| Back to Home Page | Back to Book Index
|
Introduction
to Ecclesiastes
This summary of the book of Ecclesiastes provides information
about the title
author(s)
date of writing
chronology
theme
theology
outline
a brief overview
and the chapters of the Book of Ecclesiastes.
No time period or writer's name is mentioned in the book
but
several passages suggest that King Solomon may be the author (1:1
12
16; 2:4-9; 7:26-29; 12:9; cf. 1Ki
2:9; 3:12; 4:29-34; 5:12; 10:1-8). On the other hand
the writer's title
("Teacher
" Hebrew qoheleth; see note on 1:1)
his unique style of
Hebrew and his attitude toward rulers (suggesting that of a subject rather than
a monarch -- see
e.g.
4:1-2; 5:8-9; 8:2-4; 10:20) may point to another person and a later
period (see note on 1:1).
The author of Ecclesiastes puts his powers of wisdom to work to
examine the human experience and assess the human situation. His perspective is
limited to what happens "under the sun" (as is that of all the wisdom
teachers). He considers life as he has experienced and observed it between the
horizons of birth and death -- life within the boundaries of this visible
world. His wisdom cannot penetrate beyond that last horizon; he can only
observe the phenomenon of death and perceive the limits it places on human
beings. Within the limits of human experience and observation
he is concerned
to spell out what is "good" for people to do. And he represents a
devout wisdom. Life in the world is under God -- for all its enigmas. Hence what
begins with "Meaningless! Meaningless!" (1:2) ends with "Remember your Creator"
(12:1) and "Fear God and keep his
commandments" (12:13).
With a wisdom matured by many years
he takes the measure of human
beings
examining their limits and their lot. He has attempted to see what
human wisdom can do (1:13
16-18; 7:24; 8:16)
and he has discovered that human wisdom
even when it has its beginning in "the fear of the Lord" (Pr 1:7)
has limits to its powers when it attempts to go it
alone -- limits that circumscribe its perspectives and relativize its counsel.
Most significantly
it cannot find out the larger purposes of God or the
ultimate meaning of human existence. With respect to these it can only pose
questions.
Nevertheless
he does take a hard look at the human enterprise --
an enterprise in which he himself has fully participated. He sees a busy
busy
human ant hill in mad pursuit of many things
trying now this
now that
laboring away as if by dint of effort humans could master the world
lay bare
its deepest secrets
change its fundamental structures
somehow burst through
the bounds of human limitations
build for themselves enduring monuments
control their destiny
achieve a state of secure and lasting happiness --
people laboring at life with an overblown conception of human powers and
consequently pursuing unrealistic hopes and aspirations.
He takes a hard look and concludes that human life in this mode is
"meaningless
" its efforts all futile.
What
then
does wisdom teach him?
Therefore wisdom counsels:
To sum up
Ecclesiastes provides instruction on how to live
meaningfully
purposefully and joyfully within the theocratic arrangement --
primarily by placing God at the center of one's life
work and activities
by
contentedly accepting one's divinely appointed lot in life
and by reverently
trusting in and obeying the Creator-King. Note particularly 2:24-26; 3:11-14
22; 5:18-20; 8:15; 9:7-10; 11:7 -- 12:1; 12:9-14 (see also any pertinent notes on these
passages).
The argument of Ecclesiastes does not flow smoothly. It meanders
with jumps and starts
through the general messiness of human experience
to
which it is a response. There is also an intermingling of poetry and prose.
Nevertheless
the following outline seeks to reflect
at least in a general
way
the structure of the book and its main discourses. The announced theme of
"meaninglessness" (futility) provides a literary frame around the
whole (1:2;12:8). And the movement from the unrelieved
disillusionment of chs. 1 - 2 to the more serene tone and sober instructions
for life in chs. 11 - 12 marks a development in matured wisdom's
coming to terms with the human situation.
A striking feature of the book is its frequent use of key words
and phrases: e.g.
"meaningless" (1:2;2:24-25)
"work/labor/toil" (see note
on 2:10)
"good/better" (2:1)
"gift/give" (5:19)
"under the sun" (1:3)
"chasing after the wind" (1:14). Also to be noted is the presence of
passages interwoven throughout the book that serve as key indicators of the
author's theme and purpose: 1:2-3
14
17; 2:10-11
17
24-26; 3:12-13
22; 4:4
6
16; 5:18-20; 6:9
12; 7:14
24; 8:7
15
17; 9:7
12; 10:14; 11:2
5-6
8-9; 12:1
8
13-14 (see notes on these passages where
present). The enjoyment of life as God gives it is a key concept in the book
(see 2:24-25 and note
26; 3:12-13 and note
22; 5:18-20; 7:14; 8:15 and note; 9:7-9; 11:8-9).
I.
Author (1:1)
.
Because people must leave the fruits of their labor to others (2:18-26)
B.
Since people cannot fully know what is best to do or what the
future holds for them
they should enjoy now the life and work God has given
them (6:10;11:6)
V.
Discourse
Part 2: Since old age and death will soon come
people
should enjoy life in their youth
remembering that God will judge (11:7;12:7)
VI.
Theme Repeated (12:8)
──《New
International Version》
Introduction to Ecclesiastes
The name of this book signifies "The
Preacher." The wisdom of God here preaches to us
speaking by Solomon
who
it is evident was the author. At the close of his life
being made sensible of
his sin and folly
he recorded here his experience for the benefit of others
as the book of his repentance; and he pronounced all earthly good to be
"vanity and vexation of spirit." It convinces us of the vanity of the
world
and that it cannot make us happy; of the vileness of sin
and its
certain tendency to make us miserable. It shows that no created good can
satisfy the soul
and that happiness is to be found in God alone; and this
doctrine must
under the blessed Spirit's teaching
lead the heart to Christ
Jesus.
── Matthew Henry《Concise Commentary on Ecclesiastes》
00 Introduction
ECCLESIASTES
INTRODUCTION
The Title and Date of the Book
The title of this book is derived from the Greek Septuagint
where
it appears as the representative of the Hebrew “Koheleth
” which has been
variously rendered preacher or debater. “Koheleth” is used throughout the work
as s synonym of “the son of David
king in Jerusalem
” i.e. Solomon; but
there can be little doubt that Solomon was not the real author
and that his
name was only assumed by a well-known and legitimate device for a literary
purpose. The first to discern the truth was Luther
who assigned the work to
the time of the Maccabees (circa 150 b.c.)
. The late date rests mainly on the evidence of the language
which is not that
of the ancient Hebrew
but of a decadent time
when many Aramaic words crept
into the Jewish vocabulary. (A. M. Mackay
B. A.)
We may mention three grounds for questioning the belief that
Solomon was the author.
1. The language shows traces of Hebrew words and forms later than his
time
and occurring only in such Old Testament books as Malachi
Daniel
Ezra.
2. Certain expressions and utterances cannot be attributed to Solomon:
(1)
“I
Koheleth
was king” (Ecclesiastes 1:12)
as though he had now
ceased to be such;
3. The tone of the book and the character of its teaching not only
suggest the period when the Persian empire had been overthrown
and Alexander
the Great’s successors had established Greek culture throughout the civilized
world
but also bear distinct
traces of Stoic and Epicurean philosophy. For the former
see Ecclesiastes 1:5-7; Ecclesiastes 1:9-11; Ecclesiastes 1:17; Ecclesiastes 2:12; Ecclesiastes 3:14-15; Ecclesiastes 7:25; Ecclesiastes 8:8; Ecclesiastes 9:11; Ecclesiastes 10:18; and for the latter
Ecclesiastes 2:24; Ecclesiastes 3:22; Ecclesiastes 5:18; Ecclesiastes 7:7; Ecclesiastes 8:9; Ecclesiastes 8:14; Ecclesiastes 9:7; Ecclesiastes 9:16; Ecclesiastes 10:16-18. We may observe
that the claim
such as it is
to personate the great king
is more conspicuous
in the earlier part of the book. Like Solomon
Koheleth had made trial of
wisdom
of wealth
and of the pleasures of art. But
whatever may have been his
thoughts
with respect to the darker side of Solomon’s closing years
the great
king evidently fades gradually from his mental vision
and he proceeds in the
remainder of this treatise to give us undisguisedly his own attitude towards
life and its problems. Here we plainly have before us in no sense the Solomon
of Jewish history
but a philosophical Jew of the later centuries before
Christ. (A. W. Streane
D. D.)
There is general agreement among the abler modern critics that the
book was written somewhere between the later period of Persian rule (circa 840
b.c.)
and some date before the Macedonian supremacy came to an end (say circa 200
b.c.). Within these limits it is impossible to fix any date with certainty
but
there is much probability in the theory originated by Mr. Tyler that the author
was a wealthy Jew who lived at Alexandria
and there in luxury and
philosophical culture sought compensation for the loss of national and
religious hopes which had left his nature impoverished; and who in old age
recorded how vain his quest had been. (A. M. Mackay
B. A.)
To me
it seems impossible to read verse after verse without
feeling that they have little or no meaning unless we look on them as the
outcome of a time of suffering and oppression. They seem to point steadily to
an age when national freedom was gone
national life extinguished for a time;
the spirit of freedom dead; the high memories of the past forgotten; the
Messianic hopes not yet rekindled; when the God of Hosts seemed far removed;
when all around was dark and gloomy; in days
it may be
when Persian
or
Syrian
or Egyptian kings ruled over the land of David as a province of their
kingdom
and the hopes of Israel seemed dead and gone--buried and out of sight.
Then
it might well come to pass that the spirit of some son of Israel was
stirred within him to try to reach his people’s heart
not by spoken word or
the stirring address of a Jewish prophet--the day of prophecy was over; not by
the music of a psalm--the psalmist’s harp was silent; not by a great poem like
the Book of Job--such poetry had died out of the nation’s heart; but by putting
forth in this half-articulate and ambiguous form a soliloquy or discourse
call
it which you will
breathing the very spirit of that later age--its sadness
its languor
its passive and oriental aequiesecnce
almost lethargy
under
suffering. It bears the stamp
from first to last
of dejection
if not of
despair. Yet its still unrelinquished
pervading sense of the fear of God as
the end of life; its firm hold of the inherent distinction between right and
wrong; its refusal
in spite of all that seems to cloud the hope
to part with
the conviction of a judgment
a righteous judgment
yet to come; its counsels
of activity
patience
cheerfulness
prudence
calmness
sympathy with
suffering
stand out amidst the wreck and decay of all around. (Dean
Bradley.)
Ewald has advanced a twofold argument against assigning the
composition of this book to the time of Ezra and Nehemiah
and in favour of “the
last century of the Persian dominion.” The first is
that the writer complains
“in an entirely new and unheard-of manner
of an excess of bookmaking and
reading.” It cannot
however
be shown that a difference in this respect
existed between the last century and the last but one of the Persian rule; and
to a time subsequent to this it is by no means allowable to look. The second
reason urged is
that “such harrowing pain and desperate cries of agony did not
characterize the earlier period of the Persian rule.” It must have become
Ewald thinks
in its last years
more oppressive and violent. On this matter
however
history furnishes no authentic information. (E. W. Hengstenberg
D.
D.)
Professor Cheyne
in agreement with Ewald and Delitzsch
assigns
the book to the Persian period
though rightly and fairly admitting that “the
evidence of the Hebrew favours a later date than that of Ewald
--favours
but
does not actually require it.” For he views with a well-founded scepticism the
attempts that have been made to trace in it the definite presence of Greek
philosophical ideas
and even to discover Graecisms in the language. The style
of Ecclesiastes is indeed almost that of the Mishnah (2nd cent. a.d.)
and it must be a product of the time when that style was in process of
formation; but the alleged Graecisms do not appear to involve more than a
normal and intelligible extension of native Hebrew usage. (Professor S. R.
Driver.)
The Plan and Purpose of the Book
“Theologians
” says Herder
“have taken great pains to ascertain
the plan of the book; but the best course is to make as free a use of it as one
can
and for such a purpose the individual parts will serve.” A connected and
orderly argument
an elaborate arrangement of parts
is as little to be looked for
here as in the special portion of Proverbs which begins with chap. 10.
or as
in the alphabetical psalms. It is a part of the peculiarity of the book to have
no such plan; and this characteristic greatly conduces to the breadth of its
views and the variety of its modes of representation. The thread which connects
all the parts together is simply the pervading reference to the circumstances and
moods
the necessities and grievances of the time. This it is that gives it
unity; and its author sets a good example to all those who are called to
address the men of our own generation
in that he never soars away into the clouds
nor wastes his
time in general reflections and commonplaces
but keeps constantly in view the
very Jews who were then groaning under Persian tyranny
to whose sick souls it
was his first duty to administer the wholesome medicine with which God had
entrusted him: by
ever fresh strokes and features he depicts their condition to them
little by
little he communicates the wisdom that is from above
and in the varying turns
of his discourse sets before them constantly the most important and essentially
saving truths. To further the fear of God and life in Him is the great purpose
of the writer in all that he advances; hence his assertion of the vanity of all
earthly things
for he alone can fully appreciate what a precious treasure man
has in God
who has learnt by living experience the truth
“vanity of vanities
all is vanity.” (E. W. Hengstenberg
D. D.)
What
taken as a whole
are we to consider its moral? What was the
main lesson it was designed to teach?. Was the preacher whose experiences are
set forth meant to serve as a model to imitate or as a warning to avoid? For
such a variety of character as appears in the utterances of the writer is
almost without a precedent in so short a compass. Of course it is always more
or less a truth that by isolating the utterances of a writer
by extracting
single passages and detaching them from their context
we may make them appear
to teach very different truths
sometimes even contrary ones. But it is not
merely so here. In the Book of Ecclesiastes we pass rapidly through different
strata of thought and feeling. We pass from one temperature to another
from
something all but of the earth
earthy
to something almost heavenly in its
sense of beauty and goodness. At one moment we are listening to the confessions
of one who had tried pleasure and knew it was vanity
and at another we are at
the standpoint of the Stoic. Again
we seem very perilously near the scorn of
the cynic. At one moment we seem to be listening to the hopeless resignation of
the fatalist
and then again to the more hopeful resignation of the Christian.
There is what the artists call a want of keeping about the confessions and
conclusions of this writer. It is difficult to imagine a man passing so rapidly
from one to another
or
stranger still
being in all these moods at once
combining so many different men in one single personality. But this should not
surprise us if we thought more
still less be a stumbling-block to us in
implying inconsistency in the character represented. It may be that the very
inconsistency of the teaching is meant to read us most salutary lessons. The
phrase used by an eminent teacher
“the criticism of life
” is very applicable
to this Book of Ecclesiastes. It is from end to end a criticism of life
conducted by a critic who
having watched life’s experiences
sums up and
pronounces a verdict on it from the end of the life or from a period
approaching the end. As to the verdict itself there is no difference between
this critic and all those other critics of life whose writings constitute Holy
Scripture. He holds his place among those companions by virtue of having
arrived at the same conclusion as they
though by different paths of
experience. That of course makes the value
the incalculable value
of such a
book. It represents the testimony of those who have discovered the truth of the
greatest acts of life
though they have arrived at it through failures and humiliations
and not through success and triumph. It is one of the many eternal blessings
that we owe to the Bible that it records in so many different ways and affirms
the testimony (if the world to the things that are not of the world. We should
thank God for having taught us once more that there is no rest or satisfaction
for man in the things of sense. But it is quite another question whether the
process by which this truth is arrived at is either safe or sound for the
spirit of man to go through. The criticism of life is a wholly different thing
from the true use of life. It is no justification of a man’s existence when at
the end
when a balance has to be struck and a conclusion arrived at
that
conclusion is that most of the life has been a mistake and therefore a failure.
To have learned the facts about life
however true and however important
cannot make the life a beautiful
a sound
or a profitable thing. There is no
retrospective virtue in being able to draw a sound moral. The Preacher’s final
conclusion of the whole matter is a beacon light for other men if they are wise
enough to profit by it. (Canon Ainger.)
The Contents of the Book
The absence of a clear literary plan makes it difficult to arrange
the contents of the book systematically. Facts are looked at from different
sides and in various relations; the same subject recurs at different points;
and the conclusions drawn are not always formally consistent with one another.
Hence some have regarded the book as the work of a sceptic
or the expression
of varying moods and fancies. Yet a closer examination shows that this is not
the ease: the
conclusions the writer comes to at various stages are virtually the same
and when he
returns to his subject
it is to consider it on a different plane
or from
another side. He begins by stating his theme: All is vanity
there is nothing new under
the sun (Ecclesiastes 1:1-11)
i.e. human life has no substantial result. He then gives proof from
practical experience. He had tried
and found that vain is the quest for
knowledge (Ecclesiastes 1:12-18)
vain the pursuit
of pleasure (Ecclesiastes 2:1-10)
vain the profit of
labour and activity (Ecclesiastes 2:11-23). The conclusion is
that there is nothing better for a man than to eat and drink and enjoy the
fruit of his labour (Ecclesiastes 2:24); for all depends upon
God
and man can only submit (Ecclesiastes 2:24-26; Ecclesiastes 3:1-22). He then takes a
wider survey of human life and society (4-6.)
interspersing various maxims of conduct
to be followed in the prevailing “vanity”: and the question
“Who knoweth what is good for man in his
life?” suggests the praise of true wisdom
and calls forth maxims on the way to
attain it (Ecclesiastes 7:8.)
leading on to a
consideration of political wisdom (Ecclesiastes 9:10.). The dark background
is always the vanity or unprofitableness of life; yet the Preacher’s position is
not a pessimism nor a creed of despair. Life is good
though neither the best
nor the last good; benevolence is to be practised (Ecclesiastes 11:1-8); and the young
especially are exhorted to live joyfully
yet with a regard to a coming
judgment (Ecclesiastes 11:9-10; Ecclesiastes 12:1-8). (James
Robertson
D. D.)
The Canonicity of the Book
The collection of sacred writings which was held in reverence by
the Jews of Palestine in the days of our Lord and His apostles
consisted of
twenty-two books
and these included the Book of Ecclesiastes. The first
preachers of Christianity appear to have been in complete agreement with their
unconverted brethren as to the authority of their sacred books; and in point of
fact
all the books of the Jewish canon have always enjoyed unquestioned authority
in the Christian Church. It is no disparagement to the authority of the Book of
Ecclesiastes that no direct quotation from it is to be found in the New
Testament. A few coincidences of thought or expression have been pointed out (e.g.
Ecclesiastes 11:5 with John 3:8; Ecclesiastes 9:10 with John 9:4)
; but none of them is decisive enough to warrant our asserting with any
confidence that the Old
Testament passage was present to the mind of the New Testament writer. But
there is no reason to imagine that any of the apostles would have hesitated to
appeal to the authority of any book of the Jewish canon
if his subject had
required such a reference. In the Jewish schools there was controversy
about
the end of the first century of our era
whether the Book of Ecclesiastes was
one of those which “defile the hands”: that is to say
whether it was affected by
certain ceremonial ordinances
devised in order to guard the sacred books from
irreverent usage. We need not inquire what exact amount of authority might be
conceded to the book by those who then placed it on a lower level than the
rest; for the view which ultimately prevailed recognized it as entitled to all
the prerogatives of canonical Scripture. (G. Salmon
D. D.)
The Inspiration of the Book
The inspiration of Ecclesiastes is of an indirect kind. We are not
to read it as we should a prophet or a gospel. The conclusions at which the
writer arrives are often not Christian truths; the sentiments he expresses are
not Christian sentiments--indeed
they are frequently the very opposite. Not
indeed
that his book is quite without value on the positive side. “His
aphorisms
” says Driver
“are often pregnant and just; they are prompted by a
keen sense of right; and in his satire upon society he lays his finger upon
many a real blot
” and to this extent his teaching may have direct religious
value. Then
further
he has permanently voiced a mood of constant recurrence
in human history; his work
as Dean Plumptre says
“meets the necessity of a
state of mind from which
perhaps
no period of the world’s history has been
quite exempt
and to which periods
like our own
of increasing luxury and
advancing knowledge are especially liable
” and there is positive advantage in
that. But
after all
to teach direct religious truth was not in the commission
which the Holy Ghost gave to “Koheleth.” His work was written to state all the
difficulties of life rather than to solve them. It is ‘inspired
not merely in
spite of
but because of
the fact that it often rouses our whole nature to
protest against the conclusion at which it arrives. The value of Ecclesiastes
consists in this:
that it shows how
little the world can satisfy the soul of man apart from God; that one can drink
deep of every earthly pleasure and yet be left hungering and thirsting; that
the highest culture and the most varied experience can do nothing to solve the
problem of existence by their own unaided efforts; in a word
its mission is to
render us dissatisfied with the merely sensuous pleasures of earth
to sharpen
our longing for the unseen things of the spiritual life
and to teach the soul
there is no rest for it but in God. It is the thoroughness with which it
performs this function which proves it a divinely inspired book--a book without
which the Bible would be incomplete
lacking one of its most essential
elements. (A. M. Mackay
B. A.).
ECCLESIASTES
INTRODUCTION
The Title and Date of the Book
The title of this book is derived from the Greek Septuagint
where
it appears as the representative of the Hebrew “Koheleth
” which has been
variously rendered preacher or debater. “Koheleth” is used throughout the work
as s synonym of “the son of David
king in Jerusalem
” i.e. Solomon; but
there can be little doubt that Solomon was not the real author
and that his
name was only assumed by a well-known and legitimate device for a literary
purpose. The first to discern the truth was Luther
who assigned the work to
the time of the Maccabees (circa 150 b.c.)
. The late date rests mainly on the evidence of the language
which is not that
of the ancient Hebrew
but of a decadent time
when many Aramaic words crept
into the Jewish vocabulary. (A. M. Mackay
B. A.)
We may mention three grounds for questioning the belief that
Solomon was the author.
1. The language shows traces of Hebrew words and forms later than his
time
and occurring only in such Old Testament books as Malachi
Daniel
Ezra.
2. Certain expressions and utterances cannot be attributed to Solomon:
(1)
“I
Koheleth
was king” (Ecclesiastes 1:12)
as though he had now
ceased to be such;
3. The tone of the book and the character of its teaching not only
suggest the period when the Persian empire had been overthrown
and Alexander
the Great’s successors had established Greek culture throughout the civilized
world
but also bear distinct
traces of Stoic and Epicurean philosophy. For the former
see Ecclesiastes 1:5-7; Ecclesiastes 1:9-11; Ecclesiastes 1:17; Ecclesiastes 2:12; Ecclesiastes 3:14-15; Ecclesiastes 7:25; Ecclesiastes 8:8; Ecclesiastes 9:11; Ecclesiastes 10:18; and for the latter
Ecclesiastes 2:24; Ecclesiastes 3:22; Ecclesiastes 5:18; Ecclesiastes 7:7; Ecclesiastes 8:9; Ecclesiastes 8:14; Ecclesiastes 9:7; Ecclesiastes 9:16; Ecclesiastes 10:16-18. We may observe
that the claim
such as it is
to personate the great king
is more conspicuous
in the earlier part of the book. Like Solomon
Koheleth had made trial of
wisdom
of wealth
and of the pleasures of art. But
whatever may have been his
thoughts
with respect to the darker side of Solomon’s closing years
the great
king evidently fades gradually from his mental vision
and he proceeds in the
remainder of this treatise to give us undisguisedly his own attitude towards
life and its problems. Here we plainly have before us in no sense the Solomon
of Jewish history
but a philosophical Jew of the later centuries before
Christ. (A. W. Streane
D. D.)
There is general agreement among the abler modern critics that the
book was written somewhere between the later period of Persian rule (circa 840
b.c.)
and some date before the Macedonian supremacy came to an end (say circa 200
b.c.). Within these limits it is impossible to fix any date with certainty
but
there is much probability in the theory originated by Mr. Tyler that the author
was a wealthy Jew who lived at Alexandria
and there in luxury and
philosophical culture sought compensation for the loss of national and
religious hopes which had left his nature impoverished; and who in old age
recorded how vain his quest had been. (A. M. Mackay
B. A.)
To me
it seems impossible to read verse after verse without
feeling that they have little or no meaning unless we look on them as the
outcome of a time of suffering and oppression. They seem to point steadily to
an age when national freedom was gone
national life extinguished for a time;
the spirit of freedom dead; the high memories of the past forgotten; the
Messianic hopes not yet rekindled; when the God of Hosts seemed far removed;
when all around was dark and gloomy; in days
it may be
when Persian
or
Syrian
or Egyptian kings ruled over the land of David as a province of their
kingdom
and the hopes of Israel seemed dead and gone--buried and out of sight.
Then
it might well come to pass that the spirit of some son of Israel was
stirred within him to try to reach his people’s heart
not by spoken word or
the stirring address of a Jewish prophet--the day of prophecy was over; not by
the music of a psalm--the psalmist’s harp was silent; not by a great poem like
the Book of Job--such poetry had died out of the nation’s heart; but by putting
forth in this half-articulate and ambiguous form a soliloquy or discourse
call
it which you will
breathing the very spirit of that later age--its sadness
its languor
its passive and oriental aequiesecnce
almost lethargy
under
suffering. It bears the stamp
from first to last
of dejection
if not of
despair. Yet its still unrelinquished
pervading sense of the fear of God as
the end of life; its firm hold of the inherent distinction between right and
wrong; its refusal
in spite of all that seems to cloud the hope
to part with
the conviction of a judgment
a righteous judgment
yet to come; its counsels
of activity
patience
cheerfulness
prudence
calmness
sympathy with
suffering
stand out amidst the wreck and decay of all around. (Dean
Bradley.)
Ewald has advanced a twofold argument against assigning the
composition of this book to the time of Ezra and Nehemiah
and in favour of
“the last century of the Persian dominion.” The first is
that the writer
complains
“in an entirely new and unheard-of manner
of an excess of
bookmaking and reading.” It cannot
however
be shown that a difference in this
respect existed between the last century and the last but one of the Persian
rule; and to a time subsequent to this it is by no means allowable to look. The
second reason urged is
that “such harrowing pain and desperate cries of agony
did not characterize the earlier period of the Persian rule.” It must have
become
Ewald thinks
in its last years
more oppressive and violent. On this
matter
however
history furnishes no authentic information. (E. W.
Hengstenberg
D. D.)
Professor Cheyne
in agreement with Ewald and Delitzsch
assigns
the book to the Persian period
though rightly and fairly admitting that “the
evidence of the Hebrew favours a later date than that of Ewald
--favours
but
does not actually require it.” For he views with a well-founded scepticism the
attempts that have been made to trace in it the definite presence of Greek
philosophical ideas
and even to discover Graecisms in the language. The style
of Ecclesiastes is indeed almost that of the Mishnah (2nd cent. a.d.)
and it must be a product of the time when that style was in process of
formation; but the alleged Graecisms do not appear to involve more than a
normal and intelligible extension of native Hebrew usage. (Professor S. R.
Driver.)
The Plan and Purpose of the Book
“Theologians
” says Herder
“have taken great pains to ascertain
the plan of the book; but the best course is to make as free a use of it as one
can
and for such a purpose the individual parts will serve.” A connected and
orderly argument
an elaborate arrangement of parts
is as little to be looked
for here as in the special portion of Proverbs which begins with chap. 10.
or
as in the alphabetical psalms. It is a part of the peculiarity of the book to
have no such plan; and this characteristic greatly conduces to the breadth of
its views and the variety of its modes of representation. The thread which
connects all the parts together is simply the pervading reference to the circumstances and
moods
the necessities and grievances of the time. This it is that gives it
unity; and its author sets a good example to all those who are called to
address the men of our own generation
in that he never soars away into the clouds
nor wastes his
time in general reflections and commonplaces
but keeps constantly in view the
very Jews who were then groaning under Persian tyranny
to whose sick souls it
was his first duty to administer the wholesome medicine with which God had
entrusted him: by
ever fresh strokes and features he depicts their condition to them
little by
little he communicates the wisdom that is from above
and in the varying turns
of his discourse sets before them constantly the most important and essentially
saving truths. To further the fear of God and life in Him is the great purpose
of the writer in all that he advances; hence his assertion of the vanity of all
earthly things
for he alone can fully appreciate what a precious treasure man
has in God
who has learnt by living experience the truth
“vanity of vanities
all is vanity.” (E. W. Hengstenberg
D. D.)
What
taken as a whole
are we to consider its moral? What was the
main lesson it was designed to teach?. Was the preacher whose experiences are
set forth meant to serve as a model to imitate or as a warning to avoid? For
such a variety of character as appears in the utterances of the writer is
almost without a precedent in so short a compass. Of course it is always more
or less a truth that by isolating the utterances of a writer
by extracting
single passages and detaching them from their context
we may make them appear
to teach very different truths
sometimes even contrary ones. But it is not
merely so here. In the Book of Ecclesiastes we pass rapidly through different
strata of thought and feeling. We pass from one temperature to another
from something
all but of the earth
earthy
to something almost heavenly in its sense of
beauty and goodness. At one moment we are listening to the confessions of one
who had tried pleasure and knew it was vanity
and at another we are at the
standpoint of the Stoic. Again
we seem very perilously near the scorn of the
cynic. At one moment we seem to be listening to the hopeless resignation of the
fatalist
and then again to the more hopeful resignation of the Christian.
There is what the artists call a want of keeping about the confessions and
conclusions of this writer. It is difficult to imagine a man passing so rapidly
from one to another
or
stranger still
being in all these moods at once
combining so many different men in one single personality. But this should not
surprise us if we thought more
still less be a stumbling-block to us in
implying inconsistency in the character represented. It may be that the very
inconsistency of the teaching is meant to read us most salutary lessons. The
phrase used by an eminent teacher
“the criticism of life
” is very applicable
to this Book of Ecclesiastes. It is from end to end a criticism of life
conducted by a critic who
having watched life’s experiences
sums up and
pronounces a verdict on it from the end of the life or from a period
approaching the end. As to the verdict itself there is no difference between
this critic and all those other critics of life whose writings constitute Holy
Scripture. He holds his place among those companions by virtue of having arrived
at the same conclusion as they
though by different paths of experience. That
of course makes the value
the incalculable value
of such a book. It
represents the testimony of those who have discovered the truth of the greatest
acts of life
though they have arrived at it through failures and humiliations
and not through success and triumph. It is one of the many eternal blessings
that we owe to the Bible that it records in so many different ways and affirms
the testimony (if the world to the things that are not of the world. We should
thank God for having taught us once more that there is no rest or satisfaction
for man in the things of sense. But it is quite another question whether the
process by which this truth is arrived at is either safe or sound for the
spirit of man to go through. The criticism of life is a wholly different thing
from the true use of life. It is no justification of a man’s existence when at
the end
when a balance has to be struck and a conclusion arrived at
that
conclusion is that most of the life has been a mistake and therefore a failure.
To have learned the facts about life
however true and however important
cannot make the life a beautiful
a sound
or a profitable thing. There is no
retrospective virtue in being able to draw a sound moral. The Preacher’s final
conclusion of the whole matter is a beacon light for other men if they are wise
enough to profit by it. (Canon Ainger.)
The Contents of the Book
The absence of a clear literary plan makes it difficult to arrange
the contents of the book systematically. Facts are looked at from different
sides and in various relations; the same subject recurs at different points;
and the conclusions drawn are not always formally consistent with one another.
Hence some have regarded the book as the work of a sceptic
or the expression
of varying moods and fancies. Yet a closer examination shows that this is not
the ease: the
conclusions the writer comes to at various stages are virtually the same
and when he
returns to his subject
it is to consider it on a different plane
or from
another side. He begins by stating his theme: All is vanity
there is nothing new under
the sun (Ecclesiastes 1:1-11)
i.e. human life has no substantial result. He then gives proof from
practical experience. He had tried
and found that vain is the quest for
knowledge (Ecclesiastes 1:12-18)
vain the pursuit
of pleasure (Ecclesiastes 2:1-10)
vain the profit of
labour and activity (Ecclesiastes 2:11-23). The conclusion is
that there is nothing better for a man than to eat and drink and enjoy the
fruit of his labour (Ecclesiastes 2:24); for all depends upon
God
and man can only submit (Ecclesiastes 2:24-26; Ecclesiastes 3:1-22). He then takes a
wider survey of human life and society (4-6.)
interspersing various maxims of conduct
to be followed in the prevailing “vanity”: and the question
“Who knoweth what is good for man in his
life?” suggests the praise of true wisdom
and calls forth maxims on the way to
attain it (Ecclesiastes 7:8.)
leading on to a
consideration of political wisdom (Ecclesiastes 9:10.). The dark background
is always the vanity or unprofitableness of life; yet the Preacher’s position
is not a pessimism nor a creed of despair. Life is good
though neither the
best nor the last good; benevolence is to be practised (Ecclesiastes 11:1-8); and the young
especially are exhorted to live joyfully
yet with a regard to a coming
judgment (Ecclesiastes 11:9-10; Ecclesiastes 12:1-8). (James
Robertson
D. D.)
The Canonicity of the Book
The collection of sacred writings which was held in reverence by
the Jews of Palestine in the days of our Lord and His apostles
consisted of
twenty-two books
and these included the Book of Ecclesiastes. The first
preachers of Christianity appear to have been in complete agreement with their
unconverted brethren as to the authority of their sacred books; and in point of
fact
all the books of the Jewish canon have always enjoyed unquestioned
authority in the Christian Church. It is no disparagement to the authority of
the Book of Ecclesiastes that no direct quotation from it is to be found in the
New Testament. A few coincidences of thought or expression have been pointed
out (e.g. Ecclesiastes 11:5 with John 3:8; Ecclesiastes 9:10 with John 9:4)
; but none of them is decisive enough to warrant our asserting with any
confidence that the Old
Testament passage was present to the mind of the New Testament writer. But
there is no reason to imagine that any of the apostles would have hesitated to
appeal to the authority of any book of the Jewish canon
if his subject had
required such a reference. In the Jewish schools there was controversy
about
the end of the first century of our era
whether the Book of Ecclesiastes was
one of those which “defile the hands”: that is to say
whether it was affected by
certain ceremonial ordinances
devised in order to guard the sacred books from
irreverent usage. We need not inquire what exact amount of authority might be
conceded to the book by those who then placed it on a lower level than the
rest; for the view which ultimately prevailed recognized it as entitled to all
the prerogatives of canonical Scripture. (G. Salmon
D. D.)
The Inspiration of the Book
The inspiration of Ecclesiastes is of an indirect kind. We are not
to read it as we should a prophet or a gospel. The conclusions at which the
writer arrives are often not Christian truths; the sentiments he expresses are
not Christian sentiments--indeed
they are frequently the very opposite. Not
indeed
that his book is quite without value on the positive side. “His
aphorisms
” says Driver
“are often pregnant and just; they are prompted by a keen
sense of right; and in his satire upon society he lays his finger upon many a
real blot
” and to this extent his teaching may have direct religious value.
Then
further
he has permanently voiced a mood of constant recurrence in human
history; his work
as Dean Plumptre says
“meets the necessity of a state of
mind from which
perhaps
no period of the world’s history has been quite
exempt
and to which periods
like our own
of increasing luxury and advancing
knowledge are especially liable
” and there is positive advantage in that. But
after all
to teach direct religious truth was not in the commission which the
Holy Ghost gave to “Koheleth.” His work was written to state all the
difficulties of life rather than to solve them. It is ‘inspired
not merely in
spite of
but because of
the fact that it often rouses our whole nature to
protest against the conclusion at which it arrives. The value of Ecclesiastes
consists in this:
that it shows how
little the world can satisfy the soul of man apart from God; that one can drink
deep of every earthly pleasure and yet be left hungering and thirsting; that
the highest culture and the most varied experience can do nothing to solve the
problem of existence by their own unaided efforts; in a word
its mission is to
render us dissatisfied with the merely sensuous pleasures of earth
to sharpen
our longing for the unseen things of the spiritual life
and to teach the soul
there is no rest for it but in God. It is the thoroughness with which it
performs this function which proves it a divinely inspired book--a book without
which the Bible would be incomplete
lacking one of its most essential
elements. (A. M. Mackay
B. A.).
──《The Biblical Illustrator》