Midrash Qoheleth
Commentary on the Book of Ecclesiastes
What an amazingly profound and yet largely confusing book Qoheleth is! Filled with contradictory statements and bewildering wanderings into the side paths of humanistic philosophy, its a wonder that it ever made it into the Canon! There are few biblical books that present more challenges than Qoheleth.
Obviously, this is a challenge that a bungee-jumping, parachuting, martial artist, ex-Marine rabbi cannot resist!
The Title
The English name comes from the Vulgate which comes from the LXX's rendering of the Greek word Ἐκκλησιαστής (Ekklesiastikus) which was likely their rendition of the Hebrew word קֹהֶלֶת or Qoheleth.
Ekklesiastikus is a variation of ekklesia from which we (by a very long and circuitous route) get "church". Similarly, Qoheleth is understood as "one who gathers to teach" or "one who speaks to the assembly" and can indicate either a religious or secular role. Thus either the word teacher or preacher would be completely appropriate.
With this and 12:9 in mind, the author (which I generally refer to by his self-imposed title of Qoheleth) would be understood as one who assembled and conducted teaching and/or preaching with great skill and you systematically gathered practical wisdom for that purpose.
Anyone who has visited my websites would thus understand the obvious sympathy and great interest I have in such a skilled person.
Ekklesiastikus is a variation of ekklesia from which we (by a very long and circuitous route) get "church". Similarly, Qoheleth is understood as "one who gathers to teach" or "one who speaks to the assembly" and can indicate either a religious or secular role. Thus either the word teacher or preacher would be completely appropriate.
With this and 12:9 in mind, the author (which I generally refer to by his self-imposed title of Qoheleth) would be understood as one who assembled and conducted teaching and/or preaching with great skill and you systematically gathered practical wisdom for that purpose.
Anyone who has visited my websites would thus understand the obvious sympathy and great interest I have in such a skilled person.
The Author
These arguments also appear in the commentary on chapter one verse one but they bear repeating.Qoheleth refers to himself as the "son of David". There was only one David of any note, Israel’s greatest king who ruled from about 1010-970 BC. David’s son Absalom was killed when he rebelled and tried to usurp the throne. That leaves Solomon (cf 1:12; 2:4-10). Solomon took the throne from about 970-931 BC. He was famous for his great wisdom (1 Kings 4:29-34). The fact that one of his very first acts was to gather (kahal) all the elders of the nation (1 Kings 8:1-2) may have inspired the name Qoheleth.
He also says that he was King in Jerusalem. The immediate context leaves us unsure of whether the phrase is intended to describe David or David’s son. Small matter. Verse twelve clearly states that the author was also king. This makes us even more certain that the author is Solomon. Think about it; a king of Jerusalem whose father was David and who was known for his great wisdom. Do you have any better candidates?
Some liberal arguments against Solomon's authorship include:
1. The content, treatment and language are too advanced and reflect something closer to the Hellenistic age. Rebuttal. Hello! This is not just Solomon we're talking about here. This is Solomon + the Holy Spirit. Of course if you have given up inerrancy and divine inspiration of the Scriptures as fundamental doctrine this doesn't mean much to you. So let's set that aside. Isn't it amazing that when Leonardo da Vinci draws helicopters, tanks and submarines centuries before they become a reality we gasp in awe at his brilliance. But let anyone in Scripture show the same brilliance and liberal theologians assume the author is lying.
2. Solomon refers to a number of predecessors when there was only one Hebrew king who ruled over a united Israel before him. Rebuttal. One liberal commentator opined that Solomon must have forgotten that Jerusalem had only been under Hebrew rule since his father David. The man is an idiot. Solomon didn’t say “All those Hebrew kings before me”. He said “All those who were over Jerusalem before me”. That would include Melchizedek (Genesis 14:18); Adoni-Zedek (Joshua 10:1) and Abdi-Khepa, who was mentioned in the Egyptian Amarna letters. If (as I believe) Melchizedek founded Jerusalem (Isaiah 14:32; 22:9-11; also 5:1-2) that would mean that Salem, or as it would later become known Jerusalem, was founded no later than c. 2150 BC then by Solomon’s time the city was already more than 1,000 years old. Imagine how many kings ruled over Zion in that amount of time! Kings have a habit of recording their deeds and thoughts. They build libraries and establish archives. Even if they don’t all their bureaucrats that help them manage the kingdom do so. Solomon had access to the accumulated knowledge of a millennia, looked it over, and then promptly at least doubled it. He literally “amassed wisdom” far beyond any king before him.
3. He sometimes writes in the vein of a subject rather than a king (3:16; 4:1). Rebuttal. He doesn't say anything in 3:16 that a king couldn't say. It wasn't like he was the ONLY seat of judgment in the entire land. There was an entire court system and as any honest ruler would acknowledge, we don't always find justice in the halls of the justice system. In 4:1 he simply acknowledges the tendency for the powerful to oppress the weak in this world. If that's all it takes to knock Solomon out of the running then someone just doesn't want the Bible to be right and there's nothing you CAN say to such a person.
4. In the epilogue he never refers to himself as king (12:9-14). Rebuttal. Ok. He introduces himself in 1:1 as Teacher and King, son of David. Does he have to constantly emphasize his royalty? The point of this book was not about his royalty but about his learning and teaching...thus...Qoheleth?
He also says that he was King in Jerusalem. The immediate context leaves us unsure of whether the phrase is intended to describe David or David’s son. Small matter. Verse twelve clearly states that the author was also king. This makes us even more certain that the author is Solomon. Think about it; a king of Jerusalem whose father was David and who was known for his great wisdom. Do you have any better candidates?
Some liberal arguments against Solomon's authorship include:
1. The content, treatment and language are too advanced and reflect something closer to the Hellenistic age. Rebuttal. Hello! This is not just Solomon we're talking about here. This is Solomon + the Holy Spirit. Of course if you have given up inerrancy and divine inspiration of the Scriptures as fundamental doctrine this doesn't mean much to you. So let's set that aside. Isn't it amazing that when Leonardo da Vinci draws helicopters, tanks and submarines centuries before they become a reality we gasp in awe at his brilliance. But let anyone in Scripture show the same brilliance and liberal theologians assume the author is lying.
2. Solomon refers to a number of predecessors when there was only one Hebrew king who ruled over a united Israel before him. Rebuttal. One liberal commentator opined that Solomon must have forgotten that Jerusalem had only been under Hebrew rule since his father David. The man is an idiot. Solomon didn’t say “All those Hebrew kings before me”. He said “All those who were over Jerusalem before me”. That would include Melchizedek (Genesis 14:18); Adoni-Zedek (Joshua 10:1) and Abdi-Khepa, who was mentioned in the Egyptian Amarna letters. If (as I believe) Melchizedek founded Jerusalem (Isaiah 14:32; 22:9-11; also 5:1-2) that would mean that Salem, or as it would later become known Jerusalem, was founded no later than c. 2150 BC then by Solomon’s time the city was already more than 1,000 years old. Imagine how many kings ruled over Zion in that amount of time! Kings have a habit of recording their deeds and thoughts. They build libraries and establish archives. Even if they don’t all their bureaucrats that help them manage the kingdom do so. Solomon had access to the accumulated knowledge of a millennia, looked it over, and then promptly at least doubled it. He literally “amassed wisdom” far beyond any king before him.
3. He sometimes writes in the vein of a subject rather than a king (3:16; 4:1). Rebuttal. He doesn't say anything in 3:16 that a king couldn't say. It wasn't like he was the ONLY seat of judgment in the entire land. There was an entire court system and as any honest ruler would acknowledge, we don't always find justice in the halls of the justice system. In 4:1 he simply acknowledges the tendency for the powerful to oppress the weak in this world. If that's all it takes to knock Solomon out of the running then someone just doesn't want the Bible to be right and there's nothing you CAN say to such a person.
4. In the epilogue he never refers to himself as king (12:9-14). Rebuttal. Ok. He introduces himself in 1:1 as Teacher and King, son of David. Does he have to constantly emphasize his royalty? The point of this book was not about his royalty but about his learning and teaching...thus...Qoheleth?
