Warren starts off with appealing to Jewish tradition about the Yetzer Hara and yetzer hatov. In Jewish tradition, the terms “yetzer hara” and “yetzer hatov” refer to the “evil inclination” and “good inclination,”. These concepts are used to describe the internal drives or impulses within individuals that incline them toward either evil or good actions. The yetzer hara represents the inclination toward selfishness, sin, and wrongdoing, while the yetzer hatov represents the inclination toward goodness, righteousness, and moral behavior.
- Yetzer Hara (Evil Inclination): The yetzer hara is often understood as the natural inclination within human beings toward selfishness, sin, and wrongdoing. It is associated with desires, impulses, and tendencies that lead individuals away from fulfilling their moral and spiritual potential. Examples of actions driven by the yetzer hara might include greed, envy, lust, anger, and dishonesty. The yetzer hara is not inherently evil itself, but it represents the capacity within individuals to choose selfish or sinful behaviors.
- Yetzer Hatov (Good Inclination): The yetzer hatov, on the other hand, represents the natural inclination within human beings toward goodness, righteousness, and moral behavior. It is associated with desires, impulses, and tendencies that lead individuals to act with kindness, compassion, honesty, and integrity. Examples of actions driven by the yetzer hatov might include acts of charity, compassion, justice, and righteousness. The yetzer hatov is seen as the Divine gift that enables individuals to choose and pursue virtuous actions.
Warren invokes these concepts in defense of his Pelagian anthropology. However, this argument should not be deemed as a compelling one. Firstly, Warren fails to substantiate that this interpretation aligns with the biblical perspective. Instead, he merely asserts its validity without providing substantial evidence connecting these later Rabbinic ideas with the original biblical context. Merely citing Genesis 4:4-6 does not inherently validate such an interpretation. Secondly, it’s not uncommon for Christians to diverge from Rabbinic Judaism on theological matters, considering that Rabbinic Judaism emerged partly in response to Christianity. For instance, would Warren also appeal to Rabbinic concepts regarding the Messiah, Trinity, or Oral Law? There is no inherent reason to regard Rabbinic Judaism as more authoritative than the beliefs of Second Temple Judaism. Alternatively, Warren may reference scholarly perspectives suggesting the presence of determinism among Second Temple Jews:
It is clear that during the first century different Jewish groups had competing perspectives regarding predestination, divine election, and determinism and freewill. Notable among these groups was the Yahad or community in Qumran, from where we discovered the Dead Sea Scrolls.[1] A number of scholars suggest this group may have been the Essenes. Josephus refers to the group when discussing three major sects of Judaism and their views regarding determinism:
“Now for the Pharisees, they say that some actions, but not all, are the work of fate, and some of them are in our own power, and that they are liable to fate, but are not caused by fate. But the sect of the Essenes affirm, that fate governs all things, and that nothing befalls men but what is according to its determination. (173) And for the Sadducees, they take away fate, and say there is no such thing, and that the events of human affairs are not at its disposal; but they suppose that all our actions are in our own power, so that we are ourselves the cause of what is good, and receive what is evil from our own folly” (Josephus, Antiquities 13. 172-73)
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/inchrist/2021/07/divine-determinism-and-human-freedom-the-romans-9-debate/
...Paul’s view on such things probably would not be much different than what the early rabbinic writing, the Mishnah, claimed: “All is foreseen, but freedom of choice is given” (m. Pirqe Abot 3:16[15]; Danby tr.).
Warren cites Deuteronomy 1:39 and Isaiah 7:16 to support his argument that humanity lacks original sin and is not entirely depraved. However, this line of reasoning has been previously addressed on my old website.
https://web.archive.org/web/20220313054522/https://spirited-tech.com/2022/02/04/age-of-accountability-and-original-sin/
I have also previously responded to his interpretation of Genesis 4:4-6:
https://watchmencouncil.com/2024/01/17/critiquing-warren-mcgrews-perspective-on-cains-sin/
Warren mentions Rome with cheerfulness in relation to the Baal gate, finding it noteworthy that Rome, historically associated with the belief in infant damnation apart from baptism, is mentioned in this context. He interprets this as a possible indication of progress for Pelagianism. Additionally, Warren references John MacArthur’s teachings to support the notion that the Old Testament teaches the inherent innocence of people. Presumably, he alludes to passages such as Jeremiah 7:6, Jeremiah 22:3, and Jeremiah 19:4.
Jeremiah 19:4 states: “Since they have abandoned Me and have made this place foreign, and have burned sacrifices in it to other gods that neither they nor their forefathers nor the kings of Judah had ever known, and since they have filled this place with the blood of the innocent.”
In Mark 10:14, Jesus expresses indignation when His disciples try to hinder children from coming to Him. He says, “Let the little children come to Me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.”
However, I disagree with Warren’s interpretation that these verses suggest children lack original sin. Rather, their innocence stems from being wrongfully murdered, as seen with the martyrs under Manasseh (2 Kings 21:16; 2 Kings 24:4). Take Jeremiah 2:34, for instance, where Israel commits serious crimes against vulnerable people. It does not imply that these victims never sinned or lacked original sin but rather that they are unjustly treated.
I maintain that infants have not committed sin but are guilty of original sin. While it’s acceptable to understand verses about infants as referring to their innocence from committing sin, it’s not accurate to apply it to Adam’s imputation. How prevalent does Warren believe such occurrences are, and why are these victims always susceptible to victimization?
Warren also references Mark 10, where Jesus blesses children, seemingly suggesting that all children are believers. However, such an interpretation appears speculative and lacks substantial evidence. While God does extend blessings to all individuals, including unbelievers, through common grace, and historical figures like Cyrus, Abimelech, and Nebuchadnezzar have received special benefits from God at times, Jesus’ statement does not necessarily imply that all children possess saving faith or are exempt from the effects of sin.
Instead, Jesus’ words in Mark 10 emphasize the importance of certain qualities exhibited by children, such as humility, trust, and dependence on God. Jesus isn’t arguing that all children are saved or inherently possess saving faith; rather, He is illustrating that these qualities are essential for entering the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, the focus of Jesus’ statement is on the spiritual disposition required for entry into God’s kingdom, rather than making a definitive statement about the spiritual state of all children.
The disciples’ attempt to turn the children aside because they were unimportant is one more instance of a persistent tendency to think in wholly human, fallen categories which Jesus had rebuked on earlier occasions (Chs. 8:33; 9:33-37). The Kingdom of God belongs to children, and to others like them who are of no apparent importance, because God has willed to give it to them. That is why these children are to be given access to Jesus, in whom the Kingdom has drawn near (see on Ch. 1:15). Unlike adults, who do not want anything to be given to them, children are comparatively modest and unspoiled. The Kingdom belongs to such as these because they receive it as a gift. The ground of Jesus’ surprising statement is not to be found in any subjective quality possessed by children but rather in their objective humbleness and in the startling character of the grace of God who wills to give the Kingdom to those who have no claim upon it.
William L. Lane. The Gospel according to Mark: The English Text With Introduction, Exposition, and Notes (The New International Commentary on the New Testament) (Kindle Locations 5537-5543). Kindle Edition.
This isn’t a lone take either, D. A. Carson commentating on Matthew 19:14 states:
Jesus does not want the little children prevented from coming to him, not because the kingdom of heaven belongs to them, but because the kingdom of heaven belongs to those like them (so also Mark and Luke, stressing childlike faith). Jesus receives them because they are an excellent object lesson in the kind of humility and faith he finds acceptable.
Carson, D. A.; Carson, D. A.. Matthew (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary) (Kindle Locations 14957-14959). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.
Warren then turns to Ezekiel 18:20, which, as previously addressed in the video, discusses the concept of individual responsibility for sin:
Warren invokes Deuteronomy 30:19-20 to support his argument that individuals can “choose life” and may suffer consequences from sin without being sinful or directly participating in the sin that affects them. However, it’s important to note that Reformed theology holds a nuanced perspective on human choice. While individuals may possess a counterfactual ability to choose, this does not necessarily imply a categorical or moral ability to do so.
Moreover, the video previously addressed this line of argument, emphasizing that these consequences are not inevitable but are ultimately under God’s control. For instance, Warren provides the example of a drunk driver striking and killing someone. While the person struck is not at fault for the accident, their mortality is ultimately their own responsibility. If this were not the case, then death would occur not as a result of sin, but due to other factors, contradicting passages such as Romans 5:12-19.
In summary, while individuals may have the capacity to make choices, the ultimate outcome and consequences of those choices are subject to God’s sovereignty. Therefore, the argument based on Deuteronomy 30:19-20 does not necessarily undermine the doctrine of original sin or the theological understanding of human responsibility and accountability before God.
Inherent Righteousness?
Warren’s attempt to use Psalm 8:2-5 as evidence of inherent human righteousness misses the mark. This beautiful psalm isn’t about human moral purity but rather about the magnificence of God’s creation and His special relationship with humanity. Psalm 8:2-5
Out of the mouths of infants and nursing babies
you have established strength
on account of your adversaries,
in order to silence the enemy and vengeful foe.
3 When I look at the heavens,
the work of your fingers,
the moon and the stars that you established—
4 what is man that you take notice of him,
or the son of man that you pay attention to him?
5 You made him a little less than divine,
but you crowned him with glory and honor.
The psalmist marvels at the heavens, acknowledging God’s majestic handiwork in creating the universe. In this cosmic context, the psalmist ponders the significance of humanity in relation to the vastness of creation. Despite our smallness in comparison to the cosmos, God has bestowed upon us a unique dignity and honor. This is not because of any inherent righteousness on our part but rather as a reflection of God’s grace and love towards His creation.
9 Yet, you are the one who took me from the womb,
and kept me safe on my mother’s breasts.
10 I was dependent on you from birth;
from my mother’s womb you have been my God.
Warren’s argument from Psalm 22:9-10, where the psalmist speaks of God’s involvement from birth, is somewhat misguided in his attempt to assert inherent human righteousness. The psalmist’s acknowledgment of God’s care and presence from the womb does not necessarily imply innate righteousness or immunity from the effects of original sin. Instead, it reflects the psalmist’s deep sense of dependence on God from the earliest moments of life.
In this passage, the psalmist describes a profound relationship with God that spans from birth. This relationship is characterized by trust and dependency, highlighting God’s continuous care and involvement in the psalmist’s life from infancy. However, it’s important to recognize that this relational aspect does not negate the reality of human sinfulness or the need for divine grace.
The examples of John the Baptist and Jeremiah, cited by Warren, similarly illustrate individuals with unique relationships with God from their earliest moments. Yet, their special status does not exempt them from the broader theological understanding of human sinfulness. Rather, it underscores the idea of God’s sovereign grace and initiative in initiating relationships with His chosen servants.
Therefore, while Psalm 22:9-10 highlights the psalmist’s trust in God from birth, it does not support the notion of inherent human righteousness. Instead, it emphasizes the foundational role of God in human life and the need for continual reliance on His grace and guidance. (See also Jeremiah 1:5; Luke 1:15; Romans 3:10-12)
Psalm 71:5-6
5 For you are my hope, Lord God,
my security since I was young.
6 I depended on you since birth,
when you brought me from my mother’s womb;
I praise you continuously.
Psalm 139
13 It was you who formed my internal organs,
fashioning me within my mother’s womb.
14 I praise you,
because you are fearful and wondrous!
Your work is wonderful,
and I am fully aware of it.
In this passage, the psalmist reflects on God’s faithfulness and provision throughout life, from birth to old age. While it acknowledges God’s care and protection from infancy, it does not imply inherent righteousness. Instead, it emphasizes the psalmist’s dependence on God’s grace and faithfulness throughout life.
Psalm 71:5-6 celebrates God’s intimate knowledge and involvement in the formation of human life. It speaks of God’s intricate craftsmanship in creating each individual and acknowledges His sovereignty over the process of human development. While it highlights the sanctity and value of human life, it does not suggest inherent righteousness. (See also Psalm 139:13-14; Isaiah 44:2)
The psalmist’s recognition of God’s presence from the womb underscores the theme of divine providence and care, rather than implying moral perfection from birth. Just as in the case of Psalm 22:9-10, this passage emphasizes the foundational role of God in human life and the need for continual reliance on His grace and guidance.
Psalm 127:3-4
3 Children are a gift from the Lord;
a productive womb, the Lord’s reward.
4 As arrows in the hand of a warrior,
so also are children born during one’s youth.
In Psalm 127:3-4, the psalmist celebrates children as a blessing from the Lord. Here, the emphasis is on the importance of family and parenthood, highlighting the responsibility parents have in nurturing their children. However, it’s crucial to note that this celebration of children as a blessing doesn’t imply inherent righteousness or merit. Instead, it serves as a gentle reminder of our dependence on God’s grace and guidance in the sacred journey of parenthood.
These verses do not support the notion of inherent righteousness apart from God’s grace. Rather, they underscore the divine role in the gift of children and the ongoing need for God’s guidance in raising them. Therefore, attempts to conclude that man is inherently righteous apart from God’s grace fail when these passages are cited in isolation from the broader biblical context.
Psalm 58:3 and 51:5
Warren now makes it to showing how the psalms are being misused in support of Calvinism. The two in question are Psalm 51:5 and 58:3.
3 For I know my transgressions,
and my sin is always before me.
4 Against you, you only, have I sinned
and done what is evil in your sight;
so you are right in your verdict
and justified when you judge.
5 Surely I was sinful at birth,
sinful from the time my mother conceived me.
6 Yet you desired faithfulness even in the womb;
you taught me wisdom in that secret place.
Do you rulers indeed speak justly?
Do you judge people with equity?
2 No, in your heart you devise injustice,
and your hands mete out violence on the earth.
3 Even from birth the wicked go astray;
from the womb they are wayward, spreading lies.
4 Their venom is like the venom of a snake,
like that of a cobra that has stopped its ears,
5 that will not heed the tune of the charmer,
however skillful the enchanter may be.
Warren argues that Psalm 58 is talking about the wicked, but that leaves out the righteous. This isn’t necessarily mistaken, but Paul applies this to the universality of mankind in an argument to show that all of mankind is under sin (Romans 3:9-20). Furthermore, Warren argues that this actually teaches the opposite, that men are inherently righteous, but then goes off and becomes wicked because they go astray. But this hardly is what the psalmist meant. Firstly, Warren is committing a special linguistic fallacy where you import part of analogies or metaphors that aren’t intended to be imported. Secondly, the text seems to imply the contrary to such when from the womb they are wayward implies that this isn’t something new to the agent then.
The immediate context is about unjust judges, but there is also the question of Paul’s usage of this passage.
The psalmist now will describe their character in more detail. First, they have gone astray from the beginning of their lives. The verb (111, a perfect tense) comes from the verb (111) that means “to be a stranger.” It may be translated “they are estranged,” or “they have become strangers,” meaning they have gone astray. This is said to be “from the womb” (paralleled with “belly”), meaning from their birth (the figures are metonymies of subject). A. A. Anderson says this is an exaggeration, for if the wording is taken literally, it would come near to what is known as “original sin.”35 But he seems to accept the idea that they are liars from birth. Perowne also struggles with how to explain this; he says it was not intended for the truth of innate depravity, only that their whole life is one of continuous sin (1:456). Whatever terms people like to use or do not like to use, the point seems to be the same, i.e., that from the beginning they have gone astray.36 The parallel line says that they are wayward (11.1131, from 111313, “to err, wander about, go astray”) from the beginning. And this going astray is then identified most importantly with “speaking lies” (the participle is plural and in construct: “speakers of a lie,” it describes their character as liars). The question that began the psalm was whether or not these judges spoke righteousness; here is it clarified that they are liars. So the first description is that these people have been going astray all their lives, and the immediate evidence of their sinfulness is their lying.
A Commentary on the Psalms: 3 Volume Set (Kregel Exegetical Library) by Allen Ross (Page 299).
It’s clear that Paul’s intention isn’t to undermine the original context of the psalm but rather to extend its application, emphasizing the universal nature of sin among all humanity. By indicting both Jews and Greeks for their sinful state, Paul underscores the universal need for redemption. Additionally, Schreiner, Theilman, and Moo highlight how Paul strategically employs Old Testament quotations, including those distinguishing between the righteous and the wicked, to strengthen his argument.
Paul categorically insists that the Jews have no advantage over gentiles. Does this contradict the claim in 3: 1 that the Jews possess an advantage? At a superficial level it does, but at another level the verses relate to two different realities. Verses 1– 3 affirm the salvation-historical priority of the Jews and that the promises made to them will be fulfilled. Verse 9 reminds the Jews, in a way reminiscent of Amos 3: 2, that these saving promises do not exempt them from responsibility for their sin. Those who sin are accountable to God for their transgression and are deserving of and destined for judgment. Verse 9 declares that Jews who sin cannot claim an advantage. They cannot shield themselves from God’s wrath by appealing to the covenant and their Jewishness. This is borne out by the γάρ (gar, for) connecting verse 9b to 9c. Indeed, Paul informs us how he understood his argument in the previous sections when he says, “We have previously accused [προῃτιασάμεθα, proētiasametha] all people, both Jews and Greeks, to be under the power of sin.” 4 I have noted how a few scholars question whether 1: 18– 3: 8 intends to say that all, without exception, sin. This verse should dispel doubt that this was Paul’s purpose (cf. D. Moo 1991: 203; cf. Westerholm 1988: 155– 64). Not only does Paul specify that both Jews and Greeks have been indicted; he also goes beyond this by saying that “all” (πάντας, pantas) people have been indicted in his previous comments. D. Moo (1991: 203) remarks perceptively that Paul does not prove that all are sinners: he accuses all of sin. 5 Therefore, to say that Paul doesn’t prove that all are sinners doesn’t nullify the notion that Paul indicts all as sinners in 1: 18– 3: 20.
The catena of OT quotations in verses 10– 18 supports the idea that all are sinners, but before examining that theme in more detail, I should briefly explore the meaning of the phrase ὑφ ᾽ ἁμαρτίαν (hyph’ hamartian, under sin, 3: 9). Even though Kaye (1979: 30– 57) restricts ἁμαρτία in Paul to sinful acts, “sin” is also a power. For instance, sin is described as reigning (5: 21), enslaving (6: 6), ruling (6: 12), and exercising lordship (6: 14). People are described as slaves to (6: 16, 17, 20) or freed from (6: 18, 22) sin. Sin as a power cannot ultimately be separated from acts of sin (Wilckens 1978: 172– 73; Dunn 1988a: 149; against Hübner 1984b: 114). The catena in verses 10– 18 bears this out. Sin as a power rules over all people, but it manifests itself in specific acts, as verses 10– 17 attest. 6 The anthropological dimensions of the Pauline doctrine of sin here should not be overlooked. Paul had a darker view of human ability than some Jews, who believed that human beings had the capability to observe the law (cf. Laato 1991; Westerholm 1988: 141– 73). Judaism acknowledged that all people without exception are sinners (B. Longenecker 1991: 23– 27), but Paul thought that sin had wrapped its tentacles so tightly around human beings that they could not keep the law. This state of affairs applied not only to the gentiles but also to the Jews, who were God’s covenant people. …He observes that the texts cited in the catena always distinguish between the “righteous” and the “wicked” in their OT contexts. Thus in his view, these texts don’t support the conclusion that all people without exception are sinners and wicked. The wicked are confined to a particular group in opposition to the righteous. Davies thinks it unlikely that Paul would employ the OT texts in a way contrary to their meaning in the OT. He therefore infers that scholars have misunderstood the purpose of 3: 9– 20. Paul’s aim was not to show that all people are sinners, but that there is a distinction between the wicked and righteous. All are accountable to God, but not all are guilty before him, according to Davies. Although G. Davies’s solution is initially plausible, it should be rejected. Dunn (1988a: 147– 48, 150– 51) argues perceptively that Paul uses the OT texts in a more sophisticated way. 11 The OT texts that distinguished between the righteous and wicked are now applied to Jews who believed they were righteous, to prosecute the theme that all are guilty before God. By abolishing the distinction between the righteous and the wicked, Paul overturns the Jewish concept of covenant protection.
The sin of the Jews places them in the same situation as the gentiles: guilty before God. 12 The indictment of “all” as sinners is confirmed by the remarkable emphasis on universality noted earlier. Saying that “all” are under sin, both Jews and gentiles (v. 9), and excluding everyone from being righteous in such emphatic terms indicates that Paul speaks universally. Indeed, we shall see that the all-pervasiveness of sin continues to be prominent in verses 19– 20.
Schreiner, Thomas R.. Romans (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament) (pp. 334-336, 40). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
Probably Paul is using an implicit “from the greater to the lesser” argument: if Jews, God’s chosen people, cannot be excluded from the scope of sin’s tyranny, then it surely follows that Gentiles, who have no claim on God’s favor, are also guilty.621 We must remember that Paul’s chief purpose throughout Rom. 1:18–3:20 is not to demonstrate that Gentiles are guilty and in need of God’s righteousness—for this could be assumed—but that Jews bear the same burden and have the same need. …
Moo, Douglas J.. The Letter to the Romans (New International Commentary on the New Testament (NICNT)) . Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.. Kindle Edition.
The fact that many of these quotations denounce only the wicked or unrighteous within Israel—and hence do not seem to fit Paul’s universalistic intention—has been taken as indication that Paul’s intention is not to condemn all people.595 But Paul’s actual intention is probably more subtle; by citing texts that denounce the unrighteous and applying them, to all people, including all Jews, he underscores the argument of 2:1–3:8 that, in fact, not even faithful Jews can claim to be “righteous.” …
But Paul appears to be looking at all human beings as they appear before the Lord apart from his saving grace. Even Abraham and David, then, are, in themselves, “unrighteous.”
Scripture also testifies that human sinfulness extends to every aspect of human existence, to, for example, human speech, which people often use to harm others. The second major section of the quotation collection begins here and emphasizes the far-reaching consequences of sin in the human being. The collection had already spoken of the mind in 3:10–12 (“There is no one who understands”), and now, in 3:13–18, it covers the throat, tongue, lips, feet, and eyes. Here in 3:13–14 Paul focuses on the organs of speech, using Psalm 5:9b (5:10b LXX), Psalm 140:3 (139:4 LXX; 140:4 Heb.), and Psalm 10:7 (9:28 LXX) to make his point.21 The first two clauses, both from Psalm 5:9b (10b LXX) depict the damage that deceitful speech can inflict. The image of the throat as an open tomb from which this speech emerges evokes the inner corruption that produces lying speech and the violence that it does to its victims.22 For those, like Paul, who knew the Psalm well, the immediately preceding couplet might have also come to mind, further emphasizing the idea that deceitful speech emerges from inner corruption: “Because there is no truth in their mouths, their heart is vain” (Ps 5:10a LXX [Eng. 5:9a]).
Frank S. Thielman, Clinton E. Arnold. Romans (Kindle Locations 4865-4875). Zondervan Academic. Kindle Edition.
The psalmist addresses evil rulers who judge in a way that leads to injustice rather than justice, violence rather than peace. God judges with equity (Ps. 98:9), and rulers should reflect their divine King. The word for rulers may suggest spiritual beings (angels; especially if we accept a slight emendation [’elîm for ’ēlem], the latter makes no sense in the context) or possibly human rulers. Interestingly, Psalm 82 chastises the spiritual powers for not exercising their authority justly. The Teacher bemoans the fact that justice cannot be found among human rulers (Eccl. 3:15–16). The injustice of human rulers leads the psalmist to inveigh against wicked people in general. He says that they were born that way. They are as dangerous and deadly as a cobra who cannot be charmed.
Tremper Longman III. Psalms (Kindle Locations 6263-6268). InterVarsity Press. Kindle Edition.
Warren overlooks other Psalms that echo the sentiments expressed in Psalm 51. Take, for instance, Psalm 14:1-3, which shares striking similarities and is likely included in the quotation found in Romans 3.
1 The fool says in his heart,
“There is no God.”
They are corrupt, their deeds are vile;
there is no one who does good.
2 The Lord looks down from heaven
on all mankind
to see if there are any who understand,
any who seek God.
3 All have turned away, all have become corrupt;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.
The psalm begins with a reflection on the fool. There are many Hebrew words for fool. The psalmist here speaks of the nābāl, and while it is not easy to specify the precise meaning of each of these words, Fox is helpful when he comments, ‘a nābāl is a species of fool, base and worthless and an object of scorn. He is never merely stupid, but… morally deficient’ (Fox 2000: 627). And certainly the latter characteristic is brought out in the second parallel line of the first verse, when the fool is described in terms that express utter depravity. That said, the primary characteristic of fools is that they deny God. Whether or not they are actually atheists is beside the point. As Proverbs famously asserts, ‘The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge’ (1:7), and here we get the flip side of that statement: the rejection of God is the start of folly and moral corruption.
Tremper Longman III. Psalms (Kindle Locations 3896-3908). InterVarsity Press. Kindle Edition.
The psalmist has pronounced that humanity is characterized by pervasive depravity. …
In these verses, he claims God’s agreement in this assessment. He describes God examining humanity from heaven, looking for a righteous person who is seeking him. Verse 3 announces the results of God’s investigation. Rather than seeking him, people are running away from him. No-one is good. While such a categorical statement is surely hyperbolic (after all, the psalmist himself would be one who sought God), God’s evaluation reminds us of the situation on the eve of the flood when ‘God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways’ (Gen. 6:12).
Another verse like this is Ecclesiastes 7:20
Indeed, there is no one on earth who is righteous,
no one who does what is right and never sins.
This passage from Qohelet mirrors Paul’s discourse in Romans 3:9-20, affirming the universal sinfulness of humanity. Qohelet denies the presence of anyone truly righteous and without sin, echoing the sentiment found in Romans. While some suggest this denial emphasizes the importance of wisdom due to the absence of righteousness, this interpretation is challenged by the established link between wisdom and righteousness in other biblical contexts. Instead, the verse emphatically declares the absence of righteousness, even among the wise. Qohelet acknowledges the existence of righteous individuals but highlights their inconsistency and susceptibility to sin, aligning with similar notions found in both the Old and New Testaments. This passage suggests Qohelet’s recognition of the futility in striving for unwavering righteousness, potentially influencing his subsequent reflections on righteousness.
As argued in the commentary to v. 19, this verse asserts the limits of human ability. Qohelet sounds like Paul here (Rom. 3:9-20), who is himself quoting a number of OT passages, especially from Psalms. Qohelet denies that anybody on the face of the earth is righteous and without sin. The force of the conjunction ki that begins the verse is a problem, as is the connection between this verse and its context.99 Some10° take the conjunction as the causal “for” or “because.” They argue that the verse supplies the reason why wisdom is so important, that is, because there is a dearth of righteous people. Since there are no righteous around, the wise must care for the city. This approach strikes me as wrongheaded because of the close association between wisdom and righteousness in other parts of the Bible (see Prov. 8:12-14). Accordingly, it is much better to translate ki as an asseverative conjunction, Surely. The verse thus provides a counterbalance to the previous one. Wise people are of immense value, but no one, not even the wise, is righteous. In this way, Qohelet does what he so often does – puts forward a positive value and then relativizes it.101 Qohelet does not deny the presence of the righteous. There are righteous people, but these righteous people are not consistently good. They do sin, at least occasionally. This opinion may be found throughout the OT (1 Kings 8:46; Ps. 143:2; Prov. 20:9) and the NT (see especially Rom. 3:10-18, which may even contain an allusion to our verse). We may even see here the motivation for v. 16. Since Qohelet believes that no one can be consistently righteous, why try for it to the point of frustration?
Tremper Longman. The Book of Ecclesiastes (New International Commentary on the Old Testament) (Kindle Locations 3682-3687). Kindle Edition.
Now, examining Psalm 51:5, Warren, lacking expertise in Hebrew, asserts that the language unequivocally points to David’s mother’s sin (even though there is no scriptural report of it). However, it’s noteworthy that theologians and commentators, well-versed in Hebrew, do not find the necessity for such an interpretation based on the original language.
In his search for forgiveness the psalmist opens his sinful heart. To this end, he uses the three synonyms for sin—“ transgressions,” “iniquity,” and “sin” (vv. 1-3; see 32: 1-2). The variety of words for sin is for poetic reasons, as they express the seriousness of sin. The author is fully aware of his condition before God. He confesses “I know” (yādaʿ), with an emphasis on “I.” He knows himself intimately and sees how rebellious he has been. His confession is more than introspection, as he knows that he has sinned against God: “against you, you only” (v. 4; cf. Lk 15: 18). A similar contrast is found in vv. 5-6: “Surely I was sinful at birth. . . . Surely you desire truth.” Von Rad, 1: 154, correctly observes that the OT rarely gives a theological reflection on sin but underscores the necessity of confession. Between these two prayers of contrition is an affirmation of God’s justice (v. 4b). The psalmist does not reject or argue with divine justice (Ro 3: 4), because the Lord’s verdict is “proved right” (ṣādaq, “be righteous”).
Confronted with God’s righteous verdict, the psalmist is more deeply pricked by his own sinfulness. Sin consists here of an overt act of rebellion whereby the creature despises divine laws and flaunts a sinful nature (v. 5; cf. Job 14: 4; Ro 7: 18). …
VanGemeren, Willem A.. Psalms (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary) (Kindle Locations 14347-15204). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.
God is just, whereas humanity is so corrupt that their whole being cries out for help. The Lord expects people to be “loyal” (ʾemet; NIV, “truth,” v. 6) and to give an earnest, heartfelt expression of godliness. But people in their sinfulness cannot respond unless the Lord sends “wisdom” from on high. Only divine wisdom can bring a remedy to the sinful condition of the heart. Humans are sinful through and through (vv. 3-5; cf. Ro 3: 9-20; 7: 14); they cannot help themselves or justify their sinfulness but are in need of God’s wisdom from on high (cf. Nic.H. Ridderbos, “Psalm 51: 5-6,” in Studia Biblica et Semitica [Wageningen: Veenman, 1966], 299-312). …
The nature of the wicked is amplified in two ways. First, they are wicked from birth. They begin to devise evil from their very youth in that there is no evidence of good or possibility of change in their hearts. The wicked “go astray” (cf. Hos 5: 7) from what is right; they are deceptive, selfish, and bend the rules in their favor.
Rabbinical Tradition vs the Scriptures
Warren appeals to a Rabbinical tradition which teaches that David’s father, Jesse, was tricked by his wife. According to this tradition, Jesse avoided sleeping with his other wife and instead slept with her in order to conceive again, due to his fears over his lineage.
In Jewish tradition, David’s mother was Nitzevet, the daughter of Adael and the wife of Jesse. The Talmud relates a complicated story concerning Nitzevet: her husband, Jesse, began to doubt the purity of his ancestry, since he was the grandson of Ruth the Moabitess (Ruth 4:17). Due to his doubts, Jesse stopped having marital relations with Nitzevet after she had borne her seventh son. Instead, Jesse planned to marry his Canaanite servant and have children with her. The maidservant, however, had pity on Nitzevet and offered Nitzevet a plan: on the wedding night, Nitzevet and the maidservant could secretly switch places, and Nitzevet could sleep with Jesse one more time. The switch worked, much as Leah and Rachel’s switch had worked on Jacob, and Nitzevet became pregnant with David, her eighth son. Nitzevet never revealed to Jesse what she had done, even when her pregnancy was apparent; therefore, Nitzevet came to be despised as an immoral woman, and her son, David, grew up an outcast in his own family. Again, this is an extrabiblical legend, and there is no way to confirm the accuracy of the tale of Nitzevet. These theories could explain why David was not accepted by his family: “I am a foreigner to my own family, a stranger to my own mother’s children” (Psalm 69:8). David was left to tend the flocks when the prophet Samuel invited all of Jesse’s sons to a sacrifice (1 Samuel 16:5). God had told Samuel that He would choose one of the sons to be anointed king, but the family never even considered David as a possibility (1 Samuel 16:11). The theories might also shed some light on Psalm 51:5, “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me” (ESV).
https://www.gotquestions.org/David-mother.html
There are several issues with this interpretation. Firstly, there isn’t anything inherently wrong with consensual relations between married adults (Genesis 2:24; Proverbs 5:18-19). The sin, if any, lies in the trickery and deception that led to normal conjugal relations, which are rightfully promised to wives (Exodus 20:14; Proverbs 6:32-35). However, in Psalm 51:5, David is lamenting his own adultery (2 Samuel 11:2-4), and the focus of the passage is on David’s personal guilt and repentance. While Warren often highlights that the consequences of sins aren’t one’s fault, David wouldn’t necessarily be using this verse to condemn himself for his deeds but rather to reflect on his own actions and need for forgiveness (Psalm 51:1-4).
Secondly, in Psalm 69, David’s siblings criticize him (Psalm 69:8), but it’s notable that these are his full siblings, not his half-siblings. This raises questions about their motives and familial dynamics. If David’s lineage were truly in question due to the circumstances of his birth, one would expect his half-siblings to be the ones casting doubt, not his full siblings.
While engaging with these alternative interpretations, it’s crucial to remain mindful of the broader context and the potential implications of the arguments being refuted. In the case of Warren’s spooftexting, the theory of Jesse’s mistreatment of David invoking entities beyond necessity may appear ad hoc and lacks substantial support within the biblical narrative. It’s essential to approach such interpretations with a critical eye, considering the plausibility and coherence of the proposed explanations. Additionally, attributing negative motives to Jesse without sufficient evidence risks oversimplifying the complexities of familial relationships and cultural dynamics in ancient Israel.
Firstly, it’s plausible to view Jesse’s decision to have David tend to the flocks, despite the presence of bears and lions, as a form of training and preparation. This interpretation suggests that Jesse may have intended to equip David with courage, strength, and resourcefulness by exposing him to such dangers. In this light, David’s experiences as a shepherd could be seen as integral to his development, enabling him to confront challenges like Goliath with confidence (1 Samuel 17:34-37).
Moreover, we should also take into account the cultural context of ancient Israelite society. In many cases, familial roles and responsibilities were determined by birth order and traditional customs. Thus, David being tasked with shepherding duties might reflect his place within the family hierarchy or customary obligations assigned to younger sons. Similarly, Jesse’s initial oversight of David when Samuel sought to anoint one of his sons as king (1 Samuel 16:10) could be understood within the framework of cultural norms rather than personal bias.
From a spiritual standpoint, it’s compelling to consider David’s experiences as a shepherd as part of God’s larger plan to prepare him for kingship. Just as God used Moses’ time as a shepherd to shape him for leadership (Exodus 3:1-10), David’s humble beginnings as a shepherd could be viewed as instrumental in cultivating his character, fostering his dependence on God, and molding him for the role of king.
If David’s lineage was the sole reason for his disdainful treatment, why weren’t his siblings subjected to the same treatment? Why were they summoned when Samuel visited, and why weren’t they assigned to shepherd duties like David? It’s evident that lineage alone cannot account for the differential treatment David received.
Moreover, Psalm 69:8-20 does not unequivocally endorse the later Rabbinical speculations regarding David’s ancestry, as Warren himself concedes. Alternative interpretations offer compelling insights into this passage. For instance, the mockers mentioned in Psalm 69 are referred to as “sons of his mother,” implying a closer familial relationship than merely being half-siblings with a pure lineage. This observation aligns with Steve Christie’s argument, which suggests…
It’s worth noting that Psalm 69 is alluded to in several New Testament passages, such as John 2:17 and Romans 15:3. These references provide additional context and shed light on the interpretation of the psalm in light of the broader biblical narrative.
Warren suggests another possible interpretation, attributing the language of Psalm 58 to hyperbole. However, it’s curious how he readily embraces hyperbolic interpretations here while dismissing them in other contexts, particularly when discussing Calvinist perspectives. This inconsistency begs the question: what criteria does Warren use to determine when hyperbole is warranted? Perhaps the passages he cites regarding the inherent goodness of humanity are themselves hyperbolic, and the language in Psalm 51 and 58 should be taken more literally. Without providing solid reasons for deeming certain passages as hyperbolic, Warren risks undermining his argument and appearing inconsistent in his interpretive approach.
The final recourse for Pelagians appears to be an appeal to adultery, an interpretation even rejected by Warren as unbiblical, given that the Bible clearly identifies Jesse as David’s father (1 Samuel 16:10-11; Ruth 4:17; Matthew 1:6; Luke 3:32).
For those that endured, I recommend my other treatment of Psalm 51:5 here:
The Council 