Ecclesiastes

I've started preaching through Ecclesiastes and expect to preach on it at least through Easter, maybe a few weeks more.  You can check out the commentaries and books I'm using on the left sidebar part way down.  Some are more helpful than others and I'm not "clicking" with any of them totally.  At least not yet.

Who wrote Ecclesiastes?  Ecclesiastes says it's "Qohelet" or the "assembler" probably pointing to 1 Kings 8 where Solomon gathers God's people at the Temple dedication.  It's a "Son of David" and a "King in Jerusalem" according to 1:1.  A lot of evidence points to Solomon, and most of the conservative, pastoral writers say it's Solomon.   

Many of the commentators say someone else borrowing the voice of Solomon.  I don't think we must say it's Solomonic since the writer of Ecclesiastes doesn't make that explicit claim, but I haven't read anyone who denies the fact that we are intended to have Solomon in mind.  And I wonder if Solomon would purposefully keep his name off the writing (though not his identity) because of how he lived his life as an idolater (1 Kings 11).

We need to keep our "solas" in place here and only demand what Scripture claims, but I don't see any problem with believing the writer is Solomon.  Sure there are internal reasons to wonder, like shifting from a "framers" perspective (Eccl 1:1-11, 12:8-14) to Qohelet's perspective.  But why must this mean dual authorship or the framing of someone else's writings?  As Peter Leithart writes on his blog about commentators who rejects Solomonic authorship: "The imagination of the commentator has not come near to reckoning with the imagination of the speaker."  In other words, it could very well be Solomon creatively writing for impact.  Why must we assume other authors/framers?

Solomon speaks much of life "under the sun."  To me it clearly points us to Genesis 3 where God is explaining what life is going to be like after the fall.  With Adam we hear there is going to be toil (hard work, even misery) and sweat.  Under the sun + toil = sweat.  Nice imagery in the linking of these writings. 

I think Ecclesiastes is about the best efforts of the best man with every privilege to make sense out of life under the sun (after the fall).  And last Sunday I told my people that the only hope we have "under the sun" is to know the One "beyond the sun."

Comments

[Tim Sharpe]

The problems I have with Solomonic authorship come from some of the references in Ecc 1:12-18. First, in 1:12, Qohelet says that he "has been" or "was" king. Solomon never ceased to be king after his coronation. Secondly, 1:16 refers to "all who ruled in Jerusalem before me." The only person to rule in Jerusalem other than Solomon is David (Saul did not rule in Jerusalem).

Not that any of that really matters. I think the one author theory is a little hard to square with the affirmations of Qohelet's words in Ecc 12. It just seems unnecessary if Qohelet is just a literary invention.

[jason woolever]

I get "Preaching Today" tapes. A couple of months ago, they sent us Mark Driscoll's opening sermon on Ecclesiastes. It was good. Have you heard it Steve?

Are you a verse by verse preacher? What's your style? I've considered preaching through Ecclesiastes but I was afraid it might become the say "everything but God sucks" sermon every week. What approach are you taking?

[Ted Gossard]

I like Provan's take on Ecclesiastes, though I'm a little suspicious because for me it seems too good to be true. Especially when scholars like Fox (and Longman III) (I think his name is) go with the more pessimistic take. I'm inclined to think that Provan has something there. "hebel" for Provan is not "meaningless" he argues but "fleeting", "pointless", "futile" (depending on context): the normal way of fallen humanity in a fallen world. In contrast to the good life God can give, "under the sun", no less.

[Ted Gossard]

I think his name is. I meant Fox

[Steve McCoy]

Ted, I agree with his take on hebel, though I'm not against seeing "meaningless" as helpful. "Vapor" or "futile" are the words I've used most. ESV is "vanity" and I'm not happy about that.

[Steve McCoy]

Jason, love Driscoll's stuff. He basically says that Ecclesiastes is the Genesis story in action, and is about God making us frustrated so that we will find Him. Great stuff.

[Ted Gossard]

yes "vapor"; I forgot.

[Michael Foster]

Ray Stedman has a great overview of the book at www.pbc.org somewhere...He says that Ecclesiastes is inspired error?

[Scot McKnight]

Steve,
I've long been impressed by the last few verses being so classically deuteronomic that one wonders if it is all a set-up. What do you think of that?

What about Tremper Longman's commentary?

[Kevin Cawley]

Steve,

Robert Johnston's book, Useless Beauty, puts several contemporary films in dialogue with Ecclesiastes. He also has some good introductory comments on the book and his take on the various interpretative schemas. I don't agree with all of the book, but it is a delight to read-- and provides some exciting dialogue with film.

[Steve McCoy]

Thanks Kevin. I'll definitely check it out.

[David Phillips]

Scott,

I'm preaching through the book the entire year, except that instead of preaching through the book, I'm extracting the themes as well and dealing with those as a series within a series. For example, I just finished 1:12-2:26 talking about meaning in life. I'm doing a short 2 part series on the Sovereignty of God. I'll begin with an overview of the topic this week - unless it snows us out here in Delaware - and then next week I'll look at the issue in 3:1-15.

The best commentary I have on the book - and I took Ecc in Hebrew with Rick Byargeon at NOBTS in 95 - is the Communicator's Commentary - Vol. 16 by David Hubbard. As good as Word Biblical, NIV Application, Fox, etc. The best I've got and I've about 10 of them.

BTW...Byargeon did his dissertation on Ecclesistes - the idea of "Nothing is Better". I have it. If you want to look through it, I could probably scan it as a pdf - multiple files - and get it to you.

[David Phillips]

Steve,

I called you Scott...I'm so confused tonight!

Sorry man...

[jason]

I also have found Johnston's book interesting and helpful. But I'm a bit of a cinema junky.