In Ephesians, Paul devotes a large section of that letter telling Christians how they ought to talk to one another. Other behavior is also in view from 4:25 on, but he keeps returning speech habits and customs climaxing in a passage that pivots from general morality to specific relationships:
…Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit, addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with your heart, giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ, wives to your own husbands…
Ephesians 5:17-22a (Mostly ESV)
Paul’s reference to not being foolish, goes with what he just wrote about being careful to behave wisely (v. 16) and makes us think of Proverbs (especially on THIS blog). “Anxiety in a man’s heart weighs him down, but a good word makes him glad. “(Proverbs 12:25 ESV). Paul is basically exhorting the Christian congregation to speak good words to one another.
While the exhortation against drunkenness (v. 18) may be a general command that needs no immediate contextual explanation, I find it interesting that Proverbs 12:25 is given in the context of exhortations to restraint of speech and against sloth.
A prudent man conceals knowledge, but the heart of fools proclaims folly. The hand of the diligent will rule, while the slothful will be put to forced labor. Anxiety in a man’s heart weighs him down, but a good word makes him glad. One who is righteous is a guide to his neighbor, but the way of the wicked leads them astray. Whoever is slothful will not roast his game, but the diligent man will get precious wealth.
Proverbs 12:23-27
I am not ready to identify a common theme in this section of Proverbs, yet. But the focus on being alert and intelligent in what one allows oneself to say, as opposed to babbling anything that come to mind, does seem to fit Paul’s desire that we identify the needs of our hearer(s) and speak accordingly: “Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear” (Ephesians 4:29 ESV).
There is a limit to when “a good word” is really good. Obviously, if something YOU are doing to another person is causing anxiety, then rote positivity may add insult to injury. “Whoever blesses his neighbor with a loud voice, rising early in the morning, will be counted as cursing” (Proverbs 27:14 ESV), is one example of when a word fails at “fits the occasion.” We are to “rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep” (Romans 12:15).
Still, we are obligated to cheer one another up, as far as that is possible and is consistent with obedience to God’s commands.
So what about how we talk to ourselves?
- “Anxiety in a man’s heart weighs him down, but a good word makes him glad” (Proverbs 12:25 ESV)
- “A glad heart makes a cheerful face, but by sorrow of heart the spirit is crushed” (Proverbs 15:13 ESV).
- “All the days of the afflicted are evil, but the cheerful of heart has a continual feast” (Proverbs 15:15 ESV).
- “A joyful heart is good medicine, but a crushed spirit dries up the bones.” (Proverbs 17:22 ESV).
Many or all of these proverbs seem tautological or obvious observation. I argue in my book, Solomon Says, that 17:22 is prescriptive (mainly arguing from what seems a parallel proverb in Proverbs 14:30). I think all of these actually imply a positive command. And if we they command us to encourage others (with the caveats mentioned above) I think they also command each of us to rouse ourselves to encourage ourselves.
This brings me to one of my favorite quotations about the economist and scholar, Ludwig von Mises, from his student (and sometimes critic) Murray Rothbard. I got this from an audio posted at the Mises Institute, but I don’t remember which one. Neither of these men were Christians in their intellectual endeavors, but I think Rothbard’s description is amazing
…So in this state, Mises comes to the United States, he’s penniless, he’s about 60 years old or so. He starts writing in a new language, and he can’t get an academic post. This is the eternal blot on academia. This is a situation where every Marxist and semi-Marxist and three-quarter Marxist was getting cushy top chairs at Harvard and Princeton and whatever, and Mises couldn’t find an academic post, and he finally got one at NYU as a visiting professor with a salary paid for by outside businessmen and foundations. Same thing happened to Hayek. Hayek’s salary at the University of Chicago was never paid for by Chicago; it was paid for by outside business groups.
As a result, Mises was scorned, the dean was against him, the dean advised people not to take his courses and things like that. He was in a fantastically miserable situation, and yet–and here’s where I come into the picture; I get to know him at this point–when he started a seminar at NYU.
…How did he act? It was magnificent, I couldn’t believe it. He was cheerful, was never bitter, never said an unkind word about anything, any person, and very sweet, and it was just a magnificent experience…
When I think how much I would like someone to remember me in this way, and how little chance I have of having such an effect on anyone who knows me, I can’t help but feel convicted.
We are all going to have reasons to feel afflicted. We are all going to be afflicted!
But we have incredible reasons, as Christians, to hope and to give thanks. Don’t let those things be erased from your mind. In fact, actively remind yourself of them.