The Cure of the Psyche

Roger at A-Team Blog recently posted a summary of J. P. Moreland’s paper that he presented at ETS. The paper was called “How Evangelicals Became Over-Committed to the Bible and What Can Be Done About It.”

Some comments were made on the blog about the adequacy of Scripture. Someone posted an essay from Greg Koukl that they said was the paper they wished Moreland had given.

Koukl’s paper is called “Is Biblical Counseling Biblical? Insight from Scripture and Classical Readings to the Current Anathematizing of Psychology”

The person who posted the essay called it a masterful case for the right use of natural theology. I was disappointed with the essay. So disappointed that I keep feeling the need to write out my objections to it. So here it is, comments welcome.

Disclaimer: I am not defending BCF. I have not read their publications. I am merely responding to Koukl.

Koukl’s paper is divided into two sections:
1) “the Bible itself does not teach ‘Bible only.’”
2) “Man is not so distorted by the fall as to lose his ability to discover true things about his broken world or about his fallen condition and to develop ways to improve both of those circumstances.”

I recommend reading Koukl’s paper before reading my objections so it will make a little more sense.

Psalm 19:7-11
Koukl claims this passage says the Word is valuable, but that it doesn’t say anything about other “material.” He writes it off with one sentence, offering no explanation. Throughout the paper, Koukl reminds us that the Reformers (plural) agree with him. Although he implies they all agree with him, he cites only one, Calvin. Let’s see if Calvin actually does agree with Koukl’s interpretation of Psalm 19:

“The first commendation of the law of God is, that it is perfect. By this word David means, that if a man is duly instructed in the law of God, he wants nothing which is requisite to perfect wisdom. In the writings of heathen authors there are no doubt to be found true and useful sentences scattered here and there; and it is also true, that God has put into the minds of men some knowledge of justice and uprightness; but in consequence of the corruption of our nature, the true light of truth is not to be found among men where revelation is not enjoyed, but only certain mutilated principles which are involved in much obscurity and doubt. David, therefore, justly claims this praise for the law of God, that it contains in it perfect and absolute wisdom.”

Koukl seems to have a problem with understanding the concept of revelation. BCF argues that Deuteronomy 4:2 says we should not add psychological counseling to God’s Word. He says Deuteronomy 4:2 could not possibly mean that we should not add to God’s Word (in the sense BCF argues) because 61 books of the Bible were written after the Pentateuch. Fair enough, Deuteronomy 4:2 does not refer to the close of the canon of Scripture. But is that what BCF was arguing? No. They are arguing that we should not try to live our lives according to God’s law and according the teachings of men. Koukl performs a slight of hand here, and he does it again with the 2 Timothy passage.

If Deuteronomy 4:2 does not refer to the close of the canon, then what is it talking about? It is talking about adding any human laws or traditions to the laws that Moses is giving. 4:1 says that by doing these laws, men will live. If Israel wanted to live, all they had to do was follow God’s law. No additional teaching from men was required and no additional teaching from men was allowed.

The worst part of Koukl’s paper is his handling of 2 Timothy 3:16-17. He uses the same argument Romanists do to attack the adequacy of Scripture by saying the Bible doesn’t really mean sola or only when it says adequate, every, etc.

It goes something like this.

1) God’s word is adequate

a. Therefore we do not need anything else and we shouldn’t trust anything else. (BCF’s claim)

2) In 2 Tim. 3:16 Paul is referring only to the OT

a. Therefore we do not need and should not trust the NT

Koukl says this second conclusion makes Paul’s claim self-refuting if we understand it to mean the Bible alone is sufficient. However, in footnote (5) Koukl recognizes his problem. His argument would refute the inspiration of the NT. Koukl defends himself by saying “Paul’s statement here was a statement about Scripture, which at the time included the Old Testament. He did not assert that no more “God-breathed” Scripture would be forthcoming. The corpus of Scripture was expanded by the New Testament writings and therefore they’re included under the claims of this verse.”

3) Paul is talking about all God-breathed Scripture, which includes Scripture that is yet to be written

a. Therefore 2 Tim. 3:16 refers to OT & NT

Do you see how the conclusion of 3) destroys the premise of 2)? Koukl contradicts himself and destroys his own argument.

Koukl uses several examples of how natural man supposedly discovers truth, and how we should therefore trust him. He quotes a Dr. John Coe:
“Consider this scenario. When a city is plagued by violence, the people decide to execute murderers. Immediately the murder rate drops and peace is restored to the city. These people used their fallen, human wisdom to employ a biblical solution – government bearing the sword to mitigate the impact of evil. They accurately assess and solve a human problem, even with no knowledge of Scripture. This kind of thing happens all the time”

Then Koukl explains how many of the Proverbs originated in the Wisdom Literature of the Amenomope. He says this means that natural man can discover truth and that we should trust him to do so.

The problem with these examples, and his others, is how we can know these things are true. In the first example, was that society correct because their methods worked? Or were they correct because they were following the law of God revealed in the Bible? Other societies think the solution is to rehabilitate criminals. Who’s to say they are wrong? Do we judge them based upon which one works better? Utilitarianism has not proved helpful, and is actually one of the greatest problems we face today.

Not all of the Wisdom Literature of the Amenomope is found in Proverbs. Does that mean not all of it is true and trustworthy? How do we know if the rest of it is trustworthy? Were the sayings considered trustworthy by Israelites prior to God’s revelation of the book of Proverbs? How do we know which parts to trust?

Another example could easily be created. Divorce rates are incredibly high in the U. S. It causes a great amount of problems for children of divorced parents. Some people who are not Christians recognize this as a problem and they endeavor to remain married despite their troubles. Does that mean we should look to them to solve our marital problems? Does that mean we should take their tips and advice? What about those who’s solution is to just not get married and have abortions instead. Should we follow their advice?

The answer to all of these questions has to be that we know what is true by determining which of the positions advocated is either expressly stated in the Bible or is properly deduced from the Bible. Koukl thinks that finding “true and useful sentences scattered here and there” (to use Calvin’s words) means that we can and should trust natural man to deal with our personal (spiritual) problems. Simply showing that natural man can stumble upon truth does not answer the question “How can we know what is true?”

I think these are enough reasons to render this masterful defense of natural theology useless. But what do you think?

Wikipedia defines psychology as:
Psychology (from Greek, Literally “to talk about the soul” (from psyche (soul) and logos)) is both an academic and applied discipline involving the scientific study of mental processes and behavior. Psychologists study such phenomena as perception, cognition, emotion, personality, behavior, and interpersonal relationships. Psychology also refers to the application of such knowledge to various spheres of human activity, including issues related to daily life—e.g. family, education, and work—and the treatment of mental health problems.

Psychology is derived from the Greek word for soul. Coincidentally the NT was written in Greek. Let us consider a few verses that mention the soul, the healing and understanding of which is the purpose of psychology.

Matthew 11:28 Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls (psyche). 30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”

Hebrews 4:11 Let us therefore strive to enter that rest, so that no one may fall by the same sort of disobedience. 12 For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul (psyche) and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

(consider that passage in light of Jeremiah 17:9)

1 Peter 2:11 Beloved, I urge you as sojourners and exiles to abstain from the passions of the flesh, which wage war against your soul (psyche).

James 1:21 Therefore put away all filthiness and rampant wickedness and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls (psyche).
1 Peter 1:22 Having purified your souls (psyche) by your obedience to the truth for a sincere brotherly love, love one another earnestly from a pure heart, 23 since you have been born again, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God; 24 for
“All flesh is like grass
and all its glory like the flower of grass.
The grass withers,
and the flower falls,
25 but the word of the Lord remains forever.”
And this word is the good news that was preached to you.

Update: Martin Bobgan has also written a critique of Koukl’s essay.

Expository Preaching

The Expositor’s Conference just wrapped up.

Here is an excerpt from one of the lectures:

“Preaching without exposition is hot air. It is loud but there is no life. Preaching without exposition is just shallow and superficial and surface. Preaching without exposition exemplifies what one pastor wrote in his notes: “weak point, yell here.” Its all style, but no substance. Preaching without exposition is all theatrics but no theology. Preaching without exposition tries to fill the building without filling the pulpit. All preaching, and no exposition, trivializes the Scriptures. It abuses the pulpit. It manipulates people and it results in a church of unconverted, unregenerate people who show up for Supper Club on Sunday morning. Its dangerous.”


“John Calvin preached sequentially through books in the bible. 46 sermons through I & II Thesselonians. 186 consecutive sermons through I & II Corinthians. 86 sermons through the pastoral epistles. 43 through Galatians. 48 through Ephesians. 159 consecutive sermons through Job. 200 consecutive sermons through the book of Deuteronomy.

Calvin would preach in the morning and in the afternoon from the New Testament. Every morning of the week he preached the New Testament, every other week. 6 o’clock St. Peter’s Cathedral in Geneva was packed. Job. Deuteronomy. 353 consecutive sermons from Isaiah. 123 through Genesis.

After he was two years in the pastorate there (1536-1538) he was put out of his pulpit, went to Strausburg. They begged him to come back finally. He refused. He said I’d rather die a thousand deaths than go back to Geneva. They begged. He finally relented. Only as a step of lordship. And when he went back to Geneva, after being gone for 3 years, he picked up his exposition at the next verse. That’s how committed he was to sequential expository preaching. Where are men like this?

As Calvin preached he had no outline. As Calvin preached he had no sermon notes. As Calvin preached he preached out of a Hebrew Bible or a Greek Bible. It took us 200 years to figure out which translation he was using because we couldn’t find a translation that matched up with Calvin’s translation. We finally realized in the 19th century, he had been translating this as he went through the books.”

“What is Expository Preacing”

Jesus Camp – some thoughts ** 1/2

I finally watched “Jesus Camp” and I have to say I was dissapointed. There were some interesting parts. The mostly observational approach gave viewers a brief look at the lives of Pentacostal children. However, the film was poorly directed (yes, documentaries are directed). The film loses at least 1 1/2 stars for the annoying and completely irrelevant interruptions by Mike Papantonio, the radio host. It loses another star for not having clear direction.

What was the point? Was the directors’ interest in the method or the message? It seemed to be both. I fully agree that the method of high pressure, energetic, emotionalism will have detrimental and permanent effects on the children. As a study in method it is right to focus on those affected by the method, the children. However, much of the documentary was about the message as well. As such, it is wholly inappropriate to focus on the children as representatives of the message and as a result portray the message as utterly foolish to the audience. If the directors wanted a movie about the harmful effects of Pentacostalism, they used a great approach. If the directors wanted a movie about how its stupid to believe in the Bible and to believe a human being is created at conception, their method is more than innapropriate, it is deceitful.

This is not to say I agree with everything that was said by the Pentacostals, hardly. I think the film does a decent job of showing the harmful effects of false teaching in the church. I have provided links at the end for further info on the subject.

A couple notes on Papantonio. First, his view of the separation of church and state is not even sophomoric, it is more ignorant. Separation of church and state is very simple. It does not mean you divide your life into sections. It does not mean you have a private life and public life. It does not mean that you are not allowed to let the Bible inform your views of the world. It simply means that church officials cannot hold any governmental office and that government cannot interfere in churches. It was a reaction against church-states like Roman Catholicism and state-churches like the Church of England.

Second, when talking to Becky Fischer on the phone, Mike objects to her method by saying “you can tell a child anything!” This is certainly true, but what he seems to be forgetting is that you have to teach them something. Someone has to decide what is right for the children to learn. Should it be him? Should it be the parents? Or should it be the state? Americans have overwhelmingly said it should be the state (unfortunately).


Some quotes from other reviews of the film:

“Camps or churches that push kids or adults into the mentality that a “decision” made at a camp is going to make you more dedicated are in the tradition of the 2nd Great Awakening where the emphasis is placed on the experience, or your decision, rather than on the objective work of Jesus Christ.”

“I defy anyone to scour the Bible and find where it says that the task of the New Testament church is to make America moral.”

“Finally, the viewer can note in the clip where some of these children are weeping, raising their hands and falling down, shaking on the ground. Is this recapturing America? No, it is the Pentecostal/Charismatic equivalent of the hypnotic state. It was VERY common in the Second Great awakening and became institutionalized in Pentecostal churches, especially in the late 1880’s and beyond”

“She (Becky Fischer) strikes me as a very sincere woman who is seriously misguided in her understanding of the Gospel and Christianity… What I find to be of great concern is the spiritual harm being done to children in the name of Christian teaching. They are being taught that experience trumps truth and that the proper goal of their generation is to take America back for Christ.”

“All of this (repairing the harm of false teaching) will require a mentality significantly different from that which too often prevails in evangelical children’s ministries where fun is featured more than faith. Catechetical instruction as well as doctrinal and ethical training should be reclaimed as useful tools in the effort to ground our children in the Word of God. We must not hesitate teaching them the whole counsel of God and speaking plainly to them about the cost of discipleship.”

“Your own reaction to the film will depend on how shocked you are by Pentecostalism. The film is obstensibly about “evangelicals” yet every Christian depicted in the documentary attends some sort of charismatic church. The casual viewer would be left with the impression that being “saved” causes all evangelicals to speak in tongues, convulse uncontrollably, weep hysterically, and vote Republican.”


“Contemporary Religion Versus the Gospel”

“Contemporary religion lacks the New Testament evidence of the Holy Spirit’s work. Instead of being preoccupied with Christ’s person and work as were the apostles and Reformers, contemporary religious figures are preoccupied with religious experience. Instead of being based on the Bible alone, it is based on personal experience, on infused righteousness, on the gifts of the Spirit.”

“Try the Spirits–A Reformed Look at Pentecostalism”

“But our main purpose has been to answer Pentecostalism’s arguments from Scripture for its doctrine of Holy Spirit baptism and for its practice of miracles, especially tongues. This has been done. In answering its appeals to Scripture, we have shown from Scripture that Pentecostalism is heretical in its doctrine of salvation (Holy Spirit baptism) and fraudulent in its miracles.

The Reformed faith judges Pentecostalism to be a different religion from that of Luther, Calvin, and the Reformed creeds-a fundamental departure from the faith once delivered to the saints.”

“Evangelicalism, the Charismatic Movement, and the Race Back to Rome”

“The Pentecostal movement came into being directly on the issue of insisting that the physical sign of speaking in “tongues” was the evidence of the baptism of the Spirit. This issue of tongues caused a split between the holiness and Pentecostal movements, yet the basic theology of the two movements remains the same. Pentecostalism is the inevitable outcome of subjective revivalism. The kind of revivals that operate in the United States may not be overtly Pentecostal or charismatic, but they tend in that direction because they are supremely oriented toward religious experientialism.”

“Beware of Men”

“As mentioned earlier, claims of greater love for the Bible are not infrequently heard among charismatics (and sometimes outside the charismatic movement). “The baptism of the Spirit” is said to “unlock the Bible” for charismatics. To what does the evidence point when we look into charismatic literature? It points to the subordination of the Bible to the experience.

Frequently passages from the Bible are quoted out of context. When this takes place, a meaning from without is imposed on a text or passage. The word of man is placed over the Scripture and is then called the Word of God.”

Do Not Aim at Sensation

An excerpt from Spurgeon’s “Soul Winner”

Nor is it soul-winning, dear friends, merely to create excitement. Excitement will accompany every great movement. We might justly question whether the movement was earnest and powerful if it was quite as serene as a drawing-room Bible-reading. You cannot very well blast great rocks without the sound of explosions, nor fight a battle and keep everybody as quiet as a mouse. On a dry day, a carriage is not moving much along the road unless there is some noise and dust; friction and stir are the natural result of force in motion. So, when the Spirit of God is abroad, and men’s minds are stirred, there must and will be certain visible signs of the movement, although these must never be confounded with the movement itself. If people imagine that to make a dust is the object aimed at by the rolling of a carriage, they can take a broom, and very soon raise as much dust as fifty coaches; but they will be committing a nuisance rather than conferring a benefit. Excitement is as incidental as the dust, but it is not for one moment to be aimed at. When the woman swept her house, she did it to find her money, and not for the sake of raising a cloud.

Do not aim at sensation and “effect.” Flowing tears and streaming eyes, sobs and outcries, crowded after-meetings and all kinds of confusions may occur, and may be borne with as concomitants of genuine feeling; but pray do not plan their production.

It very often happens that the converts that are born in excitement die when the excitement is over. They are like certain insects which are the product of an exceedingly warm day, and die when the sun goes down. Certain converts live like salamanders, in the fire; but they expire at a reasonable temperature. I delight not in the religion which needs or creates a hot head. Give me the godliness which flourishes upon Calvary rather than upon Vesuvius. The utmost zeal for Christ is consistent with common-sense and reason: raving, ranting, and fanaticism are products of another zeal which is not according to knowledge. We would prepare men for the chamber of communion, and not for the padded room at Bedlam. No one is more sorry than I that such a caution as this should be needful; but remembering the vagaries of certain wild revivalists, I cannot say less, and I might say a great deal more.

Why Care About the Doctrine of Christ’s Imputation?

I started reading John Piper’s “Counted Righteous in Christ”

He takes the first chapter to simply explain why he is even bothering dealing with a detailed doctrinal issue when he has so many of duties, as a pastor, to deal with. I found it interesting and worth sharing (only sections listed below, not full excerpt):


To begin with, the older I get, the less impressed I am with flashy successes and enthusiasms that are not truth-based. Everybody knows that with the right personality, the right music, the right location, and the right schedule you can grow a church without anybody really knowing what doctrinal commitments sustain it, if any. Church-planting specialists generally downplay biblical doctrine in the core values of what makes a church “successful.” the long-term effect of this ethos is a weakening of the church that is concealed as long as the crowds are large, the band is loud, the tragedies are few, and persecution is still at the level of preferences.

But more and more this doctrinally-diluted brew of music, drama, life-trips, and marketing seems out of touch with real life in this world-not to mention the next. It tastes like watered-down greul, not a nourishing meal. It simply isn’t serious enough. It’s too playful and chatty and casual. Its joy just doesn’t feel deep enough or heartbroken or well-rooted. The injustice and persecution and suffering and hellish realities in the world today are so many and so large and so close that I can’t help but think that, deep inside, people are longing for something weighty and massive and rooted and stable and eternal. So it seems to me that the trifling with silly little sketches and breezy welcome-to-the-den styles on Sunday morning are just out of touch with what matters in life.

Of course, it works. Sort of. Because, in the name of felt needs, it resonates with people’s impulse to run from what is most serious and weighty and what makes them most human and noble. Silliness is a stepping-stone to substance. But it’s an odd path. And evidence is not ample that many are willing to move beyond fun and simplicity. So the price of minimizing truth-based joy and maximizing atmosphere-based comfort is high. More and more, it seems to me, the end might be in view. I doubt that a religious ethos with such a feel of entertainment can really survive as Christian for too many more decases. Crises reveal the cracks



If Wilberforce is right – I think he is profoundly right – it will be less of a mystery why a pastor with a burden for racial justice and the sanctity of life and the moral transformation of our cultural landscape (Piper) would be gripped by the doctrine of justification by faith. There are deeper and more connections than most of us realize between the grasp of doctrine and the goo dof people and churches and societies. The book of Romans is not prominent in the Bible for nothing. Its massive arguments are to be labored over until understood. And not just by scholars. What a tragedy that this labor is regarded as wasted effort by so many who are giving trusted counsel in the church today.

Thousands are living on borrowed faith. We are living off the dividends, as it were, of intellectual and doctrinal investments made by pastors and church leaders from centuries ago. But the “central bank” of the Bible was not meant to fund future generations merely on the investments of the past. They are precious, and I draw on them daily. Everyone does, even those who don’t know it. But without our own investments of energy in the task of understanding, the Bank will close – as it has in many churhces. I had lunch with a pastor not long ago – of one of the most liberal churches in Minnesota (as he describes it) – who remarked that his people would be happy if he took his text from Emily Dickinson.


My daugther, Talitha, is six years old. Recently she and my wife and I were reading through Romans together. This was her choice after we finished Acts. She is learning to read, and I was putting my finger on each word. She stopped me in mid-sentence at the beginning of chapter 5 and asked, “What does ‘justified’ mean?” What do you say to a six-year-old? Do you say, “There are more important things to think about, so just trust Jesus and be a good girl”? Or do you say that it is very complex and even adults are not able to understand it fully, so you can wait and deal with it when you are older? Or do we say that it simply means that Jesus died in our place so that all our sins mgiht be forvien?

Or do we tell a story (which is what I did), made up on the spot, about two accused criminals, one guilty and one not guilty (one did a bad thing, and one did not do it)? The one who did not do the bad things is shown, by all those who saw the crime, to be innocent. So the judge “justifies” him; that is, he tells him he is a law-abiding person and did not do the crime and can go free. But the other accused criminal, who really did the bad thing, is shown to be guilty, because all the people who saw the crime saw him do it. But then, guess what! The judge “justifies” him too and says, “I regard you as a law-abiding citizen with full rights in our country” (not just a forgiven criminal who may not be trusted or fully free in the country). At this point Talitha looks at me puzzled.

She does not know how to put her finger on the problem but senses that something is wrong here. So I say, “That’s a problem, isn’t it? How can person who really did break the law and did the bad thing be told by the judge that he is a law-keeper, a righteous person, with full rights to the freedoms of the country, and doesn’t have to go to jail or be punished?” She shakes her head. Then I go back to Romans 4:5 and show her that God “justifies the ungodly.” Her brow is furrowed. I show her that she has sinned and I have sinned and we are like this second criminal. And when God “justifies” us he knows we are sinners and “ungodly” and “lawbreakers.” And I ask her, “What did God do so that it’s right for him to say to us sinners: you are not guilty, you are law-keepers in my eyes, you are righteous, and you are free to enjoy all tha this country has to offer?”

She knows it has something to do with Jesus and his coming and dying in our place. That much she has learned. But what more do I tell her now? The answer to this question will depend on whether Mom and Dad have been faithfully taught about the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. Will they tell her that Jesus was the perfect law-keeper and never sinned, but did everything the judge and his country expected of him? And will they tell her that when he lived and died, he not only took her place as a punishment-bearer but also stood in her place as a law-keeper? Will they say that he was punished for her and he obeyed the law for her? And if she will trust Jesus, God the Judge will let Jesus’ punishment and Jesus’ righteousness count for hers. So when God “justifies” her – says that she is forgiven and righteous (even though she was not punished and did not keep the law) – he does it because of Jesus. Jesus is her righteousness, and Jesus is her punishment. Trusting Jesus makes Jesus so much her Lord and Savior that he is her perfect goodness and her perfect punishment.

There are thousands of Christian families in the world who never have conversations like this. Not at six or sixteen. I don’t think we have to look far then for the weakness of the church and the fun-oriented superficiality of many youth ministries and the stunning fall-out rate after high school. But how shall parents teach their children if the message they get week in and week out from the pulpit is that DOCTRINE IS UNIMPORTANT? So, yes, I have a family to care for. And therefore I must understand the central doctrines of my faith – understand them so well that tehy can be translated for all the different ages of my children. As G. K. Chesterton once wrote, “It ought to be the oldest things that are taught to the youngest people.”


I mention not only world missions but also local church planting. If I want to see churches planted out from our church and others, why invest so much time and energy in defending and explaining the historic Protestant vision of justification as the imputation of Christ’s Righteousness? I have answered this already, but will say again, I think we have enough churches being planted by means of music, drama, creative scheduling, sprightly narrative, and marketing savvy. And there are too few that are God-centered, truth-treasuring, Bible-saturated, Christ-exalting, cross-focused, Spirit-dependent, prayer-soaked, soul-winning, justice-pursuing congregations with a wartime mindset ready to lay down their lives for the salvation of the nations and the neighborhoods. There is a blood-earnest joy that sustains a church like this, and it comes only by embracing Chirst-crucified as our righteousness.


I want people and churches and ministries and schools to break free from the modern preoccupation with being made much of as the key to happiness and motivation and mental health and missions and almost everything else. In its place I long to see our joy – and the joy of the nations – rooted in God’s wonderful work of freeing us to make much of Christ forever. There is an almost universal bondage in America to the mindset that we can only feel loved when we are made much of. The truth is, we are loved most deeply when we are helped to be free from that bondage and to find our joy in treasuring Christ and making much of him.

A Striving After the Wind

I said in my heart, “Come now, I will test you with pleasure; enjoy yourself.” But behold, this also was vanity. I said of laughter, “It is mad,” and of pleasure, “What use is it?” I searched with my heart how to cheer my body with wine—my heart still guiding me with wisdom—and how to lay hold on folly, till I might see what was good for the children of man to do under heaven during the few days of their life. I made great works. I built houses and planted vineyards for myself. I made myself gardens and parks, and planted in them all kinds of fruit trees. I made myself pools from which to water the forest of growing trees. I bought male and female slaves, and had slaves who were born in my house. I had also great possessions of herds and flocks, more than any who had been before me in Jerusalem. I also gathered for myself silver and gold and the treasure of kings and provinces. I got singers, both men and women, and many concubines, the delight of the children of man.

So I became great and surpassed all who were before me in Jerusalem. Also my wisdom remained with me. And whatever my eyes desired I did not keep from them. I kept my heart from no pleasure, for my heart found pleasure in all my toil, and this was my reward for all my toil. Then I considered all that my hands had done and the toil I had expended in doing it, and behold, all was vanity and a striving after wind, and there was nothing to be gained under the sun.

So I turned to consider wisdom and madness and folly. For what can the man do who comes after the king? Only what has already been done. Then I saw that there is more gain in wisdom than in folly, as there is more gain in light than in darkness. The wise person has his eyes in his head, but the fool walks in darkness. And yet I perceived that the same event happens to all of them. Then I said in my heart, “What happens to the fool will happen to me also. Why then have I been so very wise?” And I said in my heart that this also is vanity. For of the wise as of the fool there is no enduring remembrance, seeing that in the days to come all will have been long forgotten. How the wise dies just like the fool! So I hated life, because what is done under the sun was grievous to me, for all is vanity and a striving after wind.

I hated all my toil in which I toil under the sun, seeing that I must leave it to the man who will come after me, and who knows whether he will be wise or a fool? Yet he will be master of all for which I toiled and used my wisdom under the sun. This also is vanity. So I turned about and gave my heart up to despair over all the toil of my labors under the sun, because sometimes a person who has toiled with wisdom and knowledge and skill must leave everything to be enjoyed by someone who did not toil for it. This also is vanity and a great evil. What has a man from all the toil and striving of heart with which he toils beneath the sun? For all his days are full of sorrow, and his work is a vexation. Even in the night his heart does not rest. This also is vanity.

There is nothing better for a person than that he should eat and drink and find enjoyment in his toil. This also, I saw, is from the hand of God, for apart from him who can eat or who can have enjoyment? For to the one who pleases him God has given wisdom and knowledge and joy, but to the sinner he has given the business of gathering and collecting, only to give to one who pleases God. This also is vanity and a striving after wind.