I’m doing a four-lesson series this fall on Ecclesiastes. I did one class on Ecclesiastes last year, but I’ve never done a series.
Right now, I have the view that Ecclesiastes has to be taken as a whole. I know that there are lots of neat passages in Ecclesiastes, like “There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under heaven.” However, I think that Ecclesiastes describes a man’s spiritual journey. Along the way, he lays out some of his own ideas, like “And I declared that the dead, who had already died, are happier than the living, who are still alive. But better than both is he who has not yet been, who has not seen the evil that is done under the sun.” (Ecclesiastes 4:2-3) Someone might say, “The Bible teaches that it is better to never have existed.” I say, “The Bible tells us about a man that said that once.”
We read Job and understand that much of what is said in the first chapters isn’t correct. We read Psalm 73 and recognize that the author expresses frustrations in the first part of the psalm that don’t coincide with his current views. I believe that parts of Ecclesiastes faithfully records the spiritual journey of a man who, in the final chapters, comes to recognize that in the end what matters is fearing God, obeying him and preparing ourselves for judgment. So much of what is said in the first chapters seems to fail to take into account the idea of life after death, the idea of eternity. This leads to a despairing view of the futility of life. In the end, the writer gains a little more perspective.
Those are my current thoughts on Ecclesiastes, but I’m early in my study. What do you think? Is everything in the book a pronouncement from God? Or do parts of the book reflect human thinking?
I don’t believe everything written in the Bible is a pronouncement from God – since some things people said contradicted what He always taught men to do. I believe you are correct in stating that Ecclesiastes is relating a wise man’s thinking of his life and relationships therein. We can, and should learn, from other men’s living or failure to live as God would have them do. God is so wise (well, yes, I know that is an understatement) to allow us to see how other people can fail, and thus we may fail, but we can get back to Him.
In Christ Plays in 10,000 Places, Eugene Peterson strives mightily to help his readers grasp the deep power and meaning of the phrase fear-of-the-Lord. Since that idea is at the heart of everything The Teacher writes, and since wrong-headed understandings of that idea inform far too many people’s view of God, I’d recommend spending some time unpacking fear-of-the-Lord for your class.
Thanks Jeanne. I hear “the Bible sez” misused all too often.
I agree… and would love to hear your thoughts on what the fear of God means.
One example I’ve used is electricity… I fear electricity in the sense that I’m not going to stick a fork in a socket, not in the sense that I tremble all day because there are electric wires in the walls and ceiling. That’s a simplistic explanation, but to me it gets us on the right path. Fear is respect. Fear of God is reverent, obedient respect.
What other thoughts would you bring out?
This is not really a “Thus saith the Lord” type of book, or even what I would call an instructional book. I agree with your premise that it should be approached as a whole, rather than in scripture snippets.
The questions I have pondered reading Ecclesiates are”Where am I in this journey?” and “How does one get from where he is in the early chapters to the realizations of the ending chapters?” The vivid pictures in the early chapters reveal where so many people are, and those pictures are not exhaustive. The challenge of this is how we come to our own realizations that God is in the center of everything. That is easy to say…tough to do.
This should be an interesting study!
Donnie,
I agree, it should be interesting. I’m presenting it in a series of lectures in Spanish at the Harding Lectureship. It’s enough out of my comfort zone that I want to start thinking about these things now.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Context,
Context,
Context,
Context…….. :p
“A text without a context is a proof text for a pretext.” I always liked that little phrase. It’s funny how often I quote something quickly without worrying about context, however.
Tim,
Like you, I think you must take Ecclesiastes as a whole. Ecclesiasted engages people who (1)have an unhealthy view of money; (2) believe that if they have God and men figured out; (3) work hard to their detriment; (4) despise the poor and the servants because of what their position in life says about them; (5) and take too literal the interpretation of the proverbs. I highly recommend that you get The Anchor Bible Series commentary on Ecclesiastes written by Choon-Leong Seow. It is great! Scholarly (like you would expect from Anchor) yet readable (which you might not always get from Anchor).
Thanks Richard! I actually meant to ask for resources. That’s a valuable recommendation.
Pingback: Ecclesiastes: Under the sun | TimothyArcher.com/Kitchen
Pingback: Ecclesiastes: Money is the answer for everything! | TimothyArcher.com/Kitchen