Poetic distress
by Barry Newton
Periodically throughout scripture, Biblical authors convey their inner turmoil. Sometimes that language moves beyond mere storytelling to providing the opportunity to vicariously experience the crisis.
When an author desires to vividly express the breadth and depth of his or her angst, perhaps even inviting the reader to identify with an experience, to merely unfold a narrative, even a descriptive one, simply will not do.
Enter the poet armed with powerful evocative imagery.
We are familiar with the narrative prologue of Job. Wave after wave of disaster crashes upon Job. Finally even his health is stripped from him as painful sores break out all over his body.
While such words cause us to pity him and consider his plight, we do so from a distance. It is the distress of his poetic words that enable us, if we choose, to experience something of standing in his shoes.
“Let the day on which I was born perish! … That day – let it be darkness, … Why did I not die at birth, and why did I not expire as I came out of the womb?” (Job 3:3,4,11, NET).
If we allow ourselves to consider the degree of suffering it would require for us to utter such words, we are drawn into identifying, at least partially, with Job’s tormented soul.
Should we extract from this biblical text a doctrine about cursing the day of our birth? Of course not. Job is describing in the strongest poetic language possible his utter despair.
Accordingly, when David poetically poured out with hyperbole his profound disgust over his sinfulness, we gain access to something of his turmoil and state of mind, not doctrinal truths or literal truths about him.
“I am forever conscious of my sin” (Psalm 51:3).
Really? David never had a moment of distraction where he forgot his sin? To press such a point would distort his message.
Similarly David’s utter contempt for his guilt causes him to envision his entire life shrouded in sin:
“a sinner the moment my mother conceived me” (Psalm 51:5).
Really? To press such a point would again distort the message.
We have heard people use similar language. “My whole life is a failure! I was born a failure!” Really?
Of course not and we understand how to interpret this language in everyday life. Why then are we tempted to resort to a wooden and stilted manner of interpreting the angst of real people in scripture?
Psalm 51 and Job 3 provide us windows into how biblical characters were feeling.
A responsible interpretation of such texts follows the author’s guidance. It does not artificially strain it through a theological grid disrespecting the genre and purpose.
June 6, 2012 - 4:36 pm
Well said.
June 6, 2012 - 6:17 pm
Excellent article. I wrote an article on Relative Negation that is similar to your article, and you can find it here:
http://thebiblemeditator.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/tbm-february-2009.pdf
June 8, 2012 - 3:15 pm
Well, the CEV is about like the NIV when it comes to it’s “translation” (I use that term as lightly as I can make it). New International Perversion and the Contemporary English Perversion is would sum these versions up accurately.
Pingback: Total Hereditary Depravity, Part 2 – The Bible Simply Does Not Teach We’re Born Sinners! « keltonburg preacher
August 27, 2012 - 12:48 pm
” ‘a sinner the moment my mother conceived me’ (Psalm 51:5).
Really? To press such a point would again distort the message.”
I would generally agree that you need to be careful when you evaluate poetry in the psalms like 51:5 or 58:3. The problem is that they fit with the rest of scriptural teaching on the very nature of humanity.
Psa58:3 Even from birth the wicked go astray; from the womb they are wayward and speak lies.
Do you really want to say that Genesis is merely poetical? Or is “every” natural inclination of men only evil from the very beginning?
Gen6:5The LORD saw how great man’s wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time.
Gen8:21The LORD smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: “Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood.
Jer17:9The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?
Eph2:3All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were BY NATURE objects of wrath.
Rom5:12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned…Rom6:23 For the wages of sin is death
If infants die and death is the wages of sin, the logical biblical conclusion is that infants are guilty of sin. If infants are born with human nature, then by that very nature, they would be born as objects of wrath.
God is certainly capable of giving the gift of faith to infants. John the baptist leapt in the womb when he met Jesus.
But it is important to believe the bible and accept its teaching as authoritative even when it makes you uncomfortable. To deny the teaching of scripture because it doesn’t suit your personal morality is a very slippery slope…
August 30, 2012 - 2:39 pm
Since we are in agreement that care needs to be exercised in drawing conclusions from expressive poetry, then let’s look at the other texts.
I have not suggested that either Genesis 6:8 or 8:21 are poetry, they are narrative. The first text vividly describes the pervasiveness of sinful lifestyles that existed at that time without saying a word about people being born into that condition. Nothing here about original sin.
The description in Genesis 8:21 characterizing humanity’s behavior as being evil from youth describes what happens from the time that someone is old enough to discern between right and wrong. Nothing here about the state of people when they are born.
Jeremiah 17:9 takes us back into Hebraic poetry where the author has been contrasting those “whose hearts have turned away from the LORD” because they “trust in mere human beings (17:5) with “those people who trust in me (God)” (17:7). Verses 9-11 proceed to describe why it is foolish to trust in people rather than in God. People are deceitful and we can not understand their hearts. However, God is able to understand their hearts and he judges appropriately. Nothing here about original sin.
Ephesians 2:3 describes the nature of those who are dead in sin (2:1). Nothing is said in this text about what caused them to become sinners and thus become by nature objects of God’s wrath. Nothing here about original sin.
Space does not permit a full treatment on Romans 5:12. Let it suffice to say, that Paul is focused upon contrasting the consequences for the human race unleashed by Adam, namely death, with that of Christ, namely life.
Because of Adam’s disobedience, death has been unleashed and reigns over humanity, that is, those in Adam. Not only does this verse reveal that this consequence justified, but it also highlights the relationship between sin and death. As death came to one man because he sinned, so too death comes to all “because all have sinned.” Romans 5:12 picks up Paul’s earlier conclusion in 3:23.
On a side note, the Reformed interpretation of Romans puzzles me. If, as they claim, Paul’s purpose throughout the early chapters of Romans involves establishing the universality of sin by demonstrating how each category of humanity is guilty before God because everyone has sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, then is not all of that ink convoluted and superfluous since, if they are correct that we are all born sinners, Paul could have just cut to the chase? Perhaps I do not fully understand Reformed theology, but if we are all born sinners is there any need to point out how I have personally sinned in order to conclude that I am a sinner?
August 30, 2012 - 4:53 pm
I was just reading Mike Benson’s post from October 21, 2011 which even denies the virgin birth to protect the notion of sinless infants. (He claimed Jesus was descended from Adam by denying Luke3:23 “He was the son, SO IT WAS THOUGHT, of Joseph.”) Have mercy…
“Ephesians 2:3 describes the nature of those who are dead in sin (2:1). Nothing is said in this text about what caused them to become sinners and thus become by nature objects of God’s wrath. Nothing here about original sin.”
I continue to find this sectarian teaching difficult to follow. Have you never heard of the “nature vs. nurture” debate? Every English speaker outside of your sect understands that your “nature” is what you are born with…and “nurture” describes your experiences after that point. To “become by nature” after you are born is simply nonsense. “That which is born of the flesh is flesh.” (John3:6) It is bizarre to me to suggest that infants lack a common human nature with adults. All those billions of people throughout history “born pure and sinless” and making “free” (in your view) choices and yet none but the incarnate Second Person of the Trinity, born without a human father, was able to live a perfect, obedient life? You’d think the odds would be better…
And there is something that you have missed entirely: that people don’t make choices at random. When Eph2 goes on about the “dead,” they are marked by their evil actions. You assume that their actions are the cause that results in their being “dead,” but it’s more accurate biblically to say that our actions result from our nature:
Luk6:43 “For a good tree does not bear bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit. 44 For every tree is known by its own fruit. For men do not gather figs from thorns, nor do they gather grapes from a bramble bush. 45 A good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart brings forth evil. For out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks.
Jam3:11 Does a spring send forth fresh water and bitter from the same opening? 12 Can a fig tree, my brethren, bear olives, or a grapevine bear figs? Thus no spring yields both salt water and fresh.
1Cor2:14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
Spiritually dead people are only alive to their flesh, so that dictates their desires and their understanding. Their choices reflect their nature…who they are. And according to the scriptures, we lack the ability to change our nature:
Jer13:23Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard its spots? Then may you also do good who are accustomed to do evil.
Flesh can only give birth to flesh, while Spirit gives birth to spirit. We need to be “made alive” spiritually before our desires and understanding change…which leads us to make different choices than we did before. After we are “born of the Spirit”, we miraculously have a new spiritual nature…but that is immediately in conflict with our still-present old nature…
But it sounds like we’re a long way from even agreeing on the basics. If you are convinced that a bramble bush is free to produce grapes and a salt spring is free to yield fresh water, I disagree and suspect you are bringing preconceptions to the table. I’m guessing this all goes back to whether God has the right to hold men responsible for disobedience if they lack the natural ability to be obedient.
This is not a core doctrine, though. The reformed explanation makes more sense to me but if you are convinced, suit yourself.
October 18, 2012 - 7:55 am
Regarding nature and it’s usage in Ephesians 2:3, I’ve posted some thoughts in another article at http://forthright.net/2012/10/17/nature-ephesians-2-3/