Introduction
Interest in vulgar and obscene speech has re-emerged in Christian discourse. In light of emerging internet personalities who model and advocate for uncouth and sinful speech, renewed attention to this topic is needed and welcome. What restrictions does the Bible place on speech? Does the Bible utilize harsh, vulgar, and obscene language? And if so, should Christians mimic its literary expression in speech and writing?
What follows constitutes an introduction and overview of the upcoming Theopolis intensive course, The Obscene Realm, which investigates the world of vulgarity, obscenity, and profanity in the Bible. The aim of this essay is to survey the arena of the ‘obscene realm’ by considering what is involved in the current discussion regarding Christian speech with the goal of refining the issue and offering a path toward resolution.
Such topics of the ‘obscene realm’ in the Bible often concern issues of bodily excretion, physical maladies, and sexual misconduct. But they also occur with respect to human anatomy, humor, marital intimacy, and idolatrous worship. As such, this essay samples and highlights several so-called ‘euphemisms’ in biblical literature which have garnered attention as ‘shock-topics.’ But it also surveys examples of biblical ‘dysphemism,’ a term which describes language that is intentionally vulgar and explicit. These latter Scriptural features which lack euphemistic expression are often left untreated, not only in contemporary translations, but throughout the history of interpretation as well. And understandably so. In dealing with the topics of both pervasive euphemism and explicit obscenities, we must ask how we should apply this to our lives. Should Christians speak like and embody the entire speech-world of the Bible?
In discussing such potentially sensitive topics, I do not seek to make light of them. Rash words are like sword thrust. And even though I interact with this topic in research and writing, I actually want to see less profanity in the world. Not more. But I also hold that vulgarity and profanity can be a powerful tool in the arsenal of for Christian witness. But it must be wielded with wisdom. However, many serious and committed Christians can be, and are, rightly offended by these issues. But this sensitivity might be at points improperly aligned and misplaced.
While biblical literature does not at first glance display features of vulgarity and profanity, it in no way shrinks from the obscene. Rather, the obscene, the earthy, and the gritty permeate the biblical story with an array of literary presentations. This ranges from sarcasm, satire, and mockery, to euphemisms for sexual obscenity. But it also applies to robustly vulgar covenant curses which contain profane covenant curse-words. For the most part, access to the obscene realm is largely reserved for those with ears to hear. But not always. Sometimes the language is naked and unashamed.
Status Quaestionis
Much discussion around Christian speech has, not surprisingly, centered around Douglas Wilson as a figurehead. A centerpiece for Wilson’s stance on sharp and provocative speech can be found in his 2003 work, A Serrated Edge: A Brief Defense of Biblical Satire and Trinitarian Skylarking.[i] Wilson’s book presents a concise yet comprehensive survey of satire and mockery in biblical literature. But it also sets forth a case for its use in Christian discourse. As such, teaching and incorporating wit, satire, mockery, and taunts in Christian speech constitute an important element in Christian discipleship. In this essay, Wilson and his position serve as a proxy for a view which closely resembles my own. And so, I situate his view among recent voices which warn against his positions.
Wilson’s Serrated Edge illustrates how the Scriptures convey such satirical rhetoric on a spectrum from lighthearted Horatian sarcasm to biting Juvenalian satire. And he suggests that such rhetoric can also include obscenities, vulgarity, and profanity. Sometimes sword thrusts fit the occasion. Backed by maturity and wisdom, the Christian can model the Bible in all is cutting wit, glorious taunts, and prophetic profanity. Not only does the Bible contain this range of rhetorical features, the Christian should embody a tota biblia approach to the world as walking, breathing, micro-cosmic Bibles.
Heuristically, four approaches to the issue of obscenity and vulgarity can be situated on a spectrum ranging from the profane to the pietistic. The serrated and reserved approaches fit somewhere in the middle. Only the latter two receive attention in this essay since the far ends of this spectrum are difficult to defend in light of the boundaries and freedoms of Scripture. Christian are to avoid ‘foolish talk and crude joking’ (Eph 5:3) while several examples of prophetic and apostolic sharpness serve as examples for imitation.[ii] As such, most Christians involved in the current discussion stand in the middle of the two extremes, largely favoring a more reserved posture toward vulgarity and obscenity.
Two figures in particular have voiced strong disagreement with the serrated edginess of Wilson’s position. Denny Burk of Kenwood Baptist Church in Louisville, KY and Gavin Ortlund of Truth Unites have expressed concern over Wilson’s approach in writing and video. Both concede to Wilson’s perspectives on sarcasm, satire, and with the occasional harshness of prophetic discourse in the Bible. But they offer stern warnings and critiques of his position on salacious and profane speech in the Christian life.
The elders at Kenwood Baptist spent several weeks interacting to elements of Wilson’s teaching with Denny Burk’s response to A Serrated Edge as “a biblical assessment of [Wilson’s] use of vulgarities and obscenities in his public writings and speaking.” Burk does not dispute many features highlighted in the book, such as the presence of sarcasm and satire in biblical literature: “I do not dispute that satire can [be] used in a godly way and that it can be found in the Bible.” However, Burk offers several cautions against a key feature of the book: “What I am disputing is the idea that ‘A Serrated Edge’ in our speech ought to include obscenities and vulgarities and evil epithets. Wilson not only uses such expressions, but he defends them.”[iii] In his conversation with Joe Rigney, Gavin Ortlund, who affirms some level of legitimacy for harsh and prophetic speech as well, also offers severe criticism of any discourse which employs profanity: “There is simply no excuse whatsoever for this kind of language. It is a scandal to the gospel that a minister would use sexualized insults like this.”[iv]
Burk objects to several of Wilson’s appeals to and defenses of obscene speech in biblical literature. He specifically highlights, contra Wilson, how the equestrian descriptions in Ezekiel 23:20 do not contain actual obscenities. They are conveyed instead with euphemisms. The Bible doesn’t speak with vulgarity and profanity. Rather, the prophets pull back from the uncouth by employing patterned euphemistic expressions. So, in light of the prohibition of foolish talk and crude joking from Ephesians, Burk notes: “Anyone who argues that the apostles and prophets use the very language prohibited in this verse cannot avoid the conclusion that [the] Bible is contradicting itself.”[v] I disagree. But more on this below.
At the end of the day, Burk and Ortlund are concerned about Wilson’s overly harsh and profane prophetic tone. And their opposition to Wilson specifically concerns his use of explicit profanity, especially that which refers to sexual anatomy. For them, the Bible never uses profanity. It is never explicitly obscene. And if obscenity is present, it is conveyed through euphemism. If this is true, then Wilson is in serious error. He should repent from his approach, and should recant his works. But I don’t think that Burk and Ortlund are correct in how they understand the Bible’s own view of the obscene real and its use of vulgarity, obscenity, and profanity. And since Christians are to look like the Bible in meditation of heart, words of mouth, and action in the world (i.e., tota biblia), if the Bible contains verbal obscenities, there must be a place for this kind of speech in upright Christian living.
Vulgarity, Obscenity, and Euphemisms
In what follows, I aim to illustrate that the Bible is actually quite variegated in its references to the vulgar and obscene, and often times employs harsh and explicit language. Even when euphemisms are used to express the vulgar and obscene, they often draw more attention to their referents than not. Just by labeling a term or discourse euphemistic doesn’t entail the absence of vulgarity or obscenity. Such euphemistic ‘diversion’ actually draws the attentive reader to discover the graphic meaning more powerfully. This could be understood, not as a feature of euphemism, but rather as a marker of poetic insinuation and innuendo, which seems to be the most typical manner of conveying biblical vulgarity and obscenity in the Bible. In what follows, I survey basic euphemisms and dysphemisms in biblical literature before interacting with examples which highlight more vulgar and obscene elements of biblical language. Since the Hebrew Bible and Septuagint are my primary research areas, the following discussion revolves around examples from these corpora.
Several expressions in the Bible represent what we typically mean by euphemism: “the substitution of a word that is unpleasant, offensive, or taboo with another word.”[vi] For example, dying and deceased kings are said to ‘lie down’ (Isa 14:8), ‘sleep’ (Jer 51:39), and ‘to go the way of all the earth’ (1 Kgs 2:2). Sexual intercourse is also desribed with euphemistic expressions such as ‘to laugh’ (Exod 32:6), ‘to lie down with’ (Gen 19:32), ‘to love’ (Gen 24:67), ‘to know’ (Gen 4:1), and ‘to enter into’ (Gen 16:14). When false charges are are heaped upon Naboth that he ‘cursed God and king’ in 1 Kings 21:10-13, the Hebrew contains the euphemistic expression that ‘Naboth blessed God and king’ in order to soften an otherwise blasphemous expression.[vii]
In contrast to euphemism, biblical literature often contains dysphemistic expressions which employ harsh or unpleasant terminology instead of more neutral expressions. An example of such an expression for worthless or contemptuous men occurs six times in Samuel-Kings.[viii] In 1 Kings 14:10, Ahijah the prophet speaks to the wife of Jeroboam about the destruction that will come upon his kingdom: ‘I will bring harm upon the house of Jeroboam and will cut off from Jeroboam every male.’ The phrase ‘every male,’ however, is the dysphemistic Hebrew phrase ‘those who urinate on a wall.’ In contrast to a typical way of speaking of worthless men as ‘sons of Belial’ (1 Sam 2:12) or ‘empty men’ (Judg 11:3), this way of speaking is intentionally vulgar. As such, contemporary translations tend to create euphemistic renderings of them.
Another kind of dysphemism occurs in the speech of the Rabshakeh to Hezekiah’s men in Isa 36:12. Here, the Rabshakeh mocks Yhwh and taunts the people of Judah, ‘who are doomed . . . to eat their own dung and drink their own urine.’ The terms translated ‘dung’ and ‘urine’ here do not capture the dysphemistic and vulgar terminology of the Hebrew text. We know this because the reading tradition of the Hebrew Bible (called the Qere) diverges from the written tradition (called the Ketiv) at this specific point in order to avoid such profane terminology. The context of eating and drinking excrata is vulgar enough already, but language here is profane, suggesting something akin to our contemporary ‘sh-t’ and ‘p-ss.’ As such, a reading tradition developed which attempted to soften such speech in public reading.
Small marginal notes exist in manuscripts which point to reading aids, indicating that what is found in the Hebrew text itself should not be read out loud. In certain cases, such passages were perceived to be too inappropriate. Instead, the Hebrew text was to be read according to the suggestion in the marginal note. This feature of Ketiv-Qere euphemisms is well-attested in the Hebrew Bible and occurs on many occasions with a unique set of terms involving “such unmentionables as excreta, shameful infirmities, and rape.”[ix] In this specific instance, the Qere reading suggests that ‘sh-t’ be read as ‘dung’ or ‘excrement’ and ‘p-ss’ should be read as ‘waters of their feet.’[x] The same reading tradition is also present in the ancient Greek translations of this passage from Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion. The fact that ancient readers substitute the dysphemistic semantics of these terms with euphemistic meanings is a clear indicator that the words preserved in the Hebrew text are themselves vulgar and profane.[xi]
These kinds of euphemisms and dysphemisms are straightforward. One word replaces another. They are similar to what Burk had in mind above when he dismissed the presence of actual obscenity in Ezekiel 23:20. But before treating this prophetic passage, I survey other so-called euphemisms in order to highlight how the phenomena of euphemism in the Bible often heightens the obscenities they purport to cover up. In contrast straightforward euphemisms, the following passages constitute examples of euphemistic innuendo and insinuation which are reserved for careful readers. And such readers are guided to referents that are more obviously obscene than they otherwise would have been based on the lexemes alone. But we shouldn’t expect anything less from biblical literature. It is the glory of God to cover up a matter, but the glory of kings to search it out (Prov 25:1).
An often overlooked, yet subtle and shocking instance of this kind of euphemism occurs in the story of Joseph and Potiphar’s wife in Genesis 39:6-9. Potiphar brings Joseph into his house, and God enables Joseph to succeed in all his work. Potiphar sets all things into Joseph’s hand, and Joseph becomes his chief overseer. But an exception to this authority occurs in verse 6. Joseph is not permitted to partake of the food Potiphar eats: ‘So he left all that he had in Joseph’s charge, and because of him he had no concern about anything except the food he ate’ [מְאוּמָה כִּי אִם־הַלֶּחֶם אֲשֶׁר הוּא אוֹכֶל]. This could be and has been seen simply as a restriction upon Joseph from eating Potiphar’s food-at-table. But in light of the ensuing story, it is hard to miss how ‘eating food’ suggests sexual intimacy.
As the story advances, Potiphar’s wife entices Joseph, to which he responds: ‘Potiphar has put everything in my charge . . . he has not kept from me anything except you’ [מְאוּמָה כִּי־אִם אוֹתָךְ]. In the Hebrew text, the literary and thematic parallels are evident between the phrases ‘anything except the food he ate’ and ‘anything except you.’ As such, these restrictions should be viewed as one, portraying sexual intercourse as the enjoyment of a meal. The woman is the food and the sexual act is culinary delight.[xii]
This kind of ‘euphemism’ isn’t required to convey the message. There are ways to say that Potiphar placed sexual restrictions upon Joseph without such sexual-culinary evocations. But the language of Genesis employs this ‘euphemism’ in order to actually portray sexual intercourse in a startling way: ‘My wife is my sexual food. Only I am allowed to eat her. You may not taste of her.’[xiii] When people evoke ‘euphemism’ to explain away the Bible’s graphic content, this is not typically what they have in mind. Instead, the ‘euphemism’ we see here is an evocative and sexualized expression reserved for those engaged in meditative interpretation of literature. It’s an invitation to see what is actually going on. It’s reserved for the wise. But the salacious reality present and dramatic. This ‘euphemism’ unveils the graphic.
Two other passages with similar associations of meals and sexual intercourse can be seen in the book of Proverbs. Within the sonship discourse of Proverbs 1:1-9:18, readers encounter the paths of Lady Wisdom and Lady Folly. Both of these women are beautiful and invite young men to intimacy. Wisdom is the faithful bride and Folly is the unfaithful prostitute. Whereas Lady Wisdom leads to long life and blessing, Lady Folly brings her subjects to death and destruction. Both women offer invitations to meals, Lady Wisdom offers marital intimacy associated with the intoxicating waters of a wife’s breasts. Lady Folly offers illicit sexual intercourse portrayed as an aromatic and culinary experience.
Proverbs 9:18 makes this plain where Folly states: ‘Stolen water is sweet and bread eaten in secret is pleasant.’ Coming from the adulterous Lady Folly, partaking of stolen water and and secret bread describes participating in illicit sexual intercourse. This sweet and stolen water contrasts the godly waters of sexual intoxication from Prov 5:15-20. And expressions of this kind aren’t euphemistic so as to cover up something obscene. They don’t pass over their content and then move on. They are invitations to reflect on the relationship between sexual obscenity and sexual glory. These expressions are poetically artful and evocative, and they heighten and unveil sexual experience as a sensuous culinary delight.[xiv] Lady Folly invites the fool to devour her sexually as one would a meal. But this meal consumes the one who partakes of it just as Sheol swallows its captives alive.
Another example from Proverbs speaks of sexual obscenity in similarly shocking ways by appealing to culinary imagery. And while this example may be understood as generally euphemistic, it does not really cover up or bypass its graphic referent. Instead, the evocative language undoes any softening of its subtlety. The words in fact amplify the obscenity being treated. In speaking about the generic adulterous woman, Proverbs 30:20 notes: ‘This is the way of an adulteress: she eats and wipes her mouth and says, ‘I have done no wrong.’’
This passage is not about table manners. And it does not simply describe the casual and flippant approach with which adulteresses engage in sexual immorality. Rather, it describes in subtle yet evocative language a different kind of table manner. Eating with and wiping the mouth describes female anatomy, perhaps with the double meaning of both oral sexual activity along with that involving female genitalia. The adulterous woman commits sexual immorality as if it she were gobbling up a meal. She dirties then wipes off her ‘mouth,’ only to proceed with life per usual. Nothing obscene to see here. Just another meal.
I now return to the aforementioned passage from Ezekiel 23:20 about which Burk and Wilson disagree. The larger context of Ezekiel 23:1-49 narrates Israel’s unfaithfulness to Yhwh as the story of two sisters, Oholah and Oholibah, who ‘play the whore’ in committing sexual immorality with the nations, Egypt, Assyria, and Babylon. In his narration, Ezekiel employs extremely harsh speech and imagery which is undeniably graphic and obscene. With reference to Israel’s idolatry as gross sexual immorality with Egyptian men, verse 20 states: ‘You lusted after lovers whose flesh is the flesh of donkeys, and whose issue is the issue of horses.’
The reference to male genitalia and its procreative power is evident here. However, Burk denies that reference to the ‘flesh’ of donkey’s constitutes an obscene term since the Hebrew term ‘flesh’ may function as a euphemism for the male member. He notes: “Yes, it’s a reference to horses and donkeys in heat, but the author avoids referring directly to the sexual anatomy of these animals and instead uses the euphemism ‘flesh.’ . . . this word is a euphemism in this very text.”[xv] Burk is correct to note that the term ‘flesh’ may function as a euphemism in the Hebrew Bible. But I think he is mistaken in seeing that its usage here conveys anything but obscenity. What’s not apparent to me is that Ezekiel is somehow avoiding the obscene by employing this so-called euphemism. If somebody started talking this way in public, we would surely be quick to blush since the ‘euphemism’ has lost its force.
In context, the reference to ‘flesh’ and ‘issue’ is not primarily about equines in heat, but specifically refers to the size of genitalia and the intense climaxes of the sexual acts involved.[xvi] This is confirmed by analyzing the term ‘issue,’ which is an obscene, intense, and exaggerated reference to ejaculation. The fairly neutral or ‘euphemistic’ expression for male emission can be is seen in texts like Leviticus 15:16: ‘when a laying down of seed would go out from a man, he shall wash his flesh with water.’ That softer expression, however, is not what Ezekiel intended when he employed the term zirmâh, which is poorly rendered as ‘issue.’
Even though the specific noun zirmâh only occurs here, the term is related to the noun zerem and the consonantal stem z-r-m. In the Hebrew Bible, these latter terms describe meteorological downpours (Psa 77:18), raging waters (Hab 3:10), rainstorms (Isa 28:2), and mountain rains which require taking cover (Job 24:8). Without overdoing it, we should recognize that this ‘issue’ from horses is portrayed with extremely graphic imagery.[xvii] These ejaculations are portrayed as downpours and cloudbursts. It’s gross. But it’s there. And contrary to Burk and Ortlund’s reservations about what biblical literature can do, it’s talking about the sexual anatomy in disgusting and obscene ways. But that’s just the point. It’s meant to shock readers with salacious and obscene imagery because Israel’s harlotry is just as obscene.
Just because Ezekiel doesn’t employ specific terms for genitalia that we think are obscene or vulgar in the English language doesn’t mean this passage isn’t vulgar and obscene. Words garner their meanings in context. And the context here is wild. As Wilson notes: “Now if you think that all this is just euphemism, I really don’t know what to say. And if you want to try to make the case that it is all euphemistic, then you really need to deal with the flow of the whole passage, and not just find one word in it that isn’t crude necessarily, provided you look it up in isolation in a lexicon.”[xviii]
To my mind, Wilson’s point holds and is confirmed by the examples detailed above. Even though an individual lexeme might be considered to be softened for the sake of euphemism, the referents to which these euphemistic terms and phrases point are actually drastic, harsh, vulgar, and obscene. To talk about Israel’s adultery with animals is shocking enough. But then to describe and apply the size of equine genitals and the flood of their procreative emissions to Egyptian men cannot be seen as anything except obscene and vulgar. Instead of this passage speaking in euphemisms, it is shockingly dysphemistic with its heightened obscenity. If you spoke this way in church or in the workplace, you would be disciplined. But there you have it. The word of Yhwh came to Ezekiel and this is what he said. And at the end of the day, the contexts and content of these passages undo claims to such such so-called euphemisms. So, Ezekiel probably got in trouble after preaching this sermon.
Concluding Thoughts
So, where do we go from here? I assume the concept of tota biblia in this essay, an assumption which undergirds much of what I think Christians should aim for in their speech. By this, I mean that Christians should live, speak, and act, not only in accordance with biblical teaching, but as living Bibles. They should embody the biblical story and the biblical way of speaking about the world. I derive this position in part from Psalm 19:7-14. The word of God should live and dwell within, forming Christ within us, and transforming us with its rhetoric. From this perspective, Christians can and should speak in the ways the Bible speaks. And since the Bible speaks with variegated language, Christians can and should model this variety.[xix] We must hold this together with the Pauline mandate to abstain from filthiness, foolish talk, and crude joking. And I don’t see a contradiction here.
But I also think the Bible bestows certain virtues and gifts to specific people in the body of Christ. And so, while the calling to speak with a serrated tongue is a good gift, it doesn’t belong to everybody. It belongs to certain men, and likely to those of a certain office in the church as pastor, elder, or teacher. It definitely doesn’t belong to children or young, quarrelsome men, who are always looking for a fight. Profanity is a weapon, and those who brandish weapons glibly are the kinds of people who shouldn’t have them at all. But for the wise, mature, and well-trained man, one who is accountable for his actions to a faithful community, a sling-shot, some brass knuckles, or a pistol-whip may be exactly what he needs to fulfill a calling of sharp rebuke. A word fitly spoken should sometimes break the teeth. But those with this responsibility should conceal-carry their sidearms. Don’t let the wicked know what you’re capable of. You only draw your weapons when its a matter of life or death.[xx]
Matthew J. Albanese (DPhil, University of Oxford) is assistant professor of Biblical Studies at Union University in Jackson, TN. His primary research interests include the literatures, languages, and textual histories of the Hebrew Bible and the Septuagint. He is the author of the recent SBL Press monograph, Translation Technique and Literary Structures in Greek Isaiah 13:1-14:2.
NOTES
[i]Douglas Wilson, A Serrated Edge: A Brief Defense of Biblical Satire and Trinitarian Skylarking (Moscow, ID: Canon Press), 2003.
[ii]For a practical template, see Clinton Manley, “How Then Shall We Mock? Ten Principles for Wielding the Sword of Holy Satire,” Christ Over All (2025): https://christoverall.com/article/longform/how-then-shall-we-mock-ten-principles-for-wielding-the-sword-of-holy-satire/
[iii]Denny Burk, “Speaking With a Serrated Edge,” Kenwood Baptist Church (2023): 1-17: https://www.dennyburk. com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/2023-10-22-Speaking-with-a-Serrated-Edge-All-Church-Sunday-School.pdf
[iv]Gavin Ortlund and Joe Rigney, “Should Christians Use Profanity?,” Truth Unites (September 1, 2025): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSgjEQHwhGs. This hour-long discussion is a fruitful and constructive discussion which aptly situates the central positions on the spectrum presented above. See Ortlund’s previous video on the same topic: “Should Pastors Use Profanity,” Truth Unites (August 25, 2025) : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vNPZ6Ts8Iw&t=903s. Ortlund is particularly concerned to avoid speaking about and highlighting female anatomy in satirical and cutting speech. On several occasions, he notes: “We don’t have any biblical grounding whatsoever for use of speech that is personally demeaning to individuals about the size of [female] body parts”; “No greater unmasking is occurring by targeting the specific size of body parts. . . . We don’t find the prophets going around talking about the size of other people’s bodily organs”; “No further evil has been unmasked by telling us the size of these body parts . . .” I think an appeal to several passages in the Old Testament, Ezekiel 16:26 23:20 and Jeremiah 5:8 notwithstanding, should temper these kinds of claims.
[v]Burk, “Speaking With a Serrated Edge.”
[vi]Scott Noegel, “Euphemism in the Hebrew Bible,” in Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics Online. Edited by Geoffrey Khan. Leiden: Brill, 2013.
[vii]This expression occurs 5 other times in the Hebrew Bible: Psa 10:3; Job 1:5, 11; 2:5, 9. For further discussion, see Douglas Mangum, “Euphemism in Biblical Hebrew and the euphemistic ‘bless’ in the Septuagint of Job,” HTS Teologiese Studies/ Theological Studies 76.4 (2020): 1-7.
[viii]See 1 Sam 25:22; 25:34; 1 Kgs 14:10; 16:11; 21:21; 2 Kgs 9:8. The King James is notorious for rendering the phrase as ‘him that pisseth against the wall.’
[ix]See the following work for a comprehensive survey of these Ketiv-Qere features: Aaron Hornkohl, “Ketiv-Qere Euphemisms,” in The Historical Depth of the Tiberian Reading Tradition, Cambridge University Press (2023), 67-79.
[x]Interestingly, the euphemism ‘waters of their feet’ contains within itself the euphemism ‘feet,’ which frequently refers to male genitalia.
[xi]This kind of speech does not only occur with unsavory characters. In addition to the Rabshekah’s profane speech in Isaiah, Moses, the prophets, and the narrators of several biblical books also employ similar dysphemistic expressions.
[xii]For corroboration on this topic, see the brief discussion in Victor Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 18-50, NICNT (1995), 461-63: “There is an interesting rabbinic tradition (see Gen. Rabbah 86:6) to the effect that the phrase ‘the food he consumed’ is a euphemism, a reference to Potiphar’s wife. Note how in Exod. 2:20 Jethro’s word to his daughters to invite Moses to his home so he can ‘eat bread’ is followed by the note in the next verse (v. 21) that Moses married one of his daughters. . . . About the only thing Potiphar has not left in Joseph’s care is the preparation of his food (v. 6). Joseph does not repeat that exception; instead he substitutes Potiphar’s wife for the food as being off-limits to him, and understandably so.”
[xiii]Figural resonances with the temptation narrative in Genesis 3:1-7 should be apparent.
[xiv]Song of Songs 2:3-5 speaks in similar graphic ways with respect to a woman tasting a man.
[xv]Burk, “Speaking With a Serrated Edge.” Whether or not this term is a euphemism for ‘penis’ is difficult to determine since it remains unclear what the actual term for the male member is in the first place. The following list of terms is employed in the Hebrew Bible for ‘penis,’ none of which is exclusively employed for genitalia: יַד ‘hand,’ רֹאשׁ ‘head’ (Judg 5:30), מַקֵּל ‘rod’ (Hos 4:12), פַּחַד ‘penis, testicle’ (Job 40:17), שְׁכֹבֶת ‘emission of semen’ (Lev), שָׁפְכָה ‘penis’ (Deut 23:2), קֹטֶן ‘little’ (1 Kings 12:10), בֶּרֶךְ ‘knee’ (Ezek 21:7).
[xvi]This is confirmed elsewhere in Ezekiel. See Ezek 16:26, where the Egyptians with whom Israel whores after are describe as גִּדְלֵי בָשָׂר ‘those large of flesh’ in reference to male genitalia. Contra Ortlund, drawing attention to sexual organs in mockery is not outside the purview of prophetic acceptability.
[xvii]I came to these conclusions through original lexical and textual work. But such observations are also confirmed in the standard interpretations and commentaries. See Moshe Greenberg, Ezekiel 21-37, The Anchor Bible (1997); Leslie Allen, Ezekiel 20-48, Word Biblical Commentary 29 (1990); Daniel Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 1-24, NICOT (1997); Walther Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, Chapters 1-24, Hermeneia (1979).
[xviii]Wilson, “The Little Drummer Boy Responds to Denny Burk,” Blog & Mablog (2025).
[xix]Wilson’s explicit language has frequently been mischaracterized and misrepresented through statistical clustering by Ortlund, Burk, and DeYoung, who make it seem that explicit speech constitutes the majority of Wilson’s discourse when it in fact constitutes an incredibly small minority of his terminology. On his New York Times podcast, Ross Douthat likewise notes (my summary): “You have an entire style. And you have defended this style at length, that says it is perfectly Christian to speak the language of insult, to call people . . . lumberjack dykes, small-breasted biddies, gaytards, and then some other phrases that I’m not going to us on a podcast like this one.” Wilson replies to these statistically exaggerated references (my summary): “I’ve written millions of words, and you can go through and pick out all the jalapeños and you can make them into a jalapeño paste and put them all onto one cracker and get a completely different effect than what is happening real time in these real battles.” But if Wilson has written at minimum one millions words (he has clearly written more), and he has only used profanity 20 times, his use of profanity constitutes less that .002% of his content. As the discussion above about clear profanity suggested, there are roughly 20 explicit words out of the 308,000 words in the Hebrew Bible (i.e., .0065%), rendering the biblical writers three times more explicit with their profanity than Wilson. For this data, see Hornkohl, “Ketiv-Qere Euphemisms,” (2023).
[xx]For a review of Wilson’s work which addresses the practical, see the helpful comments in John Frame, “Review of Douglas Wilson’s A Serrated Edge,” (2012): https://frame-poythress.org/review-of-douglas-wilsons-a-serrated-edge/