On Proper Exegesis and God’s Promises, Part 2

In his book, Satan and the Problem of Evil, Gregory Boyd asks the question, “What can we trust God for?” He says that Christians are often admonished to “trust God” during difficult times, but that it’s not self-evident exactly what that means. We need to define more precisely what it is we are to trust God for.

I couldn’t agree more. Let’s start with something basic. Romans 10:9 says: if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. Since I’ve done that, I can trust God for my salvation.

So we could conclude that we should trust God for what he specifically promises in his word. Trusting in a promise of God is the basis of faith. In other words, you can’t have faith when you doubt God’s will or his word (Jam 1:6-8). So faith begins where the will of God is known.

Here’s another “promise of God”:

If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. (1 Jn 1:9)

We can see that both Romans 10:9 and 1 John 1:9 are conditional promises. If we will do x, then God will do y. If I confess my sins, then God forgives my sins and purifies me from all unrighteousness, and the promise becomes a fact. So far, so good. Now let’s dip into the Old Testament:

Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and lean not on your own understanding; In all your ways acknowledge Him, and He shall direct your paths. (Pro 3:5-6 NKJ)

There’s another wonderful promise I can trust God for, especially in times of doubt. But wait just a minute… Theologian and scholars tell me that the book of Proverbs is a literary genre known as “wisdom literature,” and that the reader must keep this in mind to correctly understand it. Wisdom literature of the Bible is a collection of wise sayings that contain general truths, not promises. The author expressed these general truths as absolutes in order to emphasize their importance.

As evidence, Boyd points out that oftentimes what is stated in a proverb does not play out in reality. For example, although Proverbs 12:21 says: “No harm befalls the righteous, but the wicked have their fill of trouble,” history and experience has shown that the righteous often suffer greatly while the wicked often live in peace and prosperity. According to Boyd, “If read as a universal law, this passage is nonsense.” He goes on to say, “As a general principle, however, righteous living helps one avoid harm while wicked living leads to trouble. The author states the principle in absolute terms to emphasize its importance.”¹

So where does that leave me with Proverbs 3:5-6? Does this passage also become “complete nonsense” if I take as a universal law or promise? Apparently I need to be versed in literary genres to properly interpret these passages, and I ought to consult with theologians and scholars, and their various commentaries, to tell me how.

Or here’s another thought: I can take God’s word at face value and trust in the Holy Spirit to correct me when I’m wrong. What a concept.

I’m not trying to over-spiritualize things or claim that we have no need for proper exegesis. But should my faith based on a passage’s literary genre, or the fact that it’s God’s Word? 1 Corinthians 1:20 says: For no matter how many promises God has made, they are “Yes” in Christ. So should I put my faith in that and take Proverbs as part of those “many promises”? Or should I put my faith in the theologians who say that the “genre” of Proverbs means it’s not to be taken as literal promises?

Personally, I’d rather err on the side of trusting the Spirit as opposed to trusting the intellect. Maybe I’m naïve, but I choose to take Proverbs at face value – as a promise – and find that I’m wrong, rather than interpret it by its genre and wonder why I’m not experiencing God’s blessings.

---

¹Boyd, Gregory A. Satan and the Problem of Evil: Constructing a Trinitarian Warfare Theodicy. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press,2001.

On Proper Exegesis and God’s Promises, Part 1

Exegesis is defined as “the careful, systematic study of the Scripture to discover the original, intended meaning; in other words, an attempt to hear the words of the Bible as the original recipients were to have heard them.” (Fee & Stuart) A “basic rule” of exegesis is that the text “cannot mean what it never could have meant to its author or his readers.” Makes sense to me.

Well then, I have an issue with the apostle Matthew. He seems to have violated this “basic rule” when he interpreted Jeremiah 31:15 as prophetic of Herod’s slaughter of the innocent children in Matthew 2:16-19:

When Herod realized that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was furious, and he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had learned from the Magi. Then what was said through the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled:

“A voice is heard in Ramah,weeping and great mourning,Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because they are no more.”

When we look at the entire passage of Jeremiah 31, we see that it begins with, “’At that time,’ declares the LORD,” which refers to the beginning of the previous chapter, Jeremiah 30, verse 3:

“The days are coming,” declares the LORD, “when I will bring
my people Israel and Judah back from captivity and restore them to the land I gave their forefathers to possess,” says the LORD.

So in context, Jeremiah 31 is about God’s plans to bring the people of Israel out of captivity and restore them to the land. Meanwhile, Rachael is “weeping for her children” and “refusing to be comforted” because she looks over the land of Israel and sees that her children are “no more” in the land they once possessed. In verse 16-17, God responds to her sorrow:

This is what the LORD says:
“Restrain your voice from weeping
and your eyes from tears,
for your work will be rewarded,”
declares the LORD.
“They will return from the land of the enemy.
So there is hope for your future,”
declares the LORD.
“Your children will return to their own land.”

God is reassuring Rachel that, in spite of the fact that her children “are no more,” he will return her children to their own land. This is what the author meant, and this is how his readers understood it. When taken in context, it’s clear that Jeremiah was not talking about innocent children being slaughtered by an evil king several hundred years hence.

Someone should let God know that he broke a “basic rule” of exegesis.