Copyright © 1996 by
DOES PROVERBS
PROMISE TOO MUCH?
BRUCE WALTKE
Marshall
Sheppard Professor of Biblical Studies
Introduction
This essay, "Does the Book of
Proverbs Promise Too Much?" is
poignantly
fitting in this memorial volume to Professor Hasel,
who
exemplified both
in his life and in his scholarship the highest Christian
ideals. The
untimely death of one of the finest Old Testament scholars
makes the
Book of Proverbs' heavenly promises seem detached from
earth's
reality.
Evangelicals confess the Book of
Proverbs' inspiration and
intellectually assent to its authority, but emotionally many cannot take
the book
seriously because its promises seem removed from the harsh
reality of
their experience.
focus. I
will divide this essay into four parts: (1) translation; (2) poetics;
(3) theological reflection on the problem, "does it promise
too much,"
and
finally (4) exposition of 3:5.
1. Translation
3: 1 My son, do not forget my teaching,
and let your
heart guard my commandments;
3:2 for
length of days and years of life,
and peace they
will add to you.
3:3 Kindness
and reliability let them not leave you,
bind them upon
your throat;
3:4 and find
favor and good repute,
in the eyes of
God and humankind.
3:5 Trust in
the Lord with all your heart,
and in your own understanding do not rely;
3:6 in all
your ways know him,
and he will make
your paths straight.
3:7 Do not be wise in your own eyes,
fear the Lord
and depart from evil;
3:8 healing
let there be to your navel,
319
320 SEMINARY STUDIES 34 (AUTUMN
1996)
and refreshment
to your bones.
3:9 Honor
the Lord from your wealth,
from the first
fruits of all your produce;
and with new
wine your vats will overflow.
and do not
loathe his rebuke;
even as a
father the son in whom he delights.
2. Poetics
The encomium to wisdom in 3:1-12 is
distinguished from that in
2:1-22: (1)
by the renewed address, "my son" (cf. 2:1, 3:1); (2) by the
change of
form on the syntactic level from a lengthy protasis
(2: 1-4) and
very
expanded apodosis (vv. 5-22) to six strophes essentially consisting
of admonitions
in the odd verses (3:1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11) and to
argumentation in the even (2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12); and (3) by changing the
theme on
the paradigmatic level from admonitions to embrace the
father's
teaching (2:1-4) in order to find piety (2:5-8) and ethics (2:9-11),
and so
be protected against the fatal voices and ways of apostate men
(
(3:1) and
embrace ethics (3:3) and piety (3:5, 7, 9) in order to obtain
palpable
physical and social benefits.
This teaching is even more strongly
anchored in God than chap. 2.
First, the
admonitions progress from the typical introduction, to keep
the
father's teaching (v. 1), to the command not to abandon covenant
love and
fidelity (v. 3), to establishing and retaining a relationship with
God: trust
the Lord (v. 5), to be humble before God (i.e., not to be wise
in
one's own eyes and so think and behave impiously and wickedly) (v.
7), to honor
the Lord (v. 9), and not to reject the Lord's correction (v.
11).
Newsom argues that by these six strophes
or quatrains the father
anchors his
teachings even more strongly in
The father
begins, she observes, using the parallel, "my law" and "my
commands,"
that "has resonances of God's torah and miswot
to
and so
subtly positions the father in association with divine authority."
His appeals
to have a right relationship with God (vv. 5-12) parallel, she
further
observes, "in structure and motivation the father's call for
obedience to
himself in 2:1-4." Finally, she notes, "it comes as no
surprise
that. ..the passage concludes in v. 12 with the
metaphor of
1 Carol A. Newsom, "Woman
and the Discourse of Patriarchal Wisdom: A Study
of
Proverbs 1-9," in Gender and Difference in Ancient
(Minneapolis:
Fonress, 1989), 149-151.
WALTKE: DOES PROVERBS
PROMISE TOO MUCH? 321
God as a father reproving his son."
In theological terms, the admonitions in
the odd verses of 3:1-12
present the
obligations of the son, the human covenant partner; the
argumentation in the even verses shows the obligations of the Lord, the
divine
covenant partner. The human partner has the responsibility to
keep
ethics and piety, and the divine partner the obligation to bless his
worshiper with
peace, prosperity, and longevity.
The argumentation for keeping the Lord's
commands is based on
the
tangible rewards that only he can give: long life and peace (v. 2),
favor with
God and humanity (v. 4), a smooth path (v. 6), psychological
and
physical health (v. 8), abundant harvests (v. 10), and a heavenly
father's love
(v. 12).
We can outline the pericope
as follows:
Admonition Argumentation
1. Keep my
commands 2.
Life and peace
3. Don't let
go of unfailing love 4.
Favor with God and people
5. Trust the
Lord 6.
Straight path
7. Don't be
wise in own eyes 8.
Healing
9. Honor the
Lord 10.
Prosperity
11. Don't
reject the Lord's discipline 12.
The Lord loves you
Overland notes, after the introductory
strophe which sequences a
negative and
a positive command, the alternation between negative
commands in
vv. 3, 7, 11 and of positive admonitions in vv. 5, 9.2
The last
strophe distinguishes itself from the preceding by renewing
the
address, "my son," and by changing the argumentation from
promising
tangible benefits to explaining that God's love finds
expression in
discipline. Its syntax and content, however, show it is part
of the
poem (cf.
the teaching
(cf. 1:8, 10; 2:1; 3:1, 21; 4:1, 10, 20; 5:1; 6:1, 20; 7:1).
According to
McKane, in Egyptian instruction "my son"
may also be
resumptive.3
only in
initial vv. 1-2 and terminal vv. 11-12, constitute an inclusio
for
this
block of material; namely, beni, "my son"
(vv. 1, 11), and ki,
"for/because" (vv. 2, 12).4
2Paul B.
University, 1988), 87.
3Williarn McKane,
Proverbs: A New Approach, in The Old Testament
Library, ed. Peter
Ackroyd and others
(Philadelphia: Westminster, 1970), 289.
40verland,
79.
322 SEMINARY STUDIES 34 (AUTUMN
1996)
3. Theological Reflection
The palpable
rewards to which the gracious Lord obliges himself in
the even
verses of 3:1-10 confront us with the theological problem, "Do
they
promise too much? When applied to ordinary members of the
covenant
community, the interpreter of the text and of life may try to
resolve the
tension by explaining that the problem lies in the human
partner s
failure to keep the commands, not in the Lord s failure to
keep his
obligations. The expositor, with Job's friend Eliphaz,
might
,conclude that
individuals do not experience these promises because of
original sin:
"Can a mortal be righteous before God? Can a man be pure
before his
Maker" (cf. Job
expositors,
though conceding the problem of original sin, insist that this
is not
the reason for the apparently failed promises.
Their rejection of the facile explanation
by the likes of Eliphaz is
validated by
the life of Jesus Christ. Though without sin, he apparently
did not
enjoy these promises. Instead of enjoying long life, he died in
the
prime of life. Instead of enjoying favor with God and man, on the
cross he
lamented, "my God, my God, why did you forsake me" (Matt
27:46), as
the crowds jeered, "He trusts in God to deliver him; let God
rescue
him!" (Matt 27:43). Instead of a smooth path he experienced
rejection at
birth, escaped the slaughter of the innocent, lived as an exile
in
a
lonely figure on the cross (cf. Isa 50:4-6). Instead
of psychological and
physical
health, in the
trauma that
his sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground
(Luke
22:44). On the cross his malefactors so abused him that he no
longer
appeared human (cf. Isa 52:14). How can it be said
that the
devout have
barns overflowing with grain and vats that burst with new
wine,
when the Epitome of Wisdom cautioned, "Foxes have holes and
birds of
the air have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his
head"
(Matt
To resolve this obvious tension created
by failed covenant promises,
I will
reject three false solutions and propose four others to help us
toward a
resolution of the problem.
Unacceptable
Solutions
First, I cannot accept that Solomon was
a dullard. He certainly
was no
less aware than Job that "God destroys both the blameless and
the
wicked. When a scourge brings sudden death, he mocks the despair
of the innocent" Gob
The sage is characterized by astute
observation and reflection. Note
how he
composes his proverb in 24:30-34:
WALTKE: DOES
PROVERBS PROMISE TOO MUCH? 323
I went past the field of the sluggard, past the vineyard of the
man who
lacks judgment; thorns had come up everywhere, the ground was
covered with weeds, and the stone wall was in
ruins. I applied my
heart to what I observed and learned a lesson from what I saw: A
little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding
of the hands to rest-and
poverty will come on you like a vagrant and
scarcity like an armed
man.
His laboratory
was the field of the sluggard, "I went past the field of the
sluggard,"
and his method, scientific (i.e, astute observation
and cogent
reflection),
"I applied my heart to what I observed." Observing that the
inedible
growth of thorns replaced the edible and that chaos replaced
the
diligently constructed cosmos, he drew the conclusion that some
hostile
power informed the fallen creation and that this deadly hostile
force, if
not overcome by wisdom, had the same damaging effects as a
bandit
plundering a man's house. Surely a person with these powers of
observations and reflection knew with Qoheleth that
under the sun:
all share a common destiny-the righteous and the wicked, the good
and the bad, the clean and the unclean, those who offer sacrifices
and
those who do not. As it is with the good man, so with the sinner; as
it is with those who take oaths, so with those who are afraid to
take
them (Eccl 9:2).
Another solution unacceptable to me is
that these promises are
false, not
true. Nonevangelical academics, tend to pit the
optimism of
the
so-called older wisdom represented in the Book of Proverbs against
the
pessimism of the so-called younger, reflective wisdom represented
in the
books of Job and Ecclesiastes. Von Rad, for example,
says:
The most common view of the radical theses of Koheleth
has been to
see in them a counter-blow to older teachings which believed, too
'optimistically', or better, too
realistically, that they could see God at
work in experience. . . . According to the prevailing point of view,
it
would appear as if he were turning only against untenable statements,
as if he were challenging a few, no longer justifiable sentences
which
presented the divine as too rational and too
obvious a phenomenon.
Such sentences may in fact have existed. . . . This explanation
breaks
down, however, for the reason that Koheleth
is turning against not
only outgrowths of traditional teaching but the whole undertaking.
. . Anyone who agrees with him in this can scarcely avoid the
conclusion that the whole of old wisdom has become
increasingly
entangled in a single false doctrine [italics
mine].5
William James agrees: "But the
tradition that he [Qoheleth] knows
is more
of a foil for him than anything else; his use of gnomic forms,
5 Gerhard Von Rad, Wisdom in
324 SEMINARY STUDIES 34 (AUTUMN
1996)
for
example, is often in order to contradict traditional wisdom [italics
mine]."6
He also said of Qoheleth: "His primary literary
mode of
representing the paradox of the human situation is the citation of
contrasting
proverbs, some of which may be his own aphorisms, is in
order to
contradict traditional wisdom [italics mine]."7
This common academic solution is not
open to me--as it would
also have
been unacceptable to Professor Gerhard Hasel--because
it
undermines
sound theology, which must be based on the integrity and
trustworthiness of Scripture. Paul said that "all Scripture"--including
Job,
Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes--"is God breathed" (2 Tim
Job and Qoheleth contradict Proverbs, we are left with God
contradicting himself and speaking what makes no rational sense (i.e.,
nonsense).
Moreover, our Lord, who himself on the cross does not seem
to have
experienced these promises, trusted this book. The Book of
Proverbs was
part of the Scriptures which he said "cannot be broken"
John 10:35).
Indeed the apostles use the Book of Proverbs about sixty
times as
sacred Scripture.
A third solution not open to me is that
the argumentation in the
even
verses of 3:1-10 presents probabilities, not 'promises: As we shall off
see,
there is an element of truth in this explanation, but it formulates
the
solution badly.
As noted, the odd verses of our text set
forth the obligations of the it
human
covenant partners; the even, those of the divine. Now does
sound
theology countenance that the human partner must keep his
obligations
perfectly, but not the divine partner? How unlike the
faithful Lord
to command his people to trust in the Lord with all
their
heart "and lean not" on their own understanding, and not obligate
himself to
"make their paths smooth." Rather, even "if we are faithless
he will
remain faithful" (2 Tim
Moreover, if it were a matter of
probabilities, then I for one want
to know
the odds. If these arguments are true 99 percent of the time,
the
audience would be well advised to keep the command to "not forget
the
teaching and to keep his commands in our heart"; but if they are
true only
51 percent of the time, then maybe it is not worth the
sacrifice and
the effort to keep the human obligation.
Finally, how can the human partner trust
in the Lord with a whole
heart,
when there is uncertainty as to the Lord's keeping his part of the
bargain?
These three solutions-that
the sage is a dullard, presents false
6 James G.
William, Those Who Ponder Proverbs (Sheffield: Almond, 1981), 53.
7 Ibid.,
60.
WALTKE: DOES
PROVERBS PROMISE TOO MUCH? 325
teachings, or
states probabilities, not verities-are not acceptable for me.
Acceptable
Solutions
Let us now turn to four solutions that I
find helpful. First, most
would
agree that these promises are partially realized in our
experience. Though keeping the proverbs does not guarantee
"success"
under the
sun, nevertheless, experience often vindicates them. The sober
(
peaceful, and
the wise in general-not the drunkard, the sluggard, the
sexually
unclean, the hot-tempered, and the fool-enjoy abundant life
and
peace.
The sluggard, for example, as represented
in Prov 24:30-34, does not
enjoy
longevity, social esteem, smooth sledding, health, and prosperity.
The same
applies to the drunkard:
Who has woe? Who has sorrow?
Who has strife? Who has
complaints?
Who has needless
bruises? Who has bloodshot eyes?
Those who linger over wine,
who
go to sample bowls of mixed wine.
Do not gaze at wine when it is red,
when
it sparkles in the cup.
when
it goes down smoothly!
In the end it bites like a snake
and
poisons like a viper.
Your eyes will see strange sights.
and
your mind imagine confusing things.
You
will be like one sleeping on the high seas,
lying
on top of the rigging.
'They hit me,' you will say, 'but I'm not hurt?
They beat me, but I don't
feel it!
When will I wake up
so
I can find another drink?' (Proverbs 23:29-35).
Second, we need to take into consideration
the epigrammatic
nature of proverbs.
Individual proverbs express truth, but, restricted by
the
aphorism's demand for terseness, they cannot express the whole
truth. By
their very nature they are partial utterances which cannot
protect
themselves by qualifications. Von Rad rightly said:
It is of the nature of an epigram that a truth is expressed with
the
greatest concentration on the subject-matter and
with a disregard of
any presuppositions, attendant circumstances, etc. In the case of a
sentence from antiquity, [how easily] can one
reach the point where
the meaning of a sentence is falsified for the simple reason that one
has lost sight of ideological and religious facts which were
constitutive
326 SEMINARY STUDIES 34 (AUTUMN
1996)
for the sentence.8
Because of
this stylistic constraint, proverbs must be read holistically,
within the
total collection. The character-act-consequence nexus (i.e.,
you reap
what you sow) represented in the strophes of our text must
be
modified by proverbs that qualify the nexus. The "better-than
proverbs"
(e.g., 15:16-17; 16:8, 19; 17:1; 19:22b; 22:1; 28:6) link
righteousness with poverty and wickedness with wealth and so make it
perfectly
plain that piety and morality do not invariably lead
immediately to
social and physical benefits. Moreover, many proverbs
recognize the
failures of justice. Van Leeuwen notes: "There
are many
sayings that
assert or imply that the wicked prosper. . . while the
innocent
suffer"9 (e.g., 10:2; 11:16; 13:23; 14:31; 15:25; 18:23; 21:6,
7,13;
19:10; 22:8,
22; 23:17; 28:15-16a, 27). Too many scholars fail to
recognize the
restraints of these counter-proverbs. Insisting the book of
Proverbs
teaches a tidy dogmatism of morality and piety, these scholars
pit the
so-called unrealistic sayings of Proverbs, such as the five strophes
in Prov 3:1-10, against the realism of Qoheleth
and Job, thereby easily
discrediting the former. This solution regarding the epigrammatic nature
of
proverbs must be held in connection with the next two arguments;
otherwise, it
would appear to reinforce the solution that the proverbs
present
probabilities, not guarantees.
Third, the Book of Proverbs teaches
of
morality. Solomon
kept before them the end of the matter, how it
all
turns out, not the temporary exceptions when the wicked prosper
and the righteous
suffer. The future will ultimately validate the
character-act-consequence nexus, turning the present, often upside-down
world right
(cf. 11:4,7, 18, 21, 23, 28; 12:7, 12; 15:25; 17:5; 19:17; 20:2,
21; 21:6-7,
22:8-9, 16; 23:17-18; 24:20). The genre-effect of Proverbs, in
contrast to
that of Job and Ecclesiastes, is clearly brought out in 24: 15-
16.
Do not lie in wait like an outlaw against a righteous man's house,
do
not raid his dwelling place;
for though a righteous man falls seven times, he rises again,
but
the wicked are brought down by calamity. (Prov
24:15-16)
The
concessive clause, "though a righteous man falls seven times,"
assumes that
righteous people come to ruin. Seven, recall, is the number
of
perfection, of completeness. To paraphrase the proverb, "The
righteous may
be knocked out for the count of ten." However, the
8 Von Rad, 32.
9 Raymond C. Van Leeuwen, "Wealth and Poverty: System and Contradiction
in
Proverbs,"
Hebrew Studies 33 (1992): 29.
WALTKE: DOES PROVERBS PROMISE TOO MUCH? 327
proverb
throws that reality away in a concessive clause, rushing ahead
to how
it all turns out: namely, "he rises again." Job and Qoheleth,
however,
have a different focus, a different genre effect. They are
concerned with
events under the sun and focus on the righteous man
flattened on
the mat for the count of ten; they do not focus on his
rising,
though they do not rule that out. To recast the proverb into
their
genre, it would reverse the concessive and main clauses, "though
a
righteous man rises again, he falls seven times." Proverbs differs from
the
younger reflective wisdom because it is presenting the primer on
morality, the
way things turn out. The wisdom books differ
fundamentally due to this genre effect.
Fourth and finally, the future beyond
the temporarily failed
promises outlasts clinical death (see
not
accessible to, verification, as Gladson notes
critically,10 but without
faith in
the ethical God who controls the future, one cannot please
God. If
one can live by sight in realized promises, not by faith in God
to
fulfill them, why is there need to command, "Trust in the Lord"
(3:5)?
Before turning to three or four proverbs
that teach an immortality
that outlasts
death wherein the promises such as those found in the
argumentation of 3:1-10 find their fulfillment, let us note that the
argument of
the book implies such a perspective. The book's second
pericope (
teaching
(1:8-9), represents innocent blood going to a premature death
at the
hand of thugs:
My son, if sinners entice you,
do
not give in to them,
If they say, 'Come along with us; let's lie in wait for someone's
blood,
let's
waylay some innocent soul;
let's swallow them alive, like the grave,
and
whole, like those who go down to the pit;
we will get all sorts of valuable things
land
fill our houses with plunder;
throw in your lot with us,
and
we will share a common purse. . .' (1:11-14).
"Blood"
in 10a and "innocent" in 10b are parts of a broken stereotype
phrase;
together they refer to innocent blood. Admittedly, Solomon
does not
represent the innocent as actually being dispatched to a
premature
death, but he unquestionably assumes the possibility as real.
On the other
hand, the inspired king clearly and repeatedly teaches that
10Jerry Allen Gladson, "Retributive Paradoxes in Proverbs 10-29-
(Ph.D. dissertation,
328 SEMINARY STUDIES 34 (AUTUMN
1996)
the Lord
will cause the righteous to triumph over the wicked: "When
a
man's ways are pleasing to the Lord, he makes even his enemies to
surrender to
him" (16:7). In order for the innocent-such as righteous
Abel, who
are dispatched to a premature death-to triumph over the
wicked,
their victory must take place in a future that outlasts Sheol.
Since the
biblical doctrine of retribution fails to reflect human
experience,
Farmer rightly says that "one either has to give up the idea
of justice
or one has to push its execution into some realm beyond the
evidence of
human experience."11 However, this doctrine came to full
light only
through the gospel of Jesus Christ (2 Tim
We now turn to consider three or four
texts that explicitly teach
immortality.
Proverbs
course of
its byways is immortality." This synthetic parallel, which
concludes the pericope of chap. 12, expresses in a creative and intensive
way that
the righteous retain a relationship with God forever. Here we
need to
define "life" in verset a, and defend the
translation
"immortality" in verset b.
Hayyim,
"life," in 12:28a occurs thirty-three times in the book, and
the verb
haya, "to live," four times. After
analyzing its uses W. Cosser
draws the
conclusion that "life" in the Canonical Wisdom Literature
sometimes has
a technical significance, viz., the fuller, more satisfying
way of
living to be enjoyed by those who 'seek Wisdom and find her,'
a
sense which can best be rendered in English by some such phrase as
'full life,' 'fullness of life,' 'life indeed."'12
In Egyptian instruction, which
shares many
points of continuity with Proverbs, life entails eternal life
beyond
clinical death. Its schools were called schools of Life.'13
Solomon
gives us no reason to think that his concept of life was any
less
eternal.11
In biblical theology "full"
life is essentially a relationship with God.
According to
Gen
One who is
the source of life means death. Wisdom is concerned
with
this
proper relationship and so with this kind of life. God continues
forever to
be the God of the wise, delivering them from the realm of
death (see
10:2). Jesus Christ regarded life in the same way. In his
argument
against the Sadducees, who denied resurrection, he said: "But
11Kathleen A. Farmer, Who
Knows What Is Good? A Commentary on Proverbs and
Ecclesiastes
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 206.
12 William Cosser,
"The Meaning of 'Life' (Hayyim) in Proverbs,
Job, and
Ecclesiastes,"
13Causse, Les
Disperses d'Israel, 115, cited by Cosser, 52.
WALTKE: DOES PROVERBS PROMISE TOO MUCH? 329
about the
resurrection of the dead-have you not read what God said
to you,
'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of
Jacob'? He
is not the God of the dead but of the living" (Matthew
22:32).
Clinical death is only a shadow along the trail in the relationship
of the
wise with the living God.
Death in Proverbs is the eternal opposite
of this full life. The
wisdom
teachers never describe the wicked as being in the realm of light
and
life; rather they are in the realm of darkness and death, a state of
being
already dead, because they have no relationship with the living
God though
they are not yet clinically dead. The texts predicting the
eternal
death of the wicked do not refer to a premature clinical death.14
For example,
the father's caution to his son not to apostatize because,
"at the end of your life you will groan, when your flesh and
body are
spent"
(Prov 5:11), implies a normal life-span.
In sum, death and life are eternal states
that extend from the present
into the
eternal future. The condition of the righteous lies before the
Lord (see Prov 15:11; 16:2 [ = 21:2]), who
admits them into the realm
of
eternal fellowship with him (cf. 2:19; 3:18,22; 10:11). The wise in the
book of
Proverbs enjoy an unending relationship with the living God.
We now turn
to defend the gloss, "immortality" in 12:28b. All the
ancient
versions and more than twenty medieval codices read "unto
death"
('el mawet), not "immortality" ('al
mawet), the text of the great
majority of
codices within the Masoretic tradition.
Text-critical,
philological, contextual, and theological arguments favor the majority
reading of
the Masoretic text.
Regarding the text, three factors must
be borne in mind. First, the
phrase 'al
mawet is a hapax
legomenon, and so the more difficult reading
to
explain away. Second, the reading of the versions demands that one
emend
"byways" netiba as well.
Third, one cannot account for 'al, the
negative
verbal particle, before a noun unless rooted firmly in a reliable
oral
tradition: "A complex body of evidence indicates the MT could
not, in
any serious or systematic way, represent a reconstruction or
faking of
the data."15 In cases involving the oral tradition, the Masoretic
text is
preferred to the ancient versions.16
From a philological point of view, we
note that though this phrase
is
otherwise unattested m biblical Hebrew, it is attested in the
Northwest
Semitic languages from mid-second millennium B.C. to
14C. H. Toy,
Proverbs, ICC (Edinburgh: T. T. Clark, 1977), 48.
15Bruce K. Waltke and M. P. O'Connor, Introduction to Biblical
Hebrew Syntax
(Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 26,
par. 1.6.31.
16Ibid.
330 SEMINARY STUDIES 34 (AUTUMN
1996)
Mishnaic Hebrew.
Even-Shoshan lists the term as an ordinary
word for
"immortality" in postbiblical
Jewish sources. Moreover, the term also
denotes
immortality in a Ugaritic text (ca. 1400 B.C.).17
The combined
evidence,
says Sawyer, "indicat[es]
a remarkable continuity of meaning
from
second Millenium [sic] B.C.
literature."18
From the contextual point of view one
expects a synthetic, not
antithetic,
parallel.19 Blocks of proverbs m the A Collection (proverbs
10-15)
regularly end in the rare synonymous parallelism, and a new
block
begins with an aphorism pertaining to the teachability
of the wise
and the
incorrigibility of fools. The relationship of 12:28 to 13:1 exactly
matches that
of 11:31 and 12:1. Delitzsch agrees:
The proverb xii.28 is so sublime, so weighty, that it manifestly
forms
a period and conclusion. This is confirmed from the following
proverb, which begins like x.1 (cf. 5), and anew
stamps the collection
as intended for youth!20
Theologically, the book of Proverbs
consistently implies the
immortality of
the righteous (see 2:19; 10:2,16; 11:4,19; 12:3,7, 12, 19);
its
explicit expression here is no surprise: Delitzsch
comments: "Nothing
is more
natural than that the Chokma in its constant contrast
between
life and
death makes a beginning of expressing the idea of the athanasia
[i.e., 'without death,]."21 The doctrine is stated even more clearly in the
Wisdom of
Solomon: "for righteousness is immortal (1:15); "God
created man
for incorruption, and made him in the image of his own
eternity"
(2:23). "
Another verse that more explicitly
teaches the righteous have a
future that
outlasts death is Prov 14:32: "The wicked person
is thrown
down by
his own evil, but the righteous is one who takes refuge in the
Lord when he
dies."
Although "wicked" and
"righteous" are precise antithetical parallels,
"thrown down by his own evil" and "takes refuge in
the Lord" are not.
17The Hebrew and Aramaic
Lexicon of the Old Testament by Ludwig Koehler, Walter
Baumgartner
and others, trans. and ed. under the supervision of M. E. J. Richardson
collaboration with G. J. Jongeling-Vos and L. J. De
Regt (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 1:48.
18J .F .A. Sawyer, "The
Role of Jewish Studies in Biblical Semantics" in Scripta
Singa
Vocis: Studies about Scripts, Scriptures, Scribs
and Languages in the
Vanstiphout and
others (Groningen: Forsten, 1986),204-205.
19Against McKane, 451.
20Franz Delitzsch,
Biblical Commentary on the Proverbs of Solomon, trans. from the
German by M. G. Easton (
21Ibid.
WALTKE: DOES
PROVERBS PROMISE TOO MUCH? 331
These ideas
need to be projected appropriately into their antithetical
parallels. In
sum, the wicked, who perish through their evil, do not
trust in
the Lord when dying; and the righteous, who trust in the Lord
when
dying, are not thrown down by evil. Thus the proverb
admonishes the
disciples to show community loyalty and not to be
guilty of
antisocial behavior because of their radically opposed
expectations.
However, here too we face a textual
problem. Instead of the reading
"when he dies" bemoto,
the LXX reads o[ de> pepoiqw>j t^? e[autou? o[sio<thti
di<kaioj,
"the righteous is one who trusts in his holiness," which is
retroverted as betummo
(cf. 1 Kings 14:41; 3 Kings 9:4). The difference
in the unvocalized text involves the slight metathesis from bmtw, "when
he
dies" (MT) to btmw, "in his integrity"
(LXX).
The resolution of this textual problem is
found in a lexical study of
hoseh, glossed here as "the one who takes
refuge in the Lord." This qal
active
participle derives from the same root as the noun translated
"refuge" in 14:26. In an antithetical parallel similar
to this one, the Lord
says:
"A mere breath will blow [the idols] away, but the man who
makes me
his refuge [hahoseh] will inherit the
land" (Isa 57:13).
The root hsh
occurs 37 times in the Old Testament and always with
the
meaning "to seek refuge," never "to have a refuge" (pace
NIV) or "to
find a
refuge" (pace NRSV). Thirty-four times, not counting Prov
14:32b,
it is
used more or less explicitly with reference to taking refuge in
God/the Lord
or under the shadow of his wings (cf. Prov 30:5). The
two
exceptions are Isa 14:32 and 30:2, but these two
exceptions prove
the
rule. In Isa
God. In Isa 30:2 the prophet gives the expression an exceptional
meaning
because he uses sarcasm: lahsot besel misrayim,
"to take refuge
in the
shadow of
should have
sought refuge In the Lord, not In Egypt.
The qal
participle of hsh or hsh
in a relative clause always denotes
a
devout worshiper, "one who seeks refuge In the Lord. One other
time
besides Prov 14:32b the qal
participle is used absolutely: "Show the
wonder of
your love, O Savior of those who take refuge (mosia
hosim;
Ps
17:7). NIV here rightly glosses,
"Savior of those who take refuge in
you."
Gamberoni22 agrees that the qal participle
of hsh has the same
"religio-ethical" sense in Prov
14:32b as in Ps 17:7.. O. Ploger
and A.
Meinhold
independently also reached the conclusion that YHWH is
always the
stated or unstated object of hoseh!23 W. McKane,
citing A.
22TDOT, 5:71.
23Otto Ploger, Spruche
Salomos (Proverbia), BKAT
17 (Neukirchen-Vluyn:
332 SEMINARY STUDIES 34 (AUTUMN
1996)
Barucq (Le
Livre des Proverbes),
also recognizes this is the meaning of
the Masoretic text.24 In the light of this
consistent use of hoseh with the
object
"Lord," never "integrity," "to seek refuge in the Lord
when he
dies"
is far more probable than "to seek refuge in his integrity."
Not only does this lexical study
support the Masoretic text over
against the
LXX, but so does the book's overall theology. The book of
Proverbs
teaches its audience to trust in the Lord, not in their own
integrity. Prov 3:5 commands, "Trust in
the Lord." Likewise the
Prologue to
the so-called Thirty Sayings of the Wise asserts: "That your
trust may
be in the Lord, I teach you today, even you" (Prov
Toy responds
against Delitzsch that "seeks a refuge in his
righteous"
does not
involve self-righteousness. . . , but is simply the general
teaching of
Proverbs as "the reward of the righteous."25 If hsh meant "to
find a
refuge," the notion of reward could be read into the text; but
since it
means "to seek a refuge," it cannot. McKane
implicitly confesses
he
rejects the MT for dogmatic, not exegetical, reasons: "I do not
believe that
the sentence originally asserted this [a belief in the after-
life].26
Against exegetical and theological
expectations he follows the
LXX,
"But he who relies on his own piety is a righteous man."
Meinhold
reluctantly concedes this proverb, which sees a refuge for the
righteous that
lies beyond the limits of death, is exceptional.27 In truth,
however, the
proverb as witnessed in the MT is entirely consistent with
the
historical context of the ancient Near East and with the rest of
Proverbs.
In short, in this proverb ultimate
destinies are clearly in view. Even
when
dying, the righteous has all the security of a devout worshiper,
but the
wicked will find his evil boomerangs on him at that time (see
confident that
he will come to the Garden of Eden."
Finally, we need to take note of the
important term' aharit, in
Proverbs
23:17-18 and 24:19-20. Literally it refers to "the end" of
something, and
is rightly glossed "future hope" by NIV in these
Proverbs:
"Do not let your heart envy sinners, but always be zealous
for the
fear of the Lord. There is surely a future hope ['aharit]
for you,
Neukirchener Verlag, 1984), 176; Arndt Meinhold, Die Sprnche in Zurcher Bibeikommentar
A T (
24McKane,
475.
25 Toy,
300.
26 McKane, 475.
27 Meinhold, 245.
WALTKE: DOES PROVERBS
PROMISE TOO MUCH 333
and your
hope will not be cut off" (
because of
evil men or be envious of the wicked, for the evil man has
no future
hope ['aharit], and the lamp
of the wicked will be snuffed
out"
(24:19-20).
Commenting on this important term in
its similar use in Psalm
49:16, Von Rad helpfully notes:
One can never judge life in
accordance with the appearance of the
moment, but
one must keep 'the end' , aharit in view. This
important
term which
is so characteristic of thinking which is open to the
future,
cannot always have referred to death. One can also translate
the word by
'future.' What is meant, therefore is the outcome of a
thing, the
end of an event for which one hopes.28
Commenting
on Ps 49:16, he says, "The most likely solution, then, is
to
understand the sentence as the expression of a hope for a life of
communion with
God which will outlast death."29
4. Exposition of 3:5
"Trust" bth is a primary term in the
human covenant partners
relationship to the Lord. The verb essentially means "to feel secure, be
unconcerned."
D. Kidner, citing G. R. Driver, says "the Heb
for trust
had
originally the idea of lying helplessly face downwards-an idea
preserved in Jer 12:5b (see RSV) and Ps 22:9b (Heb 10)."30 Jepsen notes
aptly:
"With an affirmation as to the reason for the security it [bth]
means 'to
rely on something, someone.'"31 The preposition "in" 'el in
the
phrase "in the Lord" refers to making the Lord the goal or object
of
trust.32 The wise trust the Lord who stands behind the book of
Proverbs, not in the proverbs themselves. The promises of proverbs are
no
better than God who fulfills them. The Lord, not some impersonal
natural law,
upholds the act-consequence nexus (cf. Prov
Von Rad
incredibly dismisses the many proverbs that call for trust
in the Lord
(3:5; 14:26; 16:3, 20; 18:10; 19:23; 28:25; 29:25; 30:1-14) as
essentially irrelevant.
According to him, the wise men did not teach
trust in
God, but "something apparently quite different, namely the
28 Von Rad, 202.
29 Von Rad, 204.
30
Derek Kidner, The Proverbs, The Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries
(Downers Grove, InterVarsity,
1964), 63; citing G. R. Driver, "Difficult Words in the
Hebrew Prophets," in Studies in Old Testament Prophecy, ed.
H. H. Rowley
(
31 TDOT, 2:89
32 Waltke and O'Connor, 193, par. 11.2.2a.
334 SEMINARY STUDIES 34 (AUTUMN 1996)
reality and
evidence of the order which controls the whole of life, much
as this
appeared in the act-consequence relationship. This order was,
indeed, simply
there and could, in the last resort, speak for itself."33 His
substitution of “order" and "act-consequence
relationship" for the Lord
has
become highly influential in wisdom studies. Some scholars remove
God
altogether from involvement in the world, or at best reduce him
to a
first cause within a deistic view of reality.
E. F. Huwiler rightly
complains:
In its extreme form, the deed-consequence
syndrome removes the deity
from
activity in the world. According to this view, the consequence
follows the
deed of itself, and Yahweh, whose power is limited, is
directly
involved merely as a midwife or a chemical catalyst, although
indirectly
involved as creator, who set into motion the deed-
consequence
syndrome.34
To be sure,
many sayings claim a connection between character-act-
consequence, but
as Huwiler infers, they do not "presuppose
divine
inactivity."35
Ultimately, God upholds that connection.
The Lord, however, does not uphold a
moral order in a tidy
calculus
wherein immediately righteousness is rewarded and wickedness
is
punished. If that were so, people would confound pleasure with
morality; all
would behave righteously for selfish reasons, not out of
pure
virtue based on faith, hope, and love. They would substitute
eudaemonism (i.e., the system of thought that bases
ethics, moral
obligation, on
personal pleasure) for true virtue (cf. Rom 5:2-5; ,1 Pet
1:5-8). The wise trust the
Lord to uphold his ethical proverbs in his
own time
and in his own way, even when the wicked prosper and the
righteous
suffer.
Trust in the Lord, however, without definition,
is platitudinous; it
cuts no
ice in one's thinking unless the Lord revealed himself. Here the
Lord's
revelation, which Solomon puts into the covenant parent’s
mouth, is
in view. Of his wisdom, Solomon said: "From the Lord
comes
wisdom, and from his mouth come knowledge and
understanding" (Prov 2:6). The parent's mouth is
God's mouth. The son
must don
the entire armor forged in this book.
This trust must be exercised entirely,
"with all your heart." Since
the Lord
alone gives wisdom and, provides protection (2:5-8), one’s
eternal
security depends only on him.
33 Von Rad, 191.
34 Elizabeth Faith Huwiler,
"Control of Reality in Israelite Wisdom" (Ph.D.
dissertation,
35 Ibid., 68-69.
WALTKE:
DOES PROVERBS PROMISE TOO MUCH? 335
This
reliance must also be exercised exclusively. "Do not lean in
your own
understanding" functions as the negative synonym of "trust"
(see nominal form in 1:33). To put it another way, "to
rely in/to" is a
figure for
"trust" (BDB 1043; cf. Isa 50:10).
Whoever relies on inadequate human
understanding is a fool (26:5,
12;
16:28:26a). Human wisdom is prejudicial, partial, and insecure. As
philosophers are aware, none can know the real world objectively. That
which is
known is inescapably relative to the person who does the
knowing. The
way we see things is colored by a mix of previous
experiences and
stereotypes perpetuated by our families, friends, peers,
movies, and
television. Moreover, unaided human reason cannot come
to
absolute truth; it is a recipe for disappointment and disaster. And yet
to come
to absolute meaning and values, one must know all the facts.
A play does
not make full sense as one views only an isolated act or
scene. It
is not until the final act, until the last word is spoken and the
curtain
drops, that the play takes on its full meaning. Human beings,
however, are
confined to the tensions of the middle acts; without
revelation they
are not privy to their resolution in the final act (1 Cor
13:12).
Moreover, facts are known only in relation to other facts. We
distinguish one
object from another by its similarity to some and its
dissimilarity from others. To see any object "truly," one must see
all
objects
comprehensively. Unaided rationality cannot find an adequate
frame of
reference from which to know. C. Van Til noted that
to make
an
absolute judgment, human beings must usurp God's throne:
If one does not make human knowledge
wholly dependent upon the
original
self-knowledge and consequent revelation of God to man,
then man
will have to seek knowledge within himself as the final
reference
point. Then he will have to seek an exhaustive
understanding
of reality. Then he will have to hold that if he cannot
attain to
such an exhaustive understanding of reality, he has no true
knowledge
of anything at all. Either man must then know everything
or he knows
nothing. This is the dilemma that confronts every form
of
non-Christian epistemology.36
Finally, this trust must be exercised
exhaustively, "in all your ways
know
him."
Conclusion
If the life of Christ came to an end on
the cross, the covenant
promises of
Proverbs, such as those found in the strophes of 3:1-10,
failed.
However, if we pursue the career of Christ to Easter Sunday,
36Comelius VanTil, A Christian
Theory of Knowledge (
Reformed,
1969), 17.
336 SEMINARY STUDIES 34 (AUTUMN
1996)
then God
faithfully fulfilled the obligations he graciously took upon
himself.
Today our Lord enjoys life and prosperity. Saints around the
world
praise him, and at his name every knee will bow. When we travel
the road
from the cross to the tomb to his resurrection and ascension
into
heaven, we can say, his is a straight path. As the writer of Hebrews
says of
Jesus: "Who for the joy that was set before him endured the
cross,
scorning its shame, and sat down on the right hand of God." Let
us then
fix our eyes on Jesus, the pioneer and perfecter of
our faith.
Professor
Gerhard Hasel modeled this faith.
This material is cited with gracious
permission from:
SDA Theological
Berrien Springs
http://www.andrews.edu/SEM/
Please report any errors to Ted
Hildebrandt at: