Featured Is it Christ-Like to Insult?

Various people on the Internet and even here on the BB have felt free to used insulting language towards some group of people or another and then claim that Christ did so, therefore Christians can and should. They’ll say something like, “Jesus called the Pharisees hypocrites, fools, blind, serpents and vipers (Matt. 23:13-33), so it’s perfectly okay to call Christians these or similar names (idiot, moron, etc.).”

I completely disagree with this. It is not okay for believers to call people names based on what Jesus said.

1. Jesus was speaking to Pharisees—lost people. He never spoke to believers this way, or even to people who claimed to be following Him but were possibly not.

2. Jesus was speaking as Lord, not as an example to believers. (See the context at the end of Matt. 22.) He said many things we cannot or should not say, such as “I came not to judge the world but to save the world” (John 12:47).

3. Jesus was also speaking as the Founder of the Jewish faith, rebuking the current leaders of that faith who had taken the religion in a terrible direction. We are not the founders of the Christian faith and have no right to insult others who claim the name of Christ.

4. When the disciples of Jesus were harsh towards people not of their group but yet who claimed His name, He rebuked them (Luke 9:49-50).

5. The practice of insulting people is rebuked by Paul in several places, such as Eph. 4:31, Col. 3:8, 1 Tim. 6:4. The Greek word used by Paul is blasfemia, which is the root word for our English word “blasphemy,” but has a wider range of meaning than the English word in that it can mean insulting another human as opposed to blaspheming God. So insulting people is wrong.

6. Christ Himself forbade calling a brother in Christ "fool" or "idiot" (raca) in Matt. 5:22b--"Whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."

I’m positive there are many other relevant passages, but I’m going to stop here, because the point should be obvious.

 

I felt I had to try! :saint:

 

This is a good point. It brings up the difference between an insult and a rebuke. I believe a rebuke to be when a specific sin is dealt with, while an insult is a word applied to the character of the person being insulted, rather than their deeds. So Jesus was rebuking Peter here, not insulting him.

Furthermore, consider the word "Satan." It is a name for the fallen angel who leads the demons, true, but it is also a normal Greek word meaning "adversary." In almost every case where it refers to Satan (capital "S") it has a definite article in the Greek--"The Satan, the adversary." This means the one and only, the pre-determined adversary, the Devil.

However, in the case of Peter in all three Synoptics, there is no definite article, meaning that Jesus was calling Peter "an adversary," not "The Satan." Hopefully this clears things up.

 

While Strong's does have the definite article in the English, as you say, I was looking at the Greek NT, not a lexicon or Strong's. In all three Synoptics the usual Greek definite article is left off in the statement of Jesus to Peter, where it almost always occurs elsewhere. It is true that the major translations all have "Satan" there about Peter, and the usual scholars say that Jesus is calling Peter by the proper name of the devil. But because of the Greek construct, I believe Jesus was just calling Peter "adversary."

The word was originally Hebrew, and it occurs in the OT as simply "adversary" and not Satan in 1 Sam. 29:4 (and other passages), where it is used by the Philistines referring to David.

 

I dealt with that.

I missed this one. You have a point. But he was still Jesus, and we aren't.

Insults or rebukes?

I "get to say" whatever I want. You don't "get to say" what I can and can't say. I'll say exactly what I believe.

You didn't even look at the context like I suggested, did you?

Rebukes or insults?

And you're the one who gets to judge who impedes Kingdom progress, right?

Rom. 14:4--Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.

James 4:12--There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another?

You conveniently ignore many passages which teach gentleness, such as: 2 Tim 2:24 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient..."

Yes, the Jews, not believers.

You pontificate a lot without giving Scripture.

So there is such a thing as "warranted hatred" in your lexicon?

This is an absolutely absurd statement.

I disagree that insult is okay when it is aimed at Christians.

Apparently I hit a nerve.:tongue3:

 

Lost people or believers? My OP is about insulting believers, not "children of the devil."

Scripture?

Wrong.

See, you simply can't stop being insulting, can you? To say someone is "cherry picking" Scripture is an insult, and it is unwarranted. I assure you that I make every effort to interpret every Scripture in context, according to the original languages. For you to say I am "cherry picking" is then judging my motives, something you cannot do, are not capable of doing.

Forgive me, but I've never seen you as gentle, ever here on the BB, not one time.

If you believe it, why don't you do it? You are virtually always combative here on the BB with those who don't see things your way. You are being so here, saying things like "you don't get to."

I have clearly distinguished between insult and rebuke. I believe in sharp rebuke. I don't believe in insult.

Chapter and verse?

I agree.

Chapter and verse?

Yeah, in several different languages. So, where are we told to hate believers and insult them?

The Greek word miseo, for "to hate," occurs 38 times in the NT, and not one time, NOT ONE TIME, does it refer to how believers should hate one another. In fact, such is condemned: 1Jo 2:9--He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in darkness even until now.

 

Very good statements here. Thank you for your input.

I am well aware of this. I first realized this when I arrived at college and the hall monitor walked in my room and said, "I hear you are John R. Rice's grandson. Can you prove it?" I had to prove it by showing a "Pictorial New Testament" inscribed "To our grandson." :BangHead:

When you say "the movement" you are broad brushing just like all the other critics. No one has been hurt by "the IFB movement." Not one single person. People are not hurt by movements, but by individuals. I have been hurt by an IFB pastor who falsely accused me. I have been hurt by an IFB pastor who promised missionary support and then broke his word. I was hurt in college by a roommate who continually mocked me and my grandfather. (He apologized 25 years later.) But I have not been hurt by the IFB movement, just as I have not been hurt by the SBC movement.

I once had a Reformed Baptist pastor tell me never to come back to his church for something he had allowed me to do, and then stand there while his wife angrily balled me out. But I have not been hurt by the Reformed Baptist movement, only someone in the movement.

If someone says they have been hurt by the IFB movement, I would have to say, the KJVO half or the MV half? The BBF movement (I've been treated unjustly by a BBF pastor) or the SBF movement? The GARBC (my pastor father was screamed at in SS by a GARBC deacon) or the Hyles-Anderson movement? (I had offering money embezzled by one of them.)

It's all ridiculous. Movements don't hurt people, people hurt people. Individual, backslidden or careless believers hurt other believers. Anything else is broad brushing. And if an individual hurts me, I am to go directly to that individual and make it right, Biblically. Getting on the Internet with an anonymous name and berating and attacking a whole movement for an individual's sin is completely un-Biblical.

This is an excellent attitude. Stay with it.

 

There is something about the anonymous Internet that allows people to speak their true feelings without fear. People say absolutely cruel things behind anonymous names, thinking that they will never be found out. Same thing on the BB. I realize there are good reasons for many to be anonymous here, but I really think that some of the anonymous Baptists here say things they would never say in person or in a letter or email. "Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh."

 

I didn't discuss this the first time around, but I'm going to now. If there is no difference between an insult and a rebuke, then there is no meaning to words. I clearly delineated the difference at the very beginning, but apparently you did not see it. The Greek word blasfemia means to insult someone, and it has the sense of attacking their character. If I call someone a fool or an idiot or a moron I am attacking their character and insulting them, I am not rebuking them. I mentioned Matt. 5:22b about this, when Jesus forbade calling your brother "fool" or "raca" (idiot), but you have not commented on that. I would like to know how you interpret it.

A rebuke on the other hand, is when you point out the sin of someone and urge them to change. You don't have to call people names to do this, or even be harsh. The power of the Word of God is where the authority to rebuke comes from. Think of a cop stopping a speeder. I did a ride-along with a cop friend once. When he stopped a speeder he was polite and respectful, even when the perp got angry. Usually the offender was as nervous as all get out, though, and showed respect to the cop. Why? The entire weight of the law was behind the policeman, that's why!

The cop rebuked and was listened to because he had authority behind him. Likewise, the Christian can successfully rebuke sin with loving words, without calling any names, without even being harsh. And if he has the force and authority of the Word of God behind him, the godly or repentant sinner will listen.