Rebuke them Sharply...

Sep 24

16 min read

The Scriptures Complete — Teaching Series · Part III

Rebuke Them Sharply

Why “Being Nice” Violates Hathawaratha and Hamatazawatha

Why calling a person a moron, a fool, or unlearned is sometimes the most lawful thing a Yahawashai can do — and why false Christianity’s version of “being nice” is a direct violation of Hathawaratha and Hamatazawatha.

Ainawayah — 7th Angel, First Witness, True Leader of the Apostles

The Scriptures Complete — Lashawam-Qadash Translation Project

Faithfulness Over Speed — Quality Over Quantity

STATEMENT OF FOUNDATION

“Who told you to be nice?”

Who told you to be “nice” to those who blaspheme, reject, or refuse understanding? Not our Master.

There is a commandment being violated across every false church, false community, and false online ministry in existence — and it is not the one these institutions claim to be concerned about. They spend enormous energy warning against what they call rudeness, harshness, or disrespect in spiritual discourse. What they never acknowledge is that Hathawaratha (the Law) contains a prohibition that cuts in the opposite direction entirely: the Law against the respect of persons. Being nice to a person who has no business receiving tenderness — a blasphemer, a willful deceiver, a gainsayer who has been given truth and refused it — is not kindness. It is a violation of Hamatazawatha (the Commandments). This article establishes why, beginning with the word the Scriptures themselves chose: sharply.

I. The Command: Titus 1:9-14

“Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers. For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre’s sake. One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith; not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.”

— Titus 1:9-14

This passage is not a warning about being too harsh. It is a command to hold a standard, to stop mouths that are subverting whole households, and to rebuke sharply. The word “sharply” is not incidental. It is the operative instruction. And the reason Paul (Ai-Na-Wa-Ya) gave it is stated plainly: not to be mean, not to express frustration, but for a specific and compassionate purpose — that they may be sound in the faith. The sharpness is the medicine. The gentleness of false Christianity is the disease.

II. What “Sharply” Actually Means

The word sharply has been stripped of its meaning in the same way that the words knowledge, confidence, and pride were stripped in Part I of this series. Let us restore it precisely.

sharply (adverb) — Oxford Dictionary of English

1. With a sharp or steeply tapering edge or point — piercing, penetrating, entering precisely where needed, not broadly. 2. With a sudden, piercing physical sensation or effect; intensely — not mildly, not gradually, but with immediate impact. 3. In a critical or hurtful manner; strongly or harshly: “he made enemies by his sharply worded attacks on opponents.” 4. With a sudden and marked change; dramatically. 5. With speed of perception, comprehension, or response: “a sharply observed account.”

Source: Oxford Dictionary of English — “the plans have been sharply criticized” / “sharply worded attacks.”

Every dimension of this definition is instructive. Sharp means: precise, not vague. Penetrating, not surface-level. Sudden, not drawn out over weeks of diplomatic circling. Intense, not moderate. The command to rebuke sharply is the command to say the exact true thing in the most direct way possible — with enough force that it lands, cuts through the performance, and reaches the actual problem.

This is not cruelty. A surgeon’s incision is sharp. It causes immediate pain. It is also the thing that saves the life. The surgeon who refuses to cut sharply — who makes a tentative, polite, socially comfortable incision — does not preserve the patient. He kills them gently.

“A surgeon’s incision is sharp. It causes immediate pain. It is also the thing that saves the life. The surgeon who refuses to cut sharply does not preserve the patient. He kills them gently.”

III. Three Categories: Moron, Fool, and Unlearned

The Scriptures themselves use blunt language to describe categories of people — language that false Christianity has spent centuries softening, reinterpreting, and avoiding. A Yahawashai (a Minister of Yahawah) or Hayahawashai Mawashayai Yaraya (THE Minister, Yahawah in flesh) does not call people these things out of contempt or personal frustration. He calls them these things because the word is an accurate diagnosis, and an accurate diagnosis is the beginning of remedy.

Moron — The Stupid Person

The word “moron” in clinical English originally referred to a person whose intellectual functioning is significantly below standard — not deficient in capacity, but failing to apply available capacity correctly. In common usage, a moron is a stupid person: one who has access to the information required to reason correctly, but fails to do so. The Scriptures do not avoid this category. Hayahawashai Mawashayai Yaraya himself said:

“Whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.”

— Matthew 5:22

This verse is the one false Christianity always quotes when anyone uses blunt language. But the verse makes a critical distinction that is routinely destroyed by selective reading. It does not forbid calling someone a fool under all circumstances. It prohibits calling a brother a fool in anger — as a term of contemptuous dismissal toward one of the covenant family. This is confirmed by the structure of the verse itself, which escalates from anger (v.22a) to the insult of Raca (v.22b) to “thou fool” (v.22c). The prohibition is against the dismissive contempt applied to brethren — those within the covenant community. Read what Hayahawashai himself called those outside that covenant when they refused truth:

“Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold?”

— Matthew 23:17

“Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.”

— Matthew 23:24

“Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness.”

— Matthew 23:27

The man whom false Christianity has repackaged as a soft-spoken, infinitely tolerant, never-offensive figure called the Pharisees whited tombs — clean on the outside, full of rotting death on the inside. He called them hypocrites seven times in one chapter. He called them fools and blind. He turned over tables. He drove people with a whip. This was not a failure of character. This was precision. This was surgical sharpness applied to the disease of religious performance that was destroying the house of Yasharahlah.

Fool — Specifically Not of the Brethren

The distinction Matthew 5:22 draws is the distinction between a brother (a member of the covenant family) and someone who is not. The word Paul uses in Titus for those whose mouths must be stopped — “unruly and vain talkers and deceivers” — is not the language reserved for covenant family. These are outsiders who have infiltrated, people who are teaching what they ought not, for money, for status, for the perpetuation of systems that serve themselves rather than Yahawah’s people.

“For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre’s sake.”

— Titus 1:10-11

“Vain talkers” is the scriptural equivalent of what we would today call people who speak with confidence and without substance — people who produce the vocabulary of learning without the content of knowledge. Their mouths, Paul says, must be stopped. Not gently corrected in a way that allows the conversation to continue as if both positions are equally valid. Stopped. The word is direct. The action is final.

Calling such a person a fool — when they are not of the brethren, and when they have been presented with truth and refused it, and when their continued misdirection is destroying households — is not a violation of Thawaratha. It is the application of it.

Unlearned — An Accurate Description, Not an Insult

“Unlearned” is perhaps the least dramatic of the three categories, and for that reason it is the most broadly applicable. Paul uses the term specifically in the context of people who engage with knowledge they have not been equipped to handle:

“As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.”

— 2 Peter 3:16

“But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.”

— 2 Timothy 2:23

To call a person unlearned when they are unlearned is not contempt. It is a factual statement about their current state. The problem false Christianity has created is the confusion between the description of a state and the condemnation of a person. A person can be unlearned and still be reachable. A person can be unlearned and still be of the brethren. The difference between these cases and the case that warrants sharper language is straightforward: does the person receive correction when it is given? If yes, they are unlearned and in process. If they receive correction, reject it, attack the teacher, and return to their error — they have moved from the category of the unlearned into the category that Titus 1 addresses.

IV. The Law Against Respect of Persons — Why “Being Nice” Violates Hamatazawatha

Here is where false Christianity’s teaching on “niceness” does not merely fall short — it actively violates the Law. The commandment is stated clearly in multiple places:

“Thou shalt not respect persons in judgment; but thou shalt hear the small as well as the great; thou shalt not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God’s.”

— Deuteronomy 1:17

“If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well: but if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.”

— James 2:8-9

“These things also belong to the wise. It is not good to have respect of persons in judgment.”

— Proverbs 24:23

Respect of persons in this context does not mean treating people with dignity. It means treating different people according to different standards based on their social position, their feelings, or your desire for their approval rather than according to the consistent standard of truth. When a Yahawashai softens his correction for a blasphemer because he does not want to seem unkind, he has respected that person’s self-image above the standard of Thawaratha. He has given the blasphemer a form of leniency that he would not give to truth itself. That is respect of persons. It is sin. James 2:9 is not ambiguous: “ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.”

What “Being Nice” Actually Does

What the Law Requires

TO THE DECEIVER: Tells them their error is acceptable, signals they can continue without consequence

TO THE DECEIVER: Stops their mouth sharply, so they cannot continue to subvert households

TO THE LEARNER NEARBY: Signals that truth and error are treated equally, undermines confidence in the standard

TO THE LEARNER NEARBY: Demonstrates that truth has a standard and deviation from it has a response

TO THE TEACHER: Respects the feelings of the person above the standard of the Law — violates Hamatazawatha

TO THE TEACHER: Applies Thawaratha without partiality — fulfills the Law of No Respect of Persons

LONG-TERM RESULT: The error spreads. The house is subverted. The people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.

LONG-TERM RESULT: The error is corrected or the deceiver is removed. The house is protected.

The law of no respect of persons requires that truth be delivered to every person at the same level of precision, regardless of how comfortable or uncomfortable the delivery makes either party. To modify the delivery of truth based on the social status, the feelings, or the anticipated reaction of the recipient is to show partiality — which is precisely what the Law forbids. The person who needs the sharpest rebuke is the person who would be most offended by it. Softening the rebuke to avoid their offense is not love. It is the prioritization of your own social comfort over their actual need.

V. Paul Called It Directly — And So Did the Prophets

The pattern of direct, unambiguous naming of the condition and the person is not unique to Titus 1. It runs through the entire scriptural record as the standard mode of prophetic speech.

“One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. This witness is true.”

— Titus 1:12-13

Paul cites a Cretan prophet’s characterization of his own people — liars, evil beasts, slow bellies — and then confirms it: this witness is true. He does not add a disclaimer. He does not soften it with “well, we should also acknowledge their good qualities.” He confirms the accurate description because the accurate description is what protects the people who would otherwise be deceived by those described. And then he gives the instruction that flows from the accurate description: rebuke them sharply.

The prophets used the same standard throughout Scripture:

“Cry aloud, spare not, lift up thy voice like a trumpet, and shew my people their transgression, and the house of Jacob their sins.”

— Isaiah 58:1

“Son of man, I have made thee a watchman unto the house of Yasharahlah: therefore hear the word at my mouth, and give them warning from me. When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand.”

— Ezekiel 3:17-18

Yahawah told Ya-Khaa-Za-Qa-Ah-La (Ezekiel) that the watchman who softens the warning out of social discomfort bears the blood of the one who perishes because the warning was too gentle to be understood as a warning. The “nice” watchman who calls “caution, please be careful” instead of “the city is burning, flee now” has not been kind. He has been complicit. The blood of those who did not flee is on his hands because he prioritized social comfort over accurate alarm.

VI. Stopping the Mouth — Why Engagement Has a Limit

Paul does not say merely rebuke the vain talkers. He says their mouths must be stopped. This is a category beyond correction. Correction assumes the person is reachable — that the goal is to bring them to soundness. But there is a person who has been corrected and rejected it, who has been given truth and weaponized it, who uses the conversation itself as a platform to further the deception. For that person, the appropriate response is not continued dialogue. It is the cessation of dialogue.

“A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject: knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.”

— Titus 3:10-11

The instruction is precise: first admonition, second admonition, then rejection. Not endless patience. Not continued investment in someone who has demonstrated, twice, that they are not receiving. The heretic, Paul says, is condemned of himself — he has already made his judgment by his refusal, and your continued engagement simply gives him more material with which to subvert more households. At that point, continuing the conversation does not serve truth. It serves him.

The pattern visible in Part II of this series — the WhatsApp exchange — followed this exact sequence. The Apostle gave a first opportunity. He gave a second. He explained the purpose and extended mercy after the attack. When Nixon returned to the attack a third time within the same message as his apology, the Apostle ended the conversation. Not in anger. In application of Thawaratha. The conversation was over because the pattern had been completed.

VII. The Distinction That Determines the Response

The entire question of when sharp rebuke is appropriate — when “moron,” “fool,” or “unlearned” is the correct description, and when gentler engagement is right — comes down to one question: is this person a brother, and are they willing to learn?

1. A brother who is ignorant but humble: teach with patience. He does not know yet. His willingness to be taught is itself a form of righteousness. The tone is instructional, not punitive.

2. A brother who is wrong and knows it: correct directly. The correction is still kind because it is within the family. Matthew 18:15-17 describes the process: private correction first, then witnesses, then the community. The escalation of firmness is proportional to the continued resistance.

3. A stranger who is sincere but unlearned: examine, as the Apostle did at the gate. If they pass the examination of humility, teach them. If they cannot receive examination, the gate closes. Their sincerity does not make them ready for the truth they are requesting access to.

4. A gainsayer who is unruly and vain: rebuke sharply. He is not seeking truth. He is seeking a platform. The sharp rebuke does not serve the desire for the platform — it serves the people who would otherwise be confused by the spectacle of a Yahawashai treating error as if it deserved equal time.

5. A blasphemer who has received truth and rejected it: stop the mouth. Name what it is. Do not continue. The blood of those who hear the conversation and take the wrong lesson from the Yahawashai’s continued engagement is a weight Thawaratha places on the Yahawashai himself.

VIII. Why False Christianity’s “Niceness” Is a Doctrine of Men

“Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.”

— Titus 1:14

Paul places the commandments of men — the traditions of mankind and social expectations overlaid onto the Scriptures — in direct opposition to truth. The niceness doctrine of false Christianity is precisely a commandment of men. It has no scriptural foundation. It was constructed to serve social harmony within communities that had already abandoned doctrinal precision, and where the only thing left to manage was the interpersonal atmosphere. When you have no standard of truth to protect, managing feelings becomes the only available goal. The “niceness” doctrine is the theology of institutions that have already surrendered truth and now regulate tone in its place.

The commandment of men that false Christianity teaches:

“Be respectful of everyone’s beliefs. Never say anything that might offend. Meet people where they are. Love means accepting.” This is not Hathawaratha. This is not Hamatazawatha. This is the doctrine of men — commandments of social comfort that turn people away from truth by making the confrontation of error feel like a moral violation rather than a covenant obligation.

The result of this doctrine — applied at scale across forty-five thousand Christian denominations — is exactly what the Scriptures describe as the fruit of the wide gate: a vast population of people who feel welcomed, affirmed, and loved, who cannot define faith, cannot keep Hamatazawatha, and cannot recognize a true Yahawashai when they meet one because they have been trained to measure authenticity by pleasantness rather than by precision.

IX. Love Is Not Nice. Love Is True.

The confusion at the center of the niceness doctrine is the equation of love with pleasantness. False Christianity has built an entire culture on this equation. But the Scriptures do not support it. Thawaratha defines love — active, covenant love — and its primary characteristic is not pleasantness. It is fidelity to truth in service of the person’s actual wellbeing, not their momentary comfort.

“Open rebuke is better than secret love. Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.”

— Proverbs 27:5-6

“The kisses of an enemy are deceitful.” The pleasant, affirming, never-offending response of the false teacher is the kiss of an enemy — it feels like affection and delivers destruction. The wound of a friend is the sharp rebuke that cuts precisely because something has to be cut out. The wound is faithful because it serves the long-term health of the person wounded. Pleasantness in the face of error is not love. It is a form of deceit that wears the clothing of love.

Hayahawashai Mawashayai Yaraya himself, in what is called the “loving” passage of the Gospel, said to Ka-Pa-Ha (Peter) — his own apostle, within the covenant, in clear view of the other apostles: “Get thee behind me, Satan.” This was not a failure of love. This was love operating at full precision. Ka-Pa-Ha had spoken something that would have turned the course of the redemptive work in the wrong direction, and Hayahawashai corrected it with a sharpness that corresponded exactly to the severity of the error. No softening. No “I appreciate your concern, Ka-Pa-Ha, and I understand where you’re coming from.” The correction was immediate, public, and absolute. That is love in the form Thawaratha recognizes.

X. The Yahawashai’s Responsibility and the Weight of Ezekiel’s Warning

Every Yahawashai — every minister and apostle in this order — carries the weight of Ezekiel 3. The watchman who softens the alarm is responsible for the deaths that occur because the alarm was too soft to be heard clearly. This is not a metaphor in Thawaratha. It is a covenant accountability structure. When a Yahawashai is “nice” to a blasphemer who is actively subverting a household — when he softens the rebuke out of social discomfort, when he allows the vain talker’s mouth to remain open because closing it might seem unkind — he is not being gracious. He is accumulating blood debt.

The measure of a Yahawashai’s love for a people is not the pleasantness of his interactions with those who come against them. It is the precision and courage of his defense of those who are inside. The sharp rebuke of a gainsayer is an act of love toward the household the gainsayer is trying to subvert. It is the wall. Tearing down the wall in order to seem welcoming to the one approaching with a battering ram is not hospitality. It is betrayal of the people inside.

“The sharp rebuke of a gainsayer is an act of love toward the household the gainsayer is trying to subvert. Tearing down the wall to seem welcoming to the one approaching with a battering ram is not hospitality. It is betrayal.”

XI. Summary — The Lawful Standard

The Scriptures establish a clear, consistent, and lawful standard that can be stated simply:

1. Hold fast the faithful word with enough precision to both encourage the covenant family and refute those who oppose the truth (Titus 1:9). Both functions are required. A teacher who only encourages and never refutes has not fulfilled his office.

2. Recognize the categories: unruly talkers, vain deceivers, and gainsayers are not the same as unlearned brethren. The category determines the response. The same word that gently instructs a humble learner sharply rebukes a willful deceiver.

3. Apply Hamatazawatha without partiality. The Law of No Respect of Persons (Deuteronomy 1:17; James 2:8-9) prohibits softening the standard based on the social status, the feelings, or the anticipated reaction of the recipient. The Law is applied evenly or it is not applied at all.

4. Stop the mouth when stopping is required. The first and second admonition have their place (Titus 3:10-11). After that, the conversation is over. Continuing beyond that point does not serve truth — it provides a platform to the deceiver.

5. Reject the commandments of men. The niceness doctrine is a commandment of men that turns from truth (Titus 1:14). No Yahawashai who keeps Hamatazawatha can simultaneously keep the niceness doctrine of false Christianity. They are in direct opposition.

The Apostle who closed the door in Part II of this series was not being unkind. He was being lawful. The Apostle who called Nixon’s final accusation “delusional” was not losing patience. He was applying a precise clinical description to a precise clinical observation. The Apostle who spent forty-seven minutes of a WhatsApp conversation with a stranger — correcting him, explaining his errors, accepting his apology, re-explaining what went wrong in the apology itself — was not hard-hearted. He was the faithful watchman who cried aloud, spared not, and lifted his voice like a trumpet.

No one told him to be nice. His Master told him to hold fast the faithful word. Those are not the same thing. And now you know why.

“Cry aloud, spare not, lift up thy voice like a trumpet, and shew my people their transgression.”