Skip to main content

The Sin of Silence

There is an Indian saying: Silence is the glory of the wise! It means the wise person keeps quite and by implication it means the fool keeps talking (certainly all nonsense!). But silence at times could be malicious, dangerous and even a grave sin. So let us say that like tumors, silence could also be of two types: the benign ones and the malign ones.

In his vision of God Isaiah confessed: "Woe to me! I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the LORD Almighty" (Isa 6:5).

The word "ruined" could be a mistranslation. It is equally possible to translate it as "been silent" though many modern translations still follow the KJV in this regard. The translation "silent" fits the context too. The sin of the people of Isaiah has to do with speech (unclean lips) and the cleansing that God does has to do with speech. Moreover, the commissioning that Isaiah receives is to speak! All this happens in the context of the "holy" speech of the Seraphim. So it is right in concluding that the sin Isaiah confesses is the sin of being silent!

The timing of this very clearly dated vision is also important. It is in the year that king Uzziah died. Though the phrase "in the year" does not necessarily mean after the death of the king, it is highly probable. There is only one another instance where Isaiah dates a prophecy by the death of a king (Isaiah 14:28). So this date is important for our understanding of the nature of Isaiah's sin.

The title of the book says that Isaiah was active in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah (Isaiah 1:1). The reign of Uzziah and that of Jotham overlaps since the former could not continue as king for health reasons and had to hand over the kingdom to Jotham who was the co-regent. We see Isaiah confronting the other two kings: Ahaz and Hezekiah. However, there is no mention of Uzziah or Jotham other than in the title (which is from the editor of the book) and in this passage (Isaiah 6) where the prophecy is dated.

The reign of Uzziah-Jotham was one of prosperity for Israel but was one of spiritual decline. It was not a reign that pleased God. However, the prophet of God was silent during this period of spiritual decline (2 Kings 15:34). He did not critique Uzziah's apostasy nor of the nation during this period. He just watched the nation slide down to apostasy, injustice and violence. So that later on Isaiah lamented on its capital city: "See how the faithful city has become a harlot! She once was full of justice; righteousness used to dwell in her-- but now murderers!" (Isaiah 1:21).

Isaiah woke up from his slumber during the days of Ahaz and Hezekiah who succeeded Uzziah. He challenged the kings and their religious and political decisions. Demanded that they return to God in full trust. However, he was silent during the days of Uzziah and Jotham.

That is the sin he confesses: being silent when he was supposed to speak up! That was a grave sin. His silence deprived the nation a voice that could have stopped them in their track to spiritual and social rot. His voice could have helped them to make an early U-turn, if he had the courage to speak out. Our malign silence could be equally or more damaging at times. Have we spoken out where we had to or kept strategic silence in order to protect our reputation, good standing with people. Did we hold our peace where our voice was crucial just to have more brownie points from those ungodly people and ungodly systems?

Isaiah realized his sin, he confessed and God was willing to accept his confession and commission him for a greater task. God hasn't changed and his Seraphim are waiting with burning coals in their hands. They are waiting for the words of confession from us so that the coal can touch our lips and release it to speak on behalf God.



Popular posts from this blog

Pandita Ramabai versus Swami Vivekananda: Two Visions of India

This is more than a story about two remarkable nineteenth-century Indians. It is a story about two competing ways of seeing India itself. Pandita Ramabai and Swami Vivekananda were contemporaries, reformers, and influential voices who introduced India to the Western world. Swami Vivekananda (b. 1863—d. 1902 and Pandita Ramabai (b. 1858—d.1922) were contemporaries for about 39 years. Pandita Ramabai was five years older than the Swami and lived 20 more years than he did. Both individuals had connections to Brahmo Samaj. Swami Vivekananda was an official member, whereas Pandita Ramabai closely aligned with its principles and members but did not formally join. When Ramabai arrived in Kolkata in 1878, she received a warm welcome from Brahmo Samaj leaders such as Keshab Chandra Sen, who was notably impressed by her Sanskrit skills and encouraged her to study the Vedas, which were traditionally restricted to men. Although she adopted many of the movement's social reform ideas—such as opp...

A Chat With God

A Chat With God : Prayer can sometimes be a tough thing for people. This video takes a look at some of the struggles and thoughts a person might have with prayer, through the lens of a 'chat' conversation with God.

The Smoking Meat-Eating Swami

  Typically, we imagine a revered spiritual monk as a quiet figure subsisting on fresh vegetables, clear water, and pure air, untouched by worldly habits. However, Swami Vivekananda challenges this traditional image entirely. His life was characterised not by a strict adherence to conventions but by practical wisdom, profound humanity, and a bold rejection of superficial dogma. Throughout his life, Vivekananda regularly enjoyed cigars, pipes, and the traditional Indian hookah. It was a habit he picked up in his youth and maintained during his travels across India and abroad. Yet, for him, a simple pipe could carry profound spiritual meaning. During his wanderings across India, he once asked a man from a lower caste for a smoke from his hookah. When the man hesitated because of the era’s strict customs of untouchability, Vivekananda initially walked away—only to turn around immediately, realising that bowing to caste distinctions violated his core belief in spiritual unity. He took ...