The Book of Ecclesiastes - Part 1

I was thinking about this, and I had this on my mind anyway, but, you know, Mr. Dobson is going through Acts, and Dr. Hausmann is going through Daniel, and it's pretty easy to continue on with sermons like that, when you've got ready-made Bible material. And that's fine! I mean, we were encouraged at this year's conference about laboring in the Word, and that we really need to dig into the Bible and to understand what its message is. And so I thought I would go through something that I need to go through anyway. I've gone through a good part of it, but I'm not finished with it, and I need to finish with it, and this will actually help me to do that. And that is the book of Ecclesiastes, and going through the Bible reading program, we've covered the entire Old Testament except for Ecclesiastes. And actually, I've written a fair amount on Ecclesiastes already, but we've published none of it, and we want to wait until it's all done, and actually to wear past Ecclesiastes into the New Testament before we start publishing that. But I thought it would be good to go through Ecclesiastes, because like I say, it will benefit you, but it will also benefit me, because it will press upon me to get it done. And it will be online, and we'll all be better for that. So today, I want to start out with an introduction to Ecclesiastes, basically. And I don't know if I'll get into much of the text. We will look at a number of verses in the book and elsewhere, just as we're considering this book and its place in the Bible, why it's there, who wrote it, what is the purpose. We're going to be looking at a number of these issues. I would like you to start in Ecclesiastes. I'd like you to turn in your Bibles to Ecclesiastes, sort of tucked away in there between the book of Proverbs and Song of Solomon. It's got a little bit of a narrow window there, right before you get to the major prophets. But it is a fairly substantial book. I mean, it's 12 chapters, and it has a whole lot to say. When the arrangement of the Hebrew Bible, Ecclesiastes, is the last poetic and wisdom book within the writings division of the Old Testament. That is, in the Old Testament, the Jewish arrangement, and you see that reflected in the New Testament, mentions this is the law and the prophets and the writings. And that's, they're not organized in the way that our Bibles are. They're put into those three major groupings. And the last of the wisdom books within the writings is the book of Ecclesiastes. It's not the last book in the writings, but it's the last of the wisdom books. And it has been placed there as the fourth of the five megaloth. The megaloth, that means scrolls, is referring to festival scrolls, each of which is read during a different sacred occasion. In Jewish tradition, Ecclesiastes is read on the Sabbath during the Feast of Tabernacles. It's interesting because Tabernacles is a book of, I mean, Tabernacles is a feast of great joy. And a lot of times we think of Ecclesiastes as sort of a somber reflection. And in some respects it is. But it also has a lot to say about joy, and we'll get to that here very shortly. The book's title derives from its first verse, which begins in a number of English translations with the phrase, the words of the preacher. If you look here, Ecclesiastes 1.1, the words of the preacher. The Hebrew word translated preacher is used as the book's title in the Hebrew Bible, and that is koh-hel-eth. A lot of times you'll see it spelled as q-o-h-e-l-e-t-h, koh-hel-eth. Sometimes it's spelled koh-hel-eth without a t-h, it's a t in the end. And sometimes it's spelled with a k instead of a q, koh-hel-eth.

From a root meaning gather or collect. One commentator notes, and this is from Michael Eaton in the Tyndale Old Testament commentaries. He says that the root koh-hel is used of gathering or assembling people. And by the way, koh-hel is an interesting word because it's a word that's used for the assembly of Israel. It sort of translates into the New Testament as the church, the ecclesia.

The root koh-hel is used of gathering or assembling people, but not of collecting things. There are verbal forms, nikal, to assemble or to be gathered, and hikil, to gather an assembly. Thus, it's likely that koh-hel-eth is a name, meaning one who gathers an assembly to address it. Basically, that's where you get the idea of the preacher. You've gathered the people to address them. Yet retaining an official force so that it can be used with the definite article, the koh-hel-eth, the preacher. The meaning is easily seen in 1 Kings 8, 1 through 2, where Solomon gathers, it says, he call the people of Israel for worship, prayer, and instruction.

So Solomon gathered the people, and he gathered the people to address them as well. Preacher, this is continuing in that commentary, is as good a translation as any. So the preacher, that's basically what we're talking about, the words of the preacher. That is the book we're discussing. Some, though, deeming preacher to religious distinction or limited to public spoken exhortation, prefer the word teacher, stressing the instructive function of the book. But preacher can fit the public proclamation of godly wisdom, even if it's through writing rather than spoken addressed.

I mean, basically, it's a preaching in written form. Of course, it's possible that the book was originally delivered through a public spoken address. I actually kind of believe this, that this was actually something that was spoken to the people at one point. The Septuagint, the ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible translated koh-el-es as the Greek form achlesiastes with Ks, achlesiastes, that's where we get that in the Greek, using this name as its title for the book, derived from the word achlesia, the called out assembly, the congregation, the church.

And again, it simply means the preacher here, adopted from the Greek, the Latin achlesiastes with the Cs, as we spell it, means speaker before an assembly. And that's what is noted in the new open Bible. Now, who is this unnamed preacher? Because it doesn't actually say who the preacher is if you read through this book. Well, evidence favors identifying him with King Solomon, though many modern scholars reject that notion, at least the notion of his authorship. A few accept Solomon as the preacher, but they think that the author of the book is someone else who's quoting him maybe fictitiously, like pretending to be Solomon, based in part on the recurring phrase, says the preacher.

You'll see if you read through here, it says, this, this, this says the preacher, this, this, this says the preacher. However, I want you to notice down in verse 12 where it says, I, the preacher, notice that? I, the preacher. And that should dispel this notion because, you know, the occurrences of says the preacher is really the author quoting himself in the third person as a teaching and literary device. That's all that is. Now, what factors point to Solomon? And by the way, I want to mention here, I, again, we probably won't get into a great deal of the text of the book today.

There, there will be verses I'll have you look at, like what we just did, and we'll go through a number of others. But we really need to get the, the introduction to this down and know who said this and why it was said. And so I'm actually glad everybody's here today because if you were to come in later, you'll be able to pick up on that much easier if you were not, you know, to, to miss one of the, one of these or something like that.

So it's good to get the introduction before we go through all of this. So what factors point to Solomon? Note that he is referred to as, this in verse one, it says, the words of the preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem. Now, since son can mean descendant, which it can, you know, Christ was the son of David too, this by itself could indicate any king of David's dynasty in Jerusalem. But there are more details given. He further states, and this is going back to verse 12, I, the preacher, was king over Israel in Jerusalem. Okay, this fits only Solomon.

Since every Davidic king in Jerusalem after him was king only over Judah, not over Israel. But some argue that the phrase was king because he says, I was king, shows that Solomon couldn't be meant since he was king until his death. But the wording would make sense from a king writing late in his life after a long reign. He'd be talking about how his life went. Moreover, several commentaries point out that the phrase could be translated, I have been king, indicating an ongoing situation, not one that stopped before he wrote this. And some note that the meaning could be, I became king, because the verb form here, Hayah, can have these different senses here. As an introductory statement to his, you know, the exploratory pursuits he talks about after this, his position giving him the means for this great study that he engages in here. So, you know, he says, I, the preacher, became king over Israel in Jerusalem, and I set my heart to seek and search out by wisdom. It could be that. But again, it could be, I have been king. We don't know exactly, we don't always know exactly how these should be interpreted, but all of these work. And it doesn't take away from being Solomon in that case. A further identifier is the preacher having said to himself in verse 16. Notice this, look, I have attained greatness and have gained more wisdom than all who were before me in Jerusalem. My heart has understood great wisdom and knowledge. Now, what later king and wisdom teacher in Jerusalem could legitimately claim to be wiser than all before him if Solomon, the wisest ever, and we're told that in 1 Kings 3 and 4, by the way, that Solomon was the wisest ever, was his ancestor. In other words, if this was a later king in Jerusalem, and he says, I was wiser than all that are before me, how could that be true if Solomon was before him? Because Solomon was the wisest ever. So, it doesn't make any sense that it was somebody else other than Solomon in that case. Now, added to the unsurpassed wisdom, the preacher's pleasure-seeking, we read about that in chapter 2, verses 1 through 3, and his great achievements that we read about in chapter 2, verses 4 through 6, and his unparalleled wealth, we read about that in chapter 2, verses 7 through 10, fits nobody else but Solomon. So, some take the claims of greater wisdom and wealth than all who were before me in Jerusalem. And you'll see that in 1.16 we just read, and also it's mentioned in chapter 2, verses 7 and 9. He says he had greater wealth and wisdom than all who were before me in Jerusalem.

To me, well, there must have been numerous kings before the preacher. Why would he say it that way? So, he couldn't be Solomon because Solomon was only preceded in Jerusalem by his father, David. There weren't a bunch of kings of Israel in Jerusalem before that. But prior kings are not necessarily implied here. It doesn't say, you know, then all the kings that were before me, it just says, then all who were before me, which would mean just prior wealthy and wise people. So, he could say, you know, all the wise and wealthy people that were here before me, I was greater than all of them. And even if prior kings is implied, it should be recognized that David and Solomon were preceded by Jebusite kings in Jerusalem. They were not the first kings in Jerusalem. There were many kings before them in that very city where they reigned. And in fact, there were some Jebusites still living there. Remember, David bought the threshing floor of Arana, the Jebusite. I mean, there were still some Jebusites that even lived in that in that city. So, it wasn't a whole entirely displacing the Jebusites. Some were still there. Additionally, the Proverbs in this book, and you can see those in like Ecclesiastes chapter 7 and chapter 10, they are similar to those in the book of Proverbs, which is a work of Solomon for sure. We are told specifically that the preacher, and this is in chapter 12, if you look back there, in chapter 12 of Ecclesiastes verse 9, it says that the preacher quote, pondered and sought out and set in order many Proverbs. Now, Hezekiah did that later too, by the way, because some of his Proverbs are in the book of Proverbs. But clearly, I mean, this fits Solomon. Like Proverbs, this book is addressed to my son. You see that in chapter 12 verse 12, which here could refer to an actual son or just the reader as a pupil of the wisdom teacher. Same principle is applied over in the book of Proverbs. Jewish Talmudic tradition affirms Solomon's authorship of Ecclesiastes. We noted this in our Bible reading program's introduction to the Song of Solomon. The tradition says that King Hezekiah and his colleagues, presumably including the prophet Isaiah, wrote Isaiah, Proverbs, the Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes. That's actually in the Talmud in Baba Bathra 15a. But that sounds weird to say. What was he talking about? Hezekiah wrote these books, Song of Solomon, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes. But with the exception of Isaiah writing his own book, because he was a colleague of Hezekiah. So Isaiah definitely wrote Isaiah. We can believe that. This wording about that these guys wrote these various books likely refers to scribal and editorial work in compiling Scripture and transmitting Scripture. In other words, they put it into a scriptural form as part of the canon of the Bible.

As further noted in the Bible reading program Song of Solomon introduction, the Midrash Raba, a Jewish commentary written before the mid-ninth century, contends that the song was written early in Solomon's life, Proverbs when he was somewhat older, and Ecclesiastes later in life. That's what they believe. So you've got this sort of order to think. Song of Solomon is a young man. Proverbs is a little bit older. Ecclesiastes is late in life. They give this explanation in the Midrash Raba. When a man is young, he composes songs. When he grows older, he makes sententious or wise remarks. And when he becomes an old man, he speaks of the vanity of things. And indeed, the perspective throughout the book of Ecclesiastes does seem to be that of an old man looking back over his life, especially considering the description of old age that we find in chapter 12 verses 1 through 5. Remember, we were talking about remember your creator before these other things happen. He starts talking about these things that happen to your body as you get old in chapter 12 verses 1 through 5. In light of the emphatic, righteous conclusion of the book then, which we'll look at in a minute, if Solomon wrote it near the end of his life, then that would seem to indicate, even though we have no record of it anywhere else in Scripture, that he eventually came to repent of his wayward years of debauchery and going along with the idolatry of his pagan lives that we read about in 1 Kings 11. But this is by no means clear. We don't know this for sure that he repented at the end. But if this is something that he wrote near the end of his life, it would be a good indication that he probably did. I certainly hope that's the case. I definitely hope that he did come to see that. But again, though, a number of modern scholars reject Solomon's authorship on various grounds besides the things we've already talked about. Some ask why Solomon would use a pseudonym rather than his own name as he does use in the Proverbs and Song of Songs. His name is there. Solomon is mentioned there in both books. So why not in this book? Why not in Ecclesiastes? Why is it just say, the preacher who was king in Jerusalem? Perhaps, and this is just a conjecture. We don't know this, but it may be that he wanted to stress his role as wisdom teacher above his kingship and fame. After all, part of his point was to show the worthlessness of personal glory in this life.

His most valuable contribution was not his notable reign, but the wisdom and lessons he would pass on to later generations. The New American commentary says in its introduction to the book, the use of the name the teacher or the preacher indicates that the author is distancing himself from his role as absolute monarch and taking on the mantle of a sage. Both the name the teacher and the use of third person references to himself allow him to do this. The device is certainly a literary success. What emerges from Ecclesiastes is not a royal pronouncement, but the reflection of a wise man who has been king. As we read the book, we are more and more absorbed in the words not of King Solomon, but of Solomon becoming the teacher. So it's a different perspective here. It could also be that if the book was written late in his life, Solomon may have been concerned that his name now had a bad association. Here's the lessons from Solomon. Everybody wants to go, well, why should I listen to what you have to say? Look what you've done. It may not have been such a great thing. And maybe other later editors could have done that too. They could have changed it for that reason. We don't know. Or it may be, and this is a very good possibility, that the title preacher was simply a well-known one for Solomon in his day, even though we have no record of that. We saw that Solomon gathered the nation at the time of the temple's dedication during the fall festival season. He gave a religious address to those assembled, and he led them in public prayer and worship. And maybe that became a regular practice during the annual Feast of Tabernacles when people would come there to worship. Or even if not, or if such a practice lapsed when he started turning away from God, it could be that the king late in his life addressed the assembled nation at the feast with a grand speech that was recorded as the words of the preacher, the son of David, king, and Jerusalem. That may be what happened. We don't know for sure, but it's an interesting thought. Now, whether Solomon preached just once at the temple's dedication regularly at feast time, or just once again near the end of his life with the substance of the book of Ecclesiastes, this could explain why Ecclesiastes, the words of the preacher, came to be read among the Jews during the Feast of Tabernacles. It's an interesting thought. In any case, this pseudonym of preacher does not rule out Solomon, for why would any king use a pseudonym? I mean, it's clearly written by somebody who was king, but why would any king use a pseudonym? Say, well, it's not Solomon. Why didn't he use his name? Well, he'd say, well, why wasn't it ever king? Why didn't he use his name? In Solomon's case, we know that he did preach to the people on at least one occasion, and this was probably not an isolated incident, so that could justify the term. But again, some contend the writer was not really a king at all.

As the perspective of some passages in Ecclesiastes supposedly could not come from a king who was in a position to deal with injustice, the Expositor's Bible commentary lists some examples of this. For example, sorrow for the oppression of the weak is mentioned in chapter 4, verse 1. It's like, why would the king be saying, oh, you know, why are they letting all this stuff happen in the country? In other words, if he was the king, he could do something about it. Why is he just sitting there lamenting all the injustice? That's an idea that this couldn't have come from the king. And for corruption in government, as mentioned in chapter 5, verses 8 and 9, the proper attitude to the king from the subject's point of view is mentioned in chapter 8, verses 2 through 5, and also chapter 10, verse 20. And unworthy rulers who do not properly distinguish good subjects from bad is mentioned in chapter 9, verses 1 and 2, continuing expositors. If Solomon felt so strongly about these wrongs, surely he would have put them right. But the same commentary then counters, this is far from conclusive. A king or president may be aware of mismanagement by local authorities, however much he may want to rectify it. Solomon had a number of local officers, mentioned in 1 Kings 4, and as always happens, complaints from his subject would come to his notice from time to time. Unfortunately, he sagged at his moral actions as he grew older, both in concessions he made to his pagan lives, 1 Kings 11, and in his treatment of his subjects, as we read in 1 Kings 12. Some men know what is wrong and make a profession of repentance, but never clinch a decision by putting things right. With local rulers of considerable influence, Solomon probably found himself in the position of his father, David, who excused a murder with these words, talking about, you know, these nephews of his that were in government positions like Joab, and he said, these sons of Zeruiah are too strong for me. That's what David said in 2 Samuel 3 39.

And he was king, but he was saying that these guys were too strong for him. Like, he just didn't know how to handle the situation. On the positive side, according to a fair translation of Ecclesiastes chapter 5 verses 8 through 9, the rule of a king is contrasted favorably with the rule of power-hungry governors and their servants. So that could be from the perspective of a king. Again, that's in chapter 5 verses 8 through 9. But most scholars who are against Solomon's authorship argue on the basis of linguistic evidence, supposedly pointing to a late date for the book. I think it's good that you are aware of this. I mean, you don't necessarily need to spend very much time in this, but this is where you get this kind of stuff that I'm about to tell you is where you get most of the of the criticism against Scripture is where they try to find these historical proofs that the Bible couldn't have been written by who it was said it was written by because of the style of the language or the certain words that are in there. And this stuff gets beat to death. And a lot of people just accept it. And they'll think, well, it must be must be the case. And they'll lose respect for the authority of the Bible because they think, well, it can't be authoritative because we know from history that this couldn't have been written this way. Well, anyway, so I think it's good to know this. So they'll say there was a very late date for this book, the Persian period or later. They allege a high number of Aramaic words in constructions, some taking the language as a Hebraized Aramaic. By the way, Aramaic was the court language of a lot of Middle Eastern countries, but it became the language of the Jews after their time of captivity in Babylon.

They picked up the Aramaic language. They also, these critics, point to apparently Persian words, partis, which is in the plural in chapter 2 verse 5 translated orchards or parks, and pitgam in chapter 8 verse 11, which is translated sentence or decree. Some even see the Hebrew of the book as transitional to Mishnehic Hebrew of the late Second Temple period. So they say, this is a really late book that was like right around the New Testament period. That is just not true. A conservative scholarship has challenged all this linguistic evaluation. The New American commentary says, in a major study, Daniel Frederick's argues that ecclesiastes cannot come from the post-exilic period, that is, after the time in Babylon. His work, together with other recent studies, calls for a major reassessment of the date of the book. Frederick contends, for example, that no grounds exist for asserting Mishnehic Hebrew influence. He argues that the language is a pre-exilic, again, before the captivity, northern dialect. Because that was right next to Syria, by the way. Northern Israel was next to Syria, Aram, which is where you get Aramaic from. He argues that the language is this northern dialect. He suggests that features of this dialect were later incorporated into Mishnehic Hebrew, thus the similarity with Kohlath. Furthermore, the same commentary, Frederick examines 48 alleged Aramaicisms and concludes that only seven terms are of Aramaic origin, of which four are attested elsewhere in early biblical Hebrew. That is, books that we know are definitely from an earlier time. What Aramaicisms do exist, however, by no means prove that Ecclesiastes is a late work, because Aramaic itself existed from early times. And in the Bible, Aramasms are especially likely to occur in wisdom and poetic texts. Another thing to note, moreover, as we pointed out elsewhere, Aram, again, ancient Syria, that's what Aramaic comes from, was incorporated into David's empire. Let's recall that. King David conquered Syria, Aramaic, and Solomon inherited that. So he and his cosmopolitan court were no doubt familiar with its language and may have adopted terms into Hebrew speech. That would be very logical that you would have that happen. And as to the apparent Persian loanwords, this was also addressed in the Song of Solomon, as that book also contains the word partes, orchards, or gardens. The New American commentary further notes on Ecclesiastes, the presence of the two Persian words seems to be a reputable proof of a late date for the book. That's what they would say. Here you go. Late date proof. But here, too, the matter is not as settled as it appears, this commentary says. Scholar Gleason Archer says the words could be of Sanskrit origin and that they may have entered which came before Persian, even, and that they may have entered the language during Solomon's period of extensive foreign trade. Solomon was dealing with countries all around far and wide. The word pit-gam, that's for the decree or sentence, alone is slender evidence since we have, in fact, no idea when it entered the language. Frederick notes that Persian influence and vocabulary spread through the ancient Near East long before the establishment of the Persian Empire and that the words need not have entered Hebrew through Aramaic as is commonly assumed.

Another possibility, this is not from the commentary, but this is just a possibility that I would give, is that a later editor such as Ezra, who lived in the post-exilic Persian period, updated the text of the book in places where Solomon's language had become archaic and not readily understandable. We find this in other places in the Bible. You can even read in Exodus place names that were not used at the time those events occurred. Those place names came later and it's evidence of some editing, and it may be that it was edited so that people would know what places were being talked about. Well, language changed over time, too. You've got biblical Hebrew spanning a huge amount of time. And from the time of Solomon, who lived in the 900s, and down to the time of Ezra, who was in the 400s, that's 500 years. So we could expect that some words had changed in meaning. And when you had some of the scribes like Ezra sitting here with these words that people wouldn't necessarily know what they were, remember he was reintroducing the Bible to people who had forgotten the Bible. It was sometimes necessary maybe to update a few of these words with words that they knew what they would understand. And maybe they wouldn't have understand the original word that was there. But we don't know that, but I think that's a good possibility. And it should be also noted that some scholars have contended that the book's language shows Phoenician or Canaanite influence, implying it does. That would mean an early date. But, and this is from the same commentary, the theory of Phoenician providence for ecclesiastes has been rejected by scholars who argue that the peculiar linguistic features of the text are best explained within the context of biblical Hebrew. These are somewhat related languages. And of course Solomon was in a close alliance, remember, with Hiram, king of Tyre, a Phoenician king. They were right together. So again, you might expect some of this influence from these other languages.

Others have argued that the book was not of Hebrew origins on the basis of it never using God's covenant name Yahweh. It only uses Elohim, which is the more general name for God.

Nor does it refer to God's relationship with Israel, which you find in a lot of the books of the Bible that are directed to Israelites. Still others, though, counter that Solomon was stressing the dilemma not just of Israelites, but of all human beings. If you read through this book, this is the lot of man. This is where we're dealing with. And their need for a relationship with the Creator. And some also suggest that Solomon may have been writing not just to a national, but to an international audience, including the Aramaean and other nations that were then subject to him, as well as his Phoenician and Egyptian allies and others beyond. Remember, the queen of Sheba came asking difficult questions of him in 1 Kings 10. And no doubt other rulers and dignitaries sought out his wisdom as well. Even if the substance of the book was delivered to the nation of Israel while gathered at the Feast of Tabernacles, it's possible that there were many foreign dignitaries visiting at the time. Or the book might have been written down in slightly a different language than what was spoken to the people, maybe to make it more understandable to an international audience. Maybe there are two versions, a Hebrew and international one that were later melded in 1. We just don't know this because remember we saw that in the time of Hezekiah. Apparently they took some of this earlier work and reworked some of the material there. And that could have been what happened as well. But all in all, Solomon is the most reasonable choice for the author of Ecclesiastes. Indeed, it just cannot be anyone else if the author's self-references in the book are accepted at face value. And it should be.

A number of scholars, though, surmise that the book must have more than one author. That's another thing people will say. Because one reason for this assessment is the difference of literary forms in the book, especially the insertion of groups of Proverbs. And they'll say, see, this was put together from different authors. The main basis for this opinion, however, is the perception that the book is inconsistent or contradictory in its messages. And we really do need to look at this. This is a big contention that a lot of people have, is that this book is very self-contradictory. Expositors explains that, this is a quote, among the multiple authorship theories, the simplest postulates three writers. The original writer, that is, Coeleth the preacher, was a rebel against piety, held a pessimistic view of life in relation to God.

Essentially saying that serving God and righteous living are worthless. And there are parts of this book that can look like that. His thoughts were supposedly toned down or even contradicted by an orthodox redactor. That is, an editor with a more normative biblical view. Somebody had to take this wild lashing out at God and try to tone it down. That's another author who amended the text. He, it is supposed, belonged to the Hasidim, the holy ones or saints, who were forerunners of the Pharisees. Another writer of the regular wisdom school, that is a hakam, a wise man, incorporated a series of traditional proverbs. You have this third author. This is the simplest division of the book among such theories. But others claim to have discovered more writers at work.

The same commentary, the expositors, that is, however, does not accept this view. And rightly so. As the varying forms and arguments, it says, quote, a specific unifying function is fulfilled by a small number of leading concepts to which Koaleth returns again and again. Concepts such as vanity, striving after wind, toil, lot. You just find it all through here. You just read this, and there's just no way you could have put this together from multiple authors without rewriting it entirely. And if you did that, then it basically is one author anyway. Nor can the modern reader escape the quite dispassionate, in contrast to Job, restrained solemnity and weight of his diction.

This commentary that's expositors assumes a single writer, Koaleth, except possibly for the closing verses it says, but I would say these are likely from the same author, too. It recognizes that the author looks at life from several angles, deliberately at times, raising the arguments that would occur to his readers. You go through here, and you can see some of this. Sometimes it gets really dour almost. You're thinking, this looks so bleak and unhopeless almost, but then he answers these issues. Nevertheless, he is always firm in his conclusions. A central argument emerges throughout the book. Indeed, and that's an end quote there, indeed to see that there is a single author with a consistent message. It is important that we understand what the message is. What is this book trying to say? The overall point will help us see how he makes his case in the various sections of this treatise. People today have various ideas about the book's meaning, so we're getting into the meaning of this book. Many think it's a hopeless message, telling us to just accept that all is worthless, unfair, beyond our control. There is no point to life, at least none that we will ever understand. This notion is derived for starters from the opening words of the book. Look at them here in chapter 1, verse 2. Vanity of vanities, all is vanity. The sentiment is affirmed throughout. Even just before the conclusion, we say, wow, he's going to get it all straightened out by the end, but look back at the very end of the book. Go back all the way to chapter 12. You might say, well, he started out kind of hopeless, and he's going to end on a ... everything is going to be great. It's all uplifted.

But look at chapter 12, and verse 8. What are we there? Vanity of vanities says the preacher. Well, verse 7. Let's see what's backed up. Then dost the return to the earth as it was, the Spirit will return to God who gave it. Vanity of vanities says the preacher, all is vanity. It sounds like this is kind of wrapping up, that that is what the book is saying. Indeed, the word vanity, and by the way, that's in the sense of futility. Like, I tried to do this, but it was all in vain. That's futility, in the sense that it was all useless. It was good for nothing. Because vanity, we know, can also refer to conceit and thinking yourself great. We think about the law of vanity, Satan being very selfish and pursuing vanity in that sense. But the reason even that is called vanity is because self-pursuit is useless and pointless. It's all vain. That's why they're a united word here. But really, when we're talking about vanity here, we're talking about the sense of futility, not self-exaltation and conceit immediately. That word vanity dominates the book, appearing 38 times. 38 times. It's a translation of the Hebrew hebel. H-E-P-E-L. Hebel. By the way, that's where the word able comes from. You can't get an able. It's the same word. I'll just mention that because it talks. It has to do with a breath there. It means breath or a vapor. You see it translated that way in Isaiah 57 verse 13. It signifies something insubstantial or transitory, nothingness, emptiness, or futility. And as we'll see, this refers in Ecclesiastes. And you can note this. To try and define happiness and meaning in the various aspects of life without a proper godly foundation and perspective. That's what this really comes down to. It's trying to find happiness and meaning in life without a proper godly foundation and perspective. We'll get into the specifics of that word vanity. Bible scholar Walter Kaiser in his Everyman Bible Commentary series book on Ecclesiastes. And by the way, this is a very thin commentary. I've got some very thick commentaries on Ecclesiastes. I got a lot of material on Ecclesiastes. I was going through this in preparation for the Bob Riddin program. And I have to say, this is for 1979, I think this is the one that I found the most helpful. I was so glad to read this because it made the most sense of the book. Because we're trying to figure out what is the structure of this book and how is it presented. This book, in my opinion, does the best job of that. And I don't agree with everything in this book. But I think it does a very good job of that. I'll hand out something to you in a minute on what he gives as the structure of the book that I think is very useful. But he says in this commentary, Coleth was working on the problem of man's attempt to find meaning in all aspects of God's good world without coming to know the world's creator, sustainer, and final judge.

For central to all of man's concerns is this problem of integrating life and truth. The issue appears to have come to a head in chapter 3 verse 11. Turn over to there. Chapter 3 verse 11, where it says that God has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also put eternity into man's heart so that he cannot find out what God has done from beginning to the end.

This is what Kaiser says, and there the issue hangs. Man has a capacity and desire to know how all things, men and ideas, fit together, the end from the beginning. And yet he cannot know until he comes to know the one who built man in his own image with the capacity to understand who he is as a man, what he means, and what is the worth of things, even life itself. Life in and of itself, even God's good world with all its good God-given gifts, is unable to deliver meaning and joy when it is appropriated in a piecemeal fashion. Life in and of itself is unable to supply the key to the questions of identity, meaning, purpose, value, enjoyment, and destiny.

Only in coming to know God can one begin to find answers to these questions. This is a tremendous observation. That is really hitting the direct point of this book. Because the book actually, as we'll see, we think of it as very hopeless, but it actually talks about joy as well, but there has to be a right context for that. The Nelson Study Bible's introduction to Ecclesiastes says, quote, this is one of the most misunderstood books in the Bible. Christians have tended either to ignore the message of the book of Ecclesiastes or to regard it as the testimony of a man living apart from God. This is unfortunate. For the book asks relevant searching questions about the meaning of life, and it declares the utter futility of an existence without God. Like all scripture, the book of Ecclesiastes benefits and edifies God's people. Negative descriptions such as cynical, fatalistic, or existential do not do the book of Ecclesiastes justice. There is too much evidence of robust cheerfulness throughout its pages.

So I commend it enjoyment, as we find in chapter 8 verse 15 and other places, is a recurrent theme that pervades the book. So I commend it enjoyment, he says.

In fact, the Hebrew word for gladness and being glad appears 17 times in Ecclesiastes. The underlying mood of the book is joy, finding pleasure in life, despite the troubles that often plague it. Now, I appreciated what was said in the sermonette, because that was right. I mean, we can always find people in bad, worse circumstances than ours. You know, we can appreciate what we have to deal with. Certainly, we have to deal with bad things, and everybody does. But we know this is all working toward a purpose, and we know that it's not as bad as it could possibly be.

It just isn't. And there's a lot to enjoy. Continuing on with the Nelson study Bible quote, the underlying mood of the book is joy, finding pleasure in life, despite the troubles that often plague it. Those who fear and worship God should experience this joy. They should rejoice in the gifts that God has given them. In fact, this theme is not merely recurrent, but part of a refrain that appears six times throughout the book, which essentially says, eat and drink, and enjoy the good of your labor, for it is the gift of God. We find that several times. Eat and drink, enjoy the good of your labor, for it is the gift of God. We can see that in chapter 2 verse 24, and chapter 3 verses 12 through 13, and verse 22, and chapter 5 verses 18 through 19, and chapter 8 verse 15, and chapter 9, 7 through 9. Again, this is a recurring refrain. It does not always word it exactly the same. There are a little bit differences in these refrains that give you a little bit of a different meaning. But clearly, the focus of this book is, eat and drink and enjoy the good of your labor, for it is the gift of God. That's what we find repeated in these refrains throughout the book. Yes, we find all is vanity, but we also find this.

So we need to put these things in balance and understand them together. Because of this, some are considered, though, they look at these words that we just read, and they'll consider that the book is hedonistic, that it's a message about pleasure-seeking. All is meaningless anyway, so go have a good time while you're alive. Eat and drink, tomorrow we die, because it's all pointless in that sense. Is that what the message of the book is? It is assuredly not what the book is advocating. Solomon does want us to recognize that God gave good things for our enjoyment, and we should avail ourselves of these. But while this is important to grasp, it's only part of the book's message. As we are also told, and if you turn over to chapter 7, verse 3, chapter 7, verse 3, we are told that sorrow is better than laughter. For by a sad countenance the heart is made better. Sadness can be helpful. I guess that was in that movie. I didn't see it, but the Pixar movie the kids saw, Inside Out. There was a big point to sadness. It's apparently kind of a tearjerker. I haven't seen it.

But it's, you know, that there's a need for this in life. There must be a regular, sober reflection about the problems of life in this world, so that with right perspective and way of life, the commended enjoyment may have its proper place. It's not just to have fun, just to have fun.

Expositor says about this, the refrains do not mean do what you will.

Man is accountable to God, not simply to himself. He has a duty to work and a moral responsibility to society. All this is in here, by the way. The book contains warnings against self-indulgence that exploits others for personal advantage. For example, in chapter 8 verses 8 through 9, end quote. Indeed, Ecclesiastes ends with a powerful mandate and warning that we'll see.

And that is where we should look to best understand the book's intent, by the way, is to the end. The Nelson Study Bible is quite right in assessing the book's themes when it says this. And by the way, this is the way to make sense of this book. If you're reading it and it's what is it trying to say, you need to look at what it gets to, what is the points it makes. And here's what the Nelson Study Bible says. Sometimes it is better to read the end of a book to understand better the direction in which the book is headed. This is certainly true of Ecclesiastes. The book should be interpreted in light of its conclusion. I mean, think about that. A big argument is made, and how does it wrap up? Well, we might think it wrapped up with what I just said, all is vanity. That's part of it. That's not all of it. Let's look back at the back there. We saw in chapter 12 in verse 8, all is vanity, chapter 12 verse 8. But let's look at down in verse 13, right near the end. Ecclesiastes 12, 13, let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter.

Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is man's all. As it says in the New King James, whole duty of man. I think of the King James, but this is man's all. Fear God and keep his commandments. To fear God means to revere, to worship, to serve God, to turn from evil, turn in awe to the living God. This is still a quote from Nelson's study Bible. It does not involve dread, but instead a proper respect for and obedience to our Creator. Why should we respect and obey God? The book of Ecclesiastes answers this question in its concluding verse.

We see it here in verse 14. I'll read that too. For God will bring every work into judgment, including every secret thing, whether good or evil. God will judge everyone, both the righteous and the wicked. Life cannot be lived with abandon, as if God will not see or remember the deeds of the past. There is no way to accuse this of being some kind of hedonistic, pleasure-seeking book.

Do what you want. That is not what this book says. For, continuing the quote, on the final day, he will call forth all men and women to account for their actions. The admonition to fear God and the expectation of divine judgment are the two great themes that conclude the book and provide an interpretive framework for the rest of it. That is what gives us the direction that this book is going in.

Now, that's the end of that quote. Against those who think that this pious epilogue has been surreptitiously added to the end of a book with no such themes, that's what some people think. They'll say, well, this book was all negative and it ends with vanity of vanities. Somebody stuck this last thing on here to make it somehow holy to say, well, fear God and keep his commandments. This man is all. All of a sudden, we just jam that onto the end. That's something that wasn't what the rest of the book is saying. It needs to be noted that these ideas are expressed earlier in the book. The need to fear God is also found.

I'll just note these for you. You can look at them on your own, and we'll go through them again. We'll read the book. But the need to fear God is noted in chapter 3, verse 14, and chapter 5, verse 7. In chapter 7, verse 18, and in chapter 8, verses 12 through 13. So all those places talk about the need to fear God. And the fact of an appointed time when God will execute his justice is also mentioned in other places in the book.

It's mentioned in chapter 3, verse 17, and in chapter 9, verse 1, and in chapter 11, verse 9. So you have this throughout the book. It's not something that just got stuck on the end as if it had nothing to do with the book. It's the message throughout the book, just like all these other important messages. There is the sense of an orderly argument in Ecclesiastes.

Many assume the book to be sort of a hodgepodge of thoughts, but the repeated refrains are conclusive statements that advance the case that's being made, showing progression. And the treatise ends with an overall summary conclusion that we just saw. Some agree that there's a vague general progression, but they assume various digressions throughout, like, well, we kind of have this thing we're talking about where we keep getting off the track and that and whatnot.

And it kind of can look like that if we're not following exactly what the points are trying to be made. But others are sure that what some take to be digressions are central to the point being made. Indeed, Solomon certainly knew he was presenting difficult matters. Why would he veer off on tangents that would confuse his audience? Solomon, by the way, was a genius. I mean, the way he wrote other things and how he arranged them, the Song of Solomon, for instance, is just masterful and genius.

This man was the wisest man ever. Yes, he was corrupted. We know that. But as far as being able to communicate, I'm sure he was able to do that quite well. And I'm sure he was able to make his point in the way he wanted to. It seems far more likely that all is on target here in a unified argument. Of course, he was talking to a different audience at that time than the world today. We probably have a different way of thinking and arranging things in the way that people thought back in those days. But the chain of such an argument has been a matter of dispute.

Many outlines have been proposed. Kaiser says in his commentary, without citing all the scholarly apparatus, we can summarize the key divisions among scholars to be those who argue for two sections, that is, the V-Equal part, six chapters each, or some say it's four and eight, and those who find three sections of four chapters each, or even four divisions. The twofold division is based on the principle that the first part of Ecclesiastes contains the theoretical portion and the second, the practical aspects of the subject. Therefore, the vanity of earthly things is established in part one, and part two points out what duties and obligations such truths should elicit from mankind. It's true that the book becomes more practical and filled with exhortation toward the end, but the separation between doctrine and practice is not that sharp in the book.

Practical applications are being already in the early chapters. Kaiser favors the division into four parts, which we will also generally follow. I'd like somebody to pass this out, and I'm going to wrap up here. I'll give this to you.

All the grown-ups can get one. I think we have enough there.

But he favors the division into four parts, and that's what we're going to follow as well.

The most obvious advantage that this division has, that you're going to see, is that each of the first three sections climaxes with a formal refrain that is given in almost identical terms. That is, to eat and drink and realize the benefit of one's labor is all a gift from God. Each of these sections ends with that point being made. Other occurrences of the refrain do fall within these discourses rather than at the end, but that's because we also have subsections within these major sections. There are also, apparently, subdivisions within the major discourses. And as we'll see, not only should the meaning of the book be discerned from the overall conclusion, but the point of each section and subsection can be discerned from the section conclusion, each of which tells us to enjoy life as God's gift. Each section ends with this point being made. Expositor says, life in the world is subject to frustration, but man can still accept his circumstances, even enjoy them, and find strength to live life as it comes. Again, we heard that in the sermonette. We are to glorify God in the common things of life. That is, we are to make the fullest use of the present moment. There may be times of stress and strain and special calling. You think about that. There's a lot of times we have to do big things and maybe help in big ways or whatever we need to do or overcome these things or do what, you know, face off against some terrible thing. But the norm of life is to eat, drink, and live our lives as those who gladly rejoice in God's good gifts and tend to use them to his glory. You know, people go, why would you go to Six Flags when there are people, you know, starving in India? Or you go over there? Why do you do these fun things in life? There's so much to do. But the norm, God says, is just to enjoy the good things he's given you. That doesn't mean we don't have responsibilities as we encounter situations where we need to act. The norm is to enjoy the things that God has given us. This is the theme of the refrains. And so I've given you this well-considered overall outline that Kaiser presents. And I'm not going to read through it. I'll let you look through that on your own and we'll go through it in later messages. I intend to continue on this, but not perpetually. I'll interrupt with other messages in between. But I would like us to come back to this a number of times because, like I say, I need to be doing work on this as well. And I think this will be a very good study. Looking at all of this, I will look at the major subjects here. You can see it talks about enjoying life as a gift from God is the first part. The next one is understanding the all-encompassing plan of God, then explaining and applying the plan of God, and finally removing discouragement and applying God's plan to the lives of believers. All of these can be found in these various sections. And sometimes there's a give and take. You'll notice as you read here that he will give as part of his subject, you know, cautions and warnings that come up in thinking about this or arguments that someone may have about this premise, this kind of things. It's very interesting as we go through it and look at it with all this outline in mind. Jesus Christ, brethren, said of those who follow him, and this is in John 10.10, he said, I have come that they may have life and that they may have it more abundantly. This applies not only to eternal life after death, but to life today. In a relationship with God through Christ, fearing God, keeping his commandments, properly considering life, enjoying God's blessings, believing in his promises, we can experience the fulfillment human beings ultimately long for. Ecclesiastes points us in that direction. We will continue this in later messages.