An exposition of Ecclesiastes (the philosophy of vanity), Job (the philosophy of suffering), and Song of Songs (the philosophy of love).

Peter Kreeft's interpretation of Ecclesiastes is the standard interpretation: Solomon is writing as if he were an atheist. This interpretation, I believe, fails to deal with the book as it was originally intended. Douglas Wilson starts to wrestle with this in his Joy at the End of the Tether. And, I believe, Jeffrey Myers does so successfully in his A Table in the Mist--although I haven't read it yet, so this statement is based on hearsay.

That being said, Kreeft still makes some meaningful observations about the human condition when one sees life as meaningless--meaning being something that can only come from God.

He says this of vanity:

The essence of Hell is not suffering but vanity, not pain but purposelessness, not physical suffering but spiritual suffering.

Suffering is not the essence of Hell, because suffering can be hopeful. It was for Job.

Job, on the other hand, endures suffering which is inclusive of faith:

Job’s faith is not sunny and serene, but it is faith. It is not without doubts. (Indeed, his doubts came from his faith. When faith is full, it is open and can include doubts; when it is weak, it cannot tolerate doubts.) But Job remains a hero of faith. He waits in faith, and he sees the glory of God.

For Kreeft, vanity is life without God. Suffering is life moving towards God, but not fully embracing Him yet. And love is full union with God, and that love can only come from Him and cast out all of the vanity and suffering that went before it.

And God’s love is the only totally trustable love (thus the only love guaranteed to cast out fear) because only God totally knows, accepts, and affirms us.

Overall, I enjoy Kreeft's writing. He was clearly influenced by C.S. Lewis and G.K. Chesterton, and this comes out in his writing. This is hardly a bad thing.