the former days were better than these?' (vii. 10.) The former time, so bright and happy, and the present, with its predominant gloom, were alike ordained by God (vii. 13 should follow vii. 10); and as a last consolation for cool and rational thinkers, be sure that there is nought to fear after death; there are no torments of Gehenna. This in fact is the reason why God ordains evil; there being no second life, man must learn whatever he can from calamity in this life.
On a good day be of good cheer, and on an evil day consider
(this): God hath also made this (viz. good) equally with that (evil),
on the ground that man is to experience nothing at all hereafter[1]
(vii. 14; comp. ix. 10).
Thus, not only 'be not righteous over much' (vii. 16), but
'do not believe over much' is the teaching of our rationalist-thinker.
There is neither good nor evil after death. But is
there no present judgment? Yes; but this is not a thought of
life and hope. It is a true 'religion' to him; it binds him in
his words as well as his actions. But although Hooker so admired
the saying in v. 2 ('God is in heaven, and thou upon
earth, therefore let thy words be few') as to quote it in one
of his finest passages,[2] yet the context of v. 2 sufficiently
shows how different was the quality of the reverence of the
two writers. Be careful to pay thy vows, says Koheleth, lest
when thou invokest God's name, His angel should appear, and
call thee to account.
Suffer not thy mouth to bring punishment upon thy body; and
say not before the angel, It was an oversight;[3] wherefore should
God be angry at thy voice, and destroy the work of thy hands?'
(v. 6.)*
- ↑ 'Hereafter' is, literally, 'after him' (for the meaning of which see iii. 22, vi. 12); 'experience,' literally 'find' (comp. Prov. vi. 33). For other views, see Wright, who objects to the above explanation that it 'is opposed to the teaching of Koheleth respecting a future judgment.' But the question is, Did Koheleth believe in a future judgment?
- ↑ Eccles. Polity, i, 2, § 3.
- ↑ There is a touch of humour here; comp. the wretch in the fable who called Death to his aid, but refused him when he came. Klostermann has done well in reviving this interpretation, which, in Germany at least, had been generally abandoned. (Delitzsch thinks the 'angel' is the priest whom the man who has vowed approaches with a request to be released from his vow. This is supported by
