Ecclesiastes 4:1–8:1

Footnotes

1. 1 The prefixed vav on וְשַׁבְתִּי (véshavti, vav + perfect 1st person common singular from שׁוּב, shuv, “to turn”) might be: (1) introductory (and left untranslated): “I observed again”; (2) consequence of preceding statement: “So I observed again”; or (3) continuation of preceding statement: “And I observed again.” This section is closely related to the preceding: Qoheleth’s observation of oppression (4:1–3) links back to his previous observation of oppression and injustice (3:16). It stands in stark contrast with his admonition for man to enjoy life on earth as the reward for one’s work (3:22). Now, Qoheleth turns his attention to consider the sorry fate of those who are not able to enjoy life on earth and their work because of oppression (4:1–3), over-obsessive competitiveness (4:4–6), and loneliness (4:7–12).
2. 2 Heb “I turned and I saw.” The phrase וָאֶרְאֶה … וְשַׁבְתִּי (véshavti … va’er’eh, “I turned and I saw”) is a verbal hendiadys (the two verbs represent one common idea). Normally in a verbal hendiadys, the first verb functions adverbially, modifying the second verb which retains its full verbal force. The verb וְשַׁבְתִּי (vav + perfect 1st person common singular from שׁוּב “to turn”) is used idiomatically to denote repetition: “to return and do” = “to do again” (e.g., Gen 26:18; 30:31; 43:2) or “to do repeatedly” (e.g., Lam 3:3); see שׁוב 5; 998 שׁוּב 8; §120.e: “I observed again” or “I repeatedly observed.” On the other hand, the shift from the perfect וְשַׁבְתִּי to the preterite וָאֶרְאֶה (vav + Qal preterite 1st person common singular from רָאָה, ra’ah, “to see”) might indicate a purpose clause: “I turned [my mind] to consider.” The preterite וָאֶרְאֶה follows the perfect וְשַׁבְתִּי. When a wayyiqtol form (vav + preterite) follows a perfect in reference to a past-time situation, the preterite also represents a past-time situation. Its aspect is based on the preceding perfect. In this context, the perfect and preterite may denote definite past or indefinite past action (“I turned and considered” as hendiadys for “I observed again” or “I repeatedly observed”) or past telic action (“I turned [my mind] to consider”). See §33.3.1a.
3. 3 Heb “all the oppressions” or “all the oppression”; alternately, “all the various kinds of oppression.” The term עֹשֶׁק (’osheq) denotes “oppression,” e.g., Jer 6:6; 22:17; Ezek 18:18; 22:7, 12, 29; Pss 73:8; 119:134 (see עֹשֶׁק 1; 799 עֹשֶׁק 1). It occurs several times in the book, always in reference to personal rather than national oppression (4:1; 5:8 [5:7 ]; 7:7). The noun הָעֲשֻׁקִים (ha’ashuqim) is plural and articular (Heb “the oppressions”). The article indicates a generic class (“oppression”). The plural may be classified in one of two ways: (1) a plural of number, which refers to specific kinds of oppression that occur on earth: “the various kinds of oppression”; (2) an abstract plural, which is used to refer to abstract concepts: “the oppression”; or (3) a plural of intensity, which describes the oppression at hand as particularly grievous: “awful oppression” or “severe oppression.” The renders it as a plural of number: συκοφαντίας (sukophantias, “oppressions”), as does the . Most English versions treat it as a plural of number: “the oppressions” (, , , , , , ); however, a few treat it as an abstract plural: “the oppression” (, , ).
4. 4 Heb “is done.” The term נַעֲשִׂים (na’asim, Niphal participle mpl from עָשַׂה, ’asah, “to do”) is a probably a verbal use of the participle rather than a substantival use (: “all the acts of oppression”). This verbal use of the participle depicts durative or universal gnomic action. It emphasizes the lamentable continuity of oppression throughout human history. The English versions translate it variously: “[all the oppressions that] are done” (, , , ), “[all the oppression] that goes on” (, ), “[all the oppressions] that are practiced” (, ), “[all the oppressions] that occur” (), “[all the acts of oppression] which were being done” (), “[all the oppressions] that take place” (), “[all the oppression] that was taking place” ().
5. 5 Heb “under the sun.”
6. 6 Heb “and behold.” The deictic particle וְהִנֵּה (véhinneh, “and behold!”) often occurs after verbs of perceiving, such as רָאָה, ra’ah, “to see” (e.g., Gen 19:28; 22:13; Exod 3:2; Lev 13:8). It introduces the content of what the character or speaker saw ( הִנֵּה 8). It is used for rhetorical emphasis, to draw attention to the following statement (e.g., Gen 1:29; 17:20; Num 22:32; Job 1:19; cf. 5). It often introduces something surprising or unexpected (e.g., Gen 29:6; Num 25:6; cf. 6).
7. 7 The term הָעֲשֻׁקִים (ha’ashuqim, Qal passive participle mpl from עָשַׁק, ’ashaq, “to oppress”) is a passive form, emphasizing that they are the objects of oppression at the hands of their oppressors. The participle functions as a noun, emphasizing the durative aspect of their condition and that this was the singular most characteristic attribute of this group of people: Their lives were marked by oppression.
8. 8 Heb “the tear of the oppressed.” Alternately, “the oppressed [were in] tears.” The singular noun דִּמְעָה (dim’ah, “tear”) is used as a collective for “tears” (2 Kgs 20:5; Isa 16:9; 25:8; 38:5; Jer 8:23; 19:7; 13:17; 14:17; 31:16; Ezek 24:16; Mal 2:13; Pss 6:7; 39:13; 42:4; 56:9; 80:6; 116:8; 126:5; Lam 1:2; 2:18; Eccl 4:1); see דִּמְעָה; 199 דִּמְעָה. It is often used in reference to lamentation over calamity, distress, or oppression (e.g., Ps 6:7; Lam 1:2; 2:11; Jer 9:17; 13:17; 14:17). The translated it as singular δάκρουν (dakroun, “the tear”); however, the treated it as a collective (“the tears”). Apart from the woodenly literal (“the tear”), the major English versions render this as a collective: “the tears” or “tears” (, , , , , , , , , ). The term דִּמְעָה functions as a metonymy of association for “weeping” (e.g., Isa 16:9; 8:23): “the oppressed [were weeping with] tears.” The genitive construct דִּמְעָת הָעֲשֻׁקִים (dim’at ha’ashuqim, literally, “tear of the oppressed”) is a subjective genitive construction, that is, the oppressed are weeping. The singular דִּמְעָת (dim’at, “tear”) is used as a collective for “tears.” This entire phrase, however, is still given a woodenly literal translation by most English versions: “the tears of the oppressed” (, , , , , , , , ). Some paraphrases attempt to fill out the meaning, e.g., “the oppressed were in tears” ().
9. 9 Heb “comforts.” The verb נָחַם (nakham, “to comfort”) is used as a metonymy of effect (i.e., comfort) for cause (i.e., deliverance), e.g., it is used in parallelism with גָאַל (ga’al, “to deliver”) in Isa 52:9 (see E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech, ).
10. 10 Heb “from the hand of their oppressors is power.”
11. 11 The verb שָׁבַח (shavakh) has a two-fold range of meaning: (1) “to praise; to laud”; and (2) “to congratulate” ( I שׁבח; 986 II שָׁבַח). The translated it as ἐπῄνεσα (epēnesa, “I praised”). The English versions reflect the range of possible meanings: “praised” (, , ); “congratulated” (, ); “declared/judged/accounted/thought … fortunate/happy” (, , , , , ).
12. 12 Heb “the dead who had already died.”
13. 13 Heb “the living who are alive.”
14. 14 The word “born” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity.
15. 15 Heb “under the sun.”
16. 16 Heb “saw.”
17. 17 Heb “all the toil and all the skill.” This Hebrew clause (אֶת־כָּל־עָמָל וְאֵת כָּל־כִּשְׁרוֹן, ’et-kol-’amal vé’et kol-kishron) is a nominal hendiadys (a figurative expression in which two independent phrases are used to connote the same thing). The second functions adverbially, modifying the first, which retains its full nominal function: “all the skillful work.”
18. 18 The phrase “nothing more than” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity.
19. 19 The noun קִנְאַה (qin’ah, “competition”) has a wide range of meanings: “zeal; jealousy; envy; rivalry; competition; suffering; animosity; anger; wrath” ( ; 888 ). Here, as in 9:6, it denotes “rivalry” ( 888 1) or “competitive spirit” ( 1.b). The rendered it ζῆλος (zēlos, “envy; jealousy”). The English versions reflect this broad range: “rivalry” (, , ), “envy” (, , , , , , ), and “jealousy” ().
20. 20 Heb “a man and his neighbor.”
21. 21 The word “like” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity.
22. 22 Heb “the fool folds his hands.” The Hebrew idiom means that he does not work (e.g., Prov 6:10; 24:33). In the translation the words “and does no work” (which do not appear in the Hebrew text) have been supplied following the idiom to clarify what is meant.
23. 23 Heb “and eats his own flesh.” Most English versions render the idiom literally: “and eats/consumes his flesh” (, AS, , , , , ). However, a few versions attempt to explain the idiom: “and lets life go to ruin” (), “and wastes away” (), “and ruins himself” ().
24. 24 Qoheleth lists three approaches to labor: (1) the competitive workaholic in 4:4, (2) the impoverished sluggard in 4:5, and (3) the contented laborer in 4:6. The balanced approach rebukes the two extremes.
25. 25 The prefixed vav on וְשַׁבְתִּי (véshavti, vav + perfect 1st person common singular from שׁוּב, shuv, “to turn”) might be: (1) introductory (and left untranslated): “I observed again …”; (2) consequence of preceding statement: “So I observed again …”; or (3) continuation of preceding statement: “And I observed again.…”
26. 26 Heb “I turned and I saw …”; or “I again considered.” The Hebrew phrase וָאֶרְאֶה … וְשַׁבְתִּי (véshavti … va’er’eh, “I turned and I saw”) is a verbal hendiadys (the two verbs represent one common idea). Normally in a verbal hendiadys, the first verb functions adverbially, modifying the second verb which retains its full verbal force. The verb שׁוּב (shuv, “to turn”) is used idiomatically to denote repetition: “to return and do” = “to do again” (e.g., Gen 26:18; 30:31; 43:2) or “to do repeatedly” (e.g., Lam 3:3); see שׁוב 5; 998 שׁוּב 8; §120.e: “I observed again” or “I repeatedly observed.” On the other hand, the shift from the perfect וְשַׁבְתִּי (vav + perfect 1st person common singular from שׁוּב, “to turn”) to the preterite וָאֶרְאֶה (vav + Qal preterite 1st person common singular from רָאָה, ra’ah, “to see”) might indicate a purpose clause: “I turned [my mind] to consider.…” The preterite וָאֶרְאֶה follows the perfect וְשַׁבְתִּי. When a wayyiqtol form (vav + preterite) follows a perfect in reference to a past-time situation, the preterite also represents a past-time situation. Its aspect is based on the preceding perfect. In this context, the perfect and preterite may denote definite past or indefinite past action (“I turned and considered …” as hendiadys for “I observed again” or “I repeatedly observed”) or past telic action (“I turned [my mind] to consider …”). See §33.3.1a.
27. 27 The word “another” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity.
28. 28 Heb “under the sun.”
29. 29 Heb “There is one and there is not a second.”
30. 30 Heb “son nor brother.” The terms “son” and “brother” are examples of synecdoche of specific (species) for the general (genus). The term “son” is put for offspring, and “brother” for siblings (e.g., Prov 10:1).
31. 31 Heb “his eye.” The term “eye” is a synecdoche of part (i.e., the eye) for the whole (i.e., the whole person); see E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech, .
32. 32 The phrase “he laments” is not in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity. The direct discourse (“For whom am I toiling and depriving myself of pleasure?”) is not introduced with an introductory structure. As in the , some translations suggest that these words are spoken by a lonely workaholic, e.g., “He says …” (, , , , ). Others suggest that this is a question that he never asks himself, e.g., “Yet he never asks himself …” (, , , , , , ).
33. 33 Heb “my soul.”
34. 34 This rhetorical question is an example of negative affirmation, that is, it expects a negative answer: “No one!” (see E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech, ).
35. 35 The adjective רָע (ra’, “evil”) here means “misfortune” ( רָעָה 4) or “injustice, wrong” ( רָעָה 2.b). The phrase עִנְיַן רָע (’inyan ra’, “unhappy business; rotten business; grievous task”) is used only in Ecclesiastes (1:13; 2:23, 26; 3:10; 4:8; 5:2, 13; 8:16). It is parallel with הֶבֶל (hevel, “futile”) in 4:8, and describes a “grave misfortune” in 5:13. The noun עִנְיַן (’inyan, “business”) refers to something that keeps a person occupied or busy: “business; affair; task; occupation” ( עִנְיָן; 775 עִנְיָן). The related verb עָנָה (’anah) means “to be occupied; to be busy with (בְּ, bet),” e.g., Eccl 1:13; 3:10; 5:19 ( III עָנָה; 775 II עָנָה). The noun is from the Aramaic loanword עִנְיָנָא (’inyana’, “concern; care.” The verb is related to the Aramaic verb “to try hard,” the Arabic verb “to be busily occupied; to worry; to be a matter of concern,” and the Old South Arabic root “to be troubled; to strive with” ( III ענה). עִנְיָן renders the phrase as “unhappy business” here. The phrase עִנְיַן רָע, is treated creatively by English versions: , “sore travail”; “sad travail”; “grievous vexation”; , , “unhappy business”; , “sorry business”; “miserable business”; “worthless task”; “grievous task”; “sorry situation”; “depressing.”
36. 36 Heb “they have.”
37. 37 Heb “a good reward.”
38. 38 Heb “woe to him.”
39. 39 The verbal root תקף means “to overpower; to prevail over” e.g., Job 14:20; 15:24; Eccl 4:12; 6:10 ( תקף).
40. 40 Heb “came from the house of bonds.”
41. 41 The phrase “what would become” is not in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity. However, it is not altogether clear whether the 3rd person masculine singular suffix (“his”) on בְּמַלְכוּתוֹ (bémalkhuto, “his kingdom”) refers to the old foolish king or to the poor but wise youth of 4:13.
42. 42 Heb “under the sun.”
43. 43 Heb “the second youth.” It is not clear whether “the second” (הַשֵּׁנִי, hasheni) refers to the young man who succeeds the old king or a second youthful successor.
44. 44 The verb עָמַד (’amad, “to stand”) may denote “to arise; to appear; to come on the scene” (e.g., Ps 106:30; Dan 8:22, 23; 11:2–4; 12:1; Ezra 2:63; Neh 7:65); cf. 764 עָמַד 6.a; עמד 1.a.
45. 45 Heb “the people.” The term עַם (’am, “people”) can refer to the subjects of the king ( 766 עַם 2).
46. 46 Heb “those who were before them.”
47. 47 Heb “those coming after.” The Hebrew term הָאַחֲרוֹנִים (ha’akharonim, “those coming after”) is derived from the preposition אַחַר (’akhar, “behind”). When used in reference to time, it refers to future generations (e.g., Deut 29:21; Pss 48:14; 78:4, 6; 102:19; Job 18:20; Eccl 1:11; 4:16); cf. אַחַר B.3; 30 אַחַר 2.b).
48. 48 The word “like” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity.
49. 1 Beginning with 5:1, the verse numbers through 5:20 in the English Bible differ by one from the verse numbers in the Hebrew text (), with 5:1 = 4:17 , 5:2 = 5:1 , etc., through 5:20 = 5:19 . Beginning with 6:1 the verse numbers in the English Bible and the Hebrew Bible are again the same.
50. 2 Heb “Guard your feet.” The Kethib is the plural רַגְלֶיךָ (raglekha, “your feet”), while the Qere is the singular רַגְלְךָ (raglékha, “your foot”), which is preserved in several medieval Hebrew and is reflected in the versions (, Aramaic , , ). For example, the reads πόδα σου (poda sou, “your foot”) which reflects רַגְלְךָ. The exhortation, “Guard your feet” is an idiom for “Watch your steps,” i.e., “Be careful what you do.” This is a compound figure: “foot” is a metonymy for “step,” and “step” is a metonymy for “action” (e.g., Job 12:5; 23:11; 31:5; Pss 119:59, 101, 105; Prov 1:16; 3:23; 4:26–27; 6:18; 19:2; Isa 58:13; 59:7; Jer 14:10). For example, “I have refrained my feet from every evil way” (Ps 119:101); see E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech, .
51. 3 Heb “the house of God.” The term “house” (בַּיִת, bayit) is a synecdoche of general (i.e., house) for specific (i.e., temple), e.g., 1 Kgs 6:3; 7:12; 1 Chr 9:11; 2 Chr 3:8; 28:11. See E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech, .
52. 4 Alternately, “to obey.” The term לִשְׁמֹעַ (lishmoa’, preposition + Qal infinitive construct from שָׁמַע, shama’, “to hear”) may be taken in one of two ways: (1) literal: “to listen” in contrast to speak or (2) figurative (metonymy of cause for effect) “to obey” in contrast to sacrifice ( שׁמע 4; 1033–34 שָׁמַע). The took the term in the literal sense: τοῦ ἀκούειν (tou akouein, “to listen”). The English versions reflect both literal and figurative options: “obedience” (, , , ) versus “to hear [or listen]” (, , , , , , , ). The section warns against rash vows therefore, the nuance “to listen” is more appropriate: the wise man will be slow to speak and quick to listen in the presence of God; however, the fool is unrestrained and speaks rashly.
53. 5 The term “sacrifice” (זֶבַח, zevakh) is the general term that refers to the thank offering and free will offering (Lev 7:12, 16). This section focuses on making vows in prayer and fulfilling them, such as the vow offering. The term “sacrifice” functions as a synecdoche of general (i.e., sacrifice) for specific (i.e., vow offering).
54. 6 Heb “the fools, a sacrifice.” The term “fools” (הַכְּסִילִים, hakkésilim) is an adverbial accusative of comparison (e.g., §118.r): “rather than giving a sacrifice like fools” (מִתֵּת הַכְּסִילִים זָבַח, mittet hakkésilim zavakh). Contextually, the “sacrifice” is a rash vow made to God that is not fulfilled. The rash vow is referred to in 5:2 as the “voice of a fool.” Qoheleth admonishes the fool against making a rash vow that is not paid: “When you make a vow to God, do not delay in paying it; for God takes no pleasure in fools: Pay what you vow! It is better for you not to vow than to vow and not pay it” (vv. 4–5 [3–4 ]).
55. 7 The term עִנְיַן (’inyan) means “business; affair; task; occupation” ( עִנְיָן; 775 עִנְיָן). nuances עִנְיַן בְּרֹב (bérov ̑inyan) as “excessive activity” ( עִנְיָן). Here, it is used as a metonymy of cause (i.e., tasks) for effect (i.e., cares). The term is nuanced variously: (1) literal sense: “business” (, , , , ) and “effort” (), and (2) metonymical: “cares” (, , ), “concerns” (, ), “worries” () and “brooding” (). The mistakenly related עִנְיַן to the root II עָנַה (’anah) “to afflict,” and rendered it as πειρασμοῦ (peirasmou, “trial”).
56. 8 The juxtaposition of the two lines joined by vav (“just as … so …”) suggests a comparison ( 253 ו 1.j); see R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax, 71, §437.
57. 9 Heb “voice.” The Hebrew term קוֹל (qol, “voice”) is used as a metonymy of cause (i.e., voice) for the contents (i.e., the thing said), e.g., Gen 3:17; 4:23; Exod 3:18; 4:1, 9; Deut 1:45; 21:18, 20; 1 Sam 2:25; 8:7, 9; 2 Sam 12:18); see קוֹל 4.b; 877 קוֹל 3.a; also E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech, . Contextually, this refers to a rash vow made by a fool who made a mistake in making it because he is unable to fulfill it.
58. 10 The word “occurs” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity.
59. 11 Heb “vow a vow.” The phrase תִּדֹּר נֶדֶר (tiddor neder, “to vow a vow”) is a Hebrew idiom in which the root נדר is repeated for emphasis. The construction is a cognate accusative (see §10.2.1f). The verb נָדַר (nadar, “to vow”) refers to the action of making a solemn promise to the Lord to perform an action or offer a sacrifice, e.g., Lev 27:8; Num 6:21; 30:11; Deut 23:23–24; Jonah 2:10; Mal 1:14; Pss 76:12; 132:2; see נדר. The noun נֶדֶר (“vow”) was a gift or offering promised to be given to the Lord (Num 30:3; Deut 12:11; 23:19; Isa 19:12; Nah 2:1 [ 1:15]; Ps 61:6, 9); see נֵדֶר. It usually was a sacrifice or free-will offering (Deut 12:6; Ps 66:13) that was often promised during times of pressure (Judg 11:30; 1 Sam 1:11; 2 Sam 15:7–8; Pss 22:25; 66:13; 116:14, 18; Jonah 2:9).
60. 12 The term לְשַׁלְּמוֹ (léshallémo, preposition + Piel infinitive construct from שָׁלַם, shalam + 3rd person masculine singular suffix) is derived from the root שׁלם which is used in a general sense of paying a debt (2 Kgs 4:7; Ps 37:21; Prov 22:27; Job 41:3), and more specifically of fulfilling a vow to the Lord (Deut 23:22; 2 Sam 15:7; Pss 22:26; 50:14; 61:9; 66:13; 76:12; 116:14, 18; Prov 7:14; Job 22:27; Isa 19:21; Jonah 2:10; Nah 2:1); see שׁלם 3a; 1022 שָׁלֵם 4. An Israelite was never required to make a vow, but once made, it had to be paid (Lev 22:18–25; 27:1–13; Num 15:2–10; Nah 1:15 [2:1 ]).
61. 13 Heb “he”; the referent (“God”) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
62. 14 The word “it” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity.
63. 15 Heb “your flesh.” The term בָּשָׂר (basar, “flesh”) is a synecdoche of part (i.e., flesh) for the whole (i.e., whole person), e.g., Gen 2:21; 6:12; Ps 56:4[5]; 65:2[3]; 145:21; Isa 40:5, 6; see בָּשָׂר; E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech, .
64. 16 The reads הַמַּלְאָךְ (hammal’akh, “messenger”), while the reads τοῦ θεοῦ (tou theou, “God”) which reflects an alternate textual tradition of הָאֱלֹהִים (ha’elohim, “God”). The textual problem was caused by orthographic confusion between similarly spelled words. The might have been trying to make sense of a difficult expression. The is preferred as the original. All the major translations follow the except for (“God”). Heb “the messenger.” The term מַלְאָךְ (mal’akh, “messenger”) refers to a temple priest (e.g., Mal 2:7; cf. מַלְאָךְ 2.b; 521 מַלְאָךְ 1.c). The priests recorded what Israelite worshipers vowed (Lev 27:14–15). When an Israelite delayed in fulfilling a vow, a priest would remind him to pay what he had vowed. Although the traditional rabbinic view is that Qoheleth refers to an angelic superintendent over the temple, Rashi suggested that it is a temple-official. Translations reflect both views: “his representative” (), “the temple messenger” (), “the messenger” (, , , , ), “the angel” (, , ) and “the angel of God” ().
65. 17 The Hebrew noun שְׁגָגָה (shégagah) denotes “error; mistake” and refers to a sin of inadvertence or unintentional sin (e.g., Lev 4:2, 22, 27; 5:18; 22:14; Num 15:24–29; 35:11, 15; Josh 20:3, 9; Eccl 5:5; 10:5); see שְׁגָגָה; 993 שְׁגָגָה. In this case, it refers to a rash vow thoughtlessly made, which the foolish worshiper claims was a mistake (e.g., Prov 20:25).
66. 18 Heb “at your voice.” This is an example of metonymy (i.e., your voice) of association (i.e., you).
67. 19 The syntax of this verse is difficult. Perhaps the best approach is to classify the vav on וַהֲבָלִים (vahavalim, “futilities”) as introducing the predicate (e.g., Gen 40:9; 2 Sam 23:3; Prov 10:25; Isa 34:12; Job 4:6; 36:26); 255 ו 5.c.γ: “There is futility.…” The phrase בְרֹב הֲלֹמוֹת (vérob halomot) is an adverbial modifier (“in many dreams”), as is דְבָרִים הַרְבֵּה (dévarim harbeh, “many words”). The vav prefixed to וּדְבָרִים (udévarim) and the juxtaposition of the two lines suggests a comparison: “just as … so also …” ( 253 ו 1.j). The English versions reflect a variety of approaches: “In the multitude of dreams and many words there are also diverse vanities” (); “In the multitude of dreams there are vanities, and in many words” (); “When dreams increase, empty words grow many” (); “In many dreams and follies and many words” (); “In the abundance of dreams both vanities and words abound” (); “Where there are many dreams, there are many vanities, and words without number” (); “Many dreams and words mean many a vain folly” (); “Much dreaming leads to futility and to superfluous talk” (); “In many dreams and in many words there is emptiness” (); “Much dreaming and many words are meaningless” (); “With many dreams comes vanities and a multitude of words” ().
68. 20 Alternately, “oppression.” The term עֹשֶׁק (’osheq) has a basic two-fold range of meaning: (1) “oppression; brutality” (e.g., Isa 54:14); and (2) “extortion” (e.g., Ps 62:11); see עֹשֶׁק; 799 עֹשֶׁק. The understands the term as “oppression,” as the translation συκοφαντίαν (sukophantian, “oppression”) indicates. Likewise, עֹשֶׁק 1 classifies this usage as “oppression” against the poor. However, the context of 5:8–9 [7–8 ] focuses on corrupt government officials robbing people of the fruit of their labor through extortion and the perversion of justice.
69. 21 Heb “robbery.” The noun גֵזֶל (gezel, “robbery”) refers to the wrestling away of righteousness or the perversion of justice ( גֵּזֶל). The related forms of the root גזל mean “to rob; to loot” ( גֵּזֶל). The term “robbery” is used as a figure for the perversion of justice (hypocatastasis): just as a thief robs his victims through physical violence, so corrupt government officials “rob” the poor through the perversion of justice.
70. 22 Heb “in the province.”
71. 23 The word “official” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity.
72. 24 And there are higher ones over them! This may describe a corrupt system of government in which each level of hierarchy exploits its subordinates, all the way down to the peasants: “Set in authority over the people is an official who enriches himself at their expense; he is watched by a more authoritative governor who also has his share of the spoils; and above them are other officers of the State who likewise have to be satisfied”; see A. Cohen, The Five Megilloth (), 141.
73. 25 The phrase “is seized” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity.
74. 26 The function of the term נֶעֱבָד (ne’evar, Niphal participle from עָבַד, ’avar, “to serve”) has been understood in four ways: (1) adjectival use of the participle, modifying the noun שָׂדֶה (sadeh, “field”): “cultivated field” (, , , ); (2) adjectival use of the participle, modifying מֶלֶךְ (melekh, “king”): “the king who cultivates” (); (3) verbal use of the participle, taking שָׂדֶה (“field”) as the subject: “field is cultivated” (); and (4) verbal use of the participle, taking מֶלֶךְ (“king”) as the subject: “the king is served” (, ); also “the king profits” (). 713 עָבַד 2 lists both the adjectival and verbal options: “a king for [i.e., devoted to] the cultivated field” and “a king that makes himself servant to the field [i.e., devoted to agriculture].” עבד suggests the line be rendered as “a king who serves the land.” In the Qal stem the verb עָבַד (’avar) is sometimes used in reference to tribute imposed upon a king’s subjects (e.g., Jer 25:14; 27:7; 30:8; Ezek 34:27) and in reference to subjects serving a king (e.g., Judg 9:28, 38; 1 Sam 11:1; 1 Kgs 5:1; 2 Sam 22:44; Jer 27:7; 28:14; 2 Kgs 25:24); cf. 713 עָבַד 3; עבד 3. Likewise, it is also used in reference to tilling the ground (e.g., Gen 2:5; 4:2, 12; 2 Sam 9:10; Isa 30:24; Jer 27:11; Zech 13:5; Prov 12:11; 28:19) and a vineyard or garden (Gen 2:15; Deut 28:39); cf. עבד 3; 713 עָבַד 3.
75. 27 The syntax and exegesis of the line is difficult. There are three basic interpretive options: (1) the king takes care of the security of the cultivated land: “in any case, the advantage of a country is that there is a king for the cultivated land”; (2) the king is in favor of a prosperous agricultural policy: “in any case, the advantage of a country is that there is a king who is obeyed for the sake of the agriculture”; and (3) the king exploits the poor farmers: “the produce of the land is [seized] by all, even the king is served by the fields.” Perhaps the best option in the light of the context is to take the referent of כֹּל (kol, “all”) to the government officials of 5:8 rather than to the people as a whole. The verse depicts the exploitation of the poor farmers by corrupt government officials. This is reflected in two English versions: “the increase from the land is taken by all; the king himself profits from the fields” (); “the profit of the land is among all of them; a cultivated field has a king” ( margin). On the other hand, the treated the syntax so the king is viewed in a neutral sense: και περισσεια γης ἐπι παντι ἐστι, βασιλευς του αργου εἰργασμενου (“The abundance of the earth is for everyone; the king is dependent on the tilled field”). Most English versions deal with the syntax so that the king is viewed in a neutral or positive sense: “the profit of the earth is for all; the king himself is served by the field” (); “a king who cultivates the field is an advantage to the land” (); “this is an advantage for a land: a king for a plowed field” (); “the greatest advantage in all the land is his: he controls a field that is cultivated” (); “a country prospers with a king who has control” (); “a king devoted to the field is an advantage to the land” (); “a king is an advantage to a land with cultivated fields” (); “the best thing for a country is a king whose own lands are well tilled” (); and “an advantage for a country in every respect is a king for the arable land” (). See D. Barthélemy, e.d., Preliminary and Interim Report on the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project, 3:576–77.
76. 28 Heb “silver.” The Hebrew term כֶּסֶף (kesef, “silver”) refers to “money” ( כֶּסֶף 3). It is a synecdoche of specific (i.e., silver) for the general (i.e., money); see E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech, .
77. 29 The Hebrew term “silver” (translated “money”) is repeated twice in this line for rhetorical emphasis.
78. 30 The term הָמוֹן (hamon, “abundance; wealth”) has a wide range of meanings: (1) agitation; (2) turmoil; (3) noise; (4) pomp; (5) multitude; crowd = noisy crowd; and (6) abundance; wealth ( הָמוֹן 1–6). Here, it refers to abundant wealth (related to “pomp”); cf. הָמוֹן 6, that is, lavish abundant wealth (Ezek 29:19; 30:4; 1 Chr 29:16).
79. 31 The phrase “will never be satisfied” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity. Note the previous line.
80. 32 The word “his” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity.
81. 33 The word “someone’s” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity.
82. 34 The term טוֹבָה (tovah, “good”) connotes “prosperity” (Deut 23:7; Job 9:25; 21:25; Ps 106:5; Lam 3:17; Eccl 4:8; 5:10, 17; 6:3, 6; 7:14; 9:18; Neh 2:10; Sir 6:11; 41:13); cf. טוֹבָה 2. The related term טוֹב (tov, “good”) connotes “prosperity” as well (Prov 11:10; Job 20:21; 21:16); cf. טוֹבָה 1.b. Here, it refers to the possessions and wealth a person acquires as the fruit of his labors. This nuance is well reflected in several English versions: “The more a man gains, the more there are to spend it” (); “When riches multiply, so do those who live off them” (); “As his substance increase, so do those who consume it” (); and “Where there are great riches, there are also many to devour them” (). The line does not describe the economic law of “supply and demand,” as some versions seem to imply, e.g., “As goods increase, so do those who consume them” (); “When goods increase, those who eat them increase” (); cf. also , , , , .
83. 35 The form is plural in the Hebrew text, but the plural is one of intensification; it is used here to emphasize the owner’s authority over his wealth. See §124.i. See v 13 as well.
84. 36 The rhetorical question is an example of negative affirmation, expecting a negative answer: “There is no ultimate advantage!” (see E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech, ).
85. 37 Heb “there is.” The term יֵשׁ (yesh, “there is”) is often used in aphorisms to assert the existence of a particular situation that occurs sometimes. It may indicate that the situation is not the rule but that it does occur on occasion, and may be nuanced “sometimes” (e.g., Prov 11:24; 13:7, 23; 14:12; 16:25; 18:24; 20:15; Eccl 2:21; 4:8; 5:12; 6:1; 7:15 [2×]; 8:14 [3×]).
86. 38 The noun רָעָה (ra’ah, “evil”) probably means “misfortune” ( רָעָה 4) or “injustice, wrong” ( רָעָה 2.b). The phrase רָעָה רַבָּה (ra’ah rabbah) connotes “grave injustice” or “great misfortune” (Eccl 2:17; 5:12, 15; 6:1; 10:5).
87. 39 Heb “under the sun.”
88. 40 Or “through a bad business deal.” The basic meaning of עִנְיַן (’inyan) is “business; affair” ( עִנְיָן) or “occupation; task” ( 775 עִנְיָן). The term is used in a specific sense in reference to business activity (Eccl 8:16), as well as in a more general sense in reference to events that occur on earth (Eccl 1:13; 4:8). suggests that the phrase עִנְיַן רָע (’inyan ra’) in 5:13 refers to a bad business deal ( 775 עִנְיָן); however, suggests that it means “bad luck” ( עִנְיָן). The English versions reflect the same two approaches: (1) bad luck: “some misfortune” (, ) and (2) a bad business deal: “a bad investment” (), “a bad venture” (, , ), “some unlucky venture” (, ), “an unlucky venture” (), “an evil adventure” ().
89. 41 Heb “there is nothing in his hand.”
90. 42 See the note on the phrase “depressing misfortune” in v. .
91. 43 Heb “all his days.” The phrase “of his life” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity.
92. 44 Heb “Behold, that which I have seen, I, good which is beautiful.” The phrase “for people” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity.
93. 45 The phrase “to eat and to drink” is a common idiom in Ecclesiastes for a person enjoying the fruit of his labor (e.g., 2:24; 3:13).
94. 46 Heb “his,” and three times later in the verse.
95. 47 Heb “the toil which one toils.”
96. 48 Heb “under the sun.”
97. 49 The term חֵלֶק (kheleq, “lot”) has a wide range of meanings: (1) “share of spoils” (Gen 14:24; Num 31:36; 1 Sam 30:24), (2) “portion of food” (Lev 6:10; Deut 18:8; Hab 1:16), (3) “portion [or tract] of land” (Deut 10:9; 12:12; Josh 19:9), (4) “portion” or “possession” (Num 18:20; Deut 32:9), (5) “inheritance” (2 Kgs 9:10; Amos 7:4), (6) “portion” or “award” (Job 20:29; 27:13; 31:2; Isa 17:14) or “profit; reward” (Eccl 2:10, 21; 3:22; 5:17–18; 9:6, 9); see II חֵלֶק; 324 חֵלֶק. Throughout Ecclesiastes, the term is used in reference to man’s temporal profit from his labor and his reward from God (e.g., Eccl 3:22; 9:9).
98. 50 The syntax of this verse is difficult. The best approach is to view הִשְׁלִיטוֹ (hishlito, “he has given him the ability”) as governing the three following infinitives: לֶאֱכֹל (le’ekhol, “to eat”), וְלָשֵׂאת (vélase’t, “and to lift” = “to accept [or receive]”), and וְלִשְׂמֹחַ (vélismoakh, “and to rejoice”). This statement parallels 2:24–26 which states that no one can find enjoyment in life unless God gives him the ability to do so.
99. 51 Heb “this.” The feminine singular demonstrative pronoun זֹה (zoh, “this”) refers back to all that preceded it in the verse (e.g., §135.p), that is, the ability to enjoy the fruit of one’s labor is the gift of God (e.g., Eccl 2:24–26). The phrase “these things” is used in the translation for clarity.
100. 52 The verb זָכַר (zakhar, “to remember”) may be nuanced “to call to mind; to think about,” that is, “to reflect upon” (e.g., Isa 47:7; Lam 1:9; Job 21:6; 36:24; 40:32; Eccl 11:8); cf. 270 זָכַר 5; I זכר 2.
101. 53 The word “fleeting” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity.
102. 54 The term מַעֲנֵה (ma’aneh, Hiphil participle from II עָנָה, ’anah, “to be occupied”) refers to activity that keeps a person physically busy and mentally preoccupied, e.g., Eccl 1:13; 3:10; 5:19 ( ; 775 עָנָה II). The related noun עִנְיַן (’inyan,“business; occupation; task”) refers to activity that keeps man busy and occupies his time, e.g., Eccl 1:13; 2:26; 3:10 ( ; 775 עִנְיָן). The participle form is used to emphasize durative, uninterrupted, continual action.
103. 55 Heb “with the joy of his heart.” The words “he derives from his activity” do not appear in the Hebrew, but they are added to clarify the Teacher’s point in light of what he says right before this.
104. 1 The term יֵשׁ (yesh, “there is”) is often used in aphorisms to assert the existence of a particular situation that occurs sometimes. It may indicate that the situation is not the rule but that it does occur on occasion, and may be nuanced “sometimes” (Prov 11:24; 13:7, 23; 14:12; 16:25; 18:24; 20:15; Eccl 2:21; 4:8; 5:12; 6:1; 7:15 [2×]; 8:14 [3×]).
105. 2 The noun רָעָה (ra’ah, “evil”) probably means “misfortune” ( רָעָה 4) or “injustice, wrong” ( רָעָה 2.b); see, e.g., Eccl 2:17; 5:12, 15; 6:1; 10:5.
106. 3 Heb “under the sun.”
107. 4 The word “weighs” does not appear in Hebrew, but is added in the translation for smoothness.
108. 5 Heb “it is great upon men.” The phrase וְרַבָּה הִיא עַל־הָאָדָם (vérabbah hi’ ’al-ha’adam) is taken in two basic ways: (1) commonality: “it is common among men” (, ), “it is prevalent among men” (), “that is frequent among men” (). (2) oppressiveness: “it lies heavy upon men” (, ), “it weighs heavily upon men” (, , ), “it presses heavily on men” (), “it is heavy upon men” (), and “a grave one it is for man” (). The preposition עַל (’al, “upon”) argues against the first in favor of the second; the notion of commonality would be denoted by the preposition בְּ (bet, “among”). The singular noun אָדָם (’adam) is used as a collective, denoting “men.” The article on הָאָדָם (ha’adam) is used in a generic sense referring to humankind as a whole; the generic article is often used with a collective singular ( §13.5.1f).
109. 6 Heb “his appetite.”
110. 7 Heb “There is no lack in respect to his appetite”; or “his desire lacks nothing.”
111. 8 The verb שָׁלַט (shalat) in the Qal stem means “to domineer; to dominate; to lord it over; to be master of” and in the Hiphil stem “to give power to” ( 1020 שָׁלַט) and “to grant” ( שׁלט). God must grant a person the ability to enjoy the fruit of his labor, otherwise a person will not be able to enjoy his possessions and wealth. The ability to partake of the fruit of one’s labor and to find satisfaction and joy in it is a gift from God (e.g., Eccl 2:24–26; 3:13; 5:18 [19]; 9:7).
112. 9 Heb “to eat of it.” The verb אָכַל (’akhal, “to eat”) functions as a metonymy of association, that is, the action of eating is associated with the enjoyment of the fruit of one’s labor (e.g., Eccl 2:24–26; 3:12–13, 22; 5:17–19; 8:15; 9:9).
113. 10 The phrase “the fruit of his labor” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity.
114. 11 Heb “a stranger.” The Hebrew expression אִיש נָכְרִי (’ish nokhri, “stranger”) sometimes refers not to a foreigner or someone that the person does not know, but simply to someone else other than the subject (e.g., Prov 27:2). In the light of 6:3–6, it might even refer to the man’s own heirs. The term is used as a synecdoche of species (foreigner for stranger) in the sense of someone else other than the subject: “someone else” ( 649 נָכְרִי 3).
115. 12 Heb “eats.”
116. 13 Instead, someone else enjoys it. A person may be unable to enjoy the fruit of his/her labor due to an unfortunate turn of events that robs a person of his possessions (5:13–14) or a miserly, lifelong hoarding of one’s wealth that robs him of the ability to enjoy what he has worked so hard to acquire (5:15–17). Qoheleth recommends the enjoyment of life and the fruit of one’s labor, as God enables (5:18–20). Unfortunately, the ability to enjoy the fruits of one’s labor is often thwarted by the obstacles described in 6:1–2 and 6:3–9.
117. 14 Heb “an evil sickness.”
118. 15 Heb “the days of his years are many.”
119. 16 Heb “he has no burial.” The phrase וְגַם־קְבוּרָה לֹא־הָיְתָה (végam-qévurah lo’-haytah, “he even has no burial”) is traditionally treated as part of a description of the man’s sorry final state, that is, he is deprived of even a proper burial (, , , , , , , , , ). However, the preceding parallel lines suggest that this a hyperbolic protasis: “If he were to live one hundred years … even if he were never buried [i.e., were to live forever].…” A similar idea occurs elsewhere (e.g., Pss 49:9; 89:48). See D. R. Glenn, “Ecclesiastes,” , .
120. 17 The noun נֶפֶל (nefel) denotes “miscarriage” and by metonymy of effect, “stillborn child” (e.g., Ps 58:9; Job 3:16; Eccl 6:3); cf. . The noun is related to the verb נָפַל (nafal, “to fall,” but occasionally “to be born”; see Isa 26:18); cf. נפל 5.
121. 18 The point of 6:3–6 is that the futility of unenjoyed wealth is worse than the tragedy of being stillborn.
122. 19 Heb “he”; the referent (“the stillborn child”) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
123. 20 The phrase “into the world” does not appear in Hebrew, but is added in the translation for clarity.
124. 21 The birth of the stillborn was in vain—it did it no good to be born.
125. 22 The name of the stillborn is forgotten.
126. 23 Heb “it never saw the sun.”
127. 24 The word “anything” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity.
128. 25 The Hebrew term translated rest here refers to freedom from toil, anxiety, and misery—part of the miserable misfortune that the miserly man of wealth must endure.
129. 26 Heb “Do not all go to the same place?” The rhetorical question is an example of erotesis of positive affirmation, expecting a positive answer, e.g., Ps 56:13 [14] (see E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech, ). It affirms the fact that both the miserly rich man who lives two thousand years, as well as the stillborn who never lived one day, both go to the same place—the grave. And if the miserly rich man never enjoyed the fruit of his labor during his life, his fate was no better than that of the stillborn who never had opportunity to enjoy any of the blessings of life. In a sense, it would have been better for the miserly rich man to have never lived than to have experienced the toil, anxiety, and misery of accumulating his wealth, but never enjoying any of the fruits of his labor.
130. 27 The phrase “for nothing more than” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity.
131. 28 Heb “All man’s work is for his mouth.” The term “mouth” functions as a synecdoche of part (i.e., mouth) for the whole (i.e., person), substituting the organ of consumption for the person’s action of consumption (see E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech, ), as suggested by the parallelism with נֶפֶשׁ (nefesh, “his appetite”).
132. 29 The term נֶפֶשׁ (nefesh, “desire; appetite”) is used as a metonymy of association, that is, the soul is associated with man’s desires and appetites ( 660 נֶפֶשׁ 5.c; 6.a).
133. 30 So what advantage does the wise man have over a fool? The rhetorical question in Hebrew implies a negative answer: the wise man has no absolute advantage over a fool in the sense that both will share the same fate: death. Qoheleth should not be misunderstood here as denying that wisdom has no relative advantage over folly; elsewhere he affirms that wisdom does yield some relative benefits in life (7:1–22). However, wisdom cannot deliver one from death.
134. 31 As in the preceding parallel line, this rhetorical question implies a negative answer (see the note after the word “fool” in the preceding line).
135. 32 Heb “What to the pauper who knows to walk before the living”; or “how to get along in life.”
136. 33 The phrase “to be content with” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity.
137. 34 The expression מַרְאֵה עֵינַיִם (mar’eh ’enayim, “the seeing of the eyes”) is a metonymy of cause (i.e., seeing an object) for effect (i.e., being content with what the eyes can see); see E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech, .
138. 35 Heb “the roaming of the soul.” The expression מֵהֲלָךְ־נָפֶשׁ (mehalakh-nafesh, “the roaming of the soul”) is a metonymy for unfulfilled desires. The term “soul” (נֶפֶשׁ, nefesh) is used as a metonymy of association for man’s desires and appetites ( 660 נֶפֶשׁ 5.c; 6.a). This also involves the personification of the roving appetite as “roving” (מֵהֲלָךְ); see 235 הָלַךְ II.3.f; 232 I.3.
139. 36 The phrase “continual longing” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity.
140. 37 The term “like” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity and smoothness.
141. 38 Heb “already its name was called.”
142. 39 Or “and what a person (Heb “man”) is was foreknown.”
143. 40 Heb “he cannot contend with the one who is more powerful than him.” The referent of the “the one who is more powerful than he is” (God) has been specified in the translation for clarity. The words “with God about his fate” have been added for clarity as well.
144. 41 Heb “The more the words, the more the futility.”
145. 42 Or “What benefit does man have [in that]?”
146. 43 Heb “For who knows what is good for a man in life?” The rhetorical question (“For who knows …?”) is a negative affirmation, expecting a negative answer: “For no one knows …!” (see E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech, ). The translation renders this rhetorical device as a positive affirmation.
147. 44 The vav prefixed to וְיַעֲשֵׂם (véya’asem, conjunction + Qal imperfect 3rd person masculine singular from עָשַׂה, ’asah, “to do” + 3rd person masculine plural suffix) functions in an explanatory or epexegetical sense (“For …”).
148. 45 The 3rd person masculine plural suffix on the verb וְיַעֲשֵׂם (véya’asem, conjunction + Qal imperfect 3rd person masculine singular from ָָעשַׂה, ’asah, “to do” + 3rd person masculine plural suffix) refers to מִסְפַּר יְמֵי־חַיֵּי הֶבְלוֹ (mispar yéme-khayye hevlo, “the few days of his fleeting life”). The suffix may be taken as an objective genitive: “he spends them [i.e., the days of his life] like a shadow” ( I ָָעשַׂה 8) or as a subjective genitive: “they [i.e., the days of his life] pass like a shadow” ( 795 ָָעשַׂה II.11).
149. 46 Heb “Who can tell the man what shall be after him under the sun?” The rhetorical question (“For who can tell him …?”) is a negative affirmation, expecting a negative answer: “For no one can tell him …!” (see E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech, ). The translation renders this rhetorical device as a positive affirmation.
150. 1 Heb “name.” The Hebrew term שֵׁם (shem, “name”) is used metonymically for a person’s reputation (e.g., Prov 22:1; Deut 22:14, 19; Neh 6:13; also Gen 6:4; 12:2; 2 Sam 7:9; 8:13; 23:18, 22; 1 Chr 5:24; 12:31; 2 Chr 26:15; Neh 9:10; Isa 63:12, 14; Jer 32:20; Ezek 16:14; Dan 9:15); cf. שֵׁם D.2; 1028 שֵׁם 2.b.
151. 2 The comparative term טוֹב (tov, “better”) is repeated throughout 7:1–12. It introduces a series of “Better-than sayings,” particularly in 7:1–6 in which every poetic unit is introduced by טוֹב.
152. 3 Heb “good.” The repetition of טוֹב (tov, “good”) forms an inclusion (a structural device that rounds off the unit), while the two internal terms מִשֶּׁמֶן … שֵׁם (shem mishemen, “name … ointment”) create a paronomastic wordplay (see the note on the word “perfume”). The combination of these two sets of literary devices creates an AB: B′A′ chiasm: מִשֶּׁמֶן טוֹב // שֵׁם טוֹב (tov shem // mishemen tov, e.g., “good name”// “ointment good”).
153. 4 Or “oil”; or “ointment.” The term שֶׁמֶן (shemen) refers to fragrant “perfume; cologne; ointment” (Amos 6:6; Eccl 10:1; Song 1:2 [1:3 ]; 4:10); see שֶׁמֶן A.2.c. Bodily oils were expensive (1 Kgs 17:12; 2 Kgs 2:4). Possession of oils and perfumes was a sign of prosperity (Deut 32:8; 33:24; Job 29:6; Prov 21:17; Ezek 16:13, 20). Wearing colognes and oils was associated with joy (Ps 45:8; Eccl 9:8; Isa 61:3) because they were worn on festive occasions (Prov 27:9). The similar sounding terms “name” (שֵׁם, shem) and “perfume” (שֶׁמֶן) create a wordplay (paronomasia). See W. G. E. Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry (), ; J. J. Glück, “Paronomasia in Biblical Literature,” Semitics 1 (1970): 50–78; A. Guillaume, “Paronomasia in the Old Testament.” 9 (1964): 282–90; J. M. Sasson, “Wordplay in the OT,” 968–70.
154. 5 The vav prefixed to the form וְיוֹם (véyom) functions in a comparative sense, e.g., Job 5:7; 12:11; 16:21; Prov 25:25 (see R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax, 71, §437).
155. 6 The word “one’s” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity.
156. 7 The article prefixed to הַמָּוֶת (hammavet, “death”) probably functions in an indefinite possessive sense or in a generic sense: “one’s death,” e.g., Gen 44:2 (see R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax, 19, §86, §92).
157. 8 There are two ways to understand this proverb: (1) Happy times (characterized by celebration and “fragrant perfume”) teach us less than hard times (“the day of one’s death”) which can bring about moral improvement (“a good reputation”). (2) It is better to come to the end of one’s life (“day of one’s death”) with a good reputation (“a good name”) than to merely be starting life (“day of one’s birth”) in an auspicious manner in joy and wealth (“fine perfume”). Folly and wickedness could foil a good beginning so that a person ends life as a fool. For example, Solomon began as the wisest man who ever lived, only to end life as one of history’s greatest fools.
158. 9 Heb “house of mourning.” The phrase refers to a funeral where the deceased is mourned.
159. 10 Heb “house of drinking”; or “house of feasting.” The Hebrew noun מִשְׁתֶּה (mishteh) can denote (1) “feast; banquet,” occasion for drinking-bouts (1 Sam 25:36; Isa 5:12; Jer 51:39; Job 1:5; Esth 2:18; 5:14; 8:17; 9:19) or (2) “drink” (exilic/postexilic—Ezra 3:7; Dan 1:5, 8, 16); see מִשְׁתֶּה 4; 1059 שָׁתַה. Qoheleth recommended that people soberly reflect on the brevity of life and the reality of death (It is better to go to a house of mourning) than to waste one’s life in the foolish pursuit of pleasure (than to go to a house of banqueting). Sober reflection on the brevity of life and reality of death has more moral benefit than frivolous levity.
160. 11 Heb “it”; the referent (“death”) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
161. 12 Heb “the end.” The noun סוֹף (sof) literally means “end; conclusion” ( סוֹף 1; 693 סוֹף). It is used in this context in reference to death, as the preceding phrase “house of mourning” (i.e., funeral) suggests.
162. 13 Heb “all men” or “every man.”
163. 14 The imperfect tense verb יִתֵּן, yitten (from נָתָן, natan, “to give”) functions in a modal sense, denoting obligation, that is, the subject’s obligatory or necessary conduct: “should” or “ought to” (see R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax, 31–32, §172; §31.4g).
164. 15 The word “this” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for smoothness.
165. 16 suggests “grief”; , “vexation.”
166. 17 Heb “in sadness of face there is good for the heart.”
167. 18 Or possibly “Though the face is sad, the heart may be glad.”
168. 19 The expression the house of merrymaking refers to a banquet where those who attend engage in self-indulgent feasting and riotous drinking.
169. 20 Heb “hear.”
170. 21 Heb “rebuke of the wise,” a subjective genitive (“the wise” administer the rebuke).
171. 22 Or “praise.” The antithetical parallelism between “rebuke” (גַּעֲרַת, ga’arat) and “song” (שִׁיר, shir) suggests that the latter is figurative (metonymy of association) for praise/flattery which is “music” to the ears: “praise of fools” (, ) and “flattery of fools” (). However, the collocation of “song” (שִׁיר) in 7:5 with “laughter” (שְׂחֹק, sékhoq) in 7:6 suggests simply frivolous merrymaking: “song of fools” (, , , , , ).
172. 23 The term “thorns” (הַסִּירִים, hassirim) refers to twigs from wild thorn bushes which were used as fuel for quick heat, but burn out quickly before a cooking pot can be properly heated (e.g., Pss 58:9; 118:12).
173. 24 The word “kind of folly” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity.
174. 25 It is difficult to determine whether the Hebrew term הֶבֶל (hevel) means “fleeting” or “useless” in this context. The imagery of quick-burning thorns under a cooking pot is ambiguous and can be understood in more than one way: (1) It is useless to try to heat a cooking pot by burning thorns because they burn out before the pot can be properly heated; (2) the heat produced by quick-burning thorns is fleeting—it produces quick heat, but lasts only for a moment. Likewise, the “laughter of a fool” can be taken in both ways: (1) In comparison to the sober reflection of the wise, the laughter of fools is morally useless: the burning of thorns, like the laughter of fools, makes a lot of noise but accomplishes nothing; (2) the laughter of fools is fleeting due to the brevity of life and certainty of death. Perhaps this is an example of intentional ambiguity.
175. 26 Or “extortion.” Scholars debate whether the noun עֹשֶׁק (’osheq, “oppression; extortion”) in this context denotes “oppression” ( עֹשֶׁק 1) or “gain of extortion” ( 799 עֹשֶׁק 3). The parallelism between עֹשֶׁק and מַתָּנָה (mattanah, “bribe”) seems to suggest the latter; but the prominence of the theme of oppression in 7:8–10 argues for the former. Elsewhere in Ecclesiastes, the noun עֹשֶׁק denotes “oppression” (Eccl 4:1) and “extortion” (Eccl 5:8 [Heb 5:7]). The rendered it as συκοφαντία (sukophantia, “oppression”). English translations are split between these two options: “extortion” (, , ), “oppression” (, , , , , , , ), as well as “cheating” () and “slander” ().
176. 27 Or “Oppression drives a wise person crazy”; or “Extortion drives a wise person crazy.” The verb III הלל (“to be foolish”) denotes “to make foolish; to make a fool out of someone; to make into a madman” (Job 12:17; Isa 44:25); cf. III הלל; 239 II הלל. It has been handled variously: “makes a wise man mad” (, ); “drives a wise man crazy” (); “can make a fool of a wise man” (); “makes the wise man foolish” (, ); and “turns a wise man into a fool” ().
177. 28 The vav prefixed to וִיאַבֵּד (vi’abbed, “corrupts”) may function in a comparative sense, e.g., Job 5:7; 12:11; 16:21; Prov 25:25 (see R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax, 71, §437).
178. 29 The text has וִיאַבֵּד (vi’abbed, conjunction + Piel imperfect 3rd person masculine singular from אָבַד, ’avad, “to destroy”), but the Dead Sea Scrolls text 4Q109 (Qoha), which reads, ויעוה assumes ויעוה “twists” or “perverts” (conjunction + Piel imperfect 3rd person masculine singular from עָוָה I, ’avah, “to bend; to twist.” See J. Muilenburg, “A Qoheleth Scroll from Qumran,” 135 [1954]: 27). The verb I עָוָה (“to bend; to twist”) is used in reference to moral perversion (e.g., 2 Sam 7:14; 19:20; 24:17; 1 Kgs 8:47; Job 33:27; Prov 12:8; Jer 9:4); cf. עוה; 730 I עָוָה. The verb ויאבד is used similarly in reference to moral corruption, e.g., Eccl 3:6; 9:18; Jer 23:1 ( I אבד; 2 אָבַד 2).
179. 30 Or “and a bribe drives a person mad.” The noun לֵב (lev, “heart”) may be taken as a synecdoche of part (i.e., heart) for the whole (i.e., a person). I אבד suggests that וִיאַבֵּד לֵב (vi’abbed lev, “destroys the heart”) is an idiom meaning, “drives a person mad.” The B-line is taken as a comparison with the preceding A-line. On the other hand, the A-line and B-line might be in synonymous parallelism in which case the two lines could be rendered: “Surely [the gain of] extortion turns a wise man into a fool, and a bribe corrupts the heart.” On the other hand, the lines could be rendered, “Surely oppression drives a wise man crazy, and a bribe drives a person mad.”
180. 31 The term דָבָר (davar) denotes “matter; thing” here rather than “speech; word,” as the parallelism with “patience” suggests. The term was misunderstood as “speech; word” by the (so also ).
181. 32 Heb “the patient of spirit.”
182. 33 Heb “the proud of spirit.”
183. 34 Heb “Do not be hasty in your spirit to become angry.”
184. 35 Heb “bosom.”
185. 36 Heb “these.” “Days” does not appear in the Hebrew text as second time, but is supplied in the translation for smoothness.
186. 37 Heb “It is not from wisdom that you ask about this.”
187. 38 Or “Wisdom with an inheritance, is good”; or “Wisdom is as good as an inheritance.” This use of the preposition עִם (’im) may denote: (1) accompaniment: “together with,” or (2) comparison: “as good as; like; in comparison to” ( עִם; 767–69 עִם). 767 1 suggests the accompaniment nuance “together with,” while 2.c suggests the comparative sense “in comparison to.” The translations are also divided: “wisdom with an inheritance is good” (, margin, , , ); “wisdom, like an inheritance, is a good thing” (); “wisdom is as good as an inheritance” (, , , , ); “wisdom is better than an inheritance” (). Because v. 12 compares wisdom with money (i.e., an inheritance), v. 11 is probably making a comparison as well: “Wisdom, like an inheritance, is good” (7:11a) = “Wisdom provides protection, just as money provides protection” (7:12a). The “good thing” that wisdom—like an inheritance or money—provides is protection.
188. 39 Heb “see the sun.”
189. 40 Heb “wisdom is a shade.” When used with a predicate nominative in a verbless clause, the preposition בְּ (bet) which appears twice in the line בְּצֵל הַחָכְמָה בְּצֵל הַכָּסֶף (bétsel hakhokhmah bétsel hakkasef) denotes identity, the so-called bet of essence ( בְּ 3; 88 בְּ 1.7; see also R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax, 45, §249).
190. 41 The term צֵל (tsel, “shade, shadow”) refers to that which provides protection or a shelter from the sun (Gen 19:8; Judg 9:36; Isa 25:5; 32:2; Jer 48:45; Jonah 4:5). It is used often in a figurative sense (hypocatastasis) to connote “protection” from calamity (Num 14:9; Isa 49:2; Hos 14:8; Pss 17:8; 36:8; 57:2; 63:8; 91:1; 121:5; Lam 4:20).
191. 42 The phrase “just as” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for smoothness and clarity.
192. 43 Heb “Wisdom is a shade, money is a shade.” The repetition of בְּצֵל (bétsel, “shade; protection”) suggests that the A-line and B-line function as comparisons. Thus the Hebrew phrases “Wisdom is a shade, money is a shade” may be nuanced, “Wisdom [provides] protection [just as] money [provides] protection.” This approach is adopted by several translations: “wisdom is a defense, as money is a defense” (), “wisdom is protection just as money is protection” (), “wisdom like wealth is a defense” (), “the protection of wisdom is as the protection of money” (), “the protection of wisdom is like the protection of money” (, ), “wisdom protects as wealth protects” (), and “wisdom is a shelter, as money is a shelter” (). The comparison is missed by : “wisdom is a defense, and money is a defense.” Less likely is taking בְּ (bet) in a locative sense: “to be in the shelter of wisdom is to be in the shelter of money” ().
193. 44 The verb חָיָה (khayah, “to live”) in the Piel denotes (1) “to let live; to keep alive; to preserve alive; to allow to live happily” (Gen 12:12; Exod 1:17; Num 31:15; Deut 6:24; Josh 9:15; Isa 7:21; Jer 49:11) and (2) “to bring back to life” persons who are ill (Ps 30:4) or deceased (Hos 6:2); חָיָה. Its parallelism with צֵל (tsel, “protection”) indicates that it means “to preserve someone’s life” from premature death or calamity. Therefore, “preserves the life” (, , , , , ) is preferable to “gives life to” (, , , ).
194. 45 Heb “the day of good.”
195. 46 Heb “the day of evil.”
196. 47 Less probable renderings of this line are “God hath made the one side by side with the other” () and “God has set the one alongside the other” ().
197. 48 Heb “anything after him.” This line is misinterpreted by several versions: “that man may not find against him any just complaint” (); “consequently, man may find no fault with Him” (); “so that man cannot find fault with him in anything” ().
198. 49 The word “life” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for smoothness and clarity.
199. 50 As is the case throughout Ecclesiastes, the term הַכֹּל (hakkol) should be nuanced “both” rather than “all.”
200. 51 Heb “There is.” The term יֵשׁ (yesh, “there is”) is often used in aphorisms to assert the existence of a particular situation that occurs sometimes. It may indicate that the situation is not the rule but that it does occur on occasion, and may be nuanced “sometimes” (Prov 11:24; 13:7, 23; 14:12; 16:25; 18:24; 20:15; Eccl 2:21; 4:8; 5:12; 6:1; 7:15 [2×]; 8:14 [3×]).
201. 52 Heb “perishes.”
202. 53 Or “in his righteousness.” The preposition בְּ (bet) on the terms בְּצִרְקוֹ (bétsirqo, “his righteousness”) and בְּרָעָתוֹ (béra’ato, “his evil-doing”) in the following line are traditionally taken in a locative sense: “in his righteousness” and “in his wickedness” (, , ). However, it is better to take the בְּ (bet) in the adversative sense “in spite of” (e.g., Lev 26:27; Num 14:11; Deut 1:32; Isa 5:25; 9:11, 16, 20; 10:4; 16:14; 47:9; Pss 27:3; 78:32; Ezra 3:3); cf. בְּ 7; 90 בְּ 3.7. renders it well: “Sometimes a good man perishes in spite of his goodness, and sometimes a wicked one endures in spite of his wickedness.” In a similar vein, D. R. Glenn (“Ecclesiastes,” , ) writes: “The word ‘in’ in the phrases ‘in his righteousness’ and ‘in his wickedness’ can here mean ‘in spite of.’ These phrases … argue against the common view that in 7:16 Solomon was warning against legalistic or Pharisaic self-righteousness. Such would have been a sin and would have been so acknowledged by Solomon who was concerned about true exceptions to the doctrine of retribution, not supposed ones (cf. 8:10–14 where this doctrine is discussed again).”
203. 54 Heb “There is.” The term יֵשׁ (yesh,“there is”) is often used in aphorisms to assert the existence of a particular situation that occurs sometimes. It may indicate that the situation is not the rule but that it does occur on occasion, and may be nuanced “sometimes” (Prov 11:24; 13:7, 23; 14:12; 16:25; 18:24; 20:15; Eccl 2:21; 4:8; 5:12; 6:1; 7:15 [2×]; 8:14 [3×]).
204. 55 Heb “a wicked man endures.”
205. 56 The adjective יוֹתֵר (yoter) means “too much; excessive,” e.g., 2:15 “excessively wise” ( יוֹתֵר 2; 452 יוֹתֵר). It is derived from the root יֶתֶר (yeter, “what is left over”; cf. I יֶתֶר) and related to the verb יָתַר (yatar, Niphal “to be left over” and Hiphil “to have left over”; cf. ). In 2:15 the adjective יוֹתֵר is used with the noun יִתְרוֹן (yitron, “advantage; profit”) in a wordplay or pun: The wise man has a relative “advantage” (יִתְרוֹן) over the fool (2:13–14a); however, there is no ultimate advantage because both share the same fate—death (2:14b–15a). Thus, Qoheleth’s acquisition of tremendous wisdom (1:16; 2:9) was “excessive” because it exceeded its relative advantage over folly: it could not deliver him from the same fate as the fool. He strove to obtain wisdom, yet it held no ultimate advantage. Likewise, in 7:16, Qoheleth warns that wisdom and righteous behavior do not guarantee an advantage over wickedness and folly, because the law of retribution is sometimes violated.
206. 57 Heb “So do not be overly righteous and do not be overly wise.” The Hitpael verb תִּתְחַכַּם (titkhakkam, from חָכַם, khakham, “to be wise”) means “to make or show yourself wise” ( חכם; 314 חָכַם). The Hitpael may be understood as: (1) benefactive reflexive use which refers to an action done for one’s own behalf (e.g., Gen 20:7; Josh 9:12; 1 Kgs 8:33; Job 13:27): because the law of retribution is sometimes violated, it is not wise for a person to be overly dependent upon wisdom or righteousness for his own benefit; (2) estimative-declarative reflexive which denotes esteeming or presenting oneself in a certain state, without regard to the question of truthfulness (e.g., 2 Sam 13:5; Prov 13:6; Esth 8:17): it is useless to overly esteem oneself as wise or to falsely present oneself as wiser than he really is because the law of retribution sometimes fails to reward the wise. The enigma of this line—“overly righteous and overly wise”—may be resolved by proper classification of the Hitpael stem of this verb.
207. 58 Heb “Why?” The question is rhetorical.
208. 59 The imperfect of שָׁמֵם (shamem) functions in a modal sense, denoting possibility: “you might be …” (see §31.4e).
209. 60 Or “Why should you ruin yourself?”; or “Why should you destroy yourself?” The verb שָׁמֵם (shamem) is traditionally taken as “to destroy; to ruin oneself.” For its use here שׁמם 2 has “to cause oneself ruin”; 1031 שָׁמֵם 2 has “cause oneself desolation, ruin.” Most English versions take a similar approach: “Why destroy yourself?” (, , , , , ); “Why ruin yourself?” (, ). However, in the Hitpolel stem the root שׁמם never means this elsewhere, but is always nuanced elsewhere as “to be appalled; to be astonished; to be dumbfounded; to be confounded; to be horrified” (e.g., Ps 143:4; Isa 59:16; 63:5; Dan 8:27); cf. 1031 שָׁמֵם 1; שׁמם 1. It is taken this way in the English version of the Tanakh: “or you may be dumbfounded” (). Likewise, Cohen renders, “Why should you be overcome with amazement?” (A. Cohen, The Five Megilloth [], 154). If a person was trusting in his own righteousness or wisdom to guarantee prosperity, he might be scandalized by the exceptions to the doctrine of retribution that Qoheleth had observed in 7:15. D. R. Glenn (“Ecclesiastes,” , ) notes: “This fits in nicely with Solomon’s argument here. He urged his readers not to be over-righteous or over-wise ‘lest they be confounded or astonished.’ He meant that they should not depend on their righteousness or wisdom to guarantee God’s blessing because they might be confounded, dismayed, or disappointed like the righteous people whom Solomon had seen perishing in spite of their righteousness [in 7:15].” See §54.c.
210. 61 Heb “Why?” The question is rhetorical.
211. 62 The word “warning” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation two times in this line for clarity.
212. 63 The other warning. Qoheleth is referring to the two words of advice in 7:16–17. He is not, as some suggest, urging his readers to grasp righteousness without letting go of wickedness. His point is not that people should live their lives with a balance of modest righteousness and modest wickedness. Because he urges the fear of God in 7:18b, he cannot be inconsistent in suggesting that his readers offend the fear of God by indulging in some degree of sin in order to counterbalance an overly righteous life. Rather, the proper fear of God will prevent a person from trusting in righteousness and wisdom alone for his security, and it will also prevent indulgence in wickedness and folly.
213. 64 Or “will escape both”; or “will go forth in both.” The Hebrew phrase יֵצֵא אֶת־כֻּלָּם (yetse’ ’et-kullam, “he will follow both of them”) has been interpreted in several ways: (1) To adopt a balanced lifestyle that is moderately righteous while allowing for self-indulgence in moderate wickedness (“to follow both of them,” that is, to follow both righteousness and wickedness). However, this seems to unnecessarily encourage an antinomian rationalization of sin and moral compromise. (2) To avoid the two extremes of being over-righteous and over-wicked. This takes יֵצֵא in the sense of “to escape,” e.g., Gen 39:12, 15; 1 Sam 14:14; Jer 11:11; 48:9; cf. יצא 6.c; 423 יָצָא 1.d. (3) To follow both of the warnings given in 7:16–17. This approach finds parallels in postbiblical rabbinic literature denoting the action of discharging one’s duty of obedience and complying with instruction. In postbiblical rabbinic literature the phrase יַדֵי יֵצֵא (yetse’ yade, “to go out of the hands”) is an idiom meaning “to comply with the requirements of the law” ( 587 יָצָא Hif.5.a). This fits nicely with the context of 7:16–17 in which Qoheleth issued two warnings. In 7:18a Qoheleth exhorted his readers to follow both of his warnings: “It is best to grasp the first warning without letting go of the second warning.” The person who fears God will heed both warnings. He will not depend upon his own righteousness and wisdom, but upon God’s sovereign bestowal of blessings. Likewise, he will not exploit the exceptions to the doctrine of retribution to indulge in sin, rationalizing sin away just because the wicked sometimes do not get what they deserve.
214. 65 Heb “both.” The term “warnings” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity. Alternately, “both [extremes]” or “both [fates].” The point of this expression is either (1) “he achieves both things,” (2) “he escapes all these misfortunes,” (3) “he does his duty by both,” or (4) “he avoids both extremes.” See D. Barthélemy, e.d., Preliminary and Interim Report on the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project, 3:580–81.
215. 66 Heb “gives strength.”
216. 67 The introductory particle כִּי (ki) is rendered variously: “for” (); “indeed” (); not translated (); “for” (). The particle functions in an explanatory sense, explaining the need for wisdom in v. 19. Righteousness alone cannot always protect a person from calamity (7:15–16); therefore, something additional, such as wisdom, is needed. The need for wisdom as protection from calamity is particularly evident in the light of the fact that no one is truly righteous (7:19–20).
217. 68 The term “truly” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity. Qoheleth does not deny the existence of some people who are relatively righteous.
218. 69 Heb “they”; the referent (people) has been specified in the translation for clarity.