Ecclesiastes1:1

The interpretation of Ecclesiastes must be built on a proper understanding of who is speaking. It is for that reason that the author was careful to identify himself in 1:12, if not also in 1:1 and 1:2. He was purposeful in establishing his identity as the one who called together the assembly because he had some important things to share with them (this is the meaning of Qoheleth); he was revered for his wisdom and insight; he was also successful in everything he had attempted up to that point, and was extremely wealthy; he was king in Jerusalem, and was a son of David. In 12:9 the author of this work is shown to be the one known for setting in order many proverbs, i.e. the author of the proverbs we know from the book called Proverbs. There is only one person who could fill all the aspects of this description, and that was king Solomon.

“Qoheleth” is the Hebrew word used here and it means “the convener of the assembly,” or “the one who calls together the assembly;” it implies that he is also the one who speaks to the assembly. He studied things out carefully in order to have something worthwhile to tell the assembly. People of all social classes would come to listen to Solomon give discourses and proverbs. It is from this practice that many have chosen to translate this word as “the teacher” or “the preacher.” However, the meaning of the Hebrew word is most accurately expressed by the phrase “the convener of the assembly.”

Our title of the book, Ecclesiastes, is the Latin transliteration of the Greek word used to translate the Hebrew word “Qoheleth,” occurring here as the first part of the description of the author. The Greek word comes from two words, “called” + “out.” The “called out ones” are those who respond to the call to come and assemble themselves. This Greek word is the one used for the church in the New Testament; the church is those who have been “called out” and who assemble themselves together regularly. There is a noticeable similarity between the word Ecclesiastes and the word Ecclesiology, which is the study of the church. In Greek both words come from the same root.

I am convinced that Solomon wrote Ecclesiastes and that Qoheleth was another one of his alternate names, of which there were several. He was given one name by his father (Solomon), one by God (Jedidiah – II Sam 12:25), one by his mother (Lemuel – Prov 31:1) and other names (such as Qoheleth and possibly even Agur) by the people. I believe the name Qoheleth was given to him by the people as a popular title of respect which emphasized his wisdom shared with those who came to hear him speak.

When he wrote about not trying to accumulate wealth, everyone knew this was coming from the guy who had accumulated so much wealth as to make some of it lose its value. When he wrote about keeping life simple rather than seeking great accomplishments, everyone knew it was coming from the one who had already climbed that mountain and reached the top, only to find that the view was not what he had expected it to be. His message was credible because he knew from experience how much earthly possessions and accomplishments are like a vapor.

Ecclesiastes is one of the most misunderstood books of the entire Bible. There are several issues that have contributed to the misunderstanding: When was it written? Who wrote it? What is the best way to translate the word “vapor”? Why is this book so dark? Why does it contain such a strong emphasis on death? If it was Solomon, did he repent before writing this book?

I have prepared a study series about the life of Solomon which answers these questions and more. I highly recommend, if you have not done so already, that you read through that study series before you read this translation/paraphrase of Ecclesiastes. In my opinion, understanding the life of Solomon is the key to understanding the book of Ecclesiastes.

SOLOMON’S TEACHING STYLE

The Hebrew rabbis used a teaching style in which they purposefully did not make everything perfectly clear. They wanted their students to engage with the material by digging into the topic, looking into all the possible angles, and debating the nuances of it. Therefore, they left some things unclear. Giving the pupil everything totally cut, cooked, and served would have been considered a disservice and a hindrance to true learning. (See Sitting at the Feet of Rabbi Jesus, by Ann Spangler and Lois Tverberg, pages 36-37.) We find throughout the Hebrew Scriptures many assumptions that are required in order to interpret what was written. Ecclesiastes is full of such assumptions and hints. Solomon was considered an excellent teacher by the ancient Israelites precisely because he employed this veiling technique masterfully.

We assume a good teacher will make things clear, therefore the veiled style of teaching makes many things seem confusing and frustrating to us. In the Bible we see both systems used, the Hebrew language and teaching method make us dig, while the Greek language is much more clear. Solomon was a Hebrew who used the language and teaching style of the Hebrews with great skill. That is part of what makes Ecclesiastes so hard to translate and challenging for us to understand. In fact, the most extreme usages of this teaching method make Solomon sound drunk or high on drugs, but he was neither; he was only being an excellent Hebrew teacher.

The more I study Scripture the more I realize that God’s teaching methods are very much like those of the ancient Jews. He wants us to wrestle with the text; searching and digging are required. Don’t expect Ecclesiastes to be easy to understand; expect to have to dig and search and think.

Our modern society is focused on information, “just give me the information and let me go from there.” Most ancient societies were about community with the focus being on discussion, debate and seeing things through other peoples’ eyes.

However, they also valued going to others for insight and wisdom. I believe God has given me the role of providing insight to people who are looking for answers to questions about the difficult portions of Scripture. I have tried to make it more understandable for you by filling in some of the cultural and contextual gaps. In essence I have done some of your work for you. But you still need to engage with the text; you still need to search and prayerfully consider all the angles.

Here is my theory about the writing of Ecclesiastes.

Solomon never got over his grief from Shuly’s death because he did not complete the grieving process properly. Instead he started blaming God and the longer it went the more his anger toward God consumed him.

During this time in his life he probably stopped giving as many public speeches, maybe none at all, but he was still serving as judge and counselor for people’s conflicts and problems, but on a limited basis. He was in a dark place with no idea of how to find his way out.

He also became very introspective. He looked at all his great accomplishments and he was no longer pleased by them because he had “no one” to enjoy them with. His perspective on money, power and accomplishments had changed.

When he shared his new perspective with Zabud, a priest and his spiritual advisor (1 Kings 4:5), his wise friend encouraged him to write about it for others to benefit from this deeper kind of wisdom. Inwardly his friend also thought the king might find the writing process therapeutic, and he was probably right.

I can hear Solomon saying, “No, whatever I write at this point in my life is going to be dark, too dark for most people to handle.”

But Zabud encouraged him even more, and after considerable time Solomon began to write it down. He did this himself, not through a scribe.

This took place a number of years before the end of Solomon’s life, leaving room at the end for his apostacy. It was written when he was struggling with these issues, but that is the point – he was still in the struggle. He could still give godly advice for he had not yet abandoned God. The book was shaped by his truncated grief and his disappointments in life, but he was still able to recommend that people seek God.

This book feels different from the proverbs because it is much more introspective. It shares a perspective that is more mature, more realistic. But it is presented with a dark tone because of Solomon’s pain.

I see in Ecclesiastes his first “discussion” of the Shulammite’s death. He had refused to talk about it up till then and this was his first time to open up about it. He did not use her name but he discussed death a great deal. It was his way of opening that door which he had kept locked for years. Doing so did not make him feel any better because he did not accompany it with the other steps that are necessary for the grieving process to bring him to a place of health and balance. Ecclesiastes may have been his final attempt to reach out toward God.

As you read through this dark book you can see how it could have naturally come from the hurting heart of one who had not grieved properly. There are many people who can identify with this dark book because of their own experiences. But they must see its light, not just its shadows.

There are two possibilities about who penned the first verse:

If Solomon wrote that first verse as a title/introduction, he did so in order to assure his readers that this was indeed the same person they were accustomed to hearing share wisdom in the form of Proverbs and discourses. This needed to be stated clearly because this written work would sound very different from what they were used to from him. This title, “Qoheleth,” had probably been given him by the people years ago, so he was using it here as a way of saying, “It’s me, even though this will not sound like me.”

A more likely possibility is that the first verse was added later by some editor or scribe for the sake of clarity. People back then had a tendency to just start in with their written work without any title or introduction, or to emphasize the spoken word, and let a scribe compile it later into written form. The way the book ends makes it sound like that part was also written by a scribe who is sharing the words of Qoheleth. See 12:9-14.

The identification of the author of this book is made very clear precisely because the content included in it sounds very different from anything we have heard from Solomon previously.

In Eccl. 1:12 he says, “I, Qoheleth, became king,” which may strengthen the idea that he wrote the introductory sentence (verse 1 in our Bibles), but it may also indicate that the editor who added verse one after Solomon’s death, played off of this name that Solomon called himself in the text itself. In the end it does not matter who wrote that first sentence; the emphasis is the same either way.