No, it’s not a misprint. I meant Pauline scatology. Pauline eschatology—a topic that everyone assumes a Dallas Seminary prof could wax eloquent on—has to do with Paul’s view of the future, of prophecy, of end times. Pauline scatology has to do with Paul’s use of salty language, the kind of language that turns the air blue, four-letter words. We know that James and John were not averse to using this sort of language. Jesus nicknamed them the ‘sons of thunder.’ They were volatile, hotheaded, reactionary, and they could cuss like a sailor. After all, they were fishermen! So was Peter. His language was strongest when he denied the Lord.

But Paul was different from these other apostles. He used strong language too, but most often when he was affirming the Lord. Although Paul could instruct the churches in Asia Minor, “there should not be vulgar speech, foolish talk, or coarse jesting” among Christians (Eph 5.4), he either thought that what he did on occasion did not fall under such proscriptions or that there were times in which it was acceptable to violate his own instructions.

So, what did Paul say that would qualify as colorful speech? I’ll give three or four illustrations. In Galatians 1.8, he says that if anyone preaches a false gospel, “let him be anathema!” This is often translated, “Let him go to hell!” But just to make sure that his readers didn’t miss the point, Paul says it again in v. 9. He even includes angels in his curse. Paul obviously was ticked at the Galatians for being duped with a gospel that did not find its origin in Christ.

In Philippians 3.2-3, he says, “Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of those who mutilate the flesh! For we are the circumcision, the ones who worship by the Spirit of God, exult in Christ Jesus, and do not rely on human credentials….” (NET). Not only does he call his enemies ‘dogs’ (a word that was much more derogatory in the ancient world than it is today), he also speaks of them as those who mutilate the flesh. In v. 4 he says, “we are the [true] circumcision,” distinguishing his message from that of his opponents. In Greek, there is a word-play between ‘those who mutilate the flesh’ and ‘circumcision.’ The Greek is katatome (‘mutilation’) and peritome (‘circumcision’). Tome (tow-may) means ‘cutting,’ and peri means ‘around.’ Thus, etymologically, circumcision is a cutting around the penis to get rid of the foreskin. Kata means ‘down’; katatome is a rare word that, etymologically, had the force of ‘cutting down,’ ‘cutting off.’ When Paul speaks of the mutilation he really means that these folks botch the job and whack off precious body parts! In Galatians 5.12, he urges his opponents to castrate themselves. The meaning is not meant to be taken literally, but it is meant to show how ticked off Paul was at a false gospel. By contrast, in Philippians 3, he doesn’t urge his opponents to do this; rather, he says that they already have been mutilating the job of circumcision. The meaning again is not literal, but suggests that Paul thought of his opponents as those who hacked up the gospel with their works-righteousness.

It is in this context that Paul contrasts his own former life as a Pharisee with his present life in Christ. In Philippians 3.8, he declares, “More than that, I now regard all things as liabilities compared to the far greater value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things—indeed, I regard them as dung!—that I may gain Christ” (NET). Many modern translations have ‘rubbish’ (e.g., ESV, NRSV, NKJV, NIV, NAB, REB), or ‘garbage’ (TEV, NJB, TNIV), instead of ‘dung’ here. But the Greek word has strong overtones of slang, and it would have had a certain shock value to the readers. In Greek literature, it is stronger than ‘crap.’ Let’s just leave it at that. Although it often had a metaphorical meaning of ‘garbage’ (much like ‘crap,’ etc. do today), in this context it is particularly fitting to see it as having to do with human fecal matter. The argument that Paul has given thus far shows that the ‘flesh’ is not able to produce anything of lasting value before God. In v. 3 Paul said, “we do not rely on the flesh”; in v. 4 he says, “I have good reason to rely on the flesh [if anyone did].” And, as we saw, in vv. 2-3, he spoke metaphorically of the flesh when he spoke of the mutilation and the circumcision. Paul’s fundamental point is summed up in v. 7 when he says, “Whatever things were gain to me—these things I have come to regard as loss for the sake of Christ.” He underscores this even further in v. 8, with an emphatic statement that not only his life as a Pharisee was worthless, it was worse than worthless. Skubala (the word for ‘dung’) emphasizes this pointedly, shockingly, and accurately: human fecal matter is worse than worthless. It’s not even any good for fertilizer for it produces disease. It can only stink up the place. And this is what the flesh produces. To translate skubala as ‘rubbish’ or ‘garbage’ misses the point, since garbage is not a product of the flesh. Dung is.

Obviously, I have been euphemistic in my descriptions of Paul’s scatological language, for the sake of readers who cannot handle the full discussion. But you can use your imagination. Yet I need to point out one important principle: Paul did not use such colorful language gratuitously. He had a purpose in mind, and he was ticked off because of the dung produced by the enemies of the gospel. In these contexts, Paul only used such language when the purity of the gospel was at stake. Like General Patton (not Michael, even though he thinks of himself as a general), he gave it to them ‘loud and dirty… that way they’ll remember it!’ And he came to the conviction that his own life apart from Christ was a foul stench that had no real value.

When do we think it is appropriate to use this sort of language? Never? Always? Only when we’re angry about our own rights? What principles can we draw from Paul’s letters that might be able to guide us? How do these texts fit in with his injunction in Ephesians 5.4? And, most importantly, how do we regard our life before we met Christ?

Our ministry is a partner based ministry. This means that the majority of our support comes from people like you. Please consider supporting Reclaiming the Mind Ministries as we make theology accessible. Donate today.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!