The Ethic of Speech in the New Testament and Antiquity

 Introduction

The USA has developed and continues to develop an international reputation for offensive public speech from its politicians, whether running for office or in the halls of congress or even White House, and public figures.  Swearing, repulsive speech, and vulgarity are normal in movies.  The media, street rioters, and comedians eagerly participate in rancorous,  untruthful, explosive rhetoric to fan the emotions of an audience into flames.  Extreme claims about opponents (such as calling Republicans Nazis or fascists) normalise calumny in a caustic culture.  In the USA, such rhetoric has been cashed in for repeated violence in the streets and by actual assassins.

The speech of the alleys and gutters of culture is becoming mainstream dialogue.  This, as we shall note, was spoken against by philosophers in antiquity. The gentleman must carry himself well.  The speech of all Christians, we shall also see, must also be holy and pure.  Jesus set the example for believers, as Peter says: ‘When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly’ (1 Peter 2.23).  And Jesus Himself said to His disciples, ‘Blessed are you when people hate you and when they exclude you and revile you and spurn your name as evil, on account of the Son of Man!’ (Luke 6.22; cf. Matthew 5.11).  Paul wrote, ‘ Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them’ (Romans 12.14) and ‘Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good’ (12.21).  This essay will further explore the ethic of speech in the New Testament and antiquity.  (A fully Biblical ethic of speech must also include the Old Testament, particularly Psalms and Proverbs.)

The Epistles of Paul

In the two sin lists of 1 Corinthians 5 and 6, Paul includes the sin of reviling others.  Such people would not inherit the kingdom of God.  The word ‘reviler’ (loidoros) could be translated as one who ‘rails’ or is ‘abusive’.  It is a word denoting angry, abusive, expletive, and insulting speech directed at someone else.  Athenaeus, speaking of people’s duplicity, says that they pretend to sacrifice to the gods, invite others to the sacrifice (meal), but ‘vent imprecations on their children, and abuse (loidorountai) their wives, and treat their slaves with indignity’ (Deipnosophists 8.66).  The 2^nd c. AD novelist, Achilles Tatius, depicts a scene in which someone rushes in with accusations, name-calling, and angry words.  Another person rightly challenges him, but he then replies, ‘Do you dare to revile (loidoreis) me?’ (The Adventures of Leucippe and Clitophon VIII.1).  We can see that the word has to do with angry, offensive, loud speech directed at another person.

Epictetus says, ‘ a guide, when he perceives his charge going out of the way, does not revile and ridicule and then leave him, but leads him into the right path. Do you also show your antagonist the truth, and you will see that he will follow. But till you show it, do not ridicule him; but rather be sensible of your own incapacity’ (Discourses 2.12).  A little later, he says that most people

rashly entering upon these debates, mutually confound and are confounded, and at last, reviling and reviled, walk off. Whereas it was the principal and most peculiar characteristic of Socrates, never to be provoked in a dispute, nor to throw out any reviling or injurious expression; but to bear patiently with those who reviled him, and thus put an end to the controversy (Ibid.).

Epictetus, therefore, promotes a view that is not unlike Paul’s.  He says that a person should remember that ‘the appearance of things to the mind is the standard of every action to man, that this is either right or wrong, and if right, he is without fault; if wrong, he himself suffers punishment’ (Discourses 1.28).  Such a person, he continues, ‘will not be outrageous and angry at any one; will not revile, or reproach, or hate, or quarrel with any one.’  In other words, if a person is right in what he says, well and good, and if wrong, he is the one who suffers.  So, do not enter into angry conversation with anyone.

Paul clearly believes that, being a Christian, a person ceases such behaviour.  For Epictetus, the change in behaviour came from thinking differently about such interactions.  For Paul, the work of Christ and the Holy Spirit could change a person known as a reviler of others.  Paul has in mind the transformed life of the convert to Christian faith.  He says in conclusion after his list of sins that believers once practiced,

And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God (1 Corinthians 6.11).

Paul understood conversion not only to be about ‘coming to faith’ in Christ but also ‘turning around (converto) one’s life’.  It is as though hateful people have been washed with God’s kindness, for he says to Titus,

For we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, led astray, slaves to various passions and pleasures, passing our days in malice and envy, hated by others and hating one another. ⁴ But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, ⁵ he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, ⁶ whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, ⁷ so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life (Titus 3.3-7).

Yet, in saying this, Paul is aware that there are those in the church who continue such behaviour.  He earlier said to the Corinthians that they were still drinking milk and not onto solid food in spiritual matters: ‘For while there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not of the flesh and behaving only in a human way?’ (3.3).  The Corinthians’ fighting over factions associated with apostolic teachers like Paul and Apollos has led to this strife which, no doubt, ended in reviling each other as if they were not Christians at all. 

In 2 Corinthians 10-13, with division now turned into opposition to Paul himself, Paul addresses them further while showing them a Christ-like approach to strife.  We will discuss the chapters later; here we note only that Paul begins by saying, ‘I, Paul, myself entreat you, by the meekness and gentleness of Christ...’ (2 Corinthians 10.1).  Paul does not back down, and in fact he will assert his rightful authority, but the way he does so is not by reviling his opponents but by appealing to them in meekness and gentleness characteristic of Christ.

When Paul addresses the Philippian church, also caught up in some divisiveness, he says,  ‘in humility count others more significant than yourselves (2.3).  The basis for this is, once again, Christ.  They are to have the mind of Christ, for He, being in the form of God, ‘did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, ⁷ but emptied himself, by taking the form of a’ slave (2.6-7).

In Ephesians, Paul writes, ‘Be angry and do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger’ (4.26).  A few verses later, he discusses the change in the content of speech that marks the Christian: ‘Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving’ (5.4). The words ‘crude joking’ in v. 4 translates ‘eutrapelia’, which, by itself, might simply be ‘jesting’ or ‘joking’.  Combined with the previous two words, aischrotēs (ugliness, hence filthiness, shamefulness) and mōrologia (foolish words), it is clearly a negative form of joking, ribaldry.  Cicero says,

There are, generally speaking, two sorts of jest: the one, coarse, rude, vicious, indecent; the other, refined, polite, clever, witty. With this latter sort not only our own Plautus and the Old Comedy of Athens, but also the books of Socratic philosophy abound; and we have many witty sayings of many men—like those collected by old Cato under the title of Bons Mots (or Apophthegms). So the distinction between the elegant and the vulgar jest is an easy matter: the one kind, if well timed (for instance, in hours of mental relaxation), is becoming to the most dignified person; the other is unfit for any gentleman, if the subject is indecent and the words obscene (De Officiis 1.104).

This second, negative jesting is what Paul intended in Ephesians 5.4.  The Christian’s speech should change as a result of the change of character, from ‘darkness’ to ‘light’.  Offensive, foolish, and crude speech should be replaced with thanksgiving (5.4) and the singing of psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs to one another (5.19).

In Colossians, he says, ‘Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person’ (4.6).  One is reminded that grain offerings at the temple were to be seasoned with salt, considered salt of the covenant (Leviticus 2.13).  Also, an incense of spices was placed before the tent of meeting of the tabernacle that was made from spices seasoned with salt.  It was pure and holy, a mixture made only for God.  It burned at the place where God would meet with Moses (Exodus 30.35-37).  Paul is concerned that Christian speech should be holy, set apart for God, and not mundane.  In the previous chapter, he says,

But now you must put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and obscene talk from your mouth. ⁹ Do not lie to one another, seeing that you have put off the old self with its practices ¹⁰ and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator (3.8-10).

To be a person renewed in the image of God means, among other things, to have a pure and holy speech.

Speaking about an ethic for conversation [sermo], the famous Roman statesman, Marcus Tullius Cicero says:

But as we have a most excellent rule for every phase of life, to avoid exhibitions of passion, that is, mental excitement that is excessive and uncontrolled by reason; so our conversation ought to be free from such emotions: let there be no exhibition of anger or inordinate desire, of indolence or indifference, or anything of the kind. We must also take the greatest care to show courtesy and consideration toward those with whom we converse’ (De Officiis 1.135-136).

He continues on the subject of conversation, talking about reproof.  One should avoid offensive language, seek the good of the other when reproving, maintain dignity, repress anger even when treated outrageously, and refrain from talking about oneself (bragging) (De Officiis 1.137).  Paul and Cicero had the same ethic in view, with the difference being in Paul’s conviction that the transformation of character was due not to philosophical training but to the work of Christ and the Holy Spirit in the heart of the believer.

The Epistle of James and Jesus’ Teaching on Speech

Perhaps the most well-known passage in the New Testament dealing with speech is in James’s brief epistle.  With some splendid images, he warns of the danger of the tongue and calls on Christians to bring it under control:

Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness. ² For we all stumble in many ways. And if anyone does not stumble in what he says, he is a perfect man, able also to bridle his whole body. ³ If we put bits into the mouths of horses so that they obey us, we guide their whole bodies as well. ⁴ Look at the ships also: though they are so large and are driven by strong winds, they are guided by a very small rudder wherever the will of the pilot directs. ⁵ So also the tongue is a small member, yet it boasts of great things.

How great a forest is set ablaze by such a small fire! ⁶ And the tongue is a fire, a world of unrighteousness. The tongue is set among our members, staining the whole body, setting on fire the entire course of life, and set on fire by hell. ⁷ For every kind of beast and bird, of reptile and sea creature, can be tamed and has been tamed by mankind, ⁸ but no human being can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison. ⁹ With it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse people who are made in the likeness of God. ¹⁰ From the same mouth come blessing and cursing. My brothers, these things ought not to be so. ¹¹ Does a spring pour forth from the same opening both fresh and salt water? ¹² Can a fig tree, my brothers, bear olives, or a grapevine produce figs? Neither can a salt pond yield fresh water.

James’s ethic focuses on character.  Jesus also spoke about the violence of offending speech, extending the commandment not to murder in His warning against anger, insults, and offensive name-calling:

“You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ ²² But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire (Matthew 5.21-22).

 Offensive speech is neither defensible nor optional, and it will be judged by God.  Addressing those who offensively likened Jesus’ power to heal to the power of Satan, Jesus replied,

Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. ³² And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

³³ “Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad, for the tree is known by its fruit. ³⁴ You brood of vipers! How can you speak good, when you are evil? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. ³⁵ The good person out of his good treasure brings forth good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure brings forth evil. ³⁶ I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak, ³⁷ for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned” (Matthew 12.31-37).

Jesus’ ethic of speech is not only about God’s judgement but also about character.  One will speak, an outward action, in accordance with what is inward, in the heart of a person.  Consistent with Jesus’ Kingdom ethics throughout His ministry, Jesus calls for a change of heart.  A person’s speech gives us a look inside of them, and offensive speech reveals an ugly heart.  Jesus’ disciples were called to inward transformation that resulted in outward obedience to the intent, not just letter, of the Law.

Conclusion

We have noted the importance of ‘right speech’ in both antiquity and the New Testament.  What Christian authors said about speech and ethics fit with what ancient authors advocated as well.  The difference was that the New Testament authors further addressed the ethics of speech in theological terms.  God cares about and will judge our words.  Christians should distinguish themselves from the world in their pure and holy speech, and the nature of their speech is one factor defining the character of their community.  The transformation of speech is part of the transformation of the convert, and the model of Christian responses to abuse is Jesus Christ, who was Himself reviled and crucified.  While the descent into violent and gutter speech in American public and private discourse is lamentable, it is part and parcel of what comes with the post-Christian turn of Western culture more generally.  If the ancient authors noted were here today, they might call for a more gentile society.  As Christians, we are left with having to check ourselves that we are not pulled down in our conversation but lift ourselves up—or allow the Holy Spirit to do so—in our conversations, whether with spouses and children, in the Church, at work, or in public generally.