Is Baptism for Repentance—Matt. 3:11?

Matt. 3:11 is a difficult passage to understand as translated in most English versions.  John the Baptist is speaking and I will quote here only that part of the verse that gives problems and makes for difficult understanding.  I will use several translations for comparison and will add they are grouped the way they are for a reason:

Group A

ASV—"I indeed baptize you in water unto repentance."

KJV—"I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance."

NKJV—"I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance."

MLV (Modern Literal Version)—"I indeed immerse* you* in water toward repentance."

CEV—"I baptize you with water so that you will give up your sins."

LITV—"I indeed baptize you in water to repentance."

 

Group B

LONT (Living Oracles New Testament)—"I, indeed, immerse you in water, into reformation."

YLT—"I indeed do baptize you with water to reformation."

 

Group C

GNB (also known as the TEV)—"I baptize you with water to show that you have repented."

ISV—"I am baptizing you with water as a token of repentance."

NLT—"I baptize with water those who repent of their sins."

 

Group D

NAS—"I baptize you in water for repentance."

ESV-- "I baptize you with water for repentance."

HCSB—"I baptize you with water for repentance."

CSB—“I baptize you with water for repentance.”

NET—"I baptize you with water, for repentance."

NRSV—"I baptize you with water for repentance."

NIV—"I baptize you with water for repentance."

 

Here is the problem:  repentance is a change of mind toward God and sin.  It is a determination of the mind and will to turn away from sin, cease willfully committing sin, and turn to God in faithful obedience.  It is preceded by godly sorrow.  "For godly sorrow produces repentance to salvation." (2 Cor. 7:10 NKJV)  It is godly sorrow over sin that leads to repentance.

But there is another kind of sorrow, the kind that does not lead one to God.  We refer to it, because the Bible does, as "the sorrow of the world" (2 Cor. 7:10 NKJV) and Paul says it leads to death.  A man steals some money; he gets caught and is imprisoned.  He is sorry but why?  Is it because of his sin against God or because he was caught and imprisoned?  Without a turning to God all sorrow is worldly sorrow.  Sorrow motivated by a worldly reason where God is not taken into the equation and that does not lead one to God is "the sorrow of the world" and leads to death.

So here is the question as regards Matt. 3:11—how does water, being baptized, lead a man to repentance?  How can it be a stimulus to repentance, a catalyst to bring it about?  Repentance occurs in the mind and heart of a man.  Baptism is a material physical act of being immersed in water, not an act of the mind, heart, or will save only in an indirect way.  The mind, the heart, and the will lead to baptism but are not baptism.  The passage as translated seems to be saying that by being immersed in water that act alone will lead one to the process of the heart in the inward man that we call repentance.

Now take a second look at the various translations as I have grouped them.  Group A seems to be saying exactly what I said in the prior paragraph—that water alone will lead one to repent.  Can that be?  Isn't it always true that faith and repentance lead to baptism and not the reverse?  Does not faith and repentance precede baptism and act as the catalyst for baptism?  Did Peter on the day of Pentecost call for baptism first and then preach faith and repentance afterwards?  Does baptism, without any prior faith and repentance, lead men to say, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" (Matt. 2:37 NKJV)  One does not repent without first having developed faith.  If repentance comes after baptism so does faith.

So, I think all can see the problem we have with the Group A series of translations that imply that baptism will lead you to repentance.

The Group B translations translate the Greek word "metanoia" as reformation rather than repentance.  Alexander Campbell was behind the Living Oracles New Testament, that is the putting of it together, but the actual translators were from what I have read George Campbell, James MacKnight, and Philip Doddridge.  The YLT translation is Young's Literal Translation.

All of my word study sources tell me the Greek word "metanoia" is best translated as repentance but if I did not have any word study sources available to me at all one could simply look at how the vast majority of Bible versions have translated the word and come to the conclusion that Greek scholars are in agreement that the word that best fits the meaning of the Greek word when translated into English is "repentance."

It is true that all genuine repentance results in reformation but the word reformation seems to be a commentary on the meaning of the Greek, as these translators saw it, rather than a translation of it.  Evidently, the translators of these two versions felt this was what the text meant.  There is always reformation of life after a genuine scriptural baptism, which means a baptism that is preceded by faith and repentance, and so the text becomes understandable but the question is whether this translation is reliable.  There are serious doubts about that based on the number of Bible scholars who could have translated it the same way these two translations did but chose not to.

The Group C translations have a problem similar to those in Group B in that they make a translation that makes perfect sense, sounds reasonable as you read it the way they have translated it, but again is it reliable?  One could read this verse in any of the translations listed in Group B or Group C and if he did not know there were other translations out there that differed he or she would never miss a beat or question a thing for both make perfectly good sense.

I might add the translations in this group are based on the dynamic equivalent theory of translation (called functional equivalence today) which means they attempt to give you the meaning of the original as they see it.  They try and say the message found in the Greek as we would say it today in modern English, versus a literal word-for-word translation from Greek into English.  Of course, the problem with that theory of translation is that it is sometimes difficult to know with certainty what the exact meaning of the original is for even the scholars differ.

The Group D series of translations revolve around what the meaning of the word "for" is as in "for repentance."  The Greek word is "eis."  It is translated in the Group A series of translations (the KJV, the NKJV, and the original ASV) by the word "unto."  It is the same Greek word behind the word "for" in Acts 2:38 where the text says to repent and be baptized "for the remission of sins" (NKJV) with the word "for" meaning the purpose of.

When understood this way the Group A series of translations and the Group D series essentially are saying the same thing—that John the Baptist is saying he is baptizing them to get them to repent, for the purpose of getting them to repent.  Yet, we know this cannot be the case.  Repentance is initiated by faith, not by baptism.  Furthermore, where does the desire for baptism come from unless there is first repentance?  If it is said faith then I ask the question what kind of faith is it that goes directly to baptism without first repenting?  Faith that does not repent does not desire nor seek baptism.

John's baptism was in water, he says as much (Matt. 3:11).  It is described in Mark as "a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins." (Mark 1:4 NKJV)  It is said of those who came to John's baptism that they confessed their sins (Matt. 3:6, Mark 1:5).  His message prior to baptizing was, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!" (Matt. 3:2 NKJV)

With this background information, one must conclude that John's audience (1) heard his preaching which goes without saying, (2) believed it—the kingdom is coming and you need to repent, (3) repented and confessed their sins, and (4) were baptized for the remission of those sins.  The motivation for baptism was faith in the message preached and the desire to have their sins remitted, just another way of saying they repented at the hearing of the message having had faith in that message.  This led to a baptism for the remission of sins.  It is either that way or you had a bunch of unrepentant people who did not repent until after they were baptized, people who had no motivation for a baptism that was for the remission of sins seeing as how they had not yet repented.  Who can believe that or see any logic in it?

J. W. McGarvey saw the difficulty in this verse, Matt. 3:11, with the way it is worded and the various options as regards translation and used most of a full page of commentary on it in his Commentary on Matthew – Mark, pages 36-37.  He would agree that those baptized by John repented prior to their baptism and that such repentance was a prerequisite.  But, here is his idea in his own words on the passage.

"The inestimable blessing of remission of sins being attached to baptism (see Mark i. 4; Luke iii. 3), the desire to obtain this blessing would prompt those yet unbaptized to repent, so that they might be baptized.  The words declare simply that the general purpose of John's baptism was to bring the people to repentance."  Earlier he said, "The baptism was not in order to the repentance of the party baptized."

He is saying that when one individual sees the blessings being enjoyed by another individual, in this case the remission of sins by repentance and baptism, and no doubt the joy that would accompany that (did you ever see a person just baptized who was not joyful?) then this prompts within the heart of the other person a desire for the same thing leading to their own repentance.  I think we can all see the sense in that.

In any case, I will have to leave the reader to make up his own mind on a difficult passage the way it is worded.  While it is difficult we can rest assured it need not overly trouble us as the scriptures are too plainly worded elsewhere as to leave any doubt about how salvation comes to the one who would come to Christ today.  Christ's law overrides not only the Law of Moses but also anything John taught as well.  Neither Moses nor John taught error but when Jesus came, died, and ascended back to heaven the new covenant of God came into effect leaving all else behind.  Today we are to hear Christ. 

[To download this article or print it out cleck here.]

On Matt. 5:22-24—Part 4—Reconciling With a Brother

"But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever shall say to his brother, 'Raca,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever shall say, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.  If therefore you are presenting your offering at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your offering there before the altar, and go your way; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and present your offering." (Matt. 5:22-24 NAS)

(This will conclude a series of 4 articles on this passage having already covered verse 22 in the prior 3 articles.)

Can a man be saved who has contempt for and mistreats his fellowman?  John says no when he says, "By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother." (1 John 3:10 NAS)  Contempt for and mistreatment of a brother are the opposite of love and places one in the devil's camp.  Four verses later John says, "We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love abides in death." (1 John 3:14 NAS)

One is either a child of God or a child of the devil, there is no middle ground, and John declares that the man who does not love his brother is not of God.  Such a man abides in death.  Thus verse 23 of this passage begins with the words "if therefore" tying what is to come with what has just been said in verse 22 about various attitudes towards and words spoken against a brother.

One cannot on the one hand worship God and on the other hand mistreat his fellowman whom God created and gave a soul to and for whom Christ also died.  God does not show partiality, "there is no partiality with God." (Rom. 2:11 NAS)  "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." (Rom. 3:23 NAS)  "There is none righteous, not even one." (Rom. 3:10 NAS)  The man whose vanity and pride has led him to see himself as being in a better position before God than others, say for example the Pharisee who went up to pray in Luke 18:10-14, fools only himself.  Any and all who are saved are saved by grace. 

Christians need to be very aware of the great danger they are in at all times as regards this matter.  They try their best to be faithful and obedient in all things.  There is much evil they would not think of partaking in.  We see sin and protest against it as we should.  The Pharisee that went up to pray to God and went back unjustified in Luke 18 was not wrong in saying there were swindlers, unjust, and adulterous people in the world for that there were and always will be.  The Pharisee saw that.  He did not partake in those things.  He seemed to be faithfully obeying the commands of God so what was his problem?

He had lost sight of the fact that he too was but a mere mortal, a man in need of God's grace and forgiveness.  His obedience in commandment keeping had blinded his eyes to his own sins of his heart.  He had forgotten or ignored what Jesus called the second greatest commandment of the Law of Moses, “YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.” (Mat. 22:39 NAS)

Pride had grown up in his heart and so much so that he was feeling sorry for other sinners who needed forgiveness unlike himself who he felt no longer needed it.  He had become his own judge.  He would judge not only himself but also his fellowman.  How did he know this tax-gatherer who was also praying was a sinner extraordinaire?  He was ready to take God's place as judge of all.  His outward commandment-keeping, the outward observances of such, had led him to judge himself a righteous man in need of no forgiveness. 

God judges a man's heart.  "But the LORD said to Samuel, '…for God sees not as man sees, for man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart.'" (1 Sam. 16:7 NAS)  "I, the LORD, search the heart, I test the mind, Even to give to each man according to his ways, According to the results of his deeds." (Jer. 17:10 NAS)  "My shield is with God, Who saves the upright in heart." (Psalms 7:10 NAS)  It is the pure in heart that shall see God (Matt. 5:8).  The Pharisee had a heart problem.

All Christians today who are trying to live faithful obedient lives need to beware of the tendency we all have to become like this Pharisee.  If we are faithful in the outward observances of Christianity the first thing we know we can find ourselves finding fault in others rather easily.  We become the standard by which people are to be judged.  We can end up worshipping ourselves rather than God.  The Bible says of that particular Pharisee that when he prayed he was "praying thus to himself." (Luke 18:11 NAS)  

The man who would do such things as Jesus spoke of in our text in Matt. 5:22 seems to be a man much like the Pharisee of Luke 18 in his attitude toward his fellowman and towards himself.  Jesus is telling us in verses 23 and 24 of our text if we have been this way toward our fellowman, have been disrespectful, hurtful, degraded him, or done him wrong in anyway go take care of that problem now.  Go to him, own up to your sin, and be reconciled.  That has top priority.  Do not delay.  What a wonderful world it would be if we would all obey God's golden rule—Matt. 7:12--(man gave it the name "golden" but the rule is God's).

"He who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen." (1 John 4:20 ESV) 

[To download this article or print it out click here.]

 

 

On Matt. 5:22-24—Part 3—Calling Another a Fool

"But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever shall say to his brother, 'Raca,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever shall say, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.  If therefore you are presenting your offering at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your offering there before the altar, and go your way; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and present your offering." (Matt. 5:22-24 NAS)

In this article, I will be dealing with the last of the three declarations or warnings Jesus gave as found in Matt. 5:22 regarding man's attitude and speech toward his fellowman.  Jesus says that to say to one's fellowman "you fool" puts him in danger of going to hell itself.  That is a frightful thought that the words out of one's mouth are enough to condemn a man for eternity and yet the Bible teaches that.

"You brood of vipers, how can you, being evil, speak what is good? For the mouth speaks out of that which fills the heart.  The good man out of his good treasure brings forth what is good; and the evil man out of his evil treasure brings forth what is evil.  And I say to you, that every careless word that men shall speak, they shall render account for it in the day of judgment.  For by your words you shall be justified, and by your words you shall be condemned." (Matt. 12:34-37 NAS)

It is important that we remember what was just quoted.  If we did so we would be slow to speak thinking about what we are about to say before we say it.  We would not just blather out thoughtlessly the very first words that come to mind.  James tells us, "Let everyone be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger." (James 1:19 NAS)

Words not spoken ordinarily cause no trouble nor lead to condemnation.  However, certainly, there are times and places where it is appropriate to speak up and sinful not to.  But, words spoken that would have been best left unspoken have resulted in murders, hatred, anger, strife, bitterness, and condemnation before God.

For the moment I want to put emphasis on what Jesus said in Matt. 12 quoted above when he said, "For the mouth speaks out of that which fills the heart." (Matt. 12:34 NAS)  Elsewhere Jesus said, "Out of the heart come evil thoughts." (Matt. 15:19 NAS)  It is the pure in heart that shall see God (Matt. 5:8).  It is the heart that loves God and loves man that is blessed with eternal life and happiness.  "He who does not love abides in death." (James 3:14 NAS)

The words we direct to our fellowman are a reflection of how our heart feels towards the one to whom we speak.  Do we love him/her?  Are we kind to the person, compassionate, caring?  The words that roll off our tongue are a reflection of the inner attitude we have toward that individual.

To call a man a fool reflects the speaker's heart and lack of love.  Even if he was right about the man to whom he was speaking and that man was indeed a fool it would not get the speaker off the hook for violating the law of love toward one's fellowman.

The Greek word translated "fool" in Matt. 5:22 has been and is highly debated as to its exact meaning.  You and I know what the English meaning of the English word fool is without being told but is that what the Greek meant that lies behind the English translation in our Bibles.  That is the debated question.

Most of the old commentators I consulted (Barnes, Clarke, and Gill) believe it means a wicked reprobate man.  Gill says, "The word 'fool' does not signify a man of weak parts, one that is very ignorant in things natural; this the word Raca imports; but a wicked reprobate man; in which sense Solomon often uses the word. The Persic version renders it here 'wicked'." (Gill's Commentary)  The translation notes from the NET Bible say, "The meaning of the term…is somewhat disputed. Most take it to mean, following the Syriac versions, 'you fool,' although some have argued that it represents a transliteration into Greek of the Hebrew term…'rebel.'"  Young's Literal Translation uses the word "rebel" rather than the word "fool."

Be all that as it may Matt. 5:22 makes it clear that God has not relinquished his right to be God and handed that right over to me to make me the judge and make proclamation over others.  When I call someone a fool I have proclaimed that I myself am not a fool and I am able to judge others for I am superior.  I know these things and you don't is the idea and I know because I am superior.  It is pride and it is arrogance and it is the placing of oneself on God's judgment seat.

Is it true there are no fools on the earth?  No, it is not.  The book of Proverbs speaks of fools time after time (the word “fool” is mentioned in 40 verses in that book in the NAS and the word “fools” in 21 verses) and enough is said about them so that we can learn quite a bit about who is and who is not a fool.  There are many who do not believe in God’s existence.  David by inspiration of the Holy Spirit said, "The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.'" (Psalms 14:1, 53:1 NAS) 

God has not asked us to be naïve and go around acting like we cannot discern foolish things from things that are rational and he has certainly not asked us to give up discerning righteousness from unrighteousness.  We are not asked to be dummies and see no evil and refuse to recognize evil or foolishness.  We know there are evil men in the world; we know there are foolish men in the world.  Jesus in the New Testament addressed a certain class of men as "fools and blind men." (Matt. 23:17 NAS)  Paul did the same thing in Rom. 1:22.  We are told by Solomon, "Do not be a fool." (Eccl. 7:17 NAS)  Surely we can know what foolishness is.

That does not mean, however, that we are to take God's place and declare a man a fool implying we are not.  Have we not all played the role of the fool at one or more points in time in our life?  I doubt I could find a man who would deny it if he has any honesty about himself at all.  If we are and always have been so perfect what need do we have for Jesus?  Paul said, "For we also once were foolish ourselves, disobedient, deceived, enslaved to various lusts and pleasures, spending our life in malice and envy, hateful, hating one another." (Titus 3:3 NAS)  We have no room to speak of others as being fools.

While the New Testament only uses the words fool and fools 3 times each in the New American Standard Version (1977) it uses the word foolish in 25 different verses.  The first instance is found in Matt. 7:26, "And everyone who hears these words of Mine, and does not act upon them, will be like a foolish man, who built his house upon the sand." (NAS)  It is not hard to be foolish, not obeying the commands (one or more) of Jesus will do it.  Jesus and Paul both spoke of foolish men and foolish acts.  One of the problems of the man who is inclined to call his brother, his fellowman, a fool is his failure to see that he too falls into the same category.  His disregard for Jesus' words spoken in Matt. 5:22 clearly places him in the classification of being "a foolish man" according to Matt. 7:26.

What is needed is mercy and grace, kindness and love, and taking the speck out of our own eye.  "And why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?  Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' and behold, the log is in your own eye?  You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye." (Matt. 7:3-5 NAS)      

There is a "fiery hell."  Jesus said so in the passage before us and he told us of one personality headed there.  It is our choice as to whether or not we make the decision to heed the teachings of Matt. 5:22 or disregard them.  There is a path that leads away from the fiery hell.  Jesus described it when he said, "Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine, and acts upon them, may be compared to a wise man, who built his house upon the rock.  And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and burst against that house; and yet it did not fall, for it had been founded upon the rock." (Matt. 7:24-25 NAS)  That is the rock that is higher than I.

[To download this article or print it out click here.]

 

 

   

On Matt. 5:22-24--Part 2--The Sin of Contempt (Verbal Abuse)

"But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever shall say to his brother, 'Raca,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever shall say, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.  If therefore you are presenting your offering at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your offering there before the altar, and go your way; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and present your offering." (Matt. 5:22-24 NAS)

I want to deal in this article specifically with the second clause in this statement of Jesus where he says "Whoever shall say to his brother, 'Raca,' shall be guilty before the supreme court."  My main interest is how this applies to you and me today.  There is a warning in this teaching that transcends the ages.

A good place to begin is with the word "Raca" which is meaningless to the average reader of the Bible.  Consequently, many translations translate the Greek differently using terms or phrases such as "insults his brother" (ESV), "insults a brother" (NET, NRSV is similar), "You good-for-nothing" (NAS update—I used the original NAS in my quote at the top of the page, GNB), and "Empty fellow" (YLT).  Vine's An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words says, "It was a word of utter contempt, signifying empty, intellectually rather than morally, empty-headed."  Strong's Dictionary described it as "a term of utter vilification."  I believe from my study that the YLT (Young's Literal Translation) comes the closest of any of the translations in giving the best translation of the Greek.

When one takes a look at the various translations given above for the Greek and learns the meaning of the Greek word used behind those translations it becomes obvious that we have a sin that can be committed today even though we might use different terms or words.  The man that would say this kind of thing to a brother not only insults that brother but displays a lack of love and compassion, a lack of kindness for his fellowman.  It tells you more about the man speaking than it does about the man he is insulting in such speech.  It manifests a feeling of superiority in the speaker's mind.

If you are an American have you ever wondered why the desperately poor southern white who never owned a slave or had hopes of doing so fought to uphold the slave holding rights of rich southern plantation owners during our Civil War in the 1860s?  I am told through their writings by those who have studied the subject that the slave gave them a sense of self-worth in that there was at least one man below them in terms of how society judged its own.  They were at least better than the black slave (as they saw it).  As long as there were slaves they were not in society's lowest caste.  Take the slave away and then it is a different matter.

One wonders how much of this belittling of one's brother or sister is similar in kind.  I insult and belittle you so I can feel better about myself.  My low self-esteem leads me to drag you down to raise myself up.  And, no doubt, a great amount of this kind of behavior comes from not so much low self-esteem but downright arrogance residing within the one who does it.  Full of pride and puffed up, better than another in their own mind, the other guy is merely dust under their feet.  But the motive makes little difference.  It is the result that matters.  One can be a jerk for this reason or that reason but he is still a jerk if that is his character. 

There is a price to be paid for such behavior.  In school we call such conduct bullying.  School shootings and suicides of young people oftentimes are directly related to some child being continually subjected to such torment by those who would verbally abuse others.  When I was a student in high school I saw a young girl tormented (bullied) mercilessly daily (this was back in the early 60s).  This was long before schools ever gave a thought of disciplining such conduct.  I have always sort of blamed those tormentors of hers for the way her life turned out.  I saw what she went through daily.  She was going to have a tough go of it at best and needed all the love, friendship, and kindness she could get but what she got instead was tormentors and bullies who verbally abused her daily and made her life miserable.

In another article on this passage, I talked about anger.  We ought to be angry against sin and that would include the sin those engage in who would belittle others, insult them, and call them names.  I hate this sin.  My dad was an honest man and a hard worker.  People thought well of him for that but Dad had a speech impediment of sorts and had some difficulty pronouncing certain letters or sounds.  I could understand him perfectly and everyone did who was around him all of the time but still, he did not quite pronounce some of his words correctly.     

Dad never told me this but I learned it later and I never said a word to him, never brought it up to him, but I learned as they were eating lunch one day at work one of his co-workers was making fun of him, evidently mercilessly, and he slapped the man.  No doubt Dad was too ashamed to ever tell it.  He had to have been tremendously provoked to do that for it was totally out of character for him and hard to believe he had done such a thing.

Certainly, Dad was in the wrong but those who speak hurtful words to others tearing them down to the point of the loss of all dignity what kind of love do they have in their hearts toward others?  Is there any love, compassion, any mercy, any humanity in such speech?  If I incite a person to the point it becomes intolerable for them and they just cannot take it anymore am I guilt-free of sin?  Dad knew he could not pronounce his words correctly and never liked to be out in public.  No man wants to be embarrassed.

I think one can begin to see that this sin involves more than just words, it involves the heart.  The man who would call his brother names and insult him has not only sinned with the words of his mouth but in his heart as well. 

The Bible tells us, "Do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others." (Phil. 2:4 NAS)  Does the kind of speech of which we are speaking violate this scripture?  This speaking humiliating things to others, putting them down, is a sin on so many levels—a sin of the heart, of the tongue, a violation of all the passages that speak of love, compassion, kindness, and mercy.

"And the tongue is a fire, the very world of iniquity; the tongue is set among our members as that which defiles the entire body, and sets on fire the course of our life, and is set on fire by hell." (James 3:6 NAS)

In closing, it is readily seen that whatever this passage meant in the first century it is still applicable today in that there will be a judgment for such speech.  We need not worry about the Sanhedrin, the Jewish Supreme Court in the first century, for a greater than the Sanhedrin is here—Jesus Christ himself, the judge of all, on that special day that has been appointed for that.  "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad." (2 Cor. 5:10 NAS)

[To download this article or print it out click here.]