Acknowledgement: In 2010, I prepared seven men's breakfast talks from the book of Ecclesiastes, and we used a revision and modernization of the Revised Version of 1885. I variously consulted the Hebrew or commentaries to resolve any difficult translation issues. In 2018, we are working through Ecclesiastes at MBM Rooty Hill, and I include here some of the sermon scripts that I have edited and appropriated from the staff at church. I thank them for their permission to use their sermon manuscripts, but responsibility for the final product is my own.
Ecclesiastes Translation: 'Modernised' Revised Version
Breakdown
Expositions
1. Ecclesiastes 1:1-11: What’s Worth Pursuing Under The Sun—An Investigation
3. Ecclesiastes 3:1-22: A Time for Everything Under The Sun [SS]
Topical Talks
The Teacher looks at Growing Old
The Teacher looks at Leadership
Introduction
The book of Ecclesiastes in our English bibles adopts a transliteration of ‘ΕΚΚΛΗΣΙΑΣΤΗΣ’ the title of the book in the Septuagint (LXX), a translation of the Old Testament Hebrew Scriptures into Greek made about 200 BC, and which was in common use at the time of the apostles. The Hebrew title of the book is קֹהֶלֶת, Qōheleṯ. Both the Greek and Hebrew words mean ‘one who gathers’, one who assembles a group. This assembly of a group is with a view to teaching and preaching to the group, and hence standard English translations use the word ‘Teacher’ or ‘Preacher’ to render the words.
Rabbinic tradition tells us that the book of Ecclesiastes was written by Solomon in his old age, and this was the accepted understanding of the authorship until the modern period. Another tradition suggests that the book was edited in the time of Hezekiah. Modern critical scholarship tends to later dating in either the Persian or Hellenistic period, and this has influenced so-called evangelical commentary writers, but essentially this renders the book a work of pious fiction. This causes difficulties for those, like myself, who hold to an inerrant and trustworthy Scripture. It is better to see essential Solomonic authorship at an early date within Solomon's lifetime, perhaps in his old age, while some of the narrative additions and editorial work might have occurred under Hezekiah, in accordance with Rabbinic tradition.
There are two authors of the canonical book of Ecclesiastes, or Qohelet—there is the Preacher himself, Qohelet, whose words are recorded for us, and then there is the Narrator, Redactor, or frame Editor (we will call him the Narrator) who introduces (1:1) and concludes the book (12:9-12 or 12:9-14). That there is a Narrator is an assumption and inference, because he doesn’t introduce himself (in the way that Tertius, for example, does at the end of Romans), but that there is such a Narrator is very likely because of the comments about the Preacher in the third person.
The reader of Qohelet should learn from the Narrator, and like the Narrator listen carefully to the words of Qohelet. There is no conflict between Narrator and Qohelet, the former is simply introducing and concluding the words of the latter, and offering his own agreement, affirmation, and concurrence.
The Narrator firstly provides the means to identify Qohelet (1:1). However, this is not strictly necessary, as in 1:12, 16, 2:1-11, Qohelet identifies himself as someone who can only be Solomon in first person speech. Notice that on its face, the only text that the Narrator has supplied is verse 1 alone.
Then, in 12:9-14, the Narrator confirms the Preacher’s insights (they are ‘goads’ and ‘nails’), and clarifies an important teaching of Qohelet in his frame narration concerning God’s judgement of all humans (12:13-14). The Editor’s reference to firmly embedded ‘nails’ is important, and points to the fact that Qohelet has made true observations. A ‘nail’ is something that fixes one thing to another. They are ‘firmly embedded', and so the words of Qohelet are a fixed and immovable position, firm, solid, trustworthy, stable and stabilizing, providing strength through a correct understanding of the world. They are, after all, the “words of the wise”. This strongly suggests that the frame Narrator and Qohelet are in agreement and there is no sense where the Editor is correcting Qohelet. Bartholomew shows how Fox is mistaken in reducing the denotation of ‘nails’ to the connotation of ‘goads’—it misunderstands the parallelism to see that ‘nails’ and ‘goads’ are virtually synonymous.
Qohelet himself has taught the divine judgement of all humans in Eccles 3:17, 11:9, and the importance of the fear of Yahweh, so there is no conflict between Editor and Preacher. Indeed, the frame Editor may simply be quoting Qohelet in 12:13-14, having simply inserted his own observations penultimately in 12:9-12. That is, Qohelet himself was the author of 12:13-14, and the frame Editor would thus be giving Qohelet himself the ‘last word’. Allowing Qohelet’s conclusion to stand at the end may be for rhetorical effect. It is impossible to know whether Qohelet himself concluded with this statement in verses 13 and 14, and the editorial comments are an insertion, or whether verses 13 and 14 are an editorial insertion as verses 9-12 are.
The identity of Qohelet/the Preacher is not specified, and the book of Ecclesiastes is strictly anonymous, but in the wider context of the Old Testament narrative the author looks for all the world like Solomon, and the assertion that it might not be Solomon but some other Davidic King that follows in his line involves those of us with inerrantist presuppositions with insuperable problems.
It is frequently thought that the fact that Qohelet declares that he has increased in wisdom more than all who were over Jerusalem before him (Eccles 1:16) creates a difficulty for traditional Solominic authorship, because there is only one king, his Father David, who ruled Jerusalem before Solomon. But this problem is solved by the fact that there were indeed other kings over Jerusalem before David—Melchizedek, for example. It is true that these kings were not Israelites, and immediately prior to David’s conquest of Jerusalem the Jebusites ruled over it. Indeed, Jebusites like Arunah continued to live at least in the environs of Jerusalem after that time (2 Samuel 5, 24; cf. 1 Chronicles 21). We must not therefore exclude the possibility that Qohelet is allowing for a greater level of continuity that he shares with the previous kings of Jerusalem of other dynasties, and not confining the kings he is comparing himself against to the Davidic line.
This procedure is not so unusual. For example, we know that there have been different houses or dynasties that have ascended the English throne, and yet the historians of the English succession still consider the kings and queens of preceding dynasties and different genealogical lines as part of a continuous succession. Why should we assume that Solomon cannot refer to himself in continuity with the long line of kings of Jerusalem before David?
Conservative evangelical and inerrantist presuppositions require Solomonic authorship. It is true that an ‘agnostic’ position concerning Solomonic authorship have been adopted by many modern so called ‘evangelical’ commentaries. But no part of Scripture should properly be read so as to contradict another. Article 20, of the 39 Articles stipulates that “neither may [the church] so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another.” Other parts of the Scriptures tell us that there was no king of Jerusalem either as wise or rich as Solomon, and so we need to read Scripture with Scripture, such that they agree, not making them disagree, or introducing greater uncertainty or complexity than is required to solve the problem of the anonymity of Qohelet. A much simpler hypothesis is readily available. We must take into account God’s promise to Solomon, which said:
3:12behold, I now do according to your word. Behold, I give you a wise and discerning mind, so that none like you has been before you and none like you shall arise after you. 3:13I give you also what you have not asked, both riches and honor, so that no other king shall compare with you, all your days. (1 Kgs 3:12-13 ESV, cf. 3:28)
The plain meaning of verse 12 is that no one is going to be wiser afterwards or before Solomon. Indeed, this is reflected in Ecclesiastes 1:16. None are wiser after Qohelet—that means that none of the Davidic kings that followed Solomon were wiser than him. This is actually reflected by the silence in the narrative accounts of the later kings—there is no evidence that any were wiser, so we should allow the promise of God to stand in its full plain meaning. So the argument from silence of the narratives in the books of Kings and Chronicles is consistent with the explicit words of God in 1 Kings 3:12-13. The promise about Solomon’s incomparable wealth is limited to Solomon’s lifetime and his contemporaries.
It is possible that someone might take the divine promise “that none like you has been before you and none like you shall arise after you” (1 Kings 3:12) as hyperbole and argue that the phrase is idiomatic and should not be understood literally. But this argument needs to be made and must be strong enough to overturn the plain meaning of these words. Otherwise, Ockham’s razor would cut the contention away.
The narrator of 1 Kings gives the following summation of Solomon’s wisdom:
4:29God gave Solomon wisdom and understanding beyond measure, and breadth of mind like the sand on the seashore, 4:30so that Solomon's wisdom surpassed the wisdom of all the people of the east and all the wisdom of Egypt. 4:31For he was wiser than all other men, wiser than Ethan the Ezrahite, and Heman, Calcol, and Darda, the sons of Mahol, and his fame was in all the surrounding nations. 4:32He also spoke 3,000 proverbs, and his songs were 1,005. (1 Kgs 4:29-32, cf. 10:1-10)
This is admittedly a comparison of Solomon with his contemporaries, but it also points to the extent of the wisdom that God had given him. This makes it even more unlikely that one of his successors would be wiser than him.
So if Qohelet was a Davidic King over Jerusalem (Ecclesiastes 1:1, 12) who was wiser than Solomon but not Solomon, were these Scriptures wrong, that said that Solomon was wiser than any king in the future (1 Kgs 3:12)?
Qohelet says:
1:16I said in my heart, “I have acquired great wisdom, surpassing all who were over Jerusalem before me, and my heart has had great experience of wisdom and knowledge.” 1:17And I applied my heart to know wisdom and to know madness and folly. (Eccles 1:16-17 ESV, cf. 2:9)
Again, someone might make an argument that the superlative statement in verse 16 is idiomatic or hyperbolic, but that is not immediately apparent, and a simpler solution is immediately at hand—that it is intended literally. If Qohelet was a post-Solomon Davidic King, the Scriptures are in contradiction, because 1 Kings 3:12 says Solomon would surpass all after him, but Ecclesiastes 1:16 says that Qohelet surpassed all before him. These two things cannot exist simultaneously. As a post Solomonic Davidic King, the supposed non Solomonic Qohelet was wiser than Solomon. So the scriptures are made to be in contradiction on these mistaken presuppositions.
The ‘agnostic’ position on the authorship of Qohelet must explain why it is likely that a non-Solomonic writer would pass himself off as Solomon, in spite of the explicit words of God in 1 Kings 3:12-13, and then why this would not be morally questionable and duplicitious. Why do the historical accounts in Kings and Chronicles not record any subsequent son of David as wiser than Solomon, or even as ‘wise’? Hezekiah and Josiah are praised for their own excellencies, but it wasn’t for either their wisdom or wealth. So which son of David, king of Jerusalem, is the candidate? There are a limited number of them, and we know all their names, from two historical biblical accounts, in the books of Kings and Chronicles.
It is not enough to vaguely say that the author could have been some king of Jerusalem who was a Son of David. Which one/s? So if we listen to the other Old Testament Scriptures that deal with the period, we are confronted with there being ‘no’ candidate suggested by the Scriptures dealing with this period for a non-Solomonic wise king over Jerusalem. We are thus confirmed in the traditional view of essential Solomonic authorship. Qohelet is Solomon.
The Preacher is working both with a knowledge of life ‘under the sun’ and with the knowledge that there is ‘God in heaven’ who has subjected our lives to this burdensome futility. Life ‘under the sun’ and the reality of God in heaven are not mutually exclusive, but the phenomenological distinction—that we experience life under the sun but God is not to be experienced in the same way—allows the Preacher to conduct an ‘experiment’ with all his resources. The Preacher must continually bring his knowledge of God in heaven explicitly into his reflections, because he knows that reality involves considering everything in the light of God who is the ultimate reality. Then the Preacher has ‘gathered’ his congregation to teach them what he has discovered.
‘Under the sun’ is an interpretive key to the book. ‘Under the sun’ signals that Qohelet with all his resources has conducted an experiment, on scientific and inductive principles, about what we can discern about the meaning of life in time and space on earth and in human society (i.e. ‘under the sun’). This of necessity requires observation—Qohelet has observed the phenomena of human and natural life under the sun. Then, as an old man, Qohelet has ‘gathered’ his congregation to deliver his report, to teach them what he has discovered, and to provide his concluding reflections. In the Book of Ecclesiastes, Qohelet is reporting on his life-long experiment. He is at once working both with a knowledge of life ‘under the sun’ and with the knowledge that there is a ‘God in heaven’.
The Positive Theology of Solomon
The more positive observations that Solomon makes in the book of Ecclesiastes point to his more positive theology. There are times when Solomon ‘ups periscope’, so to speak, and begins to consider God in the interaction between his observations under the sun and his knowledge of God in heaven. Thus, God has placed eternity in the human heart (3:11). Further, the fact that there is a time for every deed, when God will bring everything into judgement, is also an ‘up periscope’ moment (3:17). Any mention of God is prima facie an ‘up periscope’ moment that brings a ‘beyond the sun’ theological perspective on his 'under the sun' enquiry.
Qohelet holds to the goodness and justice of God and the fear of God (3:14, 5:6, 7:18, 8:12-13, 12:1) and in the light of eternity (3:11) he apprehends the coming judgement of God (3:17, cf. 12:7), which is implicit in the warning in 5:1-6 about hasty speaking. He also knows God's original creation of us as upright (7:29) and understanding of universal sinfulness (7:20, 8:3). So there is a kind of Old Testament ‘faith’ explicit in Qohelet, utterly consistent with everything that the frame Narrator says.