Abstract
Considering works from the 19th century to the present, this article, for the first time, outlines and evaluates the use of the Book of Proverbs in systematic theology. Descriptively, it presents the most frequently cited texts of Proverbs and their significance for theologians. Prescriptively, it compares the consensus and debate among theologians with the conclusions of biblical exegetes. I conclude that exegetes and systematic theologians at times agree in their interpretation of passages (e.g., “the fear of the Lord”; Prov 6:23; 15:3; 20:9). However, more significantly, some systematic theologians present evidence from Proverbs based on interpretations largely unsupported by biblical exegetes, offering or assuming interpretations that contradict the conclusions of commentators (e.g., Prov 1:20–33; 8:22–31; 16:4; 30:4). I explore these disparate interpretations in detail and identify the core interpretive issues, offering suggestions for theologians and the relation of systematic theology and biblical scholarship
Biblical and systematic theologians have discussed the relationships between biblical exegesis, biblical theology, and systematic theology (see, e.g., Breuggemann:1–22; Vanhoozer: 17–38; Snyman:1–7; Peckham: 41–53; Carson: 17–38; Gaffin: 281–99). This often produces a theological method that moves from exegesis to biblical theology to systematic theology, with each discipline laying a foundation for the next. John Peckham suggests a more interdependent tack, where the disciplines mutually enhance each other. He proposes two criteria for systematic theology's approach to the biblical text: how theologians treat the coherence of the text and how their insights correspond to the text (Peckham: 41–53). In a similar vein, Kevin Vanhoozer offers a framework for biblical exegesis and its connection to theology (Vanhoozer: 17–27). The point to note is that scholars attempt to determine the proper relationship between exegesis and systematic theology, and do so from a theoretical perspective.
Few scholars, however, examine how theologians actually use the biblical text, especially the Old Testament. Robert Sherman outlines Karl Barth's exegesis of the book of Job and locates it within Barth's larger theological system (Sherman: 175–88). John Bolt briefly considers Herman Bavinck's use of the biblical concept of wisdom but not wisdom literature texts as such (Bolt: 4–23). Thus, there is a substantial theoretical discussion about exegesis and theology, yet a dearth of work that considers the use of the Bible by theologians. I aim to contribute by determining how systematic theologians actually use Scripture. Because the Book of Proverbs is cited in a manageable quantity and holds a special area of interest for me, I have chosen it for this study. I will outline and evaluate the use of the Book of Proverbs in systematic theology by asking three questions:
What texts are used?
In what context are they used?
What is their theological significance?
I perused 47 works of systematic or dogmatic theology from the 19th to the 21st century, including four earlier works (see bibliography). The selection was limited to works that contain indices of biblical references or digitized, searchable versions. These span Presbyterian, Baptist, Wesleyan, and Lutheran confessions, along with more conservative and liberal traditions. A more detailed taxonomy is not necessary at this point but will arise throughout the study. The approach is not primarily historical. So I do not, for example, focus on how Reformed and liberal theologians of the 19th century interpreted Proverbs. A comparative historical method becomes complicated by the fact that theologians reference the Bible in varied style and quantity. Some simply list citations in parentheses, while others quote a single passage with extended comments. Furthermore, consider Charles Hodge and Herman Bavinck, who share theological conviction and size (3–4 volume works): Hodge cites 12 unique texts from Proverbs, repeating some for a total of 19; Bavinck cites 102 and with repetitions totals 161. This sort of disparity dissuades a primarily comparative, historical perspective. Thus, the approach is confined to the three questions above, which expose patterns, consensuses, and key distinctions among systematic theologies across multiple centuries.
This approach reveals overarching commonalities between systematic theologians and their treatment of Proverbs. Twelve prominent commonalities arise. These include phrases from the book (e.g., “the fear of the Lord”), single passages (e.g., Proverbs 20:9), or themes supported consistently by the same texts (e.g., providence). While the selection of these texts and themes is common, their use and interpretation is more complex, nuances I account for and attempt to explain. I will focus on the four common passages that reveal interpretive discrepancies between systematic theologians and biblical scholars (Prov 8:22–31; 30:4; 16:4; 1:20–33). In addition to identifying the causes and questions of disagreement, and the exceptions among systematic theologians, I will, at times, contribute my own exposition of the text. I present the remaining uses of Proverbs and interpretive viewpoints in chart format (please see Table 1 on the following page).
In addition to presenting frequently cited passages from Proverbs and their use by theologians, this article contributes to the discussion regarding the relationship of exegesis and systematic theology.
At the beginning of his work (Proverbs 8:22–31)
Proverbs 8:22 and 8:22–31 represent a collection of the most cited verses from Proverbs in systematic theology. Furthermore, the references concentrate within the context of divine persons, under categories variously labeled “The Trinity,” “The Divinity of the Son,” and “The Distinction and Unity of the Trinity.” Theologians almost uniformly use Proverbs 8:22–31 to argue for distinction within unity between the Father and the Son, the eternality of this relationship, and Christ's identity as Wisdom (à Brakel: 1:160–61; Bavinck: 2:261, 421, 423; Berkhof: 86; Bray: 167; Calvin: 13.7; Frame: 111, 323, 435; Gill: 1.xxiv.1; Grenz: 393; Grudem: 229; Härle: 335, 402; Hodge: 1:505; Johnson: 125; Kraus: 72, 409; Moule: 71; Strong: 309, 341, 378, 380; Thiessen: 287; Turretin: 1:292–95, 287; 2:178, 344). Proverbs 8:22 especially appears in this context, as it pertains to the Arian argument that the Son was created by God (Bavinck: 2:290, 310; Berkouwer 1954: 61; Calvin: 14.8; Erickson: 696; Grudem: 243; Hodge: 1:396–97). It reads, “The Lord created/possessed me at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of long ago.” With less consensus, Proverbs 8:22–31, often with Proverbs 3:19, occurs in the context of the doctrine of creation. It supports a variety of points, all related to the created order: God made the world through wisdom; there was a pre-temporal reality; wisdom, Christ, and God existed before creation; all creation is good; and in Proverbs 8 God reveals to man without a mediator (Mason: 78; Frame: 192; Bavinck: 2:418, 426; Fitzwater: 245; Garrett: 345; Gill 1767: 3.i.3; Turretin: 1:437; Oden: 1:245; Barth: 3.i.52; van Oosterzee: 262; Dorner: 296). Outside of its concentrated use for the doctrine of the Trinity and creation, theologians furnish Proverbs 8:22–31 as evidence for God's decrees, his general and special revelation, his attribute of wisdom, providence, Christ's love for the elect, the creation of angels, and also within prolegomena (Bavinck: 1:318, 314; 2:372, 421; Gill 1767: 1.xix.3; 2.i.2; 2.iv; Thiessen: 152; Turretin: 1:431, 540; Frame:180; Johnson: 61; Kraus: 98, 209; Berkhof: 69; Berkouwer 1952: 205; Barth: 3.i.145; Thielicke: 1:195; Pope: 125, 146). This demonstrates the variety of the use of Proverbs but also some firm commonalities, namely, the consensus Christological interpretation: systematic theologians interpret Wisdom in Proverbs 8:22 as Christ, supporting a doctrine of the triune Godhead nearly in concert.
A few theologians express more caution when applying this text to Trinitarian concerns (Garrett: 309, 346; Dorner: 348; Weber: 1:357; Pannenberg: 1:265; 2:24, 368; Barth: 3.i.52, 57). Pannenberg grounds Christ's preexistence in New Testament claims of Jesus' divine authority. Yet he remarks that this idea “could easily arise in view of its relation to Jewish notions of the pre-existence of divine wisdom (Prov. 8:22ff.)” (Pannenberg: 1:265). He states more emphatically, “As regards [Christ's] function as the mediator of creation, the NT develops the idea of the Son of God in connection with the Jewish concept of preexistent divine wisdom (Prov 8:22–31) and expresses it in terms of the concept of the Logos” (Pannenberg: 2:24). While Pannenberg shows some reservation, he identifies a link between Christ's Trinitarian role and Prov 8. Garrett notes the significance of translating Prov 8:22 as “created,” but articulates the larger interpretive issue: “It is, therefore, one thing to conclude that the Old Testament contains pointers toward the differentiation of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit which are consistent with the Christian doctrine of the Three-in-Oneness of God. It is quite another thing to assert that the writers of the OT intended to speak about and explicate this doctrine. It seems, therefore, that the former option rather than the latter must be taken” (Garrett: 1:309). Pannenberg's comments on the development of Jewish ideas in the New Testament and Garrett's direct claims suggest that Proverbs 8 presents trouble for some theologians due to two interpretive questions:
the intentions of Old Testament authors, and
the Old Testament's theological relationship to the New Testament.
In biblical scholarship, Proverbs 8:22 and its theological questions also receive concentrated attention. Commentators discuss the meaning of the verb in Proverbs 8:22, variously translated “brought forth” (NIV) or “possessed” (NASB), the (pre)existence of Wisdom, and her identity as a personification or hypostasis of God. At most, biblical scholars affirm Wisdom as a framework for or type of Christ. Yet even with this connection, Wisdom is not equated with the second person of the Trinity. In concord with others, Tremper Longman writes, “Prov. 8 is not a prophecy of Jesus or any kind of literal description of him…. Woman Wisdom is not a preincarnate form of the second person of the Trinity. Jesus is not to be identified with Wisdom … the association between Jesus and Woman Wisdom in the NT is a powerful way of saying that Jesus is the embodiment of God's Wisdom” (Longman: 212–13; see also Delitzsch: 183; Fox 2000: 279, 352–59; Waltke 2004: 126–31; cf. Murphy: 55, 278–87). This denial by biblical scholars conflicts with the many systematic theologians who identify Christ with Wisdom. Further, the conclusions of commentators resist any argument for the Triune nature of God based on Proverbs 8:22. However, Longman's comments match the interpretive questions of those theologians who doubt a direct correlation between Christ and Wisdom in Proverbs 8. It is a matter of the intention of Old Testament authors and the interpretation of their texts in light of the New Testament.
What is his name? And what is his son's name? (Proverbs 30:4)
Theologians also broach Proverbs 30:4 when discussing the Trinity in the Old Testament. It reads (NRSV),
Who has ascended to heaven and come down?
Who has gathered the wind in the hollow of the hand?
Who has wrapped up the waters in a garment?
Who has established all the ends of the earth?
What is the person's name?
And what is the name of the person's child?
Surely you know!
While the text indicates that God is in some way incomprehensible to humans, the final phrases receive most attention (30:4c). Representative of other systematic theologians, Boice delivers a strong Trinitarian reading: “In that day the prophet knew only the Father's name, the name Jehovah. Today we know that his Son's name is the Lord Jesus Christ” (Boice: 114; so also Calvin: 2.xiv.7; Strong: 318; Turretin: 2:396; cf. Watson: 270; Van Oosterzee: 279). Calvin does admit, that “with the contentious this passage will not have sufficient weight; nor do I found much upon it,” but nevertheless affirms a divine Father-Son relationship in Proverbs 30:4 as reflected later in Ephesians 3:15. As a second view, Barth and Bavinck employ Proverbs 30:4 to support the incomprehensibility of God. Neither, however, mentions the meaning of “son” here or makes claims about the persons of the Trinity (Bavinck: 2:34; Barth: 3.i.140).
The interpretation of Proverbs 30:4 depends on the intended answer to the final questions: “what is his name, and what is his son's name?” So how do biblical scholars treat Proverbs 30:4? Representing a variety of interpretive traditions, most conclude that Proverbs 30:1–4 approaches divine capacity from a human perspective, with the implied answer of “no one” is his name (Fox 2009: 556–57; Kidner: 178–79; Longman: 523; McKane: 647; Murphy: 228–29; Ringgren: 116). That is, “his name” does not refer to God, and the “son” does not refer to Christ; rather, the passage indicates the impossibility of such capacity among humankind. In contrast, Delitzsch, noting the difficulty of the passage, concludes that Proverbs 30:4 does refer to Jesus as Son of God (Delitzsch: 273–77; so Bridges: 502; Perowne: 180). Charles Bridges even discusses systematic theological issues such as the Son's co-existence with the Father and distinct personality.
The literary context of the passage, however, suggests a non-Trinitarian reading. First, it is difficult to determine a confident addressee in Proverbs 30:1–9. Agur seems to address God in at least Prov 30:1–2, 7–9, possibly himself in 30:3 (cf. 30:2), and a third audience in 30:5–6. This suggests that “his name” and “you know” in 30:4 may not refer to the same person. It would make more sense to to ask, “what is the human's name and his son's name? Surely, God, you know.” Second, Agur emphasizes “I” in 30:1–3 and connects 30:2a and 30:4c with “surely,” suggesting a human perspective on the questions in 30:4. Third, the father and son in Proverbs always refer to a human teacher and his pupil. Fourth, the overlap of Proverbs 30:4 with Job, especially Job 38 where God propounds his place over creation with rhetorical questions, implies that Job, and therefore any human, was not present or capable of the events. Again, the choice is not easy, but I, in line with many interpreters, find the questions in Proverbs 30:4 invoking the answer, “no human” rather than “only God.” If “what is his name” does not indicate God, then the son's name does not indicate Christ.
Hence, the passage does not pertain to Trinitarian questions of systematic theology. Biblical scholars reveal the difficultly of the passage but also an anthropological interpretation that stems from the local literary context. Yet some theologians and commentators seem to overlook these issues and read a divine reference with immediate Christological implications. Thus, unlike Proverbs 8:22–31, Proverbs 30:4 reveals interpretive conflict, not in the relation of Testaments but in the detailed, literary-historical exegesis of the Old Testament text itself.
The Lord has made everything—Proverbs of Providence (Proverbs 16:4)
The
The
Theologians widely appeal to a collection of texts from Proverbs that emphasize the Lord's providence (16:1, 4, 9, 33; 19:21; 21:1, 30; also 3:19; 8:15–16). They cite these to demonstrate the regions over which his sovereignty extends. So, God rules over sin, chance and fate, history, all hearts, free acts, and human government (Bavinck: 2:229, 232–33, 334–35, 393, 593, 617–18; Berkhof: 104–105, 168, 176; Berkouwer 1952: 88; Boice: 178; Calvin: 1.xvi.6; 2.iv.7; Erickson: 349, 396, 398; Fitzwater: 292; Frame: 156, 162; Gill 1767: 1.x.2; 1.xii.1a; 1.xviii.2; 1.i.3; Grudem: 318; Horton: 351; Smith: 108, 110; Strong: 421–23; Turretin: 1:320, 382, 499–502, 514, 521; Thiessen: 181, 186; van Oosterzee: 337). After stating, “The book of Proverbs contains many verses on this theme,” James Boice quotes Proverbs 16:1, 9; 19:21; 21:1 and concludes, “Proverbs 21:30 sums up by saying, ‘No wisdom, no understanding, no counsel, can avail against the Lord’” (Boice: 178). Further, based upon Proverbs 16:4, theologians commonly note that God's acts of providence promote his glory. Bavinck renders the evidence within an eclectic set of theological contexts, where the practice of theology itself ends in God's glory. Likewise, creation as a whole, sin, and Christ's satisfaction all serve to glorify God (Bavinck: 1:213; 2:407, 433; 3:64, 371; see also Breckinridge: 355; Fitzwater: 247; Gill 1767: 1.vi; Pieper: 188; Smith: 131; Turretin: 1:463).
Not all agree that Proverbs 16:4 identifies God as the ends of creation. Strong supports the doctrine but notes Proverbs 16:4 does not, implying that it is an issue of how the text is translated, in light of versions available by 1885 (Strong: 397; cf. A.V. and R.V.). Wolfhart Pannenberg, however, discloses in detail the issue that potentially overturns mainstream use of the passage. He mentions that Aquinas and others appealed to the text as primary evidence that “God himself is the final goal of his action” (Pannenberg: 2:54–55). He continues:
This is the only biblical text that, at least in the Latin Vulgate, expressly states that the act of creation had this goal…. The Vulgate renders the verse in Proverbs as follows: Universa propter semetipsum operatus est Dominus, but this translation is not literal. The original speaks of the specific end of each individual creature.
Citing the German biblical commentator Otto Plöger, Pannenberg concludes that Proverbs 16:4 claims that God made everything for its own purpose rather than for himself as purpose. This turns attention to how biblical scholars handle the interpretation of Proverbs 16:4.
The final term in the first line (16:4a) may mean “its answer,” noting that all creation aligns with a corresponding response or “appropriate end.” Or, revocalized, it may indicate “for the sake of” and thus “his purpose,” fitting with the majority interpretation of systematic theologians. While the former represents the near consensus among commentators, in either case, few biblical interpreters, even those more theologically “conservative,” read God or his glory as the object (Waltke 2005: 4 n. 6; McKane: 497; Fox 2009: 611; Kidner: 111; Longman: 329; cf. Fuhs: 100). Roland Murphy sees the difference as inconsequential, for ultimately, “[The wicked] will not escape; they will meet with the evil day” (Murphy: 120; so Plöger: 190). I agree in part, as either “purpose” or “answer” notes a corresponding end. Further, if the suffix refers to the created object rather than God, since he is the maker, he is not excluded. But this does not resolve the two interpretive options: “for its sake/end” or “for his sake/end.”
The phrases surrounding Proverbs 16:4a suggest that the Lord made everything for “its end” or “its purpose.” Proverbs 16:4b, with an emphatic and closely linked grammatical transition, claims that God made the wicked for the day of trouble. This corresponds to an object and its purpose or end (i.e. the wicked), not to God and himself as ends. Proverbs 16:5 connects with 16:4a by mentioning “everyone/everything,” and again notes an evil person with a corresponding end: punishment. The context suggests not God or his glory as an end but objects of his creation and their ends, yet all guided by divine sovereignty. In Proverbs 16:4, the Lord has created all things and will see that they arrive at their proper ends (NIV) or for their proper purpose (ESV).
I am not interested here to determine whether the Bible as a whole provides evidence for God's glory as the end of his action. Rather, I am interested to determine whether Proverbs 16:4 offers valid evidence for this doctrine. As shown above, such an interpretation of this verse did not end with Aristotelian Scholasticism. It continues to furnish support for systematic theologians, that all things, particularly God's providence, work towards God's glory. The interpretation of commentators and my own exposition contrast with this conclusion, suggesting that exegesis can call into question even the most prevalent and agreed upon theological uses of the book of Proverbs. Strong and Pannenberg, however, break the mold, the former suggesting an alternative translation and the latter deferring to to a biblical commentator. This clarifies the importance of close exegetical work with the Hebrew text and suggests a lack of awareness of biblical scholarship among many theologians.
Wisdom cries out in the street (Proverbs 1:20–33)
Theologians refer to verses in Proverbs 1:20–33 assuming two things. First, Lady Wisdom (1:20), who calls to the marketplace, is God. Second, the passage refers to categories of the ordo salutis, such as repentance and conversion. For example, Proverbs 1:28 states, “Then they will call upon me, but I will not answer; they will seek me diligently, but will not find me.” Thielicke applies the verse to the personality of God, claiming he is free of his subjects and can remain silent or withdraw (Thielicke: 106). Regarding the ordo salutis, theologians cite verses from Proverbs 1:23–28 to argue that conversion is turning, that humans retain free will in salvation, and that God's external calling is compassionate (Thiessen: 155, 352; Watson: 414, 571; Turretin: 1:408; Bavinck: 2:389; Strong: 829; à Brakel: 1:200; Moule: 122; Oden: 1:200; 3:38; Berkhof: 446, 462–63; Berkouwer 1971: 375; Thielicke: 106; Barth: 2.i.428–30).
Barth, for instance, aligns the patience of God with the patience of Wisdom and notes the prophetic style of Proverbs 1:20–33. While he attempts a more nuanced explanation between God's nature and determination, he concludes, “Therefore it comes about that the context of what [Wisdom] cries, preaches and proclaims is clearly nothing other than the well-known preaching of repentance, judgment and salvation” (Barth: 2.i.428). Again, this depends upon the claim that God is Wisdom and therefore that the phrases in the passage inform categories of calling, repentance, faith, and conversion. Further note that this passage exemplifies concord among various interpretive traditions and time periods (e.g., Calvinist/Dutch Reformed; Weslyian/Armenian; Neo-Orthodox).
Most commentators see Wisdom as a personification of God's wisdom rather than God himself (Delitzsch: 67; Fox 2000: 105; Loader: 90; Murphy: 11; Ringgren: 15–16; Waltke 2004: 203, 213; Oesterley: 11). The “spirit” she pours out (1:23), in parallel with “reproof” and “words,” refers to thoughts given utterance (so Psalm 33:6; Isaiah 11:4; Delitzsch: 71, cf. 74; Fox 2000: 100; Loader: 95; Murphy: 10; Whybray: 47; Oesterley: 11; cf. Bridges: 11–18). While “turn” may indicate repentance in the prophetical literature, Proverbs 1:20–33 calls the disobedient, sapiential populace (1:22) to turn to her words and wisdom (1:23–25, 29–30) rather than a nation astray to turn back to the Lord himself. Certainly, the passage implicates a relationship with God (1:29b; cf. 1:7; 2:5–6) and resembles prophetic calls (Isa 50:2; 66:4; Jer 7:13, 24–27; cf. Ps 2:4), but in context it demands attention to wisdom. Thus, Wisdom reflects but does not equate to God, and she calls fools to heed her words but not repent and convert in the sense of an ordo salutis. In the case of Proverbs 1:20–33, biblical exegesis counters two common assumptions of systematic theologians about the passage. What interpretive issues underlie this disparity? It seems to rest on the distinction or similarity of the content in Proverbs with other Old Testament texts. Prophetical literature supplies the primary reason for viewing Wisdom as God and thus informing the ordo salutis. Hence, this example depends on intertextual interpretations of the Old Testament.
Conclusions
Forty-seven works of systematic theology from primarily the 19th to the 21st century reveal common patterns in their use of the Book of Proverbs. In this article I have presented these trends, represented in the use of phrases, individual texts, or themes that draw on common passages. Yet I have also considered their significance and further compared the uses of Proverbs with the conclusions of biblical exegetes. The comparison occasions two primary conclusions with additional implications.
Biblical exegetes and systematic theologians at times agree in their interpretation of passages (e.g., “the fear of the Lord”; Prov 4:18; 6:23; 15:3; 20:9).
More significantly, they differ in their interpretations. Systematic theologians offer evidence from Proverbs based on interpretations largely unsupported by biblical exegetes, offering or assuming interpretations that even contradict the conclusions of commentators (Prov 1:20–33; 8:22–31; 16:4; 30:4).
However, among these disagreements, a few theologians offer a more qualified use of Proverbs. These exceptions to the majority interpretation suggest the following interpretive issues: Proverbs 8 presents trouble for some theologians due both to the intentions of Old Testament authors and due to the Old Testament's theological relationship to the New Testament. Proverbs 30:4 reveals interpretive conflict in the detailed, literary-historical exegesis of the Old Testament text itself. Proverbs 16:4 clarifies the importance of close exegetical work with the Hebrew text and suggests a lack of awareness of biblical scholarship among many theologians. In the case of Proverbs 1:20–33, biblical exegesis counters two common assumptions of systematic theologians about the passage, revealing the importance of intertextual interpretations of the Old Testament.
Vanhoozer considers the relationship between theological doctrine and biblical texts: “Doctrine is faithful to biblical discourse not when it simply repeats the same terms in different contexts but when it renders the same judgments by using different terms … this is precisely what makes systematic theology biblical: that it renders the same underlying apostolic judgments in different conceptual terms” (Vanhoozer: 27–28). However, the lack of concordance between theology and biblical texts from Proverbs does not reveal a problem in language. There are more fundamental interpretive divides.
In this case, Peckham offers a more apt warning:
Without due consideration to biblical exegesis, systematics runs the risk of amounting to merely erudite presentation of internal coherence and rhetorical persuasiveness. Consequently, an approach that lacks the control of the canon often amounts to a restatement of tradition within the flux of ever-changing historical contexts that demand fresh interpretation articulation [Peckham: 49].
His comment resonates with the view that systematic theology should build upon biblical exegesis. The present study demonstrates that such a relationship does not always exist in the case of Proverbs. While theologians reflect sound uses of some texts, in many, and in not inconsequential cases, they construct doctrines based on interpretations of Proverbs that contradict the conclusions of commentators. If systematic theologians intend to build upon the exegesis of the Bible, then they may need to pay closer attention to the work of commentators and biblical scholarship.
Yet the issues that arise from these disagreements and from the exceptions in systematic theology offer starting points for exploring where and why these discrepancies arise. Theologians and biblical scholars ought to consider the relation of the Old and New Testaments, intertextuality in the Old Testament, literary-historical exegesis of individual passages, and close attention to the Hebrew language. Some of these pose more natural topics of discussion for theologians (e.g., the relation between Testaments), and some more obviously relate to biblical exegetes (e.g., Hebrew language). However, interpretive disparities might be identified and resolved if both disciplines attended to all of these issues and further interacted with each other.
Furthermore, considering a common view—that exegesis founds biblical theology, which then founds systematic theology—this article suggests another avenue of study. The disparity between the commentator's view and theologian's use of passages in Proverbs prompts the question of how biblical theologians treat the text. Further research might explore the use of Proverbs in biblical theology and its significance for the systematic and exegetical perspectives presented here. Finally, the use of Proverbs by systematic theologians shows a concord among traditions and schools that are often divided. In many cases, “conservative” and “liberal” theologians use the same passages from Proverbs in the same doctrinal context. At times they even agree with each other but disagree with biblical exegetes in their interpretation of these texts. The same pattern follows for chronology, where a consistent use of Proverbs appears in the course of over 200 years within systematic theologies.