It’s Not So Good to Be King. Continuing My Look at Ecclesiastes

In my last post I took a look at the beginning of Ecclesiastes:

http://stevenuessle.blogspot.com/2015/01/is-everything-meaningless-some.html

The theme of the book (especially the beginning) is about the meaninglessness of virtually everything about life. Chapter 1, which I covered last week, took a look at the meaninglessness of the big things, namely science/natural processes and the long arc of human history. After that the author of the book took a quick look at wisdom, and decided that no matter how wise one is it is still ultimately a meaningless pursuit. This point is especially brought home in 1:18:

“For with much wisdom comes much sorrow; the more knowledge, the more grief.”

To put it another way, to reflect on all things of life is to come to the realization that the individual things people may attempt to put meaning into will ultimately be seen as meaningless. This is especially true in Chapter 2:1-11, the verses that I will look at again.

As I break down the scripture, keep in mind who is writing these verses. It is either Solomon, or someone that is evoking the life and experience of Solomon. As I wrote in my last post, Solomon was the richest and most powerful king in the history of Israel. His life and the possibilities therein could be matched by only a handful of people in history – at least until the relatively recent developments of modern wealth and conveniences that in many ways we take for granted. In short, Solomon had access to pretty much anything that he wanted, particularly physical pleasures.  In the end, it probably did not end up as well for Solomon as one might expect.

This is the conclusion that he draws in the first verse (2:1): “I thought in my heart, ‘Come now, I will test you with pleasure to find out what is good.’ But that also proved to be meaningless.” And with that he looks at several physical pleasures:

First is laughter (v. 2). “Laughter is foolish. And what does pleasure accomplish?” No amount of entertainment or good times with those around him could fulfill the longing in his heart for meaning. Nothing wrong with laughter, with entertainment or with good times, but it certainly will not be the end all be all of meaning, no matter what amount of wealth one possesses.

The second pleasure was to embrace wine and folly (v. 3). Folly here understood as drawing a contrast with wisdom. I take wine and embracing folly as a way for Solomon to escape the wisdom that he has, to escape the nagging suspicion that everything might indeed be meaningless. If everything is meaningless, might as well numb yourself and forget about it and do whatever comes to your mind. Solomon uses wine, but it could represent any chemical we might take now (legal or otherwise) or any activity that we know if not in our best interest for the momentary escape that it provides. But this too is meaningless. No matter what is done he can never escape the wisdom that he has and the conclusions are still there to be reckoned with.

The third pleasure he pursued was great, public accomplishments (v. 4-6). Mentioned here are the construction of house (palaces), vineyards, gardens, parks, water reservoirs, and probably many other things that are unmentioned. None of these are bad things themselves, and in fact much public good can be accomplished. I think of the many good things that are done by philanthropists throughout history and around the world. Good things, but ultimately meaningless in the eyes of Solomon. There is still something else that is missing.

The fourth pleasure that he pursued was owning large amounts of slaves and livestock (v.7). Basically Solomon was talking about owning lots of stuff, the best possessions of the day for anyone, remindful of the bumper sticker “He who dies with the most toys wins”. Not especially difficult to see the modern equivalent of this situation and how that was deemed to be seen as ultimately meaningless in the mind of Solomon. If possessions are what matter the most, it is impossible to sate that desire and of course it is something that cannot be transferred when you die, it is left that those that come afterwards, something that Solomon touches on later in the chapter (especially verses 2:17-19).

The fifth pleasure that he pursued was money, specifically gold, silver and “the treasures of kings”, as well as territory (v. 8a). As mentioned, Solomon was the richest and most powerful king of Israel and ruled when Israel had the largest territory in its recorded history. The pursuit of these were ultimately meaningless to Solomon, he took no lasting joy in them and desired something more. Like possessions, money and territory cannot be brought with you and they will be left to the next generation. And sure enough, within a couple years of taking power his son, the heir and the next king, squandered all that Solomon had built up by losing over half the territory of the kingdom.

The sixth pleasure was the finest music (v. 8b). This included the best singers, soloists and instruments that could be found in the world. I personally like music as much as anyone can, but music is ultimately as meaningful as any type of entertainment. Great to enjoy but will not fulfill the longing in the soul.

The seventh and final pleasure that Solomon pursued in this section was “the delights of the heart of man,” his harem and his wives (v. 8c). Solomon was not shy about the amount of wives and the size of his harem, with both of them numbering in the hundreds, including women from all around the world (as a side note, it was the amount of foreign women that he married that God cited for the reason that God was going to take Solomon’s land away from his descendants. Not away from Solomon out of favor to his father David but from the next generation). There was no way that this physical desire could be sated, and it was with him his entire life and was seen to be meaningless.

After looking at these different pleasures, Solomon (rightfully) declares that became greater by far than anyone in Jerusalem before him (and after), and that in all of this he maintained his wisdom (v. 9). This is the conclusion that he came to after all of this (v. 10-11):

“I denied myself nothing that my eyes desired; I refused my heart no pleasure. My heart took delight in all my work, and this was the reward for all my labor. Yet when I surveyed all that my hands had done and what I had toiled to achieve, everything was meaningless, a chasing after the wind; nothing was gained under the sun.”

I am left with two questions. What, if anything, can be learned from this? And what, if anything, is actually meaningful?

The first question goes to the heart of the title of this post, “Is it good to be king?” And to expand it to a more relevant comparison, is it good to be extremely wealthy or a person of great power? I think that the musings of Solomon would suggest that it might not be as good as we might imagine. He can have anything in the world and finds it all lacking, perhaps because he cannot have the genuine things that take no money and no power to acquire. To be king, to be powerful, to be wealthy, is realize that virtually everything comes with a cost or an expectation of being paid back in some way. What I think Solomon misses as much as anything, aside from true relationship with God (which I hope to cover in a post soon), is true, meaningful relationship. There is not a member of his court or military that will have true relationship with him, it is having relationship with everything that he represents and can ultimately give them (or take away from them). And with multiple hundreds of wives and concubines, no significant relationship can be maintained with any of them.

So, as we examine the pleasures that Solomon sought and ultimately rejected, I think that we can start to realize what is actually meaningful. It is nothing that can be purchased and it is not a physical pleasure that can be fulfilled, as those will come and go and never fully be sated. What is truly meaningful is the connection that you can have with others, which perhaps ironically, is the very thing that is most likely to be lost when you become a person like Solomon. The one thing he craves, something meaningful, is something that he will never be able to achieve.

My next post will look at the other part of this, who was God to Solomon. 

Is Everything Meaningless? Some Reflections on the Beginning of Ecclesiastes

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:

http://stevenuessle.blogspot.com/2014/07/jesus-perfect-philosopher-personal.html

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.