Beliefs about the Afterlife (xx)

"For man goes to his eternal home, 

And the mourners go about the streets." 

(Eccl. 12: 5)

In this chapter we will continue to examine Ecclesiastes chapter nine and the statements therein about the dead knowing nothing, nor having any activity in Sheol. On the surface of Ecclesiastes chapter nine it seems that Solomon did not believe in a conscious existence of spirit in the afterlife and is thus against the bible which teaches it, and against what he elsewhere wrote in Ecclesiastes. 

In the previous chapter we noticed some of the texts in Ecclesiastes that seemed to affirm a conscious spirit existence after death. However, although we cited 11: 9, 12: 1, 6-7, 13-14, we did not cite the above. The spirit or soul of a human, when he or she dies, departs the body and "goes to" a different dwelling place, to an "eternal house." That is what the above text (12: 5) seems clearly to affirm. So, why does Solomon seem to contradict that belief in Chapter nine when he says "the dead know nothing," etc.? 

We mentioned the leading views of the passage in the previous chapter and we are still considering the question as to whether Solomon is stating a truth, or a falsehood. As stated previously, many bible teachers believe that Solomon is giving the common perspective of men who only believe in what they can see and discover by reason and logic and not expressing his own belief. That is my view.

Further, if what he says is said by way of sarcasm, satire, cynicism, or "tongue an cheek" manner of speech, then we can assume that Solomon believed the very opposite of what the words say. 

If he is merely giving propositions for study or debate, which to my view is likely, then we cannot assume that what he said is in fact what Solomon himself believed to be true, or determine which side of each question he will conclude is correct. From what perspective, then, does he speak? Sometimes, I think, he is speaking for pro and sometimes for con, and sometimes speaking as the debate judge (or decider of the case or question), allowing some propositions while dismissing others of the disputants, and then rendering a decision on the question in dispute. 

As an introduction to the perspective of the author, or of "the preacher," let us look at some excellent observations from Enduring Word Bible Commentary (See here - emphasis mine):

"The Book of Ecclesiastes is one of the most unusual and perhaps most difficult to understand books of the Bible. It has a spirit of hopeless despair; it has no praise or peace; it seems to promote questionable conduct. Yet these words of the Preacher show us the futility and foolishness of a life lived without an eternal perspective."

The difficulty with understanding Ecclesiastes is a failure to interpret what is said in context, from failure to see how it often describes what a human thinks when he or she looks at the world around him or her and then tries to "make sense of it." This is the human perspective. There is also the divine perspective seen in Ecclesiastes at times and in contexts for certain words and statements. It is all about what is seen done "under the sun." It does not deal with the things seen in other worldly places, such as heaven, Sheol, or the spiritual (non physical), for they are not "under the sun." Sheol is in the heart of the earth, heaven is beyond the sun. 

There are also times when the narrator gives us his "stream of consciousness," his mental deliberations, the mental weighing of pros and cons, and dialogues between perspectives of various human groups and kinds of individuals. Perhaps, certain sections in Ecclesiastes are mere lists of propositions he has investigated. Perhaps we could call Ecclesiastes "the dialogues of Solomon" (or "the Preacher"). He is chiefly talking to himself, but also to those who hear him tell his story.

Said the same commentary:

i. The question in Ecclesiastes isn’t about the existence of God; the author is no atheist, and God is always there. The question is whether or not God matters. The answer to that question is vitally connected to a responsibility to God that goes beyond this earthly life. 

The question of whether there is an afterlife is behind much of the discussion in Ecclesiastes. However, Solomon does say things that seem to be made outside of the context of God and providence. 

Said the same commentary:

ii. “He does believe in ‘God,’ but, very significantly, he never uses the sacred name ‘Lord.’ He has shaken himself free, or wishes to represent a character who has shaken himself free from Revelation, and is fighting the problem of life, its meaning and worth, without any help from Law, or Prophet, or Psalm.” (Maclaren) 

 

iii. In the search for this answer, the Preacher searched the depths of human experience, including despair. He thoroughly examined the emptiness and futility of life lived without eternity before coming to the conclusion of the necessity of eternity. 

 

iv. “We face the appalling inference that nothing has meaning, nothing matters under the sun. It is then that we can hear, as the good news which it is, that everything matters – ‘for God will bring every deed into judgment, with every secret thing, whether good or evil.’” (Kidner) 

v. “What, then, is the purpose of Ecclesiastes? It is an essay in apologetics. It defends the life of faith in a generous God by pointing to the grimness of the alternative.” (Eaton) 

 

Said the same commentary:

"Vanity of vanities: The Preacher begins his sermon with his first conclusion (though not his ultimate conclusion). Looking at life all around, he judges it to be vanity – nothing, useless, meaningless."

Thus, it seems to me, what Solomon said in Ecclesiastes chapter nine is simply a record of the workings of his mind and a list of the propositions (or questions) he analyzed.

Said the same commentary:

i. We see from the first two verses that Solomon wrote this from a certain perspective, a perspective that through the book he will expose as inadequate and wrong. Most all of Ecclesiastes is written from this perspective, through the eyes of a man who thinks and lives as if God doesn’t matter.

Solomon speaks as pro or con when giving us the ruminations of his mind on each question and thus acts as a moderator of the mental debate and subsequent narrator of the debate. He would consider both affirmative and negative, and things in terms of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. If this is so, then when Solomon says "the dead know nothing" he may be giving us the antithesis or the proposition or question to be debated. 

Said the same commentary:

iii. Therefore Ecclesiastes is filled with what we might call true lies. Given the perspective “God does not matter,” it is true that all is vanity. Since that perspective is wrong, it is not true that all is vanity. Yet Solomon makes us think through this wrong perspective thoroughly through Ecclesiastes.

Say Ray Stedman, who we cited in the previous chapter, said (See here): 

"The word can mean "preacher," but I think it is much better translated as "debater" or "arguer," and as you read this book you will see that it is a series of arguments set forth as man views the world around him."

He is a man examining philosophies of life and records the "back and forth" of his thoughts, and sometimes speaks "as a man," as Paul said - "I speak as a man" (Rom. 3: 5); And, "I speak after the manner of men" (Rom. 6: 19); And, "I speak after the manner of men" (Gal. 3: 15); And, "Say I these things as a man?" (I Cor. 9: 8).

Likewise we say similar things about our speech and the way we phrase things as when we hear people say 1) "to use a common expression" or 2) "in a manner of speaking" or 3) "as people generally say."

Dr. Albert Barnes on Rom. 3: 5 said (Commentary):

"I speak as a man - I speak after the manner of human beings. I speak as appears to be the case to human view; or as would strike the human mind."

In Ecclesiastes Solomon is sometimes speaking in this manner.

Myer's Commentary similarly says:

"Paul remarks parenthetically that he says this according to a human standard (Bernhardy, p. 241), after the fashion of ordinary humanity, quite apart from his own higher standpoint of divine enlightenment, to which the idea expressed in that question would be foreign, and speaking only in accordance with mere human reason."

Solomon writes much in the character of a man of reason, as a humanist, as a secularist, as an existentialist, as a Sophist, or Epicurean, as one who believes that this life is the only thing that matters and that obtaining as much pleasure in life is the highest virtue. Idea of God or gods, the afterlife, or the supernatural, are but slightly considered by such men of the world, for such things give them little pleasure or advantage. 

The Scientific Method or Philosophic Look

"All this I saw, as I applied my mind to everything done under the sun." (Eccl. 8: 9)

Solomon says he studied everything. He was the quintessential scientist and philosopher. As such he made some conclusions and gave us his stream of consciousness on life's most important questions, telling us how he logically came to those conclusions from his observing and contemplating what he could see happening "under the sun." Observation and reasoned analysis of the physical, psychological, and social worlds cannot prove nor disprove that there is life after death, nor the existence of angels and disembodied human spirits, and such things. Reason is insufficient. Wrote the apostle Paul:

"For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened." (Rom. 1: 20-21 nkjv)

So, what did Solomon (or any other man doing as Solomon) conclude about the world around him? He does reason to a belief in the existence of God and his power, wisdom, and rule from observing the cosmos and the behavior of men. He mentions God and things about him throughout Ecclesiastes. Notice these words from chapter one:

"And I set my heart to seek and search out by wisdom concerning all that is done under heaven; this burdensome task God has given to the sons of man, by which they may be exercised." (Eccl. 1: 13)

I think the latter part of this text should be put in parentheses. Keep in mind that in the Hebrew and Greek languages of the bible there is no punctuation. Such punctuation as we use in English are added to the text where it is thought necessary to help properly interpret or translate the text. The punctuation is not inspired and in all translations there are instances where the punctuation is not helpful but hurtful. Consider how a lot of meaning and interpretation occurs for where to put the comma in the words of Christ to the thief on the cross to the right of Christ - "I say unto you today you will be with me in paradise." (Luke 23: 43) Does a comma go anywhere? Most translations put it before "today" while some others put it after it. Every instance of parentheses in the bible is added by the translator and is not in the original writings. In the above text where there is a semicolon we should perhaps change to the beginning of a parenthesis and remove the comma so that it looks like this:

"And I set my heart to seek and search out by wisdom concerning all that is done under heaven (this burdensome task God has given to the sons of man by which they may be exercised)."

He will look at the world and all that "happens under the sun" just as do "scientists" of all branches of science, to gain knowledge of the world and of all events and happenings. And, for what purpose will he investigate the physical world? The world of ideas or of the mind or psyche? So, what is meant by a hunger for or interest in learning about everything being a "burdensome task" or "sore travail" (KJV)? 

Most humans have a hunger or "thirst for knowledge." What does the bible say about that? That Solomon had something to say about it is evident in Ecclesiastes. What did he say about it?

It was a thirst for knowledge that moved Eve to desire the fruit of the forbidden tree, which is called a "tree of knowledge," of both "good and evil." The serpent teased her with a promise of such wisdom and knowledge that would make her a divinity, like God. Such a tempting idea still lives on in the philosophy of "Gnosticism." Scientific knowledge and research about the physical world or world of the mind (or soul or of human behavior), to be profitable and good, must have a proper motive, right means, and right purpose or end in mind. To do it for the reason that motivated Eve would be an instance of "vanity and vexation of spirit," of being meaningless. The apostle Paul had a lot to say about the wrongful pursuit of knowledge, especially in his Corinthian epistles. Knowledge without love, he says, profits nothing. 

Further, Solomon realized that there is no way that anyone can know it all. There are so many branches of science, that even if a man became expert on one, he cannot be expert in all. What advantage is knowledge of the world? Though the means of much good, it has also been the means of much evil. Is it best to spend all one's time learning new facts about the world? Or is amusement better than musement much of the time? Is all that time in study worth it? Notice Solomon's testimony on this:

"When I applied my heart to know wisdom and to see the business that is done on earth, even though one sees no sleep day or night, then I saw all the work of God, that a man cannot find out the work that is done under the sun. For though a man labors to discover it, yet he will not find it; moreover, though a wise man attempts to know it, he will not be able to find it." (8: 16-17)

Even if a man spent every minute of his life studying the world and obtaining knowledge of everything, so much that he neglects sleep and amusement, how is he bettered? Does he not end up saying how he has come to realize that he has only scratched the surface when it comes to knowing all there is to know? 

Notice these observations of Solomon: 

"He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also He has put eternity in their hearts, except that no one can find out the work that God does from beginning to end. I know that nothing is better for them than to rejoice, and to do good in their lives, and also that every man should eat and drink and enjoy the good of all his labor—it is the gift of God. I know that whatever God does, It shall be forever. Nothing can be added to it, And nothing taken from it. God does it, that men should fear before Him. That which is has already been, And what is to be has already been; And God requires an account of what is past." (3: 11-15)

So, in two passages in Ecclesiastes we have Solomon concluding that no one man can "find out," or fully comprehend all things. He also made this conclusion:

"As you do not know the path of the wind, or how the body is formed in a mother’s womb, so you cannot understand the work of God, the Maker of all things." (Eccl, 11: 5 NIV)

There is simply so much to know that no man, no matter how knowledgeable, can comprehend it all. So Solomon says:

"No one can comprehend what goes on under the sun. Despite all their efforts to search it out, no one can discover its meaning. Even if the wise claim they know, they cannot really comprehend it." (vs. 17)

What did Solomon learn by his study of physics and all the sciences? What were his philosophical conclusions from his reasoning upon the observable facts? His "outlook on life"? From what perspective does Solomon write or make his observations? As a man who is relying upon his own intellect and reason upon things he can observe? Or, as a man relying upon God to make sense of it all for him?