Deeper Commentary
Ecc 1:1 The words of the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem-
This first verse of Ecclesiastes is a prologue, and there is an epilogue to the book, also written by this Divinely inspired editor of the book. The epilogue is the key. The "preacher' argues that life is meaningless and spiritual endeavour is pointless because death is the end. And that is indeed how life is "under the sun". But what makes all the difference is belief in the resurrection of the body, judgment which gives moment to every human thought and action, and the eternity of God's Kingdom beyond. This is what makes all the difference. The book very cleverly leaves this crucial observation to the very end. And that is typical of the 'end stress' which we see so often in the Lord's parables, where the essential point is left until the very end. So Ecclesiastes leaves us finding it hard to disagree with "the preacher"... wallowing in the despair, apathy and depression which is the malaise of our age. Until... we accept that in fact life is meaningful if lived with the Lord, man's search for meaning has an answer- in Him and living in responsibility to His future judgment and Kingdom.
I will explain on :16 why this book is appropriate to Solomon as
author, at the time when his wives had turned away his heart from Yahweh.
The "preacher", the convener or gatherer of an assembly for teaching,
could as well mean the compiler. He says he produced and set in order many
Proverbs (Ecc. 12:9), and this confirms that Solomon is the "son of David"
in view. His emphasis upon how he was "king in Jerusalem" suggests he
considers his kingship there as a fulfilment of the promises to David, which
he considered to be fulfilled in himself. The description of his indulgence
in every building project, woman and avenue of human experience in Ecc. 2
can only really apply to Solomon.
But a case has been made for Hezekiah as the author. The huge amount of
Solomonic language, and connections with Proverbs, Song of Solomon and his
own recorded life history, would mean that I would still take Solomon as
the author. But as explained on Prov. 25:1, Hezekiah had a great interest
in Solomon, and edited his Proverbs in Prov. 25-29. The author of
Ecclesiastes "set in order many Proverbs" (Ecc. 12:9). This clearly
connects to Prov. 25:1 recording that the men of Hezekiah copied out
Proverbs. I have pointed out
throughout that section the relevance of so much of that material to
Hezekiah. Thus Prov. 25:19 "Confidence in someone
unfaithful in time of trouble is like a bad tooth or a lame foot" is the
phrase is used of the Assyrian invasion (s.w. Is. 37:3). There are
130 proverbs following, matching the numerical value of "Hezekiah".
This is what forges the connection between Hezekiah and a preacher of
"wisdom".
The way Hezekiah followed Solomon's path to apostasy in later
life would explain his interest in the book. And so just as he reused
Prov. 25-29, as stated in Prov. 25:1, so he may have used Ecclesiastes, as
he found it so relevant to his own situation at the end of his life. He
too had turned away from God in his heart but still retained Divine
wisdom- in terms of theoretical truth. Likewise the observation has been
made that there is much language used in Ecclesiastes which is influenced
by Persian, as if the book was rewritten in captivity. That too may be the
case, although I would add that whatever the processes, it was all under
the overall inspiration of God. Judah in captivity were as Solomon at the
end of his life and Hezekiah in his last 15 years, and the book would
therefore have been used as an appeal for their repentance from the vanity
of the good life in Persia.
"Son of David" is several times used about descendants of David [not least the Lord Jesus, the "son of David"], and Hezekiah's descent from David is several times stressed. He was saved from death and from destruction by Assyria "for the sake of David [his father]". So it is applicable to Hezekiah and not only Solomon as the immediate biological son of David. Hezekiah did what was “right in the eyes of Yahweh, according to all that David his father had done” (2 Kings 18:3; 2 Chron. 29:2). 2 Kings 20:5: "... say to Hezekiah the leader of my people, ‘Thus says Yahweh, the God of David your father". The author was king over Israel (Ecc. 1:12), but Hezekiah tried to bring Israel and Judah together, offering sacrifice for "all Israel" (2 Chron. 29:24) and inviting "all Israel and Judah" to come to him for a Passover celebration (2 Chron. 30:1,18). However almost every king of Judah ends spiritually weak. None of them die spiritually strong, even if overall God may accept them [as with David]. This was to point up the need for the perfect "king of the Jews", the Lord Jesus.
God "left" Hezekiah, so that "he might know all that was in his heart" (2 Chron. 32:31). If the "he" is Hezekiah, then Ecclesiastes would make sense for him to be the author. For it is the frank assessment by a man of his own heart. And despite Hezekiah's initial blush of zeal for Yahweh at 25 years of age when he destroyed many idols, his heart was not with Yahweh but was in materialism.
Ecc. 1:16; 2:7,9 have the author proclaiming that he is the
greatest king, greater than all who ruled over Jerusalem before him. This
is more relevant to Hezekiah than Solomon. 2 Kings 18:5 says that "there
were none like him among all the kings of Judah after him, nor among those
who were before him". The wealth of Hezekiah is stated clearly: "And
a great number brought gifts to Yahweh to Jerusalem and precious things to
Hezekiah king of Judah, so that he was exalted in the sight of all nations
from that time onward” (2 Chron. 32:23). The mention of huge amounts of
silver (Ecc. 2:8) fits with Isaiah's condemnation of Hezekiah: "Their
silver has become dross, their best wine has become mixed with water and
their princes are rebels... Their land is full of silver and gold, neither
is there any end of their treasures” (Is. 1:22,23; 2:7).
The mention of huge possessions of
livestock in Ecc. 2:7 fits with 2 Chron. 30:24; 31:3: "Hezekiah king of
Judah gave to the assembly 1,000 bulls and 7,000 sheep for Passover
offerings, and the princes gave to the assembly 1,000 and 10,000... The
contribution of the king from his possessions was for the burnt offering".
Likewise "Hezekiah had very great riches and honour… stalls for all kinds
of cattle, and sheepfolds. He likewise provided cities for himself, and
flocks and herds in abundance, for God had given him very great
possessions" (2 Chron. 32:27–29). The building projects of Ecc. 2:4-8
match the archaeological discoveries from Hezekiah's time. The "pool" of
Ecc 2:6 is the same word used of his tunnel or pool in 2 Kings 20:20- for
which Isaiah condemned him, claiming Hezekiah did it in human strength
without trust in God.
Hezekiah described his death as a departure, a going, a walking (Is.
38:10). The same term is used in Ecclesiastes for death (Ecc.
1:4; 3:20; 5:15; 6:4, 6; 9:10; 12:5). His
conception of death as unconsciousness where man cannot praise God (Is.
38:10) is repeated in Ecc. 9:10-12. "My
generation
has been uprooted… like a shepherd's
tent" (Is. 38:12) is the same word as in Ecc. 1:4, where he reflects that
one generation passes and another comes. Hezekiah saw death as a breaking
/ shattering of his bones (Is. 38:13), and the same word is used in
describing death as a shattering in Ecc. 12:6. Hezekiah sees death as
"bitter" (Is. 38:15,17), and he does so again in Ecc. 7:26 "I find more
bitter than death the woman ...". We of course note the common phrase
"under the sun..." in Ecclesiastes, and wonder if this connects with how
the shadow of the sun went back ten degrees for Hezekiah. He uses the same
word for "shadow" in Ecc. 6:12; 8:13: "It shall not be well
with the wicked, neither shall he lengthen days like a shadow; because he
doesn’t fear God". It was Hezekiah whose days were lengthened by the
shadow. He appears to see himself as having had this experience because he
was righteous- when in fact it was by grace alone. It's so sad to read
Ecc. 6:13 in this context: "who knows what is good for man in life, all
the days of his vain life which he spends like a shadow?", or "who
knows what is good for man while he lives the few days of his enigmatic
life, which he passes like a shadow? For who can tell man what will be
after him under the sun?”. The extra life he was given he felt was
"vain", and in any case, the shadow of the sun was declining for him as
the 15 years came to a close.
The writer of Ecclesiastes is the "preacher" (Ecc. 12:9), 'qoheleth', the
one who addresses an assembly. The related term is used multiple times for
how Hezekiah assembled the people and addressed them (2
Chron. 29:23, 28, 31, 32; 30:2, 4, 13, 17, 23, 24 (twice), 25 (twice);
31:18).
Ecc. 9:13-16 speaks of a city surrounded by invaders, saved by
a poor wise man. As discussed there, this would be relevant to Isaiah and
the siege of Jerusalem in Hezekiah's time. The passages that speak of
oppression (Ecc. 4:1–3) and perversion of justice
(Ecc. 3:16; 5:8) match with Isaiah's criticism of how things were under
Hezekiah's reign. They are not particularly relevant to Solomon's reign.
Hezekiah's wealth, both before and after the Assyrian invasion, was
considerable.
So I suggest that Solomon was the original author, but the book was rewritten by Hezekiah with references to his own similar experience. But there is evidence from language and style that the book was further rewritten during the exile. And we can understand why. Life seemed pointless for the Judean exiles, God seemed distant, justice was not seen to be done. But the resolution of those concerns was again in the epilogue- there will come a day of resurrection, judgment and God's eternal Kingdom. That is the answer to man's struggle with perceived injustice and God's apparent distance, to the point that it seems life is random event and spiritual effort is pointless.
Ecc 1:2 Vanity of vanities, says the Preacher; Vanity of vanities, all is
vanity-
Many attempts have been made to claim that Ecclesiastes is a kind of
dialogue between a believer, or arguments for belief in Yahweh, and those
for unbelief. But all these arguments for some kind of dialectic rather
break down, in my opinion, because the Preacher himself here states, and
repeats it often, that everything is vanity, including wisdom. Such
statements are so global that they cannot really be as it were cancelled
out by some other side in a dialectic. And there is no clear schema
according to which we can discern which verses fall within which side of
the supposed dialectic. It's true that there is a difference between the
words of the Preacher and those of the narrator, but this kind of thing is
common enough in autobiography. For Ecclesiastes is just that; chapter 2
speaks of Solomon's early kingship, and proceeds to conclude with the
description of him in very old age in Ecc. 12. The overall thrust of
Solomon's argument is clearly against commitment to God, which is to be
expected seeing we know that in old age his heart turned away from Yahweh.
The few verses which appear to contradict that are, I suggest, Solomon
quoting his previous wisdom and mocking it as vanity. Some of the verses
which mention "God" appear to reference Him with sarcasm (see on Ecc.
2:24,26; 6:12); and not as commending belief in God at all.
I suggest therefore that there is no such dialectic, but rather we are reading here Solomon's reflections upon his life, as an old man facing death. And this was at a time when the Scriptures tell us his heart had been turned away from Yahweh by his wives; and he died abusing his people (1 Kings 12:11). Seeing Ecclesiastes was clearly written in his old age, it was written at this time when he had turned away. Ecclesiastes therefore never mentions the title "Yahweh", there is no mention of Israel as God's people, nor really of the Mosaic law. If indeed this is a dialectic between faith and unbelief, then we would expect there to be such references to balance out the dialogue. But there is nothing of the sort.
I suggest that we are hearing Solomon straight up, telling it how he feels it to be, baring his heart. A heart which had turned away from Yahweh. There are some similarities between the book and Egyptian literature, not least an Egyptian work, The Man Who Was Tired of Life, written between 2300 and 2100 BC, where a man disputed with his soul whether life was worth living. Whilst Solomon's words are recorded by inspiration, this doesn't mean that the content of all that is said in Ecclesiastes is true; for there is a difference between inspiration and revelation, and his thoughts here are hardly a "Thus says the Lord". And so it could be that his Egyptian wives had introduced him to this literature and philosophy, and had indeed turned his heart away from Yahweh and towards this.
I noted throughout commentary on Proverbs that Solomon held God's truths in his mind and preached them; but his heart was far from them, he never personalized them, and his behaviour with women and in whipping his people was all a stellar denial of the truths which he knew and taught. It was beyond hypocrisy, beyond even narcissism, but rather a mindset which arose from assuming himself to be the Messianic son of David, and his kingdom to be the promised Kingdom of God on earth. As he came closer to death and his faculties failed, he ought to have realized his mistake, and looked forward instead to David's greater son, the Lord Jesus. But instead he simply preferred to conclude that for him, all these great ideas were bunk. He made the mistake so many make; that "truth" is truth 'for you', 'for me'; rather than accepting that Divine truth is indeed absolute and global truth for all hearts at all times.
But his wisdom remained with him, and he still taught those truths, although they were far from his own heart. In this he is a valuable warning to all who hold God's truths; his apostasy, recorded for us in such detail with a unique insight into the psychology of those who turn away. This is the value of Ecclesiastes. Just as I will discuss on the Song of Solomon how we have in those songs a unique insight into the mentality of the man who flirts with those outside the faith. And Solomon may even have been self aware of all this on some level, for he concludes Ecclesiastes by saying that his words are intended as goads (Ecc. 12:11); the very observation that "all is vanity" is in fact a goad to action.
This suggestion is true to observed reality. It is not uncommon to encounter those who 'know God's truth' who live absolutely contrary to that truth in their private lives. And yet they are keen to teach that truth to others, even commending it to others, and critical of any attempts to as it were water it down. They may be the conservative hawks of churches or denominations; but they have utterly failed to personalize any of it. They have the Solomon syndrome.
Ecc 1:3 What does man gain from all his labour in which he labours under
the sun?-
The Proverbs contain repeated condemnation of laziness. Lack of a zealous
work ethic is a rejection of wisdom, according to Solomon. As Solomon
explains in Ecc. 2, he was an active person, not lazy by nature. And yet he
lacked spirituality. He claimed that his service of God was due to his
spirituality, but it was in reality merely a semblance of serving God when
it was really just reinforcing his own personality type. His mocking of the
"sluggard" or "lazy one" is so frequent (Prov. 6:6,9; 10:26; 13:4; 15:19;
19:24; 20:4; 21:25; 22:13; 24:30; 26:13-16). But it is a reflection of his
own works-based approach to righteousness; the 'wise' "do" good things, and
the wicked don't do enough good things. Personal spiritual mindedness and
relationship with God are simply not emphasized.
As members of His people, doing His will, the labour
of our lives is
not in vain,
seeing it is done "in the Lord" (1 Cor. 15:58). Paul seems to be alluding
to the spirit of Ecclesiastes, which laments that all achievement and
labour "under the sun", not "in the Lord", is so tragically vain; there is
no sense of final achievement, and this nagging fear about the ultimate
validity of life's work must plague all who live outside the sphere of God
(Ecc. 1:9-11; 2:18-23). We could understand Paul as specifically
disagreeing with Solomon’s attitude that all endeavour is vain.
Ecc 1:4 One generation goes, and another generation comes; but the earth
remains forever-
This is indeed proof enough that the earth shall not be destroyed,
but is rather presented as the territory of God's eternal Kingdom. But
that was likely not what Solomon had in view primarily; his idea was that
just as he felt helpless in old age and that he had achieved nothing of
lasting value, so humanity likewise comes and goes as if on an eternal
stage. Solomon uses the Hebrews words used in 1 Chron. 16:17; 17:14; 2
Chron. 9:8 of how David's seed would remain forever. In Ecclesiastes, he
rejected any idea that he would live for ever, claiming he had no idea
what lay beyond the grave apart from the unconsciousness of death, and
considering that any fulfilment of the promises to David had been in him
and his kingdom. But now he was to die and his kingdom pass to a son whom
he suspected of being a fool; and his heart had turned away from Yahweh
and toward idols. He could be seen as therefore mocking at the very
promises which could have been for him the ultimate gospel of the Kingdom.
Ecc 1:5 The sun also rises, and the sun goes down, and hurries to its
place where it rises-
In line with :6, the idea may be that for all its hurrying [Heb.
'panting'], the sun just returns to where it was. And in that Solomon saw
a parable of himself. He had sought wisdom, thought he had it, and now
jettisoned it for himself; and he was back where he was, no personally
wiser. As noted on :4, he had rejected the hope of resurrection from the
dead and a future kingdom of God on earth. And so he was left with the
impression that the natural creation continues as it were on clockwork,
headed nowhere. It is that lack of sense of direction and progress towards
an end which is the tragedy of rejecting a knowledge of Yahweh and His
purpose.
Hezekiah had been shown that the position of the sun was not in fact just a clockwork mechanism- a far greater light could change its effect and shadow. But now he concludes that even that great intervention of God in his life was just part of the time and tide of human experience. He rationalized the wonderful thing God had done until it no longer touched him. And so it is with man today.
Ecc 1:6 The wind goes toward the south, and turns around to the north. It
turns around continually as it goes, and the wind returns again to its
courses-
This sense of endless, pointless cyclical operation developed in :5-7
is really arguing that the entire natural creation is encoded with the
same nihilism and vanity which Solomon felt in himself. He saw the world
in the same way as he saw himself, and that is indeed how we are wired.
But for those who have the hope of the Kingdom and an awareness of the
work of God's Spirit within them, the outlook is different. They therefore
and thereby sense within nature a yearning within it toward the day of
God's Kingdom coming on earth, trembling in eager expectation and yearning
for that day (Ps. 96:12,13; Is. 55:12; Rom. 8:19). The passage in Rom. 8
connects the work of the Spirit within believers with the work of the same
Spirit in all of creation.
Hezekiah had so earnestly wanted more life. But now he concludes that life is just part of a series of cycles (:7), and therefore meaningless. He fails to accept that the time and tide of human history and the history of the planet will in fact be radically interrupted- by the establishment of God's eternal Kingdom through His Messiah.
Ecc 1:7 All the rivers run into the sea, yet the sea is not full. To the
place where the rivers flow, there they flow again-
See on :6. For Solomon, his "wisdom" was merely knowledge. The promises to David,
the hope of the Kingdom, had no personal bite for him. He muses that
"there is a time" for everything (Ecc. 3:1-7), as if his nihilism led him
conclude that all behaviour is somehow predestined, all is cyclical,
nothing is ultimately new, and even God is caught up in this- for "God
seeks again that which He has driven away" (Ecc. 3:15). As water goes
around the water cycle (Ecc. 1:7), so everything repeats, things just
happen to us (Ecc. 3:1-8), there will be no resurrection, no coming back
(Ecc. 3:22 RV); and there is therefore no real point in endeavour (Ecc.
3:9). This attitude reveals a pathetic failure to let the knowledge of God
dynamically impact daily life; there's no appreciation of the Spirit, of
God's radical life co-joining with human life, of His mind meeting that of
man. Leaving knowledge as mere theory, as so much Bible study can too
easily remain, is a dangerous thing. And Solomon is the parade example of
it.
Ecc 1:8 All things are full of weariness beyond uttering-
He is really arguing that the entire natural creation is encoded with
the same nihilism and vanity which Solomon felt in himself. He saw the
world in the same way as he saw himself. LXX "a man will not be able to speak of them". And yet Solomon had
spoken of all things by the wisdom given him (1 Kings 4:32,33), but now he
says that the vanity of all human experience is beyond speaking of. Whilst
Solomon retained his wisdom, he felt that it was not the full answer to
the mystery of life; and the answer was, so far as he could see it, that
all things are vain and wearisome. Life is not therefore particularly
worth living. He therefore effectively renounced his wisdom, as we will
note throughout Ecclesiastes. This is the attitude which arises when we fail to
personalize wisdom, and refuse to accept that this life is not God's
Kingdom; that is yet to come.
Hezekiah had so desired life- but found life without God was a weariness, incredibly boring, just existence. Isaiah had told Hezekiah that although secular young people would faint and be weary, those who fear God would renew their strength and run and not be weary in God's Kingdom (Is. 40:30,31). But Hezekiah had no Kingdom perspective. The complaint "I have laboured / been weary in vain" is met with the strong response "Yet surely my judgment is with the Lord, and my work with my God" for future recompense (Is. 49:4). This is Isaiah's response to Hezekiah's words here. Work for the Lord will be recompensed- in the future Kingdom. And then, "they shall not labour in vain" (Is. 65:23). But Hezekiah refuses that perspective.
The eye is not
satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing-
Solomon had spent his life ingratiating his senses, and this was his
conclusion. The lack of "satisfaction" is a major theme in the descriptions of
condemnation for those who break the covenant (s.w. Lev. 26:26). And it is
the principle we must live by today; that the only satisfaction is in the
things of God's Kingdom. Even in this life, the eye is not "satisfied"
with seeing or wealth (s.w. Prov. 27:20; Ecc. 1:8; 4:8; 5:10). And those
who seek such satisfaction from those things will find that
dissatisfaction is the lead characteristic of their condemnation (Ps.
59:15). Tragically Solomon knew the truth of all this but lived otherwise;
just as so many do who give lip service to the idea that the things of the
flesh cannot satisfy.
It is possible to see Solomon as an anti-Christ, as well as a type of
Christ; like Saul, he was both a type of Christ, and also the very
opposite of the true Christ. This point is really brought out in Is.
53:11, where the true Messiah is described as being “satisfied” with the
travail or labour of His soul, and will thereby bring forth many children.
The Hebrew words used occur in close proximity in several passages in
Ecclesiastes, where Solomon speaks of how all his “travail” or “labour”
has not “satisfied” him, and that it is all the more vain because his
children may well not appreciate his labour and will likely squander it
(Ecc. 1:8; 4:8; 5:10; 6:3). Likewise the ‘Babylon’ system of Revelation,
replete with its feature of 666, is described in terms which unmistakably
apply to Solomon’s Kingdom. This feature of Solomon- being both a type of
Christ and yet also the very opposite of the true Christ- reflects the
tragic duality which is so characteristic of him.
In Ecc. 2:18,19 he laments that his labours will achieve
nothing; doubtless alluding back to his words in Prov. 5:10,
where he says that the Gentile wife will make the young Israelite's
labours meaningless. Sin never satisfies. “Hell and destruction are never
satisfied, and the eyes of man are never satisfied” (Prov. 27:20 RV),
Solomon wrote in his youth; and then in old age, he came to basically the
same conclusion, having spent his life working back to the truth that he
had been taught in his youth (Ecc. 1:8; 4:8). And there are many men and
women who have done the same. Those words of Prov. 27 are amongst
the proverbs Hezekiah's men copied out. Hezekiah knew this but lived
otherwise. Likewise the warning not to eat too much honey is in that same
section, but Hezekiah effectively says that this is what he did.
We all tend to be empirical learners; and
yet this is the great power of God’s word, that through it we need not
have to learn everything through our failures; but we can receive His
Truth, trust it, and simply live by it. Otherwise we shall be like
Solomon…
Ecc 1:9 That which has been is that which shall be; and that which has
been done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the
sun-
The knowing of God and His Son is not something merely academic,
consisting only of facts. It is above all an experience, a thrilling and
dynamic one. There is no “new thing under the sun” (Ecc. 1:9)- all in this
world is born to roll downhill. And yet in Christ, all things are made new
in an ongoing sense. The "new song" which his father David loved to sing
(Ps. 33:3; 40:3; 96:1; 98:1 etc.) reflected the sense that the movement of
the Spirit results in our living in "newness of life". But for Solomon,
all was as it were old and boring. He had no sense of the Spirit's
renewing work within him.
David’s life was full of grief, anguish and joy (2 Sam. 1:19-27;
3:33,34; 12:15-23; 18:33; 19:4; 23:13-17); whereas Solomon’s life lacked
any pathos, and he concludes that “what has been done is what will be
done” (Ecc. 1:9). Because he sought to only replicate his father
externally, he never
experienced his very own and personal experiences and growth; he did what
he perceived was right not because it was what he wanted, but
because it looked smart, and appeared in line with his father. For those
raised Christian, these issues are live and difficult. On a psychological
level, it appears that those without personal experience, i.e. experience
which is uniquely their own, fall into destructive behaviour- and Solomon
would fit that pattern. R.D. Laing comments: “If our experience is
destroyed, our behaviour will be destructive” (The Politics Of
Experience (New York: Pantheon, 1967) p. 12). And it’s been observed
that increasingly, modern society is creating behaviours rather than
experiences (Martin Marty, A Nation Of Behavers (Chicago:
University Of Chicago Press, 1976)). Typical 21st century man
or woman has the Solomon syndrome- focused upon others as their heroes,
endless learning from others rather than through empirical, personal
experience; adopting the conclusions of others without having personally
worked them through; indulging in virtual experience [especially, these
days, online] rather than actual experience. Both psychology and the
Biblical example of Solomon teach that all this tends to self-destructive
behaviour in the end.
Ecc 1:10 Is there a thing of which it may be said, Behold, this is new? It
has been long ago, in the ages which were before us-
The answer of course is that yes there is. The engagement of God in
human life produces something radically new, and this will come to full
term in the establishment of God's Kingdom upon earth when the Lord Jesus
returns. That was effectively what was promised to Abraham and David, but
Solomon liked to think that he was the fulfilment of it. And so he failed
to as it were sing the "new song" which his father David loved to sing
(Ps. 33:3; 40:3; 96:1; 98:1 etc.). But for Solomon, all was as it were old
and boring. He had no sense of the Spirit's renewing work within him.
History only appears to repeat because of human nature being such a
constant factor; but the gospel of the Kingdom is that destiny is not
dominated by human nature, but will be the result of God's radical
intervention in the human narrative upon this earth.
Ecc 1:11 There is no memory of the former; neither shall there be any
memory of the latter that are to come, among those that shall come after-
"Memory" is LXX "memorial". He may have in view his half brother
Absalom's vain desire to build a memorial to himself (2 Sam. 18:18).
It is
the Yahweh Name, symbolizing His eternal purpose with the earth, which is
the memorial which abides. But Solomon doesn't use the Name in
Ecclesiastes. He was concerned about making a memorial from himself, of
his own works, failing to have learned the lesson of Absalom. If he had
seen his connection with the Yahweh Name and the longer term purpose of
God, instead of assuming that his kingdom was God's Messianic kingdom,
then he would have had a memorial. But in the book of Proverbs he sees
wisdom as good only in that it gives a good name in this life. But now he
was facing death and thinking of the passage of the generations, he
concludes that it is vain because man has no lasting memorial in this
world. And that is so; but human character is so significant to God that
we shall indeed have eternal memorial at the resurrection of the body into
God's Kingdom upon earth.
Hezekiah's response to Isaiah is in Is. 56:5: "To them I will give in My house and within My walls a memorial and a name better than of sons and of daughters; I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off".
Ecc 1:12 I, the Preacher, was king over Israel in Jerusalem-
Solomon speaks about him being King in Jerusalem (Ecc. 1:1,12; Prov.
1:1) as if this was the ultimate fulfilment of the Davidic promises.
Consider the implications of 2 Chron. 1:9: "O Lord God, let thy promise
unto David my father be established: for thou hast made me king over a
people like the dust of the earth... give me now wisdom, that I may go out
and come in before (i.e. lead) this people". Solomon was asking for
wisdom because he thought that he was the Messiah, and he saw wisdom as a
Messianic characteristic. He failed to realize that the promises to
Abraham and David were only being primarily fulfilled in him (e.g. 1 Kings
4:20); he thought that he was the ultimate fulfilment of them (1 Kings
8:20 states this in so many words). His lack of faith and vision of the
future Kingdom lead him to this proud and arrogant conclusion (cp.
building up our own 'Kingdom' in this life through our lack of vision of
the Kingdom of God).
Ecc 1:13 I applied my heart to seek and to search out by wisdom concerning
all that is done under the sky. It is a heavy burden that God has given to
the sons of men to be afflicted with-
Ecc 1:14 I have seen all the works that are done under the sun; and
behold, all is vanity and a chasing after wind-
This may be true on one level, but it fails to account for the fact
work for God will indeed endure and have eternal consequence,
granted at the final day of judgment. But this perspective is totally
denied by Solomon, and he is writing Ecclesiastes as his autobiography in
old age, when his heart had already turned aside from Yahweh. It is only
for those who reject Yahweh that life is a chasing after wind; the term is
used in Hos. 12:1 of how apostate Israel feed upon / chase after the
wind, and in Jer. 22:22 of how the wind would chase apostate Judah to
their destruction. But they were themselves chasing the wind, so
condemnation by being chased by the wind was appropriate. If vanity fills
our minds now, then the emptiness of unconsciousness will be an
appropriate destiny for us. And the world is so full of vanity, which it
seeks to insert into our minds.
Ecc 1:15 That which is crooked can’t be made straight; and that which is
lacking can’t be counted-
This is typical of the kind of fatalism which Ecclesiastes abounds
with. Secular people at the end of their lives often come to the
conclusion that everything is somehow overruled by 'God', to the point
that human behaviour is pretty much all determined and enforced by a
force beyond ourselves. Solomon fails to accept the basic thesis of the
book of Proverbs; that human actions can be controlled, we have election,
and our choices are for real and eternally significant. We can change, and
that which is lacking can be made by God's grace and operation in our
hearts. And thereby we are accountable for our actions and to Divine
judgment. But Solomon didn't believe in this, and so it led him to
conclude that human behaviour isn't that significant and is somehow all
orchestrated by some higher hand than our own. He may here be alluding to
himself, arguing that change is impossible for him.
Hezekiah was told by Isaiah that God would make the crooked ways straight before the presence and coming of Messiah. But Hezekiah wasn't interested in that perspective.
Ecc 1:16 I said to myself, Behold, I have obtained for myself great wisdom
above all who were before me in Jerusalem. Yes, my heart has had great
experience of wisdom and knowledge-
The constant moral and physical experimentation led Solomon to the deep
cynicism of Ecclesiastes: 'If this is the Kingdom, the ultimate
experience, then I don't think much of it'. Ecclesiastes emphasizes that
Solomon experienced more glory and wisdom than any other who had been in
Jerusalem (Ecc. 1:16; 2:7,9); this suggests that he felt he had reached
the ultimate experience of the Kingdom, and yet he was not impressed by
it. He lacked the faith and humility to look ahead to the future Kingdom,
and to realize thereby that all the achievements of this life are as
nothing.
Solomon's building of exotic gardens with "all kind of fruit" (Ecc.
2:5) sounds as if he was attempting to reconstruct Eden; he was so
carried away with expressing his own abilities that he effectively created
his own kingdom in this life. It seems Solomon's crazy program of
building and moral experimentation (outlined in Ecc. 2) began after he had
finished building the temple. He seems to have got cynical and depressed
after that; he had his kingdom in this life; he looked back
and compared himself with others (Ecc. 1:16; 2:7,9), and thereby he
became proud. He could see that materially and spiritually (in terms of
knowledge) he had far, far outstripped all God's previous servants. It was
this comparison with others (there is triple emphasis on it) which well
indicates his pride.
The words of Dt. 17:16-20 are evidently a prophecy of Solomon.
He did multiply silver, gold, horses and wives; his heart was
turned away (Dt. 17:16,17= 2 Chron. 9:20). Yet this passage says
that if he studied the Law all his life, this would not happen,
and also his heart would not be "lifted up above his brethren" (v. 20).
Solomon's whipping of the people and sense of spiritual and material
superiority (Ecc. 1:16; 2:7,9) shows how his heart was lifted up. Yet Solomon knew the Law, despite his explicit disobedience to
the commands concerning wives, horses etc. But his knowledge of the
word didn't bring forth the true humility which it was intended to.
Ecc 1:17 I applied my heart to know wisdom, and to know madness and folly.
I perceived that this also was a chasing after wind-
LXX "My heart knew much- wisdom, and knowledge, parables and
understanding". Solomon accepts his wisdom was as it were just in his head
or mind. The LXX even implies he considers his desire for wisdom to have
been mistaken, "a waywardness of spirit". And yet God had rewarded him for
that desire. We see here the depth of his apostasy from God.
Ecc 1:18 For in much wisdom is much grief; and he who increases knowledge
increases sorrow-
Solomon forgot that his wisdom was a gift from God; he speaks in Ecc. 1:16
of how “I have gotten me great wisdom” (RV). His possession of truth led
him to the assumption that this was a reward for his own diligence;
whereas it was a gift by grace. Yet he himself knew that the wisdom given
by God brings joy, whereas human wisdom leads to the grief and
depression which afflicted Solomon (Ecc. 1:18 cp. 2:26). Solomon 'had
the truth', he knew so deeply the true principles of Yahweh worship.
But like us, he scarcely considered the enormity of the gap between
the theory he knew and the practice of it in his own heart and
living. We too have a tendency to build up masses of Biblical and
spiritual knowledge, and to let the mere acquisition of it stop us from
practicing it.
Previous Chapter
