Ecclesiastes part four

We are now in chapter three. Verses 1-8 are pretty famous and have been celebrated in song by multiple artists. Here is the one I heard most when I was young: Judy Collins "Turn, Turn, Turn."

This is in the form of a poem whose theme is expressed in the opening lines. "There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under heaven." There are multiple activities and life events mentioned. I will not go through each one. The author seems to be subscribing to a belief in an inherent orderliness and pattern to life, with designated times for each event. Then one would ask, who designated that these things happen in their time? Must be god! (Which one?)

Everything that affects us does happen in time, but is the time it happens actually designated by a being outside of time? Can all the times of every event be anticipated by us? Obviously not, at this time. (See what I did?)If events could be determined, they would most likely be determined by the events that proceeded them and so forth, like a chain of dominoes. Ah, the deist might say, someone set up the dominoes and pushed over the first domino. Where did this pusher of dominoes come from, the skeptic might say. What good is a god who does nothing but watch his creation come tumbling down? Did he do it just for fun? What happens when the last domino falls? Couldn't there be a kind of eternal mobius strip of dominoes in a never ending chain? I digress.

Seriously, yes we see cycles in nature and in human lives. We live in a cyclical universe. If this was a universe without natural cycles , we wouldn't know about it, because this just happens to be the kind of universe that  had the properties necessary to bring about us. We currently have no way to know if any other kind of universe exists. However, there are cycles that people themselves have created because of the nature of the world we live in.

Humans invented farming. They decided when are the best times for planting and harvesting. Humans around the globe invented seasonal rituals of all kinds, they are not actually dictated by nature or gods. Humans invented social customs based on age, gender, and status. Each group decided how different people would relate to each other at different times. Humans have always decided for themselves when they thought it was time go to war. There is never a time for war or peace that is dictated by nature or a god. Also, nature often ignores the timetable of humanity.

Now that I've spent time being critical of the poem's literal meaning, I must admit: Even if it does not make practical sense when taken literally as dogma, it is beautiful as a piece of poetry reflecting on the nature of life. If that's all it was, I would have no issue with it.

Ecclesiastes part three

Starting at verse twelve, the author says he turns his thoughts to consider wisdom, madness, and folly.  He saw that wisdom was better than folly, but the same fate overtakes both the fool and the wise man.  Since that was true, what was the benefit of being wise? They will both be forgotten in days to come. They both must die! Yes. So what? I don't get this obsession with being remembered. What difference does that make to you, if you are dead. Life is for living now.

Verse 17, the author says he hated life, because his work was "grievous," whatever that means. It's all meaningless and he hates it, because everything he has worked for will be controlled by someone else when he is gone. That person could be a fool! Woe is him. A man could work with wisdom, knowledge, and skill, but after he dies, someone else takes over his stuff. This is ridiculous. What does he expect? He needs to count himself lucky to have lived to a good age, and to have been able to actually gain knowledge and skills, along with other privileges he must have had. To him, though, it is all meaningless.

Verse 24, the author seems to change his tune. Now he says "there is nothing better than to eat and drink and find satisfaction in his work." Guess what? That comes from God! Weird. Why can't it just be the natural state of things? What does a God have to do with it? Well, according to him, without god, who can eat or find enjoyment? A whole lot of people. I'm eating an ice cream sandwich right now and enjoying it very much. No God necessary.

The next statements by the author are a load of crap. "To the man who pleases him, god gives wisdom, knowledge,  and happiness, but to the sinner he gives the task of gathering and storing up wealth to hand it over to the one who pleases god." Say what? This is very different than what he said earlier. His previous statements did not reference a god at all. Plus, both the wise and the fool were going to die. Plus, the person who was wise and worked hard was going to have all his stuff go to someone who might be a fool. Was this passage added by someone who wanted to make a plug for god? If so, it didn't work out so well. At the end it says "This too is also meaningless." So even pleasing god is meaningless? Confusing.

Plenty of "sinners" have an abundance of wealth and knowledge. Plenty of people who aim to please the god of the bible toil away to give their hard earned money to someone else.

I was curious about this first reference to god. It is not the lord, Yahweh. It is the collective godhead Elohim, in this passage. Also strangely enough, the literal translation of verse 25 is "for who can eat, or who can have enjoyment more than I." My NIV bible says "for without him, who can eat or find enjoyment." Very different.

Ecclesiastes part two

Beginning in verse 12, the teacher says he was king over Israel in Jerusalem. He devoted himself to studying and exploring everything he could. He believes he has seen everything done under the sun and it is all meaningless and a terrible burden for men to bear. I bet women had it just as bad. If we are to take this literally, it would be quite obvious that it is not possible for a king in ancient Jerusalem to have done everything there is to do. He may have done everything he knew there was to do, but even that is doubtful. I bet he never cleaned out his own chamber pots.

There is a poetic phrase inserted in verse 15: "What is twisted cannot be straightened; what is lacking cannot be counted." We are not told what this means, but it seems to be the author's metaphor for man's lot in life, which he is not happy with.

In verse 16, the author begins to boast about how knowledgeable he is, how experienced in understanding wisdom, and even madness and folly. But it has got him nowhere. Insert another poetic passage: "For with much wisdom comes much sorrow, the more knowledge, the more grief." I take issue with this sentiment. I think how wisdom and knowledge affects a person depends on their temperament and philosophy of life. This particular person appears to be lacking in humility, unlike Socrates who declared that the more he knew, the more he realized he didn't know. The author doesn't seem to recognize his own human limitations in the realm of knowledge. Also wisdom should give someone the ability to make better decisions and be more empathetic and generous, shouldn't it? It's not just about knowing things, but knowing how to live a productive and beneficial life.

We have come to chapter two. The author says he tested his heart with pleasure, which he seems to equate with laughter, drinking, and being foolish. Not surprisingly, he found that to be unsatisfactory. His definition of pleasure leaves a lot to be desired.

Next, he says he undertook many great building and landscaping projects. He obtained many slaves,  herd animals, silver and gold, male and female singers, and a harem. He became greater than anyone in Jerusalem before him...if you measure greatness by possessions. Notice the possessions include people. And yet, the author says he kept his wisdom through it all. How in the world does this guy define wisdom?

 To me, this is where the authorship shows that it is undoubtedly written by a person who is not the king, in the  king's voice. There must have been legends of Solomon's great wealth and wisdom among the returned exiles. Perhaps they were hoping for a change of fortune for themselves. Perhaps there were those who felt entitled the high life, with education, property, and priveledge. Perhaps it was Persian influence. Perhaps they were rebuilding Jerusalem with those things in mind. Perhaps the author is writing this to bring them down from their flights of fancy and delusions of grandeur.

Verse 10 begins another poetic passage. The king denied himself nothing and took delight in all his work. Yet when he surveyed everything he had done, he felt that it was all meaningless and nothing was gained. This guy's got problems. What is "meaning" anyway? What reasons did he have to do all those things?  If his accomplishments gave him delight at the time, why wasn't that enough? It seems to me that he expects something more, but what?

Ecclesiastes introduction and part one

Read about the book called Ecclesiastes here. It covers much more background information than I can. Ecclesiastes is traditionally ascribed to Solomon, but most scholars consider that wrong. Because of word usage, it evidently was written somewhere between 450-180 BCE, after the Babylonian exile. Solomon would have lived around 400 years before the earliest date. The book seems to have a confusing and mysterious history and purpose. No one is quite sure where it came from, how it was compiled, and why it is considered divine scripture.

It begins by introducing "the teacher," which is what the word Ecclesiastes refers to. The main body of the book is supposed to be the words of the teacher, with only the introduction and ending words in the voice of another. Because of what I read in the Wikipedia article, I am wondering if this book was even typically Jewish. Could its ideas have been adopted by the Jews, originating with another people group? We will consider that as we read through.

The opening lines introduce the teacher as the son of David, king in Jerusalem. "Son of David" can refer to a descendant. The first words of the teacher set the tone for the entire book: "Meaningless! Meaningless! Says the teacher. Utterly meaningless! Everything is meaningless!" If this were written today, it would be observed that the teacher is probably depressed.

Verses 3-11 are in the form of a poem which basically talks about how nothing ever changes. The generations, the earth, the sun, the winds, the streams, they all just keep on doing what they've always done. It's tiresome and boring. Eyes keep on seeing, ears keep on hearing the same old stuff. There is nothing new under the sun. No one can point to anything new. No one remembers the distant past and the distant future will not remember our descendants. It sounds like the author was living in a stagnant period of history, without access to information. That isn't exactly true today is it? If he was to be teleported into our present, he would marvel at the all the novelty, almost too much novelty.

The author's words have kept him alive, in a way, for over 2,000 years. Today we have an unprecedented access to the past, and technology is  preserving the present with disturbing thoroughness. It is true that people haven't changed much. Most still have to labor for their daily bread. Most live unremarkable lives, being born, being educated, finding employment, finding life partners, raising children, living to relatively old age, and dying. Of all the people who have ever existed, very few remain in the public consciousness for any length of time. But why is that a problem? Isn't it enough to have had the chance to live and experience life? Can we not find some pleasure or satisfaction  in many of the things that keep on doing what they've always done? Yes, the sun sets every evening, but most people still gaze at its beauty with awe, every time.

More to come.

Titus part six and Wrap up

Paul ends the letter with personal info. As soon as he sends Artemas and Tychicus to Titus, Titus is to go to Paul at Nicopolis, where he will be spending the winter. I guess Titus better hurry up with his appointing elders and teaching in every town in Crete. He is also to help Zenas the lawyer and Appollos leave Crete well supplied. Presumably, they will be given what they need by the Christians in Crete because the next sentence says "our people (christians) must learn to devote themselves to doing good that they may provide for daily necessities and not live unproductive lives." The author ends with greetings from those with him and greetings to "those who love us in the faith." To me this looks like a dig at those who do not agree with Paul's version of the faith. Either you are with him, or against him.

Now for the wrap up. The letter to Titus contains no people, places, or events from the Old Testament. The only references to Judaism are snide remarks about Jewish myths, the circumcision group, genealogies, and arguments about the law. There are no scripture references, but there is a reference to a Cretan's poem about the eternal nature of Zeus. It would almost seem that this was written by someone who had never been a Jew.

There are no references to Jesus's birth, life, teachings, miracles, trial, death, burial, and resurrection. There are no words or commands of Jesus mentioned. Jesus is called the savior but not the son of god. God is said to have brought salvation by the "washing of rebirth and renewal by the holy spirit" poured out through Jesus Christ. It doesn't say how this was accomplished.

There is no mention of demons, Satan, or hell. There is no mention of angels or miracles, and no direct mention of heaven, just eternal life. The author does not claim his words are inspired or are the "word of god."

The main body of the letter told Titus who could be appointed elders and what to teach the various genders and age groups about how to behave, so they wouldn't bring disgrace to the community of believers. These included instructions to slaves but not to masters. There were also instructions on how to handle those who opposed Paul's version of religion. This was basically to rebuke them, then have nothing to do with them if they wouldn't listen.

Up next: Ecclesiastes.

Titus part five

We are at chapter two, verse 11, which reminds Titus that salvation is for all men, and the grace of god teaches them to just say "no" to ungodliness and worldly passions. They are to live "self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age" (first century BCE) while they wait for the "glorious reappearing" of Jesus. Well they wasted their time waiting. He didn't come. When he got there, he was supposed to "redeem them from all wickedness and purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good." Again, it never happened. Those people died without seeing what they were promised.

Verse 13 reminds Titus that he is to be teaching these things to the Cretans, encouraging and rebuking them, with all authority. Where did he get his authority from, Paul? Then Titus is told not to let anyone despise him. How will he stop them?

Chapter 3 begins next but there were no chapter divisions in the original. Plus, the content follows on the heels of Paul telling Titus that he had authority and to not let people despise him. Instead, he is to "remind the people to be subject to rulers and authorities (Titus? Paul? The appointed elders?) to be obedient, to be ready to do what is good, to slander no one (including Titus and Paul, but not including the Judaizers), to be peaceable and considerate, and to show true humility toward all men" (Except those of the circumcision group).

Starting in verse 3, Paul gives an example of humility by reminding Titus that, after all, he and Titus both used to be foolish too, "disobedient, deceived, enslaved by all kinds of passions," living in malice, envy, and hatred. But the kindness and love of Jesus appeared (to Paul in a personal revelation) and saved them, not because of anything they had done, but purely out of mercy.  If Jesus was so merciful, why didn't he appear to everyone in the same way? Instead they must believe that what Paul tells them is the truth, without evidence from their own senses.

The author says  Jesus saved him and Titus by "the washing of rebirth and renewal of the holy spirit whom he poured out generously" on them, through Jesus. The washing of rebirth is usually assumed to mean baptism. Who knows what form their outpouring of the holy spirit took. Now they are justified by grace (yay for grace, that undefinable quantity/quality) and have the hope of an eternal life. Paul wants Titus to stress these things, so that those who trusted in god can devote themselves to doing good, which is profitable for everyone. That's the thing isn't it? Doing good can be profitable for everyone, whether or not there are any gods.

From verse 9, Titus is told how to deal with those Judaizers that Paul despises. Foolish controversies and genealogies (Matthew and Luke have genealogies), and arguments and quarrels about the law, are to be avoided. Titus is to warn a divisive person only twice. After that, he is to have nothing to do with that person. Three strikes they're out. Shunning is next. Notice it doesn't say all the rest of the Cretans are also required to shun that person. However, the humble, considerate, and non-slandering Paul, says that those men are warped and sinful, self-condemned. Uh oh. No eternal life for them.

Titus part four

Verses 15-16 of chapter one seem to imply that those who oppose Paul's message are impure and corrupted. "They claim to know god, but by their actions they deny him. They are detestable, disobedient and unfit for doing anything good." That's Paul's Christian love speaking.

In chapter two, Paul tells Titus to teach according to sound doctrine, which of course, is Paul's doctrine. First Titus is told to teach the older men to be "temperate, worthy of respect (whose?), self-controlled, and sound in faith and endurance." I wonder how older guys liked being told how to live and behave by someone younger?

Verse 3 says, "Likewise teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers, or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good." I wonder how the older women felt about some young male foreigner trying to tell them how to behave and live. I wonder how their husbands felt about it.

Verse four goes on to tell the older women to "train the younger women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of god." This scripture is often drilled into the minds of devout christian women, even today. It's what makes many become stay at home mothers and housewives, even if they are not naturally inclined toward that occupation. Because it is in the bible, it is considered the words of god, but it is actually just the words of Paul or some other writer. The author is clearly concerned about the reputation of the church and seems to feel that young women should behave in a manner that coincides with his ideas of what is appropriate. It is probably consistent with the ideals of that time and culture. No gods needed.

Verse six tells Titus to encourage the young men be self-controlled. Just encourage? Young men are notoriously hard to command and often resistant to those who set themselves up as authorities. Paul tells Titus to lead them by example, not a bad tactic. He is to do what is good, show integrity, seriousness, and soundness of speech. This is again to protect the reputation of Paul 's followers in the eyes of his opposition.

Verse nine tells Titus to "teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them, and not to steal from them, but to show that they can be fully trusted, so that in everything they will make the teaching about our god and savior attractive." Oh, the harm these verses have done! It is inexcusable. Why did Paul not tell christian masters to set an example and free their slaves? Why did he not suggest that free christians help christian slaves buy their freedom if they had nonchristian masters? I'll tell you why. He was not receiving any revelation from an almighty benevolent god. He was speaking from his own experience in culture and time. Plus his goal in these passages is clearly the preservation and boosting of the reputation of his followers, so the opposition would not be able to accuse them of anything unseemly.

The slave was told to obey his master in everything! What if the slave was ordered to have nothing more to do with the Paulites? What if the slave was ordered to slander or sabotage them? The slave was told his obedience would make christianity attractive. Your darn tootin' it would, to slave owners. It sure would give the slave owner leverage to be able to read that passage to his slaves. It might be worth the trouble to become a christian, at least in name, if you could take advantage of Paul's teachings on slavery.