Wisdom in Ecclesiastes

[py3ak]

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?

 

[Timothy William]

In this context, is there a difference between the wisdom of Ecclesiastes being imperfect, and it being limited and incomplete? David's reign was clearly both, but I'm not sure how that is true of Ecclesiastes.

 

[py3ak]

I'm not sure, Timothy. Obviously one wants to be quite careful in imputing any sort of imperfection to any part of Scripture. But obviously Ecclesiastes has to be put into the right context in order to be understood well, and I am wondering if a sort of typical role for its wisdom is part of that right context.