Copyright © 1974 by Westminster Theological Seminary, cited with permission.
QOHELETH'S WORLD AND LIFE VIEW
AS SEEN IN HIS
H. CARL SHANK
WITHIN the scope of Old Testament ethical problems falls
the viewpoint of Qoheleth, or the Preacher, of Ecclesiastes.
A superficial reading of the book reveals a man who definitely has
a negative viewpoint of life in its many facets. If indeed the book
is a unity, composed by one wise man, then the theme of pessi-
mism or cynicism becomes a suggested option. But the ethical
questions arising from such an understanding of the book become
crucial. Can a thoroughly pessimistic view of life have any place
in the canonical books of Scripture? What exactly is the goal of
Qoheleth's ethics? Further, what does the God of Qoheleth
really have to do with his life and standards of conduct? Again,
does not the recurring theme of "there is nothing better for a man
than that he should eat and drink and make his soul enjoy good
in his labor" (cf. ; ,13, etc.) denote a sort of Epicurean
A. QOHELETH'S ETHICAL PERSPECTIVE: CRITICAL VIEWS
Of course the modern critics of the Bible have seized upon the
pessimism-cynicism suggestion with a vengeance. Morris Jastrow
has suggested that the book teaches an ethical cynicism, where,
in the face of no real goal to life, good humor is still to be main-
tained. 1 A popular view, held until recently, noted the phrase
"Vanity of vanities" and attempted to draw certain parallelisms
in thought and perspective between Qoheleth's notion of "vanity"
and Heraclitus's view that "all is flux".2 However, most critical
1 Cf. Morris Jastrow, A Gentle Cynic (
2 Cf. Carl Knopf, "The Optimism of Ecclesiastes," Journal of Biblical
Literature, XLIX (1930), 195-199.
scholars today reject this argument as unconvincing. The recog-
nized modern critical writer, G. Von Rad, has related the book
to a supposed stage in
"belief in Yahweh's action in history grew weak" and Ecclesiastes
"fell back on the cyclical way of thinking common to the East."3
D. Kidner comments that Von Rad's argument rests on "preca-
rious assumptions". Along with the questionable premise that
the thinking of the Ancient Near East was "cyclical", the dating
of the book still remains too much of an open question to make
definite conclusions concerning the strength of belief "in Yah-
weh's action in history".4
R. B. Y. Scott, in the Anchor Bible series, suggests the follow-
ing concerning Qoheleth's ethic:
His ethic has no relationship to divine commandments, for
there are none. It arises rather from the necessity of caution
and moderation before the inexplicable, on the acceptance of
what is fated and cannot be changed, and finally on grasping
firmly the only satisfaction open to man -the enjoyment of
being alive. The author is a rationalist, an agnostic, a skeptic,
a pessimist and a fatalist (the terms are not used pejora-
Scott adds that Qoheleth teaches "philosophical nihilism" and
has no real "religious" point of view. In response to such a
characterization of Qoheleth's ethics, we note that Scott, along
with Von Rad, assumes the non-Christian ethical construct of a
God, hidden behind an "impenetrable veil", and One who can
offer no clear revelation to Qoheleth. Qoheleth's "God" is the
Great Unknown of neo-orthodox theology.6 Qoheleth's wisdom
lay in "recognizing the limitations of human knowledge and
3 G. Von Rad, Old Testament
1962), p. 454.
4 Derek Kidner, "Wisdom Literature of the Old Testament," New
Perspectives on the Old
ed. J. Barton Payne (
Books, 1970), p. 125.
5 R. B. Y. Scott, Qoheleth, in the Anchor Bible (
day, 1965), pp. 191-192.
6 This is substantially true of the view expressed in G. A. Buttrick, et
al. (eds.), The Interpreter's Bible, Vol. V (New York: Abingdon, -1956),
p. 22: "He (Qoheleth) does not doubt the existence and sovereignty of
God, but his God is absentee, lost in the distance, not only apparently
careless of mankind but at variance with it."
QOHELETH'S WORLD AND LIFE VIEW 59
power"7 affirms Scott. Consequently, man cannot have an
absolute good in the universe; he must remain satisfied with the
relative good found in "relishing being alive".8 It does seem that
Scott relies upon some kind of Kantian noumenal-phenomenal
distinction at this point. At the very least, his scheme is based
upon a faith-knowledge dialectic where Qoheleth's faith (if he
possesses any) has nothing to do with his intellectual compre-
hension and explanation of the world about him.
Is indeed the goal of Qoheleth's ethics some deterministic yet
strangely "hidden" and silent Elohim-God, who barely resembles
ethical dilemma arising from hopeless pessimism? Must we
finally agree with the non-Christian ethical view that since it is
hopeless and foolish to look for perfection in this world and
since, after all, God and man on Qoheleth's model are subject to
certain limitations it is best to seek to improve conditions to
some extent, at least? Must we conclude that man should enjoy
himself (; etc.) and work with all his might (), what-
ever God may say?
B. QOHELETH'S ETHICAL PERSPECTIVE: CONSERVATIVE VIEWS
In response to critical views, evangelicals have attempted in
various ways to justify Qoheleth's seemingly negative attitude
about life. For the most part, they have recognized the distinc-
tively recurring phrases in Ecclesiastes.9 However, it seems to
me that they have not really dealt honestly with them.
Leupold analyzes the phrases "under the sun", "vanity of
vanities; all is vanity", and suggests that Qoheleth deliberately
concerns himself only with the things of this world. Revelation
and the world to come are, for the sake of argument, temporarily
ruled out. It is by this ''as if" technique that Leupold explains
Qoheleth's seemingly negative outlook on the world.10 Actually,
7 Scott, p. 206.
8 Ibid., p. 196.
9 There are six of these recurring phrases in the book of Ecclesiastes;
the phrases and Scriptural references are listed in this section.
10 This is especially apparent in H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Ecclesiastes
(Columbus: Wartburg Press, 1952), pp. 92-93.
however, Qoheleth really does "fear God and keep his com-
Even Hengstenberg, though he has some valid penetrating
remarks on the message of Ecclesiastes, points out that the theme,
or themes, are difficult to delineate. In fact the whole book,
including these recurring themes, is "unintelligible except on the
historical presupposition that the people of God was in a very
miserable condition at the time of its composition."11 The Per-
sians held dominion over the people of God. They were in a state
of deepest misery and had consequently fallen prey to vanity.
The radiant glory of Solomon's day was no more (-18),
and this was a time of persecution.12 The date of composition was
either contemporaneous with or after the time of Malachi. Thus,
Qoheleth, in demonstrating the utter vanity of this life, would
enable the people to appreciate fully the "fear of God" and "what
a precious treasure man has in God".13 Yet, even if one accepts
a late, post-exilic dating and non-Solomonic authorship, both of
which are unsettled in scholars' minds, what about the seemingly
"obvious" tone of resignation demonstrated over and over again
in these phrases? Even on the historical construct of Hengsten-
berg and others they may still seem to portray Qoheleth as a
man of "questionable" or "confused" ethics.
The frankness of the introductory note to the Scofield Bible
concerning the recurring phrases and the entire book plays havoc
with conservative "glossing over" or "dressing up of" the thought
This is the Book of man 'under the sun', reasoning about life;
it is the best man can do, with the knowledge that there is a
Holy God, and that He will bring everything into judgment
. . . Inspiration sets down accurately what passes, but the
conclusions and reasonings are, after all, man's.14
The spectre of pessimism once-more appears on the horizon of
Although these conservative writers have different emphases
11 E. W. Hengstenberg, Commentary
on Ecclesiastes (
Smith, English, and Co., 1860), p. 45.
12 Ibid., pp. 2-16.
13 Ibid., p. 16.
14 Quoted in ].
The Evangelical Quarterly (1946), pp. 20-21.
QOHELETH'S WORLD AND LIFE VIEW 61
and methods of interpretation, they will all agree on one crucial
ethical area, namely the situational perspective of Qoheleth.
Qoheleth is a man who, though he does fear God and stresses
the keeping of His commandments (), looks at the world
about him from the standpoint of reason that has very little
relationship with his "blind faith" in the Creator. A distinct
dichotomy between faith and reason can be clearly seen in Leu-
pold, Delitzsch, and Scofield when they deal with the recurring
phrases. Even Hengstenberg does not totally escape this faith-
reason dialectic. He mentions that Qoheleth's pervasive use of
the name Elohim shows that "the problem before the writer
is considered from the point of view of Natural Theology
with the aid of experience, and of reason as purified by the Spirit
of God."15 Finally, Sierd Woudstra, who criticizes Leupold for
his nature-grace dichotomy in interpreting Qoheleth's thought,
falls into speaking of two concurrent lines of thought prevalent
in Qoheleth: "Koheleth is on the one hand dealing with life as
he observed it, while on the other hand he knew and was con-
vinced by faith that things were different."16
However, Woudstra here raises an important issue in the
interpretation of the ethical perspective of Qoheleth. If there does
exist a distinction here, that distinction is not between faith and
reason but between faith and sight, i.e. between "faith~' (that
comes from special revelation) and that revelation presently
available to any natural man as he perceives the creation about
him. Of course, such a distinction can be seen in the New Testa-
ment record (cf. Rom. -32; Acts -17; Acts -
31). But, in what sense and to what degree is such a "distinc-
tion" relevant to Qoheleth?
To begin with, Qoheleth was not merely a theologian working
from the construct of "natural theology" who then attempted to
understand God's creation without the interpretative key of
special revelation. As we shall demonstrate later, he looked upon
life and the world from the perspective of an Old Testament
believer who had understood the reality of. the curse of God
placed upon life "under the sun" in Gen. 3. Hence, Qoheleth's
15 Hengstenberg, p. 26.
16 Sierd Woudstra, "Koheleth's Reflection Upon Life," (unpublished
Woudstra's evaluation of Leupold on p. 106.
wisdom and knowledge of this world was not merely that of a
propositional and sense-experience sort. He approached the
world and the life-situation by presupposing a Creator God who
had indeed revealed Himself in creation, in the fall and in the
subsequent history of redemption. He stood in a culture which
knew Yahweh and the world about them in terms of direct
revelation given through the Law and the Prophets. Conse-
quently, his knowledge of anything must presuppose his knowl-
edge of God, which sprang from a proper attitude of the fear of
God. Thus, Qoheleth's “faith" and "sight" were not something
wholly distinct from and independent of each other (cf. below,
But also, they do not oppose one another in the book of Eccle-
siastes. The historical-redemptive antecedents of Qoheleth's sight-
perspective find their point of reference in the fall and curse of
Gen. 3. Intimations to such a reference-point are found in an
exposition of some of his recurring phrases and their contexts
(cf. below, Phrase 1, Phrase 4). Moreover, the twin-idea of all
men being "of dust" (; 12:7) and "turning or returning
to dust again" ()j"to the earth as it was" (12:7) when
they die, no doubt has its primary reference in Gen. 3: 19: "In
the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread till thou return unto
the ground; for out of it wast thou taken; for dust thou art and
unto dust shalt thou return."17 Further, the consequences of
Qoheleth's sight-perspective merely drive him to acknowledge
that wisdom resides in fearing God and keeping His command-
ments (). Consequently, any claim that Qoheleth's ethic
falls into the imperfect ethical thought of the Old Testament
and that we must therefore expect some sort of faith-reason, or
rather faith-sight, dichotomy cannot be maintained.
Yet, in another sense, since Qoheleth does refer back to the
17 Comparing the Hebrew of Gen. 3:19 with Ecc. and 12:7 we
notice some interesting syntactic parallels:
rpfh-lx bw (Ecc. )
bVwt rpf-lx (Gen. 3:19)
Crxh-lx rpfh bwyv (Ecc.12:7)
Hmdxh-lx (Gen. 3:19)
Hengstenberg maintains that the foundation of Ecc. is found in
Gen. 3:19 (op. cit., p. 118) while allusion is made to Gen. 3:19 in Ecc.
12:7 (cf. p. 253.).
QOHELETH'S WORLD AND LIFE VIEW 63
fall and the resultant curse, he like Paul in Acts 14 (cf. Acts 17
revelation made available by the Creator God to all natural men
who live in the light of the fall. Qoheleth gives the natural man
an astoundingly lucid description of what he can behold in this
world and his life which should drive him to seek God and His
self-revelation in Jesus Christ. To demonstrate this we notice
First of all, to the Lycaonian Gentiles Paul and Barnabas in
Acts 14: 15ff. restrict their case to that revelation available to
these people in the Creator God (vs. 15) providentially giving
them "rains and fruitful seasons filling your hearts with food
and gladness." (vs. 17) F. F. Bruce suggests that the imagery
here is drawn from several Old Testament texts, one of which
Ecc. 9: 7 (cf. below, Phrase 5).18 This "gladness" was a gift
God to these Gentiles by which they should have discerned His
rule over them.19 It was therefore foolish and vain
them to attempt to perform that worship before Paul and
Barnabas which, by the light of even natural revelation alone,
belonged only to the Creator.
Then, also, the theme of foolishness for unregenerate men not
recognizing the "power and divinity" of the God of the creation in
which they live and move is brought out clearly in Rom. 1: 18ff.20
18 Cf. F. F.
Bruce, Commentary on the Book of Acts (
1954). The term for gladness (eu]frosu<nh) is used in the
of Ecc. 9: 7 and translates HmW. Other possible references to Old
Testament imagery for vs. 17 are Ps. 4:7 and Is. 25:6. At the very least,
the Apostles may be alluding to the passage in Ecc. 9:7.
19 "This eu]frosu<nh can also be gratefully understood as the gift of God
by which even the heathen may discern his providential rule, Acts 14:17."
(R. Bultmann, article on eu]frni<uw / eu]frosu<nh, Vol. II, TWNT, ed. G.
Kittel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), p. 774.
20 M. D. Hooker maintains that Paul in Rom. -32 had the figure
of Adam in mind: "In these verses he deliberately described man's pre-
dicament in terms of the biblical narrative of Adam's fall. Not only does
the language of this section echo that of Gen. 1 :20-6 but the sequence of
events is reminiscent of the story of Adam in Gen. 1-3." (M. D. Hooker,
"A Further Note on Romans 1," NT Studies 13 (Jan., 1967), p. 181;
cf. also his "Adam in Romans 1," NT Studies 6 (1959-1960), pp 297-306).
K. Barrett develops this thesis in From
First Adam to Last (
pp. 17-19) and claims that the moral wickedness described in
1 is the direct result of the Fall.
These unrighteous acts of the Gentiles in the light of God's
natural revelation proceeded not from a mere deficiency in mental
capacity but from moral obtuseness, or foolishness (vs. 22).21
Again, F. F. Bruce points out that the term used by Paul for
"fool" probably refers back to the "fool" of the Old Testament
Wisdom Literature.22 Here we have a tie-in with Qoheleth's
exposition in Ecclesiastes. As natural men observe the creation
about them there are only two possible options for a philosophy
of life. One is to claim the "wisdom" of this world and thus
become fools in the sight of God. The other is to recognize the
stark reality of the picture Qoheleth paints for him and to heed
the command, "Fear God and keep His commandments" (cf.
below, Phrase 6). True wisdom resides in this alone.
Before we consider the recurring phrases, it is necessary to
make some preliminary remarks on the method of interpretation
of Qoheleth's ethic in these phrases. To begin with, we should
attempt to understand the book in the apparent way Qoheleth
has composed it. He has done so by using certain phrases which
occur over and over again throughout the twelve chapters. I
think that J. Stafford Wright has a valid hermeneutical principle
in mind when he suggests that examination of these recurring
phrases reveals, at the very least, Qoheleth's thought in the im-
mediate context of the book.23
Secondly, Qoheleth's directive in and the remark in
vs. 14 skilfully summarizes and concludes his whole ethical
Finally, Robert Haldane in his Exposition of the Epistle to the Romans
(Banner, 1960) notes that the wrath of God "was revealed when the
sentence of death was first pronounced, the earth cursed and man driven
out of the earthly paradise. . ." (P. 55).
We might therefore be able to draw a redemptive-historical link between
the Fall/Curse, Qoheleth and Paul in Rom. 1 and hence in Acts 14 and 17.
21 Cf. F. F. Bruce, Epistle to the Romans, Tyndale Series (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963). Calvin says that impiety here should be joined
to unrighteousness (Commentary on th'e Epistle of Paul the Apostle to
the Romans, p. 68).
22 Cf. F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Romans. He also notes that
parallels exist between later Israelite Wisdom Literature (c£.. Wisdom
12-14). Hooker (op. cit.) make a similar point in his exposition of this
23 Wright, op. cit., p. 22 has a rather uncritical way of suggesting this
hermeneutical principle. Nevertheless, I feel he has a valid principle in
QOHELETH'S WORLD AND LIFE VIEW 65
stance. Qoheleth's ethical integrity is grounded in the practice
of the fear of God along with the keeping of His commandments,
and however we analyze the rest of the book we must not con-
travene Qoheleth's own ethical conclusion.
Third, we must remember that Ecclesiastes appears in the
broader context of the Wisdom Literature of the Old Testament.
That literature, though similar in some formal characteristics
with other Ancient Near East Wisdom Literature, cannot be
identified with it in its ethical perspective. Qoheleth's wisdom
has its foundation clearly laid in the fear of the Lord.
Finally, we must understand Qoheleth's ethical perspective in
the general context of the rest of the Old Testament and in the
light of the One who embodied this wisdom in the New Testa-
ment, even Jesus Christ. We affirm that Qoheleth does not
disagree with other Old Testament thought. Rather, he writes
in the context of the doctrines of the fall and man's sin. He does
not dispute their revelatory character and relevance to his
situation; he assumes their validity for his life and world view.
Also, he looks forward in hope to the New Testament in his
doctrine of the fear of the Lord and the coming judgment of
the secret thoughts of man.
C. QOHELETH'S ETHICAL PERSPECTIVE IN LIGHT OF THE
1. Phrase 1: “All is vanity" or “This is vanity"
(1:2, 14; 2:1,11, 17, 26, 15, 19,21,23; 3:19;
4:4, 8, 7, 16; 5:7(6), 10(9); 6:2, 4, 9, 11, 12; 7:6, 15;
, 14; 9:9; 11:8, 10; 12:8 repetition of 1:2)
This phrase is the most dominant and pervasive of all the
recurring phrases in Ecclesiastes. Hengstenberg disagrees with
those who would attempt to make this phrase the one theme of
the book since it does not sufficiently explicate some of the
other material in the book. Yet its dominance in Qoheleth's
thought renders it a key to the interpretation of life "under
Woudstra states the main exegetical question concerning this
class of phrases well:
Is Koheleth only saying that man's accomplishments under
the sun are transitory in character, are devoid of any perma-
nence, or is he saying that human existence and everything
that goes with it is futile and meaningless?24
The latter, Leupold holds, gives the term hebel (lbh) a pessi-
mistic connotation not warranted by the facts.25 He claims that
the term refers to "that which is fleeting and transitory and also
suggests the partial futility of human effort."26 Woudstra, on the
other hand, opts for the latter description of hebel and denies
that this implies a pessimism that the critics would like to see
A thorough study of the word in the contexts mentioned above
reveals that the term takes on different connotations in different
contexts. Theophile Meek says that "in this short book, hebel
would seem to be used in at least five different senses: 'futile'
(most frequent, e.g., 1:2), 'empty' (e.g., ), 'sorry' (e.g.,
6:4), 'senseless' (e.g., ), and 'transient' (e.g., )."27 He
therefore proposes that the term takes on different meanings in
different contexts. With respect to other Old Testament litera-
ture, hebel can refer to that which is "unsubstantial, evanescent"
as far as a basis for religious trust is concerned (cl. Jer. ;
51:18; ). In Ps. 39:4ff, man is in a "turmoil over vanity"
(vs. 6), over the labor to attain breaths of wind. His "precious
things" cannot endure because they partake of the nature of
The power of Meek's suggestion in the immediate context of
Ecclesiastes lies in the fact that it seems to give the term the
flexibility of connotation that Qoheleth evidently employs in these
recurring phrases.28 Different "aspects" of the idea of vanity are
employed by Qoheleth to vividly illustrate the reality of the curse
of God placed upon the work of man after the Fall (cl. Gen.
3: 17-19). Therefore, an attempt to find a "static" meaning to
hebel in Ecclesiastes, as Woudstra and others do, fails to take
note of the richness of the concept as used by Qoheleth.
Those aspects which are available to every man, and from
24 Woudstra, p. 38.
25 Leupold, p. 41.
27 Theophile J. Meek, "Transplanting the Hebrew Bible," Journal of
Biblical Literature, 79 (1960), p. 331.
28 Note also the variability of connotations in the use of the term Mlf
in Ecclesiastes: 1:4; , 14; 9:6; 12:5.
QOHELETH'S WORLD AND LIFE VIEW 67
which none can entirely escape, are a life and labor that are
wearisome (cf. Job. 7:3), filled often with sorrow and pain (cf.
Job. ; Ps. 25: 18; 73:16)29 and will only end up in physical
at the very least. Also, Qoheleth tells us that this created
partakes of the character of "vanity" (cf. ; 9:9). Yet,
man's effort in this context is given to him as a gift of God
(,14; 6:2). Therefore, natural man cannot claim that his
efforts are "meaningless" or that the situation in which he finds
himself forces him to sin, since God made labor a good gift. It
is the fear of God alone and the keeping of His commandments
which can give men the ability to enjoy this gift of labor. Yet,
Qoheleth's faith does not change the character of a created order
which now partakes of the character of vanity (cf. Rom. 8 and
below). Consequently, excruciating moral problems do exist for
Qoheleth because the ground after the curse brought on by the
becomes an occasion for temptation.
2. Phrase 2: "under the sun" (1:3, 9, 14; , 17, 18,
19, 20, 22; 3:16; 4:1, 3, 7, 15; 5:13, 18; 6:1, 5, 12; 8:9, 15, 17:
9:3, 6, 9, 11, 13; 10:5)
This second phrase forms the immediate context of a world
which has the constitution and course of "vanity". It has refer-
ence to the place where the toil of man occurs and is tantamount
to Crxh-lf (cf. , 16; 11:2). Notice that this phrase is unique
3. Phrase 3: "striving after wind" ( ;
, 17, 26; 4:4, 6; 6:9)
With the exception of 4:6 this expression is always joined
to the phrase containing the word "vanity". A man may deter-
mine or make up his mind to accomplish something eternally
significant in a creation subjected to vanity, yet no matter how
hard he tries Qoheleth tells him it will be a fruitless endeavor
(cf. 1: 14 and use of n'~'). A man in his toil "under the sun"
grasps after the wind and attains precious little for all his labor.
29 Even as early as Gen. 4:2 in the history of redemption Eve was
overcome by the discovery of the vanity of this earthly life. This is
expressed in the naming of “Abel": hrer lbh-yhyvlbh.
4. Phrase 4:
(a) "I perceived" (; ; )
(b) "I said in my heart" (2:1, 15; , 18;
( c) "I gave my heart to consider" & vari-
ations (, 17; 2:3; ; 8:9, 16;
Most interpreters have more or less considered this class of
phrases as indicative of a thoroughgoing research activity, pri-
marily involving mental conception of various empirical facts.
Leupold maintains that these phrases merely indicate an experi-
ment of Qoheleth in rational thinking, thinking that, for the
time-being, is unaided by enlightened reason and revelation from
God.30 As noted above, Hengstenberg would disagree with Leu-
pold's conjecture and claim that this class of phrases demon-
strates Qoheleth's enlightened reason operating in the sphere of
natural theology. But again, revelation has very little to do with
Qoheleth's perception of this world of vanity.
However, we must maintain, contrary to the majority of
critical and conservative commentators, that Qoheleth's percep-
tion as indicated in this class of phrases refers to a knowledge
which is a "reflex-action" of his fear of God and which penetrates
to the essence of the meaning of what this world of vanity is all
about. Surely, Qoheleth does perceive the vanity "under the sun"
which does not exclude the intellectual element of knowledge of
these things. Yet that perception also includes a deep, spiritual
insight into the effects of the curse of God upon life and labor
"under the sun".
Two very common Hebrew words (hxr and fdy) are used to
denote the sight-action involved here. Commenting on ,
Delitzsch notes that “. . . daath is knowledge penetrating into
into the depth of the essence of things, by which wisdom is
acquired and in which wisdom establishes itself."31 However, he
distinguishes between this "type" of knowing and the "intellec-
tual" experience recorded in verse 16 -"my heart hath seen
(MN1) wisdom and knowledge in fullness." "The seeing here
30 Leupold, p. 55.
31 Franz Delitzsch, Commentary on the Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970 reprint), p. 230.
QOHELETH'S WORLD AND LIFE VIEW 69
ascribed to the heart is meant of intellectual observation and
apprehension. . ."32 As to fdy, Qoheleth uses it to refer to a
spiritual perception (cf., for example, , 14; 8:5; ;
11:2,5). In 7:25f. notice that spiritual conception arising from
revelation, not from experimental data, intellectually found and
studied, accounts for the acknowledgment of the truth in vs. 29:
"God made man upright." Indeed, a man's own reasoning ability
functions in the context of vanity too (cf. , 17) !
But, furthermore, the distinction which Delitzsch (and others)
makes between the hxr-seeing and the fdy-seeing cannot be
sustained either on general Christian-theistic anthropological
grounds or on specific exegetical grounds in Ecclesiastes.
As to the latter consideration, we recognize the close tie
between hxr and fdy in 6:3-6. In verses 3 and 4 Qoheleth states
that even an "untimely birth" comes and goes in the context of
vanity just as a man who lives many years (vs. 3) lives in the
context of vanity. On that consideration there is no difference.
However, what is better about this "untimely birth" than the
long-lived man without a burial and without "his soul being
filled with good" is that at least this child "hath not seen the
sun nor known it" (fdy-xlv hx,r-xl wmw). A purely "intel-
lectual perception" of life under the sun and a deeper, spiritual
perception are brought so close together grammatically that they
Secondly, in this class of phrases we have Qoheleth using the
term bl (kardi<a in LXX), "I said in my heart, etc.". While
Leupold relates all of th~se sayings to the realm of empirical
experiences, Qoheleth does not do so. Rather, Qoheleth employs
the bond that exists between religion and ethics which is found
the Wisdom Literature's concept of "heart". Yes, it is true
that the will, aims, principles, thoughts, and intellect of man are
found in the heart (cf.
). Yet, also, the "heart" describes the whole person (Ps.
32 Delitzsch reasons thus: ". ..for all perception, whether it be medi-
ated by the organs of sense or not (as prophetic observing and contem-
plating), comprehends all, from mental discernment down to suffering,
which veils itself in unconsciousness, and the Scripture designates it as
seeing” (Ibid.) Much of this comment seems to proceed from his par-
ticular view of psychology, which tends to break up the psycho-physical
unity of man into artificial compartments.
; Prov. 23:15f, etc.) and in it dwells the "fear of God"
(cf. Jer. 32: 40). How can Qoheleth, out of an ethic dominated
by the fear of God, look on the world solely from an intellectual,
empirical sense that is somehow to be distinctly differentiated
from "heart" consideration of the world? Surely, Qoheleth per-
ceives this world of vanity from the "unity and totality of the
inner life represented and expressed in the variety of intellectual
and spiritual gifts."33
5. Phrase 5: "There is nothing better for a man than that
he should eat and drink and make his soul
enjoy good in his labor" (; , 13;
; ; 5:18, 19; 9:7, 9)
It has been claimed by the critics that Qoheleth here expressed
his "questionable ethic" by approving of some form of Epicure-
anism. However, the six occurrences of this phrase support
nothing of the sort. In His gracious wisdom God has given
Qoheleth the insight to a proper understanding of how man is
to labor in light of the curse. True, it is hard work, and the
ground does not easily give its riches to man. Yet man's attitude
in all his labor should be to rejoice in it () and work with
all his might. This is what belongs to man in the context of
vanity ().34 In the midst of life's confusion mankind receives
a call from God to rejoice. In this redemptive-historical "time of
ignorance" when God patiently "suffered all the nations to walk
in their own ways" (cf. Acts 14, 17) Qoheleth counsels all men
as to their labor before their Creator.
Therefore the readers are not led into some Epicurean work-
ethic or "to the desperate attempt. ..to snatch what they can
while there is still time."35 This toil cannot endure for eternity
since it takes place "under the sun". Hence, the ozm"se reader will
see that that which abides is the eternal work of God (, 14,
15) and that all men must place their fear in Him alone ( ;
cf. -26) and not in their vanishing works done under the
33 Notice the article on ~«Q~((1 by Baumgarten and Behm in TWNT,
Vol. III, ed. G. Kittel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965), pp. 609-610.
34 qlH man's due or his portion.
35 F. N. Jasper, "Ecclesiastes: A Note for Our Time," Interpreter, 21
(1967), p. 265.
QOHELETH'S WORLD AND LIFE VIEW 71
sun. In this very practical situation there is truly "nothing
better" for a man to do than to rejoice in what God has prov-
identially given him (cf. I Sam. 27: 1) .
6. Phrase 6: Instances employing some variation of “fear
God" (5:7; ; ; ; , 13)
If we ask ourselves why it is that Qoheleth possessed an un-
usually keen perception (cf. Phrase 4) of the actual condition
of man and his world (cf. Phrases 1-3) and yet understood his
role in that context of vanity (Phrase 5), we must reply that
Qoheleth practiced the fear of God. In that fear he found wisdom
and knowledge and hence could understand the fall and its effects
"under the sun" (Prov. ; 2:5; 1:7; ).
With respect to ethics, Qoheleth found the fear of the Lord
the foundation of his faith and practice in a world in which
human wisdom is limited. His keeness of insight and exceeding
fruitfulness of thought was ensured by his fear of God. That
fear also ensured the integration of the theoretical and the prac-
tical in Qoheleth's perception of this world subjected to vanity.
Indeed, we have noted this in the examination of the fourth class
of recurring phrases. Therefore Qoheleth's God was not some
"hidden" Great Unknown who did not have very much to do
with his ethical point of view. Rather, Qoheleth found that all
of our knowing and applying of personal ethics must be related
to humble faith in the Creator God.
Since he knew that worship takes place in the presence of the
living God Qoheleth could stress the fear of Him against the
foolish multitude of form-ritualism that was then prevalent within
partook of the character of "vanity" he had to affirm that, instead
of attempting either to frustrate God's purposes or to add to
them, we should rather submit ourselves to them, in reverence
to our God (3:13ff.).
Finally, Qoheleth joined the "keeping of God's command-
ments" to the general imperative "Fear God" () to indicate
to men that their ethical standard must be the revealed Word of
God. Of course, Qoheleth knew that men will attempt to hide
their works from the searching eye of God, yet he nails his
hearers to this truth of "fearing God" by pointing to the truth
of the coming judgment of God (). Certainly, many evil
things are done in this context of vanity which are hid to men's
eyes, yet God will reveal them all at a future judgment day to
take place in the coming Messianic Age (cf. Mal. 3:5) .
How do we relate the ethical situation and conclusions of
Qoheleth to that of the believer today? New Testament evidence
in Rom. -22 tells us plainly that a state of "vanity"36 now
exists and that it had a beginning and will have an end. Before
its beginning recorded in the curse of Gen. 3 stands a God and
a kti<sij without vanity, and at its end stands the hope of a "new
heavens and a new earth" no longer under that curse. The com-
ing of the Messiah and the subsequent Age of the Spirit have
brought freedom from that curse and from the effects of vanity
only in principle; the full realization of that liberation awaits
the Second Advent. Indeed, the Messiah came into this world of
vanity and took upon Himself the labor ('amal) of a cursed
world. We read in Isaiah 53:11 that the Suffering Servant "shall
see the fruits of the travail ('amal) of his soul and be satisfied."
Therefore, in contradiction to Qoheleth who stood in an age of
the history of redemption among wise and foolish men, both of
whom could never overcome the inevitable fact of death, Christ
came and conquered death for the believer. The New Testament
believer lives in the present light of Christ who has come and
who has delivered us from the bondage of sin and death.
However, until he comes again, we live in the stark reality of
the suffering which characterizes a world under the
). How then shall we view life and labor today? We may
regard Qoheleth's thoughts on life and labor as developed from
his recurring phrases as a normative pattern of experience to be
applied by way of analogy37 to our situation today. Qoheleth's
analysis functions as a vivid reminder for the natural man of
the reality of the curse. For the believer Qoheleth's ethic re-
mains meaningful since it finds the present situation rooted
36 Notice Paul's use of the term mataio<thj for "vanity", which is
same term used in the LXX rendering of Ecclesiastes for this word.
37 The principle of analogy is a hermeneutical principle used in the
interpretation of the Old Testament in light of the New. It refers to the
embodiment of a certain principle of redemptive truth which can con-
stantly recur in the history of redemption. Although it may probably
more fully developed in the New Testament, there is no inherent demand
in analogy for fulfillment in an anti-type.
QOHELETH'S WORLD AND LIFE VIEW 73
in the past declaration of the curse of God upon the creation
"under the sun" and moving toward the future renewal of
the cosmic order in the hopeful certainty of God's just Judg-
ment of the innermost thoughts of men at the Second Advent
38 Since the judgment spoken of in cannot take place now before
men since the hidden things are not able to be seen by men, Qoheleth
refers to a future judgment. Further, the primary objective reference of
Fpwm (kri<sei) is to the Day of Judgment recorded in the New Testament
(cf. Rom. ; I Cor. 4:5; I Tim. 5:24, 25).
This material is cited with gracious permission from:
any errors to Ted Hildebrandt at: