Critique of Eaton’s Interpretation of Ecclesiastes: Based on your reading of Eaton’s

commentary (pages 15-89), summarize Eaton’s interpretation of Ecclesiastes (do not

include in your summary materials you read on pages 15-26). Then analyse and critique

Eaton’s interpretation of Ecclesiastes. Focus on the question of how Eaton deals with the

problem of apparent pessimism in Ecclesiastes. You must quote him sufficiently to

support your argument. (Length: 1000 words)

The major hermeneutical difficulty of Ecclesiastes is to understand its apparent

internal contradictions. At times, Qoheleth seemed to be pessimistic or gloomy about

everything in life (“All is vanity!”) while at other times, he admonished readers to enjoy

their labor, eat well, live joyfully with one’s wife and receive with gladness what God has

given. As a result, interpreters have conflicting descriptions of Qoheleth as a skeptic (R.

B. Y. Scott) or an orthodox theist (Aalders, Leupold). Others have tried to resolve the

tension by spiritualizing exegesis (Jewish Targum and medieval Christians), positing a

dialogue between two differing speakers (Yeard, Eichhorn) or by presenting the futility

of the world for evangelistic purposes so that readers will pursue the delights of heaven

(the Puritans, Wesley). Eaton took issue with interpreters (Barton, McNeile and

Podechard) who saw Ecclesiates as a basically skeptical work with glossatorial additions

at the hands of orthodox editor(s) as it would entail a clumsy redactor who added

conflicting comments to skeptical passages that could have been more easily amended

altogether. But there is no textual support for such changes, the vocabulary of alleged

insertions is remarkably similar to undisputed passages and no methodological necessity

1
exists for such theories if an alternative exposition could reconcile these sections

coherently.

Eaton attempted an approach that avoids the pitfalls of critical orthodoxy which

downplayed the orthodox elements within Ecclesiastes and traditional orthodoxy which at

times has ignored or allegorized its pessimism. “What, then, is the purpose of

Ecclesiastes? It is an essay in apologetics. It defends the life of faith in a generous God by

pointing to the grimness of the alternative.”1 He saw a heaven-earth dichotomy in which

‘God is in heaven and you upon earth’ (5:2). The recurring expressions like ‘under the

sun’, ‘under heaven’ and ‘on earth’ described the futility of a barren life without

reference to faith in God.2 Therefore, much of the book was blanketed by pessimism.

When such terminologies fade away (2:24-26; 11:1-12:14), a more positive tone emerges

with references to the ‘hand of God’ (2:24), the joy of man (2:25, 3:12. 5:18, 20, 9:7,

11:7-9), and the generosity of God (2:26, 3:13, 5:19). Qoheleth showed the inevitable

bankruptcy of ‘secularism’ in order to drive us to God where life’s meaning can be

fulfilled. “It is only to one seeking satisfaction in disregard of God that the Preacher’s

message stops at ‘All is vanity’… When a perspective of faith is introduced ‘All is

vanity’ is still true, but it is not the whole picture; ‘under the sun’ it is the whole truth.”3

But what does the phrase ‘under the sun’ mean? We can find it in other ancient works

such as the Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic’s statement that: “Only the gods [live] forever
1
Michael Eaton, Ecclesiastes, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity,
1983), page 45
2
“This expression ("under the sun") seems to imply that the speaker thinks a distinction can be made
between what happens in human experience ("under the sun") and what happens elsewhere.” Kathleen A.
Farmer, Who Knows What Is Good? (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1991), page 206
3
Michael Eaton, Ecclesiastes, page 57

2
under the sun. As for mankind, numbered are their days; whatever they achieve is but the

wind” (Pritchard 1969: 79). Dr Leong explained that this phrase refers to “the realm of

human life and activities in this world as opposed to the hereafter”. Qoheleth appears to

use the phrase in the same sense when he describes the living as “those who move about

under the sun” (4:15) and the dead as those who “will no longer have a share in all that is

done under the sun” (9:6).4 Therefore, it appears that the phrase does not have any

connotation about a faithless life without reference to God.

Similarly, the theme ‘All is vanity” does not necessarily carry a pessimistic overtone

(being more negative than what reality warrants). The Hebrew word “hebel” has the basic

meaning of “breath” (Isa 57:13). Leong explained that Qoheleth is saying that everything

we work for in this life is vaporous, fleeting and transitory. To say that life is transient is

less pessimistic than saying that it is meaningless (as rendered in the New International

Version). In other contexts such as 1:2-3, however, “all is vaporous” answers the

question, “What profit does man have in all his labor?” Thus “all is vaporous” here

means “all is profitless.” Qoheleth is thus saying that everything is ultimately profitless

because all is transient. Although wisdom, wealth and pleasure have temporal benefits,

we do not take any gain in life with us when we die. In the long run, there is no net profit.

“Since death comes to us all as the final leveler, nothing that we do has any ultimate

value, because nothing lasts. So, anything that we might perceive as being meaningful,

Qohelet goes to great lengths to point out, is really absurd”.5 This observation is realistic

though those who are unwilling to accept this fact may find it rather pessimistic. But for
4
Leong Tien Fock, Our Reason For Our Being,
http://ourreasonforbeing.blogspot.com/2006/11/announcement-of-theme-all-is-vanity-or.html
5
"Ecclesiastes 1: Book of," Dictionary of the Old Testament, Wisdom, Poetry & Writings, Editors,
Tremper Longman III & Peter Enns, (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 200), page 129

3
those who seek the Kingdom and store up treasure in heaven, ‘all is vanity’ may be

optimistic since death leads to the resurrection and eternal life.

Responding to Eaton’s view, Duanne Garrett commented, “If Ecclesiastes is an

apologetic work, it is surely unlike any other defense of the faith we know. It raises more

questions than it answers. It is also doubtful whether we can legitimately separate two

viewpoints within Ecclesiastes – the one being the worldly, under-the-sun perspective

and the other being the true, evangelistic heart of the Teacher… One would not expect in

an apology such a frank carpe diem (“Seize the day”, a statement of the brevity of life) as

in 11:10.”6 Although Qoheleth drives the reader to God, his words are not evangelistic in

the conventional sense.

If we do not subscribe to Eaton’s apologetic approach to understanding Ecclesiastes,

how shall we understand the apparent contradictions in the text? For example,

Ecclesiastes 6:3-5 says a stillborn child is better off than a person who fathered many

children and lived many years for not having seen the sun or known anything. It seems to

contradict 11:7 that asserts, “Light is pleasant, and it is good for the eyes to see the sun.

No matter how many years a man may live, let him rejoice in them all, and let him

remember the days of darkness, which may be many. All that comes is vanity.” Instead of

positing an ‘under the sun’ view for the former and a faith perspective for the latter, the

discrepancy can be resolved by taking seriously the characteristics of Ecclesiastes as

Wisdom literature that is application-centered and context-bound. In 6:3-5, Qoheleth is

6
Duanne Garrett, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, The New American Commentary, (Broadman
Press: Nashville, Tennessee, 1993), page 275

4
comparing a stillborn child who has more ‘rest’ than the rich man who toiled for many

years but could not enjoy good things he accumulated. In death, both ended up in the

same place. In such a context, there is no net gain for the covetous rich man so it is

ultimately profitless. But in 11:7, there is a different application since it is good to be

alive in the world (“see the sun”) provided that one is able to rejoice in all his years

courtesy of a carefree and God-fearing heart. Therefore it is better not to see the sun if

one’s wealth accumulation cannot be enjoyed but it is good to be alive if one avoids

covetousness and enjoy life properly since all is transient. In conclusion, it is possible to

resolve these apparent discrepancies without adopting Eaton’s views on pessimism in

Ecclesiastes.