Every now and then, the Bible makes you scratch your head and say, “Huh?”
Take, for example, Proverbs 26:4-5:
Do not answer a fool according to his folly,
or you will be like him yourself.
Answer a fool according to his folly,
or he will be wise in his own eyes.
Verse 4 tells us not to do precisely what verse 5 tells us to do. So, put your hand on your head, scratch the same, and say, “Huh?”
If you’re one of those village atheists looking for evidence of contradictions in the Bible, you will no doubt cite these verses as Exhibit A and rest the prosecution’s case. But there’s a thin line between village atheist and village idiot, and interpreting Proverbs 26:4-5 so literally crosses it.
Tremper Longman reminds us that proverbs constitute a unique literary genre and must be interpreted accordingly. “Proverbs are not universally true laws but circumstantially relevant principles.” What are the circumstantially relevant principles of verses 4-5? Longman answers: “the wise person must assess whether this is a fool who will simply drain one’s energy with no positive results or whether an answer will prove fruitful to the fool or perhaps to those who overhear it.”[*]
Do not answer a fool according to his folly…
I once engaged in a months-long argument with a guy about whether the King James Version was the only reliable English translation of the Bible. Correct answer: No. His answer: Yes. I cited the number of Hebrew and Greek manuscripts now available, the lexical resources modern scholars have that were unknown to King James’s translators, and the improved understanding of the ancient world brought about by modern archaeology and other social sciences. He argued, somewhat incoherently, that the New International Version was both a liberal plot to steer the faithful toward heresy and a Roman Catholic plot to get us to worship Mary. I kid you not. Arguing with him was like getting stuck in quick sand. The more I argued, the deeper I sank. I finally gave up. Some people are mired in stupidity, and trying to unstupidify[†] them is pointless.
Answer a fool according to his folly…
On the other hand, several years ago, I was on staff at a church and engaged in a months-long argument with my boss about church-growth methodologies. I was twenty-four and in graduate school (a dangerous combination). I knew that my older, more experienced senior pastor was wrong—dead wrong—about how to grow the church. When he refused to see things my way, I quit. Six years later, I went back to work for him because I learned that he had been right the entire time. Indeed, the church had doubled or tripled in my absence.
So, should we argue with fools or not? The right answer depends on the fool.
Copyright © 2008 by George P. Wood
GeorgePWood.com 
Leave a comment