Ecclesiastes (20) Rejoice in God's approval

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”.

Ch9 vv7-12

In the previous chapter, the writer was reflecting on the unjust common experience that the wicked find reward in this life, while the righteous seem to meet the fate that belongs to the wicked. The climax of the injustice is that both parties meet the same fate in death. Then, in the first part of this chapter, he found a different way of looking at things. On the one hand, he could dwell on the fact that the wicked people die, which is a form of compensation for the underserved rewards they received in life. The other half of the “compensation” is that the righteous may enjoy the life which God has given them.

V7 “Go, eat your bread with enjoyment, and drink your wine with a merry heart; for God has already approved what you do.”
If God has approved what we do, that is a very good reason to be merry, but we’re not offered any explanation of this remarkable claim. Obviously it can only be intended for the righteous. Yet we must not think that he’s teaching “justification by works”. For we already know that he knows that “there is not a righteous man on earth who does good and never sins” (ch7 v20).

There is only one logical way to bridge the gap between “you are not free from sin” and “God has approved what you do.” And that is “forgiveness of sin”! He has uncovered this teaching quite unconsciously, as far as we can tell. He doesn’t express it outright, but it’s implicit as the only way to reconcile two otherwise incompatible statements.

Forgiveness of sin was the key element in the teaching of the Kingdom by Jesus. In the overall teaching of the New Testament, forgiveness was made available by his own death and resurrection, but of course he could not offer that explanation in advance of the event. For the moment, forgiveness was to be understood as following on from repentance. The claim that “God has already approved what you do” has to be based on a similar principle. That is, “because you at least want to be righteous”.

This unexpected discovery of a little “gospel” in the teaching of Ecclesiastes is one of the benefits of approaching the book in slow gradual stages. It needed that kind of close examination.

Let us also note the encouragement to be merry with wine. The sect of the Rechabites avoided wine as part of their commitment to preserving the old pastoral lifestyle (pastoral nomads do not plant vines or anything else). Otherwise, nobody in the Bible objects to the drinking of wine, as such. The real objection is to drunkenness, because of its effect on the way we treat other people.

V8 “Let your garments be always white, let not oil be lacking on your head.”
This does not necessarily mean that we should go around dressed for tennis or cricket, our hair plastered with Brylcreem. The point is that a man would dress this way when he was in a celebratory mood, not when he was in a state of mourning. He celebrates his clear conscience and God’s approval.

V9 “Enjoy life with the wife whom you love.”
Your relationship with your wife is part of your enjoyment of life. You should not leave her behind, to complain;
“There is a tavern in the town (in the town),
And there my true love sits him down (sits him down),
And spends his time in laughter long and free,
And never, never, thinks of me (thinks of me).”

But there is a deeper point to be made. This should be compared with Malachi;
“The Lord no longer regards the offering or accepts it with favour at your hand. Why does he not? Because the Lord was witness to the covenant between you and the wife of your youth, to whom you have been faithless… For I hate divorce, says the Lord God of Israel” (Malachi ch2 vv13-16). Ecclesiastes and Malachi agree on the Genesis ch2 ideal of marriage, that a man should “cleave to” his one wife.

By focussing on the death of the wicked and the good life of the righteous, he has found a subjective way to restore the balance of justice, reversing his observation that the wicked are rewarded and the righteous punished. But then he brings us back to earth with a bump;
“All the days of your vain life which he has given you under the sun, because that is your portion in life and in your toil at which you toil under the sun.”
He had discovered a way of feeling good about the world which may work as an interim solution, but it involves a little sleight of hand, after all, and cannot be the final answer.

V10 “Whatever you hand finds to do, do it with all your might, for there is no work or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol, to which you are going.”
Sheol is the state of death. Soon after I arrived on this forum , there was a thread on “all you Christians are going to HELL”, which was actually about the different meanings of Sheol and Gehenna and Hades. I stayed out of that discussion at the time, and I’m not going to enter it now.

V11 “Again I saw that under the sun the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, nor riches to the intelligent, nor favour to the men of skill, but time and chance happen to them all.”
We might think these are more examples of injustice, because the race ought to go to the swift, etc. But the real point (in this context) is that God determines all these outcomes. Human qualities do not prevail against his decision.

V12 “For man does not know his time [i.e. the time of his death]. Like fish which are taken in an evil net, and birds which are caught in a snare, so the sons of men are snared at an evil time, when it suddenly falls upon them.”
Similarly this verse is not just about the vulnerability of life to accidents. It is God who decides when our death comes. We are back on “everybody meets the same fate in death.”

So he concludes these themes by returning to the thought that we cannot manage or understand the world for ourselves, and must fall back on trust in God.

Divorce- supplemental

Indignant feminists need to be aware that in this period divorce was always an anti-feminist action. It was arranged for the convenience of the man, and made life worse for the woman. That is why Jesus said the custom (which was only tolerated by Moses, not permitted) was the result of men’s “hardness of heart”. In fact even the reaction of the disciples was astonishingly cynical and self-centred, when they observed that if a man was expected to be tied to his wife like that, it would be “more expedient” not to marry at all. Only the response of Jesus gave a positive twist to that thought (Matthew ch19 vv3-12).

Interesting analysis. My one critique would be to have more backing for your quotes.

Just a question: Do you ever read existing analyses and compare your ideas or attend a church group? It sounds like you have a passion for studying!

V7 “Go, eat your bread with enjoyment, and drink your wine with a merry heart; for God has already approved what you do.”
If God has approved what we do, that is a very good reason to be merry, but we’re not offered any explanation of this remarkable claim. Obviously it can only be intended for the righteous. Yet we must not think that he’s teaching “justification by works”. For we already know that he knows that “there is not a righteous man on earth who does good and never sins” (ch7 v20).

wow Ecclesiastes is not an easy walnut to crack so gave you a star for just trying to comprehend it.

I get the gut feeling that "God has already approved what you do" is not explicitly talking about self rightenous. But humankind itself. Did God not say in Genesis 1.31 "God saw all that he had made, and it was very good." So Solomon may have been reiterating Gods (all knowing past, present and future) reflection of his creation - God has already approved what you do

a reply to: rukia
I have in my time led church groups. This is the same thing on s broader scale.
In this case, the object of the exercise is to see for myself, so I'm tending to check commentaries only when the translation is in dispute.
I'm not sure what you mean by more backing for quotes. I give references for all the Bible verses quoted. Everything else is my own reflection on what they say.

a reply to: glend
I can't see this writer saying that God approves what the wicked do. He distinguishes.

a reply to: DISRAELI

So you toss out the there the word feminists', I'm curious what exactly are you trying to say, from your point of view? That's talking about love man, love between two people, a male and a female, Those people that love one another are bonded, not just sexually. Which is what he was trying to tell them. What scriptures are you reading because I have many of the old text? Have you heard of the Septuagint?

a reply to: DISRAELI

Take a gander at Isiah 45:7

a reply to: ArchangelOger
There are feminists who object that the gospel criticism of divorce is "against women". What I am "trying to say" is that in the historical context, they have got things the wrong way round. It was freedom of divorce that was working "against women".

Yes, I agree that this writer is talking about the marriage bond between male and female. I think that's what I said myself.

I am reading the BIble in the Revised Standard Version. Of course I have heard of the Septuagint, but I don't see any translation issue affecting the discussion here.

a reply to: ArchangelOger
I note Isaiah ch45 v7 and do not see what it has to do with the matter in hand.

Ecclesiastes was and remains my favorite book of all, even if I am long gone from the path of Christianity. It has an universal meaning no matter what is your faith or who is your God. Every time I return to it I understand something new; it's like a well with no bottom and there is no end of how deep you can go.

For me the part you mention here resonates very well with other teachings from other religions, but I'm not sure how evident it is for others so I will not derail your discussion here. Just a note of enjoying such a meaningful thread.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Ok, so you think that by women's standards divorce is a legal thing?, right. And you are not seeing how you are blaming women? or Men, and just tossing scripture all out?

a reply to: ArchangelOger
I was not attacking women in general, just addressing a reply to a particular group of controversialists. They were blaming men in one direction, I reported Jesus blaming men in the opposite direction. Why are you getting uptight and wanting to blame me for something or other, you're not sure what? Are you an offended feminist?

Do you want to explain what oblique message you were trying to convey by referring me to Isaiah ch 45 v7? Or wre you just tossing scripture at me?

Late the thread, but I always saw the danger of wine as being the risk of becoming drunk which does carry implications for behavior but also of becoming a drunkard or alcoholic which then risks putting the wine in the place of God as the sole most important thing in one's life.

I also find it interesting that 12 step programs often work a faith angle - replacing the pull of addiction with the pull of faith/God. Sort of like you see Indy trying to put the sack of sand on the pedestal in place of the golden idol in Raiders of the Lost Ark.

So it's not bad in and of itself, but you should be wary of letting it become too important in your life.

a reply to: ketsuko
In "the works of the flesh" (Galatians ch5), drunkenness is listed close to "strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness" and other ways of treating other people badly.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: ketsuko
In "the works of the flesh" (Galatians ch5), drunkenness is listed close to "strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness" and other ways of treating other people badly.

I guess I separate drunkenness from addiction. One can be drunk and not an addict. There are plenty of examples of that. Addiction would be its own danger and potential sin in idolatry where nothing in your life is more important than what you are addicted to.

To me, the entierty of Ecclesastes can be summed up with this,

"Stop leaning on your own understanding, trust the lord"

a reply to: benrl
Yes, it's evidently heading in that direction.
I've decided that I can only understand the entirety by tackling the detail first and distilling what I find, so that's the purpose of this exercise.

a reply to: DISRAELI

I get a great deal out of your post, usally remain silent lurker.

just throwing in my short take away, to the deeper expounding you are doing.