We are told all the time that we should have compassion, respect, and love for all. That we should not say anything to upset, offend, or hurt someone, even if we think we are right. Who are we? Why are we more important? Do we not sin too? We should keep that stuff at home.
Ever wonder what that would actually look like? The Silent Saint?
“If I say to the wicked, ‘You shall surely die,’ and you give him no warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, in order to save his life, that wicked person shall die for his iniquity, but his blood I will require at your hand.
But if you warn the wicked, and he does not turn from his wickedness, or from his wicked way, he shall die for his iniquity, but you will have delivered your soul." Ezekiel 3:18-19
God seems pretty serious. Look here.
“But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet, so that the people are not warned, and the sword comes and takes any one of them, that person is taken away in his iniquity, but his blood I will require at the watchman’s hand.” Ezekiel 33:6
God instructs us to judge. I know, I know, that is not what most want to hear.
“Open your mouth for the mute, for the rights of all who are destitute. Open your mouth, judge righteously, defend the rights of the poor and needy.” Proverbs 31:8-9
So why do you think so many people want us to be Silent Saints? I think the answer is simple.
“For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching?”
Do you believe that we should be Silent Saints to spare someone offense? To spare someone shame? To spare someone’s ego, or should we speak up with the hope of sparing someone’s life?
The statement in ~Ezekiel 3:18–19 occurs within the prophetic commissioning of Ezekiel as a covenant watchman over the house of Israel, and the immediate literary context is the section ~Ezekiel 1–3 where the prophet receives his inaugural vision and prophetic mandate following the Babylonian exile of Judah in 597 BC; the exilic community is living in Babylon, spiritually hardened, and YHWH appoints Ezekiel not primarily as a predictor of future events but as a covenant prosecutor whose responsibility is to proclaim divine warnings grounded in the Mosaic covenant sanctions.
The broader narrative begins with Ezekiel’s inaugural vision in ~Ezekiel 1 where the prophet sees the mobile throne chariot of YHWH, indicating that the God of Israel is not geographically confined to Jerusalem but sovereign even in exile; the vision culminates in the appearance of the divine glory (כְּבוֹד יְהוָה), after which Ezekiel is commanded to stand and receive the divine commission in ~Ezekiel 2:1–7.
In ~Ezekiel 2 the Lord explicitly informs the prophet that he is being sent to “a rebellious house” (בֵּית מְרִי), a phrase repeated throughout the commissioning discourse to describe Israel’s covenant obstinacy; the emphasis is not on the likelihood of success but on the obligation of proclamation, meaning that the prophet’s fidelity is measured not by the people’s response but by his faithfulness to speak what God commands.
The pivotal structural moment occurs in ~Ezekiel 3:16–21 where Ezekiel is formally designated as a “watchman” (Hebrew צֹפֶה ṣōp̄eh), a term drawn from the ancient Near Eastern city-watch system in which a sentinel stationed on the city wall observed approaching danger and sounded a warning trumpet; the metaphor communicates responsibility for warning rather than responsibility for the outcome.
Several lexical elements clarify the force of the statement.
The expression “you shall surely die” translates the Hebrew infinitive absolute construction מוֹת תָּמוּת (môt tāmût), an emphatic judicial formula common in covenantal contexts, indicating the certainty of divine judgment rather than merely physical death in a general sense.
The verb “warn” derives from the Hebrew root זָהַר (zāhar), which in the Hiphil stem carries the causative sense “to admonish, to give solemn warning”; the prophet functions as the instrument by which divine warning reaches the covenant community.
The phrase “his blood I will require at your hand” reflects juridical covenant language in which “blood” symbolizes accountability for life, meaning Ezekiel would incur covenant guilt for failing to discharge his prophetic duty, though the wicked person remains morally responsible for his own sin.
Theologically the passage establishes three interlocking principles.
First, individual moral responsibility remains intact since the wicked person “shall die for his iniquity,” a theme that will be expanded later in ~Ezekiel 18 where the prophet dismantles the proverb about inherited guilt and insists that each person bears responsibility for his own sin.
Second, the prophet carries vocational accountability before God; the failure to deliver the warning constitutes disobedience to the divine commission, so the prophet’s guilt arises not from the sinner’s rebellion but from neglecting the prophetic mandate.
Third, the purpose of the warning is explicitly salvific in temporal terms, expressed in the clause “in order to save his life,” indicating that prophetic proclamation functions as the divinely appointed means by which God calls sinners to repentance.
The immediate literary continuation in ~Ezekiel 3:20–21 extends the principle to the “righteous” person who turns to sin, reinforcing the symmetrical structure of the passage: the prophet must warn both the wicked about judgment and the righteous about apostasy.
Within the book’s larger theology this watchman motif reappears in ~Ezekiel 33:1–9 where the same responsibility is reiterated after the fall of Jerusalem; the repetition indicates that the principle governs Ezekiel’s entire prophetic ministry rather than merely the opening commissioning episode.
From a canonical perspective the passage illustrates a recurring biblical pattern in which God ordains human proclamation as the instrument through which warnings and calls to repentance are delivered, a pattern later echoed in the New Testament proclamation of the gospel where apostolic preaching functions as the means by which God summons sinners to repentance through the message of Christ crucified and risen.
Thus the context of ~Ezekiel 3:18–19 is not a general command to all believers in abstraction but a specific prophetic commissioning within the covenantal framework of Israel’s exile, employing the watchman metaphor to define the prophet’s responsibility to faithfully proclaim divine warnings regardless of whether the audience responds.
J.
If I say to the wicked, “You shall surely die,” and you give him no warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, in order to save his life, that wicked person shall die for his iniquity, but his blood I will require at your hand. But if you warn the wicked, and he does not turn from his wickedness, or from his wicked way, he shall die for his iniquity, but you will have delivered your soul. - ESV ↩︎
The statement in ~Ezekiel 33:6 belongs to the second major “watchman” discourse in the book of Ezekiel and occurs in a historical moment later than the first commission in ~Ezekiel 3; the context is the period immediately preceding and surrounding the final destruction of Jerusalem in 586 BC, when Ezekiel’s prophetic ministry transitions from warning of impending judgment to explaining the justice of that judgment and preparing the theological ground for Israel’s restoration.
The immediate literary unit is ~Ezekiel 33:1–9 where YHWH again appoints Ezekiel as a watchman for the house of Israel, repeating and expanding the earlier commission given in ~Ezekiel 3:16–21; the repetition is deliberate and structurally significant because the fall of Jerusalem is about to occur, and the prophet’s responsibility must be reaffirmed as the people face the consequences of covenant violation.
The controlling metaphor is that of a city watchman stationed on the defensive walls of an ancient city, whose duty was to survey the horizon for approaching threats such as invading armies; when danger appeared he would blow a trumpet or horn (Hebrew שׁוֹפָר šōp̄ār) to alert the inhabitants so they could prepare for defense or escape.
In ~Ezekiel 33:2–5 the metaphor is first explained in ordinary civic terms before being applied spiritually; the people themselves are imagined as appointing a watchman, and if the watchman faithfully sounds the trumpet then anyone who ignores the warning bears personal responsibility for the consequences.
The key verbs illuminate the structure of responsibility in the passage.
The verb “sees” comes from the Hebrew root רָאָה (rāʾâ), indicating perceptive recognition of approaching danger.
The verb “blow” (תָּקַע tāqaʿ) refers to the sounding of a trumpet blast, an action that publicly communicates alarm.
The verb “warn” again corresponds conceptually with the admonitory idea expressed earlier in ~Ezekiel 3, although here the metaphorical language of trumpet signaling replaces the explicit verb זָהַר (zāhar).
The “sword” (חֶרֶב ḥereb) in prophetic literature commonly represents divine judgment executed through military invasion, which in Ezekiel’s historical setting refers specifically to the Babylonian assault upon Jerusalem.
The phrase “that person is taken away in his iniquity” reiterates the doctrine of individual moral accountability; the person who perishes does so because of his own guilt rather than the negligence of the watchman.
However the closing clause introduces a second level of accountability: “his blood I will require at the watchman’s hand,” meaning that the watchman bears guilt for failing to discharge his duty to warn, even though the individual remains responsible for his own sin.
After presenting the civic analogy in ~Ezekiel 33:1–6, the text moves immediately to the theological application in ~Ezekiel 33:7 where YHWH identifies Ezekiel himself as the watchman.
Here the prophetic function becomes explicit: the watchman’s trumpet corresponds to the prophet’s proclamation of the divine word, and the danger approaching the city corresponds to the covenantal judgments threatened in the Mosaic law for persistent rebellion.
Within the broader structure of the book the repetition of the watchman motif serves a theological transition.
Before the fall of Jerusalem Ezekiel’s primary task was to announce judgment and call Israel to repentance.
After the fall the same responsibility continues but now functions to interpret the catastrophe as the righteous fulfillment of YHWH’s covenant warnings and to prepare the people for eventual restoration described in the later chapters ~Ezekiel 34–48.
Thus the context of ~Ezekiel 33:6 is a prophetic parable illustrating two simultaneous truths within the covenant framework.
First, every individual remains morally accountable before God and will perish for his own iniquity if he persists in rebellion.
Second, the appointed messenger of God bears responsibility to proclaim the warning faithfully, because silence in the face of approaching judgment constitutes disobedience to the divine commission.
The passage therefore reinforces the prophetic vocation as a divinely mandated ministry of warning, proclamation, and moral accountability within Israel’s covenant history.
J.
But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet, so that the people are not warned, and the sword comes and takes any one of them, that person is taken away in his iniquity, but his blood I will require at the watchman’s hand. - ESV ↩︎
So you, son of man, I have made a watchman for the house of Israel. Whenever you hear a word from my mouth, you shall give them warning from me. - ESV ↩︎
The statement in ~Ezekiel 33:6 belongs to the second major “watchman” discourse in the book of Ezekiel and occurs in a historical moment later than the first commission in ~Ezekiel 3; the context is the period immediately preceding and surrounding the final destruction of Jerusalem in 586 BC, when Ezekiel’s prophetic ministry transitions from warning of impending judgment to explaining the justice of that judgment and preparing the theological ground for Israel’s restoration.
The immediate literary unit is ~Ezekiel 33:1–9 where YHWH again appoints Ezekiel as a watchman for the house of Israel, repeating and expanding the earlier commission given in ~Ezekiel 3:16–21; the repetition is deliberate and structurally significant because the fall of Jerusalem is about to occur, and the prophet’s responsibility must be reaffirmed as the people face the consequences of covenant violation.
The controlling metaphor is that of a city watchman stationed on the defensive walls of an ancient city, whose duty was to survey the horizon for approaching threats such as invading armies; when danger appeared he would blow a trumpet or horn (Hebrew שׁוֹפָר šōp̄ār) to alert the inhabitants so they could prepare for defense or escape.
In ~Ezekiel 33:2–5 the metaphor is first explained in ordinary civic terms before being applied spiritually; the people themselves are imagined as appointing a watchman, and if the watchman faithfully sounds the trumpet then anyone who ignores the warning bears personal responsibility for the consequences.
The key verbs illuminate the structure of responsibility in the passage.
The verb “sees” comes from the Hebrew root רָאָה (rāʾâ), indicating perceptive recognition of approaching danger.
The verb “blow” (תָּקַע tāqaʿ) refers to the sounding of a trumpet blast, an action that publicly communicates alarm.
The verb “warn” again corresponds conceptually with the admonitory idea expressed earlier in ~Ezekiel 3, although here the metaphorical language of trumpet signaling replaces the explicit verb זָהַר (zāhar).
The “sword” (חֶרֶב ḥereb) in prophetic literature commonly represents divine judgment executed through military invasion, which in Ezekiel’s historical setting refers specifically to the Babylonian assault upon Jerusalem.
The phrase “that person is taken away in his iniquity” reiterates the doctrine of individual moral accountability; the person who perishes does so because of his own guilt rather than the negligence of the watchman.
However the closing clause introduces a second level of accountability: “his blood I will require at the watchman’s hand,” meaning that the watchman bears guilt for failing to discharge his duty to warn, even though the individual remains responsible for his own sin.
After presenting the civic analogy in ~Ezekiel 33:1–6, the text moves immediately to the theological application in ~Ezekiel 33:7 where YHWH identifies Ezekiel himself as the watchman.
Here the prophetic function becomes explicit: the watchman’s trumpet corresponds to the prophet’s proclamation of the divine word, and the danger approaching the city corresponds to the covenantal judgments threatened in the Mosaic law for persistent rebellion.
Within the broader structure of the book the repetition of the watchman motif serves a theological transition.
Before the fall of Jerusalem Ezekiel’s primary task was to announce judgment and call Israel to repentance.
After the fall the same responsibility continues but now functions to interpret the catastrophe as the righteous fulfillment of YHWH’s covenant warnings and to prepare the people for eventual restoration described in the later chapters ~Ezekiel 34–48.
Thus the context of ~Ezekiel 33:6 is a prophetic parable illustrating two simultaneous truths within the covenant framework.
First, every individual remains morally accountable before God and will perish for his own iniquity if he persists in rebellion.
Second, the appointed messenger of God bears responsibility to proclaim the warning faithfully, because silence in the face of approaching judgment constitutes disobedience to the divine commission.
The passage therefore reinforces the prophetic vocation as a divinely mandated ministry of warning, proclamation, and moral accountability within Israel’s covenant history.
J.
And here…
The exhortation in ~Proverbs 31:8–9 belongs to the concluding chapter of the book of Proverbs and occurs within the instruction attributed to King Lemuel, specifically the didactic sayings that his mother taught him concerning righteous kingship and judicial responsibility; thus the literary context is royal wisdom instruction rather than prophetic warning, and the immediate focus is the ethical obligations of rulers who exercise legal authority over vulnerable members of society.
J.
But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet, so that the people are not warned, and the sword comes and takes any one of them, that person is taken away in his iniquity, but his blood I will require at the watchman’s hand. - ESV ↩︎
So you, son of man, I have made a watchman for the house of Israel. Whenever you hear a word from my mouth, you shall give them warning from me. - ESV ↩︎
I think it really depends on the context and the person to whom we’re speaking (or not speaking, as the case may be). We must ask God for wisdom and discernment and then trust that if we need to speak up, that the Spirit will guide us in what to say.
If someone’s heart is hardened or we know it will be a fruitless discussion or circular argument, then it is likely better to stay silent and simply pray. But, in many cases, like you mentioned, we are called to share the hope that we have in Christ. That may look like clearly laying out the Gospel, but I think it can also look like showing Jesus’ love in more nuanced ways—giving someone counsel for a tough situation, speaking up for the underdog when there is injustice, simply offering words of encouragement and edification, etc.
“Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” Matthew 3:2
“From that time Jesus began to preach, saying, ‘Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” Matthew 4:17
“I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance.” Luke 5:32
Following our conversion and the Great Commission, are we not this?
“But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.’ 1 Peter 2:9-10
Now we are equal to those God called out to preach repentance? Yes?
Of course, isn’t the Bible, the total Bible, Old and New Testaments alike, our blueprint, guidebook, and or manual for how God wants us to live our lives? Do you think we SHOULD be Silent Saints and not call out sin? That you did not answer. I understand most of the Old Testament is speaking to a specific person or people and has a direct message for them. However, they are our examples of what to and not to do. Correct?
It is noteworthy that your emphasis was on minor details rather than on the broader significance and central message.
Exactly. It goes to the whole argument between true and false compassion. Is it true compassion to watch people willfully head toward destruction without warning them in the fear of offense, or rather, to warn them in the hopes of having them see the Truth and allow the Truth to set them free?
Here is my perspective. An online forum is not the ἐκκλησία. On a forum almost anything can be said under the broad banner of “love,” yet there is little real accountability. Scripture portrays the church as something far more concrete and relational.
The New Testament describes believers gathering face to face, sharing life together, and mutually guarding the truth of the apostolic teaching. The early believers were not merely exchanging ideas in a loose public space; they were devoted to a living community ordered around the Word of God. As it is written, Acts 2:42[1]
Within the gathered church there is relational proximity and responsibility toward one another. The language of the New Testament repeatedly assumes believers actually know one another and speak into each other’s lives. The exhortation of Hebrews assumes this kind of daily interaction and accountability: Hebrews 3:13[2]
In the ἐκκλησία there is also the safeguarding of doctrine. Leaders are charged to preserve the integrity of the apostolic teaching and to protect the flock from error. Paul explicitly frames pastoral oversight in those terms: Titus 1:9[3]
Furthermore, the New Testament stresses the corporate hearing of the Word of God. Spiritual growth and illumination occur within the gathered body as believers sit under the proclamation of Scripture. Paul emphasizes that faith itself arises through this hearing: Romans 10:17[4]
This is why the author of Hebrews warns believers not to neglect the assembled gathering of the church: Hebrews 10:24–25^[And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another…
Besides, if I should “call out sin” I would be banned or receive automated messages “your post has been removed”…little foxes…
Also…
You cannot realistically confront personal sin in the lives of people you do not actually know, especially in an online environment where there is no real relationship, accountability, or knowledge of how someone lives. What you can do, however, is make a sincere effort to correct erroneous doctrine when it appears, because false teaching is something that can be addressed from Scripture even when the individuals involved are not personally known.
The church is meant to function as a family. Brothers and sisters know one another, walk together, and encourage one another forward in the faith, strengthening each other in their most holy faith. In that setting there is real accountability, mutual care, and the ability to exhort, correct, and restore when necessary.
Online forums are very different. They do not operate as the ekklesia. Participation there often depends on the preferences or mood of moderators, and a person can be removed at any moment.
Because of that, the depth of fellowship, accountability, and pastoral correction that exists within a true church community simply cannot be reproduced in an online setting.
You agree?
J.
And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. - ESV ↩︎
But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called “today,” that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. - ESV ↩︎
He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it. - ESV ↩︎
So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ. - ESV ↩︎
Are you saying that you are “charged to preserve the integrity of the apostolic teaching and to protect the flock from error”? And agreed, the church.
This we disagree with. If someone tells me, “I’m a serial killer, and I see nothing wrong with it.” I do not need to know their life story and see them daily to be able to call them out. Their own words will testify against them as they will in the end times. “I’m a thief.” “I’m an adulterer.” “I’m a homosexual.” In all these cases, is it not our responsibility to warn them what God says about that, and or what happens to those who practice these things?
Understood. I know I, for one, take the responsibility very seriously. I know the rest do as well. I’m not aware of one person that have been banned for a disagreement or personality conflict. Trust me, if I ban someone, they know it is coming.
Shalom to you and yours,
Yes, we do disagree, but perhaps I did not express my point clearly. I was referring to the reality that online forums can contain all kinds of people whose lives we know nothing about. A person may present themselves as a believer, yet in reality be living in serious sin. Scripture reminds us that the human heart is not easily discerned from the outside.
Because of this, when people interact only through the internet, we simply cannot know the true condition of their lives. Someone could be involved in grievous sin and yet still speak in Christian language online. Scripture even warns that not everyone who appears religious truly belongs to Christ.
My point was simply to make a distinction between online interaction and real church fellowship. The church is where believers actually know one another, walk together, and hold one another accountable in life and doctrine.
My 2 cents.
J.
The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it? - ESV ↩︎
Not everyone who says to me Lord Lord will enter the kingdom of heaven but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me Lord Lord did we not prophesy in your name and cast out demons in your name and do many mighty works in your name And then will I declare to them I never knew you depart from me you workers of lawlessness. - ESV ↩︎
Or sadly someone could be suffering physically and of mentaly and yet we may never know. This is also why I do not like mega churches. I still get mailed info from one in Florida that my family visited a couple of times. They have no idea we moved to NY. Now, the local church I was a part of. About 400 people a week, do know.
They knew when someone was there and when they were not. If you missed a couple of weeks, someone on staff would call just to check on you. We were a real family. I always encourage all to find a Jesus-centered, Bible-saturated, Truth-oriented, Holy Spirit-filled, I would say, Theologically-conservative, Multi-generational, and Mission-focused local church.
You’re raising an important point here. Scripture does show that God’s people are not meant to stay silent when truth needs to be spoken. The watchman passages make that clear. God said if the wicked are not warned, their blood will be required at the watchman’s hand ~Ezekiel 3:18. That shows how seriously God takes warning people about the danger of sin and judgment.
The gospel itself requires speaking. Scripture asks, “How shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?” ~Romans 10:14. If believers stay silent, people never hear the message that can save them.
This becomes even more important when false teaching is involved. Paul warned that “grievous wolves” would come in and not spare the flock ~Acts 20:29. A shepherd who stays quiet while wolves are misleading people is not protecting anyone. That is why Scripture also says to test what is being taught because “many false prophets are gone out into the world” ~1 John 4:1.
At the same time, Scripture reminds us to speak with humility about our own sin. Jesus said to remove the beam from our own eye first so we can see clearly to help someone else ~Matthew 7:5. So the goal is not attacking people or acting superior. The goal is warning, correcting error, and pointing people back to what Scripture actually says.
Silence might feel polite, but it does not help someone who is walking toward destruction. Real love speaks truth so people can hear the gospel and turn to Christ.
Absolutely. Even more so today, when we see Romans 1 play out and “Itchy Ears” false churches popping up all over. You are also right about this.
Yes.
“He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?” Micah 6:8
Along with this.
“Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves.” Philippians 2:3
A little illustration. If I lived on the top of a mountain with no other people around, and I raised my children from birth, then the Sky is green, the Grass is blue, Water is the only thing you can drink without harm, and God is a tree that stands tall and watches over them. This is all they will “know.”
When they grow and come off the mountain, they meet others, and people start telling them they are wrong, the Grass is green, the Sky is blue, they may come offended, why? Their whole life up to this point was a lie. They do not want to believe their Father lied to them. Does that make them right? Of course not.
We have to, as children of God, correct and warn the children of the Flesh, who know no better, that there is a better way, and His name is Jesus.