Having effectively quashed all discussion on this topic, I’ll move forward. In the general discussion of how to interpret the Bible, interpretation of wisdom literature warrants special attention. It’s just not as straightforward as some would make it out to be. When was the last time you heard a sermon on the evils of winking? (Prov 6:13; 10:10; 16:30) Read a tract on the dangers of sleep? (Prov 6:4-11; 20:13; 24:33-34) Posted on your Facebook wall the wonderful news that money is the answer to everything? (Eccl 10:19)
Wisdom literature requires special handling. I shared a bit yesterday from Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart. Let me this thought from Leland Ryken (with his son Philip and with James Wilhoit):
Because the wisdom writers primarily observe life, their utterances are not phrased with the same kind of divinge authority that the statements of the prophets have. The prophets speak the voice of God to people. The Bible’s wisdom teachers speak a word of testimony and observation to their fellow humans. (Ryken’s Bible Handbook, p. 271)
What we come down to is this: it seems difficult if not impossible to take every word of wisdom literature as having proceeded from the mouth of God himself. We have the long human speeches in Job, the contrasting viewpoints in Ecclesiastes, the elements in Proverbs and Psalms that seem to espouse viewpoints different from those provided in other biblical books. Can an inspired book contain human teachings? How do we separate them out from the divine proclamations?
In other words, how are we supposed to read wisdom literature?
Here’s my proposal, open for discussion and debate: I’m satisfied with seeing wisdom literature as a faithful telling of the reflections of godly men on God’s truths. Their place within the canon leads me to give them a weight that other human writings don’t have, but their humanness makes me evaluate every teaching in light of the rest of Scripture.
Is that fair?
This has been a great series. It has caused me to think and has raised a lot of questions. I haven’t developed any answers. Thanks, Tim!
Sounds like a reasonable approach. As I said early on, I believe God’s role in the Bible is to ensure its accuracy, even when what is said is contrary to His will. This allows us to believe that Job’s friends really gave the advice they gave, while not believing that God endorsed that advice (as is evident from the story itself). The proverbs are the advice and truisms of Solomon and others based on their observations (and through this we can see that the nature of man hasn’t really changed much). Same with the psalms, Ecclesiastes, etc. I believe what’s written to be accurately recorded, and definitely life lessons and applications can be learned from wisdom literature, but I stop short of considering any of them “law.” Thanks for the series.
“What we come down to is this: it seems difficult if not impossible to take every word of wisdom literature as having proceeded from the mouth of God himself. We have the long human speeches in Job, the contrasting viewpoints in Ecclesiastes, the elements in Proverbs and Psalms that seem to espouse viewpoints different from those provided in other biblical books. Can an inspired book contain human teachings? How do we separate them out from the divine proclamations?”
I want to look especially at your last two sentences there. The whole Bible is full of humanness. Every single book. Before people understood the difference between Koine Greek and Hellenistic Greek scholars believed the NT was written in some sort of Holy Spirit Greek that was elevated above all the rest. Adolf Deismann dispelled that in his studies in the early 1900s when they started excavating Egyptian papyri that led them to figure out that the Greek of the NT was actually the everyday, marketplace Greek of their day.
Not only was the Greek they used the everyday Greek…each NT author wrote in his own style, with his own vernacular, and using the themes they wanted to connect (Gospels) or the rhetorical styles that best suited their arguments (Paul). There is a profoundly human element in every single book of the Bible. That doesn’t make it any less inspired you just have to understand why it is there in the form it is in.
Some examples: The last time I read Paul’s disagreement with taking John Mark, I couldn’t help but wonder if Paul did and said some things he shouldn’t have. I don’t have tons of support for that but I wondered about it. Then it got me thinking about how we assume everything these guys did and said was 100% correct, all the time. It is like we put them through the Jesus filter…but Jesus was the only one who can claim 100% correctness in all things.
Something can be in the inspired word of God but still be very human. We have to wrestle with that. I love that because it is God coming close to us, using people to record it and yet still having His divine touch. So it is not that we are trying to separate human and divine and make distinctions. I think we hold the two together, even when it causes tension, and appreciate what is there.
I like Travis’ perspective: accurately recorded statements are not necessarily accurate statements. That holds true for all scripture. That understanding is necessary if we are to handle the Word of Truth correctly.
Tim, I like your distinction between the immediate (or, non-mediated) character of prophetic speeches compared to the wisdom literature where statements are mediated by observation, experience, and life lived. Those are two very different modes of reception. I also think that Matt’s observations on the humanity of all Scripture are a good reminder.
I think your proposal of reading the wisdom literature within the context of the canon is exactly what the final shapers of these books intended and expected. This, as you know, was Brevard Childs’ contention, and I think there was a lot of truth in what he had to say along this line. Most of time he said it in such a nuanced way, it’s not always easy to understand what he means. He was always having to respond to his fans and critics with, “Well, no, that’s not exactly what I was meant.” I don’t know how much of that was due to the complexity of the subject and how much was the result of his style, which was highly influenced, I think, by his hero Karl Barth (whose writings are another reason I have so little hair).
Because you are probing this particular set of questions, I think you would enjoy and benefit from a fresh visit to Childs, “The Old Testament as Scripture.”
Before you read anything else you have to read Gerhard Hasel’s “Old Testament Theology: Basic Issues in the Current Debate”. Ok, not really….unless you enjoy being bored to tears. Really…don’t buy that book. It was just a joke!