Words of Truth
Stephen Terry
Commentary for the February 28, 2015
Sabbath School Lesson
“When Judas, who had betrayed him,
saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty
pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders. ‘I have sinned,’ he said,
‘for I have betrayed innocent blood.’”
“‘What is that to us?’
they replied. ‘That’s your responsibility.’”
“So Judas threw the
money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself.” Matthew
27:3-5, NIV
Perhaps the
most prominent theme in the book of Proverbs is the idea of personal
responsibility. As such, this book ties in with the thread of the Bible’s narrative
from its earliest chapters. At creation, mankind was given responsibility for
the Earth. Adam and Eve became rulers of all earthly creation.[i]
The story does not tell us exactly how long this was the case, but eventually
they chose to transfer their fealty from God to that rebel cast down from
heaven, Satan.[ii] Once
they did so, they immediately began to shirk responsibility. Instead of
humbly admitting his choice was erroneous and accepting the consequences,
Adam blamed Eve and God, who created her.[iii]
Eve for her part behaved similarly, placing the blame on the serpent, rather
than accepting the blame for her own choice.[iv]
Perhaps this was out of fear,[v]
or perhaps it was simply a natural outgrowth of their relationship to their new
overlord. Whatever the reason, the blame game on Earth seems to have begun
here.
Throughout
the history of the human race we have continued this tendency to blame others
for the consequences of our choices. Maybe this is the essence of sin, trying
to excuse or lift up ourselves by pointing out the faults of others. If indeed
all have sinned,[vi]
then all have participated in this blaming. I know I have. I have also
discovered that in spite of any hope that I may have of escaping the
consequences of my bad choices by blaming others, like Adam and Eve may have
hoped, the consequences still come. Then I not only have those consequences to
face, but also the shame of having judged my partner in crime, even though I am
not better off in the end for doing so.
Some might
say at this point that the other in their particular case was no real partner
so no great loss there. However, we all are indeed partners in the brotherhood
of sin, because we all have chosen at some point to enroll in that fellowship.
While God provided a way out of that syndicate through Jesus, that door is not
opened by blaming others. It is opened only by accepting our responsibility for
whom and what we are and choosing to leave that path. It is a process the Bible
calls repentance.[vii]
It means instead of walking away from God and toward Satan, we choose to begin
walking the other direction, back toward God. For most this would be a complete
about face.
Proverbs seems to be series of signposts along that new pathway. There are
aphorisms related to social and sexual relationships, marriage, work ethics and
even regarding one’s relationship to God. But all of these sayings can
challenge our understanding of inspiration. Some may wish to think of
inspiration as God dictating to his faithful servants a message for them to
relay word for word to those reading it both now and in the future. This seems
clean and simple, just like some maybe would like God to be. They may not have
an understanding of what it means when God is described as ineffable. These may
even encapsulate this view of inspiration in sayings like “God said it. I
believe it, and that’s good enough for me.”
But what
happens when what is inspired tells us conflicting things? What happens when
the proverbial signposts on the celestial road to paradise give us opposing
directions for how to get there? For example, when Proverbs tells us not to
answer a fool according to his folly and in the very next verse tells us to
answer a fool according to his folly,[viii]
how do we sort out the inspiration in that situation? If we believe in literal,
verbal inspiration, we are faced with an inspirational paradox. Both
contradictory statements cannot be inspired by a God who is always consistent,
yet both contradictory statements are inspired. Therefore either God is not
consistent, or perhaps our view of inspiration is flawed.
There are
several passages in the Bible that can possibly support the idea that God is
inconsistent. There is the case of the Canaanite city of Jericho, where God
instructed the Israelites to slay everyone. Yet some of those same Israelites
promised to spare Rahab and her family,[ix]
even though God had commanded otherwise regarding the Canaanites.[x]
Then to complicate things even further, Rahab marries Salmon and becomes a
progenitor of King David and thereby the Messiah. Some may question this
introduction of blood from outside the covenant into the messianic line. It
seems inconsistent with God’s repeated admonitions to purity throughout the Old
Testament such as Ezra’s prayer.[xi]
It could be interpreted that God set forth the rules and then decided instead
to make things up as He went along.
Another example is the case of Ruth, the Moabitess, who married Boaz. A Moabite
was not allowed to participate in the congregation of Israel for ten
generations.[xii] Yet,
we find that in far fewer generations than ten, her descendant, David, is not
only worshipping with the Israelites, he is also king over Israel. Again it
seems as though God may be making up His own rules, in spite of the instructions
He gave Israel. David even committed adultery with Bathsheba the daughter of
Ahithophel, and murdered her husband Uriah.[xiii]
Both of
these were capital offenses according to God’s instruction to the Israelites.[xiv]
Yet, not only was David not put to death, but the woman whom he committed
adultery with bore him Solomon, his successor to the throne, and we should not
forget through this troubled line, the Messiah was born.[xv]
It is as though God gave extensive commandments to the people regarding how
they were to deal with sin and then said “Never mind.”
It could not
have been easy for those who may have lost family members who were put to death
because of the same transgressions, yet witness these who did the same and were
not executed for their actions. Perhaps this or similar situations gave rise to
the doctrine regarding the “divine right of kings,” a doctrine epitomized in
James I of England and Louis XIV of France. That doctrine posited that kings
were not subject to the same moral restraints as their subjects because they
received their office and authority directly from God, to whom alone they gave
answer. We might question whether this was the reason for David’s exemption if
we have trouble understanding this otherwise.
If we cannot
admit to these inconsistencies then we will be “hoist by our own petard,” as
thinking individuals will likely not be duped by contrived and convoluted
apologetics. Apologetics, by its very nature, assumes that truth is already
self-evident and must only be explained to the uninitiated. It asserts that
religion is too obscure to be understood by the common man and therefore must
be explained. It is the refutation of a “simple” gospel, replacing it with a hidden
gnosis known only by the elect who are guardians of this intricate knowledge.
This begs the question then as to how anyone may be saved who does not comprehend
such knowledge. If the answer is that they may be saved in spite of their lack
of understanding, then perhaps the justification for these explanations
evaporates. In other words, the apologetics become irrelevant.
This may be the key to understanding inspiration in general and Proverbs in
particular: relevance. When faced with conflicting aphorisms, a determination
of which is inspired counsel may be whether or not it is relevant to a given
situation. For instance, there may be times when joining into an argument with
obviously foolish persons is futile and even detrimental to one’s reputation as
those looking on might simply feel yet another fool has joined the debate. At
other times, it might be advisable to jump into the argument to bring an
otherwise out-of-control war of words to a conclusion. In that case, the role
of peacemaker may be justifiable. Purpose and circumstances will determine
relevance, and relevance then may determine God’s will in the matter.
In making
these determinations, it may be helpful to understand that God’s will seems to
far oftener land on the side of compassion and mercy as opposed to judgment and
censure. Even when judgment is the result, it, too, is often tempered with
mercy. When David numbered Israel and the resulting judgment was a plague
released upon the land, David interceded with the Lord, and the destroying
angel spared Jerusalem.[xvi]
God is loving and merciful and any understanding of inspiration that distorts that
picture may find a conflict between a literalistic application of God’s
commands to the sinner in comparison to God’s loving compassion toward that
sinner as demonstrated in the life of Christ. The former only brings
condemnation and death. The latter is the same breath of life that flowed
through the Messianic line and eventually brought life to each of us.
