Do you agree?

Do you agree with the position of the author of this quarter's lesson, and with the position of the SDABC, that "in some places [of Ecclesiastes] Solomon is writing from the perspective of someone alienated from God. Like modern authors, he's giving us thoughts that flow directly from his head" and that "those portions of Ecclesiastes that relate the experience and reasoning of [Solomon's] years of apostasy are not to be taken as representing the mind and will of the Spirit"?

I have an It Is Written Bible from years ago. At the front of this particular book of the Bible, there seems to be a question about who the author is.

This is a portion of what it says:


This is what they, whoever they is/are, have also said about its purpose:


They say that the author, be it Solomon or whoever else, was a man of faith who was skeptical only of human wisdom and endeavour.

They do not refer to any apostasy on the author's part.

Rosangela,

In direct response to your post, where does the author of the quarterly say that?

In the meantime, I will see if I can locate it myself.

Daryl,

He says that in the Introduction, and implies several times in the several lessons that some things Solomon says should not be applied to our lives because they are just a product of Solomon's bitterness.

There seems to me to be some things, especially in the first few chapters, that should not be taken at face value because they contradict other parts of the Bible.

The following is from the Introduction Section in relation to the author of the book of Ecclesiastes:



Here is the link:

http://www.ssnet.org/qrtrly/eng/07a/index.html

Here is the EGW quote regarding Solomon:

If Solomon was writing from the perspective of someone alienated from God, I do not feel that he was alienated from God during any time of his writing of the book of Ecclesiastes.

He might have written something down originally when he was alienated, and saved it, and then rewrote what he had written before at the time he wrote Ecclesiastes. He wasn't necessarily relying on memory when he wrote things down.

Or are you disagreeing with the idea that there are places in Ecclesiastes which convey the perspective of one who is alienated from God?

Here is the full quote what Rosangela was referring to in her opening post:


I also tend to question the part where it says that "those portions of Ecclesiastes that relate the experience and reasoning of [Solomon's] years of apostasy are not to be taken as representing the mind and will of the Spirit."

This seems to contradict the Bible itself where it says in 2 Tim. 3:16 that "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"

It is possible for a false statement to be "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." Consider Gen 16:2 - And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the LORD hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai.

It's easy to recognize a narrative, and in a narrative false statements may be made by the characters. But, as far as I can see, the narrative of Solomon's story is in chapters 1 and 2, not in the whole book of Ecclesiastes. Besides, the main question for me is, Who is going to determine what represents the mind and will of the Spirit and what doesn't? Human beings? Many of them have already told me that Ecclesiastes 9:5,6,10 doesn't represent the position of the Bible about the state of the dead, but is just an expression of Solomon's bitterness.


James apparently contradicts Paul but, although it may be difficult, isn't there a way to harmonize them?

Of course! And there's only one human being who can do this: you!

The scriptures quote the statements of all manner of persons, angels, God, and the devil. It behooves us to have the discernment of spirit to know the place of each.

But when you read the rest of Ecclesiastes, isn't that still a narrative, in the sense that you and Solomon are interacting? Sarah tells Abraham something; Solomon tells you something.



When Sarah was talking, Abraham was the one to decide if what she was saying is congruent with God's voice. The same with Eve and the serpent. The same thing with us and Solomon.

Remember, when told to kill his son, Abraham could tell that the voice was God's. Tough trick.



I obviously don't agree, but it's a valid argument if you just take Ecclesiastes by itself.

More later.

In that case, Paul tells me something, Peter tells me something, John tells me something, and I decide what applies to my life and what doesn't.

We need to look at Ecclesiastes as being included in the following text:


In other words, Ecclesiastes is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Sort of, but not exactly.

First, you decide if what God says applies to your life. If you decide to submit to God, then you decide if what Paul, Peter, and John say are equivalent to what God says.

Of course, all this is done under that constant wooing of the Holy Spirit.

Take Peter, for example. We have him on record saying many things. Do they all apply to you? The Holy Spirit will help you decide which ones do and which ones don't.

I agree. But it can be profitable without being taken literally, at face value. In fact, it can be profitable without being correct.

What do you mean by "without being correct"?

For example, it is profitable to study Abraham marrying Hagar, even though that was wrong. Even studying Eve's interaction with Satan at the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil is profitable. Studying what Satan said to Eve is profitable.

God has recorded these in His word because they are "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness," even though we are not to take them as precepts or examples of righteousness.

I can see the same thing apply in some of Ecclesiastes. There are several possible explanations of why Solomon wrote what he wrote, but I don't think we can necessarily accept them all exactly as they read.

Regardless of what one is reading, one will go wrong taking the viewpoint that everything written "must be correct," without considering elements such as context, grammar, and what Scripture reveals elsewhere.

Here's two quick examples. Jesus said, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, today you will be with Me in paradise!" We read this and say, "The comma's in the wrong place!" How do we know? By taking these other elements into account.

Another example is the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man. How do we know the statements regarding Lazarus and the Rich Man aren't really true? (regarding the state of the dead). Again, it's by taking into account what Scripture has revealed elsewhere, the context (this is a parable), and so forth.

Another thing to take into account is that prophets wrote according to their understanding. God's logic and way of expression is not expressed in Scripture. God inspired "holy men of old," but one can see the influence of the human upon what was written. Just a simple glance at Paul and John show great differences in style and expression.

Without question, the greatest expression of God was Jesus Christ. I've got some great quotes about this. I should put them together. (Note to self; don't be lazy).

If I decide what applies to my life and what doesn't, I am the ultimate authority, not the Word of God.

By the way, what are the passages with which you guys have so much trouble in Ecclesiastes? Which passages should not be taken as precepts of truth?

In a very real sense, that is true. Choose you this day whom you will serve.

The will is the governing power in the nature of man. And you have to choose if you will submit yourself to God's word, or remain in slavery to self, sin, and Satan.

So, each one of us is the ultimate authority in our lives. The only question is if we are willing to submit that authority to God's leading or not.

When one chooses to submit to God's authority, he is basically saying, "I exercise my authority over myself by willingly choosing to do whatever God tells me to do." And that decision by man is always accompanied by power from God. Hence, "as the will of man cooperates with the will of God, it becomes omnipotent. Whatever is to be done at His command may be accomplished in His strength. All His biddings are enablings." COL 333

Take these verses from Ecclesiastes 7:

I'm not saying that they are not true. But surely, they cannot be taken as is.

Even Ecclesiastes 9:5 is problematic.

They have no more reward? The memory of them is forgotten? What about everything in the sanctuary that says the dead will be judged and rewarded according to the record? There's some splainin to do.

Is it possible that some of the sentiments in the book were written from a godless viewpoint? Even if Solomon had already recovered by the time he wrote the book, that does not prevent him from writing things from his former perspective.

You may be the ultimate authority over your life, not over the Word of God.


That's the point. You exercise authority to decide if you will obey or not, not to decide what you should obey and what you shouldn't.


I consider this a dangerous position for a Christian to take, and Ellen White warns against this.

“There are some that may think they are fully capable with their finite judgment to take the Word of God, and to state what are the words of inspiration, and what are not the words of inspiration. I want to warn you off that ground, my brethren in the ministry. ‘Put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground.’ There is no finite man that lives, I care not who he is or whatever is his position, that God has authorized to pick and choose in His Word. {7BC 919.2}

“Neither had He [God] laid it upon any man to bind the conscience of another, or to pass judgment upon His holy Word, defining what is inspired and what is human.” {12MR 372.2}

“It takes all of eternity to unfold the glories and bring out the precious treasures of the Word of God. Do not let any living man come to you and begin to dissect God's Word, telling what is revelation, what is inspiration and what is not, without a rebuke. Tell all such they simply do not know. They simply are not able to comprehend the things of the mystery of God. What we want is to inspire faith. We want no one to say, ‘This I will reject, and this will I receive,’ but we want to have implicit faith in the Bible as a whole and as it is.” {7BC 919.9}

Why not? Luke 15:17; 18:9 give us a clue as to who are the overly righteous, and Matt. 11:25; Rom. 12:16 give us a clue about who are the overly wise – the overly righteous are those who are too righteous to be saved, and the overly wise are those who are too wise to be saved. Those destroy themselves. And the overly wicked are those who consider themselves too wicked to be saved, or unworthy of salvation – the opposite peril. They die before their time – that is, their lives is abbreviated by their sadness (2 Cor. 7:10) or they may even resort to suicide, like Judas.


The key to this verse is in the verse which follows it: “they have no more for ever any share in all that is done under the sun.”
Under the sun means under the present state of things, and the verse couldn’t be more true. This verse is an antidote against the belief in the reincarnation of souls and the belief in the immediate reward after death. But it is balanced with other verses of the same book which speak about the judgment (11:9; 12:14). After you die you have no more reward nor share in what is done under the sun, but one day you will be called to life again in order to be judged and receive your reward.

If you don't decide, who's going to decide for you? God won't.

Scripture is communication from God. Communication is not something which has a will to decide things. God has given us wills, and the ability to perceive truth. We decide whether or not we wish to receive the truth God sends our way.

A comment on this is the question of if God wants to tell us what to do, that is, as commonly understood. That is, is God like a drill sergeant who, when He says "jump," we say "how high?" God is certainly worthy of such a response, but is that what He wants?

Jesus said:



Ellen White wrote:





It seems to me that God wants obedience which is based on a conviction of His goodness and the rightness of His ways, as opposed to obedience motivated by fear, based on His authority. God certainly has the authority to order us to do whatever He pleases, and Satan accuses Him of running things this way, but God invites us to reason together with Him. He wants to teach us the ways of truth, so that our obedience becomes the working out of our own desire. We do what is right because we are convinced of ourselves that it is right. He teaches us to be like Christ, in our ability to discern truth, and to make decisions which are Christ-like (that is, like the decisions Christ would make).

This is a process which involves our learning to discern truth, and learning to think.

No one is saying the words aren't inspired. The Bible includes words from Satan. They are "inspired" because they are contained in Scripture. They are nevertheless Satanic. We're not supposed to believe them. We need to use discernment to know what is truth or not.

A good example of this is the book of Job. It takes discernment to know what is truth in the book of Job.

Of course the words from Satan aren't inspired and shouldn't be taken as so; they are just inserted in a narrative. The narrative is inspired, not Satan's words. The book of Job is also almost entirely a narrative. Now, chapters 1 and 2 of the book of Ecclesiastes are a narrative, but not the rest of the book. So, what Solomon says in the rest of the book is as inspired as what Paul says in his letters.

All of what Solomon wrote was inspired. Chapter 3 is no more inspired than chapter 2.

So narrative is less inspired than teaching? Are the books of Samuel and Kings of inferior value to Isaiah and Jeremiah?

Thomas,

The point I made is that in an inspired narrative there may be words said by the characters that do not represent "the mind and will of the Spirit". In that sense, they are not inserted as inspired counsel to be followed by us, but they are just there to provide context to the narrative - e.g., the words of Satan, the words of Job's friends, the words of Rahab, etc.


Tom,

Of course chapter 3 is as inspired as chapter 2. The point is that if chapter 3 is not a narrative, there is nothing in it that could be theologically wrong.

Consider the teachings of the greatest teacher the world has even known, Jesus Christ. He told a story which was "theologically wrong" involving two men who do not sleep at death like they're theologically supposed to do, but who continue being conscious. Now the story does teach theological truth, which we can, and should learn from. But it takes discernment, as does the understanding of any spiritual truth.

This is just one example. Many more could be given. I'll mention just one. Maybe. You excluded Job's friends as being considered as conveying the mind of the Spirit, but what about Job? Is everything Job said theologically wrong? If so, what? Also, is nothing that any of Job's friends of value? (i.e., is any of it true?)

I'm sorry, but I can't stop at one. What about the Psalms? Are they a narrative? Or is everything in them theologically wrong? What about the following:



Does this represent the "mind and will of the Spirit"? Or does this:



I'm curious as to where you get the hermeneutic that if something is not a narrative, there is nothing that could be theologically wrong.

How far would you carry the not wrong idea? Is it only theologically that things cannot be wrong, or does that carry to other areas as well?

Tom,

Are you really affirming that Jesus said something theologically wrong? The parable of the rich man and Lazarus is not theologically wrong – it’s a parable! The dead are really speaking, but in their bodies, not in the form of disembodied souls.

About the book of Job. Of course in a narrative the characters can speak right things and wrong things. The immediate context and the context of the whole Bible will make clear which is which.

About Ps. 137:8,9, you ask if this represents the mind and will of the Spirit. In my view yes, it does. The psalmist is making a prophetic declaration – he is declaring what will take place, not praying for revenge. Isaiah says essentially the same in a parallel passage (Isa. 13:16-19). When the psalmist says that happy is he who destroys Babylon, he is predicting the success of the Medians and Persians.

As Ellen White said, there are difficult texts – so there are. But they can be understood in the light of the general context of the Bible, instead of being discarded as theologically wrong. There is a world of difference between saying that the Bible can contain theologically wrong statements anywhere, in the words of the prophets and of Jesus Himself, and saying that, in the narration of a story, the Bible doesn’t hide the wrong actions, attitudes and words of its characters.

I'm not saying that humans should ever put themselves as judges over what part of God's word they should or shouldn't obey. But they must always judge if what they hear is or is not from God.

For example, what would you do if you hear the command, "Take your son and sacrifice him to me"? Should you obey?

Who will choose for you? Nobody. You must choose for yourself. Obedience, like disobedience, is the act of the individual.

What is the crucial factor that will determine if you will obey or not?

Perfect love casts out fear. And I believe it is very possible, even common, to lovingly choose to deny our own desires in favor of God's desires. Essentially, "Not my will but Thine be done."

The complete submission of oneself to God is not necessarily based on fear. In fact, fear can never engender submission, but only compliance.



That is the desired goal. But obedience can, and must, come long before our thoughts become like His thoughts.

Well put (the second sentence; I don't think the first is strong enough).




I don't know what this means. Is obedience possible at all without a conviction of truth?



This is from the same quote your comment applies to. Note it says, "He does not obey." I believe this is correct. The *only* obedience which is of value is obedience which springs from the heart, out of a conviction of God's goodness and the rightness of what one is doing.

I think we may be on the same page. What do you think?

Are you really affirming that Jesus said something theologically wrong?

The theologically wrong was in quotes. Certainly the idea Jesus shared about the Abraham and Lazarus retaining their consciousness was theologically wrong. But Jesus used this wrong idea which they had to communicate a different truth. He met people where they were.

The parable of the rich man and Lazarus is not theologically wrong – it’s a parable! The dead are really speaking, but in their bodies, not in the form of disembodied souls.

The people Jesus was addressing didn't know this. Jesus just didn't choose to make an issue of it at the time. He met them where they were. *We* know what He said is not literally true, because we have the rest of Scripture to work with.

About the book of Job. Of course in a narrative the characters can speak right things and wrong things. The immediate context and the context of the whole Bible will make clear which is which.

Which is my point. It's not as simple as, "This is a narrative. Therefore it's not true. This isn't. Therefore everything can be taken without thought." For example, the statement that God repented that He had made man is not a narrative, yet you don't accept it as stated, because you don't believe that it harmonizes with what you believe the rest of Scripture to be saying.

About Ps. 137:8,9, you ask if this represents the mind and will of the Spirit. In my view yes, it does. The psalmist is making a prophetic declaration – he is declaring what will take place, not praying for revenge. Isaiah says essentially the same in a parallel passage (Isa. 13:16-19). When the psalmist says that happy is he who destroys Babylon, he is predicting the success of the Medians and Persians.

You're reinterpreting what is stated to say something else. So what was actually written, you agree (I assume), does not represent the mind of the spirit. But what it actually *means*, *that* expresses the mind of the Spirit. This is well and good, as it serves to bring out my point that truth requires spiritual discernment. It's not as simple as "this is a narrative, so it's out. this isn't, so nothing it says can be wrong."

As Ellen White said, there are difficult texts – so there are. But they can be understood in the light of the general context of the Bible, instead of being discarded as theologically wrong.

There is a world of difference between saying that the Bible can contain theologically wrong statements anywhere, in the words of the prophets and of Jesus Himself, and saying that, in the narration of a story, the Bible doesn’t hide the wrong actions, attitudes and words of its characters.

What does a "theologically wrong" statement mean? I don't think "right" and "wrong" are the right way of looking at this. I think revelation is progressive, and met its zenith in Jesus Christ. Nothing Moses said was "wrong," but he didn't have the breadth of wisdom and understanding that Christ had (to pick just one example). So Christ's revelation was "fuller," to choose a word.

The light grows brighter and brighter, until reaching the full brightness of the noonday sun. The dimmer light is still light, just not as bright.

You're right. The 2nd is supposed to supercede the first.

Christian submission and fear are mutually exclusive.



Conviction of truth is necessary for obedience. But obedience does not require complete congruence of thoughts between God and us.



I think we are on the same page. At least, most of the page is the same.

So far, I agree with what you've said on this matter. But I don't seem to be expressing myself intelligibly.

To do what God says only from a sense of obligation is not obedience. That quote is familiar to me.

But one does not need a full understanding of God's thoughts and purposes in order to obey. We are required to submit and obey, even before we have all the light available.

 Quote:

One of the first lessons a child needs to learn is the lesson of obedience. Before he is old enough to reason, he may be taught to obey. {Ed 287.1}

We are God's children. And surely, the gap between Him and me is far greater than the one between my children and me. Even so, even without all the reasons, we must obey.

And as I tell my children, obedience is often a requirement for understanding the purpose of the command. Do it first, then you can ask for all the explanations you need.

Why would my children obey me when they don't understand the rationale for my command? Because they love me and they trust that my commands are always for their benefit.

Same goes for God.

That's what I'm saying. If you have just Ecclesiastes, you cannot take these words at face value. You had to pull in NT writers. What were Solomon's contemporaries supposed to do? They couldn't wait 1000 years, like we did. If you take just these verses, you could walk away thinking that God is telling you to be lukewarm.

But even given that, you still cannot accept these words as is. What is "overly righteous" anyway? Righteousness is right doing. How can you go overboard with doing right? The standard we have is perfect righteousness. How can anyone exceed that?

Your solution is to take the phrase figuratively. IOW, when Solomon said "rigteous" he really meant "self-righteous" which is actually "unrighteous." In the end, what he means is the opposite of what he said. That is why I say that they cannot be taken as is.

The Bible explains itself. A text explains another text. Of course I'm in agreement with this idea, which is a well-known principle of Bible interpretation.

"It is true that some portions of Scripture are, indeed, too plain to be misunderstood; but there are many portions whose meaning can not be seen at a glance; for the truth does not lie upon the surface. In order to understand the meaning of such passages, scripture must be compared with scripture; there must be careful research and prayerful reflection. Such study will be richly repaid. ... You must dig in the mine of truth till you find its greatest treasure, and by comparing scripture with scripture you may find the true meaning of the text." {ST, September 26, 1895 par. 2}

This, however, seems to be something different from what the lesson author means when he says that "in some places [of Ecclesiastes] Solomon is writing from the perspective of someone alienated from God. Like modern authors, he's giving us thoughts that flow directly from his head." I frankly didn't like the way in which this quarter's lesson is being presented. The author says, in essence: This is an expression of Solomon's pessimism, that isn't... This seems to be another expression of Solomon's pessimism, but in fact it isn't... Do you agree with Solomon? If not, why not?... For those who are spiritually mature, this may cause no harm, but one not so mature might, after studying this lesson, come out thinking that he can freely agree or disagree with the Biblical authors, and that he can separate what in the Bible he thinks should be applied to his life and what shouldn't.

Rosangela, I think I mostly agree with you, but your expression may leave something to be desired. For example:



Of course we have to do this. Otherwise we would keep all the feasts, and keep all the health laws, just to list two examples. Women would seat separated from their husbands in church and wouldn't teach. Etc., etc.

If we approach Scripture as a means by which God communicates truth to us, and it is our desire to know truth, then in faith we can study, trusting He will make His will known to us. If we don't wish do His will in the first place, it doesn't matter what our approach to Scripture is.

Bro Daryl knows that I've been struggling with the quarterly. In fact, my SS class this quarter has spent very little time with the quarterly itself. We use it as a springboard to jump elsewhere.

But we did spend some time discussing whether or not we can take the words literally, or at face value. There were some who said we should take it all as is. There were some who said we should take it with a grain of salt. And of course, there's the spectrum in between.

Personally, I have no problem with the idea that Solomon wrote things from a godless perspective. I've been known to express beliefs I don't espouse in order to investigate an idea, or more often, to make a point. As a South American, I trust you know how important the #2 in volleyball is.

But I do have a problem with the idea that Solomon was alienated from God at the time of his writing. Unless if the writing process to a very long time.

Certainly, this book is not for newbies.