A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W XY Z

Tyndale Open Bible Dictionary

Intro ← Index → ©

ECCLESIASTES, Book of

OT book of Wisdom Literature. Ecclesiastes is philosophical in character, posing deep questions about the meaning and nature of human existence.

“Ecclesiastes” is the Greek title for the book and has come into English from the Septuagint (Greek translation of the OT). In keeping with an early Jewish practice of adopting the first few words of a book as the title, the Hebrew title of Ecclesiastes is “The Words of Koheleth, the Son of David, King in Jerusalem.” It is also known simply as “Koheleth.”

The term “Koheleth” is the author’s title for himself throughout the book (Eccl 1:1-2, 12 OET ECC 1:1–2 · OET ECC 1:12; 7:27; 12:8-10). It is the Hebrew participial form of a verb meaning “to assemble,” and thus it seems to designate one who speaks in an assembly. The word has often been translated “the Preacher” in English. Because of the philosophical nature of the book, however, the title possibly indicates the author’s function or station as a leader in the community of wise men.

Preview

• Author

• Date

• Purpose and Theological Teaching

• Content

Author

The authorship of Ecclesiastes presents complex questions, on which biblical scholars disagree. Early Jewish tradition was divided over the issue, ascribing the book to King Hezekiah and his school, as well as to King Solomon.

Internal evidence is often appealed to for support of Solomon as the author of Ecclesiastes. The first verse ascribes the authorship of the book to “the son of David.” Other passages (e.g., 1:16-17; 2:6-7) also seem to refer to Solomon, who succeeded David as king of the united kingdom of Israel. Those who reject Solomonic authorship interpret such references as literary devices, written by a later unknown author in order to use Solomon’s devotion to wisdom as a context for his own ideas about life’s purpose and meaning.

A number of passages in the book have been appealed to in support of non-Solomonic authorship. Some scholars allege that if the book had been written by Solomon, he would not have used the past tense about his reign “over Israel in Jerusalem” (1:12). Proponents of Solomonic authorship point out, however, that the Hebrew verb “was” can also mean “became,” thus stating that Solomon had become king in Jerusalem.

It is also alleged that 1:16 supports a date of writing by an author who lived much later than Solomon. They say that Solomon could not have said that he was wiser than “all who were over Jerusalem before me,” for that would point to a long succession of kings before him. But the author may have meant prominent wise men rather than kings (see 1 Kgs 4:31).

One of the chief difficulties with Solomonic authorship is the fact that OT history does not record a period of spiritual revival in Solomon’s life as a context for the book of Ecclesiastes. That is not a conclusive argument, however, for the thoughts recorded in the book are intensely personal in nature. The historical books of the OT deal primarily with historical developments, mentioning personal aspects of human life only where they bear upon God’s purposes as reflected in the national history. It would, in fact, be surprising if the extremely personal struggles recorded in Ecclesiastes were cited by the historical writers.

The question of authorship is a difficult one, but there seems to be no conclusive evidence against Solomon as the author of Ecclesiastes.

Date

The majority of scholars who hold to the Solomonic authorship of Ecclesiastes date the book in Solomon’s final years as king (c. 940 BC). The book would then have been written in the golden era of Israelite wisdom, by one of the foremost proponents of wisdom teaching.

Those who deny Solomonic authorship disagree among themselves as to when the book was written, but most date it in the postexilic period. A Maccabean date (c. 165 BC) is difficult to maintain, because fragments of the book, dated in the second century BC, have been found at the Dead Sea site of Qumran. Also, the apocryphal book of Ecclesiasticus, probably written in the early second century BC, was heavily influenced by Ecclesiastes. Such factors would allow little time for the writing and circulation of the book in the Maccabean period.

A number of conservative scholars, such as Franz Delitzsch and E. J. Young, have assigned a fifth-century BC date to the book. Many others consider it a third-century BC document.

Internal Evidence

Attempts have been made to determine the date of the book of Ecclesiastes from alleged historical allusions. But the somewhat gloomy observations found in such passages as 1:2-11 and 3:1-15 need be nothing more than the author’s conclusions about the emptiness of life. They do not necessarily indicate that the book was written in a time of national decline or social decay within Israel, a time that would not fit with the reign of Solomon.

It is also alleged that the book contains allusions to Greek philosophical concepts. That would indicate that it was written sometime after the Hellenization of the Syro-Palestinian world effected by the conquests of Alexander the Great (356–323 BC).

One of those philosophical concepts is the “golden mean” propounded by Aristotle. The golden mean calls for avoiding extremes in the pursuit of satisfaction in life, and it is reflected in Ecclesiastes 7:14-18. The same concept is found in Egyptian wisdom literature (Instruction of Amen-em-opet 9.14), as well as in Aramaic wisdom literature. In one of the finest examples of Aramaic wisdom, The Words of Ahiqar, the golden mean is expressed in the words “Be not (too) sweet, lest they [swallow you]; be not (too) bitter [lest they spit you out].” But the golden mean concept need not indicate one particular period of thought; it may simply represent a basic kind of wisdom shared by people of all times and all ethnic backgrounds.

Linguistic Considerations

The most critical issue in dating Ecclesiastes is the nature of the book’s language. The Hebrew of Ecclesiastes is unique, differing stylistically and linguistically from such fifth-century OT books as Ezra, Nehemiah, and Zechariah.

Some scholars maintain that the language of Ecclesiastes was heavily influenced by Aramaic, and thus the book was written at a time when the Aramaic language was influential in the Hebrew-speaking world. Others have argued that the peculiarities of the Hebrew should be understood as affinities with Canaanite-Phoenician dialects.

It is often asserted that the Hebrew of the book is similar to later Mishnaic Hebrew, particularly in its use of the relative pronoun. Yet the language of Ecclesiastes is dissimilar to the Mishnah in other ways.

The linguistic evidence could point to a late date for the book, but it is also possible that Solomon wrote in a literary style that was heavily influenced by Phoenician literature. Such a style may have become a standard for the literary genre into which Ecclesiastes falls. During the reign of Solomon, contacts between Palestine and Phoenicia were quite common.

Purpose and Theological Teaching

The book of Ecclesiastes demonstrates the meaninglessness of a worldview that does not press beyond the limits of human experience to include God. It seeks to show that meaningful satisfaction may be attained in a universe that seems to be nothing more than a succession of wearying cycles—a universe into which people are locked with no apparent means of escape. According to Koheleth, freedom can be achieved by fearing God and believing that God will ultimately judge everything fairly. Thus, life has a goal and purpose that it will reach, although in the course of history and the processes of the physical world, it may not look that way.

The book’s chief theological tenet is that God is not disinterested in the course of human events with its gross injustices. He will judge every deed. Life, therefore, has a purpose, and human deeds have meaning.

Koheleth is often accused of having a pessimistic view of life. One cannot read such passages as 1:12-14, 18 OET ECC 1:12–14 · OET ECC 1:18 and 2:1-9, 18-23 OET ECC 2:1–9 · OET ECC 2:18–23 without feeling his helplessness as he viewed what seemed an empty existence. But Koheleth’s pessimism had to do with life apart from God. To him such a life had no meaning.

A positive good emerges from the book, however, even though it is often overlooked. Koheleth speaks in terms of absolutes as he spins his argument. There is an absolute good for people as they live in a seemingly meaningless world. That good is the enjoyment of God’s gifts to his people. Thus Koheleth is not an utter pessimist. When he lifts the horizons of his worldview to include the hand of God at work in the world, he becomes an optimist. But when he looks at life without God, he is pessimistic, for such a view offers only despair.

Koheleth’s “theology of contentment” is clear in such passages as 2:24-25, 3:10-13, and 3:22. The first passage seems to express a hedonistic view of life, making eating and drinking the main purpose. The expression “eat and drink” is a Semitic idiom that seems to express the everyday routines of life (cf. Jer 22:15; Lk 17:27-28). Koheleth’s use of the phrase, then, simply means that one should enjoy God’s providence. Life is meant to be enjoyed, not endured.

In 3:10-13 Koheleth sets forth the great enigma of humankind: God has put the knowledge of eternity in the human mind. That is, he has made the mind able to go beyond the limits of physical existence. Yet even that ability to conceptualize the eternal does not explain all of God’s purposes. Therefore, it is good for a person simply to accept human limitation and enjoy whatever knowledge God gives.

Ecclesiastes 3:16–4:3 OET ECC 3:16–22 · OET ECC 4:1–3 is a difficult section of the book. There Koheleth observes the inequities of life and concludes that God allows such things for the purpose of “sifting” people to show them that they are no more than animals. The same principle appears in 8:11, where Koheleth observes that when evil goes unpunished, the wicked are encouraged to continue to do evil. In 3:18 he asserts that injustice is present in the world to distinguish the good from the wicked. The Hebrew in that assertion should be translated “in and of themselves.” That is, viewed alone, apart from God, humankind is no better than animals. If one adopts a worldview that omits God, there can be no way of knowing what lies beyond the grave (3:21). The inequities that Koheleth observes will be corrected only in the Day of Judgment. Thus, it is best for a person to be content with God’s providence and not to be anxious about tomorrow (3:22).

The key to understanding the book of Ecclesiastes is the recurring phrase “under the sun.” That phrase defines Koheleth’s perspective. He is not judging all human experience as vain. Rather, he is observing life “under the sun,” or apart from God, as vain. The apostle Paul rendered the same verdict on the created world in Romans 8:20-23, but he went on to say that God uses all things in his world to work out good results for his people (Rom 8:28). Koheleth’s viewpoint is similarly helpful.

Koheleth has often been interpreted as expressing an Epicurean view of life, that eating and drinking are humanity’s highest good. In 2:1-8, however, he tests pleasure and finds it futile. He concludes that pleasure is not an absolute good. The passages that speak of eating and drinking refer only to the enjoyment of those good and necessary things that come from God’s hand.

Content

The Vanity of the Cycle of History and Nature (1:1-11)

Koheleth begins his recital of the vanity of life by observing its emptiness and the apparent lack of purpose in the processes of nature. Human toil is fruitless (1:3), and the endless cycle of life and history is meaningless (1:4-11).

The Vanity of Koheleth’s Own Experience (1:12–2:26 OET ECC 1:12–18 · OET ECC 2:1–26)

In this dramatic section Koheleth looks back to observe the futility of aspects of his life that some might have regarded as possessing great value. He recalls his search for wisdom, but pronounces human philosophy futile (1:12-18). His search for pleasure (2:1-11) also ended in futility. In the light of this conclusion, Koheleth hardly sets forth the attainment of pleasure as life’s highest good. The search for valid philosophical verities is wearisome and futile in its outcome (vv 12-17). Human toil is also vain (vv 18-23), because one can never be sure who will inherit the reward of one’s toil (v 21). Koheleth concludes that the greatest good is to accept God’s providence joyfully (vv 24-26), an optimistic note in his message.