Ecclesiastes

Introduction to Ecclesiastes

In the Proverbs, Solomon writes what life is like with God. But in Ecclesiastes, he writes about what it is like to reject God. Since Solomon had tried out both perspectives, he is eminently qualified to write on these topics. At points, Ecclesiastes reads like a modern piece of atheistic existential literature. But this is because Solomon is trying to engage his readers with the folly and uselessness of living apart from God. However, to be clear, Solomon was no atheist. He speaks of God roughly 40 times throughout the book, and he mentions the “fear of God” several times (3:14; 5:7; 7:18; 8:12-13; 12:13). In fact, the conclusion to the book is that life is meaningful and valuable when we factor God into the picture (Eccl. 12:10-14).

Download a free mp3 series on Ecclesiastes HERE!

The title “Ecclesiastes” is the Greek translation of the Hebrew word Qōhelet, which means “teacher” or “preacher.” Later, the LXX translated this Hebrew word with the Greek word Ekklēsiastēs. This Hebrew word comes from the term “assembly” (qāhal). Students of the New Testament might recognize the term ekklēsia, which refers to the “gathering” or the “church.” The term “assembly” (qāhal) is the Hebrew equivalent (which just means an assembly of people). Ecclesiastes should probably be rendered “one who gathers an assembly,” because the term “preacher” comes from anachronistic church culture in our time—not theirs. In modern terms, we would call him a “professor,” who is challenging the ideas of his listeners.

Authorship

Solomon never explicitly claims to have written the book. Yet we hold that he is the most likely candidate for authorship. Frequently, others have been considered to be the author, but none have the evidence of Solomon.

Internal evidence. The author needs to have been the son of David (Eccl. 1:1) and the king of Israel (Eccl. 1:1, 12). He also needed to have been a man of incredible wisdom (Eccl. 1:16; 1 Kings 4:34), wealth (Eccl. 2:8; 1 Kings 10:10-14), and women (Eccl. 2:8; 1 Kings 11:1). All of these descriptions fit Solomon to a tee, and no other proponents come even close to fitting these descriptions of the author.

External evidence. One ancient Jewish text (Baba Bathra 15a) states that Hezekiah wrote the book, but Archer writes, “[This] probably means no more than that Hezekiah and his company simply edited and published the text for public use.” Other Jewish traditions state that Solomon was the author (Megilla 7a and Shabbath 30). Moreover, Solomon uses the verb (qhl) frequently in 1 Kings 8 to gather the people together for the inauguration of the Temple (1 Kings 8:1-2, 14, 22, 25).

Is this a work of Greek philosophy?

Because Ecclesiastes seems to be such a fatalistic book, older critics believed that it was actually a byproduct of Greek philosophy. Yet Rooker writes, “Critics such as George A. Barton argued that the resemblance between Ecclesiastes and Stoicism was artificial and in fact the philosophies represented in the works were in complete opposition. Since Barton’s study the attempts to link Ecclesiastes with Greek philosophy have met stern rebuttals from the academic community. The issues pondered by Qoheleth are thoroughly Semitic and totally independent of Greek influence. Moreover, there are no clear Greek constructions or idioms in the book and not one Greek word. In addition, Brevard Childs has noted the drift of modern scholarship is to view the book as a unified composition of one author. This trend began early in the twentieth century when S. R. Driver recognized that the epilogue should be attributed to the author of the whole book.”

What about the language and grammatical differences with other pre-exilic literature?

Some scholars deny that Solomon wrote this book (among these are even Martin Luther). Some expressions in this book seem to date to the post-exilic era. Franz Delitzsch cites “ninety-six words, forms, and expressions found nowhere else in the Bible except in exilic and post-exilic works like Ezra, Esther, Nehemiah, Chronicles, Malachi—or else in the Mishnah.” In other words, the basis of this argument is that the Hebrew doesn’t fit with Solomon’s era in history (10^th century BC).

However, the Hebrew really doesn’t fit with any known era of Hebrew literature, so this argument is really erroneous. Rooker writes,

Many scholars note that the Hebrew of Ecclesiastes differs from the Hebrew of any other OT book. The book fits into no known period of the history of the Hebrew language. Yet Daniel Fredericks has convincingly shown that the language reflects an earlier stage in the history of the Hebrew language. Clearly the language can certainly not be classified with later postexilic and postbiblical Hebrew works.

Archer notes,

It should be carefully observed that a comprehensive survey of all the data, including vocabulary, morphology, syntax, and style, yields the result that the text of Ecclesiastes fits into no known period in the history of the Hebrew language.

Aramaisms (i.e. loans words) could be explained by the fact that Solomon was heavily invested in trade with various peoples from all across the known world. Archer continues, “Commercial ties with both the Phoenician-speaking and the Aramaean peoples of the Syrian areas during Solomon’s reign were closer than any other period in Israel’s history (with the possible exception of Ahab in the ninth century.” Moreover, language differences could be explained by the uniqueness of Ecclesiastes. Archer also speculates that loan words could have been imported from India, as Solomon’s trade was quite widespread, bringing loan words from farther than we might expect. J. Stafford Wright speculates that Solomon may have used an amanuensis.

Ecclesiastes 1:16 speaks of “all who were… before me.”

Critics point out that “Solomon” states, “I have magnified and increased wisdom more than all who were over Jerusalem before me” (Eccl. 1:16). He also writes, “I have been king over Israel in Jerusalem” (Eccl. 1:12). These are odd statements coming from Solomon, because David and Saul were the only two kings that reigned before him. Who then could he be referring to?

Of course, 1 Kings 14:9 makes a similar claim to Jeroboam (“you also have done more evil than all who were before you”). This passage (like Eccl. 1:16) doesn’t explicitly speak against kings, but could refer to prophets or judges, or really anyone, in Israel’s history. In fact, Jerusalem was a city during the time of Melchizedek (~2,000 BC), having a very ancient history. Moreover, this could refer to Solomon’s great wisdom over the wise men in Israel’s long history (1 Kings 4:31).

Canonicity: Is Ecclesiastes really Scripture?

The canonicity of Ecclesiastes was questioned by many of the early rabbis, because it has such a skeptical outlook on life. Rabbi Hillel accepted the book, but Rabbi Shammai opposed it because of apparent contradictions (e.g. Eccl. 8:15; 2:2; 7:3). How could this be included in Scripture with such a fatalistic view of the meaning of life?

(1) Internal evidence. The book claims to be inspired by God: “The words of wise men are like goads, and masters of these collections are like well-driven nails; they are given by one Shepherd” (Eccl. 12:11). The “one Shepherd” refers to God (Gen. 49:24; Ps. 23:1; 80:1). This is the wisdom literature’s equivalent to writing, “Thus says the Lord.”

(2) External evidence. Historical evidence supports the canonicity of Ecclesiastes. It is found in the canon of Josephus, the canon of Aquila, and was “quoted with standard formulas for citing Scripture, in the Mishnah (Sukkah 2.6; Hagigah 1.6; Kiddushin 1.10) and the other tannaitic literature.” Melito (late second century) included it. Canonicity scholar Roger Beckwith writes, “Pseudo-Philo, De Sampsone 44, quotes with the formula ‘Scripture says’ words which come either from Prov. 26.27 or Eccles. 10.8. More definite is the reference in Greek Testament of Naphtali 8.7f. to Eccles. 3.5, which it ascribes to ‘the Law’, i.e. Scripture.” Furthermore, there is “little doubt” that Paul refers to Ecclesiastes when writing about the futility of creation (Rom. 8:20). Other allusions—though not quotations—abound throughout the NT.

Why is Solomon so nihilistic (or at the very least pessimistic) about life?

Solomon captures what life looks like apart from God. In his Proverbs, Solomon writes what life is like with God, but in Ecclesiastes, he writes about what it is like to reject God. Since Solomon had tried out both perspectives, he is eminently qualified to write on these topics. At points, Ecclesiastes reads like a modern piece of atheistic existential literature. But this is because Solomon is trying to engage his readers with the folly and uselessness of living apart from God. This type of wisdom literature is closer to Job, than to Proverbs.

To be clear, however, Solomon was no atheist. He speaks of God roughly 40 times throughout the book, and he mentions the “fear of God” several times (3:14; 5:7; 7:18; 8:12-13; 12:13). In fact, the conclusion to the book is that life is meaningful and valuable when we factor God into the picture (Eccl. 12:10-14). But interestingly, Solomon only refers to God as the Creator (Elohim), not the Covenant-Maker (Yahweh). This may be a literary device to show that Solomon is appealing to general revelation—not specific revelation.

Consequently, Ecclesiastes can be very difficult to interpret. We simply need to realize that sometimes Solomon is reasoning from the perspective of the “ground up” (i.e. starting from human experience and moving outward), while other times he is reasoning from the “top down” (i.e. explaining how God makes sense of the human condition).

The purpose of this book

Ecclesiastes explains the uselessness of life apart from God. Solomon’s purpose in writing this book is to show that even the wisest man on Earth (1 Kings 4:30) cannot know the meaning of life apart from God. He writes, “I saw all that God has done. No one can comprehend what goes on under the sun (used 29x). Solomon writes, “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” (Eccl. 8:17 NIV). Archer writes,

The purpose of Ecclesiastes was to convince men of the uselessness of any worldview which does not rise above the horizon of man himself. It pronounces the verdict of ‘vanity of vanities’ upon any philosophy of life which regards the created world or human enjoyment as an end in itself.

Solomon is an apt teacher, because he experienced the fullness of pleasures in this world, including sex, power, and wealth. And yet, he is highly critical of the fulfillment and purpose of these things. Instead, his conclusion is to seek after God (Eccl. 12:13-14). Thus, Solomon brutally and incisively shows the abject futility of any pursuit besides God.

This “under the sun” terminology “falls into the background” at key points (Eccl. 2:24-26; 11:1-12:14). There are times where Solomon acknowledges God to be present, and giving generously (Eccl. 1:13; 2:26; 3:10, 11; 5:18, 19; 6:2; 8:15; 9:9; 12:7, 11). God gives joy to people through a “portion” (Eccl. 2:10, 21; 3:22; 5:18, 19; 9:6, 9). But on the whole, Solomon allows his audience to experience life functionally apart from God. Solomon married one woman at the beginning of his life (1 Kin. 3:1). Later, he had 1,000 wives and concubines (1 Kin. 11:3). Gold was so plentiful that silver wasn’t even used (1 Kin. 10:27).

It was written to an “aristocratic audience,” and people who had the ability to do the things Solomon was speaking about: “They were people for whom the pursuit of wealth was a real possibility and not just a fantasy and who had the leisure time for intellectual pursuits.”

Commentaries on Ecclesiastes

Duane A. Garrett, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, vol. 14, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1993)

Garrett’s commentary was terse and to the point. He offered great insight into the text. This was, so far, the best commentary we have read on Ecclesiastes.

Michael A. Eaton, Ecclesiastes: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 18, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1983)

Eaton’s commentary was the most detailed and technical that we have read so far. He interacted with other interpreters well.

Derek Kidner, The Message of Ecclesiastes: A Time to Mourn, and a Time to Dance, ed. J. Alec Motyer and Derek Tidball, The Bible Speaks Today (England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1984)

Kidner is a fantastic writer and an insightful commentator. However, the downside to this commentary was that it was too short. It seemed more like a devotional companion to the book, rather than an exposition of the text.

J. Stafford Wright, “Ecclesiastes,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 5 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1991)