You're right. The 2nd is supposed to supercede the first.

Christian submission and fear are mutually exclusive.



Conviction of truth is necessary for obedience. But obedience does not require complete congruence of thoughts between God and us.



I think we are on the same page. At least, most of the page is the same.

So far, I agree with what you've said on this matter. But I don't seem to be expressing myself intelligibly.

To do what God says only from a sense of obligation is not obedience. That quote is familiar to me.

But one does not need a full understanding of God's thoughts and purposes in order to obey. We are required to submit and obey, even before we have all the light available.

 Quote:

One of the first lessons a child needs to learn is the lesson of obedience. Before he is old enough to reason, he may be taught to obey. {Ed 287.1}

We are God's children. And surely, the gap between Him and me is far greater than the one between my children and me. Even so, even without all the reasons, we must obey.

And as I tell my children, obedience is often a requirement for understanding the purpose of the command. Do it first, then you can ask for all the explanations you need.

Why would my children obey me when they don't understand the rationale for my command? Because they love me and they trust that my commands are always for their benefit.

Same goes for God.

That's what I'm saying. If you have just Ecclesiastes, you cannot take these words at face value. You had to pull in NT writers. What were Solomon's contemporaries supposed to do? They couldn't wait 1000 years, like we did. If you take just these verses, you could walk away thinking that God is telling you to be lukewarm.

But even given that, you still cannot accept these words as is. What is "overly righteous" anyway? Righteousness is right doing. How can you go overboard with doing right? The standard we have is perfect righteousness. How can anyone exceed that?

Your solution is to take the phrase figuratively. IOW, when Solomon said "rigteous" he really meant "self-righteous" which is actually "unrighteous." In the end, what he means is the opposite of what he said. That is why I say that they cannot be taken as is.

The Bible explains itself. A text explains another text. Of course I'm in agreement with this idea, which is a well-known principle of Bible interpretation.

"It is true that some portions of Scripture are, indeed, too plain to be misunderstood; but there are many portions whose meaning can not be seen at a glance; for the truth does not lie upon the surface. In order to understand the meaning of such passages, scripture must be compared with scripture; there must be careful research and prayerful reflection. Such study will be richly repaid. ... You must dig in the mine of truth till you find its greatest treasure, and by comparing scripture with scripture you may find the true meaning of the text." {ST, September 26, 1895 par. 2}

This, however, seems to be something different from what the lesson author means when he says that "in some places [of Ecclesiastes] Solomon is writing from the perspective of someone alienated from God. Like modern authors, he's giving us thoughts that flow directly from his head." I frankly didn't like the way in which this quarter's lesson is being presented. The author says, in essence: This is an expression of Solomon's pessimism, that isn't... This seems to be another expression of Solomon's pessimism, but in fact it isn't... Do you agree with Solomon? If not, why not?... For those who are spiritually mature, this may cause no harm, but one not so mature might, after studying this lesson, come out thinking that he can freely agree or disagree with the Biblical authors, and that he can separate what in the Bible he thinks should be applied to his life and what shouldn't.

Rosangela, I think I mostly agree with you, but your expression may leave something to be desired. For example:



Of course we have to do this. Otherwise we would keep all the feasts, and keep all the health laws, just to list two examples. Women would seat separated from their husbands in church and wouldn't teach. Etc., etc.

If we approach Scripture as a means by which God communicates truth to us, and it is our desire to know truth, then in faith we can study, trusting He will make His will known to us. If we don't wish do His will in the first place, it doesn't matter what our approach to Scripture is.

Bro Daryl knows that I've been struggling with the quarterly. In fact, my SS class this quarter has spent very little time with the quarterly itself. We use it as a springboard to jump elsewhere.

But we did spend some time discussing whether or not we can take the words literally, or at face value. There were some who said we should take it all as is. There were some who said we should take it with a grain of salt. And of course, there's the spectrum in between.

Personally, I have no problem with the idea that Solomon wrote things from a godless perspective. I've been known to express beliefs I don't espouse in order to investigate an idea, or more often, to make a point. As a South American, I trust you know how important the #2 in volleyball is.

But I do have a problem with the idea that Solomon was alienated from God at the time of his writing. Unless if the writing process to a very long time.

Certainly, this book is not for newbies.