Does the Bible teach the virtue of moderation?

[Elijah John]

Eastern religions teach moderation as a virtue, along with balance and harmony. Does the Bible teach this as well?

For example, Jesus teachings to forsake all that one has for the sake of the Gospel does not seem very moderate.

Does Paul teach moderation? How about John the Baptist? What about the writers of the Hebrew Bible? ("Old" Testament). Solomon perhaps? Moses? King David?

[marco]

The first could be read that way. The last is a poor translation of Greek. Love less would be more correct than hate. If you love yourself and family more that God, you are not following Him. You are following your own desires.

That's fine except that almost every translation employs the word "hate". A couple of modern afterthoughts work round the text to make it sound better. The excessive term was used probably to shock and force people to think. The modern rendition reduces matters to platitudes; I don't know why.

[marco]

Apparantly as I understand there is no equivalent of the English word hate in Greek. Good question though.

There are a few Greek words for hate.

Take μῑσέω (misos) from which we get misanthrope, a hater of mankind.

[bjs]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

There are some passages which point out the general wisdom of moderation, such as Proverbs 25:16. However, moderation is not portrayed as a virtue. A virtue (such as love, kindness, self-control, etc.) is always good. There are times and situations when moderation would not be a good response.

[dio9]

Eastern religions teach moderation as a virtue, along with balance and harmony. Does the Bible teach this as well?

For example, Jesus teachings to forsake all that one has for the sake of the Gospel does not seem very moderate.

Does Paul teach moderation? How about John the Baptist? What about the writers of the Hebrew Bible? ("Old" Testament). Solomon perhaps? Moses? King David?

Maybe , Jesus encouraged his disciples to practice ascetic vows after his crucifixion. Telling them pick up your cross and follow me, they will have to follow him into martyrdom .

[brianbbs67]

Apparantly as I understand there is no equivalent of the English word hate in Greek. Good question though.

There are a few Greek words for hate.

Take μῑσέω (misos) from which we get misanthrope, a hater of mankind.

Except, we have the companion verse of Mat 10:37 to explain the meaning better of that one. Borrowed quote:

Luke 14:26 "If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple.

Matthew 10:37 "He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me.

I actually suspected this would be the other way around, but it looks like Luke just translates his Hebrew/Aramaic source using sone as miseo. This is actually very common in antiquity. Translators would decide on a one-to-one ratio for words and usually stick to them. For this reason, you will see the same word in a Hebrew book used in differing contexts and with differing shades of meaning all translated with the same Greek word in the Septuagint. More details can be found here.

However, Matthew smoothens it out for us. He translates Jesus' words in "love [them] more than me." There we have a Hebrew speaker understanding and applying a judicial sense to the term in question. If you had to choose between your parents and Jesus, you must reject your parents to be worthy of Jesus.

[Tcg]

Apparantly as I understand there is no equivalent of the English word hate in Greek. Good question though.

There are a few Greek words for hate.

Take μῑσέω (misos) from which we get misanthrope, a hater of mankind.

Except, we have the companion verse of Mat 10:37 to explain the meaning better of that one. Borrowed quote:

Luke 14:26 "If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple.

Matthew 10:37 "He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me.

I actually suspected this would be the other way around, but it looks like Luke just translates his Hebrew/Aramaic source using sone as miseo. This is actually very common in antiquity. Translators would decide on a one-to-one ratio for words and usually stick to them. For this reason, you will see the same word in a Hebrew book used in differing contexts and with differing shades of meaning all translated with the same Greek word in the Septuagint. More details can be found here.

However, Matthew smoothens it out for us. He translates Jesus' words in "love [them] more than me." There we have a Hebrew speaker understanding and applying a judicial sense to the term in question. If you had to choose between your parents and Jesus, you must reject your parents to be worthy of Jesus.

It'd be very interesting to see you, based on your understanding of the Greek involved, explain why you favor Matthew 10:37 over the Luke 14:26 rendition. It seems to me that it would be just as easy to claim that the Luke 14:26 rendition should be used to explain the improper translation represented in Matthew 10:37.

In any case, are you suggesting that rejecting your parents in favor of Jesus is a moderate position? That does after all take us back to the question the OP asks.

[brianbbs67]

[Replying to post 16 by Tcg]

I never claimed to fully understand the Greek. Quite the opposite. The Mat. verse seems to make more sense to me. But, I am guessing there must be an error in your mind, in its translation?

As to the OP, Yeshua was , of course, not moderate. He would have attracted no attention, otherwise.

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 16 by Tcg]

I never claimed to fully understand the Greek. Quite the opposite. The Mat. verse seems to make more sense to me. But, I am guessing there must be an error in your mind, in its translation?

This doesn't even attempt to address my question.

"Seems to make more sense"? In what way, given that you have now finally admitted you can't address the Greek involved, does it make more sense?

An error in my mind? What error would that be?

As to the OP, Yeshua was , of course, not moderate. He would have attracted no attention, otherwise.

Then you agree that the discussion over the verses you presented are irrelevant to the question the OP asks.

[brianbbs67]

[Replying to post 16 by Tcg]

I never claimed to fully understand the Greek. Quite the opposite. The Mat. verse seems to make more sense to me. But, I am guessing there must be an error in your mind, in its translation?

This doesn't even attempt to address my question.

"Seems to make more sense"? In what way, given that you have now finally admitted you can't address the Greek involved, does it make more sense?

An error in my mind? What error would that be?

As to the OP, Yeshua was , of course, not moderate. He would have attracted no attention, otherwise.

Then you agree that the discussion over the verses you presented are irrelevant to the question the OP asks.

1. You said Mat. was mistranslated. So, fine. Show me. I am no expert, but I take good teaching.

2. Of course it is a side point, which everyone can see. And you protracted.

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 16 by Tcg]

I never claimed to fully understand the Greek. Quite the opposite. The Mat. verse seems to make more sense to me. But, I am guessing there must be an error in your mind, in its translation?

This doesn't even attempt to address my question.

"Seems to make more sense"? In what way, given that you have now finally admitted you can't address the Greek involved, does it make more sense?

An error in my mind? What error would that be?

As to the OP, Yeshua was , of course, not moderate. He would have attracted no attention, otherwise.

Then you agree that the discussion over the verses you presented are irrelevant to the question the OP asks.

1. You said Mat. was mistranslated. So, fine. Show me. I am no expert, but I take good teaching.

It is clearly a mistranslation in light of the Luke passage.

2. Of course it is a side point, which everyone can see. And you protracted.

No, it is a discussion you started which is totally irrelevant to the OP according to your latest admission.