Word “framed the world” (Heb. 1:2).

Consider, just here, however, the real importance of curiosity. What if the Christian was not curious about that Word? He would not grow. He would stagnate. He would die. Therefore, even though God’s Word is confirmed (Heb. 2:3-4; Mk. 16:20; Jude 3; etc.), man must be curious enough to investigate what it says. His “mind is (always) centered on things above” (Col. 3:2), but he constantly strives through investigation to better his relationship to God.

Let’s consider preachers especially. A man aspires to preach the gospel of Christ. By most standards he is pursuing an admirable profession. This man, however, is not curious about what God’s Word says. He is just going to give a speech; yell in a few places; throw in some Scripture and “tickle the ears of his hearers.” He starts. A note pinned to his chest states: “I can preach. I know how. Just ask me.” Well, you ask him. He cannot reply because he knew the note was there, but he didn’t know what it said; and he was never curious enough to rind out. All he knew was that he was supposed to be a preacher, but he never “searched the scriptures” to rind “eternal life” (Jn. 5:3 1; Acts 17:11).

“Absurd,” you say? Not so. Some preachers today are evidently relying on outline books, and theological philosophers to carry them. There are several good sermon outline books. I have used them. They are useful in their proper place, and I am grateful for the men with the ability to write them. On the other hand, they can be detrimental to a student who should be “searching the scriptures” and finding God’s information “from scratch.”

Recently I have been working with a young man who desires to preach the gospel. He has the ability. He has the (Bible) knowledge. He works hard. He recently received a call from a congregation to do some part-time preaching for them. In studying for his first two sermons, we had two day’s notice in which to prepare. He had an outline he had heard some preacher deliver. He had taken his own notes and wanted to “work it up himself.” He did, and he delivered it well.

While pondering the future and the essence of time in preparing lessons, I pointed to my bookshelf and said, “Now these are my cheaters.” “What?” came the reply. “My cheaters,” I repeated, “when I get caught unprepared, i.e., without a new sermon, I look up an outline in one of those books. I don’t like to them but justify myself with some excuse. I change a title, insert some preached. studied, Scriptures, invert some points, and call it mine! That, my friend, is cheating!”

In short, I have cheated myself to be curious because I allowed some other problem, challenge, entertainment, etc., enough ourselves to take priority that week. My curiosity lay dormant in matters of to study “searching the scriptures.” I have not utilized my “youthful,” “agile,” for ourselves! “dreamer’s” mind to curiously seek Jehovah’s truths.

What about your mind in search for truth? Do you let it idle in neutral as pertaining to Bible study? Do you accept what the elders, preacher, class teacher, or fellow-student says without question? Do you study on your own? Is the only time you read your Bible in a class or during a sermon? I am concerned that many in the church are believing what men say the Bible says, rather than studying the Bible on their own. I am not against classes. I am not against commentaries. I believe, however, we need refreshing. We need the word preached, studied, believing, accepted. We need to be curious enough ourselves to study for ourselves!

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 4, pp. 112-113
February 21, 1985

By Don R. Hastings

In the first part of James 3, God revealed the tremendous power of the tongue. In James 3:7-12, God made known to us some outstanding evil characteristics of the tongue. We need to be aware of these characteristics and diligently guard our tongues to keep them from practicing these things (Prov. 13:3; 21:23). With David, we should pray and ask Jehovah to, “set a watch, O Jehovah, before my mouth; Keep the door of my lips” (Psa. 141:3). God has told us how to possess happiness (1 Pet. 3:10-12). Refraining one’s “tongue from evil” is essential to living a good life!

Studying James 3:7-12, we learn several evil characteristics of the tongue. An outstanding evil characteristic of the tongue is that it:

Cannot Be Tamed

God intended that man should “have dominion” over all animals when He created them (Gen. 1:27, 28; 9:1,2; Psa. 8:4-9). Man has used the animals of this earth for his benefit. He uses them for food, work and enjoyment. It is not wrong to kill and eat animals (Gen. 9:3; Acts 20:13).

Man can subdue and control animals, but he hasn’t learned to subdue and control his tongue. You cannot trust your tongue to always speak words which are good and proper. You cannot trust your tongue to the point that you unloose it and let it speak without first carefully considering what it will say. In an unguarded moment, it will say very cruel and ugly words.

Is A Restless Evil

Like a wild beast moving back and forth in its cage, seeking an opportunity to escape and mange its victim, so is the tongue. The evil that the tongue is capable of doing cannot be quenched and pacified to the extent that it ceases to desire to work its harm. That’s why it can’t be tamed!

Is Full Of Deadly Poison

We fear the rattlesnake, coral snake, etc., because they possess deadly poison. If you live in Florida long, as I have, you probably have many snake stories to share. I am no exception, as I have had many close calls, being the outdoors man that I am.

We fear a bottle with the picture of a skull and crossbones on it, and the word “poison” written on it. If you were to walk into a room and your little child was holding such a bottle with the cap off, a feeling of horror would come over you. I am sure my mother and father had the same feeling the time I was two years old and swallowed roach tablets. I assured my mother, on the way to the hospital, “I not die. I not a roach.” But, my reasoning didn’t calm her at the time.

We should greatly fear the improper use of the tongue for it can kill physically and spiritually (Prov. 18:21). People, who gossip and slander, are like slithering snakes carrying a sac of poison, ready and eager to strike and inject the poison (Psa. 58:4; 140:3; Mt. 3:7). Guy N. Woods put it this way,” Those who would shrink in horror from the thought of plunging a sword into the heart of another will, nevertheless, indulge in malicious gossip that drives a sword through the heart in a manner far more painful than any possible physical injury” (New Testament Commentaries: James, Guy N. Woods, p. 168).

Do your words ever kill good intentions, good will, initiative, hope, good morale, good reputations, or spiritual-mindedness? The person who said, “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me” – lied.

Is Often Used Inconsistently

Christians should use their tongues for the most noble use of all and, that is, to praise, glorify and bless the Lord. The Christian’s tongue may also be used for an evil purpose – cursing men.

What a great, inconsistent and unholy use of our tongues. William Barclay writes, “Many a man speaks with perfect courtesy to strangers and even preaches love and gentleness, and yet snaps with ungracious and impatient anger and irritability at his own family at home. It has not been unknown for a man to speak with piety on Sunday and to curse a squad of workmen on Monday. It has not been unknown for a man to utter the most pious sentiments one day, and to repeat the most questionable stories the next. It has not been unknown a woman to speak with sweet graciousness at a religious meeting, and then to go outside to murder someone’s repetition with a malicious and a gossiping tongue” (The Letters of James and Peter, William Barclay, p. 105).

Man is “made after the likeness of God” (Gen. 1:26, 27). The person who despises a human-being despises God (1 Jn. 4:20,21). How we treat our fellow man is how we are treating the Lord (Mt. 25:24-36; Acts 9:5). The person who blesses God but curses man is a hypocrite (Psa. 62:4)!

How can we curse mankind: Who are God’s handiwork? Whom God loves (Jn. 3:16)? For whom Christ died (Heb. 2:9)? Whom God desires to save (1 Tim. 2:3,4)?

If we think that God is going to be pleased with the honor we give Him with our lips, while we speak vile, filthy, hateful words about and to others, we are deceived! Christians required by God to bless those who “persecute you” (Rom. 12:14). We are not to return evil for evil (Rom. 12:17, 21). If we curse those who curse us, we have lowered ourselves to their level and encouraged them to continue in their sinful ways. Under the law of Moses, children who cursed their parents were to be put to death (Ex. 21:17). There is no justification for cursing others. Christians are required by God to bless those who “revile you” (1 Cor. 4:12; 1 Pet. 3:8,9). Jesus didn’t curse those who reviled Him (1 Pet. 2:23; Mt. 27:39-44). How can we claim to be disciples of Christ when we curse others?

This inconsistent use of our tongue is contrary to nature for nature is consistent. A spring would not give good water one time and bitter water another time. The fig tree does not produce olives for every seed brings forth “after their kind” (Gen. 1:11).

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 4, pp. 109-110
February 21, 1985