Session 3 The Problem with Wisdom
Notes
Transcript
Handout
Handout
Sermon Tone Analysis
A
D
F
J
S
Emotion
A
C
T
Language
O
C
E
A
E
Social
Background
Background
From the earliest age, we are taught the value of education—not just “book smarts”, but “street smarts” also. No matter how much we know, the greater value is in knowing how to apply and live out what we know. Solomon certainly was wise, but even he discovered that living by wisdom alone was not enough.
What does having wisdom mean for us today? Is it the same as it was to an ancient Jew?
1 The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”
They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds;
there is none who does good.
7 The law of the Lord is perfect,
reviving the soul;
the testimony of the Lord is sure,
making wise the simple;
Psalm
30 The mouth of the righteous utters wisdom,
and his tongue speaks justice.
Faithlife Study Bible Psalm 14
one who has insight The Hebrew verb used here, sakhal, can mean “to understand” or “to act wisely.” Wisdom in the OT includes a religious or moral aspect since a wise person is characterized by righteousness and obedience (19:7; 37:30).
Let’s look at
12 So I turned to consider wisdom and madness and folly. For what can the man do who comes after the king? Only what has already been done. 13 Then I saw that there is more gain in wisdom than in folly, as there is more gain in light than in darkness. 14 The wise person has his eyes in his head, but the fool walks in darkness. And yet I perceived that the same event happens to all of them. 15 Then I said in my heart, “What happens to the fool will happen to me also. Why then have I been so very wise?” And I said in my heart that this also is vanity. 16 For of the wise as of the fool there is no enduring remembrance, seeing that in the days to come all will have been long forgotten. How the wise dies just like the fool! 17 So I hated life, because what is done under the sun was grievous to me, for all is vanity and a striving after wind.
What credence does Qoheleth give to the “advantage” of wisdom?
He ranks it over folly (cf. ), which is never a viable option for him.
I searched with my heart how to cheer my body with wine—my heart still guiding me with wisdom—and how to lay hold on folly, till I might see what was good for the children of man to do under heaven during the few days of their life.
So I became great and surpassed all who were before me in Jerusalem. Also my wisdom remained with me.
Wisdom is contrasted with folly. What else is wisdom associated with? Compare ; ;
Your word is a lamp to my feet
and a light to my path.
Wisdom is ground in knowing God’s Word
For the commandment is a lamp and the teaching a light,
and the reproofs of discipline are the way of life,
What about folly? Look at
They grope in the dark without light,
and he makes them stagger like a drunken man.
The biblical contrast of darkness and light is shared with wisdom and folly.
What are some other biblical contrasts that are important?
1; 3–14 The wise/foolish contrast is a stereotype in wisdom literature; for the association of wisdom with light, cf. ; , and of folly with darkness, cf. . But it is clear that v 14b modifies the saying in v 14a about the superiority of wisdom. Qoheleth is not to be described as “anti-wisdom,” but he is its severest critic; after all, he tried to attain wisdom, and he acknowledged failure in 7:23–24.
In Adam versus in Christ ()
For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.
Children of the devil () versus children of God ()
You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God,
Sinners () versus Saints ()
to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ,
To all those in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints:
Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
This is the first example of the strong tensions that abound in the book (see above, pp. lxiii–lxiv). How is one to understand the train of thought of the author? R. Gordis (and also D. Michel, Eigenart, 28–29) has recourse to the device of quotations: Qoheleth is quoting someone else’s view in vv 13–14a and then introduces an emphatic “but I know” in 14b, which contains his own view. M. Fox is unwilling to recognize quotations without more evidence (cf. ZAW 92 [1980] 416–31). Fox emphasizes the polarity between light and darkness, and he argues that 2:13–14a “is a superlative affirmation of the advantage of wisdom over folly” (Qohelet, 183; cf. 113). It is true that Qoheleth does not simply dismiss wisdom, but Fox seems to overstate the profit of wisdom, unless he wishes to claim that Qoheleth simply contradicts himself here. It will be seen that vv 14–16 introduce the great equalizer: death.
but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
1cor1:2
To the church of God that is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints together with all those who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours:
No inheritance () versus Heirs (; )
No inheritance () versus Heirs (; )
envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
So you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God.
and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.
What do you take away from verses 16 and 17?
16 For of the wise as of the fool there is no enduring remembrance, seeing that in the days to come all will have been long forgotten. How the wise dies just like the fool! 17 So I hated life, because what is done under the sun was grievous to me, for all is vanity and a striving after wind.
That the wise and the foolish have in common is that they are forgotten. It is death itself, the great leveller, that he feels most deeply, as the question in v 16b indicates and as is also shown by v 17. The context of v 17 indicates that he has particularly in mind the reality of death and lack of remembrance as part of the deed that is grievous for him. The events of life do not make sense, so he loathes life.
Another thing that the wise and the foolish have in common is that they are forgotten. There is an echo here of 1:11. It is death itself, the great leveller, that he feels most deeply, as the question in v 16b indicates and as is also shown by v 17. The context of v 17 indicates that he has particularly in mind the reality of death and lack of remembrance as part of the deed that is grievous for him. The events of life do not make sense, so he loathes life.
What can we learn about Solomon from his words here?
מקרה, “lot,” is a favorite and key word (rendered in LXX by συνάντημα, “meeting,” not τύχη, “chance,” “fate”). It designates what happens to a person. The “happening” may refer to events in life for which there is no palpable explanation (9:1–3, 11–12), but particularly to one’s final lot or death, as here and 2:15, 3:19, and 9:2–3. The import of the argument is that wisdom counts for nothing because both the fool and the wise have the same מקרה; they both have to die. The superiority of wisdom therefore is seen to be quite theoretical.
The book of Ecclesiastes is a dark study on a life lived apart from God. Solomon looks back over his wasted years and finds no joy in them, only futility, vanity, and “a chasing after the wind” ().
Do you think he ever repented? Look at
13 The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man. 14 For God will bring every deed into judgment, with every secret thing, whether good or evil.
But he had learned his lesson—albeit the hard way—and he wraps up the book with this advice: “Now all has been heard; / here is the conclusion of the matter: / Fear God and keep his commandments, / for this is the duty of all mankind. / For God will bring every deed into judgment, / including every hidden thing, / whether it is good or evil” (. This surely sounds like a man who has returned to the Lord and is trusting in Him.
15 Qoheleth applies his reasoning to himself and to the futility of his attempting to be wise. The repetition of “I said to myself” is striking and suggests a certain emphasis.
16 Another thing that the wise and the foolish have in common is that they are forgotten. There is an echo here of 1:11. The lack of remembrance of things past includes humans as well. This is another argument that relativizes the superiority of wisdom. Even the hope of an immortality of name (see Prov 10:7) is rejected (Eccl 1:11; 9:5). But one should not think that Qoheleth would have been satisfied with a remembrance that would never die. It is death itself, the great leveller, that he feels most deeply, as the question in v 16b indicates and as is also shown by the outburst in v 17.
17 Qoheleth picks up on the words for action (מעשׂה, עשׂה) that occurred earlier. In 1:13–14 he regarded all that happens under the heavens as vanity, as an evil (ענין רע) imposed by God. A similar judgment was passed in 2:11 upon his own achievements. The context of v 17 indicates that he has particularly in mind the reality of death and lack of remembrance as part of the מעשׂה, or deed, that is grievous for him. The events of life do not make sense, so he loathes life. As commentators have remarked, this is an unheard of statement in the context of OT wisdom, which always aimed at life (Prov 8:35; see R. E. Murphy, Int 20 [1966] 3–14). All that happens will come to be explicitly termed the מעשׂה האלהים, God’s doing, which is beyond human ken (7:13; 8:17; 11:5; cf. 3:11).
Explanation
The sticking point for Qoheleth is death, inescapable and final.
In the rest of the Bible, the sting of death is somewhat assuaged by the thought that one lives on through one’s good name ()
“If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the dead man shall not be married outside the family to a stranger. Her husband’s brother shall go in to her and take her as his wife and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her. And the first son whom she bears shall succeed to the name of his dead brother, that his name may not be blotted out of Israel.
but a virtuous name will never be blotted out.
Have regard for your name, since it will outlive you
longer than a thousand hoards of gold.
The days of a good life are numbered,
but a good name lasts forever. (Sir 41:11–13, nrsv)
By the same token, the wicked are threatened with the loss of their name:
May his posterity be cut off;
may his name be blotted out in the second generation. (Ps 109:13, nrsv)
For Qoheleth, however, an impenetrable curtain was drawn over the dead: there is no remembrance (Eccl 1:11; 2:16), and the inertia of Sheol remains (Eccl 9:10). Job could welcome Sheol as a place of respite, of surcease from his sufferings (3:16–22; 10:20–22). But Qoheleth’s attitude toward death is implacable—how can the wise die like the fools!
Let’s move to
23 All this I have tested by wisdom. I said, “I will be wise,” but it was far from me. 24 That which has been is far off, and deep, very deep; who can find it out?
25 I turned my heart to know and to search out and to seek wisdom and the scheme of things, and to know the wickedness of folly and the foolishness that is madness.
How does relate to this section?
For the wisdom of this world is folly with God. For it is written, “He catches the wise in their craftiness,”
He used wisdom in investigating the world yet could not become wise. He was a wise-man who did not have wisdom because he could not understand what God was doing in the world. There is a difference in worldly wisdom and the wisdom of God.
He used wisdom in investigating the world yet could not become wise. He was a wise-man who did not have wisdom because he could not understand what God was doing in the world. There is a difference in worldly wisdom and the wisdom of God.
He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also, he has put eternity into man’s heart, yet so that he cannot find out what God has done from the beginning to the end.
then I saw all the work of God, that man cannot find out the work that is done under the sun. However much man may toil in seeking, he will not find it out. Even though a wise man claims to know, he cannot find it out.
Why do you think he seems so despondent in verse 25?
than the tradition, and he is all the more strict in his judgment (e.g., 8:17b).
25 Despite the admission that he has made in vv 23–24, Qoheleth describes his relentless search for wisdom in words that echo earlier phrases (תור, “investigate,” in 1:11, 2:3; “folly,” “madness” in 2:12a). Catch words for the following lines are also found: חשׁבון, “answer” (v 27); בקשׁ, “seek” (v 27). The intensity of his engagement with wisdom is clear (see also 8:16), but the plethora of objects in v 25b obscures his intention. Are the goals merely enumerated in v 25b (so M. V. Fox), or does he have a program to find the connection between the various terms he uses (see note 25.c.)? More probably the latter (see Comment on 1:17). In any case, wisdom is known by its opposite, folly. The two לדעת, “to know,” clauses are directed equally to wisdom (perhaps hendiadys in v 25a, “wisdom’s answer”) and to folly.
Explanation
The final verses, 23–24, are Qoheleth’s personal reflection on his vocation as a חכם (hākām) or wise person. They reflect particularly back on the mysterious ironic admonitions of 7:15–18.
Qoheleth has pointed out the limitations of both virtue and vice. Neither path of itself leads to a satisfactory result, despite the blessings and threats with which they are accompanied in the tradition.
It is hard to be satisfied with any commentary on this section; it is very difficult to understand. But at least one red herring should be eliminated. Qoheleth is not advocating in vv 16–18 a “middle way.” The view that he has adopted the Greek notion of avoiding excess, that virtue stands in the middle (μηδὲν ἄγαν; ne quid nimis) is a common misreading of these verses. The formula “nothing in excess” does not have a univocal meaning or usage. When the medieval scholastics echo Aristotle (Nicomachean Ethics, 70–115) that virtue stands in the middle, this is a middle path between two extremes. Thus temperance (σωφροσύνη) is the mean between licentiousness (ἀκολασία), which is an excess of pleasure, and insensitivity (ἀναισθησία), which is a deficiency of pleasure. Virtue in this sense lies between two extremes. This kind of reason is simply not applicable to 7:16–17, which presents two points of view, not two extremes in moral activity.
The use of μηδὲν ἄγαν in Theognis (ll. 219, 335, 401) does not fit the situation of Eccl 7:16–18. In ll. 219–20 Theognis warns Kyrnos against being too excited about troubles in the city; in 335, 401, he is counseled not to be frantic about life (μηδὲν ἂγαν σπεύδειν).
Qoheleth’s view is that neither virtue nor folly achieves desirable results in life, and one does well to attend to the failure of zealots in both areas. His alleged via media is in reality advice that amounts to mockery concerning any retribution for moral action. The traditional wisdom view of retribution is undercut by the facts of life. Neither claim, whether of the wise/virtuous or of the unjust/wicked, is true and absolute. This situation allows him to make his conclusion in v 18.
The uncertainty of life emerges in the conclusion that calls attention to both of these (basically inadequate) admonitions. One should hold on to both in the present state of affairs; such is the contradiction in life. This recommendation is not consoling; it is in line with the mystery of the divine activity (7:13–14). Qoheleth has pointed out the limitations of both virtue and vice. Neither path of itself leads to a satisfactory result, despite the blessings and threats with which they are accompanied in the tradition.
Let’s move to
26 And I find something more bitter than death: the woman whose heart is snares and nets, and whose hands are fetters. He who pleases God escapes her, but the sinner is taken by her. 27 Behold, this is what I found, says the Preacher, while adding one thing to another to find the scheme of things— 28 which my soul has sought repeatedly, but I have not found. One man among a thousand I found, but a woman among all these I have not found. 29 See, this alone I found, that God made man upright, but they have sought out many schemes.
Why can we consider these verses as a bit of self-awareness on the part of Solomon?
Do not desire her beauty in your heart,
and do not let her capture you with her eyelashes;
A common topic in wisdom literature: the adulterous woman. ( ; ; ; )
A common topic in wisdom literature: the adulterous woman. ( ; ; ; )
16 So you will be delivered from the forbidden woman,
from the adulteress with her smooth words,
17 who forsakes the companion of her youth
and forgets the covenant of her God;
18 for her house sinks down to death,
and her paths to the departed;
19 none who go to her come back,
nor do they regain the paths of life.
1 My son, be attentive to my wisdom;
incline your ear to my understanding,
2 that you may keep discretion,
and your lips may guard knowledge.
3 For the lips of a forbidden woman drip honey,
and her speech is smoother than oil,
4 but in the end she is bitter as wormwood,
sharp as a two-edged sword.
22 All at once he follows her,
as an ox goes to the slaughter,
or as a stag is caught fast
23 till an arrow pierces its liver;
as a bird rushes into a snare;
he does not know that it will cost him his life.
13 The woman Folly is loud;
she is seductive and knows nothing.
14 She sits at the door of her house;
she takes a seat on the highest places of the town,
15 calling to those who pass by,
who are going straight on their way,
16 “Whoever is simple, let him turn in here!”
And to him who lacks sense she says,
17 “Stolen water is sweet,
and bread eaten in secret is pleasant.”
18 But he does not know that the dead are there,
that her guests are in the depths of Sheol.
Do you feel this is a misogynistic statement? Is he putting women down?
The terms טוב, “good,” and חוטא, “errant,” are best understood as in 2:26, not as moral qualifications, but as designations of human beings in terms of the inscrutable divine will. Some will fall victim to this type of woman, but others will not, as God pleases. Even if one were to insist that there is a moral nuance to these words in v 26, the meaning would be consonant with Qoheleth’s views. He shared the traditional Israelite values about sexual morality and would be merely reflecting these in the terminology of v 26: adultery is wrong and fidelity is good. In contrast, the concern of 2:26 is not morality but the mysterious actions of God.
27 The verbose style in which Qoheleth describes his inductive approach (“one to one”) to “find” (מצא again) an answer makes his thought difficult to grasp. If “this” refers back to v 26, one is inclined to question the significance of the discovery, when the topos of the adulterous woman is so prominent in the wisdom tradition. Hence it seems better to understand “this” as pointing forward to v 28 (as does Michel, Eigenart, 229).
We must also consider the cultural contaxt of an ancient Jew. How were women considered back then?
It would be most unusual for Qoheleth to speak of himself in the third person. Hence commentators are inclined to regard “says Qoheleth” as an editorial addition. K. Galling thinks it is an editorial insertion to indicate precisely that this is Qoheleth’s private opinion, but this seems gratuitous.
28 The verse contains ambiguities. As indicated in note 28.a., the אשׁר that begins v 28a can be referred back to חשׁבון, “answer,” and understood as the relative particle. According to our translation, it is to be considered as beginning a new statement indicating something that Qoheleth did not find, namely, the truth of v 28b. In 28b the figure of a thousand is merely a round number (cf. Job 8:3). The text says, literally, “one man (אדם) in a thousand I found but a woman in all these I did not find”; presumably “in all these” means an equal number of women as there were (a thousand) men.
The usual interpretation of this verse is that Qoheleth discovered one good man but no good woman. The translation indicates that he rejects a saying that is demeaning to women but contains his verdict on all human beings, men and women alike.
God created human beings as simple and just; perversion comes from their own doing, regardless of their sex.
for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
Takeaways
Takeaways
As advantageous as it is to act wisely, even the wisest person cannot know the full meaning of life apart from God.
Death is the great equalizer.
When we live daily in a right relationship with God, we can be equipped to escape whatever would deceive, trap, and destroy us.
Self-Reflection
Self-Reflection
Can you recall a time where your own wisdom in a matter turned out to be insufficient?
Explanation
This is one of the more difficult and perhaps one of the more notorious passages in Ecclesiastes. It has usually been taken in the sense of misogynism, a popular trait in the Hellenism of the author’s day and at various times since: Qoheleth found one good man among a thousand, but not one woman. In the Notes and Comment offered above, the charge of misogynism is rejected. At the same time, it is difficult to see the progression of thought from the stereotype of the wicked woman (v 26; the type of person that Prov 7 warns against) to a defense of women in v 28. The style of the entire passage is peculiarly redundant and complex, even for Qoheleth, and the sense remains obscure. No matter what solution is adopted, Qoheleth is expressing himself in a very labored manner, and other construals have been made.
M. Fox (HS 19 [1978] 31) argues that the relative clause that begins v 28 (אשׁר עוד, etc.) has no relevant or meaningful antecedent (not even חשׁבון of v 27). He changes the text (with Ehrlich) to read אשׁה, “a (good) woman,” for the relative particle אשׁר. This may be clearer Hebrew, but the result is the same; the misogynism remains.
In his commentary and in greater detail in SagAT, 259–87, N. Lohfink has proposed a new interpretation of 7:26–29. The issue is not the moral worth of woman as opposed to man, but the issue of death. He does not emend the text but allows certain meanings to be heard that traditional translations have not recognized. Thus Qoheleth finds woman stronger (מר, which also means “bitter”) than death (cf. Cant 8:6). What was originally a statement of admiration and astonishment in v 26a has been changed by v 26b into a derogatory saying, characteristic of a male-dominated culture. In vv 27–28 Qoheleth reflects somewhat “naively” on the immortality of woman. He has observed a thousand cases and in every instance woman dies—she is not stronger than death. The saying in v 26 had described the woman as a kind of war machine (instead of “snare,” מְצוֹדים can mean fortification; see 9:14, but not 9:12). In v 29 he plays with the double meaning of חשׁבנות (“reckoning” or “sum” in vv 25 and 27, but in v 29, at least in a concomitant level of meaning, a “siege machine”; cf. 2 Chr 26:15). His point is that human beings (האדם in v 29 is collective) have brought death (by war, etc.) into God’s creation. This stark resume does not do full justice to the complicated arguments that Lohfink offers. One may say broadly that the reader can detect a double meaning in the saying about woman; at first sight v 26 is apparently unfavorable (more bitter than death) until one hears the real issue (immortality).
In a spinoff from Lohfink’s study, K. Baltzer (HTR 80 [1987] 127–32) interpreted the “thousand” (אלף) in v 28 as a military unit or brigade. He interprets the verse thus: “ ‘One man only’ or ‘men alone’ (˒adam˒ehad) have I found among the brigades (‘thousands’), but a woman among all these I have not found.” His comment is “there are no women in the army; it is a male affair” (131). In this view Qoheleth’s discovery is that women are absolved from any responsibility in death-dealing war. Woman is “stronger” (not “more bitter”) than death. Baltzer shifts the emphasis from the common fate of death for humanity to the death that war inflicts.
Obviously the final word on this text has not been written. Thus far, it refuses to yield its secret.