Guidelines for Understanding and Proclaiming the Book of Ecclesiastes, Part 2

By Greg W. Parsons

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

The first article in this two-part series presented the first of three hermeneutical guidelines to follow in interpreting the Book of Ecclesiastes.[1] That guideline was to interpret all verses in Ecclesiastes in light of the overall context of the book—its structure, purpose, and message. The current article presents two additional interpretive guidelines and four homiletical guidelines.

Guidelines for Interpreting Ecclesiastes

Guideline Two: Interpret Ecclesiastes In Light Of The Broader Context Of Biblical And Extrabiblical Wisdom Literature

Scholars have debated whether Ecclesiastes is primarily poetry or prose.[2] For example the New International Version displays the text as about 60 percent poetry, whereas the New Revised Standard Version shows it as about 25 percent poetry.[3] Although the consensus is that Ecclesiastes is wisdom literature, with a mixture of prose and poetry,[4] no agreement exists concerning the overall subgenre. The role of the biblical context for understanding Ecclesiastes is slightly diminished by this lack of agreement over its genre.

Cultural parallels to or influence from Greek, Egyptian, and Mesopotamian milieus have been alleged by various commentators.[5] The book sometimes reflects a concept found in other ancient wisdom sources (e.g., 7:16–18[6] and 11:1[7]). The wording, however, differs significantly, and no direct connection or borrowing can be verified. Murphy rightly urges caution about possible literary or cultural dependence because of two factors: the ambivalent nature of arguments utilized to support such dependence, and the “mutually contradictory claims for dependence” in the past.[8] Also the philosophical and political observations by Qoheleth are universal rather than being unique to any particular age or culture. Therefore the issue of possible cultural dependence is not a significant factor for dating the book.[9]

Three suggestions pertaining to this second guideline need to be noted.

1. Learn to recognize the various shared literary forms and devices. Qoheleth utilized typical wisdom genres found in Proverbs and Job, including the wisdom saying (or proverb) and the instruction genre, along with two others that are more common in Ecclesiastes, namely, the reflection and the example story (or anecdote).[10]

A favorite form of expression is the reflection, in which Qoheleth shared his personal experiences (“I said [or thought] in my heart”—1:16; 2:1, 15; 3:17–18); observations (“I saw [or have seen]”—1:14; 3:10, 16; 4:1, 4, 7; 6:1; 8:9, 17; 9:11, 13); and conclusions (“I know”—1:17; 2:14; 3:12, 14)[11] about problems “under the sun.” Qoheleth sustained his argument primarily through these reflections (in the first person), which he intertwined with instructions (in the second person).[12] These include exhortations to his readers to enjoy life in view of its “vanity” (or fleeting nature; 9:9–10; cf. 11:9) balanced by warnings to be aware of God’s judgment (5:1–7) in light of the fleeting nature of youth (11:9–12:1). His instructions also include admonitions to relate properly to the king (8:2–3; 10:20) and to consider God’s mysterious works (7:13–14, 16–17) in view of life’s “vanity” (or “incomprehensible” nature; 7:15).

He occasionally reinforced his argument by example stories (4:13–16; 9:13–16) or other anecdotes from experience (2:21; 4:7–8; 10:5–7) that illustrate a principle or truth he was conveying.[13]

His use of wisdom sayings is concentrated primarily in clusters (5:1–12; 7:1–18; 9:12–11:8).[14] Included are conventional-sounding proverbs to which he gave “a new twist” by the comparative טוֹב (“better than”) in 4:6 and 7:1.[15] He also seems to have coined proverbs of his own (e.g., 1:15, 18) to support his observations.

In addition to the “better than” proverbs in 4:6 and 7:1, nine others are included (4:3, 9, 13; 7:2–3, 5, 8; 9:16, 18).[16] Also Qoheleth employed several typical poetical devices, including rhetorical questions, wordplays (including puns and double entendres), some numerical sayings,[17] chiasm (most notably 3:2–8, a “complex chiastic pattern of positive and negative assertions”)[18] and various figures of speech. The latter include irony, metaphor,[19] personification (7:26),[20] and hyperbole (especially in the use of numbers in 6:3, 6; 7:19, 28; 8:12),[21] and possibly allegory (12:1–7).[22] Both lexical ambiguity (double entendre) and grammatical ambiguity support Qoheleth’s observations of the enigmatic nature of life under the sun.

Qoheleth utilized over thirty rhetorical questions beginning with the fundamental question in 1:3, “What profit … ?” (מַה־יִתְרוֹן). This question is reinforced by the repetition of “what profit or advantage?” or a synonymous concept, as in 2:2–4 (“what does it accomplish?” מַה־זֹּה וֹעשָׂה); 2:22–23 (“what does a man get?” מֶה־וֹהוֶה לָאָדָם); 3:9 and 5:16 (“what profit [מַה־יִתְרוֹן] from his toil?”); 5:11 (“what advantage?” [מַה־כִשְׁרוֹן]); and 6:8 and 6:11 (מַה־יוֹר).

The rhetorical questions in chapters 1–6 are answered in two ways. First, there is no profit or advantage under the sun (2:11; cf. 3:19 and 6:8), and second, nothing is better (ין־טוֹב) therefore than to enjoy God’s gifts in this life (2:24; 3:12, 22;[23] cf. טוֹב in 6:9, which responds to 6:8). This pattern is less pronounced in chapters 7–12, but 8:15 (in tandem with the הֶבֶל conclusion in 8:14) is a partial response to the rhetorical questions in 6:11–12.[24] From one perspective this may tie the two main sections together (by an overlap); on the other hand this might be seen as an exception to Addison Wright’s overall structural pattern.

The rhetorical questions in 6:12 may be pivotal for understanding the rest of the book. Wright argues that the first question, “Who knows [מִי־יוֹעַ] what is good?” is developed in chapters 7–8, and that the second question, “Who can tell what will be after him?” is developed in 9:1–11:6. The answer to both questions is “no one,” as is indicated by the repetition of the phrases “no one can find/discover” (וֹּא מָצָא) in 7:14, 28; 8:17 (cf. 7:24) and “no one knows” (יָדַע plus וֹּא or ין) in 9:1, 12; 10:15; 11:2, 6.[25] But the question in 8:7 (“Who knows what will happen?”) may challenge this neat division of the book.

The theme of relative “advantage” (יִתְרוֹן, 6:8; cf. 7:12) is continued by the use of טוֹב in 7:1–12.[26]

The question “Who is able?” in 7:13 reinforces Qoheleth’s coined proverb in 1:15. Then he employed two rhetorical questions in 7:16–17 as perhaps ironic[27] motivations to heed the warnings against excess.[28]

The clearest examples of irony are in 5:10–12 and 6:7–9, which assert that the reward for one’s labor under the sun is often empty. For example the lack of enjoyment and satisfaction by the rich is contrasted to the sweet sleep of the poor (5:10, 12).[29] The wise, rich king with unmatched accomplishments finds himself envying the common laborer.[30] Furthermore the series of ironic accidents in the workplace (10:8–11), which neutralize the advantage of wisdom, seem humorous or even ludicrous.[31]

Even wisdom, the foundation of Qoheleth’s quest for meaning in life (1:13–14, 16), is not safe from irony or ridicule (v. 18).[32] According to Bartholomew, Qoheleth used the term חָכְמָה in an ironic sense contrary to traditional wisdom, thereby “deconstructing” its teachings by focusing on the exceptions. Then perhaps in a touch of super-irony, the final conclusion of fearing God (12:13) exposes the folly of the humanistic empiricism of Qoheleth “under the sun,” which leads inevitably to the conclusion that “all is absolute vanity” (v. 8).[33]

Furthermore Qoheleth’s boasts about his accomplishments as king (1:12–2:12) seem to be a parody, reflecting the typical contents of royal propaganda literature called the royal inscription.[34] “The legendary acts, wealth, and wisdom of Solomon turned out not to have abiding significance after all. The genre of royal inscription is utilized to make the point about the ephemerality of wisdom and human accomplishments.”[35] This royal guise (or persona) seems to be discarded after chapters 1 and 2 to become a foil for the critical observations of the sage.[36]

Several instances of wordplay[37] occur in Ecclesiastes, including deliberate ambiguity. (For example see the discussion later on the use of מָצָא in chapter 7.) The reader must evaluate the possible multiple nuances of a word cautiously since the ambiguity must fit the context.[38] A significant example is the possible dual ambiguities in 1:15—not being about to count what is lacking or nonexistent (versus things deficient being too numerous to count).[39] Thus the meaning of חֶסְרוֹן in verse 15 may be intentionally ambiguous. The related adjective חָר (“without”) is used with the concept of not lacking any physical thing (6:2), but most often in wisdom literature it refers to lacking understanding or sense (Prov. 6:32; 7:7; 9:4, 16; 10:13; 11:12).[40] Proverbs 12:11 used חָר in antithetical parallelism with the verb שָׂבַע (“be filled or satiated”).[41] Furthermore the idea of “not able to be counted” may also be intentionally ambiguous. Normally it denotes “without number” in the sense of “too many to count” (Gen. 13:16; 1 Kings 3:8), which may be the initial nuance in Ecclesiastes 1:15. But the word may suggest what is nonexistent.

Furthermore grammatical ambiguity may contribute to the overall argument; Byargeon argues that the antecedent of הֶבֶל in 2:26 may refer only to 2:26 or to 2:24–26 or to 1:12–2:26—all creating the same conclusion to heighten the impact.[42]

Wilson cogently argues that several instances of deliberate ambiguity are in 1:1–11, which contribute to both a positive and a negative reading of the book.[43] Grammatical ambiguity in the Hebrew text of 1:6, which delays the subject until the end of the sentence, may cause the reader to think the subject is “the sun” (see v. 5) instead of “the wind.” In verse 8 the traditional translation of דְּבָרִים is supported by the verb “to speak” in verse 8. However, דָּבָר denotes “thing” in v. 10. The adjective יְגֵעִים (“wearisome”) in verse 8 has been translated by Lohfink and Whybray with the positive connotation of “constantly in activity.” Whereas the traditional translation suggests a negative perspective of the monotonous nature of the world and the pointlessness of human activity under the sun, the alternate readings emphasize the regularity and purposefulness of nature. Wilson suggests both readings may be acceptable.[44] These two instances should alert the reader to the possibility that the inspired author may have intended ambivalence in order to show that life is both purposeful and puzzling.[45] This may also be the reason that the enigmatic הֶבֶל has eluded the grasp of readers. It seems to have a variety of meanings which may support either the negative or positive perspectives of life. Perhaps both are true. Furthermore the clustering of significant words with wide ranges of meaning does not seem to be merely accidental.[46]

2. Recognize how Ecclesiastes (along with Job) is a counterbalance to the conventional view presented in Proverbs. The traditional view of Ecclesiastes’ relationship to Proverbs is that there was a crisis in wisdom in which Ecclesiastes challenged the doctrine of retribution, as championed by the sages.[47] At first glance this seems correct; but in reality there were already a few sayings in the Book of Proverbs (such as 11:24 and 13:23)[48] that recognized exceptions to a “mechanical act-consequence understanding.”[49] Because many of Qoheleth’s statements are based on observation alone, he challenged the generalizations found in traditional wisdom by always focusing on these individual exceptions.[50]

The evidence suggests that Ecclesiastes reflects creative counterpoints to Proverbs. When citing traditional wisdom teaching, Qoheleth often responded “Yes, but” (e.g., 2:13–14; 4:9–12; 8:11–14).[51] Also he seems to have employed both conventional and nonconventional proverbs in interacting with certain traditional wisdom tenets found in Proverbs, including these three: wisdom is a gift from God; the fear of the Lord is the beginning of the search for wisdom; and living according to wisdom leads to order and security. Qoheleth’s proverbial sayings seem to subvert all three of these basic tenets.[52] At the same time he may actually have presented contradictory evidences in order to reflect the struggle to explain the justice of God along with injustices in life.[53] Loader concludes that in this regard Qoheleth contrasts sharply with other ancient wisdom texts. “When the two poles of doctrine and protest are counterpoised in the ancient Near Eastern wisdom, the headache is always followed by relaxation—but in Qohelet’s head the migraine throbs continually.”[54]

Yet an amazing similarity to Ecclesiastes exists in Proverbs 25:8–9 (opposing views concerning going to court)[55] and in the paradoxical proverbs of 26:4–5 (opposite advice about answering a fool), a similarity that encourages the wise reader to ponder the diversity of life’s complex and ambivalent circumstances.[56]

Besides טוֹב (“good”) Qoheleth also utilizes ין טוֹב (“nothing better than”) in 2:24; 3:12, 22; 8:15, which may reflect a modification of traditional wisdom teaching concerning what is “good.” Byargeon says that in 2:24–26 Qoheleth employed ין טוֹב to communicate resignation to God’s sovereignty in the presence of life’s ambiguities rather than comfort (the normative usage of טוֹב in Proverbs).[57]

Ecclesiastes also employs certain perspectives that parallel concepts in the Book of Job.[58] For instance in Ecclesiastes 9:1–3 Qoheleth, like Job in Job 9:22, perceived the tension between the claims of traditional wisdom and the frustrating realities of experience.[59]

Bartholomew asserts that Qoheleth utilizes חָכְמָה (“wisdom”) to denote “truth derived solely from observation and experience,” which stands in stark contrast to the traditional wisdom teaching, which begins with the fear of the Lord (Job 28:28; Ps. 111:10; Prov. 1:7, 9:10).[60] Nonetheless the final conclusion of the book is that “under the sun” people should fear God.

A superficial reading of Ecclesiastes 7:26, 28 suggests that the author was a misogynist. However, a closer examination defuses this misunderstanding. The antecedent of “the woman” in verse 26 is folly (v. 25), a Hebrew feminine noun that also has an article. This conclusion seems corroborated by the allusions in verse 26 to conventional wisdom’s caricature of the tactics of Dame Folly, who tries to lure one away from wisdom’s embrace (see, e.g., Prov. 5:3–5; 7:10–27; cf. 2:16–19).[61] This meshes with Ecclesiastes 7:23–24, which uses vocabulary reminiscent of the ideal woman in Proverbs 31, the embodiment of Lady Wisdom herself.[62]

Admittedly if verse 28 is a “side glance” at the thousand women in Solomon’s harem (1 Kings 11:3) who lured him into the folly of idolatry, it could reflect his cynical attitude toward women.[63] However, the context shows that this is not the point. When one examines the parallelism of Hebrew numbers (“one” … “not one”)[64] and recognizes the use of hyperbole,[65] it becomes clear that Qoheleth’s aim was not to disparage women but to demonstrate the scarcity—even nonexistence—of good people, whether man or woman.[66] That the parallelism of man and woman in verse 28 describes all humankind is corroborated by verse 29—a probable reference to the creation and fall of הָאָדָם (“mankind”).

The eightfold occurrence of the verb מָצָא (“find, find out, discover”) in 7:23–29, which may deliberately utilize ambiguity,[67] seems to reinforce what could be called the “math-puzzle” aspect[68] of the parallel mechanical and mathematical metaphors of 1:15. Just as the rhetorical question of 7:13, “Who is able to straighten what He has bent?” reiterates almost verbatim the metaphor of God’s seemingly defective work in 1:15a (which is especially evident in “bad” times, 7:14), so 7:24, which uses מָצָא, “exceedingly mysterious,” literally “very deep” (עָוֹמק עָוֹמק), matches the metaphor in 1:15b, “what is lacking cannot be counted,” that is, it is lacking or deficient. This recalls Job 11:7–8: “Can you discover [or grasp, מָצָא] the depths of God” which are “deeper than [עָוֹמק] Sheol.”[69]

These two metaphors in Ecclesiastes seem to merge again in 7:29. Verses 27–28 involve accounting, enhanced by the subtle wordplay on חֶשְׁבּוֹן (an accounting term, vv. 25, 27)[70] and חִשְּׁוֹבנוֹת in verse 29 (reproduced effectively by the rendering “scheme of things” and “many schemes” in the New International Version).[71] If יָשָׁר (“upright”) is taken in the literal sense of “straight,” it would be an ironic reference to God’s work (see vv. 13–14). Thus verse 29 would intertwine the dual metaphors of 1:15: (1) In the process of trying to straighten out what seemed to be poor workmanship, people have made crooked what God had made perfectly straight (cf. 1:15). (2) Like a crooked accountant scheming to figure out (or balance) the moral ledger in God’s overall scheme of things, people have perverted God’s perfect schema (cf. v. 15b).[72]

3. Utilize seeming extrabiblical parallels cautiously. Synchronic analysis of form, content, and structure should be analyzed before the diachronic analysis (the historical and cultural background) is considered.[73]

Because of past excesses in which much in the Old Testament was interpreted based on alleged Babylonian, Ugaritic, or Eblaic parallels, Longman and Clifford have proposed some basic principles for valid comparison.[74]

Expositors of Ecclesiastes need to be aware of the basic wisdom texts in extrabiblical literature[75] and their possible parallels to Ecclesiastes.[76] Perdue concludes that the closest overall form-critical parallels to Ecclesiastes come from the following genres in Egypt, all of which reflect “the smell of death”: the Songs of the Harper, the grave biographies, and the royal instructions.[77] Longman has focused on possible overall parallels to certain Mesopotamian works, particularly in the subgenre of fictional autobiography.[78]

Fox shows that Qoheleth’s comments in chapters 1 and 2 resemble royal autobiographies—not only Egyptian royal testaments and Mesopotamian didactic autobiographies, but also to some extent the Phoenician royal inscriptions in which kings exalted themselves because of their past accomplishments. He classifies the overall genre of Ecclesiastes as a fictional royal testament, even though the royal guise is not active after chapter 2.[79]

The Gilgamesh epic from Mesopotamia and to a lesser extent the Song of the Harper from Egypt display a remarkable resemblance to Ecclesiastes 9:7–9.[80] Affinity between Ecclesiastes and the standard version of the Gilgamesh epic[81] is illustrated by a precise parallel to Ecclesiastes 4:12 with its proverbial advice regarding the strength of “a cord of three strands.” Also this Mesopotamian epic uses the phrase “under the sun” and mentions “wind” as a metaphor for all human effort, which is reminiscent of Qoheleth’s frequent use of the “wind” as a metaphor. Both discuss a common theme of “vanity” of toil and life in light of the inevitability of human mortality.[82] Furthermore Ecclesiastes and the standard version of Gilgamesh (which adds a prologue and an epilogue to the old Babylonian version) may share similar (if not identical) overall genres; if this is true, these parallels would be even more significant.[83] However, since there is disagreement about whether Qoheleth dropped the so-called royal fiction after the first two chapters,[84] the overall genre is debatable.

In any case, Solomon, as a connoisseur of wisdom (or one of his wisdom disciples in preexilic times; cf. Prov. 25:1), would have had more access to literature such as the Gilgamesh epic than would common people writing in postexilic times.[85]

Although comparative genre studies have potential value, the lack of consensus on the overall genre of Ecclesiastes dictates caution because of the tentative nature of such studies.

Guideline Three: Interpret the Book in the light of the rest of the Old Testament and the New Testament

Ecclesiastes must be harmonized with the rest of the Bible.[86] Pawley states that Qoheleth presents “a back side to biblical truth.” “Where David praises, the Preacher sulks. Where Daniel prophesies, the Preacher says, ‘Don’t pay too much attention to what will be. Think about what is.’ Where John promises, the Preacher negates. And where the Gospels say ‘accept,’ the Preacher says ‘analyze.”[87]

Without the mooring of the rest of the canon, one’s view of portions of Ecclesiastes can drift into the sea of subjectivity. Ecclesiastes has possible links to Genesis 1–11. As already noted, Ecclesiastes 1:15 and 7:13 and 29 refer to the twisted nature of life caused by the curse.[88] Webb suggests that the fall of man is Qoheleth’s explanation for הֶבֶל (“vanity”) and that frustrating toil as a “heavy burden” (1:13–14; 3:10) is part of God’s judgment imposed on the world.[89] Since 3:20 and 12:7 seem to be allusions to Genesis 3:19, death in Ecclesiastes is not a mere random act; instead it is part of God’s judgment.[90]

Ecclesiastes 2:14, which states that one’s fate (מִקְרֶה) befalls both the wise and the fool, is a counter-proverb emphasizing the universality of death, which dilutes the value of wisdom (vv. 13–14a). However, this perspective must be correlated with the rest of the Old Testament. The theology found in Ruth 2:3, regarding Ruth’s supposed “accidental” (מִקְרֶה) gleaning at Boaz’s field and the story of Joseph (e.g., Gen. 45:5–7) illustrates that, though seeming accidents happen to wise and godly people, none are beyond the purview of God’s sovereignty and providence.[91]

Though the New Testament must be considered as a check to avoid incomplete or heretical theology, one must not read New Testament ideas back into the thoughts in Ecclesiastes. For example Stoute erroneously says that the bread in 11:1 refers to Christ, the Bread of life. He states that “since He is the central theme of the Bible as a whole, we expect to find Him here likewise.”[92] However, the Scriptures give no basis for imposing such New Testament concepts on the Old Testament, ideas that were not intended by the original author.[93] As stated by Kidner, “We need to hear the divine word here [in the text of Eccles.] in the form in which it meets us, rather than hastening at once to specify its relation to the New Testament.”[94] The proper perspective is to trace the teaching progressively from the Old Testament to the New Testament, not vice versa. One must not assume that the Old Testament authors had knowledge of later teachings.

Homiletical Suggestions for Ecclesiastes

Expositors will find it helpful to utilize commentaries (such as those by Hubbard[95] and Brown[96]) that balance exegetical insights into Ecclesiastes with expository application in light of the whole canon.[97]

Guideline One: realize that the basic question implied by Qoheleth “Does Life Have Meaning?” Is Relevant Today [98]

Certain themes of Ecclesiastes are a mirror of the present generation.[99] Swindoll opines that Ecclesiastes has “today’s world woven through the fabric of every page.”[100] For instance Qoheleth critiques “workaholism,”[101] noting that work as “toil” has three inherent problems: “devoid of real gain, bereft of rest, and motivated by envy.”[102] Qoheleth’s sound advice is applicable to many people today whose plans for success make them ripe for disillusionment. Persons who are on the brink of burnout and despair because of lack of effectiveness in their vocations can learn from the counsel of Ecclesiastes.[103] These may include ministers and other Christian leaders who focus on results (reaching nebulous goals) instead of enjoying the journey to get there. All but one of Qoheleth’s refrains show the integral relationship of work and joy. The enjoyment of Sabbath rest occurs in and beyond work.[104] The refrains by Qoheleth commend enjoyment of God’s simple everyday pleasures as a tonic for life’s frustrations and disappointments.[105]

The bipolar perspective of Ecclesiastes has the potential to speak to a generation typified by symptoms of confusion and disorientation in life. On one hand the author demonstrates the human inability to discover meaning in life regardless of the avenue pursued. Dorsey summarizes 1:12–2:23 as portraying “seven dead-end streets” for people from all walks of life—the philosopher (1:12–15), the student (vv. 16–18), the “party animal” (2:1–2), the alcoholic (v. 3), the workaholic and the aristocrat (vv. 4–11), the “puritan” (vv. 12–16) and the philanthropist (vv. 17–23).[106]

On the other hand the likelihood of some intentional ambiguity or ambivalence in wording and grammar by the author in describing his experience is fallow ground for communicating with today’s postmodern generation, which tends to view human experience as incoherent and lacking absolute truth.[107] Ecclesiastes affirms that human access to truth and knowledge is limited. Like postmodernism it demonstrates the provisional nature of knowledge. Comparable to many postmodern texts Ecclesiastes appears to be a puzzle or code in which nothing seems to fit or add up.[108] Deconstruction, a type of postmodernism, has as its basic aim to “deconstruct” any attempts at finding coherence.[109] Barton says that a deconstructionist rendering of the book could “stand the critical tradition on its head” by treating the conventional wisdom verses not as later orthodox interpolations but as the strategy of the text “to prevent any kind of ‘last word’ in the book.” The skeptical and nonskeptical verses would “circle around, like the wind in 1:6, ” without any final resolution.[110]

Qoheleth’s elusive quest for meaning in life and his conclusions about “vanity” are consistent with the bankruptcy of postmodern presuppositions. Ironically the frame-narrator may “deconstruct” the absolute conclusion of הֶבֶל, which summarizes the results of Qoheleth’s all-out search for meaning in life.

Guideline Two: In Applying Ecclesiastes Give Attention To Its Cultural Context (Including Ancient Near Eastern Parallels) And Its Correlation With The Rest Of Scripture

The writer once heard a radio interview with the author of a book on marriage who recommended that Ecclesiastes 4:12 be read at a wedding ceremony with the threefold cord in marriage being understood as the bride, the groom, and Christ. Jumping to such conclusions violates sound hermeneutical principles. The context of 4:9–12a (the value of “two” people in contrast to “one” and in climactic parallelism with “three”), correlated with similar teaching about two or three gathered together in Jesus’ name (Matt. 18:20), might legitimately suggest applying Ecclesiastes 4:12 to the importance of cooperation in the body of Christ.[111] A careful distinction needs to be made between the primary interpretation and possible secondary applications today.

Besides numerous parallels between 9:7–9 and Gilgamesh, a significant contrast exists in Qoheleth’s admonition to work (vv. 7b, 9b), which is without parallel in the Mesopotamian counterpart. Thus Qoheleth included the value of work in his prescription for joy in life.[112] Rather than viewing humans as merely the slaves of the gods (as in ancient Near Eastern concepts), Qoheleth viewed work and joy as integrally related (as perhaps God originally intended before the Fall; Gen. 2:15–16).

At first glance Ecclesiastes 11:1 (“Cast your bread on the surface of the waters, for you will find it after many days”) seems to parallel a proverb from the Egyptian Instruction of Anksheshonq (“Do a good deed and throw it in the water; when it dries you will find it”). This could support the idea of charity or liberality for which one would be rewarded. Support for this traditional view of the verse has also been adduced from an Arabic proverb.[113]

However, instead of the traditional translation “cast,” the Piel verb שַׁלַּח should be rendered “send,”[114] a reference to the commercial enterprises of maritime trade (such as Solomon’s ventures in 1 Kings 9:26–28; 10:22). Ecclesiastes 11:2 (on diversifying one’s investments) and verse 6 (on sowing seed in the morning and evening) also support the idea of financial strategy.[115] Therefore only a quasi-parallel exists with the Egyptian text. Furthermore the later Arabic proverb may have been influenced by the early “charitable” interpretation of verse 1.[116]

Guideline Three: Become Aware Of The Proper Role That Ecclesiastes Serves With Respect To The New Testament, For Its Ultimate Function May Be To Prepare For The Gospel [117]

Though Ecclesiastes contains no prophetic material or verses typical of Christ, it does seem to help prepare the way for the gospel.[118] Qoheleth’s seeming cynicism deals with questions about life and God that unbelievers and skeptics may ask. Thus the book may help believers converse with nonreligious people about God.[119] The book as a whole encourages its readers to a God-centered worldview rather than being paralyzed by life’s “frustrations and unanswered questions.”[120] Ecclesiastes does not “sugarcoat” reality. Instead it is starkly frank about the inadequacy and bankruptcy of human endeavors on earth, no matter how skilled, wise, or seemingly beneficial those endeavors are. Jesus’ parable of the rich farmer who laid up possessions on earth (Luke 12:15–21) and planned “to eat, drink and be merry” (v. 19) is anticipated by Qoheleth’s attacks against the idolatry of materialism and pleasure, as well as workaholism.[121] Both Qoheleth and Jesus affirmed that those greedy for gain may not get to enjoy their wealth but must leave it on earth (Eccles. 2:18–21; 5:13–15; Matt. 6:19–20).[122]

The New Testament provides the ultimate answer to the “vanity” (or frustration) that confronts creation under the sun. Romans 8:20–21 contains an allusion to Ecclesiastes,[123] and verses 22–28 focus on creation’s longing for redemption, including the believers’ expectation of the redemption of their earthly bodies at the coming of Christ. Whereas experience cannot prove the destiny of humans after death (Eccles. 3:18–20), Jesus revealed that He is the resurrection and the life (John 11:25). Thus Qoheleth may have demonstrated the need and human longing for resurrection.[124] Paul affirmed that since Christ has already been raised from the dead (1 Cor. 15:20), serving Him need not be “in vain” (v. 58).[125] However, life “under the sun” is futile (Rom. 8:20), for it has no “relationship to the One who made the sun” and who has provided for life under His Son.[126]

Thus Qoheleth’s dreary portraits of “wearying toil paved the way for the Master’s call from taxing labor to gracious rest (Matt. 11:28–30).”[127] Qoheleth encouraged the enjoyment of life’s simplest things, including eating, drinking, and working. This may be a prelude to Jesus’ invitation for skeptics and other sinners to come and dine at His table (Matt. 9:9–13; 11:19).[128] Qoheleth’s recommendation that people enjoy God’s daily gifts of food, drink, and work is consistent with Jesus’ teaching in the Sermon on the Mount about accepting food, drink, and clothing as from God (6:25–33).[129]

Several other observations about God and humans recorded in Ecclesiastes are compatible with the rest of Scripture.[130] For example the charge of misogyny against Qoheleth (Eccles. 7) and against Paul (cf. Eph. 5:22–23) are both unfounded. Actually both Qoheleth’s and Paul’s theologies in their cultural contexts are liberating to women (Eccles. 9:9; Gal. 3:28). Even if it could be proved that Qoheleth denigrated women, the New Testament is clear that there is “neither male or female in Christ” (Gal. 3:28–29).

Guideline Four: Learn From Qoheleth The Need For A Theology “From Below” (To Be A Keen Observer Of Life In This World) As Well As A Theology “From Above” (To Be An Interpreter Of The Word) [131]

Besides exegeting the biblical text, expositors should also exegete their culture in order to learn to communicate effectively to people in it. Like Qoheleth, who had no time for ivory-tower theology divorced from the reality of life’s experiences, pastors must be aware of the problems and challenges of their people. Christian faith must not ignore life’s “daily paradoxes, seeming absurdities, and delightful serendipities—in order to be woven into the warp and woof of integral, purposeful living. The only alternative is to reduce faith to an embarrassing, useless appendage.”[132] Therefore expositors should be candid in admitting their own struggles; they should address the difficult questions[133] and harsh realities of life that could bring discouragement, depression, or even despair for themselves or their congregations. As Qoheleth and Job refused to do, one ought not gloss over life’s “tough” issues with glib answers. When life does not seem to make sense,[134] honest doubts are more palatable than pious platitudes (like those of Job’s friends).

In a society that is mesmerized by the lure of materialism and pleasure and ignores God, Ecclesiastes reawakens people to the reality of the fleeting nature of youth and every person’s ultimate accountability before God (Eccles. 11:9–10; 12:14). In this dehumanizing age when individuals (especially the elderly) are often treated as nothing more than statistics, Qoheleth plowed the way to survive with dignity.[135] Ecclesiastes 11:7–12:13 teaches how to live and how to age gracefully before the Creator (12:1) in fear and obedience (v. 13).[136]

Conclusion

This two-part series has suggested three guidelines for properly interpreting the enigmatic Book of Ecclesiastes in light of its cultural and canonical contexts. It has also proposed four guidelines for communicating the message of Ecclesiastes with relevance to a pleasure-seeking, postmodern society.

A central goal has been to motivate readers to study and apply more diligently the Book of Ecclesiastes, which, as a commentary on the human condition, “may be the truest book in the Bible.”[137] For all who are disillusioned and frustrated by life, the book commends joy in God’s daily provisions and commands fearful obedience to Him.

Notes

1. Greg W. Parsons, “Guidelines for Understanding and Proclaiming the Book of Ecclesiastes, Part 1,” Bibliotheca Sacra 160 (April-June 2003): 159-73.
2. Duane A. Garrett, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs (Nashville: Broadman, 1993), 271. See R. N. Whybray, Ecclesiastes, Old Testament Guides (Sheffield: JSOT, 1989), 31, for a summary of commentators’ views.
3. W. Sibley Towner, “Ecclesiastes,” in The New Interpreter’s Bible (Nashville: Abingdon, 1994), 5:270. Tremper Longman concludes that the New International Version overpoeticized the text (The Book of Ecclesiastes [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998], 23–24).
4. See Roland E. Murphy, Ecclesiastes, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, 1992), xxviii-xxix. James G. Williams argues that Ecclesiastes employs poetic parallelism even in its rhythmic prose (“Proverbs and Ecclesiastes,” in The Literary Guide to the Bible, ed. Robert Alter and Frank Kermode [Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1987], 278). See also H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Ecclesiastes (Grand Rapids: Baker, n.d.), 22.
5. For a brief summary see Whybray, Ecclesiastes, 52–57, 61; Richard J. Clifford, The Wisdom Literature, Interpreting Biblical Texts (Nashville: Abingdon, 1998), 98–99, 104; Murphy, Ecclesiastes, xlii-xlv; and Roland E. Murphy, The Tree of Life: An Exploration of Biblical Wisdom Literature (New York: Doubleday, 1990), 155–56, 172–73.
6. See William P. Brown, Ecclesiastes (Louisville: John Knox, 2000), 81, for a parallel to Ecclesiastes 7:16–18 from the Aramaic proverbs of Ahiqar.
7. For a quasi-parallel to 11:1 from the Egyptian Instruction of Anksheshonq see James L. Crenshaw, “Book of Ecclesiastes,” in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 2:278; and Karel Van der Toorn, “Did Ecclesiastes Copy Gilgamesh?” Bible Review (February 2000), 26, 30. For translation see Miriam Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1986), 3:174.
8. Murphy, Ecclesiastes, xlii.
9. Michael A. Eaton, Ecclesiastes (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1983), 20–21. See also Daniel C. Fredericks, “Ecclesiastes: Theology of,” in New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis, ed. Willem A. VanGemeren (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997), 3:552; and James L. Crenshaw, “Qoheleth in Current Research,” Hebrew Annual Review 7 (1983): 50-51. Even Choon-Leong Seow, who argues that Ecclesiastes was written in the postexilic Persian period, admits that the situations described by Qoheleth could have been found in almost any time and milieu in history (“Theology When Everything Is Out of Control,” Interpretation 55 [July 2001]: 239-40).
10. Roland E. Murphy, Wisdom Literature: Job, Proverbs, Ruth, Canticles, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Forms of Old Testament Literature (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981), 130; and idem, Ecclesiastes, xxxi-xxxii. Cf. Longman, The Book of Ecclesiastes, 20; David Hubbard, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Mastering the Old Testament (Dallas: Word, 1991), 27–28; James L. Crenshaw, Ecclesiastes, Old Testament Library (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987), 28–30; and William W. Klein, Craig L. Blomberg, and Robert L. Hubbard, Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (Dallas: Word, 1993), 318.
11. Crenshaw, Ecclesiastes, 28; and Murphy, Wisdom Literature, 130.
12. Cf. Barry G. Webb, Five Festal Garments: Christian Reflections on the Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes and Esther (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000), 86–87.
13. Longman, The Book of Ecclesiastes, 20; Murphy, Wisdom Literature, 130, 137, 146; and Crenshaw, Ecclesiastes, 30.
14. Hubbard, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, 30.
15. Crenshaw, Ecclesiastes, 29.
16. J. A. Loader, Polar Structures in the Book of Qohelet (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1979), 21–22. See also Graham S. Ogden, “The ‘Better’-Proverb (tob-Spruch), Rhetorical Criticism and Qoheleth,” Journal of Biblical Literature 96 (1977): 489-505; and idem, “Qoheleth’s Use of the ‘Nothing Is Better’-Form,” Journal of Biblical Literature 98 (1979): 339-50.
17. Graham S. Ogden concludes that this use of numbers (see 4:1–12) is not always literal, but may be representative of “less” and “more” and that quantity alone does not determine the higher value (“The Mathematics of Wisdom: Qoheleth IV 1–12, ” Vetus Testamentum 34 [1984]: 452-53). See the remarks below on 7:23–29 concerning the use of number parallelism as hyperbole in verse 28.
18. Wilfred G. E. Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry, 2d ed. (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1995), 207; and Loader, Polar Structures in the Book of Qohelet, 11–12. For other possible instances of chiasm see Loader, Polar Structures in the Book of Qohelet, 10, 13–14; Robert Gordis, Koheleth: The Man and His World, 3d ed. (New York: Schocken, 1968), 109–10, 386 n. 11; Daniel C. Fredericks, “Chiasm and Parallel Structure in Qoheleth 5:9–6:9, ” Journal of Biblical Literature 108 (1989): 17-35.
19. The most obvious and pervasive metaphor is the use of רוּחַ (“wind”) and “chasing the wind.”
20. See Brown, Ecclesiastes, 82–85 and passim; cf. Choon-Leong Seow, Ecclesiastes, Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday, 1997), 50–51, 68–69, 270–75.
21. Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry, 320.
22. For summaries of various views see C. Hassell Bullock, An Introduction to the Old Testament Poetic Books, rev. ed. (Chicago: Moody, 1988), 204; and Longman, The Book of Ecclesiastes, 262–63. For problems with a strict allegory limited to a single setting see Brown, Ecclesiastes, 108–9.
23. This phrase may reflect resignation or concession (Murphy, Tree of Life, 54; and R. W. Byargeon, “The Significance of Ambiguity in Ecclesiastes 2:24–26, ” in Qoheleth in the Context of Wisdom, ed. Antoon Schoors [Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1998], 372).
24. Ogden, “Qoheleth’s Use of the ‘Nothing Is Better’-Form,” 345–49.
25. Addison G. Wright, “Ecclesiastes,” in The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, ed. Raymond E. Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, and Roland E. Murphy (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1990), 493–94; cf. Donald R. Glenn, “Ecclesiastes,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: Old Testament, ed. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck (Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1985), 991, 998.
26. The context of 7:1–4 may suggest irony (Izak J. J. Spangenberg, “Irony in the Book of Qohelet,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 72 (December 1996): 64-66.
27. Irony is apparently used in 5:5 (see Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry, 342).
28. Ibid. See the discussion of 7:16–17 in Parsons, “Guidelines for Understanding and Proclaiming the Book of Ecclesiastes, Part 1,” 164–65.
29. Donald K. Berry, An Introduction to Wisdom and Poetry of the Old Testament (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1995), 164. On 9:4–5 see Ogden, “The ‘Better’-Proverb (tob-Spruch), Rhetorical Criticism and Qoheleth,” 502–3; and Spangenberg, “Irony in the Book of Qohelet,” 66–68.
30. William P. Brown, Character in Crisis: A Fresh Approach to Wisdom Literature (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 136.
31. Etan Levine, “The Humor in Qohelet,” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 109 (1997): 72-73.
32. Berry, An Introduction to Wisdom and Poetry of the Old Testament, 164.
33. Craig R. Bartholomew, Reading Ecclesiastes: Old Testament Exegesis and Hermeneutical Theory (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1998), 236–37, 257.
34. See Alyce M. McKenzie, Preaching Proverbs: Wisdom for the Pulpit (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996), 43, 50; and Michael Fox, A Time to Tear Down and a Time to Build Up (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 154.
35. Fox, A Time to Tear Down and a Time to Build Up, 155 (quoting Choon-Leong Seow, “Qoheleth’s Autobiography,” in Fortunate the Eyes That See: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Seventieth Birthday, ed. Astrid B. Beck et al. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 284.
36. See Brown, Ecclesiastes, 11, 19–20.
37. Examples include the use of עָנָה in 1:13 (Norbert Lohfink, “Qoheleth 5:17–19— Revelation by Joy,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 52 [1990]: 628, 630). See Loader, Polar Structures in the Book of Qohelet, 14 for several types with examples, and see Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry, 238, for a convenient summary of terminology used to describe wordplays.
38. Michael V. Fox, “The Identification of Quotations in Biblical Literature,” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 92 (1980): 427-28.
39. Such deliberate lexical ambiguity is called antanaclasis, a subtype of paranomasia (wordplay). See Anthony R. Ceresko, “The Function of Antanaclasis in Hebrew Poetry Especially in the Book of Qoheleth,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 44 (1982): 565-69.
40. See Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1955), 341.
41. In the first sense it is an economic term contrasted with יִתְרוֹן (“profit”; Seow, Ecclesiastes, 122–23).
42. See Byargeon, “The Significance of Ambiguity in Ecclesiastes 2:24–26, ” 370–72.
43. The term “deliberate ambiguity” does not denote uncertainty of meaning but rather a feature that invites the reader to read the text again before coming to a final conclusion. The meaning of the text becomes richer when two aspects, both of which are equally true, are placed in tension. See Lindsay Wilson, “Artful Ambiguity in Ecclesiastes 1, 1–11: A Wisdom Technique,” in Qohelet in the Context of Wisdom, 364.
44. Ibid., 357-58, 361–62.
45. See the similar conclusion of Byargeon on the use of חוּשׁ in Ecclesiastes 2:25, which may mean either “to enjoy” or “to worry” (“The Significance of Ambiguity in Ecclesiastes 2:24–26, ” 369–70). Depending on which nuance is accepted, the sovereignty of God may be seen in either a positive context or in a puzzling negative connotation.
46. Wilson, “Artful Ambiguity in Ecclesiastes 1, 1–11, ” 359, 361–63.
47. See a summary of this view in Bartholomew, Reading Ecclesiastes, 255–56.
48. See Fox, A Time to Tear Down and a Time to Build Up, 61–63.
49. Bartholomew, Reading Ecclesiastes, 256–57.
50. Ibid.
51. See Derek Kidner, The Wisdom of Proverbs, Job and Ecclesiastes (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1985), 119–23. See also McKenzie, Preaching Proverbs, 55–56; and Roy B. Zuck, “A Theology of the Wisdom Books and the Song of Songs,” in A Biblical Theology of the Old Testament, ed. Roy B. Zuck (Chicago: Moody, 1991), 245–46.
52. McKenzie, Preaching Proverbs, 47–50; cf. 51–57.
53. See Fox, A Time to Tear Down and a Time to Build Up, 68–69.
54. Loader, Polar Structures in Qohelet, 123.
55. See Daniel P. Bricker, “The Doctrine of the ‘Two Ways’ in Proverbs,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 38 (December 1995): 507. He also cites other possible examples.
56. See Ted A. Hildebrandt, “Proverb,” in Cracking Old Testament Codes: A Guide to Interpreting Old Testament Literary Forms, ed. E. Brent Sandy and Ronald Giese (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1995), 244–45.
57. Byargeon, “The Significance of Ambiguity in Ecclesiastes 2:24–26, ” 367 n. 4, 372. Cf. Ogden, “The ‘Better’ Proverb (tob-Spruch), Rhetorical Criticism and Qoheleth,” 493.
58. See Seow, Ecclesiastes, 56–57, 221, for other possible allusions (or common views) to Job—including Ecclesiastes 5:15 with Job 1:21. For the common perspective between Ecclesiastes and Job concerning human limitations before God see Stephan De Jong, “God in the Book of Qoheleth,” Vetus Testamentum 47 (1997): 165-66.
59. Cf. Walter A. Brueggemann, Theology of the Old Testament (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997), 396.
60. Bartholomew, Reading Ecclesiastes, 231–37; and idem, “Qoheleth in the Canon?! Current Trends in the Interpretation of Ecclesiastes,” Themelios 24 (May 1999): 14-15.
61. Seow, Ecclesiastes, 271–72; cf. Hubbard, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, 175–76. Garrett holds a different view (Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, 324–25).
62. Seow, Ecclesiastes, 270, 275.
63. Hubbard, Ecclesiastes, 177. Also unlikely is Murphy’s innovative suggestion that Qoheleth quoted a traditional saying that embodied a negative view of women (v. 28b), which he rejects in verses 28a and 29 (Ecclesiastes, 75–77). In this view the clause in verse 28a is connected to 28b but not to verse 27.
64. The numerical pattern of x and x+1 for smaller numbers is increased exponentially to 100 and 1,000 for larger numbers. Here the formula seems to be x and x-1 (1 in 1,000 compared with 0 in a thousand=not at all).
65. The use of numbers in this exaggeration for emphasis seems to combine the expression “one in a thousand” (Job 33:23) with “not even one in a thousand” (i.e., rare or nonexistent) as in Job 9:3 (Glenn, “Ecclesiastes,” 995).
66. Hubbard, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, 77. This probability is heightened by the positive portrait of woman presented in 9:9.
67. For the possible deliberate use of מָצָא in one context with different nuances see Ceresko, “The Function of Antanaclasis in Hebrew Poetry,” 565–67. He argues that Qoheleth’s usage of מָצָא in 7:23–29 may require up to four English words to describe the precise nuances.
68. For remarks on the modern metaphor of a puzzle without all the pieces see Parsons, “Guidelines for Understanding and Proclaiming the Book of Ecclesiastes, Part 1,” 159–60.
69. Also Judges 14:12, 18 uses מָצָא in reference to solving a riddle.
70. Hubbard, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, 174, 177; and Seow, Ecclesiastes, 271, 273, 275–76. Ugaritic has a similar term for accounting (Ceresko, “The Function of Antanaclasis in Hebrew Poetry,” 567 n. 68).
71. Glenn, “Ecclesiastes,” 995.
72. Seow, Ecclesiastes, 275–76; and Hubbard, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, 174, 177. Also Ecclesiastes 3:14 has a mathematical metaphor of sorts: “There is nothing to add to it and there is nothing to take from it.”
73. See Bartholomew, Reading Ecclesiastes, 153–54; and Loader, Polar Structures in Qohelet, 1–2.
74. A good possibility exists for a valid parallel when the two texts share the same literary genre. The probability is even greater when the two cultures are closer in geography, language, or time. Furthermore differences should be noted in analyzing the possible significance. See Tremper Longman, Fictional Akkadian Autobiography (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1991), 31; and Clifford, The Wisdom Literature, 24–25.
75. For an excellent overview of pertinent wisdom texts in their cultural milieu see Murphy, The Tree of Life, 151–70; and John H. Walton, Ancient Israelite Literature in Its Cultural Context (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989), 169–89.
76. For a valuable summary of the closest thematic and verbal parallels see Crenshaw, Ecclesiastes, 31–32; and Seow, Ecclesiastes, 60–65. For alleged parallel Persian land grants that might suggest God’s gifts are arbitrary see Crenshaw, Ecclesiastes, 24–26, 50. See also Kidner, The Wisdom of Proverbs, Job and Ecclesiastes, 138–42.
77. Leo G. Perdue, Wisdom and Creation: The Theology of Wisdom Literature (Nashville: Abingdon, 1994), 197–202. For translation of certain texts see Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, 1:97–109, 135–39, 193–97; 3:44–58.
78. Longman, The Book of Ecclesiastes, 18–20.
79. Fox, A Time to Tear Down and a Time to Build Up, 153–55.
80. Van der Toorn, “Did Ecclesiastes Copy Gilgamesh?” 24, 26. Cf. Garrett, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, 265–66. For translation see James B. Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1969), 90.
81. For a summary of the epic and of key parallels see Brown, Ecclesiastes, 2–7; Murphy, The Tree of Life, 155–56, 169–70; and Clifford, The Wisdom Literature, 98–99.
82. Brown, Ecclesiastes, 5, 7; and Clifford, The Wisdom Literature, 97–98. Cf. Rachel Dulin, “How Sweet Is the Light: Qoheleth’s Age-Centered Teachings,” Interpretation 55 (July 2001): 262.
83. Clifford, The Wisdom Literature, 97–98; and Van der Toorn, “Did Ecclesiastes Copy Gilgamesh?” 24, 29.
84. Van der Toorn, “Did Ecclesiastes Copy Gilgamesh?” 29; cf. Brown, Ecclesiastes; 11. However, Fox argues that though the royal guise is not active after chapter 2, neither is it specifically canceled (A Time to Tear Down and a Time to Build Up, 153).
85. See Garrett, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, 266. Contrast Van der Toorn, “Did Ecclesiastes Copy Gilgamesh?” 30.
86. Bullock quotes Franz Delitzsch that Ecclesiastes is “proof of the inadequacy of revealed religion in its O.T. form” without the counterbalance of the record of redemption found in the finished revelation of God (Introduction to Old Testament Poetic Books, 183).
87. Daniel Pawley, “Ecclesiastes: Reaching Out to the Twentieth Century,” Bible Review, October 1990, 36.
88. Ardel B. Caneday, “Qoheleth: Enigmatic Pessimist or Godly Sage?” Grace Theological Journal 7 (spring 1986): 42-44, 51–53.
89. Webb, Five Festal Garments, 103–4.
90. David M. Clemens, “The Law of Sin and Death: Ecclesiastes and Genesis 1–3, ” Themelios 19 (March 1994): 5-6. For other possible allusions see ibid., 6–8; Eaton, Ecclesiastes, 46; and Charles C. Forman, “Koheleth’s Use of Genesis,” Journal of Semitic Studies 5 [1960]: 256-63). Less likely allusions include the dubious connection of הֶבֶל to Abel, which is spelled the same in Hebrew.
91. Hubbard, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, 85.
92. Percy P. Stoute, “Bread upon the Waters,” Bibliotheca Sacra 107 (January-March 1950): 222-26, esp. 223.
93. Cf. John Barton, Reading the Old Testament, rev. ed. (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996), 82–83, 93.
94. Kidner, The Wisdom of Proverbs, Job and Ecclesiastes, 114.
95. Hubbard, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon.
96. Brown, Ecclesiastes. See also the articles by William P. Brown and others in Interpretation 55 (July 2001). The entire issue is devoted to Ecclesiastes.
97. See especially Hubbard’s sections “The Greater Wise Man” at the end of each chapter of his book in which he correlates the teachings of Qoheleth with the New Testament (Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon 33, 53, and passim). Also quite helpful is Brown, Ecclesiastes. Less beneficial is John J. Collins, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Knox Preaching Guides (Atlanta: John Knox, 1980), whose nonevangelical presuppositions sometimes color his applications. Of dubious value is G. Avery Lee, Preaching from Ecclesiastes (Nashville: Broadman, 1958). His ideas on preaching from Ecclesiastes have little regard for the biblical context of Ecclesiastes.
98. Hubbard, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, 20.
99. Ibid.; and Kidner, Wisdom, 114–15.
100. Charles R. Swindoll, Living on the Ragged Edge: Coming to Terms with Reality (Waco, TX: Word, 1985), 16.
101. Robert K. Johnston, “ ‘Confessions of a Workaholic’: A Reappraisal of Qoheleth,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 38 (1976): 14-28.
102. William P. Brown, “ ‘Whatever Your Hand Finds to Do’: Qoheleth’s Work Ethic,” Interpretation 55 (July 2001): 276-78.
103. Brown, Character in Crisis, 149.
104. Brown, “ ‘Whatever Your Hand Finds to Do,’ ” 280–83.
105. Brown, Character in Crisis, 149–50.
106. David A. Dorsey, The Literary Structure of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999), 193–94.
107. See David S. Dockery, “The Challenge of Postmodernism,” in The Challenge of Postmodernism, ed. David S. Dockery (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995), 14; cf. Craig Bartholomew, Reading Ecclesiastes, 178–79. Reading Qoheleth is like dialoguing with a postmodernist who long preceded modernity (Elsa Tamez, “Ecclesiastes: A Reading from the Periphery,” Interpretation 55 [July 2001]: 251).
108. See Elizabeth Huwiler, “Ecclesiastes,” in Roland Murphy and Elizabeth Huwiler, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1999), 176.
109. Barton notes that at least one mildly deconstructive reading of Ecclesiastes (by J. D. Crossan) interprets the book as a parody of wisdom in order to assert that wisdom is foolishness (Reading the Old Testament, 226–27).
110. Barton, Reading the Old Testament, 227–28.
111. See Brown, Ecclesiastes, 52–53.
112. See Brown, “ ‘Whatever Your Hand Finds to Do,’ ” 282.
113. Brown, Ecclesiastes, 101–2; and Choon-Leong Seow, “Theology When Everything Is Out of Control,” Interpretation 55 (July 2001): 247-48.
114. Longman, The Book of Ecclesiastes, 254–55.
115. Garrett, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, 338; cf. Hubbard, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, 226–27.
116. Longman, The Book of Ecclesiastes, 255–56.
117. William S. LaSor, David A. Hubbard; and Frederic William Bush, Old Testament Survey, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 509; and Hubbard, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, 32–33.
118. In fact in sharing the gospel with Nicodemus (John 3:8) Jesus may have alluded to Ecclesiastes 11:4 (“wind”) and 11:5 (“you do not know the path of the wind”). The ambiguity of רוּחַ (“wind” or “spirit”) anticipates play on the Greek πνεῦμα (Seow, “Theology When Everything Is Out of Control,” 248; and Hubbard, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, 228–29). Also the parallelism in John 3:5–6 of water (as fleshly birth) and spirit (as spiritual birth) may be a further allusion to Qoheleth’s remarks about the fetus in the womb (Eccles. 11:5). If Nicodemus could not understand the mysteries of the first birth, how could he understand the mystery of the new birth, which is even more mysterious (along with God’s other creative acts)? As a teacher in Israel (John 3:10) he should have been familiar with Qoheleth’s statements.
119. Douglas K. Fletcher, “Ecclesiastes 5:1–7, ” Interpretation 55 (July 2001): 298.
120. J. Stafford Wright, “Ecclesiastes,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 5 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991), 148; cf. LaSor, Hubbard, and Bush, Old Testament Survey, 509.
121. Collins, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, 73, 75.
122. Bruce V. Malchow, “Qoheleth and Jesus,” The Bible Today, March 1993, 111.
123. Webb, Five Festal Garments, 107–8. The Greek word ματαιότης (“emptiness”), used by Paul to indicate frustration or futility, is the same word by which the Septuagint translated הֶבֶל in Ecclesiastes (Longman, The Book of Ecclesiastes, 39–40; Hubbard, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, 32; and John E. McKenna, “Concept of Hebel in the Book of Ecclesiastes,” Scottish Journal of Theology 45 [1992]: 27-28).
124. Andrew E. Hill and John H. Walton, A Survey of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991), 296.
125. See Elizabeth Achtemeier, Preaching from the Old Testament (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1989), 182–83; and cf. Webb, Five Festal Garments, 108–9. The Greek κένος is one of the words the Septuagint used for הֶבֶל. See K. Seybold, “הֶבֶל,” in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, ed. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren, vol. 3 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 315.
126. Bruce Wilkinson and Kenneth Boa, Talk thru the Old Testament (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1983), 171–72.
127. LaSor, Hubbard, and Bush, Old Testament Survey, 509.
128. Brown, “ ‘Whatever Your Hand Finds to Do,’ ” 283.
129. Wright, “Ecclesiastes,” 1145; and LaSor, Hubbard, and Bush, Old Testament Survey, 509.
130. See Zuck, “A Theology of the Wisdom Books and the Song of Songs,” 247, 250.
131. Brown, Ecclesiastes, 20–21.
132. Stephen Curkpatrick, “A Disciple for Our Time,” Interpretation 55 (July 2001): 290.
133. For a helpful list of difficult questions that the message of Ecclesiastes may address see Robert B. Hughes and J. Carl Laney, New Bible Companion (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 1990), 275–76. For example, “Since all people are going to die anyway, what difference does it make in how they live? Why be good if the good and bad go down in death together? … How can people honestly face up to death and still have a positive outlook on life?”
134. Cf. James Dobson, When God Doesn’t Make Sense (Wheaton, IL; Tyndale, 1993).
135. Tamez, “Ecclesiastes,” 256.
136. Dulin, “‘How Sweet Is the Light,” 263, 270.
137. See Ray Pritchard, Something New under the Sun (Chicago: Moody, 1998), 310.