ECCLESIASTES 1:1-11

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)