Three Philosophies Of Life Part 1

THREE PHILOSOPHIES OF LIFE.

by PETER KREEFT.

INTRODUCTION.

The Inexhaustibility of Wisdom Literature.

I have been a philosopher for all of my adult life, and the three most profound books of philosophy that I have ever read are Ecclesiastes, Job, and Song of Songs. In fact, the book that first made me a philosopher, at about age fifteen, was Ecclesiastes.

Books of philosophy can be cla.s.sified in many ways: ancient versus modern, Eastern versus Western, optimistic versus pessimistic, theistic versus atheistic, rationalistic versus irrationalistic, monistic versus pluralistic, and many others. But the most important distinction of all, says Gabriel Marcel, is between "the full" and "the empty", the solid and the shallow, the profound and the trivial. When you have read all the books in all the libraries of the world, when you have accompanied all the world's sages on all their journeys into wisdom, you will not have found three more profound books than Ecclesiastes, Job, and Song of Songs.

These three books are literally inexhaustible. They brim with a mysterious power of renewal. I continually find new nourishment in rereading them, and I never tire of teaching them. They quintessentially exemplify my definition of a cla.s.sic. A cla.s.sic is like a cow: it gives fresh milk every morning. A cla.s.sic is a book that rewards endlessly repeated rereading. A cla.s.sic is like the morning, like nature herself: ever young, ever renewing. No, not even like nature, for she, like us, is doomed to die. Only G.o.d is ever young, and only the Book he inspired never grows old.

When G.o.d wanted to inspire some philosophy, why would he inspire anything but the best? But the best is not necessarily the most sophisticated. Plato says, in the Ion Ion, that the G.o.ds deliberately chose the poorest poets to inspire the greatest poems so that the glory would be theirs, not man's. It is exactly what Saint Paul says in 1 Corinthians. And we see this principle at work throughout the Bible: the striking contrast between the primitiveness of the poet and the profundity of the poem, between the smallness of the singer and the greatness of the song, between the absence of humanys,istication and the presence of divine sophia sophia, divine wisdom. Something is always breaking through breaking through the words, something you can never fully grasp but also never fully miss if only you stand there with uncovered soul. Stand in the divine rain, and seeds of wisdom will grow in your soul. the words, something you can never fully grasp but also never fully miss if only you stand there with uncovered soul. Stand in the divine rain, and seeds of wisdom will grow in your soul.

Three Philosophies of Life.

There are ultimately only three philosophies of life, and each one is represented by one of the following books of the Bible: 1.Life as vanity; Ecclesiastes.

2.Life as suffering: Job.

3.Life as love: Song of Songs.

No more perfect or profound book has ever been written for any one of these three philosophies of life. Ecclesiastes is the all-time cla.s.sic of vanity. Job is the all-time cla.s.sic of suffering. And Song of Songs is the all-time cla.s.sic of love.

The reason these are the only three possible philosophies of life is because they represent the only three places or conditions in which we can be. Ecclesiastes'"vanity" represents h.e.l.l. Job's suffering represents Purgatory.1 And Song of Songs' love represents Heaven. All three conditions begin here and now on earth. As C.S. Lewis put it, "All that seems earth is h.e.l.l or Heaven." It is a shattering line, and Lewis added this one to it: "Lord, open not too often my weak eyes to this." And Song of Songs' love represents Heaven. All three conditions begin here and now on earth. As C.S. Lewis put it, "All that seems earth is h.e.l.l or Heaven." It is a shattering line, and Lewis added this one to it: "Lord, open not too often my weak eyes to this."

The essence of h.e.l.l is not suffering but vanity, not pain but purposelessness, not physical suffering but spiritual suffering. Dante was right to have the sign over h.e.l.l's gate read: "Abandon all hope, ye who enter here."

Suffering is not the essence of h.e.l.l, because suffering can be hopeful. It was for Job. Job never lost his faith and his hope (which is faith directed at the future), and his suffering proved to be purifying, purgative, educational: it gave him eyes to see G.o.d. That is why we are all on earth.

Finally, Heaven is is love, for Heaven is essentially the presence of G.o.d, and G.o.d is essentially love. ("G.o.d love, for Heaven is essentially the presence of G.o.d, and G.o.d is essentially love. ("G.o.d is is love.") love.") Three Metaphysical Moods.

Heidegger begins one of his most haunting books with the most haunting question: "Why is there anything rather than nothing?" He speaks of three moods that raise this great question. They are three metaphysical moods, three moods that reveal not just the feelings of the individual but also the meanings of being. And these three are the three metaphysical moods that give rise to the three philosophies of life that we find in Ecclesiastes, Job, and Song of Songs. Heidegger says, "Why is there anything rather than nothing?"...Many men never encounter this question, if by encounter we mean not merely to hear and read about it as an interrogative formulation but to ask the question, that is, to bring it about, to raise it, to feel its inevitability.And yet each of us is grazed at least once, perhaps more than once, by the hidden power of this question, even if he is not aware of what is happening to him. The question looms in moments of great despair, when things tend to lose all their weight and all meaning becomes obscured. Perhaps it will strike but once like a m.u.f.fled bell that rings into our life and gradually dies away. It is present in moments of rejoicing, when all the things around us are transfigured and seem to be there for the first time, as if it might be easier to think they arc not than to understand that they are and are as they are. The question is upon us in boredom, when we are equally removed from despair and joy, and everything about us seems so hopelessly commonplace that we no longer care whether anything is or is not-and with this the question "Why is there anything rather than nothing?" is evoked in a particular form.But this question may be asked expressly, or, unrecognized as a question, it may merely pa.s.s through our lives like a brief gust of wind.

Despair is Job's mood. His suffering is not only bodily but also spiritual. What has he to look forward to except death? He has lost everything, even G.o.d-especially G.o.d, it seems.

Joy is the mood of love, young love, new love, "falling in love". That is the wonder in Song of Songs: that the beloved should be be; that life should be be; that anything, now all lit by the new light of love, should be be-as mysterious a glory as it was to Job a mysterious burden.

Boredom is the mood of Ecclesiastes. It is a modern mood. Indeed, there is no word for it in any ancient language! In this mood, there is neither a reason to die, as in Job, nor a reason to live, as in Song of Songs. This is the deepest pit of all.

Three Theological Virtues.

These three books also teach the three greatest things in the world, the three "theological virtues": faith, hope, and charity.

The lesson Ecclesiastes teaches is faith, the necessity of faith, by showing the utter vanity, the emptiness, of life without faith. Ecclesiastes uses only reason, human experience, and sense observation of life "under the sun" as instruments to see and think with; he does not add the eye of faith; and this is not enough to save him from the inevitable conclusion of "vanity of vanities". Then the postscript to the book, in the last few verses, speaks the word of faith. This is not proved by reason or sense observation, as in the rest of the book. This word of faith is the only one big enough to fill the silence of vanity. The word that answers Ecclesiastes' quest and gives the true answer to the question of the meaning of life is known only by faith: "Fear G.o.d and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man. For G.o.d will bring every deed into judgment, with every secret thing, whether good or evil."

Ecclesiastes has intellectual faith; he believes G.o.d exists. But that is not enough. "The demons also believe, and tremble" (James 2:19). Ecclesiastes proves the need for real faith, true faith, lived faith, saving faith, by showing the consequences of its absence, even in the presence of intellectual faith.

Job's lesson is hope. Job has nothing else but hope. Everything else is taken away from him. But hope alone enables him to endure and to triumph.

Song of Songs is wholly about love, the ultimate meaning of life, the greatest thing in the world.

These three books also give us an essential summary of the spiritual history of the world. G. Chesterton did that in three sentences: "Paganism was the biggest thing in the world, and Christianity was bigger, and everything since has been comparatively small." Job shows us the heights of pre-Christian hope and heroism. It is not strictly pagan, of course, but it is not yet Christian. Song of Songs shows us the spiritual center of the Christian era, the era the modern secular establishment has told such incredible lies about, the Middle Ages. Finally, Ecclesiastes tells us the truth about the modern, post-Christian world and world view: once the divine Lover's marriage offer is spurned, the modern divorcee cannot simply return to being a pagan virgin, any more than an individual who spurns Heaven and chooses h.e.l.l can make h.e.l.l into Purgatory, hopelessness into hope.

"The Divine Comedy" before Dante.

In these three books of the Bible we have Dante's great epic The Divine Comedy The Divine Comedy played out, from h.e.l.l to Purgatory to Heaven. But it is played out in our hearts and lives, not externalized into cosmic places, circles, stairs, and airs. And it is played out here and now, as seeds, though it is completed after death, as flowers. played out, from h.e.l.l to Purgatory to Heaven. But it is played out in our hearts and lives, not externalized into cosmic places, circles, stairs, and airs. And it is played out here and now, as seeds, though it is completed after death, as flowers.

There is movement between these three books, just as there is in The Divine Comedy The Divine Comedy. First, there is movement from Ecclesiastes to Job, like Dante's movement from h.e.l.l to Purgatory. This is found in the last two verses of Ecclesiastes. The conclusion of the rest of Ecclesiastes is "vanity", but the conclusion of the last two verses is: "Fear G.o.d and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man. For G.o.d will bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether good or evil." This is precisely the philosophy Job lives, and the result is that Job finds G.o.d and moves through Purgatory to Heaven.

And this is the second movement: from Job to Song of Songs. It takes place at the end of Job, when Job finally sees G.o.d's face. Ecclesiastes is the sunset, the end of hope; Job is the night with hope of morning; Song of Songs is the morning, which already begins to dawn at the end of job. Song of Songs begins when G.o.d appears to Job, for where G.o.d is, there is love.

Love is the final answer to Ecclesiastes' quest, the alternative to vanity, and the meaning of life. But we cannot appreciate it until we look deeply at the question. This question is more than a question; it is a quest, a lived question. Scripture invites us on this quest, this journey through the night to the Rising Son. It is life's greatest journey. Will you climb aboard the great old ark of the Bible with me? I will try to call out to you what I see as we take this journey together. For that is really all a teacher can do.

ECCLESIASTES:.

Life as Vanity

The Greatness of Ecclesiastes.

The Bible is the greatest of books, and Ecclesiastes is the only book of philosophy, pure philosophy, mere philosophy, in the Bible. It is no surprise, then, that Ecclesiastes is the greatest of all books of philosophy.

What? Ecclesiastes the greatest of all books of philosophy? But the author does not even know the dialogues of Plato, or the logic of Aristotle, or even the rules of good outlining! He rambles, frequently changes his mind, and lets his moods move him almost as much as his evidence. How can this sloppy old tub be the Noah's ark of philosophy books? Furthermore, the whole point of this book is "vanity of vanities", the meaninglessness of human life. How could a book about meaninglessness be so meaningful?

The first objection could be answered by realizing that greatness comes not from the form but from the content. The form of Ecclesiastes is simple, direct, and artless. But the content, as we shall see, is the greatest thing that philosophy can ever say.

But what of the second objection? How can a book about meaninglessness be meaningful? A great book must be sincere, must practice what it preaches. For instance, the Tao Te Ching Tao Te Ching, that great Chinese cla.s.sic (ching) about the spiritual power (te) of the Way (Tao), itself wields a mysterious spiritual power (te) over the reader, a power of the same subtle, waterlike, irresistible nature as the Tao itself. Or a great book about violence and pa.s.sion, like a Dostoyevski novel, must itself be violent and pa.s.sionate. A book about piety must be pious. And thus a book about vanity must be vain, must it not?

No. The philosopher who wrote Ecclesiastes is the least least vain of philosophers. Vanity cannot detect itself, just as folly cannot detect itself. Only the wise know folly; fools know neither wisdom nor folly. Just as it takes wisdom to know folly, light to know darkness, it takes profundity to know vanity, meaning to know meaninglessness. Pascal says, "Anyone who does not see the vanity of life must be very vain indeed." vain of philosophers. Vanity cannot detect itself, just as folly cannot detect itself. Only the wise know folly; fools know neither wisdom nor folly. Just as it takes wisdom to know folly, light to know darkness, it takes profundity to know vanity, meaning to know meaninglessness. Pascal says, "Anyone who does not see the vanity of life must be very vain indeed."

Compared with the neat little nostrums of comfort-mongering minds who cross our t's t's and dot our and dot our i's i's, Ecclesiastes is as great, as deep, and as terrifying as the ocean. If this philosopher were alive today and knew the reigning philosophy in America, pop psychology, with its positive strokings, OKs, narcissistic self-befriendings, panderings, patronizings, and bland a.s.surances of "Peace! Peace!" when there is no peace, I think he would quote John Stuart Mill that it is better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; and William Barrett: "It is better to encounter one's own existence in despair than never to encounter it at all."

Ecclesiastes has been called the greatest book ever written by pa.s.sionate pessimists and G.o.d-haunted agnostics like Herman Melville, who says, in chapter 97 of Moby d.i.c.k Moby d.i.c.k, that "the truest of all books is Ecclesiastes Ecclesiastes". And Thomas Wolfe says, in chapter 47 of his cla.s.sic American novel You Can't Go Home Again You Can't Go Home Again, Of all that I have ever seen or learned, that book seems to me the n.o.blest, the wisest, and the most powerful expression of man's life upon this earth, and also the highest flower of poetry, eloquence and truth. I am not given to dogmatic judgments in the matter of literary creation, but if I had to make one, I could only say that Ecclesiastes Ecclesiastes is the greatest single piece of writing I have ever known, and the wisdom expressed in it the most lasting and profound. is the greatest single piece of writing I have ever known, and the wisdom expressed in it the most lasting and profound.

If we find nothing in our first reading of Ecclesiastes to confirm this judgment, we had better read again. For we must either cavalierly dismiss the verdict of giants or climb onto their shoulders and look again. Does it not seem at least likely that it is the dwarf rather than the giant who misreads the landscape?

I have a friend who camps in the Maine woods each summer. One day he met an old hermit who had not lived in "civilization" for forty years. He seemed uncannily wise (at least wiser than secular people in our civilization, though not wiser than a Christian), and when my friend asked him where he got his wisdom, he pulled from his pocket the only book he hd had for forty years. It was a tattered, yellow copy of Ecclesiastes. Only Ecclesiastes. That one book had been enough for him. Perhaps "civilization" is so unwise because nothing is ever enough for it. The old hermit had stayed in one place, physically, and spiritually, and explored its depths; civilization, meanwhile, had moved restlessly on, skimming over the surface of the great deeps. While civilization was reading the Times, he Times, he was reading the eternities. was reading the eternities.

Ecclesiastes as Ethics.

Ecclesiastes would be cla.s.sified by premodern philosophers as a book about ethics, because it poses the most important of all ethical questions, the question all the great ethical cla.s.sics are most fundamentally about: Plato's Republic Republic, Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics Nicomachean Ethics, Augustine's Confessions Confessions, Aquinas' "Treatise on Happiness" in the Summa the Summa, Pascal's Pensees Pensees, Spinoza's Ethics Ethics, Kierkegaard's Either/Or Either/Or; the question of the summum bonum, the greatest good, highest value, ultimate end, or meaning of life.

Ancient ethics always dealt with three questions. Modern ethics usually deals with only one, or at the most two. The three questions are like the three things a fleet of ships is told by its sailing orders. (The metaphor is from C.S. Lewis.) First, the ships must know how to avoid b.u.mping into each other. This is social ethics, and modern as well as ancient ethicists deal with it. Second, they must know how to stay shipshape and avoid sinking. This is individual ethics, virtues and vices, character building, and we hear very little about this from our modern ethical philosophers. Third, and most important of all, they must know why the fleet is at sea in the first place. What is their mission, their destination? This is the question of the summum bonum, and no modern philosophers except the existentialists seem even to be interested in this, the greatest of all questions. Perhaps that is why most modern philosophy seems so weak and wimpy, so specialized and elitist, and above all so boring, to ordinary people.

I think I know why modern philosophers dare not raise this greatest of questions; because they have no answer to it. It is a hole so big that only the courage of an existentialist or the faith of a theist can fill it.

Ecclesiastes the Existentialist.

The first existentialist was not Sartre, though he coined the term. Nor was it Kierkegaard or Nietzsche, though most of the textbooks say so. Nor was it even Pascal, though he foreshadowed half of Kierkegaard and was the first to write about the fundamental existential experience of cosmic anxiety and meaninglessness. It was not even Saint Augustine, whose Confessions Confessions stands out as the profoundest example of depth psychology and existential autobiography ever written. It was not even Socrates, who alone among the philosophers totally existed his philosophy. stands out as the profoundest example of depth psychology and existential autobiography ever written. It was not even Socrates, who alone among the philosophers totally existed his philosophy.

Rather, the first existentialist was Solomon, or whoever wrote Ecclesiastes. Here, some twenty-five hundred years before Sartre's Nausea Nausea, Camus' The Stranger The Stranger, Beckett's Waiting for G.o.dot Waiting for G.o.dot, or Kafka's The Castle The Castle, we have the fundamental experience and intuition of each of these modern cla.s.sics, expressed more candidly, directly, and artlessly than ever before or ever again.

If you are familiar with existentialist writings such as the four just mentioned, you will see the truth of this claim as we lift the curtain on Ecclesiastes. There is no need to stretch Ecclesiastes to fit the existentialist clothing.

The Modernity of Ecclesiastes.

There is a book called A Time to Live and a Time to Die A Time to Live and a Time to Die, by Robert Short, author of The Gospel According to Peanuts of The Gospel According to Peanuts. It is a book of photographs, one for each verse of Ecclesiastes. The photographs are all contemporary. They are photos of things we see every day without noticing them. (Photography helps us to do just that: to notice instead of just to see.) These photographs are startlingly apt. They show the utter contemporaneity, the utter modernity, of Ecclesiastes, the perennially up-to-date book.

It is fitting that Ecclesiastes, of all books, should be ill.u.s.trated by photographs, because Ecclesiastes is a series of word photographs. The word photograph word photograph literally means "light writing", a picture taken with light, "under the sun". That is the method of Ecclesiastes: simple observation. Unlike all the other books in the Bible, it has no faith flashbulb attached to its camera to reveal the inner depths or hidden meanings of life. It uses only the available light "under the sun": sense observation and human reason. The surface of life appears in this book with total clarity, brutal honesty, and spiritual poverty. Ecclesiastes is the truest picture of the surface that has ever been written. literally means "light writing", a picture taken with light, "under the sun". That is the method of Ecclesiastes: simple observation. Unlike all the other books in the Bible, it has no faith flashbulb attached to its camera to reveal the inner depths or hidden meanings of life. It uses only the available light "under the sun": sense observation and human reason. The surface of life appears in this book with total clarity, brutal honesty, and spiritual poverty. Ecclesiastes is the truest picture of the surface that has ever been written.

Whatever rabbis first decided to include Ecclesiastes in the canon of sacred Scripture were both wise and courageous-wise because we appreciate a thing only by contrast, and Ecclesiastes is the contrast, the alternative, to the rest of the Bible, the question to which the rest of the Bible is the answer. There is nothing more meaningless than an answer without its question. That is why we need Ecclesiastes.

The rabbis were also courageous, because the question Ecclesiastes raises is so deep that only an answer that is deeper still can satisfy the mind and heart that dare to ask it, and if such an answer is not forthcoming, we must either run from the question in a dishonest cover-up or run from life in despair. These are the two running sores that plague the modern world.

Ecclesiastes is the one book in the Bible that modern man needs most to read, for it is Lesson One, and the rest of the Bible is Lesson Two, and modernity does not heed Lesson Two because it does not heed Lesson One. Whenever I teach the Bible as a whole, I always begin with Ecclesiastes. In another age, we could begin with G.o.d's beginning, Genesis. But in this age, the Age of Man, we must begin where our patient is; we must begin with Ecclesiastes.

Ecclesiastes is modern in at least seven ways.

First, it is an existential book, a book about human existence. It asks the great question of modern man: Does my existence here have any meaning at all? Previous ages disputed about what what the meaning of human existence was. Ecclesiastes, alone, among premodern books, dares to ask the question: Suppose it has none at all? Its question is not the essence but the existence of the meaning of life. the meaning of human existence was. Ecclesiastes, alone, among premodern books, dares to ask the question: Suppose it has none at all? Its question is not the essence but the existence of the meaning of life.

Second, it shows modernity's greatest fear, which is not so much the fear of death (that was ancient man's deepest fear), or the fear of sin or guilt or h.e.l.l (that was medieval man's deepest fear), but the fear of meaninglessness, of "vanity", of "the existential vacuum", the fear of Nothingness.

Third, it shares the best feature of the modern mind as well as the worst. Although it is a deeply despairing book, it is also a deeply honest book. Despair itself can be hopeful if it is honest. (We see a striking case of this in Job.) Fourth, its answer to the question of the summum bonum, the greatest good, final end, or meaning of life, is the modern answer, namely, no answer. Of the twenty-one great civilizations that have existed on our planet, according to Toynbee's reckoning, ours, the modern West, is the first that does not have or teach its citizens any answer to the question why they exist. A euphemistic way of saying this is that our society is pluralistic and leaves us free to choose or create our own ultimate values. A more candid way of saying the same thing is that our society has nothing but its own ignorance to give us on this, the most important of all questions. As society grows, it knows more and more about less and less. It knows more about the little things and less about the big things. It knows more about every thing and less about Everything.

Fifth, the practical result of this vacuum in values is hedonism. When you do not know why you do anything else, you can still "grab the gusto", "seize the day". When ultimate ends disappear, toys remain. Ecclesiastes' only positive advice is to follow Freud's "pleasure principle" but to be honest enough to remember that "this too is vanity" and that it ends only in death, that you cannot take any of your toys with you. There arc flowers, but there is always a grinning skull behind the flowers. There are many pleasant recreations on the deck of the t.i.tanic t.i.tanic.

Even so, to "stop and smell the roses" is better advice than to pretend that our little hectic diversions are ultimately meaningful and satisfying. Honest hedonism is spiritually superior to dishonest self-delusion. Jesus had harsher words for the man who built greater barns to store his grain and said to his soul, "Soul, take your case", than for the convicted prost.i.tute or the thief on the cross. Infinitely superior to self-satisfied yuppiedom, Ecclesiastes has the heroism of honesty. Infinitely superior to pop psychology, it rises to the dignity of despair.

Sixth, its context, the world in which it carries on its research, is a secularized world. In that world, religion is reduced to one of many small departments of life, between "Press" and "Science" in the index of Time Time magazine. It is then further reduced to what can be empirically observed of this department of life. magazine. It is then further reduced to what can be empirically observed of this department of life.

In a secular world, religion is somewhere in life, not vice versa. G.o.d is an ingredient in my life rather than I an ingredient in his. Secularism is anthropocentric, not theocentric. The sacred may be allowed to exist, but it is defined by the secular rather than the secular being defined by the sacred, as in the rest of the Bible and in the rest of the premodern world.

A seventh way in which Ecclesiastes is modern is the most important one of all. Not only its observational context but also its method, its epistemology, its answer to the question: How do you know the truth? is wholly secular. The author is a reporter for earth's universal newspaper. He has not been privy to any special divine revelation or supernatural intervention. His G.o.d is simply "nature and nature's G.o.d", the G.o.d of our modern establishmentarian religion. He is an empiricist.

G.o.d's Silence in Ecclesiastes.

The difference between philosophy and religion is the difference between speaking and listening, between man's speaking about G.o.d and G.o.d's speaking about man with man listening. This is the difference between reason and faith. Philosophy is man's search for G.o.d; the Bible is the story of G.o.d's search for man. Philosophy is words flying up; the Bible is the Word sent down. Ecclesiastes is the only bookhe Bible in which G.o.d is totally silent. The author appeals to no divine revelation, only to natural human reason and sense observation. G.o.d is only the object object of his quest, not the subject; the questee, not the quester, the Hound of Heaven. of his quest, not the subject; the questee, not the quester, the Hound of Heaven.

In Job, G.o.d is also silent, except for the beginning and the ending. But these two pa.s.sages make the difference between Job and Ecclesiastes. Because G.o.d speaks, Job has everything even though he-has nothing. Because G.o.d is silent, Ecclesiastes has nothing even though he has everything.

G.o.d speaks twice in Job. In the first two chapters, we sec him questioning Job, testing Job. In light of this beginning, we the readers understand the long middle section, Job's quest for G.o.d, as really G.o.d's quest for Job. But Job did not have those first two chapters. G.o.d seems silent to him, just as he did to Ecclesiastes.

In the last five chapters of Job, G.o.d speaks out of the storm. Nothing in all the world's literature is more profound than this speech. It is enough to satisfy Job, the hardest man on earth to satisfy. For Job is not patient. Job is impatient. Job is from Missouri: "Show me." Whatever is hidden in these chapters is great enough to satisfy the hardest man in the world to satisfy concerning the hardest question in the world, the mystery of evil. It would also be great enough to satisfy Ecclesiastes if G.o.d had spoken it to him, but he did not.

Perhaps Ecclesiastes just was not listening. In Job G.o.d showed up only when Job shut up. Job's best words are: "The words of Job are ended." As Elihu says to Job, "G.o.d is speaking all the time, first in one way, then in another, but we don't hear." Or perhaps Job got his answer and Ecclesiastes did not because Job was a suffering servant while Ecclesiastes was a mere philosopher. Ecclesiastes was like Socrates; Job was like Christ.

All of the Bible is divine revelation, divine speech. But G.o.d never speaks directly in Ecclesiastes. Ecclesiastes is all monologue, not dialogue. How is it divine revelation?

It is inspired monologue. G.o.d in his providence has arranged for this one book of mere rational philosophy to be included in the canon of Scripture because this too is divine revelation. It is divine revelation precisely in being the absence of divine revelation. It is like the silhouette of the rest of the Bible. It is what Fulton Sheen calls "black grace" instead of "white grace", revelation by darkness rather than by light. In this book G.o.d reveals to us exactly what life is when G.o.d docs not reveal to us what life is. Ecclesiastes frames the Bible as death frames life.

The Summary of Ecclesiastes.

The structure of Ecclesiastes is much more tight, much more logical, than it seems at first sight. The book seems to ramble, to go nowhere, to have no tightly argued deductions, only bits of wisdom sprinkled over a desert landscape like a few raindrops, quickly absorbed by the dry soil, or like a collage of photos taken through the porthole of a sinking ship.

Yet the book's rambling is deliberate, for this form perfectly expresses its content, its message: that life that life rambles to nowhere. Ecclesiastes practices what it preaches. Its form is one with its content: the test of great poetry. Does life chase its own tail? Very well, this book will do the same. Its ending and its beginning are identical: "All is vanity." rambles to nowhere. Ecclesiastes practices what it preaches. Its form is one with its content: the test of great poetry. Does life chase its own tail? Very well, this book will do the same. Its ending and its beginning are identical: "All is vanity."

Ecclesiastes is, nevertheless, a logical argument, not just scattered observations. And its argument is deductive and demonstrativt just inductive and observational. Though the author has never read Aristotle or any logic textbook and did not consciously intend his book to take the form of a syllogism, nevertheless it is is a syllogism, simply because that is the form in which the human mind naturally and instinctively argues. My summary of Ecclesiastes in a syllogism (see page 35) is not a palimpsest but an X-ray; it does not impose a new or alien piture but reveals the structure already there, the bones beneath the flesh. a syllogism, simply because that is the form in which the human mind naturally and instinctively argues. My summary of Ecclesiastes in a syllogism (see page 35) is not a palimpsest but an X-ray; it does not impose a new or alien piture but reveals the structure already there, the bones beneath the flesh.

The argument of Ecclesiastes is summarized in the first three verses, amplified for twelve chapters, and then summarized at the end. The first three verses are the whole book in miniature. The first verse gives the t.i.tle and author; the second verse gives the point, the conclusion; and the third verse gives the essential argument for it.

1.The words of the Preacher, son of David, king in Jerusalem.

2.Vanity of vanities, says the Preacher, Vanity of vanities! All is vanity.

3.What does man gain by all the toil at which he toils under the sun?

The Author of Ecclesiastes.

The t.i.tle of the original book is its first words. (Thus ancient authors outwit modern editors and publishers who obsessively change t.i.tles.) The t.i.tle is not Ecclesiastes, "The Preacher", but "The Words Words of the Preacher". It is not an autobiography but a sermon. Who "the Preacher" really was does not even matter. What matters is not the singer but the song. Like Buddha, the Preacher says, "Look not to me, look to my of the Preacher". It is not an autobiography but a sermon. Who "the Preacher" really was does not even matter. What matters is not the singer but the song. Like Buddha, the Preacher says, "Look not to me, look to my dharma dharma [my doctrine]." [my doctrine]."

So we need not take sides in the scholarly controversy about authorship. The minority view, taken by conservative scholars, claims that the author was literally King Solomon, "the son of David, king in Jerusalem". The majority view claims that the style and vocabulary of the book strongly indicate another author. ("Strongly indicate", not "prove"; textual scholarship, like medicine, is not an exact science, though many of its pract.i.tioners act as if it were.) The majority view is that the book was written centuries after Solomon, during or after the Babylonian exile.

Even if this latter view is true, there is, of course, no plagiarism or attempt to deceive. It was a literary device of ancient Jewish authors to call themselves "Solomon", thus (1) humbly preserving their own anonymity and (2) declaring their indebtedness to their teacher and model, the ideal wise man. Where modern authors parade themselves and their newness even when they are small and their books are warmed-over unoriginalities, ancient authors had the opposite fashion: to make themselves small even when they were great and to declare their books traditional even when they were innovative. Fashions change; what remains is the need to be wary of all fashionable labels.

Since we need to call the author something, let us use the name "Solomon"-an appropriate name, whether literal or symbolic.

Solomon's point, or conclusion, is so blatant that only the sleeping could miss it. It is stated five times in the first verse (Eccl 1:2), exemplified for twelve chapters, and then repeated three times more in the last verse (Eccl 12:8), like the simple-minded preacher's "three-point sermon technique": "First I tells 'em what I'm gonna say. Then I says it. Then I tells 'em what I said." If you miss these three trumpets of doom, you are worse than asleep; you are dead.

The point is "vanity". What does "vanity" mean? Not, of course, the "vanity" of a "vanity mirror", which is narcissism, but "in vain", "useless", "profitless". The Hebrew word means literally "a chasing after wind", a grasping after shadows, a wild-goose chase. And there is no wild goose. There is no end (telos (telos, purpose), only an end. (finis end. (finis, finish), namely, death. What we need more than anything else in the world, a reason to live and a reason to die-this simply does not exist.

Archibald MacLeish dramatizes this haunting horror in his poem "The End of the World". The image of life as a silly circus frames the picture: Quite unexpectedly as Va.s.serot The armless ambidextrian was lighting A match between his great and second toe And Ralph the Lion was engaged in biting The neck of Madame Sossman while the drum Pointed, and Teeny was about to cough In waltz-time swinging Jocko by the thumb- Quite unexpectedly the top blew off.

And there, there overhead, there, there, hung over Those thousands of white faces, those dazed eyes, There in the starless dark, the poise, the hover, There with vast wings across the canceled skies, There in the sudden blackness, the black pall Of nothing, nothing, nothing-nothing at all.

Another terrifying portrait of Nothingness in the place of G.o.d is Ernest Hemingway's cla.s.sic little short story "A Clean, Well-Lighted Place": It was not fear or dread. It was a Nothing that he knew too well. It was all a Nothing and a man was Nothing too. It was only that and light was all it needed and a certain cleanliness and order. Some lived in it and never felt it but he knew it all was nada y pues nada y nada y pues nada. Our nada, who are in nada, nada be thy name thy kingdom nada thy will be nada in nada as it is nada. Give us this nada our daily nada and nada us our nada as we nada our nadas and nada us not into nada but deliver us from nada; pues nada.Hail nothing, full of nothing, nothing is with thee...