The overall message of the book (Ecclesiastes) is that life, when viewed without God, seems vain. The beginning of Chapter 9 argues that anything can happen to anyone, whether good or bad, religious or irreligious (verses 1-2). It's not just that life can be unfair; humans, with their wickedness, exacerbate the troubles, and in the end, everyone dies (verse 3). However, as long as one is alive, there is hope (verse 4). The living at least know what will happen to them: they will surely die (and stand before God), but until then, they can change their fate (which gives hope). The dead, however, know nothing and are forgotten over time (verse 5). The earthly matters they fought for fade, and whether they once loved or hated no longer matters; they no longer partake in worldly affairs (verse 6). It's not that they lack consciousness or cease to exist but that they have fallen out of this world. Therefore, the lesson, indeed God's desire, is to enjoy the fleeting life – with work, honor, love, and good spirits – while it lasts (verses 7-9). For what counts beyond is what happened on Earth.
The narrator of the Book of Ecclesiastes had very little knowledge of many things that Jesus and his apostles later preached. The author does not make statements, but only wonders (thinks, observes, often raises questions, and leaves them open). He looked at the world based on the Law of Moses and found nothing but vanity, as the earthly reward promised in the law did not always accompany good deeds and earthly punishment for evil deeds. However, Jesus and the apostles offered a greater perspective, including the promise of heavenly reward after death. The author of Ecclesiastes did not possess the full revelation that the evangelists had. Or do you also claim along with him that there is no better thing for a man under heaven than to eat, drink, and be merry, etc.?
Revelation happened progressively on many subjects: for example, Abraham or Solomon could have known almost nothing about the soul and its fate, Jesus spoke a lot about it, and even more was given to the apostles. Therefore, in this question, one cannot refer to Old Testament texts without taking into account the later, New Testament revelations.
Ecclesiastes 9:5 does not teach unconscious existence after death, but only that the dead have no share in anything that happens under the sun. They also quote this in their continuation, and I have never claimed that the dead know what is happening on earth. But perhaps they are willing to accept literally (also for themselves) that the dead have no more rewards?
Because maybe they also agree that, in the final analysis, not everything is in vain, and that there are better things for a man to do than to eat, drink, and enjoy life. If they accept this, don't hey feel that they are contradicting Ecclesiastes?
First, the verse itself only says that the living about the future know only that they must die; however, this depressing awareness is more valuable than the underworld state, which completely lacks knowledge. The Old Testament sage does not yet know about the reward after death; the earthly reward after death would be immortal fame, but this is also vanity, as people quickly forget. Therefore, the living are in full use of their senses and can still enjoy life; but the deceased, even the souls of the righteous, are in a state of numbness and sad silence together. Ecclesiastes here speaks of the deceased of the Old Testament, pre-Christian times. Before Christ accomplished his work of redemption, heaven was closed; and during this time, the deceased were all together in the underworld in a joyless, sad existence, although they were chosen for eternal salvation. In this respect, their life was sadder than that which people live in this world. Hell, the underworld (Genesis 4:16, 30, 33), where all the dead gathered (Job 30:23) before Christ had accomplished his great work, was, in the case of the wicked, a place of real hell, indeed a place of supplication (Job 26:5); but also for the righteous, as a porch of hell, it was not a place of joy, but of silent sadness (Psalm 29:10, 87:13, Isaiah 38:18, Ecclesiastes 9:10), and in this respect, it was not that place where God is exalted and praised, as it is on earth. Only through Christ did death cease to be sad, because he opened heaven, that place where God is exalted and praised. The praying Christian should remember the death of sin and eternal death in hell, the place of punishment for the damned, where God is not blessed and exalted.
The whole message of the book is that if we view life without God, everything seems futile. The beginning of Chapter 9 also argues this point: anything can happen to anyone, whether they are good and religious or bad and irreligious, the same can happen to everyone (verses 1-2). But it's not enough for life to be unjust; humans, with their own wickedness, exacerbate the problems, and in the end, everyone dies (verse 3). This seems quite hopeless, but as long as a person is alive, there is reason for hope (verse 4). At least the living know what will happen to them: they will definitely die one day (and stand before God), but until then, they have the opportunity to change their fate (which can give hope). The dead, however, know nothing, they have no benefit from anything, and eventually, others forget them (verse 5). The earthly things they fought for vanish, and although they once loved or hated, it no longer matters: they can no longer participate in earthly matters (verse 6). It is not that they are unconscious or that they do not exist, but rather that they have fallen out of this world. Therefore, the lesson, indeed, God's will, is that one should enjoy the transient life – with work, honor, love, and joy – as long as possible (verses 7-9). Not because there is "nothing" after death, but because acting, thinking, and acquiring knowledge and wisdom must and can be done here in earthly life (verse 10). What matters beyond is what happened on earth.
The Watchtower Society teaches, based on this biblical verse, that when a person dies, they cease to exist. The dead do not see, do not hear, do not think. Humans do not have an immortal soul that would continue to live after death. This is the so-called annihilation, which is completely contrary to Christian teaching.
One of the basics of biblical interpretation is that you cannot cut a few lines or words out of the whole text and then extract something from it. The Bible should not be viewed in terms of individual sentences, but rather the teachings of individual sections or books. For example, one could refer to the words of Satan or the words of evil or foolish people in the Bible (e.g., "There is no God" Psalm 14:1). The same happens in this case. The Jehovah's Witnesses, in order to support one of their teachings - which almost their entire substantive teaching is based on - turn to the Book of Ecclesiastes, where a skeptical, hopeless, and disillusioned person pours out their heart, arguing with themselves. The entire Book of Ecclesiastes is a series of points and counterpoints. First, hopelessness and despair are expressed, followed by the positive response of faith. To refer to Ecclesiastes 9:5 as the final word and biblical teaching is like building a dogma based on the desert temptation without including Christ's responses.
Jehovah's Witnesses often read only individual Bible quotes and the accompanying Watchtower tracts, rather than the Bible itself. This is also the case here, because if they had read further in the Book of Ecclesiastes, as well as the context of Ecclesiastes 9:5, they would (perhaps) have noticed how flawed the picture is. The Ecclesiastes first formulates his statements as a thinking humanist, living in principles that do not provide him with a real answer, which do not belong to God: life is meaningless (Ecclesiastes 1:2); the only important thing is for a person to eat, drink, and enjoy themselves (Ecclesiastes 5:17; 10:19); morality is irrelevant (Ecclesiastes 7:16-17); there seems to be no afterlife justice (Ecclesiastes 3:19-21; 9:2,6). A Jehovah's Witness would surely shake their head and protest if someone told them that "one fate awaits everyone: the righteous and the wicked, the good and the bad, the clean and the unclean; the one who offers a sacrifice and the one who does not. There is one fate for all. No one can live forever, and no one can have confidence in this." A Jehovah's Witness would surely say that these are not God's thoughts but those of a desperate person who does not trust in the Lord. However, this passage immediately precedes Ecclesiastes 9:5, as it is taken from Ecclesiastes 9:2-4. Therefore, the same should be thought of verse 5.
Later, the Ecclesiastes rejects these thoughts, affirming with certainty: "man goes to his eternal home and the dust returns to the earth from which it came, and the breath of life returns to God who gave it. For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil." (Ecclesiastes 12:5,7,14)
On the other hand, the Ecclesiastes speaks of the deceased of the Old Testament, the pre-Christian times. Before Christ's redemption, heaven was closed; at that time, the deceased were all together in the underworld (Sheol) in a joyless, dreary existence, even if they were chosen for eternal salvation. Although they were separate from those condemned to hell (see, for example, Ezekiel 32:17-32), this place - as the antechamber of hell - was not a place of joy but of silent sorrow, where even God was not praised. This is completely different from heaven, which was only opened by Christ's crucifixion. From that time on, death became joy, the saints who died began to praise God, and they began to intercede for us.
The pre-Christ Underworld (Sheol or Hades) is not the same as the post-Christ threefold state (hell, purgatory, heaven), although there are similarities. The underworld was a real hell (Gehenna) for the wicked, but for the righteous, there was no state of happiness with God.
Their main verse, Ecclesiastes 9:5-10, which says, "the dead know nothing," is limited to the context found in: "what happens under the sun," verse 6. Compare this with other verses where the same expression is found. "Two hundred men went with Absalom ... they went in their innocence and knew nothing." 2 Samuel 15:11. Another example: "The boy knew nothing; only Jonathan and David knew the matter." 1 Samuel 20:39. Paul says about a conceited teacher: "he is puffed up and knows nothing." 1 Timothy 6:4. So, were they completely devoid of thought or consciousness? No. It simply means they knew nothing about the matters at hand. The same applies to Ecclesiastes 9:5. The context explains it: "and they will never again have a share in anything that happens under the sun." Verse 6.
- The Ecclesiastes deals with what happens on earth – "under the sun." This coincides with the Old Testament worldview. The theme is how futile everything is if people try to live without God: "Utterly meaningless! Everything is meaningless. What do people gain from all their labors at which they toil under the sun?" (Ecclesiastes 1:2-3).
- The author looks at it from the living's perspective, that everyone dies, but what they say about the dead is not entirely consistent, e.g., "the dead know nothing," (9:5); cf. "I declared the dead, who had already died, happier than the living, who are still alive." (4:2). "The dust returns to the ground it came from, and the spirit returns to God who gave it." (12:7); cf. "Who knows if the human spirit rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?" (3:21).
- If we take some verses literally, disregarding the book's purpose, we would have to deny the resurrection and eternal life, e.g., "Man's fate is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other... All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return." (3:19-20); At people's death: "Their love, their hate, and their jealousy have long since vanished; never again will they have a part in anything that happens under the sun." (9:6); "man goes to his eternal home." (12:5).
- The Ecclesiastes does hint at judgment and eternity: "I said in my heart, God will judge the righteous and the wicked, for there is a time for every matter and for every work." (3:17, cf. 11:9; 12:14); "He has also set eternity in the human heart." (3:11). The author encourages us to remember the Creator and obey Him (12:1, 13).
- In summary, the Ecclesiastes teaches that the toil of earthly life without God is utterly meaningless because we will all die. However, based on this book alone, we cannot draw conclusions about the state after death, as that is not its topic, and its related statements are inconsistent.
The Watchtower primarily refers to Old Testament passages, especially the Psalms and the Book of Ecclesiastes, which speak of the transience of man, the broken relationship with God, and the created world in the state of death (e.g., Psalms 6:5; 49:14; 115:7; Ecclesiastes 3:18-22; 9:3-10). If we read these in isolation and do not consider their place in the history of salvation, then we indeed come to a one-sided opinion like Rutherford and his successors. This kind of exegesis, which extracts the texts from their soteriological and overall biblical context and does not take into account the progress, characterizes the Watchtower Society's Bible interpretation.
What is the place of the Ecclesiastes (qohelet) in the history of salvation? This is the level of man's Old Testament knowledge before the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The eternal life and death here - as in the Old Testament in general - do not yet have as clear certainty as in the New Testament. Even if the existence after death is repeatedly mentioned in some places of the Old Testament (e.g., Psalms 88:11; 139:8; Isaiah 26:19; Ezekiel 37; Daniel 12:1; Job 19:25ff). (And except for Isaiah 26:19 and Daniel 12:1ff, the rest are debatable.) Full certainty is only given with the resurrection of Jesus Christ and by him, as the foundation of the general resurrection of the dead. In contrast, we encounter fear of the threatening judgment and the transience of earthly life in many places in the Old Testament, including Ecclesiastes.
The Qohelet is still strongly oriented towards the present world and has no certainty of resurrection to life. However, he reckons that "death is not the end of everything (3:17; 12:7)", that "there is judgment." Ecclesiastes 3:18ff, for example, speaks of "the godless man who only cares for himself, and compared to the animals, he realizes and must admit that there is no difference until death." The line of thought, however, consistently continues to Jesus Christ, who conquers death. The same applies to Ecclesiastes 9:3ff: "The 'under the sun' placement again recognizes that, passing by the sober reality of life next to God's order, the Ecclesiastes, with his observations, is back at the beginning. When Jehovah's Witnesses rely on such places, they do not realize that these are questions that find an answer and fulfillment with Jesus Christ. When Ecclesiastes 3:21 asks, "Who knows whether the human spirit goes upward?", the New Testament passage, 2 Corinthians 5:1, provides the answer: "For we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens."
The Ecclesiastes is also called the Book of the Preacher, because Solomon, who according to the traditional opinion of Jews and Christians is the author, speaks in it as a teacher standing before an assembly. He teaches about the vanity and transience of worldly things; in general, how futile and vain are all the earthly efforts of man, by which he tries to soothe his heart and mind. Due to the vanity of earthly things, nothing is left for man but to live his life in godly fear. This alone is constant, from this man gains real benefit, hence at the end of this book it is recommended with the following words: Fear God, and keep his commandments; for this is the whole duty of man; and all that happens, whether good or evil, God will bring to judgment for every mistake.
In the Old Testament ... the gnome literature shows us the ethics of the Old Testament, while the chokma literature (the Book of Ecclesiastes and the Book of Wisdom) can be considered as the philosophy of the Old Testament.
The Hebrew name of the book: Dibre Koheleth (the words of Koheleth). The meaning of this word is not quite certain, the Vulgate translated it as Ecclesiastes. This word also refers to the assembly (Ecclesia), but it may denote a voting member of the assembly, its leader, or someone who speaks in it: the Preacher.
Description. The book contains thoughtful reflections; we cannot find any system or breakdown in it. As problems emerge in his soul, he raises and reflects on them, seeking their solutions. It is not so easy to find his basic idea. True, the opening and closing words of the work are: "Vanity of vanities, says the Preacher, all is vanity" (1,2; 12,8), but we cannot say with Augustine and some Church Fathers that the Preacher instructs us to despise worldly goods and seek heavenly ones. It seems more accurate to us to identify this as the main problem of the Preacher: Why is it worth living?
According to its title (1:1), the statement "vanity of vanities" (1:2; 12:8) encloses the seven series of sayings about the futility of all earthly things. Loosely connected meditations follow one another about the brevity of life, the vanity of all human effort, the futility of work, etc., usually referring to personal experiences. Each series of sayings ends with an appeal to enjoy life (2:24; 3:12; 3:22; 5:17; 8:15; 9:7; 11:7), but the author is not entirely worldly-minded: he regards the goods and pleasures of life as God's gifts (2:24; 5:18), and he knows that humans have to account for everything to God, including the use of earthly goods (3:17; 11:10; 12:14). His seemingly materialistic and pessimistic conception can largely be traced back to the fact that he had dark notions of the underworld, and generally of the afterlife (9:7-10; 11:8), he did not see heaven, which could have compensated him for the disappointments of earthly life.
This is a serious problem of every age, which the light of revelation did not make as clear in the Old Testament mindset as in the New Testament. The Old Testament worldview did not create a false concept of the afterlife, but rather an imperfect one. The afterlife, even for the good, is not a very tempting place - after all, Old Testament souls could not see the face of God according to Christian dogma. That's why the afterlife doesn't satisfy the soul of the Preacher. Worldly goods are also imperfect. He examines them one by one: wisdom is good, but it is also incomplete; pleasure makes people sick; wealth makes us insatiable; virtuous life often does not bring earthly rewards, for many times sinners revel in the goods of the earth, while virtuous people suffer a lot; death, after all these, is good in one hand because it means the end of suffering, on the other hand, the underworld life is not desirable even for a virtuous person. These are the problems that, spiced with practical advice, surge in Koheleth's mind. Theoretically, only the New Testament could answer these questions. The Preacher (Koheleth) did not see the theoretical solution clearly: he knew that God was his caring father, he believed and trusted in him, he knew that he was infinitely fair. He recommends practically that we live with the goods of the earth, but within the limits set by God's commands, without losing the peace of our souls in the pursuit of them.
Although their problems, while being of a general human nature, sprang from the ground of Old Testament thinking, it can hardly be denied that they are similar in many ways to those discussed by the Greek philosophers, although the author cannot be related to them in any dependent relationship. This Old Testament philosopher also differs significantly from the Greeks in that we cannot find a logical system in him, but he presents his reflections, as if arguing with himself, in chronological succession. This can explain why, with some bias, the Preacher was considered skeptical, even blase, and was considered both a stoic fatalist, a pessimist, and a follower of Epicurus who fought sharply against fatalism. Therefore, it's not worth seeking a dialogue in him. The external form of the Preacher is more poetic than prosaic. The rhythm of thought is not present everywhere, or, more accurately, it is often progressive and thus prosaic. Many people find sound rhythm in his text. Stanzas cannot be discovered in it. He likes to bring parables, riddles; he is a sharp observer and accomplished describer of nature. He loves personifications, as shown by the description of old age (12,3-4): "Remember him—before the silver cord is severed, and the golden bowl is broken; before the pitcher is shattered at the spring, and the wheel broken at the well." Rhetorical questions, exclamations, unfinished sentences and thoughts enliven his style, but often make it obscure. His language is far from classical Hebrew, it is close to new Hebrew, perhaps closest of all the books of the Bible.
Those who do not understand the argumentative, pondering nature of the book explain its origin as the work of different authors (C. Siegfried, E. Podechard). One beat the other to death by inserting glosses into the work that suit their own opinion.
The author of the book was one man, but who he was is hard to decide. The traditional view is Solomon, because the title of the book says this: "The words of Koheleth. The son of David, King of Jerusalem"; he also often refers to himself as a king in the work. However, the whole character of the work speaks against Solomon's authorship; the Proverbs of Solomon are quite different - primarily in language - from the Preacher. In the Preacher's time, the princes appear on horses, not, as in the time before the Persian era, therefore also in Solomon's time, on donkeys (10,7); Solomon could not have complained as a king about the unjust oppression of the subjects, the excesses of the powerful, and denunciations (4,1; 5,7; 10,5k. 20). All this speaks against Solomon's authorship. However, the book is not a forgery, but only a poetic fiction when the author imagines himself in the position of the wise king known to everyone, and speaks about himself in the first person throughout.
It is a very effective tool to illustrate that neither science, nor wealth, nor pleasures can provide complete happiness, because Solomon had all this. The contemporaries could have known very well that the author does not want to be a forger, just as the other chokma book, the Book of Wisdom, also puts its wisdom in the mouth of Solomon.
The book was therefore probably written in the post-Babylonian captivity period; before the Book of Sirach, which already quotes it (according to Podechard between 240-190).
The Book of Ecclesiastes, in terms of its title and content, is one of the most difficult books of the Old Testament to analyze. The meaning of the Hebrew title (Kohelet) is still controversial to this day. The noun on which it is based (kahal) means assembly... the title of the Septuagint and the Vulgate: Ecclesiastes, means one who is within an assembly, therefore someone who appears at a public meeting, whether as a speaker or as an ordinary participant.
The Book of Ecclesiastes, in terms of its title and content, is one of the most difficult books of the Old Testament to analyze. The meaning of the Hebrew title (Kohelet) is still controversial to this day. The noun it is based on (kahal) means assembly and since Kohelet is understood to be King Solomon (see 1, 1.), most commentators believe that the author calls this king the "one who calls the assembly together", because after the construction of the temple, he gathered the people around him (1 Kings 8:1) and taught them (Ecclesiastes 12:9), or because he called wise men to his court to debate about difficult questions (see 12, 11.). The title of the Septuagint and the Vulgate (Ecclesiastes) means one who is in the assembly, therefore someone who appears at a public meeting either as a speaker or as an ordinary participant.
The Book of Ecclesiastes is not a systematic work, but a more or less loose series of reflections that mostly revolve around this motto: "Vanity of vanities! All is vanity!" (1, 2; 12, 8 etc.). The Book of Job already raised the issue of the innocent suffering of the righteous. Ecclesiastes goes a step further when, next to the suffering righteous (3, 16; 4, 1; 5, 7; 7, 16; 8, 14), he sees the unhappiness of a man boasting with the splendor, glory, and wisdom of Solomon, thus the fullness of earthly goods, he feels the common tragedy of human earthly fate, and even extends it by contemplating the seemingly futile cycle of creation and extinction that appears in nature (chapter 1). The author of Job did not fully clarify the problem of suffering, and had to be satisfied with the fact that the ultimate cause of innocent suffering is God's inscrutable providence. The musings of Ecclesiastes also lead towards this solution, but the problem becomes even sharper for him because the prosperity that balances the sufferings (see Job 42.) cannot truly satisfy him, and the perspectives of balancing in the afterlife are also missing here. Therefore, it can rightly be said that no book of the Old Testament cries out for the New Testament conception that counts with justice and happiness in the afterlife as much as Ecclesiastes does.
Apart from the discussion of the vanity of life as the main topic, the book also contains other details that have no closer connection with the motto. Such is the part about worship and the vow (4, 17-5, 6) and various wise sayings (8, 1-8; 9, 17-10, 4; 10, 8-11, 6).
The author of the book was generally thought to be Solomon by the old commentators. However, the language of the Hebrew text shows many Aramaic and modern Hebrew features; from these circumstances and some parts of the book, newer interpreters conclude that the author was probably a wise man living in Jerusalem (see 4, 17; 5, 5; 8, 1; 12, 9.), who wrote his work around 200 BC. Since different intellectual currents appear here and there in our book, and there are stylistic differences as well, several Catholic interpreters believe that multiple (suggested) authors took part in the writing of the book.
The Book of Ecclesiastes is unequivocally considered a canonical sacred scripture by both the Christian church and the Jewish synagogue.
As in other didactic books, such as the Book of Job and Sirach, not to mention the Book of Proverbs, the thought zigzags, repeats, and corrects itself. There is no final plan; the thoughts are variations on a single theme, talking about the vanity of human things, as it proclaims at the beginning and end of the book. Everything is deceptive: knowledge, wealth, love, even life itself. Life is nothing more than a series of disconnected acts, and it has no value (3:1-11); it ends with old age (12:1-7) and death, which takes away the wise and the fool, the rich and the poor, the animal and the human alike (3:14-20). Qohelet's problem is the same as Job's: is there reward and punishment for good and evil here on earth? And just as Job's answer is negative, so is Qohelet's, because experience contradicts the accepted solutions (7:25-8:14). The difference is that Qohelet is a healthy person who does not seek the cause of suffering like Job. He asserts the vanity of fortune and comforts himself with the enjoyment of modest pleasures that belong to existence (3:12-13; 8:15; 9:7-9). We might say that he is seeking his own consolation because he is inevitably unsatisfied. The secret of the afterlife torments him without seeing a solution (3:21; 9:10; 12:7). But Qohelet is a believer, though sometimes confused when he sees that God cares about human affairs, but he affirms that God cannot be held accountable (3:113,14; 7:13). Tribulations must be accepted from his hand, just like joys (7:14). His commandments must be kept because he sees everything hidden, whether it is good or bad (12:13-14; cf. 9:1).
It is clear that this teaching, which can be drawn from the book, including the last verses which even the proponents of the unity of the book doubt, is not coherent. Still, instead of dividing the individual parts among several authors who correct or contradict each other, should we not rather attribute the different parts to an unknown, but the same author, who approaches a terrifying secret without solving it? Like Job, Qohelet can only be answered if we accept the reward and punishment in the afterlife. But he does not yet see this.
The book has a transitional nature. Traditional evidences have been shaken, but nothing else can yet replace them. At this turning point in Hebrew thought, we may look for what foreign influences left their mark on Qohelet. Some think of the Egyptian work titled "Desperate Conversation with His Soul" or "The Harpist's Melancholic Songs" and the philosophical currents of Greece through Hellenized Egypt: Stoicism, Epicureanism, and Cynicism. No exact determination can be made, but the atmosphere is the same. Qohelet is a Palestinian Jew, belongs to a group of wise men, and like them, he looks at things with open eyes, and breathes in the fresh air coming from beyond the borders. This is the first, indirect connection with Hellenism, and also determines the time of writing the book. It was written in the Greek period, but before the flare-up of faith and the hope of the Maccabean era, let's say in the 3rd century BC. At this time, Palestine under the Ptolemies was exposed to Alexandrian intellectual influences.
The book only marks a moment in religious development, and should not be judged as a break with the past and the future. It points out the inadequacy of old concepts, compels thinking to face the mysteries of human life, and yearns for higher revelation. It teaches detachment from earthly things, and by denying the luck of the rich, it prepares the world to hear that "blessed are the poor" (Lk 6:20).