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] lbeÛh]” theme. Therefore, while

acknowledging the “‘~ylib'h] 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; 12:13-
14. 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

10
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.

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 (3:1-
5:20) 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 question-

answer, “^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.”
24
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).

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<h.y”I to those who fear God (v. 12) and not long lasting wellbeing “lCe_K; ~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+ %yrIåa]m;W, v.

12a,” and “lCe_K; ~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
37

“Al+ %yrIåa]m;W ta;Þm. [r'² hf,î[o aj,ªxo.”

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-days-

scholars 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.