Journal: Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society
Volume: JETS 52:1 (Mar 2009)
Article: Wisdom, The “Amen” Of Torah
Author: C. Hassell Bullock

---

JETS 52:1 (March 2009) p. 5

Wisdom, The “Amen” Of Torah

C. Hassell Bullock*

* C. Hassell Bullock, Franklin S. Dyrness Professor of Biblical Studies at Wheaton College, delivered this presidential address at the 60th annual meeting of the ETS in Providence, RI on November 20, 2008.

Torah, prophecy, and wisdom cannot be chronologically laid end to end. Rather, their history as theological paradigms overlaps. Perhaps the best model for their relationship is that of an equilateral triangle. The vertex represents Torah, and the two flanking angles represent prophecy and wisdom. In this model, Torah is the basic paradigm, while prophecy and wisdom are paradigms in support of Torah. The present consensus of OT scholarship is that prophecy ought to be read in the light of Torah, rather than Torah in light of prophecy, the latter view characterizing the consensus of a former generation.1

The rabbinic view of prophecy was that the prophets were preachers of Torah. While that may be an overstatement, it is nonetheless true as a core principle of the relationship between Torah and prophecy. In other words, prophecy may be viewed as an affirmation of Torah, especially an affirmation of the fundamental moral principles of Torah. That understanding of prophecy is based in large part upon the reflections of the book of Deuteronomy on prophecy (e.g. Deut 5:23-29; 18:15-19).2

Our concern in this paper, however, is the third paradigm, wisdom. More and more OT scholarship is recognizing that the theological paradigm of wisdom is an affirmation of the Torah in a similar way as prophecy. It is, indeed, the “amen” of Torah. Now, obviously one can say “amen” with gusto at one point and with less gusto at another, indicating degrees of affirmation. While I will not try to measure the decibels of wisdom’s “amen,” I will nonetheless try to draw out the affirmation of Torah that comes from this “amen corner” of the biblical canon.

First, let me issue a word of explanation. The usual way to study the divisions of the OT canon is to follow the threefold division of the Jewish canon: Torah, Prophets, and Writings. Generally speaking, this is the way OT theologians approach their task. But the Writings compose such a diverse collection, with no univocal way of speaking, that some other way of looking at this canonical corpus of books is needed. Quite obviously, the compilers of the Writings sought inclusiveness rather than exclusiveness. My proposal is

JETS 52:1 (March 2009) p. 6

that in doi...

visitor : : uid: ()