Qohelet and the Human Experience
One of the crucial considerations when reading Qohelet is whether or not one thinks that the frame narrator is fundamentally criticizing Qohelet and rejecting his arguments. If this is true, then many would say that the bulk of Qohelet should be understood as “life under the sun” and that we, as Christians, should have a heavenly (i. e. above the sun) perspective of life. Ecclesiastes then, for the most part, becomes a how-not-to book. This way, we fail to do what Murphy says we should do, that is, allow for tensions that would have existed within the author himself, and attempt to explain the book as it stands (Murphy, Tree of Life, 52).
However, reading Ecclesiastes as one piece doesn’t seem to be only a matter of allowing for the tensions within the book but also allowing the book to interpret itself. Sometimes this will yield surprising and insightful results.
This can be seen in Peter Enns’ article about our understanding of the phrase 
(usually rendered as “the whole duty of man”, NIV, ESV and KJV) in 12:13. My intention is not to reproduce the article here but to give you a taste of the main contours of his argument and offer some personal reflections.
What does mean?
Now all has been heard; here is the conclusion of the matter: Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man. (NIV)
The JPS renders 
as “for this applies to all mankind” (NAS does something similar).
The expression puzzled me the first time I saw it. It literally seemed to say “all the man/human” which makes more sense in 3:13, 5:18 and 7:2 as “everyone.”
How should we understand this phrase in 12:13?
Enns’ argument is that it seems unlikely that “can be treated in isolation from the theology espoused in previous uses of the phrase” (135). To feel the force of what this means, here is Enns’ paraphrase of 12:13:
“Qohelet is wise, to be true. As he says, pleasure and death are real and are the portion of
To understand this paraphrase, let’s look at 3 occurrences of the phrase in 3:13, 5:18 and 7:2:
moreover, that every man who eats and drinks sees good in all his labor– it is the gift of God. (3:13, NAS)
Furthermore, as for every man to whom God has given riches and wealth, He has also empowered him to eat from them and to receive his reward and rejoice in his labor; this is the gift of God. (5:18 [Eng. 5:19], NAS)
It is better to go to a house of mourning than to go to a house of feasting, Because that is the end of every man, And the living takes it to heart. (7:2, NAS)
Verses 3:13 and 5:18 describe Qohelet’s attitude towards the reality of pleasure and reward in life. It is hard to read Qohelet without noticing a bewildering use of carpe diem flowing through its pages. Sometimes this is shocking because you would expect Qohelet to say that there is no point in living since all is hebel and a chasing after the wind. But he concludes that there is time for pleasure and they are possible exactly because being able to enjoy things is a gift from God.
In verse 7:2, Qohelet reiterates the reality of death. This is a major theme in Qohelet. I would like to repeat Murphy’s comments about “joy” in Qohelet:
“[Many] scholars have evaluated the book in a positive way as inculcating enjoyment of life (the leitmotif, some would say); and one has even entitled Qoheleth ‘preacher of joy’”. But Qohelet “knew only too well, and indicated explicitly, that this [joy] was severely conditioned by the fact of death, and by the inscrutable ways of the Almighty.” ( see Qohelet the Skeptic?)
Enns believes that these two components, carpe diem and death, are central for each Israelite but “more foundational and central is each Israelite’s fear of God and obedience to God’s law” (137). This is the core of the relationship between verse 12:13 and what Qohelet said previously. In other words, “contributes to our understanding of the epilogue as a mild corrective to the teaching of Qohelet, by taking Qohelet’s observation and ‘going one further’” (135).
I think this summarizes it well:
“Fearing God and keeping his commandments, this is what should summarize the human experience” (136)
I thought this quote helped me understand better than the phrase “the whole duty of man.” It takes the human experience of joy and the harsh reality of death and puts them in the context of man’s relationship to God in his fear of Him and the keeping of His commandments. There is something “more central.” This doesn’t pit the frame narrator against Qohelet but “it acknowledges the true wisdom of Qohelet’s observations while at the same time reiterating Israel’s central tradition of fear of God and obedience to Torah” (137).
Just Thinking
It seems to me that many times it is hard to square the ups-and-downs of life with our faith. Especially in times of suffering, it is hard to see past the pain and, before we know it, our suffering becomes the grid through which we see all things. Times of joy and “eating and drinking” can also cloud our vision making us forget that we don’t have control over things and that they won’t last forever. But our ups-and-downs should never define the whole of our experience. The same way the frame narrator reiterated “Israel’s central tradition of fear of God and obedience to Torah,” we should reiterate the centrality of Jesus’ redemption and that, in Him, we are a new creation.
We need to face the reality that life is a complex tapestry of both joy and sorrow, enjoyment and heartache, frustration and discovery, unanswered questions and hope. Just like Qohelet, we observe that life is a hodgepodge of surprises, but, as 12:13 elucidates, we need to go “one further.” Ultimately reality cannot be grasped by life’s surprises, both good and bad, but the fear of the one God who made himself manifest and walked among us. How this is worked out in our daily life is the challenge that all of us face. No simple answers here. But at the end we need say that fearing God and keeping his commandments [i. e. Torah and what it points to], this is what should summarize the human experience.
Bibliography
Enns, Peter. “ and the Evaluation of Qohelet’s Wisdom in QOH 12:13 or ‘The A is so, and What’s more, B’ Theology of Ecclesiastes.” In The Idea of Biblical Interpretation: Essays in Honor of James L. Kugel, ed. John J. Collins, 125-37. Brill, 2004.
2 Comments
Other Links to this Post
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
By Erdman, August 18, 2008 @ 9:34 am
Good post.
Thanks for the thoughts.
You noted that,
There is something “more central.” This doesn’t pit the frame narrator against Qohelet but “it acknowledges the true wisdom of Qohelet’s observations while at the same time reiterating Israel’s central tradition of fear of God and obedience to Torah” (137).
5:7 [6] says, “Much dreaming and many words are hevel; therefore fear God.”
Clearly God fearing is central to Qohelet; as such, the frame narrator is consistent with what Qohelet says in chap. 5 about God fearing…..however, I would suggest that Qohelet and the frame narrator differ in a very significant way in how they construe God fearing. For Qohelet (in chap. 5), God fearing obviously means silence, reverence, and awe. God should not be treated lightly or casually; one should not utter vows in haste; and when coming near to God, one should approach with ears open in order to listen and hear (and, I would think, to learn). As such, Qohelet strikes me as a good deal more mystical and spiritual. This is in contrast to the frame narrator, who views God fearing as a matter of keeping the commands.
I don’t necessarily view these two different approaches of God fearing as contradictory; I don’t think that’s the point. But neither would I suggest that Qohelet and the frame narrator are saying the same thing. I think (consistent with what you are saying here in this post) that the frame narrator is recontextualizing Qohelet’s God fearing in such a way as to set it within the context of the Israelite covenant.
Again, thanks for the thoughts.
By Maer, August 19, 2008 @ 11:09 am
I think… that the frame narrator is recontextualizing Qohelet’s God fearing in such a way as to set it within the context of the Israelite covenant.
Erdman: I think your comment brings into sharper focus the nuance of Ecclesiastes’ take on the fear of God. This post and Enns’ article admittedly emphasize the frame narrator’s re-contextualization (I like the way you phrased it), but this only makes sense once one has grasped Qohelet’s own view of the subject. Your comment brings out that nuance that the post (perhaps wrongly) assumes. Thank you.