Does the resurrection mean Ecclesiastes has nothing to say?

I do not think I did very well teaching Ecclesiastes last Sunday. Several people have said they disagree.

In a nutshell have been emphasizing what Qohelet aka Ecclesiastes says is hebel.

• Human beings are finite.
• No one knows the future.
• No one knows or can change what God is doing.
• Everybody dies.

Death is the great equalizer in the book of Ecclesiastes. Wise or foolish. Righteous or wicked. In the end all of us die.

Someone asked the very intelligent question.

If death is so important to the human condition which Qohelet calls hebel “vain, futile, meaningless” (among other things we wonder why God does not reward wisdom and righteousness now before death) then to what extent does the idea of “eternal life” (which is not the same as but includes life and reward beyond death) undermine both the observations and the recommendations that Qohelet makes? [my paraphrase]

I think you get the idea. Qohelet says there is no “advantage” to being wise or righteous. Everybody dies. Which is to say he expects God to reward the wise or the righteous in this life. So if God does reward after death  – as some understand resurrection and “eternal life” – where does that leave the book of Ecclesiastes?

That question has been on my mind also during this study. It has bothered me so much decided to ask the William Brown who now teaches at Columbia Theological Seminary. (I had the joy and privilege of studying Ecclesiastes with William Brown at Union Theological Seminary in Richmond. One of the best experiences in seminary.) Within an hour had a response. Have decided to take the risk of sharing it with you. Hope he does not mind.*

Yes, that’s a good question, and a central one canonically. I’ve always brought Ecclesiastes in connection with Romans 8:20 about creation “subjected to futility,” since the Greek word for “futility” (mataiotes) carries with it the sense of hebel (it’s what the LXX uses to translate it). So Paul begins his famous passage by acknowledging the kind of world Qoheleth finds himself, a transient, futile, absurd world, in short, hebel. But Paul sees beyond Qoheleth’s world, one redeemed and consummated in Christ. But that hasn’t happened yet. It exists in hope (end of v. 20). Paul moves from “futility” to “groaning” (v. 22), and insofar creation remains groaning, Qoheleth’s message still pertains. Yes, in Christ, we have eternal life, but we also die, painfully so. We remain finite, and so this life remains vitally important as we work out our salvation in fear and trembling.

Perhaps I would put it at the other extreme: if we were indeed fully redeemed right now, then I would grant Qoheleth’s overall message would be undermined or better made obsolete. But we are still works in progress in a world wracked by hebel; indeed, the world remains God’s work in progress. In Christ, we have hope that hebel has been overcome; it is not the final word, not does it constitute the final world, but it still persists here and now. For me, Qoheleth’s “ethic” to treasure the moment, to enjoy the simple gifts of food, drink, and companionship is itself a protest against hebel. Qoheleth’s minimalist approach to life can be recast in an ethic of Christian hope that sees these moments, which come few and far between, as harbingers of the new creation, of resurrection, of the consummation of life. The “glory” of the moment points to the glory of the future, and the simple gifts of food and drink can become sacramental. Christian faith does not dispense with Qoheleth’s message, it simply adds to it and thereby recasts it.

Wow. That is why Bill Brown is one of the top biblical scholars in the United States and teaches at a seminary. Turns out he has something also to say in the final chapter of his Interpretation commentary on Ecclesiastes.

I am convinced that the hope of “eternal life” does not resolve what is hebel. And does not render void the profound message of Qohelet aka Ecclesiastes. But have had difficulty articulating why I believe that. Although Bill Brown does not put it this way one could warn against an “overrealized eschatology” in which we think and act as if the world is no longer subject(ed) to hebel.

*Please do not quote this without permission.