Ps36.1b (the end is in the beginning)

“Three is no / fear of God – before his eyes.” In this second part of verse 1 we have the definition of this wicked man—he is ‘a fool’. Throughout the wisdom literature, the psalms, and other references, the beginning of wisdom is the ‘fear of God’. What that entails is not entirely explained. We have seen in other psalms that this phrase and ‘searching for Yhwh’ are almost synonymous. What is interesting for our purposes is that ‘transgression’ and folly are here seen in almost parallel fashion, as if the ‘dwelling’ of transgression in the midst of a wicked man’s heart is another way of saying ‘there is no fear of God before his eyes.’ It could be, of course, the fact that transgression is in his heart’s midst and that therefore that there is ‘no fear’; hence, the more primal root of folly is this ‘ownership’ of transgression. Regardless of the ‘origin of folly’, the close juxtaposition of folly and transgression is illuminating: to engage in the crossing of boundaries established within the created order (and within the commanded order), is to be a fool; and, more troubling, a fool is a wicked person who is an agent of chaos (as we saw in our previous reflection, and as we will see as we progress). A fool is, therefore, not merely a person of neutral to ‘sub-par’ worth; rather, a fool is just as dangerous and frightening (and, perhaps is) as a wicked man who permits transgression to dwell “in the midst of his heart”. The contrast is important in another way. For the wicked/fool: transgression “belongs” in the ‘midst of his heart’, whereas he has “no fear of God before his eyes”. The first is marked by ownership, the second by a lack. The proper order of things is the reverse: to ‘have’ fear of God, and no ‘transgression’. What does it mean to ‘have the fear of God before one’s eyes’? And why the contrast of the ‘eyes’ with the ‘heart’? What is clear is that the psalmist is not talking only about the physical act of seeing but of the penetrating gaze of understanding (which includes the physical). To have something ‘before one’s eyes’ seems to refer to one’s way of observing and processing the world. I think this is why the ‘fear of God’ is the beginning of wisdom: the fear of God is the lens by which one ‘sees’ wisdom. Like some ‘bride’ who only travels (or reveals herself) with her husband, lady Wisdom first requires that Yhwh be given what is his before she will reveal herself; otherwise, she remains veiled. To not have this ‘fear’ before one’s eyes means, then, that she could walk right by and one would not see her. Is it the case that the boundary crossed by Adam and Eve was the result of a lapse of the ‘fear of God’? If so, can this go some way to explaining why God was seemingly ‘absent’ when the snake arrived (meaning, could his absence be referring to the absence of their fear of him)? A third reason why this contrast is important: as we have seen in every psalm dealing with a person’s innocence/righteousness or with wisdom, there is a dual action that is necessary: the love of the proper thing and the rejection of the evil. Here, the fool has a dual action but it is the opposite of what it should be (we implied this above): he loves ‘transgression’ (in the ‘midst of his heart’), and he rejects the ‘fear of God’. The psalmist expertly shows, in a formal way (meaning, by way of this juxtaposition), how the fool is a type of mockery of the wise-man. Further, could it be that the psalmist places the ‘fear of God’ second (when it should be ‘first’ as the ‘beginning of all wisdom’) in order to highlight the complete lack of order in the wicked/fool’s heart? And, notice, how first we have his ‘possession’ (transgression) and then a reference to ‘fear’, whereas for the wise man first there is ‘fear’ and then one ‘gets wisdom’. As we will see later, this wicked/fool is almost entirely marked by his own private actions; he is a ‘man of the earth’ and relies utterly on his own power without any admixture of help from Yhwh.