From: Ecclesiastes
and the Perpetual Paradoxes of Life Return to Home
By
Roland H. Worth, Jr. © 2012
[Page 62]
Chapter Three:
The Paradox of Happiness:
We Seek It This Side of Death
Yet So Many Things Can Destroy It
(
One of the founding
documents of this nation gives as one of the inherent rights of mankind that of
“the pursuit of happiness.” It has often
been observed that the document speaks only of “pursuit.” Its authors recognized that that was the most
that could be assured—the right to try to obtain it. Living in a society in which happiness is
often viewed as an inherent and inalienable “right,” however, the frustration
is multiplied when circumstances behind our control denies it to us.
The ancient author of
Ecclesiastes grounds our pursuit of happiness not in some inalienable right but
in something even more unquestionable:
the certainty of death. Faced
with the proverbial “grim reaper,” we can either curl up into a tight ball of
furious rage and paranoia or grasp the happiness that comes our way with all
the enthusiasm of the person who recognizes the total unpredictability of the
future: Be cheerful whenever you can,
for you have no idea when the grief will blind side you.
The
Flow of the Argument
A. God wants us to learn the lesson of the
reality of death: To enjoy life (
B. But life can throw at us many hindrances to
maintaining this frame of mind (4:1-5:9)
1.
By being the
victim of oppression (4:1-3)
2.
By being the
object of envy (4:4-6)
3.
By being alone
in the world (4:7-12)
4.
By coming
into prosperity too late in life to enjoy it (
5.
[Page
63] By substituting external religious
form for knowledge based religious behavior (5:1-7)
6.
By observing
uncorrected oppression (5:8-9)
A.
God Wants Us to Learn the Lesson
of the Reality
of Death:
To Enjoy Life (
In the previous
chapters, the king has dealt with the frustrations of life to those who can see
beyond the immediate horizon. Now he
turns to perhaps the most galling aspect of the future of every one of us: so far as this life is concerned we
are no better than the animals--we all die and return to the dust.
To a ruler, death is the ultimate
frustration. With all the armed might at
his command, with all the superb intellect he has to bring to the problem, with
all the wealth that he can utilize to buy anything humanly available—none of
that will keep him from that day when he becomes mute and his voice is
permanently stilled.
This could be the
basis of despair. Instead he turns it to
an argument for work based contentment in the present world, “So I perceived
that nothing is better than that a man should rejoice in his own works, for
that is his heritage” (3:22a). You can’t
see what will be done with that heritage (3:22b) but you can see
the heritage itself. You’ve done your
part in laying the foundation for a better future and you should rest content
and proud and leave it to the next generation to worry how they plan on using
it.
Polytheists recognized
the need to live happily within the limits of their opportunities and
abilities. The ancient Egyptian Song
of the Harper wove together, within its own cultural perspective, the
thought found in both our current text as well as 9:7-9,[1]
Follow thy desire, as long as thou shalt live / Put Myrrh upon thy head and clothing of fine
linen upon thee, / Being anointed with the genuine
[Page 64]
marvels of the god’s property. / Set an increase to thy good things; / Let not thy heart flag. / Follow thy desire and thy good. /
Fulfill thy needs upon earth, after the command of thy heart, / Until there come for thee that day of mourning.
The message of
Ecclesiastes is one obviously applicable to the entire human race: we have no control over what people do after
we have passed. We can’t take joy and
pride in what they will build on the foundation we have laid. We can only take satisfaction in what we have
prepared for ourselves and, indirectly, for them as well. We have done what we needed to do; now it is
time for them to do likewise.
But
what of we ourselves? If we are
to enjoy life, that is one thing; but is there anything more to human existence than this temporal reality we are
currently living within? The parallel
with animals dying (
The traditional interpretation of
The ancient Septuagint (and the later Syriac, Targums, and Vulgate)
shifted the positive rendering of the Hebrew significantly, turning this into
conjecture rather than certainty. As the
NKJV margin renders it, “Who knows whether the spirit . . . goes upward and
whether . . . goes downward to the earth?”
The bulk of translations have adopted such a rendering as this one in
their main text.
It is not uncommon to argue that since this
is a “who knows” statement, that in the Hebrew usage in Ecclesiastes it
requires a negative answer, i.e., no one knows. To judge this assertion, the reader needs to
examine the question as it is presented both here in
The grammar of the Hebrew text found in
Approached as an “open question,” however,
the monarch still certainly knows of the belief in an afterlife, but has
no basis on which to base a certain and definitive conclusion of his own. Taking him as guided by external inspiration
of God, this would argue that it was not a matter that God was willing to
answer directly even for him.
Taking him as guided by purely human insight, it means that unaided
reason could not answer the question definitively as to whether part of us
survives death.
In either case, what could
become a “gospel of despair” is averted.
Qohelet is, by no means, an overflowing
optimist! But he does cry out
that even though there is so much pain and anguish that is unavoidable, yet joy
can come; even within the confines of that which we know, we can
accomplish much and we should find [Page 65]
contentment within that fact. We
have no control over what happens after we die.
Leave that to God. Be
happy for what you can do with this life. Over that we do have
control—not absolute but adequate enough that we can find the basis of
happiness.
B.
But Life Can Throw at Us Many
Hindrances to Maintaining
This Frame of Mind
(4:1-5:9)
Solomon recognizes
that not everyone can share in his earthly happiness—whether as king or as mere
citizen. One might be the victim of oppression (4:1-3). The oppressor has raw coercion on his side
and the victim may have no one to even offer comfort. In that case Solomon praised their
death rather than their survival: this
life could provide them no solace. Death
had rescued them from it. Truth be told,
even luckier was the person who was never born than the person who had escaped
from such treatment by death (4:3): the
unborn, at least, did not have to endure any of this at all (cf. Job
Of course, oppression
can come in many forms. It can target
nations, conquered by foreign powers (think of the deportations by foreign
conquerors of ancient
Solomon sees a grim
equity in oppression (4:1): “and
look! The tears of the oppressed, but
they have no comforter—On the side of their oppressors there is power, but
they have no comforter.” One is
abuser and one is abused but neither gains pleasure out of what is
happening. Ellen F. Davis notes the
irony in this and how both sides, in a sense, may be victims (although, of
course, that does not in any way provide a moral sanction for the mistreatment),[4]
Astonishingly, he makes no distinction
between oppressor and oppressed. Slave and slave owner, prisoner and prison
guard, battered woman and abusive man—both are to be pitied. . . . It is not enough to tell the oppressor to
stop oppressing; in most cases, oppression does not
[Page 66]
represent a conscious choice.
Rather, mistreatment of others is a way one has learned to survive in a
sick family, a sick political system, a sick economy. The real task for both prayer and pastoral ministry, is to break open the system and show a new way
forward for both oppressor and oppressed.
Life could also be stripped of its joy by becoming the victim of
envy (4:4-6). The mind frame of Qohelet has been clear:
the successful person deserves respect.
The envious person resents it and refuses to render the esteem that is
deserved. True, such a “fool” destroys
himself through his own laziness (4:5).[5] He has eaten away his own flesh, so to speak,
by refusing to grow or obtain the food necessary for survival.[6] But the stings and barbs still hurt even when
thrown by such irresponsible people.
Even admirable success can itself be
purchased at too high a price, “Better a handful with quietness than both hands
full, together with toil and grasping for the wind” (4:6). If you drive yourself to distraction, instead
of succeeding you only torment yourself.
And, unless you are wise in your plans, you land up looking like the
fool who tries to grab and hold the wind.
The apostle Paul sums up the needed mind-frame well, “Godliness with
contentment is great gain” (1 Timothy 6:6). Spirituality is fine, but unless one enjoys
doing the “right thing” contentment is still lacking and we land up resenting
the effort.
Both the Psalms (37:16-17) and Proverbs (
Contentment in success can also be destroyed by having no one to
share it with (4:7-12). We are
social creatures. Our interactions with
others add to our joy and happiness.
Decades ago, I recognized that I did not need anyone. I was never so naïve, however, as to claim
that I didn’t want anyone. You
may live a life alone due to principle or necessity or bad luck, but there is still
an inner part that cries out for the friendship and the comforting words of
others.
In an extreme case,
the person who is alone drives himself or herself to even greater
exertion: “there is no end to all his
labors” nor can he find contentment “with riches” that are gained. Such work fanatics (and there are many such,
even among those who claim to be married) never seem to grasp there is
no one to be benefited by their exhaustive labor (4:8). If there is literally no one else, as in the
case of our text, there is no one to receive the gain when we die. Even if we are [Page 67] “married,” we have only a spouse who
neither understands nor respects us for we have never spent enough time
together for those bonds to be forged.
Even from the
utilitarian standpoint, friendships are useful, Qohelet
points out. The reward for their work is
greater (4:9). They can help each other
in time of need such as when one falls (
They can even keep each other warm in the
cold (
They can also stand, united, against a
powerful foe when either, alone, would be destroyed (
That is true in the family context and even
in the political one, where no one individual can successfully carry the entire
load of leadership: Moses needed help in
governing
Yet another obstacle to contentment is
coming into prosperity too late in life to enjoy it (
Instead of a temporarily deposed king being
under consideration, others interpret the text to mean that the youthful
prisoner came to power in place of the elderly foolish monarch (i.e., he
overthrew him), but even this man who has “rescued” the nation will ultimately
be scorned.[15] The collective memory is all too short in the
rush of life. It becomes “what have you
done for me recently,” rather than “without you we would not be where we
are today.”
Perhaps this text was
especially in Martin Luther’s mind when he recommended that all governing
officials should read and meditate upon the personal relevance of Ecclesiastes,
“This book should especially be read by new [Page 68] rulers, who have their heads swollen with
opinions and want to rule the world according to their own plans and require
everything to toe the mark. But such
people should first learn to know the world, that is, to know that it is
unjust, stubborn, disobedient, malicious, and, in short, ungrateful.”[16]
Michael Kelley
suggests that we should look at the matter from the standpoint of the people
rather than that of the official: they
inevitably demand more than can be obtained and yet repeatedly fall for the
propaganda that if they just obtain or elect a “different” leader then all
their hopes will become reality.[17] Barring the element of election, revolutions
in all ages (even in the strictest monarchies) harness public support in much
the same manner—by promising “reforms” that will benefit the nation and its
inhabitants. “Each generation longs for
a political messiah to usher in paradise.”[18] And it virtually inevitably discovers a
secular antichrist rather than redeemer.
Satisfaction
can similarly be destroyed by the person who substitutes external religious
form for knowledge based spiritual behavior (5:1-7). Qohelet begins this
section with a blast at empty ritualism, “Walk prudently when you go to the
house of God; and draw near to hear rather than
to give the sacrifice of fools, for they do not know that they do evil”
(5:1).
Just as in polytheism, these people defined
religion in terms of religious practice rather than in terms of learning and
self-betterment. Their sacrifices could
be wrong (either in substance or intent) because they did not bother “to hear”
the truth. In a similar manner their
very lifestyle could be wrong because they lacked the knowledge of the
Scriptures so that they could have the right manner of life.
In the New Testament, James spoke of the
need to be “swift to hear” and contrasted this with being “slow to speak” and
being “slow to wrath” (James
In Ecclesiastes 5:1 the idea is also one of
letting God’s word have the impact on our lives it should. Physical sacrifice of animals was pivotal to
the religious system in those days and it was easy to substitute going through
the right outward form and offering the ceremonially “right” sacrifices in
place of carrying out God’s will in everyday life.
People often acted (and still do) as if we
could compensate for our moral failures by faithfully observing the formal
“ritual” side of our religion. The
prophet Hosea was building upon this social reality when he quotes God as
saying, “I desire mercy and not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God more than
burnt offerings” (6:6). If one
had to choose between character and ritualism one was to choose character; in
truth, the full religious life had plenty of room for both. Likewise today.
The person who has
studiously ignored the accumulation of religious knowledge falls into the trap
of promising more in his religion than he needs to or, [Page 69] perhaps, even should (5:2-5). He or she pours out endless words of praise
and commitment to God without the words being more than superficial (5:2-3). Just as a person dreams on a multitude of
subjects, such a person gushes out voluminous intentions and commitments in a
disjointed and unconnected manner.[19] He or she promises and vows to God whatever
strikes the “spiritual” fancy or discomfort of the movement.
And when recognition dawns that too much
has been promised the temptation is overwhelming to eat one’s own words. “It will cost too much!” “Take too much time!”
Or the temptation will arise when too much time
has passed between pledge and fulfillment:
“In time of trouble a person may sincerely mean to keep his vow, but
when times become better, the frail human frequently forgets the pledge he made
during his suffering; in the fat years, he forgets the lean years.”[20] In such cases, it is better not to promise
anything than to promise too much, including that which can only be fulfilled
so far in the future that we can not realistically be confident of carrying out
our promise (5:4-5).
The behavior makes a person feel guilty
(justifiably!) and destroys the sought for contentment. “Such irresponsibility,” suggests Elsa Tamez,
“shows a lack of seriousness about God, about oneself, and about the reason for
which one makes a vow.”[21] And if all one is doing is making empty pledges to impress others, the evil is, if anything, even
worse.[22]
They were to do what
they promised and not one iota less. The
Psalmist wrote that he himself had lived by this standard (66:13-15). Indeed, it was part of the very Old Testament
provision regulating vows (Numbers 30:1-2; Deuteronomy
The mouth causes one
to sin (5:6) by virtue of promises that go unfulfilled. One “dreams” and brags with “many words” of
what is going to be done—and does nothing.
Instead of such folly, one should “fear (= respect) God” and keep one’s
mouth shut (5:7). Tremper
Longman suggests that the logic is that, “Dreams are out of touch with reality,
and so, argues Qohelet, are many words in a cultic
setting.”[25]
Finally joy can be destroyed by observing
uncorrected oppression (5:8-9).
Yet here there is the clear possibility of relief. The oppressor thinks he is getting
away with something. Perhaps
so. But there are
also multiple safety factors built in to the system as well: multi echelons of higher authorities over
them (5:8). The chicanery may go
undetected at some levels but the multiplicity of them argues that not every
one will miss them.
Finally, there is the king himself, who
recognizes that the prosperity of the country is based on its agriculture
(5:9). Hence even the monarch has built
in self-interest to suppress injustices inflicted on his farming population—the
vast bulk of the population until the industrial age.
[Page 70] The belief is common that the text
indicates that all subordinate levels of the government machinery is involved
in chicanery of one sort or another or covers it up for the lower levels.[26] One commentator goes so far as to describe it
as “a conspiracy among public officials, both administrators and tax
collectors, to bilk the people and line their own pockets. . . .”[27] In brief, Qohelet
is describing a “corrupt system” of government.[28]
In our judgment this negative reading of
the text (universal government corruption or toleration for it) is inferior to
our approach that bureaucracy has the potential (and is designed) for
self-correction. Whether the author be Solomon or merely an adept sage writing for the economic
class that staffs government operations, such a personality is far more likely
to speak of government’s self-correcting potential than its inevitably corrupt
and uncorrectable nature.
*
The text
viewed from the standpoint of the author. Kings don’t like to admit they can die (
In his litany of six
things that can destroy contentment, he begins (4:1-3) and ends (5:8-9) with
oppression. The first time it is simply
that one may suffer unjustly. The last
time is that there are power structures built into the political system to root
out such things.
As monarch, this was at least under
his partial control. He could
bring happiness (at least to some extent) by preventing injustice to
others. (The New Testament also
recognizes this obligation of government to carry out constructive and
beneficial policies for its people—Romans 13:1-4). In dealing with petty ante abusers of power
Solomon is dealing with the kind of cases he and his subordinates had to face
time and again.
The remaining four
items in the list of destroyers of contentment are ones over which his
government had no control. You can’t
outlaw envy. You can’t outlaw
loneliness. You can’t outlaw religious
formalism. These are things that
political power can only touch the outward edges of.
Yet even Solomon in
his power faced at least the first two of these, though in a different form
than most people. As an incredibly
wealthy monarch he was envied (4:4-6).
Although none was powerful enough to take it away from him, he could see
it in people’s eyes and smell it on their breath. And if they were close kin, there must have
been more than a few who were convinced that they “deserved it” far more than
he.
There were times when
he must have felt an astute “aloneness” as well--even in his world of immense
wealth and power (4:7-12). A ruler can
have all the advisers he wants to hire.
He can have so many that it makes it even harder to make a
decision! But the final decision must
be his. There is no one that can share
that responsibility or do it for him.
[Page 71] In one sense the people were proud of their
king and would mourn his passing (
Harder to tie in with
Solomon is the concern over substituting external religious form for knowledge
based religious behavior (5:1-7). Yet
was not even this a major temptation for a successful monarch? To impress others by one’s spiritual largesse
was fully in accord with one’s position, but at what point does pure volume
overwhelm the sincerity? Furthermore, to
carry out all the vows might well prove itself
unwieldy. Even the wealthiest have their
limits of time, commitment, and fervor.
The text
viewed from our standpoint. If
all the warnings of what could destroy contentment in life were valid even for
a monarch, their relevance to the remainder of the population is even more
obvious. Stripped of the resources a
king enjoys, often without an abundance of either wealth or friendships, the
line between preserving one’s status and self-respect and plummeting into
despair is a slim one indeed. Often it
depends solely upon continued employment by corporations that would happily
sacrifice us for their “bottom line” profits and to whom we are mere tiny cogs
easily replaced by someone newer, with lesser education, and lower wages.
Unless of course they ship our jobs off
abroad and deny all of our fellow citizens even the token benefit of the
company being considered “American.” Which is of scant comfort trying to find a job that will keep one’s
head above water. If we can find such a job at all.
The fact that it used to be that a family
could modestly prosper on one paycheck alone while now it virtually requires
two, tells the story of the degradation of prosperity in a single sentence. With the Great Recession still rolling on in
everything but official recognition, the latest 2012 statistics I’ve seen give
the average work hours for those who have a job as about 34 hours. Not even a full work week for them!
And if such misfortune comes our way we
suffer not only through lack of money alone, but also the loss of self-respect
and self-image. Life becomes something
to be survived rather than lived. And we
become mere numbers on the casualty list of modern economic life. Qohelet would have
understood the anguish all too well.
Footnotes
[2] Fredericks, n. 2, p. 47, argues that
through the negative answer is required in 2:19, that such a response is
not necessarily the case in the other two texts.
[3] See Kidner, n.
4, p. 43. For textual indications that
Solomon accepted an affirmative answer to the question, see Eaton, 88-89, and
Kaiser, 70.
[4] Ellen F. Davis, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes,
and the Song of Songs, in the Westminster Bible Companion series (
[5] Cf. Leiman, 83.
[6] Odeberg, 41.
[7] Kidwell, 100.
[8] Tamez, n. 44, p.
164.
[9] Murphy, 42.
[10] Eaton, 94.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Cf. Murphy, 42.
[13] Kidner, 50.
[14] Garrett, 309: Note his comments on the grammar of the
context as to how many people are involved in becoming king. On the ambiguity of the grammar, also see
Longman, 146.
[15] Fleming, 696; Leupold, 113-114; and Rylaarsdam,
111. Some take the reference to
be to Jeroboam, who returned from exile after Solomon’s death to take power
over ten tribes (Kidwell, 105): He was
either poor literally (because of having little money with him or having had to
spend it to maintain himself) or poor in comparison with whoever sat on
the throne. For Joseph as a possible
example of the imprisoned poor man who rises to regal circles and then is later
forgotten, see Loader, 55.
[16] As quoted by
[Page
73] [17] Michael
Kelley, The Burden of God: Studies in Wisdom and Civilization from the
Book of Ecclesiastes (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Contra Mundum
Books, 1993), 11.
[18] Ibid.
[19] Cf. Leiman, 96.
[20] Ibid., 97.
[21] Tamez, 77.
[22] Cf. Johnson, 108.
[23] Perry, 103, stressing the verbal
similarity between Ecclesiastes and the Deuteronomy text.
[24] Fuerst, 122.
[25] Longman, 155.
His view that Qohelet desires to replace
“familiarity” with “fear” (155) is, however, unlikely: verbose and unmeant words reveal disrespect
rather than familiarity.
[26] For example, Fox, Qohelet, 213; Hubbard, 136-137; and Johnson,
109. Whybray,
Ecclesiastes (Century), 97, though embracing such an approach,
concedes that the Hebrew permits the text to be used in either this sense or
the one we suggest.
[27] Kelley, 100.
[28] Schultz, 591.