From: Ecclesiastes
and the Perpetual Paradoxes of Life Return to Home
By
Roland H. Worth, Jr. © 2012
[Page 110]
Chapter Seven:
The Paradox of Evil:
Even Though It May Triumph,
It Does Not Have to Crush Us
(
Neither moral nor political
good is guaranteed a victory in shaping either individual character or the
nation’s future. Nor can evil be assumed
to have it assured either. It could go
either way. Which means on some
occasions, at least, the unjust, ethically or utilitarian blind,
and self-servers gain the upper hand.
But even when social or moral evil seems
victorious, a permanent triumph is far from its grasp. Not to mention that even in the hours of its
“success,” it does not have to secure the ethical, or
spiritual supremacy over our inner selves.
That victory can only be obtained if we surrender it.
Flow
of the Argument
A. Evil people do not triumph permanently: Since they
also die we should
enjoy as much of life as we can
(8:10-15)
B. No matter how smart we are, we
will never discover all
that God does in this current world (
C. It
is deeply disturbing but it remains true:
Anything
can happen to
anyone regardless of individual moral
character (9:2-3)
D.
Yet so long as there is life there is ground for hope and
reason to live happily and work hard (9:4-12)
[Page 111]
A. Evil People
Do Not Triumph Permanently:
Since They
Also Die We Should Enjoy as Much of
Life As We
Can (
On an emotional level
the triumph of the oppressor and the perpetuator of injustice is galling. Failure
that occurs because of circumstances beyond our control, we do not like but we
can understand. Failure because we are
the targeted victims (either as individuals or as a class) outrages us because
we know it is intentional and malicious.
The incapacity of law to right all such wrongs makes it even worse.
But evil triumphs in
very different ways as well. The one who
has tried to live morally, treat his neighbor equitably, and do fairly by all
those he or she has dealings with may suffer economic harm and premature death
at the hands of the inanimate world of economics and disease. In contrast the person who has scorned moral
scruple may prosper in that same environment.
On an individual level, the person without
principles may similarly gain the upper hand.
He may run over us, but there is nothing truly personal in the act. He hates neither our
gender, race, or ethnicity. We
are simply “in the way” of achieving his goal and we must be removed so he can
come out on top. In its own way this is
just as galling. It is such evil
triumphant (whether specifically targeted at us or not) that concerns Solomon
in this section.
The basic thrust of
reassurance in these verses is that even the victorious evil person must die as
well. The reprobate who had once been
religious and then left it behind to pursue his evil (
He was rather than is. There is a beautiful scene in the musical Scrooge
(adapted of course from Charles Dickens’ famous tale) of Ebenezer’s vision of
the future: A large crowd is gathered
around the front of his house and they are singing that it’s “the greatest
thing he ever did for us.” With his back
to the crowd, he doesn’t realize that they are carrying his casket out
of his home.
[Page 112] The person who has adopted a destructive
lifestyle toward self and others is deluded in forgetting this coming death
because the months and years seem to go by and none of the deserved retribution
comes his way (8:11). Furthermore, since
there is no punishment, surely, he can’t be doing anything all that bad can he?
To give the most
extreme example, even if a person could actually do a hundred evil things a day
and get away with them all, that in no way detracts from the fact that those
who have reverential “fear” for God will ultimately be blessed by the
Almighty (8:12). Nor will the seemingly numberless evil acts
of the wicked allow him to indefinitely avoid his ultimate meeting with death
(8:13): His length of “days” (life) will
seem to be prolonged (8:12), but still be nowhere near as numerous as if
he had lived as he should (8:13).
From one standpoint, it took a long time to
reach his due (cf.
We have here a very
vague concept of death becoming an act of judgment—upon the evil person as
punishment for his or her evils and upon the righteous as a reward for
faithfulness. It is nebulous and cloudy,
but if both die and if one is to look upon death as retribution
and one as a blessing, it seems inescapable that Qohelet
views death as carrying with it some kind of final reckoning. The nature is not spelled out. Perhaps it was simply that his insight or
wisdom demanded that somehow, somewhere there be a final accounting to
secure the ultimate equitable treatment of all--even if it did not occur in the
current life.
Our suspicions are
confirmed in 11:9, when he warns that all behavior will be brought before
Divine judgment and in 12:7 when he speaks of the inner person returning to God
and that judgment will come upon all (
From an observation of
the surrounding world, both king and citizen could well deduce the utilitarian
argument against excess --i.e., that even the most successful spree of
unhampered dissipation must ultimately come to an end. Unjust corporate and political titans make
life miserable for their victims for decades.
Their money can buy longer health through a quality and quantity of care
that others can not afford. But time and
age ultimate catch up to one and all.
And whether Qohelet
quickly grasped the point or, more likely, only did so after many years, the
important thing is that the reality eventually penetrated his
consciousness. And he wanted to use his
writing “pulpit” to drive it into the minds of others as well.
Between here and
death, however, how are we to emotionally and psychologically deal with the
present “now,” the period in which we are suffering and enduring
injustice? The simple fact is that
virtuous individuals sometimes are treated with the pain due the unjust and the
unjust reap the happiness and respect that should be the present state of those
who have honorably lived and toiled (8:14).
This was, indeed, another absurdity (“vanity”) of life.
Yet we can do little
or nothing about it. Rather than shrivel
up in despair and hate, the author argues that our “revenge” should be that of
enjoying life and [Page 113] not
letting others ruins it, “So I commended enjoyment, because a man has nothing
better under the sun than to eat, drink, and be merry; for this will remain
with him in his labor all the days of his life which God gives him under the
sun” (8:15).
There is the modern
day adage that we can’t control what other people do, but only how we react to
it. That is the insight that Qohelet also develops:
You can’t stop the injustice of life, but you certainly can—within the
limits of your opportunity and finances—mock it by enjoying the good times that
do come your way. Since you will
die with a clear conscience, it isn’t you who has to worry about your ultimate
judgment by God.
B. No Matter
How Smart we Are, We Will Never Discover All that God Does in
This Current World (
How does God work in
the current world? Some claim He acts
miraculously (a difficult claim to square with the cessation of the miraculous
spoken of in 1 Corinthians 13:8-10), while others claim He intervenes “providentially.” Perhaps a better distinction would be between
the overt miraculous (the person who has been blind since birth
mysteriously has sight granted within seconds) versus the covert
miraculous (where we find God’s purposes obtained in such an “indirect” manner
that it is impossible to put our finger on the exact point or manner whereby He
accomplished it).
However you define it,
the kingly author saw things that he could not help but attribute to forces
that could only be Divine. So he
struggled day and night and even without sleep (8:16) until he finally gave up
and recognized that though a person—even the smartest person—works at it
indefinitely, he is still not going to be able to figure out the manner whereby
God intervenes (8:17). He can see the evidence
but not the method. All he could finally
do was, in effect, shrug his shoulders and simply admire that one and all are
ultimately “in the hand of God” and that no one will ever fully grasp even
“simple” things like “love” and “hatred” (9:1).
Yet we do not find the
slightest overtone of despair here. Earthly
mysteries he has repeated expressed frustration over (injustice, disrespect of
the poor, unpunished corrupt individuals, etc.). But when it comes to plummeting
the mysteries of the Divine, he recognizes that the wisest mortal is out of his
league.
In this section we
have the clear voice of personal experience, “When I applied my
heart” (
[Page 114]
C. It Is Deeply
Disturbing, but It Remains True:
Anything Can
Happen to Anyone Regardless of Individual Moral Character (9:2-3)
By a series of
comparisons in 9:2, Qohelet stresses the absurd
reality that anything that happens to the bad person may happen to the good, to
the pious and the impious, to the person of integrity and the one who doesn’t
care about such things at all. Part of
our (and his) mind argues that this “should” not be, but the rest acknowledges
that it “is.”
Whether in our lives or his it was a lesson
that is most often gained by experience rather than theorizing: we see it happen and it is that grim
reality that strips away the delusions of our abstract theories of how the
world should function. If wise, it no
more replaces the hope for improvement in our minds than it does his, but it
forces us to recognize the supremacy of reality over any theoretical scheme.
He brands the fact
that the same thing can happen to one and all as “an
evil” (9:3). And it is—or at least seems
such. What else could one call it that
this is the way of life in our world? Would
we be foolish enough to call it a positive, a “good” thing?
Yet with sin pervasive and the necessity of
working within the human freedom to choose either good or evil, it is an
inevitable result of life as we know it.
To demand “perfection” and anything approaching “absolute justice” in
the current life is nothing short of delusional. But that does not mean one has to embrace
that radical imperfection as a positive good.
Only to recognize that this is how things actually are.
While striving to make things better,
we should never fall into the utopian fantasy that what we create will ever be perfect. A reality that moral and
political reformers should always keep in mind.
D. Yet So Long As There Is Life There Is Ground
for Hope and Reason
to Live Happily
and Work Hard
(9:4-12)
[Page 115] In this section, the king returns to a
theme he has touched on earlier: since
it is inevitable that you are going to die, don’t despair but enjoy the
blessings of the current world. Even the
much despised dog (for such were they viewed in ancient Hebrew society)[2] was
better off being alive than the highly esteemed “regal” lion if it were dead.[3]
From the human, rather than animal
perspective, this truism is also valid.
After all, once they perish, the dead have no ability to earn further
“reward” by their actions in this world (9:5).
Their loves, hatreds, and envies have “perished” with their life and
never again will they have the opportunity to enjoy or inflict either in this
temporal world (9:6).
The writer is not
providing some elaborate theology of the afterlife: usually 9:5 is introduced in vindication of
the theory that there is no life beyond the current one. That is far from his intent; his emphasis is
not on what is (or is not) in the next world.
His point is that in regard to the current world is all
over—permanently.[4] To the degree this has any relationship at
all to life after death (either pro or con), its only
relevance might be as a denial of the doctrine of reincarnation. That would undermine Qohelet’s point.
If one insists
upon an application to the future life, it would mean (to make it consistent
with other passages, especially in the New Testament) that they have no
knowledge at all or impact on events in this life. They are sealed off from learning about the
world they left—just as we are sealed off from personal knowledge of their
world.
More properly, Solomon should be viewed as
looking upon death observationally rather than theologically. As Donald C. Fleming observes both “the
context (or one look at a corpse) makes the meaning obvious. The dead can no longer join in the everyday
activities of life.”[5] He is strictly speaking of what we can see
with our eyes; not the world that exists beyond our observation.
Even so, one should
eat one’s bread and drink one’s drink with joy because we know that “God has
already accepted your works” as honorable and praiseworthy (9:7). The idea of laziness, indulgence and
drunkenness is the furthest thing from his mind: rather, it is to fully enjoy the good fruit
that results from one’s hard labor and toil.[6]
Having emphasized such enjoyment he, in
effect, offers an intercessory prayer that the white “garments” of their lives
always reflect their purity and that their head “lack no oil” of divine
blessing (9:8). These are moral
applications of observable physical phenomena.
“The value of white clothes in a hot climate was widely known,” observes
James L. Crenshaw, “and the frequent application of oils to combat the
deleterious effect of dry heat on skin was widely practiced by those who could
afford it.”[7]
But life is more than
food and drink. At the same time, one
should life “joyfully” and with “love” toward one’s spouse “all the days” that
remain in life (9:9). This emphasis on “love”
(and its implication of love in all its senses, including sexual) seems quite
modern, although not unknown in some other texts (Song of Solomon 8:7).[8] After all in that era (and even in much of
the world today), the situation is one of arranged marriages in which
calculated self and family interest is [Page 116] dominant.
Yet even in that context, it was the ideal for love to evolve in
all its senses.
That is what both marriage partners deserve
(= “for that is your portion in life”) and should be counted as a blessing of
the hard work (“labor”) in which we are engaged while alive (9:9). Other astute ancients also accepted the need
for such pleasures to relieve the burdens and obligations of life. In the very ancient story of Gilgamesh
(c. 2000 B.C.), he is urged, “You, Gilgamesh, fill your belly, enjoy by day and
by night. Celebrate a joyful feast every
day. Day and night, you must dance and
play! Let your garments be brightly
colored, wash your hair, bathe in water.
Attend to the little one [= children] who takes your hand. Let your wife take delight in your bosom!”[9]
Just as we should play
and love passionately, we should work with similar enthusiasm. “Whatever” it is that we work on we should do
it with all our “might” for afterwards the opportunity is lost (
Our odds of earthly success may be modest,
but all he has had to say about the uncertainties of life apply here—nothing is
a foregone conclusion, “The race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the
strong, nor bread to the wise, nor riches to men of understanding, nor favor to
men of skill; but time and chance happen to them all” (9:11). “Time and chance” modify the “inevitability”
of both our successes and our failures.
Neither is written in stone.
The passing of months and years (“time”)[10] and
“chance” (those unplanned and unexpected events that occur)[11]
will modify and even alter the “inevitability” of both our successes and our
failures.[12] Neither anonymous and
unbendable Fate nor God Himself has written them in stone; He has left the door
of our future open for both triumph and disappointment.
The odds are that the swift will win
and that the skilled will triumph over the amateur, but there is no
guarantee of it.[13] In that fact lies hope for every one else and
humility for the one who is “supposed” to prevail.
Furthermore, bad times will come as sure as
the good and in those we will have no more chance of success than a fish
attempting to escape a net or a bird a snare (9:12). Hence those opportunities must be grabbed
when and where they occur. They may not
repeat themselves. At
least not soon enough to benefit us.
These were the things Qohelet could discover by perceptive observation, as can
we. Yet in a very real sense, this
section is designed not so much to reveal how he felt he should live but
how he recognized others should.
After all, he was already monarch and already had all the blessings of
life. The most he could do was to
provide the generalizations that he had found valid for those not as blessed as
he. (And for those who might aspire to
take his place!)
It is especially
intriguing to consider what 9:9 meant from his perspective, “Live joyfully with
the wife whom you love all the days of your vain life which He has given you
under the sun, all your days of vanity; for that is your portion in life, and
in the labor which you perform under the sun.”
[Page 117] Note the singular “wife.” The right to practice polygamy is referred to
in various Old Testament texts. Yet the
singular (i.e., one) wife argues that for most people all that was
abstract theory. Most were in monogamous
marriages no matter what theoretically might be allowed.
From Solomon’s
standpoint, one can’t help but suspect that there was a bittersweet overtone to
such an observation. With his multitude
of wives, could he have developed such a close relationship with more than a
few, if that many? Respect,
courtesy, and even affection, of course.
But anything approaching a depth of love? Most unlikely. These were relationships that the common
person could enjoy that even a king might not.
Of course, he doesn’t say any such thing
explicitly. After all, he was
king and there was such a matter as royal pride. Yet it is hard to avoid the deep suspicion
that the thought crossed his mind upon more than one occasion of those
blessings that came upon “the common man” but were elusive or unreachable for himself.
Footnotes
[1] Tamez, 107-108,
believes the text is referring to the exuberant praise with which even the
wicked are eulogized when they die.
[2] Nor were they the only culture with this
attitude. Eaton, 126, quotes a Sumerian
adage, “He who esteems highly dogs which are clever,
is a man who has no shame.”
[3] Tamez, 114, and Whybray, Ecclesiastes (Century),
142.
[4] Garrett, n. 208, p. 331.
[5] Fleming, 699.
[6] Frydrych, 191.
[7] Crenshaw, 162.
[8] Perry, 147.
[9] X.3, as quoted by Tamez,
117-118. Kaiser, 39, argues that in
Gilgamesh, contextually speaking, it is a message of “resignation,” if not
despair—lacking the positive elements Qohelet took
for granted.
[10] Johnson, 120.
[11] Ibid.
[Page 118] [12] For the
view that it is God bringing about the time and chances, see Leupold, 219-220.
[13] Cf. Fox, Qohelet,
260. Crenshaw, 164, believes that a
courier rather than an athlete is under consideration but the element of
competition in the text argues for the latter.