Karaite
Registered User
Posts: 2
(9/21/02 7:36 pm)
Reply
|
Argument on Ecclesiastes (Koheleth in Hebrew)
EXPOSITION ON JW VIEW OF ECCLESIASTES
Quote:
Every argument trying to disprove what Solomon said about the dead being unconscious in hell requires a person to believe the Scriptures present erroneous statements as truth. Interestingly, these individuals only claim as falsehood those ideas which disagree with *their* theology. In doing this with Eccl.9:5,10 they actually make God a liar, since in this case Solomon is simply quoting what God himself has said is absolutely true! (Cf. Eccl.3:20, Gen.3:19) Out of every thing Solomon said in Ecclesiastes, the one statement which is confirmed by a direct declaration from God is the statement concerning non-existence after death!
You are partially right, in your first sentence. One must believe that not every statement in Scripture is true. Even though the statements are present in the Scriptures, and are presented as true by the speaker, they are not ultimately accepted as absolute truths; they are in the eyes of the beholder. But what wrong is in this? After all, it is admitted by any thinking student of the Scriptures that there are statements proposed (by the designated speaker) as true, which are not true Scripture wise. An excellent example of this is the book of Job. On one side, we had the friends who proposed that every work done under the sun will reap it’s own fruit, while Job argued differently. Yet, in the end, both sides are wrong. And why is it that they are wrong? The friends were never able to explain how it is that the wicked dies without paying for his wickedness. They argued God judges all men, and that they will all receive the fruits of their work; however, they were unable to show how it is that the wicked, while already dead, can pay for his wickedness.
At the very end of the debates, there comes in a young man named Elihu, and he is the one who responds to Job’s argument. In his discourse, he argues that Job’s reasoning is laughable. (34:5-13, 33-36) The argument made by Job was all a joke. The totality of Elihu’s argument is that, despite the obvious physical things we see, there is much more to it than just this, which we do not understand nor know (ref. 33:13-14, 34:11-13, 21, 37:5, 15, 42:3). Elihu was also disappointed with the older friends who could not answer Job’s argument (ref. 32:3, 35:4, and 42:7). In the end, Job recognizes that he was judging from unreason and that, indeed, he does not know the unseen works of God, but that he must believe by faith (ref. 36:7-11, 42:5).
If we pay close attention to the argument by Job, and to the argument by Koheleth, we will find that they are similar, if not identical. They argue that it is of no use to be wise, because justice is not always served. They argue that there is no real use in being obedient to the commandments, for there is one similar end to all—and, mainly, it is the view that the wicked die without paying for their sins which gives them the greater disappointment in life.
I fail to see the point in your second statement, that only the ideas that are in disagreement with someone’s theology are considered to be false by them. So how does this affect the argument? In fact, the argument is exactly this! That these statements should not be taken to mean God’s truth, but that, while they were inspired by the Spirit, it was only a way for God to show man’s failure in understanding His works. As we read thru the book, we find that Koheleth is continually mentioning the search “for wisdom,” in which he was the one testing the things of the world, to find reason in them. He states that he gave satisfaction to the flesh, he did not withhold anything from himself. Isn’t this what we are forbidden to do; seek worldly knowledge? Wasn’t this the great sin, from the beginning, that A & E sought to become wise, but did not seek it from God? Indeed, Koheleth was seeking to know man’s knowledge, and eventually began looking at things from a different perspective (ref. 7:23-25). He had questions, which he wished to answer from testing the things around him.
In my own opinion, I believe that what Koheleth was arguing, even though it is difficult to draw the lines at some points, was the view of things without the hope in God, and then he turns and gives counsel to the young, that they must remember God, before it is too late. In the end of the discourse, Koheleth states what is it that should truly be considered, putting all other things outside the picture. He states that the all of Man is to serve God, because no matter what we see under the sun, God will judge Man according to his deeds, and it will all be revealed (in the day of Judgment). That, even when we think that there is no punishment for the wicked, nor reward for the good after they are die, that there is indeed something secret we do not know. And by him asking that we disregard things seen, he is asking us to go by faith, for the physical is sustained by the spiritual; the seen is not the all of all, but there is something yet to be revealed to us.
Furthermore, in your last two sentences, you state that the only thing that is proclaimed by God is the one about the dead. Well, you seem to have forgotten the story of Genesis. Let me show you what you have forgotten:
[Genesis 2:17]- “But from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.”
[Genesis 3:4]- “The serpent said to the woman, ‘You surely will not die!’”
[Genesis 3:5]- “For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
[Genesis 3:7]- “Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loin coverings.”
In your argument, you sustain that the death of which God spoke was the physical death. Yet, this rejects your argument, since God stated that they would die as soon as they eat of the fruit, on the same day! (JPS translates “as soon as you eat of it, you shall die.”) This further supports the idea that, indeed, if God was not lying, then Adam and Eve died on that day, despite the fact that their flesh was functioning for another 900 years or so.
So, who was the liar? Was it the serpent, which said that, surely they would not die (on that day), but instead on that day they would become gods? Did the serpent speak truth? Well, it was half-truth. Good enough to trick the first couple; for it was true, that they would gain the knowledge of good and bad, on that day. However, this knowledge was not good, and it was the actual cause of their death (i.e., impurity of the soul) (ref. Eph 2:1). Let us compare what happened in Ch. 3:7, and let us look at what was the previous state:
[Genesis 2:25]- “And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.”
[Genesis 3:11]- “And He said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?”
[Genesis 3:22]- “Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”
Obviously, the Scripture indicate that when they were ashamed of their nakedness, they had already recognized their fault. They saw shame in their selves, which they had not seen before. Even though their body was no different from what it was before they ate of the fruit. Why were they able to see this difference, when their bodies had not changed at all? It was not necessarily a physical matter, but instead it was a spiritual matter. The death of the physical body was not to work against man, but to help him redeem his soul. For, if man’s flesh had lived forever, he could had either lived forever in torment from the beginning, without having a chance of repentance (Jonah 4:8); and he could had seen no need for repentance, since his flesh was, not immortal, but the tree of life would grant him life, for as long as he ate of it. God made a way for us to return to Him (ref. Job 37:7). And ultimately, God would have to send him away into the eternal fire, as He will do with Satan at the end of times.
If Genesis would had been speaking of the flesh, God would had said ‘when you eat of it, I will make some of you die at old age, and some at young, and some will not be born, etc.’, because that is the case with the flesh. Also, if the flesh was the one that was to die, then why is it that we continue to die? Jesus Christ redeemed us; He restored us to God. Why then did the ancient’s, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob die? Did God lie when He promised restoration? Can you answer this question? If we are to return to the dust, then God’s sacrifice was valueless, since it did not accomplish what it promised.
This I have to say. If we are to return to the dust, become dust again; what is it that will be raised in the resurrection? Dust? What will happen to our consciousness? If consciousness ceases to exist at the return to dust, who then will be resurrected on Judgment day? If you say the dust, then that means that we will be a new creation, for that is the way Adam was formed (i.e., No knowledge, wisdom, hate, envy, etc.). If you say our [present] consciousness will be inserted into the dust, then you will be asserting that there is such thing as consciousness after death; or that the soul, which holds our thoughts, is indeed existent. This is indeed a problem with your assertions.
Additionally, what is the reason for raising the dead who are wicked? If they are not going to inherit the earth, then what are they getting up for? Since they are already non-existent, and will only be created to know that they are going to be non-existent (I know, it doesn’t make sense), why create them in the first place? This reminds me of those who wake you up, from your sleep, to ask you, “are you sleeping?” Makes no sense at all.
It is necessary to see all the Scriptures, before you go on making such false claims. You should have taken the advice from Koheleth, ‘do not be quick to speak…in the abundance of words, foolishness is heard.’ (Eccl. 5:3) I say it was foolish to have made such claim, for in making such claim, you have also done what you said Bowman had done, that is to call God to be a liar; blasphemy, I say! Indeed, God’s word to the couple was fulfilled on that same day.
Quote:
In claiming that Solomon was speaking a false hood in order to defend this belief, you invalidate God’s words. You truly have “nullified God’s word” due to your tradition.” (Mat.15:6) Solomon tells us the truth. You can say he considered it at times from a negative point of view, but you cannot say he expressed falsehood.
Since I have refuted the first claim (cf. argument on Genesis), I will only say that Koheleth seems to have, indeed, spoken from the heart. He spoke what he saw, and all he saw was this world, the physical. He questioned about the spiritual (ref. 3:21), or the unseen, but could not give the answer. He even confirms that, although man seeks to know the works of God, he can never truly understand it; not even the wise that claims to have understanding (ref. Eccl 8:17).
Quote:
This view is incorrect. Every statement you cite is absolutely true—if
we “keep in mind the theme of the book”. They are all absolutely true of all human life *apart from Gods* redemption. You improperly enunciate this theme later, but even then you cannot maintain it without equivocation. The only works “under the sun” which Solomon considered “nonsense” are those outside of God’s will and purpose. As Solomon later attests, even “from a human point of view,” works which are done in service to Jehovah are not ultimately “useless.”
You contradict yourself, for it is precisely this fact, —the view is not from God’s view, but from man’s view—that is being argued. You seem to agree, but you simply don’t want to agree on which area it is that this view exists. That is the problem in this argument, and not the argument you want to make others believe; that those who do not believe your way, only believe that the book is uninspired.
The argument has been that Koheleth is not necessarily speaking from God’s position, but from a limited physical view; where even-though light may be shining bright, we can not see it, until God’s wind passes and makes it be seen (Job 37:21). Humans can not see the spiritual world, unless it is in the spirit, which makes it understandable to us (Job 32:8). If you read the book, carefully, you will find that the discussion is presenting differing points, and in the end, the final conclusion is that, despite the view from a physical point of view (where the righteous does not possess the world, nor does the wise have treasures), man must ultimately put his faith in God, that God will have mercy on man, and will reward us for our faithfulness. (This you seem to agree with, which is good.) Koheleth, the same as the friends of Job, was not able to provide solid evidence of how God’s justice works in perfection, where all receive the proper retribution for their works. But he asks of us that, we must trust God to be faithful and just.
In regards to Eccl 3:21, you might want to consider these two references:
[Ephesians 4:9-10]- Now this expression, "He ascended," what does it mean except that He also had descended into the lower parts of the earth? He who descended is Himself also He who ascended far above all the heavens, so that He might fill all things.
[Romans 10:5-8]- For Moses writes that the man who practices the righteousness which is based on law shall live by that righteousness. But the righteousness based on faith speaks as follows: "DO NOT SAY IN YOUR HEART, 'WHO WILL ASCEND INTO HEAVEN ?' (that is, to bring Christ down), or 'WHO WILL DESCEND INTO THE ABYSS ?' (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead)." But what does it say? "THE WORD IS NEAR YOU, in your mouth and in your heart"--that is, the word of faith which we are preaching.
If you are ready for enlightenment, you will find that this is the fulfillment of that which Koheleth spoke of. Koheleth’s question was fulfilled in Jesus’ death [and resurrection,] and ascension. And as you can see, Paul states that the question shows lack of faith. This question is found at the end of one of Koheleth’s assertions about man having the same end as beasts. He states the question at the end, as a challenge for anyone who differs in view, to answer him how else is man greater than beast.
It is also interesting to note the translation JPS gave for 3:18, “So I decided as regards men, to dissociate them [from] divine beings and to face the fact that they are beasts.” (This was stated in contrast to Psalms 8:6, which compares us to the divine beings.) Now, this translation shows a change of view from Koheleth, for it shows an opposite view of man—one where man is not as important to God as he was thought to be. All this is derived from the same question, “who knows if the spirit of man goes up, and that the spirit of beast goes down?” But as Paul makes it clear, the spirit of man goes down and it also goes up. (Don’t know what it says bout the beast, though; I guess they aren’t really as important as us, heh?)
Quote:
Absolutely correct. Ecclesiastes agrees fully with Hebrews and 1Corinthians! But you do not agree with Heb.10:27, since this Scriptures clearly identifies the punishment as an annihilation: “a fire which will *consume* the ungodly.” It is truly amazing that you have to ignore what God explicitly states as the final outcome of sinners, and then appeal to a highly symbolical book to try and support your theology. Even more amazing is that the Scripture you cite as your primary evidence does not say that humans will be “tormented.” Rather, it also clearly states that the fire of the “second death” will *consume* them (20:9). Then it states that “hell” and “death” are thrown into the lake of fire and are rendered non-existent, they are “no more.” (Rev.20:14; 21:4)
How so? I don’t find anything in Koheleth’s writing that suggests a ‘fire that will take them up in whole’ (i.e., consume). Regarding Hebrews 10:27, you are misinterpreting that Scripture. You are also taking it out of context! (Also, the word ‘consume’ does not always, mean that non-existence will result from it; especially when it is regarding Judgment day. (2Peter 3:7) If you read the context, you will find that death was a judgment of the world (i.e., Moses law provided a maximum penalty of death), but God’s judgment is far much severe than just plain death. You have to wonder why God would make an ‘eternal fire,’ when all Judgment day is not going to last eternity—might actually be taken literal, to mean one day. Nevertheless, it has got to be less than eternity, don’t you agree? I mean, if the Judgment day will be for eternity, then what about those who will live for eternity? I would also suggest you read Matt 10:28, 25:41.
In regards to your last statement, that in which you state that death and hades are thrown into the fire, and are rendered “non-existent”, “no more”. Why do you falsify the Scriptures? It is not rendered no more. To the contrary, I would suggest you read what it states about the Devil and the false prophet, in Revelations 20:10:
“And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet [are], and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.”
Quote:
As we have seen, Solomon simply and clearly restates God’s view point. Your claim that he was not giving God’s view is simply an assertion derived from your theology, not from the Scriptures.
I have to say that this theology is correct. And it was indeed derived from Scripture. As I have supported my argument in my previous comments, I know I don’t need to explain more on this.
Quote:
Your conclusion that “what he says may be true...” makes invalid any argument you have here. Solomon was inspired to say what he said. And the absolute truthfulness of what he said about the state of the dead was merely a repeat of exactly what God had already said. The dead return to the dust and there is no consciousness there.
You are wrong again. What he says may be true in someone’s own opinion (i.e., from man’s point of view), you already agreed with this in a previous statement. But it is not absolute truth; God’s truth was revealed in Christ, not in Koheleth’s words. Again, God did not state such thing as that which you claim was stated in Genesis. God stated that dust will return to dust, but this is not the death He referred to when He said that they would surely die. Refer to my argument on Genesis.
Quote:
"There is an evil in all that is done under the sun, that there is one fate for all men. . . . For the living know they will die; but the dead do not know anything, nor have they any longer a reward, for their memory is forgotten. Indeed, their love, their hate, and their zeal have already perished, and they will no longer have a share in all that is done under the sun" (Eccl. 9:3a, 5-6).
You improperly take the reward spoken of here out of context. As you can see it is speaking of their “share” in this life (under the sun), not of any future reward from God. Vs. 6 clarifies this by saying they “no longer have a share in what is done under the sun.” Interpreting it to mean any future reward from God is forcing a meaning on the text that is not there, and denies the unity of Scripture.
I don’t see any sign at all, in Koheleth’s writing, that there is a life after this. This makes your claim erred. For Koheleth was asserting that there is no life after this, therefore, the dead have no more reward, forever. Read it again, you won’t find anything to support your claim.
Quote:
You again misrepresent the inspired word of God. What Solomon was speaking about was being “overly righteous” or “overly wise.” We call this “self-righteousness” and also condemn it. (Mat.6:1, Lk.18:9, Rom.10:2-3;12:3, Pro.3:7)
I am sorry, but I disagree again. Koheleth does not mean those who are righteous in their own eyes, he is talking of wisdom, period. He even refers to his own wisdom as being worthless, for someone his own end will be the same as that of the fool. (Eccl 2:15-16, 20-21)
>[Rob] It is interesting to note that Solomon even seems to acknowledge
the widespread belief in an afterlife...(Eccl. 3:21)<
Quote:
So suddenly you now say Solomon is speaking truth? Of course, Solomon is not talking about an “afterlife,” he is talking of death. He is speaking about the “spirit” of man and beast (breath–RSV). This “spirit” in humans and animals is the exactly same “spirit” (3:19). It is the animating “life-force” from God, not a conscious “spirit” which continues to exist after death. (Gen.2:7; 7:22, Job 27:2-3, Ps.104:29) Ecclesiastes gives us the correct answer: “Then the dust returns to the earth just as it happened to be and the spirit itself returns to the God who gave it.” (Eccl.12:6-7) Now how can the “spirit” of all humans, righteous and wicked, “return” to God, if the wicked live on in torment?
[Romans 8:6] For to be carnally minded [is] death; but to be spiritually minded [is] life and peace. [Ephesians 4:23] And be renewed in the spirit of your mind. [2 Timothy 1:7] For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind. [Job 32:8] "But it is a spirit in man, and the breath of the Almighty gives them understanding.
It seems like there is a connection between spirit and mind, understanding, knowledge, consciousness. For to live by the spirit is to live, but to do it by the flesh is to be dead (for the flesh is perishable).
Quote:
That he (God) abhors and condemns any torment of humans (Jer.7:31)
Funny, how do you conclude that God does not punish, or torment (as you put it) humans for their wickedness? This verse is talking of people who, in worship of other gods, perform religious rituals that God did not require of them (i.e., the offering of children in sacrifice). However, in you using this Scripture as a support for your view, you actually condemn God, for it is clearly stated that the wicked will be consumed in fire, by decree of God.
I believe this should settle the argument. Some comments were repetitions of previous statements, this is the reason why I had them omitted. However, if there is something I omitted, but did not respond to it in another comment, please bring it to my attention, and I will review it again.
Blessings!
Milton
If you are questioning, then that is good. But if you don't have reason to question, then that is unprovoked rebellion.
I like good discussions, why don't you come on over to my message board? ABNA |
Email This To a Friend
Topic Commands
Click to receive email notification of replies 
Click to stop receiving email notification of replies