vii. 2 his former commendation of feasting, and declares,

It is better to go into the house of mourning than to go into the house of feasting, inasmuch as that is the end of all men, and the living can lay it to his heart (vii. 2).

I said that Koheleth was too pessimistic to remain long under the influence of hedonism. I might have said that he was too thoughtful; a rational man could not, without the anticipations of faith, close his mind to the suggestions of pessimism in the circumstances of Koheleth’s age. Better thoughtful misery than thoughtless mirth, is the keynote of the triad of maxims (vii. 2-6) on the compensations of misery which follows the dreary sentence praising death, in vii. 1.[308] Resignation is the secret of inward peace; ‘with a sad face the heart may be cheerful.’ Not only in view of the great problem of existence, but in your everyday concerns, restrain your natural impulses whether to towering passion or to brooding vexation at the wrongness or the slowness of the course of human affairs (vii. 8, 9). Above all, do not give way to an ignorant idealism. It is unwise to ask ‘How is it that 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[309] (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,[310] 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;[311] wherefore should God be angry at thy voice, and destroy the work of thy hands?’ (v. 6.)

To Koheleth the mention of the divine name is a possible source of danger; to Hooker God is One ‘whom to know is life, and joy to make mention of his name.’ Koheleth has only fear for God’s holy name—a fear which is not indeed ineffectual but very pale and cheerless; Hooker, a ‘perpetual fear and love,’ and the love gives a new quality and a new efficacy to the fear.

Footnote 307:

Hitzig in his commentary refers to the history of the high priest Onias and his nephew Joseph. Afterwards he recalled this opinion; but we may be thankful to him for directing attention to this curious and instructive historical episode.

Footnote 308:

The mechanical juxtaposition of the two halves of ver. 1 is obvious. The proverb gains considerably, if read with Bickell’s very plausible supplements,

‘Better is a good name than precious ointment, [but wisdom is still better than fame; better is not-being than being] and the day of death than the day of one’s birth.’

The ‘wisdom’ meant will be that of resignation and renunciation.

Footnote 309:

‘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?

Footnote 310:

_Eccles. Polity_, i, 2, § 3.

Footnote 311:

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 Mal. ii. 7, where the priest is called ‘the messenger of Jehovah Sabáoth;’ but see the notes of Ginsburg and Kingsbury. Renan renders, _à l’envoyé des prêtres_.) The angel is the destroying angel, whose action is discerned by faith in the judicial calamities which, sometimes at least, overtake the wrong-doer. (So the Targum, but postponing the appearance of the angel to the _future_ judgment.)