Proverbs 30: Stupidity, Wisdom, and Hermeneutics ~ Part 3

Here is the third and final part of my article-turned-blog-posts on Proverbs 30. It's not quite as long as the first two, but it wraps things up and draws some conclusions, particularly on how a person approaches the text of Scripture. It's been a little while in coming, but I've been re-reading and re-writing during that 'little while', attempting to improve it overall and make it a bit more "blog-friendly". The last paragraphs are, as usual, the ones that contain some of the more notable conclusions, so if you're already bored and don't want to finish, skip down there and check it out. I do recommend glancing at our first and second posts as well giving Proverbs 30:1-6 an honest glance yourself in order to have a more complete grasp of the matters at hand. To sum up briefly though, Agur has so far dismissed trust in himself as if anything wise were to come from him, redirected both our thoughts to consider our Creator, and our trust to be placed in His word. Such being the case, the audience is also warned against attempting to infiltrate His words with anything, as doing so will position one to be reproved by God and demonstrated to be a liar. So instead, may we be desperate enough to trust God's words, leave them alone, and follow Agur's example in excusing appreciation of our own wisdom.

*
*
*

"Every word of God is tested, He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him.
Do not add to His words, or He will reprove you and you will be proved a liar. "

These two are the last of the 6 verses we've been investigating, and we will begin our ending by discerning two kinds of people from them:

1) Those who seek God's help, vs. 5b
2) Those who seek to help God, vs. 6

Both, we should notice, associate themselves with God in some way.
The first category encompasses those seeking refuge in God, and we are noticing them from the phrase "He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him" found in verse 5b. Although we're not told explicitly what they are seeking refuge from, we won't focus on that for now. Instead, we will be content to observe 1) the fact that they are taking shelter, and 2) the fact that they're going to God to get it. That's enough for us to make note of their dependence and differing to God (of course, many would claim their own fallibility, but not all of them share a common resolution). Being at this point, they must have acknowledged two basic things: their personal incapability, and God's capability; their insufficiency, and God's sufficiency. So, however they got here, they have realized their basic vulnerability as long as they are under the care, shielding, and protection of anything or anyone but their Creator, and are responding by resorting to God, not themselves. In summary, these are very clearly a dependent people, not independent. They are insufficient, not sufficient. They are not the solutions to their own problems, but find their defense in God. His capability is their defense, not their own. They simply don't put stock in nor are they reliant on their own abilities or resources to protect themselves, and that is what we will remember about them.

The second category, on the other hand, is made up of those who, instead of seeking God's aid, seek to aid God. We are surmising this category from Agur's word of exhortation in verse 6, through which he attempts to restrain his audience from contributing to God's words. Essentially, we took this slant of folks from what Agur says not to do, drawing the category from this potential, yet unadvised, action.

Now, Agur doesn't name anything specific that shouldn't be added to God's words, so we will be content to leave his instruction vague enough to encapsulate any and all additions to what He has revealed. Going on then, this category aids God's communication¹ by supplying additional information other than what God Himself has given. This action of theirs betrays their practical disbelief in the fact that God's words are good enough the way He gave them (i.e. 'sufficient'), if it wasn't born out of a blatant desire to warp what He has said. No matter though, because we must be careful to note that either way these folks do not completely reject what God has said, but simply add to it. They don't completely shun His words, but neither do they treat them as though they were adequate the way they are - whether they articulate this in their doctrinal statement or not. They are somehow discontented with what He has communicated, and to make up for it they embrace the truth and, the words of God and, God's revelation plus man's contribution. They don't necessarily go all out substitute the Words of God, they simply supplement them.

Their additions, however, whatever they may be, are not permanent ones. Agur makes this much evident when he informs us that the One who's words are already verified (vs.5a) will Himself verify the lack of integrity in these people, and thus their contributions: "Do not add to His words, or He will reprove you and you will be proved a liar". God does not protect these people for doing this, but reproves them, and maintains the integrity of what He has said. By default, whatever might be appended to God's own speech would be by definition a lie, it would be wrong. It doesn't matter what Agur's audience might add - if they added anything then they were liars. There is no reason to doubt this, because we are only given a verb and no object; we aren't told what shouldn't be added, only that it shouldn't be. So any additions qualify, not on the basis of their content but on the simple fact that they are just that - additions. Hence, we have said previously that God's words are independently sufficient - they not only don't need help, but shouldn't be offered any.

Now, I titled this article "Stupidity, Wisdom, and Hermeneutics", and  so far we've discussed the first two, obviously in the context of Proverbs 30. The third item, however, we have not touched on, because a proper understanding of hermeneutics² is, in many ways, aided by what Agur has provided in his oracle, especially in verses 5 and 6. It can be summed up as the following: the study of the Word of God is an exclusive discipline, as His words are exclusive words. What I mean by this is that they are not compatible with contributions from extraneous sources, other than what their Author Himself has supplied. One very practical manifestation of this is the reality that we cannot attempt to marry our fabulous intellect with the words of God (as exemplified by Agur in this chapter).

Otherwise, we have 1) joined the ranks of those who foster God's word plus an externally supplied extension, 2) have thus betrayed our practical disbelief in the independent sufficiency of the words of God, and 3) have divulged our true dependance to be on ourselves - not God. And, as we saw earlier, suspicion that this might be taking place shouldn't be dismissed merely with the reasoning that one most certainly does believe and embrace the God's words and does affirm their inerrancy, because that person should also inquire to see what else he/she might be embracing side-by-side with His words, no matter the reasoning behind this attempted harmony. Such combinations compromise the integrity of His words no matter how well-meaning or logical the they might seem. They are, put simply, "additions".

If, however, the student of the words of God desires to properly approach those words, he must first strip away anything that wasn't actually spoken from God. In other words, he must remove anything that has been "added" to His words, whatever it is and however it got there. He must filter away debris that he or someone else has supplemented - whether intentionally or otherwise. (This is effort greatly refined by a proper working knowledge of the original languages.) At that point, proper exegesis may begin. If, however, the text is approached with information not native to what was originally communicated, then the study has actually reverted to eisigesis and will not yield pure, genuine truth - no matter how moving or convicting or popular the conclusions are even amongst conservative circles. This reality, then, offers explanation for a good deal of the doctrinal diversity plaguing Christianity. Simply put, if the word's of God seem subjective, they are subjective because different people have added different things resulting in different interpretations.

 Now, this is of course true for anyone, but is of particular interest to the teacher of Scripture. The basic principal is this: let the Lord instruct your mouth, as you study His word. If you desire to have reliable, tested, inerrant truth, then leave your words out of it. Our wit isn't going to save anybody. Our cunning isn't going to sanctify anybody. Our conservative convictions can't accomplish either end. However, the pure word of God, which is truth, will. This is precisely why philosophy and exegesis are not compatible endeavors³, nor does the former assist the latter in any way. Further, any attempt to merge the two results in a hybrid (and thus all the more dangerous), pseudo truth with pseudo results, gleaning more pseudo Christians into a pseudo Christianity. It makes no appreciable improvement on things if we put the word "Christian" before "philosophy", because the issue of source must still be called into question, not merely how commendable the teaching may appear. (Christian philosophy, we may speculate, is often the most dangerous in form, as it more closely replicates the actual while still being sourced otherwise, and is frequently undetectable because of its spiritual ambiance, moral values, and articulate presenters, thus concealing its true nature as a theological tourist-trap.) Mechanically speaking, the active ingredient of the singular, independent, exclusive words of God has been compromised, and, consequently, genuine "results" are also compromised.

However, when the truth is carefully exposed, then will people finally have something they can rely on, and only then will they truly be sanctified (John 17:17). Til then, they and we remain susceptible to the dictations of our own default foolishness, lack of knowledge, and stupidity. It is of little wonder, then, why Paul instructed Timothy in 2 Timothy 4:1-2 ~

"I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is the Judge of the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction."

 If anyone teaches the word of God and people are sanctified or saved from it, then may the teacher not assume that it was his wisdom that saved them, or his oratory skills that sanctified them. On the contrary, if those things took place it was by the word of God, not the deliverer. If His words are not taught, then men will not be sanctified, no matter how much skilful rhetoric, logic, or moving articulation the error may be adorned with. If it is not truth, it will not sanctify. Now then, we are limited to what we call truth in John 17:17:

"Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth"
~ John 17:17

May we not breach our bounds. Our job is not to invent the message, but to present it.

Finally then, beyond mere rules and guidelines and a recipe for hermeneutics and exegesis (which are indeed important), we should be careful to note that the issue of the heart must also be considered. If we aren't desperate and in despair of our ability to serve ourselves, then we will have little hesitancy and less concern for informing the words of God, because it's just another undertaking. But a broken person who is done with themselves won't trust himself enough to do that. Proverbs 3:5-6 won't be a problem for him, but he will want that. I hope that such a heart will belong to all my readers, and we will be content in the word of God and distrust in ourselves, assuming dependency as we have learned from Agur. 
____________________________________________
¹ As a side note, notice that Agur is talking about God's words, not nature, psycho-apprehensions, or sub-consciously perceived divine communications. No spiritual telegrams here.

²I am using the term "hermeneutics" somewhat loosely, and the things presented here pertain to exegesis equally as well.

 ³Without investigating the extent to which philosophy's interaction with exegesis has infected Christianity, we will be content for the time to ponder the words of Dr. Robert L. Thomas in his Evangelical Hermeneutics: "Anytime someone attempts to integrate biblical analysis with a secular field of study such as philosophy, the search for propositional truth suffers a setback". (Dr. Robert Thomas, Evangelical Hermenuetics (Kregel Publications 2002) 18)