Abstract
A central tenet of creation order thinking is that right living requires that we align our lives to the God-given structure of existence. This conception of life as a going with, rather than a going against, what some have called “the grain of the cosmos” is widely believed to be grounded in, and supported by, the wisdom literature of the Old Testament, especially the book of Proverbs. Building on the work of Roland Murphy and others, however, this essay argues that what Scripture means by the life-giving way of wisdom is not best interpreted as conformity to a normative order. My central claim that turning to order to find orientation constitutes an imposition on the biblical writings of a hermeneutic that is indebted to the wisdom tradition we know as Western philosophy, is explored by means of an intratextual and intertextual study of the male-female relationship in Proverbs 30:18–20, as read within Proverbs 30:10–33 and the book as a whole. By paying special attention to facets of meaning and experience that a creation order reading tends to obscure, a wisdom that would celebrate the enigmatic ways of existence and a wisdom that would uncover a hidden order are distinguished, thereby allowing a fresh approach to creational revelation to take shape. In its attunement to the original blessing with which the biblical narrative begins, such a mystery-affirming appreciation of creation does not lead to an anti-nomian eradication of order but to what we might call its ante-nomian relativisation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Arguably, the Christian natural law tradition can be considered an older (and more widespread) form of creation order thinking. For the transformation of the former into the latter and for the coexistence of the two traditions in Calvinism , see VanDrunen (2010). Both traditions posit a normative order but differ over how it may be accessed. Neo-Calvinists , especially in the Kuyperian tradition (inspired by the Christian cultural and scholarly vision of Abraham Kuyper ), have often been especially critical of the natural law tradition’s acceptance of natural reason, or rational autonomy, in this context. Furthermore, in contrast to the Thomist understanding of natural law , Kuyperians typically see normative order as rooted in the divine will rather than as located in the divine mind. For two succinct Kuyperian responses to natural law, both of which are sympathetic to the thought of Herman Dooyeweerd (on whom see n. 7 below), see Skillen and McCarthy (1991, 377–395) and Chaplin (2011, 318–320). For all the differences that Kuyperians can (rightly) point to, it is revealing that Chaplin, in the final sentence of this appendix, speaks of “affinities” between Dooyeweerd and natural law thinking while Skillen and McCarthy, at the beginning of their final paragraph, place “natural law ” and “creation order ” in parallel. For the claim that an almost identical realist understanding of creation order exists in the Roman Catholic and neo-Calvinist traditions , see Echeverria (2011).
- 2.
For the “way of wisdom,” see Prov. 4:11. For the “ways” of wisdom , see Prov. 3:17 and 8:32. Biblical quotations will be from the nrsv unless otherwise stated.
- 3.
If this formulation is read in the light of the order of/for distinction expressed above, it becomes apparent that the order that is central to creation order thinking is typically seen as both structural and directiona l. Many neo-Calvinists understand what I have called the order for creation as God’s law or law-order .
- 4.
Thus neo-Calvinist philosopher/theologian James K.A. Smith draws on an image that Stanley Hauerwas , in his 2001 Gifford lectures, appropriates from the Mennonite theology of John Howard Yoder , to observe the following in the context of Christian worship:
The announcement of the law and the reading of God’s will for our lives … reminds us that we inhabit not “nature” but creation, fashioned by a Creator , and that there is a certain grain to the universe—grooves and tracks and norms that are part of the fabric of the world. And all of creation flourishes best when our communities and relationships run with the grain of those grooves. Indeed the biblical vision of human flourishing implicit in worship means that we are only properly free when our desires are rightly ordered, when they are bounded and directed to the end that constitutes our good. That is why the law, though it comes as a scandalous challenge to our modern desire for autonomy, is actually an invitation to be freed from a-teleological wandering. It is an invitation to find the good life by welcoming the boundaries of law that guide us into the grooves that constitute the grain of the universe and are conducive to flourishing . (Smith 2009, 176; his emphasis)
For earlier neo-Calvinist use of “against the grain” imagery , see Walsh and Middleton (1984, 67, 70) and Wolters (2005, 98). For John Howard Yoder’s original , resurrection - and ascension-affirming (and not merely creation-oriented) “grain of the cosmos” image , see Yoder (1994, 246) and Yoder (1988, 58). The cruciform, Christocentric character of Yoder’s image is not lost on Hauerwas . See Hauerwas (2001, 6, 17).
- 5.
Although this attention to structures and limits may be more or less detailed (here we might compare Dooyeweerd [1986] with any of the essays found in Griffioen and Verhoogt [1990b]), and although the correlative attention to the disclosure of normativity can be more or less politically radical (cf. the comparison between the social philosophies of Goudzwaard and Dooyeweerd in Wolterstorff [1983, chap. 3]), this positive view of structures and limits seems to be a defining feature of the Kuyperian tradition in its conservative and progressive forms. I suspect that what often worries critics of this tradition is its relative inattention to the fact that the deepest and most normative of structures may be experienced as oppressive—and not just as an affront to humanistic autonomy. A desire to address this apparent blind spot is evident in some of the essays in Walsh et al. (1995). Cf. Dooyeweerd’s real yet limited application of the language of the fall to what he calls the “law-side ” of creation in Dooyeweerd (1986, 107).
- 6.
For a discussion of the distinctive “third use of the law” in Calvin and his followers that flows from this law as grace position , see Hesselink (2001, 134–136). For the often overlooked yet fundamental role of gratitude in Calvin, see Gerrish (1993). Calvinists will often refer to God as lawful where Christians in other traditions will speak of God’s universal presence, grace, reliability, and care. Robert Sweetman provides a striking example, given his otherwise evocative language, when he writes, “I do not intend to give in to the allure of the generic. Rather, I am aiming to foster sensitivity to the language we assume because it seems to us, for whatever reason, to express those deep secrets of the universe whispering subliminally of the creation’s encounter with its lawful Maker ” (Sweetman 2016, 16).
- 7.
- 8.
- 9.
Here I refer not to isolated (so-called proof-) texts but to what appears to be sustained support. Historically, Paul ’s reference to “against nature” in Rom. 1:26 (av/kjv)—understood apart from the only other NT occurrence of para physin in Rom. 11:24—has probably functioned as the clearest proof-text for the “against the grain” idea . For a reading that looks to connect Rom. 1:26 and 11:24, see Ansell (1997).
- 10.
The presence of sapiential material outside Job , Proverbs , and Ecclesiastes is a contested issue among OT wisdom specialists . James Crenshaw, who as much as anyone has argued for a restricted use of the “wisdom literature” designation (see, e.g., Crenshaw 2010, 33–34), nevertheless does accept the sapiential character of several psalms in Crenshaw (2010, 187–194). For a wider approach , see, e.g., Morgan (1981) and Sailhamer (2000, 15–35). Cf. Ansell (2011c, including 124n47).
- 11.
In my view, a preoccupation with conceptually grasped order , already evident in pre-Christian natural law thinking, has been a dominant form of Western philosophy for most of its history and a persistent form for the rest of its history , despite the challenges of nominalism and antirealism. I do not think this preoccupation is limited to realism. The subjectivising of order associated with Kant and the modern period, for example, is still a subjectivising of, and thus preoccupation with, order . That said, the imposition on the biblical witness of the notion of a hidden order that wisdom may (attempt to) lay bare comes from a still influential way of thinking that is most indebted to Greek philosophy. The additional influence on early Christian thought of a Roman preoccupation with order , not least in later Stoicism, also merits our attention here.
- 12.
See, e.g., Zuidema (1972). The import of his title, “Philosophy as Point of Departure,” is that Christian scholarship that rightly sees philosophical work such as the rethinking of ontology and epistemology as a sine qua non for any reformation of the various academic disciplines, can only hope to be Christianly reformational if philosophy itself is not the point of departure! Reducing the role of Scripture to generating a few philosophically oriented (or philosophically determined?) axioms to get such a project going (such as assertions about the place of God’s law in relation to God and creation) would also be inadequate, on my reading. Here, Seerveld ’s “iceberg” image (see Seerveld [2003, 97] in the light of his title) is suggestive: Scripture speaks beneath, and not only above, the waterline of consciousness, thereby sensitising our whole selves to the live speech of creation. See nn. 14, 23, 26, 75, 77, and 87 below.
- 13.
Synthesis thinking , in Dooyeweerd’s memorable phrase, is the result of “the monster-marriage of Christianity with the movements of the age” (Dooyeweerd 1968, 4). Attributing to Scripture notions that are the result of combining biblical and non-biblical ideas is one form such synthesis thinking takes. The immortality of the soul is often seen as a classic example of this phenomenon. One might wonder about the merits of a transformational synthesis . But the concern here, for many close followers of Dooyeweerd, is that it is Scripture that gets transformed rather than the thinking with which it is combined. On the phenomenon of “eisegesis-exegesis” (reading extra-biblical notions into Scripture to then read them out again as biblical ), see van der Walt (1973). Sweetman’s concern that “thetical” alternatives are not realistic possibilities if they are not already “available” (2016, 23n20) seems to assume a rather derivative view of the human person . He may also be (understandably) concerned about a “narrow purity ideal” here (reading the “purely” of 23n20 together with language used on p. 15 of the same work). For an alternative view of purity, however, see Ansell (2002).
- 14.
In speaking here of the “religious dynamics of existence,” and by later referring to “attunement” to the “spirituality of existence,” I am in part echoing James Olthuis ’ appropriation of Dooyeweerd, as found in the section entitled “Spirituality of Creation ” in Olthuis (1985, 22–23). See, e.g., the covenantal answering—the Hebrew can also mean singing—of yhwh, the heavens, and the earth, together with the grain, wine, and oil in Hosea 2:21–22. Given the double-meaning of the Hebrew verb here, to speak of attunement to the spirituality of existence is to use an appropriate metaphor. In my understanding, the spirituality, directionality , and covenantal initiative and responsiveness of existence are so closely related that they are virtually synonymous. For the voice of creation/voice of Wisdom , see nn. 23, 26, 75, 77, and 87 below. For a fruitful development of attunement in Heideggerian phenomenology , see Levin (1985).
- 15.
Hence the attention to biblical and ancient Near Eastern wisdom literature at the beginning of Wolters (1995). As I have already indicated, I believe the affinity that many find between biblical wisdom literature and creation order thinking is more apparent than real. See also n. 9 above.
- 16.
Hence the language of his first point, which concerns the “wisdom theology” he sees behind (as well as in) the text, not the theology distilled or constructed from the text by the contemporary interpreter. In his second point, the lived experience of creation is described as “data” for this “theology.”
- 17.
See nn. 29–30 below.
- 18.
Proverbs is widely viewed as exemplifying a conventional wisdom that is far more hierarchical and authoritarian in character than the edgier, questioning wisdom of Job and Ecclesiastes. For an important critique of this assumption, see Hatton (2008).
- 19.
- 20.
Linguistically, the “enigma code” of World War II illustrates how an enigma as (potentially solvable) puzzle differs from enigma as (unfathomable) mystery . See my concluding discussion, including nn. 85 and 86, below. We should also distinguish between a creation-affirming appreciation for mystery and its otherwordly counterpart . Caputo (2013, 30) refers to the ancients’ wise acceptance of the “unfathomable” and hopes that it might return to contemporary philosophy. I am not convinced that this has ever been developed (rather than hinted at) in a truly creation-affirming way in the Western philosophical tradition . But see, e.g., LaMothe (2009), which draws on a reading of Nietzsche (and Irigaray ).
- 21.
For the spirituality of existence and for the language of attunement, see n. 14 above.
- 22.
See von Rad (1972), chap. 9, which is entitled “The Self-Revelation of Creation.” My own references to Wisdom (with a capital W) in this essay refer to the personification and call of Wisdom as found in Prov. 1–9.
- 23.
Thus in the published version of his address, Murphy claimed:
The call of Lady Wisdom is the voice of the Lord. She is, then, the revelation of God, not merely the self-revelation of creation. She is the divine summons issued in and through creation, sounding through the vast realm of the created world and heard on the level of human experience. (Murphy 1985, 9–10)
Murphy’s “not merely” indicates that her voice is the voice of creation even though von Rad’s category of “the self-revelation of creation” (on which see n. 22 above) does not say all that needs to be said; namely, that creation also reveals and speaks for God. Cf. Murphy’s formulation:
Creation speaks but its language is peculiar (Psalm 19). It is not verbal, but it is steady, and it is heard (Ps 19:2). It is parallel to the Torah, which gives wisdom to the simple (Ps 19:8). With fine perception both Karl Barth and Gerhard von Rad concur that the Lord allowed creation to do the speaking for him in Job 38–41 (will [the lightnings] say to you, “Here we are?” 38:35). Creation had a voice which spoke differently to Job than the chorus of the three friends. (Murphy 1985, 6; his emphasis)
- 24.
His next sentence is: “The very symbol of Lady Wisdom suggests that order is not the correct correlation.”
- 25.
Clifford (1997) also connects biblical wisdom to order in several places, yet his frequent qualifying of this association is revealing.
- 26.
Because in some theologies, creation and creation order (or the created order ) are almost synonymous, let me stress that by the voice of “creation” here, I also mean the revelatory capacity of creational wildness (which is distinct from chaos) and the revelatory capacity of history . On the former, see Ansell (2011b). If Prov. 8:22a is translated/interpreted as “yhwh acquired me as the beginning of yhwh’s own way” (cf. Nouvelle Edition de Genève 1979 [neg79]), then Wisdom not only speaks of and for God, but also to God. I have explored this further in Ansell (2011a).
- 27.
At this point, Murphy refers to the important, earlier discussion now found in Murphy (2002, 115–118 [the 1996 edition he cites is identical here]). This section, entitled “Wisdom as a Search for Order ,” begins with the following statement: “It is practically a commonplace in wisdom research to maintain that the sages were bent on discovering order , or orders, in the realm of experience and nature.” Cf. Murphy (2002, 128n16).
- 28.
Although there are distinctions (as well as connections) to be made between (1) the Egyptian experience/conception of order -as-harmony as the opposite of, or counterpart to, chaos, and (2) the Greek philosophical conception/experience of order as the ground and goal of rational insight, both notions are absent in the language used of and by Wisdom in Proverbs . Whether Hellenistic ideas of order may be detected in Israelite wisdom literature outside the canon of the Hebrew Bible and Protestant OT may well be a different story . See, e.g., Collins (1997).
- 29.
See Hatton (2008, chap. 4). For the importance of Hatton’s work, see also n. 18 above and nn. 34, 35, 42, and 62 below.
- 30.
See Weeks (2010, 112–113; a section on world order ). While Lucas (2008) notes that many scholars have objected to the idea that the “act-consequence nexus” presupposed belief in an order that was mechanical or impersonal , Weeks (2010, 113) rejects the idea that Israel posited a world order in any theologically significant sense at all! As far as he is concerned, the evidence for “order ” that OT scholars have made so much of in, e.g., Proverbs is nothing more that the “most commonplace expectations about causation .”
- 31.
Once we see the distinction, we can appreciate the fact that while the Hebrew term translated as “way” or “path” (d ere k) occurs over 70 times in Proverbs , terms that might be translated as “order ” are virtually non-existent. Several English translations (e.g., asv, av./kjv, jps, and New Living Translation, 2nd ed. [nlt 2]) have no instances of order . The one reference to an “order ” in the nrsv, net, and niv (at Prov. 28:2) involves a translation issue (cf. Murphy [2002, 212] and Waltke [2005, 395, 408]).
- 32.
While this reflects the meaning of Prov. 30:18, which is well conveyed in the contemporary translations that speak of not understanding or fathoming, rather than not knowing (cf. the improvement of the nkjv over the av./kjv), I am also drawing on the distinction between a multidimensional view of knowing and a conceptually focused view of understanding (or comprehending) articulated by Hart (1984, 355–357).
- 33.
For the history of interpretation, see Wolters (2001, chaps. 5 and 6).
- 34.
- 35.
See Hatton (2008, 60–68). The contrast between the move from incomplete to complete acrostic at the end of Proverbs and the deterioration of the acrostic form at the end of Lamentations is instructive, not least because the fall of the Jerusalem Temple that lies behind the despair, lament, and letting go in the latter work forms such a sharp contrast with the establishment and expansion of the cosmic Temple in Prov. 3:19–20, 9:1, and 14:1. On the significance of acrostic deterioration in Lamentations , see Yett (2017). On the cosmic Temple motif in Proverbs, see the section on Prov. 30:18–20 (including n. 47) below.
- 36.
See Van Leeuwen (1997, 251, 258). Massa , who appears in the genealogies of Gen. 25:14 and 1 Chron. 1:30, is the seventh of Ishmael’s 12 sons and thus a participant in the blessing of the covenant between God and Abraham, as promised to Hagar in Gen. 16:10 (cf. 12:2).
- 37.
If Fox (2009, 852 and 884) is right to take the former as an oracle and the latter as a place name, the Hebrew term (or homonym) still suffices to indicate a chiasm, given the surrounding evidence.
- 38.
See Waltke (2005, 463–464 and 481–501). I see my own observations as building upon and supporting Waltke’s analysis.
- 39.
Proverbs 30:18–20 is not only the (3 + 1) + 1 centre-point of the sevenfold (or 3 + 1 + 3) series of numerical sayings; it is also part of the twofold centre-point to the ten-unit structure mentioned above (cf. Fig. 12.1), together with v. 17. I comment on Prov. 30:17 and its connection to vv. 18–20 below. See also note a of Fig. 12.1 above.
- 40.
As Prov. 30:18–20 may also be construed as having a 4 + 1 structure (v. 19a–d; v. 20) and a 3 + 2 structure (v. 19a–c; vv. 19d–20, if vv. 19d and 20 are seen as related by way of contrast), this means that the various parts of its structure echo all of the non-3/4 structures that surround it—specifically vv. 11–14 and 24–28, which each have a fourfold structure , and v. 13a, which has a twofold structure .
- 41.
See, e.g., Waltke (2005, 486–487). Because the word translated as “horse leech” is a hapax legomenon, a note in the asv suggests “vampire” as an alternative. Presumably the “two daughters” are to be viewed as fangs. Strictly speaking, this kind of leech (the referent is clear in, e.g., the Septuagint/LXX, Vulg.) has “two [blood] suckers” (nlt 2). But as they cry out, the “daughters” are best seen as mouths, thus forming an apt introduction to the insatiability motif that follows.
- 42.
- 43.
Furthermore, the adulteress is not covering her tracks so much as denying wrongdoing. For examples of this traceless reading , see Fox (2009, 871–872); Garrett (1993, 241); and Perdue (2000, 263–264). Appeal is often made to Wisdom of Solomon 5:7–14. But the fact that the latter is a judgment passage (in which the way of the lovers is replaced by the way of an arrow) is not taken into account. (The possibility that Wisd. of Sol. 5:7–14 is inspired by reading Prov. 30:19a–c together with v. 17 merits further investigation.) For the way of the eagle/serpent/ship as unrecoverable rather than traceless, see the helpful comments of Murphy (1998, 235). Cf. my reference to the “singular, unrepeatable path” in the final section below.
- 44.
For a detailed defence and exploration of this reading, see Ansell (2001).
- 45.
- 46.
The verset uses ‘al (on or upon) rather than b or b (in). This means that Van Leeuwen (1997, 254) is wrong to suggest that the serpent is a “phallic symbol” here.
- 47.
On the linguistic connection between 9:1 and 14:1, see Van Leeuwen (1997, 138). The divine/human parallel between 9:1 and 14:1 can be related to the divine/human parallel between 3:19–20 and 24:3–4, on which see the helpful discussion in Van Leeuwen (ibid., 101). On the cosmic Temple in 3:19–20, see Van Leeuwen (ibid., 53–54).
- 48.
For a form-critical analysis and survey of the history of interpretation, see Wolters (2001, 3–14 and 59–154).
- 49.
This paragraph parallels Ansell (2011c, 140–141). The “sister” imagery in Prov. 7:4 (we would say: kindred spirit) is reminiscent of Song of Sol. 4:9–12 and 5:1–2. It is also instructive to compare Prov. 5:15–18 with Song of Sol. 4:15, and Prov. 5:19 with Song of Sol. 2:7 and 3:5.
- 50.
- 51.
According to the Proverbs and Jeremiah scholar , William McKane , “there is a convergence of opinion that [the saying] has the openness and indeterminacy of a proverb” (McKane 1996, 806). He also remarks that it has been “the happy hunting-ground for aspiring [!] exegetes.” In addition to Jer. 31:22, we might also explore the thematic links between Prov. 30:19d and Gen. 49:25, on which see Ansell (2013, 357n137).
- 52.
For a helpful listing of possible interpretations , see McKane (1996, 806–807); Keown et al. (1995, 122–123); Fretheim (2002, 437–438); and Thompson (1980, 576). The structure of the wider poem (vv. 15–22) actually has a male subject, Ephraim, surrounded by two sets of phrases spoken either of a woman or to a woman , as noted by Trible (1978, 47–50). So this passage has been very carefully composed suggesting that multiple dimensions of meaning are not unlikely. It is possible that the surrounding in this text means that the woman will give birth and that Rachel, who is bereaved in earlier verses, will be a mother again. If Israel’s return to yhwh is the primary meaning—the “return” of 31:21 echoing and marking an end to the harlotry of Jer. 3 (cf. Prov. 30:20)—then God is being viewed as either a strong male presence to Israel as a young woman, or as a protective female presence to Ephraim. But in context, it is also very likely that 31:22 means that the oppression by Israel’s enemies that earlier led to the description of Israel’s male warriors as terrified women in labour (30:6) will be so reversed that the women of Israel can be seen in the protective, comforting role. The latter coheres well with the lovemaking interpretation, argued for below.
- 53.
Commentaries by Thompson and Fretheim , cited in the previous note, refer to this possibility. Thompson, a conservative scholar, seems convinced in this regard by leading Jeremiah scholar William Holladay, citing Holladay (1974, 117). Holladay’s views have been more recently articulated in Holladay (1989, 192–195).
- 54.
As Holladay (1989, 195) notes with respect to the “new thing”: “The only other occurrence of ‘new’ in Jer (other than ‘New Gate’ …) is that of the ‘new covenant ,’ v. 31.” For a discussion of the eschatologically new within history as irreducible to emergence , see Ansell (2013, chap. 5, including 234n77).
- 55.
The woman’s association with the divine occurs via her association with the heavens and via her status as daughter of Wisdom, the spokesperson(ification) for God (see n. 23 above). As argued in the previous sub-section (see n. 46 above), the fact that the Hebrew preposition for on rather than in is used in Prov. 30:19b discourages us from associating the man (with)in the woman (19d) with the serpent on the rock (19b). This supports the gender symbolism I am arguing for. The male may find Wisdom, but it is the woman who represents Wisdom .
- 56.
The last word of v. 17, nešer, can be translated as “eagle” or “vulture.” It also appears in v. 19a. The phrase in the first set of brackets follows one of the notes to the net. The noun in that phrase, often translated as “obedience,” is in a form that occurs elsewhere only in Gen. 49:10. Given my discussion of Jer. 39:7 and 52:11 below, the fact that Gen. 49:10 concerns the future kingship of Judah merits further investigation. On Gen. 49:25, see n. 51 above.
- 57.
That the fire of the valley referred to in Jer. 7:31 would be naturally associated with the unquenchable fire of Isa. 66:24 and thus connected to the insatiable fire of Sheol in Prov. 30:16 (cf. the addition of tartaros to hadēs in the LXX) is also noteworthy in this context, as is the fact that whereas Isaiah sees this as a place of historical judgment for Israel’s enemies, Jeremiah turns this judgment back on the people, and kings, of Judah (Jer. 7:30, 8:1–2). See the discussion in Ansell (2013, 316–40).
- 58.
To clarify: unlike the portrayal of Nebuchadnezzar and Zedekiah in Ezek. 17:1–10 (cf. vv. 11–21), Prov. 30:17 is not an allegory. My point is that this proverb participates in a web of intratextual and intertextual associations far beyond its initial reiteration of themes found in Prov. 30:11–13 by virtue of its final placement in Prov. 30:10–33. In my opinion, the editor/composer of this section of Proverbs would have been aware of the multiple allusions to the book of Jeremiah that I am highlighting (even though they have been lost by the time of the more ahistorically minded rabbinic traditions). My argument concerning the birds of prey, the valley, the fire, the kings of Judah, the bride/bridegroom motif, the eye-gouging, and the eagle-Babylon-Nebuchadnezzar connection, is a cumulative one. The parallel between the proverbs found in Prov. 30:18–19 and Jer. 31:22, read in context, is key.
- 59.
Concern with the threat of exile may be detected earlier in the book of Proverbs at 2:20–21 and 10:30.
- 60.
Consistent with this shift is the fact that the eagle/vulture of the valley in 30:17 makes way for the wondrous eagle of the skies in 30:19, while the king who is lampooned in 30:31 makes way for the king who embraces the wisdom he has learned from his mother (contrast 30:17a) in 31:1. For the parallel presence of both apocalyptic language and the return-from-exile theme in the book of Job , see Ansell (2017).
- 61.
The language is taken from Smith (2009, 176) as cited more fully in n. 4 above. Cf. Van Leeuwen (1990). Given his conviction that “boundaries ” are a “more fundamental” notion than the “ways,” “houses,” or “women” of Prov. 1–9 (1990, 116), Van Leeuwen inadvertently abandons the biblical image of the two ways or directions to stress the importance of staying within the limits of the one way, now reconceived as an order . Thus he writes, “Good behavior consists of staying on prescribed paths, evil actions are trespasses over forbidden limina. Folly is not staying where you belong, not walking on the path prescribed for you, not being in tune with the order of the cosmos” (ibid., 126–127).
- 62.
As noted in n. 18 above, this image of Proverbs is persuasively rejected by Hatton (2008). The proposal of Seerveld (1998) that there is a dialogue between Wisdom and Folly throughout the sayings collections in Prov. 10:1–29:27, which the reader is called to discern, would do much to counter this conservative image.
- 63.
For a brief account of this narrative, see Ansell (2008). An aporia, for me, does not represent a question that cannot be answered, but one that cannot be resolved via rational-conceptual or analytic-logical procedures.
- 64.
Although the path of the eagle displays both universality and individuality, the singularity of its way to which I am referring here (cf. n. 31 above) is not an intensification of individuality, in my view. In popular speech, we sometimes refer to singularity paradoxically when we say of someone that she is one of a kind, thereby intending a meaning prior to/beyond the individuality-universality correlation and prior to/beyond the confines of realism and nominalism .
- 65.
Would this not also be the case with a sexologist who possessed Christian philosophical insight? Such a professional would surely seek to honour the mystery of sexuality in her explanations rather than explain it away. The wisdom of a wise farmer (Isa. 28:23–29) likewise includes but goes beyond know-how. For the (in my opinion, wrongheaded) view that biblical wisdom is a kind of “technical expertise” which provides us with “the skill of living ,” see DeWeese (2011, 53). On the mystery of order beyond explanation, see also n. 82 below.
- 66.
This is especially so in Kuyperian neo-Calvinism as redemption tends to be seen as the restoration of what is creational. See Ansell (2012).
- 67.
Thus I would reject Fretheim’s claim that Gen. 1:26–28 is a “positive command” that exemplifies “creational law” (Fretheim 2005, 135). Those of us familiar with what neo-Calvinism calls the cultural mandate might want to read Gen. 1:28 again! Cf. Nicholas Wolterstorff’s judgment, with which I concur: “I have come to think that there is no mandate there at all. God is blessing humankind. The sense of the words is, May you be fruitful and multiply ” (Wolterstorff 2004, 296; his emphases). Cf. his focus on gift in his response to Wolters (1995) in Wolterstorff (1995, 64). For the relativisation of law even within Exodus and Leviticus, see the extremely helpful discussion of Sailhamer (1995). For Paul ’s understanding of Torah as supporting and opposing God’s redemption, see the nuanced analysis of Wright (2013, 475–537). I take it that the “new commandment” of John 13:34a aims to reorient a community used to commandments towards the gift/call and blessing/benediction of v. 34b.
- 68.
I am borrowing this phrase from Duffy (1993). In Catholic theology, grace is not limited to redemption as it tends to be in Protestant theology.
- 69.
This fits with the biblical wisdom tradition’s focus on the giftedness of existence, on which see Murphy (1985, 5–6, and 8).
- 70.
For a discussion of gift/call (Auf/Gabe) and promise/call (pro/missio), see Ansell (2013, 263–272). In this light, creation order thinking can be seen as a reductionistic view of the call that has been severed from gift and promise. If it is helpful to connect gift and promise with God’s Spirit and to connect the call with God’s Word, then creation order thinking tends to sever Word and Spirit while reducing the Word of God to God’s law. On the realist misreading of the political, covenantal metaphor of law in Scripture , see Hart (1995, 87–88n40). Cf. nn. 74 and 77 below.
- 71.
Thus, in my view, the discussion of “the norms for love ” in Griffioen and Verhoogt (1990a, 11–12) remains problematic . While I appreciate their endorsement of Goudzwaard ’s directional rather than order -centred view of normativity here, I would rather use different terminology for spiritual direction as the language of normativity , in my opinion, cannot avoid evoking and invoking what ought to be. If, by contrast, we develop a different final vocabulary for those spiritual or directional realities (such as grace and benediction) that precede and exceed our norm-talk, this will also have the benefit of allowing our most cherished norms, principles, and values—all of which may participate in the spirituality of existence—to be stated more concretely. On the so-called love command of John 13:34, see n. 67 above.
- 72.
- 73.
- 74.
If we see order as a good creature of God, then, biblically speaking, we must also see it as a reality that is caught in the fall and is in need of redemption and eschatological fulfilment. To the extent that they have their ongoing origin in God’s primordial blessing , order and law, along with the rest of creation, may be seen as participating in that blessing and may thus be experienced as a source of God’s blessing. Cf. Gen. 8:22; Jer. 31:35–36, 33:20; and Ps. 19. But we should not overlook the ways in which order and law (that is, the order of existence and the order for existence) contribute to, as well as participate in, the groaning of creation referred to in Rom. 8:19–22.
- 75.
On the speech of creation, see nn. 14 (on Hosea 2:21–22) and 26 above, together with the insightful discussion of “creational glossolalia ” in Middleton and Walsh (1995, 168–169). See also nn. 77 and 87 below.
- 76.
Although Sweetman also issues an invitation to “think again” about the nature of Christian scholarship in the context of his discussion of “spiritual exercise as imaginative starting point” (Sweetman 2016, 3), I see what I am calling for as significantly different. Given the close relationship that seems to exist between (1) the principle of “nature” seen by the ancient philosophers as “a principle of intelligibility in the cosmos that was deeper and truer than its articulation via social and cultural formation” (ibid., 4); (2) Augustine and Justin Martyr’s later, would-be Christian understanding of philosophy as “a schooled practice of right living , of life lived in accordance with our deepest nature (creatures in relation with their maker)” (18n3); and (3) the neo-Calvinist , law-subject view of the covenant between God and creation (which I claim is the result of an absolutisation that I am seeking to relativise), my proposal that we think of Christian scholarship as a response to the gift/call of Wisdom rather than as an attempt to find our fundamental orientation via order —whether construed as conformity to the “deeper and truer. … nature of things” (4, 7) or as alignment with the “lawful” nature of the divine presence (16, cited in n. 6 above) or will (see 94–96)—is, I suggest, to engage in a fundamentally different kind of “learning to think … the [presently] unthinkable” (4). On the need to qualify Hadot and Sweetman’s view of ancient philosophising as a “spiritual exercise,” see n. 84 below.
- 77.
The same goes for law and order as avenues of wisdom and revelation (or as ways we may encounter wisdom and revelation ). On this reading, there is no reason why my account of the voice of Wisdom cannot include the witness of what Jer. 31:35 calls the “fixed order ” of the moon and the stars—provided that this is not taken as a paradigm for all forms of creational revelation . Cf. Ps. 19 in which the regular movements of the sun are associated with the speech of the heavens as well as with Torah. For law as an avenue and expression of God’s blessing, see also n. 74 above. For a critique of the attempt to read the biblical texts listed there as an endorsement of a realist interpretation of law , see Hart (1995, 87–88n40). Such a critique (which I accept) does not claim that our experience of blessing in such contexts cannot be interpreted as an experience of God’s law. Such language may be entirely appropriate. The problem (as I see it) lies (at least in part) with a philosophical realism that would subsume (or enclose) our faith experience of law as an avenue of blessing within an ontology that sees blessing as an avenue of Law. Admittedly, the former kind of discourse can, in a given context, make law a central metaphor, as is the case with Ps. 119. But this does not mean that the latter kind of discourse represents a biblical outlook.
- 78.
Here I will simply repeat my earlier references to the paradigmatic narrative of 1 Kings 3:16–28 and to the serpent as paradigmatic in Prov. 30:19b.
- 79.
This becomes even more evident in the NT where wisdom is related to the way of the cross, as in 1 Cor. 1:17–31. In this light, the wisdom background to the bread and wine of the Eucharist in Prov. 9:5 merits further attention.
- 80.
For an English translation that contains helpful introductory essays , see Kant (1960). The first German edition was published in 1793.
- 81.
Wolterstorff’s welcome reversal of Kant in Wolterstorff (1988), entitled Reason within the Bounds of Religion, may overlook the fact that it is Western philosophy that is focused on “bounds” in the sense of the limits of possibility. To transfer the bounds to religion may thus still concede too much to Reason. Hence my emphasis on dynamics .
- 82.
For the order of/for existence as a correlation that is the special focus of theoretical thought , see Hart (1995, 92–93n57). That we may understand and explain various phenomena in the light of conceptually grasped (networks of) order does not preclude seeing order itself (together with understanding) as also transcending understanding and participating in mystery .
- 83.
See the appeal to, and discussion of, Plato , Theaetetus 155d in this regard in Rubenstein (2008, 2–3).
- 84.
Similarly, if Hadot’s thesis (see Hadot 1995, 2002) that the earliest schools of philosophy not only saw their love of wisdom as a “way of life” but engaged in “spiritual exercises” in the pursuit of disciplined self-knowledge is correct (for an acceptance of the former [from Socrates onwards] but not the latter [until the time of Seneca], see Cooper [2012, 17–23, 29–30, and 402–403nn4–5]), we still need to ask: what kind of spirituality was at work? Foucault’s mediating position, that what he prefers to call pagan and Christian “technologies of the self ” differ markedly (see Foucault 2007), is helpful in this regard. As a summary of what they actually did, Cooper might well accept Sweetman’s account of “what the ancient philosophers called spiritual exercises” (Sweetman 2016, 3), while rejecting his (and Hadot’s) claim that such pedagogical procedures were seen by the ancients (or should be seen by us) as “spiritual” in character. Others might recognise spiritual (self-)formation at work here while seeing it as misguided. But can structure and direction be so neatly separated? A third alternative is to see a way of life that is animated by a commitment to reason, and lived in accordance with the principle of “nature” that reason is thought to disclose (Sweetman 2016, 4), as a “quasi-religion ” (see Smith 1994). Such “pursuits of wisdom ” (Cooper 2012) might then be seen to exhibit a closed-down, quasi-spirituality.
- 85.
Here I allude to the “a-teleological wandering” that is seen as so problematic in Smith (2009, 176), as cited in n. 4 above. For Aristotle ’s influential view in, e.g., Metaphysics 1.983a, that the philosophical wondering about an effect comes to an end in the theological knowledge of its cause , see Rubenstein (2008, 12–13). It is ironic that in an extract entitled “The Love of Wisdom ,” in McInerny (1998, 718–743), Aquinas appears to accept this in his commentary on the same passage. But is it only the miracle of divine, rather than natural, causation that is unfathomable, as Aquinas seems to believe? Is endless wonder (admiratio, in distinction from the settled gratitude of complacentia) only appropriate when we love God and not also when we love creation? See the discussion in Crowe (2000), Rubenstein (2008, 13), and Smith (2014).
- 86.
See n. 32 above. One way to put this is to say that there is a depth-meaning to persons and phenomena, and to structures and singularities, that even God does not understand, not because of a deficiency of knowledge but precisely because God knows perfectly. Knowing, not least in the context of being “in” the “truth” (Pss. 25:5, 86:11; John 4:24, 8:44; 2 Pet. 1:12; 3 John 3–4), is more/other than getting it right or being “almost wrong … almost right ” (Sweetman 2016, 152). Cf. Ansell (2013, 360, 385–387): “The rose flowers without a why” (Angelus Silesius); “I smell a rose, and smell the kingdom of God” (Arnold van Ruler).
- 87.
It is telling that in his discussion of Job 28, von Rad backs away from an emphasis on order (as he does in von Rad [1972, 106–110]) to connect biblical wisdom not only to “the divine mystery of creation,” but also to creation’s “meaning” (ibid., 148). Dooyeweerd, in his attempt to relativise a philosophical fixation on being, recommends the same central metaphor when he claims: “Meaning is the being of all that has been created and the nature even of our selfhood” (Dooyeweerd 1953–1958, 1:4). On the speech, or voice, of created existence, see nn. 12, 14, 23, 26, 75, and 77 above. While there are indications that Dooyeweerd tended to associate meaning (in this more than linguistic sense) with expression in what he called the foundational direction of time and religion (in a more than fiduciary sense) with referring in the transcendental direction (see Olthuis 1985, 23; cf. Ansell 2013, 238n85), I would look to connect the speech of creation to both temporal directions (on which see Ansell [2013, 228–256]). In my view, the conveyed meaning of creation goes beyond what many theologians understand by general revelation , as it includes, inter alia, “the voice of [Abel’s] blood … crying out to [yhwh] from the ground” (Gen. 4:10 [net]), the voice of the thunder in John 9:28–30 (cf. Exod. 19:19), and the “groaning” of the “whole creation” as it gives birth in Rom. 8:22.
- 88.
References
Ansell, Nicholas. 1997. Commentary: Romans 1:26f. Third Way 20 (7): 20.
———. 2001. The Call of Wisdom/The Voice of the Serpent: A Canonical Approach to the Tree of Knowledge. Christian Scholar’s Review 31 (1): 31–57.
———. 2002. Commentary: Exodus 19:5–6. Third Way 25 (9): 22.
———. 2008. Jesus on the Offensive. The Banner 143 (10): 44–45.
———. 2011a. The Embrace of Wisdom: Proverbs 8, Genesis 1, and the Covenantal Dynamics of Existence. Paper presented to the Wisdom in Israelite and Cognate Traditions unit at the Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, San Francisco, November 20, 2011.
———. 2011b. On (Not) Obeying the Sabbath: Reading Jesus Reading Scripture. Horizons in Biblical Theology 33 (2): 97–120.
———. 2011c. This Is Her Body … : Judges 19 as Call to Discernment. In Tamar’s Tears: Evangelical Engagements with Feminist Old Testament Hermeneutics, ed. Andrew Sloane, 112–170. Eugene: Pickwick.
———. 2012. It’s About Time: Opening Reformational Thought to the Eschaton. Calvin Theological Journal 47 (1): 98–121.
———. 2013. The Annihilation of Hell: Universal Salvation and the Redemption of Time in the Eschatology of Jürgen Moltmann. Milton Keynes/Eugene: Paternoster/Cascade.
———. 2017. Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find The(ir Wisdo)m: Behemoth and Leviathan in the Book of Job. In Playing with Leviathan: Interpretation and Reception of Monsters from the Biblical World, Themes in Biblical Narrative 21, ed. Koert van Bekkum et al., 90–114. Leiden: Brill.
Brueggemann, Walter. 1997. Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy. Minneapolis: Fortress.
Caputo, John D. 2013. Truth. Philosophy in Transit. London: Penguin.
Chaplin, Jonathan. 2011. Herman Dooyeweerd: Christian Philosopher of State and Civil Society. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
Clifford, Richard J. 1997. Introduction to Wisdom Literature. In The New Interpreter’s Bible, ed. David L. Petersen et al., vol. 5, 1–16. Nashville: Abingdon Press.
Collins, John J. 1997. Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age. Louisville: Westminster John Knox.
Cooper, John M. 2012. Pursuits of Wisdom: Six Ways of Life in Ancient Philosophy from Socrates to Plotinus. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Crenshaw, James L. 2010. Old Testament Wisdom: An Introduction. 3rd ed. Louisville: Westminster John Knox.
Crowe, Frederick E. 2000. Complacency and Concern in the Thought of St. Thomas. In Three Thomist Studies, ed. Michael Vertin and Frederic Lawrence, 71–203. Boston: Lonergan Institute at Boston College.
DeWeese, Garrett J. 2011. Doing Philosophy as a Christian. Downers Grove: IVP Academic.
Dooyeweerd, Herman. 1935–1936. De wijsbegeerte der wetsidee. 3 vols. Amsterdam: H.J. Paris.
———. 1953–1958. A New Critique of Theoretical Thought. 4 vols. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed.
———. 1968. The Christian Idea of the State. Trans. John Kraay. Nutley: Craig Press.
———. 1986. A Christian Theory of Social Institutions. Trans. Magnus Verbrugge, ed. John Witte, Jr. La Jolla: The Herman Dooyeweerd Foundation.
Duffy, Stephen J. 1993. The Graced Horizon: Nature and Grace in Modern Catholic Thought. Collegeville: The Liturgical Press.
Echeverria, Eduardo J. 2011. “In the Beginning…”: A Theology of the Body. Eugene: Wipf and Stock.
Foucault, Michel. 2007. Subjectivity and Truth. In The Politics of Truth, ed. Sylvère Lotringer and Lysa Hochroth, 147–167. New York: Semiotext(e).
Fox, Michael V. 2009. Proverbs 10–31: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. The Anchor Yale Bible Commentary 18B. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Fretheim, Terence E. 2002. Jeremiah. Macon: Smyth and Helwys.
———. 2005. God and World in the Old Testament: A Relational Theology of Creation. Nashville: Abingdon Press.
Garrett, Duane A. 1993. Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs. The New American Commentary 14. Nashville: Broadman.
Gerrish, B.A. 1993. Grace and Gratitude: The Eucharistic Theology of John Calvin. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress.
Grant, Jamie A. 2008. Wisdom and Covenant. In Dictionary of the Old Testament Wisdom, Poetry & Writings, ed. Tremper Longman and Peter Enns, 858–863. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press.
Griffioen, Sander, and Jan Verhoogt. 1990a. Introduction: Normativity and Contextuality in the Social Sciences. In Griffioen and Verhoogt 1990b, 9–22.
———, eds. 1990b. Norm and Context in the Social Sciences. Lanham: University Press of America.
Hadot, Pierre. 1995. Philosophy as a Way of Life: Spiritual Exercises from Socrates to Foucault. Trans. Michael Chase, ed. A.I. Davidson. Oxford: Blackwell.
———. 2002. What Is Ancient Philosophy? Trans. Michael Chase. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Hart, Hendrik. 1984. Understanding Our World: An Integral Ontology. Lanham: University Press of America.
———. 1995. Creation Order in Our Tradition: Critique and Refinement. In An Ethos of Compassion and the Integrity of Creation, ed. Brian J. Walsh, Hendrik Hart, and Robert Vandervennen, 67–96. Lanham: University Press of America.
———. 2000. Notes on Dooyeweerd, Reason, and Order. In Contemporary Reflections on the Philosophy of Herman Dooyeweerd: A Supplement to the Collected Works of Herman Dooyeweerd, ed. D.F.M. Strauss and Michelle Botting, 125–146. Lewiston: Edwin Mellen Press.
Hatton, Peter T.H. 2008. Contradiction in the Book of Proverbs: The Deep Waters of Counsel. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Hauerwas, Stanley. 2001. With the Grain of the Universe: The Church’s Witness and Natural Theology. Grand Rapids: Brazos.
Heim, Knut Martin. 2001. Like Grapes of Gold Set in Silver: An Interpretation of Proverbial Clusters in Proverbs 10:1–22:16. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
———. 2013. Poetic Imagination in Proverbs: Variant Repetitions and the Nature of Poetry. Bulletin for Biblical Research Supplements 4. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Hesselink, I. John. 2001. Law. In The Westminster Handbook to Reformed Theology, ed. Donald K. McKim, 134–136. Louisville: Westminster John Knox.
Holladay, William. 1974. Jeremiah: Spokesman Out of Time. Philadelphia: United Church Press.
———. 1989. Jeremiah 2: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah Chapters 26–52. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
Jaspers, Karl. 1954. Way to Wisdom: An Introduction to Philosophy. Trans. Ralph Manheim. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Kant, Immanuel. 1960. Religion Within the Limits of Reason Alone, 2nd ed. Trans. Theodore M. Greene, Hoyt H. Hudson, and John R. Silber. New York: Harper & Row.
Keown, Gerald L., Pamela J. Scalise, and Thomas G. Smothers. 1995. Jeremiah 26–52. Word Biblical Commentary 27. Waco: Word.
LaMothe, Kimerer L. 2009. What a Body Knows: Finding Wisdom in Desire. Winchester: O Books.
Levin, David Michael. 1985. The Body’s Recollection of Being: Phenomenological Psychology and the Deconstruction of Nihilism. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Lucas, Ernest C. 2008. Wisdom Theology. In Dictionary of the Old Testament Wisdom, Poetry & Writings, ed. Tremper Longman and Peter Enns, 907–909. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press.
McInerny, Ralph, ed. 1998. The Love of Wisdom. Exposition of Metaphysics, Preface and 1, 1–3 (1271). In Thomas Aquinas: Selected Writings. London: Penguin.
McKane, William. 1996. Jeremiah. Vol. 2, Commentary on Jeremiah 26–52. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark.
Middleton, J. Richard, and Brian J. Walsh. 1995. Truth Is Stranger Than It Used to Be: Biblical Faith in a Postmodern Age. London: SPCK.
Morgan, Donn F. 1981. Wisdom in the Old Testament Traditions. Atlanta: John Knox Press.
Murphy, Roland E. 1985. Wisdom and Creation. Journal of Biblical Literature 104 (1): 3–11.
———. 1998. Proverbs. Word Biblical Commentary 22. Nashville: Thomas Nelson.
———. 2002. The Tree of Life: An Exploration of Biblical Wisdom Literature. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Olthuis, James H. 1985. Dooyeweerd on Religion and Faith. In The Legacy of Herman Dooyeweerd: Reflections on Critical Philosophy in the Christian Tradition, ed. C.T. McIntire, 21–40. Lanham: University Press of America.
Perdue, Leo G. 2000. Proverbs. Interpretation. Louisville: John Knox Press.
Plantinga, Cornelius, Jr. 1995. Not the Way It’s Supposed to Be: A Breviary of Sin. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Rubenstein, Mary-Jane. 2008. Strange Wonder: The Closure of Metaphysics and the Opening of Awe. New York: Columbia University Press.
Sailhamer, John H. 1995. Appendix B: Compositional Strategies in the Pentateuch. In Introduction to Old Testament Theology: A Canonical Approach, ed. John H. Sailhamer, 272–289. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
———. 2000. A Wisdom Composition of the Pentateuch? In The Way of Wisdom: Essays in Honor of Bruce K. Waltke, ed. J.I. Packer and Sven K. Soderlund, 15–35. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
Seerveld, Calvin G. 1998. Proverbs 10:1–22: From Poetic Paragraphs to Preaching. In Reading and Hearing the Word: From Text to Sermon; Essays in Honor of John H. Stek, ed. Arie C. Leder, 181–200. Grand Rapids: Calvin Theological Seminary/CRC Publications.
———. 2003. How to Read the Bible to Hear God Speak: A Study in Numbers 22–24. Sioux Center/Toronto: Dordt College Press/Tuppence Press.
Skillen, James W., and Rockne M. McCarthy, eds. 1991. Political Order and the Plural Structure of Society. Atlanta: Scholars Press.
Smith, Wilfred Cantwell. 1979. Faith and Belief. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Smith, John E. 1994. Quasi-Religions: Humanism, Marxism, and Nationalism. Themes in Comparative Religion. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Smith, James K.A. 2009. Desiring the Kingdom: Worship, Worldview, and Cultural Formation. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.
Smith, Randall B. 2014. “If Philosophy Begins in Wonder”: Aquinas, Creation, and Wonder. Communio: International Catholic Review 41 (1): 92–111.
Strauss, D.F.M. 2009. Philosophy: Discipline of the Disciplines. Grand Rapids: Paideia Press.
Sweetman, Robert. 2016. Tracing the Lines: Spiritual Exercise and the Gesture of Christian Scholarship. Currents in Reformational Thought. Eugene: Wipf & Stock.
Thompson, J.A. 1980. Jeremiah. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Trible, Phyllis. 1978. God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality. Overtures to Biblical Theology. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.
van der Walt, B.J. 1973. Eisegesis-Exegesis, Paradox and Nature-Grace: Methods of Synthesis in Mediaeval Philosophy. Philosophia Reformata 38 (1): 191–211.
VanDrunen, David. 2010. Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms: A Study in the Development of Reformed Social Thought. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Van Leeuwen, Raymond C. 1990. Liminality and Worldview in Proverbs 1–9. Semeia 50: 111–144.
———. 1997. The Book of Proverbs: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections. In New Interpreter’s Bible, ed. David L. Petersen et al., vol. 5. Nashville: Abingdon.
von Rad, Gerhard. 1972. Wisdom in Israel. Trans. James D. Martin. London: SCM Press.
Walsh, Brian J., and J. Richard Middleton. 1984. The Transforming Vision: Shaping a Christian World View. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press.
Walsh, Brian J., Hendrik Hart, and Robert Vandervennen, eds. 1995. An Ethos of Compassion and the Integrity of Creation. Lanham: University Press of America.
Waltke, Bruce K. 2005. The Book of Proverbs, Chapters 15–31. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Weeks, Stuart. 2010. An Introduction to the Study of Wisdom Literature. London: T & T Clark.
Wolters, Albert M. 1995. Creation Order: A Historical Look at Our Heritage. In Walsh et al. 1995, 33–48.
———. 2001. The Song of the Valiant Woman: Studies in the Interpretation of Proverbs 31:10–31. Carlisle: Paternoster.
———. 2005. Creation Regained: Biblical Basics for a Reformational Worldview. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Wolterstorff, Nicholas. 1983. Until Justice and Peace Embrace. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
———. 1988. Reason within the Bounds of Religion. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
———. 1995. Response to Albert M. Wolters. In Walsh et al. 1995, 62–66.
———. 2004. Educating for Shalom, ed. Clarence W. Joldersma. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Wright, N.T. 2013. Christian Origins and the Question of God. Vol. 4, Paul and the Faithfulness of God. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
Yett, Danielle. 2017. Passing Away: Despair, Comfort, and the Poetic Deterioration of the Book of Lamentations. http://ir.icscanada.edu/icsir.
Yoder, John Howard. 1988. Armaments and Eschatology. Studies in Christian Ethics 1: 43–61.
———. 1994. The Politics of Jesus: Vicit Agnus Noster. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Zuidema, S.U. 1972. Philosophy as Point of Departure. In Communication and Confrontation: A Philosophical Appraisal and Critique of Modern Society and Contemporary Thought, ed. S.U. Zuidema, 124–128. Toronto: Wedge.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Ansell, N. (2017). For the Love of Wisdom: Scripture, Philosophy, and the Relativisation of Order. In: Glas, G., de Ridder, J. (eds) The Future of Creation Order. New Approaches to the Scientific Study of Religion , vol 3. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70881-2_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70881-2_12
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-70880-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-70881-2
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)