|
This is a text reader for the article below:
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Wednesday 5/06/26
Thru the Bible: Solomon’s initial thoughts… Vain of just Fleeting?
Message Video Player
Message Audio Player:
Podcast: Download (Duration: 56:04 — 98.8MB)
Solomon’s initial thoughts… Vain of just Fleeting?
Ecclesiastes 1:1-18, (ESV)
“(1) The words of the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem.”
It isn’t terribly important but here in the first verse, Solomon is identified as king in Jerusalem, whereas in verse 12 he adds “king over Israel in Jerusalem”. Some translations, like the Septuagint therefore have added the additional “over Israel” into the first verse for the sake of harmony.
This simple statement is more important than it appears since it identifies the time period of the one who wrote these sayings and THAT is important for 2 reasons.
First, Solomon, as I said in our Introduction to Ecclesiastes, was in a very unique position in all of human history to write this book being the most wise, the most powerful, the most wealthy, the most influential person we know of – he would have been in the perfect position to seek out wisdom, folly, lasting value and transient value.
Secondly it is important for the integrity of scripture. This book claims to have been written by Solomon and yet modern textual analysis suggests otherwise so time and authorship are incredibly important.
Now as I said last week, secular scholars have some very good literary basis for dating this book late so we do not want to treat that evidence lightly. But as I also told you last week, I believe they are incorrect for some very solid reasons which we have already covered.
In the end, the dating of the book is not truly dependent on the date of the copies. A book can be compiled, translated and updated at an entirely later date than the source material from which it is drawn. We saw this in some of the Proverbs where Solomon had written many proverbs which he clearly never made public, but which King Hezekiah had compiled and added to the greater book of Proverbs we have today. The same is true of 1st & 2nd Kings and 1st & 2nd Chronicles, though being a historical account it could hardly be any other way.
So this is a way in which Solomon would still be the one who wrote these words, and yet they were not compiled into an actual scroll for general use until much later.
The reason why this is important is because the only way these words can be held as true is if the one identifying themselves as the writer – truly IS the writer. At the end of the day, only Solomon fits the profile not only due to his mention as the writer, but also due to the fact that He is represented here as being King over ALL OF ISRAEL, but reigning from Jerusalem. That was only possible for the first 3 kings of Israel and only one of them was named Solomon!
First statement:
“(2) Vanity of vanities, says the Preacher, vanity of vanities! All is vanity.”
This is the first in a list of 38x’s this phrase or similar will appear in these short 12 chapters.
The Hebrew word is heveland means vapor, breath, or mist and is used to describe life as fleeting, unsatisfying, or incomprehensible. THAT is important, since the word “Vanity” is an altogether different idea.
Vanity implies that something is altogether pointless and while this may be proper in some places because it is used to represent who Solomon “felt” about something, it is most often NOT true in and of itself.
For example, while one’s labor under the sun rarely produces something that is of eternal value, it does produce immediate value and therefore could not honestly be deemed “useless” as Solomon often calls it. Most of these comments of Solomon are within the context of his own very subjective set of conditions which need to be met in order for something to be considered of lasting value. In the end though, it is often Solomon’s conditions which are in fact vain.
So after much consideration I believe it wise to broaden our definition of havel to include the possibilities of its root and native meaning which would be temporary or fleeting and allow context to tell us the difference.
A great example of this is this first chapter which is largely about the transient nature of life. That past generations’ impact does not last and the impacts we have while alive quickly fade and are generally remembered no more. This is no basis for claiming that what was done was of no value and therefore utterly vain, but rather that those actions produced only a temporary or fleeting impact.
So while vanity is not a bad word nor is futile, which is employed by other translations, there are clearly times when it would be more consistent with the actual meaning of both the Hebrew word havelas well as its usage in the text to say fleeting or temporary.
I freely admit that I’m no Hebrew scholar and therefore have no expertise in this direction – I do possess at least a modicum of common sense so I took my thoughts and submitted them to some searches on the subject and found I am not alone in my persuasions. The only reason it is important is because, being such a primary theme mentioned throughout the book, properly capturing the nuance of the thought is likely to greatly impact our understanding and therefore influence it towards or away from God’s point in having it written.
One search said this –
Interpreting hevelin Ecclesiastes as “fleeting” or “temporary” (like a breath or vapor) is widely considered more consistent with the text than simply “vanity” or “meaningless“. It highlights that life’s joys and efforts are transitory, uncontrollable, and hard to grasp, rather than completely worthless, as explored in articles likethis analysis of hevel in Ecclesiastes.
Key Reasons for “Fleeting” or “Temporary” is because Hevel’sliteral meaning being breath, vapor, or mist—correctly represent something that appears briefly and cannot be held onto which ties right into Solomon’s use of the phrase “grasping for the wind”.
Another good example is this – If hevelmeant solely “meaningless,” then Solomon’s advice to enjoy simple pleasures (eating, drinking, working) would be contradictory to all his other statements. In fact, Solomon was saying that it is precisely BECAUSE life is temporary (hevel), one should enjoy these gifts from God when they present themselves and are available.
There is a third option which was suggested in my searches and that is the use of the word “hevel” as an enigma and therefore used paradoxically. An example of this would be the apparent absurdity or unfairness of life, like when one righteous person dies young while another unrighteous or even blatantly wicked man lives a long, prosperous life.
Using “fleeting” or “temporary” helps capture that life is not devoid of value, but that the things humans value in life are often inconsistent and temporary.
One Catholic columnist writer – William Hemsworth offered this example in his article “Hevel And The Perplexing Nature Of Ecclesiastes”:
Imagine that the meaning of life is contained in steam or vapor. You grab and grab and yet you are not able to grasp the vapor. At best your hands get wet, but that is not vapor. Soon you give up because the endeavor is futile because one is not physically able to grab a gas .
This attempt is fleeting, meaningless, and even transient.
Does that mean that the vapor itself is meaningless or transient? Not all all, but that such is the outcome, or judgment we make, based on our interaction with it.
Even as Solomon says in Ecclesiastes 2:11,
“Then I considered all that my hands had done and the toil I had expended in doing it, and behold, all was vanity and a striving after wind, and there was nothing to be gained under the sun” (ESV).
The first question – what does MANKIND gain from his toil?
Ecclesiastes 1:…
“(3) What does man gain by all the toil at which he toils under the sun?
(4) A generation goes, and a generation comes, but the earth remains forever.
(5) The sun rises, and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises.”
This is a sidenote, but since the scriptures are inspired and not dictated, this is stated from Solomon’s human perspective and is no more intended to be a scientific statement than it is when your phone or the meteorologist announces that “sunrise” will be at 7am. It is a turn of phrase which at some points in human history were considered literal and at others was simply stating things as they appear from a human perspective on the earth.
Most people refer to dawn and dusk as sunrise and sunset. So it is wise not to read more into a statement than is actually there. Those who are sticklers for taking the scriptures literally even when it is clear linguistically that what was said was metaphor or a turn of phrase run into problems all the time. The Bible speaks of the four corners of the earth, by which is meant the farthest extremities of the earth relative to the speaker’s location. But it also tells us that God sits above the circle of the earth. You cannot have both being literal at the same time and it is a fool’s errand to try.
“(6) The wind blows to the south and goes around to the north; around and around goes the wind, and on its circuits the wind returns.
(7) All streams run to the sea, but the sea is not full; to the place where the streams flow, there they flow again.
(8) All things are full of weariness; a man cannot utter it; the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing.
(9) What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done, and there is nothing new under the sun.
(10) Is there a thing of which it is said, “See, this is new”? It has been already in the ages before us.
(11) There is no remembrance of former things, nor will there be any remembrance of later things yet to be among those who come after.”
Here is an example of what sometimes at least appears to be a logical fallacy of Solomon’s words and conclusions if they are taken literally. If nothing is remembered then how can the claim be made that all that is happening now, has already happened and that there is nothing new under the sun?
One of two things could be true about this statement and those like them in this book.
Solomon, being clearly a discontented man due to his lifestyle of futile pursuits, projected this emptiness upon all he saw.
Solomon had begun his life with great respect for God and his father David. He was a man of follow through, not just words in regard to honoring the law. But as is recorded in 1 Kings 11:4-11, his heart turned from God and towards progressive compromise with foreign wives, idolatry, and forbidden accumulation of power.
Many scholars believe the book of Ecclesiastes represents his late-life reflections, on these choices which they believe culminated in a return to “fearing God and keeping His commandments” as is recorded in the final conclusion of this book and is set forth as the primary purpose of life [See Eccl 12:13]. I have long held this view as well.
So it is possible that his reflections are grounded not only in his personal experiences, but in the sadness and overwhelming sense of futility he saw upon reflection on the ungodliness of his choices throughout most of his life.
The second possibility is that Solomon is speaking philosophically on the limitation of human achievement, so that:
- He emphasizes the repetition of human experience—birth, death, labor, and desire—which mimics the natural cycles of the sun, rain, wind – spring, summer, fall and winter.
- His tendency to see everything from human perspective alone and thus exclude God’s eternal perspective. The phrase “Under the sun” underscoring that focus.
- As a means of satisfaction. For even with his immense wisdom and creativity, Solomon discovered that material achievements, pleasures, and innovation cannot provide true fulfillment or satisfaction.
- Also, due the way patterns tend to repeat themselves, what seems new in one generation is often just a repetition of past events that have been forgotten. So that philosophically this statement capitalizes more on the tendency of humans to neglect a knowledge of history so that every “rediscovery” is seen as new – even though it truly isn’t.
“(12) I the Preacher have been king over Israel in Jerusalem. (13) And I applied my heart to seek and to search out by wisdom all that is done under heaven.”
“It is an unhappy business that God has given to the children of man to be busy with.”
Not to beat a drum to death, but I want to press upon you the lens or filter through which Solomon was making these observations. It is a real truth that no one is more miserable than a Christian in sin. Their inward nature does not allow them impunity to sin but rather a torn inner misery and such was the case with Solomon. Not due to his being righteous, but rather, because his wisdom never left him, he could not pursue the emptiness of sin without a clear view to its futileness.
“(14) I have seen everything that is done under the sun, and behold, all is vanity and a striving after wind.
(15) What is crooked cannot be made straight, and what is lacking cannot be counted.”
In this instance Solomon’s use of the word vanity regards man’s inability to change the cycles of life he just mentioned. Patterns in life repeat themselves over and over again in an endless pattern. Most people can live largely oblivious to this since they are so rooted in the present and don’t have as much time or desire for such contemplations as did Solomon. But these patterns serve a very real purpose of God which actually leads to life if viewed through the lens of eternal ends rather than earthly satisfaction.
Upon reading this I was immediately reminded of fractals which are infinitely complex, self-similar patterns generated by repeating simple mathematical rules. These mathematical rules are simply repeating sets of algorithmic calculations which are often referred to as iterations, recursion, or substitution rules.
Rather than attempt to bore you with a dissertation on them, which I am hardly qualified to do anyway, I thought I’d show you a video of two examples of them which is a little more than 3 minutes and 30 seconds long . I chose this length because in the Mandelbrot set, you almost appear to be falling into the fractal and I thought less time would fail to offer the right impression and more might make you a little woozy.
I chose two of the most famous and primary examples of this but which produce entirely different results. These are referred to as the Penrose Tiles and the Mendelbrot set.
The video just shows you a graphical representation of these equations.
The first example in the video will represent the non-repeating patterns produced by the Penrose tiles.
The second is the complex, but infinitely repeating Mandelbrot set.
Both systems are foundational in exploring how simple, deterministic rules generate immense complexity and self-similarity, though, as I said, the Penrose tilings are non-repeating structures rather than infinite and identical.
The Mendelbrot set is the one that best represents Solomon’s view of the never ending, repeating cycle of life. It demonstrates infinite detail, where zooming in reveals smaller and smaller copies of the whole, often exhibiting cyclical, recurring structures. These patterns seemingly blend chaos with order.
To all of this Solomon says,
“(16) I said in my heart,
“I have acquired great wisdom, surpassing all who were over Jerusalem before me, and my heart has had great experience of wisdom and knowledge.”
(17) And I applied my heart to know wisdom and to know madness and folly. I perceived that this also is but a striving after wind. (18) For in much wisdom is much vexation, and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow.”
This last phrase captures nicely what I said earlier. In truth, wisdom does NOT create vexation and sorrow – it only enables one to recognize it. But for the one who possesses wisdom and does not walk in it, that wisdom causes the heart to be vexed and sorrowful.
Blessings!
Blessings!
