An internal cognate accusative construction (accusative and verb from same root) is used for emphasis: שֶׁעָמַלְתִּי עֲמָלִי (’ amali she ’ amalti , “my toil for which I had toiled”); see IBHS 167 §10.2.1g. The two verbs שֶׁעָמַלְתִּי וְשֶׁחָכַמְתִּי ( she ’ amalti vÿshekhakhamti , “for which I had labored and for which I had acted wisely”) form a verbal hendiadys (two separate verbs used in association to communicate one idea): “for I had labored so wisely.” The second verb is used adverbially to modify the first verb, which functions in its full verbal sense.


Heb “under the sun.”


Heb “I turned aside to allow my heart despair.” The term לִבִּי ( libbi , “my heart”) is a synecdoche of part (i.e., heart) for the whole (i.e., whole person); see E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech , 648.


The phrase “the fruit of” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity (see the following note on the word “labor”).


Heb “all my toil.” As in 2:18-19 , the term עֲמָלִי (’ amali , “my labor”) is a metonymy of cause (i.e., my labor) for effect (i.e., the fruit of my labor). The metonymy is recognized by several translations: “all the fruits of my labor” (NAB); “all the fruit of my labor” (NASB); “all the gains I had made” (NJPS).


Here the author uses an internal cognate accusative construction (accusative noun and verb from the same root) for emphasis: שֶׁעָמַלְתִּי הֶעָמָל ( he ’ amal she ’ amalti , “the toil for which I had toiled”); see IBHS 167 §10.2.1g.


Heb “he must give.” The 3rd person masculine singular suffix on יִתְּנֶנּוּ ( yittÿnennu , Qal imperfect 3rd person masculine singular from נָתַן , natan , “to give” + 3rd person masculine singular suffix) refers back to עֲמָלוֹ (’ amalo , “his labor”) which is treated in this line as a metonymy of cause for effect, that is, “he must give it” = “he must give his labor” = “he must give the fruit of his labor.” sn As in 2:18-19 , Qoheleth laments the injustice that a person who works diligently in wisdom must one day hand over the fruit of his labor (i.e., his fortune and the care of his achievements) to his successor. There is no guarantee that one’s heir will be wise and be a good steward of this wealth, or be foolish and squander it – in which case, the former man’s entire life’s work would be in vain.


Heb “it”; the referent (“the fruit of his labor”) has been specified in the translation for clarity.


Or “he must turn over an inheritance”; or “he must turn it over, namely, an inheritance.” There are two approaches to the syntax of חֶלְקוֹ ( khelqo , “his inheritance”): (1) The 3rd person masculine singular suffix is a subjective genitive: “his inheritance” = the inheritance which he must give to his heir. The referent of the 3rd person masculine singular suffix is Qoheleth in 2:21 a who worked hard to amass the fortune. The noun חֵלֶק ( kheleq , “inheritance”) functions as an adverbial accusative of state (GKC 372 §118. a ) or a predicate accusative (R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax , 12-13, §57): “He must give it [i.e., his fortune] as an inheritance.” (2) The 3rd person masculine singular suffix is an objective genitive: “his inheritance” = the inheritance which the heir will receive from Qoheleth. The referent of the 3rd person masculine singular suffix is the heir in 2:21 b. The noun חֵלֶק (“inheritance”) functions as the accusative direct object in apposition (R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax , 15-16, §71) to the 3rd person masculine singular suffix on יִתְּנֶנּוּ ( yittÿnennu , “he must give it”; Qal imperfect 3rd person masculine singular from נָתַן , natan , + 3rd person masculine singular suffix): “He must give it, namely, his inheritance, to one who did not work for it.”


The noun רָעָה ( ra ’ ah , “evil”) probably means “misfortune” ( HALOT 1263 s.v. רָעָה 4) or “injustice; wrong” ( HALOT 1262 s.v. רָעָה 2.b). The phrase רָעָה רַבָּה ( ra ’ ah rabbah ) connotes “grave injustice” or “great misfortune” (e.g., Eccl 2:17; 5:12, 15; 6:1; 10:5 ). It is expressed well as: “This too is…a great misfortune” (NAB, NIV, MLB) and “utterly wrong!” (NEB). sn Verses 18-21 are arranged into two sub-units ( 2:18-19 and 2:20-21 ). Each contains a parallel structure: (1) Introductory lament: “I hated all my toil” and “I began to despair about all my toil.” (2) Reason for the lament: “I must turn over the fruit of my labor to the hands of my successor” and “he must hand over the fruit of his work as an inheritance.” (3) Description of successor: “who knows whether he will be a wise man or a fool?” and “he did not work for it.” (4) Concluding statement: “This also is fruitless!” and “This also is profitless and an awful injustice!”


Heb “under the sun.” The rhetorical question is an example of negative affirmation, expecting a negative answer: “Man acquires nothing” (see E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech , 949-51).


Heb “all his days.”


The syntax of this verse has been interpreted in two different ways: (1) The phrase “all his days” ( כָל־יָמָיו , khol-yamayv ) is the subject of a verbless clause, and the noun “pain” ( מַכְאֹבִים , makh ’ ovim ) is a predicate nominative or a predicate of apposition (see R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax , 15-16, §71). Likewise, the noun “his work” ( עִנְיָנוֹ , ’ inyano) is the subject of a second verbless clause, and the vexation” ( כַעַס , kha ’ as ) is a predicate nominative: “All his days are pain, and his work is vexation.” (2) The noun “his work” ( עִנְיָנוֹ ) is the subject of both nouns, “pain and vexation” ( וָכַעַס מַכְאֹבִים , makh ’ ovim vakha ’ as ), which are predicate nominatives, while the phrase “all his days” ( כָל־יָמָיו ) is an adverbial accusative functioning temporally: “All day long, his work is pain and vexation.” The latter option is supported by the parallelism between “even at night” and “all day long.” This verse draws out an ironic contrast/comparison between his physical toil/labor during the day and his emotional anxiety at night. Even at night, he has no break!


Heb “his heart (i.e., mind) does not rest.”


The preposition בְּ ( bet ) on בָּאָדָם ( ba ’ adam ) has been taken in two ways: (1) locative with טוֹב ( tov , “good”) in reference to man’s moral nature: “There is nothing [inherently] good in man.” (2) advantage with טוֹב (“good”) in reference to the enjoyment theme of 2:24-26 : “There is nothing better for a man than…” (this assumes a comparative מִן , min , on מִשֶׁיֹּאכַל , misheyyo ’ khal ); see text critical note on the word “than” below). The latter is preferred for two reasons: (1) The preposition בְּ is used with a similar idiom in 3:12 in collocation with the particle phrase אִם … כִּי ( ki …’ im , “except”): “There is nothing better…than to rejoice/be happy” (NASB, NIV). (2) The theme of 2:1-26 focuses on the futility of human toil, concluding that the only real reward that man has in his labor is to find enjoyment in it (e.g., 2:10, 24-26 ). The section says nothing about man’s inherent sinful nature.


Heb “man.”


The MT reads שֶׁיֹּאכַל ( sheyyo ’ khal , “that he should eat”; Qal imperfect 3rd person masculine singular from אָכַל , ’ akhal , “to eat,” with relative pronoun שֶׁ , she , “that”). However, the variant textual tradition of מִשֶּׁיֹּאכַל ( misheyyo ’ khal , “than he should eat” (comparative preposition מִן , min , “than” + Qal imperfect 3rd person masculine singular from אָכַל “to eat”) is reflected in the LXX, Coptic, Syriac, Aramaic Targum, Old Latin, and Jerome. The textual error, an example of haplography, arose from a single writing of מ ( mem ) from בָּאָדָם מִשֶּׁיֹּאכַל ( ba ’ adam misheyyo ’ khal ). The same idiom appears in the expanded form אִם … כִּי followed by טוֹב … אֵין (’ en tov … ki ’ im , “there is nothing better for man than …”) in Eccl 3:12; 8:15 .


Heb “to cause his soul to see good.” The idiom רָאָה טוֹב ( ra ’ ah tov , “to see good”) is a metonymy of association, meaning “to find enjoyment” (e.g., 3:13; 5:17; 6:6 ). In 3:12-13 and 5:17-18 it is in collocation and/or parallelism with בְּ ( bet ) + שָׂמַח ( samakh , “to rejoice in,” or “to find satisfaction or pleasure in” something). Here, it is used in collocation with חוּשׁ ( khush , “to enjoy”). The term נַפְשׁוֹ ( nafsho , “his soul”) is a metonymy of part (i.e., soul) for the whole (i.e., whole person), e.g., Num 23:10 ; Judg 16:30 ; Pss 16:10; 35:13; 103:1 (see E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech , 640-41).


Heb “his.”


The phrase “ability to find enjoyment” is not in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity.


Heb “is from the hand of God.” sn The phrase “from the hand of God” is an anthropomorphism (depicting God, who is an invisible spirit, in the form of man with hands) or anthropopatheia (depicting God performing human-like actions). The “hand of God” is a figure often used to portray God’s sovereign providence and benevolence (see E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech , 878). The phrase “the hand of God” is often used to connote the favor or grace of God ( 2 Chr 30:12 ; Ezra 7:9; 8:18 ; Neh 2:8, 18 ; see BDB 390 s.v. יָד 1.e.2).


Heb “For who can…?” The rhetorical question is an example of negative affirmation, expecting a negative answer: “No one can!” (see E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech , 949-51).


The phrase “and drink” is not in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for stylistic harmonization with v. 24 .


The verb II חוּשׁ ( khush , “to enjoy”) is a hapax legomenon which BDB defines as “to feel; to enjoy [with the senses]” on the basis of the context, and the cognates: Arabic “to feel; to perceive [by senses]”; Aramaic חושׁ “to feel pain,” and New Hebrew חושׁ “to feel pain” (BDB 301 s.v. II חֹוּשׁ ). HALOT relates the Hebrew root to Akkadian havavu “to be delighted with” ( HALOT 300 s.v. II חושׁ 1). The Vulgate renders this term as “to enjoy.” The Greek versions (LXX, Theodotion) and the Syriac Peshitta, however, did not understand this hapax ; they rendered it as “to drink,” making some sense of the line by filling out the parallelism “to eat [and drink]” (e.g., Eccl 8:15 ).


28:10 צי לצי צי לצי ( tsy ltsy ts ltsy ); see P. K. McCarter, Jr., Textual Criticism , 47. It is difficult to determine which reading is original here. The MT forms a parenthetical clause, where Qoheleth refers to himself: no one had more of an opportunity to experience more enjoyment in life than he (e.g., 2:1-11 ). The alternate textual tradition is a causal clause, explaining why the ability to enjoy life is a gift from God: no one can experience enjoyment in life “apart from him,” that is, apart from “the hand of God” in 2:24 . It is possible that internal evidence supports the alternate textual tradition. In 2:24-26 , Qoheleth is not emphasizing his own resources to enjoy life, as he had done in 2:1-11 ; but that the ability to enjoy life is the gift of God. On the other hand, the Jerusalem Hebrew Bible project retains the MT reading with a “B” rating; see D. Barthélemy, ed., Preliminary and Interim Report on the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project , 3:570. The English versions are split on the textual problem: a few retain MT מִמֶּנִּי (“more than I”), e.g., KJV, ASV, YLT, Douay, NJPS, while others adopt the alternate reading מִמֶּנּוּ , “apart from him” (NEB, NAB, MLB, NASB, RSV, NRSV, NIV, Moffatt).


Heb “for to a man who is good before him.”


The word “wealth” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity.


The word “it” (an implied direct object) does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity.


The antecedent of the demonstrative pronoun זֶה ( zeh , “this”) is debated: (1) Some refer it to the enjoyment which Qoheleth had just commended in 2:24-26 . However, this is inconsistent with the enjoyment theme found elsewhere in the book. It also ignores the fact that 2:24-26 states that such enjoyment is a good gift from God. (2) Others refer it to the term “toil” ( עָמָל , ’ amal ) which is repeated throughout 2:18-26 . However, Qoheleth affirmed that if one is righteous, he can find enjoyment in his toil, even though so much of it is ultimately futile. (3) Therefore, it seems best to refer it to the grievous “task” ( עִנְיָן , ’ inyan ) God has given to the sinner in 2:26 b. Consistent with the meaning of הֶבֶל ( hevel , “futile; profitless; fruitless”), 2:26b emphasizes that the “task” of the sinner is profitless: he labors hard to amass wealth, only to see the fruit of his labor given away to someone else. The righteous man’s enjoyment of his work and the fruit of his labor under the blessing of God ( 2:24-26 a) is not included in this.


The phrase “task of the wicked” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity.


Verse 1 is arranged in an ABB’A’ chiasm ( לַכֹּל זְמָן וְעֵת לְכָל־חֵפֶץ , lakkol zÿman vÿ ’ et lÿkhol-khefets ): (A) “for everything”; (B) “a season”; (B’) “a time”; (A’) “for every matter.” The terms “season” ( זְמָן , zÿman ) 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.


The noun זְמָן ( zÿman ) denotes “appointed time” or “appointed hour” ( HALOT 273 s.v. זְמָן ; BDB 273 s.v. 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” ( HALOT 273 s.v. 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 ; HALOT 272 s.v. I זִמָּה ) and מְזִמָּה ( mÿzimmah , “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 HALOT 566 s.v. מְזִמָּה ; BDB 273 s.v. מְזִמָּה . sn 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 3:1 ).


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” (BDB 773 s.v. 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” ( HALOT 900 s.v. עֵת 6; BDB s.v. 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. HALOT 900 s.v. עֵת 6.


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 HALOT 340 s.v. חֵפֶץ 4; BDB 343 s.v. 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 (BDB 343 s.v. 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 LXX translated it with πράγματι ( pragmati , “matter”). The term is translated variously by modern English versions: “every purpose” (KJV, ASV), “every event” (NASB), “every delight” (NASB margin), “every affair” (NAB), “every matter” (RSV, NRSV), “every activity” (NEB, NIV), “every project” (MLB), and “every experience” (NJPS).


Heb “under heaven.”


The verb יָלָד ( yalad , “to bear”) is used in the active sense of a mother giving birth to a child ( HALOT 413 s.v. ילד ; BDB 408 s.v. 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).


The term לְאַבֵּד ( lÿ ’ 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 ( HALOT 3 s.v. I אבד ; BDB 2 s.v. 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; IBHS 403 §24.2g).


The term הָעוֹשֶׂה ( ha ’ oseh , article + Qal active participle ms from עָשַׂה , ’ asah , “to do”) functions substantively (“the worker”); see BDB 794 s.v. 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 IBHS 244-45 §13.5.1f; Joüon 2:511 §137.m).


Heb “the sons of man.”


The word “but” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity.


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 BDB 762 s.v. III עוֹלָם 2.k. Within this school of interpretation, there are several varieties: (a) BDB 762 s.v. 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” (Jastrow 1084 s.v. עָלַם III) is used in this sense in postbiblical Hebrew, mostly in reference to the Messianic age, or the world to come (e.g., Tg. Genesis 9:16 ; Tg. Onq. Exodus 21:6 ; Tg. 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” ( b. Sotah 10b). The LXX and the Vulgate took the term in this sense. This approach was also adopted by several English translations: “the world” (KJV, Douay, ASV margin). (b) HALOT 799 s.v. עוֹלָם 5 and THAT 2:242 suggest that the term refers to an indefinite, unending future: “eternity future” or “enduring state referring to past and future” (see also BDB 762 s.v. 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 [SBT], 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” ( HALOT 798–799 s.v. 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,” BKCOT , 984). This is the most frequent approach among English versions: “the timeless” (NAB), “eternity” (RSV, MLB, ASV, NASB, NIV, NJPS), “a sense of time past and time future” (NEB), and “a sense of past and future” (NRSV). (3) Other scholars suggest that עוֹלָם simply refers to the indefinite future: “the future,” that is, things to come (e.g., HALOT 799 s.v. עוֹלָם 2; BDB 762 s.v. III עוֹלָם 2.a; THAT 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. HALOT 799 s.v. 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 ( 3:11 b). 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” (NJPS 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” (BDB 761 s.v. I עָלַם ; HALOT 834–35 s.v. עלם ). This is related to the Ugaritic noun “dark” and the Akkadian verb “to be black; to be dark” (see HALOT 834-35 s.v. עלם ). In postbiblical Hebrew the root II עֶלֶם means (i) “secret” and (ii) “forgetfulness” (Jastrow 1084 s.v. עֶלֶם I). Thus the verse would mean that God has “obscured” man’s knowledge so that he cannot discover certain features of God’s program. This approach is adopted by Moffatt which uses the word “mystery.” Similarly, the term may mean “forgetfulness,” that is, God has plagued man with “forgetfulness” so that he cannot understand what God has done from the beginning to the end (e.g., Eccl 1:11 ). (3) The third view (Delitzsch) is to relate עֹלָם to a cognate Arabic root meaning “knowledge.” The point would be that God has endowed man with “knowledge,” but not enough for man to discover God’s eternal plan. This approach is only rarely adopted: “knowledge” (YLT).


Heb “in their heart.” The Hebrew term translated heart functions as a metonymy of association for man’s intellect, emotions, and will (BDB 524–25 s.v. לֵב 3–6, 9). Here, it probably refers to man’s intellectual capacities, as v. 11 suggests.


The compound preposition מִבְּלִי ( mibbÿli , preposition מִן [ min ] + negative particle בְּלִי [ bÿli ]) 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 ). BDB 115 s.v. בְּלִי 3.c. β suggests the negative consequence: “so that not,” while HALOT 133 s.v. בְּלִי 5 suggests the simple negation: “without the possibility of.”


Heb “man.”


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 IBHS 167 §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 ( 3:11 a), 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.


Traditionally, “what God has done from the beginning to the end.” The temporal clause מֵרֹאשׁ וְעַד־סוֹף ( mero ’ sh vÿ ’ 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., KJV, NEB, NAB, ASV, NASB, NIV, RSV, NRSV. However, if הָעֹלָם simply denotes “the future” (e.g., HALOT 799 s.v. עוֹלָם 2; BDB 762 s.v. III עוֹלָם 2.a; THAT 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” (NJPS). 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.


The phrase “of their lives” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity.


Heb “I know.”


Heb “for them”; the referent (people, i.e., mankind) has been specified in the translation for clarity.


Qoheleth uses the exceptive particle אִם … כִּי ( ki …’ im , “except”) to identify the only exception to the futility within man’s life (BDB 474 s.v. כִּי 2).


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” (BDB 795 s.v. עָשַׂה II.7), and טוֹב ( tov ) means “good; pleasure; happiness,” e.g., Eccl 2:24; 3:13; 5:17 (BDB 375 s.v. טוֹב 1).


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 (GKC 505-6 §167. b ). Thus the present translation uses “these things” to indicate the reference back to the preceding.


The phrase “to do again” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity.


Heb “God will seek that which is driven away.” The meaning of יְבַקֵּשׁ אֶת־נִרְדָּף ( yÿvaqqesh ’ et-nirdaf ) is difficult to determine: יְבַקֵּשׁ ( yÿvaqqesh ) 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” (KJV), “God will call the past to account” (NIV) and “God summons each event back in its turn” (NEB). (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” (NAB). (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” ( 3:15 a) 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” (Douay), “God seeks again that which is passed away” (ASV), “God seeks what has passed by” (NASB), “God seeks what has been driven away” (RSV), “God seeks out what has passed by” (MLB), “God seeks out what has gone by” (NRSV), and “God is ever bringing back what disappears” (Moffatt).


The phrase “in the past” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity.


Heb “under the sun.”


Or “righteousness.”


The phrase “a time of judgment” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity.


The phrase “it is” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity.


Heb “the sons of man.” The phrase עַל־דִּבְרַת בְּנֵי הָאָדָם (’ al-divrat bÿne ha ’ adam ) is handled variously: (1) introduction to the direct discourse: “I said to myself concerning the sons of men” (NASB), (2) direct discourse: “I thought, ‘As for men, God tests them’” (NIV), (3) indirect discourse: “I said in my heart concerning the estate of the sons of men” (KJV), 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.


The meaning of לְבָרָם ( lÿvaram , 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 HALOT 163 s.v. בָּרַר ; BDB 141 s.v. 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 [TOTC], 85-86). The meaning “to make clear; to prove” is well attested in postbiblical Mishnaic Hebrew (Jastrow 197-98 s.v. בָּרַר ). For example, “they make the fact as clear (bright) as a new garment” ( b. Ketubbot 46a) and “the claimant must offer clear evidence” ( b. 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 LXX adopts the nuance “to judge,” while Targum and Vulgate take the nuance “to purge; to purify.” BDB 141 s.v. בָּרַר 4 suggests “to test, prove,” while HALOT 163 s.v. בָּרַר 2 prefers “to select, choose.”


The two infinitives לְבָרָם ( lÿvaram , “to make it clear to them”) and וְלִרְאוֹת ( vÿlir ’ 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.”


Heb “of the sons of man.”


Heb “the spirit of the sons of man.”


Heb “man.”


Heb “his works.”


Heb “his.”


Heb “what will be after him” (cf. KJV, NASB, NIV) or “afterward” (cf. NJPS).


The prefixed vav on וְשַׁבְתִּי ( vÿshavti , 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.” sn 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 ).


Heb “I turned and I saw.” The phrase וָאֶרְאֶה … וְשַׁבְתִּי ( vÿshavti … 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 HALOT 1430 s.v. שׁוב 5; BDB 998 s.v. שׁוּב 8; GKC 386 §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 IBHS 554-55 §33.3.1a.


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 HALOT 897 s.v. עֹשֶׁק 1; BDB 799 s.v. עֹשֶׁק 1). It occurs several times in the book, always in reference to personal rather than national oppression ( 4:1; 5:8 ET [ 5:7 HT]; 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 LXX renders it as a plural of number: συκοφαντίας ( sukofantias , “oppressions”), as does the Vulgate. Most English versions treat it as a plural of number: “the oppressions” (KJV, ASV, NAB, RSV, NRSV, MLB, YLT); however, a few treat it as an abstract plural: “the oppression” (NJPS, NIV, Moffatt).


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 (NEB: “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” (KJV, ASV, Douay, YLT), “[all the oppression] that goes on” (NJPS, Moffatt), “[all the oppressions] that are practiced” (RSV, NRSV), “[all the oppressions] that occur” (MLB), “[all the acts of oppression] which were being done” (NASB), “[all the oppressions] that take place” (NAB), “[all the oppression] that was taking place” (NIV).


Heb “under the sun.”


Heb “and behold.” The deictic particle וְהִנֵּה ( vÿhinneh , “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 ( HALOT 252 s.v. 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. HALOT 252 s.v. 5 ). It often introduces something surprising or unexpected (e.g., Gen 29:6 ; Num 25:6 ; cf. HALOT 252 s.v. 6 ).


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.


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 HALOT 227 s.v. דִּמְעָה ; BDB 199 s.v. 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 LXX translated it as singular δάκρουν ( dakroun , “the tear”); however, the Vulgate treated it as a collective (“the tears”). Apart from the woodenly literal YLT (“the tear”), the major English versions render this as a collective: “the tears” or “tears” (KJV, ASV, NEB, NAB, NASB, RSV, NRSV, NJPS, MLB, NIV). 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” (NEB, NAB, ASV, NASB, RSV, NRSV, MLB, NIV, NJPS). Some paraphrases attempt to fill out the meaning, e.g., “the oppressed were in tears” (Moffatt).


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 , 560-67).


Heb “from the hand of their oppressors is power.”


The verb שָׁבַח ( shavakh ) has a two-fold range of meaning: (1) “to praise; to laud”; and (2) “to congratulate” ( HALOT 1387 s.v. I שׁבח ; BDB 986 s.v. II שָׁבַח ). The LXX translated it as ἐπῄνεσα ( ephnesa , “I praised”). The English versions reflect the range of possible meanings: “praised” (KJV, ASV, Douay); “congratulated” (MLB, NASB); “declared/judged/accounted/thought…fortunate/happy” (NJPS, NEB, NIV, RSV, NRSV, NAB).


Heb “the dead who had already died.”


Heb “the living who are alive.”


The word “born” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity.


Heb “saw.”


Heb “all the toil and all the skill.” This Hebrew clause ( אֶת־כָּל־עָמָל וְאֵת כָּל־כִּשְׁרוֹן , ’ et-kol- ’ amal vÿ ’ 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.”


The phrase “nothing more than” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity.


The noun קִנְאַה ( qin ’ ah , “competition”) has a wide range of meanings: “zeal; jealousy; envy; rivalry; competition; suffering; animosity; anger; wrath” ( HALOT 1110 s.v.; BDB 888 s.v.). Here, as in 9:6 , it denotes “rivalry” (BDB 888 s.v. 1 ) or “competitive spirit” ( HALOT 1110 s.v. 1 .b). The LXX rendered it ζῆλος ( zhlos , “envy; jealousy”). The English versions reflect this broad range: “rivalry” (NEB, NAB, NASB), “envy” (KJV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, MLB, NIV, NJPS), and “jealousy” (Moffatt).


Heb “a man and his neighbor.”


The word “like” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity.


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.


Heb “and eats his own flesh.” Most English versions render the idiom literally: “and eats/consumes his flesh” (KJV, AS, NASB, NAB, RSV, NRSV, NJPS). However, a few versions attempt to explain the idiom: “and lets life go to ruin” (Moffatt), “and wastes away” (NEB), “and ruins himself” (NIV).


The prefixed vav on וְשַׁבְתִּי ( vÿshavti , 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….”


Heb “I turned and I saw…”; or “I again considered.” The Hebrew phrase וָאֶרְאֶה … וְשַׁבְתִּי ( vÿshavti … 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 HALOT 1430 s.v. שׁוב 5; BDB 998 s.v. שׁוּב 8; GKC 386 §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 IBHS 554-55 §33.3.1a.


The word “another” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity.


Heb “under the sun.”


Heb “There is one and there is not a second.”


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 ).


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 , 647.


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 LXX, some translations suggest that these words are spoken by a lonely workaholic, e.g., “He says…” (NAB, NEB, ASV, NIV, NRSV). Others suggest that this is a question that he never asks himself, e.g., “Yet he never asks himself…” (KJV, RSV, MLB, YLT, Douay, NASB, Moffatt).


Heb “my soul.”


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 , 949-51).


The adjective רָע ( ra ’, “evil”) here means “misfortune” ( HALOT 1263 s.v. רָעָה 4) or “injustice, wrong” ( HALOT 1262 s.v. 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” ( HALOT 857 s.v. עִנְיָן ; BDB 775 s.v. 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 ( HALOT 854 s.v. III עָנָה ; BDB 775 s.v. 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” ( HALOT 854 s.v. III ענה ). HALOT 857 s.v. עִנְיָן renders the phrase as “unhappy business” here. The phrase עִנְיַן רָע , is treated creatively by English versions: KJV, ASV “sore travail”; YLT “sad travail”; Douay “grievous vexation”; RSV, NRSV, NJPS “unhappy business”; NEB, Moffatt “sorry business”; NIV “miserable business”; NAB “worthless task”; NASB “grievous task”; MLB “sorry situation”; NLT “depressing.”


Heb “they have.”


Heb “a good reward.”


Heb “woe to him.”


The verbal root תקף means “to overpower; to prevail over” e.g., Job 14:20; 15:24 ; Eccl 4:12; 6:10 ( HALOT 1786 s.v. תקף ).


Heb “came from the house of bonds.”


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 ( bÿmalkhuto , “his kingdom”) refers to the old foolish king or to the poor but wise youth of 4:13 .


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.


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. BDB 764 s.v. עָמַד 6.a; HALOT 840 s.v. עמד 1.a.


Heb “the people.” The term עַם (’ am , “people”) can refer to the subjects of the king (BDB 766 s.v. עַם 2).


Heb “those who were before them.”


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. HALOT 36 s.v. אַחַר B.3; BDB 30 s.v. אַחַר 2.b).


The word “like” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity.


Heb “Guard your feet.” The Kethib is the plural רַגְלֶיךָ ( raglekha , “your feet”), while the Qere is the singular רַגְלְךָ ( raglÿkha , “your foot”), which is preserved in several medieval Hebrew mss and is reflected in the versions (LXX, Aramaic Targum, Vulgate, Syriac Peshitta). For example, the LXX reads πόδα σου ( poda sou , “your foot”) which reflects רַגְלְךָ . sn 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 , 648.


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 , 620.


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 ( HALOT 1572 s.v. שׁמע 4; BDB 1033–34 s.v. שָׁמַע ). The LXX took the term in the literal sense: τοῦ ἀκούειν ( tou akouein , “to listen”). The English versions reflect both literal and figurative options: “obedience” (NJPS, Douay, NAB, NEB) versus “to hear [or listen]” (KJV, ASV, YLT, MLB, RSV, NASB, NIV, NRSV). 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.


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).


Heb “the fools, a sacrifice.” The term “fools” ( הַכְּסִילִים , hakkÿsilim ) is an adverbial accusative of comparison (e.g., GKC 375 §118. r ): “rather than giving a sacrifice like fools” ( מִתֵּת הַכְּסִילִים זָבַח , mittet hakkÿsilim 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 HT]).


The term עִנְיַן (’ inyan ) means “business; affair; task; occupation” ( HALOT 857 s.v. עִנְיָן ; BDB 775 s.v. עִנְיָן ). HALOT nuances עִנְיַן בְּרֹב ( bÿrov ‘inyan ) as “excessive activity” ( HALOT 857 s.v. 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” (KJV, ASV, YLT, NEB, RSV) and “effort” (NASB), and (2) metonymical: “cares” (NAB, NIV, NRSV), “concerns” (MLB, Douay), “worries” (Moffatt) and “brooding” (NJPS). The LXX mistakenly related עִנְיַן to the root II עָנַה (’ anah ) “to afflict,” and rendered it as πειρασμοῦ ( peirasmou , “trial”).


The juxtaposition of the two lines joined by vav (“just as…so…”) suggests a comparison (BDB 253 s.v. ו 1.j); see R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax , 71, §437.


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 HALOT 1084 s.v. קוֹל 4.b; BDB 877 s.v. קוֹל 3.a; also E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech , 545–46. 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.


The word “occurs” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity.


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 IBHS 166-67 §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 HALOT 674 s.v. 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 [ET 1:15 ]; Ps 61:6, 9 ); see HALOT 674–75 s.v. 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 ).


The term לְשַׁלְּמוֹ ( lÿshallÿmo , 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 HALOT 1535 s.v. שׁלם 3a; BDB 1022 s.v. 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 HT]).


Heb “he”; the referent (“God”) has been specified in the translation for clarity.


The word “it” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity.


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 HALOT 164 s.v. בָּשָׂר ; E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech , 642.


The MT reads הַמַּלְאָךְ ( hammal ’ akh , “messenger”), while the LXX reads τοῦ θεοῦ ( tou qeou , “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 LXX might have been trying to make sense of a difficult expression. The MT is preferred as the original. All the major translations follow the MT except for Moffatt (“God”). tn Heb “the messenger.” The term מַלְאָךְ ( mal ’ akh , “messenger”) refers to a temple priest (e.g., Mal 2:7 ; cf. HALOT 585 s.v. מַלְאָךְ 2.b; BDB 521 s.v. 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” (NAB), “the temple messenger” (NIV), “the messenger” (RSV, NRSV, NASB, MLB, NJPS), “the angel” (KJV, ASV, Douay) and “the angel of God” (NEB).


The Hebrew noun שְׁגָגָה ( shÿgagah ) 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 HALOT 1412 s.v. שְׁגָגָה ; BDB 993 s.v. 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 ).


Heb “at your voice.” This is an example of metonymy (i.e., your voice) of association (i.e., you).


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 ); BDB 255 s.v. ו 5.c. γ : “There is futility….” The phrase בְרֹב הֲלֹמוֹת ( vÿrob halomot ) is an adverbial modifier (“in many dreams”), as is דְבָרִים הַרְבֵּה ( dÿvarim harbeh , “many words”). The vav prefixed to וּדְבָרִים ( udÿvarim ) and the juxtaposition of the two lines suggests a comparison: “just as…so also…” (BDB 253 s.v. ו 1.j). The English versions reflect a variety of approaches: “In the multitude of dreams and many words there are also diverse vanities” (KJV); “In the multitude of dreams there are vanities, and in many words” (ASV); “When dreams increase, empty words grow many” (RSV); “In many dreams and follies and many words” (MLB); “In the abundance of dreams both vanities and words abound” (YLT); “Where there are many dreams, there are many vanities, and words without number” (Douay); “Many dreams and words mean many a vain folly” (Moffatt); “Much dreaming leads to futility and to superfluous talk” (NJPS); “In many dreams and in many words there is emptiness” (NASB); “Much dreaming and many words are meaningless” (NIV); “With many dreams comes vanities and a multitude of words” (NRSV).


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 HALOT 897 s.v. עֹשֶׁק ; BDB 799 s.v. עֹשֶׁק . The LXX understands the term as “oppression,” as the translation συκοφαντίαν ( sukofantian , “oppression”) indicates. Likewise, HALOT 897 s.v. עֹשֶׁק 1 classifies this usage as “oppression” against the poor. However, the context of 5:8-9 [7-8 HT] focuses on corrupt government officials robbing people of the fruit of their labor through extortion and the perversion of justice.


Heb “robbery.” The noun גֵזֶל ( gezel , “robbery”) refers to the wrestling away of righteousness or the perversion of justice ( HALOT 186 s.v. גֵּזֶל ). The related forms of the root גזל mean “to rob; to loot” ( HALOT 186 s.v. 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.


Heb “in the province.”


The word “official” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity.


The phrase “is seized” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity.


The function of the term נֶעֱבָד ( ne ’ evar , Niphal participle ms 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” (RSV, NRSV, NJPS, NAB); (2) adjectival use of the participle, modifying מֶלֶךְ ( melekh , “king”): “the king who cultivates” (NASB); (3) verbal use of the participle, taking שָׂדֶה (“field”) as the subject: “field is cultivated” (NEB); and (4) verbal use of the participle, taking מֶלֶךְ (“king”) as the subject: “the king is served” (KJV, NASB); also “the king profits” (NIV). BDB 713 s.v. 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].” HALOT 774 s.v. 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. BDB 713 s.v. עָבַד 3; HALOT 773 s.v. 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. HALOT 773 s.v. עבד 3; BDB 713 s.v. עָבַד 3.


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” (NIV); “the profit of the land is among all of them; a cultivated field has a king” (RSV margin). On the other hand, the LXX 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” (KJV); “a king who cultivates the field is an advantage to the land” (NASB); “this is an advantage for a land: a king for a plowed field” (NRSV); “the greatest advantage in all the land is his: he controls a field that is cultivated” (NJPS); “a country prospers with a king who has control” (Moffatt); “a king devoted to the field is an advantage to the land” (MLB); “a king is an advantage to a land with cultivated fields” (RSV); “the best thing for a country is a king whose own lands are well tilled” (NEB); and “an advantage for a country in every respect is a king for the arable land” (NAB). See D. Barthélemy, ed., Preliminary and Interim Report on the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project , 3:576–77.


Heb “silver.” The Hebrew term כֶּסֶף ( kesef , “silver”) refers to “money” ( HALOT 490–91 s.v. כֶּסֶף 3). It is a synecdoche of specific (i.e., silver) for the general (i.e., money); see E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech , 625-29.


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 ( HALOT 250 s.v. הָמוֹן 1–6). Here, it refers to abundant wealth (related to “pomp”); cf. HALOT 250 s.v. הָמוֹן 6, that is, lavish abundant wealth ( Ezek 29:19; 30:4 ; 1 Chr 29:16 ).


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.


The word “his” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity.


The word “someone’s” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity.


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. HALOT 372 s.v. טוֹבָה 2. The related term טוֹב ( tov , “good”) connotes “prosperity” as well ( Prov 11:10 ; Job 20:21; 21:16 ); cf. HALOT 372 s.v. 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” (Moffatt); “When riches multiply, so do those who live off them” (NEB); “As his substance increase, so do those who consume it” (NJPS); and “Where there are great riches, there are also many to devour them” (NAB). 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” (NIV); “When goods increase, those who eat them increase” (NRSV); cf. also KJV, ASV, RSV, MLB, NASB.


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 GKC 399 §124. i . See v 13 as well.


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 , 947-48).


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 [2x]; 8:14 [3x]).


The noun רָעָה ( ra ’ ah , “evil”) probably means “misfortune” ( HALOT 1263 s.v. רָעָה 4) or “injustice, wrong” ( HALOT 1262 s.v. 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 ).


Heb “under the sun.”


Or “through a bad business deal.” The basic meaning of עִנְיַן (’ inyan ) is “business; affair” ( HALOT 857 s.v. עִנְיָן ) or “occupation; task” (BDB 775 s.v. 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 ). BDB suggests that the phrase עִנְיַן רָע (’ inyan ra ’) in 5:13 refers to a bad business deal (BDB 775 s.v. עִנְיָן ); however, HALOT suggests that it means “bad luck” ( HALOT 857 s.v. עִנְיָן ). The English versions reflect the same two approaches: (1) bad luck: “some misfortune” (NAB, NIV) and (2) a bad business deal: “a bad investment” (NASB), “a bad venture” (RSV, NRSV, MLB), “some unlucky venture” (Moffatt, NJPS), “an unlucky venture” (NEB), “an evil adventure” (ASV).


Heb “there is nothing in his hand.”


See the note on the phrase “depressing misfortune” in v. 13 .


Heb “all his days.” The phrase “of his life” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity.


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.


Heb “his,” and three times later in the verse.


Heb “the toil which one toils.”


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 HALOT 323 s.v. II חֵלֶק ; BDB 324 s.v. 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 ).


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 ( vÿlase ’ t , “and to lift” = “to accept [or receive]”), and וְלִשְׂמֹחַ ( vÿlismoakh , “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.


Heb “this.” The feminine singular demonstrative pronoun זֹה ( zoh , “this”) refers back to all that preceded it in the verse (e.g., GKC 440-41 §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.


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. BDB 270 s.v. זָכַר 5; HALOT 270 s.v. I זכר 2.


The word “fleeting” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity.


The term מַעֲנֵה ( ma ’ aneh , Hiphil participle ms 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 ( HALOT 854; BDB 775 s.v. 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 ( HALOT 857; BDB 775 s.v. עִנְיָן ). The participle form is used to emphasize durative, uninterrupted, continual action.


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.


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 [2x]; 8:14 [3x]).


The noun רָעָה ( ra ’ ah , “evil”) probably means “misfortune” ( HALOT 1263 s.v. רָעָה 4) or “injustice, wrong” ( HALOT 1262 s.v. רָעָה 2.b); see, e.g., Eccl 2:17; 5:12, 15; 6:1; 10:5 .


Heb “under the sun.”


The word “weighs” does not appear in Hebrew, but is added in the translation for smoothness.


Heb “it is great upon men.” The phrase וְרַבָּה הִיא עַל־הָאָדָם ( vÿrabbah hi ’ ’ al-ha ’ adam ) is taken in two basic ways: (1) commonality: “it is common among men” (KJV, MLB), “it is prevalent among men” (NASB), “that is frequent among men” (Douay). (2) oppressiveness: “it lies heavy upon men” (RSV, NRSV), “it weighs heavily upon men” (NEB, NAB, NIV), “it presses heavily on men” (Moffatt), “it is heavy upon men” (ASV), and “a grave one it is for man” (NJPS). 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 ( IBHS 244 §13.5.1f).


Heb “his appetite.”


Heb “There is no lack in respect to his appetite”; or “his desire lacks nothing.”


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” (BDB 1020 s.v. שָׁלַט ) and “to grant” ( HALOT 1522 s.v. 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 ).


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 ).


The phrase “the fruit of his labor” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity.


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” (BDB 649 s.v. נָכְרִי 3).


Heb “eats.”


Heb “an evil sickness.”


Heb “the days of his years are many.”


Heb “he has no burial.” The phrase וְגַם־קְבוּרָה לֹא־הָיְתָה ( vÿgam-qÿvurah 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 (KJV, NEB, RSV, NRSV, ASV, NASB, NIV, NJPS, MLB, Moffatt). 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,” BKCOT , 990.


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. HALOT 711. The noun is related to the verb נָפַל ( nafal , “to fall,” but occasionally “to be born”; see Isa 26:18 ); cf. HALOT 710 s.v. נפל 5.


Heb “he”; the referent (“the stillborn child”) has been specified in the translation for clarity.


The phrase “into the world” does not appear in Hebrew, but is added in the translation for clarity.


Heb “it never saw the sun.”


The word “anything” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity.


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 , 947). 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.


The phrase “for nothing more than” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity.


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 , 641-43), as suggested by the parallelism with נֶפֶשׁ ( nefesh , “his appetite”).


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 (BDB 660 s.v. נֶפֶשׁ 5.c; 6.a).


Heb “ What to the pauper who knows to walk before the living”; or “how to get along in life.”


The phrase “to be content with” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity.


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 , 552-54.


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 (BDB 660 s.v. נֶפֶשׁ 5.c; 6.a). This also involves the personification of the roving appetite as “roving” ( מֵהֲלָךְ ); see BDB 235 s.v. הָלַךְ II.3.f; 232 I.3.


The phrase “continual longing” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity.


The term “like” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity and smoothness.


Heb “already its name was called.”


Or “and what a person ( Heb “man”) is was foreknown.”


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.


Heb “The more the words, the more the futility.”


Or “What benefit does man have [in that]?”


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 , 949-51). The translation renders this rhetorical device as a positive affirmation.


The vav prefixed to וְיַעֲשֵׂם ( vÿya ’ 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 …”).


The 3rd person masculine plural suffix on the verb וְיַעֲשֵׂם ( vÿya ’ 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 yÿme-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” ( HALOT 891 s.v. I ָָעשַׂה 8) or as a subjective genitive: “they [i.e., the days of his life] pass like a shadow” (BDB 795 s.v. ָָעשַׂה II.11).


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 , 949-51). The translation renders this rhetorical device as a positive affirmation.


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. HALOT 1549 s.v. שֵׁם D.2; BDB 1028 s.v. שֵׁם 2.b.


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 .


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”).


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 HT]; 4:10 ); see HALOT 1568 s.v. 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 (JSOTSup), 242–43; J. J. Glück, “Paronomasia in Biblical Literature,” Semitics 1 (1970): 50–78; A. Guillaume, “Paronomasia in the Old Testament.” JSS 9 (1964): 282–90; J. M. Sasson, “Wordplay in the OT,” IDBSup 968-70.


The vav prefixed to the form וְיוֹם ( vÿyom ) 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).


The word “one’s” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity.


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).


Heb “house of mourning.” The phrase refers to a funeral where the deceased is mourned.


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 HALOT 653 s.v. מִשְׁתֶּה 4; BDB 1059 s.v. שָׁתַה . sn 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.


Heb “it”; the referent (“death”) has been specified in the translation for clarity.


Heb “the end.” The noun סוֹף ( sof ) literally means “end; conclusion” ( HALOT 747 s.v. סוֹף 1; BDB 693 s.v. סוֹף ). It is used in this context in reference to death, as the preceding phrase “house of mourning” (i.e., funeral) suggests.


Heb “all men” or “every man.”


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; IBHS 508-9 §31.4g).


The word “this” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for smoothness.


NEB suggests “grief”; NJPS, “vexation.”


Heb “in sadness of face there is good for the heart.”


Or possibly “Though the face is sad, the heart may be glad.”


Heb “hear.”


Heb “rebuke of the wise,” a subjective genitive (“the wise” administer the rebuke).


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” (NEB, NJPS) and “flattery of fools” (Douay). However, the collocation of “song” ( שִׁיר ) in 7:5 with “laughter” ( שְׂחֹק , sÿkhoq ) in 7:6 suggests simply frivolous merrymaking: “song of fools” (KJV, NASB, NIV, ASV, RSV, NRSV).


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 ).


The word “kind of folly” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity.


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.


Or “extortion.” Scholars debate whether the noun עֹשֶׁק (’ osheq , “oppression; extortion”) in this context denotes “oppression” ( HALOT 897 s.v. עֹשֶׁק 1) or “gain of extortion” (BDB 799 s.v. 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 LXX rendered it as συκοφαντία ( sukofantia , “oppression”). English translations are split between these two options: “extortion” (ASV, MLB, NIV), “oppression” (KJV, NAB, NASB, RSV, NRSV, YLT, Douay, Moffatt), as well as “cheating” (NJPS) and “slander” (NEB).


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. HALOT 249 s.v. III הלל ; BDB 239 s.v. II הלל . It has been handled variously: “makes a wise man mad” (KJV, NASB); “drives a wise man crazy” (NEB); “can make a fool of a wise man” (NAB); “makes the wise man foolish” (RSV, NRSV); and “turns a wise man into a fool” (NIV).


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).


), 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,” BASOR 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. HALOT 796–97 s.v. עוה ; BDB 730 s.v. I עָוָה . The verb ויאבד is used similarly in reference to moral corruption, e.g., Eccl 3:6; 9:18 ; Jer 23:1 ( HALOT 3 s.v. I אבד ; BDB 2 s.v. אָבַד 2).


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). HALOT 3 s.v. 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.”


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 Vulgate (so also Douay).


Heb “the patient of spirit.”


Heb “the proud of spirit.”


Heb “Do not be hasty in your spirit to become angry.”


Heb “bosom.”


Heb “these.” “Days” does not appear in the Hebrew text as second time, but is supplied in the translation for smoothness.


Heb “It is not from wisdom that you ask about this.”


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” ( HALOT 839–40 s.v. עִם ; BDB 767–69 s.v. עִם ). BDB 767 s.v. 1 suggests the accompaniment nuance “together with,” while HALOT 840 s.v. 2 .c suggests the comparative sense “in comparison to.” The translations are also divided: “wisdom with an inheritance is good” (KJV, ASV margin, RSV, NASB, YLT); “wisdom, like an inheritance, is a good thing” (NIV); “wisdom is as good as an inheritance” (ASV, NRSV, MLB, NJPS, Moffatt); “wisdom is better than an inheritance” (NEB). 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” ( 7:11 a) = “Wisdom provides protection, just as money provides protection” ( 7:12 a). The “good thing” that wisdom – like an inheritance or money – provides is protection.


Heb “see the sun.”


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 ( bÿtsel hakhokhmah bÿtsel hakkasef ) denotes identity, the so-called bet of essence ( HALOT 104 s.v. בְּ 3; BDB 88 s.v. בְּ 1.7; see also R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax , 45, §249).


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 ).


The phrase “just as” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for smoothness and clarity.


Heb “Wisdom is a shade, money is a shade.” The repetition of בְּצֵל ( bÿtsel , “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” (ASV), “wisdom is protection just as money is protection” (NASB), “wisdom like wealth is a defense” (Moffatt), “the protection of wisdom is as the protection of money” (NAB), “the protection of wisdom is like the protection of money” (RSV, NRSV), “wisdom protects as wealth protects” (MLB), and “wisdom is a shelter, as money is a shelter” (NIV). The comparison is missed by KJV: “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” (NJPS).


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 ); HALOT 309 s.v. 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” (RSV, NAB, ASV, NASB, NIV, NJPS) is preferable to “gives life to” (KJV, Douay, NRSV, YLT).


Heb “the day of good.”


Heb “the day of evil.”


Less probable renderings of this line are “God hath made the one side by side with the other” (ASV) and “God has set the one alongside the other” (NEB).


Heb “anything after him.” This line is misinterpreted by several versions: “that man may not find against him any just complaint” (Douay); “consequently, man may find no fault with Him” (NJPS); “so that man cannot find fault with him in anything” (NAB).


The word “life” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for smoothness and clarity.


As is the case throughout Ecclesiastes, the term הַכֹּל ( hakkol ) should be nuanced “both” rather than “all.”


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 [2x]; 8:14 [3x]).


Heb “perishes.”


Or “in his righteousness.” The preposition בְּ ( bet ) on the terms בְּצִרְקוֹ ( bÿtsirqo , “his righteousness”) and בְּרָעָתוֹ ( bÿra ’ ato , “his evil-doing”) in the following line are traditionally taken in a locative sense: “in his righteousness” and “in his wickedness” (KJV, NASB, NIV). 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. HALOT 104 s.v. בְּ 7; BDB 90 s.v. בְּ 3.7. NJPS 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,” BKCOT , 993–94) 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).”


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 [2x]; 8:14 [3x]).


Heb “a wicked man endures.”


The adjective יוֹתֵר ( yoter ) means “too much; excessive,” e.g., 2:15 “excessively wise” ( HALOT 404 s.v. יוֹתֵר 2; BDB 452 s.v. יוֹתֵר ). It is derived from the root יֶתֶר ( yeter , “what is left over”; cf. HALOT 452 s.v. I יֶתֶר ) and related to the verb יָתַר ( yatar , Niphal “to be left over” and Hiphil “to have left over”; cf. HALOT 451-52). 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 ( 2:13-14 a); however, there is no ultimate advantage because both share the same fate – death ( 2:14 b-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.


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” ( HALOT 314 s.v. חכם ; BDB 314 s.v. 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.


Heb “Why?” The question is rhetorical.


The imperfect of שָׁמֵם ( shamem ) functions in a modal sense, denoting possibility: “you might be…” (see IBHS 508 §31.4e).


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 HALOT 1566 s.v. שׁמם 2 has “to cause oneself ruin”; BDB 1031 s.v. שָׁמֵם 2 has “cause oneself desolation, ruin.” Most English versions take a similar approach: “Why destroy yourself?” (KJV, ASV, NEB, NRSV, MLB, NIV); “Why ruin yourself?” (NAB, NASB). 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. BDB 1031 s.v. שָׁמֵם 1; HALOT 1566 s.v. שׁמם 1. It is taken this way in the English version of the Tanakh: “or you may be dumbfounded” (NJPS). Likewise, Cohen renders, “Why should you be overcome with amazement?” (A. Cohen, The Five Megilloth [SoBB], 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,” BKCOT , 994) 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 GKC 149 §54. c .


The word “warning” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation two times in this line for clarity.


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. HALOT 426 s.v. יצא 6.c; BDB 423 s.v. 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” (Jastrow 587 s.v. יָצָא Hif.5.a). This fits nicely with the context of 7:16-17 in which Qoheleth issued two warnings. In 7:18 a 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.


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, ed., Preliminary and Interim Report on the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project , 3:580–81.


Heb “gives strength.”


The introductory particle כִּי ( ki ) is rendered variously: “for” (KJV); “indeed” (NASB); not translated (NIV); “for” (NJPS). 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 ).


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.


Heb “they”; the referent (people) has been specified in the translation for clarity.


Heb “so that you do not hear…”; or “lest you hear….”


The imperfect tense verb תִשְׁמַע ( tishma ’; from שָׁמַע [ shama ’, “to hear”]) functions in a modal sense, denoting possibility: “you might hear” (see IBHS 508 §31.4e).


Heb “your heart knows.”


The cohortative אֶחְכָּמָה (’ ekhkamah , from חָכַם , khakham ,“to be wise”) emphasizes the resolve (determination) of Qoheleth to become wise enough to understand the perplexities of life.


Or “I am determined to become wise”


Or “but it eluded me”; Heb “but it was far from me.”


The word “human” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for stylistic reasons.


Heb “is far away.”


Heb “It is deep, deep – who can find it?” The repetition of the word “deep” emphasizes the degree of incomprehensibility. See IBHS 233-34 §12.5a.