Ecclesiastes 3–5

Footnotes

1. 1 Verse 1 is arranged in an ABB′A′ chiasm (לַכֹּל זְמָן וְעֵת לְכָל־חֵפֶץ, lakkol zéman vé’et lékhol-khefets): (A) “for everything”; (B) “a season”; (B′) “a time”; (A′) “for every matter.” The terms “season” (זְמָן, zéman) and “time” (עֵת, ’et) are parallel. In the light of its parallelism with “every matter” (כָל־חֵפֶץ, khol-khefets), the term “everything” (כָל, khol) must refer to events and situations in life.
2. 2 The noun זְמָן (zéman) denotes “appointed time” or “appointed hour” ( זְמָן; 273 זְמָן; see Eccl 3:1; Esth 9:27, 31; Neh 2:6; Sir 43:7), e.g., the appointed or designated time for the Jewish feasts (Esth 9:27, 31), the length of time that Nehemiah set for his absence from Susa (Neh 2:6), and the appointed times in the Jewish law for the months to begin (Sir 43:7). It is used in parallelism with מועד (“appointed time”), i.e., מועד ירח (“the appointed time of the moon”) parallels זמני חק (“the appointed times of the law”; Sir 43:7). The related verb, a Pual of זָמַן (zaman), means “to be appointed” ( זְמָן); e.g. Ezra 10:14; Neh 10:35; 13:31. These terms may be related to the noun I זִמָּה (zimmah, “plan; intention”; Job 17:11; I זִמָּה) and מְזִמָּה (mézimmah, “purpose; plan; project”), e.g., the purposes of God (Job 42:2; Jer 23:20; 30:24; 51:11) and man’s plan (Isa 5:12); see מְזִמָּה; 273 מְזִמָּה. Verses 1–8 refer to God’s appointed time-table for human activities or actions whose most appropriate time is determined by men. Verses 9–15 state that God is ultimately responsible for the time in which events in human history occur. This seems to provide a striking balance between the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man. Man does what God has willed, but man also does what he “pleases” (see note on the word “matter” in ).
3. 3 The noun עֵת (’et, “point in time”) has a basic two-fold range of meanings: (1) “time of an event” and (2) “time for an event” ( 773 עֵת). The latter has subcategories: (a) “usual time,” (b) “the proper, suitable or appropriate time,” (c) “the appointed time,” and (d) “uncertain time” (Eccl 9:11). Here it connotes “a proper, suitable time for an event” ( עֵת 6; עֵת 2.b). Examples: “the time for rain” (Ezra 10:13), “a time of judgment for the nations” (Ezek 30:3), “an appropriate time for every occasion” (Eccl 3:1), “the time when mountain goats are born” (Job 39:1), “the rain in its season” (Deut 11:14; Jer 5:24), “the time for the harvest” (Hos 2:11; Ps 1:3), “food in its season” (Ps 104:27), “no one knows his hour of destiny” (Eccl 9:12), “the right moment” (Eccl 8:5); cf. עֵת 6.
4. 4 The noun חֵפֶץ (khefets, here “matter, business”) has a broad range of meanings: (1) “delight; joy,” (2) “desire; wish; longing,” (3) “the good pleasure; will; purpose,” (4) “precious stones” (i.e., jewelry), i.e., what someone takes delight in, and (5) “matter; business,” as a metonymy of adjunct to what someone takes delight in (Eccl 3:1, 17; 5:7; 8:6; Isa 53:10; 58:3, 13; Pss 16:3; 111:2; Prov 31:13); see חֵפֶץ 4; 343 חֵפֶץ 4. It is also sometimes used in reference to the “good pleasure” of God, that is, his sovereign plan, e.g., Judg 13:23; Isa 44:28; 46:10; 48:14 ( 343 חֵפֶץ). While the theme of the sovereignty of God permeates Eccl 3:1–4:3, the content of 3:1–8 refers to human activities that are planned and purposed by man. The translated it with πράγματι (pragmati, “matter”). The term is translated variously by modern English versions: “every purpose” (, ), “every event” (), “every delight” ( margin), “every affair” (), “every matter” (, ), “every activity” (, ), “every project” (), and “every experience” ().
5. 5 Heb “under heaven.”
6. 6 The verb יָלָד (yalad, “to bear”) is used in the active sense of a mother giving birth to a child ( ילד; 408 יָלָד). However, in light of its parallelism with “a time to die,” it should be taken as a metonymy of cause (i.e., to give birth to a child) for effect (i.e., to be born).
7. 7 In 3:2–8, Qoheleth uses fourteen sets of merisms (a figure using polar opposites to encompass everything in between, that is, totality), e.g., Deut 6:6–9; Ps 139:2–3 (see E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech, ).
8. 8 The term לְאַבֵּד (lé’abbed, Piel infinitive construct from אָבַד, ’avad, “to destroy”) means “to lose” (e.g., Jer 23:1) as the contrast with בָּקַשׁ (baqash, “to seek to find”) indicates ( I אבד; 2 אבד 3). This is the declarative or delocutive-estimative sense of the Piel: “to view something as lost” (R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax, 28, §145; §24.2g).
9. 9 The term הָעוֹשֶׂה (ha’oseh, article + Qal active participle from עָשַׂה, ’asah, “to do”) functions substantively (“the worker”); see 794 עָשַׂה II.1. This is a figurative description of man (metonymy of association), and plays on the repetition of עָשַׂה (verb: “to do,” noun: “work”) throughout the passage. In the light of God’s orchestration of human affairs, man’s efforts cannot change anything. It refers to man in general with the article functioning in a generic sense (see §13.5.1f; 2: §137.m).
10. 10 This rhetorical question is an example of negative affirmation, expecting a negative answer: “Man gains nothing from his toil!” (see E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech, ). Any advantage that man might gain from his toil is nullified by his ignorance of divine providence.
11. 11 Heb “the sons of man.”
12. 12 The Hebrew adjective translated beautifully functions as a metonymy of effect (i.e., to appear beautiful) for cause (i.e., to make it fit): “to fit beautifully.” It is used in parallelism with Qoheleth’s term for evaluation: טוֹב (tov, “good”) in 5:17.
13. 13 The word “but” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity.
14. 14 Heb “darkness”; perhaps “eternity” or “the future.” The meaning of the noun עֹלָם (’olam) is debated. It may mean: (1) “ignorance”; (2) time reference: (a) “eternity” or (b) “the future”; or (3) “knowledge” (less likely). The arguments for these options may be summarized: (1) Most suggest that עֹלָם is the defectively written form of עוֹלָם “duration; eternity” (e.g., Eccl 1:4; 2:16; 3:14; 9:6; 12:5); see 762 III עוֹלָם 2.k. Within this school of interpretation, there are several varieties: (a) 762 III עוֹלָם 2.k suggests that here it denotes “age [i.e., duration] of the world,” which is attested in postbiblical Hebrew. The term III עֹלָם “eternity” = “world” ( 1084 עָלַם III) is used in this sense in postbiblical Hebrew, mostly in reference to the Messianic age, or the world to come (e.g., ; . Exodus 21:6; Psalms 61:7). For example, “the world (עֹלָם) shall last six thousand years, and after one thousand years it shall be laid waste” (b. Rosh HaShanah 31a) and “the world (עֹלָם) to come” ( Sotah 10b). The and the took the term in this sense. This approach was also adopted by several English translations: “the world” (, , margin). (b) עוֹלָם 5 and 2:242 suggest that the term refers to an indefinite, unending future: “eternity future” or “enduring state referring to past and future” (see also 762 III עוֹלָם 2.i). In this sense, the noun עֹלָם functions as a metonymy of association: “a sense of eternity,” but not in a philosophical sense (see J. Barr, Biblical Words for Time [], 117, n. 4). This approach is supported by three factors: (i) the recurrence of עוֹלָם (“eternity”) in 3:14, (ii) the temporal qualification of the statement in the parallel clause (“from beginning to end”), and (iii) by the ordinary meaning of the noun as “eternity” ( עוֹלָם). The point would be that God has endowed man with an awareness of the extra-temporal significance of himself and his accomplishments (D. R. Glenn, “Ecclesiastes,” , ). This is the most frequent approach among English versions: “the timeless” (), “eternity” (, , , , , ), “a sense of time past and time future” (), and “a sense of past and future” (). (3) Other scholars suggest that עוֹלָם simply refers to the indefinite future: “the future,” that is, things to come (e.g., עוֹלָם 2; 762 III עוֹלָם 2.a; 2:241). The plural עֹלָמִים (’olamim, “things to come”) was used in this sense in Eccl 1:10 (e.g., 1 Kgs 8:13 = 2 Chr 6:2; Pss 61:5; 77:8; 145:13; Dan 9:24; cf. עוֹלָם 2). The point would simply be that God has not only ordained all the events that will take place in man’s life (3:1–8), but also preoccupies man with the desire to discover what will happen in the future in terms of the orchestration or timing of these events in his life (3:9–11). This fits well with the description of God’s orchestration of human events in their most appropriate time (3:1–10) and the ignorance of man concerning his future (3:11b). Elsewhere, Qoheleth emphasizes that man cannot learn what the future holds in store for him (e.g., 8:7, 17). This approach is only rarely adopted: “the future” ( margin). (2) The second view is that עֹלָם is not defectively written עוֹלָם (“eternity”) but the segholate noun II עֶלֶם (’elem) that means “dark” (literal) or “ignorance; obscurity; secrecy” (figurative). The related noun תַּעֲלֻמָה (ta’alumah) means “hidden thing; secret,” and the related verb עָלַם (’alam) means “to hide; to conceal” ( 761 I עָלַם; עלם). This is related to the Ugaritic noun “dark” and the Akkadian verb “to be black; to be dark” (see עלם). In postbiblical Hebrew the root II עֶלֶם means (i) “secret” and (ii) “forgetfulness” ( 1084 עֶלֶם I). Thus the verse would mean that God has “obscured” man’s knowledge so that he cannot…
15. 15 Heb “in their heart.” The Hebrew term translated heart functions as a metonymy of association for man’s intellect, emotions, and will ( 524–25 לֵב 3–6, 9). Here, it probably refers to man’s intellectual capacities, as v. 11 suggests.
16. 16 The compound preposition מִבְּלִי (mibbéli, preposition מִן [min] + negative particle בְּלִי [béli]) is used as a conjunction here. Elsewhere, it can express cause: “because there is no [or is not]” (e.g., Deut 9:28; 28:55; Isa 5:13; Ezek 34:5; Lam 1:4; Hos 4:6), consequence: “so that there is no [or is not]” (e.g., Ezek 14:5; Jer 2:15; 9:9–11; Zeph 3:6), or simple negation: “without” (e.g., Job 4:11, 20; 6:6; 24:7–8; 31:19). 115 בְּלִי 3.c.β suggests the negative consequence: “so that not,” while בְּלִי 5 suggests the simple negation: “without the possibility of.”
17. 17 Heb “man.”
18. 18 Heb “the work that God has done.” The phrase אֶת־הַמַּעֲשֶׂה אֲשֶׁר־עָשָׂה (’et-hamma’aseh ’asher-’asah, “the work which he [i.e., God] has done”) is an internal cognate accusative (direct object and verb are from the same root), used for emphasis (see §10.2.1g). The repetition of the verb עָשַׂה (“to do”) in 3:11 and 3:14 suggests that this phrase refers to God’s foreordination of all the events and timing of human affairs: God has “made” ( = “foreordained”; עָשַׂה) everything appropriate in his sovereign timing (3:11a), and all that God has “done” ( = “foreordained”; עָשַׂה) will come to pass (3:14). Thus, the verb עָשַׂה functions as a metonymy of effect (i.e., God’s actions) for cause (i.e., God’s sovereign foreordination). The temporal clause “from beginning to end” (3:11) supports this nuance.
19. 19 Traditionally, “what God has done from the beginning to the end.” The temporal clause מֵרֹאשׁ וְעַד־סוֹף (mero’sh vé’ad-sof, “from the beginning to the end”) is traditionally taken in reference to “eternity” (the traditional understanding of הָעֹלָם [ha’olam] earlier in the verse; see the note on “ignorance”), e.g., , , , , , , , . However, if הָעֹלָם simply denotes “the future” (e.g., עוֹלָם 2; 762 III עוֹלָם 2.a; 2:241), this temporal clause would refer to the events God has ordained to transpire in an individual’s life, from beginning to end. This approach is adopted by one English version: “but without man ever guessing, from first to last, all the things that God brings to pass” (). This would fit well in the context begun in 3:1 with the fourteen merisms encompassing man’s life, starting with “a time to be born” (i.e., from the beginning in 3:11) and concluding with “a time to die” (i.e., to the end in 3:11). This approach is also supported by the admonition of 3:12–13, namely, since no one knows what will happen to him in the future days of his life, Qoheleth recommends that man enjoy each day as a gift from God.
20. 20 The phrase “of their lives” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity.
21. 21 Heb “I know.”
22. 22 Heb “for them”; the referent (people, i.e., mankind) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
23. 23 Qoheleth uses the exceptive particle אִם … כִּי (ki …’ im, “except”) to identify the only exception to the futility within man’s life ( 474 כִּי 2).
24. 24 Heb “to do good.” The phrase לַעֲשׂוֹת טוֹב (la’asot tov) functions idiomatically for “to experience [or see] happiness [or joy].” The verb עָשַׂה (’asah) probably denotes “to acquire; to obtain” ( 795 עָשַׂה II.7), and טוֹב (tov) means “good; pleasure; happiness,” e.g., Eccl 2:24; 3:13; 5:17 ( 375 טוֹב 1).
25. 25 Heb “for it.” The referent of the 3rd person feminine singular independent person pronoun (“it”) is probably the preceding statement: “to eat, drink, and find satisfaction.” This would be an example of an anacoluthon ( §167.b). Thus the present translation uses “these things” to indicate the reference back to the preceding.
26. 26 The phrase “to do again” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity.
27. 27 Heb “God will seek that which is driven away.” The meaning of יְבַקֵּשׁ אֶת־נִרְדָּף (yévaqqesh ’et-nirdaf) is difficult to determine: יְבַקֵּשׁ (yévaqqesh) is Piel imperfect 3rd person masculine singular from בָּקַשׁ (baqash, “to seek”) and נִרְדָּף (nirdaf) is a Niphal participle 3rd person masculine singular from רָדַף (radaf, “to drive away”). There are several options: (1) God watches over the persecuted: יְבַקֵּשׁ (“seeks”) functions as a metonymy of cause for effect (i.e., to protect), and אֶת־נִרְדָּף (“what is driven away”) refers to “those who are persecuted.” But this does not fit the context. (2) God will call the past to account: יְבַקֵּשׁ functions as a metonymy of cause for effect (i.e., to hold accountable), and אֶת־נִרְדָּף is a metonymy of attribute (i.e., the past). This approach is adopted by several English translations: “God requires that which is past” (), “God will call the past to account” () and “God summons each event back in its turn” (). (3) God finds what has been lost: יְבַקֵּשׁ functions as a metonymy of cause for effect (i.e., to find), and אֶת־נִרְדָּף refers to what has been lost: “God restores what would otherwise be displaced” (). (4) God repeats what has already occurred: יְבַקֵּשׁ functions as a metonymy of effect (i.e., to repeat), and אֶת־נִרְדָּף is a metonymy (i.e., that which has occurred). This fits the context and provides a tight parallel with the preceding line: “That which is has already been, and that which will be has already been” (3:15a) parallels “God seeks [to repeat] that which has occurred [in the past].” This is the most popular approach among English versions: “God restores that which has past” (), “God seeks again that which is passed away” (), “God seeks what has passed by” (), “God seeks what has been driven away” (), “God seeks out what has passed by” (), “God seeks out what has gone by” (), and “God is ever bringing back what disappears” ().
28. 28 The phrase “in the past” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity.
29. 29 Heb “under the sun.”
30. 30 Or “righteousness.”
31. 31 The phrase “a time of judgment” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity.
32. 32 The phrase “it is” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity.
33. 33 Heb “the sons of man.” The phrase עַל־דִּבְרַת בְּנֵי הָאָדָם (’al-divrat béne ha’adam) is handled variously: (1) introduction to the direct discourse: “I said to myself concerning the sons of men” (), (2) direct discourse: “I thought, ‘As for men, God tests them’ ” (), (3) indirect discourse: “I said in my heart concerning the estate of the sons of men” (), and (4) causal conjunction: “I said, ‘[It is] for the sake of the sons of men.” Since the phrase “sons of men” is contrasted with “animals” the translation “humans” has been adopted.
34. 34 The meaning of לְבָרָם (lévaram, preposition + Qal infinitive construct from בָּרַר, barar, + 3rd person masculine plural suffix) is debated because the root has a broad range of meanings: (1) “to test; to prove; to sift; to sort out” (e.g., Dan 11:35; 12:10); (2) “to choose; to select” (e.g., 1 Chr 7:40; 9:22; 16:41; Neh 5:18); (3) “to purge out; to purify” (e.g., Ezek 20:38; Zeph 3:9; Job 33:3); and (4) “to cleanse; to polish” (Isa 49:2; 52:11); see בָּרַר; 141 בָּרַר. The meanings “to prove” (Qal), as well as “to cleanse; to polish” (Qal), “to keep clean” (Niphal), and “to cleanse” (Hiphil) might suggest the meaning “to make clear” (M. A. Eaton, Ecclesiastes [], ). The meaning “to make clear; to prove” is well attested in postbiblical Mishnaic Hebrew ( 197–98 בָּרַר). For example, “they make the fact as clear (bright) as a new garment” ( Ketubbot 46a) and “the claimant must offer clear evidence” ( Sanhedrin 23b). The point would be that God allows human injustice to exist in the world in order to make it clear to mankind that they are essentially no better than the beasts. On the other hand, the adopts the nuance “to judge,” while and take the nuance “to purge; to purify.” 141 בָּרַר 4 suggests “to test, prove,” while בָּרַר 2 prefers “to select, choose.”
35. 35 The two infinitives לְבָרָם (lévaram, “to make it clear to them”) and וְלִרְאוֹת (vélir’ot, “and to show”) function as a verbal hendiadys (the two verbs are associated with one another to communicate a single idea). The first verb functions adverbially and the second retains its full verbal force: “to clearly show them.”
36. 36 Heb “of the sons of man.”
37. 37 Heb “the spirit of the sons of man.”
38. 38 Heb “man.”
39. 39 Heb “his works.”
40. 40 Heb “his.”
41. 41 Heb “what will be after him” (cf. , , ) or “afterward” (cf. ).
42. 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).
43. 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.
44. 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” (, , ).
45. 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” ().
46. 5 Heb “under the sun.”
47. 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).
48. 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.
49. 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” ().
50. 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, ).
51. 10 Heb “from the hand of their oppressors is power.”
52. 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” (, , , , , ).
53. 12 Heb “the dead who had already died.”
54. 13 Heb “the living who are alive.”
55. 14 The word “born” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity.
56. 15 Heb “under the sun.”
57. 16 Heb “saw.”
58. 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.”
59. 18 The phrase “nothing more than” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity.
60. 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” ().
61. 20 Heb “a man and his neighbor.”
62. 21 The word “like” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity.
63. 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.
64. 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” ().
65. 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.
66. 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.…”
67. 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.
68. 27 The word “another” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity.
69. 28 Heb “under the sun.”
70. 29 Heb “There is one and there is not a second.”
71. 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).
72. 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, .
73. 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 …” (, , , , , , ).
74. 33 Heb “my soul.”
75. 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, ).
76. 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.”
77. 36 Heb “they have.”
78. 37 Heb “a good reward.”
79. 38 Heb “woe to him.”
80. 39 The verbal root תקף means “to overpower; to prevail over” e.g., Job 14:20; 15:24; Eccl 4:12; 6:10 ( תקף).
81. 40 Heb “came from the house of bonds.”
82. 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.
83. 42 Heb “under the sun.”
84. 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.
85. 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.
86. 45 Heb “the people.” The term עַם (’am, “people”) can refer to the subjects of the king ( 766 עַם 2).
87. 46 Heb “those who were before them.”
88. 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).
89. 48 The word “like” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity.
90. 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.
91. 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, .
92. 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, .
93. 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.
94. 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).
95. 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 ]).
96. 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”).
97. 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.
98. 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.
99. 10 The word “occurs” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity.
100. 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).
101. 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 ]).
102. 13 Heb “he”; the referent (“God”) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
103. 14 The word “it” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity.
104. 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, .
105. 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” ().
106. 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).
107. 18 Heb “at your voice.” This is an example of metonymy (i.e., your voice) of association (i.e., you).
108. 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” ().
109. 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.
110. 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.
111. 22 Heb “in the province.”
112. 23 The word “official” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity.
113. 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.
114. 25 The phrase “is seized” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity.
115. 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.
116. 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.
117. 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, .
118. 29 The Hebrew term “silver” (translated “money”) is repeated twice in this line for rhetorical emphasis.
119. 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).
120. 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.
121. 32 The word “his” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity.
122. 33 The word “someone’s” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity.
123. 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 , , , , .
124. 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.
125. 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, ).
126. 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×]).
127. 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).
128. 39 Heb “under the sun.”
129. 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” ().
130. 41 Heb “there is nothing in his hand.”
131. 42 See the note on the phrase “depressing misfortune” in v. .
132. 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.
133. 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.
134. 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).
135. 46 Heb “his,” and three times later in the verse.
136. 47 Heb “the toil which one toils.”
137. 48 Heb “under the sun.”
138. 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).
139. 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.
140. 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.
141. 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.
142. 53 The word “fleeting” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity.
143. 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.
144. 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.