A TIME FOR EVERYTHING

Understanding the element of time in Ecclesiastes 3:1-15

INTRODUCTION

The Book of Ecclesiastes or קֹהֶלֶת is one of the most prolific books in the Hebrew Bible. It reflects upon human experiences of life in a realistically poetic and surreal way. It expounds human experiences in the light of their underlying meaning juxtaposed with what is said to be vanity of vanities. As a literary work, it is peculiarly rich in Wisdom and has a peculiar way of covering it. In short, the writer affirms the beauties of each human reality and each experience only call it vanity eventually. It is basically preoccupied with existential realities like time, toil, age, creation and many more.

What is the significance of time in Ecclesiastes 3:1-15? This academic presentation seeks to figure out the significance of time in chapter 3 verses1-15 of the book of Ecclesiastes. Since time has been mentioned several times, and in fact a fundamental component of each verse, it is but fitting to look into the significance of time by figuring out the author’s concept of time and the influences it had from several cultures. To limit the parameters, the element in question will only be the significance of time in chapter 3. References to other mention of time elsewhere in the book shall be briefly taken in relation to chapter 3.

Fr. Anthony Ceresco argues that the preoccupation of the author revolves around the appropriate זמן upon which things take place, and will take place in Gods’ time (3:11). He suggests that the concept of time being employed in chapter 3 is a fruit of the fluid moments of crisis of his time. To further understand this, we recourse to the history of the book which will be discussed in the historical context in this presentation. It is suffice to say as a matter of introductory note that the writer witnessed and underwent sufferings brought about by Hellenistic rulers and the overall oppression brought about by Hellenistic influences. This situations engendered the subtle poetic counsel about hope in a יָפֶ֣ה בְעִתּ֑וֹ גַּ֤ם which Ecclesiastes is known for.

LITERARY STRUCTURE

For the literary structure of the first part of the pericope, I would like to borrow John Maclaughlin’s presentation of its literary structure.

A. A Poem on Time

v. 1 Time for everything under the sun

v. 2a Birth and Death

v. 2b-3 Construction and Destruction

v. 4 Reaction to these

v. 5-7a Combining and separating

v. 7b Reaction to these

v. 8a Love and hate

v 8b War and peace

Verse 1 presents a very general introduction of what is to be enumerated in v. 2 to v. 8. It both introduces and summarises the things under the sun. This verse uses words like לַכֹּ֖ל (everything), זְמָ֑ן (used interchangeably as time and season), and לְכָל־חֵ֖פֶץ (every matter).The use of generalities לַכֹּ֖ל and לְכָל־חֵ֖פֶץ qualifies v. 1 as a formidable introduction and summary of the whole poem, enough to allure readers to read on. The succeeding chapters 2-8 build on this claim upon premises on זמן and underlying human experiences.

Verses 2-8 is considered as an onomasticon because of the enumeration of existential realities having one common ground which time. The verses contain antithetic pairs that contradict each other. Dianne Bergant suggests parallelism in verses 2-7 whereby a favourable event is complemented by an unfavourable event (v. 2-4) and vice versa (v. 5-7), and then repeats the pattern in the same exact way.

John Maclaughlin categorizes the like elements together and came up with the chiastic pattern. Both the first (2a) and second (2b) poetic lines of verse 2 begin with favourable and end with unfavourable. The pattern changes in verses 3 and 4 which begin with unfavourable and end with unfavourable. Verses 5 and 6 follows the pattern that begins with unfavourable and ends with favourable. Verse 7 follows the pattern which begins with unfavourable and ends with unfavourable. Verse 8 is a unique verse because it is chiastic on its own; having both patterns in each lines. Hence:

V. 2 Be born -Die

To plant- to uproot

V.3 To kill- to heal

To break down-to build up

V. 4 To weep-to laugh

To mourn-to dance

V. 5 To throw away stones-to gather

To embrace- to refrain embracing

V. 6 To seek -to lose

To keep - to cast away

V. 7 To rend -to sew

To keep silence - to speak

V. 8 To love- to hate

*To peace- to war

Verse 2 commences the surreal enumeration of existential antithetic pairs. Noticeably, in the Hebrew text, עֵת is employed until verse 8 in contrast to verse 1 which uses זְמָ֑ן. It begins with the morbid assurance that death definitely comes at an appointed time. Verses 2 and 3 speak about beginnings and endings. Birth and planting are antitheses to death and uprooting respectively. Killing and tearing down are antitheses to healing and building up respectively. Like any other Hebrew biblical writings, these opposites are used to express completeness.

Verse 4 deals with emotions לִבְכּוֹת֙ , לִשְׂח֔וֹק , סְפ֖וֹד. Mourning and dancing engender opposite affections to respective realities. V. 5 pertains to a peculiar act of throwing away and gathering stones, and embrace. Verses 4 and 5 we can see the contrasting structure of having semantic pairing. 3:5 assumes a different structure in itself and is categorized as belonging to a different element in the chiastic scheme. While 3:4 pertains to emotions, 3:5 pertains to so many interpretations we shall know in the succeeding discussions of this presentations.

Verses 6 and 7 alludes to wealth or material possessions. We can say it alludes to our labouring to gain or amass wealth for our own. All the elements in the pairs seem to portray material things including לִקְר֨וֹעַ֙ וְעֵ֣ת לִתְפּ֔וֹר, which pertains to things we repair and things we destroy. However it could also be unseen things like relationships and respect. The pattern of 6 and 7 gradually begins with material possession to immaterial reality of לַֽחֲשׁ֖וֹת and the opposite of which is to be silent. The tearing and the repairing provides a formidable transition to see a pattern as such.

Verse 8 is a unique element in the poem’s structure aside from the fact that it speaks of generalities compared to the rest of opposing elements. While it is seen as similar in pattern with 3:2 in chiastic pattern of favourable and unfavourable elements, it has a pattern in itself. The antithetical words for love or לֶֽאֱהֹב֙, and hate or לִשְׂנֹ֔א follow the pattern of 3:2, while מִלְחָמָ֖ה וְעֵ֥ת שָׁלֽוֹם: follows the that of the other pattern.

B. A Discourse on Human Toil

v. 9 Question about labor

v. 10 Context or purpose of the question

v. 11-12 Response to the question

v. 12-13 First confessional response

1. Rejoicing and doing good

2. Fruits of labor as God’s gift

v. 14-15 Second confessional response

1. Despair in discernment

2. Celebration of time

The introduction in v. 1 seeks to lay grounding for the 14 claims of the poem, giving emphasis on appropriate time or season for things. Verse 9 in turn is a programatic introduction to the succeeding verses 10-15 in a form of question whose answer will be dramatically and gradually evolve from verses 10 to 15. Chapter 9 connects 3:1-8 or the poem about time, and 10-15 which is the discourse on human toil. It’s a break which as if saying the times mentioned in 3:1-8 are not ours but God’s.

Verse 10 provides context upon which the question was raised, or it can also provide the purpose of the question, stating the one speaking as a witness to the or someone who knows the actions of God. Verse 11 affirms this, that God has made all things suitable in his time. Although it sounds more of predestination, it can also pertain to fundamental human realities like birth, death, tearing down, healing and all other elements mentioned in 3:2-8. Fr. Ceresco explains that “Humans have no control or ability to determine when each will occur.” It is consistent with the notion of predestination if by it we pertain to these fundamental human elements.

Verses 12 and 13 constitute one thought which is essential in the giving of answer and observation of the writer. It affirms the right of each one who toils to enjoy the fruits of one’s labours. It is a direct answer to the question in 3:9, and provides a general picture of the place of labor in the eyes of God and in the order of things, in the order of things designed in time.

Verses 14 and 15 provide a very good epilogue to the pericope. V. 14 still answers the question in v. 9 but tones downed affirms the claims of verses 11, 12, and 13. Whatever God does endures forever affirms that God has made all things suitable in his time, and that the has set the sense of the future and past in their minds. God has done this so that all should stand in awe before him (v. 15) affirms the graciousness attributed t God in verse 12. On the other hand, chapter 15 offers a good ending which summarizes everything from the poem of time and the discourse on toil. It affirms in strong resemblance to verse 12 that “the first clause in the verse asserts the identity of past and present, the second the identity of the past-all time is the same, and all events repetitive and foreordained.”

Fr. Ceresco claims that Chapter 3:1-8 had an earlier independent existence. He, along with other commentators, make this proposition because of it’s independent identity apart from the succeeding and preceding pericopes. This is the very reason why this pericope can be interpreted in isolation from other pericopes or in itself, or it can be interpreted along with other pericopes. This pericope “is indicated by הֶבֶל conclusion at the end of 2:26 and the change in topic from death and one’s legacy to that of time.” The mention of gathering and heaping ushers the readers to a new way of looking at Wisdom in the human activities.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT

The authorship of the book of Ecclesiastes as indicated in 1:1 דברי קהלת בן־דוד מלד בירשלמ׃ is a very debatable claim. It directly attributes the authorship to the son of David and who is the King of Jerusalem. We could have the luxury to think that this pertains to Solomon. However, scholars do believe that this superscript is not part of the original book and was later on added by editors. In the book of proverbs, Solomon was blatantly mentioned. St. Jerome attributes Ecclesiastes to Solomon for he also gathered the assembly and preached to everyone. It would have been tempting to presume so for the contents of the book speak of an old man’s reflection on eventide and suffering. If it was so, it would have been easier to point out the historical context of the book which could have been between 1000 BCE and 900 BCE. However, modern scholars see past this claim.

John Maclaughlin situates the writing of the book after the beginning of the Persian control in 539 BCE. His claim is supported by the writer’s use of two loanwords פּארדסים in 2:5 and פּיתגראם and 8:11. The description of the bureaucratic rule of the king in 5:8 is also a manifestation of it. However, Maclaughlin does not support any claim of direct Greek influence. If pre-socratic ideas such as earth, fire, water in 1:4-7 and other socratic themes, that is because the writer was knowledgeable of Greek culture and Philosophy, not totally influenced by it. Maclaughlin situates the authorship of the book in third century BCE in a common Judean context; someone who is familiar with the temple and worship and possibly a teacher.

The political context of the book appears to be before the Maccabean Revolt in 164 BCE. This presumption is supported by the writer’s treatment of foreign rulers, a literary tone which is common and influenced by Ptolemaic period. For several scholars like Gordis, the element of time in the dissemination of the book and sort of promotion of the book is an important aspect. If so, at least fifty years must be allotted for this period form the time of writing to the propagation of the book. This leads us to mid third century BCE when Hellenistic influences have not yet penetrated the Jewish Palestine mindset. Gordis affirms Maclaughlin in situation the book’s writing and context in the third century BCE. Gordis however provides a particular year from which we could approximate and that is 250 BCE.

The provenance of the book has been attributed to Egypt because of the consistent weather conditions mentioned in 1:5-7. However, this is not likely because 10:4 situates the author in Alexandria, and Palestine belongs to Ptolemaic region. The absence of solid Greek knowledge and principles gives us the idea that it is not written by an Alexandrian Jew. Some themes however, point to Palestinian context. Example of which is 12:6 where the image of the magnificent picture of cistern falling into despair alludes to Palestine’s lack of water supply. Egypt on the other hand, was blessed by the Nile. Hence, power shortage would be possible but unlikely. Gordis concludes that the book was written in Hebrew by a Jew in Jerusalem. The writer is knowledgeable in Aramaic but not in Greek; he was only acquainted with basic Greek ideals. The book was written by the writer at his eventide years, presumably 3rd century BCE.

Ceresco beautifully presents the immediate context which surrounded the book. He claims that the book was written in a feudal landownership context where the gap between the landowners and the farmers widened. There was sequestration of lands from farmers, dispossessing them, and making them mere tenants and labourers. Many were displaced and devalued. Because of the confusion and sufferings that the book was a reminder of the order of things which God lovingly arranged.

EXEGESIS

The element of time in Ecclesiastes 3:1-15 is significant because it is used in a rather fundamental application, making time the object of each human reality mentioned in 1-8, and a powerful driving force in 10-15. Time is undoubtedly, the overarching theme of the pericope and the only theme that could lead to understanding all other. Surprising than not, time was used as a means to evaluated the writer’s sojourn into life and search for meaning. Time is presented as the imminent force of the processes of nature which we cannot contravene. All else is preordained and all human activity to alter his own life course would be useless. Time simply delivers these processes upon which man is helpless. However, 3:10-15 presents time as an opportunity to enjoy.

Time is a subject that has gained scrutiny in this pericope. However, it engenders a Philosophical understanding of time much as we need to know the Jewish notion of time. Paul Ricoeur agrees that time is an inconclusive rumination. Throughout the Scriptures we can see the significance of appropriate time in most obvious and highly romanticised way. Athanasius affirms “For although it e hidden and unknown to all, what period of time is allotted for each, and how it is allotted; yet everyone knows this, that as there is a time for spring and for summer; and for autumn and for winter, so, as it is written, there is time to die, and time to live.” The Messiah’s coming in the fulness of time, the hour or time for Jesus to perform miracles and glorify the Father, the time for the Paschal mystery and the pentecost as following a grand scheme of events constituted by significant events in appropriate time.

Paul Ricoeur concludes that “the project of a merely narrative theology is chimera” Nevertheless, this is how how narrative theology develop a biblical view of time and history. All the stories told in the bible engender time, and they all tell and prepare the same story, the story of Christ. So when time is mentioned in the scriptures, it is always oriented towards two things: first is the time of the coming of Christ, and secondly is the the second coming of Christ. The foundation of the theme of time in the scriptures is always in the beginning in Genesis 1:1, and it is in the context of creation. From this foundation of biblical time, the first coming and second coming of Christ engender a new creation.

We also borrow the reflections of Karl Barth on time. He says “time is the form of our existence. To be man is to live in time.” Time is a reality we cannot escape, a reality we cannot live without. However, it can also confront us with the limits of human existence. “It is the act of God.” The past can only be understood in relation to God. “The will and act of God are the meaning and ground not only for our being in the time generally but also of our being in the future.”

We now go to the essential part of the exegetical part, that is the Ecclesiastes’ notion of time in the specified pericope. Appropriate time is also an object of discernment for the ancient sages. For them, there is right time and wrong time to do things. While Qohelet agrees that there is time for everything (3:1-8), he also believes that it is not up to us humans to know the appropriate time (3:10-15). It is intended for constant search.

The word time has been used in two different Hebrew forms זְמָ֑ן and עֵת. They both refer to specified period in time and not to duration. זְמָ֑ן refers to appropriate and predestine time, while עֵת almost means the same except that its usage gives emphasis on the order of creation which goes beyond it, and which also enumerates the scope of human realities day to day. There are 2 ways of interpreting the succeeding verses in relation to time. First, the author is expressing a totality in these antitheses. In between the the contradicting element is a a totally new reality. Second, the author is suggesting relativity and that there can be no absolute.

In between these antitheses lies a totally new whole or reality which leads one from the other. Between life and death lies stories of survival and sojourn. Between planting and uprooting lies the watering, nourishment and the like. By relativity on the other hand, it means circumstances of life determine which approach is appropriate and which is not. Death for some may mean life for the other. One’s freedom may be another’s confinement. The greater the occasion for understanding of appropriate tie, the lesser the uncertainties in doing what ought to be done.

The themes of birth and death, planting and uprooting are common faces of Hebrew culture. Much has been written about death, birth and planting for they speak of fundamental human activities. Death and birth are given human fundamental trajectory. Planting to reap and eat what we saw and reap is fundamental in the demands for survival. To kill and to heal portrays a different trajectory but is consistent with preceding verse. To kill tear down, and to weep or mourn are consistent with death (3:2a), to heal which is life-giving is consistent with birth, laughing, dancing, and building; building life-giving relationships if you may. These combinations and antitheses are well explained and are in themselves self-relating to readers that readers could even have their own notions of it.

The specific topic of throwing away of stones and gathering them back in 3:5 is a theme which has many interpretations. For instance, Robert Gordis agrees that it can allude to sexual activity between husband and wife for marital embrace. He argues through the understading of the Midrash: “A time to cast stones when your wife is meanstrually clean, and a time to gather stones in -when your wife is unclean.” This is in reference to several usages of such an image in the New and Old Testament like Jeremiah 2:27 where stone was made as reference to giving birth, and Matthew 3:9 where Jesus alludes to the stones which were made children of Abraham. Robert Alter supports this interpretation as “metaphor for ejaculation and refrain from ejaculation.” Alter also cites the Midrash Qohelet Rabba to support his interpretation.

There are also those who support the literal reference to stone. Craig Bartholomew cites some interpretations including clearing fields for construction and therefore the second line which pertains to embracing would mean that the house is already constructed and the family living in it would now bond in love. Bartholomew does not seem to support the sexual side because according to him, it would destroy the flow of thought of the enumerated realities. However, the embrace mentioned is undoubtedly pertaining to human intimacy and sexual acts can be ascribed to them. With these arguments, I would like to affirm both sides that since there had been previous reference to stones with childbirth and procreation, this verse of stones and embrace is all about marital embrace. Embrace is consistent with the idea of sexual activity.

Verses 6 and 7 speak about material possessions and material things in general. James Crenshaw suggests that seeking may actually be in reference to lost household objects that were misplaced. Here, Crenshaw alludes to Jesus’ parable of the lost coin in Luke 15:8-10 whereby the finding of a lost thing calls for a celebration; hence the time to seek and a time for celebration when one is found. However, verse 6 has an open situational callisthenics. Crenshaw suggests that when something is on the other hand not found, we proceed to the next set of advice: to let go because there is a time to seek and thus keep, but if it is never found, we need to let go. On verse 7a, Gordis and Crenshaw agree on separate terms that it alludes to the tearing of garments upon the news of someone’s death in the Jewish culture. The torn garments are then rend back upon the completion of the period of mourning. But since mourning has been given specific place in 3:4b, we resort to the general situations and usage of tearing and rending of things.

Verse 8 is a unique combination because it speaks of a more abstract objects, indeed general in kind and those are of love, hate, peace and war. From specific human realities to international relations and universal emotions. St. Gregory of Nyssa teaches “there is moment for loving restraint, and for hating pleasure, so that we do not become pleasure-loving, and all the rest, which through the use of affection for improper ends separates us from the disposition to good.”

Time is beautifully used in verses 10-15 whereby time is an opportunity to toil and realise what God has set in place (v. 10-11). Trusting the divine plan set in time by divine providence is the assurance of happiness. Participation in the order of things which are set by God in reason engenders happiness and affirmation of the dignity set forth by God for each person. Verse 15 affirms that what God has set in reason is now accessible in reason. God has set creation and order of things, and this order and appropriate use of creation for instance have been made accessible and understood in reason; all these in the framework of time.

CONCLUSION

The element of time in Hebrew Culture is simple yet sacred. It may not be as complicated as the Greek’s Kronos and Kairos but the Jews consider time as sacred, an indispensable element of natural order of things. In liturgical parlance, we know that the Jews have always valued celebrations set in time, guided by the appearances of the moon and other cosmic elements like the passover. The Jews are a people who valued the fundamental order of things, the course of creation and the dictates of time.

Bringing the message and context of Ecclesiastes 3:1-15 to our present context, we are reminded that there is a time for everything. We lost sense of time because we lost the sense of the order of things or vice versa. The current ecological crisis of the the world, with all the problems of garbage on the oceans, deforestations especially of the Amazon, extinctions of animals and plants, rising sea levels due to melting of both poles which in turn is due to climate change and many other forms of abuses against the integrity of creation are manifestations of the loss of the sense of time.

Let this pericope remind us of our participation in a larger reality of the family of God. In a fast and relentless world, we are called to regain our peace found in the sense of time, and harmony with the rest of the created order. Pope Francis reminds us “The emptier the person’s heart is, the more he/she needs things to buy own and consume.” The loss of the sense of time, and sense of order engender an empty heart, and a consumerist mind. They are antitheses to the favourable realities set forth by the pericope, and therefore are contradictions to natural order.

---

SOURCES:

Anthony Ceresco, Introduction to the Old Testament Wisdom: A Spirituality for Liberation (Quezon City: Claretian Publications, 2000).

John Maclaughlin, An Introduction to Israel’s Wisdom Tradition (Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2018).

Dianne Bergant, Old Testament Message: Job, Ecclesiastes (Delaware: Michael Glacier, Inc., 1982).

Dianne Bergant, Old Testament Message: Job, Ecclesiastes (Delaware: Michael Glacier, Inc., 1982).

Robert Gordis, Koheleth- The Man and His World: A Study of Ecclesiastes (New York: Schocken Books, 1968).

Robert Wright, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon (Illonois: Inter Varsity Press, 2005), 192.

Mike Beaumont, Illustrated Guide to the Bible (Tennessee: B & H Publishing Group, 2006).

Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, eds., G. W Bromiley and T. F Torrance, trans., G. W Bromiley et. Al., (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2004).

James L. Crenshaw, Ecclesiastes: A Commentary (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1987).

Robert Alter, The Wisdom Books: Job, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes: A Translation with Commentary (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2010), 355.