Is “infestation” Biblical language?

[Szdfan]

I agree that "infestation is not found in the Bible, but people and especially their false teachings and practices are described in terms of disease and contagion.

I agree that the Bible uses disease and contagion metaphors when it comes to false teaching and other corrupting influences. As far as I can see, it doesn’t compare people themselves to disease or infestation.

Are you differentiating between the person and his teachings? And suggesting that a person cannot be a corrupting influence?

I don't think so. I think what I'm saying is that a person's sinful behavior or false teaching doesn't erase their inherent dignity or worth. Our worth or dignity doesn't come from whether we are good or faithful, but from bearing the divine image of the Creator.

We are told that certain things like false teaching and ungodly behavior are like disease or cancer. And we are told to drive such people out from among us and have no fellowship with them. So no, I guess in a sense it doesn't compare people to disease - it simply compares evil or corrupt people to disease-ridden people who refuse to be healed and instead go about spreading infection to other people.

I think what's interesting about the disease metaphor is that one of Jesus' primary metaphors about himself is that of a physician.

Matthew 9:12–13

On hearing this, Jesus said, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”

Luke 5:31-32

Jesus answered them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

Note who Jesus says he's for. What is his purpose? Jesus says his purpose is not for the healthy. His purpose is to heal the sick and call sinners to repentance.

What I like about this metaphor is that Jesus is the physician offering healing regardless of whether people accept his healing or reject it. He continues to call sinners to repentance and their refusal doesn't change who he is.

That's a major reason why I think "infestation" language is not suitable metaphor for Christians to use about people.

When a house is infested with vermin, people don't call the doctor. They call an exterminator and the purpose of an exterminator is not to heal, but to eradicate and remove the infestation.

I don't believe that Jesus is an exterminator. I believe Jesus is the doctor to heal the sick.

[barnhart]

I can think of several historical events where people were called vermin and an infestation...

[Szdfan]

I can think of several historical events where people were called vermin and an infestation...

Me too…that’s why this language is so fraught today. But even without that background, I don’t see Scriptural support for that language.

[ken_sylvania]

I agree that the Bible uses disease and contagion metaphors when it comes to false teaching and other corrupting influences. As far as I can see, it doesn’t compare people themselves to disease or infestation.

Are you differentiating between the person and his teachings? And suggesting that a person cannot be a corrupting influence?

I don't think so. I think what I'm saying is that a person's sinful behavior or false teaching doesn't erase their inherent dignity or worth. Our worth or dignity doesn't come from whether we are good or faithful, but from bearing the divine image of the Creator.

We are told that certain things like false teaching and ungodly behavior are like disease or cancer. And we are told to drive such people out from among us and have no fellowship with them. So no, I guess in a sense it doesn't compare people to disease - it simply compares evil or corrupt people to disease-ridden people who refuse to be healed and instead go about spreading infection to other people.

I think what's interesting about the disease metaphor is that one of Jesus' primary metaphors about himself is that of a physician.

Matthew 9:12–13

On hearing this, Jesus said, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”

Luke 5:31-32

Jesus answered them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

Note who Jesus says he's for. What is his purpose? Jesus says his purpose is not for the healthy. His purpose is to heal the sick and call sinners to repentance.

What I like about this metaphor is that Jesus is the physician offering healing regardless of whether people accept his healing or reject it. He continues to call sinners to repentance and their refusal doesn't change who he is.

That's a major reason why I think "infestation" language is not suitable metaphor for Christians to use about people.

When a house is infested with vermin, people don't call the doctor. They call an exterminator and the purpose of an exterminator is not to heal, but to eradicate and remove the infestation.

I don't believe that Jesus is an exterminator. I believe Jesus is the doctor to heal the sick.

I think you seem to be implying that Jesus always spoke kindly to and about sinners. Yet he said things like this:

But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.

oe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.

Ye fools and blind:

Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

[Szdfan]

I think you seem to be implying that Jesus always spoke kindly to and about sinners. Yet he said things like this:

But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.

oe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.

Ye fools and blind:

Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

I know Jesus used hash language. I mentioned Matthew 23 in my original post.

I’m not arguing that Jesus was never harsh. I’m arguing that he never described people as an infestation that needed to be eradicated.

Also, look at who the subject is of Jesus’s harsh words. It’s not “sinners” in a broad sense. It’s specifically targeted at the Pharisees and religious authorities who appeared righteous and faithful, but also thought they were better than everyone else and took advantage of their status as religious leaders.

Matthew 23:3-7:

So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.

“Everything they do is done for people to see: They make their phylacteries wide and the tassels on their garments long; they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; they love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and to be called ‘Rabbi’ by others.

When Jesus calls the Pharisees “a brood of vipers,” he’s accusing them of being dangerous because their hypocrisy misleads the people who they are teaching and leading.

So yes, Jesus used harsh language, but his harshest language was towards the religious elite who abused their status and authority, not the prostitutes and tax collectors he called to healing and repentance.

[Judas Maccabeus]

I agree that the Bible uses disease and contagion metaphors when it comes to false teaching and other corrupting influences. As far as I can see, it doesn’t compare people themselves to disease or infestation.

Are you differentiating between the person and his teachings? And suggesting that a person cannot be a corrupting influence?

I don't think so. I think what I'm saying is that a person's sinful behavior or false teaching doesn't erase their inherent dignity or worth. Our worth or dignity doesn't come from whether we are good or faithful, but from bearing the divine image of the Creator.

We are told that certain things like false teaching and ungodly behavior are like disease or cancer. And we are told to drive such people out from among us and have no fellowship with them. So no, I guess in a sense it doesn't compare people to disease - it simply compares evil or corrupt people to disease-ridden people who refuse to be healed and instead go about spreading infection to other people.

I think what's interesting about the disease metaphor is that one of Jesus' primary metaphors about himself is that of a physician.

Matthew 9:12–13

On hearing this, Jesus said, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”

Luke 5:31-32

Jesus answered them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

Note who Jesus says he's for. What is his purpose? Jesus says his purpose is not for the healthy. His purpose is to heal the sick and call sinners to repentance.

What I like about this metaphor is that Jesus is the physician offering healing regardless of whether people accept his healing or reject it. He continues to call sinners to repentance and their refusal doesn't change who he is.

That's a major reason why I think "infestation" language is not suitable metaphor for Christians to use about people.

When a house is infested with vermin, people don't call the doctor. They call an exterminator and the purpose of an exterminator is not to heal, but to eradicate and remove the infestation.

I don't believe that Jesus is an exterminator. I believe Jesus is the doctor to heal the sick.

I worry about that sort of rhetoric because it invokes a certain German term I really do not have a good English definition for:

untermenschen

That label was applied to all sorts of groups during the National Socialist period. The term "infestation" proceeded from that. Political decisions couched in terms of "hygiene" proceeded from that. The camps and extermination proceeded from that.

I cannot fathom why a Christian would take even the first step, because the others logically follow.

(Stefan, likely you can explain the German better than I)

[Szdfan]

Are you differentiating between the person and his teachings? And suggesting that a person cannot be a corrupting influence?

I don't think so. I think what I'm saying is that a person's sinful behavior or false teaching doesn't erase their inherent dignity or worth. Our worth or dignity doesn't come from whether we are good or faithful, but from bearing the divine image of the Creator.

We are told that certain things like false teaching and ungodly behavior are like disease or cancer. And we are told to drive such people out from among us and have no fellowship with them. So no, I guess in a sense it doesn't compare people to disease - it simply compares evil or corrupt people to disease-ridden people who refuse to be healed and instead go about spreading infection to other people.

I think what's interesting about the disease metaphor is that one of Jesus' primary metaphors about himself is that of a physician.

Matthew 9:12–13

On hearing this, Jesus said, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”

Luke 5:31-32

Jesus answered them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

Note who Jesus says he's for. What is his purpose? Jesus says his purpose is not for the healthy. His purpose is to heal the sick and call sinners to repentance.

What I like about this metaphor is that Jesus is the physician offering healing regardless of whether people accept his healing or reject it. He continues to call sinners to repentance and their refusal doesn't change who he is.

That's a major reason why I think "infestation" language is not suitable metaphor for Christians to use about people.

When a house is infested with vermin, people don't call the doctor. They call an exterminator and the purpose of an exterminator is not to heal, but to eradicate and remove the infestation.

I don't believe that Jesus is an exterminator. I believe Jesus is the doctor to heal the sick.

I worry about that sort of rhetoric because it invokes a certain German term I really do not have a good English definition for:

untermenschen

That label was applied to all sorts of groups during the National Socialist period. The term "infestation" proceeded from that. Political decisions couched in terms of "hygiene" proceeded from that. The camps and extermination proceeded from that.

I cannot fathom why a Christian would take even the first step, because the others logically follow.

(Stefan, likely you can explain the German better than I)

The word “Untermenschen” (“sub-human”) refers to categories of humans that the Nazis believed had less value than Aryans.

Propaganda frequently referred to people in these categories in terms of moral disgust and disease that needed to be removed and eradicated. One of the most infamous examples was a propaganda film “Der Ewige Jude” (“The Eternal Jew”) which compared Jews to rats.

I want to be clear that I don’t believe John or anyone else here has advocated for the violence or genocide. I do find the “infestation” language being used deeply uncomfortable because of the history it evokes.

Since I can’t find any biblical basis for this language, I do not understand why Christians should use it.

[ken_sylvania]

I think you seem to be implying that Jesus always spoke kindly to and about sinners. Yet he said things like this:

But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.

oe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.

Ye fools and blind:

Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

I know Jesus used hash language. I mentioned Matthew 23 in my original post.

I’m not arguing that Jesus was never harsh. I’m arguing that he never described people as an infestation that needed to be eradicated.

Also, look at who the subject is of Jesus’s harsh words. It’s not “sinners” in a broad sense. It’s specifically targeted at the Pharisees and religious authorities who appeared righteous and faithful, but also thought they were better than everyone else and took advantage of their status as religious leaders.

Matthew 23:3-7:

So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.

“Everything they do is done for people to see: They make their phylacteries wide and the tassels on their garments long; they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; they love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and to be called ‘Rabbi’ by others.

When Jesus calls the Pharisees “a brood of vipers,” he’s accusing them of being dangerous because their hypocrisy misleads the people who they are teaching and leading.

So yes, Jesus used harsh language, but his harshest language was towards the religious elite who abused their status and authority, not the prostitutes and tax collectors he called to healing and repentance.

Yes, Jesus calls the Pharisees "a brood of vipers" for a good reason. Are you saying that calling a group of people "a brood of vipers" is not dehumanizing language? Was that His way of affirming their God created dignity. Was it his way of reminding his hearers that the Pharisees were made in the image of God?
True, Jesus didn't call for the Pharisees to be removed, but we see as time moved on that the Jewish religious hierarchy was being bypassed and that the replacement, the church, received instructions to drive out wicked people from among themselves.

To be sure, what JohnH said is that people engaged in immoral perversions should be removed from public office, church office, and other positions of authority. You describe your argument as something different, saying that you are arguing that people should not be described as something to be eradicated. If you are using "eradicated" to mean something different from "removal from office" then it seems to me that you are arguing against language that JohnH didn't use.

If you are actually arguing against what JohnH said, and objecting to his statement that perverts should be removed from public and church office.... well, I hardly know what to say. I cannot imagine why anybody would object to removing immoral people from positions of authority or honor in the church.

[Szdfan]

Yes, Jesus calls the Pharisees "a brood of vipers" for a good reason. Are you saying that calling a group of people "a brood of vipers" is not dehumanizing language? Was that His way of affirming their God created dignity. Was it his way of reminding his hearers that the Pharisees were made in the image of God?
True, Jesus didn't call for the Pharisees to be removed, but we see as time moved on that the Jewish religious hierarchy was being bypassed and that the replacement, the church, received instructions to drive out wicked people from among themselves.

To be sure, what JohnH said is that people engaged in immoral perversions should be removed from public office, church office, and other positions of authority. You describe your argument as something different, saying that you are arguing that people should not be described as something to be eradicated. If you are using "eradicated" to mean something different from "removal from office" then it seems to me that you are arguing against language that JohnH didn't use.

If you are actually arguing against what JohnH said, and objecting to his statement that perverts should be removed from public and church office.... well, I hardly know what to say. I cannot imagine why anybody would object to removing immoral people from positions of authority or honor in the church.

First of all, I want to clarify I'm not arguing against church discipline or standards. I'm not saying people who abuse their position shouldn't be removed from position of power and authority. Jesus's rebuke of the Pharisees in Mathew 23 was specifically about the abuse of power and authority.

I spent some time tonight wrestling with the "brood of vipers" metaphor because I assumed it was going to come up. Did Jesus deny the humanity of the Pharisees when he compared them to snakes? Is this similar to John calling gays an "infestation?"

I don't think it is.

I think the difference is that even though Jesus used extremely harsh language, he still treats them as people with agency who have chosen to be dangerous. Jesus describes how these hypocritical religious leaders are failing at their basic responsibilities. He uses several different metaphors to describe the Pharisees ("blind guides," "blind fools," "whitewashed tombs") to describe the gap between appearing righteous on the outside while being corrupt on the inside. He's criticizing their character and behavior. While Jesus is attacking them personally, he's also assuming that they have moral agency.

Infestation language doesn't do that. It's not a personal, individual conviction of morality or character. A swarm doesn't have morals. A plague doesn't have character. A blight doesn't have moral responsibility. When infestation language is directed towards a category of people, it describes a problematic presence as a condition that can only be dealt with by removing them.

It's not about whether the language is harsh. Frankly, I find Jesus's harshness uncomfortable. It's a question about whether the harsh language leaves room for moral change. Jesus's prophetic attack against the Pharisees is to get them to change. Do better. Repent.

Infestation language, on the other hand, doesn't treat people as moral agents. It treats people as problem whose only solution is removal, just as the only solution for termites is to remove them. There's no way for the termites to change their ways and remain in the house. They can't heal or repent. The normal response is to call the exterminator.

Now again, I completely recognize that John said homosexuality is a choice and that gays can change. The problem is that this isn't the only time John's used infestation. You left out that he uses the same word to describe Indian immigrants. So it's not just that gays are infesting Trump's cabinet and these immoral people need to be removed, John also asks, "Why are so many [Indian immigrants] infesting this country?"

Why does John use the same problematic metaphor to describe two completely different groups of people? Being Indian is not a choice. It's not a behavior anyone can repent from. He claims that "Homosexuality spreads disease and parasites, and it is indeed an infestation along with being an abomination in God's eyes." Does that apply to Indian immigrants as well? If not, why use the same word? What do these two groups have in common?

Since one of John's initial claims was that the "infestation" language was "the same language used in the Bible," I've tried to stay close to the question of whether it actually is biblical language.

And yet, as the posts from other participants in this thread show, history keeps seeping through. The question of biblical language isn't the full picture. Ultimately, we can't divorce this language from the 20th century. As Judas Maccabeus pointed out, political decisions by the Nazis against groups they considered subhuman were couched in hygienic infestation language. The Nazis compared Jews to an infestation of rats. It's not just World War II. During the lead up to the Rwandan genocide, Hutus refereed to the Tutsis as a cockroach infestation.

Again, I don't think John is a Nazi or advocating violence. But I also think that his use of infestation language carries an enormous amount of baggage and since I don't see a biblical basis for this metaphor to describe categories of people this way, I don't understand why he insists on using it.

[Valerie]

I can see Szdfans point of view (actually it’s very Eastern Orthodox viewpoint) but I can also see JohnH viewpoint as Biblical even if the actual infestation word isn’t used it’s similar to other words & meanings. I found this & wondered if it helps:

"A little leaven leavens the whole" (or "lump") is a famous biblical metaphor emphasizing that a small, seemingly insignificant influence can rapidly spread to affect an entire group or person .The phrase appears twice in the New Testament, used by the Apostle Paul to describe the contagious nature of both negative and positive things:The Spread of Sin and Falsehood: Paul warns the Corinthian church (in 1 Corinthians 5:6) that unaddressed sin or malice will corrupt the whole church . Similarly, he warns the Galatians (in Galatians 5:9) that adopting even a "little" bit of false or legalistic teaching will quickly infiltrate their faith .The Growth of the Kingdom: In the Gospels, Jesus uses leaven positively, noting that the "kingdom of heaven" works in the same pervasive, ever-expanding way .Ultimately, the idiom serves as a warning about the importance of integrity, as small compromises or negative habits can quickly dismantle one's entire character or community if left unchecked .Further Exploration: Additional context and resourcesExplore the historical and spiritual commentary on Got Questions regarding this biblical metaphor.Read the full chapter of Galatians 5 to see Paul's teachings on Christian liberty and false teachings.”

I mean God had used pretty strong language against His elect mixing with others & it generally carries over into the New Testament. Jesus did mix with sinners but not to party with them but to save them so it had intentional purpose.