A Brief Survey of James, Part 2

A Brief Survey of James, Part 2

Theological Issues:

The primary, if not only, theological issue raised by the Epistle is James’ contention for “justification by works.”  All Christians, even Arminians, realize the need to harmonize, or synthesize, James’ statements with the apparently contradictory teaching of St. Paul.  Taking for granted the fundamental unity of God’s written word, we must assume different usage of the words “justification” and “faith” by the two authors.

Luther’s objection ("an Epistle of straw, and destitute of an evangelic character") was due to his mistaken idea that it[1] opposes the doctrine of justification by faith, and not by works, taught by Paul.  The two apostles perfectly harmonize because they are looking at justification from distinct standpoints.  Paul considers faith in the justification of the sinner before God, whereas James views it in the justification of the believer manifestly before men.  James confronts the Jewish error that the possession and knowledge of the Law would justify them even though they disobeyed.[2]  James 1:3; 4:1, 14 seem to allude to Romans 5:3; 6:13; 7:23; 14:4.  Plus the tenor of James 2:14-26 on justification seems to allude to Paul’s teaching – correcting false Jewish notions different from those Paul combated.  These errors, however, were not completely unnoticed by Paul.[3]  And, strangely enough, Luther clearly understood James’ point about the nature of faith.  In the preface to his commentary on Romans he asserts that it is “impossible to separate works from faith – yea, just as impossible as to separate burning and shining from fire.”[4]  This was the understanding of faith accepted by all the Reformers.  The seventeenth century Puritan writer Walter Marshall wrote: “Holiness… [as love of God and humankind] is considered, not as a means, but as a part, a distinguished part; or rather as the very central point in which all the means of grace, and all the ordinances of religion, terminate.”[5]

In illustration of James’ meaning concerning faith and works, we might consider the case of Noah.  He built the ark, we are told in Hebrews 11, by faith.  Had Noah’s faith been a purely notional assent to doctrinal propositions, he would have perished with the rest of the antediluvians.  There would exist no evidence of his “faith.”  While God may have seen such a faith, it would have remained unseen by men.  James calls such faith “dead.”  He does not say that the faith is unreal.  There is a world of difference between an imaginary friend and a corpse for a friend.  One does not exist; the other is only a shell of the real thing.  Paul calls such faith, “a form of godliness, denying the power thereof.”[6]

Two textual issues are of particular interest to this writer.  The first is Erasmus’ emendation of 4:2.  In the 1500’s, Erasmus edited the best Greek manuscripts of his day to retranslate the New Testament because of the terrible state of the extant copies of St. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate.  So bad were the copies, Erasmus claims they gave birth to several doctrinal errors.  When he reached verse 2, he conjectured φθεiτε instead of φονεύετε.[7]  This changes the rendering from, “you kill and covet,” to, “you envy and covet.”  Erasmus may be correct.  Secondly, in 5:12, many old manuscripts have ἵνα μὴ ὑπὸκρίσιν instead of ὑπὸ
κρίσιν.[8]  The former reads, “So that you do not fall into hypocrisy.”  This would appear to be the correct rendering, considering the rest of the verse: multiplying our words beyond a simple, “Yes,” or, “No,” leads to hypocrisy.

Prophecy:

The destruction of Jerusalem seems to be foretold in James 5:1ff.  This was the way the passage was understood by the ante-Nicene Church.  The prophesied destruction ensued shortly after James’ martyrdom.  Hegesippus, quoted by Eusebius relates that he was set on a pinnacle of the temple by the scribes and Pharisees, who begged him to restrain the people who were in large numbers embracing Christianity.  "Tell us," they said in the presence of the people gathered at the feast, "which is the door of Jesus?" James replied with a loud voice, "Why ask ye me concerning Jesus the Son of man?  He sitteth at the right hand of power, and will come again on the clouds of heaven."  Many thereupon cried, Hosanna to the Son of David.  But James was cast down headlong by the Pharisees; and praying, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."[9]  He was stoned and beaten to death with a fuller's club.  The Jews, as we know from Acts, were incensed at Paul's rescue from their hands, and therefore determined to wreak their vengeance on James.  The publication of his Epistle to the dispersed Israelites made him loathsome to them, especially to the higher classes, because it foretold the woes soon to fall on them and their country.  Their taunting question, "Which is the door of Jesus?" (i.e., by what door will He come when He returns?), alludes to his prophecy, "the coming of the Lord draweth nigh. . . behold the Judge standeth before the door"[10]   Hebrews 13:7 is probably an allusion to the martyrdom of James, who had been so long bishop over the Jewish Christians at Jerusalem, “Remember them that had the rule over you, men that spake unto you the word of God; and considering the issue of their life, imitate their faith."

Style:

The style of the Epistle is compact and terse.  The Epistle is pervaded by a Hebraic character, appearing in the occasional poetic parallelism.[11]  The images are analogical arguments, combining logic and poetry at the same time.  The Epistle is eloquent, yet persuasive at the same time.  It is similar in some respects to Matthew, the most Hebrew of the Gospels.  This is what we might expect from the bishop of Jerusalem writing to Israelites.  The doctrines of grace, the distinguishing features of Paul's teaching to the Hellenists and Gentiles, are less prominent as being already taught by that apostle. James complements Paul's teaching, and shows to the Jewish Christians who still kept the legal ordinances down to the fall of Jerusalem, the spiritual principle of the law, namely, love manifested in obedience.  The higher spirit of Christianity is seen putting the Jewish law in its proper place.  The Law is enforced in its everlasting spirit, not in the letter for which the Jews were so zealous.

---

[1] James 2:14-26

[2] Compare 1:22 with Rom 2:17-25).

[3] Rom 2:17ff.

[4] Luther, Martin – Commentary on Romans, Preface

[5] Walter Marshall, The Gospel Mystery of Sanctification, 1692

[6] 2Tim. 3:5

[7] James Moffatt’s New Testament

[8] Ibidem

[9] Ecclesiastical History, 2.23

[10] James 5:8, 9

[11] James 3:1-12

A Brief Survey of James, Part 1

A Brief Survey of James, Part 1

Author:

In the Greek, his name is Ἰάκωβος, Jacob, rather than James.  The name change occurred as the New Testament underwent translations from Greek to Latin and Latin to English.  In fact, all individuals in the New Testament named James are actually Ἰάκωβος in Greek.

The author of this Epistle was without doubt James, the brother of our Lord.  There are three distinguished persons in the New Testament who bear the name James: James, the son of Zebedee, John’s brother – one of the Twelve; James the son of Alphaeus, also of the Twelve, called James the Less[i]; and James, called by Paul in Galatians "the brother of our Lord,”[ii] the man who appears in Acts 15 as wielding a paramount influence in the church at Jerusalem. The epistle could not have been written by James, the brother of John, for he was martyred by Herod[iii] before its date. Therefore the authorship must be ascribed either to James, the son of Alphaeus, or to James, "the Lord's brother."

From the earliest days of the Church the latter has been agreed upon as the author.  All known facts about him point to this conclusion as well.  He was a permanent resident of Jerusalem and preeminent in the church.  He was the chief figure in the Jerusalem Council: it was his judgment that once for all settled the circumcision debate.  St. Paul calls him one of the, “pillars of the church.”[iv]  It is for these reasons that he could authoritatively address the entire community of Jewish Christians scattered around the Roman world.

Some commentators have assumed the author to be James, the son of Alphaeus, a cousin of the Lord, instead of a brother.  This theory usually hinges upon the supposed “perpetual virginity” of Mary.  If she had no other children than Christ, his “brothers” could not be literal siblings.  There are four facts that militate against this theory:

• It is highly unlikely Clopas’ wife was Mary’s sister – this would entail two sisters with the same name.  John names two pairs: Mary and her sister, and Mary the wife of Clopas.  The sister, no doubt, was Salome, John’s mother.  Hence, John was Mary’s nephew.  Since at the times of the Crucifixion none of Christ’s brothers were believers, it is in this connection that Jesus assigns the care of his mother to John instead of his own brothers.
• We are explicitly told that Jesus’ brothers were not believers.  Consequently none of them could have been of the number of the apostles.
• They are never called cousins of Jesus nor is there any proof that the Greek word which designates them as "brethren" is ever used in the sense of cousins in the New Testament.
• After the Resurrection, when these brothers had become believers, they are distinguished from the Twelve[v].  This fact cannot be explained if at least two out of four of them were of the Twelve.  It is true that in Galatians 1:19 James is spoken of as an apostle, yet neither he nor Paul – the greatest apostle, was of the Twelve.

These facts seem to me to clearly indicate that James, Christ’s brother, the author of the Epistle, was not one of the Twelve and was a brother to our Lord in the sense that he was a child of Mary.

James’ prominence in the early church can be seen in the following references: Acts 12:7; 15:19; 21:18; Galatians 1:19; 2:9; 2:12.  The New Testament is silent concerning his later history but Josephus, the Jewish historian says “[Ananias] assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned.”[vi]

Date:

The date of the Epistle is difficult to ascertain.  Based on internal evidence most commentators place it in the period between Paul’s two imprisonments in Rome – i.e., about A.D. 62.  Since James resided in Jerusalem, this would be the place of writing.  Nevertheless, there are a few commentators who place the Epistle as early as 39 A.D.  The main internal support for this view comes from the fact that James calls the saints’ assembly a sunagwgh instead of an ekklhsia.  The reasoning employed is that the saints had not yet been completely expelled from the synagogues yet and forced thereby to form their own congregations henceforth called churches.

Canonicity:

In the early Patristic age there was some questions as to its canonicity, but these passed away rather soon.  Clement of Rome quotes it.[vii]  Hermas quotes 4:7.[viii]  Irenaeus is thought to refer to 2:23.[ix]  According to Cassiodorus, Clement of Alexandria commented on it.[x]  Ephraim the Syrian quotes 5:1.[xi]  A strong proof of its authenticity is that it formed part of the old Syriac version, which contains no other of the disputed books, except Hebrews.[xii]

James’ inspiration as an apostle is expressly referred to in Acts 15:19, 28: "My sentence is…It seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us."  His ecclesiastical authority is implied by the deference paid to him by Peter and Paul.[xiii]  The Lord had appeared specially to him after the resurrection.[xiv]  Peter in his First Epistle (universally from the first received as canonical) implicitly confirms the inspiration of James's Epistle by incorporating with his own inspired writings no less than ten passages from James.  The "apostle of the circumcision," Peter, and the first bishop of Jerusalem, would naturally have much in common.[xv]  The fact that it was written in the purest Greek would seem to show that it was intended not only for the Jews at Jerusalem, but also for the Hellenistic Jews.

Audience:

The recipients of this letter were the Jewish Christians who were part of the Diaspora, i.e., the Dispersion of the Jews throughout the world.  This would seem to explain why, when in Chapter 2, in his discourse against favoritism, he calls their assembly a συναγωγὴ - a synagogue, instead of ἐκκλησία.

Object:

James’ object was to enforce the practical duties of the Christian life.  This largely accounts for the Epistle’s conspicuous lack of doctrinal statements.  The Epistles of Paul are usually an even balance: one half theology, one half application.  For instance, the first three chapters of Ephesians are purely theological pronouncements.  Chapters 4-6 however are the application of the foregoing doctrines.  Galatians is divided the same way as well.  This letter however contains 100% application, insinuating that the theology James is applying was familiar enough to his audience that he could forego repeating it.  He warns against several Jewish vices:

·         Formalism, which made the service of God consist in washings and outward ceremonies.  He therefore reminds them (1:27) that it consists rather in active love and purity.

·         Fanaticism, which, under the cloak of religious zeal, was tearing Jerusalem in pieces (1:20).

·         Fatalism, which threw its sins on God (1:13).

·         Callousness, which crouched before the rich (2:2).

·         Falsehood, which had made words and oaths play-things (3:2-12);

·         Partisanship (3:14);

·         Evil speaking (4:11);

·         Boasting (4:16);

·         Oppression (5:4).

The grand lesson he teaches them as Christians is patience:

• patience in trial (1:2),
• patience in good works (1:22-25),
• patience under provocation (3:17),
• patience under oppression (5:7),
• patience under persecution (5:10);
• the ground of their patience is that the coming of the Lord draws near, which will right all wrong (5:8).

---

[i] Mark 15:40

[ii] Galatians 1:19

[iii] Acts 12:2

[iv] Galatians 2:9

[v] Acts 1:14; 1 Cor. 9:5

[vi] Antiquities 20.9.1

[vii] Clement of Rome, 1 Corinth XI

[viii] Hermas, The Shepherd

[ix] Irenaeus, Against Heresies 4.16.2

[x] Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary: Introduction to James

[xi] Ephraim the Syrian, Against the Greeks

[xii] Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary: Introduction to James

[xiii] Acts 12:17; 21:18; Galatians 1:19; 2:9

[xiv] 1Cor. 15:7

[xv] Compare James 1:1 with 1 Peter 1:1; James 1:2 with 1 Peter 1:6; 4:12, 13; James 1:11 with 1 Peter 1:24; James 1:18 with 1 Peter 1:3; James 2:7 with 1 Peter 4:14; James 3:13 with 1 Peter 2:12; James 4:1 with 1 Peter 2:11; James 4:6 with 1 Peter 5:5, 6; James 4:7 with 1 Peter 5:6, 9; James 4:10 with 1 Peter 5:6; James 5:20 with 1 Peter 4:6

A Brief Survey of Ecclesiastes, Part 2

A Brief Survey of Ecclesiastes, Part 2

Canonicity:

The canonicity of the book was, however, long doubtful (Yad. iii. 5; Meg. 7a), and was one of the matters on which the school of Shammai took a more stringent view than the school of Hillel.  It was finally settled "on the day whereon Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah was appointed head of the assembly."  Attempts were made to render it apocryphal on the ground of its not being inspired, or of its internal contradictions, or of a tendency that it displayed toward heresy — that is, Epicureanism.  But these objections were satisfactorily answered.  It was assumed that Solomon had taken the name "Qohelet," just as he had taken the name "Agur" (Prov. 30:1), as a collector; and probably the Septuagint rendering represents a theory that the name contained an allusion to I Kings 8:1 where Solomon is said to have gathered an assembly.  Along these same lines Rev. Scott wrote, “all of them [the “Epicurean-sounding” maxims] admit of a sound and useful interpretation, when accurately investigated, and when the general scope of the book is attended to.”[1]

There are no direct quotations of Ecclesiastes in the New Testament, however Matthew 23:23, R. V., "These ye ought to have done, and not to have left the other undone," seems clearly a reminiscence of Eccl. 7:18.  Holden gives a list from the German critic Carpzov of texts with more or less resemblance, but few of them carry any weight of parallelism or reference.

The “corrupt propensities,” as Bridges calls them, of the writer do not influence in deteriorating its real authority.  For this depends not upon the instrumentality employed but upon the dignity of its great author and the truthfulness of the testimony.  There is, for this reason, no ground to question that this book was given  - like every other part of Scripture – by inspiration of God.

Purpose:

The Book’s manifest purpose is to show that all is vanity unless one, “fears God, and keeps His commandments” (12:13).  The book is a record of Solomon’s desperate journey.  It was a maddening period in his adult life when life lost its luster.  He questions everything in life—values, God, ethics, etc.  He sought to live without God.  The goal of the journey is to show that you cannot live a significant, worthwhile, meaningful life without a personal relationship with God.  When you leave God out, life is a repetitious cycle of events, which neither possesses nor gives lasting value or satisfaction (1:2-11).  Solomon’s states clearly that significance in life can be found only in a trusting relationship with God:  Everything else is vanity.  If it is “under the sun” it will not satisfy because it is life apart from God.  Jesus asked, “For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul?  Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?”[2]  An adequate worldview must recognize that God is the highest value of all.  Life has a purpose and God will judge every deed.  Incidentally, this book is a testimony to the great doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints.  Despite the depths of Solomon’s fall, he was not left by God to die in that state.  Rather, like all the elect he was recalled and died securely in the grace of God that elected him to salvation before the foundations of the earth. 

Theme:

“Vanity of vanities, All is vanity” (1:2).  “Wine, women and song” is the experience of living on the edge of reality without God.  Understanding of life begins with a healthy fear of God.  Elohim is used forty times in this book.  He is the total sovereign provider over all His creation.  The Preacher repeatedly admonishes men to “fear God” (3:14; 5:6; 8:12; 12:13).  Ecclesiastes reports the results of a diligent quest for purpose, meaning and satisfaction in human life.  The Preacher poignantly sees the emptiness and futility of power, popularity, prestige and pleasure apart from God.  The word vanity appears 37 times to express the many things that cannot be understood about life.  When earthly goals and ambitions are pursued as ends in themselves, they lead to disappointment and frustration.  Life "under the sun" (used 29 times) seems to be filled with inequities, uncertainties, changes in fortune, and violations of justice.

Yet Ecclesiastes does not give an answer to atheism or skepticism; God is referred to throughout.  In fact, it claims that the search for man’s summum bonum must end in God.  Satisfaction in life can be found only by looking beyond this world.  Ecclesiastes gives an analysis of negative themes but it also develops the positive theme of overcoming the vanities of life by fearing a God who is good, just, and sovereign (Eccl. 12:13, 14).

Style:

Ecclesiastes belongs to the Hebrew Wisdom literature.  The Hebrew in Ecclesiastes is unique to any other Hebrew from any other period.  It has some Aramaic and Persian words.  Archer says, “The reason for the peculiar vocabulary, syntax, and style seems to be found in the literary genre to which Ecclesiastes belonged – the genre of the philosophical discourse. If this particular genre was first developed in Phoenicia, and if Solomon was well read in this whole area of wisdom literature (cf. 1 Kings 4:30-34), there is every reason to believe that he deliberately chose to write in the idiom and style that had already been established for that genre.”[3]  It seems reasonably obvious that we are dealing here with a conventional style peculiar to the particular genre to which Ecclesiastes belonged.   It so happens that in the case of the precise genre to which Ecclesiastes belongs, we have nothing else that has survived from Hebrew literature.  There are some remarkable similarities between some passages in Ecclesiastes and the corresponding sections in the Proverbs.  He writes as a philosopher, and a keen observer of world history, current events and personal experiences.

Christ in Ecclesiastes:

Ecclesiastes convincingly portrays the emptiness and perplexity of life without a relationship with the Lord.  Each person has eternity in his heart (Eccl. 3:11), and only Christ can provide ultimate satisfaction, joy and wisdom.  Man’s summum bonum is found in the "one Shepherd" (Eccl. 12:11) who offers abundant life (John 10:9, 10).   In a striking passage from his commentary on Ecclesiastes, Gregory of Nyssa sees Qohelet as a reference, or perhaps a type of Christ.  He writes: “We must first consider the inscription of this book: ‘The words of Ecclesiastes, son of David, king of Israel in Jerusalem.’ The law of Moses is read in every church along with the prophets, psalms, historical books and other Old and New Testament readings. How, then, does this special inscription enhance Ecclesiastes, and what are we to make of it? …Perhaps this inscription refers to the leader of the Church [ekklesia]. The true Ecclesiastes [Qoheleth, Christ] gathers into one assembly those persons who often have been scattered and frequently deceived. Who could he be except the true king of Israel to whom Nathaniel said, "You are the son of God and the king of Israel" (Jn 1.49)?  If these words pertain to the king of Israel, the Son of God, as the Gospel says, then he is called Ecclesiastes. We will not deviate from the inscription's meaning provided that we learn about him who firmly establishes the Church through the Gospel and to whom these words apply. "The words of Ecclesiastes, son of David" [1.1]: thus Matthew begins his gospel with the name David and calls him Lord.[4]

Conclusion:

No better conclusion of the book can be given than Solomon’s own: The conclusion, when all has been heard, is: fear God and keep His commandments, because this applies to every person (12:13).  Everything apart from God is futile.  Augustine said, “Thou hast made us for Thyself and our hearts are restless until they find their rest in Thee.”[5]  When a person begins to grow spiritually, he realizes that the former way of life and the worldview that results from it no longer suffices for the new manner of living that has come to be.  In other words, what we once valued is no longer deemed to be so valuable.  The book of Ecclesiastes clearly provides expression for such a recognition. 

Solomon explored every visible realm of stimulation in a carefully controlled environment and was still unsatisfied.  Only God satisfies our deepest needs in life.  Everything else is “vanity."

---

[1] Preface to Ecclesiastes

[2] Matthew 16:26, NASB 1995

[3] Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties

[4] Gregory of Nyssa, Commentary on Ecclesiastes

[5] Confessions 1.1

A Brief Survey of Ecclesiastes, Part 1

A Brief Survey of Ecclesiastes, Part 1 

The Book of Ecclesiastes has exercised the Church in no small degree.  Many learned men have not hesitated to list it among the most difficult books in the Canon.  Luther doubted whether any expositor up to his time had fully mastered it.  Gregory of Nyssa says, ”When [the book of] Proverbs has exercised our minds by its obscure words, wise sayings, riddles and various twists of words as contained in the Introduction, we find an ascent for those persons who have advanced to more perfect lessons with regard to this lofty, divinely inspired book.  If a toilsome, arduous meditation on Proverbs prepares us for these lessons, how much more laborious and difficult must it be to now examine such sublime matters proposed for our contemplation!”[i]

Gregory of Nyssa did not fail to consider the role Ecclesiastes would play in his scheme for the spiritual life. He saw it divided into three stages, an outline inherited from his illustrious predecessor, Origen of Alexandria: praktikh qeoria or "practical, applied" contemplation, yusikh qeoria or "physical" contemplation and qeologia or "theology" which pertains to God proper.  In Origen's scheme the book of Proverbs represents the first stage, the book of Ecclesiastes the second and the Song of Songs the third and final stage.  Gregory himself speaks of the three books of Solomon with reference to the three stages of spiritual growth at the beginning of his Commentary on the Song of Songs.

In Gregory and Origen’s system, the purpose of Proverbs is to teach; Ecclesiastes preaches.  The philosophy of the Song of Songs transcends both by its loftier doctrine.   For Gregory of Nyssa Proverbs is the first way, Ecclesiastes is the second and the Song of Songs is the third.  In Gregory’s view we see a need to be instructed in spiritual things before advancing to a realization that our former perceptions were subject to vanity.

These views may be a bit overly philosophical yet they do point to an interesting fact about the actual location of Ecclesiastes in the Canon.  It is just before the Song of Songs and just after Proverbs.  When one has fully realized and felt the futility of life apart from God, only then can his soul truly appreciate the splendor of the Heavenly Bridegroom.

Title:

The Book of Ecclesiastes gets its title from the first words of the book: “The words of Qohelet (ko-heh-let), the Son of David, King in Jerusalem” (1:1).  The name "Ecclesiastes"—literally, "Member of an Assembly," often thought to mean (after Jerome) "Preacher"—is the Septuagint rendering of the Hebrew "Qohelet," apparently as an intensive formation from the root "qahal," with which such forms as the Arabic "rawiyyah" (professional reciter) have been compared. The Hebrew word is given by the author of the book as his name, sometimes with the article (12: 8, and probably 6: 27), but ordinarily without it: similar license is allowed in Arabic in the case of some common nouns used as proper names. The Greek title is derived from the term ekklesiastes, which is a good translation meaning “preacher,” and is derived from ekklesia, meaning “assembly.” The Greek is Latinized into Ecclesiastes.

Author:

The author of Ecclesiastes can be none other than King Solomon the son of David.  His name is nowhere mentioned in the book, however references in Ecclesiastes clearly suggest his authorship. The Jews considered Ecclesiastes to be Solomonic and inspired. The early Christian church also approved it. The author identifies himself as Davis’s son who was a king over Israel in Jerusalem (1:1). The book is consistent with the historic accounts of Solomon (1 Kings 1-11), and he has the qualities that would make him David’s son (1:16; 2:4-9).  Some critics of note, such as Grotius, Dathè and others have rejected the Solomonic authorship on the grounds of supposed differences in style and the use of a few words of a supposed later origin.  These arguments, however, amount to theoretical doubts or plausibilities.  They in fact, involve a supposition utterly unworthy of Inspiration, viz., that some unknown author has palmed upon the Church in the Sacred Canon his own thoughts and words under the deceptive cover of the name of, “the son of David – King in Jerusalem.”  Gleason Archer writes, “Most modern scholars admit that the purported author of Ecclesiastes is Solomon; but they maintain that this was simply a literary device employed by a later author, now unknown to us, who wished to teach the ultimate futility of a materialistic worldview. If this could be accepted as valid, it would certainly put in question almost every other affirmation of authorship to be found in any other book of the Bible. Some later, unknown author might equally well have pretended to be Isaiah, Jeremiah, Hosea, or the apostle Paul, simply as "a literary device to express his own views." If it were any other book than the Bible, this would have to be classified as forgery, a mere product of deception, which would render the actual author of such a spurious work liable to damages in a court of law. It is more than doubtful that a Bible that holds to such high standards of integrity and honesty and that was certified by the Lord Jesus and His apostles as being the infallible Word of God could be composed of spurious work by authors who paraded under assumed names.”[ii]

Therefore, there is no conclusive evidence against king Solomon as the author.  There are two lines of evidence in favor of the Solomonic authorship: External evidence and internal.

As for the external evidence we have the Jewish Talmuds (the authoritative body of Jewish tradition comprising the Mishnah and Gemara), which attributes the book to Solomon but suggests that Hezekiah’s scribes may have edited the text (see Prov. 25:1).  Solomonic authorship of Ecclesiastes is the standard Christian position, although some scholars, along with the Talmud, believe the work was later edited during the time of Hezekiah or possibly Ezra.

The internal evidence is quite conclusive.  The author calls himself, "the son of David, king in Jerusalem" (Eccl. 1:1).  A later reference rules out any other offspring of David as a possible candidate, since Solomon was the only son of David to be king of Israel in Jerusalem (1:12).  After Solomon’s death the kingdom was divided and all David’s descendants that ruled in Jerusalem reigned only over the southern kingdom of Judah.  Solomon was the best-qualified Davidic descendant for the quest in this book.  He was the wisest man who ever taught in Jerusalem (see Eccl. 1:16; I Kings 4:29-30).  The descriptions of Qohelet’s exploration of pleasure (Eccl. 2:1-3), impressive accomplishments (Eccl. 2:4-6) and unparalleled wealth (Eccl. 2:7-10) were fulfilled only by King Solomon.  The proverbs in this book are similar to those in the Book of Proverbs (e.g. Eccl. 7:10).  According to Ecclesiastes 12:9, Qohelet collected and arranged many proverbs, perhaps referring to the two Solomonic collections in Proverbs.  Furthermore, the unity of authorship of Ecclesiastes is supported by the seven references to Qohelet.

The Grecisms supposed to be found in the book are all imaginary (for instance,  has no connection with fqe1gma.  The phrase "under the sun," which occurs so frequently, is also found in the Eshmunazar and Tabnith inscriptions, not later than 300 B.C., as the equivalent of "on earth"), and the suppositions as to borrowings from Greek philosophy which some have professed to detect are all fallacious.[iii]

Date:

The date is probably around 940-935 B.C., which would be consistent with Solomon as the author (970-931 B.C.).  All the best commentators are agreed that Solomon wrote this book toward the end of his life after his apostasy.  Bishop Reynolds says, “He seemeth to have written it in his old age, when he took a more serious view of his past life – the honour, pleasure, wealth, and wisdom he had so abundantly enjoyed – the errors and miscarriages he had fallen into – the large experience, and many observations he had made of things natural, moral domestical, sensual, Divine – the curious and critical inquiry he had made after true happiness, and what contributions all things under the sun could afford thereunto.”[iv]

All the internal evidence confirms this date.  It could not have been composed before his fall, i.e., before the awful state of madness he so graphically describes.  Neither could he have written it during the time since it is obviously a record of the past viewed in repentance.  We are left with no option but the later date.

The book was plainly written in a spirit of genuine penitence for the sins he had fallen into.  “He writeth in such sort, as if he had learned the doctrine of the vanity of earthly things by very great experience and long use.”[v]  The circumstances remind us of his father’s example – writing a psalm (Ps.51), however, he produces an entire book as a solemn testimony to the Church of his godly repentance.  “After his great fall Solomon recovereth himself again by repentance, and writeth his Book of Ecclesiastes, as his peculiar dirge for that his folly.”[vi]  Witsius speaks of this book “as written in his old age, when led, under the influence of the Divine Spirit, to repent of his past life.”[vii]  All the Patristic commentators agree with this view.

[i] Gregory of Nyssa, Commentary on Ecclesiastes

[ii] Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties

[iii] See Ad. Lods; "L'Ecclésiaste et la Philosophie Grecque," 1890

[iv] Annotations on Ecclesiastes – Works, vol. Iv.

[v] Lightfoot, Works, vol. i

[vi] Ibid.

[vii] Misc. Sacra, vol. ii. Exercit. vi.1

A Brief Survey of 1 Peter, Part 2

A Brief Survey of 1 Peter, Part 2

Theological Issues:

The main purpose of this letter is to strengthen these saints, who were weary from violent persecution.  Peter uses the certainty of the saints’ perseverance to encourage them amidst fierce opposition.  Though their earthly state was unsure, their heavenly state was guaranteed.  Peter’s line of reasoning runs: Elect,[1] Regenerated,[2] Preserved.[3]  He then gives Christ’s example of patient suffering.[4]  Nothing can encourage us like certainty.  Complete assurance of salvation is the greatest antidote against weakness and the temptation to surrender amidst trials and tribulations.  This is surely one of the great weaknesses of the Arminian scheme.  How can we appreciate the inheritance which is “reserved” for us in heaven when there is no certainty that we will even get there?

To further refute the Arminian error, Peter next argues that knowledge of our perseverance tends to holiness.  It is frequently alleged by Arminians that the doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints tends to spiritual indifference, sloth and sin.  This is because they assume that if a person knows with absolute certainty that nothing he can ever do will remove him from Christ’s hand,[5] they will indulge in all manner of iniquity.  In other words, they will make grace a license for sin.  Scripture repeatedly denies such reasoning.  How can we who are dead to sin still live in it?[6]  In fact Jude tells us that those who use grace as a license for sin are “ordained[7]” to perdition (another doctrine Arminians dislike).  After reminding his readers of their spiritual privileges, Peter stirs them to holiness.  From verses 13 to 25 of Chapter 1, Peter gives us twelve exhortations to holiness.  They are:

1. Draw up our affections from things below.[8]
2. Keep free of the slavery of our former lusts.[9]
3. Walk agreeably to our holy calling.[10]
4. There is to be conformity between God and His children.[11]
5. God is an impartial Judge.[12]
6. We are pilgrims, sojourners on earth.[13]
7. Our redemption was costly.[14]
8. Christ is the eternal Mediator.[15]
9. Christ was exalted and glorified as our Guarantor.[16]
10. We should consider our past progress.[17]
11. We should be mindful of our spiritual origin (incorruptible seed).[18]
12. We must remember the excellence of our spiritual estate.[19]

In the first part of Chapter 2, Peter exhorts us to read the Scriptures.  He calls them sincere milk.  The Greek word is “guileless."[20]  The article, "the," implies that besides the well-known pure milk, the Gospel, there is no other pure, unadulterated doctrine.    To this end, Peter gives us several motives to a hearty reception and study of the sacred Scriptures.

      It is sincere milk.

      It is full of spiritual reason.

      It is the principal means of all progress and growth in grace.

      It will prove the reality of any experience of God’s graciousness.

      We can daily settle with Christ.

All of the above considerations lead us to a doctrine rarely mentioned in evangelical circles today: mortification, by which word we mean the putting to death of the misdeeds of the old sin nature[21] – the old man.[22]  When a man is justified, he must them walk in the newness of life[23] and deny himself,[24] putting to death, little by little, the innate tendencies of the old man, because all things have become new.[25] Mortification differs from Sanctification in this point: We are sanctified by God’s Spirit as we mortify the deeds of the flesh.

It is seldom insisted upon today, nay, it is seldom even mentioned that there exists a struggle between the new and the old in every believer.  This struggle accounts for much of the Romans 7-like tension true believers feel.  Alexander Nisbet puts it quite beautifully when he says in his Scottish manner, “There remains in the children of the Lord not only after their regeneration, but even after some progress in mortification, many strong corruptions and filthy frames of spirit which are left to humble them, Rom. 7:24, and to stir them up to earnest employment of Jesus Christ, both for mercy and power to subdue them, 2 Cor. 12:8; for upon those whim the Apostle supposed to be not only born again (1:23), but to have attained to good degree of mortification (1:22), he here presses that they should lay aside malice, and guile and hypocrisy.”[26]

Assurance of our perseverance leads to mortification and sanctification, not to licentiousness.  It is slander to say that the doctrines of grace lead to sin.  

Peter goes on from these theological considerations to press how to apply these truths practically to all of our affairs: domestic, work-related, or otherwise.  And then, as if he had not been emphatic enough, in Chapter 4, he comes back to the subject of Mortification.

He finishes the letter with reminiscences of his dialogue with the risen Christ in John 21.[27]  The wording of 5:5 suggests that Peter was familiar with James’ letter.[28]  This is an extra proof that there is no conflict between the theology of James and Paul.  Peter cites James and in the same letter confirms the doctrine of Paul.

In summary, the Epistle is a very good reminder of the certainty of our salvation and that a consideration of such privilege should stir us up to holy living and patient suffering.

---

[1] 1:2

[2] 1:3

[3] 1:4 - 9

[4] 1:10 - 12

[5] John 10:28

[6] Romans 6:1, 2

[7] Jude 4

[8] 1:13

[9] 1:14

[10] 1:15

[11] 1:16

[12] 1:17

[13] 1:17

[14] 1:18

[15] 1:20

[16] 1:21

[17] 1:22

[18] 1:23

[19] 1:24 - 25

[20] cf. 2:1 – “Laying aside all guile…”

[21] Romans 8:13, Colossians 3:5

[22] Romans 6:6, Ephesians 4:2, Colossians 3:9

[23] Romans 6:4

[24] Matthew 16:24

[25] 2 Corinthians 5:17

[26] Alexander Nisbet, Commentary on 1 and 2 Peter

[27] Compare 5:2 with John 21:16

[28] cf. James 4:6