Answering a Fool according to his Folly and Other Discussion Questions

A section devoted to expounding difficult, obscure or misunderstood passages of Scripture, and answering readers' queries. Questions are invited. Opportunity is also provided for discussion on readers' points of view. Views expressed are not necessarily those of the Editorial Committee.

Full Question

Why do you think there is almost no future life in the book of Ecclesiastes?


Answer

Ecclesiastes is a study of mankind in his natural surroundings analysing his reaction to his environment, in order to perceive the purpose of life. This exploration of all things done under heaven ends only in an empty void… “all is vanity saith the preacher, all is vanity”. But in the course of the human stream of life, why do we, like the atheist, still grasp it?

Having explored diverse avenues of life throughout the book, the preacher was similar to the atheist in concluding that all life was vanity and vexation of spirit: but, unlike him, we discover that the void can only be filled with God. “Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man”. (Ecc. 12:13). He exposes the bankruptcy of human experience in producing lasting good; and demonstrates man’s inability to raise himself to the acme of perfection.

His particular emphasis on death in chapters 3 and 9, for example, depicts the time when all life ceases with the individual. A future life is required if there is a purpose in this one.

Contrast his counsel in Ecc. 8:15 with that of Paul in 1 Cor. 15:32. Solomon commends mirth, eating, drinking and being merry, as the best thing man can do to stand by him all the days of his life. (That is a life that just ends in death.) This is the result of his meditation upon the plight of man midst his natural environment and his inevitable return to dust; from which things Solomon did not raise his eyes until the last chapter in the book. But Paul’s vision had been literally raised to behold a risen Christ as God’s guarantee of a future life. Hence his counsel is quite different. “What advantageth it me if the dead rise not? Let us eat and drink; for tomorrow we die”.

Please explain how one applies Proverbs 26:4-5. The verses read: “Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit”.

Verse 4 tells us not to be like a fool in giving a foolish answer, whilst v.5 advises us to wisely use the folly of the fool by adeptly framing it in our answer in such a way that the whole reply exposes his asinine behaviour.

Both verses instead of being a paradoxical problem, are in reality a mnemonic to recall the wisdom of the advice given. In the first case we refrain from sacrificing true wisdom for petty quips or sophistry. True wisdom need not resort to crude indiscreet mocking or rude ungainly witticisms. It stands alone. It needs no support. We only hurt ourselves by such indiscretion. True dignity and virtue are found in the wisdom that comes from above, and are not borrowed from the fool.

The second aphorism advises us to use the foolishness of the addled philosopher or twisted immoralist, etc., against himself so strongly that it exposes his weak position. He is not then left wise in his own conceit, but is humbled instead.

For example, I once heard an atheist use his own unhappiness as an argument against the existence of God. In his extreme desire to be consistent in himself, he had upbraided his natural father for indulging his own desires to bring him into the world just to give himself (his father) pleasure. His opponent quickly mastered the situation by promptly telling the discontented atheist to go and jump in the lake, and end his misery. But the atheist died a natural death some years later, and belied all his philosophy. His own offspring attended his funeral.