Featured Is it Christ-Like to Insult?

In the Complete Word Study of the New Testament edited by Spiros Zodhiates, Th.D, an eminent Greek scholar who founded and advanced AMG Ministries and edited the Key Word Study Bible, it is stated that the primary usage of sarkos is for the literal being Satan, but as John has stated, is also used in the description of an adversary. The primary usage, according to Zodhiates, is for Satan, and he makes note of the fact on page 1280 of his Complete work that Jesus applied this epithet to Peter to call attention to not only his unintentioned opposition to Christ's mission, but also to call attention to how his weakness was used by Satan himself to attempt to deflect the apostles' convictions about who Jesus is from leading them to the conclusion of what the eventual crucifixion accomplished.

So what Zodhiates says -- and just as a personal note, I greatly respect his opinion on the original Greek and own an NASB Key Word Study Bible -- is that Jesus didn't call Peter "Satan" but did call his statement, and for that moment his attitude, adversarial, and made the connection to what -- or rather, who -- inspired that statement in the first place.

 

Ouch and amen, JoJ. Thanks for such a well-worded, well-thought-out post. We ALL would do well to ponder this before debating here at BB, myself included.

It all boils down to using the holy word of God to justify our human, sinful behavior. It's wrong to use God's word to justify sin. Kind of like
saying it's ok to abuse a child because the "Bible says so." God's word is more than a flippant excuse for us to trample others. We must study and apply it in the proper context.

 

Think the biblcal mandate is that while real Christians can get upset and have frand discussion among ourselves, never should get to where we are hurling snide remarks and harsh insults back and forth...

Can amd must call out bad theology and doctrines, and make sure they adhere tothe bible, but not in personal attacks on them, for aren't we admonish to bear each others burdens, to try to see the bethren restored in the end?

 

Ok. Then I'm just for rebuking.

Are you not being a tender ninny?

Everybody thinks they do this.

That's all you can ever judge. And you judge a tree (motives) by the fruit it bears (the things it says and does and produces).

Motive is the VERY thing every detective, prosecutor, judge and jury is after.

You've read every post I've ever posted?

You've read every post I've ever posted?

You are being a tender ninny, aren't you?

Ok, then me too.

In this response box I can't see what this is referring to. I'll have to post this then look back.

I'm not talking about hating believers. But HATE is something that godly people have. Godly people hate evil.

Do you need verses on this?

The Old Testament is the Bible, too.

 

Yea I understand that but that is not why I asked the question. I am interested in adding the article when translating it into English and why that is done.

 

I think that answers your question, Rev. Jesus was referring to Peter's motivation, and likely addressing Satan, who was in their midst in influencing Peter's denial of Christ's mission.

 

What I am saying is when I asked John about that I was not interested in the interpretation. I am just interested in the adding of the article which is apparently not there in the Greek manuscripts.

 

I'll start at the end and work my way up.

I told you how I interpret it in a previous post.

So then as long as we say, "You are being moronIC and foolISH... we're covered, right."

And the men of the Bible, like Jesus, who did call people morons- they were all sinners, right?

Oh, that's right!! Jesus speaks as LORD whenever he says something you don't like and he speaks as a man you ought to emulate when he says what you already WANT to say! Got it!!

People do what they do because they are what they are.

A man acts foolish because he is a fool (at least in the area in which he is acting foolish).

What we want is not just for them to change what they DO- we want them to change what they ARE.

In order to do that, you have to call them what they are.

The glutton ought to be called a glutton.

The coward and the effeminate ought to be called a coward and an effeminate.

If a man is a fool then you must properly diagnose his condition. (The verse you keep abusing about this has to do with the HEART with which you say it.)

The Sodomite ought to be called what he is because you have to diagnose the problem (what one IS) before you can administer the cure.

The Bible is jam packed with men of God calling people what they are.

I don't think that is necessarily insulting. I can call it rebuke if it blows up your skirt. I never have called it insulting for that matter.

Yea, that whole, "without being harsh" thing is some pink effeminate world where liberals would outlaw being offensive, not the Biblical world where godly men mock the prophets of Baal, call trouble-makers in the church children of the devil, call self-righteous people (like many of the IFB folks many of us have come in contact with) whited sepulchers full of dead men's bones who make their converts two-fold more the children of hell than themselves, etc, etc, etc...

 

OK so what you are saying is in the Greek manuscripts there is no definite article "the" in front of "satan" therefore it should be adversary rather than a proper noun like Satan.

 

Thanks!.........................

 

John, thank you for your words of wisdom in this thread. I think some people insult other people just to show they are superior in knowledge and therefore it gives them a right to do so. The most impressive attribute of any person is love and kindness toward other people. A lot of people want to be remembered by others as having knowledge but we should all strive to be remembered for our love toward the brethren and our patience toward sinners.

 

Amen:applause: