Governing is tough.
Even in traditional monarchies, governance has always required a
team, the rough equivalent of a cabinet or executive; the right people in the
right combination. A king needed experienced, mature, educated men to serve as
his administrators and advisors; men able to make policy and to accurately estimate
the short- and long-term consequences of implementing it.
Finding the right people to put in secondary positions of
authority is a critical matter. It has tremendous consequences for a nation. Kingdoms
have been lost because a ruler listened to the advice of the
wrong man or
men, or refused to listen to the advice of the
right man.
Generally speaking, slaves don’t make strong candidates for
such positions, as the writer of Ecclesiastes is about to tell us.
Ecclesiastes 10:5-7 — Slaves on Horses
“There is an evil that I have seen under the sun, as it were an error proceeding from the ruler: folly is set in many high places, and the rich sit in a low place. I have seen slaves on horses, and princes walking on the ground like slaves.”
On the face of it, this sounds a bit like the plot of a
famous novel, the name of which currently escapes me. But there is also
C.S. Lewis’ The Horse and His Boy,
which uses something like this scenario as a plot device: the prince who goes
about in rags as a disguise, and the doppelganger slave who agrees to pose as
the prince, and so enjoys the luxuries of royalty. But in Lewis’ story the irony
is that the slave boy actually is a
prince of the realm, and the prince is in rags voluntarily in order to pursue
his own agenda, so any close comparison of the two scenarios fails rather
miserably. We’d better go back to what the Preacher has actually said.
Class-Based Prejudice?
It would be unfair to accuse the author of Ecclesiastes of inadvertently
displaying in these verses his unconscious class-based prejudices, though
perhaps it initially sounds that way to the modern ear. Nor is he merely
telling us princes are preferable to slaves and should be treated accordingly.
That would not only be a comparatively trivial observation, but it would also
fly in the face of the repeated themes we find in scripture about the
blessedness of poverty with an awareness of God, the importance of justice for
the underprivileged in society, and the bleakness of a life of riches without
God. In short, this is definitely not the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus, and
yet it is not necessarily the case that the Preacher’s view of things stands in
contrast to the teachings of Christ with respect to the rich and poor. There
are good reasons for the Preacher to say what he says about both.
The Preacher says this “evil”, this “error”, this very bad
thing, proceeds “from the ruler”. It is one of these very human judgments made
“under the sun”, without the discernment of the Spirit of God or even the basic
calculus of intelligent men. Let me suggest it is highly unlikely that the
ruler in question has literally appointed former slaves to ride through town on
the royal steed to the applause of the masses. Nor is it at all likely he has stripped
the marks of honor from his sons and advisors and sent them on their way on
foot. This sort of inversion could happen, certainly, given the right set of exceptional circumstances, but it
would hardly be so common or pervasive a problem as to constitute an “evil” or “error”;
a major earthly injustice in need of remedy.
Promoting the Wrong Man
No, it is far more likely the Preacher is observing that
rulers often exercise poor judgment in making appointments. They grant authority
and honor to men with the stereotypical character
of slaves: foolish, base sorts who possess no genius for governance, no
understanding of the meaning of their education, no self-discipline, no proven
ability to generate wealth, no particular love for their fellow men, and no
big-picture understanding of the obligations of royalty; men fit only for the
most menial tasks because they cannot think beyond short-term gratification and
self-preservation.
Bear in mind that in Solomon’s day men became enslaved for
one of several reasons, none of which flattered the slaves. Perhaps they
had been taken as the spoils of war because their city-state lost a battle
against a greater power, meaning they were losers from an ‘inferior’ race or
tribe, and perhaps even potential traitors to the realm if granted an
opportunity. Alternatively, they were nationals who had mismanaged their own resources,
got into debt, and had to be sold into slavery for a period of time to pay back
what they owed, meaning they were either incompetent, or else in the grip of
some vice like gambling or alcoholism. Or perhaps some great unforeseen misfortune
had come upon them, much like Job, impoverishing them and forcing them to serve
another, which, from the “under the sun” perspective, might well appear to be
God’s richly-deserved judgment on the sinner.
There are notable biblical exceptions to this slave
stereotype — Joseph, Daniel and Mordecai, for example — but the
general principle that slaves were not exactly cut out for a better lot than
life had assigned them was not merely some ignorant prejudice of the rich. It
had a basis in observable reality.
Overlooking the Right Man
Likewise, the Preacher continues, rulers often overlook
those who possess the character and qualifications of princes, promoting others
instead of those who are most deserving.
Sometimes a man of princely character may be visually
unimpressive: too short, unattractive, or with an odd manner of speech. I know
one or two of these gentlemen, and they tend to be overlooked for positions of
honor today too, even by Christians and other good men. Righteous Samuel was
fooled into thinking David’s
older brother Eliab was God’s chosen ruler of Israel. He was concentrating
on physical presentation. He did not look at the shepherd in the field until he
was all out of other options.
Sometimes a man of princely character holds the wrong
political opinions for the current administration, or comes from the wrong
family, or possesses sufficient intellect to be perceived as a threat. There
may be many reasons qualified men are overlooked for positions of honor and
spend their careers “walking on the ground like slaves”, but the Preacher calls
such things evils and errors. They are the sort of mistake which may lead to
disaster for nations, and they are not a credit to the rulers who make them.
That “Evil” One Percent
Bear in mind that, once again, it is not necessarily a mark
of class-based prejudice for the Preacher to aver that seeing the rich sitting in a low place is an “evil” and an “error”. Sure, there are always men
and women who have become wealthy through no virtue of their own. In our day
riches are no indicator of anything in particular, except perhaps that our
current political environment paints targets on the foreheads of those who
possess them. And, admittedly, there are indeed rich people who have made their
wealth through evil and exploitation. But that is neither always the case today,
nor was it in Solomon’s day.
To those under the Law of Moses, riches were not generally
perceived as the product of chance, inheritance or opportunity, but were understood
to be hard evidence of God’s approval. This was true even 1,000 years
after Solomon wrote Ecclesiastes. When Jesus told his disciples it is harder
for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven than for a camel to go through
the eye of a needle, Matthew records those Jewish observers of the Law were “greatly
astonished, saying ‘Who then can be saved?’ ” After all, the Law
promised faithful Israelites blessing when they were obedient, and those
blessings were very practical and physical ones, as opposed to the spiritual
blessings of the Christian.
Approval You Could Measure
Obedience to God could be counted on to produce measurable
results. The blessed man would “lend,
and not borrow”. He would be blessed in the fruit of the ground and the
fruit of his cattle, with great herds and large flocks.
To drive the point home, Old Testament history was full of men
who were both God-fearing and rich: Job, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David and even
the writer of Ecclesiastes himself, who was extravagantly wealthy and knew full
well it was because he had been graciously blessed by God.
So then, it was thought inappropriate to seat a rich man in
a low place because God himself had made him what he was. To be rich was by
definition to be a man of good character, whether or not this was actually the
case. (Scripture does record the occasional exception to this principle.)
Thus the Preacher’s comments about fools, slaves, princes
and rich people are not simply unthinking snobbery. They are the normal, if
imperfect, way that the man “under the sun” would perceive the exaltation of a
slave or the humiliation of a wealthy man: as glaringly unjust.
Asking for Trouble
A ruler who appointed a man with the character of a slave to
a position of authority and honor would be asking for trouble. He would have
promoted a man ill-equipped to rule and as likely as not to stab him in the
back. Moreover, a slave (especially a captive from a foreign nation) would be at a tremendous political disadvantage, unable
to deal with the rivalries and jealousies that would inevitably face him in his
new position (remember how the satraps and other officials in the administration of King Darius were determined to sabotage Daniel when he was promoted).
The book of Ecclesiastes has nothing whatsoever to say about
the governance of the local church, but honoring rather than overlooking those who deserve it (“Let the elders who rule well
be considered worthy
of double honor”) and giving responsibility only to the right people (“Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands”) are two principles to which churches have always done well to pay serious
attention. Responsibility ought to go only to those who have the character to properly discharge it, and the honor that an elder receives ought to be appropriate
to the way in which he serves. As in all fields of endeavor, some folks do
their jobs more faithfully and more competently than others.
It is almost always character that makes the difference.
No comments :
Post a Comment