Ecclesiastes 7:1f … The Covenant Man & Wisdom

By the means of a series of contrasts the Preacher makes clear in Ecclesiastes 7:1f that there is a better and worse way and that God’s people should choose the better way. At the same time the Preacher says some things here that seem counter-intuitive. We will examine those as we proceed.

Ecclesiastes 7:1

A good name is better than precious ointment,
and the day of death than the day of birth.

Proverbs

22:1 A good name is to be chosen rather than great riches,
and favor is better than silver or gold.

Of course our first concern is that our name should be good before God. His assessment is the only assessment that counts. Immediately we are mindful that the only way we can have a good name before God is by having our name hid in Christ. Our names will never have any value or be considered “good” in any sense if our names are not breathed out as a echo of His name for us, and in our place.

So our first concern is to have a good name before God and that can only be the case as we are anchored and resting in Christ. However, taking that as a given it is still important to have a good name among men.

And yet we must hear that counsel for a good name in light of what our Lord Christ said,

Luke 6:26

“Woe to you when all men speak well of you, for their fathers used to treat the false prophets in the same way.”

From this we could say that to have all men speak well of us would be to have a bad name before God.

Our seeking to keep a good name must be vertically oriented and anchored in God’s revealed Word. Which is to say that we can not adjudicate what a “good name” is by those who are outside the covenant and by those who hate Christ.

There are those who so concentrate on the cash and carry value of their name that they will compromise truth at every turn in order to advance their name and be seen as a fine fellow. They will seldom risk their reputation for Christ with the precise purpose of making sure that they keep their “good” name.

The word “good” here therefore must have a transcendent standard. A “good” name must be counted “good” as God counts “good.”

As Christians we desire then to have a “good” name

1.) First before God
2.) Second before His Saints
3.) Third before those outside the covenant community

The first two should be our priority and the third one as we can, knowing that if they hated Christ that they will hate us as well.

John 15:18

“If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you.”

So, while a good name is to be valued it must not be wrongly valued.

On this score we would also note that because of the importance of a good name it is proper, when possible, to challenge those who rake our reputation and good name. Many times, I have found it is not possible to do so, but when it is possible we ought to undertake to defend our name, not out of Pride, so much as out of defense of God’s truth. Just so, it ought to be doubly incumbent upon us to protect the names of the saints, dead or living, from false calumny and needless denigration. When we protect the names of God’s people from being dragged through the mud we are at that point defending God’s Church. Such a defense ought to inspire us. To often we don’t want to “get involved,” but if the matter is clear and the good name of a saint is on the line we must involve ourself for the sake of God’s honor and the honor of our brother or sister.

Pray for a good name, and live in such a way that your name will be good as God counts good, despite what men may or may not say of you.

The Teacher then says that the day of death is better than the day of birth and with that he begins a treatment on issues surrounding death. At first blush this sounds like one of those counter-intuitive statements.

Why might it be the case that the day of death is better than the day of one’s birth? (cmp. vs. 8)

Well, if we were to read this passage through the lens of Redemption we would say that such a thing is true because in our day of death, unlike our day of birth, we hear the “Well done thou good and faithful servant.” In the day of death we know that to be absent from the Body is to be present with the Lord. In the day of death we know that to die is gain in the words of St. Paul. We know that the end aimed at from the day of our birth has been answered, while at the day of our birth the end is uncertain. So, I think in that sense the day of death is better than the day of one’s birth.

Vs. 2 we find the second contrast of “Better this … than that.”

I believe what is said from this point on through the next few verses is especially pointed at the fool. Between vs. 4-9 the “fool” is mentioned 4 times. In Scripture “the Fool” is the one who lives life apart from an apprehension of the reality of God.

If we read vs. 2 in light of vs. 4 we might conclude that if is the fool that is being spoken of. It is better for a fool to go into the house of Mourning than go to the house of feasting.

The thrust here is fairly obvious. When men are frivolous and full of drink and partying their end is seldom before them. Ashes to ashes …. dust to dust.

However when men are in the house of mourning they sober up and hopefully begin to consider their own end.

There is nothing like a funeral to possibly catch people’s attention. Scripture elsewhere says God’s people take the end to heart.

Psalm 90:12 So teach us to number our days
that we may get a heart of wisdom.

There seems to be a correlation then in God’s Word between an understanding of our own mortality and end and the gaining of wisdom. The fool … the party girl … the carefree who spend all their time in the house of feasting never become a wise people.

In vs. 3 the contrasts continues. Sorrow is said to be better than laughter and by a sad countenance the heart is made better.

That the Teacher isn’t intending that the house of mourning should be our constant residence and occupation can be seen by what he says elsewhere in this book,

2:24f, 5:18f, 11:9-10

Because of this other counsel in this same book, I believe that the Preacher is especially talking to the fool. The fool, has especial need to occupy the house of the dead and consider his end. The fool, who knows only the escape of merriment has need to learn that sorrow is better than laughter.

We must say here that the West, including our country, and too often the Church, lives in the house of the feasting fools. We have taken the fools approach by thinking we can live in defiance of God’s reality and keep up our fiat life of mirth and merriment without taking God into account. The Church in the West needs to hear these words ringing from pulpits all across our land because we have become the fools to which the Teacher spoke to in Ecclesiastes. We have not learned the Wisdom of knowing our end. We have refused the sad countenance that could have, by God’s grace, made us wise.

In vs. 5-6 we hear another wisdom contrast, still in the context of fools and wise men.

The setting for the fool here is still the house of mindless mirth and merriment given the fact that we hear mentioned the “song of fools” and the “laughter of the fool.”

The rebuke of the wise is brought forth as being superior to the song of fools. It is far easier to be comforted by silly songs then to be corrected by the wise. Far easier to absorb the pleasures of Top 40 radio (the very definition of the song of fools) than to listen to a lecture or read a book from the wise that forces us to look at ourselves in a mirror that doesn’t reflect well upon us.

Here it is brought to mind the idea of short term vs. long term benefit. In the short term it is more comforting for us to play the fool and avoid the rebuke of the wise. But in the long term it is the rebuke of the wise that makes for our own wisdom and in the long term the song and laughter of the fool is to our harm.

vs. 7 I read as a reflection by the Teacher of living in an age that is characterized by the fool.

Such an age of oppression destroys a wise man’s reason. The threat of destruction is found in the Wise man’s ability to see the folly of his age and to be able to do little about it except lament. The threat of destruction of a wise man’s reason is present because of the temptation of the wise man to embrace cynicism about everything and so be of no aid to those few who desire to escape the age of oppression and be wise themselves.

The Teacher offers that oppression and bribe are common experiences that threaten to destabilize an otherwise good spiritual condition (cmp. 4:1-3)

There is another matter besides oppression that can bite the wise and that is the bribe.

Prov. 17:23 The wicked accepts a bribe in secret
to pervert the ways of justice.

Here the danger is that the wise will give up God’s law word that requires even justice in order to be blind to justice to give favor to the one who is offering the bribe. We are to entrust ourselves to God and to do justice and to not be swayed by the bribe from the wicked. Certainly, it is easier, when living in an age of fools, to take the bribe thinking, “what does it matter anyway? I am surrounded by injustice and fools. What matters it if I profit as well when it won’t matter anyway if I decide what if right by God’s standard.” This is why a bribe can destroy a man’s heart.

We might say here, if we want to connect some earlier matters to this, that the bribe here might be other than money. The bribe could be a good reputation. People could come to the righteous and say … “If you speak this way … or vote this way … your reputation will be ruined.”

In such a case then, he bribe is the promise of a polished reputation for turning a blind eye to wickedness or to becoming mute in the face of injustice.

Whether it is oppression, or whether it is the matter of the bribe we are called to entrust ourselves to God and turn from these wicked temptations.

In vs. 8 we come to another “better” contrast

7:8a I think corresponds to 7:1b. The end is better than the beginning, like the day of death better than the day of birth because at the end one knows if one arrived at what one aimed at.

In 8b – 9 the teacher turns to the dangers of being quick to anger and again juxtaposes the wise man with the fool.

The advice he gives is consistent with what we find elsewhere in Scripture,

James 1:19 Know this, my beloved brothers: let every person be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger; for the anger of man does not produce the righteousness of God.

And again in

Ephesians 4:26 “In your anger do not sin”: Do not let the sun go down while you are still angry,”

If we connect these warnings against anger with what has gone before we might observe that anger can arise in the wise when living in the age of folly, and if unquenched the anger can lead to the fools folly.

We are called by the teacher to be patient in spirit. This patience is consistent with the fruit of the Spirit in Galatians which teaches that Christians are characterized by patience. By contrasting the patient spirit with the proud spirit what seems to be implied is that the patient spirit is a humble spirit.

Vs. 10 moves the wise towards a particular mindset regarding the times God has give us.

What has been described in Ecclesiastes is an especial age of folly. The temptation is to hearken for “the good old days.” The Teacher says that such an approach is not a wise inquiry.

God’s people are to be future oriented. Even in days of decline. We are to look forward to God’s future that He has for us and not to stuck in some imagined or real past.

Conclusion

Now, this pointed and practical wisdom having been given we would note again that it is impossible for anyone outside of Christ to take up this Wisdom. If it is our goal to be a Wise people we must look to Christ whom Scripture teaches is our “Wisdom from God.”

Also, we must realize that the learning and conforming of this kind of Wisdom is at the same time a matter of being conformed to Christ. Only as we walk in sanctification can we hope to increase in wisdom and knowledge. Scripture teaches that in Christ alone is hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. So, if we would be wise and heed the Teacher we must look to Christ alone and then be conformed to Christ who was the incarnation of God’s Law and Grace.

Beale & McAtee on the unity of Scripture

Matthew 21:41 They said to Him, “He will destroy those wicked men miserably, and lease his vineyard to other vinedressers who will render to him the fruits in their seasons.”

41 Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures:

‘The stone which the builders rejected
Has become the chief cornerstone.
This was the Lord’s doing,
And it is marvelous in our eyes’?[j]

43 “Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it. 44 And whoever falls on this stone will be broken; but on whomever it falls, it will grind him to powder.”

Some commentators have rightly noticed that this second statement about a stone also has an OT background, this time from Daniel 2:34-35: “A stone was cut out without hands, and it struck the statue … and crushed [it],” and it “became like chaff from the summer threshing floors; and the wind carried them away.” The statue in Daniel represented the evil world empires that oppress God’s people, and the stone symbolized God’s Kingdom of Israel that would destroy and judge these unbelieving Kingdoms. Now, unbelieving Israel as become identified with pagan Kingdoms and is portrayed as being judged along with them by also being ‘broken to pieces’ and ‘scattered like dust.’

Thus Jesus sees Israel as becoming indistinguishable from the ungodly nations and accordingly judged in the very same way. That is, Israel as a nation will no longer exist as God’s true covenant people, just as the pagan nations to be judged at the eschaton will no loner exist. Remember also that the ‘stone’ of Daniel, after smashing the colossus, representing the evil kingdoms, ‘became a great mountain and filled the whole earth.’ Jesus identifies himself with Daniel’s stone that smashes the ungodly nations, which also includes here Israel, which is seen as being allied with these nations. That an aspect of the new form of the kingdom in this passage is the temple, centered in both Jesus and a new ‘people producing fruit,’ is further indicated by the fact that the parable of the vineyard in Is. 57, to which Jesus alludes in the directly preceding context, was interpreted by early Judaism to represent Israel’s temple.

That Jesus identifies himself with the cornerstone of the new temple is pointed to further by how in Dan. 2 the stone that struck the statue and then ‘filled the earth’ represented the foundation stone of the temple. That foundation stone grew and grew until it expanded to cover the entire the earth. A further indication that Israel identified itself with the nations instead of God’s true Israel, Jesus, is seen in Pilate’s question to the Jews, ‘Shall I crucify your King?’ to which the chief priests responded, ‘We have no King but Caesar’ [John 19:15]. This develops the earlier statement by the Jewish crowd addressing Pilate, ‘if you release this man [Jesus], you are no friend of Caesar’ (John 19:12). In the parallel in Mt. 27:25 the Jews responded to Caesar saying, ‘ His blood be on us and our children,’ another radical expression of disassociating themselves from Jesus as the center of the newly emerging Israel, kingdom, and temple.

G. K. Beale
A New Testament Theology — 682

How can Beale remain amillennial and write material like this? Like Vos before him, Beale recognizes the “now, not yet” hermeneutic and constantly properly refers to the distinction between the Kingdom inaugurated and the Kingdom consummated. Yet, for Beale, again, like Vos before him always tends to front load the “not yet” in his hermeneutic over the “now.” I think this amillennial front loading of the “now” over the “not yet” is a Redemptive historical mistake. It was in the Old Testament where we find the front loading of the “not yet” over the “now,” in the coming of the Kingdom. However, with the coming of Christ who Himself is the Kingdom, the Redemptive-Historical anticipation has been realized so that with the new and better covenant the “now” of the “already, now, not-yet” Redemptive-Historical hermeneutic is front-loaded so that we anticipate that the inaugurated Kingdom that came with Christ goes from nowness unto nowness. This is the hermeneutical basis for postmillennialism. The front loading of the “not yet” has passed with the coming of Christ and with Christ’s victory we read the Scripture with the “now,” not consummated but indeed front loaded.

Also note that geo-political Israel is of no eschatological import to God as it has been overthrown, never to rise again. Geo-political Israel has absolutely zero claims to God’s promises of the OT. God has crushed Israel, divorced Israel, and served Israel divorce papers in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Indeed, I might go so far as to say that those who see Israel as remaining God’s chosen people, are trying to reverse God’s judgment and so are enemies of God and His people.

R2K & The Cultural Mandate

In R2K theology there is a severing between the work of Christ as the one who fulfilled the failed work of the 1st Adam and the work of God’s people who walk in terms of the 2nd Adam’s victory. For R2K theology, Christ filled Adam’s cultural mandate and therefore the mandate to have dominion and to be fruitful and multiply no longer applies to God’s people and it is positively error (sin) for God’s people to act as if the cultural mandate is still in force. R2K spiritualizes the cultural mandate and insists it is filled in Christ who took dominion in His Redemptive work and who is fruitful and multiplying as the Church grows through the ages. For R2K being fruitful and multiplying in relation to the Cultural Mandate happens only when people are converted by the Gospel Message.

Now, we can quite agree that there is truth in the idea that when people are converted the cultural mandate is being fulfilled. However, all because there is a Spiritual component to fulfillment doesn’t mean that there does not remain a corporeal fulfillment of the cultural mandate. To suggest that believers need not be concerned with taking Dominion since Christ has taken Dominion is to create a vacuum in the temporal realm that becomes filled by other Christ hating religions who will take Dominion in the names of their respective gods. To refuse to enter into the cultural mandate work of Dominion as faithful stewards unto Christ is to spiritualize the Crown Rights of King Jesus to the point that He is King in absentia, King in name only, and a King who rules in name only.

All of this is, as I said earlier, to sever the work of Christ from the work of God’s people. It is because Christ fulfilled the cultural mandate that we seek to walk in terms of that fulfillment. Christ’s Kingdom is an inaugurated Kingdom where His inaugurated corporeal Dominion is exercised concretely via the obedience of His people as given by the poured out Holy Spirit. To suggest that God’s people need not take dominion in the public square, as faithful stewards unto Christ, is to so Spiritualize Biblical Christianity as to make it effete and as a salt that has lost its savor.

Also, such a theology guarantees defeat in space and time history. Such a defeat is necessary to R2K militant amillennial theology. Amillennial theology insists that at the end of History the Church has been defeated by God’s foes. R2K theology guarantees that will happen as they argue for a theology of withdrawal, retreat, and defeat in the public square. The only problem here is that Christ isn’t going to return upon the space and time diminution of the Church as created by R2K disobedience. As such it is conceivable that R2K could successfully deliberately create the climate for the Church’s decline as it surrenders the public square to the enemies of God who take dominion in the names of their Gods. Yet, even if R2K is successful in this surrender maneuver they will be sorely disappointed when their expected eschatology doesn’t find Jesus sweeping in on the clouds to rescue them from the disaster they have created by their retreat-ism.

Progressivism and Chaos

As the Progressive is a hater of the God of the Bible, he, by necessity, constantly advocates a return to chaos as the means of societal regeneration. If there is no God to introduce His legislated order then all that is left is chaos as a means to achieve order. The belief of epistemologically self conscious leftists is that from chaos order comes, and so in order to pursue a golden age what is required is chaos and destruction.

All of this explains the pursuit of economic chaos with all the bailouts and stimulus programs. We must destroy the country economically so that a brighter economic future might be born. This explains the attempt at marriage chaos with the sanctioning sodomite marriage. This explains the attempt to overturn the 2nd amendment since weapons in the hands of the citizenry frustrate the revolutionists pursuit of order by means of chaos.

The progressive (Revolutionists) are committed to chaos at every turn and this is so because they are at war with a God who is a God of order. When they can introduce chaos into the temporal realm, it is an attempt to overturn the eternal realm.

For the Marxist progressive Revolutionists out of chaos order comes. For the Biblical Christian, the God of the Bible brings order out of chaos. Because of this antithesis the Progressive must destroy the Christian and the Christian must frustrate the progressive at every turn.

Satan came to kill, steal and destroy and the Progressive does his Lord’s work when he seeks to return to chaos.

Two Major Faults Of The US Constitution

“To return then, to the American Constitutional Order and System itself, we recognize that its two components had a touching point. Both the proponents of Locke’s natural rights thesis and those who perpetuated that which remained of the holy commonwealth idea believed that government should be limited in power. That was their point of agreement.

Dr. Glenn R. Martin
By far the greatest scholar ever to teach at Indiana Wesleyan University

Martin’s point of course was that the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution were dualistic documents that could be interpreted either through the lens of Enlightenment Rationalism or through the lens of Biblical Christianity, depending on one’s beginning presuppositions.

Of course the failures in the US Constitution, from a Biblical perspective, was the failure to explicitly recognized Jesus Christ as the Sovereign of the Nation and the failure to require a explicitly Christian religious oath. On the failure of the Oath part it can be argued that since the founders viewed the office holding of Federal officers to be likely drawn from those who were previously holders of political office at the State level there would be no necessity to require a religious oath since the charters and constitutions at the Colonial level were explicitly Christian in so many cases, and did require oaths or professions of Christianity.

A brief overview quickly makes the point,

The New Jersey Constitution of 1776 restricted public office to all but Protestants by its religious test/oath.

The Delaware Constitution of 1776 demanded an acceptance of the Trinity by its religious test/oath.

The Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776 had a similar test/oath.

The Maryland Constitution of 1776 had such a test/oath.

The North Carolina Constitution of 1776 had a test/oath that restricted all but Protestants from public office.

The Georgia Constitution of 1777 used an oath/test to screen out all but Protestants.

The Vermont state charter/constitution of 1777 echoed the Pennsylvania Constitution regarding a test/oath.

The South Carolina Constitution of 1778 had such a test/oath allowing only Protestants to hold office.

The Massachusetts Constitution of 1780 and New Hampshire Constitution of 1784 restricted such office holders to Protestants.

Only Virginia and New York did not have such religious tests/oaths during this time period

Still, the fact that the US Constitution did not include something similar to what we find above makes it a derelict document and the absence of a Christian oath and the acknowledgement of the Lordship of Jesus Christ is one reason that explains the evaporation of our undoubted catholic Christian faith in this country and the corresponding rise of malevolent faiths and behaviors in this nation.

As to why we have surrendered the joint conviction with the Rationalists of the idea of limited government this can be explained by the simple fact that if man will not bow to the God of the Bible and His Christ, who alone has unlimited government, then man will seek to vest unlimited government somewhere else; most usually the State. Americans have abandoned God and in abandoning God they have abandoned His design for Biblical limited Government and the result is Statist Tyranny.

Only repentance and a owning of our sin of rebellion against God can return us to God’s favor and provide solution for Statist tyranny. Men who are in bondage to sin, can never build social orders characterized by liberty.