Mga Komentaryo sa Bibliya

In this chapter we have, I. The inscription, or title of the book, Ec 1:1. II. The general doctrine of the vanity of the creature laid down (Ec 1:2) and explained, Ec 1:3. III. The proof of this doctrine, taken, 1. From the shortness of human life and the multitude of births and burials in this life, Ec 1:4. 2. From the inconstant nature, and constant revolutions, of all the creatures, and the perpetual flux and reflux they are in, the sun, wind, and water, Ec 1:5-7. 3. From the abundant toil man has about them and the little satisfaction he has in them, Ec 1:8. 4. From the return of the same things again, which shows the end of all perfection, and that the stock is exhausted, Ec 1:9,10. 5. From the oblivion to which all things are condemned, Ec 1:11. IV. The first instance of the vanity of man's knowledge, and all the parts of learning, especially natural philosophy and politics. Observe, 1. The trial Solomon made of these, Ec 1:12,13,16,17. 2. His judgment of them, that all is vanity, Ec 1:14. For, (1.) There is labour in getting knowledge, Ec 1:13. (2.) There is little good to be done with it, Ec 1:15. (3.) There is no satisfaction in it, Ec 1:18. And, if this is vanity and vexation, all other things in this world, being much inferior to it in dignity and worth, must needs be so too. A great scholar cannot be happy unless he be a true saint.

INTRODUCTION

The Hebrew title is Koheleth, which the speaker in it applies to himself

(Ec 1:12),

"I, Koheleth, was king over Israel." It means an Assembler or Convener of a meeting and a Preacher to such a meeting. The feminine form of the Hebrew noun, and its construction once

(Ec 7:27)

with a feminine verb, show that it not only signifies Solomon, the Preacher to assemblies (in which case it is construed with the verb or noun masculine), but also Divine Wisdom (feminine in Hebrew) speaking by the mouth of the inspired king. In six cases out of seven it is construed with the masculine. Solomon was endowed with inspired wisdom

(1Ki 3:5-14; 6:11, 12; 9:1-9; 11:9-11),

specially fitting him for the task. The Orientals delight in such meetings for grave discourse. Thus the Arabs formerly had an assembly yearly, at Ocadh, for hearing and reciting poems. Compare "Masters of assemblies" (see on

Ec 12:11,

also

Ec 12:9).

"The Preacher taught the people knowledge," probably viva voce ("orally");

1Ki 4:34; 10:2, 8, 24; 2Ch 9:1, 7, 23,

plainly refer to a somewhat public divan met for literary discussion. So "spake," thrice repeated

(1Ki 4:32, 33),

refers not to written compositions, but to addresses spoken in assemblies convened for the purpose. The Holy Ghost, no doubt, signifies also by the term that Solomon's doctrine is intended for the "great congregation," the Church of all places and ages

(Ps 22:25; 49:2-4).

Solomon was plainly the author

(Ec 1:12, 16; 2:15; 12:9).

That the Rabbins attribute it to Isaiah or Hezekiah is explicable by supposing that one or the other inserted it in the canon. The difference of its style, as compared with Proverbs and Song of Solomon, is due to the difference of subjects, and the different period of his life in which each was written; the Song, in the fervor of his first love to God; Proverbs, about the same time, or somewhat later; but Ecclesiastes in late old age, as the seal and testimony of repentance of his apostasy in the intervening period:

Ps 89:30, 33

proves his penitence. The substitution of the title Koheleth for Solomon (that is, peace), may imply that, having troubled Israel, meantime he forfeited his name of peace

(1Ki 11:14, 23);

but now, having repented, he wishes to be henceforth a Preacher of righteousness. The alleged foreign expressions in the Hebrew may have been easily imported, through the great intercourse there was with other nations during his long reign. Moreover, supposed Chaldaisms may be fragments preserved from the common tongue of which Hebrew, Syriac, Chaldee, and Arabic were offshoots.

THE SCOPE of Ecclesiastes is to show the vanity of all mere human pursuits, when made the chief end, as contrasted with the real blessedness of true wisdom, that is, religion. The immortality of the soul is dwelt on incidentally, as subsidiary to the main scope. Moses' law took this truth for granted but drew its sanctions of rewards and punishments in accordance with the theocracy, which was under a special providence of God as the temporal King of Israel, from the present life, rather than the future. But after Israel chose an earthly king, God withdrew, in part, His extraordinary providence, so that under Solomon, temporal rewards did not invariably follow virtue, and punishments vice (compare

Ec 2:16; 3:19; 4:1; 5:8; 7:15; 8:14; 9:2, 11).

Hence the need arises to show that these anomalies will be rectified hereafter, and this is the grand "conclusion," therefore, of the "whole" book, that, seeing there is a coming judgment, and seeing that present goods do not satisfy the soul, "man's whole duty is to fear God and keep his commandments"

(Ec 12:13, 14),

and meanwhile, to use, in joyful and serene sobriety, and not abuse, the present life

(Ec 3:12, 13).

It is objected that sensual epicurism seems to be inculcated

(Ec 3:12, 13, 22,

&c.); but it is a contented, thankful enjoyment of God's present gifts that is taught, as opposed to a murmuring, anxious, avaricious spirit, as is proved by

Ec 5:18,

compare with

Ec 5:11-15,

not making them the chief end of life; not the joy of levity and folly; a misunderstanding which he guards against in

Ec 7:2-6; 11:9; 12:1.

Again,

Ec 7:16; 9:2-10,

might seem to teach fatalism and skepticism. But these are words put in the mouth of an objector; or rather, they were the language of Solomon himself during his apostasy, finding an echo in the heart of every sensualist, who wishes to be an unbeliever, and, who, therefore, sees difficulties enough in the world around wherewith to prop up his wilful unbelief. The answer is given

(Ec 7:17, 18; 9:11, 12; 11:1, 6; 12:13).

Even if these passages be taken as words of Solomon, they are to be understood as forbidding a self-made "righteousness," which tries to constrain God to grant salvation to imaginary good works and external strictness with which it wearies itself; also, that speculation which tries to fathom all God's inscrutable counsels

(Ec 8:17),

and that carefulness about the future forbidden in

Mt 6:25.

THE CHIEF GOOD is that the possession of that which makes us happy, is to be sought as the end, for its own sake; whereas, all other things are but means towards it. Philosophers, who made it the great subject of inquiry, restricted it to the present life, treating the eternal as unreal, and only useful to awe the multitude with. But Solomon shows the vanity of all human things (so-called philosophy included) to satisfy the soul, and that heavenly wisdom alone is the chief good. He had taught so when young

(Pr 1:20; 8:1);

so also; in Song of Solomon, he had spiritualized the subject in an allegory; and now, after having long personally tried the manifold ways in which the worldly seek to reach happiness, he gives the fruit of his experience in old age.

It is divided into two parts--

Ec 1:1-6:10

showing the vanity of earthly things;

Ec 6:10-12:14,

the excellence of heavenly wisdom. Deviations from strict logical methods occur in these divisions, but in the main they are observed. The deviations make it the less stiff and artificial, and the more suited to all capacities. It is in poetry; the hemistichal division is mostly observed, but occasionally not so. The choice of epithets, imagery, inverted order of words, ellipses, parallelism, or, in its absence, similarity of diction, mark versification.

Introduction to Ecclesiastes

I. This book is placed, in the most ancient Jewish and Christian lists, between the other two books (Proverbs and the Song of Songs) attributed to Solomon, and the constant tradition of the Jewish and Christian congregations has handed down Solomon as the author without question.

Some modern critics have indeed alleged that Solomon could not have written it: (a) because the language is such as no Jew in his age could have used; (b) because the language differs from that of Proverbs and the Song of Songs; and (c) because the historical allusions in the book do not agree with the period and the circumstances of Solomon.

(a) In answer to this, it would appear that every word quoted from Ecclesiastes as impossible to be used before the captivity has been shown either:

(1) to be used in books written, as is generally believed, before the captivity; or

(2) to be formed from words, and by a grammatical process, in use before the captivity; or

(3) to be represented in such books by a derivative; or

(4) to be undoubtedly common to other Semitic dialects besides Chaldee, and therefore, presumably, to Hebrew before the captivity, although not found in extant writings of earlier date than Ecclesiastes.

The allegation, therefore, that the language of this book shows distinct traces of the Chaldean invasion, of the Babylonian captivity, or of any later event which affected the Hebrew tongue, may be considered sufficiently answered.

(b) The dissimilarity in style and diction between this book and Proverbs or the Song of Songs is admitted; but it has been accounted for to some extent, first, by the difference of subject. Abstract ideas may be expressed up to a certain point by words which originally denoted something else: but philosophic thought such as distinguishes this book from the other two, gradually forms its own terminology. Next, it is argued, that there was an interval of many years between the composition of the two former books and of this; and that in that time there was a natural change in the temperament, views, and style of the writer; a change which may be traced partly to Solomon's familiarity with foreign women sprung from various Semitic races, partly also to his extensive negotiations and personal contact with the representatives of other nations, some of whom were not of Semitic origin 1 Kings 10:22.

Lastly, to balance the differences, it is to be noted that there are some characteristic resemblances between these books. It is reasonable to regard these as an indication of a common origin.

(c) It is alleged that the particular mention of Jerusalem Ecclesiastes 1:1, Ecclesiastes 1:12 as the seat of Solomon's reign, implies that the book was written at a time when there was more than one seat of kingly authority in Israel, i. e. after the separation of the ten tribes and the erection of another capital, Samaria. The answer is that there is an obvious fitness in the specific mention of Jerusalem previous to the account of Solomon's labors in Ecclesiastes 1; 2, for it was the scene of his special work for many years, and the place which he had made the chief monument of his grandeur.

It is alleged that the expression, "I was king" Ecclesiastes 1:12, implies that, at the time when these words were written, Solomon was no longer king, and that, consequently, the passage must have been written by someone who was impersonating him after his death. But, in Hebrew, the preterite is used with strict grammatical propriety in describing a past. It does not prevent critics, after taking all the facts into account, from considering the whole of these books as the work of the same author. which extends into the present. Solomon is as a speaker who views the action or state expressed by the verb as then first about coming to pass, in progress, or perhaps occurring at the instant. The phrase therefore, would be both grammatically correct, if used by Solomon before the close of his reign, and a natural expression of his feelings in his old age.

It is argued that such a state of violence, popular oppression, and despotic rule, as that which is instanced in Ecclesiastes 4:1 did not exist in Palestine in the peaceful reign of Solomon. This allegation has no foundation in fact. The significant statements of historians (e. g. 1 Kings 12:4 and 2 Chronicles 2:17-18; 2 Chronicles 8:7-9) and the numerous unmistakeable allusions in the Book of Proverbs (e. g. Proverbs 1:10-13; Proverbs 6:16-19; Proverbs 11:26; Proverbs 14:20; Proverbs 22:22-23; Proverbs 24:21; Proverbs 25:5; Proverbs 28:2, Proverbs 28:16) agree with the descriptions in Ecclesiastes in showing that the kingdom of Israel, even in its most prosperous days, afforded grievous instances of the common evils of Asiatic despotism.

It is stated that such passages as Ecclesiastes 12:7, Ecclesiastes 12:14 show a knowledge of revealed truth beyond what was given prior to the captivity. But if the exact words of Ecclesiastes are compared with the obscure intimations given by Moses on the one hand, and with the later utterances of Daniel on the other, this book appears to hold a middle place. It tallies very closely with some of the Psalms which were probably written about the age of Solomon. After all, does not the argument (mentioned above) proceed on an assumption that we are more competent than we really are to find out the ways of the Author of Revelation? Are we qualified to decide positively that so much, as is recorded on those subjects in Ecclesiastes came out of its proper season if it was given to Solomon?

On the whole, therefore, it seems the most reasonable course to accept as a simple statement of fact the words with which Ecclesiastes begins; and, in accordance with the voice of the church from the beginning, to regard solomon as the author of this book.

II. What was the object of the writer in composing this book?

The method of Greek philosophy and its principles - Epicurean, Stoic, and Cynic - have been attributed to the author of Ecclesiastes; but on no better ground than might be found in the writings of any thoughtful and sensitive man who has felt, contemplated, and described the perplexities of human life.

The author was evidently a man of profound faith in God, of large and varied personal experience, of acute observation of people and things, and of deep sensibility. He was probably first moved to write by a mind that was painfully full of the disappointing nature of all things viewed apart from God. Next, he was moved by a deep sympathy with fellow human beings who were touched by the same natural feelings as himself, and suffering like him, though each in their various ways; and thirdly, he was moved by the evident desire to lead other men, and especially young men, out of the temptations which he had felt, and out of the perplexities which once entangled and staggered him. Whether his heart was chilled by old age or by the cold shadow of some former eclipse of faith can only be conjectured; but there is in Ecclesiastes an absence of that fervor of zeal for the glory of God which glows in other books, and which we are justified in regarding as a feature of Solomon's character in his early days. His immediate object would seem then to be to relieve his mind by pouring out the results of his own life, to comfort those who bore the same burden of humanity, and to lift up those who were naturally feeble or depressed by circumstances and to lead them in the way of God's commandments.

As regards a plan, the writer of the book evidently regarded it as complete in itself; the first part of the book being contemplative or doctrinal, and the latter part being practical.

First, there is the writer's statement of his subject, and his detailed account of his personal experience of the influence of vanity pervading human proceedings Ecclesiastes 1-2. Then, there is the announcement of an external law to which also human affairs are subject, i. e. the will of God, Whose plan, incomprehensible in its extent, is found by all to be more or less in conflict with man's will Ecclesiastes 3-4, the result of such conflict being disappointment and perplexity to man. Then there is the commencement Ecclesiastes 5 of personal practical advice, followed by a mixture of reflections, maxims, and exhortations, in which the vanity of riches, the practical superiority of wisdom and patience, and the supreme power of God, are the prominent topics set forth in various ways Ecclesiastes 6-8. The writer's reflections are found in Ecclesiastes 9. His maxims are brought to an end in Ecclesiastes 10. And, in Ecclesiastes 11-12 we have a concluding exhortation to such conduct and sentiments as are most likely to alleviate the vanity of this life, namely, to charity, industry, patience and the reverence of God.

If the book was composed, as seems probable, toward the end of Solomon's reign, its direct tendency is obvious. In an age when "silver were like stones in Jerusalem" (i. e. common), no lesson was more necessary, and none would tell with deeper effect, than those powerful and touching declarations of the vanity of wealth and grandeur which are perhaps the most conspicuous feature in this book. Further, if the book appealed then, as it has ever since appealed, to an inner circle of more thoughtful readers, they especially, who in those days discerned the signs of the approaching dismemberment of the kingdom and the diminution of the glory of Jerusalem, would find their comfort in its lessons of patient endurance and resignation to the sovereign will of God. Whenever the church has been threatened with approaching calamity this book has always shown its consolatory effect upon devout believers. It served, before Christ came, to lighten for Jews the darkness of those "crooked" ways of God which have exercised the Christian penetration of Pascal and Butler. To the desolation of religious doubt, Ecclesiastes brings a special message of consolation and direction: for it shows that a cry of perplexity finds a place even in the sacred books; and it indicates a nearer approach to the living God in reverent worship Ecclesiastes 5:1, in active service Ecclesiastes 11:6, in humble acknowledgment of His power Ecclesiastes 3:10-17, in reliance on His final justice Ecclesiastes 5:8; Ecclesiastes 12:13-14, as the means by which that cry has been, and may again be, hushed.

The introductory verses Ecclesiastes 1:1-3 serve to describe the writer, and to state the subject of his book.

Introduction to the Book of Ecclesiastes

The book, entitled Koheleth, or Ecclesiastes, has ever been received, both by the Jewish and Christian Church, as written under the inspiration of the Almighty; and was held to be properly a part of the sacred canon. But while this has been almost universally granted, there has been but little unanimity among learned men and critics as to its author. To Solomon it has been most generally attributed, both in ancient and modern times.

Grotius, however, conjectured that it was written a long time after Solomon; and he says, at the close of his notes on it, that it was revised in the days of Zerubbabel by some learned man, who in the twelfth verse of the last chapter addresses his son Abihud: "And farther, by these, my son, be admonished." But such a conjecture appears to have little foundation. This great man was more successful in his criticism on the language of the book; showing that there are many words in it which do not savor of the purity of the Hebrew tongue; and are found in the times of the captivity and afterwards, and such as appear principally in the books of Ezra and Daniel.

Calovius has on the other hand, not with so much success as he imagined, argued against Grotius for the purity of the language.

Mr. G. Zirkel of Wurtzburgh published an examination of this book in 1792, in which he endeavors to prove: -

1. That the style of Ecclesiastes is that of the later Hebrew writers, as appears by the Chaldaisms, Syriasms, and Hellenisms that occur in it.

2. That it may have been written between the years 380 and 130 before Jesus Christ, if not later.

The Jena reviewers seem to have thought it to be a translation from the Greek, and to have been written by a Jew of Alexandria, while the famous library was founding by Ptolemy Philadelphus king of Egypt, about the year 240 before Christ. And that it is to this circumstance that Ecclesiastes 12:12 alludes, "Of making many books there is no end;" which could not have entered into the head of a Palestine Jew; and such a person might speak with propriety of an Israel in Jerusalem, Ecclesiastes 1:12, being acquainted with an Israel in Alexandria.

The Jews in general, and St. Jerome, hold the book to be the composition of Solomon, and the fruit of his repentance when restored from his idolatry, into which he had fallen through means of the strange or heathenish women whom he had taken for wives and concubines.

Others, of no mean note, who consider Solomon as the author, believe that he wrote it before his fall; there being no evidence that he wrote it afterwards; nor, indeed, that he ever recovered from his fall. Besides, it was in his old age that his wives turned away his heart from God; and the book bears too many evidences of mental energy to allow the supposition that in his declining age, after so deep a fall from God, he was capable of writing such a treatise. This opinion goes far towards destroying the Divine inspiration of the book; for if he did recover and repent, there is no evidence that God gave him back that Divine inspiration which he before possessed; for we hear of the Lord appearing to him twice before his fall, but of a third appearance there is no intimation. And lastly, Of the restoration of Solomon to the favor of God there is no proof in the sacred history; for in the very place where we are told that "in his old age his wives turned away his heart from the Lord," we are told of his death, without the slightest intimation of his repentance. See my character of Solomon at the end of 1 Kings 11 (note).

Nothing, however, of this uncertainty can affect either the character, importance, or utility of the book in question. It is a production of singular worth; and the finest monument we have of the wisdom of the ancients, except the book of Job.

But the chief difficulty attending this book is the principle on which it should be interpreted. Some have supposed it to be a dialogue between a true believer and an infidel, which makes it to the unwary reader appear abounding with contradiction, and, in some instances, false doctrine; and that the parts must be attributed to their respective speakers, before interpretation can be successfully attempted. I am not convinced that the book has any such structure; though in some places the opinions and sayings of infidels may be quoted; e.g., Ecclesiastes 7:16, and in some of the following chapters.

In the year 1763, M. Desvoeux, a learned foreigner then resident in England, and who was in the British service, wrote and published a Philosophical and Poetical Essay on this book, in which he endeavors to prove, that the design of the author was to demonstrate the immortality of the soul; and that it is on this principle alone that the book can be understood and explained.

As a late commentator on the Bible has adopted this plan, and interwoven the major part of this dissertation with his notes on the book, I shall introduce the whole of M. Desvoeux's analysis of its contents, the propositions, arguments, proofs, illustrations, corollaries, etc., on the ground of which he attempts its illustration: -

The whole of the discourse (he says) may be reduced to the three following propositions, each of which is attended with its apparatus of proofs and especial observations.

The three propositions, with their proofs and illustrations, are contained in the following analysis:

Proposition 1 No labor of man in this world can render him contented, or give him true satisfaction of soul. Ecclesiastes 1:2, Ecclesiastes 1:3 No labor of man, etc. Ecclesiastes 1:4-11 First proof - The course of nature. Ecclesiastes 1:12, etc. Second proof - Men's occultations. Ecclesiastes 1:15-18 First head - Wisdom or philosophy. Ecclesiastes 2:1, Ecclesiastes 2:2 Second head - Pleasure. Ecclesiastes 2:3-10 Both jointly. Ecclesiastes 2:11 General conclusion of the second proof.

A review of the second proof with special conclusions, relating to every particular therein mentioned, viz., Ecclesiastes 2:12-17 1. Wisdom. Ecclesiastes 2:18-23 2. Riches. Ecclesiastes 2:24-26 3. Pleasure. Ecclesiastes 3:1, etc. Third proof - Inconstancy of men's wills. Ecclesiastes 3:9 Conclusion of the third proof. A review of the second and third proofs, considered jointly, with special observations and corollaries. Ecclesiastes 3:10, Ecclesiastes 3:11 First observation - God is inculpable. Ecclesiastes 3:12, Ecclesiastes 3:15 Second observation - God is the author of whatever befalls us in this world. Ecclesiastes 3:16, Ecclesiastes 3:17 First corollary - God shall redress all grievances. Ecclesiastes 3:18-21 Second corollary - God must be exalted, and man humbled. Ecclesiastes 3:22 Third corollary - God allows men to enjoy the present life. Ecclesiastes 4:1 Fourth proof - Men's neglect of proper opportunities, evidenced in several instances, viz., Ecclesiastes 4:1-3 1. Oppression. Ecclesiastes 4:4 2. Envy. Ecclesiastes 4:5, Ecclesiastes 4:6 3. Idleness. Ecclesiastes 4:7-12 4. Avarice. Ecclesiastes 4:13Ecc Ecclesiastes 5:1-9 5. Misapplication of esteem and regard.

N. B. Ecclesiastes 5:1-9 is a digression containing several admonitions, in order to prevent any misconstruction of the fore-going remarks. Ecclesiastes 5:10-12 6. Expensive living. Proposition 2-- Ecclesiastes 5:13 Earthly goods and possessions are so far from making us happy, that they may be even viewed as real obstacles to our ease, quiet, and tranquillity of mind. Ecclesiastes 5:14-17 First proof. Instability of riches. Ecclesiastes 5:18 Second proof. Insufficiency of riches to make men happy. Ecclesiastes 6:3-6 Corollary. The fate of an abortive is, on the whole, preferable to that of him who lives without enjoying life. Ecclesiastes 6:7-9 Third proof. Men's insatiableness. Ecclesiastes 6:10, Ecclesiastes 6:11 General conclusion from the first and second propositions. Proposition 3-- Ecclesiastes 6:12 Men known not what is or is not truly advantageous to them; because they are either ignorant or unmindful of that which must come to pass after their death. Ecclesiastes 7:1, etc. First proof. Wrong estimation of things.

A digression, intended, like that Ecclesiastes 7:1-9, to prevent any misconstruction of the preceding observations; and containing several advices, together with a strong commendation of him who gives them, in order to enforce the observation of the rules he lays down. Ecclesiastes 7:9-12 First advice. Do not blame Providence. Ecclesiastes 7:13 Second advice. Do not judge of Providence. Ecclesiastes 7:14, Ecclesiastes 7:15 Third advice. Submit to Providence. Ecclesiastes 7:16-20 Fourth advice. Avoid excesses. Ecclesiastes 7:21, Ecclesiastes 7:22 Fifth advice. Do not heed idle reports. Ecclesiastes 7:23-25 Commendation of the foregoing advices from the author's application of every thing; and especially, Ecclesiastes 7:26-29 1. Wickedness and ignorance. Ecclesiastes 8:1-8 2.Wisdom.

Second proof. Anticipated judgments. Ecclesiastes 8:9-14 1. That sin shall go unpunished, because it is so in this world. Ecclesiastes 9:1-6 2. That life is preferable to death. Ecclesiastes 9:7-9 First corollary. Earthly enjoyments are not criminal. Ecclesiastes 9:10 Second corollary. We must make a proper use of our faculties. Ecclesiastes 9:11-15 Third proof. Judgments that are seemingly right, but entirely false. Ecclesiastes 9:16, etc. Fourth proof. Little regard paid to wisdom. Ecclesiastes 9:16 1. Past services are forgotten.

2. The least fault is noticed. Ecclesiastes 10:5-19 3. Favor gets what is due to merit. Ecclesiastes 10:20 A caution to prevent the abuse of the preceding remarks. Practical Inferences Ecclesiastes 11:1-4 1. From the first Proposition, - We must give to earthly goods that stability of which they are capable. Ecclesiastes 11:5, Ecclesiastes 11:6 2. From the first and second Propositions, - We must, in all our conduct, conform to the design of Providence, and leave the success to God. Ecclesiastes 12:7, Ecclesiastes 12:8 3. From the three Propositions, but especially from the third, we must seek for happiness beyond the grave. Ecclesiastes 12:9-12 Commendation of the work, from several considerations. Ecclesiastes 12:13, Ecclesiastes 12:14 Conclusion of the whole. This is the whole of M. Desvoeux's Analysis; and I place it here, that the reader who approves of the plan may keep it in view while he is passing through the book. For my own part, I doubt whether the author made any such technical arrangement.

The three propositions which M. Desvoeux lays down, and which are so essential to the interpretation he gives of the book, would have been expressly propounded by the inspired writer had he intended such; but they appear nowhere in it, and M. D. is obliged to assume or gather them from the general scope of the work. However, on his plan, he has certainly made a number of judicious observations on different passages, though his translations are generally too bold, and seldom well supported by the original text.

In 1768 was published "Choheleth, or the Royal Preacher, a Poetical Paraphrase of the Book of Ecclesiastes. Most humbly inscribed to the King." 4th. There is no name to this work. The late Rev. John Wesley gives the following account of the work and its author in his Journals: -

"Monday, Feb. 8, 1768. I met with a surprising poem, entitled, Choheleth, or the Preacher: it is a paraphrase in tolerable verse on the book of Ecclesiastes. I really think the author of it (a Turkey merchant) understands both the difficult expressions, and the connection of the whole, better than any other either ancient or modern writer whom I have seen. He was at Lisbon during the great earthquake, just then sitting in his nightgown and slippers. Before he could dress himself, part of the house he was in fell, and blocked him up. By this means his life was saved; for all who had run out were dashed to pieces by the falling houses."

Mr. W. seems to have known the author well, but did not like to tell his name. About the year 1789 that eminent man recommended the work to me, and told me several particulars relative to it, which have escaped my memory. I procured the book the first opportunity, and read it with great satisfaction; and from it derived no small portion of information. Having now examined it anew, I can most cordially subscribe to Mr. Wesley's opinion. I really believe that the author understood both the difficult expressions, and the connection of the whole, better than any other writer, whether ancient or modern, at least known to me. Had it comported with my plan, I should have thought a reprint of his work, with the text, which he does not insert, and a few philological notes, would have been quite sufficient to have given my readers a safe and general view of the whole work and its design; though I can by no means adopt the author's hypothesis, that the book was written by Solomon after he was restored from his grievous apostasy. This is an assumption that never was proved and never can be.

From the preface to this work I have selected some general observations, which I consider to be important, and subjoin to this introduction; and what I borrow from the work itself I mark with a C, not knowing the author's name. Of the authenticity of the book of Ecclesiastes I have no doubt; but I must say, the language and style puzzle me not a little. Chaldaisms and Syriasms are certainly frequent in it, and not a few Chaldee words and terminations; and the style is such as may be seen in those writers who lived at or after the captivity. If these can be reconciled with the age of Solomon, I have no objection; but the attempts that have been made to deny this, and overthrow the evidence, are in my view often trifling, and generally ineffectual. That Solomon, son of David, might have been the author of the whole matter of this, and a subsequent writer put it in his own language, is a possible case; and were this to be allowed, it would solve all difficulties. Let us place the supposition thus: Solomon said all these things, and they are highly worthy of his wisdom; and a Divine writer, after his time, who does not mention his name, gives us a faithful version of the whole in his own language.

On other subjects relative to this book, the author of Choheleth shall speak for me.

"I. Not to perplex our readers with the various expositions of the word Choheleth, the title of the book in the original, (for in truth we can find none better or more significant than that commonly received, viz., Ecclesiastes, or the Preacher), let us now come to the book itself. Nothing can be more interesting than the subject it treats of, to wit, the chief or sovereign good which man, as a rational and accountable being, should here propose to himself. Every human creature, it is certain, naturally aims at happiness; but though all apply themselves with equal ardor to this desirable end, yet such is the violence of passion, and want of reflection in the generality of mankind, that the means they use for obtaining it, instead of conducting them to the safe and direct road, only serve to mislead and bewilder them in dark and intricate labyrinths, where it is impossible to find what they seek for. Now as it was absolutely necessary to convince such men of the vanity of their pursuits, in order to induce them to turn back in the right way, Solomon shows, in the first place, what is not happiness, and then what really is. Like a skillful physician, he searches deeply into the latent cause of the malady, and then prescribes a radical cure.

"II. In the former disquisition he enumerates all those particulars which mankind are most apt to fix their hearts upon, and shows, from his own dear-bought experience, and the transient and unsatisfactory nature of the things themselves, that no such thing as solid felicity is to be found in any of them. What he asserts on this head carries with it the greater weight, as no man upon earth was ever better qualified to speak decisively on such a subject, considering the opportunities he had of enjoying to the utmost all that this world affords. After having thus cleared away the obstacles to happiness, he enters on the main point, which is to direct us how and where it may be found. This he affirms, at the conclusion of the book, where he recapitulates the sum and substance of the sermon, as some not improperly have styled it, consists in a religious and virtuous life, with which, as he frequently intimates, a man in the lowest circumstances may be happy, and without which one in the highest must be miserable. As the whole book tends to this single point, so, in discussing thereof, many excellent observations are interpersed relating to the various duties of life, from the highest to the lowest station; the advantages resulting even from poverty, the genuine use of riches, and extreme folly of abusing them; the unequal dispensations of Divine Providence; the immortality of the human soul; and great day of final retribution. All these noble and important subjects are treated of in such a style and manner as nothing among the ancients can parallel.

"We have here given the genuine character of this inestimable piece; yet such has been the ignorance, inattention, or depravity of some persons, that it would be hard to find an instance of any thing written on so serious and interesting a subject, which has been so grossly misrepresented. How often has a handle been taken from certain passages, ill understood, and worse applied, to patronize libertinism, by such as pretend to judge of the whole from a single sentence, independent of the rest, without paying the least regard to the general scope or design! According to which rule the most pious discourse that ever was written may be perverted to atheism. Some fanatics have fallen into the contrary extreme; for, on reading that all here below was vanity, they have been so wrong-headed, as to condemn every thing as evil in itself. This world, according to them, cannot be too bitterly inveighed against; and man has nothing else to do with it, but to spend his days in sighing and mourning. But it is evident that nothing could be farther from the preacher's intention: for notwithstanding he speaks so feelingly of the instability and unsatisfactory nature of all sublunary things, and the vanity of human cares, schemes, and contrivances; yet, lest any one should mistake his meaning, he advises every man, at the same time, to reap the fruit of his honest labors, and take the comfort of what he possesses with a sober freedom and cheerful spirit. Not to harass and disturb his mind with anxious cares and restless solicitudes about future events; but to pass the short space which Heaven has allotted him here, as pleasantly as his station will admit, with a quiet conscience. He does not condemn the things themselves, such as science, prudence, mirth, riches, honors, etc.; but only their abuse, that is, the useless studies, unreasonable pursuits, and immoderate desires, of those who pervert God's blessings to their own destruction.

"On this head Solomon gives his sentiments, not only as a divine and philosopher, but like one thoroughly acquainted with the foibles of the human heart. It was not his design to drive people out of the world, or to make them live wretchedly in it; but only that they should think and act like rational creatures; or, in other words, be induced to consult their own happiness.

"There is nothing in the whole body of pagan philosophy so elevated and magnificent, as what some have written on the important subject of this poem: but we find their opinions so various and contradictory, and the most plausible so blended with errors, even those of the divine Plato not excepted, that their sublimest sentiments on the sovereign good or ultimate happiness of man, when compared with those of the royal preacher, not only appear cold and languid, but always leave the mind unsatisfied and restless. We are lost in a pompous flow of words; and dazzled, but not illuminated. One sect, by confining happiness to sensual pleasures, so greatly slackened the cord as to render it wholly useless: another, by their too austere and rigid maxims, stretched it so tight that it snapped asunder; though the experience of all ages has evinced that these latter imposed both on themselves and the world, when they taught that virtue, however afflicted here, was its own reward, and sufficient of itself to render a man completely happy. Even in the brazen bull of Perillus, truth will cry out from the rack against such fallacious teachers, and prove them liars. The extravagant figments, therefore, of the stoical apathy, no less than those of the voluptuous epicurean, both equally vanish at the splendor of the Divine truth delivered by Solomon. He alone decides the great question in such a manner that the soul is instantly convinced; it need seek no farther.

"III. To prevent all misapprehensions, which a slight and cursory reading of this book is apt to raise in many persons, it will be requisite to observe two cautions: First, that Solomon, who tells us that he applied his heart not only to the search of wisdom and knowledge, but also of folly and madness, frequently speaks, not according to his own sentiments, though he proposes the thing in a naked and simple manner, designedly making use of such terms as might set the picture in a fuller and clearer light, so that we often meet with certain expressions which, unless we search into their true design, seem to have a quite different force and meaning from what the author really intended. We must therefore take particular care to distinguish the doubts and objections of others from Solomon's answers; the want of attending to which has made this book much more obscure than otherwise it would appear. Secondly, we should not judge of the entire discourse from some parts of it; since many things are pertinently said, according to the present subject, which, in themselves, and strictly taken, are far from true. In order to come at the genuine sense, we should form our opinion from the different circumstances of the matter treated of, comparing the antecedent with the consequent passages, and always considering the preacher's real scope and design. By carefully attending to these two cautions, this book will be seen in a very different light from what it now appears in to the generality of readers.

"IV. This book, besides the figurative and proverbial expressions to be found in no other part of the Scripture, is undoubtedly metrical; and, consequently, the grammatization, in many places, not a little perplexed, from the frequent ellipses, abbreviations, transposition of words, and other poetical licenses, allowed in all languages; to say nothing of the carelessness or ignorance of transcribers, as appears from the variety of readings. Yet, notwithstanding we are so little acquainted with the nature of the Hebrew metre, and the propriety of certain phrases which, at this vast distance of time, in a language that has been dead upwards of two thousand years, must unavoidably occasion the same difficulties and obscurities as occur in works of far less antiquity, and in languages more generally studied and better understood; notwithstanding this, I say, a diligent and attentive observer will always find enough to recompense his trouble; and, if he has any taste, cannot avoid being struck with the exquisite beauty and regularity of the plan.

"V. The most judicious commentators have remarked on this book, that we have here a conspicuous example of that form of disputing, which was so justly admired in the soundest of the pagan philosophers; particularly in Socrates, who, whilst others were taken up with abstruse speculations about the nature of things, and investigating the number, motions, distance, and magnitude of the stars, brought down philosophy from the upper regions, and fixed its abode on earth; that is, by teaching such precepts as served for the regulation of life and manners, by far the most useful of all sciences, as being most conducive to the welfare of society, and the general benefit of mankind. Of this we have a noble specimen in the memoirs of that ancient moralist, collected by Xenophon. It is, I think, beyond all contradiction, that no one ever made deeper researches into nature, or had made so great a progress in every branch of science, both speculative and experimental. But what, after all, was the result of his inquiries? A thorough conviction of the inutility of such studies, and how little they conduce towards the obtaining that peace and tranquillity of mind wherein true happiness consists. He applied himself, therefore, to that study which might produce a real and lasting advantage, namely, to render men wise to some purpose; that is, truly virtuous. The manner of his treating this important subject bears some resemblance to that of the celebrated Greek moralist. He does not give us a long roll of dry formal precepts, with which the mind is soon tired; but, to confirm the truth of every thing he says, appeals, not only to his own experience, but to the general sense of unbiassed reason. At the same time he sets before us, in the liveliest colors, the sad effects of vice and folly; and makes use of every incentive to engage the heart to be enamored with virtue, and pursue its own interest. Whatever he intends to inculcate is first barely proposed, and then more accurately explained and illustrated, though by gentle and almost imperceptible transitions; with this peculiarity, that there is always much more implied than expressed; insomuch that the reader, from a slight hint given him, is left to draw such inferences as his own reflection must naturally suggest. Every thing, in short, is drawn, in this admirable composition, with equal simplicity and elegance; and hath as distinguished a superiority to whatever the best pagan philosophers have given us on the same subject, as the borrowed light of the moon is surpassed by that of the sun in his full meridian lustre; or, to use a still stronger comparison, as Solomon's knowledge of the one true God excelled the idle notion of their fictitious deities."

Some have supposed that the book of Ecclesiastes is a poem. That some poetic lines may be found in it, there is no doubt; but it has nothing in common with poetic books, nor does it exist in the hemistich form in any printed edition or MS. yet discovered. It is plain prose, and is not susceptible of that form in which the Hebrew poetic books appear.

The author already quoted thinks that the book of Ecclesiastes is metrical. I cannot see this: but it has what is essential to poetry, a truly dignified style; there are no mean, creeping words in it, whether pure Hebrew, or borrowed from any of its dialects. They are all well chosen, nervous, and highly expressive. They are, in short, such as become the subject, and are worthy of that inspiration by which the author was guided.

The prophet shows that all human courses are vain, Ecclesiastes 1:1-4. The creatures are continually changing, Ecclesiastes 1:5-8. There is nothing new under the sun, Ecclesiastes 1:9-11. Who the prophet was, his estate and his studies, Ecclesiastes 1:12-18.

INTRODUCTION TO ECCLESIASTES

This book has been universally received into the canon of the Scriptures, by Jews and Christians. The former, indeed, had once some controversy (a) about it; and they thought to have hid it, or put it among the apocryphal books; because, at first sight, some things seemed contradictory to each other (b), and to incline to heresy (c), atheism, and epicurism, and to assert the eternity of the world (d): but they better considered of it; and when they observed those passages were capable of a good sense, and that the whole agreed with the law of God, they changed their minds (e). And so likewise it has been rejected by some heretical persons, of the Christian name, as Theodore and Mopsuest, and others; and by deists, and some deistically inclined. But it carries in it such internal evidences of a divine original, as cannot well be denied; it delivers out and inculcates such divine instructions, concerning the duties of men to God, and one another; concerning the contempt of the world, and the carnal pleasures of it; the fear and worship of God, and a future judgment; as none but the wisdom of God could suggest. There are various things in it which seem to be referred to by Christ and his apostles; at least there is an entire agreement between them: among the many things that might be observed, compare Ecclesiastes 11:5 with John 3:8; and Ecclesiastes 11:9 with 2 Corinthians 5:10; and Ecclesiastes 7:20 with 1 John 1:8. As to the author of it, there are evident marks of its being written by Solomon; yet, by some Jewish writers, it is ascribed to Isaiah (f), which seems exceeding strange; for though he was a great prophet, and an evangelical preacher, yet no king in Jerusalem; whatever may be said for his being of the house of David, and of the royal family, as some have thought: and, besides, there is no agreement in style between this book and the writings of Isaiah. Others of them ascribe it to Hezekiah and his men (g): Hezekiah was indeed the son of David, and David in expressly called his father; and he was a prince of great character, both with respect to religion, and to wealth and grandeur; see 2 Chronicles 29:2; which might induce them to such a conceit; though it seems to take its rise from Hezekiah's men being the copiers of some of Solomon's proverbs, Proverbs 25:1; but the proof from thence must be exceeding weak; that because they were the transcribers of some of his proverbs, therefore were the writers of this book; and especially King Hezekiah; for, whatever may be said of his character, it falls greatly short of Solomon's wisdom or riches; and such things are said, with for respect to both, in this book, as cannot agree with him: and, on the other hand, it does not appear that he was addicted to wine and women, and gave himself a loose to carnal pleasures, as the writer of this book had formerly done. Grotius thinks it was written by some persons in the times of Zerubbabel, and published under the name of Solomon, as a penitent; which is quite shocking, that an inspired writing should have a false title put to it, and be imposed upon the church of God under a wrong name: besides, the name of Solomon is never mentioned in it; though this, by the way, betrays a conviction that he is intended in the title of it: nor are many persons concerned in it; it appears throughout the whole to be the work of a single person, who often speaks as such in it. That Zerubbabel should be meant by the one shepherd, Ecclesiastes 12:11, is a mere fancy; it is better interpreted, as by many, of Jesus Christ: his chief argument for this conjecture is, because there are three or four Chaldee words in it, as he supposes; which yet does not appear, and are nowhere to be found but in Daniel, Ezra, and the Chaldee interpreter: and so there are in the book of Proverbs, Proverbs 31:2; but it does not follow, that because these words, or others, are but once used in Scripture, that they are not originally Hebrew; since the language was more extensive and better understood in Solomon's time than now, when we have only the copy of the Old Testament in which it is preserved. In short, what is said of the descent and dignity of the writer of this book, of his wisdom, wealth, riches, and grandeur, of his virtues and of his vices, agrees with none as with Solomon; to which may be added, that there is one passage in it, the same he used in his prayer at the dedication of the temple, Ecclesiastes 7:20; compared with 1 Kings 8:46. As to the time in which it was written by him, it seems to have been in his old age, as the Jewish writers observe (h); after his sin and fall, and recovery out of it, and when he was brought to true repentance for it: it was after he had made him great works, and built houses, his own house and the house of God, which were twenty years in building; it was after he had acquired not only vast riches and treasures, which must require time, but had gotten knowledge of all things in nature; and had seen all the works that are done under the sun, and had made trial of all pleasures that were to be enjoyed; see Ecclesiastes 1:1; it was after he had been ensnared by women, which he confesses and laments, Ecclesiastes 7:26; and his description of old age seems to be made, not merely upon the theory of it, but from a feeling experience of the evils and infirmities of it, Ecclesiastes 12:1. The general scope and design of it is to expose the vanity of all worldly enjoyments; to show that a man's happiness does not lie in natural wisdom and knowledge; nor in worldly wealth; nor in civil honour, power, and authority; nor in the mere externals of religion; but in the fear of God, and the worship of him. It encourages men to a free use of the good things of life in a moderate way, with thankfulness to God; to submit with cheerfulness to adverse dispensations of Providence; to fear God and honour the king; to be dutiful to civil magistrates, and kind to the poor; to expect a future state, and an awful judgment; with many other useful things.

(a) Misn. Yadaim, c. 3. s. 5. T. Bab. Megilia, fol. 7. 1.((b) T. Bab. Sabbat, fol. 30. 2.((c) Midrash Kohelet, fol. 60. 4. Vajikra Rabba, s. 28. "in principio", fol. 168. 4. (d) Maimon. Moreh Nevochim, c. 28. p. 262. (e) T. Bab. Sabbat, ut supra. (fol. 30. 2.) (f) R. Gedaliah in Shalshelt. Hakabala, fol. 55. 1. R. Moses Kimchi & alii. (g) T. Bab. Bava Bathra, fol. 15. 1.((h) Peskita Rabbati apud Yalkut in Kohelet, l. 1. Shirhashirim Rabba, fol. 2. 3. Seder Olam Rabba, c. 15. p. 41. R. Gedaliah in Shalshelet Hakabala, fol. 8. 2.

INTRODUCTION TO Ecclesiastes 1

After the title of the book, which describes the author of it, by his office, as a preacher; by his descent, as the son of David; and by his dignity, king in Jerusalem, Ecclesiastes 1:1; the principal doctrine insisted on in it is laid down, that the world, and all things in it, are most vain things, Ecclesiastes 1:2. Which is proved in general, by the unprofitableness of all labour to attain them, be they what they will, wisdom, knowledge, riches, honours, and pleasures, Ecclesiastes 1:3; by the short continuance of men on earth, though that abides, Ecclesiastes 1:4; by the constant revolution, going and returning, of the most useful creatures, the sun, winds, and water, Ecclesiastes 1:5; by the unfruitful and unsatisfactory labour all things are full of, Ecclesiastes 1:8; by the continual repetition of the same things, and the oblivion of them, Ecclesiastes 1:9; and by Solomon's own experience in one particular thing; his search after, and acquisition of, knowledge and wisdom, which he attained a large share of; and which he found attended with labour, difficulty, and little satisfaction; nay, was vanity and vexation of spirit; for, as his knowledge increased, so did his grief and sorrow, Ecclesiastes 1:12.

ECCLESIASTES: OR, THE PREACHER.

Ecclesiastes

BY

THE REV. G. SALMON, D.D.,

Provost of Trinity College, Dublin.

INTRODUCTION

TO

ECCLESIASTES; OR, THE PREACHER

THE proofs have been given elsewhere that 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 that 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 (for instance, 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, recognised it as entitled to all the prerogatives of Canonical Scripture. It does not appear that the Solomonic authorship of the book was questioned in the course of these disputes. Thus in the Christian Church, Theodore of Mopsuestia, while accepting Solomon’s authorship, supposed him to have written the book by human prudenee, not Divine inspiration.

It is proper to mention that the place of the work in modern Hebrew Bibles is not the same as in English Bibles, where all the books ascribed to Solomon are placed together. In the Hebrew, after the Proverbs comes Job; then Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, and Esther. But the reason of this arrangement is that the last five books, called the five rolls, were written on separate rolls for use in synagogue worship on special festivals. They are arranged in the order in which these festivals occur, Ecclesiastes being fourth because the Feast of Tabernacles, on which it is read, is fourth in order. The Masoretic arrangement of these rolls was different; and in the oldest dated Hebrew MS. Ecclesiastes is third. It is very precarious to draw, as some have done, from this arrangement for liturgical purposes, a presumption against the acknowledgment of Solomon’s authorship by the Jews. And, in fact, the order of our English Bibles may claim to be the older of the two, being the order both of the Septuagint and of the Talmud.

While we consider the canonical authority of the Book of Ecclesiastes as sufficiently guaranteed by the general sanction which the founders of the Christian Church gave to the Jewish Scriptures,’ we cannot find that any opinion as to the authorship of the book is entitled to claim apostolic authority. The book, as has been remarked, is not mentioned in the New Testament; and the ascription of canonical authority to a book determines nothing as to its authorship. Nothing was supposed to be known with certainty as to the authorship of some books, which, nevertheless, held an undisputed place in the Canon: for example, Joshua, Judges. Job.

In discussing the authorship of a book, internal evidence holds, relatively to external, a far higher place in the case of the Old than of the New Testament. In the latter case we have available the testimony of witnesses separated by a comparatively short interval from the time of the composition of the books. Thus when a question arises as to a various reading in the Apocalypse, Irenæus confirms the evidence of the best MSS. by an appeal to the testimony of persons who had seen the Apostle John. But the earliest witnesses from whom we can learn anything as to the composition of Old Testament books, are later by hundreds of years than the books of which they speak. Thus, though the belief that Solomon was the author of the Book of Ecclesiastes was for many centuries practically universal both among the Jews and in the Christian Church, yet the earliest period to which we can trace the belief is some centuries later than the age of Solomon; and the belief may easily have been generated by inference from the text itself, not by historical tradition. In the disputes concerning the Book of Ecclesiastes in the Jewish schools, which have been already mentioned, we cannot find that the topic of external evidence was employed on either side. The whole controversy turned on the contents of the book. concerning which we are as competent to form an opinion as were either of the opposing parties then. On the one side it was alleged that the book contained contradictory statements, and that it taught erroneous doctrine; on the other, explanations were given which were held to be satisfactory. It was pointed out that the book began and ended with words of the Law (Ecclesiastes 1:3; Ecclesiastes 12:13); and in particular, its statement as to the “conclusion of the whole matter,” was regarded as removing all doubt as to the author’s design.

Turning now to examine what we can learn of its authorship from the book itself, we find that the title runs, “The words of Kohéleth son of David, King in Jerusalem.” We have here the difficulty that the name Kohéleth does not occur in the historical books as the name either of king or private person. If the words “son of David” be understood strictly, Solomon must be intended—the only one of David’s sons who reigned in Jerusalem. If we were to suppose the words to have been used more loosely, we might think of any of the descendants of David who succeeded him on the throne; in particular, perhaps, of Manassch, whose experience might well have made him feel the vanity of human life. But this latter view is supported by no authority, and the things attributed to Kohéleth agree too well with what is told of Solomon in the Book of Kings, to allow us to think that any one else is intended. Thus Kohéleth excels all his predecessors in wisdom (Ecclesiastes 1:16; see 1Kings 3:12), and set in order many proverbs (Ecclesiastes 12:10; 1Kings 4:32). The description of his state (Ecclesiastes 2) corresponds with what is told of Solomon (1 Kings 10); while his unfavourable experience of women (Ecclesiastes 7:28) is what might be expected from Solomon (1 Kings 11).

But if Solomon is intended, why is he called Kohéleth? This particular form is not found elsewhere in the Old Testament, but there are of frequent occurrence other forms of the same grammatical root, which have the sense of collecting or assembling. Thus it is this root which furnishes the ordinary name for the congregation or assembly of the children of Israel; while the corresponding verb is used of the gathering together of the congregation. These words are used in connection with Solomon (1 Kings 8), where it is told (1Kings 8:1-2) how Solomon “assembled” the children of Israel, and (1Kings 8:14; 1Kings 8:22; 1Kings 8:55; 1Kings 8:65) how he blessed the “congregation.” Accordingly, the LXX. translates Kohéleth by the name which we still use, “Ecclesiastes,” which St. Jerome explains as one who gathers an assembly. It is less closely translated in our version “Preacher,” or one who addresses an assembly; while the rendering which has been proposed, “debater in an assembly,” is still more open to the objection that it imports a meaning not suggested by the word. According to our present Hebrew text, Kohéleth has in one place the article prefixed, indicating that it is not a proper name, but an official title. We accept the rendering of the LXX. as giving the best explanation of the word; and we reject the explanations: (a) that the word means a collector of sayings, for the Hebrew word is used of collecting persons, not things; (b) that it means the assembly itself, for all through the book the word is used as the name of a person; and, not to mention other explanations, (c) Renan’s suggestion that the word Kohéleth has no meaning, and is only a mnemonic acrostic, formed, according to a custom of the later Jews, by putting together the first letters of the words of an unknown longer title.

The word Kohéleth, however, presents some grammatical anomalies. With one we need not trouble the English reader; but the most important is that the word is feminine in its form. In three places the verb which is in agreement is masculine; once, according to the present text, it is feminine, but so very slight a change of reading would bring this passage into conformity with the others, that we cannot feel sure that there is any real difference. A common explanation of the feminine form Kohéleth is that the speaker is Wisdom (in Hebrew a feminine noun) supposed to be incarnate in the person of Solomon. This interpretation, which connects the ideas of “wisdom” and “gathering together,” has an attraction for the Christian reader when he remembers how one greater than Solomon, even the Wisdom of God, said, “How often would 1 have gathered thy children together.” Yet the suggestion will not bear a close examination. In the Book of Proverbs, where Wisdom is introduced as speaking, no room is left for misunderstanding: here not the smallest hint is given that Wisdom is speaking, and on the contrary, several places are inconsistent with such a supposition. For instance, the speaker sets. himself to “search and seek out wisdom,” “turns himself to behold wisdom;” nay, when he said, “I will be wise,” finds that “wisdom is far from him.” We have no right to accuse the author of having failed to carry out a personification consistently, unless we first give some proof that he intended personification, and of such proof there is not a shadow.

We believe that no more recondite explanation of the use of the feminine form is to be looked for than that the usage of the language at the time permitted it. It is no uncommon thing that an abstract noun, though feminine in form, should come to be used as a noun appellative. In a modern language a man may have applied to him titles such as majesté, grandeur, altesse, with corresponding feminine pronouns. A similar use is found in Hebrew, especially in the later Hebrew. It is a feminine noun which denotes the office of governor borne by Nehemiah (Nehemiah 12:26) and others; feminine names of form like Kohéleth—viz., Sophereth and Pochereth—occur in the lists (Ezra 2:55; Ezra 2:57).

Having come to the conclusion that Kohéleth means Solomon, and that he is so called with special reference to that religious assembly of the people which he brought together and which he addressed, we have still to inquire whether the book purports to be written by Solomon. It certainly professes to record his words, but whether or not it professes that he himself is the writer is doubtful. The words of the Preacher appear to come to an end at Ecclesiastes 12:8, and then follows an epilogue in which he is spoken of in the third person. One possible explanation of this is that the book does not profess to have been written by Solomon, but only to contain the words of Solomon as recorded by another person, who in the epilogue speaks in his own name. Jewish tradition certainly refers to the time of Hezekiah not only the reduction of the Book of Proverbs to its present form (as stated in Proverbs 25:1), but also in like manner the writing of the Book of Ecclesiastes.

Against the theory that Solomon himself was the writer the following arguments are urged: (a) Kohéleth says (Ecclesiastes 1:12), “I was king over Israel in Jerusalem.” We know Solomon was king till his death, therefore he who speaks of his reign in the past tense must be, not Solomon himself, but a later writer. who knew, moreover, that there were kings over Israel who did not reign in Jerusalem. That the tense used conveys to a Hebrew reader the impression that at the time of writing Solomon was king no longer, is evident from the Rabbinical legend which grew out of it. It was related that King Solomon, having displeased God, was deprived of the ring by which he ruled over the demons, whereupon Asmodeus their king assumed the form of Solomon and reigned in his place, while he himself was driven from door to door, and beaten by incredulous hearers to whom he told his story, and among whom he went about saying, “I am Kohéleth, who was king over Israel in Jerusalem.” On the other hand, whatever the impression conveyed by the words, they cannot be absolutely inconsistent with Solomonic authorship; for even the writer of a fiction would not put into Solomon’s mouth words which he could not have used. The tense used is the same as in the verbs which follow, “I gave my heart,” “I communed with my own heart,” &c. Solomon is speaking of his past; he is telling how he made trial what wealth and splendour could do for human happiness, and he properly uses the past tense in telling how when he made his experiment he had the advantage of being king. A similar argument against the Solomonic authorship is drawn from the comparison (Ecclesiastes 1:16; Ecclesiastes 2:9) between Solomon and those who had reigned in Jerusalem before him; which admits of the reply that a later writer could not have used this language, since David was the only predecessor of Solomon whom the later Jews recognised as king, but that he himself might have had in his mind the Jebusite kings who had reigned in Jerusalem before its capture by David.

(b) Kohéleth speaks in the tone of a subject, not of a sovereign. Some passages of which this may be said can be paralleled by passages in the Book of Proverbs, but one class of passages is of a special character. Kohéleth complains (Ecclesiastes 3:16) that wickedness was in the place of judgment; (Ecclesiastes 4:6) he tells how, looking on the tears of the oppressed who had no comforter (for with their oppressors there was power), he deemed it better to be dead than to be alive; twice more (Ecclesiastes 5:8; Ecclesiastes 7:7) he returns to the subject of the tyranny of the powerful and the corruption of the judges; he complains of the bad choice of rulers by the sovereign—“folly set in great dignity, and the rich sitting in low places.” All is written in the tone of a man who looked on bad government as an infliction of Providence against which it was hopeless to contend, not of one who was personally responsible for the evil he failed to set right as he was bound to do. This argument makes a strong impression on me, and I am only imperfectly satisfied with the reply that the scene is laid in the old age of Solomon, after he had been persuaded by female influence to trust into unfit hands power which he was not afterwards strong enough to revoke.

In this connection it may be stated that even if the book be accepted as written by Solomon in his old age, there is no warrant for the common opinion that it was intended as an expression of penitence for the errors of his middle life. No such expression of penitence is to be found; his different experiments in search of happiness are recorded as failures, but without shame or repentance; and in particular not only is the sin of countenancing idolatry, with which he is charged in the Book of Kings, not deplored, but no warning against Idolatry is given in the whole book.

The ascription of the work to the old age of Solomon has been made to answer other objections. For example, the general state of the nation appears to have been one of great misery. Death was thought better than life, and men looked with regret on the former days, which they pronounced to be better than the present. This is said to be inconsistent with the prosperity of Solomon’s reign; but it is replied that the discontent which broke out so violently immediately after his death must have been growing, and not without cause, during the later years of his reign.

(c) The style of the book is strongly marked by the author’s individuality, and is confessedly unlike that either of the Proverbs or the Song of Songs. But it is urged that there may be great differences of style between works written by the same man in his youth and in his old age. It is more important to observe that the Hebrew of the book is very different from that of the books known to be of early date. It is, in fact, much more like the Hebrew of the Talmud than is that of any other book in the Canon, so that, judged by this test alone, it will be pronounced one of the latest in the Bible. The references we give in the Notes will show that many words occur in this book which elsewhere occur only in those of the canonical books which are known to be the latest. The argument from the grammatical forms used in the book is not less strong, but the details cannot be given in a Commentary like the present. Concerning each particular instance discussed, there is room for controversy. Earlier parallels have been found for some of the instances brought forward as indications of modern date. In other cases it can be said that it is only the scantiness of the early literature which prevents such parallels from being found; and it has been sought, by tracing analogies in other Shemitic languages, to make it probable that the words objected to as modern might easily have been found in the early Hebrew literature, if we had larger remains of it. The force of the argument, however, is cumulative. It would be very precarious to condemn a book as modern because of its containing three or four words or phrases which have a modern ring. Any one who takes up an early English book will be startled at occasionally coming across phrases which he had not imagined to be so old; and yet no one can fail to recognise the reality of the difference of style between an early book and a recent one. The strength of the present argument altogether depends on the number of words and forms of expression for which an apology must be found if the antiquity of the book is to be maintained. Of those who are entitled to speak with authority as Hebrew scholars, a very great majority regard this argument alone as decisive against the Solomonic authorship; and I am myself so much impressed by the marks of lateness in the Hebrew that I do not venture to put forward a theory which otherwise has something to recommend it, viz., that the book was written in the days of the later Hebrew monarchy, as a record of traditions then preserved of the teaching of Solomon on the occasion of his great assembly.

The conclusion, then, at which I arrive is that, while there is not one of the arguments against the Solomonic authorship which might not be made to give way if convincing external testimony in favour of it were produced, the accumulated weight of the internal arguments would be decisive in the absence of such external proof. To some minds the unanimous consent of the Christian Church for many centuries is decisive external proof; and so the answers to arguments of the former class are easily accepted. Formal Church decision on the subject there has been none; and to me it appears that the weight which attaches to the opinions of Christian Fathers on a question of canonicity does not belong to their opinions on the authorship of Old Testament books. No one now has any difficulty in owning that many of the psalms are later than the time of David, yet not only does Augustine regard the mention of Babylon as made by David under prophetic inspiration, but Philaster counts in his list of heresies the denial that all the 150 psalms were David’s If an Old Testament book is not mentioned in the New Testament, we have no reason to suppose that any later revelation as to its authorship was made to the Christian Church. At the time of the formation of the Church, Jewish general belief ascribed the Book of Ecclesiastes to Solomon, and that opinion was naturally adopted by Christian critics. The fact just mentioned as to general Jewish belief in the first century of our era (and in all probability for a considerable time preciously) is one entitled to great weight; but considering that the date to which we can trace that belief back is still at least 700 years later than Solomon, I cannot regard it as decisive; and in the face of the arguments on the other side. I find myself unable to assert Solomon’s authorship. The case would be different if the alternative were that we should be obliged to impute deception to a book which we accept as canonical, and to suppose that the writer, who knew himself not to be Solomon, falsely tried to make his readers believe that he was. But accepting the view suggested by the epilogue, that a later writer professes to record the teaching of Solomon, we are at liberty to suppose either that he really does what he professes, oral teaching of Solomon having been preserved by a true tradition, or else that the whole is a dramatic fiction, a form of composition common enough among profane writers, and against the use of which by an inspired writer no reason can be assigned.

Those who reject the Solomonic authorship are far from being agreed among themselves as to the date which they will assign the work, from which it is reasonable to infer, not that Solomon after all must have written it, but that the data for any determination of the kind are insufficient. It has been attempted to discover historical references in different passages, such as Ecclesiastes 9:14; but none of these attempts inspires any strong conviction as to its success. Indeed, when we remember how scanty are our materials for a knowledge of Jewish history after the Captivity, we shall not be surprised if we find a difficulty in identifying historical allusions. Again, coincidences have been pointed out between the teaching of Kohéleth and that of different schools of Greek philosophy; and these have been regarded as proving indebtedness on the part of the former, and thus as establishing a very late date for the book. Yet these coincidences are after all but superficial. It would be equally easy to prove by them that Kohéleth was a Stoic or Epicurean; yet he certainly was neither, but one whose theism was thoroughly Hebrew. I have not been able, then, to convince myself that Kohéleth had studied a philosophy by which he is so little really influenced, or that the things which he has in common with it are other than thoughts which may have occurred independently to reflecting men of different nations. I prefer, therefore, not to put forward any theory as to the date of composition, not regarding any as sufficiently proved. Some considerations, however, must be mentioned which place certain limits on hypotheses.

(1) In the time of Herod the Great the book was old enough to be regarded as Scripture. We are told by Josephus that Herod used to go about in disguise in order to learn what was thought of his government, and a story in the Talmud relates that he went in this way to a leading rabbi who had been deprived of sight by his orders, and from whom he expected to draw some angry denunciation of the wrongs which he and his brethren had suffered at his hands. But the rabbi resisted every temptation to curse the king, quoting Ecclesiastes 10:20; and the story goes on to tell that the king was moved to make atonement for these wrongs by rebuilding the Temple. In another Talmudical story, the scene of which is laid somewhat later, the celebrated Gamaliel is represented as depicting the miraculous results that would follow when, in the coming age of the Messiah, the curse should be removed from nature, and a contentious pupil (by whom it is imagined St. Paul is intended) objects, Is it not written, There is nothing new under the sun? Without overrating the amount of credence that these anecdotes deserve, we do not think that the stories could have originated or been accepted if the composition of the book had been within living memory in the reign of Herod.

(2) Ecclesiastes is more ancient than the apocryphal Book of Wisdom. It cannot reasonably be doubted that the author of the Book of Wisdom was acquainted with Ecclesiastes, the coincidences being such as cannot be ascribed to accident. In particular the whole passage (Wisdom Of Solomon 2:1-10) is full of echoes of Ecclesiastes. There are several passages in the latter book which appear to teach Epicurean or pessimistic doctrine: and of these the explanation was offered long since, of which every interpreter is still bound to take account, that the writer is not giving his own conclusions, but stating the opinions of an infidel or objector. And this seems to be the view taken by the author of Wisdom, who introduces the passage with the preface, “The ungodly said, reasoning with themselves, but not aright.” We need not suppose that the author of Wisdom rejected the authority of Ecclesiastes; he may have only sought to bring out more clearly what he believed to be its true meaning. Accordingly the solution of the problem of life afforded by the doctrine of future retribution, concerning the use of which made in Ecclesiastes there has been dispute, is in Wisdom taught with a distinctness which leaves no room for controversy. We do not gain much for the antiquity of Ecclesiastes in proving it to be older than Wisdom, the date of the latter book being uncertain. About 150 years before Christ is not an improbable determination.

(3) Ecclesiastes is more ancient than the apocryphal book, Ecclesiasticus, or Wisdom of the Son of Sirach. The proof of this seems to me sufficient, but it is far from being so cogent as in the case of the Book of Wisdom. It is a natural inference from the mention in the prologue of the threefold division of sacred books, “the Law, the prophets, and the rest of the books,” that the Canon had been then closed. And that then, as now, it included Kohéleth is made probable by coincidences, some of which no doubt can be explained as indicating that both writers used a common source; for example “he that diggeth a pit shall fall into it” (Ecclesiasticus 27:26, Ecclesiastes 10:8), has probably its original in Proverbs 26:27; Psalm 7:15. Other resemblances may be accidental, though we think the presumption is in favour of literary obligation, especially in the first instance (Ecclesiasticus 12:13, Ecclesiastes 10:11; Ecclesiasticus 13:25-26, Ecclesiastes 8:1; Ecclesiasticus 19:16, Ecclesiastes 7:20-22, Ecclesiasticus 20:7; Ecclesiasticus 21:25-26, Ecclesiastes 10:2-3; Ecclesiastes 10:12; Ecclesiastes 10:14; Ecclesiasticus 40:4, Ecclesiastes 1:7). Several others might be mentioned, and the argument gains much in strength from its cumulative force, it being unlikely that so many resemblances should be all accidental. The closest resemblance is in the passages (Ecclesiasticus 33:13-15; Ecclesiasticus 42:24-25), which, on being carefully compared with Ecclesiastes 7:13-15, exhibit what must be pronounced to be more than chance agreement. Even when the Son of Sirach uses the Book of Proverbs he usually does not copy slavishly, so that we have no right to expect closer agreement in this case; and if borrowing has been established in any one instance, the coincidences in other cases are not likely to be accidental. The Book of Sirach is older than that of Wisdom, but concerning its date also there is much disagreement among critics.

(4) Ecclesiastes is anterior to the times of the Maccabees. Under the persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes many a Jew was forced to choose whether he would forsake the faith of his fathers or submit to tortures and death. It then passed from being a question debated by speculative theologians, to become one of the greatest practical moment, whether if in obedience to God’s command he gave up all the happiness of this life, there was any future life in which he might hope for compensation. And the affirmative answer was thenceforward embraced by pious Jews with an intensity of faith of which we find no trace in Ecclesiastes. Neither, again, have we in that book any indication of the strong patriotic feeling to which the Maccabean struggles gave rise.

The testimonies that we have produced as to the use of the Book of Kohéleth entitle us to say that it must have been composed more than two centuries before Christ. The absence of documentary evidence leaves still some centuries between the age of Solomon and the date we have named, for our choice among which we have no guide except what inferences we can draw from the book itself. But the importance of placing a lower limit on the date of the book is that it controls speculations founded on the character of its Hebrew. This has so many affinities with Talmudical Hebrew that some scholars have attempted to bring down the date almost to our Lord’s time. The evidence as to the use of the book for a couple of centuries before that time shows that a certain reserve must be used in relying on the argument from language. A kindred argument has been built on the character of the Greek translation. At the beginning of the second century of our era, a Jew named Aquila published a new translation of the Old Testament, the chief characteristic of which was slavish literalness, even to the violation of Greek idiom. In particular he thought it necessary to represent by a Greek preposition a Hebrew particle which, as being a mere sign of the accusative case, previous versions had properly left untranslated. This peculiarity is found in the now extant Greek translation of Ecclesiastes. Yet the conclusion to which we are tempted, that this translation is the work of Aquila, is contradicted by the fact that a different translation, under the name of Aquila, was known to Origen. No proof being possible that the peculiarity in question was an invention of Aquila’s, it would be rash to conclude, as some have done, that Kohéleth was not translated into Greek until his time. Nor can we even say with any certainty that the present Greek text has been interpolated from Aquila’s translation. But we may, at least, add this to the presumptions against the Solomonic authorship; for if at the time the LXX. translation was made this book was regarded as Solomon’s, it seems likely that we should now have a Greek translation of it not differing in character from that of the Book of Proverbs.

It may be stated here that there are some passages in the book which, notwithstanding all that commentators have done to explain them, remain so obscure that there is reason to suspect the difficulty arises from corruption in the Hebrew text. But the remedy of critical conjecture is so precarious that in this Commentary no attempt has been made to resort to it, and it has been preferred to confess inability to give any explanation commending itself as perfectly satisfactory.

The Book of Ecclesiastes contains some internal evidence of having been written in Palestine; not, like the Book of Wisdom, in Egypt. Thus (Ecclesiastes 11:3; Ecclesiastes 12:2) the clouds full of rain are spoken of. The writer lives near the Temple (Ecclesiastes 5:1); and “the city” (Ecclesiastes 8:10; Ecclesiastes 10:15) is, to all appearance, Jerusalem. It may be doubted, however, whether, if the writer’s residence had been exclusively in Palestine, he could have gained that familiarity with royal courts which he more than once exhibits.

Great as has been the diversity of opinion as to the authorship and date of the Book of Ecclesiastes, there has been fully as great as to its interpretation, and even as to its whole plan and object. We may set aside one system of interpretation, although it found favour in the Christian Church for centuries: that, namely, in which this Old Testament book was made to teach New Testament doctrine from one end to the other, and the most unlikely verses were forced to prophesy of Christ.[22] We need not inquire whether, when this style of comment was introduced, anything more was meant than to make the words of the Old Testament book the occasion for edifying practical observations; it is only for such purpose that comment of this sort would be likely to be used now. But even interpreters who, looking at the book solely from its human side, set themselves to discover the intention with which the author wrote, are found unable to agree in any conclusion. The cause of this disagreement is that different utterances of the book unquestionably contradict each other, and in such wise as to leave room for controversy which of them express the author’s real sentiments. Indeed. we are told that it was on account of these self-contradictions that the authority of the book was impugned in the Rabbinical schools. The following are a few of the examples of these contradictions given by a Jewish commentator: that in one place (Ecclesiastes 8:15) Kohéleth praises mirth, in another (Ecclesiastes 2:2) he condemns it as unprofitable; that in one place (Ecclesiastes 2:13) he owns that wisdom has an advantage over folly, in another (Ecclesiastes 2:13) he denies that there is any; the state of the dead is said to be better than that of the living (Ecclesiastes 4:2), and the contrary (Ecclesiastes 9:4). We are told (Ecclesiastes 8:12) that it shall be well with those who fear God, and (Ecclesiastes 7:13) that it shall not be well with the wicked, and that he shall not prolong his days; and yet (Ecclesiastes 7:15) that there is a wicked man who does prolong his days in his wickedness, and (Ecclesiastes 8:14) that there are wicked to whom it happens according to the doings of the righteous.

[22] For example, “There is one alone, and there is not a second, yet he hath neither child nor brother; yet is there no end of all his labour, neither is his eye satisfied with riches: neither saith he, For whom do I labour and bereave my soul of good?” This is the Saviour who descended alone, and without companion, to save the world. There is no end of His labour in bearing our sins and grievances for us; His eye will not be satisfied with riches while He ever desires our salvation. “If two lie together, then they have heat; but how can one be warm alone? And if one prevail against him, two shall withstand him, and a threefold cord is not quickly broken.” If one should sleep—that is, be dissolved in death—and have Christ with him, he is warmed. and comes to life again. If the devil come with attacks too strong for a man to bear alone, he nevertheless will stand who has Christ for his companion. And if Father, Son, and Holy Spirit come, that triple cord is not easily broken, &c

Dismissing, however, discrepancies between what may be regarded as incidental statements, we find that the book has suggested opposite answers to the inquiry, what was the main lesson which the author designed to teach? He defines his subject plainly enough in the words which strike the key-note of his work, “vanity of vanities; all is vanity.” His theme is the nothingness of human life; the unsatisfying character of its pleasures, the profitless result of its pursuits, the uncertainty whether the best human. prudence can gain any real happiness. But as to the practical conclusion which the writer means to recommend, his readers have formed different opinions, Some have imagined that he inculcates an ascetic withdrawal from earthly pleasures, which have been proved to be worthless; some, that he gives his disciples the Epicurean counsel to enjoy life while they can, not knowing how long its happiness may last; some, that he teaches a sceptical despair of regulating conduct in a world where all is ruled by chance or fate. And we find ourselves perplexed by different answers when we inquire what solution the writer offers of the difficulties arising from the imperfections of the retribution which conduct meets in this world. He has complained that “all things come alike to all; there is one event to the righteous and the wicked; to the good and to the clean, and to the unclean; to him that sacrificeth, and to him that sacrificeth not; as is the good so is the sinner; and he that sweareth, as he that feareth an oath.” Does he then remove the difficulty by the Christian solution that there will be a future life in which the imperfections of earthly retribution will be adjusted, and the Divine justice fully vindicated? There are passages which would seem to indicate that Kohéleth had no such idea, and that he regarded the end of this mortal existence as the absolute end of all our joys and sorrows. “That which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them; as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath, so that a man hath no pre-eminence above a beast, for all is vanity. All go unto one place; all are of the dust and all turn to dust again.” “The living know that they shall die, but the dead know not anything, neither have they any more a reward, for the memory of them is forgotten, also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in anything that is done under the sun.” “Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave whither thou goest.” Yet the passages here cited are balanced by another chain of passages running through the book, professing the same belief in future judgment and retribution, which is declared in the formal conclusion at the end. “I said in my heart, God shall judge the righteous and the wicked, for there is a time there for every purpose and for every work.” “Though a sinner do evil a hundred times, and his days be prolonged, yet surely I know that it shall be well with them that fear God, which fear before him: but it shall not be well with the wicked, neither shall he prolong his days, which are as a shadow, because he feareth not before God.” “Rejoice, O young man, in thy youth, and let thy heart cheer thee in the days of thy youth, and walk in the ways of thine heart, and in the sight of thine eyes; but know thou that for all these things God will bring thee into judgment.” And the conclusion of the whole is, “God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good or whether it be evil.” It has been proposed to account for these seeming inconsistencies by the hypothesis that the book represents, not the sentiments of a single person, but the debates of an “assembly”; yet I cannot regard any attempt as successful which has been made to throw the book into the form of a dialogue, in which different speakers take their part. But the form of the book suggests that its contradictory utterances express the sentiments, not of different persons, but of the same person at different times, and that as Kohéleth relates his various experiments of life, so he tells also the opinions which he formed, but which subsequent experience compelled him to modify. According to this view we should regard the conclusion last stated (Ecclesiastes 12:14) as that in which he finally acquiesced, and which overrules any previous expressions that may be inconsistent with it.

Some have attempted to evade the argument drawn from the last verse by the suggestion that in this passage only a judgment in this life is referred to. But we have no experience in this life of a judgment in which every secret thing is brought to light and receives retribution, and the whole tenor of the book forbids us to imagine that the author asserts that anything of the kind takes place here. The only other way of escaping the necessity of interpreting the book by its formal conclusion, is to assert that the epilogue is not by the same author as the rest of the book. The assertion is easy to make, but difficult to prove. There would be justification for it if the doctrine of the epilogue contradicted that of the rest of the book; but in truth the epilogue does no more than give emphatic adoption to a solution which has been indicated already. Delitzsch (pp. 206, 430, Eng. Trans.) has found in the language of the epilogue, indications that it proceeded from the same author as the rest of the book, far more numerous than one could beforehand have expected to find in so short a passage. Certain it is that when the authority of the book was discussed in the Jewish schools, no doubt was entertained that the epilogue formed an integral part of the book; for it was the orthodoxy of the conclusion which banished doubts raised by some earlier passages. At the time, then, of these discussions the epilogue must have been of immemorial antiquity; and, if added by a different hand, then at the time when it was added the book of Kohéleth must have been of undisputed authority, and we may reasonably believe must have been received as Solomon’s. For the hypothesis assumes that the sentiments of the author of the epilogue are at variance with those of the writer of the book itself; and there would have been nothing to prevent him from doing as later Jews were tempted to do, and rejecting the book altogether, if its traditional authority at the time had not been too strong for him; and how, in that case, he could have succeeded in getting universal acceptance for his addition, as if it had been part of the original tradition, is not easy to explain.

To many a modern Christian reader it will seem strange that it should be a question admitting of debate whether or not a canonical Old Testament book recognises the doctrine of a future life.

To such a reader we offer the following considerations:—

(1) In the dispensation of God’s providence, the communication of religious knowledge has been progressive, like “light shining more and more unto the perfect day.” Prophets of old earnestly desired to look into those things which are exposed to the view of the least in the Gospel dispensation, and searched diligently into the meaning of dark sayings of their own which the light of subsequent revelations enables us with ease to interpret (1Peter 1:10).

(2) If we admit this principle, we have no cause for surprise if we find in the earlier portions of God’s revelation intimations rather than express declarations of those great truths which in the fulness of time were plainly disclosed. Each sacred writer was only empowered to communicate those truths which God had revealed to him. Each could say, “The word that God putteth in my mouth, that will I speak.” We do not derogate from the inspiration of any Old Testament writer if we refuse to force his words so as to make them convey a more express declaration of Gospel truth than their natural meaning suggests.

(3) Now, it must be owned that the doctrine of future retribution did not occupy in the minds of pious men of the old dispensation the same place among unquestioned truths which it holds in our own convictions. The proof of this assertion does not depend so much on particular texts as on the fact that the stumbling- block which, more than any other speculative difficulty, caused the feet of those of old time well-nigh to slip, was that “they were envious of the foolish when they saw the prosperity of the wicked.” Many of the psalms, as well as portions of the Book of Job, resemble the Book of Ecclesiastes in exhibiting the perplexity caused to thoughtful men of old by the frequent distribution of temporal happiness and misery, apparently, irrespective of the deserts of men, or even contrary to what we conceive it ought to be. We hear nothing of these difficulties in the New Testament. The disciples saw their enemies in possession of temporal power, and themselves at the extreme of earthly wretchedness, yet they never dreamed of questioning the ways of God’s providence, but counted that their “light affliction, which was but for a moment,” was working for them a “far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory.” But in the case of the Old Testament writers referred to, the conclusion that it shall surely in the end be well with them that fear the Lord, is one which they seem to have arrived at by an effort of faith in the power, goodness, and justice of God as generally known to them, rather than on any more distinct revelation of the way in which He will make His cause to triumph.

(4) If to the reader it seem strange that the Bible should contain a detailed record of perplexities which a later revelation has removed, let him remember that the Bible contains an inspired account of the external history of God’s people, including the story of the sins and follies of many of them, and that we have all cause to own that this history contains valuable lessons for our learning. In an age when the trials of many are from speculative difficulties more than from the allurements of vice, can we pronounce it unfitting that the sacred volume should also contain for our instruction an inspired account of the internal history of a pious man of old, should make known to us his doubts and difficulties, and let us see how, apparently without being in possession of any such satisfactory solution of his difficulties as could content his intellect, his heart taught him that surely it shall be well with them that fear God, and that the conclusion of the whole matter is that to fear God and keep His commandments is the whole duty of man? The contradictions of the Book of Ecclesiastes spring out of the conflict between the writer’s faith and his experience—his faith that the world is ordered by God, and his experience that events do not fall out as he would have expected God should have ordered them. He seems to have lived in that darkest hour, the hour before dawn, when, through brooding on the imperfections of earthly retribution, many minds were prepared for the reception of the fuller revelation that was coming. The writer of Ecclesiastes takes a gloomy view of life, but he is at the opposite pole from the atheistic pessimists of modern times. The whole book is pervaded by belief in the God who rules the world, though it may be in a way incomprehensible to man.

It is plain, then, what instruction we may derive from the inspired history of the mental struggles of one perplexed by difficulties of which we know the solution. We, too, have our intellectual difficulties, and we must sometimes decide to hold fast to certain great truths of faith, notwithstanding objections which we do not know how satisfactorily to remove. In such a case we may be comforted by the study of the history of one who, in old time, passed through a similar experience, and by observing how, while his understanding was wandering perplexed, his heart by a shorter way arrived at the goal.

Ec 1:1-18.

INTRODUCTION.

1. the Preacher--and Convener of assemblies for the purpose. See my

Preface.

Koheleth in Hebrew, a symbolical name for Solomon, and of Heavenly Wisdom speaking through and identified with him.

Ec 1:12

shows that "king of Jerusalem" is in apposition, not with "David," but "Preacher."

of Jerusalem--rather, "in Jerusalem," for it was merely his metropolis, not his whole kingdom.

Preacher - literally, Convener. No one English word represents the Hebrew קהלת qôheleth adequately. Though capable, according to Hebrew usage, of being applied to men in office, it is strictly a feminine participle, and describes a person in the act of calling together an assembly of people as if with the intention of addressing them. The word thus understood refers us to the action of Wisdom personified Proverbs 1:20; Proverbs 8:8. In Proverbs and here, Solomon seems to support two characters, speaking sometimes in the third person as Wisdom instructing the assembled people, at other times in the first person. So our Lord speaks of Himself (compare Luke 11:49 with Matthew 23:34) as Wisdom, and as desiring Luke 13:34 to gather the people together for instruction; It is unfortunate that the word "Preacher" does not bring this personification before English minds, but a different idea.