Ecclesiastes, on the Futility of Life

[Archaalen]

I have been reading the Bible, in bits and pieces, for about a year now. Only just recently, I opened my NIV copy to the Ecclesiastes for the first time, and found a book about how all that we do in life is useless, that everyone dies, and that death is the end of everything, so you should enjoy your life to its fullest while you can, because no one knows when they will die and once you are dead there is nothing waiting for you (see Ecclesiastes 9 for almost all of this).

I was floored to find this sort of thinking in the Bible, of all places. I know that the text was assembled of different documents at different times, but this sounds like a rejection of any sort of afterlife or of any hope of justice in the world, even for the good, the pious, the righteous. I know, it says to fear God and obey the Commandments, but it does not square with so much of the religious doctrines of Judaism and Christianity, it shocks me that is was not expunged centuries ago.

Also, to be honest, it shocks me to find something that resonates with me so strongly in a book that I have mostly found very difficult to connect with. Whatever happens after we die, we have no way of figuring it out before we get there, and there may very well be nothing, so we have to make the most of the life that we have in front of us. Nothing else matters.

Thoughts?

[Col. Tartleton]

Thoughts?

Yes.

Oh....

More specifically: If you get enough philosophers to write a book it will contain a little something for everyone, inconsistencies and contradictions aside.

[mw2xboxplayer]

Whatever happens after we die, we have no way of figuring it out before we get there, and there may very well be nothing, so we have to make the most of the life that we have in front of us. Nothing else matters.

Thoughts?

I agree with this statement.

However, you do not make any particular standpoint regarding a subject that can be debated. You basically said that we should 'live life to the fullest.'

What are we supposed to debate/discuss?

[Squiggle]

As the inspired character of Ecclesiastes was not settled in the Fifth Œcumenical Council but only solemnly reaffirmed against Theodore of Mopsuestia, the faithful have always found edification and consolation in this book. Already in the third century, St. Gregory Thaumaturgus, in his metaphrase, then Gregory of Nyssa, in eight homilies, later Hugh of St. Victor, in nineteen homilies, set forth the wisdom of Qoheleth as truly celestial and Divine. Every age may learn from his teaching that man's true happiness must not be looked for on earth, not in human wisdom, not in luxury, not in royal splendour; that many afflictions await everybody, in consequence either of the iniquity of others, or of his own passions; that God has shut him up within narrow limits, lest he become overweening, but that He does not deny him a small measure of happiness if he does not "seek things that are above him" (vii, 1, Vulg.), if he enjoys what God has bestowed on him in the fear of the Lord and in salutary labour. The hope of a better life to come grows all the stronger the less this life can satisfy man, especially the man of high endeavour. Now Qoheleth does not intend this doctrine for an individual or for one people, but for mankind, and he does not prove it from supernatural revelation, but from pure reason. This is his cosmopolitan standpoint, which Kuenen rightly recognized; unfortunately, this commentator wished to conclude from this that the book originated in Hellenistic times. Nowack refuted him, but the universal application of the meditations contained therein, to every man who is guided by reason, is unmistakable.

Short "summary" I suppose of the meaning and intent of Ecc. in the Christian tradition.

[basics]

" Also, to be honest, it shocks me to find something that resonates with me so strongly in a book that I have mostly found very difficult to connect with. "

Archaalen,

The first principles about reading the Bible are context and flow and this book is no exception. Firstly it is written in the style of a Jewish mind by a king who quite obviously had not as yet the inspiration of David. Imagine a man sitting discussing to himself two points of view, on the left hand is one thing and on the other another, and you get an inkling of what a Jew is. There are answers on both hands as regards life but both are negligent of the Spirit of God inasmuch as he sees no Saviour whom David did.

He is living in the flesh and narrates his thoughts through that medium and the only words given towards the afters of death is that men should obey the Law. One would expect that if this was Solomon's writing that he would have known of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, that believed fervently by his father, but it appears that he doesn't and cannot go further than the Law as the ultimate prize if only men could keep it.

He has no difficulty with God unlike the posters that jump to your side, for his thinking is just like their recommendations in that you should throw the book away and just enjoy life. What chapter 9 shows quite clearly is that whatever the state of mind of the writer he is no more in communication with God as you and the posters are, as of yet. If it were Solomon and as some say at the end of his life then what is before us is the mind of a blessed man fallen from grace.

So I wouldn't put too much store in that particular book because in context and flow it shows what can happen even to the Godliest of men who go back into the world as that king did. He was blessed mightily yet he did the most fundamental errors of Judaism by marrying women that followed other gods. In the end his mind was going going gone and even so he never then questioned what God had made and by the Law what God expected.

[Archaalen]

So the Ecclesiastes is a book written by a man NOT in communion with God? That is interesting. I had not considered that biblical texts could have been written by men who had lost their way (or not yet found it). I know that the bible is not a "divinely inspired" text, but I had always at least thought of the authors as, collectively, being men who were devout and firm in their beliefs.

[Scipio Africanus Maximus]

The Teacher had no notion of an afterlife other than Sheol. The Israelites did not believe in Heaven (at least as a place where the righteous go) nor a Hell, but that all souls would go to a place called Sheol where their soul would simply sleep for eternity. Since the author of Ecclesiastes could not grasp the concept of eternal reward or eternal punishment for deeds on earth, he reasoned that it is best to enjoy life while you can, as well as to keep God's commandments, "for this is the duty of all mankind.

[Cooraan]

You should read commentaries along with your Bible readings. It will really explain a lot and give you a perspective from someone who's made it their life work to study the Bible.

[basics]

" So the Ecclesiastes is a book written by a man NOT in communion with God? That is interesting. I had not considered that biblical texts could have been written by men who had lost their way (or not yet found it). I know that the bible is not a "divinely inspired" text, but I had always at least thought of the authors as, collectively, being men who were devout and firm in their beliefs. "

Archaalen,

No, that is not right because if Solomon was indeed the writer we know from his other works that he was much blessed by God but the point I am making is that he used these blessings for much good but for some reason he failed God by joining himself to idol worshipping women something the tribes were obliged not to do. So in doing that he was left in old age pondering the past in such a way that the world was foremost in his thoughts even though he knew all the commandments.

If we look at the life of his father king David one on reading the Psalms can see an almost opposite effect. David always seemed capable of being down in the dumps but when considering his God and Saviour the opposite effect took hold. He was as it were jumping for joy at the thought of his Redeemer, something the writer in that other book never mentions. David was no angel but he knew what redemption was and he gloried in it.

As for being in communion with God is concerned here and for that matter many other books of the Old Covenant, most of the central characters in those were out of communion with God at some point. The important thing to remember is that in all cases God pulled them all back into line regardless of the predicaments they had made for themselves.

[Carpathian Wolf]

This book explains what was of man kind before Christ. Everything seems in line with me.

[Archaalen]

What is a good source of commentary for biblical reading? I couldn't find any annotated versions (aside from listing variations of the translation) at my local bookstore.

[Cooraan]

I use Matthew Henry's commentary, he gives his impressions on what he's reading as opposed to others that merely translate. You can find it online here http://bible.somd.com/

That site also has some other pretty useful resources as well.

[Helm]

Interestingly the Jews didn't orginally believe in an afterlife back then, God was only to be worshipped in this life and when you're dead he's finished with you. Though of course our understanding of the Divine has advanced since then, unless you're an atheist/materialist of course. You're living in the past, quit living in the past man!

[Archaalen]

Sadly Cooraan, the website you linked to seems to have zero commentary on the Ecclesiastes at all. Any other suggestions?

[Cooraan]

Uhm yes it does. Type in whichever chapter you want and go to the drop down selection next to it, and select Henry commentaries. Henry is known for writing commentary on the entire Bible.

Chapter 1 http://bible.somd.com/henry/H21C001.shtml