A Time to Revile and Curse?

Last time, we explored some of the specific groups of people whom God’s Word tells us not to revile. We are not to curse, speak evil of, or belittle spirit beings, parents, human rulers, our spouses, our children, fellow brethren… or, for that matter, anyone!

The apostle Peter plainly told us that we must show honor to everyone: “Honor all people. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king” (1 Pet. 2:17). And the apostle Paul added, “Remind them to be subject to rulers and authorities, to obey, to be ready for every good work, to speak evil of no one, to be peaceable, gentle, showing all humility to all men” (Tit. 3:1-2). We are to love others as our own selves (Lev. 19:18), to do unto others as we would have them do unto us (Luke 6:31).

And yet, the Bible shows multiple examples of God’s people denouncing the wicked — reviling them even! Even Jesus Himself reviled the scribes and Pharisees with the very word He warned His followers not to use toward one another: moros or fool! Twice in short order, He denounced them as “fools and blind” (Mat. 23:17, 19).

So what made those examples different from the broad rule that we should not revile anyone? Let’s take a look and find out!

A Time and a Season

In Eccl. 3:1, Solomon wrote, “To everything there is a season, a time for every purpose under heaven.” Even “a time to kill, and a time to heal” (v. 3) and “a time to love, and a time to hate” (v. 8). Is there, then, a time and a season for reviling and denouncing others? Yes — but that time is seldom and must be exercised with caution.

Let’s go back to Jesus’ statement in Mat. 5:22: “But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, ‘Raca!’ shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be in danger of hell fire.”

The key here is “without a cause.” Some Greek manuscripts omit that phrase, but the rest of Scripture illustrates it just the same. We might even say “without a just cause.” We shouldn’t even allow ourselves to be angry without a just cause, let alone to curse or belittle someone without a just cause! As the Psalms tell us, “Be angry, and do not sin” (Psa. 4:4).

Noteworthy Examples

To see what a just cause might be, let’s look at some examples that we know to be fitting and proper. These are examples of righteous anger:

John the Baptist denounced the Pharisees and Sadducees as a “brood of vipers” (Mat. 3:7; Luke 3:7).
Yeshua/Jesus described the scribes and Pharisees, at various times, as vipers, fools, blind, hypocrites, sons of Gehenna, and children of the devil.
Nehemiah, discovering that some of the Jews had broken their covenant with God and married pagan women, recorded, “And I strive with them, and declare them vile, and strike certain of them, and pluck off their hair, and cause them to swear by God, ‘You do not give your daughters to their sons, nor do you take of their daughters to your sons, and to yourselves.’” (Neh. 13:25; LSV).
The apostle Paul denounced a sorcerer to his face, saying, “O full of all deceit and all fraud, you son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, will you not cease perverting the straight ways of the Lord?” (Acts 13:10).

Each example here is a condemnation of sin. Jesus Christ and His servants here expressed righteous anger over breaking God’s law, not over personal affronts or insults, nor over personality traits that they found annoying.

John the Baptist called out the Pharisees and Sadducees for their hypocrisy, pointing out that they were unrepentant and telling them, “Therefore bear fruits worthy of repentance” (Mat. 3:8). In fact, these were the very people who reviled him and falsely claimed he had a demon (Luke 7:30, 33)!

Jesus Christ, too, lambasted the scribes and Pharisees for hypocrisy, pointing out that they didn’t truly obey God from the heart, but only pretended to. They made a big show of piety so that others would praise them (Mat. 23:23-28). They were frauds and pretenders. Actors.

Nehemiah’s actions speak for themselves, for God told His people again and again not to marry pagans (Ex. 34:16; Deut. 7:3; Josh. 23:12-13). And if their blatant disobedience wasn’t enough, the people themselves had sworn an oath before Almighty God to obey His laws and abstain from marrying heathens (Neh. 10:28-30). So when he rebuked them for breaking God’s law and violating their oath, Nehemiah directly quoted God’s law (Neh. 13:25-27).

And as for Paul, he rebuked a sorcerer who actively and vehemently resisted the Word of God. “But Elymas the sorcerer (for so his name is translated) withstood them, seeking to turn the proconsul away from the faith” (Acts 13:8). This was a man who stood against Almighty God and His servants as a sworn enemy. But Paul didn’t seek him out to curse him; he cursed him while he stood there and opposed the truth in Paul’s presence.

So each of these was a public rebuke of others’ rebellion against God. These weren’t personal quarrels or disagreements. These were clear-cut spiritual battles between good and evil.

In fact, Jesus Christ and His servants were frequently wronged and slandered by others, but did not revile in return. The Jewish leaders falsely claimed that John the Baptist had a demon (Luke 7:30, 33). They said the same about Jesus Himself (John 7:20; 8:48, 52); claimed He was a Samaritan rather than a Jew (John 8:48); and called Him a glutton and a winebibber (Luke 7:34), among many other things. Nehemiah’s enemies spread false rumors about him (Neh. 6), and also mocked him and threatened to kill him (Neh. 4). Paul’s enemies accused him of breaking God’s law (Acts 21:21, 28), and they also plotted to kill him (Acts 23). But in each of these cases, none of God’s servants responded by reviling and cursing their enemies.

The apostle Peter exhorted all of us not to return “evil for evil or reviling for reviling” (1 Pet. 3:9). He reminded us that Jesus, “when He was reviled, did not revile in return; when He suffered, He did not threaten, but committed Himself to Him who judges righteously” (1 Pet. 2:23).

So then, there is indeed a time to revile. There is a time to publicly lambaste and denounce those who have rebelled against God and who, having rejected all previous rebuke, go on sinning or even fight to turn others from God’s way.

But this must be tempered with patience and exercised with caution. As Psa. 4:4 tells us, “Be angry, and do not sin.” And the apostle James instructed, “So then, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath; for the wrath of man does not produce the righteousness of God” (Jam. 1:19-20). God Himself is slow to anger, as the Bible tells us many times, and as His children, so must we be!

Let’s look at a few more examples in Scripture that we can learn from.

Eli’s Sons

We’ve seen in Scripture that we must not revile human authorities, and, under the Old Covenant, the Levitical priests were men of authority. Disobeying their rulings from the law of God was a grave matter: “Now the man who acts presumptuously and will not heed the priest who stands to minister there before the LORD your God, or the judge, that man shall die. So you shall put away the evil from Israel” (Deut. 17:12).

And yet here’s how the Bible itself describes two priests, Hophni and Phinehas, the sons of Eli the high priest: “Now the sons of Eli were corrupt; they did not know the LORD” (1 Sam. 2:12). The NASB renders it a little differently: “Now the sons of Eli were worthless men; they did not know the LORD” (1 Sam. 2:12; NASB).

In Hebrew, this phrase “corrupt” or “worthless men” is more literally translated as “sons of Belial.” Gesenius’ Hebrew Lexicon defines Belial (Strong’s # H1100) as “unprofitableness, worthlessness, wickedness, vileness, destruction.” Wickedness is unprofitable and worthless, because its ultimate end is destruction. The Bible describes Eli’s sons, then, as wicked, worthless, and vile.

In 2 Cor. 6:15, the apostle Paul appears to have used Belial as a reference to Satan: “And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever?” We might, then, even describe Eli’s sons as “sons of the devil.” This, too, would be Scripturally sound, for we read in 1 John 3:10, “In this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest: Whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is he who does not love his brother.” Eli’s sons did not practice righteousness, so they were therefore sons of the devil.

But what made it acceptable to speak of them this way?

Quite simply, the fact that it was true! Eli’s sons regularly profaned the offerings brought to God (1 Sam. 2:13-17) and even “lay with the women who assembled at the door of the tabernacle of meeting” (1 Sam. 2:22)! Eli himself even told his sons, “I hear of your evil dealings from all the people” (1 Sam. 2:23). Their actions, well-attested by everyone, made it unmistakably clear that they were evil men. They were sons of worthlessness, sons of the devil.

Nabal

Another noteworthy example of what seems to be acceptable reviling is found in the story of David and Nabal. Here’s how we’re introduced to Nabal: “Now the man's name was Nabal, and his wife's name was Abigail. And the woman was intelligent and beautiful in appearance, but the man was harsh and evil in his dealings, and he was a Calebite” (1 Sam. 25:3; NASB). So when we’re introduced to Nabal, we’re immediately told that he was harsh and evil in his dealings, and this would have been known by everyone who had any dealings with him. We’re also told that Nabal was very wealthy (v. 2).

For some time, David and his men had protected Nabal’s flocks and herdsmen from harm, so that they suffered no loss as long as David’s men were with them. As Nabal’s servants said, “They were a wall to us both by night and day, all the time we were with them keeping the sheep” (1 Sam. 25:16).

Now David and his men were still hiding from King Saul at this time. They were fugitives and men of poverty, unjustly persecuted and hunted by the king. So when Nabal sheared his flocks which David’s men had protected, David sent messengers and asked him for whatever he might be able to spare for him and his men: “Please give whatever you find at hand to your servants and to your son David” (1 Sam. 25:8).

But Nabal, the wealthy miser that he was, refused to give them anything. He was happy to profit, but not to give anything in return. This alone was against God’s law, as we read in Deut. 15:7-11:

7 "If there is among you a poor man of your brethren, within any of the gates in your land which the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart nor shut your hand from your poor brother,

8 "but you shall open your hand wide to him and willingly lend him sufficient for his need, whatever he needs.

9 "Beware lest there be a wicked thought in your heart, saying, 'The seventh year, the year of release, is at hand,' and your eye be evil against your poor brother and you give him nothing, and he cry out to the LORD against you, and it become sin among you.

10 "You shall surely give to him, and your heart should not be grieved when you give to him, because for this thing the LORD your God will bless you in all your works and in all to which you put your hand.

11 "For the poor will never cease from the land; therefore I command you, saying, 'You shall open your hand wide to your brother, to your poor and your needy, in your land.'

In fact, Nabal not only refused to give David anything, but insulted him and his men besides: “Then Nabal answered David’s servants, and said, ‘Who is David, and who is the son of Jesse? There are many servants nowadays who break away each one from his master. Shall I then take my bread and my water and my meat that I have killed for my shearers, and give it to men when I do not know where they are from?’” (1 Sam. 25:10-11).

Nabal knew who David was. Everyone in Israel knew David as the man who had killed Goliath and delivered Israel from the Philistines. Nabal’s own wife, Abigail, knew of David as a man in whom no evil could be found, who fought the battles of the Lord, who was unjustly persecuted by the king, and whom God had appointed to one day be king himself (1 Sam. 25:28-29).

If Abigail knew these things, then Nabal surely did, too. His question, “Who is David, and who is the son of Jesse?” wasn’t a real question, but an expression of contempt. He was dismissing David and even David’s father as unworthy nobodies. He further described David and his men as runaway servants. Rogues. He reviled and belittled David and his men, even though they had helped him! He repaid evil for good (1 Sam. 25:21).

Because of this and because they knew their master’s character all too well, Nabal’s servants complained to his wife Abigail and described him as a son of worthlessness, or a son of Belial (1 Sam. 25:17). This might seem like reviling, but it was simply a truthful description. They described a wicked man as just that: a son of worthlessness, a son of the devil.

Knowing that David planned to put Nabal to death for this, Abigail rushed to meet him and appease him with kind words and donkeys loaded with food. She greeted him with these words: “Please do not let my lord pay attention to this worthless man [son of Belial], Nabal, for as his name is, so is he. Nabal is his name and folly is with him; but I your maidservant did not see the young men of my lord whom you sent” (1 Sam. 25:25; NASB).

This might seem like a wife reviling her husband, but again, it was simply a truthful description of his character. And not only that, Abigail was in fact pleading for her husband’s life and asking David to overlook the matter. She even tried to take the blame herself: “On me alone, my lord, be the blame” (1 Sam. 25:24). And again, “Please forgive the transgression of your maidservant” (v. 28). She reminded David that it would be wrong to avenge himself, and that God would deal with Nabal and the rest of David’s enemies in time (v. 26). Though Nabal was evil and Abigail knew this, she still tried to do good to him. She was a remarkable and godly woman!

David knew that Abigail was right, so his anger cooled and he relented from harming Nabal or his household. “Then David said to Abigail: ‘Blessed is the LORD God of Israel, who sent you this day to meet me! And blessed is your advice and blessed are you, because you have kept me this day from coming to bloodshed and from avenging myself with my own hand’” (1 Sam. 25:32-33).

But Nabal’s sins were worthy of death. He was a miser, a reviler, a drunkard (1 Sam. 25:36), a fool, and a generally harsh and evil man. He returned evil for good, withheld his hand from the poor, and cursed the righteous. He was a son of worthlessness, as both his wife and his servants truthfully described him. And so God Himself killed Nabal just ten days after this incident: “Then it happened, after about ten days, that the LORD struck Nabal, and he died” (1 Sam. 25:38).

Three More Examples

Let’s look at three more short examples. These, too, are instructive, and some could be easily misunderstood.

First, it’s sometimes thought that Yeshua/Jesus once insulted a king. After some of the Pharisees warned Him that King Herod was plotting to kill Him, Jesus responded, “Go, tell that fox, ‘Behold, I cast out demons and perform cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I shall be perfected.’ Nevertheless I must journey today, tomorrow, and the day following; for it cannot be that a prophet should perish outside of Jerusalem” (Luke 13:32-33).

Describing Herod as a fox wasn’t flattering, but it was more of a description than an insult. As Thayer’s Greek Lexicon defines it, that word for “fox” (Strong’s # G258) means “metaphorically, a sly and crafty man.” It was a truthful description of Herod’s character, whether he would’ve appreciated the description or not.

Next, Stephen lambasted the members of the Sanhedrin, the highest court in the Jewish nation, to their faces, declaring, “You stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears! You always resist the Holy Spirit; as your fathers did, so do you. Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? And they killed those who foretold the coming of the Just One, of whom you now have become the betrayers and murderers, who have received the law by the direction of angels and have not kept it” (Acts 7:51-53).

This was strong language, but Stephen wasn’t belittling the members of the Sanhedrin or disrespecting their legitimate authority. He didn’t call them worthless fools, base knaves, or anything of that nature. Instead, he directly addressed their sins, and everything he accused them of was true. They were stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, they did resist the Holy Spirit, they did murder the Son of God, and they did disobey His commandments.

Finally, in Gal. 3:1, Paul wrote to the Galatians, “O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you that you should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed among you as crucified?” Was Paul calling fellow brethren fools or rebels against God, as Jesus Christ warned us not to do?

No, he was not. The word Paul used wasn’t the Greek moros (Strong’s # G3474), which Jesus warned against in Mat. 5:22, but rather anoetos (G453), which Thayer’s Greek Lexicon defines as “not understanding, unwise, foolish.” Or, as Young’s Literal Translation renders the phrase in question, “O thoughtless Galatians.” In essence, Paul was telling the Galatians, “You’ve been deceived! You aren’t thinking!” Or, “How is it that you can’t understand?” Paul was trying to wake them up, not tear them down or belittle them.

And that brings us to another point. What is the difference between rebuking someone and reviling that person? Many of the rebukes given in the Bible are blunt and straightforward, like getting smacked in the face with a two-by-four. Not all forms of correction are like that, of course, but rebukes often are. So what’s the difference?

Rebuke vs. Reviling

A reviler simply vents his feelings and tears down and belittles other people out of anger. In contrast, the purpose of rebuke isn’t to tear someone down or vent one’s feelings, but rather to return that person to the truth. Most reviling, except for the justifiable cases we’ve seen, is selfish and self-serving, but rebuke is motivated by love and concern for another person. As Paul wrote, “Let all that you do be done with love” (1 Cor. 16:14).

After listening to Job and his three friends argue for hours or perhaps days, a much younger man named Elihu finally spoke up and corrected all of them. Now Elihu was angry with all of them: “Then the wrath of Elihu… was aroused against Job; his wrath was aroused because he justified himself rather than God. Also against his three friends his wrath was aroused, because they had found no answer, and yet had condemned Job” (Job 32:2-3). But even though he was angry, he did not belittle Job or his friends. He showed proper respect for his elders.

To Job’s friends, he said, “Therefore I say, ‘Listen to me, I also will declare my opinion.’ Indeed I waited for your words, I listened to your reasonings, while you searched out what to say. I paid close attention to you; and surely not one of you convinced Job, or answered his words” (Job 32:10). To Job, he added, “If you can answer me, set your words in order before me; take your stand.Surely no fear of me will terrify you, nor will my hand be heavy on you” (Job 33:5, 7). And in correcting Job for justifying himself rather than God, Elihu said, “Look, in this you are not righteous. I will answer you, for God is greater than man. Why do you contend with Him? For He does not give an accounting of any of His words” (Job 33:12-13).

Elihu was blunt and straightforward. He laid out the facts and administered correction. But he did not belittle or tear down his elders.

Nathan the prophet, when confronting King David about his sins of adultery and murder, delivered a blunt message directly from God. He laid out the king’s sins before him, told him that he’d despised God’s commandments and done evil, and that God would punish him (2 Sam. 12:7-14). But he did not revile the king, call him names, or belittle him; he simply delivered the message and spoke the truth. And this message served its intended purpose, for David was convicted of his sin and repented.

The apostle Paul, in his messages to the Corinthians and Galatians, pointedly corrected them for various sins. But even as he did so, he expressed his love for them and urged them back onto God’s path. When his message prompted repentance, he explained, “For even if I made you sorry with my letter, I do not regret it; though I did regret it. For I perceive that the same epistle made you sorry, though only for a while. Now I rejoice, not that you were made sorry, but that your sorrow led to repentance. For you were made sorry in a godly manner, that you might suffer loss from us in nothing” (2 Cor. 7:8-9). These were the words of a man who, though pained to rebuke his brethren, nevertheless did so out of concern for their well-being!

Guidelines

Now, throughout the books of the prophets, we can find examples of God condemning the sins of His people. We can even find passages where Israel’s leaders are described in insulting terms. For example, in Isa. 56:10-11, we read, “His watchmen are blind, they are all ignorant; they are all dumb dogs, they cannot bark; sleeping, lying down, loving to slumber. Yes, they are greedy dogs which never have enough. And they are shepherds who cannot understand; they all look to their own way, every one for his own gain, from his own territory.”

Describing Israel’s leaders as dumb dogs and greedy dogs is hardly flattering. Nevertheless, these are the direct words of God and not the words of any man. Furthermore, they are analogies and descriptions of the character of those men. These also served as a warning of impending doom for the Israelites if they did not repent. The description of Israel’s leaders here is true, and its purpose is to call the people to repentance.

This takes us back to the main question of this blog post: When is it appropriate to use insulting or degrading language when speaking to or about other people?

From all the examples we’ve seen, a denunciation of someone must, above all else, be true and well-founded. Making a false accusation against someone, under any circumstances, is bearing false witness, and God said, “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor” (Ex. 20:16). This means that we must not make unfounded accusations or speak evil of things we do not know.

Calling a murderer a murderer or a thief a thief is not reviling; it is true. Describing a politician as a liar or an adulterer is not reviling if it is true. It is appropriate to condemn wickedness.

Secondly, any condemnation must be based on real sins, not an expression of personal displeasure. Our anger must reflect the righteous anger of God and must not exceed the bounds of what is true and right.

Everything we’ve seen in this study fits these principles. When Jesus Christ, John the Baptist, Nehemiah, Paul, and Stephen lambasted their enemies, they addressed specific sins, spoke the truth, and did not lapse into venting personal feelings. They expressed righteous anger over disobedience to our Father in heaven. When the Bible describes Eli’s sons, priests, as wicked men and sons of worthlessness, it speaks the truth and explains why. It tells us what their crimes were.

When Nabal reviled David as a nobody and a runaway slave, there was no reason for such language, his statements were not true, and he himself was breaking God’s law by his behavior. But when his wife Abigail and his servants described him as a son of worthlessness, or a wicked man, and a man of folly, they spoke the truth. He had proven himself to be those things by his harsh and evil dealings with those around him. And yet, notice that, despite his wickedness, Abigail still showed love to him and intervened to save his life!

Now, let’s consider a couple possible scenarios in our present day and age.

Consider, for example, the sodomite governor of Colorado (the state where I live), a man who flaunts his sin in the public eye. To call the man a vile, disgusting sodomite; to say that he is evil; and to say that his lifestyle is an abomination to Almighty God are all true. These things are a matter of public record. He may not appreciate being spoken of this way, and he may feel insulted, but these things are still true.

Nevertheless, we must still show respect to the office which God has permitted him to occupy. If we live in Colorado, then we must obey the laws signed by the governor, provided that they don’t require disobedience to our God. And if you or I were to meet the man in person, it would be wrong to speak to him and say, “You dirty, rotten, low-down, good-for-nothing bum!” None of that has anything to do with his specific sins, it would be disrespectful to the office, and to say such things would, in fact, be evil!

What if one or both of your parents is legitimately evil? Perhaps an adulterer, a drunk, verbally and/or physically abusive, a drug addict, or some other type of evil person? To describe such a person as evil in God’s sight would be true. To condemn and hate that person’s sins would be appropriate. It may even be appropriate to cut that parent off and have as little to do with him or her as possible, for one’s own spiritual well-being.

And yet it would still be evil to mock, belittle, or treat this parent with contempt. It is appropriate to condemn and shun wickedness. It is appropriate to view a parent realistically, according to his or her character. But one must not go beyond this. Remember, whether your parents are good or evil, you would not be here without them! God used them to bring you into this world for His greater plan.

To Be Continued…

We must be careful with our words, remembering our Savior’s warning: “But I say to you that for every idle word men may speak, they will give account of it in the day of judgment” (Mat. 12:36). If we get angry, our anger should be just and righteous, an expression of our Creator’s anger and not merely our own, “for the wrath of man does not produce the righteousness of God” (Jam. 1:20). If we give correction or rebuke, it must be motivated by love and concern for that person rather than self-expression. If we speak harshly, it must be to condemn wickedness and rebellion against our Creator, not to vent our personal annoyance at someone. And what we say must, above all, be true!

Let us take care that we ourselves are not revilers. But how should we deal with those who are? How do we deal with someone who is continually verbally abusive and hot-tempered toward us or others? Next time, we’ll find out!