The passage of Scripture in question here comes from Romans 3. I'll put it down here for reference:
9 What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin; 10 as it is written, "There is none righteous, not even one; 11 there is none who understands, there is none who seeks for God; 12 all have turned aside, together they have become useless; there is none who does good, there is not even one." 13 "their throat is an open grave, with their tongues they keep deceiving," "the poison of asps is under their lips"; 14 "whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness"; 15 "their feet are swift to shed blood, 16 destruction and misery are in their paths, 17 and the path of peace they have not known." 18 "There is no fear of god before their eyes" (Rom 3:9-18).Here's the problem. People who believe that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God want to read this (and everything else) as literally as they possibly can. Still, this one is problematic. We're fine with a literal "There is none righteous" because we know that just a few verses later we will read, "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God," and this agrees with that. But after that it gets a bit dicey. Really? None who understands? None who seeks for God? I mean, we have all heard testimonies of people who had a long search for God and finally found Him in Christ ... right? Sure, all have turned aside, but we really don't like that "they have become useless" thing much. And that claim that there is none who does good is really over the top.
One side of the discussion takes that claim literally and the other considers it hyperbole. Why? Well, because we know lots of good people who do good, so it can't be literal. If we admit that there is none who does good, and it is good to receive Christ, then we have a real problem, don't we? Of course, if you're not paying attention, the other side has a problem all its own. You see, if you stand on "It's intended to be absolutely literal," you've created a problem. The easiest way to illustrate the problem is to point to Jesus. He was sinless, right? So ... no one does good? It is, then, a problem for both sides. One side dismisses it as an overstatement and is left with no meaning, and the other side embraces it as absolute and denies Christianity. How do we handle this sticky situation?
I'm sure this will make some people happy, but let me say at the outset that the statement is hyperbole. Hyperbole is a figure of speech that makes an extravagant statement to make a point. We're used to it. And this one is hyperbole. We know this because we can name one person who did good, so "no not one" can't mean actually "not one". Further, we all claim that Christians do good ... or, at least, we're supposed to. So more than one does good. It is hyperbole. It is an intentional overstatement to make a point. There, I said it.
"Oh, good, now we're back at the other side that says it was hyperbole and we don't have to worry about it, right? We're all clear that lots of people do lots of good." And now we've walked into the other problem. We all know lots of people who do lots of good. So, if we admit that the claim that there is none who does good isn't actually literally true, what does it mean? I'll tell you what it cannot mean. It cannot mean that lots of people do lots of good. You see, hyperbole is intended to make a point. If "There is none who does good" is intended to convey "Lots of people do lots of good", we've erased any connection to rationality. It cannot mean that people do good all the time. You see, hyperbole has a purpose. It is intended to make a point. When the gospel writer says, "The whole city came out to see Jesus", I assume that the whole city didn't actually come out to see Jesus, but I'm pretty sure the vast majority did. If the truth turned out to be that only 95% came out, I'd say, "Yeah, that makes sense." If the truth turned out to be that only 5% came out, I'd say, "Huh? In what sense does 'the whole city' make that point?" The point of the that hyperbole was "a vast majority". The point of this hyperbole can only be that doing good is extremely rare, and the only remaining question is "How rare?" If the answer is "Oh, lots of people do good," then the hyperbole is meaningless.
So let's examine the text and see what we can find. What was the original question? Well, the short term question was "Are we (Jews) better than they (Gentiles)?" The answer was intended to be a resounding, "No!" The passage, in fact, is at the tail end of a long dissertation on the sinfulness of Man that started way back in Rom. 1:18. Paul is laying down the problem (bad news) for which the Gospel (good news) has an answer. The problem? This passage, then, is the summary, and the summary is that all are under sin. The problem is that both Jews and Gentiles are under sin, slaves to sin, without hope in themselves. There is no solution that we can drum up on our own. Reading on past this section, we find the solution that God provides. Chapter 6 tells us that God's solution to our problem of sin is ... death.
Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life (Rom 6:3-4).This puts those "who have been baptized into Christ Jesus" in a different position than those who have not. Those who have not are slaves to sin. Paul tells those that have "do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its lusts", an option that a slave to sin does not have.
So where are we now? First, there is Natural Man. Natural Man is sinful by nature. God's description is "every intent of the thoughts of his heart is only evil continually." Paul's description is "dead in your trespasses and sins", "walking according to the prince of the power of the air," and "by nature children of wrath". Given this nature, it makes sense that "There is none who does good." In fact, given this description, if anyone does actually do what God considers good, it would be a choice that was against his own nature. Violating what you want to do would normally be recognized as a violation of free will. We call it "coercion". The hyperbole, then, that "there is none who does good" is appropriate 1) when you consider the standard that God uses for "good", 2) you recognize that Natural Man has no inclination to do what God recognizes as "good", and 3) there is a group of humans who, having died to their old selves, have a new nature with new inclinations to do the good that God considers good.
If you want to argue "It is hyperbole; lots of people do good", you've eliminated any meaning. If you want to hold to "There is none who does good" completely, you eliminate Christ as well as His followers. If you want to understand the intent of the statement, you need to see that righteousness does not exist among fallen Man, that doing good doesn't happen in fallen Man, and that the only answer to that problem is to die with Christ. A radical problem, you see, demands a radical solution. Or, you might see it as a not-so-bad problem. People aren't perfect, sure, but they're not all that bad. So what's the point of such hyperbole (as well as 3 chapters of explaining the sinfulness of Man) if it's just not that bad? I agree that it's hyperbole; I simply believe that it has meaning that is not so far from its extreme.
7 comments:
I have always attributed "none who does good" to natural Man. I've always thought of it as a literal statement in that light, since the context is non-Christians, those who are slaves to sin. And since we were ALL slaves to sin as some point in our lives, no one does good. Like you said, in and of ourselves we can't do good. We know that even our good works are "as filthy rags". That is all assuming God is not working through His elect. Only when He works can we do good, and again, we are not doing good, but God doing good through us. In this light, I think I have to either disagree with you that this is hyperbole, or adjust my understanding of hyperbole. (Oh, and since Christ was never a slave to sin, He falls out of that category that is in question in the passage. So it still stands literal to me.)
The only way I could see that the passage wasn't hyperbole was if Paul was using the present tense to describe the (then-recent) past before Christ's coming, death, and resurrection -- that is to say, the astounding "but now" of Romans 3:21, where the righteousness of God has been revealed through Christ, to be appropriated by all who believe in Christ.
But if it is hyperbole, you're right that its meaning is completely obliterated by the idea that we're all pretty good without Christ's intervention.
The same point can be made -- and is possibly easier to see -- with Christ's command, in Mt 5:29-30, to pluck out your eye if it causes you to sin.
I believe the church has been right to see this as hyperbole, but as hyperbole its only possible meaning is something along the lines of this: each of us should be uncompromising (and even "brutal") in mortifying ourselves, in cutting ourselves off from that which leads us to sin.
An interpretation along the lines of antinomianism -- that we may abound in sin because we're covered by grace -- obliterates the meaning of the hyperbole because that interpretation is the complete opposite of what's being taught.
Hyperbole is exaggeration.
A valid interpretation of hyperbole is one that eliminates the exaggeration, NOT one that completely opposes the claim.
David: "I have always attributed 'none who does good' to natural Man."
Perhaps I didn't explain myself well enough. That's what I said (or intended to say). Natural Man has no capability of doing good. Now, when I say that the phrase is hyperbole, I mean that there is nothing in the phrase that says "Natural Man does no good", so you have to Understand it to mean only Natural Man and not Christ or the elect in whom God is at work. If taken purely literally at face value, it excludes Natural Man, Christ, and the elect. I'm saying that the hyperbole is saying "Natural Man can do no good, no, not one." (You've managed to exclude Christ because He didn't have a sin nature, but, again, the bare literal text does not say, "Natural Man can do no good" or "Those with sin nature can do no good" or ... you see?
Bubba: "The only way I could see that the passage wasn't hyperbole was if Paul was using the present tense to describe the (then-recent) past before Christ's coming, death, and resurrection ..."
It's interesting that you would say that because Paul didn't write the text, he quoted it. It is an Old Testament text.
And you're right. When we interpret hyperbole by obliterating it, it's poor interpretation. Sure, "it's better to pluck out your eyes" is likely hyperbole, but that does not mean, "Oh, good, I don't have to do anything." It means "Where there's sin, take drastic action is required to stop!"
Stan, not all of what you cite from Paul wrote seems to be quotes from the Old Testament: "we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin."
Oh, yeah, Bubba, absolutely. The quotes from the Old Testament start with "as it is written".
It seems to me that you and I come to the same conclusion, but by different roads. Within the context of the verse, I don't see it as hyperbole. By itself, it would have to be hyperbole, or "no one" needs to be defined, which I believe it was defined in the context of the passage "for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin" would be the no one Paul is talking about, and as far as I can tell, Jews and Greeks, and Jews and Gentiles is readily interchangable, meaning, all Men are under sin, thus unable to do good.
David: "As far as I can tell, Jews and Greeks, and Jews and Gentiles is readily interchangable, meaning, all Men are under sin, thus unable to do good."
First, to be clear, we're operating from the same conclusion. I'm just clarifying my language.
Yes, the idea is that Jew and Gentile are under sin and unable to do good. So, before you became a Christian, you were either a Jew or a Gentile. So ... when you became a Christian, did you cease to be a Jew or Gentile? If not -- if you are still a Gentile (and you are) -- you must still be unable to do any good at all ... or it is hyperbole. I hold that those who are in Christ are capable to do good by the power of Christ. That would violate the absoluteness of "no one".
Post a Comment