In י:כ, we see what could be a potential response to the Chacham's previous rant. He's saying that in his rant he cursed the king and the wealthy. He refers back to what the Chacham said in פרק ז – that everyone curses everyone - and he's telling him that he's not really above that. The Yirei Elokim is telling the Chacham that although he thinks he knows better, he doesn't have access to what G-d has access to (everything). G-d has the ability to know man's thoughts and to see into the most secretive and private aspects of his lief (במדעך and בחדרי משכבך).
In this one פסוק the Yirei Elokim is giving the Chacham a reality check: he's limited by definition. Stop yelling and complaining, you don't have ultimate control! The Yirei Elokim shows the חכם as vulnerable and out-smarted by a little bird. He is limited!
I have a slight problem with this. The Chacham has just proclaimed himself as an agnostic in the previous section. He may not be a complete atheist, but he's not willing to take that leap of faith. How are you going to start talking about G-d if someone doesn't even believe in G-d!? It's not a productive argument! I think the facts the Yirei Elokim are presenting make sense, but only if you are accepting his premise - that G-d even exists and has access to all of these things! I think each person really sees that their own way, but there's something else interesting about this Passuk. It is one pasuk, yet there is so much information in it. So many different thoughts and ideas that come from it. It's pretty fascinating that you can get so much out of 20 words - whether you're an agnostic, atheist, chacham, amal, nehaneh, or yirei elokim!
Jamie, I think you're onto something here. Like you said, if the Chacham can't take that leap of faith, then why is the Yirei Elokim using this as his argument? I think it's pretty obvious here that the Yirei Elokim would use his philosophy to relate to the Chacham, despite the fact that the Chacham might not totally accept the counter-argument. As you said, the Chacham won't accept the premise. Since we know that the characters in the book aren't "real"/they are all a part of Shlomo, maybe this counter-argument is more for the audience than for the Chacham. Pascal's Wager exemplifies this principle. It says that, even though we don't know if G-d is there or if there is an afterlife, religiosity in this life can help provide meaning, regardless of the future rewards. Here, the Yirei Elokim is putting his argument in terms of "being safe." Even if G-d doesn't exist, what's the harm in pretending and acting like He does?
ReplyDelete