Proverbs 12:23 (Part I) — Deep Waters 

The prudent keep their knowledge to themselves,
    but a fool’s heart blurts out folly.

Summary: Today’s post is part one of three parts on “knowledge.” Understanding the nature of knowledge helps us understand what Solomon is talking about in today’s proverb. 

Do you remember your first trip to the deep end of the swimming pool? Until that day you had been comfortable in the shallow end. If you got in trouble, it was easy to stand up and get your head out of the water. In the deep end, there is no getting your head out of the water by standing on the bottom. In the deep water, it is sink or swim. 

Today’s proverb is at the deep end of the pool. It may look like all the rest on the surface, but under that benign and inviting simplicity is a depth that makes me nervous. Should we skip this one? Naw. Let’s dive in!

Some might wonder at this proverb because we find it in the middle of an entire book of proverbs. Aren’t proverbs a form of knowledge? Why didn’t Solomon keep all of this knowledge to himself? 

See what I mean about “deep waters”? 

First off, a couple of questions come to mind. One is “What is meant by knowledge” and the other is “What does Solomon mean by ‘blurts out folly’?” To understand this proverb, we need to decipher these two words. 

If you look up the word “know” in the dictionary, you will find a very long entry that attempts to describe something you cannot see, touch, or feel; knowledge. A few key phrases from my online dictionary include: 

• knowing is to “be aware of through observation”
• “be absolutely certain … about something”
• “have personal experience of…”

To me, it seems obvious that whatever we think we “know” is something we “learned.” As the dictionary points out, we can learn through observation or personal experience. The second attribute of knowledge is that we are “certain” about it. 

My favorite example is simple math: one plus one equals two. This is something we can observe, we can experience by doing the addition ourselves, and that we can be certain about. One plus one is always two. 

This bit of knowledge suggests another: knowledge is logical. One plus one equals two makes sense. If you have one orange and one apple and you put them in the same bag, you have two things in the bag. Count ‘em; one, two. The problem with logic is that it does not always agree with what we call “common sense” or our “expectations.” To quote Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s character, Sherlock Holmes, “when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth” (The Sign of Four).

This leads us to our key conundrum: Knowledge is always presumed to be true, but what you know is not always true. 

Let’s imagine that a Jew, a Muslim, and a Christian meet up for a game of golf. Each of them “knows” that their particular religion is the correct one, but none of the three religions agree on their basic tenants. Applying logic, they can’t all be right. 

Golf is a game that requires concentration, and concentration requires an absence of distractions. If any of the three starts promoting their own religious views and deriding the other two, the game cannot be played. The distraction will negate the ability of the other two people to focus on their shots. To apply Solomon’s proverb in this situation is to be prudent and keep their knowledge to themselves. 

But how can “knowledge” be “knowledge” if it is not true? This is the nature of the curse that fell on mankind when Adam and Eve ate from the Forbidden Tree in the Garden of Eden; we became like God knowing “good and evil” (Genesis 3: 5). We know both good and evil, but we cannot always tell the difference. Just because we “know” something doesn’t make it true. 

“Whoa! Back up the wagon!” you might say. How are we to ever know what is true? Good question! Now you are beginning to understand why it the prudent to keep their “knowledge” to themselves. 

There are two general types of knowledge. The first is that which we directly perceive. The second type is what we learn from other sources. 

The French philosopher, René Descartes, expressed the first type this way. He said, “I think, therefore I am.” Each of us experiences our own thoughts, but these thoughts are unique to us. People might say, “I know what you’re thinking,” but they do not. At least not in the sense of direct knowledge. 

This first type of knowledge is the one we are most prone to trust and rely on. The second type is what we observe or are told by others or conclude on our own. This is the type of knowledge that people argue about. 

(To be continued…)

Application: Think about the things you “know” and then ask yourself how many people you know personally actually agree with every one of those things. 

Food for Thought: How do you personally define “knowledge”?