From post #92, here are the problems with a literal interpretation:
A contradiction
If the language of
Psalm 51:5 and
58:3-6 is to be pressed literally, then one encounters a contradiction between the two texts.
Psalm 51:5 would teach that the child is a sinner from the moment of his
conception, whereas
Psalm 58:3 would suggest that the infant does not “go astray” until he is
born — nine months later. Which is it – if the text is strictly literal?
Going astray
The fact that the sinner is said to “
go astray” (
Psa. 58:3), rather than being “born astray,” reveals the individual’s personal culpability, rather than Adam’s responsibility (as in the “original sin” theory). Compare Isaiah’s declaration: “All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way” (
Isa. 53:6). No one is considered “sinful” on account of the sins of someone else (
Ezek. 18:20).
An impossibility
A literal interpretation of
Psalm 58:3 involves an impossibility. It has the infant “speaking” lies as soon as it is born, which every parent knows is not the reality. It
is the case, however, that we often
figuratively (using hyperbole) refer to the language that one has spoken most of his life as the tongue of his “birth” (cf.
Acts 2:8).
Similarly, the fact that these “estranged” people are said to have “teeth” at the point of birth (v. 6) is further evidence that the sacred writer is not speaking of a literal, newborn child. Can anyone cite a case of where a day-old child has told a lie?
Kill the baby?
If the text of
Psalm 58:3ff is to be pressed literally, these little ones who are “speaking lies” must have their teeth broken (v. 6). And since they are compared to poisonous snakes, the implication is that they should be killed so that their venom will not be deadly to others. Can the reader not see the gross error in pressing this language into a literal mold?
Lions or people?
If the language of
Psalm 58:3-6 is literal, one must conclude that the divine writer was not dealing with human beings at all, but with “lions” — and, in fact, lions that spoke lies (v. 6). What is this: an example of figurative language, or some kind of Walt Disney production?
One of the cardinal rules of Bible interpretation is that one must never force a scriptural statement into a situation wherein an absurdity is affirmed. Such certainly would be the case, however, if the “original sin” interpretation of this passage is maintained.
The meaning of the text, then, is simply this. When the panorama of one’s life is viewed as a whole, relatively early in life each rational person begins to move away from God into a sinful state of spiritual rebellion. He utters things contrary to the will of God – his speech being a commentary on the disposition of his heart (cf.
Mk. 7:21). He does not listen and respond to the voice of the Lord. Such conduct, therefore, if pursed continuously, is worthy of punishment.
