We have arrived in our study of Ecclesiastes at what the Preacher calls “the end of the
matter”. The matter under consideration, if you have a long memory, was this: “What
does man gain by all the toil at which he toils under the sun?” What is the point of man’s existence? Why
are we here? This was the question he set out to answer.
Through twelve chapters, the Preacher has undertaken the task of examining the
experience of being human from every possible angle in hope of gaining insight
into its meaning and purpose, always using only what he could observe and infer
from the input of his senses. What he discovered was that when you approach the
big questions of life in that way, the experience is frustrating and the
answers elusive.
Exploring the Human Condition
The human condition, the Preacher contends, appears to be a grand cycle of tedious labor,
forgotten wisdom and repeated errors. Wealth, women, power and even wisdom do not
satisfy, and whatever you accumulate in the process of living eventually slips
from your control into the hands of those who cannot appreciate it or manage
it, and will eventually fritter it away. The people who make the rules do not
follow them. The oppressed are without comfort and the oppressors gain nothing
meaningful from their exercise of power. When you accomplish great things, nobody
remembers them, and when you exit this life, you leave everything behind.
Living righteously will not necessarily prolong the experience, and living
wickedly may not shorten it; there are no guarantees. Fate makes fools into
princes and princes into paupers. What happens after death cannot be known with
certainty, and the process of getting there is exquisitely horrible.
These are the broad strokes of the Preacher’s thesis, and we would not be wrong to
characterize his outlook as very dark indeed, though not nihilistic. There remain
moments in the human experience worth commending, and the Preacher does so: notwithstanding their limited usefulness, some
activities really are better than others. Acting
wisely,
lovingly and
generously is still preferable to chaotic selfishness.
Eating,
drinking,
working
and rest all have their attendant pleasures. It is better to be
monogamous than profligate. It is better to be
righteous than wicked.
God in Ecclesiastes
The existence of God is assumed throughout Ecclesiastes as given, even if his purposes for mankind are
largely impenetrable and his dealings with man viewed from a distance. The
Preacher uses 'elohiym, the generic Hebrew word for “God”, “god” or “gods”, a total of 40 times in the book, while the intimate covenant-name by which
God made himself known to Israel — and, more importantly, to Solomon — is entirely absent. The Preacher is writing as a one of the
“children of man”, not as an Israelite. Covenant, temple and Law have no place in Ecclesiastes. (The phrase
“house of God” in 5:1 is also generic; Jacob used the expression to describe
a field with a pillar in it.)
Like Paul in the first chapter of Romans, the Preacher never for a moment contemplates mankind
apart from a First Cause or an Unmoved Mover. We might say with Paul that
God’s invisible attributes have been clearly
perceived in the things that have been made, so that men are without
excuse. Or we might simply assume his existence and right to judge, as the book
of Ecclesiastes does, without either argument or comment. In the Preacher’s
worldview, these things simply are. No rational man would dispute them.
Pragmatic Conclusions
When the Preacher speaks of God, it is in relation to mankind generally. God has
assigned men the unhappy business of living, has made certain features of life
enjoyable, blesses men who please him and
stacks the deck against men who don’t. The Preacher’s belief that God will judge men is in this context not a revealed truth, but an
opinion inferred from observation (“I said in my heart”).
Despite all this, there is nothing specifically Christian, or even Judeo-Christian, about
the Preacher’s conclusions as to how a man ought to conduct himself. There
could not possibly be, since divine revelation has been deliberately excluded
from consideration. The Preacher’s recommendations are more pragmatic than
ethical. Certain modes of behavior work better than others over the course of a
man’s life. They make his experience more tolerable.
And yet, we have arrived at the end of Solomon’s intellectual and philosophical journey,
and here we find … God, after all.
Ecclesiastes 12:13 — The Point of Life Under the Sun
“The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man.”
So then, what is the point of life? Why are we here? The
Preacher’s conclusion is that we are here to do as God says. We do not exist
for ourselves. How could we? Apart from God, the whole routine of earthly life
is a pointless exercise that leads nowhere and serves no purpose. Apart from
our ability to relate to God, and to choose whether to give him pleasure or
become objects of his wrath, we are as significant as ants crawling around on
an anthill. Our obligation is to him, and our lives only have meaning insofar
as they relate to him.
God’s ‘Commandments’
This is not something that first came off the top of Mount
Sinai, but a conclusion any rational man looking at the world could reach for
himself. When Solomon speaks of God’s “commandments”, he is not specifically referring
to Israel’s law (though of course the Law is included among God’s commandments), but rather to every instance of
the revealed will of God from the very beginning, including the later
instances of the prophetic word. Abraham is said to have kept “my
commandments” (same word), despite the fact that Abraham predates the Law
of Moses by 400+ years.
The Whole Duty?
A question: Is fearing God and obeying him really the “whole
duty of man”? I would argue it is not … not by a long shot. It is love
God seeks, not just reverential respect; even the Law teaches that.
But then the Preacher is not arguing that fearing and
obeying God is the whole duty of the Christian or even the devout Israelite, is
he? Rather, he is arguing that fearing and obeying God is the whole duty of man
“under the sun”. It is the entire sum of man’s responsibilities toward God that
we can be expected to infer from what is. Paul says God’s eternal
power and divine nature are evident in creation; he does not insist God’s
love — still less God’s desire that we love him in return — is
equally obvious to all men. That is actually quite a mystery.
There is also the strong possibility that “the whole duty of
man” is better translated “the duty of every man”. Ellicott
points out that second phrase anticipates the teaching of Romans 3:29,
that God is the God of Gentiles as well as Jews. That latter statement is
certainly consistent with the way the Preacher approaches his subject: the
Gentile reader is as capable as the Israelite of inferring from creation the
things Solomon has discussed. If so, he is also equally accountable to God.
Ecclesiastes 12:14 — Every Deed into Judgment
“For God will bring every deed into judgment, with every secret thing, whether good or evil.”
As long as humanity has existed, men have believed in God,
or in gods of one sort or another. Professor of Greek Culture Tim Whitmarsh
argues there were atheists
in Greece as far back as 570 BC, and even the Psalms point out that
there are always men foolish enough to say in their hearts “no
God”. Nevertheless, the vast majority of mankind acknowledges that the
heavens rule, and if the heavens rule, then a judgment from heaven of one sort
or another, either in this life or the next, follows logically from that. Not
just Israelites but men from every ancient nation sacrificed to the gods in
hope of securing their favor or dispelling their impending wrath.
The Great White Throne Previewed?
Thus it also follows that the Preacher’s final statement
here need not be viewed as a revelation-based anticipation of a judgment
similar to that of the great
white throne. It is certainly possible that Solomon is pulling back the
curtain at the last moment to go into prophetic territory, far beyond what may
be inferred from nature and the senses. This is the view
taken by Ellicott, who says, “This announcement of a tribunal, at which ‘every work,’ ‘every secret thing,’ shall be brought into judgment,
cannot be reasonably understood of anything but a judgment after this life.”
Perhaps, but it seems to me an unlikely twist after twelve
chapters of meditations relentlessly centered on the here-and-now. It can be
argued that our sins “find
us out” in this life in one way or another. Paul tells Timothy that “The
sins of some people are conspicuous, going before them to judgment, but the
sins of others appear
later.” Later need not mean in eternity. Also, the word “every” may indeed mean “every last deed and secret”,
as Ellicott reads it, but it may also refer to every type of deed; not just good, and not just evil. All varieties of
deeds may receive their recompense in this life. The Preacher may be saying
that no categories of human behavior are overlooked by God. He will have his
say about each and every one.
Judaism and Resurrection
It is not even clear to what extent the people of Israel
3,000 years ago believed generally in life after death. Some surely did,
as our Old Testaments hint at repeatedly, but many did not. Large numbers of
devout religious Jews refused
to acknowledge the resurrection of the dead into the first century and
beyond.
That does not mean the Sadducees and their adherents would necessarily
have disagreed with the Preacher’s final statement here. They would simply
argue that God’s judgments on a man occur primarily within his own lifetime (as in
Psalm 109), or that a man’s children may be affected by judgment on their father’s misdeeds (just as Solomon’s
elder brother and
his own children were), or that the
loss of a man’s good name after his death constitutes a sort of judgment from God. Neither would they dispute the fact that God often rewards the righteous in this life, and
their children because of them. Each of these statements has an element of truth in it.
All to say, the Christian may read more into this final
verse than its writer intended. We are not wrong about resurrection and coming
judgment, of course, but we do not need this verse to make our case.
No comments :
Post a Comment