Several authors
have stressed the joint importance of the poems located in the
prologue (1:3-11) and toward the end of the book (12:1-7) in setting
out the whole scope and theme of Ecclesiastes. These two poems
correspond roughly to the respective themes of “the futility of
life” and “the answer of practical faith,” the two poles around
which the book's observations revolve. But, surprisingly, few
commentators seem to have viewed the beginning and conclusion of
Ecclesiastes as a pair of perfectly symmetrical bookends, as Seow
notes:
A. The
Words of the Preacher (1:1)
B. Thesis:
All is Vanity (1:2)
C. Poem
(1:3-11)
---------------------
C'. Poem
(12:1-7)
B'. Thesis:
All is Vanity (12:8)
A'. The
Words of the Preacher (12:9-14)
Ecclesiastes
1:1 The controversies concerning this
passage begin with discussions concerning the identity of the author
these words. Longman states, “Even conservative
commentators...reject the tradition of Solomonic authorship. The
connection between Qohelet and Solomon is instead recognized as a
literary fiction on the part of the writer of the book...”
And elsewhere
Longman says, “Increasingly, commentators have recognized two
voices in the book. In Ecclesiastes 1:12-12:7, Qohelet speaks in the
first person; In Ecclesiastes 1:1-11; 12:8-14 someone else (often
called the frame narrator or second wise teacher) speaks about
Qohelet to his son...” Note how that roughly fits the literary
structure shown above.
“To disguise
the identity of an actual king by naming him 'Qohelet' ['teacher] is
one thing, but to refer to him as 'son of David, king in Jerusalem
(Eccles 1:1) when he was not is problematic for some interpreters,
although it need not be, since there is no reason to assume that
adopting a literary persona is an act of deception...It simply means
that the main character of the book is referred as Qohelet for
reasons which still elude interpreters to this day.” (Enns)
Shields
discusses the pros and cons regarding the identity of Qohelet with
Solomon. He concludes: “The fact that Qohelet is never explicitly
identified with Solomon suggests that the association exists to serve
a purpose other than outright identification. And the most recognized
reason for the association is to establish the authority and
integrity of Qohelet's wisdom.”
Ecclesiastes
1:2 And now we come to that mysterious
Hebrew term hebel,
translated as “vanity” by the KJV. Depending on the English
translation you have or the commentator you read, this may be
rendered by one of the following possibilities: breath, absurd,
vapor, empty, self-pride, fleeting, transitory, futile, senseless,
incomprehensible, mystery, enigma, meaningless, frustrating,
temporary, air, steam, or gas.
As one example,
Pokrifka says, “The life that God breathes into creatures is
portrayed as fleeting. Life and everything in it is hebel
(Eccles 1:2), which literally means 'vapor' (Ps 144:4; Prov 13:11;
21:6) and is often translated as 'breath'...'Vapor' figuratively
speaks of the ephemeral nature of life and its absurdity. The
translation 'vapor' is preferred over against the traditional
rendering 'vanity' (KJV), especially given the plethora of images for
the brevity and transience of life used in close connection with
hebel.”
Thus, Firth
makes the following interesting suggestion: “The pleasure for
readers is in seeking to follow all the clues that Qohelet provides
as to what he means by hebel
[breath, vanity, etc.] Indeed, by deferring from providing an exact
resolution, Qohelet continually invites the readers to come back and
reread the text and to continue the exploration.”
Hendry brings
up a question regarding the statement 'All is vanity' in this verse.
He asks, “(H)ow could [the author of] Ecclesiastes pronounce all to
be vanity, unless he knew of some validity, some sure ground to which
his spirit clung? His object is not to counsel despair but to refute
secularism on its own ground.”
I
would add that hebel
often appears in the repeated phrase 'vanities of vanities', which is
a Hebraic way of expressing a superlative and thus means 'the
greatest vanity.' In the same way 'king of
kings' denotes the ultimate king and 'song of songs' means 'the
foremost song.'
Ecclesiastes
1:3 In this verse we come upon another
translation quandary. Klingbeil states that “the frequent use of
the phrase 'under the sun' (e.g. Eccles 1:3,9,14; 2:11,17,18)...could
have been used in a polemical sense against known (non-Israelite)
theological concepts – a tendency found in other biblical material
as well (see Ps 121:6).”
I would add
that the exactly six times the phrase occurs in Ecclesiastes may
symbolically indicate, as it does in many other places in the Bible,
one less than the symbolic perfection or completion indicated by the
number seven. Thus it may very well be another subtle reminder that
our human understanding of the situation we are in will always remain
incomplete.
Seow notes that
in the Ecclesiastes this phrase “is preferred over the phrase tahal
hassamayim 'under the
heavens,' which occurs much less frequently in the book (1:13; 2:3;
3:1) but is very common elsewhere in the Bible. The two expressions
are synonymous to the extent that they both refer to the universality
of human experience.”
And we must not
forget the first part of verse 3 having to do with the lack of gain
achieved by man for all his work. “The thought expressed in v. 3 is
not confined to the beginning of the book but occurs repeatedly, and
is actually repeated in almost identical words in another passage
(3:9).” (Whybray)
Beale and
Carson point out: “Verse 26 [of Matthew 15] may faintly echo
Eccles. 1:3 on the ultimate futility of merely earthly labor (see
also Ps 49:7-9).”
Belcher says,
“Although there is reward (heleq)
to labor that should be enjoyed (Eccles 2:10; 9:9), there is no
profit (yitron) to
labor (Eccles 1:2; 2:11).” And Longman notes that the refrain “What
profit is there?” also appears in Ecclesiastes 3:9 and 5:16.
Ecclesiastes
1:4 Prokrifka says that “there are cycles
of time set by the natural life cycle and developmental stages of
human beings. There are generational cycles of about forty years (Ps
78:5-8; Eccles 1:4) and the natural life cycle of about seventy years
(Ps 90:11).”
Moore qualifies
the words in this verse by stating, “Obviously the earth is not
eternal. Only God is. This is simply a way of saying a great long
while or a relatively long period of time.”
Ecclesiastes
1:4-7
Grant discusses
the genre of Wisdom Poetry in the Bible, typified by Job 28.
“Similarly, Ecclesiastes 1:2-11 probably should be considered a
wisdom poem. It too sets the tone for much of the ensuing
autobiographical debate while remaining distinct from that narrative.
It speaks with the language of creation theology (Eccles 1:4-7), and
its introductory status provides a hermeneutical lens through which
to read the succeeding sections of the book.”
Crenshaw: “The
initial unit (1:4-7) deals with the four elements of the universe as
discussed by ancient philosophers: earth, air, fire, and water. The
remaining unit (1:8-11) refers to the quality that distinguishes
human beings from animals, the capacity for speech, and isolates two
aspects of the affective dimension, sight and sound. The section
concludes with a denial that novelty occurs anywhere and a bold
assertion that everything is destined to oblivion...Despite continual
departures and entries of separate generations, both human and
natural, the earth stands intact...Jerome perceived the irony in this
observation about ephemerality and permanence.”
Moore also
notes this irony: “Humans truly are the capstone of God's creation,
yet we have an uncertain and transient existence. But the material
world, which is of much less value than man, has relative stability
and consistency. Understandably, we cry out at the inequality of this
situation. We are extremely uncomfortable with these graphic
reminders of our mortality.”
Hendry says
that “men endeavor to screen themselves from the icy wind of
mortality by the thought of their posterity and the continuing
race..They seek a pseudo-immortality in the fanciful perpetuity of
their work...But there is nothing to support this in the course of
nature, which is circular, as Ecclesiastes points out (vv. 5-7), or
in the course of history, which endlessly repeats itself (vv. 9,10).
Progress is ever accompanied by regress. It is only the actors and
the scenery that change...”
Thus, as Seow
says, in 4-8, “the repeated language subtly conveys the point about
the repetitive character of everything.” I would go a step further
in demonstrating how form and function follow one another. Thus, for
example we see in verses 5 and 7 how the author has utilized the
poetic form of the chiasm to show that no matter how things change,
they still remain the same:
A. The sun
rises
B. and the
sun goes down
B'. and
hurries to the place
A' where it
rises (1:5)
A. All streams
run to the sea
B. but the
sea is not full
B'. to the
place (i.e. the sea) where the seas flow
A'. there they
continue to flow (1:7)
Ecclesiastes
1:5 is notable in that it is from this verse
that Ernest Hemingway got the title for his masterpiece concerning
the “lost generation,” The Sun Also Rises.
Ecclesiastes
1:7 “We should point out Qohelet's unusual
knowledge in this passage: he writes as if he knew that water
evaporates from the ocean and then rains on the land, thus feeding
the rivers!” (Ellul) As a scientist, I had also thought that this
seemed to betray a knowledge of the physical world beyond what the
ancients were aware.
Ecclesiastes
1:8 “NRSV gives the alternative
translation of 1:8 as “all words
are wearisome; more than one can express.” If adopted, that would
provide a fitting parallel to the ending of the book – “Of the
making of many books there is no end, and much study is weariness of
the flesh” (12:12).
Similarly, Seow
prefers the translation 'words' to 'things' and notes that in the
eleven subsequent uses of debarim
in the book, the meaning is clearly 'words.' Seow additionally notes
the similarity of this verse to 12:12.
“Qohelet
jumps from this 'trite' observation concerning the cycle of nature
to humanity (he could have added the seasons). Words become
wearisome. A person gets to the point where he cannot talk any more,
but the eye does not get its fill of seeing, nor the ear of
listening. This is the first step: as creators or producers of speech
(of truth? of information?), we are limited: we reach a stopping
point.” (Ellul)
But Whybray
questions the translation 'wearisome' itself: “The subject of which
yege'im is the
predicate is not 'mankind' or 'human life' but All
things. If yagea'
– the singular form – means 'weary', the literal meaning of the
line is 'All things are weary'. There is no justification for
rendering yagea' by
'wearisome', that is causing weariness (presumably to man). But,
further, the meaning of 'weary' for yagea'
is by no means well established. It is a very rare word, only
occurring in two other passages in the Old Testament. The related
noun yegia', which
occurs more frequently, has two other connotations besides that of
weariness: hard work or toil, and the product which results from
toil...In the present context it makes good sense to take the phrase
'All things are yage'im'
as referring to the ceaseless 'toil' or busy activity of any natural
phenomena described in the following verses...”
Ecclesiastes
1:9 “Aside from reading conclusions that
placed Qohelet in direct contradiction to the prophets (e.g. Eccles
1:9 vs. Is. 42:9; 43:19), some of his words may represent a direct
attack on the prophets and other religious officials in ancient
Israel.” (Shields)
Koptak also
notes this contradiction and says, “Readers of the canon in later
generations may bring together the opposing perspectives of Isaiah
43:19 ('I make something new') with Ecclesiastes 1:9 ('Nothing new
exists under the sun'), examining the way each speaks to the topic of
knowledge. Qolelet helps readers recognize the limits of human
knowledge, itself a step forward in wisdom. Historical lessons are
not enough.., and a new creation is needed, both in the vision that
the suffering servant mediates and a re-creation of the people.”
Ecclesiastes
1:10 Fleming says of the phrase no
remembrance of men of old, “people too
easily forget what happened in past generations. It is because of
this that things appear to them as new (v. 10).”
Ecclesiastes
1:11 “In common OT thought life ended at
the grave. Thus, if one's name or reputation did not live beyond the
grave in someone's memory, that person's existence had ceased
entirely. Such a fate might happen as a natural part of history
(Eccles 1:11), but it might also have moral overtones...With this
concept, God imposed on those not being remembered after death was
usually a terrible fate that God imposed on those who deserved it.”
(Seevers)
Posts
