From: Ecclesiastes
and the Perpetual Paradoxes of Life Return to Home
By
Roland H. Worth, Jr. © 2012
[Page 119]
Chapter Eight:
The Paradox of Wisdom in Rulers:
Ideal in Theory but Hard to Find in Practice
(
In this section Qohelet zeroes in on the importance of wisdom to those who
occupy positions of governance such as himself.
Easy as it is for him to stress its significance, the real difficulty is
separating the wheat from the chaff in actual practice. No ruler was likely to question its
usefulness—not even the most arbitrary one.
What he would find far harder to do was to take the time to determine
what was the most wise/ideal policy and be willing to reverse himself when it proved not to be such.
Flow
of the Argument
A.
Wisdom is not
determined by who speaks it (
B.
To have
wisdom is not necessarily to practice it (10:1)
C.
Having or
lacking wisdom will be seen by actual behavior (10:2-4)
D. Regardless of motive, when rulers substitute folly for
wisdom they will suffer for it (10:5-10)
E.
Wise counsel
is not determined by how lengthy it is (
F.
Since there
is no guarantee of having wise rulers, be cautious in what you say (
[Page 120]
A.
Wisdom Is Not Determined by
Who Speaks It (
Solomon provides the
illustration of a small town with few men to defend it who are facing a far
more powerful besieger (
Some consider it a
hypothetical situation where the potential for rescue never bore fruit and
translate the verse with the wording that he “could have rescued the
city by his wisdom”[4]
but that their class prejudice made it impossible. This is defended on the grounds that the
Hebrew wording permits the reading and that the hero being ignored makes no
sense if he had accomplished the salvation of the community.[5] Furthermore, verse 16 speaks of the poor
man’s wisdom being ignored.[6] But is that before or after the crisis is
over and he is no longer of benefit to the city’s power brokers? (Furthermore, if the man’s advice had not
been heeded, how did Qohelet know it would have saved
the city?)
Unfortunately, in real life people possess
an incredible ability to forget how much they owe to others: not long ago I saw a preacher with over a
quarter century of service with a single congregation nearly fired from his
post for views he had held for a number of years—without any past grievance
from the members. All his hard work and
modest remuneration was unimportant. Two
or three new and “important” individuals had decided he had to “go.” Every one of a certain age has surely found
such cases of ingratitude; intentional “forgetfulness” is all too common.
If one wishes a political
illustration: Winston Churchill, after
leading
Perhaps we go on for
too great a length, but Qohelet’s rebuke of
“forgetfulness” is so true of the human species that we forget it at our own
peril.
The absurdity in this neglect of the poor
man in Solomon’s day was far more profound:
it is presented as if occurring immediately. Not even a decent interval passed. On a philosophical or theoretical level it
made sense to say that “wisdom is better than [brute] strength.” Yet if that wisdom comes from the wrong
individual, [Page 121] the poor
person, the wrong gender, the wrong age, the wrong nation, it will be
“despised” (9:16), even though the merits are fully on that person’s side.
Nor is this the only
mistake in judging the validity of policy decisions and appreciation for
perceptive ones. People also often
confuse wisdom with loudness in expressing one’s views (
“Wisdom is better than
weapons of war” because unless you have it, needless wars will occur and those who
have to fight will be mismanaged and there will be unneeded deaths among
your own people (
Solomon’s illustration
of the small town may come from some story he had heard or it may have become a
proverbial illustration among those encouraging insightful thinking. On the other hand, it could equally well have
come from looking at the wealthy courtiers in his court and how they
reacted to advice. Coming from the wrong
quarter (poor, female, or foreigner) it would likely get short shrift while the
same idea coming from some one else would be warmly embraced.
We see such things in
daily life, even our religious life. I
recall when I was in my early twenties and ventured a certain interpretation of
a text in our adult Bible class one Sunday.
It was totally dismissed. A few
years later (well, it may have been as much as a decade) a prestigious
evangelist was visiting with us and gave the same interpretation and,
oh, how it impressed every one! I wasn’t
bitter over it but, like Qohelet in a political
context, I could not but look at it and regard the double standard as
“absurd.” Unfortunately
only as absurd as real life is.
If we look into the
political realm today we find the same phenomena. But here it is likely the movie star whose
ill-informed opinions get the publicity while hard-working amateur and
professional students of the subject will be lucky to be mentioned. Wealth and prestige pushes out those who
actually know something about the subject.
Again, absurdity. Qohelet would have
felt right at home.
When the regal cynic
speaks of people heeding loudly voiced opinions rather than good judgment, the
evaluation likely came from his personal observation as well. One might call it the “hell fire and
damnation school of political advocacy.”
If you can’t win by evidence or argument, you win by loudness and venom. Since many people will back down rather than
take them on, they think they have “won,” when all they’ve done is steam-rolled
others into silence.
An astute ruler was needed to tell the
difference between the two types of silence.
Not all could.
The same phenomena we
find in church affairs, where the “loudest voice” is often permitted to
dominate. As in
business matters, politics, and most other areas of life.
[Page 122] Finally there are the consequences of the
ruler yielding to the loudest (and wrong) advice and he mentions war in
particular and the capacity of war to destroy the good previous rulers had
accomplished (
Yet however “inevitable” war in the
abstract is, many specific wars can be avoided
by the application of “wisdom” and prudence.
And the inevitable human and economic cost of armed conflict, surely
made Solomon opt for avoiding the danger (i.e., by “wisdom” being expressed in
astute diplomacy and other means) rather than permit things to degenerate into
open conflict.
Applying that insight
is never easy. If Hitler had been
willing to go no further than his seizure of parts of
When we move on to
contemporary potential conflicts, the difficulty in applying the principle
becomes even more difficult. We know,
because of what happened next, that Chamberlain made a fatal blunder. Seeing into the minds and intents and
limitations of current international troublemakers is something else.
We function with only partial information
and every single argument in one direction can, at least partly, be “balanced”
by reasoning in the opposite direction (and the quotation marks are to indicate
that the argument may be distorted in order to accomplish it). Hence, even in keeping peace, astute
practical “wisdom” in the evaluation of motive, behavior, and intention of
other nations remains just as essential as in the ancient days of Qohelet.
B.
To Have Wisdom Is Not Necessarily
to Practice It
(10:1)
A little “folly”
(demonstrated bad judgment) makes even an honorable and astute ruler fall into
a bad odor/reputation among his people.
The reason, of course, is that we expect the perceptive ruler to stay
that way. The blunders come as an
embarrassing shock.
Solomon knew this as a
principle but one wonders whether he had the courage to recognize his own
blunders? Could all those marriages of
his with polytheistic spouses have avoided compromising at least some of
his reputation? [Page 123] Since it was an era of prosperity,
perhaps that encouraged most to overlook it. But all? Especially those who took the Torah
seriously?
Or did he tend to avoid their presence when
he could? People can’t disturb your
peace of mind if they aren’t allowed close enough to do it!
If we link the verse
with what went before, the thought would be that a ruler who needlessly stumbles his people into a war loses his reputation among
them. And this error, Solomon
certainly avoided. His reign was
conspicuously marked by an absence of conflict--major conflicts at least.
C.
Having or Lacking Wisdom Will Be
Seen by Actual Behavior (10:2-4)
The imagery of the
right side being preferable to the left (the right hand seat being that of most
honor, for example) is used here of the relative value of wisdom and
folly. The wise person’s “heart is at
his right hand” while that of the foolhardy is at the left (10:2). There are fools and then there are worse
fools. The full-bodied one (if that term
can be used in this context) is the one who learns nothing at all by his “walk”
through life and his behavior manifests to one and all his lack of insight
(10:3).
The wording is ambiguous, suggests R. N. Whybray. The point
could be “either that the fool calls every one else a fool, or that by his
words and actions he proclaims that he himself is a fool (cf. Proverbs
Next he illustrates
the difference between a foolish person and a wise one by the way he reacts to
a crisis: If you happen to be a
subordinate and the ruler expresses his anger, it is easy to go into a
panic—especially if the anger is well deserved because of your “great
offenses” (10:4). Indeed, it is tempting to even “leave your
post,” i.e., flee the country since ancient rulers could do pretty much what
they wanted and your legal protections existed solely at his discretion.
Instead, the wise person seeks
“conciliation” for even if the accusations are legitimate such a course
provides the opportunity to resolve the breach (10:4). This principle of seeking settlement and
mutual peace is one applicable to all areas of life and not just in the
relationship of a position holder to a superior (for example, Proverbs 25:15;
Romans 12:18; Hebrews 12:14).
As ruler,[8] he
would have observed how people reacted to criticism of their actions. He would have seen the entire gauntlet from
minor alleged infractions to major and ominous ones. The quality of the subordinates would be
proved by how they reacted to their mistakes.
Would they be willing to “eat crow” (if the charges were legitimate) and
admit their error? If
so, there was potential for them to be salvaged and become more worthy of their
post.
[Page 124] We see the same in all areas of life: The quality of mind and personal integrity is
most exhibited under crisis. No one
enjoys them, of course, but they certainly demonstrate one’s acuteness of
thought and ability to adapt. Without
such, loss of respect becomes permanent and the loss of position inevitable.
This is one of several
texts describing the relationship of a subject and the king (8:2-5; 10:4;
10:20)—and in verse 4 he clearly has in mind some one with an on-going
administrative or other relationship with the ruler. As Tomas Frydrych
observes, he is not describing[9]
how to exploit one’s position at the court to one’s benefit. Instead what Qoheleth
offers are simple guidelines on how to survive (our emphasis, rw) being a courtier.
The key to this is unquestionable loyalty; the kings Qoheleth
knew tolerated no dissent. Such a
loyalty needed to be accompanied by shrewdness, understanding what would be
acceptable at any given moment (which is just a variant on the basic concept of
wisdom as skill and timing). But even
the loyal and shrewd courtier could not obviously avoid the king’s anger; those
who wished to stay alive needed to be able to face the king calmly and appease
the royal rage.
D. Regardless of Motive, when Rulers
Substitute
Folly For Wisdom
They Will
Suffer for It (10:5-10)
Another “evil” he
perceives (10:6) is when “folly” is manifested in the king’s behavior and
actions while the rich are relegated to a “lowly place” (10:6-7). Mere servants of the king take pride of place
by riding on horseback while others must walk (10:7). The king’s servants are just that, servants. The only power they
have are as extensions of the ruler, enabling him to do (through them) what he
has neither time nor inclination to do himself.
Yet that reliance can easily breed an elevating of
them above those who have direct claims to importance in the kingdom,
“the rich” (10:6) and “princes” (10:7).
Needless disorder and societal tension has
been interjected into the very seat of power by such misjudgments and it is not
the fault of external pressure but of the monarch’s own flawed judgment in
deciding whom to select to implement his policies.[10] One did not have to have a special reverence
for the governing class to recognize that their arbitrary replacement by less
respected, less educated, and less trained personnel was hardly likely to
produce betterment for society at large.
The instability at the court could then easily have a destabilizing
effect on attitudes and actions throughout the nation.[11]
[Page 125] We have in Qohelet’s
analysis an astute recognition of how, in a monarchy, the king’s de facto
preferences rearrange the power structure even when no formal action is
taken. The text could be introduced as
evidence of the non-monarchical origin of the author and the words as an
expression of an outsider’s annoyance at how a king overlooks the more
“deserving” outsiders by preferring his personal staff. Yet the same abhorrence could easily arise in
a monarch sensitive to the nature of political power and its exercise.
To give a more modern
understanding of the basic point: It has
been said, with considerable justice, that many secretaries exercise more power
than their bosses do in the formal chain of command of a corporation. That is quite natural. They know his or her preferences, is likely
to have access to data that discretion or fear is kept away from him, and to
have access to a thoroughly different (or broader) set of information sources
than the boss is actually utilizing.
Drafting the decisions, she puts her own
imprint, spin, interpretation and even subtle alterations upon them. If she is good, loyal, and astute, the kind
of changes he himself would have included if he had thought of them.
The negative side of
the phenomena, is when her place as the boss’ executor
is displaced by a self-serving role of self-promoter and arbiter in “his” name,
but actually acting to elevate her own authority and importance. The latter is the kind of shift that Qohelet has in mind, but made worse because he lived in the
kind of system that allowed it to be more visible and tangible than usually
possible in the modern world.
(Though not completely impossible,
of course. I’m reminded of the secretary at a certain
corporation who has “her” parking space and woe be to
the person who is in it even if it is in the middle of the night!)
The royal analyst attempts to convey by a series of analogies
the folly of transferring power from those who are supposed to have it—and are,
usually, best qualified to exercise it--to those who exercise it only by a
mistake of regal sufferance. It’s like
digging a pit and not recognizing the danger of falling into it (10:8) or
breaking through a hollow wall without remembering that there may be snakes in
the hollow (10:8; cf. Amos 5:19).
(Depending who is doing it and the motive, either of these acts could
have the intent to hurt others [the pit] or to rob [breaking through the wall][12] or
be mere accidents befalling a totally innocent man going about his business.[13])
It’s like quarrying stone and forgetting that
the fragments might hit you or splitting wood and forgetting how dangerous the
axe can be (10:9). Building on the
implied axe reference in the previous verse, in
[Page 126]
E.
Wise Counsel Is Not Determined by
How Lengthy
It Is (
The
words of the “babbler” will ultimately bite the receptive listener just the way
a snake does (
If Solomon is talking in terms of how the
person reasons (rather than elaborately saying that nothing the person says is
to be trusted), then the modern analogy would be: if you begin with false premises you end up
with a false conclusion. The premises
may, actually, sound modest but, once granted, lead you incredibly far astray
from reality in the ultimate deductions made from them.
Such
a person substitutes length of speech for insight (
In a final poke at
such people’s pride, Qohelet argues that their work
is so tiresome because “they do not even know how to go to the city!” (
As monarch, he had the
opportunity to hear many people make their case for some regal permission,
intervention, or assistance. One can
easily imagine some particular individual being the prototype for his critique. But what an embarrassing way to go down in
history—as an anonymous stereotype for emptiness and bombast!
Some find an Egyptian parallel to
As for the fool who does not hearken, he
cannot do anything. He regards knowledge
as ignorance and profit as loss. He does
everything blameworthy, so that one finds fault with him every day. He lives on that through which he should die,
and guilt is his food. His character
therefore is told as something known to the
officials: dying while alive every day.
. . .
Pinning the parallel
down to this section (verse 15 in particular is suggested)[15]
seems an exaggeration; what is not an exaggeration is that perceptive
writers (regardless of nationality or even religion) could see in the unthought out actions of their contemporaries dangerous self-destructiveness. This occurred because they were blinded by
their own ignorance and lack of perception.
They might be economically well off, they might even enjoy societal
prestige and governmental position. But
to every one else, these things did not remove the fact that, at heart, the
person was nothing but “a fool.”
[Page 127]
F. Since There Is no Guarantee of
Having Wise
Rulers,
Be Cautious
in What You Say
(10:16-20)
A kingdom is in
trouble when a mere child rules (
Likewise the kingdom has problems when
“princes feast in the morning” (
In contrast, a kingdom
is “blessed” when a full grown “son of nobles” is on the throne and the princes
confine their feasting to “the proper time” (10:17)--i.e., in the evenings and
on special occasions, and when the feasting becomes an occasion for good eating
and building “strength” rather than getting drunk (10:17).[16] (Note how he is under no illusion as to how
unlimited funds and power can lead to dissipation.)
In our egalitarian society, the preference
for the upper class is repulsive—though oh so widely practiced!—but in the
ancient society the “nobles” were the best bet for an educated class of
individuals. And, if
not formally educated, with the greatest commitment to make sure government
worked effectively, since they would loose the most if it did not.
Regardless of economic
background, when a person in a “ruling” position prefers luxury to the duties
of their position, vital affairs are being neglected. They become like the lazy man who does not do
maintenance upon his home and, as the result, causes the roof to leak when he
could have prevented the problem (10:18).
Furthermore, in excessive partying there is
inherent waste, but if you hold onto that money, instead, it “answers
everything” you will need (
The monarch is
rebuking the folly of unwise rulership whether at the
top level or on the secondary level of rich citizens and princes. Of all people, he all too well recognizes
that things don’t always work out the desired way in actual practice. [Page 128]
Rulers are quite capable of acting like fools. The leadership class can, all too
easily, waste its opportunity for making the country better through
self-indulgence.
How should one react in such a case? Carefully, is his astute advice, “Do
not curse the king, even in your thought; do not curse the rich, even in your
bedroom; for a bird of the air may carry your voice, and a bird in flight may
tell the matter” (10:20). People who
despoil their position are going to resent even justified criticism. Stifle it before it brings you to the
attention (and retribution) of those who hold power.
“Cursing” here probably includes not only
open vulgarity, but also biting criticism and even humor poking mockery at
their foibles and failures.[18] Such things won’t be taken any more kindly
than stringent rebuke.
You can’t keep certain
things secret. Word of child rulers and
profligacy by the secondary leadership--probably taking advantage of the fact
that there is no ruler old enough to keep them in line--would spread far and
wide. For that matter, Solomon could
have learned at least part of this (the abuse by secondary princes), by reports
about the behavior of local officials and their supporters.
The wisdom about
prudence in speech surely came from personal experiences as well. For one thing, servants heard secrets;
often one did not even notice their presence.
They were part of the background “scenery” but, unfortunately for
secrets, they were “living scenery.”
And being human, they would
“talk.” And wherever one was on
the societal totem pole, there would be talk, and rumor, and innuendo there as
well.
Solomon didn’t have to have a very highly
developed intelligence network (or whatever its equivalent would have been
called in his day) for him to gain an immense amount of data (both wanted and
unwanted) on what was happening and being said among his people. In the hands of a vindictive ruler, unwise
words could be disastrous. Because
Solomon would (usually) exercise restraint was no guarantee that others would.
Footnotes
[1] Eaton, 131, provides a survey of
historical events that might have served as the root of the illustration. Of course, our knowledge is, in many ways,
extremely limited and he could easily have had a different one in mind
entirely—one “insignificant” enough to have escaped historical recording (not
to mention that the vast bulk of historical records have simply not survived
into the modern world!). Less likely, it
may be simply an invented illustration based upon the mind frame that he had
seen around him.
[2] Schultz,
595, opts for diplomacy.
[3] Kidner, 85.
[Page 129] [4] Frydrych, 49. For grammatical arguments that the text
requires that he was successful, see Fox, Qohelet,
263.
[5] Frydrych, n. 44,
p. 49.
[6] Crenshaw, 167, and Kamano, 210.
[7] Whybray, Ecclesiastes
(Century), 151.
[8] For a
detailed argument that the king under consideration in the context is God
rather than earthly rulers, see Leupold, 235-236.
[9] Frydrych,
198-199.
[10] Bergant, 281, and Longman, 242.
[11] Bergant, 281.
[12] Eaton, 135, believes that these two examples
are illustrations of intentionally “malicious endeavours”
that backfire on the perpetrators.
Kidwell, 249, makes the wall/snake allusion refer to an effort at
breaking and entering to steal possessions or property.
[13] Longman, 244.
[14] As suggested and quoted
by Goldberg, 30.
[15] Goldberg, 30.
[16] The Targum of
Ecclesiastes identifies Jeroboam as the ruler in verse 16 and Hezekiah as the
one in verse 17 (Longman, n. 50, p. 249.
[17] Eaton, 138.
[18] Cf. Leupold, 252-253.