Home |
Coarse Language |
|
I strongly believe
that I should always present myself as a Christian gentleman, avoiding
offense in every way in order that I might more effectively present the
true offense, the Cross. But I am not sure that the human authors of
Scripture were as careful as I try to be. The Bible uses filthy words and
concepts to portray very vividly and repulsively the true nature of evil.
How offended do you think Ezekiel’s congregation was at his diatribes
against Judah, comparing her to a slut in Ezekiel 16 and 23? Isaiah 64:6
refers to human righteousness as a “cloth of the times,” referring to
a protective cloth used during menses, something not only odious but
ceremonially defiling as well. (Leviticus 15:19-24) I have literally
preached thousands of sermons to my congregation here in Louisiana and, in
spite of being accused of being rather too graphic at times, I have never
dared to give an exposition from Ezekiel’s two filthy chapters. Ever since the Battle of Hastings, old Saxon, onomatopoetic, monosyllabic, physiological terms have been frowned on. Norman elitism looked down on all things Anglo-Saxon, and only Latin was viewed with more respect than Norman French. Consider the level of sophistication of the following words as an example: Latin, “Interrogate;” French, “Question;” Saxon, “Ask.” Added to that is the fact that so many Old Saxon words were onomatopoetic words that reminded the hearer of the actions they described—take puke and snot—merely uttering them conjures up vivid pictures in the mind. Remnants of Old Saxon earthiness are found in the King James Version of the Bible’s use of the word, piss: “But Rab-shakeh said, Hath my master sent me to thy master and to thee to speak these words? hath he not sent me to the men that sit upon the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you?” (Isaiah 36:12; Cf. 1 Samuel 25:22, 34; 1 Kings 14:10; 16:11; 21:21; 2 Kings 9:8; 18:27.) I’ll stop with these three examples, because I don’t
want to go too far and give offense. But that does not mean that
their use is absolutely proscribed. Consider the Lord’s holy apostle’s
statement in Philippians 3:8, “Indeed, I count everything as loss
because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his
sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish (SKYBALAN
[dung, crap]), in order that I may gain Christ.” ‘B. Hellenistic Judaism. ‘The employment of the word in Hell. Judaism remains
within the compass of Gk. usage. In the LXX SKYBALON, occurs only
once in a late work and in a transf(erred) sense. Sir(ach) 27:4 uses the
image of lumps of manure (KOPRIA) remaining in the sieve to
illustrate the refuse, i.e., the impurity and wickedness in the mind of
man (SKYBALA ANTHRWPOU) . . . Joseph. tells how the inhabitants of
Jerusalem, during the famine when the city was besieged by Titus, had to
search sewers and dung for something to eat, Bell(um Judaicum—Wars
of the Jews), 5, 571. . . . ‘In the NT SKYBALON is used only once by Paul at Phil. 3:8. As one who has been led to faith by Jesus Christ he is evaluating all the natural and religious factors (v. 5f.) which seemed to him to be very important in his former life: . . . “I count them all as dung.” . . . The threefold use of . . . (count, consider) forms a crescendo. The perfect . . . (v. 7) relates to conversion; since this Paul has learned to regard all his former . . . (gain as loss) . . . for Christ’s sake. The present . . . (count, consider) (v. 8a) confirms that this is his judgment now. The second present . . . (count, consider) (v. 8c) strengthens this by substituting SKYBALON for ZHMIA (loss). The intensification lies in the element of resolute turning aside from something worthless and abhorrent, with which one will have nothing more to do. The choice of the vulgar term stresses the force and totality of this renunciation. The divine privileges of Israel (R[omans] 3:1 ff.; 9:4 f.) and the spiritual character of the Law are not herewith denied. But the striving for self-righteousness by one’s own achievement is unmasked as . . . (having put confidence in flesh) (v. 3), as a carnal and worldly enterprise, the complete antithesis of faith. Materially, perhaps, Paul chose SKYBALA, which in religious Hellenism was used for the dualism of the divine and the secular . . ., to echo the contrast between spirit and flesh, XRISTOS (PNEUMA) and SARX, in the passage. To the degree that the Law is used in self- justification, it serves the flesh and is not just worthless but noxious and even abhorrent. The two elements in SKYBALON, namely, worthlessness and filth, are best expressed by a term like “dung.” ‘The post-apost(olic). fathers do not use the word.’
Friedrich Lang, “SKYBALON,” Theological Dictionary of the
New Testament, (Vol. 7, Page 445-447). ‘IV.—In any event, the word means what must
be eliminated. J. Huby’s comment is exactly right, in spite of the
anachronism: “All of that is worth no more than the contents of a
garbage can.” {J. Juby, Les Epitres de la captivite, Paris, 1934, p.
335} To convey the crudity of the Greek, however: “It’s all crap.”
{The translation of E. Osty . . . in Ecole de langues orientales
anciennes: Memorial du Cinquantenaire, Paris, 1964 . . ..}’ [Ceslas
Spicq, The Theological Lexicon of the New Testament, (Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson, 1994) Vol. 3, pp. 263-265 (emphasis mine.)] |