Ecclesiastes 5
Man’s outward
and secular life being unable to secure happiness and satisfaction,
can these be found in popular religion? Religious exercises need the observation of
strict rules, which are far from meeting with general
attention. In vs. 1-7, Koheleth
proceeds to give instruction, in the form of maxims,
concerning public worship, prayer,
and vows.
1 “Keep
thy foot when thou goest to the house of God, and be
more
ready to hear, than to give the sacrifice
of fools: for they consider
not that they do evil.” This verse, in
the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin Bibles, forms
the conclusion of Ecclesiastes 4., and is taken independently;
but the division in
our version is more natural, and the connection of this
with the following
verses is obvious. Keep
thy foot when thou goest to the house of God,
Some read “feet” instead of “foot,” but the singular and
plural numbers are
both found in this signification (compare Psalm 119:59,
105; Proverbs
1:15; 4:26-27). To “keep the foot” is to be careful of the
conduct, to
remember what you are about, whither you are going. There is no allusion
to the sacerdotal rite of washing the feet before entering
the holy place
(Exodus 30:18-19), nor to the custom of removing the shoes
on
entering a consecrated building, which was a symbol of
reverential awe and
obedient service. The expression is simply a term connected
with man’s
ordinary life transferred to his moral and religious life. The
house of God is
the temple. The tabernacle is called “the house of
Jehovah” (I Samuel
1:7; II Samuel 12:20), and this name is commonly applied to
the temple;
e.g. I Kings
3:1; II Chronicles 8:16; Ezra 3:11. But “house of God” is applied also
to the temple (II Chronicles 5:14; Ezra 5:8, 15, etc.), so
that we need not suppose
that Koheleth avoids the name of
the Lord of the covenant as “a natural sign of the
writer’s humiliation after his fall into idolatry, and an
acknowledgment of his
unworthiness of the privileges of a son of the covenant. It
is probable that
the expression here is meant to include synagogues as well
as the great
temple at
exhortation would be heard there, which formed no part of
the temple
service. The verse has furnished a text on the subject of the reverence due
to God’s house and service from Chrysostom downwards. And be more
ready to hear,
than to give the sacrifice of fools. Various are the
renderings of this clause:
it is the straighter, truer way
to take when you obey God than when you
merely perform outward service.
The Vulgate takes the infinitive verb as equivalent to the
imperative, as the Authorized
Version, Appropinqua ut audias; but it is
best to regard it as pure infinitive, and to
translate, “To
approach in order to hear is better than to offer the sacrifice of fools.”
The sentiment is
the same as that in I Samuel 15:22, ‘Hath the Lord as
great delight in
burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the
Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice,
and to hearken than the fat
of rams.” The
same thought occurs in Proverbs 21:3; Psalm 50:7-15; and
continually in the prophets; e.g. Isaiah
1:11; Jeremiah 7:21- 23; Hosea 6:6, etc.
It is the reaction against the mere ceremonialism which
marked the popular religion.
Koheleth had seen and deplored this at
the great truth
that it is more acceptable to God that one should
go to His
house to hear the
Law read and taught and expounded, than to offer a formal
sacrifice, which,
as being the offering of a godless man is called in proverbial language
“the sacrifice of fools” (Proverbs 21:27). The
verb used here, “give” (nathan), is not
the usual expression for offering sacrifice, and may
possibly refer to the feast which
accompanied such sacrifices, and which often degenerated
into excess . That the
verb rendered “to
hear” does not mean merely “to obey” is plain from its reference
to conduct in the house of God. The reading of the Law, and
probably of the prophets,
formed a feature of the temple service in Koheleth’s day; the expounding of the same
in public was confined to the synagogues, which seem to
have originated in the time of
the exile, though there were doubtless before that time
some regular occasions of
assembling together (see II Kings 4:23). For they consider not that they do evil;
[Ὅι οὐκ εἰσὶν
εἰδότες τοῦ ποιῆσαι
κακόν - Hoi ouk eisin eidotes
tou poiaesai
Kakon - (Septuagint);
Qui nesciunt quid faciunt
The words can scarcely mean:
There is much difficulty in understanding the passage according to the received
reading, and it seems to others that the text is corrupt.
If we accept what we now
find, it is best to translate,
“They know
not, so that they do evil;” i.e.
their
ignorance predisposes them to err in this matter. The persons meant
are the
“fools” who offer unacceptable sacrifices. These know not
how to worship God
heartily and
properly, and, thinking to please Him
with their formal acts of
devotion, FALL INTO A GRIEVOUS SIN!
The
It is evident that the services of the pious Israelites
were by no means
merely sacrificial and ceremonial. There is a reflective
and intellectual
character attributed to the approach of the Hebrew
worshippers to their
God. The practical admonitions of this passage have
reference, not to a
formal, but to an intelligent and thoughtful worship.
·
THE HOUSE OF GOD. By
this is to be understood no doubt a place, a
building, probably the temple at
language that in the view of the
writer of Ecclesiastes the idea of the
locality, the edifice, is almost
lost sight of in the idea of the spiritual
presence of Jehovah, and in the society and fellowship of
sincere and
devout
worshippers. God, it was well understood, dwelleth
not in temples
made with hands, but abideth in His people’s hearts.
·
THE SACRIFICE OF FOLLY.
In every large gathering of professed
worshippers there is reason to
fear there are those with whom worship is
nothing but a form, a custom.
The sacrifice of such is outward only; their
postures, their words, may be
unexceptionable, but the heart is
absent from
the service. Inattention, want of true interest, unspirituality,
take the place
of those penitential
acknowledgments — that heavenward aspiration —
which are acceptable to Him who searcheth the hearts and trieth
the reins of
the children of men. The
sacrifice of such formal and irreverent
worshippers is justly designated
a sacrifice of fools. They consider not their
own nature, their own needs;
they consider not the attributes of Him whom
they profess to approach with
the language of adoration, of gratitude, of
petition. They are,
therefore, not only irreligious; they are foolish, and
they seem to say to every
sensible observer that they are fools.
·
THE WORSHIP OF THE WISE. In contrast with the careless and
undevout we have here depicted the spirit and the demeanor of true
worshippers. They are
characterized by:
Ø
Self-restraint. The modest repression
of all that savors of self-assertion
seems to be intended by the
admonition, “Keep thy foot,” which is
as
much as to say, “Take heed to thy steps, observe with care thy way,
wander not from the path of
sincerity, beware of indifference and of
obtrusiveness.’ (imposing one’s opinions on others)
Ø
Reference. Such as becomes the creature in approaching the Creator in
whose hand his breath is, and
whose are all his ways; such as becomes
the sinner in addressing a holy God,
whose Law has been broken, whose
favor has to be implored.
Ø
A spirit of attentive and submissive hearing. “Speak,
Lord; for thy
servant heareth” (I Samuel
3:10) is language becoming to the lowly
and reverent worshipper; he
shall be made acquainted with God’s Law,
and
he shall rejoice in God’s promises. .
Vanity in Religion: Thoughtlessness (v. 1)
From secular life the Preacher turns to religious. He has
sought in many
quarters for peace and satisfaction, but has found none.
Royal palaces, huts
where poor men lie, cells of philosophers,
banqueting-halls, are all alike, if
not all equally, infested by vanities which poison pleasure and add to the
burden of care. But surely in the house of God, where men seek to
disengage their
thoughts from things that are seen and temporal, and to fix
them upon
things that are unseen and eternal, where they endeavor to
establish and
maintain communion with their Creator, one may count upon
finding a haven
of refuge for the soul from vanity and care.
But here, too,
he perceives that, by thoughtlessness, formalism,
and insincerity, the
purpose for which worship was instituted, and the blessings
it may secure,
are in danger of being defeated and nullified. But a change
is manifest in
the tone in which he reproves these faults. He lays down
the whip of the
satirist, he suppresses the fierce indignation which the
sight of these new
follies might have excited within him, and with sober
earnestness exhorts
his hearers to
forsake the faults which separate between them and God, and
hinder the ascent of their prayers to Him and. the descent
of His blessings
upon them. His feelings of reverence, and his conviction
that in obedience
to God and in communion with Him peace and satisfaction may
be found,
forbid his
saying of genuine religion that it is “vanity and vexation of
spirit.” So far as the spirit of his exhortation is concerned, it
is applicable to
all forms of worship, but we find some difficulty in
ascertaining the kind of
scene which was in his mind’s eye when he spoke of “the
house of God.” If
we are convinced that it is Solomon speaking in his own
person, we know
that he must refer to the stately building which he erected
for the service of
God in
depreciating the offering of sacrifices, but is giving the
admonition so often
on the lips of the prophets, that the external act without accompanying
devotion and
love of righteousness, is in vain (1 Samuel
15:22; Psalm
50:8-9; Proverbs 21:3; Isaiah 1:11-17; Jeremiah 7:22-23;
Mark 12:33). But if we
have here the utterance of a later writer, may there not be
a reference to the
synagogue service, in which the reading of the Word of God
and exposition of
its meaning were the principal religious exercises
employed? May not the writer
be understood as affirming “that a diligent listening to
the teaching imparted in
the synagogue is of more real value than the ‘sacrifices’
offered up in the temple
by ‘fools’”? The answer we give is determined by the
opinion we form as to the
date of the book. But even if we are unable to decide this
point, the exhortation
before us will lose none of its significance and weight.
The underlying truth is the
same, whether the primary reference be to the gorgeous
ritual of the
temple, or to the simple, unadorned services of the
synagogue, which in
later times furnished the pattern for Christian worship. The first fault
against which the Preacher would have his hearers be on their
guard is that
of thoughtlessness — entering the house of God
inconsiderately (v. 1).
The form in which the admonition is expressed is probably
intended to
remind his readers of the Divine command to Moses in the
desert when he
drew near to the bush that burned with fire: “Put
off thy shoes from off thy
feet, for the place whereon thou standest
is holy ground” (Exodus 3:5;
compare also Joshua 5:15).
·
Our first duty in
entering the house of God is, therefore, TO BE
REVERENT BOTH IN MANNER AND IN SPIRIT. The outward
expression of this feeling,
whatever form, according to the custom of our
time, or country, or Church, it
may take, is to be an indication of the frame
of mind in which we enter upon the service of God. It is true that there
may be a reverent manner without
devoutness of spirit, but it is equally
true that there cannot be
devoutness of spirit without reverence of manner.
The true frame of mind is that
which springs from a due sense of
the
solemnity attaching to the house of God, and of the
purpose for which we
assemble in it. It
is not superstition, but genuine religious sentiment, that
would lead us to be mindful of
the fact that it is no common ground which
is enclosed by the sacred walls;
that it
is here that we meet with Him whom
“the heaven of
heavens cannot contain.” Though we are
at all times in His
presence, His house is the place
in which we entreat Him to manifest Himself
to His congregated people. Yet,
though we know that- the place and the
purpose of our frequenting it
are of the most holy and solemn nature, it is
only by a strong effort that we
can maintain the frame of mind we should
be in when we
wait upon God in His house. It is only by resolutely
determining so to do that we
can control our wandering thoughts, suppress
frivolous and sinful
imaginations, and divest ourselves of the secular cares
and anxieties which occupy
only too much of our attention in the world
outside the sanctuary.
·
Our second great duty
is THAT
OF OBEDIENCE TO THE DIVINE
LAW; “for
to draw near to hearken is better than to give the sacrifice of
fools, for they
know not that they do evil” (Revised
Version). Not only
should there be reverence of
manner and spirit in the presence of God, but
a desire to know what He requires
from us, and a disposition to render it.
Love of holiness, and endeavors
to exemplify it, are essential to all true
service of God. By hearkening is
evidently meant an attitude of mind which
leads directly to obedience to
the words spoken, to repentance and
amendment when faults are
reproved, and to a love and practice of the
virtues commended. In the
Epistle of James (1. 19-25) we have an inspired
commentary upon this precept in
the Book of ‘Ecclesiastes. The Christian
teacher enforces the same
lesson, and depicts the contrast between the
“forgetful hearer” and the’”
doer of the Word.” The one is like a man
looking for a moment into a
mirror, and going on his way, and speedily
forgetting what he looked like; the other is like a man who uses the
revelation the mirror gives him of himself, to correct what
in him is faulty.
The latter returns again and again to examine himself in
the faithful glass,
for the purpose of removing those stains which it may
show are upon him.
This reverence of manner and
spirit and this love of righteousness alone
give value to worship; omission
of them through thoughtlessness is a
positive offence against God.
2 “Be not rash with thy mouth, and let
not thine heart be hasty to utter
any thing before God: for God is in heaven,
and thou upon earth:
therefore let thy words be few.” Koheleth warns
against thoughtless words
or hasty professions in prayer, which formed another feature
of popular religion.
Be not rash with thy mouth. The warning is against hasty and thoughtless
words in prayer, words that go from the lips with glib facility, but come
not from the heart. Thus
our Lord bids those who pray not to use vain repetitions
(μὴ βαττολογήσατε - mae battologaesate – no
vain repetitions), as the heathen,
who think to be heard for their much speaking (Matthew
6:7). Jesus Himself used
the same words in his prayer in the garden, and He continually urges the lesson
of
much and constant prayer — a lesson enforced by apostolic
admonitions (see
Luke 11:5-10; Philippians 4:6; I Thessalonians 5:17); but it is quite possible to
use the same
words, and yet THROW THE WHOLE HEART INTO THEM
each time that they are repeated. Whether the repetition is vain or not
depends upon the spirit of the person who prays. Let not thine
heart be
hasty to utter any
thing before God. We should weigh well
our wishes,
arrange them discreetly, ponder whether they are such as we
can rightly
make subjects of petition, ere we lay them in words before
the Lord.
“Before God” may
mean in the temple, the house of God, where he is
specially present, as Solomon himself testified (I Kings
8:27, 30, 43).
God is in heaven. The infinite distance between God and man, illustrated
by the contrast of earth and the illimitable heaven, is the
ground of the
admonition to reverence and thoughtfulness (compare Psalm
115:3, 16;
Isaiah 55:8-9; 66:1). Therefore let thy words be few, as
becomes one who
speaks in the awful presence of God. We may remember the
conduct of the priests
of Baal (I Kings 18:26).
Acceptable
Service (vs. 1-2)
Although the precise meaning of the Preacher is open to
some doubt, we
shall not go wrong in letting these words speak to us of —
·
THE FUTILITY OF FORMAL WORSHIP. Reference is made to:
Ø
the offering of
sacrifice (v. 1), and
Ø
the repetition of
devotional phrases.
We may find a Christian parallel
in the reception of sacraments, and in the
“prayers” and psalmody of the
Church. We know that the purest
spirituality may breathe in
these, and may be nourished by these, but we
know also:
Ø
that they may fail to
express any real and pure devotion;
Ø
that in this case they
also fail in winning the favor of God; and
Ø
that they leave the
soul rather the worse than the better, for in
such futile worship
there is a dangerous delusiveness which is apt
to lead. to a false
and even fatal sense of security.
·
ACCEPTABLE SERVICE.
This is threefold.
Ø Reverence. This is strongly implied, especially in the second verse. Let
the worshipper
realize that he is in “the house of God,” none other and
no
less than that
(see Genesis 28:17). Let him realize that “God is in
heaven,” etc.; that he is bowing before the
Infinite One Himself;
that he is
addressing Him who, in His Divine nature and in His
unapproachable rank,
is
immeasurably
removed above himself; that he is speaking to One who sees
the
actions of every life, and knows the secrets of all hearts, and who needs
not,
therefore, to be informed of what we do or what we feel. Let language
be spared, let
sacred thought and solemn feeling flow; let a sense of human
littleness and
of the Divine majesty silence all insincerity, and fill the soul
with
reverential awe.
Ø Docility. (teachableness) “Be more ready [‘draw nigh,’ Revised
Version]
to hear,” etc.
There is much virtue in docility. Our Lord strongly commended
the
child-spirit as the condition of entrance into the kingdom; and was not this
principally because
the spirit of childhood is
that of docility — eagerness to
know,
readiness to receive?
We should draw nigh to God in His house, not
that we may
hear our favorite dogmas once more exalted or enforced, but
that we may hear the mind and know the will of Christ better than we have
done before;
that we may “be filled with the knowledge of His will”
(Colossians
1:9); that it may become increasingly true that “we have the
mind
of Christ.” (I
Corinthians 2:16) To desire to part with
our errors,
our ignorance,
our prejudices, our half-views, our misconceptions, and to
have
a closer vision of our Lord and of His Divine truth, — this is
acceptable
worship.
Ø Obedience. “Keep thy foot; go to the house of God ‘with a straight
foot,’ a foot
trained to walk in the path of holy obedience.” Go to the
house of God as
one that “has clean hands and a pure heart;” as one that
“lifts
up holy hands” unto
God. To go up to “offer
sacrifice,” or “make
long prayers,”
with the determination in the heart to continue a life of
impurity, or intemperance,
or dishonesty, or injustice, or harshness toward
the weak and
the dependent, — this is to mock our
Maker; it is to grieve
the Father of
spirits, the Lord of holiness and love. But, on the other hand,
to go up to His
sanctuary with a pure desire and real resolve to turn from
our evil way,
and to strive, against all outward hostility and all inward
impulses, to
walk in our integrity, — this is acceptable with God. “To obey
is
better than sacrifice;” (I
Samuel 15:22) and it is the spirit of obedience
rather than the overt act
of correctness for which the righteous
Lord is
looking.
Vanity in Religion: Rash
Prayers (vs. 2-3)
From an admonition as to the spirit in which we should
enter the house of
God, our author proceeds to counsel us as to the religious
exercises we
engage in
there. Our utterances in prayer are to be
calm and deliberate. A
multitude of wishes may fill our hearts, and, unless we
take care, find
expression in a volume of ill-considered words. But we are
to remember
that only some of our wishes can be lawfully turned into
prayers, and that
an appropriate expression of the requests we feel we can
offer, is due from
us. The counsel here given is twofold:
(1) it relates to
our words, which often outrun our thoughts, and
(2) to our hearts or
minds, which are often the homes of vain imaginations
and desires.
Over both we must exercise control if we are to offer
acceptable prayers.
One great safeguard against offending in this matter is
brevity in our
addresses to heaven’s King. In a multitude of words even the
wisest are in danger of giving indications of folly.
Definite petitions, duly
weighed, and expressed in simple, earnest language, become
us who stand
at such a distance from the throne of God. Our Lord
reiterates the
admonition in the sermon on the mount (Matthew 6:7-8): “When
ye
pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they
think that they
shall be heard for their much speaking. Be not ye therefore
like unto them:
for your Father knoweth what
things ye have need of, before ye ask Him.”
And in the parable of the Pharisee and the publican (Luke
18:9-14) He
contrasts the voluble utterance of the self-righteous and
complacent
worshipper with the brief, sincere confession and
supplication of the true
penitent. The greatest of all safeguards against the evil
here condemned
consists in our having before our minds a true idea of what
prayer is. It is
our offering petitions to God. as creatures who are dependent upon His
goodness, as children whom He loves. If we take as our example that
offered by our Savior in the
we learn that the aim of prayer is not to determine the
will of God. Some
one thing we may ask for, but we leave it to God to grant
or to deny, and
seek above
all that our will MAY BE CHANGED TO HIS WILL!
Reverence, Modesty, and
Brevity in Devotion (v. 2)
What a contrast is there between this sound and sober
counsel, and the
precepts and customs prevalent among the heathen! These
latter have
corrupted the very practice of devotion; whilst those who
acknowledge the
authority of the Scriptures condemn themselves if their
worship is
superficial, pretentious, formal, and insincere.
·
THE RULES OF DEVOTION.
Ø
Avoid profane rashness and precipitancy. When rashness and
haste are
forbidden, it is not intended to
condemn ejaculatory or extempore prayer.
There are occasions when such
prayer is the natural and appropriate
expression of the deep feelings
of the heart; when one cannot pause to
weigh one’s words, when one
cannot fall back upon liturgy or litany,
however scriptural and rich. What
is censured is ill-considered prayer,
which is not properly prayer at
all, but the outpouring of ill temper and
sulkiness. Such utterances
may be profane, and are certainly
unsuitable, unbecoming.
Ø
Avoid verbiage. When praise and prayer take shape in many words,
there is danger of using “vain
repetitions,” against which our Lord Christ
has so urgently warned His
disciples. Long and diffuse devotions are
probably addressed rather to men
than to God. They are unnecessary and
unprofitable, for God does not
need them; they are irreverential, for they
betoken a mind more occupied
about self than about the Supreme. But
this precept does not preclude
urgency and even repetition when such are
dictated by profound feeling and
by special circumstances.
·
THE REASON OF THESE RULES.
Ø
The nature,
the character of God Himself. “He is in heaven.” By
heaven we are to understand the
eternal sphere apart from and above
time, earth, and sense. We are
not to rank God with earthly potentates,
but are to bear in mind His distinctness and superiority.
o
As our Creator, He
knows both our emotions and our wants;
o
as our Lord and Judge,
He knows our sins and frailties;
o
as our Savior, He
knows our contrition and faith.
Such considerations may well
preclude familiarity, rashness, verbosity,
irreverence. To think rightly of
God, to feel aright with regard to Him,
is to be preserved from such
faults and errors as are here mentioned
with censure.
Ø
The position of men. Being upon earth, men partake in the feebleness
and finiteness of the created.
o
They are suppliants; and as such they should ever approach
the
throne of grace with reverence and humiliation.
o
They are
sinners;
and should imitate the spirit of him who,
when
he came up into the temple to pray, cried, “God be
merciful to me a
sinner!” (Luke 18:13) This
was a short
prayer;
but he who offered it was accepted and justified.
3 “For a
dream cometh through the multitude of business; and a fool’s
voice is known by multitude of words.” The first
clause illustrates the second,
the mark of comparison being simply the copula, mere
juxtaposition being deemed
sufficient to
denote the similitude, as in ch.7:1; Proverbs
17:3; 27:21.
For a dream cometh
through (in consequence of) the
multitude of
business. The verse is meant to
confirm the injunction against vain
babbling in prayer. Cares and anxieties in business or
other matters
occasion disturbed sleep, murder the dreamless repose of
the healthy
laborer, and produce all kinds of sick fancies and
imaginations. Septuagint,
“A dream cometh in abundance of trial (πειρασμοῦ - peirasmou – trial;
temptation);”
Vulgate, Multas curas sequuntur
somnia. And a fool’s
voice is known by
multitude of words. The verb should be
supplied from
the first clause, and not a new one introduced, as in the Authorized
Version,
“And the voice of a
fool (cometh)
in consequence of many words.” As surely as
excess of business produces fevered dreams, so excess of
words, especially in
addresses to God, produces a fool’s voice, i.e. foolish
speech. St. Gregory points
out the many ways in which the mind is affected by images from
dreams.
“Sometimes,” he says, “dreams are engendered of fullness or
emptiness of
the belly, sometimes of illusion, sometimes of illusion and
thought
combined, sometimes of revelation, while sometimes they are
engendered
of imagination, thought, and revelation together”
(‘Moral.,’ 8:42).
(Mr. Spurgeon said of dreams: “the carnival of thought; a maze of
mental states, a
dance of disorder; ………..the most disorderly of
phenomena.” The Treasury of the New Testament,
Vol. 1. p. 382)
4 “When
thou vowest a vow unto God, defer not to pay it; for
he hath
no pleasure in fools: pay that which thou
hast vowed.” Koheleth passes on
to give a warning concerning the making of vows, which
formed a great feature in
Hebrew religion, and was the occasion
of much irreverence and profanity.
When thou vowest a vow unto God, defer not to pay it. There is here plainly a
reminiscence of Deuteronomy
23:21-23. Vows are not regarded as absolute duties
which every one was obliged to undertake. They are of a
voluntary nature,
but when made are to
be strictly performed. They might
consist of a
promise to dedicate certain things or persons to God (see
Genesis 38:20;
Judges 11:30), or to abstain from doing certain things, as
in the case of the
Nazarites. The rabbinical injunction quoted by our Lord in the
sermon on the
mount (Matthew 5:33), “Thou
shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt
perform
unto the Lord thine
oaths,” was probably leveled against profane swearing,
or invoking God’s Name lightly, but it may include the duty of performing vows
made to or in the Name of God. Our Lord does not condemn the practice of
corban, while noticing with rebuke a perversion of the custom (Mark 7:11).
For He hath no pleasure in fools. The non-fulfillment of a vow would prove
a man to be impious, in
proverbial language “a fool,” and as such God must regard
him with displeasure.
The clause in the Hebrew is somewhat ambiguous, being
literally, There is no pleasure (chephets)
in fools; i.e. no one, neither God
nor man, would take pleasure in fools who make promises and never
perform them. Or it may be, There is no fixed will in fools; i.e.
they waver
and are undecided in purpose. But this rendering of chephets appears to be
very doubtful. Septuagint -
Ὅτι οὐκ ἔστι θέλημα
ἐν ἄφροσι - Hoti ouk esti
thelaema en aphrosi - He
hath no pleasure in fools – which reproduces the
vagueness of the Hebrew; Vulgate, Displicet
enim ei (Deo) infidelis
et stulta
promissio. The meaning is well represented in the Authorized
Version, and we
must complete the sense by supplying in thought “on the
part of God.” Pay that
which thou but vowed. Ben-Sirs reechoes the injunction (Ecclesiasticus.
18:22-23),
“Let nothing hinder thee to pay thy vow (εὐχὴν – euchaen - vow) in due
time, and
defer not until death to be justified [i.e. to fulfill the
vow]. Before making a vow
(εὔξασθαι)– euxasthai - prepare thyself)
and be not as one that tempteth the Lord.”
The verse is cited in the Talmud; and Dukes gives a
parallel, “Before thou vowest
anything, consider the object of thy vow” (‘Rabb. Blumenl.,’ p. 70). So in
Proverbs 20:25 we have, according to some translations, “It is a snare to a man
rashly to say, It is holy, and after vows to
make inquiry.” Septuagint,”
Pay thou therefore
whatsoever thou shalt have vowed (ὅσα ἐάν εὔξη – hosa
ean euxae – pay that you vowed).
5 “Better
is it that thou shouldest not vow, than that thou shouldest
vow and not pay.” Better is it that thou shouldest not vow. There
is no harm
in not vowing (Deuteronomy 23:22); but a vow once made becomes
of the
nature of an oath, and its non-performance is a sin and
sacrilege, and incurs
the punishment of false swearing. We gather from the Talmud
that
frivolous excuses for the evasion of vows were very common,
and called
for stern repression, One sees this in our Lord’s
references (Matthew
5:33-37; 23:16-22). Paul severely reprehends those women
who break
their vow of widowhood, “having
condemnation, because they have
rejected their
first faith” (I Timothy 5:12).
The Law of
the Vow (vs. 4-5)
There are those who would disapprove of the violation of a
promise given
to a fellow-man, who think lightly of evading a promise
solemnly
volunteered to the Creator. It may be said that a
fellow-man might suffer
from such neglect or dereliction, but that God can suffer
no loss or harm if
a vow be not fulfilled. Such an extenuation or excuse for
violating vows
arises from the too common notion that the moral character
of an action
depends upon the consequences that follow it, and not upon
the principles
that direct it. A man’s conduct may be wrong even if no one
is injured by
it; for he may violate both his own nature and the moral
law itself.
·
THE NATURE OF THE VOW.
When some signal favor has been
experienced, some forbearance
exercised on a man’s behalf, he desires to
evince his gratitude, to do
something which in ordinary circumstances he
would probably not have done,
and he makes a vow unto God, sacredly’
promising to offer some gift, to
perform some service. Or even more
commonly, the vow is made in
hope of some benefit desired, and its
fulfillment is conditional upon
a petition being favorably answered, a desire
being gratified.
·
THE VOLUNTARINESS OF THE VOW. It is presumed that no
constraint is exercised, that
the promise made to Heaven is the free and
spontaneous expression of
religious feeling. The language of Peter to
Ananias expresses this aspect of the proceeding: “Whiles
it remained, did it
not remain thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thy power?”
(Acts 5:4)
·
THE OBLIGATION OF THE VOW. It is questionable whether vows
are in all cases expedient. A
vow to act sinfully is certainly not binding.
And there are some vows which it
is unwise in some circumstances, if not
in all circumstances, to make;
this is the case especially with vows which
seem to make too great a demand
upon human nature, which are indeed
against nature; e.g.
vows of celibacy, and of obedience to fellow-creatures
as fallible as are those who
bind themselves to obey. But if a vow be made
knowingly and voluntarily, and
if its fulfillment be not wrong, then the text
assures us it is obligatory, and
should be paid.
·
THE FOLLY OF DEFERRING TO PAY THE VOW. There are
disagreeable duties, which weak
persons admit to be duties, and intend to
discharge, but the discharge of
which they postpone. Such duties do not
become easier or more agreeable
because deferred. Generally speaking,
when conscience tells us that a certain thing ought to be
done, the sooner
we do it the better.
So with the vow. “Defer not to pay it; for God hath no
pleasure in
fools.”
·
THE SIN OF NEGLECTING AND REPUDIATING THE VOW. The
vow is an evidence, it may be
presumed, that there existed at the time, in
the mind of him who made it,
strong feelings and earnest purposes. Now,
for one who has passed through
such experiences so far to forget or abjure
them as to act as if the vow had
never been made, is a proof of
religious
declension and
of inconsistency. How common is such “backsliding”! It is
said, “Better is it that thou shouldest not vow, than that thou shouldest
vow and not pay.” He who vows not contracts no special obligation, whilst
he who vows and withholds
payment repudiates a solemn obligation which
he has undertaken. A warning is
thus given to which it is important for
those especially to give heed
who are liable to religious excitement and
enthusiasm. If such characters
yield as readily to evil influences as to good,
their impressions may be a curse
rather than a blessing, or at least may be
the occasion of moral deterioration. None can feel and resolve and pray,
and then afterwards act in opposition to their purest feelings, their highest
resolves, their fervent prayers,
without suffering serious harm, without
weakening their moral power,
without incurring the just displeasure of the
righteous Governor and Lord of
all.
6 “Suffer not thy mouth to cause thy
flesh to sin; neither say thou before the
angel, that it was an error: wherefore
should God be angry at thy voice, and
destroy the work of thine
hands?” Suffer not thy mouth to cause thy flesh to sin.
“Thy flesh” is equivalent to “thyself,”
the whole personality, the idea of the flesh,
as a distinct part of the man, sinning, being alien from Old
Testament ontology.
The injunction means — Do not, by uttering rash or
inconsiderate vows,
which you afterwards evade or cannot fulfill, bring sin
upon yourself, or, as
others render, bring punishment upon yourself. Septuagint, “Suffer not thy
mouth to cause thy
flesh to sin (τοῦ ὠξαμαρτῆσαι
τὴν σάρκα
σου - tou
oxamartaesai taen sarka sou);” Vulgate, Ut peccare facias carnem tuam.
Another interpretation, but not so suitable, is this — Do
not let thy mouth
(i.e. thy appetite) lead thee to break the
vow of abstinence, and indulge in
meat or drink from which (as, e.g., a Nazarite) thou wast bound to
abstain.
Neither say thou before
the angel, that it was an error. If
we take “angel”
(malak) in the usual sense (and there seems no very forcible
reason why we
should not), it must mean the angel of God in whose special charge you are
placed, or the angel who
was supposed to preside over the altar of worship,
or that messenger of God
whose duty it is to watch man’s doings and to act
as the minister of punishment
(II Samuel 24:16). The workings of God’s
providence are often
attributed to angels; and sometimes the names of God
and angel are interchanged
(see Genesis 16:9, 13; 18:2-3, etc.; Exodus 3:2, 4;
23:20, etc.). Thus the Septuagint here renders, “Say not
before the face of
God (πρὸ προσώπου τοῦ Θεοῦ – pro prosopou tou Theou ).” If this
interpretation be allowed, we have an argument for the
literal explanation of
the much-disputed
passage in I Corinthians 11:10, διὰ τοὺς ἀγγέλους –
dia tous angelous – because of
the angels. Thus, too, in ‘The Testaments of
the XII. Patriarchs,’ we have, “The Lord is witness, and
His angels are witnesses,
concerning the word of your
mouth” (‘Levi,’ 19). But most commentators
consider that the word here means “messenger” of Jehovah, in the sense of
priest, the announcer of the Divine Law, as in the unique passage Malachi 2:7.
Traces of a similar use of ἄγγελος – angelos may be found in the
New Testament
(Revelation 1:20; 2:1, etc.). According to the first
interpretation, the man comes
before God with his excuse; according to the second, he
comes to the priest, and
confesses that he was thoughtless and overhasty in making
his vow, and desires to
be released from it, or, at any rate, by some means to
evade its fulfillment. His
excuse may possibly look to the cases mentioned in Numbers
15:22-26, and
he may wish to urge that the vow was made in ignorance
(Septuagint, Ὅτι ἄγνοιά
ἐστι – Hoti agnoia esti - It is an ignorance),
and that therefore he was
not responsible for its
incomplete execution. We do not know that a priest or
any officer of the temple had authority to release from the
obligation of a
vow, so that
the excuse made “before” him would seem to be objectless,
while the evasion of a solemn promise made in the Name of
God might
well be said to be done in the presence of the observing
and recording
angel. The Vulgate rendering, Non eat providentia, makes the man account
for his neglect by assuming that God takes no heed of such
things; he
deems the long-suffering of God to be indifference and
disregard (compare
ch.8:11; 9:3). The original does not bear this
interpretation. Wherefore should
God be angry at
thy voice — the words in which thy evasion and dishonesty are
expressed — and
destroy the work of thine hands? i.e. punish
thee by calamity,
want of success, sickness, etc.,
God’s moral government
being vindicated by
EARTHLY VISITATIONS.
Vowing
and Paying (vs. 4-6)
We may regard the subject of vows in two aspects.
·
THEIR CHARACTER. They may be of:
Ø
An entirely obligatory character. We may solemnly promise to
God that
which we may not withhold without
sin. But this may be shortly
summed up in one word — ourselves. We owe to Him ourselves, all that
we are and have, our powers and
our possessions. And the first thing that
becomes us all is to present
ourselves before God in a most solemn act of
surrender, in which we
deliberately resolve and undertake to yield
to Him
our heart and
life thenceforth and for ever. In this
great crisis of our
spiritual history we make the one supreme vow with which all others are
incomparable. It should be made in the exercise of all
the powers of
our nature; not under
any kind of compulsion, but as freely as fully,
as intelligently as heartily. It is one that is, of course, to be renewed,
and this both regularly,
and also on
all special occasions. It is a vow
to be confirmed every time we
bow in the
sanctuary, and every time we
gather at the table of the Lord.
Ø
Optional. And of these vows which may be described as optional, there
are:
o
those that are conditional; as when a man
promises that if God
give him wealth he will devote a
large proportion of it to his
direct service (see Genesis
28:22); or that if God restore his
health he will consecrate all
his time and all his possessions
to the proclamation of is truth.
o
Those that are unconditional; as when
§
a man determines that
thenceforth he will give a
certain
fixed proportion of his income to the cause
of Christ; or
§
when he pledges
himself to abstain from some
particular
indulgence which is hurtful to himself or
is a temptation to others.
·
THE SPIRIT IN WHICH THEY SHOULD BE MADE AND
FULFILLED.
Ø
With devout deliberation. It is a serious
mistake for a man to undertake
that which he fails to carry
out.
o
It is offensive to God
(v. 4).
o
It is injurious to the
man himself; he is in a distinctly worse
spiritual position after failure
than he would have been if he
had not entered into an
engagement (v. 5). We should not
promise anything in ignorance of
ourselves, and then lose
our self-respect by a
humiliating withdrawal.
Ø
In a spirit of prompt and cheerful obedience. What we vow to do we
should do
o
without delay, “deferring
not.” There is always danger in delay.
Tomorrow
we shall be further in time from the hour of solemn
resolution, and its force will
be lessened by the distance. Also:
o
cheerfully; for we
may be sure that God loveth a cheerful
promise-keeper — one that does
what he undertook to do,
although it proves to be of
greater dimensions or to be attended
with severer effort than he at
first imagined it would.
Ø
With patient persistency; not allowing anything to
come between
himself
and his honorable fulfillment.
o
Are we fully redeeming
our vows of Christian consecration
in
the daily life that we are living?
o
Are we paying the vows
we made in some dark hour of need
(see
Psalm 66:13-14)?
7 “For in
the multitude of dreams and many words there are also
divers vanities: but fear thou God.” For in the multitude of dreams and many
words there are also divers vanities. The Hebrew is literally, For in multitude of
dreams, and
vanities, and many words; i.e., In the multitude of dreams are
also
vanities, and (in) many words (as well). Koheleth sums up the sense of
the
preceding paragraph, vs. 1-6. The popular religion, which made much
of dreams
and verbosity and vows, is vanity, and has in it nothing
substantial or comforting.
The superstitious man who puts his faith in
dreams is unpractical and unreal; the
garrulous man who is rash in his vows, and in prayer thinks to be
heard for his
much speaking, displeases God and never secures his object. The Septuagint
rendering is elliptical, , Ὅτι ἐ πλήθει
ἐνυπνίων καὶ ματαιοτήτων
καὶ λόγων
πολλῶν ὅτι σὺ τὸν Θεὸν φοβοῦ.
- Hoti e plaethei enupnion kai
mataistaeton kai logon pollon hoti su
ton Theon phobou - For in the
multitude
of dreams there are vanities, as well as in many words: but
you must fear God. To
complete this, some supply, “Many vows are made or
excused;” others, “There is evil.” Vulgate, Ubi multa aunt somnia,
plurimae aunt vanitates, et sermones innumeri.’ The Authorized Version
gives the sense of the passage. But fear thou God. In contrast with these
spurious forms of religion, which the Jews were inclined to
adopt, the
writer recalls men to the fear of the one true God, to whom
all vows
should be performed, and who should be worshipped from the
heart.
Vanities
in Worship (vs. 1-7)
Discommended and rebuked as:
Ø
Inconsistent with the sanctity of the place of worship — the
house of God. Wherever men
convene to offer homage to the Divine
Being, in a magnificent
cathedral or in a humble upper room, upon
hillsides and moors, or in
dens and caves of the earth, there is a dwelling-
place of Jehovah no less
than in the temple (Solomonic or post-exilic) or
in the synagogue, of both
which the Preacher probably thought. What
lends sanctity to the spot in
which worshippers assemble is not its
material surroundings,
artificial or natural (architectural elegance
or cosmical
beauty); it is not even the convening there
of the worshippers
themselves, however exalted
their rank or sacred the character of the
acts in which they engage. It is the unseen and
spiritual, but real and
supernatural,
presence of God in the midst of his assembled saints
(Exodus 20:24; Psalm 46:4-7; Matthew
18:20; 28:20); and the simple
consideration of this fact, much more
the realization of that nearness of
God to which it points, should awaken in
the breast of every one
proceeding towards and crossing the threshold of
a Christian sanctuary
the feeling of awe which
inspired Jacob
on the heights of
(Genesis 28:17), Ethan the Ezrahite (Psalm 89:7), and Isaiah in the
temple. (Isaiah 6:1). The
thought of God’s
immediate neighborhood
and of all that it implies, His
observance of both
the persons of His
worshippers (Genesis 16:13), and
the secrets of their hearts
(Psalm 139:1), should put a hush
on every spirit (Habakkuk 2:20;
Zechariah 2:13), and dispose
each one to “keep his foot,”
metaphorically, to “put off his shoe,” as Moses did at the
bush
(Exodus 3:5), and Joshua in presence
of the Captain of Jehovah’s
host (Joshua 5:15).
Ø
Opposed to the true character of Divine worship. When
congregations assemble in
the house of God to do homage to Him
whose presence fills the
house, this end cannot be attained by
offering the sacrifice of
fools, i.e. by rendering such
service as
proceeds from
unbelieving, disobedient, and hypocritical hearts
(Proverbs 21:27), but only
by assuming the attitude of one willing to
hear (I Samuel 3:10; Psalm
85:8) and to obey not man but God
(Psalm 40:5). If
unaccompanied by a disposition to do God’s will,
mere external performances
are of no value whatever, however
imposing their magnificence
or costly their production. What God
desires in His servants is
not
the outward offering of sacrifices or
celebration of ceremonies, but the inward devotion of the spirit
(I Samuel 15:22; Psalm
51:16-17; Jeremiah 7:21-23; Hosea 6:6).
The highest form of worship
is not speaking of or giving to God,
but hearing and receiving
from God.
Ø
Proceeding from ignorance both of the sanctity of the place and
of the spirituality
of its worship. However the final
clause may be
rendered (see Exposition), its
sense is that IRREVERANCE
springs
from IGNORANCE:
o
from failing properly to
understand the character either
of that God they pretend to
worship, or of that worship
they affect to render.
o
of God, of His
nature as spiritual,
o
of His character as
holy,
o
of His presence as
near,
o
of His
knowledge as all-observant,
o
of His majesty as
awe-inspiring,
o
of His power
as irresistible,
is the prime root of all
wrong worship, as Christ said of the Samaritans
(John 4:22), and as Paul
told the Athenians (Acts 17:23).
particularly in prayer.
Two phases of this evil commented on.
Ø
Rashness in prayer.
(v. 2.) Hasty utterance of whatever comes
uppermost, as if any jangle of
words might suffice for devotion — a
manner of prayer totally
inconsistent with the thought that one is
standing in THE DIVINE
PRESENCE! If a petitioner
would
hardly venture to lay his requests before an earthly sovereign, how
much less should a
suppliant draw near to Heaven’s throne without
calm forethought and
deliberation? Moreover, it is inconsistent with
the real nature of prayer, which
is a making known to God of the
soul’s needs with thankful
acknowledgment of the Divine
mercies;
and how can one either state his own wants or record God’s mercies
who has never taken time to
investigate the one or count up the
other?
Ø
Prolixity in prayer. Much speaking, endless and unmeaning repetitions
— a characteristic of Pharisaic
devotions adverted to by Christ
(Matthew 6:7), and
difficult to harmonize either with a due regard to
the majesty of God or with the
possession of that inward calm which is a
necessary condition of all true
prayer. As a dreamer’s eloquence, usually
turgid and magniloquent,
proceeds from an unquiet state of the brain,
which during day has been unduly
excited by a rush of business or by the
worries of waking hours, so the
multitude of words emitted by a fool’s
voice is occasioned by the inward
disquiet of a mind and heart that have
not attained to rest in God. At
the same time, the admonition, “let thy
words be few,” is not meant to
set limits to the fire of devotion, being
directed, not against the inwardly devout, but against the
superficially
religious, who fancy that in the
multitude of their
words they have an equivalent for the devotion they lack!
especially in the
non-fulfillment of vows voluntarily taken while engaged in
worship. Against this wickedness
the preacher inveighs.
Ø
Because such conduct cannot be other than displeasing to
God.
“When thou vowest a vow, defer
not to pay it; for he hath no
pleasure in
fools: pay that which thou hast vowed.” As the
Almighty Himself is “the same yesterday, and today, and for ever,”
“without
variableness or shadow of turning,” and “changeth not”
(Hebrews 13:8; James 1:17;
Malachi 3:6), so He desires in all His
worshippers the reflection at
least of this perfection, and cannot
regard with favor one who plays fast and loose with
His promises
to men, and FAR LESS WITH HIS VOWS TO GOD!
Ø
Because such conduct is in no sense unavoidable. A worshipper is
under no obligation to vow
anything to Jehovah. Whatever is done in
this direction must proceed from
the clearest free-will. Hence, to escape
the sin of breaking one’s vows,
one is at liberty not to vow (Deuteronomy
23:21-23). Hence also should one
cautiously guard against the utterance
Of rash and sinful vows like
those of Jephthah (Judges 11:30-31) and of
Saul (I Samuel 14:24), lest
through fulfilling (no less than through
breaking) them one should incur
sin. Similarly, “we must not vow that
which through the frailty of the
flesh we have reason to fear we shall not
be able to perform, as those
that vow a single life and yet know not how
to keep their vow” (Matthew
Henry). The same remark applies to taking
vows of total abstinence from
meats and drinks.
Ø
Because such conduct cannot escape the just judgment of
God.
The
rashly uttered vow, afterwards
left unfulfilled, sets the speaker of it in the
place of a sinner, upon whom as
guilty God will inflict punishment. Thus
through his mouth, his “flesh,”
or his body, i.e. his whole personality, of
which the flesh or body is the
outer covering, is caused to suffer. Being
just and holy,
God can by no means clear the guilty (Exodus
34:7),
although He can justify the
ungodly (Romans 4:5). Hence the vow-
breaker cannot hope to elude the
due reward of his infidelity.
Ø
Because such conduct is practically indefensible. To say before the
angel or presiding minister in
the temple or synagogue in whose hearing
the vow haft been registered
that the registration of it had been an error,
was, in the judgment of the
Preacher, no excuse, but rather an
aggravation of the original
offence, and a sure means of drawing
down upon the offender the anger
of God, and of causing God to
effectually thwart and utterly
destroy the designs His pretended
worshipper had, first in making his
vows and afterwards in breaking
them; and so, when one retreats
from protestations and promises
made to God, it is no
justification of his conduct in the eyes of
others who may have listened to
or become aware of his votive
engagements, to aver that he had
made them in error. Nor is it
sufficient to excuse one in
God’s sight to say that one was mistaken in
having promised to do so-and-so.
Hence, if one vows before God
with regard to matters left in
his option, it is his duty to fulfill these
vows,
even should it be to his hurt. But in all respects it is wiser
and better not to vow except in such things as
are already enjoined upon
one by God; and should it be said that no
possible need can arise for
taking upon one’s self by voluntary obligation
what already lies upon
one by Divine prescription, this will not be denied. Yet
one may vow
to do what God has commanded in the sense of resolving
to do it —
always in dependence on promised
grace; and with regard to this no
better counsel can be offered
than that given by
“Call to thy God for grace to keep
Thy
vows; and if thou break them, weep.
Weep for thy broken vows, and vow again:
Vows made with tears cannot be still in
vain.”
·
LESSONS.
1. The condescension of God in accepting human worship.
2. The dignity of man that he can render such worship as God
can accept.
3. The spirituality of all sincere worship of God.
4. The displeasure of God against all worship that is merely
external.
Vanity in Religion: Broken Vows (vs. 4-7)
A vow is a promise to dedicate something to God, on certain
conditions,
such as His granting deliverance from death or danger,
success in one’s
undertakings, or the like, and is one of the most ancient
and widespread of
religious customs. The earliest we read of is that of Jacob
at
(Genesis 28:18-22; 31:13). The Mosaic Law regulated the
practice, and
the passage before us is an almost exact reproduction of
the section in
Deuteronomy (Deuteronomy 23:21-23) in which general
directions are
given about the discharge of such obligations. The vow
consisted in the
dedication of persons or possessions to sacred uses. The
worshipper’s self,
or child, or slave, or property, might be devoted to God.
Vows were
entirely voluntary, but, once made, were regarded as
compulsory, and
evasion of performance of them was held to be highly
irreligious
(Numbers 30:2; Deuteronomy 23:21-23; here v. 4). The
kind of sin referred to here is that of making a vow
inconsiderately, and
drawing back when the time of performance comes. No
obligation to vow
rested upon any man (Deuteronomy 23:22), but when the
vow had
once been made,
no one could without dishonor refuse to fulfill it. Of
course, it was to be taken for granted that the vow was such
as could be
fulfilled without violating any law or ordinance of God.
And, accordingly,
provision was made in the Mosaic Law for the canceling of
any such
obligation undertaken inadvertently, and found on more
mature consideration to
be immoral. It could be set aside, and the offence of
having made it be
atoned for as a sin of ignorance (Leviticus 5:4-6). But
when no such
obstacle stood in the way of performance, nothing but a
prompt and
cheerful fulfillment of the vow could be accepted as
satisfactory. A twofold
fault is described in the passage before us:
(1) an unseemly
delay in fulfilling the vow (v. 4) leading, perhaps, to an
omission to fulfill it at all; and
(2) a deliberate
evasion of it, the insincere worshipper going to the angel
(priest), and saying that the vow had been made in
ignorance, and should
not therefore be kept literally (v. 6).
And in correspondence with the respective degrees of guilt
incurred by such conduct,
the Divine indignation takes a less or more intense form:
v. 4, “He hath no pleasure
in fools;” v. 6, “Wherefore
should God be angry at thy voice, and destroy the work
of thine hands?” The idea of the former of the two statements of the Divine
displeasure is far from being trivial or from being a tame
anticipation of the
latter. “The Lord first ceases to delight in a man, and
then, after long
forbearance, gives him over to destruction” (Wright). The
one great source
of these three forms of evil which so often vitiate
religious life —
thoughtlessness, rash prayers,
and broken vows — is
irreverence, and
against it the Preacher lifts up his voice (v. 7):
“For in the multitude of
dreams and many words there are also divers vanities: but
fear thou God.”
Just as occasional dreams may be coherent, so few
well-considered
utterances may be characterized by wisdom. But a crowd of
dreams, and
hasty, babbling speech, are sure to contain confused images
and offensive
folly. The fear of
God, therefore, if it habitually influence the mind, will
preserve a man from being “rash with his mouth;” it
will hinder his making
inconsiderate vows, and
afterwards seeking excuses for not fulfilling them.
Vs. 8-17 deals with perils
to which one is exposed in a despotic state, and the
unprofitableness of riches. In political life there is little that is
satisfactory; yet
one must not surrender one’s belief in a superintending
8 “If thou
seest the oppression of the poor, and violent
perverting of
judgment and justice in a province, marvel
not at the matter: for he
that is higher than the highest regardeth; and there be higher than
they.”
If thou seest the
oppression of the poor. From errors in the
service of God, it is natural to turn to faults in the
administration of the
king (Proverbs 24:21). Koheleth has
already alluded to these anomalies
in chps. 3:16 and 4:1. Violent perverting of judgment and justice. Literally,
robbery; so that judgment is never rightly given, and justice is withheld from
applicants. In a province (me dinah, ch. 2:8); the district in which the person
addressed dwells. It may, perhaps, be implied that {his is
remote from the
central authority, and therefore more liable to be
injuriously dealt with by
unscrupulous rulers. Marvel
not at the matter (chephets, ch.3:1). Be not surprised
or dismayed (Job 26:11)
at such evil doings,, as though they were unheard of, or
inexperienced, or disregarded. It is like John’s “Marvel not, my brethren, if the
world hate you” (I John 3:13); or Peter’s “Think it not strange concerning the
fiery trial among’ you” (I Peter 4:12). The stupid and unintelligent observation
of such disorders might lead to
arraignment of
moral government of God. Against
such mistakes the writer guards. For
He that
is higher than the
highest regardeth.
Both the words are in the singular
number. Septuagint, Ὑψηλὸς ἐπάνω
ὑψηλοῦ φυλάξαι - Upsaelos epano
hupsaelou phulaxai - for
one official is eyed by a higher one. One thinks of
the Persian satraps, who acted much as the Turkish pashas in
later times,
the petty rulers oppressing the people, and being
themselves treated in the
same fashion by their superiors. The whole is a system of wrong-doing,
where the weaker always suffers, and the only comfort is
that the
oppressor himself is subject to higher supervision. The
verb (shamar)
translated “regardeth” means to observe in a hostile sense, to
watch for
occasions of reprisal, as I Samuel 19:11; and the idea
intended is that
in the province there were endless plottings
and counter-plottings, mutual
denunciations and recriminations; that such things were
only to be
expected, and were no sufficient cause for infidelity or
despair. “The higher
one” is the monarch, the despotic king who holds the
supreme power over
all these malad-ministrators and perverters of justice. And there be higher
than they. “Higher” is here
plural (gebohgm), the plural of majesty, as it
is
called (compare ch.12:1), like Elohim,
the word for “God,” the
assonance being probably here suggestive. Over the highest
of earthly
rulers there are other powers, angels, principalities, up
to God Himself, who
governs the course of this world, and to whom we may leave
the final
adjustment. Who
are meant seems purposely to be left undetermined; but
the thought of the righteous Judge of all is intimated in
accordance with the
view of ch.3:17. This is a far more satisfactory
explanation of
the passage than that which regards as the highest of all
“the court
favorites, king’s friends, eunuchs, chamberlains,” etc. In
this view Koheleth
is merely asserting the general system of injustice and
oppression, and
neither accounting for it nor offering any comfort under
the circumstances.
But his object
throughout is to show man’s inability to secure his own
happiness, and the need of
submission to Divine providence. To
demonstrate the anomalies in the events of the world, the
circumstances of
men’s lives would be only one part of his task, which would
not be
completed without turning attention to the remedy against
hasty and unfair
conclusions. This remedy is
the thought of the supreme Disposer of
events,
who holds all the strings in his hand, and will in the end
bring good out
of evil.
The Oppressor’s Accountability (v. 8)
We are not taught in this verse to disregard the wrongs of our
fellow-creatures,
to shut our eyes to deeds of iniquity, to close our ears
against the cry of the
suffering, to steel our heart against the anguish of the
oppressed. But we are
cautioned against drawing hasty and ill-considered
conclusions from the prevalence
of injustice; we are
encouraged to cherish faith in THE OVERRULING
AND RETRIBUTIVE
in every state; but in the East
they have always existed in great numbers.
Despotic governments are more
favorable to oppression than those states
where free institutions are
established and where popular rights are
respected. Reference is made:
Ø
To the maltreatment of
the poor, who are powerless to defend
themselves, and who have no
helper.
Ø
To the withholding and
perversion of justice.
OCCASIONED BY THE EXISTENCE OF OPPRESSION.
Ø
To the sufferers
themselves; who are in some cases deprived of liberty,
in some cases robbed of
their property, in other cases injured in their
person.
Ø
The spectators of such
wrongs are aroused to sympathy, pity, and
indignation. No rightly
constituted mind can witness injustice without
resentment. Even those who
themselves exercise rights and enjoy
privileges lose much of the
pleasure and advantage of their own
position by reason of the wrongs
which their neighbors endure at
the hand of power and cruelty.
Ø
Society is in danger
of corruption when the laws are overridden by
selfishness, avarice, and lust; when righteousness is scoffed at, and
when men’s best instincts and
convictions are outraged.
GOVERNMENT OF GOD.
Ø
Oppression is not
unnoticed. Whether the oppressor hopes to escape, or
fears to be called to account,
it is for the spectator of his evil deeds to
remember that “One higher than the high regardeth.”
Ø
Oppression is not
unrecorded. The iniquities of the unjust judge, of the
arbitrary sovereign, of the
villainous workman who violently hinders his
fellow-workman from earning an
honest livelihood, — all are written in
the book of God (Revelation
20:12). Even when deeds of oppression
are wrought in the sacred name
of religion by the persecutor and the
inquisitor, such deeds are remembered, and will in due time be
brought to
light.
Ø
Oppression will not be
unavenged. Either now in this world, or hereafter
in the state of retribution, the
oppressor, like every other
sinner, shall
be brought to the bar of Divine
justice. God shall bring every man into
judgment (ch. 12:14). As a man soweth, so shall he
also reap
(Galatians 6:7). The wicked shall not go unpunished. (Proverbs
11:21)
9 “Moreover the profit of the earth is
for all: the king himself is
served by the field.” It has been
much debated whether this verse should be
connected with the preceding or the following paragraph.
The Vulgate
takes it with the preceding verse, Et insuper universae terrae rex imperat
servienti; so the Septuagint; and this seems most natural, avarice,
wealth,
and its evils in private life being treated of in v. 10 and
many following.
The writer seems to be contrasting the misery of Oriental
despotism, above spoken
of, with the happiness of a country whose king was content
to enrich himself,
not by war, rapine, and oppression, but by the peaceful
pursuits of agriculture
by cherishing the natural productions of his country, and
encouraging his people
in developing its resources. Such was Uzziah,
who “loved husbandry”
(II Chronicles 26:10); and in Solomon’s own time the arts
of peace greatly
flourished. There is much difficulty in interpreting the
verse. The Vulgate rendering,
“And moreover the King of the whole earth rules over His
servant,” probably means
that God governs the king. But the present Hebrew text does
not support this
translation. The Septuagint has, , Καὶ περίσσεια γῆς ἑπὶ
παντί ἐστὶ
βασιλεὺς τοῦ
ἀγροῦ εἰργασμένου - Kai perisseia gaes hepi panti esti
Basileus
tou agrou eirgasmenou - Moreover the profit of the earth is for all.
The king
profits from the field
- which makes more difficulties. “Also the
abundance of the
earth is for every one, or upon
every thing; the king (is dependent on) the cultivated
land, or, there is a king to the
land when
cultivated,” i.e. the throne itself depends on
the due cultivation of the country. Or,
removing the comma, “The profit of the land in
everything is a king of the
cultivated field.” The Hebrew may safely be rendered,
“But the profit of a land
in all things is a king devoted to the field,” i.e. who
Loves and fosters agriculture. It is difficult
to suppose that Solomon himself
wrote this sentence, however we may interpret it. According
to the
Authorized Version, the idea is that the profit of the soil
extends to every
rank of life; even the king, who seems superior to all, is
dependent upon
the industry of the people, and the favorable produce of
the land. He could
not be unjust and oppressive without injuring his revenues
in the end. Ben-
Sira sings the praises of agriculture: “Hate not laborious work, neither
husbandry., which
the Most High hath ordained” (Ecclesiasticus. 7:15).
Agriculture held a very prominent position in the Mosaic
commonwealth.
The enactments concerning the firstfruits,
the sabbatical year, landmarks,
the non-alienation of inheritances, etc., tended to give
peculiar importance
to cultivation of the soil.
The Picture of an
principal source of wealth,
where this is left untilled only destitution to the
people upon it can ensue. Access
to the broad acres of earth, to extract
therefrom by means of labor the treasures therein deposited,
constitutes an
indispensable prerequisite to
the material prosperity of any province or
empire. Hence the Preacher
depicts, or enables us to depict, a state or
condition of things in which
this is realized — the common people spread
abroad upon the soil and engaged
in its cultivation; the upper classes or
feudal lords deriving their
support from the same soil in the shape of rents,
and even the king receiving from
it in the form of taxes his imperial
revenues.
picture sketched by the
Preacher, who probably transferred to his pages a
spectacle often witnessed in
domination — “the
oppression of the poor, and violent perverting of
judgment and
justice in a province;” the laboring
classes despoiled of their
scanty savings, and even denied
their fair share in the fruits of their own
industry, ground down and
oppressed by the tyranny and avarice of their
social and political superiors,
the satraps and other officers who ruled
them, and these again preyed on by
fiercer harpies above them, and so on,
up through each ascending rank
of dignitaries, till the last and highest was
reached. Reverse the state of
matters thus described, and imagine all
classes in the community
dwelling together in harmony, and conspiring to
advance each other’s comfort and
happiness — the toiling millions
cheerfully, honestly, and
diligently cultivating the soil, and manufacturing
its products into higher forms
of wealth and beauty, the upper classes
jealously guarding the rights
and furthering the welfare of these industrious
artisans, and each regarding the
other with confidence and esteem — the
poet’s dream of Utopia, in which
“all men’s good” should be “each man’s
rule,” would then be realized:
pushing forward his own personal
aggrandizement, which in ancient
Oriental countries was often
done at the expense of his subjects, as by
haraoh of
(I Kings 12:4), but by devoting
his energies to further the material
(and intellectual) advancement
of his people. “But the profit of a land
every way is a king that maketh himself servant to the field,” or “is a king
over the cultivated field”
(Revised Version margin), or is a king devoted to
agriculture, like Uzziah of Judah, who “loved
husbandry” (II Chronicles
26:10). It is only amplifying
this thought to represent the ideal state as one
in which the king or emperor
consecrates his life and powers to the
honorable and laborious task of
promoting the material prosperity and
temporal happiness of his
subjects by removing the yoke from agriculture,
fostering trade and commerce,
encouraging manufactures and inventions
aiding science and art,
diffusing education, and stimulating his people
upward in every possible way
towards the ideal of all free peoples, viz.
SELF-GOVERNMENT.
be changed. What he beheld was
wholesale oppression and robbery
practiced by the upper and
powerful classes against the under and
powerless classes, or in modern
phrase, “the masses; and God over both
looking on in calm silence
(Psalm 50:21), but by no means unperturbed
indifference (Zephaniah 1:12),
accurately noting all the wickedness
going on beneath the sun (Psalm
33:13-15), and quietly waiting his
own time to call it to account
(ch.3:15, 17; 11:9; 12:14). What must
be substituted is a state of
matters in which over the well organized,
industrious, peaceful, co-operating community the almighty
Disposer of
events, the King of nations and King of kings, presides,
beaming on them
with his gracious smile (Numbers
6:24-26) and
establishing the work of their
hands upon them (Psalm 90:17).
·
LEARN:
1. The duty of the state to seek the welfare of all.
2. The duty of each to promote the welfare of the state.
A
Misgoverned State (v. 8)
From the follies only too prevalent in the religious world,
the Preacher
turns to the disorders of the political; and although he
admonishes his
readers in a later section of the book (<210802>Ecclesiastes 8:2) to be mindful of
the duties to which they are pledged by their oath of
allegiance, it is very
evident that he felt keenly the misery and oppression
caused by
misgovernment. For these evils he could suggest no cure; a
hopeless
submission to the inevitable is his only counsel. Like
Hamlet, his heart is
wrung by the thought of evils against which it was almost
useless to
strive—
“The
oppressor’s wrong, the proud man’s contumely
…
the law’s delay,
The
insolence of office, and the spurns
That
patient merit of the unworthy takes.”
The subordinate magistrates tyrannized over the people,
those who were
higher in office watched their opportunity for oppressing
them. From the
lowest up to the very highest rank of officials the same
system of violence
and jealous espionage prevailed. Those that were in the
royal household
and had the ear of the king, his most intimate counselors,
who were in a
sense higher than any of the satraps or governors he employed,
were able
to urge him to use his power for the destruction of any
whose ill-gotten
riches made him an object of envy (romp. <211004>Ecclesiastes 10:4, 7, 16,
etc.). The whole system of government was rotten to the
core, the same
distrust and jealousy pervaded every part of it. “Marvel
not,” says the
Preacher, “at oppression and injustice in the lower
departments of official
life, for those who are the superiors of the tyrannical
judge or governor,
and should be a check on him, are as bad as he.” Such seems
to be the
sense of the words. At first sight, indeed, the impression
left on one’s mind
is that the Preacher counsels his readers not to be
perplexed or unduly
dismayed at the wrong they are forced to witness, on the
ground that over
and above the highest of earthly tyrants is the power of
God, and that it
will in due time be manifested in the punishment of the
evil-doer. As
though he had said, God who is “higher than the highest regardeth,”
beholds the wrong-doing; and when he comes to judgment, the
proudest
will have to submit to his power (comp. <210317>Ecclesiastes 3:17). But this
interpretation, though very ancient, is not in harmony with
the general
character of the utterance. The thought of God’s power and
justice is
indeed calculated to give some consolation to the
oppressed, but not to
explain why they are oppressed. The latter part of the
verse is assigned as a
reason for not marveling at the prevalence of evil. If,
therefore, reference
be made to the power of God, by which the evil might be
restrained or
abolished, the marvel of its prevalence would only be
increased. We are,
therefore, to understand his words as meaning, “Do not be
surprised at the
corruption and baseness of the lower officials, in so much
as the same
corruption prevails among those in far higher positions.”
He is not here
seeking to cheer up the sufferer by bidding him look
higher; he is
describing the evil state of affairs everywhere existing in
the empire in his
own day (Wright). There is nothing very heroic or inspiring
in the counsel.
It is simply an admonition, based on prudence, to
escape personal danger
by stolidly submitting to evils which one’s own power can
do nothing to
abolish or alleviate. To those who under an Oriental
despotism had become
hopeless and dispirited, the words might seem worthy of a
wise counselor;
but surely there is a servile ring about them which ill
harmonizes with the
love of freedom and intolerance of tyranny which are
native to a European
mind. There is but one relieving circumstance in connection
with them, and
that is that submission to oppression is not commanded in
them or asserted
to be a duty; and therefore those in whose hearts the love
of country and of
justice burns brightly, and who find that a pure and
devoted patriotism
moves them to make many sacrifices for the good of their
fellows, violate
no canon of Scripture when they rise superior to the
prudential
considerations dwelt upon here. Granted that submission to
the inevitable
is the price at which material safety and happiness may be
bought, it is still
a question at many times whether the patriot should not
hazard material
safety and happiness in the attempt to win for his country
and for himself a
higher boon. —
A Well-Ordered State (v. 9)
In contrast with the evils produced by an administration in
which all the
officials, from the lowest to the highest, seek to enrich
themselves, our
author now sets the picture of a well-governed community,
in which the
efficient cultivation of the land is a matter of the first
consideration, and all
classes of the population, up to the king himself, share in
the consequent
prosperity. (The verse has been differently rendered, but
the translation of
both our Revised and Authorized Versions is probably the
best
reproduction of the original words.) From the kings who
wasted the
resources of the lands over which they ruled in carrying on
bloody wars,
and in the indulgence of their capricious tastes, he turns
to those who, like
Uzziah, encouraged agriculture, and under whose beneficent rule
enjoyed the blessings of peace and prosperity (<142610>2 Chronicles 26:10).
“The profit of the earth is for all.” All are dependent
upon the labors of the
husbandman for the supply of the necessaries of life. By
the judicious
cultivation of the soil wealth is accumulated, by which
comforts and
luxuries are to be procured, so that even “the king himself
is served by the
field.” The king, indeed, is more dependent upon the
husbandman than the
husbandman upon the king; without his labors there would be
no bread for
the royal palace, and no luxuries could make up for the
absence of this
necessary of life. We have, surely, in this consideration a
strong proof of
the dignity and value of the humblest labor, and in the
fact of the mutual
dependence of all classes upon each other an argument for
the necessity of
mutual forbearance and co-operation. A very striking
illustration of the
teaching here given is afforded in an incident which took
place at
banquet all the factious barons whom he had vanquished at Seekingen, and
who had previously ravaged and laid waste great part of the
palatinate.
Among them were the Bishop of Mentz
and the Margrave of Baden. The
repast was plentiful and luxurious, but there was no bread.
The warriorguests
looked round with surprise and inquiry. ‘Do you ask for
bread?’
said Frederic, sternly; ‘you who have wasted the fruits of
the earth, and
destroyed those whose industry cultivates it? There is no
bread. Eat, and be
satisfied; and learn henceforth mercy to those who put the
bread into your
mouths’” (quoted in ‘Sketches of Germany,’ by Mrs.
Jameson).
The
Earth and Man (v. 9)
Whatever obscurity may attach to the interpretation of this
verse, in any
case it represents the dependence of the inhabitants of
earth upon the
produce of the soil.
·
THE FACT OF THE BOUNTEOUSNESS OF THE FRUITFUL
EARTH.
Ø
Man’s body is
fashioned out of its dust. Whatever may have been the
process by which the animal
nature of man was prepared as the lodging
and the vehicle of the immortal
spirit, there is no question as to the fact
that the human body is a part of
nature, that it is composed of elements
of a nature similar to those
existing around, that it is subject to physical
law. All this seems implied in the statement that the human
frame was
formed of the dust of the
ground.
Ø
Man’s body is
supported by its produce. Directly or indirectly, man’s
corporeal nature is nourished by
the material substances which exist in
various forms upon the surface
of the earth. The vegetable and animal
creation minister to man’s needs
and growth.
Ø
Man’s body is resolved
into its substance. “Dust thou art, and unto dust
shalt thou return.” (Genesis
3:19) The earth provides man with:
o
his food,
o
his raiment,
o
his dwelling, and
o
his grave.
·
THE UNIVERSALITY OF THE BOUNTEOUSNESS OF THE
EARTH.
Ø
The least is not
overlooked, the poorest is cared for, fed, and sheltered.
Ø
The greatest is not
independent. All men share the same nature, and sit
at
the same table: “The king himself is served by the field.”
·
LESSONS.
1. We have to learn our dependence upon what is lower than
ourselves.
Whilst we are in this earth, whilst we
share this corporeal nature, the
material ministers to bodily needs, and
must not be disdained or despised.
2. We should rise to an apprehension of our real dependence
upon Divine
providence. “The earth is the Lord’s, and the
fullness thereof.” (Psalm
24:1)
It is ordered by God’s wisdom that the earth should be the instrument
of good to all His creatures, even to the
highest. And the enlightened and
thoughtful will not fail to ascend from the
instrument to Him that fashioned
it, from the abode to Him that built it,
from the means of well-being to Him
who appointed and provided them all, and
who intended the earth and all
that is in it to teach His intelligent
creatures something of His glorious
character and
gracious purposes.
In vs. 10-17, the thought of the acts of injustice and
oppression noticed
above, all of which spring from the craving for money,
leads the bard to
dwell upon the evils that accompany this pursuit and
possession of wealth,
which is thus seen to give no real satisfaction. Avarice
has already been
noticed (ch. 4:7-12); the
covetous man now reprobated is one who desires
wealth only for the enjoyment he can get from it, or the
display
which it enables him to make, not, like the miser, who
gloats over its mere
possession. Various instances are given in which riches are
unprofitable
and vain.
10 “He that loveth
silver shall not be satisfied with silver; nor he that
loveth abundance with increase: this is also
vanity.” Warning: It is
not in the nature of earthly good or goods, to quench the deep desires
of man’s immortal spirit! He that loveth silver shall not be satisfied
with
silver. “Silver,” the generic
name for money, as the Greek ἀργύριον - argurion
and French argent. The insatiableness of the passion
for money is a common theme
of poets, moralists, and satirists, and is found in the
proverbs of all nations. Thus
Horace (‘Ep.,’ 1:2. 56): “Semper avarus eget;”
to which
“Antiquum dictum est, Avaro tam deest, quod habet, quam
quod non habet.”
Comp. Juvenal, ‘Sat.,’ 14:139 —
“Interea pleno quum forget sacculus ere,
Crescit amor nummi,
quantum ipsa pecnnia crevit.”
“For
as thy strutting bags with money rise,
The
love of gain is of an equal size.”
(Dryden.)
There is much more of similar import in Horace. See ‘Carm.,’ 2:2. 13,
sqq.; 3:16. 17, 28; ‘Ep.,’ 2:2, 147;
an, 1 Ovid, Fast.,’ 1:211 —
“Creverunt etopes et opum furiosa cupido,
Et, quum possideant plura, plura volunt.”
“As
wealth increases grows the frenzied thirst
For
wealth; the more they have, the more they want.”
Nor he that loveth abundance with increase. The Authorized Version
scarcely presents the sense of the passage, which is not
tautological, but
rather that given by the Vulgate, Et qui amat divitias fructum
non capiet
exeis, “He who loveth abundance of
wealth hath no fruit therefrom;” he
derives no real profit or enjoyment from the luxury which
it enables him to
procure; rather it brings added trouble. And so the old conclusion is again
reached, this is also vanity. The Septuagint, however, reads the clause
interrogatively, Καὶ τίς ἠγάπησεν
ἐν πλήθει
αὐτῶν (αὐτοῦ, al.) γέννημα; "
- Kai tis aegapaesen en plaethei auton autou gennaema
“And who has loved [or, has been content with] gain in its fullness?”
But מִי
is not necessarily interrogative, but here
indefinite, equivalent to
“whosoever.”
11 “When
goods increase, they are increased that eat them: and what
good is there to the owners thereof, saving
the beholding of them with
their eyes?” Koheleth proceeds
to notice some of the inconveniences which
accompany wealth, which go far to prove that God is over
all. When
goods increase,
they are increased that eat them. The
more riches a man
possesses, the greater are the claims upon him. He
increases his household,
retainers, and dependents, and is really none the better
off for all his
wealth. So Job in his prosperous days is said to have had “a very great
household” (Job 1:3), and the servants and laborers employed by
Solomon must have taxed to the utmost even his abnormal
resources (I Kings
5:13-16). Commentators from Pineda downwards have quoted
the
remarkable parallel in Xenoph., ‘Cyropaed.,’ 8:3, wherein the wealthy
Persian Pheraulas, who had risen
from poverty to high estate, disabuses a
young Sacian friend of the idea
that his riches made him happier or
afforded supreme content. “Do you not know,” said he,” that
I neither eat,
nor drink, nor sleep with any more pleasure now than I did
when I was
poor? by having this abundance I gain merely this, that I
have to guard
more, to distribute more among others, and to have the
trouble of taking
care of more. For now numerous domestics demand of me food,
drink,
clothes; some want the doctor; one comes and brings me
sheep that have
been torn by wolves, or oxen killed by failing down a
precipice, or tells of a
murrain that has affected the cattle; so that I seem to
myself to have more
afflictions in my abundance than I had when I was poor,… It
is obligatory
on him who possesses much to expend much both on the gods
and on
friends and on strangers; and whosoever is greatly pleased
with the
possession of riches will, you may be assured, be greatly
annoyed at the
expenditure of them.” What good is there to the owners thereof, saving
the beholding of
them with their eyes? i.
e. - the sight of the amassed wealth.
The contemplation of this is the only enjoyment that the
possessor realizes. So
the Vulgate, Et quid prodest possessori, nisi quod cernit divitias oculis
suis? Septuagint, Καὶ τί ἀνδρεία
τῷ παρ
αὐτῆς ὅτι
ἀρχὴ τοῦ
ὁρᾷν ὀφθαλμοῖς
αὐτοῦ - Kai ti andreia to par autaes hoti archae
tou
ophthalmois autou - And in what does
the excellence of the owner
consist? except
the power of seeing it with his eyes. A Lapide quotes
Horace’s portrait of the miser (‘Sat.,’ 1:1.66, sqq.)
“Populus me sibilat; ut mihi plaudo
Ipse domi, simul ac, nummos contemplor in area...
... congestis undique saccis
Indormis inhians et tanquam
parcere sacris
Cogeris aut pictis tanquam gaudere tabellis.”
“He, when
the people hissed, would turn about,
And dryly
thus accost the rabble-rout:
Hiss on;
heed you not, ye saucy wags,
While
self-applauses greet me o’er my bags.”
O’er countless
heaps in nicest order stored,
You pore
agape, and gaze upon the hoard,
As relics
to be laid with reverence by,
Or
pictures only meant to please the eye.”
(Howes.)
12 “The
sleep of a laboring man is sweet, whether he eat little or much:
but the abundance of the rich will not
suffer him to sleep.” Another
inconvenience of great wealth — it robs a man of his sleep. The sleep of a
laboring man is
sweet, whether he eat little or much. The laborer is the
husbandman, the tiller of the ground (Genesis 4:2). The Septuagint, with a
different pointing, renders δούλου - doulou – slave - which is less
appropriate,
the fact being generally true of free or bond man. Whether
his fare be plentiful
or scanty, the honest laborer earns and enjoys his night’s rest. But
the abundance
of the rich will
not suffer him to sleep. The allusion is not
to the overloading
of the stomach, which might occasion
sleeplessness in the case of the poor
equally with the rich man, but to the cares and anxieties which wealth brings.
“Not a soft couch, nor a bedstead
overlaid with silver, nor the quietness that
exists throughout the house,
nor any other circumstance of this nature, are so
generally wont to make sleep sweet and
pleasant, as that of laboring, and
growing weary, and lying down with a disposition to
sleep, and very greatly
needing it .... Not so the rich. On the
contrary, whilst lying on their beds,
they are frequently without sleep through the
whole night; and, though they
devise many
schemes, they do not obtain such pleasure”
(St. Chrysostom, ‘Hom.
on Stat.,’ 22). The
contrast between the grateful sleep of the tired worker and
the disturbed rest of the avaricious and moneyed and
luxurious has formed
a fruitful theme for poets. Thus Horace, ‘Carm.,’ 3:1.21 —
“Somnus agrestium
Lenis
virorum non humiles domes
Fastidit umbrosamque ripam,
Non Zephyris agitata
“Yet sleep
turns never from the lowly shed
Of
humbler-minded men, nor from the eaves
In
Where only
Zephyrs stir the murmuring leaves.”
(
And the reverse, ‘Sat.,’ 1:1.76, sqq.
—
“An vigilare metu exanimem,
noctesque diesque
Formidare males fures, inccndia,
serves,
Ne to compilent fugientes,
hoc juvat?”
“But what
are your indulgencies? All day,
All night,
to watch and shudder with dismay,
Lest
ruffians fire your house, or slaves by stealth
Rifle your
coffers, and abstract your wealth?
If this be
affluence — this her boasted fruit,
Of all
such joys may I live destitute.”
(Howes.)
Comp. Juvenal, ‘Sat.,’ 10:12, sqq.;
14:304. Shakespeare, ‘Henry IV.,’ Pt.
II., act 3. sc. 1 —
“Why
rather, sleep, liest thou in smoky cribs,
Upon
uneasy pallets stretching thee,
And hush’d with buzzing night-flies to thy slumber,
Than in
the perfumed chambers of the great,
Under the
canopies of costly state,
And lulled
with sounds of sweetest melody?”
In vs. 13-17, another view of the evils attendant upon
riches is here
presented: the owner may lose them at a stroke, and leave
nothing for his
children. This thought is presented in different lights.
13 “There
is a sore evil which I have seen under the sun, namely, riches
kept for the owners thereof to their
hurt.” There is also a
sore evil which
I have seen under
the sun (so v. 16). The fact that follows is, of course, not
universally true,
but occasionally
seen, and is a very bitter evil. The Septuagint
calls it ἀῥῤωστία – arrostia – grievous evil - the Vulgate, infirmitas.
Riches kept for
the owners thereof to their hurt; rather, preserved by
the possessor, hoarded
and guarded, only to bring their lord added grief
when by some reverse of fortune he loses them,
as explained in what follows.
14 “But
those riches perish by evil travail: and he begetteth
a son, and
there is nothing in his hand.” Those riches perish by evil
travail; thing or
circumstance.
There is no need to confine the cause of the loss
to unsuccessful
business, as many commentators do. The rich man does not seem to be a
tradesman or speculator; he loses his property, like Job, by
visitations for which
he is in no way answerable — by storm or tempest, by robbers, by
fire, by
exactions, or by lawsuits. And he begetteth a son, and there is
nothing
in his hand. The verb rendered “begetteth” is
in the past tense, and used
as it were, hypothetically, equivalent to “hath he begotten
a son,”
supposing he has a son. His misery is doubled by the
reflection that he has
lost all hope of securing a fortune for his children, or
founding a family, or
passing on an inheritance to posterity. It is doubtful to
whom the pronoun
“his” refers. Many consider that the father is meant, and the
clause says
that when he has begotten a son, he finds he has nothing to
give him. But
the suffix seems most naturally to refer to the son, who is
thus left a
pauper. Vulgate, Generavit
filium qui in summa egestate
erit. Having a
thing in the hand moans having power over it, or possessing
it.
15 “As he
came forth of his mother’s womb, naked shall he return to
go as he came, and shall take nothing of
his labor, which he may carry
away in his hand.” The case of the rich
man who has lost his property is here
generalized. What is true of him is, in a measure, true of every one, so far
as he can carry nothing away with him when he dies (Psalm
49:17). As
he came forth of
his mother’s womb, naked shall he return to go as he
came. There is a plain
reference to Job 1:21, “Naked came I out of my
mother’s womb,
and naked shall I return thither.” The mother
is the earth,
human beings being regarded as her offspring. So the psalmist
says, “My
frame was
curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth” (Psalm
139:15). And Ben-Sira in Ecclesiasticus 40:1 says, “Great trouble is created
for every man, and a heavy yoke is upon the sons of Adam,
from the day that
they go out of their mother’s womb till the day that they
return to the mother of all
things.” I Timothy 6:7, “We brought nothing into the world, and it
is certain that we can carry nothing out.” Thus Propertius, ‘Eleg.,’ 3:5. 13 —
“Hand ullas portabis opes Acherontis ad undas,
Nudus ab inferna, stulte, vehere rate.”
“No wealth
thou’lt take to Acheron’s dark shore,
Naked, th’ infernal bark will bear thee o’er.”
Shall take nothing
of his labor; rather, for his labor, the preposition
being בְּ
of price. He gets nothing by his long toil
in amassing wealth.
Which he may carry
away in his hand, as his own possession. The
ruined Dives points a moral for all men. (Luke 16:19-31).
16 “And
this also is a sore evil, that in all points as he came, so shall he
go: and what profit hath he that hath
labored for the wind?”
This also is a
sore evil. The thought of v.15
is emphatically repeated.
In all points as
he came; i.e.
naked, helpless. And what profit
hath he that laboreth for the wind? The answer is emphatically
“nothing.” We
have had similar questions in ch. 1:3; 2:22; 3:9.
To labor for the wind is to toil with no result, like the “feeding on
wind,
pursuing of
vanity,” which is the key-note of the
book. The wind is the
type of all that is empty, delusive, unsubstantial. In
Proverbs 11:29 we
have the phrase, “to
inherit the wind.” Job calls futile
arguments “words of
wind” (Job 16:3; 15:2). Thus the Greek proverb Ἀνέμους θ᾿ρᾶν ἐν δικτύος -
Anemous thran en diktuos - to try to catch the wind and the Latin,
“Ventos
pascere,” and “Ventos colere “(see Erasmus, ‘Adag.,’ s.v. “Inanis opera”).
Septuagint, Καὶ τίς ἡ περίσσεια
αὐτοῦ η΅ι
μοχθεῖ εἰς ἄνεμον;
– Kai tis
hae perisseia autou ae mochthei eis
anemon - And what is
his gain for
which he
labors for the
wind?”
Comfort
in Confusion (vs. 8-16)
In the time and the country to which the text belongs there
was a very
large amount of injustice, rapacity, insecurity. Men could
not count on
enjoying the fruits of their labor; they were in serious
danger of being
wronged, or even “done to death;” there were not the
constitutional guards
and fences with which we are familiar now and here. The
political and
social conditions of the age and of the land. added much to
the seriousness
of the great problems of the moralist. But though he was
perplexed, he was
not without light and comfort. There was that:
·
AFFORDED BY REASON AND EXPERIENCE. What if it were true
that oppression was often to be
witnessed, and, with oppression, the
suffering of the weak, yet it
was to be remembered that:
Ø
There was often an
appeal to a higher authority, and the unrighteous
sentence was reversed (v. 8).
Ø There was always reason to hope that injustice and
tyranny would be
short-lived (v. 9). The king was served by the field; he was by no
means
independent of those who lived
by manual labor; he was as much their
subject in fact and truth as
they were his in form and in law; he could
not afford to live in their
disregard and disapproval.
Ø
Successful oppression
was far from being satisfactory to those who
practiced it.
o
No
avaricious man was ever satisfied with the money he made; he was
always coveting
more; the thirst for gold lived on, and grew by what it
gained (v. 10).
o
The
wealthy man found that he could not enjoy more than a fraction of
what he
acquired; he was compelled to see others partaking of that
which his own
toil had earned (v. 11).
o
The
successful man was worried and burdened with his own wealth; the
fear of losing
balanced, if it did not more than counterbalance, the
enjoyment of
acquisition (v. 12).
o
No
rich man could be sure of the disposition of his hardly won and
carefully
stored treasure his son might scatter it in sin and folly
(vs. 13-14).
o
No
man can take a solitary fraction of his goods beyond the boundary
of life (vs.
15-16).
Ø
Obscurity is not without its own advantage.
o
It
sleeps the sweet sleep of security; it has nothing to lose; it holds out
no bait to the
despoiler (v. 12).
o
It
enjoys the fruit of its labor, untroubled by the ambitions, unwearied
with the
excessive toils, unworried by the frequent vexations of those
who aim at
higher posts and move in larger spheres.
·
AFFORDED BY REVELATION.
The godly man, and more especially
he to whom Jesus Christ has
spoken, contents himself — so far as it is right
and welt to be contented in the
midst of confusion and perversion — with
the peace-bringing
considerations:
Ø
That Infinite Wisdom
is overruling, and will direct all things to a right
issue.
Ø
That it is not our
circumstances, but our character, that should chiefly
concern us. To be pure,
true, loyal, helpful, Christ-like, is
immeasurably more than to have and to hold any
quantity of
treasure, any place or rank whatsoever.
Ø
That we who travel to
a heavenly home, who look forward to a “crown
of life,” can afford to wait for our heritage. (Revelation 2:10)
The
Difference at Death (vs. 15-16)
Even when we have been long looking for the departure of
one whose
powers as well as his days are spent, his death, when it
does come, makes a
great difference to us. Between life at its lowest and
death there is a great
and felt interval. How much more must this be the case to
the departed
himself! What a difference to him between this life and
that to which he
goes! Perhaps less than we imagine, yet doubtless very
great. The text
suggests to us:
·
WHAT WE MUST LEAVE BEHIND US AT DEATH.
Ø
Our worldly goods. This is an obvious fact, which painfully impressed
the Preacher (text), and which
comforted the psalmist (Psalm 49:16-17).
It is a fact that should make
the wise less careful to acquire and to
save.
Ø
Our reputation. The reputation for wisdom or folly, for integrity or
dishonesty, for kindness or severity,
which our life has been building up,
death cannot destroy, through
whatever experiences we may then pass.
We must be content to leave that
behind to be associated with our name
in the memories of men, for
their benediction or for their reproach.
Ø
The influence for
good or evil we have exerted on human souls. These
we cannot remove, nor can we
stay to deepen or to counteract them; they
are our most important legacies.
·
WHAT WE MAY LEAVE BEHIND US.
Ø
A wise disposition of our property. A sagacious statesman
once said that
he never quite made up his mind
about his neighbor’s character until he
had seen his will. What
disposition we make of that we leave behind
is a very serious act of our
life; there are very few single acts so serious.
o
It is
usually a good thing for a man to dispose of a large proportion of
all that he has
earned during his life when he is here to superintend it.
o
It is
criminally careless to cause additional sorrow at death by
negligence in
the matter of disposition of means.
o
The
kindest thing we can do for our relatives is not to provide
absolutely for
their wants, but to facilitate their own self-support.
Ø
Wise counsels to those who will heed them. There are usually those who
will pay great regard to the
wishes of the dying, apart from any “legal
instructions.” We may leave with
those we love such recommendations as
shall save them from grave
mistakes, and guide them to good and happy
courses.
Ø
A valued testimony to the power and preciousness of the gospel of
Jesus Christ.
·
WHAT WE MAY TAKE WITH US.
Ø
Our faith in Jesus Christ; that settled
attitude of the soul toward Him
which is one of trustfulness and
love, which determines our place in the
Ø
Our Christian life — its record in the heavenly
chronicles; that Christian
service which, in its
faithfulness or its imperfection, will gain for us the
larger or the smaller measure of
our Lord’s approval (Luke 19:16-19).
Ø
Qualification, gained by steadfastness, patience, zeal, for the sphere
which “the righteous Judge” will award us and will have ready for us.
17 “All
his days also he eateth in darkness, and he hath much
sorrow
and wrath with his sickness.” The misery that
accompanies the rich man’s
whole life is
summed up here, where one has to think chiefly of
his distress
after his loss
of fortune. All his days also he eateth in darkness;
i.e. passes his life
in gloom and cheerlessness. כָּל־יָמָיו - “all his days,”
is the accusative of time,
not the object of the verb. To eat in darkness is not a
common metaphor
for spending a gloomy life, but it is a very natural one,
and has analogies in
this book (e.g. ch.
2:24; 3:13, etc.), and in such phrases as to “sit in darkness”
(Micah 7:8), and to “walk in darkness” (Isaiah 1:10).
And he hath much
sorrow and wrath with his
sickness; literally, and much
vexation, and sickness,
and wrath; Revised Version, he is sore vexed, and hath
sickness and wrath.
The man experiences all
kinds of vexation:
·
when his plans fail
or involve him in trouble and privation; or
·
he is morbid and
diseased in mind and body; or
·
he is angry and
envious when others succeed better than himself.
The sentiment is expressed by Paul (I Timothy 6:9), “They that
desire (βουλόμενοι –
Boulomenoi –
they that will be; those intending) to be rich fall into a temptation
and a snare, and
many foolish and hurtful lusts, such as drown
men (βυθίουσι τοὺς
ἀνθρώπους – buthiousi tous anthropous – drown men)
in destruction and
perdition.” “For,” he proceeds,
“the love of money is a root of all kinds of
evil,
which some reaching
after have been led astray from the
faith, and have pierced
themselves through (ἑαυτοὺς περιέπειραν – heautous periepeiran –
pierced
themselves through) with many sorrows.”
The Septuagint continues its version,
“And in much passion (θυμῷ - thumo –
fierceness; wrath) and in infirmity and wrath.”
The anger may be directed against himself, as he thinks
of his folly in taking
ALL THIS TROUBLE FOR NOTHING!
A Sermon on the Vanity of Riches (vs. 8-17)
oppression and robbery (v. 8).
That honest labor sometimes leads to
affluence cannot be denied
(Proverbs 10:4); more often, however, it is
the ungodly who increase in riches
(Psalm 73:12), and that, too, by
means of their ungodliness
(Proverbs 1:19; 22:16; 28:20; Habakkuk
2:6, 9; I Timothy 6:9-10). Hence the question arises whether, if
riches
cannot be obtained without plunging into all
sorts of wickedness,
are they worth
seeking to obtain at all? If to secure them a
man must
not only practice dishonesty, theft, oppression, and
perhaps worse,
but CONVERT HIS SOUL INTO A
PERNICIOUS LUSTS
such as avarice, covetousness, and envy,
Is really a good
bargain to secure them AT SUCH A COST?
Christ’s question, “What is a man profited , if he
gain the
Whole world, and
lose his own soul?” (Matthew 16:26) has a
bearing
on this.
loveth silver shall not be satisfied with silver;
nor he that loveth abundance
with increase” (v.
10). In addition to the well-known fact that material
wealth has no power to impart
solid satisfaction to the better instincts of
the soul (Luke 12:15) — a fact
eloquently commented on by Burns
(‘Epistle to
“It’s
no in titles nor in rank,
It’s
no in wealth like Lou’on Bank,
To purchase peace and rest,” etc.
— the appetite for wealth grows
by what it feeds on. The rich are ever
craving for more. “The avaricious
man is always wanting,” said Horace
(‘Epist.,’
1:2. 26); while Ovid (‘Fasti,’ 1:211,212) wrote of
rich men,
“Both their wealth and a furious
lust of wealth increase, and when they
possess the most they seek for
more.” Hence, to use another rendering,
“He whose love cleaveth to abundance hath nothing of it” (Delitzsch). “He
who hangs his heart on the
continual tumult, noise, pomp, of more
numerous and greater possessions
if possible, to all real profit — i.e., all
pleasant, peaceful enjoyment is
lost” (ibid.).
Ø
Numerous dependents. Unless he is a miser, who shuts up his
money in chests and only
feeds himself in looking at it with closed
doors, the rich man, like
Job and Solomon, will maintain a large
and
expensive household, which
will eat up his substance, so that,
notwithstanding all his
wealth, he shall have little more for his
portion in the same than
the satisfaction of seeing it pass through his
hands (v. 11). As Pheraulas the Persian observed to a Sacian
youth, who congratulated him on
being rich, “Do you think, Sacian,
that I live with more pleasure
the more I possess? Do you not know
that I neither eat nor drink nor
sleep with a particle more pleasure now
than when I was poor? But by having
this abundance I gain merely this,
that I have to guard more, to
distribute more to others, and to have the
trouble of taking care of more;
for a great many domestics now demand
of me their food, their drink,
and their clothes Whosoever, therefore,
is greatly pleased with the
possession of riches will, be assured, feel
annoyed at the expenditure of
them” (Xenophon, ‘Cyropaedia,’
8:3,
39-44).
Ø
Increased anxieties. The rich man, through the abundance of his riches,
is worried with cares, which pursue
him into the night, and will not suffer
him to sleep (v. 12), for
thinking of how he shall protect his wealth
against the midnight prowler, of
how he shall increase it by successful
trade and profitable investment,
of how he shall employ it so as to
extract from it the largest
quantity of enjoyment; whereas the laboring
man, whether he eats little or
much, drops into refreshing slumber the
moment he lays his head upon his
pillow, untroubled by anxious
thoughts as to how he shall
dispose of his wealth, which consists
chiefly in the fewness of his
wants. So sang Horace long ago of
“gentle sleep,” which “scorns
not the humble abodes of ploughmen”
(‘Odes,’ 3:1.21-23), and Virgil
of the tillers of the soil, who “want
not slumber sweet beneath the trees”
(‘Georg.,’ 2:469); so wrote
Shakespeare of the “honey-heavy
dew of slumber” (‘Julius Caesar,’
act it. sc. 1), describing it as
“Sore
labor’s bath,
Balm of
hurt minds, great nature’s second course,
Chief nourisher in life’s feast;”
(‘Macbeth,’ act 2. sc. 2.)
representing it as lying
rather —
“In smoky
cribs
Than in
the perfumed chambers of the great:”
(‘Henry
IV.,’ Part II., act 3. sc. 1.)
and depicting the
shepherd’s “wonted sleep under a fresh tree’s shade”
as “far beyond a prince’s
delicates” (‘Henry VI.,’ act ii. sc. 5).
Ø
The hope of never-failing happiness. The rich man hopes
that in
future years his wealth
will be to him a source of comfort (Luke 12:19).
As the years go by he
discovers they have only been kept to his hurt
(v. 13) - if not physically or mentally, at least
morally and spiritually
(I Timothy 6:10,17); and
the fact is often so, whether he discovers
it or not.
Ø
The hope of never knowing want. The rich man expects that, having
safely locked them up in a
prudent speculation, he will keep them at least
during his lifetime; but alas!
the speculation turns out “an evil adventure,”
and his
much-prized riches perish (v. 14).
Ø
The hope of perpetuating his name. Once more the rich
man pleases
himself with the prospect of
founding a family by leaving his son the
fortune he has heaped up by
toil, thrift, and profitable speculation. By the
time he comes to die he has nothing
in his hand to bequeath, and so is
forced to bid farewell to his
hopes and leave his son a pauper.
Ø
Absolutely. However rich a man may grow in his lifetime, of all he has
amassed he must divest himself
at the grave’s mouth, as Claudio in the
prison is reminded by the duke-
“If thou
art rich, thou art poor;
For, like
an ass whose back with ingots bows,
Thou bent’st thy riches but a journey,
And death
unloads thee.”
(‘Measure
for Measure,’ act 3. se. 1.)
“As he came forth of his mother’s womb, naked shall he
return to
go as he came, and shall take nothing of his labor, which
he may
carry away in his hand” (v. 15; compare Job 1:21); for as “we
brought
nothing into
this world,” so it is “certain we can carry nothing out”
(I Timothy 6:7).
Ø
Without compensation. “What profit,” then, the Preacher asks, has the
rich man who has labored all his
days to amass wealth? The answer is,
“Nothing! he has simply labored
for the wind.” Nor is this the worst. To
have had a pleasant time of it
before being obliged to part with his wealth
would have been a compensation,
however slight, to the rich man; but for
the most part even this is
denied him. In order to amass his riches he has
commonly been found to play the
part of a miser, “eating in the dark to
save candle-light, or working
all day and waiting till nightfall before he sits
down to a meal;” or, if the words “eating in darkness” be taken
metaphorically, while gathering
gold he has passed his existence in gloom
and sadness, having no light in
his heart, he has fallen into sore vexation
at the failure of many of his
plans, become morbidly disposed,
“diseased in mind and body,” and
even waxed wrathful at God,
Himself, and all the world. Consider:
o
The duty of
moderating one’s pursuit of earthly riches.
o
The wisdom of laying up
for one’s self treasures in heaven.
o
The happiness enjoyed
by the poor.
The Unsatisfying Nature of Riches (vs. 10-17)
To love wealth for its own sake is ridiculous. To desire it
for the sake of
the advantages it may secure is natural, and (within
limits) is not blamable.
To set the heart
upon it for such purposes, to long for it above higher
good, to be
absorbed in its quest, IS SINFUL. The wise man points
out the
insufficiency of material possessions to satisfy the nature
of man. The
reflections here recorded are the result of wide
observation and of personal
experience.
·
RICHES CANNOT AFFORD SATISFACTION TO THOSE WHO
SET THEIR AFFECTION UPON THEM. A man who uses his property
for lawful ends, and regards it
in the true light as a provision made by
God’s wisdom and bounty for his
wants, need know nothing of the
experience recorded in v. 10.
But he who loves — i.e., desires with
ardent desire, and as the chief
good of life — silver and abundance, shall
not be satisfied with wealth
when it is attained. It is not in the nature of
earthly good to quench the deep desires of man’s immoral spirit.
·
RICHES ARE CONSUMED BY THOSE WHO ARE DEPENDENT
UPON THEM. A large
family, a circle of dependents, needy relatives, are
the cause of the disappearance
even of large revenues. This is no trouble to
a man who judges justly; but to
a foolish man whose one desire is to
accumulate, it is a distress to
witness the necessary expenditure involved in
family and social claims.
·
RICHES ARE A SOURCE OF ANXIETY TO THE POSSESSOR.
The laboring man, who earns and
eats his daily bread, and depends for
tomorrow’s supply upon
tomorrow’s toil, sleeps sweetly; whilst the
capitalist and investor are
wakeful by reason of many anxieties. A ship
richly freighted may be wrecked,
and the cargo lost; a company in which
large sums have been invested
may fail; a mine of precious metal upon
which money has been spent, and
from which much is hoped, may cease to
be productive. An estate may no
longer be profitable; thieves may break
through and steal jewels and
bullion. As surely as a man owns more than is
needed for the
supply of his daily wants, so surely is he liable to solicitude
and care.
·
RICHES MAY EVEN PROVE INJURIOUS TO THEIR OWNER. In
some states of society the
possession of wealth is likely to bring down
upon the rich the envy and
cupidity of a despotic ruler, who ill treats the
wealthy in order to secure his
riches for himself. And in all states of society
there is danger lest wealth
should be the occasion of moral injury, by
enkindling evil passions, envy
on the part of the poor, and in return hatred
and suspicion on the part of the
wealthy; or by leading to flattery, which in
turn produces vanity and
contemptuousness.
·
RICHES ARE OF NO AVAIL BEYOND THIS LIFE. They thus add,
in the case of the avaricious, another sting to death; for clutch and grasp
them as he may, they must be
left behind. A man spends his whole life, and
exhausts all his energies, in
gathering together a “fortune;” no sooner has
he succeeded than he is summoned
to return naked to the earth, carrying
nothing in his hand, poor as he
came into the scene of his toils, his success,
his disappointments. The king of
terrors cannot be bribed. A mine of
wealth cannot buy a day of life.
·
RICHES MAY BE WASTED BY THE RICH MAN’S HEIRS. This
was a misfortune of which the
writer of Ecclesiastes seems to have been
well aware from his prolonged
observation of human life. One may gather;
but who shall scatter? He to
whom wealth is everything has no security
that his property shall not,
after his death, come into the hands of those
who shall squander it in
dissipation, or waste it in reckless speculations.
This also is vanity.
·
APPLICATION. These things being so, the moral is obvious. The poor
man may rest contented with his lot, for he knows not
whether increase of
possessions would bring him increase of happiness. The prosperous man
may well give heed to the
admonition, “If riches increase, set not your
heart upon them.” (Psalm 62:10)
In vs. 18-20, the inconveniences of wealth lead the writer
back to his old
conclusion, that man should make the best of life, and
enjoy all the good that
God gives with
moderation and contentment.
18 “Behold
that which I have seen: it is good and comely for one to eat
and to drink, and to enjoy the good of all
his labor that he taketh
under the sun all the days of his life,
which God giveth him: for it
is his portion.” Behold that which I have seen: it
is good and comely, etc.
The accentuation is against this rendering, which, however,
has the support
of the Syriac and the Targum. The Septuagint gives, Ἰδοὺ εϊδον ἐγὼ ἀγαθὸν
ὅ ἐστι καλόν - Idou eidon ego agathon ho esti kalon - Behold,
I have seen a good
which is comely - and it is best to translate, with
Delitzsch and others, “Behold, what I have seen as good, what as
beautiful,
is this.” My conclusion holds good. They who seek for
traces of Greek
influence in Koheleth find
Epicureanism in the sentiment, and the familiar
combination, καλὸν κἀγαθὸν – kalon kagathon – good and
proper ,
in the language. Both ideas
are baseless. (For supposed Epicureanism,
see on ch. 2:24 and 3:12.) And the juxtaposition of καλὸς – kalos -
and ἀγαθὸς – agathos is only a fortuitous
rendering of the Hebrew, upon
which no argument for Grecism can
be founded. To eat and to drink, etc.;
i.e. to use the
common blessings which God bestows with thankfulness and
contentment. As Paul says, “Having food and covering, we shall be
therewith content” (I Timothy 6:8). Which
God giveth him. This is
the point so often insisted upon. These temporal blessings are GOD’S GIFTS
and are
not to be considered as the natural and assured result of man’s own
exertions. Man, indeed, must labor, but God giveth
the increase (I Corinthians 3:7).
For it is his portion (ch. 3:22). This calm enjoyment is allotted to man by
God,
and nothing more must be
expected. Ben-Sira gives similar advice,
“Defraud not thyself
of a good day, and let not the share in a right pleasure
pass by thee Give,
and take, and beguile thy soul; for there is no seeking of
dainties in Hades” (Ecclesiasticus 14:14, 16).
19 “Every
man also to whom God hath given riches and wealth, and
hath given him power to eat thereof, and to
take his portion, and to
rejoice in his labor; this is the gift of
God.” Every man also. The sentence
is anacoluthic, like ch. 3:13,
and may best be rendered, Also for every man to
whom... this is a
gift of God. Ginsburg connects the verse closely
with the
preceding one, supplying, “I have also seen that a man,”
etc. Whichever
way we take the sentence, it comes to the same thing,
implying man’s
absolute dependence upon God’s bounty. To whom God hath given
riches and wealth. Before he can enjoy his possessions a man must first
receive them from God’s hands. The two terms here used are
not quite
synonymous. While the former word, osher;
is used for wealth of any kind
whatever, the latter, nekasim,
means properly “wealth in cattle,” like the
Latin pecunia, and thence
used generally for riches (volek). Hath given
him power to eat
thereof. Abundance is useless without
the power to
enjoy it. This is the gift of God, a great and special bounty from a
loving
and gracious God. Thus Horace, ‘Epist.,’
1:4. 7 —
“Di tibi divitias
dederunt artemque fruendi.”
“The gods
have given you wealth, and (what is more)
Have given
you wisdom to enjoy your store.”
(Howes.)
20 “For he
shall not much remember the days of his life; because God
answereth him in the joy of his heart.” For he shall not much remember
the days of his life. The man who has
learned the lesson of calm enjoyment does
not much concern himself with
the shortness, uncertainty, or possible trouble of life.
He carries out the counsel of Christ, “Be not anxious for
the morrow, for the
morrow will be anxious for itself. Sufficient unto the day
is the evil
thereof” (Matthew
6:34). Because God answereth
him in the joy of his heart.
The man passes a calm and contented life, because God shows that He is pleased
with him by the tranquil
joy shed over his heart. The verb מַעֲנֶה (the hiph.
participle of עָנָה) is variously rendered. The Septuagint gives, Ὁ Θεὸς περισπᾷ
αὐτὸν ἐν εὐφροσύνῃ καρδίας αὐτοῦ - Ho Theos perispa auton
en
euphrosunae kardias autou - God occupies him in the joy
of his heart;”
Vulgate, Eo quod Deus occupet deliciis cot ejus. God answers him with,
imparts to him, joy of heart, makes him sensible of his
favorable regard by this
inward feeling of SATISFACTION and CONTENT!
The
Drawbacks upon Wealth (vs. 10-20)
The series of maxims which begins in ve.
10 is not unconnected with
what precedes it. It is for wealth generally that the
unjust judge and
oppressive ruler barters his peace of mind, sells his very
soul. As the means
for procuring sensual gratification, for surrounding
one’s self with
ostentatious luxury, and for carrying out ambitious
schemes, riches have
great fascination.
The Preacher, however, records at length the drawbacks
connected with them, which are calculated to diminish the
envy with which
the poor very often regard those who possess them. Probably
the bulk of
mankind would say that they are willing to put up with the
drawbacks if
only they could possess the riches. But surely
those who read the Word of
God reverently
and with a docile spirit are disposed to profit by the wise
counsels and
warning it contains. The gross and
presumptuous frame of
mind, which would lead any to laugh at the drawbacks upon
wealth as
imaginary, when compared with the happiness they think it
must secure,
deserves severe censure. Both rich and poor may draw appropriate
lessons
from the Preacher’s words: the rich may learn humility; the
poor,
contentment.
·
INSATIABLENESS OF AVARICE. (v. 10.) Those who begin to
amass money cultivate an
appetite which can never be satisfied, which only
grows in fierceness as it is supplied
with food. Those who love silver will
never count themselves rich
enough; they will always hunger for more, and
the amount that would once have
seemed abundance to them will be
spurned as paltry, as their
ideas and desires are enlarged. Dissatisfaction
with what they have, and greed to acquire more, poison their
pleasure in all
that they have
accumulated. Happy are those who have
learned to be
content with little, whose wants
are few and moderate, who, having food
and raiment, desire no more —
they are really rich. (I Timothy 6:8)
·
Another thought
calculated to diminish envy of the rich is that, AS
WEALTH INCREASES, THOSE THAT CONSUME IT INCREASE
ALSO. (v. 11.) Along
with the more abundant possessions, there is
generally a larger retinue of
servants and dependants. So that, with more to
provide for, the wealthy man may
be poorer than he was in earlier days
when his means were smaller.
Fresh demands are made upon him; the
outward display he is forced to
make becomes a daily increasing burden; he
has to labor for the supply of
others rather than for himself. A striking
passage in Xenophon
— quoted by Plumptre — expresses the same
thought. “Do you think that I
live with more pleasure the more I possess?
By having this abundance I gain
merely this, that I have to guard more, to
distribute more to others, and
to have the trouble of taking care of more;
for a great many domestics now
demand of me their food, their drink, and
their clothes .... Whosoever,
therefore, is greatly pleased with the
possession of riches will, be
assured, feel much annoyed at the expenditure
of them” (‘Cyrop.,’
8:3). The only compensation that the rich man may
have is that of being able to
look on his treasures and say, “These are
mine.” Is it, after all, a
sufficient reward for his toils and cares?
·
Another boon which the
poor may always enjoy, but which the rich
may often sigh for in vain, is SWEET SLEEP. (v. 12.) The laborer
enjoys refreshing sleep, whether
his food be abundant or not; the toils of
the day ensure sound slumber at
night. While the very abundance of the
rich will not suffer him to sleep; all kinds of cares,
projects, and anxieties
rise within his mind, and will not suffer him to be at rest. The dread of
losing his riches may make him
wakeful, feverish excitement may result
from his luxurious mode of
living, and rob him of the power to compose
himself to slumber, and, like
the ambitious king, he may envy the ship-boy
rocked and lulled by the tossing
of “the rude, imperious surge”
(Shakespeare, ‘Henry IV.,’ Part
II., act 3. sc. 1).
·
RICHES MAY INJURE ITS POSSESSOR. (v. 13.) It may mark
him out as a suitable victim for
spoliation by a lawless tyrant or a
revolutionary mob. Or it may furnish
him with the means of indulging
vicious appetites, and increase greatly the risks and
temptations that make
it difficult to live a sober, righteous, and godly life,
and ruin him body and
soul. As says the
apostle, “They that desire to be rich fall into a temptation
and a snare, and
many foolish and hurtful lusts, such as drown men in
destruction and
perdition” (1 Timothy 6:9-10).
·
Another evil attendant
on wealth is THE DANGER OF SUDDEN
AND IRRETRIEVABLE LOSS.
(v. 14.) “Not only do riches fail to give
any satisfying joy, but the man
who reckoned on founding a family, and
leaving his heaped-up treasures
to his son, gains nothing but anxieties and
cares, he may lose his wealth by
some unfortunate chance, and leave his
son a pauper.” The case of Job
would seem to be in the writer’s mind as an
example of this sudden downfall
from prosperity and wealth. In any case,
death robs the rich man of all
his possessions; in the twinkling of an eye he
is stripped of his wealth, as
a traveler who has fallen in with a troop of
banditti, and is forced to depart from life as poor in goals as when
he
entered it (vs. 15-16).
·
Lastly, come THE INFIRMITY
AND PEEVISHNESS WHICH ARE
OFTEN THE COMPANIONS OF WEALTH. (v: 17.) Riches cannot
cure disease, or ward off the
day of death, or compensate for the sorrows
and disappointments of life, and
may only tend to aggravate them; a deeper
dissatisfaction
with self, and with the providential
government of the
world, a more intense feeling of
cynism and embitterment are likely to
be the portion of the godless
rich than of those who have had all
through
life to labor for their bread,
and have never risen much above the position
in which they first found
themselves. As a practical conclusion, the
Preacher reiterates for the
fourth time his old advice (vs. 18-20): “It’ you
have little, be content with it.
If you have much, enjoy it without excess,
and without seeking more. God gives life
and earthly blessings, and the
power to enjoy them.”
And in words that are less clear than we could wish,
he seems to intimate that in this pious disposition of mind and heart will be
found the secret
of a serene and happy life, which no
changes or
disappointments will be able
wholly to overcast. “For he shall not much
remember the days
of his life; because God answereth him in the joy of
his
heart “ — words which seem to imply, “The man who has learned the
secret of enjoyment is not
anxious about the days of his life; does not
brood even over its transitoriness, but takes each day tranquilly as it
comes, as God’s gift to
him; and God Himself corresponds to his joy, is felt
to approve it, as
harmonizing, in its calm evenness, with his own
blessedness. The tranquility of the wise man mirrors the tranquility of
God”
(Plumptre)
The Good Things Appointed for Man by God
(vs. 18-20)
Some detect in these verses the ring of Epicurean morals.
But the
difference is vast between desiring and rejoicing in the
things of this world
as mere means of pleasure, and accepting them with gratitude
and using
them with moderation and prudence, as the gifts of A FATHER’S BOUNTY
and THE EXPRESSION OF A FATHER’S LOVE!
Ø
God’s earth which
provides our sustenance;
Ø
God’s creative
wisdom that provides our companionships;
Ø
God who gives us
power to acquire, to use, and to enjoy His gifts.
ALL IS FROM GOD!
INTENDED, AND APPOINTED BY DIVINE WISDOM AND
GOODNESS. They were
not given to tempt or to curse man, but to
gladden his heart and to enrich
his life. Benevolence is the impulse of the
Divine nature. God is “good to all, and his tender mercies are over all
His works.” (Psalm 145:9)
RENDERED THE OCCASION OF FELLOWSHIP WITH GOD AND
THANKSGIVING TO GOD.
Thus even the common things of earth may
be glorified and made beautiful
by their devotion to the highest of all
purposes. Through them the Giver
of all may be praised, and the heart of
the grateful recipient may be
raised to fellowship with “the Father of
the
spirits of all flesh.” (Numbers 27:16)
ERROR AND SIN. They
are so often abused that it is not to be wondered
at that men come to think them
evil in themselves. But in such cases, the
blame lies not with the Giver, but with the recipient, who turns the very
honey into gall.
The Picture of a “Good and Comely” Life (vs.
18-20)
his strength for naught and in
vain (Isaiah 49:4), but with the sweat of
his brow earns for himself bread
to eat, water to drink, and raiment to put
on (Genesis 28:20). Work and food the two
first requisites of a good
and comely life. (My father used to tell me that all he expected out of
this life was all that he could eat and all that he could wear out! –
CY – 2013)
the pleasant satisfaction of
being able to earn through his personal
exertions something, yea,
enough, to eat and drink and to clothe himself
withal, but over and above he
can eat and drink and wear that which he has
earned, and generally rejoice in
that which his hands have won. (No doubt
the lack of this experience is a
huge negative in the modern “welfare system”
and is a contributor to the
ennui and idle time which are the backdrop of
loose sexual behavior; drug
abuse and irresponsibility, plagues of the
the next two requisites of a
good and comely life.
from ills, since there is no man
born of woman who is not heir to trouble
(Job 5:7; 14:1), yet these
affect him so slightly and leave so small
impression on his soul, that the
even tenor of his life flows on, and he
hardly remembers the days as
they pass. Equanimity (self-composure)
and hopefulness
make up a third pair of requisites for
a good and comely life.
comely” life differs
from mere animal existence in this, that it
acknowledges all it receives and enjoys as a portion
marked out for it by
the sovereign appointment, and bestowed upon it by THE GRACIOUS
BOUNTY OF GOD! (James 1:17). Gratitude and religion are a
fourth
pair of requisites for a good
and comely life.
life, being more
than mere sensuous gratification, and springing up within
the deep recesses
of the soul, being in fact pure heart-joy, is not displeasing
to God, but, on the contrary, is by
Him observed, answered, and confirmed.
Peace and joy the last and highest pair of requisites for a good and
comely
life.
(I guess the question is “Are
you experiencing the “GOOD AND COMELY”
life?
What
roles do work, food, health, cheerfulness, self-composure,
hopefulness,
gratitude, religion, peace and joy, play in your life? Your answer will explain
everything!
– CY – 2013)
·
LEARN:
o
The propriety of striving
after an ideal life.
o
The necessity of aiming at improved surroundings of
existence.
o
The impossibility of reaching Utopia
either for the state or the
individual WITHOUT GOD!
"Excerpted text Copyright AGES Library, LLC. All rights reserved.
Materials are reproduced by
permission."
This material can be found at:
http://www.adultbibleclass.com
If this exposition is helpful, please share
with others.