What Does Your Proof Text Prove? (28)

Judd is writing a letter to the editor at one of his frequently visited websites. He finds it suboptimal that despite “signaling moderate distaste” for Donald Trump, its editor would actually consider voting for the man should he run for president in the 2024 election. Judd’s counterproposal is that the Republican Party seek out a candidate who epitomizes biblical values rather than a divisive individual sporting a well-acknowledged plethora of warts and wrinkles.

By way of correction, Judd offers a familiar proverb. To his mind, the teaching of scripture should be conclusive: “When a man’s ways please the Lord, he makes even his enemies to be at peace with him.”

Getting the System to Behave

Here’s Judd’s argument: “If Proverbs is true, ‘the system’ would behave a bit better if a righteous man were at the head … How about simple faith?”

Interesting suggestion, and I note the editor doesn’t bother to question the applicability of Judd’s proverb to the political dilemma of the week. Well, let me have a go …

At issue is the sense in which any given Bible proverb may be said to be “true”. By definition, proverbs are pithy sayings that express basic truths. They are generalizations, broad and sweeping observations that prove reliable most of the time. Proverbs are not commands, as we might find in the Law of Moses, nor are they calls to change the reader’s ways such as we might find in the Prophets. Most of them were written by Solomon first and foremost to his sons in order to teach them how best to proceed in many of the sticky situations life may throw at them.

So then, given its genre, I would be inclined to paraphrase the above statement this way: “My son, pleasing the Lord is always going to be your best bet in life. It will reliably produce the best possible results. There are no conditions under which pleasing the Lord will ever be a bad thing, and even the hardest hearts may be won when the Lord is on your side.”

Equivocating? Absolutely!

If it seems like I am equivocating here, failing to interpret Solomon’s words in their strictest and most absolute sense, I agree. Here’s why: because a proverb does not “work” 100% of the time. That’s not what proverbs were intended to do even in the moment they were written, let alone in a different era of God’s dealings with men. When confronted by a wrathful person, my best bet is always going to be the “soft answer” rather than “hard words”. Proverbs says so, and I agree. But will my soft answer get me the result I am looking for every time? Personal experience says no. Some people are too angry or cynical or just plain crazy to be deterred by a gentle response. That doesn’t make the proverb “untrue”. It just means it cannot serve as the universal predictor of a positive outcome.

There’s a second problem here. Solomon’s proverb must also be interpreted in its historical context. It was written to Jews under the Law of Moses in a theocratic environment. When everything was operating in Israel as God had designed it, such a proverb would hold true most of the time, and even if it didn’t, pleasing the Lord would always be a better choice than not pleasing the Lord. In Israel, a man’s “enemies” would tend to be of a certain type, and even the worst of them were trying to live under the same legal system and acknowledged the same civil and religious standards.

Generalizations and Absolutes

But here’s the thing: Even Solomon knew very well his proverb was not an absolute. As Solomon’s father David found out, there is no magical fix for enmity. David’s ways pleased the Lord, especially during his early years. What was his reward? The king of Israel remained so determined to kill him that he had to remain a fugitive for somewhere in the range of seven to fifteen years. During that time, David continued to seek to please the Lord, and his circumstances brought him into repeated armed conflicts with Philistines, Geshurites, Girzites and Amalekites. Did the “system” behave a bit better for David during those years? Not a bit of it. The only time David’s enemies were “at peace with him” during those years was when David had struck them dead. Later, of course, David knew temporary peace with his enemies by the grace of God, but characteristically, he was a “man of war” and characteristically he shed the blood of his enemies. How much blood? Tens of thousands dead, if yet another proverb is remotely accurate.

Does that make Proverbs 16:7 untrue? Not at all. It’s a proverb, not a cast-iron guarantee.

Proverbs and Christian Living

But let’s move this debate out of the Old Testament, because Judd is wanting to apply Solomon’s words in our own exceedingly fractious modern political arena rather than under a theocratic umbrella. So now, what can a man whose ways please the Lord expect in our present era? Well, for one, “All who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted.” Not “may” or “might”: “will”.

Or how about these words of the Lord Jesus to his disciples:

“If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you.”

Or how about “In the world you will have tribulation”?

Moreover, as the church moves into a new era of God’s dealings with his people, the trend continues. Some sixty years later, the same Lord Jesus writes to the church in Smyrna, “Do not fear what you are about to suffer.”

Enemies at peace with Christians for pleasing the Lord? Not so much.

A Little Bit More History

Forget the teaching of scripture. (Wait, did I really just write that?) Okay, don’t forget it, but let’s just list a few New Testament historical examples of godly living and its documented effect on one’s enemies. Did Stephen’s ways please the Lord? Did Paul’s? Did Peter’s or James’s or John’s or Antipas’s? I would estimate they did. How did it go with their enemies? A few stonings, a few executions, the occasional exile. Other than that, totally peaceful.

How did it go with the Lord Jesus himself, who always did the things that were pleasing to his Father? I rest my case.

Proverbs are not trump cards, even when you desperately want to trump Trump. Will today’s system behave a little bit better with a righteous man at its head instead of a serial adulterer or a Tweeter in Chief? History and scripture say otherwise. In fact, I suspect the more righteous the man chosen to lead the Republican Party in the coming election, the more venomous and outright psychotic will be his opposition.

Realistic Expectations

That’s not a reason to avoid choosing one. But please don’t calibrate your expectations for peace with the Democrats, the WEF, #BlackLivesMatter, Antifa, the LGBTQ crowd, feminists, environmentalists or anyone else at war with the West on the basis of a pithy biblical truism quoted outside its historical context.

And Proverbs is always true. It just ain’t necessarily applicable in every situation.