Ecclesiastes: Gaining a Better Perspective on What Matters

When I was younger I'd read or heard that Reformer Martin Luther had a problem with the book of Ecclesiastes. He did not believe it belonged in the canon. How many times does its author declare "Vanity of vanities! All is vanity." Or as the NIV translates it:  

“Meaningless! Meaningless!"

 says the Teacher.

“Utterly meaningless!    

Everything is meaningless.”

That's a rather dire starting point. Not a lot of basis for hope there. It would be easy for a scholar, priest or reformer to want to yank it from the sacred texts and leave it in an alley somewhere. 

Now personally, I have found it to be one of my favorite Old Testament books, along with Proverbs and Psalms. And it didn't bother me to be out of sync with Luther on a point of relatively minor contention, so I never gave the matter much thought. It had always been a bit of interesting trivia, nothing more. 

NOW just this past week I came across a blog that dug a little deeper on this matter, and brought to light some facts that weren't highlighted when I first learned of it. The blog is titled Beggars All -- Reformation & Apologetics. The site's subtitle spells out its aim: "Setting the Record Straight on the Protestant Reformation."

The title of the blog post of November 12, 2016 is Luther: "Ecclesiastes ought to have been more complete. There is too much incoherent matter in it..."

Ah, but did Martin Luther really say this? It would appear, digging through the details of James Swan's analysis, that Luther was referring to the apocryphal book of Ecclesiasticus, a.k.a. The Wisdom of Sirach, which is not included in our Protestant Bibles.  

* * * 
One reason Ecclesiastes is a favorite for me personally is that it is so intellectually stimulating. And on another level, it is simply beautiful writing. It is lively prose, and a very direct presentation of true truths that help keep us grounded in a world that promises the moon, sun and stars. 

For those Narcissists who think they're hot stuff, who delight in projecting an image of self-importance, the author offers this reminder:

No one remembers the former generations,
    and even those yet to come
will not be remembered
    by those who follow them.

* * * 
Much has been written about Ecclesiastes. One of the books that caught my eye recently was  David Gibson's Living Life Backward: How Ecclesiastes Teaches Us to Live in Light of the End. I've not read the book (yet) but grasp almost viscerally its central precept.

As reviewer Jesse Green puts it, Live with an understanding and a constant view of death. This may seem morbid but will lead to a joyful life. 

Having lost a few friends recently, and turning seventy soon, the message is utterly relevant. My time on earth is finite. Don't squander it.

Another reviewer's summary similarly goads one to find a copy to read. If Ecclesiastes is a book for our times, then Living Life Backward is the book to unpack it.

* * * 

Jacques Ellul, in his book of meditations on Ecclesiastes, Reason For Being, explores the real meaning of the word translated as vanity in some texts and meaningless in others. Wordsmiths love digging into the roots of words because of the imagery words often evoke. In this case, the first word of the book, after the author's introduction, has been somewhat slippery. Or rather, misty, smokey. The word is hebel which some scholars have translated as vapor.

What I like about that idea is illustrated in C.S. Lewis's wonderful novella, The Great Divorce. The story is about a busload of people who leave earth's shadowlands and are transported to the edge of heaven. Although their bodies seemed so substantial on earth, when they reach heaven they are so vaporous that the grass feels hard when they step on it. 

That's but one picture that comes to mind for me with the word hebel. For scholars who have studied the word's usage in other ancient literature it conveyed mist, smoke and breath. Getting a handle on what the word conveys seems fairly important since it is used no less than 33 times in this book alone.

Ellul suggests that the word is also associated with destiny, that destiny being insignificance, and life is a mist that dissipates as it rises from the ground in the morning sun. Elsewhere in the Old Testament it is translated as something fleeting, deceptive, without result. 

And yet, are our lives really meaningless?  The right way to understand Scripture is in the context of the whole. How does this verse relate in the context of the chapter? And this chapter within the context of the book? And this book in the context of the canon?

They say it is a mark of intelligence to be able to hold two opposing thoughts in our mind simultaneously. On the one hand we are made from dust and to dust we shall return. We are dust. Or vapor, a fleeting mist. On the other hand we are persons created in the image of God. We were designed to reflect that. Therefore every person we meet is worthy of honor or respect. 

Related Links
Ecclesiastes, Chapter One
The Viewpoint of Ecclesiastes: Realism or Cynicism