I have two fond memories of meeting Dr. Carson. We both taught the same week at the Reformed Theological Seminary (RTS) Orlando campus in 2006 and had dinner together. He did not know me, but he was so kind and personable. Then he came to RTS Charlotte several times to teach week-long intensive courses during the summer. Since I was the Academic Dean, I arranged dinner at a restaurant with several faculty members. I sat across from him and our discussion turned to the need for a volume on Wisdom Literature in the NSBT series. At the end of the dinner, he asked me to submit a proposal, which was accepted and became the book, Finding Favour in the Sight of God: A Theology of Wisdom Literature (2018). I am thankful for the opportunity to publish in that series and for Dr. Carson’s encouragement. I have also been thankful for his commitment to the Scriptures as the inspired word of God. Our students always appreciated his courses, especially the course on the book of Hebrews.

Finding Favour in the Sight of God covers the books of Proverbs, Job, and Ecclesiastes. This brief article will focus on why Ecclesiastes struggles with the meaning of life and expresses such negative views. Key questions will be asked, and the answers will explain why the author is struggling with the meaning of life. I offer a few comments here to set the stage for the questions which follow.¹For more detailed discussions of the major questions in the book of Ecclesiastes, see my commentary, Ecclesiastes: A Mentor Commentary (Ross-shire, UK: Christian Focus, 2017), or the section on Ecclesiastes in Finding Favour in the Sight of God: A Theology of Wisdom Literature, NSBT 46 (London: Apollos, 2018). There are two types of writing in the book: a first-person discourse in 1:12–12:7 and a third-person frame, composed of 1:1–11 and 12:8–14, produced by a wise man. The first-person discourse has been called an autobiography (an account of the life of an individual, or a part of his life, written by the individual in the first person).²Tremper Longman III, Fictional Akkadian Autobiography (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1991), 40. Longman argues that the autobiography in Ecclesiastes is fictional because it was written by someone who presents himself as Solomon. Another term that could be used is “memoir,” which is “a written record of a usually famous person’s own life and experience.”³Cambridge Dictionary, s.v. “memoir,” https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/memoir. The prologue introduces the author of the memoir (1:1), gives the motto (1:2), asks a key question (1:3) that will be answered, and gives a poem from the author that previews what is coming (1:4–11). In the epilogue (12:8–14), a wise man presents the memoir to his son to warn him of certain intellectual pursuits and to point to the answer of the problems with which the author was wrestling. The author of the memoir identifies himself by the Hebrew “Qohelet” (1:12), usually translated “the Preacher” or “the Teacher.” The term “Qohelet” will be used for him in this article. Who Qohelet was and when he wrote are major questions that have a wide variety of answers which will be touched upon at the end of this article.

1. What Method Does Qohelet Use in His Search for the Meaning of Life?

The key question of the book concerning whether there is any profit to labor is asked at the beginning in 1:3, but it also occurs in 3:9. Qohelet uses the related Hebrew verb עָמַל and noun עָמָל for labor or “toil,” as represented in the translation of 1:3, “all his labor at which he labors.”⁴All translations are mine unless otherwise indicated. This word emphasizes the difficult nature of labor, which is the emphasis of Qohelet (thirteen of sixteen uses of this word occur in Ecclesiastes). The word has a broader meaning than we expect when we think of labor, so that Thompson can say, “Eccl. 1:3 describes the entire human enterprise as a laborious task.”⁵David Thompson, “עמל,” in NIDOTTE 3:435. He gives the evidence for the broader meaning.

The method by which Qohelet investigates the meaning of human activity in life is through observation. Qohelet uses “I saw”⁶This is the Qal perfect 1cs form (רָאִיתִי) of the common verb “to see” (רָאָה). eighteen times in the first-person discourse (1:12–12:7). His use of this phrase is not uniform throughout but is employed in several different aspects of his argument. First, it introduces an observation which he sets forth to explore the meaning of certain events in life (2:13; 3:10, 16; 7:15; 9:11). Second, it asserts an important observation within the development of the argument he is making (2:24; 4:1–3, 4, 7; 6:1; 10:5; 10:7). Finally, a few times Qohelet uses “I saw” to set forth a conclusion he wants to make from his investigation of a topic (1:14), including the introduction of some “calls to enjoyment” (3:22; 5:18). Observation is a key part of Qohelet’s methodology in his search for meaning in life. There is debate concerning the best way to characterize his epistemology. Fox calls it “essentially empirical,” and Bartholomew describes it as “autonomous.” Both argue that his epistemology is different from what is found in the book of Proverbs.⁷Michael V. Fox, “Qohelet’s Epistemology,” HUCA 58 (1987): 141–42, 145–47, and Craig G. Bartholomew, Ecclesiastes, BCOTWP (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009), 58 n. 232. Contra J. L. Crenshaw, “Qoheleth’s Understanding of Intellectual Inquiry,” in Qohelet in the Context of Wisdom, ed. A. Schoors, BETL 136 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1998), 205–24. Qohelet looks to his own experience as the source of his knowledge and the means of its validation.⁸In an article on “The Epistemology of the Book of Proverbs,” Fox comments about Qohelet in a footnote, “His claim to have derived conclusions from his independent observations—and these alone—is the most radical proposition in the book” (JBL 126 [2007]: 669–84). He proceeds by seeking experience, observing it, judging it, and then reporting his perceptions. He also uses experience in arguing for his propositions. This is a different approach than in the book of Proverbs, where the goal in examining creation is not to discover truths but to understand truths better to teach them in an effective way. There is very little attempt in Proverbs at argumentation from individual experience. If one asked a traditional sage, “How do you know this?” he would answer, “Because I learned it.” Qohelet would reply, “Because I saw it.”⁹Fox, “Qohelet’s Epistemology,” 152, 154.

2. What Is the Goal of Qohelet’s Search for Meaning?

Several times Qohelet states his goal. He is going to use wisdom to search out all that is done under heaven. But wisdom is also going to be the object of his search. He wants to know wisdom (1:16). This is more than an intellectual examination of wisdom because the verb יָדַע can mean to know by experience.¹⁰Graham Ogden and Lynell Zogbo, A Handbook on Ecclesiastes (New York: United Bible Societies, 1997), 47. He wants to experience how wisdom works in life and the consequences that come from wisdom. The surprise is that he does not privilege wisdom in his search but will also be seriously devoted (“applied my heart”) to know madness and folly. In other words, he seeks to investigate by experience how madness and folly affect life and the consequences that come from it. He states this same goal in 7:25 where he refers to his search in more graphic terms. He repeats that he wants to know and seek wisdom, and he does not back off from his search to know “the wickedness of folly and the foolishness that is madness.” It is a remarkable statement that he wants to experience the wickedness that comes with folly and the foolishness that is madness to see where each will lead. What he adds here about his search is that he is seeking to know “the sum of things.” The word חֶשְׁבּוֹן can mean “calculation” or “to give an accounting.”¹¹Different ways this word has been translated include “the scheme of things” (ESV), “the reason of things” (NASB, NKJV), “answer” (Murphy), and “solutions” (Fox). Qohelet is seeking an explanation of how the world works. How does everything fit together? He is very negative about whether an answer can be found to this question. After stating, “All this I have tested by wisdom,” he concludes, “I said, ‘I will be very wise,’ but it was far from me” (see also 8:1, 17).

Several implications can be drawn from these remarks by Qohelet. First, his problem is with wisdom, because wisdom does not live up to his expectations. Wisdom may give you a relative advantage over foolishness (2:13–14), but in the end it does not really matter, because what happens to the fool is no different than what happens to the wise—“how will the wise die? Like the fool!” (2:16). This explains his question, “So why then have I become very wise?” (2:15). He is not starting on a “secular” basis to show what life is like without God. He is wrestling with the fact that wisdom itself does not ultimately deliver on its promises.

The second implication is that Qohelet’s search does not privilege wisdom as the right way to go. There are clearly two ways in Psalm 1, the way of the righteous and the way of the wicked, and they end up in two different places (vv. 5–6). There are clearly two ways laid out in Proverbs 1–9, with the youth exhorted to pursue the way of wisdom to avoid at all costs the dangers of living a life of foolishness. Qohelet desires to pursue both wisdom and foolishness. The problems of life dominate his thinking, which leads him to question the benefit of wisdom. This affects his advice. Since he does not privilege wisdom, he does not give strong exhortations to pursue wisdom.¹²See the comments on 7:15–18 and 11:9 in Belcher, Ecclesiastes, 263–71 and 376–79.

3. How Does God Relate to Qohelet’s Search for Meaning?

God appears several times in the first-person discourse (1:12–12:8). The name for God is always the generic name Elohim. The covenant name of God is LORD, which became prominent in the Exodus event, where God demonstrated that he was faithful to his covenant promises and would fight for his people. LORD occurs all throughout Proverbs, but it never occurs in Ecclesiastes. That is not necessarily negative except when it becomes clear that God is a problem for Qohelet and that he never brings God in to solve the issues with which he is wrestling.

This becomes clear in chapter 3. The poem on time that begins the chapter is a statement of the traditional view of wisdom that there is a time for every activity and part of wisdom is knowing the times so that one can act appropriately at the right time. The poem is followed by the question that opened the book, “What profit does the worker have from his toil?” Does the poem on time change his answer in 2:11 that there is no profit to labor? Qohelet begins with an observation of what he has seen in relationship to God (3:10). He has seen the task that God has given to human beings to keep them busy (1:13 called this “a grievous task”). God has also made everything appropriate in its time (3:11). God understands the times because he has created them. He knows how everything fits together in its proper time. He has also placed “eternity” (עוֹלָם) in the heart of humans. This word includes the desire to move beyond the fragmentary knowledge of our human situation to know the character and purpose of the events in the world. It also includes the future either in this life or life beyond this life, but the problem is that Qohelet does not believe we can be sure of the future either in this life or beyond (7:14; 8:7). The end of 3:11 is where we begin to see the problem Qohelet has with God: “except that people cannot discover the work that God does from beginning to end.” The limitation of human knowledge in understanding God’s activity in the world, including how he will act in the future, is the problem. This makes it difficult for people to make proper decisions at the appropriate times. The desire to understand how the world works in conjunction with the inability to understand God’s purposes leads to frustration (see the enigmatic statement about God’s work in 7:13). Thus, this hinders the ability to act at the right time to ensure a profit.

The second part of chapter 3 is important because it reinforces the idea that God is distant, which explains why he is not brought in to solve the problem. It begins with another observation related to how wickedness wins the day even in places where you would expect justice to rule (3:16). Qohelet follows that observation with a theological reflection (“I said in my heart”) in 3:17 that God will judge the righteous and the wicked because there is a time for every work. This could be the answer, but he offers another reflection which focuses on the relationship between humans and animals (3:18). He argues that there is no difference between humans and animals. They have the same breath and are made of the same substance, so that at death they go to the same place (3:19–20). We do not even know if the spirit of humans goes upward and the spirit of the animals goes down into the earth (3:21). The problem is that Qohelet allows this anthropological statement to stand without bringing in the theological reflection of 3:17 to provide an answer. A similar thing happens in 9:1 where the righteous and the wise are in the hand of God, which should bring comfort and security, but being in the hand of God does not make any difference in what happens to the righteous and the wise (9:2). Qohelet has lost confidence in God, so he does not appeal to God as an answer to the struggles in his search.¹³Thus, the fear of God in the first-person discourse is a cautious attitude toward God because you are not sure how he will act (Tremper Longman III, “The ‘Fear of God’ in the Book of Ecclesiastes,” BBR 25 [2015]: 13–21).

4. Why Are the Calls to Enjoyment Not the Answer to His Search?

The end of chapter 3 has a “call to enjoyment,” which some interpret as the answer of faith to the problems with which Qohelet is wrestling. Although the calls to enjoyment are a gift from God (2:24), they are not the answer. The reason for this conclusion goes back to 2:10–11 where Qohelet answers whether there is any profit (יִתְרוֹן) to labor. After considering all the works which his hands had accomplished in 2:1–9, he concludes that there is no profit under the sun (2:11). There is no lasting benefit to human labor. This is different than what Proverbs 14:23a states, “In all labor there is profit” (מוֹתָר).¹⁴The Hebrew words יִתְרוֹן and מוֹתָר are both derivatives of the verb יָתַר. Even though Qohelet concludes that there is no profit to labor, there is something from labor that should be enjoyed which is called חֵלֶק (2:10). This word expresses having a share of something,¹⁵HALOT 1:323. and a good translation is “portion” or “lot.” It is used with many of the calls to enjoyment (3:22; 5:18–19; 9:9), which express that there is nothing better than to eat, drink, and find some pleasure in labor. The calls to enjoyment are not the answer of faith. They are not on the level of profit but are all one can expect in a world that is full of unfulfilled expectations.

The final question to think about is how can we explain such negative views presented in Scripture? Some argue that the somber mood of the book is because the book was written in a time when things were not going well for Israel, usually thought to be later in Israel’s history after the exile. But maybe the somber mood of the book is not due to the time when it was written but to the struggles of the author. Fox and Bartholomew argue that Qohelet is living when Israelite wisdom is in decline, so he seeks to explore meaning with the tools of Greek epistemology. But Barton argues that the book is thoroughly Semitic in its point of view and is completely free of Greek influence.¹⁶George Aaron Barton, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Ecclesiastes, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1908), 32–43. Scholars date the book late mainly because the language of Ecclesiastes reflects Late Biblical Hebrew and does not fit the language of pre-exilic Standard Biblical Hebrew. But what if the book is not an official document of the monarchy but is a private memoir written in one of the many dialects that existed in Palestine in pre-exilic Israel?¹⁷Ian Young, Diversity in Pre-Exilic Hebrew, FAT 5 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1993). The only son of David who reigned over Israel in Jerusalem (1:1; 1:12) was Solomon. What if Solomon wrote 1:12–12:7 during the period of his life when his foreign wives turned his heart away from the Lord (1 Kings 11)? What if a wise man presented this to his son (12:12) as a warning against speculative wisdom and as an explanation of how the wisest man of all the earth (1 Kings 3:11–13) could struggle so much with the meaning of life?

There is a parallel in Psalm 73:1–16 where the author almost slipped off the right path because of the prosperity of the wicked. The warning is that we should not get so caught up in trying to explain what we experience that we question God’s wisdom and forget the simple necessity to fear God and to keep his commandments (12:14).

Ecclesiastes is a fascinating book and there are many views of it. I have tried to give exegetical reasons why there are so many negative statements in the first-person discourse and how they fit with the more positive statements of the calls to enjoyment. The author mentions God several times in the book, but he does not use God to solve the problems with which he is wrestling. He also does not privilege the way of wisdom (as Proverbs does) but also wants to experience madness and folly to see where that leads him. He explores the futility of life through an empirical method based on his observations of the world. Such an approach to life would make sense if Solomon was the author (1:2, 12) who wrote 1:12–12:8 during the time of his life when his foreign wives turned his heart away from the Lord (1 Kings 11). I think everyone can agree that parts of the book accurately describe what it would be like to live in a fallen world apart from God. The futility of life, captured by the key word הֶבֶל, is translated by the Greek word ματαιότης, which is used by Paul in Romans 8:20 to state, “the creation was subjected to futility.” One day creation will be set free from its bondage to corruption. The good news is that we will also be set free from the futility of sin and its destructive power through Christ (Rom. 8:22–24).

---