...We Answer

Not every answer might comply with everybody's way of seeing things. Then I kindly ask you to hold it with Paul, who said in 1 Corinthians 13 that we now see in part. All of us answering here, stick to the basic faith statements as defined in the Apostle's Creed, yet further to that we know that there are also Biblical topics not related to salvation itself, that different people understand and see differently. So please keep this in mind in case you "stumble" over a certain answer - we would like you to be blessed by the challenge of different aspects!

Answer Set 21

Question: Proverbs 15:19 in the NKJV says, 'The way of the lazy man is like a hedge of thorns, but the way upright is a highway.' Notice the word like is before 'hedge of thorns. To me this indicates that 'hedge of thorns' is figurative. However, the word like is not before 'highway', so does this mean that 'highway' is literal? And if 'the way of the lazy man is like a hedge of thorns' is a simile and 'the way of the upright is a highway' is a metaphor (which I don't know), why would they put a simile and a metaphor together in an antithesis? Why not put simile with simile? I've noticed they do this in the NASB, 'The way of the lazy is as a hedge of thorns, but the path of the upright is a highway.' I've noticed this has been done in many other versions as well.
-Thank You

Answer from Polly:

I cannot say why translating authors use different styles of writing but I suppose that is why they are called "versions". A simile is a figure of speech likening one thing to another by the use of "like", therefore "the way of the lazy man is "like" a hedge of thorns" would be the simile. A metaphor is a figure of speech in which one thing is spoken of as if it were another therefore "the way of the upright is a highway" would be the metaphor.

I find no objections to using the two in the same antithesis. In fact, Aristotle suggested that metaphors are "compressed" or "abbreviated" similes. The interpretation of a metaphor is a matter of interpreting the corresponding simile and the truth of the metaphor is thus reduced to that of the simile. Perhaps this is why the writers used them together in Proverbs.

Whatever the reason for the difference of interpretations and translations, the point of Proverbs 15:19 remains the same; thorns, stones, obstructions in the path of life depict problems that keep a lazy person from getting what he wants; the upright are diligent and therefore have fewer problems and their lives are like a smooth path, highway, road (which is not literal but meaning their way of life).

Question: I was reading Proverbs 10:3 which says 'the LORD will not allow the righteous to hunger, But He will reject the craving of the wicked.' And as I was reading I started to wonder if this verse is talking about a physical hunger or spiritual hunger (in the KJV, it mentions the soul, but most versions I have looked at do not say that). I also checked multiple commentaries, they did not give me an answer to my question. Then I started thinking about it more, there are many people who starve to death in this world so how does that fit in with this verse if it is talking about a physical hunger? I know God provided food in Exodus, but regardless many people still die of starvation today. I guess this is a multiple part question because I also was thinking of Matthew 6:25-26 which talks about how people do not need to worry about food, God will provide. And yes that is easy in America, but I know that is not necessarily the case in Africa or other parts of the world, where many Christians dwell.

I hope that was not confusing, but for simplification I will restate my questions in a my succinct fashion.

Q 1) what does hunger reference in Proverbs 10:3

Q 2) how do you reconcile parts of the Bible which talk about God providing food and those who die of starvation.

Answer from Polly (as best I could): Like many verses in Proverbs, 10:3 is a generalization. It has double meaning in that God will meet physical and spiritual needs of the righteous or those who follow after God and His Commandments. The cravings of the wicked refer to their evil desires to bring about destructive and disastrous plans which God will keep them from carrying out.

As for you "starvation" question; at the risk of sounding harsh and uncaring I will say that man has brought suffering upon himself. The starving children in Africa that you spoke of are victims of generations of neglect and misuse of land and resources. The deserts of Northern Africa used to be fertile wooded areas but over centuries the trees were cut down and not replaced. As a result the topsoil eroded causing a desert which, as the people moved south, so did the desert. As a result, untold numbers of people are dying of starvation. Millions live in shanties around large cities in hopes of "finding a better life" only to die of malnutrition when their dreams are not fulfilled. They perhaps, would have been better off to live the simple life in the country that they left for "more" that they thought the world had to offer. Some swarm into the cities to escape war, criminal groups or countryside bandits therefore their suffering is brought on by others' greed. Others suffer from the selfishness of the rich which goes against the Word of God which teaches to care for the poor. There is not enough room to list all the reasons for suffering (even if I knew them all) but I will stress that God is not to blame for the faults of man through disobedience and neglect of His earth and His Word.

Question: What in Ruth's life demonstrated that she was placing herself in God's care?

Answer from Polly: Obedient living does not allow for "accidents" in the eternal plan of God. Ruth was born and raised in the heathen country of Moab. She married the son of a believer, Naomi, who was forced from her Israelite home because of famine, to the country of Moab. After the death of Naomi's husband and two sons, Ruth determined to stay with Naomi as they journeyed back to Naomi's land to live in Bethlehem. Through uncompromising sacrifice, regardless of her lot in life, Ruth lived according to the precepts of God through the guidance of her mother-in-law, Naomi. God abundantly blesses those who seek to live obedient lives as shown in the lineage of Jesus Christ (Matthew 1:1-16), showing that Ruth was the mother of Obed, the father of Jesse, the father of King David which led to Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus Christ.

Question: Symbolism of the book of Ruth; it is my understanding Naomi in the book of Ruth is symbolic of Israel, Ruth is symbolic for the world, do you know what Boaz is symbolic for?

Answer from Polly: As I understand it, Moab and not Ruth herself was the symbol of the world. Ruth chose to go with Naomi, taking a solemn oath of dedication to Naomi, the Jews and God, making a spiritual decision to separate from the world from which she came. Ruth had become a believer, however, being a Moabite, she lacked the full rights to Jewish citizenship. Enter Boaz, her redeemer, a kinsman with wealth to be able to "save" Ruth and Naomi from poverty becoming a symbol of Jesus Christ. Jesus is able to save those who come to God through Him (Hebrews 7:25) and has wealth untold. He owns the cattle on a thousand hills (Psalm 50:10). The earth is the Lords and everything in it (Psalm 24:1). God will supply all our needs according to His glorious riches in Jesus Christ (Philippians 4:19).