This passage of Ecclesiastes (3:18 – 22) is
interesting and much discussed among both Christians and rabbis, because it
does not say what people generally expect or believe to be the case. Let me illustrate the point by describing an
encounter that I had with a Jehovah's Witness now many years ago.
I was on assignment away
from home at the time and living in apartment.
When I was not working I was mostly bored out of my mind, so this
encounter with the JW was not necessarily an irritation. He visited several times, and as is their
practice he quoted consistently from his little book of proof texts. One of his quotes was a summary of
Ecclesiastes 3:18. I do not now remember
exactly how the summary was worded, but it was something like this: 'God is
testing the sons of Adam to show them that they themselves are just cattle.' Ecclesiastes is my favorite book of the
Hebrew bible, and at that time I had been reading the text in Hebrew for around
15 years. I said to him that I disagreed
with the assertion his book of proof texts was attempting to make, so he said,
"It's all in the Hebrew." My
response was to open my Hebrew bible to the passage in question and say,
"Elucidate." He, of course,
knew not a word of Hebrew, so he tossed out a proof text from the New
Testament. Again I disagreed, and he
said, "It's all in the Greek."
So I opened my Greek text to the passage cited and said,
"Elucidate." He knew no more
Greek than Hebrew. I told him that the
next time he came he should leave is little book of proof texts at home, and we
would look at what the biblical texts had to say for themselves. I never saw him again.
The problem being
confronted can be illustrated as follows: Envision a glass marble. Now smash that marble with a sledge hammer
into a zillion fragments. I will take
one of those fragments at random, give it to someone who has never seen the
whole marble, and present it as the original whole. This is just what JWs and others who used
proof texts tend to do, and in so doing it is easy to misconstrue the intended
message of the whole.
In this case, Ecc 3:18 - 22 is the last of three vignettes
in this chapter. I discussed the first
of these in 'To Everything there is a Season.'
In this vignette the descendants of Adam are presented as creatures who
have the perception but no understanding of divine purpose – or as stated in
the book 'He (God) has put eternity in their (human) heart but in such a way
that man cannot discover what God has done from beginning to end.' The second vignette is brief, but it mentions
a problem that plagues mankind to this day: In the place of justice there is
wickedness; in the place of the righteous there is the criminal. This last vignette compares humans to
four-footed herbivores, whose primary function in life is to be eaten by others.
There are two approaches to an assemblage of
vignettes like this. One approach
asserts that each vignette has its own origin, and they were randomly assembled
together without any intended relation one to another. This is the assumption that is the foundation
for the proof text approach to the scriptures, regardless of who is using the
methodology. The second approach may acknowledge
that individual vignettes may have had separate origins, but it assumes that the author
assembled them together in a specific order purposefully to convey a specific
message. We have linear minds and can
read only one word, one phrase, one clause at a time. However, within a connected section of a
discourse, the significance of each word, phrase, or clause is governed by what
has come before as well as what comes after. Failing to recognize such
connections will result in obscuring or obliteration the author's intended
message. In my opinion, this last
vignette of Ecclesiastes 3 is intended to express the experiential consequence of
the first two vignettes in the chapter on the basis of individual personal experience.
μyhiloa‘h; μr:b;l] μd:a;h; ynEB] tr"b]DIAl['
yBiliB] ynIa} yTir“m'a; 18
.μh,l; hM;he hm;heB]Aμh,v] t/ar“li
I said within my heart
concerning the manner of mankind, God has been testing them that they may see
that they themselves are beasts.
μd:a;h; ynEB] tr"b]DIAl[' Verse 17 draws a conclusion about the conditions man will
face beyond the limits of this present life under the sun. Verse 18-21 addresses the kind of life that
we experience now in the bent world under the sun. The term hr:b]DI
is an uncommon noun that occurs just three times in the Hebrew bible (Ps 110:4,
Job 5:8, and here), and in every instance it is in a construct relationship with
some other noun or with a pronominal suffix. Suggested meanings for
the word are ‘manner, reason, cause.’
In this context, the author is considering the conditions of human life
at the present time under the sun.
μyhiloa‘h; μr:b;l] This
is the first of two infinitive clauses.
The form μr:b;l] is a qal
infinitive construct of rrb with a
3mp pronominal suffix and the inseparable preposition –l prefix. The most
common use of such a construction is to express purpose, which fits this
context well. Here, μyhiloa‘h; (God) is the subject of the
infinitive, and the pronominal suffix is the object. The root meaning of the verb is ‘purge,
purify, cleanse, select.’ Later
Hebrew attests the meaning ‘prove,’ which is the source for the present
English translation.
μh,l; hM;he hm;heB]Aμh,v] t/ar“li This is a second infinitive clause formed with the qal
infinitive of har (see, perceive,
observe) and the -l
preposition. The relative clause
beginning with Aμh,v is clearly the object
of the infinitive. Although the qal form
of the verb is transitive, it does not express any causative force, so God
cannot be the subject of the infinitive clause.
Consequently, the object of the first infinitive ‘them’ = ‘humans’ must
be the subject. In this context, the
infinitive probably expresses result arising from the proving (trying, testing)
process. This result is that humans come
to see that they themselves are in some sense merely animals. hm;heB]
is a term mostly used for four-footed herbivores (though it is used rarely for
carnivores as well). Such animals tend to
have short lives, and they generally end up as food for other animals or humans.
hz< t/mK] μh,l; dj;a, hr<q]miW hm;heB]h'
hr<q]miW μd:a;h;AynEb] hr<q]mi yKi 19
.lb,h; lKoh' yKi ˆyIa; hm;heB]h'Aˆmi
μd:a;h; rt'/mW lKol] dj;a, jWrw“ hz< t/m ˆKe
For
one and the same fortune befalls both the human and the beast in that one dies
just like the other and both have the same breath. So the human has no advantage over the beast,
for everything is an illusion.
μh,l; dj;a, hr<q]miW hm;heB]h' hr<q]miW μd:a;h;AynEb]
hr<q]mi yKi As before, yKi introduces the clause that serves as
the justification or basis for the conclusion stated in the previous
verse. The remaining words constitute
three phrases. Literally they
state: ‘The fortune of humans and the
fortune of a beast and one fortune is to them.’ This is a Hebraic idiom to state that both
humans and beasts experience one and the same destiny. The term hr<q]mi
is an ms noun from the root hrq
meaning ‘accident, chance, fortune.’
It may refer to any particular experience of life that is not directly
orchestrated by the individual.
hz< t/m ˆKe hz< t/mK] Even in Solomon’s day, most people would
have rejected the assertion that humans were just another kind of animal – even the Greeks, Romans, and Canaanites all
believed that there was some form of afterlife for humans. Consequently, Solomon uses this clause to
limit the scope of his comparison: one dies just like the other. In this respect there is no difference
between man and beast. In addition, both
breathe the air in the same way, so the manner of their physical life and the
manner of their physical death are one and the same.
.rp;[;h,Aal, bv; lKoh'w“ rp;[;h,Aˆmi hy:h; lKoh'
dj;a, μ/qm;Ala, Ële/h lKoh' 20
Both are going to the same place: both were taken from the
dust and both are returning to the dust.
dj;a, μ/qm;Ala, Ële/h lKoh' Even if one accepts his first restriction,
many will still insist that the ultimate destiny of man differs from that of
animals, so Solomon restricts the scope of his analysis further. Not only do both man and beast die in
essentially the same way, but both go to the same place. The term lKoh'
literally means ‘everything,’ but it has been rendered by ‘both,’ because the
context limits the scope of his consideration to man and beast. Angels – even the fallen angels – are not
part of life under the sun, and the details of their destiny generally differs
from that of humans. Since this
statement is also open ended, the final clause restricts its scope further:
both came from dust and both return to dust during decomposition.
hl;[]m;l] ayhi hl;[oh; μd:a;h; ynEB] j'Wr ['dEwOy
ymi 21
.6r<a;l;
hF;m'l] ayhi td<r<YOh' hm;heB]h' j'Wrw“
Who
knows whether the spirit of humans go upwards while the spirit of the beast
goes downward to the ground?
['dEwOy ymi Still
there might be an objection based on the description of man’s creation in
Genesis 1. God undertook personal and
direct action while creating the man and woman of the first human pair – not so
with the animals. Again, God personally
breathed in the breath of life into the man after forming his body – not so
with the animals. So Solomon counters
with a rhetorical question: ‘Who knows…?’
One can see the breath of both men and animals on a frosty day, but
nobody can see the spirit when it is in the body, and nobody can see where it
goes when it leaves the body.
/ql]j, aWhAyKi wyv;[}m'B] μd:a;h; jm'c]yI rv,a}me
b/f ˆyae yKi ytiyair:w“ 22
.wyr:j}a' hy<h]YIv, hm,B] t/ar“li
WNa,ybiy“ ymi yKi
So I
have seen that there is nothing better than that the human should rejoice in
his toil, because that is his portion.
For who will be able to bring him to see what will be after him?
wyv;[}m'B] μd:a;h; jm'c]yI rv,a}me b/f ˆyae This is the third time that such an
assertion has appeared in the text of Ecclesiastes. The first time it was stated (2:24), it
presented the skeptical view that man (and this may be applied specifically to Solomon himself) had no merit that justified enjoyment of
life. Here he states that this is the
best thing that a human can do. He
offers two reasons as justification for this assertion: 1) it is his (man’s)
portion, and 2) nobody can enable him to perceive (see) what will come after
him. The term ql,je refers to ones portion or share in life, and it was
used to refer to the allotment of land granted to each family when they entered
the land following the exodus. The
second justification refers back to verse 3:11 and the fact that an
understanding of eternal purposes has not been granted to men. Instead, their physical life restricts them
to the same limitations as those of a beast.
Thus, the best that a man can do is to gain the capacity to be content
within the limitation of his current circumstances, which have been limited in
both scope and duration. This is similar
to Paul’s (Shaul) statement concerning himself: “I have learned to be
content in whatever circumstances I find myself.” (Phil 4:11, 12; see also
Heb 13:5)
No comments:
Post a Comment