Last week I summarized three remarkably divergent interpretive approaches to the book of Ecclesiastes. A few readers helpfully pointed out that the translation of the Hebrew word hebel in Eccl 1:2 (and throughout the book) can play a role in nudging readers toward one interpretive approach or another. This keen insight warrants further exploration.
Study the Word
Canvassing English translations produces three main options for translating hebel into English:
- Vanity—ESV, LEB, NASB, NKJV, NRSV, KJV
- Futility—CSB, NET
- Meaningless—NIV, NLT
The Hebrew lexicon BDB suggests a primary translation of “vapour, breath,” with a figurative use of “vanity.”
And by looking up all uses of hebel in the Old Testament, we drum up the following variety of translations from the ESV alone (listed in order of frequency):
- vanity
- breath
- idols
- vain
- worthless
- false
- nothing
- empty
- gained hastily
- vapor
This is all well and good. But we quickly confront the limitations of a word study. These lists don’t help us to understand what the word means in Ecclesiastes. We won’t get at the message of the book by simply choosing our favorite option from the menu and running with it. We need more help.
Consider the Context
So we must look to the context for the clues we need. And there is good news! Ecclesiastes is written almost like a research paper, where the introduction introduces the problem and states the thesis.
- Thesis (Eccl 1:2): “Vanity of vanities, says the Preacher, vanity of vanities! All is vanity.”
- Problem (Eccl 1:3): “What does man gain by all the toil at which he toils under the sun?
So the problem under consideration is: What do we have to gain from our toil under the sun? In other words, what do we get out of life? What will we have to show for it at the end? What reward will there be to make all the pain worth it?
And the answer to the problem is: All that we have to gain is vanity. This much is clear, but it still begs the question: What does “vanity” (hebel) mean?
So the Preacher unpacks his concept of hebel for us with a brilliant panoply of illustration (Eccl 1:3-18).
- The universe consists of endless repetition – Eccl 1:4-7
- That repetition is deeply unsatisfying – Eccl 1:8
- Nothing you do is novel; all new things are merely discoveries of old things that have always been there – Eccl 1:9-10
- Nothing will be remembered – Eccl 1:11
- Nothing is permanent; there will be nothing at the end to show for the effort – Eccl 1:14 (also suggested in Eccl 1:4)
- Nothing you do can fix it – Eccl 1:15
Point #5 gets expanded later in the book as “I must leave it” (Eccl 2:18), or “All go to one place” (Eccl 3:20), or “Just as he came, so shall he go” (Eccl 5:16), or more directly, “The living know that they will die” (Eccl 9:5).
So we can construct a definition for hebel (“vanity”), according to its use in Ecclesiastes, as follows: “Unsatisfying, endless repetition of old things that nobody will remember; nothing you do will last, and at the end you die. And you can’t fix it.”* This is hebel. This is what you have to gain from all the toil at which you toil under the sun.
Return to the Word
So what does this mean for the best translation of the Hebrew word hebel? I’m not qualified to render a judgment on whether “vanity” or “futility” or “meaningless” is the best option. I frankly don’t care which of those English words we use when discussing the book (which is why I used a few of them interchangeably in my summary post).
But I can say that any interpretation of the book that doesn’t frontline the “unsatisfying, endless repetition of old things…” is not using hebel the way the Preacher used hebel. For him, hebel is not really about nihilism, cynicism, or purposelessness. It’s about the tedium, transience, impermanence, and dissatisfaction God built into the universe.
*Though I heard this eloquent definition of Ecclesiastic hebel in a sermon by my dear friend Warren Wright, I am certain even this is not new (Eccl 1:10).
“I frankly don’t care which of those English words we use when discussing the book”
I appreciated this post, up until the conclusion. On one hand, I see the point being made. It doesn’t matter which word you use, as long as that word’s meaning is correctly explained. Nevertheless, though, this can only go so far. If we translated “hebel” as “orange crocodile”, then even if we then explained what was meant by that in the terms explained in the blog post, we ought to still care that we’d used a bad and misleading/confusing couple of words to translate it.
And so, “meaningless”, meaning “without meaning”, is quite a different thing from “vanity” understood as “without permanence”. For one thing, it makes a big difference, given that “hebel, all is hebel” is the author’s summary of the contents, in what sense we understand that summary. Is the author affirming this conclusion? In what sense? Contingently (upon what), or not?
You make a fine point, David. But one issue, at least in my part of the US, is that, in plain language, the word “vanity” also typically means “without meaning” or “without purpose.” Or in other contexts, it could mean “utter selfishness” or “narcissism.” So even the word vanity needs further explanation to communicate the Preacher’s connotation of “impermanence.”
“For him, hebel is not really about nihilism, cynicism, or purposelessness. It’s about the tedium, transience, impermanence, and dissatisfaction God built into the universe.”
I’d like to modify this statement too. The most important modification would be the final part. I think it’s important to see in interpretation of Ecclesiastes that a *fallen* creation is presupposed. Not just a creation; but one brought into bondage to futility (as Romans 8 says, possibly deliberately inspired by Ecclesiastes) because of sin. There are various scattered references in Ecclesiastes to sin and judgment; and especially to death (which is why transience is such an unavoidable feature of all our works “under the sun”). Life is “hebel” in the light of these things, not inevitably built into the universe from the beginning. This doesn’t have to make a huge difference in the end because the author isn’t interested in discussing the origin of hebel – he’s more practically focused; it’s just that it’d be unhelpful for us to introduce this misunderstanding (which also biases interpretation towards “conversation with a cynic”-type interpretations; which then in turn raises very difficult questions as to why the cynic is not answered in a more fundamental way – if he thought the universe was created in a state of “hebel”, then it’s strange that he’s never answered on this fundamental point).
This is very helpful. I am just wrapping up preaching through Ecclesiastes. This book is fascinating and your analysis is spot on.
I am wanting to dig deeper into my relationship with the Lord, I have been a Christian for almost 6 years now and out of those 6 years I have been in ministry. All things I have taught have been so surface level or just of what the spirit is teaching me and I’ve run out of surface level things to teach. I want to go deeper now so that I can be real and teach deeper. This is the kind of studying I want to do but when I get into words and things of this matter, I get so lost and discouraged.
My question is: is there a way I can get paired up with someone who that can walk with me deeper in the word via zoom or FaceTime? Almost like a mentor ship. I love how you broke this down and need more of this in my walk with the Lord.
Thanks for commenting, Holly, and for seeking to go deeper in your Bible study. Might there be someone in your church, or another church local to you, who could mentor you further?