MENU

Where the world comes to study the Bible

Week Four: Act In Faith But Beware Of Pride

Light for Living

The Lord is with you, courageous warrior!

The angel of God to Gideon in Judges 6:12b

As a girl, I greatly feared balconies. One of the movie theaters in our town had a steep balcony. I had a recurring nightmare that I lost my balance on its stairs and rolled down and over the railing into the crowd below. Because of those dreams, I preferred sitting downstairs, even if my seat was on the front row, rather than walk into the balcony. My fear drove my actions. Our military leader this week was afraid, but God moved him from fear to faith.

Background

Just as the cycles of sin increasingly worsen throughout the Judges’ Era, so do the judges themselves. It’s slowly downhill after Deborah. Notice as we continue our study how the character and leadership of each subsequent judge worsens. Too often we think biblical heroes are worthy in every way. To see clearly through the darkness we must assess the judges by taking seriously both the good and the bad in context of the entire Word of God.

This week God’s story in Judges focuses on Gideon (also named Jerubbaal, meaning “let Baal contend”1) and his son Abimelech. Despite his weaknesses, Gideon was greatly used by God. Sadly, however, his story ends poorly, leaving us with both encouragement and challenge. Where did he go wrong?

Part One Study

Read Judges 6:1-7:23, and journal your responses to these questions:

*** Compare the conversation surrounding God’s call of Gideon in 6:11-24 with that of Moses in Exodus 3:1-4:17.

  • How did God’s response to Israel’s idolatry this time differ from the previous cycles (6:6-10)? Considering all of today’s verses why do you think God acted as he did?
  • How did God take Gideon from fear to increased faith? What do you learn about God from their interactions? (FYI: Signs are an indication of unbelief, not faith (Matthew 12:38-39; 1 Corinthians 1:22-24). Note that Gideon wasn’t trying to discover God’s will, although this passage is often taught as a method of doing that. God’s will was clear. What does it seem that Gideon was trying to learn then?)
  • There is a lot going on in this story. What most stands out to you?
  • Consider what this story tells us about God. What is God saying to you about your abilities, willingness and availability to follow and serve him?

Part Two Study

When God’s Spirit “clothed” him, Gideon sent for the men of Israel to fight with him (Judges 6:34-35), but the text doesn’t say that God told him to call an army. When God’s Spirit empowered a person in the Old Testament, it wasn’t necessarily a sign of spirituality, as the filling of the Spirit is in the New Testament. It only indicated that the Spirit provided the individual with power for a specific task, not that everything he did was of the Spirit any more than all that we as believers do is of the Spirit.

Read and comment on Judges 7:24-8:32 in light of these questions:

  • Write your thoughts about Gideon’s mixture of wise and poor decisions in this story.
  • It appears that Gideon’s victory gave him a sense of pride. How do you see that pride affect his decision-making and actions? How would you describe his legacy as a leader?
  • Ask God to reveal your own areas of pride. Considering Gideon’s examples, what prideful actions do you see in your own life? (Read James 4 if you have time.) Confess them to God and to anyone else who has been affected. (BTW, pride is self-focus which involves thinking either too highly of self or too lowly of self. Both aspects of pride take our eyes off of God.)

*** Judges 8:27 says that all Israel prostituted themselves or whored after Gideon’s golden ephod. (See the starred section on p.15 to understand that terminology if you didn’t read it or remember it from Week One, Part 2.) What’s an ephod? Study in your Bible notes or online resources and write down your insights. Dr. Younger suggests that Gideon may have used it to receive divine guidance as the High Priest did. In this way the ephod becomes Gideons permanent fleece.2

Part Three Study

We see the fallout from Gideon’s choices as we read the story of his son Abimelech, whose name means “my father is king.”3 Keep his name in mind as you read and answer questions.

Read Judges 8:29-9:57. Comment on these questions:

  • What consequences of Gideon’s pride and foolishness stand out to you?
  • What do you learn about leadership from Abimelech’s story and the parable of Jotham which was intended as a picture of him and his leadership?
  • Judges 9:56-57 says that God brought justice to both Abimelech and the men of Shechem. Describe how events brought justice.

“When believers forget the Lord and live according to the world’s dictates, this only intensifies the power of the wicked. When believers choose this path, becoming functional unbelievers, they may find that God allows them to get what they deserve, just as the Israelites experienced in the Abimelech story.”4

  • What is God saying to you about ways in which your words, actions and leadership reflect the world more than the love of Christ?

The saga of Gideon and his family is a sad one for the people of Israel. As Robert B. Chisholm comments, “The seeds planted by Gideon had taken root. Israel (cf. v. 22) now had as its king a murderer who was financed from the treasure of a pagan god and was supported by a gang of thugs.5

The people turned from devotion to Yahweh and embraced the idols and spiritual darkness of the culture around them. Sadly, Gideon’s victory as judge was eventually overshadowed by his pride.

*** Referring to Judges 9:23, Chisholm provides insight: “The expression ‘evil spirit’ need not mean that the spirit was itself demonic or evil. The Hebrew term can refer to moral evil, but it can also refer to disaster, harm, or calamity in a non-moral sense. If the word is given the latter sense here, the expression may simply mean that the spirit was sent to bring harm and calamity upon the objects of God’s anger.”6 Other verses where it it used similarly are 1 Samuel 16:23; 18:10; 19:9. How does this affect your understanding of God’s work?

In light of recent disturbing reports about the personal life of another Christian leader who accomplished great good in his lifetime, a friend expressed her heartfelt desire for godly pastors. Of course there are many of them, but overall our present-day church leadership appears to be spiraling downward morally, as we see in the lives of the judges. There’s something within us that yearns for morally consistent leaders. Although we may prefer just not thinking about it—maybe even giving up studying Judges because it feels depressing—let’s take that yearning for a godly shepherd as God’s reminder to turn our eyes on Jesus, the only leader who will never disappoint us.

My Story

Only God could take a young woman who feared spiritual leadership of any kind and build her faith in him until she stepped out in obedience as God opened opportunities.

That’s my story, which is much like Gideon’s. Gideon was afraid of a physical enemy and the wrath of his own people if he rocked the boat. What was I so afraid of? Not living up to the expectations of others. Failure. Being in front rather than behind. Being put on a pedestal. Lack of qualifications in character and experience. The possibility of disappointing God.

Despite my many attempts to avoid leadership roles, I watched God work in several situations so that I had to lead even without the role or title. He navigated around my no’s to use me despite my attempts to avoid his will. In time he showed me that my problem was lack of faith in him. Instead of looking at his abilities and power, I was too busy looking at me and my failures and short-comings.

As I look back over more than thirty years of leadership in all sorts of roles, it’s clear that it’s always been about God, not me. It’s been his guidance, power, strength, wisdom, and plans—not mine. Whatever has been achieved for the sake of God’s kingdom is because he has been at work.

The same God who used Gideon and works through me can use anyone paralyzed by fear who turns her focus on God and trusts him by walking in obedience.


1 Note on Judges 6:32, ESV Study Bible, 450.

2 Younger, 206.

3 Robert B. Chisholm Jr., Kregel Exegetical Library: A Commentary on Judges and Ruth (Grand Rapids, MI; Kregel Academic, 2013), 311.

4 Younger, Jr., 234.

5 Chisholm Jr., 312.

6 Chisholm Jr., 316-317.

Related Topics: Faith

Lecture 3 (Week 4): Don’t Forget Who God Is

Related Media

We returned a week ago yesterday from a 10 day trip to the UK. Our daughter and her family are living there temporarily for her husband’s work, and so we went to see them. During the week while they were busy with school and work, Gary and I took a trip to Scotland.

On the screen is the Scottish monument to Robert the Bruce, or King Robert the 1st of Scotland. We weren’t very familiar with him, but despite the name of the movie, Robert the Bruce, not William Wallace, is actually the man the Scots call Braveheart. Robert the Bruce brought independence to Scotland in the first war for Scottish Independence. The 1314 battle at the site of this statue was the turning point of the war. Although the Scots were far outnumbered and out-armed, the English army grew fearful and panicked, fleeing the battlegrounds and giving Robert the victory.

It bore some similarities to Gideon’s battle. As you saw in your lesson, the Midianites and other groups from the East far outnumbered the men of Israel. In fact, the Bible describes their numbers as like locusts.

But earthly numbers don’t take into account who God is, and he brought victory over a mighty force.

With the story of Gideon a major theme of the book surfaces—God’s people did what was right in their own eyes. Go ahead and open your bibles to Judges 6.

Another cycle occurs. Israel worships idols and God brings discipline on them in the form of enemy oppression. But this time when Israel cried to God to rescue them, he sent a spokesman who reminded the people who God is. Look at Judges 6:8-10:

“This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: I brought you up out of slavery in Egypt. I rescued you from the Egyptians and from all who oppressed you. I drove out your enemies and gave you their land. I told you, ‘I am the Lord your God. You must not worship the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you now live.’ But you have not listened to me.”

The prophet reminded Israel who God is—a God more mighty than any earthly army, as he had already proven to them. But Israel had forgotten that and turned to idols to give them power. When God’s people do what’s right in their own eyes, it shows that they’ve forgotten who God is.

Today We’ll See Four Cautions To Consider—Four Ways That Our Thoughts And Actions Might Reveal That We Too Have Forgotten Or Ignored Who God Is.

We initially find Gideon hiding in a cave threshing wheat. Threshing doesn’t really work inside because it depends on the wind to blow away the chaff and leave the wheat behind. But the Midianites had been confiscating all the food that Israel produced. Isn’t it ironic that Israel was worshipping Baal and Asherath, gods of fertility, and so Yahweh brought in the Midianites to steal the harvest, leaving his disloyal people with little or nothing? Basically God said, “Your land will be fertile, but you won’t eat its produce.”

But as we’ve seen in every cycle, God mercifully raised up Gideon to rescue them. But this time God used a unique battle plan which showed off his power since they’d forgotten it. He had Israel’s so-called army go to war with only jars, torches and trumpets. Instead of Israel winning with lethal weapons, God himself brought the victory—proving his mighty power.

So let’s picture that army of 300 volunteers, chosen for how they drank water from a spring rather than for their strength. They know they’re up against thousands of well armed military. And yet, similarly to what happened with Robert the Bruce, the battle was won because in great confusion, the enemy army killed one other and the rest fled.

Our God is mighty. He can bring victory without a real army or even a battle, and he can take away the very things his people look to other gods to achieve.

1st Caution: When We Trust Earthly Strength And Methods To Win Our Battles, We’ve Forgotten That God Is Almighty.

As we apply that caution, we first look at the church and at ourselves as we do throughout this book. And we ask ourselves what earthly strengths and methods do we think church needs to reach people with the gospel? Funds, celebrities, large numbers, even our freedom? God needs none of those things. Who or what do we trust personally? I tend to trust my own judgment and skills. What about you?

Let’s continue the story.

Despite having seen God’s mighty victory, Gideon immediately forgot what he had just learned about God and his power. Instead of being motivated to serve and bring glory to God, his greatest concern was himself.

Nothing in the biblical record suggests that God told Gideon to call an army to chase the enemy as it fled, nor that Gideon even asked. In fact if we go back to Judges 7:7, God told Gideon, “With the 300 men who lapped I will save you and give the Midianites into your hand.” Gideon didn’t need more men.

Gideon was acting on his own. The fearful warrior now felt confident in himself and did what was right in his own eyes. His actions and words suggest that he was already consumed with serving self, the definition of pride.

So Gideon called on the tribe of Ephraim to help them pursue and kill the enemy army, but they were angry that they weren’t included in the original soldiers. Gideon gave them a wise answer, and they calmed down. Although he was acting on his own, he was at least dealing with Israelites as brothers.

But when Gideon requested help from the men of Succoth and the leaders at Penuel, they refused, saying Gideon hadn’t yet won the battle. But rather than trying to persuade them as brother Israelites, he made it personal, promising to make them pay for insulting him and refusing his requests.

Once the chase was over, Gideon returned to the two towns and punished them by flogging the leaders at Succoth with briars and then destroying the tower of Succoth and killing everyone inside the city. 

Why? Not because he was concerned with justice. This was personal revenge.

In Judges 8:18-21 we learn that Gideon suspected that the two kings of Midian had killed his brothers, and his chase appears to have been motivated to exact revenge. Sure enough, when he learned that they were guilty of his brothers’ deaths, he killed them, not because of the oppression they caused Israel, but for personal revenge. He told them that he was killing them only because of his brothers.

It was all about Gideon, not God or his people. Seeking revenge is about self, not about God.

2nd Caution: When We’re Motivated By Our Own Interests, We’ve Forgotten That God’s Kingdom Is Preeminent.

And again I ask myself questions: As the church are we more concerned to protect our position than God’s reputation? Are my prayers more focused on what I want God to do for me or for God’s kingdom to come within me even if that means my life isn’t as easy? Sadly, I’m guilty of forgetting who God is and the priority of his kingdom over my concern for self.

It’s not surprising that after the battle, the men of Israel asked Gideon to become their king. Gideon answered well, but his actions that followed proved his words were empty. Look at Judges 8:24-27:

But Gideon replied, “I will not rule over you, nor will my son. The Lord will rule over you! However, I do have one request—that each of you give me an earring from the plunder you collected from your fallen enemies.” (The enemies, being Ishmaelites, all wore gold earrings.)

“Gladly!” they replied. They spread out a cloak, and each one threw in a gold earring he had gathered from the plunder. The weight of the gold earrings was forty-three pounds, not including the royal ornaments and pendants, the purple clothing worn by the kings of Midian, or the chains around the necks of their camels.

Gideon made a sacred ephod from the gold and put it in Ophrah, his hometown. But soon all the Israelites prostituted themselves by worshiping it, and it became a trap for Gideon and his family.

The ephod was a piece of linen clothing worn by the High Priest of Israel and on it were the Umin and Thumin, which were used to discern God’s will. The text doesn’t tell us so we can’t be sure, but I lean toward the thinking that Gideon made it so he could continue being that guy, the one who hears from God. That’s how he become famous, so it makes sense that this would ensnare him. Gideon is about Gideon. God didn’t need an ephod to speak to Gideon, but Gideon needed an ephod to manipulate God into speaking to him.

Gideon’s pride become even more apparent when he acted like the kings of that day— fathering 70 sons and Abimelech, son of his concubine. Abimelech’s name, meaning “my father is king,” tells us that although Gideon refused the people’s offer to be king, he considered himself one.

Gideon forgot that it was God who raised him up in the first place. He liked the people’s praise and attention and the power that came with being king.

Caution #3: When We Seek A Name Or Power For Ourselves, We’ve Forgotten That God Exalts.

Leaders, both in and out of the church, often use their power and position for themselves, even abusing others for their own gain. The world says promote yourself to achieve God’s purposes. It says that God needs leaders with big names. If we as the church buy into the world’s thinking, we’ve forgotten who God is. I confess that I have to fight the voices that whisper that I should do more to build a platform—because after all, it’s for God. But I know that for me, it’s a temptation to elevate myself. When that happens, I remind myself that God has always opened doors without my pushing. He elevates. I don’t need to.

So let’s not forget that God is almighty, his kingdom is preeminent, and he can and will exalt according to his will.

Back to the story. Just as we’ve seen in other cycles, the land had peace as long as Gideon lived, this time for forty years. After his death, however, Israel again forgot that God alone is God and turned to idols.

And we see the seeds of Gideon’s pride take root in his son Abimelech.

Abimelech convinced his mother’s relatives in Shechem to support him to be their leader. He appealed to their family ties, suggesting that he was their guy, the one who would take care of them, the one on their side as opposed to his brothers. So the Shechemites gave him money with which he brought in worthless people as allies. Then he killed his brothers, so they couldn’t oppose him. The town made him king anyway, after all he was on their side.

But somehow Abimelech failed to kill his youngest brother Jotham. One day Jothan showed up and cursed Abimelech and the leaders of Shechem. He told them a parable in which the trees, obviously the people of Shechem, allowed a worthless tree to rule them—representing Abimelech of course. Jotham cursed the trees with destruction if they weren’t acting in good faith, which I would call integrity, when they made Abimelech their leader and looked the other way concerning his murders.

For three years nothing happened, and I can only imagine that the people of Shechem believed they’d made a good choice and that God was on their side. But then God repaid them for their actions as well as their inaction concerning the murders. In the end Abimelech killed the Shechemites and was killed himself in the town of Thebes. The people’s lack of integrity and acceptance of murder as a means to their ends came back on their heads. God is holy and will judge his people.

Caution #4: When We Make Alliances With Earthly Leaders Or Powers To Save Us, We’ve Forgotten That God Is A Holy King.

My guess is that 90% of us are either in the group panicked that the country might become socialist or the one panicked it’s becoming a dictatorship. We may feel that our side must win the next election or the country’s doomed. Panic reveals that we trust in our earthly alliances rather than God.

The United States may become socialistic; we may be ruled by a dictator and lose our democracy. But God is on his throne. He isn’t nearly as concerned about this country as he is about his kingdom. As aliens on earth, our primary concern shouldn’t be America or the world situation, but God’s work in the hearts of his kingdom people who live out the gospel.

Our hope is not in the United States of America, but in our God who doesn’t need earthly powers to do his work, accomplish his will and care for his people so that we flourish spiritually.

I fight those feelings just as many of you, but my faith tells me this: With our future in the hands of God, I can be at peace. My fear comes from forgetting who God is. My concern should be to worship my King and do his kingdom work as long as I live no matter our national circumstances. I must remember that God is the almighty king and he alone is trustworthy.

Lecture 4 (Week 5): Jephthah, the Self-Promoter

Related Media

Jephthah, Israel’s fifth major judge, was an early Jerry Jones, a self-promoter. He set out to achieve whatever benefitted himself. He was great with words, and the Bible records more of his conversations than any other judge in the book. Because of God’s grace, Jephthah did deliver Israel from the oppressive Ammonites; however, just like Jerry Jones, he appears to have been motivated more by his own ambitions than benefiting the people of Israel.

The cycle of this time period reoccurs as the story begins. In review, it has four parts: first, apostasy, God’s people turning from the true God to idols; second, oppression, God subjugating them to an enemy; third, cries of pain as the people turn to God for help; and finally, deliverance, when God in grace and compassion raises up a judge to save them. Six judges in the book can be called major judges or cyclical judges because their stories are paired with details of the cycle. Jephthah is the fifth of those judges.

Remember that the cycles actually spiral downward. Apostasy grows worse and the judges themselves become less and less heroic and noble.

Look at Judges 10:6-16:

The Israelites again did evil in the Lord’s sight. They worshiped the Baals and the Ashtars, as well as the gods of Syria, Sidon, Moab, the Ammonites, and the Philistines. They abandoned the Lord and did not worship him. The Lord was furious with Israel and turned them over to the Philistines and Ammonites. They ruthlessly oppressed the Israelites that eighteenth year– that is, all the Israelites living east of the Jordan in Amorite country in Gilead. The Ammonites crossed the Jordan to fight with Judah, Benjamin, and Ephraim. Israel suffered greatly.

The Israelites cried out for help to the Lord: “We have sinned against you. We abandoned our God and worshiped the Baals.” The Lord said to the Israelites, “Did I not deliver you from Egypt, the Amorites, the Ammonites, the Philistines, the Sidonians, Amalek, and Midian when they oppressed you? You cried out for help to me, and I delivered you from their power. But since you abandoned me and worshiped other gods, I will not deliver you again. Go and cry for help to the gods you have chosen! Let them deliver you from trouble!” But the Israelites said to the Lord, “We have sinned. You do to us as you see fit, but deliver us today!” They threw away the foreign gods they owned and worshiped the Lord. Finally the Lord grew tired of seeing Israel suffer so much.

At this point apostasy was so widespread that God mentioned seven different objects of Israel’s worship. As a result God brought oppression from the Philistines and the Ammonites. Jephthah’s story occurs primarily east of the Jordan River, where the Ammonites ruled. In our next lesson we’ll see Samson deal with the Philistines in the west. Apparently, Jephthah and Samson were contemporaries.

Note that in this cycle God’s response is different. Although Israel cried out for help, God refused, saying their continued return to idols after seven deliverances indicated that they had not repented. He suggested that they cry to their idols for help. At that point, the people actually threw away their idols, but based on God’s reaction it’s unclear if this was genuine repentance. He didn’t even bother answering them. The text says that his reason for delivering them was God’s compassion for their suffering rather than a response to any repentance. Perhaps they were simply trying to manipulate God without truly repentant hearts, paralleling the manipulation Jephthah attempts. Often the sins of the judges reflected the larger community’s.

Notice also that the verses don’t say that God raised up the deliverer. Clearly, he used Jephthah and put his Spirit upon him, but the basis of Jephthah’s rise to leadership appears to be human wisdom. The elders of Gilead chose him without regard to God’s will in the matter, but God graciously used him anyway.

I’m sure you remember Jephthah’s broken background; because of his illegitimacy, he was dismissed as a nobody and exiled. No wonder he desired to be somebody, proving everyone wrong! He sought his significance as a person by success and power; he wanted a name for himself.

So how did this nobody, this illegitimate exile from Gilead become the deliverer from the Ammonites? During his exile, Jephthah proved himself to be a leader and a warrior. Although his experience was questionable, he showed qualities which the elders of Gilead needed. When they were confronted with the Ammonite army, they looked for a citizen of Gilead to lead them into battle, offering to make someone him their ruler. When no one volunteered, they traveled to Tob to find Jephthah and his band of merry men.

Judges 11:6 describes their offer to him: “Come, be our commander, so we can fight with the Ammonites.” Now this was a different offer than the one they gave the men of Gilead in 10:18 when they used the word translated leader or head.

They offered the command of the army to Jephthah, while they offered the rulership of Gilead to the citizens—two different words. But Jephthah was smart and knew how to bargain. He wasn’t motivated to save them but instead wanted to rule and be reinstated as a citizen of the city. When he refused their offer of commander, they upped the offer, and he agreed to become ruler if they won the victory.

Then, he bargained with the king of the Ammonites, arguing well with his message of peace by revealing his knowledge of the history of Israel and an understanding of God’s power. But even in the bargaining process, Jephthah elevated and promoted himself, placing himself on the same level as the king.

Look at Judges 11:12, “Jephthah sent messengers to the Ammonite king, saying, “Why have you come against me to attack my land?”

He suggested that his power and authority were equal to the king’s. Despite Jephthah’s skill at the negotiating table, the king moved toward war. At that point the bargainer Jephthah made a terrible mistake. Believing that he could manipulate God into doing what he wanted him to do, he made a foolish vow:

Look at vv. 30-31 in Judges 11:

Jephthah made a vow to the Lord, saying, “If you really do hand the Ammonites over to me, then whoever is the first to come through the doors of my house to meet me when I return safely from fighting the Ammonites – he will belong to the Lord and I will offer him up as a burnt sacrifice.”

Although God’s Spirit came upon Jephthah and empowered him for battle, God’s Spirit didn’t stop Jephthah from making a foolish vow. And you know, that's how God works with us. He gives us his Spirit, but he doesn’t stop us from committing major sins and making foolish decisions. We’re to be guided by his Word by studying and applying it to our lives.

Psalm 119:105 says, “Thy word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path.”

Jephthah failed to consult God’s Word or godly people, and the foolishness of that became clear when he returned home from the victory and his only child, a daughter emerged first from the house.

Look at Judges 11:35-36:

When he saw her, he ripped his clothes and said, “Oh no! My daughter! You have completely ruined me! You have brought me disaster! I made an oath to the Lord, and I cannot break it.” She said to him, “My father, since you made an oath to the Lord, do to me as you promised. After all, the Lord vindicated you before your enemies, the Ammonites.”

Jephthah and his daughter were apparently unaware of God’s prohibition against human sacrifice; instead, they were influenced by the culture of the Canaanites and their perspective of gods who needed to be manipulated and enjoyed watching people hurt. Our God delivered the men of Gilead out of his love, compassion, and grace, not to get sacrifices, and especially not human ones.

Both Pr. 14:12 and 16:25 say this: “There is a way that seems right to a person but its end is the way that leads to death.”

Jepththah did what was right in his own eyes, as the theme of Judges says, because he didn’t know the Scripture. Even sadder is the fact that God set out principles for redeeming people who are dedicated to him in Leviticus 27:1-8. It appears that Jephthah could have paid a ransom for his daughter if he had not been biblically illiterate.

Another way out would have been for Jephthah to refuse to kill his daughter and let God’s curse fall on him, but Jephthah’s selfishly clung to his own life. His actions contrasted with those of Jesus who let the curse for our sins fall on him so that we could have life. Jephthah killed his innocent daughter so that he wouldn’t risk God’s curse. He was out to win at all costs and his daughter was in the way. In fact, when you read this conversation with his daughter carefully, you see him blame her for the problem. Look back at his words to her in v. 35:

“Oh no! My daughter! You have completely ruined me! You have brought me disaster! I made an oath to the Lord, and I cannot break it.”

He said she had ruined him. She had brought him disaster. That’s pretty typical of an abuser, to blame the child or wife for the abuse. And this was the ultimate abuse—to kill his daughter for his own success. Jephthah was more concerned about his own loss than about her loss. His self-promotion and self-protection were in contrast to his daughter’s self-sacrifice. When she heard her father’s vow, she declared that he must fulfill it. She was willing to die so that he would be blameless before God.

So the age-old question is this—did Jephthah’s daughter die at the hand of her own father because he bargained with God for his own benefit? I agree with many scholars and the rabbis through the centuries who felt that he did. The word for burnt offering, which he used in his vow, always means a sacrifice that is totally burned up as an offering to God. The argument often used that the people of Israel would have known better and stopped him assumes that the rest of the Israelites knew the scriptures, which is a leap when you read the book of Judges. Sadly, it seems that she lost her life because of her father’s ambitions.

My son, who listens to a lot of strange music, recently came across an album written by a young Jewish woman. Both her group and her album are called “Girls in Trouble,” a fitting title for songs about Old Testament women. Here are the lyrics to “Mountain/When my Father Came Back”:

When my father came back from the war
I knew he would want to see me first
So I ran out to greet him
But he fell to his knees in the dirt
He told me daughter
I have promised G-d to offer
The first creature that I saw
Father the vow you have made
Is one you cannot escape
But first let me go with my sisters
Down to the shores of the lake
I lived two months with them
My sisters in the forest
And then I returned back home
The night he took me to the mountain
Neither of us spoke
We reached the peak together
Just as sunrise broke
Could have run from him
I almost thought he wished it
But I could not run from G-d
It was the last day of my life
The sun had never shone so bright
My father held the knife
I kept my eyes open wide
Then angels came to me
With faces of my sisters
And they filled my eyes with tears

It’s a sad story of a young woman who was victim to her own father’s self-promotion. He was so concerned with winning that he tried to manipulate God into giving him victory over the Ammonites.

In Jephthah’s self-promotion and search for significance, he bargained, blamed, and also bullied others. After his victory, the tribe of Ephraim threatened to burn him alive inside his house because he didn’t enlist them for the battle. (This was the same tribe that accused Gideon of the same thing, but Gideon convinced them to get over it.) After Jephthah tried bargaining with them unsuccessfully, he attacked them and won. But instead of recognizing them as brothers and allowing them to retreat in defeat, he massacred 42,000 of his own countrymen. Jephthah—bargainer, blamer, bully—all for self-promotion.

What do we learn from this story? Is there anything positive? Once again in Judges, the greatest positive is the faithfulness of God to his people despite their unfaithfulness. The positive is that God uses very flawed and sinful people. The positive is that God gives love and grace when we deserve his wrath. The positive is that he has given us his Word to guide us if we will use it. God is the hero of this story and of our stories. We are sinners with our own issues, just like Jepththah, but God graciously forgives us, saves us and even uses us.

This is a great time to recognize our tendencies to be a Jephthah or a Jerry Jones. Maybe we promote ourselves rather than dying to self and living for Jesus. Perhaps we seek our significance in our success and our name instead of in God’s love and acceptance. We may even do God’s work for the wrong reasons—concern about pleasing people, which is a form of self-promotion. We do what’s right in our own eyes instead of seeking God’s will in his Word. We have to be careful not to be wrong about God’s character, mistakenly believing that we must bargain with him to get his help because he’s reluctant and uncaring. Our beliefs fuel our actions, and our lives end up legalistic and manipulative.

We aren’t significant because we have great children, because we look good, or because we achieve a level of public recognition or meet our financial or business goals. We’re significant because God loves us and has made us his children. Unless we base our significance on the love of God, we’ll be forced to promote ourselves and try to win, no matter the cost.

Vince Lombardi, the coach of the championship Green Bay Packers said, “Winning isn’t everything; it’s the only thing.” May we never be guilty of seeking to win rather than seeking the glory of our God!

Lecture 5 (Week 6): The Spiritual Fog: Ignorance, Complacency, And Apathy

Related Media

In mid-March 2003 I was changing jobs, and my husband and I decided to take a vacation the week between. Gary wanted to drive to Phoenix and watch some Texas Rangers spring training games. I did NOT want to drive, but I agreed on the stipulation that we would also visit the Grand Canyon, which I’d always wanted to see.

After a couple of days in Phoenix, we headed north to Flagstaff and arrived just as it began to snow. By the next morning it was no longer snowing, but our drive to the Grand Canyon included a beautiful mountain highway bordered by gorgeous snow-covered trees for part of the trip. I was so excited to see the spectacular canyon, but all we saw was fog, and the forecast called for it to last two days. Because we needed to leave the next morning to get home, we had no hope of seeing it and left.

My inability to see the Grand Canyon’s beauty didn’t change the fact that it was there. But it vastly affected my experience and enjoyment of it.

That trip came to mind when I thought about our story this week.

Samson lived in a spiritual fog, knowing God was there but ignorant, complacent, and apathetic about God’s purposes for him. As a result he missed a connection to and appreciation of God’s greatness.

Ignorance. Complacency. Apathy. That’s what causes the fog.

When believers are ignorant, complacent or apathetic about God’s character, calling and purposes, they miss the majesty of his handiwork.

Samson’s story reveals what a spiritual fog looks like. We’ll look at the ignorance, complacency, and apathy in Israel, in Samson’s parents and in Samson. Finally we’ll consider our own spiritual fogs.

First, we look at Israel in general and Samson’s parents as representative of Israel.

Turn to Judges 13 verse 1: “And then the People of Israel were back at it again, doing what was evil in God's sight. God put them under the domination of the Philistines for forty years,” (MSG). And the next verse begins Samson’s story.

Where’s the cycle we’ve seen over and over in Judges? All this text tells us is that Israel did evil and God put them under Philistine domination for 40 years. This time they didn’t cry out as a group, and they definitely didn’t repent.

They were so complacent about the status quo and so apathetic about God’s desire for his people to flourish in their own land that they weren’t even praying for deliverance from the Philistines’ domination.

Despite that fact, God decided to send a deliverer anyway—for his purposes and in his grace. And that deliverer was Samson.

His story begins when the Angel of the LORD appeared to his nameless mother announcing his coming. I believe that the Angel of the Lord here was God himself, but he was definitely God’s messenger who communicated God’s word to first the wife and then both wife and husband. And yet, they were slow to discern who he was.

In contrast to most of the Bible stories where God gives an infertile woman a child, there’s no record that either she or her husband Manoah prayed to Yahweh for a child. God simply acted in grace, perhaps indicating they were ignorant of his power.

After her conversation with the angel of the LORD, she miscommunicated the message to Manoah.

Look at it in Judges 13:3-7:

And the angel of the Lord appeared to the woman and said to her, “Behold, you are barren and have not borne children, but you shall conceive and bear a son. Therefore be careful and drink no wine or strong drink, and eat nothing unclean, for behold, you shall conceive and bear a son. No razor shall come upon his head, for the child shall be a Nazirite to God from the womb, and he shall begin to save Israel from the hand of the Philistines.”

Then the woman came and told her husband, “A man of God came to me, and his appearance was like the appearance of the angel of God, very awesome. I did not ask him where he was from, and he did not tell me his name, but he said to me, Behold, you shall conceive and bear a son. So then drink no wine or strong drink, and eat nothing unclean, for the child shall be a Nazirite to God from the womb to the day of his death.’”

First, the woman added to the angel’s words when she said that the child would be a Nazirite from conception to his death, while the messenger said nothing about it lasting until he died. Second, she failed to tell her husband Samson’s purpose, which the angel identified as to begin to save Israel from the Philistines’ dominion, suggesting her apathy about it.

Manoah also lived in a spiritual fog. He wouldn’t accept God’s message when it came through his wife and seemed skeptical when he met the messenger. He asked for a sign, much as Gideon did. Although God graciously gave it, the Angel provided no new information to Manoah.

Dr. Lawson Younger says that Manoah’s interaction with the Angel involved attempts to manipulate him. In that day feeding someone or knowing a heavenly being’s name were commonly believed to force them to comply with your requests. Manoah wanted power over the angel and was ignorant of the character of Yahweh, who cannot be manipulated.

Then we have further evidence of the wife’s spiritual fog when she names her son “Little Sun,” or Sunny with a U. The Hebrew word used here for “sun” is the same word for the name of a Caananite deity. It’s possible that the name was meant to suggest a quality of the sun, but if so, she was apathetic about how it might be misinterpreted. She seems ignorant of Yahweh’s preeminence.

I saw one more evidence of Israel’s lack of spiritual discernment in Judges 15:9-13. This was the point in the story where the Philistines attacked the tribe of Judah in order to get to Samson and repay him over the loss of their wheat harvest and the deaths of those who burned his wife and her father. But the group of 3,000 Judeans sided with the Philistines instead of Samson. Although God had given his people this land, they were complacent about regaining power over it. They were ignorant that the Philistines were the real enemy and turned on Samson whom they never recognized as God’s deliverer.

Ignorant. Complacent. Apathetic. We see a spiritual fog in Samson’s parents and all of Israel. Now let’s look at Samson.

Although Samson knew that God had gifted him, he seems clueless about God’s purpose for his life. I’d love to know if his mother ever told him that his calling was delivering Israel from the Philistines. She didn’t mention it to Manoah, and I just wonder if she ever told Samson.

If he did know God’s purpose, his actions certainly weren’t motivated by it but by his lusts. We see that in his pursuit of a Philistine wife, his tryst with the prostitute, and his affair with Delilah. He acts as an independent agent doing what seems right in his own eyes, a theme of Judges. If he knew his purpose, he was complacent and never deliberately sought to do God’s business.

Samson’s eventual willingness to reveal the source of his strength to Delilah showed his complacency about his gift. He showed more concern about Delilah’s happiness than God’s purpose for him. Of course the source of his strength wasn’t the hair itself; it was God’s Spirit working through him as God’s chosen vessel, a Nazarite. But uncut hair was a condition of his being set apart for God’s work, as his mother was told.

Even Samson’s prayers weren’t about God’s work but were self-focused. The Bible records only two prayers. Let’s look at them.

The first is in Judges 15:18-19. The occasion followed his escape from the Philistines after he was handed over to them by the Judeans.

And he was very thirsty, and he called upon the Lord and said, “You have granted this great salvation by the hand of your servant, and shall I now die of thirst and fall into the hands of the uncircumcised?” And God split open the hollow place that is at Lehi, and water came out from it. And when he drank, his spirit returned, and he revived.

Clearly Samson recognized that God had given him the victory but he seemed to pray because of his own needs not to praise God. But graciously met his need.

Samson’s second prayer is Judges 16:28-30:

Then Samson called to the Lord and said, “O Lord God, please remember me and please strengthen me only this once, O God, that I may be avenged on the Philistines for my two eyes.” And Samson grasped the two middle pillars on which the house rested, and he leaned his weight against them, his right hand on the one and his left hand on the other. And Samson said, “Let me die with the Philistines.” Then he bowed with all his strength, and the house fell upon the lords and upon all the people who were in it. So the dead whom he killed at his death were more than those whom he had killed during his life.

Samson’s motive for this prayer was revenge, not fulfilling God’s calling on his life. Throughout Samson’s life, there’s no indication that he intentionally followed God’s purpose. He was apathetic about the things of God and instead focused on himself. God worked his purpose despite Samson’s ignorance, complacency and apathy. It’s amazing to read Samson’s name listed in Hebrews 12, the hall of faith. But his prayers were directed to Yahweh and he recognized that God was his strength. So despite his ignorance, complacency and apathy about God’s purposes and plans, he acted by faith.

And that’s encouraging to me as I think of how much I’m focused on me and not God. God is greater than we are. He isn’t limited by our ignorance, complacency, or apathy and uses us despite us. But how much more would God use us if we were knowledgable about his character, zealous to impact our spheres of influence, and engaged in his purpose and plans?

So that brings us to self-examination in light of what we’ve seen in Israel, Samson’s parents and Samson himself. Are we living in a spiritual fog because of our ignorance, complacency or apathy?

Question 1: Do you know your God-given gifts?

Samson did know, but do we?

Every person on earth is given natural gifts from birth—abilities that make us unique. Intellectual and physical abilities, and personalities. God has gifted us uniquely according to his purposes.

But when we follow Christ, we’re also given spiritual gifts purposed for the church and its growth, as Ephesians 4 tells us. Being unaware of them puts us in a spiritual fog because we’re designed to focus our service in the area of our giftedness where God’s Spirit works through us to a special degree.

I grew up in the church but had never heard of spiritual gifts until I was 31 and our Sunday school class studied 1 Corinthians. I can look back and see how I floundered serving God because I was ignorant. At one point I organized the young women’s group at my church to go to nursing homes to visit. But when I went myself, I had no clue how to help or encourage the woman I visited, so I felt like a failure. When I later learned about the gifts, I realized that I had used my gift of leadership to rally and organize the whole group of women. I just didn’t have the gift of mercy. God designed me to serve in a different way.

Question 2: Do you know God’s purposes/calling on your life?

All Christians have the same big purposes. We’re to love God with our entire being. Our greatest purpose is to walk with him. But we’re also called to love others as ourselves and live out our faith, telling and showing others who Jesus is and what he’s done for them.

But God has divided up his work and given each of us a particular calling that fits our gifting. I could use lots of you as examples. I think of Linda who has the gift of exhortation. Don’t you always feel encouraged and challenged when you’re around her? But Linda doesn’t just do that as she talks to friends, but she deliberately uses her gifts in our church and with refugees. I also think of Hendra who uses her gifts of helps and administration to work behind the scenes at this church in so many ways. She, like Linda, deliberately seeks roles where she can fulfill God’s purposes. Both women are building God’s kingdom but in different ways with unique gifts.

Question 3: Are you deliberately building up the church and the kingdom of God by using your gifts for his purpose?

The day will come when we stand before God and give an account of how we’ve used our gifts for his kingdom.

You can look it up later but in 2 Corinthians 5 Paul talks about the judgment seat of Christ where we receive what we’re due for what we’ve done on earth. In 1 Corinthians 3:10-15 he describes the kingdom work he’s done on earth as a teacher in Corinth. We’re only going to read vv. 12-15:

Now if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw— each one's work will become manifest, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work that anyone has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If anyone's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.

Paul uses the metaphor of a building for the church. But what I want us to see is that there is a day coming when the work we do, not the results which are God’s (that’s in v. 7), but the work itself will be judged. We aren’t talking about sins which are paid for, but our works. Paul pictures two kinds of works: the gold, silver and precious stone which last through fire and the wood, hay, and stubble which don’t. We can’t grow or make gold, silver and gemstones, but our own efforts are involved in wood, hay, and stubble. It seems that our rewards come when we’re dependent on God and use what he has given us in the way of spiritual gifts and not our own natural efforts or for our own purposes.

God will work among his people regardless, but only he knows what would have been if we had pursued wholeheartedly his purposes and calling. Let’s not be ignorant, complacent or apathetic about God’s purposes and gifts as Samson was.

Let’s push away the fog and begin living with understanding, a desire to affect our world or even one person for the better, and zeal for God’s kingdom.

Lecture 6 (Week 8): The Canaanite Within Us

Related Media

How many of you ever watched 24? Well, for those of you who don’t, the TV series revolves around a governmental agency known as CTU, which I think stands for the fictional Counter Terrorist Unit. Year after year the hero, Jack Bauer, has to use his brain and his brawn to defeat a terrorist plot, and amazingly it always takes 24 hours.

One season Jack was out to stop Middle-eastern terrorists from exploding a bomb in Manhattan. CTU was closing in on the bad guys; however, without realizing it, the CTU agents were being outwitted, not by the terrorists on the outside but by a double agent inside. Unless she’s uncovered, there’s little chance of reaching the bomb. And of course it takes 24 hours to uncover the mole and save Manhattan.

Judges 19-21 involved one disaster after the other, just like 24. And like the plot of 24, the problem wasn’t the enemy outside but the enemy within the people of Israel themselves. They had adopted the attitudes of the Canaanites, the views of the culture, and were being destroyed from within. 

Let’s quickly review where we are. Judges 1:1-3:6 was the double introduction, which pointed out that this era involved a number of cycles. Each cycle began with idolatry, followed by God’s response, enemy oppression. But each time Israel cried out in pain to God, he raised up a judge or deliverer to save them. The next division of the book tells the stories of the various judges and is followed by the double conclusion in chapters 17-21. The events in both conclusions actually occurred early in the period; they are flashbacks. The author, possibly Samuel, chose these stories to exemplify the religious and moral decay of this era.

You remember that God commanded Israel to destroy all the Canaanites when they entered their land under Joshua. But Israel didn’t obey; the first conclusion pictures the religious effects of that failure, idolatry. The second conclusion, our story this week, reveals the moral effects of the Canaanite influence.

The theme of the book of Judges is the repeated phrase—each person did what was right in his own eyes. The Canaanite thinking invaded their hearts and their lives; thus, the characters in today’s story did what was right in their own eyes, resulting in murder, kidnapping, rape, and civil war.

Our culture also approves of doing what is right in our own eyes; in fact, it sees no standard of right and wrong. What is right is what seems right. But usually I hear believers blame everything bad on those outside the church when the real problem often lies within. We believers, too, do what is right in our own eyes. Instead of being focused on politics or culture, blaming them for all that is wrong with our country and for the sin that pervades our society, we need to look at our own stuff and recognize that we are responsible as well. We have allowed the Canaanite within; we are our own worst enemies. The Canaanite in the land has become the Canaanite in the heart of God’s own people.

Look at Judges 19:1-3.

In those days Israel had no king. There was a Levite living temporarily in the remote region of the Ephraimite hill country. He acquired a concubine from Bethlehem in Judah. However, she got angry at him and went home to her father’s house in Bethlehem in Judah. When she had been there four months, her husband came after her, hoping he could convince her to return. He brought with him his servant and a pair of donkeys. When she brought him into her father’s house and the girl’s father saw him, he greeted him warmly.

Look at v. 2. If you have the King James, New King James, NIV, New American Standard, or New Living translations, they say the concubine was unfaithful or played the harlot against her husband. However, recent scholarship has revealed that the words here in the original text more likely mean that she got angry. The Levite’s own actions support that: he went after her to get her back and spoke tenderly to her. The Levite was the one acting like the guilty party.

This poor woman, already a second-class wife, was the victim of abusive men. You know what happened. After foolishly partying until late in the day with his father-in-law, the Levite insisted they set out for home, knowing they would be unable to make it before nightfall. They ended up in a town belonging to Benjamin.

Look at Judges 19:15:

“They stopped there and decided to spend the night in Gibeah. They came into the city and sat down in the town square, but no one invited them to spend the night.”

It would have been unthinkable in that culture for the Israelites to fail to take them in for the night; it was scandalous and unheard of.

What is the cultural thinking behind their refusal? (You may want to write down these marks of the Canaanite within.) The first one is I am not my brother’s keeper when it’s inconvenient or costly. Do we have this attitude? I don’t really want to be bothered with people who cost me time, effort, or money. What about you?

Back to the story, a fellow stranger in town did take them into his house, but the townsmen insisted that the host give them the Levite to rape.

Those of you who know the story of Sodom and Gomorrah probably had bells go off here, remembering the story in Gen. 19 when Lot took two angels into his house. In fact, it appears that the writer of Judges deliberately used many of the same Hebrew phrases and words to remind the reader of the previous story and emphasize the contrast. The bad guys in Sodom were unbelievers; the men of Gibeah were God’s people acting just like them. The Canaanite was within, living for their own sexual pleasure, the second mark in our story. Just as we see today, even in the church.

Well, in response to the men, the host offered them his own daughter and the concubine in an effort to protect the Levite. To his thinking—what was right in his own eyes was a principle: hospitality to a man overrode his responsibility to protect women, even his own daughter, who were mere chattel. Third, the Canaanite within sees some people as less valuable. In that day it was women and slaves. Today, it’s the unborn, the sick and aged, the physically or mentally challenged, the immigrant, the poor or the homeless. Too many believers set them and their concerns aside or put them far from their minds. Abuse of women is rampant even within the church. If you are being physically abused by someone, please talk to your leader. You are too valuable in the eyes of God to allow anyone to treat you as property!

So what did the Levite do about the men’s threats? He actually pushed his concubine out and shut the door.

We see his heartlessness in Judges 19:27-30:

When her master got up in the morning, opened the doors of the house, and went outside to start on his journey, there was the woman, his concubine, sprawled out on the doorstep of the house with her hands on the threshold. He said to her, “Get up, let’s leave!” But there was no response. He put her on the donkey and went home. When he got home, he took a knife, grabbed his concubine, and carved her up into twelve pieces. Then he sent the pieces throughout Israel. Everyone who saw the sight said, “Nothing like this has happened or been witnessed during the entire time since the Israelites left the land of Egypt! Take careful note of it! Discuss it and speak!”

Note a couple of things here: first, it says the master got up. His concubine spent the night being raped and abused so badly that she barely made it back to the steps of the home unable to open the door or knock while he slept totally unconcerned. In fact, he was headed home without her. When he did see her, he didn’t reach out for her in loving concern but told her to get herself up. 

Also, note that it never says she was dead. The issue is open as to whether she died from her injuries or whether he killed her himself when he cut her up into pieces. God doesn’t give us the answer, but the Levite was guilty either way.

Culturally, the Canaanite within says “me first,” the fourth mark. Our concern for others only goes so far. If it threatens me or if it’s too difficult, we feel no responsibility. The sacrificial love of Jesus is a cultural oddity in our day. Our relationships are in trouble as we think only of ourselves. “Me first” means that when our marriages become inconvenient or difficult, we can toss them aside just as the Levite did his concubine. What’s best for me takes precedence over what’s right: love, sacrificial giving, and serving others for God’s kingdom. If we truly lived out Jesus’ attitude of sacrificial love by putting others first at home and at work, the world would take such notice that they would come to Christ.

Well, the body parts brought eleven tribes together at Mizpah to investigate what was going on. Once they assembled, the tribal leaders made one foolish decision after another. First, they only heard the Levite’s version of the story. According to the Law, they were to hear two witnesses against someone. (And I am sure you noted that the Levite left out some important information about the crime when he failed to mention his own guilt in sending her out to protect himself.) After hearing the Levite, they asked the tribe of Benjamin to turn over the men of Gibeah to them to be punished for their sins.

But, the Benjamites decided to protect the guilty, so the other eleven tribes were forced to attack not only the men of Gibeah but the entire tribe of Benjamin. The fifth mark of the Canaanite within is minimizing sin and God’s holiness. God called Israel to judge and punish sin, and he gives us the same responsibility for the church. God’s hope is that the person caught in major sinful patterns will repent, but if not, we are to discipline.

Well, once the eleven tribes had won the battle, they didn’t let the stragglers go. Another bad decision! They chased them down; they destroyed their cities; they murdered them and their families; they almost annihilated them. Although they never eliminated the Canaanites as God had commanded, they almost destroyed an entire tribe of their own brothers. The sixth mark of the Canaanite within seeks revenge rather than restoration. Are there people you’ve not forgiven? Have you extended grace to those who’ve hurt you?

Finally, once the Israelites realized that only 600 men of Benjamin were alive, they made immoral decisions to rectify it. First, they murdered everyone in Jabesh-Gilead except the virgins and gave them to Benjamin; then, they gave the remaining men of Benjamin the okay to kidnap and rape unsuspecting young women. God’s people were so confused morally that they tried to bring justice to those guilty of rape and murder by murder, kidnapping, and rape themselves. The seventh mark of the Canaanite within is that the end justifies the means. Isn’t that common in our culture’s thinking? Whatever it takes to get ahead is okay. Whatever time for family and God I have to give up to get stuff I want or do what I want is acceptable. 

As we end the study of Judges, I hope we realize that we, too, live in darkness culturally. Our world is very similar to the world of that day; everyone does what is right in her own eyes rather than what’s right in God’s eyes. However, our biggest threat is failing to see the darkness within ourselves. The Canaanite within says we aren’t our brother’s keeper when it’s inconvenient or costly; the Canaanite within victimizes others; the Canaanite considers certain people as less valuable; the Canaanite within says “me first;” the Canaanite within minimizes sin and God’s holiness; the Canaanite within seeks revenge rather than restoration; and the Canaanite within believes that the end justifies the means.

We must seek out the Canaanite within ourselves or that spirit within us will send us in the wrong direction, just as the mole did in 24. Search out the Canaanite within, ladies. Confess and forsake any of those attitudes you find.  Rather than focus on the enemy outside, look for the problem within.

Judges has shown us that our God is gracious and forgiving. He will forgive you when you confess and forsake the Canaanite you within. Over and over we’ve seen God use weak, foolish, and sinful people. He’s the hero of the book, and he’s the hero of our lives when we follow him, turning from the darkness into the light.

Lecture 3 (Week 4): Handout

Related Media

Don’t Forget Who God Is: Judges 6-9

  1. When we trust _______________   _____________ and/or  _________________ to win our battles, we’ve forgotten that God is almighty.
  2. When we’re motivated by our own  _______________________, we’ve forgotten that God’s kingdom is preeminent.
  3. When we seek a _____________ or ________________, we’ve forgotten that our God exalts.
  4. When we make alliances with ___________________ ____________________ or _____________________, we’ve forgotten that God is a holy King.

Lecture 5 (Week 6): Handout

Related Media

Judges 13-16, The Spiritual Fog: Ignorance, Complacency, Apathy

Israel’s spiritual fog

  • Israel’s apathy about God’s purposes for Israel (Judges 13:1)
  • Samson’s parents’ Ignorance of God’s power (Judges 13:2-3)
  • His mother’s apathy about Samson’s purpose
  • His father’s ignorance about God’s character (Judges 13:15-20)
  • His mother’s ignorance about God’s pre-eminence (Judges 13:24)
  • The Judean’s ignorance about their real enemy (Judges 15:9-14)

But God in his mercy acted on their behalf.

Samson’s spiritual fog

  • Ignorance or apathy about his purpose
  • Complacency about his status as a Nazarite
  • Apathy about his gift (Judges 16:4-17)

But God in his mercy answered Samson’s prayers (Judges 15:18-20)

Questions to ponder

  • Do you know your God-given given gifts (Ephesians 4:11-16; Romans 12:3-8; 1 Corinthians 12-14; 1 Peter 4:10-11)?
  • Do you know God’s particular calling or purpose for your life?
  • Are you deliberately building up the church and the kingdom of God by using your gifts for his purposes? (2 Corinthians 5; 1 Corinthians 3:10-15)

Introduction

Article contributed by www.walvoord.com

Date And Authorship

The book of Daniel, according to its own testimony, is the record of the life and prophetic revelations given to Daniel, a captive Jew carried off to Babylon after the first conquest of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar in 605 b.c. The record of events extends to the third year of Cyrus, 536 B.C., and, accordingly, covers a span of about seventy years. Daniel himself may well have lived on to about 530 b.c, and the book of Daniel was probably completed in the last decade of his life.

Although Daniel does not speak of himself in the first person until chapter 7, there is little question that the book presents Daniel as its author. This is assumed in the latter portion of the book and mentioned especially in 12:4. The use of the first person with the name Daniel is found repeatedly in the last half of the book (7:2, 15, 28; 8:1,15, 27; 9:2, 22; 10:2, 7, 11, 12; 12:5). As most expositors, whether liberal or conservative, consider the book a unit, the claim of Daniel to have written this book is recognized even by those who reject it.1

Except for the attack of the pagan Porphyry (third century a.d.), no question was raised concerning the traditional sixth century b.c. date, the authorship of Daniel the prophet, or the genuineness of the book until the rise of higher criticism in the seventeenth century, more than two thousand years after the book was written. Important confirmation of the historicity of Daniel himself is found in three passages in Ezekiel (Eze 14:14, 20; 28:3), written after Daniel had assumed an important post in the king’s court at Babylon.2 Convincing also to conservative scholars is the reference to “Daniel the prophet” by Christ in the Olivet Discourse (Mt 24:15; Mk 13:14).

Higher critics normally question the traditional authorship and dates of books in both the Old and New Testaments, and therefore disallow the testimony of the book of Daniel itself, dispute the mention of Daniel by Ezekiel, and discount the support by Christ in the New Testament. But conservative scholars have given almost universal recognition to the book of Daniel as an authentic sixth century b.c. composition of Daniel, the captive of Nebuchadnezzar. Consideration of the arguments of higher critics is given in the later discussion of the genuineness of the book of Daniel, upon which the conservative opinion rests.

Place in the Scriptures

The book of Daniel, written last of all the major prophets, appears in this order among the major prophets in the English Bible. In the Hebrew Old Testament—divided into three divisions consisting of the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings, which is also called Kethubim (Hebrew) or Hagiographa (Greek)—Daniel is included in the third section, the Writings. In the Septuagint, Vulgate, and Luther, however, it is placed with the major prophets. Josephus also includes it in the second division of the Jewish canon, the Prophets, rather than in the Hagiographa. There is, therefore, general recognition of the prophetic character of the book.

Although the ministry of Daniel was prophetic, it was of different character than the other major prophets; and apparently for this reason, the Jews included Daniel in the Writings. As Robert Dick Wilson has pointed out, the reason for this was not that the Jews regarded Daniel as inferior nor because the prophetic section of the canon had already been closed, but as Wilson states, “It is more probable, that the book was placed in this part of the Heb Canon, because Daniel is not called a na„bhi„á (‘prophet’), but was rather a ho„zeh (‘seer’) and a ha„kha„m (‘wise man’). None but the works of the nebhi„áim were put in the second part of the Jewish Canon, the third being reserved for the heterogeneous works of seers, wisemen, and priests, or for those that do not mention the name or work of a prophet, or that are poetical in form.”3

J. B. Payne observes, “For though Christ spoke of Daniel’s function as prophetic (Matt. 24:15), his position was that of governmental official and inspired writer, rather than ministering prophet (cf. Acts 2:29-30).”4

In any case, the Jews did not regard the third division as less inspired, but only different in character. This is clearly demonstrated by the fact that they included in it such venerable writings as Job, Psalms and Proverbs, the historical books of 1 and 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther, along with others not considered either the Law or the Prophets. There is no hint anywhere in ancient literature that the Jews regarded Daniel as a pious forgery.

Purpose

In the dark hour of Israel’s captivity, with the tragic destruction of Jerusalem and its temple, there was need for a new testimony to the mighty and providential power of God. Such is afforded by the book of Daniel. It is obviously not the purpose of the book to give a detailed account of Daniel’s life, as important details such as his lineage, age, and death are not mentioned, and only scattered incidents in his long life are recounted. Little is said about the history of Israel or the lot of the Jewish captives in Babylon. The book of Daniel, like Esther, reveals God continuing to work in His people Israel even in the time of their chastening. In this framework the tremendous revelation concerning the times of the Gentiles and the program of God for Israel was unfolded. While it is doubtful whether these prophecies were sufficiently known in Daniel’s lifetime to be much of an encouragement to the captives themselves, the book of Daniel undoubtedly gave hope to the Jews who returned to restore the temple and the city, and it was particularly helpful during the Maccabean persecutions. It was clearly the purpose of God to give to Daniel a comprehensive revelation of His program culminating in the second advent. As such, its prophetic revelation is the key to understanding the Olivet Discourse (Mt 24-25) as well as the book of Revelation, which is to the New Testament what Daniel was to the Old.

Apocalyptical Character

The book of Daniel is rightly classified as an apocalyptic writing, because of its series of supernatural visions which by their character fulfilled what is intimated by the Greek word apokalypsis, which means unveiling of truth which would otherwise be concealed. Although apocalyptic works abound outside the Bible, relatively few are found in Scripture. In the New Testament only the book of Revelation can be classified as apocalyptic; but in the Old Testament, Ezekiel and Zechariah may be so classified in addition to Daniel.

Ralph Alexander has provided an accurate and comprehensive definition of apocalyptic literature in his study of this literary genre. He defines apocalyptic literature as follows: “Apocalyptic literature is symbolic visionary prophetic literature, composed during oppressive conditions, consisting of visions whose events are recorded exactly as they were seen by the author and explained through a divine interpreter, and whose theological content is primarily eschatological.”5 Alexander goes on to define the limits of apocalyptic literature, “On the basis of this definition, a corpus of apocalyptic literature was determined. The biblical and extrabiblical apocalyptic passages are shown to include the Apocalypse of the New Testament; Ezekiel 37:1-14, Ezekiel 40-48; Daniel’s visions in chapters 2, 7, 8, and 10-12; Zechariah 1:7-6:8; I Enoch 90; II Esdras; II Baruch; and A Description of New Jerusalem.”6

Apocalyptic books outside the Bible are included among the pseudepigrapha, many of which appeared about 250 b.c. and continued to be produced in the apostolic period and later. Many of these attempted to imitate the style of biblical apocalyptic books. Usually they developed the theme of deploring the contemporary situation but prophesying a glorious future of blessing for the saints and judgment on the wicked. The real author’s name is normally not given in apocalyptic works outside the Bible. Apocalyptic works rightly included in the Old Testament may be sharply contrasted to the pseudepigrapha because of the more restrained character of their revelation, identification of the author, and their contribution to biblical truth as a whole.

Apocalyptic works classified as the pseudepigrapha include such titles as Ascension of Isaiah; Assumption of Moses; Book of Enoch; Book of Jubilees; Greek Apocalypse of Baruch; Letters of Aristeas; III and IV Maccabees; Psalms of Solomon; Secrets of Enoch; Sibylline Oracles; Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch; Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs; Apocalypses of Adam, Elijah, and Zephaniah; and Testament of Abram, Isaac, and Jacob.

Although higher criticism, often opposed to supernatural revelation in symbolic form, tends to deprecate apocalyptic books in the Bible and equate them with the sometimes incoherent and extreme symbolism of the pseudepigrapha,7 there is really no justification for this. Even a casual reader can detect the difference in quality between scriptural and non-scriptural apocalyptic works. Frequently, the apocalypses of scriptural writings is attended by divine interpretation which provides the key to understanding the revelation intended. The fact that a book is apocalyptic does not necessarily mean that its revelation is obscure or uncertain, and conservative scholarship has recognized the legitimacy of apocalyptic revelation as a genuine means of divine communication. If close attention is given to the contextual interpretive revelation, apocalyptic books can yield solid results to the patient exegete.

Languages

An unusual feature of the book of Daniel is the fact that the central portion (2:4-7:28) is written in biblical Aramaic also called Chaldee (AV, “Syriack”). A similar use of Aramaic is found in Ezra 4:8-6:18; 7:12-26; Jer 10:11; and the two words of the compound name Jegar-Sahadutha in Genesis 31:47.8 The use of the Aramaic, which was the lingua franca of the period, was related to the fact that the material concerned the Gentile world rather than Israel directly. The fact that there are similar portions elsewhere in the Bible should make clear that there is nothing unusual or questionable about the Aramaic section in Daniel. As pointed out by Brownlee,9 the shifts from Hebrew to Aramaic and back again in Daniel are found in the scrolls of Daniel at Qumran, supporting the legitimacy of this feature of the Massoretic text commonly used in English translations.

The argument that the Aramaic of Daniel was western and not used in Babylon, as popularized by S. R. Driver,10 now has been clearly shown to be erroneous by later archeological evidence. As Martin observes, relative to Driver’s contention, “When he [Driver] wrote, the only material available was too late to be relevant. Subsequently, R. D. Wilson, making use of earlier materials that had come to light, was able to show that the distinction between Eastern and Western Aramaic did not exist in pre-Christian times. This has since been amply confirmed by H. H. Schaeder.”11

As Gleason L. Archer expresses the Aramaic problem, “The Jews apparently took no exception to the Aramaic sections in the book of Ezra, most of which consists in copies of correspondence carried on in Aramaic between the local governments of Palestine and the Persian imperial court from approximately 520 to 460 B.C. If Ezra can be accepted as an authentic document from the middle of the fifth century, when so many of its chapters were largely composed in Aramaic, it is hard to see why the six Aramaic chapters of Daniel must be dated two centuries later than that. It should be carefully observed that in the Babylon of the late sixth century, in which Daniel purportedly lived, the predominant language spoken by the heterogeneous population of this metropolis was Aramaic. It is therefore not surprising that an inhabitant of that city should have resorted to Aramaic in composing a portion of his memoirs.”12

Major Divisions and Unity

The traditional division of the book of Daniel into two halves (1-6; 7-12) has usually been justified on the basis that the first six chapters are historical and the last six chapters are apocalyptic or predictive. There is much to commend this division which often also regards chapter 1 as introductory.

As indicated in the exposition of chapter 7, an alternative approach, recognizing the Aramaic section as being significant, divides the book into three major divisions: (1) Introduction, Daniel 1; (2) The Times of the Gentiles, presented in Aramaic, Daniel 2-7; (3) Israel in Relation to the Gentiles, in Hebrew, Daniel 8-12. This view is advanced by Robert Culver following Carl A. Auberlen.13 Although this has not attracted the majority of conservative scholars, it has the advantage of distinguishing the program of God for the Gentiles and His program for Israel, with the break coming at the end of chapter 7. Robert Dick Wilson recognizes both principles of division.14

Although the principle of division may be debated, it is most significant that the great majority of interpreters, whether liberal or conservative, have agreed to the unity of the book. Some, beginning with Spinoza in the seventeenth century, had other views. Montgomery, for instance, offers a minority view, even among critics, that chapters 1-6 were written by an unknown writer in the third century b.c. and that chapters 7-12 were written in the Maccabean period, 168-165 b.c. It is significant that all who deny the unity of the book also deny its genuineness as a sixth century b.c. writing. Although the two halves of Daniel differ in character, there is obvious historical continuity which supports the unity of the book.15 The same Daniel who is introduced in chapter 1 is mentioned three times in chapter 12. The evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the unity of the book.

Apocryphal Additions

In the Greek version of Daniel, several additions are made to the book, which are not found in the Hebrew or Aramaic text as we now have it Included are The Prayer of Azarias, The Song of the Three Holy Children, Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon.

The Prayer of Azarias and The Song of the Three Holy Children contain the prayer and praise of Daniel’s three companions while in the fiery furnace in Daniel 3, with phrases from Psalm 148. Susanna is the story of a woman protected by Daniel, who obtains conviction of two judges guilty of attempting her seduction. These judges were executed according to Mosaic Law. Bel and the Dragon includes three stories in which Daniel destroys the image of Bel, kills the Dragon, and was fed by Habakkuk the prophet while living in the lions’ den for six days, an amplified account of Daniel 6. These stories have been rejected from the Scriptures as not properly in the book of Daniel.16

Genuineness

The genuineness of Daniel as a sixth century b.c. writing by the prophet Daniel does not seem to have been questioned in the ancient world until the third century a.d. At that time, Porphyry, a pagan neo-Platonist, attacked the book, asserting that it was a second century b.c. forgery. Porphyry’s fifteen books, Against the Christians, are known to us only through Jerome. Porphyry’s attack immediately aroused a defense of Daniel on the part of the early fathers.

Jerome (a.d. 347-420) in his introduction to his Commentary on Daniel summarized the situation at that time in these words,

Porphyry wrote his twelfth book against the prophecy of Daniel, (A) denying that it was composed by the person to whom it is ascribed in its title, but rather by some individual living in Judea at the time of Antiochus who was surnamed Epiphanes. He furthermore alleged that ‘Daniel’ did not foretell the future so much as he related the past, and lastly, that whatever he spoke of up till the time of Antiochus contained authentic history, whereas anything he may have conjectured beyond that point was false, inasmuch as he would not have foreknown the future. Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea, made a most able reply to these allegations in three volumes, that is, the eighteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth. Appollinarius did likewise in a single large book, namely his twenty-sixth. (B) Prior to these authors, Methodius made a partial reply.

“… I wish to stress in my preface this fact, that none of the prophets has so clearly spoken concerning Christ as has this prophet Daniel. For not only did he assert that he would come, a prediction common to the other prophets as well, but also he set forth the very time at which he would come. Moreover he went through the various kings in order, stated the actual number of years involved, and announced beforehand the clearest signs of events to come. And because Porphyry saw that all these things had been fulfilled and could not deny that they had taken place, he overcame this evidence of historical accuracy by taking refuge in this evasion, contending that whatever is foretold concerning Antichrist at the end of the world was actually fulfilled in the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes, because of certain similarities to things which took place at his time. But this very attack testifies to Daniel’s accuracy. For so striking was the reliability of what the prophet foretold, that he could not appear to unbelievers as a predictor of the future, but rather a narrator of things already past. And so wherever occasion arises in the course of explaining this volume, I shall attempt briefly to answer his malicious charge, and to controvert by simple explanation the philosophical skill, or rather the worldly malice, by which he strives to subvert the truth and by specious legerdemain to remove that which is so apparent to our eyes.17

This statement of Jerome may be taken as the attitude of the church consistently held until the rise of higher criticism in the seventeenth century. At that time, the suggestion of Porphyry began to be taken seriously and arguments were amassed in support of a second century date for Daniel. It should be noted at the outset (1) that the theory had an anti-Christian origination; (2) that no new facts had been determined to change the previous judgment of the church; (3) that the support of Porphyry by higher critics was a part of their overall approach to the Scriptures, which tended almost without exception to denial of traditional authorship, claimed that books frequently had several authors and went through many redactions, and—most important—included the almost universal denial by the higher critics of the traditional doctrine of biblical inerrancy and verbal, plenary inspiration. The attack on Daniel was part of an attack upon the entire Scriptures, using the historical-critical method.

The great volume of these objections, based for the most part on higher critical premises which in themselves are subject to question, involves so many details that an entire volume is necessary to answer them completely. At best, a summary of the problem and its solution can be considered here. Generally speaking, critical objections to particular texts have been treated in the exposition of Daniel where they occur in the text. A review, however, of major features of the critical attack on the genuineness of Daniel may be presented appropriately here.

Thomas S. Kepler has summarized critical objections under ten heads:

There are, however, a number of factors which make it difficult for this Daniel living at the time of Nebuchadrezzar to be the author of Daniel:
(1) About 200 b.c. the Prophets were added to the Law to compose the Jewish “Bible.” Yet Daniel is not among the Prophets, being added to the Sacred Writings about a.d. 90, when the Jewish “Bible” was completed.
(2) The book of Daniel is not mentioned in any Jewish literature until 140 b.c, when the Sibylline Oracles (3:397-400) refer to it. In Baruch 1:15-3:3 (written about 150 B.C.) there is a prayer similar to that in Daniel 9:4 ff. The book of Daniel is also alluded to in I Maccabees 2:59 ff. (written about 125 b.c). Daniel is referred to 164 times in I Maccabees, the Sibylline Oracles, and Enoch (written about 95 b.c). (3) Jesus Ben Sirach about 190 b.c, lists the great men of Jewish history (Ecclesi-asticus 44.1—50:24); but among these names that of Daniel is missing. (4) Words borrowed from the Babylonian, Persian, and Greek languages appear in Daniel. (5) Jeremiah is mentioned as a prophet (9:2) and his writings are referred to. (6) In Jeremiah’s time (also the period of Nebuchadrezzar) the Chaldeans are spoken of as a nation or people, referring to the Babylonians; but in the book of Daniel they are known as astrologers, magicians, diviners of truth. (7) The book of Daniel is written partly in Aramaic, a language popular among the Jews in the second century b.c, but not at the time of Nebuchadrezzar. (8) The author has an excellent view of history after the time of Alexander the Great, especially during the Maccabean struggles; but his history shows many inaccuracies during the Babylonian and Persian periods. (9) The theology regarding the resurrection of the dead and ideas about angels show that the author lived at a later time than that of Nebuchadrezzar. The same may be said in regard to his concern for diet, fasting, and ritualistic prayers. (10) The pattern and purpose of the book of Daniel as an apocalypse, which reinterprets history from the time of Nebuchadrezzar until the time of Judas Maccabeus and Antiochus IV, and written in 165 b.c, fits better into the scheme and purpose of Daniel than if the book were written in the period of Nebuchadrezzar, predicting history for the next 450 years.18

These critical objections, answered already in part and considered further in the exposition of the text of Daniel, may be grouped under six heads: (1) rejection of its canonicity; (2) rejection of detailed prophecy; (3) rejection of miracles; (4) textual problems; (5) problems of language; (6) alleged historical inaccuracies.

Rejection of canonicity. As previously explained under consideration of the place of Daniel in the Scriptures, the book is included in the Writings, the third section of the Old Testament, not in the prophetic section. Merrill Unger has defined the erroneous critical view of this as follows: “Daniel’s prophecy was placed among writings in the third section of the Hebrew canon and not among the prophets in the second division because it was not in existence when the canon of the prophets was closed, allegedly between 300-200 B.C.”19 As previously explained, Daniel was not included because his work was of a different character from that of the other prophets. Daniel was primarily a government official, and he was not commissioned to preach to the people and deliver an oral message from God as was, for instance, Isaiah or Jeremiah. It is questionable whether his writings were distributed in his lifetime. Further, the Writings were not so classified because they were late in date, inasmuch as they included such works as Job and 1 and 2 Chronicles, but the division was on the classification of the material in the volumes. Most important, the Writings were considered just as inspired and just as much the Word of God as the Law and the Prophets. This is brought out by the fact that Daniel is included in the Septuagint along with other inspired works, which would indicate that it was regarded as a genuine work of inspiration.

The denial that the book was in existence in the sixth century B.C. disregards the three citations referring to Daniel in Ezekiel (Eze 14:14, 20; 28:3), as well as all the evidence in the book of Daniel itself. Liberal critics tend to disregard the references to Daniel in Ezekiel. James Montgomery, for instance, states, “There is then no reference to our Daniel as an historic person in the Heb. O.T…”20 Montgomery holds that Ezekiel’s reference is to another character, whom he describes as “the name of an evidently traditional saint.”21

The “traditional saint” mentioned by Montgomery refers to a “Daniel” who apparently lived about 1400 b.c. In 1930, several years after Montgomery wrote his commentary, archeologists digging at ancient Ugarit (modern Ras Shamra) found some clay tablets detailing a legend of a Canaanite by name of Aqhat who was the father of a man called Daniel. In the tablet Daniel is portrayed as being a friend of widows and orphans, and as a man who was unusually wise and righteous in his judgments. This is the one who Montgomery asserts is referred to in Ezekiel 14:14, 20 as a worthy ancient character on the same plane as Noah and Job. Daniel, the son of Aqhat, however, was a Baal worshiper who prayed to Baal and partook of food in the house of Baal. He is pictured as worshiping his ancestral gods and offering oblations to idols. He was also guilty of cursing his enemies and living without a real hope in God.22 It is hard to imagine that Ezekiel, writing by inspiration, would hold up such a character as an example of a godly man. Such a judgment is hardly in keeping with the facts.23

If the Ezekiel references were insufficient, certainly the clear attestation of Christ to the genuineness of Daniel in Matthew 24:15 should be admitted as valid. As Boutnower expresses it,

Now, what is the witness of Christ respecting this Book of Daniel, for it is evident from His position as a teacher, His tastes, and the time at which He lived, that He must know the truth of the matter; whilst from His lofty morality we are sure that He will tell us the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? How does Christ treat this Book, of which the critics form so low an estimate, regarding it as a religious romance with a pseudonymous title, and its prophetic portion as a Jewish apocalypse, a vaticinium post eventum? The answer is that this is the Book which Christ specially delights to honour. To Him its title is no pseudonym, but the name of a real person, “Daniel the prophet”— “the prophet” in the sense of one inspired of God to foretell the future, “what shall come to pass hereafter.” Our Saviour in His own great Advent prophecy—Matt. 24—uttered on the eve of His death, quotes this Book of Daniel no less than three times [Matt. 24:15, 21; cp. Dan. 12:1; Matt. 24:30; cp. Dan 7:13].24

The recent discoveries at Qumran have given impetus to the trend to reconsider late dating of such books as the Psalms and 1 and 2 Chronicles. Brownlee on the basis of recent discoveries indicates that the Maccabean authorship of the Psalms can no longer be held. He states, “If this is true, it would seem that we should abandon the idea of any of the canonical Psalms being of Maccabean date.”25 Myers gives ample evidence that the Maccabean dating of 1 and 2 Chronicles (after 333 b.c. ) is no longer tenable since the publication of the Elephantine materials. He concludes that 1 and 2 Chronicles now must be considered written in the Persian period (538-333 b.c.).26

This trend toward recognition of earlier authorship of these portions of the Old Testament point also to the inconsistency of maintaining a late date for Daniel. If, on the basis of the scrolls recently discovered, Psalms and Chronicles can no longer be held to be Maccabean, then Daniel, on the same kind of evidence, also demands recognition as a production of the Persian period and earlier. Raymond K. Harrison has come to this conclusion when he states, “While, at the time of writing, the Daniel manuscripts from Qumran have yet to be published and evaluated, it appears presumptuous, even in the light of present knowledge, for scholars to abandon the Maccabean dating of certain allegedly late Psalms and yet maintain it with undiminished fervor in the case of Daniel when the grounds for such modification are the same.”27 Harrison points out that the Qumran manuscripts of Daniel are all copies; and if the Qumran sect was actually Maccabean in origin itself, it would necessarily imply that the original copy of Daniel must have been at least a half century earlier, which would place it before the time of the alleged Maccabean authorship of Daniel. The principles adopted by critics in evaluating other manuscripts and assigning them to a much earlier period than had been formerly accepted, if applied to Daniel, would make impossible the liberal critical position that Daniel is a second century B.C. work. Strangely, liberal critics have been slow to publish and comment upon the Qumran fragments of Daniel which seem to indicate a pre-Maccabean authorship. The facts as they are now before the investigator tend to destroy the arguments of the liberals for a late date for Daniel. The evidence against the canonicity of Daniel is without support. Besides, it is highly questionable whether the Jews living in the Maccabean period would have accepted Daniel if it had not had a previous history of canonicity.

Rejection of detailed prophecy. In the original objection of Porphyry to Daniel, the premise was taken that prophecy is impossible. This, of course, is based on a rejection of theism in general, a denial of the doctrine of supernatural revelation as is ordinarily assumed in the Scriptures by conservative scholars, and a disregard of the omniscience of God which includes foreknowledge of all future events. The defense of the possibility of prophecy should be unnecessary in treating the Scriptures inasmuch as it is related to the total apology for the Christian faith.

A more particular attack, however, is made on the book of Daniel on the ground that it is apocalyptic and therefore unworthy of serious study as prophecy. That there are many spurious apocalyptic works both in the Old Testament period and in the Christian era can be readily granted. The existence of the spurious is not a valid argument against the possibility of genuine apocalyptic revelation anymore than a counterfeit dollar bill is proof that there is no genuine dollar bill. If Daniel were the only apocalyptic work in the entire Scriptures, the argument could be taken more seriously; but the other apocalyptic sections of the Old Testament and the crowning prophetic work of the New Testament, the book of Revelation, have usually been considered adequate evidence that the apocalyptic method is sometimes used by God to reveal prophetic truth.

Further, it should be observed in the book of Daniel that the apocalyptic is not left to human interpretation, but along with the revelation is given divine interpretation which delivers the biblical apocalyptic from the vague, obscure, and subjective interpretations often necessary in spurious works. Actually, the problem in Daniel is not that the apocalyptic sections are obscure, but critics object to the clear prophetic truth which is therein presented.

The argument sometimes advanced, that apocalyptic writings had not yet begun in Daniel’s time in the sixth century B.C., is of course answered by the contemporary work of Ezekiel and the essential weakness of such an argument from silence. Actually, apocalyptic writings extended over a long period. Conservative scholarship, accordingly, while admitting the apocalyptic character of the book of Daniel, rejects this as a valid ground for questioning the sixth century authorship and therefore the genuineness of the book.

Rejection of miracles. If the book of Daniel is to be considered spurious on the ground that it presents miracles, it would follow that most of the Scriptures would also be eliminated as valid inspired writings. The objection to miracles reveals the essentially naturalistic point of view of some of the critics. Daniel’s miracles are no more unusual than some of those attributed to Christ in the gospels or to Moses and Aaron in the Pentateuch. Aside from the supernatural as related to revelation in the Bible, the deliverance of Daniel’s three companions in Daniel 3 and of Daniel himself in Daniel 6 is no more unusual than Christ passing through the mob that was threatening to throw Him over a cliff (Lk 4:29-30) or Peter’s deliverance from prison (Ac 12:5-11). In the biblical context, the rejection of a book because of miraculous incidents must be judged invalid.

Textual problems. Critics have raised textual problems almost without number in relation to the book of Daniel; but they have also contradicted each other, testifying to the subjective character of these criticisms. Critics have especially concentrated on the Aramaic portions, alleging many redactions and various degrees of tampering with the text; but there is wide divergence in their findings. The idea that Daniel himself may have originally written this section in either Hebrew or Babylonian and then changed it to the lingua franca of the time is not necessarily a reflection upon the inspiration of the final form which now appears in the book of Daniel.

Robert Dick Wilson, probably the outstanding authority on ancient languages of the Middle East, summarized his findings in these words,

We claim, however, that the composite Aram, of Dnl agrees in almost every particular of orthography, etymology and syntax, with the Aram, of the North Sem inscriptions of the 9th, 8th and 7th cents. BC and of the Egyp papyri of the 5th cent. BC, and that the vocabulary of Dnl has an admixture of Heb, Bab and Pers words similar to that of the papyri of the 5th cent. BC; whereas, it differs in composition from the Aram, of the Nabateans, which is devoid of Pers, Heb, and Bab words, and is full of Arabisms, and also from that of the Palmyrenes, which is full of Gr words, while having but one or two Pers words, and no Heb or Bab.28

Wilson finds the textual problems are no different from that of other books whose genuineness has not been assailed. While problems of text continue in the book of Daniel as in many other books in the Old Testament, these problems in themselves are not sufficiently supported by factual evidence to justify disbelief in the present text of Daniel. As in many other arguments against Daniel, the presuppositions of the higher critics which lead to these arguments are in themselves suspect; and the widespread disagreement among the critics themselves as to the nature and extent of the textual problem tends to support the conclusion that they are invalid.

Problems of language. Critics have objected to the presence of various Greek and Persian words in the book of Daniel as if this proved a late date. As brought out in the exposition of Daniel 3 where a number of these Persian and Greek words are found, in the light of recent archeological discoveries this objection is no longer valid. It has now been proved that one hundred years before Daniel Greek mercenaries served in the Assyrian armies under the command of Esarhaddon (683 B.C.) as well as in the Babylonian army of Nebuchadnezzar.29 As Robert Dick Wilson has noted, if Daniel had been written in the second century, there would have been far more Greek words rather than the few that occur.30 Yamauchi has also demonstrated that the critical objections to Greek words in Daniel are without foundation.31

The use of Persian words is certainly not strange in view of the fact that Daniel himself lived in the early years of the Persian empire and served as one of its principal officials. He naturally would use contemporary Persian description of various officials in chapter 3 in an effort to update the understanding of these offices for those living after the Persian conquest of Babylon in 539 b.c. It must be concluded that objections to the book of Daniel as a sixth century writing on the basis of Greek and Persian words is without reasonable scholarly support and increasingly becomes an untenable position in the light of archeological evidence.

Alleged historical inaccuracies. These supposed inaccuracies of the book of Daniel have been treated in the exposition where it has been demonstrated that there is no factual manuscript discovery which reasonably can be construed as questioning the historical accuracy of Daniel’s statements. On the other hand, it would be most unusual for a writer in the second century b.c. to have had the intimate knowledge of Babylonian history presented in the book of Daniel in view of the probability that the texts and other materials now in our possession may not have been available at that time.

Adequate answers to critical objections to the dating involved in Daniel 1:1 are treated in the exposition of the verse.

The difficulty of identifying Belshazzar (chap. 5), the source of much critical objection to the accuracy of Daniel on the ground that his name did not occur in ancient literature, has been remedied by precise information provided in the Nabonidus Chronicle.

While questions may continue to be raised concerning the identity of Darius the Mede (also considered in the exposition) the argument on the part of the critics is entirely from silence. Nothing in history has been found to contradict the conclusion that Darius is either another term for Cyrus himself or, preferably, an appointee of Cyrus who was of Median race and therefore called “the Mede.” As there are several plausible solutions to the identity of Darius the Mede, there is no legitimate ground for the objections to Daniel’s statements because of lack of support in ancient literature. Obviously, there are hundreds of facts in the Bible of historical nature which cannot be completely supported, and the Bible itself must be taken as a legitimate ancient manuscript whose testimony should stand until well-established facts raise questions.

On the basis of the critical idea that Daniel was written in the second century B.C., it is alleged that the “prophecies” relative to the Medo-Persian Empire and the Grecian Empire are often inaccurate. Particularly the claim is made that Daniel teaches a separate Median kingdom as preceding the Persian kingdom, which is historically inaccurate. The problem here is that the critics in the first place are seemingly willfully twisting Daniel’s statement to teach what he does not teach, namely, a separate Median empire. Second, the alleged discrepancy between the prophecy and its fulfillment is in the minds of the critics. Conservative scholars have no difficulty in finding accurate historical fulfillment of genuine prophecies made by Daniel in the sixth century B.C. Here the critics are guilty of circular argument, based on a false premise which leads to questionable conclusions. The larger problem of the interpretation of Daniel’s prophecy does not in itself invalidate the genuineness of the book unless it can be demonstrated that the prophecy itself is inaccurate. Up to the present, the critics have not been able to prove this.

Taken as a whole, the major objections of critics against the book of Daniel, as well as many minor questions commonly raised, are of the same kind as those hurled against Scripture as a whole and against the doctrine of supernatural revelation. Often the objections are products of the critics’ own theory in which they criticize Daniel for not corresponding to their idea of second century authorship. Prominent in the situation is the argument from silence in which they assume that Daniel is guilty of error until proved otherwise.

The broad historical questions raised in the study of Daniel have been answered by Robert Dick Wilson, who has demonstrated that the critics have not made an adequate case for their theories or their conclusions.32 Wilson shows that our problem is not with facts, as no facts have been discovered which contradict Daniel, but with theories too often supported by circular argument. To date, the critical arguments have not been confirmed by fact and must be accepted by faith. For the conservative expositor, it is far more preferable to accept the book of Daniel by faith in view of its confirmation by Christ Himself in Matthew 24:15.

Interpretation

Problems of interpretation in the book of Daniel have naturally been considered in the exposition of the text. If the premise be granted that the book of Daniel is genuine Scripture and that detailed prediction of the future as in Daniel may be admitted as genuine, the problems of interpretation are then reduced to determining what the text actually says.

The interpretation of apocalyptic literature such as the visions of Daniel requires special skills and close attention to hermeneutics as it applies to such revelation. Alexander, for instance, in his illuminating study of this problem, offers twenty-three rules to be used in the interpretation of Old Testament apocalyptic literature.33 In general, however, the meaning of the text can be ascertained, especially with the help of fulfillment in history which is now available to the expositor.

Historical records have been kind to Daniel in providing such adequate proofs of the fulfillment of his prophecy as to induce the critics to want to place its writing after the event. As pointed out in the exposition, the book of Daniel supports the interpretation that Daniel is presenting truth relative to the four great world empires beginning with Babylon, with the fourth empire definitely prophetic even from a second century point of view. The interpretation of chapter 2 is confirmed by chapter 7, which has special revelation concerning the fourth empire in its yet future stage, and by the considerable detail added in chapter 8 on the Medo-Persian and Grecian Empires. Most, if not all, of chapter 8 was fulfilled in history in the five hundred years from the death of Daniel to the formal beginning of the Roman Empire in 27 B.C.

The concentrated prophecy of Daniel 11:36-12:13 is properly regarded as a detailed discussion of “the time of the end,” the period immediately preceding the second advent of Christ. Chapter 9:24-27, giving the broad view of Israel’s history, may be considered fulfilled from the viewpoint of the twentieth century with the exception of Daniel 9:27, another prophecy of the role of Israel in the years immediately preceding the second advent.

Taken as a whole, the interpretation of Daniel provides a broad outline of the program of God for the Gentiles from Daniel to the second coming of Christ and the program for Israel for the same period with Daniel 9:24 beginning in Nehemiah’s time. The support of these interpretations as opposed to contrary views has been presented in the exposition.

Theology

In its broad revelation, the book of Daniel provides the same view of God that appears elsewhere in the Old Testament, namely, a God who is sovereign, loving, omnipotent, omniscient, righteous, and merciful. He is the God of Israel, but He is also the God of the Gentiles. Both of these theses are amply sustained in the content of the book.

Although Daniel does not concern himself primarily with Messianic prophecy, the first coming of Christ is anticipated in Daniel 9:26, including His death on the cross and the later destruction of Jerusalem. The second advent of Christ is given more particular revelation in chapters 7 and 12.

The doctrine of angels is prominent in the book of Daniel with Gabriel and Michael named and active in the events of the book. In this, Daniel is an advance on the Old Testament doctrine, but the liberal criticism that Daniel borrowed from Babylonian and Persian sources is unjustified and is not supported by the text.34

In his doctrine of man, Daniel fully bears witness to the depravity of man, to God’s righteous judgment upon him, and the possibility of mercy and grace, as illustrated in chapter 4 in the conversion of Nebuchadnezzar.

Daniel’s clear testimony to the subject of resurrection in chapter 12 has been contradicted by critics as being out of keeping with his times, as being borrowed from pagan sources, and as being unnoticed by the Minor Prophets who followed him. All of these allegations are without adequate foundation. The doctrine of resurrection is brought out clearly in Job 19:25-26 as normally interpreted. The resurrection of Israel is mentioned in Isaiah 26:19. Ezekiel’s vision of the valley of dry bones (chap. 37), while referring to the restoration of Israel nationally, requires the individual resurrection of Israel to accomplish its purpose. Also embedded in the Old Testament are references to the Book of Life or the Book of Remembrance which is related to resurrection as early as Exodus 32:32-33. The Old Testament doctrine of Messiah carries with it a doctrine of resurrection; and this theme begins, of course, in Genesis 3:15. On the other hand apocryphal books rarely mention the resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked; Archer finds mention only in the Book of the Twelve Patriarchs. Further, as Archer points out, the doctrine of the last judgment which implies resurrection is a frequent theme of prophecy, including minor prophets such as Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, as well as in many of the Psalms. Accordingly, the objection of Montgomery and other critics that Daniel’s doctrine of resurrection was un-suited for sixth century B.C., was borrowed from pagan sources, or was unnoticed by the Minor Prophets who wrote after Daniel, is completely without adequate support and is contradicted by the facts of Scripture.35 There is no good reason why God could not reveal these truths to Daniel in the sixth century B.C. Of interest is Daniel’s faith that he would be resurrected “at the end of the days,” that is, at the second advent of Christ (Dan 12:13).

Daniel’s contribution to eschatology is evident with his main theme being the course of history and Israel’s relation to it, culminating in the second advent of Christ. On the whole, Daniel makes a tremendous contribution to theology in keeping with the general revelation of Scripture, but constituting a distinct advance in Old Testament revelation.

Conclusion

In many respects, the book of Daniel is the most comprehensive prophetic revelation of the Old Testament, giving the only total view of world history from Babylon to the second advent of Christ and interrelating Gentile history and prophecy with that which concerns Israel. Daniel provides the key to the overall interpretation of prophecy, is a major element in premillennialism, and is essential to the interpretation of the book of Revelation. Its revelation of the sovereignty and power of God has brought assurance to Jew and Gentile alike that God will fulfill His sovereign purposes in time and eternity.

1 Cf. H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Daniel, p. 8.

2 Cf. ibid., pp. 5-7.

3 Robert Dick Wilson, “Book of Daniel,” ISBE 2:783.

4 J. Barton Payne, “Book of Daniel,” Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary, p. 198.

5 Ralph Alexander, Abstract of “Hermeneutics of Old Testament Apocalyptic Literature,” doctor’s dissertation, p. 1.

6 Ibid.

7 Cf. H. H. Rowley, The Relevance of the Apocalyptic, pp. 29-55; and Stanley B. Frost, Old Testament Apocalyptic, pp. 178-209.

8 Cf. W. J. Martin, “Language of the Old Testament,” The New Bible Dictionary, pp. 712-13.

9 William H. Brownlee, The Meaning of the Qumran Scrolls for the Bible, p. 36.

10 S. R. Driver, The Book of Daniel, pp. 59-60.

11 Martin, p. 712; cf. Wilson, 2:784.

12 Gleason L. Archer, Jr., A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, pp. 377-78.

13 Cf. Robert D. Culver, Daniel and the Latter Days, pp. 95-104; and Carl August Auberlen, The Prophecies of Daniel and the Revelations of St. John, pp. 27-31.

14 Wilson, 2: 783-84.

15 Cf. ibid., p. 784.

16 Cf. ibid., p. 787.

17 Jerome, Commentary on Daniel, pp. 15-16.

18 Thomas S. Kepler, Dreams of the Future, pp. 32-33.

19 Merrill F. Unger, Unger’s Bible Dictionary, p. 238.

20 James A. Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel, p. 3.

21 Ibid., p. 2.

22 James B. Pritchard, ed., Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, pp. 149-55.

23 Cf. W. A. Criswell, Expository Sermons on the Book of Daniel, 1: 54.

24 Charles Boutflower, In and Around the Book of Daniel, pp. 287-88.

25 Brownlee, p. 30.

26 Jacob M. Myers, The Anchor Bible, 1 Chronicles, pp. LXXXVII ff.

27 Raymond K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament, p. 1118.

28 Wilson, 2:785.

29 Leupold, p. 143.

30 Robert Dick Wilson, “The Aramaic of Daniel,” in Biblical and Theological Studies, p. 296.

31 Edwin M. Yamauchi, Greece and Babylon, pp. 17-24.

32 Robert Dick Wilson, Studies in the Book of Daniel, 402 pp.

33 Alexander, abs. p. 2.

34 Cf. Rowley, pp. 56-57.

35 R. D. Wilson shows that the Egyptians believed in resurrection more than 3000 years before Daniel and that Babylonians also commonly believed in a doctrine of resurrection (Wilson, Studies, pp. 124-27).

Cf. Montgomery, pp. 84 ff.; and Archer, pp. 380-81.

1. Introduction to Proverbs

Introduction

The Book of Proverbs is a delight to ponder, yet it is extremely difficult to preach. You may very well wonder why, in the light of this, I would choose to make Proverbs the topic of study for a number of weeks. The purpose of this message, in part, is to answer that question. I want to suggest some of the contributions the Book of Proverbs can make to your spiritual life. In addition to answering the question, “Why study Proverbs?,” I also want to lay the groundwork for our study by looking at the unique literary form of the Book of Proverbs. Allow me to briefly describe some of the ways we can benefit from a study of Proverbs.

1. PROVERBS IS A BOOK THAT IS CONCERNED WITH THE DEVELOPMENT AND ASSESSMENT OF GODLY CHARACTER. I have just finished a series on the book of 1 Corinthians. In my study of chapter 13 of that epistle I was deeply impressed with the importance of godly character (namely, love). If I understand that passage correctly, character is more important that charisma. The Bible also teaches that a man is measured more by his character than by his creed (cf. I Tim. 3). A godly man is not merely one who professes to believe certain truths, but one who practices them (James 2:14-26). No book in all the Bible is more devoted to the development of godly character than Proverbs. And there is no greater need in the Christian community today than for the kind of character Proverbs extols.

Alexander Solzhenitsyn delivered a commencement address to the graduating class of Harvard University in June 1978. This man, an exile from Russia, did not dwell on the evils of Communism, but rather drew attention to the failures of the West, failures which may signal the demise of the greatest democracy history has ever known. While I would recommend that you read the entire speech, I believe the substance of his message could be summarized by this statement: America is slowly destroying itself by its neglect of godly wisdom and Christian character. Proverbs promises both to those who will diligently seek them (cf. Prov. 1:1-6; 2:lff).1

Every Christian needs to become a student of character. Let me mention just a few of the reasons why we need to discern character. First, the highest goal of the Christian is to become like Christ (Rom. 8:29 Eph. 4:13). While there are other dimensions of Christlikeness, the most essential is that we be like Him in character. The study of character in Proverbs should instruct the Christian regarding personal and practical holiness. Second, we need to be able to discern the character of others. This is especially important in biblical counseling. In Proverbs we are told, “Answer a fool as his folly deserves, Lest he be wise in his own eyes” (26:5).

If we are to counsel others, we must be able to discern their character because a wise man is counseled differently than a fool. Parents need to be able to recognize the character traits of their children if they are to train up their children “according to their way” (22:6).2 A child who has disobeyed because he did not listen carefully to instructions should be disciplined differently from a child who understood directions perfectly, but willfully did what he wanted.

The ability to discern the character of others is essential if we are to give heed to the teaching of Proverbs about our friends and associations. Those who are wicked and violent should be avoided (1:8-19). Those who are dishonest should not be our partners (29:24). Tale-bearers are not good friends (17:9). True friends are faithful (17:17), yet they won’t fail to rebuke you when it is necessary (27:5-6).

Especially important is one’s choice of a life’s mate. There is no more important qualification for marriage than the evidence of godly character. Thus is the virtuous woman of Proverbs 31:10-31 described. An unloved woman will only bring grief to the one she marries (30:23), while a nagging wife is no better (21:9,19). If we are not to associate with a person who cannot control his temper (22:24-25), certainly we should not marry him either. Many battered wives could say “Amen” to this wisdom.

2. PROVERBS DOES AWAY WITH THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE SACRED AND THE SECULAR.3 Fallen man will always seek to establish a dichotomy between the sacred and the secular, between religious ceremony and practical righteousness. The Old Testament prophets frequently addressed this misconception by warning Israel that religious ritual had no value when divorced from righteous living, such as caring for the poor and oppressed (cf. Isa. 1:10-17; Jer. 20-29). Jesus, likewise, addressed this kind of dualism (cf. Matt. 23:23-24). Later, James had a similar word on this subject (cf. James 1:21-27).

The Book of Proverbs will not allow Christians to linger in the land of the theoretical. We love to keep Christianity on an abstract level, rather than on an applicational one. Our greatest failing as Christians is not that we know too little (while this is often regrettably true), but that we fail to do what we know we should. The emphasis of Proverbs is both on the acquisition of wisdom and the application of it. Seldom do we find ourselves “in church” in this book, but rather in the home, on the job, and dealing with the mundane matters of daily living.

Proverbs forces the reader to translate principles into practice. Often, it was the prophets who proclaimed the principles which Proverbs specifically related to life. For example, Amos wrote: “But let justice roll down like waters, And righteousness like an everflowing stream” (Amos 5:24).

Proverbs instructs us in more specific terms: “Diverse weights and diverse measures, are both alike abominations to the Lord” (Prov. 20:10). The Book of Proverbs commands the butcher to be righteous by taking his thumb off the scales.

3. PROVERBS OFFERS TO TEACH US TO BE WISE. Wisdom is repeatedly personified as a woman crying out to mankind in the marketplace, offering to instruct all so that they may obtain wisdom (cf. 1:20ff.; 8:lff.). Within our generation there has been a virtual explosion of knowledge. Much of this has come in the form of technological advances. While knowledge is increasing rapidly, wisdom is seemingly more and more rare.

The implications of this trend are frightening. We now have the capability of reaching the moon and splitting the atom. Yet without wisdom men will too often utilize knowledge for the purpose of accomplishing evil, rather than doing good. Let me give you an illustration. Through a procedure known as amniocentesis, medical science has made it possible to determine the sex of a fetus while yet in the womb. By withdrawing a small amount of amniotic fluid from the womb of an expectant mother, a doctor cannot only detect the presence of over 70 genetic diseases, but also the sex of the unborn infant. I read of one couple who asked the doctor to perform such a procedure and informed them that their baby was normal. Learning that the sex of their healthy unborn child was not what they desired, they insisted on an abortion, for this reason alone. The technology (knowledge) was not wrong, but it was misused due to a lack of wisdom and character. Proverbs is more interested in making men wise than in making them smart.

Biblical wisdom has several facets. While we will devote much of our attention to these facets in future studies, let me summarize the primary characteristics of the wisdom which Proverbs offers. Wisdom has an intellectual dimension. Wisdom is a keenness of mind which enables us to assimilate and appraise information and to formulate a plan of action. Scott says, “The primary meaning of Hokmah is ‘superior mental ability or special skill’. . . ”4 It is important to differentiate between wisdom and intelligence, however. Many who are intellectually brilliant are biblically “fools.” Those whose I.Q. fails to rise above average are not, by this fact alone, excluded from the possibility of being biblically wise. In the first chapter of Proverbs wisdom is described as the ability to know (v. 2), to learn (vv. 2-4) and to understand (v. 6).

Wisdom is also described as the ability to discern (Prov. 1:2; cf. v. 4, “discretion,” which is from the same root). Wisdom has a moral, as well as a mental, dimension. Wisdom discerns truth from error, good from evil, best from good. Wisdom results in righteousness, justice, and equity (1:3). Since wisdom begins with the “fear of the Lord” (1:7), knowing good and doing it results from knowing God (cf. 22:17-21).

Wisdom is also a practical skillfulness, the ability to do things well. Bezalel, whose task was to design and create the stone and metal for the tabernacle, was “filled with the Spirit and wisdom” (Ex. 35:31) to enable him to accomplish this task. Likewise Oholiab, was skillful at engraving and designing embroidery (Ex. 35:34-35). In Psalm 107:27 the special skills of seamanship seem to be referred to by this same term (Hokmah). Thus wisdom is not just a mental ability or a moral sensitivity, but a practical ability to accomplish a variety of tasks.

Wisdom is also personified in Proverbs. In chapter 7 wisdom is likened to a woman who calls forth to men to fear the Lord, hate evil, and diligently seek her. This is in contrast, I believe, to the adulteress of chapter 7, who by her flattery and seductive ways, seeks to lure the simple to do evil. In chapter 8 wisdom is again personified as being with God at the creation of the world (vv. 22-31). I believe it is safe to say that this implies that ultimately wisdom is the person of our Lord Jesus Christ, so that we cannot possess wisdom without first bowing before Him as Savior and Lord.

4. PROVERBS TEACHES US THAT WHAT IS GOOD IS ALSO WHAT IS RIGHT. In his book, Situation Ethics, Joseph Fletcher refers to an incident in the book, The Rainmaker, by M. Richard Nash. The Rainmaker comes to bring rain to desperate farmers, whose crops and herds are dying. While staying at a particular ranch, the Rainmaker met the proverbial farmer’s daughter. This woman was lonely and desperate, and doubted her femininity. Feeling sorry for her, the Rainmaker made love to her, to reassure her. When her brother discovered what had happened to her, he drew his pistol and was about to shoot the Rainmaker. Her father, however, whom Fletcher referred to as a “wise old rancher,” grabbed the pistol from the brother with the rebuke, “Noah, you’re so full of what’s right you can’t see what’s good.”5

Situationalists would have us distinguish between what is right and what is good. Many Freudian psychiatrists would go so far as to say that what is good (i.e., Christian morality and biblical standards) is really evil, something to be overcome, a kind of Victorian hang-over. The underlying premise on which the Book of Proverbs is based is that what is right is also what is good. While there is no guarantee that doing the right thing will always produce a fairy-tale happy ending, doing what is right is always advocated as the best course of action. There is no mere pragmatism in Proverbs.

I know some Christians who think of Proverbs as a sanctified version of How to Win Friends and Influence People. I think they are wrong. While it is true that Proverbs teaches us how to be happy and prosperous, this is not the primary aim of the book. More than anything we are encouraged by Proverbs to be godly and righteous in our conduct. Those who pursue happiness as their goal in life will not find it, but those who seek holiness will find happiness as a pleasant by-product. Proverbs never promises that everyone who works hard will get rich or that honesty always is more profitable than crime. As a rule, this is the case, but there are many exceptions. If I live life wisely, I will not suffer the consequences of folly. If I stay within the speed limit, I will not suffer by paying speeding tickets. If I don’t rob others, I won’t have to worry about going to jail for robbery. But Proverbs hints at what other Scriptures tell us clearly--the righteous will sometimes suffer because they are righteous (cf. II Tim. 3:12).

5. PROVERBS HELPS US TO LOOK AT LIFE REALISTICALLY. In Proverbs ignorance is not bliss and naivet is more a vice than a virtue. While simplicity is not necessarily sin, it can easily lead to it. Our Lord instructed His disciples to be “wise as serpents and harmless as doves,” (Matt. 10:16). Unlike Satan, who invited Eve to attain a “higher” knowledge of good and evil by disobeying God and experiencing sin (Gen. 3:5), Proverbs would instruct us about evil so that we might not fall into temptation (cf. Prov. 7:6ff).

God does not want Christians to look at the world through rose colored glasses. We are to see men as they are, and sin for what it is. Consequently, Proverbs describes life as it is, not necessarily as it should be. While it is wrong to attempt to pervert justice with a bribe (17:23; 29:4), in the world it is often a bribe that gets things accomplished (17:8). Those who have had military experience know this as the “whiskey and cigarette system.” While riches cannot provide a man with real security (11:4,28), some may think so (18:11). Money appears to gain friends (19:4, 6), but only for as long as it lasts (19:7). We can live wisely and righteously only as we view life as it really is. Proverbs is a book of reality.

6. PROVERBS IS AS CONCERNED WITH THE PROCESS OF RIGHT THINKING AS WITH THE PRODUCT OF IT. Christianity is a faith which is based on propositional revelation. While it is important to study the Bible to know what to think, it is just as vital that Christians learn how to think. Most of the Bible was written to convey propositional revelation. Proverbs also has many important truths (propositions, statements, cf. 16:4), but it also seeks to develop a mature process of thinking. The terms employed in Proverbs 1:1-6 inform the reader at the start that it is not a sequence of truths which is being transmitted, but the ability to discern and apply truth.

7. THE METHOD OF TEACHING EMPLOYED IN PROVERBS IS MOST LIKE THE INSTRUCTIONAL METHOD OF OUR LORD. While the vast majority of sound Biblical exposition found today is done chapter by chapter and verse by verse, this was not the case with either our Lord or the apostles. If we were to use one word to describe the teaching method most characteristic of our Lord, I believe that it would have to be parables6 (cf. Matt. 13:lff., Mark 4:lff.). Parables were used to conceal the truth from those on the outside, those who had already rejected Jesus as the Messiah (cf. Mark 3:22-30; 4:10ff.), as well as to provoke the disciples of our Lord to thought and inquiry (cf. Mark 4:10-11). In the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Greek word parabole was consistently used to translate the Hebrew word mashal (proverb).7

8. PROVERBS IS A KEY BOOK FOR OBTAINING DIVINE GUIDANCE. One would not immediately expect to read the Book of Proverbs in order to learn the will of God, but this is one of the purposes of the book stated in Proverbs 1:5: “A wise man will hear and increase in learning, And a man of understanding will acquire wise counsel.”

The expression “wise counsel” is derived from the Hebrew root meaning “rope.” This “rope” was connected to the rudder of a ship, thereby being the means of determining its course. By obtaining wisdom which Proverbs offers to teach us, we are enabled to make right decisions which will set a godly course for our life.

These are some of the benefits which the student of Proverbs can expect to gain. If all Scripture is profitable (II Tim. 3:16), Proverbs is especially so. Let us therefore begin our study of this book with eager expectation. James encourages us to pray for wisdom (James 1:5); Proverbs urges us to seek it by diligent study. Let us pray as we study this book, seeking the wisdom which comes only from God.

Proverbs as Literature

Proverbs were not a Hebrew invention. The use of proverbs was common in ancient civilizations. Documents which archaeologists have discovered from the Ancient Near East record Egyptian, Akkadian, and Babylonian proverbs, some of which are remarkably similar to those in the Book of Proverbs.8 Proverbs are also common today. I remember reading a proverb by Mark Twain years ago, which I have not been able to forget. Any school board members please forgive me; it is the only one of his proverbs I can recall:

First God made idiots.
That was for practice.
Then He made school boards.

The Hebrew term rendered “Proverb” (mashal) means “to be like.” The verb form of this word is used, in Psalm 143:7, to refer to a comparison. In the Old Testament this Hebrew word is used for a broad range of literary forms. It can refer to a popular, pithy, saying (Ezek. 18:2f.; cf. Jer. 31:29), a truth gained from personal experience and of general application (I Sam. 24:13), a medium of moral instruction (as in Proverbs 10:26, also Matt. 13:lff., “The Kingdom of Heaven is like . . .”), a riddle or allegory (Ezek. 17:2), or a short didactic essay or sermonette (Prov. 1:10-19; 31:10-31).9 Because of the broad use of the term “proverbs,” it is probably best, as Crenshaw suggests, to think of proverbs generally as “sayings.”10

Several features are common to most of the proverbs we will be studying. The first is brevity. Most of the proverbs are only two lines long:

The righteous is a guide to his neighbor,
But the way of the wicked leads them astray (Prov. 12:26).

As a preacher, it makes me very uncomfortable to point out that the book of Proverbs demonstrates the art of the unsaid. Most of us think that great ideas need many words to convey. If a picture is worth a thousand words, so is a proverb.

Brevity is one of the marks of wisdom. It is the fool who wants to speak his whole mind, while the wise never tells all that he knows:

A prudent man conceals knowledge, But the heart of fools proclaims folly (Prov. 12:23).

The heart of the righteous ponders how to answer, But the mouth of the wicked pours out evil things (15:28).

A fool does not delight in understanding, But only in revealing his own mind (18:2).

The wise are marked by an economy of words, while the fool blurts out everything that is on his mind. Proverbs demonstrates this economy of words.

Second, the few words which are spoken are well chosen. McKane comments,

The wise man is the master of compressed, polished, epigrammatic utterance; he gathers his thoughts into memorable forms of expression. The function of the Proverb is to illumine, and not to present a barrier to intelligibility.11

Often there is a note of humor involved, such as when the sluggard convinces himself that he cannot go outside to work because “there is a lion in the road” (26:13). Then too, some descriptions are so graphic they are almost impossible to forget. The beautiful woman without discretion is likened to a pig with a gold ring in its nose (11:22). This skillfullness in portraying truth is consistent with the wisdom of Proverbs. An idea worth communicating is worth communicating clearly and forcefully:

The wise in heart will be called discerning, And sweetness of speech increases persuasiveness.
The heart of the wise teaches his mouth, And adds persuasiveness to his lips (Prov. 16:21,23).

Those who would convey wisdom by means of a proverb must make their message “short and sweet.”

There is also an element of the enigmatic in Proverbs. Some Bible students have been perplexed by the apparent contradiction in these two Proverbs:

Do not answer a fool according to his folly, Lest you also be like him. Answer a fool as his folly deserves, Lest he be wise in his own eyes (Prov. 26:4-5).

It is not by accident that these two Proverbs are found side by side. The apparent contradiction is by design. It compels the reader to ponder the matter much more seriously than he otherwise would. This element of enigma and mystery is the stimulus for the student to go the extra mile in his study.

To me Proverbs is to other forms of literature what radio is to television. Television supplies us with both verbal and visual data, but it does all the work for US. We become passive in the process of watching TV. Reading Proverbs is like listening to “The Shadow” on old time radio. We are not given all the data, but what is given heightens our interest and our imagination. We are intellectually active as we read, intent on understanding what is being said. That is a part of the genius of the proverb.

The proverb is a form of Hebrew poetry and is different from what most of us are accustomed to reading as poetry today. While our poetry frequently is organized according to the similarity of sounds, Hebrew poetry is based upon the similarity of thoughts arranged in parallel statements. Several types of parallelism are common in Proverbs. It will greatly enhance our study of Proverbs if we understand the major kinds of Hebrew parallelism.

Antithetical parallelism is the contrasting of two ideas. The second line is often introduced by the word “but,” which contrasts the idea of the first line with that in the second:

The fear of the Lord prolongs life, But the years of the wicked will be shortened (Prov. 10:27).

A false balance is an abomination to the Lord, But a just weight is His delight (Prov. 11:1).

Synonymous parallelism restates the idea of the first line in a different way. Continuation, not contrast, is the purpose of the second line:

Hear, my son, your father’s instruction, And do not forsake your mother’s teaching (Prov. 1:8).

Incline your ear and hear the words of the wise, And apply your mind to my knowledge (Prov. 22:17).

Synethetic Parallelism expands upon what has been stated in the first line. While synonymous parallelism repeats what has been said in the first line, synthetic takes the thought of the first line farther--it develops the first thought:

He who shuts his ear to the cry of the poor will also cry himself and not be answered (Prov. 21:13).

Numerical Proverbs use numbers to structure:

Under three things the earth quakes, And under four, it cannot bear up:
Under a slave when he becomes king, And a fool when he is satisfied with food,
Under an unloved woman when she gets a husband, And a maidservant when she supplants her mistress (Prov. 30:21-23).

Proverbs are a form of poetry. We will benefit greatly from studying Proverbs as we better understand the nature of Hebrew poetry and the various forms of parallelism which are employed here.

Lessons from the Life of Solomon

While Solomon did not write all of the Proverbs (cf. 30:1; 31:1), the majority are attributed to him (cf. I Kings 4:32; Prov. 1:1; 10:1; 25:1). It is tragic to observe that in spite of all that Solomon wrote concerning women (cf. 5:lff.; 6:24ff.; 7:lff.; 8:lff.), they were the cause of his downfall.

Now King Solomon loved many foreign women along the daughter of Pharoah: Moabite, Ammonite, Edomite, Sidonian, and Hittite women, from the nations concerning which the Lord has said to the sons of Israel, “You shall not associate with them, neither shall they associate with you, for they will surely turn your heart away after their gods.” Solomon held fast to these in Love. And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines, and his wives turned his heart away. For it came about when Solomon was old, his wives turned his heart away after other gods; and his heart was not wholly devoted to the Lord his God, as the heart of David his father had been (I Kings 11:1-4).

This was not the only instance of Solomon’s failure to heed his own counsel. After all the Proverbs he wrote on child-rearing (cf. 1:8ff.; 4:1-4; 10:1; 13:24; 22:6,15) he failed to raise a son who was wise. Rehoboam, Solomon’s son, refused to listen to the counsel of the older and wiser advisors of his father, and, as a result the kingdom was divided (I Kings 12:1-15).

From the failure of Solomon I believe we should learn two lessons. First, we should expect to be put to the test in those areas where we seem to be strongest. As I have observed life for a few years I find that those men who have the most to say about raising children (especially those whose children are not yet grown) will likely be tested in this area. Those who speak about submission to authority, will probably be tested in their willingness to submit to the authority of others. Those who proclaim the doctrine of the sovereignty of God will frequently be placed in circumstances where their faith in God’s sovereignty is put to the test.

Our greatest strengths can become our ruin. The gifted Bible teacher may begin to listen to the praise of others and begin to feel infallible and authoritarian. He may begin to proclaim his insights rather than God’s instructions. The one who is gifted of God to be able to give may begin to do so in such a way as to get the glory for himself. David had a heart for God all the time that Saul sought to kill him, but once David was comfortably enthroned, he became complacent. The man who single-handedly took on Goliath now was so cocky he felt it unnecessary to even go out and fight with his troops. As a result, David fell into sin with another man’s wife (II Sam. ll:lff.). Let us beware of our strengths (cf. I Cor. 10:12).

The second lesson we should learn from Solomon is that knowing the right thing to do is not enough. Wisdom is, first and foremost, a relationship with God. Wisdom is not just the knowledge of certain truths, but the obedient practice of them. I fear that Solomon deceived himself into thinking that he could “beat the system” because he knew so much about women. His knowledge may have inclined him to believe that he could sin and keep it under control. In the final analysis, though, the problem was not in Solomon’s head, but in his heart.

Then he taught me and said to me, “Let your heart hold fast my words; Keep my commandments and live.” Watch over your heart with all diligence, For from it flow the springs of life (Prov. 4:4,23).

How is your heart, my friend? Have you come to submit your life, your eternal destiny, to the Lord Jesus Christ? He died for your sins, and He offers you His righteousness, which alone will enable you to enter into God’s heaven. Wisdom begins here, with the fear of the Lord (cf. Prov. 1:7; 9:10; 15:33). You will never be wise until you come to know Him “in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Col. 2:3).


1 Alexander Solzhenitsyn, A World Split Apart, St. Croix Review, October, 1978, pp. 9-22.

2 There are various interpretations of this verse. For a more detailed description, see Lesson 14 in this series.

3 I am indebted to Edgar Jones for this insight into the relationship between Proverbs and the Old Testament Prophets. Jones also writes, “Proverbs brings the passion and the vision of the prophets to the humdrum immediate concerns of everyday life. The writers of Proverbs rarely sound a trumpet note but they presuppose that it has been heard.” Edgar Jones, Proverbs and Ecclesiastes (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1961), p. 47.

4 R. B. Y. Scott, The Way of Wisdom in the Old Testament (New York: Macmillan Company, 1981), p. 6.

5 As quoted by Franz Ridenour, The Other Side of Morality (Glendale, CA: Regal Books), P. 39.

6 “It has been estimated that roughly one third of the recorded teaching of Jesus consists of parables and parabolic statements.” C. H. Peisker, “Parable, Allegory, Proverb.” The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976), II. P. 743.

7 Ibid., P. 744.

8 Cf. Jones, Pp. 32ff.

9 Ibid., pp. 23-25.

10 James L. Crenshaw, Old Testament Wisdom (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1981), P. 67.

11 William McKane, Proverbs (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1970), p. 267.

Related Topics: Introductions, Arguments, Outlines

Death By Relevance

Related Media

God created, orders, sustains, and owns everything. Apart from God we have nothing, can do nothing, and can know nothing. He determines our existence, purpose, and destiny, without whom our every pursuit reduces to pointless absurdity. Therefore, we owe God all love, honor, and obedience—with all our heart, mind, soul, and strength—forever. Nothing, then, is more relevant to every aspect of life than God and what He has told us about His person and works in Scripture. And nothing can make Him more relevant.

Understanding and Application

Different people mean different things when they speak of making God and Scripture relevant. Some mean the good and necessary task of using language and illustrations that make God’s truth understandable, a good thing. Others may mean the proper biblical task of showing how God’s acts and attributes apply to our daily lives, another good thing. Yet, for many, the idea of making God and Scripture relevant means something entirely different, something dubious and dangerous.

The “Fresh” Way of Irrelevance

For a great many folks, God and Scripture become relevant when they are re-interpreted to conform to the dominant beliefs of our culture. For some, truth and morality are relative, while the ancient and culturally conditioned reflections recorded in Scripture need “fresh” interpretations according to the spirit of the age. As a human work, then, the Bible’s “musings” are neither timeless nor absolute truth.

Views of Scripture differ along a continuum from the more conservative and orthodox view of inerrancy and divine inspiration to atheism and Scripture as a human work, with various shades in-between. Some accept the majority of what Scripture teaches, while modifying doctrines the culture finds particularly offensive. In any case, for unbelievers to see God and Scripture as relevant requires a new heart or a new God and Scripture. The latter involves accepting the preferences, beliefs, and faith assumptions of the unbelieving worldview, rather than challenging and exposing them as unjustified and contrary to reality. By failing to present unbelief as the rejection of God’s infinite excellence and authority, God and the Bible are molded to fit a worldview that denies what God has revealed about Himself, His Word, and His world. Thus, we dim the Light to suit those in darkness, though their greatest need is the Light. And while changing God’s message to make it acceptable to contemporary culture not only reflects disrespect for God’s authority and will by exalting our own, it paves a fast track to irrelevance when cultures change (and they always do). And worse, it guarantees irrelevance by conforming God and Scripture to the faith assumptions underlying all unbelief, in any age or culture. Transcendent and eternal truth becomes neither when chasing the latest cultural fad or popular manifestation of unbelief.

The Opportunity of Post-Modernism

Christians often struggle reaching a “post-modern” generation that rejects authority and absolutes, including (and primarily) the authority of Scripture, where the Bible contains a collection of stories devoid of historical accuracy and ancient speculations devoid of propositional truth. Yet, we confront nothing new or unique in the rejection of God’s authority and will—it began in the Garden of Eden and has lodged in every heart ever since. What appears unique in post-modernism involves a relatively greater willingness to openly reject God and His absolute truth and moral principles in a Western, post-Christian culture. In this sense, post-modernism represents a more honest display of unbelief without the facade of respect for God. A book named God Is Not Great would not have been popular 100 years ago, though the essential nature of unbelief remains unchanged.

Yet, despite its open hostility to Christ and the Gospel, the clear rejection of Christianity provides believers with an opportunity. Not only do the excellence of Christ and the Gospel shine brighter against a dark background, the false pretenses of life with meaning and knowledge of eternal realities apart from God and Scripture are more easily exposed when unbelief appears obvious. But, we squander the opportunity when we try to reach people by deemphasizing or denying God’s ultimate authority and the nature of Scripture as historically accurate and absolute truth—we muddy the waters of life and dull the radiance of Christ and the Gospel. Those purporting to help Christianity by this defense-by-surrender scheme affirm the legitimacy of unbelief and deny the nature of God and reality as He has created and explained it. Patients dying from poisoning need an antidote, not more poison.

The Terrible Cost of Unfaithfulness

Sadly, those trying to make God and Scripture relevant to a culture that rejects God’s absolute authority and truth may spare themselves a few sneers from their peers, or even gain a bit of respectability in the halls of unbelieving academia, but they also affirm a worldview that renders life meaningless and God as absent, impotent, or nonexistent. And regardless of motive, if we dilute the soul-saving medicine for a world Christ suffered infinite wrath to save, we help no one. Better we use our God-given abilities to proclaim and explain the God-given message of the excellence of God, without whom we have nothing, can do nothing, and know nothing. We proclaim the infinite God who stands as supremely relevant in any age or circumstance. To Him we owe all love, honor, and obedience—including faithfulness to the message He gave us to deliver to a dark world in desperate need of Christ.

Related Topics: Apologetics, Cultural Issues, Issues in Church Leadership/Ministry

Pages