Wisdom — Chapter 13

BUT ALL MEN ARE VAIN, IN WHOM THERE IS NOT THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD: AND WHO BY THESE GOOD THINGS THAT ARE SEEN, COULD NOT UNDERSTAND HIM THAT IS: NEITHER BY ATTENDING TO THE WORKS HAVE ACKNOWLEDGED WHO WAS THE WORKMAN.

The vanity (foolishness) of those without knowledge of God — Lapide notes these are not the most guilty idolaters (who worshipped animals or images) but the second kind: those who worshipped the elements and celestial bodies. They could reason from creatures to Creator (the cosmological and teleological arguments) but failed to make this step. Lapide cites Rom 1:19-20: \"what is known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them through creation.\" Their inexcusability: the visible beauty of creation was sufficient evidence of the invisible God, had they attended to it rightly.

BUT THEY HAVE SUPPOSED EITHER FIRE, OR WIND, OR THE SWIFT AIR, OR THE CIRCLE OF THE STARS, OR THE GREAT WATER, OR THE SUN AND MOON, TO BE THE GODS THAT RULE THE WORLD.

The specific objects of natural-element worship: fire (Zoroastrians), wind (some Persian sects), air, stars (widespread), water, sun (Egyptians, Persians), moon. Lapide documents each with historical examples from Herodotus, Strabo, and patristic sources. These are identified as the \"second type\" of idolaters — more excusable than those who worshipped animals, less excusable than monotheists.

WITH WHOSE BEAUTY, IF THEY BEING DELIGHTED, TOOK THEM TO BE GODS: LET THEM KNOW HOW MUCH THE LORD OF THEM IS MORE BEAUTIFUL THAN THEY.

The argument from comparative beauty: if the beauty of the sun, stars, or sea moves them to worship, they should recognize that the Author of such beauty infinitely exceeds His works in beauty. Lapide: this is the ascending argument of contemplation — from visible beauty to the invisible Beauty which is its source (Augustine, Confessions X). Applied to Platonic philosophy: Plato's Symposium reaches toward this insight, though not to full monotheism.

FOR THE FIRST AUTHOR OF BEAUTY MADE ALL THESE THINGS.

God is \"the first author of beauty\" — primordial Beauty, of which all created beauties are participations and reflections. Lapide on the transcendental of beauty (pulchrum) as a divine attribute: Thomas Aquinas (ST I.39.8) identifies beauty (pulchritudo) as an attribute of the divine Word, who has three requirements of beauty — integrity, consonance, and clarity.

FOR BY THE GREATNESS OF THE BEAUTY, AND OF THE CREATURE, THE CREATOR OF THEM MAY BE SEEN, SO AS TO BE KNOWN THEREBY.

The proportionality principle: from the greatness of created beauty, the Creator's infinite beauty can be proportionally inferred. Lapide: this is the via analogiae (the analogical way to God) — we cannot know God directly but can know Him through analogy with His creatures. The bigger and more beautiful the creature, the greater the Creator.

BUT YET AS TO THESE THEY ARE TO BE BLAMED THE LESS: FOR THEY PERHAPS ERR, SEEKING GOD, AND DESIROUS TO FIND HIM.

Gradation of culpability in idolatry: those who worshipped elements and celestial bodies are \"blamed less\" (minus reprehensibiles) than image-worshippers, because their error arose from an earnest but mistaken search for God. \"Perhaps err seeking God\" — there is a good disposition (seeking God) combined with a bad method (identifying God with creation). Lapide on pagan philosophy as a preparation for the Gospel: those who sincerely sought truth were better disposed to receive the Gospel than cynics and sophists.

FOR BEING CONVERSANT AMONG HIS WORKS, THEY SEARCH: AND THEY ARE PERSUADED THAT THE THINGS ARE GOOD WHICH ARE SEEN.

The natural philosopher, immersed in the study of creation, is persuaded that visible things are good — but stops at visible goods rather than ascending to the invisible Good. Lapide on the limits of empirical science without metaphysics and theology: natural science can observe and classify creation but cannot by itself ascend to the Creator.

BUT THEN AGAIN THEY ARE NOT TO BE PARDONED.

Despite their lesser guilt, they are not to be pardoned: the knowledge of God from creation was sufficiently available (Rom 1:20) that the failure to reach it constitutes culpable ignorance. Lapide: \"not to be pardoned\" does not mean they cannot be forgiven (God's mercy exceeds all guilt) but that their error does not diminish their objective culpability.

FOR IF THEY WERE ABLE TO KNOW SO MUCH AS TO MAKE A JUDGMENT OF THE WORLD: HOW DID THEY NOT MORE EASILY FIND OUT THE LORD THEREOF?

The most pointed refutation: if they had the intellectual capacity to study and understand the world (cosmology, astronomy, physics), they had sufficient capacity to recognize the world's Author. Greater natural intelligence implies greater culpability for not reaching God. Lapide: this argument applies to modern scientists and philosophers who study creation without acknowledging the Creator — their very intellectual sophistication increases their culpability.

BUT UNHAPPY ARE THEY, AND THEIR HOPE IS AMONG THE DEAD, WHO HAVE CALLED GODS THE WORKS OF MEN'S HANDS, GOLD AND SILVER, THE INVENTIONS OF ART, AND THE LIKENESSES OF BEASTS, OR AN UNPROFITABLE STONE THE WORK OF AN ANCIENT HAND.

Now the third and most blameworthy type: worshippers of man-made idols (gold, silver, beasts, stone). They are \"unhappy\" (infelices) — the strongest condemnation. \"Their hope is among the dead\" — their prayers to idols go to dead things that cannot hear or respond. Lapide on the absurdity of manufactured deity: the idol is made by human hands, then prayed to as though it had power — a radical incoherence.

OR IF AN ARTISAN, A CARPENTER, HATH CUT DOWN A WOOD FIT FOR HIS USE IN THE FOREST, SKILLED IN HIS WORK, CUNNINGLY USING ALL THE RIND THEREOF: AND BY HIS INDUSTRY HATH FRAMED SUCH THINGS AS ARE FIT FOR THE USE OF LIFE.

The satirical narrative of idol-making begins: a carpenter cuts a tree, uses most of it for practical purposes (fuel, furniture), and from the remnant carves an idol. Lapide follows Isaiah 44:13-17 closely, which contains the same satirical critique. The point: the idol is not just man-made but made from leftovers.

AND THE CHIPS OF HIS WORK HE MAKETH UP WITH DILIGENCE, AND WITH THE CHIPS OF HIS WORK HE KINDLETH A FIRE, AND EATETH OF IT, AND SLEEPETH WELL.

The chips from carving the idol serve to cook the carpenter's dinner. This juxtaposition — the same wood for god and for supper — exposes the absurdity of idolatry. Lapide: the idol-maker bows before his own craftsmanship while simultaneously burning its remnants for cooking fire. A devastating critique of manufactured religion.

BUT THE RESIDUE THEREOF, WHICH IS GOOD FOR NOTHING, BEING A CROOKED PIECE OF WOOD, AND FULL OF KNOTS, HE CARETH NOT ABOUT FOR BUSINESS NOR DILIGENCE; BUT BY THE ART OF HIS NEGLIGENCE AND KNOWLEDGE HE FASHIONETH IT DILIGENTLY AND FORMETH IT BY THE SKILL OF HIS ART.

The idol is made from what is left over: a crooked, knotted piece of wood too imperfect for practical use. With \"the art of his negligence\" (arte otiosae doctrinae) he fashions it into a god. Lapide: the most worthless part of the tree becomes the object of worship — divine irony at its sharpest.

AND FASHIONETH IT TO THE IMAGE OF A MAN, OR MAKETH IT LIKE SOME BEAST, LAYING IT OVER WITH VERMILION, AND PAINTING IT RED, AND COVERING EVERY SPOT THAT IS IN IT.

The idol is painted and polished to resemble a man or beast — cosmetically decorated to hide its defects. Lapide: the idol's artificial beauty (painted, gilded) parodies the genuine beauty of God. Applied to the spiritual life: external religious show without interior conversion is the same as painting a rotten piece of wood and calling it a god.

AND MAKETH FOR IT A CONVENIENT DWELLING PLACE, AND SETTING IT IN A WALL, AND FASTENING IT WITH IRON.

The idol is given a \"convenient dwelling place\" (aptam mansionem) — a shrine, a niche, a wall. Lapide: the absurdity of building a house for a piece of wood, of \"fastening\" it with iron so it won't fall. Applied to the spiritual critique of superstition: treating material objects as though they possessed divine power when they are merely physical.

PROVIDING FOR IT THAT IT FALL NOT, KNOWING THAT IT IS UNABLE TO HELP ITSELF: FOR IT IS AN IMAGE, AND HATH NEED OF HELP.

The idol-maker takes precautions to keep the idol from falling — \"knowing it is unable to help itself.\" Lapide on the self-contradiction of idolatry: the worshipper knows the idol cannot even stand on its own, yet prays to it for help. This is the culmination of the satire: the worshipper must help his god, then asks his god to help him.

AND THEN MAKETH PRAYER TO IT, ENQUIRING CONCERNING HIS SUBSTANCE, AND HIS CHILDREN, AND HIS MARRIAGE. AND HE IS NOT ASHAMED TO SPEAK TO THAT WHICH HATH NO LIFE.

The final absurdity: praying to a speechless piece of wood for health, children, and marriage — the most intimate concerns of human life. \"He is not ashamed to speak to that which hath no life\" — the absence of shame is itself a symptom of profound spiritual blindness. Lapide: this critique applies to all forms of superstition that attribute supernatural power to natural objects.

AND FOR HEALTH HE MAKETH SUPPLICATION TO THE WEAK: AND FOR LIFE, HE PRAYETH TO THE DEAD: AND FOR HELP HE BESEECHETH THAT WHICH IS MOST UNPROFITABLE.

Three requests made to the idol: health (asked of a weak thing), life (asked of a dead thing), help (asked of something utterly useless). The triple absurdity reinforces the satire. Lapide: only the living God can grant health, life, and true help; to ask these of an idol is to ask the dead for life.

AND FOR A GOOD JOURNEY HE PETITIONETH THAT WHICH CANNOT WALK: AND FOR GAINING AND FOR WORKING, AND FOR THE EVENT OF ALL THINGS, HE ASKETH HIM THAT IS UNABLE TO DO ANY THING.

For a journey, he petitions what cannot walk; for business success, he asks what can do nothing. Lapide: the satirical crescendo reaches its peak — every request is the precise opposite of the idol's capacity. The spiritual conclusion: only divine omnipotence can answer human need; the idol is impotence itself.