ABR#9 Ecclesiastes

I have begun to read the Bible alphabetically (see here for my rationale), reading each book at least three times and trying to get into the mind of the original author and readers as well as listen to God’s message for today. Here’s what I’ve discovered from reading Ecclesiastes.

What’s the point?
Despite its morbid approach to the futility of life, I found this book to be brutally honest rather than miserably depressing. But I did wonder why it was written. And for whom? Did the author just want to get things off his chest or was he intending others to read it? And if the latter, was he trying to inform them, challenge them or depress them? The whole thing has the flavour of an internet blog – a journal of his own private opinions, but out there in the public domain. Since nobody seems sure how to translate his title (preacher? speaker? philosopher? Qoholeth? wise one? teacher? quester?), I’ll refer to him as the blogger.

Traditionally the blogger is Solomon and it certainly sounds like him – the son of David, a king in Jerusalem, wiser than any who ruled in Jerusalem before him, rich in property and livestock, many wives – though other later kings may well have described themselves in the same fashion. Or of course another author could be writing ‘as if’ he were king.

The blogger is above all else honest in his opinions and not afraid to raise difficult questions. And like any honest person he can hold two views at the same time, such as “what’s the point of being merry if you’re going to die?” and “you may as well be merry while you have the chance”.

He starts off complaining that nothing changes, everything just goes on the same as it always has. Then his obsession with death becomes clear: What is the point of anything when everyone ends up dead? He is also depressed by injustice whereby the wicked and foolish enjoy life and the good and wise suffer, and is frustrated by the fact that no-one knows for sure what happens when we die. At one point he suggests human souls might go up, whereas animals’ souls go into the earth; at another point he implies there is no consciousness beyond death.

He writes a lot about wisdom and folly. He knows wisdom is better than folly and has all kinds of maxims to prove it. But his experience is that wisdom doesn’t guarantee success in this life, and can’t stop anyone dying. His conclusion seems to be “Be wise, even if it’s pointless.”

One fact the blogger never questions is the existence of God. He regards the whole of life, especially the good things, as a gift from our creator God.

Miscellaneous maxims:
Amongst all the moaning and complaining there are a number of familiar sounding epigrams which are still relevant to modern life.

“Two are better than one, because together they can work more effectively.”

“We leave this world just as we entered it – with nothing.”

“Never ask, ‘Oh, why were things so much better in the old days?’”

“There is no one on earth who does what is right all the time and never makes a mistake.”

“Don’t pay attention to everything people say – you may hear your servant insulting you, and you know yourself that you have insulted other people many times.”

“Fast runners do not always win the race ... bad luck happens to everyone.”

“Dead flies can make a whole bottle of perfume stink.” (origin of ‘a fly in the ointment’)

“If your axe is blunt and you don’t sharpen it, you have to work harder to use it. It is more sensible to plan ahead.”

“Don’t criticise ... even in the privacy of your bedroom. A bird might carry the message and tell them what you said.” (origin of ‘a little bird told me’)

“Put your investments in several places – because you never know what kind of bad luck you are going to have in this world.”

What should the modern reader make of all this?
The blogger has a limited perspective in two senses. He is only interested in everything “under the sun” which encompasses the whole of earthly life, but not heaven (or even the wider universe known to modern science). Also, he seeks purpose only in life before death. Factoring in the possibility of life beyond death changes the perspective.

So one thing to learn is the danger of a narrow perspective. In other words, we can disagree with the blogger’s assessment of life. But can we learn anything by stepping into his shoes and sympathising with his point of view? Yes, we can learn what not to put our trust in. Searching after riches, happiness or knowledge will not lead to ultimate fulfilment. Only God can make sense of our lives.

Perhaps the reason I found Ecclesiastes intriguing rather than depressing is because I have explored similar questions myself in a mood of calm scientific enquiry. A few years back I went through a phase of asking “how do I know?” I tried to reason my way to belief in the existence of God, the living presence of Christ, the point of being a Christian and life beyond death. I never felt like giving up my faith, and I never really felt depressed about these issues. But I did feel frustrated that despite some strongly suggestive evidence, there was no 100% proof of any of these things. Ecclesiastes reminds me that you’re never going to get certainties in this life, you just have to trust God.

ABR#8 Deuteronomy

I have begun to read the Bible alphabetically (see here for my rationale), reading each book at least three times and trying to get into the mind of the original author and readers as well as listen to God’s message for today. Here’s what I’ve discovered from reading Deuteronomy.

Setting and Summary:
Having wandered for forty years in the wilderness the people of Israel are in Moab, waiting to cross the Jordan into the land promised them by God. Moses addresses them at great length in a series of speeches before he dies. How many speeches? Around ten if you count all the occurrences of “Moses said” (or similar phrase), but in broad terms the book contains three speeches: a reminder of their history; a reminder of God’s law; a call for commitment.

It’s difficult to picture this. Did Moses gather the whole nation in one place and speak very loudly, or did he just address the leaders expecting them to pass on what he said, or did he travel around the camps explaining his message, or is this whole speech thing just a literary device used by some later author? According to Deuteronomy, Moses wrote down the laws from beginning to end in a book, and at the very least this shows there was a long-standing tradition of Moses’s laws being written rather than merely oral.

Deuteronomy resembles an extended pep-talk delivered by a coach to his team before they go out on the pitch, the coach won’t be with them so has to give them all the instructions and winning tactics in advance. Also, towards the end there is a call for a pledge of allegiance to the captain of the team, who will ensure success if they stick with him but guarantee disaster if they don’t.

The key message hammered home is: be faithful to your God by keeping his commands and he will bless you, but turn away and worship other gods and he will bring disaster on you.

Much of this sounds like the ‘prosperity gospel’ – obey God and he will provide abundant material blessings. But there are other strands to Moses’s message. a) God has given you a hard time for the past forty years in order to teach and discipline you. b) God says: don’t dare think your future success in driving out the nations is because of your goodness – you are a stubborn people who don’t deserve my blessings, but I’m blessing you because I love you.

Generations Past, Present and Future:
Moses says of 40 years ago “you were there, you remember how you turned against God” but he also says “as predicted none of your generation are now alive to enter the promised land.” On another occasion he emphasises that they personally (as opposed to any other generation) saw God perform all the miracles of the Exodus. Maybe he is reminding the new generation of memories from their childhood but often he blurs the distinction between generations and implies that it is the same ‘people’ who were brought out of Egypt, will enter the promised land, be scattered by foreign conquerers and be gathered again.

Various comments (especially in the early part) conclude with “and it’s like that to this day” which sounds very much like some later editor relating the words of Moses to the situations which the readers would be familiar with. Did this editor restrict himself to occasional asides, or did he re-tell the whole of Moses’s speeches in his own words in order to bring out certain nuances? To me the tone of the book suggests the latter.

Certainly the context which Moses is addressing is some centuries in his future – he often refers to the one place of worship which God will choose, and he deals with the appointment and behaviour of a king. He even describes the threat of foreign invasion and the hope of restoration from exile. Assuming these speeches were not recorded verbatim at the time, presumably the ‘current’ situation when the book was written had a strong influence on the finished product – and presumably the purpose of the book (as far as the authors are concerned) is to remind Israel of her heritage and tell them how they ought to be living in the land they (now) possess as God’s gift to them.

The Law:
The laws are a real mixed bag – some are humane (allow newly-wed soldiers to stay with their wives rather than risk dying in battle); some are sensible (build a parapet to stop people falling off your roof); some seem pointless (sew tassels on the four corners of your clothes); some are extremely harsh (no descendent of someone born out of wedlock, even ten generations later, can be included amongst God’s people); and some are just plain vindictive (kill all the Amalekites!) – I wonder what this says about the mindset of the person(s) compiling this selection of laws.

As a modern reader the idea of God commanding genocide is abhorrent. Moses justifies it as God’s way of punishing irredeemably wicked nations. Regarding the death penalty, the worst crime is idol worship or leading Israel astray from their God, and the disgusting practices of the present occupiers of the promised land presumably fall into this category, hence Israel is commanded to kill them all. Other death penalties are for murder or for being a rebellious son or for various sexual misdemeanours. Thankfully Jesus has shown us a better way of responding to wickedness – by love and forgiveness.

Some laws are presented as case-studies: e.g. what happens if a man’s axe-head flies loose and kills someone; what happens if a woman is supposedly raped but doesn’t cry out for help; what happens if two men are fighting and one of their wives grabs the other man by his private parts. It is possible to imagine circumstances where the punishment may be unjust (perhaps the woman really was raped but was too terrified to call out) but these guidelines are better than nothing. Even the harsh rules may be an improvement on existing customs. For example, if you capture a woman on a raid, give her a month to mourn before having your wicked way with her, and if you don’t want her any more set her free (better than pillage and rape and enslavement.)

How should I interpret these laws? Do I choose to keep those which I approve of and ignore the others? If men should not dress in women’s clothes should I have been a panto dame? Some of the ‘good’ laws are irrelevant anyway (I don’t have any fields in which to leave the pickings for the widows), so is it best to try and get to the principle behind each law (even the ‘bad’ ones) and work out what God is wanting to say to me through it? e.g Broadly speaking, the laws about killing the local heathens are about preserving a pure faith. So the relevance today is not that I should act with hatred or violence towards non-Christians but rather that I should avoid being drawn into a secular way of life which doesn’t honour God.

Miscellaneous Thoughts:
The ark of the covenant was constructed to house the second pair of stone tablets, the first pair having been broken. Perhaps the original plan was to have the ten commandments on permanent display, but the rebellion of the people called for plan B – to hide them away (in order to increase the sense of mystique and respect? or did their inaccessibility encourage people to learn them in their hearts?)

Some of the miraculous blessings are not confined to one-off occasions but affect the whole nation – in the past their shoes didn’t wear out, in the future there will be no disease, impotence or barrenness amongst humans or livestock. We expect too little from God if we only see him as an occasional help. He has plans for our ongoing well-being.

There is a contemporary feel to some of this – Israel has existed as a ‘people’ (if not always as a nation) for thousands of years (a remarkable fact in itself). Their fortunes have been up and down over history. Today they have returned once more to the promised land, and are driving out its inhabitants. I realise this is a sweeping generalisation of a complex situation, but in the last century the people of Israel have turned from victims to oppressors, and have forgotten those laws which say they must treat the stranger in their land with fairness and kindness (remembering they were once slaves themselves).

“Make sure there is no-one here today who hears these solemn demands and yet convinces himself that all will be well with him, even if he stubbornly goes his own way.” This is a personal challenge to me to take God’s word seriously and it arguably expresses the whole purpose of the book of Deuteronomy.