Is “infestation” Biblical language?

[barnhart]

Jesus did call abusive rulers a brood of vipers so I suppose there is a fig leaf of justification for doing that, but he also wept at their blindness. It's hard for me to see this as parallel to labeling undesirable or unbiblical people as threats to the nation state or advocating for their elimination.

Ken, I think you are possibly shifting the goalposts by turning the discussion toward guarding the purity of the church.

[Neto]

Perhaps someone else has referred to this passage already, but Isaiah 33:8 is a text that uses insect 'infestation' as a comparative figure of speech, and I suspect that this type of language is often used in Scripture. The point of comparison, as I understand it, is the number of the invading force. But this is not the same as actually calling people an 'infestation', is it? (The NIV uses the word 'swarm' in this verse.)

While I'm not comfortable with saying "such-and-so group of immigrants are infesting our communities", I wonder if there is a difference in the use of the nominalized form as compared to the use of the verb. I think the problem is when negative generalizations are made about a group of people. In the case of criminals, I think that it is more proper to say something like "Such-and-so city/community/etc has become infested with crime / criminal activity."

[JohnH]

Every practicing homosexual, adulterer, whoremonger, fornicator, thief, drunkard, reviler, adulterer, and swindler is a person who can accept Jesus’ grace and experience victory over these sins.

“And such were many of you,” yet now following Jesus and no longer are homosexuals, adulterers, revivers and so forth.

Those who do not repent certainly do present an infestation in government or church leadership - but the answer isn’t to call an exterminator. The answer is for each person to see the Great Physician, who can cure the infestation of sin they are suffering from.

I think I would draw a distinction between corner case (people who struggle with a sin issue, and try to keep it private, or areas for debate like divorce and remarriage) versus those who revel in sin, promote it, and make no apologies for it. I think people who brazenly cheat on their wives, or openly view pornography and show it to other people, or live openly homosexual lifestyles represent an “infestation” in leadership positions.

And we do have some people infesting conservative Anabaptist circles who openly engage in some of the sins we are warned so cautiously about in the Bible. But the good news is every person can repent and be converted and washed of these sins.

[JohnH]

Jesus did call abusive rulers a brood of vipers so I suppose there is a fig leaf of justification for doing that, but he also wept at their blindness. It's hard for me to see this as parallel to labeling undesirable or unbiblical people as threats to the nation state or advocating for their elimination.

An open adulterer who cheats on his wife is a threat to a nation state in a leadership position.

That doesn’t mean I’m calling for his “elimination”. I’d just like to see him repent and stop being an adulterer. The same goes for other sins which are choices. Of course, I don’t expect worldly governments to be a pure church, but at the same time I think we can speak against blatant, open sin being not just practiced, but promoted. And I can certainly speak of spreading that sin as an “infestation”.

[temporal1]

Perhaps someone else has referred to this passage already, but Isaiah 33:8 is a text that uses insect 'infestation' as a comparative figure of speech, and I suspect that this type of language is often used in Scripture. The point of comparison, as I understand it, is the number of the invading force. But this is not the same as actually calling people an 'infestation', is it? (The NIV uses the word 'swarm' in this verse.)

While I'm not comfortable with saying "such-and-so group of immigrants are infesting our communities", I wonder if there is a difference in the use of the nominalized form as compared to the use of the verb. I think the problem is when negative generalizations are made about a group of people. In the case of criminals, I think that it is more proper to say something like "Such-and-so city/community/etc has become infested with crime / criminal activity."

i think so.
as well, when coming across a strong word/strong language, considering the source, along with his “body of work” aids perspective.
for instance, JH’s two posts just above. JH has plenty of “work” to consider.

i find JH to be consistently interested in sharing gospel, converting hearts. sometimes using strong language that can pinch or shock.
Jesus was very shocking. more than anyone i know. including JH. He died was crucified because of it.

[Wesleyb]

The example of Jesus is relevant here. He treated people as well, even people guilty of sins like adultery. But he also said, "go and sin no more!"

When we treat other people as less than human, imply that cruelty toward those people is no big deal, etc., we are not following the example of Jesus. And in general, that kind of dehumanization has really bad consequences.

But holiness is important.

Did anyone imply that cruelty toward those people is no big deal?

I’ve been thinking about this question. It seems to me the answer is yes. When I was bullied in middle school and early high school there was little physical cruelty, but I consider the verbal insults to be cruelty.

I’ll leave Szd and others to debate the details and implications of certain words but for me the Golden Rule will keep me from using this language.

[JohnH]

Sin is dehumanising.

Speaking strongly against sin is re-humanising.

The Pharisees, lawyers, experts in the religious law, and religious leaders didn’t like Jesus speaking strongly against sin. They didn’t like him saying he could forgive sins or transform sinners into holy people.

The world today doesn’t like it either.

[Silentreader]

I haven't gotten yelled at for a while...but...isn't there a NT passage where Jesus' words could be paraphrased, (with a bit of imagination) 'It would better for pedophiles to be drowned like rats'?

[ken_sylvania]

Jesus did call abusive rulers a brood of vipers so I suppose there is a fig leaf of justification for doing that, but he also wept at their blindness. It's hard for me to see this as parallel to labeling undesirable or unbiblical people as threats to the nation state or advocating for their elimination.

Ken, I think you are possibly shifting the goalposts by turning the discussion toward guarding the purity of the church.

If so, would you also say that you are shifting the goalposts by avoiding discussion about removing immoral leaders from church leadership?

Considering the quote from JohnH that Szdfan used as the springboard for this discussion says (emphasis added):

I consider perverts in public office, church offices, etc. to be an infestation, because they are something that needs to be removed.

The OP mentions both public offices and church offices, and my responses discuss both as well, so I don't think I'm shifting the goalposts at all.

Perhaps it helps if I say I cannot imagine why any Christian would object to the removal of immoral people from positions of honor and authority whether in public office or church office.

[barnhart]

Jesus did call abusive rulers a brood of vipers so I suppose there is a fig leaf of justification for doing that, but he also wept at their blindness. It's hard for me to see this as parallel to labeling undesirable or unbiblical people as threats to the nation state or advocating for their elimination.

Ken, I think you are possibly shifting the goalposts by turning the discussion toward guarding the purity of the church.

If so, would you also say that you are shifting the goalposts by avoiding discussion about removing immoral leaders from church leadership?

Considering the quote from JohnH that Szdfan used as the springboard for this discussion says (emphasis added):

I consider perverts in public office, church offices, etc. to be an infestation, because they are something that needs to be removed.

The OP mentions both public offices and church offices, and my responses discuss both as well, so I don't think I'm shifting the goalposts at all.

Perhaps it helps if I say I cannot imagine why any Christian would object to the removal of immoral people from positions of honor and authority whether in public office or church office.

I share your concern of immortal people in public office and I simply would leave any church that fails to remove immoral people. This is not difficult. Why does it need to be connected with labeling groups of people infestation?