# Ecclesiastes 7:16-17



## chbrooking (Apr 16, 2010)

“Be not overly righteous, and do not make yourself too wise. Why should you destroy yourself? Be not overly wicked, neither be a fool. Why should you die before your time?”
(Ecclesiastes 7:16-17 ESV)

The ESV cross references suggest that Rom 12:3 may shed some light on this. That verse says, "“For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned.”

This would suggest that "Be not overly righteous" means, "Don't consider yourself more righteous than you are". That's not the natural sense of the words, though, and I haven't found any similar syntactical construction to make comparison. I'll admit, this is the most palatable solution I can find, but I'm just not sure that's what the text says.

I also considered using the interpretation of Prov. 26:4-5 as a pattern for the interpretation of these two verses. Perhaps I'm just too dull, but I can't seem to unpack the poetry here.

Solutions? Thoughts?


----------



## greenbaggins (Apr 16, 2010)

Clark, I think the best way forward here is to remember that Qohelet is speaking "under the sun." This means that he is considering what life looks like from the perspective of someone who is living without God. From that perspective, being a goody two-shoes or being a meanie is not good. The best way is the "golden mean" of philosophy, if you leave God out of it. Something like a presuppositional approach of "reductio ad absurdam."


----------



## larryjf (Apr 16, 2010)

_Be not righteous over much; neither make thyself over wise: why shouldest thou destroy thyself? Be not over much wicked, neither be thou foolish: why shouldest thou die before thy time? (Ecc 7:16-17)
_

Being righteous "over much" could refer to making regulations and rules that God has not made, and enforcing them as if they were God's very laws. This then could also be what he means by being "over wise"...thinking to know more than God as if you could add to His commands.

The Jews were known for this kind of building fences around the laws of God...making even stricter laws than God to ensure they didn't stumble over God's laws...and then these man made laws eventually become equal to God's in their eyes. As an example...

_Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one. (2Co 11:24)_
compared to...
_Forty stripes he may give him, and not exceed: lest, if he should exceed, and beat him above these with many stripes, then thy brother should seem vile unto thee. (Deu 25:3)_


----------



## chbrooking (Apr 16, 2010)

greenbaggins said:


> Clark, I think the best way forward here is to remember that Qohelet is speaking "under the sun." This means that he is considering what life looks like from the perspective of someone who is living without God. From that perspective, being a goody two-shoes or being a meanie is not good. The best way is the "golden mean" of philosophy, if you leave God out of it. Something like a presuppositional approach of "reductio ad absurdam."


 
PLEASE don't take my reply as argument -- just discussion. I actually search for your posts intentionally, so high is my esteem for you. 

I'm aware that this is sort of the standard way of understanding much of what Qohelet says. However, it doesn't seem to me, as I read the book, that God is really left out of view at all: 1:13; 2:24, 26; 3:10-11, 13-14, etc. I'm not saying it's the WRONG interpretation. But I'd like to see our understanding of 'under the sun' nuanced to account for the fact that God isn't left out of the purview of the author COMPLETELY. I have a hunch that you are right, viz. that the 'under the sun' is a key to understanding what is going on in these two verses, but I'm just not sure 'under the sun' means 'without reference to God.'

Could you help me refine my understanding of it?


----------



## greenbaggins (Apr 16, 2010)

chbrooking said:


> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> > Clark, I think the best way forward here is to remember that Qohelet is speaking "under the sun." This means that he is considering what life looks like from the perspective of someone who is living without God. From that perspective, being a goody two-shoes or being a meanie is not good. The best way is the "golden mean" of philosophy, if you leave God out of it. Something like a presuppositional approach of "reductio ad absurdam."
> ...



Your point is well-taken, in that Qohelet finds that he cannot leave God out of the picture completely. Even the effort of trying to leave God out of it cannot leave God out of it. In apologetics, this might correspond to the idea of "borrowed capital." The more I think of Ecclesiastes, the more I find that, of all the books of the Bible, Ecclesiastes is THE apologetics book, and it strongly supports the presuppositional approach. Don't know if this answers your query. But it might be a profitable direction.


----------



## au5t1n (Apr 16, 2010)

Throughout the history of the world, some of the wisest, most godly men have been the ordinary, unwealthy, untrained folks who focus on the simple things - enjoying and providing for family, striving to live a righteous life, and working for a living. I wonder if perhaps the author wishes to point out that sometimes the theological professors (as much as I admire certain of them, and consider them necessary - I may become one myself) are not to be viewed as the ultimate "righteous men." There is something to be said for the simple, ordinary life of serving God. Could this idea be relevant to the author's point, do you think?


----------



## chbrooking (Apr 16, 2010)

Thanks for the suggestion.
The problem, I think, with that interpretation, is twofold. On the one hand the Hebrew of Ecc. 7 has tsaddiq (righteous). It's not explicitly theological learning. The vanity of learning occurs elsewhere in the book, so you aren't without some foundation for the suggestion. However, the second problem seems to decisively rule it out, viz. Matt. 5:48.
At least that's my take. Have I missed something?


----------



## au5t1n (Apr 16, 2010)

Not being overly righteous...let's see. A modern day example of that might be someone (and I know some such individuals - I have struggled with it, too) who gets deep into the Greek nuances of a word in a particular passage, but does not apply the simple truths expressed in his English Bible to his daily life, in ordinary ways. Have you ever met a man who is really big on complaining about a particular sin mentioned in the Bible, but exasperates his own family and does not have a strong prayer life or a love for the Word and the brethren in general?

I am in no way trying to put down learning and righteousness, but I think this may be close to the sort of thing the author is trying to express. Not every man needs to know what the Greek word here is, or have the genealogies memorized, especially at the expense of applying the simple truths of Scripture to one's relationships and habits.

At the end of the day, people should have both traits, but certain individuals need to be pointed from one to the other (and that goes both ways).


----------



## chbrooking (Apr 16, 2010)

In both of your posts, you've suggested that 'righteous' be understood in some way besides actual virtue or moral right-ness. Perhaps that is just where we need to go with this passage. It is poetry -- begging to be pulled at, like the loose thread of a piece of cloth. They didn't have 'quotes' in Hebrew. Perhaps we're supposed to put up air-quotes when we translate tsaddiq. Perhaps it's misguided zeal. I'm not convinced that you've nailed it, but you, like Lane, have given me an approach, a trajectory that may help me. Thanks.


----------



## au5t1n (Apr 16, 2010)

Sure thing. I'm not sure if it's the right interpretation either, but it's what came to my mind when I read the verse. I'm not sure if I've expressed it well. I think one of the themes in Ecclesiastes is living and enjoying the simple life God has given. After all, most people for whom the Scriptures were written fall into this category, and not the Rabbi or scholar category (but it is written for them too and their roles are essential, no doubt).

---------- Post added at 06:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:21 PM ----------

Besides, I think we can take it for granted that the Scriptures would not advocate refraining from actual virtue.


----------

