Latest / Reformed Thinking / Hearing Holy Indirectness: Innuendo, Euphemism, and Translation Strategy in the English Bible

Transcript

Hearing Holy Indirectness: Innuendo, Euphemism, and Translation Strategy in the English Bible · Reformed Thinking

0:00
Welcome to Reform Thinking. I am.
0:02
I'm really thrilled you have pulled up a chair to join us
0:04
today. Picture yourself sitting right
0:07
here in the studio with us. You know, the third person in
0:10
this theological discussion. Because today we are undertaking
0:14
a pretty fascinating deep dive into a topic that touches every
0:17
single time you open your Bible. Yeah, it is something you
0:20
encounter constantly, whether you realize it or not.
0:22
Right. Our mission today is to examine
0:25
how the Holy Spirit utilizes what we are calling Holy
0:28
Indirectness. We are talking about the idioms,
0:31
the euphemisms, and the highly restrained language found
0:34
throughout the English Bible. We are drawing our analysis from
0:37
2 excellent theological essays for this The first is hearing
0:41
holy indirectness, and the second is veiled in modesty,
0:45
revealed in truth. Both of those sources give us
0:48
such a solid groundwork for what is honestly a very tricky
0:52
subject for modern readers. They really do.
0:54
Let us set the stage here because there is this palpable
0:59
tension that modern English readers face when approaching
1:03
the ancient texts of scripture. We often read these ancient
1:06
inspired words through modern cultural filters.
1:10
Because of our modern sensibilities, we tend to fall
1:12
into one of two traps. Which is very easy to do if you
1:16
are not paying attention. Yes, exactly.
1:18
Well, let me rephrase that. Yes, spot on.
1:21
On one hand, we sanitize the text.
1:24
We assume that because God is holy, His Word must be
1:26
completely bland and sanitized of anything that makes us
1:29
uncomfortable and that causes us to miss the actual weighty point
1:33
the author is making. That is the first trap for sure
1:35
and. On the other hand, we
1:36
sensationalize the text. We take any slightly opaque
1:39
phrase and smuggle our own crude modern connotations right into
1:43
the holy text, treating the Bible like a tabloid.
1:45
So today we are establishing a clear thesis for you.
1:48
Biblical indirectness is not a sign of Victorian prudery.
1:51
It is a purposeful, divinely inspired pedagogical tool.
1:55
That word pedagogical is key there.
1:57
It is meant to teach us. Right.
1:59
The Holy Spirit uses this language to tell the unvarnished
2:02
truth about human sin and divine holiness, and He does so without
2:07
ever training the reader to gawk.
2:10
The text remains pure while diagnosing our darkest
2:13
realities. That tension you described?
2:16
It requires us to begin by defining our terms with absolute
2:19
precision. What is fascinating here is the
2:22
stark difference between the secular understanding of
2:24
innuendo and the biblical reality of holy indirectness.
2:28
I think a lot of people hear the word innuendo and immediately
2:31
think of a sitcom or a late night talk show.
2:33
Precisely. In our secular culture, innuendo
2:35
operates almost exclusively to titillate, to mock, or to skirt
2:39
the edges of decency while maintaining a veneer of
2:41
plausible deniability. It functions as a tool of the
2:44
flesh. In Scripture, however,
2:46
indirectness operates as a modest veil.
2:48
It is a righteous covering. When we talk about these
2:51
linguistic tools from the sources, what specific
2:53
categories are we looking at? Well, there are 4 main
2:55
categories we need to examine. First, we have euphemism.
2:59
The biblical authors use this to provide softened expressions for
3:02
highly sensitive matters, usually relating to bodily
3:05
functions, marital intimacy, or shameful acts.
3:09
The goal is not to hide the truth, but to speak the truth
3:12
modestly. That makes sense.
3:14
What is the second category? 2nd we find idioms.
3:17
These are fixed cultural phrases where the meaning cannot be
3:20
deduced simply by defining the individual words.
3:23
If you translate an idiom word for word without understanding
3:26
the culture, you will be completely lost.
3:28
Right, like saying someone kicked the bucket in English.
3:30
It has nothing to do with peels or feet.
3:32
Spot on. 3rd The scripture frequently employs irony and
3:36
satire, and this is vital to understand.
3:38
These are not used for light hearted comedy.
3:40
They function as prophetic tools to expose the folly and absolute
3:44
absurdity of idolatry and rebellion against a holy God.
3:48
It is a way of showing how ridiculous sin actually is.
3:51
It is. And finally we see a literary
3:53
device called narrative reticence.
3:55
This occurs when the inspired narrator intentionally holds
3:58
back cinematic graphic detail regarding a sin or a scandal.
4:03
The narrator draws a curtain over the specifics.
4:05
And the sources point out that this is done to force the
4:08
reader's attention away from voyeurism, right?
4:11
It puts the focus squarely onto the issue of covenant
4:14
faithfulness. That is the exact function.
4:16
These are the tools the Holy Spirit employs, and they are
4:19
perfect for their intended purpose.
4:21
I want to pause on that phrase narrative reticence, because it
4:24
captures the intentionality of the text so well.
4:27
But before we look at specific examples of that, I want to
4:29
ground this conversation in our theological framework.
4:33
One thing that jumped out to me in the sources was the
4:35
connection between this indirect language and the doctrine of sin
4:39
or home archaeology. Yes, you cannot separate the
4:41
language of the Bible from its theology of sin.
4:43
Let us take the listener back to Genesis 3.
4:46
How does the fall change the way human beings process things like
4:49
physical exposure? That is a phenomenal question,
4:52
and it is really the necessary starting point for this whole
4:55
deep dive. If we look at Genesis chapter 3,
4:57
specifically verse 21, we see the immediate aftermath of the
5:01
rebellion. Prior to the fall, human
5:04
nakedness was a symbol of unashamed innocence.
5:06
They were naked and unashamed, right?
5:09
But the moment sin entered the world, that same physical
5:12
reality became a source of crushing shame.
5:14
That physical shame required a divine covering.
5:17
God graciously provided that covering by shedding the blood
5:20
of animals to clothe Adam and Eve.
5:23
From that moment forward in redemptive history, the physical
5:26
shame of humanity remains a constant indicator of our
5:29
spiritual bankruptcy. And we see that principle
5:31
codified clearly in the Westminster Confession, correct.
5:34
We do. When the confession speaks on
5:35
the Providence of God and the law of God, it paints a picture
5:39
of a God who governs all things, and that includes how his people
5:42
speak and read about their own fallen state.
5:45
The Bible's modest language humbles the center.
5:48
It constantly points to our need for a covering rather than
5:52
glorifying the flesh. Precisely the language of
5:55
Scripture is designed to humble us.
5:57
When we contrast this biblical modesty with the modern
6:00
pragmatist approaches we see so often today, the divergent is
6:04
striking. Yeah, the sources talk about
6:06
those modern approaches. What are those look like in
6:09
practice today? Well, on one side we have seeker
6:11
sensitive movements. They tried to strip the Bible of
6:15
its ancient idioms under the guise of making the text
6:18
accessible to the unchurched. They flatten the language to
6:21
make it palatable. They tried to smooth out all the
6:23
rough edges, yes. And on the other side, which is
6:25
equally concerning, we have pastors who use crude, explicit
6:29
language from the pulpit under the banner of authenticity or
6:33
keeping it real. Both of these modern approaches
6:36
completely fail to grasp the pedagogical wisdom of the Holy
6:39
Spirit's restrained speech. It seems like those modern
6:42
pragmatic approaches actually share a root error with liberal
6:45
critical scholarship. The sources point out that
6:48
liberal scholarship often dismisses these biblical idioms
6:51
as primitive cultural leftovers. They do.
6:54
They view the restrained language of the Old Testament as
6:57
evidence of an unevolved ancient society, rather than
7:00
acknowledging the verbal plenary inspiration of the text.
7:04
Let us define that phrase for clarity so you, the listener,
7:07
know what we mean when we say verbal plenary inspiration.
7:11
We are asserting that every single word, including every
7:15
delicate euphemism, was breathed out by God.
7:18
The authorial choices were not historical accidents.
7:22
God did not just give the author's a general concept and
7:24
let them figure out the wording. He inspired the very vocabulary.
7:28
That means we have to apply a rigorous grammatical historical
7:32
approach to our exegesis. We do not just guess at the
7:35
meaning based on what feels right to us today.
7:38
I am glad you put up the grammatical historical approach.
7:41
The sources outline a method involving the five anchor
7:43
questions. Let us walk through those
7:44
questions. If you are reading your Bible
7:46
and you hit a difficult idiom, how do you actually apply this
7:49
method? What is the first question?
7:50
The five anchor questions keep us tethered to the text.
7:53
First, we ask, what does the text actually say?
7:55
This requires looking at the raw vocabulary.
7:58
So just getting the baseline words right, what is the second
8:00
question? Second, why is it here we look
8:04
at the immediate literary context?
8:06
Why did the author place this specific phrase in this specific
8:09
paragraph? That prevents us from pulling
8:11
verses out of context. And the third. 3rd What is the
8:14
historical context we have to understand the ancient Near
8:19
Eastern or Greco Roman world the author inhabited?
8:22
A phrase might mean something totally different in 1st century
8:25
Rome than it does in modern day London.
8:27
And the fourth question gets a bit more technical, right?
8:29
It does. 4th is what is the grammatical structure.
8:33
This involves the hard work of diagramming clauses and studying
8:37
verbal aspects in the original Hebrew and Greek to find the
8:39
main idea. That is where the heavy lifting
8:42
happens. And the final question. 5th How
8:44
does it fit into the redemptive historical Canon?
8:47
We evaluate how this specific passage points to Christ or the
8:51
broader covenantal narrative. So we do all of that hard work
8:54
in the original languages, but then we have to bring that
8:57
meaning into English. The sources identify 3 distinct
9:01
layers where confusion often arises for the English reader.
9:06
Let us break those down. The first one is inherited
9:08
indirectness. What does that look like?
9:11
Inherited indirectness is an idiom originating directly in
9:14
the Hebrew or Greek text. The ancient author chose to
9:17
speak indirectly, and the English translation is simply
9:20
attempting to represent that original choice.
9:23
The veil belongs to the ancient writer, not the modern
9:26
translator. OK, that makes sense.
9:28
The second layer is translation strategy.
9:30
This is where the translation committee makes a distinct
9:32
choice, right? Correct.
9:34
This occurs when a committee decides either to preserve an
9:37
ancient idiom, word for word, which might sound opaque to us,
9:40
or to clarify it. Dynamically clarifying it might
9:43
sound much blunter than the original text intended.
9:46
They are weighing literal accuracy against modern
9:48
comprehension. And the third layer is semantic
9:51
drift. I kind of this one fascinating
9:53
because it has nothing to do with the biblical author or the
9:55
translator, but rather the evolution of the English
9:57
language itself. Semantic drift is a significant
10:00
hurdle. This happens when English words
10:03
shift their meaning over decades or centuries.
10:06
A phrase in the King James Version might have sounded
10:08
perfectly ordinary in 1611, but it sounds highly suggestive to
10:12
modern ears today. And the danger is that we read
10:15
those modern connotations backward into the text, even
10:18
though no such meaning was intended by either the biblical
10:21
author or the that. Is a very common error.
10:24
Let us put this exegetical method into practice.
10:27
The sources provide a fascinating case study that
10:30
highlights how jarring the original language can be when it
10:33
chooses not to be polite. Yes, the test is not always
10:36
gentle. Let us look at Philippians
10:38
chapter 3, verse 8. In this passage the Apostle Paul
10:41
is listing all of his impressive fleshly legalistic credentials,
10:45
his pedigree as a Pharisee of Pharisees, and then he uses the
10:49
Greek word sky balon to describe all of that self righteousness.
10:53
Often our English Bibles translate this as rubbish or
10:55
dumb. What is the actual linguistic
10:58
data behind that specific word? When you examine the 1st century
11:01
Greek context, sky balon is a rare, visceral and genuinely
11:05
repulsive word. It refers directly to human
11:08
excrement or the fill thrown to the dogs in the street.
11:11
So it is not just regular trash. No, not at all.
11:14
Paul is intentionally creating a jarring, almost nauseating
11:17
contrast. He is placing the repulsive
11:20
nature of his own self righteousness next to the
11:23
surpassing worth of knowing Jesus Christ.
11:25
It is a massive shock to the system, and it is crucial to
11:28
note that Paul is not trying to be edgy here.
11:31
He is not trying to be culturally relevant to the youth
11:33
of Philippi. He's using a term that perfectly
11:36
captures the total depravity of the human heart when it attempts
11:39
to justify itself before a holy God.
11:41
That theological connection is vital in our reformed
11:44
understanding. Our best works are as filthy
11:46
rags. Paul's use of Skybalon forces
11:49
the reader to smell the stench of works righteousness.
11:52
It is a brilliant example of the Holy Spirit utilizing A shocking
11:55
term to teach a massive theological truth.
11:58
It is if a modern translator attempts to soften that word
12:02
into something polite like I consider them, mere
12:04
disadvantages. They completely gut the
12:07
theological force of the passage.
12:09
The severe judgement of the law and the beautiful relief of the
12:11
Gospel are both running in high definition through that single
12:15
vocabulary choice. That Philippians example shows
12:17
what happens when the text wants to shock us.
12:20
Now I want to move to a broader taxonomy of biblical idioms.
12:24
We need to look at specific practical case studies across
12:28
the different genres of Scripture to see how this holy
12:31
indirectness operates in various contexts.
12:34
Looking at different genres is crucial because poetry operates
12:37
differently than historical narrative.
12:39
Let us begin with historical narrative.
12:41
We see a frequent use of sexual euphemism here.
12:44
Take Genesis chapter 4, verse one.
12:46
The text says now Adam, New Eve, his wife, and she conceived and
12:49
bore Cain. How does the word new function
12:51
in this context? The verb new operates as a
12:54
modest euphemism for marital union.
12:57
The author is establishing the reality of covenantal intimacy
13:01
by utilizing the concept of knowledge.
13:04
The text elevates the physical act into the realm of personal,
13:07
relational, and covenantal knowledge.
13:10
It refuses to reduce the Union to pure biology.
13:13
And it maintains a register suitable for public reading.
13:16
We have to remember the original context of these books.
13:19
The Scriptures were primarily read aloud in the assembly of
13:22
God's people, which included children and the elderly.
13:25
That is a brilliant point regarding the original audience.
13:28
The Holy Spirit inspired a text that is morally clear about what
13:31
is happening. Conception and birth immediately
13:34
follow in that verse, but it refuses to indulge the sinful
13:38
imagination with graphic details.
13:40
It is a deliberate form of precision that honors the
13:42
marriage bed. Moving to a different category
13:45
within narrative, we see how the biblical authors handle bodily
13:48
function idioms. A classic example occurs in
13:50
First Samuel chapter 24, verse 3.
13:52
Yes, The Cave scene, right? David is hiding in the back of
13:56
The Cave and King Saul enters. The Hebrew idiom used to
14:00
describe Saul's action is that he went in to cover his feet.
14:04
If we unpack the Hebrew clause syntax there, what is actually
14:07
happening in The Cave? It is a polite circumlocution
14:10
for relieving himself. The inspired authors choice here
14:13
is brilliant on a literary and theological level.
14:16
It highlights the mighty kings absolute physical vulnerability
14:20
and frailty. Here is the anointed king
14:22
hunting David with a massive, well equipped army reduced to a
14:26
moment of basic human necessity. It creates such a sharp
14:29
contrast. Saul's fleshly weakness stands
14:32
in stark opposition to the sovereign control of Yahweh.
14:35
God has sovereignly delivered Saul into David's hands at that
14:38
exact moment. The idiom prevents the text from
14:41
being crude while amplifying the theological point of God's
14:44
Providence. Let us transition from
14:46
historical narrative to the Old Testament law.
14:48
The mechanics of the law handle this topic in a very specific
14:51
way. The legal codes are fascinating
14:53
because they have to be precise, but they also use euphemisms.
14:56
Yes, Consider the legal euphemisms found in Leviticus
15:00
chapter 18. This chapter contains the
15:02
holiness codes regarding forbidden sexual relations.
15:06
We see the repeated phrase You shall not uncover the nakedness
15:09
of followed by various family members.
15:11
I think a modern reader might ask, why does the law speak this
15:14
way? If the goal is to outlaw
15:17
specific heinous acts, why not describe those acts in clinical,
15:21
explicit detail so there is no confusion?
15:24
The Law of God trains the conscience of the people through
15:27
stable, repeatable formulas. By utilizing this legal
15:31
euphemism, the text forms strict moral categories without ever
15:35
descending into graphic specificity.
15:37
It establishes a firm, recognizable boundary.
15:40
The repetition itself does something to the reader, doesn't
15:42
it? It does.
15:43
The repetition of the phrase uncover nakedness creates a
15:46
cadence of holiness. The form of the language
15:49
accomplishes the function of the law.
15:50
It teaches the Israelites, and us by extension, that sin must
15:54
be named truly and boundaries must be taught clearly.
15:57
But holiness is pursued without coarsening the mind of the
15:59
reader. I want to look at a situation
16:01
where the text uses this ambiguity to create actual
16:05
narrative tension. The sources highlight Ruth
16:08
chapter 3 as a prime example of narrative reticence.
16:11
This is the famous scene at the threatening floor where Ruth
16:14
goes to Boaz in the middle of the night and uncovers his feed.
16:17
That passage has generated a lot of debate.
16:20
It really has The setting is dark, the location is secluded,
16:23
and the language itself carries potential secondary meanings in
16:27
ancient Hebrew. Some readers look at that and
16:29
ask why not just explicitly state that nothing inappropriate
16:32
happened? The inspired author
16:34
intentionally creates that massive narrative tension.
16:37
The ambiguity forces the reader to pay attention.
16:40
However, the author uses the broader context of the entire
16:43
book to guide our interpretation and answer that tension.
16:46
How does the broader context answer it?
16:49
We already know Bo has stellar integrity from his actions in
16:51
Chapter 2. We see the public, highly formal
16:54
resolution of the matter at the city gate in chapter 4.
16:57
The text deliberately pushes the reader away from prurient
17:00
voyeuristic certainty. It forces us into a moral
17:03
evaluation of lawful redemption. It trains the reader to assume
17:07
covenant faithfulness rather than scandal.
17:11
The ambiguity is the point. It makes the revelation of
17:13
Boaz's honorable character shine all the brighter against the
17:17
backdrop of a very dark time during the period of the judges.
17:20
That narrative tension in Ruth is a masterpiece of inspired
17:24
literature, but we must also address the moments when the
17:27
biblical text is confrontational rather than subtle.
17:30
This brings us to prophetic judgement rhetoric.
17:33
We see this prominently displayed in Ezekiel chapter 16
17:36
and 23. In these texts, the prophets use
17:39
shocking extended metaphors of spiritual adultery to prosecute
17:43
a covenant lawsuit against the nation of Israel.
17:45
The language in those chapters is arresting.
17:47
Arresting is a good word for it. God portrays the idolatry of his
17:50
people as the most grotesque, intimate betrayal imaginable.
17:53
But to be clear, this is not the text being crude for the sake of
17:55
shock value, is it? Not at all.
17:58
The purpose of this rhetorical strategy is to induce a shock
18:01
that leads to genuine repentance.
18:04
The Prophet exposes the horrific, ugly reality of
18:07
idolatry to Pierce the impenetrable pride of a
18:10
hardened, rebellious people. They needed to be shaken awake.
18:13
Yes, the Israelites preferred to call their idolatry religious
18:16
freedom or cultural adaptation. God calls it treachery.
18:21
The vividness of the imagery wounds their pride and makes sin
18:24
appear as repulsive as it truly is before a holy God.
18:28
That seems like it would require careful handling by anyone
18:30
teaching through Ezekiel. It requires immense care.
18:33
The focus must remain on the divine judgement and the call to
18:36
return to the covenant, rather than fixating on the explicit
18:39
nature of the metaphor itself. Finally, we need to consider
18:42
poetic imagery, particularly in the Song of Solomon.
18:46
This entire book is a celebration of the covenant of
18:48
marriage, utilizing agricultural and architectural metaphors to
18:52
describe physical beauty and intimacy.
18:54
The sources highlight the danger of two extremes here when
18:57
interpreting the song of Sullivan.
18:58
What is the first? Extreme.
18:59
On one side we have baseless allegorizing, where commentators
19:03
try to make every piece of fruit represent a distinct point of
19:06
doctrine. Like saying a pomegranate
19:07
represents the doctrine of justification.
19:09
Right, which misses the point of the poetry entirely.
19:12
On the other side, we have readers who detach the poetry
19:16
from holiness entirely, treating it like secular romance
19:19
literature. We must vehemently reject both
19:22
of those errors. The genre of poetry communicates
19:25
by image and atmosphere. It honors the goodness of God's
19:29
creation, specifically marital love in a register that is
19:32
elevated, chaste, and fitting the dignity of covenantal love.
19:36
It teaches our affections what to love and how to love rightly,
19:40
completely avoiding the coarseness of the world.
19:42
So if we take all this textual evidence from narrative to law
19:46
to poetry, what does this mean for the English Bible sitting on
19:49
your desk? We have to look at translation
19:51
philosophies and how English versions handle this ancient
19:55
text. That is where the rubber meets
19:56
the road for most readers. Broadly speaking, the sources
19:59
identify an essentially literal approach championed by
20:02
translations like the ESV and the NASB.
20:06
How do these versions handle these idioms?
20:08
The essentially literal translations strive to preserve
20:11
the original Hebrew or Greek idiom as closely as possible.
20:15
The great benefit here is that they retain the text's original
20:18
restraint and tone. What is the downside to that
20:21
approach? The trade off is that it
20:23
requires you, the listener, to do more interpretive work.
20:26
You might encounter a phrase that sounds slightly odd in
20:29
English, and you have to pause, check a footnote, or consult A
20:32
commentary to understand the ancient idiom.
20:35
On the other end of the spectrum, we have the idiomatic
20:38
approach often seen in the NIV. This philosophy prioritizes
20:42
capturing the meaning of the original text in natural flowing
20:45
contemporary English. While that is incredibly helpful
20:48
for readability, the sources warned that it can
20:50
unintentionally reduce the Bible's deliberate modesty.
20:54
By converting an ancient, veiled idiom into blunt modern English,
20:58
the translation might make implied concepts explicit.
21:02
The text loses the pedagogical restraint the Holy Spirit
21:05
originally intended. Then we have mediating
21:07
strategies like optimal equivalents found in the CSB.
21:10
This approach attempts to balance linguistic precision
21:13
with readability, preserving idioms where they make sense in
21:16
English and clarifying them where they would cause total
21:19
confusion. Knowing which translation
21:21
philosophy your Bible uses is key to understanding why certain
21:24
passages read the way they do. But translations are only half
21:28
the battle. We also have to diagnose common
21:30
reader errors because we bring our own bad habits to the text.
21:34
We certainly do. The sources detail a few
21:36
specific traps we fall into. The first is what they call
21:40
prudish flattening. What does that look like in
21:42
practice? Prudish flattening happens when
21:44
a reader refuses to acknowledge what the passage plainly
21:47
implies. They turn a stark warning about
21:50
a specific sin into a fog of nice religious language.
21:53
Because they are too uncomfortable to deal with the
21:56
reality of the text, they rob the text of its moral force.
21:59
On the opposite side of that spectrum is the error of
22:02
prurient over reading. This occurs when a reader treats
22:05
biblical ambiguity or restraint as a license to speculate
22:09
wildly. They basically treat ancient
22:11
narrative like a modern gossip column, trying to fill in the
22:14
blanks with their own scandalous details.
22:16
Clarity and scripture is designed for holiness.
22:19
Speculation only feeds sinful curiosity.
22:22
Another frequent mistake is genre confusion.
22:25
This is the error of reading poetic imagery as if it were
22:28
strict legal code. Or reading historical narrative
22:32
as if it were a modern cinematic movie that earns you every
22:35
graphic detail. When you demand explicit detail
22:38
from a text that intentionally utilizes narrative reticence,
22:41
you are fighting against the inspired authors.
22:43
Design genre awareness is not an academic luxury.
22:47
It is a vital tool for accurate interpretation.
22:50
Finally, we must constantly guard against the modern
22:52
connotation fallacy. This is the habit of importing
22:55
today's slang, cultural associations, or Internet era
22:58
humor back into ancient literature.
23:00
Just because a phrase sounds suggestive in modern English
23:03
does not mean the biblical author intended it that way.
23:05
We must have the humility to check our modern ears at the
23:08
door and submit our understanding to the historical
23:10
context, the canonical usage, and the clear intent of the Holy
23:14
Spirit. If we successfully avoid those
23:16
interpretive errors, we can read the text with the sobriety and
23:20
reverence it demands. That takes practice, but it
23:23
honors the text. I want to pivot now and connect
23:26
all this academic and exegetical analysis directly to your daily
23:30
life and your worship. In our Reformed tradition, we
23:33
often categorize application into head, heart, and hands.
23:38
Let's start with the head. What are we commanded to
23:40
believe? First and foremost, we affirm
23:42
the persecuity or the clarity of Scripture.
23:45
God teaches His people with absolute sufficient clarity for
23:48
salvation and godliness, even when He employs shadows, idioms,
23:52
and veiled language. The Westminster Confession
23:54
teaches that not all things in Scripture are equally plain, but
23:57
the core truths are unmistakable.
24:00
That is correct. We must believe in the verbal
24:02
plenary inspiration of every delicate phrase.
24:04
God did not stutter. He did not run out of
24:06
vocabulary. He chose those specific idioms
24:09
deliberately. Moving to the heart, what should
24:12
we feel? We must actively confront the
24:16
modern idol of vulgarity. Our culture celebrates the crass
24:20
and the explicit as a sign of authenticity.
24:22
As believers, we are called to cultivate a holy reverence for
24:25
the body and for speech. When you read the law exposing
24:28
the nakedness and shame of humanity, you should feel a
24:31
weighty conviction regarding your own sin.
24:34
The law acts as a mirror, showing us our absolute need for
24:37
a Savior. That conviction should
24:40
immediately give way to an overwhelming love for Christ.
24:43
He's the one who covers our shame.
24:44
That progression from the head to the heart naturally flows
24:47
into the hands. What are we commanded to do?
24:50
This establishes A sanctified speech ethic, drawing heavily
24:53
from the Apostle Paul's instruction in Ephesians chapter
24:56
5. Believers are commanded to
24:57
expose the fruitless works of darkness, but we must do so
25:01
without verbally performing them.
25:03
We're to speak the truth about sin, but our vocabulary must
25:05
remain pure. This is a direct application of
25:08
the third use of the Law, which guides believers in grateful
25:11
obedience. The law shows us what pleases
25:13
God. We must speak plainly enough to
25:16
protect the vulnerable in our churches and families, warning
25:18
them clearly about the realities of sin.
25:21
Yet we must speak modestly enough to protect the
25:24
imagination. This balance is incredibly
25:27
difficult, especially in a digital age that profits off of
25:30
explicitness and outrage. Our obedience involves actively
25:34
rejecting the conversational norms of the secular world.
25:37
We do not need to use the world's crass vocabulary to
25:40
prove we understand the severity of a situation.
25:43
The biblical writers managed to diagnose the darkest rebellions
25:46
of the human heart while maintaining a register of
25:49
holiness. We are called to imitate that
25:51
holy indirectness in our own homes, our pulpits and our daily
25:55
interactions. It shapes how we talk to each
25:57
other every single day. As we bring this deep dive to a
25:59
close, we have to look at the overarching redemptive
26:02
historical pattern. Everything we have discussed
26:05
leads straight to the cross. The Law utilizes these jarring
26:08
idioms and euphemisms to expose our self righteousness.
26:11
It strips away our pride. But the Gospel announces a total
26:14
perfect remedy. It is the ultimate contrast.
26:17
Let me paint a vivid picture of this contrast for you.
26:20
In the Garden of Eden, after the rebellion, human nakedness
26:24
required a covering. The shame was palpable, and God
26:28
provided garments of skin. Fast forward to Calvary.
26:31
On the cross, the Lord of Glory was stripped bare.
26:34
He was exposed to the ultimate curse of the law, suffering the
26:37
ultimate public shame. Why?
26:40
To provide believers with the spotless robe of His
26:42
righteousness, He took the shame that our veiled language points
26:46
to so that we could be clothed in His perfection.
26:49
The biblical text uses indirectness to show us we are
26:52
entirely unfit to stand before God on our own, pointing us
26:55
relentlessly to the substitute who stood in our place.
26:58
This raises a significant point of reflection, and it is the
27:01
final thought we want to leave with you today to Mull over on
27:03
your own. Consider the environment you
27:05
live in. We exist in a highly explicit,
27:08
visually saturated digital culture.
27:11
Our communication is instant, graphic, and utterly lacking in
27:14
restraint. It is everywhere you look.
27:16
You must ask yourself, is the unrelenting explicitness of
27:20
modern life actively numbing your ability to perceive the
27:24
holy modesty of God's Word? If our culture constantly
27:28
demands graphic detail in order to feel that something is
27:31
authentic or real, how might that demand be altering your
27:34
capacity to hear the quiet, restrained, veiled whispers of
27:38
the Holy Spirit in the text of Scripture?
27:40
If you are conditioned by the world to only pay attention when
27:42
language is shocking or explicit, you run the risk of
27:45
becoming deaf to the quiet holiness of biblical
27:48
indirectness. The text requires a patient
27:50
sanctified ear. That is a staggering reality to
27:53
consider as you open your Bible tomorrow morning.
27:55
We want to thank you for joining us for this session of Reformed
27:58
Thinking. May your study of the Word be
27:59
marked by reverence, clarity and an ever growing love for the
28:02
Saviour who covers our shame. Until next time, keep reading,
28:05
keep thinking, and keep resting in the grace of God.