Guidelines for Understanding and Proclaiming the Book of Ecclesiastes, Part 1

By Greg W. Parsons

[Greg W. Parsons is Professor of Biblical Studies, Baptist Missionary Association Theological Seminary, Jacksonville, Texas.]

As one of the most difficult Bible books to understand, Ecclesiastes challenges the reader to solve its puzzling problems and to unlock its mysterious meaning. Is Ecclesiastes a jigsaw puzzle with some missing pieces (see the proverb in Eccles. 1:15b)? Is it a complex riddle or code that defies deciphering? Has the key to its meaning been lost or bent so that it no longer fits and cannot be straightened (cf. v. 15a)?

Because of its seeming pessimism (or fatalism) and its supposed Epicurean philosophy (“eat, drink, and be merry,” 8:15), the rabbis debated its canonicity.[1] Delitzsch implied that Ecclesiastes is “the low point of the Bible” whereby the Old Covenant “digs its own grave.”[2] It has been dubbed, “the strangest book in the canon.”[3] Even today many read the book “with the distinct feeling that [it] does not belong in the Bible.”[4] Many things about Ecclesiastes, including its origin, background, author, purpose, structure, and message, have been hotly disputed.[5] Qoheleth (apparently the pen name of the author of Ecclesiastes) “blazed a trail of obscurity in communication,” leaving modern readers “scratching their heads” in trying to cope with his style, to deal with the seeming contradictions,[6] to trace arguments that appear to meander aimlessly from topic to topic, and to understand his unique grammar and vocabulary, which do not seem to fit any known period of the Hebrew language.[7] Like a gigantic jigsaw puzzle without all the pieces, the book presents a major challenge—particularly when there may be “a chest full of puzzles”[8] to work with.

The two articles in this series suggest guidelines to help piece together the meaning and open up the message of the enigmatic Book of Ecclesiastes.[9] This first article presents one major hermeneutical guideline with three corollaries, and the second article presents two additional guidelines for interpreting Ecclesiastes and four homiletical suggestions for proclaiming the book.

Guidelines for Interpreting Ecclesiastes

Guideline One: Interpret Each Verse of Ecclesiastes in Light of the Overall Context of the Book—Its Structure, Purpose, and Message

In no other book of the Old Testament is this guideline more crucial.[10] Yet the lack of consensus by scholars on whether there is any obvious structure underscores the need for an inductive study of the book. Ecclesiastes seems at first glance to be a collection of apparently random themes.[11]

Structural considerations

An examination of the book should begin with an inductive study of the data, while avoiding excessive generalizations. Two extremes about the book’s structure should be avoided: the view that the book merely has “unstructured verbal meanderings” or “a wandering among several topics”[12] or the view that it has a clear, logical structure (as in a treatise) with regular divisions.[13]

If the book has a sequential structure, Wright’s outline (based on recognition of certain refrains and repetitions) is a convincing candidate. Despite Murphy’s earlier skeptical view that no structure could ever be found in the book,[14] he and others have accepted Wright’s view (though in modified form).[15] However, as cogent as Wright’s work is, certain scholars have noted a few minor flaws.[16] Other suggestions, including Dorsey’s symmetrical structure,[17] may be helpful, but one must not impose a rigid structural pattern on the book, since it is unlikely to have been intended by Qoheleth.[18] The content should have priority over the form.[19]

The inclusio of 1:2 and 12:8 and various key refrains seem to indicate a basic unity of thought and structure. However, readers from Western culture must not expect the organizational unity of a philosophical treatise, since it is neither a treatise nor a dialogue.[20] Ryken argues that Qoheleth used contrast, not sequence, as his organizing principle.[21] Rather than utilizing a logical argument, the repetition of key words and phrases may be intended to help readers feel the “futility” of each attempt to find satisfaction.[22] Furthermore the seeming inconsistencies of its polarized structure and the lack of apparent order in the particular sections may be deliberate literary devices to reflect Qoheleth’s perception of “the paradoxical and anomalous nature of the world.”[23] Qoheleth utilizes a dialectical structure that alternates sections on despair with sections on joy.[24]

Hubbard accurately describes the overall argument.

It begins with the announcement of its basic conclusion: everything in life is futility (1:2)…. That theme is illustrated with a whole chain of evidence drawn from Koheleth’s personal observations—the four Demonstrations (1:4–2:26; 3:1–4:16; 5:13–6:12; 8:10–9:12). It is reinforced with clusters of proverbs—the three collections of Words of Advice (5:1–12; 7:1–8:9; 9:12–12:8)—that show the emptiness of conventional wisdom and that counsels the hearers in how to make the best of life, hard as it is. And it is punctuated with the six alternative conclusions that urge the people to set modest expectations for themselves and enjoy God’s simple, everyday gifts of food, drink, work, and love. It concludes as it began with the vanity (or “futility”) verdict.[25]

The overall purpose must be discovered in light of the epilogue (12:9–14), which contains the final conclusion (vv. 13–14). The reader needs to analyze two basic ideas concerning the relationship of the epilogue to the rest of the work. The traditional view, which was the majority view before the rise of historical criticism, sees the whole work, including the epilogue, as written by Qoheleth (probably Solomon).[26] On the other hand many commentators, including some conservatives, now argue that the epilogue (12:9–14, or 12:8–14) is an editorial footnote by another wise man who critiqued (or counterbalanced) Qoheleth’s message.[27] In this perspective the epilogue is seen as an orthodox conclusion that mitigates Qoheleth’s cynical observations that life (lived in the shadow of the great leveler, death) ultimately has no meaning.[28] However, rather than reflecting another author or editor, the epilogue may be a bit of super irony in which Qoheleth skeptically rejected skepticism.[29] At any rate the basic literary structure of the book seems to support the distinction between Qoheleth (who speaks in the first person in 1:12—12:7) and the so-called frame narrator (whether another person[30] or merely a literary device of the author)[31] who referred to Qoheleth in the third person (1:1–11 and 12:9–14).[32] Thus readers must utilize the entire Book of Ecclesiastes. They should neither ignore the contribution of the epilogue[33] nor superimpose its message onto the main body.[34]

Ryken speculates that 12:11 refers metaphorically to negative and positive passages used by Qoheleth. The “under the sun” passages, which emphasize “vanity,” could be the “goads” intended to keep his audience from complacency, and the passages emphasizing “the fear of God” might be “well-driven nails” to provide “fixed points of reference.”[35]

Recognize that the concept of the fear of God is not an afterthought but is a theme woven into the fabric of the book (3:14; 5:7; 7:18; 8:12–13).[36] Bullock has suggested that this fundamental premise of “the fear of God,” which is shared with other wisdom books, became the mediating element in Qoheleth’s philosophy.[37] According to him Qoheleth “walked a tightrope between despair and arrogance” as well as between nihilism and hedonism (pleasure), balanced by the fear of God.[38] Many believe that Qoheleth recommended the fear of God as an alternative between two extremes; however, the meaning of the terms “excessively righteous,” “overly wise” (7:16), and “excessively wicked” (v. 17) is disputed.[39] Whatever the precise nuance of Qoheleth’s counsel against some sort of fanaticism on the one hand and folly on the other, verse 17 is not urging just “a little sinning.”[40] As Brown states, “Godly fear forges a middle ground, but not as some muddled mean, as if righteousness should be tempered with a modicum of wickedness, or folly mitigated with a healthy dose of wisdom. Reverence is neither a matter of fanatical fear that raises the bar of moral conduct to unattainable or obsessive levels, nor a matter of indifference or moral complacency. Rather, the fear of God is based on an acute awareness of human finitude and a realistic assessment of life’s vicissitudes…. The result is a salutary balance in conduct and reverence.”[41] Thus Qoheleth observes that the God-fearer holds on to “both” things (v. 18), which may mean both “devotion to God and the teachings of wisdom” as well as “enjoyment of the truly good things of life”[42] that come from God, without indulging to the point of becoming wicked.

This latter idea is a positive motif Qoheleth utilized throughout the book as a companion to the negative conclusion of the “vanity” of all things under the sun. Ultimately the frame-narrator (12:13–14) concurred with 7:16–18 that fearing God is the fundamental key to living a balanced life.

Suggested Purpose

The Book of Ecclesiastes is a bipolar book.[43] By an inductive study correlated with interaction with good commentaries the interpreter ought to decide whether the primary pole is negative or positive. Furthermore one must decide how it relates to the basic question stated in 1:3.[44]

The present writer holds that the purpose of Ecclesiastes involves a pervasive theme of “vanity” balanced by a seemingly secondary theme of finding “joy” in God’s basic gifts. Because Qoheleth often juxtaposes a negative “vanity” pronouncement with a positive affirmation of “joy or pleasure,”[45] the interpreter must resist any attempt to exclude one or the other, which would result in a distortion of its meaning.[46]

The purpose stated negatively. In response to the question of what profit (or advantage) there is to work under the sun (1:3) and how it relates to wisdom,[47] Ecclesiastes gives both a negative and a positive answer. Stated negatively, the purpose is to demonstrate the complete “vanity” or emptiness or futility of a life “under the sun” (i.e., on the earth; see 8:14–17),[48] which is not centered in the fear of God[49] and devotion to Him (12:13–14).[50]

This “vanity verdict” underscores the plight of humans who cannot see “above the sun” (from God’s perspective). The key word הֶבֶל, is variously translated “vanity,” “emptiness,”[51] “meaningless,”[52] “futility,” “temporary,”[53] “absurd,”[54] “enigmatic” (or “mysterious”)[55] or even “contingency.”[56] However, no single English translation does justice to the full-orbed nature of this word.[57] Therefore it may be that הֶבֶל represents different aspects of the human inability to grasp the meaning of God’s ways (or works) and the limitation and frustration caused by the vast gap between God’s power and knowledge and the wise man’s attempts to comprehend or control times and events.[58] Human experience discovers that God’s works are impossible to grasp mentally (1:15b, 16–18; cf. 3:10–11) and that attempts to straighten out the crooked (or perverted) things are often futile and frustrating (1:14–15a).

Since the root idea of הֶבֶל is a vapor (or breath) that disappears quickly,[59] Farmer suggests that English readers use a neutral term such as “breathlike” or “vapor” in each verse so as to let the context determine whether the idea is positive or negative.[60] Yet even this metaphor may not be comprehensive enough to catch the various possible nuances of the Hebrew term. In the thirty-eight occurrences of הֶבֶל in twenty-nine different verses,[61] the superlative “vanity of vanities” seems to be the key to both the “front door” (1:2) and the “back door” (12:8) of the book.[62] Furthermore הֶבֶל is often reinforced by the refrain “chasing (or grasping) the wind” (1:14, 17; 2:11, 17, 26; 4:4, 6, 16; 6:9).[63] In these situations הֶבֶל probably means “futility” or “frustration” (cf. the similar phrase “labor for the wind” in 5:16). At other times הֶבֶל may mean “enigmatic” or “incomprehensible” (like looking through a fog or mist). This is particularly true in verses that describe the results of seeking to comprehend circumstances that defy traditional wisdom teaching—such as the righteous not being rewarded with enjoyment of riches and/or long life in contrast to the wicked (3:16–19; 7:15; 8:14; cf. 4:7–8; 6:2).[64] It may mean “fleeting or temporary,” especially when describing length of life (6:12; 9:9; 11:10).[65]

Some conclude that Qoheleth was a thoroughgoing pessimist, who perceived that life is an exercise in futility (1:2; 12:8).[66] But why was Ecclesiastes read during the Feast of Tabernacles (Succoth), a festal celebration of eating, drinking, and joy?[67] This points to another theme that runs through the book—enjoying God’s basic everyday gifts (2:24–26; 3:12–13, 22; 5:18–19; 8:15; 9:7–9).

The purpose stated positively. The book’s positive emphasis focuses on celebrating God’s good gifts of food, drink, good health, and ability to enjoy one’s work on earth (5:18–20) while loving one’s wife (9:9), despite the mysterious (seemingly nonsensical or absurd)[68] ways God sometimes works (see 8:16–17; 9:1). These alternate notes of joy occur six times and are reinforced by other joyful notes (11:9–10).[69] Although they serve as a counterbalance to the apparently dominant “vanity” chords composed in a minor key, it seems excessive to call Qoheleth a “preacher of joy,” as Whybray has done.[70] Yet in light of the epilogue, the scales tip back toward the positive pole to balance (but not exclude) the negative pole.[71]

Thus the Book of Ecclesiastes focuses on finding God “in the details of the daily grind of living” and “offers modern readers the dread and delight of the everyday, the glory of the ordinary,”[72] which results in a slight movement toward the positive pole (in the last half of the book).[73]

Possible background

It is hazardous to isolate a particular time or cultural milieu for the book because the grammar and vocabulary are an uncertain indicator for determining the date (and the milieu) of the book.[74]

Internal evidence, however, may suggest that the implied readers of the book were primarily an aristocratic audience who likely would have had access to the king and other leaders.[75] “Otherwise Qoheleth’s denunciations of wealth, pleasure and fame make little sense and would have fallen on deaf ears.”[76] Though disputed, this may suggest a preexilic rather than a postexilic time.[77] Thus the overall purpose may have been complementary to that of Proverbs—perhaps to instruct upper-class youth who were potential leaders[78] (as a counterbalance to traditional wisdom).

Implications for Interpreting the Book

This possible background, purpose, and unity of structure and message suggest at least three implications or corollaries for interpreting this book. First, one should become aware of the specialized vocabulary (rare words)[79] and words[80] and phrases that are repeated in the book. These terms can be researched through concordances, lexicons, and other word-study tools (including exegetical commentaries) to determine how Qoheleth used each of them. Besides the use of הֶבֶל, several other key words should be examined—particularly in the strategic verse 1:3.[81]

Also significant repeated phrases[82] deserve attention, including “chasing (or shepherding) the wind” and “under the sun.”

Words for wisdom and knowledge;[83] “justice/righteousness”;[84] “work” (or labor);[85] and the good things in life,[86] including the word טוֹב (“good”),[87] deserve careful study.[88]

Whybray suggests that the idea of Qoheleth’s changing the meaning of certain theological terms is largely due to an assumption of strict theological consistency.[89] In view of the bipolar nature of the book this is a tenuous presupposition. The proper premise should be that these words are used in their usual sense unless the immediate context dictates otherwise.

Second, note various suggestions for interpreting seemingly contradictory verses. The critical presupposition that divergent verses indicate various redactors with different viewpoints ignores more viable alternatives.[90]

Certain statements may be quotations of orthodox teaching in order to interact with them. Whybray argues that Qoheleth quoted earlier proverbial sayings—normally either to confirm their validity (often elaborating on them) or to express relative approval.[91]

The evidence for quotations is cogent in a few places such as 4:5 and 4:8b,[92] but other alleged instances are speculative. Huwiler points out that in some alleged quotations of orthodox teaching, Qoheleth was more likely genuinely struggling with some complex issues.[93] Though efforts have been made to establish criteria for identifying quotations,[94] indisputable proof is lacking.[95]

Qoheleth may have quoted a traditional wisdom saying (4:5) and countered with a proverb of his own (4:6).[96] On the other hand what seems to be a proverbial citation may have been coined by the sage Qoheleth as an “anti-proverb” to rebut traditional wisdom (see 1:15, 18).[97]

It is important to remember that Ecclesiastes is a bipolar book that often places two points of view in tension or seeming contradiction (cf. 4:2 with 9:4[98] and 8:11–12a with 8:12b–13).[99] Part of the reason for this may be the author’s quest for meaning in life, in which he apparently donned the role of a king (1:12—2:26) and then, after taking off the royal robe, journaled his critical observations as a sage concerning various perplexing matters “under the sun” (3:1–12:8). Each reflection in his journey toward meaning in life remains provisional and tentative.[100] Thus the entire context of the book must be searched to minimize misunderstanding and to avoid prooftexting (see the next point).

Third, avoid the prooftexting used by members of various cults. Ecclesiastes has some verses that, taken out of context, seem to support false doctrines. The enigmatic 3:18-22 appears to teach annihilation of the dead, the notion that there is no eternal punishment or hell for the wicked or any essential difference after death between humans and animals.

The catalog of times and seasons in 3:1–8 seems to endorse killing in certain circumstances, which could include abortion and euthanasia (“there is a time to kill,” v. 3).

Similarly 3:8 seems to affirm that hatred is acceptable in certain cases. According to 10:19 wine and money offer the solution to everything (cf. 8:15, “eat, drink and be merry”). This seems to endorse hedonism (coupled with materialism). Jewish kabbalists allege that 1:4 teaches reincarnation.[101] And based on 7:26–29, feminists accuse Qoheleth of being a misogynist.[102]

In general response one should be careful not to jump to conclusions about a particular teaching or emphasis of a section of the book.[103] For example many people view the catalog of seasons and times in 3:1–8 as an endorsement of the right time to do things. Clifford rightly criticizes this view because it ignores verse 11, which indicates that all things and times are in God’s hands, and that people cannot fathom them.[104] Also these fourteen pairs of opposites precede a question (v. 9) with two subsequent opposing answers. Verses 12–15 balance (to some extent) verses 10–11 and create a slight tension.[105] In other words, though humans cannot fathom the times and seasons, they do know how to act (“I know,” vv. 12, 14), no matter what the time or season may be.[106]

Furthermore to interpret 8:15 and 10:19 and other similar verses as hedonistic endorsements of pleasure ignores the book’s overall argument (see the discussion earlier on the positive purpose statement). Also the theme of “vanity” for every activity “under the sun” indicates that life on this horizontal plane without input from God (above the sun) has no lasting meaning. However, meaning in life is found in fearing God and obeying His principles.[107]

Notes

1. Gleason L. Archer, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, rev. ed. (Chicago: Moody, 1994), 78.
2. Franz Delitzch, quoted in Duane A. Garrett, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman, 1993), 254.
3. William P. Brown, Ecclesiastes (Louisville: John Knox, 2000), vii, 10; cf. R. N. Whybray, Ecclesiastes (Sheffield: JSOT, 1989), 11.
4. Garrett, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, 254.
5. Ibid.
6. David Hubbard, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon (Dallas: Word, 1991), 19–20.
7. Garrett, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, 254–55, 258–61, 269–70.
8. Hubbard, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, 20. See also William S. LaSor, David A. Hubbard, and Frederic W. Bush, Old Testament Survey, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 497.
9. Ecclesiastes is “perhaps the most enigmatic book in the Old Testament,” and “like the desert Sphinx” it teases the reader with its questions and secrets (Barry G. Webb, Five Festal Garments: Christian Reflections on the Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes and Esther [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000], 83).
10. Only the dialogue portions of the Book of Job equal Ecclesiastes in being misinterpreted because of failure to consider the context of the whole book.
11. See Robert Gordis, Koheleth—The Man and His World, 3d ed. (New York: Schocken, 1968), 110–11; and Brown, Ecclesiastes, 17.
12. See Garrett, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, 269, 270.
13. Ardel B. Caneday, “Qoheleth: Enigmatic Pessimist or Godly Sage?” in Reflecting with Solomon: Selected Studies on the Book of Ecclesiastes, ed. Roy B. Zuck (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994), 92.
14. Roland E. Murphy, “The Pensées of Coheleth,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 17 (1958): 184; cf. Caneday, “Qoheleth: Enigmatic Pessimist or Godly Sage?” 306.
15. See Addison G. Wright, “The Riddle of the Sphinx: The Structure of the Book of Qoheleth,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 30 (1968): 313-34 (reprinted in Studies in Ancient Israelite Wisdom, ed. James L. Crenshaw [New York: KTAV, 1976], 245–66). This is amplified in his contribution to The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, ed. Raymond E. Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, and Roland E. Murphy (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1990), 489–95. General agreement is expressed in Roland E. Murphy, Ecclesiastes, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, 1992), xxxviii-xli, and others (see ibid., xxxvi, xxxix), including Leo G. Perdue, Wisdom and Creation: The Theology of Wisdom Literature [Nashville: Abingdon, 1994], 203–5). See also Roland E. Murphy, Wisdom Literature: Job, Proverbs, Ruth, Canticles, Ecclesiastes, Esther (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981), 128–29.
16. For a critique of Wright’s method see Michael Fox, A Time to Tear Down and a Time to Build Up (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 147–49. See also Michael A. Eaton, Ecclesiastes (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1983), 49, 53; Derek Kidner, The Wisdom of Proverbs, Job and Ecclesiastes (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1985), 109; James L. Crenshaw, Ecclesiastes (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987), 41–42; Craig G. Bartholomew, Reading Ecclesiastes: Old Testament Exegesis and Hermeneutical Theory (Rome: Pontificio istituto biblico, 1998), 136; Roland E. Murphy and Elizabeth Huwiler, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1999), 168–69; and David A. Dorsey, The Literary Structure of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999), 192 n. 6.
17. Dorsey, The Literary Structure of the Old Testament, 197–98; cf. Stephen G. Brown, “The Structure of Ecclesiastes,” Evangelical Review of Theology 14 (July 1990): 207-8.
18. Roland E. Murphy, “The Pensées of Coheleth,” 306; cf. Caneday, “Qoheleth: Enigmatic Pessimist or Godly Sage?” 91–94.
19. See Bartholomew, Reading Ecclesiastes, 136 n. 159.
20. See Gordis, Koheleth—The Man and His World, 110; and Andrew E. Hill and John H. Walton, A Survey of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991), 296.
21. Leland Ryken and Tremper Longman III, A Complete Literary Guide to the Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993), 271–72, 278. Cf. Andrew Hill, “Non-Proverbial Wisdom,” in Cracking Old Testament Codes: A Guide to Interpreting Old Testament Literary Forms, ed. D. Brent Sandy and Ronald L. Giese (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1995), 271.
22. Ryken, “Ecclesiastes,” 271, 274. To seek a “tidy” literary structure is “an exercise in frustration” (Brown, Ecclesiastes, 15).
23. Caneday, “Qoheleth: Enigmatic Pessimist or Godly Sage?” 90; cf. Tremper Longman III, The Book of Ecclesiastes (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 22; and Fox, A Time to Tear Down and a Time to Build Up, 3, 34.
24. Ryken, “Ecclesiastes,” 271–72.
25. Hubbard, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, 30 (italics his).
26. For example Walter C. Kaiser Jr., Ecclesiastes: Total Life (Chicago: Moody, 1979), 13–15, 24–29.
27. This would be analogous to the relationship of the books of James and Romans in the New Testament (Craig G. Bartholomew, “Qoheleth in the Canon?! Current Trends in the Interpretation of Ecclesiastes,” Themelios 24 [May 1999]: 7).
28. Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan), 212, 214–15. See also Longman, The Book of Ecclesiastes, 7–8, 20–22, 274–83. Webb gives a concise critique of Longman’s position (Five Festal Garments, 102 n. 32). Hubbard suggests that 12:9–14 may be an editorial footnote by a disciple of Qoheleth (Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, 30, 247).
29. H. Fisch, Poetry with a Purpose: Biblical Poetics and Interpretation (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1988), 175. Qoheleth could then be merely the persona (or mask) for the author’s thinking in which he used the royal figure of Solomon (cf. Fox’s view, summarized in Longman, The Book of Ecclesiastes, 9).
30. See Longman, The Book of Ecclesiastes, 7–9.
31. Michael Fox, “Frame-narrative and Composition in the Book of Qohelet,” Hebrew Union College Annual 48 (1977): 91-92, 104–5; Bartholomew, Reading Ecclesiastes, 143–46; and idem, “Qoheleth in the Canon?!” 11–12, 14. Garrett has argued for a mere literary technique by one author (Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, 262–64).
32. For a summary and critique of basic ways to view the epilogue see Andrew G. Shead, “Reading Ecclesiastes ‘Epilogically,’ ” Tyndale Bulletin 48 (1997): 86-91.
33. See Bartholomew, “Qoheleth in the Canon?!” 14.
34. See note 49 below.
35. Ryken, “Ecclesiastes,” 272. The common view of the two lines as antithetical (or contrasting) parallelism is well supported (Bartholomew, Reading Ecclesiastes, 163–64, 170). Fox, on the other hand, sees these two figures in a synonymous parallelism (“Frame-narrative and Composition in the Book of Qohelet,” 102).
36. Dorsey argues that the structural centerpiece of the book (3:16—6:12) has the concept “fear God” as its center in 5:1–7 (Literary Structure of Old Testament, 195, 198).
37. C. Hassell Bullock, An Introduction to the Old Testament Poetic Books, rev. ed. (Chicago: Moody, 1988), 182–83, 190–91. However, Qoheleth spoke of the “fear of God” but never used the term “fear of the Lord” as in other wisdom books.
38. Ibid., 183, 190. Fox states that Qoheleth continued “to straddle two views of reality, wavering uncomfortably but honestly between them” (A Time to Tear Down and a Time to Build Up, 134). Qoheleth weighed both sides and invited the reader “to think for himself” in making a final conclusion (Whybray, Ecclesiastes, 12–13, 51).
39. There are perhaps three main views of 7:16: (a) Advice for moderation, avoiding the two extremes of overzealous righteousness or wisdom and wickedness or folly (v. 17) (“seeking righteousness and wisdom with too much fervor,” Longman, The Book of Ecclesiastes, 195–96). (b) A warning about false pretenses of righteousness and wisdom (Hubbard, Ecclesiastes, 170; and Brown, Ecclesiastes, 81–82). (c) A warning against overconfidence in righteousness and wisdom, perhaps as a guarantee against calamity (7:15, 19; 8:14; 9:16–18) (Donald R. Glenn, “Ecclesiastes,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: Old Testament, ed. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck [Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1985], 994; and Choon-Leong Seow, Ecclesiastes, Anchor Bible [New York: Doubleday, 1997], 59, 267–68).
40. See Garrett, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, 323.
41. Brown, Ecclesiastes, 82; see also Brown, Character in Crisis, 142–43.
42. Garrett, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, 324.
43. J. A. Loader, Polar Structures in the Book of Qohelet (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1979).
44. See Graham Ogden, Qoheleth (Sheffield: JSOT, 1987), 14–15, 28, 108.
45. According to Ryken’s count, there are fifteen negative sections and thirteen positive ones, but the negative ones comprise much more space in the book (A Complete Literary Guide to the Bible, 269–71). There are at least seven juxtapositions of the negative pole “vanity” (2:21–23; 3:10–11; 3:18–21; 5:16–17; 8:12a; 8:14; 9:1–6) with the positive pole of “joy” (2:24–26; 3:12–15; 3:22; 5:18–20; 8:12b–13; 8:15; and 9:7–10). See Bartholomew, Reading Ecclesiastes, 241–50; and idem, “Qoheleth in the Canon,” 15–16.
46. Huwiler, “Ecclesiastes,” 164–65; cf. 168–69. The inclusion of both may create “gaps” in understanding (Bartholomew, Reading Ecclesiastes, 238, 252–54).
47. Ogden, Qoheleth, 28, 108.
48. The repetition of the phrase “under the sun,” which occurs twenty-nine times in Ecclesiastes, is “an almost nagging reminder of the earthbound life of perplexed humanity” (LaSor, Hubbard, and Bush, Old Testament Survey, 507). However, it must be noted that the phrase “under the sun” may be used in a positive sense in 5:18 (Bartholomew, Reading Ecclesiastes, 253; cf. 11:7, “see the sun”). “Under heaven” in 1:13–14 may be a synonym of “under the sun” (Eaton, Ecclesiastes, 44–45) or it may have a subtle distinction in meaning (Webb, Five Festal Garments, 95).
49. Yet, as noted earlier, there is no reference to “the fear of Yahweh.” Longman suggests that this omission of the personal, covenantal name of God (in contrast to Prov. 1:7; 9:10) emphasizes the distance between God and Qoheleth (The Book of Ecclesiastes, 35–36). This may emphasize His transcendence and inscrutability (Alyce M. McKenzie, Preaching Proverbs: Wisdom for the Pulpit [Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996], 46). The lack of the name Yahweh (in contrast to Elohim, which occurs forty-three times) has caused some to conclude that Qoheleth had no intimacy with God (e.g., William H. U. Anderson, Qoheleth and His Pessimistic Theology [Lewiston, NY: Mellen Biblical, 1997], 97; cf. Murphy, Ecclesiastes, lxviii—lxix). Yet perhaps not too much should be made of this, since the generic name for God as Creator (as opposed to His covenant name) may “attempt to speak to the universal human condition” known from observing life (Douglas K. Fletcher, “Eccles. 5:1–7, ” Interpretation 55 [July 2001]: 296, 298; cf. Webb, Five Festal Garments, 105 n. 37).
50. Whether 12:13–14 is a later editorial addition, it should be viewed as an inspired complementary conclusion (“fear God”), which summarizes a theme that appears earlier in the book several times. This conclusion should not be overemphasized at the expense of other themes found in the book. This would be an oversimplification of the book’s message since there is no mention of “commandments” in Qoheleth (Murphy, Ecclesiastes, lxv—lxvi).
51. The Septuagint translation ματαιότης helped foster this understanding.
52. Longman, The Book of Ecclesiastes, 32, 61–65.
53. D. C. Fredericks, “Ecclesiastes, Theology of,” in New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis, ed. Willem A. VanGemeren (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997), 3:553. See also Daniel C. Fredericks, Coping with Transience: Ecclesiastes on Brevity in Life (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993).
54. The translation “absurd” has been championed by Fox (A Time to Tear Down and a Time to Build Up, 30–33, 35–42; and idem, “The Meaning of Hebel for Qohelet,” Journal of Biblical Literature 105 [1986]: 409-27). Murphy rejects Fox’s suggestion of “irrational, meaningless” and proposes “incomprehensible” as a better nuance (Ecclesiastes, lix).
55. Ogden, Qoheleth, 22, 28. See also W. E. Staples, “The ‘Vanity’ of Ecclesiastes,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 2 (April 1943): 95-104; Anderson, Qoheleth and Its Pessimistic Theology, 14, 23–24; and Hubbard, Ecclesiastes, 21.
56. John E. McKenna, “The Concept of Hebel in the Book of Ecclesiastes,” Scottish Journal of Theology 45 (1992): 28.
57. See Garrett, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, 282–83; cf. Seow, Ecclesiastes, 47, 101–2; and Douglas B. Miller, “What the Preacher Forgot: The Rhetoric of Ecclesiastes,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 62 (2000): 221, 233–34. Miller says הֶבֶל is a literary symbol with multiple referents (ibid., 228; and idem, “Qohelet’s Symbolic Use of הֶבֶל,” Journal of Biblical Literature 117 [1998]: 443-54).
58. Hubbard suggests that this option is more likely than the idea of an ultimate emptiness in life (Ecclesiastes, 21–22). Cf. Seow, Ecclesiastes, 47, 102.
59. Or הֶבֶל is like a morning mist (Donald K. Berry, An Introduction to Wisdom and Poetry of the Old Testament [Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1995], 161).
60. Kathleen A. Farmer, Who Knows What Is Good? A Commentary on the Books of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 146. Similarly Murphy opts to translate “vanity” only as a “code word” for the term (Ecclesiastes, lix). Contrast Tremper Longman III, Old Testament Commentary Survey, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 120; and Fredericks, Coping with Transience, 23–24.
61. The word הֶבֶל occurs in every chapter except chapter 10.
62. Warren W. Wiersbe, Be Satisfied (Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1990), 14–15.
63. This is like an attempt to grasp the morning mist (Berry, An Introduction to Wisdom and Poetry of the Old Testament, 161) or perhaps whatever is left after a soap bubble pops (Wiersbe, Be Satisfied, 15; and Hubbard, Ecclesiastes, 237). Even though רוּחַ may be translated “spirit” or “wind,” the King James Version translation “vexation of spirit” (apparently influenced by the Vulgate adflictio spiritus) is not accurate. The literal translation “shepherding the wind” denotes “attempting the impossible” (Graham S. Ogden and Lynell Zogbo, A Handbook on Ecclesiastes [New York: United Bible Societies, 1997], 4) or “beyond mortal grasp” (Choon-Leong Seow, “Theology When Everything Is Out of Control,” Interpretation 55 (July 2001): 243. Other renderings are “striving after” (NASB), “grasping for” (NKJV), and “chasing” (NIV) “the wind.” For similar wording see Hosea 12:1. Fox (A Time to Tear Down and a Time to Build Up, 42–48); Perdue (Wisdom and Creation, 206–7); and Fredericks (Coping with Transience, 29–31) give contrasting translations.
64. Ogden, Qoheleth, 18–20. See K. Seybold, “הֶבֶל,” in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, ed. G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren, trans. John T. Willis, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, and David E. Greene, vol. 3 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 318–19, for other words used with הֶבֶל.
65. D. C. Fredericks, “הֶבֶל,” in New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis, 1:1006; cf. Seybold “הֶבֶל,” 3:317.
66. James L. Crenshaw, “Ecclesiastes: Odd Book In,” Bible Review 6 (October 1990): 28-33. Even evangelicals such as Longman (The Book of Ecclesiastes, 32–39) and Fee and Stuart (How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth, 212–15) accept this for Qoheleth (1:12—12:8) before the final message of the frame narrator in 12:9–14.
67. Cf. Webb, Five Festal Garments, 106–7.
68. Murphy, Ecclesiastes, lix.
69. The two themes of vanity and joy occur together in these two verses (Hubbard, Ecclesiastes, 22).
70. R. N. Whybray, “Qoheleth, Preacher of Joy,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 23 (1982): 87-98. Roland Murphy critiques this view (The Tree of Life: An Exploration of Biblical Wisdom Literature [New York: Doubleday, 1990], 54–55). Because of God’s unfathomable ways, these expressions of joy (as qualified by the phrase “nothing better than” in 2:24; 3:12; and 8:15) are probably a sign of resignation—all that humanity can do.
71. Cf. Bartholomew, Reading Ecclesiastes, 252–53; and idem, “Qoheleth in the Canon?!” 15–16.
72. Brown, Ecclesiastes, 14.
73. Ibid., 18.
74. Eaton, Ecclesiastes, 19; and Longman, Ecclesiastes, 15.
75. Garrett, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, 277; and Anderson, Qoheleth and Its Pessimistic Theology, 79, 81.
76. LaSor, Hubbard, and Bush, Old Testament Survey, 814 n. 8. See also Anderson, Qoheleth and His Pessimistic Theology, 82, 92–93. Miller holds a contrasting view (“What the Preacher Forgot,” 223–24).
77. Garrett argues that the frequent mention of how to deal with a king (8:2–8; 10:16–20; cf. 4:13–16; 10:4–7) supports a preexilic date. In postexilic times the Jewish people were no longer under local kings but were ruled by distant monarchs whom they would probably never see face to face (Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, 261). In contrast Mark Sneed says the setting is that of aristocratic, upper-class Jews, a context in the Ptolemaic era (“The Social Location of the Book of Qoheleth,” Hebrew Studies 39 [1998]: 41, 50–51).
78. Bullock, An Introduction to the Old Testament Poetic Books, 181. Cf. Huwiler, “Ecclesiastes,” 171–72.
79. Cf. Crenshaw, Ecclesiastes, 31, 36; and Anderson, Qoheleth and Its Pessimistic Theology, 75.
80. For a list of favorite Hebrew words in Ecclesiastes see Oswald Loretz, Qoheleth und der Alte Orient (Freiburg: Herder, 1964): 166-73. Murphy (Ecclesiastes, xxix-xxx) summarizes the data from Loretz’s work and also from Murphy, The Tree of Life, 50.
81. For a succinct discussion of key words in 1:3 see Hubbard, Ecclesiastes, 45–47; Seow, Ecclesiastes, 67; and Murphy, Ecclesiastes, lviii—lxi. Also see related words יִתְרוֹן, יוֹר, and מוֹתָר (Ogden, Qoheleth, 22–26, 29; and Graham S. Ogden and Lynell Zogbo, A Handbook on Ecclesiastes, 5–6). In a similar etymological domain “under the sun” in 1:13 describes wisdom as a “failed business venture” (Brown, Character in Crisis, 127).
82. W. Sibley Towner, “Ecclesiastes,” in The New Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 5 (Nashville: Abingdon, 1997), 269–70, 278–82. Cf. Murphy, Ecclesiastes, xxx, and Anderson, Qoheleth and His Pessimistic Theology, 75 (who lists twenty-six unique phrases).
83. See Fox, A Time to Tear Down and a Time to Build Up, 72–75; idem, “Qohelet’s Epistemology,” Hebrew Union College Annual 58 (1987): 138-41, cf. 149; idem, “Wisdom in Qohelet,” in In Search of Wisdom: Essays in Memory of John Gammie, ed. Leo G. Perdue, B. B. Scott, and W. J. Wiseman (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993), 115–17. For a discussion of חָכְמָה in Ecclesiastes see Bartholomew, Reading Ecclesiastes, 233–37; and idem, “Qoheleth in the Canon?!” 15.
84. Fox, A Time to Tear Down and a Time to Build Up, 51–53.
85. Cf. Stephan DeJong, “A Book on Labour: The Structuring Principles and the Main Theme of the Book of Qohelet,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 54 (1992): 112-15.
86. Fox, A Time to Tear Down and a Time to Build Up, 97–107, 109–24.
87. See Anton Schoors, “Words Typical of Qoheleth,” in Qoheleth in the Context of Wisdom, ed. Anton Schoors (Leuwen: Leuwen University Press, 1998): 33-39. Leo Perdue concluded that טוֹב was not a virtue in Ecclesiastes (“Cosmology and the Social Order in Wisdom Tradition,” in The Sage in Israel and the Ancient Near East, ed. John G. Gammie and Leo G. Perdue (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990): 472.
88. See Murphy, Ecclesiastes, lvii—lxix; and James S. Reitman, “The Structure and Unity of Ecclesiastes,” Bibliotheca Sacra 154 (July-September 1997): 301-6, 311.
89. Whybray, Ecclesiastes, New Century Bible, 15.
90. Ogden, Qoheleth, 10–11.
91. R. N. Whybray, “The Identification and Use of Quotations in Ecclesiastes,” Vetus Testamentum Supplements 32 (1981): 435-51; idem, Ecclesiastes, Old Testament Guides, 25, 39–40, 65–66. Elsewhere Whybray states that Qoheleth may at times have tried to demonstrate the falsity of the assertions quoted (Ecclesiastes, New Century Bible, 20). See also Gordis, Koheleth—The Man and His World, 96–97.
92. Murphy, Ecclesiastes, xxxiv.
93. Huwiler, “Ecclesiastes,” 167. Even Whybray acknowledges that Qoheleth often put two different positions side by side to reflect the tension in his mind (Ecclesiastes, New Century Bible, 19–21).
94. See Whybray, “The Identification and Use of Quotations in Ecclesiastes,” 435–51; and Michael V. Fox, “The Identification of Quotations in Biblical Literature,” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentlicheWissenschaft 92 (1980): 423.
95. Fox notes the lack of “non-arbitrary and replicable criteria for identifying quotations” (A Time to Tear Down and a Time to Build Up, 20).
96. Hubbard, Ecclesiastes, 121; LaSor, Hubbard, and Bush, Old Testament Survey, 503–4; and Gordis, Koheleth, 107. Ecclesiastes 2:14b is a counter proverb.
97. Hubbard, Ecclesiastes, 26, 62–63, 65.
98. Brown, Ecclesiastes, 17.
99. Murphy, Ecclesiastes, 52, 61 n. 11.
100. Brown, Ecclesiastes, 11, 18.
101. Steven A. Moss, “Ecclesiastes 1:4: A Prooftext for Reincarnation,” Jewish Bible Quarterly 21 (1993): 28-30.
102. Athalya Brenner, “Some Observations on the Figurations of Woman in Wisdom Literature,” in Of Prophets’ Visions and the Wisdom of Sages, ed. Heather A. McKay and David J. A. Clines (Sheffield: Academic, 1993), 201–3; Eric S. Christianson, “Qoheleth the ‘Old Boy’ and Qoheleth the ‘New Man’: Misogynism, the Womb and a Paradox in Ecclesiastes,” in The Feminist Companion to the Bible: Wisdom and Psalms, ed. Athalya Brenner and Carole R. Fontaine (Sheffield: Academic, 1995): 110-21; and Carole R. Fontaine, “‘Many Devices’ (Qoheleth 7:23—8:1): Qoheleth, Misogyny and the Malleus Maleficarum,” in The Feminist Companion to the Bible, 143–68.
103. Huwiler, “Ecclesiastes,” 167.
104. Clifford, The Wisdom Literature, 105.
105. Bartholomew, Reading Ecclesiastes, 244.
106. Cf. Bullock, An Introduction to the Old Testament Poetic Books, 195.
107. Two additional guidelines for interpreting Ecclesiastes and four homiletical suggestions are discussed in the forthcoming article in this two-part series.