I. Introduction

“He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him” (Proverbs 18:13, KJV).

The wisdom of Solomon, given by the Spirit of God, reduces to a single sentence one of the most consistently violated principles in human institutional life. The verse is short, blunt, and unsparing. It does not say that answering a matter before hearing it is unwise, inefficient, or counterproductive, though it is all of those things. It says it is folly and shame. The two words carry biblical weight. Folly is the disposition of the fool, who has said in his heart there is no God (Psalm 14:1). Shame is the public exposure of disgrace. The judge who renders a verdict without hearing the accused has, in the biblical evaluation, done a thing that combines stupidity and humiliation. He has put himself, his judgment, and the institution he represents under the rebuke of the wisdom literature.

The same principle is elaborated five verses later in the same chapter: “He that is first in his own cause seemeth just; but his neighbour cometh and searcheth him” (Proverbs 18:17). The first account always sounds compelling. It is structured by the one telling it. It includes what he wishes to include and omits what he wishes to omit. It supplies the framing within which all subsequent information will be received. Until the other party has spoken, the matter is not heard. It is only partially heard, which is to say, in the biblical sense, not heard at all.

These two verses, taken together with the procedural patterns of the Mosaic law and the apostolic record, establish what may properly be called the biblical right of the accused to answer before judgment is rendered. The right is not an invention of Roman jurisprudence, the English common law tradition, or modern liberal democracy. It is older, deeper, and more authoritative than any of them. It is rooted in the character of God Himself, who, even in the cases where He needs no investigation, condescends to descend and to see (Genesis 11:5; 18:21), modeling for His creatures the deliberation that He requires of them.

This paper traces the biblical foundations of the right to answer, examines its expression in the law and in the New Testament record, and then turns to three contemporary corruptions: the secret disciplinary meeting, the one-sided investigation, and the practice of substituting “discernment” for evidence.

II. The Biblical Foundation

The right to answer before judgment is established in Scripture along several converging lines.

The Pattern of Divine Judgment. Before the flood, God observes the wickedness of man (Genesis 6:5) before announcing judgment. Before Babel, He comes down to see the city (Genesis 11:5). Before the destruction of Sodom, He declares, “I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it” (Genesis 18:21). Each of these texts is striking precisely because God needs no investigation. He knows all things from before the foundation of the world. The descent is therefore not for His sake but for ours. It models, in the conduct of the Judge of all the earth (Genesis 18:25), the deliberation that creaturely judgment requires. Even the omniscient does not act on impression.

The Pattern of the Mosaic Tribunal. The procedural law assumes a hearing. Deuteronomy 1:16 commands the judges, “Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously between every man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him.” Deuteronomy 19:18 commands the judges to “make diligent inquisition.” The verbs are active. The judges hear. They inquire. They examine. The accused is part of the hearing, not its object. The two-or-three-witness rule of Deuteronomy 19:15, examined in the first paper of this series, presupposes that the accused will be present and able to respond to the witnesses brought against him.

The Confrontation Pattern. When God judges Adam, He calls Adam and asks him to speak (Genesis 3:9-12). When He judges Cain, He calls Cain and asks him to speak (Genesis 4:9-10). When He examines the matter of Achan’s sin, the process moves through tribes, families, households, and individuals, with the accused given opportunity to acknowledge what he has done (Joshua 7:14-20). The pattern is so consistent that it constitutes a feature of the biblical doctrine of judgment. The accused speaks before the sentence is pronounced.

The Wisdom Literature. Proverbs 18:13 and 18:17 have already been cited. They are not isolated. The whole wisdom tradition rebukes hasty judgment, premature conclusion, and decision rendered on partial information (Proverbs 14:29; 19:2; 25:8; 29:20). The wise man is slow to speak and slow to wrath (James 1:19). Hasty judgment is consistently associated with folly and with the destructive consequences that folly produces.

The Apostolic Record. The New Testament continues the pattern. Paul appears repeatedly before tribunals, Jewish and Roman, and in each case insists upon the opportunity to speak before the judgment is rendered. The Roman procurator Festus articulates the principle with particular clarity in Acts 25:16: “It is not the manner of the Romans to deliver any man to die, before that he which is accused have the accusers face to face, and have licence to answer for himself concerning the crime laid against him.” The principle is given in the words of a pagan governor, but Luke records it without correction. The Roman procedure aligned, in this respect, with the biblical standard.

The cumulative weight of these passages establishes the right to answer as a settled feature of biblical justice. It is not a procedural courtesy that may be set aside for institutional convenience. It is a requirement of righteous judgment, grounded in the character of God and embodied in the practices He prescribed for His people.

III. The Substance of the Right

The biblical right to answer before judgment includes several specific elements. Each can be discerned from the procedural texts themselves.

Knowledge of the Charge. The accused must know what he is alleged to have done. Vague accusation, undefined concern, and unspecified “issues” do not satisfy the requirement. Festus’s complaint to Agrippa in Acts 25:27 captures the problem: “It seemeth to me unreasonable to send a prisoner, and not withal to signify the crimes laid against him.” If the procurator could not in good conscience send Paul forward without specified charges, no Christian institution may proceed against a member, leader, or employee without the same specification.

Knowledge of the Accuser. The accused must know who is alleging what. The point was developed in the first paper of this series under the heading of anonymous accusation; it bears repeating here because the right to answer cannot be exercised against a faceless or undisclosed accuser. Acts 25:16’s insistence on “the accusers face to face” is not a peculiarity of Roman law but a recognition of what the act of answering requires.

Knowledge of the Evidence. The accused must know what evidence is alleged to support the charge. He cannot answer evidence he does not know. The biblical pattern assumes the witnesses speak in the presence of the accused, that he hears their testimony as it is given, and that he responds to it directly.

Opportunity to Respond. The accused must have time and space to respond. A response demanded in a hostile room, under time pressure, without preparation, is not a meaningful exercise of the right. The biblical procedural texts assume a deliberative pace. Investigations take time. Witnesses are examined. The accused is heard. Hasty judgment is repeatedly condemned.

Opportunity to Bring Witnesses. The accused must be permitted to bring witnesses on his own behalf. The witness rule is bilateral. The Mosaic tribunal does not hear only the accusing witnesses; it hears any witnesses with relevant knowledge, including those whose testimony exonerates. The procedural patterns in Acts assume the same. When Paul defends himself before various tribunals, he refers to witnesses and to facts that the tribunal can verify (Acts 24:11-13; 26:26).

Opportunity to Cross-Examine. The accused must have some means of testing the testimony brought against him. Deuteronomy 19:18 commands the judges to “make diligent inquisition,” and the inquisition includes the testing of witnesses. The accused, who knows the facts of his own case, is a critical participant in that testing. To exclude him is to disable the very inquiry the text requires.

These elements are not exhaustive, and the specific procedural form in which they are honored will vary across institutions. What does not vary is the substantive requirement that the accused be heard, in some meaningful sense, before judgment is rendered. An institution that withholds these elements has departed from the biblical standard, regardless of what it calls the resulting process.

IV. Paul’s Appeals as a Case Study

The book of Acts records several instances in which Paul invokes procedural protections, and these passages function as a working case study of the right to answer in apostolic practice.

In Acts 16, Paul and Silas are beaten and imprisoned in Philippi without trial. When the magistrates attempt to release them privately, Paul refuses: “They have beaten us openly uncondemned, being Romans, and have cast us into prison; and now do they thrust us out privily? nay verily; but let them come themselves and fetch us out” (v. 37). The phrase “openly uncondemned” identifies the procedural violation precisely. The magistrates acted before the matter was heard.

In Acts 22, Paul invokes his Roman citizenship to halt an examination by scourging: “Is it lawful for you to scourge a man that is a Roman, and uncondemned?” (v. 25). The same phrase appears. Examination by scourging is forbidden before condemnation, and condemnation requires a hearing.

In Acts 23, the Sanhedrin attempts to render judgment against Paul under conditions that cannot produce a fair hearing. The Roman tribune, recognizing the danger, removes Paul from the council and transfers him to a venue where a proper procedure can be conducted (vv. 10, 23-30).

In Acts 24, Paul appears before Felix. The accuser Tertullus presents his charges. Felix invites Paul to respond: “Then Paul, after that the governor had beckoned unto him to speak, answered” (v. 10). The procedure is correctly structured: charges, then answer.

In Acts 25, Paul appears before Festus. When Festus suggests transferring the case to Jerusalem, Paul exercises the right of Roman citizens to appeal directly to Caesar (v. 11). The right of appeal will be examined more fully in the sixth paper of this series; for present purposes, the relevant point is that Paul refuses to be tried under conditions he judges unfair, and Festus is obliged to honor that refusal.

In Acts 26, Paul speaks before Agrippa at length, presenting his case in his own words. Agrippa’s verdict, “This man might have been set at liberty, if he had not appealed unto Caesar” (v. 32), records the outcome that proper hearing produced.

The cumulative testimony of these chapters is striking. Paul, the apostle, repeatedly insists upon the procedural protections that ensure a hearing. He does so as a Roman citizen invoking Roman law, but he is recorded with approval by Luke writing under inspiration, and his conduct is treated as exemplary rather than worldly. The right to answer before judgment is not a concession to pagan procedure. It is a feature of righteous judgment that Roman law happened, in this respect, to honor.

V. Secret Disciplinary Meetings

The first contemporary corruption of the right to answer is the secret disciplinary meeting. The pattern is recognizable across many institutional contexts. A small group of decision-makers convenes privately. The conduct of an absent person is discussed. Conclusions are reached. Sometimes a sentence is pronounced; sometimes it is merely agreed upon, to be communicated to the accused after the fact. The accused is not present, has not been informed of the meeting, has not heard the charges, has not seen the evidence, and has not been given opportunity to respond.

The biblical evaluation of this practice is unambiguous. It is precisely what Proverbs 18:13 condemns. The matter has been answered before it has been heard. The “hearing” required by Deuteronomy 1:16, the “inquisition” required by Deuteronomy 19:18, and the “face to face” requirement of Acts 25:16 have all been bypassed. The shape of the process bears no resemblance to anything Scripture authorizes.

Several common justifications for the secret meeting deserve direct examination.

“We Needed to Discuss the Matter Among Ourselves First.” Discussion among judges is appropriate at a certain stage of the process, but the question is whether discussion has produced effective judgment before the accused has been heard. If the decision-makers have effectively decided the case before they speak to the accused, they have answered the matter before hearing it, regardless of how their later conversation with the accused is structured. The biblical pattern is that judgment follows hearing, not that hearing follows judgment.

“The Matter Is Too Sensitive for the Accused to Be Present.” Sensitivity is not a biblical category that overrides the right to answer. The matters dealt with in the procedural texts of Deuteronomy include capital cases, sexual sins, idolatry, and false witness. These are not insensitive matters. The biblical writers do not respond to the seriousness of the offense by removing the accused from the process. They respond by tightening the evidentiary standard while preserving the procedural protections.

“We Were Only Gathering Facts, Not Rendering Judgment.” Fact-gathering is part of inquiry, and inquiry is biblical. The question is whether the fact-gathering has effectively produced a judgment that the formal proceeding will merely confirm. If the decision-makers leave the room with a settled view of the matter, the right to answer has been compromised, regardless of what label is attached to the meeting.

“The Accused Will Have Opportunity to Respond Later.” A response after the conclusion has been reached is not the response Scripture requires. It is the offering of words after the judgment is settled, with no realistic possibility of changing what has already been decided. This is not hearing. It is the appearance of hearing, layered on top of completed judgment, designed to satisfy the form of fairness while denying its substance.

The secret disciplinary meeting is sometimes defended by appeal to Matthew 18:15-17, on the ground that the Lord’s instruction begins with a private confrontation. But Matthew 18 places the accused in the center of the process from the first step. The private confrontation is between the offended party and the offender, not among judges who exclude the offender. The graduated movement of Matthew 18 is precisely the opposite of the secret meeting pattern. It assumes the accused is present, named, and heard at every stage.

VI. One-Sided Investigations

The second contemporary corruption is the one-sided investigation. Unlike the secret meeting, the one-sided investigation may include the accused in some form, but the procedural design ensures that only one side’s account materially shapes the outcome.

Several mechanisms produce this result.

Selective Witness Pool. The investigators interview only the witnesses identified by the accusing party, or only those whose testimony aligns with the accuser’s account. Witnesses with countervailing information are not sought, or, if known, are not contacted. The witness pool is structured to produce a particular conclusion.

Selective Document Review. The investigators examine only the documents provided by one side, or by the institution itself, without seeking documents in the accused’s possession that might bear on the matter. The documentary record is artificially partial.

Restrictive Scope. The investigation is defined narrowly enough that the accused’s most important defenses fall outside the terms of the inquiry. The investigators truthfully report what they were asked to examine, but the framing of the question ensures that the relevant facts are not within their mandate.

Sequential Insulation. The accused is interviewed late, after the investigators have already absorbed the accusing account and developed working hypotheses. By the time the accused speaks, the investigators are no longer in the posture Proverbs 18:17 commends. The first account has done its work. The accused must overcome a settled framework rather than contribute to an open inquiry.

Confidentiality Restrictions on the Accused. The accused is forbidden, under threat of further discipline, to speak with potential witnesses, to gather documentary support, or to consult others about the matter. The investigators, meanwhile, speak freely with anyone they choose. The information asymmetry is extreme. The accused is left to defend himself with whatever he can produce from memory while the investigators construct the case against him from the full institutional record.

Predetermined Findings. In some cases the investigation is, in effect, a formal validation of a conclusion already reached. The investigators may be honest in their conduct, but the design of their assignment precludes the possibility that they will find anything other than what was wanted. The investigation is a procedural ornament around a substantive predetermination.

The biblical command to “make diligent inquisition” (Deuteronomy 19:18) is inconsistent with each of these patterns. Diligent inquisition is, by definition, an honest pursuit of the truth wherever the truth lies. It does not predetermine its conclusions. It does not exclude evidence on one side while embracing it on the other. It does not so structure its inquiry that only one outcome is possible. An institution that conducts such investigations has not done what the verse requires, regardless of what it calls the result.

It is worth noting that one-sided investigations may produce findings that happen to be true. The accused may in fact be guilty of what the investigation concludes. But the truth of the finding does not redeem the corruption of the process. Scripture does not measure justice solely by outcomes. The procedure itself is a matter of moral significance, because it is the procedure by which the innocent are protected and the guilty are identified with confidence. A process that arrives at the right answer by means that would, in another case, produce the wrong one, has not done justice. It has been lucky.

VII. “Discernment” Replacing Evidence

The third contemporary corruption is the most theologically dressed and therefore the most difficult to address. It is the practice of substituting spiritual “discernment” for evidence as the basis of judgment.

The pattern proceeds along these lines. A leader or group claims to have discerned something about the accused, his motives, his trajectory, or the state of his heart. The claim is not grounded in evidence that meets the witness rule, the accused’s own testimony, or the application of biblical principles to verified facts. It is grounded in a spiritual perception, attributed to the Holy Spirit, that the discerner reports as authoritative. The accused is then expected to accept the discerned conclusion as the verdict of the case.

Several biblical considerations bear on this practice.

Discernment Is a Real Biblical Category. The Scriptures speak of the gift of discerning of spirits (1 Corinthians 12:10), of the spiritual man who judges all things (1 Corinthians 2:15), and of the mature whose senses are exercised to discern both good and evil (Hebrews 5:14). Genuine spiritual discernment is part of the believer’s equipment. The category is not the problem.

Discernment Does Not Replace the Witness Rule. The same Spirit who gives the gift of discernment gave through Moses, the Lord Jesus Christ, and Paul the procedural rule of two or three witnesses. The Spirit does not contradict Himself. He does not, by the operation of one gift, abolish the procedural commands He inspired in the canonical texts. A discernment claim that bypasses the witness rule is therefore not the operation of the Spirit; it is something else operating under that name.

Discernment Is Subject to Testing. First John 4:1 commands, “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God.” Spiritual claims must be tested. The test is the conformity of the claim to the written Word of God. A discernment that contradicts the procedural commands of Scripture has failed the test before any other consideration arises.

Heart Judgments Belong to God. Scripture is explicit that the searching of the heart is a prerogative of God Himself. “I the Lord search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings” (Jeremiah 17:10). Humans see the outward appearance; God sees the heart (1 Samuel 16:7). To claim to have discerned the heart of an accused person, and to render judgment on the basis of that discernment, is to encroach upon a prerogative the Scriptures reserve to God. The very claim is a sign that something has gone wrong.

Discernment Is Easily Mistaken for Disposition. What the discerner experiences as the leading of the Spirit may, in many cases, be the leading of his own pre-existing dispositions, dressed in spiritual language. The first paper of this series warned against the way that partial judgment conceals itself from its own practitioner. The discernment claim is one of the most powerful concealments, because it places the discerner’s conclusion beyond ordinary examination. To question the discernment is, by implication, to question the Spirit. The structure of the claim insulates the discerner from the correction his judgment may urgently need.

In practice, “discernment” replacing evidence often functions as follows. The decision-makers have not been able to assemble a witness-tested case against the accused. They are nevertheless persuaded that he is guilty, or harmful, or unsuitable. They communicate the verdict in the language of discernment, claiming a spiritual perception that does not require evidentiary support. The accused, who has no means of contesting a heart claim, is left without procedural recourse. The institution has rendered judgment on a basis that Scripture does not authorize and against which Scripture provides no defense.

The biblical posture is more disciplined. Where genuine spiritual concern exists but evidence has not been established, the response is patient inquiry, prayer, and the willingness to wait until the matter is either confirmed or dispelled by the means Scripture provides. The discernment of the spiritual man is not a substitute for the procedural commands of God’s Word; it operates within those commands, contributing to the inquiry the commands require.

VIII. Applications

Church Discipline. The disciplinary process must include, at every stage where judgment is rendered, the meaningful hearing of the accused. The Matthew 18 graduation assumes the accused’s presence and voice throughout. A church that concludes a disciplinary matter without giving the accused an opportunity to know the specific charge, hear the witnesses, see the evidence, bring his own witnesses, and respond in his own words has not conducted biblical discipline, regardless of the merits of the underlying concern.

Elder Boards and Leadership Councils. The temptation to deliberate first and inform second is acute at this level. The remedy is procedural discipline. Decision-making meetings concerning an absent person should be structured so that no judgment is rendered before the accused has been heard. Information-gathering is appropriate; verdict-rendering is not. The distinction must be enforced by the chairman or moderator of the body, who is accountable to maintain the integrity of the process.

Investigations and HR Processes. Investigations should be designed for the diligent pursuit of truth, not for the production of predetermined conclusions. The witness pool should include those whose testimony might exonerate the accused as well as those whose testimony might incriminate. The accused should be permitted to identify witnesses, provide documents, and participate meaningfully in the testing of the evidence. Restrictions on the accused’s ability to gather his own defense should be the rare exception, not the routine practice.

Communication with the Accused. The institution should communicate with the accused at every significant stage. He should know the charge, the accuser, the evidence, the procedure, and the timeline. He should be given reasonable time to prepare a response. He should be heard before any conclusion is reached, and the hearing should be substantive rather than ceremonial.

Spiritual Claims. Where spiritual concerns are raised, they should be articulated in terms that can be examined biblically and factually. The vague reference to “things I have discerned” or “concerns I cannot fully share” should be unpacked into specific claims that the accused can address. Where the discerner cannot reduce his concern to something that can be tested by Scripture and evidence, the concern, however sincerely held, cannot serve as a basis for institutional action.

Individual Believers. The right to answer before judgment is not only an institutional matter. Each believer is called to hear before he answers, in his ordinary speech, in his evaluation of reports about others, and in his participation in the judgments of his church and community. The conscience that habitually answers matters before hearing them is the conscience the wisdom literature describes as foolish. The remedy is the disciplined practice of withholding judgment until the matter has been heard.

IX. Conclusion

Proverbs 18:13 is among the most practically rebuking verses in the wisdom literature. It does not ask for elaborate procedures or sophisticated machinery. It asks for hearing before answering. The simplicity of the requirement is part of its power. There is no excuse, in any institution, for failing to do what a child can understand.

Where this elementary requirement is honored, judgments tend toward truth. The first account is tested by the second. The witnesses are examined. The accused is heard. The decision-makers, having listened, are in a position to judge with some confidence that their judgment reflects the matter rather than their dispositions. Where it is not honored, judgments tend toward error in whatever direction the institution’s underlying dispositions point. The procedural shortcut produces the substantive failure.

The Lord Jesus Christ Himself, in His trials before the Sanhedrin and Pilate, was subjected to the procedural violations this paper describes. The witnesses contradicted each other (Mark 14:56). The high priest demanded a self-incriminating answer in a process that had already determined its conclusion (Matthew 26:63-66). The crowd was permitted to drive the verdict (Matthew 27:20-23). The hearing was structured to produce the result the leaders wanted, and the result was the crucifixion of the Son of God. The injustice was complete because the procedure was corrupt. The two are not separable.

Christian institutions that bear the name of the One who was so judged have a particular obligation to refuse the procedures that condemned Him. The accused must be heard. The witnesses must be tested. The evidence must be examined. The verdict must follow the hearing rather than precede it. Where these things are done, the institution gives a credible witness to the justice of the God whose name it carries. Where they are not done, no language of discernment, sensitivity, or wisdom will redeem the result. The verdict will be folly and shame, and the Word of God will so name it.

Notes

This paper has used the language of “the accused” throughout, in keeping with the procedural texts. The term is neutral. Some accused persons are in fact guilty of what is alleged against them. The biblical right to answer is not premised on a presumption of innocence in the modern legal sense; it is premised on the requirement that judgment follow hearing. A guilty person who is given the right to answer is no less guilty in the end. An innocent person who is denied the right to answer is no less injured. The procedural protection serves both kinds of cases, and it is required in both.

Several clarifications may be useful.

First, the right to answer does not require that every accused person be given unlimited opportunity to extend the proceeding. Reasonable time is reasonable, not infinite. Procedural protections should not become procedural weapons in the opposite direction, by which an accused person delays accountability indefinitely. The biblical pattern is deliberate but not interminable.

Second, the right to answer does not require that the accused be persuaded of the verdict. Some accused persons will refuse to acknowledge what has been established. The institution’s obligation is to hear, examine, and render righteous judgment. It is not obligated to obtain the consent of the accused to the conclusion.

Third, the right to answer is not a guarantee against painful outcomes. A genuine hearing may confirm a grave charge. The accused who is heard may be removed from office, disciplined, or otherwise sanctioned. The point of the protection is not to soften consequences but to ensure that consequences are imposed only on a properly developed evidentiary basis.

Fourth, the paper’s treatment of “discernment replacing evidence” is not a denial of the genuine role of spiritual perception in pastoral care. Wise pastors notice things that are not yet evidentially established. They respond by watching, praying, inquiring, and waiting until the matter is either confirmed or dispelled. What is rejected here is not perception but the substitution of perception for the evidentiary process Scripture requires when judgment is to be rendered.

Finally, the procedural protections defended here are not gifts of the institution to the accused. They are obligations the institution owes before God, regardless of what it costs in time, comfort, or convenience. The institution that calculates the cost of a proper hearing and concludes that the cost is too high has misunderstood the nature of its own office. The hearing is not optional. It is part of what righteous judgment is.

References

Adams, J. E. (1986). Handbook of church discipline. Zondervan.

Bock, D. L. (2007). Acts (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament). Baker Academic.

Bruce, F. F. (1988). The book of the Acts (Rev. ed., New International Commentary on the New Testament). Eerdmans.

Carson, D. A. (1996). The gagging of God: Christianity confronts pluralism. Zondervan.

Dever, M. (2004). Nine marks of a healthy church (Rev. ed.). Crossway.

Frame, J. M. (2008). The doctrine of the Christian life. P&R Publishing.

Holy Bible: King James Version. (2017). Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1611)

Keener, C. S. (2012-2015). Acts: An exegetical commentary (Vols. 1-4). Baker Academic.

Kidner, D. (1964). Proverbs: An introduction and commentary. InterVarsity Press.

Kistemaker, S. J. (1990). Exposition of the Acts of the Apostles. Baker Books.

Laney, J. C. (1985). A guide to church discipline. Bethany House.

Leeman, J. (2010). The church and the surprising offense of God’s love: Reintroducing the doctrines of church membership and discipline. Crossway.

Longman, T., III. (2006). Proverbs (Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms). Baker Academic.

Sande, K. (2004). The peacemaker: A biblical guide to resolving personal conflict (3rd ed.). Baker Books.

Stott, J. R. W. (1990). The message of Acts: The Spirit, the church, and the world. InterVarsity Press.

Waltke, B. K. (2004-2005). The book of Proverbs (Vols. 1-2, New International Commentary on the Old Testament). Eerdmans.

Wright, C. J. H. (2004). Old Testament ethics for the people of God. InterVarsity Press.