Last year I decided to delve into Ecclesiastes, one of the most puzzling books of the Bible for me, to try to understand it better. There are a dizzying array of possible interpretations, and I read the book multiple times and consulted many commentataries.
Those who take the most positive view of the book have to really strain to account for its many wrong-sounded statements, especially the refrain "everything is vanity" (see below). Those who take the most negative view have the hardest time explaining the positive-sounding assessment of the narrator at the end of the book. Both essentially argue that our translations need tweaking.
While I gleaned much from many perspectives, my overall conclusion was that Qohelet (aka The Preacher) is Solomon, writing from the perspective of having wandered from God.
I think he's Solomon because, as James M. Hamilton argued in sermons and lectures, the ancients thought so, and they were in a better position to judge than we are.
I think he was distant from God because:
- His core assertion, with which he begins and ends, that "everything is hebel", is best translated "everything is vanity" or "everything is meaningless" - see What is 'Hebel?' - and that's not true, as we know from the rest of Scripture. In fact, nothing is meaningless!
- His quest for meaning and pleasure in chapter 2 is without reference to God (there is none of the "how I love your law" of Psa 119) and he never mentions repenting of it.
- That quest was not merely academic; he "hated life" (2:17) because of its failure.
- It's the only Old Testament book which does mention God but does not use his covenant name "Yahweh". (Esther and Song of Songs don't directly mention God at all.)
- Although he affirms God as judge, Solomon never says anything like "I shall dwell in the house of the Lord forever" (Ps 23:6); rather, he speaks of Sheol as oblivion (Ecc 9:10) and continually rails against man's inability to know what will come after him (Ecc 3:22, 6:12, 7:14, 10:14, etc).
The commentator I think I agree with most is the most negative one I read, namely Richard P. Belcher Jr. - see his Gospel Coalition Bible Commentary and Themelios article, Key Questions Concerning the Book of Ecclesiastes: An Explanation of the Negative Views of Qohelet.
But although I don't entirely agree with the author, the commentary I found most personally enriching was Bobby Jamieson's "Everything Is Never Enough: Ecclesiastes' Surprising Path to Resilient Happiness". I came away from it with the following short meditation on my lips:
- Everything is a breath
- But everything is a gift
- But remember that God will judge
Even though I think Solomon was wrong in important ways, he frequently tells us to enjoy God's gifts while we can, and Jamieson is particularly vivid in saying that we must savor them specifically as gifts from God, or else they are wasted.
Behold, what I have seen to be good and fitting is to eat and drink and find enjoyment in all the toil with which one toils under the sun the few days of his life that God has given him, for this is his lot. Everyone also to whom God has given wealth and possessions and power to enjoy them, and to accept his lot and rejoice in his toil--this is the gift of God. For he will not much remember the days of his life because God keeps him occupied with joy in his heart.
Ecc 5:18-20 (ESV)
May God give us the power to enjoy his gifts, and may we enjoy them as gifts from him.
"So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God" (1 Cor 10:31).