Theme Of Ecclesiastes

THE ‘FEAR OF GOD’ AND THE SEARCH OF MEANINGFUL LIFE IN THE BOOK OF ECCLESIASTES

by Thangsan Mung (Box # 323) G.Th., Maranatha Bible College, 1992 B.Th., Bethel Bible College, 1995 M.Div., Torch Trinity Graduate School of Theology, 2005

A RESEARCH PAPER

Submitted to Dr. Christian G. Rata in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the subject of ECCLESIASTES at Torch Trinity Graduate School of Theology

Seoul, Korea May 2006

TABLE OF CONTENT Chapters 1. INTRODUCTION …………………………………………………………….

1

2. THE FEAR OF GOD: THE ORIGINAL INTENDED PURPOSE OF GOD……………………………………………………….

4

3. THE FEAR OF GOD: BASIC PRINCIPLE FOR ENJOYMENT……………………………………………………………..

6

The Batter Practice of Life (5:7) ………………………………………

6

The Other Path of Life (7:18)………………………………………….

8

The Persistent Skill of Life (8:12-13) …………………………………

10

4. THE FEAR OF GOD: OBEDIENCE TO HIS COMMANDMENT ………………………………………………………. 13 5. CONCLUSION ………………………………………………………………. 15 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY……………………………………………………

i

i

INTRODUCTION

Long and intense have been debates over the unifying theme and purpose of the Qoheleth on the desk of modern scholars; though sadly, none of their attempts can fully give satisfactory answer yet. In fact, J. S. Wright is correct when he calls the book as “the black sheep” of the Bible. 1 In general, there are two major camps of argument concerning the issue. The group, known as critics, insisting to the said redaction theory, believes the present form of the Ecclesiastes to be final result of ongoing composition of small literary segments throughout centuries or at least is a composition of fragmented works of sages therefore “many authors” behind the text. If then, very less possible is to find a single unifying theme and central purpose of the book. 2 On another ground, traditional view strongly defenses the authenticity of the book strictly basing on Solomonic authorship; hence, the unity of the book is confirmed on the one hand and the unifying theme of the book becomes possible to find on the other hand. However, as pointed out by Longman, there are some problems to strict traditional view, such as internal ambiguity of such nickname “Qoheleth” and literary difficulties, such as apparent multi-genres within the book, distinct linguistic employment, and different historical reflections as observed by scholars. 3

1

J. Stafford Wright, “The Interpretation of Ecclesiastes,” Evangelical Quarterly 18 (January 1946): 18-34. 2

Concerning its composition, Crenshaw has further outlined four arguments that though maintain the unity of the book: one, the original author’s work with later editorial glosses; two, author’s single response to different traditional sayings; three, author’s imaginative or real dialogue with interlocutors; and, four, author’s gradual change of view over the years, J. L. Crenshaw, Ecclesiastes (OTL; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Westminster Press, 1987), 34-5. 3

For detail, please, read T. Longman III, The Book of Ecclesiastes (NICOT; Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans, 1998), 4-8. 1

In response to those obscurities, Wright has done a fine argument for traditional view by referring to G. L. Archer’s ‘Phoenician influence’ theory. 4 This study, even though a very minority view as Wright confessed, gives more satisfactory answer, from which conclusion this paper assumes its primer proposal. In fact, this paper will honestly takes it for granted and will propose that “the fear of God,” being as the unifying theme of the book, and also is the intended purpose of the Teacher/Preacher as a whole. To this point, however, from another psychological angle, this paper sees that the weightier emphasis of the Teacher was resting more on the theme, “fear ‘ary yare’ of God” than the repetitious “meaningless or vanity ‘~ylib'h]

lbeÛh’,” to make a minor

difference from traditional view. 5 Even though the “‘~ylib'h]

lbeÛh]” concept is repetitious

and occurring even more than eighteen times in NASB as “vanity” or more than thirty two times in NIV as “meaningless,” the emphasis should not be given on this extreme pessimism—that has created unnecessary debates over such as whether the Qoheleth is pessimistic or still optimistic—as the central concern of the Teacher as a whole. 6

4

The argument said that there was a clear Phoenician influence on Ecclesiastes, and further, even assumed that Solomon might use Phoenician scribe (as hired scribe in Pauline corpus) thus, even though basic thoughts were Solomon’s, the form of Hebrew was strange (cf. J. S. Wright, “Ecclesiastes,” EBC, Vol. 5, ed. F. E. Gaebelein [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1991], 1142-3; but for detail on Wright’s discussion, please, read two subtitles, “authorship” and “date,” 1139-1143). 5

Many commentators, though having “the fear of God” in mind as an important subject in the Ecclesiastes, seems giving stress more on the repetitious “meaningless, vanity, absurdity (‘~ylib'h] lbeÛh]),” even assuming it as the central theme of the book, e.g., the assertion of Wright itself saying, “The theme of the book appears in the prologue: ‘Meaningless…’…,” in Ibid., 1144. Further, Longman, 61, “Qoheleht’s ultimate conclusion is that everything is completely meaningless”; the outline drawn by Hubbard, in which he subtitles the vanity passage (1:2) as the theme of the book, in D. Hubbard, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon (MOT; Dalls, Taxes: Word, 1991), 35. 6

E.g., as in R. N. Whybray, “Qoheleth, Preacher of Joy,” Journal for Studies of the Old Testament 23 (1982), 87-98. 2

Rather, in respect of its sacred religious nature as having long been assumed by Jews, 7 it is more appropriate, and would also be fair to the Teacher himself, to see the religious emphasis of the book and give a more reasonable stress on the Teacher’s spiritual concern beyond this extreme pessimistic “‘~ylib'h] acknowledging the “‘~ylib'h]

lbeÛh]” theme. Therefore, while

lbeÛh]” as still a very important key-word, to rather see the

theme, “fear of God,” as the major concern, and more as the unifying theme, of the Ecclesiastes and also as the intended purpose of the Teacher—thus “‘~ylib'h]

lbeÛh]” but

plays here just as a supporting case—is the plea of this incomplete paper. 8 Further, by reading the Teacher through this window, the book of Ecclesiastes is properly placed in a wider context of Hebrew wisdom tradition, in which “the fear of the Lord and shun evil” is the major concern and plays as the central theme. 9 This is of course another major advantage of the proposal.

7

Being a part of the Megilloth in Hebrew scripture, the Ecclesiastes has long been recognized as sacred canon and was known for public reading of it at the Feast of Booth (Tabernacle). Especially, discovery of fragments of the book at Qumran indicates that the book already gained canonical status by second century B.C. For detail, please, refer to Wright, Ecclesiastes (EBC), 1148-9; Also, Crenshaw, 52-3; and Longman, 26-9. 8

Kaiser also seemed assumes the same when he, referring to the fear of God passage, says that “The writer of Ecclesiastes believed that this book was an argument that came to a conclusion in 12:13-14” in Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., Ecclesiastes: Total Life (EmBC; Chicago, Michigan: Moody, 1979), 43. 9

Even though there are some debate among scholars concerning the fearful attitude of Ecclesiastes and respectful attitude of other wisdom literature, the ethical vision of both is the same (cf., “terror and shrinking,” J. A. Loader, Ecclesiastes: A Practical Commentary [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986], 41). For instance, please, refer to such as passages in other wisdom literature, where to fear God and shun evil as demanded by Qoheleth are also heavily stressed, i.e., Job 1:8; 28:28; Pro. 1:7; 3:7; 8:13 cf. Ecc. 3:14; 8:12-13; 12:1314. In fact, though defining as “to frighten people,” Longman still correctly advocates this fearful concept of Ecclesiastes that it would bring submission and total obedience to God, Longman, 124. Further information on Old Testament concept on the fear of God, please, refer to B. Bamberger, “Fear and Love of God in the Old Testament,” in Hebrew Union College Annual VI (1929), 55-68, in which fits properly the Qoheleth concept of the fear of God rather (see also Whybray’s argument for no difference in this case, in his Ecclesiastes [NCBC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989], 75; also agrees Eaton, 82). 3

THE ‘FEAR OF GOD’ IS THE ORIGINAL INTENDED PURPOSE OF GOD (3:14)

There are six plus one occurrences of the word “ary yare” in different construct in the book of Ecclesiastes. 10 Interestingly, each occurrence has different exposition on the “ary yare” of God, implying different life-related lesson each; and more, all have distinct relation to other key-words of the book, such as “vanity,” “enjoy,” “gift.” Amongst of those, chapter three verse fourteen is the first passage where Qoheleth employs the word “fear ary yare” in Qal imperfect third person masculine plural construct (Waßr.YI)v,), as the expected response of man to what God has decisively done. Structurally, this passage lays at the beginning part of the commentary-section of the “time” poem (vv. 1-8), 11 probably a borrowed of from ancient sage tradition. 12 Since major purpose of employing this alluded poem, as correctly assumed by Eaton, is “to lay down its basic postulate” that the following commentary is going to expound, there are of

Waßr.YI)v, Qal imperfect third person masculine plural construct in 3:14; ar'(y> qal imperative masculine singular construct in 5:7; areîy> adjective masculine singular construct in 7:18; yaeär.yIl. adjective masculine plural construct and Waßr>yyI) qal imperfect third person masculine plural construct in 8:12; areyÞ " adjective masculine singular absolute construct in 8:13; ‘ar'y> qal imperative masculine singular construct in 12:13. 10

11

Concerning structural position of this passage, as discussed in previous Midterm Paper, The “yTi[.d;§y" (yada‘eti)” Parallel: An Exegetical Study of Ecclesiastes 3:12-15, preference is given to the structural format of NASB while assuming vv. 12-15 as a literary parallel unit (cf., The “yTi[.d;§y" (yada‘eti)” Parallel…, 3). 12

Major argument that Qoheleth wanted to bring out is, in contradiction to his ‘better’ assertion on wisdom in another places (i.e., 7:19), to shed light upon the failure of even that better wisdom and knowledge of man to see the ultimate purpose of life that God already set forth for eternity (3:11). However, the intended encouragement is that, since then, for man is good to live and act properly in a given specific time in life-circulation (i.e., v. 14), cf., the assertion of Wright on this poem “(m)an is to take his life day by day from the hand of God” as seen in J. S. Wright, “Ecclesiastes,” in EBC 5, 1160. 4

course clear internal thematic connection between. 13 In this light, at a glance the theme of “the fear of God” in verse fourteen can be taken as the answer to the previous quest of Qoheleth in verse nine and the implicational truth reflected from the poem (vv. 1-8). An exegetical study on the passage shows this literary connection further. “…everything God does….” This clause is a reference to “He has made everything” of verse eleven that in turn reflected the “appointed time for everything” of verse one, 14 and “remain forever” indicates the “fixed moments” 15 of earthly events in terms of eternity, that somehow reflects the “God has done from the beginning even to the end” of verse eleven. To this, three aspects of God’s actions can be drawn that demand from the part of man to fear as descriptively noted by Eaton: First, it is permanent [no possibility of failure]… Second, it is effective and complete… Third, his actions are totally secure…all this leads on the part of man to fear…. 16 The conclusion, thus, is that God is the original mover of the circulation of time that man cannot “add to” or “take out from” is another indication of both the mortality of man and failure of all his best efforts before God. The intended purpose of God hence is that man should learn his weakness before God and learn to fear Him with complete submission. Indeed, for man fear of God is the only wisest way to properly deal with daily life before God, the original progenitor of time, and receive it as the gift of God.

13

Michael A. Eaton, Ecclesiastes: An Introduction and Commentary (TOTC; Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1983), 77; also, “answer” to previous question of the poem by Whybray, in his Ecclesiastes, 65; “reflection and exposition” of the poem by Garrette, in his Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs (NAC 14; Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman, 1993), 298. 14

Also made the same connect in Longman, 123. Further, Hubbard finds connection between the “eternity” of verse 11 and “forever” of verse 14, in Hubbard, 108. 15

G. Ogden, Qoheleth (Readings—NBC; Sheffield, England: JSOT Press, 1987), 56.

16

Eaton, Ecclesiastes, 82. 5

THE ‘FEAR OF GOD’ IS BASIC PRINCIPLE FOR ENJOYMENT (5:7; 7:18; 8:12-13)

If the ‘fear of God’ is the wisest way for man able to properly deal with his daily life, it is also fair to take it as basic life-principle as one lives his daily life before God. Indeed, the ‘fear of God’ is basic principle for a godly living, and also is the way to enjoy life itself as God’s blessing in spite of its brevity, absurdity, and vanity on the one hand.

1. The Better Practice of Life (“rather,” 5:7) Why the ‘fear of God’ is basic for one’s enjoyment of life? In his long search, Qoheleth discovered that the ‘fear of God’ is the best practice of life for life-enjoyment because it keeps one from ‘hasty’ words and ‘impulsive’ thought that had called God’s wrath upon oneself (cf. vv. 2, 6). By the time Qoheleth got to this point, failure of human efforts to find lasting enjoyment becomes clearer to him not only as reflected from his personal experiences (cf. 1:2-2:26) but also as reflected by man’s bondage to divine circulation of time and occasion in general (cf., 3:1-15; 4:13-16). 17 Being a part of ‘divine presence’ passage (esp. 5:1-7), the verb, “ary,” qal imperative appears as an advice-like-command on how to behave in the presence of God. However, in contrastive parallel, previous verse (v. 6) has already warned possibility of

17

Concerning the literary structure of the Ecclesiastes, there are two major proposals in modern scholarship—twofold division and threefold division—against the redactive assertion of being difficult to analyze. However, following the argument of Vaihinger and Keil, Kaiser has come up with fourfold division is most preferable in favor of three ‘eat-and-drink’ climatic points occurred at the break of each section (2:24; 5:18; 8:15). For detail, please, read Kaiser, 19-24. In this light, the first division (1:2-2:26) mainly deals with preliminary argument from Solomon’s experience, the second division (3:15:20) focuses the divine scheme of time to subdue all creation under God’s superior government, and the third division (6:1-8:15) proposes that genuine satisfaction and lasting enjoyment of life can be found only in God—this is solely God’s gift, then the last division (8:16-12:14) speaks about conclusive practical advices for life in midst of absurdity and vanity. 6

being wrong with words. 18 In respect of its immediate context, this oral mistake comes by hasty in words that seemed, to Qoheleth, an act of irreverence before God (cf. vv. 2, 7). Concerning this mistake, there are few debates against traditional understanding of a regular vow made in the temple since the argument of Whybray. Whybray, assuming a minor thematic break between this unit and its foregoing passages, argued that this passage is mainly dealing with “another kind of unwise speech.” 19 However, to claim a thematic break from the foregoing passage is very unlikely, in addition to an easy assumption of it being as another subject. Rather, since the progressive movement of speech on ‘sin with words/speech’ is evident here, better is to take as a gradual discussion of the same subject about ‘easy talk’ (of vv. 1-5) that comes from a feeble attitude of heart. In fact, major concern of Qoheleth here is beyond what one’s mouth speaks out, but is more with out of what attitude those words uttered. 20 Further, this reading finds better fitting with the later contrast of fearful attitude before God (v. 7b). This way, the contrast of this literary unit becomes clear between ‘careless attitude’ of the ungodly (vv. 6-7a) and ‘fearful attitude’ of the godly (v. 7b). In addition, supplementing to major argument, Qoheleth indicates the rather contrastive result of those two inner attitudal actions in a single one-sided questionanswer, “^l,êAq-l[;

‘~yhil{a/h'( @coÝq.yI hM'l'ä ayhi_” (v. 6b). The implication here is that

18

Concerning the structure, Whybray also sees vv. 6 and 7 as a literary unit within a single section (vv. 1-7,) proposing it as the fourth admonition regarding unwise speech, in Whybray, Ecclesiastes, 95. In fact, the second conjunction “yKi”î would better be read with a more contrastive force; and then, most major translations would also find their justification there, (e.g., “but” in AMP, KJV, YLT, ESV, DARBY; most preferably “rather” in NASB; but very few “and” in NIV, NLT). 19

Probably “rash” and even “dangerous,” Ibid., 95-96.

20

Running down from verse five, Loader also reads the same by saying, “the Preacher does not prohibit an action…but rather instills a reserved attitude toward it,” in Loader, 59; further, Garrette also imposes similar reading by saying that those many words “proceed from the speaker’s presumption that he is wise” and that “mark a person as a fool,” in Garrette, 311. 7

careless voice of the arrogant arouse God’s wrath against himself, 21 but the fearful voice of the humble one would surely find favor in contrast (cf. the proud prayer of Pharisee and humble prayer of tax-collector). Moreover, its context of temple-worship further brings a deeper meaning to fearful attitude as right relationship with God. 22

2. The Other Path of Life (7:18 “both of them”) The ‘fear of God’ is presented again in chapter seventh as a life-principle that supersedes two extreme ways of life—i.e., “too righteous and too wicked”. As rightly observed by Andrews, Qoheleth, hence, had come to respond to “central enigma of our humanity” already discussed and reconcile this senselessness with the “sensible God.” Andrews further reads the passage (vv. 1-19) as Qoheleth’s attempt to answer to that absurdity, vanity, and brevity of life in terms of wisdom but that is “far beyond from the rational knowledge packaged in a Harvard doctorate” [italicized is mine]. 23 Accordingly, the ‘fear of God’ 24 is displayed here as a characteristic of spiritual wisdom that gives answer to the dilemma of the whole passage (cf., vv. 15-17). Being a single section, the passage (vv. 15-19) of course gives difficult times to scholars and

21

Almost all commentators agree on the effect of one’s careless word to whole person in light of the connective use of “mouth,” “flesh” and further “work of hands,” (cf., Hubbard, 134; “financial ruin,” “illness” or “death” in Whybray, 95-6; “person’s work” in Longman, 155; and also in Crenshaw, 117). 22

Fletcher has descriptively discussed how this passage closely related with one’s personal relationship to God in Douglas K. Fletcher, “Ecclesiastes 5:1-7,” in Interpretation 55, 3 (July 2001): 296-8. 23

For detail discussion of Andrews, please, refer to Susan R. Andrews, “Ecclesiastes 7:1-19,” in Ibid., 299-301. Further, Andrews defines the spiritual wisdom that Qoheleth brought out here with five full characteristics: “realism,” “authenticity,” “balance,” “reverence (a reference to ‘fear God’),” and “joy.” The ‘fear of God’ is employed here in adjective masculine singular construct “areîy>,” implying being fearful before God (cf., aweful attitude in Ogden, 115; humble attitude in Hubbard, 171; devotional attitude in Garrette, 324). 24

8

commentators. 25 Especially, its antilogion-expression has created different opinions among interpreters while majority read it as the admonition for a moderate life. 26 However, as Garrette worries about, if taken this explanation, there would be an implication of ‘little sinning.’ To this dilemma, Eaton advocates, especially, the ‘excessively righteous’ (of v. 16) as if meaning boastful self-righteous therefore mainly concerned with attitude rather. 27 This interpretation is much more persuasive in spite of its isolation from the whole idea of its immediate literary context. However, if taken Qoheleth as more than a secular philosopher 28 and read this specific passage (v. 16a) in its immediate context 29 and especially in light of concluding remark, ‘fearful before God’ of v. 18b, major concern of Qoheleth here is perceivable that is to propose the ‘fearful attitude before God’ as the best way of life that surpasses all human ways, whether extremely good or bad, whether extremely wise or fool, etc. In this light, no more concentration need to be given to other secondary things of the passage except to focus on the ‘fear of God’ that Qoheleth wanted to bring out.

25

Concerning the structure of vv. 15-18 as a single section within wider literary division of vv. 15-22, most commentators (i.e., Garrette, Hengstenberg, Eaton; and also Loader, Crenshaw, Hubbard, Longman) and translations such as NASB, NLT, CEV are in agreement while others treat each verse as a unit each (i.e., KJV, NIV) and others (e.g., Whybray, Wright) prefers to drop v. 15. However, from a rhetorical point of view, v. 15 seems an introductory remark to make a shift to next step of speech therefore better fits with the upcoming passage. 26

For this position, please, read Loader, 87-88; also, implying self-righteousness in Whybray, 120-121; “hypocrisy,” Crenshaw, 141 (cf. Garrette, 323). 27

Eaton, 114; and also Hubbard, 170.

28

For argument concerning the religious identity of Qoheleth, please, read “Theology and Purpose” section in Garrette, 271-279; and for personal conclusion, also refer to “The Name Qoheleth” section in Kaiser, 24-25. 29

For descriptive information on the immediate context of v. 16, please, refer again to the article of Andrews, “Ecclesiastes 7:1-9,” in Interpretation 55: 299-301. 9

Further, “~L'(Ku-ta,

aceîyE” magnifies the ‘fearful attitude before God’ as further the

best way in its capability to cope with life and its all excesses. However, this is not an attempt to live middle path of life even though appears to be, but, rather a noble choice to live humbly before God in complete submission and devotion so that the excessiveness of life can no longer bother but it has both [all] instead. Of course, to ‘fear God’ is totally another path of life other than even the better righteous act and the better wisdom of man. 30 This is the way to enjoy life in the midst of its excessiveness.

3. The Persistent Skill of Life (8:12-13 “well”) The ‘fear of God’ is basic for enjoying life. It is the best practice of life even better than temple worship (5:7), and the other path of life that supersedes all human endeavors, including self-righteousness and human wisdom (7:18). Moreover, the ‘fear of God’ also is the inner skill of life that persist even all temptations and evil forces around until the very end. Indeed, genuine ‘fear of God’ is one’s integrity of life. This is what Qoheleth brought out in this passage. 31 According to the observation of Ogden in his article, “Qoheleth’s Use of ‘Nothing is Better’—form,” chapter eight plays an important role in the Qoheleth’s search of Alêm'[]-

lk'B. ~d'_a'l'( !Arßt.YI-hm; (cf. 1:3). In his inspection, even the better wisdom of man cannot 30

However, by doing this way, Qoheleth did not reject the betterness of both wisdom and righteous act, but rather was conveying the best life of God-fearing man superseding even human effort of self-righteousness. Being the fact, Pauline concept of justification finds its preceding idea in Qoheleth in this way, cf., the exposition of Wirght on vv. 17-19 in his “Ecclesiastes,” EBC 5,1176. 31

Whybray correctly treated this two verses as a single unit against majority preference to treat verses of this passage as single unit in a wider literary unit, Whybray, 137; also, Garrette, 329. In contrast, however, see such commentators, Ogden, 136-7; Crenshaw, 155-6; Longman, 219. In this paper, preference is given to Whybray in respect of contrastive employment of crucial word ‘fear’ (yaeär.yIl. adjective masculine plural, Waßr>yyI) qal imperfect 3 person, masculine plural in verse 12; areÞy" adjective masculine singular in verse 13). 10

give better answer to life with its failure to see even the “immediate outcome of a man’s own life” (vv. 7-8), i.e., the unjust lengthen his long life (v. 12). According to theory, indeed, wisdom would claim divine judgment on the wicked, but, in practice, the appearance of success of the unjust is. His major proposal thus is to advocate enjoyment of life even beyond acquiring knowledge and wisdom. 32 Even though this argument could provide a very convincing statement on Qoheleth’s worldview as even beyond wisdom, the proposal of life-enjoyment as the major theme is still unconvincing statement. If it is being so, since even better wisdom failed, what is Qoheleth’s suggestion? Just to enjoy life as Ogden and Whybray would say? No. If yes, no difference with Epecurian ‘eat and drink tomorrow die’ concept? 33 In fact, while acknowledging the still importance of the concept of life-enjoyment in Qoheleth’s thought, in light of 8:12-13, again this paper finds the “fear of God” as a more crucial subject and the running theme of the Ecclesiastes. The passage, 8:12-13, plays as a response to previous assertion 34 of a likely divine inconsistency to judge the wicked (vv. 10-11). However, as Qoheleth is “content to wait patiently,” he finally finds out that the sure coming of divine retribution at the end. 35 Therefore, to Qoheleth, the problem is not with divine inconsistency but rather with the delay of divine retribution that seemed a temptation to many to fall together (v. 11, “..are 32

“Qoheleth therefore commends enjoyment,” Graham S. Ogden, “Qoheleth’s Use of ‘Nothing is Better’—form,” in JBL 98, 3 (September 1979): 339-350. 33

Because of this weak interpretation, many commentators prefer late date of composition to promote some Hellenistic thought (and Aramaic literary feature) as fountainhead of Qoheleth’s literary composition (please, consult with discussion of Eaton under the subheading “Greek Influence” of the Introduction section, 20-21; also in Longman, 11-15. 34

Ogden advocates that v. 12, even though it concerns the whole content of previous passage, but rhetorically is more closer to the immediate v. 10, Ogden, Qoheleth, 136. 35

This is another indication of Qoheleth’s kinship to wider Hebrew wisdom tradition, e.g., the Psalmist’ complain but content in Psalms 73. 11

given fully to do evil” in NASB; “...are filled with schemes to do wrong” in NIV). In response, however, Qoheleth asserts a twofold contrastive parallel: a lasting wellbeing “‘bAJ-hy
~ymiÞy"

%yriïa]y:-al{)w> [v'êr'l'( hy<åh.yI-al{) ‘bAjw>” to the wicked who seemed prosperous (v. 13). As Easton pointed out, the repetitive “fear God” emphasizes the importance 36 and the contrastive conjunction “yKi…” indicates the reversal of previous thought in verse 12a. 37 Concerning the destiny of the wicked, the paradox of thought between “Al+ 12a,” and “lCe_K;

%yrIåa]m;W, v.

~ymiÞy" %yriïa]y:-al{)w>, v. 13” brings an insight on the soon coming of divine

retribution in spite of man’s attempt to lengthen their prosperous but sinful days. Again, the two key-notes “hy<åh.yI-al{)

‘bAjw” and “%yriïa]y:-al{)w>” should be taken here as a pair,

implying ‘a very brief temporal wellbeing’ of the wicked under divine appointment of time. In fact, the fate of the one who fear [‘and fear’] God and of the wicked [‘and intend to continue wicked’] is totally different and completely reversal (v. 12; cf., v. 11). As a reflective conclusion, Qoheleth, as a man of faith, exemplifies his persistent faith in fear of God even though in the midst of raging storms of life and every winds of temptation, intending to weaver his faith and destroy his fearful attitude to awesome God. Indeed, the ‘fear of God’ is a persistent skill of life to defeat the battles of life and win the long lasting enjoyment of life.

36

Eaton, 123.

The conjunction “yKi…” has contrastive force here to reverse the former assumption %yrIåa]m;W ta;Þm. [r'² hf,î[o aj,ªxo.”

37

“Al+

12

THE ‘FEAR OF GOD’ IS OBEDIENCE TO HIS COMMANDMENT (12:13)

Various aspects of the ‘fear of God’ have been rendered in previous chapters, now, Qoheleth turns to deal with practical issue of the ‘fear of God’. According to the observation of Slemmons, chapter twelve contains four imperatives—‘remember’ your Creator (12:1), ‘be warned’ (12:12), ‘fear’ God and ‘keep’ His commandments (12:13)— and all those concluding imperatives imply “a double admonition” to remember God and be aware of. 38 In line with it, ‘fear God’ and ‘keep commandments’ appear as a pair, meaning a single admonition, or, defining each other. As Crenshaw and others alike observed, 39 this single passage summaries the whole content. Its opening word “@As” occurs three times in Qoheleth and all imply the idea of final ending (3:11; 7:2; “conclusion” in NIV, NASB, KJV, NLT; “last and final” in MSG; “end” AMP, YLT, 12:13). The clause “[m'_v.nI

lKoåh; rb"ßD'” is a direct reference to

the whole content 40 and the central thoughts—“pessimistic understanding of life” as traditional interpretation read or “enjoyment of life” as Whybray [and Ogden] would argue. If so, what is the concluding remark to all those various discussions throughout the pages? That is none other than to ‘fear God and keep His commandments.’ Concerning this conclusive purpose, there are two features it employs. From a literary standpoint, it is, as mentioned above, the single intended purpose of the

38

Timothy Matthew Slemmons, “Ecclesiastes 12:1-13,” Interpretation 55, 3: 302-4.

39

Crenshaw, 192 (cf., “ultimate conclusion” in Longman, 281; “summary and conclusion of the whole work” in Garrette, 344; “message summarized” in Eaton, 156, etc.). 40

Whybray further asserts that this clause indicates the integrity of the passage and also the unity of the Ecclesiastes as a single literary composition by rendering to read it not as niphal but as cohortative qal (“let us hear”) in line with Vulgate, Whybray, 173. Also, Garrette, 345. 13

Ecclesiastes. Again from ethical point of view, this is the duty of all humanity, for which purpose they were created (“~d'(a'h'-lK'

hz<ß-yKi,” v. 12c).41 Relation to “fear God” and

“keep commandments,” Hubbard also sees parallel connection between each other, saying “’[k]eep his commandments,’ helps interpret ‘fear God’.” 42 Accordingly, ‘fear of God’ should be understood in the context of ‘keeping His commandments’ in 12:13. In this light, the theme of the “fear of God” comes closer to Old Testament concept of worship. Of course, word study on “to keep rAmêv”. has shown its equivalent use at ritual observance of the Torah in tabernacle (c.f., Exodus 12:7, 24-25; 16:28; 20:6; Leviticus 8:35; 19:30; Numbers 3:32; 31:30); and, further the same word was occurred in Edenic commission also (Genesis 2:15). In fact, the ‘fear of God’ is more expounded, in 12:13, in terms of God’s original creative purpose and covenant relationship with God (observance of the Law). According to Qoheleth, thus, the ‘fear of God’ is more than a sentimental feeling or sophisticated concept but a practical daily-life affairs and an ethical expression of one’s genuine attitude toward God. Therefore, Eaton is correct when he makes a remark on this passage, said that “conduct derives from worship.” 43 In fact, according to Qoheleth, the worshipful life that spring out from one’s deep acknowledgement of the awesome God only is recommendable for a meaningful life. And further, this worshipful life is more than a regular vow made in the temple, but is a submissive obedience to God and His law on a daily basis. This is what Qohehleth’s final response to the ‘~ylib'h]

lbeÛh’ of life. This way, Qoheleth could convincingly conclude all

various subjects he had employed into a single theme that is the ‘fear of God’ in daily life. 41

This is difficult clause to interpret. Please, refer to argument of Longman, in Longman, 282; also read, Whybray, 173. Both agree that this conclusive purpose is applicable to all man for practice. 42

Hubbard, 253.

43

Eaton, 156. 14

CONCLUSION

As a scholar once said, if we “let the Bible interpret itself,” at least half of all our unanswered questions and unending debates will for sure be silence down. Problem with olden-days-scholars is very less resources for research, but problem with modern-daysscholars is too much availability of resources for reference that those many times go beyond the Bible itself. Yes, good use of all those resources and modern technologies for research is very much helpful; but, when we let them speak more than the text itself, and then we’ve got irresolvable problems there as many theological debates as today. When we let Qoheleth speak naturally from the text, thought there are big gaps between us in terms of culture, language, etc., we can still perceive at least the overall concept of the Ecclesiastes—its structure, its central idea, and theme. Further, its traditional legacy as sacred writing of Jewish society, for sure, since from second century B.C. also externally supports the sacred religious nature of the book. In fact, to assume the book as a secular philosophy or literature (yet it is a literary composition) would be a blasphemy. Accordingly, the overall concern of this paper is to read the Ecclesiastes as a Jewish religious literature composed for spiritual didactic purpose and Qoheleth as a religious wisdom teacher/preacher. Being the fact, therefore, to read the Jewish religious wisdom theme, the ‘fear of God,’ as the unifying theme of the book and to bring his audience to that point as the intended purpose of Qoheleth, as the content of the book itself reflected, are major thesis of the paper. In summary, to teach on the ‘fear of God’ and convince with it is the intended purpose of Qoheleth therefore also is the unifying theme of the book. For instance, Qoheleth claimed that, to find better and meaningful life, pleasure failed, power failed,

15

business failed, and even better wisdom failed in light of inescapable death and human destiny under the divine circulation of time and occasion (chs 1, 2, 3, 7). Further, enjoyment of life, even though encouraged to do so, is seemed approved but with a warning that unavoidable judgment of God is waiting ahead (ch. 9). Therefore, the best is to pursue the ‘fear of God’ and obey Him. To give logical answer to why the ‘fear of God,’ Qoheleth has extended his discourse. However, his answer is simple that says that the ‘fear of God’ only is the true meaning of human existence and therefore man can find meaningful life in the ‘fear of God’ alone. In further exposition, the ‘fear of God’ is explained as: -

the original intended purpose of God (3:14)

-

the better practice of life that keep one safe from harmful carelessness (5:7), the unknown other way of life that can cope with all unnecessary excessiveness (7:18), and the persistent skill of life that strengthen one’s integrity until the end (8:12-13); therefore, the ‘fear of God’ is rather true enjoyment of life than simply ‘to enjoy life’

-

the responsive obedience to God’s will and purpose in daily life (12:13)

Of course, even though very old ancient literature, the teaching of Qoheleth is still applicable to modern readers, especially when one stresses reading on its teaching on the ‘fear of God’. The time like today as many people are running to catch the said higher living standard on material basis really needs this kind of simple, but full of life, teaching that would simply say “FEAR GOD.” Indeed, by further extensively employing the ‘~ylib'h]

lbeÛh’ of life to convince of this true spiritual wisdom, Qoheleth has proved that

only the ‘fear of God’ is highest standard of life ever.

16

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY Books: Crenshaw, James L. Ecclesiastes. OTL. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Westminster Press, 1987. Eaton, Michael A. Ecclesiastes: An Introduction and Commentary. TOTC. Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1983. Garrett, Duane A. Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs. NAC 14. Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman, 1993. Hengstenberg, Ernest W. A Commentary on Ecclesiastes. Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock, 1998. Hubbard, D. Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon. MOT; Dalls, Taxes: Word, 1991. Kaiser, Jr., Walter C. Ecclesiastes: Total Life. EmBC; Chicago, Michigan: Moody, 1979. Loader, J. A. Ecclesiastes: A Practical Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986. Longman III, Tremper. The Book of Ecclesiastes. NICOT. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans, 1998. Ogden, G. Qoheleth. Readings—NBC; Sheffield, England: JSOT Press, 1987. Wright, J. S. “Ecclesiastes,” EBC. 5. Ed. F. E. Gaebelein. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1991. Whybray, R. N. Ecclesiastes. NCBC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989. Articles: Andrews, Susan R. “Ecclesiastes 7:1-19,” in Interpretation 55, 3 (July 2001): 299-301. Fletcher, Douglas K. “Ecclesiastes 5:1-7,” in Interpretation 55, 3 (July 2001): 296-8. Ogden, Graham S. “Qoheleth’s Use of ‘Nothing is Better’—form,” in JBL 98, 3 (September 1979): 339-350. Slemmons, Timothy Matthew “Ecclesiastes 12:1-13,” Interpretation 55, 3: 302-4. Wright, J. Stafford. “The Interpretation of Ecclesiastes,” Evangelical Quarterly 18 (January 1946): 18-34. Whybray, R. N. “Qoheleth, Preacher of Joy,” Journal for Studies of the Old Testament 23 (1982), 87-98.

i