The Tongue of the Wise (Proverbs)

Death and life are in the power of the tongue,
And those who love it will eat its fruit.
Proverbs 18:21

1. The tongue of a wise person is attractive (10:20; 20:15).

2. The tongue of a wise person is controlled …

… in the number of words it speaks (10:19).

… in what it reveals (11:12, 13).

3. The tongue of a wise person is effective …

… for imparting wisdom (13:14).

… for encouraging the faint-hearted (16:24).

… for exhorting others (16:23).

… for rebuking the wayward (25:12).

4. The tongue of a wise person is honest (12:17; 14:25).

5. The tongue of a wise person is humble (27:2).

Don’t be a Fool! Wisdom and Folly in Proverbs

In the process of doing some topical studies in the second section of Proverbs, here is a list I formed for contrasting the wise person and the fool.

1. Wisdom and folly are ethical qualities that reside in the heart. (14:33; 19:1) Thus, there is an obvious difference in the lifestyles of the wise and foolish. (13:16; 14:8, 16)

2. Wisdom serves as both the motivation for and goal of a wise person; a fool seeks only folly. (15:14; 17:24)

3. The fool has a detrimental effect upon his/her family. (10:1; 11:29; 14:1; 15:20; 17:21, 25; 19:13)

4. The stupidity of fools is most evident in their speech (14:3; 18:7), which conceals hatred and slanders others (10:18), continuously spouts stupidity and folly (15:2), reveals the foolishness of their heart (15:7), provokes only anger and fighting (18:6), and does not speak proverbs appropriately (26:7, 9). Thus, excellent speech is unfitting for such individuals (17:7), and so the only recourse is simply for them to quit talking (17:28).

5. The wise person lives an enriched life; the fool’s life is full of destruction and folly. (10:21; 14:24; 16:22).

6. Whereas the wise person enjoys wisdom, a fool enjoys making a sport out of wickedness. (10:23; 13:19)

7. Fools are wise in their own eyes, but the wise respond positively to counsel. (12:15; 26:12; 28:26) The fool returns to his folly like a dog returning to its vomit. (26:11)

8. The fool’s emotions are consistently uncontrolled. (12:16; 29:11)

9. Wise people downplay their own knowledge; fools speak forth their stupidity openly. (12:23)

10. The wise receive knowledge well; that fools do not is revealed by the ruin that comes by their mouth. (10:8, 10, 14)

11. The company of fools should be avoided. (13:20; 14:7; 17:12)

12. Fools should not be entrusted with jobs that require faithfulness. (26:6, 10)

13. Fools reject the very discipline they need and deserve. (15:5; 17:10; 19:29; 26:3; 27:22)

14. A wise person acknowledges and deals with sin; fools mock dealing with sin. (14:9)

15. Fools neither desire nor delight in wisdom. (17:16; 18:2)

16. Although it’s often the case, luxury and honor are not fitting for a fool. (19:10; 26:1, 8)

17. Fools love to quarrel, and the irritation they bring makes one’s mood heavy. (20:3; 27:3)

18. The fool is one who wastes his material goods. (21:20)

19. A wise person will avoid debate with a fool. (23:9; 29:9)

20. Since fools reject wisdom, they are unfit for community leadership. Folly alienates one from the community. (24:7–9)

Train up a Child (Proverbs 22:6)

Train up a child in his path,
Even when he grows old, he will not depart from it.

“Train up”
The primary issue here is being diligent in raising our children appropriately. It focuses our mind upon the great (life-long) responsibility this entails, one of hard work and discipline.

“in his path”
Read within the context of the book, there is no way this could mean leaving our children to their own devices, according to their natural tendencies. According to Proverbs, there is one and only one “path” or “way” that should be trod, the way of wisdom.

“Even when he grows old…”
The second half of the verse has received the most scrutiny and misunderstanding. The question at hand is whether this is (1) a blanket promise, (2) a test of good parenting, or (3) a general principle of life.

If this were considered a blanket promise, then I believe we could all point to a friend, family, or experience that would contradict this principle. To be honest, as we read through Proverbs, I’m sure that each of us come across certain statements that don’t seem to be in our lives. What are we to make of this?

The basic answer to this type of dilemma is to remember the type of book we are reading. The genre of a proverb is such that it makes a general claim based upon observation of life. In other words, any individual proverb is not necessarily true in every circumstance, but all things being equal, the writer believes it to be true. His belief, however, is based upon the nature of God and the maturity that comes with observing his life and the lives of others. As Tremper Longman III states (Proverbs, 405): “The book of Proverbs advises its hearers in was that are most likely to lead them to desired consequences if all things are equal.”

Therefore, when approaching this verse, we must remember that we may be able to point to a real situation that contradicts this, but as a general principle of life, our children are more apt to follow a godly path if we have diligently instilled biblically wise principles into them. This presupposes that we parents possess the skill for living under the fear of the Lord that Proverbs teaches and that we diligently teach our children to be wise and discerning, not foolish and naive.

The hermeneutics of reading proverbs also informs the second option. That is, parents must remember that even if they persistently discipline and instruct their children, in reality children some times refuse to hear the counsel of their parents. Proverbs has a term for such a child, and it is “fool.” At some point, our children must choose of their own volition either to follow the path passed down to them by their parents or to seek a way of their own devising.

Thus, within the context of reality, parents may falter and fail in their obligations to their children and yet their children continue on the path of wisdom. There are enough individuals who came to know God out of a pagan background to prove this point. On the other hand, however, a parent may do everything in their power to instruct their children, but the child may fail to continue in such a life. There are many who have abandoned the community of faith who prove this point. Nevertheless, the point of the verse is true: Our children are more apt to follow the path of righteousness if we as parents have (1) demonstrated the blessing that comes with following wisdom and (2) trained them up in this path.

The Fear of the Lord (Proverbs 1:7)

After introducing the benefits of reading the book in verses 1–6, Proverbs 1:7 provides the theological basis for reading the rest of the book: “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; Fools despise wisdom and instruction.” As opposed to the fool (or simply the naïve), the wise person bases his life upon the foundation of “the fear of the Lord.” But what does this mean?

The relationship between wisdom and “the fear of the Lord” is by no means foreign to the Old Testament, especially those books that are often called wisdom literature (see for example Job 28:28; Eccl 12:13; or Ps 111:10). For it to be such an important and somewhat prevalent concept, it is not explained in detail.

The fear of the Lord certainly entails a profound respect for God. Moreover, in that God is a “consuming fire” (Heb 12:29), it may also involve a certain amount of trepidation that produces obedience. For example, Psalm 2:11 says, “Worship the Lord with fear And rejoice with trembling.” Whatever the case, the fear of the Lord certainly necessitates a proper perspective on one’s relationship with God. A proper understanding of one’s relationship with the Lord is both the starting point and the foundation upon which a lifelong pursuit of wisdom is built. Such an understanding can be better understood by observing some clear parallels between Proverbs 1:1–7 and Genesis 3.

In Proverbs 1:3, wisdom is said to provide instruction “in wise behavior,” which uses the same term as Genesis 3:6 where the woman looks at the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and recognizes, among other things, that it was fit “to make one wise.” Moreover, in Genesis 3:1 the serpent is described as “crafty,” whereas wisdom is said to give “prudence” (literally “craftiness”) to the simple minded. Thus, Genesis 3 paints a picture of the fall of man with strokes of wisdom. It is significant, then, that Moses presents the sin of Adam and Eve not as a gross act of immorality but as an unfortunate act of folly.

The fall was above all a grave miscalculation on their part. The right choice for Adam and Eve was to submit willfully to the authority of their God, who had graciously provided them with all things and who had only asked for their obedience and worship. They were to receive gladly everything they needed from God’s hand, including knowledge and wisdom. Instead, they chose to seek that which would make them wise without reference to the only One who could ultimately provide that wisdom. They opted for a life of self-rule, not submission.

O, how many times we find ourselves living such an autonomous life! For us, the fear of the Lord begins with recognition of and submission to the authority of God over our life. We make foolish, sinful choices when we despise godly wisdom and live our lives as if we are calling the shots. Such an attitude will always end in folly, just ask Adam and Eve.

Toward an OT Hermeneutic

As I pointed out in my previous post, the way I see it, the problem with most preaching of the Old Testament (but particularly OT narrative) has less to do with homiletical techniques than with hermeneutics. Therefore, what follows is the first of perhaps a few posts on this topic.

Now, let me warn you from the start that my answer to this rather large question is quite simplistic: Read the narrative, the whole narrative, until the author’s (redactor’s? composer’s?) purpose for writing is understood. Where it gets tricky, however, is ambiguity (among interpreters) as to where to look for that meaning.

In my opinion, we as evangelical OT interpreters are still trying to find our footing with this question after years of dealing with critical scholarship. Refusing to allow Scripture to be assaulted by those who did not view it as historically accurate, evangelical OT scholars made it their goal to prove the historical reliability of the OT. That is (and I’ll confess this is rather simplistic), when they told us it wasn’t true, we went digging in the sand to prove that it was. Thus, we had two veins of scholarship: (1) those who sought to prove historical veracity and (2) those who attempted to deal with arguments about the text from those who were continuing to look strictly at the text, which for the most part were critical scholars.

What is funny is that eventually historical-critical scholarship began to see the futility of the questions they were asking. Namely, they began to question why they would seek to establish a hypothetical text that conveyed meaning or to question less how these texts came into being than what they told us about Israel and/or her worship practices. Moreover, there has been recently a trend toward refocusing on the final form of the text. In light of this change, evangelicalism has picked up on this and is struggling to come into its own. The problem is that we are so entrenched in the pursuit of a historically-focused interpretation that the task has become complicated.

All of this to say that ultimately there was a type of disjoining of history and text. We evangelicals recognized this and made it our mission to show how interpreting the latter meant the pursuit of the former, and this is where it most affects those of us who desire to preach the OT. To a certain extent, we have been set up for what is virtually an impossible task. On the one hand, you must deal extensively with the text (preferably the Hebrew text), reading it over and over again in an attempt to come to an understanding of what it means. On the other hand, you must read extensively about ANE culture and history and attempt to set your interpretation and preaching extensively within this setting.

Thus, I don’t know about you, but I would quickly beg for mercy. How can a preacher with so many obligations ever accomplish this task? Ultimately most refuse to try. So, by default, many have taken the easier, more pragmatic approach: They abandon all attempts to deal accurately with the text in favor of a more palatable, application-oriented approach to OT preaching. But, do you really blame them? Not only do most seminary curricula not give a pastor the formidable tools to accomplish the above tasks, but many are told that the greatest priority is to teach and preach the text and theology of the NT, which is really the task they are most prepared to accomplish.

Preaching OT Narrative (pt 3)

While reading yet another post about the difficulty of preaching OT narrative, I paused to think about the root cause of the whole issue. Here are some thoughts…

1. Preaching OT narrative (at least as an expositor) should be done in the same manner that any text should be preached, regardless of its genre. In my opinion, the goal of expositing any passage is to preach the divinely-inspired meaning as intended by the author of the written text. I know that is simplified and opens up a whole discussion of hermeneutical issues, but such a goal seems reasonable to me.

2. If preaching OT narrative is nothing more than preaching the meaning of the text in the same way that a passage from a NT epistle (or OT prophet) would be preached, then it seems to me that the issue really comes down to a lack of ability to read OT narrative properly. I.e., the problem is methodological (in relationship to exegesis) rather than homiletical.

3. Homiletically, a sermon from an OT narrative may look very different than a sermon on 1 John, but the goal of preaching the meaning of the text is the same. Thus, the real question that this and other posts are addressing really needs to be, How does the expositor discover the meaning of an OT narrative text? Said another way, Where is the meaning found?

I have developed certain ideas about this issue, but I would like to know what others think about the merit of these thoughts.

In my opinion, this question is the most misunderstood part of the whole equation. Until we as preachers and teachers understand the biblical intent of these OT narratives as part of the scriptural text the issue of homiletics really is beside the point.

Preaching OT Narrative (Pt 2)

Sorry about the long break in this series . . . I have been busy preparing for four classes in the Fall. What brings me back to the topic is a series of sermons I have heard about the attributes of God. Given the topic, many of the sermons were based upon OT texts. I have appreciated their attempt to explain God’s attributes as revealed in a specific text, but needless to say, some have renewed my concern with how the OT is preached.

I stated in the first post on this subject that the one best equipped to preach OT narrative is one versed in OT/biblical theology. Achieving this, however, is a difficult task, because learning OT theology is more than coming to terms with “big” questions such as the role of the law, literal creation, etc. Moreover, preaching OT narrative is more than trying to emulate the hermeneutics of the apostles. The preaching that I have in mind begins less with antecedent theology (a term I have recently seen in an article by Schreiner) or canonical theology than with a proper appreciation of the narrative as a text.

The biblical preaching I have in mind is not an attempt to take all of the Bible’s theology and cram it into every narrative passage that we preach or teach. Rather, the written text, which we evangelicals believe is inspired graphe, dictates its theology. This “textual theology” is the theology I have in mind. That is to say, a question that is often overlooked even by well-meaning preachers and teachers is, “What are the theological ramifications of the text as it has been set before me?”

For example, I could imagine many preachers using the events surrounding Samuel’s birth (1Sa 1-2:10) as an opportunity to show how Hannah models proper endurance of trials. However, such a treatment of this text (while perhaps encouraging to a congregation and maybe legitimate) would fail to take into account the use of the story within the context of the book of Samuel, which really brought out in Hannah’s prayer (specifically 2:10).

Such indications of an author’s greater theological purpose would enliven our sermons and educate our congregation in the “whole counsel of God.”

Dated…but Good

Recently in preparation for an introduction to the Psalter, I ran across this quote from Brevard Childs (IOTS, 523). Though this is not a recent work, I found it interesting and worth sharing:

With all due respect to Gunkel, the truly great expositors for probing to the theological heart of the Psalter remain Augustine, Kimchi, Luther, Calvin, the long forgotten Puritans buried in Spurgeon’s Treasury, the haunting sermons of Donne, and the learned and pious reflections of de Muis, Francke and Geier. Admittedly these commentators run the risk, which is common to all interpretation, of obscuring rather than illuminating the biblical text, but because they stand firmly within the canonical context, one can learn from them how to speak anew the language of faith.

You would have to read the whole section to get the full impact of what he is saying, but any thoughts?

Preaching OT Narrative

Although my intent is to make posts primarily concerning exegesis, I recently read a post lamenting the difficulty faced in preaching narrative portions of the Bible, specifically those of the Old Testament. I share the lament. Therefore, I would like to make a few observations—which fall short of a methodology but set a foundation for later comments I would like to make—that I have found helpful.

I used to be under the impression that a man could only preach OT narrative if he were. . .

(1) a gifted storyteller. That is, only someone who could keep an audience riveted with the way he told the story would be successful.

But, I’ve learned that many men who are so gifted can abuse the text by hypothesizing about the thoughts, motives, and circumstances of individuals in the narrative. In an attempt to be interesting and contemporary, the text is displaced as the preacher moves beyond the narrative world into a world of his own imagination. Being a gifted storyteller is helpful, but it is not the be-all, end-all of preaching OT narrative.

(2) a discerning psychologist. That is, my narrative-preaching teeth were cut on men who could develop the character of the biblical men and women and apply it to our times.

But, I’ve learned that the OT narratives normally have intended meanings that are far beyond the character of people within them. This is not to say that this is always the case (e.g., Ruth), only that there is a tendency to abuse this.

(3) an archaeologist and historian. That is, to really get the details of the story correct would take years and years of drudgery through history books and archaeological magazines (or at least through good commentaries that did all of that for you).

But, I’ve learned that minute (superfluous?) details of Ancient Near Eastern culture and practice, which are wielded in an attempt to clarify the intent of the passage, often cloud the picture for the listener. To be more specific, these details are so intriguing that the mind of the hearer is drawn away into history and archaeology and not necessarily the theological intent of the author.

(4) a Jew. That is, who in their right mind would bother with these stories except to provide illustrations for sermons from the NT? Or, how in the world can I overcome my lack of familiarity with Hebrew customs and teaching?

But, I’ve learned that with proper diligence, OT narrative can become not so much a burden to the pulpit (or SS classroom) but a blessing. In fact, it is of utmost importance that it be preached.

I hope to post more on this topic, but here’s a start…

The guiding principle when I approach any OT text, but especially narrative, is to remember a statement from Rolf Rendtorff: “Das Alte Testament ist ein theologisches Buch.” In other words, I believe that the one most prepared to preach OT narrative is the biblical theologian, or at least one who understands the broad strokes of OT theology. This allows the preacher to weave the narrative before his people into the greater theological context of the book and OT. It helps to be a good storyteller and a crafty exegete, but what will help guide your preaching is to keep the theology of the OT before you and your congregation. Is this difficult? Yes. Can it still be interesting? It must.

More to come…

Some Thoughts on Habakkuk

The righteous shall live by faith.

For most Bible students, that sentence may be the only thing that comes to mind about the book of Habakkuk. This is understandable given its multiple uses in the New Testament (Rom 1:17; Gal 3:11; Heb 10:38). We who hold to the doctrine of sola fide cherish this great truth, and for good reason.

But is that the only thing worth cherishing in the book of Habakkuk? In the words of Paul, me genoito . . . By no means! The great truths of Habakkuk come to life as one discovers the message of the entire book.

The book opens with the question of how long the Lord would allow his servant to cry for help and yet receive no salvation. The Lord quickly interrupts the prophet’s lament and heightens the situation with this declaration:

Look among the nations, and see;
wonder and be astounded.
For I am doing a work in your days
that you would not believe if told.
(Habakkuk 1:5)

What is this “work” that God is going to do? In the immediate context, the “work” is God raising up the Chaldeans, a violent and impetuous nation, to carry out judgment upon His disobedient people. This understanding seems clear from the first half of the book.

However, this is not the end of the story, for we see another instance of the Lord’s “work” in Habakkuk 3. There the prophet prays that the Lord would revive His “work” and make it known “in the midst of the years.” The work called for in the prayer of chapter 3 is none other than an act of “mercy” (3:2) and a renewal of God’s work of “salvation” (3:13). In fact, Habakkuk takes joy in the God of his salvation (3:18). The “work” that God was doing was more than an act of “wrath” (3:2); it was an act of “salvation.” Thus, we see the purpose of the book: The righteous person will live by faith, patiently awaiting God’s work of salvation.

As for us who live on this side of the cross, Paul agrees. In Acts 13:41, Paul clearly understood Habakkuk’s message. The “work” that God was doing was none other than the salvation that was to be found in God’s “anointed” (a term mentioned in Hab 3:13). The events surrounding the coming of Jesus, the Messiah, were the fulfillment of the book of Habakkuk.

Habakkuk had cried for God to rescue him from a people of violence, from the consequences of God’s judgment, and had committed to trust the God of his salvation. We have the privilege of enjoying the fulfillment of Habakkuk’s prayer. The salvation that Habakkuk was patiently waiting for is ultimately found in none other than the Son of David, through whom men are forgiven, through whom men are made righteous. Habakkuk was willing to wait patiently in faith for God to complete His work. Are we?