What is the meaning of life?

The Bible does not answer this question in one sentence, but it does point somewhere. In Matthew 22:37-40, Jesus names the greatest commandment as loving God with the whole heart, soul, and mind, and the second as loving one's neighbor as oneself. John Calvin reads the first as the root of everything else: he says that "the commencement of godliness is the love of God," and that God "chooses to be worshipped freely and willingly" rather than through forced service [John Calvin, on Matthew 22:37]. On this reading, a human life is meant to be ordered by love of God, and the rest follows from that.

Ecclesiastes ends its long search with a similar conclusion. Verse 13 says to fear God and keep his commandments, because this is the whole duty of man, and verse 14 says God will judge every deed, hidden or not. The commentary I have here, Athanasius and the Apostolic Constitutions, takes up the judgment in verse 14 rather than the meaning of life, so I cannot give you their view of the phrase whole duty of man [Athanasius of Alexandria, on Ecclesiastes 12:14] [Apostolic Constitutions, on Ecclesiastes 12:14].

The Church's answer, from my own knowledge rather than from the shelf in front of me, is the one the Baltimore Catechism gives: God made us to know, love, and serve him in this world, and to be happy with him forever in heaven. Life is therefore not a problem to solve but a relationship to live, and its end is union with God. Catholic teaching holds that this happiness is not earned by our own effort alone; it is given by grace, received in faith and baptism, and worked out in charity. Purgatory, for those who die in God's friendship but not yet fully purified, is part of the same picture.

Other traditions answer differently. Some find meaning chiefly in the created world, in justice, in community, or in no transcendent purpose at all. Those are serious positions, and this is my own tradition's answer, not a verdict on yours.

Ecclesiastes 12:13 gives the answer in six words, and the JPS 1917 reads it as fear God, and keep His commandments; for this is the whole man. Rashi explains the phrase this way: "for this matter, the entire man was created" [Rashi, on Ecclesiastes 12:13]. On his reading, a human being is not finished by believing or by feeling anything in particular. Man is made for this work.

Father Thomas puts the root of meaning in love of God, and I agree that love is where the Torah starts. In Judaism, though, that love shows itself in deeds. Micah 6:8 names the requirement: to do justice, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God. Rashi, reading the phrase "walk humbly," tells a story from the Pesikta about a person who has wronged his neighbor. The neighbor will not forgive until the wronged man brings in everyone who witnessed the shame. God, Rashi says, wants the return to Him to stay between the two of them [Rashi, on Micah 6:8]. The point is that the relationship with God is direct and personal, and it is repaired by turning back and changing one's conduct, not by a mediator who pays the debt. That is why Judaism teaches atonement through teshuvah, repentance, with prayer and tzedakah, and holds that no one can die for another's sins.

I should be honest about the limits here. The Ecclesiastes passage does not say "whole duty" in the JPS, which Father Thomas quoted from another rendering. It says "whole man." Rashi's gloss is the purpose, and the Jewish reading treats the commandments as the shape of a human life rather than as a route to a state of grace. Matthew Henry, whom Father Thomas did not cite, makes a similar point that moral duties are good in themselves and commanded because they are good [Matthew Henry, on Micah 6:6-8]. The meaning, then, is found in the ordinary, daily work of keeping the commandments, and in the love that drives it.

The Qur'an answers this directly. In the passage I have opened, Pickthall renders it: "I created the jinn and humankind only that they might worship Me" [Qur'an 51:56 (Pickthall)]. The next verse says God seeks no livelihood from them and needs no feeding [Qur'an 51:58 (Pickthall)]. Pickthall is a translation of the meaning. The Arabic itself is the revelation.

Two points stand out to me. First, the verse does not say God needs our worship. It says the purpose is ours. Second, "worship" here is not only ritual. The Arabic word is *ʿibadah*, which means the whole of a life turned toward God: prayer, but also honesty in trade, care for parents, justice, and restraint. The five pillars (the testimony of faith, prayer, zakat, the fast of Ramadan, and the pilgrimage for those able) give that devotion its regular shape. Muslims do not treat them as a route to a state of grace. They are the way a person stays oriented toward the One.

Father Thomas puts the root of meaning in loving God, and I agree that love is central. Rabbi Adler places it in daily deeds, and I agree with that too. Where I part from both is on the question of who carries the weight. In my tradition, God's mercy is real and decisive, but each person answers for his or her own deeds. No one bears another's burden, and there is no inherited guilt, so no one's meaning is finished for them by another's act. What is asked of us is faith, righteous action, and repentance (*tawbah*, turning back to God) when we fall short.

That is also where Islam and Christian Trinitarian belief part most sharply. Tawhid, the oneness of God without partner, son, or likeness, is the center of how I understand what a life is for. A life that knows God as One has a single direction.

The commentators I lean on, including al-Tabari and al-Jalalayn, work through the verse's wording at length, but I do not have their comment on this verse in front of me in this session, so I will not attribute a reading to them here.

**1. The hinge.** The panel divides on what "purpose" means: an end God assigns beyond the life, or the shape the life itself takes. The English turns on Ecclesiastes 12:13. The BSB has the whole duty of man, which points to a task. The JPS has the whole man, which points to a totality. I am comparing translations here, not reading the underlying text.

**2. The first reading: meaning is a relation the life is ordered toward.** Father Thomas and Imam Bilal hold this. Matthew 22:37-40 has Jesus make love of God and neighbour the whole of the Law and the Prophets, and Pickthall's Qur'an 51:56 says humankind was created "only that they might worship Me." Albert Barnes reads "with all thy mind" as devoting the intellect to God's service [Albert Barnes, on Matthew 22:37], which fits the breadth this reading claims. It accounts for Matthew 22:37-40 and Qur'an 51:56-57, where God seeks no provision from them. It does not account for Ecclesiastes 12:13, which describes a person, not a destination.

**3. The second reading: meaning is the conduct a life takes.** Rabbi Adler holds this. The JPS's "whole man" and Micah 6:8 (do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly) put the weight on daily conduct. Keil and Delitzsch read Ecclesiastes 12:13 as a reduction of the law to its common human essence, and cite a rabbinic saying in Berakhot that the universe exists for this command [Keil and Delitzsch, on Ecclesiastes 12:13]. Matthew Henry holds that moral duties are good in themselves and commanded because they are good [Matthew Henry, on Micah 6:6-8]. This reading accounts for Ecclesiastes 12:13 and Micah 6:8. It makes less of Matthew 22:37, where love of God is the first commandment.

**4. What complicates both.** - Ecclesiastes 12:14, that God judges every deed, hidden or not, is accounted for by neither reading. Keil and Delitzsch treat it as an early step toward a final judgment beyond this life [Keil and Delitzsch, on Ecclesiastes 12:14]. That is a Christian reading of a book scholars widely debate, and whether Qohelet believed in judgment beyond death is genuinely unsettled. - Scholars also commonly regard the closing verses (12:9-14) as a later editorial frame. If so, the "whole duty" conclusion is not Qohelet's own answer to his question. - Micah 6:6-7 rejects sacrifice and even the firstborn as an offering. Keil and Delitzsch argue that sin-offerings are not in view there [Keil and Delitzsch, on Micah 6:6-7]. Neither teacher uses those verses, though they bear on both the sacramental and the repentance-based accounts of atonement. - Qur'an 51:58, that God gives livelihood, is not addressed by Bilal beyond the claim that God needs no service. - None of the four passages asks what life is for. Ecclesiastes comes closest, and it is the book that most doubts a clean answer.

**5. Corrections.** - Father Thomas's whole duty of man is accurate for the BSB, which I opened. Rabbi Adler is right that the JPS says "whole man." - Rabbi Adler's Rashi wording on Ecclesiastes and his Pesikta story on Micah 6:8 are not among the excerpts I have for this question, so I cannot confirm them. - Father Thomas's Calvin quotations and his claim about Athanasius and the Apostolic Constitutions on verse 14 are likewise not in my excerpts here, so I cannot confirm them. - Imam Bilal's Pickthall rendering of 51:56 is accurate. His remark about the range of the Arabic word is not something I can check.