“A rebuke goes deeper into a man of understanding than a hundred blows into a fool.”
Learning from reproof is a skill not natural to any of us. Sure, we, by the grace of God, have a habit of listening to certain people with at least some consideration- parent, sibling, spouse, friend- and learning from them, but it’s not something that comes with ease, at least not its proper incarnation (for simple reception isn’t enough). The man of understanding, see, differs from the fool not only in that he listens to rebuke but in how he listens to rebuke, and it is this which makes the rebuke more effective, more salutary in him, than the ‘hundred blows’ the fool runs into in his persistent repetition of sin.
The first part of the wise man’s response to reproof is the simple fact of listening. He catalogues what he hears; he makes sure he understands what the other intends. This includes the emotional element of the reproof, what parts of it are motivated rather than intended. The challenge here, for sinful man, is pride and anger and fear and all the other sins which plagues us. Pride tells us not to listen; anger tells us we don’t need to listen; fear tells us we won’t like what we find if we listen. The rest of the sins do the same sort of thing, in their own ways.
Listening alone isn’t enough, though. If I hear my father’s rebuke and do not heed it, in fact, that is not only a non-benefit to me but actually a curse. By knowing what is right we become accountable to do it, become guilty for not doing it (Rom. 7:7). If a toddler slaps his sister in the face for withholding a desired toy, we consider that wrong, but if he does so after his mother tells him not to, we know that is a worse transgression- direct rebellion added onto petulance and immaturity and unjustified violence.
The second part of the wise man’s response, then, is to consider what he has been told. See, not all rebuke is worthwhile. If somebody sees me engaged in foolish activity, say, gambling away my paycheck, and he advises me not to waste my money that way because he has a way better gambling prospect over here, that’s bad reproof. Or, more dramatically, consider the reproof of the Jewish leaders to Peter and the Christians of Jerusalem, that they not “speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus” (Acts 4:18). How does Peter respond? “But Peter and John answered them, ‘Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge, for we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard’” (Acts 4:19-20). Clearly, when we hear reproof, we are to evaluate it for its value.
For this we have several standards. They are, variously, experience, common sense, logic, trustworthiness, counsel, and Scripture. The first two are nearly one; simply put, we learn from the past and from the accumulated wisdom of our ancestors and culture (common sense) to filter out certain things. These are far from infallible guides and should not be made ultimate, should be corroborated by Scripture and prayer before being heeded in significant matters, but they are useful. Logic, next, is simple in theory but complex in nature. We must evaluate whether the reproof makes good sense with the truths we are certain of (and how to weight it against the truths we aren’t certain of, what’s merely probable or possible).
We must consider also how trustworthy the rebuker is, what their history is. Is this counselor wise? Is his personal history and his history of giving advice the sort that gives confidence in his qualification to reprove? Does he speak from applied wisdom or as an example of failure? Wherein is he biased? What parts of the story does he know, what parts does he have no clue about? These are questions we must ask not because we think everybody is automatically malicious but because it influences how we interpret, how we weight their advice and its different parts. It is also a process we should go through in seeking counsel.
For a second opinion is often a good idea, when it comes to anything significant. If I am rebuked, it will often behoove me to go to another person, somebody I trust, and lay it out with them, ask them whether this reproof was merited, why. Counsel, from well-chosen councilors (chosen for wisdom, not agreeableness), strengthens true rebuke, weakens false, and provides clarity, while its process, when we take advantage of it, gives us, the person reproved, time to calm ourselves, to rein our emotions in and consider the rebuke more impartially.
The final authority in all of this, however, is Scripture. We must be as the Bereans of Acts 17:11, seeking the Bible to see where in the reproof was merited. It is the nature of man, of us and of our rebuker, that even good reproof will be flawed, whether in our hearing or their giving. The Bible provides the ultimate filter to sift out wisdom from foolishness, to take what is good and leave what is bad, to rend the gold from the dross. Then comes the final step, the step which the fool, even if he by some miracle manages the first two steps, just doesn’t carry out: application. When we have heard reproof, when we have weighed it, we must put all that is good in it into action, changing how we live and speak and think and love to glorify Him and rejoice therein.
God bless.
Written by Colson Potter
Sanctuary Functional Medicine, under the direction of Dr Eric Potter, IFMCP MD, provides functional medicine services to Nashville, Middle Tennessee and beyond. We frequently treat patients from Kentucky, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, Ohio, Indiana, and more... offering the hope of healthier more abundant lives to those with chronic illness.
