BIBLIOTHECA SACRA 154 (July-September 1997): 297-319

               Copyright © 1997 by Dallas Theological Seminary.  Cited with permission.

 

 

                 THE STRUCTURE AND UNITY

                        OF ECCLESIASTES

 

 

                                                   James S. Reitman

 

Perhaps no books of the Bible have had more potential to

disrupt complacency in the reader than the Wisdom books of Job

and Ec clesiastes, both of which touch centrally on the "seeming

inequalities of divine providence."1 However, while the argu-

ment of Job can be persuasively shown to have a cohesive literary

structure, dramatic progression, and resolution,2 Ecclesiastes

seems poorly connected and has led a number of commentators to

conclude that "in general no progression of thought from one sec-

tion to another s discernible."3 Adding to the difficulty of tracing

 

James S. Reitman is a physician at Wilford Hall Medical Center, Lackland Air

Force Base, San Antonio, Texas.

 

1 "The Scope and Plan of Ecclesiastes," Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review

29 (July 1857), 423-24, reprinted in Reflecting with Solomon: Selected Studies on

the Book of Ecclesiastes, ed. Roy B. Zuck [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994J, 119). "It is

most interesting to observe the harmony of the grand lessons inculcated by Job and

by Ecclesiastes. No two books could well be more unlike in their style and method

of discussion. The problem upon which they are engaged is one of the most perplex-

ing of human life. They approach it, too, from quarters the most diverse. And yet

the principles which underlie their solutions are identical" (ibid.). This thematic

affinity is also noted by J. Stafford Wright, "Introduction to Ecclesiastes,"

reprinted in Reflecting with Solomon, 167-68.

2 See Greg W. Parsons, "Guidelines for Understanding and Proclaiming the Book

of Job," Bibliotheca Sacra 151 (1994): 395-98. Cf. Greg W. Parsons, "The Structure

and Purpose of the Book of Job," Bibliotheca Sacra 138 (1981): 139-57 (reprinted in

Sitting with Job: Selected Studies on the Book of Job, ed. Roy B. Zuck [Grand I

Rapids: Baker, 1992, 7-33).

3 R. N. Whybray, Ecclesiastes, New Century Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids:

Eerdmans, 1989), 17. Roland Murphy discusses the marked variability of outlines

that have been proposed (Ecclesiastes, Word Biblical Commentary [Dallas, TX:

Word, 1992, xxxv-xli:, and Michael A. Eaton notes the tendency of most commenta-

tors to see "the Preacher's work as a string of unrelated meditations. A. G. Wright

lists twenty-three commentators who virtually abandon the task of seeking coher-

ence in the book. . . . this list could easily be enlarged" (Ecclesiastes, Tyndale Old

Testament Commentaries [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1983J, 48).

98                    BIBLIOTHECA SACRA / July-September 1997

 

the thread of Qoheleth's argument is the uniqueness of the He-

brew, which makes it difficult to trace the historical context of the

book.4

Of greater concern to the average reader, however, is the

book's generally cynical tone, which tends to pull the reader to-

ward despair throughout; this is only reinforced by the book's

main theme of futility ("vanity," KJV).5 Such ostensible nihilism

has made it difficult for many commentators to accept Ecclesi-

astes as establishing a positive pattern for living;6 in fact the ap-

parently contradictory reflections encountered in the argument

in both close (cf. 8:12-13) and remote (cf. 2:11; 4:1-3; 6:3--,6; and

7:1 with 9:4) contexts often seem more consistent with strains of

modern existentialism than with the theology of the rest of Scrip-

ture.7 The strength of these concerns has made all the more im-

 

4Eaton is typical in stating "that the linguistic data show that Ecclesiastes does

not fit into any known section of the history of the Hebrew language. . . .The lan-

uage . . . does not at present provide an 'adequate resource for dating"

(Ecclesiastes, 19). Whybray, however, claims that "Qoheleth's Hebrew has all the

J [larks of lateness," that is, third century B.C. (Ecclesiastes, 4). Fortunately, as with

t be Book of Job (Parsons, "Guidelines for Understanding and Proclaiming the Book

(f Job," 407-8), the timeless nature of the author's message may well leave the in-

terpretation largely uncompromised by uncertainty over the specific historical

context or immediate audience.

5The precise meaning of lb,h, ("vanity," KJV; lit., "breath") is widely debated

(Murphy, Ecclesiastes, lviii-lix). The frequently associated construction, "grasp-

ing for the wind," supports a sense of frantic but completely empty effort in life.

the translation "futility" is probably best, while recognizing that there are other

relevant nuances, especially "absurd" (ibid.), "frustrating," or "disappointing." Of

the thirty-seven or thirty-eight occurrences in Ecclesiastes (Murphy, Ecclesi-

astes, 89, n. 9b), twenty-nine are found in the first half plus the inclusion in 12:8,

"vanity of vanities" (cf. 1:2).

6 This is reviewed by Whybray, Ecclesiastes, 24-28, and Eaton, Ecclesiastes, 36-

40.  "The bulk of the book, everything but [the] two final verses, represents a bril-

ant, artful argument for the way one would look at life-if God did not playa di-

rect, intervening role in life and if there were no life after death. The view pre-

sented ought to leave you unsatisfied, for it is hardly the truth. It is the secular, fa-

talistic wisdom that a practical. . . atheism produces. When one relegates God to a

osition way out there away from us, irrelevant to our daily lives, then Ecclesiastes

the result. The book thus serves as a reverse apologetic for cynical wIsdom; it

( rives its readers to look further because the answers that the 'Teacher' of Ecclesi-

estes gives are so discouraging" (Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart, How to Read

the Bible for All It's Worth [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993], 214, italics theirs).

However, C. Stephen Evans has outlined certain evangelical misconceptions

bout existentialism and has proposed some legitimate parallels between biblical

Christianity and certain aspects of existentialism (Existentialism: The Philosophy

of Despair and the Quest for Hope [Dallas, TX: Word, 1984]). For an outstanding

defense of such a view as applied to Ecclesiastes, see Ardel B. Canedy,

"Qoheleth-Enigmatic Pessimist or Godly Sage?" reprinted in Reflecting with

Solomon, 81-113.

The Structure and Unity of Ecclesiastes              299

 

perative the task of identifying a unified, coherent message in the

text, so that Whybray has issued the following challenge.

Since Ecclesiastes is evidently not a single systematic treatise in

which there is a progression from a set of premises to a logical

conclusion, it remains to be considered in what other sense it

might be, a unified composition. . . . It deals with a number of dis-

tinct, though related, topics. If it could be shown that these have

been an arranged in some kind of logical order by Qoheleth himself,

this would greatly assist the understanding of his thought.8

 

In reflecting on this challenge one should also weigh the in-

ternal claim that the author "pondered and sought out and set in

order" his "words of truth" from a reliable source (12:9-11, NKJV).

This is supported by Qoheleth's strategic insertion of hortatory

pericopae throughout the book, particularly his repeated appeals to

enjoyment and his injunctions to "fear God." Moreover, the

frequent mention of "good/goodness," "wisdom/wise" (fifty-one

times each) seems to offer an optimistic countercurrent to balance

the apparent nihilism that pervades most of the argument. The

reader is thus challenged to discover how the apparent contradic-

tions and the often juxtaposed cynical and optimistic reflections

might be reconciled by the book's literary composition, and to es-

tablish the basis for Qoheleth's apparent "attack on conventional

wisdom."9

Is there a coherent argument woven into the textual design, or

is it a literary "patchwork quilt"10 composed of various random

reflections, aphorisms, and exhortations? This article seeks to

elucidate the book's distinctive literary structure and track the

author's reasoning by appealing to those elements of textual de-

sign that attest a coherent argument.11 To this end it is essential

to study the ways the author used key terms and phrases, or "con-

structions,"12 in order to get a sense of the semantic range em-.

 

8 Whybray, Ecclesiastes, 19.

9 Murphy, Ecclesiastes, lxi-lxiv; cf. lxii. Qoheleth's approach is actually co.n-

cerned with "the limit set to wisdom. As he points to the futility of all human life

'under the sun' wisdom too is shown to be inadequate. . . . Wisdom given by God,

acted out in the presence of God, is allowed; autonomous, self-sufficient wisdom as

a remedy to mm's plight 'under the sun' is disallowed" (Eaton, Ecclesiastes, 47).

Also see note 3tl.

10 This is prec isely the question asked by Derek Kidner, The Wisdom of Proverbs,

Job, & Ecclesiastes (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1985), 106-10, and it must be

answered before one can arrive at a reasonable interpretation.

11 The hermeneutical approach promoted in this article is similar to that sug-

gested for the Book of Job by Parsons, "Guidelines for Understanding and Pro-

claiming the Book of Job."

12 The use of 'constructions" in this overview refers primarily to those terms and

300                 BIBLIOTHECA SACRA / July-September 1997

 

ployed by the author in each case-whether the use is "technical"

(referential in every case to one specific concept) or in fact more

flexible.13

Unfortunately many of the same Hebrew terms are often

rendered in different ways in English throughout the text, thus

obscuring the meaning. While some variation is attributable to

legitimate uncertainty over the historical linguistic context,

some recurring constructions that were obviously meant to denote

the same referent have been variably translated-even m the

same version of .the Bible--which is disconcerting for the reader

trying to determine the author's Intended sense.14

Qoheleth typically employed certain specific constructions as

opening and closing structural markers to help divide the argu-

ment into discrete paragraphic units (each with a unifying, co-

herent thought) and to assist the reader in recognizing and track-

ing the evolving trajectory of the argument. Pronounced changes

in the tone and emphasis of the author's reflections encountered

in the course of the "narrative" are also intended by the author to

be recognized as literary transitions even though they may pro-

voke reader confusion, or even disillusionment.15 This recogni-

tion is often facilitated in the course of the argument by the au-

thor's use of associated constructions that display textual clues or

"type traits" that enable the reader to identify variation in the au-

thor's expressive purpose.16

 

phrases whose "role in the text is so central to what the author is saying that the

author includes in the immediate contextual development what is needed to clarify

and to specify all that he intends" (Elliott E. Johnson, Expository Hermeneutics:

An Introduction [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990], 145; cr. 142).

13 See Grant R. Osborne's discussion of sense and reference, structural linguis-

tics, and guidelines for the study of key words in The Hermeneutical Spiral

(Downers Grove, ll..: InterVarsity, 1991),76-78,89-92.

14 Examples of mistranslation will be considered as the intended connections be-

tween recurring constructions are progressively elucidated in this article.

15 In narrative structure "speakers. ..must be interpreted in terms of who they

are, from what position they speak, and what they say. Some statements must be

viewed as having a negative contribution and other[s] . . . as contributing positively

to the message of the book. Such considerations are particularly important in the

interpretation of Job and Ecclesiastes" (Johnson, Expository Hermeneutics, 208).

16 "Expressive purpose" refers to the author's use of a particular literary style or

genre to express his message to the audience and is closely related to Johnson's use

of the term "type of meaning" (ibid., 87-96). The accurate determination of the au-

thor's expressive purpose depends first on the readers' accurate recognition (the

initial step in hermeneutics) of the "type-traits" or literary elements of the in-

tended "type of meaning" (ibid.). Inadequate attention to variation in expressive

purpose in the course of a book's argument may underlie some of the existing con-

fusion over the structure and unity of the book. For example recognition of the rad-

ical change in literary style and thematic emphasis from chapter 6 to chapter 7 is

The Structure and Unity of Ecclesiastes              301

 

QOHELETH'S USE OF TERMS IN THE ARGUMENT

Certain recurring terms emerge as literary keys to guide the

reader as the argument unfolds. The author recounted the find-

ings of reflective investigation into the significance of man's la-

bor (1:3, 13; 3:9-10; 7:25; 8:16) in view of the apparently meaning-

less events that seem to characterize life "under the sun."17

Specifically Qoheleth sought to find out what "profit" or "advan-

tage"18 there could possibly be to man's "labor ,"19 when it seems to

yield only “misery" ("adversity," "evil"20) for man all his life.

Against thif, background of misery the author scrutinized life for

any evidence of "goodness" or "good" that can give people a sense

of satisfaction or fulfillment.21 Qoheleth underscored the para-

doxical natl'.re of his observations of life by periodically juxtapos-

ing contrasting terms, such as "good[ness]" and "misery" (cf.

5:18-6:6; 7:14) or "advantage" and "futility" (or "misery") (cf.

 

important in discerning the pivotal change in expressive purpose in the second

half of the book (Hans Finzel, Opening the Book [Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1987], 115-16).

17 The phrase "under the sun" is a trademark of Qoheleth and is closely related to

the concept of futility. It occurs twenty-nine times and projects the perspective of

man alone, using his own wisdom and senses in the realm of "this world" alone. The

phrases "under heaven" (cf. esp. 1:13-14; 3:1) and "on earth" (cf. 5:2; 8:16) are proba-

bly synonymou s (Eaton, Ecclesiastes, 44).

18 Qoheleth used one Hebrew word group (rteyo/NOrt;yi/rtAOm, only in Eccles.) as the pri-

mary vehicle to convey the concept of some "advantage" or "point" to man's effort

(Whybray, Ecclesiastes, 36-37) in 1:3; 2:11; 3:9,19; 5:9,16; 6:8,11; 7:11,12; 10:10. (A

similar meaning is encountered in 5:11 with NOrw;Ki, "profit.") Qoheleth's use is not

entirely techm :al, however, as the word group occasionally means "excessively" or

"exceeds" (2:13 [twice], 15; 7:16 [ibid.]).

19 Qoheleth u ged two virtually interchangeable word groups for man's labor, "toil"

(lmAfA/lmefA thirty-four times) and "task" (hnAfA/NyAn;fi eight times, only in Eccles.), as illus-

trated by their parallel use in 2:22-23 and 3:9-10. The sense is that of man's striving

with great trouble and diminishing return, thus reflecting the same kind of "toil" (although

by a different Hebrew word) with which man was cursed in Genesis 3:17 (cf. Gen. 5:29).

20The Hebre hfArA is literally "evil" or "bad," but in Ecclesiastes it usually con-

notes misery or adversity (2:21; 5:13, 16; 6:1; 7:14; 8:6; 9:12; 10:5, 13; 11:10; 12:1), rather

than moral evil. Nonetheless a number of other words-derived from the same He-

brew root for evil (frA)--are encountered in Ecclesiastes with a predominantly

moral connotation. these are clustered predominantly in Ecclesiastes 7:15-9:3 (esp.

8:2-15), where Qoheleth discussed the nature and consequences of man's depravity.

21The word' goodness," hbAOF (4:8; 5:11, 18; 6:3, 6; 7:14; 9:18), connotes "satisfying

meaning" in all but 5:11 (where it means "material goods"). The verbs "to be satis-

fied" (fbaWA, 1:8; 4:8; 5:10; 6:3) and "to be full" ("79, 1:8; 6:7) are contextually linked to

hbAOF in 6:3 6- 7 and help to define the intended meaning; unfortunately the NASB

renders it “good things" in 6:3, 6. The related "good" or "better" (bOF) occurs as an

adjective or gerund forty-four times, usually, but not always, with a similar non-

moral existential connotation. Two other related words--"sweet" (hqAUtm;/qOtmA) in 5:12

and 11:7, and 'to be made good" (bFayA) in 7:3 and 11:9-ean be translated "satisfying"

and "to be edified," respectively.

302                 BIBLIOTHECA SACRA / July-September 1997

 

1:2-3; 2:11; 5:16; 6:11), as well as the contrasting experiences of

"light" and "darkness."22

Although people hope that their labor will produce works" of

abiding value, they cannot tell in this life under the sun whether

this is so, for ultimately these works find lasting meaning only

within the unfathomable "work" (same word) of God.23 Since an

individual cannot discover which efforts will be blessed with

meaning (11:5-6), present fulfillment can derive only from

one's God-given "portion" ("lot," "heritage").24 The reader is thus

repeatedly exhorted to enjoy his lot in life,25 even though

mankind lacks the innate capacity to be satisfied with this her-

itage (6:1-7).

Qoheleth's quest led him to explore the roots of this "existen-

tial inability," and he found that it is attributable to three natural )

limitations: man's inherent uncertainty, mortality, and deprav-

ity. The theme of uncertainty arises early, then predominates in

the second half of the book; it is best expressed in a series of

rhetorical questions concerning what will happen or what is truly

good in life ("Who knows. . . ?" or "Who can tell. . . ?"26) and

their declarative equivalents (man "does not know. . ." or "can-

 

22 Although "light" and "darkness" are often used as figures of life and death in

the Old Testament (Whybray, Ecclesiastes, 58), the figure "see light" (or "see the

sun") in Ecclesiastes connotes advantage or goodness in life, while experiencing

"darkness" reflects the adversity or misery so typically encountered in life. See

2:13-14; 5:17; 6:4--5; 7:11; 8:1; 11:7-8; 12:2.

23 The word "work" (~~) occurs twenty-one times and is distinguished from the

words "task" or "toil" in. that it refers to achievement of lasting significance (8:17;

9:7, 10; 11:5). Together with the essentially synonymous "works" (Mh,ydebAfE) in 9:1, it is

the key construction of 8:16-9:10. When it is used in reference to God, it connotes

His sovereign design (cf. 3:11; 8:17; 11:5). A closely related sense emerges with the

construction "hand of God" (2:24; 9:1), which seems to establish the connection of

sovereign purpose between the works of God and man. This same connection is

seen in the Book of Job, where references to the "hand of God" imply His sovereign

prerogative in relation to man's work (Job 14:15; 34:19; cf. 1:10b; Ps. 90:16-17).

24 Man's "lot" or "portion" ql,He) is mentioned eight times (2:10, 21; 3:22; 5:18, 19; 9:6,

9; 11:2) and bears the sense of man's "heritage" or "share" from God in this life. Man

can in fact be satisfied with meaning if he accepts his "lot" and exercises proper

stewardship over what God has given him. Closely related is "inheritance" (hlAHEni);

its only occurrence in Ecclesiastes is in the pivotal verse 7:11.

2) The "enjoyment" pericopae are 2:24-26; 3:12-13; 3:22; 5:18-20; 8:15; 9:7-10; and

11:7-10, and each features the occurrence of either hHAm;Wi ("gladness," "joy"; 2:26; 5:20;

9:7) or HmaWA ("be happy," "rejoice"; 3:12, 22:5:19; 8:15; 11:8,9); see also m ("enjoyment")

in 2:25. A similar sense is conveyed by "see good[ness]" (2:1; 5:18; 6:6) and "see life"

(9:9).

26 These questions are encountered in 2:19; 3:21; 6:12a; 8:1; and in 6:12b; 8:7; 10:14,

respectively. Analogous constructions occur in 7:24 ("Who can find out?") and 3:22

("Who can bring him to see?").

The Structure and Unity of Ecclesiastes              303

 

not find. ..'27). If one can never "know" or "find" what is poten-

tially meaningful in life, he or she can never be completely sure

of being on t he path to experience such meaning.

The second natural limitation to fulfillment in one's labor is

mortality. The author frequently referred to death directly,28 but

the sense of mortality is also projected indirectly by Qoheleth's

equally freq[uent allusions to the limited number of "days" one

has to live,29 and by the implications of Qoheleth's familiar,

metaphor-laden portrayal of progressive debilitation and death

in 12:1-7, People have precious little "time" to find meaning in

life and enjoy it before their "time” is up.30

The third and most devastating limitation is man's deprav-

ity. Although broached in 2:26, the topic of sin is not developed

until the second half of the book.31 Any advantage a person might

gain through wisdom is quickly destroyed by the innate propen-

sity to sin, which is both extensive (manifest throughout the hu-

man race: 7:20, 27-29) and intensive (corrupting every aspect of

man’s being, 7:16-18, 20-21; 8:11; 9:3). The destructiveness of

sin is most commonly depicted in Ecclesiastes as "folly."32 The

negative moral implications of the concept of "folly" are most ex-

 

27 These are encountered in 5:1; 8:7; 9:1, 5,12; 10:15; 11:2,5 [twice], 6; and in 3:11;

7:14,28 [twice]; 8:17 [three times], respectively. The Hebrew words here for "know"

(fdayA) and "find out" or "discover" (xcAmA) express (in the negative) the disappointing

failure of the author's attempt to "seek" , 1:13; 7:25; 8:17) or "search out"

(rUt, 1:13; 2:3; 7 25) the meaning of things.

28 The concept of death is most often communicated by the Hebrew word-groups

tUm/tvAmA ("die,""dead," "death"; 2:16; 3:2,19; 4:2; 5:16; 7:1,17,26; 8:8; 9:3-5) and hrAqA/hr,q;mi

("befall," "fate" , alluding in every case to the inevitable outcome of death (cf. 2:14-

15; 3:19 [three times]; 9:2, 3, 11).

29 Cf. 2:16, 23; 5:17, 18, 20; 7:10; 8:13, 15; 9:9; 11:1,8, 9; 12:1.

30 "Time" (tfe in Ecclesiastes often (thirty-one times in chap. 3, twice in 8:5-6)

refers to the inevitable outworking of God's sovereign, preordained purposes and

adds the nuance of inscrutability to the relationship between God's purposes and

man's "opportunity" for true meaning in life. It also denotes the appointed yet un-

predictable timing of man's ultimate "fate" in 7:17 and 9:11-12 (three times).

31 The Hebrew for "sin"/'sinner" (xFeOH/xFAHA) occurs five of its seven times (2:26; 5:6;

7:20, 26; 8:12; 9:2, 18) in the second half of Ecclesiastes in close context with those

words for "evil" with a predominantly moral connotation, and helps convey the

sense of man's accountability for evil in 8:2-13.

32 The concept of "folly" in Ecclesiastes is represented by two virtually inter-

changeable word groups. The principal word for "fool," "lysiK; (sixteen times), is the

one most commonly encountered in the wisdom literature; "the related ls,K, ("folly,"

"foolishness") occurs in 7:25. The other word group, "lkAsA/kl,s,/tUlk;si, is almost exclu-

sive to Ecclesiastes, occurring thirteen times. Whybray plausibly attributes such

dual use to Qoheleth's selective quotation of ancient proverbs (R. N. Whybray, "The

Identification, and Use of Quotations in Ecclesiastes" (reprinted in Reflecting with

Solomon, 185-99).

304                 BIBLIOTHECA SACRA / July-September 1997

 

plicitly developed in 7:15-29 and in chapter 10, in which a series

of proverbs or aphorisms portray folly as imprudent and pre-

sumptuous self-gratification.33 Qoheleth clearly intended to

identify the folly he depicted with sin (7:20; 9:18) but he first had to

establish that people in their own strength are incapable of enjoy-

ing "goodness" in life (1:12-6:12)-only then would the reader

likely be motivated to examine the evidence for his own depravity

(7:15-29) and accept his accountability before God for the conse-

quences of his depravity (8:1-15).

These three inherent limitations to fulfillment in the search

for meaning lead ultimately in life to varying degrees of frustra-

tion or "vexation."34 In response to such vexation people charac-

teristically redouble their efforts to "see goodness" by attempting

to forge their own meaning in life (4:4-6: 12). This disposition of

radical self-determination is symbolized in Ecclesiastes by the

imagery of grasping envy (4:4-6; cf. 6:9), presumptuous

"dreams" (5:3, 7), "vows" (5:4-6), and "many words" (5:2-3, 7;

6:11) before God.35 Such selfish ambition explains in turn the ob-

served ubiquity of injustice and the oppression of those with less

power in life (4:1-3; 5:8; cf. 3:16).36 What begins as the oppres-

 

33The chapter's preceding "topic sentence" (9:18) summarizes its unifying theme,

wisdom's severe vulnerability to folly. See Graham S. Ogden, "Variations on the

Theme of Wisdom's Strength and Vulnerability-Ecclesiastes 9:17-10:20"

(reprinted in Reflecting with Solomon, 331-40).

34 The word "vexation" (sfaKa) appears seven times (1:18; 2:23; 5:17; 7:3, 9 [twice];

11:10) and projects the idea of grief, anger, and frustration generated by the misery

and disillusionment to which life is prone (cf. 5:16-17). While vexation may lead

positively to true mourning (7:2-4), it can also become entrenched and lead to bit-

terness of soul (7:9-10; 11:10). Most translations render the word variably: "grief,"

"sorrow," "anger" (NKJV); "grief," "vexation," "sorrow," "anger" (NASB); "grief,"

"sorrow," "frustration," "provocation," "anger," "anxiety" (NIV). The present writer

believes a more technical use is intended, especially in recalling the sense of 5: 17

in 7:3, 9, and 11:10.

35The figure "many words" in 5:2-3, 7 projects the presumption of a person an-

nouncing to God (5:1-3) his self-determined ambitions ("dreams," 5:3) without any

consideration of God's intended purposes for him. He attempts to manipulate God

with "vows" (5:4-6) to "guarantee" that God will bless his ambitions, but only risks

destroying the results of his work (5:6c-7). The same presumption is recalled with

the reappearance of "many words" in 6:11.

36The word group "oppress/oppression/oppressed" (qwafA/qw,fo/MyqiUwfE) appears five

times in Ecclesiastes (4:1 [three times]; 5:8; 7:7). Those who oppress others (4:1-3)

in their attempts to find meaning only aggravate the futility already manifest

"under the sun" (chaps. 1-3). Although this perceived injustice initially led Qo-

heleth to investigate further the selfish ambition that generates such oppression

(4:4-6; cf. 3:16), his attention ultimately shifted (7:7) to man's response to oppres-

sion, just as Elihu redirected the focus in Job 35:9 from God's justice to Job

"victim's complex" (cf. 10:3). This connection in Ecclesiastes 7:7 is completely

overlooked by the NIV's rendering of "extortion" rather than "oppression."

The Structure and Unity of Ecclesiastes                 305

 

sion of others, however, ultimately returns to the heart of the op-

pressor himself instead of enjoying satisfaction, a self-deter-

mined individual multiplies fruitless strife and alienation to-

ward others (4:7-16; cf. 4:4) and only ends up suffering material

loss, physical sickness, and vexation himself (5:10-17; 7:9-10),

even to the point of despair (6:3-6; cf. 4:2-3).37

Qoheleth's answer to such self-consuming vexation is to tout

the life-giving advantage of true "wisdom."38 Yet if God gives