Ecclesiastes (15) For better or for worse

The book of Ecclesiastes tends to be neglected.
I must admit that I’ve been neglecting it myself.
So I come to this book with no preconceptions, except that a book found in the Old Testament must be intended to have a spiritual meaning. The people who compiled the canon were not in the business of collecting an anthology of “Hebrew literature.

The main theme of the early chapters has been that natural life and human life in the natural world do not go beyond a series of cycles of alternating events. Any apparent changes are discovered to be stages within these cycles, while the overall system itself does not change.

It is “vanity” for humans to look for anything beyond these things in the natural world, trying to transcend the system on their own. It is better, and the gift of God, for them to find their enjoyment in the world as it is, maintaining themselves in the way which God has provided.

Nevertheless, God has “put eternity into man’s mind”, in such a way that eternity cannot be known completely. Thus man is made aware of something greater than himself. “God has made it so, in order that men should fear before him.”

It seems that this nearly completes the central message of the book. Much of what follows looks like an assortment of “footnotes” under the general heading “other flaws noticeable in human life when God is disregarded”.

Ch7 vv13-19

There is a common thought running through these verses. God has put us into a world of mixed experiences, containing things that feel good and things that feel bad. It is for us to accept both kinds of experience as the gift of God. A similar thought lies behind “For all things there is a season” (ch2).

V13 “Consider the work of God; who can make straight what he has made crooked?”
To be more exact, who can claim the authority to judge that God has made something crooked, and offer to make it straight? Yet that is a standard line of argument which we see on these boards all the time, from the opponents of religion. They say, in effect, that if God exists, his chosen way of managing the created world is all wrong, or his chosen way of revealing himself to the world is all wrong. They themselves would have done it in a different way, which they think is better. That is “making straight what God has made crooked”.

Job was doing the same thing in the argumentative part of that book.

V14; “In the day of prosperity be joyful and in the day of adversity consider; God has made one as well as the other.”
At least he does not tell us to be joyful in the day of adversity, which was the “From Prison to Praise” approach (for those who remember that far back). It is more a case of resigned acceptance.

But why has God made things this way? “So that man may not find out anything that will be after him.”
Very deliberately, we are left with gaps in our knowledge. There are things we do not know or understand. We cannot “master” the universe by knowing it, to show us that we do not master it in any other sense. Let us recall v10; “It is known what man is, and that he is not able to dispute with one stronger than he.”

V15 “There is a righteous man who perishes in his righteousness, and there is a wicked man who prolongs his life in his evil-doing.”
Here is an example of the kind of thing that seems “wrong” in human eyes. Job kept complaining about it, whenever his comforters assured him that he would live long if he sought God. But it happens that way, and we have to live with it.

V16 “Be not righteous overmuch, and do not make yourself overwise; Why should you destroy yourself?”
V17 “Be not wicked overmuch, neither be a fool; why should you die before your time?”
As in Proverbs, there is a close association between wisdom and righteousness, and a close association between their opposites.

It is easy to understand why it’s a bad idea to be over-wicked. The wicked don’t live (not ultimately, anyway). But how is it possible to be “over-righteous”? How can such a condition be attained?

I do have one suggestion. Perhaps you can be over-righteous by being over-scrupulous, by defining as “unrighteous” things which God has not defined as unrighteous. So the Jehovah’s Witness defining blood transfusions as unrighteous and refusing to allow them. Or, in another tradition, those who fast excessively because they think fasting is more spiritual than eating. Scruples of this kind may damage a man’s heath. However, I guess that “destroy yourself” in this book is more likely to be about displeasing God. The over-scrupulous may be doing this if they impose their scruples on others and so burden their consciences. Like the Pharisees in their interpretation of the Sabbath.

We can fit this warning into the general theme of “accepting good things and bad things” by considering that the over-scrupulous are trying too hard, and in the wrong way, to remove “bad things” from the world.

V18 “It is good that you should take hold of THIS and from THAT withhold not your hand.”
Understanding “this” and “that” to be contrasting opposites, like “prosperity and adversity”, this is the same message as in v14.

Again there is a reason; “For he who fears God shall come forth from them all.” We are not going to be held by this mixture of good and bad things, so there is no reason to fear it. The key is to fear God instead.

V19 “Wisdom gives strength to the wise man more than ten rulers that are in a city.”
The writer seems to have begun inserting “Wisdom is a good thing” statements, which act almost as paragraph-dividers, marking off boundaries between themes. There was a pair of such statements in vv11-12, which ended the passage covered in the previous thread. Here is another one.

“By the blessing of the upright a city is exalted”- (Proverbs ch11 v11)

The quest for righteousness has a long history, so it would be easy to make a long list of things which have been defined as “unrighteous” without good reason. Even without doing any particular research, I can think of these examples;

There is no good Biblical reason for supposing that the man who has taken a vow of celibacy is more spiritual than the husband, i.e. that there is something unspiritual about sexuality as such.
There is no good Biblical reason for supposing that avoiding meat is more spiritual than eating it.
There is no Biblical objection to drinking alcohol, as such (as distinct from getting drunk, which has a negative impact on other people).
There is no Biblical objection to dancing. David danced.
There is no Biblical objection to going to the theatre, which used to be frowned upon.
There is not even a specific Biblical objection to gambling. Though gambling is inherently wasteful, so the habitual gambler would fall under the same condemnation as the sluggard.

The list is extended by scruples about doing things on Sunday (those Pharisees again). There is a tradition- I’m not sure, but it may be more English than European- that it is sinful to do anything enjoyable or entertaining on a Sunday. I may have traced the roots of this tradition in the works of the Reformer Martin Bucer. His argument depends on distinguishing between rest and recreation. In his view, the function of recreation is to be a relief from work, and therefore it is appropriate for days of work, and not for the day of rest. Evidently it did not occur to him that rest is also a relief from work, so that rest and recreation actually belong together and need not be separated.

In the Victorian version of this tradition, children were barred from reading enjoyable books on Sunday or playing with their toys, while theatres and even museums were closed. Pubs could not be closed, but they were restricted to shorter opening hours.

This has a bearing on the frequent campaigns against Sunday newspapers. Logical people would point out that Monday newspapers ought to be the target, because Monday papers are printed on Sunday and Sunday papers are printed on Saturday. But the campaigns were never really about Sunday labour. What was really sinful was that people were buying those newspapers and reading them on a Sunday, and getting enjoyment out of reading them.

Then there are the things judged unrighteous because “they’re not mentioned in the Bible”, such as organ music in churches, and electricity. The list could go on almost indefinitely, but I’d better not get too personal as to denominations.

I've been echoing my threads in a second location of my own. Should the curtain fall upon ATS before we get to the end of Ecclesiastes, I'll continue to post them there until the series reaches a conclusion. (Otherwise, I won't have the motivation to study the chapters, and I'll never find out what happens in the end)

is it possible to be too righteous? I don't see how.

is it possible to be too spiritual? well maybe. I recall a church friend observing 'some people are so spiritually minded they are no earthly good'.

I attended a Bible college for a while. every class opened with prayer. I remember this one young woman who would pray and then continue to whisper prayers through most of the class.
okay, prayer is Good, but you're in school, so maybe at some point you should stop praying and start taking notes.

is that the sort of thing you're speaking of?

a reply to: ElGoobero
Obviously I was struggling to understand the idea myself. I have not consulted commentaries to see what they think. The solution I proposed was the best I could susggest.
Clearly the idea of the two verses is taking a middle path and avoiding two extremes.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: ElGoobero
Obviously I was struggling to understand the idea myself. I have not consulted commentaries to see what they think. The solution I proposed was the best I could susggest.
Clearly the idea of the two verses is taking a middle path and avoiding two extremes.

totally agree. there is a fair amount of the advocacy of moderation. time to plant, time to reap.
I like the concept that at the end of the day one sits under his tree and eats his bread and feels satisfaction for his labor.
lazy non-achievers lose out on this.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: ElGoobero
Obviously I was struggling to understand the idea myself. I have not consulted commentaries to see what they think. The solution I proposed was the best I could susggest.
Clearly the idea of the two verses is taking a middle path and avoiding two extremes.

Like harvesting crops only once through, so the poor can have the left overs....

A perfectly righteous person may seem unattainable to the unrighteous...best to leave some crop for them to harvest as well...

a reply to: DISRAELI

Clearly the idea of the two verses is taking a middle path and avoiding two extremes.

A lot of people miss that. “Righteousness” can become a false idol. In truth, anything can, I believe.

Thanks for all the hard work you’ve put into these threads. Having something to be sort of accountable to really does help keep one on top of their studies. I am the Sunday school facilitator in my local congregation, but since we’ve suspended regular services I have totally (and shamefully) not kept up with the lessons.

a reply to: MykeNukem
I've just remembered hearing somone use the expression "too heavenly minded to be any earthly good".

a reply to: ElGoobero

I think they may be referring to the ones Jesus was talking about who pray loudly and publicly -- the ostentatiously righteous. I think of the Holier Than Thou types who take it to the extremes where the ritual becomes more important then the connection it is supposed to help you form and cultivate, and then the appearance of the ritual for the sake of letting others see how virtuous you are.

In essence, they're like the religiously zealous equivalent of SJWs.

a reply to: DISRAELIThere is a common thought running through these verses

However you missed the common thought all together by leading your supposed study by inserting your own idea of what the common thought is into the verses. You put your idea and lead with it for the purpose of manipulating the minds of the people to hear your words and not God's words. i.e. To be more exact, who can claim the authority to judge that God has made something crooked, and offer to make it straight? Yet that is a standard line of argument which we see on these boards all the time, from the opponents of religion. They say, in effect, that if God exists, his chosen way of managing the created world is all wrong, or his chosen way of revealing himself to the world is all wrong. They themselves would have done it in a different way, which they think is better. That is “making straight what God has made crooked”. this was not even good exegesis. Once you say "to be more exact" you made yourself god and replaced God's meaning with your own. Then you continue to twist what God has said to your own destruction. When you say, "to be exact" you are saying God was not exact but I have the clearer understanding to teach you all what he meant. This is not about authority and you missed the whole point because of thinking it was.

This is a messed up as it gets. But you have your few ATS followers swallowing this poison up like candy.

You claim not to read any commentaries is overthrown by the fact you read "From Prison to Praise" does in fact comment on scriptures. Also to think that God does things so man cannot find out what happens to him after death is to make God a LIAR.

Job's comforters did not say, ". . . he would live long if he sought God" they said he was hiding his sin and if he would confess it God would turn is hand from him. But it was Satan who was allowed to attack Job by God's permission. Not "he would live long if he sought God" as a matter of fact as the Preacher says he has seen the wicked live long healthy and reproductive life and the righteous forsaken. What a joke this study had been.

You understanding of what you believe over righteous is has made you blind to its meaning. I see you are the blind leading the blind here.

I just can't wait to see how you interpret vs 29.

a reply to: ChesterJohn
For heaven's sake, if you think other things need to be said about this passage, then just add them in. It's not a competition. We're all supposed to be in the work of presenting God to the world. All this aggressivenes and hostilty does nothing to please God. He does not want you to be like this.

I have not, at any point, claimed that I never read commentaries. This is your persistent habit of "malicious interpretation"- that is, misrepresenting something I have said for the sake of discovering faults.
Another member and I were trying to figure out the concept of being "over-righteous"; my comment, taken in context, meant that I had not consulted commentaries ON THAT ISSUE

Sometimes I feel the need to consult commentaries, and sometimes I don't. I referred to one commentary when I did the series on Hebrews, and two commentaries when I looked at 1 Corinthians. You might have rememberd seeing me say so. I think I mentioned it in every thread. In this series, I thought it better to plunge in and try to make it out on my own. But I did look at commentaries on ch4 v13, and ch5 v9, and said so at the time.

The problem is that you are seriously lacking in good will. Only God can do something about that.

You must wait until January the 8th, God willing, for my reading of v29. I have reserved next week for demonstrating that the wise men found Jesus in Bethlehem, not Nazareth.

a reply to: DISRAELI

I will not add to your failure and make it look as if you deserve credit for the truth of God's word.

Best for you to just stop trying to be to overly righteous and make yourself overwise.

You must have forgot you said you did not consult commentaries

a reply to: DISRAELII have not consulted commentaries to see what they think.

Well try not to be untruthful. You did, you have and you will continue to do so. Stop trying to figure God's word out and believe what it says, where it says, it how it says it. Stop adding your words for God's words.

You are and have been in error. I tried to warn you, I have rebuked you, and I have reproved you. You refuse to consider it, accept it and as such we are to reject your teaching (seeing you claim to be a Christian). Every time you post I will show your lack of integrity with the scriptures, your changing the context with your opinions and in the case here you replaced the subject with your idea of the subject while belittling God and his words. As soon as you inserted your opinion as what the scriptures were saying before even digging into the scriptures shows the very disingenuous of any real bible study. and soon as you said "to be exact" you put yourself above God, his power to reveal his words and the fact that his words teacheth the simple, you became the authority and God became subject to you and your opinions.

Titus 1:16 They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.

Where did the wise men learn of the star they observed from the east?

a reply to: ChesterJohn
The dishonesty of selective quotation. What I actually said was

"Obviously I was struggling to understand the idea myself. I have not consulted commentaries to see what they think."
I had not consulted commentaries ON THAT ISSUE (i.e. what "over-righteous" means).

You are maiicious and lacking in good will. That is what needs to change.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Thank you you admit you do not know and therefore you should not be commenting on it at all. I am not going to even give you advice as what to do when you come to a scripture you do not understand.

You changed the meaning you inserted yourown authority and you expect me to be of good will towards you? No good sir, you only get rebuke and rejection of your teaching which is what scriptures call for when dealing with one who claims to be a brother in Christ.

Titus 3:10-11 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.

You want me to change, then prayerfully consider what you are teaching and how you are doing it. Let the INDWELLING of the Holy Ghost do his work of teaching in you and stop trying to be more over wise than God. Study and rightly divide the word of truth instead of haphazardly trying to convince yourself you are some kind of BIBLE TEACHER.

You need to submit yourself to someone under good sound teaching. You will not get it at a anything goes Anglican church.

I adjure you Disraeli to take more time in prayer in preparing your teaching before you post. Once you said and did as you did in the OP, you put yourself above God's word, which is the only Authority. You are not above his authority. If you want to teach his words you need to know how to study correctly and do your absolute best not to put your words above God's words. Don't replace Gods words with your opinions. The world has plenty of hereticks what they need is real preachers, prophets and teachers. If you want to be accepted then you need to spend more time in prayer over what you share.

You would not and what seemed like you could not say you are INDWELT by the Holy Ghost. And in one of your past teaching you responded that you did not believe in the Holy Ghost being a person. That is an issue that underlies the problem in your teaching.

Of course in your opinion I am just falsely saying stuff out of maliciousness and without good will.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Let the INDWELLING of the Holy Ghost do his work.....

Matthew 6.22... there are two eyes. The eye of our mind and the second being our seat of conciousness. By conquering the first eye, the serpent, the light opens our essense to the All. Our seat of conciousness and that of all others, become one. Its very subtle at first but grows as more and more light enters.

The serpent rejects its own demize. It is only interested in empowering its own ego. The rightenous of itself.

So be mindful of your true master. You can fool yourself but never God. For your seat of conciousness is his seat of conciousness. He is privy to your every thought.

a reply to: glend

The Holy Ghost guides and leads me. But you as your father is the devil, are full of lies and deceit.

The verse you quoted was Christ preparation for the kingdom of Heaven, an earthly kingdom promised to the Jews. After the rejection of himself and the Holy Ghost in Act 7. that kingdom was postponed until after Dec 2020. You have no idea how to even Study rightly divide the word of truth to save your life from HELL.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

The 13th century Meister Eckhart, said "Time is what keeps the light from reaching us. There is no greater obstacle to God than time". That sounds confusing until you realize that our physical mind can only exist in a dream state, craving past and future events. Whereas our seat of conciousness, the I AM, only exists in the NOW. When Jesus said "I and the Father are one" he existed in the I AM.

If you want be like Paul, wanting to be seen as a teacher, you will only empower the serpent. Endangering not only yourself but alienating many of those, around you. Whereas existing in the Fathers will, you exist in true love. Radiating that true love to others. Prayer on anything but one self, empowers the Fathers will, within our temple.

I will pray for you. Lets hope its not satan that is my master.

a reply to: glend

I am not like Paul and never claimed to be.

I am who I am and God is who he is. But his word is true, pure and without error. Those who pervert it or misuse it are to be rebuked.