Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadJohn Kitto Evening Bible Devotions: March 19
Today is: Saturday, December 21st, 2024 (Show Today's Devotion)
Select a Day for a Devotion in the Month of March: (Show All Months)
The difficulty of the book was early felt; and it is related by old authorities that the Jews themselves, being unable to grasp its real scope, had serious doubts concerning it, and contemplated its degradation from their canonical Scripture, but eventually concluded that the Divine authority of the book was saved by its conclusion—which is indeed such as to suggest, that every view which induces a disparaging estimate of its contents must be founded on an imperfect apprehension of its design, or on too strong reference to particular passages, without regard to the place they bear in the argument. The fact seems to be, that it requires close attention and careful thought to follow the writer’s argument, and apprehend the bearing of all its parts upon each other; and as there are many who cannot think, and many others who are disinclined to the labor of thought, it is wonderful how greatly the book has been misapprehended, and how variously it has been understood. Thus, from the apparently contradictory nature of its contents, the book has been looked upon by some as the gloomy imaginings of a melancholy misanthrope, and by others as the licentious suggestions of an Epicurean profligate; by some as the disputation of a wavering skeptic, and by others as a justification of God’s providence in ruling the world. Some, again, with the view of freeing it from objections to which it has appeared to them obnoxious, have even gone so far as to convert it into a dialogue, in which the Preacher is made to speak as a learner, the bold tone of whose language is rebuked and softened down by the calm and soothing voice of his instructor.
All the doubt and disparagement cast upon Ecclesiastes have, however, been most completely and satisfactorily met by various writers who have joined in vindicating the book, and in bearing witness to its high value, while they differed in the interpretation of its contents. “I do not know,” says one,” Note: Herder. “any book in the Old Testament, that describes more fully, more convincingly, or more concisely, the whole sum of human life, with all its changes and vanities, its occupations, its plans, its speculations, and pleasures; and, at the same time, that which alone is real, lasting, progressive, and rewarding.” Another Note: Ewald. testifies: “There blows throughout this book a piercing chill against every earthly aim, and every vain endeavor—a contempt which changes into a bitter sneer against everything which, in the usual proceedings of men, is one-sided and perverse; an indefatigable penetration in the discovery of all human vanities and fooleries. In no earlier Note: This author is one of those who contend for the later date of the book. writing, has all cause of pride and vain imagination so decidedly and comprehensively been taken from man; and no book is pervaded by such an outcry of noble indignation against all that is vain in the world.” Another Note: Nordheimer. describes it as—“That precious fragment of sacred oriental philosophy, the Book of Ecclesiastes, through the whole of which is shadowed forth the sentiment contained in the concluding words: Fear God, and keep his commandments.” Another Note: Hengstenberg. perceives that “a deep religious sense pervades the whole book.” Another, Note: Wardlaw. “I enjoyed much pleasure in the study and exposition of this portion of the word of God.” Another Note: Desvaeux. declares that “the much complained of obscurity of the Book of Ecclesiastes, is entirely owing to the interpreters generally neglecting, rather than being unable to discover, the design of the book, which, besides being sufficiently declared by the author, is obvious enough of itself.”
Now, as to the view of the book that seems to us most entitled to attention, we must acknowledge that we were formerly inclined to acquiesce in the conclusion that its general scope amounted to an inquiry after the chief good—that very same inquiry after the summum bonum which much engaged the attention of the old pagan philosophers. They, however, only sought to know what was the precise happiness of this life; whereas, under this view, the chief good of the author of Ecclesiastes is after that which is ultimately good—that which, in all its bearings and relations, is most conducive to the best interests of man. Pursuing this inquiry, the Preacher, after discussing various erroneous opinions and pursuits, determines in favor of true wisdom. The scope of the whole argument then becomes the praise and recommendation of wisdom, as the supreme good of creatures responsible for their actions. But in this wisdom there is nothing worldly or carnal; it is the wisdom from above—holy, spiritual, undefiled, and which, in the writings of Solomon, is but another name for religion.
There is much to recommend this view to attention; but on renewed and more deliberate consideration, another explanation appears more satisfactory, and calculated to give this book a higher place in the progressive teaching which prepared the way for those better and clearer revelations of life and immortality which the Gospel finally bestowed. The real object of the Preacher seems to be, by showing the emptiness of all things earthly, to force those who follow his argument to deduce the absolute necessity of a future and a better existence, as the only solution of the otherwise inscrutable phenomena which the course of man’s life presents. The practical result of the argument is to show man that, if in this life only be has hope, be is of all beings the most unhappy. In some respects the argument is the same as that of the Book of Job—only in that book the argument is founded upon actual sufferings, whereas in this it is wrought out by calm reasoning, founded on experience and observation. In neither book is this practical and inevitable conclusion broadly and fully stated, the time for authoritative and plain disclosure on this matter not being yet come. As a guide conducts the bewildered traveller to the home he seeks, and leaves him when he comes within sight of it, and can no longer mistake his way, so here the sacred writer leads us up to the very gates of the future life, and leaves us there to knock and wait till the portals are flung open to us. In both these books, however, intimations of the real conclusion of the matter, of the writer’s real purpose, are suffered to transpire; and, as the advancing lateness of time required, these intimations are more frequent and distinct in the Book of Ecclesiastes than in that of Job, and indeed are such, and are so interspersed, as to afford to the attentive reader a sufficient clue to the real meaning of the writer.
The view of the book which we have thus indicated, is not a novelty. It was set forth about ninety years ago by the learned and ingenious Desvaeux, and has more recently been taken up and very ably enforced by an accomplished German writer, Dr. Nordheimer, who perhaps drew the hint from Desvaeux, whose work was translated into the German language soon after it appeared. Note: A Philosophical and Critical Essay on Ecclesiastes, wherein the Author’s design is stated, etc. By A.V. Desvaeux. London, 1762, 4to. The Essay of Dr. Nordheimer (a late German Professor in an American University), appeared in the American Biblical Repository for 1838, as translated by W.M. Turner, from the German MS. of the Author, and revised by him.
The former writer affirms that, “the whole discourse may be reduced to three propositions, every one of which, when properly reflected on, yields a strong proof of a future state of rewards and punishments. First, no labor or trouble of men in this world can ever be so profitable, as to produce in them a lasting contentment and thorough satisfaction of mind. Secondly, earthly goods, and whatever we can acquire by our utmost trouble and labor in this world, are so far from making us lastingly happy, that they may be even looked upon as real obstacles to our ease, quiet, and tranquillity. Thirdly, men know 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 they are dead; therefore any one may conclude that there must be a state of true and solid happiness for men; unless God, who is allowed to have made them what they are, to have implanted in their hearts that strong desire of happiness which often makes them unhappy in this world, and to have the absolute command of their fate, be absurdly supposed to have acted whimsically in their formation, and to act so still in the dispensations of providence. Thus, from all these propositions, but especially the last, the Preacher infers; that we must seek for happiness beyond the grave.”
This is better thought than expressed. But as we are anxious that the reader should understand this matter well, we will tomorrow endeavor to condense within our limit the large analysis which Dr. Nordheimer has given of the whole book. By making this a separate matter, those who “don’t care,” will be enabled to keep holiday; while those who do care will labor the more diligently on that day in comparing the book with the analysis.