Three Approaches to Ecclesiastes

In my observation, Ecclesiastes is second only to Revelation in the number of competing interpretive approaches available to readers of the book. It offers a great case study in how perception can drastically affect both interpretation and application. This fact ought to motivate us to be as meticulous as possible in observing the text within its context.

I’ve found interpreters of Ecclesiastes to fall into three general categories, though there are subtle distinctions of flavor even within each category. For an excellent and thorough review of interpretive approaches to Ecclesiastes, along with a careful analysis of the text itself and its place in Scripture, see this helpful (though lengthy) article from the Kerux journal.

Approach #1: The Cynic

This first approach seems to be most common in the academy, where scholars conclude that the text of Ecclesiastes, by and large, is neither orthodox nor commendable.

A conservative proponent of this approach is Tremper Longman, who sees Ecclesiastes as having two voices. The most air time is given to the Cynic, as most of the book is an extended quote of his cynicism (Eccl 1:12-12:9). The outer frame (Eccl 1:1-11, 12:9-14), however, refers to “the Preacher” in third person; therefore it was composed by someone else, who is evaluating the Preacher’s message. This outer frame is the only place in the book where we find an orthodox, praiseworthy message.

Other flavors of this approach suggest that the frame narrator is just as cynical as the Preacher is, and therefore the message of the “frame” is just as suspect as the rest of the book.

In short, this approach typically sees the book as entirely (or almost entirely) negative and not to be commended as godly. It is in the Bible primarily to help us understand the worldview of a thoughtful unbeliever. And the best way to apply the book is to reject the counsel found within the book.

Approach #2: The Hedonist

The second approach, which in my observation is most common among pastors, says the book of Ecclesiastes is to be commended and held up as a model for the wise life. Some proponents of this approach are Zack Eswine and Douglas Wilson.

Now the first approach often sees in Ecclesiastes a hedonism, albeit an ungodly hedonism: “Life is meaningless, so let’s just live it up while we can.” The hedonism of the second approach is a commendable, godly hedonism: “Life is meaningless in itself, but God miraculously blesses us with the ability to enjoy it anyway.”

In other words, Ecclesiastes presents both a dark side and a light side to life. The dark side is the vanity of life “under the sun” (which is all human existence); the light side is the supernatural gift of joy from God, despite the ubiquitous vanity. God has created a world with no meaning inherent within it; yet he also blesses his people with an irrational joy in the midst of that vanity.

In short, this approach typically sees the book as entirely (or almost entirely) positive and to be commended for imitation. It is in the Bible to help God’s people learn how to derive joy from the Lord even when the vanity of life may war against such joy. And the best way to apply the book is to recognize both the vanity of life on earth and the gift of joy from God.

Approach #3: The Apologist

The third approach, which in my observation is most common among evangelists and engagers of culture, says the book of Ecclesiastes is to be commended as a model of how to expose a false worldview and replace it with the truth. Some proponents of this approach are Sinclair Ferguson and Leland Ryken.

Some, such as Ryken, see in Ecclesiastes two competing voices, which alternate, almost in dialogue. There is the voice of the unbeliever, for whom life under the sun is meaningless and hopeless. And there is the voice of the believer, who expresses the joy of seeing the God who superintends everything from beyond the sun.

In this approach, the phrase “under the sun” tends to refer not to human existence universally (as in the Hedonist approach), but to the human existence of the unbeliever. Believers, therefore, can be freed from an “under the sun” perspective and have it replaced with an “eternal” perspective.

In short, this approach typically sees the book as roughly half true and half false. It is in the Bible to help God’s people relate to those whose only perception is “under the sun,” and to win such folks to a more truthful and satisfying outlook on life. The best way to apply the book is to help people grapple with the despair of materialism and naturalism, and to win them to a God’s-eye view of the heavens and the earth.

Conclusion

You can see that these three approaches produce markedly different results when it comes time to interpret a particular text within the book of Ecclesiastes. And with such divergent interpretation, application is bound to be light years apart.

For example, consider Eccl 10:19: “Bread is made for laughter, and wine gladdens life, and money answers everything.”

1. The Cynic might tell you that the only way to cope with reality is through food, pleasure, and financial gain. But God wants you to reject this outlook.
2. The Hedonist might tell you that bread, wine, and money may come and go, but, whether they come or go, only God’s children can receive the gift of enjoying such created commodities. So use them while you can, to the glory and enjoyment of God, and remain aware of how the world works.
3. The Apologist might tell you that the laughter, gladness, and success of food, alcohol, or money is fleeting. So let go of those things to find life in the unceasing satisfaction of trusting and obeying the only wise God.

Just picture the dramatic small group meeting, where all three approaches are represented in the discussion!

Charge

Now I charge you, as those approved by God to handle his word rightly: Don’t choose your approach according to which one feels best to you. And don’t simply stick with the approach you’ve traditionally heard in your circles.

Please allow this analysis to jolt you from your inertia, to expose the fault lines in your presumption, and to blast your familiarity—and thus free you to dive back into the text to observe it meticulously. Which approach (whether one of these three, or something else) does it seem the original author most likely intended when he wrote the book?

Disclaimer: While the Cynic may believe disclaimers to be a waste of time, the Hedonist is asking God for joy through the vanity, and the Apologist wishes to persuade me to drop the meager pleasure of affiliate relationships: I remain under obligation to tell you that Amazon links in this post will provide a fleeting satisfaction to this blog under the sun, if you have the courage to click them and make a purchase.

And thanks to my delightful colleague Andy Cimbala for the idea for this meaningless post.