Proverbs 6:1-19 describes three kinds of fool.
The first fool is the Savior. This person really, really loves people. Especially needy people. Especially needy people who keep having needs. This person will bend over backwards to meet a need. The Savior will joyfully sacrifice time, money, and energy to help people with their problems. But…the problems never go away. And the people with problems multiply. The Savior attracts them and feels really good about it.
I am this fool. If you’re honest, you probably are, too.
My son, if you have put up security for your neighbor,
Have given your pledge for a stranger,
If you are snared in the words of your mouth,
Caught in the words of your mouth,
Then do this, my son, and save yourself,
For you have come into the hand of your neighbor:
Go, hasten, and plead urgently with your neighbor.
Give your eyes no sleep
And your eyelids no slumber;
Save yourself like a gazelle from the hand of the hunter,
Like a bird from the hand of the fowler (Prov 6:1-5, ESV).
The ancient world had no banks, no wire transfers, and no lines of credit. If you had no cash (in the form of coins), you had no net worth. You might be able to buy some life essentials with livestock, cloth, or labor, but otherwise you were likely to need a loan of some sort.
Tilemahos Efthimiadis (2006), Creative Commons
Another institution unfamiliar to the ancient world was the credit bureau. If you wanted to borrow money from me, I couldn’t run a credit check to prove your ability to repay the loan. So to lower risk, I could only get a sense of your character by talking to your family and friends. But to be really safe, I would require two signatures on the loan papers – one from you and one from your surety. Your surety was the person who promised to pay me back if somehow you found yourself unable to do so.
In Prov 6:1, Solomon writes to the person who has become the surety for another. He addresses the one who “put up security” and gave a pledge to repay someone else’s loan in case of default.
What’s at stake for this person? As a surety, you have “come into the hand of your neighbor” (Prov 6:3). If the borrower defaults, you become obligated to pay the debt. You have become a slave to someone else’s circumstances, and you ought not rest until you free yourself (Prov 6:4). You’re road kill unless you find a way out (Prov 6:5). You should not make such pledges. If you already have, nullify them at all costs.
This sort of Savior wasn’t limited to ancient Israel. Next week I’ll show how he’s still thriving and saving today.
Question: Where do you see the “Savior” in our generation?
I have seen this pattern in my life! I used to have friends, that we were only good friends when things were going terribly! Then we could always chat! Being the savior seemed so awesome! This was most prevalent in middle school but it still rears its ugly head from time to time!
Peter, would you please help me see why this is a warning to a fool who wants to be a savior for another, rather than simply a warning against becoming a surety? The language throughout the passage seems to come back to that specific situation (being a surety). I’m not saying that generalizing isn’t appropriate; I just don’t quite see it yet. Can you help me see it? Thanks!
Good question, Ryan. I agree that this passage doesn’t generalize itself (in contrast to other sections like Prov 1:19 and 5:22). Next week I plan to “show my work” more to trace how I got there. But here’s your preview: Why would someone be tempted to become a surety, especially when the Bible is so clear about how bad an idea it is (Prov 11:15, 17:18)? I think it’s because we want to help (which often is a noble desire, except when it leads us to do things that don’t really help). And that general principle provides a wealth of application beyond the realm of financing loans.
Another way to put it is that I think Prov 6:1-5 is a good example of ancient Jewish case law thinking (except in this passage, it’s more case wisdom than case law). For example, “If a man steals an ox or a sheep, and kills it or sells it, he shall repay five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep” (Ex 22:1). What if he steals a goat or a garment? What if he doesn’t sell it but hides it or loans it to a friend? What if he doesn’t steal the property directly, but damages the owner’s reputation to the point of bankruptcy and manipulates events so he ends up with the oxen? Case law scenarios aren’t exhaustive but representative; thus, the principles underlying them can apply in many other situations.
Paul takes that very approach in 1 Cor 9:8-12, quoting Deut 25:4. Is it for oxen that God is concerned? No, the point is that “the plowman should plow in hope and the thresher thresh in hope of sharing in the crop.” Thus this broader application: “If we have sown spiritual things among you, is it too much if we reap material things from you?”
In short, Prov 6:1-5 puts itself forward as this sort of case law: “If you have put up security…if you are snared…then do this…” So I wanted to generalize the principle to make broader application.
Do you see it? Or am I missing something?
Thanks for the reply, Peter. (And next time, feel free to just tell me to wait until next week!)
The reference to 1 Corinthians 9 is helpful, as is your explanation. I guess I just get nervous when we are generalizing on what we think are the motives behind a scenario set up in the passage. The desire to help does seem like a likely reason someone would become a surety even in the face of suggestions otherwise. However, given the drastic differences in our culture, and our inability to know everything about these temptations (they are absent from our present passage), I’m just not as confident that that principle can be generalized. I definitely see where you’re coming from, but there’s a little bit of a leap there (generalizing on the desire to help) that concerns me a bit. The connection isn’t as airtight as I would like.
It’s worth noting, if I see correctly where you’re going with the other fools in Prov 6, that the foolish behavior you’re pointing out is right on the surface in the second and third passages in this chapter. The first section is the only one where you’re guessing about temptations and motives and moving beyond the surface behavior. If you think these three sections hang together in a tight way, that is either a decent dissimilarity or a reason to question the breadth of the interpretation you’re offering.
Thanks again for your explanation!