The Words of the Wise Are like GoadsEngaging Qohelet in the 21st Century

edited by

Mark J. Boda, Tremper Longman III, and Cristian G. Rata

Winona Lake, Indiana Eisenbrauns

2013

Offprint From:

Copyright © 2013 Eisenbrauns All rights reserved.

Printed in the United States of America.

www.eisenbrauns.com

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

The words of the wise are like goads : engaging Qohelet in the 21st century / edited by Mark J. Boda, Tremper Longman III, and Cristian G. Rata.

pages cmIncludes bibliographical references and index.ISBN 978-1-57506-265-5 (hardback : alk. paper)

1. Bible. O.T. Ecclesiastes—Criticism, interpretation, etc. I. Boda, Mark J. II. Longman, Tremper. III. Rata, Cristian G., editor of compilation.

BS1475.52.W67 2013223′.806—dc23 2012045746

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials. ANSI Z39.48-1984.© ♾

v

Contents

Preface. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

Part 1Early History of Interpretation

Ecclesiastes in Premodern Reading: Before 1500 c.e. . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Eric S. Christianson

Qohelet and the Rabbis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37Ruth Sandberg

Ecclesiastes and the Reformers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55Al Wolters

Sweet and Lawful Delights: Puritan Interpretations of Ecclesiastes. . . . . 69Cristian G. Rata

Part 2History, Form, and Rhetoric

Determining the Historical Context of Ecclesiastes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89Tremper Longman III

The Book of Qohelet “Has the Smell of the Tomb about It”: Mortality in Qohelet and Hellenistic Skepticism . . . . . . . . . . . 103

Leo G. PerdueQohelet and Royal Autobiography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

Martin A. ShieldsFramed! Structure in Ecclesiastes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

David J. H. BeldmanThe Poetry of Qohelet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163

John F. Hobbins

Part 3Key Concepts and Passages

Epistemology in Ecclesiastes: Remembering What It Means to Be Human . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195

Ryan P. O’Dowd

Contentsvi

“Riddled with Ambiguity”: Ecclesiastes 7:23–8:1 as an Example . . . . . . 219Doug Ingram

The Meaning of הבל in Qohelet: An Intertextual Suggestion. . . . . . . . 241Russell L. Meek

Speaking into the Silence: The Epilogue of Ecclesiastes . . . . . . . . . . . 257Mark J. Boda

Part 4Language and Grammar

The Grammar of ש and אשר in Qohelet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283Robert Holmstedt

The Verb in Qohelet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309John Cook

“Aramaisms” in Qohelet: Methodological Problems in Identification and Interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 343

Eva Mroczek

Part 5Interpreting Qohelet

The Theology of Ecclesiastes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 367Craig G. Bartholomew

Ecclesiastes and the Canon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 387Stephen G. Dempster

Fresh Perspectives on Ecclesiastes: “Qohelet for Today” . . . . . . . . . . . 401Iain Provan

Preaching Qohelet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 417Daniel C. Fredericks

Solomon’s Sexual Wisdom: Qohelet and the Song of Songs in the Postmodern Condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 443

Peter J. Leithart

Works Cited. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 461

Indexes Index of Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 491 Index of Scripture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 499 Index of Other Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 513

69

Sweet and Lawful Delights: Puritan Interpretations of Ecclesiastes

Cristian G. RataTorch Trinity Graduate University

In this essay, I explore and present some relevant teachings from Ecclesiastes as seen through the eyes of five Puritan writers. 1 My interest in this topic began when I read a passage from Duane Garrett’s commentary on Ecclesiastes in the New American Commentary series. 2 According to Garrett, the book of Ecclesias-tes was “evangelistic” for both the Reformers and the Puritans. Thus, it was written “to show the futility of the world against eternity.” 3 To support this view, Gar-rett referred to the following “Reformers 4 and Puritans”: Whitaker, Pemble, Coc-ceius, Matthew Poole, and Matthew Henry. 5 His view may be true, but he does not

1. Puritan and Puritanism are disputed terms. For an acceptable working definition of Pu-ritanism and for important sources for begining to learn more about the Puritans, see J. R. Beeke and R. J. Pederson, Meet the Puritans (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage, 2006) xv–xxiv. The Puritans had a high regard for Scripture and sought to apply its teachings in all areas of life; as theologians, they were passionately committed to a Trinitarian theology. They believed in the significance of the Church, and focused on personal conversion. The Puritans excelled at preach-ing the gospel (in a simple and earnest manner), calling sinners to faith in Christ and seeking genuine communion with God. The Puritan era is usually assumed to have begun in the 1560s and lasted until the end of the seventeenth century (in England) and the 1730s in North America. See J. Coffey and P. C. H. Lim, eds., The Cambridge Companion to Puritanism (Cambridge: Cam-bridge University Press, 2008) 6–10.

Note that, in this essay, I refer to the book as Ecclesiastes and the stated author as Qohelet.2. D. A. Garrett, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs (NAC 14; Nashville: Broadman, 1993).3. Ibid., 271. According to Garrett, this is the general view of conservative Christians.4. On the Reformers’ interpretation of Ecclesiastes, see the excellent article by A. Wolters

in this volume. Most of the Protestant Reformers, including Calvin, Beza, Zwingli, Bullinger, and Bucer did not write a commentary on Ecclesiastes. Only three of the leaders of the Reformation wrote on this enigmatic book: Martin Luther, Philip Melanchthon, and Johannes Brenz. Theo-dore Beza wrote a paraphrase of Ecclesiastes.

5. Garrett, Proverbs, 271. Garrett does not provide full names for the first three writers. I assume that he is referring to William Whitaker (1548–95), William Pemble (1591–1623), and Johannes Cocceius (1603–69). For more information on the first two writers, see Beeke and Ped-erson, Meet the Puritans. Cocceius lived during the Puritan era, but he was a Dutch theologian born in Bremen. He had a detailed knowledge of Hebrew (which he taught at Franecker and Leiden), but he is not usually grouped with the Puritans. I was unable to determine whether

Offprint from: Mark J. Boda, Tremper Longman III, and Cristian G. Rata (ed.), The Words of the Wise Are like Goads: Engageing Qohelet in the 21st Century© Copyright 2013 Eisenbrauns. All rights reserved.

70 Cristian G. Rata

provide a reference to support his assertion. However, I began to wonder whether other Puritans who wrote on Ecclesiastes had similar interpretations of this highly controversial book. 6 Further research on this topic revealed that not very many Puritans wrote on Ecclesiastes, and the works of the individuals who wrote on the book are not easily accessed.

However, after further inquiry, 7 I have been able to find three major Puritan works on Ecclesiastes, works that are less known and less accessible than the works of Matthew Henry and Matthew Poole. 8 These three works were authored by John Cotton, John Trapp, and Edward Reynolds, and in this essay I examine some of their contributions to the interpretation of Ecclesiastes. Although my interest in their work began with a quest for “evangelistic” (Puritan) interpretations of Eccle-siastes, it soon extended to an analysis of their general approach to exposition and also to the theme of obedience. Since the most dominant term in the whole book is הבל (traditionally translated “vanity”), the Puritan understanding of this term

Cocceius wrote on Ecclesiastes. His work is not discussed in this essay. On Cocceius, see W. Klas-sen (“Cocceius, Johannes,” in Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation [ed. J. H. Hayes; Nashville: Abingdon, 1999] 202). Pemble was a “gifted Hebrew scholar” whose commentary on Ecclesiastes was entitled Solomon’s Recantation and Repentance (1627). See Beeke and Pederson, Meet the Pu-ritans, 466. Pemble’s work does not seem to warrant inclusion in this analysis. Note the relevant observation by C. H. Spurgeon (Commenting and Commentaries [Charleston, SC: BiblioBazaar, 2008] 160): “This ‘Recantation’ is a minor production. The style is scholastic, with arrangements of the subjects that render it hard to read. We confess we are disappointed with it.” I have not been able to find any work on Ecclesiastes by William Whitaker.

6. I also wondered whether Garrett’s statement about the Reformers and the Puritans was correct. See Wolters’s essay in this volume for a considerably different analysis of the Reformers.

7. The information on the Puritans and their writings came mainly from Beeke and Ped-erson (Meet the Puritans) and B. Brook (The Lives of the Puritans [3 vols.; Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria, 1996]).

8. Both Matthew Henry (1662–1714) and Matthew Poole (1624–79) are well-known Puri-tan writers and very accessible. See Beeke and Pederson, Meet the Puritans, 323–33, 485–87. For Poole, see also the recent contribution of T. Harley (Matthew Poole: His Life, His Times, His Con-tributions along with His Argument against the Infallibility of the Roman Catholic Church [Bloom-ington, IN: iUniverse.com, 2011]). Their commentaries are available here: http://www .ccel.org/olb/tolbss/components/commentaries/com-ofc.html (accessed April 15, 2011). Their writings are also taken into consideration in this essay, but emphasis is placed on the less-accessible works of Cotton, Trapp, and Reynolds. For this essay, I consulted Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible (vol. 3; Iowa Falls, IA: Word Bible, 1935); and Matthew Poole’s Commentary on the Whole Bible (vol. 2; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1985). Note that both Henry and Poole knew Hebrew and used it in their commentaries, especially Poole in his commentary on Ecclesiastes (see, for example, his comments on 1:1, 4, 6, 15; 2:7, 13, 21; etc.). However, some of his comments are questionable, and there is no in-depth explanation or grammatical engagement. Henry seems to be more knowledgeable about Hebrew, and he frequently engages with the Greek as well. Oc-casionally he also refers to the Aramaic targum (the “Chaldee-paraphrase”). See his comments on Eccl 2:24–26. Matthew Poole’s work on Ecclesiastes was first published as part of Annotations upon the Holy Bible in 1683–85 (cf. Beeke and Pederson, Meet the Puritans, 486), while Henry’s commentary on Job through Song of Songs was published in 1710.

71Puritan Interpretations of Ecclesiastes

must be analyzed for a proper evaluation of their work. I also consider it essential to an understanding of their interpretation of Ecclesiastes to find out what they thought about the purpose of the book and to present their understanding of the “enjoy life” passages. 9

This essay begins with a brief introduction to Cotton, Reynolds, and Trapp and continues with an examination of their works, especially as they relate to the issues of inspiration, evangelistic use, and obedience. The issue of inspiration and authorship is important and is discussed first because it sets the tone and founda-tion for an evaluation of their works.

Who Were These Writers?First, it should be noted that these Puritans were almost contemporary, and

their lives overlapped to a great degree. John Cotton was the oldest of them (1584–1652) and is best remembered as “the patriarch of New England.” 10 He was con-verted through the ministry of Richard Sibbes and earned a Masters degree in 1606 from Emmanuel College at Cambridge. Beeke and Pederson think that his work on Ecclesiastes is “packed with good homiletical insights,” 11 and Spurgeon writes: “Ecclesiastes is not a book to be expounded verse by verse; but Cotton does it as well as anyone.” 12 Indeed, Cotton expounds this book verse by verse; there is no introduction to the book or to any of the chapters. It is clear from his work that Cotton was very knowledgeable about the Scriptures (as most of the Puritan writers were) and was familiar with Latin, Greek, and Hebrew. 13

9. I am referring to the well-known passages that encourage readers to seek enjoyment in eating, drinking, and sometimes love: 2:24–26; 3:12–13; 5:18–20; 7:14; 8:15; 9:7–9. For the sake of space, I will concentrate my analysis on the text that I consider to be the most repre-sentative (9:7–9) of this call to enjoyment. One reason for looking at this theme is to engage with the much-quoted and well-known caricature of the Puritans: “Puritanism is the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.” This quotation is attributed to H. L. Mencken. See L. Ryken, Wordly Saints: The Puritans as They Really Were (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1986) 1–3. Ryken does a good job of debunking this myth, but his engagement with the Puritan interpretations of biblical texts that call for joy and happiness is minimal. It would have been especially appropriate in this context to engage with the Puritan interpretations of the “enjoy life” passages mentioned above.

10. Beeke and Pederson, Meet the Puritans, 153. It should be noted, however, that Rey-nolds’s commentary was published earlier (1626) than Trapp’s (1650) or Cotton’s (1654). Mat-thew Poole’s work was published between 1683 and 1685, and Matthew Henry’s commentary appeared in 1710.

11. Beeke and Pederson, Meet the Puritans, 161.12. Spurgeon, Commenting and Commentaries, 160.13. According to Brook (Lives of the Puritans, 3.159–160), Cotton “was a man of great liter-

ary acquirements, and so well acquainted with the Hebrew, that he could converse in it with great ease. . . . He was deeply skilled in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew.” He refers occasionally to Hebrew words throughout his work. See J. Cotton, Brief Exposition with Practical Observations upon the

72 Cristian G. Rata

Edward Reynolds (1599–1676) 14 was born only 15 years after Cotton (and died 24 years after Cotton) and was known as the bishop of Norwich (his position at the time of his death). He was educated at Oxford and Cambridge (M.A. and D.D.), and it is clear that he was well versed in the classical languages and even in Hebrew. He was a Presbyterian by conviction and was well known as a voice of moderation. He was regarded by his contemporaries as a man of good judgment, a gifted preacher, a scholar of considerable talent, and a clear writer (he authored more than 30 books). Daniel Neal said that “[h]e was reckoned one of the most eloquent pulpit men of his age, and a good old Puritan.” 15 I find the writing of his commentary very helpful, especially for the significant introductions, both to the whole book and to each individual chapter.

John Trapp (1602–69) 16 was born only two years after Reynolds, but he died seven years before Reynolds died. He studied at Oxford, and the evidence shows that he could read Latin, Hebrew, and Greek. I find most impressive his com-mand of the classics and the abundance of illustrations that he offers to “spice” his exposition. For example, in his exposition of Eccl 2:18, he gives four useful and colorful illustrations to support his point. 17 Spurgeon mentions Trapp as a writer that preachers should use for “spicing” up sermons. “He excels . . . in us-ing colorful paraphrases, captivating illustrations, and his pithy style makes him very quotable.” 18 For example, in Eccl 9:9, 19 the portion is the wife: “And a very good one too, if she proves good. As if otherwise, Aristotle saith right, he that is unhappy in a wife, has lost the one half at least of his happiness here on earth.” 20 On 5:2, he comments: “In speaking to God, saith one, one’s best eloquence is our silence.” 21

According to one of his students (the son-in-law of William Shakespeare), Trapp was “second to none for his piety and learning.” 22 And his friend Thomas

Book of Ecclesiastes (London: Ralph Smith, 1654) 3, 8, 122, 125, 126, 247, 249, 265, 268, etc. In my opinion, based on his work on Ecclesiastes, his knowledge (or at least his use) of Hebrew is overstated by Brook.

14. My information for this author is primarily taken from Beeke and Pederson, Meet the Puritans, 496–500.

15. As quoted in ibid., 498. There is no reference given for the quotation.16. See ibid., 586–88.17. J. Trapp, Commentarie upon the Books of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs

(London: Bellamie, 1650) 22–23. In most cases, when quoting the Puritans, I try to follow the meaning of their original writings closely. Although I try to use their punctuation and capitaliza-tion practices, I do occasionally modernize their spelling.

18. Beeke and Pederson, Meet the Puritans, 588.19. “Enjoy life with the wife whom you love, all the days of your vain life that he has given

you under the sun, because that is your portion in life and in your toil at which you toil under the sun” (esv). Italics mine.

20. Trapp, Commentarie, 126.21. Ibid., 52.22. Beeke and Pederson, Meet the Puritans, 586.

73Puritan Interpretations of Ecclesiastes

Dugard described Trapp as “one of the Age’s greatest little men” because “he was small in stature yet great in godliness and writing.” 23

On the Question of Authorship and AuthorityAll three of these Puritan writers, together with Matthew Henry and Mat-

thew Poole, believed that Solomon wrote the whole book of Ecclesiastes. 24 Poole states clearly in his introduction that the author was Solomon, “as is manifest both from the common consent of Jewish and Christian writers, and from the express words of the first verse.” 25 The reason that Solomon did not prefix his name to this book is discussed by Reynolds. He explains it as being due to the sincerity of Solomon, who “chose to be known rather by the name of a penitent convert, than of a peaceable prince.” 26 He also makes the connection with the prodigal son, who said to his father: “I am no more worthy to be called your son,” and points out that, “in Scripture, men have taken new names suitable to a new condition.” 27 More specifically, this condition is that of a repentant sinner who came back into the bosom of the Church. 28

23. Ibid., 587–88.24. Note that the authorship of the epilogue of the book is not questioned; in fact, it does

not even come up. Acceptance of Solomonic authorship is found in the earliest fully extant Chris-tian work on Ecclesiastes: the paraphrase of Gregory Thaumaturgos (“wonder-worker”) from the middle of the third century c.e. Thaumaturgos was a student of Origen (ca. 185–254 c.e.). The first Christian commentaries on Ecclesiastes were written by Hippolytus of Rome and Ori-gen, but their works have survived in only a few fragments. See J. Jarick, Gregory Thaumaturgos’ Paraphrase of Ecclesiastes (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990) 3. Gregory begins his paraphrase with a clear endorsement of Solomonic authorship: “Solomon (the son of the king and prophet David), a king more honoured and a prophet wiser than anyone else, speaks to the whole assembly of God” (ibid., 7).

25. Poole, A Commentary, 278.26. E. Reynolds, The Works of Edward Reynolds, vol. 4: A Commentary on the Book of Eccle-

siastes (Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria, 1998) 39. But note the slight uncertainty in his introduction: “The author of this book, both by style, and by the title of it, appeareth to have been Solomon” (p.  33; italics mine). The earliest Christian writer to have expressed doubts about Solomonic authorship seems to have been Didymus the Blind (ca. 313–398 c.e.), a student of Origen of Alexandria. He makes the following surprising statement: “Either the real author is Solomon, or some [other] wise men have written it. Maybe we should opt for the latter so that nobody may say that the speaker talks about himself.” See J. R. Wright, ed., Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon (Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture 9; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2005) 192.

27. Reynolds, Ecclesiastes, 39. Today the Solomonic authorship of Ecclesiastes is denied by most scholars, including many conservatives. Note the comments of C. Bartholomew (Ecclesias-tes [Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms; Grand Rapids, MI.: Baker, 2009] 52) in one of the most recent evangelical commentaries on Ecclesiastes: “On all accounts the language of Ecclesiastes confirms that it is not Solomonic.” For a recent defense of Solomonic authorship, see D. Gnanaraj, The Language of Qoheleth: An Evaluation of the Major Scholarly Studies from 1987–2004 (Th.M. diss., Torch Trinity Graduate School of Theology, 2009).

28. For a similar understanding, see also Poole, A Commentary, 278; Henry, Henry’s Com-mentary, 979; etc.

74 Cristian G. Rata

For the Puritans, this book contains the wisdom of Solomon (the wisest per-son there was), and the book is described as a penitential sermon. 29 Reynolds de-scribes the book in the following way: “Now here Solomon doth, by solemn and serious repentance, return into the bosom of the congregation, from which, by his idolatry, he had departed.” 30 He is also seen by Reynolds as a “penitent convert,” and he points out that the Lord can make the fall of his servants beneficial to the Church. In this case, the fall of Solomon made possible the writing of “this excel-lent book.” Even the saints may fall (for example, Peter), but God can use their repentance “to do some more notable and eminent service to the church.” 31

Additionally, despite Ecclesiastes’ controversial status and apparent “heretical message,” the Puritans believed that Ecclesiastes was written under the inspira-tion of the Holy Spirit. Four of the writers (Reynolds, Cotton, Trapp, and Poole) 32 identify the shepherd in 12:11 33 as Christ, and the “words of truth” spoken by Solomon are understood as “proceeding from the Spirit of truth.” 34 Thus, Solomon was a wise man (none was like him) who was “immediately inspired by the Holy Ghost.” 35 Matthew Poole is especially encouraged by this concept in 12:11:

And this clause seems to be added partly as the reason of that admirable har-mony and agreement which is amongst all the men of God in all ages and places, because they are taught by one Master, and guided by the same hand; and partly to oblige us to the greater attention and reverence to all their doctrines and coun-sels, which we are to receive as the word of God, and not of men only. 36

29. Trapp, Commentarie, 2. See also Reynolds, Ecclesiastes, 36.30. Ibid., 38.31. Ibid., 40–41.32. Poole (A Commentary, 307) sees the shepherd as being either God or Jesus Christ.

Matthew Henry (Henry’s Commentary, 1051) is the only one who identifies only God as the Shepherd.

33. “The words of the wise are like goads, and like nails firmly fixed are the collected say-ings; they are given by one Shepherd” (esv). For a recent discussion of this verse, see C. Bar-tholomew, Ecclesiastes, 366–69. Like Matthew Henry and others, he sees the shepherd as God.

34. Cotton, Brief Exposition, 266.35. Ibid., 265. Note also Reynolds, Ecclesiastes, 254: “Hereby then is noted, the divine au-

thority of the Holy Scriptures, delivered by inspiration unto the penmen thereof for the use of the church; the spirit of Christ being in those that wrote them.”

36. Poole, A Commentary, 307. In this context, it is relevant to mention the attitude toward Ecclesiastes of Theodore of Mopsuestia (ca. 350–428 c.e.). He was anathematized posthumously (at the Council of Constantinople in the middle of the sixth century) because he allegedly did not regard Ecclesiastes as inspired. However, the evidence from his writings (a sizable part of his commentary in Syriac was found in Damascus in the twentieth century) indicates that he saw the book as being inspired. In his view, Ecclesiastes arose from the spiritual gift of wisdom received from God, since Solomon was granted the gift of wisdom and not the gift of prophecy (Poole relied on 1 Corinthians 12 to make his argument). It seems that, for the Council of Con-stantinople, this was not enough, because they insisted on attributing the book to “prophetic grace.” See J. Jarick, “Theodore of Mopsuestia and the Interpretation of Ecclesiastes,” in The Bible

75Puritan Interpretations of Ecclesiastes

On the Evangelistic Use of the BookEcclesiastes was indeed used with an evangelistic interpretation in Puritan

writings. 37 This interpretation appears most explicitly at the beginning of John Cotton’s commentary, v. 1 of which points out the relevance of Ecclesiastes for Cotton’s country—at a time when many were ready to leave the gospel “for out-ward things; which are here lively and clearly demonstrated to be vanity, yea, Van-ity of Vanities.” 38

To the possible objection “But were not something of Christ more proper for a Minister of the Gospel to handle?” he gives the following evangelistic answer: “The way to stir us to seek after Christ, is to behold (and be convinced of) the vanity of all things here below.” 39 The whole book is understood by Cotton as a “commen-tary upon the state of corruption” (Rom 8:20) and as a “fit Introduction to Christ in the Canticles” (where one finds the sweetness of the love of Christ). 40

John Trapp is not as explicit in his use of the book “evangelistically” (though he does believe that Solomon proved the vanity of “humane things”), but there are clear sections in his work where the text is interpreted to show the superiority of the new covenant (dispensation) and sections that call the reader to Christ. Com-menting on Eccl 1:10, he exhorts: 41

in Human Society: Essays in Honor of John Rogerson (ed. M. D. Caroll R., D. J. A. Clines, and P. Davies; JSOTSup 200; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995) 307–8. Interestingly enough, the “prophetic inspiration” of Ecclesiastes is found in Puritan writings. Henry says that Solomon spoke not only with the authority of a king but also with “that of a prophet, a preacher; he spoke in God’s name, and was divinely inspired to say it” (Henry, Henry’s Commentary, 982). Cotton (Brief Exposition, 4) also specifically calls Solomon a prophet, since the Scripture was penned “by no other but Prophets and Apostles, 2 Pet. 1.19, 20, 21. Eph. 2.20.” The prophetic nature of the book was also supported by Thaumaturgos (Paraphrase of Ecclesiastes).

37. Note that “evangelistic interpretations” are also found in more recent works. Thus, M. Eaton (Ecclesiastes [TOTC; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1983] 47), even though he rec-ognizes that the Preacher “does not lead us all the way to the Messianic faith” and that “his work is not full-orbed evangelism,” points out that the book can function as the opening of an “evangelistic message” that can lead to faith “along the pathway of conviction and of need.” Peter Kreeft, a Catholic theologian, uses Ecclesiastes to introduce both God and Christ. In the modern age, “[W]e must begin where our patient is; we must begin with Ecclesiastes.” Modern humans must see clearly that, “without a faith that means trust and hope and love, without a love affair with God, life is a vanity of vanities. . . . The world’s purest gold is dung without Christ. . . . There is a ‘philosopher’s stone’ that transmutes all things into gold. Its name is Christ” (see P. Kreeft, Three Philosophies of Life: Ecclesiastes—Life as Vanity, Job—Life as Suffering, Song of Songs—Life as Love [San Francisco: Ignatius, 1989] 27).

38. Cotton, Brief Exposition, 1.39. Ibid.40. Ibid.41. “Is there a thing of which it is said, ‘See, this is new’? It has been already in the ages

before us” (Eccl 1:10, nasb); see Trapp, Commentarie, 9.

76 Cristian G. Rata

Get spiritual eyes rather to behold the beauty of the New creature, (all other things are but nine days of wonderment). . . . Yea get this natural itch after nov-elties killed [kild] by the practice of mortification: and get into Christ that thou may be a new creature! So shall thou have a new name upon thee, a new spirit within thee . . . new wages, new work, . . . a new commandment, . . . a new Covenant . . . a new way to heaven. And a new Mansion in heaven. . . .

Reynolds also recognizes the book as “setting forth the utter insufficiency of all things under the sun to make a man blessed, and the extreme vanity which is in them.” He learns negatively that “happiness is not to be found in anything under the sun,” and positively (affirmatively) that this happiness “is to be found only in God and His service.” All things are vain when put in balance with God and heav-enly things. 42 While commenting on ch. 5, he recognizes that the supreme remedy to the problem of vanity is “the worship of God.” 43 And in his conclusion, while commenting on 12:13, 44 he states: “This, necessarily takes us in the doctrine of faith in Christ, because without him we can do nothing. By faith in him the heart is purified to fear and love God; and by that fear and love, it is inclined to obey his commandments.” 45

The Purpose of the BookContrary to much popular belief, 46 the Puritans, like most people, were con-

cerned to find happiness, and they recognized that the book of Ecclesiastes is able to help in this quest. Solomon was inquiring after “true happiness,” 47 and his book was understood as a “Sapientiall Sermon of the Soveraigne good, and how to attain it.” 48 Poole states that the design and business of the book was “to describe man’s true happiness, and the way leading to it.” 49 This design is captured well in the

42. Reynolds, Ecclesiastes, 41–42.43. Ibid., 112.44. “The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God and keep his commandments, for

this is the whole duty of man” (esv).45. Reynolds, Ecclesiastes, 256. Note also the comments of Matthew Henry on the first

verses of the book: “If Solomon find all to be vanity, then the kingdom of the Messiah must come, in which we shall inherit substance” (Henry, Henry’s Commentary, 982). In my opinion, Matthew Poole was the most literal interpreter, and he interpreted Christ into Ecclesiastes the least often. Note that Theodore of Mopsuetia was one of the most literal interpreters of the Antiochene school (see Jarick, “Theodore of Mopsuestia,” 307–9).

46. See n. 9 above.47. Reynolds, Ecclesiastes, 33. 48. Trapp, Commentarie, 1.49. Poole, A Commentary, 278. Cotton (Brief Exposition, 2) similarly believes that Solomon

fully opens to us the “chiefe good of the sons of men, which the morall Philosophers amongst the Heathen sought after, but found not.”

77Puritan Interpretations of Ecclesiastes

opening verses of the book (1:2–3), and to describe the Puritan understanding of Ecclesiastes it is crucial to analyze their understanding of the key terms “vanity” and “under the sun.”

The Puritans readily agreed with Solomon that “all is vanity,” and the superla-tive and repetitive expression in v. 2 (“Vanity of vanities . . . all is vanity”) was cor-rectly seen as crucial to the tone and interpretation of the book. The things of this world, 50 “the chiefe things which men seek for in this life,” 51 are vain because they cannot satisfy the soul and make one happy, they are corporal and temporal (transi-tory), and there is curse upon them because of the fall. 52 On the one hand, the cre-ated things are “all good and excellent” because they are the works of God, but they are “comparatively vain, when put in the balance with God and heavenly things.” 53

In their interpretation of the recurring phrase “under the sun,” the Puritans like the church fathers and the rabbis before them limited the “all.” Thus, not all things are vain—only the things that are earthly and all the “labour a man taketh (whether of mind or body) about the creatures.” 54 They are vain when they are put in the balance with God and heavenly things, and service for God, especially, is excluded from the grasp of vanity. But anything that a man cannot take beyond the grave is perishing, cannot be profitable, and must be compared to the things of eternal value and duration.

Following this understanding of these key verses and terms, it is no wonder that the Puritan understanding of the purpose of the book was stated by Cotton in the following way: “The summe of this discourse standeth upon these two points: 1. That the chiefe good of the sonnes of men is not to be found in all the creatures under the Sun, nor in men’s labours and waies about them. For they are all vanity and vexation of Spirit. 2. That it is to be found in the feare of God and keeping his Commandments, Chap. 12, v. 13.” 55 Matthew Henry (and Poole in a very similar manner) summarizes the book with more eloquence and clarity:

[Solomon] 1.  Shows the vanity of those things in which men commonly look for happiness, as human learning and policy, sensual delight, honour and power, riches and great possessions. And then, 2.  He prescribes remedies against the vexation of spirit that attends them. Though we cannot cure them of their van-ity, we may prevent the trouble they give us, by sitting loose to them, enjoying

50. Cotton (ibid., 1) calls them “outward things; which are here lively and clearly dem-onstrated to be vanity, yea, vanity of vanities.” And Matthew Henry (Henry’s Commentary, 981) explains further what “all” represents: “the all of this world, all worldly employments and enjoy-ments, and all that is in the world (1 John ii.16).”

51. Cotton, Brief Exposition, 6.52. See ibid., 6–7; and Reynolds, Ecclesiastes, 37–38.53. Ibid., italics mine. Note the similar recent interpretation of P. G. Ryken, Ecclesiastes:

Why Everything Matters (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2010).54. Cotton, Brief Exposition, 12. See also Reynolds, Ecclesiastes, 43.55. Cotton, Brief Exposition, 2.

78 Cristian G. Rata

them comfortably, in every event, especially by remembering God in the days of our youth, and continuing in his fear and service all our days, with an eye to the judgment to come. 56

The “only effectual remedy,” 57 however, for all the vanities described in Ecclesias-tes is found in the worship of God. 58 Reynolds eloquently agrees, and he is worth quoting in full:

This [the worship of God] is the supreme remedy of all the other vanities, and may seem here to be subjoined (so also it is in the end of the book) to that pur-pose, to shew, that though neither knowledge, nor pleasures, nor honours, nor crowns, can make them happy; though it is beyond the sphere and activity of any creature to administer complete tranquility to the heart of a man; yet even in this life a man may be happy by worshipping of God and communion with him.

It is clear from these samples that the Puritans were closely following earlier interpreters of Ecclesiastes because they worked with the premise that Solomon was the author of the book, and they read it as a refutation of the vanity of the (fallen) world “under the sun.” 59 The “earthly things” are vain because they are not lasting and cannot satisfy the human soul, and the only remedy for vanity is in the service/worship and fear of the Lord.

The Puritans and JoyContrary to popular belief, the Puritans loved life 60 and were genuinely inter-

ested in happiness and a life of joy. To prove this point, I concentrate primarily on the Puritan interpretation of the classic passage Eccl 9:7–9, 61 but I also take other

56. Henry, Henry’s Commentary, 980. Reynolds (Ecclesiastes, 35) sees the following excel-lent means for the “healing and abating” of vanity: “contentation of heart in the sweet and free enjoyment of all outward blessings, with thanksgiving, and in the fear of God.”

57. Poole, A Commentary, 288. These references are all related to the beginning of Eccl 5.58. Note that N. Lohfink (Qoheleth [CC; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003] 8, 74–75) considers

Eccl 4:17–5:6 (which he calls “religious critique”) to be “the center of a palistrophic structure that also informs the text as a whole” and the call to fear God as central to Qohelet’s thought.

59. For the “premodern” (before 1500) reading of Ecclesiastes, see E. S. Christianson, Eccle-siastes through the Centuries (Blackwell Bible Commentaries; Oxford: Blackwell, 2007) 23–40, and his contribution to the present volume.

60. See n. 9 above. In Reynolds’ interpretation (Ecclesiastes, 73–74) of 1:17 (“I hated life”), although life “is too mean a thing to bring contentment to the soul of man,” it is called “the greatest outward blessing which human nature is capable of.” And “it is a great fault out of pas-sion, murmuring, outward troubles, nay out of a largeness of heart, as here Solomon doth, to dis esteem and wax so great a blessing” (italics mine).

61. “Go, eat your bread with joy, and drink your wine with a merry [lit., good] heart, for God has already approved what you do. Let your garments be always white. Let not oil be lacking

79Puritan Interpretations of Ecclesiastes

relevant passages into consideration. 62 Thus, while the Puritans agreed with Solo-mon that laughter is madness (Eccl 2:2) and does not accomplish anything worth-while for the soul, they approved of laughter in moderation 63 and were different from the Anabaptists in Calvin’s time, who considered laughter to be “unlawful.” 64 In this context, Reynolds speaks of “true joy,” which is “a severe and serious thing” and “keeps the heart always in a staid and fixed condition.” 65

The first key passage for this topic is Eccl 2:24–26, where we have the first clear call by Solomon to a life of enjoyment: “There is nothing better for a man than that he should eat and drink and find enjoyment [lit., make his soul see good] in his toil. This also, I saw, is from the hand of God. For who can eat and who can have enjoyment without him? 66 For to the one who pleases him God has given wisdom and knowledge and joy.” While Matthew Henry mentions the Targum paraphrase 67 of the passage in passing, he is also ready to accept the literal mean-ing of the passage. Thus,

one should allow himself a sober cheerful use of them . . . to have meat and drink of them for himself, his family, his friends, and so delight his senses and make his soul enjoy good, all the good that is to be had out of them. . . . But observe, He would not have us to give up our business, and take our ease, that we may eat and drink; no, we must enjoy good in our labour; we must use these things, not to excuse us from, but to make us diligent and cheerful in, our worldly business. 68

In all of these things, God must be acknowledged because the good things were created by God and are also “the gifts of his providential bounty to us. And then they are truly pleasant to us when we take them from the hand of God as Father.” 69

on your head. Enjoy [lit., see] life with the wife whom you love, all the days of your vain life at which you toil under the sun” (esv).

62. See n. 9 above.63. See Reynolds, Ecclesiastes, 59: “By laughter, he meaneth excess of joy, and merriment

. . . ,” the kind that displaces reason and is like the “crackling of thorns” (Eccl 7:6). Poole (A Commentary, 281) agrees that Solomon speaks of “excessive mirth, which discovers itself by im-moderate laughter, and other outward gestures.” Matthew Henry (Henry’s Commentary, 987–88) speaks of “[i]nnocent mirth, sober, seasonably, and moderately used” as being good and as help-ing “to soften the toils and chagrins of human life.” However, “when it is excessive and immoder-ate, it is foolish and fruitless.”

64. So Trapp, Commentarie, 15.65. Reynolds, Ecclesiastes, 59. Cotton (Brief Exposition, 35) sees in this passage Solomon’s

attempt to “reprove the vanity and madness of Epicurean gallants.”66. The Puritans followed the kjv translation of this sentence: “For who can eat, or who

else can hasten hereunto, more than I?”67. Henry, Henry’s Commentary, 994: “The Chaldee-paraphrase says, A man should make

his soul to enjoy good by keeping the commandments of God and walking in the ways that are right before him, and (v. 25) by studying the words of the law, and being in care about the day of the great judgment that is to come.”

68. Ibid.69. Ibid.

80 Cristian G. Rata

Reynolds has a similar interpretation and assigns great significance to this passage (2:24–26) when he states that in these verses “is contained that which is the whole sum and subject of this book.” For him, the verses show where

the only good which a man can attain unto in his labour about worldly things, doth consist, and the happiness of this present life, which is, to get the heart sea-soned with fear of God, and to be good in his sight, or approved of him; and then in the assurance and joy of his favour, to make sense of all outward good things with quiet contentment, with freedom, cheerfulness, and delight, which is a spe-cial blessing the Lord gives unto his own servants. The apostle puts all this into two words, godliness and contentment (1 Tim. vi. 6). 70

The combination of enjoyment with contentment and right conduct is found in most of these Puritan writers. 71 And the same is true about the importance of God’s participation (God gives, etc.), for true joy is possible in a fallen world only because of God. Cotton makes this point most eloquently: “Since the fall, the good which God put into the creature (Gen. 1.31) is accursed to us for our sin, so that now labour and sorrow, is all our portion from the Creature, Gen. 17.19. Good-ness residing chiefly in God, is to be found in the creature only by participation, and that at his pleasure, Matth. 19.17.” 72 As a consequence of this, believers are called to “to exhort and to look up unto God for the finding of the good in all the means we use: and to acknowledge him in the attaining of it. . . . We thank God for our good cheere.” 73

Thus, it is clear that the Puritans approve of Qohelet’s call to enjoyment, but their tendency is to urge moderation and to have piety as the principal boundary. This is especially noticeable in their interpretation of Eccl 9:7–9, a text that is con-sidered by Cotton to be inspired: “Solomon here speaketh not in the person of an Epicure, but in the name of the holy Ghost.” 74 Reynolds sets the tone for modera-tion: “He speaketh not (as some conceive) of sensual, epicurean, and brutish ex-cess; but of honest, decent, and cheerful enjoyment of blessings, with thankfulness, and in the fear of God.” 75 It is actually pleasing to God when a person who fears and obeys him enjoys his lot in “an honest, cheerful, decent, and liberal manner.” 76

70. Reynolds, Ecclesiastes, 80. 71. Henry (Henry’s Commentary, 994), especially, quotes the same verse from the Apostle

Paul: “Godliness with contentment, is great gain; and those only have true joy that are good in God’s sight, and that have it from him and in him.”

72. Cotton, Brief Exposition, 53. 73. Ibid.74. Ibid., 201. This is not an Epicurean because Epicureans do not speak as religiously as

Qoheleth, they do not see life as vanity and as a journey to the grave, and because the call to love involves wives. Both Reynolds (Ecclesiastes, 191) and Poole (A Commentary, 299) accept the verses as coming from Qoheleth and not from an Epicurean.

75. Reynolds, Ecclesiastes, 191.76. Ibid., 192.

81Puritan Interpretations of Ecclesiastes

But there is a “principal boundary of our outward pleasures and delights,” and that is

to keep ourselves within such rules of piety and moderation, 77 as that our ways are pleasing to God. And this shows us the true way to find sweetness in the creature, and to feel joy in the fruition thereof; namely, when our persons and ways are pleasing unto God: for piety does not exclude, but only moderate earthly delights, and so moderate them; that though they may not be so excessive as the luxurious and sensual pleasures of the epicures, yet they are far more pure, sweet, and satisfactory, as having no guilt, no gall, no curse, nor inward sorrow and ter-rors attending them. 78

Commenting on 9:8b (“and let thy head lack no ointment”), Reynolds viv-idly outlines both the joy and the delight that he approves but also the necessary restrictions:

[W]e should lead our lives with as much freshness, cheerfulness, and sweet de-light, in the liberal use of the good blessings 79 of God, as the quality of our degree, the decency of our condition, and the rules of religious wisdom, and the fear of God do allow us; not sordidly or forwardly denying ourselves the benefit of those good things, which the bounty of God hath bestowed upon us. 80

Matthew Henry warns that we should not place our happiness in any of these or set our hearts on them. However, they were given to us by God, so “we must make as comfortable a use of as we can afford, under the limitations of sobriety and wis-dom, and not forgetting the poor.” 81

The main boundary to the call to love in 9:9 (“enjoy life with the wife whom you love”)—a boundary that is recognized and accepted by all these Puritan writ-ers—is that the woman to be loved is one’s wife. This is understandable because all of them work with a text in which the Hebrew אשה is translated “wife” 82 and because it is in harmony with the rest of Scripture. Again, Reynolds explains this most eloquently, “Therefore, he speaketh not in the person of an epicure, to whom stolen waters are sweet . . . but of a lawful and chaste love (as Prov. 5:15–19). . . . There is a special freshness of delight in the liberty of love, which is allowed in this

77. Henry (Henry’s Commentary, 1033) speaks about a “sober and moderate” use of the comforts of life.

78. Reynolds, Ecclesiastes, 192. Note also Trapp (Commentarie, 123), who speaks of a cheerfulness of mind that proceeds from a good conscience.

79. Cotton (Brief Exposition, 200) lists the following five blessings that come from God and that we should enjoy: meat or bread, wine, garments, ointments, and the “wife beloved.”

80. Reynolds, Ecclesiastes, 193 (italics mine).81. Henry, Henry’s Commentary, 1033 (italics mine).82. Notice the kjv: “Live joyfully with the wife whom thou lovest all the days of the life of

thy vanity.”

82 Cristian G. Rata

relation, though still within the bounds of honour and sobriety.” Trapp, J. nicely specifies that one’s love for one’s wife should not be simply Christian love but also conjugal love, “which indeed will make marriage a merry-age, sweeten all crosses, season all comforts. Shee is to be called the wife of a mans bosome, because she should be loved as well as the heart in his bosome.” 83 Matthew Henry agrees with this call but extends it even further: “Live joyfully with her, and be most cheerful when thou art with her. Take pleasure in thy family, thy vine and thy olive plants.” 84

Reynolds’s interpretation of 9:10 (“Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might”) is also relevant to this topic because he reiterates very well both his approval of the call to enjoyment and the necessary boundaries:

Though this [verse] be applicable unto all duties of piety and charity, yet the scope of the place aims principally at the enjoyment of the comforts and commodi-ties of present life, which we are cheerfully, while they are put in our hands, to enjoy. . . . Here also we may observe what manner of delights he alloweth them, namely, such as arise from honest labours, and are guided and moderated by art, knowledge, and wisdom. Our delights must not be sensual, but rational and industrious. 85

The call to moderation is repeated by some of the Puritans based on their un-derstanding of the important phrase “life of thy vanity” and the fact that these activities are not possible anymore after death (9:10). Thus for Poole, Qoheleth mentions “the life of your vanity” (as in 6:12) “to moderate men’s affections even towards lawful pleasures, and to mind them of their duty and interest in making sure of a better life, and more solid comforts.” 86 Other reasons for restraint are well presented by Reynolds in the daring and controversial call in 11:9 (“Rejoice, young man, in your youth”): “Since all that cometh, is vanity, as well youth as age . . . he therefore persuaded those who are more subjected to be transported with the pleasures of life, to remember death and judgment, and thereby restrain their inordinate desires.” 87

83. Trapp, Commentarie, 125. For Trapp, Isaac was the most loving husband in the Bible, and he seems the least concerned with restrictions in the call to enjoyment (as long as the enjoy-ment is with “a good conscience”).

84. Henry, Henry’s Commentary, 1033.85. Reynolds, Ecclesiastes, 195.86. Poole, A Commentary, 299.87. Reynolds, Ecclesiastes, 234. Note that, while most Puritans seem to be willing to take

this verse at face value, the tendency is strong to interpret the first part of the verse as an “ironi-cal concession” by Qoheleth. The “removal of sorrow” from the heart is interpreted by Poole as “sensual and disorderly lusts” that will bring “intolerable and eternal sorrows” (see Poole, A Commentary, 304). Matthew Henry (Henry’s Commentary, 1045) tells us that this passage is “commonly understood” as irony.

83Puritan Interpretations of Ecclesiastes

The Puritans on Obedience in EcclesiastesAs expected and noted already above, the Puritan interpreters recognize the

importance of the fear of God and of obedience, as it is found in the conclusion, Eccl 12:13. However, they also find the call to obedience in a few other, unexpected places. Thus, in John Trapp’s interpretation of Eccl 5:1, 88 he makes the following observation: “[W]hen we come to God’s House, we should come with the best preparation we can make; we should also be there with the first, and stay till the last . . . and be ready to hear, as those good souls. 89. . . Neither must we heed only the hearing of the ear, but with the obedience of the heart and life (for so the Original word here signifies).” 90 In this same context (commenting on 5:1), Cot-ton points out the importance of a “sincere desire and purpose of heart, to attend and obey the whole counsel of God when coming before God to worship” (he also mentions Acts 10:33). 91

Trapp’s eloquent plea for obedience while commenting on 12:13 is worth quoting in full. Here, we also find a fine example of his quotable style:

Bear an awfull respect to the Divine Majesty, a reverentiall fear: and from this principle obey God in every part and point of duty: doe this and live. Doe it in an Evangelicall way I mean: for we can do it no otherwise. Wish well to exact obe-dience, as David does, Psal. 119:4–5. Oh, that I could keep thy commandments accurately: and woe’s me that I cannot. And then bee doing as thou canst, for affection without indeavour, is like Rachel, beautifull but barren. 92

Also, referring to a famous preacher from “the Kingdom” who noticed that Eccle-siastes begins with “all is vanity” and ends with “fear God and keep his command-ments,” Trapp comments:

Now if this sentence were knit to this, which Solomon keeps to the end as the haven of rest after the turmoiles of vanity, it is like that which Christ said to Mar-tha, Thou art troubled with many things, but one thing is necessary. That which troubles us, Solomon calls vanity: that which is necessary he calls the fear of God.

88. “Guard your steps when you go to the house of God. To draw near to listen is better than to offer the sacrifice of fools, for they do not know that they are doing evil” (esv). This fol-lows the Hebrew text more closely. Poole (A Commentary, 283) explains the hastening as refer-ring to procuring and enjoying the comforts of this life.

89. Here Trapp (Commentarie, 51) quotes Acts 10:33: “[Y]ou are here to hear all that you have been commanded by the Lord” (esv).

90. Ibid. To support his point, showing that he knows Hebrew, he refers to Gen 3:17 (incor-rectly cited by him as Gen 3:18): “Because thou hast heard, that is obeyed, the voice of thy wife . . . hearing diligently without distraction, and doing readily without sciscitation [inquiring].”

91. Cotton, Brief Exposition, 92.92. Trapp, Commentarie, 169–70.

84 Cristian G. Rata

From that to this, should bee every man’s pilgrimage in this world. We begin at vanity, and never know perfectly that wee are vain, till we come to fear God and obey his commandments. 93

Additional TeachingsThere are many other insights found in the works of these Puritans that may

be relevant to both scholars and ministers. These may be worth considering, espe-cially by students who share their view of the Bible and are involved in preaching and other church ministries.

One of these insights has to do with sermon preparation, and the teachers are again John Trapp and John Cotton commenting on 12:9–10. 94 This passage is understood as reproving ministers’ failure to study for or prepare sermons, or failing to teach ministers to imitate Solomon in sermon preparation. Thus, one should read and listen to sacred Scripture diligently and ponder it carefully. Trapp exhorts: “By diligent scrutiny and hard study: beating his brains as the soul beats the fish to get the fish with great vehemency . . . the Preachers should always medi-tate in their hearts upon the sacred Scriptures.” 95 Commenting on “the preacher sought,” Trapp observes: “He sought and sought, by paines and prayer. He knew the rule. . . . To have prayed well is to have studied well. By prayer and tears St. John gat the book opened, Rev. 5.4. Luther got much of his insight into God’s matters, by the same means.” 96

There is a certain eloquence and concern for the arrangement of words in the book of Ecclesiastes (we find here delightful words arranged with great care), and these Puritans concluded that the preacher of the Word would do well to follow this example. Trapp goes on to give numerous examples from the Bible and church history of preachers who seem to have followed this advice: “Appollo that eloquent preacher . . . such were many of the Greek and Latine fathers.” 97 Furthermore, the Puritans entreated ministers to understand their role as planters, who also exhort diligent reading and hearing of the Scripture, even Solomon’s books. 98 Thus one should follow in the steps of Solomon and preach words “void of all insincerity and falsehood . . . to rouse up mens drowsie and drossie spirits: to drive them . . . out of the nest of carnall security: to awaken them out of the snare of the Devil.” 99

93. Ibid., 170 (italics original).94. “Besides being wise, the Preacher also taught the people knowledge, weighing and

studying and arranging many proverbs with great care. The Preacher sought to find words of delight, and uprightly he wrote words of truth” (esv).

95. Trapp, Commentarie, 166.96. Ibid.97. Ibid., 167. He mentions here Ambrose, and later Phillip Melanchthon and Calvin, “fa-

mous for the purity of his style and the holinesse of his matter.”98. Cotton, Brief Exposition, 267.99. Trapp, Commentarie, 167. He notes here the relevant examples of Peter, Stephen, John

the Baptist, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

85Puritan Interpretations of Ecclesiastes

Most useful for scholars and intellectuals may be the Puritan exhortations on Eccl 12:12. 100 This verse is understood by Reynolds as an “argument to enforce the exhortation, from the fruitlessness and vanity of other studies.” 101 Thus, the min-ister of God should concentrate especially on the Bible, and this “is to be chiefly studied.” 102 The vanity of other studies is explained very eloquently by Reynolds, and it is again worth quoting: 103

First, there is no end in writing them; one refutes what another wrote; another vindicates what his adversary disliked. If happiness were to be sought in human writings; the volumes are so infinite, the opinions so endless and various, that it would be impossible for any man to find it out of them. . . . Therefore, let these words so few, and yet so full, be thy counselors. He that will not be admonished by these, shall never be satisfied with any others. He that refuses the wheat, will be but choked with the chaff. Well may we say unto this one shepherd, as Peter did, “Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.” (John vi. 68) These only are the writings that make us wise unto salvation and do furnish us thoroughly unto good works.

John Trapp tackles this verse from a different angle and exposes the vanity and covetousness of the authors who sought to be published in what he calls a “scribbling age.” In his own words:

Ambition and covetousness sets many Authours awork in this scribbling age . . . presses are greatly oppressed: and every fool will bee medling, that he may bee a fool in Print. . . . Many are sick of my very disease, saith Erasmus, that though they can do nothing worthy of the publick, yet they must be publishing: hence the world so abounds with Bookes, even to satiety and surfeit. 104

Even though John Trapp quotes other classical authors far more than Reynolds and Cotton (he seems the most versed in classical literature), he decries the discovery of authors who “will find one day to their sorrow, that are better read in Sir Philip than in St. Peter, in Monsiers Balzac’s letters, then [sic] St. Paul’s Epistles.” That is why the Bible should be “chiefly studied,” it should be read until we fall asleep, and “salute the leaves with a kiss, as Hierome exhorted some good women of his time. All other Bookes, in comparison of this, we are to account as waste paper.” 105

100. “My son, beware of anything beyond these. Of making many books there is no end, and much study is a weariness of the flesh” (esv).

101. Reynolds, Ecclesiastes, 255.102. Trapp, Commentarie, 169.103. Reynolds, Ecclesiastes, 255.104. Trapp, Commentarie, 169.105. Trapp is commenting here on 12:12 (“much study is weariness of the flesh,” esv).

Jerome calls this labor carnis. See Trapp, Commentarie, 169.

86 Cristian G. Rata

The Puritans still inspire many in their ministry, and the forceful and vivid exhortations and instructions mentioned above are some of the reasons for this. Of course, the Puritans were not perfect; they made mistakes and had their short-comings. Nevertheless, one can find in the writings of these interpreters a firm conviction that things under the sun are extremely vain when compared with God and heavenly things. Contrary to unfortunate depictions of the character and mood of the Puritans, their interpretation of Ecclesiastes demonstrates that they understood this book as encouraging the enjoyment of the good things of life, as long as one retains an atmosphere of reverence for God and moderation.

The Puritans remain as (imperfect) examples of true biblical theologians. Like many of the church fathers, they were servants who were extremely well versed in Scripture, and this made it possible for them to do real biblical theology, a theol-ogy that looked back to what preceded and forward to the revelation of Christ in the New Testament.

With the light and discernment that they had, they “sought to find words of delight, and uprightly wrote words of truth.” These were words that goaded/stirred many from their lethargy and also words that helped others to cling closer to their Master. As they spoke in the past to their congregations, they continue to speak to many today. They continue to speak today (though dead) because, in that “scribbling age,” they did not seek to be published out of vain ambition; instead, they wrote because they had something to say and because they had a deep con-cern for the Church.