Max Rogland
Overview
Ecclesiastes is simultaneously one of the most fascinating and one of the most perplexing books of the OT, and its enigmatic nature has resulted in widely divergent understandings of it. On the one hand, for example, Herman Melville called it “the truest of all books,” while the conservative nineteenth-century scholar Franz Delitzsch once famously quipped that in Ecclesiastes “the old covenant digs for itself its own grave.”1 It is evident, then, that scholars take widely differing approaches to the interpretation of Ecclesiastes. As a result, there is often little consensus regarding the meaning of individual passages or the book’s message as a whole. Martin Luther described it as a book that “no one has ever completely mastered,” and, according to an 1861 commentary by Christian Ginsburg, every new commentator views his predecessors as having misunderstood it.2 The perplexing nature of Ecclesiastes perhaps explains why, with the exception of Luther and a few others, most of the premier theologians of the Protestant Reformation shied away from producing commentaries on the book.
As part of inspired Scripture, however, Ecclesiastes is a revelation of God and is “profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness” (2 Tim. 3:16). Traditionally considered part of the Bible’s Wisdom Literature, Ecclesiastes is especially intended to teach wise and discerning behavior among God’s people, which above all means walking in the “fear of the Lord” as the beginning of wisdom (Prov. 1:7; cf. Eccles. 3:14; 5:7; 12:13–14). Wisdom literature is largely reflective in nature, as it observes God’s works and God’s world, and as such it is distinctly different from the OT genres of law, prophecy, and historical narrative, or even from poetical books such as Psalms or Lamentations. Yet even within the corpus of the Wisdom Books Ecclesiastes plays a unique and important role. At a number of points it overlaps with the teaching of Job and Proverbs, but it also brings a distinctive insight to many of the subjects it addresses. For example, while Job focuses in detail on the suffering of one righteous man, Ecclesiastes observes the unpleasant reality that Job is not an outlier in this regard; undeserved suffering is in fact experienced by many faithful people (e.g., Eccles. 8:14). By the same token Proverbs seeks to describe the world as it typically functions and how the godly should respond to it, whereas Ecclesiastes often explores the unexpected and unusual situations one encounters in life. The book calls to mind Hamlet’s famous soliloquy, at times counseling the faithful reader in how to “suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune” but at other times urging him or her “to take arms against a sea of troubles” (Hamlet, 3.1.65–67). “To be or not to be?” in many ways represents the ultimate question posed by Ecclesiastes.
Title
In the English Bible tradition the title “Ecclesiastes” represents an anglicized form of the book’s heading in its ancient versions, both Latin (verba Ecclesiastes) and Greek (rēmata ekklēsiastou). In both translations “Ecclesiastes” renders the Hebrew designation of the book’s speaker, which is typically transliterated as “Qoheleth.” One of the persistent debates among scholars is whether “Qoheleth” is to be understood as a personal name or a title. Most English translations opt for the latter by rendering the word as “the Preacher,” “the Teacher,” “the Convener of the Assembly,” or the like. The word occurs with a definite article in 12:8 (and probably in 7:27), and, since occurrences are not attached to personal names, it is best to understand the term as a title of some kind. While the grammatical form of the word is one typically used of a feminine noun, other examples of masculine nouns with feminine forms are attested in biblical Hebrew (e.g., Ezra 2:55, 57). The word “Qoheleth” is derived from the Hebrew root qahal, a common verb for assembling people together. This suggests that Qoheleth was leading or convening an assembly of some kind, and, since Ecclesiastes 12:9 indicates that he “taught the people knowledge,” the rendering of “the Preacher” is well justified.
Interpretive Challenges
Several factors converge to make Ecclesiastes especially difficult to interpret, and one interpretive decision has ripple effects on others.
Ambiguous Refrains
The Preacher employs several refrains throughout the book that are obviously crucial to its message, yet their meaning is ambiguous. The most important of these refrains is the enigmatic exclamation “Vanity of vanities! All is vanity!” that forms a bookend to the Preacher’s words (1:2; 12:8). Throughout the book he continually evaluates things as “vanity”; all told, the word (Hb. hebel) occurs thirty-eight times in the book, which represents over half of its occurrences in the entire OT. The word occurs elsewhere in the OT as the personal name Abel in Genesis 4 and as a common noun refers to a “vapor” or a “puff of wind” (cf. ESV mg. on Eccles. 1:2). In several instances in Ecclesiastes, in fact, the word is expanded with the phrase “striving after wind” (1:14; 2:11, 17, 26; 4:4, 16; 6:9), which seems to be an equivalent expression used for reinforcement. The traditional English rendering “vanity” follows the Vulgate’s rendering (vanitas).
Many interpreters of Ecclesiastes understand hebel in strongly negative terms and translate it accordingly as “meaningless,” “absurd,” “enigmatic,” “inscrutable,” “futile,” “mirage,” “empty,” “useless,” “chaos,” and so on. Such renderings are often epistemologically oriented, in keeping with the reflective and philosophical nature of the Preacher’s observations, which often confess his inability to understand the cosmos. Other interpreters render hebel in ways that are less philosophically value-laden and instead are more evocative of time, using words such as “fleeting,” “transitory,” “ephemeral,” and the like. Such translations tend to be less negative in tone and instead speak more of impermanence and temporality. It is difficult, if not impossible, to find a single English translation equivalent that does justice to the word’s nuances in all its varied contexts of usage in the book. To understand what the Preacher means by “vanity” one must follow his train of thought throughout the book as a whole and not base one’s understanding on only a few passages.3
Other refrain-like expressions occur frequently in Ecclesiastes in addition to “vanity” and “striving after wind,” such as “under the sun” and “gain” (Hb. yitron). The Preacher begins by asking what “gain” a man has in his toil (1:3), and he returns to variations on this question periodically (3:9; 5:15). At times he affirms that there is a “gain” in some phenomenon (2:13; 5:9; 7:12 [“advantage”]; 10:10 [“helps”]), while at other times he denies it (2:11; 10:11). This keyword is significant in indicating whether or not, or in what way, the Preacher sees any value to human existence.
Internal Coherence
To many readers it has often appeared as if Ecclesiastes contradicts itself. Indeed, internal contradictions have been alleged since ancient times, as evidenced by rabbinic debates recorded in the Babylonian Talmud (Shabbat 30a–b). For example, on the one hand the Preacher can laud wisdom (Eccles. 2:13) while also questioning its value (2:15). Similarly, he extols pleasure (or “joy”; 8:15) while also observing its apparent uselessness (2:2). And he praises life (9:4) and work (3:22) while also finding them so frustrating that he says that he “hated” them (2:17–18). At one point he even proclaims that the dead are more fortunate than the living (4:2)! Understandably, such apparent inconsistencies make it challenging to discern a unified and coherent theological message in the book, and they have been explained in different ways. Some readers allege that the book represents a dialogue between the Preacher and various conversation partners, and thus some of the allegedly contradictory sentiments are to be attributed not to the Preacher himself but to an imagined dialogue partner. Others have claimed that the alleged contradictions are the result of multiple layers of editorial redaction; thus, as later authors or editors added sections or sayings to the Preacher’s words, over time different contradictory thoughts became part of the text, either intentionally or unintentionally. Some scholars have simply argued that Ecclesiastes has no coherent message, and therefore they find no difficulty with possible inconsistencies in the book’s message. For further discussion cf. Stylistic and Rhetorical Features and Theology of Ecclesiastes below.
Orthodoxy or Heresy?
In addition to the challenge of discerning the book’s internal coherence, it can also be difficult to discern whether the perspective of Ecclesiastes coheres with the message of Scripture as a whole. Some of the Preacher’s assertions appear, at least on the surface, not only to affirm an epistemological skepticism foreign to the rest of the OT (e.g., 8:17) but also to be highly unorthodox. Examples of alleged heterodoxy would include his advice not to be “overly righteous” (7:16), his apparent denial of a difference between animal and human life (3:18–21), a potentially hedonistic message in the famous carpe diem (“seize the day”) passages that call people to enjoy food and drink (2:24–26; 3:10–15, 22; 5:18–20; 8:15; 9:7–10; 11:7–10), and perhaps above all in what appears to be an assertion that God makes no distinction in his treatment of the righteous and the wicked (9:1–2).
A number of interpreters, particularly in the modern era, have argued that Ecclesiastes is seeking to challenge the validity of traditional wisdom teaching or doctrinal orthodoxy. They would claim, therefore, that the book is simply to be read on its own terms, without concern for how or to what extent its message agrees with the theology of the rest of the OT. Even though the epilogue to the book (12:9–14) speaks approvingly of the Preacher’s wisdom and the truth of his message and includes it with the “words of the wise” (12:11), some have argued that this represents an attempt by a later editor to put an orthodox spin on what is fundamentally a heterodox book or, alternatively, that the epilogue is in fact critical of the Preacher and issues a warning against the traditional wisdom of ancient Israel. This commentary takes the position that the epilogue is an accurate summary supportive of the Preacher’s words (cf. comments on 12:9–14) and that his provocative teaching is to be viewed as standing in basic continuity with the message of Scripture as a whole.4
The Preacher’s Identity
While the frame narrator responsible for 1:1; 12:9–14 is anonymous, a great deal of debate surrounds the identity of the Preacher, and this has significant implications for analyzing the date and the historical context of Ecclesiastes. Traditionally the Preacher was understood to be King Solomon in his old age, which was one of the factors that helped to calm some of the uneasiness caused by the book’s more challenging assertions. There are features of the book that do not lend themselves easily to such an attribution of authorship, however, and over time the identification of the Preacher with Solomon came to be challenged. In the modern era the weight of scholarly opinion has shifted to thinking that the book was produced by a later writer donning the garb of a Solomon-like figure (cf. Author, Date, Occasion for a more detailed discussion).
Interpretive Approaches
The interpretive challenges discussed above are compounded by a Hebrew text that is frequently difficult to interpret. These complexities are intertwined in many instances, with the result that the approach taken to one issue will impact others. A wide variety of readings seek to take account of the book’s many challenges, but some common approaches to interpretation have emerged over time, and these can be broadly grouped into three categories.5
Early and Medieval Christian Interpretation
By and large, Patristic and medieval interpreters viewed Ecclesiastes as having a coherent message that seeks to instill in the believer a contempt for the world and to encourage an ascetic approach to the Christian life. Viewed in this light, the Preacher’s repeated exclamation of “vanity” was understood in a negative sense and as a condemnation of worldliness. Thus, for example, Jerome appealed to Ecclesiastes in order to convince one correspondent that she ought to become a nun. Up through the medieval era, theologians viewed Solomon as the author, speaking in his old age and having repented of his idolatry and excessive worldly pleasures. In many particular instances passages were read allegorically or Christologically, in accord with the accepted interpretive principle of the “rule of faith,” that is, the concept that Spirit-inspired Scripture must be used to interpret a text when it is unclear.
Reformation Era Interpretation
Ecclesiastes was neglected by many of the early Reformers, but some did pay attention to the book. Martin Luther, for example, produced two different commentaries on it. Rejecting the Neoplatonist philosophy that often influenced the church fathers, the Reformers avoided allegory as an interpretive tool and instead preferred a more literal reading of many passages. Thus, for example, the carpe diem passages urging the enjoyment of food, drink, work, and marriage were understood in a straightforward way that affirmed the goodness of God’s creation. Such passages, then, did not represent a “hedonistic response to Qohelet’s despair” but rather were a “confessional evocation of a holistic, positive approach to life” on the part of a “believer who affirms life as God’s good creation.”6 In the Reformers, then, one finds a more affirming and appreciative approach to the physical creation, civic, and domestic life; the Lord’s blessings of food and marriage; and a positive sense of one’s vocational “toil.” The keyword “vanity” was understood to refer not to the world at large but primarily to the present fallen state of the cosmos. By and large Solomon was still viewed as the author, though Luther was aware of the complexities of such a view and at times raised questions about it.
Post-Enlightenment Interpretation
Beginning with Hugo Grotius, the Solomonic identity of the Preacher began to be seriously questioned, and over the course of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries the weight of scholarly opinion swung against it. One result of this shift was that it became to be seen as less important to seek to correlate Ecclesiastes to the life of Solomon as narrated in the OT Historical Books. This in turn considerably loosened the connection between Ecclesiastes and the other OT Wisdom Books, most notably Proverbs. The eventual ascendance of postmodern interpretation, which lacked any standard definition of theological orthodoxy, resulted in a lessening of interest in discerning whether Ecclesiastes generally agreed with the theology of the OT as a whole or the Wisdom Literature in particular, and even whether it presented a coherent message of its own.
As such developments were taking place in philosophy and biblical hermeneutics, the comparative study of other ancient Near Eastern wisdom traditions was flourishing. As a result, many scholars explored the similarities (or differences) between Ecclesiastes and other wisdom texts from the ancient world. These various developments in OT scholarship since the Enlightenment have led to an exponential increase in the number of different interpretations of the book. The Preacher has been variously described on the one hand as a nonconformist, a fatalist with no hope for a future life, a philosophical or theological skeptic, and on the other hand as an Epicurean hedonist, an optimist who “preaches joy,” and a God-fearing man.7 Modern evangelical interpretations have often attempted to reappropriate skeptical readings of the Preacher’s words by arguing that the book is an apologetic seeking to show the vanity or meaninglessness of life “under the sun,” that is, a life lived without reference to God or his revelation. Despite the popularity of this last-mentioned approach, however, the Preacher is so constantly aware of the presence and power of God that it is hard to find passages in which he can be said to adopt a truly secular or skeptical worldview.
Author, Date, Occasion
While the primary voice in Ecclesiastes is that of the Preacher speaking in the first person, an anonymous frame narrator also speaks at strategic intervals (1:1; 7:27; 12:9–14). Regardless of whether the frame narrator is affirming or critical of the Preacher’s words (cf. comments on 12:9–14), the most pressing question is of the Preacher’s identity. Identifying the speaker in this case carries significant implications for the book’s date, the particular circumstances it was addressing, and exegetical analysis.
As noted earlier, in the Jewish and Christian traditions the Preacher has been identified most often as King Solomon. A number of factors point readily in this direction. He is called “the son of David” (1:1) and “king in Jerusalem” (1:1, 12), who surpassed all before him in wisdom (1:16), wealth (2:7) and greatness (2:9). In the OT historical narratives Solomon is presented as surpassingly wise (1 Kings 3:12), exceedingly wealthy (10:23), knowledgeable on botanical and zoological subjects (1 Kings 4:33), and accomplished (1 Kings 4:21–28)—and his reign is presented as the pinnacle of royal grandeur. In many instances one can observe overlap or similarity between Ecclesiastes and the utterances of Proverbs,8 which is attributed to Solomon (Prov. 1:1; 10:1; 25:1). Fredericks offers four supports for Solomonic authorship:
The explicit reference to the one who spoke this speech refers to a son of David who ruled Israel from Jerusalem and who was preceded by no one greater. That could only mean Solomon. The official title given to this son is a name that denotes what Solomon’s history tells us about him: he was a convener, assembler, a Qoheleth [see 1 Kings 8; 2 Chronicles 5; cf. 1 Kings 4:34; 10:1]. The sociopolitical scenario implied in Ecclesiastes fits into the Solomon age rather than the post-exilic era [e.g., 1 Kings 4:21–28 as the backdrop for Eccles. 2:4–8; 1 Kings 4:20 describes Israel as “eating, drinking and rejoicing,” words used throughout Ecclesiastes]. Finally, the sheer number of linguistic affinities in this Corpus Salomonicum [the body of ‘Solomonic’ literature in the Bible, namely, Proverbs, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, and the Solomonic histories] goes far beyond simply any traditional ascriptions of authority for Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon.9
Fredericks offers a helpful table highlighting the twenty-four strongest “conceptual and linguistic parallels” within the books traditionally attributed to Solomon and about him (1 Kings; 2 Chronicles).10
To identify the Preacher with Solomon is simultaneously to narrow the range of possible dates for the historical circumstances of his words, since Solomon’s reign is generally dated c. 970–930 BC. It is assumed that he wrote Ecclesiastes toward the end of his reign (after a period of apostasy), which allows one to specify more precisely the historical and social circumstances of the time.
Despite this view’s prima facie plausibility, a closer look reveals additional factors that make it unlikely that the Preacher is to be identified with Solomon.11 In point of fact, the book never mentions the name of Solomon, in contrast to other books that either ascribe authorship to him or invoke his name (e.g., Prov. 1:1; 10:1; 25:1; Song 1:1). This feature alone indicates that it is a mistake to insist on a particular view of the book’s authorship as essential to maintaining its inspiration and inerrancy.12 In addition, features within the book point away from Solomon as the author. For example, while the Preacher is exceedingly wise and prosperous, the claim that he surpassed “all who were before” him in Jerusalem (Eccles. 1:16; 2:7, 9) does not, in fact, comport easily with the notion that Solomon is the primary speaker in the book. After all, the only specifically Israelite king who preceded Solomon in Jerusalem was his own father, David, who conquered the city and made it his capital (2 Sam. 5:5–9). The Preacher’s claims would no longer be the impressive “boasts” they are intended to be if they apply only to one man. Furthermore, from remarks the Preacher makes it appears that he is no longer on the throne (cf. comment on 2:12). Indeed, after Ecclesiastes 2 he makes no statements that clearly imply a vantage point from the royal throne. To the contrary, many of the later observations in the book give the impression of one who is not in a position of power and influence but rather suffers under oppression. It is for this reason, for example, that the Preacher speaks as one who appears to be powerless to correct the societal and political corruption he observes (e.g., Eccles. 4:1–3; 5:8). If the Preacher were indeed reigning as the highest responsible human authority in the land, he would be covenantally obligated to put an end to the oppression and injustice he observes. Finally, the Hebrew of Ecclesiastes is extremely unusual when compared to the rest of the OT, and many (though not necessarily all) of its unique features are best understood as bearing the mark of a later (postexilic) stage of the language.
In sum, while the acceptance of Solomonic authorship has a long and distinguished pedigree and continues to be advocated by excellent evangelical scholars today, the arguments against it seem to be more persuasive. It is for reasons such as these that such premier Reformed theologians as Geerhardus Vos and Herman Bavinck were open to the possibility of non-Solomonic authorship of the book, and even the conservative Princeton scholar William Henry Green eventually altered his earlier acceptance of Solomonic authorship in favor of a non-Solomonic position on the issue.13 This commentary approaches the text from the standpoint that it was written by someone other than Solomon at a later stage in Israel’s history.
If the Preacher is not to be identified as Solomon, however, then who was he, and when did he write? Occasional attempts have been made to identify the Preacher with later kings such as Hezekiah, Jehoiachin, and Zerubbabel. He has sometimes been regarded more abstractly as a personification of Wisdom (cf. Prov. 8:1–36; 1 Cor. 1:24, 30). Most often in modern times the Preacher is viewed as an author who temporarily adopts a fictitious literary persona, and such is the approach adopted here. According to this view, the Preacher presents himself in the garb of Solomon or in Solomon-like terms while providing enough clues to prevent a reader from thinking the book was written by the actual, historical Solomon.
Examples of such clues would be the indications that he is no longer king (Eccles. 2:12) and the incredible assertion that the Preacher surpassed “all” before him in wisdom and glory, which would have to include Solomon himself if he is not Solomon. The exaggerated nature of such a claim and the indication of having left the throne (which was not how the succession of power took place in ancient Israel) are intentional signals to the reader not to take his royal claims at face value. Ultimately, it does not seem that Scripture intends for us to identify any particular historical figure as the Preacher. Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit a wise author with a talent for writing both “words of truth” and “words of delight” (12:10) adopted a literary persona that at times spoke from the perspective of one who wielded royal power and at other times as one subject to it.
As a result, any conclusions concerning the book’s actual date of composition and the historical circumstances of its writing must be drawn from a careful reading of the text itself, not from a time frame established by identifying a particular historical OT king as the speaker. The Preacher observes judicial corruption (3:16; 5:8; 8:11) and political oppression even in the highest levels of government (4:1–3; 8:9; 10:5–6). Judea appears to be under the control of a foreign regime, with “foreigners” skimming off the goods and wealth of God’s people (cf. comment on 6:1–6 [at v. 2]). It is with good reason, then, that the Preacher begins his discourse by asking what “gain” is left for those who “toil under the sun” (1:3). Under the domination of a foreign power it would have often seemed as if very little was left over for the ordinary working man! Scholars have argued that various passages allude to historical events (4:13–16; 9:13–16), which could serve as one means of narrowing the book’s date of origin and setting, but the Preacher’s laconic descriptions make it difficult to identify these events with certainty. In the end there are reasonable arguments for a variety of dates and historical settings for the book.14
One can see that the arguments for the different views regarding the authorship, date, and setting of Ecclesiastes are complex and at times extremely technical. The substantive objections that can be raised against each position on these matters, including the one adopted in this commentary, serve as a reminder that “all things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all” (WCF 1.7). The doctrine of the perspicuity (or clarity) of Scripture does not imply that every question we have about the Bible will be answered with total certainty. Rather, it maintains that the truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ are clearly and unambiguously taught in Scripture, so that it is indeed “the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes” (Rom. 1:16).
Genre and Literary Features
Most scholars admit the difficulty in identifying a particular literary form or genre for Ecclesiastes. The book features a unique mix of autobiographical narrative, poetry, proverbial wisdom, anecdotal observations on noteworthy events, and more extended reflections on theological, philosophical, and ethical themes. Some sections of Ecclesiastes find parallels in the other biblical wisdom books and in texts and inscriptions from the broader ancient Near Eastern cultural milieu. For example, types of fictional autobiography or royal autobiography are attested in Akkadian and Egyptian and have been invoked to explain the genre and content of Ecclesiastes.15 In the final analysis, however, no precise literary parallel exists for the whole, and one should analyze Ecclesiastes chiefly on its own terms rather than by an overarching form- or genre-critical method.
Currently there is no consensus as to whether the book has clear literary structure apart from the acknowledgement of the book’s “frame” (1:1; 12:9–14). Scholars have examined the recurrence of the book’s themes or refrains to find a coherent organizational principle, but so far none has proven fully convincing. In musical terms the book is more of a rhapsody than a tightly structured sonata. Nevertheless, it does possess literary features that help establish some sense of order and structure.
First, there has been growing scholarly appreciation for the narrative aspect of the book.16 The first two chapters certainly bear the stamp of autobiographical narrative, particularly beginning in 1:12 and running through 2:12, where it will be argued that the Hebrew text indicates that the Preacher’s successor to the throne has taken over. This narrative arc proves to be of strategic literary and thematic importance as the Preacher then turns from considering the value of his personal attainments to pondering the future, the fate of his successor, and eventually the world at large. In addition to the autobiographical nature of the opening chapters, at several junctures the Preacher introduces his observations with “I saw” or “I have seen” (1:14; 2:13, 24; 3:10, 16, 22; 4:1, 4, 7, 15; 5:13, 18; 6:1; 7:15; 8:10, 17; 9:11, 13; 10:5, 7), which also serve to provide a sense of narrative movement to the book.
Second, various scholars have noted that the brief “intrusion” of the third-person frame narrator in 7:27 provides additional literary shape to the book.17 This sign from the narrator occurs at an important moment in the Preacher’s quest to understand the cosmos. It is noteworthy that this section (7:15–29) is marked by several denials of what the Preacher failed to understand, contrasted with the important lesson he did indeed come to grasp (cf. esp. comment on 7:29). This compositional marker, along with the tremendous significance of the literary context, serves to indicate the structural and theological center of the book.18 Accordingly, it helps the two basic halves of the book to emerge more clearly.
Stylistic and Rhetorical Features
It was suggested above that Ecclesiastes bears the free-flowing episodic character of a rhapsody rather than a musical form with a more definite structure. If we think of Ecclesiastes as a piece of music, this raises the question of whether scholars have been too narrowly focused on the issue of the book’s literary structure in the first place. It may be more fitting to consider the book as a communicative performance instead. After all, Ecclesiastes presents itself as the written record of an oral communication act: these words were spoken by someone known as “the Preacher” who taught an assembly of people (12:9). Ultimately, the most important element in effective communication is a speaker’s ability to capture and keep the listener’s attention, and this can result not only from a well-organized discourse but also from other factors such as the relevance of the subject matter, the speaker’s emotion, his rhetorical skill, the audience’s sense of trust in the speaker, and so on.19 All these factors coalesce in the book in such a way that makes the Preacher eminently successful in capturing and maintaining the listener’s (or reader’s) interest throughout.
Scholars have often failed to appreciate the full scope of the Preacher’s communicative skills and his use of rhetorical techniques, and as a result they have often misconstrued his statements. It was noted above (cf. Interpretive Challenges), for example, that the Preacher has often been depicted as a skeptic, an iconoclast, or someone seeking to push (or even break) the boundaries of biblical orthodoxy. This is due to the fact that some statements intended as exaggerations have often been wrongly taken at face value. Hyperbole is an established feature of rhetoric in a wide variety of cultures and literatures, however, and the Preacher clearly engages in it a number of times (cf. comments on 2:14b–17; 2:18–23; 4:4–6; 6:1–6). The Preacher employs other common biblical rhetorical and stylistic techniques such as simile (7:6), metaphor (9:4), metonymy or “a part for the whole” (10:18), numerical figures (4:12), humor and irony (10:3, 15), and more.
One particular topic that must be singled out is the Preacher’s use of questions throughout the book. Many scholars assume that most, if not all, of the questions posed by the Preacher are rhetorical in nature—that is, they are assertions rather than genuine questions.20 For example, many understand it to be rhetorical when the Preacher asks “Who knows . . . ?” or “What does man gain . . . ?,” and thus it is assumed that he is actually saying that “no one knows” and “man gains nothing.” Despite the popularity of this understanding, a closer examination reveals that it often fails to do justice to the text. Some of the Preacher’s questions may indeed be rhetorical, but others are seriously intended, even if the answers he provides are mysterious or unexpected. For instance, in 6:12 he asks, “Who knows what is good for man?” While many would interpret this as equivalent to asserting that no one knows the answer, the passage that follows in fact provides a variety of answers to this question, even if they are counterintuitive ones (cf. comments on 6:10–7:14). Similarly the crucial opening question of 1:3 (“What does man gain by all the toil at which he toils under the sun?”) is often taken as rhetorically denying that there is any “gain” under the sun, but in fact the Preacher clearly does assert that some things do have a value (cf. 2:13; 5:9; 7:12; 10:10). In the end the Preacher’s use of questions resists a simplistic categorization, and each instance must be carefully considered as to whether it is rhetorical or genuine.
Theology of Ecclesiastes
A number of scholars have argued that the Preacher is interacting with different strands of pagan philosophical thought in Ecclesiastes. While this continues to generate a great deal of scholarly discussion, it should be observed that distinctively theological themes are infused throughout the book as well. It was suggested above that the book should not be viewed as a kind of apologetic work, in which the Preacher allegedly adopts a materialistic or nontheistic worldview at times in order to show its absurdity. The word “God” (Hb. ʾelohim) occurs forty times over the course of the book’s twelve chapters, so it is impossible to shake the impression that the Preacher is a “God-fearing man.” Several important theological themes can be observed.
Creation Theology (Protology)
A significant part of the theology of Ecclesiastes can be traced back to its interaction with the early chapters of Genesis, particularly the events of the creation and fall in Genesis 1–3. While Genesis provides the narrative of these events, Ecclesiastes reflects on their theological significance in greater depth than perhaps does any other book in the OT. Indeed, scholars have often noted how the book frequently evokes themes from the early chapters of Genesis.21 The book’s appreciation of the creation order explains how the Preacher can declare that the world is “beautiful” (Eccles. 3:11) and proclaim many things to be “good,” urging people to enjoy food, work, and marriage. All of these were prelapsarian gifts of God, that is, they were given before the fall (compare Gen. 2:15, 18–25 with Eccles. 2:24; 9:9, respectively). Indeed, this is why the Preacher can declare life itself to be inherently good and preferable to death (9:4–6), even if at times his frustration with reality leads him to make rhetorically charged outbursts that can give a different impression (cf. comment on 2:14b–17). The carpe diem passages mentioned above (2:24–26; etc.) are neither a function of a hedonistic or a materialistic worldview nor to be interpreted ironically but rather expressions of a robust theology of the goodness of God’s creation.
The Fall, Sin, and Saving Grace
Along with his appreciation of God’s creation, however, the Preacher is also painfully aware that all is not well with the world. One of the dark truths that the Preacher came to understand with clearer insight is the reality that mankind “sought out many schemes” after God had “made man upright” (7:29). From a biblical perspective the fall was what introduced sin as a universal human experience (7:20), with the result that people can be characterized as “sinners” (2:26; 7:26; 8:12; 9:2, 18) whose hearts are “full of evil” (9:3). Because of the fall the blessing of work has been twisted into painful “toil” (compare, e.g., Gen. 3:17–19 and Eccles. 2:18–23), and corruption and death have come into the world as the unavoidable consequence of sin (Gen. 2:16–17; 3:19; Eccles. 2:14–17; 3:18–21; 6:6; 12:1–7).
In addition to individual sin and mortality, the fall had larger cosmic consequences. Sin affects not only individuals but also societies and institutions at large. The Preacher is a keen observer of politics and in several places criticizes the institutional injustices he observes (3:15–17; 4:1–3; 5:8–9; 7:7; 8:9–14; 10:5–7, 16–18). The fall also introduced an inherent “weariness” (1:8) and instability to the created order, which at times is the intent of the Preacher’s exclamation “vanity.” The Preacher’s sober reflections on sin and its consequences are in line with the NT’s perspective. Given Ecclesiastes’s unflinching realism regarding the state of the fallen world, it is no surprise that the apostle Paul evokes Ecclesiastes 7:20 (“Surely there is not a righteous man on earth who does good and never sins.”) in the catena of biblical citations starting in Romans 3:10: “As it is written: ‘None is righteous, no, not one.’” Many scholars have noted Paul’s evocation of Ecclesiastes’s refrain of “vanity” when he speaks of the world being “subjected to futility” in Romans 8:20, where the word for “futility” (Gk. mataiotēs) is the same one used to render Hebrew hebel in the LXX. Paul speaks of believers’ “groaning” along with all creation over the frustrating state of the fallen world (Rom. 8:22–23), and Ecclesiastes gives extended, poignant expression to that longing from an OT perspective. Like the apostle Paul, the Preacher is aware that “the present form of this world is passing away” (1 Cor. 7:31), and he longs for the day on which what is mortal will be “swallowed up by life” (2 Cor. 5:4).
Ecclesiastes does not provide a systematic discussion of how the problem of sin is dealt with, but some crucial soteriological themes can be discerned. The call to “fear God” (e.g., Eccles. 5:7; 12:13) is, in effect, a summons to faith and trust in him. The brief acknowledgement of those who make sacrifices (5:1; 9:2) assumes the reality of atonement and forgiveness when these are offered in genuine repentance and sincere faith. The sovereign and unmerited grace of God is powerfully stated in the Preacher’s bold assertion in 9:7, “God has already approved [or “accepted”] what you do.” In a surprisingly counterintuitive way the unmerited nature of God’s grace is further highlighted by the Preacher’s observation that sometimes the wicked receive what the righteous deserve, and vice versa (e.g., 8:14). Such statements are not intended to undermine a sense of confidence in God’s dealing with sinners, as if his treatment of human beings were capricious. They do, however, strike a deadly blow against the tendency toward merit theology and the common assumption that our efforts at righteous behavior will always result in tangible blessings. Those who possess a living faith that produces righteous deeds can rest assured that they are safely “in the hand of God” (9:1), regardless of their outward circumstances.
Redemptive History and Eschatology
Redemptive-historical and eschatological themes are a major feature of the theology of the Bible but are not a primary focus of the book of Ecclesiastes or of the Wisdom Literature in general.22 Such concerns are not wholly absent from the book, however. Although there is no mention of the great salvation events of the OT (such as the exodus) or most of the characters who figure prominently in it (Abraham, Moses, Elijah, and so on), the references to the Preacher as “the son of David” (1:1) and “king over Israel in Jerusalem” (1:12) assume crucial redemptive-historical realities, particularly God’s covenant with David’s line (2 Samuel 7). The Davidic house continuously functions as a testimony to the faithfulness of God in maintaining this covenant and as a reminder to God’s people of their source of future hope.
Furthermore, despite the Preacher’s frequent reminder that mankind does not know the future (e.g., Eccles. 6:12; 8:7; 10:14), the book does refer to eschatological themes such as a judgment to come (3:17; 11:9; 12:14) and the believer’s ultimate union with God (12:7). This future judgment is not a source of terror to the one who truly reveres God and is aware of being protected by his gracious hand (9:1). A future, greater work of God is anticipated when the Preacher asserts, “Better is the end of a thing than its beginning” (7:8). Indeed, when he states that God makes everything “beautiful in its time” (3:11), he implies that the current cosmic order with all the “vanity” of its imperfections and corruption is awaiting a transformation into something glorious. It is worth noting that the famous poem on the “times” in 3:1–8 contains seven pairs of items—the number seven being indicative of perfection and completion—that begin with a reference to the inception of life (“A time to be born”; 3:2) and conclude with a climactic reference to shalom, or “peace” (3:8).23 By placing the focus on shalom, the poem evokes such glorious visions as Isaiah 9:6–7; 11:1–10, which likewise look forward to universal peace in the consummation of God’s kingdom. Despite the general lack of emphasis on redemptive history and eschatology in Ecclesiastes, this is a tacit admission that God’s plan for the world is not yet complete. Alongside the Preacher and his audience, “We are waiting for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells” (2 Pet. 3:13).
Providence
One of the most important themes in the book of Ecclesiastes is the consideration of God’s providence, that is, “his most holy, wise, and powerful preserving and governing all his creatures, and all their actions” (WSC #11). The full scope of God’s works of providence are what the Preacher has in mind when he speaks of examining the “work[s] of God” (e.g., Eccles. 7:13; 8:17; 11:5).24 In contrast to the book of Esther, which seeks to discern God’s providence in a particular set of historical circumstances (Est. 4:14), the book of Ecclesiastes seeks to understand all of God’s providential working throughout the cosmos. It is here that the Preacher’s unceasing efforts fall short, because so often God’s specific acts of providence are inscrutable. When life is challenging and difficult, one often wants to know why things occur the way they do, but apart from special divine revelation mankind is not privy to the Lord’s reasons. This can be a source of great frustration to the Preacher, as it can be for any of the Lord’s disciples, and it calls for patience and trust in both the sovereignty and the goodness of God. As the famous 1773 hymn by the poet William Cowper says, “God moves in a mysterious way, his wonders to perform.”
Judge not the Lord by feeble sense,
But trust Him for His grace;
Behind a frowning providence
He hides a smiling face.
In Ecclesiastes the Preacher ignores neither the “frowning providence” of God nor his “smiling face” hiding behind it.
Relationship to the Rest of the Bible and to Christ
The difficulties presented by the Preacher’s apparently “unorthodox” or “secular” comments, along with the book’s alleged internal contradictions (cf. Interpretive Challenges), have been observed since ancient times. As has been noted, such challenges have occasionally led to voices that question the book’s inspiration and, therefore, its right to a place in the canon of Scripture. In the early Jewish tradition, for example, some first-century rabbis (including the entire school of Beth Shammai) questioned whether Ecclesiastes “defiled the hands” (Mishnah, Eduyyot 5:3; Mishnah, Yadayim 3:5), which was equivalent to questioning its Spirit-inspired status.25 It must be emphasized that such objections to the book’s canonical status, whether in Jewish or in Christian circles, have always been a minority voice. Historically the unmistakable majority opinion has been to receive Ecclesiastes as inspired Scripture that thereby demands a place in the canon. The book’s inspiration is indicated by its self-attestation: the Preacher’s words are acknowledged as representing both “knowledge” and “truth” (Eccles. 12:9–10), and, like the rest of the “words of the wise,” they are “given by one Shepherd” (12:11)—in other words, by God himself (cf. comment on 12:11–12). Such comments constitute a claim to divine origin and authority. Therefore, while Ecclesiastes is provocative and says many puzzling and enigmatic things, there is every good reason for affirming its canonical status in accord with the great weight of Jewish and Christian tradition.
The theological message of Ecclesiastes was sketched out above, but in what ways does it point to Christ? Despite the book’s accepted status within the Christian church, it has often proved difficult to relate the book to the NT Scriptures and the gospel of Jesus Christ. Wisdom literature by its nature tends to focus on issues of creation and on the need to apply biblical discernment to the situations one encounters in the course of daily providence, and Ecclesiastes is no exception. Nevertheless, although we find no obvious references to the book in Jesus’ teaching as recorded in the Gospels, a few perspectives offer themselves as means to seeking legitimately to relate Ecclesiastes to the Bible’s overarching narrative of salvation through the Son of God, Jesus Christ.
Wisdom: Christ the Sage
In Christian theology it is common to speak of the three offices of Christ, referring to his role as prophet, priest, and king. It would also be legitimate, however, to speak of his role as a sage who teaches wisdom to God’s people. Like the Preacher, Jesus teaches wisdom to God’s people, often in provocative and challenging ways to spur them to deeper reflection. Ecclesiastes seeks to impart wisdom, which ultimately finds fulfillment in Jesus, who is described as “wisdom of/from God” in the NT (1 Cor. 1:24, 30) and is widely viewed as its ultimate embodiment or personification (cf. Prov. 1:20–33; 8:1–9:12).
Messianism: Christ the King
There are messianic overtones to the Preacher’s designation as “son of David, king in Jerusalem” (Eccles. 1:1),26 as well as to the reference to the “one Shepherd” (12:11; cf. Ezek. 34:23; 37:24; John 10:11, 16). Like the Preacher, Jesus is a Davidic shepherd-king who surpasses all who came before him; truly, in Christ “something greater than Solomon” has arrived (Luke 11:31). The Preacher can thus be understood as a type or foreshadowing of Jesus Christ, who will reign on the throne “in the new world” (Matt. 19:28), for which Ecclesiastes longs. The great difference between Jesus and the Preacher, however, is that Jesus did more than teach and lead God’s people; he acted to make atonement for them.
Immanuel: Christ with Us
As the Preacher describes the repetitiveness and weariness of the created world (Eccles. 1:4–11), he mentions in an often-overlooked comment that any alleged “new” thing “has been already in the ages before us” (1:10). His use of the first-person plural here is unique in the book, and it points toward the Preacher’s solidarity with his hearers. He is not speaking of the mysteries and frustrations of reality as one who is unaffected by them. Rather, he experiences the same dramas and sorrows that his hearers do living in a fallen world. Therefore, 1:10 provides a prefigurement of the Immanuel principle of God’s dwelling in and among his people and of the work of the Lord’s servant, who stood in solidarity with us to bear our burdens on our behalf (Isa. 53:4–12).
The Life-Giving Spirit of Christ
Nicodemus is puzzled when Jesus says that a person must be “born again” (or “from above”) in order to see the kingdom of God (John 3:3). As their conversation unfolds and Nicodemus’s confusion increases, Jesus clarifies in John 3:8 that this is a work of the Holy Spirit: “The wind [or “Spirit”] blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.” Jesus is intentionally playing on the fact that the word for “spirit” (Gk. pneuma) can also be translated as “wind.” The mysterious work of the wind/Spirit in bringing life is a theme found in Ecclesiastes as well: “As you do not know the way the spirit comes to the bones in the womb of a woman with child, so you do not know the work of God who makes everything” (Eccles. 11:5) The Hebrew word ruakh, which like pneuma can indicate either “spirit” or “wind,” occurs with surprising frequency in Ecclesiastes (twenty-four times). Whether speaking of a “first” or “second” birth, the Spirit’s involvement is essential, but it is fundamentally mysterious. Ecclesiastes associates the “spirit” with the gift of life (3:19, 21; 8:8; 11:5; 12:7), just as the glorified and ascended Christ is associated with the “life-giving spirit” (1 Cor. 15:45). Obviously, a full revelation of the triune nature of the Godhead awaited the coming of Christ and the descent of the Spirit, but the OT Scriptures were already laying the foundation to which the clarifying apostolic witness would be added (Eph. 2:20).
The Mystery of Christ
The NT speaks of proclaiming the “mystery” of Christ (Eph. 6:19; Col. 4:3), thereby acknowledging that the coming of Christ was a veiled and shrouded reality until it was clearly revealed in the fulness of time (e.g., Rom. 16:25; 1 Cor. 4:1; Eph. 3:3–4, 9; Col. 1:26–27; 2:2; etc.). The “mystery” of Christ refers in part to the fact that the full scope of the Messiah’s person and work was not fully revealed until he appeared in the flesh as Jesus of Nazareth. However, it also speaks to the fact that even the truths revealed about Christ remain “mysterious” in the sense that they are difficult, if not impossible, to explain adequately in terms of human logic. There is clearly something mysterious about the triune nature of God or the incarnation of the Son of God that supersedes even the most articulate theological formulations by the church throughout her history.
It would be an understatement to say that Ecclesiastes acknowledges mysterious aspects to life in this world and the ways of God. While the Preacher gains occasional insights into reality, much of the time what he observes perplexes him. This is not simply because he is a finite creature and therefore has a limited capacity for understanding. Rather, part of his perplexity is a result of the fact that the Lord has purposefully made things in such a way that human beings will not always be able to figure them out completely (e.g., Eccles. 1:15; 3:11; 7:13). Ecclesiastes thus acknowledges that much of what happens in the world is shrouded in mystery. On the one hand this is a frustrating limitation for the curious seeker of God. On the other hand it is intended to whet the believer’s appetite for the day when we “shall know fully, even as [we] have been fully known” (1 Cor. 13:12). By reading Ecclesiastes attentively, one is better prepared to appreciate the unveiling of the revelation of the mystery of Christ by his apostles in NT Scripture.
Outline
I. The Preacher’s Answer and Question (1:1–3)
II. The Political Cosmos (1:4–11)
III. The Preacher’s Quest (1:12–18)
IV. Toiling for Pleasures, Achievements, and Possessions (2:1–11)
V. Pondering Death and One’s Successor (2:12–26)
VI. A Time for Everything (3:1–8)
VII. God-Given Limitations and Reverence for Him (3:9–14)
VIII. Divine Judgment and Human Justice (3:15–4:3)
IX. Working Wisely: Contentment and Community (4:4–16)
X. Fools’ Worship and True Worship (5:1–7)
XI. Wealth, Mortality, and Mortifying Greed (5:8–6:9)
XII. What Is Good for Mortal Man? (6:10–7:14)
XIII. The Sinfulness of Mankind (7:15–29)
XIV. Count It All Joy When Facing Evil (8:1–15)
XV. The Certainties and Uncertainties of Death and Life (8:16–9:12)
XVI. Christlike Wisdom and Devilish Folly (9:13–10:15)
XVII. Watching the Winds: Diligence and Politics (10:16–11:6)
XVIII. Youth, Old Age, Death (11:7–12:8)
XIX. Epilogue: The End of the Matter (12:9–14)
Ecclesiastes 1:1–3