Heb “than man.” The verse is using hyperbole; this individual feels as if he has no intelligence at all, that he is more brutish than any other human. Of course this is not true, or he would not be able to speculate on the God of the universe at all.


Heb “the understanding of a man,” with “man” used attributively here.


The epithet “the Holy One” is the adjective “holy” put in the masculine plural (as in 9:10 ). This will harmonize with the plural of majesty used to explain the plural with titles for God. However, NRSV takes the plural as a reference to the “holy ones,” presumably referring to angelic beings.


The comparative “like” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is implied by the metaphor; it is supplied in the translation for the sake of clarity.


The form of the verb is a Niphal perfect tense with a vav consecutive from the root כָּזַב ( kazav , “to lie”). In this stem it has the ideas of “been made deceptive,” or “shown to be false” or “proved to be a liar.” One who adds to or changes the word of the Lord will be seen as a liar.


Assuming that the contents of vv. 7-9 are a prayer, several English versions have supplied a vocative phrase: “O Lord ” (NIV); “O God” (NLT); others have supplied a similar phrase without the vocative “O”: NCV, CEV “Lord”; TEV “God.”


The two words might form a hendiadys: “falsehood and lies” being equivalent to “complete deception.” The word שָׁוְא means “false; empty; vain; to a false purpose.” The second word means “word of lying,” thus “a lying word.” Taken separately they might refer to false intentions and false words.


The word חֹק ( khoq ) means “statute”; it is also used of a definite assignment in labor ( Exod 5:14 ; Prov 31:15 ), or of a set portion of food ( Gen 47:22 ). Here it refers to food that is the proper proportion for the speaker.


The verb כָּחַשׁ ( kakhash ) means “to be disappointing; to deceive; to fail; to grow lean.” In the Piel stem it means “to deceive; to act deceptively; to cringe; to disappoint.” The idea of acting deceptively is illustrated in Hos 9:2 where it has the connotation of “disowning” or “refusing to acknowledge” (a meaning very close to its meaning here).


The Hebrew verb literally means “to take hold of; to seize”; this produces the idea of doing violence to the reputation of God.


The form תַּלְשֵׁן ( talshen ) is the Hiphil jussive (with the negative אַל , ’ al ); it is a denominative verb from the noun “tongue” (Heb “wag the tongue”). It means “to defame; to slander,” if the accusation is untrue. Some have suggested that the word might have the force of “denouncing” a slave to his master, accusing him before authorities (e.g., Deut 23:15-16 ). This proverb would then be a warning against meddling in the affairs of someone else.


If what was said were true, then there would be no culpability. But the implication here is that it was slander. And the effect of that will be a curse – the person who is the target of the slander will “curse” the person who slandered him ( קָלַל [ qalal ] in the Piel means “to treat lightly [or, with contempt]; to curse”), and culpability will result (the verb וֹשׁם means “to be guilty; to make a guilt offering [or, reparation offering]”). This word for guilt suggests a connection to the Levitical teaching that the guilty had to make reparation for damages done (). Cf. NAB “you will have to pay the penalty”; NIV, NLT “you will pay for it.”


The verb רָחַץ ( rakhats ) means “to wash; to wash off; to wash away; to bathe.” It is used of physical washing, ceremonial washings, and hence figuratively of removing sin and guilt through confession (e.g., Isa 1:16 ). Here the form is the Pual perfect (unless it is a rare old Qal passive, since there is no Piel and no apparent change of meaning from the Qal). sn The point of the verse is that there are people who observe outer ritual and think they are pure ( טָהוֹר [ tahor ] is the Levitical standard for entrance into the sanctuary), but who pay no attention to inner cleansing (e.g., Matt 23:27 ).


Heb “how high are its eyes!” This is a use of the interrogative pronoun in exclamatory sentences (R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax , 25, §127).


Heb “its eyelids are lifted up,” a gesture indicating arrogance and contempt or disdain for others. To make this clear, the present translation supplies the adverb “disdainfully” at the end of the verse. sn The verbs “to be high” (translated “are…lofty”) and “to be lifted up” depict arrogance and disdain for others. The emphasis on the eyes and eyelids (parasynonyms in poetry) is employed because the glance, the look, is the immediate evidence of contempt for others (e.g., also 6:17 and Ps 131:1 ).


Heb “teeth” (so NRSV) or “jaw teeth” (so KJV, ASV, NASB) or perhaps “jawbone.” This is a different Hebrew word for “teeth” than the one in the previous line; if it refers to “jaw teeth” then a translation like “molars” would be appropriate, although this image might not fit with the metaphor (“like knives”) unless the other teeth, the incisors or front teeth, are pictured as being even longer (“like swords”).


The Hebrew form לֶאֱכֹל ( le ’ ekhol ) is the Qal infinitive construct; it indicates the purpose of this generation’s ruthless power – it is destructive. The figure is an implied comparison (known as hypocatastasis) between “devouring” and “destroying.”


The two imperatives הַב הַב ( hav hav , “give, give,” from יָהַב , yahav ) correspond to the two daughters, and form their appeal. This would then be a personification – it is as if the leech is crying out, “Give! Give!”


Throughout the book of Proverbs הוֹן ( hon ) means “wealth”; but here it has the nuance of “sufficiency” (cf. TEV, CEV, NLT “satisfied”) or “enough” (BDB 223 s.v.).


The term שְׁאוֹל ( she ’ ol , “Sheol”) refers here to the realm of the dead: “the grave” (so KJV, NIV, NLT); cf. TEV, CEV “the world of the dead”; NAB “the nether world.”


Heb “the closing of the womb,” a situation especially troubling for one who is consumed with a desire for children (e.g., Gen 16:2; 30:1 ).


The Hebrew word לִיקֲּהַת ( liqqahat , “obeying”) occurs only here and in Gen 49:10 ; it seems to mean “to receive” in the sense of “receiving instruction” or “obeying.” C. H. Toy suggests emending to “to old age” ( לְזִקְנַת , lÿziqnat ) of the mother ( Proverbs [ICC], 530). The LXX with γῆρας ( ghra" , “old age”) suggests that a root lhq had something to do with “white hair.” D. W. Thomas suggests a corruption from lhyqt to lyqht ; it would have read, “The eye that mocks a father and despises an aged mother” (“A Note on לִיקֲּהַת in Proverbs 30:17 ,” JTS 42 [1941]: 154-55); this is followed by NAB “or scorns an aged mother.”


The form נִפְלְאוּ ( niflÿ ’ u ) is the Niphal perfect from פָּלָא ( pala ’); the verb means “to be wonderful; to be extraordinary; to be surpassing”; cf. NIV “too amazing.” The things mentioned are things that the sage finds incomprehensible (e.g., Gen 18:14 ; Judg 13:18 ; Ps 139:6 ; and Isa 9:6 [5]). The sage can only admire these wonders – he is at a loss to explain them.


This last item in the series is the most difficult to understand. The MT reads וְדֶּרֶךְ גֶּבֶר בְּעַלְמָה ( vÿderekh gever bÿ ’ almah , “and the way of a man with a maid,” so KJV, NASB). The last term does not in and of itself mean “virgin” but rather describes a young woman who is sexually ready for marriage. What is probably in view here is the wonder of human sexuality, for the preposition בְּ ( bet ) in this sequence indicates that the “way of the man” is “with” the woman. This mystery might begin with the manner of obtaining the love of the young woman, but focuses on the most intimate part of human relationships. And all of this was amazing to the sage. All of it is part of God’s creative plan and therefore can be enjoyed and appreciated without fully comprehending it.


Heb “filled with food” (so ASV); NASB “satisfied with food”; NAB, NRSV “glutted with food”; CEV “who eats too much”; NLT “who prospers.” sn The expression stuffed with food probably represents prosperity in general. So the line portrays someone who suddenly comes into wealth, but continues to be boorish and irreligious.


The Hebrew term means “hated,” from שָׂנֵא ( sane ’), a feminine passive participle. The text does not say why she is hated; some have speculated that she might be odious (cf. KJV, ASV, NAB) or unattractive, but perhaps she is married to someone incapable of showing love (e.g., Gen 29:31, 33 ; Deut 21:15 ; Isa 60:5 ). Perhaps the strange situation of Jacob was in the mind of the sage, for Leah was described as “hated” ( Gen 29:31 ).


The verb יָרַשׁ ( yarash ) means either (1) “to possess; to inherit” or (2) “to dispossess.” Often the process of possessing meant the dispossessing of those already there (e.g., Hagar and Sarah in Gen 16:5; 21:10 ); another example is the Israelites’ wars against the Canaanites.


Heb “Four are the small things of the earth.” TEV has “four animals,” though in the list of four that follows, two are insects and one is a reptile.


The construction uses the Pual participle with the plural adjective as an intensive; these four creatures are the very embodiment of wisdom (BDB 314 s.v. חָכַם Pu).


Or “hyraxes.” This is the Syrian Hyrax, also known as the rock badger. KJV, ASV has “conies” (alternately spelled “coneys” by NIV), a term usually associated with the European rabbit ( Oryctolagus cuniculus ) but which can also refer to the pika or the hyrax. Scholars today generally agree that the Hebrew term used here refers to a type of hyrax, a small ungulate mammal of the family Procaviidae native to Africa and the Middle East which has a thick body, short legs and ears and a rudimentary tail. The simple “badger” (so NASB, NRSV, CEV) could lead to confusion with the badger, an entirely unrelated species of burrowing mammal related to weasels. sn Modern scholars identify this creature with the rock badger (the Syrian hyrax), a small mammal that lives in the crevices of the rock. Its wisdom consists in its ingenuity to find a place of security.


The KJV, agreeing with Tg . Prov 30:28 , translated this term as “spider.” But almost all modern English versions and commentators, following the Greek and the Latin versions, have “lizard.” sn The point of this saying is that a weak creature like a lizard, that is so easily caught, cannot be prevented from getting into the most significant places.


Although the Hebrew noun translated “king” is singular here, it is traditionally translated as plural: “kings’ palaces” (so KJV, NASB, NIV, NRSV).


The form מֵיטִיבֵי ( metibe ) is the Hiphil participle, plural construct. It has the idea of “doing good [in] their step.” They move about well, i.e., magnificently. The genitive would be a genitive of specification.


The construction uses the Hiphil participle again (as in the previous line) followed by the infinitive construct of הָלַךְ ( halakh ). This forms a verbal hendiadys, the infinitive becoming the main verb and the participle before it the adverb.


Heb “mighty among the beasts,” but referring to a superlative degree (“mightiest”).


The Hebrew term זַרְזִיר ( zarzir ) means “girt”; it occurs only here with “loins” in the Bible: “that which is girt in the loins” (BDB 267 s.v.). Some have interpreted this to be the “greyhound” because it is narrow in the flanks (J. H. Greenstone, Proverbs , 327); so KJV, ASV. Others have suggested the warhorse, zebra, raven, or starling. Tg . Prov 30:31 has it as the large fighting cock that struts around among the hens. There is no clear referent that is convincing, although most modern English versions use “strutting rooster” or something similar (cf. CEV “proud roosters”).


This last line has inspired many suggestions. The MT has “with his army around him” ( אַלְקוּם עִמּוֹ , ’ alqum ’ immo ); so NIV. This has been emended to read “against whom there is no rising up” (so KJV, ASV) or “standing over his people.” The LXX has “a king haranguing his people.” Tg . Prov 30:31 has, “a king who stands up before his people and addresses them.” Some have attempted to identify this with Alcimus, the high priest who aspired to kingship (1 Macc 7:5-22), but such a suggestion is quite remote. Another interpretation sees the word for “God” in the line: “a king with whom God is.” Furthermore, C. H. Toy thinks the text is corrupt and must have at one time referred to some majestic animal ( Proverbs [ICC], 537). While all these suggestions are fascinating, they have not improved or corrected the Hebrew text. At least one can say the focus is on the stately appearance of the king at some auspicious moment. The word occurs only here; but if it is interpreted with its Arabic cognate in mind, then it refers to a band of soldiers (BDB 39 s.v. אַלְקוּם ).


The construction has the בְּ ( bet ) preposition with the Hitpael infinitive construct, forming a temporal clause. This clause explains the way in which the person has acted foolishly.


Heb “hand to mouth.” This express means “put your hand to your mouth” (e.g., Job 40:4, 5 ); cf. NIV “clap your hand over.”


This line provides the explanation for the instruction to keep silent in the previous verse. It uses two images to make the point, and in so doing repeats two words throughout. The first is the word מִיץ ( mits ), which is translated (in sequence) “churning,” “punching,” and “stirring up.” The form is a noun, and BDB 568 s.v. suggests translating it as “squeezing” in all three places, even in the last where it describes the pressure or the insistence on strife. This noun occurs only here. The second repeated word, the verb יוֹצִיא ( yotsir ), also occurs three times; it is the Hiphil imperfect, meaning “produces” (i.e., causes to go out).


Some English versions take the Hebrew noun translated “oracle” here as a place name specifying the kingdom of King Lemuel; cf. NAB “king of Massa”; CEV “King Lemuel of Massa.”


The form מַה ( mah ), normally the interrogative “what?” (so KJV, ASV, NAB, NASB) is best interpreted here as an exclamation. Tg . Prov 31:2 has “Woe!”


In all three occurrences in this verse the word “son” has the Aramaic spelling, ַַבּר ( bar ), rather than the Hebrew בֵּן ( ben ). The repetition of the word “son” shows the seriousness of the warning; and the expression “son of my womb” and “son of my vows” are endearing epithets to show the great investment she has made in his religious place in God’s program. For a view that “son of my womb” should be “my own son,” see F. Deist, “ Proverbs 31:1 , A Case of Constant Mistranslation,” JNSL 6 (1978): 1-3; cf. TEV “my own dear son.”


The construction uses Qal infinitive construct לַמְחוֹת ( lamkhot , “to wipe out; to blot out; to destroy”). The construction is somewhat strange, and so some interpreters suggest changing it to מֹחוֹת ( mokhot , “destroyers of kings”); cf. BDB 562 s.v. מָחָה Qal.3. Commentators note that the form is close to an Aramaic word that means “concubine,” and an Arabic word that is an indelicate description for women.


Heb “[It is] not for kings.”


The MT has אֵו (’ ev ), a Kethib / Qere reading. The Kethib is אוֹ (’ o ) but the Qere is אֵי (’ ey ). Some follow the Qere and take the word as a shortened form of וַֹיֵּה , “where?” This would mean the ruler would be always asking for drink (cf. ASV). Others reconstruct to אַוֵּה (’ avveh , “to desire; to crave”). In either case, the verse would be saying that a king is not to be wanting/seeking alcohol. tn Here “strong drink” probably refers to barley beer (cf. NIV, NCV “beer”).


The verb means “change,” perhaps expressed in reversing decisions or removing rights.


Heb “all the children of poverty.” This expression refers to the poor by nature. Cf. KJV, NASB, NRSV “the afflicted”; NIV “oppressed.”


Heb “to the bitter of soul.” The phrase לְמָרֵי נָפֶשׁ ( lÿmare nafesh ) has been translated “of heavy hearts” (KJV); “in anguish” (NIV); “in misery” (TEV); “in bitter distress” (NRSV); “sorely depressed” (NAB); “in deep depression (NLT); “have lost all hope” (CEV). The word “bitter” ( מַר , mar ) describes the physical and mental/spiritual suffering as a result of affliction, grief, or suffering – these people are in emotional pain. So the idea of “bitterly distressed” works as well as any other translation.


The subjects and suffixes are singular (cf. KJV, ASV, NASB). Most other English versions render this as plural for stylistic reasons, in light of the preceding context.


The king was not to “drink and forget”; the suffering are to “drink and forget.”


Or “of all the defenseless.” The noun חֲלוֹף ( khalof ) means “passing away; vanishing” (properly an infinitive); in this construction “the sons of the passing away” means people who by nature are transitory, people who are dying – mortals. But in this context it would indicate people who are “defenseless” as opposed to those who are healthy and powerful.


The noun צֶדֶק ( tsedeq ) serves here as an adverbial accusative of manner. The decisions reached ( שְׁפָט , shÿfat ) in this advocacy must conform to the standard of the law. So it is a little stronger than “judging fairly” (cf. NIV, NCV), although it will be fair if it is done righteously for all.


The first word in the Hebrew text ( אֵשֶׁת , ’ eshet ) begins with א ( alef ), the first letter in the Hebrew alphabet.


Heb “a woman of valor.” This is the same expression used to describe Ruth (e.g., Ruth 3:11 ). The term חַיִל ( khayil ) here means “moral worth” (BDB 298 s.v.); cf. KJV “a virtuous woman.” Elsewhere the term is used of physical valor in battle, e.g., “mighty man of valor,” the land-owning aristocrat who could champion the needs of his people in times of peace or war (e.g., Judg 6:12 ). Here the title indicates that the woman possesses all the virtues, honor, and strength to do the things that the poem will set forth.


The first word of the second line begins with בּ ( bet ), the second letter in the Hebrew alphabet. The verb בָּטַח ( batakh ) means “to trust; to have confidence in.” With the subject of the verb being “the heart of her husband,” the idea is strengthened – he truly trusts her. Cf. NCV “trusts her completely”; NIV “has full confidence in her.”


The first word of the third line begins with ג ( gimel ), the third letter of the Hebrew alphabet.


The first word of the fourth line begins with דּ ( dalet ) the fourth letter of the Hebrew alphabet. The verb דָרַשׁ ( darash ) means “to seek; to inquire; to investigate.” The idea is that she looks for the wool and flax to do her work, but the whole verse assumes she has obtained it. This verb also occurs in the hymn of , which says in v. 2 that “the works of the Lord are searched .” One word used in another passage is not that significant; but the cumulative effect of words and ideas suggest that the composition of this poem is influenced by hymnology.


Heb “and she works in the pleasure of her hands.” The noun חֵפֶץ ( khefets ) means “delight; pleasure.” BDB suggests it means here “that in which one takes pleasure,” i.e., a business, and translates the line “in the business of her hands” (BDB 343 s.v. 4 ). But that translation reduces the emphasis on pleasure and could have easily been expressed in other ways. Here it is part of the construct relationship. The “hands” are the metonymy of cause, representing all her skills and activities in making things. It is also a genitive of specification, making “pleasure” the modifier of “her hands/her working.” She does her work with pleasure. Tg . Prov 31:13 has, “she works with her hands in accordance with her pleasure.”


The first word of the fifth line begins with ה ( he ), the fifth letter of the Hebrew alphabet.


The first word of the sixth line begins with ו ( vav ), the sixth letter of the Hebrew alphabet.


The first word of the seventh line begins with ז ( zayin ), the seventh letter of the Hebrew alphabet. sn The word “considers” means “to plan carefully” in accordance with her purposes. The word is often used in the book of Proverbs for devising evil; but here it is used positively of the woman’s wise investment.


Heb “from the fruit of her hands.” The expression employs two figures. “Hands” is a metonymy of cause, indicating the work she does. “Fruit” is a hypocatastasis, an implied comparison meaning what she produces, the income she earns. She is able to plant a vineyard from her income.


The first word of the eighth line begins with ח ( khet ), the eighth letter of the Hebrew alphabet. tn Heb “she girds her loins with strength.” The idea is that of gathering up the long robes with a sash or belt so that they do not get in the way of the work. The point of the figure is readiness for work. But to say she girds herself with “strength” means that she begins vigorously. “Strength” here would be a comparison with the sash.


The first word of the ninth line begins with ט ( tet ), the ninth letter of the Hebrew alphabet. sn This is the word for “taste.” It means her opinion or perception, what she has learned by experience and therefore seems right.


The first word of the tenth line begins with י ( yod ) the tenth letter of the Hebrew alphabet. sn The words for “hands” are often paired in poetry; the first ( יָד , yad ) means the hand and the forearm and usually indicates strength, and the second ( כַּף , kaf ) means the palm of the hand and usually indicates the more intricate activity.


The verb שִׁלַּח ( shilakh ), the Piel perfect of the verb “to send,” means in this stem “to thrust out; to stretch out.” It is a stronger word than is perhaps necessary. It is a word that is also used in military settings to describe the firmness and forthrightness of the activity ( Judg 5:26 ).


The first word of the eleventh line begins with כּ ( kaf ), the eleventh letter of the Hebrew alphabet.


The first word of the twelfth line begins with ל ( lamed ), the twelfth letter of the Hebrew alphabet.


For the MT’s “scarlet” the LXX and the Latin have “two” or “double” – the difference being essentially the vocalization of a plural as opposed to a dual. The word is taken in the versions with the word that follows (“covers”) to means “double garments.” The question to be asked is whether scarlet would keep one warm in winter or double garments. The latter is the easier reading and therefore suspect.


The first word of the thirteenth line begins with מ ( mem ), the thirteenth letter of the Hebrew alphabet. The word rendered “coverlets” appears in 7:16 , where it has the idea of “covered.” K&D 17:335 suggests “pillows” or “mattresses” here. The Greek version has “lined overcoats” or “garments,” but brings over the last word of the previous verse to form this line and parallel the second half, which has clothing in view.


The first word of the fourteenth line begins with נ ( nun ), the fourteenth letter of the Hebrew alphabet. The form is the Niphal participle of יָדַע ( yada ’); it means that her husband is “known.” The point is that he is a prominent person, respected in the community.


Heb “gate”; the term “city” has been supplied in the translation for clarity. sn The “gate” was the area inside the entrance to the city, usually made with rooms at each side of the main street where there would be seats for the elders. This was the place of assembly for the elders who had judicial responsibilities.


The construction uses the infinitive construct with the preposition and a pronominal suffix that serves as the subject (subjective genitive) to form a temporal clause. The fact that he “sits with the elders” means he is one of the elders; he sits as a judge among the people.


The first word of the fifteenth line begins with ס ( samek ), the fifteenth letter of the Hebrew alphabet. sn The poet did not think it strange or unworthy for a woman of this stature to be a businesswoman engaged in an honest trade. In fact, weaving of fine linens was a common trade for women in the ancient world.


Heb “to the Canaanites.” These are the Phoenician traders that survived the wars and continued to do business down to the exile.


The first word of the sixteenth line begins with ע ( ayin ), the sixteenth letter of the Hebrew alphabet.


Heb “day.” This word is a metonymy of subject meaning any events that take place on the day or in the time to come.


The first word of the seventeenth line begins with פּ ( pe ), the seventeenth letter of the Hebrew alphabet. sn The words “mouth” (“opens her mouth”) and “tongue” (“on her tongue”) here are also metonymies of cause, referring to her speaking.


The Hebrew phrase תּוֹרַת־חֶסֶד ( torat-khesed ) is open to different interpretations. (1) The word “law” could here refer to “teaching” as it does frequently in the book of Proverbs, and the word “love,” which means “loyal, covenant love,” could have the emphasis on faithfulness, yielding the idea of “faithful teaching” to parallel “wisdom” (cf. NIV). (2) The word “love” should probably have more of the emphasis on its basic meaning of “loyal love, lovingkindness.” It also would be an attributive genitive, but its force would be that of “loving instruction” or “teaching with kindness.”


The first word of the eighteenth line begins with צ ( tsade ), the eighteenth letter of the Hebrew alphabet.


The first word of the nineteenth line begins with ק ( qof ), the nineteenth letter of the Hebrew alphabet. sn The deliberate action of “rising up” to call her blessed is the Hebrew way of indicating something important is about to be done that has to be prepared for.


The text uses an independent nominative absolute to draw attention to her husband: “her husband, and he praises her.” Prominent as he is, her husband speaks in glowing terms of his noble wife.


The first word of the twentieth line begins with ר ( resh ), the twentieth letter of the Hebrew alphabet.


Or “women” (NAB, NIV, NRSV, NLT).


The word is the same as in v. 10 , “noble, valiant.”


The first word of the twenty-first line begins with שׁ ( shin ), the twenty-first letter of the Hebrew alphabet. The graphic distinction between שׁ ( shin ) and שׂ ( sin ) had not been made at the time the book of Proverbs was written; that graphic distinction was introduced by the Masoretes, ca. a.d. 1000.


The first word of the twenty-second line begins with ת ( tav ), the last letter of the Hebrew alphabet.


Heb “Give her from the fruit of her hands.” The expression “the fruit of her hands” employs two figures. The word “fruit” is a figure known as hypocatastasis, an implied comparison, meaning “what she produces.” The word “hand” is a metonymy of cause, meaning her efforts to produce things. So the line is saying essentially “give her her due.” This would either mean give her credit for what she has done (the option followed by the present translation; cf. TEV) or reward her for what she has done (cf. NAB, NIV, NLT).


“Gates” is a metonymy of subject. It refers to the people and the activity that occurs in the gates – business dealings, legal transactions, and social meetings. The term “city” is supplied in the translation for clarity. One is reminded of the acclaim given to Ruth by Boaz: “for all the gate of my people knows that you are a noble woman [ אֵשֶׁת חַיִל , ’ eshet khayil ]” ( Ruth 3:11 ).


The meaning of קֹהֶלֶת ( qohelet ) is somewhat puzzling. The verb קָהַל ( qahal ) means “to assemble, summon” ( HALOT 1078-79 s.v. קהל ), and is derived from the noun קָהָל ( qahal , “assembly”; HALOT 1079-80 s.v. קָהָל ). Thus קֹהֶלֶת might mean: (1) convener of the assembly, (2) leader, speaker, teacher, or preacher of the assembly, or (3) member of the assembly. Elsewhere in the book, קֹהֶלֶת is used in collocation with statements about his position as king in Jerusalem ( Eccl 1:12 ), his proclamations about life ( Eccl 1:2; 7:27; 12:8 ), and his teaching of wisdom and writing wise sayings ( Eccl 12:9-10 ). Thus, קֹהֶלֶת probably means “the leader of the assembly” or “speaker of the assembly.”(See also the following study note.) Rabbinic literature treats קֹהֶלֶת as a traditional surname for Solomon, that is, “Qoheleth,” relating it to the noun קָהָל . For example, this explanation is found in rabbinic literature (Qoheleth Rabbah 1:1 ): “Why was his name called Qoheleth [ קֹהֶלֶת ]? Because his words were proclaimed in public meeting [ קָהַל ], as it is written ( 1 Kgs 8:1 ).” The LXX rendered it ἐκκλησιαστής ( ekklhsiasths , “member of the assembly,” LSJ 509), as was the custom of relating Greek ἐκκλησία ( ekklhsia , “assembly”) to Hebrew קָהָל . The book’s English title, “Ecclesiastes,” is simply a transliteration of the Greek term from the LXX. Symmachus’ παροιμιαστής ( paroimiasths , “author of proverbs,” LSJ 1342 s.v.) is not a translation of קֹהֶלֶת but refers to his authorship of many proverbs ( Eccl 12:9-10 ). In terms of the participial form, קֹהֶלֶת is used substantively to designate the profession or title of the author. The term is used in 12:8 with the article, indicating that it is a professional title rather than a personal surname: הַקּוֹהֶלֶת ( haqqohelet , “the Teacher”). Substantival participles often designate the title or profession of an individual: כֹּהֵן ( kohen ), “priest”; רֹזֵן ( rozen ), “ruler”; שֹׁטֵר ( shoter ), “officer”; נֹקֵד ( noqed ), “sheep-breeder”; שֹׁפֵט ( shofet ), “judge”; יֹצֵר ( yotser ), “potter”; כֹּרֵם ( korem ), “vine-dresser”; יֹגֵב ( yogev ), “farmer”; שׁוֹעֵר ( sho ’ er ), “gate-keeper”; צוֹרֵף ( tsoref ), “smelter”; and רֹפֵא ( rofe ’), “doctor” ( IBHS 614-15 §37.2a). In terms of its feminine ending with a male referent, Joüon 1:266-67 §89.b suggests that it is intensive, e.g., מוֹדַעַת ( moda ’ at ) “close relative” from מוֹדָע ( moda ’) “kinsman.” The feminine ending is used similarly in Arabic in reference to a male referent, e.g., Arabic rawiyat “a great narrator” from rawi “narrator” (C. P. Caspari, A Grammar of the Arabic Language , 1:233c). So קֹהֶלֶת may mean “the leader/teacher of the assembly” from the noun קָהָל . When used in reference to a male referent, feminine forms denote a professional title or vocational office (as in Arabic, Ethiopic, and Aramaic), e.g., סֹפֶרֶת ( soferet ), “scribe”; פֹּכֶרֶת ( pokheret ), “gazelle-catcher”; פֶּחָה ( pekhah ), “provincial governor”; and פְּרָעוֹת ( pÿra ’ ot ), “princes” (GKC 393 §122. r ). Occasionally, a professional name later became a personal name, e.g., the title סֹפֶרֶת (“scribe”) became the name “Sophereth” ( Ezra 2:55 ; Neh 7:57 ), פֹּכֶרֶת (“gazelle-catcher”) became “Pokereth” ( Ezra 2:57 ; Neh 7:59 ), and perhaps קֹהֶלֶת (“assembler”) became the surname “Qoheleth” ( HALOT 926 s.v. פֹּכֶרֶת הַצְּבָיִים ). Many translations render קֹהֶלֶת as a professional title: “the Speaker” (NEB, Moffatt), “the Preacher” (KJV, RSV, YLT, MLB, ASV, NASB), “the Teacher” (NIV, NRSV), “the Leader of the Assembly” (NIV margin), “the Assembler” (NJPS margin). Others render it as a personal surname: “Koheleth” (JPS, NJPS) and “Qoheleth” (NAB, NRSV margin). sn The verbal root קהל means “to assemble; to summon” ( HALOT 1078-79 s.v. קהל ). It is used of assembling or summoning various groups of people: “all Israel” ( 1 Chr 13:5; 15:3 ), “the elders of Israel” ( 1 Kgs 8:1 ; 2 Chr 5:2 ), all the elders of their tribes” ( Deut 31:28 ), “all the princes of Israel” ( 1 Chr 28:1 ), “your tribes” ( Deut 31:28 ), “all the house of Judah” ( 1 Kgs 12:21 ; 2 Chr 11:1 ), “the people” ( Deut 4:10; 31:12 ), “the whole congregation” ( Lev 8:3 ; Num 1:18; 16:19; 20:8 ), “all the congregation of the sons of Israel” ( Exod 35:1 ; Num 8:9 ), “the assembly” ( Num 10:7; 20:10 ), and “your assembly” ( Ezek 38:13 ). The verb is often used in reference to summoning/assembling people for a religious occasion ( Exod 35:1 ; Lev 8:3-4 ; Num 8:9 ; Deut 4:10 ; Josh 18:1; 22:12 ; 1 Kgs 8:1 ; 2 Chr 5:2-3 ), a political occasion ( 2 Sam 20:14 ), a military occasion ( Judg 20:11 ; 2 Chr 11:1 ), or a judicial occasion ( Job 11:10 ). The Hiphil stem is used to describe the action of the leader (usually a single individual who possesses/commands authority) summoning the people, e.g., Moses ( Exod 35:1 ; Lev 8:3 ; Num 20:10 ), Moses and Aaron ( Num 1:18 ), Korah ( Num 16:19 ), King David ( 1 Chr 13:5; 15:3; 28:1 ), King Solomon ( 1 Kgs 8:1; 12:21 ; 2 Chr 5:2 ), and King Rehoboam ( 2 Chr 11:1 ). In almost every case, he who assembles the people is a person invested with authority; he makes a public proclamation or leads the nation in an important action. The Niphal stem is most often used to describe the people assembling at the direction of the leader (e.g., Lev 8:4 ; Josh 18:1; 22:12 ; 1 Kgs 8:2 ; 2 Chr 5:3 ). The root קהל is a denominative derived from the noun קָהָל ( qahal , “assembly, contingent”; HALOT 1079-80 s.v. קָהָל ). The noun has numerous referents: the congregated nation as a whole in the wilderness, assembled for ceremonies and instruction ( Exod 16:3 ; Lev 4:13, 21; 16:17, 33 ; Num 10:7; 14:5; 15:15; 16:3; 17:12; 19:20; 20:4, 6, 10, 12 ; Deut 9:10; 10:4; 18:16 ); the congregation of Israel assembled for divine worship ( Pss 22:23, 26; 26:5; 35:18; 40:10; 107:32; 149:1 ; Lam 1:10 ); the postexilic community assembled to hear the Torah and instruction ( Neh 13:1 ); a military contingent assembled for warfare ( Num 16:3; 20:4 ; Judg 20:2; 21:5, 8 ; 1 Sam 17:47 ; 2 Chr 28:14 ); people summoned to court ( Ezek 16:40; 23:46-47 ); judicial authorities ( Jer 26:17 ; Prov 5:14; 26:26 ; Sir 7:7). The term is often used as a designation for Israel: “the assembly of Israel” ( Lev 16:17 ; Deut 31:30 ; Josh 8:35 ; 1 Kgs 8:14, 22, 55; 12:3 ; 2 Chr 6:3, 12-13 ; Sir 50:13, 20), “the assembly of the congregation” ( Exod 12:6 ); “the assembly of the congregation of the sons of Israel” ( Num 14:5 ), and “the assembly of God” ( Neh 13:1 ). The related noun קְהִלָּה ( qÿhillah ) means “assembly, community” ( HALOT 1080 s.v. קְהִלָּה ), e.g., in the idiom נָתַן קְהִלָּה ( natan qÿhillah ) “to hold an assembly”: “I called a great assembly to deal with them” ( Neh 5:7 ).


Heb “son of David” or “a son of David.”


Heb “says.”


Heb “futility of futilities.” The phrase “absolutely futile” ( הֲבֵל הֲבָלִים , havel havalim ) is a superlative genitive construction (GKC 431 §133. i ). When a plural genitive follows a singular construct noun of the same root, it indicates the most outstanding example of the person or thing described. Examples: קֹדֶשׁ הַקֳּדָשִׁים ( qodesh haqqodashim , “holy of holies”), i.e., “the most holy place” ( Exod 26:33 ); שִׁיר הַשִּׁירִים ( shir hashirim , “song of songs”), i.e., “the most excellent song” ( Song 1:1 ); אֱלֹהֵי הָאֱלֹהִים וַאֲדֹנֵי הַאֱדֹנִים (’ elohe ha ’ elohim va ’ adone ha ’ edonim , “the God of gods and Lord of lords”), i.e., “the highest God and the supreme Lord” ( Deut 10:17 ). See also R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax , 17-18, §80; IBHS 154 §9.5.3j.


Although כֹּל ( kol , “everything, all”) is often used in an absolute or comprehensive sense (BDB 481 s.v. כֹּל 1), it is frequently used as a synecdoche of the general for the specific, that is, its sense is limited contextually to the topic at hand (BDB 482 s.v. 2 ). This is particularly true of הַכֹּל ( hakkol , BDB 482 s.v. 2 .b) in which the article particularizes or limits the referent to the contextual or previously mentioned topic (e.g., Gen 16:12; 24:1 ; Exod 29:24 ; Lev 1:9, 13; 8:27 ; Deut 2:36 ; Josh 11:19 [see 2 Sam 19:31 ; 1 Kgs 14:26 = 2 Chr 12:9 ]; 21:43; 1 Sam 30:19 ; 2 Sam 17:3; 23:5; 24:23 ; 1 Kgs 6:18 ; 2 Kgs 24:16 ; Isa 29:11; 65:8 ; Jer 13:7, 10 ; Ezek 7:14 ; Pss 14:3; 49:18 ; 1 Chr 7:5; 28:19; 29:19 ; 2 Chr 28:6; 29:28; 31:5; 35:7; 36:17-18 ; Ezra 1:11; 2:42; 8:34-35; 10:17 ; Eccl 5:8 ). Thus, “all” does not always mean “all” in an absolute sense or universally in comprehension. In several cases the context limits its reference to two classes of objects or issues being discussed, so הַכֹּל means “both” (e.g., 2:14; 3:19: 9:1, 2 ). Thus, הַכֹּל refers only to what Qoheleth characterizes as “futile” ( הֶבֶל , hevel ) in the context. Qoheleth does not mean that everything in an absolute, all-encompassing sense is futile. For example, the sovereign work of God is not “futile” ( 3:1 – 4:3 ); fearing God is not “futile” ( 2:26; 3:14-15; 11:9 – 12:1, 9, 13-14 ); and enjoying life as a righteous person under the blessing of God is not “futile” ( 2:24-26; 11:9-10 ). Only those objects or issues that are contextually placed under כֹּל are designated as “futile” ( הֶבֶל ). The context of 1:3-15 suggests that 1:2 refers to the futility of secular human endeavor. The content and referent of 1:3-15 determines the referent of הַכֹּל in 1:2 .


The term הֶבֶל ( hevel , “futile”) is repeated five times within the eight words of this verse for emphasis. The noun הֶבֶל is the key word in Ecclesiastes. The root is used in two ways in the OT, literally and figuratively. The literal, concrete sense is used in reference to the wind, man’s transitory breath, evanescent vapor ( Isa 57:13 ; Pss 62:10; 144:4 ; Prov 21:6 ; Job 7:16 ). In this sense, it is often a synonym for “breath” or “wind” ( Eccl 1:14 ; Isa 57:13 ; Jer 10:14 ). The literal sense lent itself to metaphorical senses: (1) breath/vapor/wind is nonphysical, evanescent, and lacks concrete substance thus, the connotation “unsubstantial” ( Jer 10:15; 16:19; 51:18 ), “profitless” or “fruitless” ( Ps 78:33 ; Prov 13:11 ), “worthless” ( 2 Kgs 17:15 ; Jer 2:5; 10:3 ), “pointless” ( Prov 21:6 ), “futile” ( Lam 4:17 ; Eccl 1:2, 14; 2:1, 14-15 ), (2) breath/vapor/wind is transitory and fleeting – thus, the connotation “fleeting” or “transitory” ( Prov 31:30 ; Eccl 6:12; 7:15; 9:9; 11:10 ; Job 7:16 ) and (3) breath/vapor/wind cannot be seen thus, the idea of “obscure,” “dark,” “difficult to understand,” “enigmatic” ( Eccl 11:10 ). See HALOT 236-37 s.v. I הֶבֶל ; BDB 210-11 s.v. I הֶבֶל . The metaphorical sense is used with the following synonyms: תֹּהוּ ( tohu , “empty, vanity”; Isa 49:4 ), רִיק ( riq , “profitless, useless”; Isa 30:7 ; Eccl 6:11 ), and לֹא הוֹעִיל ( lo ’ ho ’ il , “worthless, profitless”; Is 30:6; 57:12 ; Jer 16:19 ). It is parallel to “few days” and “[days] which he passes like a shadow” ( Eccl 6:12 ). It is used in reference to youth and vigor ( 11:10 ) and life ( 6:12; 7:15; 9:9 ), which are “transitory” or “fleeting.” The most common parallels to הֶבֶל in Ecclesiastes are the phrases “chasing after the wind” ( רְעוּת רוּחַ , rÿ ’ ut ruakh ) in 2:11, 17, 26; 7:14 and “what profit?” ( מַה־יִּתְרוֹן , mah-yyitron ) or “no profit” ( אֵין יִתְרוֹן , ’ en yitron ) in 2:11; 3:19; 6:9 . It is used in reference to enigmas in life ( 6:2; 8:10, 14 ) and to the future which is obscure ( 11:8 ). It is often used in antithesis to terms connoting value: טוֹב ( tov , “good, benefit, advantage”) and יֹתְרוֹן ( yotÿron , “profit, advantage, gain”). Because the concrete picture of the “wind” lends itself to the figurative connotation “futile,” the motto “This is futile” ( זֶה הֶבֶל , zeh hevel ) is often used with the metaphor, “like striving after the wind” ( רְעוּת רוּחַ , rÿ ’ ut ruakh ) – a graphic picture of an expenditure of effort in vain because no one can catch the wind by chasing it (e.g., 1:14, 17; 2:11, 17, 26; 4:4, 6, 16; 6:9 ). Although it is the key word in Ecclesiastes, it should not be translated the same way in every place. sn The motto Everything is futile! is the theme of the book. Its occurs at the beginning ( 1:2 ) and end of the book ( 12:8 ), forming an envelope structure ( inclusio ). Everything described in 1:2 –12:8 is the supporting proof of the thesis of 1:2 . With few exceptions (e.g., 2:24-26; 3:14-15; 11:9-12:1, 9 ), everything described in 1:2 – 12:8 is characterized as “futile” ( הֶבֶל , hevel ).


The term “profit” ( יֹתְרוֹן , yotÿron ) is used in Ecclesiastes to evaluate the ultimate benefit/effects of human activities, as is טוֹב ( tov , “good, worthwhile”) as well (e.g., 2:1, 3 ). While some relative advantage/profit is recognized (e.g., light over darkness, and wisdom over folly), Qoheleth denies the ultimate advantage of all human endeavors (e.g., 2:11, 15 ).


Heb “the man.” The Hebrew term could be used here in a generic sense, referring to the typical man (hence, “a man”). However, it is more likely that the form is collective and that humankind in general is in view (note NIV “man”). Note the reference to “a generation” coming and going in the next verse, as well as v. 13 , where the phrase “the sons of man” (= humankind) appears. In this case the singular pronominal suffix and singular verb later in v. 3 reflect grammatical agreement, not individuality.


The use of the relative pronoun שֶׁ ( she , “which”) – rather than the more common אֲשֶׁר (’ asher , “which”) – is a linguistic feature that is often used to try to date the Book of Ecclesiastes. Noting that שֶׁ is the dominant relative pronoun in Mishnaic Hebrew and that אֲשֶׁר does not appear as frequently (Jastrow 130 s.v. אֲשֶׁר ), many scholars conclude that אֲשֶׁר is early and שֶׁ is late. They conclude that the use of שֶׁ in Ecclesiastes points to a late date for the book. However, as Samuel-Kings suggest, the שֶׁ versus אֲשֶׁר phenomena may simply be a dialectical issue: אֲשֶׁר is commonly used in the south, and שֶׁ in the north. The use of שֶׁ in Ecclesiastes may indicate that the book was written in a northern rather than a southern province, not that it is a late book. This is supported from related Akkadian terms which occur in texts from the same periods: אֲשֶׁר is related to asru (“place”) and שֶׁ is related to sa (“what”).


Heb “under the sun.” sn This rhetorical question expects a negative answer: “Man has no gain in all his toil.” Ecclesiastes often uses rhetorical questions in this manner (e.g., 2:2; 3:9; 6:8, 11, 12 ; see E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech , 949).


The participle הֹלֵךְ ( holekh , “to walk, to go”) emphasizes continual, durative, uninterrupted action (present universal use of participle). The root הָלַךְ ( halakh ) is repeated in this section ( 1:4 a, 6a, 6b, 7a, 7b, 7c) to emphasize the continual action and constant motion of everything in nature. Despite the continual action of everything in nature, there is no completion, attainment or rest for anything. The first use of הָלַךְ is in reference to man; all subsequent usages are in reference to nature – illustrations of the futility of human endeavor. Note: All the key terms used in 1:4 to describe the futility of human endeavor are repeated in 1:5-11 as illustrations from nature. The literary monotony in 1:4-11 mirrors the actual monotony of human action that repeats itself with no real change.


The participle בָּא ( ba ’, “to go”) emphasizes continual, durative, uninterrupted action (present universal use of participle). The term is repeated in 1:4-5 to compare the futility of secular human accomplishments with the futile actions in nature: everything is in motion, but there is nothing new accomplished.


The participle עֹמָדֶת (’ omadet , “to stand”) emphasizes a continual, durative, uninterrupted state (present universal condition). Man, despite all his secular accomplishments in all generations, makes no ultimate impact on the earth.


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


The term עוֹלָם (’ olam ) has a wide range of meanings: (1) indefinite time: “long time, duration,” often “eternal” or “eternity”; (2) future time: “things to come”; and (3) past time: “a long time back,” that is, the dark age of prehistory ( HALOT 798–99 s.v. עוֹלָם ; BDB 761–63 s.v. III עלם ). It may also denote an indefinite period of “continuous existence” (BDB 762 s.v. III עלם 2.b). It is used in this sense in reference to things that remain the same for long periods: the earth ( Eccl 1:4 ), the heavens ( Ps 148:6 ), ruined cities ( Isa 25:2; 32:14 ), ruined lands ( Jer 18:16 ), nations ( Isa 47:7 ), families ( Ps 49:12 ; Isa 14:20 ), the dynasty of Saul ( 1 Sam 13:13 ), the house of Eli ( 2 Sam 2:30 ), continual enmity between nations ( Ezek 25:15; 35:5 ), the exclusion of certain nations from the assembly ( Deut 23:4 ; Neh 13:1 ), a perpetual reproach ( Ps 78:66 ).


The Hebrew text has a perfect verbal form, but it should probably be emended to the participial form, which occurs in the last line of the verse. Note as well the use of participles in vv. 4-7 to describe what typically takes place in the natural world. The participle זוֹרֵחַ ( zoreakh , “to rise”) emphasizes continual, durative, uninterrupted action (present universal use of participle): the sun is continually rising (and continually setting) day after day.


Heb “the sun goes.” The participle בָּא ( ba ’, “to go”) emphasizes continual, durative, uninterrupted action (present universal use of participle): the sun is continually rising and continually setting day after day. The repetition of בָּא in 1:4-5 creates a comparison between the relative futility of all human endeavor (“a generation comes and a generation goes [ בָּא ]”) with the relative futility of the action of the sun (“the sun rises and the sun goes” [i.e., “sets,” בָּא ]).


Heb “hastens” or “pants.” The verb שָׁאַף ( sha ’ af ) has a three-fold range of meanings: (1) “to gasp; to pant,” (2) “to pant after; to long for,” and (3) “to hasten; to hurry” ( HALOT 1375 s.v. שׁאף ; BDB 983 s.v. I שָׁאַף ). The related Aramaic root שׁוף means “to be thirsty; to be parched.” The Hebrew verb is used of “gasping” for breath, like a woman in the travail of childbirth ( Isa 42:14 ); “panting” with eagerness or desire ( Job 5:5; 7:2; 36:20 ; Ps 119:131 ; Jer 2:24 ) or “panting” with fatigue ( Jer 14:6 ; Eccl 1:5 ). Here שָׁאַף personifies the sun, panting with fatigue, as it hastens to its destination (BDB 983 s.v. I שָׁאַף 1). The participle form depicts continual, uninterrupted, durative action (present universal use). Like the sun, man – for all his efforts – never really changes anything; all he accomplishes in his toil is to wear himself out.


The verb זוֹרֵחַ ( zoreakh , “to rise”) is repeated in this verse to emphasize that the sun is locked into a never changing, ever repeating monotonous cycle: rising, setting, rising, setting.


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


The Hebrew root סָבַב ( savav , “to circle around”) is repeated four times in this verse to depict the wind’s continual motion: “The wind circles around ( סוֹבֵב , sovev )…round and round ( סוֹבֵב סֹבֵב )…its circuits ( סְבִיבֹתָיו , sÿvivotayv ).” This repetition is designed for a rhetorical purpose – to emphasize that the wind is locked into a never ending cycle. This vicious circle of monotonous action does not change anything. The participle form is used three times to emphasize continual, uninterrupted action (present universal use of participle). Despite the fact that the wind is always changing direction, nothing really new ever happens. The constant shifting of the wind cannot hide the fact that this is nothing but a repeated cycle; nothing new happens here (e.g., 1:9-10 ).


The use of שָׁב ( shav , Qal active participle masculine singular from שׁוּב , shuv , “to return”) creates a wordplay (paronomasia) with the repetition of סָבַב ( savav , “to circle around”). The participle emphasizes continual, durative, uninterrupted action (present universal use).


Heb “are going” or “are walking.” The term הֹלְכִים ( holÿkhim , Qal active participle masculine plural from הָלַךְ , halakh ,“to walk”) emphasizes continual, durative, uninterrupted action (present universal use of participle). This may be an example of personification; this verb is normally used in reference to the human activity of walking. Qoheleth compares the flowing of river waters to the action of walking to draw out the comparison between the actions of man ( 1:4 ) and the actions of nature ( 1:5-11 ).


Heb “there they are returning to go.” The term שָׁבִים ( shavim , Qal active participle masculine plural from שׁוּב , shuv , “to return”) emphasizes the continual, durative action of the waters. The root שׁוּב is repeated in 1:6-7 to emphasize that everything in nature (e.g., wind and water) continually repeats its actions. For all of the repetition of the cycles of nature, nothing changes; all the constant motion produces nothing new. sn This verse does not refer to the cycle of evaporation or the return of water by underground streams, as sometimes suggested. Rather, it describes the constant flow of river waters to the sea. For all the action of the water – endless repetition and water constantly in motion – there is nothing new accomplished.


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


Heb “the things.” The Hebrew term דְּבָרִים ( dÿvarim , masculine plural noun from דָּבָר , davar ) is often used to denote “words,” but it can also refer to actions and events ( HALOT 211 s.v. דָּבָר 3.a; BDB 183 s.v. דָּבָר IV.4). Here, it means “things,” as is clear from the context: “What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done” ( 1:9 ). Here דְּבָרִים can be nuanced “occurrences” or even “[natural] phenomena.”


Heb “is able.”


The Hebrew text has no stated object. The translation supplies “it” for stylistic reasons and clarification. sn The statement no one can bear to describe it probably means that Qoheleth could have multiplied examples (beyond the sun, the wind, and the streams) of the endless cycle of futile events in nature. However, no tongue could ever tell, no eye could ever see, no ear could ever hear all the examples of this continual and futile activity.


The term מָלֵא ( male ’, “to be filled, to be satisfied”) is repeated in 1:7-8 to draw a comparison between the futility in the cycle of nature and human secular accomplishments: lots of action, but no lasting effects. In 1:7 אֵינֶנּוּ מָלֵא (’ enennu male ’, “it is never filled”) describes the futility of the water cycle: “All the rivers flow into the sea, yet the sea is never filled.” In 1:8 וְלֹא־תִמָּלֵא ( vÿlo-timmale ’, “it is never satisfied”) describes the futility of human labor: “the ear is never satisfied with hearing.”


Heb “what is.” The Hebrew verbal form is a perfect. Another option is to translate, “What has been.” See the next line, which speaks of the past and the future.


The Hebrew verbal form is an imperfect.


Heb “under the sun.”


Alternately, “[Even when] there is something of which someone might claim…” The terms יֵשׁ דָּבָר שֶׁיֹּאמַר ( yesh davar sheyyo ’ mar ) may be an interrogative clause without an introductory interrogative particle (GKC 473 §150. a ). In questions, יֵשׁ often implies doubt about the existence of something (BDB 441 s.v. יֵשׁ 2.b). The LXX rendered it as a question, as do most English versions: “Is there anything of which it can be said…?” (KJV, ASV, RSV, MLB, NEB, NASB, NIV, NRSV). On the other hand, יֵשׁ is used elsewhere in the Book of Ecclesiastes as a predication of existence (“There is…”) to assert the existence of something ( 2:13, 21; 4:8, 9; 5:13 [12]; 6:1, 11; 7:15; 8:6, 14; 9:4; 10:5 ). HALOT 443 s.v. יֵשׁ 2 renders יֵשׁ דָּבָר as “There is something….” This view is taken by several translations: “Even the thing of which we say…” (NAB), “Men may say of something …” (Moffatt), and “Sometimes there is a phenomena of which they say…” (NJPS).


The perfect tense verb הָיָה ( hayah ) refers to a past perfect situation: It describes an action that is viewed as a remote past event from the perspective of the past. This past perfect situation is brought out by the temporal adverb כְּבָר ( kÿvar , “already”; HALOT 459 s.v. I כְּבָר ; BDB 460 s.v. I כְּבָר ; cf. 1:10; 2:12, 16; 3:15; 4:2; 6:10; 9:6-7 ). The expression כְּבָר + הָיָה connotes a past perfect nuance: “it has already been” ( Eccl 1:10 ; see BDB 460 s.v.).


Heb “in the ages long ago before us.”


Heb “There is no remembrance of former things.” The term רִאשֹׁנִים ( ri ’ shonim , “former things”) is the masculine plural form of the adjective רִאשׁוֹן ( ri ’ shon ,“former, first, chief”; BDB 911 s.v. רִאשׁוֹן ). When used in a temporal sense, the singular denotes “former” in time (BDB 911 s.v. 1 .a) or “first” in time (BDB 911 s.v. 2 .a). The plural form is only used to denote “former” in time: “former persons,” i.e., ancestors, men of old (e.g., Lev 26:45 ; Deut 19:14 ; Job 18:20 ; Isa 61:4 ; Ps 79:8 ; Sirach 4:16) or “former things,” i.e., past events (e.g., Isa 41:22; 42:9; 43:9, 18; 46:9; 48:3 ). See BDB 911 s.v. 1 .a, which suggests that this usage refers to “former persons.” This approach is adopted by several translations: “men of old” (NEB, NAB, NIV, Moffatt), “people of long ago” (NRSV), “earlier ones” (NJPS), and “former generations” (ASV). On the other hand, this Hebrew phrase may be nuanced “former things” or “earlier things” ( HALOT 1168 s.v. ן ( וֹ ) רִאשֹׁ ). This is adopted by some translations: “former things” (KJV, RSV) and “earlier things” (NASB). Although future generations are mentioned in 1:11 , what they will not remember is the past events. The context of 1:3-11 focuses on human achievement, that is, former things.


The term “remember” is not in the Hebrew text, but has been supplied in the translation for clarity.


Heb “and also of the last things which will be.” The term אַחֲרֹנִים (’ akharonim , “the future things”) is the masculine plural form of the adjective אַחֲרוֹן (’ akharon ) which means “coming after” (BDB 30 s.v. אַחֲרוֹן ) or “at the back” ( HALOT 36 s.v. אַחֲרוֹן ). When used in a temporal sense, it may mean (1) “later one; (2) “in the future”; (3) “last”; or (4) “at the last” or “in the end” ( HALOT 36 s.v. 2 ). The plural form may be used in reference to (1) future generations, e.g., Deut 29:21 ; Pss 48:14; 78:4, 6; 102:19 ; Job 18:20 ; Eccl 4:16 , or (2) future events, e.g., Neh 8:18 (BDB 30 s.v.). BDB 30 s.v. b suggests that this usage refers to “future generations,” while HALOT 36 s.v. 2 .c suggests future events. As mentioned in the previous note, it probably refers to future events rather than future generations. sn The Hebrew terms translated former events and future events create a merism (two polar extremes encompass everything in between). This encompasses all secular achievements in human history past to future things yet to be done.


Heb “There will not be any remembrance of them among those who come after.” sn According to Qoheleth, nothing new really happens under the sun ( 1:9 ). Apparent observations of what appears to be revolutionary are due to a lack of remembrance by subsequent generations of what happened long before their time in past generations ( 1:10-11 a). And what will happen in future generations will not be remembered by the subsequent generations to arise after them ( 1:11 b).


For location see Map5-B1 ; Map6-F3 ; Map7-E2 ; Map8-F2 ; Map10-B3 ; JP1-F4 ; JP2-F4 ; JP3-F4 ; JP4-F4 .


Heb “I gave my heart” or “I set my mind.” The term לִבִּי ( libbi , “my heart”) is an example of synecdoche of part (heart) for the whole (myself). Qoheleth uses this figurative expression frequently in the book. On the other hand, in Hebrew mentality, the term “heart” is frequently associated with one’s thoughts and reasoning; thus, this might be a metonymy of association (heart = thoughts). The equivalent English idiom would be “I applied my mind.”


Heb “with wisdom,” that is, with careful reflection in light of principles observed by the sages.


Heb “to seek and to search out” ( לִדְרוֹשׁ וְלָתוּר , lidrosh vÿlatur ). This is an example of a verbal hendiadys (the use of two synonymous verbs to state a common idea in an emphatic manner). The terms are used because they are closely related synonyms; therefore, the similarities in meaning should be emphasized rather than the distinctions in meaning. The verb דָּרַשׁ ( darash ) means “to inquire about; to investigate; to search out; to study” ( HALOT 233 s.v. דרשׁ ; BDB 205 s.v. דָּרַשׁ ). This verb is used literally of the physical activity of investigating a matter by examining the physical evidence and interviewing eye-witnesses (e.g., Judg 6:29 ; Deut 13:15; 17:4, 9; 19:18 ), and figuratively (hypocatastasis) of mentally investigating abstract concepts (e.g., Eccl 1:13 ; Isa 1:17; 16:5 ; Pss 111:2; 119:45 ). Similarly, the verb תּוּר ( tur ) means “to seek out, discover” ( HALOT 1708 s.v. תּוּר 1.c; BDB 1064 תּוּר 2). The verb תּוּר is used literally of the physical action of exploring physical territory ( Num 13:16-17; 14:6, 34-36 ; Job 39:8 ), and figuratively (hypocatastasis) of mentally exploring things ( Eccl 1:13; 7:25; 9:1 ).


Heb “under heaven.” sn Qoheleth states that he made a thorough investigation of everything that had been accomplished on earth . His position as king gave him access to records and contacts with people that would have been unavailable to others.


This phrase does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is added in the translation for clarity.


Heb “the sons of men/mankind.”


The phrase עִנְיַן רָע (’ inyan ra ’, “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 עָנַה (’ anah ) means “to be occupied, to be busy with” (with the preposition 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 עָנָה ). The phrase עִנְיַן רָע is treated creatively by English translations: “sore travail” (KJV, ASV), “sad travail” (YLT), “painful occupation” (Douay), “sorry business” (NEB), “sorry task” (Moffatt), “thankless task” (NAB), “grievous task” (NASB), “trying task” (MLB), “unhappy business” (RSV, NRSV, NJPS), and “heavy burden” (NIV).


The syntax of this line in Hebrew is intentionally redundant, e.g. (literally), “It is a grievous task [or “unpleasant business”] that God has given to the sons of man to be occupied with it.” The referent of the third masculine singular suffix on לַעֲנוֹת בּוֹ ( la ’ anot bo , “to be occupied with it”) is עִנְיַן רָע (’ inyan ra ’, “a grievous task, a rotten business”).


Or “that keeps them occupied” or “that busies them.” The verb II עָנַה (’ anah , “to be occupied with”) is related to the noun עִנְיַן (’ inyan , “business, task, occupation”) which also occurs in this verse. The verb עָנַה means “to be occupied, to be busy with” (with the preposition בְּ , bet ), e.g., Eccl 1:13; 3:10; 5:19 ( HALOT 854 s.v. III עָנָה ; BDB 775 s.v. עָנָה ). The Hebrew 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).


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


Heb “under the sun.”


As mentioned in the note on “everything” in 1:2 , the term הַכֹּל ( hakkol , “everything”) is often limited in reference to the specific topic at hand in the context (e.g., BDB 482 s.v. כֹּל 2). The argument of 1:12-15 , like 1:3-11 , focuses on secular human achievement. This is clear from the repetition of the root עָשַׂה (’ asah , “do, work, accomplish, achieve”) in 1:12-13 .


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


This usage of הֶבֶל ( hevel ) denotes “futile, profitless, fruitless” (e.g., 2 Kgs 17:15 ; Ps 78:33 ; Prov 13:11; 21:6 ; Eccl 1:2, 14; 2:1, 14-15; 4:8 ; Jer 2:5; 10:3 ; Lam 4:17 ; see HALOT 236–37 s.v. I הֶבֶל ; BDB 210–11 s.v. I הֶבֶל ). The term is used with the simile “like striving after the wind” ( רְעוּת רוּחַ , rÿ ’ ut ruakh ) – a graphic picture of an expenditure of effort in vain because no one can catch the wind by chasing it (e.g., 1:14, 17; 2:11, 17, 26; 4:4, 6, 16; 6:9; 7:14 ). When used in this sense, the term is often used with the following synonyms: לְתֹהוּ ( lÿtohu , “for nothing, in vain, for no reason”; Isa 49:4 ); רִיק ( riq , “profitless; useless”; Isa 30:7 ; Eccl 6:11 ); לֹא הוֹעִיל (“worthless, profitless”; Is 30:6; 57:12 ; Jer 16:19 ); “what profit?” ( מַה־יִּתְרוֹןֹ , mah-yyitron ); and “no profit” ( אֵין יִּתְרוֹן , en yyitron ; e.g., 2:11; 3:19; 6:9 ). It is also used in antithesis to terms connoting value: טוֹב ( tov , “good, benefit, advantage”) and יֹתְרוֹן ( yotÿron , “profit, advantage, gain”). Despite everything that man has accomplished in history, it is ultimately futile because nothing on earth really changes.


Heb “striving of wind.” The word “like” does not appear in the Hebrew text; it has been added in the translation to make the comparative notion clear.


The term מְעֻוָּת , mÿ ’ uvvat (Pual participle masculine singular from עָוַת , ’ avat , “to bend”) is used substantively (“what is bent; what is crooked”) in reference to irregularities in life and obstacles to human secular achievement accomplishing anything of ultimate value.


A parallel statement occurs in 7:13 which employs the active form of עָוַת , (’ avat , “to bend”) with God as the subject: “Who is able to strengthen what God bends?” The passive form occurs here: “No one is able to straighten what is bent” ( מְעֻוָּת לֹא־יוּכַל לֹתְקֹן , mÿ ’ uvvat lo ’ -yukhal lotÿqon ). In the light of 7:13 , the personal agent of the passive form is God.


The Hebrew noun חֶסְרוֹן ( khesron ) is used in the OT only here and means “what is lacking” (as an antonym to יִתְרוֹן [ yitron ], “what is profitable”; HALOT 339 s.v. חֶסְרוֹן ; BDB 341 s.v. חֶסְרוֹן ). It is an Aramaic loanword meaning “deficit.” The related verb חָסַר ( khasar ) means “to lack, to be in need of, to decrease, to lessen [in number]”; the related noun חֹסֶר ( khoser ) refers to “one in want of”; and the noun חֶסֶר ( kheser ) means “poverty, want” ( HALOT 338 s.v. חֶסֶר ; BDB 341 s.v. חֶסֶר ). It refers to what is absent (zero in terms of quantity) rather than what is deficient (poor in terms of quality). The LXX misunderstood the term and rendered it as ὑστέρημα ( usterhma , “deficiency”): “deficiency cannot be numbered.” It is also misunderstood by a few English versions: “nor can you count up the defects in life” (Moffatt); “the number of fools is infinite” (Douay). However, most English versions correctly understand it as referring to what is lacking in terms of quantity: “what is lacking” (RSV, MLB, NASB, NIV, NRSV), “a lack” (NJPS), “that which is wanting” (KJV, ASV), “what is not there” (NEB), and “what is missing” (NAB).


Heb “cannot be counted” or “cannot be numbered.” The term הִמָּנוֹת ( himmanot , Niphal infinitive construct from מָנָה , manah , “to count”) is rendered literally by most translations: “[cannot] be counted” or “[cannot] be numbered” (KJV, ASV, RSV, MLB, NEB, NASB, NIV, NRSV, JPS, NJPS). However, the nuance “count” might function as a metonymy of effect for cause, that is, “to supply.” What is absent cannot be supplied (cause) therefore, it cannot be counted as present (effect). NAB adopts this approach: “what is missing cannot be supplied.”


Heb “I spoke, I, with my heart.”


Heb “I, look, I have made great and increased wisdom.” The expression הִגְדַּלְתִּי וְהוֹסַפְתִּי ( higdalti vÿhosafti ) is a verbal hendiadys; it means that Qoheleth had become the wisest man in the history of Jerusalem.


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


For location see Map5-B1 ; Map6-F3 ; Map7-E2 ; Map8-F2 ; Map10-B3 ; JP1-F4 ; JP2-F4 ; JP3-F4 ; JP4-F4 .


Heb “my heart” ( לִבִּי , libbi ). The term “heart” is a metonymy of part for the whole (“my heart” = myself).


Heb “My heart has seen much wisdom and knowledge.”


Heb “gave my heart,” or “set my mind.” See v. 13 .


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


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


The terms שִׂכְלוּת ( sikhlut , “folly”) and הוֹלֵלוֹת ( holelot , “foolishness”) are synonyms. The term שִׂכְלוּת (alternate spelling of סִכְלוּת , sikhlut ) refers to foolish behavior ( HALOT 755 s.v. סִכְלוּת ), while הוֹלֵלוֹת refers to foolish ideas and mental blindness ( HALOT 242 s.v. הוֹלֵלוֹת ). Qoheleth uses these terms to refer to foolish ideas and self-indulgent pleasures (e.g., Eccl 2:2-3, 12-14; 7:25; 9:3; 10:1, 6, 13 ).


Heb “I know.”


The term גַּם ( gam , “even”) is a particle of association and emphasis ( HALOT 195 s.v. גַּם ).


This term does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity.


Heb “striving of wind.”


Heb “I said, I, in my heart” ( אָמַרְתִּי אֲנִי בְּלִבִּי , ’ amarti ’ ani bÿlibbi ). The term “heart” ( לֵב , lev ) is a synecdoche of part (“heart”) for the whole (the whole person), and thus means “I said to myself” (see E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech , 648).


The Hebrew verb לְכָה ( lÿkhah , “Come!”) is a weakened imperative, used merely as an introductory word, e.g., Gen 19:32; 31:44 ; Judg 19:11 ; 1 Sam 9:9-10; 11:14 ; 2 Kgs 3:7 ; Ps 66:5 ; Song 7:12 ; Isa 1:18; 2:3 ; Mic 4:2 ( HALOT 246 s.v. הָלַךְ 2; BDB 234 s.v. הָלַךְ I.5.f.2). Whenever לְכָה introduces an exhortation, it functions as an invitation to the audience to adopt a course of action that will be beneficial to the addressee or mutually beneficial to both the speaker and the addressee. Here, Qoheleth personifies his “heart” ( לִבִּי , libbi ) and addresses himself. The examination of self-indulgent pleasure is designed to be beneficial to Qoheleth.


Or “test.” The cohortative אֲנַסְּכָה (’ anassÿkhah ) emphasizes the resolve of the speaker. The term נָסַה ( nasah , “to test”) means “to conduct a test,” that is, to conduct an experiment ( Judg 6:39 ; Eccl 2:1; 7:23 ; Dan 1:12, 14 ; see HALOT 702 s.v. נסה 3; BDB 650 s.v. נָסָה 1). The verb נָסַה is often used as a synonym with בָּחַן ( bakhan , “to examine”; BDB 103 s.v. בָּחַן and 650 s.v. נָסָה 1) and לָדַעַת ( lada ’ at , “to ascertain”; Deut 8:2 ).


Heb “I will test you with pleasure.” The term שִׂמְחַה ( simkhah , “pleasure”) has a two-fold range of meanings: (1) it can refer to the legitimate enjoyment of life that Qoheleth affirms is good ( 5:17; 8:15; 9:7; 11:8, 9 ) and that God gives to those who please him ( 2:26; 5:19 ); or (2) it can refer to foolish pleasure, self-indulgent, frivolous merrymaking ( 2:1, 2; 7:4 ). The parallelism in 2:2 between שִׂמְחַה and שְׂחוֹק ( sÿkhoq , “laughter, frivolous merrymaking”), which always appears in the context of banqueting, drinking, and merrymaking, suggests that the pejorative sense is in view in this context. sn The statement I will try self-indulgent pleasure is a figurative expression known as metonymy of association. As 2:1-3 makes clear, it is not so much Qoheleth who is put to the test with pleasure, but rather that pleasure is put to the test by Qoheleth.


Heb “See what is good!” The volitive sequence of the cohortative ( אֲנַסְּכָה , ’ anassÿkhah , “I will test you”) followed by vav + imperative ( וּרְאֵה , urÿ ’ eh , “and see!”) denotes purpose/result: “I will test you…in order to see….” The verb רָאָה ( ra ’ ah , “to see”) has a broad range of meanings (e.g., in the Qal stem 16 categories are listed in HALOT 1157–1160 s.v.). In this context it means “to discover; to perceive; to discern; to understand” ( HALOT 1159 s.v. ראה 13; BDB 907 s.v. רָאָה 5).


The particle וְהִנֵּה ( vÿhinneh , literally “Behold!”) occurs after verbs of perception to introduce what was seen, understood or discovered ( HALOT 252 s.v. הִנֵּה 8). It is used to make the narrative graphic and vivid, enabling the reader to enter into the surprise of the speaker (BDB 244 s.v. הִנֵּה c). This is an example of the heterosis of the deictic particle (“Behold!”) for a verb of perception (“I found”). See E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech , 510-34.


This use of הֶבֶל ( hevel ) denotes “futile, worthless, fruitless, pointless” ( HALOT 237 s.v. I הֶבֶל 2; BDB 210–11 s.v. I הֶבֶל 2). It is a synonym to מְהוֹלָל ( mÿholal , “folly”) in 2:2 a and an antonym to טוֹב ( tov , “worthwhile, beneficial”) in 2:1 b and 2:3 c.


Heb “laughter.” The term שְׂחוֹק ( sÿkhoq , “laughter”) has a fourfold range of meanings: (1) “joyful laughter” ( Ps 126:2 ; Prov 14:13 ; Job 8:21 ); (2) “frivolous laughter, merrymaking” ( Eccl 2:2; 7:3, 6 ); (3) “pleasure, sport” ( Prov 10:23 ; Eccl 10:19 ); and (4) “derision, mockery, laughingstock” ( Jer 20:7; 48:26, 27, 39 ; Job 12:4 ; Lam 3:14 ). See HALOT 1315 s.v שְׂחוֹק ; BDB 966 s.v. שְׂחֹק . In Ecclesiastes, שְׂחוֹק is always used in contexts of self-indulgent banqueting, drinking, frivolous partying and merrymaking ( Eccl 2:2; 7:3, 6; 10:19 ). It is distinct from “healthy” joy and laughter ( Ps 126:2 ; Job 8:21 ). The connotation of “frivolous merrymaking” fits this context best.


The term שִׂמְחָה ( simkhah , “pleasure”) has a two-fold range of meanings in Ecclesiastes: (1) it can refer to the enjoyment of life that Qoheleth affirms is good ( 5:17; 8:15; 9:7; 11:8, 9 ) and that God gives to those who are pleasing to him ( 2:26; 5:19 ); and (2) it can refer to foolish pleasure, that is, frivolous merrymaking ( 2:1, 2; 7:4 ). The parallelism between שִׂמְחָה and שְׂחוֹק ( sÿkhoq , “laughter, frivolous merrymaking”) in 2:2 suggests that the pejorative sense is in view here.


Heb “What does it accomplish?” The rhetorical question “What does it accomplish?” expects a negative answer: “It accomplishes nothing!” (see E. W. Bullinger , Figures of Speech , 949–51). See, e.g., Gen 1:19; 18:14, 17 ; Deut 7:17 ; 1 Sam 2:25 ; Job 40:2 ; Pss 56:7 [8]; 90:11; 94:16; 106:2 ; Eccl 3:21 .


Heb “In my heart I explored.” The verb תּוּר ( tur , “to seek out, to spy out, to explore”) is used in the OT to describe: (1) the physical activity of “spying out” or “exploring” geographical locations ( Num 13:2, 16, 17, 21, 25, 32; 14:6, 7, 34, 36, 38 ; Job 39:8 ) and (2) the mental activity of “exploring” or “examining” a course of action or the effects of an action ( Eccl 1:13; 2:3; 7:25; 9:1 ). See BDB 1064 s.v. תּוּר 2; HALOT 1708 s.v. תּוּר . It was used as a synonym with דָרָשׁ ( darash , “to study”) in 1:13 : “I devoted myself to study ( לִדְרוֹשׁ , lidrosh ) and to explore ( לָתוּר , latur ).” sn As the repetition of the term לֵב ( lev , “heart” or “mind”) indicates ( 2:1, 3 ), this experiment appears to have been only an intellectual exercise or a cognitive reflection: “I said to myself ( Heb “in my heart [or “mind”],” 2:1 ); “I explored with my mind ( Heb “heart,” 2:3 a); and “my mind ( Heb “heart”) guiding me with wisdom” ( 2:3 b). Qoheleth himself did not indulge in drunkenness; but he contemplated the value of self-indulgence in his mind.


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


Or “I sought to cheer my flesh with wine.” The term לִמְשׁוֹךְ ( limshokh , Qal infinitive construct from מָשַׁךְ , mashakh , “to draw, pull”) functions in a complementary sense with the preceding verb תּוּר ( tur “to examine”): Heb “I sought to draw out my flesh with wine” or “I [mentally] explored [the effects] of drawing out my flesh with wine.” The verb מָשַׁךְ means “to draw, to drag along, to lead” (BDB 604 s.v. מָשַׁךְ ) or “to draw out; to stretch out [to full length]; to drag; to pull; to seize; to carry off; to pull; to go” ( HALOT 645–46 s.v. משׁך ). BDB suggests that this use be nuanced “to draw, to attract, to gratify” the flesh, that is, “to cheer” (BDB 604 s.v. מָשַׁךְ 7). While this meaning is not attested elsewhere in the OT, it is found in Mishnaic Hebrew: “to attract” (Qal), e.g., “it is different with heresy, because it attracts [i.e., persuades, offers inducements]” ( b. Avodah Zarah 27b) and “to be attracted, carried away, seduced,” e.g., “he was drawn after them, he indulged in the luxuries of the palace” ( b. Shabbat 147b). See Jastrow 853-54 s.v. מְשַׂךְ . Here it denotes “to stretch; to draw out [to full length],” that is, “to revive; to restore” the body ( HALOT 646 s.v. משׁד [sic] 3). The statement is a metonymy of cause (i.e., indulging the flesh with wine) for effect (i.e., the effects of self-indulgence).


Heb “my flesh.” The term בְּשָׂרִי ( bÿsari , “my flesh”) may function as a synecdoche of part (i.e., flesh) for the whole (i.e., whole person). See E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech , 642. One could translate, “I sought to cheer myself.”


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


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


Heb “and my heart was leading along in wisdom.” The vav + noun, וְלִבִּי ( vÿlibbi ) introduces a disjunctive, parenthetical clause designed to qualify the speaker’s remarks lest he be misunderstood: “Now my heart/mind….” He emphasizes that he never lost control of his senses in this process. It was a purely mental, cognitive endeavor; he never actually gave himself over to wanton self-indulgence in wine or folly.


Heb “embracing folly.” The verb אָחָז (’ akhaz , “to embrace”) is normally used to describe the physical action of taking hold of an object. Here is it is used metaphorically to describe a person’s choice of lifestyle, that is, adopting a particular course of moral conduct (e.g., Job 17:9 ); see HALOT 31–32 s.v. אחז ; BDB 28 s.v. אָחַז .


Or “until.” The construction עַד אֲשֶׁר (’ ad ’ asher , “until”) introduces a temporal result clause (e.g., Gen 27:44; 28:15 ; Num 21:35 ; Isa 6:11 ); see HALOT 787 s.v. III עַד B.b. With an imperfect verb (such as אֶרְאֶה , ’ er ’ eh , Qal imperfect first common singular from רָאָה , ra ’ ah , “to see”), the compound construction עַד אֲשֶׁר usually refers to future time ( Gen 27:44; 29:8 ; Exod 23:30; 24:14 ; Lev 22:4 ; Num 11:20; 20:17 ; 1 Sam 22:3 ; Hos 5:15 ), but it also rarely refers to past time ( Jonah 4:5 ; Eccl 2:3 ); see BDB 725 s.v. III עַד II.1.a. b . Joüon 2:370 §113.k notes that when the compound construction עַד אֲשֶׁר is occasionally used with an imperfect depicting past action to denote a virtual nuance of purpose: “until” = “so that,” e.g., Jonah 4:5 ; Eccl 2:3 .


Heb “I might see where is the good?” The interrogative particle אֵי (’ e , “where?”) used with the demonstrative pronoun זֶה ( zeh , “this”) forms an idiom: “where [then]?” ( HALOT 37–38 s.v. אֵי 2.a; see, e.g., 1 Sam 9:18 ; 1 Kgs 13:12 ; 2 Kgs 3:8 ; Isa 50:1; 66:1 ; Jer 6:16 ; Job 28:12, 20; 38:19, 24 ; Esth 7:5 ). The phrase אֵי־זֶה טוֹב (’ e-zeh tov ) is an indirect question that literally means, “Where is the good?” that is, “what good?” ( HALOT 38 s.v. אֵי 2.d).


Heb “the sons of man.”


Heb “under the heavens.”


Heb “number of the days.” The Hebrew noun מִסְפַּר ( mispar , “number, quantity”) sometimes means “few” (e.g., Gen 34:30 ; Num 9:20 ; Deut 4:27; 33:6 ; Isa 10:19 ; Jer 44:28 ; Ezek 12:16 ; Ps 105:12 ; Job 16:22 ; 1 Chr 16:19 ); see HALOT 607 s.v. מִסְפָּר 2.b; BDB 709 s.v. מִסְפָּר 1.a. This phrase is an idiom that means, “during all their lives” (BDB 709 s.v.), “during their total [short] time of life,” that is, “as long as they live” ( HALOT 608 s.v. מִסְפָּר 3.d). Ecclesiastes often emphasizes the brevity of life (e.g., 5:17; 6:12; 9:9 ). The LXX rendered מִסְפַּר in a woodenly literal sense: ἀριθμόν ( ariqmon , “the number [of days of their lives]”). Several English translations adopt a similar approach: “all the days of their life” (ASV, Douay) and “the number of days of their lives” (YLT). However, this idiom is handled well by a number of English translations: “during the few days of their lives” (RSV, NRSV, NASB, NIV, Moffatt, NJPS), “during the limited days of their life” (NAB), and “throughout the brief span of their lives” (NEB).


Or “my works”; or “my accomplishments.” The term מַעֲשָׂי ( ma ’ asay , “my works”) has been handled in two basic ways: (1) great works or projects, and (2) possessions. The latter assumes a metonymy, one’s effort standing for the possessions it produces. Both interpretations are reflected in the major English translations: “works” (KJV, NEB, NAB, ASV, NASB, MLB, RSV, Douay, Moffatt), “projects” (NIV), and “possessions” (NJPS). sn This section ( 2:4-11 ) is unified and bracketed by the repetition of the verb גָּדַל ( gadal , “to increase”) which occurs at the beginning ( 2:4 ) and end ( 2:9 ), and by the repetition of the root עשה (noun: “works” and verb: “to do, make, acquire”) which occurs throughout the section ( 2:4, 5, 6, 8, 11 ).


Heb “made.”


The term does not refer here to vegetable gardens, but to orchards (cf. the next line). In the same way the so-called “garden” of Eden was actually an orchard filled with fruit trees. See Gen 2:8-9 .


The noun פַּרְדֵּס ( pardes , “garden, parkland, forest”) is a foreign loanword that occurs only 3 times in biblical Hebrew ( Song 4:13 ; Eccl 2:5 ; Neh 2:8 ). The original Old Persian term pairidaeza designated the enclosed parks and pleasure-grounds that were the exclusive domain of the Persian kings and nobility ( HALOT 963 s.v. פַּרְדֵּס ; LSJ 1308 s.v παράδεισος ). The related Babylonian term pardesu “marvelous garden” referred to the enclosed parks of the kings ( AHw 2:833 and 3:1582). The term passed into Greek as παράδεισος ( paradeisos , “enclosed park, pleasure-ground”), referring to the enclosed parks and gardens of the Persian kings (LSJ 1308). The Greek term has been transliterated into English as “paradise.”


Heb “to water from them a grove” (or “forest).


The phrase “sons of a house” ( בְנֵי בַיִת , vÿne vayit ) appears to be parallel to “a son of my house” ( בֶן־בֵּיתִי , ven-beti ) which refers to a person born into slavery from male and female servants in the master’s possession, e.g., Eleazar of Damascus ( Gen 15:3 ). The phrase appears to denote children born from male and female slaves already in his possession, that is, “homeborn slaves” (NASB) or “other slaves who were born in my house” (NIV). Apparently confusing the sense of the phrase with the referent of the phrase in Gen 15:3 , NJPS erroneously suggests “stewards” in Eccl 2:7 .


For location see Map5-B1 ; Map6-F3 ; Map7-E2 ; Map8-F2 ; Map10-B3 ; JP1-F4 ; JP2-F4 ; JP3-F4 ; JP4-F4 .


The term סְגֻלָּה ( sÿgullah ) denotes “personal property” ( HALOT 742 s.v. סְגֻלָּה 1) or “valued property, personal treasure” (BDB 688 s.v. סְגֻלָּה 2). Elsewhere, it refers to a king’s silver and gold ( 1 Chr 27:3 ). It is related to Akkadian sug/kullu “flock” ( AHw 2:1053-54) and sikiltu “private property [belonging to the king]” ( AHw 2:1041). The term refers to the personal, private and valued possessions of kings, which do not pass into the hands of the state.


Heb “of kings and provinces.” This personal treasure was taken as tribute from other kings and governors. See T. Longman III, Ecclesiastes (NICOT), 92.


Heb “and sensual delights of the sons of man.” The noun תַּעֲנוּג ( ta ’ anug ) has a three-fold range of meanings: (1) “luxury; comfort” ( Mic 2:9 ; Prov 19:10 ; Sir 6:28; 11:27; 14:16; 37:29; 41:1); (2) “pleasure; delight” of sexual love ( Song 7:7 ); and (3) “daintiness; feminine” ( Mic 1:16 ); see HALOT 1769 s.v. תַּעֲנוּג ; BDB 772 s.v. תַּעֲנוּג . The related adjective עָנֹג (’ anog , “pampered; dainty”) is used to describe a pampered woman ( Deut 28:56 ), to personify Babylon as a delicate woman ( Isa 47:1 ), and to ridicule delicate men ( Deut 28:54 ); see HALOT 851 s.v. עָֹנֹג ; BDB 772 עָנֹג . It is related to the noun עֹנֶג (’ oneg , “pleasure; exquisite delight; daintiness”; see HALOT 851 s.v. עֹנֶג ; BDB 772 s.v. עֹנֶג ) and the verb עָנֹג which means “to be soft; to be delicate” and “pleasurable” (Pual) and “to pamper oneself” and “to take delight or pleasure in” ( HALOT 851 s.v. ענג ; BDB 772 s.v. עָנֹג ). The root ענג is paralleled with רֹךְ ( rokh , Deut 28:56 ), רַךְ ( rakh , Deut 28:54 ), and רַכָּה ( rakkah , Deut 28:56 ) with the meanings “delicate; soft; tender; weak; coddled; pampered.” The context of Eccl 2:4-11 suggests that it denotes either “luxury” as in “the luxuries of commoners” (NJPS) or “pleasure; delight” as in “the delights of men” (KJV, NASB, NIV). Part of the difficulty in determining the meaning of this term is caused by the ambiguity in meaning of its referent, namely, the appositional phrase שִׁדָּה וְשִׁדּוֹת ( shiddah vÿshiddot ), the meaning of which is uncertain (see the note on the phrase “a harem of beautiful concubines” at the end of this verse).


The meaning of the superlative construction שִׁדָּה וְשִׁדּוֹת ( shiddah vÿshiddot ) is uncertain because the term שִׁדָּה ( shiddah ) occurs only here in the OT. There are four basic approaches to the phrase: (1) Most scholars suggest that it refers to a royal harem and that it is in apposition to “the sensual delights of man” ( וְתַעֲנוּגֹת בְּנֵי הָאָדָם , vÿta ’ anugot bÿne ha ’ adam ). There are four variations of this approach: (a) There is a possible connection to the Ugaritic sht “mistress, lady” and the Arabic sitt “lady” ( HALOT 1420 s.v. שִׁדָּה ). (b) German scholars relate it to Assyrian sadadu “love” (Delitzsch, Konig, Wildeboer, Siegfried); however, BDB questions this connection (BDB 994 s.v. שׁדה ). (c) Ibn Ezra relates it to II שַׁד ( shad ) “plunder; spoil” or שׁדה “[women] taken by violence,” and suggests that it refers to the occupants of the royal harem. (d) BDB connects it to the Hebrew noun I שַׁד ( shad , “breast”; e.g., Isa 28:9 ; Ezek 16:7; 23:3, 21, 34 ; Hos 2:4; 9:14 ; Song 1:13; 4:5; 7:4, 8, 9; 8:1, 8, 10 ; Job 3:12 ) adding that שׁדה is related to the cognate Arabic and Aramaic roots meaning “breast” (BDB 994 s.v.). This would be a synecdoche of part (i.e., breast) for the whole (i.e., woman), similar to the idiom “one womb, two wombs” ( רַחַם רַחֲמָתַיִם , rakham rakhamatayim ) where “womb” = woman ( Judg 5:30 ). This is the approach taken by most English versions: “many concubines” (NASB, RSV, NRSV), “a wife and wives” (YLT), “mistresses galore” (MLB), “many a mistress” (Moffatt), and “a harem” (NIV). This is the approach suggested by the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project: “une femme et des femmes” = one or two women (e.g., Judg 5:30 ); see D. Barthélemy, ed., Preliminary and Interim Report on the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project , 3:566. (2) The NJPS connects it to the Mishnaic Hebrew noun שִׁדָּה which became שִׁידָּה (“a strong box, chest”; Jastrow 1558 s.v. שִׁידָּה ) and renders the phrase “coffers and coffers of them” in apposition to the phrase “the luxuries of commoners” ( וְתַעֲנוּגֹת בְּנֵי הָאָדָם ). (3) KJV and ASV take the phrase in apposition to “male and female singers” and translate it as “musical instruments.” However, there is no known Hebrew term that would justify this approach. (4) The LXX related the term to the Aramaic root שׁדא (“to pour out [wine]”) and rendered the phrase as οἰνοχόον καὶ οἰνοχόας ( oinocoon kai oinocoas ), “a male-butler and female cupbearers.” Aquila took a similar approach: κυλίκιον καὶ κυλίκια ( kulikion kai kulikia ), “wine cups and wine vessels.” This is reflected in the Vulgate and Douay: “cups and vessels to serve to pour out wine.” Although the semantic meaning of the term שִׁדָּה וְשִׁדּוֹת (“a breast of breasts”) is uncertain, the grammatical/syntactical form of the phrase is straightforward: (1) It is in apposition to the preceding line, “the delights of the son of men” ( וְתַעֲנוּגֹת בְּנֵי הָאָדָם ). (2) The phrase is a superlative construction. When the second word is plural and it follows a noun from the same root which is singular, it indicates the best or most outstanding example of the person or thing so described. In addition to the Judg 5:30 parallel cited above, see the expression “a generation, generations” in Pss 72:5; 102:25 ; Isa 51:8 . Unlike, Eccl 2:8 , this juxtapositioning of the singular and plural to express the superlative usually involves a construct form. See קֹדֶשׁ הַקֳּדָשִׁים ( qodesh haqqodashim , “the holy of holies,” i.e., the most holy place”; Exod 26:33 ), שִׁיר הַשִּׁירִים ( shir hashirim , “the song of songs,” i.e., “the most excellent song”; Song 1:1 ), אֱלֹהֵי הָאֱלֹהִים וַאֲדֹנֵי הַאֲדֹנִים (’ elohe ha ’ elohim va ’ adone ha ’ adonim , “the God of gods and Lord of lords,” i.e., “the Highest God and the Supreme Lord”; Deut 10:17 ), and עֶבֶד עֲבָדִים (’ eved ’ avadim , “a slave of slaves,” i.e., “the most abject slave”; Gen 9:25 ). See GKC 431 §133. i ; R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax , 17-18, §80; IBHS 154 §9.5.3j. If the semantic meaning of the terms שִׁדָּה וְשִׁדּוֹת denotes “a breast (among) breasts” or “a lady (among) ladies” ( Eccl 2:8 , but see the previous note on the phrase “a man’s sensual delights”), the superlative construction may connote “the most beautiful breasts” (metonymy of part for the whole) or “the most beautiful woman.” This might refer to a harem of concubines or to one woman (the wife of the king?) who was the most beautiful woman in the land. sn Concubines were slave women in ancient Near Eastern societies who were the legal property of their master, but who could have legitimate sexual relations with their master. A concubine’s status was more elevated than a mere servant, but she was not free and did not have the legal rights of a free wife. The children of a concubine could, in some instances, become equal heirs with the children of the free wife. After the period of the Judges concubines may have become more of a royal prerogative ( 2 Sam 21:10-14 ; 1 Kgs 11:3 ).


The vav prefixed to וְגָדַלְתִּי ( vÿgadalti , vav + Qal perfect first common singular from גָּדַל , gadal , “to be great; to increase”) functions in a final summarizing sense, that is, it introduces the concluding summary of 2:4-9 .


Heb “I became great and I surpassed” ( וְהוֹסַפְתִּי וְגָדַלְתִּי , vÿgadalti vÿhosafti ). This is a verbal hendiadys in which the second verb functions adverbially, modifying the first: “I became far greater.” Most translations miss the hendiadys and render the line in a woodenly literal sense (KJV, ASV, RSV, NEB, NRSV, NAB, NASB, MLB, Moffatt), while only a few recognize the presence of hendiadys here: “I became greater by far” (NIV) and “I gained more” (NJPS).


Heb “yet my wisdom stood for me,” meaning he retained his wise perspective despite his great wealth.


Heb “all which my eyes asked for, I did not withhold from them.”


Heb “I did not refuse my heart any pleasure.” 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 term is repeated twice in 2:10 for emphasis.


Heb “So my heart was joyful from all my toil.”


Heb “and this was my portion from all my toil.”


Heb “all my works that my hands had done.”


Heb “and all the toil with which I had toiled in doing it.” The term עָמַל (’ amal , “toil”) is repeated to emphasize the burden and weariness of the labor which Qoheleth exerted in his accomplishments.


Heb “Behold!”


The term הַכֹּל ( hakkol , “everything” or “all”) must be qualified and limited in reference to the topic that is dealt with in 2:4-11 . This is an example of synecdoche of general for the specific; the general term “all” is used only in reference to the topic at hand. This is clear from the repetition of כֹּל ( kol , “everything”) and (“all these things”) in 2:11 .


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


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


The parallelism with יִתְרוֹן ( yitron ), “profit; advantage; gain”) indicates that הֶבֶל ( hevel ) should be nuanced as “profitless, fruitless, futile” in this context. While labor offers some relative and temporal benefits, such as material acquisitions and the enjoyment of the work of one’s hands, there is no ultimate benefit to be gained from secular human achievement.


The noun יִתְרוֹן ( yitron , “profit”) has a two-fold range of meanings: (1) “what comes of [something]; result” ( Eccl 1:3; 2:11; 3:9; 5:8, 15; 7:12; 10:10 ) and (2) “profit; advantage” ( Eccl 2:13; 10:11 ); see HALOT 452–53 s.v. יִתְרוֹי . It is derived from the noun יֶתֶר ( yeter , “what is left behind; remainder”; HALOT 452 s.v. I יֶתֶר ). The related verb יָתַר ( yatar ) denotes “to be left over; to survive” (Niphal) and “to have left over” (Hiphil); see HALOT 451–52 s.v. יתר . When used literally, יִתְרוֹן refers to what is left over after expenses (gain or profit); when used figuratively, it refers to what is advantageous or of benefit. Though some things have relative advantage over others (e.g., light over darkness, and wisdom over folly in 2:13 ), there is no ultimate profit in man’s labor due to death.


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


Heb “under the sun.”


Heb “and I turned to see.”


The Hebrew text reads עָשׂוּהוּ (’ asuhu , “they have done it”; Qal perfect 3rd person masculine plural from עָשַׂה [’ asah ] + 3rd person masculine singular suffix). However, many medieval Hebrew mss read עָשָׂהוּ (’ asahu , “he has done”; Qal perfect 3rd person masculine singular from עָשַׂה ), reflected in the LXX and Syriac. The error was caused by dittography ( ו , vav , written twice) or by orthographic confusion between ו and ה ( hey ) in הוו (confused as והוו ) at the end of 2:12 and beginning of 2:13 . The 3rd person masculine singular referent of עָשׂוּהוּ “what he has done” is the king, that is, Qoheleth himself. The referent (the king) has been specified in the translation for clarity.


Heb “and I saw that there is profit for wisdom more than folly.”


Heb “has his eyes in his head.” The term עַיִן (’ ayin , “eye”) is used figuratively in reference to mental and spiritual faculties (BDB 744 s.v. עַיִן 3.a). The term “eye” is a metonymy of cause (eye) for effect (sight and perception).


The term כֻּלָּם ( kullam , “all of them”) denotes “both of them.” This is an example of synecdoche of general (“all of them”) for the specific (“both of them,” that is, both the wise man and the fool).


The emphatic use of the 1st person common singular personal pronoun אֲנִי (’ ani , “me”) with the emphatic particle of association גַּם ( gam , “even, as well as”; HALOT 195–96 s.v. גַּם ) appears to emphasize the 1st person common singular suffix on יִקְרֵנִי ( yiqreni ) “it will befall [or “happen to”] me” (Qal imperfect 3rd person masculine singular + 1st person common singular suffix from קָרָה , qarah , “to befall; to happen to”); see GKC 438 §135. e . Qoheleth laments not that the fate of the wise man is the same as that of the fool, but that even he himself – the wisest man of all – would fare no better in the end than the most foolish.


The adjective יוֹתֵר ( yoter ) means “too much; excessive,” e.g., 7:16 “excessively righteous” ( HALOT 404 s.v. יוֹתֵר 2; BDB 452 s.v. יוֹתֵר ). It is derived from the root יֶתֶר ( yeter , “what is left over”); see HALOT 452 s.v. I יֶתֶר . It is related to the verbal root יתר (Niphal “to be left over”; Hiphil “to have left over”); see HALOT 451–52 s.v. I יתר . The adjective is related to יִתְרוֹן ( yitron , “advantage; profit”) which is a key-term in this section, creating a word-play: 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, i.e., 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 had striven to obtain wisdom, yet it held no ultimate advantage.


Heb “And why was I wise (to) excess?” The rhetorical question is an example of negative affirmation, expecting a negative answer: “I gained nothing!” (E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech , 949).


Heb “So I said in my heart.”


Heb “and also this,” referring to the relative advantage of wisdom over folly.


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


The preposition עִם (’ im , “with”) may occasionally function in a comparative sense, meaning “together with; even as; like” (e.g., Eccl 1:11; 2:16; 7:11 ; Job 9:26 ; 1 Chr 14:10: 20:6; 25:8 ; see HALOT 839 s.v. עִם 2). When used to describe a common lot, it connotes “together with” ( Gen 18:23, 25 ; 1 Chr 24:5 ; Job 3:14, 15; 30:1 ; Pss 26:9; 28:3; 69:29 ; Isa 38:11 ), hence “like” ( Pss 73:5; 106:6 ; Eccl 2:16 ; see BDB 767–68 s.v. עִם 1.e).


As HALOT 798–99 s.v. עוֹלָם and BDB 762-64 s.v. עוֹלָם note, עוֹלָם (’ olam ) has a wide range of meanings: (1) indefinite time: “long time; duration,” (2) unlimited time: “eternal; eternity,” (3) future time: “things to come,” and (4) past time: “a long time back,” that is, the dark age of prehistory. The context here suggests the nuance “a long time.”


The preposition בְּ ( bet ) on בְּשֶׁכְּבָר ( bÿshekkÿvar , the adverb כְּבָר [ kÿvar ,“already”] + relative pronoun שֶׁ [ she ] + preposition בְּ ) is probably best classified as causal: “Because…already.”


The verb נִשְׁכָּח ( nishkakh ) is a future perfect – it describes an event that is portrayed as a past event from the perspective of the future: “they will have been forgotten.” The emphasis of the past perfect is not simply that the future generations will begin to forget him, but that he will already have been forgotten long ago in the past by the time of those future generations. This past perfect situation is brought out by the emphatic use of the temporal adverb כְּבָר ( kÿvar ) “already” ( HALOT 459 s.v. I כְּבָר ; BDB 460 s.v. I כְּבָר ); see, e.g., Eccl 1:10; 2:12, 16; 3:15; 4:2; 6:10; 9:6-7 .


The particle אֵיךְ (’ ekh , “Alas!”) is an exclamation of lamentation and mourning (e.g., 2 Sam 1:19 ; Isa 14:4, 12 ; Jer 2:21; 9:18 ; Ezek 26:17 ; Mic 2:4 ); see HALOT 39 s.v. אֵיךְ 5; BDB 32 s.v. אֵיךְ 2; also E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech , 955.


The preposition עִם (’ im , “with”) may occasionally function in a comparative sense, meaning “together with; even as; like” (e.g., Eccl 1:11; 2:16; 7:11 ; Job 9:26 ; 1 Chr 14:10: 20:6; 25:8 ); see HALOT 839 s.v. עִם 2. When used to describe a common lot, it connotes “together with” ( Gen 18:23, 25 ; 1 Chr 24:5 ; Job 3:14, 15; 30:1 ; Ps 26:9; 28:3; 69:29 ; Isa 38:11 ), hence “like” ( Pss 73:5; 106:6 ; Eccl 2:16 ); see BDB 767–68 s.v. עִם 1.e.


Or “I hated.”


The term הַחַיִּים ( hakhayyim , “life”) functions as a metonymy of association, that is, that which is associated with life, that is, the profitlessness and futility of human secular achievement.


Heb “the deed that is done.” The root עָשָׂה (’ asah , “to do”) is repeated in הַמַּעֲשֶׂה שֶׁנַּעֲשָׂה ( hamma ’ aseh shenna ’ asah , “the deed that is done”) for emphasis. Here, the term “deed” does not refer to human accomplishment, as in 2:1-11 , but to the fact of death that destroys any relative advantage of wisdom over folly ( 2:14 a-16). Qoheleth metaphorically describes death as a “deed” that is “done” to man.


Heb “under the sun.”


Heb “all,” referring here to the relative advantage of wisdom.


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 phrase “hard labor”).


Heb “I hated all my toil for which I had toiled.” The term עֲמָלִי (’ amali , “my toil”) is repeated throughout 2:18-21 . In each case, it functions as a metonymy of cause (i.e., toil) for effect (i.e., fruit of labor). See, e.g., Ps 105:44 ; BDB 765 s.v עָמַל 3. The metonymy is indicated by several factors: (1) The 3rd person masculine singular suffix (“it”) on אַנִּיחֶנּוּ (’ annikhennu , “I must leave it”) in 2:18 , and on יִתְּנֶנּוּ ( yittÿnennu , “I must give it”) in 2:21 refer to his wealth, that is, the fruit of his labor. (2) In 2:21 the 3rd person masculine singular suffix on שֶׁלֹּא עָמַל־בּוֹ ( shello ’ ’ amal-bo , “who did not work for it”) refers to the inheritance that Qoheleth must turn over to his successor, namely, the fruit of his labor. (3) While he himself enjoyed the fruit of his labor, he despaired that he had to turn the fruit of his labor over to his successor: “So I loathed all the [fruit of] my labor” ( 2:18 a) and “I began to despair about the [fruit of] my labor” ( 2:20 a). Although most translations render עֲמָלִי as “my toil” in 2:18 , the metonymy is recognized by several English translations: “So I hated all the fruit of my labor for which I had labored” (NASB); “So I detested all the fruits of my labor” (NAB); “I hated all the things I had toiled for” (NIV); and “So I loathed all the wealth that I was gaining ” (NJPS).


Qoheleth uses an internal cognate accusative construction (accusative noun and verb from the same root) for emphasis: עֲמָלִי שֶׁאֲנִי עָמֵל (’ amali she ’ ani ’ amel , “my toil for which I had toiled”). See IBHS 167 §10.2.1g.


The relative pronoun שֶׁ ( she ) on שֶׁאַנִּיחֶנּוּ ( she ’ annikhennu , relative pronoun שֶׁ + Hiphil imperfect 1st person common singular from נוּחַ , nuakh , “to leave” + 3rd person masculine singular suffix) is causal: “Because I must leave it behind.”


The 3rd person masculine singular suffix on אַנִּיחֶנּוּ (’ annikhennu , “I must leave it”) refers to Qoheleth’s wealth, that is, the fruit of his labor (see the note on the phrase “hard labor” in 2:18 ). The suffix is rendered literally by nearly all translations; however, a few make its referent explicit: “I have to leave its fruits” (NEB), “I must leave them [= all the fruits of my labor]” (NAB).


The verb נוּחַ ( nuakh , “to rest”) denotes “to leave [something] behind” in the hands of someone (e.g., Ps 119:121 ; Eccl 2:18 ); see HALOT 680 s.v. נוח B.2.c. The imperfect functions in a modal sense of obligation or necessity. At death, Qoheleth will be forced to pass on his entire estate and the fruit of his labors to his successor.


Heb “to a man who will come after me.”


The vav on וְיִשְׁלַט ( vÿyishlat , conjunction + Qal imperfect 3rd person masculine singular from שָׁלַט , shalat , “to be master”) is adversative (“yet”).


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 “my labor.” As in 2:18 , the term עֲמָלִי (’ amali , “my labor”) is a metonymy of cause (i.e., my labor) for effect (i.e., fruit of my labor). The metonymy is recognized by several translations: “he will control all the wealth that I gained” (NJPS); “he will have control over all the fruits of my labor” (NAB); “he will have mastery over all the fruits of my labor” (NEB); “he will have control over all the fruit of my labor” (NASB); “he will be master over all my possessions” (MLB).