The Preterist Blog ~ 100% Hyperpreterist Free|we can haz rezurekshun?

The hyperpreterists are definitely evil, but with regard to “cussing,” I think you’re reading too much Victorian and modern evangelical culture into the ancient Greek text of the NT.

This link provides a more in-depth explanation:
http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=3055

If we defined our morals based on what society or churches think seems bad, Jesus would’ve actually been a pretty bad sinner. He didn’t even wash his hands like he was supposed to.

I think you are missing the point though Drew. I am no legalist, and I get harangued for using substitutes like “crap,” but I do think we are not to abuse our freedom, and not to use words which are considered generally profane. Now some pietists would think “crap” is profane, but in our general societal norms it is not. In fact, I think it shows that I know the profane word, wish to express the concept which is not inherently profane, and purposefully chose to use a different word. Our actions are to be deliberate. Am I free to say ***t? Probably yes. Would I? No. I won’t lie and say in moments of anger or startlingly pain that I never uttered a profanity, but I make every attempt not to and to choose my words, and not let them choose me.

Thanks Drew, please see these comments:

Further, we see this text:
Col 3:6-8
Because of these things the wrath of God is coming upon the sons of disobedience, in which you yourselves once walked when you lived in them. But now you yourselves are to put off all these: anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy language out of your mouth.

The Greek word in Col 3:6-8 is αἰσχρολογία which “foul speaking”. Note also how this is used in non-biblical Greek.

Note that I referenced how the Greek word for “filthy language” was defined not in Victorian English parlance but by contemporary Greek usage. However, you are right that sometimes some of the things we find offensive are simply left-overs from “Puritanism”. This cussing issue is about not looking/sounding like the world.

[The following comment is meant to be taken as an attempt at humor...nothing more] Thank goodness, contextually, the “coming wrath” for the use of such language was directed toward those pesky Jewish “sons of disobedience” at the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 and not to us living 2,000 years beyond that event. [NOTE: Most HP do understand the concept of discipleship and accountability for their words and deeds continues as part of the New Covenant]

Yeah, hyperpreterists have a habit of making everything “just a 1st-century thing” like the need to be born-again. But I’m not so certain your statement about “most HP do understand the concept of…accountability for their words & deeds” is an accurate statement in light of how hyperpreterist “leaders” like Sam Frost & Ward Fenely & others keep telling people it is just a matter of conscience & so-called self-induced “appropriateness”. These guys make up their own theology AND their own morality.

Just my thoughts as I have read your comments.

Colossians 3:8

But now you yourselves are to put off all these: anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy language out of your mouth.

The word for “filthy language” used in this verse is the Greek aischrología, which is better translated “foul or shameful speaking.” What the Apostle is speaking of is an obscene type of language. This is the only place that the word is used in the New Testament. ‘Aischrología’ does not merely mean “filthy speech” but “words that should never be spoken, especially by a Christian.” This “filthy language” is disgraceful, and should never be used by those who claim to be living the Christian life. It is language that dishonors Christ.

In Ephesians 4:29 we read: “Let no corrupt (from the Greek saprós, that which is “rotten” or morally worthless) word proceed out of your mouth, but what is good for necessary edification, that it may impart grace to the hearers.” The contrast in this verse is the relationship between the two phrases “good for necessary edification” and “may impart grace.” Words may be used in a way which is not necessarily sinful, yet it does not lead to edification or the imparting of grace. That is, some words, which in and of themselves are not shameful, may give offence in a particular context. Biblical words like “hell” or “damn” are not shameful words when used in expressing the condemnation of an individual who will one day be judged by God. When a minister is preaching a sermon he may say that individuals who do not repent are in danger of “hell” and that God will “damn” them for their sins. The words used in this context speak the truth; they are according to the standard of God’s Word. On the other hand, when a person says “What the hell for?” (or similar wording) such phraseology does not edify; it does not impart grace to those who hear it. It is slang language which has abused an otherwise proper word (i.e., “hell”) and has made it “rotten.”

Another example would be when an individual states; “Go to hell!” Here we have a shameful use of the word “hell.” It is expressed in a way that is not instructive in warning an individual about God’s wrath and condemnation; rather it is an expletive that expresses hatred and anger. Worse, it is used in this context to invoke God’s wrath or condemnation; whereas man is not permitted such authority, except in proclaiming the Word of God.

In Colossians 4:6 the Apostle again exhorts believers to “Let your speech always be with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer each one.” Therefore, we should avoid words that are obscene that encourage a degrading or immoral habit or practice, and words that belittle or scoff Christianity. Further, we should never use words which are injurious to other individuals. In Romans 12:1-2 Paul says: “I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service. And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.”

The language Paul uses in Colossians 3:8 is identified in the context of mortification of sinful practices and habits in the life of the believer. “Filthy language” is one of the sins that he identifies. It is crude and abrasive language that was a part of the “old life,” life before Christ. But now the believer has a new and better way—a life in Christ. As Paul states: “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.” (2 Corinthians 5:17). Hence, the Christian’s language is to be “new,” as is every other part of his life. After all, says the apostle in 1 Corinthians 2:16, we “have the mind of Christ.”

Sinful language, such as Paul speaks about in Colossians 3:8, violates the sixth commandment: “You shall not murder” (Exodus 20:13), in that it does unnecessary harm to the person addressed by it. According to the Westminster Larger Catechism (Q. 135), which deals with the sixth commandment, Christians are to possess “quietness of mind” which includes a “peaceable, mild, and courteous speech and behavior.” How does one imitate Christ when his speech does not differ from the world of unbelievers? Again, Paul writes in Ephesians 5:3-4: “But fornication and all uncleanness or covetousness, let it not even be named among you, as is fitting for saints; neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks.”

Sadly, too many Christians have become desensitized by culture to good speech and the use of wholesome words. We have witnessed the onslaught of humanism which has debased our language. But it is our duty to bring cultural changes that are edifying to our fellow man in honor of our Sovereign God. This is part of the cultural mandate given in Genesis 1:26-28; we are to subdue the earth by the authority of Christ in the power of His Spirit. If words mean something, then we must treat them with the God-given respect that He demands of His creatures.

John wrote in his first Epistle that: “They are of the world. Therefore they speak as of the world, and the world hears them.” (1 John 4:2). We however are not of the world, but of Christ, and we should speak the things of truth, not the things of the world by using the vile language of the world. Our “chief end,” as taught in the Westminster Shorter Catechism (Q. 1), is to “glorify God, and to enjoy Him forever.”

As a Christian academician, it is hard to believe that educated people are willing to reduce themselves to the lowest level of humanity in any society. The use of such language, no matter the justification, only belittles the intellectual status of an individual who claims to speak the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The use of slang language (which is unprofitable), being a normative practice because it is a part of our culture and therefore acceptable, is the same mentality that has given us the ‘emergent church movement.’ Adopting, or should we say compromising the Gospel to the cultural norms of our progressive society is both destructive to Christianity and an affront to our Lord Jesus Christ. It does not speak well of those who claim that they are biblically educated and live by a higher standard of ethics which is established by God according to His Word, rather than a standard set by a godless society which is at war with the God of Scripture. St. Paul writes in Titus 2:6-8: “Likewise, exhort the young men to be sober-minded, in all things showing yourself to be a pattern of good works; in doctrine showing integrity, reverence, incorruptibility, sound speech that cannot be condemned, that one who is an opponent may be ashamed, having nothing evil to say of you.” The Puritan ministers use to say, “I preach to an audience of One - that is God.” We should have the same desire and practice. When we speak, we speak our words to One - that is God.” We are ambassadors of Christ, let us act like true representatives of our Lord. Paul wrote: “Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ’s behalf, be reconciled to God. For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.” (2 Corinthians 5:20-21). When we plead the truth of God, why must it be mixed with worthless language? There simply is no defense.

Despite your link, it seems to me that the best translation would be something along the lines of “evil speech.” That is, SINFUL SPEECH is bad, but trying to ascertain from just one verse what speech is sinful is a bit absurd. Any other translation is just inviting modern readers to interpret their own culture into the text.

Regarding what might constitute “evil language,” we know it’s sinful to speak unjustifiably harsh toward someone. We know it’s sinful to disrespect God. We know it’s sinful to waive the sexual privacy of couples and flaunt sexuality.

But I don’t think the disgustingness or wickedness of language has anything to do with what “profane” words are used. If you are describing a sex act in public without good cause, it doesn’t really matter whether you use the f-word or scientific jargon. Likewise, if you do use profane words but don’t mean them literally, it’s rather dubious whether you are actually being obscene.

Overall, I would suggest that the shockingness of any particular word has very little to do with its sinfulness — unless perhaps you use it at an inappropriate time. The gospel is shocking to unbelievers, but it certainly isn’t sinful to preach the gospel.

Meanwhile, the Holy Spirit himself inspired these passages, and from what I’ve read, the NIV probably doesn’t do justice to the original languages:

2 Kings 18:27
Philippians 3:8

The only specific *word* I would definitely condemn is the name of God. And even with that, I would only condemn using it in a disrespectful manner. For example, I think the ancient Jews were pretty idiotic when they refused even to SPEAK the name of God or fill in the written word with vowels.

And I don’t think the Bible prohibits all cursing either (See, e.g., Galatians 1:9, and some translations of 2 Timothy 4:14). So to condemn the phrase “go to hell” seems a bit artificial. Of course, like I said, the Bible definitely condemns uncalled-for mean-spiritedness.

Dr. Talbot, thanks for spending the time to comment on this. I know your time is limited so it means much. Thank you for adding more references & context.

Drew, I’m not so certain we are saying different things. In the original article I said:

Obviously, what is considered “filthiness/foolish talking” is cultural & in our culture even as corrupt as it is, cuss words are considered filthiness/foolish talking — especially as they are really unnecessary words, often adding nothing to the context but angst & attitude. It certainly ISN’T gentle, graceful speech. (Col 4:6)

I think you & I probably know some cuss words in foreign languages (even cultures not following the Victorian model) & yet even in those cultures a person would be considered crude to use the words. Yes, context has a lot to do with it but certain words really have no place in the context except to add angst, anger, or attitude — which ISN’T edifying.

[...] of Christian morality by claiming much of it is “only a 1st-century thing”  — see link).  I have purposely been focusing on the aspect that caused me to be a hyperpreterist for 15 years [...]

I would tend to agree with Drew on this one. There is some rather unpleasant language in both the OT and the NT, and yes, “rubbish” is a rather mild translation of the word in Philippians 3:8, as I learned from Douglas Wilson. And remember, Paul said he wished the Galatian Judaizers would castrate themselves.

Sometimes harsh words are necessary to illustrate the severity of a situation or as a polemic against certain people. So-called “curse words” in the final analysis are no different than words like “jerk” or “blockhead” - what matters is the intent of the heart. That said, it is better to, in everyday life, avoid the words which our culture deems “obscene,” not because those words are objectively bad in call cases, but because we should present ourselves professionally.

Roderick, I greatly appreciated the point you were making which caused me to do what I have only done once before, that is blog. Now twice within a week, I must be slipping.

You stated:

“Obviously, what is considered “filthiness/foolish talking” is cultural & in our culture even as corrupt as it is, cuss words are considered filthiness/foolish talking — especially as they are really unnecessary words, often adding nothing to the context but angst & attitude. It certainly ISN’T gentle, graceful speech. (Col 4:6)”

We are to use wholesome words (1 Timothy 6:3), especially those that pertain to truth of Christ in the Gospel. I think that Drew has confused two different things as having just one interpretation. I want to give an explanation for my thesis. I also agree that you have correctly assessed that Drew has stated some things of which we are agreed upon.

Roderick I want to thank you for the very kind words you offered.

Drew: Thanks for your response to my thesis on Colossians. I submit the following polemic as a counter response for your consideration. You asked about my “link,” I assume that you mean “where did I get my exegesis of Colossians 3:8?” I do may own exegetical work, so I don’t have a “link” for you to examine. Below is my last response on this topic. So if you desire to respond, you can have the last word on the issue.

Please excuse any typos or grammatical errors. I do this work after a full 12 hours of work at the seminary. Plus I am getting old! That last statement hurt! I become a senior citizen this year.

Oh, yes, if I might give an advertisement: My new book entitled “Confirming our Faith” is available at wwwnicenecouncil.com. The book deals with a Reformed covenantal view of the Sacraments as explicated in the Westminster Standards.

A POLEMIC IN RESPONSE TO DREW

Drew says: “…it seems to me that the best translation would be something along the lines of “evil speech.”

What in the Greek text, either etymologically or syntactically permits this translation of ‘aischrología’ as “evil speech”? The term ‘aischrología’ is a singular feminine noun in the accusative case. The root of ‘aischrología’ is the Greek word ‘aischros’ which translates ‘shameful’. It is combined with the Greek word ‘logos’ derived from ‘lego’ (to say) which translates ‘something said or communication.’ The root term is found in 1 Corinthians 11:6: “For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered.” This is why ‘aischrología’ is translated into our English text as “filthy (shameful) communication.” (NKJV). ‘Aischrologia’ can also denote ‘vile, dirty, vulgar, obscene, etc.’ These are all forms of sinful speech according to the text.” I read your ‘link’ and it is not a viable translation in the context of Colossians 3:8. ‘Logia’ when used as a noun in the neuter plural accusative most certainly translated as “utterance” or “oracles” However, it does not always translated ‘oracles’ because its primary meaning is ‘a word, a narrative, a statement.’ The context and its syntax would of necessity need to set the usage of the term. We do find the usage of ‘logia’ as “oracles” in Romans 3:2 where St. Paul states: “Much in every way! Chiefly because to them were committed the oracles of God. In this text the term ‘logia’ is the neuter form of ‘logios’ which translates ‘orator’ and is a diminutive of ‘logos’ which itself implies communication. However, as I pointed out, the term ‘aischrología’ in Colossians 3:8 is a singular feminine noun in the accusative case and in Romans 3:2 it is a plural neuter feminine noun in the accusative case. To press this exegesis (your link) as a valid interpretation of Colossians 3:8 would be to force the term ‘aischrología’ into an unnatural translation. Rather than as I have noted above, your view would render the term ‘aischrología’ as meaningless something.

Drew says: “That is, SINFUL SPEECH is bad, but trying to ascertain from just one verse what speech is sinful is a bit absurd.”

First, you (or the writer of your link) have mistaken the term ‘aischrología’ with the term ‘blasphemia’ (blasphemy) which proceeds ‘aischrología’ in this text. ‘Blasphemia’ which translates ‘evil speaking,’ which, in this case, is directly related to vilification against God or God’s message (something you assert latter in your thesis). It appears to me that what you have poised as the proper interpretation of Colossians 3:8 in dealing with “filthy language” is this; that no language but that type which is “disrespectful to God” is considered “evil speech.” Everything else is reduced to cultural acceptability or relativity. I may be misreading you because your response is confluent. Your explanation is fine for the term ‘blasphemia’ as it relates to the ‘vilification of God’ but it does not explain the use of the next term ‘aischrología.’ However, in my thesis, I qualified the meaning by intent and usage in various perspicuous passages of Scripture. This qualification was also explicated in light of the positive and negative use of the sixth commandment [those darn Puritans address every acceptable and unacceptable practice by Christians]. It clearly differs with what you have implied. This is why I was in whole hearted agreement with Roderick who stated so concisely: “Obviously, what is considered “filthiness/foolish talking” is cultural & in our culture even as corrupt as it is, cuss words are considered filthiness/foolish talking — especially as they are really unnecessary words, often adding nothing to the context but angst & attitude. It certainly ISN’T gentle, graceful speech. (Col 4:6).” However, my understanding concerning your statement about “evil speech” in Colossians 3:8, which translates ‘aischrología’ as “filthy language,” seems to imply or allow for an existentialistic interpretation by any cultural relativistic perspective. Further, I’m not sure that your interpretation of ‘aischrología’ does not eradicate the entire meaning of the term in this text. If that is not what you meant to imply, perhaps a restatement of your thesis would be helpful.

Drew says: “to ascertain from just one verse what ‘speech’ is sinful is a bit absurd”

This criticism seems a bit harsh, but lets allow your statement to stand for the sake of the argument. However, it seems that you have overlooked the hermeneutical concept of ‘analogy of faith’ as substantially used in my original thesis. One word in a didactic passage, with the proper understanding of its etymological and syntactical usage, along with its contextual setting, and then employing the principle of ‘scripturam ex scriptura explicandam esse’ removes the absurdity that only appears where there is a lack of consideration of these principles. An individual could simply look at parallel translations and such confusion would be put to rest. Carefully note how that each translation supports my exegesis of the text. Young’s Literal Translation renders Colossians 3:8: “but now put off, even ye, the whole — anger, wrath, malice, evil-speaking, filthy talking — out of your mouth.” The American Standard Version translates verse 8: “but now do ye also put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, railing, shameful speaking out of your mouth.” The King James Version renders verse 8: “But now ye also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth.” The New International Version translates verse 8: “But now you must rid yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips.” The Amplified Bible states verse 8 in this way: “But now put away and rid yourselves [completely] of all these things: anger, rage, bad feeling toward others, curses and slander, and foulmouthed abuse and shameful utterances from your lips!” The Revised Standard Version translates verse 8 as: “But now put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and foul talk from your mouth.” Today’s English Version: “But now you must get rid of all these things: anger, passion, and hateful feelings. No insults or obscene talk must ever come from your lips.” The New American Standard Bible: “But now you also, put them all aside: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and abusive speech from your mouth.” The Darby Bible: “But now, put off, ye also, all [these] things, wrath, anger, malice, blasphemy, vile language out of your mouth.” The New Living Translation: “But now is the time to get rid of anger, rage, malicious behavior, slander, and dirty language.” English Standard Version: “But now you must put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and obscene talk from your mouth.” The Living Bible: “but now is the time to cast off and throw away all these rotten garments of anger, hatred, cursing, and dirty language.” That is twelve (including the NKJV) Bible translations and one paraphrase that support my exegetical and hermeneutical rendering of Colossians 3:8. Either we have a dilemma in that the collective understanding of all the translators in all twelve translations are extremely poor in their interpretive and exegetical skills, or you (and the link) have simply missed the ‘telos’ of the text by flawed exegesis.
Drew says: “Any other translation is just inviting modern readers to interpret their own culture into the text.”
You need to prove this statement. It is one thing to make such a statement, but it is another to substantiate it with hermeneutical and exegetical support. Further, rethink about the twelve translations that you have just read, and how that 1000s of translators according to you view have mistranslated the Greek term ‘aischrología.’ Again, note their rendering of ‘aischrología’: (NKJV) filthy language, (YLT) filthy talking, (ASV) shameful speaking, (KJV) filthy communication, (NIV) filthy language, (TAB) foulmouthed abuse and shameful utterances, (RSV) foul talk, (TEV) obscene talk, (NASB) abusive speech, (TDB) vile language, (NLT) dirty language, (ESV) obscene talk, (TLB) dirty language [paraphrased]). It is amazing that you could consider that these textual scholars failed to exegete this text properly.

Drew says: “Regarding what might constitute “evil language,” we know it’s sinful to speak unjustifiably harsh toward someone.”

Yes, if you use the term ‘blasphemia’ in that context you would be correct. However, we are not dealing with ‘blasphemia’ but rather ‘aischrología.’ This is not the point of Colossians 3:8 concerning the translation of ‘aischrología.’ as “filthy language”, but it is consistent with Colossians 3:8’s use of the term “blasphemy.” This is where you manifest confusion in your thesis with the confluence of Greek terms that actually have different meanings.

Drew says: “We know it’s sinful to disrespect God. We know it’s sinful to waive the sexual privacy of couples and flaunt sexuality.”

Again the term ‘aischrología’ does not deal with ‘disrespect towards God,’ and the sexual privacy between a married couple, as well as, the flaunting of sexuality is also a violation of the Scripture. We are agreed on this point. Paul states this in Ephesians 5:1: “For it is shameful even to speak of those things which are done by them in secret.” Again note that the term “shameful” is the Greek term ‘aischrós’ which is the root for ‘aischrología’ and not ‘blasphemia.’

Drew says: “But I don’t think the disgustingness or wickedness of language has anything to do with what “profane” words are used.”

Why? You have stated that this is the case, but you do not prove how that your thesis validates the negating of “disgustingness or wickedness.” What Scriptural text do you suggest that this principle, as you have stated, is true? Again, where is the either a ‘specific or general analogy’ text where this is stated. Or, for that matter, are there any hermeneutical principles that would substantiate your interpretation of the text? Further, it is interesting to note that the term ‘profane’ according to American College Heritage Dictionary defines both a religious and secular use. The religions deals with “irreverence for the sacred” and the secular is “vulgar or coarse” words. In Colossians 3:8 we have two terms which represent both types of profaneness - ‘aischrología’ and ‘blasphemia.’

Drew says: “If you are describing a sex act in public without good cause, it doesn’t really matter whether you use the f-word or scientific jargon.”

First, let me point out that you have just stated the heart of my thesis. Second, I agree with you, unless there is a good cause, that which would be acceptable to the Scriptures, it wouldn’t make a difference in the coarseness of the terms, they simply are wrong outside of a biblical (good cause) context to be used. That would be the point of Colossians 3:8. (see also Ephesians 5:3-4; Ephesians 4:29; Colossians 4:6; Proverbs 15:4; Proverbs 25:11; Ecclesiastes 10:12; Matthew 12:34-35; James 1:26)
Drew says: “Likewise, if you do use profane words but don’t mean them literally, it’s rather dubious whether you are actually being obscene.”
Would that be true about terms that blaspheme God but not used literally? Say perhaps metaphorical vilification of ok? Here’s the point, obscenity is wrong whether it is explicit or implicit by use. It doesn’t matter whether you are speaking literally or metaphorically. Profane words are simply unacceptable by Scriptural principles.

Drew says: “Overall, I would suggest that the shockingness of any particular word has very little to do with its sinfulness — unless perhaps you use it at an inappropriate time.”

I agree with you on this point. However, saying things for shock value does not figure into the text of Colossians 3:8. Nevertheless, if the words are profane I would politely disagree with you and refer you to the previous points.

Drew says: “The gospel is shocking to unbelievers, but it certainly isn’t sinful to preach the gospel.”

I made a point closely related like this in my original thesis. Nevertheless, you have again missed the point of my thesis. “Shocking” is not the purview of what Scripture is addressing in Colossians 3:8. That might be the response from someone, but is not the ‘telos’ of the text in view of the mortification of sin in the life of a believer. I would also point out that the Apostle Paul states that the preaching of the Gospel is “foolishness” to the nonbeliever, not shocking. Note carefully in 1 Corinthians 1:18: “For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.” The term foolishness means ‘silly or absurdity.’ This does not relate to Colossians 3:8.

Drew says: “Meanwhile, the Holy Spirit himself inspired these passages, and from what I’ve read, the NIV probably doesn’t do justice to the original languages:”

To simply posit 2 Kings 18:27 and Philippians 3:8 is offering nothing but proof texting. Let me begin by pointing out that neither passage supports or makes your point concerning Colossians 3:8. They are examples of God using terms for expressing something factual and since it is inspired, true. Now according to the text in 2 Kings 18:27, they were being warned to consider the harshness of that happens when a people are cast into the role of military defense being stationed on the wall of a city, that is under a prolonged siege. They are eventually reduced to having no food and ultimately are left with eating and drinking their own excrements. (1) This was written under the authority of the Holy Spirit and the prohibitions of God by law are an extension of the ontological nature of God essence and not boundaries. (2) What was stated is factual and we see that recorded throughout history where cities were under siege. This was true also in 70 A.D. when Jerusalem was under siege by the Roman army. However, this text is supportive of my thesis and it does not negate or oppose it by way of being juxtaposed. In Philippians 3:8 Paul writes: “Yet indeed I also count all things loss for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as rubbish, that I may gain Christ.” The term “rubbish” should have been translated “dung.” I don’t see your point here either. This supports my thesis and does not contradict it. In the Old Testament, for example, God would tell Israel to do many acts in war that we are forbidden by His law.

Drew says: “The only specific *word* I would definitely condemn is the name of God. And even with that, I would only condemn using it in a disrespectful manner. For example, I think the ancient Jews were pretty idiotic when they refused even to SPEAK the name of God or fill in the written word with vowels.”

I agree that word(s) that vilify God are unacceptable, but the rest of your position is reject by Scripture.

Drew says: “And I don’t think the Bible prohibits all cursing either (See, e.g., Galatians 1:9, and some translations of 2 Timothy 4:14). So to condemn the phrase “go to hell” seems a bit artificial. Of course, like I said, the Bible definitely condemns uncalled-for mean-spiritedness.”

First, you cannot justify your position by simply stating that my statement is “artificial.” Again, simply saying it does not make it true. Demonstrate how this is true from actual exegesis. Otherwise it is only your ‘opinon’ not the teaching of Scripture.

We are agreed that mean spiritedness is forbidden, but again, that is not how “filthy language” is defined in Colossians 3:8.

However, the condemnation in the phrase “go to hell,” not as a slang but as “worthless language,” is wrong. I do agree that in the proper context of ministering the Word of Truth to the unbeliever “you will go to hell if you do not repent” is quite different than someone using it outside of the biblical context where it is an egregious use of the word.

Bottom line there is no justification for using “shameful, obscene, vulgar language.” There is no Scriptural text to contradict the exegesis that I have set forth. I fear that if I understand what you have given as an exposition of Colossians 3:8, you have rendered the text meaningless. Further, if ‘blasphemia’ and ‘aischrología’ in Colossians 3:8 mean the same thing, what is the purpose for the redundancy? Yes, there are redundancies in Scripture, but the text normally lends itself to the necessity of that type of usage. I don’t see that being the case in Colossians 3:8. Neither did the translators of the twelve translations above.

The above argument by Dr. Talbot doesn’t seem to undercut any of Drew’s basic points. It’s difficult and unnecessary to mount a full response to Dr. Talbot’s verbose but well-meaning argument, but a few additional thoughts:

His argument does not provide us with any rubrick by which to judge what language or subject matter is “shameful” or “vulgar”. Why is the s-word vulgar, but not the words dung or feces? Certainly the concept itself is not vulgar, and is in many instances (say, in a doctor’s office) a necessary point of discussion. The only reason the s-word gets a bad rap is because culturally it is considered “bad” - which, I readily concede, is a fine reason not to use it in everyday life, so as to present oneself in public in a respectable fashion.

The same is true with the f-word, which means nothing different than the word “copulate.” No one would object to usages of the word “copulate.” And yet the f-word gets a bad rap because of our particular culture.

What we need to do is establish a full definition of what “vulgarity” constitutes. It cannot constitute the bare minimum definitions of the concepts that words like “dung” and “s–t,” or “copulate” and “f–k,” either, since those concepts are not inherently vulgar or shameful. Even graphic descriptions have their place — see Ezekiel 23:20 — and scatological humor — like Elijah asking the Baal priests if their false god was on the toilet.

I think a better biblical definition of “vulgarity” not rest on mere concepts referred to - scatological, anatomical, sexual, etc. - but to the purpose of the language alone, and the underlying attitude of the speaker. Was it wrong for John Piper, one time at a conference, to speak of God’s discipline as “God kicking our @ss?” No. Would it be wrong for one to use it to describe the anatomy of a female after whom one was lusting? Yes. Was it wrong for Paul to say that the Judaizers should go emasculate themselves? No. Would it be wrong for me to tell a Christian brother to do the same? Yes.

Vulgarity, then, must involve a sinfulness on the part of the speaker apart from which words are chosen. Making jokes that demean women or turn them into sex objects is wrong and “vulgar.” Using sexual humor to turn people on and get them lusting is “vulgar.” Celebrating wicked things through humor and language is “vulgar.” But the seven words that have been designated in the English language as “swear-words” do not in themselves automatically possess the status of “vulgarity.”

We (PretBlog as a whole) are honored that Dr. Talbot would post on our site. His contribution to this topic was very helpful & hopefully even the folks that disagree see the level of devotion & scholarship he put into the response.

I think we can at least all agree that it is not very becoming for a Christian to sound like a pagan (cuss words or otherwise)…whether we are among a pagan Victorian culture or a Punjabi culture. Thanks for all the contributions folks!