BOOK OF PROVERBS: QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Proverbs 6:1-5 “Do not be a man who strikes hands in a pledge or puts up security for debts; if you lack the means to pay, your very bed will be snatched from under you.” There are several proverbs similar to this. What exactly is the wisdom being conveyed? It seems to be saying one would be foolish to put up a deposit on something, which seems to be common practice today.

There are several ways in which these passages have been misunderstood or misapplied by Christians.

First, it is clear that Proverbs 6:1-5, 11:15 and 17:18 are specifically dealing with the issue we today would call co-signing for a loan. This especially applies to co-signing for someone we do not know very well. Thus, they do not at all address the separate issue of whether or not we should pay cash only for our purchases and avoid taking on any personal loans.

I witnessed one example of someone taking the valid principle of these proverbs too far. The youth minister at a former church refused to write a character reference for a very godly college student at our church because he said it was forbidden by these passages in Proverbs. This was even though the letter would not have committed him to any financial obligations at all. The student was understandably very hurt and confused by this minister's actions.

This brings up the larger point regarding the proverbs in the Bible. They are to be taken as good general guidelines on how to act wisely, and do not necessarily deal with spiritual or moral issues. The proverbs cited above fall into this category. Also, taking them too literally can cause violation of other proverbs such as Proverbs 17:17: “A friend loves at all times, and kinsfolk are born to share adversity.” That was why I wrote the character reference myself

Also, as New Testament Christians we need to heed the words of Christ and Paul, both of whom taught that sometimes we need to put our own needs aside and do foolish things in the eyes of the world in order to obey the higher law of love for others.

Now, as to the specific proverb (22:26-27) you quoted above, there the language is a little more ambiguous than the others bundled together in The Chronological Bible under the category “Surety for Another.” However, most commentators would agree with the editor of The Chronological Bible that this passage also refers only to taking on the debts of others, not of your own. One reason is that the language is almost identical to that used in Proverbs 11:15, which definitely refers to co-signing for others.

To address your specific question of whether we are enjoined not to take on any sort of personal debt, we would have to look at other proverbs where that might be actually taught and then put the teaching into its proper literary and historical context.

Proverbs 30-31 The Sayings of Agur and the Sayings of King Lemuel are recorded. What do we know about them and why would their sayings be worthy of recording (in the mind of the author/compiler)? King Lemuel says “Give beer to those who are perishing, wine to those who are in anguish; let them drink and forget poverty and remember their misery no more.” Sounds like the advice of many a country song.

What do we know about these authors? Practically nothing other than what is recorded in the headings of these two chapters. The word massa appears in both these headings. It has been translated as “oracle” by some while others feel it is a place name indicating where Agur and Lemuel came from. If this latter idea is correct, then it is probably located in northern Arabia in line with the appearance of this same word in Genesis 25:14 and I Chronicles 1:30. An Arabian background would also fit with the names Agur and Lemuel, which are not typical Jewish names.

Why were they included in the Bible? Although we do have some records of the discussions involved in the original compiling of the New Testament books, the Old Testament is another matter. Ultimately, we have to take it on faith that the ancient Jews who made these decisions were properly guided by the Holy Spirit to preserve only what God wanted preserved, and that these words are, as the NIV translates, “an inspired utterance.” It may seem strange in this case that apparently non-Jewish writings were included in the Book of Proverbs. However, remember that proverbs represent the type of general wisdom that God gives to all mankind, in contrast to the Law which was uniquely given to his chosen people. Thus, there is nothing unusual in the Jewish wise men appropriating writings that they felt added to the total body of wisdom. The sayings of Lemuel are especially interesting since it is stated that he was not the real author of them; his mother was.

What about the country western song (Proverbs 31:6-7)? Taken in its context, this does not sound quite as bad as it appears at first. Considering the preceding verses 4-5, we could paraphrase this advice as follows: “Those in positions of power should not abuse alcohol. They need clear heads since their decisions affect a great number of people. If anyone at all has reason to drink, it would be poor people to perhaps help them momentarily forget their troubles.” This rather earthly advice is then followed by the excellent moral advice in verses 8-9. This is a plea for leaders to actually be proactive in supporting the rights of those who are powerless and destitute so that presumably their resorting to drink would no longer be needed.

Several commentators express the opinion that the advice in verses 6-7 is not to be taken at face value at all:

    “It is difficult to be certain whether these verses are inspired by cynicism or are intended to be taken seriously.” (Whybray)

    “The command to give intoxicants to all who are dying of hunger to anesthetize them permanently is sarcastic, not a proposed welfare program to provide free beer as an opiate to the masses.” (Waltke)

    “Verses 6,7 probably provide a sarcastic comment on the folly of drunken kings rather than serious advice to let the perishing drown his sorrows.” (Charles Martin)

One group that did take these verses seriously was the Jewish Sanhedrin. In his commentary on the Gospel of Mark, William Lane (p. 564) notes that ancient tradition required the respected women of Jerusalem to provide some sort of narcotic drink to those condemned to die a painful death in order to alleviate their suffering. This practice was justified by quoting Proverbs 31:6-7 and forms the background for Jesus being offered wine mixed with myrrh while on the cross. Jesus refused this drink “choosing to endure with full consciousness the sufferings appointed for him.”