After a good long break for the Holidays, I am returning to
my blog. With some luck my hope is to write a new post each week and post it on
Tuesday. We’ll see how it goes. Have to admit I have missed writing them (and
hopefully you enjoyed reading them), but sometimes life gets in the way.
To start off this year, I am going to write some reflections
on the first two weeks of the Bible study we are starting for the young adult group
at my church. It comes from the book of Ecclesiastes, generally considered the
most unique book in the Bible. It is also one that I haven’t looked at very
closely since I started Seminary. This is notable because when I first started
reading the Bible seriously during my undergrad, Ecclesiastes was instantly my
favorite book. Something about the style and message really grabbed me. As I
had written about before:
A big part of my faith story is the previous study of
philosophy and how I saw Christ as the “perfect” philosopher. Ecclesiastes is
without question the most “philosophical” book in the Bible, part of the wisdom
tradition, with an examination of the world on par with any secular
philosophical tradition.
Key to understanding Ecclesiastes, especially the beginning,
is to understand Solomon. By tradition Solomon is credited with writing
Ecclesiastes, and though many (if not most) serious Biblical scholars would now
say that it is unlikely that he is the author, it is still important to know
his life and his situation because significant portions of the book are written
from his perspective. (There is much more to be said about Solomon as the
author of Ecclesiastes that I will not touch on at this time).
Solomon is known for many things, but for those that don’t
know, I want to touch on a few of the highlights.
-Solomon was the second son of David and Bathsheba. He was
conceived after the first son, a product of the infamous adultery (2 Samuel
11), died as an infant as God’s punishment for the adultery (2 Samuel 12:19).
-Solomon succeeded David as the King of Israel. This was not
a sure thing at the time, but some shrewd maneuvering and judicious use of
violence secured his place on the throne for several decades (1 Kings 1,2).
-Solomon was very successful as a king. During his reign
Israel was at its most powerful and wealthy and controlled the most territory.
Through alliances and marriages Solomon was able to secure peace, trade
agreements, and acquire enough resources to construct a majestic temple and
palace (1 Kings 6,7).
-Solomon was famous for his wisdom and his justice. This was
noted is his asking the Lord for wisdom (1 Kings 3:5-15) and in his wise ruling
in a case brought before him involving two women claiming to be the mother of
the same baby (1 Kings 3:16-28).
-Finally, Solomon was known for his wealth and for his many
wives and concubines. Amongst these wives were many non-Israelites, who
influenced him to follow foreign gods. Because of this, the Lord declared that
Solomon would have his kingdom torn away from him (ie his descendants), but it
would not happen until he died (1 Kings 11:1-13). This was the fate of Israel
after the death as Solomon, as within 3 years the kingdom was divided and it
never returned to the power and wealth it knew under Solomon.
So it is with this context of Solomon that we look at the
beginning of Ecclesiastes.
Chapter 1:1-11 is a sort of introduction that sets the theme
for the rest of the book.
“Meaningless, meaningless! Utterly meaningless! Everything
is meaningless!” This will be the key phrase as the author of the book takes a long
look at everything that is (seemingly) valued by humanity.
“Meaningless” here can have several translations including
“futility” or “frustration” or “absurdity” to name a few. No English word can
perfectly capture the Hebrew word that is being used, but the sense should be
obvious.
There are two main things that are looked at initially in
this introduction – the idea of natural laws and the idea of human history. It
is the conclusion of the author that neither of these will ultimately bring
meaning. All natural and scientific processes happen in a never-ending cycle:
-the sun rises, sets and returns to where it came from
-the wind blows all directions and eventually returns to its
course
-and all streams continue to flow to the sea, yet it is
never full.
And around and around it goes, never stopping. When looked
at from this perspective, there is certainly truth in the thought that looking
merely at natural processes will be meaningless. Everything that happens in the
(natural) world has happened before and will happen again. Nature is a series
of cycles and returns back to where it all began.
The analysis of human history is perhaps even more bleak:
-generations come and go, but the earth remains
-there is more in the world than can possibly be seen or
heard
-all things that are have been before, there is nothing new
under the sun
-and there is no true remembrance of those that have come
before, and as is said, even those that have yet to come will not be remembered
by those who follow.
The first two points seem pretty straightforward to me. No
matter what has come before in the history of humanity, the earth has remained
more or less the same and almost certainly will in the future. And the world is
so cast that no individual, no matter what resources one possesses, can
possibly experience all that the world has to offer.
The third point brought up by the author is interesting to
me. Obviously the author is not talking about specific technological advances,
but more about the experience of the human condition. There is no thoughts,
feelings, interactions, etc. that have not been experienced before. In that
sense, if we think we are going to get ultimate meaning from our specific
unique experiences, it is true that they have happened before.
The fourth point raised in regards to human history is
interesting to me as well. I remember reading somewhere that there are two
types of remembrances about a person. The first is the memory of someone who
someone currently alive interacted with – for example, my grandmother lives on
in the memory of those that knew her until finally the generations pass away so
no one will be alive who lived at the same time as her. At that point she will
be the second type of memory, which is probably more of a legend. And I think
this is what is being referred to here.
In one sense, some of the greatest and most important people
throughout history are remembered through studies of history and the like.
However, the question is how well are they actually remembered and, perhaps
even more importantly, how important is that for the individual that is no
longer here? That is what the author is getting at here in my opinion, that the
actual person is not remembered; it is merely a historical character that may
or may not reflect the reality of who they are. The true remembrance is gone
once all people who knew the individual when they were alive or no longer alive
themselves. And it has been that way since the beginning of recorded history.
So in the big picture of human history and of natural and
scientific processes, this is all meaningless. So what is meaningful? Next post
will take a look at Chapter 2 of this great book.
No comments:
Post a Comment