From: Ecclesiastes
and the Perpetual Paradoxes of Life Return to Home
By
Roland H. Worth, Jr. © 2012
[Page 95]
Chapter Six:
The Paradox of Restraint:
The Need for Moderation Versus
the Reality of Its Violation
(
Lord Acton’s old
axiom, “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely” retains its
validity.[1] The greater the degree of unrestricted power
a government official possesses, the greater the probability that he will act
arbitrarily and oppressively. The Old
Testament expressed the principle by stressing that any centralized ruler would
grab more and more domination and would advance his own interest rather than,
necessarily, those of his people. (See
the detailed warning given through Samuel in 1 Samuel 8:10-18.)
As a ruler, Qohelet
recognized this danger since he was ruler over the nation and answerable to
neither a formal legislative body that might over-rule him nor
to the vote of the people to retain or reject him. One of the few things that could be done to
temper this power was to assure that the monarch was familiar with the laws he
was supposed to enforce. Hence the king
was to personally copy out the entire Torah (Deuteronomy
However much he may
have inadvertently violated the principle in actual practice—and the totally
consistent political leader is a rare bird, indeed—Qohelet
recognized the need for moderation both on his level and that of all others and
writes this section to share his insights with his readers. (And, by re-reading the work, reminding himself as well.)
[Page 96]
Flow
of the Argument:
A.
Moral character does not always guarantee prosperity
in this life (
B. Excess enthusiasm in religion, wisdom, or
misconduct
are all
destructive even though the first two are both
good in and of
themselves (
C.
All sin with the tongue including ourselves (
D.
One can reason out such things but it is not always easy
to do so (
E. Facing the lack of a moral sense in other people
(
F. Restraint in dealings with the
government (8:2-9)
1.
Do not use your relationship with the ruler to
encourage him to do what you know is wrong
(8:2-8)
2. The ruler who allows himself to be misused may
well injure
himself (8:9)
A.
Moral Character Does Not
Always Guarantee Prosperity
in This Life (
Desirable though
moderation is, it does not constitute a “certified check” guaranteeing
success. Qohelet
had witnessed a phenomena that insulted his quite
legitimate sense of evenhandedness: the
“just” individual who “perishes” in spite of his character and the “wicked”
person who, in spite of his fundamental flawed nature, is able to live out a
long life while never improving. He
can’t change the injustice. Unlike Job,
he doesn’t argue with God about it. But
he is determined to survive it.[2]
One would think that
if moral restraint were really that desirable that it would inevitably benefit
the individual. The king has seen it
doesn’t always work [Page 97] out that
way. Indeed, there seems a clear tone of
discouragement and sadness in the way he introduces his observation, “I have
seen everything in my days of vanity” and we can mentally picture him shaking
his head in sorrow and disbelief.
The despicable
situation of injustice triumphant can drive a person to even greater
despair. Paul quotes Psalms 42:2 in
writing to the Romans, “For Your sake we are killed all day long; we are
accounted as sheep for the slaughter” (Romans
Unlike Paul, Qohelet does not even offer a partial solution. He only recognizes the quandary and, even
with his great wisdom, does not lay out a way of dealing with it. To him it was simply another reality of life
that we must recognize as real regardless of whether it is either “fair” or
“equitable.”
How had he come to
this recognition when he was tightly wrapped in a cocoon of privilege and
wealth? Quite likely he had heard of
cases that were literally beyond the reach of law. That may have been because the offense
skirted its fringe or dealt with matters unprovable
before any judge but which everyone recognized involved an unquestioned
injustice. (The simple reality then and
even today is that law is not constituted in such a manner that it can root out
all injustice. It is simply beyond
the capacity of law.)
Some may have been cases handled by
subordinates in which the truth only came out later. (A phenomena not unfamiliar to the modern
world either.) In some cases the
repressor is even the law itself, brandished to further injustice rather than
the right. Whether ruler or mere
citizen, sometimes all we can do is recognize the phenomena and imitate Qohelet in shaking our heads in revulsion at a reality of
life that has never vanished.
This root fact ties in
with what follows in that the author is advising a life of prudence and
restraint—of fundamental ethical character, if you will. Yet he is all too well aware that it is not a
bullet proof vest against injustice. The
virtuous life of moderation is to be pursued because it is inherently better
and not because it will assure either prosperity or triumph over earthly
oppression.
B. Excess
Enthusiasm in Religion, Wisdom,
or Misconduct Are
All Destructive Even
Though the
First Two Are Both Good
in and of
Themselves (
[Page 98]
It is easy for us to
grasp the idea of avoiding evil—certainly its excesses! It is far harder for us to grapple with the
idea that even virtues can be over done and, instead of making us better people, become counterproductive and even harmful
to us.
First there is the
fact that even religious enthusiasm can become transformed into a negative, “Do
not be overly righteous, nor be overly wise; why should you
destroy yourself?” (7:16). The sad fact
is that a person can become so preoccupied with explicitly religious behavior
that the application of the Biblical principles that one claims to
believe in are ignored in actual application to other areas of life.
I recall the reliable report I had of one
lady in the Middle West who was so wrapped up in going here, there, and
everywhere on “church matters” (and thus they were) that she neglected her
husband and family, the maintenance of the household, and the social
interactions that are essential to maintain a relationship. Her piety took her to the divorce court. Her religion destroyed her marriage just as
surely as if she had an affair.
There is a thin line
between dedication and obsession. There
is a narrow difference between the enthusiasm of commitment and the enthusiasm
produced by unremoved guilt. When that line is crossed it can easily be
because one feels continued responsibility
over some moral or relational difficulty in the past and—on some deep
level—we think that by becoming super-religious one “compensates” for that
failure.
But the right relationship with the Divine
does not consist of super-achievement in one area of life (religious activity)
as a means of atoning for the failure in others. It consists of relying upon Divine grace and
seeking forgiveness for whatever those failures may have been. If God was willing to forgive Paul for
persecuting the church, surely there is nothing we have done that He is
unwilling to forgive.
Individuals manifest
over religiousness in a number of ways—a religiousness that does them no real
good so far as reconciliation with God.
They make a public show of it and make sure others can’t escape
knowledge of their piety (Matthew 6:1-4).
It can involve stressing obedience to the minute details of God’s law
and forgetting that its great principles need to be applied as well (Matthew
23:23).
It can involve “acting” religious without
the actions having any real faith roots in the heart (Matthew
Next Qohelet turns to the person who is seeing how much he can get
away with, “Do not be overly wicked, nor be foolish” (7:17a). The risk taker. The gambler. The one who is driven by
inner demons of inferiority to take moral or physical risks that border on the
irrational. James 1:21 (“overflow
of wickedness”) and 1 Peter 4:4 (“flood of dissipation”) both describe
people who not only do evil but do abundant evil; we might go so far as
to say (only half seriously) that they are so extreme that they give evil
itself a bad name!
[Page 99] The prime late twentieth century example of
such a person was surely President Bill Clinton. One of the things that really annoyed me
about his sexual escapades in and before the Oval Office—in addition to the
fact that they occurred at all . . that they represented a lifestyle rather
than a temporary failure . . . that he committed perjury over them . . . and
that he managed to do it so often that he got himself caught—lay in the fact
that he “even gave affairs a bad name.”
In traditional amoral mythology the
“affair” has a romantic tinge to it, hours grasped to enjoy the company and
pleasure with someone you would enjoy spending all your time with. Some one you respect, think the world of, and
perhaps are even in a bit of awe over.
If the testimony of
the investigations released at the time are anywhere close to accurate,
however, Clinton treated the woman at the center of the affair as a mere sexual
toy for his own gratification and pleasure until he got bored and cast her
aside. How she could endure such
trivialization is one of the abiding mysteries of the whole situation. He had been not only “wicked” but “overly
wicked” in frequency and mind frame toward those he (mis)used
for his pleasure. She was available and
that was all that mattered. He even made
evil look worse than it normally would.
Some find it repulsive
to think in terms of being “overly wicked,” as if that some how implied it was
right to be “moderately wicked.” Qohelet has no such idea in his mind. It is, rather, a very this-world application
of a fundamental principle found throughout the work, “use wisdom and common
sense in all areas of life.” And just as
the religious can become so consumed by his or her religion that a balance is
no longer maintained, the same can easily happen to the person who admits to
few moral scruples at all. And the
excess becomes so extreme it may even embarrass anyone who knows about it.
Perhaps the modern conceptual equivalent of
Solomon’s idea would be, “don’t make a fool of yourself.”
In particular the
author of Ecclesiastes has in mind that “wicked” and “foolish” behavior which can
get you killed, “Why should you die before your time?” (
More often the
backlash comes from “death” in a very different form. That of the death of
reputation and public respect.
Public image is a very odd thing.
A star or starlet, for example, may act in the most irresponsible manner
for years, doing one outlandish or immoral thing after another.
And finally it happens one time too often
and their long-suffering public begins to think of them as despicable and not
to be trusted. It doesn’t happen to
every person who acts this way. But it
happens to enough that it should give pause and make one reconsider whether the
mere fact that one “can get away with” something means that there won’t be
consequences in one form or another.
In
If a person is astute
enough to grasp this truth that extremes of all type can be avoided, then one
has greater “strength” than do “ten rulers of the city” (7:19). This may point to a council of ten rulers
characterizing city government at the time.[3] Alternatively it may simply mean a
significant number of rulers, whatever that figure might be from place to place. Intellectual strength is given a greater
importance than temporal governing power.
It is not to dismiss the importance of the latter, but to stress the
importance of the former.
The text viewed from the standpoint of the author. When and how did Solomon come to the
conclusions he did? One could easily
expect the super-religious example to have come from observation of prominent
members of the priesthood. In a similar
manner, one could expect the morality is irrelevant mind frame to be found
among the more secular orientated of his governing advisers. As an individual whose position required him
to come in contact with many people of both strata--and as an astute observer--it
would have been difficult for him to avoid seeing repeated examples of both
weaknesses.
The text viewed from our standpoint. As one grows older and moves from community
to community and meets a wide variety of religious and strictly secular folks,
one inevitably comes into contact with glaring examples of both the piety-is-enough
and constraint-be-damned mind-frames.
Perhaps the most sad example occurs when the
two approaches blend into one in the same individual.
In the Middle Ages
more than a few popes disgraced their religious leadership by hypocrisy,
political conspiracy, and immoral behavior of the worst kind. Their position of leadership was, somehow,
expected to please God sufficiently to cause Him to overlook all the other
offenses.
The mentality is far from dead and there
are no religious boundaries to it. The cardinal who callously suppresses repeated stories of child
molestation and passes on a priest to yet another parish to prey upon its
youth. The television
“evangelist” who weeps tears of pious joy weekly and then prowls the street
periodically for a prostitute.
Who hasn’t read reports of such? The names are irrelevancies for, let another
decade or two go by, and won’t we read of someone else falling into the same or
similar traps? Human nature changes
little and the evils Qohelet warns against are just
as lethal today as they were in his day.
[Page 101]
C. All Sin with
the Tongue
Including
Ourselves (
This section begins
with one of the most fundamental principles of both testaments: we are all sinners (
None of these is the
subject of the current text. Instead,
here the emphasis is on how our sinfulness should affect our attitude and
actions toward others. From our failures
Solomon argues that we should be restrained in our judgment since we commit the
same offenses as they. If we hear them
figuratively or literally “cursing you” (
“Cursing” here may or may not carry our
modern connotation of vulgarity. It
certainly does carry the idea of condemnation and censure and vigorous
passion in doing so.[5] Oversensitivity at the very offenses—in
others--that we ourselves commit not only torments our inner spirit,[6] it
easily makes us look like hypocrites in the eyes of others who have a fuller
appreciation of what is happening.
Did Qohelet learn this application from some occasion on which
he criticized some subordinate for “biting the head off” of another for some
real or perceived misjudgment--and then happen to overhear some other servant
remarking “it sounded a lot like what the king himself said to so-and-so last
month”? Or perhaps he saw some
particularly annoying fault-finder on his governmental staff guilty of the
inconsistency and was astute enough to recognize just how contradictory was the
person’s rebuff with his own behavior?
Many a sermon has
justly been preached upon the impropriety of condemning others for what we
ourselves do. In the Sermon on the Mount
Jesus took it even further. He
emphasized that it is extremely easy to be supercritical of others when, by any
objective judgment we ourselves have been guilty of far worse (Matthew 7:1-5).
D. One Can
Reason Out Such Things but It Is
Not Always Easy
to Do So (
[Page 102]
Solomon sought out
wisdom but here he makes an admission:
it did not come easily. Often it
seemed “far from me” (
Note the play on words: “folly” is itself “wickedness.” It is a waste of our talents and
opportunities. But we may still have to
think out why this particular act is wrong. Some evils are easy to detect: Others require thought and meditation. When we are so close to the line between
right and wrong that it seems “fuzzy” and “gray,” that itself is a warning that
we are about to stumble across the barrier.
Any one who has
researched and written a book on a difficult or controversial topic—as I have
on more than once occasion—has gained a taste of what Qohelet
went through. The data is elusive. Everywhere you turn someone is arguing the
opposite. How in the world do you
determine what the truth is?
Yet this is the course
of despair. Whether one seeks out
historical, moral, or religious truth the one certain way of never finding it
is to stop looking. That
the ancient king refused to do.
And by not giving in, he found it.
Just as we can.
D. Facing the
Lack of a Moral Sense
in Other
People (
First the author
pictures the woman who is an utter trap for a man, “the woman whose heart is
snares and nets, whose hands are fetters” (
Yet the sense of sexual obsession or
inadequacy is so strong that many will allow their looks or superficial charm
to blind them to everything they lack in substance, intellect, maturity, and
the ability to share love and affection.
The sexual act becomes the be-all of the male-female relationship rather
than the glue that bonds all these elements into the synthesis of a new person,
the “oneness” of a married couple.[7] Short term pleasure is gained only at the
cost of ongoing torment.
In this verse Qohelet conspicuously does not claim that all women
are destructive in such ways. Although
it is not uncommon to find commentators insisting that this is his view,[8] the
wording of the verse points to a specific kind of a woman, a woman with
negative and destructive attitudes and actions.[9] They could [Page 103] be looking for another sexual conquest,
they could view us as a means to a better economic position in life, they could simply be seeking someone they think they
can dominate and control. Any one who
believes that only males can be so self-centered is living in a fool’s
paradise.
Feminist ideological
saber-rattling notwithstanding, the fact remains that there are more than a few
thoroughly obnoxious women who will make life “a living hell” for any male
unlucky enough to fall into their spider-web.
The male of the species is quite capable of similar extreme and
irresponsible behavior and one would be equally wrong to ignore it. Qohelet does not
denounce those males for he, obviously, was not married to one of them and no
doubt if the author had been a woman she would have illustrated the danger from
the predatory male gender.
Solomon is pictured as having a multitude
of wives. Could this be the bitter voice
of experience speaking? Most likely.[10] Even in the polygamous culture in which he
lived--one in which he did not have to deal with any single wife more than he
wished--one woman of this temperament could make his life miserable. Not to mention that of the other wives with
whom she came in contact. Directly in their personal relations and indirectly through
disrupting the relationships of the entire extended familial household.
Others prefer to take
the woman of the text symbolically. As
H. C. Leupold argues, “Since at the beginning of the
chapter the discussion is still on the subject of wisdom, it cannot seem
strange if we claim that here the discussion centers wholly on the same
subject. . . . We maintain then . . .
that the strange woman is heathen philosophy or any form of human philosophy,
even as she is in the book of Proverbs” (referring to the “strange woman” texts
of that earlier book).[11]
But if the “woman” symbolizes the rejected
pagan philosophy, what are we to equate the almost as extremely criticized
“man” of verse 28? One would presumably
need a Jewish parallel to run alongside the pagan one since the pagan
alternative has been exhausted by the imagery of the “woman.” In the times of Jesus we have the human
traditions that twisted the intent and purpose of Torah (Matthew 15:1-9), but
would Qohelet have had to deal with something
comparable in his day?
The intensity of Solomon’s denunciation of
women (in
Next the author turns
to males and their inability to live up to Qohelet’s
exacting standards (
[Page 104] None versus one in a
thousand. In
other words, virtually none at all.[14] If this is a compliment to the male
gender, it is a back-handed slap rather than actual praise. They barely make it either.
If we insist on making
Nor does the charge of sexism work any
better by citing this (grudging?) admission that one in a thousand males is
actually capable of “wisdom” while he had never met a woman so blessed. After all, he wasn’t in a society that
encouraged women in that direction in the first place. Indeed, since he had found so pitifully few males
capable of attaining the goal, even if there had been an absolute
educational and social equality, he was hardly likely to have found any higher
a percentage of females than that meager a percentage!
His scorn of one gender is only a shade
above that of the other. Hence it
manifests despair at the human race, rather than one gender alone.
Oddly, some insist that Solomon is still
talking about women: In rebuking females
he is admitting that there were a few who did not fail his test, his one
in a thousand.[16] Can we really believe that he wore
such thick “gender glasses” that he was oblivious to the faults of his own
gender—that he would take the implicit stance that women were hopeless while
males generally were quite satisfactory?
Do we really believe that earlier he
was speaking of women when he denounces oppressors and the abusers of their
government/bureaucratic positions? No,
to the extent that he zeroes in on specific character failures, most of them
appear to be either gender neutral or targeted at the male. He was not one to be oblivious to either
gender’s failures.
Indeed, the very next
thing he turns to is that all of humankind falls fatally short of its
individual moral potential, “Truly, this only I have found: that God made man upright, but they have
sought out many schemes” (
Whatever “superiority” the male has in one
area, he looses by a multitude of other shortcomings. And the woman, too, for
that matter. The logic of the
context is: women fall short (
In spite of the fact
that so few are truly wise (
Clearly Solomon
despairs for the human (male or female) ability to acquire practical
wisdom as it relates to how to live and behave.
Looking around us today, the human species seems to have made
only limited progress in regard to either gender. When observing the practical failures in
constructive interaction between [Page 105]
humans--both within a family and a social context--is not the failure
rate still appalling?
A few examples: The tendency to approve or justify whatever
evil our offspring commits, substitutes family
“loyalty” for the censure that is amply deserved. The inclination to avoid
criticism of relatives even when they have acted in the most blatantly
destructive manner. The willingness to call every failure a human “disease” rather than
admit that a voluntarily chosen lifestyle has created the problem. And the list goes on and on.
If Qohelet lived
today, would he have been willing to whitewash such inconsistencies and the
perversion of the reasoning progress? Or
would he not have lashed out at our blindness and wondered whether he
would still be able to find even his one in a thousand?
Faced with the destructiveness
that so often exists within organized society, it would be easy for us to give
up our hearts to despair. The ancient
monarch was clearly tempted by that course, so why should it be surprising if
we are so inclined? Yet he consciously
refused to embrace it, just as we should.
The evils haven’t vanished but the potential for wisdom is
still there and if we encourage but a few in that direction, we still leave the
world with more such right-minded individuals than when we first entered it.
F.
Restraint in Dealings with the Government (8:2-9)
1.
Do Not Use Your Relationship with the Ruler to
Encourage Him to Do
What You
Know Is Wrong (8:2-8)
The fundamental fact
in an ancient monarchy was that the king made the rules: these one must obey because one has made an
implicit or explicit “oath to God” to do so (8:2).[18] Although there is always an implicit
oath of duties between subjects and rulers—you are benefited by the rule and
have a moral obligation to obey (cf. Romans 13)—the immediate reference, in
light of what comes next, are office holders of whatever rank. Alternatively those seeking
prominence at the royal court.[19]
In some cases there was certainly an explicit
oath in regard to policy as well. 2
Kings
Although it was a
natural desire among those of the higher socio-economic-political classes to
wish to be near the king it was a privilege/right they should exercise with
caution (8:3a).[20] Beware of advocating something you know to be
“evil” because the king himself will make the final decision (8:3b) and if he
is perceptive and has seen through the foolishness of your advice, you will
either be shunned by him or face overt punishment.
Nor is it prudent to attempt to challenge a
king as to what he is doing; he has the power (8:4). Although the monarch, if prudent, will
recognize that there will be times when he is not advocating the best approach,
a brazen challenge is not going to win his friendship and is likely to reap his
dangerous animosity. Even when the
ruler’s ideas are unwise, one must “discern both time and judgment” as to when
and how to raise the matter (8:5). In
the ebb and flow of political decision making, there will be a time to
do so, though it may not be until after the policy has had adequate severe
consequences (8:6) that will make the king amenable to a change in course.
Telling him in advance when he doesn’t want
to hear, will do no good because no one can be
absolutely certain of the outcome (8:7).
Your advice might actually be the best, but circumstances work in
such a manner as to allow an inferior policy to be the successful one. In one sense this advice is very
“utilitarian” rather than idealistic or crusading;[21] on
the other hand, it is also the best way to assure that our ideals and goals
have a chance of becoming reality.
Now the king returns to the point he began
on: giving advice you know will produce
an “evil” result (8:3). “Wickedness will
not deliver those who are given to it” (8:8) and if he has caught you giving
this kind of advice he will cut you no slack and his wrath will be coming down
on your head and not someone else’s.
The theme throughout here is prudence. Prudence when you are right: bid your time until the situation changes and
your superior advice may be listened to.
Prudence even when you want to mis-steer the king: don’t knowingly even attempt it. The consequences are too severe if he
discovers what you are attempting. Any
monarch will receive competing counsel.
Often it will grow out of the attempt of rival cliques to implement
their own agenda, seeking to utilize the ruler as their tool. Others are merely arrogant individuals who
have deluded themselves into believing they have the best advice even though
only the presence of inherited wealth has permitted them that illusion. Yet others will be attempting to use the
king’s actions to further their own private and personal agenda of financial
increase, revenge, and prestige seeking.
They will even embrace what they know is an “evil” course of action
(8:3) if it furthers those aims.
A ruler learns these
facts or he becomes a mere instrument of powerful court factions. Qohelet,
presumably, had encountered such people during his reign and was well aware of
the jockeying for position and influence that was constantly going on around
him. Any competent king would
recognize it. Hence the not-so-subtle
reminder throughout this section that the king retains his power and
that if you play unsuccessful games with his goals and intents, you are
the one that will ultimately suffer.
[Page 107] We, as individuals, behold similar
jockeying in corporate
Yet the factional
fighting ultimately gets out of hand.
And somebody, sometimes even managers and higher, discover their civil
wars have gotten them transferred into a new job rather than advanced their own
power interests. So the mentality Qohelet faced is still with us today and is just as much a
plague.
2.
The Ruler Who
Allows Himself
to Be Misused
May Well
Injure Himself (8:9)
This is the part that
must have hurt the king to write or dictate:
he had made mistakes. He had taken
the wrong advice upon occasion. He had
done injury to others, quite possibly.
He certainly had done injuries to himself and his own
policies. “All this I have seen and
applied my heart to every work that is done under the sun: There is a time in which one man rules over
another to his own hurt” (8:9).
No one likes feeling a
fool. In my own work career I have seen
multi-million dollar projects that were supposed to thrust our company into the
forefront of the industry, collapse into disarray because some computer gurus
had sold us a bill of goods that they could not accomplish. On a much more modest level, I once worked
for thirteen years with a typesetting company who had
invested hundreds of thousands, repeatedly, into the latest state of the art
systems. And for thirteen years it
teetered on the edge of bankruptcy as the varied systems refused to work as
advertised, with the company finally collapsing a few years after I left.
Monarchs don’t like
being sold “a bill of goods” either, especially if they discover that it had
benefited an individual or a small fraction of their aristocracy and no one
else. After all, the blame comes back
upon the ruler who approved the actual decision and not those who manipulated
him into it. And if the tone of Qohelet’s works can be trusted, he remembered with
considerable annoyance and anger when it had happened to him personally.
Footnotes
[Page 108]
[1] Kidner, 67,
suggests the axiom is the modern way of expressing the thought of 7:7.
[2] Tamez, 99.
[3] This works
especially well if one assigns the work to a time when Greek city government
customs had become widely known. Leupold, 167, though, notes that the city under
consideration is surely “Palestinian” and that there is no reason to believe
that they had adopted such a procedure.
[4] Leiman, 139.
[5] Cf.
Kidwell, 185.
[6] Leiman, 138.
[7] Cf. Bush, 25.
[8] For example, Frank
Zimmermann, The Inner World of Qohelet (New
York: KTAV Publishing House, Inc.,
1973), 29. For a survey of
alternative interpretations, see Salyer, n. 54, pp.
345-346.
[9] Leiman, 143.
[10] Bergant, 270; Davis, 205; and Tamez, 10.
[11] Leupold, 173-174.
[12] Tomas Frydrych, Living
under the Sun: Examination of Proverbs
and Qoheleth, Supplements to Vetus
Testamentum, volume 90 (
[13] Fox, Qohelet,
242-243, is uncertain what the contrast is intended to convey but protests
against the strictly “male” reading of the text, “He could not say that he
found only one male in a thousand.” In
light of his clear cynicism about the human race, why not?
[14] Crenshaw, 147.
[15]
[17] Crenshaw, 148.
[18] For the unlikely possibility that the
“king” in the text is Yahweh Himself, see the discussions in Leiman, 149-150, 151; Kelley, 124-125; and Leupold, 179-191.
[19] Bergant, 271
applies it to both types of individuals.
[20] For the text of alleged pagan parallels to
8:2-5, see the quotations in Panc Beentjes,
“ ‘Who Is like the Wise,’ Some Notes on Qohelet
8:1-15,” in Qohelet in the Context of
Wisdom, edited by Antoon Schoors
(Leuven-Louvain, Belgium: Leuven University
Press, 1998), 307.
[21] Bergant,
271-272.