Ecclesiates: How It Works, What It Says

It's been a long while since I've written anything about Ecclesiastes. In previous posts, I discussed the book's setting in the leadership structure of ancient Israel, and also the title of the book. But now I want to get around to talking about how Ecclesiastes works, what it's actually saying and how. What follows is a short overview of my take. See what you think:

1. Unlike the practical wisdom book of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes is an example of reflective, speculative wisdom. Instead of asking about how to live one’s life, this book asks about the meaning of life. The one other Old Testament book in the speculative-wisdom category is Job.

2. Ecclesiastes explores a specific question: What does man gain from all his labor at which he toils under the sun? (1:3 NIV). I take this to mean something like: What is the point of a life well lived, a life characterized by productive work? Is there a lasting benefit? What aspect of ourselves will survive death and the ravages of time? As one would expect, since this question serves as the program for Ecclesiastes, the author repeats it several times. (See, for example, 2:22, 3:9, 5:16, and 6:8).

3. In response to his own question, the author of Ecclesiastes offers an initial, standard answer, which sounds hopeless and bleak: "Meaningless! Meaningless!" says the Teacher. "Utterly meaningless! Everything is meaningless." (1:2). For the time being, I'll stay away from the question of what is the best English word for the Hebrew hebel, translated "Meaningless" here. Whatever the right word is, it's important to note that Ecclesiastes often repeats this first, most-basic conclusion announcing the enigma or futility of the search for significance in life. (See, for example, 1:14; 2:1 and 11, etc.). The book ends in 12:8 in much the same way as it began in 1:2. Connected to his general conclusion is the author’s frequent observation that the pursuits of human life amount to a chasing after the wind (1:14, 17, 2:11, 17, 26; 4:4, 6, 16 ).

4. The author’s experiences and observations have led him to his pessimistic conclusion. A few examples:

• Famously (or infamously) the author appears to be agnostic about life beyond the grave: Who knows if the spirit of man rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth? (3:21).
• He denies that anyone can predict the future with any kind of accuracy: a man cannot discover anything about his future (7:14).
• He insists that the search for ironclad, surefire wisdom is also futile: Whatever wisdom may be, it is far away and most profound – who can discover it? (7:24).
• Sorting out what seems to be clear and well-known is apparently an impossible task. "Who knows the explanation of things? asks the wise man" (8:1). No one can comprehend what goes on under the sun. Despite all his efforts to search it out, man cannot discover its meaning. Even if a wise man claims he knows, he cannot really comprehend it (8:17).

5. So at one level, the human quest for meaning and significance meets with failure and frustration. However, Ecclesiastes is not entirely pessimistic about the possibility of joy and contentment. The author includes a series of passages that use phrases like find satisfaction and be happy and enjoy in a positive way. Ecclesiastes introduces this series with the words "nothing better" (2:24-25, 3:12-13, 3:22, 5:18-20, 8:15, and 9:7-10). When reading these passages, one notices that the sequence moves from (a) observation to (b) commendation to (c) the final imperative of 9:7-10, which strikes me as a high point of the book.

Here, the legitimate enjoyment of good things is brought within the circle of God's will for humanity. This is the single most important contribution that Ecclesiastes makes to the biblical witness: that taking pleasure, today, in your work, in good food and drink, and in your family, is not only approved by the Almighty. In fact, happiness and joy are an important aspect of the revealed will of God for human life.

Does this look convincing? What are some of your own thoughts and reactions to Ecclesiastes?

Note about Study and Sources:

At different times over the last 20 years, I've taken a series of runs at Ecclesiastes. One time I read it almost every night for about a month. When it comes to really getting a handle on a particular book of the Bible, or any text for that matter, there's just no substitute for careful, repeated, sometimes-slow reading. Anyone who's tried this knows exactly what I mean. There are some books that probably should be read in a hurry. But a book like Ecclesiastes is deserving of meditation. In addition to reading Ecclesiastes, I've spent some time with a few of its better interpreters. Two authors in particular have helped me to get a handle on this book: the late, great Robert Gordis, and an Old Testament specialist from the current generation, Graham S. Ogden.

Ecclesiastes: The Title

The Book of Ecclesiastes is a puzzle from the very start: What does Ecclesiastes mean?

The Hebrew title of the book is Qohelet, another word that isn't easy to figure out.

The great Jewish scholar Robert Gordis used to enjoy telling audiences that Ecclesiastes is a fine translation. "That's because we don't know what Qohelet means," he would say, "and we don't know what Ecclesiastes means either. So it's the perfect translation of a mysterious title."

But as Gordis himself knew, it isn't quite so hopeless as that. Qohelet comes from the Hebrew root qahal, a word that involves the idea of collecting or gathering. When used as a verb in the Scriptures, qahal always means "to gather people." So Qohelet is someone who assembles a crowd, or gathers an audience, presumably to speak to them.

Along this line, the ancient Greek translation of the Scriptures, the Septuagint, came up with a title that's connected to the word for "an assembly." From the Greek ecclesia (assembly) it's a short step to ecclesiastes (the assemblyman).

When translating the Latin Vulgate, Jerome used an expression that emphasized the idea of someone speaking to the assembly. Jerome's idea was an interpretation, one that's probably right.

If this view of the title is correct, then Qohelet is the description of a wise man, a sage who has spent many years looking at life. And now as he writes, it's as though he has gathered his friends and colleagues in order to speak to them, to talk about his observations, and announce his conclusion.

Martin Luther took this view and called the Book of Ecclesiastes der Prediger: The Preacher. Qohelet might be a preacher of sorts. But he's got to be one of the most unconventional preachers ever.

I want to write some more about this book. In the meantime, I'd be interested to hear your take. What are some of your observations about the Book of Ecclesiastes?