How do the Wisdom Books "fit" into the Old Testament?

Unity and Diversity Within Scripture

The Old Testament includes many individual books of many genres. What holds them all together? Or are they simply a hodge-podge collection? Obviously, they have been canonized, that is recognized by Christians throughout the ages as containing the very voice of God, but is there a discernible unifying theme or thread throughout all the books?

Salvation History

I believe that “salvation history” or the unfolding of “God’s plan of redemption” is what unifies these books (see more here). This “salvation-history” is also called Israel’s “covenantal history” which highlights God’s covenants with Israel or “election literature” which highlights God’s choice/election of Israel.

I’ll summarize—very briefly—this salvation history throughout the Old Testament: God creates a world in which he will dwell with man, but because of man’s sin they cannot dwell with God. God then moves to redeem mankind by calling Abraham and making promises to him (Genesis); he begins to fulfill those promises to the seed of Abraham in the exodus all the way to the promised land (Exodus–Joshua). Once in the promised land, God promises and establishes a kingship through which his plan of redemption will be consummated (1 Samuel–2 Kings). However, these kings are human, and still sinful, and are thus unable to bring about God’s plan of redemption. The prophets then explain to Israel that they will go into exile for their sin and will experience a second exodus to come out of slavery and re-enter the promised land. At that time, God will defeat sin and evil, reestablish the Davidic kingdom forever and usher in the New Heavens and New Earth where he will once again dwell with his people (Isaiah through Zephaniah). In other words, his plan of redemption will be complete. The post-exilic books then note how the historic return from exile did not fulfill all that the prophets wrote (Ezra-Nehemiah) and so God’s plan of redemption still awaits completion in the future (Daniel, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi). Psalms and 1–2 Chronicles, then, rehearse Israel’s history prophetically to point to what of God’s plan of redemption is still to be completed in her future.

Wisdom Books

But what about the so-called “wisdom” books? How do the books of Job, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes fit into this narrative of salvation-history? Duane Garrett states what many people feel when reading them, namely that, in these books of wisdom literature “Israel’s election is muted.”¹ In other words, Garrett is saying that God’s plan of redemption is silent in these books.

Garrett continues: “Wisdom never alludes to or appeals to the promises and covenants, the patriarchs, the exodus, Sinai, circumcision, kosher, the promise of the land, the tent of meeting or temple, or the Israelite holy days”² and “Israel is invisible in these books. Job, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes never allude to any incidents from Israel’s history and never speak of an eschatological New Covenant.”³ Garrett qualifies these statements by saying, though he describes the election tradition as “muted” within the wisdom literature, he does not mean Israel’s history is “’unknown,’ ‘rejected,’ or ‘opposed.’”⁴ And yet, he still finds the wisdom books to be different enough to conclude that “The Old Testament therefore is composed of two bodies of texts: Election Literature and Wisdom Literature.”⁵

Salvation History in the Wisdom Literature

I think Garrett overstates his case. For one, Ecclesiastes and Proverbs are both written, largely, by Solomon the Son of David, the heir to a central covenantal promise of salvation history: that David’s Son would build the temple and God would establish the throne of David forever (2 Samuel 7). The author of these books is thus a key figure in God’s plan of redemption (see more here).

Garrett says that “Wisdom never alludes to or appeals to the promises and covenants, the patriarchs, the exodus, Sinai, circumcision, kosher, the promise of the land, the tent of meeting or temple, or the Israelite holy days.” But a number of examples show this to be untrue. Proverbs 2:22 reads:

“but the wicked will be cut off from the land, and the treacherous will be rooted out of it.”

What “land” is this speaking of? Is this generically speaking to people dying from a generic “land” because of their sin? Or is it more appropriately speaking of Israel being kicked out of the promised land for their sin in accordance with (e.g. Deut 4:26, 28:63). I find it more probable that Solomon, the author, the Son of David, one responsible for knowing God’s law (Deut 17), would be speaking about Israel being removed from the promised land for their sin in line with God’s covenant at Sinai.

Solomon also, for example, speaks of the “tree of life” (Prov 3:18) alluding to Genesis 2, speaks of the need to write God’s laws on your heart internalizing the command given in Deuteronomy to write them on your door posts (Prov 3:3; Deut 6:8–9), and Solomon also describes the blessings and curses for obedience and disobedience to God’s covenant at Sinai (Prob 3:9–12; Deut 28).

Furthermore, the refrain throughout Proverbs 1–9 is “my son.” Because of this proverbs is often understood as a parenting manual. However, first and foremost, it is written by Solomon the Son of David to his son. It is an instruction manual, therefore, for a future king, and not just any king but the heir to the Davidic promise. Thus, this refrain “my son” is Solomon’s attempt to instruct his son to be a covenantally faithful Davidic king in fulfillment of God’s plan of redemption (2 Sam 7).

Ecclesiastes also concludes with fearing God (Eccl 12:13), thus indicating the content of Ecclesiastes is driving at an obedience to God that flows from reverentially fearing him. Ecclesiastes 12:7 speaks of returning to the dust, which likely indicates awareness of the curse of Genesis 3:19: “…for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.” And in Job, the covenantal name for God, namely YHWH, is used in the prologue, the speeches, and the epilogue (e.g. Job 1:6, 12:9, 42:11) All of this indicates that the so-called wisdom literature assumes, is written within, and even comments upon the covenantal context of salvation.

Garrett might have been correct if he had said that the volume is turned down on such salvation-history topics in the wisdom literature, but to say they are “muted” and that the wisdom literature “never alludes” to them appears to be an overstatement.

Different Genre Rather that Two Literatures

Rather than speak of two bodies of literature, as Garrett does, I think it is better to speak of two genres. For just as the poetic and prophetic literature (e.g. Psalms and Isaiah) are different than the historic literature of Israel (e.g. 1 Kings) in how they speak about the salvation history, might not this be the same with wisdom literature?

It is clear that the wisdom literature is of a different genre of literature than say, 2 Samuel. And so, we ought not to expect the wisdom books to speak of salvation history in the same way as books of other genres. So rather than say that Wisdom “never” alludes to salvation-history, might it be more accurate to say that Wisdom never alludes to salvation-history in the same way as the historical or prophetic books, but it does allude to salvation-history in its own way.

And if so, then we should view wisdom literature as a genre, not a distinct body of texts. And just because the genre is different it is confusing to posit two “bodies of texts” within the Old Testament, as Garrett does. We don’t do that with other genres and so we shouldn’t with the wisdom literature.

An Interpretive Issue

Garrett’s primary concern, it appears, in making his case seems to be interpretive. He wants to let “both bodies of texts…speak for themselves” without “the need to force that theology (election) onto Wisdom.”⁶

On this point I would agree with Garrett. Just as it would be wrong to force the message of Isaiah into Genesis, so also it is wrong to read Proverbs exactly as you would read 2 Samuel. Each book of the Bible needs to be interpreted on its own terms and allowed to “speak” its own message, which then in turn contributes to the entire message of the Bible.

But it does not follow that we need to solely label wisdom literature within the Old Testament as a distinct body of literature to ensure that we allow the text of, say Proverbs, speak for itself.

And so, I agree with Garret in wanting to respect the unique theological contribution of an individual book. But Garrett seems to go further than this when he states he wants to avoid forcing the salvation-history “theology onto Wisdom.” This seems to indicate his belief that the Old Testament, in containing two bodies of literature, contains two, not contradictory and yet, distinct and unique, theologies.

Multiple “Theologies” in the Old Testament

And I think the language of multiple “theologies” in the Old Testament is unhelpful.

On the one hand, it is commonplace to speak of the “theology of Genesis” and the “theology of Esther” etc. What we usually mean by this phrase is the theological message and contribution of each individual book. Inasmuch as that is what we mean, to speak of multiple “theologies” in the Old Testament is fine.

But Garrett seems to highlight uniquely and only the theological contribution of wisdom literature describing it (and not the “prophets” for example) as a “body of texts” distinct—again not contradictory to the rest of Scripture—from the rest of Scripture. But this appears unnecessary and potentially confusing. For, why do we not do this with each genre of biblical books?

And as soon as we attempt to synthesize the theology of multiple books into, say, a theology of the entire Old Testament, we necessarily must synthesize many different, though not contradictory, books of the Bible, each with their own message and written in their own genre. We must synthesize the message of Isaiah with Ezekiel with 1 Chronicles and with Genesis. And in so doing, we ought to seek to balance the diversity—the unique theological contribution of each book—and the unity—the shared assumptions, worldview, and theology—of the biblical books.

But the message Garrett sends by only elevating the unique theological contribution of the wisdom literature over and against the rest of the Old Testament is that, any such synthesizing of the entire Old Testament is impossible. His message implies that the wisdom literature is too unique—though not contradictory—to ever be integrated with the rest of the Old Testament. If it were integrated with the rest of the Old Testament its messaged would be squashed as election theology would be forced upon it. And so we must simply acknowledge that the Old Testament has two bodies of literature with two distinct, yet not contradictory, theologies.

Unity in Diversity

I appreciate Garrett’s hermeneutical concern, to let the wisdom literature speak. I want each book of the Bible to speak its own unique and distinct message.

But I also believe that, because God intended these books to be canonized together into one collection of Holy Scripture, that there is a unity to all the books of the Old Testament. The wisdom literature can be analyzed as a distinct group of texts, inasmuch as the prophetic books and historical books can. But to elevate them and them alone as a distinct body of texts within the Old Testament is unhelpful and confusing.

And the wisdom literature can be synthesized with the rest of the Old Testament into a “theology” of the Old Testament in a way that still lets the unique voice of the wisdom literature contribute to the whole inasmuch as we can synthesize Hosea with Ruth with Genesis.

***Image by William Blake, Job Rebuked by His Friends, 1757-1827

1. Duane Garrett, The Problem of the Old Testament: Hermeneutical, Schematic & Theological Approaches, (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2020), 166.

2. Garrett, The Problem of the Old Testament,166.

3. Garrett, The Problem of the Old Testament, 166.

4. Garrett, The Problem of the Old Testament,167.

5. Garrett, The Problem of the Old Testament, 167.

6. Garrett, The Problem of the Old Testament, 167.