Death Is The Great Leveller (Ecclesiastes 3:18-22).
Now we discover the conflict taking place within him. He has had a concept of everlastingness and of the necessity for future judgement. How then does this tie in with the fact that all die, both man and beast?
‘I said in my heart, “Because of the sons of men, that God may put them to the test, and that they may see that they themselves are but as beasts, for that which befalls the sons of men, befalls beasts, even one thing befalls them. As the one dies so does the other die. Yes they all have one breath, and man has no pre-eminence over the beasts. For all is vanity.” '
The question arises here as to what is the subject of ‘because of the sons of men'. Some see it as referring back to Ecclesiastes 3:16. But the idea of wickedness in the place of justice would not impress on man that he was like the beasts. It might indeed rather emphasise man's difference from the beasts. What impresses on him the fact that he is like the beasts in context is that he dies like they do. Furthermore what is the point of putting them to the test in judgment if they then all simply die? Thus we are probably to look forward and see the subject as being ‘even one thing befalls them'.
This would then mean that he sees dying like the beasts as being a kind of test to men. In the face of it what will be their reaction to God? What are they going to do in the face of this?
If we are to connect it to Ecclesiastes 3:17-18, and not as a totally new thought, it must be because he automatically assumes that death will be the consequence of the wicked being brought into judgment. To a despotic king, even a good one, the death sentence was a constant consequence of justice. Thus the fact that men are judged and executed demonstrates that they are but like the beasts. But this is not consistent with Ecclesiastes 3:17 where the righteous are also in mind.
‘For that which befalls the sons of men, befalls beasts. Even one thing befalls them. As the one dies so does the other die. Yes, they all have one breath, and man has no pre-eminence over the beasts, for all is vanity.' He has now come back to his pessimism. All die in the same way, both man and beast. They have similar ‘breath' (of life - Genesis 2:7; Genesis 7:22) and they lose it in a similar way. So man is no different from the beasts. He experiences the same inevitable end. Thus all is meaningless. This fact is then emphasised.
Some see this likening to the beasts as including (or should we say excluding) the moral dimension. Man behaves like the beasts as well as dying like them. But it is questionable whether this is what The Preacher means. Not all behave like beasts, only the powerful. His concentration is rather on the fact that both die in the same way and become dust.
‘All go to one place, all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.'
The grave is the destiny of both man and beast. Dust they are and to dust they will return. So again he emphasises that there is no difference between them. Their dead bodies are dealt with in the same way.
‘Who knows the spirit of man, whether it goes upward, and the spirit of the beast, whether it goes downwards into the earth?'
But again the Preacher has a moment of questioning. Again something challenges him to think. It is only a question, but it reveals the uncertainty in his thinking. Who knows what happens to the ‘spirit'? We should note that whether the breath of life and the spirit are to be seen as the same thing does not matter. What matters here is the possibility that there is something in man, his essential life, which perhaps goes upwards towards God (compare Ecclesiastes 12:7), in contrast to that of the beast. If that were the case the death of the man and the beast may not be the same after all. However, for the present he dismisses the idea. (It is only later that he finally accepts it (Ecclesiastes 12:7), the idea that man will in some undefinable way partake of everlastingness).
‘So I saw that there is nothing better than that a man should rejoice in his works. For that is his portion. For who will bring him to see what shall be after him?'
So he concludes that the best thing for man to do is to rejoice in what he does, to enjoy his life and his work, for it has been allotted to him by God, and not be concerned about the distant future. The word is not used, but the idea is that he should live his life by trust in God.
‘What shall be after him.' It is pointless for a man to worry about what will be after him. This is in contrast with Ecclesiastes 2:18-19. But there the reference was to someone who had spent his life building up his possessions unnecessarily, whereas here he is speaking of one who has lived his life before God without building up excessive possessions and therefore need not worry about the future in this way. Compare Ecclesiastes 6:12; Ecclesiastes 10:14.
From our position we might see here that The Preacher has not come to the logical conclusion. He has accepted the everlastingness of God, and His intervention in what goes on in the earth, he has recognised that there should be justice for all, even for those who die before they can receive justice, he has recognised the quality of life enjoyed by God's true people. But at this stage he fails to accept the logical consequence of it all. Instead he sinks back into pessimism. He cannot at this stage grasp the possibility of resurrection. So he fails to follow through on what he has discovered.