Is “infestation” Biblical language?
Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2026 4:08 pm
[/font]Lately, there's been back and forth between John and me about the language of "infestation." Specifically, his use of the word to describe gay and lesbian people.
The most recent example:
I am not attacking John as a person. I am not challenging his beliefs on homosexuality. I am not accusing him of being a Nazi or a white supremacist. I am not claiming he is calling for violence against anyone.
I’m asking a narrower question: is it appropriate for Christians to use “infestation” language to describe fellow humans they believe are committing grievous sins?
I realize this is going to be a long post and that I come across as intense and obsessive, unable to let things go. I assure you that I’m aware of these aspects of myself.
I’m also a teacher on summer break.
But there are a few reasons why I can’t let this go and why I feel like I should challenge this language:
1) One of my deepest theological convictions is that God’s Creation is good, even though it is fallen. Sin may warp Creation and distort it out of His intentions, but that does not change the foundational claim of Genesis 1 that it is good. Likewise, I also believe that since humans are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26–27), we all have an inherent dignity, regardless of who we are, where we come from and what we believe. Language that reduces humans to vermin, disease or infestation violates the God created dignity in all of us.
2) As many of you know, I spend a considerable part of my childhood in Berlin and have absorbed the German way of understanding and wrestling with World War II. The Nazi era is still within living memory, especially during my childhood in the 1980s and 90s. Part of the German reckoning over their past is to ask what enabled a highly educated, cultured and historically Christian population to go along with the Holocaust? One of the answers is language.
3) I believe that we are at a moment when many of the old patterns of dehumanizing rhetoric are increasingly common. This concerns me as a Christian. Language shapes how we think about and imagine about people. If we speak about other people as vermin or disease, then we often treat other people as if they are vermin and disease, forgetting that they are also made in the image of God.
John recently wrote:
To justify this language John wrote the following:
So far, I haven’t found a single example in Scripture that describes a category of people as an infestation or contamination.
Again, this not about whether people believe homosexuality is a sin. Plenty of conservatives Christians believe homosexuality is a sin, but do not use this language of “infestation.”
So if there is a biblical basis for this language, there should be examples where Scripture calls a particular group of people an “infestation.”
First of all, John is correct that the Scriptures condemn sin in hash terms.
In Romans 1:24-32, Paul condemns a list of sins in the harshest terms found in the Bible, including same-sex behavior. Paul condemns impurity, shameful lusts, depravity, malice, greed, murder, deceit, and every kind of wickedness. Yet, Paul never describes the people themselves as an infestation or disease.
In Ezekiel 16, the prophet compares Israel’s unfaithfulness to prostitution. Israel chooses to prostitute itself despite God’s faithfulness, yet also never stops being God’s chosen people.
Even in Matthew 23, where Jesus condemns the Pharisees in the harshest terms possible, he calls them hypocrites and compares them to whitewashed tombs, snakes and a brood of vipers, he never uses metaphors that suggest infestation, contamination or disease.
Yet despite the fact that Scripture does condemn sin in extremely harsh terms, I have not been able to find a single scripture that compares the people themselves to disease or contamination. The closest I found was 2 Timothy 2:17, in which talk spreads like gangrene, but not people.
However, I think John is incorrect that “infestation” is the language of the Bible. As far as I can tell, the pattern seems to be that while Scripture condemns sin, it still treats people as people accountable to God and not as disease or contamination.
Now to be fair, John does emphasize agency. Part of his justification is that homosexuality is a choice:
There are, of course, several other reasons why I don’t think John’s “infestation” metaphor is biblical or appropriate for Christians. It ignores that Scripture actually treats disease not as contamination or moral disgust, but as an opportunity for healing and a sign of God’s love and grace in the world. It also ignores that Jesus never treated sinners as vermin or disease, choosing to eat with tax collectors and prostitutes.
And then there are also historical and social research reasons why this language concerns me, but I want to first look at the Scriptures themselves to see if it supports John’s claim that “infestation” is Biblical language. I don’t see any support for that.
The most recent example:
I want to be clear what this thread is about and what it’s not about.JohnH wrote: ↑Fri Jun 26, 2026 8:44 am
It's utterly fascinating how you have objected to one of my biggest objections to Trump (the infestation of perverts like homosexuals in his cabinet); protesting that is "dehumanising". It isn't "dehumanising"; anyone could just choose not to engage in such perversions. I consider perverts in public office, church offices, etc. to be an infestation, because they are something that needs to be removed.
I am not attacking John as a person. I am not challenging his beliefs on homosexuality. I am not accusing him of being a Nazi or a white supremacist. I am not claiming he is calling for violence against anyone.
I’m asking a narrower question: is it appropriate for Christians to use “infestation” language to describe fellow humans they believe are committing grievous sins?
I realize this is going to be a long post and that I come across as intense and obsessive, unable to let things go. I assure you that I’m aware of these aspects of myself.
I’m also a teacher on summer break.
But there are a few reasons why I can’t let this go and why I feel like I should challenge this language:
1) One of my deepest theological convictions is that God’s Creation is good, even though it is fallen. Sin may warp Creation and distort it out of His intentions, but that does not change the foundational claim of Genesis 1 that it is good. Likewise, I also believe that since humans are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26–27), we all have an inherent dignity, regardless of who we are, where we come from and what we believe. Language that reduces humans to vermin, disease or infestation violates the God created dignity in all of us.
2) As many of you know, I spend a considerable part of my childhood in Berlin and have absorbed the German way of understanding and wrestling with World War II. The Nazi era is still within living memory, especially during my childhood in the 1980s and 90s. Part of the German reckoning over their past is to ask what enabled a highly educated, cultured and historically Christian population to go along with the Holocaust? One of the answers is language.
3) I believe that we are at a moment when many of the old patterns of dehumanizing rhetoric are increasingly common. This concerns me as a Christian. Language shapes how we think about and imagine about people. If we speak about other people as vermin or disease, then we often treat other people as if they are vermin and disease, forgetting that they are also made in the image of God.
John recently wrote:
b]I believe using dehumanizing language against other people damages Christian witness and violates the goodness of God’s creation.[/b] So I think it’s appropriate to put this metaphor under a microscope and ask whether it is compatible with Christian discipleship.
To justify this language John wrote the following:
Is it? Is “infestation” the same language used in the Bible? Does the Bible actually describe categories of people as infestation?Homosexuality spreads disease and parasites, and it is indeed an infestation along with being an abomination in God's eyes.
God created people in his image, but that doesn't mean everything a human does is okay. It is perfectly fine to speak about it with the same language used in the Bible. It is not dehumanising language to speak this way, as homosexuality is a choice - those who practice can turn away from it at any time.
So far, I haven’t found a single example in Scripture that describes a category of people as an infestation or contamination.
Again, this not about whether people believe homosexuality is a sin. Plenty of conservatives Christians believe homosexuality is a sin, but do not use this language of “infestation.”
So if there is a biblical basis for this language, there should be examples where Scripture calls a particular group of people an “infestation.”
First of all, John is correct that the Scriptures condemn sin in hash terms.
In Romans 1:24-32, Paul condemns a list of sins in the harshest terms found in the Bible, including same-sex behavior. Paul condemns impurity, shameful lusts, depravity, malice, greed, murder, deceit, and every kind of wickedness. Yet, Paul never describes the people themselves as an infestation or disease.
In Ezekiel 16, the prophet compares Israel’s unfaithfulness to prostitution. Israel chooses to prostitute itself despite God’s faithfulness, yet also never stops being God’s chosen people.
Even in Matthew 23, where Jesus condemns the Pharisees in the harshest terms possible, he calls them hypocrites and compares them to whitewashed tombs, snakes and a brood of vipers, he never uses metaphors that suggest infestation, contamination or disease.
Yet despite the fact that Scripture does condemn sin in extremely harsh terms, I have not been able to find a single scripture that compares the people themselves to disease or contamination. The closest I found was 2 Timothy 2:17, in which talk spreads like gangrene, but not people.
However, I think John is incorrect that “infestation” is the language of the Bible. As far as I can tell, the pattern seems to be that while Scripture condemns sin, it still treats people as people accountable to God and not as disease or contamination.
Now to be fair, John does emphasize agency. Part of his justification is that homosexuality is a choice:
However, John also used the same word to describe immigrants:It is not dehumanising language to speak this way, as homosexuality is a choice - those who practice can turn away from it at any time.
Indians of course can’t help the fact that they’re are from India. They can’t stop their ethnicity. To me this suggests that John is using the metaphor for something more than just behavior. Rather, it appears language to describe groups of people whose mere presence is considered a social or cultural contamination. Otherwise, I don’t understand why someone would use the same word to describe homosexuality and immigration. What does same-sex behavior have to do with cultural or national identity?It wouldn't make any difference. It simply doesn't work to have this many people flooding the country.
Incidentally the #3 group of illegal aliens by country are Indians. India is a long way from America and it involves either a plane ride or a very long boat ride to get here. Why are so many infesting this country?
There are, of course, several other reasons why I don’t think John’s “infestation” metaphor is biblical or appropriate for Christians. It ignores that Scripture actually treats disease not as contamination or moral disgust, but as an opportunity for healing and a sign of God’s love and grace in the world. It also ignores that Jesus never treated sinners as vermin or disease, choosing to eat with tax collectors and prostitutes.
And then there are also historical and social research reasons why this language concerns me, but I want to first look at the Scriptures themselves to see if it supports John’s claim that “infestation” is Biblical language. I don’t see any support for that.