“Yet wisdom is justified by her deeds,” says Jesus in Matthew 11:19. Who is wisdom—or Wisdom? And what are her deeds? Does Jesus here self-identify as Lady Wisdom from Proverbs 8? Since Jesus’s statement concludes a section that began with “the deeds of Christ” in Matthew 11:2, does Jesus intend to communicate that his messianic deeds will verify his identity and purpose? And how does Christ’s statement relate to the preceding portions of his teaching?

These questions illuminate some of the issues with interpreting Matthew 11:16–19:

But to what shall I compare this generation? It is like children sitting in the marketplaces and calling to their playmates, “We played the flute for you, and you did not dance; we sang a dirge, and you did not mourn.” For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon.’ The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, “Look at him! A glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!” Yet wisdom is justified by her deeds.

Put simply, this article argues that interpreting Matthew 11:16–19 with full meaning and clarity depends on accurately understanding Ecclesiastes 3:1–15. The Matthew passage fits within a larger narrative block intended to demonstrate the movement from old to new. Within the immediate context, Jesus corrects John the Baptist for misunderstanding his identity and mission (11:2–6) but also defends John the Baptist’s honor and ministry (11:7–15). He then confirms the validity of both John’s ministry and his own ministry, even with their differing methods (11:16–19). In these four verses, Jesus tells a short parable, applies the parable to his contemporary audience, and concludes by enigmatically defending the wisdom of his own actions.1 His parable and application allude to Ecclesiastes 3:4 and 3:12–13.2 Ecclesiastes 3:1–15 is the “wisdom” to which Jesus refers, and thus, interpreters should refer to these verses when seeking to understand Jesus’s meaning.3

The lens of Ecclesiastes 3:1–15 draws out several significant insights: (1) the mystery of God’s works and ways; (2) a focus on appropriate action according to the timing; (3) and ultimately, the greatness of Jesus’s ministry as compared to the ministry of John. On the first point, God has always worked in ways beyond human comprehension, and Jesus does the same in his incarnate ministry, baffling this present generation. On the second point, Jesus clearly intends to confront his hearers for their failure to react appropriately to the needs of their generation. John wants the people to repent; Jesus wants them to celebrate. Each ministry wisely addressed the needs of the moment, but the religious leaders (and by extension, the people) foolishly rejected both ministries, failing to live wisely according to the needs of the moment. On the final point, Jesus comes eating and drinking in line with Qohelet’s wisdom, “there is nothing better for people” than “that everyone should eat and drink, and find enjoyment in all his toil, for these things are a gift of God” (Eccl 3:12–13). Whereas John prepared the way for someone greater, Jesus embodies the great pinnacle of wisdom in Ecclesiastes—namely, joy.

To prove the allusion and the corresponding conclusions, this paper will consider the macrostructure of Matthew, situate Matthew 11:16–19 into the book as a whole, consider the meaning of Jesus’s parable in this section, evaluate the source text of Ecclesiastes 3:1–15, and draw conclusions as to why Jesus would allude to this text in his teaching.

1. The Macrostructure of Matthew’s Gospel

The Gospel of Matthew as a whole rotates back and forth between blocks of narrative (N) and discourse (D). By looking at the repeated refrain Καὶ ἐγένετο ὅτε ἐτέλεσεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς, the discourse features stand out from the narrative blocks.4 This repeated refrain marks the ending of discourse blocks at Matt 7:28; 11:1; 13:53; 19:1; 26:1. The larger discourse blocks, therefore, appear in the following pattern:5

	N	D	N	D	N	D	N	D	N	D	N
chs.	1–4	5–7	8–9	10	11–12	13	14–17	18	19–22	23–25	26–28

Matthew 11:16–19 fits into the larger narrative block running from Matthew 11:2–12:45. The episodes within the larger narrative section discuss and demonstrate the inauguration of a new era with the coming of Christ. Jesus honors John the Baptist and yet closes the door on John’s ministry, inaugurating a new era. The era John prepared for has begun (11:2–30). Onlookers need look no further than the Sabbath to see how Jesus brings in a new era (12:1–21). Finally, Jesus explains and demonstrates the transition between the two eras in the final section of this narrative block (12:22–45).

The immediate section under consideration runs from Matthew 11:2 to 11:30, though the inclusio of τῶν ἔργων and τὰ ἔργα in Matthew 11:2 and 11:19 signals a smaller section within the broader one. The two δὲ constructions in 11:7 and 11:16, along with thematic and conversation changes, mark off the individual sections within the broader whole. In the first of these, Matthew 11:2–6, Jesus engages with the hesitations of John the Baptist, encouraging him that, yes, in fact, Jesus is the one they have been waiting for—as evidenced by his miraculous, messianic deeds. In the next section, Matthew 11:7–15, Jesus defends John’s ministry, for though he might have some hesitations in this moment of imprisonment, John has performed his role as the one who prepares the way for the Messiah both admirably and honorably.

2. Matthew 11:16–19

Moving on from the broader section, the passage in question unfolds simply in three parts: (1) an opening parable (11:16–17); (2) Jesus’s contemporary application (11:18–19b); (3) an enigmatic defense of his own wisdom (11:19c).

2.1. Matthew 11:16–17

The progressive δέ signals a new progression in the discourse. Jesus has addressed John’s immediate concerns (11:2–6) and defended John’s honor and prophetic influence (11:7–15). Now, Jesus will condemn those who reject either the message of John or his own message (11:16–19). Jesus uses the interrogative form with emphasis on the ambiguous, cataphoric Τίνι to build suspense as he moves forward in the discourse. He builds suspense by introducing elements one at a time: ambiguous comparison (Τίνι δὲ ὁμοιώσω) target for comparison (τὴν γενεὰν ταύτην) parable in need of interpretation (16b–19b). Jesus could have said, “This generation foolishly rejects wisdom.” Instead, he builds the suspense in order to draw in, and potentially challenge or condemn, his listeners.

2.1.1. Characters in the Parable

He then introduces the children in his parable, describing them with the participles καθημένοις (“sitting”) and προσφωνοῦντα (“calling”). These participles continue to draw out the action in the parable very slowly. The children call out in poetic cadence, “We played the flute for you, and you did not dance; we wailed, and you did not weep” (11:17). These children are interpreted in two primary ways: (1) the children represent this generation, and Jesus and John refuse to play their games; and (2) The children represent Jesus and John, and this generation does not respond appropriately to their message.

On the first of these views, commentators view the children in this parable as the modern-day Jews in “this generation,” calling out the opposite truths to what Jesus and John present to the people. Keener describes the situation, “these spoiled children thus resemble Jesus’ opponents, who are dissatisfied no matter what,” most likely because Jesus and John refuse to play the game according to their fancies.6

We should, however, consider the main characters in this parable far more closely. How does Matthew portray children in his Gospel?7 Even in the same chapter, Matthew 11, Jesus praises the Father for hiding truths from the “wise and intelligent,” instead revealing them “to little children” (11:25). Elsewhere, Jesus urges his disciples to “become like little children” (18:3–6) while also inviting the little children to come to him (19:13–14). This positivity toward children culminates in the crying out of children, saying, “Hosanna to the Son of David,” from which Jesus applies Psalm 8:2, “Out of the mouths of children and nursing infants you have prepared praise for yourself” (Matt. 21:9–12, 15–16). Matthew takes great pains in his Gospel to show Jesus’s positive reception of children, especially in their (even if incidental) proclamations of wise truths—proclamations often implying that the “wise” ones of the present age are actually foolish.

With this positivity in mind, we should consider the ambiguity of Jesus’s parable. He uses the third, singular ἐστίν to describe the generation, not necessarily the people in the generation. In fact, with his more common parables on the kingdom of God, Jesus often uses comparison as an introductory formula before introducing characters (“The kingdom of heaven may be compared to…”).8 Therefore, we can read this introductory phrase as a stage-setting device before the main characters actually come onto the scene. It is not that Jesus will compare this generation to children. Rather, this generation is like something. The characters, then, would include παιδίοις (“children”) and τοῖς ἑτέροις (“the others,” or “playmates” in the ESV), and interpreters must discern who in the generation identifies with each of these characters. The children are in fact Jesus and John, and they cry out (in wisdom, considering the normal depiction of children in the Gospel) against some group of others in this generation.9

2.1.2. Content of the Parable

Thus, we arrive at the content of the parable. The children cry out, most likely in wisdom and potentially in condemnation, against others in the generation. In what context does Jesus picture the children in this parable? As Nolland records,

Do two groups of children own one line each of the words quoted? … Does one group of children offer unwilling starters two alternatives? … Have self-appointed leaders of the play allocated to themselves the easy roles (so: “sitting”) and are now complaining that the other children will not take up the more strenuous play tasks (dancing, vigorous displays of mourning)? … Or is the refrain actually part of a game?10

Many interpreters see the children in Jesus’s parable playing a game of some sorts.11 Whether Jesus used these traditional games as the inspiration for his parable or not, Nolland compellingly lays out the basic content of what the children say: “It is clear enough that the playing of the flute is an invitation to dance, perhaps at a wedding, and the wailing is a dramatic expression of mourning.”12

The children call out to others, inviting them to participate in a certain activity based on the situation, and the group of others (potentially children) do not participate. Jesus focuses on timing in his parable for the people. And this idea becomes much clearer when compared with the wisdom of Ecclesiastes 3:4. In the LXX, Qohelet uses the verbs κόπτω and ὀρχέομαι in Ecclesiastes 3:4, “A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn [κόπτω], and a time to dance [ὀρχέομαι].” These two verbs collocate only here in the LXX and only in Matthew 11:17 in the NT. To further the allusion, consider the parallel passage in Luke 7:32, where Luke records κλαίω with ὀρχέομαι in the mouths of the children in Christ’s parable. In Ecclesiastes 3:4, Qohelet proclaims, “A time to weep [κλαίω], and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance [ὀρχέομαι].” Again, these two verbs collocate only here in the LXX and only in Luke 7 in the New Testament.13 Clearly, the children proclaim the wisdom of Ecclesiastes 3:4, a wisdom intended as examples of the broader idea, “For everything there is an appointed time, and an appropriate time for every activity on earth” (3:1).

2.2. Matthew 11:18–19b

Using an explanatory γάρ Jesus takes the ambiguous idea of his parable and applies the idea to himself and John. Whereas John did not come eating nor drinking (read: κόπτω), Jesus did come eating and drinking (read: ὀρχέομαι). In both cases, an ambiguous group of people reject the message. By paralleling these actions with the parable itself, Jesus puts himself and John into the shoes of the crying-out children, and the religious leaders (and by extension, the people) into the shoes of the “others.” With differing methods and messages, John and Jesus came to the people. John, whom Jesus described in-depth in the preceding episode of this discourse, came as an odd wilderness prophet, proclaiming a baptism of repentance. Jesus, on the other hand, came preaching the good news of the kingdom. The “others,” the religious leaders and the people, rejected both of these messages.

Jesus chooses to parallel the ideas of eating (ἐσθίων) and drinking (πίνων) in his presentation of each message. John did not eat and drink, whereas Jesus did. Interestingly, these verbs collocate within 3 words in 66 verses in the LXX, as well as in 26 verses in the NT. While this does cast some ambiguity on the specific reference in Christ’s mind when he spoke this way, we should note that five of these references appear in the book of Ecclesiastes, For example, Ecclesiastes 3:13, “Everyone should eat and drink and take pleasure in all his toil.”14 Additionally, eating and drinking, in connection with joy, is one of the key themes in Ecclesiastes as a whole. With the wisdom in the mouths of the children appearing to be an allusion to Ecclesiastes 3:4, we can reasonably assume that Jesus has in mind the eating and drinking of Ecclesiastes 3:13.

2.3. Matthew 11:19c

Moving into the final section of the discourse, Jesus concludes with a reference to the actions of wisdom. He employs καί, which signals to the readers a close constraining of his comments on wisdom with the preceding material.15 The context clearly indicates some form of semantic discontinuity as he compares the foolish responses of the present generation with the “vindication” of wisdom. Thus, the translation “but” (adversative) or “even so” (ascensive) better conveys the meaning of the text. After establishing the foolishness of the present generation, Jesus asserts the wisdom of John and himself—a wisdom eventually achieving vindication by its actions. Three major exegetical questions need answers in this verse: (1) What does Jesus mean by wisdom in this verse? (2) How can wisdom be “justified”? (3) What “deeds” does wisdom perform?

Considering the first question, Jesus chooses ἡ σοφία as an active subject in his concluding statement. Wisdom performs τῶν ἔργων, and as aforementioned, these deeds form an explicit inclusio with τὰ ἔργα, performed by Christ, in 11:2. Thus, could Jesus possibly be referring to himself as “Wisdom” in 11:19? Some commentators see Jesus taking upon himself the identity of wisdom personified from Proverbs 8.16 Davies and Allison go so far as to claim, “It is Jesus who is vindicated by his works.”17 Similarly, Leithart explains, “Jesus is the Wisdom of God, and His works speak for themselves and will vindicate Him.”18 Many others push back on these arguments, especially within biblical studies. For example, Carson points to the theme of chapter 11—namely, “the place of John the Baptist in salvation history”—as evidence that precludes wisdom-Christology in this passage.19 Instead, Jesus’s use of wisdom refers to wise behavior and action.20

The Ecclesiastes 3 reference explained above, while underutilized in Matthean commentary literature, provides the most compelling evidence for avoiding the wisdom-Christology thesis. The “wisdom” Jesus refers to most likely refers back to the most immediate wisdom reference in his discourse. If the wise children in his parable allude to Ecclesiastes 3 while calling out against their generation, and Jesus alludes to Ecclesiastes 3 in his own comparison of these children to John and himself, then the “wisdom” in need of justification finds its locus in Ecclesiastes 3.21 The appropriate acts of John and Jesus, according with the wisdom of Ecclesiastes 3, will find vindication over time, even if the spirit of this generation rejects those acts and instead chooses the opposite ones.

So, while 11:2 and 11:19 do indeed form an inclusio, and 11:2–6 certainly record the miraculous deeds of Jesus, the preceding verses more immediately discuss the specific deeds in need of vindication. In particular, in accordance with the wisdom of Ecclesiastes 3, John came acting a certain way, and this generation rejected him; Jesus came acting in a contrary way, and yet he still faced rejection. Therefore, in spite of rejection from the world, the deeds of Ecclesiastes 3 will “be justified” insofar as time will eventually show the validity of how John and Jesus behaved. If the above points stand true, then the “deeds” of wisdom include the eating and drinking, or lack thereof, of Jesus and John, respectively. These deeds were done according to the right time for each action—namely, how John calls for repentance and Jesus brings good news of celebration.22

3. Ecclesiastes 3:1–15 as the Essential Interpretive Link

Jesus’s intentional allusion to the wisdom of Ecclesiastes 3 merits further engagement. How might a deeper understanding of Ecclesiastes 3 help interpreters to approach this text in Matthew? In Ecclesiastes 3, Qohelet wrestles with the sovereignty of God in human activity. He concludes, in sum, that God’s ways are not our ways. In light of this reality, though humanity desires more knowledge of how God works all things together, we cannot know all that God intends for us. Yet, humans should not despair in view of these things. Instead, humanity should enjoy life in right relationship with God. Ecclesiastes 3 illuminates the meaning of Christ’s message in Matthew 11:16–19—namely, fools reject the timing of God, whereas the wise will embrace God’s timing with appropriate actions. Jesus embodies such wisdom, and in so doing, he inaugurates a new (and better) era in salvation history, an era of joy and celebration.

In Ecclesiastes 3:1, Qohelet articulates the thesis of his poem,23 “For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven.” Next, using a set of fourteen merisms to encapsulate the totality of life,24 Qohelet poetically introduces his subject, showing that all things occur according to an appointed time (3:2–8). Some of these opposites seem to fit a clean good/bad dichotomy (e.g., a time for killing and a time for healing), whereas others do not come across in such a straightforward manner (e.g., a time to be silent and a time to speak). As Gibson notes, “life is complex, full of good times, hard times, in-between times, and a whole manner of lifestyle choices and decisions that often require a wisdom that seems to escape us.”25

Who orchestrates these events? Up to this point, Qohelet has made no mention of God. However, as he moves from a generic opening poem (Eccl 3:2–8) to his own reflections on time (Eccl 3:9–15), he pulls back the curtain to reveal God running the show. He begins his reflections with a question repeated throughout the book: “What gain has the worker from his toil?” (3:9; cf. 1:3; 2:22; 5:16). The rationale for his question in this section comes in 3:10–11.

3.1. Fact: God Makes All Things Beautiful in His Timing

Qohelet asserts a simple fact, “[God] has made everything beautiful in its time” (3:11a). Specifically, he connects the “everything” back to the times and seasons of the opening poem by referring to “its time.” The word יָפֶה most often refers to beautiful women (Song 1:8, 15; 2:10), but Qohelet employs this term twice in his book not in reference to women. Ecclesiastes 5:17 renders the word “fitting” in the ESV, and the NET Bible takes it as “appropriate.” Similarly, the idea in Ecclesiastes 3:11 is that just as beauty befits a lover, so God works all things together in a fitting way according to his will.26As Jesus attempts to justify his own timing in regards to eating and drinking, Ecclesiastes 3:1–11 serves as the perfect allusion.

3.2. Mystery: Finite Man Cannot Comprehend God’s Timing

Qohelet next observes how God has related humanity to his perfect timing, “Also, he has put eternity into man’s heart” (3:11b). The word עוֹלָם here, translated “eternity,” has been the subject of much debate.27 What exactly did God place into man’s heart? In context, it seems as though God has placed the desire to understand how he makes all things beautiful in his timing. As we see in the latter half of verse 11, God has made man to yearn for understanding of the past, present, and future—God’s work from beginning to end—and how all of these times and seasons work together.28

The next piece of Ecclesiastes 3:11, however, sobers the listener. God has given man a desire to comprehend how he works all things together, “yet so that [man] cannot find out what God has done from the beginning to the end.” Following the logic here, we see God designing times and seasons together in a wise, fitting manner. He has given humanity a desire to understand this work. However, though he has placed this innate desire within mankind, humans cannot fathom God’s perfect timing.29 Calling upon Qohelet’s well-worn imagery throughout the first half of the book, Bennett notes, “The sovereignty and timing of God is beyond human comprehension. A search for such answers would be like chasing the wind; the rationale for the deeds of God cannot be found.”30

Put simply, humans are not God. We cannot fully understand, comprehend, or find out God’s ways. It is not that God’s ways are not perfect, beautiful, or full of meaning; it is that we cannot grasp that meaning because we are not God.31 Subtly, Jesus’s defense of his own timing in Matthew 11:16–19 implies at the very least that he works according to God’s timing. Additionally, those to whom he calls out cannot understand his timing or message.

3.3. Frustration: No Gain in Toil

As we face this reality, we grow frustrated. At this point we can tackle Qohelet’s question in Ecclesiastes 3:9–10, “What gain has the worker from his toil? I have seen the business that God has given to the children of man to be busy with.” The question implies a negative answer: None. The worker has no gain from his toil. But what is the “toil” in this circumstance?

Ecclesiastes 1:13 recalls the “unhappy business that God has given to the children of man to be busy with,” and the negative sense of business is retained, though left unstated, in Ecclesiastes 3:10. Another instance of the word that ties together multiple strings from the present passage appears in Ecclesiastes 8:16–17:

When I applied my heart to know wisdom, and to see the business that is done on earth, how neither day nor night do one’s eyes see sleep, then I saw all the work of God, that man cannot find out the work that is done under the sun. However much man may toil in seeking, he will not find it out. Even though a wise man claims to know, he cannot find it out.

So then, in Ecclesiastes 3 the “business” God has assigned to man seems to be searching out the inscrutable wisdom of his ways.32 God has placed within man a longing to find out how God orchestrates all of the times and seasons, yet we cannot do so. Qohelet makes clear that any hope for lasting benefit from searching out all of God’s ways will leave us frustrated.33 The “others” in Matthew 11:16–19—those to whom the children, Jesus and John, call out—feel this frustration. In response, they reject their actions and their message.

3.4. Counsel: Enjoy Life and Do Good

So why would God design us in such a way that our quest inevitably leaves us frustrated? Before tackling the reason behind our frustration, Qohelet gives his counsel for when our desire to grasp God’s timing collides with our inability to do so. It almost seems like he senses the frustration of his readers, but then wants to preempt their anger with a call for true joy. He writes, “I perceived that there is nothing better for them than to be joyful and to do good as long as they live; also that everyone should eat and drink and take pleasure in all his toil—this is God’s gift to man” (3:12–13).

Be joyful and do good! Take pleasure in your toil, both the search for understanding God’s wisdom and your good works in general. We can find real enjoyment in this world. Though we cannot comprehend how all the times and seasons weave together, we can enjoy those times and seasons, confidently believing that God will bring them together in a beautiful, wise fashion. Also, true joy and happiness resides not in figuring out the designs of God, but instead by doing good and living rightly within the seasons he has ordained.

Returning again to Matthew 11:16–19, the “others” in the generation, those rejecting John’s message of repentance and Christ’s message of joy, failed to live according to the designs of God. They also failed to see the superiority of Christ’s message, the message that joy has arrived in him.

3.5. Purpose: Fear God

After the interlude on enjoyment, Qohelet returns to the purpose behind the frustrating puzzle he has unpacked so far. Is God merely playing with his creation, having fun at their expense?34 Has he created a world with no meaning, leaving humans to wander through a random world with no help?35 Is Qohelet’s counsel to enjoy only a second-best option in a futile world with no true, lasting gain?36

Far from these answers, Qohelet introduces for the first time in his book the idea of fear: “I perceived that whatever God does endures forever; nothing can be added to it, nor anything taken from it. God has done it, so that people fear before him. That which is, already has been; that which is to be, already has been; and God seeks what has been driven away” (3:14–15). So then, God has made his work to endure forever, and has prevented humans from adding to, subtracting from, or controlling his work in any way, so that people would fear before him.37

The fear of God helpfully serves as fuel for all wisdom (Prov 1:7). But fear looks different depending on the relationship one has with God. As Bennett writes, “The fear of God is not a terror that is counterproductive to a healthy relationship but a recognition that there is a significant distinction between God and humanity. God’s sovereignty over nature, human activity, and time should be recognized by humanity.” 38 We remember who God is, and who we are in relationship to him.

So then, God controls all things, and he works them all together beautifully in his wisdom. He has given us a desire to understand these ways, but we cannot. The purpose behind this mystery is fear, that we would remember who God is, and who we are. God is God. We are not. As Provan writes, “The only rational response to reality is to ‘revere [God]’ (v. 14), issuing in a life centered on God.”39 And when humans rightly fear God and live wisely in view of his design, we can truly enjoy the good gifts he has given to us.

Ultimately, the failure of the generation in Jesus’s day came down to a lack of proper fear. They did not rightly fear God, and therefore they did not recognize him when he arrived in human flesh. Proper fear would have led them to repentance in John’s day, knowing that they were not in right standing without repentance. Proper fear would have led them to rejoicing in the presence of life himself, Jesus Christ.

4. Significance of Ecclesiastes 3:1–15 in Matthew 11:16–19

When viewed through the lens of Ecclesiastes 3:1–15, Jesus seems to claim several things in Matthew 11:16–19:

1. God works in ways beyond the comprehension of finite human minds;
2. God has made a certain action appropriate to certain times, and Jesus’s and John’s ministries will be vindicated for how they embody this truth;
3. Jesus’s ministry is ultimately superior to John’s ministry.

First, God works in ways beyond the comprehension of finite human minds. He has always done this, and he continues to do this today. When God the Son took on human flesh and dwelt among humans, he baffled them in his work and ways, but that does not exempt people from rightly responding to him. In fact, consistent with the rest of Matthew, particularly Matthew 11, the children do understand and respond appropriately. God has revealed the “hidden things” to little children, and they understand the wisdom of the Old Testament and the wise workings of God in the present as well.

Second, Jesus’s own ministry and the ministry of John the Baptist embody the truths of Ecclesiastes 3:1–15—namely, God has made a certain action appropriate to certain times. John called for repentance in order to prepare the people for Christ. He desired for them to live in right relationship with God. In Ecclesiastes 3, God orchestrates all things toward the purpose of right relationship. Within right relationship, then, the people could enjoy God’s gifts. John’s message of repentance served the same purpose. Additionally, in line with the wisdom of Ecclesiastes 3, the people should listen to God’s prophets and respond with appropriate action. Even when God’s works and ways go beyond human comprehension, Ecclesiastes 3 infers that humans must enjoy life while fearing God. The children understand God’s timing, and they respond appropriately, whereas the religious leaders and the vast majority of “this generation” fail to do so. Even when rejected, though, the wisdom of Jesus and John finds ultimate vindication in the resurrection of Christ and, one day, will find it even more so in the final judgment.

Finally, Ecclesiastes 3:1–15 forefronts how Jesus brings a greater ministry and message than John the Baptist. Whereas John brought repentance, Jesus brings joy. While all three insights contribute to a richer understanding of Matthew 11:16–19, this last insight qualifies as the “essential interpretive link,” the specific element of the source text that illuminates the new text.40 As Matthew 11 intends to communicate the superiority of the new era of Christ as compared to the old era, which culminates in John, what exactly about Jesus’s ministry stands out as superior? As seen in Ecclesiastes 3, the frustration of finite humans unable to understand God’s work and ways does not culminate in either vanity or fear alone. Within right relationship (fear), God desires for his people to live with happiness, to joyfully eat and drink. Jesus fulfills Ecclesiastes 3 by bringing the gifts of God to the people. Jesus wants the people to enjoy God’s gifts!

Matthew 11:16–19 demonstrates the appropriateness and validity of Jesus and John in their ministries, as well as the importance of this generation responding appropriately to John and Jesus. But in addition to this, the passage allows Jesus to honor John while also asserting the superiority of his own message. Ecclesiastes 3:1–15 expresses a simple truth: enjoy life by fearing God even when his works and ways do not make sense to you. Jesus takes that message of joy and lives it out. The present generation demonstrates their foolishness by failing to respond appropriately to John’s message of repentance, but the second (and greater) message of joy and good news condemns them even more than the first.

---

[1] Some interpreters might prefer to describe Matthew 11:16–17 as an “illustration.” Blomberg defines a parable as “a short, metaphorical narrative” (Craig Blomberg, “Introduction to the Parables,” The Gospel Coalition, https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/introduction-to-the-parables/). Accordingly, he considers Matthew 11:16–17 a parable (Craig L. Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables, 2nd ed. [Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2012), 262). Keener refers to Jesus’s message as “a sharp parable” and describes how Jesus teaches “by means of graphic illustrations” (Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009], 340). This paper will refer to Matthew 11:16–17 as a parable for two reasons: (1) the language of ὁμοία ἐστίν accompanies many of Jesus’s parables and indicates metaphor; (2) an explanation accompanies the short, pithy narrative.[2] Beetham uses four factors to distinguish allusions from quotations and echoes: (1) Intentionality; (2) Single Identifiable Source; (3) Sufficient Explicitness; (4) Essential Interpretive Link (Christopher A. Beetham, “Quotation, Allusion, and Echo,” in Dictionary of the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, eds. G. K. Beale, D. A. Carson, Benjamin L. Gladd, and Andrew David Naselli [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2023], 688). Thus, this paper argues for a stronger connection between Eccl 3:1–15 and Matt 11:16–19 than just an echo. In other words, Jesus intended for his parable, and his ultimate conclusions about wisdom, to be read through the lens of Eccl 3:1–15. Though, as Beetham notes, “depending on the allusion, the reader may still be able to piece together a partial understanding of the author’s overall meaning when [failing to grasp the allusion],” a full understanding of Matt 11:16–19 requires looking at Eccl 3:1–15 (Beetham, “Quotation, Allusion, and Echo,” 688).[3] Some interpreters have seen connections to Eccl 3, though they do not make a case for why Jesus might be alluding specifically to these texts. For example, Leithart concludes his discussion of Matt 11:16–19 by saying, “Wisdom is insight into the time. There is a time to mourn, and a time to dance; there is a time to laugh, and a time to weep; there is a time to gather, and a time to scatter; a time to give life and a time to kill. Wisdom is knowing what time it is, and this kind of wisdom only comes from the Living Wisdom, the Incarnate Wisdom, who has promised to give us the Spirit of wisdom.” (Peter J. Leithart, The Gospel of Matthew Through New Eyes: Jesus as Israel, Volume 1 (West Monroe, LA: Athanasius, 2018), 231–32). Craig Bartholomew comments, “In Matt. 11:16–19 Jesus specifically relates his eating and drinking to wisdom” (Craig G. Bartholomew, Ecclesiastes, BCOTWP [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009], 99).[4] David J. Clark and Todd Scacewater, “Matthew,” in Discourse Analysis of the New Testament Writings, ed. Todd A. Scacewater (Dallas: Fontes, 2020), 32–33.

[5] Clark and Scacewater, “Matthew,” 33.

[6] Keener, The Gospel of Matthew, 341.

[7] I owe the following insight on children in Matthew to my friend and former colleague at Training Leaders International, Joel Dougherty.

[8] Cf. Matthew 13:24; 18:23; 22:2; 25:1.

[9] Turner sees Jesus describing “this generation” as the others, also children, who are “childish brats who will not play either a wedding game or a funeral game” (David L. Turner, Matthew, BECNT [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008], 296).

[10] John Nolland, Luke 1–9:20, WBC 35A (Dallas: Word, 1989), 343–44.

[11] Joachim Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus, 2nd ed. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1972), 160–61.

[12] John Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 461–62.

[13] As Beetham notes, “In allusion the author attempts to point the reader to one specific predecessor” (Beetham, “Quotation, Allusion, and Echo,” 688). These collocations of key words, especially considered across both Matthew and Luke, point to Ecclesiastes 3 as the source text.

[14] The other references appear in Ecclesiastes 2:24–25; 5:17; 8:15. These references do not indisputably prove Ecclesiastes 3 is the source text, but they point in such a direction, as well as serving to further the grounds for sufficient explicitness.

[15] Steven E. Runge, Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament: A Practical Introduction for Teaching and Exegesis (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2010), 24.

[16] M. Jack Suggs, Wisdom, Christology, and Law in Matthew’s Gospel (Boston: Harvard University Press, 1970), 33–34. See also, F. Burnett, The Testament of Jesus-Sophia: A Redaction-Critical Study of the Eschatological Discourse in Matthew (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1981), 88–91. Consider the parallels between Sirach 51:23–27 and Matthew 11:28–30.

[17] W. D. Davies and D. C. Allison, Matthew 8–18, ICC (New York: T&T Clark, 1991), 264–65.

[18] Leithart, Jesus as Israel, 231.

[19] D. A. Carson, “Matthew,” in Matthew–Mark, ed. Tremper Longman III and David E. Garland, revised ed., EBC 9 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007), 625. See also, R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 435, “In the present contest, where John’s actions are as much in focus as those of Jesus, a Christological identification of Jesus as Wisdom is perhaps too extravagant a conclusion to draw from a term which in the OT Wisdom tradition refers primarily to practical guidance for living rather than to a metaphysical personification of a divine attribute.”

[20] Cf. Craig L. Blomberg, Matthew, NAC 22 (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1992), 189.

[21] The verb collocations, along with the reference to “wisdom” and the thematic mirroring, point to the “intentional, conscious activity” of Jesus to activate elements of the Ecclesiastes text for the purposes of solidifying intertextual patterns (Beetham, “Quotation, Allusion, and Echo,” 688).

[22] Blomberg concludes similarly, “The parable thus yields the following lessons: (1) The joyful message of forgiveness should be freely celebrated and not dampened by legalistic restrictions (Mt 11:17a, 19a). (2) The solemn message of repentance should not be ignored but taken with full seriousness (Mt 11:17b, 18). (3) The truth of both of these principles will be demonstrated by those who implement them (Mt 11:19b). For more, see Craig L. Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables, 266.

[23] I refer to Ecclesiastes 3:1–8 as a poem not only because of the repetitive parallelism with עֵת, but also due to the lack of prose particles when compared with Ecclesiastes 3:9–15. For example, the definite direct object marker (0x in 3:1–8; 5x in 3:9–15), the definite article (1x in 3:1–8; 12x in 3:9–15), and the relative pronoun אֲשֶׁר
(0x in 3:1–8; 6x in 3:9–15). These differences solidify the first section as a poem and the latter portion as a narratival monologue reflecting on the poem.

[24] Provan writes, “It is important to remember that it is not the individual elements of themselves that are important, but the elements taken together as an overall description of life…. Human beings in general spend their days in the ways described and in the activities that lie between the poles of activity represented by the opposites.” (Iain Provan, Ecclesiastes/Song of Songs, NIVAC [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001], 89).

[25] David Gibson, Living Life Backward: How Ecclesiastes Teaches Us to Live in Light of the End (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2017), 54.

[26] Edwards draws out the significant connection between God’s wisdom and his will: “‘Tis the glory and greatness of the divine sovereignty, that God’s will is determined by his own infinite all-sufficient wisdom in everything; and in nothing at all is either directed by any inferior wisdom, or by no wisdom; whereby it would become senseless arbitrariness, determining and acting without reason, design or end. If God’s will is steadily and surely determined in everything by supreme wisdom, then it is in everything necessarily determined to that which is most wise” (Jonathan Edwards, Freedom of the Will, ed. Paul Ramsey, WJE 1 [New Haven: Yale University Press, 1957], 380).

[27] Brian P. Gault effectively summarizes the interpretative options in “A Reexamination of ‘Eternity’ in Ecclesiastes 3:11,” BSac 165 (2008): 40–42. Though I disagree with his overall conclusion, his work is thorough and helpful. He argues for a revocalization of עֹלָם (“eternity”) to עֶלֶם (“young man”). I find this argument unconvincing in that the only other times this word appears in Scripture (1 Sam 17:56; 20:22), the context better fits “young man” as a translation. That would make this usage the only time where “darkness” best fits in all of Scripture, whereas numerous other words appear for darkness elsewhere in Scripture, including Ecclesiastes, where Qohelet appears to prefer חֹשֶׁךְ (Eccl 2:13, 14; 5:17; 6:4; 11:8). It also ignores the appearance of עֹלָם three verses later in Ecclesiastes 3:14, where “eternity” certainly fits, and “darkness” does not. Along this line, Bartholomew writes, “We should not ignore the recurrence of ‘ôlâm [עֹלָם] in v. 14, where it characterizes God’s activity…. In a timed world, humans recognize that ‘there is a time and a place’ and that in order to discern this they need a sense of the larger picture” (Bartholomew, Ecclesiastes, 167). This same recurrence of עֹלָם also makes me shy away from any idea of emendation either, contra Michael V. Fox, Qoheleth and His Contradictions (Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989), 194. It seems best to make interpretative decisions based on עוֹלָם without following any variations or alternate suggestions for the word.

[28] Jesse M. Peterson wants to nuance the common determinist reading of Ecclesiastes 3:2–8 by pointing instead to “Cyclical, Anthropological Determinism.” For Peterson, determinism “refers not to the preordination and real-time intervention of unique, individual events plotted along historical time, but instead refers to the establishment of a broad framework or structure within which human existence occurs” (Jesse M. Peterson, “Times as Task, Not Timing: Reconsidering Qoheleth’s Catalogue of the Times,” VT 72 [2022]: 450). I find Peterson helpful in mitigating some of the weaknesses of a common determinist reading, especially in showing the cyclical, oscillating nature of time itself present in Ecclesiastes 1:3–11. However, as will be shown later, human frustration does not arise from “the world’s cyclical, repetitive nature,” but from human inability to figure out that cyclical nature (Peterson, “Times as Task,” 463). We lack gain not because our human activity amounts to nothing, but rather because we cannot figure out the cyclical nature of God’s foreordination. Peterson’s work helps us understand the doing and undoing relationship of the activities in Ecclesiastes 3:1–8, but he shifts the focus of our lack in gain from an attempt to understand God’s action to our actions in and of themselves.

[29] Provan writes, “Their sense of time past and future is insufficient for the task of truly understanding the times. Only God, who made all things to fit their times, truly understands them” (Provan, Ecclesiastes/Song of Songs, 90). St. Gregory of Nyssa succinctly points out, “For all eternity he put in men’s hearts the fact that they might never discover what God has done from the beginning right to the end” (St. Gregory of Nyssa, Homilies on Ecclesiastes, Ancient Bible Commentaries in English, ed. John Litteral, trans. Richard McCambly (Ashland, KY: Litteral’s Christian Library, 2014), 79. See also Tremper Longman III, The Book of Ecclesiastes, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 121; St. Jerome, Commentary on Ecclesiastes, Ancient Christian Writers, trans. and ed. Richard J. Goodrich and David J. D. Miller (New York: Newman, 2012), 60; James L. Crenshaw, Ecclesiastes, OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987), 98; Graham S. Ogden and Lynell Zogbo, A Handbook on Ecclesiastes, UBS Handbook Series (New York: United Bible Societies, 1997), 98–101.

[30] Stephen J. Bennett, Ecclesiastes/Lamentations: A Commentary in the Wesleyan Tradition, NBBC (Kansas City: Beacon Hill, 2010), 86–87.

[31] Eric Ortlund summarizes well, “We who are bound in time grope after some comprehensive, ‘above the sun’ view of reality, outside of time. Qohelet is saying that God has put this impulse within us (v. 11a)—and not only that but that God simultaneously frustrates this impulse and prevents our grasping comprehensively God’s work in the world and his ordering of human time (v. 11b)” (Eric Ortlund, “Pastoral Pensées: Laboring in Hopeless Hope: Encouragement for Christians from Ecclesiastes,” Themelios 39.2 [2014]: 288).

[32] Bartholomew also sees the connection between the question asked and the following context, “[His programmatic question] is asked in relation to time and discerning what is fitting or appropriate in a particular situation” (Bartholomew, Ecclesiastes, 165).

[33] For Peterson, “all of the activities which typify human lives are self-sabotaged by an equilibrating tendency which undermines any would-be gains, arriving only back at ‘zero’” (Peterson, “Times as Task,”469). Instead of seeing the lack of gain in human actions being undone, we should read the lack of gain as a figuring out of God’s plan in the midst of human actions being undone. The frustration does not rest in the actions themselves but in he one orchestrating those actions. This connection becomes especially clear in Qohelet’s move from general to specific in Ecclesiastes 3:16–17.

[34] Longman writes, “It is as if God is baiting or toying with his human creatures, giving them a desire for something that is well beyond their reach” (Longman, The Book of Ecclesiastes, 119).

[35] Murphy does not see any good for humanity in light of this situation, “Humans have not been helped because they cannot understand what God is about” (Roland Murphy, Ecclesiastes, WBC 23a [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992], 34). Similarly, Crenshaw writes, “Qohelet has just said that God bestowed a sorry occupation upon human beings. Now he appears to qualify, then quickly moves to correct this impression. In the end he discovers no comfort in the knowledge that God has made everything appropriate for its particular moment” (Crenshaw, Ecclesiastes, 97). Longman concludes, “Qohelet states that there is no purpose to doing anything in this fallen world” (Longman, The Book of Ecclesiastes, 118).

[36] Longman, The Book of Ecclesiastes, 125.

[37] Weeks argues against interpreting this verse in terms of purpose, “In context Qohelet’s point is probably that, as one of his ‘achievements’, the human fear of God will be as changeless and perpetual as all the others” (Stuart Weeks, Ecclesiastes 1–5, ICC [New York: T&T Clark, 2020], 503). He argues both contextually—God has achieved in Ecclesiastes 3:11—and grammatically— שֶׁshould be read as either a simple relative or a substantivizing particle (p. 524). He thus concludes that fear should be read in terms of “terror.” In response, the LXX does use ἵνα to translate this phrase (albeit this could mean “that” in the relative sense), and אֲשֶׁר can be used in purpose clauses (cf. Gen 24:3; Ezek 36:27). Holmstedt, Cook, and Marshall explain how this construction could have come into being, “the שֶׁ is a nominalizer for לְמַעַן, which has been omitted. The result is an understood purpose, ‘(for the purpose) that….’ In this analysis the שֶׁ is technically still a nominalizer, but one can see how she might have been reanalyzed in cases of abbreviation like this so that by Mishnaic Hebrew it seems to introduce just about any subordinate clause” (Robert D. Holmstedt, John A. Cook, and Phillip S. Marshall, Qoheleth: A Handbook on the Hebrew Text, Baylor Handbook on the Hebrew Bible [Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2017], 133–34). These explanations provide grounds for the purpose reading, and within the context of Ecclesiastes 3:12–13 conveying positive, actual delight, God intends the seemingly contradictory actions of placing something in the human that the human cannot actually attain for a positive, though not definite, purpose. The kindness of God toward finite humans should lead to humility and repentance (cf. Rom 2:4).

[38] Bennett, Ecclesiastes/Lamentations, 88.

[39] Provan, Ecclesiastes/Song of Songs, 91; cf. Jason S. DeRouchie, “Shepherding the Wind and One Wise Shepherd: Grasping for Breath in Ecclesiastes,” SBJT 15.3 (2011): 15, “Our incapacity to shepherd or control reality should humble us in a way that generates a righteous fear of the one who has been effectively shepherding all things for all time.”

[40] Beetham, “Quotation, Allusion, and Echo,” 689.

 

---