It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to weigh in on Matt Albanese’s essay, “The Obscene Realm of Biblical Euphemism and Dysphemism.” Full disclosure: Matt is a good friend. Indeed, we are colleagues at Union University, where we both teach in the School of Theology and Missions. I also count Douglas Wilson, Denny Burk, and Gavin Ortlund as friends. It is a small world.
A little desk clearing. Early on in his essay Matt situates his argument against the backdrop of Douglas Wilson’s Serrated Edge (first published in 2003, with a second edition published in 2026). I have benefitted from Wilson’s work for some three and a half decades. Indeed, when I was an M.Div. student at Southern Seminary (Louisville, KY), I somehow ended up on the mailing list for Credenda/Agenda when it first came out. But I had never read Serrated Edge, so I read it in order to write this reflection.
It is understandable that Matt situates his essay against the backdrop of the conversation that particularly includes Wilson’s work, including The Serrated Edge. I picked up Wilson’s bookexpecting to read a lengthy defense of the proper use of obscenity. But Wilson’s work is really not arguing such except in one chapter (Chapter Five, “The Language of Paul”), where Wilson deals with Paul’s use of the Greek word skubalon (which can mean “excrement”—Philippians 3:8),[1] as well as where Paul says that certain enemies should emasculate themselves (Galatians 5:11-12),[2] Wilson’s book is really or mainly about satire. That is, Wilson is trying to make a judicious case for the contemporary (and proper) use of satire, given that the Bible, including the Lord Jesus, regularly does so.
In his chapter on objections to his proposal, Wilson deals forthrightly with perhaps the strongest objection, which is something like, “Well, the prophets and apostles and Jesus himself may use sarcasm and wit and even mockery, but certainly we are not prophets nor apostles, and of course we are not the God-Man as Jesus is. Therefore, their use of satire doesn’t give us license to do the same.” Wilson’s riposte is to the point: we are commanded to imitate Jesus. He is our model. So, doesn’t it follow that our speech would at least at times look like His (as well as that of the prophets and apostles)? Nonetheless, and interestingly, Wilson does consider that we—of course—are not Jesus, and this reality must shape things. So, on page 124 Wilson can write, “we must be careful not to be hasty in imitating Him, since His wisdom is perfect and ours is not.” Wilson, rightly in my view, makes a number of wise and cautious points about the use of sarcasm, and these are collected helpfully in the twenty-one point summary, “Principles of a Godly Satirist.” One should not rush to be a satirist; satire should be wielded by persons with maturity, by persons in ministry who are not young and who have the training; all things should be done in love; we are always trying to live at peace; satire should be a marked minority of one’s discourse, etc.
As I read Wilson, the strongest aspect of his case is that Jesus himself utilized wit, sarcasm, and mocking. Thus, mutatis mutandis (with the necessary changes being made), the Christian can—and should—do likewise.
While I expected The Serrated Edge to contain a defense of the use of what is generally called obscene language, it really does not. Those defenses and articulations by Wilson can be found elsewhere.
So, on to Matt’s paper. Matt’s interests somewhat overlap with Wilson’s The Serrated Edge, but Matt is more explicitly interested in various euphemisms and dysphemisms in the Bible, and the question of whether Christians should ever use such language. Matt lays out his own four-fold schema of sorts. That is, there are four basic approaches to the use of what we generally consider obscene speech:
- Profane
- Serrated
- Reserved
- Pietistic
Matt focuses on the middle two—the serrated and the reserved. That is where the debate is, and the first and fourth—the profane and the pietistic—seem like non-starters from the beginning since the Bible itself, on either of these views, would seemingly be ruled out of bounds (although “profane” is being used in this Theopolis exchange in a slightly different way, I think).
After a brief engagement with Ortlund and Burk, Matt provides a key thesis statement: “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.”
Matt pinpoints the issues helpfully. The issue is not really about sarcasm, satire, or pointed humour (though Wilson is right that many today would find those things offensive as well). And the issue is not really about whether the Bible speaks of sexual activity or desire or genitalia. It does. The key issue is whether the Bible uses profanity, obscenity, or vulgarity, and then what the implications of that question are for Christian speech. So, Matt sets himself the task of trying to get at the heart of the issue. I think his essential thesis is found in these words: “The Bible is actually quite variegated in its references to the vulgar and obscene, and often times employs harsh and explicit language.” He continues: “Even when euphemisms are used to express the vulgar and obscene, they often draw more attention to their referents than not.” Thus: “Just by labeling a term or discourse euphemistic doesn’t entail the absence of vulgarity or obscenity.”
Matt aptly shows that the Bible at times uses euphemism as well as dysphemism. The latter is especially interesting. For example, in 1 Kings 14:10 the prophet Ahijah speaks of “those who urinate on a wall” (what we see in the Hebrew text). Matt suggests this is a dysphemism, because it is intentionally “vulgar.” Is it vulgar? Perhaps. It is certainly a bit more colorful than just using the word “male” or “him” (which is what is found in the ESV, NIV, and KJV). We have here an interesting phenomenon. The Hebrew text may be engaging in dysphemism, while various English translations seem to be most certainly engaging in euphemism!
I wish Matt had worked out exactly what is happening in Isaiah 36:12. Matt’s point is a fascinating one. I think he is arguing that the written (the Ketev) text in the Hebrew is more explicit/graphic/vulgar than the read (the Qere) text. But this raises very interesting questions. Are we to take the scribe’s not-so-subtle “Hey, read it aloud this way so as not to be vulgar” as a kind of clue to how we should think about this or that word? I know Matt wants to develop this paper into a larger work. I look forward to seeing what develops, especially with regards to these Ketev/Qere issues.
It seems that key to Matt’s argument is that something like euphemism can actually draw attention to things that we might consider vulgar or obscene. For example, Matt points to Genesis 39:6-9, where Potiphar puts Joseph in charge of all things “except the food he ate.” Matt suggests that “ ‘eating food’ suggests sexual intimacy.” In short, “euphemism” is being used in a rather evocative way. I suspect Matt is correct. But is this “vulgar” or “obscene”? I am not quite sure. Does the subtlety work so that this passage actually rises above the vulgar or obscene?
Matt deals at some length with Ezekiel 23:20. In this text Oholibah (Jerusalem) “lusted after her lovers there [in Egypt], whose members/flesh were like those of donkeys, and whose issue was like that of horses.” The text is clearly speaking about the size of male genitalia and the significance of the ejaculation of these men. Yes, Matt concurs, the Hebrew “flesh” is a kind of euphemism for the male sex organ. But he suggests that the euphemism barely survives as a euphemism. The euphemism has lost its force.
Matt concludes: “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.” This is interesting. It seems to me that even in Ezekiel 23:20 (and the chapter as a whole), euphemism is indeed used at the particular level (i.e. the word “member” or “flesh” for the male sexual organ and the way ejaculation is described). Is the story as a whole, at the macro level, “obscene” or “vulgar”? We should note the obvious. Though whoredom is described, it is nonetheless described in somewhat muted, rather than in especially graphic terms (besides Ezekiel 23:20 the “worst” things get is “breasts” or “nipples” being handled—23:3). And the whoredom itself is a kind of metaphor—most likely—for a general kind of idolatry and faithlessness (though this idolatry and faithlessness no doubt included sexual immorality). So, the LORD speaking through the prophet Ezekiel chose to use the terms of whoredom (including a comment about the size of certain male genitalia and their “issue”) as a way to describe idolatry and disobedience. The language referring to the members of donkeys and their emissions is indeed somewhat shocking. Is this “obscene” and “vulgar”? Perhaps. Would the average preacher and Bible teacher get in trouble for reading this aloud and teaching on it? Perhaps.
I especially enjoyed Matt’s conclusion, though I look forward to him expanding these reflections in further work. He suggests that using what we might call more “edgy” or “provocative” language (my terms) is best reserved for certain persons in certain situations. The Bible is not giving us general license to swear or cuss or to be unnecessarily shocking or provocative in our speech. He is happy to affirm all that the Bible says about foolish, filthy, or crude talk.
I think Matt is fundamentally right that our lives (including our speech) should be marked and shaped by the entire canon. My mind went several times to Cornelius Van Til as I read Matt’s piece. Van Til could speak of “fearless anthropomorphism.” By this phrase I take Van Til to mean we should let the biblical language stand and not try to dodge it because “God couldn’t really be like that!” And as Van Til insisted, there is not some other standard out there beside the Bible which should be the ultimate authority for how we think, act, and speak. I also think Matt is correct to be cautious in our use of this or that word. The fact that we find some provocative language in the Bible (especially Ezekiel 23) is not license to have a foul mouth. But I wonder if Christians ever really have need for “profanity.” We use the right word in the right moment, and do so with all the various admonitions and examples in the Bible itself. As such, I could see a wise Christian speaking frankly about whoredom. Would I ever have need to speak about the size of someone’s genitalia or emissions? I have a hard time imagining such a scenario, but I am happy to be shaped by Scripture as I march along. The fact that the Bible speaks rather plainly—in Ezekiel 23:20—about male genitalia and emissions should certainly teach us that it cannot be the case that such speech is wrong in every circumstance (otherwise the Bible would not have spoken that way). The question of how I might, or might not, model this speech is to me a much more tricky and difficult question.
Bradley G. Green is Professor of Theological Studies at Union University (Jackson, TN), and will soon be Professor of Philosophy and Christian Theology at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (Louisville, KY). He and his wife Dianne have three children, and worship at First Baptist Church (Jackson, TN).
NOTES
[1] Douglas Wilson, The Serrated Edge (Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2026), 69-70.
[2] Wilson, Serrated Edge, 67.