Grace Theological
Journal 7.1 (1986) 21-56
Copyright © 1986 by Grace
Theological Seminary; cited with permission.
QOHELETH:
ENIGMATIC PESSIMIST
OR GODLY SAGE?
ARDEL
B. CANEDAY
The enigmatic character and polarized structure
of the book of
Qoheleth is not a defective
quality but rather a deliberate literary
device
of Hebrew thought patterns designed to reflect the paradoxical
and
anomalous nature of this present world. The difficulty of inter-
preting (his book is
proportionally related to one's own readiness
to adopt Qoheleth's
presupposition-that everything about this world
is
marred by the tyranny of the curse which the Lord God placed
upon
all creation. If one fails to recognize that this is a foundational,
presupposition
from which Ecclesiastes operates, then one will fail
to comprehend the message of the book, and
bewilderment will
continue.
* * *
introduction
The book of Qoheleth,1
commonly known as Ecclesiastes, is per-
haps
the most enigmatic of all the sacred writings. It is this qual-
ity which has been a source of sharp criticism.
Virtually every aspect
of
the book has come under the censure of critics-- its professed
authorship,2
its scope and design, its unity and coherence, its theo-
logical
orthodoxy, and its claim to a place among the inspired writings.
A superficial reading of Qoheleth may lead one to believe he is a
man
with a decidedly negative view of life in its many facets. This
negative
quality has been disproportionately magnified by liberal
1 Though the
meaning of tl,h,qo
continues to be much debated, the sense accepted
here is connected with the Hebrew verb for
assembling (lhaqA),
and its form suggests
some killed of office-bearer (the feminine
ending). Qoheleth was one who assembled a
congregation for the purpose of addressing it,
thus the Preacher. See H. C. Leupold,
Exposition
of Ecclesiastes (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1966) 7.
2 The Solomonic authorship has been widely rejected by scholars,
both critical
and conservative. Some noted conservatives opt
for a post-exilic dating of the
book. See, e.g., E. W. Hengstenberg,
Commentary on the Book of Ecclesiastes
(reprint;
22
Grace Theological Seminary
critics
and conservatives alike. Understandably, then, Qoheleth
has
become the delight of critics and the embarrassment of conservatives.
Embarrassment
has led to greater perplexity about the book, and
perplexity
has brought negligent disuse of this valuable book.
Certainly the viewpoint of Qoheleth
upon the world and life
must
be included in any discussion of OT ethical problems. If the
book
is indeed a unity, the composition of a single wise man, what is
its
theme? Is it pessimistic? Can a completely pessimistic view of life
be
admitted a place in the canon of Holy Scripture? Does not the
recurring
theme of "a man can do nothing better than to eat and
drink
and find satisfaction in his work" (cf.
gest an Epicurean influence? Perhaps Stoicism, too,
has influenced
Qoheleth, for he claims, "All is vanity"
(1: 2; etc.). What exactly is
Qoheleth's view of the world and of life? What was
the source-of
his
ethics? Is Qoheleth the record of a man's search for
meaning gone
awry,
ending in cynicism? Or, is it the book of a godly wise man who
gives
orthodox counsel for directing one's path through the labyrinth
of
life?
QOHELETH IN THE HANDS OF LIBERAL CRITICS
Modern critics have seized upon the alleged
disunity of Qoheleth
and
upon the presumed contradictions. This alleged antithetical char-
acter has led critics to disavow the single
authorship of Qoheleth, to
discredit
the theological expressions, to disclaim its ethics and view of
the
world and of life, and to displace the book from its authority and
position
as one of the writings of Holy Scripture.
Earlier critics, such as
for
the book in order to accommodate the alleged influence of Greek
philosophical
schools.
Qoheleth in terms of conflicting influences from
Epicureanism and
Stoicism.4
To Tyler the recognition of discontinuity and discordance
Old Testament (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1952) 339-41. Young suggests that the
author, being post-exilic, placed his words into
the mouth of Solomon, employing a
conventional literary device of his time
(p.340). However, in favor of Solomonic
authorship see G. L. Archer, "The
Linguistic Evidence for the Date of 'Ecclesiastes,'"
JETS
12 (1969) 167-81.
3 Thomas Tyler, Ecclesiastes (London: D. Nutt, 1899)
30-32.
4
its contrasts not infrequently assuming the form
of decided and obvious contradiction.
This antithetical character is especially marked
in those two great thoughts of the
philosophical part of the book-the Stoic, ALL IS
VANITY; and the Epicurean, EAT,
DRINK, AND ENJOY."
CANEDAY: QOHELETH:
PESSIMIST OR SAGE? 23
within
Qoheleth is an assumed fact without need of proof.
Hence, it is
of
little consequence for
upon
a late Hebrew writer, subject to the erosion of the ancient
Jewish
faith.5
in
Qoheleth which would show that it has no real
discordant or
antithetical
character and especially no "obvious contradictions, as
for
example, that between the Stoic and Epicurean. . . .”6
One might fancy that the author of Ecclesiastes
intended that the con-
trarieties of this book should in
some sort reflect and image forth the
chequered web of man's earthly
condition, hopes alternating with fears,
joys succeeded by sorrows, life contrasting with
death. It must not be
supposed, however, that we can find an adequate
explanation in the
hypothesis that the author of Ecclesiastes
arranged his materials in a
varied and artistic manner?7
The denial of an overall literary plan for Qoheleth and a dislike
for
its ethical expression, which motivated
motivates
other negative criticisms. Recent critics do not identify
Qoheleth’s philosophy as being derived from or
influenced by Greek
schools.9
Yet, Qoheleth's literary method is still looked upon
as a
"most
serious defect."10 Assuming the accuracy of this assessment,
Jastrow seeks to recover the true and original
words of a purely
secular
Qoheleth by stripping away additions and corrections
of later
pious
redactors who sought to reclaim the book.11 In this manner he
essays
to isolate the interpretation of pious commentators and the
maxims
which were added to counterbalance the objectionable char-
acter of the book.12
Other critics represent the alleged
discontinuities of Qoheleth in
varying
manners. Siegfried divided the book among nine sources.13
Yet,
none of the scholars who attempt to reconstruct the words of
Qoheleth by isolating redactors' statements
demonstrate why the book
5Ibid., 33.
6Ibid., 54.
7Ibid.
8See Ibid.,
63-64 where
Philosophy, a designation in which the
speculations of several philosophers are
embodied.
9See, e.g., R.
B. Y. Scott, Qoheleth,
(AB; New York: Doubleday, 1965), p. 197.
10Morris Jastrow, A Gentle
Cynic (Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1919) 124.
11Ibid., 197-242.
12Ibid., 245ff.
13See
the citation by George Barton, Ecclesiastes (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark,
1971) 28.
24 GRACE
THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
should
have attracted such an effort on the part of pious interpolators
and
sages to legitimatize it. It could have been easily suppressed or
dismissed.
Gordis properly points out,
But that the book was subjected to thoroughgoing
elaboration in
order to make it fit into the Biblical Canon is
an assumption for
which no real analogy exists, indeed is
contradicted by the history
of the Apocrypha and the Pseudepigrapha
after their composition.14
Recent critics recognize a basic unity in Qoheleth, abandon-
ing the assumption of widespread interpolation.
Yet, Qoheleth
continues
to be viewed negatively in its ethics and world and life
view.
Scott sees both heterodoxy balanced by "unimpeachable ortho-
doxy.”15
Yet, it is the divergence from the orthodox which is empha-
sized.
Scott states, "It denies some of the things on which the other
writers
lay the greatest stress-notably that God has revealed himself
and
his will to man, through his chosen nation."16 He adds further
that,
In place of a religion
of faith and hope and obedience, this writer
expresses a mood of
disillusionment and proffers a philosophy of
resignation. His ethic
has no relationship to divine commandments, for
there are none. It
arises rather from the necessity of caution and mod-
eration
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
pejoratively!).17
Even for Scott it was necessary for an orthodox
interpreter to
affix
the two closing verses (
of
the uncritical reader",18 and to assure Qoheleth
a place in the
canon.
The critics, with unified voice, decry Qoheleth's ethics and his
world
and life view as being opposed to that of the remainder of the
OT.
He is perceived as a maverick among the sages who propounded
incompatible
propositions.
QOHELETH
AS VINDICATED BY CONSERVATIVES
In response to liberal critical views, several
conservative scholars
have
attempted to vindicate the apparently negative view of life in
14Robert Gordis, Koheleth (New
York: Schocken, 1968) 71-72.
15Scott, Qoheleth, 191.
16Ibid.
17Ibid., 191-92.
18Ibid., 194.
CANEDAY: QOHELETH: PESSIMIST OR SAGE? 25
Qoheleth and have affirmed its rightful place in
the canon of Holy
Scripture.
Among evangelicals there is a general acknowledgment
that
Qoheleth is the composition of one individual.19
However, many
evangelicals
agree with liberal critical opinions concerning Qoheleth's
world
and life view.
The Jewish conservative scholar Gordis assumes a negative char-
acter about Qoheleth's
world and life view and seeks to alleviate some
of
the tension of his polarized expressions. He resolves the alleged
dilemma
of antithetical expressions in Qoheleth by accounting
for
many
of the “apparently pious sentiments” as quotations cited for the
purpose
discussion.20 For example, Gordis claims
that fdeOy (
used
by Qoheleth to introduce "a quotation of
conventional cast
which
he does not accept.”21 But the verb claimed to be introductory
appears
n the middle of the portion it is claimed to mark off as a
quotation.
Leupold, in laying out
introductory principles for the interpreta-
tion of Qoheleth, states
that the recurring phrase, “under the sun,”
indicates
that Qoheleth deliberately restricted his
observations and
explanations
of human events to a human perspective. By this Leupold
means
that Qoheleth, in his observations and reflections
upon life,
assumed
a position of complete neglect of revelation and the world to
come.
He spoke from the perspective that God had not revealed
Himself,
and, furthermore, that God is inaccessible.22 In actuality,
though,
Qoheleth was a “true man of God who is offering
invaluable
Counsel.”23
For Leupold, Qoheleth was a
rationalistic apologist who
sought
to lead his readers to true happiness by showing how miserable
life
is “under the sun,” that is to say “apart from God.” He attempted
to
direct men toward God by seeking to convince them rationalistically
of
their despair apart from God.
The New Scofield
Reference Bible extends Leupold's approach.
Ecclesiastes is the book of man "under the
sun" reasoning about life.
The philosophy it sets forth, which makes no
claim to revelation but
which inspiration records for our instruction,
represents the world-view
of the wisest man, who knew that there is a holy
God and that He will
bring everything into judgment.24
19This is true
even of those who reject Solomonic authorship. Some
have main-
tained
that Solomon was the original author, but that at a later time, before the
exile,
the book was edited and enriched (see Young,
Introduction to OT, 340-41).
20Gordis, Koheleth, 174.
21 Ibid ,283; cf.
287.
22Leupold,
Ecclesiastes, 28; cf. 42-43.
23Ibid., 30.
24C.I Scofield, ed., New Scofield
Reference Bible (
1967) 696. This interpretive approach virtually
abandons Qoheleth to the grasp of
26
GRACE
THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
Both Leupold and the
New Scofield Reference Bible have mis-
understood
Qoheleth's use of his phrase "under the
sun," He did not
employ
it to restrict his perspective to common ground with natural
man.
He was no mere philosopher who, working from a system of
“natural
theology,” sought to understand God's creation without the
interpretive
revelation of the Creator. The phrase “under the sun” is
not
a restriction upon the manner of Qoheleth's
reflections, but it
circumscribes
the sphere of those things which he observed in con-
trast to that sphere in which God's reign knows no
opposition. The
expression,
"under the sun," therefore, speaks of the earth upon which
man
dwells as does Qoheleth's phrase, “all that is done
under heaven”
(cf.
An older commentator, Moses Stuart, energetically
tried to vin-
dicate Qoheleth from charges
of impiety, However, he too accepts the
charge
that Qoheleth's book contains blatant contradictions
and
several
impious conclusions. Nevertheless, Stuart acquits the author
by
suggesting that those objectionable portions must be understood
in
the same way as the "objectors" who appear in the apostle Paul's
letters.25
Stuart characterizes the book as a replaying of the struggle
through
which Qoheleth's mind had passed when he set himself
on
liberal critics, for one wonders how such an
espousal of worldly wisdom could possibly
hold any valid claim to canonicity, This
approach agrees that Qoheleth hopelessly
contradicts himself, but such contradiction is
accounted for by a not-so-lucid device of
separating revelation from inspiration. See,
e.g., the note on
characterization of the dead: “This statement is
no more a divine revelation concerning
the state of the dead than any other conclusion
of the Preacher” (1:1), No one would
quote 9:2 as a divine revelation. These reasonings of man apart from revelation are set
down by inspiration just as the words of Satan
(Gen 3:4; Job 2:4-5; etc.) are recorded.
But that life and consciousness continue between
death and resurrection is directly
affirmed in Scripture…” (p. 702). Such an
approach vitiates the whole character of
Qoheleth's
book. If one isolates
argue that Qoheleth
did not believe in the conscious existence of the dead. But to assert
such a conclusion goes far beyond Qoheleth's intention. Qoheleth
does not concern
himself with the state of man after death. He
addresses the matter of death from the
vantage point of things done “under the sun,”
i.e., the realm of the living (see 9:3, 6, 9).
His purpose is to celebrate life, for as long as
man has breath he has influence and
activity in all “the things done under the sun”
(9:6). But once a man dies, he no longer
has anything to do with the activities of man
"under the sun" (
perspective that King Hezekiah held in his
prayer to the Lord who spared his life. “For
the grave [sheol]
cannot praise you, death cannot sing your praise; those who go down
to the pit cannot hope for your faithfulness.
The living, the living-they praise you, as
I am doing today; fathers tell their children
about your faithfulness” (Isa 38: 18-19). In
the same way Qoheleth
only seeks to urge men to the full enjoyment of life now, “for it
is now that God favors what you do" (9:7),
for "anyone who is among the living has
hope” (9:4).
25Moses Stuart, A
Commentary on Ecclesiastes, ed. and rev. by D. C. Robbins
(Boston: Dreper and Halladay, 1880) 36-39.
CANEDAY: QOHELETH:
PESSIMIST OR SAGE? 27
the
course of philosophical inquiry. Along this course it does not
matter
that doubts and improper conclusions "had passed through
the
author's mind, for they had greatly perplexed and disturbed him.
The
passing through his mind does not stamp them with the authority
of
opinions settled, deliberate, and final.”26
Hengstenberg also succumbs to the
claim that Qoheleth wrote
several
contradictions and antithetical assertions in expressing his
ethics
and world and life view. However, Hengstenberg seeks
to vin-
dicate Qoheleth from the
charge of self-contradiction by means of a
different
approach. For him an understanding of the historical milieu
out
of which the book of Qoheleth arose is absolutely
necessary. He
states,
“This book is unintelligible except on the historical presuppose-
tion that the people of God was [sic] in a
very miserable condition at
the
time of its composition.”27 He claims that the book was composed
in
post-exilic days (contemporary with or slightly later than Malachi)28
when
the Persians held dominion over God's people. They were in a
most
miserable condition, slaves in their own land. Heathens ruled
over
them. Degradation, injustice, and misery ruled everywhere. The
glorious
splendor of Solomon's days had long passed and the Jews
were
now in a time of persecution.29
With this understanding of the times of Qoheleth, Hengstenberg
finds
it easy to take the various apparently contradictory or impious
expressions
and place them into the mouths of tyrannized impious
Jews.
Qoheleth only quotes them as reflecting the popular
sentiment
of
the times. So, Hengstenberg says, “Vanity of vanities
was the
universal
cry: alas! on what evil days have we fallen! They said to one
another,
'How is it that the former days were better than these?”
Ecclesiastes
vii. 10.”30
Hengstenberg's method of
interpretation is observed in his re-
marks
upon Qoh 9:5-7. Of Qoheleth's
words, "the dead know noth-
ing” (9:5), he says,
Such is the language of natural reason, to those
whose eye all seems
dark and gloomy that lies beyond the present
scene, because it fails in
this work to discern the traces of divine
retribution. The Spirit says on
the contrary: “the spirit returns to God who
gave it.”31
26Ibid., 39. He
states further, “It only shows what embarrassments the writer had
remove, what perplexities to contend with. The
question is not, whether this or that occupied
his mind, which he has recognized in his
writing, but whether this or that was adopted
by him, and made up a part of his settled and
ultimate opinion” (pp. 39-40).
27Hengstenberg, Ecclesiastes,
45.
28Ibid.,10-11.
29Ibid., 2-16.
30lbid., 45,
31lbid., 212.
28 GRACE
THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
Hengstenberg then explains in his
comments on 9:7 that Qoheleth
had
spoken in vv 1-6 ''as the representative of the then prevailing
spirit
of the people," but in v 7 he takes up the cause of God “to
oppose
the popular views and feelings.”32
Hengstenberg, along with many
evangelicals, has followed many
liberal
scholars in dating the book late based upon internal evidence.
The
external evidence for Solomonic authorship has been
almost uni-
versally rejected by scholars.33 Along
with an appeal to its language,34
scholars
cite the condition of Qoheleth's times as an argument
against
Solomonic or early authorship.35 As
widely accepted as this argument
may
be, it seems to be begging the question. If, indeed, Qoheleth
must
be understood as post-exilic in order to interpret it and to make
it’s
meaning intelligible, then what continuing value does it have for
God's
people? Certainly, it can be argued that it is useful for “men in
hard
times and when under affliction; but Qoheleth's
perspective is
not
so restricted. He touches upon virtually every conceivable condi-
tion of life, and his verdict upon it all is the
same, whether prosperous
or
poor, wise or foolish, industrious or slothful, whether times are
good
or bad (cf.
view;
he set out to explore “all that is done under heaven” (
states
with sincerity and not exaggeration, “then I saw all that God
has
done. No one can comprehend what goes on under the sun” (
The nature of the book itself argues against Hengstenberg and
others
who would find internal historical evidence to place it dur-
ing the post-exilic Persian domain over
such
attempts. The book presents a world and life view which is
in
accord with the rest of Scripture. It does not occupy itself with
local
phenomena such as Hengstenberg claims. Quite to the
contrary,
it
depicts life which is universally
true throughout all of earth's his-
tory since the fall of man in the garden. The book
deals with things
which
are common among men everywhere without a necessary con-
nection to a particular historical milieu. An
element common to many
conservative
scholars is their assessment of Qoheleth's ethics and
world
and
life view. For them, Qoheleth was a man who, though
he feared
God,
looked upon the world around him from the vantage point of a
"reason"
that had little to do with his faith in the Creator. They see a
32Ibid.,213.
33See, e.g., the
arguments of Christian D. Ginsburg, Coheleth (
Longmans, Green, Longmans, and Roberts, 1861)
245ff.
34See Archer,
"Linguistic Evidence for the Date of 'Ecclesiastes,'" 167-81
for a technical defense of Solomonic
authorship.
35See Ginsburg, Coheleth, p. 249;
Stuart, Ecclesiastes, pp. 38-39.
CANEDAY: QOHELETH:
PESSIMIST OR SAGE? 29
dichotomy
between faith and reason.36 This view hinders the grasping
of
Qoheleth's true world and life view.
One final trend among some conservative scholars
must be
addressed.
This is the trend to differentiate between “appearance” and
“reality.”
One says of Qoheleth's world and life view, “There is
much
that
superficially viewed, has the appearance of disordered confusion.
But
that this is the real state of the case is here emphatically denied.”37
Again
concerning the theme of the book, it is asserted
The problem really discussed is the seeming
inequalities of divine
providence. These are reconciled with the
justice of God, as they are in
the book of Job reconciled with his mercy and
goodness.38
These comments fall into a dichotomous pattern
because they
refer
to Qoheleth’s observations of the world as things he
only judged
to
be “apparent.” Sierd Woudstra
clearly expressed this perspective:
“Koheleth is on the one hand dealing with life as he
observed it, while
on
the other hand he knew and was convinced by faith that things
were
different.”39
Shank astutely observes,
Woudstra here raises an
important issue in the interpretation 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 pres-
ently available to any
natural man as he perceives the creation about
him… But, in what sense and to what degree is
such a “distinction”
relevant to Qoheleth?40
Qoheleth did not look upon the
world from the perspective of a
tabula rasa. Nor was his
observation of creation and “all that God
has
done” (
His
reflections upon this world and life are not the aimless ramblings
and
superficial remarks of one given to "sense-experience theology.”
36Cf. H. Carl
Shank, “Qoheleth's World and Life View As Seen in His
Recurring
Phrases,” WTJ 37 (1974) 61. Hengstenberg
(Ecclesiastes, 26) states, “The
problem a
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.”
37See the article
attributed to Greene, "The Scope and Plan of the Book of
Ecclesiastes,” Biblical Repertory and
38Ibid.. 423-34.
Cf. Walter Kaiser, Jr., Ecclesiastes
(Chicago: Moody, 1979) 17.
39Sierd Woudstra, "Koheleth's
Reflection upon Life" (unpublished Th.M. thesis;
a dichotomy (p. 106). But see Woudstra's attempt to Christianize Qoheleth
(pp.91ff.,esp.
pp. 99-101).
40Shank, "Qoheleth's World and Life View," 61.
30 GRACE
THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
Rather,
Qoheleth's whole approach was governed by
foundational
presuppositions:
his firm beliefs that God had revealed Himself
through
the biblical themes of creation, the fall of man, and the ensu-
ing history of redemption; and that God had cursed
man and the
earth
so pervasively that nothing was left untouched by evil.
Qoheleth lived among a people
who knew the Lord God and
his
relationship to the world through the special revelation of the
Torah.
Therefore, his knowledge of the world and of life was regu-
lated by his antecedent knowledge of God, the one
whom he feared.
This
being true, Qoheleth's "faith" and
"sight" were not two entirely
distinct
and independent modes of observation.
"Faith" and sight" do not oppose
one another in Qoheleth. His
“sight”41
(his perception of this world and life) is his "faith" put into
operation
to consider "all that God has done under the sun" from the
orientation
of his firm belief in the fall and the curse of man as
recorded
in Genesis 3. He looked upon the world and all of life from
the
vantage point of a genuine OT believer who well understood not
only
the reality of the curse of God placed upon life "under the sun,"
but
also its pervasive effect upon everything "under heaven." It is just
such
a world and life that Qoheleth depicts in vivid
terms.
QOHELETH REVISITED
Thus far it has been the burden of this paper to
suggest that it is
the
assumed antithetical character and presumed contradictions which
have
hindered correct interpretation of Qoheleth. Many
commentators
suggest
that more than one mind was operative in the composition
of
the book. Even some evangelicals portray Qoheleth as
a combina-
tion of at least two divergent philosophies or
perspectives: natural
reason
devoid of special revelation and orthodox affirmations of faith
(though
they be few). It is the thesis of this article that Qoheleth's
enigmatic
character cannot be resolved by following either of these
two
conventional lines of interpretation. The enigmatic character and
polarized
structure of the book is not a defective quality reflecting
opposing
and contradictory philosophies. On the contrary, the book's
antithetical
character is a deliberate literary device set in Hebrew
thought
patterns designed to reflect the paradoxical and anomalous
nature
of the world which Qoheleth observed. The difficulty
of inter-
preting this book and of understanding its
message is proportionally
related
to one's own readiness to acknowledge the true nature of this
world-a
world in bondage to the tyranny of the curse placed by God
41Cf. Ibid.,
68-70, where Shank astutely discusses Qoheleth's
phraseology, "I
perceived."
CANEDAY: QOHELETH:
PESSIMIST OR SAGE? 31
upon
all creation (cf. Rom 8:20ff.). If one fails to recognize this foun-
dational presupposition of Qoheleth,
then he will fail to comprehend
the
message of the book.
Qoheleth's
Arrangement
Many scholars have contended that Qoheleth has no cohesive
plan
or design. Long ago Delitzsch stated:
A gradual development, a progressive
demonstration, is wanting, and
so far the grouping together of parts is not
fully carried out; the con-
nection n of the thoughts is
more frequently determined by that which is
external and accidental, and not infrequently an
incongruous element
is introduced into the connected course of
kindred matters . . . . All
attempts to show, in the whole, not only oneness
of spirit, but also a
genetic progress, an all-embracing plan, and an
organic connection,
have hitherto failed, and must fail.42
Hengstenberg follows suit:
A connected and orderly argument, an elaborate
arrangement of parts,
is as little to be looked for here as in the
special portion of the Book of
Proverbs which begins with chapter X., or as in
the alphabetical Psalms.43
Surely such assertions are extreme) for even a
cursory reading of
Qoheleth should convince anyone that its
character is quite differ-
ent from the book of Proverbs.44 With
the book of Proverbs one can
select
at random a single verse or two and observe a complete unity
of
thought in them that may not have any real connection with what
precedes
or follows. Yet this does not hinder interpretation of its
meaning.
However, Qoheleth is not at all so 'characterized.
“It is
useless
to take a text and ask 'What does that mean?' unless we have
in
our minds some scheme for the whole book into which that text
42Franz Delitzsch, Commentary
on the Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes, trans.
M. G. Easton (reprint in Biblical Commentary on
the Old Testament, by C. F. Keil and
Franz Delitzsch;
43Hengstenberg, Ecclesiastes, 15. He continues to say,
"Such matters of plan
and connection have been thrust into the book by
interpreters who were incapable of
passing out of 'I heir own circle of ideas, as
by degrees became evident from the fact
that not one of these arrangements gained
anything like general recognition, but that
on the contrary each remained the sole property
of its originator and of his slavish followers."
Concerning the theme of the book, he writes,
"It is quite misleading to represent the work
as occupied with a single narrow theme… A
superficial glance at its contents will amply
show that they are of far too rich and varied a
nature to be comprehended under one
single theme" (p. 16).
44See Stuart, Ecclesiastes, 28ff.
32 GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
must
fit.”45 The book of Proverbs may be read at several sittings,
disconnected
and randomly without disrupting one's understanding
of
its isolated parts. However, Qoheleth is like the
book of Job;
it
must be read with great attentiveness given to its design and
scope,
for apart from the context of the complete book, any isolated
portion
will be wrongly interpreted. It is precisely because this prin-
ciple has not been observed that so many
contradictory interpreta-
tions have been spawned. When detached from the
overall design of
the
book, anyone of Qoheleth's refrains or expressions
may be given
extremely
negative interpretations. So it is that his recurring phrase,
"Meaningless! Meaningless! Utterly
meaningless! Everything is mean-
ingless" has been dealt
with as the exasperated outburst of a cynical
pessimist.
Qoheleth's repeated, "A man can do nothing
better than to
eat
and drink and find satisfaction in his work" has been segregated
from
his theme and corrupted to become the slogan of the indulgent
Epicurean
sensualist, "Let us eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow
we
die!"46 "So I hated life, because the work that is done
under the
sun
was grievous to me" (
Examples
of "decontextualized" misinterpretations of
Qoheleth could
be
multiplied many times. But these serve to illustrate how his words
in
various portions have been isolated from one another so that when
they
are retrieved and placed back together, one is left only with a
mutilated
Qoheleth. With such a method, no two pieces fit
together.
Is
it any wonder that critics and conservatives alike hear so many
strange and contradictor