Sermon Tone Analysis

“A single witness shall not suffice against a person for any crime or for any wrong in connection with any offense that he has committed.

Only on the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses shall a charge be established.

If a malicious witness arises to accuse a person of wrongdoing, then both parties to the dispute shall appear before the LORD, before the priests and the judges who are in office in those days.

The judges shall inquire diligently, and if the witness is a false witness and has accused his brother falsely, then you shall do to him as he had meant to do to his brother.

So you shall purge the evil from your midst.

And the rest shall hear and fear, and shall never again commit any such evil among you.

Your eye shall not pity.

It shall be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.”

[1]

To the modern mind, evil is a malady to be cured.

The mass murderer must be understood and the government must take steps to avoid the undesirable action ever occurring again.

The underlying motive driving the thief must be uncovered and addressed so he will not want to steal again.

National leaders and the cultural elite feel compelled to discover what drives the Jihadist who slaughters the innocent; and when the mass murderer is caught, we feel compelled to imprison him so that we can cure him.

The overarching concept in modern jurisprudence is that evil can be cured.

We incarcerate criminals, but the prevailing purpose for incarceration is treatment rather than punishment.

However, evil cannot be cured.

Candidly, I am fearful of any government that attempts to cure evil rather than holding miscreants accountable for their acts.

The old Soviet Union was a nation of laws—they had a constitution and agreed they would abide by the laws they drafted.

Consequently, they boasted of their humane treatment of social deviants.

The Duma did not outlaw Christianity; it reclassified it as mental illness.

Christians were not executed because of belief in the Son of God—they were sent to mental institutions for treatment in order that they might be “cured” of their illness.

It seems a trait of cultures and nations that with time they attempt to regulate faith through coercion, attempting to compel uniformity of thought among the citizenry.

Christianity, especially, is targeted because it cannot acknowledge anyone as divine except for God.

After the fall of South Viet Nam, the conquerors from the north did not condemn those who differed on issues of policy with the state, they merely sent them to “re-education camps” where they would gain a new perspective and learn to keep their mouths shut.

The northern Communists were disappointed that people spoke of them as uncivilised.

“We are civilised,” they argued.

“We don’t kill those who disagree with us; we re-educate them.”

I suggest that efforts to cure evil are not only destructive, they are cruel in the extreme—they reflect the fallen nature of mankind’s ability to reason.

Despite the best efforts of modern societies to cure evil, it must be stated that evil cannot be cured.

To speak of a cure is to assume that the one afflicted will be unchanged save for removal of the offending malady.

To speak of curing evil is to assume that evil is merely a flaw in human character, a trifling deficit that has no real long-term consequences.

However, evil condemns not only the soul of the person ensnared by evil, but it contaminates all who tolerate its presence.

Understand that evil is an offence to Holy God.

Perhaps that is one of the major difficulties in speaking of evil among our contemporaries—we have defined evil down.

Evil should be defined as any act or any thought that offends God’s holiness.

Because evil is an offence to Him, all evil is wicked.

Those who engage in evil are condemned as wicked in the sight of the Lord God.

What is required for mankind is not a cure for evil, but a means by which we can put evil away; we require a way to deal with evil.

*EVIL IS INVASIVE* — The command before us is one of several presented among the Deuteromic laws.

To be certain, God’s holy law set a high standard for ancient Israel—God demanded that His ancient people were to be holy.

Among the faithful gathered as churches in this day, God still calls His people to be holy.

Through Peter, God commands those who would follow Him, “Like the Holy One who called you, become holy yourselves in all your conduct, for it is written, ‘You shall be holy, because I am holy’” [1 PETER 1:15, 16 NET BIBLE].

God’s holiness was emphasised in decisive fashion during the days of wilderness wandering.

In the Book of Deuteronomy, the LORD says repeatedly, “You shall purge the evil from among you.”

Consider the other instances where God demanded that evil be purged through taking the life of the evil doer.

False prophets were to be killed [DEUTERONOMY 13:5].

Idolaters were to be put to death [DEUTERONOMY 17:7], just as disobedience to Levitical decisions was to be punished by death [DEUTERONOMY 17:12].

Rebellious children [DEUTERONOMY 21:21], immoral people and adulterers were to be put to death [DEUTERONOMY22:21, 22, 24].

Those enslaving fellow members of the community of faith were to be punished by death [DEUTERONOMY 24:7].

In each of these cases, the actions of those sentenced were a threat to the existence of the community.

God was holy; likewise, His people are to be holy.

Each of these laws was given to exalt the holiness of God and to impress upon them the knowledge that they were to be holy in their conduct.

Admittedly, such commands appear extreme, even excessive, to modern sensibilities.

However, if these commands seem harsh or drastic, is it because we no longer value holiness?

When our society is no longer willing to hold people accountable for their choices, doesn’t this speak of an unhealthy self-centredness?

Is this not creation of an exalted humanism that denies righteousness?

We don’t want to “punish” young girls with a child just because they were immoral, so we promote murder of the unborn.

By the same rationale, we might execute the wrong person, and so we are prepared to exonerate the murderer, or even worse we incarcerate the convicted murderer for life rather than show that we value the life of the murdered victim.

We have become so concerned for “rights” that we are prepared to ignore responsibilities.

Thus, every sluggard and drudge has a right to receive an income, a right to housing, a right to be fed; but in order to accomplish our newly discovered largess we redistribute the wealth, taking from those who are productive in order to support those who are takers.

Thus, we nullify the word of the Apostle, “Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.

For you yourselves know how you ought to imitate us, because we were not idle when we were with you, nor did we eat anyone’s bread without paying for it, but with toil and labor we worked night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you.

It was not because we do not have that right, but to give you in ourselves an example to imitate.

For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat” [2 THESSALONIANS 3:6-10].

Each of these situations to which I’ve alluded bespeak novel ideals that redefine righteousness and goodness and holiness.

Whenever we speak of evil, of necessity we must define holiness.

Evil, likewise, must be defined since the definition is relative.

I don’t mean that evil can’t be defined; I do mean that each culture, each generation, each speaker is tempted to redefine the concept to fit a particular worldview.

If the individual is righteous in the eyes of God, he or she will endeavour to know the mind of God, and then strive to do the will of God.

Christians appeal to the revealed mind of God whether we speak of evil or holiness.

Holiness reflects the character of the Lord God.

While our efforts to be holy can never be more than a pale reflection of His perfection, we are commanded to be holy.

Similarly, we recognise evil as that which is opposed to God’s righteous character; there is no fluidity in defining evil, no pliancy in our definition of wickedness.

Until Christ reigns on earth, wickedness will be with us.

Though Christ died because of the sin of fallen mankind, His death will not deter the wicked from pursuing their own evil desires.

Until they are quickened by the Spirit of God, they are incapable of turning from their wicked ways to the light of the Living God.

Wicked people even seek approval from others! “They not only do [evil things], but even applaud others who practice them” [ROMANS 1:32 HCSB].

Evil will never be content to remain in the shadows; evil must flaunt itself.

Evil insinuates itself into society, into our communities and even into our churches.

In society, the distortion of Christian charity results in the imposition of socialistic ideas to compel the citizens to honour sloth and to celebrate immorality.

Politicians seize more of earned wealth to supply housing and food for “the poor,” and the definition of “poor” is constantly revised to include an ever greater number of people unprepared to work.

I am dismayed by the sustained push to tolerate immorality as social elites endeavour to silence dissent from the imposition of immorality as a social ideal.

Politicians seek to silence those who dare speak out in favour of what was once common morality—marriage before sexual activity, marriage between one man and one woman, courtesy toward all and especially toward women, civility in language.

During the past several decades, homosexual activists grew increasingly vocal as they demanded acceptance of their behaviour and as they demanded normalisation of their lifestyles.

As homosexuality gained acceptability within society, I noted with disappointment that those advocating traditional morality were increasingly condemned as intolerant, the charge being led by loud braying from the same activists who once sought tolerance for their deviance.

They were joined in these efforts by politicians pandering for votes wherever they could be found.

In similar fashion, modern communities are uncertain how to respond to violence, and we are thus paralysed when thugs intimidate the citizenry through unrestrained violence.

We caution citizens that they must not defend themselves or their families when assaulted; rather they are commanded to await the police who will file a report in the aftermath of the assaults.

The situation is reminiscent of the days in which Jeremiah prophesied.

“Thus says the LORD of hosts:

‘Cut down her trees;

cast up a siege mound against Jerusalem.

This is the city that must be punished;

there is nothing but oppression within her.

As a well keeps its water fresh,

so she keeps fresh her evil;

violence and destruction are heard within her;

sickness and wounds are ever before me.’”

[JEREMIAH 6:6, 7]

The situation became so bad for Jeremiah that he despaired of a fruitful ministry.

“Whenever I speak, I cry out,