Ecclesiastes

The name “Ecclesiastes” is derived from the Septuagint and may be defined as “member of an assembly” or a “congregation.” This designation is the Greek rendering for the Hebrew term qohéleth. Drawn from the Hebrew root thought to mean “to call, to call out,” the designation qohéleth appears to relate to convening, congregating, or assembling people for the purpose of addressing them, and so the expression likely designates a convener, a congregator, or an assembler. In the commentary that follows, because of a measure of uncertainty regarding the meaning of qohéleth, the transliterated form Koheleth will be used.

In the Talmud (Shabbath, 30b), quotations from the book of Ecclesiastes are attributed to Solomon, but there is also an acknowledgment that the “Sages wished to hide” the book, “because its words are self-contradictory; yet why did they not hide it? Because its beginning is religious teaching and its end is religious teaching.”

In a discussion of the writers or compilers of the various Bible books, the Talmud indicates that a number of books, including Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, were compiled in the time of King Hezekiah. (Baba Bathra, 15a) Proverbs 25:1 specifically refers to the involvement of the men of Hezekiah in transmitting proverbs of Solomon, and so the Talmud possibly preserves a reliable tradition about Ecclesiastes.

It may be that, although containing material from Solomon’s reign, the book came to be compiled at a much later time. This could mean that, particularly in the first two chapters, the comments are framed in a manner that relates to Solomon or that represent him as the speaker. Observations that are attributed to the king agree with the accounts about his reign in the books of 1 Kings and 1 Chronicles. As a compilation, however, Ecclesiastes, like Proverbs, may contain material from a variety of sources and would not need to be limited to any specific time period. Accordingly, when represented as the speaker, “Koheleth” does not have to be regarded as always meaning Solomon, any other king, or, in fact, any other specific individual. Just as “wisdom” is personified as speaking in the book of Proverbs, so the use of Koheleth as the conveyer of information in the book of Ecclesiastes may serve as a literary device.

The observations and proverbs in this book pertain to human affairs and the transitory nature of all human endeavors. The vanity, emptiness, futility, or transitoriness of all human accomplishments highlights the need for having a reverential regard for God and deriving enjoyment from his gifts. This serves to focus on the reality of God’s eternal nature and the certainty of a future judgment of humans and their words and actions.

Ecclesiastes 1:1-18

The “words” are meaningful sayings designed to impart vital instruction. They are the sayings of Qohéleth (transliterated “Koheleth”), a designation variously rendered “Preacher,” “Speaker,” “Spokesman,” “Convener,” “Assembler,” and “Teacher.” In the role of an “assembler,” he could be understood to be a person who assembled hearers in order to address them or an individual who assembled or made collections of proverbs or wise sayings. (1:1)

Koheleth referred to himself as the “son of David.” Although “son” can apply to any male descendant of King David, the term is restricted by the words, “king in Jerusalem.” The Septuagint reads, “king of Israel in Jerusalem,” and, in verse 12, both the Hebrew text and the Septuagint refer to him as “king over Israel in Jerusalem.” Solomon alone fits that description, as no descendant of David thereafter ruled over all Israel. Upon Solomon’s death and the start of Rehoboam’s reign, ten tribes revolted and established an independent monarchy. (1:1)

Some have reasoned that Solomon wrote Ecclesiastes after repenting from his apostasy, but there is no supporting biblical statement to this effect. Moreover, although first-century Jewish historian Josephus included details about Solomon’s reign not found in the scriptural record, he makes no mention of any repentance. This suggests that no ancient tradition existed about Solomon’s repenting from apostasy. If he had indeed done so, this apparent silence about a favorable outcome would be difficult to explain.

“Vanity of vanities” is the common rendering for the Hebrew expression havél havalím. This denotes a vanity above all other vanities, that is, the greatest vanity, the utmost vanity, a vanity of the superlative degree. Other English terms that convey the thought of the Hebrew hével would be “emptiness,” “nothingness,” “meaninglessness,” “transitoriness,” “purposelessness,” and “futility.” These meanings harmonize with the basic sense of the Hebrew — “vapor,” “breath,” “exhalation.” The utter emptiness is further stressed by repetition. The Hebrew text reads, “‘Vanity of vanities,’ says Koheleth, ‘vanity of vanities, the whole — vanity.’” The Hebrew term kol, meaning “whole,” “all,” or “everything,” is not to be understood in the absolute sense. It simply denotes everything in human affairs that became the object of Koheleth’s careful evaluation, based on his personal experience and keen observation. (1:2)

“None” — that is the implied answer to Koheleth’s question about what “profit” (Hebrew, yithróhn, also defined as “advantage,” “gain,” “that which is over and above, or in excess”) does a man have from all his “labor,” or “toil.” This is so because nothing has any permanence. (1:3)

The Hebrew word for man is ’adhám, from a root meaning “red.” This root is also the one for ’adhamáh, “ground,” “soil,” or “land.” Accordingly, ’adhám seemingly designates an “earthling,” one formed from the reddish soil. (1:3; Genesis 2:7)

The Hebrew word for “labor” (‘amál) denotes painful, wearisome, burdensome, or exhausting toil. A literal reading for the phrase starting with “his labor” would be, “his labor which he labors.” The repetitious combination “labor which he labors” adds emphasis to the hard, wearisome, or exhausting nature of the toil and the toiling. It also suggests monotony — a relentless cycle of laboring. (1:3)

“Under the sun” signifies “on earth,” the place beneath the sun from the standpoint of the human observer. It is here on earth that man toils to the point of weariness. (1:3)

The transitoriness of human endeavors is also evident from Koheleth’s next words. One generation of humankind is replaced by another generation, as one generation after another passes off the earthly scene. The earth, however, remains. With reference to the continuance of the earth, ‘ohlám is the term appearing in the Hebrew text. This word is commonly rendered “forever,” but it specifically designates time that has no set limit. The Septuagint reads, “into the age,” which expression is likewise translated “forever.” (1:4)

A strict literalism should not be forced upon the statement about the rising and setting of the sun. Koheleth is simply calling attention to repetitive cycles as they appear to the earthly observer. The sun rises in the east and sets in the west, seemingly hurrying back to its place, thereafter to repeat the familiar cycle. “Hurries,” “hastens,” and “speeds” are renderings for the Hebrew term shaáph, defined as “gasp,” “pant,” “pant after.” The sun is figuratively depicted as a runner, eagerly panting after its place. The “place” may figuratively refer to the sun’s abode during the night when it is not seen. According to the reading of the Septuagint, the sun “draws to its place.” (1:5)

Although translators commonly use the word “wind” at the beginning of verse 6, the Hebrew term is found in the second part of this verse. The Hebrew literally reads, “going to south and circling to north.” Both the Septuagint and the Syriac link this phrase to the sun, not to the wind. In the Septuagint, verses 5 and 6 read, “And the sun rises, and the sun goes down and draws to its place; rising there, it goes toward the south and circles toward the north.” If the reference is to the sun and not to the wind, the meaning could be that, from the standpoint of the human observer, there is a seeming movement from south to north, this seeming movement taking place between the summer and winter solstices. (1:6)

The basic objection to viewing the sun as the subject is that the sun really does not “go round,” “turn,” or “circle” to the north. Thereafter, in this verse, the “circling” or “turning” definitely refers to the wind. So there is justification for understanding all of verse 6 to refer to the wind. The primary thought of Koheleth’s words is that the wind blows in one direction and then in another, ever moving in repetitive cycles. (1:6; see the Notes section for examples of translations that render the entire verse as applying to the wind.)

Similarly, streams continue to empty into the sea, but the sea is never filled. The water cycle continues. Ancient Jewish sources attributed this to underground tunnels through which water flowed from the sea back into the rivers. There is, however, no reason to believe that wise Koheleth had this erroneous view. The Hebrew word rendered “streams” or “rivers” is nechalím (singular, nachál). This term often designates torrents that flowed during the rainy season but completely disappeared in the dry summer. (Compare Job 6:15.) So it would have been apparent to Koheleth that the source of such streams was precipitation. He would also have been able to observe that the rain-bearing clouds moved in from the direction of the sea (the Mediterranean). (Compare 1 Kings 18:44, 45.) As Koheleth expressed it, the torrents continually return to their source, to the sea from which they came. (1:7)

With reference to the repetitive cycles, Koheleth said, “All the things — wearisome; a man cannot speak.” The numberless repetitive cycles to be seen in human affairs and in the natural world give no evidence of coming to an end, to a state of rest. From the human perspective, anything that is repetitious, giving no promise of any letup or rest, is fatiguing, tiring, exhausting, or wearying. Accordingly, one would be at a loss for words when attempting to convey accurately the concept of countless repetitive cycles continuing for endless ages to come. (1:8; see the Notes section for an application to “words,” not “all the things.”)

Although numberless visual impressions continually enter it, the eye is never satisfied, filled up, with the object of seeing having come to a pleasant culmination. Likewise, a barrage of various sounds, including human speech, enters the ear. The ear, however, is not filled, not having reached the state of being fully satisfied with the sum of all that has been heard. Because so much of what is seen and heard proves to be repetitious, humans experience a sense of restlessness, dissatisfaction. There is a desire for seeing and hearing something truly different — new. (1:8)

Koheleth observed that, in the realm of nature and in the affairs of humankind, everything takes place according to the same cyclical patterns. In the world of nature, whatever happened in the past is what will occur again. Similarly, whatever people have done in former times will be repeated. Nothing is really new “under the sun” (in the earthly realm where humans conduct their affairs of life). Everything continues to take place according to God’s promise, “As long as the earth endures, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, will never cease.” (Genesis 8:22, NIV) Babies are born, grow up, get married, have children of their own, grow old, and finally die. The basic routine of life does not vary. It is a cycle of working, eating, and sleeping. There have been times of prosperity and poverty, abundance and famine, advancement and regression, stability and instability, freedom and oppression, and peace and war. Earth’s inhabitants have had the same hopes, longings, goals, desires, frustrations, and disappointments. (1:9)

The sweeping statement that “there is nothing new under the sun” could cause someone to conclude that there must be at least one exception. Possibly anticipating this, Koheleth raised the question whether there is anything concerning which it can be said that it is new. His answer is that it has existed from long ago (‘ohlám, in this case being descriptive of the indefinite past; “ages that came to be from before us” [LXX]), from a time preceding him and his contemporaries. (1:10)

Koheleth seems to refer to the harsh reality that people who lived in the past have been forgotten and that this will also prove to be true regarding future generations. Those of future generations simply will not be remembered by those following them in time. The passage of many centuries has confirmed Koheleth’s words. Billions of the human race have been forgotten. Even those whose names have been preserved in ancient writings and who exerted great power over others have no real influence on the billions of earth’s present inhabitants. (1:11)

The words of Koheleth may be translated, “There is no remembrance of the former ones.” Because the Hebrew word ri’shóhn simply denotes the “former,” a number of translations convey the meaning to be “former things,” thus linking the term with the doings and occurrences spoken of in the preceding verses. “The earlier ones are not remembered; so too those that will occur later will no more be remembered than those that will occur at the very end.” (Tanakh). “No one thinks anymore about what happened earlier, and also the deeds of our descendants their children will sometime not remember anymore.” (Niemand denkt mehr an das, was früher geschehen ist, und auch an die Taten unserer Nachkommen werden sich deren Kinder einmal nicht mehr erinnern. [German, Hoffnung für alle]) “We have just forgotten what has formerly occurred. And in a few years one will not remember anymore what we are doing now.” (Wir haben nur vergessen, was damals geschehen ist. Und in einigen Jahren wird man sich nicht mehr an das erinnern, was wir jetzt tun. [German, Neues Leben]) The Septuagint may likewise be understood to designate things: “There is no remembrance of the first [ones, things].” As in the case of people, past doings and occurrences are, of course, soon forgotten. (1:11)

Koheleth (as in verse 1) identified himself in the role of a monarch, saying, “I, Koheleth, was king over Israel in Jerusalem.” The Hebrew verb for “to be” in this case expresses a completed action and, therefore, is commonly rendered “was.” This has been cited as indicating that Solomon could not have been the intended monarch because he continued to be king up to the day of his death. The Hebrew verb, however, does not have to be regarded in such a restrictive way. Koheleth may simply have spoken of himself as being king at the time, without implying that he later ceased to be such. The Septuagint reads, “I, Ecclesiast, became [egenómen] king over Israel in Jerusalem.” (1:12)

The expression “king over Israel” preceded the division of the nation into two kingdoms. Saul of the tribe of Benjamin, was the first one to be anointed as “king over Israel” (1 Samuel 15:1, 17, 35; 16:1), and he was commonly referred to as the “king of Israel.” (1 Samuel 24:14; 26:20) Even the neighboring Philistines spoke of Saul as “king of Israel.” (1 Samuel 29:3) Saul’s son Jonathan expressed the conviction that David would be “king over Israel.” (1 Sam. 23:17) Later, Solomon’s father David was anointed as king over the house of Judah. (2 Samuel 2:4) Not until after the death of Saul’s son Ish-bosheth (who had become king over Israel) was David anointed as “king over Israel.” (2 Samuel 2:8-10; 5:3) So the expression “king over Israel in Jerusalem” corroborates the link to Solomon, for he is the only “son of David” who ruled over all Israel from the city of Jerusalem. (1:12)

Koheleth next said, “I gave my heart.” The term “heart” translates the Hebrew lev and is often rendered “mind.” (NAB, NASB, NRSV, REB, Tanakh) Lev, however, could apply to the self or inner self. “I devoted myself” (NIV, NLT); “I have applied myself.” (NJB) Koheleth’s words may indicate that he “gave” or “set” his “heart,” (1) his all, his entire being, or (2) his whole mind, his complete attention, to seeking or searching out everything that is done under the heavens. (1:13)

The Hebrew word rendered “seek” (darásh) may also signify “study,” and this is the term used in a number of translations (NIV, REB, Tanakh). In the Septuagint, darásh is rendered “search out” (ekzetéo), and this meaning fits the context well. Koheleth expressed the next action by using the Hebrew tur, defined as “spy out,” “investigate,” “examine,” and “explore,” corresponding to the meaning of the Greek katasképtomai appearing in the Septuagint. The thought may be that Koheleth did his seeking or searching out and then carefully examined or investigated his findings. This seeking or searching and the examining was done with wisdom, being guided by wisdom or sound judgment. (1:13)

“All” or “everything” under “the heavens” (on earth beneath the skies) is to be regarded in a relative sense. It includes only what became the object of Koheleth’s searching and careful examination. The term “all” is limited to what Koheleth calls ‘inyan ra‘ (literally, “occupation of evil”) and variously translated “vexatious employment” (Rotherham), “unhappy business” (RSV, Tanakh), “grievous task” (NASB), “worthless task” (REB), “wearisome task” (NJB), “thankless task” (NAB), and “tragic existence” (NLT). The “occupation of evil” with which “earthlings” are “occupied” (‘anáh) evidently denotes the painful toiling in which they must engage just to live, to exist. In other contexts, the Hebrew word ‘anáh can mean to be “afflicted,” “humbled,” or “oppressed.” The Septuagint rendering is perispáo, meaning “preoccupy” or “distract.” (1:13)

God has allowed the painful “business,” “occupation,” or “employment” to be the lot of sinful humans and, therefore, it is referred to as his giving the occupation to them. This “occupation” is “evil” or “calamitous” because nothing of lasting value or permanence is produced. The futility of all the toiling is summed up in God’s words to Adam, “By the sweat of your brow shall you get bread to eat, until you return to the ground ― for from it you were taken. For dust you are, and to dust you will return” (1:13; Gen. 3:19; Tanakh)

Koheleth had “seen” or personally observed “all the works” done by humans “under the sun” (on the earth beneath the sun). Based on his careful observations of human laboring, he was moved to conclude, All is “vanity,” “emptiness,” “meaninglessness,” or “nothingness.” It is a “striving” or “chasing” after “wind,” after something that has no real substance. (1:14; see the Notes section.)

Through his careful investigation of human affairs, Koheleth came to the painful realization that the incessant striving, struggling, and toiling of humankind brought no real satisfaction. Nothing had any permanence and humans were powerless in effecting lasting change for the better. He then set forth the basic reason for this in the form of a proverb, “A twisted thing that cannot be made straight, a lack that cannot be made good.” (1:15, Tanakh)

On account of human sinfulness, much indeed is defective or flawed. It is twisted or crooked. Yet, nothing can be done to straighten out the many defects that are clearly manifest in every part of human society. Even the best minds cannot come up with solutions that will result in permanent good. The sincerest efforts prove to be to no avail in straightening out what is twisted. So the twisted or crooked thing remains such. (1:15)

The Hebrew term (chesróhn) that has been translated “lack” signifies “deficit,” “lacking thing,” or “what is missing.” As to what cannot be done respecting the lack, the Hebrew term appearing in the text is manáh, meaning “numbered” or “counted.” This could mean that, if something is lacking or missing, it is not there to be counted. Another possible meaning is that the inability to number or to count signifies that the lack cannot be “made complete” or cannot be “made good.” Yet another sense is that the defects cannot be counted because there are just too many of them. The basic point is the same ― much simply cannot be rectified. (1:15)

According to the literal reading of the Hebrew text, Koheleth said, “I spoke ― I ― to my heart.” In this case, “heart” (lev) may designate the self or inner self. This would denote that Koheleth spoke to himself or thought within himself. He then expressed the subject of his inner reflection. The Hebrew text reads, “I became great and increased wisdom above all who were before me in Jerusalem, and my heart saw much wisdom and knowledge.” (1:16)

“Became great” is a rendering of the Hebrew gadhál. Many translators link this verb to wisdom. “I have amassed great wisdom, surpassing all my predecessors.” (REB) “I have acquired a greater stock of wisdom than anyone before me in Jerusalem.” (NJB) “I have magnified and increased wisdom.” (NASB) It is, however, possible to understand the words of Koheleth as expressing two distinct thoughts — (1) he became great in his royal position, exercising extensive dominion and possessing abundant riches, and (2) he increased in wisdom. “I have become great, and have gathered wisdom.” (Rotherham) “Here I have grown richer and wiser.” (Tanakh) These renderings also harmonize with the description at 1 Kings 10:23, 24 (REB), “King Solomon outdid all the kings of the earth in wealth and wisdom, and the whole world courted him to hear the wisdom with which God had endowed his mind.” (1:16; see also 1 Kings 4:20–34; 10:1–22.)

The Hebrew preposition ‘al preceding “Jerusalem” often means “over.” Translators have commonly inserted words that limit the meaning to rulers over Jerusalem (“anyone who has ruled over Jerusalem” [NIV]; “all my predecessors on the throne at Jerusalem” [REB]; “any that ruled before me over Jerusalem” [Tanakh]). ‘Al, however, can also mean “in,” and this meaning has the support of the Septuagint. Accordingly, the reference does not have to be restricted to rulers but can include any exceptionally wise former resident of Jerusalem. The city itself had existed for centuries prior to Solomon’s reign, its history extending at least back to the time of Abraham when priest-king Melchizedek reigned there. (1:16; Genesis 14:18 [Salem is the earlier name for Jerusalem.])

During all the intervening centuries, persons known for their wisdom must have lived in Jerusalem. Koheleth, however, surpassed all of them in wisdom, and this agrees with what is set forth about King Solomon at 1 Kings 4:29–31 (REB). “God gave Solomon deep wisdom and insight, and understanding as wide as the sand on the seashore, so that Solomon’s wisdom surpassed that of all the men of the east and of all Egypt. For he was wiser than any man, wiser than Ethan the Ezrahite, and Heman, Calcol, and Darda, the sons of Mahol; his fame spread among all the surrounding nations.” (1:16)

Koheleth’s “heart” (lev), either meaning his mind or his inner self (he himself) “saw” or had experience with an abundance of wisdom and knowledge. The Hebrew word for “wisdom” (chokhmáh) includes the thought of having an extensive fund of knowledge, coupled with the insight or good judgment to use it aright. The possessor of wisdom is one who is competent, usually by reason of experience, in dealing with life’s problems and in presenting sound advice to others. In this case, “knowledge” (da‘áth) relates to extensive factual information, information that plumbs the very depths. Wisdom and knowledge had become a part of Koheleth’s innermost self, guiding his thoughts, speech, and judgment. The account at 1 Kings 4:32-34 (REB) portrays Solomon as the possessor of such wisdom and knowledge. “He propounded three thousand proverbs, and his songs numbered a thousand and five. He discoursed of trees, from the cedar of Lebanon down to the marjoram that grows out of the wall, of beasts and birds, of reptiles and fish. People of all races came to listen to the wisdom of Solomon, and he received gifts from all the kings in the world who had heard of his wisdom.” (1:16)

Koheleth “gave” or “set” his heart to know “wisdom,” “madness,” and “folly.” Since the “heart” can represent the inner self, Koheleth may be understood as saying that he applied himself fully to knowing wisdom, madness, and folly. He put his all into this pursuit. If the heart primarily designates the mind in this case, Koheleth would be saying that his mind was focused on this pursuit; he gave it his full attention. The Hebrew verb for “to know” (yadhá‘) signifies to be thoroughly acquainted with, to have intimate personal knowledge gained by experience or diligent study and careful observation. Koheleth’s coming to know wisdom proved to be on a firsthand basis as the possessor of unsurpassed wisdom among his contemporaries. (1:17)

“Madness” denotes “delusion,” “derangement,” “distraction.” It is a distortion of sound judgment, resulting in irrational behavior. Apparently Koheleth came to know madness by studiously observing its manifestation in others. (1:17)

Koheleth also came to know “folly.” This indicates that he became thoroughly acquainted with “senselessness,” “thoughtlessness,” “recklessness.” He must have carefully observed how others acted without reason or good sense. Folly is characterized by an inconsiderate and reckless disregard for what is becoming in speech and conduct. (1:17)

Koheleth’s coming to know madness and folly may also have involved making an assessment or appraisal of these in relation to wisdom. The Septuagint includes no reference to madness and folly. It reads, “And I gave my heart to know wisdom and knowledge; parables and understanding I came to know.” His efforts to come to “know” the things he investigated proved to be disappointing. Koheleth called the result a “striving” or “chasing” after something unsubstantial — wind. (1:17; see the Notes section.)

He came to recognize the troubling consequences an increase in wisdom can have. “For [with] much wisdom ― much vexation.” The Hebrew term for “vexation” (ka‘ás) may also be defined as “irritation,” “disturbance,” “distress.” The Septuagint does not use an equivalent Greek term but reads, “because in abundant wisdom — abundant knowledge.” (1:18)

One who increases in wisdom becomes more aware of the numberless flaws in the realm of human affairs. Limitations imposed by time and circumstances make it difficult, if not impossible, to improve the situation. The wise person may be surrounded by those who stubbornly cling to wrong concepts and reject sound recommendations. Outnumbered, the wise one may find that any influence for good is quickly nullified. Even if the individual has a position of authority and circumstances are favorable, a relatively short life restricts what can be done. Moreover, there are just too many defects in need of correction. The wide gap existing between what needs to be done and what can be done is overwhelming. So the increase in wisdom can indeed lead to vexation, irritation, or disturbance. (1:18)

Both the Hebrew text and the Septuagint basically read, “he who increases knowledge increases pain.” With increased knowledge, the individual becomes more and more aware of just how much is wrong, about what may be needed to correct flaws, and yet how very little, if anything, can be done to effect change for the good of others. There is intense internal pain, distressing sadness, when one is prevented from using the very knowledge that could benefit others. It hurts when one has to face stubborn resistance and realizes that time for positive action is very limited. (1:18)

Notes:

Numerous translations use “wind” at the beginning of verse 6. “The wind blows to the south and turns to the north; round and round it goes, ever returning on its course.” (NIV) “The wind blows south, the wind blows north; round and round it blows over and over again.” (CEV) “The wind blows to the south, it veers to the north; round and round it goes and returns full circle.” (REB) “The wind blows to the south, and goes around to the north; round and round goes the wind, and on its circuits the wind returns.” (NRSV) “Southward goes the wind, then turns to the north; it turns and turns again; then back to its circling goes the wind.” (NJB)

In other contexts, the Hebrew word rúach and the Greek word pneúma (1:6, 14, 17) mean “spirit,” not “wind.”

The reference in verse 8 could be to “words,” not “things.” A number of translations have rendered the verse to apply to the spoken word. “All speech is labored; there is nothing man can say.” (NAB) “All words, are weak, unable is any man to tell.” (Rotherham) The Septuagint rendering may be translated, “All the words are tired” or “worn out,” which could mean that the words are overused.

In verses 14 and 17, a number of translations have retained the meaning “spirit” for the Hebrew rúach and the Greek pneúma. Instead of “striving after wind” or a similar expression, a number of translations read “vexation of spirit” (KJV, Young). In its rendering of the Septuagint, a new English translation (NETS) uses the expression “preference of spirit” and does not include the alternate meaning “wind” (as it does for verse 6). A German translation of the Septuagint (Septuaginta Deutsch), however, reads “a striving after wind” (ein Streben nach Wind). The Greek term rendered “preference” or “striving” is proaíresis and can signify “choice,” “preference,” or “commitment.” Persons who have chosen, preferred, or committed themselves to something that is mere wind could be spoken of as striving after wind.

Ecclesiastes 2:1-26

Koheleth referred to speaking “in his heart,” signifying that he thought to himself. The Hebrew text then reads, “Come now, I will test you with gladness, and see about good. And look! Also this ― vanity.” (2:1)

Addressing his “heart” (or himself), Koheleth determined to “try,” or “make an attempt” with, “gladness.” He wanted to try out whatever could delight the senses. The objective was to “see” or to experience “good” or whatever gave promise of being pleasurable. (2:1)

Taking note of what he had done, really looking at it, he appears to have been surprised to find that it was unsatisfying. Like other pursuits he had investigated, the result from “gladness” or mirth also proved to be vain, empty, or meaningless. The end product had no lasting value. (2:1)

Koheleth said of laughter, “insane,” “senseless,” or “mad.” Laughter stemming from attempts to gratify the senses can distort reality, making light of very serious matters. It may conceal the actual feelings of the individual. (Proverbs 14:13) Inappropriate laughter is annoying to observers and makes those indulging in it appear as persons who have lost their senses. When representing matters and situations in a way that is contrary to the facts, laughter is irrational, senseless, insane, or mad. (2:2)

Regarding gladness, Koheleth asked, “What is this doing?” The implied answer is, “Nothing.” At best, pursuing whatever appears to have potential for pleasing the senses produces only fleeting enjoyment. Afterward, the harsh realities that gladness, mirth, or cheer may have masked appear even more distressing than before the brief period of hilarity. (2:2; see the Notes section.)

Koheleth, with his “heart” (his mind or his deep inner self) involved, “investigated” or explored, “drawing out” (mashákh) his “flesh” with wine. The literal significance of the Hebrew term mashákh is to “draw out” and, in this context, may denote “to excite” or “to stimulate.” Wine, the fermented juice of grapes, does affect the “flesh,” the sensual nature of humankind. (2:3)

Koheleth did not give himself up to unrestrained revelry. “Wisdom” or good judgment continued to be the controlling force. As he expressed matters, “I guided my heart with wisdom.” “Heart” may here signify “mind” or may be representative of Koheleth in his inner self. He spoke of “grasping,” “seizing,” or “taking hold” of “folly,” probably meaning his indulging in the pleasures of life’s lighter side. They are the kind of pleasures that reflect a carefree recklessness, a disregard for possible unpleasant consequences. As was true of Koheleth’s investigation with wine, “wisdom” (sound judgment) exercised a restraint on his endeavor respecting folly. His purpose was to “see” or to discern what was “good” for “earthlings” (literally, “sons of the man [earthling]”) to pursue during their short life (“number of days of their life”) “under the heavens” (on earth beneath the skies). It was a matter of determining whether “wisdom” or “folly” would be better, requiring his being familiar with both in order to make a proper evaluation. (2:3)

Koheleth mentioned his “works,” saying that he made them “great.” These were outstanding accomplishments in construction and cultivation. The reference to his making them great could indicate the works were impressive. Another significance could be that he increased the products of his activity. (2:4) Both meanings can be found in translations. “I undertook great works.” (NAB, REB) “I worked on a grand scale.” (NJB) “I multiplied my possessions.” (Tanakh)

Koheleth engaged in building “houses,” not ordinary abodes but luxurious palaces. According to the scriptural record, Solomon devoted about six years more time in constructing his own palace than he did in building the magnificent temple. For this purpose, he used the best craftsmen. With stone saws, the workers smoothed all sides of the building stones. Likely cedar was used for floors and interior paneling. The paneling may have been adorned with stylized carvings of fruit, plants, blossoms, birds, and beasts, perhaps overlaid with gold and inlaid with ivory. The palace that was constructed for Pharaoh’s daughter must likewise have been an imposing structure. (2:4; 1 Kings 6:29; 7:1-11, 18; 10:18-22)

Koheleth planted vineyards, probably to supply the royal table with choice wine and also to provide a source of revenue. Each vineyard doubtless was surrounded by a wall and equipped with a tower, where a watchman would be stationed. The watchman guarded the produce from theft and from the depredations of animals, particularly foxes. Additionally, keepers were in charge of the vineyards, and they received a percentage of the proceeds for their labors. (2:4; Song of Solomon 2:15; 8:11)

Koheleth developed gardens, likely near the palaces. These gardens would have been enclosed cultivated areas with winding paths. Irrigated or watered by streams, they could support a variety of trees, shrubs, vines, and herbs. Refreshing shade, coupled with the delightful fragrance of aromatic plants, made the gardens pleasant refuges from the intense summer heat. (2:5)

Koheleth laid out parks. The Hebrew word for “park” (pardés) is generally thought to be of foreign derivation. Solomon had extensive contact with other nations. So it would not have been unusual for non-Hebrew words to have been introduced into the language during his reign. (2:5)

The “parks” may have been enclosed preserves that supported a great variety of plant and animal life. Greek historian Xenophon used the term parádeisos when describing the enclosed hunting grounds of the Persian kings, and this is also the expression appearing in the Septuagint as a rendering for pardés. Likely the hunting done in these parks supplied the deer, gazelles, roebucks, and birds that became part of the daily royal fare. (2:5; 1 Kings 4:23)

Both in the gardens and in the parks, Koheleth planted a variety of “fruit trees.” The trees may have included the apricot, citron, apple, quince, orange, fig, olive and pomegranate. (2:5)

Koheleth constructed “pools” or “reservoirs.” Perhaps through channels, water from these pools flowed into the gardens and parks, making it possible for trees to flourish. Water from the pools served to irrigate “woodland sprouting with trees.” The Hebrew word for “sprout” (tsamách) signifies to “spring up” or “sprout luxuriantly.” Therefore, the reference may be to the growth of young trees. (2:6)

Apparently to have sufficient workers for rendering personal services to the entire royal household and maintaining the palace complex, parks, gardens, and other cultivated areas, Koheleth obtained male and females slaves. He also came to have “sons of the house [household].” These “sons” were the offspring of slaves in the king’s service and, therefore, themselves slaves ― home-born slaves. (2:7)

Koheleth accumulated more livestock than anyone who preceded him in Jerusalem. Both the cattle herds and the flocks of sheep and goats were extraordinarily large. It may be noted that the daily meat consumption for Solomon’s royal household was tremendous. Thirty cattle and one hundred sheep were slaughtered daily. (1 Kings 4:23) This necessitated raising livestock on an unprecedentedly large scale. (2:7)

Koheleth amassed gold, silver and “treasure of kings and provinces.” “Treasure of kings” denotes the kind of fabulous wealth that only royalty could accumulate. The “treasure of provinces” likely consisted of the costly possessions, including rarities, obtained from the administrative regions with which Koheleth had dealings. (2:8) His comments reflect circumstances that are described in 1 Kings 10:14-27 (Tanakh). “The weight of the gold which Solomon received every year was 666 talents of gold, besides what came from tradesmen, from the traffic of the merchants, and from all the kings of Arabia and the governors of the regions. … For the king had a Tarshish fleet on the sea, along with Hiram’s fleet. Once every three years, the Tarshish fleet came in, bearing gold and silver, ivory, apes, and peacocks. King Solomon excelled all the kings on earth in wealth and in wisdom. All the world came to pay homage to Solomon and to listen to the wisdom with which God had endowed him; and each one would bring his tribute — silver and gold objects, robes, weapons and spices, horses and mules — in the amount due each year. … The king made silver as plentiful in Jerusalem as stones.”

For his own enjoyment and the entertainment of the royal household, Koheleth acquired male and female singers. They may often have sung to the accompaniment of instruments. (Compare Isaiah 23:16.) In group singing, half of the musicians may have alternated with the other half in singing parallel stanzas. At times a soloist may have thus alternated with an entire chorus. (Compare Exodus 15:21; 1 Samuel 18:6, 7.) It is noteworthy that Solomon had great interest in music, as evident from his knowing 1,005 (5,000, LXX) songs. (2:8; 1 Kings 4:32 [3 Kings 5:12, LXX])

Additionally, Koheleth acquired what he called “delights of the sons of the man [the earthling].” In the Tanakh, the expression “sons of the man” is represented as meaning ordinary men, “commoners,” and the Hebrew term for “delights” is rendered “luxuries” (as also in a number of other translations). (2:8)

The “delights” are specified as being shiddáh weshiddóth. There is considerable uncertainty about the significance of this Hebrew expression. The Greek terms found in the Septuagint signify “male and female cupbearers,” and the Latin words in the Vulgate mean “cups” and “pitchers.” These renderings seem to have arisen from linking the expression with a Hebrew root denoting to “pour out.” Since the reading of the Syriac is like that of the Septuagint, George Lamsa’s translation says, “I appointed for myself butlers and waitresses.” In the Mishnah, shiddáh designates a kind of chest. This meaning, or a more general sense, is reflected in the renderings of various translations (“luxuries of commoners — coffers and coffers of them” [Tanakh]; “every human luxury, chest on chest of it” [NJB]; “everything that affords delight” [REB]; “all human luxuries” [NAB]). (2:8)

The lexicographer Gesenius defined shiddáh as meaning “mistress, lady.” When commenting on Ecclesiastes 2:8, he considered the singular shiddáh to refer to the “queen,” and the plural shiddóth to “the other wives and the concubines of the king.” This is the basic sense that numerous translators have adopted (“the pleasures of men — many concubines” [NASB], “many concubines, the delights of men” [HCSB]; “many concubines, the delight of the children of man” [ESV]; “all the women a man could ever want” [NCV]; “the luxuries of the sons of man — a wife and wives” [Young]; “the delights of the sons of men, a wife and wives” [Rotherham]); “a harem as well — the delights of the heart of man” [NIV]; “delights of the flesh, and many concubines” [NRSV]). (2:8)

Such renderings make the Hebrew term for “delights” apply to what was particularly delightful or pleasurable to men — “a lady, even ladies.” (2:8) Koheleth does speak elsewhere (9:9) about enjoying life with a wife. Moreover, the words of the Song of Solomon (6:8-10, Tanakh) indicate that the king found delight in women. “There are sixty queens, and eighty concubines, and damsels without number. Only one is my dove, my perfect one, the only one of her mother, the delight of her who bore her. Maidens see and acclaim her; queens and concubines, and praise her. Who is she that shines through like the dawn, beautiful as the moon, radiant as the sun, awesome as bannered hosts?”

Commenting on his attainments, Koheleth continued, “I became great and increased more than all who were before me in Jerusalem.” His becoming “great” and increasing may relate to his coming to exercise extensive dominion and amassing tremendous wealth, surpassing all who had lived in Jerusalem since its founding. Despite his varied pursuits, he did not deplete his resources but continued to become wealthier. (2:9)

Regarding wisdom, Koheleth said, “My wisdom remained with me.” He did not lose good judgment, becoming a dissipated pleasure-seeker. Instead, the wisdom with which he had been endowed continued to be his possession. Wisdom (sound judgment) guided everything that he undertook. (2:9)

As king, with unparalleled resources at his disposal, Koheleth could pursue whatever appealed to him. Whenever his “eyes” beheld something that appeared desirable, he did not deny them from beholding as a possession the object upon which they had initially fixed their gaze. Anything that he really wanted proved to be attainable. Koheleth did not hold back his “heart” (his inmost self) from any kind of “gladness,” from anything that he perceived as being conducive to pleasure. (2:10)

He added, “My heart rejoiced in all my labor [‘amál].” His “heart” may be understood as signifying Koheleth himself, indicating that he found delight in all his accomplishments. This joy, delight, or pleasure was his lot, portion or reward for all his labor. The Hebrew term for “labor” (‘amál) conveys the thought of heavy, wearying, or exhausting labor, suggesting that Koheleth’s attainments required a tremendous expenditure of time and effort. (2:10)

“Turning,” considering, looking at or surveying all the “work” his “hands had done” — the “labor” at which he “labored” to achieve what he did — Koheleth experienced a feeling of emptiness, dissatisfaction. Everything was “vanity,” meaninglessness, purposelessness, or futility. It was all a chasing after “wind” (rúach), a striving after what lacked any real substance. There was no advantage, profit, or gain from anything “under the sun.” This proved to be so because nothing could be enjoyed permanently in the earthly realm beneath that celestial body. (2:11; see the Notes section.)

Again, Koheleth “turned,” possibly to take a closer look. His “turning” may, on the other hand, simply indicate the introduction of a new subject. He wanted to “see,” consider, or examine “wisdom,” “madness,” and “folly,” appraising or evaluating their relative worth. Personal experience and careful observation proved to be the basis for this appraisal. (2:12)

“Wisdom” would include one’s having an extensive fund of knowledge, coupled with the insight or good judgment to use it properly and for the benefit of others. Wise persons are competent, usually by reason of experience, in dealing with life’s problems and in being able to give sound advice to others. “Madness” refers to delusion, derangement, or distraction. It is a distortion of sound judgment, giving rise to speaking and behaving in an irrational manner and violating customary standards of propriety. “Folly” manifests itself in an inconsiderate and reckless disregard for what is becoming in speech and conduct. (2:12)

Perhaps to discourage others from making a similar attempt, Koheleth added, “For what the man who comes after the king?” The reading of the Septuagint does not depart as greatly as may appear on the surface. A literal reading of the Greek is, “For what [the] man who will come after the counsel?” The reason for the use of “counsel,” instead of “king,” is readily apparent. Written Hebrew and Aramaic consisted of consonants only, and an Aramaic word for “counsel” (found at Dan. 4:24 [verse 27, most translations]) has the same consonants as the Hebrew word for “king.” So the Septuagint rendering reflects the basic Hebrew/Aramaic consonantal text. (2:12; see the Notes section for comments on the LXX rendering.)

Many understand the “man” to be a royal successor. “What can the successor of a king do … ?” (NJB) “What more can the king’s successor do … ?” (NIV) “What can the next king do … ?” (CEV) The Hebrew term for “man,” however, is ’adhám, (“earthling”) and so could mean an ordinary man. (2:12)

To make the question in the original-language text understandable, a verb has to be supplied. The question may be rendered in two ways: (1) “For what can the man do who comes after the king?” or (2) “For what is the man who comes after the king?” The insertion of “can do” or “will do” seems to fit the flow of thought better. (2:12)

The answer to the question is (1) “what they did already” or (2) “what they already did to him.” According to the first literal rendering of the Hebrew, the man coming after the king would be able to do nothing more than people had already done. Lacking the resources and advantages of the king, an ordinary man would simply be repeating what others had already accomplished. Nothing new would be learned. In fact, because of having so little at his disposal for making the kind of examination undertaken by the king, he would only be able to cover some of the same ground. (2:12)

If the “man” is to be regarded as a successor to the throne, this would signify that he would basically do what the former king had done. The nature of the accomplishments and pursuits would follow a similar pattern. (2:12) “For instance, what can the successor of a king do? What has been done already.” (NJB) “I [Koheleth] asked myself, ‘What can the next king do that I have not already done?’” (CEV) “What more can the king’s successor do than what has already been done?” (NIV)

Considering Koheleth’s words to mean “what they already did,” the question could be rendered, “For what is the man who succeeds the king upon whom people earlier had bestowed royal dignity?” The thought would then be that Koheleth’s conclusion about the vanity of his works was due to his not knowing what the royal successor would be like. By transposing the word order and thereby endeavoring to avoid a seeming abrupt change of thought, the Tanakh (2:11, 12) conveys a similar meaning. “Then my thoughts turned to all the fortune my hands had built up, to the wealth I had acquired and won ― and oh, it was all futile and pursuit of wind; there was no real value under the sun! For what will the man be like who will succeed the one who is ruling over what was built up long ago? My thoughts also turned to appraising wisdom and madness and folly.”

Koheleth “saw” or discerned that “wisdom” was of greater value (yithróhn, “advantage” or “gain”) than “folly.” Persons who act wisely, with sound judgment, are certainly far better off than those who act foolishly. Wise persons avoid the problems and frustrations that come from ignoring future consequences. Guided by wisdom, they are better equipped to deal with life’s problems, give sound advice when asked, and do not waste their energies and resources on reckless or purposeless endeavors. Those who act foolishly, on the other hand, heedlessly disregard the injury their words and actions can cause. As a result, they repeatedly find themselves in problematic situations from which they find it almost impossible to extricate themselves. Often the problems they make for themselves leave no room for viable options or solutions. (2:13)

The superiority of wisdom over folly is comparable to the superiority of light over darkness. Much more can be accomplished in the light than in the darkness. Light makes it possible to see dangers and to avoid them, while darkness obscures and conceals hazards. (2:13)

The eyes of a wise person are in his head. They are where they should be, enabling him to see clearly the course that is appropriate under the circumstances. He sees where he is going and avoids obstacles that could cause him to stumble. The “fool” (the person who lacks good sense in the practical affairs of life and who deliberately refuses to follow an upright course) “walks in darkness.” He simply does not see where his feet are taking him. His whole life is characterized by a reckless disregard of what is appropriate in speech and conduct. Despite the fact that wisdom is better than folly, the wise person and the foolish one share the same inevitable outcome — death. When it comes to death itself, wise persons have no advantage over individuals who fail to use good judgment. (2:14)

Speaking within himself, in his “heart,” Koheleth concluded that the ultimate end of the fool would also befall him. This prompted his question, “And why have I become wise?” (LXX) The Hebrew text reads, “And why should I be wise―I―then [’az] gain [yohthér]?” (2:15; see the Notes section.)

The Hebrew word for “and” may also be understood to mean “then” in this case. Quite a number of translators render the first two words of the question as “why, then.” This rendering, however, does not preserve the distinction between the Hebrew word for “and” (represented by the letter “waw”[W]) and “then” (’az), the term occurring later in the question. (2:15)

Numerous translators have viewed the Hebrew word yohthér (“what remains,” “what is over and above,” “advantage”) as qualifying wise, and this has given rise to such renderings as “so very wise” (ESV, NLB, NRSV), “overly wise” (HCSB), and “extremely wise” (NASB). The Hebrew may, however, also be understood to express two separate thoughts. “To what purpose have I been wise? Where is the profit?” (REB) Although considering yohthér to mean “profit,” “gain,” or “advantage,” numerous translators have expressed the thought of the Hebrew text as one question. “What then do I gain by being wise?” (NIV) “To what advantage, then, have I been wise?” (Tanakh) “Being wise got me nowhere!” (CEV) “What is the point of my having been wise?” (NJB) These renderings do seem to fit the context well. Wisdom provides no gain or advantage in the ultimate end, for both the wise one and the foolish one die. (2:15)

Koheleth said to himself, in his “heart,” “this also is vanity.” In view of the certainty of his own death, he sensed that his having become wise was meaningless, empty, futile, or purposeless. (2:15)

As is true of the “fool” (the one acting recklessly and defying sound judgment), the wise person is not remembered “forever” (‘ohlám, time without a set limit). For both of them, a future remembrance is temporary. There simply is no enduring memory. In the “days” to come, “all” will be forgotten. Koheleth then asked, “How will the wise one die?” The answer is, “with the fool,” or “like the fool.” (2:16)

The fact that nothing would endure caused Koheleth to look upon life, with its accompanying toil, as frustrating, empty. He spoke of hating or loathing life. This does not mean that he hated being alive but that he loathed the mundane existence that would terminate in death and reduce all the products of the exhausting toil to nothingness. This is evident from what he specifically refers to as his reason for “hating” life ― because “evil” (ra‘, “bad,” “calamitous,” “disagreeable,” “undesirable”) to me was the “work” (“doing”) that was “done” under the sun, in the earthly realm that is dependent on the sun for light and warmth. (2:17)

All the activity, the continual hustle and bustle, that is a daily part of human affairs accomplishes nothing that endures. Everything is subject to coming to a comparatively swift end. Koheleth added, “All [is] vanity and a chasing after wind.” Absolutely nothing had any permanent value. Because of belonging to the realm of the temporary, everything proved to be empty, meaningless, vain, or futile. No human accomplishment, regardless of how impressive it might appear, would remain forever. So everything in the realm of human endeavor was a chasing after “wind” (rúach, also meaning “spirit”), a meaningless pursuit after something that had no enduring substance. (2:17; see the Notes section for verses 11, 17, and 26.)

Koheleth hated “all [his] labor” (the sum total of the products of his toiling) for which he “labored.” Both the Hebrew noun and verb forms for “labor” and “to labor” convey the thought of wearying or exhausting toil. By repetition, the expression “all my labor in which I labored” stresses the wearying aspect associated with his achievements. The reason for Koheleth’s hatred was that the products of his exhausting labor (performed “under the sun” or in the earthly realm beneath the sun) would come to nothing. Despite his having expended much time and great effort, he would be forced to leave everything behind to his successor. (2:18)

This was frustrating for him, for neither he nor any other human knew whether the successor would prove to be wise or foolish. Koheleth simply could not determine beforehand what would become of all that he had built up. He had no assurance that the products of his toil would survive because of coming into his successor’s possession. Regardless of whether the successor would prove to be wise or foolish, he would still take control over the “labor” (the products of the toiling) for which Koheleth had “labored.” (2:19)

Koheleth added that he had shown himself to be “wise” or “skillful” in this exhausting laboring. So, besides much effort, great skill was required for all that Koheleth achieved in the mundane realm (“under the sun”). The thought of leaving everything to a successor who could be either wise or foolish brought Koheleth to the conclusion that “this also is vanity.” In the hands of a foolish successor, everything could quickly be brought to ruin. (2:19)

With the benefit of the historical perspective, one can, for example, see that much of what Solomon achieved during his reign proved to have been futile or in vain. His successor, Rehoboam, foolishly heeded the advice of inexperienced counselors. This prompted ten tribes to revolt, leaving him as king over only two tribes — Judah and Benjamin. Because of disloyalty to YHWH, Rehoboam and his subjects lost divine favor and protection. In the fifth year of Rehoboam’s reign, the Egyptian ruler Shishak (Sheshonk I) invaded his realm, captured numerous cities, and seized much of the wealth that Solomon had amassed. Thus the extensive realm and great prosperity that had existed during Solomon’s reign came to a sudden end. A greatly weakened and impoverished kingdom remained. (1 Kings 12:1–20; 14:21–27; 2 Chronicles 12:1-10).

After sober reflection, Koheleth gave up his “heart” (his inmost self or his mind) to despair over all that he had built up through his wearisome laboring “under the sun” (in the mundane sphere). He felt downcast in spirit because all the exhausting laboring had produced nothing of enduring value. (2:20)

Koheleth repeated the observation about a man’s “labor” (what is produced through wearisome toil). What a person achieved required “wisdom” (skill), “knowledge” (a fund of information and thought), and “ability” (kishróhn, “usefulness,” “success,” “skill”; andreía [LXX], “manliness,” “with a manly spirit,” “with fortitude”). Yet all that a man may have built up would come to belong to one who had not labored in this way. Because of not having expended time and great effort, the heir may have very little appreciation for the inheritance and soon squander everything. Koheleth saw sheer vanity, emptiness or meaninglessness in this outcome of the wearisome toil. He also called it “great evil” (“misfortune” or “calamity”). (2:21)

Koheleth raised the question as to what a man comes to have for all his “labor” (the product of his exhausting toil), and for the “striving of his heart,” with which he “labors” under the sun” (in the earthly realm beneath the sun). The striving of the heart may signify the anxious care of the mind or the inner self. In the Septuagint, the rendering of the Hebrew word for “striving” is proaíresis, meaning “choice,” “preference,” or “commitment,” and has also been translated “striving” (Streben, Septuaginta Deutsch). In the context of this verse, however, the Greek text could be understood to mean that the laboring involved a choice of the “heart,” either the person’s mind or the individual’s inner self. (2:22)

The implied answer to Koheleth’s question is that the individual gains nothing from his arduous laboring. “All his days” (throughout his entire life) the man’s “occupation” (business, task, or activity) is associated with “pains” and “vexation” or “grief.” Even at night he is unable to get any rest. “His heart” (his mind, his inner self, or he himself) remains in a state of disturbance; it does not “lie down.” There simply is no such thing as a peaceful repose. Koheleth sums up the situation with the words, “this also is vanity” (meaninglessness, emptiness, purposelessness, or futility). (2:23)

Since nothing lasting can be produced in the mundane sphere, Koheleth (according to a literal reading of the Hebrew) continued, “No good for a man, that he should eat and drink and have his soul see good in his labor. Also this I saw―that it [is] from the hand of God.” The introductory “no good” could signify “no good other than,” or that “there is nothing better than.” (2:24) “There is nothing better for a man than to eat and drink and provide himself with good things by his labors.” (NAB). “There is nothing worthwhile for a man but to eat and drink and afford himself enjoyment with his means.” (Tanakh) “A man can do nothing better than to eat and drink and find satisfaction in his work.” (NIV). “There is no happiness except in eating and drinking, and in enjoying one’s achievements.” (NJB)

It could be, however, that the eating, drinking, and seeing good from labor are not to be viewed as a good depending on man. This sense is expressed in the rendering of The Revised English Bible. “To eat and drink and experience pleasure in return for his labours, this does not come from any good in a person: it comes from God.” (2:24)

Another possibility is that “no good” denotes “not a genuine good,” not a good in the true sense of the word. This, though, appears less likely, since it does not fit in well with the point that “his soul should see good.” (2:24)

Whether signifying “no good other than” or “not a good depending on man,” the basic meaning about enjoyment is the same. For “his soul” (he himself) to “see good” would mean for the worker to be able to enjoy the fruit of his labor, experiencing personal benefit from what he has accomplished. Accordingly, he should use his means in a way that brings him wholesome pleasure. (2:24)

Koheleth referred to one’s being able to “eat,” “drink,” and “see good” from one’s labor (the products of wearying toil) as coming from “the hand of God.” It is a divine gift, for God has endowed humans with the capacity to work and to enjoy what can be obtained through exhausting labor. (2:24)

Speaking about enjoyment from experience, Koheleth raised the question, “Who eats and who rejoices [chush, literally, ‘hastens,’ but here probably meaning to ‘rejoice’ or to ‘find pleasure’] except for me?” The Septuagint associates the question with God. “Who shall eat, or who shall drink [‘refrain’ (from eating), according to another manuscript reading], without him?” (2:25) A similar rendering is found in a number of translations. “For who can eat or drink apart from him?” (NAB) “For who could get anything to eat or drink, unless all this came from him?” (NJB). “For without God who can eat with enjoyment?” (REB)

Koheleth mentioned what God has given to the “man who is good before his face [before him].” This would be the “man” (the earthling), who pleases God by living an upright life and coming to the aid of persons in real need. To such a one, God gives “wisdom,” “knowledge,” and “joy.” The Most High provides the basis for wisdom and knowledge. His commands make a person truly wise, enabling the individual to use assets and abilities in beneficial ways. “Knowledge” consists of thorough acquaintance with all divinely given guidelines. One’s acting in harmony with the wisdom and knowledge that have the Creator as their source results in the very best way of life possible in one’s circumstances, contributing to joy. Apart from an approved relationship with God, true wisdom, knowledge, and joy are missing. (2:26)

The sinner is one who deliberately chooses to ignore God’s commands and is, therefore, deprived of the essential wisdom and knowledge that contribute to real joy. The occupation or pursuit that God has “given” to the sinner (allowed to be the sinner’s lot) is a gathering and an amassing of belongings that will eventually be given to the “one who is good before God [literally, ‘before the face of God’],” the person who pleases his Maker. Without the benefit of divine guidance, the sinner goes ahead with his selfish pursuits, piling up possessions without ever experiencing any real contentment. He may be totally consumed by his toiling, always thinking up new schemes for increasing his belongings. To achieve his ends, he may resort to lawless means. Eventually his wrongdoing may catch up with him. According to the Mosaic law that was in effect in Koheleth’s time, he would have to make restitution to those whom he defrauded. (Exodus 22:1–9) Thus he would lose all his ill-gotten gain. Koheleth fittingly added, “this also is vanity and a chasing after wind.” It is purposelessness, futility, or emptiness, and a pursuit of what has no substance. (2:26; see the Notes section regarding verses 11, 17, and 26.)

Notes:

In verse 2, the question in the Septuagint is, “Why are you doing this?”

The Hebrew word rúach and its Greek equivalent pneúma can mean either “wind” or “spirit.” Instead of “striving after wind” or a similar expression (in verses 11, 17, and 26), a number of translations read “vexation of spirit” (KJV, Young). In its rendering of the Septuagint, a new English translation (NETS) uses the expression “preference of spirit,” whereas The Orthodox Study Bible says “choice of one’s spirit.” A German translation of the Septuagint (Septuaginta Deutsch), however, reads “a striving after wind” (ein Streben nach Wind). The Greek term rendered “preference,” “choice,” or “striving” is proaíresis and can also signify “commitment.” Persons who have committed themselves to, chosen, or preferred something that is mere wind could be spoken of as striving after wind.

In verse 12, the words of the Septuagint could be translated, “For who is the man who will follow after the counsel insofar as he did it?” The Orthodox Study Bible says, “For who is the man who will follow after counsel, whatever it is, to do it?” A New English Translation of the Septuagint reads, “For who is the person who will come to follow the plan [counsel, footnote] in as many things as he made it.” The German translation of the Septuagint (Septuaginta Deutsch) renders the Greek text, “For who is the man who will follow the counsel insofar as he has carried it out?” (denn wer ist der Mensch, der dem Ratschlag folgen wird, insofern er ihn ausgeführt hat?) An alternate rendering in the footnote reads, “For who is the man who will follow the counsel insofar as he (himself) has given it?” (denn wer ist der Mensch, der dem Ratschlag folgen wird, insofern er ihn (selbst) gegeben hat?)

The Septuagint (in verse 15) departs significantly from the reading of the Masoretic Text after the question (“And why have I become wise?”). “Then I excessively said in my heart, Because the fool will speak out of excess, this also indeed [is] vanity.” Koheleth’s observation suggests that the many words of a fool are vain, empty, or worthless.

Ecclesiastes 3:1-22

“For everything — time,” said Koheleth. The Hebrew word for time (zemán) designates a “specific time,” an “appointed time.” The thought appears to be that everything has its particular time. Koheleth follows this up with the words, “and time for every affair under the heavens” (on earth beneath the skies). The Hebrew term for “time” (‘eth) may denote a “proper time,” a “fit time,” a “seasonable time.” It corresponds to the Greek kairós (LXX), which is used with reference to a limited portion of time and can convey the idea of aptness or suitableness. The thought expressed may be that every affair has its brief, suitable time. (3:1)

The “affair” is part of the ever-changing cyclical earthly scene. Its time cannot last. The Hebrew word for “affair” or “business” (chéphets) may also signify “joy,” “pleasure,” “desire,” or “wish,” and the corresponding Greek term (prágma, LXX) can mean “matter,” “affair,” or “business.” (3:1)

A baby develops in the womb, and the “time” comes for it to be born. In contrast to birth, the “time” eventually comes when old age or sickness leads to death. (3:2)

The kind of crop and its growing season limit the “time” for “planting.” The “time” also comes to “uproot.” Weeds that would interfere with the growth of the planted crop must be pulled. Some plants may need to be uprooted to avoid overcrowding. Whatever becomes useless or fails to bear fruit has to be removed. Harvesting, too, may involve uprooting. Anciently, flax was harvested by being pulled up. (3:2)

There is a “time to kill.” God’s law authorized capital punishment for deliberate murder, decreed that extremely dangerous animals should be put to death, and permitted taking the lives of animals for food. (Genesis 9:3–6; Exodus 21:28, 29) On the other hand, there is a time to heal. An injured or sickly person or animal must be treated to promote healing. (3:3)

There is a “time to tear down.” Buildings weakened by decay or neglect may have to be torn down. The “time” also comes for “building,” erecting new houses and other structures. (3:3)

The loss of a loved one in death is certainly a “time to weep.” But a joyous occasion, such as a wedding, is a “time to laugh.” Both sorrow and joy can be spontaneous expressions of the deep inner self. The “mourning” or “wailing” and “dancing” next mentioned, however, may reflect actions of choice appropriate to sad and happy events. There is a “time” for both. Among the ancients, professional mourners wailed loudly over the deceased. In contrast to such mourning, joyous happenings occasioned dancing. (3:4; Exodus 15:20; 2 Samuel 6:16; Matthew 11:16, 17; Luke 15:25-27, 31, 32)

The words about a “time” for “casting away stones” and a “time” for “gathering stones” have been variously understood. Stones might be rejected as unsuitable for building purposes, whereas other stones are selected for construction work. They could be gathered for erecting monuments and discarded when tearing down such memorials. Conquering armies threw stones into fields to interfere with essential farming operations. (2 Kings 3:19, 25) Gathering stones could involve clearing fields of stones. An ancient Rabbinical view interprets the casting away of stones as signifying sexual intercourse and the gathering as a refraining from such intercourse. This view would link the thought more directly to the words that follow about embracing. The Septuagint, though, employs the word líthos (“stone”), and there is insufficient evidence for departing from the basic meaning. (3:5)

There is a “time to embrace” and a “time” to “refrain” from embracing. Relatives or close friends may embrace or hug one another in expression of their affection. (Genesis 29:13; 33:4; 48:10; Song of Solomon 2:6) Embraces associated with the intimacies of marriage have their time and place. In the case of persons outside the marriage bond, it is a “time” to refrain from such embracing. (Prov. 5:20) Even for marriage mates there is a “time” to abstain from it. (Leviticus 20:18; 1 Corinthians 7:5) Anciently, whenever a mission was urgent, it was not a time for extended greetings, including embracing. (3:5; 2 Kings 4:29; Luke 10:4)

There is a “time” to “seek” or “search.” Shepherds diligently searched for lost sheep. (Luke 15:4) Considerable effort might be put forth to “search” for lost valuables. (Luke 15:8) When the “search” has continued to the point where there is no hope of finding what was lost, the “time” comes “to give up.” The search may also prove to be too risky or dangerous in view of circumstances. It then is a “time” for losing or giving up as lost. The seeking could also involve the proper pursuit of gain. Then, due to unfavorable circumstances beyond one’s control, the “time” may come for losing what was obtained. (3:6)

A “time” exists for “keeping” items that are valuable and useful. When retaining possessions would hinder movement to a place of safety or interfere with one’s well-being, however, it is a “time” for “throwing away.” For example, sailors, to lighten a vessel during a storm, would cast valuable cargo and equipment overboard, thereby increasing the possibility of surviving the disaster. (Acts 27:18, 19) An item may cease to have value or may come to be recognized as harmful. At that point the “time” has come for throwing it away. (3:6; Acts 19:19)

There is a “time” for “ripping apart.” The Hebrews customarily ripped garments to the point of exposing the breast when experiencing great distress, grief, or shock. (Genesis 37:29, 34; Judges 11:35; Matthew 26:65; Acts 14:14) Once the occasion that prompted the ripping action had passed, the “time” came for mending the tear. A need for new garments also meant that the “time” had come “to sew.” (3:7)

When listening is in order (as when receiving instructions), it is a “time” for keeping quiet. There are occasions, however, when it it is definitely a “time to speak.” A witness to serious wrongdoing was under obligation to present testimony upon hearing the solemn adjuration pronounced by the judges. (Leviticus 5:1) It was also a time to speak up in defense of those falsely accused. (3:7; Proverbs 24:11, 12)

The reference to times for “love” and “hate” and for “war” and “peace” simply indicates that such times exist in human affairs, without any indication as to whether the emotions or actions were right or wrong. For example, Amnon’s erotic love for his half sister Tamar changed to hatred after his raping her. (2 Samuel 13:15) During David’s reign it was often a time for war in stopping foreign aggression and in extending the boundaries of Israel to the divinely ordained limits. By contrast, Solomon’s reign was a time of peace. In the face of enemy threats, rulers had to decide whether it was in the national interest to fight or to sue for peace. (3:8; Luke 14:31, 32)

The “time” for the things Koheleth enumerated is usually imposed by circumstances that are not a matter of deliberate choice. Since much of what happens in human affairs is not under one’s control, Koheleth raised the question, “What gain [does] the worker [have] from his labor?” Though of a wearying or exhausting nature, toil brings no real gain or advantage. This is because of life’s many uncertainties. Whatever is produced simply will not last, and circumstances beyond human control may quickly undo what has been accomplished. So, in itself, the laboring is not the means for attaining happiness. It cannot guarantee a secure future. (3:9)

Koheleth commented that he had seen the “business,” “occupation,” “task,” or “employment” that God has given to humankind (“sons of the man [the earthling]”) in which to “busy” themselves. From the standpoint of personal experience and careful observation, he did indeed “see.” The “business” appears to apply to human labor in general — all of the activity that is essential in order to live. What God has given to humankind, what he has permitted to be the lot of earthlings, has proved to be an empty “occupation.” It produces nothing of truly enduring value. (3:10)

This occupation of sinful earthlings differs markedly from the “work of God.” The Most High has made everything “beautiful,” “apt,” or “appropriate” in its “time.” Whatever he does or allows to take place always occurs when it is appropriate. The “time” is never too early nor too late with reference to the outworking of his purposes. (3:11)

God has also put “eternity” (‘ohlám, time without a specified limit) into the “hearts” of humans. Unlike animals, which are strictly creatures of the present, man alone has a sense of the past, present, and future. Because of possessing a concept of “eternity” in the “heart” (the deep inner self), man is aware of the existence of an indefinite past and an indefinite future. This realization of time stretching endlessly in both directions from the present impresses on man his serious limitation in trying to grasp the whole of God’s work. Humans know only a minute fraction of the whole. Therefore, they can never grasp, fathom, or discover “the work that God has done from beginning to end.” (3:11)

It is impossible for any person or group of persons to discover from fragmentary knowledge some way to determine what God may do or permit in the outworking of his purpose. There is no way for anyone to ascertain how any one occurrence or any combination of events fit into the work of God. The future cannot be predicted with accuracy. (3:11)

In the Scriptures, whatever God may permit is spoken of as his doing, his “work.” This is because he could prevent it from taking place. For example, when Joseph referred to his being sold by his half brothers, he spoke of this as being done by God. (Genesis 45:5-8) The Almighty did use the circumstance of Joseph’s being sold to work out his purpose respecting the Israelites. At the time of the sale, however, there was no way for anyone to know how this event in its “time” would affect future developments and how it fitted into God’s overall purpose. (3:11)

Seemingly, because everything has its time and humans cannot determine just how their fragmentary view fits into the overall picture, Koheleth focused on getting wholesome enjoyment from life. According to a literal reading of the Hebrew text and the Septuagint, he said, “I know that no good [is (included in LXX)] in them except to rejoice and to do good in his life [plural of life in the Hebrew text, but singular in LXX].” (3:12)

The reference to “no good” is commonly considered to mean “nothing better,” or “the only worthwhile thing.” Another significance could be that, through human effort, no permanent good can be attained, leaving the individual only with the possibility of a temporary enjoyment of life. Even this possibility, as expressed in the next verse, depends upon God. (3:12)

Besides getting enjoyment from the results of their “occupation,” “task,” or “business” (3:10), people should also be doing “good.” If, though, Koheleth’s words indicate that “no good” depends upon humankind, the implied thought would be that their enjoying life and doing good are really dependent on God. (3:12)

The “doing of good” may be understood in one of two ways — (1) doing good for others, or (2) doing good for oneself. Those who favor the second meaning base this primarily on the lack of any specific reference to the doing of good for others. It should be noted, though, that earlier in Ecclesiastes mention is made of the one who is good before God. (2:26) The person proving himself to be good before God would certainly be doing positive good for others. Accordingly, there is a basis for concluding that Koheleth’s words may denote a doing of good for others, using resources and assets for the benefit of fellow humans. (3:12)

The third person plural (“they”) probably means people generally, whereas the third person singular (“his”) would then apply to the individual. So Koheleth may be saying that he knew or recognized that the best thing for people to do was to enjoy themselves and individually to do good throughout their whole life (as the Hebrew plural form of “life” might suggest), not just during part of it. (3:12) “I know that there is nothing good for anyone except to be happy and live the best life he can while he is alive.” (REB) “I realized that the only worthwhile thing there is for them is to enjoy themselves and do what is good in their lifetime.” (Tanakh) “I know that there is nothing better for men than to be happy and do good while they live.” (NIV)

Further developing the idea of enjoyment and its source, Koheleth continued, “And also that every man may eat and drink and see good for all his labor — this [is] God’s gift.” Humans were to enjoy food and drink. The “labor,” the wearisome or exhausting toil, would provide the means for seeing or experiencing “good,” things that are pleasurable. (3:13)

One’s finding joy in life depends on God. This is so because nothing occurs without his direct action or his permission. Therefore, wholesome pleasures — food, drink, or anything else — are his gift. (3:13)

Humans are unable to change anything that God may do or allow to occur. As Koheleth pointed out earlier, everything has its time in the ever-changing cyclical events on earth. With apparent reference to this reality, he said, “I know that all God does shall be forever; nothing can be added to it, nor taken away from it.” The Hebrew term (‘ohlám) rendered “forever” denotes time without a set limit. Accordingly, as long as the Most High so wills, whatever he does or allows to affect humankind will stand. Any human effort to make a change — any addition or subtraction — will fail. (3:14) Even the mighty ruler of ancient Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar, had to admit, “He does as he pleases with the powers of heaven and the peoples of the earth. No one can hold back his hand or say to him, ‘What have you done?’” (Daniel 4:35, NIV)

From the human standpoint, what God does (or permits) can neither be altered nor fathomed. This should cause people to have a wholesome fear of the Most High. As Koheleth observed, “God has done [it] so that they [people] should fear before his face [before him].” This fear is no morbid dread; it is a wholesome, reverential awe. (3:14)

Although the work of God (including everything that he allows to occur) is beyond human comprehension and control, there are repetitive cycles — birth and death, planting and harvesting, weeping and laughing, war and peace. Accordingly, the present is a reflection of the past, and the future will be a time for repeating former events. So Koheleth noted, “Whatever is has already been, and whatever will be has already been.” (3:15)

His next words may be variously understood. The Hebrew text reads, “And God seeks what is pursued.” Both the Hebrew term radáph and the corresponding Greek word dióko (LXX) signify “pursue,” “chase,” or “persecute.” Koheleth next mentioned the flawed administration of justice. Therefore, God’s seeking might refer to his seeking the good of those who suffer unjustly. (3:15) “God seeks out anyone who is persecuted.” (NJB)

It may be, however, that the thought is, “God seeks what is chased away.” What has been “chased away” is no more. It has disappeared. So, God could be referred to as seeking it in the sense of causing or allowing it to happen again. Accordingly, what had been chased away is brought back into full view. (3:15) “Whatever is has been already, and whatever is to come has been already, with God summoning each event back in its turn.” (REB) “God does everything over and over again.” (CEV) “God makes the same things happen again and again.” (NCV) “God allows the same things to happen again.” (NLB)

Although there is uncertainty about the exact significance of Koheleth’s statement, the main point is clear. Whereas events in the mundane realm are repetitive and there seems to be nothing new, God is actively involved in developments on earth and, unlike humans, is in control of all events ― past, present, and future. This implies that injustices will eventually be rectified despite appearances to the contrary. (3:15)

“Under the sun” (in the realm of human affairs, on earth beneath the sun), Koheleth saw that wickedness prevailed in the very place where justice should have been administered. He must have observed judges acting with partiality, favoring the rich and influential even when they were clearly in the wrong. Corrupt judges would have been accepting bribes from the guilty ones and then pronounced such persons innocent, letting them escape deserved punishment. As Koheleth added, wickedness existed where righteousness should have been expected. On the basis of false testimony, the righteous were condemned, and the wicked attained their objectives through bribery. (3:16)

Nevertheless, Koheleth expressed confidence in the decision of a higher Judge, one whose judgment will always be just. In his “heart” (in thought or within himself), Koheleth said, “God will judge the righteous and the wicked.” His reason for reaching this conclusion was that “[there is] a time for every matter and for every work.” (3:17)

The righteous are those who lead upright lives. Their words and actions are governed by a good conscience and what they know to be the divine will. Wicked ones, on the other hand, disregard the voice of conscience and deliberately choose to ignore divine standards. They are a law to themselves. To attain their unworthy ends, they trample on the rights of others and make use of whatever unscrupulous means are at their disposal. (3:17)

Regarding the words “there is” (which are not in the Hebrew text, but may be understood from the context), a footnote in the Tanakh reads, “Shift of a diacritical point yields ‘He has set.’” This would mean that the Most High has set “a time for every matter and for every work.” (3:17) “So I told myself that God has set a time and a place for everything.” (CEV) “God has planned a time for every thing and every action.” (NCV)

The Hebrew term for “time” (‘eth) and the corresponding Greek word kairós (LXX) can denote an “apt,” “proper,” “suitable,” “fit,” or “seasonable” time. The focus seems to be on a comparatively brief but “appropriate time.” Every “matter,” “affair,” or “business” has its time in the ever-changing cyclical realm of human activity, and there is also a time for every “work.” Accordingly, there definitely is a time for God to judge the righteous and the wicked. (3:17)

Koheleth’s words about God’s judgment seem to shed light on his next statement. Regarding the “sons of men” (“sons of the man” or “the earthling”), Koheleth said in his “heart” (in thought or within himself), “God tests them so that they may see that they are beasts.” (3:18)

The Hebrew term rendered “test” (barár) has been defined as meaning “purge out,” “sort,” “separate,” “select,” or “prove.” In the Septuagint, the corresponding Greek word is diakríno, signifying “separate,” “make a distinction,” or “discriminate.” The “selecting,” “separating,” or “proving” may have reference to what God allows humans to experience — problems, uncertainties, trials, failures, successes, and joys — in order to reveal whether they are righteous or wicked and, hence, what their judgment will be. This proving or testing also serves the divine purpose in making humans aware of their helplessness and mortality. In this way they are brought to the realization that they are like beasts in sharing the same end of life. (3:18)

Koheleth commented that humans (“sons of the man”) and beasts share the same eventual outcome or “fate.” “As one dies, so the other dies. All have the same spirit, and man has no advantage over the beast, for all [is] vanity.” The Hebrew word that may be translated “fate” (miqréh) denotes a happening or occurrence that is not controlled or chosen by the one affected and has no apparent originator. It is a chance occurrence or event. With the exception of suicide and murder, death is such an occurrence, befalling both man and beast. (3:19)

Humans and animals have the same spirit (rúach) or life force — an animating life principle that is sustained by breathing. As respects this life force and the inevitability of death, man enjoys no advantage over the animals. At death, all activity ends for both; there simply is no permanence. Therefore, everything is “vanity,” “meaninglessness,” “purposelessness,” or “emptiness.” (3:19)

Man and beast go to the same place, the lifeless elements of the ground. According to Genesis chapter 2, both animals and man were formed out of soil. At death, both return to the dust, the very elements from which they were created. (3:20)

Based on observation, no one can answer the question as to whether the spirit of humans ascends upward and that of the animals downward. The implication of the question, though, is that Koheleth perceived a difference between man and animals as respects future life prospects. Later he said that “the spirit returns to God” (12:7), seemingly expressing the same thought as does the reference to the ascent of the spirit. Because future life prospects rest with God (in the realm above the sun), he alone can restore the life principle. In the case of humans, Koheleth spoke of the ascent of the spirit. The departure of the life force and its coming to be in God’s full control (in relation to the individual’s future life prospects), however, do not require a literal ascent. Likewise the descent of the spirit of animals into the earth is not to be regarded as a literal descent. It suggests, though, that animals have no hope of future life. (3:21)

In view of the inevitability of death, Koheleth “saw” or “recognized” that there was “nothing better [literally, “no good”] than for a man to rejoice in his works.” Since everything in the earthly realm is transitory, the worker, while he is alive, should derive wholesome pleasure from the results of his labor. This would mean finding delight in what he obtains from working — food, drink, and anything else that may appeal to the senses. This, according to Koheleth, is the worker’s “lot” or “portion.” (3:22)

When the individual dies, he ceases to have a share in the continuing cycle of mundane activities. Koheleth fittingly asked, “Who can bring him to see what will be after him?” Not a single member of the human family can do anything to enable the dead person to see or observe what is going on among people on earth. (3:22)

Ecclesiastes 4:1-16

During the course of his investigation of human affairs, Koheleth initially appears to have given only passing notice to oppression. Later, however, as he said, “And I returned and saw all the oppression [literally, oppressions, suggesting many deeds and kinds of oppression] committed under the sun.” Upon returning to, fixing his attention on, or reconsidering what seemingly had been the object of brief reflection, Koheleth saw or observed more closely the deeds of oppression taking place in the earthly realm beneath the sun. This careful reconsideration impressed on him just how widespread and distressing man’s inhumanity to man really was. (4:1)

He continued, “And behold the tears of the oppressed, and they had no comforter. And their oppressors [had the] power, but they had no comforter.” The oppressed shed many tears on account of their suffering. There was no relief for their deep inner pain. No one extended even a sympathetic word of comfort to them. Because the oppressors had the power or authority, the afflicted ones were at their mercy. The repetition of the thought that the oppressed had no comforter emphasizes their sad lot in life. (4:1)

In view of the sorrowful plight of the oppressed, Koheleth “pronounced” the dead “more fortunate” than the living. The Hebrew term shavách signifies to “pronounce fortunate,” “praise,” “commend,” or “congratulate.” Because the dead had entered the state where they could no longer suffer from oppression, Koheleth “congratulated” them, concluding that they were better off than the living. Only the living were still subject to oppression and its hurtful effects. (4:2)

From the standpoint of experiencing oppression, Koheleth reasoned that the one who is not yet in existence is better off than the living and than those who had lived in the past. This is because the one who is unborn has not “seen,” witnessed or experienced “the evil work that is done under the sun.” This “evil work” evidently refers to the bad deeds, including oppression, that may be observed in the realm of human affairs. (4:3)

Koheleth “saw” or took note of all the “labor” (exhausting or wearying toil) and all the “success of work” (the achievement from work, or the skill with which it is accomplished). In the Septuagint, the expression for “success of work” is “manliness [andreía] of work,” which could mean work done with a manly spirit or with fortitude. Based on his observation, Koheleth concluded that “it is the envy of a man toward his fellow.” This may signify that the “labor” and the “achievement” from or the “skillfulness” in work are (1) either prompted by or (2) make one the object of jealousy or envy. Both meanings of Koheleth’s words are found in translations. (4:4) “I have also noted that all labor and skillful enterprise come from men’s envy of each other.” (Tanakh) “I considered all toil and all achievement and saw that it springs from rivalry between one person and another.” (REB) “Then I saw all labor and every skilful work, that for this a man is envied of his neighbor.” (ASV) “And I have seen all the labour, and all the benefit of the work, because for it a man is the envy of his neighbor.” (Young)

Often the prime focus in working and doing a good job is not just a matter of getting the task performed. Workers may try to prove that they are better than others. They may call attention to themselves as being more efficient, faster, and able to perform work of superior quality. Consequently, competition and rivalry intensify, ill will develops, and severe judgments may be passed on others without any consideration being given to their limitations because of health, age, or level of experience. The joy that comes from mutual cooperation and a pleasant working relationship is lost. A job that formerly may have brought a measure of satisfaction becomes a source of daily irritation and frustration. (4:4)

Rightly, Koheleth said of this negative aspect associated with “labor” and “accomplishment” or skill, “This also [is] vanity” (emptiness, purposelessness, nothingness, or meaninglessness) and a “striving after wind,” a pursuit of something having no substance. (4:4; see the Notes section regarding verses 4, 6, and 16.)

Koheleth next focused on the opposite of diligent laboring when referring to the conduct of the “fool,” the person with a moral defect who has no desire to work. Instead of using his hands to accomplish something meaningful, he “folds his hands” in idle repose. If such a one can avoid doing what needs to be accomplished, he will. The fool’s laziness, however, exacts a high price. Regarding the indolent fool, Koheleth said, he “eats his own flesh.” The inactivity is injurious to his physical and mental well-being. Because of his laziness, the fool does not have the means to procure nutritional food and other necessities. This leads to a breakdown in health and eventually to a premature death. Thus the lazy one consumes his own flesh, reducing his organism to an emaciated condition and, in time, to a lifeless corpse. (4:5)

Koheleth highlighted the right view of work. “Better is a palm [kaph] filled with rest than two fists [the dual form of chóphen] filled with labor and striving after wind.” (4:6; see the Notes section.)

The open hand or palm can hold more than one that is closed. Accordingly, a “palm filled with rest” suggests a fullness of rest. Such “rest” denotes one’s being able to enjoy the fruit of one’s work — food, drink, and various wholesome diversions. The implication is that the other hand is occupied in laboring, and so there is a balance between “toil” and “rest.” There is time for pleasurable activities that provide refreshment from the ordinary routine of working. A person having “a palm filled with rest” is content, free from the relentless, self-induced pressure to accumulate more and the worry that what is amassed will not be enough. Such a one also finds great happiness in assisting those in real need. (4:6)

An individual having “a palm filled with rest” is certainly much better off than one having two hands so completely occupied in toiling that there is no time for anything else. The reference to the fists being filled appears to indicate that the person is completely consumed by “laboring,” exhausting or wearying toil. As if tightly gripping the toil, the hands are unable to do anything else. Though driven by the inordinate desire to amass more and more, the individual who is totally consumed by his toiling gains nothing of lasting value. He has no time to enjoy anything and may shorten his life considerably by neglecting to care for his personal needs. In the end, he must leave all that he has accumulated behind. So, the hands were filled with labor and a struggling, grasping, or striving for what had no substance — wind. (4:6; see the Notes section regarding verses 4, 6, and 16.)

Koheleth then said, “And I returned and saw vanity under the sun.” As other vanities had already been enumerated, this was still another “vanity,” one that related to the pathetic situation of the miser. Earlier, Koheleth may have noticed the continual striving of the miser but later returned to what he had observed to make a more thorough investigation. He then saw or recognized that the miser’s activity “under the sun” (in the earthly realm beneath the sun) was “vanity,” emptiness, nothingness, futility, or purposelessness. It accomplished nothing of lasting value and really benefited no one. (4:7)

Describing the miser, Koheleth says, “There is one and not a second one,” that is, the individual is alone, having neither a friend nor a companion. Despite being without a family (having “no son or brother”), “there is no end to all his labor,” his hard, exhausting, or wearisome toil. Although there is no one with whom to share what he acquires from his laboring, he is not satisfied with the riches he accumulates. Because of his insatiable greed, his “eyes” want to behold more than what he possesses. (4:8)

Koheleth then represented this one as raising the question, “And for whom do I labor and deprive my soul from good?” The implied answer is, “No one.” Not even the miser is able to benefit from the fruit of his hard, exhausting, or wearisome toil. He deprives his “soul” (himself) from enjoying food, drink, and various wholesome diversions. He greedily clings to everything he has amassed, even begrudging to part with what he absolutely must in order to obtain life’s bare necessities. (4:8)

Koheleth concluded, “This also ― vanity and an evil task.” The incessant striving of the miser is indeed “vanity,” emptiness, nothingness, purposelessness, or meaninglessness. It is an “evil,” a calamitous or a miserable “task,” business, or occupation. The miser’s life is one of perpetual gloom, as he finds it impossible to bring himself to use even a small part of what he has accumulated for personal enjoyment or to help those in genuine need. (4:8)

Against the backdrop of the miser’s miserable lot, Koheleth’s next words can be better appreciated, “Better two than one, because they have a good reward for their labor.” The good reward from laboring as a team is mutual assistance and protection. (4:9)

Koheleth continued, “For if they fall” (not at the same time but either one of them on different occasions), the companion is there to help the one who has fallen to get up. Whatever the nature of the fall might be (whether a literal fall while traveling over treacherous terrain or a disastrous plunge on account of unfavorable circumstances or poor judgment), a loyal companion will do what he can to aid his partner in distress. (4:10)

It is quite different with the person who labors alone, with no one to help him when he falls. Koheleth pronounced “woe” or calamity for the loner. Without a companion, the individual would have to deal with his misfortune without the aid, encouragement, or comfort that a companion could provide. He would experience the full brunt of the painful effects resulting from the fall. The situation could prove to be so serious that he would not be able to get up on his own, as would be the case when a severe injury resulted from a fall in treacherous terrain. (4:10)

Koheleth presented another example illustrating the value of having a companion. When traveling, individuals customarily slept outdoors during the night. Their outer garments served as blankets. A lone traveler would face the discomfort of the cold nights with very little to protect him. Therefore, Koheleth said, “If two lie down together,” they would be able to stay warm, benefiting from one another’s body heat. “But how can one be warm?” (4:11)

Similarly, a solitary traveler would be more vulnerable to attacks by robbers. (Compare Luke 10:30.) Faced with a robber, the unaccompanied traveler might easily be overpowered and left to die in a comparatively deserted area. As Koheleth observed, however, “two” would be able to withstand the assailant. (4:12)

Summing up the benefit of one’s having a companion, Koheleth appears to have quoted a proverbial saying, “A threefold cord is not quickly broken.” This illustrates that, when individuals have a common interest or objective, there is strength and benefit in numbers. A cord consisting of three strands may have been the strongest one made. A threefold cord would be much harder to tear apart than a cord consisting of one or two strands. (4:12)

Youth (when synonymous with inexperience) and poverty impose serious limitations. One’s having wisdom can offset these limitations. On the other hand, the benefits of age, experience, wealth and authority can be nullified by folly, the reckless disregard of what is right. Koheleth observed that a poor but wise “young man” is better off than an old but foolish king who no longer has the good sense to heed warnings or sound counsel, or who becomes so isolated that he does not even hear things to which he should be giving attention. (4:13)

Because of possessing wisdom, the poor youth may succeed in attaining what the old king is in danger of losing. By refusing to pay attention to sound advice (or not even hearing it), the old king could place the prosperity and security of the realm in jeopardy. As a result, he may perish in war, be removed from his position by a conqueror, die at the hand of an assassin, or be forced to abdicate by his own subjects. (4:13)

Regarding the wise youth, Koheleth continued, “For from the prison house, he goes forth to be king, although in his kingdom he had been born poor.” The mention of confinement might suggest that the old king came to view the youth as a threat and ordered his imprisonment. Something similar happened in the case of Solomon’s father David. Because King Saul began to regard him with suspicion, David eventually was forced to flee for his life and to live as an outlaw. (4:14; 1 Samuel 18:15, 25, 29; 19:2, 9-12; 20:30, 31; 22:8)

The wise youth, upon being released from prison, attains the kingship. This occurs despite his having been born a pauper in the kingdom where he begins to reign (or in the realm of the old monarch). “He had been born poor in the kingdom and had even gone to prison before becoming king.” (NCV) Based on a meaning other than “although” for the Hebrew conjunction ki, poverty and imprisonment have been represented as two different situations from which a successor might rise to the throne. “The youth may have come from prison to the kingship, or he may have been born in poverty within his kingdom.” (TNIV) The case of Joseph is a historical example of an elevation from prisoner to the second highest ruling position in Egypt. (4:14) Recognizing Joseph’s wisdom, Pharaoh declared: “Since God has made all this known to you, there is none so discerning and wise as you. You shall be in charge of my court, and by your command shall all my people be directed; only with respect to the throne shall I be superior to you.” (Genesis 41:39, 40, Tanakh )

Departing from the usual rendering of numerous modern translations, the Tanakh represents the Hebrew word for “poor” (rush) as a verb, “to become poor,” and makes the initial part of the verse apply to the youth and the concluding portion to the old king. This translation reads, “For the former can emerge from a dungeon to become king; while the latter, even if born to kingship, can become a pauper.” (4:14)

Koheleth continued, “I saw all the living who walk about under the sun with the second youth who will stand up in his place.” This observation applies to the living who conduct their daily affairs in the earthly realm beneath the sun. “All” probably refers to those giving their support to the “second youth” or “second young man.” The word “all” indicates that this successor enjoys popular backing. (4:15)

The expression “second youth” may mean second from the standpoint of being a replacement of the first, that is, of the old king. This is the meaning conveyed in the translation by James Moffatt: “I have seen all the living on earth side with such a youth, who was destined to reign instead of the old king.” It may be, however, that the “second young man” designates yet another successor. Besides adopting the application to another successor, The Revised English Bible represents the reference to “all the living” as a general statement of what Koheleth studiously observed among people on earth. “But I have studied all life here under the sun, and I saw his place taken by yet another young man.” (4:15)

Both the Hebrew text and the Septuagint, though, link “all the living” to the “second youth” by using a preposition meaning “with.” So it appears better to regard the verse as indicative of the popular support from contemporaries for either the immediate successor of the old king or yet another young man. If viewed as denoting another young man, the reference would point to the people’s disenchantment with the old king and then also with his immediate successor. (4:15)

Koheleth continued, “No end to all the people, to all who were before them.” The words “no end to all the people” are commonly understood as meaning “multitudes” or “unlimited numbers” of people. “Before them” (literally, “before their faces”) could mean that multitudes preceded the old king and his successor (or successors) and, therefore, had no knowledge of them. Another possibility is that the pronoun “them” designates the generations that lived before “all the people” of the then-existing generation. Later, in this verse, the reference is to “him,” the successor to the throne. (4:16) A number of translators have rendered the text to apply to the successor only. “There was no end to all those people whom he led. (NRSV) “He takes his place at the head of innumerable subjects.” (NJB)

Koheleth added that those who would be coming later would not “rejoice in him.” Initially, the young man is highly favored, enjoying the backing of the masses. Eventually this ends, as someone else captures the fancy of the people who later dominate the earthly scene. There is no further pleasure or delight in the gifted youth whose reign had been hailed with great enthusiasm. This development could be viewed as occurring either during the ruler’s lifetime or afterward. Later generations would, of course, have no pleasure in the gifted youth who is unknown to them. (4:16)

Accordingly, even the topmost position procures no lasting benefit for the one attaining it. Fame and popularity are fleeting. Koheleth concluded that this is indeed “vanity and a striving after wind.” In view of the temporary nature of the honor enjoyed, kingship is emptiness, nothingness, or meaninglessness, and a pursuit of wind, something lacking real substance. (4:16; see the Notes section.)

Notes:

The Hebrew word rúach and its Greek equivalent pneúma can mean either “wind” or “spirit.” Instead of “striving after wind” or a similar expression (in verses 4, 6, 16), a number of translations read “vexation of spirit” (KJV, Young). In its rendering of the Septuagint, a new English translation (NETS) uses the expression “preference of spirit,” whereas The Orthodox Study Bible says “choice of one’s spirit.” A German translation of the Septuagint (Septuaginta Deutsch), however, reads “striving after wind” (Streben nach Wind). The Greek term rendered “preference,” “choice,” or “striving” is proaíresis and can also signify “commitment.” Persons who have committed themselves to, chosen, or preferred something that is mere wind could be spoken of as striving after wind.

In verse 6, the Hebrew word kaph refers to the flat of the hand or the palm, and the term chóphen can designate the hollow of the hand and so could apply to the hand when formed into a fist in order to keep hold of something. “Fists” (Fäuste) is the rendering found in the revised German Elberfelder Bibel and Schlachter’s German translation. In the Septuagint, the word dráx, (the open hand or palm) translates both Hebrew words.

Verse 17 in numerous Bible translations is verse 1 of chapter 5 in others. In this commentary, the verse will be considered in the next chapter.

Ecclesiastes 5:1-20

Koheleth cautioned, “Guard your feet when you go to the house of God.” To guard the feet signifies to give careful heed to where one is going, not acting in haste or carelessly and without due deliberation. The “house of God” designates the temple, for it was only there that acceptable sacrifices could be offered. (Deuteronomy 12:5, 6; 2 Chronicles 7:12) Being the “house of God,” the temple was a holy place, requiring that worshipers “draw near” or make their approach for the right reason and with the proper reverential attitude. (5:1 [4:17])

One’s objective for drawing near should have been “to hear,” a sincere desire to respond obediently to divine commands. The Hebrew expression “to hear” often denotes “to obey.” This is reflected in renderings such as “draw near in obedience.” (5:1 [4:17]; HCSB, REB)

Koheleth contrasted the motivation of obedience with the sacrificing of “fools.” Such persons are not lacking in mental perception. Theirs is a serious moral flaw. They manifest a reckless disregard for what is right, having no appreciation for sacred things. Their sacrificing would have been merely the fulfillment of a perfunctory religious duty. It may also have been undertaken to impress others with their piety. (5:1 [4:17])

Koheleth added that the “fools” or morally corrupt persons do not “know” or recognize that “they are doing evil” or wrong. The “evil” may refer to their offering sacrifices with impure motives and as defiled persons. (5:1 [4:17]) A similar thought is expressed at Proverbs 21:27. “The sacrifice of the wicked is abhorrent, above all if it is offered for bad motives.” (NJB) “The sacrifice of the wicked man is an abomination, the more so as he offers it in depravity.” (Tanakh)

The Hebrew text may also be understood as meaning that such persons only know how to do bad. So, after sacrificing, they resumed their evil practices. They did not make any heartfelt acknowledgment of sin and put forth efforts to change their ways. As long as they were observing the ritualistic aspects of worship, they considered their conduct acceptable. (5:1 [4:17]; compare Isaiah 1:11-17.)

Prayerful expressions, too, require careful attention. Haste and thoughtlessness are out of place. Koheleth counseled, “Do not be hasty with your mouth; do not let your heart be impetuous to utter a word before the face of God, for God [is] in heaven and you [are] on earth. Therefore, let your words be few.” Promises made to the Supreme Sovereign should not be made rashly but should be preceded by serious deliberation. The “heart,” the deep inner self, should not be permitted to prompt impulsive or rash words before God. A proper recognition of his greatness should serve to restrain one from making rash expressions. (5:2[1])

The Almighty resides in the highest heavens and is elevated far above earth’s residents, calling for humility on their part. This makes it inappropriate for anyone to ramble on thoughtlessly when addressing the Most High. One’s words should be “few,” that is, they should be sincere, meaningful expressions that reflect reverential regard for God’s majesty and dignity. (5:2[1]) Jesus Christ gave similar admonition, “In your prayers do not go babbling on like the heathen, who imagine that the more they say the more likely they are to be heard.” (Matthew 6:7, REB)

Koheleth reinforced his point about “few” words by introducing a proverbial saying, “For the dream comes with much preoccupation; and the fool’s voice through many words.” When, during the course of the day, the mind is occupied by worries and distracting thoughts about many tasks, this can lead to restless nights and disturbing dreams — nightmares. Undue preoccupation with materialistic goals may also occasion vain daydreaming about future successes. (Compare James 4:13-16.) Similarly, continual chatter inevitably results in voicing foolish or unbecoming thoughts. When thoughtless and injurious words continue to pass the lips, the speaker reveals himself to be a fool, a person with a moral defect. (5:3[2])

Rash or thoughtless speaking is especially serious in matters pertaining to God. Koheleth continued, “When you vow a vow to God, do not delay in paying it, for he has no pleasure in fools. Pay what you vow.” (5:4[3]

A vow is a solemn promise voluntarily made to God that one will do something of a nonobligatory nature or refrain from doing something that in itself would be proper. Vows were often made in conjunction with appeals for God’s blessing upon a serious undertaking, for a special gift from him, or for deliverance from a grave danger. (5:4[3])

God’s favorable response to the appeal would require that the vow be fulfilled without hesitation. A failure to act in harmony with the vow revealed a person to be a fool, one with a moral defect by reason of his proving false to God as respects his promise. The Almighty would have no pleasure or delight in such a one. The obligation to fulfill the vow was to be taken seriously. Rightly, then, Koheleth expressed the point about fulfilling a vow as a command. (5:4[3])

The making of a vow was completely voluntary, and there was no sin in refraining from making such a solemn promise. Koheleth, therefore, added, “It is better that you do not vow than that you vow and do not pay.” Before making a vow, the individual should give serious consideration to his being able to keep his solemn promise. Whenever the possibility of failure to perform a vow existed, the better course would have been to avoid placing oneself under solemn obligation. (5:5[4])

Further emphasizing the seriousness of nonfulfillment, Koheleth said, “Do not let your mouth cause your flesh to sin, and do not say before the face of the messenger that it [was] a mistake [‘ignorance,’ LXX]. For why should God be angry at your voice and destroy the work of your hands?” (5:6[5])

Whereas the vow is made with the mouth, the “flesh” or the fleshly organism (the individual) comes under obligation to fulfill the solemn promise. Accordingly, a person’s failure to discharge the vow signified that his mouth had caused him to sin. In its basic sense, the Hebrew word (chatá’) meaning “to sin” denotes “to miss” (as when an archer misses the target). Hence, sin is a deviation from the right course, a failure to do what is required. (5:6[5])

After making a rash vow, the individual may have second thoughts. He may realize that he made a mistake. The circumstances may be such that he cannot discharge his thoughtless vow, forcing him to tell the “messenger” that it was a mistake. (5:6[5])

The Hebrew word mal’akh means “messenger” and could designate either a heavenly messenger (an angel) or an earthly one. Malachi 2:7 refers to the Aaronic priest as “the messenger of YHWH.” So also here, in Ecclesiastes, the reference could be to the priest who accepted what was vowed. Some have suggested that the “messenger” was a temple official who made a record of vows and, at the time for the fulfillment thereof, accepted what had been solemnly promised. “Do not protest to the temple messenger, ‘My vow was a mistake.’” (NIV) There is, however, no scriptural reference to such a temple official. (5:6[5])

The Septuagint reads “God” instead of “messenger” or “angel.” Therefore, it appears preferable to regard the reference as being to God or to the specific angel who is revealed as having the most intimate position with the Almighty. This one is the “angel of YHWH,” the direct representative of the Most High. Because of the special relationship existing between this angel and YHWH, words directed to God would also be spoken before this angel. (5:6[5]; compare Exodus 3:2-4.)

Failure to discharge the vow would result in God’s displeasure. There would certainly be no good reason for anyone to make a rash vow, resulting in becoming a recipient of divine anger for failure to keep the thoughtless promise. (5:6[5])

The words “do not say … that it was a mistake” could be regarded as meaning that the individual would lightly dismiss the failure to discharge the vow, viewing the making of such a mistake as merely an act of ignorance. God’s anger may then be in response to the invalid excuses offered to avoid what had been solemnly, though thoughtlessly, promised. (5:6[5])

The divine favor and blessing that may have been experienced before the time came for fulfilling the vow would not continue. Without God’s favor and blessing, the works of one failing to discharge a vow would come to nothing. (5:6[5]) As the psalmist expressed the matter, “If YHWH does not build the house, the builders labor on it in vain. If YHWH does not guard the city, the watchman watches in vain.” (Psalm 127:1)

Koheleth’s admonition about rash speaking concludes with the words, “For in the abundance of dreams, also vanities and words abound, but fear God.” This suggests that the dreams can give rise to what is vain, empty or meaningless and to thoughtless words. Dreams occurring during sleep do not have this result. Therefore, the dreams may designate imaginings or fantasies relating to the attainment of selfish, materialistic goals. Such “dreams” are vain or empty, producing nothing of a lasting and truly beneficial nature. As such empty dreams increase, this leads to a corresponding increase of vanities. Thoughtless words, including rash vows, may likewise increase. When there is unrealistic, empty dreaming, what is said has no real substance. Empty promises may be made to God in attempts to gain his favor and blessing for selfish pursuits. One’s fearing God, having the proper reverential regard for him, would deter one from making rash vows and other thoughtless expressions. (5:7[6])

Because of difficulty in seeing how dreams, vanities, and words are related, numerous translators have emended the passage. “A profusion of dreams and a profusion of words are futile. Therefore fear God.” (REB) “Much dreaming and many words are meaningless. Therefore stand in awe of God.” (NIV) “From too many delusions come futility and too much talk.” (NJB) A footnote in the Tanakh reads, “Meaning of verse uncertain. Emendation yields ‘Much brooding results in dreams; and much talk in futilities.’” None of such changes have the support of the Septuagint, which reads, “because in the multitude of dreams, also vanities and many words.” For this reason, it would appear preferable to adhere to the word order of the Hebrew text, as does the Septuagint. (5:7[6])

At this point, Koheleth introduced a different subject, one relating to a serious flaw in governmental administration. He said, “If you see the oppression of the poor and the wresting of justice and righteousness in a province, do not be astounded about the matter. For a high one over a high one is watching, and higher ones [are] over them.” (5:8[7])

Some have understood the reference to the highest level to be to God, the “Supreme One.” Koheleth’s words, though, relate to a “province” or a region under a specific governmental administration. Whereas God does observe what takes place in the earthly realm, his rulership has nothing in common with any oppressive system. His law to Israel specifically prohibited mistreatment of the lowly. (Exodus 23:6; Leviticus 19:15) He does not countenance injustice and will call all oppressors to account. (Lamentations 3:34-36) Reasonably, therefore, God’s watching would not be part of an explanation about not being surprised about oppression of the poor. (5:8[7])

Koheleth’s next words have been variously understood. A literal reading of the Hebrew text is, “And the profit of the earth — for all it [is]; a king by a field is served.” “All” may be understood as referring to people. What the earth or land produces is indeed for all persons, including those in high station. Even the king is served by the field, that is, by the yield from the cultivated land. The words of Koheleth may serve as a warning to corrupt officials. Since they are dependent on the land for their food, they are working against their own interests by oppressing the lowly who labor in the fields. (5:9[8])

Such an implied warning is more specifically expressed when the Hebrew text is rendered, “A king for a field is in servitude.” Taking the Hebrew ‘avádh to signify being “subject” or in “servitude” has the support of the Chaldee paraphrase, which reads, “And the great advantage of cultivating the land is above all, [for] when the subjects of a country revolt, and the king flees from them into the country, if he has nothing to eat, this very king becomes subject to a labourer in the field.” (Ginsburg’s translation) Although this paraphrase reads much more into the passage than the Hebrew text warrants and relates the “all” to the superiority of the advantage (“above all”), it adds support to the understanding that the king depends on what the field produces and, therefore, on those engaged in cultivating it. “The increase from the land is taken by all; the king himself profits from the fields.” (NIV) Taxes on the land and crops provided funds for the royal projects, and part of the produce of the land served as food for the royal household. “And since the king is the highest official, he benefits most from the taxes paid on the land.” (5:9[8], CEV)

George Lamsa’s translation of the Syriac presents the thought of the king’s being “served by the field” but adds what this requires of him to be thus served. “Moreover the riches of the earth are for all; the king, himself, is served by cultivating his own field.” Since land will not produce of its own accord, the king must see to it that the field is cultivated. Without the essential plowing and sowing of seed, there is no harvest and, hence, no food for the royal household. (5:9[8])

Numerous translations express a completely different meaning, placing the emphasis on the “profit,” advantage, or benefit of having a king. “Yet an advantage for a country in every respect is a king for the arable land.” (NAB) “But all things considered, this is an advantage for a land: a king for a plowed field.” (NRSV) Renderings that represent the king as an advantage for the land do not really depart from the Hebrew text. While preserving the word order of the Hebrew text, the words themselves can be arranged into one sentence that focuses on the value of a king. A literal reading would be, “And the advantage of the earth ― for all of it ― [is] a king for the cultivated land.” The term “all” (kol) could be taken to refer to the “earth,” the country, or the land, and the Hebrew expression for “to serve” (‘a·vádh) also means “to work,” “to labor,” or “to till.” Rendering the expression as “tilled” or “cultivated” has the support of the Septuagint, which uses the word ergázomai (“to work,” “to labor,” “to till”) and reads, “And the abundance of the earth in all [or, ‘everything’] is, a king of the tilled field.” A footnote in the German translation of the Septuagint (Septuaginta Deutsch) provides the following explanation for the phrase (“a king for the cultivated field”), “a king to whom the cultivated field belongs [ein König, dem das bebaute Feld gehört].” (5:9[8])

If the focus of the Hebrew text is indeed the king, the meaning could be that a country profits by having a ruler who looks after the security of his domain, making it possible for agricultural operations to continue unhindered. Because the Scriptures present the introduction of the monarchy in a very negative light, however, it seems questionable that this would be the meaning of Koheleth’s words. (1 Samuel 8:5–20; 12:12–19) It appears preferable to regard them as signifying that even the monarch cannot survive without harvests from the cultivated field. Despite his high position, he is dependent on the lowly agricultural laborers. (5:9[8])

Possibly the insatiable greed of oppressive officials suggested to Koheleth the thought he next expressed, “a lover of silver will not be satisfied with silver, nor a lover of yield with abundance. This also [is] vanity.” The Septuagint renders the words about a “lover of yield” as a question, “And who loved yield in their abundance?” This could be understood to mean, Who does not love to have a bounteous yield? (5:10[9])

Anciently, silver was a common medium of exchange and, therefore, also a measure of wealth. Since coinage did not have its start until about 700 B.C.E., the silver was weighed out when making purchases. Accordingly, “silver” is synonymous with “money,” and the Hebrew term is so rendered in many modern translations. (5:10[9])

The person who loves silver (or money), whose consuming desire is to have as much of it as possible, never comes to the point where he is satisfied with what he has. Although he may possess more than he could possibly use to obtain what he needs and wants, he will strive to accumulate more money. Regardless of how great the increase is, he will never consider it to be enough. Because of his insatiable greed, the abundance is, in effect, perceived as poverty. This dissatisfaction, coupled with the relentless striving for more, is “vanity,” emptiness, meaninglessness, or purposelessness. It is a senseless struggle for wealth that will not be put to any beneficial use and, in the end, proves to be a temporary possession. (5:10[9]

When the “good” (the “wealth”) increases, those who eat it increase. The individual who owned much land, large herds and flocks, and other possessions could not care for everything by himself. To attend to his vast holdings, he needed servants and hirelings. The greater his wealth, the greater would have been the number of laborers needed. These laborers proved to be consumers of some of the wealth. Slaves or servants had to be provided with food, clothing, and shelter. Hirelings had to be paid wages. The wealthy owner could not benefit personally from all that he possessed. The amount that he could eat and drink was limited, and he could only wear enough clothing to be comfortable. Summing up the person’s sole reward in question form, Koheleth said, “What advantage is it to the owner [ [‘owners,’ likely a plural of excellence that conveys the grandeur of the wealthy man] but to see it with his eyes?” The only “advantage,” profit, or benefit for the individual would be his being able to survey all that he owned and proudly proclaim that it belonged to him. Even this empty advantage was diminished in the case of a greedy man who resented having to part with some of his possessions to support servants and hirelings. (5:11[10])

Instead of a word meaning “advantage,” “benefit,” or “gain,” the Septuagint has a term meaning “manliness” or “courage” (andreía). Perhaps the question then could be understood to mean, What real strength does an abundance of possessions provide, except for their possessor to see them with his eyes? (5:11[10])

An individual’s wealth may deprive him of what the lowly laborer enjoys. Koheleth observed, “Sweet [is] the sleep of a laborer [literally, ‘one serving’; LXX, doúlos, ‘servant,’ or ‘slave’], whether he eats little or much, but the abundance of a rich man will not permit him no sleep.” The tired laborer is able to lie down at the close of the day to enjoy a peaceful night’s rest. His sleep is “sweet” or “pleasurable,” not disrupted by worrying or fretting about many possessions. Whether he eats little or a goodly portion, he is still able to benefit from the refreshment of a good night’s rest. The rich man, however, worries about his possessions and his undertakings to increase his wealth. His thoughts race from one concern to another, putting him in a state of mental agitation that is destructive to restful sleep. (5:12[11])

Life’s uncertainties may be yet another source for a wealthy person’s great distress. Koheleth noted, “There is a grievous evil I have seen under the sun: riches being kept for their owner to his evil.” “Under the sun,” in the earthly realm beneath that celestial orb, Koheleth “saw” or observed a great misfortune. (5:13[12])

This “evil,” misfortune, or calamity was the accumulation of riches to the individual’s own “evil,” hurt, or injury. Consumed by the desire to increase in wealth, the “owner” may have deprived himself of the usual comforts and pleasures of life, filling his days with incessant toiling and anxiety about maintaining and adding to his riches. Thus he destroyed the quality of his life, sacrificing all personal enjoyment from the product of his labor and darkening his days by continual worry. (5:13[12])

Koheleth added that the “riches perished by an evil occupation.” This “evil occupation” could refer to some business venture that was designed to increase wealth but failed, resulting in the loss of everything. Acquiring wealth through trade involved considerable risk and danger. Caravans were often beset upon by robbers, and ships laden with valuable cargo could be wrecked during storms. It would not have been uncommon for individuals thus to lose great wealth. (5:14[13])

After having expended much time and energy in amassing riches that were suddenly lost and from which no benefit had been derived, the man fathered a son. Therefore, not even the heir could get any enjoyment from what had been accumulated, there being “nothing” in the father’s “hand.” In an impoverished state, the father had the additional burden of caring for a son. (5:14[13])

People who are addicted to the amassing of riches find it very difficult to part with even a small portion of what they have accumulated. Usually, sheer necessity and social pressure are the only factors that force them to spend the least amount possible. This must make the eventuality of their having to part with everything at death particularly painful and disturbing to them. They simply cannot escape the reality of what Koheleth set out, “As he came naked from his mother’s womb, he will again go as he came. And he will take nothing from his labor that he may carry away in his hand.” (5:15[14])

A similar thought is expressed in Job 1:21 (Tanakh), “Naked came I out of my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return there.” Both the words of Koheleth and those in the book of Job appear to designate the “earth” as “mother.” This is evidently because the first man was formed from earth’s elements. Moreover, at death there is no return to the literal womb of the mother. Man does, however, return to the elements of the earth. Not even one product of his labor can a man then carry away with him. Though the riches amassed may have been extensive, not even a mere handful can be taken as a lasting possession. The individual has lost control over everything. In the naked state he came into existence, and in that same state he must return to the lifeless dust. (5:15[14])

Commenting further about this aspect, Koheleth continued, “And this also [is] a grievous evil, Just as he came, so will he go. And what profit has he from having labored for the wind?” At death, all the toil will mean nothing. The one who amassed much has no advantage over the one who has nothing. The painful “evil” or “misfortune” is that the greedy toiler departs in the same manner that he entered the earthly scene, with nothing. (5:16[15])

The answer to the question about what “profit,” advantage, or benefit results to the one who toils for wind is, “None.” The hoarder of riches has truly labored for “wind,” something that lacks substance. As death approached, he was forced to realize that all must be left behind. The individual even lacked the satisfaction of having enjoyed his days and contributed to the happiness of others by having shared generously from his possessions. (5:16[15])

Koheleth depicted the gloomy existence of the miserly hoarder, saying: “Also all his days he eats in darkness and [has] much sorrow, and his sickness and anger.” There would be nothing to brighten the days of such a person. Driven to amass more and more, he would labor from early morning till late at night. He seemingly begrudged having to eat, as this required spending a little from what had been amassed. When eating, likely late at night, he would do so with a gloomy spirit and possibly in the dark. His self-denial may have gone to the extreme point of feeling that he could not afford to use the small amount of olive oil needed to light a lamp. Thus, the time for enjoyment of food and drink would be turned into an occasion of “sorrow” or “vexation.” The Hebrew term ká‘as can mean “to sorrow,” “to be grieved,” or “to be vexed” or “angry.” In the Septuagint, the corresponding Greek word (pénthos) denotes “sorrow” or “mourning.” (5:17[16])

The mental outlook of the person described by Koheleth was sick, and the individual’s extreme self-denial may have contributed to physical illness. His anger may have been prompted by whatever interfered with the accumulation of riches. (5:17[16])

In the Septuagint, no mention is made of eating. The entire description focuses on the gloomy aspect of such a person’s life. “And indeed all his days [are spent] in darkness and sorrow, and much anger and sickness and bitterness.” To an extent, this reading is also followed by a number of modern translators. (5:17[16]) “What is more, all his days are overshadowed; gnawing anxiety and great vexation are his lot, sickness and resentment.” (REB) “All the days of his life are passed in gloom and sorrow, under great vexation, sickness and wrath.” (NAB)

Having discussed the emptiness of pursuing wealth, coupled with extreme self-denial, Koheleth called attention to the proper view of toiling and the means obtained thereby. Based on his careful observation, he said, “Look! What I have seen [that is] good, which [is] beautiful, [is for a man] to eat and to drink and to see good from all his labor that he labors under the sun for the number of the days of his life that God has given him, for this [is] his portion.” (5:18[17])

What Koheleth “saw” or recognized as “good,” desirable, or pleasant, he also described as “beautiful,” appropriate, or right (yaphéh). This is the sense the rendering of the Septuagint conveys, “good, which is beautiful [kálos, also meaning ‘fine,’ ‘fitting,’ ‘advantageous’].” (5:18[17])

This “good” or “desirable” thing is for a man to enjoy the products or results from his labor. To be able to obtain food and drink, the individual has to work. Times for eating and drinking should be happy occasions and, therefore, part of the pleasant reward from laboring. The worker should “see” or “experience” “good from all his labor,” his wearisome or exhausting toil. This could refer to finding satisfaction in the achievements from laboring and the means obtained thereby — means that could be used to acquire what contributes to the enjoyment of life. (5:18[17])

Such “good,” pleasure, or satisfaction is to be enjoyed from all the labor engaged in during a man’s life under the sun, on earth beneath the sun on which humans depend for light and warmth. Since life itself is the Creator’s gift, Koheleth rightly noted that “the number of the days of [a man’s] life” are given to him by God. The enjoyment of these days of life — the fruit from labor — is man’s “portion” or “lot.” (5:18[17])

Whatever the Most High permits is attributed to him. Accordingly, Koheleth referred to “every man to whom God has given wealth and treasures.” The combination of the Hebrew terms for “wealth” and “treasures” may serve to emphasize that the possessions are many and varied. (5:19[18])

Regarding a man who has been “given wealth and treasures,” Koheleth also said that God gives him “power to eat of it and to take his portion and to rejoice in his labor.” This implies that the individual would recognize that he, only by reason of divine permission, owns what he does. His sentiments would be like those expressed by Job, “YHWH gave.” (Job 1:21) Consequently, he would possess the wisdom to make good use of his riches to benefit himself and others, avoiding the pitfalls of extreme self-denial and selfish, miserly hoarding. Thus God would have empowered him to “eat” or “partake” from what is owned. Such “eating” or “partaking” may be understood to signify deriving proper enjoyment from the “wealth and treasures.” (5:19[18])

The “portion” apparently refers to the individual’s lot in life. Being empowered by God “to take” this “portion” may denote “to accept” it as coming from him and, hence, to be content. So the person would shun the greedy amassing of riches that is characteristic of those who are dissatisfied even with abundance. (5:19[18])

The individual is also empowered to “rejoice in his labor.” As elsewhere in Ecclesiastes, labor is not the goal in itself, for it is wearisome and exhausting. Rather, labor can lead to a feeling of satisfaction with what is accomplished or furnishes the means for whatever contributes to joy, delight, or wholesome pleasure. The “gift of God” is the capacity to enjoy the fruit from labor. (5:19[18])

The person whom God has thus empowered maintains a cheerful outlook. Koheleth observed, “For he will not much remember the days of his life, because God answers in the joy of his heart.” (5:20[19])

The remembering would be a recalling of the negative aspects of life, a brooding over its shortness, uncertainties, and problems. Thoughts about such matters are not dominant in the case of the one whom Koheleth described. While the individual would not be oblivious respecting negative aspects, these would not be a source of continual disturbance. Only infrequently would such “remembering” or “recalling” occur. (5:20[19])

Instead, the individual would have joy of heart, that is, he would have joy in his deep inner self. He would be content with his lot in life. Koheleth introduced the thought about joy with the words, “because God answers [‘anáh].” When adding the word “him” after the verb “answers,” the meaning would be that God grants joy to the person making the request. Without the addition, the words could be understood to mean that God assents, concurs, or is in agreement with the individual’s joy of heart. This would indicate that it is a joy the Almighty approves. It is genuine, affecting the “heart,” the deep inner self. (5:20[19])

In the Septuagint, the Hebrew word ‘anáh is rendered perispáo, meaning “occupy,” “divert,” or “distract.” This is also the thought conveyed in many modern translations. “God lets him busy himself with the joy of his heart.” (NAB) “God fills his time with joy of heart.” (REB) “God keeps them occupied with the joy of their hearts.” (NRSV) “God keeps him busy enjoying himself.” (Tanakh) Accordingly, because the joy of the heart, the deep inner self, is dominant, few are the occasions when disturbing or painful thoughts intrude. This blessing is attributed to God. (5:20[19])

Ecclesiastes 6:1-12

Koheleth “saw” or observed an “evil,” a calamity, or a misfortune “under the sun,” that is, on earth, with particular reference to the realm of human affairs. He described this “evil” as “great [rav] upon man.” (6:1)

The Hebrew term rav denotes “great,” “large,” “numerous,” “much,” or “abundant,” and the corresponding Greek word polýs (LXX) basically has the same significance. Because the Hebrew expression is broad in meaning, translations vary in their renderings. The word may be understood to signify great in degree and, therefore, something that “weighs heavily upon” those who must bear it or, by extension, something that is “grave” or “serious.” This term could also mean great in number and, hence, something that is “common” or “frequent.” Modern translations generally show preference for a rendering that emphasizes degree, and this appears to preserve the thought of the Hebrew “great upon” better than a rendering that focuses on number. Additionally, what follows reveals that the situation involves a man who possesses riches, wealth, and honor. This has always been descriptive of the few, not the majority, and so would not usually be regarded as a frequent or common occurrence. (6:1)

Having mentioned the “evil” he had “seen,” Koheleth proceeded to provide the details, “a man to whom God has given wealth and treasures and honor, so that he is not lacking in anything for his soul in all that he desires.” The word “man” in this case is not ’adhám (“earthling”), but ’ish, which at times signifies a man of high rank or station. This would fit the context, as the man has wealth, treasures, and honor. As in Ecclesiastes 5:18(19), the use of the Hebrew terms for “wealth” and “treasures” may serve to show that the man owns much property and a great variety of possessions. The Hebrew word for “honor” is kavóhdh, which in a literal sense means “heaviness” and, figuratively, describes one who amounts to something or who enjoys a position of distinction and is accorded respect. By virtue of divine permission, the man has an abundance and is also esteemed. That is why Koheleth spoke of the wealth, treasures, and honor as having been “given” by God. (6:2)

From the standpoint of wealth and position, the man has everything. He lacks nothing for “his soul,” or “for himself,” that he might desire or crave. Expressed in modern idiom, he has or is able to obtain anything that money can buy. (6:2)

Nevertheless, his situation is tragic or lamentable. Koheleth continued, “God does not give him power to eat of it, but a foreign man eats it — this [is] vanity, and it is an evil affliction.” (6:2)

The Hebrew word for “to eat” apparently is used in a figurative sense and signifies “to enjoy.” By saying that God does not enable him to “eat of” or “enjoy” what he has, Koheleth appears to suggest that the man’s situation is the result of circumstances beyond his control. Factors that would prevent enjoyment could be depression, serious illness, crippling disability, or heavy demands imposed by wealth and position — anything that could rob one of the time or the capacity to engage in enjoyable, refreshing activities. (6:2)

Adding to the man’s pain is the fact that a stranger or foreigner, someone not even distantly related, is able to enjoy what he cannot. The case of Abraham (Abram), while childless, illustrates one aspect of this situation. When assured by Almighty God that his reward would be very great, Abraham replied, “What can you give me, seeing that I am childless? The heir to my household is Eliezer of Damascus. You have given me no children, and so my heir must be a slave born in my house.” (Genesis 15:2, 3, REB) Circumstances other than childlessness that could lead to a foreigner’s getting the benefit include loss through war, robbery, fraud, or unjust seizure by official decree. (1 Kings 21:7-16) In view of the focus on children in the next verse, Koheleth may have had childlessness in mind as the circumstance that would allow a foreigner to derive the enjoyment. (6:2)

When there is no enjoyment from wealth and position, when a foreigner benefits instead, life seems vain, empty, meaningless, or purposeless. As Koheleth expressed it, “this is vanity, and it is an evil affliction.” The Hebrew expression for “evil affliction,” “disease,” or “illness” evidently should be understood in a general sense as something very painful. This significance is conveyed by the renderings of many translations — “grievous ill” (NRSV), “dire affliction” (REB), “dire plague” (NAB), and “grievous suffering” (NJB). (6:2)

Whereas a man’s not having an heir was regarded as very distressing, Koheleth next indicated that having children and attaining to advanced age (both of which were regarded as blessings from God) do not necessarily result in a purposeful life. Koheleth observed, “If a man fathers a hundred [children], and lives many years, and the days of his years are many, and his soul is not satisfied with the good, and also [there] is no burial for him; I say, a stillborn [is] better off than he.” (6:3)

Although a polygamous man might have been able to father a hundred children by his many wives (Judges 8:30; 10:4; 12:9, 14), the expression “hundred” apparently is here not to be taken literally. It simply is a large round number that denotes “many.” (6:3)

The repetitious words “lives many years” and “days of his years are many” seem to suggest that, though the life is long, one day after another passes slowly, dragging on day in and day out, year after year. This would contrast with the man described earlier, the one who does not “much remember the days of his life” (5:19[20]), and so may also be understood as implying that the days are filled with distress, worries, and problems. The man’s life is filled with unpleasant days year after year. (6:3) His situation is like that described by Job, “Why is life given to those who find it so bitter? They long for death but it does not come, they seek it more eagerly than hidden treasure.” (Job 3:20, 21, REB)

As in the previous verse, “soul” means the man himself. He is not filled or satisfied with “the good,” evidently what Koheleth had earlier identified as “the good” — the enjoyment of the fruit from labor. (5:17[18]) Since the man experiences no real joy, his long life means that he faces more problems, frustrations, and difficulties over a longer period of time than does one whose life span is short. (6:3)

The reference to “no burial” may mean that, even when the long life of misery ends, the man is deprived of a proper or honorable burial. Thus to die unlamented was regarded as a terrible calamity. (Jeremiah 9:22; 14:16; 25:32, 33) The comment about “no burial” may also signify that, on account of his wretched life, he longs for the grave and, still, his miserable existence continues. (6:3; compare Job 3:22.)

Viewed from the standpoint of an empty life filled with distress and hardship, a stillborn baby, as Koheleth noted, is better off than the man whom he described. Unlike such a man, the stillborn escapes all misery. (6:3)

Without life, even a fully formed baby can do absolutely nothing. Lifelessness or nonexistence is the utmost “emptiness,” “vanity,” or “nothingness.” As Koheleth said regarding the stillborn baby, “in vanity it enters.” Since there is no independent existence for it outside the womb, the stillborn’s entrance into the world is purposeless or futile. (6:4)

Not even for a moment does a stillborn baby experience the light of life. As it enters the world outside the womb in a state of nonexistence, so it immediately departs in the darkness of that lifeless condition. The stillborn baby has no opportunity to make a name or reputation for itself. So it really has no name. As Koheleth expressed it, “and in darkness its name is covered.” The stillborn’s name is forever hidden in the pitch blackness of its nonexistence. (6:4)

Life on earth is dependent upon the sun. Without its light and warmth, humankind could not survive. Thus, “to see” the sun means to be alive, to experience life in the earthly realm beneath that celestial orb. The stillborn baby, however, “has not seen the sun.” Its eyes never caught even a brief glimpse of this orb. At no time did the stillborn feel the sun’s warmth. The reference to “not knowing” could either mean that the stillborn baby had not known the sun or had not known anything. Both aspects would be true, for the stillborn had no sensation of anything associated with earthly life. It therefore also escaped the wearisome, exhausting or painful toil of the living, and the sufferings, hardships, and frustrations that are an integral part of human existence. Accordingly, Koheleth concluded that, unlike the long-lived father of many children who derived no enjoyment from his labor, the stillborn does have “rest.” (6:5)

An extraordinarily long life — usually viewed as a blessing — would not improve the man’s lot. Koheleth, when referring to a man who might live “one thousand years twice over” and did not “see good,” raised the question, “Do not all go to one place?” Without “seeing good,” without experiencing enjoyment from the fruit of his labor, a man whose life was more than twice as long as that of Methuselah (Genesis 5:27) would not be better off than the stillborn. His long life would prove to be one of prolonged misery and agony. At death, he would go to the same place as all others do — the realm of the dead. Unlike the stillborn which arrives in that realm without a moment’s delay, the long-lived man eventually gets there in a far more painful manner. He must first endure a wretched life of exhausting and wearisome toil. Only in the grave would he finally have the complete rest that had eluded him throughout his long, unpleasant life. (6:6) “There the wicked cease from troubling, there the weary are at rest. There the captives are at ease together, and hear not the voice of the slave driver. Small and great are there the same, and the servant is free from his master.” (Job 3:17-19, NAB)

To continue living, a person must eat and drink. Humans must work to be able to obtain the food and the liquids that get into the body through the mouth. Koheleth observed, “All man’s labor [is] for his mouth.” (6:7) A similar thought is expressed in Proverbs 16:26 (NAB), “The laborer’s appetite labors for him, for his mouth urges him on.”

Whereas much of life is spent in laboring to be able to procure necessities, complete satisfaction is elusive, unattainable. Koheleth continued, “and yet the soul is not filled.” The “soul” evidently is here to be understood as meaning the “desire” that is bound up with the “soul” or the person. Because everything in the realm of human affairs is transitory, a feeling of emptiness exists. One’s being able to enjoy food and drink is not enough to satisfy deeper desires and longings for a meaningful or purposeful life. The harsh reality that death reduces everything to nothingness makes life appear pointless, unfulfilled. (6:7)

The fact that the “soul,” desire, or appetite is not filled or satisfied prompted Koheleth’s questions, “What gain [is there] to a wise man over the fool? And what [gain is there] to a poor man from knowing how to conduct himself before the living?” Because the wise man possesses sound judgment, he is able to restrain himself respecting longings that are unattainable through proper means. The suppression of his desires does not remove them. They continue to be troubling and disturbing. The fool, the individual with a moral defect, lives for the moment. He recklessly disregards what is right, giving in to his desires and doing whatever it takes to satisfy them. The fool does not think about possible and probable hurtful consequences from his course. Although the wise one and the fool may deal differently with their desires, they are alike in having them. Wisdom does not liberate one from troubling desires. So, in this respect, the wise one has no advantage over the fool. (6:8)

Similarly, the poor man does not really gain or have an advantage from knowing how to keep up appearances in society. He may be able to hide his nagging desires so that others cannot see how deeply disturbed and frustrated he is because of having no hope of fulfilling his longings. The ability to conceal, however, does nothing to eradicate the desires. (6:8)

Since unfulfilled longings greatly diminish the enjoyment of life, Koheleth observed, “Better [is] the sight of the eyes than the wandering about of the soul.” To “see” with one’s eyes signifies possession. It is indeed better to be content with what one has than for one to look longingly and to seek restlessly for something else to bring satisfaction. The “soul” (as in verse 7) denotes the “appetite” or “desire” that fills and occupies the soul or the person. Unfulfilled and unattainable, the desire that occupies the soul is like a wanderer who is unable to find a home. The person plagued with such a nagging desire has no peace. His desire prompts fruitless longing and struggling for the unreachable. As Koheleth said, such “wandering about of the soul” is “also vanity and striving after wind.” It is “vain,” empty, meaningless, futile, or purposeless, never coming to a successful conclusion. The effort expended in longing for the unattainable and seeking the unreachable is a striving after wind, after unsubstantial nothingness. (6:9; see the Notes section.)

To be content with what is seen or possessed, a person needs to appreciate that many things are unchangeable. There must be a willingness to accept the inevitable. Koheleth continued, “Whatever has come to be has already been named, and it is known what man is and that he cannot contend with one mightier than he.” (6:10)

In a general sense, the name by which something is called identifies it as to its nature or purpose. Whatever exists in the present, therefore, is exactly what the name given to it in the past identifies it as being. God named the first man Adam (’adhám, apparently denoting an “earthling,” a mortal, one formed from the reddish soil). Regardless of what a man may do or attain, he cannot be anything more than implied in the name of the first human. Accordingly, “what man is has been known” from the very start of human existence. He is an “earthling,” a mere mortal. As such, he is in no position to contend with one who is mightier than he. There is no such thing as his being able to present some argument or make some bargain to keep himself alive indefinitely, proving himself to be greater than his identifying name — “earthling” or mortal.

The one “stronger” than man may be the Creator. (6:10) Koheleth’s thought would then be similar to that found in Psalm 49:7-9 (NIV), “No man can redeem the life of another or give to God a ransom for him — the ransom for a life is costly, no payment is ever enough — that he should live on forever and not see decay.”

There is a possibility, though, that the original-language expression for “one mightier” does not apply to God. The adjective rendered “mightier” or “stronger” (taqqíph) is found only here and five other times in Aramaic portions of Ezra (4:20) and Daniel (2:40, 42; 4:3; 7:7), where the reference is not to the Most High. Later in Ecclesiastes (8:8) apparent mention is made of the relentless war that death wages against the living, providing a basis for concluding that death is being called the one who is mightier. The rendering of the Tanakh would allow for this meaning. “As for man, he cannot contend with what is stronger than he.” (6:10)

Koheleth’s next words apparently are to be linked with man’s inability to contend with one who is mightier. His comments may be understood to mean that the more “words” (plural of davár) are spoken, the more “vanities” result. Then comes the question, “What benefit [is this] to a man?” A mere mortal is powerless in altering anything that God may do or allow and, in an attempt to change the inevitable, is in no position to contend with the one who is mightier (either the Most High or death). (6:11; for another possible meaning, see the Notes section.)

The more words spoken, the greater would be the vanity or futility of it. In case the one who is mightier denotes the Almighty, man simply must submit to whatever may occur by divine action or permission. There would be no advantage, gain, or benefit for a man to say anything. Man’s position in any contention with God is expressed by Job (9:3, 4, NRSV), “If one wished to contend with him, one could not answer him once in a thousand. He is wise in heart, and mighty in strength — who has resisted him, and succeeded?” (6:11)

If the reference is to death, this likewise would emphasize man’s powerlessness, and the futility of uttering a single word. No skillful argumentation, no word of protest, would change anything. Death would claim its victim. (6:11)

Evidently since there is no way for one to know or to alter what will take place in the future by God’s allowance, Koheleth raised the question, “For who knows what [is] good for man in life, [during] the number of the days of his vain life?” The uncertainties of life make it impossible for one to be certain about what would be “good,” or the best thing, for one to pursue in life. Humans cannot be sure that certain objectives can be achieved and, even if they can, that satisfaction will result. What may initially appear desirable may, in the end, turn out to be disappointing. Just how many days a person may have during “his vain life” is also unknown. So, time spent on failed endeavors can never be regained and redirected for a beneficial purpose. Even notable accomplishments are not lasting. All the wearying, exhausting, and painful labor that is expended will eventually come to nothing. The shortness of life, coupled with the transitoriness of all accomplishments, makes it “vain,” empty, futile, or meaningless. (6:12)

The brevity of man’s life is further stressed by the words, “he spends them like a shadow.” A shadow is ever changing and then finally disappears. Likewise, the days of life are soon spent and come to a swift end. (6:12)

No one can tell a man “what will be after him under the sun” (on earth in the realm of human affairs). The words “after him” could denote after the man’s death. He could not then be informed about what was happening to the products of his toil that may have passed into the hands of children, grandchildren, and others. It is also possible that “after him” simply denotes “after him in time,” without reference to his death. In that case, Koheleth’s question could serve to emphasize the impossibility of determining “what is good for man.” Since the future is unpredictable, no one knows which ventures will be successful and which ones will fail. (6:12)

Notes:

The Hebrew word rúach and its Greek equivalent pneúma can mean either “wind” or “spirit.” Instead of “striving after wind” or a similar expression (in verse 9), a number of translations read “vexation of spirit” (KJV, Young). In its rendering of the Septuagint, a new English translation (NETS) uses the expression “preference of spirit,” whereas The Orthodox Study Bible says “choice of one’s spirit.” A German translation of the Septuagint (Septuaginta Deutsch), however, reads “a striving after wind” (ein Streben nach Wind). The Greek term rendered “preference,” “choice,” or “striving” is proaíresis and can also signify “commitment.” Persons who have committed themselves to, chosen, or preferred something that is mere wind could be spoken of as striving after wind.

In verse 11, the plural of the Hebrew term davár can mean “words,” “matters,” “affairs,” or “things.” A number of translators have chosen the meaning “things.” “Since there are many things that increase vanity, How is man the better?” (NKJV) “Seeing there are things in abundance which make vanity abound, what profit hath man?” (Rotherham) “For there are many things multiplying vanity; what advantage [is] to man?” (Young)

If “things” is the intended meaning, the words of Koheleth could relate to the reality that human life is filled with many uncertainties. Nothing is enduring. Everything is subject to change. A person may gain fame and fortune, or he may be disgraced and lose everything. Unforeseen occurrences can increase the “vanity,” emptiness, or purposelessness of life by reducing what is built up to nothingness. So there would be no advantage, profit, or gain from anything that individuals may have or acquire. Sooner or later, they must part with everything.

Ecclesiastes 7:1-29

A good “name” or reputation is better than good “oil [shémen]. Olive oil was commonly used, and the Septuagint rendering for shémen is élaion, meaning “olive oil.” Frequently mixed with a fragrant substance, olive oil was applied to the body. This oil served to protect the exposed skin from the sun’s rays, preventing excessive drying and cracking. Koheleth appears to have used a deliberate play on words — name (shem) and oil (shémen). As a descriptive expression for the oil, “good” may refer to its fragrant property. Koheleth’s words then could be understood to mean that a good name or fine reputation would be more delightful and satisfying than the pleasing aroma and soothing property of perfumed oil. (7:1)

Anciently, fragrant substances were also very costly. If the emphasis of the qualifier “good” has particular reference to this aspect, Koheleth’s proverbial statement may signify that a good reputation is of greater value than precious perfumed oil. The use of oil, however, was not limited to practical purposes. Whenever the fragrance proved to be the main objective for using the oil, ostentation could well have been involved. So it could be that Koheleth intended to call attention to the superiority of what has substance — a good reputation. This would be far better than something used merely for the empty display of self — good oil. (7:1)

Koheleth also spoke of the “day of death” as being better than the “day of birth.” At the time of birth, the individual has no name, no reputation. Each day of life provides one with the opportunity to make a good name. A single grave indiscretion can quickly ruin the fine reputation that may have been acquired over the course of many years. Not until the day of one’s death is the identifying name or reputation fixed. Thus, from the standpoint of possessing a good name that is sealed or finalized as such, the “day of death” is indeed better than the “day of birth.” (7:1)

Continuing in the same vein, Koheleth noted that it was better to go to the “house of mourning” than to the “house of feasting.” The “house of mourning” is one where the household has been bereaved of a family member. According to Ecclesiasticus 22:12 (REB), “mourning for the dead lasts seven days.” A person’s going to the “house of mourning” would be to express sympathy and comfort to the bereaved. (7:2)

One’s presence in such a house would serve as a telling reminder that death is an inevitability with which all the living must reckon. The visible evidence of the death forcefully reveals that life is indeed short and that all of one’s plans and work can quickly come to an abrupt termination. Death, which transforms a home into a house of mourning, is the “end” for every man, for every earthling or mortal. This should be taken to “heart,” prompting sober reflection about how the days of one’s life are being spent. (7:2)

Such serious thinking is not encouraged by the atmosphere prevailing in a “house of feasting.” Such a house is a place of reckless abandon, where the main objective is to gratify the senses with food and drink. Especially when the senses are dulled from drinking wine or other alcoholic beverages, no thought is given to the sorrows of others nor to the need for making better use of one’s short life. Regarded from the standpoint of the resulting benefit, one’s going to the “house of mourning” is far better than one’s going to the “house of feasting.” (7:2)

Further stressing the superior value of a serious view of life, Koheleth observed, “Sorrow [is] better than laughter, for by the sadness of the faces the heart is made good.” The word ká‘as, commonly translated “sorrow” in this passage, means “anger,” “vexation,” or “irritation,” and this is also conveyed by the corresponding Greek term (thymós, “anger,” “fury,” “wrath,” or “rage”) appearing in the Septuagint. Accordingly, the reference may be to the intense disturbing feeling aroused by a heightened awareness of the brevity and uncertainty of life. This internal upheaval is better than the frivolous laughter associated with a “house of feasting.” Such laughter, which is often the product of alcohol’s dulling effect, does not reflect genuine happiness and produces nothing beneficial. (7:3)

The deep, intense emotions associated with the “house of mourning” cause the countenances of all present to take on a serious, “sad” (ra‘, “bad,” “disagreeable,” or “cross”) appearance. This contrasts sharply with the “house of feasting,” where laughter or hilarity prevails. The strong emotion that is visible in the serious face can make the heart, the deep inner self, better. This is so because the painful awareness of life’s uncertainties and brevity can motivate the individual to make wiser use of available time and assets. (7:3)

Since a person’s being in the “house of mourning” can prove to be very beneficial, Koheleth added, “The heart of the wise [is] in the house of mourning, and the heart of fools [is] in the house of joy.” The wise are those who use sound judgment when dealing with the problems and common affairs of life. They have the good sense to avoid actions that appear pleasurable but, in the end, would jeopardize their welfare. Fools are persons having a serious moral defect, recklessly disregarding what is proper in speech and conduct. They choose immediate sensual gratification without giving any thought to the possible and probable injurious effects of their acts on themselves and others. (7:4)

Because of their sober view of life, the “heart of the wise” (their deep inner self) is always in tune with the spirit prevailing in the “house of mourning.” Fools, however, live shallow, empty lives that mirror the reckless abandon of a place of merriment. Their heart (their deep inner self) is right at home in the wild atmosphere of a “house of joy,” mirth, or hilarity. (7:4)

With the focus on the benefit or the value, Koheleth added, “It is better [for a man] to hear the rebuke of the wise than for a man to hear the song of fools.” A “rebuke,” censure, or strong expression of disapproval from a wise person (the possessor of sound judgment) is designed to turn one away from the wrong course. While it is not pleasant to be reprimanded, the one who “hears,” pays attention to, or heeds the rebuke, making the needed changes, escapes the hurtful consequences to which failure to turn away from bad would lead. (7:5)

The “song of fools” (those with a serious moral defect) does not promote the pursuit of what is right. Their song often makes light of serious matters, ridiculing what is good and proper. It may even romanticize the sensual and degrading. Instead of providing valuable correction as does the rebuke of the wise, the “song of fools” flatters the listeners, hides their faults from view, and confirms them in their wayward course. (7:5)

Concerning the emptiness of a fool’s laughter, Koheleth said, “For as the crackling of thorns under a pot, so [is] the laughter of the fool. This also [is] vanity.” There is evidently a play on words, as the Hebrew term for “thorn” and “pot” is the same (sir). The Tanakh endeavors to preserve this play on words by rendering the Hebrew text, “the crackling of nettles under a kettle.” (7:6)

Dry thorns can be quickly set ablaze. They crackle or snap noisily as they burn but are soon consumed, and so the bright flames disappear. The fire does not last long enough to have any noticeable effect on the contents of the pot. Similarly, the laughter of the fool may be noisy and draw attention, but it accomplishes nothing. While problems may be pushed aside for a moment, they are not removed by an outburst of meaningless hilarity. Especially at an inappropriate time, the fool’s laughter is annoying. Possibly the aspect of a disagreeable sound is also included in the reference to the “crackling of thorns.” Because nothing of value results from the laughter of fools, it is indeed “vanity,” emptiness, purposelessness, or meaninglessness. (7:6)

Koheleth next directed attention to the damaging effects of “oppression” and a “gift,” saying, “For oppression makes a wise man crazy, and a gift destroys the heart.” Since the Hebrew term ki (often rendered “for”) does not link the words that follow with those preceding, it is probably to be regarded as an intensifying expression, denoting “surely,” “indeed,” or “certainly.” (7:7)

The reference to “oppression” may be either to its impact on the wise man or to the effect on him for making himself guilty of such. Both the Hebrew term ‘ósheq and the corresponding Greek word in the Septuagint (sykophantía) can also mean “extortion” or “blackmail.” Since extortion is a form of oppression, the significance is basically the same. If the meaning is “extortion,” the wise man would be the victim and not the perpetrator. This identification of the wise man as the victim may also be the meaning in the event “oppression” is the preferable rendering. Viewing the wise man as the one subjected to oppression would parallel Koheleth’s next words better. It is the “heart” of the one accepting the “gift” that is ruined. The “heart” of the “giver” is already corrupt. (7:7)

“To make crazy” is one meaning of the Hebrew word halál. The term frequently denotes “to praise” or “to be boastful.” While the meanings appear very dissimilar, there is a connection. Boasting is regarded as foolish. This linkage is illustrated in the following words of the apostle Paul, “Let no one take me for a fool, but if you do, then treat me as a fool, so that I, too, can do a little boasting.” (2 Corinthians 11:16, NJB). The Septuagint renders halál as periphéro, usually meaning “to carry around” or to “carry about” but here having the sense of being “carried away,” “brought to a state of unreasoning emotion,” or “made crazy.” (7:7)

Even a wise man (the possessor of sound judgment), when continually oppressed, may come to a breaking point and speak or act in a rash manner. He may resort to lawless means in an effort to get relief from his difficult situation. Unable to keep intensifying emotions in check, he may lash out against others for minor failings, taking out his frustrations on persons who are not to blame for his distress. (7:7)

Regardless of how wise a man may be, he behaves as one without sense upon becoming an oppressor. It is a grave injustice to subject fellow humans to oppression, violating the innate sense of what is decent, considerate, and fair. The oppressor disregards the feelings of others and ignores their suffering. He views himself as a benefactor and as being fully justified in crushing anyone who dares to question his acts or procedures. (7:7)

The “gift” is evidently a “bribe,” and this is the rendering of many translations (NAB, NIV, NRSV, REB). By accepting a bribe, the individual puts himself under obligation to deal unjustly. Thus the bribe destroys or corrupts the “heart.” Because the Hebrew expression for “heart” (lev) may also signify the “mind,” a number of translations read “understanding” (ASV) or “mind” (HCSB, REB). While it is true that there is a deliberate blunting of the faculty of reason, the corruption is really of the whole person. So, it appears preferable to regard the “heart” as signifying the deep inner self. For the sake of material gain, the perverter of justice dismisses all fellow feeling for the one who is injured. The power or authority that should be used to uphold what is right is directed to the wrong purpose, the bribe having been accepted and allowed to wreak havoc on the inmost self. The Septuagint does not include any reference to a “gift,” and manuscripts vary in identifying which aspect of the “heart” (or the person in his inmost self) is destroyed or ruined by oppression, either its “steadfastness” or “courage” (eutonía) or its “nobility” (eugéneia). (7:7)

Koheleth’s mention of oppression and bribery may have a bearing on the particular sense in which the proverbial sayings that follow are to be understood. While these sayings convey basic truths, they provide helpful guidance when dealing with difficult circumstances.

How something appears at the start may prove to be quite different in the end. Koheleth said, “Better [is] the end of a matter than its beginning. Better [is being] patient of spirit than haughty of spirit.” The Hebrew expression davár (“thing,” “affair,” “matter”) also means “word,” and “word” is the basic sense of the Septuagint rendering lógos, which, in certain contexts, can also mean “thing” or “matter.” In the Vulgate, the corresponding term is orationis (“speech”). One modern translation conveying the same thought is The New American Bible, which reads, “Better is the end of speech than its beginning.” (7:8)

In view of the apparent connection with the superiority of a “patient spirit,” however, it appears preferable to understand davár to mean “matter,” “thing,” or “affair.” The reference then could be to any matter that would call for the display of a patient spirit. While patience would also be needed in letting the person who is speaking have his full say or in one’s avoiding being hasty with words, rendering davár as “speech” or “word” seems to be too limiting when linked with the statement that a patient spirit is better than a haughty spirit. (7:8)

The beginning of a particular situation may be very gloomy or distressing, giving little hope of any improvement. A notable historical example is what developed in the life of Joseph. He was sold to traveling merchants by his jealous half brothers and came to be a slave in Egypt. Later, the wife of his Egyptian master falsely accused him of having made immoral advances toward her, resulting in his being unjustly imprisoned. The distressing situation proved to be the very circumstance that led to Joseph’s attaining the second highest position in Egypt.

This illustrates that one simply cannot know just how certain events may unfold. A person’s failure to submit patiently to a difficult situation, resorting to improper means to liberate himself, may lead to serious loss. Even if the attempt to get relief is successful, the result may be worse than if the individual had patiently waited until proper means for bettering his situation had been used.

The Hebrew expression for “patient of spirit” literally means “long of spirit” (’érek rúach). It is the kind of “spirit,” attitude, disposition, or activating principle that is characterized by a willingness to refrain from hasty words or actions when submitted to trying situations. This being “long of spirit” is the opposite of having a “short temper.” (7:8)

Being “haughty” in “spirit” denotes an attitude, disposition, or activating principle distinguished by an elevated or exalted view of self. In Hebrew, “proud” (gaváh) does, in fact, signify “high.” The haughty person has no tolerance for dealing with distressing circumstances. Lacking self-restraint, he is easily provoked and, therefore, unwilling to wait for the appropriate time and the proper means to take corrective measures. His rash words and actions often make difficult situations worse for him and others. (7:8)

Further encouraging self-restraint, Koheleth said, “Do not be hasty in your spirit to be irritated, for irritation rests in the bosom of fools.” The “spirit,” the motivating or activating principle, should not be one that quickly and without restraint impels to irritation, provocation, or anger. Recognizing the value and need for self-control, the wise person does not allow himself to be easily disturbed. The fool, the person with a serious moral defect, however, nurses ill will. “Provocation,” irritation, or anger occupies a place in his bosom or at his breast. There it is nurtured and, as it intensifies, gives rise to hurtful words and reckless, destructive acts. (7:9)

Especially when facing hard times, one may be inclined to think of the past as having been much better. Regarding this, Koheleth observed, “Do not say, ‘Why were the former days better than these?’” Asking such a question would not have its basis in wisdom. For one to look nostalgically to the past as having been much better than the present does not change anything nor help in dealing with problems. Persons who dwell on “former days” may also make the present more difficult for themselves. While some things may have been better in earlier times, this cannot be said about every aspect of life. The passage of time causes the harsh realities of the past to be muted, making the more pleasant features seem to be better than they actually were. Life in a sinful world has never been ideal but has always been accompanied by problems and troubles. It is, therefore, unrealistic for one to look back longingly to “former days” while brooding about the difficulties of the present. Wisdom, or sound judgment, is not the source of such reflection that contributes to one’s being upset and impatient. An irritable, discontented disposition is not the distinguishing attribute of a wise person. (7:10)

Wisdom (sound judgment in the practical matters of life) greatly enhances the value of an inheritance. Koheleth noted, “Wisdom [is] good with an inheritance, and an advantage for those who see the sun.” Without the good sense to manage property and other assets wisely, a person may soon squander an inheritance. When, however, the heir is also the possessor of wisdom, the inherited resources usually increase in value through good management. Thus, wisdom is a real benefit or advantage “for those who see the sun.” It is the living who see the sun, benefiting from its light and warmth. (7:11)

Expanding on the excelling value of wisdom, Koheleth continued, “Wisdom [is] a shadow [tsel]; silver is a shadow, and the advantage of knowledge [is]: Wisdom preserves the life of its possessors.” The Hebrew word tsel, commonly rendered “shelter,” literally means “shadow,” as does the Greek word skiá found in the Septuagint. A shadow provides welcome shelter or protection from the sun’s rays during the hot days of summer. Likewise, both wisdom and money serve as a protective “shadow” or shelter. Wisdom (the ability to deal successfully with life’s problems and to handle daily affairs with sound judgment) protects one from engaging in reckless and thoughtless actions that could endanger one’s welfare. Money or “silver,” the common medium of exchange in Koheleth’s time, enables one to obtain life’s necessities. It shields one from experiencing the pain of hunger and the discomfort resulting from a lack of proper clothing and adequate shelter. (7:12)

Although serving as a protection, “silver” or money can be lost or stolen. Wealth can lead to a person’s becoming the victim of robbery, extortion, or violence. The protective value of “silver” or money is relative. “Knowledge” (essential factual information), coupled with the good sense to use it aright, has superior protective value. Because wisdom (sound judgment) gives the proper direction for the application of knowledge, it preserves the life of its possessors. Wise persons do not take foolhardy risks but give careful forethought to the consequences of their words and actions. Wisdom, therefore, shields them from the possibility of a premature death on account of reckless behavior and thus serves to preserve life. (7:12)

Koheleth earlier pointed to the superiority of a patient spirit. This may have prompted him again to mention the thought that much in the realm of human affairs cannot be changed (1:15), implying that it is foolish to become irritated and angry about such things. Koheleth said, “Consider the work of God. For who can straighten what he has made crooked?” The Hebrew word for “consider” (ra’áh) basically means “see” and, in this case, appears to have the sense of “look at” or “reflect upon.” God’s work, the object to be considered, is anything outside the realm of human control that the Almighty may do or permit. Regardless of how crooked, defective, or imperfect it may be, it remains such by divine permission. Any attempt to straighten what God allows to be crooked will not succeed. The course of wisdom is for one to submit humbly and patiently to whatever may take place that is beyond human ability to change through proper means. (7:13)

Since there is no way for one to know in advance exactly what will happen on a particular day, Koheleth recommended, “On a good day be in good[ness] and on a bad day see: This along with that God has made so that man cannot find out anything after him.” A good day is one when things go well. On such a day, one should be “in good.” This may mean that the individual should accept the day appreciatively, reflecting in his own actions and words what is good, kind, generous, or noble. The Septuagint reads, “live in goodness,” which may be understood similarly. There is, however, the possibility that “to be in good” or “to live in goodness” signifies to enjoy the good or goodness, and this is the thought expressed in the renderings of many modern translations. (7:14)

A “bad” or “evil” day is one of adversity. On a day of adversity, one does well to “see” or “recognize” that God has “made” or allowed both the “good” and the “bad.” This kind of “seeing” is reflected in Job’s words: “The good we have been receiving from God, and shall we not receive the bad?” (Job 2:10) Because the Hebrew word for “see” (ra’áh) may also mean “consider,” this is the term used in numerous translations. It appears, however, that the thought expressed by Koheleth is one to be recognized or acknowledged on a bad day rather than one that is to be considered. (7:14)

Because a day can bring either joys or troubles into one’s life, no man can tell what “will be after him.” The future simply cannot be predicted with accuracy. In view of life’s uncertainties, no one can be sure whether prosperity or adversity lie ahead. (7:14)

A person’s living uprightly does not guarantee that his days will be free from troubles. Nor does it necessarily follow that the wrongdoer’s sins will immediately catch up with him. Koheleth observed, “All [things] I have seen in the days of my vanity: A righteous man is perishing in his righteousness, and a wicked man is lengthening [his days] in his wickedness.” (7:15)

Because the situations are from the opposite sides of the spectrum, Koheleth could speak of having seen it “all” in the days of his “vanity.” The days of life pass quickly, are filled with many uncertainties, and do not allow for the doing of anything that will endure. Accordingly, Koheleth refers to them as days of “vanity,” emptiness, meaninglessness, or futility. (7:15)

The Hebrew adjective tsaddíq (righteous) and the noun tsédeq (righteousness) are descriptive of rectitude or uprightness in conduct. A righteous person does what is right, just, or fair. Because such a one is not immune to disease, adversity, or violence, he may perish in his righteousness. Instead of living a long, happy life, his days may be filled with hardship and end prematurely because of serious illness, accident, war, or assault. (7:15)

In Hebrew, the adjective rashá‘ (wicked) and the noun ra‘ (wickedness) express the opposite of what is good, just, right, or upright. Wicked persons disregard the rights of others and conduct themselves in ways contrary to accepted standards of what is proper, fair, and decent. Yet, there are times, as Koheleth noted, when wicked ones, despite persisting with their evil practices, prosper and live a long time. (7:15) Job made a similar observation, “Why do the wicked live on, reach old age, and grow mighty in power? Their children are established in their presence, and their offspring before their eyes. Their houses are safe from fear, and no rod of God is upon them. Their bull breeds without fail; their cow calves and never miscarries. They send out their little ones like a flock, and their children dance around. They sing to the tambourine and lyre, and rejoice to the sound of the pipe. They spend their days in prosperity, and in peace they go down to Sheol.” (Job 21:7-13, NRSV)

Since life is filled with uncertainties and there is no way for anyone to avoid all problems, it would be truly unwise to make one’s days more difficult. Koheleth cautioned against being given to extremes. Concerning righteousness and wisdom, he said, “Do not be overly righteous, and do not be excessively wise. Why should you destroy yourself?” (7:16)

One who is overly righteous or righteous to an excess insists on the letter of the law, failing to take into consideration human limitations and the need for compassion and understanding. Such a person is quick to make a major issue about minor matters, insisting on strict adherence to certain procedures, rules, or practices even when doing so would prevent one from being helpful and kind to those in genuine need. (7:16)

The Pharisees of the first century CE are an example of persons who were righteous to an excess. When Jesus Christ restored sight to the blind, soundness of limb to the crippled, and health to ailing ones on the Sabbath, they became enraged, condemning him as a sinner deserving of death for violating the Sabbath. (Mark 3:1-6; Luke 13:10-17; 14:1-6; John 5:2-18; 9:6-34) They completely lost sight of the fact that the Sabbath was to serve as a day of rest and refreshment from six days of laboring. Therefore, they could not appreciate that the Sabbath was an appropriate day for bringing relief to the afflicted, freeing them from having to bear their heavy burden. The Pharisees’ view of what was righteous prevented them from wanting to see good come to those in need and finding joy in witnessing marvelous healings.

One’s being overly righteous may also manifest itself in practicing extreme self-denial. The individual who is righteous to an excess may view even wholesome pleasures as wrong and condemn those who do not follow an ascetic way of life. (7:16)

One who is overly wise has an exaggerated view of his abilities and knowledge. Regardless of the situation, he presents himself as knowing more than anybody else and possessing superior insight. Such being wise to an excess breeds arrogance, contempt for others, and an overly critical attitude. Considering himself as surpassing others in discernment, the individual is prone to offer unsolicited solutions to problems and may even try to run other people’s lives. (7:16)

According to Koheleth, those who are either overly righteous or wise to an excess put themselves in a dangerous position. They can “destroy” themselves. The overly righteous person could bring ruin to himself by engaging in rash or fanatical actions or speaking out when silence and patient restraint are essential for avoiding bitter and violent quarreling. One who is overly wise alienates others by his attitude, words, and actions. His interjecting himself into matters and situations that are really not his concern may get him into serious difficulties. He may come to be regarded and treated severely as a meddler and one responsible for causing trouble by giving wrong advice. (7:16)

The Hebrew word for “destroy oneself” or “ruin oneself” (shamém) may also mean “driven to astonishment,” “be astounded.” This is the significance of the Greek term ekplésso (“amaze,” “astound,” “overwhelm”) found in the Septuagint and the Latin expression obstupesco (“to become senseless,” “astounded,” “amazed”) appearing in the Vulgate. It is also the meaning of the Hebrew conveyed in the Tanakh, which reads, “you may be dumfounded.” The thought may then be that, contrary to expectations, one could be amazed, astounded, or dumfounded by the negative results from overdoing righteousness or acting too wise. (7:16)

Focusing on extremes that are the opposite of righteousness and wisdom, Koheleth continued, “Do not be overly wicked, nor be a fool. Why should you die before your time?” Koheleth was not saying that a measure of wickedness is acceptable. He simply acknowledged the reality that all humans are from youth inclined to do what is bad, for they are born sinners. (Genesis 8:21) Therefore, Koheleth cautioned against being wicked or bad to an excess, failing to bridle wrong inclinations. The individual who allows his passions and sensual desires to control his actions overdoes wickedness. His is a life of sin, devoid of all restraint and principle. It is characterized by an abuse of freedom and a disregard for the rights of others. (7:17)

Lacking proper motivation, a fool does not use good judgment. His is a moral defect. He disregards law and correction, thoughtlessly and recklessly pursuing whatever appears pleasurable without considering the possible and probable damaging consequences. Because the fool takes needless risks, living at the very edge of danger, he puts his life in jeopardy. It is not uncommon for the fool to die prematurely. By living a promiscuous life, he may contract an incurable disease. He may dissipate his health and strength by indulging in destructive habits. Because of failing to exercise due caution, he may die in an accident. Involvement in a life of crime and violence could lead him to an early grave. (7:17)

Calling attention to what is needed to avoid the results from a life of extremes, Koheleth continued, “Good that you should grasp this and from that do not let your hand rest, for he who fears God shall come forth with all of them.” It appears that the reference is to taking hold of the precepts Koheleth had just enunciated. The good, right, and sensible course is to heed the admonition to avoid being overly righteous and excessively wise, “grasping” or “taking hold” of this guiding principle. At the same time, one should not release one’s hold on the precept about not being too wicked and acting like a fool. There should be no rest or relaxation of the hand, indicative of concerted effort to follow this guiding rule of conduct. (7:18)

While endeavoring not to be overly righteous and excessively wise, a person must be on guard against succumbing to the other extreme — a life of wickedness and folly. A proper fear, awe, or reverence of God will prevent one from becoming a victim of the hurtful consequences of a life characterized by excesses in either righteousness and wisdom or wickedness and folly. (7:18)

One who fears God will “come forth with all of them.” “All” evidently is to be understood in relation to the two precepts, indicating that there would be success on both counts. The Hebrew word yatsá’ means “come out” or “come forth” and is rendered “will do his duty” in the Tanakh (evidently on the basis of post-Biblical Hebrew) and has also been translated according to its apparent significance, “will succeed” (REB). Another possibility is that “come out” could signify “escape,” which is the sense conveyed in Luther’s German translation (1984 edition) and the German revised Elberfelder Bibel (entgeht dem allen). This would mean that the one fearing God escapes the problems resulting from being overly righteous and excessively wise or too wicked and foolish. The God-fearing individual avoids all extremes. (7:18)

The fearer of God lives an upright life, uses sound judgment, avoids weakly giving in to wrong desires, and shuns the thoughtless and reckless actions of the fool. Because he is not overly exacting and does not have an inflated opinion of his knowledge and abilities, he is able to enjoy wholesome pleasures and recognizes when kindness and helpfulness take precedence over rules and procedures. Accordingly, the God-fearing person succeeds with reference to both precepts or does his duty regarding them. It can also be said that he escapes the hurtful consequences from ignoring these guiding principles. (7:18)

Continuing to stress the superiority of wisdom, Koheleth said, “Wisdom makes the wise one stronger than ten rulers who are in the city.” The possessor of wisdom, sound judgment, or the ability to use knowledge to solve life’s perplexing problems is not in the weak or helpless condition of persons who are unable to find a way out of difficult situations. Wisdom imparts strength to the wise. (7:19)

The term “ten” may simply be a round number. These “ten” men could be viewed as a complete number of rulers responsible for the security of the city. Because of what the possessor of wisdom or sound judgment can accomplish, his power or strength is greater than that of “ten” men having positions of authority in a city. (7:19)

Although the view has been expressed that the men are chiefs or leaders of military forces, the Hebrew adjective shallít does not have this meaning elsewhere in the book of Ecclesiastes (8:8; 10:5). So it appears preferable to understand shallít to signify governing authority. This sigificance has the support of the Septuagint, which uses the expression exousiázo (“to exercise authority”). (7:19)

Perhaps because of having earlier given admonition about not being righteous to an excess, Koheleth introduced the following basic truth, “For there is not a righteous man on the earth who does good and does not sin.” The thought apparently is that no man is so upright as to do good consistently without sinning, without missing the mark of moral rectitude. Accordingly, it would be unreasonable to insist on the letter of the law, demanding flawless conformity to rules and regulations. (7:20)

Another possibility is that Koheleth’s words may be linked to the thought about the strength imparted by wisdom. Since not even one man exists who does not sin, all humans need dependable guidance in order to act wisely. This would imply that God is the ultimate source of wisdom — a point specifically made elsewhere in the Scriptures. (7:20) “With [God] are wisdom and might.” (Job 12:13) “YHWH gives wisdom.” (Prov. 2:6)

Because all humans are sinners, both their words and deeds are flawed. Not everything that is spoken should be taken seriously. Koheleth admonished, “Do not give your heart to all the words [people] speak, lest you hear your servant speaking slightingly of you.” (7:21)

The “heart” often denotes the deep inner self. When attention is given to what others say, this can affect the “heart” or the inmost self of the individual doing so. A person should avoid giving serious attention to everything that others might say. Undue concern or curiosity about their words could result in hearing unfavorable remarks from persons who might be regarded as least likely to make such. Even when comments are highly commendatory, the person giving extraordinary attention to such can be negatively affected. The individual may come to have an exaggerated view of self. (7:21)

In Israelite society, a servant or slave might have been a fellow countryman who sold himself or had been sold into temporary slavery to pay off debts or to make compensation for wrongs. There were also non-Israelite slaves, often captives of war, who had been purchased and, unlike Hebrew slaves, did not gain liberty in the seventh year of servitude. A servant or slave was expected to show respect for his owner or master. (Malachi 1:6) Therefore, a servant’s reviling his master would not have been a common occurrence. Nevertheless, because of unusually heavy demands put upon him, even a trusted servant might be brought to the point of cursing or speaking ill, slightingly, or contemptuously of his master. The owner might come to overhear such remarks or they could be reported to him. By referring to a situation that was out of the ordinary, Koheleth stressed his point about not taking every comment seriously and permitting it to have a disturbing effect. (7:21)

Calling attention to the need for being reasonable in one’s view of what others might say, Koheleth added, “For also your own heart knows that many times you, even you, have spoken slightingly of others.” Within the deep inner self, the individual “knows” or is fully aware of what he has said. In an upset state, he often may have uttered harsh, rash words, without malicious intent. Since he would not want such slighting words or reviling to be taken seriously, he should treat the expressions of others similarly, not giving them undue attention and becoming upset. (7:22)

The extant Septuagint text contains an expanded reading, indicating that a slave might often do injury to his owner and bring hurt to the owner’s heart, or make himself responsible for emotional pain. This is followed by the reminder that the owner also had cursed others. (7:22)

The conclusions that Koheleth reached were the product of diligent investigation and sober reflection. He said, “All this I proved by wisdom.” The Hebrew word nasáh denotes “prove” or “test,” and translations vary in the use of either meaning. Apparently Koheleth was guided by wisdom or good judgment when “testing,” “proving,” or evaluating his careful observations. He made sure that the conclusions he drew were reliable. (7:23)

Koheleth sincerely endeavored to be wise or have real insight or sound judgment. He expressed this resolve with determination, “I will be wise.” In the ultimate sense, however, wisdom eluded him. He acknowledged, “and it was far from me.” (7:23)

Koheleth recognized that much he simply could not grasp or understand. Developing this aspect, he continued, “Far off [is] that which is, and deep, deep. Who can find it?” “That which is” or “whatever is” apparently designates what exists on account of God’s doing or allowance. Concerning the reason for “whatever is,” how it fits into an overall purpose, or what effect it might have in future developments, Koheleth recognized that it “is far off” — incomprehensible, out of reach. Stressing the inability to fathom “that which is,” Koheleth repeated the Hebrew term for “deep.” This intensifying by repetition indicates that the matter is exceedingly deep. The implied answer to Koheleth’s question is that no human “can find it out,” as “whatever is” or exists is too distant and too deep. (7:24)

Again focusing attention on human affairs, Koheleth said (according to a literal rendering of the Hebrew), “I turned — I and my heart — to know and to investigate and to seek wisdom and reckoning [cheshbóhn] and to know the wickedness of stupidity, and the foolishness of madness.” (7:25)

“Turning” apparently means “directing attention to.” In relation to the “turning,” the words “I and my heart” may be understood in basically two ways. (1) Both Koheleth and his “heart,” his inmost self (or his mind), did the “turning,” the “focusing upon,” or the “directing of attention to.” This would indicate that he gave the matters of his reflection more than surface attention; his inmost self was involved. (2) Koheleth did the “turning,” and his heart desired “to know and to investigate.” Whereas he did the focusing, his heart (his inmost self, or his mind) impelled him. (7:25)

Understanding the term “heart” to designate the “mind” in this case, many translators have chosen the rendering “mind.” Since, however, giving attention to a matter (which Koheleth had already mentioned) is a function of the mind, the preferable meaning for “heart” may be the “inmost self.” Besides using the word “mind,” a number of versions do not translate the conjunction “and” in the phrase, “I turned — I and my heart” but read, “I turned my mind” (NIV, NRSV). This has the support of Hebrew manuscripts that say, “with my heart,” which reading appears to reflect a scribal alteration. To link the expression “I turned” to the words “with my heart” would also require a structural change in the Hebrew text. (7:25)

Although realizing that many things were beyond his ability to fathom, Koheleth had not given up his ardent desire “to know” or to understand all that he possibly could. He also continued “to investigate,” “examine,” or “explore” activities and events in the realm of human affairs. Koheleth’s “seeking” was for “wisdom” and “reckoning.” The word “reckoning” translates the Hebrew term cheshbóhn, which has also been defined as “account,” “result,” and “understanding.” In the Vulgate, the word is rendered ratio, which can signify “reason,” “motive,” “ground,” “principle,” “reckoning,” “account,” “procedure,” “method,” “system,” or “computation.” The Greek term in the Septuagint, pséphos, means “pebble.” Since pebbles were used when counting, reckoning, or calculating, the apparent meaning is “reckoning.” Preserving the thought of “reckoning” or “calculating,” the New Revised Standard Version reads, “to seek wisdom and the sum of things.” It appears that Koheleth wanted to know how the things he observed “added up,” or what they signified. This required careful examination and evaluation on his part, with resulting insight or understanding. (7:25)

Translators vary in the way they render the Hebrew “and to know the wickedness of stupidity and the folly of madness.” (1) In the Tanakh, “wickedness, stupidity, madness, and folly” are simply listed as aspects of Koheleth’s study. (2) The words have also been translated “wickedness of folly” and “the foolishness of madness.” (Green) This would mean that “stupidity” or “folly” (moral senselessness) is “wicked” (contrary to God’s standard of uprightness) and that “madness” (irrationality, opposition to sound reason) is “folly” (a lack of sound judgment in the practical matters of life, coupled with a moral defect). Accordingly, the person with a moral defect (the “fool”) is wicked or corrupt, and the one who acts foolishly is mad or irrational, failing to use his reasoning faculties aright. (3) The Revised English Bible makes a distinction between the “to know” used with reference to wisdom and the “to know” linked to “wickedness” and “foolishness.” This translation reads,“I went on to reflect how I could know, inquire, and search for wisdom and for the reason in things, only to discover that it is folly to be wicked and madness to act like a fool.” (7:25)

It appears that the second rendering (“wickedness of stupidity” and “foolishness of madness”) is preferable, as no addition to or deletion (as in the case of the first rendering) of any Hebrew terms is required when translating, the “of” being understood in this Hebrew construction. The third rendering requires a measure of interpretation that is not readily discernible from the Hebrew text. (7:25)

According to Rahlfs’ edition of the Septuagint, the concluding words are, “to know the senselessness of the impious one and hardness [sklerían] and madness.” Fourth-century Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, however, do not read sklerían, but ochlerían, meaning “tumult,” “agitation,” or “rioting.” In its departure from the extant Hebrew text, the Septuagint focuses on the corrupt behavior of the ungodly man — his senselessness, his hardness or mercilessness (or, according to fourth-century manuscripts, the trouble he causes), and his madness or stubborn disregard for what is right. (7:25)

After a careful and thorough examination of human affairs, Koheleth was moved to single out an immoral woman as the gravest danger for a man. He noted, “And I found more bitter than death the woman who is snares and her heart dragnets, her hands fetters.” These words are not a reference to womankind but to the particular kind of woman described, an immoral woman or prostitute. (7:26)

It is a “bitter” or painful experience to be reduced to lifelessness and to have all of one’s labor come to nothing. Death is indeed something bitter. While death does not destroy a good name, involvement with a prostitute does. Besides contracting a loathsome disease, a married man may infect his wife. His relationship with a prostitute can also lead to the financial ruin of his family. Since the consequences from involvement with her are more serious than those from death, such a woman is “more bitter than death.” (7:26)

Since a prostitute endeavors to allure, entice, or catch men in various ways, she is likened to “snares” (matsóhdh, designating a net or snare used by a hunter). The “heart,” the deep inner self of the prostitute, is compared to “dragnets” (chérem). A prostitute’s words, thoughts, and bearing are the expressions of her “heart” or her deep inner self and are designed to entangle as do “nets” or “dragnets.” Her hands, used in caressing and embracing, are like “fetters” (’esúr), “bonds” or “chains” (desmós, LXX) with which captives are bound. (7:26)

Regarding one who escapes and one who is ensnared, Koheleth continued, “One good before the face of God shall escape from her, but the sinner will be captured by her.” The man who is good or pleasing to God by reason of his upright conduct does not allow himself to be enticed by an immoral woman. A sinner (one whose life consistently misses the mark of moral rectitude) does not bridle his passion and, therefore, is captured by the prostitute. He yields to her allurements. (7:26)

Koheleth was very diligent and thorough when observing and studying human affairs. Commenting on this aspect, he said, “See, this I have found, says Koheleth, one by one to find the sum.” The words “this I have found” appear to refer to the conclusion to which Koheleth came after having completed his investigation. When, however, saying “one by one,” he evidently meant that he carefully examined one thing after another, looking at each individually and endeavoring to determine what bearing it had in relation to the other and, finally, on the collective whole. Based on this careful, detailed investigation, Koheleth purposed to arrive at the “sum” — a conclusion regarding what he had studiously considered. In view of his previous comments about a seductive woman, he was possibly referring to all the unfavorable aspects that he had examined in detail — “one by one.” (7:27)

Perhaps concerning his unsuccessful seeking for the ideal in womankind, Koheleth said, “that my soul still seeks, and I have not found — one man among a thousand I have found, and a woman among all of these I have not found.” In referring to “my soul,” Koheleth apparently meant his entire being. His search was a continuous one, not one of short duration and limited interest and attention. He put his all (his whole being or soul) into his continual seeking or searching. (7:28)

During the course of his seeking and searching, Koheleth found that the ideal man was rare — one in a thousand. Based on his experience with many wives, concubines, and other women, however, he did not find even one woman, one who was deserving of the name. (7:28)

Koheleth’s observation appears to indicate that many women had sunk to a very low standard as respects attitude, speech, and conduct. Foreign influence, luxurious living, and the adoption of idolatrous worship, which included ceremonial prostitution, may have contributed to the ruin of women at that time. (1 Kings 11:3-8) Exemplary women had become so rare that not even one could be found among a thousand. The following description from later periods in the writings of Isaiah and Amos may give some indication of what Koheleth observed about the women in his day. “The daughters of Zion are haughty and walk with outstretched necks, glancing wantonly with their eyes, mincing along as they go, tinkling with their feet.” (Isaiah 3:16, NRSV) “Hear this word, you cows of Bashan who are on Mount Samaria, who oppress the poor, who crush the needy, who say to their husbands, ‘Bring something to drink!’” (Amos 4:1, NRSV)

Although corruption abounded among men and women, Koheleth recognized that God was not to blame for this. He noted, “See, this alone I have found, that God made man upright, and they: they have sought out many devices.” Apparently regarding the conclusion that he had drawn, Koheleth said, “I have found.” These words appear to refer to the same conclusion as those of verse 27 (“I have found”), which introduced the section about a corrupt woman. (7:29)

The first man was created without any moral defect but deliberately chose to disregard God’s command. Since then, humans in general have disregarded the voice of conscience (the God-given sense of right and wrong) and whatever has been available to them of the revealed word of God. Instead of seeking to adhere to the divine standards of conduct, they have sought out their own “devices.” The Hebrew word for “device” (chishshavóhn) also denotes “plan” or “invention.” In the Septuagint, the corresponding Greek term is logismós, meaning “calculation,” “reasoning,” “thought,” or “reflection.” Being the product of sinful humans, the devices, plans, or thoughts have led to ever-increasing deviation from the divine standard. (7:29)

Ecclesiastes 8:1-17

Highlighting the positive aspect of wisdom, Koheleth raised the questions, “Who [is] like the wise man? And who knows the interpretation of a matter?” The implied answer to the first question is that, with the exception of another sage, there is no one like him. Among those not distinguished for wisdom, he is without compare. According to the reading of the Septuagint, the initial question is, “Who knows [or understands] the wise?” Only those who are truly wise can be said to know or understand the wise, as they are able to identify with them and with their reasoning. (8:1)

In the Septuagint, the second question is basically the same as in the Hebrew text. “And who knows the interpretation [lýsis] of a saying [rhéma]?” The Greek word lýsis means “loosing” or “untying,” and it is the term used for “divorce.” In this context, it can mean either “interpretation” or “solution.” Although the basic sense of rhéma is “saying,” this Greek word, like the Hebrew davár can also mean “matter,” “thing,” or “affair.” Only a wise man “knows the interpretation of a matter.” Because a sage truly “knows” or understands a matter or what might be expressed, he can explain things or present a sound solution for a problem. (8:1)

In this verse, translators of the Hebrew text have rendered davár as “thing” (NRSV), “things” (NAB, NIV, NJB), and “anything” (REB). Translators of the Septuagint commonly have not chosen this meaning but render the Greek rhéma as “word” (Septuaginta Deutsch), “what is said” (NETS), and “saying” (Brenton). An exception is The Orthodox Study Bible, which reads “thing.” (8:1)

In its rendering of the Hebrew text, the Tanakh conveys the sense of saying but specifically identifies the saying as an adage that is then quoted. “Who is like the wise man, and who knows the meaning of the adage: ‘A man’s wisdom lights up his face, so that his deep discontent is dissembled’?” (8:1)

The reference to “lighting up” the face or making it “shine” could refer to the good effect that the possession of wisdom has on a person’s countenance. Wisdom causes the face to reflect courage, contentment, and calmness. It gives no indication of insecurity, bewilderment, confusion, or undue apprehension. Unlike the downcast, gloomy countenance of one in a frightened, disoriented, or troubled state, the appearance of the wise man’s face is bright, indicative of inner joy, security, and clarity of vision and direction. (8:1)

Koheleth’s next observation has been variously understood. The Hebrew text can be literally rendered, “And the hardness [‘oz, ‘strength’ or ‘might’] of his face is changed.” In connection with wisdom, these words have been paraphrased to indicate a positive change or transformation of the face. “Wisdom makes you cheerful and gives you a smile.” (CEV) “Wisdom lights up the face, enlivening a grim expression.” (NJB) “Wisdom brightens a man’s face and changes its hard appearance.” (NIV) “A man’s wisdom illumines him and causes his stern face to beam.” (NASB) “Wisdom lights up a person’s face, softening its hardness.” (NLT) “Wisdom brings happiness; it makes sad faces happy.” (NCV) According to these renderings, wisdom changes the “face” or countenance that looks serious, stern, or even forbidding, transforming it into an appealing countenance or causing the “hardness” of the face to disappear. (8:1)

The Hebrew term ‘oz, translated “hardness,” usually denotes “strength,” and is rendered anaidés in the Septuagint, meaning “shameless,” “hard,” “impudent,” or “bad.” Anciently, written Hebrew gave no indication for vowel sounds, and the twenty-first letter of the alphabet was not distinguished by the use of a diacritical mark to show whether the pronunciation should be “s” or “sh.” The Hebrew term for “change” is shanáh, and the Aramaic word for “change” (shaná’) is written in the same way as the Hebrew term sané’, denoting “hate.” The Septuagint renders the Hebrew word as “hate,” and certain modern translations that have adopted this meaning also convey the same meaning as the Septuagint, which reads, “And an impudent [man] — his face will be hated.” “An impudent look is resented.” (NAB) “An impudent countenance will be hated.” (Ein freches Angesicht wird gehasst. [Luther, 1984 edition]) “He who is impudent shall be hated.” (Lamsa, translated from the Syriac) (8:1)

The Hebrew consonants for “change” or “hate” are followed by three letters. These three letters mean “I” (’ani), but there is no verb. (8:2) Translators who preserve the meaning “I” understand it to refer to Koheleth and, either at the beginning of verse 2 or later in the verse, variously read, “I say” (ESV, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLB), “I said” (Rotherham), “I pray thee” (Young), or “I do!” (Tanakh)

Koheleth admonished, “Take heed of the king’s mouth.” This would signify that one should act on the words that proceed from the ruler’s mouth, obeying his commands. Possibly pointing to the reason for doing so, Koheleth continued, “and because of the word of the oath of God.” (8:2) A number of translations make this meaning explicit. “Obey the king’s command, I say, because you took an oath before God.” (NIV) “I say, ‘Obey the words of the king because of the promise you made to God.’” (NLB) “Obey the king because you have vowed before God to do this.” (NLT)

The reference may be to the oath expressed before God by representative members of the nation to remain loyal to the monarch. This was done at the start of the king’s reign. (2 Samuel 5:3; 1 Chronicles 11:3; 29:24) The oath itself would have been regarded as obligating every member of the nation to be faithful to the sovereign. Another possibility is that the “oath of God” refers to God’s oath-bound promise to David that kingship would remain in his line of descent. (2 Samuel 7:12-16; Psalm 89:20-36 [21-37]) This would indicate that any plots to overthrow the Davidic dynasty would have been contrary to God’s purpose. (8:2)

Continuing to focus on the subject’s relationship to the ruler, Koheleth said, “Do not be hasty [bahál] to leave his presence.” This could denote that a person should avoid being quick to change loyalties, joining a rebel cause. Koheleth added, “Do not take a stand in an evil thing.” The “evil” or “bad” thing could be a plot against the monarch, or anything the king regarded as bad. (8:3) A number of translations make this significance explicit and link it to the oath mentioned in the previous verse. “In view of your oath to God, be not hasty to withdraw from the king; do not join in with a base plot.” (NAB) “If you promised God that you would be loyal to the king, I advise you to keep that promise. Don’t quickly oppose the king.” (CEV)

Besides meaning “to haste,” the Hebrew term bahál may be defined “to be terrified” or “to be confounded.” Adopting the meaning “terrified” gives Koheleth’s words a very different significance. “Do not be terrified; go from his presence, do not delay when the matter is unpleasant.” (NRSV) According to this rendering, the advice would be not to fear making a judicious retreat from the king’s presence in the face of an “evil thing,” an “unpleasant” or a “dangerous” matter or situation. Since, however, the Septuagint and the Vulgate convey the sense of haste, there is a basis for not viewing this as the preferable understanding of the verse. (8:3)

Another possible meaning of Koheleth’s admonition is based on linking “haste” with the oath of God. A literal reading of the Hebrew would be, “And because of the word of the oath of God, do not be hasty. Leave his presence. Do not stand in a bad thing.” (8:3) George Lamsa’s translation (verses 2 and 3) of the Syriac conveys this meaning. “Keep the king’s command, and in regard of the oath of God be not hasty. Go from his presence; and do not stand firm in an evil matter.” The renderings of a number of other translations are similar. “I do! ‘Obey the king’s orders — and don’t rush into uttering an oath by God.’ Leave his presence; do not tarry in a dangerous situation.” (Tanakh) “Do as the king commands you, and if you have to swear by God, do not rush into it.” (REB)

Taking Koheleth’s counsel about the “oath” as a directive to avoid haste in uttering such, however, seems to interrupt the flow of the development and also requires understanding the noun “word” (davár) to express an action (“uttering” an oath or “swearing” an oath). The Hebrew text can be understood without having to introduce the taking of an oath in a way that does not appear to relate to Koheleth’s subject, and this would appear to be preferable. The admonition could simply mean that one should avoid haste in the matter of the oath — one already taken. This would signify that a person should not be rash or hasty in violating the solemn promise to be faithful to the monarch or in giving the ruler cause to suspect disloyalty. (8:3)

The concluding words of verse 3 are, “For all he pleases he does.” This stresses the inadvisability of opposing or displeasing the king. By virtue of his great authority, the monarch could do whatever he pleased in acting against a subordinate who incurred his displeasure. So, instead of “standing” or persisting in a thing that the ruler viewed as bad, the individual would leave the king’s presence, not foolishly trying to convince him about the rightness of the position being taken. “Don’t quickly oppose the king or argue when he has already made up his mind.” (CEV) The person doing so would only bring trouble upon himself. If, however, the hastiness is associated with not leaving the king’s presence, it would be a matter of avoiding what he regards as bad, not giving up a position or changing loyalties in the face of unfavorable developments. “Do not stand up for a bad cause, for he will do whatever he pleases.” (NIV) “Do not be obstinate in a bad cause, since the king will do what he likes in any case.” (NJB [This translation, however, refers to not being in a hurry to depart from the “divine promise” or God’s oath.]) Since the king could do as he pleased, it would have been wiser to accept even an unwarranted correction or punishment instead of resisting defiantly or rebelling. (8:3)

The authority of the royal office was such that what the king said had to be obeyed. His word was law. For this reason, the monarch could do whatever he pleased. As Koheleth continued, “For his word is dominant, and who can say to him, ‘What are you doing?’” (8:4)

“Dominant” is a rendering of the Hebrew shiltóhn and denotes “that which has power” or is authoritative. Since the king’s word was authoritative, no one could successfully challenge him, questioning his actions. For one to have defied the monarch’s word would have led to severe punishment. (8:4)

Koheleth observed regarding a loyal subject, “Whoever heeds the command will not know an evil thing.” The “evil” or “bad” thing would be the penalty imposed for disobeying the royal directive. An obedient citizen would not come to “know” or “experience” the monarch’s displeasure and the accompanying punishment. (8:5)

Apparently with reference to dealing with an unjust king, Koheleth noted, “A wise heart knows both time and judgment.” “Wise” signifies having “sound judgment.” The “heart” (either the mind or the individual’s deep inner self) “knows” or recognizes when and how to act in a given situation. The Hebrew term for time (‘eth) denotes a proper, fit, or appropriate time. A wise person is quick to recognize the opportune time and then takes appropriate action. Since that time may be brief, any needless delay in doing something positive could result in missing the right opportunity. Besides recognizing the right time, the “wise heart” knows judgment. The Hebrew term for “judgment” (mishpát) often signifies “justice” or a “legal decision.” In this case, however, it appears to denote a way, method, or procedure for doing something. Accordingly, the person having a “wise heart” also “knows” or has the needed insight about what should be done under the existing circumstances. He thus avoids bringing needless trouble upon himself and others on account of speaking or acting at the inappropriate time and in the wrong manner. (8:5)

The need for being able to discern the suitable time and the correct method is further emphasized by Koheleth’s words, “For every affair there is a time and judgment.” In the earthly realm, with its innumerable cyclical events, all things have their time (though it may be very short) and some kind of decision may have to be rendered respecting them. So, there is an appropriate time for the affair itself and an opportune time for taking some action with reference to it. Additionally, there is a right or suitable way of dealing with the “affair,” “matter,” “business,” or “enterprise.” (8:6)

Possibly to caution against failing to recognize that every affair has its “time and judgment,” Koheleth added, “for the evil [knowledge, LXX] of man [is] great upon him.” The “bad” or “evil” could refer to the distressing or troublesome things that man experiences throughout his life or, more specifically, oppression from an unjust ruler. Since all members of the human family ― all earthlings or mortals ― already have their share of problems and difficulties, they would be unwise to add to their daily burden by acting rashly, disregarding that an appropriate time and a right way of dealing exist for every affair. “A man’s misery weighs heavily upon him.” (NIV) “Life is hard.” (CEV) The thought may be similar to that expressed by Jesus Christ when counseling against worrying, “Sufficient for a day is its own evil.” (Matthew 6:34, NAB). The Septuagint rendering could be understood to mean that what a man comes to know or experience is a heavy burden for him. (8:6)

Since “evil of man” could denote man’s own badness or wickedness, this has given rise to the conclusion that the reference is to an oppressive king. The words “great upon him” have been taken to indicate that his day of reckoning is at hand for cumulative “great” badness. It is more likely, however, that “evil of man” signifies either the bad resulting to those subjected to oppressive rulership or the troubles common to mortals. (8:6)

Some translations link “evil” with Koheleth’s next words about man’s inability to know what will happen in the future — “what will be.” “But misfortune lies heavy upon anyone who does not know what the outcome will be, no one is going to say how things will turn out.” (NJB) “Yet it is a great affliction for man that he is ignorant of what is to come; for who will make known to him how it will be?” (NAB) While it is true that man does not know just what might take place in the future, this in itself is not an evil. A wise man’s not knowing the future would not preclude his recognizing an opportune time and taking suitable action, and so it appears preferable not to limit the significance of “evil” to man’s ignorance about what may lie ahead of him. (8:6, 7)

Instead of being something “bad,” man’s not knowing “what will be” can actually serve as a safeguard against being rash or hasty. Koheleth earlier spoke about the monarch’s absolute authority and the inadvisability of being disobedient. Because of not knowing what lies ahead, the individual needs to evaluate whether the time is right for appropriate action and not rush into a course without any thought about possible or probable adverse consequences. Besides not knowing “what will be,” the individual cannot rely on someone else to tell him “when” or “how it shall be.” Koheleth’s question about who can tell him “when” or “how it shall be” and its implied answer ― no other mortal ― may serve to show the inadvisability of allowing others to persuade one to act at the wrong time and in the wrong manner. (8:7)

Having discussed the authoritativeness of the king’s word and the inadvisability of defying it, Koheleth proceeded to focus on the opposite, on what cannot be controlled by any human. “Man is not in control [shallít] over the spirit to restrain the spirit.” The Hebrew term shallít here signifies “to have control or authority over.” Mere earthlings have no control “over the spirit.” The Hebrew word translated “spirit” (rúach) can refer either to the “wind (NJB, NRSV) or to the “life principle” (“breath of life” [NAB, REB]; “lifebreath” [Tanakh]). In view of what follows about the day of death, it appears preferable to regard the reference to be to the “spirit” or the “life principle.” No earthling can “restrain” or prevent the “breath of life” from leaving the body. What happens to the life principle is not within the sphere of human authority or control. (8:8)

Koheleth next observed that man has no authority in the day of death. When it comes to the end of life, humans cannot do anything. There simply is no way for death to be held at bay. (8:8)

If linked with death, the words “no discharge from war” relate to the continual war that death wages against the living. No clever scheming or manipulation can save anyone from becoming a casualty in that war, as Koheleth added, “nor will wickedness deliver its owners.” The “owners” or possessors of wickedness are persons whose lives are characterized by doing what is unjust and hurtful. In effect, the practice of wickedness is their occupation. They are experts in cleverly maneuvering to evade punishment and to gain their unworthy ends. Even they, however, are unable to devise a scheme that would allow them to escape becoming a victim in the war that death wages. Their wickedness will not deliver them from the day of death. (8:8)

Some prefer to emend the Hebrew text, favoring the reading “riches” or “wealth” instead of “wickedness.” The rendering of The Revised English Bible is, “No wealth will save its possessor.” The reading “wealth” is based on an assumption that a scribal error is involved. In Hebrew, the word “wickedness” consists of three consonants — resh (r), shin (sh) and ayin (‘). When the ayin and the resh are transposed, the consonants are those for the term “riches.” Understanding the reference to be to “riches” would fit the context and also would harmonize with the thought expressed elsewhere in the Scriptures. (Psalm 49:6-9) There is, however, no basis in the Septuagint, the Syriac, or the Vulgate for departing from the rendering “wickedness.” Since Koheleth’s words are understandable without an emendation, there is insufficient reason for adopting the reading “riches.” (8:8)

Koheleth’s words in verse 8 have also been viewed as different illustrations of what man is unable to control. (1) He has no authority over the wind, directing it to blow only where wanted or causing it to intensify, lessen in force, or stop completely. (2) No mortal can avoid the day of death. (3) A man cannot get a discharge from war when, for example, the battle is in progress. According to this understanding of the verse, the three illustrations are linked with the thought expressed previously. Just as man does not know what will take place in the future, he is likewise powerless with reference to the “wind,” the “day of death,” and the “war.” While the language would allow for this explanation, it does not fit in well with the concluding words about the deliverance that cannot be effected by wickedness. Accordingly, it appears better to take everything that is said in verse 8 as relating to death.

When Koheleth said, “all this I have seen,” he apparently included his observations about the absolute power of a king in the realm of human affairs, the inadvisability of disobeying the monarch’s word, and the recognition of the right time and the proper method. What Koheleth saw was not something that merely caught his momentary attention. His observation involved careful and deliberate examination, for he continued, “I gave my heart to every work that is done under the sun.” This may be understood to mean that he really put his mind to investigating all human activities taking place in the earthly realm beneath the sun or that his total being, his inner self, was involved in this careful examination of what mortals do. (8:9)

Koheleth referred to the “time (in) which man controls man to his evil.” This appears to signify that Koheleth made his observation during the time in which one earthling or mortal dominated another mortal, with resulting evil or hurt to the one subjected to tyranny. The words “to his evil” could refer to the tyrant, and this is the meaning conveyed by The New Jerusalem Bible (“while one person tyrannises over another to the former’s detriment”). Although the oppressive ruler may reap hurtful consequences for his unjust actions, this is not always the case. The ones who are dominated, on the other hand, do suffer. So, it appears preferable to regard the “evil” as applying to the earthling who is oppressed. A number of modern translations make this explicit (“while men still had authority over men to treat them unjustly” [Tanakh]; “while one person exercises authority over another to the other’s hurt” [NRSV]; “at a time when one person had power over another and could make him suffer” [REB]). (8:9)

Possibly to indicate that the end comes for those whose rule results in suffering for others, Koheleth said that he “saw” or observed that the “wicked” (those whose conduct is characterized by an utter disregard for what is just and right) were buried. Despite their notorious deeds, they were accorded the dignity of interment. (8:10)

It may be with reference to the time such wicked ones were living that Koheleth continued, “and they came into and went out from the holy place.” The “holy place” likely designates the temple in the city of Jerusalem, where the wicked carried out their formalistic worship. (8:10) God’s displeasure with such worship is expressed in Isaiah 1:11-13 (NJB). “‘What are your endless sacrifices to me?’ says Yahweh. ‘I am sick of burnt offerings of rams and the fat of calves. I take no pleasure in the blood of bulls and lambs and goats. When you come and present yourselves before me, who has asked you to trample through my courts? Bring no more futile cereal offerings, the smoke from them fills me with disgust. New Moons, Sabbaths, assemblies ― I cannot endure solemnity combined with guilt.’”

Perhaps regarding oppressive rulers, Koheleth noted that they “were forgotten in the city where they had thus done.” Once buried, such wicked ones would not remain long in the memory of the living. Because they would be forgotten as if they had never existed, their brief life would prove to have been vain, empty, meaningless, or purposeless. This may be the point of Koheleth’s concluding words, “this also [is] vanity.” (8:10) A number of translations have made such meaning explicit in their renderings. “Then I saw the sinful buried, who used to go in and out of the holy place. They are soon forgotten in the city where they did this. This also is for nothing.” (NLB) “So then, I have seen the wicked buried, those who used to go in and out from the holy place, and they are soon forgotten in the city where they did thus. This too is futility.” (NASB) Another possible significance is that people soon forgot how the wicked had conducted themselves. “And again, I have observed the wicked carried to their graves, and people leaving the holy place and, once out in the city, forgetting how the wicked used to behave; how futile this is too!” (NJB)

Other translations convey very different meanings. This is because the Hebrew text is somewhat obscure and the readings of Hebrew manuscripts and ancient versions differ. Some translators have chosen to emend the text or to follow the readings of ancient versions that also have the support of a few Hebrew manuscripts.

The Hebrew term ken, usually meaning “so” or “thus,” may also denote “rightly,” “justly,” or “aptly.” This has given rise to renderings that contrast what happens to those who do what is right with what is experienced by the wicked in being given an honorable burial. “I saw the wicked buried with honor, but God’s people had to leave the holy city and were forgotten.” (CEV) “And then I saw scoundrels coming from the Holy Site and being brought to burial, while such as had acted righteously were forgotten in the city.” (Tanakh) A departure from the meaning “thus” or “so” for ken is not confirmed by the Septuagint reading, hoútos (“thus”). (8:10)

While supporting the rendering “acted righteously,” the Vulgate applies the expression to the wicked (“as though they had acted righteously”). Since there is no clear indication in the Hebrew text and in the ancient versions that the reference is to two groups (the wicked and the righteous), it appears preferable to view the entire verse as applying to the wicked. Also, the available evidence does not seem to warrant departing from the usual meaning of ken (“thus”). (8:10)

Both the Septuagint and the Vulgate are in agreement in reading “praised” (as also do some Hebrew manuscripts) instead of “forgotten.” In their renderings, numerous modern translations use “receive praise” or “were praised.” “Then too, I saw the wicked buried — those who used to come and go from the holy place and receive praise in the city where they did this.” (NIV) “Then I saw the wicked buried; they used to go in and out of the holy place, and were praised in the city where they had done such things.” (NRSV) “I also saw sinful people being buried. They used to come and go from the place of worship. And others praised them in the city where they worshiped. That doesn’t have any meaning either.” (NIRV) While corrupt persons may be praised or honored, this would not customarily be the case, and so the Vulgate rendering seems to convey a more appropriate meaning (“praised … as though they had acted righteously”). This wording is not corroborated by the Septuagint and would require emending the Hebrew text. Especially since the Hebrew can be understood without resorting to an emendation, it appears preferable not to follow the reading of the Vulgate. (8:10)

Commenting on the bad result from a failure immediately to bring wrongdoers to justice, Koheleth said, “Because sentence is not executed swiftly against an evil deed, therefore the heart of the sons of man is filled in them to do evil.” In the case of lawbreakers, justice may be slow in coming, if at all. As a result, humans or earthlings (“sons of man”) may begin to reason that it is easy to escape punishment for wrongdoing. The heart, either the mind or the inmost self, becomes filled with the desire to do what is bad, the objective being to profit from corrupt actions without incurring any penalties. (8:11)

Whereas Koheleth observed that wrongdoers may repeatedly evade punishment for their crimes, he stressed the superiority of leading an upright life, saying, “Although a sinner does evil a hundred times and [life] continues long for him, yet I know that it will be good for those who fear God, because they fear before his face.” The sinner is one who habitually misses the mark with reference to upright conduct. In attitude, words, and actions, he has no regard for what is right and just. He conducts his affairs of life in a way that ignores any accountability to God. Koheleth’s reference to the sinner’s doing evil “a hundred times” is to be understood as meaning “often” or “many times.” Despite his repeated offenses, he remains free from deserved punishment, enjoying a long life. (8:12)

While the sinner may have appeared to be prospering, Koheleth “knew” or “recognized” that it would turn out well for “those who fear God.” Their fear would be a wholesome, reverential awe for the Almighty, motivating them to do what is pleasing him. Because of manifesting such a wholesome fear, the reverential person would experience what is good. Unlike the sinner who risks punishment for his wrongdoing and therefore lives with a measure of apprehension, fearers of God are not troubled by such disquietude. From the standpoint of an inner sense of security by reason of possessing a clear conscience, the end result for godly individuals would be good. (8:12)

Contrasting the situation of those fearing God with that of the wicked, Koheleth continued, “And it will not be good for the wicked [person], and he will not lengthen his days like a shadow, because he does not fear before God’s face.” Even though the wicked one may appear to get by with his evil deeds, he is always in danger of being brought to justice. Therefore, he can never feel secure. With an ever-present sense of uneasiness, the wicked one does not enjoy the good that is the possession of persons having an untroubled conscience. His wrongdoing is not a means for extending his “days” or lengthening his life. (8:13)

The expression “like a shadow” may be understood in three different ways. (1) The wicked one will not increase the number of the days of his life, days which are like a shadow, brief and fleeting. (2) He cannot extend his days like a shadow that gets longer toward evening. (3) Like a shadow which soon disappears, the wicked one will not live long. The basic thought, however, is the same — a sinful course does not result in attaining a longer life. This is because, as Koheleth added, because the wicked one does not “fear before God’s face.” The corrupt individual has no reverence for the Most High but acts as though God does not exist, disregarding the innate sense of right and whatever knowledge he may have of divine requirements as to conduct. Without any fear of God, the individual pursues a corrupt way of life that jeopardizes his welfare. (8:13)

Outward appearances do not always reveal whether a person is corrupt or upright. Koheleth called attention to this aspect as a “vanity that takes place on earth.” There are upright individuals who experience life as if they had conducted themselves like the wicked, and wicked persons who fare well as if they had lived like the upright. Being a vanity that occurs on earth, it is an injustice for which flawed humans are responsible. Governmental and judicial corruption can lead to undeserved punishment being inflicted on the righteous, whereas wicked ones may continue to succeed in their schemes by means of bribery and flattery. Such wicked ones may even attain positions of prominence, while upright persons may be treated disrespectfully because, unlike the wicked, they do not use dishonorable means to advance themselves. The wicked thus are given the honor that is the just due of the righteous. (8:14)

Koheleth identified this inequitable situation as an example of vanity (“I said that this also [is] vanity”). This development made no sense, served no beneficial purpose, resulted in nothing that lasted and, therefore, was empty, meaningless, purposeless, or futile. (8:14)

As Koheleth noted, the manner in which a person is treated does not always depend on whether the individual’s conduct is upright or corrupt. This could cause one to brood about injustices and become frustrated and bitter. Koheleth, though, recommended that one should derive wholesome enjoyment from life, saying, “And I commended rejoicing, for man has no good under the sun except to eat and drink and enjoy himself, for this will go with him in his labor through the days of life that God has given him under the sun.” (8:15)

To Koheleth, “rejoicing,” enjoyment, gladness, or cheer was something deserving of commendation or praise. It was right for humans, earthlings, or mortals to experience gladness. In the realm of earthly affairs beneath the sun, humans experience or witness many uncertainties and injustices during their brief life. Hence, there is nothing better for them than to find pleasure in eating and drinking and to rejoice or to enjoy themselves to the extent possible. As Koheleth observed, eating, drinking, and rejoicing accompany the labor or wearying and exhausting toil that fills the days of one’s life. Since life comes from God, Koheleth could speak of the “days of life” on earth beneath the sun as having been given by God. (8:15)

Much of what happens in the realm of human affairs by God’s allowance is perplexing or incomprehensible and even troubling. Focusing on this point, Koheleth said, “When I applied my heart to know wisdom and to see the task that is performed on earth — for even by day and by night [a man] does not see sleep in his eyes.” (8:16)

In speaking of the “heart,” Koheleth may have meant his mind or his deep inner self. He gave the objective of coming to “know” wisdom (sound judgment or insight), or having it as a personal possession, his full attention. His whole being was involved. It was not a superficial effort. He likewise applied or directed his “heart” in seeing or observing the “task,” business, or occupation that is peformed on earth” (in the realm of human affairs). This reveals that Koheleth was very diligent, sparing no effort in his careful investigation of what occupies the time and attention of mortals. (8:16)

The statement about “sleep” could mean that humans are so completely occupied by laboring that there is no time for real rest. “I tried to understand all that happens on earth. I saw how busy people are, working day and night and hardly ever sleeping.” (NCV) “I applied my mind to acquire wisdom and to observe the tasks undertaken on earth, when mortal eyes are never closed in sleep day or night.” (REB) In view of the context, a more likely meaning is that the point about not sleeping relates to the man who seeks to find out or comprehend the “work of God.” Such a man’s endeavor appears to be depicted as all-consuming, occupying him day and night and not permitting him any repose. He would not “see” or experience sleep in the eyes — the organs that are covered by the eyelids during the customary periods of rest. (8:16)

A number of translations are explict in linking the thought about not sleeping to the effort to find out the “work of God.” “When I applied my heart to know wisdom and to observe what is done on earth, I recognized that man is unable to find out all God’s work that is done under the sun, even though neither by day nor by night do his eyes find rest in sleep.” (NAB) “But even if a man does not allow himself sleep, he will never be able to comprehend what God does on this earth.” (Aber selbst wenn sich der Mensch Tag und Nacht keinen Schlaf gönnt, wird er nie alles nachvollziehen können, was Gott auf dieser Erde tut. [German, Neues Leben]) “What God does and lets happen in the world no man can fully grasp even if day and night he does not allow himself sleep.” (Was Gott tut und auf der Welt geschehen lässt, kann der Mensch nicht vollständig begreifen, selbst wenn er sich Tag und Nacht keinen Schlaf gönnt. (German, Hoffnung für alle) “Then I recognized that, even if he does not allow sleep to his eyes by day and night, man cannot again discover the activity of God in all its fullness.” (da sah ich ein, dass der Mensch, selbst wenn er seinen Augen bei Tag und Nacht keinen Schlaf gönnt, das Tun Gottes in seiner Ganzheit nicht wieder finden kann. [German, Einheitsübersetzung]) Other translations convey a similar thought, but alter the text to represent Koheleth as the one who did not permit himself to sleep. “Day and night I went without sleep, trying to understand what goes on in this world.” (CEV)

Respecting the work of God, Koheleth commented, “And I saw all the work of God, that man is unable to find out the work that is done under the sun.” The “work of God” relates to what takes place in the earthly realm where humans conduct their affairs of life. This is evident from the reference to “the work that is done under the sun” — on the earth which is dependent upon the sun for light and warmth. “All” does not embrace every aspect of God’s activity, but is limited to everything that Koheleth was able to see or observe among humans. Since the Almighty can exercise absolute control over every matter, anything that takes place by his allowance or toleration is included in his work. (8:17)

After his consideration of the “work of God” (all that takes place in the earthly sphere among humans by reason of God’s will, permission, or toleration), Koheleth concluded that no man, no earthling or mortal, is able to fathom or understand it. No human could devise or discover some system, formula, or set plan or procedure that might explain just what is to be expected in every situation. There simply is no way for one to predict accurately in every case what would take place and what bearing this would have on other developments. (8:17)

Regardless of the effort expended, the thoroughness of the investigation, and the astuteness of the researcher, the work of God will remain an unsolvable secret. Koheleth concluded, “However much man labors in searching, he will not find [out the work of God]. And even though the wise man says he knows, he cannot find [it out].” Extensive, exhausting searching will be to no avail. Even if one known for wisdom or extraordinary insight in solving perplexing problems of life were to say that he “knew” the work of God, apparently in the sense of coming close to a solution respecting it, he would not be able to comprehend it. Understanding God’s work, explaining it in terms of a specific formula or system, is beyond all humans, even the wisest. (8:17)

Ecclesiastes 9:1-18

Linking what he said previously with the word ki (“for”), Koheleth said, “For all this I gave to my heart, and to explain [bur] all this, that the righteous and the wise and their works [are] in God’s hand.” The words “for all this” probably relate to what Koheleth noted about man’s inability to comprehend the work of God. His giving this to his “heart” could mean that he really thought about it, making the matter the subject of his mind’s serious reflection. Or the giving to his heart could signify his truly having absorbed in his “heart,” or his inner self, the point about God’s work. In either case, that to which Koheleth had given or applied his “heart” (his mind or himself in his inmost self) became his own. (9:1)

There is a measure of uncertainty about the significance of the Hebrew word bur. The phrase that contains bur reads differently in the Septuagint (“and my heart saw [recognized or understood] all this”). The rendering of the Vulgate is, “All these things I considered in my heart, that I might carefully understand [them].” Modern translations vary in their renderings (“and I understood” [REB]; “and concluded” [NIV]; “examining it all” [NRSV]; “I ascertained all this” [Tanakh]; “and recognized” [NAB]; “and experienced all this” [NJB]). Lexicographers have defined bur as meaning either “explain” or “examine.” If bur means “explain,” this could indicate that, even though God’s work proved to be incomprehensible, Koheleth could explain the truth that he had come to recognize, “The righteous and the wise and their works are in God’s hand.” From the standpoint of “examining,” the words could be understood to mean that Koheleth carefully investigated everything on which he focused his attention and then reached the conclusion about everything being under the control of God. (9:1)

The righteous are those whose conduct is upright. Their desire is to conform to the divine standard of what is good. Hence, they strive to preserve a clean conscience before God and fellow humans. Righteousness is not merely a refraining from doing what is wrong. It is also manifested by doing positive good, coming to the aid of those having genuine needs. (9:1; Psalm 15:2-5; Proverbs 24:11, 12; Ezekiel 18:15-17)

Wise persons are known for their sound judgment in the practical matters of life. They do not take needless risks. Unlike those who are foolhardy, the wise have a serious view of life, avoid rash words and actions, and think carefully about what they do and say so as not to injure others or bring trouble upon themselves. (9:1)

As to their persons and their activities, the righteous and the wise are in God’s hand, subject to his control or his allowance and toleration. What he may permit to befall them may not always be favorable. Neither their righteousness nor their wisdom can guarantee good results to themselves or from their works. Whatever they experience is dependent on God’s will or permission. So, their being in God’s hand along with their works indicates that they are fully dependent on him for everything. (9:1)

Koheleth’s next words are difficult to restrict to one specific meaning, as the context is not sufficiently precise. According to a literal reading of the Hebrew, he continued, “Even love, even hate, man does not know all [that is] before them [literally, ‘their faces’].” (9:1)

The Hebrew term for “before” may signify either what is past or what is yet ahead. Since death brings an end to all feelings and emotions that were previously expressed, earthlings do not know all the love and the hate that were manifest before they were born. “Be it love, be it hate, man understands nothing thereof. All of both lies before their time.” (Sei es Liebe, sei es Hass, nichts davon erkennt der Mensch. Alles beides liegt vor ihrer Zeit. [German, Elberfelder Bibel]) Likewise, whether they will experience love or hatred in the future is unknown to them. “Man does not know whether it will be love or hatred; anything awaits him. (NASB) “People don’t know whether [to expect] love or hate. Everything lies ahead of them.” (HCSB) “No one knows if they will experience love or hate.” (NCV) Because Koheleth’s focus has been on man’s inability to fathom God’s work as it relates to the future, it appears preferable to view “before” as meaning yet ahead. (9:1)

As used in the Scriptures, the term “hate” does not always denote malice or intense hostility toward or a loathing of a person. At times, the word “hate” simply means to be loved to a lesser degree. (Genesis 29:31, 33; Deuteronomy 21:15, 16) Humans have no prior knowledge of the extent to which they may or may not be loved. (9:1)

In themselves, outward appearances do not reveal whether the individual is the object of God’s love or displeasure. A number of translations interpretively identify God as expressing either love or hate. “No one knows whether or not God will show them favor in this life.” (NLT) “But a man doesn’t know whether God will show favor to him.” (NIRV) It may be noted, however, that God’s law given through Moses revealed what attitudes, words, and actions either merited divine hatred or were divinely approved. Likely, then, the reference is not to God’s love or hate for the individual. What is unknown is whether the person will be the object of the love or hate of fellow humans. (9:1)

Among imperfect humans, love or hatred may be expressed without sound reasons or justification. These opposite emotions may be displayed in an arbitrary manner. Love may be shown for those who are most undeserving of it, whereas hatred may be expressed toward those who should be treated with compassion. Koheleth’s words, therefore, could mean that earthlings do not “know,” “understand,” or “comprehend” love or hate, the motivations and reasons for these emotions being incomprehensible. Just as the work of God cannot be fathomed, love and hate defy understanding. The New Jerusalem Bible reads, “We do not understand either love or hate.” (9:1)

There is a possibility that the words “love and hate” are not to be connected with the term “before,” eliminating any question as to whether the reference is to past or future time. In Hebrew, the consonants kaph (K) and beth (B) are very similar and have, at times, been confused by copyists. Hence, the opening expression of verse 2, “the all” (HKL) could be read as “vanity” (HBL), and this is the word found in the Septuagint. The Hebrew could be understood as follows: “Even love, even hate, man knows not. All before their faces [them] — vanity.” This is the meaning conveyed in many modern translations. “Whether it is love or hate one does not know. Everything that confronts them is vanity.” (NRSV) “But whether they will earn love or hatred they have no way of knowing. Everything that confronts them, everything is futile.” (9:1, REB)

Still other translations interpret the words as applying to those who express love or hate and not to those who are the objects of love or hate. “Yes, man does not even understand why he loves or hates. Everything has already been determined beforehand.” (Ja, der Mensch versteht nicht einmal, warum er liebt oder hasst. Alles ist schon vorher festgelegt. [German, Hoffnung für alle]) “I have thought everything over and have come to the understanding that also the wise and the upright are dependent on God in everything they do. They do not even know why they love or hate.” (Ich habe über alles nachgedacht und bin zu der Einsicht gekommen, dass auch die Klugen und Rechtschaffenen in allem, was sie tun, von Gott abhängig sind. Nicht einmal, warum sie lieben oder hassen, wissen sie. [German, Gute Nachricht Bibel]) (9:1)

The precise significance of Koheleth’s next words depends upon whether the first expression is to be understood as pertaining to “all” or to “vanity.” When the vowel pointing of the traditional Hebrew text is followed, the words may be read, “the all that to all.” This could mean that all things come to everyone alike. The connection to the words that follow would then be that, regardless of their moral condition, humans basically face the same things during the course of their lives. If, however, the focus is on “vanity” (as in the Septuagint [“Vanity [is] in everything”]), the point could be that, by reason of its temporary or fleeting nature, everything before or confronting humans is vanity, emptiness, futility or meaninglessness. (9:2)

Expanding on the thought that the moral condition of humans does not affect their eventual destiny or fate, Koheleth continued, “One fate to the righteous and to the wicked; to the good and to the clean, and to the unclean; and to him who sacrifices and to him who does not sacrifice; as [it is to] the good one, so [it is to] the sinner; [to] him who swears as [to him] who fears an oath.” (9:2)

“Fate” is a rendering of the Hebrew miqréh and usually denotes a happening that is neither chosen nor controlled by the one affected. It is not a predetermined occurrence. In this context, the eventuality is the inevitable destiny of all humans — death. (9:2)

The righteous are those whose words and actions conform to the dictates of a clean conscience and whatever knowledge they have of divine law. Wicked persons, on the other hand, act corruptly and disregard the rights of others. They conduct themselves as though they had no conscience and no knowledge of any laws or principles. (9:2)

Although the opposite of “good” (“bad” or “evil”) does not appear in the Hebrew text, it is found in the Syriac, Septuagint, and Vulgate. Many modern translations, therefore, read, “the good and the evil” (NRSV) or “the good and the bad” (NAB). “The good” may also be called “righteous,” “just,” or “upright.” What distinguishes them, however, is a willingness to go beyond what justice requires. Genuinely concerned about the welfare of others, the good are helpful and self-sacrificing givers. (9:2)

The clean could designate those who are either morally or ceremonially pure or undefiled. If the Hebrew reading “to the good and to the clean” is to be understood as a collective designation, the focus would seem to be on moral purity. This is because a person could be free from ceremonial defilement but not be good and, hence, not morally clean. On the other hand, the mention of sacrificing immediately thereafter could suggest that features of the Mosaic law are being highlighted and, therefore, the reference could be to ceremonial cleanness or uncleanness. (9:2)

According to the Mosaic law, there were both voluntary and obligatory sacrifices. (Leviticus 1:1-7:37) The one sacrificing would be the person who complied with the law when presenting both required and voluntary offerings. Unlike such a reverential worshiper, the one not sacrificing presented no offerings. (9:2)

In being the opposite of the good man, the sinner is one who habitually does what is bad. Such a person lives a life of sin, deviating from what is morally right and good. (9:2)

Up to this point, the commendable aspect has been named first. If this is also true regarding the “swearing,” the reference could be to a person who, in a judicial matter, takes an oath in God’s name. (Exodus 22:10, 11; Deuteronomy 6:13) The person fearing an oath could be one who did not want to give truthful testimony. Such a one would fear taking an oath that would obligate him to tell the truth. Since, however, many corrupt persons would not hesitate to lie under oath, it appears that the reference is to improper swearing. Likely, the one swearing would be doing so to a falsehood or in a rash or frivolous manner. The person who is afraid of an oath would then be one who shuns this kind of swearing. (9:2)

Again directing attention to the fate or eventuality common to all, Koheleth continued, “This [is] an evil among all that is done under the sun, that one fate [befalls] all.” The expression “an evil among all” may signify an “evil” or “bad” greater than any other, a calamity of the superlative degree. “Among all the things that happen under the sun, this is the worst.” (NAB) It is possible, however, that the reference simply is to an evil among other evils. “This is another evil among those occurring under the sun.” (NJB) Still another meaning may be that the evil makes its appearance among all earthly occurrences or that it is in them, affecting everything in the sphere of human activity. Identifying this “evil,” Koheleth said that there is one fate or one eventuality “to all.” Without exception, all humans face the one unplanned and uncontrolled eventuality — death. (9:3)

As death comes to all regardless of their actions, this tends to have a corrupting effect on the conduct of people generally. Koheleth continued, “And also the heart of the sons of the man is full of bad, and madness [is] in their heart throughout their lives.” The “heart” or deep inner self of humans is inclined toward bad. Because of the inevitability of death for all (regardless of their moral condition), there seems to be no tangible incentive for controlling corrupt desires and passions. As a consequence, the “heart” or deep inner self is “full of bad,” giving rise to corrupt thoughts, words, and actions. “Madness” exists in the “heart” or the deep inner self of humans “throughout their lives.” The outward manifestation of this is their wayward conduct. It is irrational — not guided by sound judgment and contrary to what is right, decent, and fair. Finally, the life of reckless abandon comes to an abrupt end. As Koheleth expressed it, “and after that — to the dead.” (9:3)

In view of this gloomy outcome, Koheleth emphasized the value of life, saying, “But he who is joined to all the living has hope, for a living dog is better than a dead lion.” Being “joined to all the living” would mean being alive, being counted as belonging to the collective whole of all those who are living. (9:4)

Only the person who is alive has hope. One facing unfavorable or distressing circumstances hopes for a change or an end to such. The laborer toils in the hope of being able to enjoy fruit from his activity. Hope is definitely a prominent element belonging to the realm of conscious existence and activity. At death, however, the capacity for hope ceases to exist. Therefore, as illustrated by a living dog and a dead lion, to be alive is better than to be dead. (9:4)

In Koheleth’s time, snarling, vicious, wild scavenger dogs were greatly despised. The term “dog” was used as an epithet for a contemptible person, or one of very low station. (1 Samuel 17:43; 2 Samuel 3:8; 16:9; 2 Kings 8:13) On the other hand, the lion was regarded as a symbol of regal authority and splendor. Yet, as Koheleth noted, a live dog was better off than a dead lion. Life alone makes activity and hope possible. (9:4)

Furthermore, conscious thought is the exclusive domain of the living. Koheleth continued, “For the living know that they will die, but the dead do not know anything, nor do they any longer have a reward, for the memory of them is forgotten.” Among the living alone, there is a painful awareness that life eventually will come to an end. They “know” or recognize that death is an inevitability. Their knowing that they will die is a sobering awareness and should prompt them to make good use of their days, deriving wholesome pleasure or enjoyment from life. (9:5)

At death, all capacity for thought ends. The dead know absolutely nothing. There is no reward or wage for them, as they can do nothing to gain such. Eventually, as new generations come into the world, even the memory of their once having existed as persons fades away. In most cases, no one even remembers the name of the deceased. From the standpoint of having vanished from the remembrance of the living, the dead also have no more reward or wages. (9:5)

Continuing the description of the condition of the dead, Koheleth observed, “Also their love, also their hate, also their envy have already perished, and they have no part forever in all that is done under the sun.” Strong emotions have ceased in the case of the dead. All expressions of warmth, compassion, and deep affection belong to the past. Any feelings of malice, hostility, or loathing have come to their end. All envy or jealousy (the resentment of what others have that is desired for self) has perished. “Forever” (‘ohlám), or for time that has no limit, the dead have no “part” or “share” in any activity taking place in the earthly realm beneath the sun. (9:6)

In view of the inevitability of death, Koheleth advised that one should derive wholesome enjoyment from life, saying, “Go, eat your bread with rejoicing and drink your wine with a good heart.” As the basic staple, bread is synonymous with food. Partaking of food was to be pleasurable or accompanied by “rejoicing,” “gladness,” or “cheer.” The expression “good heart” signifies that the deep inner self should reflect a “good” or “joyful” spirit. Evidently this implies that the use of wine should be moderate, as excess would dull the senses and prevent proper enjoyment. (9:7)

Adding the reason for such wholesome enjoyment of food and drink, Koheleth continued, “For already God is pleased with your works.” The fact that the Most High has made it possible for humans to enjoy food and drink (the fruit from their labor) indicates that their doing so in a proper way has his approval. God is pleased with the individual’s works, as the products therefrom (food and drink) are being used in harmony with his will. (9:7)

Continuing the thought of maintaining a joyful spirit, Koheleth observed, “At all times let your garments be white and oil not be lacking on your head.” Garments should not customarily be dingy or dirty, but bright and clean, “freshly washed” (Tanakh). Since eating and drinking (mentioned earlier) are a daily occurrence, it seems less likely that the reference is to wearing white garments just on festive occasions. Dirty garments were representative of mourning (2 Samuel 19:24), whereas clean clothes signified joy or that the period of mourning had ended. (2 Samuel 12:20) The oil doubtless would be olive oil, mixed with a fragrant substance. In a hot climate, the application of oil was refreshing. It protected the exposed areas of the skin from excessive drying and cracking on account of the sun’s intense rays. Refraining from applying oil to the body was a sign of grief, and the use of oil a symbol of joy. (9:8; Matthew 6:17, 18)

Calling attention to another source of delight, Koheleth said, “See life with the woman [’ishshah] whom you love all the days of the life of your vanity.” The Hebrew term ’ishshah also designates a “wife,” and this is the apparent meaning here. It is highly unlikely that the reference would be to any woman whom a man might come to love. The Mosaic law contained specific commands that imposed penalties for any irresponsible, promiscuous life style (Exodus 22:16, 17; Deuteronomy 22:28, 29), and prescribed capital punishment for adultery. (Deuteronomy 22:22-27) It is inconceivable that Koheleth would have given admonition that contradicted the Mosaic law. (9:9)

The expression “see life” evidently means to experience life as a married man and to find pleasure in it. At a time when polygamy existed among the Isarelites, the admonition suggests an appreciation for monogamy. The recommendation is to enjoy life with one wife, the one who is loved exclusively. (9:9)

Because the days of life are few and pass quickly, Koheleth spoke of them as “days of the life of your vanity.” As it is so very short and nothing can be accomplished that has permanent value, life seems futile, empty, meaningless, or purposeless. (9:9)

Since God has made life possible, Koheleth said respecting the “days of life,” “which he gave you under the sun.” It is beneath the sun, in the earthly realm, that these days are spent. (9:9)

Again emphasizing the appropriateness of wholesome enjoyment of the fruit of labor, Koheleth continued, “for that is your part in life and from your labor which you labor under the sun.” The Hebrew term for “labor” (‘amál) conveys the thought of painful, wearisome, burdensome, or exhausting toil. There appears to be an emphasis on the repetitious nature of the toil — “labor which you labor.” It is a ceaseless toiling day after day, and year after year. During one’s futile life of toiling, the lot or share that offers something better is getting enjoyment from food and drink, sharing companionship with a wife who is loved, and experiencing a sense of well-being and refreshment (as made possible by wearing clean garments and applying oil on one’s body). Koheleth’s words “under the sun” focus on the earthly realm where humans live and toil. (9:9)

In view of the inevitability that the short life of humans ends in death, Koheleth recommended, “Whatever your hand finds to do, do [it] with your might, for [there is] no work, or thought, or knowledge, or wisdom in Sheol, [the place] to which you are going.” Although previously he had advised that one should get enjoyment from life and the fruit of labor, this was not to be a life filled with idle pleasure. Koheleth’s counsel is to keep the “hand” busy in work, not letting essentials lie unattended. Whenever something needs to be done, the “hand” or the faculties needed to accomplish it, should be employed. This was to be no halfhearted effort in doing work. As Koheleth noted, it was to be accomplished with one’s “might,” or with all the strength that one could reasonably muster. (9:10)

The reason for being diligent and energetic in work is that the time comes when absolutely nothing can be done. In Sheol, the realm of the dead, all physical and mental activity is nonexistent. No “work” or “doing” of any kind occurs in the final resting place to which all the living are heading. Accomplishment requires planning, but all capacity for thought ceases at death and is not to be found in Sheol. Knowledge, a fund of factual information without which one cannot do a single thing, is not in evidence there. Wisdom, skill, or the ability to use knowledge to a successful end in the practical matters of life, does not exist in the abode of the dead. (9:10)

While observing what takes places “under the sun,” in the earthly realm of human affairs, Koheleth noticed that there were many uncertainties. Before giving examples, he says, “I returned and saw under the sun.” His “returning” may mean that after the matter first drew his attention, he was moved to give it more careful consideration. On the other hand, the expression “I returned” may simply introduce the new subject and, therefore, denote that Koheleth focused on something else. Commenting on what he “saw,” “observed,” or came to recognize, he continued, “not to the swift — the race, and not to the mighty — the battle, and not even to the wise — bread, and not even to the understanding — riches, and not even to the knowledgeable ones — the favor.” (9:11)

The fastest runner may stumble, losing the race. A strong, well-equipped army may suffer defeat at the hands of inferior forces, perhaps because of unfamiliarity with the terrain or adverse weather conditions. The wise, those with insight in practical matters of life, may not be valued for their abilities. They may become objects of hostility and be deprived of their means of making a living, thus finding themselves without “bread” or food. The understanding ones, the intelligent, or those having perception in sound management may be prevented from using their abilities and come to be numbered among the poor. Persons having a fund of valuable knowledge may be regarded with suspicion by superiors and incur their hatred. Despite the great value of what they know, they come to be in disfavor. (9:11)

Explaining why talents and abilities provide no guarantees respecting a favorable outcome, Koheleth said, “for time and chance befall them all.” The Hebrew term for “time” (‘eth), in this case, denotes a time during which things happen that are beyond the control of the one affected. Likewise, the Hebrew word for “chance” or “occurrence” (péga‘) is descriptive of a circumstance, happening, or encounter that is unexpected or unforeseen. (9:11)

Illustrating his point, Koheleth continued “For man also does not know his time; like fish that are taken in an evil net, and like birds that are caught in a snare, so [are] the sons of man snared at an evil time, when it suddenly falls upon them.” Humans simply do not know what lies ahead of them. The time (‘eth) could denote any time of calamity or, in view of what follows, the time of death. Suddenly and without warning, misfortune or death can befall humans. The experience of people is comparable to what happens to fish that are caught in a net or birds that are trapped. Koheleth called the net an “evil” one because it results in bad or injury (death) to the fish that are caught. All humans are bound to encounter an “evil time,” one that signifies calamity or misfortune to the person affected. Like other “evils,” the inescapable one, death, befalls humans suddenly. Thus, in a time that spells calamity for them, they find themselves quickly and unexpectedly snared or caught. (9:12)

In the realm of human affairs, matters may turn out very differently than might be expected. Koheleth called attention to the effect one notable case of this had on him, saying, “Also this I saw [as] wisdom under the sun, and great it [was] to me.” His observation involved an example of wisdom, one that occurred beneath the sun, or in the realm of human affairs on earth. In referring to this case of wisdom as something “great,” Koheleth may have meant that it made a deep impression on him or that he found it to be especially noteworthy. (9:13)

Proceeding with the particulars, Koheleth said, “A small city — and few men in it. And against it a great king came and encircled it and built great siegeworks against it.” Being a small or insignificant place, the city had few men who could defend it and prevent its capture. The “great” king was evidently a powerful monarch who became famous and gained extensive dominion by waging successful warfare. Encircled by the king’s forces, the inhabitants of the city had little hope of escape. The “great” or “huge” siegeworks could have included ramps. On these ramps or inclined planes, battering rams and other siege equipment could have been used for breaking down the city gate and the walls. (9:14)

Whereas the city appeared to be doomed, the presence of a wise man saved the place. Koheleth continued, “And there was found in it a poor wise man and, by his wisdom, he saved the city, and no man remembered that poor man.” (9:15)

The nature of the poor man’s plan for saving the city or how he introduced it is not discussed. Possibly it involved action against one who had offended the conquering king (2 Samuel 20:15–22), use of what was available to stop the monarch (Judges 9:51-55), or another means for the city’s inhabitants to escape conquest. (9:15)

Once the danger had passed, however, the poor man was not honored. Lacking prestige or prominence, he was not remembered for the important service he had performed. No one felt indebted to him. (9:15)

Evidently because Koheleth afterward said that the words of the poor “are not heard,” the Tanakh presents a different view of the situation. “Present in the city was a poor wise man who might have saved it with his wisdom, but nobody thought of that poor man.” When regarded as a general principle, however, the observation that the words of the poor “are not heard” would not contradict the example given by Koheleth. (9:15, 16)

Drawing a conclusion from the example he had set forth, Koheleth continued, “And I said, Wisdom [is] better than might, and the poor man’s wisdom is despised and his words are not heard.” In the case to which Koheleth referred, the poor man’s wisdom proved to be superior to the military might and siegeworks of the great king, resulting in the deliverance of the insignificant city. Nevertheless, without a position of influence or authority, a person, though wise, will usually be ignored. People tend to look down on the poor, never considering that they may possess real insight. The poor man’s wisdom is despised, regarded as having no value. Perhaps, in an emergency, when all else fails, the poor man’s wisdom may be acted upon. That, however, would be an exception. Usually, the poor man’s wisdom would not be “heard,” listened to, or heeded. (9:16)

Commenting on the manner in which the words of the wise are conveyed, Koheleth noted, “The words of the wise are heard in rest more than the cry of one who rules among fools.” The wise are persons who possess sound judgment and, therefore, their words provide sensible guidelines and solutions to perplexing problems. Because what they say stands on its own merit, the wise do not resort to bluster. Their words are “heard” in “rest” or “calmness,” being spoken in a calm and quiet manner. (9:17)

The calm or quiet expressions of the wise contrast sharply with the “cry,” “shout,” or “scream” of one dominating among fools, among persons whose way of life is morally corrupt and who manifest a crowd mentality in the pursuit of unworthy ends. Being “among” such persons, the one ruling is likewise morally flawed. He shouts, uses rabble-rousing means, or barks commands to achieve his aims. (9:17)

“Among fools” may also signify “in the manner of fools,” and this agrees with the Septuagint rendering, “in senseless things” or “in follies.” Whether a fool exercising authority among fools, or a ruler screaming in the manner of fools, the contrast with the quiet or calm words of the wise is the same. (9:17)

In relation to “heard,” the expression “than” (min) may be understood in a number of ways. (1) The preference should be given to “hearing,” “listening to,” or “heeding” the words of the wise. (2) It is more likely that the quiet words of the wise will find listening ears than that the screaming of one trying to direct fools will be heeded. (3) The calm words of the wise will be heard above the cry of one dominating fools. These basic meanings are reflected in the renderings of various translations. “The quiet words of the wise are more to be heeded than the shouting of a ruler among fools.” (NRSV) “Words spoken softly by wise men are heeded sooner than those shouted by a lord in folly.” (Tanakh) “The calm words of the wise make themselves heard above the shouts of someone commanding an army of fools.” (NJB) “The words of the wise in rest are heard above the shout of those wielding authority in senseless things.” (9:17, LXX)

Having earlier illustrated the power of wisdom, Koheleth concluded, “Wisdom [is] better than weapons of war, and one sinner ruins much good.” The poor man’s wisdom proved to be superior to the weapons of the powerful king and his well-equipped army, resulting in the city’s being saved. While weapons are designed to bring ruin, wisdom or sage advice, when heeded, can result in good. Both the power and the results from wisdom are better than weaponry. (9:18)

One sinner, a person who consistently and deliberately misses the mark of uprightness in attitude, words, and actions, can undo much good. By appealing to the corrupt leanings of the masses and ridiculing what is right and just, the sinner may sway the majority. As a result, good plans may be frustrated, resources may be squandered, and energies may be wasted. If the sinner succeeds in gaining a position of authority, corrupt, oppressive rulership and warfare can plunge an entire nation into ruin. (9:18)

In a footnote, Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia presents “sin” (chet’), not “sinner” as the intended word. A number of modern translations follow this meaning in their renderings (“one mistake” [REB]; “a single sin” [NJB]; “a single error” [Tanakh]). Just one sin can wreck much good. Whether regarded from the standpoint of the sin itself or the person of the sinner, the injurious effect on good is still the same. (9:18)

Ecclesiastes 10:1-20

Probably to show how easily a good reputation can be ruined, Koheleth introduced the proverbial saying, “Dead flies cause the perfumer’s ointment to stink, to bubble up [yábia].” (10:1)

The literal reading “flies of death” suggests that the flies cause death or are poisonous, which is the thought the rendering of the Septuagint conveys (“deadly flies” or “death-dealing flies”). It appears preferable, however, to regard the Hebrew as meaning “dead flies,” as this agrees better with the words about ruining the oil or the ointment. When a fly lands on the perfumer’s fragrant mixture, it is unable to free itself and soon dies. As the dead fly decays, the ointment begins to stink. (10:1)

There is a measure of uncertainty about the word yábia that appears in the Hebrew text. Commonly considered to be a form of navá‘, the word would basically denote to “gush forth,” “flow,” or “bubble up.” This could refer to the formation of bubbles on the surface of the ointment — an evidence of the fermentation process. The translator of the Septuagint, though, used a word drawn from skeuós (“vessel”) and which term apparently means the “preparation [in a vessel].” Possibly the rendering arose when the translator took the initial letter of the Hebrew word to be gimel (G), not yod (Y), which would have changed the meaning of the Hebrew word to “cup.” (10:1)

Koheleth continued, “weightier than wisdom, than honor — a little foolishness.” The Hebrew term yaqár, which means “rare,” “precious,” or “costly,” is probably drawn from a root that signifies “to be heavy.” According to the root meaning of the term, this would denote that a little foolishness is “weightier” or “outweighs” wisdom and honor. This is the case because a little foolishness (a violent outburst of wrath, a serious indiscretion in conduct with the opposite sex, overindulgence in drink, or any other moral impropriety) can undo or ruin the reputation of a wise person who has been highly respected, esteemed or honored. (10:1)

There is a possibility, though, that the meaning of “precious” can be preserved. The reference would then be to the bad effect of a little foolishness, for it outstrips the value of wisdom and honor. From the standpoint of diminishing the preciousness of wisdom and honor, senselessness could be spoken of as being more “precious.” “A little folly can make wisdom lose its worth.” (REB) The Septuagint reading reflects the meaning “precious” but expresses a thought that differs from the Hebrew text. “A little wisdom is more precious than the splendor [from] great senselessness.” (10:1)

Whether the Hebrew word is understood as signifying “to outweigh” or “to be rare, precious, or costly,” the basic sense of the proverbial saying remains the same. Just as a little dead fly can ruin an ointment mixture, wisdom and honor cannot escape the damaging effect of a little foolishness or a moral wrong. Just one serious moral slip can wreck a reputation for wisdom and deprive a person of honor or dignity. (10:1)

Koheleth’s words may also be understood to mean that folly can outweigh or overrule wisdom. Foolishness may be given a hearing ear, resulting in the rejection of wise guidance. King Rehoboam, for example, foolishly turned a deaf ear to the wise counsel of older, experienced men, preferring to follow the senseless advice of younger men. (1 Kings 12:3-16) While a little foolishness can undo what has been achieved or could be accomplished by the wise, it is more likely (in view of the previous words about the ointment) that the main thought is that a wise person can ruin his good reputation by engaging in a little foolishness. (10:1)

Drawing a contrast between the wise person and the fool, Koheleth observed, “The wise one’s heart [is] at his right, and the fool’s heart [is] at his left.” In the case of the wise person, the “heart” or the faculty for understanding, reasoning, and motivation occupies the proper place (the right side) and, therefore, inclines the individual to follow a course of moral rectitude. The fool, however, does not have his “heart” in the right place, the “left” being representative of what is wrong, unacceptable, or defective. This signifies that the fool’s understanding, reasoning, moral sense, and motivation depart from what is upright. In attitude, word, and action, he is inclined to pursue a path that is morally wrong. (10:2)

Regarding the fool, Koheleth continued, “And also, in the way that the fool treads, his heart is lacking, and he says to all, he [is] a fool.” Because the fool’s course is reckless, contrary to sound judgment and moral uprightness, he is described as having no heart. In this case, “heart” likely denotes “understanding,” particularly with reference to moral perception. By his conduct, he reveals to all that he is a fool, a person with a serious moral defect. A number of translations make this explicit. “Everyone remarks, ‘How silly he is!’” (NJB) “The fool lacks sense and shows everyone how stupid he is.” (NIV) “The fool shows no sense and reveals to everyone how foolish he is.” (REB) “And he lets everybody know he is a fool.” (10:3, Tanakh)

There is a possibility, though, that Koheleth’s words signify that the fool calls all others foolish. “About everyone else he has said, He is stupid.” (er von jedem andern gesagt hat: Er ist dumm. [German, Einheitsübersetzung]) The fool may regard the serious, sensible view of life that others have as preventing what he imagines to be enjoyment. Determined to follow his irresponsible, reckless, and corrupt way of life, he would be quick to label as a fool anyone who would attempt to correct him. (10:3)

Since the Hebrew word for “all” (kol) can denote either “everyone” or “everything,” the thought could also relate to how the fool, from his distorted perspective, regards things. “In his lack of understanding he calls everything foolish.” (10:3, NAB)

Earlier, Koheleth provided admonition regarding submission to a monarch (8:2-6). He returned to this subject, giving the following advice when one has angered a person in authority: “If the spirit of the ruler is aroused against you, do not leave your place, for calmness [marpé’] quiets great offenses.” (10:4)

In this case, the Hebrew term rúach (“spirit”) denotes “temper” and is often rendered “anger” (NAB, NIV, NJB, NRSV, REB) or “wrath” (Tanakh). Koheleth recommended that one avoid being hasty in relinquishing a position or post on account of a superior’s displeasure. Even when facing what appears to be unjustified wrath, there is a better way to deal with the situation than to give up one’s place. By maintaining a calm spirit, the individual may find that the ruler’s anger will subside. As Koheleth noted, “calmness quiets great offenses.” The Hebrew word marpé’ conveys the sense of “calmness,” “gentleness,” or “soothing.” When a subject manifests a calm, submissive spirit, the ruler may not inflict the severest penalty for what he considers to be great offenses. This is because calmness does not fuel anger but has a quieting effect on the wrathful person. Thus the great offenses are not magnified and do not lead to the kind of punishment that would customarily be meted out if the ruler’s anger had continued or intensified. (10:4)

In governmental administration, Koheleth observed that persons selected for responsible posts may be seriously lacking in the essential qualifications. He spoke of this as an “evil” he had “seen” or observed “under the sun” (on earth in the realm of human affairs). It is an evil because it works to the injury of the ruler’s subjects and contributes to dissatisfaction with his administration of governmental affairs. Koheleth also referred to the “evil” as a mistake coming from the ruler’s “presence” (literally, “face”) and, hence, an error for which the person exercising authority is responsible. (10:5)

Pointing to the specific mistake, Koheleth continued, “Foolishness is given many high [positions], and the rich sit in low [position].” Persons lacking the ability to administer affairs righteously, impartially, and wisely are entrusted with authority. Foolishness is exalted. The “rich” evidently are not to be understood as meaning all wealthy persons. Among the rich may also be found morally corrupt persons who lack good judgment. Therefore, the “rich” apparently are noble persons who have demonstrated ability to manage affairs wisely. Their way of life gives evidence that they are capable of handling governing responsibilities. Because incompetent persons are exalted to high office, the noble ones find themselves disrespected and having a low standing. (10:6)

Further emphasizing the contrast, Koheleth continued, “I have seen slaves on horses, and princes walking on the earth like slaves.” It was viewed as disrespectful for a slave to ride on any animal while the master was walking. He would dismount when encountering the master who happened to be on foot. (Compare Genesis 24:63-65.) The exalting of slaves would, therefore, have been a serious attack on the existing social order. Hence, Koheleth’s reference to “slaves” apparently is to be understood as meaning persons who had the spirit of slaves (in the negative sense of the expression). Owned, not granted the opportunity to make important choices, and forced to work in the accomplishment of laborious, unpleasant tasks, slaves did not acquire experience in governing others or managing affairs. The institution of slavery also had a demoralizing effect on many. Hence, to elevate persons with a slavelike disposition, seating them on horses, would have meant entrusting high offices to persons who were the least qualified. (10:7)

“Princes,” on the other hand, designated noble persons with the needed qualifications and experience to govern. Though deserving of high office, they were not accorded dignity or respect but found themselves walking on the ground as if they were slaves. (10:7)

Incompetent persons, however, are in a precarious situation. Their poor judgment, coupled with abuse of authority, may become so obvious that it leads to their downfall, perhaps even a swift removal by the very one who exalted them. Koheleth next introduced a number of proverbial sayings that call attention to inherent hazards, and these sayings may serve to illustrate the dangerous situation of high officials who are unqualified for their position. If, though, the sayings are to be linked to the earlier admonition about dealing with a ruler’s anger, they may be understood as cautions and warnings about rising up against the established order.

“One who digs a pit will fall into it.” An open pit constitutes a serious hazard. According to the Mosaic law, the person who, after excavating it, left the pit uncovered was held liable for the death of any domestic animal that might fall into it. (Exodus 21:33, 34). By leaving the pit open and then failing to exercise due caution, the one who dug the pit could also fall into it. Similarly, the individual who tries to trap others, plotting against them as if digging a pit for them, may actually get caught by his own scheme. (10:8)

“He who breaks through a wall ― a serpent will bite him.” This kind of “wall” likely was one built of rough field stones and served as a protective fence. It would not be uncommon for snakes to slither between the stones of such a wall. Accordingly, the person (likely a thief) who broke through a stone wall could get bitten by a serpent. (10:8)

“He who quarries stones will be hurt by them; he who splits wood will be endangered by [it].” Quarrying and chopping are attended by a measure of risk. The implement used and the result from the activities can endanger life and limb, requiring the exercise of caution to avoid injury. (10:9)

The next proverbial saying emphasizes the importance of using good sense. “If the iron is blunt, and one does not whet the edges [literally, ‘faces’], then one must put forth [more] strength, and wisdom [is] an advantage for bringing success.” The “iron” evidently refers to an ax used for chopping. A dull ax will require the woodchopper to exert much greater effort than would have been needed for chopping with a sharp tool. What could be done easily by using good sense (whetting the cutting edges or sharpening the ax) is done the hard way ― ineffectively and inefficiently. Wisdom, common sense, or skill (manifest in preparing the implement for the job to be done) is revealed to be advantageous. Applied knowledge and skill lead to the successful outcome of an undertaking. (10:10)

The mere possession of knowledge or skill, however, does not guarantee success. Koheleth said, “If the serpent bites without [any] charming, then no advantage [exists] for the owner of the tongue.” There is no benefit in a person’s knowing how to charm a serpent if he is bitten before he is able to use his ability. The expression “owner of the tongue” apparently designates the charmer, the person who has a tongue capable of charming. (10:11)

Contrasting the words of a wise person and those of a fool, Koheleth noted, “The words of a sage’s mouth [are] gracious, and the lips of a fool swallow him.” The Hebrew term (chen), rendered “gracious,” conveys the sense of “agreeable,” “pleasing,” or “gaining favor.” A wise man’s expressions are pleasurable, because his manner of speaking is pleasant and his words impart thoughts of real value. What proceeds from his mouth may rightly be described as “gracious,” “agreeable,” or “pleasing.” Moreover, unlike the worthless sayings of a fool, a wise person’s words would usually gain a favorable response. A number of modern translations convey this sense in their renderings. “Words from the wise man’s mouth win favor.” (NAB) “A wise man’s talk brings him favor.” (10:12, Tanakh)

Whatever passes the lips of a fool, a person having a serious moral flaw, is neither gracious nor pleasing. The manner is repulsive, and the content is worthless or destructive. Stemming from the corrupt inner self, the words of the fool are really his undoing, exposing him for what he is and finding an unfavorable response. The “lips,” or the words that are a product of the lips, “swallow,” “consume,” or destroy the fool, making him the object of reproach. According to the Septuagint, the fool’s lips “sink” or “drown” him as if he were plunged into the sea. (10:12)

Focusing on the words of the fool, Koheleth continued, “The start of the words of his mouth [is] foolishness, and the end of his mouth [is] evil madness.” Right from the beginning of his speaking, the words of a fool are senseless, imparting nothing of value. As the morally corrupt person keeps on talking, his expressions progressively deteriorate. In the end, what comes out of his mouth is sheer “madness.” The expressions made are irrational, comparable to the rambling or raving of a person devoid of his senses. But the nonsensical words of the fool are not harmless chatter. The end or finish of what comes out of his mouth is “evil madness.” This may be understood to mean that it is “malicious,” “wicked,” “injurious,” “mischief run mad” (REB), or “treacherous folly” (NJB). It may also be that “evil madness” denotes senselessness that leads to calamity or disaster for the fool (“disastrous madness,” Tanakh). The “stupid chatter ends with disaster.” (10:13, CEV)

The fool simply does not know when to stop speaking. Though morally flawed and devoid of discernment, he keeps on talking. As Koheleth observed, “and the fool multiplies words.” Without giving any consideration to the possible and probable consequences of his words, he recklessly and thoughtlessly rambles on and on, spewing out utter nonsense. Although knowing nothing and having a twisted view of what is fitting and upright, he is an authority on everything. (10:14)

The fool is completely and deliberately blind as respects his limitations. This appears to be the implied thought behind Koheleth’s next words, “No man knows what is to be. And what will be after him, who can tell him?” No human knows exactly what will come to be or will take place in the future. Among mortals, no one can authoritatively and accurately say what shall come to be “after” a man, either after him in time or after a man’s death. By implication, the fool, however, believes that he can do what no human can. His many words and his recklessly ignoring dangers and warnings reveal this all-knowing attitude. (10:14)

Even in his toiling, the fool does not use common sense. Koheleth observed, “The labor of the fool wearies him, inasmuch as he does not know [how] to go to the city.” Imagining that he knows best, the fool stubbornly disregards the good suggestions, advice, and example of others. He persists in doing things ineffectively and inefficiently, exhausting himself in toil that could be accomplished with greater ease and less expenditure of effort. His manner of laboring to the point of weariness is comparable to a person’s vainly trying to get to a city by roads other than the right one. Accordingly, the fool is described as one who does not know or recognize the way to the city, which would be to follow the main thoroughfare that leads to it. He misses the obvious, wearing himself out needlessly. (10:15)

When persons lacking sound judgment occupy the highest offices, this leads to the ruin of the entire country. Regarding this, Koheleth noted, “Woe to you, O land, when your king is a boy and your princes eat in the morning.” (10:16)

The rendering “woe” (as expressing how disastrous it is) has the support of the Septuagint (ouaí) and is found in most translations. In Hebrew, however, the word ’ey could denote “why?” or “to what purpose?” If this, rather than “woe” is meant, Koheleth would be posing the question, as to what or how it will be for a land with the kind of king and princes that are described. The implication would be that the situation is too distressing to contemplate. (10:16)

For the king to be a “boy” would mean that he reflected the inexperience and poor judgment commonly associated with youth. He would have lacked the stature and ability to be a desirable, qualified ruler. The other high officials would make matters worse. Instead of providing sound advice and being diligent in the proper administration of the affairs of state, they would begin eating in the morning. This inappropriate eating would be self-indulgent feasting. An incompetent king surrounded by inept, pleasure-seeking princes and counselors would soon lead a country into economic ruin, if not also tremendous loss of life and devastation of the land from involvement in senseless warring. (10:16)

Focusing on good government, Koheleth observed, “Fortunate [are] you, O land, when your king [is] a son of nobles, and your princes eat at the proper time, for strength and not for drinking.” A land or country blessed with wise rulers enjoys stability, security, and prosperity. Rightly, Koheleth pronounced a land “fortunate” or in a state of well-being when its king and princes conducted themselves as befitted their high station. (10:17)

Instead of having the limited discernment and experience of a mere youth, the king would have the appropriate bearing and sound judgment. Being a “son of nobles,” the monarch would himself be noble, the possessor of dignity by reason of his just and wise handling of the weighty matters of state. (10:17)

The princes or officials and counselors in the realm would be genuinely interested in fulfilling their important duties. They would not indulge their appetites in feasting when it was time to care for their responsibilities. They would recognize when it was “time” to eat. The Hebrew word for “time” (‘eth), in this case, denotes a “fit,” “appropriate,” or “proper” time. When it is the proper time for eating, they would do so in moderation, taking in sufficient sustenance to restore their energies. They would eat “for strength,” that is, to have the needed energy to fulfill their governmental responsibilities. The princes would not give themselves up to self-indulgent revelry. Koheleth specifically noted that the “eating” is “not for drinking.” They would not allow their senses to be dulled by excesses in food and drink. The Septuagint makes no reference to drinking in the case of the princes, but says, “They will not be ashamed.” (10:17)

Having highlighted the advantage of a country’s having good rulers, Koheleth introduced a proverbial saying about the problems resulting from the neglect of essential work or duties. “Through slothfulness, the roofing sinks; and through lowering of the hands, the house leaks.” (10:18)

The Hebrew term conveying the idea of “slothfulness,” “laziness,” or “indolence” is a dual form of ‘atsláh. It can, therefore, be understood to mean “great,” “extreme,” or “excessive” laziness. (10:18)

When essential maintenance and repair are neglected, a house will soon come to be in a dilapidated state. The flat roofs of ancient homes were supported by an arrangement of beams and rafters. Beams extended from one wall to the other, and rafters were positioned across the beams. Next came a layer of reeds and branches that was covered with soil. A thick plaster of clay or clay and lime completed the roof. Without upkeep, such a roof would being to “sink” or “sag.” (10:18)

The Hebrew word meqaréh, often rendered “roof” or “rafter,” can designate the “beam work.” Likely, however, the expression refers to the “roofing.” Rather than the beams, the roofing, on account of the owner’ “great laziness,” would sink or sag from lack of maintenance. (10:18)

To accomplish something, the hands must be raised and not dropped to the sides of the body. Lowered hands are idle hands. Before the commencement of the autumn rains, roofs needed to be repaired and rolled smooth. For one to neglect this, leaving the hands idle, would mean having a house that lets in the rain. (10:18)

The next proverbial saying also appears to emphasize the importance of industriousness. Koheleth continued, “For laughter, they make bread, and wine cheers life, and silver answers everything.” (10:19)

As the basic staple, “bread” is synonymous with food. The making of bread, appears to denote the preparing of a meal. Since partaking of food can be enjoyable or pleasurable, Koheleth spoke of preparing “bread” or food for “laughter” or enjoyment. “The table has its pleasures.” (REB) “Eating and drinking make you feel happy.” (10:19, CEV)

Because of linking the expression “they make bread” with the self-indulgent princes (verse 16), the Tanakh renders the phrase, “They make a banquet for revelry.” Taking the expression “they make bread” in a general sense, however, appears to be preferable, as there is no clear reference to the princes in the words themselves. (10:19)

Though Koheleth’s observation that “wine cheers life” has also been regarded as applying to the drinking of the princes, it seems more likely that the effect of wine on the one drinking is meant. Alcohol affects the central nervous system and can put the individual in a cheerful mood. So the reference appears to be to the temporary pleasurable sensation from drinking wine in moderation. A similar thought is found in Psalm 104:15, “Wine to cheer man’s heart.” (10:19)

Silver was the common medium of exchange. Before money was coined, the individual, when making a purchase, would weigh out the agreed-upon amount of silver. It could be said that the self-indulgent princes had the needed silver to obtain food and drink. Silver “answered” their desires for pleasure. (10:19)

The entire proverbial saying, though, appears to be expressed in more general terms. “Silver” answered every need or desire that required the payment of a price, making it possible to obtain necessities and luxuries. The implied thought may be that the industrious worker will have enough silver to procure food, wine, and whatever else contributes to the enjoyment of life. (10:19)

Having specifically addressed the matter of poor rulership, Koheleth concluded with a caution about voicing complaint about persons in high station. “Also do not curse a king in your thought. And do not curse the rich in your bedrooms, for a bird of the heavens will carry the voice, and a winged creature may tell the matter.” (10:20)

The Hebrew word qalál, translated “curse,” literally means “to be light,” that is, not heavy. It refers to speaking evil or ill of someone, in the sense that the individual is made light of (“do not speak ill” [REB], “do not make light of” [NAB], and “do not revile” [NIV]). (10:20)

Regarding the Hebrew expression appearing in the Hebrew text, (bemadda‘aka [be, “in,” and maddá‘, “thought”]), a footnote in Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia presents bematstsa‘aka as what is intended. The Hebrew word matstsá‘, defined as “bed” or “couch,” is apparently drawn from the root yatsá‘, meaning “to spread out.” Accordingly, the expression bematstsa‘aka could denote “in the place for spreading out to sleep,” that is, in the bedroom. Most translations, however, do not adopt the emended Hebrew reading. An exception is the Revised English Bible, which reads, “when you are at rest.” (10:20)

Both the Septuagint and the Vulgate support the rendering “thought.” The Septuagint employs syneídesis (“conscience” or “consciousness”) and the Vulgate, cogitatio (“thought”). When a person does not allow himself to speak ill of a ruler even in thought, he is far less likely to make light of that one in a place where he could be overheard. (10:20)

The “rich man” designates a member of the ruling class. This is evident from the use of the expression in parallel with the words about the king. (10:20)

In Hebrew, the word for “room” (chédher) designates an innermost room, as does the Greek term tamieíon found in the Septuagint. The kind of innermost room is further described by the expression mishkáv, which may be defined as a “lying down” or “bed.” Accordingly, Koheleth advised against calling down evil on a ruler even in private bedrooms or bedchambers, where one would not think about the possibility of ever being overheard. (10:20)

As Koheleth observed, the matter could become known in a most unusual or unexpected way, as if a flying creature (‘ohph, “bird” [also, “insect”]) picked up the words and carried them where one would never want them to be heard. Though voiced in private, the injudicious grumbling or complaining would result in bringing untold trouble on oneself. Even in modern times, persons living under dictatorial rule have experienced great suffering and even death for failing to exercise such extreme care in speaking. To their sorrow, many have found that the “walls have ears.” (10:20)

Ecclesiastes 11:1-10

Koheleth introduced a number of proverbial sayings, all of which encourage activity. The first one is, “Send forth your bread on the face of the waters, for in many days you will find it.” (11:1)

A number of translations render this as admonition to engage in trade. “Invest what you have, because after a while you will get a return.” (NCV) “Put your money into trade across the ocean. After a while you will earn something from it.” (NIRV) “Ship your grain across the sea; after many days you may receive a return.” (TNIV) “Send your grain across the seas, and in time you will get a return.” (REB) While the Hebrew term for “bread” (léchem) also designates the grain from which bread is made or denotes food generally, this word is not used as a synonym for “goods” or “merchandise.” If, therefore, the saying is to be understood as encouraging participation in trade, it could (as some translations do) limit the reference to exporting grain. Considerable trade by sea was conducted during Solomon’s reign. (1 Kings 10:22, 2 Chronicles 9:21) There is no indication, however, that the Israelites generally would have engaged in exporting grain and then receiving payment upon the successful return of the merchant ships. (11:1)

It appears preferable to regard Koheleth’s words as encouraging generosity. “Be generous, and someday you will be rewarded.” (CEV) Generous giving may seem comparable to sending out bread on the surface of the water, with no return in view. Nevertheless, expressions of true generosity may lead to a person’s endearing himself to others. This may prompt appreciative response from recipients and their coming to his aid whenever he may find himself in need. The one sending out the “bread” would thus find it after the passage of “many days” or some time. (11:1)

Koheleth continued, “Give a portion to seven, or even to eight, for you do not know what evil may occur on the earth.” Like the previous proverbial saying, these words have been understood as applying either to business ventures or acts of generosity. Translators who take verse 1 to refer to business ventures, commonly represent the admonition of verse 2 as applying to the same. “Invest what you have in several different businesses, because you don’t know what disasters might happen.” (NCV) “Invest in seven ventures, yes, in eight; you do not know what disaster may come upon the land.” (TNIV) “Divide your merchandise among seven or perhaps eight ventures, since you do not know what disasters are in store for the world.” (REB) According to such renderings, diversification provides a measure of assurance that, if not all, at least some of the undertakings will succeed. Because of life’s uncertainties, there is greater risk of failure and accompanying loss whenever all efforts are concentrated on only one pursuit. (11:2)

Since, however, generosity probably is being encouraged in the opening verse of the chapter, it seems that verse 2 is continuing this admonition. The number “seven” is indicative of fullness or completeness, just as seven days constitute an entire week. As an intensification of “seven,” “eight” serves to emphasize the unstinting nature of the giving. An overly cautious person may be inclined unduly to restrict the amount given and limit the giving to just a few, fearing that he might not have enough to weather reverses. Koheleth counseled that generosity not be restrained by such apprehension. (11:2)

The giver simply does not know just what “evil,” “calamity,” “distress,” or “misfortune” may yet have to be faced. On earth, there are many uncertainties. The implication is that generous giving leads to one’s later being more likely to become the recipient of assistance in a time of hardship. The sense of Koheleth’s words may be similar to those of Jesus Christ, “Give, and it will be given to you.” (11:2; Luke 6:38)

Providing admonition to avoid indecisiveness in one’s actions, Koheleth said, “If the clouds are full, they pour out rain upon the earth; and if a tree falls to the south or to the north, [in the] place where the tree falls, there it will be.” Once the clouds are at a point where it is going to rain, it will rain. No human can prevent it. In the event a tree is uprooted during a storm, it will lie in the direction and in the place where it fell. A person’s refraining from or engaging in some pursuit has no bearing on such things. Whatever may or may not happen should not be a basis for desisting from the usual routine of work. (11:3)

Pointing to the problem of letting uncertainty paralyze one’s activity, Koheleth observed, “One who watches the wind will not sow; and one who looks at the clouds will not reap.” The man who watched the wind, waiting for the ideal time to begin sowing, simply would not start. Reasoning that the wind could intensify, he would fear that the seed would be blown away as it was broadcast. Thinking that he might labor in vain, he would do nothing. Similarly, the person who watched the clouds would not begin the important harvest work. He would be afraid that it would rain and that the cut grain would be ruined by getting wet. (11:4)

Humans cannot determine the ideal time for every undertaking. Uncertainties are an integral part of life. Whatever may take place by reason of God’s purpose or his toleration cannot be determined beforehand by some humanly devised rule or system. Illustrating this aspect of God’s “work,” Koheleth noted, “As you do not know what [is] the way of the spirit, [as also] the bones in the womb of a woman with child, so you do not know the work of God who makes all.” (11:5)

Man does not “know” or understand the “way” or manner in which the “spirit” or life principle operates in the formation of a baby. A pregnant woman would have become aware of the living being that was developing within her. Yet to all who knew about her pregnancy it would remain a mystery as to how the “bones” or the entire frame developed in the womb, forming a completely new little person. The renderings of a number of translations are more explicit than the Hebrew text in representing what is not known. “Just as you know not how the breath of life fashions the human frame in the mother’s womb, so you know not the work of God which he is accomplishing in the universe.” (NAB) “As you do not know how a pregnant woman comes to have a body and a living spirit in her womb, so you do not know the work of God, the maker of all things.” (REV) “No one can explain how a baby breathes before it is born.” (CEV) “Just as you do not know how the lifebreath passes into the limbs within the womb of the pregnant woman, so you cannot foresee the actions of God, who causes all things to happen.” (11:5, Tanakh)

Because the Hebrew word for “spirit” (rúach) also means “wind,” a number of translators render the term accordingly and so present two very different things that humans do not understand. “You do not understand how the wind blows, or how the embryo grows in a woman’s womb.” (NJB) “As you do not know the path of the wind, or how the body is formed in a mother’s womb, so you cannot understand the work of God, the Maker of all things.” (NIV) “You don’t know where the wind will blow, and you don’t know how a baby grows inside the mother. In the same way, you don’t know what God is doing, or how he created everything.” (NCV) Since the wind and the development of the baby in the womb are unrelated, it appears preferable to understand rúach as meaning “spirit” or life principle. This is also supported by the reading, “spirit in bones,” which is found in numerous Hebrew manuscripts. (11:5)

God’s “work” includes everything that takes place according to his purpose, will, or permission. This “work” is humanly unfathomable. Because everything takes place by reason of divine action or allowance, Koheleth rightly said, “God who makes all” or everything. Whatever the Most High may do or permit in the outworking of his purpose cannot be determined beforehand without a revelation from him. Therefore, no one can, in each case, predict accurately which pursuits will succeed or which ones will fail. (11:5)

In view of the fact that life is filled with uncertainties and much is beyond human control, Koheleth advised, “In the morning sow your seed, and do not let your hand rest in the evening; for you do not know which will succeed, this or that, or whether both alike will be good.” Koheleth’s admonition is to be diligent in laboring from morning until the evening, not becoming indecisive because of life’s uncertainties or letting fear of failure stifle activity. Whereas the sowing of seed does not guarantee a good crop, failure to sow seed definitely means that there will be no harvest. Because a person does not know which of his endeavors will succeed or whether all of them will turn out well, he should simply go ahead with his pursuits, not worrying about possible failures. (11:6)

For a person to be unduly anxious about uncertainties would result in his having a gloomy outlook and a negative view of life. Diligence in working despite uncertainties, on the other hand, contributes to the enjoyment of life. Koheleth observed, “And the light [is] sweet, and [it is] good for the eyes to see the sun.” Humans are creatures of the day, and so the light is “sweet,” delightful, or pleasant. Only the living can enjoy the light and behold the pleasurable effects of the sun as it dispels the gloom of the night. To see the sun with one’s eyes means to be alive. Koheleth referred to this as “good,” pleasant, or delightful. (11:7)

Continuing with his encouragement to enjoy life, Koheleth said, “For if a man lives many years, let him rejoice in all [of them]. But let him remember the days of darkness, for they will be many. All that comes [is] vanity.” The years of life should not be dominated by one’s being in a sullen and gloomy state. Instead, each day should be appreciated and enjoyed to the full in a wholesome way. Days that could be delightful should not be ruined by useless worrying and fretting about what may or may not happen. (11:8)

A person should remember that the “days of darkness” are coming. It will then be impossible to find delight in what life has to offer. These “days” may refer to the years of old age, when strength diminishes, health deteriorates, and the capacity for enjoying life is greatly reduced. (Compare 2 Samuel 19:35.) As the days of affliction drag on, they appear to be many. The “days of darkness” could also designate the time when, in Sheol or in the realm of the dead, the eyes no longer see the sun and all activity ceases. (9:10) This would fit the fact that darkness is associated with Sheol, it being described as a “land of gloom” and “deep shadow.” (Job 10:21, 22) When compared with the brevity of life, the days in Sheol are many. (11:8)

If the many “days of darkness” relate to the period of lifelessness in Sheol, they are truly days of vanity, meaninglessness, or purposelessness, for all activity, accomplishments, and rejoicing have come to their end. The days of debilitating old age can also be described as vain. Progressive impairment of physical and mental faculties leads to one’s having but a painful existence. Life loses direction and purpose. Every day that passes seems vain, empty, meaningless, or futile. (11:8)

In view of the coming “days of darkness,” Koheleth admonished youths individually, “Rejoice, young man, in your youth, and let your heart do you good in the days of your youth, and walk in the ways of your heart, and in the sight of your eyes. But know that for all these [things] God will bring you into judgment.” (11:9)

The Hebrew term for “young man (bachúr) designates a full-grown, vigorous, unmarried young man. Such a one is to find pleasure in his “youth” (yaldhúth, “childhood,” “young adulthood”). (11:9)

“Heart” here can designate the inner self. For the “heart” to do one good would indicate its being in a state of inner cheerfulness, manifest in a real zest for life and a countenance that radiates joy. The “days of youth” designate the time in which one is in the state of “young manhood” (bechuróth) or in the prime of life. (11:9)

“Walking” in the “ways of the heart” would denote pursuing the impelling desires that originate in the heart or the deep inner self. Since the eyes play a vital role in revealing all kinds of delightful things, Koheleth also encouraged “walking” in the “sight of the eyes,” or doing what the eyes have seen to be pleasurable. (11:9)

Koheleth did not advise following a course of unrestraint. He added a caution designed to help youths make wise choices. A young man is accountable to God for what he does. Not everything that may appeal to the desires is divinely approved. Some things may momentarily satisfy cravings for pleasure but afterward result in serious harm. For a young man to follow a course contrary to the divine standard of what is right would lead to God’s adverse judgment. That judgment would be evident in the young man’s experiencing the bitter consequences of his wrong choice. “Knowing” or recognizing the certainty of divine judgment should govern which desires can properly be pursued. (11:9)

Continuing his cautionary advice, Koheleth concluded, “And remove vexation from your heart and let evil pass your flesh by, for youth and the prime of life [are] vanity.” (11:10)

In this case, “heart” may denote the inner self. The Hebrew term for “vexation” (ká‘as) signifies “irritation,” “disturbance,” “anger,” “distress,” or “grief.” Vexation of the heart could denote an intense inner upheaval. Koheleth’s advice is that a youth should avoid behavior that would cause him to have a troubled conscience and great mental anxiety or anguish. Thus he would “remove” or banish such disturbance from his “heart” or inner self. (11:10)

Indulging wrong desires can also harm the flesh or the physical organism. So, the encouragement is to prevent “evil” or something injurious from affecting the flesh. The painful thing should be made to pass by, leaving the flesh or physical organism unharmed. Overindulging in drink, taking foolhardy risks, or engaging in sexual promiscuity can greatly dissipate the strength and vigor of youth. Through risky behavior, a strong young man may find himself reduced to the state of a feeble cripple or may become progressively weaker from a debilitating disease. (11:10)

“Youth” (yaldhúth) and the “prime of life” are called “vanity,” “emptiness,” or “meaninglessness.” This is probably because of the fleeting nature of youth. During the life of seventy or eighty years, young manhood or young womanhood occupies only a short period of time. Moreover, the enjoyment of youthful strength and vigor is of uncertain duration. Even youths contract serious illnesses and die. (11:10)

The Hebrew expression, rendered “prime of life” in a number of translations (HCSB, NASB, REB), is shacharúth. This term has been linked with shachár, which designates either “to be [or become] black” or “to break” or “to break forth” (as the light of the dawn does). Translators who associate the term with “black” have rendered the expression “age of black hair” (NJB) or “black hair” (Tanakh). The reference evidently would then be to the time of youth, before the hair turns gray and white. On the other hand, those who link the Hebrew word shacharúth to the breaking forth of the dawn use such expressions as “dawn of life” (ESV, NRSV), “dawn of youth” (NAB), or “prime of life” (REB). In either case, shacharúth relates to the time of youth. (11:10)

The Septuagint says ánoia, meaning “lack of understanding,” “ignorance,” or “folly.” George Lamsa’s translation, based on the Syriac, reads similarly, “Youth and ignorance are vanity.” This rendering suggests that youth and the lack of sound judgment characteristic of inexperienced youths are “vanity,” “emptiness,” “futility,” or part of the fleeting and transitory nature of human life. (11:10)

The Latin word voluptas appears in the concluding words of the Vulgate, and this term means “pleasure,” “delight,” or “enjoyment.” In harmony with the Vulgate, the translation by Ronald Knox says, “Youth and pleasures, they are so quickly gone.” (11:10)

Ecclesiastes 12:1-14

Koheleth continued the admonition that can apply to any young person, saying, “And remember your Creator in the days of your youth, before the evil days come and the years draw near about which you will say, I have no delight in them.” The conjunction “and” indicates that this is a continuation of the words directed to youths (in the previous chapter). (12:1)

To remember the Creator would signify appreciatively to recognize him as the giver of life and the source of all blessings. Such remembering involves a reverential regard for him as the Maker of everything, and this is manifested by conduct harmonizing with his commands. (12:1; compare Deuteronomy 8:10-19.)

Being in the plural, the Hebrew expression for “your Creator” (bohre’eyka) signifies excellence, magnificence, or grandeur. He is the magnificent Creator. (12:1)

While in the prime of life, one should let the highest regard for the Creator and his will guide one’s decisions and conduct. The Hebrew word, rendered “youth” (bechuróhth), means “young manhood.” It refers to the time when one is enjoying the freshness of youth, for the term bachúr can apply to an adult unmarried male having youthful strength and vigor. (12:1)

The “evil days” are the days of old age, with their attendant ailments, loss of strength, and general deterioration of physical and, often, mental faculties. Accompanied by continued decline and no hope of any improvement, the days are indeed “evil” or “bad.” The capacity for enjoying food, drink, and other wholesome pleasures is greatly reduced and replaced by aches and pains. Hence, persons of advanced age come to the point where they may say that they have no delight or pleasure in the declining years of their life. (12:1) Their sentiments are like those expressed by Barzillai when invited by King David to join him in Jerusalem. “I am now eighty years old. I cannot tell what is pleasant and what is not; I cannot taste what I eat or drink; I can no longer listen to the voice of men and women singing. Why should I be a further burden on your majesty?” (2 Samuel 19:35, REB)

The person who has remembered his Creator when young, however, can look back with satisfaction on his former years. By having avoided the injurious effects of a reckless way of life in youth, he has also benefited by not contributing to the problems of old age.

Seemingly contrasting the time of youth with that of old age, Koheleth said, “before the sun and the light and the moon and the stars are darkened, and the clouds return after the rain.” Youth is the summertime of life. The sun shines from a cloudless sky, and the days are “light” or bright. Nights are also delightful, as the moon and the stars adorn the black sky. Old age, on the other hand, is the wintertime of life. In winter, the days are dark and gloomy in the land where Koheleth resided. On account of overcast skies, the sun, moon, and stars are concealed from sight, thus darkened. The light or brightness of summer yields to the dark gray of winter. After downpours of cold rain, perhaps followed by some clearing of the sky, the clouds quickly return. In old age, the days lose their brightness, and no light dispels the darkness of the nights. The declining years of life are like the damp, cold and gloomy days and nights of winter, with rains in the form of difficulties, pains and distresses that follow one another in rapid succession. (12:2)

It appears that Koheleth provided a poetic portrayal of the debilitating effects on the physical organism, saying, “in the day when the keepers of the house tremble, and the strong men are bent, and the grinders cease [functioning] because they are few, and those that look through the windows [find it] darkened.” (12:3; see the Notes section.)

Elsewhere in the scriptures, the human body is referred to as a “tent” or “house.” (2 Corinthians 5:1, 2, 4; 2 Peter 1:13, 14) So there is a basis for considering the “house” to be the body and Koheleth’s description to relate to various parts thereof. “Your body will grow feeble.” (12:3, CEV)

The “guards,” “keepers,” or “guardians” of the house could be the arms and hands. They serve as the protectors of the house or the body, shielding it from injury, keeping it clean, and supplying what it needs to function properly. In old age, the arms weaken and the hands tremble. (12:3)

As the supporters and transporters of the rest of the body, the legs could be designated as “strong men.” The Shulammite described the legs of her lover as “pillars.” (Song of Solomon 5:15) With advancing years, the legs cease to be straight, sturdy pillars. Muscle tone and mass decrease, and the legs bend at the knees. The gait becomes slow, awkward, and unstable. (12:3)

Few are the “grinders” or “grinding women,” possibly meaning the teeth. When most or all of the teeth are missing, the process of grinding food basically ceases. Toothless gums are only capable of handling soft, mushy foods. (12:3)

“Those that look through the windows,” or “the ladies that peer through the windows” (Tanakh), may refer to the eyes. As they look between the opened eyelids from their window-like orbits, the eyes see as if in a haze or in a “darkened” condition. Vision is poor and, at times, blindness sets in. (12:3)

Koheleth continued the description, “and the doors on the street are shut, when the sound of the grinding is low, and one rises up at the sound of a bird, and all the daughters of song are weakened.” (12:4)

Psalm 141:3 refers to the “door of my lips,” and so the “doors” could designate the lips that close the mouth. When visible to all, the lips are like the double doors of a house facing the street. In old age, on account of toothless gums, the lips fold inward and, therefore, might be spoken of as being shut “on the street.” Since the lips are involved in speaking, the reference could also be to the fact that the making of public expression comes to an end. Infirmity prevents a person of advanced age from being an active participant in the affairs of life conducted in public places. The Septuagint reads agorá (“marketplace”), not street. Accordingly, the doors of the mouth would be closed with reference to the busy thoroughfare. (12:4)

Since the “grinders” may be the “teeth,” the “sound of the grinding” (or the “sound of the mill” [REB]) could refer to the dull, muffled sound of chewing food with toothless gums. In a number of translations, the closed doors are represented as the ears and the low “sound of the grinding” as poor hearing. “The noisy grinding of grain will be shut out by your deaf ears.” (CEV) “Your ears will be deaf to the noise in the streets, and you will barely hear the millstone grinding grain.” (NCV) Loss of hearing, however, may be indicated by the expression “all the daughters of song are weakened.” (12:4; see the Notes section.)

The elderly no longer sleep soundly. They tend to wake up frequently, and the periods of wakefulness last longer than in the case of younger people. Because much of the sleep is light, the aged may be roused at the “sound of a bird” even if their hearing is limited. Unable to go back to sleep after being awakened by the sound of a bird early in the morning, they may rise. Because deafness is a common affliction of the elderly, they may not be able to hear bird calls. On account of sleeplessness, though, they may get up at the time the first chirping starts. (12:4)

“Daughters of song” could denote the musical notes, all of which sound low or faint. This is the sense a number of translations convey (“all the strains of music dying down” [Tanakh]; “you will barely hear singing” [NCV]). Translations vary, however, as to the interpretation placed on the words “daughters of song.” Koheleth’s words have been understood as indicating that the elderly cease to sing or that their rendition of songs is feeble. “Your voice will become thin and trembling.” (Deine Stimme wird dünn und zittrig. [German, Gute Nachricht Bibel]) Others have limited the expression “daughters of song” to the song of birds (“songbirds fall silent” [REB]). “Already early in the morning you wake up with the chirping of birds, although you can barely even hear their singing.” (Schon frühmorgens beim Zwitschern der Vögel wachst du auf, obwohl du ihren Gesang kaum noch hören kannst. [German, Hoffnung für alle]) (12:4)

With apparent reference to the aged, Koheleth observed, “They are afraid also of a height, and terrors [are] in the way; the almond tree blossoms, the grasshopper drags itself, and the caper berry bursts, because man is going to his eternal home, and mourners are going about on the streets.” (12:5)

Being unsteady on his feet and, perhaps, subject to dizzy spells, an old man is more likely to fall when climbing. Ascending elevations also poses problems because of shortness of breath and the great effort required on account of enfeeblement. Such factors cause the elderly to be afraid of heights. The Septuagint reads, “Indeed from a height, they will see, and terrors [are] in the way.” This could mean that the elderly, from an elevated spot, could see things that would make them fearful. (12:5)

The roads or busy thoroughfares can prove to be terrifying. Impaired hearing, poor eyesight, and lack of agility make it difficult to avoid hazards. Unscrupulous persons may also prey on defenseless elderly ones, making them targets for robbery. (Compare Proverbs 1:11-13.) Due to deterioration of physical and mental faculties, the aged face real perils and may also imagine terrors. (12:5)

Before its leaves appear, the almond tree starts to bloom at the end of January or the beginning of February. The blossoms usually are pink and, at times, white. At the tips, the petals turn white, making the tree appear white when in full bloom. If the reference to the blooming of the almond tree relates to an old man, it could refer to the fact that the hair turns white. (12:5)

The words “the grasshopper drags itself” could be descriptive of an old man. Being stiff, and having crooked elbows sticking out beyond the sides of the stooped body, he might be said to resemble a grasshopper, but he “drags himself,” shuffling slowly as he moves awkwardly and unsteadily. The Hebrew expression may also be rendered, “the grasshopper is a burden.” This suggests that, when alighting on an aged, infirm person, something as little as a grasshopper is burdensome. In the Septuagint, Vulgate, and Syriac, the basic meaning is “the grasshopper becomes fat.” The renderings of the ancient versions could be understood to denote that an old man may be considerably overweight, as was 98-year-old Eli. (1 Samuel 4:15, 18) Perhaps the translators regarded the Hebrew as meaning that the grasshopper became “burdened [with fat].” (12:5)

Modern translators have interpretively rendered the Hebrew text in various ways. “You will limp along like a grasshopper when you walk.” (NCV) “You will feel lifeless and drag along like an old grasshopper.” (CEV) “Arduously you drag yourself through the day.” (mühsam schleppst du dich durch den Tag [German, Hoffnung für alle]) (12:5)

When pickled, the caper berry (Hebrew, ’aviyyohnáh; Greek, kápparis [LXX]; Latin, capparis [Vulgate]) serves as a condiment to stimulate desire for food. In describing what happens to the fruit of the caper plant, a form of the word parár appears in the Hebrew text. This term may mean “to burst,” or “to be void,” and so could signify “to become ineffectual,” possibly with reference to stimulating an old person’s appetite. “Your appetite will be gone.” (NCV) The reference to the caper berry has also been related to sexual desire (“without any sexual desire” [NLT]). (12:5)

Instead of relating to an old man, the descriptions from the almond tree onward have been presented as having an application to the plants themselves. “For the almond tree may blossom, the grasshopper be burdened, and the caper bush may bud again.” (Tanakh) Since the reference to the grasshopper does not fit in logically, a footnote in the Tanakh gives an alternate reading, Emendation yields ‘the squill (postbiblical Heb. hasab) resume its burden,’ i.e., its blossom-stalk and its leaves. The thought conveyed is that the almond tree, the squill, and the caper plant seem to be dead but then, at the end of the dormant period, come alive with new growth. No similar revival takes place for man when he dies. (12:5)

Man, in his state of decline, is “going,” walking, or heading to his “house” or “home” — the realm of the dead. This “house” is described as “eternal” or “lasting,” the Hebrew word ‘ohlám denoting time that has no set limit. Because death is approaching, the mourners “are going about in the street,” readily available when the individual dies. Besides relatives, friends, and close acquaintances, professional mourners would wail in a loud and bitter manner. (12:5)

Koheleth’s next words could relate to the dissolution of the body at death. The opening expression ‘adh’asher (“as yet even”), commonly rendered “before,” is to be linked with the encouragement to “remember your Creator” (verse 1). For clarity, a number of translations have added the words (“remember your Creator”; or “remember him”) at the beginning of verse 6. The Hebrew text reads, “before the silver cord is removed and the golden bowl is broken, and the jar at the spring is shattered, and the wheel at the cistern is crushed.” (12:6)

The Hebrew term (racháq) that describes what happens to the “silver cord” may be translated “is removed.” Numerous modern translations render racháq as “severed,” which rendering has the support of the Vulgate and the Syriac. In the Septuagint, the word used is anatrépo, meaning “to overthrow” or “to ruin.” When broken, the “golden bowl” could no longer function as a useful container. A jar or vessel at a spring or cistern is repeatedly filled and emptied. When shattered, the earthenware jar can no longer serve this purpose. (12:6)

Neither the context nor other scriptures make it possible to establish whether the “silver cord,” the “golden bowl,” the “jar,” or the “wheel” at the cistern designate specific body parts. Possibly Koheleth simply intended to portray the sudden end of life in three different ways. (1) The silver cord snaps, the bowl (filled with oil and containing a lighted wick) falls to the ground and is damaged, the oil is spilled, and the flame goes out. (2) A jar filled with water hits the sides of the well too hard, and the precious liquid flows out of the broken jar. (3) The wheel at the cistern is shattered, and the drawing of water stops immediately. (12:6; see the Notes section.)

Once the person is dead, “the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it.” The first man was formed from the “dust” or the elements of the ground. As descendants of the first man, all humans or earthlings are made of “dust.” At death, the physical organism decomposes, returning to the elements of which it consisted originally. Psalm 146:4 expresses a similar thought: “When his spirit goes forth he returns to the earth, on that very day all his plans come to nothing.” (NJB) The “spirit” or principle of life, however, did not originate spontaneously from the lifeless dust. In the case of the first man, his lifeless body was animated by the “spirit” or life principle that God imparted. Never having been a part of the earth, the spirit could not return to it. Instead, as Koheleth said, it “returns to God, the source and the giver thereof. (12:7)

The “return of the spirit to God” may also include the thought that all future life prospects rest with him, the One into whose hands the spirit is committed. (12:7; Psalm 31:5) This harmonizes with the scriptural reference to the revivifying power of God’s spirit. “When you take away their spirit, they die and return to the dust from which they came. When you send forth your spirit, they are created, and you give new life to the earth.” (Psalm 104:29, 30, REB)

Man’s life is comparatively brief, and death ends all his plans and activities. Nothing enduring is left behind. In most cases, even the name will cease to be remembered by future generations. Therefore, the words found at the beginning of the book are repeated at this point. “‘Vanity of vanities,’ says Koheleth, ‘the whole — vanity.’” It is a vanity, a futility, an emptiness above all others — a vanity of the superlative degree. “All,” “the whole,” or everything in human affairs, that came under Koheleth’s careful study and observation proved to be meaningless, purposeless, futile, or vain. Nothing had any permanence or lasting value. (12:8)

“And besides having become wise, Koheleth also taught the people knowledge.” By using his God-given reasoning faculties in carefully observing human affairs and evaluating his findings, Koheleth became wise or acquired real insight respecting practical matters of life and in solving perplexing problems. He did not selfishly keep others in ignorance, jealously maintaining his superiority over them so as to be able to exercise greater control. Instead, he instructed them, generously sharing his extensive knowledge. (12:9)

Seemingly, regarding his efforts to be a good teacher, Koheleth spoke of “weighing,” “searching out,” and “arranging many proverbs.” The rendering “weighing” is based on considering the Hebrew word consisting of three consonants (aleph, zayin, and nun) to be ’azán, meaning “to weigh,” “to ponder,” or “to consider carefully.” These three consonants may also be understood to mean “ear” and “to listen.” The Septuagint reads, “An ear will search out well-arranged parables,” indicating that Koheleth’s ear was always open to hear “well-arranged parables,” which he then added to his fund of knowledge and used in teaching the people. A number of translations express a similar thought. “[He] gave ear.” (Young) “He listened to and tested the soundness of many maxims.” (12:9, Tanakh)

The Hebrew word chaqár basically means to “search out,” “to explore,” and has also been rendered “scrutinized” (NAB), “explored” (HCSB), “looked for” (NLB), and “studied” (NJB). As to what Koheleth did with the proverbs, wise sayings, or maxims, the Hebrew word describing this action is taqán, which means “to make straight.” This may signify that he arranged proverbs in a particular order. “To make straight” could also mean to correct, and this is expressed by the rendering “emended many proverbs.” (12:9, NJB)

Koheleth sought to find “delightful words and [to write] correct words of truth.” The finding of “delightful words” could refer to the effort required in the selection of subjects that would give pleasure or delight to the readers and to those hearing the reading of what was recorded. This could suggest that the words were useful, meaningful, and of genuine interest. On the other hand, the focus could be on the choice and arrangement of the words — “attractive style” (NJB). Truth, however, was not sacrificed for the sake of giving pleasure to the reader or preserving a delightful style. The Hebrew term describing the “words of truth” as “genuine” or “upright” is yósher, basically conveying the sense of “straightness.” The words were “genuinely truthful sayings” (Tanakh); “what he wrote was upright and true” (NIV). (12:10)

“The words of the wise [are] like goads.” A goad or prod consisted of a long wooden pole to which a sharp metal point was attached. It was used to prick a draft animal so that it would move forward in the right direction. Like goads, the words or sayings of persons possessing sound judgment or insight can motivate others to take the proper course. The words of the wise can prick the conscience and prompt appropriate or corrective action. Even the expressions and attitudes of persons rightly affected by the words can change for the better. (12:11)

“And like nails driven in [are] owners of collections.” “Owners” or “masters” of “collections” may designate sages who are depositories of many wise sayings which they understand and apply correctly. Such persons continue to grow in their fund of knowledge, resulting in expanding their “collections” of meaningful maxims. (12:11)

Nails that are driven in provide support and stability for an object. With reference to those whom they teach and admonish, wise persons are like nails, serving as a stabilizing influence and giving support and encouragement as they draw on their “collections.” Once driven in, nails have a permanent place. So, the allusion could also be to the temporary goadlike or pricking effect of the spoken word and the abiding nature of the written word with its potential for continuing to influence others. (12:11)

Numerous translators understand the Hebrew expression “owners of collections” to apply to the collected sayings rather than the persons who are the depositories of such collections (“their collected sayings like firmly embedded nails” [NIV], “like nails firmly fixed are the collected sayings” [NRSV], “like nails driven home” [REB], “like nails that fasten things together” [CEV]). The Tanakh links “nails” with “goads.” “The sayings of the wise are like goads, like nails fixed in prodding sticks.” It seems preferable, though, to regard the term bá‘al in its usual sense as meaning “master” or “owner.” (12:11)

Wise sayings “were given by one Shepherd.” The words of the wise and the “collections” of profitable sayings in their possession are from the one who is the source of their wisdom — God. YHWH gives wisdom; from his mouth [come] knowledge and understanding.” (Proverbs 2:6); “YHWH [is] my shepherd.” (12:11; Psalm 23:1)

Regarding anything written that does not reflect God-given wisdom, Koheleth continued, “And anything beyond these, my son, beware. There is no end to the making of many books, and much study wearies the flesh.” The expression “son” could refer to a youth or a pupil, one not yet in possession of the wisdom and experience associated with age. Such a one could easily be swayed by what he read. Hence, there was good reason for him to be given the caution to beware of writings that did not reflect God-given wisdom. Much of what was available had no value and could prove to be injurious. There simply was no end to all the books that had been and continued to be written. For example, in the third century BCE, Demetrius, librarian in Alexandria, Egypt, told King Ptolemy II Philadelphus that there were over 200,000 volumes in the library and that it was his hope to increase the number to 500,000. (12:12; see the Notes section.)

The Hebrew word for “study” (lahág) is thought to be drawn from an unused root conveying the idea of being greatly addicted to something. An all-consuming interest in the vast, growing field of writings can wear a person down physically. A slavish, indiscriminate devotion to books is wearisome or exhausting to the “flesh,” the physical organism. (12:12)

After his careful investigation and evaluation of human affairs, Koheleth concluded, “Final word, all having been heard: Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is man’s all.” In Hebrew, the term “word” (davár) can also mean “thing,” “affair” or “matter,” and this (in connection with the Hebrew term sohph (“end”) has been rendered as “the conclusion of the matter” (NIV), “the sum of the matter” (Tanakh), and “the end of the matter” (NRSV). The basic thought is the same — after all has been heard or examined, one conclusion is reached. Humans or earthlings should fear God, be in awe of him, or have a wholesome dread of displeasing him. They should also keep his commandments, letting his word and will guide what they do and say. Divine commandments or guidelines should influence their attitude and their thoughts. (12:13)

The “all of man” or “man’s all” may denote (1) man’s complete obligation or (2) man’s whole purpose for being. Both meanings are to be found in the renderings of translators. (12:13) “This is the whole duty of man.” (NIV) “This applies to all mankind.” (Tanakh) “There is no more to man than this.” (NEB) “This is the whole man.” (Margolis) “This is what life is all about.” (CEV)

Pointing out that humans are accountable for their actions and should, therefore, fear God and keep his commandments, Koheleth added, “For God will bring every work into judgment, [even] every hidden thing, whether good or evil.” Nothing escapes the attention of the Most High. People will be called to account for their actions, even those concealed from human view. A court higher than that of any man will determine what was “good” or “evil.” (12:14)

Jesus Christ similarly referred to this accountability. “On the day of judgment people will render an account for every careless word they speak. By your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned.” (Matthew 12:36, 37, NAB) Recognizing the certainty of a coming judgment should serve to restrain one from making derogatory, deceptive or slanderous expressions and engaging in corrupt conduct. The apostle Peter reminded fellow Christians: “If you say ‘Father’ to him who judges everyone impartially on the basis of what they have done, you must live in awe of him during your time on earth.” (1 Peter 1:17, REB)

Notes:

Many have understood the poetic language of verses 3 and 4 as describing what happens to the humans body as it ages, and this significance has been made explicit in the renderings of a number of modern translations. Others, however, have regarded the words to relate to what happens to an estate as it falls into a condition of neglect and deterioration; or they have taken the imagery to refer to the fearful response of individuals in a large household when about to face a severe storm (which is regarded as representative of death). One of the descriptions in particular does not seem to fit either of these explanations. The “grinders” (which word is feminine gender in Hebrew and, therefore, can be rendered “grinding women”) are said to have “ceased,” or stopped working, because of being few. The decline of an estate would not end the need to grind grain because fewer women would be available for this essential labor, nor would an approaching storm reduce the number of women doing the grinding and so could not be the reason for stopping the activity.

Although interpretively representing the “doors” of verse 4 as the “lips, the New Living Translation gives a meaning to the verse that is not apparent from the Hebrew text nor from the Septuagint. “And when your teeth are gone, keep your lips tightly closed when you eat!”

The reference to the blossoming of the almond tree, to the grasshopper, and to the caper berry (in verse 5) has also been considered as serving to contrast with developments regarding the deceased. “Outside the almond tree blossoms, the grasshopper eats itself full, and the caper fruit bursts open, but you they carry to your last dwelling place. On the street, they start mourning for you.” (Draußen blüht der Mandelbaum, die Heuschrecke frisst sich voll und die Kaperfrucht bricht auf; aber dich trägt man zu deiner letzten Wohnung. Auf der Straße stimmen sie die Totenklage für dich an. [German, Gute Nachricht Bibel]).

A number of views about verse 6 that were expressed in past centuries have gained a measure of acceptance. The “silver cord” has been understood to designate the “spinal cord; the “golden bowl,” the brain, or the bowl-like cranium that contains the brain; and the “jar,” the heart. The “wheel at the cistern” has been linked to the circulation of blood.

When understood to be the “silver cord,” the spinal cord could be spoken of as being removed from its previous position in the living body, for it ceases to function at death. If designating the “golden bowl,” the brain (in its broken state at death) can no longer fill its vital role in the body. As a container for liquid, the “pitcher,” “jar,” or “vessel” could refer to the heart through which the blood courses. Because the blood continues to flow in and out of it, the heart is comparable to a vessel at a spring. As the flow of water into a vessel stops when the wheel at the cistern is crushed or broken, so death ends the circulation of blood from the heart to other parts of the body.

The example cited in connection with verse 12 is taken from what is known as the “Letter of Aristeas,” which contains a traditional account about the origin of the Torah portion of the Septuagint.