Ecclesiastes Inadequacy Of The Gentle Summary

Ecclesiastesoffers an interesting ontology in which human existence is vain and uncontrollable, and in which the incomprehensible, unchangeable ways of God govern one’s life. The story is recounted by a Preacher, a wise man, who, having seen all work done beneath the sun1, reports:that “all is vanity”, that one’s toils are meaningless2, that nothing is new3, and thatone ought to live one’s life enjoyably4, for all men die regardless of their labors. Above all, the Preacher’s writing is personal; wecan’t help but feel proximate to him, however negative his ontology may seem, becausehis writing is in the first personand appeals to us (his readers) directly. Below, I will evaluate Ecclesiastes, focusing mostly on verses I:8-9 because they are

Likewise, we may apply the same logic toman’s aural senses:that they areunable to hear thing’sweariness.I will now turn to the Greek Testament to identify and discuss some similarities between the Preacher’s theory of the inadequacy of the senses and similar theories written later, particularly that of Matthew; in doing this, it is not my intention to suppose that Ecclesiastes directly influenced the Gospel of Matthew, butrather to evaluate certain topical similarities which, as we’ll discover, may bemerely superficially similar. Let’s take Matthew 13: 13-15 and compare it with Ecclesiastes 1:8: the former imports the theory of man’s inadequate senses toclarify the causeof Christ’s parabolic speaking; “because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand,”Christ must translate his divine thoughts into words to better convey them to those who otherwise could not understand their pure meaning; he acts as a medium between pure divinity and oblique humanity, humans’being unable to understand the pure meaning of the divine without the aid of translation. However, despite their seeming similarities, this passage opposes the Preacher’s theory of the inadequacy of the senses. The Preacher imports that those things which cannot be comprehended (things’ weariness) are uncircumstantially incomprehensible, meaning that they, even in translation, can nevertruly be apprehended. Moreover, the Preacher does not mention a medial figure whose abilityto translate the incomprehensible into the comprehensible reducesman’s ignorance; rather, he insists that man will neverbe able to truly comprehend the incomprehensible. Further, because he speaks from a position of privilege, having done all things under the sun, we must respect his authority8, and value his words as we do Christ’s. 8Although he describes his experiences hyperbolically—surely he hasn’t done everything under the sun—I will treat his words as if they were true, for it would be