AUTONOMY AND STAGNATION

AN ECONOMIC COMMENTARY ON ECCLESIASTES

 Other Books by Gary North

An Economic Commentary on the Bible, 31 vols. (1982–2012)

Marx’s Religion of Revolution (1968, 1989)
An Introduction to Christian Economics (1973)
Puritan Economic Experiments (1974, 1988)
None Dare Call It Witchcraft (1976)
Unconditional Surrender (1980, 2010)
Successful Investing in an Age of Envy (1981)
Government by Emergency (1983)
Backward, Christian Soldiers? (1984)
75 Bible Questions Your Instructors Pray You Won’t Ask (1984)
Coined Freedom (1984)
Conspiracy: A Biblical View (1986)
Honest Money (1986)
Unholy Spirits (1986, 1994)
Dominion and Common Grace (1987)
Inherit the Earth (1987)
Liberating Planet Earth (1987)
Healer of the Nations (1987)
The Pirate Economy (1987)
Is the World Running Down? (1988)
When Justice Is Aborted (1989)
Political Polytheism (1989)
Judeo-Christian Tradition (1990)
The Hoax of Higher Criticism (1990)
Victim’s Rights (1990)
Millennialism and Social Theory (1990)
Westminster’s Confession (1991)
Christian Reconstruction (1991), with Gary DeMar
The Coase Theorem (1992)
Salvation Through Inflation (1993)
Rapture Fever (1993)
Tithing and the Church (1994)
Baptized Patriarchalism (1995)
Crossed Fingers (1996)
The Covenantal Tithe (2011)
Mises on Money (2012)
 AUTONOMY AND
STAGNATION
AN ECONOMIC COMMENTARY ON
ECCLESIASTES

GARY NORTH
Autonomy and Stagnation: An Economic Commentary on
Ecclesiastes

Copyright © Gary North, 2012

First Edition
Published by:
Point Five Press
P.O. Box 2778
Dallas, GA 30132
All rights reserved. Written permission must be secured from the
publisher to use or reproduce any part of this book, except for brief
quotations in critical reviews or articles.
Printed in the United States of America.
 This book is dedicated to
Herbert Schlossberg
Whose Idols for Destruction set
the standard for social analysis
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1. Cyclical History vs. Progress (Eccl. 1:2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2. Imputation and Value (Eccl. 2:11) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3. The Sovereignty of Death (Eccl. 2:15–17) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4. Uncertain Inheritance (Eccl. 2:18–21) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5. Transition to Biblical Covenantalism (Eccl. 2:22–24) . . . . . 27
6. Predictable Ethical Sanctions (Eccl. 2:26) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
7. Godly Time and Beastly Time (Eccl. 3:1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
8. The Joy of Consuming (Eccl. 3:10–11) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
9. Oppression and the Oppressed (Eccl. 4:1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
10. Envy Undermines Success (Eccl. 4:4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
11. Sloth and Starvation (Eccl. 4:5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
12. Peace and Quiet (Eccl. 4:6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
13. Mindless Accumulation (Eccl. 4:8) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
14. The Division of Labor (Eccl. 4:9–12) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
15. Wisdom and Social Mobility (Eccl. 4:13–14) . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
16. Vows and Promises (Eccl. 5:4–5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
17. Delayed Sanctions (Eccl. 5:8) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
18. Purposeful Nature (Eccl. 5:9) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
19. Insatiable Discontent (Eccl. 5:10–16) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
20. In Praise of Consumption (Eccl. 5:18–20) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
21. When a Stranger Inherits (Eccl. 6:1–2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
22. Autonomy vs. Economic Growth (Eccl. 6:7–12) . . . . . . . . . 94
23. Autonomy and Sorrow (Eccl. 7:1–4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
24. Oppression and Bribery (Eccl. 7:7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
25. Faith in Progress (Eccl. 7:8–10) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
26. Wisdom and Kingdom (Eccl. 7:11–12) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
27. Lukewarm Ethics (Eccl. 7:15–17) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
28. Constant Improvement (Eccl. 7:29) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
29. The Uncertainty of Timing (Eccl. 8:6–7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
30. Time Runs Out (Eccl. 8:10–13) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
31. Eat, Drink, and Be Merry (Eccl. 8:14–15) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
vii
viii AUTONOMY AND STAGNATION
32. Ignorance is Not Bliss (Eccl. 8:16–17) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
33. Dead Lions and Economic Stagnation (Eccl. 9:2–4) . . . . . . 138
34. With All Your Strength (Eccl. 9:7–10) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
35. The Secondary Sovereignty of Chance (Eccl. 9:10–11) . . . . 147
36. Money and Power Religion (Eccl. 9:14–16) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
37. Hierarchy and Judgment (Eccl. 10:5–7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
38. Justifying Paralysis (Eccl. 10:8–9) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
39. Wasted Efforts (Eccl. 10:15) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
40. The Costs of Sloth (Eccl. 10:18) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
41. Money: The Most Marketable Commodity (Eccl. 10:19) . . 169
42. Charity Pays Dividends (Eccl. 11:1–2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
43. Inputs and Output (Eccl. 11:3–6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
44. The Vanity of Death (Eccl. 12:5–8) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
45. The Answer is Theonomy (Eccl. 12:13–14) . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
 INTRODUCTION
The Book of Ecclesiastes is a series of pithy observations on the
human condition. No other book in the Bible, and surely no other
book in ancient literature, matches it for the profoundness of its in-
sights in so short a document.
The main theme of the book is the hopelessness of the philosophy
of autonomy. The key word is vanity. The book conveys this theme by
means of two connected sub-themes: inheritance 1 and death.2

A. A Major Problem
There is a major problem with this book. It offers profound in-
sights that are inconsistent with each other. Some of them are scream-
ingly, defiantly inconsistent. Let me provide three examples.
On the benefits of labor:
Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity.
What profit hath a man of all his labour which he taketh under the
sun? (Eccl. 1:2–3).

Behold that which I have seen: it is good and comely for one to eat
and to drink, and to enjoy the good of all his labour that he taketh
under the sun all the days of his life, which God giveth him: for it is
his portion (Eccl. 5:18).

On the superiority of wisdom:

Then said I in my heart, As it happeneth to the fool, so it happeneth
even to me; and why was I then more wise? Then I said in my heart,
that this also is vanity. For there is no remembrance of the wise more
than of the fool for ever; seeing that which now is in the days to come
shall all be forgotten. And how dieth the wise man? as the fool.
Therefore I hated life; because the work that is wrought under the
sun is grievous unto me: for all is vanity and vexation of spirit (Eccl.
2:15–17).
1. Chapters 2, 3, 4, 8, 13, 16, 21, 23, 25, 26, 30, 34, 45.
2. Chapters 2, 3, 4, 7, 21, 22, 23, 25, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 39, 44, 45.
1
2 AUTONOMY AND STAGNATION
Wisdom strengtheneth the wise more than ten mighty men which
are in the city (Eccl. 7:19).

On the benefits of riches:

There is an evil which I have seen under the sun, and it is common
among men: A man to whom God hath given riches, wealth, and
honour, so that he wanteth nothing for his soul of all that he de-
sireth, yet God giveth him not power to eat thereof, but a stranger
eateth it: this is vanity, and it is an evil disease (Eccl. 6:1–2).

Every man also to whom God hath given riches and wealth, and hath
given him power to eat thereof, and to take his portion, and to rejoice
in his labour; this is the gift of God (Eccl. 5:19).

Well, which is it? In each case, which is it? This trio of conflicting
observations cannot all be correct. We must pick and choose. On what
basis? By what standard?
Why must we pick and choose? Why not say this? “You have heard
it said. . . . But I say unto you.” Jesus did. The Preacher didn’t. 3

B. Goads and Goading

As you read the Book of Ecclesiastes, keep these words in mind:
“The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails fastened by the mas-
ters of assemblies, which are given from one shepherd” (Eccl. 12:11).
Obscure, aren’t they? These words appear almost at the end of the
book. Two verses later, the book concludes with these words:
Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep
his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. For God shall
bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it
be good, or whether it be evil (Eccl. 12:13–14).4

These words are not obscure. They are specific, explicit, and alto-
gether humbling to the reader.
What are goads? There is only one other reference in the Bible to
goads. “Yet they had a file for the mattocks, and for the coulters, and
for the forks, and for the axes, and to sharpen the goads” (I Sam.
13:21). This, too, is obscure. There is a reference to an ox goad in
Judges, but the Hebrew word is different. “And after him was Shamgar

3. “Preacher” is an English identification of the Hebrew word, Qoheleth. It has no

literal translation.
4. Chapter 45.
 Introduction 3
the son of Anath, which slew of the Philistines six hundred men with
an ox goad: and he also delivered Israel (Jud. 3:31). The article on
“goad” in The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (1915) says
this:
The goad used by the Syrian farmer is usually a straight branch of
oak or other strong wood from which the bark has been stripped,
and which has at one end a pointed spike and at the other a flat
chisel-shaped iron. The pointed end is to prod the oxen while plow-
ing. The flattened iron at the other end is to scrape off the earth
which clogs the plowshare. The ancient goad was probably similar to
this instrument. It could do villainous work in the hands of an exper-
ienced fighter (Judges 3:31).

So, we are not really sure what the goad of Ecclesiastes was. We do
know how the word was used. It was a metaphor. It was a metaphor
based on a device that may have been used as a cattle prod and also as
a tool to scrape dirt off a plow in order to make the plow more effi-
cient. If this was the goad that the Preacher had in mind, then it was
tool for getting things moving forward.

C. Rival Covenantal Outlooks

The Preacher presents a series of observations and conclusions in
this book. His arguments are brief and graphic. But exactly what is he
getting at with his book? This question is at the heart of the expositor’s
problem. This is his challenge.
I have come to a conclusion. The Book of Ecclesiastes is directed
against the philosophy of human autonomy. Its observations regarding
the futility of life—life’s all-encompassing vanity—are inescapable
conclusions of the logic of human autonomy.
The Preacher also offers counter-observations. These observations
are consistent with man’s complete subordination to the law of God:
theonomy (Eccl. 12:13–14). There is nothing more for him to say, and
so he does not say it. (This is a very good rule for authors in every era.)
The supreme task of an expositor of the Book of Ecclesiastes is to
identify the category of each of the observations and conclusions.
There are two categories. One category is autonomy: man’s self-law.
The other category is theonomy: the law of God. The first category
proclaims man’s independence from God. The second category pro-
claims man’s dependence on God.
4 AUTONOMY AND STAGNATION
Each view is marked by a covenant. All outlooks are. The biblical
covenant establishes the framework for every covenant. This model is
as follows: (1) sovereignty, (2) authority, (3) law, (4) judgment, and (5)
progress.5 The biblical covenant proclaims the following.
Sovereignty. God alone is sovereign. He is the source of meaning in
eternity and also in history.

Authority. The special revelation of God in history is authoritative.

It represents God.

Law. God has revealed his law in the Bible.

Judgment. God imputes meaning to all things: what is worthwhile

and what is not.

Progress. History is both linear and progressive. God grants inherit-

ance to His people in history.

In contrast is the covenant of self-proclaimed autonomous man, as

described by the Preacher.
Sovereignty. Death is sovereign. It consumes all things.

Authority. The mind of each man is authoritative for himself, but

only for as long as he lives.

Law. All law is subject to flux.

Judgment. Men proclaim judgment, but death triumphs over life.

Death imputes no meaning.

Cycles. History is cyclical. Progress is an illusion.

The Preacher highlights what he believes are the fundamental di-

viding lines between autonomy and theonomy. The main one is death
as the final judge vs. God as the final judge. Death is impersonal. God
is personal. Death does not impute meaning to the world. God does.
Death does not distinguish performance in terms of ethical standards.
God does.

5. Ray R. Sutton, That You May Prosper: Dominion By Covenant, 2nd ed. (Tyler,
Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, [1987] 1992). (http://bit.ly/rstymp) Gary
North, Unconditional Surrender: God’s Program for Victory, 5th ed. (Powder Springs,
Georgia: American Vision, 2010).
 Introduction 5
Autonomous man does not accept the concept of an absolutely
sovereign God who cannot be manipulated by man, only persuaded
(Ex. 32:9–15). Such a God denies man’s autonomy.

D. The Preacher’s Methodology

The Preacher uses a combination of testimony and logic. He testi-
fies to what he has seen. He has seen a great deal. He uses logic, not to
develop the case for theonomy but rather to develop the case against
autonomy. He uses a unique approach: following the logic of auto-
nomy to its inescapable conclusions. He lets people see where a rival
view of God and man leads: to despair.
Man is not sovereign, the Preacher reveals. Either death is sover-
eign or else the God of the Bible is sovereign. The Preacher argues
throughout his presentation that these are the only two options: the
sovereignty of death or the sovereignty of God. In his final words, he
announces his conclusion: God is sovereign, not man and not death.
The crucial dividing point between the Preacher’s two sets of ob-
servations is this: imputation.6 The Preacher’s use of imputation in-
volves three steps: the assessment of life’s meaning, the public declara-
tion of this assessment, and the imposition of visible historical sanc-
tions in terms of this assessment. Who wins? Who loses?
The Preacher never openly says that imputation is the central
philosophical issue he is raising. He never says the following:
There are only two possible sources of meaning: God and death. God
and death are interpreted in radically different ways by the philo-
sophy of autonomy and the philosophy of theonomy. Autonomy can-
not escape the sovereignty of impersonal death. Theonomy pro-
claims the sovereignty of a personal God. The dividing line between
autonomy and theonomy is the answer to this question: “Which
factor is sovereign in history: God or death?”

The Preacher’s discussion of imputation centers on this distinctly

economic issue: inheritance. Inheritance is the supreme economic is-
sue in the Book of Ecclesiastes, because the inescapable factor dividing
autonomy from theonomy is death. The Preacher explores the implic-
ations of death for every person’s life. He presents inconsistent conclu-
sions, because he speaks as a one-man debate team.

6. Chapters 2, 3, 4.
6 AUTONOMY AND STAGNATION
The Preacher’s methodology is to present the case against auton-
omous man by offering brief summaries of what he has personally ob-
served about the way the world works. These observations conflict
with each other. He recognizes that all facts are interpreted facts. Facts
are neither autonomous nor self-evident. Van Til called these hypo-
thetically autonomous facts “brute facts.” He denied that brute facts
can exist.
Scripture teaches that every fact in the universe exists and oper-
ates by virtue of the plan of God. There are no brute facts for God.
As to his own being, fact and interpretation are co-extensive. There
are no hidden unexplored possibilities in God. And as to the uni-
verse, God’s interpretation logically precedes the denotation and the
connotation of all facts of which it consists. 7

Believer and non-believer have opposite philosophies of fact and

opposite philosophies of law. They also have, behind both of these,
opposite views of man. Corresponding to the idea of brute fact and
impersonal law is the idea of the autonomous man. Corresponding to
the idea of God-controlled fact and law is the idea of God-controlled
man. The idea of creation out of nothing is not found either in Greek
or in modern philosophy.8

Because all facts are interpreted facts, the Preacher presents funda-
mental aspects of the world as autonomous man sees them. Then he
presents these same aspects of life as a covenant-keeper sees them.
They do not see the world in the same way.

Conclusion
The book of Ecclesiastes confuses Christians. They do not under-
stand that the bulk of this book is devoted to refuting foolishness in
the name of foolishness. It is an attempt to draw out the consequences
of foolishness from the presuppositions of foolishness. The author
presents his case against autonomous man. He does so in the name of
God, but this is not clear until the final chapter of the book. There, he
affirms theonomy: the law (nomos) of God (theos).
The book has two fundamental themes: (1) autonomy vs. theo-
nomy; (2) the sovereignty of death vs. the sovereignty of God.

7. Cornelius Van Til, Christian-Theistic Evidences (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Pres-

byterian & Reformed, 1978), p. 64.
8. Cornelius Van Til, Common Grace and the Gospel (Philadelphia: Presbyterian &
Reformed, 1977), p. 6.
 1
1

CYCLICAL HISTORY VS. PROGRESS

Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity.
What profit hath a man of all his labour which he taketh under the
sun? One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh:
but the earth abideth for ever. The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth
down, and hasteth to his place where he arose. The wind goeth toward
the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about con-
tinually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits. All
the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from
whence the rivers come, thither they return again (Eccl. 1:2–7).

A. The Ancient World

The ancient world in every culture except Israel’s affirmed cyclical
history.1 Men saw the cycles of nature, and they adopted cycles as the
basis for understanding man’s history and future. 2 In this passage, the
Preacher speaks in the name of autonomous man.
The Preacher asks a question that thoughtful men throughout his-
tory have asked: “Of what profit is a man’s labor?” As with other
thoughtful men in history, he looks to the future as a way of verifying
the worthiness of his labors. He says that one generation passes away,
and another generation comes. The earth abides forever (v. 4). The sun
rises and sets. The wind goes toward the south; then it goes toward the
north. It whirls around continually and returns again to its circuits (v.
6). Rivers run into the sea, yet the sea is not full (v. 7).

1. Stanley Jaki, Science and Creation: From Eternal Cycles to an Oscillating Uni-
verse (Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press, 1974), ch. 6.
2. The great cycle was astrology’s Great Year: the 26,000-year cycle called the pre-
cession of the equinoxes. The zodiac slowly changes in relation to the sky. This comes
from the inclined axis of the earth. The poles change their position. New stars become
the north star. The ancients were well aware of this. See Giorgio de Santillana and
Hertha von Dechend, Hamlet’s Mill: An Essay on Myth and the Frame of Time (New
York: Gambit, 1969).
7
8 AUTONOMY AND STAGNATION
There are patterns in life, but these patterns do not seem to estab-
lish relevance. All things are full of labor, he says, but the eye is not
satisfied with seeing, and the ear is not filled with hearing. The thing
that has been is the thing which shall be, and that which is done is that
which will be done. “There is no new thing under the sun” (v. 9).
This is a famous passage. It indicates that life is futile. Life comes
and goes without progress. Things change, yet they do not change. In
the famous phrase of the French, the more things change, the more
they stay the same. There is no satisfaction. There is no conclusion to
men’s labors. There is no meaning to men’s labors. There is no mem-
ory of former things, and neither will there be memory of things that
are to come (v. 11).
This is the worldview known as cyclical history. There appears to
be progress, but there is no progress. Everything that takes place today
is essentially the same as everything that took place yesterday, and is
not fundamentally different from everything that will take place to-
morrow.
This outlook destroys the concept of progress. Without the con-
cept of progress, men are tempted to despair about the meaning of
their own existence. Thoughtful men worry that even their thoughtful-
ness is irrelevant. This worry is the essence of almost all of the Book of
Ecclesiastes.
The effect of the concept of cyclical history, when widely accepted
in a civilization, is to undermine science, technology, economic
growth, and progress in general. 3 If the future is the same as the past,
and the past cannot be distinguished from the present, then anything
we do in the present is irrelevant. The present does not develop any-
thing from the past, and it does not leave a legacy to the future. Man
finds himself in a universe governed by meaninglessness. Whatever ap-
pears to be progress is an illusion.

B. The Preacher’s Legacy

This is why the Preacher asks the question regarding the profit of
his labor. If he cannot supervise how his legacy will be used, and if his
legacy will be used in much the same way as any legacy is ever used,
meaning that it is squandered, then what is the use of laboring hard for
a lifetime in order to accumulate sufficient goods to constitute a leg-
acy? One generation passes away, and another generation comes. The

3. Jaki, Science and Creation.

 Cyclical History vs. Progress (Eccl. 1:2–7) 9
earth endures forever, but generations come and go. This means that
legacies come and go.
Labor is hard work. It must be endured by most people, but this
was not the case with the Preacher. He was in a position not to work.
Thus, his labors were a liability. They did not gain him anything of
long-term value. Nothing he could do would have any effect on the
long term. Things come and go. But if things must be labored for and
sacrificed for in order to come, then of what use is the labor? Why
bother to sacrifice? It is all vanity.
“Vanity, vanity, all is vanity.” This is a famous phrase from the
book of Ecclesiastes. Everywhere the Preacher looks, he sees vanity.
Success is an illusion. People are proud about what they own or what
they have accomplished. Yet of what good is any of it? Things come
and go. Everything that comes eventually goes. The earth abides for-
ever, but the works of men do not. This is the worldview of most of the
Book of Ecclesiastes. The Preacher examines numerous philosophies
of life, and he finds them all to be vanity. They lead nowhere.
His conclusion is pessimistic. He has seen all the works that are
done under the sun, and behold, they are all vanity and vexation of
spirit (v. 14). This is a counsel of despair. He continues in his despair.
He says that whatever is crooked cannot be made straight, and what-
ever is lacking cannot be numbered (v. 15). Nothing can be changed.
But if nothing can be changed, then of what use is labor? It is vanity. It
is futile. It is a gigantic waste of time.
He says that he gave his heart to know wisdom, and also to know
madness and folly. It is all vexation of spirit (v. 17). If wisdom is
equated with madness and folly, then wisdom is without value. Yet we
know from the Book of Proverbs that wisdom is most valuable. “Wis-
dom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy get-
ting get understanding” (Prov. 4:7). The author of Ecclesiastes was in
all likelihood the author of Proverbs.4 Why are we told to get wisdom if
wisdom is not fundamentally different from madness and folly? This
makes no sense.
This is the point of the Book of Ecclesiastes. The philosophies of
life which the Preacher summarizes are madness and folly. They are all
vanity.
What matters, he concludes in the final chapter, is to obey God’s
law. This is the correct conclusion. But men, especially intelligent men
4. “The proverbs of Solomon the son of David, king of Israel” (Prov. 1:1). “The
words of the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem” (Eccl. 1:1).
10 AUTONOMY AND STAGNATION
who think about the meaning of life, do not like this conclusion. They
prefer their own economy. They want to make their own laws. They
do not wish to subordinate themselves to the cosmic Lawgiver. So,
they indulge in vanity. They seek meaning in a world that cannot pro-
vide meaning. They seek meaning as autonomous men in an autonom-
ous universe. Neither they nor the universe are autonomous. Their
search ends in vanity.
He says that he communed with his own heart. He says that he had
inherited a great estate. He has gotten more wisdom than those who
had been before him in Jerusalem. His heart had great experience with
wisdom and knowledge (v. 16). He gave his heart to know wisdom and
also to know madness and folly. He concludes that “in much wisdom is
much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow” (v.
18). Grief and wisdom are equated; so are sorrow and knowledge.
Things which are widely believed to be good lead to things that are
widely acknowledged to be bad.
It takes concentration and effort and leisure to develop wisdom,
yet wisdom produces much grief. Why should any rational person
continue the hard work of seeking and obtaining wisdom, when suc-
cess in attaining wisdom leads to grief? Philosophers have been asking
themselves this question for a long time. They have not come up with
any agreed-upon answers.

C. Economic Progress
From an economic standpoint, the philosophy of time that is artic-
ulated in this passage undermines economic progress. Economic pro-
gress requires capital. Capital is formed by combining land and labor
over time.5 All three must be paid for: rent, wages, and interest. Why
should people sacrifice land and labor over time if all that their efforts
ever produce is vanity? Whenever people believe that this cause-and-
effect system is universal—that hard work produces nothing of value
—they cease to work hard. They eat, drink, and are merry rather than
forfeit present value on behalf of future value. 6 Why forfeit the pleas-
ures of the present for the sake of vanity in the future? If pleasure is
vanity, and hard work is vanity, let us pursue pleasure. Pleasure is fun.
Pleasure is now. Get pleasure. Pleasure is the principal thing.

5. Murray N. Rothbard, Man, Economy, and State: A Treatise on Economic Prin-

ciples, 2nd ed.(Auburn, Alabama: Mises Institute, [1962] 2009), ch. 7:4–5.
6. Chapter 31.
 Cyclical History vs. Progress (Eccl. 1:2–7) 11
Throughout the Bible, but especially in Leviticus 26 and Deutero-
nomy 28, we find a completely different view of history. Moses told the
generation of the conquest that God blesses covenant-keeping and
curses covenant-breaking. He told them that if they obeyed the laws of
God, God would prosper them. There is no hint in either passage that
poverty is a benefit.
Men legitimately strive in order to amass property. They are not to
do this as if property were of any value in and of itself. Nothing is
autonomous except God. Only He has value in Himself. Men are to
amass property for the sake of God. Their administration of His assets
is a moral and legal responsibility. So, the view of history that the
Preacher presents in the Book of Ecclesiastes is utterly pagan. It is in op-
position to the biblical worldview. The biblical worldview affirms the
legitimacy of progress. It therefore assumes the legitimacy of economic
growth.
There is a big difference between wealth and poverty. There is also
a big difference between wisdom and folly. This difference increases
over time. Covenant-keepers are supposed to extend the kingdom of
God in history. Covenant-breakers are supposed to surrender their
kingdom. The kingdom of God is not vanity. It must not be equated
with the kingdom of Satan or the kingdom of man, which is the same
kingdom.
If men were to accept the philosophy of life that is presented in
this initial chapter, there would be no sustained economic progress. If
there is no progress from the past into the present or from the present
into the future, then all is meaningless. The author of the book does
not accept this philosophy of life, as he shows in the final chapter. But
he argues this philosophy in a straightforward way in this book. He
shows that its conclusion is unpalatable: everything is vanity in its own
way.

Conclusion
Because the book of Ecclesiastes is a sophisticated rejection of the
philosophy governing the first chapter, covenant-keepers have had a
view of time very different from the cyclical view presented here. The
linear and progressive view of time that is taught by both Judaism and
Christianity has stood as a challenge against the entire ancient world
and its view of cyclical time.
12 AUTONOMY AND STAGNATION
The centrality of Christianity’s view of the future on Christian so-
cial thought7 is rarely mentioned in Christian circles, but it is some-
times perceived by humanists. They understand that the view of time
presented in the Bible, which is not presented in this chapter, is a
powerful incentive for self-sacrifice in the present on behalf of the fu-
ture. It is a call to thrift. It is a call to future-orientation at the expense
of present-orientation.

7. Gary North, Millennialism and Social Theory (Tyler, Texas: Institute for Chris-
tian Economics, 1990). (http://bit.ly/gnmast)
 2
2

IMPUTATION AND VALUE

Then I looked on all the works that my hands had wrought, and on
the labour that I had laboured to do: and, behold, all was vanity and
vexation of spirit, and there was no profit under the sun (Eccl. 2:11).

A. Compared to What?
In Ecclesiastes 1, the Preacher dismisses life as being filled with
vanity. Everything that a person does is vanity. He offers a counsel of
despair. He says that one thing follows another, but there is no pro-
gress, no meaning, and much vexation of spirit. He concludes the les-
son by saying that he had given his heart to know wisdom, but in much
wisdom there is much grief. He who increases his knowledge increases
his sorrow (vv. 17–18).
In Ecclesiastes 2, he reports on his journey down a different track.
He has pursued laughter and pleasure (vv. 1–2). But this also is vanity.
He equates laughter and madness. He has pursued wine as well as wis-
dom (v. 3). He has pursued folly in order to see what is good for man-
kind (vv. 3, 12). In other words, he has explored the full range of hu-
man emotion and human experience, in order to make sense of it. His
conclusion: it makes no sense.
By assessing what he has experienced, he renders judgment. He
draws a conclusion. He has compared his experience with a standard.
He does not tell us what this standard is. This is the universal problem
for self-proclaimed autonomous man. He has access to no self-validat-
ing, self-revealing standard. How can anyone assess anything without a
fixed standard? There is a story of a man who has just been told that
Einstein’s theory of relativity teaches that space is curved. He retorts:
“Compared to what?” This is the Preacher’s problem. He concludes
that everything is vanity. Compared to what?

13
14 BOUND ARIES AND DOMINION
B. The Futility of Accumulation
As part of his pursuit of experience, he built great works. He built
houses. He planted vineyards (v. 4). He planted gardens and orchards
(v. 5). He planted trees that bore many kinds of fruit. In other words,
he invested for the future. He spent wealth on the creation of long-
term capital goods. He sacrificed in the present in order to benefit in
the future.
He also accumulated servants and maidens. He had a large enough
household of servants so that children were born in his house. He had
great possessions of cattle. He lived in the capital city of Jerusalem (v.
7), which was the most expensive real estate in the nation. This was
where the center of population was, because it was where the temple
was.
He accumulated silver and gold. He accumulated goods associated
with kings. He brought in male and female singers. He experienced the
delights of mankind, which included music (v. 8). He describes his
condition: “So I was great, and increased more than all that were be-
fore me in Jerusalem: also my wisdom remained with me” (v. 9). He
appeared to have the best of life. “And whatsoever mine eyes desired I
kept not from them, I withheld not my heart from any joy; for my
heart rejoiced in all my labor: and this was my portion of all my labor”
(v. 10).
He then looked at all that he had accumulated, and he concluded,
once again, that it was all vanity and vexation of spirit. Conclusion:
there is no profit under the sun (v. 11).
He continued to pursue wisdom, madness, and folly (v. 12). He
despaired of the present because there is no progress in life. Everything
that follows is simply a repetition of everything that has preceded (v.
12). This is his theme of cyclical history.1 On the one hand, he con-
cludes that wisdom is better than folly, in the same way as light is bet-
ter than darkness (v. 13). The wise man can see, but the fool walks in
darkness. On the other hand, one event happens to both the wise man
and the fool (v. 14). Death swallows up all of a person’s legacy. The
Preacher will die, as surely as a fool dies. “For there is no remembrance
of the wise more than of the fool for ever; seeing that which now is in
the days to come shall all be forgotten. And how dieth the wise man?
as the fool” (v. 16). Then why is he any wiser than the fool? No good
reason. Conclusion: it is all vanity. “Therefore I hated life; because the

1. Chapter 1.
 Priestly Representation (Lev. 2:1–3) 15
work that has wrought under the sun is grievous unto me: for all is
vanity and vexation of spirit” (v. 17).

Conclusion
The Preacher explored the main avenues of autonomous human
performance and enjoyment. Everything he tried on this basis was van-
ity. It meant nothing. He acted in terms of various theories of auto-
nomous human achievement and meaning, and he found them all
lacking. They are all swallowed up by death and uncertainty.
This is humanism. When men claim autonomy, they thereby aban-
don the foundations of meaning and value. Death is life’s common de-
nominator. It is impersonal. It undermines all meaning. Without im-
putation by God, there is no meaningful imputation by man.
This has the methodology of modern economics ever since the
1870s. It teaches that all economic value is imputed subjectively by in-
dividuals. But mortals cannot impute authoritatively and finally. Man’s
imputation is vetoed by death. It is also undermined by uncertainty
about the future and therefore about the present.
 3
3

THE SOVEREIGNTY OF DEATH

Then said I in my heart, As it happeneth to the fool, so it happeneth
even to me; and why was I then more wise? Then I said in my heart,
that this also is vanity. For there is no remembrance of the wise more
than of the fool for ever; seeing that which now is in the days to come
shall all be forgotten. And how dieth the wise man? as the fool. There-
fore I hated life; because the work that is wrought under the sun is
grievous unto me: for all is vanity and vexation of spirit (Eccl. 2:15–
17).

A. In Defense of Autonomy
The Preacher speaks here on behalf of the philosophy of auto-
nomy. His observations reflect the autonomous man’s supreme stum-
bling block: the sovereignty of death. For autonomous man, death is
the great equalizer. Death swallows all men: good and evil, wise and
fool, rich and poor. Nothing is remembered about any of them. Death
undermines men’s confidence. The Preacher lays out the case against
the philosophy of autonomy by articulating the concerns of someone
who does not believe in the sovereignty of the God of the Bible.
A person capable of thinking carefully about the central issues of
life has greater perception than a person who drifts through life. The
former thinks of himself as wise. He is wise enough to perceive that
wisdom in a world governed by death has no advantage over foolish-
ness. Death does not distinguish between wisdom and foolishness. Both
are grist for its cosmic mill. “Then said I in my heart, As it happeneth
to the fool, so it happeneth even to me; and why was I then more wise?
Then I said in my heart, that this also is vanity.” “And how dieth the
wise man? as the fool. Therefore I hated life; because the work that is
wrought under the sun is grievous unto me: for all is vanity and vexa-
tion of spirit.”

16
 The Sovereignty of Death (Eccl. 2:15–17) 17
B. Life and Death
Life is the source of hope. Death overcomes this hope. Life does
not overcome death. The Preacher insists that “one generation passeth
away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever”
(Eccl. 1:4). Surely, this is an affirmation of life. It may seem so on first
glance, but it is not. Every generation passes away. It dies off. 1 The only
way for life to overcome death is through inheritance. The inheritance
of each generation from the preceding one aids it in overcoming the
effects of sin in history, thereby thwarting the effects of death. Each
generation can leave a predictably positive legacy to the next genera-
tion. But the Preacher denies that there is any legitimate hope in this
intergenerational inheritance. How? By raising the issue of uncer-
tainty.
Yea, I hated all my labour which I had taken under the sun: because I
should leave it unto the man that shall be after me. And who know-
eth whether he shall be a wise man or a fool? yet shall he have rule
over all my labour wherein I have laboured, and wherein I have
shewed myself wise under the sun. This is also vanity. Therefore I
went about to cause my heart to despair of all the labour which I
took under the sun. For there is a man whose labour is in wisdom,
and in knowledge, and in equity; yet to a man that hath not laboured
therein shall he leave it for his portion. This also is vanity and a great
evil (Eccl. 2:18–21).2

If there is no legitimate hope in inheritance, then there is no legiti-

mate hope in progress. If there is no hope in progress, then history re-
mains undifferentiated. Good and bad, wisdom and foolishness, wealth
and poverty can and do offset each other. Death, being impersonal,
does not care, one way or the other. Death does not differentiate. In-
heritance is not guaranteed.

C. Imputation
For autonomous man, death does not impute—assess and declare
—anything to history. It just swallows up history. Death does not favor
one belief over another, or one behavior over another. It imposes the
same negative sanction on all living creatures: the end.

1. Chapter 1.
2. Chapter 4.
18 AUTONOMY AND STAGNATION
The Preacher sees this, and he despairs. “Therefore I went about to
cause my heart to despair of all the labour which I took under the sun”
(Eccl. 2:20). He loses hope. He does so representatively on behalf of
autonomous man. He declares his confidence that death swallows all
living creatures. It does so indiscriminately. There is no meaning to
death. Therefore, there is no meaning to life, which death overcomes,
species by species. The sovereignty of death is greater than the sover-
eignty of life.

D. Laying Down the Law

Faith in the sovereignty of death stands in sharp contrast to faith
in the sovereignty of God. The Book of Ecclesiastes presents both posi-
tions. This is why it is difficult for expositors to deal with this book.
The Preacher makes his case against autonomy in terms of the
most fundamental fact in the philosophy of autonomy: death. The
philosophy of autonomy declares its commitment to mankind, but
mankind is composed of dying men. The Preacher reminds his readers
of the sovereignty of death. He does not want his readers to avoid this
most fundamental doctrine of autonomy. Autonomy declares that, be-
cause no God has laid down the law, man gets to. This means, para-
phrasing C. S. Lewis, that some men lay down the law for others. 3 Here
is a great incentive for ambitious men to obtain positions of authority.
They want to lay down the law to others, not have the law laid down to
them. Their religion is the power religion. 4

Conclusion
Death is sovereign in the philosophy of autonomy. There is no
eternal God who lays down the law and imposes sanctions. Lacking a
cosmic personal sovereign who lays down the law to the cosmos,
autonomous man attempts to lay down the law to nature. But man is
part of nature. Every living creature dies. Death swallows up all legal
claims. Man’s legal claim to the right to lay down the law to nature, in-
cluding other men, is based exclusively on power. Autonomy leads to
the power religion. But death swallows up every man. Autonomous
man is ultimately powerless against death. He cannot legitimately de-

3. C. S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man (New York: Touchstone, [1944] 1996), pp. 68–
70.
4. Gary North, Authority and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on Exodus
(Dallas, Georgia: Point Five Press, 2012), Part 1, Representation and Dominion (1985).
 The Sovereignty of Death (Eccl. 2:15–17) 19
clare, as Paul declared, “O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is
thy victory” (I Cor. 15:55).5

5. Gary North, Judgment and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on First Cor-

inthians, 2nd ed. (Dallas, Georgia: Point Five Press, [2001] 2012), ch. 15.
 4
4

UNCERTAIN INHERITANCE
Yea, I hated all my labour which I had taken under the sun: because I
should leave it unto the man that shall be after me. And who knoweth
whether he shall be a wise man or a fool? yet shall he have rule over
all my labour wherein I have laboured, and wherein I have shewed
myself wise under the sun. This is also vanity. Therefore I went about
to cause my heart to despair of all the labour which I took under the
sun. For there is a man whose labour is in wisdom, and in knowledge,
and in equity; yet to a man that hath not laboured therein shall he
leave it for his portion. This also is vanity and a great evil (Eccl. 2:18–
21).

A. Laboring in Vain
In retrospect, he says, he hates all of his labor. Why? Because he
must leave it to the person who will inherit it. There is no way for him
to know whether the person who will inherit the works of his labor will
be a wise man or a fool. In either case, he will rule over all of the
Preacher’s labor (v. 19).
The Preacher understands the meaning of labor. A person labors
to buy goods, and these goods are then inherited by someone else. This
is the same, economically speaking, as inheriting the person’s labor.
Labor is manifested in its fruits. It is also manifested in capital equip-
ment. We say that labor is embodied in this equipment. This is a meta-
phor, not a measurable phenomenon. It is not a metaphysical process. 1

1. Karl Marx spoke of capital as being congealed labor time. “As values, all com-
modities are only definite masses of congealed labour-time.” Karl Marx, Capital: A
Critique of Political Economy (1867) (New York: Modern Library edition, a reprint of
the 1906 edition, published by Charles H. Kerr), p. 46. He really did believe that labor
time’s role in establishing value is somehow measurable. He built his system on this
fallacy. Gary North, Marx’s Religion of Revolution: Regeneration Through Chaos (Tyler,
Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, [1968] 1989), ch. 3. (http://bit.ly/gnmror)
20
 Uncertain Inheritance (Eccl. 2:18–21) 21
The Preacher has an implicit argument. The value he places on his
past labor is dependent on the value of uses to which his capital will be
put in the future. He believes that if a fool inherits his capital, he has
wasted his time. He has accumulated wealth for a fool. The fool may
value this inheritance, but he will use it foolishly. In this sense, it
would have been better had the Preacher not devoted labor to accu-
mulating his vast stores of capital. This inheritance can be squandered
by his heir. There is no way of knowing in advance whether or not the
heir will be competent.
This passage points to the inescapable connection between past,
present, and future. He assesses the value of his past labor, but in do-
ing so, he must make an assessment of the uses to which the output of
his labor will be put in the future. This establishes a fundamental prin-
ciple of economic imputation: the retroactive value of the past is de-
pendent upon the expected value of the future. If a fool inherits his
wealth, the value of his present goods is an illusion. It is nothing but
vanity. He has wasted his time.
He imputes value to his present capital on the basis of his assess-
ment of its future value in the hands of a fool. He therefore concludes
that all is vanity. This presumes that a fool will inherit his wealth. But a
wise person may inherit his wealth. The Preacher does not know who
will inherit his wealth. But, because he cannot be sure that the out-
come will be positive, he imputes no value to his present goods. He
also retroactively imputes zero value to his past labor. He calls it all
vanity. Nothing has any value, because he cannot be sure that the per-
son who inherits his wealth will be competent.
The Preacher is legitimately concerned about the use to which his
capital will be put. But the fact that he does not know for sure what use
his capital will be put leads to a false conclusion: all is vanity. On the
basis of his inability to impute future value to his present goods, he im -
putes no value at all to his future goods, and retroactively dismisses the
value of his past labor. Because he is not omniscient regarding the fu-
ture, he concludes that all is vanity.
This is a counsel of despair. No one can know the future exhaust-
ively. No one can be sure that the person who inherits his legacy will
put it to productive use. For a covenant-keeper, the fact that the future
is uncertain is not the same as saying that the future is vanity. Coven-
ant-keepers lay up treasure in the present in order that their heirs will
continue to put it to good use. They trust in God’s promises of inherit-
22 AUTONOMY AND STAGNATION
ance by covenant-keepers. This inheritance is the foundation of the
expansion of the kingdom (civilization) of God in history.

B. No Autonomy
Autonomous man’s error is to assume that his lack of omniscience
is sufficient to dismiss all value and meaning. The Preacher is arguing
on the assumption that an individual is sovereign in imputing value to
the present and the past. Because he cannot accurately predict the fu-
ture use of his capital, he imputes no value to the future, the present,
or the past. He calls it all vanity. This is the statement of a self-pro-
fessed autonomous man. But no man is autonomous. God is autonom-
ous, but man is not. God imputes value in a sovereign way, but man
does not. The fact that man is not God is not a legitimate reason to
conclude that all is vanity. Some things are vain, but other things are
not. God imputes value and meaning, so covenant-keepers, who are
made in God’s image, are also supposed to impute value and meaning.
Indeed, there is no way for any rational person to escape this respons-
ibility, for which he will be judged. Men are to use God’s standards to
do this. They are not to act as autonomous beings. They are to regard
themselves as subordinate evaluators who are working on God’s behalf
as God’s stewards.
The Preacher is arguing in terms of the logic of self-professed
autonomous man. He is showing that the assertion of autonomy is fu-
tile. Because no man is omniscient, every assertion of autonomy leads
to a conclusion: all is vanity. Because man cannot impute final value,
he supposes that no one can. If no one can, then there is no final value.
If there is no final value, then there is no present value. All is vanity.
Here is the economic application of this logic. The value of capital
goods in the present is dependent on expectations of the value of cap-
ital’s output in the future. This is the logic of modern economics, be-
ginning with the marginalist revolution of the early 1870s, when eco-
nomists began abandoning the labor theory of value as well as all cost-
of-production theories of value. Value is imputed subjectively, eco-
nomists concluded. Capital’s value today is dependent on expected
consumer demand.
The Preacher speaks of the wise use of an inheritance. The eco-
nomist does not speak of wise use. He speaks of profitable use. But
both analyses depend on present imputation of expected future value. If
the value of capital goods today is dependent upon the wise uses to
 Uncertain Inheritance (Eccl. 2:18–21) 23
which these goods will be put in the distant future, this creates an end-
less chain of meaninglessness. Because we cannot perfectly foresee the
future use of our capital, and because those who inherit will also not be
able to see into the future, value and meaning disappear. Future value
is like the mythological elephant that supports the world. It stands on
a giant turtle. What does the turtle stand on? Another turtle. It is
turtles all the way down. There is no system of imputation that auto-
nomous man can legitimately establish as authoritative.
Expectations regarding the future always shape the present. Un-
certainty regarding the future reduces the value of assets in the
present. If the future is uncertain, then the present value of everything
is equally uncertain. If the present is uncertain, the Preacher says, it is
vanity.
The implication of this passage is that humanism has no way of
confidently declaring that something is either good or bad, valuable or
worthless, or anything in between. If the correct assessment of the
present is dependent on an autonomous and infallible prediction of
the future, then there can be no correct assessment of value in the
present. The Preacher calls all such imputation vanity. He has already
argued that death swallows up the fool and the wise man. Death is the
common denominator. The only way for an individual to assess accur-
ately the present value of anything is to know what value it will have in
the future, after his own death. But death swallows up all imputations.
Every person who imputes will die. Every person who imputes value
lacks knowledge of the future. So, the Preacher says, all is vanity.
Imputation is a process in time. It is dependent on expectations
about the future. Christian economics rests on the theory of an omni-
scient Creator who sees the future perfectly. This God also imputes
value authoritatively in terms of His standards. He makes no mistakes.
He perfectly assesses the meaning and value of everything in terms of
His own permanent ethical standards. God knows the future, so He can
accurately impute value in the present. He can also impute value retro-
actively, which He will do at the final judgment. Imputation by God is
past, present, and future. God is omniscient.
In coming to the conclusion that all is vanity, the Preacher speaks
as a consistent humanist must speak. He speaks in the name of an un-
certain future. He concludes that uncertainty undermines the concept
of value. Everything in the future is like a kaleidoscope’s image: con-
stantly shifting. Result: vanity.
24 AUTONOMY AND STAGNATION
C. Subordinate Imputation
Christian economics affirms the absolute sovereignty of God, the
absolute accuracy of God’s imputation of economic value, and the per-
fection of the final judgment. Christian economics also teaches that
men are made in the image of God. Therefore, they possess the ability
to think God’s thoughts after Him. They can impute economic value in
history because God imputes economic value in history. Also, they can
impute economic value because they have access to permanent stand-
ards of judgment. They have access to the Bible and Bible-revealed
law. They can make accurate assessments as creatures because they
are made in the image of God. God holds them responsible for making
assessments in the present. They must do so on the basis of what they
know is coming, which is the final judgment. They possess the law and
the prophets. They possess the revelation of Jesus Christ. They possess
access to the Bible. So, they are capable of making imperfect but relev-
ant judgments regarding the past, present, and future.
Not until the final section of the Book of Ecclesiastes does the
Preacher issue his conclusion. He states it plainly. Men are to obey
God’s law. “Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God,
and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. For
God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing,
whether it be good, or whether it be evil” (Eccl. 12:13–14).2 If coven-
ant-keepers do this, they will make accurate though imperfect econom-
ic judgments. They will perceive that all is not vanity. Having perceived
this, they can work confidently in the present for the sake of an uncer-
tain future. It is uncertain to them, but it is not uncertain to God. God
imputes value to their work in the present, because He imputes value
to the work of their heirs.

D. Inheritance and Historical Linearity

In the name of autonomous man, the Preacher has affirmed the
death of every generation. “One generation passeth away, and another
generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever” (Eccl. 1:4). This
statement appears in a passage that affirms the cyclical pattern of nat-
ural events.
The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his
place where he arose. The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth

2. Chapter 45.
 Uncertain Inheritance (Eccl. 2:18–21) 25
about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind re-
turneth again according to his circuits. All the rivers run into the sea;
yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come,
thither they return again (Eccl. 1:5–7).

This outlook favors the ancient world’s assumption that history is

cyclical.3 Without inheritance, the replacement generations do not
change the pattern of life.
The Old Covenant rejects such a view of history. It affirms that a
personal God created the universe. God also brings judgments in his-
tory. History is linear. The proof of this linearity is the pattern of in-
heritance.
What man is he that feareth the LORD? him shall he teach in the way
that he shall choose. His soul shall dwell at ease; and his seed shall in-
herit the earth. The secret of the LORD is with them that fear him;
and he will shew them his covenant (Psalm 25:12–14).

For evildoers shall be cut off: but those that wait upon the LORD,
they shall inherit the earth (Psalm 37:9).

But the meek shall inherit the earth; and shall delight themselves in
the abundance of peace (Psalm 37:11).

For such as be blessed of him shall inherit the earth; and they that be
cursed of him shall be cut off (Psalm 37:22).4

E. Death and Inheritance

Whether the heir is a wise man or a fool makes no difference to
death. Death is sovereign.
Then said I in my heart, As it happeneth to the fool, so it happeneth
even to me; and why was I then more wise? Then I said in my heart,
that this also is vanity. For there is no remembrance of the wise more
than of the fool for ever; seeing that which now is in the days to come
shall all be forgotten. And how dieth the wise man? as the fool.
Therefore I hated life; because the work that is wrought under the
sun is grievous unto me: for all is vanity and vexation of spirit (Eccl.
2:15–17).5

3. Chapter 1.
4. Gary North, Confidence and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on Psalms
(Dallas, Georgia: Point Five Press, 2012), ch. 6.
5. Chapter 3.
26 AUTONOMY AND STAGNATION
No assured ethical principle governs the inheritance, once the
autonomous owner dies. No pattern of predictable sanctions exists to
direct the inheritance to covenant-breakers.
All things have I seen in the days of my vanity: there is a just man
that perisheth in his righteousness, and there is a wicked man that
prolongeth his life in his wickedness. Be not righteous over much;
neither make thyself over wise: why shouldest thou destroy thyself?
Be not over much wicked, neither be thou foolish: why shouldest
thou die before thy time? (Eccl. 7:15–17).6

Because death is impersonal, there is no meaning. Because death

swallows up all forms of life, life is meaningless. Because inheritance is
random in its effects, there is no pattern of victory or growth.
This is a counsel of despair. The Preacher recognizes this. He says
that he has despaired over this knowledge. But he says this as a partis-
an of the philosophy of autonomy. He is making his case against auto-
nomy by presenting the world as interpreted by autonomous man.

Conclusion
The uncertainty of inheritance undermines men’s confidence in
their posthumous futures. This makes men less effective entrepreneurs
and accumulators of capital. Consumption is preferable to capital ac-
cumulation. “Then I commended mirth, because a man hath no better
thing under the sun, than to eat, and to drink, and to be merry: for that
shall abide with him of his labour the days of his life, which God giveth
him under the sun” (Eccl. 8:15).7
The value of capital in the present is dependent in part on its value
in the future. But that is true of the future, too. There is no sure eco-
nomic value in the present if there is no final imputation of economic
value in the future. There is no final judgment, the Preacher says.
There is only cyclical nature, cyclical history, and individual death.
This is vanity.

6. Chapter 27.
7. Chapter 31.
 5
5

TRANSITION TO BIBLICAL
COVENANTALISM
For what hath man of all his labour, and of the vexation of his heart,
wherein he hath laboured under the sun? For all his days are sorrows,
and his travail grief; yea, his heart taketh not rest in the night. This is
also vanity. There is nothing better for a man, than that he should eat
and drink, and that he should make his soul enjoy good in his labour.
This also I saw, that it was from the hand of God (Eccl. 2:22–24).

When presented as a unit, these three verses create confusion.

Without warning, the Preacher moves from a counsel of despair to a
counsel of confidence. Why?
The Preacher asserts that the burdens of labor are great, and the
results of our labor are problematical. He asks a rhetorical question:
“For what hath man of all his labour, and of the taxation of his heart,
wherein he hath labored under the sun” (v. 22)? So far in the book of
Ecclesiastes, we have read that all is vanity. If all is vanity, then the out-
put of labor is vanity. Then what are the blessings of labor, in and of
themselves? There are none. “For all his days are sorrows, and his trav-
ails grief; yea, his heart taketh not rest in the night. This is also vanity”
(v. 23).

A. Adam’s Curse
The curse on Adam involved the curse of his labor. “In the sweat
of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for
out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou
return” (Gen. 3:19).1 The negative sanction brought pain to mankind.
Labor was not originally a painful activity. It was a responsible activity,

1. Gary North, Sovereignty and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on Genesis

(Dallas, Georgia: Point Five Press, [1982] 2012), ch. 12.
27
28 AUTONOMY AND STAGNATION
but it was not painful. The pain of labor is God’s curse for the sin of
Adam. It is not surprising that the Preacher has discovered that labor
is filled with grief. That was the whole idea of the curse. If labor were
constantly joyful, then the curse would be removed. The curse has not
been removed, so labor has negative features.
God has brought judgment in history, and He will bring final judg-
ment at the end of history. The pain of labor points to the pain of final
judgment. But this pain will not be experienced by covenant-keepers.
The pain of labor can be regarded as an advantage, for it points to de-
liverance in the future. This deliverance is based on progressive sancti-
fication in history.
The Preacher is presenting the arguments of a covenant-breaking
man. He finds that everything is vanity. It is vanity because coven-
ant-breaking man asserts his autonomy from the God of the Bible, the
law of the Bible, and the sanctions of this law. Autonomous man wants
to believe that he does not have to consider the covenant. This is a
fatal mistake. The Preacher is exploring covenant-breaking man’s
hoped-for avenues of escape from the sanctions of God. One of the
negative sanctions of God is the curse on man’s labor. The Preacher
insists that his own labor has been futile. It has produced nothing but
vanity. Because it has produced nothing but vanity, it can be said that
labor itself is vanity. It is a waste of time. It is more than a waste of
time; it is negative in and of itself.

B. A Call to Enjoyment
Next, he says that there is nothing better for a man to do in life
that to eat and drink. A man should make his soul enjoy his labor. At
this point, the expositor faces a challenge. Is this conclusion an exten-
sion of the logic of autonomous man, or is it a transition to biblical
covenantalism?
Autonomous man is present-oriented. Death is sovereign. 2 Incom-
petents inherit.3 This exhortation to enjoy what you possess could be a
logical conclusion of autonomy. Thrift is a curse. Thrift builds up cap-
ital for another person to inherit. So does excessive work. The past is
vanity. The future is vanity. The present is enjoyable. Why not enjoy
whatever you have accumulated so far? The present is assured. The fu-
ture is uncertain. A bird in hand is worth two under the bush.

2. Chapter 3.
3. Chapter 4.
 Transition to Biblical Covenantalism (Eccl. 2:22–24) 29
But there is a phrase that indicates that he has made a transition:
“he should make his soul enjoy good in his labour.” Why should
autonomous man enjoy his labor? Isn’t labor a burden? Isn’t it vanity?
This is what he has just said. “For what hath man of all his labour, and
of the vexation of his heart, wherein he hath laboured under the sun?
For all his days are sorrows, and his travail grief; yea, his heart taketh
not rest in the night.”
Then, without warning, he praises labor. He says that his insight is
based on this fact: a man’s wealth and labor are from the hand of God
(v. 24). This appears to be an affirmation of the God of the Bible. This
interpretation is confirmed by what he says in verse 26. “For God giv-
eth to a man that is good in his sight wisdom, and knowledge, and joy:
but to the sinner he giveth travail, to gather and to heap up, that he
may give to him that is good before God. This also is vanity and vexa-
tion of spirit.4 “In verse 24, he has begun his move from pessimism to
optimism. He has moved from autonomy to theonomy. He will soon
praise ethics as the basis of prosperity (v. 26).

Conclusion
In these verses, we see a shift of argumentation from covenant-
breaking to covenant-keeping. The Preacher switches arguments be-
cause he switches his perspective. What he has said previously applies
to the covenant-breaker. It does not apply to the covenant-keeper.
Labor is vanity and vexation of spirit for covenant-breakers. It should
not be for covenant-keepers.

4. Chapter 6.
 6
6

PREDICTABLE ETHICAL SANCTIONS

For God giveth to a man that is good in his sight wisdom, and know-
ledge, and joy: but to the sinner he giveth travail, to gather and to
heap up, that he may give to him that is good before God. This also is
vanity and vexation of spirit (Eccl. 2:26).

A. Vanity and Vexation

Moses in Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28 announced that God
brings positive corporate sanctions to covenant-keeping societies. God
also imposes negative corporate sanctions on covenant-breaking soci-
eties. This passage announces that God does the same with individu-
als. The Preacher then announces that this is vanity and vexation of
spirit.
Why should he regard this system of historical sanctions as vanity
and vexation of spirit? Throughout the book, he refers to the sover-
eignty of death as dominant. 1 Death swallows all of a man’s output in
life. Through the wealth left behind at a man’s death, an heir will in-
herit. The accumulator of capital does not have any control over what
his legacy will accomplish. The morality and skills of the heirs are in-
determinate.2
He says that the sinner is given travail, “to gather and to heap up,
that he may give to him that is good before God.” This is what So-
lomon announced: “A good man leaveth an inheritance to his chil-
dren’s children: and the wealth of the sinner is laid up for the just”
(Prov. 13:22).3 Why should this be vanity and produce vexation of spir-
it?

1. Chapters 3, 7, 30, 33, 35.

2. Chapters 2, 4, 5, 7, 13, 19, 21.
3. Gary North, Wisdom and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on Proverbs
(Dallas, Georgia: Point Five Press, [2007] 2012), ch. 41.
30
 Predictable Ethical Sanctions (Eccl. 2:26) 31
For a covenant-keeper, this system of historical causation can and
should serve as the basis of an explicitly covenantal view of history. It
offers legitimate hope for compound growth in every area of life. It
means that the kingdom of God will steadily and inevitably dislodge
the kingdoms of men in history. The wealth of the just is not laid up
for the sinner. The covenant affirms that positive sanctions compound
over time. The Preacher affirms this in this passage.
Then why does he dismiss this system of causation as vanity and
vexation of spirit? Because he is speaking about the covenant-breaker’s
assessment of cause and effect. The covenant-breaker is vexed, not the
covenant-keeper.

B. A Search and Expose Mission

The Preacher is conducting a search-and-expose mission against
the philosophy of autonomous man. For a defender of autonomous
man to realize that God has structured His system of individual sanc-
tions in history to take away wisdom and joy from covenant-deniers,
leaving them the unpleasant task of heaping up capital that will be in-
herited by covenant-keepers, is a form of vexation. The righteous get
both wisdom and joy; the unrighteous get a life of meaningless hard
labor.
The Preacher complains repeatedly about the hard work that care-
ful thinking involves. The end of wisdom is a dead end. It is futile.
When I applied mine heart to know wisdom, and to see the business
that is done upon the earth: (for also there is that neither day nor
night seeth sleep with his eyes:) Then I beheld all the work of God,
that a man cannot find out the work that is done under the sun: be-
cause though a man labour to seek it out, yet he shall not find it; yea
further; though a wise man think to know it, yet shall he not be able
to find it (Eccl. 8:16–17).4

Yet righteous men escape this burden. They get wisdom plus joy.
This fact is vexatious for a covenant-breaker. It means that the uni-
verse is a personally rigged system. The battles of life do not take place
on a level playing field. They take place on a playing field that is tilted
to give advantages to covenant-keepers. The teams do not change
sides on the field in the second half.

4. Chapter 32.
32 AUTONOMY AND STAGNATION
Conclusion
There is no clearer statement in the Bible than this verse with res-
pect to the ethical basis of God’s covenantal structure of individual
causation. Covenant-keepers get blessings and capital. Covenant-
breakers get the hard labor, risk, and the uncertainty involved in accu-
mulating wealth, only to see it transferred to covenant-keepers. The
Preacher acknowledges that this system was operational in his day.
That it did exist vexes him. It vexes him in his self-designated capacity
as a debater on the side of autonomous man.
If this system of ethical causation were annulled by the New Testa-
ment, it would no longer vex the Preacher, were he still alive, insofar as
he spoke in the name of autonomous man. Autonomous man hopes
that economic causation is not rigged in favor of covenant-keepers. So
do millions of Christians.
Christians who fear the increase in personal responsibility that al-
ways accompanies greater wealth and influence (Luke 12:47–48)5 may
find the Preacher’s observations compelling: vanity and vexation. This
is their theological problem. They do not understand that the reason
why God gives wealth and influence to covenant-keeping individuals
and societies is so that they can exercise greater responsibility. Res-
ponsibility-evading Christians do not acknowledge the dominion cov-
enant.6
Unless this system of ethics-based economic causation has been
explicitly reversed by the New Covenant, it still operates in New Testa-
ment times. I began studying this question in detail in 1973. It is now
2012. I have written 31 volumes indicating that this system of ethical
causation still operates in economic affairs. It is the critics’ responsibil-
ity to provide counter-evidence. So far, they have refused to respond to
my evidence. I have waited a long time. I gather that I will have to wait
even longer.

5. Gary North, Treasure and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on Luke, 2nd

ed. (Dallas, Georgia: Point Five Press, [2000] 2012), ch. 28.
6. Gary North, Sovereignty and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on Genesis
(Dallas, Georgia: Point Five Press, Christian Economics, 2012), ch. 4.
 7
7

GODLY TIME AND BEASTLY TIME

To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under
the heaven (Eccl. 3:1).

A. Time for Everything

The third chapter of the book of Ecclesiastes is probably its most
famous chapter.1 Chapter three describes familiar aspects of life. It
covers the full range of human experience.
There is a poetic aspect to the chapter that makes it memorable.
A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to
pluck up that which is planted; A time to kill, and a time to heal; a
time to break down, and a time to build up; A time to weep, and a
time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance; A time to cast
away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace,
and a time to refrain from embracing; A time to get, and a time to
lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away; A time to rend, and a
time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak; A time to
love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace (vv. 2–8).

This list covers life-and-death issues and also minor issues. The
reigning principle is this: each event has its own time. Each event is as-
sociated with comprehensive purposes under heaven. The timing of
each event is not random. “He hath made every thing beautiful in his
time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find
out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end” (Eccl.
3:11).
This passage is not only poetic; it is profound. It is profound be-
cause it rests on a dual presupposition: the omniscience of God and
1. There was a popular song in the 1960s, Turn, Turn, Turn, which was based on
this chapter. (http://bit.ly/TurnByrds). Millions of young people heard it, never know-
ing its origin.
33
34 AUTONOMY AND STAGNATION
the providence of God. It begins with the concept of purpose. If there
is a time for every purpose under heaven, the implication is that pur-
pose is simultaneously divine and temporal. The events of life are re-
lated to the events of eternity. This is why he says that the events can-
not be changed. “I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for
ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God
doeth it, that men should fear before him” (Eccl. 3:14). These events
are permanent. Furthermore, God judges them. The Preacher speaks
of the judgment of God in relation to purpose for every work. “I said in
mine heart, God shall judge the righteous and the wicked: for there is a
time there for every purpose and for every work” (v. 17).

B. Rival Views in One Passage

There are elements of this passage that indicate that he is still ar-
guing on the basis of cyclical history. 2 He says that what happens today
has happened before. “That which hath been is now; and that which is
to be hath already been; and God requireth that which is past” (v. 15).
This was the common view of history in the ancient pagan world. It
was only after the triumph of Christianity that the concept of linear
time spread beyond the geographical limits of Palestine.
What does the author mean by saying that what is today has
already been? If this is to be reconciled with the concept of linear his-
tory, which was a uniquely biblical concept in his day, then it must
refer to the decree of God. It refers back in time to God’s plan for the
ages. If there is a time for every purpose under heaven, this purpose is
God’s purpose. If it is God’s purpose, then it is part of a decree which
unfolds in time. This decree rests on the concept of the sovereignty of
God. Events are not random.
Cyclical history is not the primary meaning of this passage. The
idea that the past cannot be changed is clearly based on the concept of
linear history. If history is cyclical, then the past is irrelevant. It has
happened before, and it will happen again. There is nothing unique
about any event in history if history is cyclical. In contrast, if history is
linear, then one thing leads to another. If there is coherence in history,
and if there is meaning in history, then each event plays a role. This is
the message conveyed by chapter three. There is a time for every pur-
pose under heaven. Each period of time has relevance in relationship
to all the other periods of time.

2. Chapter 1.
 Godly Times and Beastly Times (Eccl. 3:1) 35
If history is linear, and if God judges every aspect of history, then
history has meaning in terms of the imputation of meaning by God.
God judges every aspect of history (v. 17). If God judges historical
events, then He judges in terms of standards. This imputation of
meaning to every event in history secures the relevance of every act in
every man’s life.
The concept of linear history is basic to Western civilization. It un-
derlies another concept, which has its origin in Deuteronomy 28:1–14:
long-term economic growth. The Book of Ecclesiastes does not speak
of long-term economic growth, but this passage does indicate that his-
tory is linear.

C. The Role of Death

The chapter contains inconsistent principles. The author keeps re-
ferring back to death. He had already done this in chapter 3. The di-
vide between biological life and death is the fundamental divide in the
thinking of non-Christians. For Christianity, there is also a divide
between life and death, but it takes place in history. There is physical
death, but there is also eternal death. The division between eternal life
and eternal death is grounded in history. The divide between coven-
antal life and death is the fundamental divide in Christianity. This di-
vide takes place in history. “He that believeth on the Son hath everlast-
ing life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the
wrath of God abideth on him” (John 3:36). Physical death delivers an
individual into eternity. Eternity is marked by life and death. The Bible
calls eternal death the second death. “And death and hell were cast
into the lake of fire. This is the second death” (Rev. 20:14). Entry into
eternal life takes place in history. It is confessional. It is judicial. It has
to do with the special grace of God.
None of this was revealed under the Old Covenant. The division
between physical life and physical death was seen as the supreme divi-
sion. There are only a few passages in the Old Testament relating to
life beyond the grave.3 The author of the Book of Ecclesiastes focuses
on the division between physical life and death. He does so from the
perspective of the covenant-breaker. He equates the life of the beast
with the life of a man, because both of them die physically. “For that
which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing be-
falleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one

3. Job 14:14–15; Psalm 49:15; Isaiah 26:19; Daniel 12:1–2, 13; Hosea 13:14.
36 AUTONOMY AND STAGNATION
breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is van-
ity. All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again”
(Eccl. 3:19–20). He is emphatic: “I said in mine heart concerning the
estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they
might see that they themselves are beasts” (v. 18). He also equates the
life of the wise man and the fool, because both of them die physically
(Eccl. 2:14).4
But he also says that God judges the righteous and the wicked
(Eccl. 3:17). Because God judges the righteous and the wicked, then the
differentiating criterion is ethics. It is not death. Autonomous death is
impersonal and universal. If a man is no different from a beast, then
ethics has nothing to do with the individual’s judicial status or his role
in history. But if man is judged by God, in every act in his life, then
ethics serves as the relevant criterion to distinguish man from beast, a
fool from a wise man, the righteous from the wicked. Chapter 3
presents both viewpoints. This is why the chapter is difficult to inter-
pret.
He says that a beast and a man go to the same place (v. 20). This is
an application of one aspect of God’s curse on Adam. “In the sweat of
thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out
of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou re-
turn” (Gen. 3:19).5 If Adam had not been made in God’s image, then
the end of Adam and the end of every beast would be the same: dust.
But are they the same? The author indicates that they are not. He
raises a question. He asks if anyone knows the spirit of man that goes
upward and the spirit of the beast that goes downward into the earth
(v. 21). So, there is a difference between a beast and a man. There is
more to a man than there is to a beast. The author does not speak of
God’s judgment of the beasts. He does speak of God’s judgment of
men (v. 17).

D. What Is Good for Man

He says that there is nothing better than that a man should rejoice
in his own works, for they are his portion (v. 22). Why does he con-
clude this? He asks this rhetorical question: Who shall bring him to see
what shall be after him (v. 22)? The implied answer: no one. So, he has

4. Chapter 3.
5. Gary North, Sovereignty and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on Genesis
(Dallas, Georgia: Point Five Press, [1982] 2012), ch. 12.
 Godly Times and Beastly Times (Eccl. 3:1) 37
to be content with whatever he does in his life, because he does not
know how his legacy will turn out. He does not know how his legacy
will be used by his heirs. This theme is found in the second chapter.
The Preacher is concerned about legacy. He is concerned about what
the legacy is after the death of the testator.
The recurring theme of the Book of Ecclesiastes is vanity, i.e., hope-
lessness. The Preacher repeatedly insists that time is characterized by
vanity. Then how can covenant-keepers make sense of time? If time is
cyclical, then it has no meaning. There is no cosmic judge. Everything
repeats itself. Therefore, everything is equally irrelevant. On the other
hand, if God judges men’s actions in history, then these events are rel-
evant in terms of the purposes of God. Individuals have purposes, but
God is the judge. God evaluates the righteousness or wickedness of a
particular act. Everything that takes place takes place in terms of the
decree of God. There is a time for every purpose under heaven.
From an economic point of view, the concept of linear time makes
possible the linked concepts of progress and economic growth. If time
is cyclical, there is no permanent progress or economic growth. Every-
thing will repeat itself. Everything that takes place today is as relevant
or as irrelevant as everything that took in a previous identical yester-
day.

Conclusion
In Ecclesiastes, we are presented with rival views of time until the
last few verses. The Preacher goes back and forth between the pagan
view of time and the biblical view, between meaninglessness and
providence. The internal debate is clearest in chapter 3. If history is
cyclical, it is without purpose. 6 If history is purposeful, it is not cyclical.
It is linear: beginning, development, culmination, followed by God’s
judgment. Then it is transcended by glorification. This is the message
of the Bible and its imitations.

6. The highly popular comedy film Groundhog Day (1993) is a good presentation
of this theme. A man who is trapped in a recurring day unsuccessfully seeks suicide.
The movie cheats, because he does recall the previous days. He learns. Eventually, he
repents.
 8
8

THE JOY OF CONSUMING

I have seen the travail, which God hath given to the sons of men to be
exercised in it. He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he
hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work
that God maketh from the beginning to the end. I know that there is
no good in them, but for a man to rejoice, and to do good in his life.
And also that every man should eat and drink, and enjoy the good of
all his labour, it is the gift of God (Eccl. 3:10–13).

A. The Fruits of Our Labor

The Preacher continues his exposition of the purposefulness of
historical events.1 God is in charge. He has made everything beautiful
in His time. He is sovereign over time. This is not autonomous man
speaking.
The King James’ translators made a mess of the next two verses. “I
know that there is no good in them.” No good in what? This makes no
sense. The phrase “in them” is not in the Hebrew. The American
Standard Version, published in 1901, is much clearer. It substitutes
“for them” for “in them.”
He hath made everything beautiful in its time: also he hath set etern-
ity in their heart, yet so that man cannot find out the work that God
hath done from the beginning even to the end. I know that there is
nothing better for them, than to rejoice, and to do good so long as
they live (vv. 11–12).

Quite similar is the recent English Standard Version.

He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also, he has put etern-
ity into man’s heart, yet so that he cannot find out what God has
done from the beginning to the end. I perceived that there is nothing

1. Chapter 7.
38
 The Joy of Consuming (Eccl. 3:10–13) 39
better for them than to be joyful and to do good as long as they live
(vv. 11–12).

The Preacher makes three points. First, men have a sense of etern-
ity in their hearts. This testimony confronts them all their lives.
Second, men have limited understanding of past events. The details of
God’s work in history are closed to them. History is extremely com-
plex. Third, men are to be content with their limited knowledge. They
are to spend their lives doing good. This ethical framework undergirds
this entire passage. It is clearly covenantal in its perspective.
A person should enjoy the fruits of his labor. “And also that every
man should eat and drink, and enjoy the good of all his labour, it is the
gift of God.” This emphasis on consumption is found in several pas-
sages in his book.2 This is guilt-free consumption. This is not the life-
style of an ascetic, nor is it the way of a monastic order.

B. Legitimate Consumption
The good products of a man’s labor are God’s gift to him. He pos-
sesses them lawfully. Therefore, he can consume them legitimately.
There is no suggestion that consumption is some form of ethical devi-
ation. A man has expended what lawfully belonged to him: his labor.
From this expenditure has come a reward. The Preacher calls it a gift
from God.
This is not the first time he uses the language of consumption.
“There is nothing better for a man, than that he should eat and drink,
and that he should make his soul enjoy good in his labour. This also I
saw, that it was from the hand of God” (Eccl. 2:24). The context of this
affirmation was one of despair and futility. The fruit of a man’s labor
can be inherited by another. This seems to be a great waste.
For there is a man whose labour is in wisdom, and in knowledge, and
in equity; yet to a man that hath not laboured therein shall he leave it
for his portion. This also is vanity and a great evil. For what hath man
of all his labour, and of the vexation of his heart, wherein he hath la-
boured under the sun? For all his days are sorrows, and his travail
grief; yea, his heart taketh not rest in the night. This is also vanity
(Eccl. 2:21–23).3

2. Chapters 5, 8, 20.
3. Chapter 5.
40 AUTONOMY AND STAGNATION
The future is uncertain. The present is certain. Therefore, he con-
cluded, a wise man should enjoy whatever belongs to him for as long
as he can. There is no hope in inheritance. This is a present-oriented
outlook. It makes sense for autonomous man.
How much sense does it make for a covenant-keeper? Here, he
concludes the same as he did before, but he does so on a different
basis. It has to do with the providence of God. “I know that, whatso-
ever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any
thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before
him” (Eccl. 3:14). God is absolutely sovereign over the affairs of men.
When labor produces fruits, they may lawfully be consumed by the
owner. But this legal right of consumption is not the result of despair
over the future. On the contrary, the Preacher affirms that God is in
control over all things. Why should a godly man despair? Consump-
tion is an affirmation of the future. “There is more where that came
from!”

C. The Decree of God

Then the Preacher adds something that has baffled commentators.
“That which hath been is now; and that which is to be hath already
been; and God requireth that which is past” (v. 15). The Hebrew word
translated “requireth” is obscure. Commentators and translators can-
not agree about its meaning. Some have translated it as “driven away”
(ESV). Others have translated it as “passed away” (ASV). Another:
“does everything over and over again” (CEV).4 The mid-nineteenth-
century commentator, E. W. Hengstenberg, invoked a Psalm to ex-
plain it. “Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in
thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were
fashioned, when as yet there was none of them” (Psalm 139:16). He ex-
plained the passage as a matter of God’s decree. The decree is past; the
event is recent. He wrote that “our whole existence from beginning to
end is pre-ordained by God. . . . What was (or became) is already, exis-
ted already in the divine counsels before it was openly manifested, and
hence we learn, that God’s decrees decide everything. . . .” 5 The phrase,
“That which hath been is now; and that which is to be hath already
been,” refers to the decree of God. The events of today and tomorrow

4. Contemporary English Version.

5. E. W. Hengstenberg, Commentary on Ecclesiastes (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clarke,
1860), p. 111.
 The Joy of Consuming (Eccl. 3:10–13) 41
have their origin in the distant past, before the foundation of the
world. Paul wrote:
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath
blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: Ac-
cording as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the
world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus
Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the
praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in
the beloved (Eph. 1:3–6).

This approach to the text makes more sense than numerous com-
mentators’ convoluted attempts to explain this passage without adopt-
ing the theory of cyclical history that the Preacher presents in the
book’s opening words. One commentator proclaims, “It is God who
keeps the cycles of nature and history going; the believer’s hope is as
immutable as the pessimist’s despair.” 6 But if history is cyclical, where
is the hope of progress? That is the heart of the pessimist’s despair.

D. Judgment and Progress

The Preacher then ties what he has said about a time for every
purpose under heaven to the doctrine of God’s judgment. This is the
doctrine of sanctions. Recall that the Preacher was speaking of history,
not eternity. The chapter is about the events of history. “And more-
over I saw under the sun the place of judgment, that wickedness was
there; and the place of righteousness, that iniquity was there. I said in
mine heart, God shall judge the righteous and the wicked: for there is a
time there for every purpose and for every work” (Eccl. 3:16–17). God
will judge evil judges in His good time. He will restore justice.
The idea here is that history is not random, nor is it cyclical. It is
under the sovereignty of God, whose decree governs all things. Unjust
judges will be brought under God’s judgment. The reign of evildoers
will end. Later, he declares: “If thou seest the oppression of the poor,
and violent perverting of judgment and justice in a province, marvel
not at the matter: for he that is higher than the highest regardeth; and
there be higher than they” (Eccl. 5:8).7

6. Michael A. Eaton, Ecclesiastes: An Introduction and Commentary (Downers

Grove, Illinois: Inter-Varsity Press, 1983), p. 82.
7. Chapter 17.
42 AUTONOMY AND STAGNATION
The hope of a future reign of justice is not thwarted by the doctrine
of cyclical history. It is strengthened by the doctrine of the providence
of God. What appears to be a reaffirmation of cyclical history—“That
which hath been is now; and that which is to be hath already been”—is
in fact its refutation. History moves forward according to God’s de-
cree. His promise to Adam and Eve is inescapable. “And I will put
enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her
seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel” (Gen.
3:15).

Conclusion
The Preacher recommends joyful consumption, not because this is
man’s only refuge in a hostile, meaningless world in which the future is
uncertain, but because God is in complete control. We can consume
today because we have hope in tomorrow. As the prophet Jeremiah
proclaimed, “It is of the LORD’S mercies that we are not consumed,
because his compassions fail not. They are new every morning: great is
thy faithfulness. The LORD is my portion, saith my soul; therefore will
I hope in him” (Lam. 3:22–24).
Covenant man is a producer and a consumer. He consumes in
confidence because the fruits of his labor are assured, not just in his
own lifetime but in years to come. Given God’s decree before the
foundation of the world, “That which is to be hath already been.”
 9
9

OPPRESSION AND THE OPPRESSED

So I returned, and considered all the oppressions that are done under
the sun: and behold the tears of such as were oppressed, and they had
no comforter; and on the side of their oppressors there was power; but
they had no comforter (Eccl. 4:1).

A. A Sign of Corruption
One of the marks of a corrupt society is this: there is extensive op-
pression of the weak. The weak are generally categorized by three
groups: widows, orphans, and strangers. Throughout the Old Coven-
ant, there are warnings to oppressors. The Mosaic law was hostile to
oppressors. The Preacher is hostile to oppression.
This passage says explicitly that the oppressor uses power to op-
press people. What is the meaning of “power”? The Hebrew word
means what it does in English: strength. It also can refer to ability.
“And thou say in thine heart, My power and the might of mine hand
hath gotten me this wealth” (Deut. 8:17). 1 The Preacher says that the
oppressors have power, but the victims have no comforter. This indic-
ates that the Preacher is concerned about the misuse of power. The
oppressors had power on their side; the oppressed had no one. This in-
dicates that both the power and the comforter were personal. He was
not speaking of impersonal forces. He was speaking of judicial authorit-
ies. He was speaking of people standing ready to intervene on one side
or the other.

B. No Comforter?
The Preacher identifies the problem: the misuse of power by op-
pressors. These people know that the civil government will not inter-
1. Gary North, Inheritance and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on Deutero-
nomy, 2nd ed. (Dallas, Georgia: Point Five Press, [1999] 2012), ch. 21.
43
44 AUTONOMY AND STAGNATION
vene to defend the victims. The victims have no comforter. They are
helpless. This is why the oppressors are in a position to oppress them.
The Preacher is ignoring what the Bible teaches about God as the
Comforter. The psalmist cried out: “Judge me, O God, and plead my
cause against an ungodly nation: O deliver me from the deceitful and
unjust man” (Psalm 43:1). The Psalms contain many passages about
God as Deliverer. The phrase “right hand,” referring to God’s power,
appears repeatedly.
I have called upon thee, for thou wilt hear me, O God: incline thine
ear unto me, and hear my speech. Shew thy marvellous lovingkind-
ness, O thou that savest by thy right hand them which put their trust
in thee from those that rise up against them (Psalm 17:6–7).

We will rejoice in thy salvation, and in the name of our God we will
set up our banners: the LORD fulfil all thy petitions. Now know I that
the LORD saveth his anointed; he will hear him from his holy heaven
with the saving strength of his right hand. Some trust in chariots, and
some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our
God. They are brought down and fallen: but we are risen, and stand
upright (Psalm 20:5–8).

So, the Preacher is speaking as a covenant-breaker. He is not testi-

fying faithfully to the character of God. He is saying that the oppressed
appear to be without a comforter.
What he saw with his eyes is not in fact the case. The vanity that
he sees in this oppression is an illusion. There is a source of justice in
history. “Thou hast a mighty arm: strong is thy hand, and high is thy
right hand. Justice and judgment are the habitation of thy throne:
mercy and truth shall go before thy face” (Psalm 89:13–14).

C. Biblical Law
The Preacher does not suggest a reform in this passage, but he
does in the final verses of the book. “Let us hear the conclusion of the
whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the
whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work into judgment,
with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil” (Eccl.
12:13–14).2
There is a standard of justice: biblical law. The question then is
this: What does biblical law teach about oppression and deliverance?

2. Chapter 45.
 Oppression and the Oppressed (Eccl. 4:1) 45
First, it tells the oppressed to call on God’s name. “Let the sinners
be consumed out of the earth, and let the wicked be no more. Bless
thou the LORD, O my soul. Praise ye the LORD” (Psalm 104:35).
Second, it provides standards of justice: biblical statutes. Those
seeking deliverance from injustice need to have a standard of justice
that is reliable and permanent. This standard exists.
Biblical economic law rests on the concept of God as sovereign
Owner. Its fundamental economic law of justice is this: “Thou shalt
not steal” (Ex. 20:15).3 Then there is the principle of restitution.
If a man shall steal an ox, or a sheep, and kill it, or sell it; he shall re -
store five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep. If a thief be
found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood
be shed for him. If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood
shed for him; for he should make full restitution; if he have nothing,
then he shall be sold for his theft. If the theft be certainly found in his
hand alive, whether it be ox, or ass, or sheep; he shall restore double
(Ex. 22:1–4).4

The principle of the landmark must be obeyed. This is another de-

fense against theft.
Thou shalt not remove thy neighbour’s landmark, which they of old
time have set in thine inheritance, which thou shalt inherit in the
land that the LORD thy God giveth thee to possess it (Deut. 19:14). 5

Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set (Prov.
22:28).6

The Mosaic law protected society against oppressors. When it was

not enforced by government, beginning with self-government, op-
pressors began to emerge.
This view of oppression is rarely discussed by the social critics who
want to substitute other law-orders for biblical law.

3. Gary North, Authority and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on Exodus

(Dallas, Georgia: Point Five Press, 2012), Part 2, Decalogue and Dominion (1986), ch. 5.
4. Ibid., Part 3, Tools of Dominion (1990), ch. 43.
5. North, Inheritance and Dominion, ch. 44.
6. Gary North, Wisdom and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on Proverbs
(Dallas, Georgia: Point Five Press, [2007] 2012), ch. 70.
46 AUTONOMY AND STAGNATION
D. The Social Gospel
Defenders of the Social Gospel and other proponents of increased
state power in the name of Christian evangelicalism see the words “op-
press” and “oppression,” and they conclude that the text is talking
about rich people who oppress poor people by hiring them at low
wages or by paying them too little money for the goods they sell. The
focus of their outrage is the free market. They are hostile to the prin-
ciple of voluntary exchange. They are hostile to the concept of a social
order which is based on voluntary exchange, contracts, and markets
for making bids to buy and sell. They believe that the free-market so-
cial order is characterized by oppression. They never explain the free-
market as the product of the private property system which the Mosa-
ic law required, and which Jesus and the authors of the New Testa-
ment epistles did not oppose and did not criticize. Their hostility to
the free market is total. They give no sign whatsoever of understanding
even the most fundamental of free-market principles, such as supply
and demand. They are actively opposed to that other fundamental
principle of the free market: high bid wins. They want other winners
and other winning principles. They do not discuss the details of these
alternatives, such as allocation by political power or allocation by
standing in line. Then there is that other familiar distribution system,
allocation by sexual favors.
This hostility to the free-market social order colors everything that
Social Gospel advocates write about the economy or what the Bible
supposedly says about economics. 7 This is to be expected. What I write
is colored my understanding of the free-market social order, which is
the result of the system of private property which was established by
the Mosaic law. There is no escape from one’s presuppositions about
the way the world works. The main question is not what the writers’
presuppositions are. The main question is what the Bible really says.

Conclusion
“So I returned, and considered all the oppressions that are done
under the sun: and behold the tears of such as were oppressed, and
they had no comforter; and on the side of their oppressors there was
power; but they had no comforter.” The Preacher is speaking as a cov-
enant-breaker. He is criticizing the social order around him. If he was
7. Joel McDurmon, God Versus Socialism: A Biblical Critique of the New Social
Gospel (Powder Springs, Georgia: American Vision, 2009).
 Oppression and the Oppressed (Eccl. 4:1) 47
Solomon, as seems likely, he was in a position to deliver the oppressed
from the hand of the oppressors. He could serve as a comforter. Why
such despair?
He was commenting on the way of the world. This is the way the
world operates in the eyes of decent autonomous men. There is no de-
liverance from oppression. All this is vanity. It is also incorrect.
 10
10

ENVY UNDERMINES SUCCESS

Again, I considered all travail, and every right work, that for this a
man is envied of his neighbour. This is also vanity and vexation of
spirit (Eccl. 4:4).

A. Envious Neighbors
The Preacher speaks representatively as a covenant-breaker. He
speaks as if there were no God who evaluates human actions, and who
then brings judgment, both in history and eternity.
He says that men—literally males, the Hebrew word indicates—
are envied by their neighbors. Those close to a man are his silent en-
emies. They resent him. Why? Because of the advantages he possesses:
right works. The phrase is not talking about good works in the sense of
charitable works. It means works that offer a person an advantage.
The man works hard, the text says. Tasks impose costs. The man
does not operate on the assumption that he can get something for
nothing. He sacrifices in the present for the sake of the future. This
buys him no favor with his critics. They resent his success just as much
as if he had inherited his wealth. It is his success that they resent. He is
unable to justify his wealth to his critics.
The Preacher understands that envy is a common sin in every soci-
ety that has not taken active steps to reduce it. I do not mean judicial
steps. I mean social steps. Children must be taught from an early stage
not to resent those who are more successful than they are. Much of the
process we call socialization is a system of instruction to increase so-
cial cooperation by reducing people’s indulgence in envy.

48
 Envy Undermines Success (Eccl. 4:4) 49
B. The Seeming Futility of Success
In a society in which envy is common, success is not worth the
effort it requires. The Preacher dismisses success as vanity. It elicits
envy. Who needs success on these terms?
This assumes that success is generic, that no one distinguishes one
success from another. Success of every kind elicits envy. Because most
people seek to avoid envy, their quest for success is futile. Their suc-
cess comes not only at the price of the travail required to reach it and
maintain it. It comes at the price of envy.
But what if this assumption is incorrect? What if other people do
distinguish one form of success from another? What if envy is select-
ive? What if people do possess and honor standards of success that
distinguish between vanity and productivity? In a society that resents
all success, then the Preacher’s point is well taken. To achieve success
is vanity. It will not satisfy the achiever if he wishes to be respected or
loved or honored. This is the society the Preacher perceives. It is a so-
ciety that is not affected by biblical preaching.
Success is legitimate. It is the appropriate reward for coven-
ant-keeping.
This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt
meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do ac-
cording to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy
way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success (Josh. 1:8).

And keep the charge of the LORD thy God, to walk in his ways, to
keep his statutes, and his commandments, and his judgments, and
his testimonies, as it is written in the law of Moses, that thou mayest
prosper in all that thou doest, and whithersoever thou turnest thyself
(I Kings 2:3).

The Preacher is not speaking on behalf of a society that is gov-

erned by the providence of God in terms of His law. It is governed by
some other god or principle of judgment.

Conclusion
The Preacher disdains success. He does so in the name of a coven-
ant-breaking society. He is hammering another nail into the coffin of
covenant-breaking society. Success is not worth the required price,
either on the front end—travail—or the back end: envy. He performs a
cost-benefit analysis of success in a covenant-breaking society, and
50 AUTONOMY AND STAGNATION
concludes that success is not worth the effort. Autonomy leads to a
view of the world that despairs of permanent progress. Such an outlook
is anti-growth. Growth requires sacrifice in the present and a transfer
of an ever-larger inheritance to successive generations. The cost of this
sacrifice is too high for the uncertain benefits obtainable.
 11
11

SLOTH AND STARVATION

The fool foldeth his hands together, and eateth his own flesh (Eccl.
4:5).

A. Folded Hands, Empty Stomach

This is a graphic metaphor. The image of a man eating his own
flesh is memorable. But what does the metaphor mean?
The key to understanding this metaphor is the image of folded
hands. In the Book of Proverbs, the author repeats this proverb: “Yet a
little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to sleep: So
shall thy poverty come as one that travelleth, and thy want as an armed
man” (Prov. 6:10–11; 24:33–34).1 Folded hands are an image of sloth.
They are not folded in prayer.
The Preacher has provided a proverb. This proverb is placed in
between two observations about the futility of the pursuit of wealth.
Again, I considered all travail, and every right work, that for this a
man is envied of his neighbour. This is also vanity and vexation of
spirit (v. 4).

Better is an handful with quietness, than both the hands full with
travail and vexation of spirit (v. 6).

Yet this proverb rejects sloth as a way of life. Sloth is a way of

death. It is a form of consumption: self-consumption. It purchases leis-
ure with poverty. That is too high a price to pay, he says.
This is a covenant-keeper talking. A covenant-breaker is talking in
verse 4. The Preacher in his role as a covenant-breaker dismisses all

1. Gary North, Wisdom and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on Proverbs

(Dallas, Georgia: Point Five Press, [2007] 2012), ch. 75.
51
52 AUTONOMY AND STAGNATION
great productivity as vanity. It gets a man envied in a covenant-break-
ing society.2 The price is too high.
If a man folds his hands together, he cannot work to redeem soci-
ety: to buy it back subordinately because Christ bought it back definit-
ively (Matt. 28:18–20).3 He cannot get rich. He cannot make any signi-
ficant impact on society. He is a consumer of wealth, not a producer of
wealth. He is a fool.

B. Hostility to Poverty
The Bible is hostile to poverty as a way of life. It is a condition that
people are supposed to avoid.
Remove far from me vanity and lies: give me neither poverty nor
riches; feed me with food convenient for me: Lest I be full, and deny
thee, and say, Who is the LORD? or lest I be poor, and steal, and take
the name of my God in vain (Prov. 30:8–9).4

They should pray for deliverance, not parity, just as Mary prayed.
He hath shewed strength with his arm; he hath scattered the proud
in the imagination of their hearts. He hath put down the mighty from
their seats, and exalted them of low degree. He hath filled the hungry
with good things; and the rich he hath sent empty away (Luke 1:51–
53).5

The Preacher dismisses great wealth as a source of anxiety (Eccl.

2:26).6 Here, he dismisses sloth as source of poverty. He recommends
avoiding both.
He blames poverty on sloth. Sloth is a fool’s game. It is destructive.
It is like feeding on your own limb. It is suicidal.
He could have blamed poverty on oppression. He had already dealt
with oppression (4:1).7 He could have referred back to oppression, but
he did not. Instead, he came up with a metaphor that has survived the

2. Chapter 10.
3. Gary North, Priorities and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on Matthew,
2nd ed. (Dallas, Georgia: Point Five Press, [2000] 2012), ch. 48. Cf. Kenneth L. Gentry,
The Greatness of the Great Commission: The Christian Enterprise in a Fallen World
(Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1990). (http://bit.ly/klgggc)
4. North, Wisdom and Dominion, ch. 85.
5. Gary North, Treasure and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on Luke, 2nd
ed. (Dallas, Georgia: Point Five Press, [2000] 2012), ch. 1.
6. Chapter 6.
7. Chapter 5.
 Sloth and Starvation (Eccl. 4:5) 53
test of time. Three millennia later, people still imagine a man eating
part of his body.

Conclusion
This metaphor targets sloth. Vanity, vanity, all is vanity, but sloth
is foolish vanity, which is worse than street-smart vanity. Better is one
handful with quiet than two hands full with vexation of spirit. Better
two hands full with vexation of spirit (v. 6) 8 than two hands folded and
therefore empty. Something is better than nothing.

8. Chapter 12.
 12
12

PEACE AND QUIET

Better is an handful with quietness, than both the hands full with
travail and vexation of spirit (Eccl. 4:6).

A. A New Experience
The Preacher was a man with great wealth. He could afford to sa-
vor all sides of life in his quest for meaning, including leisure and high
consumption. Either he inherited his wealth or else he earned it. He
had not experienced quietness.
He sees the advantages of quietness. It is preferable to travail and
vexation of spirit. He has experienced travail and vexation of spirit. He
sees vanity everywhere. This vexes his spirit. Here, he compares less
with more. He recognizes that travail and vexation of spirit often ac-
company more. Better to have less.
He is not comparing something with nothing. He is comparing
more with less. He speaks of a handful in one situation and two hands
full in another. There is a two-to-one ratio. Under such circumstances,
better one handful than two.
He is admitting that sometimes it is possible to avoid travail and
vexation of spirit. He does not compare one handful, accompanied by
half the travail and vexation of spirit, with two hands full and twice the
travail and vexation of spirit. The negatives associated with two hands
full are not present with one handful. The implication is that a person
can attain a life free of the negatives.
He is not saying that there is a fixed relationship between fewer
possessions and the absence of vexations. He is saying only that when
the opportunity exists to choose a lifestyle with fewer goods and no
vexation, a wise man takes it. A case in point was Lot. He chose the
more desirable region to live in when he departed from Abraham
(Gen. 13:10–11). In Sodom, he was vexed (II Peter 2:7–8). He was sur-

54
 Peace and Quiet (Eccl. 4:5) 55
rounded by evil men. His wealth did not relieve his vexation. God de-
livered him by taking him away from Sodom. He lived in the hills with
only his two scheming daughters to comfort him. But this was better
than remaining in Sodom, even in its pre-judgment days.

B. The Spirit of Enterprise

The Preacher recommends quietness. This is not the road to
riches. To accumulate great wealth peacefully, a person must be entre-
preneurial. He must be willing to bear uncertainty. 1 He can lose sub-
stantial portions of his wealth. Few entrepreneurs live lives of quiet-
ness, especially when they are accumulating their wealth.
This raises a crucial question. How can the economy grow if there
are few entrepreneurs? How will technology be improved? If having a
little with quietness is better than having a lot with anxiety, then the
God-fearing entrepreneur must either give up innovating and take a
salary or else succeed in being a calm entrepreneur. This skill is so rare
as to be unheard of. Yet this is what the covenant-keeping entrepren-
eur must strive to become. If he lives a life of constant turmoil in his
quest for profit, he has fallen into a trap.
He must trust in God. The Psalms are filled with advice in this re-
gard, most famously, the twenty-third Psalm. “Yea, though I walk
through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou
art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me” (Psalm 23:4). If
death does not scare him, why should he worry about a 23% decline in
earnings in the third quarter?

C. The Apostles
What of the early apostles? They did not experience quietness.
They also did not possess great wealth. Their work was kingdom-
building. Yet Paul had a form of quietness: contentment.
Not that I speak in respect of want: for I have learned, in whatsoever
state I am, therewith to be content. I know both how to be abased,
and I know how to abound: every where and in all things I am in -
structed both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to

1. From the point of view of economic theory, he does not take risks. Risks can be
dealt with by insurance because they are part of a class of events governed by the law
of large numbers. The entrepreneur deals with events that are not part of a class.
These events cannot be insured. The classic study on this is Frank H. Knight, Risk,
Uncertainty, and Profit (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1921). (http://bit.ly/KnightRUP)
56 AUTONOMY AND STAGNATION
suffer need. I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth
me (Phil. 4:11–13).2

For Paul, quietness was a matter of inner peace, not a low-risk en-
vironment.
With increased wealth comes increased responsibility. Jesus said,
And that servant, which knew his lord’s will, and prepared not him-
self, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many
stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of
stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much
is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have com-
mitted much, of him they will ask the more (Luke 12:47–48).3

If added responsibility creates anxiety in someone’s life, then the

solution is to avoid additional wealth. This also applies to power, fame,
and prestige.

Conclusion
To reduce the disquietude of wealth, either reduce your wealth or
else reduce your concern about wealth. There is no third option. Both
strategies require faith. The first requires faith that you will not fall
into poverty. The second requires the same. It also requires faith that
becoming less rich is not a setback worth worrying about.

2. Gary North, Ethics and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on the Epistles

(Dallas, Georgia: Point Five Press, 2012), ch. 23.
3. Gary North, Treasure and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on Luke, 2nd
ed. (Dallas, Georgia: Point Five Press, [2000] 2012), ch. 28.
 13
13

MINDLESS ACCUMULATION
There is one alone, and there is not a second; yea, he hath neither
child nor brother: yet is there no end of all his labour; neither is his
eye satisfied with riches; neither saith he, For whom do I labour, and
bereave my soul of good? This is also vanity, yea, it is a sore travail
(Eccl. 4:8).

A. Labor on Whose Behalf?

This is a lone wolf talking. He has no close relatives. In terms of
the Mosaic law, his kinsman-redeemer was distant. Who would inherit
his property? No one close to him. Nevertheless, he works hard. He ac-
cumulates wealth. In the words of the Preacher, his eye is never satis-
fied. He is a devoted practitioner of the religion of Mammon (Matt.
6:24–25). Mammon’s disciples work out their confession: “More for
me in history.” 1
He does not sit quietly to examine his life. “Neither saith he, For
whom do I labour, and bereave my soul of good?” By “soul,” the
Preacher does not mean eternal soul. He means life. But Jesus exten-
ded this to refer to his eternal soul.
And he spake a parable unto them, saying, The ground of a certain
rich man brought forth plentifully: And he thought within himself,
saying, What shall I do, because I have no room where to bestow my
fruits? And he said, This will I do: I will pull down my barns, and
build greater; and there will I bestow all my fruits and my goods. And
I will say to my soul, Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many
years; take thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry. But God said unto
him, Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee: then
whose shall those things be, which thou hast provided? So is he that

1. Gary North, Priorities and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on Matthew,

2nd ed. (Dallas, Georgia: Point Five Press, [2000] 2012), ch. 14.
57
58 AUTONOMY AND STAGNATION
layeth up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God (Luke
12:16–21).2

The Preacher recognizes the foolishness of the lone wolf. This is a

rugged individualist. The Preacher does not say that he works alone.
The man’s isolated status is familistic. He has no close heirs. He slaves
away for the benefit of near-strangers. He does so knowingly, unlike
the residents of Canaan in the years before the invasion of the Israel-
ites.
A man in Israel who had no heir had no name. The law governing
the inheritance of a married man without a son required his nearby
brother to father a child with the widow. Why? To maintain his name
in Israel.
If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child,
the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her hus-
band’s brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and
perform the duty of an husband’s brother unto her. And it shall be,
that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his
brother which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel (Deut.
25:5–6).3

This law applied only to a brother who lived in close proximity. It

did not apply to a distant brother.
The man described by the Preacher has no child and no brother. It
is not said whether he has a wife. As far as his inheritance mattered—
his name in Israel—this did not matter. There would be no brotherly
marriage. If he died and his widow remarried, the land would go to her
children. Her new husband’s name would be established in Israel. His
would be forgotten—judicially forgotten. This was a great curse in
Mosaic Israel.

B. Rugged Individualism
There is an American tradition extolling the rugged individualist.
Given the intensely cooperative history of the United States, this is a
tradition without meaningful examples. There were trappers and ex-
plorers in early America, but they are extolled for their exploits of
bravery and survival, not their legacy. The most famous of these rug-
2. Gary North, Treasure and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on Luke, 2nd
ed. (Dallas, Georgia: Point Five Press, [2000] 2012), ch. 25.
3. Gary North, Inheritance and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on Deutero-
nomy, 2nd ed. (Dallas, Georgia: Point Five Press, [1999] 2012), ch. 64.
 Mindless Accumulation (Eccl. 4:8) 59
ged individualists, Daniel Boone, was in fact a land developer in the
late eighteenth century. He moved west, but only after he had estab-
lished a community: Boonesborough, Kentucky. He left for Missouri in
1799 when he could not get his land claims settled.
Alexis de Tocqueville, visiting the United States for less than a year
in the spring of 1831, penned these memorable words, widely read and
widely accepted, which were published in 1840 and which have re-
mained in print ever since.
Americans of all ages, all conditions, and all dispositions, constantly
form associations. They have not only commercial and manufactur-
ing companies, in which all take part, but associations of a thousand
other kinds—religious, moral, serious, futile, extensive, or restricted,
enormous or diminutive. The Americans make associations to give
entertainments, to found establishments for education, to build inns,
to construct churches, to diffuse books, to send missionaries to the
antipodes; and in this manner they found hospitals, prisons, and
schools. If it be proposed to advance some truth, or to foster some
feeling by the encouragement of a great example, they form a society.
Wherever, at the head of some new undertaking, you see the govern-
ment in France, or a man of rank in England, in the United States
you will be sure to find an association.4

The Preacher has little use for the rugged individualist. He has no
use for any kind of individualism. Men are covenant creatures. They
live in communities bound by covenants. They are bound to each oth-
er through family, tradition, exchange, and formal covenants.
The man who works exclusively for himself is an aberration. He
has given his life to the pursuit of vanity. If there is one character in
Anglo-American literature who embodies this lifestyle, it is Ebenezer
Scrooge. His deliverance—his redemption—is achieved through holi-
day celebration of a Christless Christmas. His heir, through his own
choice, is Tiny Tim. The rugged individualist dies when he sees the
grave of Christmas future.

C. Methodological Individualism
The logic of the free market explains economic motivation as self-
interest. The Preacher explains this as a matter of blindness. He is ac-
cumulating an inheritance for strangers. His legacy is under his control

4. Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, 2 vols., translated by Henry Reeve

(Gutenberg Project, [1840]), II:II:V.
60 AUTONOMY AND STAGNATION
only for a few years. His ability to shape the use of that inheritance is
non-existent. This does not apply to him: “Train up a child in the way
he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it” (Prov.
22:6). He has no child.
This means that the methodological individualism of Adam
Smith’s economics is also a matter of blindness. Economic theory must
be qualified by covenantal considerations, the most important being
inheritance. Family inheritance, like family resource allocation, is not
governed by the free market’s supreme law of pricing: high bid wins.
The principle of methodological covenantalism governs Christian
economics. The free market is more than a system based on private
property and voluntary exchange. Covenant is superior to contract,
both judicially and conceptually.

Conclusion
The Preacher identifies a blind man. He accumulates wealth, but
for what purpose? His covenantal legal status is in conflict with his
contractual economic status. He is building up wealth for strangers to
inherit. He is a one-generation man. Such a person is blinded by van-
ity, according to the Preacher.
 14
14

THE DIVISION OF LABOR

Two are better than one; because they have a good reward for their la-
bour. For if they fall, the one will lift up his fellow: but woe to him that
is alone when he falleth; for he hath not another to help him up.
Again, if two lie together, then they have heat: but how can one be
warm alone? And if one prevail against him, two shall withstand him;
and a threefold cord is not quickly broken (Eccl. 4:9–12).

A. Trinitarian Economics
The origin of this recommendation is the Trinity. God is three
persons. In relation to the creation, each has specific tasks. Jesus said
of the Holy Spirit,
But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will
send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to
your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you (John 14:26).

But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from
the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Fath-
er, he shall testify of me: And ye also shall bear witness, because ye
have been with me from the beginning (John 15:26–27).

He said of Himself, “I must be about my Father’s business” (Luke

2:49b). The context was work.
But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work
(John 5:17).

I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judg-

ment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the
Father which hath sent me (John 5:30).

Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man,
then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but

61
62 AUTONOMY AND STAGNATION
as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things. And he that sent
me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always
those things that please him (John 8:28–29).

B. Adam’s Labor
With respect to point two of the biblical covenant, hierarchy, 1
mankind reflects what God is. God promised Himself that He would
provide a partner for Adam. Adam needed help. God promised a help-
er fit (meet) for him. But first, Adam had to complete an assignment.
He would learn about work. This work was definitional. He would
name the animals. He would define them and their place in the world.
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone;
I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the
LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air;
and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and
whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name
thereof. And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air,
and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an
help meet for him (Gen. 2:18–20).

Then God gave Eve to Adam. He immediately named her in terms

of her origin. “And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and
flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken
out of Man” (Gen. 2:23).
Before sin, there was a harmony of interests. People were not at
war with each other. They were supposed to cooperate. This would
make their work more productive. 2 The original goal for mankind has
not changed: exercising dominion over the creation (Gen. 1:27–28).3
This involves the extension of man’s authority over nature. This is a
cooperative venture.

1. Ray R. Sutton, That You May Prosper: Dominion By Covenant, 2nd ed. (Tyler,
Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, [1987] 1992), ch. 2. (http://bit.ly/rstymp)
Gary North, Unconditional Surrender: God’s Program for Victory, 5th ed. (Powder
Springs, Georgia: American Vision, [1980] 2010), ch. 3.
2. Gary North, Sovereignty and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on Genesis
(Dallas, Georgia: Point Five Press, [1982] 2012), ch. 10.
3. Ibid., ch. 4.
 The Division of Labor (Eccl. 4:9–12) 63
C. Scattering and Dominion
God thwarted the sin of man at the Tower of Babel by scattering
them. This reduced their power. Otherwise, they would have pursued
their goal of building a symbolic tower that would reach to heaven.
And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one
language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be re-
strained from them, which they have imagined to do. Go to, let us go
down, and there confound their language, that they may not under-
stand one another’s speech. So the LORD scattered them abroad
from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build
the city (Gen. 11:6–8).

This weakened mankind politically and culturally, for it decreased

the division of labor. The people were no longer one. Yet this geo-
graphical scattering also extended man’s influence over nature. Man-
kind spread out across the face of the earth. Subsequently, internation-
al trade made possible the division of labor. 4 There was a re-establish-
ment of unity through diversity: diversity of talents, vision, and pro-
grams. The quest for profit brought limited cooperation. But one
factor above all others maintained separation: confession of faith. Man
had been of one tongue, both linguistically and theologically. He had
worshipped man. “And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a
tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name,
lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth” (Gen.
11:4). They wanted to make a name for themselves: to define them-
selves and their place in the world. God put a stop to this. Their
greatest fear became God’s negative sanction against them: scattering.

D. Overcoming Individualism
Individualism is rugged. It is rugged because it is inefficient.
The division of labor benefits those who are less rugged. They can
achieve together what they could not have achieved individually. The
division of labor makes each of the participants more efficient. It also
reduces risk for all participants. “But woe to him that is alone when he
falleth; for he hath not another to help him up.”
The text indicates that more is better than fewer. “And if one pre-
vail against him, two shall withstand him; and a threefold cord is not

4. Ibid., ch. 15.

64 AUTONOMY AND STAGNATION
quickly broken.” The larger the community of cooperation, the less
there is to fear from invaders.
“Two are better than one; because they have a good reward for
their labour.” They both benefit, which means their output is increased
more than two-fold.
The introductory chapters of Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations
(1776) is an application of this passage. Smith shows that a team of
men of limited skills can cooperate to produce a simple pin. A solitary
producer must be highly skilled to make a pin. He can produce few per
day. A factory with the proper equipment can produce thousands of
pins. Pins become common consumer goods because of mass produc-
tion and price competition. This is made possible by the specialization
involved in the division of labor. Each person concentrates on what he
does best.

Conclusion
The division of labor has empowered the weak. It has made all par-
ticipants more productive. This has increased per capita wealth. What
one person cannot accomplish, two can do. It pays them both to do it.
This is not the central fact of Christian economics. Neither is
scarcity. Ownership is. God’s ownership is the starting point. Adam
Smith made the division of labor the starting point. Modern econom-
ists make scarcity the starting point. Both of these starting points can
be subsumed under the physical limits of nature. This makes them
seem morally neutral starting points. They conceal the fundamental
fact of Christian economics: God owns everything. This fact is anything
but neutral.
By subsuming the division of labor under the doctrine of the Trin-
ity, I have made my discussion of the division of labor highly unneut-
ral. That is my task in every volume in this commentary: to make
Christian economics unneutral. That which is theocentric is not neut-
ral, and everything in creation is theocentric. Nothing is anthropo-
centric. Nothing is diabolocentric.
 15
15

WISDOM AND SOCIAL MOBILITY

Better is a poor and a wise child than an old and foolish king, who
will no more be admonished. For out of prison he cometh to reign;
whereas also he that is born in his kingdom becometh poor (Eccl.
4:13–14).

A. Hierarchy and Social Mobility

Here, the Preacher speaks as a covenant-keeper. He announces
that someone is better than someone else. This means that there is a
standard of performance. Wisdom is the decisive differentiating factor
between better and worse. In contrast, autonomous man says that there
is no difference between wisdom and foolishness, for death consumes
everyone (Eccl. 2:15–17).1
The biblical structure of society allows for two-way social mobility.
Individuals can rise and fall. There is no security in any high position,
and there is also no permanent servitude. Ezekiel warned the kings of
Israel: “Thus saith the Lord GOD; Remove the diadem, and take off the
crown: this shall not be the same: exalt him that is low, and abase him
that is high. I will overturn, overturn, overturn, it: and it shall be no
more, until he come whose right it is; and I will give it him” (Ezek.
21:26–27). This was a messianic prophecy regarding the prophecy
made by Jacob/Israel in his old age. “The sceptre shall not depart from
Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and
unto him shall the gathering of the people be” (Gen. 49:10).
This prophecy was fulfilled by Jesus Christ. His mother had proph-
esied before His birth, “He hath shewed strength with his arm; he hath
scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts. He hath put
down the mighty from their seats, and exalted them of low degree. He

1. Chapter 3.
65
66 AUTONOMY AND STAGNATION
hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich he hath sent
empty away” (Luke 1:51–53).2
Here, the Preacher speaks of the biblical basis of upward mobility:
wisdom. The poor but wise child has better prospects than a king so
unwise as to be beyond correction. The meaning of the Hebrew word
for “child” is the same as in English. It does not specify age. It generally
refers to a young child, but not always. The child in this passage is
older: “For out of prison he cometh to reign.” The role model here is
Joseph, who was in Pharaoh’s prison and rose to become second in
command in Egypt. He was wise, but his wisdom did not keep him out
of prison. On the contrary, it got him into prison.
The Hebrew is obscure. The King James reads: “He that is born in
his kingdom becometh poor.” The English Standard Version translates
the verse differently: “For he went from prison to the throne, though in
his own kingdom he had been born poor” (v. 14). This is the accepted
translation in modern translations. It is not speaking of downward
mobility.
For a prisoner to become king was possible in the ancient world
only through a military victory or a domestic revolution. Even today, it
is unlikely that an ex-convict will lead a nation apart from a military
victory or a revolution. The normal career path to supreme authority
does not include time behind bars. But the Preacher is making a point.
So empowering is wisdom that a wise person has an enormous advant-
age. So great is this advantage that it can lead to a reversal of status on
the scale of a prisoner’s becoming king.
The Preacher is not warning unwise kings to become wise. Basic to
a lack of wisdom is a refusal to hear counsel. He is warning the rest of
us. Better to imitate a wise youth than remain stubbornly closed to ad-
vice. Old age is not a substitute for wisdom. We presume that wisdom
is associated with age, but this text indicates that this rule of thumb is
not universal. Wisdom is the key asset—not age, not power.
Happy is the man that findeth wisdom, and the man that getteth un-
derstanding. For the merchandise of it is better than the merchandise
of silver, and the gain thereof than fine gold. She is more precious
than rubies: and all the things thou canst desire are not to be com-
pared unto her (Prov. 3:13–15).3

2. Gary North, Treasure and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on Luke, 2nd

ed. (Dallas, Georgia: Point Five Press, [2000] 2012), ch. 1.
3. Gary North, Wisdom and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on Proverbs
(Dallas, Georgia: Point Five Press, [2007] 2012), ch. 9.
 Wisdom and Social Mobility (Eccl. 4:13–14) 67
Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy
getting get understanding (Prov. 4:7).

For wisdom is better than rubies; and all the things that may be de-
sired are not to be compared to it (Prov. 8:11).

Conclusion
If you want riches, cultivate wisdom. If you want power, cultivate
wisdom. Wisdom is the royal road to wealth and power. While this
passage does not define wisdom, it identifies its benefits. Wisdom is
the basis of progress in the life of a covenant-keeper.
 16
16

VOWS AND PROMISES

When thou vowest a vow unto God, defer not to pay it; for he hath no
pleasure in fools: pay that which thou hast vowed. Better is it that
thou shouldest not vow, than that thou shouldest vow and not pay
(Eccl. 5:4–5).

A. Vows as Debt
A vow is a promise made to God. The Preacher warns against tak-
ing a vow. A vow cannot lawfully be revised later. It locks in the vow-
taker. Although conditions may change, the obligation does not
change. The vow is like a burden that must be carried. It places the
vow-taker in a position of servanthood.
By committing himself to the performance of some obligation, the
vow-taker establishes a binding debt. A vow is the most binding form of
personal debt. No other debt has comparable authority. A vow to God
is binding. The Mosaic law had a detailed set of rules governing vows
(Num. 30). It began with this: “If a man vow a vow unto the LORD, or
swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond; he shall not break his word,
he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth” (Num.
30:2).1
Covenants are established by vows. A marriage is established by a
vow before God. People are supposed to take marriage vows seriously.
Unless one of the partners dies, either physically or covenantally by
committing a biblically specified sin, the marriage vow remains bind-
ing.2 The Preacher’s warning against taking a vow applies to marriage.
Neither party can lawfully be compelled to take such a vow. This ap-

1. Gary North, Sanctions and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on Numbers,

2nd ed. (Dallas, Georgia: Point Five Press, [1997] 2012), ch. 16.
2. Ray R. Sutton, Second Chance: Biblical Blueprints for Divorce and Remarriage
(Ft. Worth, Texas: Dominion Press, 1987). (http://bit.ly/rssecond)
68
 Vows and Promises (Eccl. 5:4–5) 69
plies to arranged marriages. Either party can lawfully veto the decision
of the parents. The vow is established by public verbal profession.
Civil government is established by vows. These may be explicit or
implicit. This is why there is no right of revolution for an individual
acting outside of civil government. Only lower magistrates may lead a
revolution, and only for violations by the higher government of the
terms of the covenant.
A church covenant is binding. There are only three ways out of a
church covenant: by death, letter of transfer, or excommunication.
The vow is established by baptism.

B. To Break or Not to Break

A vow is not the same as a promise. It has greater authority. A vow
is analogous to a covenant. A promise is analogous to a contract. A
promise can lawfully be broken for the sake of covenantal authority.
Israel’s most famous lawfully kept promise in the Old Covenant
was its fulfilling of its promise to the Gibeonites that they could re-
main in the land. Although they tricked the Israelites, they had secured
the promise. God had told Israel to exterminate all of the Canaanites,
but they dared not obey. “But all the princes said unto all the congreg-
ation, We have sworn unto them by the LORD God of Israel: now
therefore we may not touch them” (Josh 9:19).
The most famous lawful broken promise in Scripture is Solomon’s.
And Adonijah the son of Haggith came to Bath-sheba the mother of
Solomon. And she said, Comest thou peaceably? And he said, Peace-
ably. He said moreover, I have somewhat to say unto thee. And she
said, Say on. And he said, Thou knowest that the kingdom was mine,
and that all Israel set their faces on me, that I should reign: howbeit
the kingdom is turned about, and is become my brother’s: for it was
his from the LORD. And now I ask one petition of thee, deny me not.
And she said unto him, Say on. And he said, Speak, I pray thee, unto
Solomon the king, (for he will not say thee nay,) that he give me
Abishag the Shunammite to wife. And Bath-sheba said, Well; I will
speak for thee unto the king.

Bath-sheba therefore went unto king Solomon, to speak unto him for
Adonijah. And the king rose up to meet her, and bowed himself unto
her, and sat down on his throne, and caused a seat to be set for the
king’s mother; and she sat on his right hand. Then she said, I desire
one small petition of thee; I pray thee, say me not nay. And the king
said unto her, Ask on, my mother: for I will not say thee nay. And she
70 AUTONOMY AND STAGNATION
said, Let Abishag the Shunammite be given to Adonijah thy brother
to wife. And king Solomon answered and said unto his mother, And
why dost thou ask Abishag the Shunammite for Adonijah? ask for
him the kingdom also; for he is mine elder brother; even for him, and
for Abiathar the priest, and for Joab the son of Zeruiah.

Then king Solomon sware by the LORD, saying, God do so to me,

and more also, if Adonijah have not spoken this word against his own
life. Now therefore, as the LORD liveth, which hath established me,
and set me on the throne of David my father, and who hath made me
an house, as he promised, Adonijah shall be put to death this day.
And king Solomon sent by the hand of Benaiah the son of Jehoiada;
and he fell upon him that he died (I Kings 2:13–25).

The best explanation for Adonijah’s request has to do with inherit-

ance. He thought that by taking as his wife the woman who had slept
beside his aged father, he might enhance his position with the people.
He had already revolted against David, establishing himself as king. It
had taken the intervention of Bathsheba to reverse this. She went to
David on his deathbed and asked who should succeed him. He said So-
lomon (I Kings 1).
Adonijah planned to deceive her. He tested her. He began with a
false statement. “Thou knowest that the kingdom was mine, and that
all Israel set their faces on me, that I should reign.” It was not his by in -
heritance. It was his by usurpation. All of Israel had not revolted
against his usurpation. This did not mean that they were behind his re-
volt. Would she deny his assertions? If so, she would be unlikely to co-
operate. This would cost him nothing. He would not be at risk. But she
did not challenge him. He therefore proceeded with the rest of his
strategy.
Adonijah was still after the throne. The legal issue here was lawful
inheritance. This inheritance was covenantal: family and state. Adoni-
jah’s request was another move to capture the state. Solomon had him
executed. He broke his promise to his naive mother. His promise had
not been a vow before God, as a biblical vow must be.

C. Quid Pro Quo

The vow-taker must consider carefully the cost of performance.
What is in this for him? What is the benefit? A vow may be part of an
exchange. The vow-taker can promise to do something if he receives a
specific benefit. If he promises God that he will do something specific,
 Vows and Promises (Eccl. 5:4–5) 71
he must assume that the specific benefit received came from God. He
is obligated to perform as vowed. He owes the service to God. He
therefore must regard the benefit received as coming from God.
This acknowledges God as sovereign over history. The vow-taker
wants God to intervene in order to achieve his goal. The positive sanc-
tion received from God is evidence of the negative sanctions implied
by God for non-performance. Neither the Preacher nor the Mosaic law
specifies what these negative sanctions are. Presumably, they are
double the positive sanctions. The Mosaic law specified double restitu-
tion for theft (Ex. 22:4).3 Refusing to perform the terms of a vow is a
form of theft. It is value unpaid for value received.

Conclusion
The Preacher is wary of vows. They impose considerable risk for
non-performance. It is easy to let the terms of obligation slide. It is
better not to take the vow than to let it slide.

3. Gary North, Authority and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on Exodus

(Dallas, Georgia: Point Five Press, 2012), Part 3, Tools of Dominion (1990), ch. 43.
 17
17

DELAYED SANCTIONS
If thou seest the oppression of the poor, and violent perverting of judg-
ment and justice in a province, marvel not at the matter: for he that is
higher than the highest regardeth; and there be higher than they (Eccl.
5:8).

This is a covenant-keeper speaking. He understands that God in-

tervenes in history to defend the oppressed. God is active in history.
He rules the oppressors. There is hierarchy.1

A. Civil Government
The oppression of the poor is here related to civil government.
There is perversion of civil justice. This civil focus is consistent with
the Mosaic law. As I have argued, economic oppression in the Mosaic
law was always an aspect of civil government. The Mosaic law was not
being enforced by the civil courts. There is no biblical definition of
economic oppression in terms of percentages or other numerical in-
dicators.2 When the civil law is perverted in order to benefit one party
or group over another, this is oppression, as defined by the Mosaic law
and identified by the prophets.
The person who sees injustice should not be astounded. Why
should he be astounded in the first place? Isn’t injustice common? The
Preacher is concerned with the temptation to become cynical about
God’s sovereign control over the universe. He is heading off the refrain
of the atheist: “If God is just, He is not omnipotent. If He is omnipo -
tent, he is not just.” The Preacher says that God is in control. He uses a
1. Ray R. Sutton, That You May Prosper: Dominion By Covenant, 2nd ed. (Tyler,
Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, [1987] 1992), ch. 2. (http://bit.ly/rstymp)
Gary North, Unconditional Surrender: God’s Program for Victory, 5th ed. (Powder
Springs, Georgia: American Vision, [1980] 2010), ch. 2.
2. Gary North, Authority and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on Exodus
(Dallas, Georgia: Point Five Press, 2012), Part 3, Tools of Dominion (1990), ch. 48.
72
 Delayed Sanctions (Eccl. 5:8) 73
rhetorically powerful phrase to identify God’s authority: higher than
the highest. This refers to the highest court in the land, the final court
of appeal.

B. Final Court of Appeal

God is not under the judicial hierarchy. He is above it. He is not
unobservant. He is not the distant hypothetical god who was pro-
claimed by a handful of eighteenth-century deists. He did not wind up
the cosmos like a clock eons ago and then retreat into the shadows to
see how things would work out.
God observes the affairs of men. He is opposed to oppression. His
Bible-revealed law warns against oppression of the weak.
Ye shall not afflict any widow, or fatherless child. If thou afflict them
in any wise, and they cry at all unto me, I will surely hear their cry;
And my wrath shall wax hot, and I will kill you with the sword; and
your wives shall be widows, and your children fatherless (Ex. 22:22–
24).3

And when we cried unto the LORD God of our fathers, the LORD
heard our voice, and looked on our affliction, and our labour, and our
oppression: And the LORD brought us forth out of Egypt with a
mighty hand, and with an outstretched arm, and with great terrible-
ness, and with signs, and with wonders: And he hath brought us into
this place, and hath given us this land, even a land that floweth with
milk and honey (Deut. 26:7–9).

The humanist proclaims a universe closed to God. If he believes in

any god, it is not the God of the Bible, who executes judgment, in time
and eternity, in terms of Bible-revealed law. He sees the events of his-
tory as independent of any divinely revealed legal code. In such a uni-
verse, there can be no meaningful appeal to anything outside of human
institutions, let alone outside of history.
This assertion of autonomy transfers the authority to make
changes to men who possess power. Civil power is the most important
power men can possess, most humanists believe. He who opposes such
a view of social causation must look to a higher power to overturn the
decisions of corrupt judges, who see no authority above them.
Sometimes the critics of prevailing power look to revolutionary vi-
olence as deliverance. Other critics look to free market institutions and

3. Idem.
74 AUTONOMY AND STAGNATION
power to overturn the decisions of civil governments. Others look to
foreign armies. But all of these are subject to the same sort of corrup-
tion.
The person who sees oppression all around him cannot legitim-
ately hope for predictable deliverance unless there is a court of appeal
with the power to impose negative sanctions on evildoers. The Preach-
er says that there is such a court of appeal. God’s court is always in ses-
sion. The fact that He has not yet imposed negative sanctions is not a
legitimate reason for believing that His court does not exist.

C. Eternal Standards
There is a standard of justice: biblical law. The Preacher is aware
that his readers and listeners can and do perceive the discrepancy
between this standard and the injustice around them.
The author was Solomon. Under him, there was little injustice. He
had an international reputation for providing justice. So, he wrote
these words for all societies at all times. This indicates that God’s law
is universal. All men understand it. Paul wrote: “For when the Gen-
tiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the
law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew
the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bear-
ing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excus-
ing one another;)” (Rom. 2:14–15).4 God’s law crosses borders. It ex-
tends through time. People reading his words millennia later can still
understand injustice when they see it. His affirmation of the existence
of a superior court is still as reliable today as it was then.
Men can have legitimate confidence in God’s law. They can have
legitimate confidence in God’s court. They can have legitimate confid-
ence in God’s justice. The Preacher is not providing motivation for
praying to a local god in his own day. He is affirming the existence of
an eternal God who imposes sanctions in terms of a permanent legal
code that has authority across borders. It is not that God was above all
human courts only in the Preacher’s day. It is that God is above all hu-
man courts throughout the ages.

4. Gary North, Cooperation and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on Romans,

2nd ed. (Dallas, Georgia: Point Five Press, [2000] 2012), ch. 2.
 Delayed Sanctions (Eccl. 5:8) 75
Conclusion
This passage is an affirmation of God’s law, which includes God’s
system of sanctions. The fact that, at any point in time, rival human
courts are imposing sanctions in terms of a rival system of law does
not mean that God’s law and God’s sanctions are not operative. The
timing of the trial is in God’s hands, not man’s hands.
 18
18

PURPOSEFUL NATURE
Moreover the profit of the earth is for all: the king himself is served by
the field (Eccl. 5:9).

A. The Earth as a Servant

The Preacher affirms that the earth is a servant. It serves the king.
It serves mankind. If the earth serves man, it means that man is superi-
or to the earth. His desires are met by the productivity of nature. There
is a hierarchy: man > nature.
The Preacher is not making an observation. He is saying that there
is justice in this hierarchy. It is not that man exploits nature. He is say-
ing that the land serves man. The Preacher is not an animist. He is not
saying that Mother Earth dutifully serves mankind. He is saying that
the output of nature legitimately belongs to the human race.
The profit of the earth is for all. This implies purpose. If something
is for another, that other is superior. The earth is subordinate to man-
kind. This is not merely a matter of power. It is a matter of design. In
Genesis 1, we read: “And God said, Let there be lights in the firma-
ment of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be
for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for
lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and
it was so” (vv. 14–15). The heavens were made for man. The very cos-
mos was purposeful, made to serve a being not yet created. No passage
in the Bible is more antithetical to Darwinism. 1

B. Ownership
“The profit of the earth is for all.” This verse could be used by so-
cialists to defend the concept of state ownership. But this does not get
1. Gary North, Sovereignty and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on Genesis
(Dallas, Georgia: Point Five Press, [1982] 2012), ch. 2.
76
 Purposeful Nature (Eccl. 5:9) 77
to the heart of the problem. There can be various civil governments,
each insisting on monopolistic control over a particular geographical
territory. This does not solve the problem of resource allocation. The
three-part question must be answered by every legal system: What,
how, and for whom?
The fact that the output of the entire earth is for the benefit of
everyone raises issues of production and distribution. It also raises the
question of time. The earth survives longer than individuals do. So, fu-
ture generations have a legal claim on the present generation. Who is
to decide what constitutes that claim and what system of allocation
honors it? Who is to enforce it? By what standard? By what sanctions?
Private ownership establishes a representative who acts on behalf
of future claimants. Civil magistrates also claim this authority in many
cases. But a civil magistrate holds his office briefly. His time frame of
personal costs and personal benefits is limited. In contrast, a man who
owns property recognizes the claims of future heirs. He plans for this.
He wants to leave an inheritance. Furthermore, an investor wants his
investment to remain profitable. If others perceive that the value of a
company’s assets is falling, they will sell their shares of ownership,
thereby driving the market price of shares even lower. The future
counts heavily in assessing present value. This is why the owner in a
private property system has a greater stake in acting as the agent of fu-
ture consumers and future owners.
Someone must be in charge of any particular asset. Someone must
take responsibility for its use. If it is not under someone’s judicial au-
thority, there will be fierce competition for it if its value is significantly
greater than the cost of obtaining it. Think of fishermen sailing in the
oceans. No one can establish legal title to the fish. The result is open
competition outside predictable civil law. The threat of war may im-
pede fishermen. But any international legal code must be enforced
through tradition unless there is a one-world civil government.
The text does not specify a system of ownership. The Mosaic law
did. The Preacher operated under the Mosaic law. There is no sugges-
tion that the civil government should assert its inherently monopolist-
ic authority over all the land within its jurisdiction. He said only that
the earth in general is for all mankind in general.
78 AUTONOMY AND STAGNATION
Conclusion
Nature is not impersonal. It is highly personal. It is not self-con-
scious. It is nevertheless purposeful. This is because it was created by a
personal God to serve man, who is the image of God, both individually
and corporately.
Ownership is personal. It is also hierarchical. Men serve God.
Nature serves men. The authority that men exercise over nature rests
on the authority that God exercises over men. This biblical hierarchy of
authority is the basis of biblical ownership. There is no hint anywhere
in the Bible that the civil government should exercise bureaucratic au-
thority over nature on behalf of God.
 19
19

INSATIABLE DISCONTENT
He that loveth silver shall not be satisfied with silver; nor he that
loveth abundance with increase: this is also vanity. When goods in-
crease, they are increased that eat them: and what good is there to the
owners thereof, saving the beholding of them with their eyes? The sleep
of a labouring man is sweet, whether he eat little or much: but the
abundance of the rich will not suffer him to sleep. There is a sore evil
which I have seen under the sun, namely, riches kept for the owners
thereof to their hurt. But those riches perish by evil travail: and he be-
getteth a son, and there is nothing in his hand. As he came forth of his
mother’s womb, naked shall he return to go as he came, and shall take
nothing of his labour, which he may carry away in his hand. And this
also is a sore evil, that in all points as he came, so shall he go: and
what profit hath he that hath laboured for the wind (Eccl. 5:10–16)?

This is a lengthy passage. It has one theme: the vanity of riches.

This is the most comprehensive critique of the pursuit of wealth found
in the Old Testament.

A. Insatiability
C. S. Lewis wrote that torture would be to eat food that makes you
hungry. His point was that one of the joys of desire is that it can be ful-
filled. If it could not be fulfilled, it would be a curse.
Addiction is marked by an insatiable desire to consume more. The
individual is trapped by a lust to consume. This addiction can apply to
different substances or practices, depending on the individual.
The Preacher identifies the addiction to more. This addiction is not
discriminating. Silver is a sign of this addiction, but the addiction is to
abundance in general.
Elsewhere, I have summarized the confession of faith of Mammon-
ites: “More for me in history.” This religion attracts followers in every
generation and across all geographical borders. Its followers are dis-
79
80 AUTONOMY AND STAGNATION
contented. Jesus identified this addiction as the most widespread al-
ternative to faith in God.
No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and
love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other.
Ye cannot serve God and mammon. Therefore I say unto you, Take
no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor
yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than
meat, and the body than raiment? Behold the fowls of the air: for
they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your
heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they
(Matt. 6:24–26)?1

The Apostle Paul described the outlook of Mammonism’s rival re-

ligion: Christianity.
But godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought noth-
ing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out. And
having food and raiment let us be therewith content. But they that
will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish
and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition. For
the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted
after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through
with many sorrows. But thou, O man of God, flee these things; and
follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness
(I Tim. 6:6–11).2

Paul was echoing the words of the Preacher.

B. The Economic Function of Discontent

One of the familiar teachings of economic science is this: “Men’s
desires are infinite. Resources are finite.” If nothing else, time is lim-
ited. We are mortal. The disparity between wants and resources is the
origin of scarcity. Scarcity is manifested in price. At zero price, there is
greater demand than supply.

1. Scarcity and Priorities

Scarcity mandates priorities. What are we willing to pay for first?
Second? Third? We cannot afford to purchase everything, but we can
1. Gary North, Priorities and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on Matthew,
2nd ed. (Dallas, Georgia: Point Five Press, [2000] 2012), ch. 14.
2. Gary North, Hierarchy and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on First
Timothy, 2nd ed. (Dallas, Georgia: Point Five Press, [2001] 2012), ch. 10.
 Insatiable Discontent (Eccl. 5:10–16) 81
afford to buy more when we become more productive. If I want more,
and if I resort neither to stealing nor voting to enrich myself, then I
must increase my productivity in order to purchase goods that I regard
as lower on my scale of priorities, i.e., my scale of values.
Ludwig von Mises placed discontentment the center of his eco-
nomic theory. In Human Action, his magnum opus, he wrote that man
is distinguished from God by means of discontent.
Scholastic philosophers and theologians and likewise Theists and
Deists of the Age of Reason conceived an absolute and perfect being,
unchangeable, omnipotent, and omniscient, and yet planning and
acting, aiming at ends and employing means for the attainment of
these ends. But action can only be imputed to a discontented being,
and repeated action only to a being who lacks the power to remove
his uneasiness once and for all at one stroke. An acting being is dis-
contented and therefore not almighty. If he were contented, he
would not act, and if he were almighty, he would have long since rad-
ically removed his discontent.3

The Preacher presents discontentment as a sin. Why? Because it is

inherently insatiable. This form of discontentment cannot be satisfied.
It always wants more.
Economists of all persuasions see the summum bonum of an eco-
nomy as economic growth. It is seen as the universal cure-all. A grow-
ing number of people are enabled to satisfy their desires because of
economic growth.

2. The Theoretical Problem of Addiction

This assumes that the problem of addiction does not exist. If
someone said that greater efficiency in the production of heroin or co-
caine would be a benefit to individual addicts and society in general,
because the price of the substance would fall, would you agree? I
would not. The problem is not a lack of supply; rather, it is the short-
sighted, present-oriented nature of demand. Where addiction exists,
the goal should be the reduction of demand, not an increase in supply.
To identify an addiction, we must have standards of evaluation.
These standards are moral. “Addiction is bad.” The modern economist
denies that morality has anything to do with economic science. Eco-
nomic science is said to be value-free. But if it is, then economists

3. Ludwig von Mises, Human Action: A Treatise on Economics (New Haven, Con-
necticut: Yale University Press, 1949), p. 69. (http://bit.ly/MisesHA)
82 AUTONOMY AND STAGNATION
should not recommend economic policies. They should not proclaim
the benefits of either efficiency or economic growth. But they do. Eco-
nomists draw conclusions that they say favor economic growth. This is
inconsistent with the premise of moral neutrality. 4

3. The Pursuit of Riches

The Bible acknowledges the legitimacy of economic growth, for it
reduces poverty, which the Bible views as a curse to be overcome. But
the Bible does not recommend the pursuit of riches. Solomon wrote of
wealth and poverty, “Remove far from me vanity and lies: give me
neither poverty nor riches; feed me with food convenient for me: Lest I
be full, and deny thee, and say, Who is the LORD? or lest I be poor,
and steal, and take the name of my God in vain” (Prov. 30:8–9).5
Vilfredo Pareto in 1897 published his discovery of the 20-80 distri-
bution of capital in modern society. Twenty percent of the population
owns 80% of the capital. This unequal distribution of capital has been
found in all societies. There are no exceptions. To raise a nation’s
masses out of poverty, society must therefore allow a minority of rich
people to become very rich. A fifth of the population must become
comparatively rich, and 4%6 of the population very rich. About 1% be-
come super-rich. This is the inescapable cost of economic growth in
every society.

4. Accumulation as Addiction
The Preacher identifies the problem: insatiability for personal
wealth. It is vanity. It is vanity because it is autonomous. It does not
put God at the center. Men seek to accumulate goods for themselves.
Jesus said this is foolishness.
And he said unto them, Take heed, and beware of covetousness: for a
man’s life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he
possesseth. And he spake a parable unto them, saying, The ground of
a certain rich man brought forth plentifully: And he thought within
himself, saying, What shall I do, because I have no room where to be-
4. Gary North, Sovereignty and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on Genesis
(Dallas, Georgia: Point Five Press, [1982] 2012), ch. 5; Gary North, Authority and
Dominion: An Economic Commentary on Exodus (Dallas, Georgia: Point Five Press,
2012), Part 3, Tools of Dominion (1990), Appendix H.
5. Gary North, Wisdom and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on Proverbs
(Dallas, Georgia: Point Five Press, [2007] 2012), ch. 85.
6. That is, 20% of 20%.
 Insatiable Discontent (Eccl. 5:10–16) 83
stow my fruits? And he said, This will I do: I will pull down my barns,
and build greater; and there will I bestow all my fruits and my goods.
And I will say to my soul, Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for
many years; take thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry. But God said
unto him, Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee:
then whose shall those things be, which thou hast provided? So is he
that layeth up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God. And
he said unto his disciples, Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought
for your life, what ye shall eat; neither for the body, what ye shall put
on. The life is more than meat, and the body is more than raiment
(Luke 12:16–23).7

These words are among the Bible’s most difficult ethical injunc-
tions to implement. People who would not be tempted to violate any
of the Ten Commandments have difficulty believing these words. If
they did truly believe them, they would not worry about money. But
they do.
There is nothing wrong with barns. Barns store food, and food be-
nefits the poor. Barns make possible laying up food in the harvest for
sale and distribution in the months just before the next harvest, when
the supply of food is low. The ethical issue here is motivation. “And I
will say to my soul, Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years;
take thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry.” His dream was to be conten-
ted. He never achieved his dream. Time ran out that night.

C. Increased Expenses
The Preacher indicates that increased wealth increases costs.
“When goods increase, they are increased that eat them: and what
good is there to the owners thereof, saving the beholding of them with
their eyes?” The rich man increases his level of responsibility. He must
surround himself with people to carry out his plans.
Rich men also attract hangers-on. These are people who want
hand-outs. They want to attend the rich man’s parties. They want to
become part of his entourage. These people are difficult to escape or
get rid of. They congregate where the rich man visits. This is one reas-
on why very rich people live in houses that are remote from a highway.
They have gates around their property. They employ screeners. But
screeners must be paid for.

7. Gary North, Treasure and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on Luke, 2nd

ed. (Dallas, Georgia: Point Five Press, [2000] 2012), ch. 25.
84 AUTONOMY AND STAGNATION
Related to hangers-on are visionaries who want the rich man to
fund their projects. They paint glowing pictures of all that can be ac-
complished. Rich men often listen to these dreamers. They fund their
visions. Rarely do these visions succeed, which is true of all new ven-
tures. There is a long line of replacement visionaries, each with a story
to tell and a dream to be achieved.

D. Responsibility and Worry

“The sleep of a labouring man is sweet, whether he eat little or
much: but the abundance of the rich will not suffer him to sleep.” I
suggest that the difference between these sleep patterns has to do with
the level of personal responsibility. A laboring man does his job as as-
signed, goes home, has a meal, and sleeps. He has no further respons-
ibility to his employer. His degree of responsibility is limited. In con-
trast, the owner of a company has many employers to keep contented:
customers. They can change their minds at any time. They ask: “What
have you done for me lately? And what do you intend to do for me
next week? I intend to shop around.” He also has many employees to
keep contented.
A rich man must stay ahead of the competition if he is to increase
his wealth, or even preserve it. He must manage his wealth in a world
of uncertainty.8 He could lose his money by a bad investment or an un-
expected new source of competition. Possessing more money, he has
more responsibility. Jesus said, “And that servant, which knew his
lord’s will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will,
shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did com-
mit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto
whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to
whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more”
(Luke 12:47–48).9 This responsibility troubles his sleep.
The Preacher says, “There is a sore evil which I have seen under
the sun, namely, riches kept for the owners thereof to their hurt.” He
has already explained why riches kept for owners hurt their owners.
First, the owners are not satisfied. Second, their production costs rise.
Third, their sleep fades.

8. Mises, Human Action, ch. 6.

9. North, Treasure and Dominion, ch. 28.
 Insatiable Discontent (Eccl. 5:10–16) 85
E. Nothing to Show for His Labor
“But those riches perish by evil travail: and he begetteth a son, and
there is nothing in his hand.” The Hebrew words translated as “evil
travail” can also be translated as “adverse business.” The context of
these words indicates that the latter is a better translation. His wealth
has disappeared. His heir will not inherit, because there is nothing left
to inherit. This family’s story is the story of rags to riches to rags.
The accumulator loses his riches. But he could not have retained
ownership anyway. “As he came forth of his mother’s womb, naked
shall he return to go as he came, and shall take nothing of his labour,
which he may carry away in his hand. And this also is a sore evil, that
in all points as he came, so shall he go: and what profit hath he that
hath laboured for the wind.” The correct answer to the old question,
“How much did he leave behind?” is clear to the Preacher: “All of it!”
The Preacher here speaks of a man’s legacy in terms of the as-
sumption of personal autonomy. A man has labored to accumulate
riches. If he dies before this legacy erodes away, he still cannot benefit
personally. The assumption of autonomy leads to a conclusion: the in-
dividual works for himself. But he will die just as he arrived: naked. The
clothing he put on is left behind with the body it clothed. What re-
mains of the person who accumulated this wealth? On the assumption
of autonomy, nothing.
The Preacher is speaking of a specific form of wealth: “riches kept
for the owners thereof.” The accumulator labored in vain, for when he
departed, the riches remained behind. To be used by whom? Someone
else. For what purposes? The heir’s.
If this wealth does somehow achieve much good, what is that to
the departed? He will not know. He will not rejoice. He will not impute
value to the outcome of his labor. Any value that it may retain will be
imputed by the heirs and by market participants.
In an estate sale, the assets are auctioned off, piece by piece, to the
highest bidders. The owner in his lifetime can offer no assured evalu-
ation of his estate’s future value. He offers this representatively, on be-
half of future decisions of the buyers. His evaluation will carry no
weight after he is dead. That which is past carries weight only repres-
entatively. “What would the founder have thought?” At an estate sale,
nobody cares. High bids win, asset by asset, with no consideration of
the opinions of the deceased. Such is the fate of everyone’s legacy, giv-
en the assumption of human autonomy.
86 AUTONOMY AND STAGNATION
Conclusion
The Preacher warns that discontent, when applied to money or
goods, is vanity. It is wasteful. It is not fulfilling. Yet there is no sugges-
tion in the Bible that the accumulation of tools is inherently vain. The
questions are: “What is the accumulator’s motivation for accumulating
tools? For himself as an autonomous agent or as God’s steward?” The
former is vanity. The latter motivation is not dealt with here. It is dealt
with in the last verses of the book. “Let us hear the conclusion of the
whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the
whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work into judgment,
with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil” (Eccl.
12:13–14).10
All people are discontented. This is a consequence of sin. Men’s
desires far outstrip their wealth. The more they own, the more they
want. They soon get used to the pleasure and satisfaction of new pos-
sessions.11 To restore their lost satisfaction, they seek to accumulate
even more. The treadmill of accumulation has no end and offers no
rest. They incarnate the most famous lyric of the supremely recogniz-
able song of the rock and roll era: “I can’t get no satisfaction. I can’t get
no satisfaction. ‘Cause I’ve tried. And I’ve tried. And I’ve tried. And
I’ve tried.” 12

10. Chapter 45.

11. In the field of economics known as behavioral economics, this phenomenon is
called the hedonic ratchet. Only the transition out of extreme poverty offers a perman-
ent increase in personal satisfaction. By God’s grace, this phenomenon works both
ways. People who have experienced a major loss soon adjust. Their former level of sat-
isfaction returns.
12. Comparatively few people have ever deciphered the lyrics of the loud, mud-
dled, and most memorable song that catapulted Mick Jagger and the Rolling Stones to
worldwide fame in 1965. He made a fortune with this anti-consumption song. He has
never ceased trying to get satisfied. In their mid-sixties in 2006–7, the Rolling Stones
had a year-long worldwide tour that grossed an estimated $437 million, when gold was
around $625 an ounce.
 20
20

IN PRAISE OF CONSUMPTION
Behold that which I have seen: it is good and comely for one to eat
and to drink, and to enjoy the good of all his labour that he taketh
under the sun all the days of his life, which God giveth him: for it is
his portion. Every man also to whom God hath given riches and
wealth, and hath given him power to eat thereof, and to take his por-
tion, and to rejoice in his labour; this is the gift of God. For he shall
not much remember the days of his life; because God answereth him
in the joy of his heart (Eccl. 5:18–20).

He is speaking as a covenant-keeper. How do we know? Because

he identifies as a blessing a man’s ability to rejoice in his labor. In his
positioning as an autonomous man, he always identifies labor as van-
ity, chasing after wind. Not here. In an earlier passage, he favorably
compares the lifestyle of the laboring man to that of a rich man. “The
sleep of a labouring man is sweet, whether he eat little or much,” in
contrast to the rich producer: “the abundance of the rich will not
suffer him to sleep” (Eccl. 5:12). 1 In this passage, the rich man pos-
sesses enough wealth so that he does not eat little, unless he is on a
diet. The Preacher twice says that such a condition is the gift of God:
“Every man also to whom God hath given riches” and “God answereth
him in the joy of his heart.” This is not the outlook of autonomy.
The Preacher speaks only of the present: “For he shall not much
remember the days of his life; because God answereth him in the joy of
his heart.” The person who takes his advice and celebrates the present
will not dwell on the past. “For he shall not much remember the days
of his life; because God answereth him in the joy of his heart.”
He has recommended this consumption-affirming lifestyle previ-
ously. “There is nothing better for a man, than that he should eat and
drink, and that he should make his soul enjoy good in his labour. This

1. Chapter 19.
87
88 AUTONOMY AND STAGNATION
also I saw, that it was from the hand of God” (Eccl. 2:24). 2 “And also
that every man should eat and drink, and enjoy the good of all his la-
bour, it is the gift of God” (Eccl. 3:13). 3
The kingdom of God is to be enjoyed in the present. The kingdom
grows through present sacrifices, another word for thrift. Thrift funds
the creation of tools. Without tools, there is no advance. Peter and the
disciples fished with nets. Those nets allowed a great catch.
Now when he had left speaking, he said unto Simon, Launch out into
the deep, and let down your nets for a draught. And Simon answer-
ing said unto him, Master, we have toiled all the night, and have
taken nothing: nevertheless at thy word I will let down the net. And
when they had this done, they inclosed a great multitude of fishes:
and their net brake. And they beckoned unto their partners, which
were in the other ship, that they should come and help them. And
they came, and filled both the ships, so that they began to sink. When
Simon Peter saw it, he fell down at Jesus’ knees, saying, Depart from
me; for I am a sinful man, O Lord. For he was astonished, and all that
were with him, at the draught of the fishes which they had taken:
And so was also James, and John, the sons of Zebedee, which were
partners with Simon. And Jesus said unto Simon, Fear not; from
henceforth thou shalt catch men (Luke 5:4–10).

If they had spent more on additional nets, they would have caught
more fish. Jesus was making a point: better to bring men the gospel
than to catch lots of fish. But had they possessed additional nets and
boats, the point would have been that much more memorable. We are
limited by a lack of tools. We can always use better tools. They must be
paid for.

Conclusion
The Bible does not teach asceticism. The Preacher made this clear.
He repeatedly told his readers that they should enjoy the comforts of
success. These are God’s gift to men. Men are not to despise God’s
gifts. But there is still the question of wisdom in allocating these gifts.
Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines (I Kings 11:3). There were
better uses for his money and time.

2. Chapter 5.
3. Chapter 8.
 21
21

WHEN A STRANGER INHERITS

There is an evil which I have seen under the sun, and it is common
among men: A man to whom God hath given riches, wealth, and hon -
our, so that he wanteth nothing for his soul of all that he desireth, yet
God giveth him not power to eat thereof, but a stranger eateth it: this
is vanity, and it is an evil disease (Eccl. 6:1–2).

The Preacher returns to a familiar theme in his book: inheritance.

This means death. Death is the inescapable barrier to meaningful ac-
cumulation, he argues. No matter how much wealth a person accumu-
lates, he will not be able to enjoy it for long. No matter how much
honor is imputed to him by those around him—those whose opinions
matter in society—it will not last.

A. The Issue is Death

Why do I think the issue here is death? First, the problem he men-
tions is universal: “common among men.” Second, it applies to rich
men, not just common people. Third, it has to do with power: “God
giveth him not power to eat thereof.” The lack of what kind of power
keeps a rich man from eating his own food? I can think of only two
things: lack of life or lack of wealth. He either dies or loses his wealth.
Fourth, “a stranger eateth it.” This is the difficult case.
If the issue here is not death, then it is the loss of wealth. How
might a rich man lose his money? Military conquest, but this is not
common. Then what about bad business ventures? This is possible.
But how common is this? Not very. Most people do not own busi-
nesses. Most people keep most of what they possess most of the time.
This is especially true in a predominately agricultural society. A man
dies on the farm he was born on, if he inherited the farm from his fath-

89
90 AUTONOMY AND STAGNATION
1
er. The Preacher is dealing with a problem that is universal. It applies
to common people, too.
Even if the issue he is dealing with is not death, but rather the loss
of a man’s wealth due to poor business dealings, this is still the prob-
lem of inheritance. He leaves nothing to his heirs. The Preacher has
already mentioned this. “There is a sore evil which I have seen under
the sun, namely, riches kept for the owners thereof to their hurt. But
those riches perish by evil travail: and he begetteth a son, and there is
nothing in his hand” (Eccl. 5:13–14).2 The heirs of a dead man’s legacy
will be strangers. So, the Preacher’s warning here could be related to
the loss of his goods in his lifetime. Given his assessments that follow, I
think it is more likely that his concern in this passage is death.
If a man beget an hundred children, and live many years, so that the
days of his years be many, and his soul be not filled with good, and
also that he have no burial; I say, that an untimely birth is better than
he. For he cometh in with vanity, and departeth in darkness, and his
name shall be covered with darkness. Moreover he hath not seen the
sun, nor known any thing: this hath more rest than the other. Yea,
though he live a thousand years twice told, yet hath he seen no good:
do not all go to one place? All the labour of man is for his mouth, and
yet the appetite is not filled. For what hath the wise more than the
fool? what hath the poor, that knoweth to walk before the living
(Eccl. 6:3–8)?

He asks rhetorically, “do not all go to one place?” That has to be

the grave. He is speaking about eating: “All the labour of man is for his
mouth, and yet the appetite is not filled.” He does not mean that we
labor only for food. He also mentions honor. Furthermore, the early
sections of this book deal with his experiment: to taste all of life.
Everything came out the same: vanity. “For what hath the wise more
than the fool? what hath the poor, that knoweth to walk before the liv -
ing.” It all comes down to this: the grave. It all goes down to this, too.

1. This has not been true in the United States, but the United States is arguably the
most mobile (and rootless) large nation in history. From the first generation of Purit-
ans in the seventeenth century, Americans moved to better land. Sumner Chilton
Powell, Puritan Village: The Formation of a New England Town (Middletown, Con-
necticut: Wesleyan University Press, 1963).
2. Chapter 19.
 When a Stranger Inherits (Eccl. 6:1–2) 91
B. The Stranger
A stranger eats the rich man’s food. The Hebrew word translated
here as “stranger” is nok-ree. This referred to a foreigner who refused
to covenant with God. He was outside the faith confessionally. He was
uncircumcised. He had no part in the congregation of the Lord. It was
legal to lend to him at interest in a charitable loan (Deut. 23:20). 3 If this
is who the Preacher has in mind, then the inheritance is transferred
either to a foreign conqueror or else to a successful foreign business-
man living inside Israel. Neither of these events would have been com-
mon in Israel. Surely, they were not universal features of life outside of
Israel in the Preacher’s day. They have been non-existent in the world
since the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.
I think the stranger who eats the rich man’s food is his son. A man
thinks he knows his own son, but no man can know the heart of an-
other. No one knows what his son will do with his inheritance. He may
act as a stranger acts. This is a common fear in history. The prodigal
son of Jesus’ parable is a rarity: one who inherits early, squanders the
inheritance, and returns unto his father’s house (Luke 15:11–21).4
A rich man is concerned about the heir. A son may squander his
father’s posthumous legacy. This concern has been universal in his-
tory, among rich men and poor men alike. The Preacher is saying that
the concern of the successful man is the same as the concern of the
common man: the posthumous wasting of all that he strived for in life.
The man worked to eat, meaning that he worked to be successful—in
modern American slang, “to know where his next meal is coming
from.” He achieved his goal. He did not have to worry about “putting
food on the table.” Yet he knows that his inheritance may fall into the
hand of a confessional stranger.

C. So What?
If a man lives only to eat, what does it matter what happens to his
wealth after he dies? Who cares? The Preacher cares because he knows
what most men know: we do not work hard only to eat. We work hard
to leave a legacy of some kind. If a man’s legacy is dissipated in one
generation, what did all his work accomplish? What if the inheritance

3. Gary North, Inheritance and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on Deutero-

nomy, 2nd ed. (Dallas, Georgia: Point Five Press, [1999] 2012), ch. 56.
4. Gary North, Treasure and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on Luke, 2nd
ed. (Dallas, Georgia: Point Five Press, [2000] 2012), ch. 37.
92 AUTONOMY AND STAGNATION
is put to worthless uses? This is the Preacher’s concern. “For who
knoweth what is good for man in this life, all the days of his vain life
which he spendeth as a shadow? for who can tell a man what shall be
after him under the sun” (Eccl. 6:12)?5
The accumulator will die. So will the man who leaves no visible
legacy. Are their legacies really the same? In a world of pure auto -
nomy, the answer is yes. The only thing that matters for a purely
autonomous man is his personal use of whatever it is that he accumu-
lates. Yet even self-proclaimed autonomous men seek honor. They
want to be remembered. Why? What does it matter if future autonom-
ous people honor a dead man’s efforts? He cannot enjoy the acclaim.
Also, to the extent that his sense of success depends on future genera-
tions’ retroactive imputation of honor, he is not autonomous. He is de-
pendent on prevailing future standards, future events, and future
people he cannot control. This is a denial of autonomy. It is an affirma-
tion of dependence on others.
So, maintaining the legacy matters. If a man’s legacy is maintained,
his work today is meaningful. The Preacher believed this. How do we
know what he believed? Because he told us what the basis of meaning-
less work is: a squandered inheritance. He did not argue that an inher-
itance maintained down through the generations is equally meaning-
less as an inheritance squandered by the heir or maintained by a
stranger. This implies that a legacy maintained or even expanded by
confessionally orthodox heirs is meaningful. It is the threat of inherit-
ance by a stranger that makes a man’s work vanity. An autonomous
man should not care. But he does care. Hence, he does not really re-
gard himself as autonomous.

Conclusion
The Preacher writes of a common fear: inheritance by someone
who does not share the confession of the accumulator. If a rich man
cannot buy a solution to this problem, then no one can. The problem
cannot be solved through exchange in a free market or in any other in-
stitutional arrangement. The problem is common because the lack of a
solution is universal.
If a man’s wealth is inherited by a confessional stranger, then his
efforts were in vain. This is the Preacher’s concern. The rich man eats
well, but life is more than eating well. If life were merely eating and

5. Chapter 19.
 When a Stranger Inherits (Eccl. 6:1–2) 93
drinking, then death would end all of our concerns. It would not mat-
ter one way or the other who eats and drinks with the wealth we leave
behind. This concern over a stranger’s inheritance has meaning only in
a world in which life is more than eating and drinking. The meaning of
our efforts has to do with covenantal inheritance in the broadest sense.
This is the primary message of Ecclesiastes. It is a message conveyed in
a subtle way. It requires that the reader think carefully about what he
reads.
 22
22

AUTONOMY VS. ECONOMIC GROWTH

All the labour of man is for his mouth, and yet the appetite is not
filled. For what hath the wise more than the fool? what hath the poor,
that knoweth to walk before the living? Better is the sight of the eyes
than the wandering of the desire: this is also vanity and vexation of
spirit That which hath been is named already, and it is known that it
is man: neither may he contend with him that is mightier than he.
Seeing there be many things that increase vanity, what is man the bet-
ter? For who knoweth what is good for man in this life, all the days of
his vain life which he spendeth as a shadow? for who can tell a man
what shall be after him under the sun? (Eccl. 6:7–12).

A. The Philosophy of Autonomy

In developing his case against the philosophy of human autonomy,
the Preacher here uses a metaphor of man’s journey through life: eat-
ing. He knows, as we know, that men work to do far more than eat, yet
he speaks as though man is merely an organism of consumption. The
mouth is his metaphor of man’s consumption. Men eat and are soon
hungry. “The appetite is not filled.” They must constantly feed them-
selves. More than once a day, they must shove food into their mouths.
There is no permanent contentment. If they cease to eat, they will die
of starvation. They are reminded daily of their dependence on food
and therefore their dependance on labor. “He that laboureth laboureth
for himself; for his mouth craveth it of him” (Prov. 16:36).
He returns to the theme of the vanity of equality. The fool pos-
sesses as many things of value as the wise man. “For what hath the
wise more than the fool?” He has wisdom, but how does this make his
life different? He, too, must fill his mouth daily. He has to work to con-
sume. He is trapped on the same treadmill as the fool. The basics of
their lives are the same. Wisdom counts for nothing.

94
 Autonomy vs. Economic Growth (Eccl. 6:7–12) 95
This conclusion is contrary to the Book of Proverbs, where wis-
dom is the supreme good. “Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore
get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding” (Prov. 4:7).
Wisdom is the true source of happiness. “Happy is the man that finde-
th wisdom, and the man that getteth understanding” (Prov. 3:13).
Therefore, we must regard the Preacher’s statement as part of his cri-
tique of the logic of autonomy. Wisdom rejects autonomy. “The fear of
the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom
and instruction” (Prov. 1:7).
The philosophy of autonomy sees nothing superior to man. Man is
not subordinate to a higher authority. So, he must derive meaning
from himself. The Preacher is exploring answers to this question:
“What is the essence of autonomous man’s condition?” Here, speaking
on behalf of the philosophy of autonomy, he says that the wise man
and the fool are equally men. To exist as a man is sufficient to establish
a man’s authority. There is no higher standard. In the world of human
autonomy, who has the authority to impute (assess and declare) su-
periority to a wise man over a fool? The wise man may like to think
that he possesses this authority, but where is the proof? What is the
basis of his claim? Not his humanity as such. A fool possesses human-
ity. A wise man is as trapped by dependence on food as a fool . . . or a
beast. His autonomy is constrained by his need to eat. It is also con-
strained by death, as the Preacher noted in the previous passage: “Yea,
though he live a thousand years twice told, yet hath he seen no good:
do not all go to one place”(v. 6). He makes this same conclusion re-
peatedly.1 Death swallows meaning as surely as men swallow food.
Death is the great equalizer: the equality of nothing.
Similarly with the poor man. “What hath the poor, that knoweth
to walk before the living?” The poor man has nothing of value other
than his ability to survive, to “walk before the living.” But he is a dead
man walking. His advantage over the dead will end soon enough.
Then one way of life is as good as another . . . or as bad. It is all
vanity. Conclusion: “Better is the sight of the eyes than the wandering
of the desire: this is also vanity and vexation of spirit.” In other words,
be content with what you possess or can easily possess. This is so
much easier than striving after more. The wandering of desire is insati-
able.

1. Ecclesiastes 2:15–17; 3:19–20.

96 AUTONOMY AND STAGNATION
If nothing matters, because everything is vanity, then a wise man
seeks to buy vanity at the lowest possible price. Do not seek wisdom or
wealth. To do so is the wandering of desire. What is the point? You are
a dead man eating. You are a dead man walking. You might as well
limit your goals. This is so much more pleasant.
Then said I in my heart, As it happeneth to the fool, so it happeneth
even to me; and why was I then more wise? Then I said in my heart,
that this also is vanity. For there is no remembrance of the wise more
than of the fool for ever; seeing that which now is in the days to come
shall all be forgotten. And how dieth the wise man? as the fool.
Therefore I hated life; because the work that is wrought under the
sun is grievous unto me: for all is vanity and vexation of spirit (Eccl.
2:15–17).2

B. Reduced Economic Growth

The philosophy of autonomy undermines the impetus for eco-
nomic growth. If all of life’s results are equal, then what is the point of
sacrificing in the present for the sake of the future? “Seeing there be
many things that increase vanity, what is man the better? For who
knoweth what is good for man in this life, all the days of his vain life
which he spendeth as a shadow? for who can tell a man what shall be
after him under the sun”(vv. 11–12). The heirs will inherit, and what
they will do with the inheritance is uncertain. Only death is certain.
The philosophy of autonomy, when pursued to its logical conclusion—
the equality of vanity and death—is intensely present-oriented.
Present-orientation, or what Ludwig von Mises called high time
preference, leads to high interest rates. 3 People are not induced to save
unless they are offered high rates of interest by borrowers. High rates
of interest reduce the number of profitable projects. Profits are what
remain after all expenses. Interest rates are an expense. People who
care little about the future are willing to pay high interest rates in or-
der to consume now. The competition for funds in a present-oriented
society favors consumption loans at the expense of production loans.
This reduces economic growth. People get what they pay for: present
consumption at the expense of greater future consumption.
Wherever the philosophy of autonomy is both understood and
widely pursued, it leads to stagnation. It leads to consumption rather
2. Chapter 3.
3. Ludwig von Mises, Human Action: A Treatise on Economics (New Haven, Con-
necticut: Yale University Press, 1949), ch. 19. (http://bit.ly/MisesHA)
 Autonomy vs. Economic Growth (Eccl. 6:7–12) 97
than economic growth. The man who dreams of wealth without sacri-
fice in the present believes in a fantasy. Isaiah described this outlook
two centuries later. “Come ye, say they, I will fetch wine, and we will
fill ourselves with strong drink; and to morrow shall be as this day, and
much more abundant” (Isa. 56:12).

Conclusion
The Preacher continues his exploration of the implications of the
philosophy of human autonomy. He concludes that the wise man has
no advantage over the fool. The poor man is wiser than the rich man,
because he does not sacrifice in the present in order to live the same
kind of life that the rich man leads: a life of vanity. The poor man pays
so much less to live in vain. This shows wisdom on his part, assuming
that wisdom offers an advantage, which it does not, according to the
Preacher’s assessment of the philosophy of human autonomy.
 23
23

AUTONOMY AND SORROW

A good name is better than precious ointment; and the day of death
than the day of one’s birth. It is better to go to the house of mourning,
than to go to the house of feasting: for that is the end of all men; and
the living will lay it to his heart. Sorrow is better than laughter: for by
the sadness of the countenance the heart is made better. The heart of
the wise is in the house of mourning; but the heart of fools is in the
house of mirth (Eccl. 7:1–4).

A. Reputation After Death

In the preceding section, the Preacher made the case against the
philosophy of autonomy by arguing that, in terms of this philosophy,
death swallows up everything. Nothing has meaning, because death
has no meaning and is the great equalizer.
Death mandates inheritance. It is folly to labor long and hard to
build up an inheritance that will be appropriated by people of uncer-
tain character. It makes no sense.
In this passage, he abandons the argument of the previous section.
He does so in the name of autonomy. He fully understands that those
who defend the philosophy of autonomy will resist the conclusions
that he had previously drawn from its presuppositions. These conclu-
sions are just too pessimistic for the average man, who will search for
an alternative. The Preacher here discusses one hoped-for alternative:
a good reputation. Surely, this survives one’s death. Surely, this is
worth sacrificing for. The Preacher examines this possibility. “A good
name is better than precious ointment.” But why is this the case? He
does not say. The philosophy of autonomy offers no reason to believe
this, so he merely states it as a fact. He then explores its implications.

98
 Autonomy and Sorrow (Eccl. 7:1–4) 99
B. The Economics of a Good Name
If a good name is worth having because it survives death, how does
someone obtain it? After all, we do not get something for nothing.
Most people assume that a good name cannot be purchased with
money in a marketplace. This is incorrect. In the early twentieth cen-
tury, a new profession arose: public relations. It made scientific what
civil rulers had learned centuries before, most notably in Machiavelli’s
book, The Prince: public opinion can be manipulated. Rich men and
corporations began to hire specialists in developing and promoting a
good name. These specialists wrote favorable news reports and per-
suaded newspapers to run them as if they were neutral feature articles.
They used many other sophisticated techniques. 1 Most people would
say that a good name attained through public relations is ersatz: fool’s
gold, not real gold. But who is to say? A good name is always con-
ferred, meaning imputed. If those doing the conferring are deceived, or
at least manipulated, what does this matter to the beneficiary? He
gains the benefit.
A good name is always purchased. This purchase involves forfeit-
ing something of value in exchange for obtaining a good name. This
fact is not widely understood. Generally, people assume that a person’s
high integrity cannot be purchased. They are incorrect. Integrity has a
price: forfeited income. A good name implies that a person has sacri-
ficed something of value to obtain it. It is true that you do not buy in-
tegrity with your excess earnings, although you can buy the public’s
perception of integrity. Here is how you buy integrity: avoid excess
earnings, which are taxable, by adhering to your principles. The eco-
nomic outcome is the same as if someone had bought integrity in a
market: less wealth. What is inescapable is this exchange: integrity for
money.
Integrity is not directly marketable, but it is marketable indirectly.
You can profit from it. A person with a good reputation for repaying
debt can borrow money at a lower rate of interest than a man with a
bad reputation for repaying debt. “The wicked borroweth, and payeth
not again: but the righteous sheweth mercy, and giveth” (Psalm
37:21).2 A person with a good reputation can gain cooperation from
others at a low price. There is less risk in dealing with him. As we say,
1. The most famous of these specialists was the nephew of the psychologist Sig-
mund Freud, Edward Bernays (1891–1995). He wrote many books on his techniques.
The other founder was Ivy Lee. Scott Cutlip, The Unseen Power: Public Relations. A
History (Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Eichelbaum Associates, 1994).
100 AUTONOMY AND STAGNATION
“His reputation precedes him.” To gain a reputation for integrity, a
person sacrifices marketable wealth in the present. To obtain what?
His future reputation. Again, his reputation will precede him. It will
open doors. It will gain him respect.
Is this autonomy? No, it is dependence. Others must impute to
him his good reputation. These others must be “the right sort of
people.” But how do they obtain their reputations for being the right
sort of people? From others? This merely pushes the question out an-
other step. From themselves? Then by what authority? 3 By what stand-
ard?4 With what sanctions?5 With what long-term impact?6
The Preacher says that a good name is a very good thing. But why
is this true? Because of what it can do for you in the future. Why is it
better than precious ointment? Because precious ointment is used only
once and is gone. A good reputation is permanent. Well, not quite. It is
as permanent as the reputations of those who impute a good name. It
is as permanent as the memories of those who impute a good name. It
is as permanent as the ability of those who impute a good name to im-
pose sanctions that uphold their judgment. But there is one thing a
good name is not: autonomous.

C. The Day of Death

The Preacher once again returns to the theme of death. The day of
death is better than the day of one’s birth. Why should this be true?
Because death puts an end to responsibility, to sacrifice in the present,
and to striving after wind. On that day, a good name is neither here
nor there. This is because the deceased is no longer here.
So, that which is better than precious ointment is lost forever to
the autonomous man on the day of his death. If anything, this is his
day of precious ointment. Jesus said: “For in that she hath poured this
ointment on my body, she did it for my burial” (Matt. 26:12). Conclu-
sion: “It is better to go to the house of mourning, than to go to the

2. Gary North, Confidence and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on Psalms

(Dallas, Georgia: Point Five Press, 2012), ch. 6.
3. Part two of the biblical covenant. Ray R. Sutton, That You May Prosper: Domin-
ion By Covenant, 2nd ed. (Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, [1987]
1992), ch. 2. (http://bit.ly/rstymp) Gary North, Unconditional Surrender: God’s Pro-
gram for Victory, 5th ed. (Powder Springs, Georgia: American Vision, [1980] 2010), ch.
2.
4. Part three of the biblical covenant. Ibid., ch. 3.
5. Point four of the biblical covenant. Ibid., ch. 4.
6. Point five of the biblical covenant. Ibid., ch. 5.
 Autonomy and Sorrow (Eccl. 7:1–4) 101
house of feasting: for that is the end of all men; and the living will lay it
to his heart.”
Death ends both production and consumption. It ends vanity.
There is no more striving after wind. For autonomous man, this is his
day of deliverance. But, as a day of deliverance, it is also a day of mean-
inglessness. Death is impersonal. It imputes nothing. It is also su-
preme. It overcomes all imputation. The good reputation, the bad
reputation, the absence of reputation: death swallows all.
What is the logical implication of all this? The Preacher tells us: “It
is better to go to the house of mourning, than to go to the house of
feasting: for that is the end of all men; and the living will lay it to his
heart.” Visiting a house of mourning prepares us for the inescapable
reality of death. Death is not autonomous man’s crowning achieve-
ment. Death is the annulment of all achievement. Death ratifies noth-
ing. Get used to it, the Preacher says. “The living will lay it to his
heart.” The Preacher was highly skilled in laying such things on his
heart, as his book reveals.
“Sorrow is better than laughter: for by the sadness of the counten-
ance the heart is made better.” Why is this the case? Because death is
sorrowful. To contemplate the triumph of death is a sorrowful activity,
but it is a realistic one. Samuel Johnson, the eighteenth-century liter-
ary critic who is famous today only because of James Boswell’s mul-
ti-volume biography of him, once quipped to Boswell: “Depend upon
it, sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concen-
trates his mind wonderfully.” He thought a great deal about death, and
the thought horrified him, despite his Christianity. 7
For autonomous man, death is the end of all that has meaning.
Nothing has meaning, because of death. For the modern cosmic evolu-
tionist, who believes that everything will end with the heat death of the
universe—absolute zero—however distant in time, impersonal death
swallows up meaning as surely as it did for the Preacher’s autonomous
man.8 This is a sorrowful thought. Most men prefer not to think about
it, just as David Hume, a believer that death ends everything, preferred
not to think about it.

7. Mortality Quotes: The Samuel Johnson Sound Bite Page. (http://bit.ly/

JohnsonDeath)
8. Gary North, Is the World Running Down? Crisis in the Christian Worldview
(Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1988), ch. 2. (http://bit.ly/gnworld)
102 AUTONOMY AND STAGNATION
Conclusion
The Preacher did not say that the transition from life to death is
easy. It is sorrowful. If death is the final end of man, then this sorrow
spreads its tentacles across the living. Sorrow is superior to laughter
because death is not a laughing matter. The more realistic the heart,
the better the heart, he says. For the autonomous man, realism pro-
duces sorrow.
The deliverance from this death-induced sorrow was announced
by Jesus Christ. “The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and
to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might
have it more abundantly” (John 10:10). Paul told us why sorrow is not
to be preferred to laughter.
So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this
mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass
the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. O death,
where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? The sting of death
is sin; and the strength of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, which
giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, my
beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmovable, always abounding in the
work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in
vain in the Lord (I Cor. 15:54–58).9

Both Jesus and Paul rejected the philosophy of autonomy. So did

the Preacher.

9. Gary North, Judgment and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on First Cor-

inthians, 2nd ed. (Dallas, Georgia: Point Five Press, [2001] 2012), ch. 16.
 24
24

OPPRESSION AND BRIBERY

Surely oppression maketh a wise man mad; and a gift destroyeth the
heart (Eccl. 7:7).

A. The Meaning of Oppression

I have argued ever since 1990 that the Mosaic law did not define
oppression exclusively in economic terms. The Mosaic law did not set
forth objective economic criteria for identifying oppression. 1 It did
identify oppression as a great evil.
The context of the word sometimes points to a violation of civil
law, always with the cooperation of judges. This verse rests on such a
view of oppression. The Preacher had previously written: “If thou seest
the oppression of the poor, and violent perverting of judgment and
justice in a province, marvel not at the matter: for he that is higher
than the highest regardeth; and there be higher than they” (Eccl. 5:8). 2
The context was the perversion of justice—a legal context.
Here, he connects oppression with gifts. The Hebrew word trans-
lated here as “gift” refers to a donation. Usually, the word’s context in -
dicates a gift to God: a sacrifice. 3 It is also used as an offering to an
idol.4 It is not the other Hebrew word that is translated as “gift,” whose
frequent context is bribery. So, grammar does not confirm that the
context here is bribery. But it does not deny it, either.
Consider the context. First, why would an offering to God destroy
the heart? It wouldn’t. Second, the context does not indicate idolatrous
worship. The context is oppression. By a process of elimination, the
context indicates bribery.
1. Gary North, Authority and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on Exodus
(Dallas, Georgia: Point Five Press, 2012), Part 3, Tools of Dominion (1990), ch. 48.
2. Chapter 17.
3. Exodus 28:38; Leviticus 23:38; Numbers 18:6–7, 29.
4. Ezekiel 20:26, 31.
103
104 AUTONOMY AND STAGNATION
B. Oppression by the Wise
A wise man is a man who understands God’s law. Such a man pos-
sesses wisdom and understanding. David had told this to Solomon.
And David said to Solomon, My son, as for me, it was in my mind to
build an house unto the name of the LORD my God: But the word of
the LORD came to me, saying, Thou hast shed blood abundantly,
and hast made great wars: thou shalt not build an house unto my
name, because thou hast shed much blood upon the earth in my
sight. Behold, a son shall be born to thee, who shall be a man of rest;
and I will give him rest from all his enemies round about: for his
name shall be Solomon, and I will give peace and quietness unto Is-
rael in his days. He shall build an house for my name; and he shall be
my son, and I will be his father; and I will establish the throne of his
kingdom over Israel for ever. Now, my son, the LORD be with thee;
and prosper thou, and build the house of the LORD thy God, as he
hath said of thee. Only the LORD give thee wisdom and understand-
ing, and give thee charge concerning Israel, that thou mayest keep
the law of the LORD thy God. Then shalt thou prosper, if thou takest
heed to fulfil the statutes and judgments which the LORD charged
Moses with concerning Israel: be strong, and of good courage; dread
not, nor be dismayed (I Chron. 22:7–13).

A wise man therefore understands the great evil of oppression, for

the Mosaic law repeatedly identifies oppression as a sin. The word “op-
pression” here could refer to economic oppression, but then the refer-
ence to the gift would make no sense. Why would a private party op-
pressor receive a gift? He wouldn’t. A corrupt judge would.
The context indicates that a wise man is sitting as a judge. He has
received a bribe to persuade him to impose a decision that violates bib-
lical law. He knows that this is a corrupt bargain, but he nevertheless
accepts the gift. In a courtroom setting, this destroys the heart. Why?
Because the wise judge knows this transaction is wrong.
The Preacher also says that this transaction will make him mad.
The Hebrew word here indicates madness, not anger. 5 It is madness in
the sense of judicial foolishness: “He leadeth counsellors away spoiled,
and maketh the judges fools” (Job 12:17). “That frustrateth the tokens

5. “And he changed his behaviour before them, and feigned himself mad in their
hands, and scrabbled on the doors of the gate, and let his spittle fall down upon his
beard” (I Sam. 21:13). “Babylon hath been a golden cup in the LORD’S hand, that
made all the earth drunken: the nations have drunken of her wine; therefore the na-
tions are mad” (Jer. 51:7).
 Oppression and Bribery (Eccl. 7:7) 105
of the liars, and maketh diviners mad; that turneth wise men back-
ward, and maketh their knowledge foolish” (Isa. 44:25).
The Preacher understood that the wise man’s wisdom is depend-
ent on his conformity to biblical wisdom. He knew what biblical wis-
dom is. “Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and
keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. For God
shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether
it be good, or whether it be evil” (Eccl. 12:13–14).6 When the wise man
succumbs to bribery, he corrupts his own heart. He no longer can be
trusted to declare an act as having conformed to or violated God’s law.
He abandons the art of casuistry: applying God’s law to specific cases.

Conclusion
This verse indicates a concern with corrupt judgments by a civil
judge. It is not talking about cheating by a businessman. Oppression
here is not an economic act. It is a judicial act. It is a corrupting act.

6. Chapter 45.
 25
25

FAITH IN PROGRESS
Better is the end of a thing than the beginning thereof: and the patient
in spirit is better than the proud in spirit. Be not hasty in thy spirit to
be angry: for anger resteth in the bosom of fools. Say not thou, What is
the cause that the former days were better than these? for thou dost
not enquire wisely concerning this (Eccl. 7:8–10).

This verse announces that the end is better than the beginning.
Speaking as an autonomous man, he has already argued that sorrow is
preferable to laughter. Why? Because sorrow is more realistic than
laughter regarding the implications of death. The end of life is better
than the beginning, because death puts an end to vanity. 1
What is patience? The Hebrew word translated here as “patient” is
translated as “slow” in all other cases in the King James Version. The
Preacher contrasts a slow spirit with a hasty one. What is the meaning
of hasty? The Hebrew word generally means troubled, vexed, or fear-
ful. The context usually implies agitation. So, by “slow,” the Preacher
means calm. The phrase “steady as you go” is appropriate.

A. Patience vs. Pride

Why is the patient spirit better than the proud spirit? What does
he mean by “proud”? The Hebrew word is best translated as “high.”
“Behold, the Assyrian was a cedar in Lebanon with fair branches, and
with a shadowing shroud, and of an high stature; and his top was
among the thick boughs” (Ezek. 31:3). The patient spirit focuses on the
future: the end of the process. The proud spirit revels in the present:
success attained as a result of the past. The patient spirit pays atten-
tion to the pathway to the future. The proud spirit rejoices in what has
already been accomplished. The patient spirit has a goal: moving up by
moving forward. The proud spirit rejoices in previous attainments.
1. Chapter 23.
106
 Faith in Progress (Eccl. 7:8–10) 107
The patient spirit sees the future as better than the present. The proud
spirit sees the past as superior to the present. The proud spirit asks:
“What is the cause that the former days were better than these?” The
patient spirit sees the future as an uphill process. The proud spirit sees
the future as a downhill process. The patient spirit sees victory in the
future. The proud spirit sees defeat in the future. The patient spirit
sees the future as progress. The proud spirit sees the future as decline.
The patient spirit sees a benefit in exchanging the present for the fu-
ture. The proud spirit sees the threat of loss in exchanging the present
for the future.
The proud person rejoices in what he has attained. But when you
are king of the hill, moving forward means moving down. The proud
person wants to defend territory. The cost of moving forward is mov-
ing into the unknown. What is already known is success. The cost of
moving forward is to risk the loss of success.
For the patient person, moving forward is an advantage. He sees
the future as superior to the present. He believes this: “Better is the
end of a thing than the beginning thereof.” The past is inferior to the
present. The future is superior to the present.

B. An Uphill Battle
The Preacher advises this: “Say not thou, What is the cause that
the former days were better than these? for thou dost not enquire
wisely concerning this” (v. 10). For a person who is engaged in the
work of extending the kingdom of God, all of life is an uphill battle.
This work requires patience. Patience in turn requires confidence in
the outcome of one’s efforts. Confidence in the outcome of one’s
efforts requires confidence that the present is superior to the past. If
the present is inferior to the past, then there is no legitimate confid-
ence that the future will be better than the present. If things are going
downhill, why would a wise person apply himself to an uphill task? De-
fending territory already secured is as much as a wise man would com-
mit to. A program for moving uphill is illogical. It would waste re-
sources. In the words of the dispensationalist radio pastor of the 1950s,
J. Vernon McGee, “You don’t polish brass on a sinking ship.”
The proud man and the historical pessimist share a commitment
to the present. The proud man counts the cost of change. The odds
seem poor. Why risk success in the present for the chance of attaining
even more? The economist would analyze this in terms of marginal
108 AUTONOMY AND STAGNATION
utility theory. Each additional unit of utility is worth less to a decision-
maker than the previous unit. With each new unit of income, we satis-
fy those wants that are highest on our scale of economic value. Past
wants were higher on our scale of value than those that remain now,
other things remaining equal. Why continue to lay up treasure—suc-
cess—when the cost of laying up treasure involves putting one’s exist-
ing treasure at risk? Only if success is addictive—“The more you get,
the more you want”—would such risky behavior make economic
sense. The historical pessimist concludes much the same. Why risk
whatever little remains when it takes everything we have just to slow
the speed of sliding down even faster? The emphasis in both cases is
on preserving existing territory rather than extending dominion.
The person who believes that the future will be superior to the
present could take the attitude of sitting back and letting things drift.
But he also knows that things roll down, not up. Things drift down-
stream, toward either the falls or the end of the river. Things do not
drift upward. Put in scientific terms, entropy in a closed system inevit-
ably undermines the remaining order of the present. The only way to
reverse entropy is to import energy from outside the system. This is
what God’s grace provides: access to order from outside the sin-cursed
realm of history.2 This is why progressive sanctification, both personal
and institutional, requires patience. It requires attention to detail. It
requires time and capital.

Conclusion
The Preacher had faith in progress. He believed that the end is bet-
ter than the beginning. He presented this perspective from the point of
view of rival worldviews: autonomy and biblical covenantalism.
The autonomous man announces that the end is better than the
beginning. Death is superior to birth. Sacrificing benefits in the present
for benefits in the future is vanity. Why? Because death negates all suc-
cess and all meaning. Death transfers the inheritance to a stranger of
questionable motives and habits. The dissipation of the inheritance is
inevitable. In modern terms, entropy rules the cosmos. Conclusion:
there is no progressive sanctification. There is only vanity.
In contrast is biblical covenantalism. The end is better than the be-
ginning. Death is not the end. God brings final judgment. He distin-

2. Gary North, Is the World Running Down? Crisis in the Christian Worldview
(Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1988). (http://bit.ly/gnworld)
 Faith in Progress (Eccl. 7:8–10) 109
guishes between success and failure, between meaningful labor and
vanity, between patience and pride. “Let us hear the conclusion of the
whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the
whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work into judgment,
with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil” (Eccl.
12:13–14).3
The Preacher keeps exploring the implications of human autono-
my. They lead only to dead ends.

3. Chapter 45.
 26
26

WISDOM AND KINGDOM

Wisdom is good with an inheritance: and by it there is profit to them
that see the sun. For wisdom is a defence, and money is a defence: but
the excellency of knowledge is, that wisdom giveth life to them that
have it (Eccl. 7:11–12).

A. Wisdom: Good or Meaningless?

The Preacher returns here to biblical covenantalism. He extols
wisdom. Wisdom along with an inheritance is a good thing. Wisdom
provides a profit. The Hebrew word translated as “profit” is more often
translated as “more.” It means “better.” This observation is in contrast
to an earlier observation:
Then said I in my heart, As it happeneth to the fool, so it happeneth
even to me; and why was I then more wise? Then I said in my heart,
that this also is vanity. For there is no remembrance of the wise more
than of the fool for ever; seeing that which now is in the days to come
shall all be forgotten. And how dieth the wise man? as the fool.
Therefore I hated life; because the work that is wrought under the
sun is grievous unto me: for all is vanity and vexation of spirit (Eccl.
2:15–17).1

There is no meaningful wisdom, he writes. A fool and a wise man

end up the same: dead. As for the value of an inheritance,
There is an evil which I have seen under the sun, and it is common
among men: A man to whom God hath given riches, wealth, and
honour, so that he wanteth nothing for his soul of all that he de-
sireth, yet God giveth him not power to eat thereof, but a stranger
eateth it: this is vanity, and it is an evil disease. If a man beget an hun-
dred children, and live many years, so that the days of his years be
many, and his soul be not filled with good, and also that he have no

1. Chapter 3.
110
 Wisdom and Kingdom (Eccl. 7:11–12) 111
burial; I say, that an untimely birth is better than he. For he cometh
in with vanity, and departeth in darkness, and his name shall be
covered with darkness. Moreover he hath not seen the sun, nor
known any thing: this hath more rest than the other. Yea, though he
live a thousand years twice told, yet hath he seen no good: do not all
go to one place? All the labour of man is for his mouth, and yet the
appetite is not filled. For what hath the wise more than the fool?
what hath the poor, that knoweth to walk before the living? (Eccl.
6:1–8).2

Here, we have rival concepts of the light of day. One is positive.

“There is profit to them that see the sun.” The other is negative. “For
he cometh in with vanity, and departeth in darkness, and his name
shall be covered with darkness. Moreover he hath not seen the sun,
nor known any thing: this hath more rest than the other.”
Unless we recognize that the Preacher is conducting a literary de-
bate, theonomy vs. autonomy, we cannot make sense of the Book of
Ecclesiastes. It is filled with contradictory observations.

B. A Wise Inheritance
The Preacher sees the great advantage that a wise man receives
from an inheritance. The inheritance produces more, meaning a profit.
But why is possessing more an advantage? To possess more means that
a person becomes responsible for its management. With every increase
in wealth comes an increase in opportunities. With every increase in
opportunities comes an increase in responsibility.
And that servant, which knew his lord’s will, and prepared not him-
self, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many
stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of
stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much
is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have com-
mitted much, of him they will ask the more (Luke 12:47–48).3

But what is the profit of profit? The Preacher wrote earlier: “Then I
looked on all the works that my hands had wrought, and on the labour
that I had laboured to do: and, behold, all was vanity and vexation of
spirit, and there was no profit under the sun” (Eccl. 2:11). 4 He denied

2. Chapter 21.
3. Gary North, Treasure and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on Luke, 2nd
ed. (Dallas, Georgia: Point Five Press, [2000] 2012), ch. 28.
4. Chapter 2.
112 AUTONOMY AND STAGNATION
that there is such a thing as vanity-free profit. This is a correct implica-
tion of life outside the covenant.
Life inside the covenant is different. When a man is inside the cov-
enant, he has access to wisdom. If he gains an inheritance, he can put
it to profitable uses. His wisdom allows an increase in the inheritance.
This is the covenantal system of inheritance: increase through time. 5
Using modern economists’ terminology, this is value-added produc-
tion.
They key asset is wisdom, not the inheritance. “Wisdom is the
principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get un-
derstanding” (Prov 4:7). “How much better is it to get wisdom than
gold! and to get understanding rather to be chosen than silver!” (Prov.
16:16). Without wisdom, the inheritance can be dissipated. It can be
put to unwise uses. It is wisdom that puts the inheritance to good uses.
The goal here is capital accumulation. Increased capital is neces-
sary for the expansion of the kingdom. The kingdom of God competes
with the kingdom of Satan. Each asserts total sovereignty in history.
Each demands unconditional surrender of the other. 6 Each occupies
territory. Each requires capital to occupy existing territory and to add
to territory occupied.
A wise man inherits from the previous generation. How did the
previous generation have capital to pass down? Because it had the
skills of capital accumulation. The requirement of kingdom expansion
in history requires capital accumulation. Each generation is to pass
down more than it inherited to the next generation.
This refers more to intellectual and moral capital than to physical
or economic capital. Intellectual and moral capital are multiplied by
the number of covenantal heirs. The larger a family, the smaller the
per capita monetary inheritance. The Psalmist wrote: “As arrows are in
the hand of a mighty man; so are children of the youth. Happy is the
man that hath his quiver full of them: they shall not be ashamed, but
they shall speak with the enemies in the gate” (Psalm 127:4–5). The re-
commendation here is a large family. This dilutes the per capita inher-
itance of physical or economic capital, but it multiples the inheritance
of intellectual and moral capital. This is an implication of this: “Two

5. Ray R. Sutton, That You May Prosper: Dominion By Covenant, 2nd ed. (Tyler,
Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, [1987] 1992), ch. 5. (http://bit.ly/rstymp)
Gary North, Unconditional Surrender: God’s Program for Victory, 5th ed. (Powder
Springs, Georgia: Point Five Press, [1987] 2010), ch. 5.
6. North, Unconditional Surrender.
 Wisdom and Kingdom (Eccl. 7:11–12) 113
are better than one; because they have a good reward for their labour”
(Eccl. 4:9).7 The principle of the division of labor applies to intellectual
labor. The broader the base of those who hold to a covenant, the more
effective each member’s knowledge and skills become, assuming that
the covenant is favorable to cooperation.
The kingdom of man at the tower of Babel possessed an extensive
division of labor. This offered that kingdom more opportunities.
And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one
language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be re-
strained from them, which they have imagined to do. Go to, let us go
down, and there confound their language, that they may not under-
stand one another’s speech. So the LORD scattered them abroad
from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build
the city (Gen. 11:6–8).

God scattered the people of the tower. This is the final outcome of
autonomy. People do not cooperate in hell. A kingdom that begins
with the autonomy of man as its presupposition cannot complete a
tower stretching to heaven.
God undermined that kingdom by scattering it. But, through trade,
men can overcome the limits of separation. 8 This is because trade is a
denial of autonomy. It is a form of mutual dependence.

Conclusion
Biblical wisdom is required for the long-term building of the king-
dom of God in history. So is an inheritance, which extends through
history. An inheritance is more than physical. It is ultimately confes-
sional. The scattering of mankind at Babel was linguistic and geo-
graphical, but it was also confessional.

7. Chapter 14.
8. Gary North, Sovereignty and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on Genesis
(Dallas, Georgia: Point Five Press, [1982] 2012), ch. 19.
 27
27

LUKEWARM ETHICS
All things have I seen in the days of my vanity: there is a just man that
perisheth in his righteousness, and there is a wicked man that prolon-
geth his life in his wickedness. Be not righteous over much; neither
make thyself over wise: why shouldest thou destroy thyself? Be not over
much wicked, neither be thou foolish: why shouldest thou die before
thy time? (Eccl. 7:15–17).

Here, the Preacher speaks in terms of a way of practical living. He

rejects the systematic pursuit of righteousness and wisdom. The mid-
dle path is the place of minimum expense. The rigorous pursuit of
either righteousness or wisdom is contrary to an accurate cost-benefit
analysis, he says.
Why should anyone believe this? Because he believes that there is
no predictability of the Bible’s specified covenantal sanctions. “There is
a just man that perisheth in his righteousness, and there is a wicked
man that prolongeth his life in his wickedness.” If a person pursues
perfection as his goal in this world, the Preacher says, that person is
self-deceived. Such a pursuit will get him nowhere. It could destroy
him. Somewhere in between righteousness and wickedness lies safety
and sanity. This also applies also to wisdom and foolishness. Life is not
black and white; it is mostly gray. A prudent man walks a path between
extremes, says the Preacher.

A. Psalm 73
This position rests on a rejection of what Psalm 73 teaches. The
psalmist had observed that the sanctions seem to be perverse, not just
random.
For I was envious at the foolish, when I saw the prosperity of the
wicked. For there are no bands in their death: but their strength is

114
 Lukewarm Ethics (Eccl. 7:15–17) 115
firm. They are not in trouble as other men; neither are they plagued
like other men (Psalm 73:3–5).

They are corrupt, and speak wickedly concerning oppression: they

speak loftily. They set their mouth against the heavens, and their
tongue walketh through the earth (Psalm 73:8–9).

Subsequently, he concluded that his initial observations were mis-

guided. “When I thought to know this, it was too painful for me; Until
I went into the sanctuary of God; then understood I their end. Surely
thou didst set them in slippery places: thou castedst them down into
destruction. How are they brought into desolation, as in a moment!
they are utterly consumed with terrors” (Psalm 73:16–19).1 He chas-
tised himself. “So foolish was I, and ignorant: I was as a beast before
thee” (Psalm 73:22).
The system of covenantal sanctions in history is ethically reliable,
the psalmist said. Psalm 73 is an affirmation of the long-term reliability
of these sanctions.

B. The Counter-Argument
The Preacher has an odd way of arguing. He presents an argument
in one section. He counters it in another. Here, he argues on behalf of
autonomous man. Later, he will argue on behalf of covenant-keeping
man.
And so I saw the wicked buried, who had come and gone from the
place of the holy, and they were forgotten in the city where they had
so done: this is also vanity. Because sentence against an evil work is
not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully
set in them to do evil. Though a sinner do evil an hundred times, and
his days be prolonged, yet surely I know that it shall be well with
them that fear God, which fear before him: But it shall not be well
with the wicked, neither shall he prolong his days, which are as a
shadow; because he feareth not before God (Eccl. 8:10–13).2

This encapsulates the argument of Psalm 73. There is ethical cause

and effect in history. The covenant-breaker is lured into a trap by the
delay of judgment. “Because sentence against an evil work is not ex-

1. Gary North, Confidence and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on Psalms

(Dallas, Georgia: Point Five Press, 2012), ch. 17.
2. Chapter 30.
116 AUTONOMY AND STAGNATION
ecuted speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in
them to do evil.” He walks on a slippery slope.
The Preacher immediately responds on behalf of autonomous
man. “There is a vanity which is done upon the earth; that there be just
men, unto whom it happeneth according to the work of the wicked;
again, there be wicked men, to whom it happeneth according to the
work of the righteous: I said that this also is vanity” (Eccl. 8:14). Con-
clusion: “Then I commended mirth, because a man hath no better
thing under the sun, than to eat, and to drink, and to be merry: for that
shall abide with him of his labour the days of his life, which God giveth
him under the sun” (v. 15). This does not answer the supreme question
for an ambitious autonomous man: the fate of his legacy, on which his
relevance rests. This is point five of the biblical covenant.3
How can the reader resolve this constant back-and-forth debate?
Where is solid ground?
Autonomous man does not trust the social order to provide pre-
dictable sanctions. Neither does he trust God to provide such sanc-
tions. Prudence under such circumstances involves finding a middle
ground between righteousness and wickedness. He does not believe
that there is a God who calls men to a high standard, nor does he be-
lieve that God enforces such a standard.
This outlook was condemned by the author of the Book of Revela-
tion.
And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These
things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of
the creation of God; I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor
hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art luke-
warm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth
(Rev. 3:14–16).

Conclusion
The Preacher speaks for those who see no connection between the
pursuit of righteousness and the expectation of positive sanctions.
Such people are content with half-way measures.

3. Ray R. Sutton, That You May Prosper: Dominion By Covenant, 2nd ed. (Tyler,
Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, [1987] 1992), ch. 5. (http://bit.ly/rstymp)
Gary North, Unconditional Surrender: God’s Program for Victory, 5th ed. (Powder
Springs, Georgia: American Vision, [1987] 2010), ch. 5.
 Lukewarm Ethics (Eccl. 7:15–17) 117
This outlook undermines the pursuit of excellence. The pursuit of
excellence begins with the pursuit of righteousness. This pursuit is a
lifetime pursuit. It should begin young.
Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his way? by taking heed
thereto according to thy word. With my whole heart have I sought
thee: O let me not wander from thy commandments. Thy word have
I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee. Blessed art
thou, O LORD: teach me thy statutes (Psalm 119:9–12).
 28
28

CONSTANT IMPROVEMENT
Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they
have sought out many inventions (Eccl. 7:29).

A. Creativity
The Hebrew word translated “upright” has to do with ethics. The
word is used to designate a righteous person. 1 The Hebrew word trans-
lated “inventions” refers to devices of any kind. It is used only twice in
the Old Testament. It is derived from a root word meaning “invent-
ive.” The implication of this verse is that righteous people are creative.
This verse does not say that unrighteous people are not creative. It
does say that righteous people are creative. This implies that a charac-
teristic feature of the kingdom of God is its creativity. Members of this
kingdom seek out new ways of achieving their goals. They are not con-
tent with the range of opportunities they possess now. They imagine
that there are better ways of doing things. They devote time and
money to their search for better ways. There are several implications
associated with such a view of righteous living.
This goes back to the creation week.
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and
let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of
the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every
creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in
his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female
created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be
fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and
have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air,
and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth (Gen. 1:26–
28).

1. Exodus 15:26; Numbers 23:10; Deuteronomy 6:18; 12:25; 21:9; 32:4.

118
 Constant Improvement (Eccl. 7:29) 119
2
First, the dominion impulse is built into mankind. Second, this
fact was manifested in the garden of Eden. “And the LORD God took
the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep
it” (Gen. 2:15).3 In paradise, there was room for improvement.

B. Entrepreneurship
To discover a new way of doing things takes a combination of
skills that are possessed by everyone. To some extent, everyone who
seeks a better way of achieving his goals is an entrepreneur. But there
are specialists who possess these skills in a unique combination.
The entrepreneur looks into the future to see if there might be a
market for a new way for people to achieve their goals. He looks at
available products and services. He also imagines future demand. Then
he seeks out new ways of meeting this expected demand.
He must buy resources: raw materials, land, capital, and labor. He
then puts these to work in the production of a new product or service.
He prices it to sell. He buys low in order to sell higher. His goal is
either money or service. Either he uses the service as a way to accumu-
late money, or else he uses the money to continue to supply the ser-
vice. The first goal is Adam Smith’s self-interest. The second goal ad-
heres more closely to the biblical standard of stewardship: service to
God through service to His creation.
The world of the entrepreneur is filled with uncertainty. 4 Others
have not seen this opportunity. Or maybe they have seen it and regard
it as a trap. The entrepreneur may be confident that some service will
be profitable in the future, but he cannot be sure. He could lose his
money. In the United States, the number of patented inventions that
fail to find a profitable market is high. The actual percentage is higher,
because not all inventions are patented. Only those inventions whose
inventors or financial backers think are worth the money to patent get
patented. Estimates of failures of patented inventions range between
80% (Pareto’s law) and 99.9%.5 No one knows. The percentage is either
high or astronomically high—probably the latter.

2. Gary North, Sovereignty and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on Genesis

(Dallas, Georgia: Point Five Press, 2012), chaps. 3, 4.
3. Ibid., ch. 8.
4. Frank H. Knight, Risk, Uncertainty and Profit (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1921).
(http://bit.ly/KnightRUP)
5. “Odds of Success for Inventors.” (http://bit.ly/InventionSuccess)
120 AUTONOMY AND STAGNATION
The entrepreneur bears uncertainty for the sake of a large profit.
He wastes his time and his money—and then investors’ money—in the
vast majority of cases. Yet the rate of progress of invention is high.
Technological progress is so high that our world changes noticeably
every other decade. Technological obsolescence is a way of life in the
modern world. The rate of invention seems to be accelerating. This
unquestionably is true in what is by far the most important single area
of social transformation: the cost of accumulating, storing, and retriev-
ing information.6
So, what is almost a sure thing—the failure of any given new in-
vention—is the foundation of what has been attained by modern soci-
ety, beginning no earlier than 1775 in Great Britain and no later than
1820: compound economic growth. The social process of transforming
that which is doomed individually into that which guarantees benefits
for society is the private property order and ethical outlook required
by the Bible.

C. Confidence
For a person to invent a product, gain funding for it, and market it
successfully is statistically so close to impossible that it would seem
that no rational person would attempt it. Yet millions of people do.
Small improvements in existing systems are common in every success-
ful business. These are inventions. They are not patented inventions.
Each one offers improvement so small that there is no way to measure
it in the economy. Yet, taken as a whole, they provide sufficient eco-
nomic growth to change the world we live in every other decade.
An inventor must be confident that his sacrifice in the present will
produce a benefit in the future that is great enough to repay him for
his effort. Jesus warned us to count the cost.
For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first,
and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it? Lest
haply, after he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to finish it, all
that behold it begin to mock him, Saying, This man began to build,
and was not able to finish (Luke 14:28–30).7

6. Raymond Kurzweil, “The Law of Accelerating Returns” (2001). (http://bit.ly/

AcceleratingReturns)
7. Gary North, Treasure and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on Luke, 2nd
ed. (Dallas, Georgia: Point Five Press, [2000] 2012), ch. 35.
 Constant Improvement (Eccl. 7:29) 121
Despite the costs, covenant-keepers are supposed to innovate. This
is not just for the foreign mission field, where the Wycliffe Bible trans-
lation program is innovative linguistically. It is for innovations of all
kinds. There is room for improvement in every area of life. This in-
cludes economic theory.

Conclusion
The greater the level of confidence imparted by a worldview to its
adherents, the more likely they will bear the uncertainty associated
with innovation. The Psalms provide such confidence. 8 The Book of
Ecclesiastes is divided. Most of it is not intended to inspire confidence.
It is intended to expose the dead ends of the philosophy of autonomy.
But this passage is surely confidence-building.

8. Gary North, Confidence and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on Psalms

(Dallas, Georgia: Point Five Press, 2012).
 29
29

THE UNCERTAINTY OF TIMING

Because to every purpose there is time and judgment, therefore the
misery of man is great upon him. For he knoweth not that which shall
be: for who can tell him when it shall be? (Eccl. 8:6–7).

Is the Preacher speaking on behalf of the covenant-keeper or

autonomous man? I think it is the latter. This is because autonomous
man does not believe in prophecy or prophets. Under the Mosaic Cov-
enant, there were prophets who did have access to God’s purposes and
His timing. Before the Mosaic Covenant, Joseph was given this ability
in Egypt.1 The lack of reliable guidance on the timing of decisions,
great and small, produces misery, the Preacher says. This is a great
burden for autonomous man.
For covenant-keepers, this lack of authoritative guidance is not a
source of misery, or should not be. It is a source of confidence. They
know that they have access to God’s law as stewards of God. They are
more likely to be the recipient of guidance than covenant-breakers are.
They have a competitive advantage.

A. Using the Advantage

Do covenant-keepers take advantage of this advantage? The Bible
provides evidence that they do not. One example is the reaction of the
disciples to the death and entombment of Jesus. They scattered. Yet
the Jewish authorities were well aware of what Jesus had taught about
His resurrection.
Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three
days I will raise it up. Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this
temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? But he

1. Gary North, Sovereignty and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on Genesis

(Dallas, Georgia: Point Five Press, [1982] 2012), ch. 32.
122
 The Uncertainty of Timing (Eccl. 8:6–7) 123
spake of the temple of his body. When therefore he was risen from
the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them;
and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said
(John 2:19–22).

The disciples did not initially understand Jesus’ words. The Jewish
authorities were unaware that the disciples were unaware of what Je-
sus had taught.
Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief
priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate, Saying, Sir, we re-
member that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three
days I will rise again. Command therefore that the sepulchre be made
sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal
him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the
last error shall be worse than the first. Pilate said unto them, Ye have
a watch: go your way, make it as sure as ye can. So they went, and
made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, and setting a watch
(Matt. 27:62–66).

The disciples not only did not plan to steal the body, they had no
understanding that Jesus had predicted His resurrection.
Covenant-keepers often seem to possess no advantage over coven-
ant-breakers. This is because of their unwillingness to do what the
Bible says they must do: obey God’s law. The issue is ethics, not fore-
knowledge.

B. Ethics, not Foreknowledge

A covenant-keeper is supposed to believe that God is in charge of
all things. God intervenes in history to achieve His purposes.
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I
the LORD do all these things. Drop down, ye heavens, from above,
and let the skies pour down righteousness: let the earth open, and let
them bring forth salvation, and let righteousness spring up together;
I the LORD have created it. Woe unto him that striveth with his
Maker! Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth. Shall
the clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest thou? or thy
work, He hath no hands? Woe unto him that saith unto his father,
What begettest thou? or to the woman, What hast thou brought
forth? Thus saith the LORD, the Holy One of Israel, and his Maker,
Ask me of things to come concerning my sons, and concerning the
work of my hands command ye me. I have made the earth, and cre-
124 AUTONOMY AND STAGNATION
ated man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens,
and all their host have I commanded (Isa. 45:7–12).

The fact that covenant-keepers do not know the timing of events

should not discourage them. God knows. He does not need to reveal
Himself to covenant-keepers regarding His plans. They have God’s
Bible-revealed law to guide them. “The secret things belong unto the
LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us
and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law”
(Deut. 29:29). The predictable sanctions of God’s law offer sufficient
guidance: positive and negative feedback.
The Jewish leaders asked Jesus about the timing of the kingdom of
God.
And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of
God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God
cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo
there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you 2 (Luke 17:20–
21).

The disciples asked what they imagined was the same question.
When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying,
Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? And
he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons,
which the Father hath put in his own power. But ye shall receive
power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be
witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in
Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth (Acts 1:6–8).

So, from the point of view of God, covenant-breakers’ lack of

knowledge about timing should not be a source of misery for coven-
ant-keepers. Because covenant-keepers have the law and the prophets,
but members of competing kingdoms do not, they have an advantage.
They may decide not take advantage of this advantage, but they pos-
sess it. The key factor in the extension of the kingdom of God is ethics,
not timing.

2. The Greek words translated as “within you” (entos humone) should probably be
translated “in your midst,” according to expositor Ned B. Stonehouse, The Witness of
Luke to Christ (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1951), p. 155.
 The Uncertainty of Timing (Eccl. 8:6–7) 125
Conclusion
The Preacher identifies a source of misery: our lack of knowledge
about the correct timing for implementing our purposes. “Because to
every purpose there is time and judgment.” Implementation is what he
means by judgment.
The knowledge of timing is not crucial for covenant-keepers. It is
useful, but it is not crucial. Time is not a threat to them, because God
is sovereign over history. Timing is crucial for covenant-breakers, be-
cause they are running out of time. Time is their enemy, for the final
judgment is their enemy (Rev. 20:14–15). Time is a tool for them, but it
is a tool that works against them. “A good man leaveth an inheritance
to his children’s children: and the wealth of the sinner is laid up for the
just” (Prov. 13:22).3
What is crucial for covenant-keepers is ethics. Biblical ethics rests
on biblical law. This is the conclusion of the Preacher in the final
verses of his book. “Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter:
Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of
man. For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret
thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil” (Eccl. 12:13–14).4

3. Gary North, Wisdom and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on Proverbs

(Dallas, Georgia: Point Five Press, [2007] 2012), ch. 41.
4. Chapter 45.
 30
30

TIME RUNS OUT

And so I saw the wicked buried, who had come and gone from the
place of the holy, and they were forgotten in the city where they had so
done: this is also vanity. Because sentence against an evil work is not
executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in
them to do evil. Though a sinner do evil an hundred times, and his
days be prolonged, yet surely I know that it shall be well with them
that fear God, which fear before him: But it shall not be well with the
wicked, neither shall he prolong his days, which are as a shadow; be-
cause he feareth not before God (Eccl. 8:10–13).

Here, the Preacher speaks on behalf of covenant-keeping man.

Previously, he presented a goad in his case against autonomous man
by pointing to the indeterminacy of ethical outcomes in autonomous
man’s cosmos. “All things have I seen in the days of my vanity: there is
a just man that perisheth in his righteousness, and there is a wicked
man that prolongeth his life in his wickedness” (Eccl. 7:15). 1 Here, he
presents an explanation for this randomness: insufficient time.

A. Death
He begins here with death, which was his starting point in his cri-
tique of autonomous man. Autonomous man cannot escape death and
its implications. Death is impersonal. Death impersonally consumes
generations. “One generation passeth away, and another generation
cometh: but the earth abideth for ever” (Eccl. 1:4). 2 Death impersonally
consumes individuals. “For there is no remembrance of the wise more
than of the fool for ever; seeing that which now is in the days to come
shall all be forgotten. And how dieth the wise man? as the fool” (Eccl.

1. Chapter 27.
2. Chapter 1.
126
 Time Runs Out (Eccl. 8:6–7) 127
3
2:16). This is one of the book’s recurring sub-themes. “All things
come alike to all: there is one event to the righteous, and to the wicked;
to the good and to the clean, and to the unclean; to him that sacri-
ficeth, and to him that sacrificeth not: as is the good, so is the sinner;
and he that sweareth, as he that feareth an oath” (Eccl. 9:2). 4
Autonomous man is defenseless against the limited sovereignty of
time, a defenselessness manifested in the final sovereignty of death.
Nothing escapes death. The philosophy of autonomy begins with the
sovereignty of time, but then perishes in the sovereignty of death. For
modern man, this is the heat death of the universe: the cosmic tri-
umph of impersonal entropy. 5 Each generation hopes to discover a way
to structure its worldview in terms of life, but this attempt always fails.
Autonomy is a philosophy of death.
The Preacher has already laid the groundwork. He continues to
develop this theme. “And so I saw the wicked buried, who had come
and gone from the place of the holy, and they were forgotten in the
city where they had so done: this is also vanity.” These people had
gone in and out of the temple for years. They had escaped judgment
on their evil deeds. The ecclesiastical authorities had not brought suc-
cessful covenant lawsuits against these sinners. They had enjoyed free
access to the house of God. They had seemed to be beyond negative
sanctions. But then death arrived. Soon, they were forgotten.
Why did this matter? Because, in terms of the philosophy of indi-
vidual autonomy, fame is all that remains after death. The economic
inheritance, if any, passes to men of unknown commitments and tal-
ents (Eccl. 4:8).6 It passes to strangers (Eccl. 6:1–2).7 Men can take no
legitimate hope in the outcome of their accumulation of riches. This
leaves them with only hope in their fame. Here, the Preacher shuts the
door on that hope. They will not be remembered.

B. The Death of Time

Time is the god of autonomous man, for time alone is creative in
his system. But time runs out. Death is like an ogre’s mouth at the end

3. Chapter 3.
4. Chapter 33.
5. Gary North, Is the World Running Down? Crisis in the Christian Worldview
(Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1988), ch. 2. (http://bit.ly/gnworld)
6. Chapter 13.
7. Chapter 21.
128 AUTONOMY AND STAGNATION
of days, chewing up everything that enters. The sinner has a fixed
amount of time.
To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under
the heaven: A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and
a time to pluck up that which is planted (Eccl. 3:1–2).8

I said in mine heart, God shall judge the righteous and the wicked:
for there is a time there for every purpose and for every work (Eccl.
3:17).

For man also knoweth not his time: as the fishes that are taken in an
evil net, and as the birds that are caught in the snare; so are the sons
of men snared in an evil time, when it falleth suddenly upon them
(Eccl. 9:12).

The end comes. When time is your god, death is your devil. In the
cosmos of autonomous man, the devil wins. The creativity of time
ends for every living thing. For modern man, time itself ends in the
heat death of the universe. Time’s arrow falls to the frozen ground.
There is no future; there is no memory of the past. Meaninglessness
envelops all things. The end.

C. Delayed Sentencing
Sinners had come and gone from the temple with impunity. This
had given them confidence. “Because sentence against an evil work is
not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully
set in them to do evil.” This is an insecure confidence.
Men who escape sentencing for many years do not thereby escape
judgment. “Though a sinner do evil an hundred times, and his days be
prolonged, yet surely I know that it shall be well with them that fear
God, which fear before him: But it shall not be well with the wicked,
neither shall he prolong his days, which are as a shadow; because he
feareth not before God.” There are ethical standards. These standards
do govern the imposition of God’s sanctions. God is the source of the
standards and the sanctions.9 The future therefore belongs to God and
His people.10
8. Chapter 7.
9. Ray R. Sutton, That You May Prosper: Dominion By Covenant, 2nd ed. (Tyler,
Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, [1987] 1992), chaps, 3, 4. (http://bit.ly/
rstymp) Gary North, Unconditional Surrender: God’s Program for Victory, 5th ed.
(Powder Springs, Georgia: American Vision, 2010), chaps. 3, 4.
10. Sutton, ch. 5; North, ch. 5.
 Time Runs Out (Eccl. 8:6–7) 129
Delayed sanctions constitute slippery places. David had seen
delayed sanctions, and what he saw disturbed him for a while.
For I was envious at the foolish, when I saw the prosperity of the
wicked. For there are no bands in their death: but their strength is
firm. They are not in trouble as other men; neither are they plagued
like other men. Therefore pride compasseth them about as a chain;
violence covereth them as a garment. Their eyes stand out with fat-
ness: they have more than heart could wish. They are corrupt, and
speak wickedly concerning oppression: they speak loftily. They set
their mouth against the heavens, and their tongue walketh through
the earth. Therefore his people return hither: and waters of a full cup
are wrung out to them. And they say, How doth God know? and is
there knowledge in the most High? Behold, these are the ungodly,
who prosper in the world; they increase in riches (Psalm 73:3–12).

He did not understand that delayed sanctions are a judgment

against sinners.
When I thought to know this, it was too painful for me; Until I went
into the sanctuary of God; then understood I their end. Surely thou
didst set them in slippery places: thou castedst them down into de-
struction. How are they brought into desolation, as in a moment!
they are utterly consumed with terrors. As a dream when one
awaketh; so, O Lord, when thou awakest, thou shalt despise their im-
age. Thus my heart was grieved, and I was pricked in my reins. So
foolish was I, and ignorant: I was as a beast before thee (Psalm 73:16–
22).11

The Preacher did understand this. He was not fooled by the delay-
ed sanctions. The days of wicked are like a shadow. Reality is perman-
ent.

Conclusion
The Preacher denies here that the philosophy of autonomy has le-
gitimate hope. Good is not the same as evil. Wisdom is superior to
foolishness. Time is not swallowed up by death. The end of life is not
the end. Sinners will not finish well.
This gives legitimate hope to covenant-keepers. The wicked will be
forgotten. “And so I saw the wicked buried, who had come and gone
from the place of the holy, and they were forgotten in the city where
11. Gary North, Confidence and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on Psalms
(Dallas, Georgia: Point Five Press, 2012), ch. 17.
130 AUTONOMY AND STAGNATION
they had so done: this is also vanity.” The Preacher does not say here
that covenant-keepers will be forgotten. He says elsewhere that they
will be, but there, he speaks on behalf of autonomous man.
The work that a covenant-keeper does today has influence in the
future. Death does not swallow up the future. The inheritance can
compound over time.
 31
31

EAT, DRINK, AND BE MERRY

There is a vanity which is done upon the earth; that there be just men,
unto whom it happeneth according to the work of the wicked; again,
there be wicked men, to whom it happeneth according to the work of
the righteous: I said that this also is vanity. Then I commended mirth,
because a man hath no better thing under the sun, than to eat, and to
drink, and to be merry: for that shall abide with him of his labour the
days of his life, which God giveth him under the sun (Eccl. 8:14–15).

A. Causation
The Preacher speaks here as autonomous man. The world is still
all vanity. The world is ethically random. Good men lose. Bad men
win. Yet he is beginning to waver. While it is true that good men lose
and bad men win, the normal course of events is the opposite. The key
phrase is “according to the work of.” “There is a vanity which is done
upon the earth; that there be just men, unto whom it happeneth ac-
cording to the work of the wicked; again, there be wicked men, to
whom it happeneth according to the work of the righteous: I said that
this also is vanity.”
For autonomous man, there is no good reason why good men
should prosper and bad men should lose. He has affirmed such a view
before. “All things have I seen in the days of my vanity: there is a just
man that perisheth in his righteousness, and there is a wicked man
that prolongeth his life in his wickedness” (Eccl. 7:15). 1 He is arguing
against a rival view, the view presented in Leviticus 26 and Deutero-
nomy 28. There is predictability between covenant-keeping and suc-
cess. There is covenantal predictability between righteousness and a
long life, and also between covenant-breaking and a short life.

1. Chapter 27.
131
132 AUTONOMY AND STAGNATION
Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon
the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee (Ex 20:12).2

This applies also to life-threatening diseases.

And said, If thou wilt diligently hearken to the voice of the LORD thy
God, and wilt do that which is right in his sight, and wilt give ear to
his commandments, and keep all his statutes, I will put none of these
diseases upon thee, which I have brought upon the Egyptians: for I
am the LORD that healeth thee (Ex. 15:26).

If thou wilt not observe to do all the words of this law that are writ-
ten in this book, that thou mayest fear this glorious and fearful name,
THE LORD THY GOD; Then the LORD will make thy plagues won-
derful, and the plagues of thy seed, even great plagues, and of long
continuance, and sore sicknesses, and of long continuance. Moreover
he will bring upon thee all the diseases of Egypt, which thou wast
afraid of; and they shall cleave unto thee. Also every sickness, and
every plague, which is not written in the book of this law, them will
the LORD bring upon thee, until thou be destroyed (Deut. 28:58–
61).3

The Preacher here comes in the name of autonomous man. He

challenges the reliability of these covenantal patterns of sanctions in
history. He calls into question the promises of God.

B. Let the Good Times Roll

He says that there is no reliable covenantal predictability based on
obedience to God’s Bible-revealed law. This leads to a conclusion.
“Then I commended mirth, because a man hath no better thing under
the sun, than to eat, and to drink, and to be merry: for that shall abide
with him of his labour the days of his life, which God giveth him under
the sun” (v. 15). His labor sometimes produces food, drink, and leisure.
This is what abides with him during his lifetime. This is what lasts.
This is what has continuity. But not for long. After he dies, there will
be nothing. Death ends all continuity.

2. Gary North, Authority and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on Exodus

(Dallas, Georgia: Point Five Press, 2012), Part 1, Decalogue and Dominion (1986), ch.
25.
3. Gary North, Inheritance and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on Deutero-
nomy, 2nd ed. (Dallas, Georgia: Point Five Press, [1999] 2012), ch. 69.
 Eat, Drink, and Be Merry (Eccl. 8:14–15) 133
There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there be any
remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come
after (Eccl. 1:11).

For there is no remembrance of the wise more than of the fool for
ever; seeing that which now is in the days to come shall all be forgot-
ten. And how dieth the wise man? as the fool (Eccl. 2:16).

Because death ends continuity, death is sovereign. 4 Death is the

only continuous thing is history. The god of autonomous man is death.
All other gods bow down to death. No other god can deliver man from
death. Death inescapably imposes the great discontinuity. It is there-
fore the only continuity.
The Preacher affirms the benefits of enjoying the good times. He
has done this before. He will do it again (Eccl. 9:7–12).5 He has done so
in the name of autonomous man. He has done so in the name of cov-
enant man. As autonomous man, he recommends enjoyment as the
best that we can hope for, while we have the opportunity. Nothing else
is secure. “For that shall abide with him of his labour the days of his
life, which God giveth him under the sun.”

Conclusion
The present-orientation of the Preacher is obvious. If the present
enjoyment of consumer goods is the one thing that we can count on,
then thrift is a will-o-the-wisp.
Its outcome is unsure. Capital consumption is wise; capital forma-
tion is problematical. This is a prescription for impoverishment. This
undermines inheritance. It undermines economic growth, including
the growth of the kingdom. Because there is no predictability between
ethical conformity to covenantal law and economic growth, he con-
cludes that capital consumption is logical. The world is upside-down
ethically. The wise course of action is to grab what you can whenever
you can.

4. Chapter 3.
5. Chapter 33.
 32
32

IGNORANCE IS NOT BLISS

When I applied mine heart to know wisdom, and to see the business
that is done upon the earth: (for also there is that neither day nor
night seeth sleep with his eyes:) Then I beheld all the work of God, that
a man cannot find out the work that is done under the sun: because
though a man labour to seek it out, yet he shall not find it; yea further;
though a wise man think to know it, yet shall he not be able to find it
(Eccl. 8:16–17).

A. A Speechless God
This is autonomous man speaking. The Preacher acknowledges
that there is a god, but he insists that this god does not reveal himself
to men, even to wise men. This god is therefore wholly other: trans-
cendent unto irrelevance.
The Preacher insists that a wise man cannot discover the work of
God. This is incorrect. He can discover it in the Bible. It is legitimate
to say that the wise man cannot discover all of the work of God (Deut.
29:29). Man is not omniscient. But the fact that he cannot discover the
work of God comprehensively does not mean that he cannot discover
it truly. Van Til summarized this position.
Berkouwer quite rightly says that on the biblical approach there
is no dualism in the idea of God. But this does not mean that man
claims to have at any point an exhaustive understanding of things. It
does not even mean that in some field, for instance, the field of sci-
ence or that of philosophy, man aims at an exhaustive knowledge of
reality. On the contrary, the biblical views involve the recognition of
mystery everywhere. There is no fact in the universe that man under-
stands or will understand comprehensively. But his presupposition is
that, because God has created all things, therefore he also controls
and directs all things. Of course the believer does not seek to prove
the existence of such a God. This God must be presupposed as the

134
 Ignorance is not Bliss (Eccl. 8:16–17) 135
basis of all proof in any field. Thus the biblical position is not like
that of rationalism or like that of irrationalism. Nor is it like any
combination of these two. It is based on the presupposition that man
knows truly though not comprehensively because God does know all
things in terms of his self-contained being and has revealed himself
to man.1

The Preacher comes as the Kantian theologian Karl Barth came: in

the name of autonomous man. 2 The god of autonomous man is so far
above man, so mysterious, that it does no good for man to search out
the works of this god or the ways of this god. This has always been the
underlying presupposition of autonomous men, for they seek to deny
the God who brings final judgment (Rev. 20:14–15). If He has not re-
vealed his work to men, then men are not responsible subordinate
agents. This makes them supreme autonomous agents for as long as
they can enforce their claim against god or any rival claimant. The god
of autonomous man does not bring predictable judgments in history.
History is the realm of autonomous man, who seeks to bring history
under his control. This not the God of the Bible. Van Til wrote:
No one has an exhaustive knowledge of God as revealed in the world.
The Parmenidean idea that man has or can have such knowledge of
God presupposes that man is autonomous. The Kantian notion that
man can have no knowledge of the triune God also presupposes that
man is autonomous. . . .

As a covenant being man must seek to implicate himself into the

revelation of God. If he is to see the facts of his environment for what
they are, he must see them as being nothing more or less than bear -
ers of the covenant requirements and promises of God. We may
therefore say that man’s proper method of obtaining knowledge is
that of implication into God’s revelation. . . .

Our basic approach then is to accept on authority what Christ

says in Scripture. Our basic presupposition is based on our belief that
in Scripture God speaks to us. We cannot comprehend, i.e., exhaust-
ively understand, what God says to us about anything. 3

1. Van Til, Christianity and Barthianism (Philadelphia: Presbyterian & Reformed,

1962), pp. 432–33.
2. Ibid.
3. Van Til, in E. R. Geehan (ed.), Jerusalem and Athens Critical Discussions on the
Theology and Apologetics of Cornelius Van Til (Nutley, New Jersey: Presbyterian & Re-
formed, 1971), p. 302.
136 AUTONOMY AND STAGNATION
B. A Matter of Responsibility
The Preacher, in the name of autonomous man, offers a counsel of
despair. He says that a wise man can have no knowledge of the work of
God. This, if true, places man outside the covenant. Logically speaking,
as the Preacher speaks, we are not responsible if we have no know-
ledge of what God requires. But his premise is false. Men do have
knowledge of what God requires. This condemns them. Paul wrote:
“For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the
things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto
themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts,
their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean
while accusing or else excusing one another;)” (Rom. 2:14–15).4
The Preacher uses a phrase that has confused translators: “there is
that neither day nor night seeth sleep with his eyes.” Does this refer to
him in his quest for knowledge? Some translators have so translated it.
The English Standard Version reads: “how neither day nor night do
one’s eyes see sleep.” This refers to the magnitude of the task of under-
standing God’s work.
The Preacher has hit the barrier announced by Moses: “The secret
things belong unto the LORD our God” (Deut. 29:29a). This is an as-
pect of God’s omniscience, which is an incommunicable attribute of
God. When man confronts a barrier established by this attribute, he is
supposed to back off. “Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest
against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why
hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of
the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dis-
honour” (Rom. 9:20–21). To seek a degree of knowledge comparable to
what God possesses is to seek to become God.
Autonomous man does not rely on the doctrine of the omni-
science of God to provide his own derivative understanding. He does
not believe that there is understanding derived from God. Thus, he
must grasp the cosmos by means of his own mind. He builds his king-
dom as the people at the Tower of Babel built theirs: without reference
to God.

4. Gary North, Cooperation and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on Romans,

2nd ed. (Dallas, Georgia: Point Five Press, [2000] 2012), ch. 3.
 Ignorance is not Bliss (Eccl. 8:16–17) 137
Conclusion
The Preacher articulates a fundamental presupposition of autono-
mous man: God has not revealed himself to us. This, autonomous man
believes, gets him off the covenantal hook. He will die, but that will
end things. Autonomous man is willing to live in despair about history,
despair about the meaninglessness of a life spent in a universe that is
governed by death. For him, the first death is acceptable, just so long
as he does not face the second death. “And death and hell were cast
into the lake of fire. This is the second death” (Rev. 20:14). The Bible
reveals a very different God and a very different end for covenant-
keeping men.
And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the
first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. And I John
saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of
heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a
great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is
with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people,
and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. And God shall
wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death,
neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for
the former things are passed away (Rev. 21:1–4).
 33
33

DEAD LIONS AND

ECONOMIC STAGNATION
All things come alike to all: there is one event to the righteous, and to
the wicked; to the good and to the clean, and to the unclean; to him
that sacrificeth, and to him that sacrificeth not: as is the good, so is
the sinner; and he that sweareth, as he that feareth an oath. This is an
evil among all things that are done under the sun, that there is one
event unto all: yea, also the heart of the sons of men is full of evil, and
madness is in their heart while they live, and after that they go to the
dead. For to him that is joined to all the living there is hope: for a liv-
ing dog is better than a dead lion (Eccl. 9:2–4).

A. Death and Differentiation1

The Preacher returns to one of his two major sub-themes regard-
ing autonomous man: the absolute sovereignty of death. He goes to the
heart of the matter once again.
For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any
thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them
is forgotten. Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now
perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing
that is done under the sun (Eccl. 9:5–6).

He then says something that has become an aphorism in the

Christian West: a living dog is better than a dead lion. It would make a
fine inscription on the tombstone of autonomous man.
He speaks here on behalf of autonomous man. His observations
are consistent with the philosophy of autonomy. He concludes that
thinking defines a person. When thinking ceases because of death,
everything else ceases. “For the living know that they shall die: but the

1. Chapter 3.
138
 Dead Lions and Economics Stagnation (Eccl. 9:2–4) 139
dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the
memory of them is forgotten” (v. 5). The living know that they shall
die. What does this mean for the living? That there is nothing to hope
for. There will be no reward after death. There will be no memory of
the dear departed, either. Even if there is some recollection initially,
this will pass with the deaths of those who remember. The hope of
fame comforts an elite among the living. It is a false hope.
What will remain of today’s activities, emotions, and dreams?
Nothing. “Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now per-
ished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that
is done under the sun” (v. 6). History is all there is, and once a person
departs from history, there is nothing.
These verses are used by defenders of the concept of soul sleep to
deny the existence of hell. But these passages, so interpreted, are
equally as effective in countering heaven as hell. They are supportive of
autonomous man in history. The price paid by autonomous man to
gain such support is the destruction of meaning and hope. Without
differentiation in terms of either ethics or historical significance, the
present has no meaning. When death swallows up everything, it swal-
lows up differentiation. Love, hatred, and envy are relevant in life be-
cause of the pleasure or pain they bring in the present, but there is no
ratification by the future. “All things come alike to all: there is one
event to the righteous, and to the wicked” (v. 2).

B. Dogs and Lions

A dog in Bible times was not a respected animal.
But against any of the children of Israel shall not a dog move his
tongue, against man or beast: that ye may know how that the LORD
doth put a difference between the Egyptians and Israel (Ex. 11:7).

And the Philistine said unto David, Am I a dog, that thou comest to
me with staves? And the Philistine cursed David by his gods (I Sam.
17:43).

But be not thou far from me, O LORD: O my strength, haste thee to
help me. Deliver my soul from the sword; my darling from the power
of the dog (Psalm 22:19–20).

In contrast, a lion was respected as a beast of prey.

140 AUTONOMY AND STAGNATION
Behold, the people shall rise up as a great lion, and lift up himself as a
young lion: he shall not lie down until he eat of the prey, and drink
the blood of the slain (Num. 23:24).

He couched, he lay down as a lion, and as a great lion: who shall stir
him up? Blessed is he that blesseth thee, and cursed is he that curseth
thee (Num. 24:9).

And of Gad he said, Blessed be he that enlargeth Gad: he dwelleth as

a lion, and teareth the arm with the crown of the head (Deut. 33:20).

The fear of a king is as the roaring of a lion: whoso provoketh him to

anger sinneth against his own soul (Prov. 20:2).

When the Preacher writes that it is better to be a live dog than a

dead lion, he is making a powerful statement in favor of life over death.
Death transforms a lion to such an extent that being a live dog is
preferable. The fame of a dead lion is nothing. A live dog is better off.

C. Live It Up
Autonomous man lives without hope. He can enjoy only the pres-
ent. The Preacher recommends this.
Go thy way, eat thy bread with joy, and drink thy wine with a merry
heart; for God now accepteth thy works. Let thy garments be always
white; and let thy head lack no ointment. Live joyfully with the wife
whom thou lovest all the days of the life of thy vanity, which he hath
given thee under the sun, all the days of thy vanity: for that is thy
portion in this life, and in thy labour which thou takest under the
sun. Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for
there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the
grave, whither thou goest.

I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift,
nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet
riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but
time and chance happeneth to them all. For man also knoweth not
his time: as the fishes that are taken in an evil net, and as the birds
that are caught in the snare; so are the sons of men snared in an evil
time, when it falleth suddenly upon them (Eccl. 9:7–12).2

Time and chance happen to all living things. There is no predict-

able cause and effect in history. The earthly future of autonomous man

2. Chapter 34.
 Dead Lions and Economics Stagnation (Eccl. 9:2–4) 141
is random. Death alone is predictable: the termination of cause and
effect.
In such a world, future-orientation is naive, even foolish. The
present is here; the future is problematical. The grave is certain.
In such a worldview, high interest rates are the result. To persuade
a person to give up the use of consumer goods in the present in order
to gain additional consumer goods in the future is a difficult sell to a
consistent autonomous man. Sacrifice in the present for the sake of
greater wealth in the future is a high-risk venture. There is no advant-
age worth paying for, since time and chance are supreme. The present
alone is sure.
This outlook is hostile to economic growth. It is hostile to prog-
ress. Economic growth and progress are financed by thrift. People turn
over to entrepreneurs the money or tools that could be used for
present enjoyment in order to fund future output. The more present-
oriented a culture is, the higher the rate of expected return must be in
order to persuade people to save. 3 Also, entrepreneurs must compete
with present-oriented consumers for the funds made available by
savers. Consumer loans pay higher rates of interest on producer loans.

Conclusion
The Preacher recommends present-orientation. On behalf of auto-
nomous man, he proclaims a philosophy of life.
Then I commended mirth, because a man hath no better thing under
the sun, than to eat, and to drink, and to be merry: for that shall
abide with him of his labour the days of his life, which God giveth
him under the sun (Eccl. 8:15).4

This is a philosophy of stagnation, of history without progress.

3. Ludwig von Mises, Human Action: A Treatise on Economics (New Haven, Con-
necticut: Yale University Press, 1949), ch. 19. (http://bit.ly/MisesHA)
4. Chapter 31.
 34
34

WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH

Go thy way, eat thy bread with joy, and drink thy wine with a merry
heart; for God now accepteth thy works. Let thy garments be always
white; and let thy head lack no ointment. Live joyfully with the wife
whom thou lovest all the days of the life of thy vanity, which he hath
given thee under the sun, all the days of thy vanity: for that is thy por-
tion in this life, and in thy labour which thou takest under the sun.
Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is
no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither
thou goest (Eccl. 9:7–10).

A. The Sovereignty of Death

The Preacher again relies on his now-familiar exhortation regard-
ing the sovereignty of death.1
All things come alike to all: there is one event to the righteous, and to
the wicked; to the good and to the clean, and to the unclean; to him
that sacrificeth, and to him that sacrificeth not: as is the good, so is
the sinner; and he that sweareth, as he that feareth an oath. This is an
evil among all things that are done under the sun, that there is one
event unto all: yea, also the heart of the sons of men is full of evil, and
madness is in their heart while they live, and after that they go to the
dead. For to him that is joined to all the living there is hope: for a liv-
ing dog is better than a dead lion. For the living know that they shall
die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a
reward; for the memory of them is forgotten (Eccl. 9:2–5).2

Here, he draws a conclusion: enjoy the moment. Live for the mo-
ment. The moment is all that we have. He had already come to this
conclusion.3 But the final component of his conclusion here does not

1. Chapter 3.
2. Chapter 33.
3. Chapters 5, 20.
142
 With All Your Strength (Eccl. 9:7–10) 143
make sense, given the other implications of his worldview. Why should
anyone work with all his might? The Preacher had already denied the
wisdom of such effort with respect to the pursuit of righteousness and
wickedness.
In the day of prosperity be joyful, but in the day of adversity consider:
God also hath set the one over against the other, to the end that man
should find nothing after him. All things have I seen in the days of
my vanity: there is a just man that perisheth in his righteousness, and
there is a wicked man that prolongeth his life in his wickedness. Be
not righteous over much; neither make thyself over wise: why
shouldest thou destroy thyself? Be not over much wicked, neither be
thou foolish: why shouldest thou die before thy time? (Eccl 7:14–17).4

He concludes that the ethical randomness of the lifetime outcomes

of our labor should lead us to take things easy. To strive to attain
either righteousness or wickedness is a waste of time and effort. “Go
with the flow. Lighten up. Easy does it. Don’t work yourself to death.”
“Why shouldest thou die before thy time?”

B. Hard Work
Then, without warning, he recommends hard, relentless work. He
offers this reason: there will be no work in the grave. So what? If no
man’s memory survives in the grave (v. 10), and if no inheritance is se-
cure,5 and if the world will eventually forget about you, 6 what possible
advantage is hard work in the present? Work for its own sake is mad-
ness. Work is either for the worker, or for itself, or to help others. He
says here that work is for the sake of the worker, whose work will cease
in death. But why should the worker revel in work? Why not revel in
leisure? “Let thy garments be always white; and let thy head lack no
ointment.”
He speaks here in the name of autonomous man, who has no hope
in the future. He has only the present. He must therefore savor all
things, one by one, in the present. He must put his heart and soul into
his work, for he has only the present.
This is present-orientation with a vengeance. It is grasping at
straws. It is vanity. He knows it is vanity. “Live joyfully with the wife
whom thou lovest all the days of the life of thy vanity, which he hath

4. Chapter 27.
5. Chapters 4, 13, 21.
6. Chapters 3, 30.
144 AUTONOMY AND STAGNATION
given thee under the sun, all the days of thy vanity: for that is thy por-
tion in this life, and in thy labour which thou takest under the sun.” He
previously had said that both righteousness and wickedness should be
pursued moderately. But what applies to ethics does not apply to work.
There is no logic to this conclusion, yet he draws it. The conclu-
sion does not follow from his presuppositions regarding autonomous
man. He is thrown back to the original covenant, the dominion coven-
ant.
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and
let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of
the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every
creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in
his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female
created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be
fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and
have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air,
and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth (Gen. 1:26–
28).7

This covenant defines man. Man cannot be understood correctly

apart from this. The Preacher invokes hard work because hard work,
not consumption, defines man. High consumption is a product of hard
work, but only randomly, according to the Preacher (Eccl. 9:10–11).8
Hard work is its own reward. This is the essence of autonomy: the
quest for self-reliance. It affirms that the Bible’s system of covenantal
sanctions in history is not reliable. It says that God does not bring
sanctions in history according to His ethical requirements. Autonomy
opposes theonomy.
In God’s kingdom, work is always for God’s sake, as mediated (rep-
resented) by some aspect of the creation. This is an implication of the
doctrine of the sovereignty of God. The Preacher not only does not
make this clear here, he recommends a philosophy of life that militates
against the covenantal view of work.

C. Why Invoke God?

The Preacher says: “Go thy way, eat thy bread with joy, and drink
thy wine with a merry heart; for God now accepteth thy works” (v. 7).

7. Gary North, Sovereignty and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on Genesis

(Dallas, Georgia: Point Five Press, 2012), chaps. 3, 4.
8. Chapter 35.
 With All Your Strength (Eccl. 9:7–10) 145
On what basis can autonomous man invoke God? The Preacher has
done this before. “There is nothing better for a man, than that he
should eat and drink, and that he should make his soul enjoy good in
his labour. This also I saw, that it was from the hand of God” (Eccl.
2:24).9
This god grants blessings, but these blessings are not predictable.
So, a man should enjoy them while he can. They are not reliable. They
are not the product of ethical causation. They are the random bless-
ings of a god who does not grant blessings on the basis of ethical con-
formity to His law.
In such a universe, man is a co-laborer with god. God has greater
power, but He is not the god of the biblical covenant. A man does not
need to subordinate himself to this god, through grace by faith. He
merely enjoys whatever blessings this god arbitrarily bestows on
people, according to no predictable system of causation. This is the
god of autonomous man. This god allows men to make their own way
through life. He intervenes, but capriciously. He is like a rich uncle
who occasionally sends his nephew a present for no known reason.
The nephew enjoys it while he can.

D. Present-Orientation vs. Entrepreneurship

The Preacher exhorts us to live for the moment, for the moment is
all we have. Nothing else has any reliable foundation. The future is in-
herently unreliable. It leads to death, and death is sovereign.
The present-orientated person is ready to sacrifice future income
for present consumption. The future is insecure, at best. The present is
here. A bird in hand is better than two under the bush. Why risk a loss
when the present is doing well?
This attitude is hostile to entrepreneurship. The future is too un-
certain to justify entrepreneurship. The accent is on consumption
now.
The Preacher recommends hard work. This is not logical. If the fu-
ture is insecure and besieged by randomness, then hard work is no
guarantee of future success. At best, it is indulged in for the pleasures
it brings. But it brings pleasure only because God has made man in His
image. God worked six days out of seven. The Preacher, in the name of
autonomous man, rests his case for work on nothing. The recom-

9. Chapter 5.
146 AUTONOMY AND STAGNATION
mendation makes sense only on the assumption that man is under the
God of the covenant, not the god of autonomous man.
Hard work is not the essence of entrepreneurship. The laborer dig-
ging a ditch with a shovel works hard. He is not an entrepreneur. The
driver of an earth-moving machine works less hard and accomplishes
far more. Entrepreneurship is the vision, the forecasting, and the un-
certainty-bearing10 that are required to invent a better earth-moving
machine.
The world is transformed more by entrepreneurs than by ditch-
diggers. The Preacher here offers no encouragement to entrepreneurs.
He does offer a way of self-justification for ditch diggers. He offers the
labor theory of value: work for its own sake.11

Conclusion
The Preacher offers what appears initially to be a counsel of hope
to offset his counsel of despair. His doctrine of the sovereignty of death
offers no meaningful hope. Impersonal death swallows up everything
in the end, thereby undermining all meaning. Some men seek power;
others prefer escape. Neither strategy makes any meaningful difference
in the cosmology of autonomous man. The Preacher therefore aban-
dons all meaning in the name of consumption. Enjoy! Yet he also rec-
ommends hard work. Why would anyone enjoy work in preference to
leisure? With this philosophy of history, a commitment to hard work
undermines the commitment to leisure. Hard work is not logical in a
world in which death is sovereign, inheritance is uncertain, and out-
comes are ethically random.
The Preacher is grasping at logical straws, for this is what autono-
mous man does. In full public view, the Preacher is making the case for
autonomous man’s worldview. This worldview is self-defeating. It is a
counsel of despair.

10. Frank H. Knight, Risk, Uncertainty, and Profit (Boston: Houghton Mifflin,
1921). (http://bit.ly/KnightRUP)
11. This was the error of classical economics. The subjective value revolution in
economic theory that began in the early 1870s rejected the labor theory of value.
 35
35

THE SECONDARY SOVEREIGNTY

OF CHANCE
I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor
the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to
men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and
chance happeneth to them all (Eccl. 9:10–11).

A. Random Outcomes
The Preacher speaks here as autonomous man. For him, death is
the ultimate sovereign.1 Time is a tertiary sovereign. Why? Because
time cannot overcome death. Time is governed by the secondary sov-
ereign: chance. For autonomous man, chance governs history until
death intervenes. It is death > chance > time.
He says here that there is no predictable causality between swift-
ness and victory in a race, or between strength and victory in a war.
There is no predictable bread to the wise, nor predictable riches to
men of understanding. The outcomes are inherently random, no mat-
ter what history seems to indicate. Men are deceived by randomness.
What appear to be causal sequences are in fact illusions. Autonomous
man should not count on anything.
The priests of Philistia knew better. When the victorious army
brought back the Ark of the Covenant, each city that hosted it was
struck by a plague. Each city then passed the Ark on to the next city,
and the scenario was repeated. The priests decided that the presence
of the Ark might be the source of the plagues. So, they devised a test.
Now therefore make a new cart, and take two milch kine, on which
there hath come no yoke, and tie the kine to the cart, and bring their
calves home from them: And take the ark of the LORD, and lay it

1. Chapter 3.
147
148 AUTONOMY AND STAGNATION
upon the cart; and put the jewels of gold, which ye return him for a
trespass offering, in a coffer by the side thereof; and send it away,
that it may go. And see, if it goeth up by the way of his own coast to
Beth-shemesh, then he hath done us this great evil: but if not, then
we shall know that it is not his hand that smote us; it was a chance
that happened to us.

And the men did so; and took two milch kine, and tied them to the
cart, and shut up their calves at home: And they laid the ark of the
LORD upon the cart, and the coffer with the mice of gold and the
images of their emerods. And the kine took the straight way to the
way of Beth-shemesh, and went along the highway, lowing as they
went, and turned not aside to the right hand or to the left; and the
lords of the Philistines went after them unto the border of Beth-
shemesh (I Sam. 6:7–12).

The priests recognized the difference between God’s negative

sanctions and random events. The priests were not intimidated by
what might have been chance. They saw that they had to make a de-
cision. They let untrained but domestic animals do this for them. They
even rigged the test in favor of the retroactive explanation of chance.
They left the calves inside Philistia. The outcome was what they had
suspected.2

B. Covenantal Causation
God revealed to Moses that social causation is governed by ethics.
There are positive sanctions.
And it shall come to pass, if thou shalt hearken diligently unto the
voice of the LORD thy God, to observe and to do all his command-
ments which I command thee this day, that the LORD thy God will
set thee on high above all nations of the earth: And all these blessings
shall come on thee, and overtake thee, if thou shalt hearken unto the
voice of the LORD thy God. (Deut. 28:1–2).

There are also negative sanctions.

And thou shalt not go aside from any of the words which I command
thee this day, to the right hand, or to the left, to go after other gods
to serve them. But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto
the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe to do all his command-

2. Gary North, Disobedience and Defeat: An Economic Commentary on the Histor-

ical Books (Dallas, Georgia: Point Five Press, 2012), ch. 13.
 The Secondary Sovereignty of Chance (Eccl. 9:10–11) 149
ments and his statutes which I command thee this day; that all these
curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee (Deut. 28:14–15).3

This outlook is what the Preacher, speaking on behalf of autonom-

ous man, forthrightly denies here. He is making the case against the
predictability of the world around us. If all things are governed by
chance, then the case for righteousness is blunted. So is the case
against sin. Men should seek a middle way.
All things have I seen in the days of my vanity: there is a just man
that perisheth in his righteousness, and there is a wicked man that
prolongeth his life in his wickedness. Be not righteous over much;
neither make thyself over wise: why shouldest thou destroy thyself?
Be not over much wicked, neither be thou foolish: why shouldest
thou die before thy time? (Eccl. 7:15–17).4

The concept of covenantal causation militates against such a view.

When it comes to righteousness, here is the rule: “Whatsoever thy
hand findeth to do, do it with thy might” (v. 10a). This places work
within a covenantal context.

Conclusion
The Preacher is not arguing for chance in preference to necessity,
as modern man does. He is arguing for chance in preference to the
covenant. The covenant affirms predictability in terms of God’s law
and God’s sanctions in history (Lev. 26; Deut. 28). The Preacher here
denies such predictability.
When Christians deny that covenantal predictability exists in the
New Covenant, they must move in one of three directions, toward: (1)
the Preacher’s affirmations here; (2) modern man’s affirmation of nec-
essity (Kant’s phenomenal realm of science) over chance; or (3) mod-
ern man’s affirmation of chance (Kant’s noumenal realm of personal-
ity) over impersonal scientific necessity.5 None of these views self-con-
sciously promotes the extension of the kingdom of God.

3. Gary North, Inheritance and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on Deutero-

nomy, 2nd ed. (Dallas, Georgia: Point Five Press, [1999] 2012), ch. 69.
4. Chapter 27.
5. Richard Kroner, Kant’s Weltanschauung (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
[1914] 1956).
 36
36

MONEY AND POWER RELIGION

There was a little city, and few men within it; and there came a great
king against it, and besieged it, and built great bulwarks against it:
Now there was found in it a poor wise man, and he by his wisdom de -
livered the city; yet no man remembered that same poor man. Then
said I, Wisdom is better than strength: nevertheless the poor man’s
wisdom is despised, and his words are not heard (Eccl. 9:14–16).

A. Poverty and Influence

The Preacher says that the poor wise man may be able to persuade
rulers to adopt a city-saving policy, but only when the city is visibly fa-
cing a defeat. After it survives, no one remembers the name of the
poor man.
Why should this be? He implies that this is because wisdom is as-
sociated with wealth. There is a phrase, “If he’s so smart, why isn’t he
rich?” Put another way, “Intelligence is as intelligence does.” If a man
does not use his intelligence to accumulate a lot of money, what good
is it?
This is a misunderstanding of wisdom and wealth. The author of
the Book of Proverbs prayed this:
Two things have I required of thee; deny me them not before I die:
Remove far from me vanity and lies: give me neither poverty nor
riches; feed me with food convenient for me: Lest I be full, and deny
thee, and say, Who is the LORD? or lest I be poor, and steal, and take
the name of my God in vain (Prov. 30:7–9).1

Biblical wisdom is casuistry: the application of biblical law to spe-

cific circumstances. The pre-eminent passage in the Bible on wisdom

1. Gary North, Wisdom and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on Proverbs

(Dallas, Georgia: Point Five Press, [2007] 2012), ch. 85.
150
 Money and Power Religion (Eccl. 9:14–16) 151
is Psalm 119, which is devoted to declaring the magnificence of God’s
law. It is not a declaration of natural law.

B. Power Religion
The Preacher is speaking on behalf of autonomous man. He des-
cribes autonomous man’s autonomous society. There, a wise man’s
wisdom is accepted only when there is no alternative. Everyone else
has offered his opinion. No one’s opinion offers legitimate hope. There
is no escape. Now what? “Now there was found in it a poor wise man.”
In other words, someone went looking for a person who could offer a
plausible way of escape. This man was nobody’s first choice of counsel.
He had no ready access to the corridors of power. He was out of the
loop.
This was a unique situation. It is not every day that a king besieges
a city. Those inside the gates had no experience in dealing with such a
problem. The experts had been caught flat-footed. Their opinions car-
ried little weight. There was no plausible plan of action. Defeat was im-
minent. Only at this point did the recommendation of a wise man have
an opportunity to be heard. Only then did the Establishment allow an
outsider to invade its turf. As soon as the emergency had passed, the
Establishment dismissed the wise man. It did not elevate him to a
place of permanent influence. It covered up the evidence that an out-
sider had saved the city. He was soon forgotten.
The premier example biblical of this process of rags to riches to
forgetfulness is Joseph. He was a poor man: a foreigner in a prison. He
was found—remembered—by the king’s servant, but only after none
of the wise men of Egypt could interpret Pharaoh’s dream. He saved
Egypt from the worst effects of famine. Yet within 135 years, 2 “there
arose up a new king over Egypt, which knew not Joseph” (Ex. 1:8).
Egypt had no profitable use for the God of Joseph any longer. It want-
ed profitable slaves, not heirs of a prophet.
Autonomous man wants the benefits of subordination to an all-
powerful God. He does not want actual subordination. He wants
strength, not wisdom. “Then said I, Wisdom is better than strength:
nevertheless the poor man’s wisdom is despised, and his words are not
heard.” Autonomous man and autonomous society seek power, not
2. The Israelites’ stay in Egypt was 215 years: half of the 430 years mentioned by
Paul (Gal. 3:17). Gary North, Authority and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on
Exodus (Dallas, Georgia: Point Five Press, 2012), Part 1, Representation and Dominion
(1985), ch. 1:A:1. The exodus took place when Moses was 80 (Ex. 7:7).
152 AUTONOMY AND STAGNATION
subordination. Theirs is the power religion. The Pharaoh of the exodus
was a representative of the power religion. He was completely de-
feated. He did not perceive the value of wisdom. Biblical wisdom be-
gins with subordination to God. “The fear of the LORD is the begin-
ning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction” (Prov.
1:7).

Conclusion
Autonomous man equates wisdom with money, and money with
power. He wants power. He does not want subordination.
The Preacher describes a city that was facing the ultimate subor-
dination: military defeat. No one had a plan to escape defeat. Only
then did a poor man get a hearing. After his plan worked, the powers
that be made sure that the public’s memory of his victory and their
embarrassment was suppressed.
This criticism does not apply to biblical religion. Moses was never
forgotten in Israel after the exodus. He was not remembered as a shep-
herd. David, another ex-shepherd, was not forgotten as a king. Jesus,
the Good Shepherd (John 10:11), is not forgotten as the King of kings.
All three demanded and received subordination. Those who rejected
this subordination perished: Korah and Dathan, Nabal and Ahitho-
phel, and Judas Iscariot.
 37
37

HIERARCHY AND JUDGMENT

There is an evil which I have seen under the sun, as an error which
proceedeth from the ruler: Folly is set in great dignity, and the rich sit
in low place. I have seen servants upon horses, and princes walking as
servants upon the earth (Eccl. 10:5–7).

A. A Poor Judge
A ruler rules by exercising judgment. He assesses the circumstan-
ces; then he issues a command. The language here indicates that a
ruler has shown poor judgment.
This ruler elevates folly to a position of dignity. He sets the rich in
a low place. The Preacher sees this as a reversal of correct priorities.
The foolish ruler places something first that ought to be last. Folly is
clearly something to be avoided. The Preacher contrasts this with pla-
cing something at the bottom that ought to be at the top: the rich. The
contrast does not make sense if the rich do not belong on top.
The Preacher is speaking here as a covenant-keeper. He does not
declare that bad judgment is vanity. Everyone knows this. When he
speaks as an autonomous man, there is equality of vanity. Judgment
makes no difference. Wisdom makes no difference. Folly makes no
difference. By identifying folly as occupying the high position, he is in-
voking the concept of permanent standards. This implies the existence
of wise judgment—judgment that conforms itself to permanent stand-
ards. This ruler does not exercise wise judgment.
The Preacher’s contrast between riches and folly rests on a conclu-
sion: riches as legitimate rather than evil. A wise ruler ought to ac-
knowledge that rich men have attained their wealth through wise judg-
ment. They either accumulated wealth or else maintained an inherit-
ance. In either case, they are doing something right. Not many men are

153
154 AUTONOMY AND STAGNATION
rich. These men have distinguished themselves from others, who do
not possess the skills required to get rich.
The Preacher is not saying that the ability to get rich is the sole cri-
terion for being elevated to a position of dignity. He is saying that the
ability to get rich is superior to folly. Wealth is an objective criterion of
superior performance. Those people who perform in a superior way
ought to be regarded by a ruler as people whose judgment is more reli-
able than the judgment of those who are undistinguished. If a ruler is
to receive wise counsel, he should consult with rich people.

B. Criteria for Judgment

William F. Buckley, Jr., the most prominent American political
conservative intellectual in the second half of the twentieth century,
once quipped that he would rather be governed by the first 200 people
whose names appear in the Boston telephone directory than by the
faculty of Harvard University. He did not say this because he gradu-
ated from Yale. His book-long critique of Yale, which he wrote at age
25, made him a national figure overnight. 1 He was making a point that
was not unlike the Preacher’s: folly is not to be elevated to high civil
office. He regarded the criteria for being appointed to Harvard’s fac-
ulty by a committee of Harvard professors as resting on ideological
folly. Thus, their superior academic performance is evidence of in-
eligibility in positions of civil responsibility.
We could dismiss the quip as clever but not to be taken seriously.
Yet in one crucial area of Anglo-American civilization, we demand
that the principle of judgment underlying Buckley’s quip be honored
by law: jury selection. One foundation of liberty is a jury of one’s peers.
Any attempt by the state’s judicial agents to screen access to a jury by
means of academic criteria employed by the Harvard faculty to screen
itself would be regarded by common men and most educated men as a
threat to their liberty.
A candidate for a politically appointed judgeship might gain an ad-
vantage by having graduated from the Harvard Law School. A judge is
supposedly a skilled interpreter of the law. But in criminal cases,
people in Anglo-Saxon nations do not want judges to interpret the
criminal law. They want juries to interpret the criminal law. They want
judges to confine themselves to ruling on matters of courtroom pro-
cedure. This is not the same thing as exercising rulership.

1. William F. Buckley, God and Man at Yale (Chicago: Regnery, 1951).

 Hierarchy and Judgment (Eccl. 10:5–7) 155
Wealth is one criterion for exercising rulership. The Preacher
singles out wealth as the opposite of folly. It is better to be rich than a
fool. It is better for a ruler to listen to rich people than to listen to fool -
ish people. They are more likely to be wise than fools.
The Preacher assumes that the criteria for becoming rich are not
based on corruption or violence. What disturbs him in this passage is
that objective standards for success are not honored by rulers and
those who imitate foolish rulers. “I have seen servants upon horses,
and princes walking as servants upon the earth.” There is always a
hierarchy of values in a society. 2 There is always a hierarchy of per-
formance in terms of this hierarchy of values. Winners are few.

C. The Religion of Revolution

Hierarchy is an inescapable concept. It is never a question of hier-
archy vs. no hierarchy. It is always a question of which hierarchies, in
which spheres of life, enforcing which laws and values. Those who
meet the criteria for rulership must not be treated as servants, nor
should servants be treated as rulers. It was one of the great evils of an-
cient pagan societies that they celebrated Chronos festivals, where
fools would rule for a week and then be executed. Such an inversion of
hierarchy was regarded as a source of social regeneration: chaos over
order. This was an intensely anti-biblical worldview. I wrote the fol-
lowing in the mid-1960s.3

*******
In all but the Biblical cosmology, the creation was seen as the im-
position of order upon a chaotic matter. Thus, in the festivals and oth-
er rituals of chaos, society was thought to have access to that vital mat-
ter which existed before form was imposed to stifle its free action. Ro-
ger Caillois has explained this pagan cosmology, focusing his attention
on the festival: “It is a time of excess. Reserves accumulated over the
course of several years are squandered. The holiest laws are violated,
those that seem at the very basis of social life. Yesterday’s crime is now
2. Ray R. Sutton, That You May Prosper: Dominion By Covenant, 2nd ed. (Tyler,
Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, [1987] 1992), ch. 2. (http://bit.ly/rstymp)
Gary North, Unconditional Surrender: God’s Program for Victory, 5th ed. (Powder
Springs, Georgia: American Vision, [1980] 2012), ch. 2.
3. Gary North, Marx’s Religion of Revolution: Regeneration Through Chaos (Tyler,
Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, [1968] 1989), pp. 74–75. (http://bit.ly/
gnmror)
156 AUTONOMY AND STAGNATION
prescribed, and in place of customary rules, new taboos and disciplines
are established, the purpose of which is not to avoid or soothe intense
emotions, but rather to excite and bring them to climax. Movement
increases, and the participants become intoxicated. Civil or adminis-
trative authorities see their powers temporarily diminish or disappear.
This is not so much to the advantage of the regular sacerdotal caste as
to the gain of secret confraternities or representatives of the other
world, masked actors personifying the Gods or the dead. This fervor is
also the time for sacrifices, even the time for the sacred, a time outside
of time that recreates, purifies, and rejuvenates society. . . . All excesses
are permitted, for society expects to be regenerated as a result of ex-
cesses, waste, orgies, and violence.” 4
The festival is a ritual recreation of some key event in the life of a
society. Perhaps the most famous of the creation festivals were the Sat-
urnalia, the New Year, and the spring fertility rites. There was an iden-
tification with those first days of the universe where no rules bound
creation. “It is the Golden Age: the reign of Saturn and Chronos,
without war, commerce, slavery, or private property.” 5 “It was an age
of total abundance, but also one of terror, where dark forces were
loose in the universe. Both elements were therefore present in the fest-
ivals.”6 Here was the primitive conception of the form-matter contro-
versy or the nature-freedom scheme: law was seen both as a limitation
on man and simultaneously a barrier against the terrors of the un-
known. The function of the excesses was to pour vitality into the world
of order: “All living things must be rejuvenated. The world must be
created anew.”7 “The traditions of the festival have been preserved in
modern times in isolated primitive cultures, as well as in many folk
customs, such as the Mardi Gras and the Carnival.” 8

4. Roger Caillois, Man and the Sacred (Glencoe, Illinois: Free Press, 1959), p. 164.
Cf. Thorold Jacobson’s analysis of the meaning of festivals in Henri Frankfort, et. al.,
Before Philosophy (Baltimore, Maryland: Pelican, [1946] 1964), pp. 213–16. This
volume was previously published by the University of Chicago Press under the title,
The Intellectual Adventure of Ancient Man. [It has been republished under the older
title.]
5. Caillois, op. cit., p. 105.
6. Sir James George Frazer, The Scapegoat, vol. 4 of The Golden Bough (London:
Macmillan, 1925), pp. 306-7.
7. Caillois, op. cit., p. 101. Cf. A. J. Wensinck, “The Semitic New Year and the Ori-
gin of Eschatology,” Acta Orientalia, Old Series, I (1923), pp. 158–99.
8. Cf. Mircea Eliade, Rites and Symbols of Initiation (New York: Harper Torch-
books, 1965).
 Hierarchy and Judgment (Eccl. 10:5–7) 157
*******
Conclusion
Social order is strengthened by a consistent implementation at
every level of biblical ethics, which in turn should be governed by bib-
lical law. This is the judicial art of casuistry: the application of biblical
law to specific situations. The Bible’s hierarchy of values is to be visibly
honored by rulers.
Rich people are winners in a godly society. Wherever rich people
are not regarded as winners, a society is not consistently biblical. This
is an inescapable conclusion inferred from this passage. Another con-
clusion is that men who are eligible for high office should not walk
when servants ride. Society always honors hierarchy. It had better hon-
or a biblical hierarchy.
 38
38

JUSTIFYING PARALYSIS
He that diggeth a pit shall fall into it; and whoso breaketh an hedge, a
serpent shall bite him. Whoso removeth stones shall be hurt there-
with; and he that cleaveth wood shall be endangered thereby (Eccl.
10:8–9).

A. A Threatening Environment
The Preacher speaks here in the name of autonomous man. This
autonomous man is not the self-confident image of autonomy that
Karl Marx liked to promote as his lifetime model: Prometheus. 1
Rather, he sees himself as surrounded by threatening limits. Whenever
he makes a cost-benefit analysis, he sees mostly costs.
The Preacher’s predictions represent a pattern of causation. They
are all negative. Men are surrounded by limits that hamper their
efforts to change their environment. Everywhere autonomous man
turns, his environment constitutes a threat. Anyone who takes these
predictions seriously begins at a disadvantage when compared with
someone who sees God as absolutely sovereign and the cosmos under
the dominion of covenant-keepers. He sees costs where the covenant-
keeper sees opportunities.
The covenant-breaker sees the universe as hostile to man. The
covenant-keeper sees the universe as under man’s lawful authority.
The covenant-breaker sees risk and uncertainty everywhere. These
negative forces undermine most people’s efforts to overcome them,
the Preacher says. The covenant-keeper believes that these limits are
part of God’s curse, and that this curse can be progressively overcome
in history, which is what God revealed to Moses, and through Moses
to the people of God.

1. Leonard P. Wessell, Jr., Prometheus Bound: The mythic structure of Karl Marx’s
scientific thinking (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1984).
158
 Justifying Paralysis (Eccl. 10:8–9) 159
B. God’s Curse
The limits described here are aspects of God’s curse on Adam and
Adam’s field of dominion (Gen. 3:17–19).2 The goal of this dual curse
was two-fold: to restrict mankind’s ability to commit gross evil and to
offer hope of dominion through God’s grace. The first aspect of the
curse is reflected in the traditional saying, “The devil loves idle hands.”
When covenant-breakers possess extended leisure, they are dangerous.
They will pursue evil because they have time on their hands. The com-
mon curse on man and his labor is God’s common grace of restricting
debauchery and violence.
The second aspect of the curse offers a way of release from this
curse. Through grace-initiated adherence to biblical law, covenant-
keepers can advance both their self-interest and the kingdom of God.
The system of covenantal sanctions described in Leviticus 26 and Deu-
teronomy 28 reveals a world in which there are positive sanctions for
obedience and negative sanctions for disobedience. This ethical cause-
and-effect system favors the extension of the kingdom of God at the ex-
pense of the kingdom of man. Autonomous man rejects the thought of
lifelong individual and corporate covenantal subordination to God’s
Bible-revealed law-order. He wants to avoid such subordination. So, he
is at a competitive disadvantage to covenant-keepers whenever they
conform themselves to God’s law.
The covenantal system of cause and effect is a subsidy to coven-
ant-keepers. It is a subsidy to the kingdom of God. The world is not a
level playing field between covenant-keepers and covenant-breakers. It
is a rigged arena that favors covenant-keepers.
Covenant-breakers do have two major advantages. First, there is
common grace.3 Covenant-breakers are numerous. They are influen-
tial. They receive God’s blessings. Second, the division of labor favors
those societies and civilizations that are united through confession.
During those periods of covenant-breaking in which there is wide-
spread social co-operation, through voluntary exchange or empire or
both—as in Jesus’ day—the kingdom of man advances alongside the
kingdom of God. The division of labor is productive for all men. It ex-
tends men’s dominion. Because the Adamic covenant extends so wide-
ly, those who are united by various confessions of faith opposed to the
2. Gary North, Sovereignty and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on Genesis
(Dallas, Georgia: Point Five Press, [1982] 2012), ch. 12.
3. Gary North, Dominion and Common Grace: The Biblical Basis of Progress
(Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economic, 1987). (http://bit.ly/gndcg)
160 AUTONOMY AND STAGNATION
God of the Bible enjoy high productivity. Think of the hundreds of
millions of covenant-breaking graduates of the modern humanistic
education system. Compare their numbers and opportunities with the
graduates of under-funded Christian day schools and Bible colleges.
The humanists are committed to building a civilization. They possess
enormous capital. They have an extensive division of labor. By com-
parison, the tiny numbers of Bible college graduates or Christian liber-
al arts college graduates are not interested in building a civilization,
and they possess little capital.
Nevertheless, covenant-breaking man cannot remain permanently
committed to a social order that honors the externals of biblical law:
private property, personal responsibility, profit and loss, the rule of
law, decentralized civil government, and the enforcement of contracts.
Sooner or later, covenant-breakers rebel.4 They lose their advantages.
The fall of the Roman Empire and its replacement by Christian civiliz-
ation is the consummate indicator of this process. The replacement
took two forms, eastern and western Christendom, but neither was
Roman. Polytheism disappeared, except as underground aspects of
folk culture.5

C. Reversing the Curse

The Preacher’s points are well taken. “He that diggeth a pit shall
fall into it.” There is a solution. “And if a man shall open a pit, or if a
man shall dig a pit, and not cover it, and an ox or an ass fall therein.
The owner of the pit shall make it good, and give money unto the own-
er of them; and the dead beast shall be his” (Ex. 21:33–34).6 By an ex-
penditure of time and money, a person can reduce the threat by cover-
ing the pit. Biblical law offers an incentive to do this: responsibility.
There are negative sanctions for causing an injury.
“Whoso breaketh an hedge, a serpent shall bite him.” Serpents live
in hedges. So, a wise man uses tools to break down a hedge. He
watches for serpents. He beheads them with a spade or other tool. The
serpent is ultimately subservient to man. His resistance shall be over-
come.

4. Ibid., chaps. 6, 7.
5. John Cuthbert Lawson, Modern Greek Folklore and Ancient Greek Religion: A
Study in Survivals (New Hyde Park, New York: University Books, [1910] 1964). Pub-
lished originally by Cambridge University Press.
6. Gary North, Authority and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on Exodus
(Dallas, Georgia: Point Five Press, 2012), Part 3, Tools of Dominion (1990), ch. 41.
 Justifying Paralysis (Eccl. 10:8–9) 161
And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done
this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the
field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days
of thy life: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and
between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou
shalt bruise his heel (Gen. 3:14–15).

“Whoso removeth stones shall be hurt therewith.” Quarrymen do

face risks. This is why they have safety codes. Every high-risk profes-
sion does.
“He that cleaveth wood shall be endangered thereby.” Wood-split-
ting is dangerous. There are few occupations more dangerous than
logging. Men should therefore be careful with their tools. One of the
ways to do this is to sharpen the axe’s blade. The Preacher knew this.
“If the iron be blunt, and he do not whet the edge, then must he put to
more strength: but wisdom is profitable to direct” (Eccl. 10:10). Axes
are a threat, too. The Mosaic law acknowledged this.
As when a man goeth into the wood with his neighbour to hew
wood, and his hand fetcheth a stroke with the axe to cut down the
tree, and the head slippeth from the helve, and lighteth upon his
neighbour, that he die; he shall flee unto one of those cities, and live:
Lest the avenger of the blood pursue the slayer, while his heart is hot,
and overtake him, because the way is long, and slay him; whereas he
was not worthy of death, inasmuch as he hated him not in time past
(Deut. 19:5–6).

This was the law of the blood avenger. 7 The negative sanction—
execution for manslaughter—was an incentive to take care of danger-
ous tools. Safety is important. There are ways to reduce the likelihood
of injury. These ways increase short-term costs, but they reduce long-
term costs by reducing injuries.

Conclusion
For each limit placed on the sons of Adam there are ways of over-
coming it. A consistent covenant-keeper seeks out these ways. A con-
sistent covenant-breaker is content to remain hedged in. His goal is
consumption, not increased production. “Then I commended mirth,
because a man hath no better thing under the sun, than to eat, and to

7. It was annulled operationally after the return from the exile: no cities of refuge,
and no civil government that enforced the Mosaic code. It was annulled theologically
when the office of high priest was annulled at the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.
162 AUTONOMY AND STAGNATION
drink, and to be merry: for that shall abide with him of his labour the
days of his life, which God giveth him under the sun” (Eccl. 8:15). 8 The
dual motivations reflect rival covenants.

8. Chapter 31.
 39
39

WASTED EFFORTS
The labour of the foolish wearieth every one of them, because he
knoweth not how to go to the city (Eccl. 10:15).

The foolish man suffers from a lack of information. He works, but

his efforts are wasted. He knows how to achieve a limited task, but he
does not know how to market his output. He grows weary in his labor,
but when he has produced whatever it is that he has labored to pro-
duce, he does not know how to profit from it.
The Preacher uses the city as a metaphor of the market place. A
city is a place of commerce. There, the division of labor is more ex-
tensive than in the countryside. There is a higher population density.
Urban people do not consume the output of their labor. They ex-
change their output for money. They buy most of what they consume.
Their per capita output is greater than in the countryside.
The foolish person does not know the way to the city. He does not
understand how to access the place of commerce, where his output
will find a ready market. He is able to produce something of value, but
he is unable to maximize the value of his output by carrying it to a city,
where there will be far more bidders for his output.
It is not sufficient to know how to produce something of value. If
you do not know how to find a market for your output, you will waste
your effort. You can invest time and money in the production process,
but this is not enough. Products do not sell themselves. Marketing sells
products. The foolish man believes in the labor theory of value. He
thinks that just by producing an item, he will benefit from its sale. This
is incorrect. The key to profitability is the ability and willingness to
bring the work of your hands to a buyer.
There are more buyers in cities than in the countryside. But the
fool does not possess the information required to turn his output into
income. He needs to know the way to the city. This means that must

163
164 AUTONOMY AND DOMINION
know how to market whatever he produces. He must know how to
give consumers the opportunity to bid against each other for his
product.

Conclusion
The futility of working for a rate of return that does not com-
pensate the fool for his time and effort wearies him. Weariness is more
burdensome to someone who is not profiting from his work than to
someone who is. He loses hope. He cannot get from here to there
—“there” being success.
The Preacher dismisses as a fool anyone who does not understand
how to find a market for his output. His efforts are wasted.
 40
40

THE COSTS OF SLOTH

By much slothfulness the building decayeth; and through idleness of
the hands the house droppeth through (Eccl. 10:18).

A. Entropy and Time

Things wear out. This is a universal observation. Entropy is a
manifestation of the second law of thermodynamics. Things move to-
ward randomness. Order breaks down. Order is not a free resource.
The second law of thermodynamics is this: in a closed system, heat
moves from hotter to colder. Put differently, energy disperses over
time.
The Preacher did not know the second law of thermodynamics,
but he recognized its operation. It takes effort to keep things from
wearing out. The world is under a curse. The curse is not the tendency
toward randomness. A carburetor would have operated in the garden
of Eden. So would the distribution of molecules to men’s olfactory or-
gans. Flowers would have smelled good to men there. The curse is the
extension of the decay of randomness to aspects of the creation who
had not been affected before God cursed the ground (Gen. 3:17–18).1
To offset the universal decay associated with the second law of
thermodynamics, men must invest time, raw materials, and labor.
They must forfeit the use of these valuable assets in order to repair the
erosion that time causes. To do nothing is to fall behind.
Time is an irreversible capital asset. Once gone, it cannot be re-
covered. Within the confines of time, a person can reverse the effects
of entropy. He can offset disorder. This takes effort and resources.
This means that the slothful person faces a challenge. Whatever he
1. Gary North, Sovereignty and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on Genesis
(Dallas, Georgia: Point Five Press, [1982] 2012), ch. 12. Gary North, Is the World Run-
ning Down? Crisis in the Christian Worldview (Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian
Economics, 1988), ch. 2. (http://bit.ly/gnworld)
165
166 AUTONOMY AND STAGNATION
owns is under assault. His sloth places him at a disadvantage with an
industrious person. A slothful person lets time get away from him
without converting it into something useful to anyone else. Time gets
away from everyone, but the fruits of time are different for different
people. The slothful person does not devote labor and resources to
overcoming the corrosive effects of entropy. Things wear out, includ-
ing people. At some point, entropy kills all living forms.
The sovereignty of death can be seen in entropy. But entropy is not
final. God’s final judgment is final. Then the curse will be removed
from covenant-keepers and all things under their jurisdiction. Paul
wrote:
For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by
reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, Because the
creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption
into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the
whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of
the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the
adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body (Rom. 8:20–23).2

Because entropy can exist without the sovereignty of death in an

open system, the world under God’s grace can and will overcome
death. This is taught in First Corinthians 15.
For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last
enemy that shall be destroyed is death (I Cor. 15:25–26).

So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is

raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it
is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: It is sown a natural body; it
is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spir-
itual body (I Cor. 15:42–44).

For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must
put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on incor-
ruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be
brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in
victory. O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? (I
Cor. 15:53–55).3

2. Gary North, Cooperation and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on Romans,

2nd ed. (Dallas, Georgia: Point Five Press, [2000] 2012), ch. 5.
3. Gary North, Judgment and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on First Cor-
inthians, 2nd ed. (Dallas, Georgia: Point Five Press, [2001] 2012), ch. 16.
 The Costs of Sloth (Eccl. 10:18) 167
B. The Greatest Reversal
The greatest reversal is the transition from wrath to grace. This is
seen in the transition from death to life. John the Baptist announced:
“He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that be-
lieveth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on
him” (John 3:36).
The transition from death to life is seen in economic growth. The
effects of entropy are overcome through the combination of raw ma-
terials and labor over time, which produces capital. 4 As capital in-
creases, assuming that it is used efficiently by future-oriented entre-
preneurs to serve God through serving the creation, the effects of en-
tropy are reversed. This reversal is an aspect of the grace of God. The
universe is not a closed entity. It is open to God, who created it and
sustains it.
Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath trans-
lated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: In whom we have redemp -
tion through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: Who is the im-
age of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him
were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, vis-
ible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or princip-
alities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he
is before all things, and by him all things consist (Col. 1:13–17).

Thus, Paul wrote, “Whereunto I also labour, striving according to

his working, which worketh in me mightily” (Col. 1:29). God worked in
him, overcoming weariness. This was a form of supernatural capital. 5

Conclusion
The slothful man is a loser. He loses capital. That which he owns
erodes away if he does nothing to reverse this process. The Preacher
describes the negative effects of sloth. He does not call for a slothful
man to labor. He merely warns him of the consequences of not labor-
ing. This warning assumes that the listeners do not want to see their
buildings decay and their houses fall. But this desire must be qualified
with the economist’s universal qualification, “at some price.” At some
very high wage, a slothful person may work. But slothful people place a
4. Murray N. Rothbard, Man, Economy, and State: A Treatise on Economic Prin-
ciples, 2nd ed. (Auburn, Alabama: Mises Institute, [1962] 2009), ch. 7:3–5.
5. Gary North: Ethics and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on the Epistles
(Dallas, Georgia: Point Five Press, 2012), ch. 23.
168 AUTONOMY AND STAGNATION
high value on the present and a low value on the future. “How long
wilt thou sleep, O sluggard? when wilt thou arise out of thy sleep? Yet
a little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to sleep: So
shall thy poverty come as one that travelleth, and thy want as an armed
man” (Prov. 6:9–11). He who wishes to hire a slothful person must
offer above-market wages. This reduces the quantity demanded.
 41
41

MONEY: THE MOST

MARKETABLE COMMODITY
A feast is made for laughter, and wine maketh merry: but money an -
swereth all things (Eccl. 10:19).

The Preacher announces what is obvious. A person who wants an

opportunity for laughter should attend a feast. There, laughter is ex-
pected. It is part of the celebration. At a feast, wine is consumed. This
increases the likelihood of laughter. People are less inhibited, more
merry.
Why did he announce this? What was his point? To make a con-
trast between feasting and drinking on the one hand and money on the
other. But what is the nature of this contrast? What is it about feasting
and drinking that sets them apart from money?
Specialization. If a person wants laughter, he pays for a feast. If he
wants to be merry, he pays for wine. A specific desire is fulfilled by a
specific asset. The Hebrew word translated “feast” is the word for
“bread.” The uses of bread are varied, but they are not universal. The
same is true of wine. If you want laughter, the price is the consumption
of food. If you want to make merry, the price is the consumption of
wine. Food is the means to an end: laughter. Wine is a means to an
end: merriment.

A. The Universal Means to Multiple Ends

In contrast is money. Money is a means to multiple ends. The
Preacher uses poetic language: “money answers all things.” A specific
goal figuratively cries out for specific means. As a means to laughter,
bread cries out: “Use me.” As a means to merriment, wine cries out:
“Use me.” As a means to all things, money cries out: “Use me.”

169
170 AUTONOMY AND STAGNATION
The Preacher recognizes the universality of money. There is no
money that does not offer near-universality. That is money’s claim to
fame. Money is widely recognized as a means of exchange. It can be
used in many situations as a means to achieve one’s goals. It can be
used to pay for a feast or pay for wine. Caterers of feasts are happy—
even insistent—to be paid in money. So are sellers of wine. Wherever
we turn, there are sellers who are ready to hand over ownership of
whatever it is that they sell in exchange for money.
Economists identify money as possessing these characteristics: (1)
recognizability, (2) divisibility, (3) durability, (4) portability, and (5)
high value per unit of weight. Some economists identify money as a
means of exchange. Others identify it as a store of value. Others identi-
fy it as a unit of account. Ludwig von Mises identified it as the most
marketable commodity.1 He said that the other characteristic func-
tions of money are secondary.2
Money is desired because people see that it has been highly desired
in the past. They extrapolate this into the future. They see money as
possessing market value in the future. This is the store-of-value func-
tion. It is more accurate to say that money is a valuable thing to store.
There is nothing of intrinsic value to money, or anything else. All eco-
nomic value is imputed subjectively. If this were not true, then the
money would not have failed in the second year of the famine in Egypt
(Gen. 47:15–16).3 It would not have failed in Jerusalem during the fam-
ine in Elisha’s day (II Kings 6:25).

B. Autonomous Man and Money

The Preacher generalizes: “money answereth all things.” But is this
really true? No. There are many things that money cannot buy. One of
these is the supernatural power to perform miracles on behalf of God.
Simon the magician tried to buy this.
But there was a certain man, called Simon, which beforetime in the
same city used sorcery, and bewitched the people of Samaria, giving
out that himself was some great one: To whom they all gave heed,
from the least to the greatest, saying, This man is the great power of
God. And to him they had regard, because that of long time he had
1. Ludwig von Mises, The Theory of Money and Credit (New Haven, Connecticut:
Yale University Press, [1912] 1953), pp. 32–33. (http://bit.ly/MisesTMC)
2. Ibid., pp. 34–37.
3. Gary North, Sovereignty and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on Genesis
(Dallas, Georgia: Point Five Press, [1982] 2012), ch. 34.
 Money: The Most Marketable Commodity (Eccl. 10:19) 171
bewitched them with sorceries. But when they believed Philip
preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name
of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women (Acts 8:9–
12).

And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles’ hands
the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, Saying, Give me
also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the
Holy Ghost. But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee,
because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased
with money. Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy
heart is not right in the sight of God. Repent therefore of this thy
wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may
be forgiven thee (Acts 8:18–22).4

Money makes possible the modern division of labor. Without

money, the division of labor would be that of a barter society: primit-
ive. Money buys whatever is offered for sale by money. Yet most as-
pects of man’s social life are not based on the exchange of money.
Most services inside the family are not purchased by money. The same
is true of churches, fraternal groups, and other voluntary associations.
Money does not answer all things. It is used in the area of market ex-
change. To say that money answers all things is to deify the market.
Clearly, the Preacher speaks here as representing autonomous man.

Conclusion
The Preacher offers a view of man that is misleading. He says that
money answers all things. It does not answer the most important
things: confession of faith, marriage, honor, voluntary sacrifice, integ-
rity, and most other human relationships. His statement is a classic
case of reductionism: reducing man and reducing society to self-in-
terest and market exchange.
Money is the most marketable commodity. It is the basis of the
modern division of labor. It makes possible modern mass production.
It is far more important today than it was in the Preacher’s day. Yet he
made this statement. He knew it was not true. But autonomous man
acts as though he believes it is true. We can see this in folk wisdom.
“Every man has his price.” “If he is so smart, why isn’t he rich?”

4. Gary North, Sacrifice and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on Acts, 2nd ed.
(Dallas, Georgia: Point Five Press, [2000] 2012), ch. 6.
 42
42

CHARITY PAYS DIVIDENDS

Cast thy bread upon the waters: for thou shalt find it after many days.
Give a portion to seven, and also to eight; for thou knowest not what
evil shall be upon the earth (Eccl. 11:1–2).

A. A Positive Rate of Return

The Preacher speaks as a covenant-keeper here. He says that there
is a positive rate of return (ROI) on charitable giving. There is there-
fore a system of ethical cause and effect in history. This is not what he
has said previously in his role as autonomous man.
What does it mean to cast bread upon waters? This is not a famili-
ar phrase. Some expositors have thought it refers to casting seeds into
lakes or rivers. John Gill, the eighteenth-century Baptist who commen-
ted on every verse in the Bible and who had a mastery of the Talmudic
literature, invoked images of tears. This exegesis is stretching the
phrase out of shape.
. . . a man casts seed into the earth; but here it is said to be “upon the
waters”; bread is to be given to such as are in distress and affliction,
that have waters of a full cup wrung out unto them, whose faces are
watered with tears, and foul with weeping, from whom nothing is to
be expected again, who can make no returns; so that what is given
thorn seems to be cast away and lost, like what is thrown into a river,
or into the midst of the sea; . . .1

The idea of casting something onto a flowing river or into the sea
does seem to relate to what the Preacher advises. Were it not for this
confirmation, a man who gives away food would have no way of know-
ing that his generosity will ever be repaid. What is not intuitive is said
to be part of a system of causation. A man surrenders ownership over

1. Gill had an almost pathological hatred of periods.

172
 Charity Pays Dividends (Eccl. 11:1–2) 173
food, yet he can rest assured that he will find it again “after many
days.”
This text does not say that he will make a profit, only that the
bread will be returned. In the next verse he explains that the world is
uncertain. “Thou knowest not what evil shall be upon the earth.” A
man cannot know all of the dangers that may threaten him. He is in
this sense flying blind. But the previous verse reassures the generous
man that his gift will not be in vain. “Give a portion to seven, and also
to eight.” Open your hand wide, the Preacher advises. The threats are
many. This calls for exceptional generosity.

B. Return on Investment
A standard measurement in business is return on investment
(ROI). Money goes out. Even more money had better come back in. If
it does not, then a profit-seeking enterprise is doomed. It will run out
of funds.
The Preacher recommends that a man be generous because life’s
threats are uncertain. In the Preacher’s day, there was no way for a
man to estimate these threats. Today, there is: the law of large num-
bers. Certain kinds of events can be classified together. The probability
of a particular type of event within this large class can be estimated
mathematically. This is the basis of insurance. This discovery trans-
formed medieval civilization in the West.2 It led to modern society.
A man can insure against an evil event by participating in a com-
munity. Communities are marked by generosity. Membership provides
access to aid from others. But the Preacher does not use this argu-
ment. He says that bread cast upon the waters does return. Men
should therefore be highly generous.
It takes exceptional faith to act in terms of the Preacher’s discus-
sion of cause and effect. When someone surrenders ownership of an
asset without receiving something in return, he is poorer. His net
worth is less. Yet the Preacher says that he is not that much poorer.
The bread will be returned.
This return would actually be a negative because of the phe-
nomenon of interest: a discount of future goods against present
goods.3 If I will receive that which I surrender, I lose the use of the as-
2. Peter Bernstein, Against the Gods: The Remarkable Story of Risk (New York:
Wiley, 1996).
3. Ludwig von Mises, Human Action: A Treatise on Economics (New Haven, Con-
necticut: Yale University Press, 1949), ch. 19. (http://bit.ly/MisesHA)
174 AUTONOMY AND STAGNATION
set for a time. Present goods are more valuable than the same future
goods. So, other things remaining equal, a return of my forfeited bread
constitutes a loss. But other things do not remain equal. There are un-
known evils out there. The uncovered pits of life are many, and it is
dark outside. The Preacher says that generosity will be repaid. He does
not say how.

C. Voluntarism
Generosity must be voluntary. Gill understood this.
. . . it must be “thy” bread, a man’s own; not independent of God who
gives it him; but not another’s, what he owes another, or has fraudu-
lently obtained; but what he has got by his own labour, or he is
through divine Providence in lawful possession of; hence alms in the
Hebrew language is called “righteousness”: and it must be such bread
as is convenient and fit for a man himself, such as he himself and his
family eat of, and this he must cast, it must be a man’s own act, and a
voluntary one; his bread must not be taken and forced from him; it
must be given freely, . . .

This denies legitimacy to the welfare state and its theological

foundation, the Social Gospel. Gill understood the principle, “thou
shalt not steal.” He knew that the commandment did not say, “thou
shalt not steal, except by majority vote.” The Preacher recommends
charity, not special-interest legislation that uses state coercion to
transfer wealth from one voting bloc to another.

Conclusion
Charity pays dividends. It returns after many days. All is not lost.
Furthermore, what you do to others in need will reduce your risk of
unknown disasters. He does not say how. To assert such a system of
causation implies a system of providence.
This is why I conclude that he is speaking as a covenant-keeper
here.
 43
43

INPUTS AND OUTPUT

If the clouds be full of rain, they empty themselves upon the earth: and
if the tree fall toward the south, or toward the north, in the place
where the tree falleth, there it shall be. He that observeth the wind
shall not sow; and he that regardeth the clouds shall not reap. As thou
knowest not what is the way of the spirit, nor how the bones do grow
in the womb of her that is with child: even so thou knowest not the
works of God who maketh all. In the morning sow thy seed, and in the
evening withhold not thine hand: for thou knowest not whether shall
prosper, either this or that, or whether they both shall be alike good
(Eccl. 11:3–6).

A. If . . . Then
The Preacher begins with an observation. “If the clouds be full of
rain, they empty themselves upon the earth: and if the tree fall toward
the south, or toward the north, in the place where the tree falleth,
there it shall be.” This is an “if . . . then” explanation of causation. Men
have no control over the ifs of nature. They therefore have no control
over the thens.
A farmer who is a keen observer of nature makes decisions about
his proper course of action. “He that observeth the wind shall not sow;
and he that regardeth the clouds shall not reap.” Wind blows away the
seed. Rain ruins harvested crops. He can control his labor. He can
plant or not; he can reap or not. He has no control over nature. He
must adjust to nature.
This explanation of causation ignores magic and prayer, both of
which assume that the nature can be influenced by individual actions
within a cosmos broader than nature. Magic relies on ritual manipula-
tion within a cosmos governed by this principle: “As above, so below.”
We can supposedly manipulate nature by manipulating representative

175
176 AUTONOMY AND STAGNATION
physical objects. Sovereignty is not final. It is shared between man and
a personal cosmos.
Prayer relies on a petition before the throne of God, who is sover-
eign over history. Moses’ prayer invoked God’s reputation in response
to God’s threat to destroy the Israelites and create a new nation for
Moses.
And Moses said unto the LORD, Then the Egyptians shall hear it,
(for thou broughtest up this people in thy might from among them;)
And they will tell it to the inhabitants of this land: for they have
heard that thou LORD art among this people, that thou LORD art
seen face to face, and that thy cloud standeth over them, and that
thou goest before them, by daytime in a pillar of a cloud, and in a pil-
lar of fire by night. Now if thou shalt kill all this people as one man,
then the nations which have heard the fame of thee will speak, say-
ing, Because the LORD was not able to bring this people into the
land which he sware unto them, therefore he hath slain them in the
wilderness (Num. 14:13–16).

God answered this prayer.

Nature is under God. It operates predictably in general, but unpre-
dictably in specifics. Weather forecasting is a good example. Men can
predict the path of a tornado, but they cannot predict where one will
form. With the advent of weather satellites, predictions have become
far more accurate. But as to what causes patterns, there is great dis-
agreement. As for controlling the weather, little can be done. We must
adjust to nature.

B. Man’s Ignorance
The Preacher asserts that man knows very little—nothing import-
ant—about the specifics of either nature or God. “As thou knowest not
what is the way of the spirit, nor how the bones do grow in the womb
of her that is with child: even so thou knowest not the works of God
who maketh all.” This is not a denial that we know the patterns of
both. Human pregnancies generally last nine months.
We work all day. We are not sure of the outcome. “In the morning
sow thy seed, and in the evening withhold not thine hand: for thou
knowest not whether shall prosper, either this or that, or whether they
both shall be alike good.” Yet there is a pattern over time. What are the
actions recommended by the Preacher? The first is work. “In the
morning sow thy seed.”
 Inputs and Output (Eccl. 11:3–6) 177
What is the second recommendation? “Withhold not thine hand.”
The meaning of this phrase is obscure. It appears nowhere else in the
Bible. If it also refers to work, then it is work associated with the even-
ing. This is not reaping, which is the contrast of the earlier verse: re-
fusing to reap because of the rain clouds. Farmers do not reap when
the sun is going down.
The phrase could refer to some other form of labor. Not withhold-
ing one’s hand would then be the opposite of folding one’s hands in
sloth. “The fool foldeth his hands together, and eateth his own flesh”
(Eccl. 4:5). A refusal to work produces poverty. 1 If this is the meaning,
then the Preacher is recommending work from morning to evening.
But no matter how hard one works or how long, the outcome is ran-
dom.
I think it refers to charity. This is a carry-over from verse 2: “Give a
portion to seven, and also to eight; for thou knowest not what evil shall
be upon the earth.” 2 Why give charity? Because of the ethical cause-
and-effect system of the universe. Why should charity produce the
same positive result as labor? In what kind of cosmos is charity an in-
put, in the same way that labor is? Answer: a world governed by the
God who is both sovereign and ethical.
The Preacher here insists that the daily outcome is unknown.
“Thou knowest not whether shall prosper, either this or that, or
whether they both shall be alike good.” Labor in the morning may pro-
duce a good outcome, or it may not. Charity in the evening may pro-
duce a good outcome, or it may not. Both may produce good. The out-
come is unknown, in contrast to the inputs, which are known.
This reveals man’s condition. We know what outcomes will cost:
the cost of inputs. We make plans in terms of these costs. We forfeit
leisure and consumption to fund these plans. Yet we cannot be sure
that at the end of the day, we will be ahead of schedule or behind. The
specifics are elusive in the morning. But we can still have legitimate
confidence in the outcome of the overall plan.
In the free market, most innovations fail. This is not the same as
saying that most plans fail. Most of life is in maintenance mode. Most
plans are successful. By sticking to tried and true practices, men
achieve success. They must also innovate in order to continue to suc-
ceed or succeed at a rate above average. A standard recommendation

1. Chapter 11.
2. Chapter 42.
178 AUTONOMY AND STAGNATION
based on Pareto’s law would be 80% maintenance and 20% innovation.
This allows for a failure rate of innovations of 80%: 16% of everything.
The Preacher is saying something different: a failure rate in main-
tenance mode of 50%, i.e., random. This is a denial that men learn
from history, selecting those production processes that produce a pos-
itive rate of return. Success in the past offers no guidance in the
present. There is no historical continuity. There would not only be no
progress, there would be capital consumption. This would lead to
death. This is a counsel of despair.

C. Theonomy or Autonomy?
In whose name is the Preacher speaking: covenant-keeping man or
autonomous man? In the view affirmed here, is causation biblical or
humanistic? His conclusion: men should be hard working and charit-
able. This is consistent with the Bible. It is inconsistent with any sys-
tem of cosmic causation that relies on the view of the cosmos as im-
personal, whether random or deterministic.
Men do not possess omniscience. “Thou knowest not the works of
God who maketh all.” Men do not know all of the works of God, but
they can know His law. “The secret things belong unto the LORD our
God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our
children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law” (Deut.
29:29). This is why he concludes: “Let us hear the conclusion of the
whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the
whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work into judgment,
with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil” (Eccl.
12:13–14).3 This is theonomy.
The Preacher here is affirming the randomness of daily output, not
randomness of final output. The producer must sacrifice leisure in the
morning and assets in the evening, day after day. He must forfeit
present income, which includes leisure. Why? Because, if he refuses,
he will surely fail.

Conclusion
The Preacher affirms the randomness of daily economic cause and
effect. A producer can add inputs to the production mix until the cows
come home. The cows, if they even come home, may be either fat or

3. Chapter 45.
 Inputs and Output (Eccl. 11:3–6) 179
lean. The inputs, including accurate knowledge of nature, do not de-
termine the daily outcome. There is no predictable daily relationship
between inputs and output. But there can be predictability of patterns
in nature. This is why men should pay attention to the weather if they
farm. Similarly, there is predictability between obeying God’s law and
success.
Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly,
nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the
scornful. But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law
doth he meditate day and night. And he shall be like a tree planted by
the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf
also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper. The un-
godly are not so: but are like the chaff which the wind driveth away
(Psalm 1:1–4).4

4. Gary North, Confidence and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on Psalms

(Dallas, Georgia: Point Five Press, 2012), ch. 1.
 44
44

THE VANITY OF DEATH

Also when they shall be afraid of that which is high, and fears shall be
in the way, and the almond tree shall flourish, and the grasshopper
shall be a burden, and desire shall fail: because man goeth to his long
home, and the mourners go about the streets: Or ever the silver cord
be loosed, or the golden bowl be broken, or the pitcher be broken at the
fountain, or the wheel broken at the cistern. Then shall the dust re-
turn to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who
gave it. Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher; all is vanity (Eccl. 12:5–
8).

A. The City’s Cycle

The Preacher returns to the theme of cyclical history. He con-
cludes much as he began: in despair over the cycles of life. He began
with the cycles of nature (Eccl. 1:2–7).1 He concludes here with the
cycle of the city. Once, the city had been productive and optimistic. It
had become wealthy. But the day of decline will arrive. The golden
bowl will be broken. The pitcher and the wheel will be broken. He be-
gins with this decline, but he ends with the most fundamental decline.
Every man will die. “Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was:
and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.” What is the conclu-
sion? “Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher; all is vanity.” He ends
where he began. “Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanit-
ies; all is vanity” (Eccl. 1:2). This is appropriate. If you argue logically
from a presupposition, you will arrive right where you began. But you
will have better arguments. There is progress in argumentation.
The Preacher has surveyed the way the world works. He has done
so from two perspectives: the sovereignty of death and the sovereignty
of God. He has devoted more space to the sovereignty of death.

1. Chapter 1.
180
 The Vanity of Death (Eccl. 12:5–8) 181
At first, his commitment to cyclical history seemed to be an af-
firmation of life. “The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be;
and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new
thing under the sun” (Eccl. 1:9). There is no permanent progress. But
there is also no permanent decline.

B. Beginning With Nature

The problem here is that he begins with nature. Nature was never
to be autonomous. It was meant to be under man’s authority, as the
designated agent of God. To use nature as a model for man is to mis-
understand both man and nature. God, through the dominion coven-
ant, commanded Adam (Gen. 1:27–28)2 and later Noah (Gen. 9:1–3)3
to subdue the earth. Adam was to make a perfect world better: to dress
it. This mandates progress. It therefore implies linear history, but not
just linear history: progressive history. In personal matters, we call this
progressive sanctification. This is not limited to individuals. It is to ap-
ply to nature and to civilization. The kingdom of God is the civilization
of God.
Nature is under the curse of Adam (Gen. 3:17–19).4 Adam is under
the curse of death. So is nature. Had the redemption accomplished by
Jesus Christ not delivered man from the second death (Rev. 20:14),
nature would be doomed. Denying the redemption of Christ, modern
science affirms the death of the universe. Because most scientists be-
lieve that the universe is a closed system, they see it as subject to the
second law of thermodynamics. All energy is therefore moving from
potential energy to kinetic energy, never to return again, never to work
again, never to provide heat again. This final end is called the heat
death of the universe.5 Modern autonomous man is even more com-
mitted to the philosophy of autonomy than ancient man was. He is
therefore more aware of the linearity of nature: from life to death. This
is the progress of the philosophy of autonomy. It is more consistent. It
is better informed scientifically.

2. Gary North, Sovereignty and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on Genesis

(Dallas, Georgia: Point Five Press, 2012), ch. 4.
3. Ibid., ch. 18.
4. Ibid., ch. 12.
5. Gary North, Is the World Running Down? Crisis in the Christian Worldview
(Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1988), ch. 2. (http://bit.ly/gnworld)
182 AUTONOMY AND STAGNATION
C. The Death of the City
The Preacher was aware of progress. Every society understands
progress. Men want things to get better. They forego the present use of
resources for the sake of income in the future. This is why people save.
They make tools. They use their minds to solve new problems.
The ancients did not believe that progress can be sustained. 6 They
saw the dust of death as covering the inheritance of every city. They
had no long-term hope.
The Preacher uses the dying of the city to return to his theme of
the sovereignty of death. Men die. Nature goes on as before, but every-
one dies. Every city dies. Men come and go. Cities come and go.
Nature stays the same. Nature is immune from death, but nothing that
man builds is. The sovereignty of death extends its rule over man.
Modern physical science completes the investigation. It is not just
cities that die; nature itself is dying. The process takes enormous
quantities of time, but it is no less relentless, no less sovereign. Ashes
to ashes, dust to dust: frozen dust. If anything will still move, it will be
electrons. Electrons do not progress. They are not linear.

Conclusion
The Preacher offers no hope. How could he? The city of man dies.
Men also die. What they build will not survive. Nothing of permanent
value is transferred to the next generation. The stable cycles of life in
nature are only background for the cycles of death for man and his
works. Nature does not care that its cycles roll on meaninglessly. Man
does care. Nature is without self-awareness. Man is not. Nature im-
putes nothing to itself. Man imputes vanity to himself.
The Preacher has reached the end of the road. In terms of his own
philosophy of autonomy, this road is a circle. There is no end to it. He
arrives just where he began: with vanity. If he is better informed, this is
a paradox. There has been progress in his understanding of the futility
of progress. He has written it all down, but to what end? No end. “And
further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there
is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh” (Eccl. 12:12).

6. Stanley Jaki, Science and Creation: From Eternal Cycles to an Oscillating Uni-
verse (Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press, 1974), ch. 6.
 45
45

THE ANSWER IS THEONOMY

Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep
his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. For God shall
bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be
good, or whether it be evil (Eccl. 12:13–14).

A. Transferring the Inheritance

The Preacher at long last returns to his father’s deathbed instruc-
tions. As part of the covenantal transfer of the inheritance of kingship,
David delivered to his son the same charge that Moses delivered to
Joshua. “And he gave Joshua the son of Nun a charge, and said, Be
strong and of a good courage: for thou shalt bring the children of Israel
into the land which I sware unto them: and I will be with thee” (Deut.
31:23). It was the same charge that the elders of Israel delivered to
Joshua.
Be strong and of a good courage: for unto this people shalt thou di-
vide for an inheritance the land, which I sware unto their fathers to
give them. Only be thou strong and very courageous, that thou may-
est observe to do according to all the law, which Moses my servant
commanded thee: turn not from it to the right hand or to the left,
that thou mayest prosper whithersoever thou goest. This book of the
law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate
therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to
all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosper-
ous, and then thou shalt have good success. Have not I commanded
thee? Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou
dismayed: for the LORD thy God is with thee whithersoever thou
goest (Josh. 1:6–9).1

1. Gary North, Disobedience and Defeat: An Economic Commentary on the Histor-

ical Books (Dallas, Georgia: Point Five Press, 2012), ch. 1.
183
184 AUTONOMY AND STAGNATION
Here is the account of this covenantal transfer of inheritance.
Now the days of David drew nigh that he should die; and he charged
Solomon his son, saying, I go the way of all the earth: be thou strong
therefore, and shew thyself a man; And keep the charge of the LORD
thy God, to walk in his ways, to keep his statutes, and his command-
ments, and his judgments, and his testimonies, as it is written in the
law of Moses, that thou mayest prosper in all that thou doest, and
whithersoever thou turnest thyself: That the LORD may continue his
word which he spake concerning me, saying, If thy children take
heed to their way, to walk before me in truth with all their heart and
with all their soul, there shall not fail thee (said he) a man on the
throne of Israel (I Kings 2:1–4).

B. The Lesson Learned

The Preacher has devoted his book to a consideration of two
worldviews: autonomous man and covenant man. Here, he reaches a
conclusion: the resolution of this debate is a return to biblical law.
He does not explain the logic of this conclusion. Instead, he relies
on what he has already presented. He has presented a case against
autonomous man by showing the futility of life, according to the pre-
suppositions of autonomous man. The Preacher says that he has per-
sonally lived the life of autonomous man, and he presents his conclu-
sion: vanity, all is vanity.
The Preacher was probably Solomon. We know this because of the
opening words, which identify the author as a son of David (1:1). It is
unlikely that any other son of David experienced all that the Preacher
experienced and then wrote it down. Having experienced all this, he
returned to his father’s original admonition.
We are told that Solomon was a wise king. “And God gave So-
lomon wisdom and understanding exceeding much, and largeness of
heart, even as the sand that is on the sea shore. And Solomon’s wis-
dom excelled the wisdom of all the children of the east country, and all
the wisdom of Egypt” (I Kings 4:29–30). Yet we are told by the Preach-
er that he tasted all that he describes in this book. He discovered first-
hand that all roads to and from autonomy lead to vanity. A wise man
should have known this from the beginning. Yet the Preacher was un-
willing to abide by his father’s admonition, which his father had
learned by violating God’s law repeatedly. David had multiple wives, in
opposition to biblical law. The Mosaic law restricted the king of Israel
in this regard. “Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his
 The Answer is Theonomy (Eccl. 12:13–14) 185
heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver
and gold” (Deut. 17:17). Solomon multiplied wives far beyond anything
dreamed of by his father (I Kings 11:3). He also multiplied gold (I
Kings 10:14–23). He lived the life he describes in this book. When it
was over, he returned to his father’s admonition a wiser man.

C. Covenant Man Is Theonomic Man

The Preacher’s conclusion is straightforward. God will bring final
judgment. Every secret thing will be examined in terms of God’s law,
“whether it be good, or whether it be evil.” This is point four of the
biblical covenant: sanctions.2 Man therefore has a duty to obey God’s
laws: point three.3 “Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is
the whole duty of man.” There is nothing complicated here.
This passage is one of the most powerful defenses of biblical law in
the Bible. In two verses, the Preacher summarizes a lifetime of invest-
igation—philosophical, ethical, and practical. These two verses affirm
biblical law as the resolution of the debate between autonomous man
and covenant man.
He does not invoke the law of nations. He does not mention natur-
al law, which is supposedly in the possession of every rational person.
He says that God’s law is the key to a life well lived. What could be
plainer?
It is too plain. Expositors generally prefer not to mention the con-
text, which was the law of Moses. The long-winded Matthew Henry
did include this brief comment in a long, rambling exposition of the
verse.
The rule of religion is the law of God revealed in the scriptures. Our
fear towards God must be taught by his commandments (Isa 29:13),
and those we must keep and carefully observe. Wherever the fear of
God is uppermost in the heart, there will be a respect to all his com-
mandments and care to keep them. In vain do we pretend to fear
God if we do not make conscience of our duty to him.

When this is all that an expositor can derive from the Preacher’s
consummation of the most detailed philosophical book in the Bible, he

2. Ray R. Sutton, That You May Prosper: Dominion By Covenant, 2nd ed. (Tyler,
Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, [1987] 1992), ch. 4. (http://bit.ly/rstymp)
Gary North, Unconditional Surrender: God’s Program for Victory, 5th ed. (Powder
Springs, Georgia: American Vision, 2010), ch. 4.
3. Sutton, ch. 3; North, ch. 3.
186 AUTONOMY AND STAGNATION
is not deeply interested in getting to the heart of the matter, as defined
by the Preacher. But, compared to his contemporary, Baptist John Gill,
the semicolon’s friend, Henry’s comments are both precise and incis-
ive. Gill wrote:
fear God, and keep his commandments: “the fear of God” includes
the whole of internal religion, or powerful godliness; all the graces of
the Spirit, and the exercise of them; reverence of God, love to him,
faith in him, and in his Son Jesus Christ; hope of eternal life from
him; humility of soul, patience and submission to his will, with every
other grace; so the Heathens call religion “metum Deorum” (q), the
fear of God: and “keeping of the commandments”, or obedience to
the whole will of God, is the fruit, effect, and evidence of the former;
and takes in all the commands of God, moral and positive, whether
under the former or present dispensation; and an observance of them
in faith, from a principle of love, and with a view to the glory of
God; . . .

Writing a century later, Charles Bridges refused to admit even

Gill’s sliver of light regarding God’s law.
The keeping of the commandments—at least in the case of the dis-
ciples of the Lord—primarily regards the great commandment—“to
believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ.” 4The gospel, therefore, is
not obscurred, even when the terms of it are not completely given; so
that—rightly understood, we fully identify the free grace and spiritu-
al obedience of the gospel with the more legal exhortation to fear
God, and keep his commandments.5

This is blindness, and it is self-conscious, because it is motivated

by a hatred of biblical law. The Preacher was writing for Jews in the
days of Israel’s unified kingdom. The nation had covenanted with God
at Sinai (Ex. 19).6 The terms of that covenant are found in the Mosaic
law: the Ten Commandments (Ex. 20) 7 and the Case laws (Ex. 21–23).8
The Preacher was not looking forward to the disciples. He was looking
backward to Sinai. He was reaffirming what the nation had known
from the beginning. He was warning the nation not to abandon God’s

4. See 1 John, iii.23.

5. Charles Bridges, Ecclesiastes (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, [1860] 1961), p.
310.
6. Gary North, Authority and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on Exodus
(Dallas, Georgia: Point Five Press, 2012), Part 1, Representation and Dominion, ch. 20.
7. Ibid., Part 2, Decalogue and Dominion (1986).
8. Ibid., Part 3, Tools of Dominion (1990).
 The Answer is Theonomy (Eccl. 12:13–14) 187
covenant law in a vain search for meaning and hope in autonomy. He
was reaffirming theonomy as the antidote to the counsel of despair
offered by autonomy. That Bridges could so completely twist the
meaning of the consummation passage of the book indicates the ex-
tent to which evangelicalism at the highest levels has been cursed by
antinomianism for centuries.
Hengstenberg refused to elaborate on the details of the law or the
role of biblical law in the covenant. “To fear God and keep his com-
mandments is the duty of all men, because all bear His image, and can
have no true life of growth except in connection with the primal
source of their existence: they must also be punished with destruction
if they criminally and violently break this connection.” 9 What does “the
primal source of their existence,” meaning all men, have to do with the
Preacher’s call to obey the law of God? All men are under Adam’s
curse. It does not take a criminal and violent breaking of this connec-
tion—whatever this connection refers to—to bring people under
God’s judgment. Original sin does that all by itself.
Eaton’s 1983 commentary recognized that the book is a debate
between two worldviews. He did not label the first autonomy, possibly
because he did not label the second theonomy.
The body of the book has simply placed two alternative views of life
over against each other and the life of faith has been commended.
Now in the epilogue, almost as an aside, it is pointed out that such a
life will have implications. It must not be restricted to the Mosaic
law. It refers to all that is known to be God’s will. 10

Notice the sleight-of-hand operation here? “It must not be restric-

ted to the Mosaic law.” This shifts the reader’s attention away from the
Mosaic law. Yet what did Eaton think the Preacher was referring to, if
not the Mosaic law? If the Preacher had something else in mind, he
owed it to his readers to tell them what it was. These were Jews under
covenant to God.
To escape the obvious—and it is obvious—Eaton broadened the
context, as if broadening the context solves his exegetical problem.
“The last phrase reads literally: ‘For this is the whole of the man.’ Else-
where in Ecclesiastes, however, the ‘whole of the man’ is a Hebrew

9. E. W. Hengstenberg, Commentary on Ecclesiastes, With Other Treatises (Edin-

burgh: T. & T. Clark, 1860), pp. 267–68.
10. Michael A. Eaton, Ecclesiastes: An Introduction & Commentary (Downers
Grove, Illinois: Inter-Varsity Press, 1983), p. 156.
188 AUTONOMY AND STAGNATION
idiom for ‘every man’ (cf. 3:13; 5:19). The sense, therefore, is ‘This ap-
plies to every man.’”11 He did not consider the implication of what he
had just written, namely, that the Mosaic law applies to all men. By
broadening the context, he implied but refuses to say explicitly, that
we can discard the Mosaic law, which is the context of the entire book.
The Preacher had something else in mind. What, Eaton did not say.
The Preacher also did not say. But it is obvious to Eaton that he must
have had something else in mind. Otherwise, the Preacher was calling
for a universal extension of theonomy—and that is clearly unaccept-
able.
Derek Kidner was the supreme master in this regard. He devoted
not one word to explaining the phrase “the commandments.” 12 He did
not acknowledge their existence in his text. Here is the core of the
book, its consummation, according to the Preacher, and Kidner had
nothing to say.
H. C. Leupold, a Lutheran, did not identify those commandments
which all men are supposed to keep. He ended by asking a rhetorical
question, which I would ask of him and the other expositors. “How can
anyone overlook so obvious a thing as this practical suggestion, seeing
that it is the duty of all alike?”13 My answer: an unwillingness to accept
the Preacher’s announcement that theonomy is the biblical alternative
to autonomy.
The commentators have little or nothing to say about the coven-
antal context of the Preacher’s definition of “the commandments,” be-
cause they have rejected the continuing authority of the Mosaic law.
They wax eloquent and sometimes quite long explaining the book, up
to the final two verses, which the Preacher said explained the book. At
that point, without warning, they say nothing judicially coherent, and
they say it succinctly. This is not random. This is also not because the
text is unclear. This is because the text is inescapably clear.

Conclusion
The Preacher built a case against covenant-breaking autonomous
man. He marched the reader down a series of dead ends, each of which
was marked by futility because of death. Then he pointed to the solu-
11. Idem.
12. Derek Kidner, A Time to Mourn and a Time to Dance (Downers Grove,
Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1976), p. 107.
13. H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Ecclesiastes (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book
House, 1952), p. 300.
 The Answer is Theonomy (Eccl. 12:13–14) 189
tion to his dilemma. That solution is the judgment of God. This judg-
ment establishes the duty of man. Man’s duty is two-fold: “Fear God,
and keep his commandments.” It is consistent with what Solomon
wrote. “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools
despise wisdom and instruction” (Prov. 1:7). 14 “The fear of the LORD is
the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is under-
standing” (Prov. 9:10). This is also consistent with what David wrote in
defense of God’s law in Psalm 119.

14. Gary North, Wisdom and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on Proverbs

(Dallas, Georgia: Point Five Press, [2007] 2012), ch. 2.
 CONCLUSION
c

The Book of Ecclesiastes is a puzzle for many readers—I suspect

most readers. Some of it rings true to the God-fearing man, yet other
parts—most of its parts—ring false. This is because most of it is false.
The reader is faced with a challenge: how to sort the wheat from
the chaff. There is a lot of chaff. But it is brilliant chaff, chaff that reg-
isters in the hearts and minds of those who are approaching the end of
their ropes. The Book of Ecclesiastes is the personal testimony of a
man who had a great deal of rope and a lifetime to reach its end.

A. Autonomy vs. Theonomy

The book is best understood as a series of observations about the
human condition. It is written from one viewpoint as a means of re-
jecting the other. But the author adopts a peculiar method to make his
case. He presents most of his observations and conclusions in the
name of the philosophy of life he opposes: human autonomy. He offers
only token resistance until his final words. Then he publicly breaks
with autonomy in the name of theonomy: the law of God.
The book presents a series of dead ends for autonomy. It blocks
avenues of escape for autonomous man. Death is on every side, and
death is absolutely sovereign. Autonomous man cannot legitimately
have hope in the grave. He cannot have legitimate hope in his heirs. He
will be forgotten. Vanity, all is vanity.
Why vanity? To make this judgment, a man needs a standard.
What is the standard for autonomous man? Death. Death vetoes all
hopes. Death consumes all productivity. Death ends all dreams. Death
nullifies all fame. Death makes all of life vanity. That is because death
is meaningless and without purpose. It makes life meaningless and
without purpose. Vanity.
The book’s conclusion is straightforward. For someone who wants
escape from the sovereignty of death, he should begin by fearing God,
the final Judge. He does so by obeying God’s law. Simple. But this sim-
plicity is lost on expositors with a bias against biblical law. They do not
190
 Conclusion 191
want to affirm theonomy. They also do not want to affirm autonomy.
So, they do what they can to avoid commenting.
The Preacher affirms the doctrine of God’s law: theonomy. He re-
commends living in conformity to God’s law. “Let us hear the conclu-
sion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for
this is the whole duty of man” (Eccl. 12:13). Why? “For God shall bring
every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good,
or whether it be evil” (Eccl. 12:14). 1 God will judge all men in terms of
His law. This is the Preacher’s conclusion. It structures his arguments
throughout the book. He is trying to box in his readers. He gives them
an analogous choice to the one that Elijah gave the people of the
Northern Kingdom of Israel.
And Elijah came unto all the people, and said, How long halt ye
between two opinions? if the LORD be God, follow him: but if Baal,
then follow him. And the people answered him not a word (I Kings
18:21).

B. Autonomy and Economics

The Preacher begins by affirming cyclical history.2 This is an impli-
cit rejection of the idea of progress. Human progress comes and goes,
signifying nothing. If progress is an illusion, then striving for progress
is a delusion. It is a huge waste of time, money, and effort. The Preach -
er repeatedly asserts that this is the case.
Accumulation takes effort, but it is futile. It is vanity. 3 Why is it
vain? Because there is only a meaningless contest between cyclical pur-
poseless nature and purposeless death. Death is universal. It does not
discriminate. It judges nothing. It imputes nothing. 4 Life is all that is
worth having, yet it must end. 5 Death swallows all. “Then shall the dust
return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who
gave it. Vanity of vanities, saith the preacher; all is vanity” (Eccl. 12:7–
8).6
The value of today’s capital is dependent on the future value of this
capital. That will be determined by others, who will impute value to
the surviving capital. Will they have good judgment or bad judgment?
1. Chapter 44.
2. Chapter 1.
3. Chapter 2.
4. Chapter 3.
5. Chapter 33.
6. Chapter 44.
192 AUTONOMY AND STAGNATION
No one knows today. Their assessment of the value of capital will in
turn be dependent on their assessment of the imputations of their
heirs. There is no final value because there is no final judgment.
Who will inherit? A fool or a wise person? The accumulator does
not know. This undermines his work.7 To sacrifice consumption in the
present for wealth beyond mere consumption in the future is vanity.
Consumption is a good thing, but accumulating treasure is not. What
will happen to treasure? It will be inherited. By whom? No one can be
sure. This is sure: it will do the accumulator no good. 8 Even his own
son may turn out to be as a stranger.9
Oppression is universal. “So I returned, and considered all the op-
pressions that are done under the sun: and behold the tears of such as
were oppressed, and they had no comforter; and on the side of their
oppressors there was power; but they had no comforter” (Eccl. 4:1). A
man cannot trust the legal system. There is no predictability based on
righteous laws.10 The practice of oppression corrupts the judges. It
drives them mad.11
He who is successful will be envied. This is vanity. 12
Autonomous man can be trapped by the lust to accumulate
wealth. It is an addiction. He is never satisfied. He may be productive,
but his productivity does him no good.13 No one knows whether riches
are worth anything or not. This is vanity. 14
Conclusion: sorrow is better than laugher. Sorrow testifies to the
ultimate sorrow: death.15
This outlook undermines autonomous man’s commitment. He
sees no ethical cause and effect in history. It is easier to pursue ethics
moderately. The middle of the road is safest. It is also easier. 16
Autonomous man despairs over his lack of knowledge. He does
not have enough insight to understand timing. 17 He thinks it all de-
pends on him. He is wrong. Nothing depends on him. It all depends on
God. The covenant-keeper understands this. It gives him confidence.
7. Chapter 4.
8. Chapter 13.
9. Chapter 21.
10. Chapter 9.
11. Chapter 24.
12. Chapter 10.
13. Chapter 19.
14. Chapter 22.
15. Chapter 23.
16. Chapter 27.
17. Chapter 29.
 Conclusion 193
He can rely on ethics rather than foreknowledge. Autonomous man is
obsessed with his lack of knowledge.18
Whatever death does not dominate, chance does. There is no pre-
dictability of outcomes. 19 Wisdom counts for nothing. Money counts.
A wise poor man will be forgotten.20
Rulers are not predictable. Some of them have terrible judgment. 21
The world is one gigantic booby trap. Every project has its deadly pit-
falls.22 The curse overwhelms the blessing. This outlook leads to para-
lysis.

C. Theonomy and Economics

Our world is governed by God, and God is supremely ethical. He
has laid down the law to men. Men should obey it. 23
Because God has laid down His law, He judges in terms of this law.
He judges in history. He rewards those who obey His law. He penalizes
those who disobey. “For God giveth to a man that is good in his sight
wisdom, and knowledge, and joy: but to the sinner he giveth travail, to
gather and to heap up, that he may give to him that is good before
God” (Eccl. 2:26a).24 Consumption is a gift from God.25
There is purpose in history because everything that happens hap-
pens on time. Time is purposeful.26 It has meaning. This meaning is
imputed by the God whose decree governs time. This gives meaning to
a man’s work. It provides confidence regarding his efforts, despite his
ignorance of the future. “Wherefore I perceive that there is nothing
better, than that a man should rejoice in his own works; for that is his
portion: for who shall bring him to see what shall be after him” (Eccl.
3:22)? There is legitimate joy in consuming.27
There is economic cause and effect in history. The slothful man
will live in poverty.28 But anxiety over obtaining wealth is a mistake.

18. Chapter 32.

19. Chapter 35.
20. Chapter 36.
21. Chapter 37.
22. Chapter 38.
23. Chapter 45.
24. Chapter 6.
25. Chapter 20.
26. Chapter 7.
27. Chapter 8.
28. Chapter 11.
194 AUTONOMY AND STAGNATION
People should be content with basic necessities accompanied by peace
and quiet in preference to wealth with anxiety. 29
The division of labor is a great benefit to mankind. It makes our
work more productive. The covenant-breaker sees this. This insight
began Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations (1776). But the phenomenon
of the division of labor is grounded in the Trinity. 30
Wisdom is a benefit. Successful kings rule in terms of it. A man of
low birth and even prison can become a king, if his wisdom is suffi-
cient.31 Wisdom is not vanity. Wisdom with an inheritance is even bet-
ter.32
God is the enforcer. He enforces vows.33 He sees the evil that men
do, and rules over human courts. 34 We do not live in a world governed
by either cycles or death. Nature is purposeful. 35 It therefore is not cyc-
lical.
God-fearing people can have faith in progress. The end is better
than the beginning. Patience is the proper attitude. 36
God has made man upright. The result is inventions of all kinds. 37
This is an important aspect of progress and economic growth.
There is ethical causation in this world. The normal pattern is
blessings for the man who obeys God’s law and cursings for the man
who doesn’t. Thus, when a good man receives his reward, he can enjoy
it. He can eat, drink, and be merry.38
This being the case, theonomic man should apply himself to his
work with great devotion and energy. Anything worth doing is worth
doing well.39
The labor of the fool is wasted. He does not know how to market. 40
This gives the wise man an advantage. The slothful person is also a
weak competitor. He lets things drift.41

29. Chapter 12.

30. Chapter 14.
31. Chapter 15.
32. Chapter 26.
33. Chapter 16.
34. Chapter 17.
35. Chapter 18.
36. Chapter 25.
37. Chapter 28.
38. Chapter 31.
39. Chapter 34.
40. Chapter 39.
41. Chapter 40.
 Conclusion 195
42
Charity pays dividends. This indicates that this world is governed
by ethics. It is not totally random. A wise man pays attention to the
signs.43

Conclusion
When autonomous covenant-breakers live consistently with their
own presuppositions about the nature of God, man, law, sanctions,
and time, they cannot compete effectively with covenant-keepers who
live consistently with their presuppositions about the nature of God,
man, law, sanctions, and time. This has to do with sanctions in history,
which produce covenantal victory.
But the meek shall inherit the earth; and shall delight themselves in
the abundance of peace (Psalm 37:11).

Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth (Matt. 5:5).44

The Book of Ecclesiastes offers rival views of the world and rival
motivations. Autonomous man is on the defensive in a world that he
perceives as meaningless because it is cyclical in the aggregate and
fatal individually. Covenant-keeping man lives in a world governed by
God, who judges in terms of His law. The world is coherent because
God is coherent. History is linear because God brings His kingdom to
victory. The first outlook, when followed, leads to economic stagna-
tion. The second view, when followed, leads to compound economic
growth.

42. Chapter 42.

43. Chapter 43.
44. Gary North, Priorities and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on Matthew,
2nd ed. (Dallas, Georgia: Point Five Press, [2000] 2012), ch. 4.