1G0xxeB

3 4 0 I n t e r p r e t a t i o n Volume 41 / Issue 3We must then try to understand the difference between biblical wisdomand Greek wisdom. We see at once that each of the two claims tobe the true wisdom, thus denying to the other its claim to be wisdomin the strict and highest sense. According to the Bible, the beginningof wisdom is fear of the Lord; according to the Greek philosophers,the beginning of wisdom is wonder. We are thus compelled from thevery beginning to make a choice, to take a stand. Where then do westand? We are confronted with the incompatible claims of Jerusalemand Athens to our allegiance. 87The divide is further described as being two different approaches of the“one thing needful”: for the Bible it is the obedient love of God; for Greekphilosophy, it is the life of autonomous understanding, which is the beliefin autonomous reason. 88 Despite this tension, reason and revelation are inagreement with one another over what the moral law should be. They concuron its importance, most of the content, and on how insufficient it is in politics.They agree even in the fact that reason tends toward monotheism by thecontemplation of a single and eternal Good. The problem that exists betweenthe two different ways of life—the one of the philosopher and the other of thetheologian—is in the interpretation of the divine law. How they arrive at thelaw is from two completely different paths. It probably would not be as muchof a problem if philosophy did not make claims on the divine as it inherentlydoes. In other words, philosophy is somewhat theological and that makes ita direct competitor of theology, properly understood as the biblical theologyof the personally revealed God. Western civilization has rejected both of thepoles of Western thought, being seduced by the promise of infinite progress,which has nefarious designs on nature. It is debatable whether man has progressed,or is happier, than premodern man. 89From the philosophic perspective the rational contemplation of theGood is an end in itself, but for the faithful, the believer, it issues in repentance,guilt resulting from wrongdoing, and divine grace and mercy from anomnipotent God. For the religious, at the heart of morality is action, whereasfor the philosopher it is contemplation. The discovery of nature is a philosophicalpursuit. This is not the case for the believer, or theologian. Generally,there are all sorts of divine texts that disagree on the laws that mortals should87Strauss, “Jerusalem and Athens,” 149.88Strauss, “Progress or Return?,” 246; Harry V. Jaffa, “The Legacy of Leo Strauss,” Claremont Reviewof Books 3, no. 3 (Fall 1984): 14.89Much of this is drawn from Strauss, “Progress or Return?,” 245–46.