Proverbs and the Big Picture

Purpose, Occasion, and Background

Proverbs is the prime example of “Wisdom Literature” in the OT, the other books being Job, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon, together with the wisdom psalms (e.g., Psalm 112). In the NT, James is usually counted as a wisdom book, and parts of Jesus' teaching belong in this category as well. (See Introduction to the Poetic and Wisdom Literature.)

It is sometimes said that the Wisdom Literature is separate from the rest of the OT, lacking an interest in God's choice of Israel and his overarching purpose for the nations, the law, the temple and priesthood, and sacred history. Wisdom Literature, it is said, is more about living in the creation than it is about God's work of redemption. This is a false opposition for several reasons.

First, the OT presents God's redemption as restoring the damaged creature, man, to his proper functioning (as set out in the creation narrative of Genesis). This covenant given through Moses does not specify all of God's rules; its purpose is to set out the constitution of the theocracy, to give general moral guidance, and to provide a system by which God's people can know his forgiveness. Some principles like those in Proverbs can be discerned by wise observation of God's world, and not all of the worthy observers come from Israel (see note on Prov. 31:1–9). Second, the wisdom psalms take wisdom themes and make them a part of Israel's hymnody (and thus of its public worship). Third, Proverbs bases its instruction on the fear of the Lord (1:7, using the special covenantal name of God), implying that its audience is the covenant people (cf. Deut. 6:2, 24; 10:12). Fourth, as the notes will show, Proverbs has plenty of connections to the law: e.g., cf. Proverbs 11:1 to Deuteronomy 25:13–16; and see Proverbs 29:18 for a positive assessment of both prophetic vision and the Law of Moses.

Nevertheless, Proverbs is not at all the same as the Law or the Prophets. The difference is one of emphasis rather than basic orientation. The Law and the Prophets lay their stress on the covenant people as a whole, called to show the world what restored humanity can be; Proverbs focuses on what such restoration should look like in day-to-day behavior and in personal character.

A key term in Proverbs is of course “wisdom.” The word (Hb. khokmah) can have the nuance of “skill” (as it does in Ex. 28:3), particularly the skill of choosing the right course of action for the desired result. In the covenantal framework of Proverbs, it denotes “skill in the art of godly living.”

From The ESV Study Bible introduction to Proverbs

Men's Bible Study - Proverbs 1-15

I've been given the opportunity to make a contribution to the Allen Bible Church small group men's bible study by providing some notes/discussion topics for the Wednesday night study. I figured I might as well post them up. If you don't have a bible study, feel free to read along with us and post comments. I'll respond as soon as I can.

PROVERBS 1-15

The bible study method taught in seminaries such as DTS uses the structure of Observation, Correlation, Interpretation and Application (in that order, although Correlation and Interpretation are sometimes inverted). The idea is that we Observe the text first, just to see what’s there without trying to Interpret or Apply it. Then we look for how other parts of scripture relate to it (Correlation). Once we have done the first two steps thoroughly, we can start to try to interpret the text or determine its meaning. Once we have done all of these, we can try to apply it to real life (what does this mean to me, here and now). The purpose of this week’s notes is to get us thinking about these bible study steps. The first note has a couple general points about the book as a whole, the other four relate to the 4 steps listed above.

1. General notes/questions: The book of Proverbs is basically divided into two main sections, Ch. 1-9 which represent a kind of wisdom poetry. This has more of a narrative feel to it. Ch.10 – 31 which are the proverbs “proper”. These are the 1-2 line quotes that we tend to see on coffee cups, although there are some themes that can be identified linking them together.

a. Are the proverbs teaching promises or principles?

b. What role does “fear of the Lord” have in wisdom?

c. How do they (wisdom and fear of the Lord) relate to each other?

2. Observation: Two contrasting ideas are personified (given human form) at various places in the first 9 chapters of the book. Who/What are they? Who are the other main characters in the book?

3. Correlation: How does Prov 8:22-31 describing “wisdom” relate to John 1:1-3, 14 describing “the Word”?

4. Interpretation: Context is very important for interpretation. “Con” meaning “with” or “together” and text meaning text J. A preacher once used Proverbs 7:14 “I had to offer sacrifices, and today I have paid my vows” to encourage his congregation to pay their building pledges. Would this be appropriate considering the context of the verse as well as Leviticus 15:25-30?

5. Application: As Proverbs is “wisdom” literature, it is very practical and therefore full of application. The adulterous woman is warned against in the book. Maybe we don’t struggle with an actual adulterous woman (maybe we do), but what is there in your life, here and now, that you could substitute for the adulterous woman? What is that thing that calls to you in the street?

The Eatless Diet

I weighed in this morning at 226lbs. 2 months ago I weighed in at 247lbs. I still have about 10 lbs to go but I credit my success so far to what I call the "Eatless diet".

The idea is simple - I simply EAT LESS. There are a few simple principles to the Eatless Diet that I would like to share.

1. I eat too much.

I realized I was eating about twice as much as I needed to. In our world of fast food, high fat, high sugar, foods, our bodies really need much less food than we are giving them. As I started out on the Eatless Diet, I simply used the "Rule of 1/2". The beauty of the rule of half is its simplicity. I simply took what I would normally have eaten, cut it in half, and ate that instead. There is logic behind it but one doesn't even need to know it in order for the "Rule of 1/2" to work. For those who won't take my word for it - here's the logic behind it.

The Rule of 1/2

I used an online calorie calculator based on my age, weight, height and exercise level (of course I lied and said "moderate" level of exercise when the truth is really "low"). The calculator said I need about 3100 calories to maintain my current weight (which was 247). I figure I was eating about 3100 - 3800 calories a day (depending on the day) because I certainly wasn't losing weight. I had heard somewhere that a pound is approximately 3000 calories so I figured if I cut my current intake in half that would be about 1900 calories a day which would mean I would lose about .36 lbs a day or 2.5 lbs a week. 8 weeks and 20 lbs later I'd say this logic was pretty spot on. (For those of you who don't know me and are envisioning a short portly gentleman, I'm 6'4" and moderately muscular so my target weight is about 215-220).

Quick Note - I didn't count calories. That takes too long and is too much work for me. I don't have the calories of everything memorized and I don't plan on carrying a calorie/points calculator everywhere I go. It was just a general rule. If I would normally eat 2 sandwiches for lunch, I just ate 1. If I would normally eat one giant hamburger, I ate half of a giant hamburger. If I'd normally get a 12 inch Subway meatball sandwich, I got a 6 inch instead.

2. Hunger does not = death.

Not in upper middle class suburban America anyway. When you eat too much it is like a drug addiction. When you stop, there are withdrawal pains. The withdrawal pain that comes with eating like a normal person is hunger. Before I started the "Eatless Diet" I thought hunger was about the worst thing that could happen to me. This was a psychological barrier that I had to overcome. When I eat half of what I used to, I'm going to get hungry. This is not the end of the world. I'm not going to die from 1-2 hours of hunger between meals. I don't need to try to eat extra at the next meal in order to escape the clutches of the hunger monster. I had to learn to deal with a little bit of hunger like I would deal with a paper cut or a headache. You just deal with it.

8 weeks in, I can promise that a 1900 calorie diet will not kill a person (adjust proportionately to height and weight and the same is true). In fact, I actually started feeling better. I wasn't sluggish after meals, I didn't wake up in the morning with an upset stomach because of my still un-digested food from the night before, and I slept better. After a while, I didn't get as hungry. My body started getting used to the change in amount of food and stopped freaking out on me.

3. Weigh every day

I want to lose weight not gain weight. I also don't like surprises. I realize there are some programs out there that tell you to only weigh once a week - that doesn't work for me. For me, out of site is out of mind and that equals me getting fat. I weigh every morning and celebrate every .36lbs I lose (with a flex in the mirror). I would suggest weighing in the morning before you eat and after you do your "business in the bathroom". I find that this is when I am at my lightest because I haven't eaten anything in 8 - 13 hours and so I don't have any food in my stomach weighing me down. I also like to go to the bathroom first so there is no food in my bowels weighing me down. This gives me a good baseline to judge from day to day. If I weigh after a meal or in the evening, I'm likely to weigh 1-2 lbs more.

Also, I don't expect the decrease to be consistent every day. I may go a day flat and then be down almost a pound the next day. I may go up 1/2 lb one day and down a pound the next (net 1/2 lb down). The point though is that if I go 2-3 days without going down at all (or if I go up) then I'm probably eating too much or cheating and I need to get serious.

I also heard on the Biggest Loser that if you eat too little, you will lose weight slower. I guess that's why Weight Watchers wants you to eat to the "top of your points". The thing about it is that eating too little is not really a problem for me. My problem is eating too much so I don't really worry too much about this. Plus, I think if I stick to the rule of 1/2, then I'll be OK.

That's really all I've done. 3 step process, no meetings, no calculators, no calorie counting, no all meat, no all veggies, no weird stuff that's hard to remember. There is a part two to the "Eatless Diet". It comes when you've been doing it for a while and have lost some weight and your body starts to get comfortable with the new level of eating. This is where I am now. The problem I am having now is the "Rule of 1/2" is difficult because my habits have changed and I have a hard time remembering what I used to eat in order to cut it in half.

More on Part 2 later. I still have some things I have to work out on it.

PS - the Infomercial and Book are in the works.

Married with Singles

I've been pretty swamped at work lately so I haven't had a chance to blog as much as I would like. I wanted to give a quick informational update on the goings on.

The church has called me to be a singles intern under Randy Beggs and Joe Patton. My duties will be to basically function as the interim singles minister, under Randy and Joe's supervision. Randy will still be the singles minister but since he is the interim high school minister, the majority of the singles duties will fall on me.

The duties basically include making sure events are planned and communicated to the group, contacting visitors during the week, teaching the ABF, taking roll in class and being the go to guy when people have questions. Randy and Joe want to make sure that there is strong leadership in place while Randy is working with the high school ministry.

I have to say that I'm very excited about the opportunity. It feels like Christmas eve. For those who have eyes to see, God is doing some awesome things at Cottonwood Creek.

I think the biggest challenge that I observe, from my admittedly limited viewpoint, are subtle areas where the "church" gets in the way of the gospel. Luckily, God is the one who is working, our challenge is to stay out of the way!

I have also been in contact with Jon Wood and we are planning to have a Bible Basics/Faith 101 class starting in the fall that I will teach. This class would be during the 11:00 ABF time slot. I'm really excited about this class and I feel that there is a great need for this in the church. It will NOT be "Christianity for dummies".

The fundamentals of the faith will be taught, with the assumption that the class members are intelligent - competent people, even though they may or may not have a lot of biblical knowledge or background. The class will be for ANYONE but will be especially focused on new Christians/new church members, or people who have been in church a long time but want to get a grounded understanding of what the Gospel is - so they can better understand and appreciate their time in church and their study in the future.

The content emphasis will be on teaching the story of God in the bible, what the Gospel is, as well as how we can feed ourselves with God's word.

The class will probably run 10 - 12 weeks and be repeated each semester. Those who go through the class would then move on to find an ABF. I also think it's a great way to channel newcomers to the church into a place where they can be welcomed and taught while they get comfortable and aware of all the church has to offer.

I am also tentatively planning to teach the LDS Truth & Recovery class again in the fall (still working out the details on this). This would be an extended version of the spring class and would probably go somewhere between 8 - 10 weeks. Based on the turnout to the previous class, I think the focus of the class will change a little bit. The primary focus of the actual class will be teaching/awareness with an emphasis on evangelism - as opposed to fellowship/support. Hopefully, the class will also help those in transition come out of the woodwork and provide opportunities for fellowship/support which would take place in a separate (though related) home group.

It's all alot to think about, but the beauty of the LDS group is that once the lessons are planned and the powerpoints are done (hopefully I'll get them all done before the class starts), the actual class requires very little time outside of actually teaching it.

The same goes for the Faith 101 class. This semester will be tough, but once the lessons are prepared, repeat teaching the course will be alot easier.

Please note also that these are not official announcements. Except for the singles ministry, the other two classes are "in the works". Though they are likely, they are not official - yet.

That's all I got!

CMP

PS. If you know singles 1 type people (unmarried/18-early 30s), send them to Merge on Thursday night at 7:30 in the atrium at Cottonwood Creek. It's legit.

Quick Correction

In an earlier post on James, I stated that he was a fisherman by trade. This may not have been the case. James - brother of John was a fisherman. James - brother of Jesus was ??? I don't know. I like to think he was an accountant. - Just kidding. If someone knows what he was before he was the leader of the church in Jerusalem, please let me know.

Water! Water!

I am listening to a DTS podcast about bible translation and I had an interesting side thought. The podcasters were discussing the challenges of bible translation and the different ways the bible can be translated.

One of the challenges that comes up is that "literal" words/phrases don't mean the same thing in different languages. The challenge of the translator is to decide whether they should translate the "literal word" or the "literal meaning" (From Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek to English or other modern languages). I see merit to both. Here's the example I thought of from my foreign language experience.

In the Mexican Spanish that I learned while in California, the people use an expression which means "Watch out!" or "Be careful!" . They say "Agua! Agua!". The literal word translation of this is "Water! Water!". As you can see, this creates a challenge for a translator. Say I was a UN translator and one of the Mexican representatives used the term "Agua! Agua!". It would be silly for me to say "Water! Water!" into the microphone for the English speaking representative to hear. They would have no idea what the Mexican rep was talking about. I would justifiably translate this as "Watch out!" or "Be careful!".

When we talk about bible translation however, this becomes more complicated and this is where the audience/purpose of translation becomes important. As a serious student (albeit lay student) of the bible, I want to know what the actual words are. This will require some further research on my part, language study, commentary study, etc. to understand what the meaning of the text is. I would like a translation that says "Water! Water!".

However - the regular reader, the young person, the new Christian, or the non-believer might not benefit from that kind of translation. They probably want a translation that says "Watch out!" because they don't intend to take the time to research the language. Actually - I would also like this kind of translation (in addition to the other), to use as a casual reading bible or to use in conjuction with the word for word during more serious study.

There are dangers to both as well. In a purely word for word (ex. interlinear and to some extent the NASB), some of the "meaning" could be lost because the words don't make as much sense in English.

The opposite danger that I see is that in an effort to help the words and phrases "make sense", the translator may take too much liberty or may allow their personal theology to skew the translation. In other words, while some interpretation must be done - too much interpretation could also cause the "meaning" to be distorted. Alot of good translations will help this issue by including footnotes that give the actual greek word when they have "interpreted" it to be something else.

Also, the KJV creates special issues because although it falls a little closer to the "word for word" end of the spectrum, it is Hebrew/Greek to Old English. Therefore you have the special challenge of making sure the translation from the Greek is correct, and then you (the reader) have the challenge of translating Old English to Modern English (in your brain) to understand the meaning.

And for those of you who didn't know this; the modern translations are not translations from the KJV into Modern English. They are from the most original and/or most abundant (different discussion) Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic transcripts.

Conclusion - Agua! Agua! and don't assume that your "phrase for phrase" translation is "literal" and also don't pretend that you understand all of your "word for word" translation's expressions. Don't be too lazy to consult a "word for word" and don't be to proud to consult a "phrase for phrase". The good news is that there are abundant resources available (language study, commentaries, different translations, etc.) to help us get to the bottom of what the text says and what the text means.

Happy reading.

Religion & Magic

I am reading a book called "Early Mormonism and the Magical Worldview" (written by a BYU professor who is now a former BYU professor because of the book). I am only 3/4 through the introduction but it is already very interesting.

The author makes the point that magic and religion are very similar. The difference is that society has deemed magic as "bad" and religion as "good/virtuous". They both use ritual, words, signs, actions, etc. to achieve certain results.

I agree with the author that religion and magic are fundamentally the same. This comparison reveals a lot about the author's worldview resulting from his LDS background. It is also an example of why I am no longer LDS nor do I consider myself "religious".

In a magical worldview (this is describing the occult and NOT the optical illusions of modern day magicians) a person attempts to manipulate his surroundings (both visible and invisible) by appealing to some kind of natural order through ritual, incantations, proper behaviors, sacred objects, etc. This manipulation is to achieve a result desired by the person whether that be health, wealth, wisdom, defeat of an enemy, finding treasure, telling the future, etc.

In a religious worldview, a person uses similar manipulations such as ritual, incantations (liturgy or prayers), proper behaviors (morality), sacred objects (cups, temples, altars, oil), etc. to attempt to achieve a desired result. The result desired may be similar to those described above, or it may simply be "heaven" or a kind of "paradise". The main difference I see between magic and religion, is that while the occult may be trying to manipulate nature or the unseen world, the religious try to manipulate God to achieve their desired result.

In religion, God becomes the means to an end. This is true, in some way or another, of all major "religions" (Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Mormonism). About Mormonism specifically (since the author's background is what sparked this blog post), the manipulation plays out something like this.

In Mormonism, God is the means to the end of man's exaltation (godhood). We bind God through the performance of ritual (ordinances), proper behaviors (works/obedience), sacred objects (garments/temples/seer stones), etc. and he must therefore bless us in this life and grant us exaltation in the life to come. "I the Lord am bound when ye do what I say, but when ye do not what I say, ye have no promise" (rough quote D&C 82). This runs parallel to the magical idea that if a person says the incantation correctly, is a virgin, and does the ritual dance correctly, then "nature" or whatever power they appeal to, will be compelled to grant their demands.

The idea that God is a means to an end is further evidenced by the statement I have heard many times (and made myself) that "If all we are doing in heaven is singing praise to God I think that will get pretty boring. God is not that selfish that he would want us to spend eternity singing his praises." Also the idea that "Even if I'm not in the celestial kingdom with God, I'll be comfortable wherever I am." In both ideas, God is not what is desired - rather the person desires comfort or godhood.

Christian denominations are not immune to this kind of "religious" thinking. There are many in Baptist, Methodist, and non-denominational churches who obey God, "get saved", attend church, etc. because they are seeking their heavenly reward - whatever they envision that reward to be (this usually involves a mansion of some sort and eternal comfort - possibly playing a harp on a cloud). Or, they are simply trying to avoid their understanding of hell (small houses, fire, and eternal discomfort - also, no harps).

This is why true Christianity is different from every major religion. Christianity is not a religion, it is just the reality of what God is doing in the universe and what our role is in that reality. The Christian does not seek to manipulate God in order to receive a desired outcome. For a true Christian, God IS the treasure we seek (mansion or no mansion). When God is the treasure you seek, then hell becomes anywhere that you are separate from God. God's purpose is not to be the means by which we can move on to bigger and better things (our own godhood). There is nothing bigger and better than He is (X infinity). His purpose is the glory of His name by reconciling the world to himself through the saving work of Jesus Christ. God is bound by nothing and can not be manipulated. The good that He bestows upon us is because of His grace and mercy - not because we have bound Him by our obedience, ritual, etc.

Much more could be said about this. Suffice it to say that the magical/religious and the Christian paradigms are fundamentally different and have a profound effect on how we view ourselves, God, our purpose, God's purpose, morality, obedience, heaven and the meaning of life.

I'm interested to see what else the former BYU professor has to say on magic.