“If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds” (2Jo 1:10,11).

Without attempting a complete exposition of this letter, it should be noted that John was addressing an unnamed sister and mother in the Truth, one in whose home the ecclesia of that district met. In her kindness the “elect lady” (v 1) had offered her hospitality to certain traveling preachers who could scarcely, if at all, be called Christian.

What was the doctrine so heinous as to merit the title for its purveyors of “antichrist” (v 7)? It was the erroneous contention that Jesus did not “come in the flesh”, in other words, that he was in essence God and only seemed to suffer the frailties of humanity and the climactic death on the cross. The apostle rightly saw this as a significant perversion of the gospel, which effectively nullified all else of truth to be found in the itinerant speakers’ message. He therefore counseled the sister not to receive such men into her house nor, by implication, to receive them at the Breaking of Bread held there. They were to be shunned completely.

The question is this: Was such a prohibition intended to apply, as a general rule, to any and every irregularity of belief or practice, whenever and wherever manifested? The answer is, emphatically, “No”. The particular error in 2Jo is said to be that of “anti-Christ”, etymologically signifying that which replaces or stands as a contrast to the true Christ. The name seems to be reserved for those errors which deny the nature and character of Christ (1Jo 2:18,22; 4:1-3), thereby rendering unintelligible his redemptive work.

A passage from RR is often quoted to justify the disfellowship of everyone who might, mistakenly or otherwise, break bread with some individual who believes any error. RR says, among other things: “As to those who bring not this doctrine, John’s comment is — ‘Receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed!’ This commandment we can no more evade than any other commandment delivered unto us.”

The citation is certainly forceful enough as it stands to support most any wide-scale excommunication of individuals and ecclesias alike. However, the effect is drastically mitigated when a portion of the immediately preceding paragraph is also quoted:

“The doctrine of Christ is that he is God made and manifested in mortal flesh of Abraham’s race for the deliverance thereof, on his own principles, from ‘that having the power of death’ ” (SC 98).

It was to such as “bring not this doctrine” (according to both JT and RR), and to such only, that the extremely harsh directive of the apostle should apply.

The sweeping use to which our brother’s words are often put is specifically denied by him in another passage. There he speaks of “fellowship” on far more practical, reasonable, and (we might say) spiritual grounds than some of his “followers” would care to admit:

“Fellowship is friendly association for the promotion of a common object — with more or less of the imperfection belonging to all mortal life. To say that every man in that fellowship is responsible for every infirmity of judgment that may exist in the association is an extreme to which no man of sound judgment can lend himself. There will be flawless fellowship in the perfect state. Perhaps it is the admiration of this in prospect that leads some to insist upon it now. But it is none the less a mistake. This is a mixed and preparatory state in which much has to be put up with when the true principles are professed” (“True Principles and Uncertain Details”, Xd 35:187).

In reviewing v 10, other points of interest emerge:

“If there come any unto you…” — These verses clearly refer to some serious error introduced into one’s local ecclesia. They give no sanction to the searching out of alleged error in other ecclesias, much less those which are great distances away, on the basis of some rumor.

“And bring not this doctrine” –These deceivers were active, positive false teachers, engaged in a campaign, not just “holders” of false doctrine or those who might be termed “weaker brethren” or “honest doubters”, who should be sought after and reclaimed.

“Neither bid him God speed” — “God speed” was an unfortunate choice by the translators of the AV, a choice which has colored much of subsequent Christadelphian analysis of this passage. RR equates “God speed” with “intimacy, toleration, and cooperation” (LM 285); this may be implicit in the text, but it is certainly not the primary meaning: The Greek word is chairo — which merely means “greeting” or “farewell”, and it is so used many times in the New Testament (Mat 26:49; 27:29; Luk 1:28; Joh 19:3; Act 15:23; 2Co 13:11; Jam 1:1). It may also mean “to rejoice” (Mat 2:10; Joh 3:29; 16:22; Rom 12:12; 2Co 6:10; Rev 19:7).

This presents us with a couple of alternative views of the passage:

(1) These false teachers’ doctrine was so extremely dangerous that they could not even be greeted courteously, nor be given the most elementary considerations due even to out-and-out worldlings, much more to “erring brethren”. Such a view, in conformity with our understanding of this special doctrine, thus removes this passage from serious consideration as a guideline to ecclesial duties toward most other, milder forms of error. Would any “minority fellowship” brethren seriously want to adopt such an attitude toward all other Christadelphians? The otherwise unanimous view of the apostolic passages regarding errorists is that they are to be gently entreated, and diplomatically led away from their follies. So we have here in 2Jo a unique case, and consequently one which gives no real precedent for lesser issues.

(2) The second possibility, much less likely, is this: If the word chairo here signifies “to rejoice”, then that which designates brethren “partakers of the evil deeds” of gross errorists is their rejoicing in that evil — that is, wholeheartedly approving of and positively participating in the propagation of error. This is not to suggest that something less, say a passive toleration, is proper — it may be wrong too, depending on circumstances — but only that it is not the “partaking” or “fellowshiping” of the error which some interpreters would have it to be.

Therefore, no matter which of the two interpretations of “Godspeed” be chosen, the v is not that clear-cut directive to the “block disfellowship” of all who break bread with one false teacher. Even if the elders of an ecclesia should decide to tolerate the membership of one holding false doctrine, it cannot be said that members of that ecclesia who continue to use every opportunity to expose and denounce his errors are “bidding him God speed” or “partaking of his evil deeds”. To say that they are is a travesty of language. The situation has been known a hundred times over that something done or said by a brother has been openly disapproved of by the rest of his ecclesia without excommunication being applied. At times the simpler expedient of removing such a brother from all speaking and teaching duties has allowed him the scope to recover his spiritual balance and forsake his error.

RR’s understanding of “Godspeed” certainly conforms with this. He says:

“If men lend themselves to the evil projects of others and wish them well in them, no doubt they are as responsible for those projects as if they actually promoted them with their own personal labours. This is the principle to which John gives expression when he says, ‘He that biddeth him (the holder of false doctrine) God speed is partaker of his evil deeds’ ” (“True Principles and Uncertain Details” 187,188).

The problem in a single-minded reliance on this passage to justify wholesale separation is evident when the effects are fully considered. It is self-evident that an interpretation of a passage that “proves” too much actually proves nothing at all — for then there is surely something wrong with that interpretation. This is so with an unbalanced view of 2Jo 1:10,11: (1) If merely refusing to punish error is “bidding Godspeed” to it, then was Christ a “partaker of the evil deeds” of the adulteress when he said, “Neither do I condemn thee”? (2) Should brethren hold themselves to be “partakers” and thus personally guilty of every aberration or “sin” of every brother or sister in their “fellowship”? This is perceived as sheer folly when examples are considered. Suppose, for example, one brother in your worldwide fellowship — only one — smokes; suppose another, but only one, occasionally drinks to excess. Now you yourself never touch tobacco or liquor of any sort. Are you nevertheless a “partaker” of these things, and many more, because you endure these brethren in your “fellowship”? In short, is a brother really the sum of all the worst parts of all his weakest brethren? Such ill-founded logic must be our conclusion if we apply 2Jo 1:10,11 to any and every ecclesia situation.

Two short quotations from JT would seem to go well here:

(1) Of the correspondent who accused him of being a “slave owner”, he wrote:

“His argument is that in fellowshipping slave owners, and those who fellowship them, the parties so fellowshipping them are partakers with them of their evil deeds; and therefore as much slave owners and slave holders as if they actually held and drove them. The argument is specious but not sound” (Herald 1851, 204).

(2) And again:

“The salvation of individuals is not predicated on the purity of their neighbour’s faith, though these may be members of the same ecclesiastical organization” (Ibid, 120).

In conclusion: 2Jo 1:10,11 appears to be the only passage in the Bible which puts “toleraters” on the same ground of condemnation as the “false teachers” themselves. We have shown that, for the purposes of condemning those who “bid them Godspeed”, this passage proves either too little (for the context is quite specialized) or too much (thus making us all “partakers” of every “evil” to be found in our midst). The wisest course would appear to be that we leave 2Jo alone as “pure fellowship” justification, and that we turn our attentions to other passages which may give more solid footing, and practical limitations as well, for Biblical “disfellowship”.

GOLGOTHA: The site of Golgotha and Garden Tomb:

What do we know about the site of the tomb?

1. It was rock-hewn (Mar 15:46).
2. “In the place” (Joh 19:46), “near at hand” (Mar 15:42).

3. A private garden belonging to a rich man (Mat 27:57).

The traditional site, where the “Church of the Holy Sepulchre” is located today, was probably inside the city walls at that time, and thus disqualified… for Jesus was crucified outside the city.

Another possibility, “Gordon’s Tomb”, was discovered in 1867 — north of the old city, near the Damascus Gate, under a hill somewhat resembling a skull. (An English explorer named Gordon discovered and excavated this tomb.) The entire area was found to be honeycombed with tombs dating to first century. One tomb nearby bore the inscription: “Buried near my Lord”.

The sepulchre is in what was obviously once a garden — a small level yard with a few fruit trees and plants. At the north end is a high perpendicular wall. There is an opening with a runway suitable for a rock wheel, and a burial room about 10 feet square.

Golgotha signifies “skull”, from the Hebrew “galal” = circle (cp Galilee). Most likely, then, it was this hill north of Jerusalem, on the Damascus Road, where criminals were executed. To it was attached the name of “Skull” because

1. it was the place of death,
2. shaped like a skull, with recesses for eyes, mouth, etc,

3. and perhaps the site where Adam died [it is an ancient tradition that Adam died at what later became Jerusalem]; and

4. perhaps the site of the burial of Goliath’s head/skull.

If the ancient tradition is correct, that Golgotha derived its name from being the burial place of Adam… then here, supposedly, was laid to rest the skull of the first Adam; and here, also, the last Adam came to restore that which his predecessor lost.

A more likely supposition, however, is that Golgotha was the site of the burial of the skull of Goliath (1Sa 17:54). Thus Christ, in his death, figuratively bruised the head of the serpent (Gen 3:15) just where David buried the head of the Philistine, the “man of sin”.

Out of the crowds that followed Jesus , a lawyer stepped forth one day with a question to test the new rabbi: “Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” (Luk 10:25). Was this a sincere question or another attempt to catch him at his words? Whichever it was, Jesus treated the question and the questioner respectfully. His first answer, however, was not really an answer at all, but rather another question, which turned the testing back upon the lawyer. It would lead him, if he had an open mind, to a searching self-examination of belief and practice: “What is written in the law? How readest thou?” (Luk 10:26).

“And he answering said, ‘Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind: and thy neighbour as thyself’ ” (Luk 10:27).

It was an excellent answer, showing an insight into the law born of deep and prayerful study. He had thus linked together two commandments from separate parts of the Torah (Deu 6:5; Lev 19:18). On a later occasion Jesus himself did the very same thing in response to the query as to what was the greatest commandment (Mat 22:39).

“And Jesus said unto him, ‘Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live’ ” (Luk 10:28).

There is a great gulf between reason and response, between theory and practice, between hearing and doing. To so answer was relatively easy; to do was another matter altogether. And so it is for all of us: Love as a Biblical concept, and the mystical expression of love for God, are often on the lips of His children. But the practical expression of that love is a difficult business.

The lawyer now sought “to justify himself” (Luk 10:29): “Who is my neighbour?” Evidently he thought the first part of the great commandment was no problem for him; after all, what right-thinking, religious person did not love God with all his being? But the penetrating gaze of this rabbi and the finality of his admonition — “This DO!” — left even this confident lawyer a trifle uneasy at his position in regard to the second half. In so asking he betrayed the weakness of those who concentrated upon the meticulous observance of the law; he was anxious to know the exact limits of his obligations. Who were those who in his particular situation had claims upon him? Was it not possible that he was already obeying the law — even in this matter?

As he so often did, Jesus answered a question with a parable that at first glance was not an answer at all. It was a story, however, which would be very familiar to his listeners.

A certain man was descending the dreaded “Way of Blood” that led from Jerusalem to Jericho. Though it was a dangerous journey — for the twists and turns of the rocky path offered numerous places for brigands to hide — he traveled alone. And, sure enough, he fell among cruel thieves and was left to die.

It so happened that a priest came down by that way, and passed by on “the other side”; likewise, a Levite. These paragons of sacrifice and ritual would not be detoured from the fulfillment of their duties; with averted eyes they hastened on. One can imagine the many possible ways by which they would have sought to justify themselves in such neglect. Perhaps they were even so close together that each was aware of the other’s failure as well as his own.

The priest might have thought: ‘My work is most important; I will let this lesser Levite behind me tend to this rather unpleasant business.’ And the Levite might well have said to himself: ‘The priest did not bother; and his calling to keep the Law is higher than mine; why should I?’ None of us are such strangers to the act of self-justification that these excuses or a dozen like them would seem totally unreasonable. No doubt we can all recall “reasons” for failing to do our duty that were just as flimsy when later held up to the clear light of Scripture.

And looking upon him, they both passed by on the other side! The lesson is obvious: this man was a “stranger” to them; why should they be inconvenienced by someone who might be a grievous sinner? Indeed, perhaps they feared defilement! ‘We might be partakers of this man’s sins.’ In Christ’s analogy they plainly loved self more than they loved any “neighbor”. This was a fault no less to be rebuked simply because it was induced by a rigid doctrinal view of “holiness”. Their special Bible interpretations added to their legalistic duties (“Touch not, handle not the unclean thing”), but those same interpretations sadly detracted from what they should have readily recognized as practical duties. The lesson must not be lost on us. (A few years ago an ecclesia planned a special lecture, with considerable advertising. A large number of visitors attended, but of them all only one finally accepted the Truth and was baptized. And she did not attend because of any media advertising, but solely because — on the very day of the lecture — a brother played the part of “Good Samaritan” to a motorist in distress.)

But a certain Samaritan — one of the race despised by the “elite” Pharisaic Jews — happened also to come that way. Having compassion upon the fallen Jew, whom he might have left to his fate with more justification than did the other two, he went to him. Binding up his wounds, setting him on his own beast, he brought him safely to the inn. In so doing, the Samaritan brought upon himself grave personal danger — the thieves might have still been around. Furthermore, it was a messy and troublesome job to bind up the man’s wounds. And also, he experienced a real material loss; two pence was not a small sum (by Mat 20:2 it would represent two days’ wages).

Christ himself is to be seen in the parable. Surely it is worth noting that his enemies at least once denounced him as a Samaritan (Joh 8:48), perhaps in reference to the peculiar circumstances of the marriage of Joseph and Mary, or perhaps because of his fearless association with that hated nation (Joh 4:40). Christ is our neighbor, coming near to us in our fallen condition, showing mercy to those who do not deserve it. We have all descended the road of blood toward the city of the curse (Jos 6:26); we have all been wounded by sin and we have all lain near death. At great personal risk and inconvenience and loss, even at the expense of legal defilement, Christ has stopped, and stooped, to help us. He has reinforced that lesson: “Go, and do thou likewise!”

The Samaritan in the parable is pictured as telling the innkeeper, into whose hands he committed the wounded man: “Whatsoever you spend in his care, even if it be more than I have given you, I will repay you” (Luk 10:35). Those who follow his example, even at risk to themselves, who go the extra mile to bear with and help a fallen brother, to bind up wounds in the ecclesia, pouring in the oil of kindness and love… those who do such things will never lose anything. There is no danger in such a policy of self-sacrifice. “I will repay thee”, are the words of Christ.

“And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ’s sake hath forgiven you” (Eph 4:32).

“Christ suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps” (1Pe 2:21).

And now the lawyer’s question is put to him: “Which of these three was neighbour to the man who fell among thieves?” The answer was inescapable, but even then the fastidious Jew could not bring himself to name the man by race. So instead: “He that shewed mercy on him.” A neighbor is one who shows mercy, who offers help and love to those who do not deserve it. Even the most blatant self-interest leads us to love those who love us; there is no special sacrifice in this. True love that emulates the Master must stretch out to include those who may be separated from us. Ceremonial purity may pass by on the other side, holding its garments aloof, that it be not touched by the fallen condition of others. But true love looks upon misfortune, stops to help, binds up wounds, pouring in wine and oil, and walks step by step with those who have fallen, until they all come safely to the inn.

Before we go too far afield to find the neighbors we should love, let us look around us, at a divided, problem-riddled Christadelphia. Let us consider the brethren who hold the Truth just as we do, but who need a helping hand to be bound again to the brotherhood. Let us consider our attitudes toward those “other groups” who may be so close to us in beliefs but whom we put so far away in practice; are they our “Samaritans”?

“The Samaritans were neighbours in the most literal sense, but as for loving them, that seemed impossible. Christ loved them and caused his disciples to marvel at the manner in which he spake to the woman at Jacob’s well and afterwards to others who came out to hear him. The Jews as a whole almost made it a part of their religion to hate the Samaritans, and if they were able to analyze their own feelings they would probably have to admit that the hatred was directly traceable to the fact of their being such near neighbours. This is a common weakness of poor human nature. Those who are near but not quite with us arouse more bitterness of feelings than complete strangers. Then when such an evil feeling has been once started, the deceitful heart begins to build up fancies to justify the hatred, thus further traducing those who have already been wronged” (GL 66).

The Good Shepherd

“On the roads of Palestine, and on the hills, you see the good shepherd. He comes along at the head of his flock, generally carrying over his shoulders a lamb or an injured sheep.

“A most remarkable thing is the sympathy that exists between him and his flock. He never drives them as our own shepherds drive their sheep. He always walks at their head, leading them along the roads and over the hills to new pasture: and, as he goes, he sometimes talks to them in a loud sing-song voice, using a weird language unlike anything I have ever heard in my life.

“Early one morning I saw an extraordinary sight not far from Bethlehem. Two shepherds had evidently spent the night with their flocks in a cave. The sheep were all mixed together and the time had come for the shepherds to go in different directions. One of the shepherds stood some distance from the sheep and began to call. First one, then another, then four or five animals ran toward him; and so until he had counted his whole flock.

“More interesting than the sight of this was the knowledge that Jesus must have seen exactly the same sight and described it in his own words: ‘He calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out. And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice. And a stranger they will not follow…’ This parable spake Jesus unto them. ‘I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine’ ” (HVM 154).

“I notice that some of the flock keep near the shepherd, and follow whithersoever he goes, without the least hesitation, while others stray about on either side, or loiter far behind; and he often turns round and scolds them in a sharp, stern cry.

“Not unlike the Good Shepherd. Indeed, I never ride over these hills, clothed with flocks, without meditating upon this delightful theme. Our Saviour says that the good shepherd, when he putteth forth his own sheep, goeth before them, and they follow (John 10:4). This is true to the letter. They are so tame and so trained that they follow their keeper with the utmost docility… Any one that wanders is sure to get into trouble.

“Some sheep always keep near the shepherd, and are his special favorites. Each of them has a name, to which it answers joyfully; and the kind shepherd is ever distributing to them choice portions which he gathers for that purpose. These are the contented and happy ones. They are in no danger of getting lost or into mischief, nor do wild beasts and thieves come near them. The great body, however, are mere worldlings, intent upon their own pleasures or selfish interests. They run from bush to bush, searching for variety or delicacies, and only now and then lift their heads to see where the shepherd is…

“Did you ever see a shepherd gather the lambs in his arms, and carry them in his bosom (Isa 40:11)? Often; and he will gently lead along the mothers, in those times when to overdrive them even for a single day would be fatal (Gen 33:13)” (LB 202-205).

Through the years we have all spent considerable time studying Bible prophecy and the events surrounding Jesus’ Second Coming. But we may have been less interested or concerned with the social and ethical consequences of our prophetic faith. The obvious danger of this deficiency is that we may be tempted to draw simplistic political conclusions from our study of prophetic details.

Many of us believe that, according to Bible prophecy, a Last Days Arab confederacy will attempt to annihilate Israel (Psa 83:1-8; Zec 14). Many of us also believe that the leader of such a confederacy will be a Middle East political figure, probably an Islamic Arab. Some others think the leader will be a Russian political figure. Either way, it is also believed, with good reason, that such an anti-Israel force will be destroyed by divine power.

What political conclusions do we draw from this? We might conclude that God is siding with the modern state of Israel and against the “evil” Arabs and/or the “evil” Russians. This in turn might lead us to endorse any and all of Israel’s actions, no matter how immoral or unjust. The irony is: we could end up favoring completely unbelieving Jews against Palestinian or Russian Christians.

The apostle Peter told Cornelius and his family:

“God does not show favoritism but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right” (Acts 10:34,35).

And the apostle Paul wrote:

“You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek… “

— he could as easily have written, “neither Jew nor Arab, neither American nor Russian nor Iraqi nor Palestinian” —

“… slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:26-28).

So, even if the final enemy of God (according to prophecy) will be an Arab (or a Russian) leading an Arab and/or Muslim coalition, this does not mean that all present-day Arabs (or Russians) are enemies of God. Nor will it mean that every Arab will prove to be evil when that time does come. During the holocaust, not every German was a Nazi. Some German Christians protested Hitler’s actions. Some even risked their own lives to save Jews.

Similarly, not every Jew or Israeli is a child of God. When some of the Jewish elite questioned Jesus’ teaching, and protested that “Abraham is our father” (John 8:39), Jesus disagreed:

“If you were Abraham’s children… then you would do the things Abraham did… You belong to your father, the devil… “

— a charge equivalent to “seed of the serpent” or “brood of vipers” (Mat 3:7; 23:33) —

“… He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God” (John 8:39,47).

God is not on the side of modern Israel as opposed to the Arabs. He is rather on the side of His children, those from all nations who have called on the name of the Lord (Rom 10:11-13).

But, having said this, we should not conclude either that God has rejected natural Israel:

“Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew” (Rom 11:1,2).

And so there is a very real tension in our prophetic studies… because Last Days prophecies do indicate that God will save Israel from the hostile Arab forces that opppose it. Can we resolve this tension?

Yes, by understanding that God will save Israel (really, a remnant of Israel) not because they are natural sons of Abraham, but because they (the remnant) will have become true believers in the God of Abraham and the Son of that God:

“If they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again… Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. And so all [true] Israel will be saved, as it is written: ‘The deliverer will come from Zion; he will turn godlessness away from Jacob. And this is my covenant with them when I take away their sins’ ” (Rom 11:23,25-27).

The phrase “when I take away their sins” indicates a cleansing for Israel (true Israel, the “remnant”), brought about through their repentance and faith (see, for example, Zec 12:10 — 13:3, which is the prelude to Zec 14).

But we do well to remember, in the meantime, that God is not truly on the side of unbelievers (no matter what their ethnicity), and that we must be careful not to champion nationalistic states when their actions are ungodly. In the conflicts yet to come, we must favor neither nationalistic Israel nor nationalistic Arab, but Christ!

“If you belong to Christ, then [and then only] you are [truly] Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise” (Gal 3:29).

Gossip:

Psa 19:14: Notice that God links the words of our mouth and the meditations of our heart.

Gossip defined: Idle or malicious talk about someone with a desire or intention to injure him or her in some fashion.

God places gossip in the most complete list of sins in the Bible and shows how it is interrelated with all these sins: (a) Rom 1:28-31: No wonder God hates it; (b) 2Ti 3:1-3 (slanderous); (c) Exo 20:12-16 (false testimony); (d) Pro 6:16-19 (false witness, dissension).

The issue for the believer is that gossip does not fit who we are. The idea that a person could be praying and talking to God, while at the same time destroying someone with gossip simply doesn’t work.

Why do people engage in gossip?

• Pride.
• It is a means by which they can express their anger or their bitterness toward someone without confronting them.

• People gossip to pull others down to their level… or

• To destroy someone else.
• Or perhaps simply because they have a careless tongue.

• It is the influence of other people.

Consequences in the life of the person who is the object of the gossip:

1. Pain.
2. Suffering.
3. Hurt.
4. Intense pain.

Some say they have the right to speak the truth. You may have a legal right to speak the truth, but you don’t have a Biblical right to say everything you know.

Consequences for the one who gossips:

• Mat 12:33,34.
• Mat 15:10,11.

• Gossip defiles the one who practices it.

• It reveals his/her lack of discipline.

• It shows he/she is ruled by sin.

• It drives godly people away from him/her.

• It destroys his/her fellowship with God.

Little minds discuss people. Average minds discuss events. Great minds discuss ideas.

Cautions:

• Pro 20:19.
• Do not associate with a gossip.

• Eph 4:29-30.

• It grieves the Holy Spirit when a person is gossiping.

How to cure gossip:

• Repentance.
• The gossiper may need to make restitution, but you must be careful because that can sometimes only increase the problem.

• Don’t associate with gossips.

• Pray for the person.