Wisdom Tradition – See with New Eyes
Impartiality
Wisdom’s focus on advancing cooperative arrangements among people who are different, entails, as would be expected, impartiality concerning the settling of disputes and issues of justice. We see this focus very early on in the formation of Israelite society and jurisprudence, as described in Exodus 18:13-26 and clarified in Deuteronomy 1:9-18. It’s a funny story in some respects, at least in the more descriptive Exodus account.
So here’s good old Moses and, you know, he’s completely burnt out. He’s just finished waging a terribly exhausting war against Pharaoh and organizing getting a million ornery slaves and their families out of Egypt and across the Red Sea into the desert, where everyone’s now stuck in the hot sun amidst a host of problems. They’re grumbling and complaining about each other, and there’s no social structures or courts in place yet for resolving domestic strife. So Moses has decided he will adjudicate all the disputes himself.
Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of disgruntled Israelites, disaffected Egyptians, and other peoples who had hit the road with Moses are now queuing at his tent day after day waiting their turns, expecting Moses to settle their feuds. But the guy hasn’t had a day off God since spoke to him at the burning bush, and this heavy case load is killing him. And the people have had it with queuing in the desert sun all day, while nearby is the person they are taking to court. Days pass. Still no justice. Tempers worsen. More quarrels and fights keep breaking out. What little social order there was has broken down. Anarchy is on the horizon.
Justice between the different peoples was to be impartial. Moses required it
Then the father-in-law shows up! But Jethro is a wise man. He susses the situation and can’t believe what he’s seeing. “Moses. What in the world do you think you’re doing? You can’t handle this heavy case load yourself. Look what’s happening. You’ve lost control. People are taking the law into their own hands. You need some qualified help. Here’s what you need to do. Save the hardest cases for yourself, but delegate all the other ones to trustworthy people who fear God.”
Moses got the point. He formed a huge organizational structure and appointed many dozens of officials to run it, to serve in various capacities to hear and settle most of the disputes. In the Deuteronomy rendering, as part of a long speech years later, Moses reminds the multitude just how well-constituted and organized this early governing structure was, with its “wise, understanding, and respected men from each of your tribes,” who were appointed “to have authority over you – as commanders of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties and of tens and as tribal officials” (Deut. 1:13, 15).
In the Deuteronomy speech, Moses clarifies part of Jethro’s original advice. Whereas Jethro had suggested that the officials’ chief qualification should be that they “fear God,” Moses, evidently, understood this to mean that the they should be persons of wisdom. As he explains, he appointed “wise” men to judge their disputes. The word for “wise,” here, in the Deuteronomy text, is the prominent Hebrew word for wisdom, hkm (variously rendered as h?k?m, hokmâ, hak?m?m, and suchlike; see wisdom words). But it is just here that we can miss some gems, one of which is hidden behind the unfortunate English translation of the Hebrew word s?r?m as “commanders,” or, as in some translations, “captains.”
To our contemporary ears, both words convey military associations. A s?r, however, was often a public official, such as a prince or other royal functionary, appointed by a king to govern some area of the realm (s?r?m is the plural, to represent the class). Some s?r?m held military rank, but many were civil officials working in various levels of authority, tasked with keeping the cities, towns, and countryside running smoothly. The word is used frequently in this non-martial way in the Hebrew Scriptures, such as when it indicates the kind of Egyptian “princes” (officials) that Abraham had to negotiate with when he was trembling with fear over his wife’s future (Gen. 12:15). Since it is not military adventures but the forming of social and political governance that is the context of Exodus 18:13-26, it seems reasonable to conclude that governing officials meant by the word s?r?m held non-military appointments.
The other gem is this. Although Israelites were the largest people group in this desert society, it was nevertheless a culturally diverse lot, so it would make sense that the wise governors appointed by Moses would be need to exercise fairness in justice. And so it was. Justice between the different peoples was to be impartial. Moses required it as a qualification for those who would govern the diverse multitude. They were commissioned as judges to hear disputes and to decide the cases fairly and impartially, whether between two Israelites or between an Israelite and a non-Israelite (Deut. 1:16-17). “To show partiality in judging is not good,” we read elsewhere in the wisdom literature (Prov. 24:23; 28:21; see also Prov. 1:3; 2:9). Human nature being what it is, of course, this does not mean that everyone was always treated equitably. It is only to point out the standard, which, incidentally, Jesus took to great heights in his wisdom-based Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10). But that is a story for another time.
The implications of the Exodus situation are remarkable. For one thing, inspiration for the nascent organizing of Israelite social governance came from a Midianite priest (Jethro), and it was taken heartily onboard by a people who, although desperate for a way of arranging cooperative relations with “foreigners,” were in a covenant relationship with Yahweh. So they had to watch what they were doing. But Yahweh makes not a peep of protest about it.
Further, Moses includes impartiality in justice as a requirement in his job description for “wise” officials – a stipulation consistent with the imperative in Israel’s law regarding fair and even-handed treatment of foreigners (Exod. 22:21; 23:9; Leviticus 19:33-34). Also, there is no indication that this form of social and political governance begun by Moses (and Jethro) was eliminated in principle during the time of the Book of Judges and, following that period, the time of the kings.
From his extensive research into Egyptian wisdom instruction, McKane discovered that impartiality in justice, which, he notes, cannot be separated from an official’s attitude to power and ethics, was a basic requirement of the political wisdom held by Egyptian officials, who were not to wield power nakedly or arbitrarily. An Egyptian statesman, McKane writes, “cannot exercise power in the context of the Egyptian state unless he respects at all times the demands of equity, and endeavors scrupulously to act fairly without respect of persons… [Thus] a passion for justice was an important ingredient of power and … whoever did not have this capacity for probity and fair dealing in public affairs was disqualified from holding office by a self-regulating process of selection” (Proverbs, p. 63).
As an aside, it was during the centuries of the kings, when ancient Israel was formally a nation among nations, that the kings needed high-level officials who could conduct diplomacy and negotiate foreign policy with surrounding nations (kingdoms). Several classes of these high-level government officials are identified in the Hebrew wisdom literature. Prominent among them were the hak?m?m, who were indispensable to Israel’s international relations and foreign policy (hak?m?m describes the class; h?k?m, the individual within the class; Joseph, for example, is called h?k?m in Genesis 41:33). The hak?m?m, as their name implies, were highly skilled in the wisdom tradition during the time of the kings, as were their counterparts in foreign nations, who had been trained in their culture’s wisdom traditions to serve in high-level political offices they held. (The s?r?m seem to have continued to function chiefly in domestic civil capacities, although some hak?m?m also functioned chiefly domestically.)
Briefly noted, the hak?m?m (chiefly men but occasionally some women) served in positions that today we would call cabinet ministers, policymakers, statesmen, foreign ministers, ambassadors, secretaries of state, diplomats, and political advisors in other capacities, including as writers. Occasionally, generals and even some ecclesiastical figures were included. This brings us to what I call the “lost” dimension of the historic tradition, the way of wisdom in international relations and foreign policy of the old-world Middle East. It was through their wisdom traditions that these nations conducted their cooperative foreign affairs, which required classes of officials skilled in wisdom. (Elsewhere on this site – Wisdom Actors, part 1 and Wisdom Actors, part 2 – I have included much more about this “lost dimension” of the tradition, which has inspired the book I am writing on wisdom-based approaches to U.S. – Middle East relations.)
A realist or idealist tradition?
A cautionary tale. Over the years much of my writing and teaching has focused on working with individuals and groups to understand how the ideas, principles, and norms of the wisdom tradition can assist in developing areas today where human diversity is normative, such as in education, social life, relationships, the business community, environmental responsibility, the arts, communication, and interfaith activity. As time has passed, it has been remarkable to see various ways in which wisdom-based approaches have helped practitioners in such fields to overcome limitations, expand creative horizons, and further the dreams they hold for what their work in the world with others can accomplish.
Heart on sleeve, however, I get too jazzed when thinking about what it is creatively possible to produce through the agency of wisdom. For in this world, as I must continually remind myself, only so much is possible in creating more cooperative relations among people who are different. This seems to be an especially poignant fact of life in my work on wisdom-based international relations, with its special interest in the United States and the Muslim Middle East. My problem is that I tend to get so excited about the potential of the wisdom way, as over against, let us say, the politics of division, that I can sound idealistic, as if wisdom were an agency in this world to end every conflict and prevent all wars.the wisdom tradition is realistic about human nature. The literature is quite blunt about this
However, the wisdom tradition is realistic about human nature. The literature is quite blunt about this, being replete with frank commentary, for instance, that contrasts the quarrelsome and the peace-loving, the deceitful and the faithful, the wicked and the righteous, the wise and the foolish, and so on. Evidently, wisdom understands the limits of its agency to change our race in any fundamental sense or produce any sort of ideal society. That is, human mutuality also includes the fact that in our nature we all hold in common degrees of selfish ambition, prejudice, envy, and many other base features. As everyone knows, these can influence behavior, and when they hold sway over leaders at odds in a troubled situation, they can make it difficult if not impossible to see any rhyme or reason for transforming the situation toward furthering common good, which may otherwise be doable.
The tradition, then, is realistic about the horizons that can be hopefully achieved. It does not preach utopian possibilities. Having said that, however, I quickly want to add that the wisdom way can seem idealistic because it is not, in my view, cynical about human nature. That is, although wisdom agrees that people can be motivated by base or selfish concerns and interests, it does not see that as the end of the story, as political realism instructs its followers to do. Rather, the agency of wisdom empowers us to hold motivations of our “lower nature” in check by helping us to actualize the better angels of our nature (to pinch a phrase from Abraham Lincoln) to work toward common goods.
When issues holding up more cooperative relations are not rooted in base or selfish interests, other obstacles may be identified, such as sectarian ideological thinking, which, briefly noted in the foregoing, limits the cooperation that is possible to what can be organized around a non-negotiable checklist of interests. Alternatively, the agency of wisdom would say, “Hang on a minute. Let’s focus on the better angels of human mutuality. Let me help you perform a rescue operation.” Even in this, however, wisdom brings not the promise of an ideal pluralist situation but more modest goals in which, for instance, there will be not perfect justice but enough justice (to satisfy the parties hammering out agreements).
Great patience, humility, and prudence will be required when seeking to be empowered by wisdom to explore and develop ways of seeing and doing that are more pluralistically cooperative. Efforts will be challenging and often experimental, and they may take a long time and carefully orchestrated effort even to realize modest progress, especially amidst storms. And the journey will entail cultivating an attitude that does not fall prey to cynicism while devoting its energies to empowering the better angels of our nature in a way that is not utopian.
The agency of wisdom is an empoweringly alternative way of reasoning that can help us gain fuller rein over our more base and selfish desires as well as reach and sustain common ground agreements in ways that reliance on abstractions cannot. It is, I believe, a kind of saving grace that can help all peoples prevent all sorts of social, economic, and political disasters.
Summary & Conclusion of Part One
The search for wisdom has been an exceptional feature of human endeavor throughout history, and it knows no cultural and national boundaries. Its literature speaks chiefly to the interests and concerns of everyday life and work in the world as these are shared by everyone, in any time and any place. Being at home with the impartiality required for settling disputes and reaching justice between peoples of different cultures, the wisdom way seems suited to help us build morally responsible cooperative arrangements together in ways that reliance on abstractions cannot.wisdom has been an exceptional feature of human endeavor throughout history
This way of reasoning carries this potential also due to: 1) a forbearance toward each culture’s religion that does not demand religious conversion before a cooperative way ahead can be found, and 2) a focus on basic interests and concerns that are shared before any distinction is made between who is religious and who is secular. It stresses situations over concepts, and while being realistic seeks to empower the better angels of our nature toward reaching goals of common good.
This article has not tried to define “wisdom.” Instead, it has tried to approximate the empowering way of reasoning about life and work in the world that wisdom offers our race, and it has shown that wisdom must be sought and learned continually, not just found once for all in an “Aha!” moment. I am still very much a learner at this, and much of what I have learned has been from conversations and relationships with others. I’m a big fan of the exceptional twentieth century rabbi, Abraham Joshua Heschel, and one of my favorite insights from him is that “An answer without an question is devoid of life.” It’s likely that this summary review has led us into a large field where more questions have arisen to be explored than answers to be pocketed. I have a few new ones, myself, now. We’re all in this together, learning from each other. So I want to keep practicing what this article preaches by inviting others’ insights (use the blog).
I’ll leave you with this question of my own. Trespassing one of the principles I have argued for in this article, the philosopher in me has over the years tried to pin down just why it is that wisdom can empower us toward the collective peaceable potential that it does. Simply put: what’s behind its way of reasoning in and for this world and our work in it? I’ve never gotten far, here.
I can see, however, why it may seem unusual or unfamiliar. For instance, when commenting on Jeremiah 18:18, Old Testament scholar Walter Brueggemann points out in The Creative Word that wisdom is one of three ways of reasoning for ancient Israel. Wisdom, he writes, was a third way of knowledge, distinct from the teaching of the law and the word from the prophets. It made available “resources and perspectives on faith and knowledge that [were] not characteristic of the Torah and the prophets” (pp. 67-68). Fair enough. Many of us are familiar with how the law and the prophets thought. Further, as discussed in the foregoing, wisdom is also an alternative to sectarian ideological thinking, as well as to the dogmatism of some forms of theology and apologetics. Still, although these reason help explain why wisdom’s way of reasoning may seem unusual or unfamiliar, they do not answer what’s behind it? Why does it have the potential that it does?
So in closing part one I’ve taken a deep breath and decided to take a shot at an answer. It seems evident, at least from its biblical literature, that wisdom is guided by both an ontic temper and an epistemic way of reasoning in and about this world that offers a sort of divine common grace in which people, and peoples, who are different can be morally responsibly free in their interactions and dealings with each other to construct cooperatively peaceable arrangements and practices amidst their religious and secular diversity (provided their interests are not based on violence).
