22.2. Ecclesiastes

"The words of Ecclesiastes the son of David, king in Jerusalem" (Ecclesiastes 1:1) – this is how this book begins. The word "Ecclesiastes" is Greek, meaning "preacher". Solomon's name is not directly mentioned in it, but in another place the author says that he "was king over Israel in Jerusalem" (Ecclesiastes 1:12). Actually, there were only two kings over Israel in Jerusalem: David and Solomon, at the time of Rehoboam's accession to the throne, there had already been a division, so the choice was small. If the author says that he is the son of David, it is obvious that we are left with only Solomon.

I will remind you again of the above interpretation of St. Gregory of Nyssa regarding the authorship of the books of Solomon. Concerning the verse under discussion, he says, "that the power of these words also is traced back to Him Who established the Church on the Gospel, for it is said, 'The words of Ecclesiastes, the son of David.' And so Matthew calls Him at the beginning of the Gospel, calling the Lord the Son of David" [19, p. 7].

This book, unlike other biblical books, was popular even among the unbelieving intelligentsia in Soviet times. And this is not surprising, because Ecclesiastes surprises with its unbridled skepticism, markedly different from the calm poise of Proverbs and contradicting the praise of the Psalms and the enthusiasm of the Song of Songs. Therefore, it is necessary to understand what is the matter here, does this book really carry only negative content, or does it still contain something positive?

At the beginning of his commentary, St. Gregory of Nyssa writes: "Ecclesiastes is offered to us for interpretation, the difficulty of looking at which is equal to the greatness of the benefit it gives. For after the mind has already been taught to inflow thoughts, in which, according to what is said in the preface to the book of Proverbs, there are dark words, and wise sayings, and divination, and various figures of speech (Proverbs 1:6), only those who have already come of age and are capable of hearing the most perfect lessons are able to ascend to this sublime and divinely inspired scripture. Therefore, if the parable and the exercise that prepares us for these lessons are something difficult and inconvenient, then how much work is needed to delve into these sublime thoughts that are now offered to us for review?" [19, pp. 4–5].

From what angle should we approach the understanding of the book? You can try to use a technique similar to the one we used in the analysis of the Book of Proverbs. The author himself gives us a few hints for this. He prefaces the book with a small introduction with the following content: "Vanity of vanities, said Ecclesiastes, vanity of vanities, all is vanity! What profit does a man have from all his labors with which he labors under the sun? A generation passes away, and a generation comes, but the earth abides forever. The sun rises, and the sun sets, and hastens to its place where it rises. The wind goes south, and passes to the north, whirling, whirling as it goes, and the wind returns to its circles. All rivers flow into the sea, but the sea does not overflow: to the place from which the rivers flow, they return to flow again. All things are in labor: a man cannot retell everything; the eye will not be satisfied with sight, nor will the ear be filled with hearing. What has been, will be; and what has been done will be done, and there is nothing new under the sun. There is something about which they say: "Look, this is new"; but [this] was already in the ages that were before us. There is no memory of the past; and of what will be, there will be no remembrance of those who will come after" (1:2-11).

It should be noted right away that these statements about vanity, about usefulness, about the inviolability of the earth, about the lack of memory and novelty contradict the biblical teaching already known to us, which cannot but be alarming. One might suspect that Ecclesiastes is using them to draw our attention to something important. However, let's move in order. The first two phrases contain a mention of vanity and the question of the usefulness of labor. Let us take them as the basis of our study, assuming that Ecclesiastes uses them to show us the way to understand the meaning of his book. The first pointer is the verdict that is passed from time to time that the discussed is vanity. The second is the questions that he asks throughout the book, addressing himself and the reader at the same time.

St. Gregory of Nyssa defines vanity as follows: "... vanity is either a word that has no thought, or a useless thing, or an unrealizable plan, or a hope that does not lead to the Father, or in general anything that does not serve for anything useful" [19, p. 8].

The statement of Ecclesiastes that all vanity is apparently a provocation that causes the reader to latent resistance and a desire to understand. To do this, it is convenient to collect in a single list everything that he associates with the hustle and bustle. Having done this (here we should not be lazy, since the further discussion will be built with a small number of quotations and cannot convey all the shades of meaning of the inspired biblical text), we will be able to discover the following. The range of phenomena regarded by the author as vanity is not as large as it may seem. He immediately specifies that all works (labors) done under the sun are vain (1:14; 2:11). They are of no use. Ecclesiastes goes on to explain why. Labors are accompanied by many deprivations and sorrows (2:23). In the case of success, a person is haunted by envy from his neighbors, and fatigue from work is joined by spoiled relationships and loneliness (4: 4). His soul is thus "not satisfied", only the belly is satiated (6:7), and silver and riches in themselves are inedible (5:9). In addition, even if the work is productive, a person cannot use it to the fullest, since death deprives him of all possessions, it will go to someone else who did not work, and may be an unworthy person in general (2:18–19;  2: 21; 2: 26; 4: 7–8; 6: 2).

Здесь тема суеты пересекается с темой смерти. Люди, которые столько трудятся под солнцем, перед лицом смерти (впрочем, не только, но и при жизни, если они существуют «сами по себе», то есть без Бога) оказываются уравненными с животными (3: 19–20). То, чем утешают себя не признающие вечной жизни, не вдохновляет Екклесиаста. Он уверен в том, что потомкам не будет большого дела до свершений того, кто был до них. В большинстве своем они будут забыты в веках, равно как и плоды их трудов. Даже мудрость ничем тут не поможет, и приобретший мудрость не получает здесь никакого преимущества перед глупцом (2: 15–16; 4: 13–16). Ни торжественные похороны, ни воздвигаемые монументы не могут тут ничего изменить (8: 10).

Попытки не думать об этом, забыться в веселье – тоже суета (2: 1; 7: 5–6). И детство, и юность, и долголетняя жизнь, казалось бы отдаляющие этот итог, также попадают у Екклесиаста в разряд суеты (11: 8–10).

Также суетой называет Екклесиаст известный факт, так бурно обсуждавшийся в Книге Иова – иногда в земной жизни «праведников постигает то, чего заслуживали бы дела нечестивых, а с нечестивыми бывает то, чего заслуживали бы дела праведников» (8: 14).

Нет смысла в приобретении мудрости, получается, что «лучше видеть глазами, нежели бродить душою», то есть стремиться к тому, что видят глаза, «реальным вещам» а не к мечтаниям, к которым влечется душа. Но: «И это – также суета и томление духа!» (6: 8–9).

Таким образом, безрадостной выглядит жизнь человека на земле, если здесь предел его существования. «Много таких вещей, которые умножают суету: что же для человека лучше? Ибо кто знает, что хорошо для человека в жизни, во все дни суетной жизни его, которые он проводит как тень? И кто скажет человеку, что будет после него под солнцем?» (6: 11–12).