ECCLESIASTES 9

This literary section can be diagrammed as the ABA form outlined below:

A. There is a common fate for all (9:1-10)

    1. negative (9:1-6)

        2. positive (9:7-10a)

    1'. negative (9:10b)

                B. Time and chance happen to all (9:11-12)

A'. There is a common fate for all (9:13-10:4)

    1. negative (9:13-16)

        2. positive (9:17-18a)

    1'. negative (9:18b-10:4)

Section A is bounded at start and finish by the words “wise/wisdom,” “love,” “good,” and “know/knowledge.” This unit is also characterized by the 7-fold occurrence of “life/living.”

Section A' is unified by “great and little” in 9:13-14 and “little and great” in 10:1,4 at its boundaries.

9:1 “This counteracts a recent view of God called 'Open Theism,' in which God may voluntarily choose not to know what we will do in some situations.” (D.G. Moore)

It is God's “love or hate” that is being referred to, i.e. His approval or disapproval. (Fleming) By contrast, the same phrase pertains to humanity in v. 6.

Seow: “To be in the hand of God is to be subject to God's power (see Prov 21:1; Deut 33:3). What is in the hand of God or comes from the hand of God is utterly unpredictable.” See Ecclesiastes 2:24.

Similarly, Longman says, Qohelet does not doubt that the righteous and wise are in God's control...but he does doubt whether God is concerned to reward them or is well disposed toward them.”

9:2 Jacques Ellul writes, “Do not these harsh words find their complete and harsh fulfillment in the condemnation of Jesus, who was pure goodness, justice, and love, yet was 'numbered with the transgressors' (Isa. 53:12), crucified with thieves (or terrorists, if you prefer!)?”

9:4 This proverb contrasts the most despised with the most noble beasts in the Near East at the time. Ellul advises: “Do not consider yourself better than a dog; this will give you a good idea of life's humility.”

9:5 “The living have the distinct advantage of being able to reflect on their own mortality. By way of implication from the rest of Ecclesiastes, they also may make wise course corrections to reflect on that undeniable reality.” (Moore) Whybray agrees with this interpretation and adds that “it is because of this knowledge that life should and can be enjoyed to the full.”

By contrast, Longman takes this to be an ironical statement: “The sarcasm seems obvIous to most. What are the living aware of? Death. Thus, while the living may be better off than the dead, they are nonetheless pitiable.”

9:7-9 “There is debate as to whether these passages amount to a positive affirmation of life or an attitude of resignation.” (Lucas)

9:7a This is “not unbridled pleasure for its own sake, but an enjoyment of the good things in life.” (Fleming)

9:7b Commentators have gone to lengths to get around the apparent meaning of the last clause since “it sounds as if he believes that God gives people unlimited approval for their actions.” (Longman) Whybray interprets it to mean that “the enjoyment of God's gifts is something which God has decreed from the beginning.”

9:8 The white garments and oil were signs of rejoicing according to Fleming. Longman explains this verse slightly differently by stating that white clothes are more comfortable in hot climate and oil protects the skin in a dry climate.

9:11,15 Shields: “In a number of places he appears to extol wisdom's virtues [i.e. 9:15]...Whatever merits wisdom may have, however, are only relative, since both fool and sage share the same fate – death – and so wisdom clearly offers no solution to the ultimate problem facing everyone.”

9:11-12 The concept of “time” ties together these two verses. Thus, Prokrifka states, “Viewing the temporal cycle apart from God's good purposes, Qohelet declares the natural cycle of time to be meaningless, wearisome and frustrating along with everything else.”

Whybray treats these as an independent piece inserted here. But that is not necessarily so since it fits in well with the ABA literary form shown above.

9:13-16 Whybray states: “Despite various attempts to find here a reference to a particular historical event, it is now generally agreed that this is not what Qoheleth had in mind.” Thus, Scott calls it perhaps a parable And Seow adds, “Even if the story was based on historical reality, it has been shaped by the narrator's purpose.”

Working off of Seow's assumption, my own read on the situation is that these verses were actually based fairly closely on the narrative found in II Samuel 20 which relates an event that took place during David's reign. The story involves a “scoundrel” named Sheba who attempted to lead a revolt against the king. David's troops under Joab pursue Sheba to the rather insignificant city of Adam and besiege it. But a wise woman calls down to Joab from the city wall and asks why the men are attacking the city. She learns the reason and suggests to the men of the city that they take hold of Joab, decapitate him, and throw his head over the wall. In that manner, the city is saved. However, as the reader realizes, the name of this heroine is lost to posterity despite her wisdom. Words common to this story and Ecclesiastes 13-16 include “beseiged,” “seige-works,” “against,” and “call/cry” although the Hebrew roots employed are different in each case. However, the same Hebrew words for “city,” “wisdom,” and “heed” are identical in both.

Actually, the only thing that distinguishes the two stories is the fact that the wise person is a man in Ecclesiastes and a woman in II Samuel. This small change is not at all unexpected in light of Qohelet's attitude toward women in general. See Ecclesiastes 7:26-28.

9:11-18 Firth explains that the author “applies a number of different perspectives to wisdom, but his point is precisely that one needs to 'ambiguate' the concept of wisdom. Readers are invited to explore this ambiguity because only through this can they recognize what Qohelet holds to be true; one must see wisdom as a polyvalent concept.”

9:12 Mabie says that “death is personified as a hunter of sorts, complete with traps, snares and netting (Job 18:9-13, Ps. 18:4, etc.). As such death can seize a person suddenly and unexpectedly.”

9:15-16 appear to contradict one another. If his advice saved the city, why does it say that his words were not heeded? Seow and other recent scholars propose that v. 15 should read that he “could have delivered the city.” By contrast, Longman interprets the passage to say that the wise man did save the city but no one remembered his actions afterward. Either way, “wisdom from a person considered unimportant by society is either not heeded, or it is heeded and he or she is not given appropriate recognition.” (Moore)

9:17 In light of the above verses, Scott states, “This proverb is quoted ironically, since in this case the superiority of wisdom went unrecognized.”Gordis is among those commentators who translate the phrase “a ruler among fools” as “the king of fools.”

9:18 Hendry translates the noun as “sinner,” not “bungler” as in NRSV or “mistake” as in NEB and JB. According to Scott, “The Wisdom writers...tend to identify sinners as the morally obtuse (cf. Prov v 22-23, viii 33-36).”

9:17-18 In light of Seow's comment that the “bungler” of v. 18 is the same as the “ruler among fools” of v. 17, these two verses can be diagrammed as follows:

The quiet words of the wise are more to be heeded than

the shouting of a ruler among fools.

Wisdom is better than weapons of war

but one bungler destroys much good.

9:17 Longman says, “it is likely that Qohelet is here saying something to the effect that the words of the wise are 'worth hearing,' not that they are always heeded.”

10:1-4 Most commentators extend this section through these verses also. One good reason for doing this is that 10:5, with its telltale introduction “There is an evil I have seen under the sun,” obviously signals the start of a new major section of the book