Competence and Its Uncertain Outcomes: Voetius on Ecclesiastes

Voetius and the Bible

When he died, Gisbertus Voetius had been teaching theology in Utrecht for over four decades. He had trained many students and left behind a substantial body of work: numerous scholarly treatises, several sermons, and writings in Dutch. In the sermon delivered at Voetius’s funeral, his former student and fellow minister Cornelius Gentman (1617–1696) noted that critics viewed him as the leader of a movement: his students were called “Voetians.” That term would remain, well into the eighteenth century, a designation for a theological school of thought within the Dutch church. That characterization cannot be accepted without reservations and caveats. At the same time, the term shows that this minister and professor had a reputation for providing leadership.

Voetius was a “professor of the Holy Scriptures.” At least, that is what his printed inaugural lecture from 1634 states at the beginning of his long career. Indeed, in his many works, countless Bible verses are cited, explained, and used as arguments. Voetius wrote about the authority of Scripture and the relationship between the Bible and science. However, he did not publish purely exegetical treatises very often. One such treatise is a disputation titled "Explanation of Ecclesiastes 9:11". This disputation was a practice text, written by Voetius in his capacity as a professor. A student, the respondent, was required to master its content and defend it against critical questions during a public session. This treatise on Ecclesiastes 9 was published in the fourth volume of the Selected theological disputations (Selectae disputationes theologicae), a volume that appeared in 1667. Student Barthold van Hattem had defended that text by Voetius a year earlier as the respondent during a disputation held in Utrecht. Little else is known about Van Hattem. He had come to study in Utrecht in 1662. After completing his studies, from 1671 until his death in 1711, he served as a minister in Vleuten.

Ecclesiastes 9:11

Voetius thus wrote about Ecclesiastes 9:11. In the King James Version (1611) it reads:

I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.

In the New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition (2021) it reads:

Again I saw that under the sun the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, nor bread to the wise, nor riches to the intelligent, nor favor to the skillful, but time and chance happen to them all.

Method and Sources

Voetius’s explanation was structured in three steps. A “literal interpretation” was followed first by a “real interpretation” and then by a discussion of the “propositions” or insights offered by the text. (1) Voetius first examined the various translation options and meanings of most of the Hebrew words that appear in the verse. He showed how exegetes and Bible translations rendered and interpreted the words. Sometimes he allowed different options to coexist; other times, he argued for his preference. (2) Next, Voetius addressed what the words are about: what reality does this verse describe, and what is its meaning? (3) Finally, he formulated two theological propositions regarding the theme of the Bible verse. He provided additional arguments for these propositions, drawing from sources other than the Bible verse under discussion itself. In this way, the single verse was connected to other theological insights. This concluded the argument.

Voetius’s literary references are very diverse. In his Exercises and Library of the Theology Student (Exercitia et bibliotheca studiosi theologiae) from 1644, he had recommended four commentators on the Book of Ecclesiastes to his students. The same four commentators were also included in the expanded edition of 1651. The first commentator mentioned was Johannes Mercerus or Jean Mercier (ca. 1510–1570), a talented French Hebraist. Voetius then named a writer who is difficult to identify: “Iohannes Costeus.” Perhaps there is a typographical error here, and the author intended to refer to Johannes Coccejus (1603–1669), who published a commentary on Ecclesiastes in 1636. Voetius also recommended to his students the commentaries of two Jesuits: Jean de Lorin (1559–1634) and Cornelius a Lapide (1567–1637).

In 1667, in his "Explanation of Ecclesiastes 9:11," Voetius appears to cite only Jean Mercier (several times) and Jean de Lorin (once). He now drew on other commentators, such as the Reformed Hebrew scholar Sebastian Münster (1488–1552), who published a Latin translation alongside his Hebrew text edition. From the Reformed camp, the translations by Emmanuel Tremellius (1510–1580) and Franciscus Junius (1545–1602) are also repeatedly cited. Furthermore, Voetius mentions Roman Catholic commentators such as Arias Montanus (1527–1598), Santes Pagnino (1470–1536), Juan de Pineda (1558–1637), and Juan de Mariana (1536–1624) on more than one occasion. Ancient translations such as the Peshitta and the Septuagint are cited, alongside the more recent Zurich Bible. But the Targum and medieval Jewish exegetes such as Aben Ezra (ca. 1089–1167) and Schelomo Jarchi (Rashi, 1040–1105) are also mentioned. Voetius’s frame of reference was broad.

Exegetical Choice

After Voetius analyzed the meanings of the words and possible translations of Ecclesiastes 9:11 using such exegetical sources, he turned to the question of what the message of the verse as a whole was (the “real interpretation”). He noted that there were differing views:

There are those who believe that these words are not Solomon’s, but those of a foolish Epicurean, whom Solomon puts on record as speaking against divine providence; as if this were a warning against all effort given that all things depend on chance and fortune. [Juan de] Mariana, the Zurich translation, and the aforementioned [François] Vatable seem to adopt such an interpretation.
Others prefer to interpret this as Solomon proposing a new kind of vanity, such as Olympiorodus [of Alexandria], [Nicholas of] Lyra, Bonaventure, [Franciscus] Titelmans, Cajetan, John of Campen, Juan de Pineda, and [Jean de] Lorin. We agree with this interpretation.(Source: Translation of the Latin text)

According to Voetius, Ecclesiastes 9:11 consists of two parts. The first part denies that human qualities such as speed, wisdom, strength, and so on are sufficient in themselves to achieve their natural or intended purpose. The second part states that the outcome depends on time and chance. However, what appears to earthly observers to be a matter of chance—since things could just as easily have turned out very differently—does not escape God’s ordering hand. According to Voetius, when the Preacher speaks of time and chance, he is not only saying that historical events are contingent but also, implicitly, that these events are subject to God’s providence.

Two Lessons

Voetius then formulated two general lessons. The first lesson was that all events—especially those that are in themselves contingent—come about through God’s providence. Divine providence was not explicitly mentioned in the text under discussion, and Voetius had only very briefly argued why “time and chance” actually referred to God’s guidance. He referred to the “analogy of faith or of Scripture”—that is, to what other biblical texts explicitly state. And he believed that the words “I returned, and saw under the sun” mean that the Preacher himself is about to describe a new form of vanity (vanitas), and that an Epicurean is not suddenly introduced speaking in this text. (If the verse did indeed reflect the opinion of an Epicurean—that is, of someone who denies that the deity actively intervenes in the world—it would not contain a confession of God’s providence.)

The second lesson was that even the most diligent and well-educated people can miss the purpose that is actually inherent in their gifts and talents. Reasons for this latter assertion include “ignorance, forgetfulness, and inattention, to which a person in this life is absolutely and completely not—and cannot be—immune, not only in spiritual matters but also in the sciences and the arts.” Even capable people have their limitations, and ultimately, God determines the course of events. This last point, however, should not be misunderstood to mean that human actions do not matter. Voetius, on the contrary, rejected the idea that human beings were merely passive. Anyone who thought that way failed to recognize the responsibility that human beings had as a “second cause.”

Key Point

According to Voetius, Ecclesiastes thus describes in verse 11 of chapter 9 a new kind of emptiness or futility: people do not automatically realize what could be achieved given their aptitudes and talents. What comes to pass depends on “time and chance,” which in turn are governed by God. This reference to God’s guidance—even of events that are in themselves contingen—was, incidentally, not solely a Reformed insight. Voetius could have read this interpretation in the work of the Jewish exegete Ibn Ezra, as Sebastian Münster and Jean de Lorin demonstrated. Furthermore, the Jesuit Juan de Pineda, whom Voetius mentioned, also referred extensively to God’s providence in his erudite commentary on this verse.

As an exegete, Voetius thus demonstrated an eye for linguistic issues, for exegetical alternatives, and for analyses drawn from various denominations (Jewish, Roman Catholic, Protestant), while also seeking to understand this single Bible verse within the broader framework of doctrinal theology.