Paul on Human Nature

⁹ What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, ¹⁰ as it is written: "None is righteous, no, not one; ¹¹ no one understands; no one seeks for God. ¹² All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one." ¹³ "Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive." "The venom of asps is under their lips." ¹⁴ "Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness." ¹⁵ "Their feet are swift to shed blood; ¹⁶ in their paths are ruin and misery, ¹⁷ and the way of peace they have not known.", ¹⁸ "There is no fear of God before their eyes" (Rom. 3:9-18)

This passage, along with many others, is one of the reasons that Reformed theology holds that Man is "Totally Depraved." The argument is that natural Man is sinful at his core and is incapable of doing good. Of course, the passage causes many of us (me included) to pause. "Really? 'No one does good'? 'No one understands'? 'No one seeks for God'? What about all the people we've known who were good people? What about people we know -- maybe even ourselves -- who were seeking for God?"

The passage causes a dilemma. Either we can take it at face value, or we can find a reason to modify the face-value meaning to match our common experiences. The most prevalent approach, it seems to me, is to do the latter. Maybe Paul doesn't mean at all what he is expressing. Maybe he is not really intending to suggest such strong statements. The most common approach I've seen is just that: Paul is engaging in hyperbole. Hyperbole is a figure of speech where a person exaggerates to make a point. Before you leap on that, realize that the Bible itself engages in hyperbole. In Luke 8, the demoniac that Jesus freed proclaimed "throughout the whole city how much Jesus had done for him" (Luke 8:39). There is no real reason to think that this guy went door to door, to every single person on every single street telling them what Jesus did. The idea is intended to be an overstatement of the fact that he was just telling everyone he could find. Now, what if Luke engaged here in hyperbole? What if, in fact, the guy missed one or two. Would that nullify what is being said? Not really. What is being said was that the man went out and told everyone he could find. Imagine, for instance, that your child comes home from a birthday party. You ask, "Who was there?" and she answers, "Everybody!" Will you accuse her of lying because ... well ... you weren't there? No. You understand that she is saying that there were a lot of people there -- likely a lot more than she had thought there would be. If one person wasn't there, it doesn't change the intent.

That's the key. The intent.

So people read Paul's diatribe against people and assume hyperbole. Why might they do that? Well, the passage is largely quotes from Old Testament sources. He draws from Psalm 14:1-3. He draws from Psalm 5:9 and Psalm 140:3. He calls on Psalm 10:7 and Psalm 36:1. What do we know about the Psalms? Well, we know it's poetry. Poetry doesn't necessarily need to be literally correct. It is intended to convey an idea, not be taken word-for-word. So Paul is pulling out these passages from the Psalms to make a point. Hyperbole.

Remember, though, that the key is "intent." What is Paul's intent? His intent is stated at the beginning of the passage. "We have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin." What follows are Paul's "proof texts". Now, what happens if Paul is engaging in hyperbole here? What if, in fact, he's exaggerating to make a point. Well, then, it is safe to assume that there actually are some who understand, some who seek for God, some who do good. That's the point we're trying to make, right? There are actually some who are worth something. There are actually some who are not under sin. Oh, wait, perhaps that won't work.

Perhaps we need to let the passage interpret itself rather than trying to interpret the passage from our experience. Perhaps, in fact, we ought to let the passage interpret our experience rather than the other way around. How would that look? It would say that our standards are skewed. What we consider righteous is not righteousness to God. What we consider good is not good to God. What we consider worthy is not worthy to God. Maybe ... just maybe our entire system of measuring this kind of thing is too loose. Maybe, just maybe, we're measuring "righteous" and "good" and "worthy" by standards that are far too low. If we allow this passage to interpret our experience, here's where we'd end up. Those things that we considered "righteous" and "good" and "worthy" are apparently not any of those things. Perhaps we, as fallen creatures, don't really know what "righteous" and "good" and "worthy" really are in God's eyes. In fact, that would suggest that we have desperately wicked hearts that have deceived us without our knowing it. Wait ... I've heard that somewhere before ...

The Bible keeps saying that Man is evil at his core. We don't do good. We hate God. If we are as bad as the Bible says we are, we are truly without hope without Divine Intervention. Enter what is perhaps my favorite phrase in all the Bible: "But God ..." (Eph. 2:4). Look it up. It's wonderful, especially in context. It is so much more wonderful if what the Bible says about us is true because it is so much bigger than our experience taught us.