ECCLESIASTES

David Finkbeiner

Bible readers have often been surprised by what they find in the book of Ecclesiastes. Yet while it is controversial for scholar and layman alike, it more than repays careful study of its beneficial teachings.

Author. The authorship of Ecclesiastes is probably the single most important consideration for understanding the date, message, and interpretation of the book as a whole. Unfortunately identifying the human author is no easy task because of several factors.

First, the bulk of Ecclesiastes represents the thinking of "Qohelet," the "Preacher." Traditionally it has been argued that Qohelet is Solomon. This seems reasonable for several reasons. (1) Qohelet is called the son of David, king in Jerusalem, and king over Israel (1:1, 12). These designations most naturally apply to Solomon. (2) The great wisdom, wealth, and power by which Qohelet explored life’s meaning in 1:12–2:26 best match Solomon’s, whose resources were unsurpassed in Israel’s history (cf. 1:16; 2:7–8). (3) The apparently cynical, world-weary words of Qohelet seem best explained as the words of Solomon later in life when he turned away from the Lord (1Kg 11). (4) Early Jewish and Christian interpreters believed Qohelet to be Solomon.

In spite of these arguments many interpreters today do not believe that Qohelet is Solomon. Why? (1) Some scholars have argued that the unusual grammar and vocabulary of Ecclesiastes reflect a Hebrew much later than Solomon’s time, although more recent research has seriously undermined this argument. (2) Qohelet is never called Solomon, nor is Solomon even mentioned—something one would expect if he were the author (cf. Pr 1:1; 10:1; Sg 1:1). (3) In places Qohelet’s self-description does not easily match that of Solomon. For instance, though David was the only king of Israel prior to Solomon who reigned in Jerusalem, Qohelet implied that a string of kings preceded him (e.g., Ec 2:9—assuming that he was not referring to the line of Canaanite kings who reigned in Jerusalem before David). In addition, although Solomon died in office as king, Qohelet may imply that his kingship was in the past (depending on how one translates 1:12), and he does distance himself from his kingly persona after chap. 2. (4) As described by Qohelet, his day seems to be characterized by injustice and abuse of power by those in authority (3:16–17; 4:1–3; 8:2–11; 10:5–6, 20), characterizations that seem inconsistent with Solomon’s golden age.

A solution here is not easy, since there are solid arguments on both sides, and Ecclesiastes is anonymous. So it is possible that Qohelet was a wise man well after Solomon’s time who took on a persona reminiscent of Solomon in chaps. 1–2. Still, on balance, it seems more likely that Qohelet’s words reflect the words of Solomon himself. Beyond the arguments that support identifying Qohelet with Solomon, the arguments against doing so are not decisive. Most of them can be explained by recognizing that Qohelet might be employing a literary device to distance himself from his role as king in order to highlight his role as wise teacher. In this role he can reflect critically even on his own reign and its weaknesses (Duane Garrett, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, NAC [Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1993], 264).

A second complication in identifying the author of Ecclesiastes is that Qohelet is not the book’s only voice. His words run from 1:2–12:8. But there is also a narrator whose words insert themselves occasionally (1:2; 7:27; 12:8) and, more important, frame Qohelet’s thoughts (1:1; 12:9–14). The book’s epilogue, where the narrator assessed Qohelet’s words and concluded the book, makes it clear that the narrator’s voice is significant for the theological message of the book as a whole. The reader is expected to adopt the viewpoint of the narrator.

This leads to a third complication. Does the narrator agree with Qohelet, or is he a critic? How interpreters answer this question will have enormous impact on how they interpret Qohelet’s words, which make up the bulk of the book. Those who see the narrator as critical of Qohelet will often characterize the latter as cynical and even unorthodox. In the epilogue then the narrator emerges to set the record straight, stating that in contrast to Qohelet’s perspective, it is wise to fear God and keep His commandments.

The other basic interpretation finds Qohelet and the narrator in fundamental agreement. Those who take this approach believe that Ecclesiastes presents a unified message and that Qohelet’s statements are consistent with the orthodox viewpoint of the narrator. In fact some believe that Qohelet and the narrator are the same person in different personas, though the text itself does not explicitly indicate this.

In the end the answer to this question hinges on how one interprets the epilogue. As will be seen below, the narrator seems to commend the words of Qohelet as wise, beneficial, and rooted in God Himself. This commentary therefore argues that Ecclesiastes presents a unified message and that readers need to heed all Qohelet’s teachings rather than to be wary of his skeptical, cynical words.

Date and Recipients. The date and audience of Ecclesiastes are closely bound to the question of its authorship. Obviously those who identify Qohelet with Solomon date the book to the 10^th century BC, whereas those who reject Solomonic authorship date the book to the postexilic period. Strictly speaking, even if Qohelet is identified as Solomon, the book itself may be later than his reign, since the author of the book (the narrator) is differentiated from Qohelet himself. Therefore one cannot be definitive here.

Still, identifying Qohelet as Solomon does at least suggest an earlier date, tying Ecclesiastes to the wisdom milieu of the ancient Near East associated with the court of Solomon. Indeed scholars have identified parallels between sections of Ecclesiastes and ANE literature like the Epic of Gilgamesh. Given this earlier date, then, Garrett may well be right in arguing that the primary audience of Ecclesiastes was the Solomonic court, "the intellectual elite of Ancient Jerusalem" (Garrett, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, 266).

Purpose. Although Ecclesiastes has a unified message, that message is complex because of two features in Qohelet’s approach. First, Qohelet presupposed both that God is the creator and ruler of this world and that it is still fallen. The world’s fallenness explains the frustrations, uncertainties, mysteries, and paradoxes that Qohelet saw in life. He acknowledged that this is still God’s world—a world He created and controls. So God cannot be ignored. If anything, His lordship over the world only compounds its mysteries.

Second, Qohelet approached the world primarily from the perspective of life "under the sun;" his interest is life here on earth. He explains this approach in 1:13: by wisdom he set out to explore what is done "under heaven." Qohelet raised deeply disturbing questions about this life without quickly reverting to theological truisms. His approach might therefore best be categorized as "essentially empirical" (Michael V. Fox, Qohelet and His Contradictions [Sheffield: Almond, 1989], 85). This does not mean that Qohelet was exclusively empirical; at times he gave a God’s-eye perspective. But he honestly looked at life in this fallen world without flinching, and he wanted his readers to do the same. Only then would they be able to appreciate the relevance and propriety of his advice.

And only then will readers be able to appreciate the concluding message of the book, as summarized by the narrator. In the end Ecclesiastes rests in the knowledge that God will finally set the world aright. In the meantime people face the difficulties of life in this fallen world under the sun, and as they anticipate the final judgment, wisdom calls on everyone to fear God and keep His commandments (12:13–14).

The structure of Ecclesiastes, like so many other matters in this book, is also difficult. Proposed outlines are legion, none gaining widespread consensus. This is partly because the structure of Ecclesiastes is not linear but episodic, repetitive, and developmental. That is, the discussion often moves abruptly from one topic to another, sometimes with little transition or even connection (episodic). In addition, a topic is presented in one section of the book, only to be revisited in later sections of the book (repetitive). Furthermore different occurrences of the same topic are often approached from different perspectives (developmental). These characteristics are reflected in the commentary’s outline below.

1:1. The narrator began Ecclesiastes by introducing the reader to the predominant voice in the book, Qohelet (the Preacher or Teacher), one who convenes an assembly to address them. The English title for the book comes from the Greek translation of Qohelet (ekklesiastes). This designation is likely a functional title. So although Qohelet, as both the son of David and king in Jerusalem, is probably Solomon (see Introduction), in this book he is taking on the role of a teacher addressing his hearers with wisdom (cf. Garrett, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, 264).

1:2. This verse presents the theme of Qohelet’s entire discourse. Its importance is evident not only because it is repeated throughout the book but also because it comes at the beginning (here) and end (in 12:8) of Qohelet’s discourse, forming an inclusio (a literary envelope) around Qohelet’s words.

The Hebrew term for vanity is hebel, the most important term in the book. It literally means "breath" or "vapor," but it clearly has a metaphorical sense in Ecclesiastes. In various contexts it can be translated as transitory, worthless, empty, incomprehensible, absurd (Michael Fox, A Time to Tear Down and a Time to Build Up: A Rereading of Ecclesiastes [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999], 28). No one English term—such as vanity, meaningless (NIV), or futile—can capture the different nuances of hebel in every occurrence throughout Ecclesiastes. Qohelet intensified the term by twice using its superlative, vanity of vanities, which means "completely or utterly vain or meaningless." Qohelet declared this verdict on all within his frame of reference. Repeatedly throughout Ecclesiastes Qohelet uses phrases like "under the sun" (e.g., 1:3, 14) to indicate that his observations pertain to human life in this fallen world (see Introduction).

So Qohelet’s thesis is that everything in human life in this fallen world, taken as a whole, is utter vanity. It is a jarring way to begin his discourse, and yet it is crucial for the message of the book. Elsewhere in the OT the term hebel is applied to idols (e.g., Jr 14:22), which are vain, worthless, absurd. But because people in this fallen world naturally seek to find meaning in things under the sun, it is equally true that those vain things become idols. Qohelet will show that pursuing these worthless idols is a fool’s errand. The conclusion will then be obvious: worship the true God (Ec 12:13).

1:3. The rhetorical question in this verse introduces a prominent theme in Ecclesiastes closely connected with the thesis that life under the sun is vanity (hebel). Qohelet claims that there is no net profit (advantage) in all one’s hard work in life. The rest of this section unpacks this claim.

1:4. Since labors under the sun are profitless, it is no surprise that human effort would make no lasting difference here. Much happens, but nothing really changes. As developed in this section, generation refers both to human generations and the processes of the natural world. So neither changing events nor changing generations of people in the world leave a lasting change under the sun.

1:5–7. Qohelet gives three illustrations of the natural world’s "ceaseless round" (Derek Kidner, The Wisdom of Proverbs, Job, and Ecclesiastes: An Introduction to Wisdom Literature [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1985], 97). Day after day, the sun rises and the sun sets, only to repeat the process again. The wind, which seems so changing and unpredictable, really just goes in circles. Rivers keep flowing into the sea, but it never fills.

1:8. To the honest observer, this ceaseless round is wearisome beyond description (man is not able to tell it), much like a difficult but pointless task. Worse still, it is frustrating because it reminds people that nothing under the sun can fully satisfy. One can never see or hear enough. This frustration only adds to the weariness.

1:9–11. What is true of the earth’s wearying cycles is also true of human history. Despite all that happens in human life, there is nothing new under the sun (v. 9). Someone might object that human life includes much that is new (v. 10a). Qohelet denies this. Allegedly new occurrences actually have a long pedigree (v. 10b). They only seem novel because humans tend to forget the people of the past and their actions. Nor should people expect anything different in the future; people of this generation will not be remembered by future ones (v. 11). "Like ants on a rock, we leave no trace of having been here" (Garrett, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, 285).

Qohelet’s words here drive the reader to look beyond life under the sun. Qohelet is not denying the possibility of human invention but is analyzing the fundamental human condition, much like the well-known proverb, "The more things change, the more they stay the same" (Derek Kidner, A Time to Mourn, and a Time to Dance [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity], 1976, 26). So one who hopes to find something new and satisfying under the sun—that fundamentally alters the human condition—is on a fool’s errand. This is merely trying to gain the world while losing the soul (Mk 8:36).

1:12–13a. Qohelet here switched to the first person, as if giving his personal journal about his search for meaning under the sun. His investigation was extensive, involving all that has been done under heaven. And it is competent. If Qohelet is Solomon, one can scarcely imagine a more qualified investigator for this task. As king over Israel in Jerusalem, he had all the resources necessary to conduct the search (v. 16). And with his wisdom he could conduct his investigation carefully, thoroughly, and accurately.

Before narrating his search for meaning, Qohelet gave two summary reflections based on his investigation.

1:13b–15. His first reflection was that God has afflicted man with a grievous task (v. 13b). All man’s works … under the sun are not only vanity (hebel) but are also a striving after wind (v. 14). The imagery of chasing after the wind connotes both frustration (one can never capture it) and futility (and even if one did catch it, he would have nothing). The supporting proverb (v. 15) highlights two points: (1) there is something fundamentally wrong with the world (it is crooked and lacking), and (2) man can do nothing to change it (because God is behind this; cf. 7:13).

1:16–18. After recounting his Solomonic credentials for investigating life’s meaning (v. 16) and his full participation in the search (v. 17a), Qohelet gave his second summary reflection. He maintained that even the pursuit of wisdom and knowledge is frustrating and futile because it only brings greater grief and pain (vv. 17b–18). After all, Qohelet’s search for meaning always led to meaninglessness and an inability to truly understand life under the sun, except for its troubles and sorrows (see below).

2:1–3. Qohelet’s search for meaning began with basic pleasure (laughter is roughly synonymous). That is, he wanted to enjoy himself, particularly as he sought to stimulate his body with wine (v. 3). The use of wine for pleasure may well connote both the refined pleasure of the wine connoisseur and the drunken debauchery of the carouser. Even so, since he was conducting an experiment, his mind was engaged in the process and guiding him with wisdom (v. 3). He found here already what he would find at the end of his investigation: these things lead to futility (v. 1).

2:4–8. Qohelet then described other elements of his search. He engaged in grand building projects typical of great kings (vv. 4–6). He amassed a fortune, as seen in the unsurpassed slaves … flocks … herds … silver, and gold he collected (vv. 7–8a). He also demonstrated his power as a great king in his ability to collect the treasure of kings and provinces (v. 8a). He enjoyed hearing male and female singers (v. 8b) as a connoisseur of fine arts. And he partook of the sexual pleasures of his harem (v. 8c).

2:9–10. Qohelet then summarized his search for meaning. Because he was the greatest king of his era (v. 9a), he had all the resources necessary to engage in this search. And it is clear that his investigation was extensive, because he did not refuse any pleasure he desired (v. 10a). Indeed he greatly enjoyed his search (v. 10b), even though he never stopped using his wisdom to evaluate everything he was doing (v. 9b).

2:11. Qohelet’s verdict on his search is that none of the pleasures he pursued provided meaning in life. They are all … vanity, a striving after wind, and without ultimate profit. Since most people today spend their lives living for one or more of these pleasures, Qohelet’s conclusion is still relevant.

2:12. Throughout his search Qohelet has made use of wisdom. Now he made wisdom itself the subject of his investigation. The rhetorical question of v. 12b is notoriously difficult to translate, though the NASB’s translation is fairly literal here. The verse likely conveys the idea that if even the king cannot find meaning in life, who can? Since Qohelet was uniquely equipped as king to undertake the investigation in vv. 1–11, his conclusion was the last word. It was therefore time to press on to investigate other matters, like wisdom itself.

2:13–17. Wisdom does have its advantages over folly. If nothing else, the wise do not stumble blindly into difficulties, as do fools (vv. 12–13a). And yet there is a certain futility even in gaining wisdom. In the end, both the wise man and the fool share the same physical fate: death (vv. 14b–15). And once gone, the wise and the fool alike will be forgotten (v. 16; cf. 1:11). This also shows the futility of life.

2:18–23. Just as the reality of death had tempered Qohelet’s enthusiasm for wisdom, so too it tempered his enthusiasm for life’s pursuits (vv. 17–18a). Qohelet gave three warnings to ambitious people who live to achieve greatness. First, at death the achiever gives control over the fruit of his labor to someone who may well squander it in his folly (vv. 18–19). Second, the achiever never really benefits from the fruit of his labor; his heirs do (vv. 20–21). Third, the achiever has little chance to enjoy his achievements in this life; mostly he just has hard work and worries (vv. 22–23). Workaholics, be warned!

2:24a. This statement is a brief respite from Qohelet’s brutally honest observations of life under the sun. Qohelet encouraged people to enjoy life’s simple pleasures (e.g., to eat and drink), including the fruit of one’s labor. This is not a cynical call for people to wring as much pleasure as they can from this futile world before they die. There really is a legitimate place for life’s simple pleasures. So this is a call to faith, to a perspective that looks beyond life under the sun. How else could one enjoy life’s small pleasures in the face of a futile world?

2:24b–25. These verses spell out that perspective. Life’s small pleasures and the capacity to enjoy them are a gift from God, and without Him such enjoyment is impossible. Qohelet’s words reflect a strong sense of God’s sovereignty and even of His grace.

2:26. Qohelet took the perspective further, reflecting on Deuteronomy (blessings for the obedient in Dt 28:1–15, curses for the disobedient in 28:16–68) and Proverbs (success and happiness to the one who fears God and is wise in Pr 3:1–12, for example). The one who pleases God (i.e., who is good in His sight) will be blessed with wisdom and knowledge, and the capacity to enjoy life. This person is one who is rightly related to God, described later in Ec 12:13 as one who fears God and keeps His commandments. In contrast, the sinner fully experiences life’s futility. This is because in the end he finds his meaning for living in something under the sun.

In this sobering section Qohelet presented an unflinching tour of life under the sun to force his readers to face life’s futility.

3:1. The wise man not only knows the principles of wisdom, but he also knows when they apply (cf. Pr 26:4–5). Wisdom is thus about proper timing. Qohelet recognizes that the same is true of life under the sun. Every event under the sun has its proper time, as is seen in the poem that follows.

3:2–8. Each verse in this poem has two pairs of opposite events in life. Each opposite pair is a merism, a literary device highlighting the totality of something by indicating its two extremes and everything in between. The two pairs of opposites in each verse are probably related thematically and focus on a significant feature of life under the sun.

What features did Qohelet address? He started with the most basic one, the beginning and end of life, whether of humans (birth and death) or plants (planting or uprooting) (v. 2). Similarly, he dealt with destruction and construction, whether of living creatures (killing and healing) or inanimate objects (tearing down and building up) (v. 3). As regards a time to kill human beings, Qohelet was probably thinking in the context of capital punishment or warfare. Verse 4 addresses the emotional life, moving from grief (weeping and mourning) to joy (laughing and dancing). What follows (v. 5) is more difficult. While obscure in their meaning, throwing and gathering stones most likely refer to sabotaging a field in war (cf. 2Kg 3:19, 25) or clearing a field in peace (Is 5:2) (Tremper Longman, III, The Book of Ecclesiastes, NICOT [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998], 116). In connection with the second pair of opposites (embracing and refraining from embracing), this seems to refer to the gamut of relationships running from intimacy to belligerence. The next verse (v. 6) pertains to possessions. Sometimes possessions are worth keeping or searching for when lost; sometimes they are not. The two pairs in v. 7 might be unrelated, but more likely they pertain to mourning in a funeral context. "Mourners tore their clothes, and their comforters kept silent during times of grief, but people were free to repair clothes and freely converse at other times" (Garrett, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs, 298). Finally, the two pairs of v. 8 address attraction and repulsion, whether in personal relations (love and hate) or corporate relations (war and peace).

This poem affirms that no state of affairs under the sun is permanent. Life’s activities are changing and fleeting, not static and enduring. Moreover, no one can ultimately control these seasons of life. They are in God’s hands.

3:9–10. Life’s fleeting activities reminded Qohelet once again that the results of one’s labors are also fleeting (v. 9). And yet God Himself has given people life’s labors to occupy them, so they cannot escape the rhythms of life.

3:11. In this complex verse Qohelet first affirmed that God has a sovereign plan that extends to everything under the sun (cf. Eph 1:11). So there is something appropriate—even beautiful (yapeh could be translated this way)—in the way everything is ordered. God has also set eternity in the human heart. One’s heart is the core of a person, but to what does the much-debated term eternity (olam) refer? Some have suggested alternate meanings such as "world" or "ignorance/darkness" (Longman, The Book of Ecclesiastes, 120). But given the immediate context, "eternity" is the best translation, and it probably refers to an eternal, God’s-eye perspective on life’s changing rhythms. Humans thus inherently long to understand God’s plan and its meaning. However, God’s eternal plan and purposes are inscrutable. Simply no one can find out what God has done from beginning to end. In short, humans know God has a plan, they want to know what it is, and yet they cannot. Frustration indeed!

3:12–15. Though no one can have a God’s-eye perspective on all of life, people can at least gain some perspective from God on some aspects of life under the sun. To this end Qohelet made two basic points in these verses. First, he claimed that although God gave this unfulfilled eternal longing, He also gave a consolation, a gift to counterbalance that longing (vv. 12–13). He gives the capacity to find enjoyment and a measure of satisfaction in life’s changing rhythms, a way of "making the most of life as it is" (Kidner, A Time to Mourn, 39). Second, Qohelet maintained that there is a vast difference between God and man (vv. 14–15). God’s work and plan are eternal and shape all reality (v. 14a); they need no tinkering or change (v. 14b). In contrast, man’s efforts are fleeting and incapable of changing what God has determined to do (vv. 14b–15). In fact, God Himself has ordered the world this way (v. 15c)! Why? God has so worked that men should fear Him. The fear of the Lord is a central theme in the wisdom literature, referring to a proper reverence or better, the worship of the living God (cf. 12:13–14). The radical distinction between God and man, between His infinite understanding of and power over the changing rhythms of life in contrast to finite man’s, should issue forth in reverence for God.

3:16. Here Qohelet introduced the injustice theme that he developed later in 4:1–3. The place of justice and righteousness refers to law courts. Is there anything more outrageous than the miscarriage of justice in the court of law? God certainly is outraged (cf. Pr 17:15).

3:17. Here is some encouraging news. While human beings may be unjust, believers can have confidence that God will bring everything into judgment. Why? Since there is a proper time for every matter, presumably there is a proper time for divine judgment in the future. For Qohelet, this future divine justice is almost certainly eschatological, but it may well also include the expectation of more immediate judgment under the sun (i.e., "what goes around comes around" even in this life).

3:18–22. Qohelet now considers the reality of death, which complicates the expectation of future divine judgment. Some have found Qohelet’s observations in these verses troubling because it sounds as if he was questioning the reality of an afterlife for human beings. But readers must keep in mind once again that Qohelet’s comments reflect his observations from the limited vantage point of life under the sun (see Introduction). Qohelet maintained that God has surely tested humanity by exposing it to the hard reality that, in at least one important way, people are like animals (v. 18). In terms of mortality they have no advantage over the animals (vv. 19–20). Like them, humans receive life’s breath from God, and when He withdraws it they die, and their bodies return to dust (cf. Ps 49:12–13; 104:27–30). Humans and animals both go to the same place, the grave. In the creation narrative in Gn 1–2, the author distinguishes between people and animals. The earth brought forth animals (Gn 1:24–25), but in Gn 2:7 God breathed the breath of life into man. Yet, Qohelet seems to link people and animals into the same category, contrary to Genesis. Some even cite this passage as a support for the idea that animals will be in heaven, because they have the same destiny as people. However, the background of this text is not the biblical strand of teaching highlighting man’s distinctiveness from animals as image bearer, but a biblical strand of teaching that highlights commonality of humans and animals. Moreover, Qohelet was precisely not addressing the question of an afterlife for animals but the similarity between humans and animals. Furthermore, from the perspective of life under the sun, no one knows directly what happens after death nor has any living person yet experienced the afterlife. From humanity’s vantage point under the sun, people can only observe that men and animals both die (Ec 3:19–21). The powerful reality of death should encourage people to enjoy in the here and now what they have been given by God as their lot in life (v. 22a; cf. Ps 90:10–12).

Seen in the larger context, death complicates the hope for future divine judgment against those who are evil. People might die before they can witness any temporal fulfillment of divine judgment against the wicked. Worse still, death conceals the reality of final divine judgment. These facts thus lead inexorably to the conclusion of the book (Ec 12:13–14), which calls people to a faith that rests on the One who is beyond life under the sun (Ps 49:12–15). Only then can people fear Him, enjoy what they have been given, and leave future judgment in His hands. Finally, the paragraph ends with the rhetorical question, who will bring him to see what will occur after him? The expected answer is that human beings cannot see beyond this life, but God alone does indeed see.

4:1–3. Only confidence in God can help people cope with the injustice and brutal realities of oppression under the sun. The oppressed find no joy in their lot in life, but only tears. Furthermore they have no one to comfort them or alleviate their suffering. And they cannot stop their oppressors, who have all the power over them (v. 1). In fact the horror of oppression is so great that from one perspective, it is better to die or even to have never existed than to experience such evil activity (vv. 2–3). If this is so, then why does God bring people into the world? Although the Scriptures teach that life is a gift from God (Gn 2:2–8; Jb 10:12; Ps 139:12–14), the point of these verses is to highlight the horror of oppression and the discouraging nature of living under it. This certainly is not the final biblical word on the subject, nor does Qohelet intend it to be. But he does intend the reader to feel the bite of this observation. Why God brings people into an oppressive world is one of those matters Qohelet considers inscrutable. This is Qohelet’s graphic way of saying that living under intense oppression is simply no way to live.

4:4–6. In the normal style of Qohelet, an abrupt shift of topic follows. These three verses work closely together to give a helpful perspective on labor in this futile world. On the one hand, working hard to succeed is prompted by rivalry, the desire to have greater success than one’s peers (v. 4). This desire is a striving after wind, if for no other reason than that success is fleeting and unsatisfying. On the other hand only a fool folds his hands (stops working hard) and starves as a result (v. 5). Verse 6 brings the two competing thoughts together. Qohelet contended that a person is better off settling with less (one handful) than seeking for more (two handfuls). The one who diligently labors but settles for something less than the workaholic still has something to enjoy (unlike the lazy fool) without the cares and time constraints of the one driven by rivalry to succeed at all costs (cf. 2:22–24; Pr 15:16–17). In the next several verses, (Ec 4:7–12) Qohelet gave a negative (vv. 7–8) and a positive (vv. 9–12) example of this principle.

4:7–8. The negative example is Qohelet’s sketch of the lonely miser, whose insatiable lust for more leaves him all alone, bereft of the pleasures associated with one’s family and companions. His only friend is money (Garrett, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs, 307).

4:9–12. Qohelet’s positive example is a stark contrast to the lonely miser. The one who is not an ambitious workaholic has room for life’s blessings, such as companionship. Companions make labors easier while increasing reward (v. 9). They also help in times of need (v. 10), give comfort in the face of life’s harshness (v. 11), and add to one’s strength in dangerous times (v. 12).

4:13–16. Making another abrupt shift of topic, Qohelet used the story in these verses to illustrate that political advancement under the sun is also futile. Though not entirely clear, the plot line of this story seems to go as follows. There is an old king who is a fool because he does not listen to advice or warning (v. 13). He is replaced by a youth who is far wiser, even though he once was poor and even imprisoned (v. 14). But even this young king’s wisdom is not enough, because he is replaced by another youth who is very popular (vv. 15–16a). The popularity of this third king, however, is only temporary (v. 16b). This loose narrative indicates that people can attain power through seniority, wisdom, or popularity (Longman, The Book of Ecclesiastes, 147). But in each case the result is the same. Political power is vanity (hebel) because it is fleeting.

Qohelet argued in this section that improper worship is both foolish and futile. So, he gave four pieces of advice regarding worship.

5:1. First, Qohelet warned people to approach God with reverence. To guard your steps is reminiscent of Moses’ reverence in approaching the burning bush (Ex 3:5). Such reverence will lead one to listen submissively to God and not to offer the sacrifice of fools, the presumption that external sacrifice without heartfelt contrition will avail with God (cf. Ps 51:16–17). Such flippant externalism only exacerbates the fool’s guilt.

5:2–3. Second, Qohelet urged his readers to pray with reverence (v. 2a). Irreverent prayer is hasty and impulsive. Its many words reflect the fool’s desire to manipulate God (cf. Mt 6:7–8) or his flippancy toward God (cf. Pr 10:19). Such attitudes fail to appreciate God’s exalted greatness (Ec 5:2b). The proverb in v. 3 illustrates this point. While its exact meaning is obscure, its basic point is clear. The many words of the fool only display his folly; they gain him nothing with God.

5:4–6. Third, picking up on Dt 23:21–23, Qohelet urged people not to vow rashly. Tied to temple worship, a vow was "a promise to consecrate something, normally either a sacrifice or a money payment (as in Lv 27:1–25) to God in return for the granting of a favor" (R. N. Whybray, Ecclesiastes, NCBC [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1989], 94). Vowing was voluntary, but failure to fulfill a vow once taken offended God. Therefore hasty, unfulfilled vows are another example of foolish worship, because like the previous two examples, they demonstrate a lack of respect for God and bring judgment down on the worshiper.

5:7. Finally, echoing the conclusion of the book, Qohelet urged his readers to fear God. This is true worship, which stands in stark contrast to the improper worship summarized in v. 7a. The flippant multiplying of words in improper worship is as empty as the dreams of a fool. Such improper worship in our day is summarized nicely by Kidner (A Time to Mourn, 52): "This writer’s target is the well-meaning person who likes a good sing and turns up cheerfully enough to church; but who listens with half an ear, and never quite gets round to what he has volunteered to do for God."

5:8–9. Qohelet considered government to be frustrating because it was a necessary evil, something deeply flawed but indispensable. On the one hand people should not be shocked when they see oppression and injustice in a governmental province (v. 8a). After all, bloated governmental bureaucracy tends to frustrate justice (v. 8b). On the other hand, government has its advantages (v. 9). Some believe this verse continues the negative assessment of government (cf. the NIV’s translation), but it is probably better to understand it more positively (as reflected in the NASB) since it fits with Qohelet’s normal pattern of "on the one hand, on the other …"

Since Qohelet seemed to say that on balance (after all is literally, "in all"), the king (i.e., the whole government) is an advantage for the land. Even a corrupt government is better than anarchy, which devastates an agrarian economy and leads to starvation (Garrett, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, 312).

Qohelet’s various reflections on wealth in this section are tied together by a common purpose, to show that the pursuit of wealth for meaning in life is futile.

5:10–16. Qohelet gives several reasons that pursuing wealth is futile. First, pursuing wealth creates an insatiable appetite for more (v. 10). In addition, greater wealth simply encourages greater expenditures (v. 11). Furthermore wealth increases anxiety and decreases rest (v. 12). Wealth can also encourage self-destructive hoarding (v. 13) while still providing no real security (v. 14). Moreover, wealth is not permanent; no one can take it with him beyond the grave (vv. 15–16).

5:17. Beginning with this verse and running through 6:6, Qohelet presented another reason that wealth is futile: it simply cannot bring happiness or enjoyment. In this verse he sketched a picture of a rich man, whose miserable, embittered existence demonstrated that he was unable to enjoy the wealth he loved.

5:18–20. The contrast in these verses with v. 17 could not be starker. Those who do not focus on life’s many cares but enjoy what they have—whether their labor, life’s simple pleasures, or even wealth—do so by God’s grace and power, as a gift from Him. Qohelet said that living this way is good and fitting.

6:1–2. Qohelet gave a prevalent example of wealth’s inability to bring enjoyment. He presented someone to whom God has granted everything he wants: wealth, possessions, honor—except He has withheld the ability to enjoy them. Instead someone else, a stranger, actually gets to enjoy his wealth. This truly is a horrible state of affairs.

6:3–6. Qohelet then showed just how horrible it is. Take a man who is rich, lives a long time, and has many children. Yet even though he meets "the three traditional conditions for happiness" in Hebrew thought (Garrett, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, 315), he is not happy. In fact, he makes those around him so miserable they do not even give him a proper burial. A miscarried child is better off than he is (v. 3). This is a staggering assessment in light of Ps 58:8, where "the Psalmist could not think of a more horrid fate to wish upon his enemies" than a fate like the stillborn child (Longman, The Book of Ecclesiastes, 171; cf. Ps 58:8). Why is the stillborn better off than this rich man? While both die in the end, at least the stillborn has the advantage of never experiencing the miserable frustration of the rich man who cannot enjoy his wealth (Ec 6:4–6).

6:7–9. While some commentators consider them unrelated to the previous section, these verses likely present another reason that pursuing wealth is futile (reminiscent of 5:10): wealth does not satisfy. Like one’s hunger for food, which keeps returning even after he eats, the appetite for money is never satisfied (v. 7). Verse 8 seems to presuppose the idea (common in wisdom literature) that the wise often accrue wealth. But if wealth cannot satisfy, then there is no advantage in being wise for money’s sake. So in the end, it is best then simply to be content with what one has than to strive constantly for more (v. 9).

6:10–12. At first glance, these verses may seem unrelated, but they are tied together by an ongoing comparison between God and man (a comparison which clearly favors God). Qohelet first asserted that man is no match for God. The ability to name involves both knowledge and control of a person or thing. Though God gave Adam the authority to name the animals (Gn 2), man’s ability to name pales in comparison to God’s. Given what man is, God is much stronger than he is (Ec 6:10). So it is simply pointless to dispute with God about what happens under the sun, even if one persists with many words (vv. 10b–11). Verse 12 tells why ongoing contention with God is a waste of time. In comparison to God, who perfectly knows His plan (cf. 3:1–11), humans are ignorant of the present (what is good for a man under the sun) and the future (what will be after him under the sun). God’s cursing the world in humanity’s fall (Gn 3) is likely the background of these verses. By showing how pointless it is to resist or dispute with God about His cursing the world under the sun to futility, these verses are a fitting conclusion to this whole section.

This section is a collection of wise statements about life and about wisdom itself.

7:1. Like ointment or perfume, which was desirable and expensive, a secured reputation is quite valuable (see Pr 22:1), but only relatively so. It will not be finally secured until after one’s death, so people should not become obsessed by it.

7:2–4. Pondering death is valuable too. Since it is the end all people face, the wise person does not avoid the sorrow and sober reflection prompted by a funeral (the house of mourning), as does the fool. Such reflection is good for the heart. In that sense, even a face that is sad at a funeral can reflect a heart that may be happy.

7:5–7. The rebuke of a wise man is also far more valuable than the unwarranted song of praise and frivolity (laughter) of the fool (vv. 5–6). In contrast to the benefit of a wise man’s correction, the fool’s contribution is as annoying and worthless as thorn bushes in a fire (v. 6), which "provide quick flames, little heat, and a lot of unpleasant noise" (James Crenshaw, Ecclesiastes, OTL [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987], 135). Unfortunately the value of a wise rebuke can be mitigated, for example, in a political context by extortion or bribery (v. 7).

7:8–9. Patience should be valued as well. It takes patience rather than proud presumption to bring a matter to its completion (v. 8). And it takes patient self-control to avoid the destructive quick temper of fools (v. 9).

7:10. One common aspect of life that is neither valuable nor wise is pining for the "good ole’ days."

7:11–14. Wisdom too is an advantage in life just like money, because both are a protection (vv. 11–12a). In fact wisdom is even more advantageous because it stays with you through the hardest times, when money runs out (v. 12b). Still, God’s sovereign plan exposes wisdom’s limits (vv. 13–14). No one—not even the wisest person—can change God’s plan or predict what will happen in it. So people should be happy in good times as a gift from God. And in the day of adversity one should consider that God’s plan encompasses that as well (cf. 3:1–8); this is a cursed world after all.

7:15–18. Qohelet began this section by arguing that there are exceptions under the sun to the retribution principle, which maintains that the righteous prosper and the wicked suffer (e.g., Pr 3:1–2) (Ec 7:15). So one should avoid a zealous, excessive legalistic religiosity (disguised as zeal for righteousness) and a fanatical pursuit of wisdom driven by the retribution principle (Garrett, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, 323). Otherwise a person will ruin himself trying to achieve an impossible standard (supreme righteousness and wisdom) for an end that is not even guaranteed (prosperity) (v. 16). The limits of the retribution principle do not mean, however, that one is justified in being wicked and foolish. Retribution is still generally true, and foolish villains often do get their just deserts (v. 17). So a person who fears God will reject both extremes (v. 18). One should be godly and wise without becoming a cheerless, frustrated legalist. This way life can be enjoyed without falling into sinful, destructive license.

7:19–22. Similarly Qohelet encouraged his readers to seek wisdom but not to overestimate one’s ability to be wise and righteous. Wisdom (skillful living in the fear of the Lord) is powerful, more so than even political power (v. 19; cf. Pr 24:5–6). But it is not powerful enough to defeat human sinfulness, to create even one righteous man on earth who continually does good and who never sins (Ec 7:20). So it is important to act wisely in light of human sinfulness. For example one should not be eager to hear what others say about him (v. 21a). Since it is characteristic of sinful humans to speak against other people, one may likely hear someone speak against him as well (vv. 21b–22).

7:23–24. Given all he has observed, Qohelet still believed wisdom is worth pursuing. And yet, even for someone as wise as he, wisdom is elusive in some sense. Qohelet thus recognized that he lacked the wisdom to understand God’s mysterious plan (cf. 3:11).

7:25–29. While Qohelet’s wisdom had its limitations, pursuing it did teach him about evil and folly (v. 25). In particular he discovered that a relationship with an immoral woman leads to a bitter end (cf. Pr 2:16–19), so the wise God-fearer will escape from her (Ec 7:26). In addition, Qohelet discovered the gender conflict resulting from the curse (cf. Gn 3:16). Told from the male perspective, Qohelet finds harmonious community rare with other men, but rarer still with women (Ec 7:27–28). No doubt, a female Qohelet would hold a similar opinion of men (Garrett, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, 325). Most significantly Qohelet discovered human depravity. Though God created them upright, fallen humanity has pursued sinful devices (v. 29).

8:1. Qohelet concluded this section with a qualified endorsement of wisdom. True, no one has ultimate wisdom. Still, the limited wisdom people possess is advantageous, and thus better than folly.

Qohelet presented various examples of frustration under the sun.

The dangerous world of ancient monarchical politics (in which the king has the power of life and death) is foreign to people in Western democracies today. Nevertheless, anyone who has experienced an arbitrary and abusive superior can identify in part with Qohelet. This section involves advice for people in such a system, advice that illustrates how frustrating it can be to try to negotiate one’s way wisely while dealing with a difficult superior.

8:2–4. Qohelet’s basic point in these verses is clear enough: treat the king carefully because he is so powerful. His specific advice, however, is more difficult to interpret. Most likely, Qohelet’s advice is as follows. Show proper reverence for authority by obeying the king, as promised (v. 2). And do not be quick to abandon the king in pursuit of a rebellious plot (an evil matter). Because he is so powerful, it will probably fail (vv. 3–4).

8:5. Two guiding principles underlie Qohelet’s advice. First, a person is better off being obedient to the king, because it is the best way to avoid harm. Second, since subordinates are dealing with such a powerful person, they also need wisdom to know how best to obey him.

8:6–8. The second principle is rooted in the way God has ordered reality, in which everything has a proper time and procedure (v. 6a; cf. 3:1–8). But this raises a problem. In the court, as in all of life, wisdom has its limits. Wisdom is needed if one is to safely obey the king, but since human wisdom is limited, a person still might lose his head! No wonder man’s trouble is heavy upon him (v. 6b). Not even the wise can anticipate with certainty the future ramifications of their actions (v. 7). This is all part of the larger truth that human beings are weak and limited. Their weakness is illustrated in their inability to control the wind, the day of death, events that overtake them (like war), or the consequences of the evil that they practice (v. 8).

8:9. In sum, Qohelet maintained that life under tyranny is not a happy condition. Any wise man who does his best to please a tyrannical king (or workplace superior) without any guarantees knows this.

8:10–15. Qohelet here considered the problem of delayed justice. Granted, the wicked die and are forgotten, so there is some justice under the sun. But during their lifetime, they may well be regarded as religiously respectable citizens of the city who even receive the honor of a proper burial. Justice delayed like this is frustrating (v. 10). Worse still, it only encourages increased wickedness among human beings (v. 11). In spite of such cases in which justice is delayed (v. 12a), Qohelet still maintained that those who fear God will be better off than the wicked, whose life will be cut short (vv. 12b–13). Qohelet thus affirmed the principle of retribution while also acknowledging that there are frustrating exceptions under the sun, the most vexing of which are those cases in which the righteous get what the wicked deserve, and the wicked get what the righteous deserve (v. 14). Since no one can understand these exceptions, Qohelet encouraged everyone to enjoy life’s good gifts given by God, leaving the question of ultimate justice to Him (v. 15).

8:16–17. Having carefully and comprehensively observed life under the sun, Qohelet concluded that no one simply can understand what God is doing; God’s plan is beyond human comprehension (vv. 16–17a). Indeed no matter how wise a man may be or how hard he searches, in the end no one can comprehend what God is doing (v. 17b).

Qohelet returned to the topic of death in this section.

9:1. Summarizing the previous section, Qohelet contended that the righteous and wise are ultimately under God’s control (in the hand of God), and His plan is not predictable. But that led Qohelet to another thought. No one knows what future awaits him in this life, whether love or hatred (i.e., favorable or unfavorable circumstances). In short righteousness and wisdom cannot guarantee good times in life. God will not be manipulated.

9:2–3. But one future is guaranteed under the sun: death. This is the great leveler, regardless of how a person lives (v. 2). It is the same for all … there is one fate for all men (vv. 2–3) in this life. Yet this horrid fate does not stifle human sinfulness. Throughout their lives depraved human hearts are full of evil and the insanity of sin. Humanity is in a sorry state indeed.

9:4–6. Since death is inevitable, is there any advantage in living? Qohelet agreed that there is, even though in statements about death elsewhere (e.g., 6:3–5) he indicated there may be times when life’s difficulties sap life of those advantages. Qohelet thus asserted that even a creature as wretched as a live dog—ancient Israelites despised dogs—is better than a noble creature (such as a lion) that is dead (v. 4b). Why? Although living people know they will die, that death is yet future, and in the meantime they have the hope of being able to enjoy that which is good under the sun (vv. 4a, 5a). In contrast the dead are gone and forgotten, and they have no thoughts (do not know anything) or temporal benefits (a reward) in this life. In short, they no longer partake in all that is done under the sun (vv. 5b–6). Once again, it is important to keep in mind that Qohelet was considering death from the perspective of life under the sun; questions about the nature of the afterlife are outside his purview here.

9:7–10. Since life has its advantages, Qohelet exhorted his readers to enjoy its blessings (in happiness and with a cheerful heart), something God has approved (v. 7). And people should do so whenever possible (v. 8). This is why he urged people to wear white and put on oil, which were marks of festivity (Whybray, Ecclesiastes, 144). One of life’s blessings is the joy of marital love (v. 9). People should participate in life and its joys (like marriage), not with half measure but with all their might (v. 10), because life is fleeting. Sheol refers to the grave, not to a gathering place of disembodied souls in the afterlife. Here as elsewhere, he focused only on life under the sun, not on the afterlife. His point is simply that people are all headed to the grave when all opportunities under the sun cease (v. 10).

9:11–12. Life is unpredictable, which is why ability is no guarantee of success under the sun (v. 11). Similarly death is also unpredictable. Man does not know his time of death. Death and disaster can overtake a man as suddenly as fish or birds are captured (v. 12).

This section covers a variety of material, all related once again to the theme of wisdom.

9:13–18. In discussing wisdom’s relative benefits and limits, Qohelet started with an example of a story that impressed him (v. 13). A powerful king attacked a small city (v. 14). Against all odds, a poor wise man somehow delivered the city, whose people then promptly forgot him once they were delivered (v. 15). This episode highlights both the power and limits of wisdom (v. 16). Wisdom is so powerful that even the quiet words of a wise man are more effective than the ranting of a foolish king, who tries to ram through his foolish will by sheer force (v. 17). Therefore wisdom is better than weapons of war (v. 18a). And yet wisdom is not invulnerable; one sinner can ruin much good wrought by wisdom.

10:1–3. Wisdom is powerful, but so is folly. Little dead flies can make a perfumer’s batch of ointment ferment and stink. Similarly it takes only a little foolishness to undermine the good, like wisdom or honor (v. 1). Wisdom and folly simply do not go together (v. 2). And if a little folly can be destructive, a lot can be humiliating (v. 3). So folly should be avoided at all costs.

10:4–7. Here Qohelet gave wise advice for dealing with difficult superiors, who themselves can limit wisdom’s benefits. When encountering an angry superior, the best a wise man can do is to allay his anger with composure, not panicked retreat (v. 4). And when encountering a foolish superior, the wise man should not be surprised by his actions or their results. Instead of promoting the deserving (the rich is probably a metonymy for the wise), a foolish ruler will promote undeserving fools to exalted places (vv. 5–6). Such foolish management has dire consequences, leading to social upheaval (v. 7).

10:8–11. Qohelet also commended wise perspectives on life’s accidents. Wisdom cannot prevent every accident; some accidents (Qohelet gives four examples) happen no matter how wise we are (vv. 8–9). In such cases it is not wise to seek blame but recognize that even work done wisely can have a snake bite in it. Yet wisdom can prevent some difficulties in life. So sharpening one’s axe will save a lot of work (v. 10). And snake charmers who are wise (i.e., who know what they are doing) will lose neither their job nor their life (v. 11).

10:12–14. Though wisdom does have its limitations, Qohelet here showed the even greater problem of foolishness, considering the way of the fool as a foil to wise living. The first example of foolishness is the fool’s words. Wise talk is gracious, in contrast to the self-destructive words of the fool (v. 12). In fact while the fool’s words might seem silly at first, in the end they are devastating in their wicked madness (v. 13). Worse still, the fool speaks too much and does not know when to shut up (v. 14a). Furthermore, his excessive verbosity addresses matters he knows nothing about, like the future (v. 14b).

10:15. The second example of folly is the fool’s work, which is no better than his words. He does his work the hard way (cf. 10:10), even in his commute home from work. "The reason why fools are so tired after a long day’s work is that they are so stupid that they get lost and walk a longer distance than necessary to return to their homes in the evening" (Longman, The Book of Ecclesiastes, 248).

10:16–20. The third example of folly is the fool’s leadership. A land with a wise, noble king will make sure that his subordinates work hard for the good of the land and use their resources to strengthen them in their task. Such a land is blessed (v. 17). In contrast a land, whose king is a lad—someone immature and foolish—is under woe (v. 16a). He allows his nobles to use their resources inappropriately to feast in the morning, a sure sign of dissipation (v. 16b). The foolish laziness of leaders like this brings disaster on both house and land (v. 18), but they are too enamored with money and parties to care (v. 19). They only squander the resources of the land. And there is no relief in sight because one has little recourse with such a foolish king. To whom can one complain? Even to criticize him in the most private settings may get back to him—and bring great grief to the complainer (v. 20).

11:1–2. Life in all its unpredictability has risks. While wisdom cannot remove life’s uncertainties, it can help people cope with them. Qohelet addressed two areas of uncertainty. First, in the area of finances, Qohelet encouraged investing wisely. To cast your bread on the surface of the waters is an image from maritime trading, which was risky business but could be extremely profitable. So the wise investor will not always be averse to taking risk, especially when there is a genuine possibility of real gain (v. 1). But as a safeguard, he will also diversify his investments rather than putting all his proverbial eggs in one basket (v. 2) (Garrett, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, 338).

11:3–6. Second, in the area of farming, Qohelet maintained that the farmer must act wisely despite the uncertainties of nature. Farming is fraught with risk. Some aspects of nature are relatively predictable (rain clouds bringing rain). But others are unpredictable (for example, wherever a tree falls), and most are out of human control (v. 3) (Whybray, Ecclesiastes, 159). Farmers cannot allow their inability to predict or control nature to paralyze them into inaction (v. 4). Since God’s ways are as inscrutable as the formation of the baby in the womb or the direction of the wind (v. 5), the wise farmer will work hard and wisely plan for many possible contingencies (v. 6).

11:7–8. Light (along with its parallel, seeing the sun) and darkness are metaphors for life and death respectively. So Qohelet once again maintained that life is good (v. 7); so people should enjoy it as long as possible because it is so short (v. 8). There will be many more days of death than of life for a person under the sun, and what remains of life is fleeting (hebel, translated futility, carries this connotation here).

11:9–10. Qohelet focused his exhortation to enjoy life on those best positioned to do so: the young. He first counseled them to enjoy life to its fullest, to participate with gusto in what brings them joy (v. 9a). However, the advice to follow the impulses of your heart and the desires of your eyes is not a license to sin. Qohelet thus also advised them to recognize God’s judgment over all these activities. A person who is aware that God is assessing what he does will not allow his celebration of life to become sinful (v. 9b). God is no celestial killjoy; rejecting a "sow your wild oats" philosophy "robs joy of nothing but its hollowness" (Kidner, A Time to Mourn, 99). Those who fear the Lord are best suited to enjoy life. Qohelet also encouraged the young to remove impediments to enjoying life, like fixating on its grief and pain (cf. 5:20). The joy of youth is simply too fleeting to squander (v. 10).

12:1a. Given life’s brevity and God’s approaching judgment, Qohelet exhorted the young to remember their Creator, to commit to Him in "passionate fidelity" (Kidner, A Time to Mourn, 100–01) before old age (vv. 1b–5a) and death (vv. 5b–7) arrive.

12:1b–5a. Qohelet characterized approaching old age in a series of descriptions and images. It is a time of evil (or better misery) when physical incapacity hinders enjoyment (v. 1b). Like the gloom of a dark, rainy day, it clouds life’s pleasures (v. 2). The loss of physical capacities in old age is described in metaphors related to a large household (vv. 3–4a): trembling hands (watchmen of the house), weakening of major muscles in the legs and back (mighty men), loss of teeth (grinding ones), loss of eyesight (those who look through windows), and loss of hearing (doors on the street). Qohelet then continued to describe old age using other metaphors (vv. 4b–5a): the loss of sleep (to arise at the sound of the bird), the decreased capacity to sing (daughters of song will sing softly), loss of confidence (men are afraid), graying hair (the blossoms of an almond tree are white), the difficulty of physical movement (the grasshopper drags himself along), and the loss of appetite, sexual and otherwise (the caperberry is ineffective; the caperberry was believed to stimulate appetite, particularly sexual desire).

12:5b–7. Once again Qohelet used several images to describe death’s relentless approach. The mourners of a funeral indicate that man goes to the grave (his eternal home from the perspective of "life under the sun") (v. 5b). A broken silver cord and a crushed golden bowl refer to the loss of something valuable at death, namely, life (v. 6a). The broken pitcher or wheel at the well or cistern means that it is impossible to draw more water for life (v. 6b). In language reminiscent of creation and the curse, when man dies God withdraws the breath (spirit) of life, and man returns to the dust from which he was taken (v. 7).

12:8. One final time Qohelet reiterates his theme, forming with 1:2 a literary envelope (inclusio) around his words. Everything in this life under the sun is hebel, vain, meaningless, absurd, frustrating, futile, fleeting.

12:9–10. Now the narrator’s voice speaks. He started with an evaluation of Qohelet (the Preacher), considering him a wise man who imparted knowledge and who understood and collected proverbs. And not only was Qohelet a delightful writer, but also his words also communicated truth correctly. Far from considering him an unorthodox cynic, the narrator commended Qohelet.

12:11–12. What effects do the words of wise men like Qohelet have? They are like goads, perhaps with nails imbedded in them (cf. Fox, Qohelet and His Contradictions, 324–25). Goads are long sticks that sting cattle, prodding them to move. Similarly even if wise words sting, they still spur the disciple into wise, moral behavior. Ultimately all these wise words are given by one Shepherd (v. 11). This may simply refer to God as the source of and authority for all wisdom (cf. Pr 1:7), although some argue that its referent is more specific. Michael Rydelnik, for example, maintains that the phrase one Shepherd is used elsewhere in Scripture only as a messianic appellation (Ezk 34:23–24; 37:24–25), and so the narrator was claiming here that the divine Messiah specifically is the source of all wisdom (Michael Rydelnik, The Messianic Hope, NACBT [Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2010], 78–79).

As helpful as books of wisdom might be, one could study them endlessly to great wearying effect (Ec 12:12). So there is a time to ponder wise sayings, and there is a time to move on to conclusions.

12:13–14. What, then, is the narrator’s conclusion to all Qohelet’s wise words? Fear God and keep His commandments. To fear God is to "respect, honor, and worship" Him (Longman, The Book of Ecclesiastes, 282). Keeping God’s commandments is the fruit of fearing Him. The narrator gives two reasons to do this. The first is that this applies to every person (v. 13b). A more literal translation reads, "this is the whole of humanity." As image bearers, to fear and obey God is at the core of what it means to be human (Garret, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, 344). This is what humans were made for. But if that is not enough, the narrator then gave a second, more negative reason: God’s final judgment (v. 14). This judgment is comprehensive (including everything, public or private, good or evil) and assured (it will occur). Only the fool would not fear and obey Him.

Ultimately then the only place to find meaning in this meaningless life under the sun is in the One who is beyond life under the sun: God Himself.