[Chapter submission for the 84th Annual Freed-Hardeman University Lectureship (2020), Henderson, Tennessee. This is part of the “Anticipating the Future: My Story is His Story” Series. Our Place in His Story: Remembering the Past, Anticipating the Future (Link to book). Listen to the audio lecture as delivered clicking here.]
Everyone has a past. Every conversion to Christ has a past from which it starts and a future to which it clings. Early in Paul’s letter to the Thessalonians he wrote of their decisive change from paganism to the faith and hope that is found in Christ, noting, “how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God, and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come” (1 Thess 1:9–10). [All Scripture references are from the English Standard Version unless otherwise stated.] This is the basic grammar of the Christian life: a conversion to serve God awaiting future deliverance at the return of Jesus. Between these two bookends (the past and future) the Christian experiences grace which is greater than our all past associations.
The Past is Worthless
In his autobiographical moments, Paul affirmed that the grace he experienced as a Christian—and apostle—surpassed any value attached to his past Jewish heritage. For example, in Philippians 3, Paul weighs the value of his life outside of Christ against what he finds “in Christ.” His past and present reads much like a “pros” (present) and “cons” (past) list. His past was filled with Israelite hubris and Jewish accolades (3:5–6). Richard Peace well observes,
not only was he blessed by birth with impeccable religious credentials, but as the result of his own accomplishments he had risen to the pinnacle of first-century Jewish spirituality. (31).
Richard Peace, Conversion in the New Testament (1999)
On paper, he was truly a “Hebrew of Hebrews” and it showed. Paul had been a blameless Benjamite Pharisee who zealously persecuted the church. Yet, at the time, his “zeal for God” was “not according to knowledge” (Rom 10:2). On the other side of the ledger, the “gain” (kérdos) this activity afforded him —Jewish “street cred”—amounted to being “loss” (Phil 3:7, 8) and “rubbish”[1] (3:8). Real “gain” is found in Paul’s slogan, “to live is Christ, and to die is gain [kérdos]” (Phil 1:21). Why? Paul had attained a full and realized relationship with Jesus Christ (3:8–16) manifested in the Lord’s “grace” (1:2, 7; 4:23). This is what every Christian shares in, grace that is greater than one’s past associations.
1 Timothy 1:12–14
Lost in Speculation (1 Tim 1:3–7)
Another important autobiographical statement by Paul is found in 1 Timothy 1:12–14.[2] Contextually, it comes off the heals of his reminder to Timothy that he was charged to address the dangers of “certain ones” (tís) bringing into the church religious “speculations” (ekzétesis) which emerge from teaching other doctrine(s) (hetero + didaskaleín) and indulging in myths and genealogies (1:3–4). Paul’s stress for doctrinal purity is well established. In Galatians 1:6, for example, Paul is opposed to any desertion to a “different gospel” (héteron euangélion). In Ephesus, the “end game” of those teaching other doctrines was simply “the inquiry” into the theoretical which subverts the actual carrying out of the plan of God (oikonomía; Knight 75) empowered by faith. The economy of God’s plan is not empowered by theory but by a Christian whose love is saturated by their pure heart, good conscience, and sincere personal faith (1:5). A Christian, distracted by “overthinking,” untouched by the work of God in their life will never be able to truly carry out their call to share the gospel of Jesus (1:6–7).
Healthy Teaching Restrains Evil (1 Tim 1:8–11)
There is no sin in exploring the contours of the faith nor engaging in deep religious and theological conversations, but this must never hinder teaching the law of God with its concrete condemnation of sin in all of its forms. Paul mentions thirteen types of “lawless” ones (1:9–10) for whom the law properly applies (nomímōs, 1:8). Paul affirms it is the primary purpose of the law “to restrain evil doing” (Guthrie 74) and this is why those that teach other doctrine(s) (1:3) fail in their endeavor to be “teachers of the law” (nomodidáskaloi, 1:7). Their speculations only offer that which is “contrary” (antíkeimai), and different (héteros),[3] to what is “healthy teaching” as concretely found and expressed in the law (1:10). This is the source of the convicting component of the gospel message, for through it God convicts humanity of sin but he does not leave sinners in their judgment. He incorporates them into the economy of his plan. This may be restated as, “no matter who you are, no matter where you have been, no matter what you have done, there is a place for you in the kingdom of God” (Payes). This key principle is the foundation for Paul’s own autobiographical thanksgiving in the next verses (1:12–14).
Thankful for the Grace of Jesus (1 Tim 1:12–14)
Paul frequently uses the Greek word chárin (grace, thanks, gift, favor, etc.) in his letters (100 times). In fact, he opens and closes all of his letters with chárin. This segment of 1 Timothy likewise opens (1:12) and closes (1:14) with this word, but with two different emphases—gratitude and favor (MM 684). Paul’s gratitude to his Lord Christ Jesus recognizes not only the enabling power (endunamóō) he receives from the Lord, but also the confidence placed on Paul to serve in his ministry (diakonía). Participating in the economy of God’s saving plan gave the apostle the experience of an overflowing “grace” (chárin). Paul never forgot his past, grace does not delete the past. It is clear that Paul’s past as “a blasphemer, persecutor, and insolent opponent” served as a motivation for his gratitude and zeal (Petrillo 18). His example demonstrates that God’s grace and mercy provides the means to cross the bridge from condemnation (1:8–10) to arrive at the healing place which creates the pure heart, good conscience, and a sincere faith (1:5) within the “foremost” sinner (1:15).
Paul’s “unbelief” (apistía) was met with the Lord’s compassion (eleéō), his “sins” and lawless behavior was met with the embrace of “the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus” (1:14). When Paul was brought into the “in Christ” relationship mercy was shown to him, he did not have to earn it. In his case, however, his rebellion was in ignorance while zealous for God (cf. Rom 10:2); nevertheless, he was in sin, and he acknowledged that God initiated a relationship with him out of compassion. Luke records this divine extension of mercy and Paul’s response (Acts 9:1–19; 22:16). On paper, Paul should stand condemned, but God does the overflowing abundant thing by empowering him to be an example to every believer after him (1 Tim 1:16).
Grace Greater than the Past
If one is not careful there is no greater enemy than the past. The powerful functions of the brain to store and to recall memories, decisions, mistakes, sins, and to imprint on them feelings anew can leave a person in an emotionally dangerous depressive cycle. If ever there was a divine commentary to how the human conscience lives in agony face to face with the evil done in the body it is David and his penitential prayer in Psalm 51. It is felt in the imperatives of the first two verses: have mercy, blot out, wash me, cleanse me. David makes these petitions trusting in God’s “steadfast love” (chesed) and “abundant mercy” (rōb + rahamim). Grief over moral failure is real, it hurts, and it lingers; however, the Lord provides the healing presence of his Spirit to find “a clean heart” and a renewed “right spirit” (10–11). It will require working through grief and regret, and to take these weaknesses that will always be there, and allow God to supply the power of his overflowing grace to take such weaknesses and turn them into strengths (2 Cor 12:9–10). There are some Christians who will never let go, they will hold grudges, but God’s grace is greater than past moral failures and greater than the self-righteous critics.
The reason grace is so powerful is that God turns human expectations on their heads and forces his people to reorient themselves to accommodate how the grace of God is rolled out. The Scottish wordsmith theologian, William Barclay (1907–1978), wrote about “the essential grace” in his volume The Mind of Paul. There are a few points to appreciate. First, “grace always moves in the realm of winsomeness, of loveliness, of attractiveness, of beauty and of charm” (154). Second, “grace has always in it the idea of a gift which is completely free and entirely undeserved” (155). For Barclay, grace always has an esthetic value, it can be appreciated for its beauty and attractiveness, and it also can be exchanged without quid pro quo. Third, God’s grace is inexhaustible as well as “undeserved generosity” (161–62). Indeed, Barclay affirms:
Grace is not a thing of narrow limitations, it is not a thing measured out in painstakingly accurate quantities with just enough and no more, as an ingredient might be in a recipe for some concoction; in grace there is a certain infinity; a certain complete adequacy; a certain inexhaustibility and illimitableness. No demand that can ever be made on it can exhaust it or strain its capacity and its power. (Barclay 163)
William Barclay, The Mind of Paul (1958)
It enabled Paul to embrace and celebrate the Christian experience of grace in all of its surpassing capacity (2 Cor 9:8, 14; Rom 5:20; Eph 1:7, 2:7).
Grace empowers the child of God to move forward, it is not a crutch to revert back into lawlessness. There is no cheap grace with God. Grace is rich and deep, but it is not an excuse to continue in sin (Rom 6:1–2). The connection between immersion and grace is firmly established with the Christian’s identification with Jesus’ resurrection, for the risen Christian emerges to serve God in grace (6:3–14). The past is not ignored, but the legal metaphor[4] based on the Roman slave trade is employed to paint the transition in ownership explains how Christians went from servants of sin to become “servants of righteousness” and experiencing the grace of God (Rom 6:15–23). Grace enables the Christian to serve God unimpeded.
A Personal Aside
It is easy to get lost in the academic side of this study, but grace is not a sterile observable entity. Grace is an environment of generosity designed to rehabilitate those made in the image of God through the gospel (2 Cor 5:17). Over twenty years ago, I was on a street corner in the Mission District of San Francisco. I was a drug dealer and user. I abused alcohol. I was sexually immoral. I was in a gang. I was violent. I was a criminal. I contributed to the urban system of violence and fear. I was a sinner. But by the grace of God, I had the opportunity to read about Jesus in a Bible I found under my bed. The beauty of his grace was attractive. I desired it and wanted to share it with others. I traded in my old life for a life in Christ and was immersed for the forgiveness of my sins (Acts 2:38).
I never expected to be a preacher—I never expected to live past 18 years old. Today I am more than twice that age, and by the grace of God I preach the gospel and share it with my community in Bakersfield, CA. I’ve had some serious growing pains in the course of my Christian life. Some will only see me for my mistakes. Others have spurred me along because they too know that the grace of God is greater than our past associations and failures. Let us all ever be so minded.
Endnotes
The word skúbalon is translated variously as “dung” (KJV, NET, CSB), “rubbish” (ESV, NABRE, NASB95, NKJV, NRSV), “refuse” (ASV, RSV), or “garbage” (CEV, NIV2011). Some think this word is either a swear/crude word (i.e, the s-word) or the closest thing to it. It certainly is a word that may literally mean “dung” (Sir 27:4) so in this sense it is construed as a vulgar word (TDNT 7:446; Wallace); however, the available lexical data does not support its use as an invective curse word (Manning). According to Friedrich Lang’s research, skúbalon is found to be an apt religious and philosophical analog for human “corruptibility” and “worthlessness” (TDNT 7:445). This appears to be clearly Paul’s point as he intensifies from “loss” to skúbalon; as in, his past is “all worthless trash” (ERV). It would have provided some shock value but not because it was a curse word.
While some scholars argue that certain internal and contextual factors surrounding 1 Timothy—along with 2 Timothy and Titus—are not in keeping with the traditional view that Paul is its author (Dibelius and Conzelmann 1–5), they are however far from definitive (Knight 21–52) and do not make Pauline authorship impossible (Guthrie 58). The present study presupposes Pauline authorship for the thirteen letters traditionally associated to him.
The ASV reads, “if there be any other thing [héteros] contrary to the sound doctrine” (1:10), which more clearly keeps at the forefront Paul’s use of héteros than the rendering of the ESV, “whatever else [héteros].”
For further reading on the legal metaphor in Romans 6 see, Francis Lyall, “Legal Metaphors in the Epistles,” TynB 32 (1981):81–95.
Works Cited
Barclay, William. The Mind of Paul. 1958. Repr., New York: Harper & Row, 1975.
Dibelius, Martin, and Hans Conzelmann. The Pastoral Epistles. Translated by Philip Buttolph and Adela Yarbro. Herm. Edited by Helmut Koester, et al. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972.
Guthrie, Donald. The Pastoral Epistles: An Introduction and Commentary. 2d edition. TNTC. Vol. 14. Edited by Leon Morris. 1990. Repr., Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2009.
Knight, George W., III. The Pastoral Epistles. NIGTC. Edited by I. Howard Marshall and W. Ward Gasque. 1992. Repr., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013.
Lang, Friedrich. “skúbalon.” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Vol. 7. Edited by Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964.
Lyall, Francis. “Legal Metaphors in the Epistles.” TynB 32 (1981): 81–95.
In Jonah 4:2 the prophet appeals to the Hebrew noun חֶסֶד (hesed) as a Divine character trait reflected in relational actions. This term is one of the most profound words in the Hebrew Bible, but this profundity is complicated by the fact no single translation really captures its meaning. For this reason, deClaissé-Walford, Jacobson and Tanner opted to transliterate the term throughout their commentary on the Psalms:
Traditionally, a wide range of English terms have been employed in the attempt to capture the meaning of hesed: “mercy,” “loving-kindness,” “steadfast love,” “faithfulness,” “covenantal love,” “loving faithfulness,” and the like. We find that none of these words or phrases satisfactorily express the range and depth of hesed.[1]
The present word study, then, seeks to provide sufficient contours for the word’s usage in the Hebrew Bible and then suggest Jonah’s usage is not only a matter of subversion but also an acknowledgment that the LORD is a God of “benevolent love” (Exod 34:6–7).
Hesed Throughout the Hebrew Bible
There is no agreement of how many instances of hesed there are in the Hebrew Bible. In ascending order, based on BHS4 Kohlenberger and Swanson index the noun 244 times.[2] Stoebe and Zobel list 245 instances; yet, Gordon counts 246.[3] In their popular grammar, Practico and Van Pelt supply a 249 wordcount; meanwhile, Koehler, Baumgartner, and Stamm, and therefore Holladay, calculate about 250 instances.[4] This apparent statistics fluctuation for the frequency of hesed is probably due, at least, to variants in the critical Hebrew texts upon which their analyses were based.
Hesed is widely distributed across all biblical literary categories of the Hebrew Bible, which is arranged differently than the Christian Bible (see word map below). It is found in the Torah 20 times, in the Prophets (Nevi’im) 53 times, and the Writings (Ketuvim) 172[3] times.[5] The twelve books where hesed does not appear, however, are Leviticus, 2 Kings, Ezekiel, seven of the twelve minor prophets (Amos, Obadiah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, and Malachi), Song of Solomon and Ecclesiastes.
Hesed appears in the first book and the last book of the Hebrew Bible; from the rescuing of Lot in Genesis 19:19 to the faithful deeds of Josiah’s reformation in 2 Chronicles 35:26:
you have shown me great kindness [hesed] in saving my life. (NRSV)[6]
the rest of the acts of Josiah and his faithful [hesed] deeds in accordance with what is written in the law of the Lord. (NRSV)
The last reference reflected in the Protestant arrangement of the Bible (see word map below) closes with the prophetic oracle of Zechariah 7:9-10:
Thus says the Lord of hosts: Render true judgments, show kindness [hesed] and mercy to one another; do not oppress the widow, the orphan, the alien, or the poor; and do not devise evil in your hearts against one another. (NRSV)
Word Map: The Hesed (חֶסֶד) word map is based on the English Standard Version generated by Logos Bible software. The pink horizontal lines represent single and double instances.
The books which have ten or more references of hesed are Proverbs (10 times), Genesis (11 times), 1–2 Chronicles (15 times), 1–2 Samuel (16 times), and the Psalms (127[8] times). The majority of these books reflect the relational nature of hesed in the human realm. In Proverbs the end goal of wisdom is to teach practical relational hesed (31:26, 21:21), it is not a false front but the foundation of one’s reputation by its presence in their life (20:6, 28).
In Genesis, “kindness” is requested in prayer to God by Abraham’s servant to find a wife for Isaac (Gen 24:12, 14, 27). Then, Laban and Bethuel act in hesed (“kindness”) by cosigning their approval of Rebekah’s consent to be given as wife to Isaac.
1–2 Chronicles and 1–2 Samuel show that hesed expressed in reciprocal social acts. Saul reciprocates and excuses the Kenites from his assault on the Amalekites because they has shown hesed to Israel in ages past (1 Sam 15:6). Hushai’s “love” (loyalty?) for David is questioned during his infiltration of Absolam’s forces (2 Sam 16:17). The hesed shared between David and Jonathan is a story of deep loyalty and mutual reciprocity (1 Sam 20:8, 14–15). The Divine hesed is evidenced as well (2 Sam 15:20). Nathan enshrined the Davidic lineage and kingdom on behalf of God,
“my love will never be taken away from him” (2 Sam 7:15 NIV; 1 Chr 17:13, 2 Chr 1:8, 6:42; Psa 18:25[26]).
The Psalms contain close to half of all uses of the noun hesed (127[8] times); but it does not appear in 55% (83 psalms) of the 150 psalms. In brief, there are 23 instances in Book I (1-41), 16 instances in Book II (42–72), 14 and 13 times in Book III (73–89) and IV (90–106) respectively. In Book V (107–150), however, the frequency count skyrockets to 60 instances. Psalm 136 alone celebrates the Divine hesed in each of its twenty-six verses. It is in the Psalms that “both God and human worshipers describe God’s hesed as everlasting.”[7] Indeed,
While the term is used of both humans and God, in the Psalter it is above all a theological term that describes God’s essential character as well as God’s characteristic ways of acting—especially God’s characteristic ways of acting in electing, delivering, and sustaining the people of Israel. Hesed is both who the Lord is and what the Lord does. Hesed is an ancient term that defined for Israel who its God is.[8]
The saturation of hesed in the Psalms suggests that God’s people should always be mindful in prayer and worship of its content, its deeds, and the God who so relates to his people (Psa 36:5, 7, 10).
As pertains to the present study, it should be noted that the noun hesed only features twice in Jonah.Jonah is only one of four minor prophets where the term is employed (Hosea, Joel, and Micah). The first instance is in Jonah’s prayer of lament while in the “great fish” wherein he affirms that pagan idolators will miss out on “the grace [hasdam] that could be theirs” (2:8[9] NIV). The other instance is in 4:2 where Jonah laments what he knows about the LORD, who is “abounding in love” (NIV, warabhesed) and willing to change his mind about bringing judgment on the penitent people of Nineveh.
Semantic Range and Related Hebrew Words
As Silzer and Finley remind, “[w]ords normally have more than one meaning. The specific meaning of the word depends on its context.”[9] It is not sufficient, then, to rely on English translations (archaic or contemporary), nor to force lexical glosses to determine the meaning of a word.[10]
Brown, Driver, and Briggs groups hesedwith its verbal (hasad 2 times) and adjectival (hasid 32 times) forms, along with a few proper names, such asBen-Hesed (“son of Hesed” 1 Kgs 4:10) and Hasadiah (“Yah is Hesed” 1 Chr 3:20).[11] Lastly, is the unclean hasidah (6 times) often translated “stork” or “heron.” The root connection is believed to be due to their fond, “kind and affectionate” nature with their young.[12] This is a feature that is never appealed to in the Hebrew Bible.
The semantic range of hesed extends to the secular and the religious. In each, hesed manifests in concrete actions of goodwill, loyalty, and communal love whether in or outside of the covenant.[13] Divergent views emerge here with polarizing understandings over the meaning of hesed. Nelson Glueck saw in hesed a hardline covenantal legal obligation, H. J. Stoebe and others countered that hesedwas a free relational demonstration of loyal love.[14]
In the secular sense hesed speaks to certain “ethical norms of human intercourse” where mutuality exists that focuses on “the closest of human bonds.”[15] For example, Ruth exhibits this sense (1:8, 2:20, 3:10). Naomi blesses her daughters-in-law reciprocally, “May the Lord deal kindly [hesed] with you, as you have dealt with the dead and with me” (NRSV).
Religiously, the Divine demonstration of hesed does not function very differently than from the secular.[16] Exodus 34:1–7 provide a clear liturgical formula which demonstrates that Israel’s God abounds “in steadfast love and faithfulness” (34:6 NRSV; Psa 86:15, 89:14, Num 14:18).
The Lord passed before him, and proclaimed, “The Lord, the Lord, God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love [hesed] and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love [hesed] for the thousandth generation, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, yet by no means clearing the guilty, but visiting the iniquity of the parents upon the children and the children’s children, to the third and the fourth generation.” (Exod 34:6-7 NRSV)
This divine expression stresses the LORD’s multi-generational hesed and faithfulness. Moses now knows (33:13) that the LORD relates to his people through his benevolent and enduring nature. The words are quoted and echoed throughout the Hebrew Bible which suggests that they became formulaic or institutionalized to extoll the attributes of the God of Israel (Num 14:18, Jer 32:18, Joel 2:13, Nah 1:3, Psa 86:15, 103:8, 111:4, 112:4, 116:5, 145:8, Neh 9:17, 31, 2 Chron. 30:9)[17]
There are several words that appear frequently with hesed. They provide some dynamic appreciation for its usage in the Hebrew Bible.[18]Hesed may be done (‘asah) in concrete choices (Ruth 1:8). The LORD God keeps (shamar) and abounds (rab) in hesed (Deut 7:9, Neh 9:17). It is often associated with various nouns of “mercy” as in Psa 103:4 where the psalmist speaks of being crowned by God with hesed and rahamim(mercy). Likewise, hesed appears together with ’emet (faithfulness) probably as a hendiadys such as in Exod 34:6 and Psa 86:15.[19]
Hesed in Jonah 4:2
He prayed to the Lord and said, “O Lord! Is not this what I said while I was still in my own country? That is why I fled to Tarshish at the beginning; for I knew that you are a gracious God and merciful, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love [hesed], and ready to relent from punishing. And now, O Lord, please take my life from me, for it is better for me to die than to live.” (Jonah 4:2–3 NRSV)
This survey of hesed in the Hebrew Bible should help to determine the possible range of meaning for how Jonah 4:2 should be understood. Words have meaning only in context. With the above range in mind, the context appears to reflect Jonah’s usage of the formulaic hesedlanguage of Exodus 34:6–7. Instead of celebrating his God with these words, Jonah is subversively using this language to express his frustration with the LORD’s restraint against the city of Nineveh.
Jonah is using God’s own words against him. For this reason, it appears the meaning for Hebrew word hesedfound in Jonah 4:2 should be understood as “benevolent love.” Jonah knows how LORD acts out in concrete acts of hesed, these being grace, mercy, “slow to anger,” and relenting from judgment. Since there is no evidence that the LORD is in covenant with Nineveh, this supports the supposition that divine hesed may be expressed in free relational demonstrations of benevolent love. God relates to repentance with the reciprocal response of grace, mercy, patience/forbearance, relenting from judgment.
Jonah 2:8[9] further supports this view. It reveals that the prophet desires for judgment those who do not enjoy a covenant relationship with the LORD. It appears that for Jonah, idolatry is the “deal-breaker” for having a relationship with the LORD based on hesed. Yet, the irony fails to make any headway with the nationalistic prophet, since he rejected his prophetic call on the basis that he knew what the LORD would do should Nineveh repent. Both he and pagans have rejected God. Jonah is not only selfish with his relationship with his faithful God (“save me from the fish!”) but is resentful that God is “sharing the love” with foreigners (“you saved them from judgment!”).
Jonah wants his curse to come true, that those who “cling to worthless idols forfeit the grace [hesed] that could be theirs” (2:8[9] NIV). It is this forfeiture of Divine hesedwhich Jonah still desires for Nineveh, reflected in his willingness to proclaim that the city “will be overturned” (3:4) and his bitterness that it was not (4:1–11). Jonah knew that God would choose relationship over punishment. The LORD said as much (4:11). Humans, unfortunately, seem to choose punishment over relationship. Jonah shows as much.
This focused study on hesed and Jonah 4:2 brings to mind that the caricature of the bloodthirsty wrathful God of the Old Testament is just that an exaggerated cartoon (cf. Jas 2:13). As Baer and Gordon powerfully remind:
The insight that, while both anger and love are appropriate divine responses, the latter outlasts the former, is an important one for biblical theology. Wrath is a true word, a right word, sometimes an inevitable word, such passages seem to say. But God would not have it be his last word. That honor is reserved for his unfailing love (hesed).[20]
The burden of Jonah was to provide concrete witness to the people of Nineveh that God seeks to extend and establish benevolent love with all nations. As one who has experienced Divine benevolent love, Jonah should have been moved to be a spokesman for Divine benevolent love. In this he struggled and failed; nevertheless, God succeeded even if for a brief time (cf. Nahum 1:1?).
Conclusion
The meaning for Hebrew word hesedfound in Jonah 4:2 should be understood as “benevolent love.” The formulaic language of Exodus 34:6–7 is surely the theological and context for Jonah’s use of hesed. In Exodus as in Jonah 4:11, the LORD shows that he has the concern to establish and maintain a communal relationship with Israel. The benevolent concerns of preserving others and acting on the basis of moral uprightness anchor the LORD’s demands of repentance. Jonah knew if Nineveh took seriously the burden of his message, his God would become their God. They would collectively experience Divine benevolent love.
A final thought should be emphasized. Even though there are many excellent translations in the English language their primary function is simply to provide a reading text. Some significant and complex words, like hesed, merit the focused investigation which a word study provides. As developed above, hesed stresses relationships, community, loyalty and the ethical demands of love, responsibility, care, and obligation words which no single translation can do justice. Word studies reveal facets and these usages are combined into a framework. This framework provides the contours for understanding what a word means within its context, for usage determines meaning.
Endnotes
Rolf A. Jacobson, “Text, Title, and Interpretation,” in The Book of Psalms, NICOT, eds. E. J. Young, R. K. Harrison, and Robert L. Hubbard (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2014), 7–8.
John R. Kohlenberger III. and James A. Swanson, The Hebrew-English Concordance to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1998), v, 559.
H. J. Stoebe, “hesed kindness,” TLOT 2:449; H.-J. Zobel, “hesed,” TDOT 5:45; Robert P. Gordon, “hesed,” NIDOTTE 2:211.
Gray D. Practico and Miles V. Van Pelt, Basics of Biblical Hebrew, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2007), 105; Koehler, Baumgartner, and Stamm, “hesed,” HALOT 1:336; William L. Holladay, A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (1971; repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), 111.
The Torah includes Genesis-Deuteronomy; the Nevi’im includes Joshua-2 Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel, and the Minor Prophets; and the Ketuvim includes Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Solomon, Ruth, Lamentation, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, and 1–2 Chronicles.
The two English translations the Holy Bible used in this paper are the New Revised Standard Version (Nashville, TN: Nelson, 1989) and the New International Version (Nashville, TN: HarperCollins, 2011) cited as NRSV and NIV respectively.
David A. Baer and Robert P. Gordon, “hesed,” IDOTTE 2:212–17.
Jacobson, “Text, Title, and Interpretation,” 8.
Peter James Silzer and Thomas John Finley, How Biblical Languages Work: A Student’s Guide to Learning Hebrew and Greek (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2004), 164.
Douglas Stuart, Old Testament Exegesis: A Handbook for Students and Pastors, 4th ed. (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2009), 182–83.
BDB 338–39.
BDB 339; HALOT 1:336; TLOT 2:449.
IDOTTE 2:212–17; HALOT 1:336–37; TDOT 5:46–64.
R. Laird Harris, “hesed,” TWOT 1:305–06.
TDOT 5:47–48.
TDOT 5:54–55.
Nahum M. Sarna, Exodus, JPS Torah Commentary, ed. Nahum M. Sarna (Philadelphia, PA: Jewish Publication Society, 1991), 216.
HALOT 1:337.
TWOT 1:307.
IDOTTE 2:214.
Bibliography
Baer, David A., and Robert P. Gordon. “חסד.” Pages 211–18 in vol. 2 of New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2012.
Brown, Francis, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1907.
Ford, David. “Keeping up Biblical Languages while in the Ministry.” Foundations 14 (1985): 41–44.
Gordon, Robert P. “חסד.” Pages 211–18 in vol. 2 of New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis. Edited by Willem A. VanGemeren. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1997.
Harris, R. Laird. “חסד (hsd).” Pages 305–07 in vol. 1 of Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. Edited by R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer, Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke. Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1980.
Holladay, William L. A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. 1971. Repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000.
Jacobson, Rolf A. “Text, Title, and Interpretation.” Pages 2–9 in The Book of Psalms. NICOT. Edited by E. J. Young, R. K. Harrison, and Robert L. Hubbard. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2014.
Koehler, Ludwig, Walter Baumgartner, and Johann J. Stamm. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Translated and edited under the supervision of Mervyn E. J. Richardson. 5 vols. New York: Brill, 1994–1999.
Kohlenberger, John R., III., and James A. Swanson. The Hebrew-English Concordance to the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1998.
Practico, Gray D., and Miles V. Van Pelt. Basics of Biblical Hebrew. 2d edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2007.
Sarna, Nahum M. Exodus. JPS Torah Commentary. Edited by Nahum M. Sarna. Philadelphia, PA: Jewish Publication Society, 1991.
Silzer, Peter James, and Thomas John Finley. How Biblical Languages Work: A Student’s Guide to Learning Hebrew and Greek. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2004.
Stoebe, H. J. “חֶסֶד, hesed kindness.” Pages 449–64 in vol. 2 of Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament. Edited by Ernst Jenni and Claus Westermann. Translated by Mark E. Biddle. 3 vols. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997.
Stuart, Douglas. Old Testament Exegesis: A Handbook for Students and Pastors. 4th edition. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2009.
Wegner, Paul D. Using Old Testament Hebrew in Preaching: A Guide for Students and Pastors. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2009.
Zobel, H.-J. “(חֶסֶד, hesed).” Pages 44–64 in vol. 5 of Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Edited by G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren. Translated by David E. Green. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1977.
Who would we be –and where– without those individuals who gave us the guidance and benefits of their wisdom accrued over the years of their experience. The powerful influences of those who have been our benefactors have left an indelible mark upon our lives in more ways than we often can be thankful for.
Of course, not all influences are of the same caliber. The Scriptures remind us of those powerful influences which may tug at our hearts and emotional fixations. Let us look at a few examples of counsel poorly chosen; then reflect upon choosing those wonderful influences which will improve our lives.
Counsel Poorly Chosen
Enabling Wrong-Doing to Satisfy an Obsession
Emotional fixations are very dangerous if left to fester and grow into obsessions. There are some who would do anything to help you gratify your desires.
No one knows this tragic lesson better than Amnon who had an obsession for his beautiful half-sister Tamar (2 Sam 13). Apparently, Amnon’s vexation was so apparent that his cousin Jonadab counsels him to pretend an illness, so that he may request the nursing care of his unsuspecting victim Tamar in his isolated chambers.
The results were a horrific incestuous rape, Amnon’s assassination at the hands of Tamar’s brother Absolam, and in turn an attack upon the throne of David as a further expression of his vengeful defiance. Absalom would lose his life in the insurrection.
Leaning on the Ambitions of the Power Hungry
In the transitional moments following King Solomon’s death and the rise of his successor Rehoboam, the young king had a choice to make: should he be a heavy-handed king like his father, or relieve the people of their plight (1 Kings 12:1-5)?
Rehoboam seeks the counsel of two groups of men, “the old men” (12:6-7) and “the young men” (12:8-11). The “old men” who had seen the oppression of his father were moved with compassion and propose that the new king’s reign should be based upon the welfare of his people, not upon an “iron fist.” [All Scripture references are from the English Standard Version unless otherwise noted.]
Unfortunately, Rehoboam listened to “the young men” with whom he had grown up. They propose an intensified cruel reign (12:9-11). The new king must be vindictive and cruel; his subjects ought to live in fear.
Little wonder that the majority of the Israelite tribes (10 of 12) seceded to follow a new claimant king – Jeroboam. The results were disastrous, for his idolatrous influence plagued the Northern Kingdom of Israel until its demise in 722 BC (2 Kings 17-18). This too was predicated upon Jeroboam’s fear of losing power over his subjects only that instead of listening to the counsel of others “he had devised [this] from his own heart” (1 Kings 12:25-33).
Accepting False Teaching Affects Moral Purity
False teachers are tremendous influences of evil upon our lives. In order to shake up the Corinthian congregation to reject false teaching regarding the resurrection (i.e. that it had already occurred, 1 Cor 15:12-32), Paul quotes the playwright Menander’s comedy Thais (ca.300 BC):
Bad company ruins good morals. (1 Cor 15:33)
By this quote, Paul argues against making associations with false teachers (false mentors); the influence would be, he argues, disastrous upon their morals (v. 34).[1]
Why?
“What could have been” enters the mind when considering the tragedy of Tamar, if only Jonadab had counseled his cousin in another direction.
One ponders, “if only Rehoboam had listened to the wise counsel of the ‘old men’” instead of submitting to the influence of his power grabbing childhood “friends”?
Too, why did Jeroboam reject the religion of the Lord after all that the Lord had promised to make a covenant with him as king (1 Kings 11:29-39)?
When the foundation of the Christian message is founded upon the resurrection from the dead according to the Scriptures (1 Cor 15:1-11), what could be so tempting in the notion that the dead do not rise (15:12)? There is nothing to gain if there is no resurrection. Why move from hope to hopelessness?
Influence and Personal Responsibility
As they say, “hind-sight is 100%.” The Monday morning quarterback is always a pro-bowler, and the “back seat” driver should be authorized to distribute driver licenses. I bring out these clichés because they are pertinent to this discussion.
The matter is not that we are “back seat” drivers telling another how they should have done better. We learn from the mistakes of the past in order to inform our own decisions so that we may not repeat their failures.
This is a matter regarding personal responsibility in light of those moments we allow others into our decision-making process.
Let the wise hear and increase in learning, and the one who understands obtain guidance, to understand a proverb and a saying, the words of the wise and their riddles. (Prov 1:5-6)
God calls us to seek His Word, warning us of the consequences of “ignoring” His counsel and reproof (Prov 1:25).
Like Amnon, Rehoboam and Jeroboam, and the Corinthians there may be temptations which vex us and those enticing us to embrace it by conspiring (via advice or false teaching) a way to experience it; however, like Joseph we need to keep our principles realizing that to satiate a sinful desire betrays God and those who would be destroyed by such an action (Gen 39:6-10).
When we are lost in the possibility that “we could” do something and never stop to think about whether we should,[2] we have left the hallmarks of responsibility behind. Proverbs 7:1-27 reminds of this truth, as Solomon speaks to the dangers of irresponsibility. Seeking counsel does not absolve us from the importance of making the right decision (Prov 11:14), nor from taking responsibility should our “counseled” decisions return to us as a mistake (Matt 5:23-24).
The Scriptures are very clear that we cannot “pass the buck” when it comes to our responsibilities. Every action – public or private – will be evaluated by a Holy God (Eccl 12:14).
The Blame Game
“Passing the buck” is such a common saying that we tend to be ignorant of its origin. President Truman has been associated with this saying, but actually, it is a term from the game of poker as played in the frontier days of the American story.
During these days, a marker or counter was a knife with a buckhorn handle – the “buck.” It “was used to indicate the person whose turn it was to deal”; moreover:
If the player did not wish to deal he could pass the responsibility by passing the ‘buck,’ as the counter came to be called, to the next player.
TrumanLibrary.org
Hence, “pass the buck” means to pass the responsibility on to someone else.
In Truman’s “farewell address” he affirms “the President – whoever he is – has to decide. He can’t pass the buck to anybody. No one else can do the deciding for him. That’s his job” (TrumanLibrary.org).
The saying applies to us all; no one can make our decisions for us. No excuses. This is “ground zero” of personal responsibility.
The First Blame Game
In the early days of the human family, Adam and Eve succumbed to the subtlety of the serpent’s questions regarding the forbidden fruit. When the Lord asked them concerning their actions, Adam and Eve attempt to distance themselves from the responsibility of their actions by placing upon either their spouse or the creature (Gen 3:8-13).
Giving in to Others is Not an Excuse
In early years of the Kingdom of Israel, King Saul was called upon to wage war upon the Amalekites. In fact, Saul was charged specifically to “go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have” (1 Sam 15:3; Lev 27:28).
Upon return from their victory over Amalek, Saul returns with the choice items of the plunders of war – with which he was not supposed to return. Moreover, he returns with the King (15:9). As a consequence, the prophet Samuel questions the king regarding the bleating of the sheep and lowing of the oxen (15:14).
The king places the burden of the decision to disobey God’s command upon the people, attempting to absolve himself from moral responsibility (15:9, 15, 20-21); yet, the king was completely complicit (15:9). Nevertheless, despite the action of others, the Lord was displeased with Saul and it cost him his throne (15:17-19, 26).
Personal Ownership
Accepting the Burden of our Decisions without Excuses
When David is presented with a parable, he unwittingly condemns himself for the adultery with Bathsheba (2 Sam 11:1-5), a failed cover-up (11:6-13), and the murder of Uriah (11:14-27).
Instead of passing the buck, David accepts accountability and the consequences of his sin. Unlike the many cases of Saul’s incessant impudence, denying his sins – David quickly moves to being convicted of heart. One only needs to read Psalm 51 in order to see his contrition for his sins before God.
Our Future is Based upon Decisions Made Today
When the Kingdom of Judah was exiled into captivity in the 7th–6th century BC, one of the concerns raised is the following: “Our fathers sinned, and are no more; and we bear their iniquities” (Lam 5:7). The exile was a time where the question of sin and responsibility and accountability before the Lord was pondered.
In Ezekiel 14:12-23, the prophet makes it clear that even if many Old Testament faithful were alive during the days of the exile, men like Noah, Daniel and Job would be saved and delivered from the exile because they are righteous. Unlike the rebellious character of the generation of the exile, righteous people could experience deliverance.
This is heavily answered in chapter 18; in particular verses 19–20:
Yet you say, ‘Why should not the son suffer for the iniquity of the father?’ When the son has done what is just and right, and has been careful to observe all my statutes, he shall surely live. (Ezek 18:19)
The son can escape the consequences of his father’s sin by living faithfully to the Lord. We must realize that our futures are partly shaped by our decisions.
One of the most important aspects to receiving the guidance offered by another is taking ownership of the decision to act on it or not.
Some attempt to fabricate a scenario in order to get the advice they desired in the first place but what they wanted was the “green light” from “another” to relieve them of responsibility. Some else made their choice for them.
Others simply run with the first piece of advice thrown at them. In either case, whether it is poor advice or good advice, one cannot escape personal responsibility for the course taken. Here we conclude our discussion.
Good Counsel Taken
Naomi and Ruth
One of the tenderest moments in Old Testament history is the relationship between Naomi and Ruth. After being widowed in the land of Moab, she gave her sons into marriage only to lose them over the course of a decade (Ruth 1:1-5). The only daughter-in-law to remain with Naomi is Ruth, and she joins Naomi on her return to Israelite land (1:6-22).
Being a stranger in another culture is difficult, but thankfully for Ruth she was blessed by a kind man (Boaz) who knew her story. Boaz cautioned her to stay on his land and among his servants and the young women.
When she returns to Naomi’s abode, Naomi reinforces Boaz’s counsel so that she is not assaulted by men in another field (2.22).
Naomi then counsels her to remarry with Boaz – a “redeemer” (2:20; 3:1-17). A redeemer is “one who frees or delivers another from difficulty, danger, or bondage.”[3] And Naomi provides the love, direction, and mentorship to give Ruth a chance at a good life with Boaz after enduring all the hardship of being a widow.
While Boaz works out the details with the extended family of Naomi’s husband, Ruth returns home and explains the situation to her. In a moment of wisdom, Naomi tells Ruth:
Wait, my daughter, until you learn how the matter turns out, for the man will not rest but will settle the matter today. (Ruth 3:18)
The outcome was a marriage that would be central to the lineage of King David (Ruth 4:13-22), and ultimately the ancestral beginnings of Jesus (Matt 1:5-6, 16).
Mordecai and Esther
When Esther replaces Vashti as queen of Persia, in the days of King Ahasuerus her relationship with her cousin Mordecai results in the protection of the Jewish population in exile.
A plot had emerged to genocide the Jewish population of the Persian Empire orchestrated by Haman. When Mordecai becomes aware of the plot, he impresses upon Esther with counsel to go to the king to stop it:
And who knows whether you have not come to the kingdom for such a time as this? (Esth 4:14b)
The results where an intercession so dramatic that Haman’s plot is foiled, he is punished by death, the Jews are delivered, and the Feast of Purim is inaugurated to honor this great event (Esth 5:1-9:32).
Samuel and Eli
In those transitional years when Israel settled into the land of Canaan, the Lord raised “judges” to deliver the people from oppression and led them to faithfulness. The last of the judges is the prophet Samuel. His beginnings are miraculous (1 Sam 1-2).
When he was a very young boy, Samuel’s mother Hannah lends him over to the Lord’s service for the entirety of his life (2:21-28). Samuel is placed into the care of the high priest Eli.
When Samuel grows to be “young man” he is found serving under Eli. On one occasion, when Samuel was sleeping “the Lord called Samuel” (3:4); it was during a unique time when “the word of the Lord was rare” and there “was no frequent vision” (3:1b). Consequently, Samuel – and Eli – did not understand what was happening when the Lord began to call Samuel for service.
Samuel initially arose from bed and presented himself before Eli, “Here I am”. Three times it occurred, twice Eli responded, “I did not call; lie down” (3:4-7). On the third time, Eli “perceived” that Samuel was being called by the Lord (3:8).
Eli counsels Samuel on how to respond to the Lord’s call (3:9): “Speak, Lord, for your servant hears.” That one moment of guidance set the groundwork for one of the greatest prophets of biblical history. Samuel led Israel faithfully, he set up kings (Saul and David) and deposed another (Saul).
Concluding Thoughts
Where would we be without mothers who guided our futures by their powerful faith? How would we make those important life-changing decisions without the passionate pleas from our friends? Or, how would we see the Lord calling us to do great things for Him if not by trusting in the wisdom of a good friend?
“No man is an island”; neither are our decisions. “What would ‘_’ have done” has helped us on many occasions. Let us apply wisdom prayerfully, knowing that in the end, the responsibility of our actions is all on us. Let there be mercy.
Endnotes
Marion L. Soards, 1 Corinthians (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1999), 339.
This is a play on a scene from the sci-fi film Jurassic Park (Universal, 1993) where Dr. Ian Malcolm reacts to the reckless behavior of geneticists in the film who were cloning dinosaurs for an amusement park. Here is the dialogue courtesy of IMDB.com: Dr. Ian Malcom: If I may… Um, I’ll tell you the problem with the scientific power that you’re using here, it didn’t require any discipline to attain it. You read what others had done and you took the next step. You didn’t earn the knowledge for yourselves, so you don’t take any responsibility for it. You stood on the shoulders of geniuses to accomplish something as fast as you could, and before you even knew what you had, you patented it, and packaged it, and slapped it on a plastic lunchbox, and now [bangs on the table] Dr. Ian Malcolm: you’re selling it, you wanna sell it. Well… John Hammond: I don’t think you’re giving us our due credit. Our scientists have done things which nobody’s ever done before… Dr. Ian Malcolm: Yeah, yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn’t stop to think if they should.
“Redeemer,” Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Dictionary, ed. Ronald F. Youngblood (Nashville, TN: Nelson, 1995), 1073.
The book of Proverbs was the first book of the Bible that I read as a new Christian in 1996. It called my attention and spoke to me with wisdom that I did not have. It literally saved my life. I come from a street gang background, and after leaving it behind for Christ I would receive invitations and phone calls to “go out” with friends still living the life I had abandoned. The hard part was that I cared for my friends but I knew that the life they were living was dangerous. On one occasion, after reading Proverbs, I denied an invitation to go out. My friend asked, “Why?” I said, “Let me read you something.” I read to him Proverbs 1:1-33verbatim from the American Standard Version.[1] He did not like what he heard, but he understood. It would almost be a decade later when I would have a safe outing with my old friends. In that moment, though, Proverbs spoke for me with the wisdom I did not have at the time, the words of wisdom which promise life when followed, and warnings of calamity when not.
On face value, Proverbs promises to all those who would read and apply its words of protection from calamity. The first verses invite people to learn wisdom. It calls out with the words, “To know wisdom… to discern the words… to receive instruction… to give prudence… knowledge and discretion” (1:2-4 ASV). These synonymously paralleled ideas highlight the strength, beauty, and power of this book. I am indebted to Proverbs for giving me the words and a plan of action for speaking to my friend when I was very tempted to say yes and go out with him and others. It cannot be overstated that this paper on Proverbs is not a mere academic exercise in biblical hermeneutics and interpretive methods, and their bearing on Hebrew Poetry and Wisdom Literature. I do not believe that an academic judicious study of the Scriptures must ignore or be disinterested in practical engagement of the same. The wisdom psalm says our “delight” must be “in the law of the Lord” wherein we should meditate upon it “day and night” and, as a consequence, our actions bear its fruit (Psa 1:2-3 ESV).[2]
The present paper focuses, though, upon the contents of Proverbs 1-9 and the methodology within this section to teach wisdom. The impetus for this paper is the intriguing use of two women (Lady Wisdom, Dame/Madam Folly) dueling for the attention of a “lover/spouse” (the reader), the use of a father-figure addressing his son as to the importance of selecting a companion from one of these women, and how this motif and strategy is used to teach wisdom —presumably from God. This paper will contextualize Proverbs 1-9 in order to properly understand its literary features (genre), structure (the instruction speeches), and strategies (how it teaches wisdom); so that, trajectories may be suggested for personal spiritual growth in wisdom. The home and the church needs more wise people active in this world.
Consider first the cautionary words of Old Testament scholar, Tremper Longman, III:
We will surely distort God’s message to us if we read the Old Testament as if it had been written yesterday. We will surely misapply it to our lives and the communities in which we live if we don’t take into account the discontinuity between the Israelites… and us Christians living at the beginning of the third millennium.[3]
In an attempt to reduce these potential gaps, this paper will have two movements. First, Proverbs will be considered as a work of Hebrew Poetry set within the international context of Wisdom Literature. Second, the strength of interpreting Proverbs 1-9 as a significant collection within the anthology of the whole book will be examined. Finally, some conclusions will be drawn.
1. Contextualizing the Genre of Proverbs
Proverbs is a work of Hebrew Poetry set within an ancient international context of Wisdom Literature. Proverbs must be read in light of the stylistic poetic methods of the ancient Hebrews rather than in the light of modern literary expectations. Karen Jobes reminds that the “unfamiliarity of ancient literary genres found in the Bible is undoubtedly a stumbling block to interpretation — and has been throughout the history of the church.”[4] Due to the antiquity and foreignness of the Hebrew Bible, it is important to bridge this interpretive gap by understanding the form through which God communicates His Word. To even begin to understand Hebrew poetry the Bible student must enter into “the image world of the poet” derived from “the ancient biblical culture” which is most likely quite different from the present modern (or post-modern) era today.[5] To lament with Samuel Sandmel, outside of allusions to David, Solomon, “certain ‘guilds,’” and the mentions of Asaph and the sons of Korah in the superscriptions of the Psalms, “Scripture tells us virtually nothing about the poets.”[6] Nevertheless, the legacy of their poetry suggests that they were wordsmiths and craftsmen[7] leveraged by the Spirit of God to communicate His Word in poetic form.
Poetry Appreciation
Poetry —ancient Near Eastern (ANE) or modern— is quite a different literary creature than narratives and civic codifications. To appreciate poetry and non-prosaic literature, it must be approached “with our imaginations sharpened, our rhythmic senses ready to carry us along the swells and recesses.” In others words, a poetic frame of mind must be at the ready if there will be any enjoyment or profit when reading poetic sections and books of the Bible.[8] Why? Because poetry is crafted to convey truth by means of emotion and imagery; the imagery is not to be pressed for its literalness. This is critical because the Hebrew Bible particularly is comprised of many books and sections which are framed in poetry (verse or proverb). This is a core hermeneutical skill needed to interpret and understand a large section of the Hebrew Bible, of which only Leviticus, Ruth, Ezra-Esther, Haggai and Malachi have no poetic sections.[9] Ultimately, poetry is regarded as the second most prevalent form of literature in either testament.[10]
Proverbs must be set within the international context of Wisdom Literature for this is the background of its poetic forms. This is not comfortable for some Bible students; however, when the biblical writings are set within their historical context, it becomes observable that biblical writers use the literary genres and conventions of their day and international heritage.[11] This is true as for the Hebrew Bible as well as the New Testament. For example, the Greco-Roman world was a letter writing community and its capacity to send information through a letter as a surrogate for a personal visit was powerfully used by the apostles and Christian prophets.[12] This utilitarian means led to the dominance of the epistolary genre of the New Testament. Likewise, it is clear that the form and function of Proverbs that its poetic nature is tied to an internationally known literary genre which centers upon teaching wisdom. It is not the form that makes them unique, it is the revelation they bear from God which set Israel’s Wisdom Literature apart from its international counterparts (2 Tim 3:16).
Consequently, while the context of God’s relationship with Israel may satisfy many interpreters of Proverbs for understanding the formation of the wisdom genre, it is probably better to understand Israel’s Wisdom Literature within the “contemporary” international context of the ANE. Merrill F. Unger offers, however, a valuable caution. Unger stresses a value for the contributions of scholarship from a variety of disciplines external to the text of Scripture (archaeology, ethnology, history, etc.), provided such disciplines are “purged of the leaven of unbelief and the unhappy results of a professed scientific but invalid method of approach that reposes [i.e., sets, lies] authority in unaided human reason.”[13] The concern is a valid one, but this conviction must not breed a fear which hinders properly contextualizing the Old Testament (cf. Longman).
International Wisdom Literature
With this said, Kenton L. Sparks, John H. Walton, and William W. Hallo have cataloged a vast array of documents and texts which make it clear that “wisdom was an international rather than strictly Israelite/Jewish phenomenon.”[14] These wisdom texts are spread across three broad ancient international regions and “states”: Mesopotamia, Egypt, and the West Semitic and Hittite. The existence of Wisdom Literature external to biblical sources goes back to the third millennium BC. In Mesopotamia, wisdom is identified in such texts as the Sumerian Proverbs, the Instruction of Shuruppak, the Instruction of Urninurta, the Counsels of Wisdom, and the Advice to a Prince.[15] In Egypt, “Instruction” texts such as the following share a striking literary correspondence with Proverbs: Instruction of Ptahhotep, Instruction of Merikare, and Instruction of Any and Instruction of Amenemope.[16] In the third group, the Aramaic Proverbs of Ahiqar bears similarities with the numerical sayings of Proverbs (6:16-19).[17]
Consider a few conclusion drawn by Old Testament scholars regarding these extra-biblical international sources of Wisdom Literature. First, Walton demonstrates (following Kitchen)[18] that “a great deal of formal similarity exists between the Instruction of the ancient Near East and the book of Proverbs.”[19] Thus, one cannot ignore this similarity. Second, Israel’s wisdom genre is a late-comer, however, when compared to the international community. Nevertheless, despite the existence of international Wisdom Literature which predates Israel’s, one should not confuse pre-existing genre and form as a subversive challenge to divine revelation. Third, many of these texts are generally framed between a father and a son, provide advice and counsel, and employ riddles and figurative language.
In the Akkadian Counsels of Wisdom (lines 81-84)[20] a father speaks to his son:
My son, if it be the wish of a ruler that you belong to him, //If you are entrusted with his closely guarded seal, //Open his treasure (and) enter it, //For no one but you may do it.
In the Instruction of Shuruppak (lines 31-34)[21] there are sections reminiscent of the concern about proper conduct especially around a married woman (Prov 2:16-22, 5:1-23, 6:20-35, 7:1-27):
My son, do not commit robbery, do not cut yourself with an axe. //Do not act as the bridegroom’s friend in a wedding, do not … yourself. //Do not laugh with a girl who is married; the slander is strong. //My son, do not sit (alone) in a chamber with a woman who is married.
Fourth, the wisdom “Instructional sayings” texts emphasizing the passing on of instruction by imperatival phrases (“listen, my son”) find strong intertextual similarities with Proverbs 1-9, 22-24, and 30-31.[22] For example, the Egyptian Instruction of Amenemopet shares common literary features with the prologue of Proverbs 1 and 22:17-24:22.[23]
Solomon’s Placement
These findings stand in agreement with the biblical narrative which frames the international influence and fame of King Solomon’s wisdom (1 King 4:29-34). Solomon’s kingdom (ca. 960-922 BCE) is connected to the international community of the world. There are five elements to this passage which underscore the international stature of wisdom in Israel due to Solomon.[24]
First, as a result of Solomon seeking wisdom and “an understanding mind to govern” Israel (1 King 3:9), God grants him “wisdom [hakmah] and understanding [tebuna] beyond measure” (4:29).[25]
Second, the richness of his wisdom is as the “breadth of mind like the sand on the seashore” (4:29).
Third, Solomon’s hakmah is intentionally stated to have surpassed the pre-existing wisdom tradition of the east (Mesopotamia?) and Egypt (4:30).[26]
Fourth, Solomon’s wisdom was regarded as exceptional at home among the men of Israel (4:31).[27]
Fifth, Solomon’s wisdom had achieved international acclaim (4:31-43). Perhaps, the catalogue of Solomon’s 3,000 proverbial sayings and his 1,005 songs (masal) were appealing for their artistry and craftsmanship: “And people of all nations came to hear the wisdom of Solomon, and from all the kings of the earth, who had heard of his wisdom” (4:43).[28]
Furthermore, the mention of the Ezion-geber seaport and capable seamen in 1 Kings 9:26-28 and 2 Chronicles 8:17-18 provides insight into the international trade and military capacity of Israel during the reign of Solomon. The capacity to use the sea would extend Israel’s connection to other nations and implicitly suggests that here was to some degree the transference of cultural and religious ideas. The point is, Israel was connected.[29]
Exploring the Purpose of Proverbs 1-9: Order and the Fear the Lord
What is the purpose the Wisdom Literature as revealed in Proverbs 1-9? A survey of scholarly sources can easily demonstrate the difficulty inherent in defining biblical wisdom. Some define wisdom, and ultimately the purpose of Wisdom Literature, from the point of view of a chase to obtain wisdom or to become wise. Dave Bland asserts that Wisdom Literature concerns itself with “how one gains wisdom” so that one may have ability and expertise to negotiate the difficulties of life (2:1-5).[30] James G. Williams, describes wisdom as the ability to voice and apply perspective, “wisdom is dedicated to articulating a sense of order.”[31] Williams goes on to define that “sense of order” through the lens of positive and negative retributive justice; which is it say, if you do x, then y follows — whether to reward you or to punish you. Furthermore, and what is inviting to Williams’ treatment of wisdom codified in proverbial sayings, is that the power of wisdom resides in its capacity to instill discipline and self-control (musar 1:1-7).[32]
Indeed, Kevin J. Youngblood[33] sustains and extends this thesis by arguing that “discipline” functions in four relational levels, all of which maintain the “cosmic boundaries” which protect wisdom’s order. They move from the proper order that should exist in the comprehensive first level of the cosmos as God orders it, the second level of the city with its cultural and political order, the third level being the family and household order, and finally the fourth level where self-discipline reflects the “individual expression” of the cosmic order.[34] The foundation to this order of wisdom is spelled out in the prologue of Proverbs (see Youngblood’s figure below).
Figure from Youngblood, “Cosmic Boundaries,” ResQ 51 (2009): 147.
The language of wisdom from Proverbs 1:2-6 is distinctively summed up[35] by the synonymously parallel concept of “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge” (1:7a). Bruce Waltke calls this verse the essential “spiritual grammar for understanding” Proverbs and in effect wisdom.[36] In agreement, if Bland and Williams may be synthesized, the pursuit to gain wisdom is to articulate and practice the treasury of human knowledge which provides the understanding and guideposts to live within the proper divinely sanctioned order of existence. In light of Proverbs 1:7a, then, the emerging wise person must begin with the primary source of earthly order, namely — the Lord. Roland Murphy believes this phrase enunciated the motto of the sages. It takes little to explain how this function of “fear” in the God of Israel is the only thing which aligns the emerging person with a right relationship with their surroundings.[37]
In addition, when seeking a broader perspective on the notion of fearing the Lord, Kenneth T. Aitken calls attention to two elements of “the fear of the Lord” illustrated in the Hebrew Bible. First, there is “deep-seated reverence and awe,” and second, there is the commitment of the emerging wise person to be loyal and obedient to the Lord’s law.[38] It was Moses who was afraid to look at God when He manifested at the burning bush (Exod 3:6), and it was Isaiah who spoke of regarding “the Lord of Hosts” as holy, your “fear” and “dread” (Isa 8:13). However, Proverbs use of “the fear of the Lord” is quite clear. The phrase is used in Proverbs 1:7 and 9:10. In the conclusion to the preamble of Proverbs (1:7), the emphasis is laid upon a promotion to begin practicing the essence of wisdom; later, Proverbs 9:10 functions as a warning to those who would be seduced by the way of folly, or as Whybray calls her Lady Stupidity.[39] “Fear of the Lord” or “fear the Lord” is used as a shorthand (Waltke’s “spiritual grammar”) for the wisdom of obedience to God’s order (Prov 3:7; 14:2; 24:21; 28:14; 31:30). In these references for “fear the Lord,” one can observe in the juxtaposed tension found in the antithetic binary line the contours of what wisdom-obedience is and is not.
We may then conclude that “fear of the Lord” or “fear the Lord” is used as a shorthand (Waltke’s “spiritual grammar”) for obedience to God’s order as it connects down the one’s personal relationships (Prov 3:7; 14:2; 24:21; 28:14; 31:30). In these references for “fear the Lord,” one can observe how the contours of what “wisdom-obedience” is and is not by the tension created in the antithetic binary line.
2. Understanding the Structure of Proverbs 1-9
The strength of interpreting Proverbs 1-9 as a significant collection within the anthology of the whole book will be examined. The book of Proverbs may be outlined in three movements: (1) the preamble (1:1-7), (2) the Instructional Sayings (1:18-9:18), and (3) the Proverbial Sayings (10:1-31:31). An outline like this demonstrates the broad outlook of the book which is framed as a father encouraging his son to follow after wisdom.[40] However, it is very clear from the headings staggered throughout Proverbs (1:1, 10:1, 22:17, 25:1, 30:1, 31:1), that the canonical form of this inspired book is the result of a purposeful editorial hand(s) marked by these collections. This anthological insight provides guideposts for knowing how to read the different parts of Proverbs.[41] It is precisely due to this diversity of literary forms in Proverbs that forces Whybray to say, “there is little gained from attempting to read the book straight through without a break.”[42] In the case of the two Solomonic headings (1:1, 10:1), it may be to acknowledge the change in literary form from Instructional discourse to two-line proverbs.[43] These headings provide internal seams to distinguish between literary collections.
Unfortunately, the academic community is divided over the exact structure of Proverbs 1:8-9:18.[44] Merrill F. Unger offers a common three-point outline: (1) the call of wisdom (1:1-33), (2) the rewards of wisdom (2:1-7:27), and (3) praise of divine wisdom (8:1-9:18).[45] Yet, the outline is simplistic and does not take into account the prologue (1:1-7), nor the various individualized thematic Instructions given on the wayward woman throughout chapters 2-7. To be fair, Unger is providing an introductory outline, and yet his outline represents the problem of oversimplification.
Outlining the Structure of Proverbs 1-9
So while there is wide agreement that Proverbs 1-9 is framed in a series of lectures or Instructions, this is where the agreement ends. Some scholars organize Proverbs 1-9 along self-proclaimed traditional lines of fifteen discourses (Bullock, Archer). Meanwhile, other scholars carve out 10 instructional speeches with a varied number of interludes (Whybray, Bland, Crenshaw). However, Patrick W. Skehan[46] takes his cue from Proverbs 9:1 advancing a seven speech (Instruction) model:
“Wisdom has built her house; she has hewn her seven pillars.”
For Skehan this is the best interpretive place to start, as the seven pillars of Wisdom personified are best explained in literary terms (a “literary edifice”). Chapters 1 and 8-9 function, according to Skehan, as the framework for the seven speeches of roughly 22 lines each within chapters 2-7. Despite some promising observations, Skehan’s forces every speech into this paradigm which runs him into trouble with Proverbs 6:1-19. His solution is to cut it out of his structure, labeling it as “intrusive.”
What is clear is that there is an intentionality in how Proverbs 1-9 was organized, but at this point, there is not total agreement among biblical scholars, who have similar and overlapping outlines. Furthermore, these smaller sections within chapters 1-9 do work together and provide the “hermeneutical guide to the interpretation of the rest of the book” (10:1-31:31).[47] It is not held here that the value of the structure of chapters 1-9 falls because of the difficulty of outlining it; instead, the value of the structure is upheld if it accomplishes its intended goal: to instruct the simple to find wisdom through the fear of the Lord. The overlapping ideas and grammatical nuances which create structural tensions may, in fact, be another measure to provoke the interconnected nature of these Instructions.
The Personification of Wisdom and Folly
The theological contribution of chapters of the Instruction sayings 1-9 is found particularly in its personification of wisdom and folly. There is the pursuit of the proper order of things (Lady Wisdom) and the disruption of the proper order of things (Dame Folly, the Adulteress, etc.). Wisdom and Folly are personified throughout Proverbs 1-9: Folly (1:10-19, 4:14-17, 5:1, 7:1, 9:13-18) and Wisdom (1:20-33, 8:1-21, 9:1-6). The personification of wisdom and folly is particularly developed in Proverbs8:1-9:18, when the emerging wise person is called upon to make the final decision. The pageantry is over. Unlike Adam who woke up “clean slate” to Eve in the Garden, the emerging wise son must choose between two beauties. Will he choose Lady Wisdom or Dame Folly?
Bringing a mind ready for the imagery of poetry, recognizing this personification is critically important. Personification may be understood as when “an inanimate object or entity or an animal (or a god, or God) is spoken of as though it or he were a human person with human characteristics.”[48] The power in such figures of speech, over against the clarity of literal speech, relies on its power to communicate with “richness, depth, and emotional impact.”[49] Although it can be argued that such women may and do exist in real life,[50] it can not be ignored that throughout the context of chapters 1-9 they function as figurative expressions to illustrate the object lesson of both wisdom and folly.
Personification plays another important role besides providing imagery. It is clear that even “the way” which an emerging wise person will go is personified by the home of either Wisdom or Folly. These all reflect one choice to follow God or to reject His counsel. In chapters 8-9, Wisdom’s origin is above the city, “the highest places in the town” (9:3); likewise, so is Folly situated in a seat “on the highest places of the town” (9:14). It is believed by some that this is a direct allusion to the ANE idea that only the god of that city would dwell in the highest locales.[51] Derek Kidner illustrates from Canaanite practice the precedent to personify a deity from the pantheon with the principle which best represented their god or an attribute of their god (anger, war, love, etc.). Personifying God’s wisdom by a faithful honorable woman was then in keeping with literary strategy; likewise, personifying the opposition to God’s wisdom (idolatry? paganism?) by a distrusted dishonorable covenant breaking woman also fits.[52] Thus, personification is more than mere imagery. It serves as a literary feature —a tool— procured by Israel from the international religious community, and incorporated it into their own wisdom speeches to epitomize God and the deceitful “competition.”[53]
The Strategy’s Terminus
The first nine chapters of Proverbs creates a framework for understanding that seeking wisdom, and upholding how things ought to be, demonstrates the “fear of the Lord.” This “discipline” and “self-control” to choose wisdom functions then in relational ways. What the speeches in Proverbs 1-9 address is that our choices affect the order of things around us. In the four concentrated sections dealing with the adulteress or strange woman and the unfaithful wife(2:16-22; 5:1-23; 6:20-35; 7:1-27), wisdom is explained in terms of marital faithfulness, foolishness is explained in terms of the pitfalls of misplaced sexuality.
Again, Youngblood is correct when he observes that wisdom (for Youngblood “self-control”) “is a matter of submitting oneself to Yahweh’s governance as does all creation.”[54] It begins with the self, then in the home, then the civic interactions, and then before God himself (see figure above).[55] This transition is borne out by comparing Proverbs 3:19-20 and 24:3-4. The same wisdom that founded creation also builds our households; the same understanding by which the heavens are established also establishes our own home and life; by means of his knowledge creation functions, so to our family.[56] The choice of the which woman to dine with and to be with, is a demonstration —a graduation of sorts— for the emerging wise person, for in that choice they have shown fear and discipline (or, vice and disorder), and are living in the order that ought to be (or, how it ought not to be).
Two outcomes result at this point. In the first place, the emerging wise person has chosen the direction of their life, which according to Proverbs 1-9 ought to be wisdom and fear of the Lord. In the second, this perspective will give the reader the proper guidance for understanding judiciously and applying the binary proverbs in the later collections of Proverbs. Proverbs 1-9, then, provides the context to understand the rest of the book.
3. Models for Teaching Wisdom
Let us consider some thoughts on how to articulate a model for teaching wisdom within the home and the church.
Wisdom-Training Must Begin in the Home
The motif of a father (and mother) speaking to their son is a significant reminder of the importance Scripture places on the home as the primary location for spiritual formation. The shema passage of Deuteronomy 6:4-9 is not only the Law but also provides and demands parents and guardians to find appropriate ways to make faith the “air that the family breathes.”
Every parent should be willing to recognize the obvious truth that with the raising and caring for children comes a learning curve — a learning curve that seems to never straighten. Nevertheless, the task in the home is to connect the children to the divine order of wisdom which speaks to their behavior. In Malachi the prophet condemned Judah for their lack of faithfulness. And in this condemnation, the Lord clearly addresses His desire for “godly offspring” (Mal 2:15).
What is at stake is establishing early the human boundaries created by God for self-control and responsible involvement to be the creative force that establishes God’s order in the world.[57] Furthermore, as Sandmel acknowledges,
a person can be trained in wisdom and, if by chance he does not himself become personally wise, he can at least absorb the wisdom in the book well enough to live prudently… to live without unnecessary risk.[58]
Proverbs is useful for developing the emerging wise person because its counsel is “safe and reliable” and fosters the virtues of “thrift, hard work, foresight, and piety.”[59]
It was through a home education in God’s sacred writings which provided the wisdom for Timothy to obtain the salvation which is in Christ (2 Tim 3:14-15). Fathers and mothers are called upon to raise up children (1 Tim 3:4, 5:14; Tit 2:4) and train them in the “nurture and admonition of the Lord” (Eph 6:1-4).
Everyday Choices are Spiritual Choices
In the use of personification in Proverbs 1-9, the spiritualization of everyday things can assist dramatically in demonstrating the consequences of wisdom and folly.
Wisdom, then, is different from learning, for an unschooled person may posses it, out of rich experience. On the other hand, there are people with rich experience to whom we would not attribute wisdom, for even that experience does not necessarily lead them to it.[60]
What are the gods of this age? How might one describe drug addiction or sexual pornographic addictions, or greedy consumerism? It comes down to choices. If we could reframe our spiritual focus down to the kitchen table choices, the check book choices, the wandering feet choices, etc., then it is possible to illustrate with clarity the heart of the problem and not the symptom.
It is the rejection of a loving obedience to God’s order which enables a lack of self-control. If you lack self-control, then you may eventually be controlled by a vice you never learned to say no to. The wisdom of Proverbs 1-9 highlights the creative ways we may seek to instill wisdom one choice at a time. Too many times, we believe simply by knowing or quoting the Scripture it will be sufficient. This is unsatisfactory.
In the temptation of Jesus, his identity as the Christ was under attack (Matt 4:1-11). It was not simply that he was hungry, or a test of God, or a test of ruling the kingdoms of men that was at the heart of the temptation. Jesus’ identity was under attack. In each response, Jesus quotes Scripture, but it was his choice to abide by the wisdom of those passages that led his victory over Satan. There was an order that he respected, thus, as the practice of fasting often typified Jesus showed himself disciplined to the leading of God.
There is a great social need for discipline and the wisdom that provides the contours of discipline. Some seek to develop spiritual discipline in recovery programs, particularly those built upon the sermon on the mount. For all the stigma such recovery programs receive, they at least are addressing the matter of discipline head-on and are not ignoring or whitewashing the issue.
For those who face their hurts, hang-ups, and habits, everyday choices are spiritual choices of restructuring their world order based upon the “fear of the Lord.” We need to champion their cause rather than subvert them, or stigmatizing them. They know who has the antidote for their weaknesses. The real question is, “do we?”
The Church Needs Wise People
Third, James A. Sanders speaks to the need for the church to develop and “produce more ‘wisemen’ and fewer ‘prophets’ for the responsible guidance of the people of God.”[61] For Sanders this would include the concern for the survival of God’s people. Wise people, as conceived in terms of Proverbs 1-9, scrutinize the power structure of any given situation, or the problem, and then work them out in realistic ways which honor their relationship with God.[62] James 1:19-20 reads,
“Know this, my beloved brothers: let every person be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger; for the anger of man does not produce the righteousness of God.”
Developing men and women to think in terms of the fear of the Lord, to choose faithful means to serve God, is what will reinforce the ideal Divine order. Paul clearly connects the church’s identity to the outflow of God’s wisdom and the order which it creates:
In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth. (Eph 1:7-10)
Thus, it will take a variety of means to develop members of the body of Christ. This must be primarily accomplished at the level of the local congregation. This will require developing mentoring relationships within the body of Christ. One has wisely said, “Academic training is not the only kind of training we should utilize, however. A young person can benefit from working with someone older, wiser, more experienced.”[63] I fully concur. We must cultivate wisdom-seeking from within the church, this will aid us to be receptive to God’s lead (Eph 3:10-11; Luke 7:31-35).
Conclusion
Proverbs 1-9 stands as a powerful section of Wisdom Literature. It shows that God’s people can learn from others how to teach wisdom. It also reveals that wisdom is more than knowing what to do, but also doing so because of a godly “fear of the Lord.” God’s people can and must use all expedient methods to teach wisdom. As an inspired anthology, Proverbs 1-9 demonstrates a measure of creativity for teaching wisdom in the home, in the community, and in the church. Proverbs 1-9 provides guideposts for teaching wisdom and discipline in the home and the church, for living by the fear of the Lord creates God’s order.
Endnotes
American Standard Version of The Holy Bible (1885, 1901; repr., Fort Worth, TX: Star Bible, 1992).
Unless otherwise stated all Scripture quotations are taken from the English Standard Version of The Holy Bible (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2001).
Tremper Longman, III, Making Sense of the Old Testament: Three Crucial Questions (1998; repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2005), 22-23. Longman argues that there are four major causes for this interpretive distance, two of which are the antiquity (“vast space of time”) and foreignness (culture, civilization, images, and literary genres and forms) of the Hebrew Bible (19-22).
Karen Jobes, “Stumbling Block #1: Literary Genre: Missing Clues in the Text,” Bible Study Magazine 9.1 (Nov.-Dec. 2016), 25.
Jack P. Lewis, “The Nature of Hebrew Poetry,” in When We Hurt: Tragedy and Triumph in Job, ed. David L. Lipe (Henderson, TN: Freed-Hardemen University, 2003), 187.
Samuel Sandmel, The Enjoyment of Scripture: The Law, the Prophets, and the Writings (1972; repr., London: Oxford University Press, 1981), 195.
Sandmel, Enjoyment of Scripture, 196.
A. Berkeley Mickelsen and Alvera M. Mickelsen, Understanding Scripture: How to Read and Study the Bible, rev. ed. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1992), 115.
Lewis, “Hebrew Poetry,” 185. This means that thirty-two books of the Hebrew Bible are composed either completely or in part (sections) as poetic literature (82%).
Leland Ryken, How to Read the Bible as Literature (Grand Rapids, MI: Academie Books, 1984), 87.
Leland Ryken, “Bible as Literature,” in Foundations for Biblical Interpretation, eds. David S. Dockery, et al. (Nashville, TN: B&H, 1994), 56.
Harry Y. Gamble, The New Testament Canon: Its Making and Meaning (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1985), 13. “Examined within the full context of early Christian literature, the documents which came to constitute the NT canon are not, as a group, recognizably unique.” Cf., W. Hersey Davis, Greek Papyri of the First Century (New York, NY: Harper & Brothers, 1933; repr., Chicago, IL: Ares, n.d.).
Merrill F. Unger, “Scientific Biblical Criticism and Exegesis,” Bsac 121 (1964): 64.
Kenton L. Sparks, Ancient Texts for the Study of the Hebrew Bible: A Guide to the Background Literature (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2005), 56. John H. Walton, Ancient Israelite Literature in its Cultural Context (1989; repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1990), 169-97; William W. Hallo and K. Lawson Younger, eds., The Context of Scripture (New York: Brill, 1997); James L. Crenshaw, Old Testament Wisdom: An Introduction, rev. ed. (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1998), 205-26.
Robert D. Biggs, trans., “Counsels of Wisdom,” in The Ancient Near East, ed. James B. Pritchard (London: Princeton University, 1975), 2:147.
Bendt Alster, “Shuruppak,” COS 1.176.
Dave Bland, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes & Song of Songs (Joplin, MO: College Press, 2002), 17.
Crenshaw, Old Testament Wisdom, 210-13.
Walton, Ancient Israelite Literature, 177; James E. Smith, The Wisdom Literature and Psalms (Joplin, MO: College Press, 1997), 20-21.
Louis Goldberg, “hakmah,” TWOT 647a; Louis Goldberg, “tebuna,” TWOT 239b.
Harvey E. Finley, “The Book of Kings,” in Beacon Bible Commentary, ed. A. F. Harper, et al. (Kansas City, MO: Beacon Hill Press of Kansas City, 1965), 2:362. “The ancient Near East could claim a considerable deposit of wisdom (hokma) before Solomon’s time. This the Historian recognized.”
Are Ethan and Heman mentioned here the Ezrahites cited in the subtitles of Psalm 88 and 89?
Sandmel, Enjoyment of Scripture, 196. “Meter and parallelism suggest that these poets were craftsmen. One would need to conclude, too, that the people were receptive to the poems; some high status of the poet is certainly to be inferred from the epithet applied to David, that he was Israel’s sweet singer.”
The visit by the Queen of Sheba by camel and the seaport mentioned lend strongly in favor of a Solomonic kingdom that was an international player. Furthermore, add the centralized placement of Israel between Egypt in the southwest and Mesopotamia in the northeast. See Samuel J. Schultz, The Old Testament Speaks, 5th ed. (San Francisco, CA: HarperSanFrancisco, 2000), 141-53.
Bland, Proverbs, 12.
James G. Williams, “Proverbs and Ecclesiastes,” in The Literary Guide to the Bible, Robert Alter and Frank Kermode (1987; repr., Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University,1999), 263.
Williams, “Proverbs and Ecclesiastes,” 264-65. “Everything in traditional Wisdom, from its basic ideas to its literary forms, affirms order. What this means when the principle of retribution, the necessity of wise utterance, and the authority of the fathers are brought to bear on the individual is the imperative of discipline and self-control” (246).
Bruce K. Waltke, The Book of Proverbs: Chapters 1-15 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004), 180-81.
Waltke, Proverbs, 180-81.
Roland Murphy, Proverbs (Nashville, TN: Nelson, 1998), 5. Robert Alter marks this as a distinctive emphasis by Israel which is “not evident in analogous Wisdom texts in Egypt and Mesopotamia” (The Wisdom Books: Job, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes [New York, NY: Norton & Co., 2010], 194).
Kenneth T. Aitken, Proverbs (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1986), 14-15.
R. N. Whybray, The Book of Proverbs (London: Cambridge at the University Press, 1972), 55.
Tremper Longman, III, “Poetic Books,” in The IVP Introduction to the Bible, ed. Philip S. Johnston (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2006), 104.
Thomas H. Olbricht, “The Making of Old Testament Books,” in The World and Literature of the Old Testament, ed. John T. Willis (1979; repr., Abilene, TX: Abilene Christian University, 1984), 234.
Whybray, Proverbs, 12.
Olbricht, “Making of OT Books,” 233. Waltke labels 10:1a as a Janus verse linking the 1:1-9:18 collection and the 10:1b-22:16 collection (Proverbs, 447; cf. Murphy, Proverbs, 64).
Raymond Dillard and Tremper Longman, III, An Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), 238.
Merrill F. Unger, Introductory Guide to the Old Testament (1951; repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1979), 372.
Patrick William Skehan, “The Seven Columns of Wisdom’s House in Proverbs 1-9,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 9.2 (April 1947): 190-98.
Dillard and Longman, Introduction to the OT, 239.
John C. L. Gibson, Language and Imagery in the Old Testament (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1998), 16-18.
Craig C. Broyles, “Interpreting the Old Testament,” in Interpreting the Old Testament: A Guide for Exegesis, ed. Craig C. Broyles (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001), 37.
Dave Bland, Proverbs, 81.
Dillard and Longman, Introduction to the OT, 243.
Derek Kidner, An Introduction to Wisdom Literature: The Wisdom of Proverbs, Job, and Ecclesiastes (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1985), 38-43.
Lawrence Boadt, Reading the Old Testament: An Introduction (New York, NY: Paulist, 1984), 480.
Youngblood, “Cosmic Boundaries,” 140.
Youngblood, “Cosmic Boundaries,” 147.
Youngblood, “Cosmic Boundaries,” 141.
Youngblood, “Cosmic Boundaries,” 149.
Sandmel, Enjoyment of Scripture, 210.
Sandmel, Enjoyment of Scripture, 210.
Sandmel, Enjoyment of Scripture, 208.
James A. Sanders, Torah and Canon (1972; repr., Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1976), 100.
Sanders, Torah and Canon, 101.
Stan Mitchell, Will Our Faith Have Children? Developing Leadership in the Church for the Next Generation (Henderson, TN: Hester, 2016), 10.
Bibliography
Aitken, Kenneth T. Proverbs. Daily Study Bible Series. Old Testament. Edited by John C. L. Gibson. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1986.
Alter, Robert. The Wisdom Books: Job, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes: A Translation with Commentary. New York, NY: Norton & Co., 2010.
Archer, Gleason L. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction. Revised and expanded edition. Chicago, IL: Moody, 1994.
Bland, Dave. Proverbs, Ecclesiastes & Song of Songs. College Press NIV Commentary. Edited by Terry Briley and Paul Kissling. Joplin, MO: College Press, 2002.
Boadt, Lawrence. Reading the Old Testament: An Introduction. New York, NY: Paulist, 1984.
Broyles, Craig C. “Interpreting the Old Testament: Principles and Steps.” Pages 13-62 in Interpreting the Old Testament: A Guide for Exegesis. Edited by Craig C. Broyles. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001.
Brueggemann, Walter. An Introduction to the Old Testament: The Canon and Christian Imagination. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2003.
Bullock C. Hassell. An Introduction to the Old Testament Poetic Books. Revised and Expanded. Chicago, IL: Moody, 1988.
Crenshaw, James L. Old Testament Wisdom: An Introduction. Revised and Enlarged. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1998.
Dillard, Raymond B., and Tremper Longman, III. An Introduction to the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994.
Fee, Gordon D., and Douglas Stuart. How to Read the Bible for All its Worth. 3rd edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2003.
Finley, Harvey E. “The Book of Kings.” Pages 337-507 in vol. 2 of the Beacon Bible Commentary. Edited by A. F. Harper, et al. Kansas City, MO: Beacon Hill Press of Kansas City, 1965.
Gibson, John C. L. Language and Imagery in the Old Testament. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1998.
Guthrie, George H., and David Howard. “Reading Psalms and Proverbs.” Pages 111-30 in Read the Bible for Life: Your Guide to Understanding and Living God’s Word. Nashville, TN: B&H, 2011.
Hallo, William W., and K. Lawson Younger. Editors. The Context of Scripture. 3 vol. New York: Brill, 1997.
Harris, R. Laird, Gleason L. Archer Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke, eds. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. Chicago: Moody Press, 1999.
Jobes, Karen. “Stumbling Block #1: Literary Genre: Missing Clues in the Text.” Bible Study Magazine 9.1 (Nov.-Dec. 2016): 24-25.
Lewis, Jack P. “The Nature of Hebrew Poetry.” Pages 185-93 in When We Hurt: Tragedy and Triumph in Job. Edited by David L. Lipe. Henderson, TN: Freed-Hardeman University, 2003.
Longman, Tremper, III. Making Sense of the Old Testament: Three Crucial Questions. 3 Crucial Questions Series. Edited by Grant R. Osborne and Richard J. Jones, Jr. 1998. Repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2005.
Longman, Tremper, III. “Poetic Books.” Pages 95-113 in The IVP Introduction to the Bible. Edited by Philip S. Johnston. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006.
Mickelsen, A. Berkeley, and Alvera M. Mickelsen. Understanding Scripture: How to Read and Study the Bible. Revised edition. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1992.
Miller, Clyde M. “Interpreting Poetic Literature in the Bible.” Pages 158-67 in Biblical Interpretation: Principles and Practice: Studies in Honor of Jack Pearl Lewis. Edited by F. Furman Kearley, Edward P. Myers, and Timothy D. Hadley. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1986.
Murphy, Roland E. Proverbs. Word Biblical Commentary 22. Edited by Bruce M. Metzger, David A. Hubbard, and Glenn W. Barker. Nashville, TN: Nelson, 1998.
Paterson, John. The Book that is Alive: Studies in Old Testament Life and Thought as set Forth by the Hebrew Sages. New York, NY: Scribner’s Sons, 1954.
Pritchard, James B. Editor. The Ancient Near East. Vol. 2. London: Princeton University, 1975.
Ryken, Leland. “Bible as Literature.” Pages 55-72 in Foundations for Biblical Interpretation: A Complete Library of Tools and Resources. Edited by David S. Dockery, Kenneth A. Mathews, and Robert B. Sloan. Nashville, TN: B&H, 1994.
Ryken, Leland. How to Read the Bible as Literature. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984.
Sanders, James A. Torah and Canon. 1972. Repr., Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1976.
Sandmel, Samuel. The Enjoyment of Scripture: The Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. 1972. Repr., London: Oxford University Press, 1981.
Schultz, Samuel J. The Old Testament Speaks: A Complete Survey of Old Testament History and Literature. 5th edition. San Francisco, CA: HarperSanFrancisco, 2000.
Skehan, Patrick William. “The Seven Columns of Wisdom’s House in Proverbs 1-9.” CBQ 9.2 (April 1947): 190-98.
Smith, James E. The Wisdom Literature and Psalms. Joplin, MO: College Press, 1997.
Sparks, Kenton L. Ancient Texts for the Study of the Hebrew Bible: A Guide to the Background Literature. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2005.
Unger, Merrill F. Introductory Guide to the Old Testament. 1951. Repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1979.
Unger, Merrill F. “Scientific Biblical Criticism and Exegesis.” Bsac 121.481 (Jan.-March 1964): 58-65.
Waltke, Bruce K. The Book of Proverbs: Chapters 1-15. New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Edited by Robert L. Hubbard. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004.
Walton, John H. Ancient Israelite Literature in its Cultural Context: A Survey of Parallels Between Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Texts. Library of Biblical Interpretation. 1989. Repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1990.
Whybray, R. N. The Book of Proverbs. Cambridge Bible Commentary on the New English Bible. Edited by Peter A. Ackroyd, A. R. C. Leaney, and J. W. Packer. New York, NY: Cambridge at the University Press, 1972.
Williams, James G. “Proverbs and Ecclesiastes.” Pages 263-82 in The Literary Guide to the Bible. Edited by Robert Alter and Frank Kermode. 1987. Repr., Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University, 1999.
Around here, however, we don’t look backwards for very long. We keep moving forward, opening up new doors and doing new things, because we’re curious… and curiousity keeps leading us down new paths.
Walt Disney, quoted in Meet the Robinsons (2007), ending scene
If you’re going to turn a ship, there are going to be people who did things a certain way to get them into this mess. Some can make the change. Some can be retrained. But not everybody can make the turn.
Mark Rutland, Relaunch, 174
You must be shapeless, formless, like water. When you pour water in a cup, it becomes the cup. When you pour water in a bottle, it becomes the bottle. When you pour water in a teapot, it becomes the teapot. Water can drip and it can crash. Become like water my friend.
Bruce Lee
Change is a funny thing. Most people I know hate change. I hate change. Not all change, just the uncomfortable kind that I know will make me a better person. Ironically, however, every person must be able to change and adapt in order to survive. Think about it. Even in the most regimented schedule, there are always variables that must be adapted. The kick to dealing with change is the ability to find a new equilibrium and to find it fast enough to keep up with the change.
The thing is, we adapt to change without even thinking about it. But, change is hard when we chose to do it on purpose.
Changing on Purpose
When we think about change, overthink about change, and obsess about change, change can become a burden. Especially, when we are accustomed to how we always do things. In times like these change is like giving birth — you know it needs to happen but the labor and reality are terrifying.
Perhaps one of the keys to change is understanding that it requires two particular factors: flexibility and reassessment. If the needed change occurs, it is because we are willing to be flexible with our behaviors, approaches, decisions, and methods. Such change also demands that we constantly reassess our behaviors, approaches, decisions, and methods.
These two basic principles are so basic we’ve assumed them into our subconscious. So when we bring them forward into the theater of our decision-making processes, I usually see that’s when we become clumsy or robotic to tackle the problem at hand or reach our goals. We fall into a pitfall of rigidity, forgetting that adjusting to change allows us to be flexible to reach our goals by constantly reassessing and adjusting to new situations.
It’s really the hardest thing to realize that adjusting to change is an ongoing process, and the ability to be flexible actually translates into our reaction time and success in an ever-changing world. This is true for the individual, an organization, a church, and the market. This requires a healthy measure of reassessment.
When I think of adjusting to change, I often think about the time when I was a member of an urban congregation in San Francisco, CA, and we made the move out of the city, due to some civic pressures, to the suburban environment of Pacifica, CA. This transition was paved with flexible adjustments to new needs in order to reach our goal of planting a new church. The season of this transition taught me many lessons about leadership and change, especially as I watched our leadership move forward to meet this challenge that was new to all of us.
We had to rent a meeting place while building a new meeting place. We had to re-envision a new ministry team while maintaining an existing ministry team. We had to face a new environment (new meeting times, new responsibilities, etc.) while desiring to maintain the congregational environment we had been used to (teaching, preaching, worship, eating together). So many things to balance.
There was no way this would be accomplished without flexibility and the vision to reassess behaviors, approaches, decisions, and methods. We were on the verge of a powerful transition for the congregation. We knew things were happening all around us, and in some measure —if not in whole— we were dreaming new dreams not knowing exactly how this would turn out.
Leadership
How you lead in times like this speaks volumes of your vision casting skill set in order to adjust to changes. When we moved to Pacifica our leadership did a great job helping us envision the benchmarks which needed to be met in order to make this transition a success. We would meet in a firehouse meeting building, and we would meet on Sundays, but our mid-week Bible study times were either on a Tuesday night or a Thursday night. In order to keep the church together, we would need to bus members from San Francisco who did not have rides to church in Pacifica. We would also be reassessing our ministry team by adding a new ministry family. The leadership invited the church members into the process.
Creativity and Delegation
Creativity and delegation are powerful skills that provide a healthy environment for growth. When a group can think creatively and take ownership of its actions, then a powerful and healthy environment is created to facilitate growth. They have taken the challenge to change on purpose. Every Sunday in the firehouse in Pacifica was filled with the sort of energy aroused because we were being creative by solving problems and everyone had a unique role to fill. For example, the firehouse hall had no classrooms but in time canvass sheets were clamped to beams in the ceiling in order to create barriers for Bible classes. We were able to see what was not physically there and brought it into existence through creativity.
Everyone participated in the setting up and storing of the metal chairs we sat in during assembly. No one person did everything, no micro-managers, we were a collective flexible group using our creativity to adjust to our new environment. When the congregation finally entered into the new building and was poised to use all that energy of collective flexibility to continue to be the church that could meet any challenge because it had become accustomed to change. Consequently, the goal was reached.
Ira North in his book, Balance, speaks to the potency of delegating responsibilities within a church context. When brethren in a local congregation have “responsibility” in their hands for specific “church-related” tasks, it alleviates the entire burden from being on a small group of people. More work can be accomplished, and it can be accomplished better by those with specialized skill sets whether it be practical or professional.
I often think about the moment after we reach our goals. Reaching a goal is usually the result of not just tackling the known challenges but also of being flexible enough to be able to reassess during the journey to adjust to new changes. Too many times we lose something after we reach our goals. Many times we think we have arrived and no longer need to drive towards reaching our goals.
Heraclitus is famous for saying,
No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it’s not the same river and he’s not the same man.
There is a tendency to stop being creative, to stop being flexible, and to reconsolidate power so that the energy that was so instrumental now begins to wane. Some believe the “success” of the good ole days (i.e., the past) is the key to “success” in the present; that it can be duplicated today by holding on to the past. But, I would argue that in doing so we quickly forgot that past successes are many times the result of the product or message itself and not the means (i.e., the strategy) of how we delivered it. They seem to never take into consideration that they were engaged in the touching points of their niche culture or times — things that always change.
An energized church or group becomes a stagnant, rigid, micromanaged place that no longer has the reaction time to adjust to the changes around them or to dream another dream. Why? It’s not usually about the product or the message they share, it is usually about failing to meet the challenge to change on purpose.
Concluding Thoughts
So, I’m chasing to end where I started. Change. It’s a funny thing. We do it all the time to great success, particularly when we do not give it much thought. Yet, the moment we change on purpose the temptation rises to over-analyze and micromanage how to change. When we do this, we often lose the powerful elements which allow us to successfully adjust to change —our need to reassess our behaviors, approaches, decisions, and methods, and our need to be flexible in order to keep moving forward.
So if you have a goal to meet, let me encourage you with a word. Stop overthinking change! It’s healthy, it’s normal. Be flexible and willing to constantly reassess behaviors, approaches, decisions, and methods. If you can do that, you just might be the force you were meant to be.
There is a considerable body of research and literature available to discuss 1 Tim 2:11-15 which is one of the key New Testament passages discussing gender roles in worship and ministry of the church. This paper can only hope to provide introductory insight to the issues and difficulties of bringing the words of Paul from Greek into English so that the church can apply these apostolic words in the twenty-first century. In fact, Ann L. Bowman, a complementarian, summarizes the difficulties every exegete must face when sifting through the various grains of this passage.[1] In spite of these difficulties, a satisfactory translation of 1 Tim 2:11-15 can be rendered into English, the epistolary pericope can be analyzed syntactically, and the results from this analysis can be helpful in providing guideposts for application in the worship and ministry of the Lord’s body.
Textual Observations
The textual basis for this translation of 1 Tim 2:11-15 is the fifth revised edition of The Greek New Testament (UBS5), supplemented by the 28th revised edition Novum Testamentum Graece (NA28).[2] There are only two textual matters of interest, the first being a textual variant in 2:14 and other focuses upon whether “the faithful saying” (3:1a) concludes the paragraph at 2:15. A third issue is the way certain words can or should be translated, especially the hapax legomenon authentéō. In the first case, the NA28 critical apparatus shows a variant in 2:14. Instead of the eksapatētheîsa (“having been thoroughly deceived”) found in the main text, late manuscript evidence has apatētheîsa (“having been deceived”). Clearly, the manuscript evidence for eksapatētheîsa is earlier (4th to 6th centuries) and stronger (Aleph*, A, D*), than the late (7th-9th centuries) and weaker evidence for apatētheîsa (Aleph2, D1). The late reading most likely is a result of late editorial harmonization of the apatáō verbs in 2:14.
Second, the paragraph structure in UBS5 and NA28 are in agreement the “faithful saying” of 3:1a conclude the paragraph. introduce the “saying” regarding guardians (3:1b). A. T. Robertson, for example, affirms this “phrase points to the preceding words (not like 1:15) and should close the preceding paragraph.”[3] However, the “faithful saying” can be viewed as introducing the protasis, “if someone aspires…,” in the present simple conditional clause of 3:1b.[4] Third, certain constructions and verbals were significantly difficult to translate with precision. The prepositional phrase en hēsuchía in 2:11, 12 may be translated as the act of “silence,” or “quietness, gentleness” as a quality of behavior. The perfective compound aorist passive participle eksapatētheîsa “when she was fully deceived in transgression”[5] in balance with the force of historic use of the perfect active indicative gégonen is unsatisfactorily rendered into English as “was.”[6] Two more substantial problems for translation and interpretation are the verbs authentéō (2:12) and sōzō (2:15a).
A Translation of 1 Timothy 2:11-15
The tentative translation which follows is presented based on the analysis and considerations and interpretive decisions as explained later in this paper.
11 Let a woman learn in silence in full submission; 12 and I do not permit a woman to teach nor to have authority over a man, but to be in quietness. 13 For Adam was formed first, afterwards Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but as for the woman, she was when she was fully deceived in transgression; 15 but she shall be delivered by bearing children, if they continue in faith and love and consecration with sound judgment. (Author's Translation)
One of the concerns this translation intends to address is to express, as clear as possible, that the domestic realm is where submissive women find non-soteriological “deliverance.”
Context and Exegetical Analysis
It is important to observe that 1 Tim 2:11-15 is a part of larger context specifically dealing with the connection of Christian women and the assembly of the church.[7] This topic begins in 2:9, although an argument can be made that the theme begins in 2:8 since it establishes the location where Paul’s instructions are to take place with the phrase en pantì tópō (“in every place”). This locative expression appears to be a shorthand for “in every place of assembly.”[8] It is in this context that the third movement of desired conduct “in every assembly” of the church is argued (2:8, 9-10, 11-15). First, godly Christian men are to lead prayer in the place of assembly (2:8). Second, Christian women are to profess godliness through good works (2:9-10). Thirdly, as an extension of 2:9-10, Christian women are instructed to exhibit submissiveness in the assembly by being learners, not instructors (2:11-15).
The overall structure of 1 Tim 2:11-15 may be subdivided into two groups marked by Paul’s imperatival command, manthanétō (11-12), followed by the explanatory gàr (13-15) which directs his reader(s) to the rationale for this command. Each group is bound structurally with the postpositive dè, marking their internal connection and transitions. This then provides a structural framework toward from: 11 dè 12, gàr 13 kaì 14 dè, dè 15. This does not remove the complexity of the passage as a whole, but the grouping does allow the exegete to focus on the syntax of these two movements.
In the first group, for example, the subject of the present active imperative manthanétō could have been supplied from 2:9-10 (gunaîkas, gunaiksin), but the word order of 2:11 begins with an anarthrous nominative gunē.[9] Its repetition along with the verb can be viewed as an important “topic marker or shifter” (295);[10] hence, the command “let a woman learn” shifts toward a new topic from 2:9-10.[11] Paul places “a requirement” upon the “woman” in the assembly[12] which he expects to be followed in “an ongoing process.”[13] The manner of learning in the assembly is defined by the two dative prepositional phrases (en hēsuchía and en pásē hupotagē). The meaning for hēsuchía pivots between “silence” and “quietness, rest,”[14] but uses of the prepositional phrase en hēsuchía in non-biblical Greek (Philo and Ignatius)[15] meaning “in silence” provides some insight here and in verse 12.[16] The manner (action or circumstance) under consideration, then, is probably “in silence.” Likewise, the silence is en pásē hupotagē (instrumental of manner), “in full submission” anticipates further nuance in verse 12.
1 Tim 2:12 nuances the prohibition with a list of three complementary infinitives[17]and the gnomic present active indicative[18] verb epitrépō. The postpositive dè marks this connection and transition. Furthermore, if S. E. Porter is right, placing the infinitival didáskein first in its clause marks it as the “most important element” in its clause.[19] The prohibition’s main concern then is didáskein gunaikì (“to teach by a woman”) and its counterpart authenteîn andrós (“to have authority over a man”). Paul specifically prohibits (ouk) theses activities within the assembly. Despite some difficulty in ascertaining the precise contextual meaning of authenteîn (taken here as “to have authority over”),[20]oudè joins these two infinitives to “explains what sort, or what manner, of teaching is prohibited to women.”[21] The contrastive alla is brought in to provide a strong contrast to the prohibition by setting up the “permission” eînai en hēsuchía (“to be in quietness”). The implied helper verb epitrépō reinforces, as an exhortation, the positive command in 2:11 to “learn in silence in full submission.” This second use of the instrumental of manner en hēsuchía gives strength to the view that verses 11-12 solidifies submission and quietness as the hallmarks of Christian women receiving instruction in the assembly.[22]
The second group of verses (2:13-15) is marked by an explanatory gàr providing insight into the prohibition of 2:11-12. The explanation in 2:13 does not stem from any noticeable wordplay within the context; instead, a logical appeal is made to biblical texts outside of 1 Tim. The argument and explanation is derived from Genesis 2-3 in the LXX, and it serves as the foundation for the boundaries of Christian women in the church assembly.[23] The aorist passive indicative verb eplásethē is constative in force and views the formation (the creation) of Adam and Eve as completed.[24] The emphasis is laid upon the order of creation marked by the use of the adjectival use of prôtos, which suggest “first of several” in order to provide clarity to the substantive it modifies.[25] Thus, the prôtos and adverbial eîta have the chronological force of, “Adam, the first one, was formed, next Eve was.”[26]
Paul extends his thought with kaì, adding a “second fact” to his argument.[27] He begins the clause with a subject and its predicate (2:14). The first clause takes Adam and the aorist passive constative ouk ēpatēthē (“Adam was not deceived”);[28] in the second clause, dè calls “attention to the singularity” of the woman being “deceived in transgression”;[29] hence, the translation, “but as for the woman, she was [deceived].”[30] The perfect active indicative verb (gégonen) takes on the historic emphasis calling dramatic attention to the act of “being” deceived. In addition, the compound anarthrous nominative aorist passive participle eksapatētheîsa is perhaps perfective[31] in that ek intensifies the verb (“fully deceived”). Following hē gunē argues for it to be read adjectivally, and places the adjectival participle in the predicate position; asserting, that it is “the woman who was fully deceived.” It is this large subject which is modified by the dative of reference en parabásei “with reference to transgression.” The subject and its modifiers are viewed historically (gégonen), and echoes Eve’s confession, “The woman [hē gunē ] said, ‘the serpent deceived [ēpátēsén] me” (Gen 3:13).[32] “Paul bases his arguments,” observes egalitarian T. C. Geer, “on the creation stories in Genesis.”[33]
As in verse 12, the dè in 2:15 marks the sustained continuity from 2:13-14 which serve as the logical basis for Paul’s command in 2:11 and prohibition in 2:12. 1 Timothy 2:15 concludes the argument with an inverted third class conditional statement.[34] While there are several important “exegetical cruxes” in 2:15,[35] this is the overarching grammatical crux since it is the verse’s organizing principle. First, conditional sentences are comprised of two clauses, the “if” clause (protasis) and the “then” clause (apodosis). In general, the first clause contains the contingency under consideration; meanwhile, the second clause is a statement (the portrayal) about what will happen, or not happen, should the contingent action occur. There may be, however, other relationships at work besides a cause and effect one, and context must inform the exegete.[36] Second, contrary to a usual “if-then” structure, the apodosis is introduced first followed by the protasis (“then-if”). This can be done since the apodosis is “grammatically independent,” but it is still “semantically dependent” upon the protasis for understanding its fulfillment (Matt 4:9; Heb 6:3).[37]
1 Timothy 2:15, then, begins with the fulfillment clause sōthēsetai (apodosis), and concludes with the condition clause eàn meínōsin (protasis). The first clause, then, portrays the future expectation (portrayal) of “being saved” by means (ablative) of “bearing children” (dià tēs teknogonías). Arranging the apodosis first connects the future active indicative third person verb sōthēsetai to the nominative feminine singular hē gunē “the woman will be saved” (2:14).[38] The verb sōthēsetai is future passive indicative (“will be saved”) and serves to “grammaticalize,” as Porter observes, “a projection or expectation, not an assertion, about reality.”[39] The question, here, concerns the portrayed future meaning of sōzō, a verb which has a wide lexical range.[40] In what way will she be saved? The context must provide the answer.[41] Its use in 2:15, however, is connected to the transgression (parabásei) of Eve (2:14), so the natural “Christian” sense of salvation is certainly possible as component of lives which profess godliness (5:14, teknogoneîn).[42] This expectation, however, only has a probability of occurring “when the conditions stated in the protasis are met.”[43]
The second clause (2:15b) marks the protasis of the third class condition, eàn with the aorist active subjunctive. The protasis, eàn meínōsin (“if they continue”), points to the woman’s salvation (2:15a) rather than the subjects of the third person plural verb here (2:15b).[44] Knight sees this “as a fact assumed to be true”;[45] hence, the sense, may very well be, “it is assumed to be true that if they continue.” The nearest antecedent to meínōsin (“if they continue”) is perhaps implied by teknogonías (2:15a), which is children.[46] Alternatively, however, “woman” is the subject of the entire pericope[47] and this is most likely the implied semantic subject for meínōsin. Consequently, the verb refers to Christian women who “continue in faith and love and consecration with sound judgment.” This is the condition of the protasis. If Christian women continue a life of godliness and faith, then they will be saved by means of their reception of their domestic role.
Ralph Gilmore once observed, “it is easier to show what the biblical principles involved are than to apply them in specific instances.”[48] The implications of this evaluation of the syntax of 1 Tim 2:11-15 are not easily summarized, but a few suggested guideposts can be suggested. The passage does divide into two main lines of thought (11-12 and 13-15).
The occasional nature of the problem, however, does not undermine the truth which it teaches. The guidelines may have emerged from a need to address heresy; however, heresy is corrected by truth. In 1 Tim 2:4, Paul made it clear that God “desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of truth.” This instruction then is to provide the truth regarding the contours of gender responsibilities in the assembly and outside of the assembly. This instruction can be difficult to digest, but that is a modern problem of application. It perhaps reflects a contemporary bias rather than an internal problem of the text itself. Moreover, Paul introduces the foundation for the command and prohibitions of 2:11-12 in the next verses (2:13-15).
First, 2:11-12 represents the second main injunction upon women in the assembly (2:8). It is first introduced as a command and then nuanced by two prohibitions, and finally balanced by an exhortation towards “quietness.” Despite some difficulty in the proper meaning of en hēsuchia, the fact that the phrase brackets the internal works of Paul’s command, prohibition, and exhortation, would suggest that the content defines how Paul used the phrase. In other words, having a focus on receiving biblical instruction (learn), while refraining from giving instruction in the assembly (not to teach) and having (therefore using) authority over a man, serve as explaining en hēsuchia . An attitude of gentleness which manifests itself in silence and full submission. This does perhaps imply that there was a serious breach in the Pauline protocol for women in the assembly which required instruction.
Second, 2:13-15 is a clear explanation that the command and prohibitions are logically connected to the creation narrative of Adam and Eve, and the narrative of the serpents deception of Eve and the willful participation to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen 2-3). Despite the literary mountain of literature designed to reconstruct the religious and philosophical world of Ephesus which may or may not provide insight into the internal problems of heresy in 1 Tim, the appeal to Gen 2-3 demonstrates that these “scriptures are not tied to culture. They are tied to creation.”[49] This is a significant commitment to the words of Paul. If the argument stems from Gen, then matters such as the order of creation, headship, Eve as a complement to Adam, Eve’s role in the fall by being deceived, Adam’s role in the fall void of deception, and the Divine punishments upon Adam, Eve, and the serpent are all integral parts of the theological foundation for 2:11-12.
Christian men and Christian women are to understand their identity and roles in this world from Scripture. Three particular issues are brought up to shape Paul’s readers understanding of gender roles in the assembly and when not assembled. First, Adam was formed first. When Adam was formed, it was not good that man should be alone so God “constructed” Eve out of his rib. Eve as a complement to Adam demonstrates a joint purpose and companionship; however, the fact remains Adam was formed first. There is an inherent position of responsibility and privilege for the first born males of a family in the Old Testament. This implies a standing expectation or responsibility on the part of men; however, this does not diminish women nor provide a reason to abdicate any responsibility or authority she may have.
Second, Eve was deceived and transgressed God’s command. When Paul quotes and alludes from Gen 3, he provides a window into Eve’s plight. Why did the serpent focus upon Eve? Speculations abound. The fact is she was full deceived in transgression. Gen 3 piers into Eve’s mind, “the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise” (Gen 3:6 ESV). What is interesting is the LXX arranges the verb in the aorist active indicative “he deceived/enticed me”; however, in 1 Tim 2 Paul places the verbs in the aorist passive “he was formed/she was deceived.” Eve alone concedes to being deceived (Gen 3:16). In all of this, it must be remembered that regardless of the order of creation, regardless of the deception, regardless of the transgression, the woman as a profound role in the framework of God saving the world through Jesus.
Third, the limitations which exist when the church is assembled is not a reflection on her salvation. The true measure of the salvation which she longs to have is found in “child bearing/bearing children,” the unique capacity and role to be, like Eve, the mother of all the living (Gen 3:20). In fact, the “renaming” of Eve in LXX into Zoe following the Hebrew text, demonstrate that even outside of Eden, in the shadow of the garden there was still a profound role Eve played. The mirror image, or type and antitype, is seen in the profound role of continuing on in a manner consistent with faith, love, and sanctification with sound judgment. The implications from this study no doubt raises many questions to our “modern” ears.
Conclusion
Bruce Morton summarizes well our understanding of the text in the face of negative reactions. He writes,
In a time filled with male and female ability and confidence, the teaching swims against a strong current. But the apostle is not saying that women should avoid teaching the Word. Instead, he is announcing the purposes and roles within church assemblies.[50]
Deceiving Winds: Christians Navigating the Storm of Mysticism, Leadership Struggles and Sensational Worship (21st Century Christian, 2009)
1 Timothy 2:11-15 is as profound as it is complicated, but if one focuses on the flow of the syntax the exegete can eliminate some biases, whether they be complementarian or egalitarian. Personally, I have no vested interest in either point of view; what matters is how the syntax and the internal logic of the passage develops. The most difficult problem I see in applying 1 Tim 2:11-15 is that “the assembly” of first-century churches was vastly different than contemporary assemblies. This factor alone causes some the majority of the problems with concepts such as “having authority” and being “in silence/quietness.” In the end, churches and leaders always need to reassess their practices by what the text says, and here the boundaries of women participating in the assembly are based on creation and its principles not upon culture.
Endnotes
Ann L. Bowman points to the difficulty of “unusual vocabulary … awkward grammar … references to the Old Testament … significant theological issues … and a flow of thought that is not so clear as it may seem at first glance.” See “Women in Ministry: An Exegetical Study of 1 Timothy 2:11-15,” BSac 149.594 (April-June 1992): 193.
Barbara Aland, et al., eds., The Greek New Testament, 5th rev. ed. (Germany: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2014); Eberhard Nestle and Erwin Nestle, Novum Testamentum Graece, 28th rev. ed., eds. Barbara Aland, et al. (Germany: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012).
Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (1931; repr. Nashville, TN: Broadman, n.d.), 4:572.
James A. Brooks and Carlton L. Winbery, Syntax of New Testament Greek (Langham, MD: University Press of America, 1979), 146.
Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), 578-79.
See George W. Knight, III, The Pastoral Epistles (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1992; repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2013), 130-49.
Everett Ferguson, “Tópos in 1 Timothy 2:8,” ResQ 33.2 (1991): 65-73. Ferguson disputes the entry in “topos,” BAGD, as “everywhere that Christian people or Christians live” (822). To this Ferguson affirms, “This is inadequate, for a stronger statement may be made to the effect that among Jews ‘place’ acquired in some contexts a technical reference to the ‘place of worship’” (66). The force of Ferguson’s contribution did not affect, unfortunately, the entry of the third edition (“topos,” BDAG 1011).
Stanley E. Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament, 2d ed. (1992; repr., Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2005). Porter describes this word order structure as “Subject-predicate” which is a very basic pattern, but it does point to gune as the expressed subject (294-95). It is grammatically legitimate for manthaneto to find its subject in 2:9 (gunaikas), so the repetition (the “expressed subject”) is important as a “form of topic marker or shifter” (295).
Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament, 295.
As a caveat, this is not a prohibition, which “forbids an action,” for it lacks the customary structural mē. This also dispels any notion to view the phrase as a suggestion or an option. See Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 486-87.
Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 486.
Robertson and Hersey remind that “all imperatives are future in idea” which underscores the anticipation of obedience. See, Archibald T. Robertson and W. Hersey Davis, A New Short Grammar of the Greek Testament, 10th ed. (New York, NY: Harper & Brothers, 1933; repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1979), 165. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 485. Chamberlain reminds that “the present imperative may have any of the characteristic ideas of linear action.” William D. Chamberlain, An Exegetical Grammar of the Greek New Testament (New York, NY: Macmillan, 1941; repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1981), 86.
“hēsuchia,” BDAG 440.
Philo, On Dreams 2.263, and Ignatius Eph 19.1; see “hēsuchia,” BDAG 440.
Jack P. Lewis, “Quietness or Silence?” Gospel Advocate 130.7 (July 1988): 11-12. Lewis writes, “That silence from sound is an undisputed meaning of hēsuchia, plus the parallels to the prepositional phrase en hēsuchia, which we have cited, creates the presupposition that that is the proper meaning of 1 Timothy 2:11, 12. I would be glad to see a linguistic demonstration to the contrary” (12).
Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 598-99. Wallace cites epitrepo as a “helper verb” which requires an infinite to supplement and complete its meaning.
Brooks and Winbery, Syntax of New Testament Greek, 86-87. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 525. Wallace argues extensively as to why epitrepo should be taken as a gnomic present over descriptive (progressive) present. Three points in particular were persuasive. There are no temporal indicators, the present tense is used with a generic object (gunaiki), and the exhortation is tied to creation.
Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament, 296.
Barclay M. Newman, “authenteo,” A Concise Greek-English Dictionary to the New Testament, rev. ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2010), 29; The meaning of this New Testament hapax is the subject of considerable study and debate and beyond the scope of this paper. In BDAG it falls under the basic category “to assume a stance of independent authority” such as “to give orders to, dictate to” (150); however, semantically, L&N have “to control in a domineering manner” (37.21). For opposing views, see Richard Clark Kroeger and Catherine Clark Kroeger, 1 Suffer not a Woman: Rethinking 1 Timothy 2:11-15 in Light of Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1992; repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2001), 87-98; Andreas J. Köstenberger and Thomas R. Schreiner, eds., Women in the Church: An Analysis and Application of 1 Timothy 2:9-15, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2005).
Kroeger and Kroeger, I Suffer not a Woman, 83-84.
Some see a chiastic structure in 11-12 with en hēsuchia marking this group as a unit. (A) gunē en hēsuchia manthaneto en pasē hupotagē· (B) didaskein de gunaiki ouk epitrepo (B’) oude authentein andros, (A’) all’ einai en hēsuchia (Bowmann, “Women in Ministry,” 202-03).
This citation to the Greek Genesis record reveals that there are corresponding verbs and nouns demonstrating an intentional recapitulation of the events in Eden in order to provide the rationale for the gender roles played out “in every place of assembly” (2:8-15).
Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 557-58.
“protos,” BDAG 725. George Benedict Winer, A Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament, 7th ed. enl. and impr. ed., ed. Joseph H. Thayer, trans. Gottlieb Lünemann (Andover: Draper, 1886), 464.
Whereas Paul uses aorist passive indicative third person singular form, eplasthē, the LXX employs aorist active indicative third person singular, eplasen, four times in Gen 2 each time as a reference to God’s formation of Adam (7, 8, 15, 19). Moreover, a different word is used to describe the construction of Eve in Gen 2:19: okodomesen kurios ho theos ten pleuran … eis gunaika.
R. C. H. Lenski writes, “kai adds the second fact to the first. This is not done because a second is needed; yet Paul lets two witnesses speak.” The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians, to the Thessalonians, to Timothy, to Titus, and to Philemon (Lutheran Book Concern, 1937; repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2001), 567.
Albrecht Oepke, “apatáō, eksapatáō, apátē,” TDNT 1:384-85. Oepke demonstrates briefly that the LXX use of the verb is seen commonly “to deceive” or “entice,” but only provides one tentative example of eksapatáō in the second century A.D. by Jewish translator Theodotion (Sus 56). The Old Greek version uses apatáō. In this passage, either verb attempts to offer a distortion (to entice, deceive).
“de,” BDAG 212.
Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 578-79.
Bruce M. Metzger, Lexical Aids for Students of New Testament Greek, 3rd ed. (Princeton, NJ: Theological Book Agency, 1969; repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2002), 79, 82. Knight does not place too much emphasis on the compound verb, but keeps this point open (The Pastoral Epistles,144).
eîpen hēgunēHoóphis ēpátēsén me (Gen 3:13 LXX).
Thomas C. Geer, Jr., “Admonitions to Women in 1 Tim. 2:8-15,” in vol. 1 of Essays on Women in Earliest Christianity. ed. Carroll D. Osburn (Joplin, MO: College Press, 1993; repr., Joplin, MO: College Press, 1995), 295. Geer is right that the order of creation does not point to male “superiority” and that it is a reminder of complement Eve is to Adam, but he ignores that the Old Testament does give a voice to “the first born” as a pecking order for authority, responsibility, and privileges (Bowman, “Women in Ministry,” 204-05).
Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 696-97. Dana and Mantey observe, that the contingency implies a certain level of “uncertainty,” yet it carries a tone of being “hopeful but hesitant.” Harvey E. Dana and Julius R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (1927; repr., New York, NY: Macmillan, 1957), 290.
Knight, The Pastoral Epistles, 144-49.
Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 682-87. Wallace points out that some conditional relationships may have a semantic force such as “evidence-inference” or even “equivalence” (687).
Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 684. Wallace goes on to say that the protasis is “grammatically dependent, but semantically independent.” The apodosis can form a complete thought, but the protasis inherently cannot.
Making this connection does not resolve the difficulty of coming to a conclusion as to the meaning of sōthēsetai.
Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament, 262.
Newman, “sōzō,” A Concise Greek-English Dictionary to the New Testament. Newman has the following glosses: “save (of Christian salvation); save, rescue, deliver; keep safe, preserve; cure, make well” (179).
In 1 Tim the use of the verb (1:15, 2:4, 4:16) shows connection to eternal life (1:15-16), arrive at gospel truth (2:4), and the result of remaining in the teaching (4:16).
Werner Foerster, “sōzō, sōtēria,” TDNT 7:995. Foerster, observes, such a view “cannot be ruled out at” grammatically. Bowman surveys six possible interpretations and argues that an “interpretation that satisfies the grammatical and lexical problems and that also fit the larger context is … women will enter into eschatological salvation, with its accompanying rewards, through faithfulness to their proper role, exemplified in motherhood and in godly living generally” (“Women in Ministry,” 208).
Brooks and Winbery, Syntax of New Testament Greek, 183.
Carl Spain, The Letters of Paul to Timothy and Titus (Austin, TX: Sweet Co., 1970), 52.
Knight, The Pastoral Epistles, 148.
Spain, The Letters of Paul to Timothy and Titus, 52.
Knight, The Pastoral Epistles, 148. Knight makes an excellent point, “The concept of ‘remaining’ or ‘continuing’ would also seem to tie the subject of this verb to the subject of the previous clause (gunēγ); one does not talk about ‘continuing’ with a new subject but with a continuation of the previous subject.”
Robert Randolph, et al., Gender and Ministry: The Role of the Women in the Work and Worship of the Church (Huntsville, AL: Publishing Designs, 1990), 77.
Randolph, Gender and Ministry, 57.
Bruce Morton, Deceiving Winds: Christians Navigating the Storm of Mysticism, Leadership Struggles and Sensational Worship (Nashville, TN: 21st Century Christian, 2009), 135.
Aristocratic Romans began education early in their children with the use of private tutors.[1] Historian Robert Wilken goes on to explain that even a certain “style of speech” was essential to embrace early on so that there was no “style” to unlearned later in life.
To give a sense of the aristocratic educational processes of the mid-first century AD, Wilken writes:
Roman education consisted chiefly of the study of rhetoric, the skill an enterprising young man would need most for a life in the law courts or a position in the civil bureaucracy. Grammar, recitation, analysis of classical literary texts, imitation of the great styles.[2]
Robert Wilken, The Christians as the Romans Saw Them (1984)
Such learning would include tremendous repetition.
That is probably why the Latins are attributed with the old saying: Repetitio mater studiorum est. Translation: “Repetition is the mother of all learning.”[3] After enough repetition, imitation is bound to appear – intended or otherwise.
It would stand to reason that at some point imitation must give rise to personal stylistic variations and the development of a unique voice. Still, one might hear the echo of a common saying: “Imitation is the sincerest [form] of flattery” (QuotationsPage.com).
Nevertheless, not all imitation is flattery is it? Especially the kind of imitation which goes by the name of plagiarism. Dictionary.com denotes the term as:
[A]n act or instance of using or closely imitating the language and thoughts of another author without authorization and the representation of that author’s work as one’s own, as by not crediting the original author.
Dictionary.com
Unfortunately, despite the constant emphasis on academic responsibility, plagiarism appears in our educational institutions and academic organizations.
With the time of the year upon us where educational pursuits are reinvigorated by the rush of “back to school,” we thought it timely to address an issue which affects the school house as well as the church house.
The Issue of Plagiarism
If a dictionary definition does not bring home the problem of plagiarism, perhaps synonyms will provide some focus and sharpness to our understanding. Phrases such as “piracy,” counterfeiting,” and “passing off” (Dictionary.com) should be pointed enough to stress that this act is “literary theft” (Thesaurus.com).
A few years ago, ABC Primetime’s Charles Gibson spoke to many college students regarding cheating and plagiarism. One student interviewed said, “The real world is terrible […] People will take other people’s materials and pass it on as theirs. I’m numb to it already, I’ll cheat to get by.”[4]
It is unfortunate when Christians use equally transparently flawed reasons for intellectual dishonesty. The Christian ought to have an aversion to plagiarism out of sheer principle that we ought not to be thieves or robbers (Exod 20:15; 1 Pet 4:15).
This ethic would extend beyond physical property to include intellectual property as well. “Sticky fingers” is not supposed to be a part of the “worthy” calling of God (Col 1:10; Eph 4:1). And yet, it is no longer a shock to this author when it occurs “even in religious circles.”[5]
It is an amazing thing that some operate under the impression that they can provide a sort of “wave-of-the-hand” acknowledgment to another’s work, while copying line-after-line of material, without the common use of appropriate grammatical devices which indicate the identity of the real author.[6]
The goal to expand the knowledge of humanity is never deterred by documenting the sources used and borrowed – “whether facts, opinions, or quotations.”[7]
While doing research on dinosaurs, I stumbled upon a so-called hi-profile preacher and publisher who blatantly took the words of their collaborators only to claim those “words” to be the mutual property of their ministry. Meanwhile, they fail to forget that they did not do the heavy lifting of the research nor organize of the wording of the material. Further, they seem to disregard the fact that most publications are archived so that it becomes clear whose words were penned first.
There are, however, times when it may seem impossible to attribute individual concepts one has come to believe or understand due to considerable collaboration with others. We ought to acknowledge the fluid elements of learning and idea shaping. I always appreciate the “Acknowledgements” page at the beginning of the book where the author intends to show an indebtedness to their colleagues and friends for the stimulation and fertile ground where many of the ideas they have written about were seeded and planted.
So Why Plagiarize?
I suppose there are many reasons for the seductive temptation to take the words of another to employ them as though they are yours: need, laziness, lack of creativity, tight schedules, arrogance, etc. “Convenience, quick turn around and other elements are also factors,” says Jonathan Bailey, a victim of plagiarism.[8]
The action is, however, thuggish. It has been observed that “plagiarists chose their victims in much the same way and they often do so with much less skill than the common mugger chooses theirs.”[9] Would anyone, including a child of God, want to be considered a “mugger”?
There are two New Testament terms of significance here.[10] (a) Thieves (kleptes) operate by means of “fraud and in secret”; likewise, (b) robbers (lestes) obtain what is not theirs “by violence and openly.” The plagiarist resembles both of these terms.[11]
Joseph Gibaldi, in the MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers, observes:
Using another person’s ideas, information, or expressions without acknowledging that person’s work constitutes intellectual theft. Passing off another person’s ideas, information, or expressions as your own to get a better grade or gain some other advantage constitutes fraud.[12]
Joseph Gilbaldi, MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers, 6th ed. (2003)
It has been a painful thing to read the work of fellow classmates, and the work of others, only to discover that the words and research they employ are not their own – but that of others.
Not only has “intellectual theft” and “fraud” occurred, but blatant deception as well. Since liars, the greedy, and thieves will not be welcomed in that eternal abode (1 Cor 6:10, Rev 21:8), why plagiarize? There is no spiritual advantage. Frankly, there is no advantage at all.
What about the Sermon?
I was in the assembly of a congregation when a young preacher was “working” through his lesson. Then, the wording began to sound very familiar. I immediately looked for a pen and something to write on and jotted down what I suspected was his next few points. Sure enough, I had read this sermon before and apparently so had this young preacher. Was he plagiarizing? If I’m going to be a “stickler” about it, then yes.
However, there seems to be a sort of allowance among the preaching community for sharing and using the outlines and even content of another preacher. Yet, we must be careful. Gary Holloway shares a few anecdotal examples of “stolen sermons.” He introduces his segment of the practice among southern preachers with the following words:
Sermons, like most speeches, are not often copyrighted. Preachers felt no moral compunction in “borrowing” sermon ideas, outlines, and sometimes entire sermons verbatim from other preachers.[13]
Gary Holloway, Saints, Demons; and Asses: Southern Preacher Anecdotes (1989)
Holloway recounts two stories of famous Restoration Movement preachers of the early 20th century (H. Leo Boles and N. B. Hardeman) who happened to be visiting a congregation when their sermons were being presented verbatim by the local preacher.
Despite the cordial responses and humorous reactions by the original speakers,[14] Holloway footnotes these anecdotal stories with a concern. A concern which I share:
[T]heir humor is based on a serious issue. Although stealing sermons was a common and accepted practice, there is an underlying sense of the unethical nature of the practice that provides the humor in this situation. These young men got caught doing what most preachers did surreptitiously [i.e., covertly, secretly].[15]
Holloway, Saints, Demons; and Asses
For preachers and evangelists, then, plagiarism can present itself to be a true danger. I sympathize. If I only consider the math of my own preaching ministry, then at the minimum I speak about 52 weeks a year – that’s every week.
I speak, at the minimum, three times a week before an assembly 52 weeks a year. That means I present spiritual content designed to stimulate, provide a reason for meditation, and to ignite action approximately 156 times a year, 13 times a month, 3 times a week.
Most church goers do not realize the work that goes into just one of these messages. They can demand the energies of a small college term paper. Then multiply this three times a week, 13 times a month, 156 times a year. That’s is a lot of temptation to short-cut the content and plagiarize and ignore a moderate level of attribution for words or phrases which may be vital to the delivery of a sermon or message.
Here are a few guidelines that I follow and I share them here as benchmarks of genuine attribution in a field which it can be very hard to cite the source. These are in no order of importance, and they are benchmarks that I have put together over time.
Remember that there is no copyright on truth. There is copyright protection for the presentation of that truth, but not on truth itself. Every preacher is influenced by the thoughts and studies of another. If you quote an author verbatim and at length introduce your quote with an attribution.
When you make a linguistic argument, there is no need to cite every source which was consulted (nor the whole debate). Nor, should one make lexical lists of definitions for matters which are insignificant (I have heard one preacher spend over 10 minutes quoting lexicons over the definition of the word “cup”). If it is significant to the point of the lesson, refer by name the language tool being used and give the audience a sense of why that is important.
When you follow a book, article, or commentary’s flow of thought then at the beginning of the message an acknowledgment to the author would be ideal. However, it would be best if the preacher worked through the text on their own and found their own sense of the flow of thought of the passage before they ever consulted other authors.
Keep track of your research and sources of information by footnoting or parenthetical references in an outline or manuscript of the sermon. Sometimes I share outlines with the assembly so they can follow along or so they can study the passage again later. I’ve been asked, “why do you have all the footnotes in your outlines?” My answer, “so the brethren will know I have thought through my message.”
No doubt some will disagree with some of my suggestions. I’m sure some will say that I have missed a few more benchmarks. Yet, the above will go a long way to preventing plagiarism in the pulpit. We already have the greatest message in the world, there is no need to hide how we frame our thoughts.
Concluding Thoughts
It may be argued that plagiarism is not the worst thing “out there.” One might be tempted to agree, but the practice of hijacking the words of another robs one of learning and personal development. More importantly, it reflects a sinful disposition which must be rejected.
The truth of the matter is that it is an ethically deficient habit which not only hurts others but also ruins the trustworthiness of intellectual thief. It is a tragedy that some either do not know the courtesy of citing where they learned their information, are shallow or too lazy to follow through with it. We strongly encourage our writing brethren and friends to refrain from literary theft.
For our friends who are in the spotlight we submit this brief warning from Wayne Jackson:
Every writer should remember this. Once he has compromised his status as a serious student and a researcher of integrity, he will forever be suspect. Whose material are we reading—his or someone else’s? It behooves the Christian to be honorable in all things.[16]
Joseph Gilbaldi, MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers, 6th ed. (N.Y.: Modern Language Association of America, 2003), 142. Cf. Wayne Jackson, 1997-2012, “Advice to Aspiring Writers,” ChristianCourier.com. Jackson writes, “I have observed some writers quote line after line—even consecutive paragraphs—from other authors with no credit given whatever. Or, sometimes significant portions of a writer’s material will be “borrowed”—word-for-word with no quotation marks—but with some sort of generic acknowledgment added at the end. Literary “plastic surgery” is unethical. One never detracts from his own scholarship by giving proper acknowledgment to those from whom he has learned.”
Richard C. Trench, Synonyms of the New Testament, 12th ed. (London: Trubner, 1894), 157.
Gilbaldi, MLA Handbook, 66 (emphasis added).
Gary Holloway, Saints, Demons; and Asses: Southern Preacher Anecdotes (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1989), 25.
When a preacher saw H. Leo Boles in the assembly, he apologized from the pulpit. Boles responded, “That’s all right; the fellow I got it from said you can preach it too” (Holloway, Saints, Demons; and Asses, 26).
biblicalfaith.online 