The Most Difficult Book in the Bible

If you ask people what they think the most difficult book in the Bible is, many will say Revelation. That book is filled with symbolism and requires a great deal of effort to understand. There are many different interpretations, which has lead to so much confusion that some people avoid the book altogether.

But if you ask me, I think there is a book in the Bible that is even harder to understand than Revelation. As confusing as Revelation is, it is possible to get a great deal out of it even if you don’t fully understand everything it’s saying. Moreover, everyone agrees that the book does have a meaning; it’s just a matter of finding it out. I have never come across anyone who has said “Revelation is utter nonsense. It has no meaning. The best thing to do is to skip it and move on.”

I say these things because there is a book in the Bible that some people think has no meaning. It’s not merely difficult to understand; many have asked if it ought to be included in the Bible at all! They read it, gasp in astonishment, and wonder who allowed it to be in the canon of Scripture in the first place. Some have even suggested that reading this book actually makes you a worse person.

I am talking about the book of Ecclesiastes. This book absolutely ties scholars up in knots. Revelation may be difficult, but at least there are several different schools of thought, which has developed interpretations that have been stable for centuries. The debate boils down to which interpretation is correct. Ecclesiastes, however, is a very different story. People don’t know what to make of the book, and so commentators have come up with wild ideas. Some people think that the entire book is an example of ungodly, naturalistic thought. Others think that the book is uninspired. Some teach that Solomon wrote it at the end of his life when he had lost his mind, and the book is an example of his insanity and ungodliness. People are all over the board on this one.

It’s not hard to understand why. If you read the book it’s easy to think that it was written by an atheist. I mean, look at what it has to say:

Ecclesiastes 1:2-3: “Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity. What profit hath a man of all his labour which he taketh under the sun?”

I’m not surprised to hear someone complain that life is meaningless. What does surprise me is to hear the Bible say that. Life is meaningless? Really? That’s a Biblical idea? Surely it doesn’t really mean that! Only, the book keeps repeating that idea:

Ecclesiastes 2:17: “Therefore I hated life; because the work that is wrought under the sun is grievous unto me: for all is vanity and vexation of spirit.”

All is vanity and vexation of spirit. All is a waste of time. The writer goes on to say that it’s much better to be dead than to be alive, and not being born is even better than that!

Ecclesiastes 4:2-3: “Wherefore I praised the dead which are already dead more than the living which are yet alive. Yea, better is he than both they, which hath not yet been, who hath not seen the evil work that is done under the sun.”

He’s not saying this because of how great the afterlife is; he’s saying this because life is meaningless and everything is a waste of time. “It’s just better off being dead”, he explains.

So is it any wonder that scholars shake their head at this book? It hardly seems like the sort of thing you would want people to read. Can you imagine a preacher getting up and telling his congregation that they would be better off dead because life was a meaningless waste of time?

So what’s going on here? What is the point of this book? Why is it included in the Bible? How do we make sense of all this?

I, for one, think that there is a point here. The book is not utter nonsense, nor is it uninspired drivel written by someone who desperately needed antidepressants. It is wisdom – and it says something that we need to hear. The reason we have so much trouble understanding the book is because we don’t understand the question the writer was trying to answer. Once we understand what he was actually asking, the difficulties melt away.

First of all, right in chapter one, we’re told what the writer had set out to do:

Ecclesiastes 1:13: “And I gave my heart to seek and search out by wisdom concerning all things that are done under heaven: this sore travail hath God given to the sons of man to be exercised therewith.”

The author set out to examine all of life, to see what was meaningful and what was not. The book is not simply a random collection of mindless ramblings; it is a unified picture of a man examining all the different facets of life, one at a time. Nor is the writer a lunatic. The end of the book points out that he is a wise man, and sought words that were upright and truthful:

Ecclesiastes 12:9-10: “And moreover, because the preacher was wise, he still taught the people knowledge; yea, he gave good heed, and sought out, and set in order many proverbs. The preacher sought to find out acceptable words: and that which was written was upright, even words of truth.”

At the end, after having considered everything, he concludes this:

Ecclesiastes 12:13-14: “Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.”

His conclusion is that the duty and role of man is to fear God and keep his commandments. That alone was meaningful; that alone was worth doing. Everything else in life is folly. Some may claim that there is meaning apart from fearing God and obeying him, but they are fools. That is all that is really worth doing.

If that is his conclusion, then we can work backwards and read the book in light of that thought. Doing that changes everything.

In chapter 1, when he says “all is vanity”, he does not mean “there is nothing in life that is meaningful”. What he is trying to point out is that mankind is essentially building sandcastles on the beach, and the tide is coming in and is going to wipe them all out. He points out that a man can build all he wants, but then he will die and turn it over to others, and there is no telling what they will do with it. Moreover, the only things one can do are the same sort of things that previous generations have already done. Sure, you can amass great wealth. You can build great things, and you can do great wonders. But then you will die and lose it all, and turn it over to someone else – “And who knoweth whether he shall be a wise man or a fool? yet shall he have rule over all my labour wherein I have laboured” (Ecclesiastes 2:19). The author hated knowing that, ultimately, he would lose his life’s work and turn it over to someone else.

The conclusion that he draws from this is that labor isn’t satisfying. In and of itself, it is not meaningful. You spend your life building and then you lose it all, and there is nothing you can do about it. If you are looking for meaning in your life, it cannot be found here.

Now before we go any further, I realize that in God life is very meaningful indeed. But the author is not examining life from an eternal, spiritual perspective. He is not asking the question “As we serve God, is our labor meaningful?” What he is asking is “All by itself, with no other considerations, is labor meaningful?” His conclusion is no, it’s not. It’s just vanity.

Can we agree with that? Absolutely. Life really is meaningless if it is not lived for the Lord – which is the very point the author of Ecclesiastes makes in the last chapter of this book. It is vital to understand that the author is examining the facets of life all by themselves, apart from God, to search for meaning. He is doing this so that, at the end of the book, he can point out that only in God is anything meaningful at all. When we read this book we tend to assume a spiritual perspective that the author was deliberately not using. He wanted to show the utter vanity of life without God.

For example, in chapter three he considers mankind itself and realizes that men die, just as animals die. Both grow old and both return to dust. He therefore concludes that man has no preeminence above animals; both are of the dust, and both return to dust again.

Now, as Christians we know that there is a huge difference between people and animals; people who believe in Jesus will never die, and will go on to inherit everlasting life. Once we bring God into the picture life becomes meaningful – but without God it’s a very different story. If one excludes God from the picture and just looks at life itself, you are forced to conclude that mankind really isn’t better than animals. This is the exact same conclusion that evolutionists have drawn: we all die, and ultimately are just another kind of animal. If you exclude God you will always be forced into that conclusion. You simply cannot find any meaning apart from God. In fact, in a universe devoid of God, you really are better off dead, because at least then you don’t have to suffer the many horrors that life can offer – and that is the very point that the author made.

Let me repeat this one more time: Ecclesiastes was not written in order to analyze life from an eternal perspective. It was written to analyze each piece of life all by itself, to see if it had any inherent meaning. The author concludes that no, it doesn’t; apart from God there is no meaning to be found anywhere. Even wisdom itself is meaningless apart from God, because both wise men and fools die. Wisdom, alone, cannot save you. Wisdom is better than foolishness, but ultimately you will still die. Apart from God, death is the end; once you die you know nothing, and can do nothing, and are utterly cut off from what goes on under the sun. Your work, and your existence, and even your name are utterly lost, as time wipes it all away. You led a meaningless life and now you’re gone, and after a while it will be as if you had never existed at all.

That is what the world looks like without God. Those are the conclusions that atheists will ultimately be forced to draw. When you stare deep into the well of godlessness – when you look into the matter down to its very core – you will find vanity and bleak despair. There is nothing but utter hopelessness.

The problem is that people don’t think that deeply about life. They just go on, consumed with whatever they’re doing, and never stop to think it through. So Ecclesiastes thinks it through for them. It points out the folly and futility of a godless life. It urges them to stop and consider their ways, while there is still time. Bring God into your life, the author urges. There is meaning and purpose there. With God life becomes worth living. With God the perspective changes. But without Him it is all in vain.

Ecclesiastes does not support the atheistic cause; it’s actually a powerful tool against them. The book graphically shows where atheistic thought ultimately leads, and offers a cure for it. The book tells atheists that their life is meaningless and their labor is in vain. They will die, just like animals. Their wisdom counts for nothing. The book refutes their every attempt at finding meaning, by showing that there isn’t any to be found. Meaning, and purpose, and hope can only be found in God. That is the point of the book.