Commentary on the book of Ecclesiastes, or the Preacher

Chapter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 The book of Ecclesiastes, as can be seen from its beginning, contains the words of Ecclesiastes, the son of David, king in Jerusalem. Since only one son of David was king, namely Solomon, it is obvious that this last one is called Ecclesiastes here. Solomon was distinguished by great wisdom and, as the creator of many edifying parables, was a teacher of the people. He appears with such a character in this book. He “was wise, he also taught knowledge to the people,” notes the writer of the book in Ecclesiastes 12.9. According to this trait, Solomon was given the Hebrew name Kohelet. It comes from the root kahal, which in verbal form means: to convene, to gather (Greek έκκαλέο), cf. Lion. 8:3; Numbers 1.18; Deut. 4.10, etc., in the form of a noun name (like Greek έκκλησία) 1 meeting in general, religious meeting in particular, eg Num 10.7; Ps 21.23, 34.18; Nehemiah 5.7 etc. Hence Heb. koheleth, like the Greek. έκκλησιαστής means: convener of a meeting, speaker in a meeting, church speaker, preacher. This name for Solomon could have been given a particular reason for the highly significant fact described in 1 Kings 8 (cf. 2 Chronicles 5–6), when Solomon, at the consecration of his church, having convened (jakhel) the Israelites, said his most wonderful prayer for the sending of God’s mercy to all who came to the church, both the Jewish people and foreigners, then, blessing the assembly (kahal), he addressed him with a speech in which he prayed to God that He would direct the hearts of the people to preserve the statutes and keep the commandments. Here, therefore, in a visual, tactile form, Solomon appeared what he was for his people in all subsequent times, that is, a kohelet, a preacher. The feminine form of the Hebrew name indicates either the implied noun chokma (wisdom), or, more likely, the official mission of Solomon as a people's teacher, since names denoting office often took the feminine form among the Jews. Probably, in this way, the symbolic name of Solomon - Kohelet - (Ecclesiastes) formed gave the name to the book itself. The entire content of the book of Ecclesiastes serves as an answer to the question: what is happiness on earth, is complete, perfect happiness possible for a person (Eccl. 1.3, 3.9, 5.15, 6.11)? To this question Ecclesiastes gives the most emphatic answer in the negative. Ithron - this is what he calls perfect happiness - in contrast to temporary and fleeting joys - is impossible for humans. Nothing in the world and in a person’s life can give such happiness. From here everything is vanity, everything is insignificant and useless. “Vanity of vanities, all is vanity.” This is the conclusion that Ecclesiastes came to through long and difficult searches, and which he equally decisively expresses both at the beginning and at the end of the book (Eccl. 1.2, 12.8). But why is absolute happiness unattainable, why does everything, in this sense, turn out to be useless and vain? The reason for this is that everything in the world is subject to unchanging and, at the same time, monotonous laws and, as a result, is in constant rotation, giving nothing new, nothing that could even in the future ensure the achievement of Ithron (Eccl. 1.4-11). Movement not forward, but around, a non-progressive circulation is observed not only in external nature, but also in human life, where mental phenomena alternate with the same sequence as natural phenomena, depend just as little on the will of man, where there is also a time for everything (Eccl. 3.1–8). This inevitability of the natural course of things, the powerlessness of the human will to change its direction, to subjugate it, makes the happiness available to man fragile, fickle, accidental, and fleeting. A person cannot guarantee for one minute that happiness will not betray him. Of course, such happiness is not Ithron. Then examining particular cases from his own life and the lives of people, Ecclesiastes becomes even more convinced that nothing can give a person true happiness. Wisdom? – But it brings torment to people, revealing both in the world and in man the ugliness and insignificance, hiding behind visible beauty and expediency, giving birth in a person to a heavy consciousness of the limitations of his mind and the incomprehensibility of everything that exists (Eccl. 1.13-18). Carefree fun, enjoying all sorts of pleasures and entertainment? – But it leaves in a person’s soul a painful feeling of emptiness and meaninglessness (Eccl. 2.1–2). The joy of work, varied activities? – But they fade from the consciousness of the insignificance and randomness of the results of labor (Eccl. 2.4–11). The latter depend not so much on the person himself, his talents and energy, but on time and chance (Eccl. 9.11). The good of eating and drinking does not depend on man (Eccl. 2.24). Wealth? – But it does not actually belong to man, but to life. Upon the death of the owner, it passes to the heir, who may turn out to be stupid and abuse the inheritance (Eccl. 2.18–19). And during their lifetime, the rich often feel lonely, tormented by envy, strife, greed (Eccl 4.4–8, 6.1–6) or suddenly lose wealth (Eccl 5.10–16). But over all these human sorrows and vicissitudes reigns the greatest evil - death, which equally strikes both the wise and the foolish (Eccl. 2.14-16), and the righteous and the wicked (Eccl. 9.1-3), thus destroying any difference between people and making their happiness illusory. And what follows death, the state in Sheol, is life without knowledge, reflection, without love, hope and hatred, life, in comparison with which even a sad earthly existence is good, since a living dog is better than a dead lion (Eccl. 9.4–6.10). Where death reigns, there can be no happiness. But what follows from this? Should a person come to gloomy despondency, to a conscious disgust for a life that so mercilessly crushes all dreams of happiness? No! Where, apparently, extreme pessimism should have hung like a hopeless fog, for Ecclesiastes there shone a living hope for the possibility of some happiness, faith in some value of life. Ithron - perfect happiness for Ecclesiastes still remained unattainable, but he found in life comparative good, relative happiness, something that we can confidently say is something better. In place of the unattainable Ithron is the possible for man Tob. What is this Tob? To understand and be able to achieve this Tob, for this it is necessary to look at the world and human life from a completely new point of view, from a religious point of view, it is necessary to replace world consciousness with God-consciousness, the living consciousness of the Divine force operating in the world. Everything in the world is subject to known unchanging laws, but these laws are nothing more than an expression of the Divine will. Man depends not on blind fate, but on Divine Providence. Everything is from the hand of God. Without it, a person cannot even eat and drink (Eccl. 2.24–26). Man is not able to argue with God (Eccl 6.10) or change what God does (Eccl 3.14; cf. Eccl 7.13). He does not know the ways of God (Eccl 3.16–17), does not know the future or the goals of the present (Eccl 3.11, 11.5, 7.14). Although God's ways are incomprehensible, they cannot be unjust. God will reward everyone according to their deserts, reward those who fear Him and punish the wicked (Eccl. 8.12–13). As soon as a person begins to look at the world from a religious point of view, his mood changes radically. Convinced that the fate of man is in the hands of God (Eccl 9.1), he leaves all restless worries and fearful expectations of the future, all irritation, grief and annoyance (Eccl 5.16), which, leading nowhere, spoil the present, poison all joys, and sees the surest means of ensuring the future in acquiring God’s mercy with heartfelt prayer, reverent performance of rituals, observance commandments and vows (Eccl 4.17, 5.4). Calm for the future, he serenely enjoys the joys that God sends him (Eccl. 7.14). He eats his bread with joy, drinks his wine with joy, considering both to be the gift of God (Eccl. 9.7, 3.13). He enjoys life with his wife, whom God has given him for all the vain days under the sun (Eccl. 9.9). At all times his clothes are light, and the oil on his head does not fail (Eccl. 9.8). The light is sweet to him and the sun is pleasant to him (Eccl. 11.7). If God sends him misfortune, he reflects (Eccl. 7.14) and reconciles with it, fully convinced of the expediency and justice of Divine providence, in the educational and cleansing power of suffering. Knowing that when the face is sad, the heart is pleased (Eccl. 7.3), he deliberately seeks what arouses sadness. He prefers the day of death to the day of birth, the house of mourning to the feast, lamentation to laughter, the reproof of the wise to the songs of fools (Eccl. 7.1–6). In his attitude towards people, he is imbued with a feeling of gentleness, condescension, and goodwill. He seeks moral unity with people, knowing that two are better than one (Eccl. 4.9–10). Confident that his fate also depends on the fate of other people, he contributes in every possible way to their well-being, generously distributing his property (Eccl. 11.1–2). This state of mind, when a person, having completely surrendered himself to Divine Providence, serenely enjoys life, calmly and safely enduring all the trials sent to him, is the only happiness possible for him, his Tob. But this happiness is not complete; it cannot fully satisfy the desire for eternal happiness invested in a person (Eccl. 3.10–11). Itron is unattainable. All is vanity and vexation of spirit. This is the result that Ecclesiastes arrived at. With his teaching about Sheol, 2 with his vague idea of ​​\u200b\u200bthe judgment of God, with his complete ignorance of the resurrection of the dead, Ecclesiastes could not come to a different conclusion. He sought perfect happiness “under the sun,” that is, within the confines of earthly existence, but it could not be there. Below you can outline one of the versions (not indisputable, of course) about the origin and time of writing of the book of Ecclesiastes. The book of Ecclesiastes in its inscription (Eccl 1.1) is adopted by Solomon. But the inscription of a book in itself does not finally and unconditionally resolve the question of its writer. In ancient times it was the custom to reproduce the thoughts and feelings of remarkable historical figures in colloquial or poetic form. This was a kind of literary device, a special literary form in which the author, caring about the identity of the spirit, and not the identity of the letter, took only a general thought from history, subjecting it to independent development. An example of such a unique presentation of prophetic speeches can be found in the books of Kings and Chronicles. Some features of the book of Ecclesiastes convince us that in it we are dealing with a similar literary device. First of all, the language of the book shows beyond doubt that it appeared after the Babylonian captivity, when the Hebrew language lost its purity and received a strong Aramaic coloring. The book of Ecclesiastes is filled with Aramaisms, even more so than the books of Ezra and Nehemiah and other post-exilic works, contains many abstract and philosophical expressions, and even has something in common with Talmudic usage (see features of the language in M. Olesnitsky, Book of Ecclesiastes, pp. 156–157). One researcher is right when he says that if Solomon had written the book of Ecclesiastes, there would be no history of the Hebrew language. In any case, then it would be impossible for Solomon to assimilate the book of Proverbs. And in the very contents of the book we will find many signs of its later editing. Ecclesiastes says about himself: “I was king over Israel in Jerusalem” (Ecclesiastes 1.12). Before Solomon, only one David was king in Jerusalem, therefore, during Solomon’s life it was impossible to talk about all the former kings in Jerusalem. According to Ecclesiastes 2.3–9, it seems that Solomon indulged in drinking wine and various creative and accumulative activities for the sake of philosophical experiments based on ideal motives. Speaking about the religious shortcomings of modern society, our book is completely silent about idolatry, but notes the Pharisee, soulless performance of rituals (Eccl. 4.17, 5.1, etc.). It was during the heyday of Solomon’s reign that the maximum glorification of God the Almighty, about which the prophet Malachi often spoke, occurred. The warning against compiling and reading many books was also unclear for Solomon’s time (Eccl. 12.12). The very content of the book, complaints about the vanity of everything, a general feeling of dissatisfaction, an exhortation not to succumb to gloomy despondency, to be content with little in life. This probably expresses the general dissatisfaction of the post-captivity period, general fatigue in the constant struggle with difficult political and socio-economic living conditions. “Do not say why the former days were better than these,” Ecclesiastes instructs. In no other era has this been said so often as after Captivity. All this prompts us to admit that the book of Ecclesiastes was edited by a person who lived in the post-exilic period. Metropolitan Philaret already admitted some doubt about her belonging to Solomon. “Unfortunately,” he wrote, “Solomon’s conversion is not as reliable as his error. The book of Ecclesiastes, apparently, is a monument to his repentance” (Outline of church-biblical history. Ed. 9. pp. 230–231). As can be seen from the contents of the book and from the historical circumstances of its appearance, the goal that its writer set for himself was to console his contemporaries who were falling into despondency, on the one hand, by clarifying the vanity and corruption of everything earthly, on the other hand, by indicating a means and, under the existing difficult conditions, to create a more or less tolerable existence. This means consisted in living, working, enjoying all available joys, every minute, so to speak, feeling one’s dependence on Divine Providence and in it drawing for oneself a source of moral courage and peace of mind. This purpose of the book, as well as all its contents, which are completely consistent with the revealed Old Testament teaching, do not give any reason to doubt the canonical dignity of the book. If some ancient rabbis, and after them Christian writers (for example, Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen) are completely silent about the book of Ecclesiastes and doubt the canonical dignity of the book, this is explained by the fact that they took and interpreted some passages that seduced them fragmentarily, without connection with the general content of the book, and as a result of this they found in them signs of epicureanism, fatalism and pessimism. Nothing like this appears in the book if it is understood correctly. Greek ἐκκλησία and lat. concilium have a common root with Hebrew. kahal. SHEOL (Heb., possibly "questioned", "unsearchable"; in Greek translated as "sheol", "hell", sometimes as "grave"), in Jewish mythology the kingdom of the dead, the afterlife, the "lower" or "inferior" world, opposed to heaven (Ps 138.8; Am 9.2; Job 11.8). Sheol appears to be an animate creature, a terrible monster, in many ways similar to Tiamat in Akkadian mythology. Sheol swallows the dead, closing her gigantic jaws over them, the womb of Sheol is eternally insatiable, and his soul expands and worries in anticipation of prey (Isa 5.14, 14.9; Hab 2.5; Ps 140.7; Proverbs 27.20; Job). 24.19). Various names for Sheol are “land of silence”, “land of oblivion”, “valley of the shadow of death”, “destruction” (cf. Abaddon), “lower world”, “source of destruction”, “gate of death” (Ps 22.4, 106.18, etc.). Early biblical texts view Sheol as the dwelling place of all the dead (Gen 37.35 and Gen 44.31). Only the most terrible sinners, such as Korah, who dared to rebel against Moses himself, fall through the earth and descend to Sheol alive (Num. 16.30–33; cf. Ps. 55.16; Prov. 1.12). Later, however, ideas about Sheol spread as a place of imprisonment and punishment of sinful souls, who during their lifetime “became like animals” (Ps 48.15). The souls of the wicked imprisoned in Sheol experience torment: they are “shackled with sorrow and iron”, they are in impenetrable darkness, in chaotic “disorder” (Ps 17.6, 106.10; Job 10.21–22). According to the prophetic books, the criminal tyrant kings in Sheol are eaten alive by worms (Is 14.5–20; Eze 32.21–27). The dark forces of Sheol take possession of the opponents of God while they are still alive, the “firstborn of death” attacks them and reduces them to the demonic “king of horrors” (Job 18.13–14). Misanthropes in Sheol are given over to the fire of God’s wrath (Deut. 32.22; Isa. 66.24), while God “brings down ordinary sinners to Sheol and raises them up” (1 Sam. 2.6), having cleansed them of their sins with punishment. In addition to dead sinners, Sheol is inhabited by rephaim, evil spirits “shedim,” as well as “tormenting angels.” In the Old Testament apocrypha, Sheol is often identified with Gehenna; it appears as a “fiery abyss” where flaming rivers flow to “heal the spirit” of sinners (“Book of Enoch” 10 and 61:8; 3rd Book of Ezra 7). The “Charter” of the Qumran community mentions “the shame of dying in the fire of dark regions,” which is the opposite of “life in eternal light.” According to Talmudic legends, Sheol is not located underground, but as if in another space, behind the “mountains of darkness,” so that paradise is visible from Sheol, and vice versa (“Erubin” 32). Sheol is likened to a “fiery sword” guarding the path to the tree of life (cf. Gen. 3.24), so that the wicked do not join eternity and thereby perpetuate evil. There are three gates leading to Sheol: one near Jerusalem, the second in the desert, and the third at the bottom of the sea; at the same time, Sheol has 40 thousand entrances and is 60 times larger than paradise and 3600 times larger than the globe (“Taanit” 10a). Travelers approaching the gates of Sheol by sea or in the desert hear the heartbreaking cries of the sinners tormented there (“Shevet Musar” 26). Sheol consists of seven compartments (a prototype of the “circles of hell” in Christian views), and in each subsequent fire is 61 times hotter than in the previous one. The depth of each compartment is 300 years of walking (“Sota” 10). Sheol is a kind of purgatory, and torment in it only helps to get rid of anger and impurity. Only inveterate sinners suffer in Sheol for more than a year, and the soul spends half of this purifying period in fire and half in ice (“Berachot” 28; “Yalkut Devarim” Ecclesiastes 8.92). The types of punishments in Sheol symbolize the sins they punish. A river of fire comes from under the Throne of Glory and, having bypassed the universe, descends on sinners in Sheol (Aven-Ezra's Commentary on Dan 7.9–10). The most criminal souls, sent into “exile” to the two icy mountains, secretly bring snow from there and scatter it around, reducing the power of the flame, and thereby manage to sin even in Sheol. On Saturday and other holidays, souls are freed from the torment of Sheol. In the future (eschatological times), the great Archangels Michael and Gabriel, sent by God, will open the gates of Sheol and “lead out by the hand” all those who have failed there (Masechat Gihenom to 26:19). You might be interested in: