From: Ecclesiastes
and the Perpetual Paradoxes of Life Return to Home
By
Roland H. Worth, Jr. © 2012
[Page 74]
Chapter Four:
The Paradox of Wealth:
It is Both Desirable Yet Potentially Tormenting
(
Even a predominantly barter
economy requires some cash.
Modern economies have shifted the situation a 180 degrees to where
almost nothing can be done without it; barter now seems a strange,
exotic and almost incomprehensible phenomena.
Hence, if anything, Ecclesiastes’ critique of money and wealth is even
more relevant today than when the book was written. Everyone then might have a little
money, but they would be essentially “cash poor” and virtually what the
twentieth century called “stone broke.”
Yet Qohelet does not target money alone, but money as a symbol
of wealth in general. And even the “cash
poor” in the ancient world might have some of that—in the form of abundant
crops, herds, or property. Ultimately
this enhanced both their status in life and the possibility of leisure within
their social status. Since it was the natural human aspiration to share in such
abundance, Solomon’s words were relevant to both those who already possessed
such blessings and to those who could only aspire to them.
Flow
of the Argument
[Page 75]
A.
Love of money
breeds dissatisfaction (
B.
Wealth can be
lost while we have it (
C.
Prosperity should
make us happy (
D. Yet it can be lost to foreign conquest (6:1-2)
E.
It can
destroy the satisfaction that should be found in moral character (6:3-6)
F.
It can keep
one from being contented (6:7-9)
G. It can delude one into believing that God can be
safely ignored (
A.
Love of Money Breeds
Dissatisfaction (
When Qohelet critiques wealth as stirring up discontentment (
(1) Psychologically it breeds the mind
frame that there is never enough (
Solomon calls it an
absurdity that one should want yet more silver than he already has (
(2)
Increased wealth requires increased expenses and therefore it often only
creates the appearance of growing wealth rather than its reality (
(3)
The poor man can sleep without worrying about what is going to happen to
his money tomorrow since he has little or none; the rich man (as a
generalization) won’t be able to do that.
He has so much to lose, he will be tormented by the possibility of its
loss (
[Page 76]
The text viewed from the standpoint of the author. As ruler, Qohelet
would have been well that regal prestige demands that a monarch have
more. If he can’t afford it, that itself
is a form of humiliation.
Increased properties
and possessions brought with it a disproportionate increase in manpower. Individuals may “cheat” by reducing staff to
a minimum, but a king can not afford the personal and national “humiliation” of
having such a modest court that any of his fellow countrymen can come close to
equaling it.
And if the ruler has
any meaningful concept of how much all this is costing, he is going to be
deeply concerned about assuring his revenue inflow. For those costs in goods and cash are present
even in years when agricultural and other production can not cover it.
The text
viewed from our standpoint. A
million sermons have surely been preached utilizing one or more of these
points, especially the perpetual discontent that obsession with wealth can and
usually does produce.
I have personally known only two millionaires. One I worked for and he drove his daughters
to distraction because he dared do his own laundry. “They were dirty,” was simply not adequate
justification to his children.
The other had retired from the insurance
business in
For every man like
either of these, there are a hundred who never dare slow down. They are in a perpetual race to increase their
bottom line. Not because they need it
any more, but because it is the only way they know how to live. Wealth is no longer the useful means
to an end, but the end itself. The
preservation and growth of that wealth becomes as heavy a cross to carry as was
the literal one that a condemned man carried to his crucifixion.
B.
Wealth Can Be Lost While
We Have It (
Wealth also needs to
be kept in proportion by recognizing that whatever we have gained we can also
lose (
[Page 77] A second form of losing wealth is to do so
literally (5:14a) and the overtone in this verse seems to be of
mismanagement. In this case any
offspring are born poor instead of with the advantages they should have had
(5:14b).
If this is not bad
enough, the naked truth is that even if we avoid such perils, we will still leave
the world just as we came into it: naked
and without a penny of our own (5:15).
This inflicts upon us a “severe evil” (i.e., something extremely
undesirable) in that no matter how hard we have labored we leave it all behind
(
As ruler, did the
author go through a stage like this? Was
there a period when the economic foundations of his reign gave every indication
they were going to crumble and he foresaw such a danger just over the
horizon? If he did, it would explain the
pain in the words. Yet observation of
lesser richer men in the kingdom would have brought to him more than one
example to illustrate the danger as well.
The truth of these
verses had been reworded in the modern age to suggest that wealth lasts three
generations: one to earn it, one to
preserve it, and one to lose it.
Certainly that is common enough.
Given that length of time you are certainly going to find one immoral
spendthrift or one pivotal purveyor of fatal business misjudgment. Either one can effectively wipe out even a
large fortune.
The parent (assuming that he or she hasn’t
chosen the path of drug or alcohol addiction and, hence, may not have the
foggiest perception of what is going on) inevitably feels both embarrassed and
humiliated—not just for what they have lost but also for not being able
to assure that the next generation is generously provided for.
Such has been the traditional mind frame in
western society. It will be interesting
to see how long it survives with the welfare state taking on the
responsibilities traditionally assumed by family members. Not to mention the “me first” ideology that
became so popular in the 1960s and which is now resulting in many parents
consciously spending their savings on personal pleasure in their senior years
rather than preserving it for the next generation. If children are no longer taught to have
ongoing respect and concern for their parents, why should it be surprising if
the parents feel equally unobligated for their
offspring?
C.
Prosperity Should Make Us
Happy (
Although he has been
describing the reality of many/most of the well-to-do, in these verses Qohelet argues that there should be a very different
mind-frame toward wealth: (1) It should
be counted as something to be enjoyed; (2) it should be counted as a gift of
God.
[Page 78] In taking this approach, he has embraced a
common Old Testament theme: God’s
ability to provide wealth (Genesis 24:35; Deuteronomy
Yet if God
makes the wealth possible, then that should transform our view of the wealth
itself. It is no longer simply something
we have earned; it becomes also something we have been given. As Deuteronomy
Solomon, of all
people, had good reason to view wealth through this prism. Though he had been offered any blessing he
wished and had chosen wisdom so that he could govern his people wisely and well
(1 Kings 3:9), his good judgment on this had been generously rewarded in other
ways as well, “And I have also given you what you have not asked: both riches and honor, so that there shall
not be anyone like you among the kings all your days” (3:18).
We have no idea how
long it took Solomon to grasp this and adopt this view of his possessions. Perhaps it only came when he recognized that
the sole alternative was despair over the inherent dangers of maintaining and
preserving it.
Humans in general have an even greater difficulty
in putting wealth in perspective.
Lacking a spiritual commitment that tells us that there is far more to
our existence than mere fleshly attainments and possessions, the danger of
losing the temporal assets easily becomes not only a concern but an
obsession. Especially in our western
society where we have come to view being prosperous—at least in the broadest
sense of the term—as not only a blessing but virtually a constitutional right.
D.
Yet It Can Be Lost to
Foreign Conquest (6:1-2)
We Americans do not
know what it is like to be a conquered people. Only the southern
The ancient world knew
the phenomena all too well and many parts of our globe today still do. In comparison to
Modest border conflict
and internal raiding parties by marauders were far from impossible but such
incidents did not rise to the level of a major conflict and the danger of a
governmental collapse. Even if that were
not the case, the generality of foreign conquest that Qohelet
develops was still readily recognizable for its validity.
For the ruler it meant
he might lose his throne or at least valuable possessions. For the less wealthy scattered throughout the
land, it could mean that they would lose everything.[3] Faced with such calamity what else could it be called but an “absurdity” (“vanity”) and “an evil
affliction” to be survived?
E.
It Can Destroy the Satisfaction That Should
be Found in Moral
Character (6:3-6)
In these verses the
author equates two things as equally humiliating: to lack a burial (which shows no one has any
respect or abiding concern for you) and for a well blessed person being “not
satisfied with goodness” (6:3)—the goodness he has been blessed with and the
character he exhibits in his life.
Furthermore, if he has “not seen goodness” (the advantages, blessings,
and potential abundances of life) it would do no good to live two millenniums
(6:6) or to have “a hundred children” (6:3).
Hebrew society counted large progeny as a wonderful blessing of God;
modern technocratic society has transferred it to the individual being
healthily old—preferably very old age.
But both a large number of children and
personal old age shrivel into insignificance if accompanied by bitterness,
rage, and a lack of personal satisfaction.
Indeed, if one can not enjoy the blessings of life, it would be better
to be born dead (6:3): at least in such
a tragic case the person has not had to endure the decades of frustration and
injury.[4] It becomes a “shorter and less agonizing way”
to reach the Sheol that the aged must also enter.[5]
In this context of
wealth, the connection would be that the search and maintenance of it can drive
out the pleasure of having abundance in the first place—not to mention that it
can be an excuse to purge out all the inhibitions regulating conduct that every
one else is expected to be governed by.
The famous trial of O.J. Simpson for alleged murder illustrates
this. Many were convinced it was a
racial affair. Far
from it to the bulk of Americans.
As I explained to those who would listen,
“He stopped being black years ago. He
became green (= wealthy) and there’s a different set of standards for anyone
that is green.” They can’t get away with
“everything” but who would question that they [Page 80] can’t get away with most things that would
never be tolerated from anyone else?
When the daughter of a U.S. President is treated unusually generously on
liquor charges (or a niece on drug charges) do we really believe that
power and wealth (through the purchase of an expensive lawyer if nothing else)
had nothing to do with it?
Money exempts from the
rules mere mortals must live by.
And it was no
different in Solomon’s ancient kingdom.
This was especially
true of monarchs themselves. In most
countries and most of the time, they were the law. It was not designed for them. And even if, theoretically, it was, only
personal scruples kept them from bending it for their own benefit. Think of king David
setting up the death of Bathsheba’s husband (2 Samuel
At least David—when he was publicly
confronted with what he had done (2 Samuel
F. It Can Keep One From
Being
Contented (6:7-9)
Without contentment
the wise man is no better off than the poor “fool” who seems ignorant and
without understanding (6:7-8). It is
better to be content with what we see in front of us that to be tormented by
wandering “desire[s]”[6] that
always want more than what we have (6:9).
Analogous in meaning would be the modern adage, “A bird in the hand is
worth two in the bush,”[7] what
you have is worth far more than what you might have but don’t.
In this book Qohelet comes face to face with his own wandering mind and
discontentment. He has repeatedly made
plain that the disgruntlement is not just that of others but of himself as well.
He is brutally honest. He hides
nothing from us.
Yet people in general often fail to be
equally candid. They are tormented over the
futilities of life but refuse to admit it.
They are anguished over their failures but never seek out an explanation
for it or a broader philosophical framework in which it would make sense. Yet if we are to preserve our full mental
well being, we must ourselves wrestle with these same demons and triumph over
them.
[Page 81]
G. It Can
Delude One into
Believing
that God Can Be
Safely
Ignored (
God is but one
element—almost a secondary element—in the author’s thinking. It is not that He is unimportant but that Qohelet is desperately thinking in terms of an answer in
the “here” and “now.” Yet even that
inevitably and repeatedly causes our relationship to God to be introduced. For we have some kind of relationship
with Him in the present world even when we do not consider it the central core
of our lives.
In these verses we
come face to face with the fact that in the final analysis, we can not ignore
God. We “cannot contend with Him who is
mightier than” we are (
Although this is true
of mankind in general, it is hard for a monarch to come to terms with this
reality. In
In
Footnotes
[1] Kamano, 139.
[2] For a quotation from the Instruction of
Ptahhotep, see Kaiser, 40.
[3] David A. Hubbard, 151-152, in effect,
interprets the text to refer to those from some other region of the same land
who obtain control “by confiscation, court
[Page 82] order, or distress
sale.” Foreign conquest seems the
more likely though occupiers might well utilize the latter two techniques to
maintain a façade of semi-legality.
[4] Longman, 171.
[5] Buck, 517.
[6] For the argument that the text has death
rather than wandering desires under consideration, see Whybray,
Ecclesiastes (Century), 109.
[7] Tamez, 89-90,
quotes the Spanish form of this, “A bird in the hand is worth more than a
hundred flying.”