Issue no. 5: 2006 1st Quarter; article overview:
Page 1:First Article;The Messianic context of Psalm 110 -exegesis part two
Page 2:Second Article;Samson Option, Samson as national allegory in Deuteronomistic theology
Page 3:Third Article;Qohelet and the background to Ecclesiastes
Page 4:Fourth Article;Nathaniel under the Bo-tree - Buddhism and the problem of suffering
Page 5:Fifth Article;The Spirit in the latter days-Part four
Page 6:Sixth Article;Book review of the writings of Santala
For the PDF version of this article click here
Wisdom literature and Ecclesiastes
A new approach to the book of Ecclesiastes
Who was the preacher?
The authorship of Ecclesiastes is crucial to understanding the preachers’ worldview. Is it the work of Solomon, [1] or perhaps a pseudonymous third century [2] scribal creation? The following article will endeavour to demonstrate that king Uzziah, who was contemporary with the prophetic ministries of Isaiah, Hosea and Amos, wrote Ecclesiastes.
The rise and fall of a king
The Chronicler (2 Chron.26) gives us an account of a king who was one of the longest reigning and most successful kings of Judea. He was militarily and politically adept, but was also a builder and an agriculturist until he was punished with leprosy for his act of hubris. He spent the last of his years in quarantine, watching his sons’ rule (and misrule) in his stead. The book of Ecclesiastes records his reflections on life drawn from bitter experience.
Qohelet
The Hebrew קהלת (translated as “preacher” in the AV) is related to the root קהל meaning “to assemble.” Thus the nominal form קהל means “assembly or congregation.” The Hebrew Qohelet is probably a title (rather than a name) referring to one who gathers something. Qohelet is usually masculine without the article (Ecc.1: 1, 2; 12:9,10) with the article in 12:8 and once feminine in 7:12 on account of the feminine termination, which is not uncommon in nouns denoting offices (Lehrg.p.468, 469, 878, 879) and in proper names of men in later Hebrew. [3] The term “assembly” [4] is usually related to specific ritual occasions; it is of particular interest to observe that it is used to describe the people in the Leviticus atonement ritual (16: 17, 33) and also in the Korah rebellion (Num. 16: 3, 33, 47). Both narratives are thematically connected by rebellion and the offering of fire in censers (Num.16: 17, 18; Lev.16: 1 cf.10: 1) which was also the downfall of king Uzziah:
“Then Uzziah was wroth, and had a censer in his hand to burn incense: and while he was wroth with the priests, the leprosy even rose up in his forehead before the priests in the house of the LORD, from beside the incense altar.” (2 Chron.26: 19)
Uzziah was prevented from desecrating the sanctuary by the Levitical priests (probably the “sons of Korah”) and admonished by the priests in familiar terms:
“Neither shall it be to thine honour” (2 Chron.26: 18)
“Unto their assembly mine honour be thou not united” (Gen.49: 6)
The Genesis benediction/curse was delivered to Levi and Simeon the patriarchs of the priestly and scribal tribes, for violating the covenant – it is fitting then that it is referred to by the descendents of Levi as a reminder to Uzziah not to unite his honour with the assembly (of the wicked). Uzziah was engaged in an act of rebellion, possibly self-divinisation, but instead of acquiring the priestly crown (worn on the forehead Ex.28: 38) he was struck with a leprous forehead.
Priestly rebellion is the underlying motif of the Chronicles account – like Nadab, Abihu and Cain who deliberately brought the wrong offering, or Korah who challenged the authority of Aaron and Moses (and therefore God). Cain was a ‘tiller of the ground’ (Gen.4: 3) and Uzziah ‘loved husbandry’ (’ădâmâh=ground), both Cain and Uzziah were angry when challenged (Gen4: 6; 2 Chron.26: 19), Cain was forever after a marked man as was Uzziah.
Qohelet or the “convener of the assembly” (preacher) is therefore a term couched in irony. He was [5] king in Jerusalem (1:12) but now he dwells in the lazar house, quarantined because of his disease:
“It is better to go to the house of mourning, than to the house of feasting: for that is the end of all men; and the living will lay it to his heart.” (Ecc.7: 2)
For the prophet Isaiah king Uzziah became typical of the nation (just as king Hezekiah became the prototype for the suffering servant and represented the faithful remnant):
“….the whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint. From the sole of the foot even unto the head there is no soundness in it; but wounds, and bruises, and festering sores…” (Isa.2:7)
The king with a superiority complex
“So I was great, and increased more than all that were before me in Jerusalem: also my wisdom remained with me.” (Ecc.2: 9)
The preacher endeavoured to exceed the deeds and the fame of his illustrious ancestors, particularly David and Solomon. From the description of his reign it is apparent that he used Solomon as a template:
“I made me great works; I builded me houses; I planted me vineyards: I made me gardens and orchards, and I planted trees in them of all kinds of fruits. I made me pools of water, to water therewith the wood that bringeth forth trees. I got me servants and maidens, and had servants born in my house; also I had great possessions of great and small cattle above all that were in Jerusalem before me. I gathered me also silver and gold, and the peculiar treasure of kings and of the provinces: I gat me men singers and women singers, and the delights of the sons of men, [concubines very many RV]” (Ecc.1: 4-8)
Compare Ecclesiastes with Uzziah’s reign in 2 Chronicles 26:
He made in Jerusalem engines, [cf. great works] (v.15) [6]
Planted vineyards (v.10)
Constructed many cisterns (v.10)
He had much cattle (v.10)
He loved husbandry (v.10)
Built fortifications in Jerusalem and in the desert (v.9, 10)
Tribute paid to Uzziah (v.8)
[cf. gold and silver, menservants and maidservants]
He waxed exceedingly strong (v.8)
His name spread far abroad; for he was marvellously helped,
till he was strong (v.15)
The preacher was therefore an extremely successful and industrious king, even surpassing the reign of Solomon, but this was not enough, for he desired to sit before the ark like David. David was invited by God to enter into the divine presence but Uzziah attempted to force his way. David was well aware of the great privilege granted to him, and on that occasion he was given the covenant promise and saw a vision of the glorified (risen) Christ, which he recorded in Psalm 110. Although not a Levite, [7] David became a Melchizedek king-priest. However, Uzziah sought this privilege by right –it was an act of rebellion and pride, even possibly of self-divinization.
John H. Choi understands Ecc.7: 15-18 (in which a course of moderation is prescribed as the ideal) as the key to the Preachers theology, he comments as follows:
“A pursuit of hyper-righteousness, then, is the ultimate act of "presumption", and "hubris", because it is more than an effort to please the divine. It is an endeavor to span the great divide between humanity and divinity. The warning is a reminder that one must live life happy in the lot that God has given, and not strive for what lies beyond the mortal’s grasp.” [8]
This exactly fits the portrait that we have of a repentant Uzziah reflecting on his life experiences.
In the Lazar house
Ecclesiastes is not an abstract discourse on wisdom, or an amorphous theological or philosophical tract; rather it is based on concrete reflections drawn from real life experiences. As he sat in the isolation of quarantine, king Uzziah was able to dispassionately review his life in an attempt to draw conclusions on the meaning of life.
“Better is a poor and wise child than an old and foolish king, who will no more be admonished” (4: 13)
“Then said I in my heart, as it happeneth to the fool, so it happeneth even to me; and why was I then more wise?” (1: 15)
Ecclesiastes does not promote a cynical view; it records the struggle of a troubled mind coming to terms not only with disease, but also with his impotence to prevent his legacy being eroded and ultimately destroyed (It is surely the final irony that he is not even acknowledged as the author of Ecclesiastes). From his position in the Lazar house Uzziah watched with horror as his grandson Ahaz slowly undermined his efforts:
“…for what can the man do that cometh after the king? ” (2:12)
“….the fool walketh in darkness..” (2:13)
“Yea, I hated all my labour which I had taken under the sun: because I should leave it unto the man that shall be after me. And who knoweth whether he shall be a wise man or a fool? Yet shall he have rule over all my labour wherein I have laboured, and wherein I have laboured under the sun. This is also vanity. Therefore I went about to cause my heart to despair of all the labour which I took under the sun.” (2:18-20)
“And moreover I saw under the sun the place of judgment, that wickedness was there.” (3:16)
“A man to whom God hath given riches,wealth, and honour, so that he wanteth nothing for his soul of all that he desireth, yet God giveth him not power to eat thereof, but a stranger eateth it [tribute to Assyria paid by Ahaz]: this is vanity, and it is an evil disease.” (6:2)
Ahaz was proclaimed king when 20 years old in succession to his father Jotham [9] about 736 BC. He was an idolator, causing his son to pass through the fire, and sacrificing and burning incense on high places and under green trees (2 Kings 16: 3, 4). He was unsuccessfully besieged in Jerusalem by the army of Rezin, king of Syria, and Pekah, king of Israel (2 Kings 16:5; Isa.7: 1). In connection with this crisis, before the invading force arrived, Isaiah was sent to exhort him to rely upon Yahweh and not to call in foreign aid. Thereupon the prophet uttered the celebrated prophecy relative to the birth of Immanuel (Isa.7: 1-16) [fulfilled in the first instance by the birth of Hezekiah]. Ahaz turned to Tiglath-pileser, king of Assyria, and purchased his aid with the treasures of the Temple and the palace. (2 Kings Ch.16; 2 Chron Ch.28). Ahaz travelled to Damascus to pay homage to Tiglath-pileser and while he was there he had a copy made of a heathen altar that he admired, and then subsequently installed in the Temple at Jerusalem. He reigned 16 years and was succeeded by Hezekiah.
Ahaz removed the larger brazen altar sideways from its normal position in front of the temple (to the north side of the temple) and replaced it by placing the pagan Assyrian altar in front of the place where the brazen altar had stood. This would necessitate the laying of new foundations for both altars. However, this left the rock base of the original brazen altar protruding like an eyesore and constant reminder of his infidelity: “A stone of stumbling and a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel” (Isa.8: 14). He resolved the problem by disconnecting the laver from its base and placing it on the rock (and stone) foundation of the original brazen altar. The cutting of new stones for the altar (cf. 1 Chron 22:2) and of wood for the sacrifices would be to the hurt of Ahaz and the nation:
“Whoso heweth out stones shall be hurt therewith; and he that cleaveth wood shall be endangered thereby” (10: 9)
Ahaz thought that toadying to Assyria and adopting a foreign religion would offer protection but he was actually wasting his energy by chopping wood with a blunt axe (Ecc. 10:10) – and a blunt axe is dangerous for it can deflect and injure the user. Ultimately the Assyrian axe was Yahweh’s instrument of punishment: “Shall the axe boast itself against him that heweth therewith?” (Isa.10: 15)
An indelible blot had been left on Uzziah’s reputation because of his single act of hubris (“Dead flies cause the ointment of the apothecary to send forth a stinking savor: so doth a little folly him that is in reputation for wisdom and honor.” Ecc.10: 1) but this was not comparable to the deliberate path of defiance and unfaithfulness chosen by Ahaz, who purged his court by promoting undesirable cronies: “Folly is set in great dignity, and the rich sit in low place” (10: 6). Ahaz eventually abandoned the temple to neglect (“By much slothfulness the building decayeth; and through idleness of the hands the house droppeth through.” 10:18) and it required the reformation of Hezekiah to repair the damage. Instead of relying on God he strengthened the defenses of Jerusalem and appealed to Assyria for deliverance. It was during such an inspection tour of the backbreaking labor needed to protect the city that he encountered the prophet Isaiah: “And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also?” (Isa.7: 16). This agrees with the sentiments of the Preacher: “The labor of the foolish wearieth every one of them, because he knoweth not how to lead the city.” (10:15) [10]
King Uzziah, in his leprous state, was not even accorded a royal burial: “If a man beget an hundred children, and live many years, so that the days of his years be many, and his soul be not filled with good, and also that he have no burial; I say, that an untimely birth is better than he” (6:3). He was buried in a separate grave “in the field of the burial which belonged to the kings” (2 Kings 15:7; 2 Chron 26:23). “That lonely grave in the royal necropolis would eloquently testify to coming generations that all earthly monarchy must bow before the inviolable order of the divine will, and that no interference could be tolerated with that unfolding of the purposes of God, which, in the fulness of time, would reveal the Christ, the true High Priest and King for evermore” [11] Ecclesiastes chapter 8 plays on Uzziah’s name (The Lord is my strength):
“Who is as the wise man? and who knoweth the interpretation of a thing? a man's wisdom maketh his face to shine, and the boldness (strength =`oz) of his face shall be changed.” (8:1)
The “boldness or strength” (`oz) of Uzziahs’ face was changed into leprosy- this in contrast with the shining face of Moses who had been in the divine presence.
I counsel thee to keep the king's commandment, and that in regard of the oath of God. (8:2)
The king’s (Uzziah) commandment is to “Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man” (12:13). The oath of God is a reference to the oath sworn by God in Psalm 110: “The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek” (Ps.110: 4). Uzziah had sought the Melchizedek priesthood as if by right – he did not fear God but attempted to force entry into the divine presence. [12]
“Be not hasty to go out of his sight: stand not in an evil thing; for he doeth whatsoever pleaseth him.” (8: 3)
This has the opposite meaning of what we would expect, the RSV translation is more suitable:
“Go from his presence, do not delay when the matter is unpleasant, for he does whatever he pleases.”
This is good advice from someone who tried to force his way into the divine presence.
“Where the word of a king is, there is power: and who may say unto him, what doest thou?” (8:4)
Uzziah could be describing the challenge to his authority by the priests who tried to prevent him entering the temple “what are you doing?” It is however far more likely that the “king” referred to by Uzziah is Yahweh himself.
The sayings of the Preacher
Three reoccurring phrases used by the Preacher are; ‘vanity of vanities! All is vanity’………‘under the sun’ …..‘striving after wind.’ [13] These phrases emphasize the meaningless and emptiness of life in the temporal realm (under the sun). This prompts the introduction to The Anchor edition of the book to comment: “Ecclesiastes is the strangest book in the Bible. . .in place of religion of faith and hope and obedience, this writer expresses a mood of disillusionment and proffers a philosophy of resignation. His ethic has no relationship to divine commandments, for there are none. . . .The author is a rationalist, an agnostic, a skeptic, a pessimist, and a fatalist..... .”(191,2)
However, this article does not share that view, for Ecclesiastes is a penetratingly honest account of a troubled mind coming to terms with the meaning of life. The Preacher does not, for example, reject wisdom –he merely recognises the limitations of human wisdom. The Preacher does not advocate a hedonistic lifestyle, but rather a life of moderation – in which the fruits of ones’ labours are enjoyed. Moreover, Ecclesiastes should be seen as a continuing dialogue between the king and the prophet Isaiah and therefore by proxy between God and the nation:
What profit hath he that worketh in that wherein he laboureth? I have seen the travail, which God hath given to the sons of men to be exercised in it. (Ecc.3: 9, 10)
Then I said, I have laboured in vain, I have spent my strength (cf. meaning of UZZIAH ) for nought, and in vain: yet surely my judgment is with the LORD, and my work with my God. (Isa. 49:4)
He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end. (Ecc. 3:11)
He [HEZEKIAH] hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. (Isa.53: 2)
I know that there is no good in them, but for a man to rejoice, and to do good in his life. And also that every man should eat and drink, and enjoy the good of all his labour, it is the gift of God. (Ecc. 3:12,13)
He [HEZEKIAH] shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: (Isa 53:11)
I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him. That which hath been is now; and that which is to be hath already been; and God requireth that which is past. (Ecc.3: 14,15)
Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God. And who, as I, shall call, and shall declare it, and set it in order for me, since I appointed the ancient people? and the things that are coming, and shall come, let them shew unto them. (Isa. 44:6-7)
Uzziah’s fatalism is answered in the form of his great grandson Hezekiah, who was a prototype for the “suffering servant.” Hezekiah, like Uzziah, also suffered from the sin disease (leprosy) but was raised from his sick bed on the third day; at the same time the nation was also delivered from the Assyrian invader.
The conclusion of the whole matter
According to Morris Jastrow liberal additions were made to Ecclesiastes; “For the express purpose of counteracting the effect of Koheleth's unconventional views and to give a more orthodox turn to his thought.” [14] He adds; “The circumstance that the-authorship was attributed to Solomon was a vital factor in leading to its inclusion in the Canon, but even this would not have secured its admission without the additions which constitute such a considerable part of the work in its present form, and which made it practically a different kind of a book. The question arises, how were these additions made, or, rather, first of all, how was it possible for anyone to conceive of making them?” [15]
It is probable that “the men of Hezekiah” edited Ecclesiastes, for they were also responsible for the final redaction of Proverbs (Prov.25: 1). Additions may have accreted for the reasons that Jastrow suggests, however, the book of Ecclesiastes displays the same use of gematria as does Proverbs, indicating an early structural integrity. [16]
Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.
(Ecc.12: 14, 15)
Notes
[1] Lindsay A Braman writes: “While some extreme-fundamentalist Christians still insist, against the evidence, that Solomon was the author of Ecclesiastes, most modern biblical scholars would argue against Solomon’s authorship. (Childs, 582) While the book itself does, indirectly, suggest that the author is David’s son Solomon, the identifying verses are limited to the first two verses of the book and many scholars see these remarks as the author aiming to assume the persona of a person associated with wisdom rather than an actual identification of Solomon as the author. Hill and Walton argue that if, indeed, it was Solomon writing to identify himself he would do so boldly rather than by using evasive techniques. (293) Seemingly supporting this claim, the author of Ecclesiastes claims, in 1:16 and 2:9, that he has surpassed all that came before him in Jerusalem, but it can be pointed out that if he was the first ruling son of David, this would really be no fact to brag about. (Hill and Walton 239) Ultimately, La Sor sums the argument up by writing “It is far easier to say that Solomon did not write Ecclesiastes than to say who did.” (588) Which naturally bring the reader to ask who did write the book of Ecclesiastes. Some scholars argue the book was written by a philosopher, a wise man in the footsteps of Solomon, or even by someone who wanted to intentionally forge a writing of Solomon. Clarifying evidence seems evasive, and no positive conclusions regarding authorship can be made. Scholars have, however, decisively ruled out several suggestions of authorship. “Despite superficial resemblances to Aristotle, Theogonis… and stoics, Qohelet was a Semitic wise man, not a Greek philosopher, and his mood and approach reflect a very different world” (588 Sanford)” http://www.soloved.org/eng/ecclesiastics_essay.htm
[2] It could be argued that the debate over the date of the original composition of Ecclesiastes has been even more heated and varied than the debate over authorship. While those who claim Solomon as the author of Ecclesiastes find reason to believe the book dates to a time preceding the exile to Babylonia, most scholars propose that the book dates to a time during or after the exile. Perhaps the reason the debate hasn’t been resolved sooner is the uniqueness of the book; “the Hebrew of Qohelet is unlike any other of the Old Testament.” (329 Arnold) Arnold argues that “Most scholars date the work to the third century B.C” (329) and La Sor takes a more daring step in claiming that “a date later than 200 is ruled out, both by Ecclesiastes… and by fragments of Qohelet among Qumran scrolls.” (588) Although they seem to agree on a general timeline, Arnold claims, “The grammar and vocabulary of Ecclesiastes do not appear to be postexilic, but in fact completely consistent with pre-exilic Hebrew.” (329 Arnold) While Sanford holds that “The serious questioning of beliefs and values of ancient Israel points to a time where prophetic activist had crested and vital hope in God’s active presence and power had waned… both vocabulary and sentence structure are post-exilic, more closely akin to Mishnais style than any other Old Testament book.” (588 Sanford)
Ibid, Lindsay A Braman On dating Ecclesiastes earlier (Persian instead of Hellenistic) see: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3679/is_199901/ai_n8843619
[3] Gesenius, Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon of the O.T. p.726.
[4] The English title of the book, Ecclesiastes, comes from the Septuagint translation of Qoholet, Εκκλησιαστής. It has its origins in the Greek word Εκκλησία (originally a secular gathering, although later used primarily of religious gatherings, hence its New Testament translation as church).
[5] Longman III, Tremper comments: “I was king,” a past tense reference that was never true of Solomon. The association with Solomon appears to recede into the background after the first three chapters, and Qohelet appears to be distant from the kingship. He is unable to do anything concerning the injustice that he sees (Ecc. 4:1-3; 5:7-8). A king with the power of Solomon most certainly could have affected change in his own kingdom, yet the book of 1 Kings explains that Solomon willingly burdened his people with labor and taxes. [The Book of Ecclesiastes, 5. http://www.theologyforums.com/articles/Ecclesiastes_Intro/2/#link12 ]
The phrase “was king over Israel in Jerusalem” (1:12) seems to denote a united monarchy
which was only found under David and Solomon. It may however be a gloss, or
more likely it indicates that Uzziah saw himself as the rightful heir to the
throne of Israel (as well as Judah). His father Amaziah had suffered a crushing defeat by the king of Israel. Under Uzziah Judah regained full sovereignty freeing itself from vassalage to Jeroboam,
the capture and dismantlement of Jerusalem, and
the enforcement of hostages. Judean territory was expanded into that of the
Philistines, Ammonites and Arabs.
[6] The full citation reads: “And he (Uzziah) made in Jerusalem engines, invented by cunning men” (2 Chron.26: 15). Compare this with Ecc.7: 29: “Lo, this only have I found, that God has made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.” John E.Hartley comments as follows; the nom., hiššābôn occurs only twice in the OT (2 Chron 26:15 and Eccl 7:29). It stands for the results of intricate thinking, including complicated systems of thought, marvellous artistic works, and amazing inventions….see further NIDOTTE vol.2 p.309. These “inventions” are probably the “great works” referred to by the Preacher in Ecc.2: 4.
[7] See the Biblaridion article on Psalm 110 (part 1&2)
[8] John H. CHOI, The Doctrine of the Golden Mean in
Qoh 7, 15-18:
A Universal Human Pursuit *
[Biblica 83 (2002) 358-374]
[9] Jotham (like Uzziah; 2 Chron 26:4) is recorded as “doing that which was right in the eyes of the Lord” (2 Chron 27:2) this is not the case with Ahaz (2 Chron 28:1). The reign of Jotham was contemporaneous with his father Uzziah; the earthquake took place while Uzziah and Jeraboam (king of Israel) were reigning (Amos 1:1; Zech 14:5 cf. 2 Chron 26:5). Josephus has the earthquake occurring shortly after Uzziah’s invasion of the priests’ office (Jos. Antiq.ix.10, 4) but this is improbable, for the earthquake occurred in the year that king Uzziah died, (Isa.6: 1) which can be inferred from the language used when the prophet Isaiah was commissioned:
“The posts of the door moved at the voice of him that cried, and the house was filled with smoke.” (Isa.6: 4)
The vision that Isaiah saw happened while he was in the Temple during the earthquake; compare the language of another contemporary:
“I saw the Lord standing on the altar: and he said smite the lintel of the door, that the posts may shake…” (Amos 9: 1)
Uzziah was therefore contemporary with Jotham (co-regent?) and lived to see the commissioning of Isaiah and the commencement of the regency (and misrule) of Ahaz.
[10] Nearly all translations have “go to the city” but surely the Hiphil (cause to go i.e., to lead) is more appropriate?
[11] Dr. Green's Kingdom of Israel, etc. http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/uzziah.html
[12] This interpretation is established by the use of Psalm 2 (the twin of Psalm 110) in the New Testament description of Stephen’s trial, in similar language as Ecclesiastes. Stephen is recorded as being full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom (Acts 6:3) and having a “face as it had been the face of an angel” (Acts 6:15) [cf. “a man's wisdom maketh his face to shine”]; his trial concluded with him seeing a vision of the risen Christ standing at the right hand of God (Acts 7:55,56). This is a reference to Psalm 2 where the Messiah asks for his inheritance (the Gentiles Ps.2: 7-8) and also has echoes of the inauguration of the new priesthood described in Psalm 110. The death of Stephen was the beginning of the mission to the Gentiles; his chief protagonist and Judge (Saul) was chosen (in answer to Stephens prayer of forgiveness) as the apostle to the Gentiles. The reason for the thematic similarities with Ecclesiastes is that Stephen entered into the divine presence and saw the true Melchizedek priest. This contrasts with Uzziah who saw himself as a Melchizedek priest and attempted, (like the Jews?) on his own terms, to force his way into the divine presence.
[13] For a fuller treatment of the major themes see: http://www.theologyforums.com/articles/Ecclesiastes_Intro/4/
http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1632
[14] Morris Jastrow, A Gentle Cynic: Being a Translation of the Book of Koheleth, Commonly known as Ecclesiastes, stripped of later additions: also Its origin, growth, and interpretation. (Philadelphia: Lippincott 1919) p 29
[15] Ibid, Jastrow p.30-31
[16] See the numbers game: http://www.wcg.org/lit/bible/poet/numbgame.htm