Thoughts on Daniel 7 & 8

The Four Kingdoms of Daniel 7

                                                      

I am convinced that the view which best accounts for the biblical data and accords with history is that the four kingdoms of Daniel 7 should be ordered as follows.

            1. Babylon

            2. Media[1]

            3. Persia

            4. Greece with subsequent Diadochoi:[2]

                        4. A. Seleucids

                        4. B. Ptolemies

Apart from the extended diadochoi points (4. A, B), this is commonly known as the ‘Greek view.’  This ordering of the four kingdoms in modern times is typically associated with liberal-radical scholarship.  The reason for this association is largely because the liberals have a prejudicial bias against the concept of predictive prophecy; and, because the descriptions of the Grecian and Seleucid kingdoms are so incredibly accurate with known history, it must therefore mean—so the reasoning goes—that the pseudonymous author(s) of Daniel lived contemporaneously with these later events, thus meaning that the book was written sometime around the second century B.C. (rather than Daniel in the sixth century). 

However, some, such as Goldingay, argue that the Greek view, even positing a late date (i.e., second century) does no damage to the orthodox doctrines of the inspiration, authority, or infallibility of Scripture.[3]  Goldingay’s precarious stance notwithstanding, the Greek view does not necessitate a late date.  The Westminster divines, for instance, held to the Greek view and sixth century authorship by the historic Daniel.  Wenham observes, “Incidentally to accept the Greek view together with a sixth-century dating is not a new view; it was held by various conservative Christians, including the Westminster divines, long before the Greek view became the hallmark of liberal orthodoxy.”[4]  More recently, Gurney has rescued the Greek view from liberalism, persuasively arguing for a sixth century origin and authorship.[5] 

Finally, it is the Greek view that best gives the book of Daniel an internal unity, especially chapters 2, 7, and 11. 

The One like the Son of Man of Daniel 7

The general identity of the Son of man may be gained by considering the Old Testament literature.  Intermittently throughout  the Old Testament (OT hereafter) the phrase ‘son of man’ (SM hereafter) is most often used to denote a mere human being, a mortal (see, e.g., Ps. 8:4; Eze. 2:1, etc.).  However, the Danielic SM is certainly more than a mere mortal.  In the contexture of the book itself, the first hint at the divine authority of the SM comes from 7:13b, where it is reported that “one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven” (KJV).  According to Ps. 104:3 it is YHWH “who maketh the clouds his chariot.”  Again, “YHWH rideth upon a swift cloud” (Is. 19:1).  So, windsurfing on clouds is indicative of divine authority and judgment. 

Moreover, Daniel 7:9 describes the Ancient of Day’s (i.e., God’s) throne-chariot, to which the SM is ascending, as having flaming wheels.  This is strikingly similar to Ezekiel’s throne-chariot vision, “and upon the likeness of the throne was the likeness as the appearance of a man above upon it” (1:26).  The association between the SM and the throne-chariot of God points further toward the divine-yet-mannish character of the SM.  Additionally, “there was given him (SM) dominion, and glory, and a kingdom…an everlasting dominion” (Dan. 7:14).  Despite the fact that an everlasting kingdom-rule would require an everlasting king, which presupposes the SM’s divinity, the description of the scope of the SM’s rule is parallel to that of the “most High…him that liveth forever, whose dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom is from generation to generation,” as described Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 4:34.  Therefore, within the contexture of Daniel alone, the reader is given overt intimations that the SM is a divine-yet-mannish figure, a God-man, if you will. 

Elsewhere in the OT Isaiah speaks similarly of the then-coming Messiah child, who is no less than “the mighty God,” and “of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end…henceforth even forever” (9:6, 7).  One does not have to leave the prophetic corpus of the OT in order to safely conclude that the SM is the predicted Messiah, who is at once divine and human, a God-man.   

The particular and personal identity of SM is explicit in the New Testament (NT hereafter).  “If apocalyptic is at all the mother of Christian theology,” suggests Goldingay, then “Daniel certainly contributed to this mothering.”[6]  He adds that, despite this passage’s centrality, “Daniel’s effect on the NT is more pervasive than merely the influence of 7:13—14.”[7]  For example, Beale has written extensively on the Danielic background for Revelation.[8]

Within the context of second temple Judaism in the first century A.D., messianic expectations were at their zenith.  Amid this culture, Jesus was careful with his use of loaded self-attributions such as Messiah, Son of God, etc.  The SM title provided enough ambiguity that he used it freely and frequently.  Although the title could still denote a mortal during this period, at crucial junctures in his ministry, Jesus used the pregnant SM title with all its glorious messianic connotations.  In Matthew 13:41, for instance, he invokes the title in connection with the kingdom motif.  In John 3:13 Jesus mentions ascension relation to the SM title, which is the direction of movement for SM in Daniel 7.  Most explicitly, though, are Jesus’ clear allusions to Daniel 7:13f in the events surrounding his arrest and trial. 

And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.  Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.  Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy.  What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death (Matt. 26:63—66; cf. 24:30; 25:31; Mk. 13:26; 14:62; Lk. 21:27, etc.).

Likewise, approaching his martyrdom, Stephen announced his vision of the SM standing on the right hand of God (Acts 7:56).  And, finally, Revelation 1:5—7 depends heavily on Daniel 7 for all of its various threads. 

Granting these things, therefore, it is plain that Jesus’ messianic/divine self-consciousness was expressed by means of the SM title, and for his audience it was clear enough to invoke the charge of blasphemy and warrant capital punishment.  Jesus knew it, the Sanhedrin knew it; Jesus’ self-attribution as the SM was nothing less than a claim to deity and the eternal kingdom-throne of David.  The Son of Man is the God-man, Israel’s Messiah, Jesus.

The Ram and the Goat of Daniel 8

The ram and the goat of Daniel 8 are not nearly as enigmatic as the four kingdoms or the SM.  Typical of much of the Bible’s apocalyptic material, the seer is given a vision full of vibrant but often elusive symbols and then the angelical messenger gives the vision’s interpretation.  This is done explicitly in Daniel 8, concerning the ram and the goat. 

In Daniel 8:20—21 the reader is told precisely what and who these beasts represent: “The ram which thou sawest having two horns are the kings of Media and Persia.  And the rough goat is the king of Greece: and the great horn that is between his eyes is the first king.”  The ram, therefore, represents the Media and Persia and its horns, the kings.  The goat is Greece and its single great horn, the first king of the empire.  Thus, the great horn is Alexander the Great. 

Daniel 8:5 reports that “the he-goat came from the west on the face of the whole earth.”  Correspondingly, the apocryphal book of 1 Maccabees tells of Alexander, who, having smitten Darius the king of the Persians and Medes, became “the first [king] over Greece,” and “went through to the ends of the earth” during the eastern campaign (1 Macc. 1:1, 2).  Daniel 8:22 goes on to describe the four diadochoi that succeeded Alexander, his generals who divided his kingdom.  Interestingly, in Daniel’s vision the ram was powerless against the strength of the he-goat, which “cast [the ram] to the ground, and stamped upon him” (8:7).  I believe the “stamped upon him” is more than a metaphor for the he-goat’s power.  The idea of a goat trampling another animal is hard to imagine; however, the Greeks, under Alexander and the later Seleucids, pioneered the use of elephants in battle.  1 Maccabees 1:17 describes the Seleucids’ (under Antiochus IV) armaments and mobilizations against the Ptolemies, which included chariots, horseman, a great navy, and elephants.  It appears likely, then, that the “stamped upon him,” respecting the ram (Dan. 8:7), alludes to the military use of elephants by the Grecian armies from Alexander forward.  The little horn to arise out of the four horns of the diadochoi is Antiochus IV (8:9; cf. 7:8).    

---

[1] Splitting the Medo-Persian kingdom, which is typically conjoined in the ‘Roman view,’ is deftly defended by Robert J. M. Gurney, “The Four Kingdoms of Daniel 2 and 7,” Themelois, 2:2 (January 1977), 42—44.

[2] For a more thorough treatment of the extension of (4) the Grecian kingdom to include the Diadochoi see Otto Erlend Nordgreen, “The Four Kingdoms in the Book of Daniel Reconsidered” (1998), found at http://folk.uio.no/otton/Daniel1.htm , accessed 07 July 2012.   

[3] Gordon J. Wenham, “Daniel: The Basic Issues,” Themelois, 2:2 (January 1977), 51.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid., 50; also see Robert J. M. Gurney, “The Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9:24-27,” Evangelical Quarterly 53:1 (January-March 1981), 29-36.

[6] John E. Goldingay, Daniel, vol. 30 in Word Biblical Commentary series (Dallas, TX: Word Books, 1989), xxviii—xxix.

[7] Ibid.

[8] See, e.g., Gregory K. Beale, “The Danielic Background For Revelation 13:18 and 17:9,” Tyndale Bulletin 31 (1980), 163—170.

The Use of Parallelisms and Figures in Psalm 35

I. The uses and purposes of parallelisms in Psalm 35

A. Parallelism defined

Parallelism in Hebrew poetry “is that phenomenon whereby two or more successive poetic lines dynamically strengthen, reinforce, and develop each other’s thought.  As a kind of emphatic additional thought, the follow-up lines further define, specify, expand, intensify, or contrast the first.”[1]  Berlin adds this insightful expansion.

Parallelism focuses the message on itself but its vision is binocular.  Like human vision it superimposes two slightly different views of the same object and from their convergence it produces a sense of depth.[2]

1. Parallelism of intensification

                        a                                             b

α.         Contend, O LORD,                with those who contend with me;

a                                              b          

β.         fight [O LORD]                      against those who fight against me!” (v 1)[3]

a. Intensification defined

A parallelism of intensification…occurs when the second stich of a couplet restates the first in a more pointed, extreme, or forceful way…we might way the second develops the first by saying, ‘Not only that but more so.’”[4]  It is one of four variations of the (α < β) distich pattern.

b. Author’s use of intensification in 35:1

In the first stich (α) the David uses the term “contend,” first as a verb (rı̂yb) with reference to Yahweh’s advocacy and second (β) as a noun (yârı̂yb), speaking of the “contender” who is striving against the psalmist.  This term carries connotations of a legal setting, which is alluded to again in v 11 (cf. Ps 43:1).  With this, David is seeking Yahweh’s advocacy; or, in NT terms, David is seeking Yahweh as his paraklētos (used of Jesus’ heavenly session ministry in 1 Jn 2:1, and the Holy Spirit in Jn 14:16; 15:26, and 16:7; cf. Is 49:25).  Thus, the α stich is a judicial petition, asking Yahweh to step into the situation David is facing and vindicate him.  “Vindicate me, O LORD, my God” (v 24a).  David is seeking Yahweh’s judgment in the sense of judicial acquittal before God’s bar of righteousness, and that against the wicked, who are seeking David doom.

The couplet is intensified by the verb “fight” (lâcham) in the second stich, which parallels “contend” in the first.  By invoking Yahweh to “fight,” David has escalated the petition from a legal plea to one of warfare.  The term “fight” means to do battle, make war, etc.  Here, then, David’s anxiety is expressed by the rapid shift of the petition, from a court-like setting to one of the battlefield, where Yahweh will utterly destroy David’s enemies. 

I believe the historical background for this psalm is 1 Sam 24, the climax of Saul’s rabid hunt after David’s life.  Specifically, 1 Sam 24:15 has David finishing his speech to Saul with these words, “May the LORD therefore be judge and give sentence between me and you, and see to it and plead (rı̂yb) my cause and deliver me from your hand” (on “deliver me,” shâphaṭ, cf. Ps 35:24).    

2. Parallelism of specification

            α          Malicious witnesses rise up;

            β          they ask me of things that I do not know.  (v 11)

a. Specification defined

“In the parallelism of specification, each succeeding stich makes more specific what the opening stich states in general.  In other words, the movement is from general to specific.”[5]  There are various types of specification, e.g., spatial or geographical.  The example I have chosen represents the explanatory type. 

b. The author’s use of specification in 35:11

In Ps 35:11 the first stich (α) tells what the malicious witnesses did, they did “rise up” against David; the second stich (β) tells how they did it, by means of spurious, groundless interrogation.  This is one of many places where David is demonstrating his own relative “righteousness” in the circumstances (v 27a).  Whatever the charges of these violent accusers were, David had no consciousness of any wrong done by him, especially with respect to the particular allegations.  Thus, the second stich specifically explains the generality of the first in qualifying the “maliciousness” as bringing perfectly baseless allegations against David.  

In 1 Sam 24:9 we read, “And David said to Saul, ‘Why do you listen to the words of men who say, 'Behold, David seeks your harm'?”  This is reflected in both Ps 35:11 and 15.  This appears to be another solid allusion to the historical context of Saul’s pursuing David, especially the climax in 1 Sam 24. 

II. The uses and purposes of figures in Psalm 35

Let me say at once that parallelism, the verse form in which virtually all biblical poetry is written, is not the most essential thing that a reader needs to know about biblical poetry.  Much more crucial to the reading of biblical poetry is the ability to identify and interpret the devises of poetic language.

—Leland Ryken[6]

A. Simile  

I behaved myself as though he had been my friend or brother:

I bowed down heavily, as one that mourneth for his mother. (v. 14 KJV, italics added)

1. Simile defined

“The use of simile and metaphor is the most pervasive element of biblical poetry.  The essential feature of both is comparison.  A simile draws correspondence between two things by using the explicit formula ‘like’ or ‘as’…They both secure an effect on one level and then transfer that meaning to another level,” which “work(s) by indirection.”[7]

2. The author’s use of simile in 35:14

David highlights his pathos in the situation as emphatically as possible.  Few could deny that they bereave the calamity or death of their own kin more than they do that of others.  In this distich, David is prompting the reader to vicariously transfer their deepest feelings associated with  losing a close friend or family member to the same for a hotly-pursuing enemy, so that the word picture painfully illustrates David’s extension of true loving kindness for his enemies.  In this, David is incarnating the heart of his Greater Son’s teaching on the topic of loving one’s enemies (cf. Matt 5:43—48). 

Although not likely an allusion, 2 Sam 1:11ff provides a wonderful illustration of this situation. 

Then David took hold of his clothes and tore them, and so did all the men who were with him.  And they mourned and wept and fasted until evening for Saul and for Jonathan his son and for the people of the LORD and for the house of Israel, because they had fallen by the sword.  (vv 11—12)

In connection with the first section above (I.A.1, intensification), the parallelism is worth noting.  We also see in this distich the parallelism of intensification.  That is, David heightens the intensity of the pathos in the second stich by mention the grief of losing a mother.  Friends and brothers may be many in number and sort, but every person has only one mother.  Some crass family dysfunction notwithstanding, the is no closer earthly bond than that between mother and child (cf. Gen 24:67, “So Isaac was comforted after the death of his mother.”). 

B. Chiastic figure

Bullinger discerns an interesting chiastic structure with an extended alteration that frames the entire psalm.[8]  He proposes the following. 

A   a | vv 1—3. Appeal for help.

         b | vv 4—8, Imprecation.

            c | vv 9, 10, Praise.

               B | v 11, Evildoers.  Words.

                   C | v 12, Their evil for good.

                       D | v 13, His good for evil.

                       D | v 14, His good for evil.

                   C | v 15, Their evil for good.

               B | v 16, Evildoers.  Words.

A   a | vv 17, 18, Appeal for help.

        b | vv 19—26, Deprecation. 

           c | vv 27, 28, Praise. 

---

[1] William W. Klein, Craig L. Blomberg, Robert L. Hubbard contributors, Introduction to Biblical Interpretation.  Thomas Nelson: Nashville, Tennessee (2004), p. 284.

[2] Ibid.  

[3] All Scripture is taken from the English Standard Version.

[4] Klein, et al., p. 295, op cit.

[5] Ibid., p. 293.

[6] How to Read the Bible as Literature.  Zondervan: Grand Rapids, Michigan (1984), p. 90. 

[7] Ibid., pp. 91—92. 

[8] The Companion Bible.  Kregel Publications: Grand Rapids, Michigan (1990), p. 751.

PROVERBS 19:1--BETTER THAN!

As the old adage goes, “Honesty is the best policy.”  But, is it really? Additionally, is it always?  Since the late 19^th century, the American-born philosophy of pragmatism has increasingly undermined this venerated principle.  The pragmatist maxim of Peirce, James, and Dewey admonishes us (commands us even?) to evaluate every decision in terms of its “practical consequences.”[1]  Today, the principles of honesty and integrity still enjoy a measure of lip service; most people, however, live life as practical pragmatists.[2] 

Essentially, the old adage has been culturally amended.  Honesty is the best policy, except, of course, when its effects do not bring about positive consequences.  Granted, in Proverbs, “Some things are said to be better than others because of their convenience, but others are just ‘better’, come what may.”[3]  Integrity is better, come what may!  Christians, therefore, need to see an old Proverb with new eyes, and understand that the wisdom of Proverb 19:1 is much better-than worldly wisdom. 

EXEGESIS

“Better is the poor that walketh in his integrity, than he that is perverse in his lips, and is a fool.” 

(Ps. 19:1)

1. Several are the relevant figures of speech 

Bullinger recognizes a relative ellipsis in 19:1, “where the omitted word is to be supplied from a contrary word.”[4]  He supplies the omitted word thus, “…than [the rich, that is] perverse in his lips, and is a fool.”[5]  It is necessary merely to define the person as rich to complete the contrast which is clearly implied.[6]  Bullinger’s elliptical reconstruction has witnesses in the Syriac and Targums, which read “rich,” whereas the Masoretic Text and the LXX has “fool.”  “However, the MT makes sense as it stands; this is an example of metonymical parallelism.”[7]  Although not impossible, Bullinger’s ellipsis is not highly plausible. 

As alluded to above, there is the nearly certain employment of metonymy, specifically metonymy of cause, with regard to the term “lips,” for what is spoken by them.[8]  The expression “perverse in his lips” refers to speech that is morally perverted.[9]  The use of metonymy of cause with regard to “lips” for speech is a commonplace in Hebrew literature, which is averse to abstractions, preferring instead the concrete realities of life.

Finally, there appears to be a four-member chiasm present in this proverb.  The chiasm would function to emphasize the antithetical parallelism of the proverb, creating a more striking difference between to two men and their two ways. 

A. The better man [though poor]

            B. Walketh in his integrity

            B. Perverse in his lips

A. The fool [though rich?] 

           

2. Imagery and  word-pictures in the proverb

            The metaphor of walking is an important one in Scripture and the life based on Scripture; the better man “walketh in his integrity.”  In Proverbs, he also walketh in the ways of good people (2:20), the way of righteousness (8:20), understanding (9:6), the wise (13:20), and wisdom itself (28:26).  “References to how people walk yield a composite picture of how the godly person lives…Walking at a…figurative level becomes a prime metaphor for…a person’s lifestyle (with the image of walking suggesting continuing progress in time and in a chosen direction.)” [10]

            The image of one being “perverse in his lips” is another concrete image, which is brought across well by the KJV, and which is set in antithesis to “walkest in integrity.”[11]  There are several reasons for believing that the breadth of the metonymy extends well beyond the immediate product of the lips, to mean only mere speech.  First, there is the parallelism (antithetical) between the two types of characters.  If, as we’ve seen, “walketh” is reference to one’s entire manner and direction in life, then “lips” is likely intended to present a similar concept.  This is confirmed by looking to the near-parallel proverb of 28:6, which puts “ways” in the place of “lips.”[12]  Thirdly, because the speech that the “lips” produce, for better or worse, is itself rooted in the heart, the control center, of each person (e.g., Prov 16:23; Matt 12:34; 15:18), lips, as an image, conjures up a picture of the whole person.[13]

3. Contributing cultural elements

            The only significant contribution from the culture that can be perceived is a literary one.  The basic message of Prov 19:1 is also reflected in other ancient Near Eastern proverb collections.  For instance, the Instruction of Amenemope, a collection of Egyptian wisdom (so-called), chapter six, reads thus.

Better, then, is poverty in the hand of God

    Than riches in the storehouse;

Better is bread when the mind is at ease

    Than riches with anxiety.[14]

4. Possible experiences of Solomon’s day that influenced the proverb

            Because of the aphoristic nature of Proverbs, it is tremendously difficult to discern any influential socio-historical context.  At the risk of crass speculation, one may venture to conjecture that Solomon had his father’s recounting of his experience with Nabal floating in the background of his mind as he penned this proverb (1 Sam 25:23—39). Or, to stretch things a bit further, one could possibly even suggest the Nathan parable (see especially 2 Sam 12:3).  Finally, it is also possible that Solomon had his second encounter with Yahweh in mind, when Yahweh commanded Solomon to “walk before me…with integrity of heart and uprightness” (1 Kings 9:4 ESV).[15] 

5. The connection between this proverb and the Fear of Yahweh

The connection between the principles of Prov 19:1 and the concept of the “fear of Yahweh” is a sure one, though it is an indirect one.  It demands reading across the various strata of Proverbs and drawing necessary inferences. 

For instance, the children of the one who “walks in his integrity” are blessed after him (20:7); and, the one who fears Yahweh prepares a future refuge for his children.  In tandem, then, these two verses roughly bring together the fear of Yahweh and walking in one’s integrity.  Likewise, in Prov 8:13, Wisdom says that the fear of Yahweh is the hatred of evil; she, in fact, hates “perverse speech.” 

Proverbs 15:16 is perhaps more explicit.  This verse is another “better-than” proverb; it reads, “Better is a little with the fear of the LORD than great treasure and trouble with it” (ESV).  In this, the better-ness of the little is conditioned by the “fear of the LORD” rather than walking in one’s integrity; the worse-ness of the great treasure is conditioned by trouble rather than folly.  Nevertheless, the general equity of the principles is consistent and congruous.  To fear Yahweh results in walking in integrity; walking in integrity is an illustration of one’s fear of Yahweh.

APPLICATION

6. The moral element of this proverb and its significance

            Caution must be taken to avoid a serious mistake in understanding this proverb.  In our era of liberal and liberation theology, one could be misled to see the poverty rather than the integrity of the man to be what is “better.”  Within the scope of Proverbs the poor are certainly subject to oppression and injustice (13:23; 14:20; 22:7), sometimes even by others in poverty (28:3)!  Such oppression is warned against by divine threat, however, and viewed as a direct attack on God himself (17:5).  But being poor is not necessarily a virtue according to Solomon, neither does it mean one is virtuous (10:4; 14:20).  In fact, the socio-economic categories of rich and poor can often be deceiving (13:7).  Ultimately, whether rich or poor all men are ontologically equal before God (22:2).  Nevertheless, the poor are generally more tender than the rich (18:23), and are certainly better than liars (19:22), which hits close to the target of 19:1.

            The moral implication of 19:1 is integrity.  It is the righteous one whose walks in integrity (20:7).  Those who walk in their integrity have Yahweh as their shield (2:7), and their integrity serves as a guide through life’s difficulties (11:3).  So, ultimately they walk securely (10:9).  Although, this integrity-walking may cost one greatly, even bring poverty on him (19:1; 28:6), he will be finally delivered (28:18).  Therefore, the ethical teaching is that one’s integrity must be treasured above all, despite the cost of hanging onto it.  It is not being poor that is better, but being poor and having integrity is better than being and having anything else (19:1; 28:6). 

7. Back to the Future: a modern application of the wisdom of 19:1

            Especially in light of the recent economical unrest, with its concomitant foreclosures, unemployment and various other financial hardships, the path of those walking in integrity is at great risk of being grown-over with thorns and thistles.  The bottom-line has become the only point of reference for making ethical decisions, not only in corporate America but right down in the homes of the families that make up our society.  Business managers aren’t often looking for integrity, but profit today.  The Christian is in no less risk than the heathen when it comes to opportunities to compromise his integrity, and we all have all the motivations to compromise that we need—“all that is in the world…” (1 Jn 2:16).  In 19:1, integrity is juxtaposed with perverse lips.  It is the classic “two ways,” the way of light and the way of darkness, the way of life and the way of death, which are always before us.  To walk in one’s integrity is to walk with the Lord; but the “way of evil and perverted speech” is hated by Lady Wisdom (8:13).

8. Wisdom’s “payoff”

            Lady Wisdom’s wages are the best! “My fruit is better than gold, even fine gold, and my yield than choice silver” (8:18).  Walking in integrity is itself one of the “payoffs” of divine Wisdom.  All other temporal and material blessings are worthy of scorn, if they compromise one’s walk of integrity.

9. Integrity better than, 101: explaining the proverb to a 10 year old

            Dad: Billy, Christ in his word teaches us that “Better is the poor that walketh in his integrity, than he that is perverse in his lips, and is a fool.”

            Billy: Dad, wouldn’t it be simpler to just tell me I must ‘love my neighbor as myself’?

            Dad: Well, I’m thankful that you recognize that in this situation you failed to do that most basic command in thought, word and deed.  Knowing that, I think you will agree with me that there is more involved and more at stake in this situation.

            Billy: I reckon.  But, how?  And, how does this proverb figure in?

            Dad: Look, Billy, don’t think that I don’t remember what it was like to have to ‘fit in’ and be in the swim with the guys.  In fact, there is a sense in which we guys never grow out of that situation; peer pressure is always there, so long as you’ve got peers, really.  How you respond to this show yourself and the world where your real treasures lie and what your highest values are. 

            Let me ask you a question, Billy.  Is it a mystery to your classmates, your teacher, or even the whole school that you confess to be a follower of Jesus?

            Billy: Well…I don’t thi…Golly, I sure hope not, Dad!

            Dad: I hope not either, Billy.  You already realize that you didn’t love your neighbor like yourself when you joined with your friends in making fun of Sam in the gym.  Sam didn’t choose to be handicap, you know.  If he could run like you and the other boys, don’t you think that he would rather do that?

            Billy: Of course, Dad.  But you don’t understand!  Toad and Eric said that unless I joined in with them in the hall...that they’d make me wish that they treated me as good as they treat Sam, cause Sam would be the only one left in the whole class that would consider hanging out with me!! 

            Dad: That is getting right to the heart of the proverb, Billy.  When it says, “Better is the poor…” It doesn’t mean only poor as in not having money; it can apply to your dilemma just as well.  It can also mean friend-poor.  In this case, you chose not to walk in your integrity, that is, to act contrary to the most basic command of your Lord, by treating Sam in the exact same way you feared that Toad, Eric, and the others might treat you, if you didn’t go along with them in their “perverse speech” and foolishness toward Sam.

            The point is this, Billy.  It is better to walk in your integrity, which means “walking just as [Jesus] walked” toward others (1 Jn 2:6), since you confess to be following in his steps, even…well, especially if that means suffering for it (1 Pet 2:1).  You see, buddy, while your walking in your integrity in this case could have risked you becoming poor in friends, Sam was the poor one already; and your attacking him was a direct attack on God, in whose image Sam is made (Prov 14:31; 17:5).  Billy, you can see how badly we need the gospel every day.  Like Sam’s physical problem, we are all spiritually handicap before the Lord; sin cripples our legs and prevents us from “walking in our integrity.”  Even if, Billy, you have to lose every friend you have, if you walk in your integrity, you have one Friend who sticks closer than a brother, Jesus (18:24)!

10. The wisdom of 19:1 for the covenant community

            Today, above any period in church history, the covenant community is guilty of not walking in the integrity of her confession in her Christ.  We are willing to compromise what we say, as soon as there is any risk of becoming “poor,” whether that means losing esteem in the culture, losing tithers in the pews, or even one’s position in the pulpit.  The last example is of particular threat.  It is becoming increasingly vogue for pastors to drive a wedge between the orthodox doctrines of our holy faith and the practical life of the faithful.  Michael Horton recounts a recent example of this conforming compromise. 

Not long ago, a pastor in Arizona was reported in Newsweek saying, ‘People today aren’t asking about justification, sanctification, and similar questions.’ Hardly a rank liberal, he has nevertheless opted for a user-friendly religious approach that tries not to bore people with, well, Christianity.  Doubtless, this pastor would sign on the dotted line of orthodox doctrine, but it would appear that such commitments have little to do with his actual ministry.  If we have to judge by the popular sermons, Christian best-seller lists, or by the shelve space given in Christian book stores to Christian doctrine and the relationship between truth and life, the church seems to have little interest in God’s questions, much less his answers.[16] 

           

Again, “…this pastor would sign on the dotted line of orthodox doctrine, but it would appear that such commitments have little to do with his actual ministry.”[17]  In essence, this is the message of the church in our age, ‘we believe these doctrines are true, but they are irrelevant to life.’  This is a perfect picture of what is looks life to not walketh in integrity.  There is a great divide between our talk and our walk.

            Appropriately, we are hearing from the pollsters, apologists, and thoughtful evangelism teachers that one of the primary complaints against the church from this generation is a lack of authenticity within the church, which is another way of saying a lack of integrity.  The church is “perverse in [her] lips” today, and has foolishly surrendered the heart of her existence in the world by becoming a mirrored-image of the world.  Sadly, we have forgotten that conviction not compromise is what has always grown the church, in depth as well as breadth.  The impoverished Jerusalem church of the Book of Acts knew what the proverb meant in saying, “Better is the poor that walketh in integrity…”  If we today cannot learn to embrace this same wisdom, we are the worst of “fools” for it (Prov 19:1c).   

---

[1] Anonymous, “Pragmatism” at Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.  (August 16, 2008).  Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pragmatism/#PraMax on April 6, 2011.

[2] There is a great irony in this.  Often the one who crows the principles of integrity and honesty the loudest does so in reference to others, whose dishonesty could have negative ‘practical consequences’ for the one, thus revealing that the supposed principled one is so for purely pragmatic reasons!  

[3] Derek Kidner, The Wisdom of Proverbs, Job & Ecclesiastes.  IVP: Downers Grove, Illinois (1985), p. 30.

[4] E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible: Explained and Illustrated.  Baker Book House: Grand Rapids, Michigan (1968), pp. 58—59. 

[5] Ibid. p. 59.

[6] Ibid. Op cit.

[7] NET Bible translator’s annotations.  Retrieved from http://net.bible.org/#!bible/Proverbs+19:1 on April 7, 2011.  Ad loc., fn. 3.

[8] E. W. Bullinger, The Companion Bible.  Kregel Publications: Grand Rapids, Michigan (1990), ad loc.  Also see Appendix 6, p. 11. 

[9] NET Bible translator’s annotations, ad loc., fn. 3, op cit. The deeper significance of the metonymy and the term “lips” will come to center in the section below, regarding imagery in the text. 

[10] “Walk, walking,” pp. 922—23 in Dictionary of Biblical Imagery.  Leland Ryken, James C. Wilhoit, Tremper Longman III editors.  IVP Academic: Downers Grove, Illinois (1998), p. 922.  Parenthesis original.

[11] Most modern translations miss this picture by using the more abstract “speech” or like concept. 

[12] It is also worth out notice that some medieval Hebrew manuscripts, the Syriac, and Targums of  Prov 19:1 have “his ways” rather than “his lips.”  See the NET Bible translator’s annotations, ad loc., fn. 2.

[13] Anonymous, “Lips,” pp. 515—16 in Dictionary of Biblical Imagery, p. 515.

[14] As found at http://www.perankhgroup.com/Amenemope.htm.  Retrieved on April 8, 2011. 

[15] “Integrity” here is the same term used to translate integrity in Prov 19:1, which is tôm.  It is used only a surprising 24x in the OT.

[16] We Believe: Recovering the Essentials of the Apostle’s Creed.  Word Publishing: Nashville, Tennessee (1998), p. 4. 

[17] Ibid.