Bio

Dr. Mike Halsey is the chancellor of Grace Biblical Seminary, a Bible teacher at the Hangar Bible Fellowship, the author of Truthspeak and his new book, The Gospel of Grace and Truth: A Theology of Grace from the Gospel of John," both available on Amazon.com. A copy of his book, Microbes in the Bloodstream of the Church, is also available as an E-book on Amazon.com. If you would like to a receive a copy of his weekly Bible studies and other articles of biblical teaching and application, you can do so by writing to Dr. Halsey at michaeldhalsey@bellsouth.net and requesting, "The Hangar Bible Fellowship Journal."

Comments may be addressed to michaeldhalsey@bellsouth.net.

If you would like to contribute to his ministry according to the principle of II Corinthians 9:7, you may do so by making your check out to Hangar Bible Fellowship and mailing it to 65 Teal Ct., Locust Grove, GA 30248. All donations are tax deductible.

Come visit the Hangar some Sunday at 10 AM at the above address. You'll be glad you did.

Other recommended grace-oriented websites are:

notbyworks.org
literaltruth.org
gracebiblicalseminary.org
duluthbible.org
clarityministries.org

Also:

Biblical Ministries, Inc.
C/O Dr. Richard Grubbs
P. O. Box 64582
Lubbock, TX 79464-4582

Friday, August 29, 2014

EULOGY FOR MICHAEL BROWN, FERGUSON, MO

To wade into waters fraught with political agendas, racial overtones, and high emotions may bring the wader angry reactions and charges of insensitivity, racism, and who knows what else. That's why, for what it's worth, I make no assumptions of guilt or innocence in the Michael Brown case which has been inflammatory, to say the least. Such judicial pronouncements are not the content of this essay.

It's the use of the Bible during the eulogy for Michael Brown that concerns me and is therefore the content of this presentation. So, with that in mind, read on.

The uncle of Michael Brown spoke at the funeral service for his nephew and it serves as a premier example of twisting the Scriptures beyond recognition, using them in ways that are far, far from the authors' intent and far, far from the AUTHOR'S intent.

Let's read what his uncle, Rev. Charles Ewing, said. He will be speaking for himself, his words, according to the transcript of the service, are in italics.

"Michael Brown was 18 years old.  He was shot around noon.  Our Lord and Savior hung on the cross — now compare our time frame 12 o’clock to the Jewish time frame which is at the sixth hour.  Michael Brown died on August the 9th.  Jesus hung on the cross between the sixth and the 9th hour.”

In this statement, the pastor has discovered that a time of day reference from Matthew 27:45 has a hidden meaning that has to do with someone's being "shot around noon." Then he finds a hidden reference in "the ninth hour" as having to do with August 9, 2014, the number of the day in August on which the person who was shot died. In his eulogy, because of Matthew 27:45, an hour of a day and a day of the month have a hidden meaning concerning a shooting in St. Louis, Missouri, in August 2014.

Pastor Ewing continued his Jesus comparison by tying the St. Louis area’s geography to biblical numbers.
If you look at the demographics of St. Louis, Missouri, we are known for the Gateway to the West. Now [the] Holy Spirit said ‘Well, look at 12 gates of Israel.’ The East gate that Jesus is going to walk to is shaped like an arch. Look at Interstate 70 rides 2,153 miles from Maryland to all the way to Utah. Jesus spent 70 hours. Israel went into captivity for 70 years.
Aside from the fact that he misuses the word "demographics," this statement is even more bizarre than the earlier one. The famous St. Louis Arch, he says, has biblical connections. The "twelve gates of Israel" somehow speak of the nickname of St. Louis according to the Holy Spirit. Then he tells the congregation that the Holy Spirit also said to "Look at Interstate 70 [which] rides 2,153 miles from Maryland all the way to Utah."

 What does Interstate 70 have to do with all this? He explains, taking "Interstate 70" and connecting it into the fact that "Jesus spent 70 hours." Jesus spent 70 hours where, doing what? And when did this occur? To what does this refer? He doesn't say. Then we read that Interstate 70 somehow has something to do with Israel's going into captivity for 70 years.

What in the world is going on here?

What's going on--interpreting the Bible allegorically--has a hoary history. The Church Fathers brought this method of "understanding" the Bible into the church and we've been suffering ever since. It's a method by which the interpreter can make the Bible say anything he wants it to say. But Jesus and the Apostles never used the method, instead, they used the literal, grammatical, historical method of interpreting the Old Testament.

The woods are full of allegorists. Rev. Charles Ewing isn't the Lone Ranger; there are many a pulpit Tonto who do the same thing Sunday after Sunday. One preacher writes:

"In Genesis 6:14 God commanded Noah to build an ark made of cypress wood and to coat both the inside and the outside with pitch. . . the pitch represents sin in our lives."

Here's another example: a pastor who is speaking on Jesus’ resurrection from the grave. Regarding the stone rolled over the mouth of the tomb, he says, "Many of us have a stone rolled across our hearts and for a true living faith the stone needs to be rolled away from our heart."

Another Tonto found a hidden meaning in the account of the thugs making fun of Elisha. Elisha had just picked up Elijah’s mantle after witnessing his being taken up to heaven, and was on his way up a mountain. On the way, they came up to confront him saying, “Go up you bald head." The pastor said that's a reference to the world's making fun of those who believe in the Rapture. What? He's "found" the rapture in II Kings 2?



But how about giving the prize for the most fanciful and far-fetched allegory in our hit parade to Augustine ((354-430AD) who read the story of The Good Samaritan and concluded, "The main character is Adam, that being set on the animal is a belief in the incarnation of Christ. The inn is the Church, where travelers returning to their heavenly country are refreshed after pilgrimage. The morrow is after the resurrection of the Lord. The two pence are either the two precepts of love or the promise of this life and of that which is to come. The innkeeper is Paul, the promise to pay for future expenses is Paul’s vow of celibacy, and Jericho is the moon and represents our mortality [because it waxes and wanes]." 

Image result for images of a preacher twisting the Bible


Reading that hermeneutic circus wore me out. Just for grins, read many an author's understanding of Nehemiah 3 and their finding all the hidden meanings to the "gates" in the text.

Allegorizing a text in the Bible is not Bible teaching and never was. It sets loose a virus in the auditorium. Next time you hear the beginning of an allegorical sermon, head for the exit. Fast.





Friday, August 22, 2014

BOND, HELEN BOND

If you were to go back and look at the early James Bond movies, you'd think, "How quaint. How dated they appear. People liked this silliness?" It was in those movies, that when James Bond introduced himself, he'd always say his name as, "Bond, James Bond." I thought this strange because his name is "James Bond," not "Bond, James Bond," just as my name is "Mike Halsey," not "Halsey, Mike Halsey." I know that's a lame joke, so we'll move on.

Keeping the Bondian motif, last week I introduced you to Bond, Helen Bond, a respected professor and scholar at Edinburgh University. (It's a world class university, a highly respected one, although it has no football team.) Dr. Helen Bond has taught courses in the Divinity School of the U of E in the following: Biblical Studies, New Testament (particularly Gospels), Women in the New Testament, Jewish and Roman world of the first century, Historical Jesus studies, and Josephus.

That's an impressive line-up, but it contains a tip-off: when someone advocates or teaches anything positive having to do with "The Historical Jesus," run as fast as you can and as far as you can. It's a sure-fire clue that you're in the clutches of liberal scholarship.


Helen Bond

  
Dr. Bond has read and read and read the New Testament. She's read it so much that she knows the content of the gospel and can communicate it succinctly. Appearing on a documentary, she summarized what Paul wrote about the content of the good news--"Paul said, that you don't have to be circumcised. You didn't have to keep the Law; Paul was saying to the gentiles that all you need is to believe in what God has done through Jesus, [that is] the cross and the resurrection and faith in that is going to save you." Right on! Bond, Helen Bond adds no works, tells us to make no promises of future good behavior to God, no vows taken, say no sinner's prayer, go under no baptismal waters, and no cleaning up of our lives to be saved.

She's got the gospel nailed down, doesn't she? At last, a scholar and a Christian! But there's a problem or two. Let's let her speak for herself and we'll see the difficulties:

Take a listen: "Jesus was not unique in first century society (or other later societies, for that matter)." Say what? 2,000 years later, we're still writing about, talking about, arguing about, teaching about, preaching about this Person, and meeting once a week (or more) to honor Him who was "not unique" in her opinion. We could also add that people are still getting killed for His sake, losing their jobs for His sake, being arrested and fined for living by the words of this person who wasn't unique then or now. I might point out that Dr. Bond has devoted her adult life to the study of the Book that tells all we need to know about Him, yet she says, "He's not unique today and wasn't unique back then."

How about trying this on for size; she writes, "It is important to remember that not a single author of any of the New Testament ever met Jesus in person. Not one."  And, "All the writers of the New Testament wrote in Greek and with the exception of Paul, likely never set foot in the Holy Land."

She offers no proof for such a statement and doesn't mention the fact that the authors, like say, John, give evidence of someone who knew Jerusalem and Samaria quite well because he gives place names such as the Pool of Siloam, the Mt. of Olives, the Garden of Gethsemane, plus he mentions that Jews didn't like to go through Samaria because of their racism.

Then there's the matter of her saying that none of the authors of the Bible ever met Jesus in person.

Dr. Bond writes about the virgin birth:

"We will never know the precise details surrounding Jesus's nativity. Yet our best historical guess is that Mary gave birth to him in a perfectly ordinary way in the family home in Nazareth. Significant strands of the New Testament - Paul's letters, for example, and the gospels of Mark and John - know nothing of either the virginal conception [Wait a minute, how about Galatians 4:4?], any need for a room at an inn, or any trip to Bethlehem. In this case, Mary would have had little idea of her son's destiny, and little warning of what she herself would have to suffer on his account."

See one of the problems? She knows the gospel, but she isn't putting her faith in Christ to be saved. To her, the Bible is a flawed book. [She even says that we have no way of knowing what Jesus really said and it's useless to try to find out.] We might add, "She hasn't put her faith in Christ to save her, yet." Perhaps she will one day come to see Jesus as her Savior. She's devoted so many years to studying His Book, maybe so.

But, in the meantime, look at what she's written: "We will never know the precise details surrounding Jesus's nativity." It's amazing that such scholars as Bond can make such flat-out statements as she does. She's only right about the above IF we reject the New Testament. We can know all the precise details we need to know, if we believe the Bible to be our highest authority, not some "quest for the historical Jesus."

I wonder if those reading what she says picked up on something she said? I know you did, but would an average reader note that she writes, "Yet our best historical guess is that Mary gave birth to him in a perfectly ordinary way in the family home in Nazareth." You picked up on it, didn't you--her choice of the word, "guess." She's saying, "We scholars, we academics, as smart as we are in rejecting the New Testament as the Word of God, we're "guessing," and what I'm telling you about the birth of Christ is our best guess."

A guess? A guess is "arriving at or committing oneself to an opinion about (something) without having sufficient evidence to support the opinion fully." The Person and work of Jesus comprise the most important events in the world, and we're supposed to put our faith in her "best guess?" But, in fairness to Dr. Bond, isn't that what the human race is left with, if they reject the Bible--only what they classify as "best guesses?"


But the Apostles John and Peter weren't guessing they had met Jesus in person and knew what He said and did, up close and personal. Read I John 1: "What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life." 

Listen to Peter "and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us— what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you . . . " "For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty. 17 For when He received honor and glory from God the Father, such an utterance as this was made to Him by the Majestic Glory, “This is My beloved Son with whom I am well-pleased”— 18 and we ourselves heard this utterance made from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain."



And I know you caught the last thing Bond, Dr. Helen Bond, slipped in, "Mary gave birth to him in a perfectly ordinary way in the family home in Nazareth." In Nazareth? It's interesting, isn't it; she just says it and moves on, citing no proof of her statement and the average reader would think, "She's smart, so it must be true," whereas she just said, "I'm just guessing my best guesses here."

How about the other matter she brought up? "Paul's letters, for example, and the gospels of Mark and John - know nothing of either the virginal conception." Yet Galatians 4:4 points to the virgin birth, but she's right, neither John nor Mark relate the nativity narrative. Why?

In the book, "Dallas, 1963," there is no mention of Dallas Theological Seminary, Dr. John F. Walvoord, or Dr. Charles C. Ryrie who were living in Dallas at the time. Also, many a time, I've heard sermons and the speaker doesn't mentioned the virgin birth of Christ. Does that mean the authors of "Dallas, 1963" were unaware of Dallas Seminary, Walvoord, and Ryrie, both teachers a the school? How do we know they weren't?

The institution and those men weren't in the book because they weren't involved in the purpose of the book any more than the virgin is in every sermon. If we judged every book and every sermon by what they don't say, we could critique every sermon and every book to death. Just because an author doesn't mention something doesn't mean he knows nothing about it. It means that it's not in the purpose of his book to mention it.

In this article, I've not mentioned Dr. Bond's teaching methods in the classroom or what she prefers for lunch. Why not? Although her methods are important and lunch is important, they have nothing to do with the purpose of this article, even though I might know them.

Dr. Bond, it all boils down to this: what is your ultimate authority for checking the veracity of what you write? Is it the Bible? Is it anti-supernaturalism? Is it scholarship and acceptance in the academic circles in which you move, for surely if you came to faith in Christ, you'd be drummed out of the corps.

If your ultimate authority is not the Bible, then you'll have to guess and that's what you're doing.










 

Friday, August 15, 2014

BOND TO THE RESCUE, OR MAYBE NOT

Mystery writer Agatha Christie created her most famous and long-lived character in Hercule Poirot, a Belgian detective who appeared in 33 of her novels, one play, and more than 50 short stories published between 1920 and 1975. The Poirot series has been on TV, in movies, and on the radio. Numerous actors have played the famous sleuth, but the one we're most familiar with is David Suchet.







DavidSuchet - Poirot.png  I've tried to watch the BBC productions of Poirot's exploits, but, believe me, they're so long and boring they make reading the telephone directory a welcome respite.

Anyway, something on TV caught my short attention span one night and that was the night I almost fell out of my chair. And thereby hangs a tale.

"In the Steps of St. Paul" is the name of the two part TV series that I thought might be interesting, not only because of its subject matter, but also because the narrator and main participant of the documentary is none other than David Suchet.

As the documentary begins, Suchet tells us that he's been interested in Paul for 25 years, ever since that night in a hotel room that he picked up a Bible and read the book of Romans. From there on, he's been captivated by its author, even to the point of wanting to play him in a movie. It was because of this enchantment with Paul that he decided to go where Paul was born and where Paul traveled to see if he could learn more about "the man who changed Western Civilization."

The viewer learns that Paul, born in Tarsus in Turkey traveled 10,000 miles to evangelize and plant churches all over the place. So, we find Suchet in Jerusalem, Turkey, Tarsus, and other places Paul visited, walking on the same Roman roads Paul traveled.

Suchet says that he wants to learn why Saul became the Paul we know and admire. To do this, he doesn't go to the Bible, but to a psychologist over there who sheds his "light" on what made Saul into Paul, something like, he intoned, an identity crisis.

Of course Suchet has to bring up the subject of Saul's Damascus road experience which he calls one of the most fabulous accounts in literature--the desert, the blinding light, the conversion. But then he says, "I want to find out what really happened [on the road to Damascus]. We now know that Suchet doesn't accept the Bible's "most fabulous account" as to what really happened. He offers no evidence that the Damascus road experience didn't really happen, but just moves on to some psychological dumbo-jumbo about being out in a desert and whatnot as the reason. I guess he thinks it was the heat out there in the desert.

The thing is Suchet wasn't on the Damascus road at the time, yet he has the arrogance to say that it didn't happen. This would be like someone saying to me, "You weren't kidnapped when you were in the second grade and you, a child, certainly didn't fight off your knife-wielding kidnapper, a grown man, and escape from his car. Now tell me what really happened." My answer would start with, "You weren't there; how do you know what did and did not happen?"

Moving on into the documentary, we hear not only from psychologists, but also from learned clerics, professors, historians, and archeologists. And then it happens! Enter Dr. Helen Bond of the University of Edinborough for an interview with David Suchet. During the course of the interview, I (not literally) fell out of my chair.

Dr. Bond said, "Paul was saying, 'You don't have to be circumcised. You didn't have to keep the Law; Paul was saying to the gentiles that all you need is to believe in what God has done through Jesus, [that is] the cross and the resurrection and faith in that is going to save you."

Wow!

Right there, right smack in the middle of Episode 1 of this documentary, we've just heard a presentation of grace, a presentation of the gospel! And David Suchet doesn't even know that's what's just happened in the middle of his documentary. He just goes right on talking, zooming by Dr. Bond's remark to say, "Paul broke all the rules." He's just heard the most astounding news of grace, and it bounces off his stony heart like the seed in the parable of the Sower.

But now, here's the most interesting part of the documentary: Dr. Helen Bond doesn't believe the gospel either! She gave it so clearly, so succinctly that I can hear some pastors out there saying, "I wish those in our congregation understood the gospel as clearly as she does and I wish they could state it as well as she does."

How do we know she's lost? Read her books and you learn that she believes that Jesus' tomb was empty, but that Joseph moved the body to an unknown and unmarked location. She thinks that we don't have the words Jesus really said and we'll never have them. She thinks our Lord was only an apocalyptic prophet, mentored by John the Baptist. Where did all that come from? (Take a read of II Cor. 4:4)

The Holy Spirit was at work in Suchet's life 25 years ago when he picked up a Bible and read the book of Romans. The Holy Spirit is at work in Bond's life as she reads Paul's words and understands the gospel. Yet, thus far, they've said, "No." But the Holy Spirit has been at His John 16 task. It's for us to cooperate with Him in that task.







 


Friday, August 8, 2014

THE PARAGRAPH THAT WILL NOT DIE

Ah, history. Conservative syndicated columnist George Will said that if he ever becomes King of the United States, the first thing he'd do would be to pass a law that every one who enters college must major in history. Smart man. I'm glad I did.

Harry Truman said, "The only thing new in this world is the history you don't know." That statement takes us aback doesn't it? Worthy of food for thought. Like Solomon said, "There is nothing new under the sun." Yet a student can go through college today and never have to take a single history course and the powers that be will graduate him magna cum laude. Talk about the dumbing down of America!

DON'T KNOW MUCH ABOUT HISTORY

A case in point is historian David McCullough's story about a test given to college students in which one of the questions asked for the name of the general at a famous battle in the Revolutionary War. The question was multiple choice and the correct answer was "George Washington," but the answer most chosen by the students was "Douglas MacArthur." Good grief!

Speaking of history and the only thing that's new in this world is the history you don't know, Tacitus was an ancient Roman historian who wrote about the lives of the early Caesars in his book, the "Annals" (ca.109 AD). He's writing just after the time of the Apostles. In the paragraph below, he's talking about the great fire in Rome during the reign of Nero. He's writing about the rumor in Rome that Nero set the fire. (See if you spot some names with which you're familiar.)

"Consequently, to get rid of the report [that he had started the conflagration], Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular. 

"Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired."

No doubt you noticed the names other than Nero. He wrote of "Christus," who, as the Bible reports, "suffered the extreme penalty," i. e. crucifixion. You probably noted the graphic way the early Christians suffered for the faith. We see that, just as the book of Acts says, Christianity had spread to Rome itself. We see that Christians were "hated by the populace," and as we read that statement, we remember John 15:19 (q. v.

THE PHOBES

Did you note that the Christians were convicted, as Tacitus said, ". . . not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind." This sounds like today's newspapers, movies, TV shows, and talk shows. Is not this the very charge against Christians in the now? Christians are "homophobes," they charge. "Christians are filled with hate," they say. They charge the church with being filled with xenophobes, phobes all over the place. Name something bad and the church has a "phobe" for it.

Movies and TV shows often portray members of the clergy and Christians as hating others. One television program showed a group from a Bible study even stoning a fellow teenager to death. Come on, have you ever known or heard of a group of kids in a Bible study stoning someone? Talk about a far-fetched plot! Yet this comes close to the conception the world has of Christians, that if we could get away with it, we'd be stoning people to death.

A QUIVER FULL OF STRATEGIES

We see from Tacitus that Satan has kept this strategy of portraying Christians as haters of mankind going for a long, long time. It's the paragraph that will not die. We still hear it as it echoes from 109 AD.

BUT THIS IS WHERE YOU COME IN

But how different is the Christian filled with the Spirit, submissive to the Word! Why, he's filled with love, joy, peace,forbearance, kindness, goodness,faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. His passion is for the salvation of others through faith alone in Christ alone. His heat beat is for those with whom he comes into contact to follow Jesus after their trusting Him. 

The Bible Christian is as inclusive as the gospel--whosoever will may come, as Isaiah says, “Come, all you who are thirsty, come to the waters; and you who have no money, come, buy and eat! Come, buy wine and milk without money and without cost." (55:1)

I don't see "hate" in there at all.





Friday, August 1, 2014

THERE'S NO BUSINESS LIKE SHOW BUSINESS

How often have we heard it? It's an old excuse that few examine or even understand what they're saying. It's the statement, "I don't go to church because it's filled with hypocrites."

I've never heard the hypocrite argument used in connection with any meeting other than church. I've never heard anyone say, "I don't eat at McDonald's because its full of hypocrites," or "I don't go to football games because there are too many hypocrites in the stadium." Somehow the church has carried the full load of the hypocrite diatribe.

But, like I said, let's examine the statement by asking, "What is a hypocrite?" According to the New Testament Greek, it was a word used in show business to describe someone's playing a part on stage, that is, acting as if they're someone else. So the question is, is the church filled with people acting as if they were someone else?

Jesus' day saw its share of hypocrites, the Pharisees were playing the part of the godly, the good, and the righteous when they weren't. They were legalists and legalists by their very nature are hypocrites. So, yes, a church will have hypocrites in it, if it has legalists plaguing it.

But, let's think a bit more about this. Let's take a person who attends church regularly. Does his attendance make him a hypocrite? Of course not. A hypocrite is someone who plays a part and is pretending to be something he's not. But wait a minute, that church attender sins during the week, probably everyday, and yet there he is on Sunday, big as life. Isn't he a hypocrite? A person who attends church is not a hypocrite because he sins. If that were the case, then every last one of us would be a hypocrite, because we all sin. Sinning doesn't make the church attender a hypocrite.

Then what does? What makes the hypocrite is not the sins in his life; hypocrisy occurs when he pretends he doesn't sin and acts accordingly. The hypocrite will never admit he's a sinner or is sinning. Pretentious self-righteousness makes the hypocrite.

Is a church filled with sinners (and they all are) a church filled with hypocrites? Only if they're denying their status. Take a typical church. Unfortunately, when you look behind the curtain that is their Sunday service, you see a roiling cauldron of grudges, hatred, with one group plotting against another to gain the power and run the show. There's no business like show business.

In the Sunday service, the congregants are sitting there dressed to impress, pretending nothing untoward happened last Sunday at the business meeting, all the while knowing that someone stormed out of that meeting, someone slammed the door to emphasize their disgust as they left the meeting, someone called a secret meeting after the meeting, and that someone in the congregation did an anonymous mail-out accusing a deacon of malfeasance. They know that it was church business as most of theirs are, a meeting during which tempers flared, people found themselves under attack, and every minute of the meeting was filled with the snarls of the saints.

Yet, the Sunday services roll along, as the great pretenders sing and open their Bibles. As they turn their heads toward the pulpit, they have that sweet-saint smile. Yes, those people are "I'm-always-right-hypocrites." They are the great pretenders, pretending that nothing is wrong, nothing is broken. Each Sunday is show business, and there's no business like show business for them.

But in the church, there are those who bow before the Scriptures, humbly seeking a word from God, and with a healthy fear of the Lord, they see their sin without denying it, and like Isaiah, say, "Woe is me for I am ruined! Because I am a man of unclean lips and live among a people of unclean lips.