Ecclesiastes (4) The limits of wisdom

The book of Ecclesiastes tends to be neglected.
I must admit that I’ve been neglecting it myself.
So I come to this book with no preconceptions, except that a book found in the Old Testament must be intended to have a spiritual meaning. The people who compiled the canon were not in the business of collecting an anthology of “Hebrew literature”.

Ch2 vv12-26

V12 “I turned to consider wisdom and madness and folly.”
At the end of the first chapter, the writer announced two inquiries, which I labelled at the time as “the value of what men do and what they think.” Looking over what follows, I see the need to amend those labels. “Wisdom”, in this half-chapter, seems to be about the wise management of productive labour, as compared with the pleasure-seeking of the first half.

“For what can the man do who comes after the king? Only what he has done already.”.
In other words, he knows in principle, and is qualified to assess, all the work-experience that is possible. This is the equivalent of his previous claim (v9) that he was “great, and surpassed all that were before me in Jerusalem” in his power to track down pleasure.

V14 “The wise man has his eyes in his head, but the fool walks in darkness.”
V26 “For to the man who pleases him God gives wisdom and knowledge and joy; but to the sinner he gives the work of gathering and heaping, only to give to one who pleases God.”
These are good things In themselves. Similar statements can be found in Proverbs. The problem is that their value is nullified by the drawbacks which are described between these two verses.

First drawback; these advantages of wisdom come to an end.
V14 “I perceived that one fate comes to all of them.”
Every man’s life comes to an end. Where, then, is the benefit which the wise man has gained from what he has achieved?

“And I said to myself that this also is vanity.”
I am beginning to recognise that when the writer says “This is vanity”, he’s not talking about what he’s just described. He’s talking about the mistake of looking for anything different. In this case, expecting earthly life to continue indefinitely, so that the benefits of earthly life can be enjoyed indefinitely.

Second drawback; other people’s awareness of these advantages comes to an end.
“For of the wise man as of the fool there is no enduring remembrance, seeing that in the days to come all will have been long forgotten.”
So the consolation of posthumous fame for our achievements won’t be available, for most of us. Even the written record doesn’t do much to extend popular memory.

These first two drawbacks are enough to make the writer say; “So I hated life, because what is done under the sun was grievous to me” (v17). Life was “hateful” because the expected gain was not achievable.

Third drawback; the tangible benefits of wise management may be inherited by people who are not worthy of them.
Vv18-19. “I hated all my toil, in which I had toiled under the sun, seeing that I must leave it to the man who will come after me, and who knows whether he will be a wise man or a fool?”

Fourth drawback; the tangible benefits of wise management may be inherited by people who have not worked for them in the same way.
Vv20-21 “ I gave my heart up to despair over all the toil of my labours under the sun, because sometimes the man who has toiled with wisdom and and knowledge and skill must leave all to be enjoyed by a man who did not toil for it. This also is vanity.”

It is clear from these two complaints that the writer is talking about the limited value of achieved prosperity. I’ve already quoted the statement in v26, that God gives wisdom and knowledge and joy to the man who pleases him. This is a good thing in itself, but it is nullified and turned to “vanity” by the various drawbacks which have just been described. That is, if the working man is expecting anything more than the immediate enjoyment of wisdom and knowledge and joy.

Vv22-23 “what has a man from all the toil and strain with which he toils beneath the sun? For all his days are full of pain, and his work is a vexation; even in the night his mind does not rest. This also is vanity.”
The trouble is that the man who works in wisdom experiences no apparent advantage. Or perhaps the real trouble is that the man who works in folly experiences no apparent disadvantage, This makes it seem that nothing is gained by bothering with wisdom.

Vv24-25“There is nothing batter for a man than that he should eat and drink and find enjoyment in his toil. This also, I saw, is from the hand of God; for apart from him, who can eat or who can have enjoyment?”
This is the natural and logical conclusion of the chapter.
Men are ambitious to achieve things beyond immediate enjoyment of life, viz.
Pleasure intensified by sensation.
Pleasure intensified by possession of wealth.
Being able to experience prosperity into the indefinite future.
Being remembered for the prosperity which they have experienced.
Being able to transmit that prosperity to people who are worthy of it.
Being able to transmit that prosperity to people who have earned it.
But these “better” things are unavailable to men, and working with wisdom instead of with folly does not make them more available.

That is why the writer says there is “nothing better” than a plain enjoyment of the means which God provides for maintaining life. In fact there is nothing new about this assessment. It is the simple picture of “every man living in peace under his own fig-tree” which is the standard aspiration of the Old Testament.

Perhaps “there is nothing better” is one of the quotations which earns this writer a reputation for cynicism. If so, it may have been misunderstood. His meaning is that human ambitions don’t achieve anything better, and certainly anyone who believes in human ambitions could be offended.

However, he doesn’t deny the value of spiritual life. He doesn’t even, explicitly, deny the existence of eternal life. It’s just that, not having been told about eternal life, he takes hold of the spiritual side of our current existence.

(P.S. My eye notices the word “eternity” in the next chapter, but I’ll work out what he means by that when I get there.)

Wisdom and eternal life

The writer has said “… and yet I perceived that one fate comes to all of them.”

Yet in Proverbs, more than once, we find the suggestion that the righteous and the wicked have different fates; “He who is steadfast in righteousness will live, but he who pursues evil will die” (Proverbs ch11 v19).

However, the promise in Proverbs cannot be fulfilled unless there is some form of “life after death” for the righteous. Otherwise, everybody dies in the end, and “they both meet the same fate” holds good.

That illustrates how the wisdom literature of the Old Testament keeps circling round the concept of eternal life, as a way of giving meaning to our lives on earth.

It’s the same with Job. At one point he suggests that God might “hide” him in Sheol from the day of wrath, and bring him out afterwards with a clean sheet; “If a man die, shall he live again? All the days of my service I would wait, till my release should come” (ch14 vv13-14). He has confidence in a “redeemer”, who will release him from all these burdens even after his death (ch19 vv25-26).

Modern sceptical philosophy says, “We are sure there is no eternal life, so life has no meaning.”
This writer certainly avoids that conclusion. His approach is “Even if there is no eternal life, we find meaning in what God gives us to do.”
The other writers are saying “If there is eternal life, then there is more meaning in righteousness”.
This potentially leads into “If there is no eternal life, then righteousness has no meaning”, and from there to “Unless there is no eternal life, then righteousness has no meaning” (“We are of all men most to be pitied”, as Paul says), and hence to the triumphant “Because there is eternal life, then righteousness does have meaning”.

Easily digestible translation, thanks DISRAELI. I do feel an affinity with Ecclesiastes in my current state of mind. With diminishing ego, a negativity arises, in which my self view, doesn't have any substance or importance. So I feel Ecclesiastes is writing to that me. Saying its alright to exist in the NOW without expectation, surrendering instead of dictating to God, what is to be.

I recently read an article on Jonah who's interpretation is similar to this topic, It may be of interest

a reply to: glend
Thank you for the link, which I will read carefully later.
I remember reading at school (was it one of the essays of D.H. Lawrence?) an article explaining Jonah ch2 as a state of psychological distress.

Again very well written and laid out. Try and just take it as it says, a few times you added an opinion which is not what it says but what you feel it teaches or means.

But again look at the differences of the text (I will only show one example verse)

Ec 2:14 The wise man's eyes are in his head; but the fool walketh in darkness: and I myself perceived also that one event happeneth to them all.

Notice first the version you quoted took away 1 word and added 2 words to the text "are" replaced with "has his" and changed the punctuation of the English.

The wise man has his eyes in his head,

So we see the Translators took away from the scriptures and them added to them. We must be aware of this because the Bible says we are not to diminish or add to the words of God and at the end of the Bible God pronounces a judgement of those who do it. A verse comes to mind about light and Darkness that would to understand wisdom (light) and folly (darkness)

Luke 11:34-35 The light of the body is the eye: therefore when thine eye is single, thy whole body also is full of light; but when thine eye is evil, thy body also is full of darkness. Take heed therefore that the light which is in thee be not darkness.

Is "has his" a viable replacement for "are"?

"Are" is clearly Positional or a Placement, while "has his" is a Possessional phrase. If we have to clarify a meaning for the KJV reading it is this "man cannot go beyond what he SEES. Again if we apply that to Scriptures or Wisdom we are not to go beyond what is simply says. The "has his" makes is possessional so the man can go beyond the literal simple meaning and add his opinions and his ideas and thoughts to the scriptures or the wisdom being learned.

Solomon was just saying man should use his eyes to see what is going on and not go beyond that.

Now notice the next part of the verse has a punctuation change as well in the Bible you are quoting. The punctuational change went from a Semi-colon to a comma. A semi-colon adds contrasting info to the previous statement while literally the comma ends the statement and starts a new statement separate w/o addition to the previous statement about the eyes. That literally kills a true dichotomous comparative nature of the statement. Which is one has eyes positioned in truth while the fool obviously does not. with a comma it makes it look as if the fool does not possess eyes to see. but if we are to understand it is not talking about physical eyes it is talking about understanding what is going on around one both spiritually and physically.

I know there was supposedly no punctuation in the "Original" again the problem no Original to compare it with to see. Often Hebrew punctuation is in the way the Vowels and Consonants are written in the text with their attached jot and tittles. And again we have no way of proving how it was in the Hebrew because we have only copies and not originals. When you find a verifiable original please let me know. BTW, majority of the copies agree with the KJV reading as far as the words go.

but the fool walketh in darkness:

and the translators copied the verse word for word as it is found in the KJV. The Devil does the same quotes just enough of the truth to deceive the reader or hearer. i.e. Eve.

“: I perceived that one fate comes to all of them.”

but the KJV has it as

and I myself perceived also that one event happeneth to them all.

First the change from a Colon to a Period at the end of the previous statement. The colon adds info independently to the statement before the colon. This is important because for the wise man and the fool life ends up the same physically and possibly spiritually dead. And the ends of them both is revealed in Vs 16 which is Death comes to both alike. A little different today if a wise man, who would be a believer on Christ, his death does not result in his standing before the Great White Throne judgement of Rev 20 as the wise man and the fool of the OT does (that includes Solomon). The death of a NT saint is different than the death of an OT saint or a fool. For a NT saint his judgement was on Christ so when he exits the Body he is in the presence of the Lord

2Cor 5:8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.
Php 1:23 For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better:

Now "one event" is not "one fate" today. Because today there are two events that take place in the Church Age. While all die they do not go to the same place, the Believer is saved and goes to be with the Lord at death and the unbeliever goes to hell (torments) at death. In the OT all went to hell but one went to torments and the other to paradise or Abraham's bosom because Hades has compartments. The Lake of fire the final place of all unbelievers is the Lake of fire. Never the less death still happens to all men either wise of this world or a fool of this world.

Now if the changes affect a mans understanding of what God's words simply say how much more can it change the outcome of their lives?

a reply to: ChesterJohn
Your criticism is based on the assumption that the AV is the orignal model, the original "scripture", so any deviation from it must be a deviation from the original. I don't accept that assumption, so I don't accept the criticism.

How do you think the AV translators prepared their translation? They will have used the Greek texts available in manuscript or printed volumes. They probably used lexicons. Lexicons were already available because speakers of common Greek and Hebrew, with a continuous tradition of studying the scriptures in their own language, were still around at the time when western scholars wanted to know what the languages meant. The translators probably compared their own conclusions with Tyndale's existing version. In short, they were scholars, working in just the same way as any other scholars; no more, no less.

So I won't be giving individual responses to criticisms based on "You are deviating from the language used in the AV."

a reply to: DISRAELI

Mind you I did not criticize your teaching except to say it was your opinion of what the text teaches (which is not a criticism of your teaching). I only showed that the texts are different and what that difference does to the text.

The KJV is the preserved words of God for this Generation as promised by God in Psalm 12:6-7. It is the only Bible available today that has all the word's, phrases, verses, and sections in it.

But you do recognize that the translation you used is lacking words, phrases, verses, and sections in it, which causes confusion and doubts in god's word.

We have no ORIGINALS at all. What we do have is an English preserved inspired Bible by God, just as he did in the past, using prayerful godly men.

The NIV had professed lesbian on its board how can that be godly (Rom 1:26)?

I only point out the translation used not only removed texts and added texts but it changed punctuation that is found in the preserved KJV.

So basically you are saying or at least supporting is that God DID NOT PRESERVE HIS WORDS TO EVERY GENERATION AS PROMISED.

Psalm 12:6-7 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

The RSV did not use Tyndales text as far as we know. I will research what text they did use but they did not use more than 45 text to translate the RSV.

a reply to: ChesterJohn as th
The other way of putting it is that the AV has got words and phrases that are different from the RSV.
If I chose to regard the RSV as the definitive "preserved word", you haven't got an argument against that claim that doesn't work equally well against the AV.

There is a gap in your logic similar to the gap in Calvinist logic.
They can claim that salvation is guaranteed to the elect, but they don't have a rational way of making the leap to "This specific person is one of the elect".
You can claim there is a "preserved translation", but you don't have a rational way of making the leap to "This specific translation is the preserved translation."

So as far as I'm concerned, the mere fact that a version is different from the AV version has no significance and does not need comment.

Look the KJV used over 5000 text when being guided by God to preserve all his words to this Generation (which started when England set up its empire in the 1600's and that language is still used today. BTW not all English people at that time spoke in what is called the Elizabethian English). The RSV used 45
I am not a Calvinist and I deny and reject their T.U.L.I.P.

I am only making statement based on anything other than the AV is the only Bible with ALL the WORDS, PHRASES, VERSES AND SECTIONS in it. The RSV and all other translations have many words, phrases, verses and sections missing in them. See above Chart. Most if not all of Tyndale's Bible is in the AV.

a reply to: ChesterJohn
In the use of texts, quality is more important than quantity.

You have established that the AV omits or changes words found in the RSV. As far as I'm concerned, that shows that the AV is wrong, by the same argument that you're using.

a reply to: DISRAELI

And who determines the quality? God or man? That is why I mentioned that one of the Translators of the NIV was a professed Lesbian. Surely she could not be one to determine what is quality.

You said earlier the text agree with one another. But an agreement in error does not guarantee quality just agreement of an error.

So you are saying that Papyrus P66, P75 Etc, Clement, Origen, Eusebius, The Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, Jerome( a Roman Catholic), Aexandrius a Roman Catholic text (found in a trash can), Rheims-Douay Bible (a Roman Catholic Bible), Greisbacks 1805 NT Greek, Lachman 1850 NT Greek, Tregelles 1870 NT Greek, Tichendorf’s 1870 NT Greek, Alfords 1872 NT Greek, Westcott-Hort 1881 NT Greek the Revised Version of 1881 are of more quality than the 5,000 plus text that include the TR, the Majority Text, Tyndales and many others?

Quality is affirmed int he quantity of the text used in the AV.

a reply to: ChesterJohn
How can God announce what he determines except by putting it into a man's mind (not necessarily his conscious mind) and letting him pass it on? Who are you to say that this is not exactly what is happening when someone makes a scholarly judgement? And what relevance has a person's moral faults (unless they include intellectual dishonesty) have to do with their ability to make scholarly judgements? Your own moral qualities don't guarantee you against scholarly misjudgements, and I've had to point out one or two in the past.

As I said, your resemblance to the Calvinists lies in the fact that there is a massive gap in your logic, because you are making a case for what you want to believe instead of objectively looking for what the truth is.

There are books available on Textual Criticism (I've got Kenyon upstairs) explaining how scholars go about the task of assessing the accuracy of different text traditions. If you've read one in the past, read it again. This is not the place to go through it all.

a reply to: DISRAELI

It is called inspiration. We have the MIND of Christ i.e.God. You would have to study out the notes of the RSV translators and you will see their only goal was to get rid of the AV and confirm a bible that Rome approved of. It is obvious by the text they used they were creating a Roman Catholic Bible. see the chart.

There is no GAP in my logic. I made a Statement based on 25 years of studying the AV it has all the verses, phrases, Verses and Sections in it. I have comp0ared, read and Studied over 25 English Bible including the NASB, RSV, ASV, NIV, NIV2, Good News, Living Bible, KJV2000 and the NKJV. So my statement is not based on an opinion but on fact after reading those BIble (many before I ever picked up a KJV).

a reply to: ChesterJohn
Quite so. And who are you to say that the RSV translators were not in touch with the mind of Christ, through the Spirit, when they were working? Who are you to say that the mind of Christ is not urging me to point this out to you?

a reply to: DISRAELI

I read their notes when they were translating. Plus other books on the RSV Translation after I noticed in 1997 (years before I read a AV) that the RSV Bible seemed to supported RC teaching like Baptismal Membership. Then after Reading the AV, I then noticed that it did not have all the words in it, and that is when I learned about the use of only a very few newer documents for their translation.

If what you point out to me goes against what Bible teaches then I would not accept it.


Who are you to say that the mind of Christ has not urged me to continually, since your first bible post I read, to point out the errors and the Bible version issue to you?

a reply to: ChesterJohn
Then we come back to faithful scholarship as the only way to tell the difference. For that reason, I will still find it unnecessary to give any individual response to any critique based on "this text differs from the AV" alone.

a reply to: DISRAELI

How about we conclude that a faithful God gave us his preserved words in one Bible so we don't have to rely on men and a Plethora of bible versions?

Please don't get me wrong, your teaching was very nice with the words you have in the translation your are using. You concluded the meaning of the text to teach according to the way the RSV is laid out with its grammar. Then we look at the AV and we will conclude a different meaning of the text to teach something a lot different than we came up with using the RSV (been there done that).

Now we have two different teachings from two different Bibles, but multiply that by 10 currently available English Translations other than the two we are using. Now we have 12 different meanings and teachings. This is no longer an issue of opinion but of what is God's Preserved Truth. 12 meanings and teachings and those could be twisted to add an additional 12 meanings and teachings. Now add to that what we were taught in Seminary to go to the Greek, Hebrew, Chaldean, Aramaic, Syrian, Coptic Egyptian copies that are unverifiable and dead. We cause ourselves to have headaches and heartaches over the words of God and what do we end up with? TOTAL CONFUSION AND FRUSTRATION!

This literally means man can never know what God's words are and the true meaning of them because there are too many confusing bibles, in to many confusing languages that lead to only one real conclusion in the mind of men. All the Bibles are wrong so at best they will conclude, "Eat, Drink and be Merry. In other words it is best just to live life as one feel best for themselves with everyone doing what is right in their own eyes. But that is not what God wants. That is what the devil wants.

I was there in that and doing that Study the Lexicons, Study the dead languages, Study commentaries but not doing as God really commanded via Paul, "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." 2Tim 2:15.

Study the word of Truth. Where am I going to find the word of Truth to study that I may rightly divide it among all the versions out there? One day the Lord led me to an Authorized King James version of the Bible. I said, "Lord, if this is your preserved word as promised in Psalm 12:6-7 then show me truth that I have not learned from any other Bible.

That began a Journey in God's word that has not stopped revealing truth. What you may ask did I see? 1) Every word in the AV defined itself in its context. Eliminating the needed for Lexicons, commentaries, and Greek and Hebrew Dictionaries. 2) The AV had a built in Cross referencing system using its own words, phrases and verses. 3) It contained Words, Phrases, Verses and sections not only found in all the other Bibles I had been reading but many Words, Phrases, Verses and Sections not found in any of them. (and if they were they were marked as spurious, not accurate, in error, and bracketed by men's opinions as not factual or true). 4) That while all the words of God are for my reading and learning they are not all for me personally to apply to my life. 5) That taking God's words literally was by far easier to understand than taking them as all allegorical and figurative. Don't take that wrong I take them allegorical and figurative where they are said to be literally.

I concluded after that first year when I finished my first reading of the AV, that it was the preserved word of God and I would use the Bible that had every word of God in it no matter what any man said. And I have not wavered in that since May 2005 when I first read it through.

God promised to preserve his word to every generation forever as it says in Psalm 12:6-7. If he can't and did not reserve his words and left it up to sinful men called scholars. Then he is no God worth following. The only issue after he did that is for men to find it and believe it. And they can only do that if they believe God is powerful enough to do what he says he will do by believing his all of his words as we find all of them in the AV.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
1) Every word in the AV defined itself in its context.

Yet your reading of the AV has led you to the absurd conclusion that "a man found a treasure in a field and went and hid himself", and that proposition is a definite addition to scripture. All because you misunderstand the structure of an English sentence in your own preferred translation.

That example alone is enough to demolish the idea that the AV is "easy to read and understand". On this point, it has accidentally misled you. So it does NOT protect people from misunderstandings which create new and false teachings.

a reply to: DISRAELI
As I said your RSV reads differently than the AV so yes two understanding could arise and then multiply by 20 and then by as many as want to read it and interpret it as they see it. I did admit both understandings of what was hid were in the text, I highlighted the one as the treasure represented the House of Israel (contextual understanding given by Jesus says it was not a literal treasure or pearl) and he was the man. Now it could be taken to be understood in two ways. Israel, the treasure, the pearl of great price) will go into hiding during the Great Tribulation (which the scriptures say they will) or Jesus will go into hiding either for three days and rise again after death, or into hiding fora couple thousands years from Israel as it has been they as a nation do not see Jesus as their Messiah, so his hidden from them.

Funny how you want to take a parable literal when Jesus tells us the meaning it is not to be taken literal.

I simply see that there is more than what meets the eye in scriptures. And that is what Eccl 2:14 is all about. Look at this verse and the spelling of the word.

Mt 24:7 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.

Now we know it means diverse but why not use diverse? Both word spellings are found in the AV Bible. Well it was advanced revelation of a scientific pact. In 1611 it was not known that earthquakes took place under water in the place where divers go. IN another use of the word divers we are told "he healed many of divers diseases" not until the 1800's did they know that people get different types of diseases from diving into deep water and holding ones breath. Yet in another is says divers (an occupation) have their hearts hardened at the hearing about Jesus. Now I am not saying all the uses give you a double meaning of advanced revelation but really it is not to far of a stretch to actually see those truths? I was not the one who actually saw the "divers places" it was an ATS poster who saw it. But I have read of other Bible Scholars coming up with similar understanding of words in verses that were not immediately seen most call them after thoughts in their commentaries. But a basic English Dictionary will give you both meanings of the word divers. All that advanced revelation is lost in the Translation that use only 45 basic documents to make their Translation.

BTW it was not an addition to the "Hid" it is a statement made from Diagramming the verse sentence and taking it the interpretation that Jesus gave in the context which was two fold one was his earthly ministry and the other in the great tribulation. Have you ever diagrammed the verse sentences in the Bible translation your are using and then diagram the same verse in the AV? I have. You come up with different diagrams hence different sentence structure and different understanding of the same verse. Those differences in Bible translations causes more confusion than not. And God is not the god of confusion, Satan is.

Oh how unsearchable is the AV Bible past finding out.

To the Readers I did not criticize Disraelis teaching. I simply showed that the Bible Translation used removed words and added words not found in he Majority Texts, and that his translation used a maximum of 45 text, some of them from the 1800's and not of the TR . I would ask you to consider how reliable a translation is that used only 45 texts and partial texts to make a translation? Most of the translations since 1830 pretty much copied the AV Text changed words like thou, ye and thee and made them You, took away the "eth" at the ends of words and added "ed" or other to make spellings of the English past tense up to date. And they Used pin pointed meanings of a broader meaning words like Escheweth, by translating it hated, or shunned, or abhorred in Job 1 (for an example). Many versions remove words and add words based on 45 whole and partial manuscripts.

Devotionally Disraeli gave a nice devotional teaching with the words and grammar he had in his hands. I am not attacking him or his devotional teaching. I just want to be clear on that point.

What I have been pointing out for years is that there is a preserved word of God in English as promised in Psalm 126-7 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.. And we don't have to rely on "faithful" Scholars to tell us what the word means, which is an RC practice and teaching, If we are saved and have the Holy Ghost in us as many NT scriptures teach us, we need only allow him to teach because we have the mind of Christ as it says in 1Cor 2:12-16 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.