The Book of Ecclesiastes: Expository Commentary from Evangelistic Sermons by Dr Peter Masters

Bible Commentary on The Book of Ecclesiastes

by Dr Peter Masters, Metropolitan Tabernacle, London (adapted from sermons) with content from Bible Notes

The purpose of the book of Ecclesiastes is to point out the total inadequacy of confining all our attention to the material or non-spiritual aspects of life. It is to demonstrate that there can be no lasting happiness, no fulfilment, and no ultimate purpose in a life lived without God. And the preacher proves his case with a series of striking illustrations.

It is disappointing what even good exegetes say about the Book of Ecclesiastes. They regard it as a book for life – a collection of profound illustrations for life, philosophical questions which Solomon raised, and which in some cases even he did not know the answer to. It is common to see Ecclesiastes as a pessimistic book – it is pessimistic, they say, but it directs us to a positive theme. They call it a theology of contentment – be content with what you have. God’s purposes are unknown and we have to accept human limitation and enjoy what God gives us. The claim made is that the book contradicts itself, and it is regarded as most dismal literature, even by some evangelical writers. Sometimes it is criticised very strongly; some view it as positively agnostic.

Some think Solomon wrote it when driven from his throne in despair. It is commonly seen as written by a number of people; even Luther saw contributions from multiple sources. One writer insists that it must be interpreted in the light of Old Testament revelation. You have to limit yourself to Solomon’s natural theology, his present light in order to read it correctly. It does not distinguish between faith and light, they say. But preaching tradition takes the view it is an evangelistic apologetic. Seminaries seem keen to reject that conclusion. They offer no reason for doing so, yet they are desperate to see it this way even though they then cannot explain the book. The best modern interpretation is that it is a godly man’s reflections on a cursed world. We are not surprised at this: the professional seminarians are not preachers, or regular preachers. They have never been concerned about the winning of souls. Some stress the closing epilogue and that you should see all the book in light of this. But that is a conclusion and you need the main part first. It is not the conclusion of a thesis. That conclusion would be pretty shallow without the book.

Various wrong approaches to the book are:

1. It is a series of enigmas. Life cannot be figured out and we cannot get beyond these enigmas. That would probably be the most common idea about the book.

2. Some think it shows the limits of wisdom, forcing us to accept that we cannot see into the purpose of life.

3. It shows the sovereignty of God and man should simply submit to it. That view says that God’s sovereignty is bullying and unreasonable to man’s tastes.

4. Others see it as no more than moral instruction for Christians. According to this view, the book is not difficult, but unnecessary. Why put straightforward truths in such a hard to understand way?

Almost all evangelicals use one of these views, but they are borrowed from liberals. The old view is that Ecclesiastes is composed of entirely evangelistic reasoning. Solomon reasons with the lost and pleads with them. The enigmatic style serves the evangelistic purpose. Evangelism is a huge surprise and needs to be presented in this way, because the gospel is so foreign to the thinking of the unbeliever. The book uses gospel arguments in the form of enigmas combined with testimony. You will only see the evangelistic content if you see that much of the contents is illustration. It requires you however to read into the illustrations. This is a spiritual book and has more than advisory purpose. It is about the salvation of souls and urging of people to trust in the Lord.

How do we reason with people? Some say all we need are the Three Rs – Ruin, Redemption, Regeneration – but they know little about reasoning with souls. Ecclesiastes is the master class in gospel reasoning. You understand this when you note it is by Solomon, using parables as was his style.

The title, Hebrew ‘Koheleth’, Greek ‘Ecclesiastes’ (from the Septuagint) is taken from the opening words of the book. The word means one who gathers and preaches, or it means the one who is gathered, a minority but attractive view. The latter would fit with the idea that Solomon after being wayward came back to the Lord in an unreserved trust and so refers to himself as the gathered in one. Solomon is not groping his way forward through the darkness of this world even as he writes. He certainly writes as one who has personally experienced the vanity of the world, but he is not in any doubt about the way of escape.

Did Solomon write it? No, say some (even evangelicals), it is probably by Hezekiah or another. So why open the book by saying that Solomon is the author? A literary device, it is said, but that is hardly honest. For a time they said literary considerations point to a time of writing after Solomon, but in recent years all that has been swept away as linguists contradict each other. It is the writing of one who was famous not only in Israel but throughout the known world for his wisdom, which excelled that of all the men of his age (1 Kings 4:30). His proverbs and his songs, his knowledge of plants, animals, birds, and fishes, were such that men came from all across the ancient world to hear him speak, and see for themselves the wisdom that God had given him. So well-known was he that although he does not use his personal name, his identity cannot be in any doubt – his fame had reached such a level that he could not fail to be known to his readers.

But if Solomon is the author of this book when did he write it? We know that early in his life he loved the Lord (1 Kings 3:3) and that the Lord appeared to him and gave him a conspicuous blessing, resulting in his widespread reputation for wisdom in surrounding kingdoms. We know also that when he was older, he loved many foreign women who turned his heart away from the Lord to serve other gods (1 Kings 11:1-10). The book of Kings brings us to the end of Solomon’s life and reign with no record of his repentance and restoration to the Lord. Ecclesiastes however is written from the perspective of one who looks back on a life full of experiences, including the very evils that Solomon is reported to have fallen into (Ecclesiastes 1 & 2; 7:26). It records how he had had time to engage in extensive building projects (Ecclesiastes 2:4). We know that the building of the temple took seven years (1 Kings 6:1, 38), and his own house took a further thirteen years (1 Kings 7:1). Besides these he built the House of the Forest of Lebanon (1 Kings 7:2), a house built for Pharaoh’s daughter (1 Kings 7:8), and 1 Kings 9 lists the Millo, the wall of Jerusalem, Hazor, Megiddo and Gezer, Lower Bethhoron, Baalath and Tadmor as further building projects. Furthermore, he speaks of old age in chapter 12 in a way that suggests personal experience. Therefore, although the historical books do not record his repentance, many understand Ecclesiastes to be the words of Solomon after he had humbled himself and returned to the Lord, having tasted the bitterness of sin and repudiated it. This repentance is also indicated by the word of the Lord given to David, ‘I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men: But my mercy shall not depart away from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee’ (2 Samuel 7:12-15).