READING ECCLESIASTICUS/SIRACH

PART XV

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Ecclesiasticus/Sirach 20:1-22:26

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

“Sin” is a word with more than one definition in the Bible.  In the Johannine school of the New Testament, to sin is not to follow Jesus.  According to the Johannine definition, sin is a theological failure, not a moral one.  Yet, in most of the Bible, sin is a moral failure; it is missing the mark.  This is the definition of sin in Ecclesiasticus/Sirach.

Sin–as a category–may seem abstract.  A sin is not abstract; one can ponder it in a tangible context.  Poetic, symbolic language provides images for sin, though.  In Genesis 4:7, YHWH addresses Cain, about to murder Abel.  YHWH asks Cain:

Why are you angry and downcast?  If you are well-disposed, ought you not to lift up your head?  But if you are ill-disposed, is not sin at the door like a crouching beast hungering for you, which you must master?”

—The Jerusalem Bible (1966)

The poetic image of sin as a hungry, crouching beast waiting to ambush one fits with subsequent Eastern Orthodox theology of sin as an outside, invading force–what people do, not what they are.  Recall, O reader, that Original Sin and Total Depravity are doctrines alien to Judaism and Eastern Orthodoxy.

Sin is also a hostile, outside force which attacks, invades, and infiltrates in Romans 6 and 7.  (See Romans 7:17 in particular.)  Similar language for sin as an outside, hostile force exists in Ecclesiasticus/Sirach 21, also:

Have you sinned, my son?  Do so no more,

but pray about your former sins.

Flee from sin as from a snake;

for if you approach sin, it will bite you.

Its teeth are lion’s teeth,

and destroy the souls of men.

–21:1-2, Revised Standard Version–Second Catholic Edition (2002)

1 Peter 5:8 likens Satan to a prowling, roaring lion in search of someone to devour.

Ecclesiaticus/Sirach understands sin to be lawlessness (21:3):

All lawlessness is like a two-edged sword;

there is no healing for its wound.

—Revised Standard Version–Second Catholic Edition (2002)

This symbolic speech is reminiscent of Proverbs 5:4, which describes a loose woman as being as sharp as a two-edged sword.  And, of course, the word of God–that which God says–cuts like a two-edged sword in Hebrews 4:12.  The two-edged sword is a vivid metaphor.

When we sin against others, we may inflict lasting damage upon them.  The legacies of childhood bullies may persist well into adulthood, for example.  And one may learn from the examples of friends and relatives of murder victims and perceive partially how deep those emotional and spiritual wounds go.  So, I do not minimize the harm people can inflict upon each other.

I refuse to flee from the word “sin.”  I do seek, however, to apply it accurately.  I have a theory that sinning requires one to be in one’s right mind.  This is not a hypothetical scenario for me; I grieve my girlfriend,  who chose her time, place, and manner of death.  I grasp that mental illness clouded her mind at the time.  And I attest that the grief I carry for her feels like the wounds from a two-edged sword (not that anyone has stabbed me with a two-edged sword).  These wounds may never heal.

The way of sinners is smooth, we read in 21:10.  This may be a sly reference to Roman roads.  Or it may refer to a generic path–in this case, to an early death.  Recall, O reader, that Ben Sira did not believe in an afterlife.

The wise and the foolish belong to spiritual and moral categories.  The wise live in reverence of God and control their thoughts.  The keep the divine Law of Moses, according to Ben Sira.  They behave cautiously and respectfully.  And, although a wise man increases in knowledge like a flood, the mind of a fool is vacant, like an empty jar (21:14).  Furthermore, a wise man’s mouth is in his mind yet the the mind of a fool is in his mouth (21:26).

That last sentence has aged well, especially in the age of social media.

The Church has long called Sirach “Ecclesiasticus,” or “Church Book,” due to its value for moral instruction.  Most of the contents of the portion of the book for this post prove the wisdom of that point.

The language about an undisciplined son (22:3) balances the language regarding an imprudent daughter (22:5) and a shameful wife (22:4).  So, the misogyny factor is low in 22:3-5.

However, the meditation on the value of friendship is timeless.  And the condemnation of the indolent is vivid:

The indolent may be compared to a filthy stone,

and everyone hisses at his disgrace.

The indolent may be compared to the filth of dunghills;

anyone that picks it up will shake it off his hand.

–22:1-2, Revised Standard Version–Second Catholic Edition (2002)

Ben Sira knew how to turn phrases effectively.  And he addressed the wealthy sons of the elites of Jerusalem, circa 175 B.C.E.  Some of them may have been lazy.  Complaints about the idle rich are as old as antiquity.

Also, context is crucial.  One could ignore the context and mistake 22:1-2 for a condemnation of the lazy poor.  (In fact, the poor have long been some of the hardest working people within economic systems rigged against them.)  But, when one considers whom Ben Sira addressed, 22:1-2 takes on its intended meaning.

KENNETH RANDOLPH TAYLOR

AUGUST 31, 2023 COMMON ERA

THE FEAST OF SAINT NICODEMUS, DISCIPLE OF JESUS

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++