Session 5 The Problem with Wealth

Background

Qohelet’s various reflections on wealth in this section are tied together by a common purpose, to show that the pursuit of wealth for meaning in life is futile.

5:10–16. Qohelet gives several reasons that pursuing wealth is futile. First, pursuing wealth creates an insatiable appetite for more (v. 10). In addition, greater wealth simply encourages greater expenditures (v. 11). Furthermore wealth increases anxiety and decreases rest (v. 12). Wealth can also encourage self-destructive hoarding (v. 13) while still providing no real security (v. 14). Moreover, wealth is not permanent; no one can take it with him beyond the grave (vv. 15–16).

5:17. Beginning with this verse and running through 6:6, Qohelet presented another reason that wealth is futile: it simply cannot bring happiness or enjoyment. In this verse he sketched a picture of a rich man, whose miserable, embittered existence demonstrated that he was unable to enjoy the wealth he loved.

5:18–20. The contrast in these verses with v. 17 could not be starker. Those who do not focus on life’s many cares but enjoy what they have—whether their labor, life’s simple pleasures, or even wealth—do so by God’s grace and power, as a gift from Him. Qohelet said that living this way is good and fitting.

The sages acknowledged the existence of both poverty and of horrible oppression of the poor. How different is Qoheleth’s apparent indifference to oppression given Israelite Wisdom’s participation in the strong protest against such (e.g., Job). This sympathy with protest was not new with the sages of ancient Israel, and resembles the circumstances depicted in an Egyptian tale titled “The Protests of the Eloquent Peasant.” Note the challenges offered to the steward in the following challenge of the peasant: Now then this peasant came to appeal to him an eighth time, and he said: ‘O Chief Steward, my lord! One may fall a long way because of greed. The covetous man is void of success; any success of his belongs to failure. Though thy heart is covetous, it is not (of avail) for thee. Though thou robbest, it does not profit thee, who should still permit a man to attend to his (own) business. Thy (own) needs are in thy house; thy belly is full; the grain-measure overflows—(but) when it is jostled its surplus is lost on the ground. Takers, robbers, appropriators, magistrates—(and yet) made to punish evil. Magistrates are a refuge for the violent—(and yet) made to punish deceit! . . .’ (ANET, 409) The tale dates from the Middle Kingdom (2040–1782 BC) and relates the events of a peasant’s eventually successful attempt to obtain justice. He had been deceived and robbed by the son of a government official while on his way to the city to purchase food for his family. In the course of the peasant’s nine appeals, either to lesser officials, to the chief steward, or to the pharaoh himself, the peasant sets out clearly his view that government officials had an obligation to do justice. For further reading, see Peter A. Clayton, Chronicle of the Pharaohs (London: Thames & Hudson, 1994); John Gray, “The Book of Job in the Context of Near Eastern Literature,” ZAW 82 (1970): esp. 17-18; and James L. Crenshaw, “Popular Questioning of the Justice of God in Ancient Israel,” ZAW 82 (1970): esp. 393-94.

Ecclesiastes 5:10-12

The sage says that those who love money will not be satisfied. We have encountered related ideas in 1:8 and 4:8. As money multiplies, so do those who help one consume it. The statement calls to mind those flattering, self-seeking, individuals who attach themselves to wealthy people in order to benefit from the extravagant lifestyle. From the perspective of those who have money, the rationale for the saying “it takes money to get money” is not difficult to understand. The more one has, the more one must spend to have it. The wealthy rely on the poor workers in order to obtain more wealth. The concluding thought in v. 12 compares the sleep of the servant with that of the rich. The implication that the servant is also poor is clear through the comparison with a rich person. Readers may recall that the poor are subjected to the oppression described in vv. 8-9. The implied conclusion is that it is better to be poor and have to do physical labor than to be wealthy and worry about how quickly one’s wealth is being consumed by others (cf. Sir 31:1-2).

9(10) A series of reflections on the topic of riches begins at this point. The meaning of v 9a(10a) is clear: the person who is greedy for money will never be satisfied. The more one has, the more one wants. Qoheleth has already anticipated this notion in 1:8 (eyes not satisfied with seeing) and in 4:8 (eyes not satisfied by riches). This is not the same as the frequent warning against the deceitfulness of riches (Prov 11:28; Job 31:24; Ps 49:7). The saying stresses the subjective element, the self-destroying and self-defeating nature of greed. It seems best to understand v 9b(10b) as strictly parallel to v 9a(10a), but see the Notes. E. Podechard prefers to tie this verse with v 10(11) in such a way that the lack of income is caused by those dependents, or others, who will consume it. In any case, there is no moral reproof about insatiable greed in v 10(11); it is an insight into a basic human trait: money will not answer (but see also 10:19).

10(11) Qoheleth now turns to the specific troubles that riches give rise to. They involve the care of several persons dependent on the master. The relation is symbiotic; the master will be dependent upon them also for his riches, since the workers labor for his profit. In addition there is the inevitable attempt on the part of others to partake of these riches (cf. Prov 14:20; 19:4, 6). v 10b(11b) points out that since the actual use of the riches is limited, they are no more than a sop to one’s greed, something merely for the eyes to feast on, without any other profit. Just as wisdom begets trouble (1:18), so also do riches, and the next verse continues this theme.

11(12) Qoheleth contrasts favorably the laborer with the rich insomniac. The concerns occasioned by riches (rather than by a full stomach; see note 11.a.), do not allow one to sleep. It is as if the riches that the eyes contemplated so avidly (v 10b[11b]) now keep them from being closed in sleep. Qoheleth had already pointed out a similar result as stemming from one’s toil (2:23; cf. 5:2[3]; 8:16). The theme appears also in Sir 31:1–2 (an uncertavin text).

12(13) v 12 initiates the discussion of a particular case (ישׁ, “there is”), which extends down to v 16(17). Vv 12–15(13–16) are bound together by the repetition of “grievous evil.” What is this evil? It is not only that riches have to be guarded by a person and thus give trouble (vv 9–11[10–12]), but the loss of these riches (vv 12b–13a[13b–14a], with the repetition of עשׁר, “riches,” and רע, “evil”) is also a possibility. Qoheleth has just described a bad effect of wealth; it allows the possessor no sleep (v 11[12]). His hoarding, his concerned watching over possessions (v 12[13]), is to his own hurt. When the mainstay of his life disappears, the evil is compounded. The wealthy man is suddenly poor, indeed naked (v 14[15]).

Ecclesiastes 5:13-17

In contrast to people who find themselves in situations that, through no fault of their own, cannot be changed, some people bring their lack of enjoyment upon themselves. Such people cannot enjoy what they have. What is imagined in v. 13 is the hoarding of wealth to one’s own hurt. Admittedly, the “grievous ill” or some kind of misfortune, of which v. 14 speaks, is not avoidable and is itself not a result of wealth. However, through unpredictable eventualities hoarded wealth is subject to changes of fate and may be lost, along with all that it affords. With the birth of an heir, an interesting contrast is established with 4:8. In the earlier reflection, the tragedy was excessive toil and no person such as an heir with whom to share it. In 5:14 there is an heir and nothing to pass on. Again, the implication is that overconfidence in one’s wealth simply leads to disappointment, since wealth is subject to what is unpredictable. The overconfidence, however, is something an individual can change. Verse 15 offers a concluding appeal to traditional wisdom. Like Job, who comes from his mother’s womb naked and returns there (Job 1:21; see also Sir 40:1), so is this one, who once had it all and succumbs penniless to his inexorable fate, death. The tragedy is not that he dies poor, but that he invests his entire life in something that is so vulnerable to the cyclical yet ever-unpredictable universe. The final verses in this section (vv. 16-17) offer a general conclusion that reminds readers once again of the overall refrain of the entire book. The explicit language of coming (¡ebbå) and going (y∑l∑k) is reminiscent of the opening poem of the book (1:4, 5, 6) and its motif of inescapable circularity and repetition. There is no gain for any who toil after wind. For those who invest their time and energy in things that cannot endure the test of that yawning chasm of unpredictability, there remains the indignity of possessing only darkness, bewildering pain, and bitterness.

13(14) The loss of riches is further aggravated by the motif of the birth of a son (contrast 2:18–23). A child is born, and the unfortunate man has “nothing to hand” (v 13[14]; note the repetition of מאמה בידו in v 14[15]).

14(15) This verse appears to be a description of the destitution of the rich person in terms of the nakedness of a babe (cf. Job 1:21). In this case the subject of the verbs (בא יֶשׁוב יֶצא) would be the adult; at the end of his life he is as poor as the day he was born, with nothing to show for it all. “Naked” (ערום, which appears only once) dominates the preceding and the following words, and the final “as he came” resumes the initial “as he came forth from the womb of his mother.” One is naked at both birth and death, and the earth is seen to be a mother. The parallelism of womb and earth appears elsewhere: Job 1:21; Ps 139:15; Sir 40:1cd. The theme that “you can’t take it with you” is prominent in Ps 49.

R. Gordis argues that the child is the subject in v 14(15). There may be a deliberate ambiguity in v 14a(15a), but it disappears in v 14b(15b) where the subject must be the adult since “toil” is mentioned.

15(16) This verse repeats the formula of v 12(13) (“grievous evil”) and also the theme of coming and going of v 14(15). There is no profit for all one’s toil (עמל ˓āmāl; cf. also v 14b[15b]).

16(17) Although v 16 is textually uncertain (see the Notes), the general idea concerning the unhappy life of the rich person is clear. The vaunted possessions are now darkness, sickness, and wrath.

17(18) Vv 17–19 (18–20) are reminiscent of the resigned conclusion already drawn in 2:24–26 and 3:12–13, 22. However, in the present context the case of the unfortunate rich person (vv 12–16[13–17]) serves as a contrast with vv 17–19(18–20), in which God enables a person actually to enjoy (ראה טובה, “see good”; cf. 2:1, 24) riches and not to lose them. That this can happen is solely God’s doing.

Qoheleth introduces his conclusion rather solemnly (see the Notes): good and beautiful appear together. In 3:11 God is said to have made everything beautiful in its time; now what is beautiful is the “portion” (הלק hiēleq, 2:10; 3:22) that comes to a person as a divine gift.

Ecclesiastes 5:18-20

The sage has seen good, too. However, readers are unable to forget the pathetic vision of the preceding observation of meaninglessness. The good the sage has seen is only relatively good, but against the background of endless, meaningless repetition, relative good must be embraced. Verse 18 asserts that goodness is in the appropriateness or suitability of all those things that contribute to enjoyment: eating, drinking, and seeing good in one’s work. Readers should recall the sage’s observations in 3:11, where he asserts that God has made all things “suitable” (yåpeh) in their time. The same Hebrew word used there, yåpeh, is translated in v. 18 (NRSV) as “fitting” and denotes the idea of appropriateness. The appropriateness to which the sage refers in v. 18, however, is not something that comes from human designation. Rather, it is God who determines what is appropriate or fitting. Humanity has nothing to do with it. Verse 19 clarifies the point. It is not enough merely to have been given riches and treasure, unless one has been “made master” over all of it. The observations in vv. 13-17 offer readers a stark reminder of the unreliability of riches alone in securing enjoyment. God causes people to be able to enjoy wealth and prosperity by making them masters of it. It is a gift from God to be able to take up one’s lot or inheritance. That “lot” is indeed from God. It represents potential good, but it also has limitations. Enjoying it means one must stay within the boundaries of that lot. The summary statement in v. 20 is provocative. Readers find it challenging to determine the specific referent of being “occupied” as well as understanding the overall implication of the verse. As NRSV translates the phrase, it explains how God gives to some the ability to enjoy their wealth: he simply keeps them occupied (ma>≠neh) with the “joy of their hearts.” That occupation prevents a consciousness of the surrounding evil so that people may enjoy the gifts from God. Does this refer to both people who can and cannot enjoy their lots from God?4 If so, then God’s gift is more like a painkiller, an anesthetic, that prevents the kind of honest look at reality the sage has been describing throughout his own book. The theological implications are even more serious: God is therefore one who is dishonest; religious faith is little more than a drug.

An alternative meaning of ma>≠neh is “answer,” implying that God’s answer to human toil is through the joy that does come to some. Reading ma>≠neh as “answer” has good precedent in the Proverbs (e.g., Prov 15:1, 23; 16:1; 29:19; Job 23:5). What is more, the sentence might not be taken as a description of life, but as an injunction toward a certain response to life: “he should not brood over the days of his life, for God answers through the joy of his heart.” As a climax to the sage’s assertion of good, this verse then functions as an admonition to enjoy life without any hesitation, if indeed the deity has put it in one’s power to do so.

18(19) The key words of v 17(18) (give, portion, toil) are repeated in this affirmation of the divine (although arbitrary) gift.

19(20) The usual explanation of the verse (see note 19.b.) is that the gift of joy keeps a person from thinking much about life and its brevity (cf. v 17[18]). It could be merely an accurate summary of what the divine gift achieves, at least for some people. Obviously this was not true for Qoheleth, whatever his personal “portion” may have been, since he never ceases to think about “the days of his life.” Rather than being a “consoling conclusion” (L. di Fonzo), this verse sounds a sardonic note. The implication can be drawn that the God-given joys ultimately distract humans (rather than satisfy them) from the misery of their short lives that must end in death; they fail to keep their minds on the weighty problems that occupy Qoheleth.

But if one translates by “answer” instead of “occupy” (see note 19.b.), then joy is affirmed as a divine gift (as in Eccl 3:13), and a more benign and positive interpretation is possible (so Lohfink, CBQ 52 [1990] 625–35, but not D. Michel, Eigenart, 190–91). Now humans will not brood (the meaning of זכר in the context?) over the shortness of life, since God “answers” a human being by revealing joy.