# comment

text:
<p>Who knows the spirit of man, whether it goes upward, and the spirit of the animal, whether it goes downward to the earth?<strong>- </strong></p><p>This is not saying that the spirit of man goes upward to heaven, and the spirit of animals goes downward. "Who knows..." as in :22 means 'It is not the case that…'. The wrong idea is being deconstructed- there is no such distinction; for Solomon has just stated in :20 that man and animals all go to the same place. There is no reincarnation, but death is simply a return to the dust and the life force is retracted by God.</p>


text:
<p>Therefore I saw that there is nothing better, than that a man should rejoice in his works; for that is his portion: for who can bring him to see what will be after him?- </p><p>It may be that the whole of this chapter could be a description of how he once thought; he once said in his heart that there would be a future judgment of all things by God (:17). But the contradictions he now sees in the idea of a Divine judgment leads him up to this final conclusion in :22, that because "God" cannot resurrect man to judgment, therefore man may as well get on and enjoy life in a moderate kind of way. "Who can..." as in :21 means 'It is not the case that…':&nbsp; Elsewhere Solomon effectively denies any idea of future judgment by God, and so I am inclined to view this chapter as a description of what he once believed, which by the end of the chapter we see he has now jettisoned:&nbsp; </p><p>The question "who can bring [a man] to see what will be after him?" is answerable- God, through the Lord Jesus. But Messiah was not in Hezekiah's worldview. And so he is left in the misery of having only this life. Likewise the refrain "There is nothing better" begs the question: 'Is there really nothing better?'. And there is a far better thing- resurrection to eternal life in God's Kingdom: "There is nothing better for a man than that he should eat and drink, and make his soul enjoy good in his labour (Ecc. 2:24)... I know that there is nothing better for them than to rejoice, and to do good as long as they live (Ecc. 3:12)... Therefore I saw that there is nothing better, than that a man should rejoice in his works; for that is his portion: for who can bring him to see what will be after him?" (Ecc. 3:22)...  I commended mirth, because a man has no better thing under the sun, than to eat, and to drink, and to be joyful" (Ecc.  8:15). Surely Heb. 11:40 has all this in mind: "God having provided some better thing for us..." at the resurrection. And "better" is a big theme: "Better things...  a better hope... a better possession and an enduring one... a better country" (Heb. 6:9; 7:19; 10:34; 11:16).  </p>


text:
<p>Then I returned and saw all the oppressions that are done under the sun: and behold, the tears of those who were oppressed, and they had no comforter; and on the side of their oppressors there was power; but they had no comforter<strong>- </strong></p><p>“Surely oppression maketh a wise man foolish” (<a href='B:250 7:7'>Ecc 7:7</a> RV), he commented at the end of his life- even though right then he was chastising the people with whips, oppressing them (<a href='B:110 12:11'>1Ki 12:11</a>). <a href='B:110 5:13-16'>1Ki 5:13-16</a> reveals that Solomon&nbsp; had&nbsp; 153,000&nbsp; full&nbsp; time&nbsp; and&nbsp; 90,000&nbsp; part&nbsp; time&nbsp; male servants:&nbsp; Israel's&nbsp; complaint&nbsp; that&nbsp; Solomon&nbsp; had&nbsp; whipped them implies&nbsp; that&nbsp; he&nbsp; treated them like slaves, with himself as the slave-driver:&nbsp; 600,000&nbsp; adults came out of Egypt (<a href='B:20 12:37'>Exo 12:37</a>), and assuming&nbsp; the&nbsp; population&nbsp; only&nbsp; rose&nbsp; slightly over the next 550 years,&nbsp; we&nbsp; have&nbsp; the picture of an Israel where almost half the males&nbsp; (i:e. probably the majority of the working population) were pressganged into slavery to a despotic King Solomon:&nbsp; </p><p>He knew the true wisdom, he saw his reflection so accurately in the mirror, but resigned from its personal implications. He could even write that “I returned and considered all the oppression that are done under the sun [by himself!]: and behold the tears of such as were oppressed, and they had no comforter; and on the side of their oppressors there was power [Solomon was king and had set up the tax system in a clever and biased way]; but they had no comforter” (<a href='B:250 4:1'>Ecc 4:1</a>; <a href='B:250 5:8'>Ecc 5:8</a>). It was a real case of spiritual schizophrenia- he sorrowed for the people he oppressed. He even seems to say that there is nothing to be surprised at in the poor being oppressed, because the whole hierarchy of officialdom above them do the same (<a href='B:250 5:2'>Ecc 5:2</a>). He saw his sin as inevitable, as part of his participation in humanity- he didn’t own up to his own desperate need for grace. Yet he also knew that “man lords it over man [cp. Solomon’s oppression of the people] to his own hurt” (<a href='B:250 8:9'>Ecc 8:9</a> RSV):&nbsp;But still he did so.</p><p>"Oppression" in Ecc. 4 is the same word used by Hezekiah about his suffering and illness (Is. 38:19 "I am oppressed"). If the verses in Ecc. 4:1-4 are relevant to Hezekiah, then it is as if he is regretting having been given 15 years extra to live. He concludes life is meaningless, despite having been given 15 years extra. Ecclesiastes stresses that death is inevitable- and who more than Hezekiah during his last 15 years to appreciate that? He thinks that death is preferable to life (Ecc. 6:3; 7:1). Because he saw no point in life as he saw the inevitable end approaching, at the end of the 15 years. Ecclesiastes has an obsession with death- and that fits Hezekiah perfectly. </p>


text:
<p>Therefore I praised the dead who have been long dead more than the living who are yet alive<strong>- </strong></p><p>For all his wealth, power and the ability to enjoy it, Solomon sees life and existence as a bad thing. And this is the final end of those who live life for themselves and not for God. I noted on <a href='B:250 2:17-18'>Ecc 2:17-18</a> that Solomon "hated life" just as he hated his own works; because he was a human doing rather than a human being. </p>


text:
<p>Yes, better than them both is him who has not yet been, who has not seen the evil work that is done under the sun-</p><p>I suggested on :2 that Solomon included himself in this bitter regret of life and existence. Life is God’s great gift; but Solomon despises it. What he says here is really blasphemous. Because he sees no possibility of eternity (see on <a href='B:250 3:11'>Ecc 3:11</a>), he therefore considers existence futile. If he had believed as David his father had, then the perspective of the Kingdom would have changed his entire outlook. </p>


text:
<p>Then I saw all the labour and achievement that is the envy of a man’s neighbour. This also is vanity and a striving after wind<strong>- </strong></p><p>Solomon has much to say about the evil of envy (e.g. <a href='B:240 14:30'>Pro 14:30</a>; <a href='B:240 23:17'>Pro 23:17</a>; <a href='B:240 24:1'>Pro 24:1</a>; <a href='B:240 24:19'>Pro 24:19</a>; <a href='B:240 27:4'>Pro 27:4</a>). And indeed, envy is so bitter that one may as well not labour or achieve more than our neighbour, because the resultant envy makes all our apparent success but vanity. But true as his condemnations of envy are, he surely has in mind the way that Ephraim envied Judah, and envied his throne (s:w. <a href='B:290 11:13'>Isa 11:13</a>). This all came to full term after his death, when Ephraim departed from Judah under Jeroboam. Again, Solomon is harnessing Divine truth to his own agenda of self justification. And we who claim to hold His truths must take warning. But as he faced death, he came to realize that all such envy is as nothing before the reality of death, which he understood as the end of life, as he had assumed this life was the time for reward and expresses no personal hope in a resurrection of the body (<a href='B:250 4:4'>Ecc 4:4</a>; <a href='B:250 9:6'>Ecc 9:6</a>):&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p>The fool folds his hands together and ruins himself<strong>- </strong></p><p>LXX "and eats his own flesh". This caricature continues the kind of mockery of the poor as being lazy and foolish which Solomon indulges in throughout Proverbs. He never totally quits his works based attitude, and justification of his own native personality type as a hard worker. </p>


text:
<p>Better is a handful, with quietness, than two handfuls with labour and chasing after wind<strong>- </strong></p><p>LXX "waywardness of spirit". This continues Solomon's theme of :4 that excessive labour isn't worth the grief. Whilst absolute laziness is wrong (:5), Solomon urges a quiet life, with moderate effort, with quietness and ability to enjoy what you have as the important thing. This all reflects his nihilism and refusal to lift his spiritual horizons higher. The idea of working with God and for His glory was quite out of his mind. </p>


text:
<p>Then I returned and saw vanity under the sun<strong>- </strong></p><p>"Returned" is the standard word used for changing the mind. I suggested on <a href='B:250 3:17-18'>Ecc 3:17-18</a> that Solomon is now changing his mind in his old age, rejecting the Divine truths he earlier held, in accordance with how we read that his heart turned away from Yahweh and to idols (<a href='B:110 11:3'>1Ki 11:3</a>):&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p>There is one who is alone, and he has neither son nor brother. There is no end to all of his labour, neither are his eyes satisfied with wealth. For whom then, do I labour, and deprive my soul of enjoyment? This also is vanity. Yes, it is a miserable business<strong>- </strong></p><p>The Lord surely built His parable of the lonely, rich fool on this. His punchline was "And the things you have prepared, whose will they be?” (Lk. 12:19-20), alluding to "For whom then do I labour?". But the Lord's parable was not just wallowing in the folly of hard work when you can't long enjoy it. It connects with His teaching that correct use of wealth [giving it away] results in "treasure in heaven", a reward to be given to us when the Lord returns in judgment (Mt. 6:19; Mk. 10:21). </p><p>The Lord appears to have this character in mind when He frames the parable of the rich fool. And yet Solomon has himself in view. He laboured for yet more wealth, when God had given him huge wealth. And he sees his problem; his eyes could never be satisfied. And indeed, the Millionaire always wants another million</p><p> Solomon had lost his brothers, whom he saw as competitors to the throne and had constantly criticized in the Proverbs. And he had no son he appeared confident of as his successor. Solomon really sounds like the spoilt child he was. He complains that his soul was 'deprived of enjoyment' because he had wanted too much wealth. </p><p>The lack of "satisfaction" is a major theme in the descriptions of condemnation for those who break the covenant (s:w. <a href='B:30 26:26'>Lev 26:26</a>). 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. <a href='B:240 27:20'>Pro 27:20</a>; <a href='B:250 1:8'>Ecc 1:8</a>; <a href='B:250 4:8'>Ecc 4:8</a>; <a href='B:250 5:10'>Ecc 5:10</a>). And those who seek such satisfaction from those things will find that dissatisfaction is the lead characteristic of their condemnation (<a href='B:230 59:15'>Psa 59:15</a>). 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.</p><p>Solomon later concludes that despite having every material blessing, a man can still not be satisfied (s:w. <a href='B:250 4:8'>Ecc 4:8</a>; <a href='B:250 6:3'>Ecc 6:3</a>). But in Proverbs he thinks that the righteous do satisfy their souls in this life (<a href='B:240 13:25'>Pro 13:25</a>). But he thought that this would be experienced in this life, rather than in any future Kingdom of God on earth. As he got closer to death, he realized that he had not satisfied his soul despite all his wealth. And so he concluded that righteousness was vain, and turned away from Yahweh. This is what happens when we lose the perspective of the future Kingdom of God.</p><p>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 <a href='B:290 53:11'>Isa 53:11</a>, 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 (<a href='B:250 1:8'>Ecc 1:8</a>; <a href='B:250 4:8'>Ecc 4:8</a>; <a href='B:250 5:10'>Ecc 5:10</a>; <a href='B:250 6:3'>Ecc 6:3</a>). 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 we will observe at such length in our later studies. </p><p>In <a href='B:250 2:18-19'>Ecc 2:18-19</a> he laments that&nbsp; his&nbsp; labours will achieve nothing; doubtless alluding back to&nbsp; his&nbsp; words in <a href='B:240 5:10'>Pro 5:10</a>, 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” (<a href='B:240 27:20'>Pro 27:20</a> 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 (<a href='B:250 1:8'>Ecc 1:8</a>; <a href='B:250 4:8'>Ecc 4:8</a>). And there are many men and women who have done the same. 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</p>&nbsp;


text:
<p>Two are better than one, because they have a good reward for their labour<strong>- </strong></p><p>Despite having 1000 wives and every relationship he fancied, Solomon complains in :8 of the existential loneliness which faced him. He wishes for just one good friend, and surely he has in view the Genesis language of one man and one woman, two people, being joined as one by God. He hankers too late for just one wife. But instead of repenting for his unbridled lust and moving forward in God’s grace, he just hankers for what he cannot now have. The good reward for the labour of the two people would refer to children which the two of them have raised (<a href='B:230 127:3'>Psa 127:3</a>). </p><p>Koheleth often alludes to early Genesis, and here we have another example- to Gen. 2:18, "It is not good that the man should be alone", and the "labour" refers to the curse of how man would labour with sweat until he returns to dust. But he considers this as an example of "vanity under the sun" (:7). Whatever blessings there are in life, even ones from God, and no matter how Divine wisdom might make life more endurable, all is dwarfed beneath the shadow of death as the ultimate, final end. Paul really does have koheleth in mind when he writes that we are most miserable, if in this life only we have hope in Christ with no perspective of resurrection. </p>


text:
<p>For if they fall, the one will lift up his fellow; but woe to him who is alone when he falls, and doesn’t have another to lift him up<strong>- </strong></p><p>Solomon felt alone in his wealth (:8), and seems to accept he has fallen in some sense. Perhaps he means spiritually; and he complains he has nobody to help him up. He had married hundreds of Gentile women, despite the warning that they would turn away his heart. And yet instead of repenting and asking for God to "lift him up", as David asked (s:w. <a href='B:230 41:10'>Psa 41:10</a>; <a href='B:230 113:7'>Psa 113:7</a>), he just continues complaining that he has nobody to lift him up.</p>


text:
<p>Again, if two lie together, then they have warmth; but how can one keep warm alone?<strong>- </strong></p><p>Solomon's whining that he didn’t have a single wife, as a result of his polygamy, is now starting to sound pathetic and irritating. Poor Solomon is cold because he has no wife to lie next to him. He has become bitter with them all, and is unlike his father David, who in his old age was kept warm by Abishag lying with him (<a href='B:110 1:1-4'>1Ki 1:1-4</a>). But Solomon seems to allude to this and lament that in his old age, he didn’t have anyone to do this for him.</p>


text:
<p>If a man prevails against one who is alone, two shall withstand him; and a threefold cord is not quickly broken<strong>- </strong></p><p>Solomon still has himself in view, as the one left existentially alone because of his wealth (see on :8). And now in :13 he again has himself in view; Ecclesiastes truly is Solomon's autobiography and lament over his own old age. The sense in this verse seems to be that Solomon felt weak and alone, and had nobody supporting him. Just one other would make two of them, and even better would be just one more, making a threefold cord.</p>


text:
<p>Better is a poor and wise youth than an old and foolish king who doesn’t know how to receive admonition any more<strong>- </strong></p><p>Solomon has so much to say about "correction" or instruction coming from the possession of wisdom (<a href='B:240 8:10'>Pro 8:10</a>; <a href='B:240 8:33'>Pro 8:33</a>; <a href='B:240 10:17'>Pro 10:17</a>; <a href='B:240 12:1'>Pro 12:1</a>; <a href='B:240 13:1'>Pro 13:1</a>; <a href='B:240 13:24'>Pro 13:24</a>; <a href='B:240 15:5'>Pro 15:5</a>; <a href='B:240 15:10'>Pro 15:10</a>; <a href='B:240 15:32'>Pro 15:32</a>; <a href='B:240 16:22'>Pro 16:22</a>; <a href='B:240 19:20'>Pro 19:20</a>; <a href='B:240 19:27'>Pro 19:27</a>; <a href='B:240 22:15'>Pro 22:15</a>; <a href='B:240 23:12-13'>Pro 23:12-13</a>). But in the end he chastised or corrected his people by whipping them (s:w. <a href='B:110 12:11'>1Ki 12:11</a>; <a href='B:110 12:14'>1Ki 12:14</a>). Solomon initially asked for wisdom in order to guide his people, but he ended up whipping / physically chastising them into conformity with his wishes rather than allowing wisdom to correct. Again, he was playing God; for it is God through His wisdom who chastises, and not man. But Solomon thought he was effectively God to his people. This is why Solomon argues that servants cannot be corrected by words (<a href='B:240 29:19'>Pro 29:19</a> s:w:), and a child must be physically chastised (s:w. <a href='B:240 19:18'>Pro 19:18</a>; <a href='B:240 29:17'>Pro 29:17</a> cp. <a href='B:240 13:24'>Pro 13:24</a>; <a href='B:240 23:13'>Pro 23:13</a>), regardless of his screams of pain. This kind of thing is a denial of his claims elsewhere that it is Divine wisdom which chastises / corrects, and such correction is from God and not man. Solomon's final description of himself as an old and foolish king who refuses to be admonished says it all (<a href='B:250 4:13'>Ecc 4:13</a>); he admonishes others (s:w. <a href='B:250 12:12'>Ecc 12:12</a>), but refuses to be admonished or corrected by his own wisdom. He failed to personalize it:&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>Ecclesiastes&nbsp; is in many ways Solomon's self-examination; and it was accurate. He indicates that the temple had actually made him stumble,&nbsp;&nbsp; and&nbsp;&nbsp; that&nbsp; his&nbsp; numerous&nbsp; sacrifices&nbsp; had&nbsp; been&nbsp; the sacrifices&nbsp; of&nbsp; a fool, rather than the wise man he had appeared to&nbsp; be (<a href='B:250 5:1'>Ecc 5:1</a>); and surely he was casting a sideways glance at himself when he spoke of the wise child (cp. Solomon initially, <a href='B:110 3:7'>1Ki 3:7</a>) being greater than the old and foolish king who would no&nbsp; longer&nbsp; be&nbsp; admonished&nbsp; (<a href='B:250 4:13'>Ecc 4:13</a>;&nbsp; even&nbsp; though Solomon had advisers,&nbsp;1&nbsp; Kings 12:6). Yet he chose to do absolutely nothing about this; once again, his accurate spiritual knowledge had no real&nbsp; practical influence upon him. For he had urged in <a href='B:240 15:22'>Pro 15:22</a> the need to take admonishment from others.</p>


text:
<p>For out of prison he came forth to be king; yes, even in his kingdom he was born poor<strong>- </strong></p><p>He writes here of catastrophe overtaking the obstinate old king who will learn nothing. Revolution sweeps him away and brings to the throne a young claimant who has been kept in prison (cp. Jeroboam in Egypt). In spite of his rank the new monarch has grown up in relative poverty; and in the end, “all the living”, the people of the land, at first serve with the first king but later forget him. This was Solomon’s fear, his fantasy</p><p> so piercingly accurate in his self-understanding. </p><p>LXX "because he also that was in his kingdom has become poor" implies that the new king would arise because of the poverty of the people in the kingdom. Ordinary people in Solomon's later reign were enslaved to him and beaten by him (<a href='B:110 12:11'>1Ki 12:11</a>). Solomon so precisely understands the situation in his own kingdom, and how therefore a new king will arise. This is a feature of Ecclesiastes; Solomon so well understands his position, but refuses to do anything about it. Again we see that understanding of "truth" alone will not save, but rather drive into depression and nihilism unless it is personalized and believed. And this is seen in so many in Protestant groups devoted to 'finding Bible truth':&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p>I saw all the living who walk under the sun, that they were with the youth, the other, who succeeded him<strong>- </strong></p><p>Solomon's premonitions about the successful revolt of Jeroboam were correct, but he exaggerates them hugely into almost apocalyptic scales, with "all the living under the sun" following this "youth". He was only young compared to Solomon. Solomon had never entertained much hope of the future Messianic kingdom promised to David, seeing his kingdom as that promised Kingdom of God. And the result was that he starts to have deeply irrational fears about the future of his own kingdom. These fears and even accurate imaginations reflect his lack of faith in the Kingdom of God:&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p>There was no end of all the people, even of all them over whom he was- yet those who come after shall not rejoice in him. Surely this also is vanity and a chasing after wind- </p><p>To rejoice in a person was to politically follow or support them (<a href='B:290 8:6'>Isa 8:6</a>). Solomon sees the new king as having apparently endless support from people, and yet this too would fade away- as all things do. Again, Solomon's premonitions were so accurate. </p><p>Hezekiah had traded 15 years of personal peace for his descendants being eunuchs in captivity, and his people going into exile in Babylon. He knew full well that those who came after him would not rejoice in him. But he considered death to be so final that even that was but vanity. And seeking to have a good name after death was also a mere chasing after wind. We see here how totally limited were his horizons, bounded by his belief that death was the final limit and boundary to human existence. The tragedy is that he need not have seen life like that.</p>


text:
<p>Guard your steps when you go to God’s house; for to draw near to listen is better than to give the sacrifice of fools, for they don’t know that they do evil<strong>- </strong></p><p>The following verses are badly translated; the translators seem to want to give the impression that koheleth was a righteous man giving good advice about worshipping God. I suggest rather that here we have cynicism about worship. Ecclesiastes&nbsp; is in many ways Solomon's self-examination; and it was accurate. He indicates here that the temple had actually made him stumble  [he therefore warns others not to stumble when they go into God's house], and&nbsp;that his&nbsp;numerous&nbsp; sacrifices&nbsp; had&nbsp; been&nbsp; the sacrifices&nbsp;of&nbsp;a fool, rather than the wise man he had appeared to&nbsp;be. The same phrase 'going into God's house' is used of Hezekiah going into the temple with the Assyrian letter. Both Solomon and Hezekiah are recorded as having offered huge numbers of sacrifices at the dedication of the temple; but now he realize that he would have done better to personally listen to Divine instruction than offer them all as a fool. He should have 'drawn near', an idiom for offering sacrifice, with an obedient and open ear rather than with thousands of animals. He analyzes so clearly where he had gone wrong, he sees it all; but does nothing about it, refusing to personalize the truths he perceived. Surely he was casting a sideways glance at himself when he spoke of the wise child (cp. Solomon initially, <a href='B:110 3:7'>1Ki 3:7</a>) being greater than the old and foolish king who would no&nbsp; longer&nbsp; be&nbsp; admonished&nbsp; (<a href='B:250 4:13'>Ecc 4:13</a>;&nbsp; even&nbsp; though Solomon had advisers,&nbsp; <a href='B:110 12:6'>1Ki 12:6</a>). Yet he chose to do absolutely nothing about this; once again, his accurate spiritual knowledge had no real&nbsp; practical influence upon him. 'Guarding the steps' could be an allusion to the practice of removing footwear when entering a holy place; although this seems an irrelevant exhortation. So I suggest it is parallel with 'drawing near' in offering sacrifice. And Solomon is saying that the use of the temple for huge scarifies, as he had done at its dedication, was not the right thing; rather would be it be better to be obedient. But Solomon wasn't obedient, so we conclude again that he has penetrating insight into his own failures and weaknesses, but refused to personalize and act upon that insight. This is a human feature so true to observed reality in spiritual life. This chapter appears to be Solomon's critique of the temple cult he had started.</p><p>It's possible to read :1,2 as Hezekiah /  Solomon warning men not to as it were mess with God, because He doesn't suffer fools gladly. Better to be very cautious with Him, lest you get into trouble. Recognize He exists but don't make any vows, don't get too close, because He's likely to then judge you. Keep Him at arm's length; exactly the view of postmodernism today, who cannot bring themselves to profess atheism but at least self classify as agnostics. Such a tragically far cry from Hezekiah's pleading with God to give him some more life, and then being so humbly grateful when God responded. This idea of keeping God at a distance is perhaps why the author uses elohim and not the Yahweh Name when talking about God. He is not in covenant relationship with Yahweh. </p>


text:
<p>Don’t be rash with your mouth, and don’t let your heart be hasty to utter anything before God<strong>- </strong></p><p>As :1 is Solomon's self criticism regarding the temple, I suggest that this talk about the danger of vows is also Solomon looking back at himself. Indeed I am seeking to demonstrate in this commentary that all of Ecclesiastes is Solomon's autobiography and reflections about himself. Hasty oaths might be a sideways stab back at Saul, who enforced such a hasty oath about not eating honey. Solomon throughout Proverbs is always alluding to the individuals who had stood against David his father, and that bitterness and perceived need to knock down potential opposition remained with him all his days. For he is now writing this in his old age. But the oath in view is I suggest that of David regarding the building of the temple, which Solomon fulfilled (<a href='B:230 132:2'>Psa 132:2</a>). This allows us to interpret these verses in context. The criticism of the temple in :1 leads on to this criticism of oath taking in :2. The context is then seamless; whereas other interpretations tend to make these verses out of context with each other:&nbsp; In the Hezekiah context, this may be Hezekiah regretting his oath to God after his healing, to just walk quietly all his days singing praise to Yahweh in the temple.  </p><p>For God is in heaven, and you on earth- </p><p>Descriptions of God’s dwelling place clearly indicate that He has a personal location: “God is in heaven” (<a href='B:250 5:2'>Ecc 5:2</a>); “For He looked down from the height of His sanctuary; From heaven the LORD viewed the earth” (<a href='B:230 102:19'>Psa 102:19</a>); “Hear in heaven your dwelling place” (<a href='B:110 8:39'>1Ki 8:39</a>). Yet more specifically than this, we read that God has a “throne” (<a href='B:140 9:8'>2Ch 9:8</a>; <a href='B:230 11:4'>Psa 11:4</a>; <a href='B:290 6:1'>Isa 6:1</a>; <a href='B:290 66:1'>Isa 66:1</a>). Such language is hard to apply to an undefined essence which exists somewhere in heavenly realms. God is spoken of as “coming down” when He manifests Himself. This suggests a heavenly location of God. It is impossible to understand the idea of ‘God manifestation’ without appreciating the personal nature of God. </p><p>But I suggest that Solomon is again talking about God tongue in cheek, with some level of sarcasm; for he was writing this when his heart had turned away from God (<a href='B:110 11:3'>1Ki 11:3</a>). I suggest we are reading here Solomon's regret that David had taken the oath about building the temple, because he is now rejecting the temple cult. He built "houses" of worship for the gods of his wives, and worshipped them instead of Yahweh (<a href='B:110 11:4-8'>1Ki 11:4-8</a>), worshipping in those temples rather than in Yahweh's temple. So we can understand his reflections in Ecclesiastes 5 as meaning that he was regretting David had vowed to build the temple, leaving him to fulfil it; and his references to Yahweh dwelling in the temple are therefore to be read as sarcastic. . </p><p>Therefore let your words be few- </p><p>The icontext is of oaths, so the idea is, keep the words you say before God very few. The idea is, 'don't make oaths'. Not few in the sense that we don’t pray for very long, but few in terms of their simplicity and directness. The Lord warned us against the complicated prayer forms of the Pharisees; and asked us to mean our words of ‘yes’ and ‘no’ rather than use more sophisticated assurances. </p>


text:
<p>For as a dream comes with a multitude of cares, so a fool’s speech with a multitude of words<strong>- </strong></p><p>I have argued throughout that Ecclesiastes is Solomon's self reflection, a kind of autobiography. It is also a rejection and renunciation of his faith, because he wrote it at the end of his life, when his heart had been turned aside from God (<a href='B:110 11:3'>1Ki 11:3</a>). If we enquire what reference a "dream" may have to Solomon's historical life, we naturally think of the dream at the start of his life when he was offered whatever he wanted, and he chose wisdom (<a href='B:110 3:5'>1Ki 3:5</a>). Several times in Ecclesiastes he appears to regret that choice, as he considers there to be no ultimate advantage to wisdom or going God’s way because death ends it all, and God, Solomon thinks, cannot resurrect the dead to judgment (<a href='B:250 3:22'>Ecc 3:22</a>). And so in <a href='B:250 5:3'>Ecc 5:3</a> Solomon seems to be saying that that dream was simply self induced, an outcome of his "multitude of cares", and the "multitude of words" of wisdom he had written in response to it was but "a fool's speech". Like many who have had the direct involvement of God in their lives in youth, he came to rationalize it as nothing at all Divine, considering his dream had just been some Freudian reflection of his own internal "cares". And this kind of rationalizing of the Divine over time is absolutely true to observed experience in those who turn away from God. </p>


text:
<p>When you vow a vow to God, don’t defer to pay it; for He has no pleasure in fools. Pay that which you vow<strong>- </strong></p><p>As noted on :2, Solomon's writings (especially in Proverbs) are full of allusion to historical incidents which condemn the enemies of the line of David, or justify David. He may have in view David’s vow to build the temple (<a href='B:230 132:2'>Psa 132:2</a>), which God in fact made to be deferred until Solomon fulfilled it. Even in old age, Solomon was still bent on justifying his father David and fighting the battles of yesterday, as so many. I suggested on :1-3 that Solomon is here rejecting the temple cult, but he justifies his building of the temple on the grounds that David had made a vow to God about it, and so Solomon had had no option but to fulfil it.</p>


text:
<p>It is better that you should not vow, than that you should vow and not pay<strong>- </strong></p><p>This continues Solomon's criticism of his father’s vow to build the temple, and is justifying his building of it. He had to make such a statement, because as noted on :2, Solomon built "houses" of worship for the gods of his wives, and worshipped them instead of Yahweh (<a href='B:110 11:4-8'>1Ki 11:4-8</a>), worshipping in those temples rather than in Yahweh's temple. So here in his old age, having made that change, he is justifying why he had built a temple for Yahweh in the first place, although he had at this point ceased using it himself.</p>


text:
<p>Don’t allow your mouth to lead you into sin. Don’t protest before the messenger that this was a mistake. Why should God be angry at your voice, and destroy the work of your hands?-</p><p>The "messenger" is the word for "angel", but is used of the priests before whom David had apparently taken the vow to build the temple in <a href='B:230 132:2'>Psa 132:2</a>. Solomon implies that the entire plan of building a temple for Yahweh "was a mistake", but David, and he too at the time, had feared God’s wrath if he didn’t fulfil the vow. He is justifying how he had forsaken Yahweh's temple for the temples he had built nearby for the gods of his wives. He is saying that the temple of Yahweh had been a "sin" and "mistake", but he is justifying in his autobiography why he had built it. Likewise as explained on <a href='B:250 8:16'>Ecc 8:16</a> he again laments his wasting time and effort building Yahweh's temple. He uses the same word in <a href='B:250 10:5'>Ecc 10:5</a> to describe his own "mistake" or "error" as the ruler.</p><p>However there was in Judaism the idea that a specific Angel dwelt in the temple and oversaw it, and that is not without Biblical support. The idea was that the presence of Yahweh in the temple was through an Angel, which in Ezekiel's time departed from the temple. Hezekiah had had dealings with this one Angel before, when it went out and slew the 185,000 Assyrian soldiers about to take Jerusalem and slay Hezekiah. But now he reasons that it's best to keep at arm's length from the Angel and not provoke him, as he was prone to lash out against God's people for the slightest legal infringement of the Mosaic law. How tragic.</p><p>Koheleth's concern was that the work of a man's hands would be destroyed by God because of some minor infringement of Divine law. He was trying to avoid this, to hide from God. Whereas the response of Isaiah was that God's people who engaged with Him would "long enjoy [eternally] the work of their hands" (Is. 65:22).</p>


text:
<p>For in the multitude of dreams there are vanities, as well as in many words: but you must fear God-</p><p>The criticism of "many words" in <a href='B:250 5:7'>Ecc 5:7</a>; <a href='B:250 6:11'>Ecc 6:11</a> seems a reference to his own writing down of the wisdom God had given him, codifying it into books such as the compilation we have in the book of Proverbs (<a href='B:250 12:10'>Ecc 12:10</a>; <a href='B:250 12:12'>Ecc 12:12</a>). He associates the "many words" with "dreams", perhaps an intensive plural for "a great dream". It was as a result of the dream of <a href='B:110 3:5'>1Ki 3:5</a> that he was given the "many words" of wisdom which he now considered unhelpful and irrelevant because death meant that there was no particular ultimate advantage of wisdom over folly; wisdom was at best profitable in this life in some short term sense. And he therefore associates "many words" with folly (<a href='B:250 10:14'>Ecc 10:14</a>). He considers he had been foolish by preaching and believing those many words of Divine wisdom. Now, for him, the true wisdom was in idolatry and not Yahweh worship in His temple. For he had forsaken worshipping at Yahweh's temple and instead worshipped in the idol temples he had built nearby (<a href='B:110 11:4-8'>1Ki 11:4-8</a>). So "But you must fear God!" can be read as sarcasm, seeing he had forsaken God.</p><p>The idea is, Don't listen to your dreams but rather fear God, be frightened of Him, in the sense of the preceding verse- be fearful of Him, because He can lash out and destroy you for the slightest infringement, seeing He doesn't suffer fools gladly. All this is quite a different God to how we see Him acting in the Bible, and in our own lives. God does suffer fools like us. This could be Solomon now doubting whether his dream at Gibeon, and the subsequent gift of wisdom , was in fact valid or merely a random dream. It could also be Hezekiah considering that his relationship with God through the visions of Isaiah was all no more than confused dreaming and not reality. </p>


text:
<p>If you see the oppression of the poor, and the violent taking away of justice and righteousness in a district, don’t marvel at the matter: for one official is eyed by a higher one; and there are officials over them<strong>- </strong></p><p>The "oppression" in view was that by Solomon. “Surely oppression maketh a wise man foolish” (<a href='B:250 7:7'>Ecc 7:7</a> RV), he commented at the end of his life- even though right then he was chastising the people with whips, oppressing them (<a href='B:110 12:11'>1Ki 12:11</a>). He&nbsp; came&nbsp; to whip his people (<a href='B:110 12:14'>1Ki 12:14</a>),&nbsp; treating&nbsp; them&nbsp; as&nbsp; he&nbsp; thought fools should be treated (<a href='B:240 26:3'>Pro 26:3</a>)-&nbsp; suggesting that he came to see himself as the only wise&nbsp; man,&nbsp; the&nbsp; only&nbsp; one&nbsp; truly&nbsp; in&nbsp; touch&nbsp; with&nbsp; reality, and therefore&nbsp; despising everyone else. <a href='B:110 5:13-16'>1Ki 5:13-16</a> reveals that Solomon&nbsp; had&nbsp; 153,000&nbsp; full&nbsp; time&nbsp; and&nbsp; 90,000&nbsp; part&nbsp; time&nbsp; male servants:&nbsp; Israel's&nbsp; complaint&nbsp; that&nbsp; Solomon&nbsp; had&nbsp; whipped them implies&nbsp; that&nbsp; he&nbsp; treated them like slaves, with himself as the slave-driver:&nbsp; 600,000&nbsp; adults came out of Egypt (<a href='B:20 12:37'>Exo 12:37</a>), and assuming&nbsp; the&nbsp; population&nbsp; only&nbsp; rose&nbsp; slightly over the next 550 years,&nbsp; we&nbsp; have&nbsp; the picture of an Israel where almost half the males&nbsp; (i:e. probably the majority of the working population) were pressganged into slavery to a despotic King Solomon:&nbsp; </p><p>Solomon seems to be saying that if anyone complained about his slavedrivers, they were to remember that there was a hierarchy of control above them which ended in one man- himself. He is playing God here, as do all who abuse others, appropriating Divine language to himself.</p><p>He knew the true wisdom, he saw his reflection so accurately in the mirror, but resigned from its personal implications. He could even write that “I returned and considered all the oppression that are done under the sun [by himself!]: and behold the tears of such as were oppressed, and they had no comforter; and on the side of their oppressors there was power [Solomon was king and had set up the tax system in a clever and biased way]; but they had no comforter” (<a href='B:250 4:1'>Ecc 4:1</a>; <a href='B:250 5:8'>Ecc 5:8</a>). It was a real case of spiritual schizophrenia- he sorrowed for the people he oppressed. He even seems to say that there is nothing to be surprised at in the poor being oppressed, because the whole hierarchy of officialdom above them do the same (<a href='B:250 5:2'>Ecc 5:2</a>). He saw his sin as inevitable, as part of his participation in humanity- he didn’t own up to his own desperate need for grace. Yet he also knew that “man lords it over man [cp. Solomon’s oppression of the people] to his own hurt” (<a href='B:250 8:9'>Ecc 8:9</a> RSV):&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>These abuses are similar to those Isaiah accused Hezekiah's Judah of, in Is. 1-35. But despite that, by grace God saved them from Assyria. As the Rabbis interpret it [Rashi]: "If you see that they oppress the poor and deprive [them of] justice, and you see charity coming toward the city, [i.e.] that the Holy One, Blessed Is He, lavishes goodness upon them and does not mete out retribution upon them, do not wonder about the will of the Omnipresent, for so is His custom, to be slow to anger". Isaiah's response is that oppression is not inevitable and is a sin (Is. 59:13) , the oppressed were to be set free (Is. 58:7) and Israel's Hope was to be free from oppression, "it shall not come near you" (Is. 54:14) in the Kingdom. The same Hebrew word is used.</p><p>This is relevant to Hezekiah because their leaders judged for bribes at his time (Mic. 3:11). He has no concept of future judgment, and laments that in this life there is no justice in courts, as he does also in Ecc. 3:16. Here he sees the whole pyramid of the justice system as being corrupt right through. Hence the inspired editor concludes the book with the good news that there is in fact judgment to come for absolutely everything (Ecc. 12:14). Without the perspective of Divine judgment at the end, present injustice weighs heavily upon the human soul, as we see in today's society. But when people say they are "glad that justice was done", there are left multiple unanswered issues, and their 'gladness' is in fact only cosmetic. Because for justice to be fully done requires the Divine hand.</p><p>"Don't marvel at the matter [of abuse]" is another example of Hezekiah arguing that sin is inevitable and should not be much of a shock to people. He is saying that if you see corruption at a lower level, don't be surprised, because the entire hierarchy of human society is corrupt- and you can do nothing about it. This is very different to Isaiah's perspective, which is to call for urgent repentance from such corruption rather than just accepting such a status quo, on the basis that sin is inevitable.</p>


text:
<p>Moreover the profit of the earth is for all. The king profits from the field<strong>- </strong></p><p>"But the advantage of a country consists always in a king given to the arable land”. This could be Solomon's self justification for his interest in agriculture which he spoke of in Ecc. 2. </p><p>He said that a King “who maketh himself servant to the cultivated field” brings profit to the land (<a href='B:250 5:9'>Ecc 5:9</a> RVmg:)- as if he was justifying his zealous commitment to agriculture and considering the people of God to be so blessed by his presence amongst them. The mere possession of wisdom, of intellectual truth, can so easily lead us to this kind of empty self-congratulation:&nbsp;&nbsp; It was really Solomon's self-justification.</p><p>“Even the wild land when cultivated has a king” (<a href='B:250 5:9'>Ecc 5:9</a>, Lukyn Williams’ translation) seems to be justifying the bringing of newly cultivated land under Solomon’s immediate taxation; Solomon is merely describing a state of misrule by him without drawing any conclusions (so L:G. Sargent concludes, Ecclesiastes p. 49). He analyzes his sins so well, as do many imprisoned criminals. But still without repentance. And yet we each have the potential for this schizophrenia within us; we are, as Paul so strikingly describes, two different people within us, fighting for mastery of the soul (Romans 7). </p>


text:
<p>He who loves silver shall not be satisfied with silver; nor he who loves abundance, with increase: this also is vanity<strong>- </strong></p><p>This is yet another piece of self-realization&nbsp;&nbsp; which&nbsp;&nbsp; doesn't&nbsp; seem&nbsp; to&nbsp; have&nbsp; resulted&nbsp; in motivating&nbsp; Solomon&nbsp; to&nbsp; grab&nbsp; hold on his inner being and shake himself:&nbsp;The lack of "satisfaction" is a major theme in the descriptions of condemnation for those who break the covenant (s:w. <a href='B:30 26:26'>Lev 26:26</a>). 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. <a href='B:240 27:20'>Pro 27:20</a>; <a href='B:250 1:8'>Ecc 1:8</a>; <a href='B:250 4:8'>Ecc 4:8</a>; <a href='B:250 5:10'>Ecc 5:10</a>). And those who seek such satisfaction from those things will find that dissatisfaction is the lead characteristic of their condemnation (<a href='B:230 59:15'>Psa 59:15</a>). 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.</p><p>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 <a href='B:290 53:11'>Isa 53:11</a>, 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 (<a href='B:250 1:8'>Ecc 1:8</a>; <a href='B:250 4:8'>Ecc 4:8</a>; <a href='B:250 5:10'>Ecc 5:10</a>; <a href='B:250 6:3'>Ecc 6:3</a>). 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 we will observe at such length in our later studies. </p><p>That man is not "satisfied" is a major theme with koheleth (Ecc. 1:8; 4:8; 5:10; 6:3). But Isaiah's response is that it is the sinner who is not satisfied (Is. 9:20), and it is Messiah who will be satisfied by the labour / travail of His soul (Is. 53:11), as will be the righteous who are saved by Him during the Kingdom (Is. 58:11; 66:11 "the Lord will guide you continually and satisfy your soul").</p>


text:
<p>When goods increase, those who eat them are increased; and what advantage is there to its owner, except to feast on them with his eyes?<strong>- </strong></p><p>“He that loveth silver (as Solomon did, <a href='B:250 2:8'>Ecc 2:8</a>; <a href='B:110 10:21-29'>1Ki 10:21-29</a>) shall not be satisfied with silver (as he wasn’t- see Ecclesiastes 2); nor he that loveth abundance (s:w. used about the abundance of Solomon’s wives, <a href='B:140 11:23'>2Ch 11:23</a>) with increase. When goods increase, they are increased that eat them (cp. the large numbers at his table, <a href='B:110 4:27'>1Ki 4:27</a>)” (<a href='B:250 5:10-11'>Ecc 5:10-11</a>). The Hebrew word translated “not be satisfied” occurs around 25 times in the Proverbs, with Solomon warning of how the way of the flesh couldn’t satisfy. Solomon said all this with an eye on himself. He laments how when wealth is increased, “they are increased that eat them” (<a href='B:250 5:11'>Ecc 5:11</a> AV)- and yet he prided himself on how many people sat at his table eating his food, how many courtiers he had</p><p> He preached it to others, he felt deeply the truth of it, but he saw no personal way out of it. All he had was the accurate knowledge of his situation, but no real motivation to change- like the alcoholic or drug abuser who knows every aspect of the harm of his habit. </p>&nbsp;<p>
This sounds similar to the descriptions of Hezekiah's abundance of wealth after the Assyrian defeat. </p>


text:
<p>The sleep of a labouring man is sweet, whether he eats little or much; but the abundance of the rich will not allow him to sleep<strong>- </strong></p><p>This references Solomon's own insomnia, a characteristic which surfaces again in his description of his own old age in <a href='B:250 12:4'>Ecc 12:4</a>. He complains at the effect of his own wealth and avarice. If he had accepted that his wealth was a gift from God by grace, in response to his choice of wisdom, then he would not have had all this regret about being wealthy.</p>


text:
<p>There is a grievous evil which I have seen under the sun: wealth kept by its owner to his harm<strong>- </strong></p><p>Again Solomon has himself in view; see on :12. He felt he had been harmed by wealth, as many old wealthy people do as they look back on their broken families and ruined personal lives. "Harm" is the word for "evil". Solomon feels that not being able to take wealth beyond the grave is "evil" (<a href='B:250 4:8'>Ecc 4:8</a>; <a href='B:250 5:13'>Ecc 5:13</a>; <a href='B:250 6:2'>Ecc 6:2</a>). If Solomon had instead humbled himself to accept that his wealth was a gift from God by grace, in response to his choice of wisdom, then he would not have had all this regret about being wealthy. Perhaps the real force of all this is the word "kept". Wealth is to be used for others during our lifetimes, not "kept". Otherwise we will end up with the angst of Solomon about how that wealth will be used after us.</p><p>This is Hezekiah's reflection that his wealth would be seen by him but would be taken to Babylon and his son would therefore not enjoy it. As Isaiah had said.</p><p>The idea of the Hebrew may be that a man saved his wealth against the day of harm / evil, but that day came and took away his wealth, and he had nothing left to leave his son as an inheritance. I suggest on :15 that the allusion may be to Job.</p>


text:
<p>Those riches perish by misfortune, and if he has fathered a son, there is nothing in his hand<strong>- </strong></p><p>Again this is true to observed reality; at the end of their lives, the wealthy often regret that they are passing on wealth to a son who is not going to use it appropriately. This was clearly Solomon's fear for Rehoboam, as witnessed several times in Proverbs and Ecclesiastes. It is all an outcome of the inevitable truth expressed in :15, that we cannot personally take wealth with us beyond the grave. The hoarding of personal wealth always invites the fear as to what shall happen if misfortune takes it from us; hence GNB "and then lose it all in some bad deal and end up with nothing left to pass on to their children". </p>


text:
<p>As he came forth from his mother’s womb, naked shall he go again as he came, and shall take nothing for his labour, which he may carry away in his hand<strong>- </strong></p><p>This inability to take personal wealth beyond the grave is "evil" (:16) for Solomon. But he is raging against what is God’s plan, the nature of things instituted by God in order to drive us to Him, and generosity towards Him in this life in the perspective of eternal life and service in His future Kingdom. That is the only perspective which makes any sense and enables us to live with wealth without it being a cause of endless angst to us. Solomon appears to be almost quoting Job's conclusion in <a href='B:220 1:21'>Job 1:21</a>; but Job goes on to say that because of this feature of the human condition, entering and exiting life naked, "blessed be the name of Yahweh". But Solomon had turned away from Yahweh and so is left with nothing but pain as he comes to this realization. And idolatry gave him no satisfactory explanation for it either. This verse is quoted in <a href='B:610 6:7'>1Ti 6:7</a>, and the surrounding context of <a href='B:610 6:5-10'>1Ti 6:5-10</a> is an exhortation not to be like Solomon at this point. Solomon is consistently read in a negative light in the New Testament, and never as an example of repentance or faith.</p><p>The wish to be a miscarried foetus in Ecc. 6:3 is exactly the feeling of Job (Job 3:16). Already Job 1:21 "Naked I came out of my mother's womb and naked I shall return" has been alluded to here in Ecc. 5:15. But Job had sure hope of resurrection, whereas koheleth would not be led by his feelings to that conclusion and hope. Just as he alludes to the curse in Eden but not the promise of hope made in Eden, so he dwells upon the depressive phases of Job and not the hope Job expresses.</p><p>Is. 49:4 dismisses the argument that labour is in vain: "But I thought, “I have worked in vain; I have expended my energy for absolutely nothing. But the LORD will vindicate me; my God will reward me". Likewise Is. 55:2 "Wherefore do ye spend money for that which is not bread? and your labour for that which satisfieth not? hearken diligently unto me, and eat ye that which is good, and let your soul delight itself in fatness". God's word and its promised fulfilment is the answer to man's vain existence: "The promise that I make does not return to me, having accomplished nothing ["in vain']. No, it is realized as I desire and is fulfilled as I intend" (Is. 55:11). Labour will not be in vain in the Kingdom, nor will man labour for others or just to keep himself alive: "My chosen will long enjoy the work of their hands. They will not labor in vain nor give birth for calamity; for they are the offspring of Yahweh’s blessed and their descendants with them" (Is. 65:22,23).</p><p>Isaiah also seems to dialogue back with the claims that a man comes from the womb, clueless as to what went on there (Ecc. 11:5), and then dies and shall be forgotten. He several times states that it is Yahweh who formed His people in the womb, and because He is eternal, He will eternally have a parental bond and concern for them and will lead them through to life eternal, just as He brought them to physical life from the womb (Is. 44:2,24; 46:3; 49:1,5,15).</p>


text:
<p>This also is a grievous evil, that in all points as he came, so shall he go. And what profit does he have who labours for the wind?<strong>- </strong></p><p>See on :15. The language here is similar to that in <a href='B:460 3:16'>Mal 3:16</a>, where Judah lament that there is no profit in obeying God. Perhaps Malachi is alluding to Solomon's attitude here as the characteristic of God’s condemned, rejected people. The fact we can't take wealth with us is only a grievous evil for those like Solomon who don't understand wealth within the context of it being God’s gift, to be used for Him:&nbsp; </p><p>"What profit...?" is a major theme in Ecclesiastes and is alluded to in 1 Cor. 15, where Paul asks "What advantage...?" is there if there is no future resurrection of the body.</p>


text:
<p>All his days he also eats in darkness, he is frustrated, and has sickness and wrath<strong>- </strong></p><p>This again is Solomon's description of his self perception. He was frustrated and angry as he faced death and final sickness; and he feels that this is in fact how he has always been, eating his sumptuous meals in the darkness of depression. And this again is absolutely true to observed experience; the feelings of old age depression are extrapolated by the sufferer and assumed to have been how their entire lives have been, whether or not that was the case. He comments again in <a href='B:250 6:4'>Ecc 6:4</a> that his whole life has begun and ended in darkness.</p><p>The reality of death meant to Solomon that any apparent sweetness to life ends because of the problem of eternal death. Solomon refuses any idea of resurrection or victory over death. The essence of the purpose and achievment of God through His Son was understood by Abraham, Job, David and many others. But Solomon stedfastly refused it. And he seems to now be kicking over the traces of his earlier glorification of his father David. For David has used the same words in glorying in that fact the darkness shines as the day to Yahweh (<a href='B:230 139:12'>Psa 139:12</a>). Solomon uses the term here for how men live their lives in "days of darkness" but in <a href='B:250 11:8'>Ecc 11:8</a> he uses this term of death. He sees life as being lived in the same unconscious spirit of death; he has no conception of God’s light and life breaking in to human life right now. </p><p>Koheleth sees darkness as inevitable. Man by nature lives in it and then dies in eternal darkness (Ecc. 5:17; 6:4). Isaiah's response is that God's light from Zion can burst into that darkness: "Therefore is judgment far from us, neither doth justice overtake us: we wait for light, but behold obscurity; for brightness, but we walk in darkness. We grope for the wall like the blind, and we grope as if we had no eyes: we stumble at noonday as in the night... Arise, shine; for thy light is come, and the glory of the LORD is risen upon thee. For, behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people: but the LORD shall arise upon thee, and his glory shall be seen upon thee... the LORD shall be unto thee an everlasting light" (Is. 59:9,10; 60:1,2,19).</p><p>The allusion is to the curse in Eden, just as Ecc. 3:20 alludes "to dust you shall return" (Gen. 3:19). There are many allusions to the curse in Ecclesiastes, especially in the verses which speak of man's labour being in vain and just to satisfy his appetite / need to eat. Especially Ecc. 5:17 "All his days he also eats in darkness, he is frustrated, and has sickness and wrath". But Genesis 3 held out the great Hope of redemption from the curse through Messiah. But the koheleth doesn't want to factor that in. Although he surely knew Gen. 3:15 as well as he knew Gen. 3:19. But he wallows in the curse rather than the long term blessing of Eden restored in the Kingdom.</p><p>Micah, a prophet contemporary with Hezekiah, seems to deconstruct this by stating "When I sit in darkness, Yahweh will be a light to me" (Mic. 7:8). But for Hezekiah, he saw only the darkness. "Frustrated" is literally 'to have much sorrow'. Paul seems to allude here: "They that will be (i.e. set their hearts on being) rich, pierce themselves through with many sorrows” (1 Tim. 6:6). But he advocates another way to live, whereas Hezekiah just mopes in the curse of living a secular life. "Sickness and wrath" may refer to the anger of a man who realizes his time is coming to an end and he must die. This would fit Hezekiah very well.</p><p>In the Hezekiah context, we see how he feels he along with all men struggles with "sickness" all his days (Ecc. 5:17). And he sees as an "evil disease" the fact a foreigner, a Gentile, will consume his wealth- just as Isaiah said the Babylonians would do (Ecc. 6:2). Hezekiah had been miraculously healed of one sickness(s.w. Is. 38:9 "he had been sick, and had recovered of his sickness"), but he complains that the wealth he had chosen after it was the most evil sickness; and he now complains that his "sickness" is with him every day. He failed to have an abiding gratitude for his healing.   </p>


text:
<p>Behold, that which I have seen to be good and proper is for one to eat and to drink, and to enjoy good in all his labour, in which he labours under the sun, all the days of his life which God has given him; for this is his portion<strong>- </strong></p><p>This reference to God as the giver of life may be sarcastic; see on :19,20. For elsewhere Solomon has argued that his conclusion that man should just enjoy his life is because God lacks the ability to resurrect and judge him (<a href='B:250 3:22'>Ecc 3:22</a>). Seeing Solomon feels he has lived in the darkness of depression because of his wealth (:17), he commends the simple labourer who at least experiences some joy as a result of his labour:&nbsp; &nbsp;</p><p>There is here an allusion to the curse upon man in Eden (Gen. 3:17), to labour in order to eat until he dies. And the Preacher is saying that this is fair enough, what can't be avoided must be endured, and the only trick is to try to enjoy the experience whilst it lasts. He sees [rightly] that being a 'high achiever' is rendered meaningless by death. This is a studied refusal of the good news implicit in Gen. 3:15 that the seed of the woman would ultimately achieve a reversal of this curse. But the Preacher is closed minded to the work of Messiah and His future Kingdom- they are the factors which can unseat his pessimistic view. </p>


text:
<p>Every man also to whom God has given riches and wealth, and has given him power to eat of it, and to take his portion, and to rejoice in his labour- this is the gift of God<strong>- </strong></p><p>Solomon clearly has himself in view, for he was the one to whom God gave wealth as well as the opportunity to enjoy it. He apparently recognizes this as indeed "the gift of God", but then blames God for having given him a life which therefore had no time for self reflection, because of the joy of this life which God had given him. But even this apparent gratitude to God is nuanced by Solomon's complaint in <a href='B:250 6:2'>Ecc 6:2</a> that he has been given wealth, but his death stops him from ultimately enjoying it. The idea that work is a "gift of God" appears to be deconstructed in the New Testament allusions to this; for they insist that the "gift of God" is the grace of salvation without human works (<a href='B:560 2:8'>Eph 2:8</a>; <a href='B:520 5:15'>Rom 5:15</a>; <a href='B:520 6:23'>Rom 6:23</a>; <a href='B:500 4:10'>Joh 4:10</a>). This suggests that as in <a href='B:250 2:24'>Ecc 2:24</a>; <a href='B:250 2:26'>Ecc 2:26</a>; <a href='B:250 3:13'>Ecc 3:13</a>, Solomon uses the idea of "this is the gift of God" wrongly and sarcastically. &nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>The added days of 15 years initially appeared long, but Hezekiah now perceives the extreme brevity of life.</p>


text:
<p>For he shall not often reflect on the days of his life; because God occupies him with the joy of his heart- </p><p>The Hebrew is better "He remembers (or should remember) that the days of his life are not many". See on :19. Solomon blames his lack of self examination on God, who has given him wealth and the opportunity to indulge it in "the joy of his heart". And yet in :17 Solomon feels he has lived in the darkness of depression because of his wealth. So here he appears to be mocking God, who supposedly, so he now reasons, gives man so much joy in his heart that he never has time for self examination. I suggested on :19 that Solomon is being sarcastic about God; he is for sure wrongly accusing and representing Him. And seeing he had been given so much Divine wisdom, this is a grievous failure by him:&nbsp;</p><p>The Hebrew could also be "God causes him to work for the enjoyment of his heart", as if any joy God gives is the result of the labour God cursed man with.</p>


text:
<p>There is an evil which I have seen under the sun, and it is heavy on men<strong>- </strong></p><p>Solomon feels that not being able to take wealth beyond the grave is "evil" (<a href='B:250 4:8'>Ecc 4:8</a>; <a href='B:250 5:13'>Ecc 5:13</a>; <a href='B:250 6:2'>Ecc 6:2</a>). If Solomon had instead humbled himself to accept that his wealth was a gift from God by grace, in response to his choice of wisdom, then he would not have had all this regret about being wealthy and being unable to use it beyond the grave.</p>


text:
<p>a man to whom God gives riches, wealth, and honour, so that he lacks nothing for his soul of all that he desires, yet God gives him no power to eat of it, but an alien eats it. This is vanity, and it is an evil disease<strong>- </strong></p><p>Solomon clearly has himself in view, for he was the one to whom God gave wealth, and in <a href='B:250 5:19'>Ecc 5:19</a> he says that God has also given him in this life the opportunity to enjoy it. He recognizes this as indeed "the gift of God", but then blames God for having given him a life which therefore had no time for self reflection, because of the joy of this life which God had given him (<a href='B:250 5:20'>Ecc 5:20</a>). But even this apparent gratitude to God is nuanced by Solomon's complaint in <a href='B:250 6:2'>Ecc 6:2</a> that he has been given wealth, but his death stops him from ultimately enjoying it. He really is acting even in old age as the spoilt child he had always been:&nbsp;&nbsp; His comment that wealth is a gift from God is nuanced by his statements here, making it sarcastic. And this is far from the only place in Ecclesiastes where the author is sarcastic about God's gifts. The prospect of eternal death led him to see any gifts in this life as of very limited value and therefore also "vanity".   </p><p>Truth&nbsp; flowed&nbsp; through&nbsp; his&nbsp; mouth&nbsp; with ease, but took no lodgment at all in his heart. Truth, absolute and pure, flows through our hands in such volume. Bible study after Bible study, chapter&nbsp; after&nbsp; chapter... But does it mean anything&nbsp; at&nbsp; all&nbsp; to us? <a href='B:240 6:26'>Pro 6:26</a> warns the young man that the Gentile woman will take his money and leave him destitute at the end. These words seem to be alluded to by Solomon years later in <a href='B:250 6:2'>Ecc 6:2</a>, where he laments that despite his wealth and success, a Gentile&nbsp; would have it all after his death. He saw in later life that&nbsp; his&nbsp; warnings&nbsp; to&nbsp; the young men of Israel had been in the form of painting a picture of a typical young man who epitomized youthful&nbsp; folly;&nbsp; but&nbsp; now&nbsp; he&nbsp; saw&nbsp; that&nbsp; he&nbsp; had been making a detailed prophecy of himself. </p><p>The stranger / Gentile that would take Hezekiah's wealth was Babylon. Hezekiah had a very short time to enjoy his wealth and couldn't do so. In the Hezekiah context, we see how he feels he along with all men struggles with "sickness" all his days (Ecc. 5:17). And he sees as an "evil disease" the fact a foreigner, a Gentile, will consume his wealth- just as Isaiah said the Babylonians would do (Ecc. 6:2). Hezekiah had been miraculously healed of one disease (s.w. Is. 38:9 "he had been sick, and had recovered of his sickness"), but he complains that the wealth he had chosen after it was the most evil sickness; and he now complains that his "sickness" is with him every day. He failed to have an abiding gratitude for his healing.   </p>


text:
<p>If a man fathers a hundred children, and lives many years, so that the days of his years are many, but his soul is not filled with good, and moreover he has no burial; I say, that a stillborn child is better than he<strong>- </strong></p><p>Having had 1000 wives, Solomon surely is the man in view, who had fathered many children and also lived a long life. But for all his wealth, and the ability to enjoy it in this life (<a href='B:250 5:19'>Ecc 5:19</a>), he felt his soul had not been filled with good, and that he would be despised after his death, his name covered in darkness and shame (:4). This is the meaning of the idiom of a man having no burial; it is not always to be taken literally. See on <a href='B:250 7:1'>Ecc 7:1</a>. He knew he had oppressed his people and would be bitterly remembered for it after his death (<a href='B:110 12:11'>1Ki 12:11</a>). He understands so well his situation; and yet refuses to repent. </p><p>Solomon concludes that despite having every material blessing, a man can still not be satisfied (s:w. <a href='B:250 4:8'>Ecc 4:8</a>; <a href='B:250 6:3'>Ecc 6:3</a>). But in Proverbs he thinks that the righteous do satisfy their souls in this life (<a href='B:240 13:25'>Pro 13:25</a>). But he thought that this would be experienced in this life, rather than in any future Kingdom of God on earth. As he got closer to death, he realized that he had not satisfied his soul despite all his wealth. And so he concluded that righteousness was vain, and turned away from Yahweh. This is what happens when we lose the perspective of the future Kingdom of God.</p><p>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 <a href='B:290 53:11'>Isa 53:11</a>, 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 (<a href='B:250 1:8'>Ecc 1:8</a>; <a href='B:250 4:8'>Ecc 4:8</a>; <a href='B:250 5:10'>Ecc 5:10</a>; <a href='B:250 6:3'>Ecc 6:3</a>). 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 we will observe at such length in our later studies. </p><p>Seeing the Preacher has no future hope, he considers style of burial to be quite significant. Whereas for those with Hope of the Kingdom, burial is insignificant. We note he considers that length of life and number of children are irrelevant and not really blessings because the eternal finality of death is so huge. But these are the very blessings promised for obedience to the old covenant. He therefore despises what blessings God does offer- so major does death loom in his thinking. Alternatively, "no burial" may mean 'no good burial', with people lamenting his passing and praising him for his life. Hezekiah sacrificed the future blessing of his own sons, his people, Jerusalem and the temple- for the sake of 15 years peaceful life for himself. So he knew he would not be much lamented for. When terminally ill, he lamented that he had no male heir. Now he says that even having 100 sons is meaningless seeing that death [as he wants to understand it] is final and eternal.</p><p>>Hezekiah considers that it were better never to have been born, seeing life is so tragic. The Lord may allude to this when saying of Judas "It would have been better if that man had not been born" (Mt. 26:24). But Hezekiah seems to eagerly want to appropriate this ultimate curse to himself, because he just would not accept any future dimension to life.</p><p>The wish to be a miscarried foetus is exactly the feeling of Job (Job 3:16). Already Job 1:21 "Naked I came out of my mother's womb and naked I shall return" has been alluded to in Ecc. 5:15. But Job had sure hope of resurrection, whereas koheleth would not be led by his feelings to that conclusion and hope. Just as he alludes to the curse in Eden but not the promise of hope made in Eden, so he dwells upon the depressive phases of Job and not the hope Job expresses.</p>


text:
<p>for it comes in vanity, and departs in darkness, and its name is covered with darkness<strong>- </strong></p><p>The "it" is the soul or person of :3. Solomon feels he may as well not have existed, and considers himself no better than a stillborn child (:3). In <a href='B:250 5:17'>Ecc 5:17</a> Solomon has complained that he had lived his whole life in the depression of darkness. He knows he will be despised after his death because of his oppression of his people (see on :3). This continues the thought of <a href='B:250 5:17'>Ecc 5:17</a>; that he was frustrated and angry as he faced death and final sickness; and he feels that this is in fact how he has always been, eating his sumptuous meals in the darkness of depression. And this again is absolutely true to observed experience; the feelings of old age depression are extrapolated by the sufferer and assumed to have been how their entire lives have been, whether or not that was the case. </p><p>Koheleth sees darkness as inevitable. Man by nature lives in it and then dies in eternal darkness (Ecc. 5:17; 6:4). Isaiah's response is that God's light from Zion can burst into that darkness: "Therefore is judgment far from us, neither doth justice overtake us: we wait for light, but behold obscurity; for brightness, but we walk in darkness. We grope for the wall like the blind, and we grope as if we had no eyes: we stumble at noonday as in the night... Arise, shine; for thy light is come, and the glory of the LORD is risen upon thee. For, behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people: but the LORD shall arise upon thee, and his glory shall be seen upon thee... the LORD shall be unto thee an everlasting light" (Is. 59:9,10; 60:1,2,19).  </p>


text:
<p>Moreover it has not seen the sun nor known it. This has rest rather than the other<strong>- </strong></p><p>GNB: "It never sees the light of day or knows what life is like, but at least it has found rest". The reference is to the stillborn child of :3, but Solomon is saying that whether one lives just a few moments in the womb or thousands of years (:6), the reality of the "rest" of death is such that life has no meaning. Solomon's abuse of his own people, whipping them at the end (<a href='B:110 12:11'>1Ki 12:11</a>), was a reflection of how he failed to perceive the value and meaning of his own life, and this was reflected [as it is in the behaviour of abusers today] in how he treated&nbsp; the lives of others. If Solomon had accepted the basic Biblical truth that life is a gift from God, as his father David had understood (<a href='B:230 139:15'>Psa 139:15</a>), then he would have realized his need to use that life for God and not himself. And his value of the human person and the lives of others would have subsequently been transformed. The same is true of Hezekiah, who traded 15 years of personal peace for the welfare of his sons and his people. </p>


text:
<p>Yes, though he live a thousand years twice told, and yet fails to enjoy good, don’t all go to one place?<strong>- </strong></p><p>Solomon speaks in Ecclesiastes 6 of the tragedy of possessing all things but being unable to enjoy them, because fulfilling one's own natural desires one after another really isn't much of a life. And thus he came to despise the concept of eternal life because he saw no point in life itself (see on :5); "A thousand years" was likely a figure for eternity. He conceived of eternal life as being life as we now know it; and he didn’t really want to live for ever as he'd fulfilled every natural desire. There's a real warning for us here. If we see the eternity of the Kingdom as a big carrot for us, it may not actually be that motivating for us in the long run of spiritual life. It is the quality and nature of that life which is surely important to us, and not the mere infinity of it. Indeed, eternal life as we now know it would be a curse rather than a blessing:&nbsp; </p><p>Hezekiah had been given 15 years, not so long, but he now realizes that if had been given 2000 years he would still be unhappy. Or perhaps the idea is 1000 x 1000, one million years. Long life is shown not to be the benchmark of happiness nor success. He traded eternity for 15 years but later realized that was a bad deal. He now reflects that eternity for 2000 or one million years would be an equally bad deal. For what can a man give in exchange for his soul. Probably the Lord came to that understanding from reflection upon Ecclesiastes. Even the whole world would be a bad deal. The Lord's mind went over this path in the wilderness temptations. God left Hezekiah, as He departed from Saul, after the visitors from Babylon came. To show Hezekiah what was in his heart. And here we have it all written down.</p>


text:
<p>All the labour of man is for his mouth, and yet the appetite is not filled<strong>- </strong></p><p>The appetite [Heb. ‘soul’] continues the commentary upon the human person or soul which began in :3. These verses explain the sense of weariness and vanity which there is in our world. Human labour is required just to keep alive, but there is no satisfaction from it in ultimate terms. Solomon is here rejecting the whole message of the Gospel in Genesis 3. Indeed man is cursed to eat bread in the sweat of his face; but <a href='B:10 3:15'>Gen 3:15</a> opens up the possibility of overcoming that curse, through the Messianic seed of the woman. But Solomon had no place in his thinking for this Messianic seed, assuming he was the one. And so, like all who reject Christ, he was left labouring in the sweat of his face for a soul / appetite which can never be fulfilled without Him.</p>


text:
<p>For what advantage has the wise more than the fool? What has the poor man, who knows how to walk before the living?<strong>- </strong></p><p>This shows how effectively he despised his wisdom; he lost sight of the Kingdom which&nbsp;it&nbsp;led to ultimately, and the God manifestation which it could&nbsp;enable in this life. LXX "since the poor man knows how to walk before life?"since the poor man knows how to walk before life?". Solomon in Proverbs has consistently seen the poor as foolish, poor because they are fools. But he now thinks that the fools walk as do the "wise" and there is no real ultimate advantage of wisdom over folly. This is a specific retraction of all his wisdom as published in his anthology of his wisdom in the book of Proverbs. </p>


text:
<p>Better is the sight of the eyes than the wandering of the desire. This also is vanity and a chasing after wind<strong>- </strong></p><p>LXX "waywardness of spirit", parallel with the wandering of desire. Again Solomon has himself in view, for in Ecclesiastes 2 he describes how his desire wandered and he sought to fulfil those desires, be they sexual or in the desire to engage in science, agriculture, building schemes etc. Again, we note that Solomon's self criticism was so penetrating and accurate. But mere possession of knowledge, correct analysis, will not save. It is humble faith in grace which is needed in order to elicit repentance, but Solomon had none of that. </p><p>The idea may be that what you have in your hand now in present reality is better than fantasy. Hezekiah is the classic example of this- he traded 15 years of peace here and now for the unseen things of the future Kingdom, which he sees now as merely fantasy, the wandering of desire into abstract things. And that is how secular man sees the Gospel of the Kingdom. It's hard cash right now, experienced reality at this moment, that trumps any hope of future blessing. 
</p><p>Solomon’s proverbs about not eating too much honey (<a href='B:240 25:16'>Pro 25:16</a>) clearly mean that we shouldn’t over indulge legitimate human pleasures. But his approach in Ecclesiastes was the studied opposite of this. He openly says that he indulged himself in every human pleasure to the extreme, until it meant nothing. And yet he had warned against doing this very thing. Having&nbsp; stated&nbsp; that&nbsp; he&nbsp; sees no particular advantage of Divine wisdom, Solomon goes on to allude to his own wandering of desire (<a href='B:250 6:9'>Ecc 6:9</a>);&nbsp; he&nbsp; had&nbsp; been given all a man could wish, his desire knew&nbsp; no&nbsp; bounds,&nbsp; and&nbsp; yet&nbsp; it&nbsp; wandered:&nbsp; This&nbsp; is yet another powerful challenge from Solomon; his every desire was satisfied, but&nbsp; still&nbsp; he&nbsp; felt that his desires were unfulfilled (<a href='B:250 1:8'>Ecc 1:8</a>; <a href='B:250 6:7'>Ecc 6:7</a>):&nbsp; So&nbsp; much&nbsp; of&nbsp; our&nbsp; mental&nbsp; and&nbsp; physical energy goes into gratification&nbsp; of&nbsp; desire, even though it is heavily camouflaged beneath&nbsp; social&nbsp; respectability&nbsp; and&nbsp; achieving the norms of our community. Yet if we believe the lesson of Solomon, the only man who&nbsp; actually&nbsp; had every desire gratified, then we will shun all this-&nbsp; and&nbsp; fix&nbsp; our&nbsp; hope&nbsp; and every striving on Christ and his Kingdom alone:&nbsp;&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p>Whatever has been, its name was given long ago; and it is known what man is; neither can he contend with him who is mightier than he<strong>- </strong></p><p>This continues the theme which Solomon developed at the beginning of Ecclesiastes; that all is cyclical, without ultimate progress. Nothing is new. And if there is indeed a God, then He is "mightier" than man, and so all relationship with Him is pointless, seeing that He will not allow man to take his wealth with him beyond the grave. This denial that anything radically new can appear, no deeper insight into the human condition, is another way of Solomon abrogating his previous wisdom. For that wisdom had indeed sought to explain "what man is" and to furnish new insights and understanding. Solomon seems to have in mind Job's desperate thoughts, that no man can contend with God because of His mightiness (<a href='B:220 9:3'>Job 9:3</a>). But he fails to as it were read to the end of the book, where Job repents, and is brought to the glorious realization that relationship with God is wonderfully possible, and indeed eagerly sought by God with man.</p><p>Hezekiah had reasoned with God to get another 15 years, but now he concludes that God foreknew that and so he rationalized away the wonder of intercessory prayer. This is a big theme in Ecclesiastes: "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...  what can the king’s successor do? Just that which has been done long ago... That which is has been long ago, and that which is to be has been long ago" (Ecc. 1:10; 2:12; 3:15). Contra this, true spirituality is about "singing a new song" and living in newness of life. Is. 56:12 puts these ideas of endless repetition in the mouths of the condemned: "Let us drink wine for tomorrow will be just like today!". Ecc. 6:10 laments that there is nothing named that has not already been named. But Is. 62:2 speaks of a day when God's people shall be named by a new name that has not previously been named. </p>


text:
<p>For there are many words that create vanity. What does that profit man?<strong>- </strong></p><p>This is said by Solomon in the context of abrogating the importance of the wisdom he has previously taught; see on :8. The "many words" would then be a reference to the many words he had written himself in codifying that wisdom. The criticism of "many words" in <a href='B:250 5:7'>Ecc 5:7</a>; <a href='B:250 6:11'>Ecc 6:11</a> seems a reference to his own writing down of the wisdom God had given him, codifying it into books such as the compilation we have in the book of Proverbs (<a href='B:250 12:10'>Ecc 12:10</a>; <a href='B:250 12:12'>Ecc 12:12</a>). He associates the "many words" with "dreams", perhaps an intensive plural for "a great dream" (<a href='B:250 5:7'>Ecc 5:7</a>). It was as a result of the dream of <a href='B:110 3:5'>1Ki 3:5</a> that he was given the "many words" of wisdom which he now considered unhelpful and irrelevant because death meant that there was no particular ultimate advantage of wisdom over folly; wisdom was at best profitable in this life in some short term sense. And he therefore associates "many words" with folly (<a href='B:250 10:14'>Ecc 10:14</a>). He considers he had been foolish by preaching and believing those many words of Divine wisdom. Now, for him, the true wisdom was in idolatry and not Yahweh worship in His temple. For he had forsaken worshipping at Yahweh's temple and instead worshipped in the idol temples he had built nearby (<a href='B:110 11:4-8'>1Ki 11:4-8</a>). </p><p>Again we see the theme of "profit", and note Paul's allusion to it- that indeed there is no advantage / profit in life if the dead rise not. </p>


text:
<p>For who knows what is good for man in life, all the days of his vain life which he spends like a shadow? For who can tell a man what will be after him under the sun?- </p><p>The obvious answer is "God", but Solomon had turned away from God to idols. Surely Solomon writes this knowing that his words elicit the answer: "God". Yet he believed that God was powerless to resurrect man to judgment after his death (<a href='B:250 3:22'>Ecc 3:22</a>), and so we can read this as deep sarcasm against God. </p><p>The allusion is to the days added by the returned shadow. Hezekiah cynically reflects that the shadow all the same comes forward. "Who can tell a man...?" recalls the complaint in Ecc. 3 that 'Who can resurrect a man to see the future?'. The answer is God, through the work of His Son. </p><p>God did not create in vain, He "did not say Seek me, in vain" (Is. 45:18,19). Isaiah has the lack of vanity as a major theme after Is. 40. He is as it were in dialogue with Ecclesiastes. God showed Israel new things but they refused to perceive them, "they are created now and not from the beginning" (Is. 48:6,7); this is Isaiah's counter to Hezekiah's complaint that there is no new thing. "I have not spoken in secret " (Is. 48:16) , "Seek ye the LORD while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near" (Is. 55:6) answers the complaint that God is too hard to understand and is concealing Himself. </p><p>Hezekiah reasons that the pursuit of pleasure is "vanity" (Ecc. 2:1,10; 6:9), and likewise he often says that life itself is "vanity" (Ecc. 6:12; 7:15; 9:9; 11:10). So our life experience is according to what we are pursuing. If we pursue vain things, our life is vain. Herein lies the huge power of "seek first the Kingdom of God". If that is our passion, then our life likewise becomes of eternal moment. Self examination is about perceiving what are our core desires, our deepest dreams, our deepest heart wish. </p><p>Hezekiah saw the brevity of life very sharply, seeing he knew he only had 15 years left. This is why he so often speaks of human work: "all the toil that one has toiled under the sun” (7 times) or "the work that is done” (8 times), "(one’s) toil” (12 times) or “ all the work” (5 times). He asks what is the profit, the advantage, the gain- using accounting, business terms. He uses the idea 17 times in Ecclesiastes. And he sees, rightly, that if death is the final end- then it was all pointless, much expenditure for no end result. Surely Paul had reflected on this in 1 Cor. 15, which seems a sustained reflection on Ecclesiastes. Under Divine inspiration he wrote that "what advantage is there if the dead rise not", and our labour is NOT vanity "in the Lord" (1 Cor. 15:58). He writes that in conclusion of his teaching about the huge significance of the Lord's resurrection, which enables ours. This alone is what makes human labour meaningful and not meaningless. It gives eternal moment to all our being and labour. Striving for a career and human achievement can be painted as very noble and satisfying. But in the hard stare of death, it all crumbles. </p>


text:
<p>A good name is better than fine perfume; and the day of death better than the day of one’s birth<strong>- </strong></p><p>This is how Solomon imagines things should ideally be. But for him, he had just lamented that his name would be despised after his death, and his burial would therefore be with shame (see on <a href='B:250 6:3-4'>Ecc 6:3-4</a>). And indeed, after his death the people complained of how he had so bitterly whipped and abused them (<a href='B:110 12:11'>1Ki 12:11</a>). He accurately foresaw it all, including Rehoboam's rebellion and the division of the kingdom. But he does nothing about it.</p><p>This is yet another example of Hezekiah's cynicism now God had given him 15 years to live. He saw death as better than life, because his life was not devoted to God and he had no future hope of the Kingdom. The parallel is between having "a good name" and "the day of death". His only hope for the future was in having a good name amongst his generation in the nations around him after his death. In the Hezekiah context, we recall that he was given much precious ointment (Is. 38:2). But he sacrificed the future welfare of his sons and his people for 15 years of personal prosperity, risking leaving a bad name for himself at death. He now realizes this, but makes no repentance. </p><p>This is yet another example of Hezekiah's cynicism now God had given him 15 years to live. He saw death as better than life, because his life was not devoted to God and he had no future hope of the Kingdom. The parallel is between having "a good name" and "the day of death". His only hope for the future was in having a good name amongst his generation in the nations around him after his death. In the Hezekiah context, we recall that he was given much precious ointment (Is. 38:2). But he sacrificed the future welfare of his sons and his people for 15 years of personal prosperity, risking leaving a bad name for himself at death. He now realizes this, but makes no repentance. </p>


text:
<p>It is better to go to the house of mourning than to go to the house of feasting: for that is the end of all men-</p><p>But Solomon admits he himself is as the old king who will no longer be admonished (<a href='B:250 4:13'>Ecc 4:13</a>). But he urges others to be admonished (<a href='B:250 12:12'>Ecc 12:12</a>), and to go to funerals instead of wedding parties [of which Solomon must have had many], so that they might "take to heart" wisdom (<a href='B:250 7:2'>Ecc 7:2</a>), although Solomon says this was "for from me" himself (<a href='B:250 7:23'>Ecc 7:23</a>). He preached God’s truth, he accepted it as true, whilst refusing to personalize it himself. He really is a parade example of the dangers inherent in glorying in our mere possession of Divine truth:&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>The idea could be that if you go to a wedding, then the couple will "take this to heart" and may bless you in future. But if you go to a funeral, you will not get any blessing from the dead person. But we note the view that a funeral "is the end of all men". He has no hope beyond the grave. This was the root problem for both Solomon and Hezekiah.</p><p>The idea could be that if you go to a wedding, then the couple will "take this to heart" and may bless you in future. But if you go to a funeral, you will not get any blessing from the dead person. But we note the view that a funeral "is the end of all men". He has no hope beyond the grave. This was the root problem for both Solomon and Hezekiah.</p><p>And the living should take this to heart<strong>- </strong></p><p>The only other occurrence of this phrase is also in Ecclesiastes, at <a href='B:250 9:1'>Ecc 9:1</a> where Solomon says that the conclusions he is now giving in the book are because he has 'laid it to his heart' ("I considered in my heart [same Hebrew phrase], in order to declare all this"). Solomon says that faced with death, a wise man [he clearly has himself in view] will consider or lay life to his heart. Ecclesiastes appears to be Solomon's reflections as an old man facing death, rejecting the Divine wisdom he was given as a young man, whilst still holding on to it in some ways. His encounter with his own upcoming death is cited by him as the source of his new wave of wisdom. This spiritual biography of Solomon is recorded for our learning as a unique insight into the deepest psychology of a man who turns away from God’s Truth to his own human reflections and meanderings. This is frequently how God in His wisdom teaches us- through the example of failures. This isn't negative psychology- increasingly universities now teach through 'problem based learning'. </p>


text:
<p>Sorrow is better than laughter; for by the sadness of the face the heart is made good<strong>- </strong></p><p>The idea is that going to a funeral and sorrowing is better than the laughter of a wedding feast (<a href='B:250 7:2-3'>Ecc 7:2-3</a>). Yet despite realizing this on an intellectual level, Solomon personally commended mirth / laughter to himself (<a href='B:250 8:15'>Ecc 8:15</a>), and advises removing sorrow from the heart (<a href='B:250 11:10'>Ecc 11:10</a>). Again we see Solomon's amazing ability, indeed the ability of human nature, to comprehend truth on one level, and yet reason and live exactly and precisely and consciously the opposite. </p><p>Solomon sees wisdom as the way to wealth and "pleasure" in this life, and that is the basis for his appeal to men to be wise and accept his wisdom (<a href='B:240 10:23'>Pro 10:23</a>). But David uses the word only of the "pleasure" of the future, restored Kingdom of God on earth (<a href='B:230 126:2'>Psa 126:2</a>); whereas Solomon wanted it all now, just as the 'prosperity gospel' likewise does. And yet as he got older, Solomon realized that such "pleasure" from material things is not in fact pleasure, and he uses the word several times in Ecclesiastes of how pleasure in this life is vain (<a href='B:250 2:2'>Ecc 2:2</a>; <a href='B:250 7:3'>Ecc 7:3</a>; <a href='B:250 10:19'>Ecc 10:19</a>). This approach is in fact a contradiction of his seeking after "pleasure" in Proverbs. He came to this nihilistic position because he failed to perceive that the true "pleasure" is not now, but in the future Kingdom:&nbsp;&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p>The heart of the wise is in the house of mourning; but the heart of fools is in the house of mirth<strong>- </strong></p><p>He speaks of how laughter, mirth and songs are not the pursuit of the wise- and yet these are the very things he gave himself to, whilst at the same time possessing theoretical wisdom (<a href='B:250 7:3-5'>Ecc 7:3-5</a>). </p><p>On one hand Solomon condemns mirth (<a href='B:250 7:4'>Ecc 7:4</a>; Prov. 20:32 Septuagint "If thou abandon thyself to mirth, and stretch forth thine hand in a quarrel, thou shalt be disgraced"). But this is exactly what Solomon did in <a href='B:250 2:1-2'>Ecc 2:1-2</a>; <a href='B:250 8:15'>Ecc 8:15</a>. He refused to accept his own wisdom. It was merely a teaching position, and he felt the need to empirically find its truth. he failed to personalize the wisdom he taught, and therefore turned away in the end .</p>


text:
<p>It is better to hear the rebuke of the wise, than for a man to hear the song of fools<strong>- </strong></p><p>But Solomon chose to surround himself with singers and every kind of music (<a href='B:250 2:8'>Ecc 2:8</a>). He realizes that the singers were what he calls "fools", but he still indulged in it. Just as someone might openly confess that certain entertainment is foolish and unspiritual, but still indulge in it. Whilst knowing that he needed rebuke from the wise, it would seem that Solomon never accepted it. But he knew on another level that this was what he should do. This idea of knowing on one level but not another is fundamental to understanding human behaviour. We have a profound and realistic insight into it in the autobiography and piercing self analysis of Ecclesiastes.</p>


text:
<p>For as the crackling of thorns under a pot, so is the laughter of the fool. This also is vanity-</p><p>But knowing this, Solomon commends mirth in <a href='B:250 8:15'>Ecc 8:15</a>. </p><p>On one hand Solomon condemns mirth (<a href='B:250 7:4'>Ecc 7:4</a>; <a href='B:250 7:6'>Ecc 7:6</a>; Prov. 20:32 Septuagint "If thou abandon thyself to mirth, and stretch forth thine hand in a quarrel, thou shalt be disgraced"). But this is exactly what Solomon commends in <a href='B:250 2:1-2'>Ecc 2:1-2</a>; <a href='B:250 8:15'>Ecc 8:15</a>. He refused to accept his own wisdom. It was merely a teaching position, and he felt the need to empirically find its truth. he failed to personalize the wisdom he taught, and therefore turned away in the end. </p>


text:
<p>Surely extortion makes the wise man foolish; and a bribe destroys the understanding<strong>- </strong></p><p>"Surely oppression maketh a wise man foolish” (<a href='B:250 7:7'>Ecc 7:7</a> RV), he commented at the end of his life- even though right then he was chastising the people with whips, oppressing them (<a href='B:110 12:11'>1Ki 12:11</a>). He knew the true wisdom, he saw his reflection so accurately in the mirror, a wise man made foolish, but resigned from its personal implications. He could even write that “I returned and considered all the oppression that are done under the sun [by himself!]: and behold the tears of such as were oppressed, and they had no comforter; and on the side of their oppressors there was power [Solomon was king and had set up the tax system in a clever and biased way]; but they had no comforter” (<a href='B:250 4:1'>Ecc 4:1</a>; <a href='B:250 5:8'>Ecc 5:8</a>). It was a real case of spiritual schizophrenia- he sorrowed for the people he oppressed. He even seems to say that there is nothing to be surprised at in the poor being oppressed, because the whole hierarchy of officialdom above them do the same (<a href='B:250 5:2'>Ecc 5:2</a>). He saw his sin as inevitable, as part of his participation in humanity- he didn’t own up to his own desperate need for grace. Yet he also knew that “man lords it over man [cp. Solomon’s oppression of the people] to his own hurt” (<a href='B:250 8:9'>Ecc 8:9</a> RSV):&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>The Hebrew for "oppression" is also translated "quarreling". </p>


text:
<p>Better is the end of a thing than its beginning. The patient in spirit is better than the proud in spirit<strong>- </strong></p><p>This again is an example of Solomon's piercing self examination. Indeed he was "proud in spirit" and impatient. He wanted the outcome of wisdom immediately, in this life, and has no faith expressed in any future Kingdom of God on earth, a future day of judgment or eternal recompense in it. Despite knowing that the end is better than the beginning, he was too impatient to wait for that "end", and so turned away from Yahweh to idols who apparently offered immediate gratification.</p>


text:
<p>Don’t be hasty in your spirit to be angry, for anger rests in the bosom of fools<strong>- </strong></p><p>GNB "it is foolish to harbor a grudge". It seems that Solomon is here painting an accurate picture of himself. The book of Proverbs is full of sideways swipes at his half brothers, Absalom especially. Despite all his material wealth, Solomon died an angry man full of regrets; because he had not accepted God’s grace.</p>


text:
<p>Don’t say, Why were the former days better than these? For you do not ask wisely about this<strong>- </strong></p><p>Is this Solomon's cynical take on <a href='B:50 4:32'>Deu 4:32</a>, where God challenged Israel to think of the former days and marvel at God’s power displayed in them…?</p><p>The Lord recognized the essential conservatism of human nature when He observed that no matter how good the new wine, we will think that “the old is better” (<a href='B:490 5:39'>Luk 5:39</a>), taking it as read that “the former days [are perceived to be] better than these” (<a href='B:250 7:10'>Ecc 7:10</a>). Yes, for all our much vaunted liberalism and open mindedness, our reasonable openness to new ideas which we assume we have- we are conservatives by nature. Don’t disturb me or upset my social club. The seed of the Gospel was sown in our lives so that we might bring forth fruit. Not to just be retained and to lay dormant. The Lord’s judgment of the one talent man may seem unusually harsh- he who carefully preserved the talent (and the same Greek word is used later in the New Testament about the need to “preserve” the Truth). He didn’t spend it on himself. Didn’t lose it. Didn’t let it get dirty. Didn’t forget where he buried it. But his inaction was the basis of his condemnation. </p><p>LXX "Say not, What has happened, that the former days were better than these? for thou dost not enquire in wisdom concerning this". Yet I suggested on :9 that Solomon went to his grave with regrets, lamenting that the glory days of his father David had not continued. But they were not really glory days, only in Solomon's biased recollection. </p>


text:
<p>Wisdom is as good as an inheritance. Yes, it is more excellent for those who see the sun<strong>- </strong></p><p>GNB "Everyone who lives ought to be wise; it is as good as receiving an inheritance". But Solomon elsewhere despises wisdom, considering it to have no ultimate advantage over folly, because of the problem of eternal death which he sees it as unable to affect. His worry about the inheritance he would leave, and whether Rehoboam would be wise, is because he realizes that wisdom cannot be passed on. The idea may be that an inheritance is no good unless it has wisdom with it. Hezekiah would have thought this about Manasseh, who inherited his vast wealth but had no wisdom.</p>


text:
<p>For wisdom is a defence, even as money is a defence; but the excellency of knowledge is that wisdom preserves the life of him who has it<strong>- </strong></p><p>The comparison of wisdom with money reflects how Solomon sees wisdom as only helpful in this life, on a secular level. Hence LXX "For wisdom in its shadow is as the shadow of silver: and the excellence of the knowledge of wisdom will give life to him that has it". And many comments in Proverbs seem to highlight only the secular advantages of being wise. Solomon repeatedly complains that the wise and foolish die the same death, and so his comment that wisdom preserves life must apply only to its use in preserving secular life. </p><p>Even if we insist that "wisdom gives life" means 'eternal life' [which I doubt, as Solomon has no real belief in this, especially at the end of his life], then we can simply reflect that Solomon did not accept this as true for himself. In the end, Solomon felt that for himself, it was as well to be righteous as to be wicked, for in death there was no further difference (<a href='B:250 9:2'>Ecc 9:2</a>; <a href='B:250 9:5'>Ecc 9:5</a>; <a href='B:250 9:9'>Ecc 9:9</a>). He knows judgment will come (<a href='B:250 11:9'>Ecc 11:9</a>), at least for the young people, but he reasons as if it won’t- at least not for him. He knows, but he doesn’t know on the personal, experiential level. This is why there are apparently contradictory statements in Ecclesiastes. For example, the wise dies as the fool, with no more eternal remembrance than the fool (<a href='B:250 2:15-16'>Ecc 2:15-16</a>). This, Solomon, says, is what he himself believes in his own heart. But in <a href='B:250 7:12'>Ecc 7:12</a> he says that wisdom gives life to those who have it. But then again in <a href='B:250 9:16-18'>Ecc 9:16-18</a> he observes that although wisdom can help, it’s benefits are easily undone, so easily as to make it useless. I don’t see these different perspectives as being the difference between life in the world and life in the spiritual realm. They are all spoken with conviction by Solomon, which, to my mind, ruins the idea that he himself believed the Truth but was simply outlining what life is like without God:&nbsp; My resolution of this is that he knew and preached God’s Truth, but for him personally, it meant nothing at all. And therefore in practice he advocated the life of self-enjoyment, acting as if all the other truth of wisdom was not operative in practice. </p><p>"Defence" is Heb. 'shadow'. There are so many allusions to shadows in Ecclesiastes, understandable if Hezekiah was the author, reflecting on the result of the shadow going back to give him another few years before death. He now realizes that only wisdom can preserve life. And his life had been preserved for 15 years for other reasons, and he felt he had no hope of anything more- because he accepts that wisdom is personally "far from me". </p>


text:
<p>Consider the work of God, for who can make that straight, which He has made crooked?<strong>- </strong></p><p>The Hebrew and also LXX understands the "crooked" as a person, "for who shall be able to straighten him whom God has made crooked?". This could continue Solomon's cynical approach that all is predetermined by God and therefore His demand to judge people is unreasonable (see on <a href='B:250 3:15'>Ecc 3:15</a>). But Solomon may have in view the reality of death, which could not be escaped. "Made crooked" is s:w. <a href='B:250 12:3'>Ecc 12:3</a> about the old man being 'bowed down'. Given the context of death, the idea may be that the effects of the aging process are from God and cannot be undone by man. This would pave the way for the teaching of :14, that the nature and extent of our lives and life experiences are all controlled by God and [according to Solomon] we cannot intervene in those processes; and therefore relationship with Him is pointless. But we must remember that he wrote this in old age, as his autobiography, when he had already turned away from God. So I assume this is all said tongue in cheek about God.</p><p>In contrast to Hezekiah reasoning with God that he not die when intended, he has now retreated to the position of thinking that all is foreordained and human spiritual effort makes no difference. This was very much the spirit in which at the end of Isaiah 39 he accepts God's judgment upon him, rather than again seeking to reason with God to change that possible outcome. This is the same idea as in :14, that joy and adversity come from God on whatever days He chooses, and man cannot change that. Likewise in :15, Hezekiah reasons that being righteous or wicked is irrelevant because everything is chance dictated by a Divine hand that operates at random. This was a studied rejection of the grace shown Hezekiah by Yahweh. For his healing and Zion's deliverance from Assyria had not been random, but a conscious gift of grace. Indeed in :16 he goes further and warns against being overly righteous as the stress he imagines comes with it might destroy you before your time.</p>


text:
<p>In the day of prosperity be joyful, and in the day of adversity consider; yes, God has made the one side by side with the other, to the end that man should not find out anything after Him<strong>- </strong></p><p>As explained on :13, Solomon is writing about "God" at a time when he has turned away from Him. The Hebrew here is difficult, but the idea may be that we receive from God the right amount of good and evil, so that by the end of our lives there is no need for anything to be added. This would mean that every experience in life is designed by God and is perfectly designed right to the end, so that we have been developed, at least potentially, to the point He wishes. This is true; but then Solomon mocks that truth by saying that this is so that man cannot find out about the future after death (<a href='B:250 3:22'>Ecc 3:22</a>; <a href='B:250 6:12'>Ecc 6:12</a>; <a href='B:250 10:14'>Ecc 10:14</a>). Even at Solomon's time, the hope of resurrection from the dead and final judgment and reward in God’s Kingdom upon the earth was well established. David so clearly believed it. But Solomon wilfully refuses to. </p>


text:
<p>All this have I seen in my days of vanity: there is a righteous man who perishes in his righteousness, and there is a wicked man who lives long in his evildoing<strong>- </strong></p><p>This is exactly the postmodern mindset of our world today- to have no passion, to dip into everything in moderation, to live in the mire of mediocrity. GNB "My life has been useless, but in it I have seen everything". Experiencing / seeing things does not make life meaningful. One can travel the world sightseeing, but still life is useless unless used for God. The reasoning here is that righteousness like wisdom is pointless; a righteous man dies you whereas the wicked may live long. Solomon refuses to accept the perspective of resurrection from the dead and a final judgment with eternal consequence in God’s future Kingdom. And therefore indeed righteousness appears pointless and futile. We note that Solomon stresses that this is his personal conclusion and belief. Without doubt he has personally rejected righteousness and wisdom.</p><p>Koheleth's words here directly contradict the Old Covenant's promise of long life in return for obedience. But he never uses the term "Yahweh" and reasons as if he is not in covenant with Yahweh. Hezekiah is here ignoring the wonder of the grace shown to him- that his premature death had been reversed and his days extended by grace alone. </p><p>Like Nebuchadnezzar (Dan. 4:27), Solomon could have prolonged his days as king over Israel if he walked in the ways of David (1 Kings 3:14), which we are specifically told he did not. Seeing Solomon reigned 40 years, this promise of prolonged days surely implied supernaturally prolonged life, beyond usual human lifespans. Indeed the term is used of how the Lord Jesus "prolonged his days" eternally (Is. 53:10). Hence Solomon twice uses the word to speak of how wise rulers could prolong their reigns (Prov. 28:2,16). He surely has himself in view; but failed to realize this potential. Indeed he cynically uses the word in Ecc. 7:15; 8:12 in claiming that it is the wicked and not the obedient who have their days prolonged. </p>


text:
<p>Don’t be overly righteous, neither make yourself overly wise. Why should you destroy yourself?<strong>- </strong></p><p>This is again a kind of regret expressed by Solomon that he had asked God for wisdom, and God’s commendation of his choice is thereby despised by Solomon. He has often said that wisdom is useful for this life; but he advises a life of moderation. He thinks that righteousness has no eternal reward (see on :15), and in fact too much wisdom could be self destructive. He seems to have himself in view as the parade example. </p><p>The Hebrew term for "righteous over much" occurs only elsewhere in the Proverbs, where Solomon uses it as something to be praised and respected (<a href='B:240 28:28'>Pro 28:28</a>; <a href='B:240 29:2'>Pro 29:2</a>; <a href='B:240 29:16'>Pro 29:16</a>). But now Solomon despises his desire and respect for wisdom and righteousness, considering that the way of wisdom, as he now saw it, was to be both wise and foolish, to sin a little and be righteous a little. The philosophy of 'balance' he now reached, having a little of both, was in fact how he had lived his life in practice all along. Now in his old age he tries to intellectually and spiritually justify it.</p><p>"Overly wise" is a term which occurs only once elsewhere in the Old Testament, in <a href='B:250 2:15'>Ecc 2:15</a>, where Solomon recalls that he had made himself "more wise" by asking for wisdom. Now in his cynicism he regrets that request for wisdom which had at the time been so pleasing to God. The blasphemy of those statements in Ecclesiastes&nbsp; that&nbsp; wisdom is meaningless is hard to plumb. Deep within&nbsp; his&nbsp; heart, Solomon's attitude was that "As it happeneth to&nbsp; the&nbsp; fool,&nbsp; so it happeneth even to me (the man made wise by God);&nbsp;and why was I then more wise?" (<a href='B:250 2:15'>Ecc 2:15</a>). <a href='B:250 7:16'>Ecc 7:16</a> is in similar&nbsp; vein: "Be not righteous over much; neither make thyself over&nbsp;wise"-&nbsp; even&nbsp; though wisdom and righteousness are what God desires&nbsp; from&nbsp; us&nbsp; above&nbsp; all!&nbsp; This despising of wisdom and the truly&nbsp; spiritually&nbsp; ambitious&nbsp; life was due to Solomon's lack of faith in a resurrection; he had his kingdom in this life, and he failed to see the blinding necessity of a resurrection, judgment and&nbsp; change&nbsp; of nature. </p>


text:
<p>Don’t be too wicked, neither be foolish. Why should you die before your time?<strong>- </strong></p><p>Solomon had earlier taught that the righteous / wise live long lives, and therefore the unwise have shorter lives (<a href='B:240 9:11'>Pro 9:11</a>; <a href='B:240 10:27'>Pro 10:27</a>). But now in <a href='B:250 7:15'>Ecc 7:15</a> he says this isn't true to observed reality. Long life was the promise for obedience to the old covenant (s:w. <a href='B:50 11:21'>Deu 11:21</a>). But it is not always the case, as Job learned (s:w. <a href='B:220 29:18'>Job 29:18</a>); righteous men like David and Hezekiah felt their days had been shortened (s:w. <a href='B:230 89:45'>Psa 89:45</a>; <a href='B:230 102:23'>Psa 102:23</a>). And it was so with the Lord Jesus. And faithful men often lament that the wicked seem to get long life, whilst the righteous don't. The answer to that conundrum is that final blessing of long life is at the resurrection, at the last day; and not in this life. But Solomon didn’t see that; he thought that long life now was the only reward. He failed to perceive the real meaning of the Gospel of the Kingdom. &nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>Koheleth's position is precisely that of postmodernist man today. And that is the vital relevance of Ecclesiastes for today. Abuse alcohol or drugs with temperate, moderate indulgence... but not too often, lest you become addicted. Be a good guy... but everything in balance, don't get too into righteousness. And he will go on in Ecc. 8 to advocate keeping a careful distance from "God".   </p>


text:
<p>It is good that you should take hold of this. Yes, also from that don’t withdraw your hand; for he who fears God will come forth from them all<strong>- </strong></p><p>The "this" and "that" refer to excessive wisdom / righteousness and excessive folly (:16,17). Again Solomon appears to refer to God skeptically, suggesting that true worship of God is beyond being righteous or sinful. ESV: "It is good that you should take hold of this, and from that withhold not your hand, for the one who fears God shall come out from both of them". Solomon here explicitly preaches what he practiced in his life- the 'little of both' syndrome:&nbsp;"The one who fears God shall come out from both of them" could perhaps be paraphrased as meaning 'The truly spiritual person will mature beyond this simplistic understanding of sin and righteousness'. This is new age philosophy- that morality is but a paradigm which the spiritually mature have grown or [supposedly] matured out of. </p><p>As discussed on :13, Hezekiah in this section is arguing that both righteousness and sin lead to the same meaningless end. So here he advises to take hold of "this", the righteousness of :16, and also take hold also of folly (:17). But "he that fears God shall discharge himself of them all" (Heb.). I take that as absolute cynicism about God, although the translators scramble to cover over the full force of the skepticism. He's saying 'And if you fear God you get some blessing, right, isn't that the idea, and so the blessing will be to get out of this meaningless life by dying and then you won't have any more choices between righteousness and folly'. </p>


text:
<p>Wisdom is a strength to the wise man more than ten rulers who are in a city<strong>- </strong></p><p>Solomon perhaps perceives that after him there will come many rulers in the city of Jerusalem, but they will be many because of their lack of wisdom. He likes to imagine that he as the wise man had therefore had a long reign. </p><p>Verse 20 appears to continue the theme of verses 15-20- and so verse 19 must fit in to that theme, surely. Perhaps the idea is that the truly wise are stronger than any apparently strong people in society- in that, as taught at the end of :18, they have matured beyond living by a paradigm of sin and righteousness. Thus Solomon has effectively rejected the wisdom given him by God and come to a new 'wisdom' or a-morality. This would explain the reference to two types of wisdom in :23,24 [see notes there].</p><p>Despite the previous verses arguing that righteousness is a meaningless choice in the ultimate view of life and death, Hezekiah cannot avoid the niggle of obvious Divine truth. He has to go on to say that wisdom is of course very useful. Although we may perceive a difference in his reasoning between his view of righteousness and wisdom. Wisdom is, after all, a handy thing to have in this life. Even if, as he considers, it has no impact on the utter finality of death. The ten rulers in the city [of Jerusalem] could refer to the fact there had been ten kings in Jerusalem over Judah before Hezekiah. And he considers them all fools. </p>


text:
<p>Surely there is not a righteous man on earth, who does good and doesn’t sin<strong>- </strong></p><p>This is true but it appears to be using this truth as a justification for downgrading 'sin' to something inevitable, merely part of being human as he has argued in :15-17. See on :18. This is a far cry from the Hezekiah who gratefully thanked God for casting all his sins behind His back. He now sees sin as inevitable and not, therefore, something that should be an issue for God. And having earlier in this section argued that the choice between righteousness and folly is without eternal consequence, he now nuances that by saying that in any case, nobody is truly righteous. So, the idea of choosing righteousness is thereby purely theoretical and therefore meaningless. Hezekiah's faulty reasoning here could have been avoided had he been focused upon the future Messiah- for He would be the one righteous man on earth who did good and didn't sin.</p>


text:
<p>Also don’t take heed to all words that are spoken, lest you hear your servant curse you<strong>- </strong></p><p>Again, whilst this is true, the implication is that sin is inevitable and that morality or obedience to commandment is not something to overly worry about. See on :18. Perhaps Solomon had in view David paying too much attention to the cursing of his servant Shimei, and [as the Psalms show] beating himself up over it.</p>


text:
<p>for often your own heart knows that you yourself have likewise cursed others<strong>- </strong></p><p>LXX "For many times he shall trespass against thee, and repeatedly shall he afflict thine heart; for thus also hast thou cursed others". Surely Solomon has in view his problems with his servant Jeroboam, whose rebellion against him was clearly very upsetting to Solomon deep within him. He considered himself omnipotent, and his servant had upset that narrative.</p>


text:
<p>All this have I proved in wisdom. I said, I will be wise; but it was far from me<strong>- </strong></p><p>This was Solomon's problem. He admits as noted on <a href='B:250 10:2'>Ecc 10:2</a> that his wisdom was never in his heart, it "was far from me" as he expresses it here. The wisdom he asked for and so desired in his youth was given to him, but it was far from him personally- just as God’s Truth can be far from the heart of those who find, possess, maintain and teach it today. And so he considers that his own later wisdom was greater than the wisdom given him by God at the start. "Far" can equally well mean 'far away in time', and the Hebrew is translated elsewhere as "long ago" or "of old". He could be saying that it was a long time ago that he had asked to be wise, and now that wisdom was different to the 'wisdom' by which he had 'proved' that morality is meaningless, sin is inevitable and we can just act as we wish (:15-22; see on :19,24). </p><p>At&nbsp; the&nbsp; end&nbsp; of his days, he recognized that although&nbsp; he&nbsp; had&nbsp; loved&nbsp; the&nbsp; theory&nbsp; of wisdom, the image of a spiritual&nbsp; life, the wisdom of God had never really impacted his soul: "I said, I will be wise (referring back to his request for wisdom&nbsp; in&nbsp; 1&nbsp; Kings 3); but it was far from me". His request&nbsp; for wisdom had only been so that he could do the job of leading&nbsp; Israel, living out the parental expectation of his father, whom he admits in Proverbs 4 had taught him to ask for wisdom:&nbsp; </p><p>Solomon admits he himself is as the old king who will no longer be admonished (<a href='B:250 4:13'>Ecc 4:13</a>). But he urges others to be admonished (<a href='B:250 12:12'>Ecc 12:12</a>), and to go to funerals instead of wedding parties [of which Solomon must have had many], so that they might "take to heart" wisdom (<a href='B:250 7:2'>Ecc 7:2</a>), although Solomon says this was "for from me" himself (<a href='B:250 7:23'>Ecc 7:23</a>). He preached God’s truth, he accepted it as true, whilst refusing to personalize it himself. He really is a parade example of the dangers inherent in glorying in our mere possession of Divine truth:&nbsp;&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p>That which is, is far off and exceedingly deep<strong>- </strong></p><p>"Far off" is s:w. :23 "far [from me]". That which is far off and unobtainable therefore refers to the wisdom which Solomon had asked for and been given in his youth; but he now says that true wisdom is unobtainable by man. He downgraded the concept of truth by saying that ultimate truth cannot be found and therefore the search for it is primitive and meaningless. All we are left to do is to exist for this brief life. This is the end result of continually downplaying 'truth'.</p><p>Who can find it out?- </p><p>David had encouraged Solomon to ask for wisdom and to seek and "find" God (<a href='B:130 28:9'>1Ch 28:9</a> s:w:); and so often in Proverbs, Solomon had rejoiced that wisdom could be "found" (s:w. <a href='B:240 2:5'>Pro 2:5</a>; <a href='B:240 3:13'>Pro 3:13</a> "happy is the man who finds wisdom"; 4:22; 8:9,12,17,35; 24:14). But now Solomon considers that ultimate wisdom cannot be "found", but rather he feels he has "found" [s:w:] the wisdom of meaninglessness by his own personal reflections (s:w. :26,27,28). Here again we see the two different types of 'wisdom' and 'finding' which Solomon has in view (see on :23).</p><p>The context of :24 is the statement in :23 that wisdom was "far from me". Again, the author cannot bring himself to describe all wisdom as bunk. He retreats to the position that there is "wisdom", but it's too difficult to find. He says the same in Ecc. 8:1 "Who knows the interpretation of a thing?", which appears to continue the theme here despite the chapter break. It's a major theme in Ecclesiastes: "Who knows?" 2:19; 3:21; 6:12; "Who can tell?" 6:12; 8:7; 10:14; "Who can find?" 7:24. The answer of course is God through the Lord Jesus. And so those who once lived active spiritual lives can retreat to a position that they have no idea what truth is, because [they say] it's too complicated to find it. There are too many options, especially in the age of information explosion. But this is an excuse. God's truth is there for the humble to easily find- if they seek it in Christ. </p>


text:
<p>I turned around, and my heart sought to know and to search out, and to seek wisdom and the scheme of things, and to know that wickedness is stupidity, and that foolishness is madness<strong>- </strong></p><p>This turning around is not any reference to repentance, as some like to imagine. It rather refers to the change of mind within Solomon, rejecting God’s wisdom and morality for his own, as explained on the previous verses. "To seek out wisdom" must be understood in the context of the notes on :19,23,24. God had given Solomon wisdom- as a pure gift. But now he has rejected that and is trying to search out 'wisdom' for himself- and coming to wrong conclusions. So many who were given God’s wisdom in their youth have made the same error.</p>


text:
<p>I find more bitter than death the woman whose heart is snares and traps, whose hands are chains. Whoever pleases God shall escape from her; but the sinner will be ensnared by her<strong>- </strong></p><p>Solomon had over 1000 wives, and slept with whom he chose. But he laments in <a href='B:240 30:15'>Pro 30:15</a>; <a href='B:240 30:19'>Pro 30:19</a> how he lives in fear of his wives committing adultery. He mentions a particular woman and her daughters who he describes as blood sucking leaches, who have broken his heart and irritate and anger him because they are so insatiable. Solomon, the apparently powerful over women, becomes ensnared by them, as he laments here:&nbsp;This a clear reference back to Solomon’s own entanglement. In his younger days, he had found “the hair of thine head like the purple of a king [i:e. he imagined her to be suited to him, the King of Israel, when she wasn’t]; the king is held captive in the tresses thereof” (<a href='B:260 7:5'>Son 7:5</a> RV):&nbsp; </p><p>Solomon was evidently fascinated by Samson. His writings contain many allusions to him. Thus he speaks of how he found "more bitter than death the woman, whose heart is snares, and her hands as bands ("fetters", RSV): whoso pleaseth God shall escape her; but the sinner shall be taken by her" (<a href='B:250 7:26'>Ecc 7:26</a> AV). His constant warnings about the danger of the Gentile (AV "strange") woman are all commands to learn from the example of Samson. All these passages allude to Samson (e.g. <a href='B:240 5:20'>Pro 5:20</a>; <a href='B:240 6:26-28'>Pro 6:26-28</a>; <a href='B:240 7:21-27'>Pro 7:21-27</a>). Often the Proverbs allude to characters in Israel's history. The references to a wise son rejoicing his father and mother (<a href='B:240 23:25'>Pro 23:25</a>) and saddening them by his folly shout for application to Samson. The warnings about not looking at a strange woman recall how Samson saw the Philistine girl in Timnath and the prostitute in Gaza (<a href='B:70 14:1'>Jdg 14:1</a>; <a href='B:70 16:1'>Jdg 16:1</a>). </p><p>Joshua's prophecy that those who married the surrounding women would find them "a snare and a trap for you, a scourge in your sides, and thorns in your eyes" (<a href='B:60 23:12-13'>Jos 23:12-13</a> RSV) was fulfilled in Samson's relationship with Delilah and in Solomon's experience likewise. But the similarity is such that surely Samson must have been aware of it, when he asked Delilah to tie him up with cords. Joshua's words were not too distant history and surely Samson knew them. This is Samson at his darkest. He was mixing up his sex game with Delilah with Joshua's words. Joshua had said that these women would tie up the Israelite man if they married them. Samson didn’t marry her; it is possible that she was a renegade Israelite, not a Gentile; and he wanted to show that actually Samson could handle a bit of fun with Delilah without really breaking the spirit of Joshua's words. And so as he broke those bands each time to go out and kill some more Philistine warriors, he doubtless felt he was still in spiritual control. </p><p>Solomon made exactly the same mistake; he took foreign wives. And the record comments: "of the nations concerning which the Lord had said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will turn away your heart... and his wives turned away his heart" (<a href='B:110 11:1-3'>1Ki 11:1-3</a>). The implication is that Solomon took those wives thinking 'Well, I know the law says they will surely turn away my heart, but actually they won't, I can handle it'; and he didn’t handle it. Solomon seems to have realized, in the bitterness of Ecclesiastes, that he had made the same mistake as Samson: "I find more bitter than death [i:e. it would be better to be dead than be in this position] the woman, whose heart is snares and nets, and her hands as bands: whoso pleaseth God shall escape from her; but the sinner shall be taken by her" (<a href='B:250 7:26'>Ecc 7:26</a>). These were surely Samson's thoughts in those eyeless weeks in Gaza: better to have died than to have been snared by Gentile women. He let her snare him, conscious of the allusion to Joshua's words; and thought he could break free from the relationship at will. But in the end, he couldn't. Any form of sin is by nature addictive. The only way of dealing with it is to break completely. The Lord taught this when He spoke of the need to gouge out the eye that offends our spirituality. And He was alluding to how Samson's eyes were 'picked out' (Young), "gouged out" (<a href='B:70 16:21'>Jdg 16:21</a> RSV). We either do it to ourselves, or the Lord will do it to us. He will have the conquest over sin in our existence, ultimately. Either we work with Him in this, and thereby remain with Him eternally; or we foolishly resist Him, and He has His way against our will, and in doing so destroys us. With a logic like this, any sacrifice is logically given. But more than logic. If we truly love the Lord God and His Son, the desire to give, to serve for nothing, will render this logical encouragement unnecessary.</p><p>Even in the cynicism of Ecclesiastes, written in Solomon’s later life, he still uses words and phrases which have their root in his father David- e.g. his description of women as snares in <a href='B:250 7:26'>Ecc 7:26</a> goes back to how his father dealt with women who were a snare (<a href='B:90 18:21'>1Sa 18:21</a>). And the whole description of old age in Ecclesiastes 12 is based on his father’s experience with Barzillai (<a href='B:100 19:35'>2Sa 19:35</a>). </p><p>Solomon as an&nbsp; old&nbsp; man says that the man who pleases God will free himself from the snare of women, but the sinner will be taken captive by her;&nbsp; yet&nbsp; as an old man, Solomon's heart was turned away by his wives&nbsp; (1&nbsp; Kings&nbsp; 11:4-7):&nbsp; He saw himself as the sinner, rather than the man who was personally trying to please God. The way he built&nbsp; idol&nbsp; temples&nbsp; for those women on mock temple mounts near Jerusalem&nbsp; was surely a studied statement that he saw himself as a hopeless apostate (<a href='B:120 23:13'>2Ki 23:13</a>). Like the alcoholic or drug abuser, Solomon could analyze his problem so accurately- and yet do nothing about it. This is the utter tragedy of all spiritual failure. </p>&nbsp;


text:
<p>Behold, I have found this, says the Preacher, one to another, to find out the scheme<strong>- </strong></p><p>Or as AV "Counting one by one", perhaps going through his wives. The original could imply 'experiencing one thing after another', i:e. the things he lists in chapter 2, following every whim and passion of the flesh to see where it leads. Instead of accepting God’s revealed wisdom, he proudly decided to try to work it all out for himself. This is effectively what everyone does who rejects God’s revealed word in the Bible. </p><p>This is a sad reflection upon his disobedience to the command of his mother in <a href='B:240 31:29'>Pro 31:29</a> LXX, where she hopes that her son will be the one who will say that "Many women are good wives, but you are the best of them all". This is quite contrary to the spirit of Solomon's experience in <a href='B:250 7:26-27'>Ecc 7:26-27</a>, where he as it were goes through all his "many women" one by one, and can't say that a single one of them is "good". Bathsheba clearly has in mind that Solomon would have but one wife, whom he would praise as the best of all women. He totally rejected this ideal.</p>


text:
<p>which my soul still seeks; but I have not found. One man among a thousand have I found; but I have not found a woman among all those<strong>- </strong></p><p>Solomon's anti-women stance is a reflection of his anger with himself for having done what God had warned against- marrying many and Gentile wives. Solomon had all the instruction&nbsp; he could wish for; but he didn’t allow it to really sink&nbsp; home&nbsp; one&nbsp; little&nbsp; bit. He&nbsp; hit&nbsp; out&nbsp; on&nbsp; the search for an ultimately satisfying woman, but out of the 1000 he had he never found one, even when he sat down and analyzed each of them. And even politically, his marriages with all those Gentile women&nbsp; didn’t&nbsp; seem&nbsp; to&nbsp; achieve him the support he desired from their&nbsp; home&nbsp; countries; Egypt gave refuge to Jeroboam, Solomon's main rival (<a href='B:110 11:40'>1Ki 11:40</a>), even though he always acquiesced to his wives and even in his very old age he still didn’t destroy the idol temples he built for them (<a href='B:120 23:13'>2Ki 23:13</a>). </p><p>David’s influence was extremely strong, but&nbsp; it&nbsp; decreased over the years. Yet even at the end, Solomon’s wisdom stayed with him in that some aspects of his upbringing stayed with him- he could never escape from it. When he says that he has never found a truly wise woman, but he did know one wise man he may well have had David in mind. </p>


text:
<p>Behold, this only have I found: that God made man upright; but they search for many schemes- </p><p>Solomon may still have gender in view, considering males were upright but women were scheming. The "schemes" are the snares and traps of :26. We see here how the mighty Solomon, who took whatever woman he fancied, was not in fact free. He felt himself trapped by those women, and victims of their schemes. It was hardly surprising. Any woman he slept with automatically entered his harem, being shut off from the world and hardly seeing Solomon ever again. And so there were endless "schemes" by them. This was inevitable and of his own creation. Solomon's dislike of women was perhaps akin to how the alcoholic hates alcohol. </p><p>This is one of many allusions to the curse in Eden, whereby "to dust you shall return" (Gen. 3:19). There are many allusions to the curse in Ecclesiastes, especially in the verses which speak of man's labour being in vain and just to satisfy his appetite / need to eat. Especially Ecc. 5:17 "All his days he also eats in darkness, he is frustrated, and has sickness and wrath". "God made man upright" (Ecc. 7:29), "one sinner destroys much good." (Ecc. 9:18 cp. Rom. 5:18 "for as by one man sin entered the world... so death passed upon all men"). But Genesis 3 held out the great Hope of redemption from the curse through Messiah. But the koheleth doesn't want to factor that in. Although he surely knew Gen. 3:15 as well as he knew Gen. 3:19. But he wallows in the curse rather than the long term blessing of Eden restored in the Kingdom.</p>


text:
<p>Who is like the wise man? And who knows the interpretation of a thing? A man’s wisdom makes his face shine, and the hardness of his face is changed<strong>- </strong></p><p>See on :2. This may be a reflection upon how Solomon as the most famous "wise man" had a face shining with wisdom, and his face was thought to be soft and wise. For Ecclesiastes is Solomon looking back in autobiography. But he several times admits in Ecclesiastes that now as an old man he is a hard oppressor, whipping his people (<a href='B:110 12:11'>1Ki 12:11</a>). Indeed wisdom does make a man's face to shine, for Stephen's face shone because of his wisdom (<a href='B:510 6:10'>Act 6:10</a>; <a href='B:510 6:15'>Act 6:15</a> clearly allude here). But Solomon's face became hard in his old age; and he realized that. He so well analyzes himself; but refuses to repent and change:&nbsp; </p><p>He proudly insisted: “Who is as the wise man?”, as if the possession of theoretical truth and wisdom was the ultimate possession; and he then goes on to say that this made him beyond criticism (<a href='B:250 8:2-4'>Ecc 8:2-4</a>). This surely must be a danger for any community or individual who considers they have “the truth” and who considers the possession of it to be of the utmost importance:&nbsp; </p>&nbsp;<p>"Who knows the interpretation of a thing?" would fit what koheleth elsewhere argues- that God's ways are beyond understanding. We cannot find truth, he concludes, because God has made it too hard to understand. This is wrong on so many counts. He may therefore again be mocking wisdom and the "wise man" as all the same, part of the vanity of life. He has elsewhere lamented "Why was I more wise?", and claimed that wise and foolish have the same end in eternal death. And that the luck / chance factor is so great in life, that it often trumps the possession of wisdom. What matters in reality, he suggests, is to just keep the king's command (:2), because if you don't, you will get into trouble. And he says explicitly in :17 that a wise man cannot understand God: "I saw all the work of God, that man can’t find out the work that is done under the sun, because however much a man labours to seek it out, yet he won’t find it. Yes even though a wise man thinks he can comprehend it, he won’t be able to find it". Ecclesiastes makes many allusions to the fall of man. The constant lament that man 'cannot know' alludes to the taking of the fruit of the tree of knowledge. But koheleth sarcastically laments that even that didn't give man much knowledge, and he must die as he was forbidden the fruit of the tree of life.</p><p>Every reader of Ecclesiastes notices the Hebrew word hebel, used thirty-eight times and translated "vapour", "breath", "wind", "meaninglessness", "emptiness", "futility" and "vanity". James alludes to this in saying that “What is your life? For you are a mist that appears for a little time and then vanishes” (James 4:14 ESV). But he goes on to say that therefore, we should live life unlike koheleth but in an awareness of God's involvement and our answerability to Him. Hebel  has no single translation in English. But some versions prefer the translation "enigma" and that often 'works' in Ecclesiastes. This suggests that the pain of life is that it is an enigma, a riddle that we are unable to solve by our nature, although there may theoretically be some resolution to it. In this case, the idea that there is an answer, but God has hidden it from us so that it is unknowable, becomes a huge theme. And that is a very and persistently skeptical and incorrect presentation of God. In fact it seems that the enigma is only solved by the appreciation of grace, of the resurrection of the body, future judgment and the eternity of God's Kingdom. All things that Hezekiah and Solomon set their hearts not to accept.</p>


text:
<p>I say, Keep the king’s command! because of the oath to God<strong>- </strong></p><p>Despite having such knowledge and wisdom with which to rule Israel (for this was the primary purpose of the gift of wisdom to him), Solomon oppressed his people (<a href='B:110 12:11'>1Ki 12:11</a>). With evident reference to himself, he commented: “Because the king’s word hath power, who may say unto him, What doest thou?” (<a href='B:250 8:4'>Ecc 8:4</a> RV). It is only God who cannot be questioned in this way. But Solomon felt that because he possessed God’s wisdom, he could therefore act as God: “I counsel thee, Keep the King’s command, and that in regard of the oath of God” (<a href='B:250 8:2'>Ecc 8:2</a>) could suggest that he thought that his commandments were in fact God’s. So the possession of Truth, which we too have, can lead to an incredible arrogance, a lack of openness to others’ comments upon us, and a certainty that we are right in all that we do and are beyond criticism. The hardness of a man is changed by true wisdom (<a href='B:250 8:1'>Ecc 8:1</a> RV), but knowing this, Solomon became hard hearted. He had the wisdom- but as he said, it was far from him personally:&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>The Hebrew could be translated to mean that "I counsel" to keep the command of a King if you can do so without breaking your oath with God. This was what Hezekiah did when he made a covenant with Assyria and Egypt, being assured by his courtiers that he was not thereby comprising the oath / covenant with Yahweh. Isaiah of course criticizes him over this, on Yahweh's behalf.</p>


text:
<p>Don’t be hasty to go out of his presence. Don’t persist in an evil thing, for he does whatever pleases him<strong>- </strong></p><p>Here Solomon demands absolute respect, and speaks of himself as God, doing his will, judging evil and demanding the utmost respect in his presence. This was Solomon's problem, as it is of many today; he considered that his very possession of Divine truth enabled him to play God, and he ended up acting as if he were God. Remember that he wrote all this at a time when he had turned away from Yahweh. One psychological, subconscious reason why he did so was because he was playing God himself. </p>


text:
<p>for the king’s word is supreme. Who can say to him, What are you doing?<strong>- </strong></p><p>See on :2,3. This is a sad contrast to how his father David had throughout Psalms 119 considered Yahweh's word as supreme. Only Yahweh is beyond question, and cannot be asked "What are you doing?" (<a href='B:220 9:12'>Job 9:12</a>). Solomon surely knew that scripture in Job, for the book was in existence by his time, and David often alludes to it. But he willfully appropriates it to himself. He wrote all this at a time when he had turned away from Yahweh. One psychological, subconscious reason why he did so was because he was playing God himself. </p><p>Isaiah later labours the point that God does what He wishes (:3) and none can argue with Him about what He is doing. But the author here states that the king has those attributes. Hezekiah was contemporary with Isaiah and we suspect that here he is blasphemously appropriating to himself Isaiah's words about Yahweh. He was playing God. </p>


text:
<p>Whoever keeps the commandment shall not come to harm, and his wise heart will know the time and procedure<strong>- </strong></p><p>This appears to refer to the commandment of the king of the previous verses, not of God. GNB: "As long as you obey his commands, you are safe, and a wise person knows how and when to do it". Solomon has himself in view as the king, and he defines wisdom as unquestioning obedience to himself. His Divine wisdom remained with him, but he hijacks it to bolster his own power and authority- as many do today:&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>It could be argued that this is yet another example of sarcasm by koheleth, because he states plainly in :7 "he doesn’t know that which will be; for who can tell him how it will be?". And he says explicitly in :17 that a wise man cannot understand God: "I saw all the work of God, that man can’t find out the work that is done under the sun, because however much a man labours to seek it out, yet he won’t find it. Yes even though a wise man thinks he can comprehend it, he won’t be able to find it". He has often stated that wisdom and folly produce no real difference in ultimate outcome, and chance happens to both wise and foolish. If we read :5-7 as a single statement, the idea may be that the "wise heart" will accept that he cannot know what will happen in the future. It's all too hard and beyond man (as stated on :1).</p><p>This must be balanced against the earlier statement that sin is inevitable and perfect obedience will not be achieved, so seeking it is pointless (Ecc. 7:20 "there is not a righteous man on earth, who does good and doesn’t sin"). So we could read this as tongue in cheek sarcasm against the idea of obedience to commandments. Because the author argues that no man knows "the time", i.e. can attach meaning to event (:7).  </p>


text:
<p>For there is a time and procedure for every purpose<strong>- </strong></p><p>"Purpose" is "delight". David’s "delight" was in God’s law (<a href='B:230 1:2'>Psa 1:2</a> s:w:) and also in the things of the future Kingdom of God (s:w. <a href='B:100 23:5'>2Sa 23:5</a>); our "delight" in those things is reflected in our attitudes to God’s word. And we shall be finally judged according to our 'delights', our dominant desires (s:w. <a href='B:250 3:17'>Ecc 3:17</a>; <a href='B:250 8:6'>Ecc 8:6</a>). The Lord Jesus was devoted to sharing Yahweh's "delight" (<a href='B:290 53:10'>Isa 53:10</a>). We shall be judged according to what are our dominant desires. But Solomon seems to be playing God here by assuming that coming before him as the judge of Israel was coming before God’s judgment. See on :2-4. </p><p>Despite the way that Solomon as it were hijacked God’s role as judge, what he says about judgment is true enough. There is indeed a present aspect to judgment. "The day of the Lord is coming, but it is even now” (<a href='B:400 7:4'>Mic 7:4</a> Heb:). God isn’t passive to human behaviour- right now “To every matter there is a time and a judgment (LXX krisis)” (<a href='B:250 8:6'>Ecc 8:6</a> RVmg:). He perceives our actions right now as critically important. And this should highlight to us the crucial importance of life and right living today. </p><p>Each action and thought and word is now judged by God [even though Solomon had tried to hijack that role by playing God]; and the result will be communicated to us on the last day. There is a krisis (judgment) now for every work (<a href='B:250 8:5-6'>Ecc 8:5-6</a> LXX). Every action and moment is a crisis. In this thought alone we see the crucial importance of life and living, every moment. As cotton wool clouds drift across the sky, we can lose this sense of urgency and vitality which there ought to be about every moment we live here. But we know His judgments; we know how He judges behaviour; and therefore we should live as men and women under judgment. Each act and thought is our judgment. It has been truly observed by John Robinson: "'To every matter there is a time (kairos) and a judgment (krisis)' (<a href='B:250 8:6'>Ecc 8:6</a> RV margin). And each particular moment of judgment makes its contribution towards the supreme consummation towards which it is all working- the final kairos which is also the final krisis" In The End God (London: James Clark, 1950), p. 57:. The judgment is the final crisis. That sense of crisis must not be lost on us. And yet we have a tendency to act and speak and think as if judgment day is not going to come: "Although thou sayest thou shalt not see him [in judgment], yet judgment is before him", right now (<a href='B:220 35:14'>Job 35:14</a>). </p><p>Although the misery of man is heavy on him-</p><p>This misery is because Solomon considers that man doesn't know his future, and death appears final (:7).</p>


text:
<p>For he doesn’t know that which will be; for who can tell him how it will be?<strong>- </strong></p><p>This is a frequent lament by Solomon, that he doesn't know the future. He wrote this at the end of his life, and the future in view was death. And yet the promises to David and Abraham clearly offered the resurrection of the body and future eternal inheritance of the earth. Even throughout Proverbs, Solomon sees wisdom as largely just good for this life. He has no eternal, Kingdom perspective, nor does he strongly factor in the final day of judgment. He considered himself the Messianic king, and his kingdom to be God’s promised Kingdom. And now he was himself facing death, he realizes that the future is a fearful unknown. </p><p>"Who can tell him...?" of course begs the answer- God through the Lord Jesus. </p>


text:
<p>There is no man who has power over the spirit to contain the spirit; neither does he have power over the day of death. There is no discharge in war; neither shall wickedness deliver those who practice it-</p><p>The idea may be as in GNB, that death "is a battle we cannot escape; we cannot cheat our way out". Effectively this is what Solomon had been trying to do by acting as if he was somehow immortal in his playing of God (:2-4). But as he approached death, he realized how wrong he had been, and yet doesn't repent. In the context of :14, "no man" implies that no man, not even the righteous, can retain his spirit when he dies. The implication is as in <a href='B:250 3:21-22'>Ecc 3:21-22</a> that the spirit is the life force of creation which returns to God on death. And in Solomon's view, wisdom and righteousness couldn't change that. Clearly Solomon sees this life as all there is. He has no acceptance that the spirit is in fact more than the life force, for the Bible often uses the "spirit" in the sense of the character of a person, which is retained in God’s memory and will be the basis of our eternal judgment (e.g. <a href='B:650 12:23'>Heb 12:23</a>). Solomon in this sense was not a spiritual person, he failed to recognize that the spirit in the sense of our personality is of the essence, and determines our hope of eternal life in a bodily form. </p><p>We see the relevance to Hezekiah most clearly. "No man has power over the wind to retain the wind". Hezekiah sees life as the wind. He says no man has power to control the day of his death- even though he had prayed for the day of his death to be delayed, and it was. Again we see him rationalizing the wonder of Divine response to his prayer. And reasoning that the extra life he was given was actually what God intended anyway, so there was no particular grace shown him nor was the extension of life a result of his prayer being answered. The Biblical record says that it was in response to Hezekiah's prayer that the Divine word came extending his life by 15 years. "There is no discharge in that war"- even though at the time of his illness, Hezekiah was in the midst of the Assyrian war, and there was a miraculous discharge from it. Again by grace.</p>


text:
<p>All this have I seen, and applied my mind to every work that is done under the sun. There is a time in which one man has power over another to his hurt-</p><p>GNB "to suffer under him", LXX "to afflict". But Solomon was the one who afflicted the people under him (<a href='B:110 12:11'>1Ki 12:11</a>). But he sees it as not too significant because there will be no future judgment, and death happens to all (see on :8). </p><p>"My mind" is literally "my whole heart". David spoke of seeking and praising God’s grace with his "whole heart" (<a href='B:230 9:1'>Psa 9:1</a>; <a href='B:230 119:58'>Psa 119:58</a>; <a href='B:230 138:1'>Psa 138:1</a>). Solomon uses the phrase, but speaks of being obedient with the "whole heart" (<a href='B:110 8:23'>1Ki 8:23</a>; <a href='B:140 6:14'>2Ch 6:14</a>) and applying the "whole heart" to the intellectual search for God (<a href='B:250 1:13'>Ecc 1:13</a>; <a href='B:250 8:9'>Ecc 8:9</a>). There is a difference. The idea of whole hearted devotion to God was picked up by Solomon, but instead of giving the whole heart to the praise of God’s grace, he instead advocated giving the whole heart to ritualistic obedience and intellectual search for God. This has been the trap fallen into by many Protestant groups whose obsession with "truth" has obscured the wonder of God’s grace.</p><p>That Solomon abused his power to hurt is recognized by him elsewhere in Ecclesiastes. “Surely oppression maketh a wise man foolish” (<a href='B:250 7:7'>Ecc 7:7</a> RV), he commented at the end of his life- even though right then he was chastising the people with whips, oppressing them (<a href='B:110 12:11'>1Ki 12:11</a>). He knew the true wisdom, he saw his reflection so accurately in the mirror, but resigned from its personal implications. He could even write that “I returned and considered all the oppression that are done under the sun [by himself!]: and behold the tears of such as were oppressed, and they had no comforter; and on the side of their oppressors there was power [Solomon was king and had set up the tax system in a clever and biased way]; but they had no comforter” (<a href='B:250 4:1'>Ecc 4:1</a>; <a href='B:250 5:8'>Ecc 5:8</a>). It was a real case of spiritual schizophrenia- he sorrowed for the people he oppressed. He even seems to say that there is nothing to be surprised at in the poor being oppressed, because the whole hierarchy of officialdom above them do the same, and that chain of control ends in himself (see on <a href='B:250 5:2'>Ecc 5:2</a>). He saw his sin as inevitable, as part of his participation in humanity- he didn’t own up to his own desperate need for grace. Yet he also knew that “man lords it over man [cp. Solomon’s oppression of the people] to his own hurt” (<a href='B:250 8:9'>Ecc 8:9</a> RSV):&nbsp;He realized that he had only hurt himself by abusing people. And yet he continued, despite his accurate and incisive self analysis:&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p>So I saw the wicked buried. Indeed they came also from holiness. They went and were forgotten in the city where they did this. This also is vanity<strong>- </strong></p><p>The Hebrew is difficult here, but AV may be closest: "I saw the wicked buried, who had come and gone from the place of the holy". The idea may be that the wicked desecrated the temple regularly by going in and out of the holy space with impunity. But still they died the same death as anyone else who lived a far less blasphemous life. So he seems to conclude that even blasphemy means nothing in the bigger picture, because death is the finality for us all. </p><p>It was all vanity to Solomon because of his observation in :14 that the righteous also die the same death as the wicked. He therefore considers that the moral teaching of righteousness has no lasting effect, and in :16 laments he had built Yahweh's temple, which he now in his old age wasn't using as instead he worshipped in the idol temples he had built nearby to it (<a href='B:110 3:4-8'>1Ki 3:4-8</a>).</p><p>The Hebrew is difficult here, but AV may be closest: "I saw the wicked buried, who had come and gone from the place of the holy". The idea may be that the wicked desecrated the temple regularly by going in and out of the holy space with impunity. But still they died the same death as anyone else who lived a far less blasphemous life. So he seems to conclude that even blasphemy means nothing in the bigger picture, because death is the finality for us all. </p><p>Solomon uses the same words as his father David in <a href='B:230 37:10'>Psa 37:10</a>: "Yes, though you look for his place, he isn’t there". &nbsp;Solomon in his collapse of faith considers that not finding the place of the deceased is just an example of life's vanity. David his father saw it is a triumph of good over evil and a foretaste of how things shall be eternally put right at the last day. But Solomon lost the kingdom perspective, using the words of David his father simply in a secular sense.</p><p>The reference to "holiness" could mean that even the holy were in due course forgotten in their own town, which is the theme of :14. Solomon concludes that holiness is therefore vanity because no lasting reputation is left. He clearly saw wisdom as only good for this life, and many of his Proverbs see the advantage of wisdom as getting a good name and image for ourselves in this life. </p><p>However GNB and LXX give a different slant: "And then I saw the ungodly carried into the tombs, and that out of the holy place: and they departed, and were praised in the city, because they had done thus: this also is vanity" (LXX); "Yes, I have seen the wicked buried and in their graves, but on the way back from the cemetery people praise them in the very city where they did their evil. It is useless" (GNB). Solomon's understanding was that the greatest reward was to have a good name and reputation after death, and he laments that this is attained even by the wicked. So he sees no point in being righteous.</p><p>Often Koheleth says that good and bad will come to nothing and be forgotten as though they had never existed. But this is Hezekiah mocking Isaiah's words of Is. 23:13, that this is only the judgment of the wicked. But now Hezekiah applies to all men, because He has decided that final judgment will not come as God said it would.</p>


text:
<p>Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil<strong>- </strong></p><p>I will suggest on :12 that :12-14 are Solomon quoting common wisdom of the time and showing it to be wrong. The GNB sees it this way. But I think the quotation may include :11. Because in :10,14 Solomon is arguing that the wicked and righteous all die the same death, and often in secular life the wicked have a better life and reputation left behind them than the righteous. Therefore, the idea that evil must be judged immediately lest people become evil is wrong and unhelpful. That seems to be Solomon's position. "Sentence" is a Persian word, found elsewhere only in <a href='B:190 1:20'>Est 1:20</a>, which would confirm the idea that this is a quotation from another source which Solomon is disagreeing with. But the sentence against evil may refer to death; for in <a href='B:250 9:3'>Ecc 9:3</a> Solomon repeats the phrase "the heart of the sons of men is full of evil", blaming this on the fact they are alive and not dead. This is nihilism at its worst. Solomon blames the evil heart of man on the fact he doesn't die from the womb. This is quite wrong reasoning, and reflects how Solomon indeed "hated life". </p><p>This again could sound like the argument that sin is inevitable, and therefore all spiritual endeavour is pointless. Peter argues that God delays judgment by His grace, because He wants to bring men to repentance. But Hezekiah liked to conclude that judgment had to be now, not in the future. Because he had no real faith in God's future activities. And because he didn't see immediate judgment from God, he concluded that human sin was therefore God's fault. </p>


text:
<p>Though a sinner commits crimes a hundred times, and lives long, yet surely I know that it will be better with those who fear God, who are reverent before him<strong>- </strong></p><p>This and :13 are not necessarily an appeal to fear God. It would contradict the general tenor of Solomon's position. And as noted on <a href='B:250 1:1'>Ecc 1:1</a>, I suggest this is not part of any dialectical argument, whereby arguments are being given for and against faith. I think GNB is right to read :12-14 as Solomon quoting the generally accepted position that faith in God makes things work out well in the end; after all, Solomon was writing this at the end of his life, when his heart had turned away from God. So it would be surprising if at that time he professed personal faith in God. So the quotation from the accepted position goes something as in GNB: "A sinner may commit a hundred crimes and still live. Oh yes, I know what they say: "If you obey God, everything will be all right,</p><p>but it will not go well for the wicked. Their life is like a shadow and they will die young, because they do not obey God."</p><p>But this is nonsense. Look at what happens in the world: sometimes the righteous get the punishment of the wicked, and the wicked get the reward of the righteous. I say it is useless". Where Solomon really personally stands is explained in :14; he considers the righteous and wicked have the same end in death, and therefore there is no&nbsp; great advantage in fearing God. But, he admits, that sinning over much might result in a bad life experience, so the way of wisdom would avoid such extremes. </p>


text:
<p>But it shall not be well with the wicked, neither shall he lengthen days like a shadow; because he doesn’t fear God<strong>- </strong></p><p>See on :12. I suggest this is a quotation from generally accepted wisdom, which Solomon denied in his old age. The next verse goes on to state that in Solomon's view, the wicked do sometimes have long lives. As discussed on <a href='B:250 1:1'>Ecc 1:1</a>, this is not a dialectical argument, for the definition of "vanity" continues throughout this section with no clear break between the supposedly opposing sides of the argument. These verses are perhaps the strongest case for the idea that Solomon is in fact arguing for faith in God, through using dialectic or contrary arguments. But the argument doesn't hold water, for Solomon is writing this in old age when his heart has already turned away from God. And these verses are best understood as noted on :12, as a quotation of popular views about God, which Solomon is rejecting. </p><p>Ecc. 8:10-14 are an example of where on one hand the writer "knows" truth, but he says that he "sees" or observes something different. This is typical of his problem- he knows Divine truth, but sees the world through worldly eyes. That truth which he knows has not affected his worldview. Thus he "knows" that those who fear God will be blessed and the wicked punished (:12,13), but he sees / observes that the wicked prosper and the righteous suffer; or, the same thing happens to them. His comment that "This is vanity" may have Divine truth as the referent; "this", Divine truth, is vain and divorced from reality. If he had a Kingdom perspective, appreciating and giving full weight to the idea of final judgment, then this observation would not have been any burden to him.</p><p>Hezekiah did lengthen his days, and the shadow confirmed it- by 15 years. But this was by grace. The Divine judgment against him was delayed- but not because he deserved it. But now he reasons as if this was because of his righteousness. Just as he accepts the praise and congratulations for 'his' defeat of the Assyrian army, when that was achieved solely by God's grace.</p>


text:
<p>There is a vanity which is done on the earth, that there are righteous men to whom it happens according to the work of the wicked. Again, there are wicked men to whom it happens according to the work of the righteous. I said that this also is vanity<strong>- </strong></p><p>See on :12. This is Solomon's take on the popular ideas he has just quoted in :11-13, whereby righteousness has a reward and wickedness brings punishment. He now considers it nonsense. But this arose from his refusal to see any eternal perspective. The eternal outcomes of this life are not immediate, they are articulated at the last day of judgment, and will be experienced eternally in God’s future Kingdom. But Solomon didn’t believe this, and so he was left with being the miserable man of <a href='B:530 15:19'>1Co 15:19</a> who has hope only in this life. See on :15:&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p>Then I commended mirth, because a man has no better thing under the sun, than to eat, and to drink, and to be joyful: for that will accompany him in his labour all the days of his life which God has given him under the sun<strong>- </strong></p><p>This is quoted in <a href='B:530 15:32'>1Co 15:32</a> as the position of those why deny faith in the resurrection of the body. And indeed this was exactly Solomon's problem; see on :14; <a href='B:250 9:7'>Ecc 9:7</a>. Solomon earlier taught that going to a funeral and sorrowing is better than the laughter of a wedding feast (<a href='B:250 7:2-3'>Ecc 7:2-3</a>). Yet despite realizing this on an intellectual level, Solomon personally commended mirth / laughter to himself (<a href='B:250 8:15'>Ecc 8:15</a>), and advises removing sorrow from the heart (<a href='B:250 11:10'>Ecc 11:10</a>). Again we see Solomon's amazing ability, indeed the ability of human nature, to comprehend truth on one level, and yet reason and live exactly and precisely and consciously the opposite. </p><p>On one hand Solomon condemns mirth (<a href='B:250 7:4'>Ecc 7:4</a>; Prov. 20:32 LXX "If thou abandon thyself to mirth, and stretch forth thine hand in a quarrel, thou shalt be disgraced"). But this is exactly what Solomon did in <a href='B:250 2:1-2'>Ecc 2:1-2</a>; <a href='B:250 8:15'>Ecc 8:15</a>. He refused to accept his own wisdom. It was merely a teaching position, and he felt the need to empirically find its truth. he failed to personalize the wisdom he taught, and therefore turned away in the end. </p><p>"Mirth" is the word also translated "pleasure". Don't love "pleasure" (<a href='B:240 21:17'>Pro 21:17</a>) and <a href='B:240 14:13'>Pro 14:13</a> "even in mirth there is sorrow" are both s:w. "mirth" in <a href='B:250 2:1-2'>Ecc 2:1-2</a>; <a href='B:250 8:15'>Ecc 8:15</a>. Solomon had to re-learn this for himself rather than&nbsp; accept direct Divine teaching about it. He recognized that fools love mirth (<a href='B:240 7:4'>Pro 7:4</a>) but still he&nbsp; wanted it. He rejected this wisdom and only came to agree with it&nbsp; through doing just what <a href='B:240 14:13'>Pro 14:13</a> condemns&nbsp; (<a href='B:250 2:2'>Ecc 2:2</a>).</p>


text:
<p>When I applied my heart to know wisdom-</p><p>Solomon was given wisdom by God, he didn’t reach it by any personal intellectual process. But now he has rejected that and seeks to know wisdom from his own observations and intellectual process. And that wisdom was associated with his heart turning away from God and to the nihilism of idolatry.</p><p>And to see the business that is done on the earth (for also there is that neither day nor night sees sleep with his eyes)<strong>- </strong></p><p>In Psalms 127, instead of building the temple / house for Yahweh, Solomon is advised to let Yahweh build up his house / family as the seed of David (<a href='B:230 127:3-5'>Psa 127:3-5</a>). God would give sleep to the beloved, "Jedidiah", Solomon (<a href='B:230 127:2'>Psa 127:2</a>), and he would awake and find his house / seed built for him by God- rather than Solomon frantically building a house for God. The same phrase is only used of Solomon not giving sleep to his eyes in his mad addiction to works (<a href='B:240 6:4'>Pro 6:4</a>; <a href='B:250 8:16'>Ecc 8:16</a>). Psalms 127 was "for Solomon" rather than necessarily "by" him. And it seems he refused the offer of having his house / seed built up for him, but rather chose to try to build God a house in his addiction to achieving blessing by works. But now, as in <a href='B:250 5:1-6'>Ecc 5:1-6</a>, Solomon is lamenting the way he had built the temple; for he now believes that the righteous go to the same end as the wicked (:14), and so what he had once believed and upheld was vain. See on :17.</p>


text:
<p>then I saw all the work of God, that man can’t find out the work that is done under the sun, because however much a man labours to seek it out, yet he won’t find it. Yes even though a wise man thinks he can comprehend it, he won’t be able to find it- </p><p>GNB translates :16,17: "Whenever I tried to become wise and learn what goes on in the world, I realized that you could stay awake night and day and never be able to understand what God is doing. However hard you try, you will never find out. The wise may claim to know, but they don't". As suggested on :16, this continues Solomon's abrogation of the Divine wisdom given him in his youth. Seeing that Solomon has so often called himself "the wise man", he is here effectively denying the personal truth of all the wisdom he has. He also sees that wisdom as not particularly deep, seeing it cannot save from immediate death in this life. He sees the reality of death as the trump card against wisdom. And yet as noted on :14,15, this is because he refuses to accept the doctrine of the resurrection of the body:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>But it seems Solomon or Hezekiah liked to think that finding God was a far too difficult intellectual exercise to be achievable, and God had in fact made it so (Ecc. 3:11; 8:17). Because, presumably, He wants to hide Himself from His own creations. Indeed there is the implication that God is cruel to have placed a desire for eternity in man's structure, and yet make it unattainable for him. It's the same idea as the comment that what is crooked cannot be made straight (Ecc. 1:15; 7:13), especially when God has made it crooked. The argument seems to be that nobody can get totally right with God because He doesn't let them have the chance to change. But this was just a convenient excuse to not pursue relationship with God. It is also a studied denial of the possibility of future eternity, at the resurrection. And we hear it today. Isaiah, as so often, comments on this verse by saying that God does declare [Heb. 'explain'] the end from the beginning- it can be found out through His word (Is. 46:10).   </p><p>Paul may allude here, when he exclaims about the unsearchable wonder of God's grace: “Oh, the depths of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!" (Rom. 11:33). Koheleth lamented that life is vanity because you can't understand God's work. But for Paul, what is not understandable is the depth of God's saving grace. But future salvation and grace were foreign to koheleth, and so he is left just with the 'problem' that God's ways are beyond full human understanding.</p>


text:
<p>For all this I laid to my heart, even to explore all this<strong>- </strong></p><p>This continues the theme of the preceding verses, where we saw Solomon abrogating the wisdom given him by God, which he didn’t reach by any personal intellectual process. But now he has rejected that, and seeks to know wisdom from his own observations explorations and intellectual process ["laid to my heart"]. And that wisdom was associated with his heart turning away from God and to the nihilism of idolatry. Hezekiah was 'left' by God so that he would know what was really in his heart, and here we have it written down.</p><p>That the righteous, and the wise, and their works, are in the hand of God<strong>- </strong></p><p>This must be associated with Solomon's conclusion in <a href='B:250 8:14'>Ecc 8:14</a> that there is no real advantage of the righteous over the wicked and foolish because they all die the same death. Here Solomon seems to say that righteousness is only anyway part of some predetermined behaviour and is not therefore morally culpable. The idea may be as in GNB "that God controls the actions of wise and righteous people, even their love and their hate". 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 Divinely determined and enforced. Solomon at this point had turned away from Yahweh, so he may refer to "God" in a more general sense of some higher power. But he fails to accept the basic thesis of the book of Proverbs; that human actions can be controlled, we have election, and love and hatred are choices. 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:&nbsp;See on <a href='B:250 11:3'>Ecc 11:3</a>. </p><p>Whether it is love or hatred, man doesn’t know it; all is before them<strong>- </strong></p><p>The idea may be, as discussed above, that love or hatred, righteousness or sin, has no eternal consequence seeing that all die the same death. GNB "No one knows anything about what lies ahead". This is a frequent lament by Solomon, that he doesn't know the future. He wrote this at the end of his life, and the future in view was death. And yet the promises to David and Abraham clearly offered the resurrection of the body and future eternal inheritance of the earth. Even throughout Proverbs, Solomon sees wisdom as largely just good for this life. He has no eternal, Kingdom perspective, nor does he strongly factor in the final day of judgment. He considered himself the Messianic king, and his kingdom to be God’s promised Kingdom. And now he was himself facing death, he realizes that the future is a fearful unknown. </p>


text:
<p>All things come alike to all. There is one event to the righteous and to the wicked; to the good, to the clean, to the unclean, to him who sacrifices, and to him who doesn’t sacrifice<strong>- </strong></p><p>Solomon is again writing autobiography. He had built the temple of Yahweh, but now at this point in old age his heart had turned away from Yahweh to idols, and he was no longer sacrificing to Yahweh but to the idols, whose temples he had built near Yahweh's (<a href='B:110 3:4-8'>1Ki 3:4-8</a>). He sees no problem in his choice because he has convinced himself that sacrificers to Yahweh die the same death as those who worship idols. Both Solomon and Hezekiah are noted for offering many sacrifices. But they conclude it was all meaningless because death is so final. </p><p>
The man who didn't offer sacrifice was Abel, and things did indeed go differently for him. It is perhaps no coincidence that the Hebrew word for "Abel" is of the same consonants as that translated "vanity" [hebel] so often in Ecclesiastes. There could be the implication that the outcomes for both Cain and Abel was death and therefore whether or not they sacrificed acceptably was irrelevant. This would then be another of those points in Ecclesiastes where koheleth verges upon the blasphemous.  </p><p>As is the good, so is the sinner; he who takes an oath, as he who fears an oath<strong>- </strong></p><p>GNB "one who takes an oath is no better off than one who does not". I suggested above that the first half of this verse refers to Solomon's building of Yahweh's temple but not now sacrificing in it. I noted on <a href='B:250 5:1-3'>Ecc 5:1-3</a> that Solomon there comments upon how he had built Yahweh's temple simply because David had made an oath to build it, and that oath became binding on Solomon to fulfil it. He sees the temple which he had forsaken as irrelevant because the builders and users of it would meet the same death as the idolaters. Hezekiah had vowed to serve God quietly the rest of his days- and he now sees that oath as meaningless.</p><p>Solomon cynically concludes that the wicked and the righteous all die the same death, and so, he concludes, there is no great advantage in righteousness (<a href='B:250 9:2'>Ecc 9:2</a>). This contrasts with Solomon's huge emphasis in Proverbs upon the difference between the wicked and the righteous (e.g. <a href='B:240 11:18'>Pro 11:18</a>). But it seems he got to that wrong conclusion because he assumes that the blessing for righteousness is in this life, and likewise the curses for wickedness. He totally fails to think in terms of the future judgment and eternal life of God’s future kingdom. And so as he himself got older and approached death, he concluded that death means that all effort towards righteousness is therefore vain. He made the same mistake as the false teachers of <a href='B:530 15:19'>1Co 15:19</a>, who likewise considered that "hope in Christ" was only helpful for "this life", because they rejected the resurrection of the body and future judgment and reward:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>In the end, Solomon felt that for himself, it was as well to be righteous as to be wicked, for in death there was no further difference (<a href='B:250 9:2'>Ecc 9:2</a>; <a href='B:250 9:5'>Ecc 9:5</a>; <a href='B:250 9:9'>Ecc 9:9</a>). He knows judgment will come (<a href='B:250 11:9'>Ecc 11:9</a>), at least for the young people, but he reasons as if it won’t- at least not for him. He knows, but he doesn’t know on the personal, experiential level. This is why there are apparently contradictory statements in Ecclesiastes. For example, the wise dies as the fool, with no more eternal remembrance than the fool (<a href='B:250 2:15-16'>Ecc 2:15-16</a>). This, Solomon, says, is what he himself believes in his own heart. But in <a href='B:250 7:12'>Ecc 7:12</a> he says that wisdom gives life to those who have it. But then again in <a href='B:240 9:16-18'>Pro 9:16-18</a> he observes that although wisdom can help, it’s benefits are easily undone, so easily as to make it useless. I don’t see these different perspectives as being the difference between life in the world and life in the spiritual realm. They are all spoken with conviction by Solomon, which, to my mind, ruins the idea that he himself believed the Truth but was simply outlining what life is like without God. He advocates both ways. My resolution of this is that he knew and preached God’s Truth, but for him personally, it meant nothing at all. And therefore in practice he advocated the life of self-enjoyment, acting as if all the other truth of wisdom was not operative in practice. </p>


text:
<p>This is an evil in all that is done under the sun, that there is one event to all: yes also, the heart of the sons of men is full of evil, and madness is in their heart while they live, and after that they go to the dead<strong>- </strong></p><p>Solomon sees death as a great evil; GNB "is as wrong as anything that happens in this world". Yet according to Genesis, death was created by God as a punishment for human sin, and the consequence of sin. Had Solomon accepted the message of resurrection of the body and future judgment, he would not have portrayed death so harshly; nor effectively charged God with abusing man by allowing death to happen. What a contrast with Paul, who earnestly desired to "depart" (Php_1:23), and the generally hopeful approach to death found in the faithful of the Biblical record.</p><p>This verse is to be connected with <a href='B:250 8:11'>Ecc 8:11</a>: "Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil". The sentence against evil may refer to death; for in <a href='B:250 9:3'>Ecc 9:3</a> Solomon repeats the phrase "the heart of the sons of men is full of evil", blaming this on the fact they are alive and not dead. This is nihilism at its worst. Solomon blames the evil heart of man on the fact he doesn't die from the womb. This is quite wrong reasoning, and reflects how Solomon indeed "hated life". </p>


text:
<p>For to him who is joined with all the living there is hope; for a living dog is better than a dead lion<strong>- </strong></p><p>A "dog" is a term repeatedly used in the Bible for the immoral. And this is the context in this chapter, arguing that righteousness or wickedness has no eternal consequence. An immoral man yet still alive is "better" than a dead lion of a man, morally and politically king of all. For Solomon refuses to accept any conception of resurrection. </p><p>In passing, it needs to be noted that the LXX uses the word koinonio here. We are in a sense in fellowship with the world in that we are human- we are "joined (LXX koinonio -fellowshipped) to all the living" (<a href='B:250 9:4'>Ecc 9:4</a>); we are guilty in some way for the rejection of God’s Son- we turned away from Him, and esteemed Him rejected of God (<a href='B:290 53:3-4'>Isa 53:3-4</a>). But we can do nothing about being members of the human race. We cannot exit from humanity, as we cannot exit from the body of Christ. Guilt by association, if we must use that phrase, is something we can do nothing about. </p>


text:
<p>For the living know that they will die, but the dead don’t know anything, neither do they have any more a reward; for their memory is forgotten<strong>- </strong></p><p>Hezekiah of all men knew he would die. After 15 years.  Solomon may mean that their memory is forgotten by men. Throughout Proverbs and Ecclesiastes he seems to think that leaving a good memory is the best outcome that can be hoped for from living by "wisdom". But he now accepts that over the passage of time, even that will fade. He fails to accept that&nbsp; the memory of the righteous remains with God, and is the basis for their eternal judgment. Again we see how having a permanent, positive memorial in society was so important for Solomon. Even in his book of Proverbs, he sees the advantage of wisdom as being in that men will think well of the wise, and they progress in society. But now Solomon is struck by the reality of the fact that ultimately, memory of all the living will be forgotten as the generations pass:&nbsp;He fails to factor in that it is the wicked whose memory is forgotten (<a href='B:230 49:11'>Psa 49:11</a>), but the memory of the righteous will be preserved (<a href='B:230 112:6'>Psa 112:6</a>; <a href='B:460 3:16'>Mal 3:16</a>). Solomon refused to accept his father’s teaching on this, even though he claims to glorify him. </p><p>Hezekiah of all men knew he would die. After 15 years. He reasons here as if because death is unconsciousness, therefore they have no more reward and will just disappear in memory. That is a studied rejection of the possibility of resurrection, even though resurrection of the body was clearly implicit in the promises in Eden, to Abraham, David etc. and was believed in by Job. Resurrection changes everything- and the Lord's resurrection enables it. Hence the huge significance of His resurrection. </p>


text:
<p>Also their love, their hatred, and their envy has perished long ago; neither have they any more a portion forever in anything that is done under the sun<strong>- </strong></p><p>Solomon has much to say about the evil of envy (e.g. <a href='B:240 14:30'>Pro 14:30</a>; <a href='B:240 23:17'>Pro 23:17</a>; <a href='B:240 24:1'>Pro 24:1</a>; <a href='B:240 24:19'>Pro 24:19</a>; <a href='B:240 27:4'>Pro 27:4</a>). But true as his condemnations of envy are, he surely has in mind the way that Ephraim envied Judah, and envied his throne (s:w. <a href='B:290 11:13'>Isa 11:13</a>). This all came to full term after his death, when Ephraim departed from Judah under Jeroboam. Again, Solomon is harnessing Divine truth to his own agenda of self justification. And we who claim to hold His truths must take warning. But as he faced death, he came to realize that all such envy is as nothing before the reality of death, which he understood as the end of life, as he had assumed this life was the time for reward and expresses no personal hope in a resurrection of the body (<a href='B:250 4:4'>Ecc 4:4</a>; <a href='B:250 9:6'>Ecc 9:6</a>):&nbsp;</p><p>He considers that all the love and hatred, the good and the bad done by the righteous and wicked, is meaningless because they die the same death. Again he refuses to accept his father’s understanding, that it is the wicked who only have a portion in this life (<a href='B:230 17:14'>Psa 17:14</a>). But the righteous have an eternal portion, which God’s true Israel can look forward to receiving at the last day.</p><p>Koheleth seven times repeats the idea of having your "portion" now, in the small blessings of human existence such as a happy marriage (Ecc. 9:9; 2:10,21; 3:22; 5:18; 9:6,9; 11:2). The totality [seven times] of our "portion" is petty blessing now in this brief life. Koheleth's argument is that man may as well enjoy these petty blessings, because this life is all you get and there's nothing further to come after death. But under the old covenant, the "portion" of the faithful was an inheritance of land, for eternity (Gen. 31:14; Num. 18:20). But koheleth never mentions "Yahweh". He had left covenant relationship with Him and had no hope for the future. So all he saw was kingdom now- and as he observes, it isn't much, and is dwarfed for him by the eternal finality of death. He is sure that there is no "portion" in the future for all who are dead (Ecc. 9:6). If we have the Kingdom Hope surely held in our minds, that that is our "portion", then we will not focus upon the presence nor absence of any "portion" now in life under the sun.</p><p>


text:
<p>Go your way- eat your bread with joy, and drink your wine with a merry heart; for God has already accepted your works<strong>- </strong></p><p>We must remember that this was written at a time when Solomon had turned away from God. He has just been arguing that whether a man lives in righteousness or sin, in love or hatred, it makes no difference because he dies the same death. He considers God incapable of resurrecting and judging a man after death (<a href='B:250 3:22'>Ecc 3:22</a>). So I would take this as Solomon saying sarcastically: 'Get on an enjoy your life, make your heart merry with wine, and don't worry, 'God' accepts you whatever you do':&nbsp; </p><p>So the idea is as GNB: "It's all right with God". Solomon at this point had turned away from God, so we can read this as sarcasm. He has advocated eating and drinking in <a href='B:250 8:14-15'>Ecc 8:14-15</a> because he thinks that there is no ultimate judgment nor difference in outcome for the wicked and the righteous. And so now he sarcastically quips that it's OK to eat and drink, because God is good with that- He's good with anything. So Solomon liked to think. The idea of a last day of judgment and eternal consequence is clearly in the Bible as he then had it available to him. And it is engrained even in the conscience of secular man. To deny this so strenuously was therefore wilful and very consciously done. And the use of sarcasm reflects that:&nbsp; </p>&nbsp;<p>But the Hebrew translated “accepts” means literally to satisfy a debt, and is elsewhere translated ‘to reconcile self’. It could be that he saw works as reconciling man’s debt to God, rather than perceiving that grace is paramount. He keeps on about David his father; and yet there was a crucial difference. David perceived the need for grace as the basis of man’s reconciliation with God; whereas Solomon thought it was works. David wrote that God wants a broken heart and not thousands of sacrifices; yet Solomon offered the thousands of sacrifices, but didn’t have the contrite heart of his father.</p><p>As discussed on :18, Ecclesiastes is full of allusion to the curse in Eden. To 'eat bread' was part of the curse. Koheleth is perhaps saying that because eating bread was part of the curse, it is therefore approved by God to enjoy eating and drinking. And he wrongly implies that because of the determinism he perceives in life, all human action is somehow pre-approved by God; everything is "fine in its time" (Ecc. 3:11, AV "beautiful"). Hence the force of the final correction to all this by the inspired editor at the end of the book.  </p><p>There are many allusions to Ecclesiastes in 1 Cor. 15, the classic chapter about resurrection. Because it is resurrection, and the prospect of eternity because of the Lord's resurrection, which is the ultimate answer to the nihilism of human life as so well observed in Ecclesiastes. Paul surely alludes to this verse by saying that without the prospect of resurrection, indeed we may as well take koheleth's advice and "eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die". Even worse, koheleth argues that God gets that and has in some way pre-approved that attitude. </p>


text:
<p>Let your garments be always white, and don’t let your head lack oil<strong>- </strong></p><p>The idea is as discussed on :7, to get on and enjoy life and not to let ourselves "lack" any pleasure, because this life is all we have, and there will be no judgment from God; so Solomon thought. White garments and oil were worn to festivities, so the idea is that man may as well party every day.</p>


text:
<p>Live joyfully with the wife whom you love all the days of your life of vanity, which He has given you under the sun, all your days of vanity: for that is your portion in life, and in your labour in which you labour under the sun<strong>- </strong></p><p>Elsewhere Solomon concludes that life is vain and pointless, and one may as well have been a stillborn child or never have existed. He "hated life" (<a href='B:250 2:17'>Ecc 2:17</a>). But he concludes that one may as well live joyfully with one wife, not be righteous over much and not be overly wicked, in order to have a reasonable experience. His idea is that our "portion" is only in this life. He disregarded his father David’s sense that Yahweh was his portion (<a href='B:230 16:5'>Psa 16:5</a> s:w:), and the huge emphasis that the eternal inheritance of the earth in the future Kingdom of God was the "portion" of the true Israel, as promised to Abraham and repeated in the Biblical record. But Solomon blacked out, as it were, all that. He saw this life as our portion and nothing more. </p><p>He exhorted to live joyfully with “the wife” (singular) of youth, knowing full well that he in his old age was a polygamist whose many wives had led him astray. This is typical of how Ecclesiastes is so packed with reflections of the contradictions within Solomon's mind. They arise because Solomon knew and perceived God’s truth, and yet felt it meant nothing to him personally. Thus he teaches truth in Ecclesiastes, but intersperses it with his own personal depression and sense that none of it really has any meaning for him personally. The themes of labour, vanity, sleep and children which are found in Ecclesiastes all occur in Psalms 127, a Psalm of or for Solomon- where the message is clearly given that unless the Lord builds the temple, all this labour is in vain. And yet knowing this Solomon did labour for it so hard, and then came to the conclusion that it was indeed in vain. If only he had believed the words he earlier composed and sung in Psalms 127, he needn’t have had to come to that sad conclusion:&nbsp; </p><p>The allusion is clearly to the curse in Eden- labouring under the sun, "until you die" being the implication. the author doesn't go on to the hope of release from that curse offered through Messiah (Gen. 3:15). Instead he appears to wallow in it, advising only to try to endure it as cheerfully as possible, not least through a good marriage.</p>


text:
<p>Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in Sheol, where you are going<strong>- </strong></p><p>Koheleth believes that the work of a man's hands is enjoyable in this life, but will not survive death. By contrast, Is. 65:22 argues that God's people will "long [eternally] enjoy the work of their hands". But koheleth has no Kingdom perspective.</p><p>This comment that there is no wisdom in the grave suggests that he saw wisdom as only helpful for this life. And this is implied a number of times even in the book of Proverbs. We note that Solomon understood sheol as the grave, a state of unconsciousness. There is no Biblical support for the idea of "hell" as a place of conscious punishment or existence. </p><p>Much of the Preacher's message is built on the tragic finality of death being an imperative to present action. And this is true, even though Solomon meant it in the context of his wrong belief that there is no future judgment nor Kingdom of God. He has some fine images of this finality; the silver cord breaks in just one link, and the beautiful bowl of life, of this body, crashes to the dusty floor and smashes; the rope holding the bucket breaks and it plunges irretrievably into the well; and as David observed, in death we are as water spilt on the ground on a hot day, which cannot be gathered up. We are as children who have dropped their precious sweets in the dust, fraught with the realization they are spoilt for good and there are no more. They may look up to us for more, and with as much pain in our eyes as is in theirs, we turn out our pockets to show there are no more. And so the tragedy of the human experience teaches us to live life in the Lord's service to the full, not frittering it away on the time-wasters of this world. Moses pleaded with God to make time-frittering Israel see the implications of their mortality; having eloquently spoken of the tragedy of our mortality, he concludes: "So teach us to number our days, that we may apply our hearts unto wisdom" (<a href='B:230 90:12'>Psa 90:12</a>). </p><p>Perhaps the Lord was speaking in a kind of soliloquy when He mused that "the night comes, when no man can work", and therefore man should walk and work while he has the light (<a href='B:500 9:4'>Joh 9:4</a>, quoting <a href='B:250 9:10'>Ecc 9:10</a>). He was speaking, in the context, not only of His own zeal to 'work' while He had life, but also applying this to His followers. </p><p>It’s only when faced with death that we realize the crucial and wonderful importance of every hour which we’ve been given to live. Facing death as he thought, Job reflected upon the tragic brevity and speed of passing of human life, and the true meaning of the Hebrew word nephesh: “My days sprint past me like runners; I will never see them again. They glide by me like sailboats</p><p>” (<a href='B:220 9:25'>Job 9:25</a>). Life is indeed racing by; time management, and freeing our real selves from all the myriad things which compete to take up our time, becomes of vital importance once we realize this. There is only one ultimate thing worth studying, striving after, labouring for, reading about, working towards</p><p> and grasping the mortality of man inspires us in living out this understanding. TV, novels, endless surfing of the internet, engagement in pointless communication and discussion in this communication-crazy world</p><p> all this beguiles us of life itself. </p>


text:
<p>I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happen to them all<strong>- </strong></p><p>This continues Solomon's impression that wisdom and righteousness is of no ultimate value because the wise and foolish all die the same death. "Time and chance" may be an idiom for death:&nbsp; Whether wise (spiritually) or strong or swift, the same thing, "time and chance", happens to all; i. e. death. <a href='B:250 9:12'>Ecc 9:12</a> backs this up: "For man also knoweth not his time (i:e. of death)... as the birds that are caught in the snare (i:e. killed); so are the sons of men snared in an evil time, when it falleth suddenly upon them". The context back in :4,5 is clearly talking about the universality of death. "Chance" does not mean 'random' or uncontrolled events. The Hebrew root by contrast implies something specifically ordained- often by God. In this case, death.</p><p>Or it could continue the sense Solomon has that there are factors in life which control our behaviour and experiences, well beyond the effect of living a righteous or foolish life. "All men" in <a href='B:250 9:11'>Ecc 9:11</a> in the context seems to mean "all men" literally- it does in <a href='B:250 3:20'>Ecc 3:20</a> and other 'mortality of man' passages. But it we take "time and chance" on face value as a translation, Paul appears to deconstruct this negative take on life by noting that for the believer, "all things work together for good". "All things" therefore delivers us from any fear that we are at the whim of random "time and chance". Whereas Solomon seems to here reject his earlier wisdom of <a href='B:240 13:15'>Pro 13:15</a>, concluding life is just a random sequence of events. </p><p>The race not being to the swift is perhaps Solomon's take on his father's swift enemy Asahel being slain due to his speed.  </p><p>"Time and chance happens..." seems to be saying that success or otherwise in life is all a question of 'luck at the right moment'. He is totally devaluing moral choice, obedience, spirituality. Without God and future judgment in the equation, luck and random chance become dominant deciders in human destiny. And this leads to a totally depressive, anemic outlook on life. </p>


text:
<p>For man also doesn’t know his time-</p><p>As noted on :11, the "time" in view is the time of death. This is a far cry from the Hezekiah who did know his time of death, but by grace was given extra time- so that in fact he did know the time of his death, 15 years after his terminal illness.</p><p>As the fish that are taken in an evil net, and as the birds that are caught in the snare, even so are the sons of men snared in an evil time, when it falls suddenly on them<strong>- </strong></p><p>This language of snares and entrapment was often used by Solomon's father David, asking to be saved from such snares (<a href='B:230 141:9'>Psa 141:9</a>) and rejoicing that he and God’s people had been (<a href='B:230 124:7'>Psa 124:7</a>). But Solomon seems to be cynically commenting that all men are finally snared in death. In Proverbs, Solomon is continually alluding positively to his father’s words. But now he alludes to those words cynically. He was no longer living out parental expectation, although it took him until older life to individuate. And when he did, he is revealed as having no real personal faith at all. Earlier Solomon had warned about avoiding spiritual snares (<a href='B:240 7:23'>Pro 7:23</a>; <a href='B:240 22:5'>Pro 22:5</a>), but finally in <a href='B:250 9:12'>Ecc 9:12</a> he concludes that death is the unavoidable snare; and therefore all attempts to avoid being morally snared into sin are ultimately vain. He came to this perspective because he failed to fully grasp the hope of the resurrection of the body at the last day. He thought he would have the Kingdom now, and this led to his rejection of the Gospel of the Kingdom and its moral implications.</p><p>Here he&nbsp;says&nbsp; that he suffered the fate of all men in that soon&nbsp; he would die, he would suddenly be caught like a bird in a snare,&nbsp;although&nbsp; he knew not his time. These are the very ideas of&nbsp; <a href='B:240 7:23'>Pro 7:23</a>&nbsp; concerning the snaring of the simple young man by the&nbsp; Gentile woman: "As a bird hastes to the snare, and knows not that it is for his life". And yet he seems to rationalize this by claiming that death is a&nbsp;snare brought about by time and chance; he minimalized the sin of marriage out of&nbsp; the faith:&nbsp; </p>&nbsp;


text:
<p>I have also seen wisdom under the sun in this way, and it seemed great to me<strong>- </strong></p><p>After the terrible statements of the previous verses, which I have shown were a negation of his father’s wisdom and spiritual positions, Solomon seems to feel the need to say something positive about wisdom. But as ever, his idea is that wisdom is indeed helpful in this life, it has some advantages, but it still fails to give any lasting memorial. Because over the passage of time, the totality of death destroys all such hope of having a lasting memorial.</p>


text:
<p>There was a little city, and few men within it; and a great king came against it, besieged it, and built great bulwarks against it<strong>- </strong></p><p>LXX "Suppose there was a little city" makes this hypothetical. And surely it was a hypothetical example at the time. But I have pointed out on <a href='B:240 25:1'>Pro 25:1</a> that Hezekiah was particularly interested in Solomon and his words. And it turned out to be a kind of morbid fascination, because he in his later life followed the same path to spiritual destruction as Solomon. The example which Solomon cites of wisdom being advantageous in this life is so relevant to the salvation of Jerusalem from the Assyrians. So relevant that we could therefore conclude that just as Hezekiah's scribes rewrote some of Solomon's Proverbs under inspiration (<a href='B:240 25:1'>Pro 25:1</a>), so they edited this part of Ecclesiastes to make it relevant to Hezekiah's time. And the references to life as a "shadow" would be relevant to the reversal of the shadow on the sundial as the sign given to Hezekiah (<a href='B:290 38:8'>Isa 38:8</a>). Or perhaps this is an uncanny prophecy put in the mouth of the apostate Solomon, as in <a href='B:500 11:51'>Joh 11:51</a>. The language is all clearly relevant to this: the few men within Jerusalem (<a href='B:290 24:6'>Isa 24:6</a>; <a href='B:290 36:8'>Isa 36:8</a>) compared to the size of the "great king" of Assyria (<a href='B:290 36:13'>Isa 36:13</a>) with his "great host" (<a href='B:120 18:17'>2Ki 18:17</a>), who besieged Jerusalem (<a href='B:290 1:8'>Isa 1:8</a>; <a href='B:290 37:25'>Isa 37:25</a>) with siege engines (according to the depictions on Sennacherib's prism):&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; It seems unlikely Solomon ever experienced anything like this. But Hezekiah did.     </p>


text:
<p>Now a poor wise man was found in it, and he by his wisdom delivered the city; yet no man remembered that same poor man<strong>- </strong></p><p>The poor wise man of the Assyrian siege was presumably Isaiah. But he was not remembered with gratitude, and Jewish sources record that Hezekiah and Manasseh persecuted and murdered Isaiah; see on :16. Solomon shared the common view of his time that being a wise man was only ultimately valuable and worthy if he therefore had a memorial after his death. Hence the uninspired Book of Wisdom speaks of how "I for the sake of wisdom shall have estimation among the multitude, and honor with the elders, though I be young... By the means of her I shall obtain immortality, and leave behind me an everlasting memorial" (Wis_8:10-13). But Solomon is lamenting that the memory of the wise ultimately fades. And therefore wisdom is of no ultimate value because wise and foolish die the same death. So many of Solomon's Proverbs seem to stress the advantage of wisdom as being in this life:&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p>Then I said, Wisdom is better than strength. Nevertheless the poor man’s wisdom is despised, and his words are not heard<strong>- </strong></p><p>GNB "I have always said that wisdom is better than strength, but no one thinks of the poor as wise or pays any attention to what they say". As explained on :15, Solomon admits wisdom has some advantage, but not in any ultimate terms. For he says that the poor wise man earned no lasting respect for how he saved the city. Indeed, he was despised afterwards and his further words of wisdom were disregarded, just as happened to Isaiah (see on :14):&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p>The words of the wise heard in quiet are better than the cry of him who rules among fools<strong>- </strong></p><p>As noted on previous verses, Solomon's point in all this is that the wise man has no lasting memorial, and is only heard in quiet and obscurity. And for Solomon, wisdom is only worth anything if it leaves you with fame and a lasting memorial to yourself in the eyes of men. The problem of death, the same death for the wise and the foolish, as Solomon things, means that there is little advantage in being a "wise man". And Solomon was the preeminently wise man, thanks to the wisdom God gave him; but he now abrogates all that and sees no lasting point in it.</p><p>But he may be making historical allusions. The book of Proverbs has in view a bad ruler (s:w. <a href='B:240 28:15'>Pro 28:15</a>; <a href='B:240 29:2'>Pro 29:2</a>; <a href='B:240 29:12'>Pro 29:12</a>; <a href='B:240 29:26'>Pro 29:26</a>; <a href='B:250 9:17'>Ecc 9:17</a>). And this bad ruler offers deceitful food (<a href='B:240 23:3'>Pro 23:3</a>), which Solomon in Proverbs 23 advises against eating. We need to recall that eating together was seen as a sign of fellowship and acceptance of each other within the same cause. Solomon may have in view Jeroboam, who clearly sought to usurp Solomon as king. Or he may be alluding back to the various people like Absalom and Adonijah who had feasted to celebrate their apparent usurping of David’s throne. The LXX in <a href='B:240 23:1-8'>Pro 23:1-8</a> reads rather differently to the Masoretic Text, and speaks much of the evil of the ruler in view.</p>


text:
<p>Wisdom is better than weapons of war; but one sinner destroys much good- </p><p>In the end, Solomon felt that for himself, it was as well to be righteous as to be wicked, for in death there was no further difference (<a href='B:250 9:2'>Ecc 9:2</a>; <a href='B:250 9:5'>Ecc 9:5</a>; <a href='B:250 9:9'>Ecc 9:9</a>). He knows judgment will come in some form, perhaps just in this life (<a href='B:250 11:9'>Ecc 11:9</a>), at least for the young people; but he reasons as if it won’t- at least not for him. He knows, but he doesn’t know on the personal, experiential level. This is why there are apparently contradictory statements in Ecclesiastes. For example, the wise dies as the fool, with no more eternal remembrance than the fool (<a href='B:250 2:15-16'>Ecc 2:15-16</a>). This, Solomon, says, is what he himself believes in his own heart. Here in <a href='B:250 9:16-18'>Ecc 9:16-18</a> he observes that although wisdom can help, its benefits are easily undone, so easily as to make it useless. I don’t see these different perspectives as being the difference between life in the world and life in the spiritual realm. They are all spoken with conviction by Solomon, which, to my mind, ruins the idea that he himself believed the Truth but was simply outlining what life is like without God. My resolution of this is that he had known and preached God’s Truth, but for him personally, it meant nothing at all. And faced with the problem of eternal death for all, as he thought, therefore in practice he advocated the life of self-enjoyment, acting as if all the other truth of wisdom was not operative in practice. </p><p>He may even have himself in view, consciously or unconsciously, in saying that "one sinner destroys much good". All the good established by his father David, and the potentials he had had, were all undone by his sin. He knows that, perceives it, but will not repent.</p><p>The rabbis perhaps correctly interpret this verse as meaning that "when a wise man becomes a sinner, many people will abandon their pursuit of wisdom by concluding that this person’s wisdom was wrong" (Rashi). This would then have particular relevance to Solomon and Hezekiah, whose collapse of faith lead to their people turning away from God.</p><p>The Hebrew can stand the translation "one sin destroys much good". This would be in line with Ecc. 10:1 "so does a little folly outweigh wisdom". The idea seems to be that wisdom isn't that great at all, because just one sin, or one sinner, can take away all the benefits of righteousness. This is a position arrived at by someone who knows nothing of the wonder of human repentance and Divine forgiveness. And even when facing terminal illness, Hezekiah doesn't show any penitence but rather just pleads what a good man he has supposedly been.</p><p>This is one of many allusions to the curse in Eden, whereby "to dust you shall return" (Gen. 3:19). There are many allusions to the curse in Ecclesiastes, especially in the verses which speak of man's labour being in vain and just to satisfy his appetite / need to eat. Especially Ecc. 5:17 "All his days he also eats in darkness, he is frustrated, and has sickness and wrath". "God made man upright" (Ecc. 7:29), "one sinner destroys much good." (Ecc. 9:18 cp. Rom. 5:18 "for as by one man sin entered the world... so death passed upon all men"). But Genesis 3 held out the great Hope of redemption from the curse through Messiah. But the koheleth doesn't want to factor that in. Although he surely knew Gen. 3:15 as well as he knew Gen. 3:19. But he wallows in the curse rather than the long term blessing of Eden restored in the Kingdom.</p>


text:
<p>Dead flies cause the oil of the perfumer to send forth an evil odour; so does a little folly outweigh wisdom and honour<strong>- </strong></p><p>Solomon knew and warned that a little folly can destroy the man who is in reputation for wisdom and honour (<a href='B:250 10:1'>Ecc 10:1</a> AV). Solomon had “honour” [s:w:] to an unprecedented extent (<a href='B:110 3:13'>1Ki 3:13</a>). But in the same book he admits that he, the man famed world-wide for wisdom, gave himself to folly (<a href='B:250 2:3'>Ecc 2:3</a>). He knew so well the error and folly of his ways, but he could only preach the lesson but not heed it. He “saw that wisdom exceedeth folly” (2:13)- but so what... He therefore has himself in view here; just as in the preceding verse he seems to understand himself as the sinner who had undone so much good.</p><p>Ecclesiastes contains many allusions to Solomon's personal state; it is largely autobiographical. Yet in&nbsp; those&nbsp; passages,&nbsp; he&nbsp; seems to express no personal regret or desire&nbsp; for&nbsp; repentance:&nbsp;Instead&nbsp;he is&nbsp;quite content to just lament&nbsp;his&nbsp; own sad spiritual collapse, and rest content behind the&nbsp; excuse&nbsp;that nothing really matters. To&nbsp;describe&nbsp;his&nbsp;apostacy as only a "little&nbsp;folly" indicates the death of Solomon's conscience, and his fantastic ability to minimalize his own errors:&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>In the Hezekiah context, we recall that he was given valuable perfumes and these were part of his huge wealth. But he so well perceives that this has been spoilt by his "folly" in not repenting before Isaiah, and accepting the deal of 15 years peace now in return for Judah going into captivity. He self analyzes so well, as Solomon did, seeing in himself the old and wise king who would not be admonished. </p>


text:
<p>A wise man’s heart is at his right hand, but a fool’s heart at his left<strong>- </strong></p><p>I have suggested on :1 and :3 that Solomon has himself in view, dissecting his own spiritual collapse as he does in the preceding verses of Ecclesiastes 9. So I suggest this too is him stating that he was not really the true "wise man" but the fool, because wisdom had been "far from me" (<a href='B:250 7:23'>Ecc 7:23</a>). Here he puts it another way, in saying that a truly wise man has his heart at his right hand, under his control, with his wisdom in his heart. Whereas Solomon sees himself as the fool whose heart was not under his control, spiritual mindedness and psychological self discipline had not been practiced by him at all. And despite realizing that, he still doesn't repent:&nbsp; </p><p>The Old Testament frequently speaks of man as having two "sides" to his character; one that wished to serve God, and the other which was rebellious. <a href='B:250 10:2'>Ecc 10:2</a> shows how that the spiritual man is not only aware of this, but he consciously acts to control these two sides: "A wise man's heart is at his right hand; but a fool's heart at his left". This kind of self-knowledge is sadly lacking in most human beings, and Solomon is admitting it had been lacking in himself. Proverbs 7, 8 likewise has the picture of two women, personifying the flesh and spirit (<a href='B:240 7:12'>Pro 7:12</a> cp. 8:2,3). Against this Old Testament background, there developed a strong Jewish tradition that the right hand side of a man was his spiritual side, and the left hand side was the equivalent of the New Testament 'devil'. The Lord Jesus referred to this understanding when He warned: "Let not your left hand know what your right hand does" (<a href='B:470 6:3'>Mat 6:3</a>)- implying that the good deeds of the spiritual man would be misused by the 'devil', e.g. in using them as grounds for spiritual pride. </p><p>“The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left” (<a href='B:250 10:2'>Ecc 10:2</a> NIV) has been understood as referring not so much to right and wrong, good and evil, as to the highest good and lesser good (cp. how the left hand can stand for simply lesser blessing rather than outright evil, e.g. <a href='B:10 48:13-20'>Gen 48:13-20</a>). The fool inclines to lower commitment. The wise will always incline to the maximum, wholehearted level. And Solomon realizes that this is how he has been.</p>


text:
<p>Yes also, when the fool walks by the way, his understanding fails him, and he says to everyone that he is a fool<strong>- </strong></p><p>See on :1,5. The fool whose wisdom fails him in practice [when he "walks by the way"] clearly refers to Solomon. He is proclaiming through this writing we now know as the book of Ecclesiastes that he is a fool. For he has abrogated his previous Divine wisdom, and turned from Yahweh to idols. His self analysis is profoundly accurate, but it is a feature of human nature that we can self analyze correctly, but still do nothing about it. Repentance can be hid from our eyes. Solomon is such a powerful lesson to us all who have known God’s wisdom.</p>


text:
<p>If the spirit of the ruler rises up against you, don’t leave your place; for gentleness lays great offenses to rest<strong>- </strong></p><p>The reference may be to David soothing Saul, and Solomon seems to twist this to mean that he as the ruler should be placated by any he happens to be angry with: "If the spirit of the ruler rise up against thee, leave not thy place; for soothing will put an end to great offences" (LXX). He is recognizing [as explained on :1-3] that he is as foolish as Saul whom God rejected, although he had himself turned away from God at this time:&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p>There is an evil which I have seen under the sun, the sort of error which proceeds from the ruler<strong>- </strong></p><p>Again, Solomon's self analysis is spot on. He is the ruler from whom error proceeds. He knew that a little folly outweighs all the wisdom a man may have (<a href='B:250 10:1'>Ecc 10:1</a>), and yet he gave himself to folly, whilst holding on to wisdom (<a href='B:250 1:17'>Ecc 1:17</a>). A true fool is one whose wisdom fails him in practice (“when he walks by the way”, 10:3); and especially is this acute when this “error</p><p> proceeds from the ruler” (10:5). It’s all about Solomon himself. The same word for "error" is used by Solomon in <a href='B:250 5:6'>Ecc 5:6</a>, where I suggested he has in view his "error" [as he now sees it] of building a temple for Yahweh, the God from whom he had now turned away. The word is usually translated "ignorance"; but even for sins of ignorance there were sacrifices prescribed. But he has no interest in repentance or putting things right. And he is blasphemously considering all his previous Divinely granted wisdom as ignorance. </p>


text:
<p>Folly is set in great dignity, and the rich sit in a low place<strong>- </strong></p><p>This again demonstrates to Solomon the pointless nature of wisdom, because fools get great dignity and respect whereas the wise don't. And for Solomon, it was all about image and externalities. He had experienced "great dignity" such as no ruler had experienced. But he realized that he had been a fool at the same time. He had not allowed wisdom to have any place in his life or personal walk (see on :1-3). And so he considered himself the parade example of how folly got great dignity, and not wisdom:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p>I have seen servants on horses, and princes walking like servants on the earth<strong>- </strong></p><p>This indicates Solomon didn’t think <a href='B:240 19:10'>Pro 19:10</a> was&nbsp; true in practice: “Delight is not seemly for a fool; much less for a servant to have rule over princes”. He was abrogating his former wisdom. He thought that in reality, servants do rule over princes. And he likely has in view the rebellion and future success which he foresaw of his servant Jeroboam.  In the Hezekiah context, this looks back to Hezekiah's experience at the time of the Assyrian defeat.</p>


text:
<p>He who digs a pit may fall into it; and whoever breaks through a wall may be bitten by a snake<strong>- </strong></p><p>It is a common theme that the wicked snare themselves, falling into their own pit, judged by their own words, rather than God specifically snaring them (e.g. <a href='B:230 7:15'>Psa 7:15</a>; <a href='B:230 9:15'>Psa 9:15</a>; <a href='B:230 57:6'>Psa 57:6</a>; <a href='B:240 26:27'>Pro 26:27</a>; <a href='B:240 28:10'>Pro 28:10</a>; <a href='B:250 10:8'>Ecc 10:8</a>). But Solomon appears to be using this global truth to the specific end of demonstrating that "time and chance", random bad luck, happen to people no matter how hard they work. Throughout Proverbs he had glorified hard work. But he now abrogates that wisdom by saying that even the wise, hard working citizen can hit unexpected calamity. And so, he is reasoning, wisdom and hard work are not at all what he had made them out to be; see on :10:&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p>Whoever carves out stones may be injured by them. Whoever splits wood may be endangered thereby<strong>- </strong></p><p>These are more examples of the theme explained on :8; that even the wise, hard working citizen can hit unexpected calamity. And so, he is reasoning, wisdom and hard work are not at all what he had made them out to be; see on :10:&nbsp;The reference to the man who is endangered by splitting wood may be to how the same phrase is used of the men of Bethshemesh in <a href='B:90 6:14'>1Sa 6:14</a>. They split wood and sacrificed with joy that the ark had returned to them; but then they looked inside the ark and were slain. And so, Solomon reasons, wisdom and Yahweh worship are pointless. But of course the point was that they were disobedient. The ark was indeed a blessing, but they abused it through harnessing its return to their own self interest and love of wealth, just as Solomon did:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p>If the axe is blunt, and one doesn’t sharpen the edge, then he must use more strength; but skill brings success<strong>- </strong></p><p>See on :8. LXX "If the axe-head should fall off, then the man troubles his countenance, and he must put forth more strength: and in that case skill is of no advantage to a man". This argues that wisdom or skill is all the same limited if there isn't the right material to apply the wisdom to. And that was so true with Solomon. This theme of the limitation of wisdom continues in :11,12. AV "wisdom is profitable to direct". "Direct" is the word translated "prosper" in <a href='B:250 11:6'>Ecc 11:6</a>, where&nbsp; Solomon concludes that finally we have no way to "prosper", so the advantage of wisdom is minimal.</p>


text:
<p>If the snake bites before it is charmed, then is there no profit for the charmer’s tongue<strong>- </strong></p><p>As noted on :9,10, Solomon is saying this to prove that the words of the wise, like those of the charmer's tongue, are not really that effective. Because a snake can bite you before it hears the charmer, and so there is no profit in the charmer. Just as Solomon now saw no "profit" in wisdom. The snake bite of death will come to all men, he reasoned, whether wise or foolish, and whether or not they hear the words of wisdom. </p><p>But we can note the AV: “Surely the serpent will bite without enchantment; and a babbler [same word translated ‘tongue’] is no better” (<a href='B:250 10:11'>Ecc 10:11</a>). A man’s words are counted as who he is; for this is the significance of our words:</p><p>“You are taken up in the lips of talkers [s:w. tongue]” (<a href='B:290 59:3'>Isa 59:3</a>)</p><p>“Let not an evil speaker [s:w. tongue] be established” (<a href='B:230 140:11'>Psa 140:11</a>)</p><p>“You are taken up in the lips of talkers [s:w. tongues]” (<a href='B:330 36:3'>Eze 36:3</a>).</p><p>The idea of Ecc. 10:11 and so often in Ecclesiastes is that no matter how wise you are, random chance event trumps all wisdom you may have. This is the idea that "there is a time for" everything. This reflects a studied refusal by Hezekiah / Solomon to accept the higher hand of providence leading to an ultimate end- future salvation in God's Kingdom.</p>


text:
<p>The words of a wise man’s mouth are gracious; but a fool is swallowed by his own lips<strong>- </strong></p><p>The LXX would continue the theme of the limited power of wisdom: "The words of a wise mouth are gracious: but the lips of a fool will swallow him up", referring to the wise being swallowed by the foolish. Solomon presses this to prove to himself that there is no advantage of wisdom over folly in this life. And he may well have himself in view, as he so often does- swallowed up, a figure of condemnation, by his own lips. Perhaps the Lord is alluding here when He taught that by our words we are condemned (<a href='B:470 12:37'>Mat 12:37</a>). </p>


text:
<p>The beginning of the words of his mouth is foolishness; and the end of his talk is mischievous madness<strong>- </strong></p><p>And yet Solomon the wise man had himself turned to "folly", despite knowing it ended up with sin and mischief. And it is still true that "They start out with silly talk and end up with pure madness" (GNB). But Solomon has himself in view. He considers that the words of Divine wisdom he had taught at "the beginning" were foolishness, and now he feels that they had ended up as madness. His blasphemy is extreme. See on :14:&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p>A fool also multiplies words<strong>- </strong></p><p>See on :13. The criticism of "many words" in <a href='B:250 5:7'>Ecc 5:7</a> seems a reference to his own writing down of the wisdom God had given him, codifying it into books such as the compilation we have in the book of Proverbs (<a href='B:250 12:10'>Ecc 12:10</a>; <a href='B:250 12:12'>Ecc 12:12</a>). He associates the "many words" with "dreams", perhaps an intensive plural for "a great dream". It was as a result of the dream of <a href='B:110 3:5'>1Ki 3:5</a> that he was given the "many words" of wisdom which he now considered unhelpful and irrelevant because death meant that there was no particular ultimate advantage of wisdom over folly; wisdom was at best profitable in this life in some short term sense. And he therefore associates "many words" with folly (<a href='B:250 10:14'>Ecc 10:14</a>). He considers he had been foolish by preaching and believing those many words of Divine wisdom. Now, for him, the true wisdom was in idolatry and not Yahweh worship in His temple.</p><p>Man doesn’t know what will be; and that which will be after him, who can tell him?<strong>- </strong></p><p>This is a frequent lament by Solomon, that he doesn't know the future. He wrote this at the end of his life, and the future in view was death. And yet the promises to David and Abraham clearly offered the resurrection of the body and future eternal inheritance of the earth. Even throughout Proverbs, Solomon sees wisdom as largely just good for this life. He has no eternal, Kingdom perspective, nor does he strongly factor in the final day of judgment. He considered himself the Messianic king, and his kingdom to be God’s promised Kingdom. And now he was himself facing death, he realizes that the future is a fearful unknown. See on :15:&nbsp; Even at Solomon's time, the hope of resurrection from the dead and final judgment and reward in God’s Kingdom upon the earth was well established. David so clearly believed it. But Solomon willfully refuses to. </p>


text:
<p>The labour of fools wearies every one of them; for he doesn’t know how to go to the city<strong>- </strong></p><p>Here and in :14, Solomon may have himself in view, as the one who had laboured to find wisdom (<a href='B:250 2:2'>Ecc 2:2</a>) and had written down many words of wisdom in his Proverbs. He is considering himself to have been foolish in his love of wisdom. Perhaps GNB describes his anger with himself: "Only someone too stupid to find his way home would wear himself out with work".</p>


text:
<p>Woe to you, land, when your king is a servant, and your princes eat in the morning!<strong>- </strong></p><p>GNB and LXX "Woe to thee, O city, whose king is young, and thy princes eat in the morning!". Ecclesiastes begins with mention of the city of Jerusalem. This may be Hezekiah foreseeing that if was to die at 15 years after his terminal illness, then his son Manasseh would only be 12 when he became king, and this would not be a good thing.  Perhaps Solomon thinks he had been too young when he became king, and had therefore foolishly followed Divine wisdom. Or perhaps he saw clearly that his young son Rehoboam would not be a wise king, and his princely advisors would be unwise; just as indeed happened (<a href='B:110 12:11'>1Ki 12:11</a>). Solomon saw precisely the nature of his own failures, and the fruit this would bear in the reign of his son. And his bitter references to his servant would suggest he likewise foresaw Jeroboam's rebellion. His sensitivity and understanding were impressive; but he utterly failed to personalize any of it. </p>


text:
<p>Blessed are you, land, when your king is the son of nobles, and your princes eat in due season, for strength, and not for drunkenness!-</p><p>Perhaps Solomon continues his lament that he had not been the great king he might have been (see on :16). Maybe he considers that a true king must be the son of nobles; whereas he had been the son of a mere shepherd boy. He had indulged in over eating and alcohol, as he admits in Ecclesiastes 2. Having been so obsessed with "my father David", using the phrase hundreds of times and always throughout Proverbs alluding to historical incidents which glorified David... now he was no longer living out parental expectation. I explained on <a href='B:250 5:1-4'>Ecc 5:1-4</a> that he considered his father’s vow to build the temple to have been foolish. So perhaps now he is again digging back at his once beloved father David. </p><p>Or we can read this another way. Solomon was so confident that he was or would be the Messiah that he seems to have felt that he was beyond the possibility of sinning; real self-examination and the sense of the possibility of failure just didn’t exist for him. He says that the land of Israel is “blessed” because her king is the son of a noble, and she will be cursed if her ruler is a servant (<a href='B:250 10:16-17'>Ecc 10:16-17</a> RVmg:). Solomon proudly presented himself as the son of King David- and he makes a clear swipe at Jeroboam, the pretender to the throne who was a servant (<a href='B:110 11:26'>1Ki 11:26</a>). By reasoning like this, Solomon sets himself in direct opposition to the spirit of Jesus, who declared that the servant is to be the King of all. Thus Solomon’s self-justification, his self-defensiveness, his lack of focus on the future Messiah, led him to miss totally the spirit of Christ. And further, it made him into some kind of anti-Christ. The record in <a href='B:110 11:31-40'>1Ki 11:31-40</a> brings this out clearly- God assures Solomon that he and his line will reign on the throne for ever if he is obedient. But he then straight away seeks to kill Jeroboam who was pretending to the throne- because he didn’t pay attention to the import of God’s conditional promise to him. And we too can so focus on present realities that we forget the sure promise of the Kingdom, and think that the conditional hope which we too have can only be ensured by our own politics, rather than faith and obedience:&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p>By slothfulness the roof sinks in; and through idleness of the hands the house leaks<strong>- </strong></p><p>As noted on :16, it appears Solomon foresees the breakdown of his kingdom after his death; and he implies his son will be lazy, even though :15 GNB concludes that hard work is vain. Solomon may even have in view the decline of the temple, his major building project. For he had forsaken it and instead worshipped the idols in the temples he had built for them nearby to it. </p>


text:
<p>A feast is made for laughter, and wine makes the life glad; and money is the answer for all things<strong>- </strong></p><p>According to Ecclesiastes 2, these were the things Solomon had enjoyed to the ultimate degree; laughter ["mirth"], feasts, wine and money. But even wealth was not the answer for all things, as he is regretting throughout Ecclesiastes. So we can take this as him quoting secular wisdom and showing that his own miserable life proves it untrue. </p><p>Solomon had seen wisdom as the way to wealth and "pleasure" in this life [s:w. "laughter" here] , and that is the basis for his appeal to men to be wise and accept his wisdom (<a href='B:240 10:23'>Pro 10:23</a>). But David uses the word only of the "pleasure" of the future, restored Kingdom of God on earth (<a href='B:230 126:2'>Psa 126:2</a>); whereas Solomon wanted it all now, just as the 'prosperity gospel' likewise does. And yet as he got older, Solomon realized that such "pleasure" from material things is not in fact pleasure, and he uses the word several times in Ecclesiastes of how pleasure in this life is vain (<a href='B:250 2:2'>Ecc 2:2</a>; <a href='B:250 7:3'>Ecc 7:3</a>; <a href='B:250 10:19'>Ecc 10:19</a>). This approach is in fact a contradiction of his seeking after "pleasure" in Proverbs. He came to this nihilistic position because he failed to perceive that the true "pleasure" is not now, but in the future Kingdom:&nbsp;&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p>Don’t curse the king, no, not in your thoughts; and don’t curse the rich in your bedroom: for a bird of the sky may carry your voice, and that which has wings may tell the matter- </p><p>Having here publically advertised his own folly and bad rulership of his people, he now warns solemnly against cursing him or even thinking bad of him in the heart. Even in old age, he was desperate to cling on to his power. </p>


text:
<p>Cast your bread on the waters; for you shall find it after many days-</p><p>On the basis of the idea that "casting seed upon the waters is a metaphorical expression for sending merchandise across the sea to distant lands", the GNB suggests that what is in view here and in :2 appears to be justification of Solomon's involvement with Gentile nations, for he became a middleman in the horse trade: "Invest your money in foreign trade, and one of these days you will make a profit. Put your investments in several places—many places even—because you never know what kind of bad luck you are going to have in this world" (GNB):&nbsp;But this is also a reference to the practice in Egypt of sowing seed during the flooding of the Nile, casting seed on the water so that it would grow into wheat on the floodplains. This distinctly Egyptian allusion reflects how Solomon has rejected Divine wisdom when his wives turned away his heart from Yahweh, and now instead he alludes to the Egyptian ideas of his wives.</p><p>I suggest however that Solomon is saying this in order to justify his view of "wisdom" as having limited advantage in this life; but only in a secular sense, and having no promise of any life that is to come.</p>


text:
<p>Give a portion to seven, yes, even to eight; for you don’t know what evil will be on the earth<strong>- </strong></p><p>The idea of being generous spirited in prosperity because it will help in the evil day is alluded to by the Lord in <a href='B:490 16:9'>Luk 16:9</a>. But this, He says, is the wisdom of the children of this world. He clearly understood Solomon at this point as being one of them. And as mentioned on :1, Solomon is saying this in order to justify his view of "wisdom" as having limited advantage in this life; but only in a secular sense, and having no promise of any life that is to come. And the Lord's allusion to Solomon's words confirms that.</p><p>"You don't know..." confirms koheleth's view that whether you are righteous or foolish, there's good or bad luck which operates in your life regardless of your morality. He observes in :3 the [apparent] randomness in nature. Again we see a devaluing of personal spirituality, and the fact was that neither Hezekiah nor Solomon had value this as they should've done even when they professed faith in Yahweh. His view of how to cope with the "evil" which might some day "be on the earth" was that you may as well be generous to others, because then they might come and bale you out in hard times. Trust in God is not on his agenda. </p>


text:
<p>If the clouds are full of rain, they empty themselves on the earth; and if a tree falls toward the south, or toward the north, in the place where the tree falls, there shall it be<strong>- </strong></p><p>This is the kind of fatalism we observed on <a href='B:250 9:1'>Ecc 9:1</a>. See on :6. 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 Divinely determined and enforced. Solomon fails to accept the basic thesis of the book of Proverbs; that human actions can be controlled, we have election, and love and hatred are choices. 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:&nbsp;</p><p>A tree falls in the calamity of a storm. To say it is laying to the north or toward the south is rather meaningless, because it depends from what perspective you are looking at it. We would rather expect "toward the north / south, or toward the east / west". But "toward the south, or toward the north" is an intended statement that the tree falls in the storm, and it depends how you look at it as the observer as to whether you see it as facing northward or southward. And this is the postmodern spirit of our age. Death, the storm, shall come; and after that, it's all just a matter of how you want to perceive things. And this was the spirit of Solomon after he cast off faith in God and a future resurrection to judgment:&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p>He who observes the wind won’t sow; and he who regards the clouds won’t reap<strong>- </strong></p><p>This fact is being harnessed by Solomon to support his new view that the over analytical life isn't profitable; wisdom has its limits and shouldn't be taken too far. Which is, apparently, what he felt he had done. "Get on with life and enjoy it" is his message after he had personally rejected Divine wisdom. "Don't worry be happy" is the spirit of a world which has rejected the true God, and they thus replicate that of Solomon in his apostacy. This is the power of this fascinating book of Ecclesiastes; we see the spirit of our age to be that of Solomon. </p><p>The picture is of a farmer lifting his eyes to the skies, looking up to God, looking for signs in the clouds or wind as to what he should do. And, the implication is, he doesn't get any signs. God doesn't communicate. So he may as well just take a chance, and mitigate against bad luck as far as he can by harder work. This is a common conclusion by koheleth. Two are better than one on a journey or when sleeping rough at night. Likewise "a threefold cord is not easily broken" may simply mean that if three are carrying a load, and one cord snaps, then the other two cords will hopefully still bear the load. Sharpen your axe blade to save unnecessary labour and to preserve the axe (Ecc. 10:10).</p>


text:
<p>As you don’t know what is the way of the wind, nor how the bones grow in the womb of her who is with child; even so you don’t know the work of God who does all<strong>- </strong></p><p>Lamenting that we "don't know" is common in Proverbs. It contrasts sharply with the definite spirit and sense of clear direction which Solomon had in his book of Proverbs. As noted on :4, we see the spirit of our postmodern age in Solomon, not knowing anything much at all, scared to get too close to God and His ways lest they appear dogmatic.</p><p>This is not to say, of course, that we "know everything" in the primitive, simplistic way that some think they "know the truth" about all things. The humility of the Lord Jesus is a reflection of the humility of God His Father. He spoke of Himself as the sower, who sleeps (in His death) and then works night and day (His present Heavenly labour for us) so that the seed should bring forth fruit- "he knows not how" (<a href='B:480 4:27'>Mar 4:27</a>, with allusion to <a href='B:250 11:1'>Ecc 11:1</a>; <a href='B:250 11:5-6'>Ecc 11:5-6</a>). Despite all things having been revealed unto Him, and the Spirit immeasurably given to Him, He had the spiritual and intellectual humility to openly recognize that our spiritual growth and ultimate salvation is a mystery to Him. It was the Father alone who gave the increase:&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>These words are also alluded to in the Lord's discourse with Nicodemus in <a href='B:500 3:3-5'>Joh 3:3-5</a>. But the Lord's comment that Nicodemus didn’t understand these things was a rebuke to him. In <a href='B:500 3:10'>Joh 3:10</a>, He expected Nicodemus to have figured out the Old Testament’s teaching about the new birth (presumably from <a href='B:230 51:10'>Psa 51:10</a>; <a href='B:290 44:3'>Isa 44:3</a>; <a href='B:330 11:19'>Eze 11:19</a>; <a href='B:330 18:31'>Eze 18:31</a>; <a href='B:330 36:26'>Eze 36:26</a>; <a href='B:330 37:14'>Eze 37:14</a>; <a href='B:330 39:29'>Eze 39:29</a>; <a href='B:250 11:5'>Ecc 11:5</a>). But instead, Nicodemus for all his theoretical knowledge as "the teacher / master of Israel", just as Solomon was, didn’t know them:&nbsp; The Lord's point is that secular man indeed "doesn't know" because these things are the way of God's Spirit. But Paul urges us towards the possibility of living "in the Spirit" and "walking in step with the Spirit". Isaiah also seems to dialogue back with the claims that a man comes from the womb (Ecc. 5:15), clueless as to what went on there (Ecc. 11:5), and then dies and shall be forgotten. He several times states that it is Yahweh who formed His people in the womb, and because He is eternal, He will eternally have a parental bond and concern for them and will lead them through to life eternal, just as He brought them to physical life from the womb (Is. 44:2,24; 46:3; 49:1,5,15).</p><p>Solomon again is making the point that whatever wisdom he had didn’t really explain God’s ways. He doesn't become an atheist, but his wives turned away his heart from Yahweh to idols. And he likes to justify that by saying that Yahweh cannot be understood anyway. Such excuses for walking out of relationship with God are often heard. </p>


text:
<p>In the morning sow your seed, and in the evening don’t withhold your hand; for you don’t know which will prosper, whether this or that, or whether they both will be equally good<strong>- </strong></p><p>This continues the complaint of :5, that God is beyond understanding, and we are victims of some higher hand of fate or good luck; "you don't know..." anything, seems to be Solomon's point. This is the fatalism discussed on :3,5. So Solomon advises to sow in the morning and evening, as you don't know which will be more successful; but, by implication, take a break in the heat of midday. Don't work too hard, don't take life too seriously. That is his sad conclusion. Wisdom can assist a little bit, allowing us to "prosper" (<a href='B:250 10:10'>Ecc 10:10</a>), but here Solomon concludes that finally we have no way to "prosper", so the advantage of wisdom is minimal.</p><p>Sowing when you know only some seed will end up in the "good" category recalls the Lord's parable of the sower. But His point was that we should eagerly sow in this way because the "good" category will reap life eternal in the future. But koheleth doesn't have that perspective, and so he is left wallowing in the feeling that luck and the winds of fortune are so strong that , faced with eternal death, one may as well sow without great enthusiasm.  </p>


text:
<p>Truly the light is sweet, and a pleasant thing it is for the eyes to see the sun<strong>- </strong></p><p>Solomon qualifies his nihilism by admitting that life "under the sun" can be sweet and pleasant. But he will go in :8 to say that this sweetness of life is immediately disrupted when one thinks of the reality of death, which justifies his conclusion that he "hated life" (<a href='B:250 2:17'>Ecc 2:17</a>) and it was better to have never been born nor experienced life (<a href='B:250 6:3-6'>Ecc 6:3-6</a>). The words for "sweet" and "pleasant / good" occur together in <a href='B:290 5:20'>Isa 5:20</a>, where an apostate Judah are condemned for calling the sweet bitter and the good evil. This is alluding to what Solomon was doing, by saying that life in the end is bitter, evil and a vanity:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p>Yes, if a man lives many years, let him rejoice in them all; but let him remember the days of darkness, for they shall be many. All that comes is vanity-</p><p>As discussed on :7, the reality of death meant that any apparent sweetness to life ends because of the problem of eternal death. Solomon refuses any idea of resurrection or victory over death. The essence of the purpose and achievement of God through His Son was understood by Abraham, Job, David and many others. But Solomon steadfastly refused it. And he seems to now be kicking over the traces of his earlier glorification of his father David. For David has used the same words in glorying in that fact the darkness shines as the day to Yahweh (<a href='B:230 139:12'>Psa 139:12</a>). Solomon has used the term for how men live their lives in "days of darkness" (<a href='B:250 5:17'>Ecc 5:17</a>), and in <a href='B:250 11:8'>Ecc 11:8</a> he uses this term of death. He sees life as being lived in the same unconscious spirit of death; he has no conception of God’s light and life breaking in to human life right now as taught so often in the Bible (e.g. <a href='B:290 29:18'>Isa 29:18</a>). </p>


text:
<p>Rejoice, young man, in your youth, and let your heart cheer you in the days of your youth, and walk in the ways of your heart, and in the sight of your eyes; but know that for all these things there is a God who will bring you into judgment for them<strong>- </strong></p><p>This continues the theme of :7,8; that life indeed can be pleasant, but it is tinged by the consideration of death, and the belief that many held in Israel that God would judge man for his actions and use of life. Solomon had refused that conception. I say this because elsewhere Solomon speaks so clearly as if God will not raise a man to judgment (<a href='B:250 3:22'>Ecc 3:22</a>), and the preceding verse 8 is clear that he considers death to be eternal darkness. He has argued that man should just get on and enjoy life; but he alludes to the way that God says He will judge those who walk in the ways of their own heart and after their own eyes (<a href='B:50 12:8'>Deu 12:8</a>; <a href='B:50 28:34'>Deu 28:34</a>; <a href='B:50 28:67'>Deu 28:67</a>; <a href='B:40 15:39'>Num 15:39</a>; <a href='B:300 9:14'>Jer 9:14</a>; <a href='B:300 18:12'>Jer 18:12</a> cp. <a href='B:290 11:3'>Isa 11:3</a>). He is specifically abrogating his earlier published wisdom that man is not to live after his own eyes and heart (<a href='B:240 3:7'>Pro 3:7</a>; <a href='B:240 12:15'>Pro 12:15</a>; <a href='B:240 16:2'>Pro 16:2</a>; <a href='B:240 21:2'>Pro 21:2</a>; <a href='B:240 28:26'>Pro 28:26</a>; <a href='B:240 30:12'>Pro 30:12</a>). Now, he tells people to live like this. But he acknowledges that many in Israel still believe in Israel's God Yahweh, and so he is reasoning with them on their level. He at this point had turned away from Yahweh completely, but he reminds them of their own religious position. He contrasts it with his own wisdom, which was to enjoy life but remember that eternal death comes. He contrasts this with the Israelite idea that if one lives as they wish, then they must remember God is going to judge them in the end:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>It is worth noting that walking after ones own heart and eyes is often used as a kind of metaphor for idol worship (<a href='B:300 9:14'>Jer 9:14</a>; <a href='B:300 18:12'>Jer 18:12</a>; <a href='B:300 23:16-17'>Jer 23:16-17</a>; <a href='B:300 23:26'>Jer 23:26</a>; <a href='B:330 11:21'>Eze 11:21</a>; <a href='B:330 13:17'>Eze 13:17</a>; <a href='B:330 14:5'>Eze 14:5</a>). Solomon may be inviting the young people of Israel to join him in idolatry, and the "God" who would judge them is the god they chose to worship. Note the grammar: "a God" will judge them. He is again apparently having a swipe at the way his father David was famed as a man who walked not after his own heart but after the heart of Yahweh (<a href='B:90 13:14'>1Sa 13:14</a>). </p>&nbsp;<p>The rich fool like Solomon effectively disbelieved the resurrection, and his words also allude to those of Solomon (<a href='B:490 12:19'>Luk 12:19</a> = <a href='B:250 2:24'>Ecc 2:24</a>; <a href='B:250 11:9'>Ecc 11:9</a>). Paul also quotes Solomon's words in <a href='B:250 2:24'>Ecc 2:24</a> as the words of those who have no faith that there will be a resurrection (<a href='B:530 15:32'>1Co 15:32</a>). So I do not think that he here has in view any belief in a resurrection to judgment at the end. </p>&nbsp;<p>Solomon felt that for himself, it was as well to be righteous as to be wicked, for in death there was no further difference (<a href='B:250 9:2'>Ecc 9:2</a>; <a href='B:250 9:5'>Ecc 9:5</a>; <a href='B:250 9:9'>Ecc 9:9</a>). We could read him here as saying that he knows judgment will come (<a href='B:250 11:9'>Ecc 11:9</a>), at least for the young people, but he reasons as if it won’t- at least not for him. He knows, but he doesn’t know on the personal, experiential level. This is why there are apparently contradictory statements in Ecclesiastes. For example, the wise dies as the fool, with no more eternal remembrance than the fool (<a href='B:250 2:15-16'>Ecc 2:15-16</a>). This, Solomon, says, is what he himself believes in his own heart. But in <a href='B:250 7:12'>Ecc 7:12</a> he says that wisdom gives life to those who have it. But then again in <a href='B:240 9:16-18'>Pro 9:16-18</a> he observes that although wisdom can help, it’s benefits are easily undone, so easily as to make it useless. I don’t see these different perspectives as being the difference between life in the world and life in the spiritual realm. They are all spoken with conviction by Solomon, which, to my mind, ruins the idea that he himself believed the Truth but was simply outlining what life is like without God. He advocates both ways. My resolution of this is that he knew and preached God’s Truth, but for him personally, it meant nothing at all. And therefore in practice he advocated the life of self-enjoyment, acting as if all the other truth of wisdom was not operative in practice. </p><p>“For God shall bring every work into judgment” in the epilogue is commentary upon “But know thou that for all these things God will bring thee into judgment” (Ecc. 11:9). Koheleth repeatedly states that death is the final end, and respecting God is only helpful in this life in order to preserve man from needless extra suffering. If a young person does just whatever their senses tell them, this would be the equivalent of his earlier warning not to be excessively sinful or foolish- because you'll land up in trouble, And likewise, he has reasoned "And be not righteous over much". The epilogue now puts things in their proper place. All things will be brought into judgment by God- but not necessarily now. But surely at the judgment of the last day.</p><p>Ecc. 11:9 alludes to Num 15:39: "Rejoice, young man, while you are young, and let your heart cheer you in the days of your youth. Follow the inclination of your heart and the desire of your eyes. But know that for all these things God will bring you into judgment". The way of the world is to just do whatever our heart tells us, to follow our heart. But the Biblical view of the heart radically clashes with this. We are to control our heart, not do what is intuitive, and allow the heart to be regenerated. But the context of Num. 15 is that we have in that chapter a set of laws relevant to Israel's belief of the ten spies and their rejection of entering the promised land. The spies had judged after the sight of their eyes and followed their heart rather than God's leading. They had "seen" giants and they seemed in their own eyes as grasshoppers compared to them (Num. 13:32,33; 14:33). </p>


text:
<p>Therefore remove anger from your heart, and put away evil from your flesh; for youth and the dawn of life are vanity- </p><p>Perhaps the idea is as in GNB "Don't let anything worry you or cause you pain. You aren't going to be young very long". "Anger" is AV "sorrow". Solomon earlier taught that going to a funeral and sorrowing is better than the laughter of a wedding feast (<a href='B:250 7:2-3'>Ecc 7:2-3</a>). Yet despite realizing this on an intellectual level, Solomon personally commended mirth / laughter to himself (<a href='B:250 8:15'>Ecc 8:15</a>), and advises removing sorrow from the heart (<a href='B:250 11:10'>Ecc 11:10</a>). Again we see Solomon's amazing ability, indeed the ability of human nature, to comprehend truth on one level, and yet reason and live exactly and precisely and consciously the opposite. </p><p>The tragic brevity of life means that "childhood and youth are vanity", we should quit the time wasting follies of youth or overgrown childhood (and the modern world is full of this), as well as the anger which is native to us all, and therefore&nbsp; "remove anger from your heart and put away evil from your flesh". The brevity of life alone is reason to stop harbouring anger and resentment. In contrast, Paul uses the mortality of man not only as an appeal to work for our creator, but to simply have faith in His existence and salvation: "We had the sentence of death in ourselves ["in our hearts we felt the sentence of death", NIV], that we should not trust in ourselves, but in God which raiseth the dead" (<a href='B:540 1:9'>2Co 1:9</a>). The fact we are going to die, relatively soon, and lie unconscious... drives the man who seriously believes it to faith in the God of resurrection. It seems that at a time of great physical distress, Paul was made to realize that in fact he had "the sentence of death" within him, he was under the curse of mortality, and this led him to a hopeful faith that God would preserve him from the ultimate "so great a death" as well as from the immediate problems. </p><p>Ecclesiastes 12</p>


text:
<p>Remember also your Creator in the days of your youth, before the evil days come, and the years draw near, when you will say, I have no pleasure in them<strong>- </strong></p><p>This repeats what he has just said in <a href='B:250 11:7-9'>Ecc 11:7-9</a>. The young can enjoy life, but that enjoyment won't continue because they will get older and face death, and come like Solomon to "hate life" (<a href='B:250 2:17'>Ecc 2:17</a>). That enjoyment of life Solomon sees as remembering their creator. "You can do the God stuff when you're young, but it won't help you when you're older. The reality of death will mean that you will go my way, to hate life". This is the context of this verse, and whilst isolated from the context it indeed reads as a worthy appeal to youth to remember their creator, the second half of the verse, and its entire context, precludes this from being the meaning Solomon intended. See on :3.  Indeed this seems another example of koheleth's sarcasm about God. As if to say 'If you remember your creator when you're young, well, you'll soon give up all that God stuff when you get to old age'. Solomon sees the grave as man's "everlasting home" (:5). He sees no possibility of resurrection to judgment or salvation (<a href='B:250 3:22'>Ecc 3:22</a>), all is vanity (see on :8). This therefore means that his apparent appeal to youth to believe in a creator is sceptical; he is saying that even if you believe in a creator in youth, and enjoy it, that will not save you from an eternal grave. </p><p>Or we can read this as indeed an appeal to youth to believe in a creator; although I prefer the explanation given above. But for Solomon himself, it was far from him (<a href='B:250 7:23'>Ecc 7:23</a>). He refers to himself when he writes at the end of his life of the man whose labour is in wisdom [cp. his labouring to write out so many Proverbs], and yet it is all pointless in that he will leave it all to a fool after him- he had already seen the unspirituality of his children (<a href='B:250 2:21'>Ecc 2:21</a>). This thinking reflects a perception that his wisdom was totally irrelevant to himself- he wrote it all down for others, but not for himself. It's as if here at the end of Ecclesiastes he chuffles that he still preaches his wisdom to the youth, although he himself has the attitude that it is all meaningless (<a href='B:250 12:1'>Ecc 12:1</a>). This is one explanation of the paradox within Ecclesiastes- the teaching of Divine truth, whilst lamenting the pointlessness of it:&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>He seems to have contented himself with establishing himself as “the preacher” and his final appeal in Ecclesiastes 12 is to youth- like so many, his view was that it was not for him personally, but the youngsters would benefit more from it. There are several passages in Ecclesiastes where Solomon is evidently half glancing at himself. He sees the error of his ways, as Achan could coolly recount his sin, but to personally do something about it is far, far from him.</p><p>We see here Solomon's personal depression: "So remember your Creator while you are still young, before those dismal days and years come when you will say, "I don't enjoy life"" (GNB). Attitudes in old age are the litmus indicator of faith. The true Christian will look forward to the day of change and resurrection. Whereas those like Solomon whose kingdom was only in this life, seeing secular experience as the ultimate outcome and reward, will be deeply frustrated that their brief game is over. </p>


text:
<p>Before the sun, the light, the moon, and the stars are darkened, and the clouds return after the rain<strong>- </strong></p><p>GNB "And the rain clouds will never pass away". This continues the impression of life under deep depression in old age (see on :1) for the man who only has this life. The hope of the resurrection of the body to eternal life in the Kingdom is indeed transforming. Especially for those brought face to face with the cessation of life as they know it. But as noted on :1, Solomon assumes that his path to depression in old age is going to be the pattern for all the young people he addresses. </p><p>What follows is a poetic description of old age; indeed, a funeral possession, with the doors shut in the streets as man passes to his last end. "The clouds return after the rain" is so relevant to Hezekiah. The rain had come in his terminal illness, 15 years previously. But now rain clouds had returned, and he had to die. "The sun" is now "darkened"- and koheleth has been describing life "under the sun". That sun is now darkened, life under the sun is over. The idea of clouds returning after the rain [meaning, it is going to rain again a second time] is relevant to Hezekiah. He was brought to the "rain" of death and judgment, but this was delayed 15 years. But now the clouds are full of rain, and returning. The description of Hezekiah in old age in this chapter includes many connections with the descriptions of Jerusalem's fall to the Babylonians. Just as Hezekiah's first illness made him the embodiment of Judah's spiritual illness, and the delay in his death matched the delay of their judgment. </p>


text:
<p>in the day when the keepers of the house shall tremble, and the strong men shall bow themselves, and the grinders cease because they are few, and those who look out of the windows are darkened<strong>- </strong></p><p>GNB interprets this for us as a picture of old age, indeed Solomon in his old age: "Then your arms, that have protected you, will tremble, and your legs, now strong, will grow weak. Your teeth will be too few to chew your food, and your eyes too dim to see clearly". As explained on :1, Solomon seems to be saying that even believing in a Divine creator in your youth won't save you from declining faculties and death. And so we could read :1 as a sceptical comment rather than an appeal to belief.</p>


text:
<p>and the doors shall be shut in the street; when the sound of the grinding is low, and one shall rise up at the voice of a bird, and all the daughters of music shall be brought low- Again, this all describes the insomnia of Solomon's old age: "Your ears will be deaf to the noise of the street. You will barely be able to hear the mill as it grinds or music as it plays, but even the song of a bird will wake you from sleep" (GNB).</p><p>Even in the cynicism of Ecclesiastes, written in Solomon’s later life, he still uses words and phrases which have their root in his father David- e.g. his description of women as snares in <a href='B:250 7:26'>Ecc 7:26</a> goes back to how his father dealt with women who were a snare (<a href='B:90 18:21'>1Sa 18:21</a>). And the whole description of old age in Ecclesiastes 12 is based on his father’s experience with Barzillai (<a href='B:100 19:35'>2Sa 19:35</a>). </p>


text:
<p>yes, they shall be afraid of heights, and terrors will be in the way; and the almond tree shall blossom, and the grasshopper shall be a burden, and desire shall fail; because man goes to his everlasting home, and the mourners go about the streets<strong>- </strong></p><p>The description of old age continues: "You will be afraid of high places, and walking will be dangerous. Your hair will turn white; you will hardly be able to drag yourself along, and all desire will be gone. We are going to our final resting place, and then there will be mourning in the streets" (GNB). "Desire" is clearly sexual desire; and Solomon with his 1000 wives / women had indulged sexual desire as few others. But that too must come to an end, and a man is left just with his failing body. Solomon sees the grave as man's "everlasting home". He sees no possibility of resurrection to judgment or salvation (<a href='B:250 3:22'>Ecc 3:22</a>). This therefore means that his apparent appeal to youth to believe in a creator (:1) is sceptical; he is saying that even if you believe in a creator in youth, and enjoy it, that will not save you from an eternal grave. </p><p>But if we insist on reading <a href='B:250 12:1'>Ecc 12:1</a> as an appeal for the young to believe in God, he is asking the young to turn to God as in old age one has no pleasure in life and, by implication, no possibility of remembering their creator. This, presumably, was how Solomon felt about himself, that he had gotten to a point where spiritual change was impossible. And there are many elderly people who will reject the preaching of the Gospel with this kind of comment. The description of old age in Ecclesiastes 12 seems to be alluding to how Solomon initially had a large and thriving household, with him enjoying the pleasures of women and singing maidens (“the daughters of music”), but now he realizes he doesn’t have the faculties to enjoy it any more- all has gone quiet in the once bustling palace.  In the Hezekiah context, we recall his desire for his psalms to be played on stringed instruments in the temple. But now he laments that he is deaf and can't hear that.</p>


text:
<p>before the silver cord is severed, or the golden bowl is broken, or the pitcher is broken at the spring, or the wheel broken at the cistern<strong>- </strong></p><p>GNB "the rope at the well will break, and the water jar will be shattered". The rope at the well breaks just as does a silver cord; Solomon sees himself as an earthenware jar, as well as a golden bowl. All his opulence could not finally disguise his weak humanity. No cosmetic fix of his humanity was possible, despite having tried so hard for it. And every man must come to realize this:&nbsp; Possibly the idea is that the slender connection between the spirit and the body is broken at death. Likewise the golden bowl contained olive oil, perhaps a symbol of the spirit of man, which flows out and is lost once the body is broken. No matter how beautiful that bowl / body once was. The spring or well was the symbol of life, but the bucket / pitcher could no longer access it.</p><p>The force of "before", which the LXX repeats in :7, is that before the finality of death there must come the depressive situation of the previous verses, the failing strength which is designed by God to try to elicit humility before Him. And yet Solomon refused even that appeal:&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p>and the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it-</p><p>Solomon had turned away from Yahweh at this point, but he was not an atheist. Even in his nihilism he alludes to some kind of higher hand in life, and he sees the spirit as returning to God. But he believes that death is unconsciousness (<a href='B:250 11:8'>Ecc 11:8</a>), and that therefore all is vanity (:8). But he had no personal relationship with "God", and saw Him as powerless to save from death or eternally judge human behaviour with eternal outcomes. He may here be alluding to the basic truth of <a href='B:10 2:7'>Gen 2:7</a>. But he fails to extrapolate from it what his father David did. The fact that God “holds our soul in life”, a reference to <a href='B:10 2:7'>Gen 2:7</a>, meant that David wanted to “make the voice of his praise to be heard” (<a href='B:230 66:8-9'>Psa 66:8-9</a>). This was the meaning of the basic facts of creation for David. We too must realize that the spirit / life is given by God to our bodies; it doesn’t come from anywhere else. There is no reincarnation. And this is no painless Bible fact; it demands that we live lives that are His, and not lived out as if our spirit / life / soul is ours. </p>


text:
<p>Vanity of vanities, says the Preacher. All is vanity!-</p><p>This must be remembered when we come to form an interpretation of :1. The appeal to "Remember now your Creator" in youth is in that same verse balanced against the fact that once youth is over, there will a hating of life as faculties decline and the reality of eternal death dawns upon the previously young person:&nbsp;  It could be argued that this is the final say from the "Preacher". The epilogue to the book refers to "the Preacher" in the third person. It is therefore the inspired compiler of the book who makes the final appeal to fear God because judgment is coming. That message is quite contrary to what "the Preacher" himself says in the book- he sees any Divine judgment as being in this life, and has no particular perspective on living now for the future.  </p>


text:
<p>Further, because the Preacher was wise, he still taught the people knowledge. Yes, he pondered, sought out, and set in order many proverbs<strong>- </strong></p><p>I consider that :9-14 is the inspired commentary of the editor / compiler of Ecclesiastes. It is an appeal to faith, and a reflection upon the life of Solomon and the lessons to be learned from his apostacy. The compiler accepts that Solomon had been wise, and had set in order the book of Proverbs, which was Divine truth, even if Solomon in Ecclesiastes denied the truth of it.</p><p>Many interpreters and translators of Ecclesiastes clearly don't like the idea that we can have 12 chapters in the Bible which simply argue that death is final, just enjoy yourself but use wisdom even in doing that. I have no problem in reading the book like that. I fail to be impressed by the arguments that parts of it refer to life under the sun, and other parts argue for responsibility to God. A superficial case can be made for this, and the reader of an article or listener to a lecture may go away convinced. But when you then actually read the book with that view in mind, there are too many difficulties. The author repeatedly argues personally for the nihilistic view- that death is the final, eternal frontier. It is the epilogue, therefore, which provides the answer. These 12 chapters give us an insight into the mind of the man who accepts God's existence but is not in covenant relationship with Him, and we find in it the exact same mindset as in our postmodern world today. But all is changed by the epilogue, and also by the engagement with it of later scripture [the Lord, Isaiah and Paul especially]. This "end stress" is quite common in the Bible. A case is built up, a position argued- and then it is dashed by the final comment. We see this in the Lord's parables, and in the structure of the book of Job. Where many chapters are spent recording the wrong reasoning of the friends, to be crushed by Yahweh's final revelation at the end. We learn here the difference between inspiration and direct Divine revelation. Job's friends say things that aren't true, as God Himself shows at the end and as Job tries to point out in his responses, but the record of their words is inspired. Ecclesiastes is indeed unusual because the case for nihilism is built up without break and without any footnoted, corrective commentary- until the epilogue. This is why agnostic author Herman Melville called it the “truest of all books” in his novel Moby Dick. And in a sense it is true, this is how life is without covenant relationship with Yahweh; and so the editor rightly notes in :10 that what was written is indeed "words of truth" in this sense. Martin Luther encouraged that “this noble little book” should be read every day because it "firmly rejected a sentimental religiosity". No wonder it is in the canon of scripture. It is a strong argument against postmodernism, and forces us to the conclusion that in fact everything matters, life is significant, man's search for meaning is met in Yahweh and in His Son, their final judgment and the Hope of their Kingdom. </p><p>However a case can also be made that this is still Solomon speaking and writing; finally appealing for others to believe, even if he personally didn’t. Several times in Ecclesiastes, Solomon considers that he was no longer wise, and many of his statements are an effective abrogation of his earlier Divine wisdom. As this had been openly published in the anthology known as the book of Proverbs, he seems concerned to explain and justify this. "Was wise" could be read as meaning that he had once been wise, in the context of Yahweh religion; but he wasn't now:&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>The idea of several of Solomon's proverbs is that "the righteous" are those with "understanding", and it is this understanding which feeds and gives life to others. This is true enough; our sharing with others and influence upon them can indeed lead them to life and not to die eternally. But Solomon appears to again have his own self justification in view; for he considered that he was the preeminently righteous because he was the teacher of Israel, giving them the wisdom given him. But Solomon fell away from Yahweh, even though he says his wisdom remained with him (<a href='B:250 2:9'>Ecc 2:9</a>), and he continued to teach others that wisdom to the end of his life (<a href='B:250 12:9'>Ecc 12:9</a>). And so it was simply not true that teaching others makes a person righteous, as Solomon supposed often in Proverbs (e.g. <a href='B:240 10:21'>Pro 10:21</a>):&nbsp; </p><p>This would mean that even&nbsp;in&nbsp;his&nbsp;spiritual&nbsp;collapse&nbsp;at the time of Ecclesiastes, Solomon&nbsp;still taught Israel&nbsp;true&nbsp;wisdom,&nbsp;and organized his wisdom into more accessible books (<a href='B:250 12:9-12'>Ecc 12:9-12</a>), giving himself the title koheleth (‘the preacher’). And yet he himself tried alcohol, wealth, women, indeed every addiction, in order to “see what was that good for the sons of men, which they should do under the heaven” (<a href='B:250 2:3'>Ecc 2:3</a>). And yet he knew from childhood the conclusion of the matter- man’s duty is to fear God and be obedient (<a href='B:250 12:13'>Ecc 12:13</a>). He who had been given wisdom started out in a search for it</p><p> showing clearly enough that what he knew was so much theory, but never touched his own heart. Solomon taught wisdom to the youngsters, but he gave himself over to search for some kind of vague philosophical truth outside of God:&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p>The Preacher sought to find out acceptable words, and that which was written blamelessly, words of truth<strong>- </strong></p><p>I suggested on :9 that these are the inspired words of the editor of the book. He wishes to assure us that what was written in Proverbs was indeed Divine truth. Solomon's apostacy as recorded in Ecclesiastes should not lead us to question the book of Proverbs. </p><p>If we insist that this is still Solomon writing, then the idea may be that Solomon tried hard in the book of Proverbs and here in Ecclesiastes to write things well; hence LXX "a correct writing". Although the truths he received were indeed given by Divine inspiration, he gives God no credit for that, arguing that all was written down by his own careful device. He failed to recognize the Spirit of God working through him.</p>


text:
<p>The words of the wise are like goads; and like nails well fastened are words from the masters of assemblies, which are given from one shepherd<strong>- </strong></p><p>The inspired editor is assuring us that the words of the wise, Solomon as the inspired wise man, are to goad us to action. Those words were given from the one shepherd, Yahweh (<a href='B:10 49:24'>Gen 49:24</a>; <a href='B:230 80:1'>Psa 80:1</a>; <a href='B:300 31:10'>Jer 31:10</a>). The book of Proverbs was indeed from the master of assemblies, Solomon, koheleth, but they were the words of God, the shepherd of Israel. </p><p>If we take these words as Solomon's, then we can reflect that throughout Proverbs, 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. </p><p>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; the very observation that "all is vanity" is in fact a goad to action, not lethargy or nihilism:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; :&nbsp; </p>&nbsp;


text:
<p>Furthermore, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh<strong>- </strong></p><p>Solomon admits he himself is as the old king who will no longer be admonished (<a href='B:250 4:13'>Ecc 4:13</a>). But the inspired commentator urges us to be admonished, not to go his path. and he warns against the overly abstract, phlegmatic and philosophical path Solomon had taken. For he will conclude by appealing for simple obedience to God’s ways, rather than doing as Solomon has done in Ecclesiastes; trying to work around them through philosophy. There is "no end" of such philosophical study, just as there is "no end" of labour (<a href='B:250 4:8'>Ecc 4:8</a> s:w:). But for the righteous, there is an end- relationship with God, and eternity in His Kingdom. </p>&nbsp;<p>If these are Solomon's words, then he is urging others to be admonished when he would not be himself. Just as he had urged others to go to funerals instead of wedding parties [of which Solomon must have had many], so that they might "take to heart" wisdom (<a href='B:250 7:2'>Ecc 7:2</a>), although Solomon says this was "for from me" himself (<a href='B:250 7:23'>Ecc 7:23</a>). He preached God’s truth, he accepted it as true, whilst refusing to personalize it himself. He really is a parade example of the dangers inherent in glorying in our mere possession of Divine truth:&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>Solomon has so much to say about "correction" or instruction coming from the possession of wisdom (<a href='B:240 8:10'>Pro 8:10</a>; <a href='B:240 8:33'>Pro 8:33</a>; <a href='B:240 10:17'>Pro 10:17</a>; <a href='B:240 12:1'>Pro 12:1</a>; <a href='B:240 13:1'>Pro 13:1</a>; <a href='B:240 13:24'>Pro 13:24</a>; <a href='B:240 15:5'>Pro 15:5</a>; <a href='B:240 15:10'>Pro 15:10</a>; <a href='B:240 15:32'>Pro 15:32</a>; <a href='B:240 16:22'>Pro 16:22</a>; <a href='B:240 19:20'>Pro 19:20</a>; <a href='B:240 19:27'>Pro 19:27</a>; <a href='B:240 22:15'>Pro 22:15</a>; <a href='B:240 23:12-13'>Pro 23:12-13</a>). But in the end he chastised or corrected his people by whipping them (s:w. <a href='B:110 12:11'>1Ki 12:11</a>; <a href='B:110 12:14'>1Ki 12:14</a>). Solomon initially asked for wisdom in order to guide his people, but he ended up whipping / physically chastising them into conformity with his wishes rather than allowing wisdom to correct. Again, he was playing God; for it is God through His wisdom who chastises, and not man. But Solomon thought he was effectively God to his people. This is why Solomon argues that servants cannot be corrected by words (<a href='B:240 29:19'>Pro 29:19</a> s:w:), and a child must be physically chastised (s:w. <a href='B:240 19:18'>Pro 19:18</a>; <a href='B:240 29:17'>Pro 29:17</a> cp. <a href='B:240 13:24'>Pro 13:24</a>; <a href='B:240 23:13'>Pro 23:13</a>), regardless of his screams of pain. This kind of thing is a denial of his claims elsewhere that it is Divine wisdom which chastises / corrects, and such correction is from God and not man. Solomon's final description of himself as an old and foolish king who refuses to be admonished says it all (<a href='B:250 4:13'>Ecc 4:13</a>); he admonishes others (s:w. <a href='B:250 12:12'>Ecc 12:12</a>), but refuses to be admonished or corrected by his own wisdom. He failed to personalize it:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>His complaint that there is no end of writing books could be read as another effective retraction of his book of Proverbs; for he has lamented that he had laboured so much in wisdom. The criticism of "many words" in <a href='B:250 5:7'>Ecc 5:7</a> seems a reference to his own writing down of the wisdom God had given him, codifying it into books such as the compilation we have in the book of Proverbs (<a href='B:250 12:10'>Ecc 12:10</a>; <a href='B:250 12:12'>Ecc 12:12</a>). He associates the "many words" with "dreams", perhaps an intensive plural for "a great dream". It was as a result of the dream of <a href='B:110 3:5'>1Ki 3:5</a> that he was given the "many words" of wisdom which he now considered unhelpful and irrelevant because death meant that there was no particular ultimate advantage of wisdom over folly; wisdom was at best profitable in this life in some short term sense. And he therefore associates "many words" with folly (<a href='B:250 10:14'>Ecc 10:14</a>). He considers he had been foolish by preaching and believing those many words of Divine wisdom. Now, for him, the true wisdom was in idolatry and not Yahweh worship in His temple.</p>


text:
<p>This is the end of the matter. All has been heard. Fear God, and keep His commandments; for this is the whole duty of man<strong>- </strong></p><p>I suggested on :9 that :9-14 are the inspired commentary of the editor of Ecclesiastes. He concludes with an appeal to fear God, whereas Solomon had concluded that the righteous who sacrifice to God have no advantage over those who don't, because death comes to them all (<a href='B:250 9:2'>Ecc 9:2</a>). The implication here therefore is that there is indeed a difference; there will be a resurrection and granting of eternal outcomes to human behaviour.</p><p>"The whole duty of man" is "the whole man". What the world hungers for today is the discovery of what it means to be truly human. They admire those they see as “real”. It is through the person of Jesus Christ alone that true humanity, or realness, can be found. <a href='B:250 12:13'>Ecc 12:13</a> Heb. speaks of “the whole man” as the one who is totally obedient to God; and here we have a prophecy of the wholeness, the realness, of the Lord Jesus. </p><p>One of the most beautiful things to behold is a newly baptized brother or sister coming to make the things of God’s Truth their way of life. The daily reading of the Bible becomes a habit, firmly embedded in the daily routine of life; contact with other believers by letter or meeting means that slowly, the convert’s social network becomes focused on other Christians rather than on the world. As a result, worldly friendships and habits slowly fade away; prayer becomes a regular part of life, before meals, morning and evening; slowly, there is the courage to preach the Gospel to others. In particular, a way of thinking develops that is centred upon the Father and His Son, which subconsciously gives priority to their things rather than those of this life. The life of keeping the commandments of God becomes “the whole man” (<a href='B:250 12:13'>Ecc 12:13</a>). These changes are the natural outcome of the new focus. </p><p>If this verse is read as the words of Solomon, then it is a major volte face to the spirit of the entire book of Ecclesiastes. Perhaps indeed his final conclusion is that faith, wisdom and obedience is better than unbelief and folly, indeed it is the whole duty of man- although he himself has declined it. To argue one way throughout a book and then present a startlingly different conclusion at the end is not unknown. It is a fairly common rhetorical and philosophical device:&nbsp; </p><p>Perhaps we should read with emphasis upon the word "This...". Koheleth claims that the end of the matter is that man ages and is buried, and death is his "eternal home" (:5). But the epilogue challenges this by interjecting that in fact, no, there is judgment to come. And everything will be judged. That is "the end of the matter". Not simply death in this life.</p><p>Koheleth has spoken of fearing God (Ecc. 3:14; 5:7; 7:18; 8:12,13; 12:13), but in the context of his argument that to get the best out of life, you must live knowing that there's a God up there keeping an eye on things and He may lash out and punish you if you go too far (Ecc. 5:6,7 "Don’t protest before the messenger that this was a mistake. Why should God be angry at your voice, and destroy the work of your hands?... you must fear God"). And going His way does have a few benefits in this life- and the name of the game is to get through this vain life with the optimal experience despite it being a bad deal because of the eternity of death. The epilogue deconstructs this by warning that we are to fear God exactly because death is not the end- there will be resurrection to judgment by Him. And we are to "fear God" in the sense of keeping His ways, and not just being so frightened of Him that we seek to hold Him at arm's length and just avoid getting into trouble with Him, as wrongly taught in Ecc. 5:6,7. For those in covenant with God [and we note koheleth avoids using the Yahweh Name], "to fear God and keep His commands" was so that "your days may be prolonged" (Dt. 6:1,2), a veiled reference to eternity. Likewise Dt. 5:29 "that they would fear Me, and keep all My commandments... that it might be well with them for ever". Dt. 8:1 likewise has a hint of eternity in this context: “All the commandments which I command you this day shall you observe to do, that you may live...". Even the disobedient continuing living, so the hint of "that you may live" is 'live eternally'. To truly fear God in this context is to be in covenant relationship with Him: "The secret of the Lord (personal relationship) is with those who fear Him,
And He will show them His covenant" (Ps. 25:14).  </p><p>"The whole duty of man" is literally 'the whole man', and is a phrase that occurs only in Ecclesiastes. The epilogue is deconstructing them. Koheleth has argued that it's better to go to a funeral than a wedding party, because the funeral is "the end of all men", 'the whole man' (Ecc. 7:2). But the epilogue says that 'the whole man' is to live in obedience to God's commands. And the only time we shall fully do that, seeing that humans sin in this life, is in the eternal Kingdom to come. Koheleth concludes that "The whole man" is to achieve some pleasure in labour to eat and drink, i.e. to live out the experience of the curse with at least some pleasure (Ecc. 3:13; 5:19 Heb.). That is as far as man can advance, given the finality of death and the experience of life in a fallen world, at the whim of fortune and misfortune. But the epilogue is replying that 'the whole man' is to live eternally in obedience to God's commandments, despite in this life ageing, dying and being carried in a funeral procession [the context of the epilogue in Ecc. 12].    </p>


text:
<p>For God will bring every work into judgment, with every hidden thing, whether it is good, or whether it is evil- </p><p>I prefer to consider as noted on :9 that this is the inspired conclusion of the narrator. He tackles the fundamental problem in Solomon's reasoning, which has arisen out of the book- that there would be no future judgment. And so the narrator baldly states the fundamental truth which Solomon has denied at such length. </p><p>“For God shall bring every work into judgment” in the epilogue is commentary upon “But know thou that for all these things God will bring thee into judgment” (Ecc. 11:9). But the epilogue is addressing the man we have just read of earlier in chapter 12- man at his last end, whose funeral procession is proceding through streets with window shutters at the street market kiosk closed in mourning (:4) and mourners accompanying his coffin through the streets. This man will have every work brought into judgment- at a resurrection to judgment. By contrast, Koheleth repeatedly states that death is the final end, and respecting God is only helpful in this life in order to preserve man from needless extra suffering. If a young person does just whatever their senses tell them, this would be the equivalent of his earlier warning not to be excessively sinful or foolish- because you'll land up in trouble, And likewise, he has reasoned "And be not righteous over much". The epilogue now puts things in their proper place. All things will be brought into judgment by God- but not necessarily now. But surely at the judgment of the last day. "Every hidden thing" AV "secret thing" is surely alluded to by Paul when he writes of how the secrets of men will be judged at the Lord's return. That is what is in view here. Koheleth has no thought for the idea that hidden things will be judged eternally- but that is the essence of Divine and eternal judgment. Our secret sins will be set in the light of God's countenance (Ps. 90:8 s.w.); the same word is used about a man sinning through ignorance by touching an unclean thing, although it was "hid" from him (Lev. 5:2-4). And that is only possible because the Lord Jesus was "son of man" and can therefore judge literally all things of a man.</p><p>If these are Solomon's words, then this is a radical denial of all he has said so far in the book. Solomon's whole basis for reasoning in Ecclesiastes is that death is man's eternal home (:5), there will be no further judgment (<a href='B:250 3:22'>Ecc 3:22</a> and often), and therefore one may as well live a life as happily as possible. This could be his very last minute repentance or recognition of truth, arrived at as a result of all his wayward reasoning throughout the book (see on :13). Sudden realization of truth after reasoning in error for so long is completely realistic and true to observed experience.</p><p>Or we can again conclude that Solomon comes to the right conclusion and teaches it, but it was still far from him personally. Hence there is no record of his repentance in the historical records, only that he died with his own heart turned away from Yahweh. He himself had an incredibly utilitarian view of life, wanting to see the tangible effect or "profit" of works in this life (<a href='B:250 3:9'>Ecc 3:9</a>). I noted on <a href='B:250 2:17-18'>Ecc 2:17-18</a> that he ends up hating his life because he hates his works. The parallel between works and life meant that he was a human doing rather than a human being. He saw no ultimate profit in his works and life because he was now going to die. He had no sense at all that the works of the righteous "follow them" (<a href='B:730 14:13'>Rev 14:13</a>), and we shall be given the eternal consequence of our works (<a href='B:730 22:12'>Rev 22:12</a>). </p><p>But if these are indeed his words and not those of a narrator, he here concludes Ecclesiastes by admitting that this is the final truth (<a href='B:250 12:14'>Ecc 12:14</a>), but this was not his personal belief nor how he had lived his life. He finally comes to the right conclusion, and had known it all along on some level, occasionally alluding to in his book of Proverbs; but he did not personalize it. He looked for the result of works in this life and didn’t find it, and so he hated life, hated his works, and his heart turned away from God to idols. This is the kind of realization which men facing death often come to, but still they refuse to personalize it. We have all surely encountered this kind of thing. And this is our challenge; to personalize it, and live right now as if we are in God’s judgment presence, for things great and small, things public and hidden. Even what we have spoken in the ear will be shouted out (<a href='B:490 12:3'>Luk 12:3</a>) -implying others will somehow observe our judgment, cp. <a href='B:470 12:41'>Mat 12:41</a>. If the judgment is merely a yes/no statement which has been worked out taking our whole life into consideration, then this emphasis on every work having a time for consideration and judgment "there" is pointless. However, these verses must be considered in conjunction with those which speak of God’s 'forgetting' of bad deeds on account of how people later chose to live. However, this need not mean that they are erased from God’s infinite knowledge; all too often we perceive God’s memory as a vast memory bank which can have our sins erased from it. But His knowledge knows no such bounds of human perception; yet He is willing not to hold those things against us, and to therefore count us as having never committed them.</p><p>I have suggested on <a href='B:250 3:1'>Ecc 3:1</a>; <a href='B:250 3:17'>Ecc 3:17</a> that Solomon is there accusing God of being unable to resurrect and judge, and therefore his previous understanding that everything will be brought to judgment was misplaced. Solomon concludes Ecclesiastes however with an admission that this is in fact the case; all in human life will be judged finally, there will be a time of judgment for every small and great action of daily life (<a href='B:250 8:5-6'>Ecc 8:5-6</a> cp. 3:1,17,18; 12:14). In this we can take chapter 3 [and much of Ecclesiastes] as bravado, which in the face of his final death he has to admit was wrong, although he still fails to repent and accept the personal implications of this. Because all things will in some ways be judged, and are even now, therefore we must fear God and keep His commands (<a href='B:250 3:1'>Ecc 3:1</a>; <a href='B:250 12:13-14'>Ecc 12:13-14</a>). But this is what Solomon preaches to others, especially youth (:1); but it was tragically far from him personally.</p>


text:
<p>The key to understanding the Song is to appreciate that we have here a set of dialogues- Solomon to his Egyptian girlfriend, the Egyptian girl to him, words of the daughters of Jerusalem to the girl and the girl to them. And sometimes the words of her brothers who disapprove of her sleeping with Solomon and see themselves as the guardians of her virginity. Breaking up the text into these sections isn't easy, as sometimes the break can occur within a verse. The division of the text between the speakers is made yet more difficult when we consider that some of the words of Solomon may be her imagination of him praising her. I have discussed on Song 6:1,3 how Solomon as the author is thereby mocking her naivety through putting words in her mouth.</p><p>The Song begins by the daughters of Jerusalem and the Egyptian girl being in some kind of competition for Solomon; they both state their desire for him, and both of them compare his love to wine (<a href='B:260 1:2'>Son 1:2</a>; <a href='B:260 1:4'>Son 1:4</a>). Note how the Song doesn't begin as a romance is supposed to- with the first meeting, love at first sight scene. As early as <a href='B:260 1:2'>Son 1:2</a> she comments that "your lovemaking is more delightful than wine". Sex and sexual imagery and allusion fills the song, making it almost verbal pornography in places. This is all a subversion of the whole genre of romance. So the Song begins with the relationship already advanced, or with the woman inappropriately forward, and with intense rivalry between the girl and the "daughters of Jerusalem". The Egyptian justifies her darker complexion to the Jerusalem girls, and praises her own beauty: "I am black but comely, O daughters of Jerusalem" (<a href='B:260 1:5'>Son 1:5</a>). There's evident aggression from her to them: "Don't stare at me because I am dark!" (<a href='B:260 1:6'>Son 1:6</a>). Her despising of the Jerusalem girls is perhaps reflected in <a href='B:260 1:6-7'>Son 1:6-7</a>, where she asks Solomon: "Where do you rest your sheep during the midday heat? Tell me lest I wander around beside the flocks of your companions!". His "companions" presumably were the daughters of Jerusalem, and she didn’t want to be anywhere near them. She likewise yells at them not to sexually stimulate her lover, Solomon (<a href='B:260 2:7'>Son 2:7</a>). And I take "My beloved is mine" (<a href='B:260 2:16'>Son 2:16</a>) to be the same catty kind of defensiveness. The girl is jealous of how the daughters of Jerusalem admire Solomon, not least because of his fame in Israelite circles: "your name is as ointment poured forth; therefore do the virgins love you" (<a href='B:260 1:3'>Son 1:3</a>); "How rightly the young women adore you!" (<a href='B:260 1:4'>Son 1:4</a>). "Where has your beloved gone, O most beautiful among women? Where has your beloved turned? Tell us, that we may seek him with you" (<a href='B:260 6:1'>Son 6:1</a>) appears none less than sarcasm from the daughters. </p><p>So often there's the sense of urgency and haste- perhaps rooted in the girl's fear of competition from the daughters of Jerusalem: "Draw me after you; let us hurry! May the king bring me into his bedroom chambers!" (<a href='B:260 1:4'>Son 1:4</a>). This would also explain the quite unabashed sexual seduction practiced by the girl- she begs Solomon to take her to his bedroom right here at the start of the Song (<a href='B:260 1:4'>Son 1:4</a>), and later says things like "May my beloved come into his garden and eat its delightful fruit!" (<a href='B:260 4:16'>Son 4:16</a>). This is all inappropriate for a romance, and in ancient Israel such forwardness would have been greatly frowned upon. In Proverbs, Solomon often warns against falling for the forwardness of the Gentile immoral woman; and yet he falls for it himself. </p><p>We have here and in Ecclesiastes a unique insight into the depth psychology of the man who knows and teaches God’s truth, but does the very opposite. In this lies the supreme value of the work. The Song has nothing to say about God, the covenants of promise etc. These things were far from Solomon's heart, even in youth. The language is clearly influenced by that of Egypt, which Solomon was clearly inappropriately involved with from his youth. Indeed the Song "has parallels with Mesopotamian and Egyptian love poetry". Other students suggest it is even based on the celebration of the sacred marriage of the god Tammuz and the goddess Ishtar. </p><p>Solomon clearly was aware of the tension between the Egyptian girl whom he loved, and the daughters of Jerusalem- from whom he should've been choosing a wife. The girl says she is merely a common "meadow flower from Sharon", but Solomon responds that in his eyes, "like a lily among thorns, so is my darling among the maidens" (<a href='B:260 2:1-2'>Son 2:1-2</a>). He likens the Jerusalem girls to thorns- he was besotted with this Gentile. Ironically enough, <a href='B:40 33:55'>Num 33:55</a> had warned that the Gentiles within the land promised to Abraham would be "thorns" to Israel if they married them. And yet Solomon sees the Israelite women as "thorns" and the Gentile as a lily amongst them... . He likewise compares her to them in <a href='B:260 6:8-9'>Son 6:8-9</a>: "There may be sixty queens, and eighty concubines, and young women without number. But she is unique...". But despite this, the girl seems to always fear Solomon's attraction to the Jerusalem girls. She challenges him: "Why do you gaze upon the Perfect One [as Solomon called her] like the dance of the Mahanaim?" (<a href='B:260 6:13'>Son 6:13</a>), the dance of the two camps / lines. She suspects there may be two camps in Solomon's mind. </p><p>It was because of the impossible tension between the Egyptian girl and the Jerusalem maidens that there's the constant theme of needing to hold meetings in secrecy, often in the countryside or mountains around Jerusalem ("in the clefts of the rock, in the hiding places of the mountain crags, let me see your face", <a href='B:260 2:14'>Son 2:14</a>), and to "go away" in order to be together- e.g. <a href='B:260 2:13'>Son 2:13</a> "come away my darling; my beautiful one, come away with me!”. They appear to have slept together in the open air, beneath the trees: "The lush foliage is our canopied bed; the cedars are the beams of our bedroom chamber; the pines are the rafters of our bedroom" (<a href='B:260 1:16-17'>Son 1:16-17</a>). The same impression of outdoors secret romance is to be found in <a href='B:260 7:11'>Son 7:11</a> "Come, my beloved, let us go to the countryside; let us spend the night in the villages". <a href='B:260 2:17'>Son 2:17</a> and <a href='B:260 4:6'>Son 4:6</a> suggest they spent a night together in the hills, and then before dawn Solomon got back to Jerusalem. <a href='B:260 5:2'>Son 5:2</a> has Solomon coming to her room secretly at night, wet with the night dew. I suggest that she was living in the harem, being prepared for her encounter with Solomon- yet she was already having sex with him and he was meeting her secretly.</p><p>She has nightmares, reflecting her fears. In chapter 3, the night after sleeping with Solomon she has a terrible vision of Solomon's kingly bed coming to Jerusalem- prepared for the daughters of Jerusalem and not her, and fiercely guarded by aggressive Israelite soldiers. Chapter 5 appears to tell of another dream she has, a nightmare actually, of how Solomon failed to turn up at a night time rendezvous in Jerusalem, and she distraught and desperate wanders around the city, is picked up by the night watchmen, but finally finds Solomon and drags him back to her mother's house [in Egypt]. I find the passage very powerful- it's so imaginable as a nightmare which a girl in her situation would have. Her deepest desire was to get Solomon back to Egypt, into her family... and thus she dreamt of it. And likewise her subconscious awareness of the tension between her and the people of Jerusalem comes out too; yet again she charges the daughters of Jerusalem not to stimulate Solomon. </p>&nbsp;<p>The daughters of Jerusalem mock her for her nightmare of chapter 3 at the very end: "Who is this coming up from the desert, leaning on her beloved?" (<a href='B:260 8:5'>Son 8:5</a>).  Solomon has another woman leaning upon him... The allegorical interpretation falls down over the fact that there is no wedding scene. All we have is her nightmares of Solomon marrying the daughters of Jerusalem rather than herself. And the final scene in Song 8 where she faces the blind reality that he has married other women. Solomon wrote the Song, and ends it with him as it were having the last laugh. Her naivety, mocked by the daughters of Jerusalem, characters created by him to mock her, is revealed before all.  We expect a romantic song to end with the wedding; but it doesn't. It ends with the couple parting; and this dream wedding is no more than the Egyptian girl fantasizing. The fact the wedding 'scene' or dream comes in the middle of the song rather than at the end is again a subversion of the whole genre of romance. The climax is in the wrong place. And this just indicates how unfulfilling are relationships which flout Divine principles. </p><p>Because of all this, there is a sense of on-off relationship throughout the Song. One moment she is sick of love (<a href='B:260 2:5'>Son 2:5</a>), the next she claims Solomon had caressed her head with one hand and fingered her with the other (<a href='B:260 2:6'>Son 2:6</a>). The very explicit language of <a href='B:260 2:6'>Son 2:6</a> sits strangely if the Song is intended to be some wonderful romance building up to the climax of marriage. Another example is in <a href='B:260 5:8'>Son 5:8</a>, where after Solomon gives up on visiting the girl one night, she angrily tells the daughters of Jerusalem that as far as she's concerned, they can tell Solomon that she [too?] is sick of love. But when they sarcastically call her "O most beautiful of women" and enquire what she exactly loves about Solomon (<a href='B:260 5:9'>Son 5:9</a>). she comes out with a great speech of praise for him (<a href='B:260 5:10-16'>Son 5:10-16</a>). The seeking and not finding him of chapter 5 all suggests he had temporarily rejected her, after she had been lazy to open the door to him (<a href='B:260 3:2'>Son 3:2</a>; <a href='B:260 5:6'>Son 5:6</a> - these passages are the basis of NT teaching about Christ’s rejection of his unworthy bride). </p><p>The girl wants to see in Solomon one as dark and Egyptian-looking as herself. Having said that she is "dark" in complexion (<a href='B:260 1:4'>Son 1:4</a>; <a href='B:260 1:6'>Son 1:6</a>), she later comments in <a href='B:260 5:11'>Son 5:11</a> that to her, Solomon is also "dark" [s:w:]. She says <a href='B:260 5:11'>Son 5:11</a> to the daughters of Jerusalem, as if in defence of her relationship with Solomon, and his choosing her rather than them. In the same way as he tried to see in her an Israelite woman, "O daughter of my princely people" (when she was the daughter of the Egyptian Pharaoh, <a href='B:260 6:12'>Son 6:12</a> cp. <a href='B:260 7:1'>Son 7:1</a>), comparing her body parts to various geographical places in Israel (e.g. goats on Gilead, <a href='B:260 4:1'>Son 4:1</a>; the tower of David, <a href='B:260 4:4'>Son 4:4</a>; "as beautiful as Tirzah, as lovely as Jerusalem" <a href='B:260 6:4'>Son 6:4</a>), so she tried to see him as an Egyptian. They were trying to see each other as who they were not... and so the relationship was doomed to failure. Right from the start, the girl feels that Solomon isn't giving her the complete passion of his love: "Oh, how I wish you would kiss me passionately! For your lovemaking is more delightful than wine" (<a href='B:260 1:2'>Son 1:2</a>).</p><p>The Song ends without the famous final scene which we expect in a romance. The expectation of a wedding and walking off into the sunset is subverted by the concluding songs. The girl laments how she can't kiss Solomon publically or be with him without being despised; and longs to be able to take him back to her mother in Egypt (<a href='B:260 8:1-2'>Son 8:1-2</a>). She utters the final warning to the daughters of Jerusalem not to stimulate Solomon, and then breaks down with the lament that jealousy is cruel as death (<a href='B:260 8:6'>Son 8:6</a>) and unrequited love is impossible; Solomon's true love cannot be bought by her. The daughters of Jerusalem then speak of how they have a younger sister whose breasts aren't yet developed, but they will care for her until she is ready for Solomon (<a href='B:260 8:8-9'>Son 8:8-9</a>). The Egyptian girl then reminisces in the past tense: "I was a wall, and my breasts were like fortress towers. Then I found favor in his eyes" (<a href='B:260 8:10'>Son 8:10</a>). Solomon throughout the Songs has commented positively upon her breasts; and now she is left to lament that that is all just how it was, it's all over now. She then makes the enigmatic comment about how Solomon has a vineyard which he leases out, and yet she is a vineyard which belongs to her alone: "My vineyard, which belongs to me, is at my disposal alone". The Songs have likened her and her sexuality to a vineyard (<a href='B:260 2:13'>Son 2:13</a>; <a href='B:260 2:15'>Son 2:15</a>), and her romantic meetings with Solomon appear to have sometimes been in a vineyard. Solomon spoke of her breasts as grapes (<a href='B:260 7:7'>Son 7:7</a>). But Solomon's vineyard, she says, was associated with Baal-Hamon- Lord / husband of a multitude. She finally realized that he was a womanizer, who would go on to have over 1000 women in his life... Lord [or husband] of a multitude. Perhaps his 1000 wives and concubines lay behind her reference to the 1000 shekels that Solomon can have for his vineyard (<a href='B:260 8:12'>Son 8:12</a>). But now she was splitting up with him, her vineyard was hers alone, her grapes were now solely at her disposal and were not his any more. The final couplet of the Song is one of bitter sarcasm, typical of the worst order of romantic breakup. Solomon says that his "companions"- the daughters of Jerusalem whom she had so hated- are listening carefully to her, as he is. And she responds by telling him to run away, whilst still calling him her "beloved"- for although jealousy is cruel as the grave, her love for him was unquenchable by many waters. Or perhaps this too is sarcasm. So the Song ends with Solomon in rather a bad light- off to his next women, whilst the Egyptian girl walks off the scene bitterly protesting her love for him and how she's a victim of circumstance and jealousy. Yet Solomon, presumably, authored the Song. I read it therefore in the same way as I do Ecclesiastes- his jaded statement of how life has been for him, how he sought fulfilment of his human lusts but it never worked out, leaving him with a tragic sense of unfulfilment because he had not gone God’s way. </p><p>The&nbsp; blindness&nbsp; of&nbsp; Solomon&nbsp; is&nbsp; driven&nbsp; home time and again; he knew Divine truth, but the more he knew it, the more he lived the very opposite, failing to grasp the deeply personal relevance of truth to himself. A whole string of passages in Proverbs warn&nbsp;of&nbsp; the "strange" (AV) woman&nbsp; (<a href='B:240 2:16'>Pro 2:16</a>; <a href='B:240 5:20'>Pro 5:20</a>; <a href='B:240 6:24'>Pro 6:24</a>; <a href='B:240 7:5'>Pro 7:5</a>; <a href='B:240 20:16'>Pro 20:16</a>; <a href='B:240 23:27'>Pro 23:27</a>; <a href='B:240 27:13'>Pro 27:13</a>). Yet the very same word (translated "outlandish", AV) is&nbsp; used&nbsp; in&nbsp; <a href='B:160 13:26'>Neh 13:26</a> concerning&nbsp; the women Solomon married. The antidote&nbsp;to&nbsp; succumbing to the wicked woman was to have wisdom- according to Proverbs. And Solomon apparently had wisdom. Yet he succumbed to the wicked woman. He was writing Song of Solomon at the same time as Proverbs. The reason for this must be that Solomon didn’t really have wisdom. Yet we know that he was given it in abundance. The resolution of this seems to be that Solomon asked&nbsp; for&nbsp; wisdom &nbsp;in&nbsp; order&nbsp; to&nbsp; lead&nbsp; Israel&nbsp; rather than for himself,&nbsp; he used that wisdom to judge Israel and to educate the surrounding&nbsp; nations:&nbsp; But&nbsp; none of it percolated to himself. As custodians&nbsp; of&nbsp; true&nbsp; doctrine-&nbsp; for&nbsp; that is what we are- we are likely to suffer from over familiarity with it. We can become so accustomed&nbsp; to 'handling' it, as we strengthen each other, as we preach,&nbsp; that&nbsp; the personal bearing of the Truth becomes totally lost&nbsp; upon us, as it was totally lost upon Solomon.And the art of the Christian life is to have the word become flesh in us, as it did in the Lord. To personalize and personally experience the truths we hold. This is why people of low literacy or IQ can make huge sacrifices for their faith in the most simple building blocks of the Gospel which they have personalized and grasped.</p><p>The allegorical view [that Solomon is as the Lord Jesus and the girl as the church] puts the coarse flatteries and language of a seducer into the lips of "Christ", which seems to me inappropriate (especially Song 6:4-10,13; 7:9). Parts of the song are little more than verbal pornography, talking of the vagina, clitoris lips etc. To argue that this speaks of the intimacy of our relationship with the Lord seems simply inappropriate. The allegorical view likes to imagine that these are love songs between two people, the lover and the beloved. But there are many other speakers: (1) the Shulamite; (2) the daughters of Jerusalem; (3) Solomon: (4) the brothers of the Shulamite; (5) the watchmen; (6) the inhabitants of Jerusalem. And no allegorical interpretation has a place for these characters. Nor an explanation for how the song ends in acrimony and relationship breakup rather than marriage and family life together. </p><p>
We may well enquire why Solomon wrote this song. "Love songs" so often dwell on the theme of how a relationship started well, but ended in break up. And that's what this song is about. But Solomon also has an agenda, of presenting himself as the attractive man who had his way with women and had women fawning over him. And his agenda is clear at the end- for in the final chapter he presents this woman whom he broke up with as rude, manipulative and poncing off to look for someone else. This break up is possibly reflected in how he at a later point built a separate house for his Egyptian wife, because his temple-palace complex was too "holy" for her. Even though after her, he took many other Gentile wives. So I would argue that this argument about 'holiness' was an excuse for expelling her from the temple-palace complex. This Song, along with Ecclesiastes, is part of the spiritual insight we are given into the psychology of those who turn away from God- as a warning to us all. It is preserved for us as a kind of autopsy into Solomon's spiritual death. Read this way, Ecclesiastes and Song of Solomon are a unique insight into the mind of the flesh as it affects those who know God's Truth. </p><p>Who wrote the Song of Solomon? Grammatically, verse 1 says that it is Solomon. But much of the Song is the dreamscape of the mind and fantasy and nightmare fears of his lover. Looking back, he read her mind. He saw the processes that were going on there. He saw his mental processes in response to hers, and how it led to disaster. He drew parallels between her and the bad Gentile woman he has described in Proverbs. He perceived how indeed he as the young Hebrew man had been drawn away to destruction. But as in Ecclesiastes he describes himself as the old and foolish king who would not be admonished, so he does nothing with the self understanding he arrives at through composing the Song of Solomon. But there is no hint of his repentance. 1 Kings 11 tells us that he died with his heart turned away by such women, away from God and unto their idols. </p><p>
Pharaoh's daughter is listed as the one significant wife Solomon had, and we only read of her later- when we learn he moved her out of his palace and into a specially built house for her. So it seems logical to assume Solomon's song was about her.
The Gentile woman of Proverbs is the very picture of the Shulamite. She seeks and finds sexual partners (Prov. 7:26), just as the Shulamite does so openly in Song 1. She wanders the streets at night rather than staying at home, as the Shulamite does in her dreams. She wears sexualized clothing, speaks seductively, and is perfumed in order to sexually stimulate men (Prov. 2:16; 5:3; 7:5,9,11,12,17,21). The bad woman of Proverbs is a prostitute; and prostitutes wore veils (as Tamar in Gen. 38:14,15). Solomon's lover wears a veil (Song 4:1,3; 6:7) which the watchmen angrily pull off her to expose her for who she is (Song 5:7). The Shulamite acts like a very forward woman, if not a prostitute, and her veil may suggest that. And all this leads to the spiritual destruction of Hebrew young men (Prov. 5:5-23; 6:30-35; 7:26). The foreign women of Solomon, taken by him when a young man, led to his destruction. Yet he praises this particular foreign woman for having exactly the appearance of the bad woman he had written about and warned against in Proverbs. He clearly thought it would not happen to him. And the Song shows how in any case, the relationship came to nothing. We note that the woman of the Song and the good wife of Proverbs are both described by Solomon as a lovely deer and graceful doe; Solomon wanted to see something spiritual and good in this bad woman. The songs are an example of self deception and seeing what we want to see, when humility to God's word would guide our thinking otherwise.</p><p>The tension with the "daughters of Jerusalem" is a major theme. Their bitter sarcasm towards the Shulamite is in about every chapter. Sarcasm is actually to be found all through the Song. Song 6:8 refers to queens, concubines and virgins. The next verse speaks of queens, concubines and "the daughters" (Song 6:9). These are surely "the daughters of Jerusalem": "There are sixty queens, eighty concubines, and virgins without number... The daughters saw her, and called her blessed; the queens and the concubines, and they praised her". Harems were comprised of virgins who were prepared for the king and once readied, they slept with him. After this, some were chosen as queens. The others, no longer virgins, were counted as "concubines" if they weren't chosen as queens. The book of Esther describes just such a harem. "The daughters of Jerusalem" would then refer to the virgins in Jerusalem who were being prepared to go and sleep with Solomon, in order for him to choose whether he wanted them as his queen or not. And they were "of Jerusalem", Hebrew women. Hence their jealousy and spirit of bitter competition against this foreigner who had come amongst them.</p>


text:
<p>The Beloved </p><p>Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth; for your lovemaking<strong>- </strong></p><p>The Hebrew suggests the emphasis is upon the "me". He is known for good love making, so she wishes he would love her. And in :3 she recognizes that all the young women love him. She presents immediately as not moral. For what decent woman seeks to attract to herself a man already involved in other relationships, and who has other women in love with him. Her tensions with those other women, the daughters of Jerusalem, will become ever more apparent as the song progresses. </p><p>That the woman should take the initiative in opening the story with a request to be kissed and talking about sex... would have been shocking in contemporary society. It is a dramatic opening to what is supposed to be a romance; immediate talk by a very forward woman of deep kissing, wine and sex. Straight away we are to be shocked; this is not going to be a romance. We are prepared for something very carnal and fleshly, and that is what the book is about. It is in fact pornography in a written form. The symbolism is persistently sexual:

• Come in to – sexual intercourse.
• Embrace – the man caressing and hugging the woman, and possibly penetrating her.
• Fountain, Spring, Well, and Water – the woman and her body.
• Fruit – yield, benefits, and food “choice fruits”-  sexual satisfaction.
• Garden – the woman’s body, beautiful, pleasant, and possessed by the man.
• Gazelle or Young Stag – A virile male buck who chases down a doe.
• Hind or Doe – A female deer, and symbol for the female.
• Mountains and Hill – the high points on a woman’s body when she is lying on her back, i.e. her breasts.
• Vineyard – the woman and her body, referring to her capability to satisfy a man.
The Hebrew dodim specifically refers to sexual love. <a href='B:260 5:1'>Son 5:1</a> is specific that they slept with each other. And she continues to be incredibly "forward" throughout the Songs, asking Solomon to sleep with her (<a href='B:260 4:16'>Son 4:16</a>; <a href='B:260 7:13'>Son 7:13</a>; <a href='B:260 8:2'>Son 8:2</a>). She proudly reflects: "I awakened you" (<a href='B:260 8:5'>Son 8:5</a>). This taking of the sexual initiative by the woman was an absolute deconstruction of the genre of romance songs. And she is presented as exactly the fulfilment of the loud and forward Gentile woman whom Solomon had warned against in the Proverbs. But he fell in love with her and slept with her whilst a young man, whilst writing such sober warnings against this. The purpose of Ecclesiastes and Song of Solomon is to give us an insight into the psychology of the person who knows God’s truth who falls into sin. These books are really an insight into depth psychology. They are a spiritual autopsy on Solomon; that is their abiding value. There's nothing else quite like it in the Bible. And we who likewise know God’s truth, who are also tempted to sin, find in them therefore a profound insight into our own likely psychologies and paths of temptation.</p><p>"Lovemaking" is s:w. <a href='B:240 7:18'>Pro 7:18</a>, where the bad Gentile woman invites the young Hebrew man to sleep with her undetected by others:  "I have spread my couch with carpets of tapestry, with striped cloths of the yarn of Egypt. I have perfumed my bed with myrrh, aloes, and cinnamon. Come, let’s take our fill of loving until the morning. Let’s solace ourselves with loving". Solomon is beyond hypocritical; he appears to think that he can teach one thing and do precisely the opposite. It is beyond narcissism, but rather a kind of playing God to the extent of considering he had no possibility of personal failure and could act as he wished.</p><p>Is better than wine- The&nbsp; criticism&nbsp; of Solomon for marrying foreign women also applies to&nbsp; his&nbsp; first&nbsp; marriage&nbsp; with&nbsp; the daughter of Pharaoh; besides marrying&nbsp; her,&nbsp; he&nbsp; married&nbsp; the&nbsp; others too, and the criticisms which&nbsp; follow&nbsp; are&nbsp; spoken in the context of both these actions. Yet Solomon married Pharaoh's daughter in his early days, before he asked for wisdom. This is another indication that Solomon did not&nbsp; start&nbsp; off well and then go wrong; right from the beginning he&nbsp; had this incredible dualism in his spirituality. The Talmud (Shabbath F, 56,2) records that “When Solomon married the daughter of Pharaoh she brought to him 1000 kinds of musical instruments, and taught him the chants to the various idols”. Even when Solomon was young, he evidently loved wine (<a href='B:260 1:2'>Son 1:2</a>; <a href='B:260 1:4'>Son 1:4</a>)- which was later to be something he (temporarily) abandonned himself to. He had a child by an Ammonite girl one year before he became king (<a href='B:110 14:21'>1Ki 14:21</a>)- so his relationships with foreign women cannot be put down to mere political alliances. If the Song of Solomon is about her rather than the Egyptian woman he married, one can only say that one early error, unrepented of, paved the way for his later disasters with foreign women. The Song suggests that he met the foreigner he married whilst walking alone in the countryside- which again proves it was a love relationship rather than a political alliance. The record later describes his building of store cities in the very language used of Pharaoh’s using Hebrew labour to build treasure cities (<a href='B:140 8:4'>2Ch 8:4</a> cp. <a href='B:20 1:11'>Exo 1:11</a> Heb:). The influence of his father-in-law was deep, and lasted a long time. </p>


text:
<p>Your oils have a pleasing fragrance. Your name is oil poured forth<strong>- </strong></p><p>We are baptized into the Name of Jesus, and bear that Name in the eyes of men. The Hebrew concept of a name meant really a renown, an understanding of the person. The Bride comments that “your name is as ointment poured forth” (<a href='B:260 1:3'>Son 1:3</a> AV), likening the name to the smell of perfume. The “scent” of a nation is likewise their reputation, the message they give out (<a href='B:300 48:11'>Jer 48:11</a>; <a href='B:350 14:7'>Hos 14:7</a>). We are the savour of Christ (<a href='B:540 2:16'>2Co 2:16</a>), we bear His Name, and therefore anyone carrying the Name is thereby a witness to Him. </p><p>Therefore the virgins love you<strong>- </strong></p><p>For all her self confidence and forwardness, the girl knows she is up against strong competition from the daughters of Jerusalem. She is far from positive that she as one Gentile girl can overcome that factor. And she sees the only chance of her winning is to get Solomon right away from them, and back to Egypt (:4).</p>


text:
<p>Take me away with you. Let’s hurry. The king has brought me into his rooms!<strong>- </strong></p><p>I suggested on :4 that she considered getting Solomon away to Egypt was her only chance of countering the attraction of the daughters of Jerusalem. She imagines them leaving Jerusalem together in <a href='B:260 2:10'>Son 2:10</a>, and at the end of the story, still this is her desire (<a href='B:260 8:2'>Son 8:2</a>). Nothing changed. She was as she was. And yet she fantasizes that thereby she would be Solomon's wife and therefore brought into his "chambers". But the word literally means a hiding place, and we note the desire to be taken away, to hurry as if they are under threat of discovery, rather than being on the way to a wedding. Most of their encounters which we will read of are in the open air, as their relationship is not approved of by others. And so it may be better to read "rooms" as "hiding place", somewhere in the countryside, to which they must "hurry". </p><p>She asks Solomon to take her away, and then in her mind "The king has brought me into his rooms!". This was her fantasy; and what makes interpreting the Song of Solomon difficult is that so much of what the woman says is fantasy, and also quite a bit of Solomon's responses. As we see here, changing from talking to Solomon to speaking of him in the third person, almost the whole thing is an insight into fantasy. It is a dreamscape rather than historical reality. They were falling in love with fantasies of each other and how things could be in the future, so strongly that they conclude that this is how things would actually be. Many of the words spoken apparently to Solomon are really the woman saying these things in her mind. We wonder how much of what we read in the Song of Songs actually happened, and how much was spoken face to face; so much is fantasy in the mind of the speakers. It is an amazing psychological insight into fleshly relationships. This is a very common problem with couples in the early stages of their relationship. They fall in love with images and imaginations they have superimposed upon the object of their 'love'. And then there is bitter disappointment when it becomes apparent that these fantasies are never going to be reality. He is going to be the knight in shining armour, surrogate for her father or her older brother... she is going to be surrogate for his mother, cook like her, care for him like she did... rather than loving the person for who they actually are, with above all a spiritual bond between them. But then love includes fantasy... this is the difficulty. And all this is true in non-romantic relationships too, e.g. often a newly attended church is thought to be the wonderful, ideal community the attender always dreamt of finding, the new dwelling moved into is laden with 'ideal home' expectations... until the neighbours turn out to be awful, the roof leaks, the heating system is found to be inadequate. So much human disillusion with things and relationships is due to investing them with their own images and fantasies. This is where the absolute Truth of Jesus Christ is so priceless. In Him alone we have Truth that will not disappoint and that will turn out more wonderful than our wildest dreams- and be experienced for eternity.</p><p>Daughters of Jerusalem</p><p>We will be glad and rejoice in you. We will praise your love more than wine!<strong>- </strong></p><p>The daughters of Jerusalem are immediately portrayed as not very spiritually minded either. They know all about wine, which they praised, but they praised Solomon's love for them more than that. This is tacit admission that he did "love" them as well as the Egyptian girl. As becomes apparent at the very end of the Song. "Glad and rejoice" is a phrase used multiple times in the Psalms for how we should primarily be glad and rejoice in Yahweh. But there is no spiritual aspect here in any of the characters. This is demonstrated by the inspired record using terms which are found elsewhere in scripture, and highlighting the lack of spiritual perception of them by the characters.</p><p>We can take all of :4 as the words of the Shulamite. In this case, as elsewhere, we see a parallel between "me" and "we". She accepts she is part of a group of other women also in relationship with the lover. She accepts Solomon already has a harem, the [other] virgins love him, she says; but wants to be part of it. 

Love "More than wine" suggests the women find wine attractive but Solomon's love even more so. Immediately we get a low moral impression of the young women involved, as wine drinkers. There is no spirituality in them, never a mention of God in the book / relationship, no attraction to Solomon's wisdom, and no mention of God or any spiritual dimension to the relationship. </><p>Beloved</p><p>They are right to love you<strong>- </strong></p><p>For all her forwardness and self confidence, she recognizes that she has major competition. At this point she knows this but is 'blind' to it on another level; and as the songs develop, we see her bitterly hating Solomon for it later. So true to human relationships; we can be blind to obvious weakness, and that refusal to engage with the reality leads to relationship break up further down the line. </p>


text:
<p>I am dark, but lovely, you daughters of Jerusalem, like Kedar’s tents, like Solomon’s curtains<strong>- </strong></p><p>She is very confident of her own beauty, as in <a href='B:260 8:10'>Son 8:10</a>. Her claim to Solomon that she is a mere common lily (2:1) and her excuse that she worked too much outdoors is therefore fake humility in order to woo Solomon. She does herself down to him, but in her heart and in her self presentation to the daughters of Jerusalem, she claims herself to be attractive. As an Egyptian she was darker skinned than the Jerusalem girls, and dark skin also spoke of lower social class. But she insists that this is to be no barrier to her winning of Solomon uniquely for herself. She comes over as bold, self justifying to her competitors (the "daughters of Jerusalem") and ever on the initiative; she goes out looking for him (<a href='B:260 3:1-5'>Son 3:1-5</a>; <a href='B:260 5:6-7'>Son 5:6-7</a>), and propositions him for sex. She is the very fulfilment of Solomon's 'bad woman' of the Proverbs. "Kedar" means "black", and she likes to think that the famed curtains or tents of this Gentile place were as good as any Jerusalem made curtains (<a href='B:300 49:28-29'>Jer 49:28-29</a>). She never perceives the unique nature of Jerusalem, seeing it as being as good as any other Gentile city. Yet Solomon likes to call her the Shulamite, the Jerusalem girl- counting her as who he wanted to see her as. This is the value of this book; we have a unique insight, at the level of depth psychology, into the mentality and thought processes of those who wish to go against God’s clearly stated will, because they perceive everything in the light of the narrative they wish to believe and act according to. This is the same essential process going on in the minds of all manner of sexual perverts who on another hand know God’s truth so well:&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p></p><p>Don’t stare at me because I am dark, because the sun has scorched me-</p><p>She is very self defensive. She says the sun has looked or stared at her, and so they shouldn't look at her askance because of her darker skin. This marked her as a Gentile, or a woman of lower social class. She comes over as anything but humble.</p><p>My mother’s sons were angry with me. They made me keeper of the vineyards, but I haven’t kept my own vineyard-</p><p>If her vineyard refers to her virginity or sexuality (as in :14; <a href='B:260 6:11'>Son 6:11</a>; <a href='B:260 7:13'>Son 7:13</a>), this would mean that her brothers were angry with her for sleeping with Solomon. Brothers were seen as guardians of their sister in sexual terms (Genesis 34; 2Samuel 13). The Song concludes, perhaps, with her brothers considering her too young for marriage, and wanting to set her up with a more appropriate husband than Solomon (<a href='B:260 8:8-9'>Son 8:8-9</a>).</p><p>And yet the Song concludes with her claiming that her vineyard is her own; and as discussed on Song 8:10-12, keeping the vineyard meant admission into Solomon's harem and keeping the women within it. The connection between this vineyard imagery at the start and end of the song must surely be given due weight. Throughout the song, the vine and its fruit is used as a symbol for her body and sexuality. On this basis we could interpret this early statement of the Shulamite as meaning that she had been the keeper of Pharaoh's harem, a job she got because her brothers were angry with her. She had not kept her own vineyard might mean that she had not been within the harem herself, she was just the madame of the establishment. Or it could be an admission she had not kept her virginity, which is why her brothers were angry with her.  Again, the Song opens as an inversion of all we might expect in a collection of love songs. It begins with deep kissing, sex and wine- and the girl isn't even a virgin. She therefore felt she might be seen by Solomon as too dark skinned, as it were, for him and his harem. But Solomon is not put off by her lack of virginity but rather instead attracted by her experience. His comments that she is 'sealed up' in Song 4 would only then mean that she had been locked up to him: "A garden locked is my sister, my bride, a rock-garden locked, a spring sealed up" (Song 4:12-15).
Or we can understand this as a typical trick of 'love'. She was clearly wealthy, the daughter of royalty, judging by her foreign perfume and gold jewellery. But she is playing the 'poor little rich girl' card, asking her lover to overlook her dark skin, pretending she had a complex about it. When in fact Solomon likely found attractive a skin colour different from that of the "daughters of Jerusalem". See on Song 2:1 for another example.
</p>


text:
<p>Tell me, you whom my soul loves, where you graze your flock, where you rest them at noon; for why should I be as one who is veiled beside the flocks of your companions?<strong>- </strong></p><p>"Who is veiled" can as well be rendered "one who is lost", as LXX. She complains she is just tagging along with the flocks of women companions who were following Solomon as if he were their shepherd and they the sheep; they are the "daughters of Jerusalem". He responds that she should follow their tracks to him (:8), and she will find his special love and attention (:9):&nbsp; </p><p>Yet she recognizes that he already has flocks of "companions". But as shepherds rested alone at noon from the midday sun, laying down to sleep somewhere, so she asks where that place is. The request to know where he feeds his flock at noon is perhaps a way of expressing her desire to find him alone and to come to him wherever that was. And with the implication that she wants to lay down next to him alone- a very bold move for a woman just opening her approach to a man. The reply of the daughters of Jerusalem in :8 is therefore mocking her- for they say that many flocks have followed Solomon wherever he is, so the Shulamite can just follow in the tracks many have followed. She wants to find him alone, but so have many others. 
The references to the lover as a shepherd in Song 1:7; 6:2,3 have led some to think that the beloved is also in love with a shepherd. But this is to miss the clear connection in Hebrew thought between a king and a shepherd. David was to shepherd Israel (2 Sam. 5:2) and the seed of David likewise would be a shepherd over all Israel (Ez. 37:24).
</p>


text:
<p>Lover</p><p>If you don’t know, most beautiful among women, follow the tracks of the sheep. Graze your young goats beside the shepherds’ tents<strong>- </strong></p><p>We note how quickly the scenes change in the song- here from palace (:4) to vineyard (:6) to desert scrubland (:8). Likewise she sees herself as being invited to fly over the land of Palestine from its highest points... all of which suggests we are invited into a dreamscape, her imaginations and fantasies, rather than being presented with a narrative of scenes that actually occurred. Her fantasies move at ease and very quickly between various locations in the countryside, Solomon's banquet house, his bedroom, her bedroom, her mother's house, the streets of Jerusalem etc. Although that isn't to say that some of the things she speaks of didn't have some actual reality.</p><p>I suggested on :7 that Solomon was not a literal shepherd, but he is here responding to the metaphor she uses in :7. Although he is indeed like a shepherd leading a flock of women, the daughters of Jerusalem, he says that she should follow their tracks to him, and she will find his special love and attention (:9). He encourages her that he finds her the most beautiful amongst all those other women or sheep. She is to come near to his tent, and graze her goats there- perhaps some sexual reference. </p><p>"Beautiful woman" is the term used by Solomon in <a href='B:240 11:22'>Pro 11:22</a> "Like a gold ring in a pig’s snout, so is a beautiful woman who lacks discretion". It is the term sarcastically used about her by Israelite competitors (<a href='B:260 5:9'>Son 5:9</a>; <a href='B:260 6:1'>Son 6:1</a>). Seeing Solomon's wives were idolaters, they lacked discretion; and yet Solomon loved them and married them. He behaved with women completely opposite to his own teachings. And we have in the Song an invaluable exploration of the psychology and mental processes behind this feature of human nature. </p>


text:
<p>I have compared you, my love, to a steed in Pharaoh’s chariots<strong>- </strong></p><p>Heb. "I count you as...". Again we have an insight into the psychology of a man in love. He sees her as... whatever. He is in love with an image of his own creation, rather than her character. The&nbsp; Song of Solomon&nbsp;is the record of Solomon's romance with Pharaoh's&nbsp; daughter:&nbsp;Of&nbsp;course, this was an explicit breach of the&nbsp;crystal clear commandment not to marry women from Egypt. He should&nbsp; have&nbsp; admired&nbsp; neither the horses nor the women of Egypt;&nbsp;yet he begins his Song with an unashamed breach of the command&nbsp;not&nbsp;to&nbsp;desire&nbsp;either&nbsp; of&nbsp; these things:&nbsp;The unashamedness of Solomon coupled with his spirituality indicates that at&nbsp;this&nbsp;time he was genuinely convinced that what he was doing&nbsp;was&nbsp;deeply&nbsp;spiritual;&nbsp; when&nbsp; in&nbsp; fact it was completely carnal. He totally ignored his own advice about choosing a spiritual woman as a wife. And worse, he encourages her that although he is like a shepherd leading a flock of women, the daughters of Jerusalem, she is in fact his one special one. She is a beautiful mare, in his eyes, amongst all Pharaoh's chariot horses. He thus likens the daughters of Jerusalem to Pharaoh's chariot horses- which were destroyed at the Red Sea. But Solomon doesn't care about this obvious negative connection. See on <a href='B:260 2:2'>Son 2:2</a>, where he likens her to a lily amongst the thorns of the daughters of Jerusalem. See on <a href='B:260 2:12'>Son 2:12</a>.</p><p>But the Hebrew is feminine, a mare, a female horse. Chariots were pulled by male horses, stallions. He is likening her to a female horse harnessed to Pharaoh's chariots, with the other stallions interested in her. Mares were sometimes put amongst the stallions pulling a chariot to inspire the stallions to pull and run faster. Indeed the GNB interprets just like this: "You, my love, excite men as a mare excites the stallions of Pharaoh's chariots". The imagery presupposes her familiarity with Pharaoh's horses, hinting at her Egyptian origin. This may be his response to her comment that all the [other] virgins love Solomon, and she wants to as well. His response is that all the male stallions will also all be interested in her. So the song opens with the strong hint that neither are committed to monogamous relationship. He was fine with this to the end, but the final scenes show her deeply upset that he in fact has other women in his life.</p>


text:
<p>Your cheeks are beautiful with earrings, your neck with strings of jewels<strong>- </strong></p><p>She loves him because of his ointment, and he loves her because of her jewellery (<a href='B:260 1:2-3'>Son 1:2-3</a>; <a href='B:260 1:10'>Son 1:10</a>; <a href='B:260 4:4'>Son 4:4</a>). He says that deep kissing with her gives the same after effect as drinking enough wine that you talk in your sleep afterwards (<a href='B:260 7:9'>Son 7:9</a>). It’s all very human and carnal, based upon the external and not the internal. But this is what Solomon was like. He sees wisdom, even in Proverbs and certainly in Ecclesiastes, as only helpful in that it gives a person a good name and image in this life. </p><p>The woman wears expensive jewellery. The style of jewellery and adornment described is distinctly Egyptian. She is no shepherd girl, but a princess- the daughter of Pharaoh. She is specifically called "daughter of the prince" (Song 7:1). She was no peasant girl. Egypt turned against Solomon, harbouring his adversaries even from the time of David and then attacking Judah just five years after Solomon's death, ransacking the temple-palace complex. The relationship with this girl was unwise in every sense, and quite possibly she was sent to Jerusalem by her father in order to lure Solomon into the relationship. </p>


text:
<p>We will make you earrings of gold, with studs of silver<strong>- </strong></p><p>The speaker of :11 is unclear. Possibly the daughters of Jerusalem are saying that they would have the job of making the earrings of gold that would need to be paid for her dowry- we recall those given for Rebekah. The "we" make us think it could be the daughters of Jerusalem, and they make similar sarcastic comments on the woman's jewellery in chapter 8. Quite possibly they are sarcastically saying that they could make her look even finer, by adding some things to her- specifically by adding the Hebrew borders [Heb.] on her clothes. The Song is shot through with allusion to the Law and&nbsp; tabernacle&nbsp; rituals; he speaks of making her borders [NEV "earrings"] on her clothes,&nbsp;probably alluding to the borders of blue to be worn&nbsp; by&nbsp; the&nbsp; faithful&nbsp; Israelite:&nbsp; Solomon&nbsp; wanted her to look externally like a spiritual&nbsp; woman,&nbsp; and&nbsp; he&nbsp; was&nbsp; going&nbsp; to&nbsp; make her one; many a preacher,&nbsp;&nbsp; teacher,&nbsp; husband,&nbsp; wife,&nbsp; father, mother,&nbsp; child,&nbsp; boyfriend has had to learn the impossibility of this:&nbsp; He wanted to see her as a spiritual woman, and eventually he became persuaded that she was just this. See on <a href='B:260 3:10'>Son 3:10</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Beloved</p><p> While the king sat at his table, my perfume spread its fragrance<strong>- </strong></p><p>The girl is not a shepherd girl, she is a prince's daughter from Egypt (<a href='B:260 7:1'>Son 7:1</a>), and so she has access to the Jerusalem palace and sees the king sitting at his table. She seems to be secretly boasting that after being intimate with each other, the smell of her perfume can be smelt exuding from him. When she was just one of the many young women being prepared in the harem for their night to sleep with Solomon, after which he would decide whether she became a wife or a concubine.
Nard [Heb.] was the perfume of the wealthy; we recall the extreme cost of the card in Mk. 14:5. This wealthy outsider of different skin colour was surely a Gentile princess, hence her wealth. The spices of Song 4:13,14 which the Shulamite uses in her perfumes are largely not native to Israel. Again we have the impression of a wealthy foreign princess. Such spices had to be imported by Solomon (1 Kings 10:10); nard / spikenard came from India and was not native to Israel. But they are listed together with the fruit of the "incense tree" (Song 4:13), and incense usually has connotations of idolatry. Solomon's wives offered pagan incense to their gods (1 Kings 11:8 "his foreign wives, who burnt incense and sacrificed to their gods"). She smelt like pagan incense- and Solomon loved it.
</p>


text:
<p>My beloved is to me a sachet of myrrh, that lies between my breasts<strong>- </strong></p><p>AV "lies all night" implies they had slept together already at this early stage. Again we note that the entire genre of romance is subverted, consciously so. Sex and marriage are not the climax of the romance, but rather it all starts with inappropriate intimacy. "Is to me" here and in :14 could as well be rendered "is mine"- she is claiming that she has Solomon's heart, and he is not therefore 'theirs'. Love, or lust, or plain obsession with 'getting' Solomon on some level, has blinded her to the fact he has other women already. This idea of "me", "mine...", is a common one with the woman. The whole song opens with her desiring him to kiss me, and I mentioned that the Hebrew suggests 'me rather than you / others'. She can hardly express her ownership of Solomon without some defensive or snide comment about the competitors amongst the daughters of Jerusalem.</p>


text:
<p>My beloved is to me a cluster of henna blossoms from the vineyards of En Gedi-</p><p>She again seems to associate vineyards with her breasts or sexuality (:13; see on :6). She seems to associate Solomon as a person with the aphrodisiacs she was using. In this we see her complete focus upon the external, seeing Solomon as a person as only as good as the aphrodisiacs. This collapsing of identity between the person and the external illustrates the degree to which the issue of character and spirituality is so sadly absent in the relationship.</p>


text:
<p>Lover</p><p>Behold, you are beautiful, my love. Behold, you are beautiful. Your eyes are doves<strong>- </strong></p><p>Solomon sees her as a dove (also <a href='B:260 5:2'>Son 5:2</a>), and she then says that he has dove's eyes (<a href='B:260 5:12'>Son 5:12</a>). They tend to praise each other in the same language. Indeed this is an accurate record of a romance. But the praise is all of externalities, no attention is paid to the character, and there is absolutely no spiritual dimension to the relationship. This says so much about Solomon. This lack of attention to true spirituality means that his love of Divine wisdom at the time was purely of an intellectual, theoretical nature. And this is the warning for us. For he was writing this love song in his youth when he married foreign women, and it was then that he received Divine wisdom and wrote it up in the book of Proverbs. Or more accurately, he is writing up this Song as a description of his feelings for her in his youth.</p>


text:
<p>Beloved</p><p>Behold, you are beautiful, my beloved, yes, pleasant; and our couch is verdant<strong>- </strong></p><p>The "verdant" bed they would sleep on may be assumed to be of leaves, in the open air bower they would construct in :17. The Gentile woman invites Solomon, the young Hebrew male, to her bed in the same way as the woman he warns against in <a href='B:240 7:17'>Pro 7:17</a> "I have perfumed my bed with myrrh, aloes, and cinnamon". The Proverbs so frequently refer to the dangers of the house of the Gentile woman; yet the Song shows the Egyptian girl dearly wishing that Solomon would come with her into her bed. And&nbsp; Solomon,&nbsp; just&nbsp; like&nbsp; the foolish young man he wrote about, went right ahead down the road to spiritual disaster he so often warned others about. He warns the young man of the dangers of the Egyptian woman who perfumes her bed with myrrh (<a href='B:240 7:16-17'>Pro 7:16-17</a>)- and then falls for just such a woman (<a href='B:230 45:8'>Psa 45:8</a>). </p><p>The young woman has just introduced herself to Solomon, he likes her- and straight away starts talking of their bed. She pushes herself upon him, and he falls for her. The whole thing breathes superficially and sensuality. It really recalls the classic scene of the pushy, forward young woman who pushes herself upon the young, handsome wealthy man. They soon talk and do sex, and then break up in acrimony.</p>


text:
<p>Lover</p><p>The beams of our house are cedars. Our rafters are firs- The house can be taken as a bower made of cedar and fir trees, the location of their tryst in the countryside. This continues the idea of :16. So whilst Solomon was still building the temple of cedars and firs, he was making a bower out of such trees in which to secretly sleep with his Egyptian, Gentile girlfriend. This is more that duplicitous hypocrisy, it is the behaviour of a man who has not at all personalized God’s truths for himself. The path to this tryst has been hinted at in :7,8. That the king of Israel should need to act in this deceptive manner has much to say about him. He was worried about his image, and wished to give an appearance of interest in the daughters of Jerusalem. Or it could be that Solomon alludes to the house of the forest of Lebanon, Solomon's summer house, which was constructed of so much cedar that it would have required literally the felling of a forest in Lebanon. In which case, this is an invitation to her to come and sleep with him in his summer house beneath the famed "paneled ceilings" (LXX, NEV "rafters").
If these words are the woman's, then she may be fantasizing about a house that Solomon will build for her and the materials used to make it. Solomon did indeed build a house for his Egyptian wife and the use of cedar was typical of his building style as recorded in 1 Kings.
</p>


text:
<p>Beloved</p><p>I am a rose of Sharon, a lily of the valleys<strong>- </strong></p><p>We can understand this as a typical trick of 'love'. She was clearly wealthy, the daughter of royalty, judging by her foreign perfume and gold jewellery. But she is playing the 'poor little rich girl' card, asking her lover to overlook her dark skin, pretending she had a complex about it; pretending she had a low self image as just a common rose, when she has just told the daughters of Jerusalem that she is in fact uniquely beautiful. When in fact Solomon likely found attractive a skin colour different from that of the "daughters of Jerusalem". See on Song 1:6 for another example. The Egyptian girl doesn't rate these common flowers; her lack of confidence in the face of the opposition from the daughters of Jerusalem is expressed again (see on <a href='B:260 1:3-4'>Son 1:3-4</a>), and comes to a climax at the end when she breaks up with Solomon, effectively saying "I knew it would end like this". And yet they are the flowers which are to adorn the restored Israel in the Kingdom of God (<a href='B:290 35:1-2'>Isa 35:1-2</a>; <a href='B:350 14:6-8'>Hos 14:6-8</a>). Her every word shows her to be spiritually out of step with God’s ways and viewpoints. She now feels unworthy of him; just an ordinary common nothing special flower. This kind of oscillation of confidence is true to observed experience of the "in love" period of relationship. The Songs have every reason to believe them to be a record of an actual relationship Solomon had. </p><p>Chapter 1 has closed with the couple in Solomon's palace, but now she seems despondent and considers herself just a common lily. Her dislike of the city life was not because she was a country girl- she was a "prince's daughter", daughter of Pharaoh (<a href='B:260 7:1'>Son 7:1</a>). She didn’t like it because the 'daughters of Jerusalem' were there, her competitors. It can be no accident that the Lord contrasts the lily favourably with Solomon in all his glory- as if He saw even this unspiritual Gentile girl as far better than Solomon. This is one of many NT allusions which present Solomon unfavourably.</p>


text:
<p>Lover</p><p>As a lily among thorns, so is my darling among the daughters<strong>- </strong></p><p>Solomon comforts her that he sees her as unique and special. And she, one of many women in his harem, dumbly believes him.This is what is hard to believe in love- that I am unique and special. And this is our difficulty in accepting the love of Christ for us. But Solomon negatively compares the daughters of Jerusalem to thorns, with all their associations with condemnation; just as he did in essence as noted on <a href='B:260 1:9'>Son 1:9</a>. Solomon addresses her obsession about "the daughters of Jerusalem" by saying that he sees them as thorns and her as a lily. He likens the Jerusalem girls to thorns- he was besotted with this Gentile. Ironically enough, <a href='B:40 33:55'>Num 33:55</a> had warned that the Gentiles within the land promised to Abraham would be "thorns" to Israel if they married them. And yet Solomon sees the Israelite women as "thorns" and the Gentile as a lily amongst them... Thorns are invariably connected&nbsp; with spiritual weakness and rejection; it was&nbsp; as&nbsp; if&nbsp; Solomon&nbsp; was&nbsp; saying&nbsp; that he found the daughter of Pharaoh&nbsp; spiritually&nbsp; more attractive than the Jewish girls. This is the basis for the sarcastic comments and tensions between Solomon’s girl and the daughters of Jerusalem. And she&nbsp; went along with how he wanted to see her: "I am the rose of Sharon,&nbsp; and&nbsp; the&nbsp; lily&nbsp; of&nbsp; the valleys"; even though her heart&nbsp; was&nbsp; far&nbsp; away&nbsp; in Egypt, she described herself in Jewish terms because that was how he saw her; he calls her his "sister" (<a href='B:260 4:9'>Son 4:9</a>), as if she was actually Jewish- whereas she wanted him to be her Egyptian “brother”. The relationship was doomed from the start. </p>


text:
<p>Beloved</p><p>As the apple tree among the trees of the wood, so is my beloved among the sons. I sat down under his shadow with great delight, his fruit was sweet to my taste<strong>- </strong></p><p>As Solomon considers her the most beautiful amongst all the other women / flowers, so she responds by implying she has plenty of other men but he is the most attractive to her "among the sons"; like a single apple tree that bears fruit amongst the fruitless trees of a forest. She likens him to the apple tree, which is not a native of Palestine and may have been uncommon there at the time. She likes to see him as somehow not solidly Hebrew, just as he likes to see her as Israelite by comparing her to locations in Israel. They were both in love with a false image of the other which they had in their minds. This happens so often. The illicit nature of their relationship, the opposition they both had [she from her brothers, he from the daughters of Jerusalem] heightened the intensity of their passion and commitment- for a time. But there was no lasting cement in their relationship, because it was not based on spirit and truth.</p><p>It's hard to imagine what was actually going on in this part of the woman's speech. She speaks of meeting Solomon as a pleasant tree in the forest, then of being with Solomon publically at the banquet house, with a banner of his stated love over her, the ultimate answer to the daughters of Jerusalem whose competition she so feared; and then she is fantasizing about him arousing her with his right hand whilst having his left arm under her head, and then in :8 she hears the voice of Solomon indicating he is running across the mountains towards her. We surely cannot read all these things as descriptions of what actually happened in a short space of time; rather are they her fantasies, her imaginations of her idealized lover- see on :16. If we understand her words as largely the fantasy of imagination, then her whole speeches appear far less confused than if we try to read them as literal statements of what actually happened between the couple.</p>


text:
<p>He brought me to the banquet hall. His banner over me is love<strong>- </strong></p><p>Seeing their relationship was illicit, and they met outdoors, this appears to be the exaggerated imagery of the love poem. I suggested on <a href='B:260 1:4'>Son 1:4</a> that the "chambers" to which he brought her was an open air bivouac or bower made from tree branches where they made love and drunk wine. And again here she speaks of him bringing her... to a banquet hall, in their imaginations, the open air bower, where they made love:&nbsp; </p><p>But "banquet hall" can indeed mean a "house of wine" (RVmg:). Solomon later turned to alcohol for a while (<a href='B:250 2:3'>Ecc 2:3</a>)- yet his girlfriend says that Solomon took her to the house of wine whilst still young. The seeds of failure were there early on- he preached against wine in Proverbs, and yet still drunk himself.</p><p>It is quite possible that this house of wine or banquet room was the building which later developed into "the house of the forest of Lebanon", Solomon's grandiose summer house. </p>


text:
<p>Strengthen me with raisins, refresh me with apples; for I am faint with love<strong>- </strong></p><p>She may be saying that she is so in heat for him, that he must give her his apples / raisins. Clearly this is sexual imagery, and the songs are little short of verbal pornography. The desire for such illicit fruit (for they were not married) in an open air situation recalls the sin of Adam and Eve. Again we have the sense of an open air tryst. "Refresh me" can also be "make my bed" (s:w. <a href='B:220 17:13'>Job 17:13</a> "made my bed"). In this case she is spreading an alluring couch before her would be lover, just as the wicked Gentile woman of <a href='B:240 7:16'>Pro 7:16</a>. And Solomon falls for her, assuming all his truths of wisdom are somehow not binding upon him personally:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>The Song&nbsp;of Solomon really isn’t the idyllic love song some have made it out to be. Constantly there is fear and contradiction within it; the unsatisfactory ending is but a continuation of a theme of uncertainty and difficulty in the relationship. Throughout the song there are constant interjections of doubt and misunderstanding, and anticlimaxes between the height of love’s expression and the depths of doubt. We expect the Song to feature a romance that blossoms into marriage and the consummation; but all we have is a constant struggle in the relationship, and it all ends in a quite unsatisfactory and unfulfilled way. The sense of lovesickness reflects the unsatisfying nature of it all (<a href='B:260 2:5'>Son 2:5</a>; <a href='B:260 2:15-16'>Son 2:15-16</a>). She asks him to turn and go away, and then seeks him desperately (<a href='B:260 2:17'>Son 2:17</a>; <a href='B:260 3:1'>Son 3:1</a>)- having earlier rejoiced at the news of his coming (<a href='B:260 2:8'>Son 2:8</a>).</p>


text:
<p>His left hand is under my head. His right hand embraces me<strong>- </strong></p><p>In fantasy or reality, they were having sex. And the Lord teaches that in this area, the thought is anyway counted as the act.</p>


text:
<p>I adjure you, daughters of Jerusalem, by the roes, or by the hinds of the field, that you not stir up, nor stimulate love, until it so desires<strong>- </strong></p><p>The sentence is left unended and yet begins with an adjuration. We can conclude that we are supposed to  end the sentence with a curse for disobeying the adjuration: “I put you under oath, daughters of Jerusalem, by the gazelles or the does of the field, if you stir up or arouse love before it is willing, [may you be cursed]”. "Until it so desires" refers to "love". The translations that offer "until she desires" are simply reflecting the fact that the Hebrew noun for "love" is feminine.  “Until it please / so desire” could mean “until our love is satisfied”;  "That you disturb not, nor interrupt our love, until it be satiated". The interruption and distraction of the daughters of Jerusalem is referred to when she complains that the foxes are spoiling the vineyards of the couple.</p><p>An oath was typically taken in the name of God in Israel (<a href='B:50 6:13'>Deu 6:13</a>; <a href='B:60 9:18'>Jos 9:18</a>; <a href='B:140 15:14'>2Ch 15:14</a>). But again, this woman is portrayed as lacking any spirituality or relationship with God:&nbsp; Her sarcasm turns to angry defence when she warns the Jerusalem girls not to stir up “my love”- i:e. ‘Hands off my Solomon!’. In turn, they ask her where Solomon has “turned aside” so that they can come and seek him with her (<a href='B:260 6:1'>Son 6:1</a>), using a word elsewhere associated with ‘turning aside’ in apostasy to other gods. They in their turn sarcastically comment to her: “Whither is thy beloved gone, O thou fairest among women</p><p> that we may seek him with thee?” (<a href='B:260 6:1'>Son 6:1</a> AV), quoting Solomon’s terms of endearment back to her:&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>It is no coincidence that she calls Solomon a roe and hind in :9. Surely her implication is that the daughters of Jerusalem should get on with their own boyfriends, and not stimulate Solomon away from her.</p>


text:
<p>The voice of my beloved! Behold, he comes, leaping on the mountains, skipping on the hills<strong>- </strong></p><p>This is the language of fantasy; and is the basis for her nightmare in chapter 3, when she imagines Solomon coming in glory on a carriage / bed- but it was prepared for the daughters of Jerusalem, and not her. I suggest that we have here an absolutely credible insight into the mental processes of a girl in her situation. It really happened:&nbsp; And Solomon is writing this Song correctly psychoanalyzing her thoughts and what had happened.</p>


text:
<p>My beloved is like a roe or a young hart. Behold, he stands behind our wall! He looks in at the windows. He glances through the lattice<strong>- </strong></p><p>"Windows... lattice" are literally "gaps". The idea is that they are separated by a stone wall in which there are gaps through which they can look at each other. Again there is a sense of separation between them, and only having their relationship as it were through the gaps. Again, the imagery is unfortunate because a broken down stone wall with gaps is a Biblical picture of the spiritually broken down state of Israel (<a href='B:290 5:5'>Isa 5:5</a>; <a href='B:330 13:5'>Eze 13:5</a>; <a href='B:330 13:10'>Eze 13:10</a>). But these lovers cared nothing for such concerns. She was locked up in the harem, under guard, but Solomon was coming to have a secret chat with her and to admire her... or so she liked to fantasize.</p><p>If we read still as "windows" and "lattice", then again we have the impression of furtiveness, secrecy and a concealed relationship. It's as if he comes to her home as she is looking out for him through the closed window blinds and says 'It's all clear, come with me now, let's dash' (:10). And then at the end of it she has to tell him to "flee" back home at daybreak (:17). Note she is in a "hiding place" (:14) from which Solomon calls her out. The obvious question 'Why all the secrecy?' is clearly because the relationship was illicit and mismatched. </p><p>Solomon in <a href='B:240 7:6'>Pro 7:6</a> likens himself to a wise man looking out through his lattice window and noticing a man going astray with a woman. But the precise figure is used in <a href='B:260 2:9'>Son 2:9</a> for how his illicit, paganic Gentile girlfriend found his doing this to be so attractive, if not somehow erotic. The connection shows how totally confused Solomon was in his personal spirituality. </p>


text:
<p>My beloved spoke and said to me, Rise up, my love, my beautiful one, and come away<strong>- </strong></p><p>This is reported speech- her hopes of what her lover would say, her fantasy about his words rather than reality. See on :16. For she had decided at the start that the only way out of the problem with the daughters of Jerusalem was to get Solomon to agree to leave Jerusalem and Israel (<a href='B:260 1:4'>Son 1:4</a>). Her heart was in her home in Egypt, and she wanted to get Solomon there. She is presented as the very opposite of Ruth's attitude.</p>&nbsp;<p>But these may be Solomon's words. By contrast, instead of running off to Egypt with her, he wants to take her on a tour of Israel (as in <a href='B:260 4:8'>Son 4:8</a>), enthusing about the sights, speaking of them as the things&nbsp; of&nbsp; "our land":&nbsp;He&nbsp;wanted her&nbsp; to&nbsp; be&nbsp; an Israelite,&nbsp; and&nbsp; he spoke to her as if she was, assuming that he could&nbsp; psychologically&nbsp; and&nbsp; spiritually dominate her so that he could&nbsp; have&nbsp; a little of both- his own carnal fulfilment coupled with spiritual satisfaction. How many times has this been worked out in the experience of a spiritual brother enthusing about the beauty&nbsp;of&nbsp;the&nbsp; Truth and spiritual Israel to an Egyptian girl, who&nbsp; only&nbsp; superficially&nbsp; shares&nbsp; his enthusiasm, longing in her heart to have him with her in Egypt:&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p>for, behold, the winter is past. The rain is over and gone<strong>- </strong></p><p>The romance happened in the spring, the time when Solomon should have been keeping Passover to remember his deliverance from Egypt. But at that very time, he was getting involved with an Egyptian girl.</p>


text:
<p>The flowers appear on the earth. The time of the singing has come, and the voice of the turtledove is heard in our land<strong>- </strong></p><p>The turtledove is a migratory bird which returns to Israel in April; this confirms that this romance is happening in the spring (:11), the time when Solomon should have been keeping Passover to remember his deliverance from Egypt. "The time of the singing" may refer to the Passover feast, and rejoicing in the destruction of Egypt's chariots which Solomon so admired (<a href='B:260 1:9'>Son 1:9</a>). But at that very time, he was getting involved with an Egyptian girl. </p>


text:
<p>The fig tree ripens her green figs. The vines are in blossom. They give forth their fragrance. Arise, my love, my beautiful one, and come away<strong>- </strong></p><p>Again we see her wanting Solomon to "come away" from the scene in Jerusalem where the daughters of Jerusalem would always be his competitors (<a href='B:260 1:4'>Son 1:4</a>). She has fantasized about him agreeing to this in :10. And so it will ever be in the marriage of believer and unbeliever; the unbeliever will always want to get the believer to "come away" to Egypt. And so it happened with Solomon's heart, finally. </p><p>I am not a fan of trying to interpret the Song as an allegory of Christ and His church. But the blossoming of the fig tree is associated with the soon coming of the bridegroom, possibly alluded to by the Lord in His Olivet prophecy. However we must face the problem that the girl wishes Solomon to "come away" not to Yahweh but to Egypt and her idols.</p>


text:
<p>Lover</p><p>My dove in the clefts of the rock, in the hiding places of the mountainside; let me see your face. Let me hear your voice; for your voice is sweet, and your face is lovely<strong>- </strong></p><p>I suggested on :9 that they are on different sides of a broken down stone wall, playing peek a boo through the many gaps in it. "Face" is plural, and could be translated "sights", as if he is asking to see her body in a sexual sense. "Let me see your form" is a fair translation; and he asks for her to undress for him in a hidden place outdoors. Again we see the stressed, secretive nature of the romance. And we note this is all a case of premarital sex.  </p><p>The desire to 'see your face' and the reference to being hid in a cleft of the rock is very much the language of Moses desiring to see God’s face whilst hid in a cleft of the rock. The point is, that Solomon's desire for his illicit girlfriend should've been instead redirected into a desire to meet God in the spirit of Moses. This is one of many indirect allusions in the Song to spiritual things, but always to point out that those allusions were utterly missed by Solomon and his lover.</p>


text:
<p>Catch foxes for us, the little foxes that spoil the vineyards; for our vineyards are in blossom<strong>- </strong></p><p>I explained on <a href='B:260 1:6'>Son 1:6</a> that the vineyards are representative of her sexuality, which we learn there was guarded by her brothers. It is possible that this verse is in fact her brothers speaking, or her fear of their attempts to catch a "fox" like Solomon from spoiling her vineyard / virginity- which she wants to give him. Or it could be that she sees the 'foxes' spoiling "our" vineyard as the daughters of Jerusalem. The Lord called Herod a fox, so we can conclude that a fox was a derogatory term for a person. Always the love scenes are less than ideal in reality. The vineyards of Solomon and this woman are spoilt by foxes... As Ecclesiastes laments, going the way of the flesh never leads to true satisfaction. 
 </p>&nbsp;<p>Keil suggests this is "A vine-dresser's ditty". If we don't accept this is the voice of the brothers, then this could be a cry to the foxes to 'clear off'. But why the fear of foxes? Perhaps this is another call for the potential observers, those who would spoil their tryst, to go away- just as the girl shouts such things in her own mind at the 'daughters of Jerusalem'. Their meeting places were in the countryside, and Solomon sees her work as his- he speaks as if they are joint vineyard keepers in 'their' vineyard where they meet. These rural locations for their meetings explain the many rural allusions in the song. She was a "prince's daughter" with whom Solomon secretly met in the countryside. This to my mind is a more fulfilling explanation than the suggestion that the rural allusions mean she was a simple country peasant whom he had fallen in love with:&nbsp; </p><p>There is an undoubted connection between the record of Samson catching the foxes and using them to destroy vineyards (<a href='B:70 15:4-5'>Jdg 15:4-5</a>) and <a href='B:260 2:15'>Son 2:15</a>, where Solomon suggests that he and his girl go and catch the foxes that destroy the vineyards. This seems an allusion to Samson, although this Biblical allusion (as noted on :14) puts Solomon in a poor light, comparing him to the sexually out of control Samson, who was destroyed for his infatuation with Gentile women. Both Solomon and his Gentile girlfriend owned vineyards (<a href='B:260 1:6'>Son 1:6</a>; <a href='B:260 8:11-12'>Son 8:11-12</a>), and both were concerned that the fruit would not be damaged (<a href='B:260 2:13'>Son 2:13</a>; <a href='B:260 2:15'>Son 2:15</a>; <a href='B:260 6:11'>Son 6:11</a>; <a href='B:260 7:12'>Son 7:12</a>). However, the implication from the allusion was also that in fact Solomon was in the position of the Philistines, worrying about the effect of Samson's foxes:&nbsp;See on <a href='B:250 7:26'>Ecc 7:26</a> </p>


text:
<p>Beloved</p><p>My beloved is mine, and I am his<strong>- </strong></p><p>Solomon had at least 1000 women in his life and got involved with many of them at the start of his reign- it was her wishful thinking that he had eyes for her only, and those fears were expressed in her angry and aggressive comments to the "daughters of Jerusalem" whom she rightfully feared were her competitors- see on:7. As noted on :3 and :13, much of this relationship was based around being in love with an image of the other, in love with an expectation and imagination, an idealization of the other, rather than with the other as they really were. For all her self confidence and scheming, she is also presented as an utter fool in believing that she was really Solomon's "only one". The simple truth of true love is that the beloved is loved for who they are. We all struggle with this, and this is why we find it hard to believe that the Lord Jesus so loves me- despite seeing me as I am. </p><p>He browses among the lilies<strong>- </strong></p><p>Lilies are representative of the girl's body in a sexual sense (<a href='B:260 4:5'>Son 4:5</a>; <a href='B:260 7:3'>Son 7:3</a>; <a href='B:260 6:2'>Son 6:2</a>). But "lilies" plural could mean that she here acknowledges that he is likely at this point sleeping with other "lilies", browsing amongst them. We noted in Song 1 that she fully accepts that others love Solomon. She has nightmares about the situation until in Song 8 she finally tells him to keep his "thousand" and she will keep her vineyard for herself, and they part in acrimony. This is all so psychologically credible. A woman falls in love with a polygamist, believing his unique protestations of love for her- but can't maintain acceptance of that position. </p>


text:
<p>Until the day is cool, and the shadows flee away, turn, my beloved, and be like a roe or a young hart on the mountains of Bether- The coolness of the day is the evening. When "the shadows flee away" therefore, does not denote dispersion of the shades of night by the rising sun, but the disappearance of the shadows when the sun sets. She is asking him to finish browsing amongst other women (:16) and return to her that evening for sex. Or we could interpret that there is always the hint of secrecy, of spending the night together in secret and then running away at dawn. This heightened the sense of immediate attraction, but reflected how the relationship could never ultimately work. And her urging of him to just run away is to be understood in the context of her desire for Solomon to run away from the Jerusalem scene, and come with her to Egypt (see on :10,13; <a href='B:260 1:4'>Son 1:4</a>). There is no place known as "Bether". The word can mean "division" or according to some readings, "incense". She saw Jerusalem or Israel as surrounded by mountains, and she wants Solomon to leap over them with her and get away. And perhaps she has the idea of getting him to offer incense in such high places. He is out of step with this idea, instead asking her to jump over mountains and to him in Jerusalem (see on <a href='B:260 4:8'>Son 4:8</a>). Always the couple are presented as fundamentally out of step with each other. Or we can take Bether [Heb. bater] as meaning 'cleavage' and referring to her breasts, which she likens to 'mountains', as Solomon calls them in Song 4:5,6, just as she boasts of them as 'towers' in Song 8. She is hardly modest, and here again the allegorical approach breaks down. </p>


text:
<p>By night on my bed, I sought him whom my soul loves. I sought him, but I didn’t find him<strong>- </strong></p><p>The twice repeated theme of seeking but not finding is the language of condemnation. All the time we get hints in the language used that this Gentile woman is not of God at all, and is the pathway to condemnation. Just as Solomon had warned in Proverbs 7. Having slept with him the night before (Song 2;16,17), she now has a nightmare about him having left her. And indeed this is absolutely psychologically likely. Her dream or nightmare reflected her deepest fears. The Hebrew means "nights" in the plural, as if this nightmare was a regular occurrence. </p>


text:
<p>I will get up now, and go about the city; in the streets and in the squares I will seek him whom my soul loves. I sought him, but I didn’t find him<strong>- </strong></p><p>Her dream reflects the way she slipped out of the harem, dodging the guards / watchmen, and walked the streets of Jerusalem whilst he was confined in the palace. Her mother moved to Jerusalem from Egypt, but it wasn’t possible for Solomon and her to easily be together in that house (<a href='B:260 3:4'>Son 3:4</a>; <a href='B:260 8:2'>Son 8:2</a>). Again [as noted on <a href='B:260 2:14-15'>Son 2:14-15</a>] we have an allusion to spiritual things, but out of context. Jeremiah on God’s behalf ran through the streets and squares of Jerusalem to search for men who would love God in truth (<a href='B:300 5:1'>Jer 5:1</a>). But she runs through the same streets and squares looking to turn a man away from God. </p><p>The language here recalls Solomon's own warning in Proverbs 7 about the Gentile prostitute who will lead the Israelite male astray: "her feet never stay at home;
now in the street, now in the squares, at every corner she lurks". She also says that "I have perfumed my bed
with myrrh, aloes and cinnamon"- the very things used by the Shulamite (Song 4:13,14).</p>


text:
<p>The watchmen who go about the city found me; I asked, Have you seen him whom my soul loves?<strong>- </strong></p><p>Her difficulty with "the watchmen" [also in 5:7] and their anger with her is understandable if she was in the "house of the women", guarded within the harem- and yet had escaped from it to have a tryst with the king for whom she was being prepared. No wonder she was in conflict with the "daughters of Jerusalem" within the harem. They were being prepared as Esther was to sleep with the king and for him to decide whether they would become one of his queens, or be sent to the house of the concubines. But during the preparation period, she was sneaking out and sleeping with the king.</p><p>Constantly she fears the opposition of the people of Jerusalem. Later in this chapter she has another nightmare of Solomon's kingly bed prepared not for her but for the daughters of Jerusalem, and protected by Israelite soldiers. The implication would be that Solomon's marriages to Gentile women were not popular with Israel, and this contributed to the resentment against Solomon at the end of his life (<a href='B:110 12:11'>1Ki 12:11</a>). We note that although she comes over as forward and manipulative, she seems to love Solomon from her "soul" (also in :4), although that love was based upon being in love with an image of a man rather than reality, and was totally based upon externalities:&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p>I had scarcely passed from them, when I found him whom my soul loves. I held him, and would not let him go, until I had brought him into my mother’s house, into the room of her who conceived me<strong>- </strong></p><p>She repeats this in Song 8:2 "I would have lead you into my mother's house". She expresses here her fantasy of getting Solomon to come to Egypt with her. Even in the time of David, when the Edomites were subdued, Pharaoh was very open to supporting the enemies of Israel: "Hadad found great favour in the sight of Pharaoh, so that he gave him as wife the sister of his own wife, the sister of Tahpenes the queen" (1 Kings 11:18,19). This is why Solomon's marriage to his daughter at the start of his reign, not so long after Hadad's establishment in Egypt, was foolhardy. At best it put his wife in an impossibly compromised position of conflicting loyalties, which we sense beginning even during their romance as recorded in the Song of Solomon. For there she so wishes that she and Solomon could live together in Egypt, and decide wholeheartedly for the sake of their romance to be Egyptians and live there in her homeland. Solomon had married Pharaoh's daughter, and so Hadad may have ended up related to Solomon by marriage. This would have put Solomon's wife in an impossible position of conflicted loyalties. That may be one reason Solomon moved her out of the palace area and built her a separate house. See further on 1 Kings 11:21 for Solomon's unwisdom in marrying into Pharaoh's family at this time.
Again we have to note that this is her fantasy, her dream: "I would not let him go, until I had brought him into my mother’s house". And dreams do speak of our inner deepest psychological longings. She would only be happy if she caught him and brought him to her mother's house in Egypt. This was her dream.  We recall how Isaac brings his wife Rebekah into his mother's tent to consummate the marriage (Gen. 24:67). She did indeed 'catch' him as Solomon himself admitted, he was caught by her beauty. The Hebrew means that she 'laid hold of him' and wouldn't let him go- exactly as the bad woman in Proverbs whom Solomon had written of. Now, writing up this Song, Solomon is perceiving that this is what had happened to him. Her subconscious desire was to bring him to her family home back in Egypt. This was going to be an impossible romance, because Solomon was king of Israel- and his lover had a fantasy to bring him to her family home down in Egypt. And so many relationships start with this impossible conflict of positions. 
There is some historical evidence that in Egypt, discussions about marriage were held in the mother's house. Her deepest psychological positions, as reflected in this dream, were that she would get Solomon away from his mother, who had warned him against women like her in Proverbs 31, and into the house of her and not his mother. She says she will not let him go. Perhaps despite the break up of the relationship at the end of the book, they did in fact marry, and Solomon laments that her hands were as bands (<a href='B:250 7:26'>Ecc 7:26</a>) and his relationship with her was a being caught in a net. </p><p>She was the fulfilment of what Solomon had written at the same time in <a href='B:240 7:27'>Pro 7:27</a>: " Her house is the way to Sheol, going down to the rooms of death". Solomon's wisdom was given to him as a young man, and the book of Proverbs appears to be collections of the various statements of that wisdom. But about the same time, he also got involved with multiple Gentile women who led him astray from God and to idolatry. And now in later life Solomon is writing up the story- for we must keep reminding ourselves that he was the author of this book, now understanding what was going on in her mind and putting those thoughts into her dream which he now describes and imputes to her. The very warnings he gives against the adulteress and Gentile woman were ignored by him; he became the young man who went wrong with women. His girlfriend speaks in the very language of the Gentile woman of Proverbs: "I found him whom my soul loveth: I held him, and would not let him go, until I had brought him into my mother's house... into her chamber" (<a href='B:260 3:4'>Son 3:4</a> AV). Compare this with "She caught him... come not near the door of her house... her house... the chambers of death" (<a href='B:240 7:13'>Pro 7:13</a>; <a href='B:240 7:27'>Pro 7:27</a>; <a href='B:240 5:8'>Pro 5:8</a>). We see here the warning for all time; that we can know God’s ways in theory, whilst disobeying them in practice, absolutely to the letter. Indeed it may be so that the more we know them, the more strongly we are tempted by our nature to break them. As we mature spiritually, drawing ever closer to the Kingdom, the stakes as it were rise. </p><p>Yet&nbsp; Solomon&nbsp; was&nbsp; aware, at least theoretically, of the foolish path&nbsp; he was going down. God had inspired him with the wisdom of <a href='B:240 2:16-17'>Pro 2:16-17</a>, which warned that wisdom would save a man from the Gentile&nbsp; woman who made a covenant with the God of Israel in her youth (in order to marry an Israelite, by implication), but soon forgot it. This was exactly the case of Solomon; yet he just&nbsp; couldn't&nbsp; see&nbsp; the personal relevance of his own wisdom to himself. Solomon could write of the folly of the ruler who oppressed the poor (<a href='B:240 22:16'>Pro 22:16</a>)- and yet do just that very thing. The Proverbs so frequently refer to the dangers of the house of the Gentile woman; yet the Song shows the Egyptian girl dearly wishing that Solomon would come with her into her house. And&nbsp; Solomon,&nbsp; just&nbsp; like&nbsp; the foolish young man he wrote about, went right ahead down the road to spiritual disaster he so often warned others about. He warns the young man of the dangers of the Egyptian woman who perfumes her bed with myrrh (<a href='B:240 7:16-17'>Pro 7:16-17</a>)- and then falls for just such a woman (<a href='B:230 45:8'>Psa 45:8</a>). This woman he warns of appears to want to serve Yahweh, and presents herself in the very language of the tabernacle (<a href='B:240 7:14'>Pro 7:14</a>; <a href='B:240 7:16-17'>Pro 7:16-17</a>). And yet Solomon goes and falls for just such a woman. One can only conclude that the more true spiritual knowledge we have, the more prone we are to do the very opposite. </p>


text:
<p>I adjure you, daughters of Jerusalem, by the roes and the hinds of the field, that you not stir up, nor stimulate love, until he so desires<strong>- </strong></p><p>An oath was typically taken in the name of God in Israel (<a href='B:50 6:13'>Deu 6:13</a>; <a href='B:60 9:18'>Jos 9:18</a>; <a href='B:140 15:14'>2Ch 15:14</a>). But again, this woman is portrayed as lacking any spirituality or relationship with God. She seems terrified that the daughters of Jerusalem would sexually attract Solomon, and this fear leads to her further nightmare which follows. Yet it has been argued that 'do not stir up love' means effectively “Do not disturb our lovemaking”; hence TEV "Don't interrupt us now!".</p>


text:
<p>Who is this who comes up from the wilderness like pillars of smoke, perfumed with myrrh and frankincense, with all spices of the merchant?<strong>- </strong></p><p>Again the imagery of pillars of smoke coming from the desert towards Jerusalem (:1) is the prophetic image for judgment coming. There is always the hint that this relationship leads to condemnation. The spices brought by merchants connect with the merchant trading of Solomon which resulted in these things being brought to him. Clearly this is Solomon in all his God given glory.</p><p>The Hebrew is 'Whose [feminine, 'for whom'] is this...?', enquiring for whom is this carriage paved with love. The speaker here could be the daughters of Jerusalem or a narrator. The language of perfume confirms that a female figure is in view, emerging from the desert. The spices or "powders of the merchant" speaks of the women in the harem who had been prepared with powders. It is... another woman, or in fact women, who are coming to marry Solomon. I suggest these words are the teasing of the daughters of Jerusalem. It is part of the beloved's dream, or nightmare. She dreams that she sees Solomon's marriage procession... but not for her, but, for the daughters of Jerusalem. This was her deepest fear, expressed in her dream, that actually Solomon would marry other women. Yet in chapter 1 we read of her fully acceptant, so she thinks, that she is going to be one of a number of wives. But her deepest fear is now revealed as being that he would marry other women.
Solomon's procession is described as approaching from a distance, initially just dust clouds on the horizon, with premonitions of danger- thanks to the mention of the soldiers guarding it. But getting closer the details become apparent. And the description climaxes in the statement that the marriage litter is paved with love... for... the daughters of Jerusalem! The whole scene speaks of how the Shulamite progressively comes to understand that Solomon is in fact also in love with the daughters of Jerusalem and will marry them too. Only in Song 8 do we see the Shulamite facing reality and walking out of the relationship, with the daughters of Jerusalem jeering her. They jeer her with the same  question “Who is this coming up from the wilderness?” (Song 8:5). 
</p>


text:
<p>Behold, it is Solomon’s carriage! Sixty mighty men are around it, of the mighty men of Israel<strong>- </strong></p><p>AV "Behold his bed, which is Solomon’s!". She knows his bed, she has slept with him on it... and here, in her nightmare and the kaleidoscope of images which dreams have, she sees it again... protected by the harem guards, prepared for other women.  "Carriage" is also "bed". She has been having a secret open air tryst with Solomon on a bed made from leaves under a bower of tree branches. And now she sees with some shock (:6,7) a kingly bed coming toward her... but not for her to sleep with him in. It is for the daughters of Jerusalem (:10)! This continues her vision of fear which she has on her bed at night (:1). The relationship is full of such distrust and fear that the daughters of Jerusalem will finally get Solomon, and she will not.</p>


text:
<p>They all handle the sword, and are expert in war. Every man has his sword on his thigh, because of fear in the night<strong>- </strong></p><p>This nightmare (:1) of Solomon's bed advancing as a carriage [hence the confusion in the translations between "bed" and "carriage"] was guarded by Israel's best soldiers. They feared something might happen at night; and at night she had slept with Solomon and they had parted from each other at dawn (<a href='B:260 2:17'>Son 2:17</a>). Her nightmare reflects her deepest fears; that the men of Israel were against her relationship with Solomon, and fiercely guarded his kingly bed for the daughters of Jerusalem, and intended to keep her away from it. These men are another form of the night watchmen patrolling Jerusalem at night, whom she imagines had caught her.</p><p>Dreams are a kaleidoscope of images. She has just dreamt of the watchmen around the harem walls catching her (:3). And now she sees them guarding Solomon's bed and the women he is going to marry in this wedding. The whole thing is a dreamscape, constructed by Solomon the author, as an insight into the mind of his ex. And he was likely not far wrong.</p>


text:
<p>King Solomon made himself a carriage of the wood of Lebanon<strong>- </strong></p><p>"Carriage" can also be "bed" as AV. The Egyptian word here used suggests that Solomon really had a relationship with this woman and spoke to her in terms she understood. This failed, illicit romance really happened. For these are the thoughts of the girl in her nightmare (:1). Solomon "made himself" many things (<a href='B:250 2:4-8'>Ecc 2:4-8</a>). That he had made his own wedding bed is therefore unsurprising.</p><p>The Shulamite had earlier fantasized of Solomon building a house for her from the wood of Lebanon (Song 1:16). Now she realizes, with shock ['Who is this coming to a wedding... it's Solomon!'], that he had built something of wood from Lebanon for her rivals, the daughters of Jerusalem. </p>


text:
<p>He made its pillars of silver, its bottom of gold, its seat of purple, its midst being paved with love<strong>- </strong></p><p>Typical of dreams, she sees the bed-in-a-carriage in great detail. "Bottom" can be "canopy", and "seat" can be "cushions"; the silver pillars hold up a canopy over the bed. Solomon's half brother Absalom had slept with David's wives beneath such a canopy, and so the Shulamite in her nightmare is imagining Solomon being prepared for sex with the women he is marrying, in a public way. "He made..." pillars with silver, gold and purple recalls the language of how Solomon made the temple (<a href='B:110 7:6-8'>1Ki 7:6-8</a>). He admits in Ecclesiastes 2 that he loved making things. His apparent&nbsp; zeal for building the temple was really just an expression of his own native temperament and character type, rather than particular love for God’s work. And we must analyze our own service of God to see if we aren't doing the same thing, just serving Him in ways which are convenient and reinforce our own native personality type. Such service is not the service of sacrifice and carrying a cross which is required. </p><p>The&nbsp; bed is described in the language of the tabernacle; made of wood,&nbsp; but&nbsp; covered with gold and surrounded by silver pillars, with&nbsp; a mercy seat of purple (<a href='B:260 3:9-10'>Son 3:9-10</a> Heb:). He persuaded himself that&nbsp; his&nbsp; marriage to this woman was some kind of expression of spirituality:&nbsp; The bed was made from cedar brought from Lebanon- and yet the same wood was used for the temple (<a href='B:260 3:9'>Son 3:9</a>). Such was his dualism. The Song is shot through with allusion to the Law and&nbsp; tabernacle&nbsp; rituals; he speaks of making her borders on her clothes&nbsp; (<a href='B:260 1:11'>Son 1:11</a>),&nbsp;probably alluding to the borders of blue to be worn&nbsp; by&nbsp; the&nbsp; faithful&nbsp; Israelite:&nbsp; Solomon&nbsp; wanted her to be a spiritual&nbsp; woman,&nbsp; and&nbsp; he&nbsp; was&nbsp; going&nbsp; to&nbsp; make her one; many a preacher,&nbsp;&nbsp; teacher,&nbsp; husband,&nbsp; wife,&nbsp; father, mother,&nbsp; child,&nbsp; boyfriend has had to learn the impossibility of this:&nbsp; He wanted to see her as a spiritual woman, and eventually he became persuaded that she was just this. </p><p>For the daughters of Jerusalem<strong>- </strong></p><p>The plural "daughters" would suggest Solomon's wedding was in fact to several women at once. Those accepted as "wives" would have been married a few at a time and that is what's described here.I suggested on :7 that this is a nightmare she has on her bed (:1), having slept with Solomon on a bed of leaves in the open air. Now she imagines him having made a luxurious bed... but not for her. For the daughters of Jerusalem, her rivals! There is always the tension with the daughters of Jerusalem, who can be understood as Solomon’s Jewish wives, or those who were his Jewish harem. In Song of Solomon 2 she wants to bring him into her mother’s bedroom in Egypt, but this is contrasted in the next Song with Solomon’s bed in Jerusalem, prepared for the “daughters of Jerusalem” (<a href='B:260 3:4'>Son 3:4</a>; <a href='B:260 3:10'>Son 3:10</a>) whom he should have married. Then, with this bed in the background, he tells her how he especially loves her (<a href='B:260 4:1'>Son 4:1</a>), trying to persuade her that her fears have no basis in reality. </p>


text:
<p>Go forth, you daughters of Zion, and see king Solomon, with the crown with which his mother has crowned him in the day of his weddings, in the day of the gladness of his heart- </p><p>In Proverbs 31 Bathsheba lays the law down with him about his girlfriends, about not marrying Gentiles, and about&nbsp; not&nbsp; drinking, yet here we see Bathsheba with all her&nbsp; motherly pride crowning Solomon on the day of engagement to his wives. Note the plural "weddings". Like David, Bathsheba&nbsp; taught&nbsp; Solomon the principles with great enthusiasm, but&nbsp;&nbsp; she&nbsp; allowed&nbsp; parental&nbsp; pride&nbsp; to&nbsp; make&nbsp; her&nbsp; dismiss&nbsp; the possibility&nbsp; that&nbsp; her&nbsp; son&nbsp; was seriously going astray. But in this nightmare, the Egyptian girl imagines Bathsheba approving Solomon's marriages to the daughters of Zion / Jerusalem</p><p>Or perhaps here we have the girl sarcastically commenting to the Jerusalem girls: “Go forth, O you daughters of Jerusalem, and behold king Solomon”, and goes on to mock the crown his mother Bathsheba had made for him, wishing instead that he would be under the influence of her mother (<a href='B:260 3:11'>Son 3:11</a>; <a href='B:260 3:4'>Son 3:4</a>). Her sarcasm turns to angry defence at times, e.g. when she warns the Jerusalem girls not to stir up “my love” (<a href='B:260 2:7'>Son 2:7</a>)- i:e. ‘Hands off my Solomon!’. In turn, they ask her where Solomon has “turned aside” so that they can come and seek him with her (<a href='B:260 6:1'>Son 6:1</a>), using a word elsewhere associated with ‘turning aside’ in apostasy to other gods. They in their turn sarcastically comment to her: “Whither is thy beloved gone, O thou fairest among women</p><p> that we may seek him with thee?” (<a href='B:260 6:1'>Son 6:1</a>), quoting Solomon’s terms of endearment back to her:&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>"Weddings" [LXX "espousals"] stands out as a plural. The picture [perhaps, the nightmare of the Shulamite] is of Solomon marrying or getting engaged to many women at once, apparently with his mother's approval. These wives were apparently the daughters of Jerusalem, for the litter is paved with love for them (:10). All this was a nightmare experience for the Egyptian bride... Her worst nightmare was that Solomon would in the end prefer the local women to herself. Hence her desire to make him love the things of Egypt...
Again we see the kaleidoscope of images typical of dreams. She has fantasized of bringing Solomon down to her mother's house in Egypt; now she sees [in her nightmare] his mother crowning him with a wedding crown as he marries other women in a mass wedding.
</p>


text:
<p>Lover</p><p>Behold, you are beautiful, my love. Behold, you are beautiful. Your eyes are doves behind your veil-</p><p>Although :1-7 are Solomon praising the Shulamite, there is still the possibility that these are her fantasies- imagining him praising her. It has been observed that such praising of bride and groom by each other was common in high profile weddings at the time; the parties sung or recited a wasf praising the beauty of the bride or groom. This still happens in some cultures today, notably Persian culture. So we must entertain the possibility that this is still the woman imagining Solomon praising her, reassuring herself of his love for her after the nightmare of Song 3. </p><p>Parts of the Song are very sexually explicit once the fairly obvious allusions are figured out. He's describing the vaginal lips of his girlfriend, his intended spouse (<a href='B:260 4:1'>Son 4:1</a>; <a href='B:260 4:3'>Son 4:3</a>; <a href='B:260 4:8'>Son 4:8</a> etc:); and he has seen "behind your veil", the symbol of her virginity. And yet he glorifies all this in his song. Quite clearly, Solomon was guilty of fornication with the one whom he wished to marry, although the ending of the Song seems to imply the relationship somehow broke up. And this was all right at the beginning of his reign. He seems to have assumed that if he thought his behaviour was OK, then it was. It's rather like how he declared the middle court to be "holy" and a kind of extended altar (<a href='B:140 7:7'>2Ch 7:7</a>)- he doesn't ask God if God would sanctify it, he just decides what is holy and what isn't- Solomon played God, and it led him into sin and loss of faith in God. <p>I noted on Song 1:1 that the Shulamite acts as a prostitute, and there are many connections between her and the bad woman of Proverbs who is a prostitute. Prostitutes wore veils (as Tamar in Gen. 38:14,15, and this is the sense of Song 1:7 ISV "Why should I be considered a veiled woman beside the flocks of your companions?"). Solomon's lover wears a veil (Song 4:1,3; 6:7) which the watchmen angrily pull off her to expose her for who she is (Song 5:7). The Shulamite acts like a very forward woman, if not a prostitute, and her veil may suggest that. 
Solomon's various descriptions of the Shulamite throughout the Song paint her in the very language used to describe the "Daughters of Zion/ Jerusalem" in Is. 3:18-23: "The Lord will take away from the daughters of Jerusalem everything they are so proud of—the ornaments they wear on their ankles, on their heads, on their necks... their veils...  the rings they wear on their fingers and in their noses; all their fine robes, gowns, cloaks... their revealing garments, their linen handkerchiefs, and the scarves and long veils they wear on their heads. Instead of using perfumes, they will stink... instead of having beautiful hair, they will be bald; instead of fine clothes, they will be dressed in rags; their beauty will be turned to shame!". We notice that their veils are twice mentioned; and the Shulamite's revealing veil is likewise twice observed by Solomon. Likewise her perfumes are often mentioned, just as they are in the description of the daughters of Jerusalem in Is. 3. Clearly the Shulamite has been prepared in the harem just as the daughters of Jerusalem. The clear parallels between them show that she was in one sense, one of them. Although a darker skinned foreigner and "prince's daughter" from another land. We are hereby confirmed in understanding her as a member of the harem of "daughters of Jerusalem" being prepared for their night with Solomon which would decide whether they would become a queen or be rejected to the status of concubine.
</p><p>Your hair is as a flock of goats, that descend from Mount Gilead<strong>- </strong></p><p>Weddings and pre-wedding celebrations typically featured the bridegroom praising the bride or writing a poem about her beauty. That is what we have here. "Budde says mount Gilead is the S. portion of the range called now the Belqa, which is mostly pasture land. It lies within view of Judah and Jerusalem". She has her hair down, a sign she was sexually available. Time and again the imagery of the song is distinctly sexually selective and without appropriate modesty in the contemporary culture. And Solomon clearly likes it. Throughout the Song, Solomon describes her in Jewish terms,&nbsp; he&nbsp; likens&nbsp; her&nbsp; to many well-known places in Israel: the Heshbon&nbsp; fish pools,&nbsp; the tower of Lebanon etc:, seeing the way her hair draped over her breasts as reminiscent of how Mount Gilead looked (<a href='B:260 4:1'>Son 4:1</a>; <a href='B:260 4:4'>Son 4:4</a>). He wanted to&nbsp;see&nbsp;her&nbsp;as&nbsp; an&nbsp; Israelite&nbsp; girl,&nbsp;and&nbsp;so that was how she appeared&nbsp;to&nbsp;him:&nbsp; She&nbsp; even&nbsp;uses similar language in praise of him (<a href='B:260 1:14'>Son 1:14</a>). </p>


text:
<p>Your teeth are like a newly shorn flock, which have come up from the washing, where every one of them has twins. None is bereaved among them<strong>- </strong></p><p>Without dental science, missing teeth would have been common in those days, even in youth. But she apparently had none missing. Here and :3 "your mouth is lovely" suggests they had already been involved in deep kissing.</p>


text:
<p>Your lips are like scarlet thread. Your mouth is lovely. Your temples are like a piece of a pomegranate behind your veil-</p><p>When Solomon describes her painted lips as being like a thread of scarlet, he uses two Hebrew words which only occur together in <a href='B:60 2:18'>Jos 2:18</a>, describing how the Gentile harlot Rahab hung the scarlet thread outside her home in order to bring about the salvation of her mother and her family. The people of Jericho may well have understood this scarlet thread or rope as a sign of prostitution. Solomon wanted to justify his Egyptian girlfriend by comparing her to Gentile Rahab. And such sophistry goes on at the beginning of every relationship that leads to a marriage out of the Faith:&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p>Your neck is like David’s tower built for an armoury, whereon a thousand shields hang, all the shields of the mighty men<strong>- </strong></p><p>Solomon had made shields of gold which he hung for display on a tower (1 Kings 10:16,17). The idea is that David’s tower was built in terraces, and this is how her neck appeared, with her ornaments hanging on the string of her necklace likened to shields. Solomon may be alluding to his 1000 other wives; he is trying to convince her that she is better than them all. She loves him because of his ointment, and he loves her because of her jewellery (<a href='B:260 1:2-3'>Son 1:2-3</a>; <a href='B:260 1:10'>Son 1:10</a>; <a href='B:260 4:4'>Son 4:4</a>). It’s all very human and carnal, based upon the external and not the internal. But this is what Solomon was like. He sees wisdom, even in Proverbs and certainly in Ecclesiastes, as only helpful in that it gives a person a good name and image in this life.</p><p>"David's tower" is "The tower of the flock, the stronghold of Zion" (Mic. 4:8), the tower from which David surveyed the flock of his people (the tower by the king's high house of Neh. 3:25). It was the practice of the time to hang shields upon such towers (as in Ez. 27:11), and David sees her neck and coins upon it as like his tower.
Egyptian women wore their dowry coins on their necks, and long necks were thought to be sexual. If she has her dowry displayed like that, she was betrothed to another man. Just as she opens the Song by saying that she has not kept her own vineyard, and her brothers were angry with her because of it. She struts her immorality. But Solomon finds this sexually attractive.
 </p>


text:
<p>Your two breasts are like two fawns that are twins of a roe, which feed among the lilies<strong>- </strong></p><p>In verses 1 and 3 Solomon has mentioned her veil, but clearly the rest of her body is exposed, quite possibly she is naked apart from her veil. In this case, the veil is being used as sexualized clothing rather than as any form of modesty and screening of the female body from male view. We see again how spiritual things are being subverted for carnal, sexual pleasure.</p><p>Breasts as twins means Solomon considered them, after much observation, to be perfectly identical- apparently something he found attractive. Clearly he had at this point explored her naked body, although not married to her. "The lilies" is likewise a sexual allusion; see on <a href='B:260 2:16'>Son 2:16</a>. He&nbsp;was&nbsp; ravished&nbsp; with this Egyptian girl, especially with her breasts (<a href='B:260 4:5'>Son 4:5</a>; <a href='B:260 7:3'>Son 7:3</a>). Yet at the same time he could confidently exhort in <a href='B:240 5:18-20'>Pro 5:18-20</a> AV: "Rejoice with the wife of thy youth. Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe (Song of Solomon language); let her breasts satisfy thee... be thou&nbsp; ravished&nbsp; always with her love... And why wilt thou, my son, be ravished with a strange (i:e. Gentile) woman?". How,&nbsp; indeed? But 999 women later, it was a different story for Solomon. Solomon&nbsp; writes in <a href='B:240 5:18-20'>Pro 5:18-20</a> as if it is of course unthinkable&nbsp; that he should&nbsp; have&nbsp; been&nbsp; ravished by a Gentile woman;&nbsp; but he had been. Beyond mere hypocrisy, this reveals how Solomon saw himself as somehow beyond his own wisdom and a free moral agent. This is a common temptation for those who think that mere possession of God’s truth will somehow of itself justify them.</p>


text:
<p>Until the day is cool, and the shadows flee away, I will go to the mountain of myrrh, to the hill of frankincense<strong>- </strong></p><p>The myrrh and frankincense were being used as aphrodisiacs, which had their desired effect upon Solomon (:16). And yet they are the language of the temple sacrifices. At the very time Solomon was building the temple and establishing the temple cult, he was using the very same items in his illicit relationship with this Egyptian woman. The mountain and hill are parallel with her breasts (:5), and Solomon promises to make love to her all night "Until the day breaks and the shadows flee away". </p>


text:
<p>You are all beautiful, my love. There is no spot in you<strong>- </strong></p><p>This last phrase is alluded to in the New Testament concerning the spotless nature of the bride of Christ (<a href='B:560 5:27'>Eph 5:27</a>). But upon this has been built the quite unsustainable position that the entire Song is an allegory of the relationship between Christ and His bride. This is simply not sustainable; the sexual allusions, and the final breakup of the relationship after the unsatisfactory tensions between the two of them all shout out against such an approach. The New Testament quotes the Old Testament in the style of its day; whereby words or verses from scripture were applied out of context to situations. It is simply not true that every New Testament quotation of the Old reveals that the surrounding context of the quotation is also relevant to the New Testament context. Going through all the quotations and allusions, it is obvious that this is just not the case. And it seems to me that this idea that the Song is an allegory is a desperate attempt to whitewash Solomon, despite the clear Biblical condemnations of him. </p><p>As he sees her as so entirely beautiful, so she sees him (<a href='B:260 4:7'>Son 4:7</a>; <a href='B:260 5:16'>Son 5:16</a>). This mutuality of praise is indeed part of the "in love" period. But it was all a matter of external observation of each other, and because of that, the relationship fell apart.</p><p>"No spot" is the language of the sacrifices which were to be "without blemish". Perhaps Solomon hints that she is acceptable to God- but that was only his judgment and not God's.</p>


