What the Bleep Does the Bible Say About Profanity?

[Chad]

What the Bleep Does the Bible Say About Profanity?
Political correctness, vulgarity and the scandalous nature of God's Word.

One of my favorite and most uncomfortable memories as a Bible professor was when I had Old Testament scholar, Tremper Longman, give a guest lecture on the Song of Songs. Tremper specializes in ancient near Eastern love poetry. No, he’s not some creepy old guy who gets off on ancient erotic fiction. He’s an authority on the Song of Songs, and he interprets the biblical Song in light of other ancient love poems—as it should be.

I’ll never forget feeling the tension in the classroom as he went into detail about the real meaning of the poem. “His body is polished ivory,” says the ESV, but according to Tremper, the Hebrew word for body refers to the man’s midsection and the image of ivory is intended to invoke the original form of ivory: an elephant’s tusk. Yes, that’s right. The wife in Song of Songs 5:14 is admiring her well-hung husband.

The reaction among the students was classic. Blushes, giggles, eye-brows raised to the ceiling. Apparently their Sunday school teachers never explained the connection between ivory tusks and penises. My own palms started to sweat as I thought about the slew of phone calls I was bound to get from angry parents demanding to know why their kids were discussing well-endowed men. But my nervousness turned to excitement as my students boiled with fundamentalist zeal: “If that’s what the Bible says, then why don’t our translations say what the Bible says?”
Cleaning up God’s word is like editing a love letter and sending it back for a re-write. But religious people have been covering up obscene language in the Bible for years
“Well,” Tremper searched as he looked to the ground. “Translations are filtered through a bit of political correctness.” We could tell Tremper didn’t agree with this. Still, silence and outrage hung in the air. As a professor, I spend a good deal of classroom time instilling in my students a passion to interpret and believe what the Bible actually says. Not what we want it to say, but what it really says in all its grit and occasional offensiveness. Cleaning up God’s word is like editing a love letter and sending it back for a re-write.

But religious people have been covering up obscene language in the Bible for years. Jewish scribes in the middle ages, who copied the Hebrew Old Testament used as the base for all English translations, edited out some vulgar words and replaced them with nicer ones. For instance, God originally prophesied through Zechariah that women in Israel would be raped by wicked, invading armies. The word God inspired is shagel, and according to Hebrew linguists, shagel is an obscene word that describes a sexual act. (No, it’s not where we get the British word “shag.”) But whenever God said shagel (e.g. Deuteronomy 28:30; Isaiah 13:16), the Masorites replaced it with the more tame shakev—“to lie with.” And all of our “literal” English translations agree that the word from the middle ages is better than the one spoken by our Creator.

The Bible is full of obscene language. Ezekiel would have been grounded for several months if he was raised in my house. He talks about huge penises, female genital fluid produced at sexual arousal, and large quantities of semen being “poured out” on Israel—God’s wayward ***** (Ezekiel 16:26, 36, 37; 23:20-21). Instead of grounding the prophet, modern translators edit out the vulgarity so that Ezekiel can be read in church. The apostle Paul was so enrapture by the scandalous grace of God that he came dangerously close to cussing: “I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as skubala, in order that I may gain Christ” (Philippians 3:8). The Greek word skubala is more vulgar than crap, but not quite as harsh as s**t. Either way, most translations dim it down by using words like “rubbish,” which means trash, not excrement, or “dung” which is more accurate but far less offensive.

In some ways, it’s understandable that we don’t want to be using this type of language in church. But, on the other hand, the Gospel is offensive. Grace is scandalous. And that’s the real point. The biblical prophets sometimes use offensive language, but not to produce shock for its own sake. Edginess was never the goal, and neither was some vague notion of Christian “freedom.” God’s messengers used vulgar images to shock their religious audience out of complacency. Because sometimes the goodness of God becomes lost in the fog of Christianese rhetoric and religious routine, and the only way to wake us up is to use provocative language.
Sometimes the goodness of God becomes lost in the fog of Christianese rhetoric and religious routine, and the only way to wake us up is to use provocative language.
So how to we reconcile Ezekiel’s filthy tongue with Ephesians 4:29? “Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear.” Does this outlaw all forms of vulgarity? Not exactly. The word for “corrupting” (sapros) literally means “rotten, decaying, unwholesome.” The whole point is not to forbid certain words that are labeled “cuss words” by its culture, but all speech that does not “build up.”

Paul’s warning here does include using obscene or vulgar language that tears someone down, reflects worldly motives, or in any other way that’s unfit for a redeemed way of life. But “corrupting” primarily refers to slander, gossip or any other speech that tears someone down. Paul refers to the dangerous power of words, all words, when used to dehumanize another human being. Gossiping about a fellow church member, dropping a belittling comment on a blog or Facebook post or holding up a hateful sign at a gay-pride parade are all good examples of “corrupting” talk.

So, in other words, if modern day preachers and Christians cuss or use vulgar terms only to get a rise out of conservatives, they aren’t prophetic, they’re simply immature. Similarly, if you call someone a piece of skubula or blurt out shagel! after stubbing your toe, you’re not being prophetic or biblical, just immature and undisciplined.

But if your Gospel presentation is putting your moralistic crowd to sleep, or if a pharisaic friend is more concerned about proper speech than an addiction to grace, then you may need to tell him that his Christ-less church attendance is nothing more than a bloody tampon until he clings to the Cross, as Isaiah did (Isaiah 64:6).

What the Bleep Does the Bible Say About Profanity? | RELEVANT Magazine

 

[LoveStory]

I strongly dislike profanity. In most cases, I feel profanity is ineffectual at delivering a message (constructively); one might only be effectual at coming across as angry and irreverent.

The first time I accidently said a profane word as a child, I was belt spanked black and blue. :shade:

 

[NJackson]

Bleep

Good article!

 

[LoveStory]

In other words, I don't care if the Bible is profane or what it says in the way of supporting profanity. Profanity is not okay with me. If my kids do it, I will spank them.

 

[james1523]

This is terrible and this "authority" is saying that God's Word is wrong. Whoever wrote this article, or rather, their professor is guilty of turning God's Word into softcore pornography. Like any Old Testament book, S.S is meant to reveal Christ to us not give us an erection (John 5:39). It's really in the same category as those who say Jesus was gay because He loved 12 men. If the Bible is meant to say "a man's protrusion" it will say "a man's protrusion". But all translations say abdomen or belly. The ivory in 5:14 is referring to the belly/bowels/abdomen/intestines (same word used in Phil 1:8) which is in reference to tender feelings. Look up Strong's, it says belly. Maybe Strong's is in league with the cover up too? I don't believe that the translators were shy of using "naughty words" if they had to, they already have referred to semen and other bodily fluids, right? If 5:14 did not mean belly it would not say belly. For anyone like this authority professor who is too blind to figure it out, Song of Solomon is not an erotic fiction but about Christ and His relationship or marriage with the church (His Bride). Solomon represents Christ and the Shulamite represents the Bride of Christ, the Church. The numerous cross references that can be made between S.S. and the New Testament confirms this. For example, the sweet mouth of the man in SS 5:16 can be cross referenced to Luke 4:22, the sweet words of grace coming from Christ's lips, and the breasts in 4:5 refer to us like babes being nourished by the pure milk of the Word (1 Peter 2:2), the lilies in in 4:5 refer to the field of rest Jesus refers to in Matt 6:28.

So when folks like this professor read SS 4:5 - two breasts.. like fawns that feed among lilies, they are thinking of a beautiful woman with two breasts. Yes that's what it says but that's not what it means.
The message that God wants to convey to us by SS 4:5 it that He wants us, like babes, to suckle on His Word as pure milk for our nourishment and satisfaction, and find the place of rest signified by the lilies, so that we do not worry or anxious about anything! (1 Peter 2:2, Matt 6:28). You see the difference between using God's Word like softcore porn, and reading it's true meaning?

As for swear words.. Eph 4:29 is about New Testament living. It is higher standard than the Old Testament. Maybe the old testament Jews and Pharisees cussed and what not, but the New testament Christian has much more self control over their tongue. In the OT they were allowed to curse and cuss, Jew are still cussing and cursing each other, Christians and muslims today, but in the NT we are only allowed to bless, build up and encourage. The Holy Spirit which means the set-apart-from-the-world Spirit, does not allow Christians to swear. That is, of course, if you are really living in God's Kingdom. So what should Christians do instead of swear? They should thank and praise (1 Thess 5:16-18), because cursing and using bad language quenches the Spirit (1 Thess 5:19).

 

[EphremHagos]

I could not stop laughing at the expense of the GULLIBILITY of the Jewish and Christian religions including yours truly for the greater part of my life!

 

[Some Wisdom]

Are we talking profanity or merely references to human anatomy and bodily function? Even for the best of reasons, the two are often confused.

Less than a decade after the War Between the States, Congress passed the Comstock Act. Intended to prohibit gratuitously obscene literature from being transmitted by mail, the law also forbade birth control information. The reason, rather obviously, is that it is impossible to discuss birth control without rather explicit references to human anatomy.

By the way, much the same problem exists these days among the politically correct regarding spanking. As was the case over a century ago with birth control literature, it is extremely awkward - even to the point of bordering on being ludicrous - to describe how to properly administer a spanking without specific mention of a normally clothed area of the human anatomy. In fact, one rather explicit image in a comprehensive book on childcare that my wife received after the birth of our first child might be considered pornographic by more rabid opponents of spanking!

Much the same is true of nursing manuals and medical texts. Anatomical correctness is a very necessary ingredient in many of these publications.

Then there's the problem of language itself. Here's an example from the medical side of things. As commonly used, the word "stool" refers to a seat without side or back support such as a milking stool. However, the same word can also refer to a toilet seat or to fecal matter. In other words, when it comes to a particular bodily function, the word stool is a euphemism.

Now, let's just suppose for a moment that we're dealing with a language with a limited number of words in which each of those words has a very specific meaning. At a time when languages were less sophisticated, this may have been the case with the Ancient Hebrews.

Given the above situation, the common medical expression "black tarry stool" would have to be more explicitly described. Despite being extremely accurate, some persons might find the more precise and descriptive wording to be quite offensive to their sensibilities. That's why "black tarry stool" came in to use.

Another expression once common in hospitals was "3H [enema]." That one is rather vulgar. Hence, the shorthand expression.

On the other hand, pure profanity is intended to offend. It is an addition rather than a necessary description. In linguistic terms, it is a dysphemism - the opposite of a euphemism.

In the end, the intent of the language used may be more important than the expression itself.

 

[Sherri]

I've heard this topic before about Song of Solomon but I think I'll have to agree with James1523. Everything in the OT points to Christ.

 

[StoneAge]

john 14:26 But the Comforter, witch is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever i have said unto you.. this is what God's word say that the Holy Ghost will teach us this means that the Holy Ghost will teach us what the Word of God says. i also feel that we can't use “cuss words” because the Word of God says we must be different than those that don't follow a Godly path. how can we that follow Jesus the son of God talk and act the same as those that don't know the truth and also how will we then show them the right path to walk if there is no difference between us and worldly people?