Is it Christ-Like to Insult?

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

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.

Just a side question:

Under the strongs number (G4567)it suggests that there is a definite article.

So why do you say there is not and how is that they could be wrong.

I am just asking

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.

 

[abcgrad94]

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.

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.

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

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?

 

[Luke2427]

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

Ok. Then I'm just for rebuking.

See, you simply can't stop being insulting, can you? To say someone is "cherry picking" Scripture is an insult, and it is unwarranted.

Are you not being a tender ninny?

I assure you that I make every effort to interpret every Scripture in context, according to the original languages.

Everybody thinks they do this.

For you to say I am "cherry picking" is then judging my motives, something you cannot do, are not capable of doing.

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.

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

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

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've read every post I've ever posted?

You are being so here, saying things like "you don't get to."

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

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

Ok, then me too.

Chapter and verse?
I agree.
Chapter and verse?

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

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

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 Greek word miseo, for "to hate," occurs 38 times in the NT,

The Old Testament is the Bible, too.

 

[Revmitchell]

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.

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.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

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.

 

[Revmitchell]

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.

 

[Luke2427]

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.

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!!

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.

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.

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.

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...

 

[John of Japan]

Folks, consider this in regard to the OP and the difference between a rebuke and an insult. Rebukes can be humble in the sense that we should rebuke while considering our own weakness and possibility of falling. However, insults presuppose the superiority of the one insulting. If I say to Joe Blow, “You’re a lily-livered coward,” I’m presupposing that I myself am not one, and thus am superior to Joe.

When Christ insulted the Pharisees in Matt. 23 (and He did), He was not only presupposing his superiority as the founder of their religion, He was their Lord. In the context, look at the end of ch. 22. Jesus had just made the point that He was David’s Lord, and thus theirs. So Christ could insult—attack the character of—the wayward Pharisees in ch. 23 because He was superior. For our part, though, we are not superior. We are all sinners saved by grace.

Insults are clearly condemned in Matt. 5:22, “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.” On the other hand, we are told in Gal. 6:1, “Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.” Therefore to insult someone is pride, even arrogance, since it presupposes superiority in the insulter, but rebuke and restoration should be acts of humility.

 

[John of Japan]

Here is how I view it. Any group, movement, religious society, company etc., is only as good as the lowermost individual representing them. That means in plain talk that if some Priest, Pastor, Congressman, Salesman for a Corporation does wanton evil to another then it "REFLECTS ON THE ENTIRE ORGANIZATION" ....... Im fairly certain that the Lord will not accept any excuse that you didnt know &/or had no responsibility for the actions of those representing you.

I am part of no organization called "independent Baptists," and no one represents me in any such organization. There are 10,000 IFB churches, many many colleges, mission boards and other organizations. Are you seriously saying that I have a personal responsibility towards the 100s of organizations and 1000s of churches that call themselves IFB?

Last example is the RCC. ... Tell me, what does the IFB Churches do to curtail the evil doings in their own churches?

Sorry, there could not be two more different groups than these two. I see no parallels whatsoever.

I am a Baptist World Mission (BWM) missionary, and part of the Hokkaido Fundamental Pastors Fellowship (HFPF--We call it "huff-puff." :smilewinkgrin Neither of these, in the 51 years of BWM (C4K can verify) and the 14 (I think) year history of the HFPF, have any hint of scandal, abuse, lawsuits, etc.

 

[John of Japan]

I am not doubting what you say I am just wondering why the article gets added when translated into English.

Greek has no indefinite article, and Greek and English use the definite article in different ways. One different usage is that in Greek the definite article is used before proper names, as in "the Jesus" or in this case, "The Satan/Adversary." We don't do that in English, as in "The John" (which unfortunately, would mean something entirely different than my name in the English language." )

 

[John of Japan]

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.

I'm glad you agree. Good thoughts here.

 

[John of Japan]

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?

I agree completely, and have just been reading Spurgeon on that very thing: "I have known a person who has erred, hunted down like a wolf. He was wrong to some degree, but that wrong had been aggravated and dwelt upon till the man has been worried into defiance; the fault has been exaggerated into a double wrong by ferocious attacks upon it. The manhood of the man has taken sides with his error because he has been so severely handled" (Words of Counsel for Christian Workers, p. 143).

 

[John of Japan]

Ok. Then I'm just for rebuking.

Then why do you insult people?

Are you not being a tender ninny?

This is an insult because it attacks my character. It is not a rebuke. So you do believe in insults.

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.

Absolutely not. You cannot judge motives unless you are told the motive by the person. Motives are within, they are hidden. Only God can know a person's motives, his heart-hidden reason for his actions. And we are not detectives, prosecutors, judge or jury. God is all of these.

And even in the case of a human trial, the motive must be proven, usually from the actual words or circumstances of the accused. Here we are on the anonymous Internet, and you in your anonymous glory are insulting me because you think you know my motive.

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

Another insult, aimed at my character.

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

Well of course. But this is not something the thread is about.

 

[Revmitchell]

Greek has no indefinite article, and Greek and English use the definite article in different ways. One different usage is that in Greek the definite article is used before proper names, as in "the Jesus" or in this case, "The Satan/Adversary." We don't do that in English, as in "The John" (which unfortunately, would mean something entirely different than my name in the English language." )

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.

 

[John of Japan]

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."

Nope.

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

Give specifics. I don't recall any Biblical person calling someone a moron.

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!!

Nope. In the context, which you have apparently not looked at yet, Jesus is asserting his Lordship at the end of the previous chapter.

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).

Now we've come to the crux of the matter. When you yourself call someone a fool, you are ergo saying that you yourself are not a fool, therefore you are superior to the fool. Is that not so?

 

[John of Japan]

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.

Right, that's my view about the Peter passage.

 

[Revmitchell]

Right, that's my view about the Peter passage.

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

 

[salzer mtn]

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.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

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: