Generally speaking, in Scripture the word “fool” is used to describe someone in a morally deprived state. It does not, as in contemporary American usage, refer to a person’s lack of intellectual ability or to one whose actions convey those of a buffoon. Terms for “fool” appear all through Scripture, but wisdom literature contains the highest concentration. Proverbs uses over half a dozen words to describe the fool. All of them indicate some kind of moral breach and fall on a scale from the most morally hardened to the naive.

Obstinacy, recalcitrance, and closed-mindedness characterize the morally dense fool. Such individuals have no use for advice from others because they are “wise in their own eyes” (Prov. 3:7; cf. 12:15; 16:2). Fools frequently scoff at correction and rebuke (9:7–8, 12; 13:1; 14:6; 15:12; 19:25; 20:1; 21:11, 24; 22:10; 24:9). They manifest arrogance (21:24). Fools do not learn from their own mistakes or those of others but instead often repeat them (26:11). One of the main problems is that fools “lack sense,” which ultimately implies that they lack character (see 6:32; 7:7; 9:4, 16; 10:13, 21; 11:12; 12:11; 15:21; 17:18; 24:30). Such a person consistently makes poor decisions and loses the appetite and passion necessary for acquiring wisdom.

According to the book of Proverbs, three qualities make up the essential nature of the fool. First, the fool is unwilling to learn by means of discipline (3:11–12; 17:10), or formal instruction (17:16), or a word of advice (12:15), or personal experience (26:11). Second, the fool lacks self-control. Both the speech (15:2) and the behavior (14:16) of fools demonstrate a lack of restraint. They take the path of least resistance to easy money (1:8–19) and easy sex (7:6–27). Third, the fool is the one who rejects the fear of the Lord (1:7).

All half a dozen terms used for “fool” indicate, to one degree or another, a moral breach. The one exception is peti, the word used to indicate the “simple” (e.g., Prov. 1:4; 19:25; 21:11). This word is at the other end of the moral spectrum from “fool” and refers to one who is young, vulnerable, and inexperienced. The simple are the gullible, impressionable persons. These individuals can be influenced for either good or ill, depending on whom they listen to. Both Woman Wisdom and Woman Folly make compelling calls to the simple (Prov. 9:6, 16). This simple youth will make moral mistakes along the way, but the peti has yet to harden into a full-fledged fool, one who is incorrigible and unteachable.

In the NT, the fool is the one who does not trust in God or in the power that God displays through the resurrection of Christ (Luke 24:25; Rom. 1:22; 1 Cor. 15:36). Jesus makes references to the fool when he tells the stories of the wise and foolish builders (Matt. 7:24–27) and the wise and foolish maidens (Matt. 25:1–13). Paul uses the term “foolish” to rebuke the Galatians for their refusal to accept the gospel (Gal. 3:1). However, in his correspondence with the church in Corinth, Paul reverses the conventional understanding of folly and uses it as a rhetorical strategy to communicate his message. He speaks of the message of the cross as foolishness to the world (1 Cor. 1:18). On another occasion, in order to argue against the arrogance of his opponents, Paul engages in “a little foolishness” (2 Cor. 11:1) as he boasts about his ministry, which is riddled with failure (2 Cor. 11–12).

Generally speaking, in Scripture the word “fool” is used to describe someone in a morally deprived state. It does not, as in contemporary American usage, refer to a person’s lack of intellectual ability or to one whose actions convey those of a buffoon. Terms for “fool” appear all through Scripture, but wisdom literature contains the highest concentration. Proverbs uses over half a dozen words to describe the fool. All of them indicate some kind of moral breach and fall on a scale from the most morally hardened to the naive.

Obstinacy, recalcitrance, and closed-mindedness characterize the morally dense fool. Such individuals have no use for advice from others because they are “wise in their own eyes” (Prov. 3:7; cf. 12:15; 16:2). Fools frequently scoff at correction and rebuke (9:7–8, 12; 13:1; 14:6; 15:12; 19:25; 20:1; 21:11, 24; 22:10; 24:9). They manifest arrogance (21:24). Fools do not learn from their own mistakes or those of others but instead often repeat them (26:11). One of the main problems is that fools “lack sense,” which ultimately implies that they lack character (see 6:32; 7:7; 9:4, 16; 10:13, 21; 11:12; 12:11; 15:21; 17:18; 24:30). Such a person consistently makes poor decisions and loses the appetite and passion necessary for acquiring wisdom.

According to the book of Proverbs, three qualities make up the essential nature of the fool. First, the fool is unwilling to learn by means of discipline (3:11–12; 17:10), or formal instruction (17:16), or a word of advice (12:15), or personal experience (26:11). Second, the fool lacks self-control. Both the speech (15:2) and the behavior (14:16) of fools demonstrate a lack of restraint. They take the path of least resistance to easy money (1:8–19) and easy sex (7:6–27). Third, the fool is the one who rejects the fear of the Lord (1:7).

All half a dozen terms used for “fool” indicate, to one degree or another, a moral breach. The one exception is peti, the word used to indicate the “simple” (e.g., Prov. 1:4; 19:25; 21:11). This word is at the other end of the moral spectrum from “fool” and refers to one who is young, vulnerable, and inexperienced. The simple are the gullible, impressionable persons. These individuals can be influenced for either good or ill, depending on whom they listen to. Both Woman Wisdom and Woman Folly make compelling calls to the simple (Prov. 9:6, 16). This simple youth will make moral mistakes along the way, but the peti has yet to harden into a full-fledged fool, one who is incorrigible and unteachable.

In the NT, the fool is the one who does not trust in God or in the power that God displays through the resurrection of Christ (Luke 24:25; Rom. 1:22; 1 Cor. 15:36). Jesus makes references to the fool when he tells the stories of the wise and foolish builders (Matt. 7:24–27) and the wise and foolish maidens (Matt. 25:1–13). Paul uses the term “foolish” to rebuke the Galatians for their refusal to accept the gospel (Gal. 3:1). However, in his correspondence with the church in Corinth, Paul reverses the conventional understanding of folly and uses it as a rhetorical strategy to communicate his message. He speaks of the message of the cross as foolishness to the world (1 Cor. 1:18). On another occasion, in order to argue against the arrogance of his opponents, Paul engages in “a little foolishness” (2 Cor. 11:1) as he boasts about his ministry, which is riddled with failure (2 Cor. 11–12).

The word “parable” is used to speak of a particular literary form that communicates indirectly by means of comparative language, often for the purpose of challenging the listener to accept or reject a new way of thinking about a particular matter. Parables regularly incorporate concrete and accessible images from the daily life of the audience, and often they are terse and pointed, mentioning only the details relevant for an effective comparison. However, any attempt to define the term “parable” in a clear and concise way is complicated by the fact that both the Hebrew (mashal) and the Greek (parabolē) words regularly translated by the English word “parable” have much broader connotations. For instance, in the OT mashal can designate proverbs (Prov. 1:1), riddles (Ezek. 17:2), prophetic utterances (Num. 23:7, 18; 24:3, 15, 20, 21, 23), and sayings (1 Sam. 10:12); similarly, in the NT parabolē denotes proverbs (Luke 4:23), riddles (Mark 3:23), analogies (Mark 7:17), and more. Therefore, no comprehensive definition of parables is agreed upon by biblical scholars, and very little said about parables in general will apply to every parable.

Parables in the Bible

Although not designated with the Hebrew word mashal, the story of the trees (Judg. 9:7–15) and the story of the ewe lamb (2 Sam. 12:1–4) may be considered to be parables. Like many parables, the story about the ewe lamb told by Nathan prompts its audience, in this case David, to condemn the actions of a character in the parable before being confronted with the fact that the character and his conduct are symbolic of David himself. The parable is the vehicle used to bring about self-condemnation of its audience.

Although Jesus is not the only speaker of parables in the ancient world, the Gospels narrate a tremendous number of parables within his teaching. The major parables of Jesus are listed in table 4. The diversity of form represented in this list is striking. Some of the parables consist of short, relatively simple comparisons that lack the development of any significant story line. This is true, for instance, of the parables of the mustard seed, yeast, hidden treasure, and the pearl. Each of these offers a simple simile to explain some feature of the kingdom of God, a frequent topic in Jesus’ parables, and may include an additional sentence of clarification.

Table 4. Major Parables of Jesus

Wise and foolish builders (Matt. 7:24-27; Luke 6:46-49)

Sower and the soils (Matt. 13:3–8, 18–23; Mark 4:3–8, 14–20; Luke 8:5–8, 11–15)

Weeds (Matt. 13:24-30, 36-43)

Mustard seed (Matt. 13:31–32; Mark 4:30–32; Luke 13:18–19)

Yeast (Matt. 13:33; Luke 13:20-21)

Hidden treasure (Matt. 13:44)

Pearl (Matt. 13:45-46)

Net (Matt. 13:47-50)

Lost sheep (Matt. 18:12-14; Luke 15:4-7)

Unmerciful servant (Matt. 18:23-35)

Workers in the vineyard (Matt. 20:1-16)

Two sons (Matt. 21:28-32)

Wicked tenants (Matt. 21:33–44; Mark 12:1–11; Luke 20:9–18)

Wedding banquet (Matt. 22:2-14)

Faithful and wise servant (Matt. 24:45-51; Luke 12:42-48)

Ten virgins (Matt. 25:1-13)

Talents (Matt. 25:14–30; Luke 19:12–27)

Sheep and goats (Matt. 25:31-46)

Growing seeds (Mark 4:26-29)

Money lender (Luke 7:41-47)

Good Samritan (Luke 10:30-37)

Friend in need (Luke 11:5-8)

Rich fool (Luke 12:16-21)

Unfruitful fig tree (Luke 13:6-9)

Lowest seat (Luke 14:7-14)

Great banquet (Luke 14:16-24)

Cost of discipleship (Luke 14:28-33)

Lost coin (Luke 15:8-10)

Lost (prodigal) son (Luke 15:11-32)

Shrewd manager (Luke 16:1-8)

Rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31)

Persistent widow (Luke 18:2-8)

Pharisee and tax collector (Luke 18:10-14)

Parables such as the good Samaritan and the prodigal son, on the other hand, are significantly longer, contain developed plots, and present several central characters. Stories of this sort may use the characters as examples of behavior to be either emulated or avoided, as in the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector. Such parables may remain open-ended in an attempt to force the listeners into a decision about what should happen (the unfruitful fig tree), or they may include a clear, concluding explanation that leaves no doubt as to how the audience should change their belief or behavior as a result of the parable’s teaching (the moneylender). The degree to which each of these parables directly addresses the intended audience and the intended topic can vary greatly. For instance, although the parable of the rich fool directly addresses the subject matter of material wealth, the anonymity of the rich man in the story does not openly condemn any particular member of Jesus’ audience. Alternatively, a parable may treat a subject that differs from the intended one and expect the listener to transfer the lesson to another topic. This is the case with the parable of the weeds, which speaks explicitly about farming. Nonetheless, when the disciples seek an explanation of this parable, Jesus indicates that it is to be understood as speaking about that feature of the kingdom of heaven whereby the sons of the kingdom and the sons of the evil one intermingle in the world until the end of the age, when the sons of the evil one will be separated to face a fiery judgment (Matt. 13:36–43).

Other parables, such as that of the lost sheep, revolve around a central question posed to the listeners. By asking “who among you” would behave in the way described, the parable anticipates a negative response that asserts that no one would act in the manner detailed in the parable. The NIV frequently inserts the phrase “suppose one of you” in places where the introductory question “who among you” appears in Greek.

Purpose of Jesus’ Teaching in Parables

It is quite clear that Jesus regularly employed parables in his teaching, but his reason for doing so is less evident. Jesus’ own somewhat perplexing statement in Mark 4:10–12 indicates that his parables have the dual purpose of both revealing and concealing the secret of the kingdom, but one may wonder how it is that parables perform both functions simultaneously. If the goal of comparative language is to make clearer a concept or idea that is difficult, then certainly Jesus’ parables function in this way. Through the simple, accessible, and concrete word pictures that are his parables, Jesus discloses many characteristics and features of the kingdom of God, which is at best something of an enigma to his audience. By speaking to the crowds, albeit at times in an exaggerated fashion, about the things that they know, such as farming, banquets, baking, and other elements of everyday life, Jesus expands their understanding of what they do not know. However, the indirect quality of parables simultaneously blocks spontaneous understanding and therefore requires the audience to engage in additional reflection to ensure that they have truly grasped what is being taught. Likewise, the ability to address an issue by slyly sneaking up on it from behind results in parables that initially conceal their true purpose of convincing the listeners of a new way of thinking or behaving such that the conviction they are meant to induce comes with a surprise kick at the end.

Interpretation of Parables

Interpretation over the centuries. Throughout church history until the nineteenth century, parables were widely interpreted by means of the allegorical method. That is, all the surface details of parables were identified as symbols of some deeper spiritual truth. A classic example of allegorizing is Augustine’s interpretation of the parable of the good Samaritan, whereby he interpreted surface details of the text according to allegorical equations (see table 5). Allegorical interpretations of the same parable by other Christians, however, did not always result in the same interpretations of the symbols. For this reason, most scholars today reject the excessive allegorization of Augustine and others throughout church history. However, how many details in a parable, if any, are to be interpreted allegorically remains a central question in parable interpretation. For instance, in the parable of the mustard seed, are the mustard seed and the plant that it produces allegories for the unobtrusive beginnings yet manifest results of the kingdom? If so, what then of the man and the birds also mentioned in the parable? Are they symbols of a deeper spiritual truth such that the man is to be equated with God, or are they included only to augment the teaching of the parable such that the birds merely highlight the extreme size of the tree into which the seed has grown?

Table 5. Augustine’s Allegorical Interpretation of the Good Samaritan

Details in the Parable and its Allegorical Equivalent:

The man = Adam

Jerusalem = The heavenly city

Jericho = The moon (a symbol of mortality)

The robbers = The devil

Beating the man = Persuading him to sin

Priest and Levite = The Old Testament priesthood

Samaritan = Christ

Binding of wounds = Restraint of sin

Oil = Comfort of hope

Animal = Incarnation

Inn = Church

Innkeeper = Apostle Paul

The work of the German scholar Adolf Jülicher at the end of the nineteenth century has widely affected parable interpretation since that time. Jülicher asserted that parables are not allegories and therefore should not be interpreted allegorically at all. Instead, he argued that parables have only one main point, normally a general, religious statement. Interpreters since Jülicher continue to debate how much of a parable is significant and how many points of correspondence are intended. More-recent views have posited that Jülicher went too far in maintaining a strict distinction between parable and allegory, and many interpreters believe that allegorical elements are present in parables, with perhaps the main characters in a parable being the most likely candidates for allegorical interpretation. This renewed openness to allegorical features in parables is due in part to the recognition that the Gospels record Jesus’ own tendency to offer allegorical interpretations of his parables when his disciples inquire as to their meaning. This is most clearly seen in the parable of the sower and the soils, which includes details such as seed, birds, the sun, and thorns. Jesus reveals that the seed is to be interpreted as the message about the kingdom, the birds stand for the evil one, the sun is representative of persecution because of the gospel, and the thorns indicate worries and wealth (Matt. 13:18–23).

Guidelines for interpreting parables. It is generally best to recognize that not all parables are identical, and that one should consider several possible interpretive strategies before determining which approach best fits any given parable. Nonetheless, some broad guidelines for the interpretation of parables include the following:

1. The characters and plots within parables are literary creations and are not historical. The parable of the lost sheep is not a historical rec-ord of a certain shepherd whose sheep went missing. No actual invitation was issued for the great banquet in the parable. Rather, in a parable the listener is brought into a narrative world controlled by the storyteller and by implication has no need for details that the speaker fails to provide. Therefore, it does not matter whether the shepherd himself was at fault in the loss of the sheep, and the choice of food set before the banquet guests is inconsequential.

2. Parables often follow the principle of end stress. Interpreters should carefully consider how the parable ends when determining the meaning the parable is intended to convey. At times an explanatory conclusion to the parable is included and may be helpful in directing the reader toward the topic that is really being addressed. This is the case in the parable of the two sons, in which Jesus’ concluding explanation identifies tax collectors and prostitutes as those who are entering the kingdom ahead of those who have received John’s prophetic message but failed to accept it.

Recent studies on parables that reflect issues raised by two fields of study respectively known as form criticism and redaction criticism are likely to question the accuracy of such concluding statements as well as any introductory comments to parables that may also be presented in the Gospel text. Many scholars ask if and to what extent the Gospel writers made changes to the parables that they record. They wonder whether it is possible to discern the original context and circumstance in which Jesus relayed his parables, or whether the details of the original context had been forgotten by the time that the evangelists wrote. Could it be that any introductory and concluding comments included with some parables are not authentic to Jesus’ ministry but instead reflect issues that arose in the early church? In spite of the doubts of some, more-conservative scholars have presented arguments for the continued trustworthiness of the Gospel accounts about Jesus’ teaching including introductory or concluding statements associated with his parables.

3. Look for the use of OT symbols in Jesus’ parables. The parables of Jesus and the parables recorded in other rabbinical literature are replete with similar figures and images. Kings, banquets, weddings, farmers, debtors, and more appear with frequency; they perhaps developed into stock images to be used in stories in the ancient world. If such details appear in a parable, the interpreter should consider strongly whether some allegorical meaning is intended whereby a kingly figure represents God, a son represents the people of God, and a banquet indicates a time of coming judgment or reward.

4. Interpreters should exercise extreme caution regarding doctrinal teaching drawn from a parable, particularly if such doctrine cannot be confirmed by the theological teaching found in a nonparabolic portion of Scripture. For instance, in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, is one to conclude that conversations can occur between the dead who reside in hell and those who reside in heaven? Likewise, should one learn that it is possible for the deceased human to be sent back to the living with a message from God? These doctrinal issues seem to be outside the range of teaching intended by the parable, and support for these ideas cannot be found in other biblical texts.

5. In recognition of the indirect nature of the communication in parables, some interpreters question whether a parable’s meaning can be reproduced in propositional language. In other words, can the meaning of a parable be expressed in nonparabolic language, or is some necessary component lost when one changes the form? Similarly, is it possible for people who have heard the story of the good Samaritan repeatedly to be struck by the confrontational force that was central to its initial reception? Not only are the images of Samaritans and Levites foreign to the modern listener, but also the familiarity with the story that has resulted from its retelling over time has domesticated the parable such that the details that were meant to shock and surprise are now anticipated and predictable. In this way, are parables like jokes that have been repeated too many times until one becomes inoculated against the punch line? Because of these concerns about the inability of today’s listeners to truly hear the parable as it was meant to be heard, some interpreters may wish to consider how it could be recast with images common to today’s audience and retold in such a way that the listeners experience the surprising twist that the initial audiences felt.

A word puzzle, often involving a pun, in which the true meaning of a word or phrase is hidden and must be discovered. To solve a riddle requires an understanding of the mind-set of the person who crafted it. Although often associated with wisdom sayings, the most famous riddle in the Bible is that presented by Samson, a man known more for his brawn than his brain. Samson’s riddle functions both as an entertaining brainteaser and as the object of a bet with his bridegrooms (see Judg. 14). A riddle can be performed with a harp (Ps. 49:4) and is listed alongside proverbs, parables, and the sayings of the wise (Prov. 1:6). The ability to explain riddles is a talent attributed to Daniel along with interpreting dreams and solving difficult problems (Dan. 5:12). God may communicate with riddles (Dan. 5), or he may purposely avoid them (Num. 12:8).

As the son and successor to David, Solomon reigned forty years over the united kingdom of Israel (c. 971–931 BC). Extensive accounts of his reign are provided in 1 Kings 1–11; 2 Chron. 1–9. Solomon, the second son born to Bathsheba, was marked out at birth as “loved by the Lord” (2 Sam. 12:24–25 NIV mg.). He succeeded his father as king, even though he was not David’s oldest living son (1 Kings 2). The building of the temple is the centerpiece of the biblical accounts of Solomon’s reign.

It is common to divide Solomon’s reign into two unequal halves (1 Kings 1–10; 11), with Solomon only becoming apostate due to the influence of foreign wives (1 Kings 11). The earlier chapters, however, are not wholly commendatory. Solomon’s “wisdom” in dealing with Joab and Shimei is vengeful and ruthless (2:6, 9). In 1 Kings 3:1 his palace is mentioned before the temple (because it took precedence in Solomon’s mind?). He spent seven years on the temple but lavished thirteen years on his own house (6:38; 7:1). Behind the picture of his excessive wealth and lucrative trade in horses stand the (unheeded) prohibitions of Deut. 17:14–17. His Egyptian marriage and resort to the high places (1 Kings 3:1–4) foreshadow his overt apostasy (11:1–8). All in all, Solomon proved to be a sad disappointment.

In Chronicles the reigns of David and Solomon are viewed as complementary, such that Solomon completed what David had prepared for. Solomon needed David’s plans and provisions (1 Chron. 28–29), but David needed Solomon to actually build the temple. Just as David brought the ark to Jerusalem, Solomon transferred it to the temple (2 Chron. 5). David organized the cultic officials (1 Chron. 22–27), but Solomon installed them (2 Chron. 8:14–15). Chronicles gives a picture of Solomon’s reign that is very different from the one found in Kings. There is no competition to succeed (cf. 1 Kings 1–2), no apostasy, and no raising up of adversaries (cf. 1 Kings 11:14–40). Solomon enjoyed all Israel’s support throughout his reign. This need not, however, be viewed as whitewashing Solomon. The true explanation is that the focus in Chronicles is almost exclusively on Solomon as temple builder. The Chronicler was also aware of Solomon’s failings (as hinted at in 2 Chron. 9:29; 10:4–15).

The immediate dissolution of the united kingdom after Solomon’s death cannot be simply blamed on the inept handling of the crisis by his son Rehoboam (1 Kings 12). Solomon’s policies put an inordinate economic burden on the north (4:7–19). His conscription of forced labor (5:13–18) and sale of twenty cities in Galilee to Hiram of Tyre (9:10–14) were resented. The raising up of a series of adversaries, including Jeroboam, was a divine judgment (11:9–13). The prophet Ahijah favored Jeroboam (11:29–39). The prophet Shemaiah prevented Rehoboam’s military invasion of the north (12:21–24). The northern tribes wanted relief from Solomon’s harsh policies (“Your father put a heavy yoke on us” [12:4]). Rehoboam was unwilling (or unable?) to compromise. Solomon’s death is reported in 1 Kings 11:41–43, but frequent allusions to him follow (e.g., 12:2, 4, 6, 9), for it was his policies that precipitated the split.

Solomon was largely responsible for the book of Proverbs (Prov. 1:1; 10:1; 25:1). The superscription of the Song of Songs (Song 1:1) associates the book with Solomon, and he is referred to a number of times within it (1:5; 3:7–11; 8:11–12). He is not, however, the lover depicted. The book of Ecclesiastes sometimes is attributed to him, given that the author describes himself as “son of David, king in Jerusalem” (Eccles. 1:1). The author’s reputed wisdom, wealth, and building programs also suggest the figure of Solomon (1:12–2:11). Solomon’s marriages are used as an illustration in a sermon against foreign marriages in Neh. 13:26. In the NT, Solomon’s wealth and wisdom are alluded to in Jesus’ teaching (Matt. 6:29; 12:42). He is also mentioned in relation to the temple (John 10:23; Acts 3:11).

In the OT, wisdom (khokmah) is a characteristic of someone who attains a high degree of knowledge, technical skill, and experience in a particular domain. It refers to the ability that certain individuals have to use good judgment in running the affairs of state (Joseph in Gen. 41:33; David in 2 Sam. 14:20; Solomon in 1 Kings 3:9, 12, 28). It can also refer to the navigational skills that sailors use in maneuvering a ship through difficult waters (Ps. 107:27). Furthermore, wisdom includes the particular skills of an artisan (Exod. 31:6; 35:35; 1 Chron. 22:15–16). In all these cases, wisdom involves the expertise that a person acquires to accomplish a particular task. In these instances “wisdom” is an ethically neutral term, or at least that dimension is not emphasized. The wise are those who have mastered a certain skill set in their field of expertise.

The uniqueness of the OT wisdom literature (Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, etc.) is that it highlights the moral dimension of wisdom. Here “wisdom” refers to developing expertise in negotiating the complexities of life and managing those complexities in a morally responsible way that honors God and benefits both the community and the individual. Although it is difficult to pin down a concise definition, one can gain a better understanding of wisdom by investigating two important dimensions: wisdom as a worldview, and the traits of a person who is considered to be wise.

Wisdom as Worldview

Wisdom describes a worldview, a particular way of perceiving God, humanity, and creation. The God of the sages is sovereign Lord. But their understanding of sovereignty manifests itself differently from the way the Torah and the prophets describe it. All through the OT Israel frequently witnessed God at work through mighty acts of deliverance and conquest and protection. God orchestrated these monumental saving acts. Wisdom, however, looks at God’s sovereignty differently. It makes few references to the mighty acts of God.

For the sage of Ecclesiastes, the world is the arena of God’s mystery. God is active in creation and in the world, but his ways are inscrutable (3:11; 6:10–12; 7:13–14). God is distant (5:2), but he spans this distance when humans receive and enjoy the ordinary gifts of friendship, food, family that he gives to sustain life (2:24–26; 3:12–13; 5:18–20; 9:7–10).

For the sage of Proverbs, God is present in the daily routines of life. God is involved in the interactions that take place between people (15:22; 27:5–6, 9–10, 17). God works through both the good and the bad experiences of life, employs human language to carry out his purposes, and uses material wealth and even poverty in the service of maturing people.

In the very realm where individuals believe that they exercise the most control—human thoughts and plans—God establishes a presence (Prov. 16:1, 9). Exactly how God does this the sage does not say; rather, the sage assumes that divine sovereignty and human activity exist together in inexplicable ways.

From the view of God to the view of humans, wisdom emphasizes a particular perspective. Wisdom’s worldview of humanity places great confidence in what humans can accomplish. Wisdom affirms that individuals are capable of making wise choices and displaying responsible behavior. In so doing, such people will live healthy, prosperous, successful lives (Prov. 9:1; 14:1, 11). Because they value human ability and understanding, the sages use all the resources at their disposal to discover the means of living a successful life. They use the sources of the culture around them as well as their own inner resources.

One other dimension to probe in wisdom’s worldview is the important role that creation plays. Living in harmony with the order of the universe brings longevity, wealth, and good fortune. When individuals integrate their lives with the order of creation, success results; neglecting that order brings failure. However, the sages sometimes are accused of possessing too mechanical a view of such order: the wise, it is said, believe in a world automatically programmed to prosper the pious and punish the perverse. Such a view perceives the world as operating on a rigid system of rewards and punishments. It is true that some wisdom teaching appears to reflect this worldview (Prov. 26:27). However, even though the sages developed plans and strategies by which to live, they did not believe in a created order that operated mechanically. The sages do have an interest in discovering certain predictable patterns of experiences, but the order that underlies the experiences of life is not a fate-producing one (21:30–31). The sages wrestle not so much with the concept of a rigid order as with the person of God. A dialectic exists between the predictable order of creation and the free work of God. Wisdom seeks not to master life but to navigate it. The sages guided themselves and others through the experiences of life, striving not to dominate but rather to assume responsibility. This is the fundamental worldview of wisdom.

Traits of the Wise

Who is wise? First, the wise are those involved in a lifelong process of character development. They manifest the virtues of righteousness, justice, and equity (Prov. 1:3; 2:9). The embodiment of these virtues culminates in the description of the woman of noble character at the conclusion of Proverbs (31:10–31). She exhibits self-control, patience, care, diligence, discipline, humility, generosity, honesty, and fear of the Lord (cf. James 3:13–18). She is the epitome of wisdom in its maturity and the model that all should emulate.

Second, the wise know the value of words and how to use them. They know when to speak, what to say, and how to say it (Job 29:21–22; Prov. 15:23; 25:11; Eccles. 3:7; 12:9–10). Wisdom and the wise place a premium on the power of words.

Third, the wise place great importance on relationships and on interaction with others. The wise person is the one who is open to the give-and-take of relationships (Prov. 27:5–6, 17, 19). Such a person develops the humility necessary to receive correction and criticism from others. Hearing criticism and changing wrong behavior are integral to wisdom (3:1–11). The wise appreciate insightful criticism because it helps them live life more productively (15:12). Wisdom is, ultimately, relational.

Fourth, the wise person develops the art of discernment (Prov. 1:2, 4–6). The sage is equipped with the ability to think critically. The very quality of wisdom itself invites the re-forming and rethinking of ideas. Sages are not interested in pat answers (26:4–5). Proverbs 16:1–9 throws a wrench in the conventional cogs of wisdom, claiming that although humans make their plans, God has the final say. Both Job and Ecclesiastes go head to head with conventional beliefs, probing more deeply into the complexities of life and the relationship between human and divine. No easy answers exist here. In contrast, fools do not use their mental faculties. They view wisdom as a commodity, a matter of learning some techniques, accepting certain beliefs, and memorizing a few proverbs (17:16). The wise, however, know that wisdom involves the art of critical thinking and interacting with others.

Fifth, and most fundamental, the wise person takes a God-centered focus toward life. Wisdom literature affirms, “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom” (Prov. 9:10; cf. Prov. 1:7; Job 28:28; Eccles. 12:13). That this is the beginning step in the process of gaining wisdom means that one who misses this step can proceed no farther along the path to wisdom. The fear of the Lord is to wisdom as the letters of the alphabet are to forming words. The wise gain wisdom by being in relationship with the Lord (Prov. 3:5–8). The fear of the Lord is the beginning as well as the culmination of wisdom.

Wisdom is a highly prized quality, superior to might and power (Prov. 25:15; Eccles. 9:13–16), and one must diligently seek it (Prov. 2:1–5). Yet in the end, wisdom is a gift that only God can give (Prov. 2:6–8; 1 Kings 3:9).

In the OT, wisdom (khokmah) is a characteristic of someone who attains a high degree of knowledge, technical skill, and experience in a particular domain. It refers to the ability that certain individuals have to use good judgment in running the affairs of state (Joseph in Gen. 41:33; David in 2 Sam. 14:20; Solomon in 1 Kings 3:9, 12, 28). It can also refer to the navigational skills that sailors use in maneuvering a ship through difficult waters (Ps. 107:27). Furthermore, wisdom includes the particular skills of an artisan (Exod. 31:6; 35:35; 1 Chron. 22:15–16). In all these cases, wisdom involves the expertise that a person acquires to accomplish a particular task. In these instances “wisdom” is an ethically neutral term, or at least that dimension is not emphasized. The wise are those who have mastered a certain skill set in their field of expertise.

The uniqueness of the OT wisdom literature (Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, etc.) is that it highlights the moral dimension of wisdom. Here “wisdom” refers to developing expertise in negotiating the complexities of life and managing those complexities in a morally responsible way that honors God and benefits both the community and the individual. Although it is difficult to pin down a concise definition, one can gain a better understanding of wisdom by investigating two important dimensions: wisdom as a worldview, and the traits of a person who is considered to be wise.

Wisdom as Worldview

Wisdom describes a worldview, a particular way of perceiving God, humanity, and creation. The God of the sages is sovereign Lord. But their understanding of sovereignty manifests itself differently from the way the Torah and the prophets describe it. All through the OT Israel frequently witnessed God at work through mighty acts of deliverance and conquest and protection. God orchestrated these monumental saving acts. Wisdom, however, looks at God’s sovereignty differently. It makes few references to the mighty acts of God.

For the sage of Ecclesiastes, the world is the arena of God’s mystery. God is active in creation and in the world, but his ways are inscrutable (3:11; 6:10–12; 7:13–14). God is distant (5:2), but he spans this distance when humans receive and enjoy the ordinary gifts of friendship, food, family that he gives to sustain life (2:24–26; 3:12–13; 5:18–20; 9:7–10).

For the sage of Proverbs, God is present in the daily routines of life. God is involved in the interactions that take place between people (15:22; 27:5–6, 9–10, 17). God works through both the good and the bad experiences of life, employs human language to carry out his purposes, and uses material wealth and even poverty in the service of maturing people.

In the very realm where individuals believe that they exercise the most control—human thoughts and plans—God establishes a presence (Prov. 16:1, 9). Exactly how God does this the sage does not say; rather, the sage assumes that divine sovereignty and human activity exist together in inexplicable ways.

From the view of God to the view of humans, wisdom emphasizes a particular perspective. Wisdom’s worldview of humanity places great confidence in what humans can accomplish. Wisdom affirms that individuals are capable of making wise choices and displaying responsible behavior. In so doing, such people will live healthy, prosperous, successful lives (Prov. 9:1; 14:1, 11). Because they value human ability and understanding, the sages use all the resources at their disposal to discover the means of living a successful life. They use the sources of the culture around them as well as their own inner resources.

One other dimension to probe in wisdom’s worldview is the important role that creation plays. Living in harmony with the order of the universe brings longevity, wealth, and good fortune. When individuals integrate their lives with the order of creation, success results; neglecting that order brings failure. However, the sages sometimes are accused of possessing too mechanical a view of such order: the wise, it is said, believe in a world automatically programmed to prosper the pious and punish the perverse. Such a view perceives the world as operating on a rigid system of rewards and punishments. It is true that some wisdom teaching appears to reflect this worldview (Prov. 26:27). However, even though the sages developed plans and strategies by which to live, they did not believe in a created order that operated mechanically. The sages do have an interest in discovering certain predictable patterns of experiences, but the order that underlies the experiences of life is not a fate-producing one (21:30–31). The sages wrestle not so much with the concept of a rigid order as with the person of God. A dialectic exists between the predictable order of creation and the free work of God. Wisdom seeks not to master life but to navigate it. The sages guided themselves and others through the experiences of life, striving not to dominate but rather to assume responsibility. This is the fundamental worldview of wisdom.

Traits of the Wise

Who is wise? First, the wise are those involved in a lifelong process of character development. They manifest the virtues of righteousness, justice, and equity (Prov. 1:3; 2:9). The embodiment of these virtues culminates in the description of the woman of noble character at the conclusion of Proverbs (31:10–31). She exhibits self-control, patience, care, diligence, discipline, humility, generosity, honesty, and fear of the Lord (cf. James 3:13–18). She is the epitome of wisdom in its maturity and the model that all should emulate.

Second, the wise know the value of words and how to use them. They know when to speak, what to say, and how to say it (Job 29:21–22; Prov. 15:23; 25:11; Eccles. 3:7; 12:9–10). Wisdom and the wise place a premium on the power of words.

Third, the wise place great importance on relationships and on interaction with others. The wise person is the one who is open to the give-and-take of relationships (Prov. 27:5–6, 17, 19). Such a person develops the humility necessary to receive correction and criticism from others. Hearing criticism and changing wrong behavior are integral to wisdom (3:1–11). The wise appreciate insightful criticism because it helps them live life more productively (15:12). Wisdom is, ultimately, relational.

Fourth, the wise person develops the art of discernment (Prov. 1:2, 4–6). The sage is equipped with the ability to think critically. The very quality of wisdom itself invites the re-forming and rethinking of ideas. Sages are not interested in pat answers (26:4–5). Proverbs 16:1–9 throws a wrench in the conventional cogs of wisdom, claiming that although humans make their plans, God has the final say. Both Job and Ecclesiastes go head to head with conventional beliefs, probing more deeply into the complexities of life and the relationship between human and divine. No easy answers exist here. In contrast, fools do not use their mental faculties. They view wisdom as a commodity, a matter of learning some techniques, accepting certain beliefs, and memorizing a few proverbs (17:16). The wise, however, know that wisdom involves the art of critical thinking and interacting with others.

Fifth, and most fundamental, the wise person takes a God-centered focus toward life. Wisdom literature affirms, “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom” (Prov. 9:10; cf. Prov. 1:7; Job 28:28; Eccles. 12:13). That this is the beginning step in the process of gaining wisdom means that one who misses this step can proceed no farther along the path to wisdom. The fear of the Lord is to wisdom as the letters of the alphabet are to forming words. The wise gain wisdom by being in relationship with the Lord (Prov. 3:5–8). The fear of the Lord is the beginning as well as the culmination of wisdom.

Wisdom is a highly prized quality, superior to might and power (Prov. 25:15; Eccles. 9:13–16), and one must diligently seek it (Prov. 2:1–5). Yet in the end, wisdom is a gift that only God can give (Prov. 2:6–8; 1 Kings 3:9).

Common and valuable for food, beans were cooked while green in the pods or after being dried. Dry beans were threshed and winnowed like cereals and other grains. Beans are mentioned twice in the NIV (2 Sam. 17:28; Ezek. 4:9).

An innate awareness of wrong, with an inclination toward thinking and acting rightly. The OT describes moral awareness as a willingness to obey God’s revealed will (Deut. 30:14; Ps. 1:1–2; Prov. 1:7). People are not presented as morally perfect, but, to the degree of their knowledge, they are expected to act rightly (Gen. 4:1–16; 1 Sam. 25:31). Abimelek, king of Gerar, appeals to ignorance because of Abraham’s deception (Gen. 20:1–7). Job appeals to the purity of his conscience (Job 27:6).

A fuller revelation of God’s will is given in the Mosaic law. God gives commandments in part to heighten the Israelites’ awareness concerning right and wrong, so that with their obedience they might enjoy a covenant relationship within God’s holy presence (e.g., Deut. 28:1–14). This informed social conscience was intended to curb evil behavior (Gal. 3:19). The author of Judges anticipates the need for the law by complaining that “everyone did as they saw fit” (17:6; 21:25).

However, the biblical narrative also makes room for paradoxical situations and competing values, which complicate moral reasoning (e.g., Gen. 38; Judg. 11:29–40). In the law, God expressly forbids child sacrifice, but he commands Abraham to present his son Isaac as a burnt offering (Gen. 22:1–14). On a rooftop Peter receives a vision in which the Lord commands him to kill and eat unclean animals (Acts 10:1–8). In both cases, God tests faith by commanding the believer to betray personal conscience, to open his heart to a fuller revelation of the divine plan. Even the moral reasoning of God is not always straightforward. God is committed to doing right, but he also weighs decisions with compassion and mercy. Abraham and Moses appeal to God’s character, and they are able to intercede on behalf of sinful people (Gen. 18:22–33; Exod. 32). Jonah even comes to despise this quality of God’s character, which appears to compromise justice (4:1–11).

These tensions anticipate the gospel, which claims that God loves sinners and has provided a means to express mercy toward them without compromising justice (Rom. 3:21–26). Like the Mosaic law, the gospel also provides further revelation into God’s will and therefore a more informed conscience. With citations drawn from throughout the OT, Paul claims that all people suffer from a distorted conscience (Rom. 3:9–20). God has spoken to all people through their conscience, but despite this innate awareness of right and wrong, both Jews, who possess God’s commandments, and non-Jews, who know something about God from nature (creation), have compromised their own ethical stance, so that they have only themselves to blame (1:18–32). This universal inner conflict, emphasized by Jesus and Paul, removes appealing to one’s conscience as a means of justification at the future judgment (Mark 7:1–23; Luke 13:1–5, 22–30). Furthermore, this habitual compromising leads to present self-deception and a skewed perception of the world.

But through repentance and faith in the gospel, returning to God (the Creator), a person’s conscience may be renewed and aligned with the mind and actions of Jesus Christ (Rom. 12:1–2; 1 Cor. 2:16). Despite this restoration, the complexity of moral reasoning is not always overcome. Indeed, living in Christ with others from different cultural backgrounds and values often requires deeper reflection. Paul acknowledges that there can be different perceptions by believers, which can lead to different practices. Eating meat that may have been sacrificed to idols is neutral or wrong depending upon one’s conscience and that of the observer (1 Cor. 8:1–3). He applies the same perspective to Jewish calendar observance and food laws (Rom. 14:1–23; but see Gal. 4:8–11). But the apostle also presumes that personal conscience can grow in knowledge. Ultimately, believers’ consciences should be informed by relating everything to the lordship of Christ (Rom. 2:15; 9:1; 2 Cor. 1:12; 4:2; 5:11), meditating on the goodness of all creation (Titus 1:10–16), and placing the well-being of others before their own (Phil. 2:1–11).

Generally speaking, in Scripture the word “fool” is used to describe someone in a morally deprived state. It does not, as in contemporary American usage, refer to a person’s lack of intellectual ability or to one whose actions convey those of a buffoon. Terms for “fool” appear all through Scripture, but wisdom literature contains the highest concentration. Proverbs uses over half a dozen words to describe the fool. All of them indicate some kind of moral breach and fall on a scale from the most morally hardened to the naive.

Obstinacy, recalcitrance, and closed-mindedness characterize the morally dense fool. Such individuals have no use for advice from others because they are “wise in their own eyes” (Prov. 3:7; cf. 12:15; 16:2). Fools frequently scoff at correction and rebuke (9:7–8, 12; 13:1; 14:6; 15:12; 19:25; 20:1; 21:11, 24; 22:10; 24:9). They manifest arrogance (21:24). Fools do not learn from their own mistakes or those of others but instead often repeat them (26:11). One of the main problems is that fools “lack sense,” which ultimately implies that they lack character (see 6:32; 7:7; 9:4, 16; 10:13, 21; 11:12; 12:11; 15:21; 17:18; 24:30). Such a person consistently makes poor decisions and loses the appetite and passion necessary for acquiring wisdom.

According to the book of Proverbs, three qualities make up the essential nature of the fool. First, the fool is unwilling to learn by means of discipline (3:11–12; 17:10), or formal instruction (17:16), or a word of advice (12:15), or personal experience (26:11). Second, the fool lacks self-control. Both the speech (15:2) and the behavior (14:16) of fools demonstrate a lack of restraint. They take the path of least resistance to easy money (1:8–19) and easy sex (7:6–27). Third, the fool is the one who rejects the fear of the Lord (1:7).

All half a dozen terms used for “fool” indicate, to one degree or another, a moral breach. The one exception is peti, the word used to indicate the “simple” (e.g., Prov. 1:4; 19:25; 21:11). This word is at the other end of the moral spectrum from “fool” and refers to one who is young, vulnerable, and inexperienced. The simple are the gullible, impressionable persons. These individuals can be influenced for either good or ill, depending on whom they listen to. Both Woman Wisdom and Woman Folly make compelling calls to the simple (Prov. 9:6, 16). This simple youth will make moral mistakes along the way, but the peti has yet to harden into a full-fledged fool, one who is incorrigible and unteachable.

In the NT, the fool is the one who does not trust in God or in the power that God displays through the resurrection of Christ (Luke 24:25; Rom. 1:22; 1 Cor. 15:36). Jesus makes references to the fool when he tells the stories of the wise and foolish builders (Matt. 7:24–27) and the wise and foolish maidens (Matt. 25:1–13). Paul uses the term “foolish” to rebuke the Galatians for their refusal to accept the gospel (Gal. 3:1). However, in his correspondence with the church in Corinth, Paul reverses the conventional understanding of folly and uses it as a rhetorical strategy to communicate his message. He speaks of the message of the cross as foolishness to the world (1 Cor. 1:18). On another occasion, in order to argue against the arrogance of his opponents, Paul engages in “a little foolishness” (2 Cor. 11:1) as he boasts about his ministry, which is riddled with failure (2 Cor. 11–12).

Common and valuable for food, beans were cooked while green in the pods or after being dried. Dry beans were threshed and winnowed like cereals and other grains. Beans are mentioned twice in the NIV (2 Sam. 17:28; Ezek. 4:9).

About a third of the OT is poetic. Poetry is a more elevated way of speaking and writing than prose. It is a departure from normal patterns of speech and exhibits a high degree of attention to literary artifice. In poetry, how something is said is as important as what is said. Poetry employs various poetic devices and conventions that are less frequent in or completely absent from ordinary speech. Among these are acrostic, inclusion, chiasm, succinctness, parallelism, and the heightened use of imagery (see also Acrostic).

Hebrew poetry also employs the full range of figures of speech, including metaphor, simile, synecdoche (substituting part for whole or vice versa, such as “set sail” or “lying in wait for blood”), anthimeria (substituting one part of speech for another, such as “let the dry appear”), merism (the whole expressed with two opposites, such as “day and night”), anthropomorphism, personification (“let the rivers clap their hands” [Ps. 98:8]), and so on.

Inclusion and Chiasm

Inclusion (or inclusio) is a structuring device whereby a unit of text begins and ends with the same or a very similar word or phrase. Thus the included material is bounded and defined as a unit of text. For example, Song 2:8–17 begins, “Listen! My beloved! Look! Here he comes, leaping across the mountains, bounding over the hills. My beloved is like a gazelle or a young stag,” and it ends, “Until the day breaks and the shadows flee, turn, my beloved, and be like a gazelle or like a young stag on the rugged hills.” This opening and closing with the same metaphor bounds the enclosed material as a unit of text. Another example is the way Prov. 1:2–7 (NRSV) begins and ends with the words “wisdom,” “instruction,” and “understanding/knowledge,” which delineates these verses as a block of text.

Chiasm (or chiasmus) is a way of organizing material whereby the second half of a text is a mirror image of the first half. “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath” (Mark 2:27 pars.) can be diagrammed as A/B/Bʹ/Aʹ. More and more elaborate chiasms have been proposed for various parts of Scripture, with many elements on each side. The flood narrative, the Abraham cycle, the book of Ruth, and so on may be written to a chiastic structure.

Succinctness and Imagery

One of the characteristics of Hebrew poetry is its succinctness; it says a lot with a few words. One way this is accomplished is through the use of imagery. “The Lord is my rock” (Ps. 18:2) compresses volumes of theology into a single image, thus requiring far less verbosity than if the concept had been stated without imagery. However, the trade-off is that more is required of the reader. The reader must ask, “How is the Lord like a rock?” and fill in the blank. This is true also of other ways that poetry is succinct—for example, its tendency to leave out particles and connectives. For example, “The Lord is my shepherd, / I lack nothing” (Ps. 23:1) leaves out a needed conjunction between the two phrases, which the reader must supply. Is it “The Lord is my shepherd, sooner or later I shall need nothing”? “The Lord is my shepherd, even so I shall need nothing”? Or “The Lord is my shepherd, therefore I shall need nothing.” The reader must decide the correct association between the two lines because the conjunction is purposely left out of the verse. Thus poetry engages the reader and must be read slowly and carefully.

Parallelism

The most recognizable feature of biblical poetry is the phenomenon of parallelism. This is the counterweight to succinctness. While poetry is designed to say much with few words, these words occur in line pairs, the second of which takes the thought further. For example, “Why do the nations conspire / and the peoples plot in vain?” (Ps. 2:1). Obviously, “nations” is parallel with “peoples,” and “conspire” with “plot in vain.” Line A and line B state in essence the same thought with different words, and they state it in the same way. This is called synonymous parallelism. “Lazy hands make for poverty, / but diligent hands bring wealth” (Prov. 10:4). In this verse, the parallel elements are opposites: lazy and diligent, poverty and wealth. This is called antithetical parallelism.

Sometimes, the second line completes the thought of the first line, forming complementary parallelism: “Israel, put your hope in the Lord / both now and forevermore” (Ps. 131:3). When a symbol is set in parallel with the thing symbolized, this is emblematic parallelism: “As the deer pants for streams of water, / so my soul pants for you, my God” (Ps. 42:1). Sometimes line B follows line A in time, forming sequential parallelism: “I call out to the Lord, / and he answers me from his holy mountain” (Ps. 3:4). When line B follows logically from line A, this is consequential parallelism: “In peace I will lie down and sleep, / for you alone, Lord, make me dwell in safety” (Ps. 4:8). Traditionally, when the relation between the lines does not fit into any defined category, the parallelism is called synthetic.

Common and valuable for food, beans were cooked while green in the pods or after being dried. Dry beans were threshed and winnowed like cereals and other grains. Beans are mentioned twice in the NIV (2 Sam. 17:28; Ezek. 4:9).

Common and valuable for food, beans were cooked while green in the pods or after being dried. Dry beans were threshed and winnowed like cereals and other grains. Beans are mentioned twice in the NIV (2 Sam. 17:28; Ezek. 4:9).

About a third of the OT is poetic. Poetry is a more elevated way of speaking and writing than prose. It is a departure from normal patterns of speech and exhibits a high degree of attention to literary artifice. In poetry, how something is said is as important as what is said. Poetry employs various poetic devices and conventions that are less frequent in or completely absent from ordinary speech. Among these are acrostic, inclusion, chiasm, succinctness, parallelism, and the heightened use of imagery (see also Acrostic).

Hebrew poetry also employs the full range of figures of speech, including metaphor, simile, synecdoche (substituting part for whole or vice versa, such as “set sail” or “lying in wait for blood”), anthimeria (substituting one part of speech for another, such as “let the dry appear”), merism (the whole expressed with two opposites, such as “day and night”), anthropomorphism, personification (“let the rivers clap their hands” [Ps. 98:8]), and so on.

Inclusion and Chiasm

Inclusion (or inclusio) is a structuring device whereby a unit of text begins and ends with the same or a very similar word or phrase. Thus the included material is bounded and defined as a unit of text. For example, Song 2:8–17 begins, “Listen! My beloved! Look! Here he comes, leaping across the mountains, bounding over the hills. My beloved is like a gazelle or a young stag,” and it ends, “Until the day breaks and the shadows flee, turn, my beloved, and be like a gazelle or like a young stag on the rugged hills.” This opening and closing with the same metaphor bounds the enclosed material as a unit of text. Another example is the way Prov. 1:2–7 (NRSV) begins and ends with the words “wisdom,” “instruction,” and “understanding/knowledge,” which delineates these verses as a block of text.

Chiasm (or chiasmus) is a way of organizing material whereby the second half of a text is a mirror image of the first half. “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath” (Mark 2:27 pars.) can be diagrammed as A/B/Bʹ/Aʹ. More and more elaborate chiasms have been proposed for various parts of Scripture, with many elements on each side. The flood narrative, the Abraham cycle, the book of Ruth, and so on may be written to a chiastic structure.

Succinctness and Imagery

One of the characteristics of Hebrew poetry is its succinctness; it says a lot with a few words. One way this is accomplished is through the use of imagery. “The Lord is my rock” (Ps. 18:2) compresses volumes of theology into a single image, thus requiring far less verbosity than if the concept had been stated without imagery. However, the trade-off is that more is required of the reader. The reader must ask, “How is the Lord like a rock?” and fill in the blank. This is true also of other ways that poetry is succinct—for example, its tendency to leave out particles and connectives. For example, “The Lord is my shepherd, / I lack nothing” (Ps. 23:1) leaves out a needed conjunction between the two phrases, which the reader must supply. Is it “The Lord is my shepherd, sooner or later I shall need nothing”? “The Lord is my shepherd, even so I shall need nothing”? Or “The Lord is my shepherd, therefore I shall need nothing.” The reader must decide the correct association between the two lines because the conjunction is purposely left out of the verse. Thus poetry engages the reader and must be read slowly and carefully.

Parallelism

The most recognizable feature of biblical poetry is the phenomenon of parallelism. This is the counterweight to succinctness. While poetry is designed to say much with few words, these words occur in line pairs, the second of which takes the thought further. For example, “Why do the nations conspire / and the peoples plot in vain?” (Ps. 2:1). Obviously, “nations” is parallel with “peoples,” and “conspire” with “plot in vain.” Line A and line B state in essence the same thought with different words, and they state it in the same way. This is called synonymous parallelism. “Lazy hands make for poverty, / but diligent hands bring wealth” (Prov. 10:4). In this verse, the parallel elements are opposites: lazy and diligent, poverty and wealth. This is called antithetical parallelism.

Sometimes, the second line completes the thought of the first line, forming complementary parallelism: “Israel, put your hope in the Lord / both now and forevermore” (Ps. 131:3). When a symbol is set in parallel with the thing symbolized, this is emblematic parallelism: “As the deer pants for streams of water, / so my soul pants for you, my God” (Ps. 42:1). Sometimes line B follows line A in time, forming sequential parallelism: “I call out to the Lord, / and he answers me from his holy mountain” (Ps. 3:4). When line B follows logically from line A, this is consequential parallelism: “In peace I will lie down and sleep, / for you alone, Lord, make me dwell in safety” (Ps. 4:8). Traditionally, when the relation between the lines does not fit into any defined category, the parallelism is called synthetic.

When God creates humans, he pronounces them “very good/beautiful” (Gen. 1:31). They are designed to be magnificent visual displays of God’s character (1:26–27). Human sexuality originally is set in a context of overwhelming beauty. God’s first command is to reproduce and extend this paradise throughout the earth (1:28). Human sexuality is not simply a mechanism for reproduction. From the outset it has been about completion, without which there is loneliness (2:18).

Although the Bible does not define the distinctives of masculinity and femininity in any detail, it does defend that there are distinctions between the genders. Behaviors that confuse the genders are explicitly condemned (Deut. 22:5; 1 Cor. 6:9; 11:4–16).

Homosexual intercourse (Lev. 18:22; 20:13; Rom. 1:24–27; 1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:10) and intercourse with an animal (Exod. 22:19; Lev. 18:23; 20:15–16; Deut. 27:21) are violations of God’s created order.

Nakedness

“Nakedness” is confined to the genitals and buttocks (Exod. 20:26; Isa. 20:2–4; Ezek. 23:18, 29; Nah. 3:5) and, after the fall, is synonymous with shame (Gen. 3:7–10; 1 Sam. 20:30; Isa. 47:3; Jer. 13:26; Mic. 1:11; Nah. 3:5; Rev. 3:18; cf. Rom. 1:23–24; 1 Cor. 12:23–24). A woman’s breasts are recognized as erotic (Prov. 5:19; Ezek. 23:3, 21) but not shameful. God slaughters an animal in order to cover nakedness (Gen. 3:21). Ultimately, when sin and death are removed and the body raised, the redeemed will have no shame and will be clothed only in their righteousness (Rev. 19:5–9).

Exposing nakedness is an action used to humiliate enemies (2 Sam. 10:4–5; 1 Chron. 10:9; Isa. 47:3). Jesus is stripped naked (Matt. 27:28, 35–36). Violating another’s nakedness includes touching or seeing (Deut. 25:11) and produces extreme personal disgrace (Lev. 18:6–19 NASB; Hab. 2:15–16). It is an act of grace to cover another’s nakedness (Isa. 58:7; Ezek. 18:7, 16). To even talk or laugh about inappropriate exposure brings dishonor (Gen. 9:21–23). The overarching principle is purity (Lev. 18:24).

Marriage and Adultery

Although damaged by sin, marriage continues to be the ultimate human relationship involving intimacy, privacy, and liberty. Marriage is defined by a covenant—a contract witnessed and enforceable, not just a promise made in private. The couple separate from their parents to become “one flesh” (Gen. 2:24).

Once the marriage contract is agreed upon, the couple are married. They cannot consummate the marriage until the economic commitments of the contract have been delivered (Matt. 1:18; 25:1–13). This is celebrated with a feast. Jesus uses this custom as an analogy for his departure and return (John 14:1–3).

Paul commands husbands to love their wives (Eph. 5:25–33; cf. Gen. 24:67; 29:20; 1 Sam. 1:5; Eccles. 9:9; Song 8:6–7). Nowhere in the Bible is a wife commanded to love her husband, though older women should teach younger women to do so (Titus 2:3–4). Love is the husband’s responsibility. Love is a command that can be obeyed, not just a pleasurable feeling over which one has no control. The model of husbandly love is Jesus laying down his life for his people.

The ecstasy of making love is celebrated in the erotic Song of Songs, which holds out the hope of such marital delight even now. The axiom of marriage is a righteous jealousy (cf. Exod. 20:5; 34:14; Num. 5:14, 30; Prov. 6:34).

The first year of marriage is especially important and is protected by exemption from military service (Deut. 20:7; 24:5).

When a man dies without a male heir, his widow’s possession of that part of the family estate can result in her marrying a man from another family and so alienating that land. This can be resolved either by the injustice of eviction or by the device of levirate marriage. The nearest male relative of the deceased husband marries the widow, and their son then inherits the deceased husband’s name and title to the land (Deut. 25:5–10; cf. Gen. 38; Ruth).

Concubines are wives from poor families, slaves, or captives, and their marriages are protected (Exod. 21:7–9; Deut. 21:11–14).

Rape of a married woman constitutes adultery by the rapist, not the victim. Consensual sex with a married woman is adultery by both parties. Rape of a single woman is treated as fornication, with no blame attached to the woman. Her father has the option of letting her marry the man or receiving significant financial compensation (Exod. 22:16–17; Deut. 22:23–27). Her father has the right to take the money and refuse the marriage. To falsely accuse a woman of adultery is a crime (Deut. 22:13–21).

Prostitution is an extreme form of adultery or fornication and totally forbidden (Lev. 19:29; Deut. 23:17). Under the new covenant, this warning is heightened by the reality of the gift of the Holy Spirit transforming each believer into the temple of the Lord (1 Cor. 6:15–20).

Originally, marriage between siblings is implied (Gen. 4:17, 26; 5:4). Abram married his half sister, Sarai (Gen. 20:12; cf. Gen. 11:29; Num. 26:59). The Mosaic covenant at Sinai bans marriage to blood relationships closer than first cousins and to in-laws (Lev. 18:6–30; cf. 2 Sam. 13; 1 Cor. 5:1).

Polygamy occurs soon after the fall (Gen. 4:19–24). It is never explicitly forbidden in the Bible, but it is managed by OT law so as to restrain further injustice and damage. It is always seen as less than satisfactory (cf. Gen. 29–30; 1 Sam. 1:6; 2 Sam. 13; 1 Kings 1–2; 11). In the NT, monogamy is mandatory for those who would lead the church (1 Tim. 3:2, 12; Titus 1:6). (See also Premarital and Extramarital Sex.)

Self-Control and Purity

The violation of sexual purity is a decision of the heart (Ezek. 23:11; Matt. 5:28). The biblical concept of lust entails more than just physical arousal. It involves a strong desire for/coveting of (cf. James 1:14–15) something that one has no right to acquire. This establishes both the need for self-control (Titus 2:5–6) and the availability of appropriate options (1 Cor. 7:2, 5, 9). Masturbation is nowhere mentioned in the Bible (Gen. 38:9 is about failure to fulfill the levirate). The critical issue is lust.

Sexual misconduct is never the responsibility of the victim (Deut. 22:25). Nevertheless, for reasons of personal safety as well as out of concern for one another, the family of Christ must practice modesty in dress (1 Tim. 2:9) and consider how to build one another up rather than put stumbling blocks in each other’s way.

God always provides the believer with what is necessary to resist temptation and make the right choices (1 Cor. 10:13). Consequently, a significant aspect of every parent’s role is to teach godly sexual wisdom to children before they face such challenges (cf. Prov. 1–9).

The gospel requires us to view sexuality from a wider perspective. Reproduction also occurs through the preaching of the gospel, calling forth new birth and a new people (Matt. 28:18–20). This gospel call will divide families (Luke 12:53). Singleness is no barrier to one’s ability to fulfill the command to multiply and fill the earth (Isa. 56:3–8). In times of distress it may be better to remain single (1 Cor. 7, esp. v. 26). This is also a gift of God (1 Cor. 7:7), given to equip one for the fulfillment of the gospel commission.

When God creates humans, he pronounces them “very good/beautiful” (Gen. 1:31). They are designed to be magnificent visual displays of God’s character (1:26–27). Human sexuality originally is set in a context of overwhelming beauty. God’s first command is to reproduce and extend this paradise throughout the earth (1:28). Human sexuality is not simply a mechanism for reproduction. From the outset it has been about completion, without which there is loneliness (2:18).

Although the Bible does not define the distinctives of masculinity and femininity in any detail, it does defend that there are distinctions between the genders. Behaviors that confuse the genders are explicitly condemned (Deut. 22:5; 1 Cor. 6:9; 11:4–16).

Homosexual intercourse (Lev. 18:22; 20:13; Rom. 1:24–27; 1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:10) and intercourse with an animal (Exod. 22:19; Lev. 18:23; 20:15–16; Deut. 27:21) are violations of God’s created order.

Nakedness

“Nakedness” is confined to the genitals and buttocks (Exod. 20:26; Isa. 20:2–4; Ezek. 23:18, 29; Nah. 3:5) and, after the fall, is synonymous with shame (Gen. 3:7–10; 1 Sam. 20:30; Isa. 47:3; Jer. 13:26; Mic. 1:11; Nah. 3:5; Rev. 3:18; cf. Rom. 1:23–24; 1 Cor. 12:23–24). A woman’s breasts are recognized as erotic (Prov. 5:19; Ezek. 23:3, 21) but not shameful. God slaughters an animal in order to cover nakedness (Gen. 3:21). Ultimately, when sin and death are removed and the body raised, the redeemed will have no shame and will be clothed only in their righteousness (Rev. 19:5–9).

Exposing nakedness is an action used to humiliate enemies (2 Sam. 10:4–5; 1 Chron. 10:9; Isa. 47:3). Jesus is stripped naked (Matt. 27:28, 35–36). Violating another’s nakedness includes touching or seeing (Deut. 25:11) and produces extreme personal disgrace (Lev. 18:6–19 NASB; Hab. 2:15–16). It is an act of grace to cover another’s nakedness (Isa. 58:7; Ezek. 18:7, 16). To even talk or laugh about inappropriate exposure brings dishonor (Gen. 9:21–23). The overarching principle is purity (Lev. 18:24).

Marriage and Adultery

Although damaged by sin, marriage continues to be the ultimate human relationship involving intimacy, privacy, and liberty. Marriage is defined by a covenant—a contract witnessed and enforceable, not just a promise made in private. The couple separate from their parents to become “one flesh” (Gen. 2:24).

Once the marriage contract is agreed upon, the couple are married. They cannot consummate the marriage until the economic commitments of the contract have been delivered (Matt. 1:18; 25:1–13). This is celebrated with a feast. Jesus uses this custom as an analogy for his departure and return (John 14:1–3).

Paul commands husbands to love their wives (Eph. 5:25–33; cf. Gen. 24:67; 29:20; 1 Sam. 1:5; Eccles. 9:9; Song 8:6–7). Nowhere in the Bible is a wife commanded to love her husband, though older women should teach younger women to do so (Titus 2:3–4). Love is the husband’s responsibility. Love is a command that can be obeyed, not just a pleasurable feeling over which one has no control. The model of husbandly love is Jesus laying down his life for his people.

The ecstasy of making love is celebrated in the erotic Song of Songs, which holds out the hope of such marital delight even now. The axiom of marriage is a righteous jealousy (cf. Exod. 20:5; 34:14; Num. 5:14, 30; Prov. 6:34).

The first year of marriage is especially important and is protected by exemption from military service (Deut. 20:7; 24:5).

When a man dies without a male heir, his widow’s possession of that part of the family estate can result in her marrying a man from another family and so alienating that land. This can be resolved either by the injustice of eviction or by the device of levirate marriage. The nearest male relative of the deceased husband marries the widow, and their son then inherits the deceased husband’s name and title to the land (Deut. 25:5–10; cf. Gen. 38; Ruth).

Concubines are wives from poor families, slaves, or captives, and their marriages are protected (Exod. 21:7–9; Deut. 21:11–14).

Rape of a married woman constitutes adultery by the rapist, not the victim. Consensual sex with a married woman is adultery by both parties. Rape of a single woman is treated as fornication, with no blame attached to the woman. Her father has the option of letting her marry the man or receiving significant financial compensation (Exod. 22:16–17; Deut. 22:23–27). Her father has the right to take the money and refuse the marriage. To falsely accuse a woman of adultery is a crime (Deut. 22:13–21).

Prostitution is an extreme form of adultery or fornication and totally forbidden (Lev. 19:29; Deut. 23:17). Under the new covenant, this warning is heightened by the reality of the gift of the Holy Spirit transforming each believer into the temple of the Lord (1 Cor. 6:15–20).

Originally, marriage between siblings is implied (Gen. 4:17, 26; 5:4). Abram married his half sister, Sarai (Gen. 20:12; cf. Gen. 11:29; Num. 26:59). The Mosaic covenant at Sinai bans marriage to blood relationships closer than first cousins and to in-laws (Lev. 18:6–30; cf. 2 Sam. 13; 1 Cor. 5:1).

Polygamy occurs soon after the fall (Gen. 4:19–24). It is never explicitly forbidden in the Bible, but it is managed by OT law so as to restrain further injustice and damage. It is always seen as less than satisfactory (cf. Gen. 29–30; 1 Sam. 1:6; 2 Sam. 13; 1 Kings 1–2; 11). In the NT, monogamy is mandatory for those who would lead the church (1 Tim. 3:2, 12; Titus 1:6). (See also Premarital and Extramarital Sex.)

Self-Control and Purity

The violation of sexual purity is a decision of the heart (Ezek. 23:11; Matt. 5:28). The biblical concept of lust entails more than just physical arousal. It involves a strong desire for/coveting of (cf. James 1:14–15) something that one has no right to acquire. This establishes both the need for self-control (Titus 2:5–6) and the availability of appropriate options (1 Cor. 7:2, 5, 9). Masturbation is nowhere mentioned in the Bible (Gen. 38:9 is about failure to fulfill the levirate). The critical issue is lust.

Sexual misconduct is never the responsibility of the victim (Deut. 22:25). Nevertheless, for reasons of personal safety as well as out of concern for one another, the family of Christ must practice modesty in dress (1 Tim. 2:9) and consider how to build one another up rather than put stumbling blocks in each other’s way.

God always provides the believer with what is necessary to resist temptation and make the right choices (1 Cor. 10:13). Consequently, a significant aspect of every parent’s role is to teach godly sexual wisdom to children before they face such challenges (cf. Prov. 1–9).

The gospel requires us to view sexuality from a wider perspective. Reproduction also occurs through the preaching of the gospel, calling forth new birth and a new people (Matt. 28:18–20). This gospel call will divide families (Luke 12:53). Singleness is no barrier to one’s ability to fulfill the command to multiply and fill the earth (Isa. 56:3–8). In times of distress it may be better to remain single (1 Cor. 7, esp. v. 26). This is also a gift of God (1 Cor. 7:7), given to equip one for the fulfillment of the gospel commission.

Common and valuable for food, beans were cooked while green in the pods or after being dried. Dry beans were threshed and winnowed like cereals and other grains. Beans are mentioned twice in the NIV (2 Sam. 17:28; Ezek. 4:9).