Spinning off the other Ecclesiastes thread, I am wondering if it possible to speak of the wisdom of Ecclesiastes as being typical. In other words, it sustains a relationship of shadow to Christ's true wisdom, but by its very imperfection it proclaims that it is not the substance: much as David's personal failings declare that his office notwithstanding, he is really not that promised king.
That's not to suggest that Ecclesiastes is not inspired: - merely that the wisdom presented in the book, in advice about not being righteous overmuch, etc., might be conceived of as "under the sun" and consequently vain except insofar as it refers to something that transcends that perspective.
What merit might that suggestion have?
That's not to suggest that Ecclesiastes is not inspired: - merely that the wisdom presented in the book, in advice about not being righteous overmuch, etc., might be conceived of as "under the sun" and consequently vain except insofar as it refers to something that transcends that perspective.
What merit might that suggestion have?