____________ TITLE:WORDS OF THE , SON OF DAVID, KING IN FIRST Of the vanity of the practical and the theoretical wisdom of menEcclesiastes 1, 2A. The theoretical wisdom of men, directed to a knowledge of the things of this world, is vanity. 2Vanity of vanities, saith the preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity. 3What profit hath a man of all his labour which he taketh under the sun? 4One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever. 5The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose. 6The wind goeth towards the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits. 7All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full, unto the place 8from whence the rivers come, thither they return again. All things are full of labour; man cannot utter it: the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing. 9The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun. 10Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of 11old time, which was before us. There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall 12come after. I the preacher was king over Israel in Jerusalem. 13And I gave my heart to seek and search out by wisdom concerning all things that are done under heaven; this sore travail hath God given to the sons of man to be exercised therewith. 14I have seen all the works that are done under the sun; and behold, all is vanity and vexation of spirit. 15That which is crooked cannot be made straight; and that which is wanting cannot be numbered. 16I communed with mine own heart, saying, Lo, I am come to great estate, and have gotten more wisdom than all they that have been before me in Jerusalem: yea, my heart had great experience of wisdom and knowledge. 17And I gave my heart to know wisdom, and to know madness and folly: I perceived that this also is vexation of spirit. 18For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow. [Ecclesiastes 1:4.—μְ ?ςεֹ ?μָ ?ν. See the extended discussion on this and kindred words, p. 44 T. L.] [Ecclesiastes 1:5.—ζָ ?ψַ ?η: Primary sense, irradiation, scattering, like ζψη, and ζψς, to sow—scatters its rays—spargit lucem. Part. beaming, glowing. See Metrical version. Compare Virgil, frequent, aurora spargebat lumine terras. ωֹׁ ?ΰֵ ?σ Zφckler would give it here the sense of running, going swift. It is better to preserve the primary sense of panting It suits better the hidden metaphor, on which see note, p. 38. T. L.] [Ecclesiastes 1:8.—δַ ?γְּ ?αָ ?ψִ ?ιν. Rendered things in E. G. So the Vulgate, cunctζ res. Best rendering is the more common and primary one of words: all words weary in expressing the vanity. Zφckler objects to this as making a tautology with μְ ?γַ ?αֵּ ?ψ, following. The argument is the other way; such seeming tautologies or verbal parallelisms are rather regarded by the Hebrews as an excellency of diction.—T. L.] [Ecclesiastes 1:10.—μְ ?ςֹ ?μָ ?ξִ ?ιν. See extended note, p. 44.—T. L.] [Ecclesiastes 1:14.—ψְ ?ςεּ ?ϊ. There is no need of resorting to the Chaldaic for this word; neither has it any connection with ψָ ?φַ ?δ. It comes easily from the very common Hebrew ψָ ?ςָ ?δ, primary sense, to feed (transitively or intransitively), pasture (not a verb of eating, like ΰλμ), then to provide, take care of, then to have the mind upon any thing as an object of care or anxiety. The order of ideas is exactly like that in the in Arabic ΡΪμ or Greek νέμω. The form, as also that of ψַ ?ςְ ?ιεֹ ?ο Ecclesiastes 1:17, is purely Hebrew. We have the masculine form, Psalms 139:2; Psalms 139:17, applied to man, and used in a good sense, ψֵ ?ςִ ?ι, my thought. “Thou knowest all my thought”—not in the sense of more speculative thinking, but all my cares. And so in that still more tender passage, Ecclesiastes 1:17, where it is applied to God anthropopathically ξַ ?δΞιָּ ?χְ ?ψεּ ψֵ ?ςֶ ?ικָ, “how precious are thy thoughts,” thy cares, or carings, for me. Compare 1 Peter 5:7, “He careth for you.” In the connection with it, most of the modern commentators rendor ψεη, wind—a caring or striving for the wind. It is, however, by no means certain that the older rendering, spirit, was not the right one—a striving (a vain striving or vexation) of the spirit. See a similar connection of ψַ ?ςְ ?ιεֹ ?ο (procisely=ψְ ?ςεּ ?ϊ) with μα, the heart, Ecclesiastes 2:22. In that place it is not easy to distinguish ψַ ?ςְ ?ιεֹ ?ομִ ?αּ ?εֹ, anxiety of his heart, from ψְ ?ςεּ ?ϊψεּ ?ηַ in this.—T. L.] [Ecclesiastes 1:17.—ωִׂ ?λְ ?μεּ ?ϊ—δֹ ?μֵ ?μεּ ?ϊ, abstract terms in εּ ?ϊ, on which some rely as proving a later language, and consequently, a later date to the book. They are, however, like others of the kind that occur in Koheleth, purely Hebrew in their derivation, whilst they have an abstract form, because the idea required here, though unusual elsewhere, demanded it. If there were but few literary compositions in the English language, it would be just as relational to object to one because it had several examples of words ending in ism, though precisely adapted to the meaning intended; and this because such a termination was not found in other books, having little or nothing of a speculative cast. These words, δֹ ?μμֵ ?εּ ?ϊεְ ?ωִׂ ?λְ ?μεּ ?ϊ, differ, as madness or frenzy, and fatuity.—T. L.] AND Title: Ecclesiastes 1:1.Words of the preacher, Son of David, King in Jerusalem.—For the exposition of the name χδֶֹ ?μֶ ?ϊ comp. the Introd. § 1. That this designation here takes the place of the historically known name, ωְׁ ?μֹ ?ξֹ ?δ, has been justly acknowledged as an indication that a poetic fiction lies before us. “All the other works of Solomon bear his usual name at their head; the Proverbs, whose title is the Proverbs of Solomon, Son of David, King of Israel; the Song of Solomon, Psalms 72 :and Psalms 127. As indeed is natural, that he who will claim authorship uses no other name than that under which he is already known. Enigma and concealment would be quite out of place here. Now if Solomon is here called Koheleth, the author clearly indicates that it has only ideal value when he is quoted as author of the book, that he appears only as the representative of wisdom. The name, which is clearly an impersonal one, shows that the person to whom it is attached belongs only to poetry and not to reality” (Hengstenberg).—Moreover, in the peculiar designation, “King in Jerusalem,” instead of “King over Israel” (comp. Ecclesiastes 1:12), we may perceive a trace of later post-Solomonic origin. On the contrary, to find in this expression a hint that the author does not dwell in Jerusalem, but somewhere in the country (according to Ewald, in Galilee), is unreasonable and too far-fetched. See § 4, Obs. 2. 2. The whole first discourse, which we, with Ewald, Vaiii., Keil, etc., extend to the end of chap. 2, treats of the principal theme, of the vanity of all earthly things in general; it is therefore of an introductory and fundamental character (comp. Introd. § 2). In harmony with Keil, we again divide them into two nearly equal parts, the first of which (Ecclesiastes 1:2-18) presents the vanity of the theoretical, and the second (Ecclesiastes 2:1-26) the vanity of the practical wisdom of men; or, of which, number one shows that the strivings of human wisdom after knowledge, and number two that the same efforts aiming at enjoyment and active control of reality, attain no genuine success. This division seems more simple and comprehensive than that of Ewald and Vaihinger, who lay down three main divisions, 1) Ecclesiastes 1:2; Ecclesiastes 1:11; Ecclesiastes 2) Ecclesiastes 1:12; Ecclesiastes 2:23; Ecclesiastes 3) Ecclesiastes 2:24-26, according to Ewald, and 1) Ecclesiastes 1:2-14; Ecclesiastes 2) Ecclesiastes 1:12; Ecclesiastes 2:19; Ecclesiastes 3) Ecclesiastes 2:20-26, according to Vaihinger, giving to the middle division a disproportioned length.—The first half is occupied in proving the vanity and want of success of the theoretical striving of men after wisdom, and is again divided into three divisions. For it shows, 1) by the continually recurring circle of nature and history, permitting no real progress, that the objects of human knowledge are subjected to the law of vanity (Ecclesiastes 1:2-11); and 2) then, that to this vanity of the objective reality, there corresponds a complete futility of effort at its comprehension on the part of the human subject, so far that even the wisest of all men must be convinced by experience of the emptiness of this effort (Ecclesiastes 1:12-18). Each of these divisions includes two strophes of three verses each, together with an introductory half strophe or proposition, so that the scheme of the whole section perfected is this: I. Division: The vanity of human knowledge in an objective point of view (Ecclesiastes 1:2-11). Proposition or general preliminary remark (half strophe); Ecclesiastes 1:2-3. First strophe: Ecclesiastes 1:4-7.—Second strophe: Ecclesiastes 1:8-11. II. Division: The vanity of human knowledge in a subjective point of view (Ecclesiastes 1:12-18). Proposition: Ecclesiastes 1:12.—First strophe, Ecclesiastes 1:13-15). Second strophe, Ecclesiastes 1:16-18.—We follow in this strophical division the plan of Vaihinger (also that of Keil and Hahn), which differs materially from that of Ewald. But the latter may therein be right, that from Ecclesiastes 1:9 the discourse approaches prose style, and only here and there, as in Ecclesiastes 1:15; Ecclesiastes 1:18, returns to loftier poetic diction. Vaihinger also acknowledges this, in so far as he considers the two rythmically constructed apothegms, Ecclesiastes 1:15; Ecclesiastes 1:18, as characteristic closing formulas of the two last strophes of the section (comp. Introd. § 2, p. 106). 3. The general preliminary observation, or, if preferred, the theme of the first discourse; Ecclesiastes 1:2-3.—Vanity of vanities, saith the preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity. This exclamation, containing the fundamental thought of the whole book, returns again at the close, Ecclesiastes 12:7, almost in the same words, after a previous examination has everywhere proved its truth. Nothing is wanting there but the repetition of δֲ ?αֵ ?μδֲ ?αָ ?μִ ?ιν, which gives a specially solemn impression to the sentence here at the head of the whole. As to the expression “vanity of vanities” being a paraphrase of the superlative idea “extremest vanity,” comp. the observation on ωִׁ ?ιψδַ ?ωִּׁ ?ιψִ ?ιν Son 1:1 (above, p. 1). For the punctuation δֲ ?αֵ ?μ comp. ΰֲ ?αֵ ?μ Psalms 35:14, where the principal vowel is also pushed forward and lengthened to a tseri. δֶ ?αֶ ?μ “breath, steam” (comp. Chald. δֲ ?αַ ?μ to become warm, to steam) is a very proper expression to mark the inconstancy, unsubstantially, and emptiness that characterize all earthly things. To confine this predicate of nothingness to the actions of men (Hahn) is the less allowable since farther on, in verses 9 and 14, human action is expressly spoken of as participating in the emptiness of worldly things; and there is previously given a much more comprehensive description of this vanity, which clearly shows that the author would understand in the “all” that he declares as vanity, all earthly nature and the whole circle of temporal things, (in contrast to the eternal). It is also inadmissible to accept the double δαμδαμιν as subject of the sentence, instead of taking the independent, animated exclamation rather as a presupposed predicate to δַ ?λֹּ ?μ, this pretended subject δַ ?λֹּ ?μ would then have in the following δֶ ?αֶ ?μ another predicate, whereby the whole expression would become awkward, and essentially lose in active force and emphasis, (against Rosenmueiler, Hahn).—As cases similar to the contents of Ecc 1:2, comp. the passages in Psalms 90:3-10; Psalms 102:25-28; also Psalms 39:6-7; and also what the patriarchs were obliged to experience and confess regarding the vanity of temporal life: Genesis 4:2; Genesis 5:29; Genesis 9:7; Genesis 9:9, etc. Ecclesiastes 1:3. What profit hath a man of all his labor which he taketh under the sun?—(Ger., with which he fatigueth himself). Now for the first time the preacher more especially touches the vanity of human things, but means it in connection with the toil of men, as thereby declared unprofitable and unsuccessful (ςָ ?ξָ ?μ, difficulty, labor, exertion, comp. Ecclesiastes 2:22; Ecclesiastes 3:9; Ecclesiastes 5:14, etc.) not only his actions, but at the same time also his spiritual strivings and searchings, of which in the Sequel he principally treats; he consequently mainly means the substance of his interests and efforts, the subjective human in contrast to the objective reality of all earthly life, to which that δַ ?λֹּ ?μ in Ecclesiastes 1:2 referred. Ecclesiastes 1:2-3 hold therefore, substantially, the same relation to each other as the two subsequent paragraphs in Ecclesiastes 1:4-11, and Ecclesiastes 1:12-18. ιִ ?ϊְ ?ψεֹ ?ο Synonymous with εֶ ?ϊֶ ?ψ Genesis 49:3; Proverbs 17:7; Job 20:22, etc., is found only in this book, and indicates that which is left, what remains to one; hence profit, advantage, success, acquisition, ὅ τιςεἰργάσατο, 2 John 1:8, not a superiority over others, which signification appears most fitting in Ecclesiastes 2:13.—The αְּ in αְּ ?λָ ?μΞςֲ ?ξָ ?μεֹ, Hahn considers, according to Isaiah 5:25, equal to “notwithstanding, in spite of,” which however is unnecessary, as the usual signification “in” or “through” affords a sufficiently good sense.—For the expression “under the sun,” a characteristic and favorite form of the author, comp. Ecclesiastes 1:14; Ecclesiastes 2:11; Ecclesiastes 2:17; Ecclesiastes 2:20; Ecclesiastes 2:23; Ecclesiastes 3:16, etc. The synonymous expressions “under the heaven,” (Ecclesiastes 2:3; Ecclesiastes 3:1; Ecclesiastes 1:13;) and “upon the earth” (Ecclesiastes 8:14; Ecclesiastes 8:16; Ecclesiastes 11:2), are found elsewhere in the Old Testament. The preference of Koheleth for the form “under the sun,” is doubtless explained by the fact that it instructively and clearly points to the contrast “between the eternal regularity which the sun shows in its course, and the fluctuating, vacillating, changeable doings of men, which it illuminates with its ever equal light.”—(Elster). 4. First division, first strophe, verses 4–7. In an objective view, human knowledge shows itself futile, in considering the continual change of human generations on the earth, Ecclesiastes 1:4, and the steady course of the sun, the wind, and the water (Ecclesiastes 1:5-7).—One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh. δָ ?μַ ?κְ to go away, abire, as Ecclesiastes 5:15; Job 10:21; Psalms 39:13. For this sentence comp. Sir 14:19 : ὥςφύλλονθάλλονἐπὶ δένδρουδάσεοςτὰ μὲνκαταβάλλει, ἄλλαδὲ φύει, οὔτωςγενὲασαρκὸςκαὶ αἵματος, ἡ μὲντελευτᾶ, ἑτέραδὲ γεννᾶται—a capital comparison, which reminds us of Isa 64:5.—But the earth abideth forever; (literal, “and the earth stands eternally”), (ςָ ?ξַ ?γ as in Ps. 29:19; Leviticus 13:5, is of lasting existence, stands still). The copula expresses the simultaneousness of the two circumstances placed in contrast with each other: whilst the earth stands forever, human generations come and go incessantly. In the abiding of the earth, the poet doubtless thinks of its foundation on pillars over the water, to which Psalms 24:2; Psalms 104:5; Job 38:6, and other poetical passages allude. But whether, at the same time, the earth is considered the arena of the curse and sinful misery brought in by men (Genesis 3:17-19), as a vale of sorrow, and a place of misfortune, so that the thought were: men effect nothing lasting on earth, new races of men must ever begin where the old ones ceased, must ever repeat the same Sisyphus labor as their fathers (Hengstenberg, Hahn): this is doubtful on account of the expression μְ ?ςεֹ ?μָ ?ν. This certainly indicates not an endless eternity in the strictest sense of the word, but only “a future of unlimited length,” (Hengstenberg); but it shows the intention to bring out, as a principal thought, the character of the continual and everlasting in contrast with the appearance of continual change, and points thus to the inability of human investigation and knowledge to hold any firm position in the midst of such change everlasting as the duration of the earth. Ecclesiastes 1:5. The sun ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to the place where he arose. The first half of this verse, is an exact parallel of the first clause of Ecc 1:4, the second corresponds in substance to the thought in the second clause of that verse. For, as in the former, the earth, the scene of the coming and going of the generations of men, so in the latter the “place” of the sun (i.e., its subterranean, heavenly dwelling-place, from which it daily enters upon its new course, comp. Psalms 19:6), is contrasted as abiding in the presence of continual change. As the human race, with every change of its individuals, makes no advance, as its history presents no real progress, so is the motion of the sun apparently a continual circuit, without arrival at any fixed goal, or lasting place of rest. Contrary to the accents, the Septuagint, Vulgate, Chaldaic, Luther, Elster, Hitzig, Hahn, etc., connect εְ ?ΰֶ ?μΞξְ ?χεֹ ?ξεֹ ωֹׁ ?ΰֵ ?σ closely with the preceding; “and hastens to its place, and there ariseth again. But ωΰσ belongs clearly to what follows, and also does not mean running, hastening, but (as δֵ ?τִ ?ιηַ in Habakkuk 2, 3) gasping after air, panting, longing”—a sense which strikingly delineates the movement of the sun, striving to reach the vault of heaven, although in it there lies a conception somewhat different from this: “and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race,” Psalms 19:5. For Hengstenberg clearly brings into the text the joyous desire, the pretended image of “the vigorous courage of the new generation.” It rather points to the idea of the exhaustion of the sun on account of its ever restless motion, and this doubtless with the intention of directly showing the depressing influence produced by observing the ever recurring circuit of this body, and the discouragement in this endless uniformity, that presents itself to the comprehension of the human observer (comp. Elster on this passage). Ecclesiastes 1:6. It goeth to the South, and turneth to the North. (Literal of the Ger. text). The sun is naturally not the subject [Sept. Syriac, M. Geier, etc.), but the wind named in the second clause, for only of it can it be said, “it turneth to the north.” But south and north are here used with the wind, because the other cardinal points had been previously used with the sun, to prevent an unpleasant repetition. The author could scarcely have thought of anything like the law of the revolution of the winds (Wolfgang Menzel, in his Natural History conceived in the Christian spirit I. 270); for he had just asserted in Ecclesiastes 1:4, that the earth stands eternally still. The opinion of Hahn is also objectionable, that the poet was desirous of showing the continual change between warm and cold wind, and this change from warmth to cold was to depict the vicissitude of happiness and unhappiness in human life, as, in the preceding verse, that from night to day. Such an allegorizing of the passage is the less justifiable because the circuit of the waters described in Ecclesiastes 1:7 can only be considered a picture of the change from happiness to unhappiness by virtue of a forced and highly artificial interpretation. The more careful allegorical interpretation tried by Hengstenberg, according to which sun, wind, and water are all symbols of human existence moving in the circuit of vanity, is not indeed sufficiently justified by the context. The wind goeth ever whirling (Lit. Ger.). The twice repeated ρεֹ ?αֵ ?α expresses continual repetition, the everlasting, and the ever-returning change of the wind; comp. the reduplication of ideas with the same intent in Genesis 14:10; Deuteronomy 2:27; Deuteronomy 14:22; Mark 6:39. This double ρεֹ ?αֵ ?α is subordinate to δεֹ ?μֵ ?κְ presenting the main idea, just as ωּׁ ?εֹ ?ΰֵ ?σ in Ecclesiastes 1:5 is to ζֹ ?ψֵ ?ηַ.—And the wind returneth again according to his circuits.—That is, the circuits which it has already made, it ever makes again, it ever repeats the courses that it has previously described; for that is, properly speaking, the ρְ ?αִ ?ιαεֹ ?ϊ, not circles (Sept. Vulg., Ewald, Knobel, etc). The translation “on its circuits or circles” (Ewald, Knobel, etc.) or also “according to its circuits” (Rosenmueller) is unnecessary; for that ςַ ?μ, with verbs of motion, especially ωׁ ?εּ ?α, has the sense of to, until, (exactly synonymous, in such case, with ςַ ?γ) is proved by such passages as Proverbs 26:11; Psalms 19:7; Psalms 48:11; Job 37:3, and also by the circumstance that, in the later Chaldaic style, ςַ ?μ is mostly synonymous with ΰֶ ?μ. [In the above passage Zφckler translates zu seinen Wendungen.—W.]. Ecclesiastes 1:7. All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full, i.e., it does not overflow notwithstanding the immense masses of water that it constantly receives; it does not overwhelm and swallow up the land. In δַ ?ιָ ?ν, the author doubtless refers to the ocean, not to the Dead Sea, as Hitzig arbitrarily supposes. The previous mention of the sun, the wind, and the four cardinal points, show conclusively that he deals with great cosmophysical ideas, and thus hardly thinks merely of the streams like the Jordan flowing into the Dead Sea, or indeed of the contracted relations of Palestine at all. Comp. also Aristophanes in his “Clouds,” v. 1294, et seq.: αὕτημὲν (ἡ θάλαττα) οὐδὲνγίγνεταιἐπιῤῥεόντωντῶνποταμῶνπλείων, σὺ δὲζητεῖςποιῆσαιταργύριονπλεῖοντὸ σόνUnto the place from whence the rivers come, “thither they return again. Literal, thither are the rivers to go returning,” thither they always take their course again. For this construction examine 1 Samuel 20:19; Hosea 5:11, etc; as in the English, (they are going), the participle here expresses the continuous character of the action. For the construct state before the relative clause (which is, as it were, regarded as a single noun) comp. passages such as Genesis 40:3; Leviticus 4:24; (Ewald, Manual. § 322, c.).—As it is not absolutely necessary that δμκְ must express the “going whither,” but may also well express the going out, or the coming whence, as Ecclesiastes 1:6 shows, therefore, ξְ ?χεֹ ?νωֶׁ ?δַ ?πְּ ?ηָ ?μִ ?ινδֹ ?μְ ?λִ ?ιν does not mean the ocean as the common collecting-place of all river-water (Elster, Vaihinger, etc.), but rather as the occasional source and origin of the individual rivers. The return of the water from the ocean the author certainly thinks effected in a way corresponding to the natural course of things, namely, that of exhalations, and clouds, and falling mists, and not by means of secret subterraneous canals and passages, as Luther, Rosenmueller, et al., pretend. See Genesis 2:6; Job 36:27-28.—Also Umbreit, Hitzig, and Hengstenberg on this passage. 5. First division, second strophe, Ecclesiastes 1:8-11. As the natural objects of human knowledge truly satisfy neither the eye nor the ear (Ecclesiastes 1:8), so there predominates in the history of mankind a restless flight of events, crowding and following each other in endless circuit, which necessarily destroy, in equal measure, both the interest in new acquirements, and the endeavor to remember the things that are past (Ecclesiastes 1:11).—All things are full of labor, man cannot utter it.—The words λֹּ ?μΞδַ ?γְּ ?αָ ?ψִ ?ινιְ ?βֵ ?ςִ ?ιν are understood by exegetists to mean either: “all words are troublesome, weary” (Sept., Ewald, Elster, Hitzig, Hengstenberg, Hahn, etc.), or: “all things fatigue, are full of burden and trouble” (Hieronymus, Luther, Rosenmueller, Vaihinger, etc.). The ruling signification in this book, as every where in the Old Testament of γαψ =λόγος, sermo, as well as the closely following remark, “man cannot utter it” (ιεּ ?λַ ?μμְ ?γַ ?αֵּ ?ψ), seem to speak in favor of the former meaning. But the word γαψ, as meaning thing, is found also in Ecclesiastes 1:10; Ecclesiastes 6:12; Ecclesiastes 7:8; and it appears, in every view of the case, more appropriate that the quality of wearying, of producing discouragement and indifference, should be predicated of the things of the world, and the objects of human knowledge, than that the words relating to the naming and judging of these things, should be designated as feeble or exhausting. This first meaning would also produce a tautology of δַ ?γְּ ?αָ ?ψִ ?ιν with μְ ?γַ ?αֵּ ?ψ, which one could scarcely attribute to an author who, on the whole, expresses himself with such choice and delicacy. Thus the sense of the line remains in every case that which is accepted oven by most of the defenders of the first conception; namely, to recount all objects of human knowledge and experience is fatiguing in the extreme, and is indeed impracticable`; no speech can perfectly give the impression which is produced on our mind by the thought of physical endlessness, and of the never changing operations and life of the forces of nature (comp. Elster on this passage). For the active sense of ιָ ?βֵ ?ςַ, which elsewhere, as in Deuteronomy 25:18, 2 Samuel 17:2, expresses the passive thought, “faint,” “weary,” but here is clearly exhaustive, making weary, examine the similar significations of πִ ?ξְ ?ψָ ?υ ,πַ ?ηְ ?μָ ?δ ,ΰָ ?πεּ ?ωׁ in Isaiah 17:11; Jeremiah 30:12; Micah 2:10; and also the Latin tristis in the sense of making sad, depressing; and the German “betrόbt” in phrases like: “es ist betrubt zu schen,” etc.—The eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing,—No remarkable quality is here affirmed of the eye or the ear; it is only intended to delineate more closely the relation held to the expression, “all things are wearying.” “If the eye should become satisfied, so that it would no longer see, then the narrating word must step in and be able in its turn also to master things. But the abundance of phenomena, which presses on eye, ear, and the remaining senses, is endless; there are always objects which the eye must see, does see, and brings to him who would gladly close his labors” (Hitzig). For parallel passages comp. Proverbs 27:20. For ξִ ?ωְׁ ?ξֹ ?ςַ, lit. “away from hearing,” i.e., so that it may hear no longer, comp. Genesis 27:1; Exodus 14:5; 1 Samuel 8:7; Isaiah 24:10, etc.Ecclesiastes 1:9. The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; or also; “what has happened, that will again happen, that will occur anew.” ξַ ?δωֶׁ ?δָ ?ιָ ?δ cannot be considered a question (LXX. τίτὸ γεγονός Vulg. quid est quod fuit); for in this book ξַ ?δΞωֶּׁ is always equivalent to “that which,” or “whatever;” see Ecclesiastes 3:15; Ecclesiastes 6:10; Ecclesiastes 8:7; Ecclesiastes 10:14; and examine for the same Chaldaic style, Daniel 2:25; Ezra 7:18.—And that which is done, is that which shall be done.—As the former refers to the objective course of natural laws and phenomena, so this parallel expression alludes to the subjective efforts and actions of men; and the progress to any thing really new is denied of both.—And there is no new thing under the sun.—Lit. there is not in existence any thing new, (εְ ?ΰֵ ?ιολָּ ?μΞηָ ?ψָ ?ωׁ). For the placing of this negation before λָּ ?μ, to indicate the total non-existence of any thing, comp. Judges 13:4; Psalms 143:2; 2 Kings 4:2; also similar Hebrew terms in the New Testament Greek, Matthew 24:22; Romans 3:20; Galatians 2:16, etc.—For this sentence comp. Seneca especially; Epist. Ecc 24: Nullius rei finis est, sed in orbem nexa sunt omnia. Omnia transeunt ut revertantur, nil novi video, nil novi facio; also Tacitus, Annal. III. Ecc 55: Rebus cunctis inest quidam velut orbis, ut quemadmodum temporum vices, ita morum versentur; and Marc. Aurel. Comment., ad se ipsum, VI. Ecc 31: ̀ὁ τὰ νῦνὁρῶνπάνταἑώρακεν, ὅσατὲ ἐξάϊδιόυἐγένετο, καιὅσαεὶςτὸ ἁ ?̓πειρονἔσται. πάνταγὰρὁμογενῆ καὶ ὁμοειδῆ; Ibid. VII. Ecclesiastes 1 : οὐδενκαινὸν. πάντακαὶ συνήθηκαὶ ὀλιγχρόνια; Ibid. VII. Ecc 26: πᾶντὸ γινόμενονοὕτωςἀεὶ ἐγενετοκαὶ γενήσεταικαὶ νῦνπανταχοῦ γίνεται. Ecclesiastes 1:10. Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new ? it hath been already of old time which was before us.—The first half of this verse is a hypothetical preliminary clause, introduced by ιֵ ?ωׁ γָּ ?αָ ?ψ to which is added the after clause without a copula, for the sake of greater emphasis; comp. similarly formed conditional sentences in Ecclesiastes 1:18.—λְּ ?αַ ?ψ, long ago, already long since (Sept. ἥδη; Vulg. jam), is one of the characteristic Aramaic particles of the book, allied to λִּ ?αְ ?ψָ ?δ “greatness, length,” and the Arab. Kibar, great age; (comp. Introd. § 4, Obs. 2). The word μְ ?ςμָֹ ?ξִ ?ιν, added as a more special definition, indicates that the meaning of “long ago” is to be understood in the sense of time of external length; or also that it continues in endless spaces of lime; for the preposition μְ, in the sense of “within,” comp. Genesis 7:4; Ezra 10:8, and Elster on this passage.—Instead of ΰֲ ?ωֶׁ ?ψδָ ?ιεּ there stands at the close ΰֲ ?ωֶׁ ?ψδָ ?ιָ ?δξִ ?μְּ ?τָּ ?πֵ ?ιπεּ because δָ ?ιָ ?δ is used impersonally, in the sense: “there have been” (comp. Genesis 47:24; Exodus 12:49); an enallage numeri, that could easily occur with a neuter plural like ςμָֹ ?ξִ ?ιν. Ewald takes the words as subject of the sentence, and translates them thus: “what occurred before our eyes had already been long ago.” But this position of the subject at the end of the sentence would be harsh and without motive; and for ξִ ?μְּ ?τָ ?πֵ ?ιπεּ, which means according to Isaiah 41:26 simply “before us, earlier than we,” would necessarily stand μְ ?τָ ?πֵ ?ιπεּ if the translation “before our eyes, in our presence,” were the correct one. Ecclesiastes 1:11. There is no remembrance of former things.—Clearly an explanation of the thought of the preceding verse, which we need not (as Hitzig and Elster) connect with what precedes through the conception: “that our considering old things as new is because of the continual extinction of the remembrance of former things.” For the construct state ζִ ?λְ ?ψεֹ ?ο before a following noun with a preposition, comp. similar cases, as Ezekiel 13, 2 Samuel 1:21.—ψִ ?ΰωֹׁ ?πִ ?ινַ and ΰַ ?δֲ ?ψֹ ?πִ ?ιν signify every where the earlier and the later ones (Leviticus 26:45; Deuteronomy 19:14; Psalms 79:8; Isaiah 61:4; also Ecclesiastes 4:16 of this book, consequently ancestry and posterity. The neuter idea, “the earlier,” would necessarily be expressed by the feminine ψִ ?ΰωֹׁ ?πεֹ ?ϊ (Isaiah 42:9; Isaiah 46:9; Isaiah 48:3).—With those that shall come after.—μָ ?ΰַ ?ηֲ ?ψֹ ?πεֹ ?ϊ in future, later. Comp. for the substantive ΰַ ?δֲ ?ψֹ ?πָ ?δ, Deuteronomy 13:9; 2 Samuel 2:26. 6. Second Division. Proposition and first strophe. Ecclesiastes 1:12-15. In a subjective view human knowledge proves futile and vain, in so far as all the desires and enterprises of men, to which it is directed, are empty and vain, and lead to nothing. I, the preacher, was King over Israel in Jerusalem.—Observe the preterit, δָ ?ιִ ?ιϊִ ?ι, I was—a clear indication that a later personage than the historical Solomon says this. For even in his most advanced age Solomon, who, according to 1 Kings 11:40-43, was reigning king until his death, could not have spoken of his kingdom as something belonging solely to the past. For the remaining allusions in this verse to a period later than the Solomonic, see above on Ecclesiastes 1:1 (No. 1), and the Introduction, § 4. And moreover the author, assuming the character of Solomon, indicates for his own person a condition in life which affords him a broad view, rich experience, and knowledge of men; comp. Sir 38:24 ff. Ecclesiastes 1:13. And I gave my heart to seek and search out by wisdom.—That is, I gave it entirely to that seeking, exerted myself zealously on that account; comp. ωִׂ ?ινμֵ ?α, Isa. 41:42; ωִׁ ?ιϊμֵ ?α, Psalms 48:14; and δֵ ?λִ ?ιομֵ ?α, Job 11:13. “To seek” (γָּ ?ψַ ?ωׁ) and “to search” (ϊּ ?εּ ?ψ) are distinguished from one another—the former by being less thorough, and the latter by penetrating more deeply and searching after the hidden. αְּ ?δָ ?λְ ?ξָ ?δ is not “wisely” (Luther, comp. Vulgate, sapienter), but “with wisdom;” for wisdom was the instrument with which he made his investigations; (for the well-known old Hebrew sense, see the Introd. to the Solomonic books, Vol. XII. p. 3 of this work.)—Concerning all things that are done under heaven.—Thereby is clearly meant only the actions and lives of men, and not occurrences in the realm of nature, for which latter the verb πςωδ would be very unfittingly chosen. And what has happened in itself is not so much meant as its character, worth, aim and success as an object of seeking and searching; therefore, to search concerning all things that are done (ςַ ?μλָּ ?μεβε).—This sore travail, etc.—Human action itself is not designated here as ςִ ?πֲ ?ιοψָ ?ς, as sore travail or pain (Hitzig, Hahn), but the zealous searching, the critical endeavor of the wise observer of life, who every where meets only vanity and emptiness, and with all his theoretical and practical experimenting with life, reaches no lasting enjoyment and success (and thus with justice the most exegetists; see Elster on this passage).—God hath given to the sons of man to be exercised therewith.—This unsuccessful and vain striving after wisdom, to which man feels himself impelled by a natural necessity, is imparted to him by God himself; it is a part of the salutary and disciplinary curse that God has laid on human nature -since the fall, a “part of the whole system by which the Lord humbles fallen man, and therewith prepares the redemption” (Hengstenberg). Ecclesiastes 1:14. I. have seen all the works that are done under the sun; and behold, all is vanity and vexation of spirit.—(Lit., “windy effort,” i.e., “an effort of the wind”) (Sept. προαίρεσιςπνεύματος) an effort without result, that effects no lasting good. Comp. Hosea 12:2, which passage gives us at the same time the proper sense of the expression ψְ ?ςεּ ?ϊ. For the formula ψγσχγιν there used parallel with ψָ ?ςָ ?δψεּ ?ηַ, “to consume wind,” really means to follow after the wind, to be in quest of it, a diligent striving after it (comp. ψςδ in passages like Proverbs 13:20; Proverbs 15:14; Isaiah 44:20). ψְ ?ςεּ ?ϊ is consequently the bearing, the intension of one zealously aiming at, consequently striving, continuous direction of the will (thus also Ezra 5:7, 18), the same as ψַ ?ςְ ?ιεֹ ?ο, which in Ecclesiastes 1:17; Ecclesiastes 4:16 is also found connected with ψεּ ?ηַ. It is therefore erroneous to derive it from ψςς=ψφυ, to shatter, to break into pieces (thus the Vulg. “afflictio spiritus,” also Chald. Raschi et at). Ecclesiastes 1:15. That which is crooked cannot be made straight, and that which is wanting cannot be numbered.—Clearly a proverbial sentence, which the author perhaps found ready made in the rich treasury of the proverbial wisdom of his people, and used here to strengthen what he had said in Ecclesiastes 1:14. The sense is, as the parallel passage, Ecclesiastes 7:13, shows, that human action and effort, in spite of all exertion, cannot alter that which has once been arranged and fixed by God. “Man cannot alter what is (apparently) unjust in God’s arrangement of the world, nor make or regard its failures perfect; hemmed in within the narrow limits of the world as it is constituted, he is not able to perform the most important thing that he above all things should be able to do” (Hitzig). This thought is not fatalistic (as Knobel. supposes); for, as numerous other passages of this book show (namely, Ecclesiastes 3:17; Ecclesiastes 7:20 ff.; Ecclesiastes 11:9; Ecclesiastes 12:14), the author knows very well that human sin is the cause of the incapacity here described in contrast with the unchangeable and divine order of the world, and considers this inability as one of self-guilt on the part of man.—“That which is wanting cannot be numbered,” i.e., not completed, not be brought to its full number; comp. the Lat. ad numeros suos redigi=perfici, and also our German proverbs: “Where there is nothing, nothing farther is to be counted;” or, “There the emperor has lost his right,” etc.7. Second Division, second strophe. Ecclesiastes 1:16-18. Practically experiencing wisdom, striving after positive knowledge, is, as the critically observing, thoroughly futile, reaching no lasting result, because its acquirement is inseparably connected with pain and discouragement.—I communed with my own heart, saying, i.e., I entered inwardly into my own counsel; comp. the Lat. cogitare cum animo suo, and in the Hebrew similar phrases γִּ ?αֵּ ?ψαְּ ?μִ ?αּ ?εֹ, Psalms 15:2; γּ ΰֶ ?μΞμִ ?αּ ?εֹ, Genesis 24:45; ςַ ?μμִ ?αּ ?εֹ, 1 Samuel 1:13.—Lo, I am come to great estate, and have gotten more wisdom.—The word δִ ?βְ ?γַּ ?μְ ?ϊִ ?ι (comp. Isaiah 28:29) intimates that he possessed great wisdom before; the word δεֹ ?ρַ ?τְ ?ϊִּ ?ι, that during his life he continually increased it. Comp. 1 Kings 5:9-11.—Than all they that have been before me in Jerusalem.—The first ςַ ?μ is comparative, as in Genesis 48:22; Psalms 16:2. From the second ςַ ?μ before ιְ ?ψεּ ?ωָׁ ?μָ ?ιִ ?ν it appears that with the here mentioned predecessors of Koheleth real kings are meant (comp. also Ecclesiastes 2:7). The allusion here can scarcely be to the old Canaanitish princes (Adoni-zedek, Joshua 10:1; or, indeed, Melchisedec, Genesis 15:18), but to the crowned heads of Israel, who alone were competent to the realization of ηλξδ. This passage contains, again, therefore, a reference to the difference between the author of this work and Solomon, but still not one of that kind that we are justified in reproaching him (with Hitzig) of ignorance of history. He rather commits this offence against actual history with the same absence of suspicion and purpose which permitted him to adapt his work only loosely and distantly to the personal and temporal relations x and every where to dispense with the strict carrying out of the historical fiction in question. (Comp. Introd. § 4).—Yea, my heart had great experience of Wisdom and knowledge.—Concerning γַּ ?ςַ ?ϊ as synonym of ηָ ?λְ ?ξָ ?δ comp. Proverbs 1:2. “To see, to behold wisdom and knowledge,” is as much as acquiring it by experience, arriving at its possession and enjoyment. This beholding is attributed to the heart, because it is indeed the seat or instrument of aspiration after Wisdom , 9 see Ecclesiastes 1:13; Ecclesiastes 1:17. Ecclesiastes 1:17. And I gave my heart to know wisdom and to know madness and folly—that is, I applied myself to learning not only the positive and normal contents of human knowledge, but also its counterpart, error and perversion in their various forms; according to the principle: contrariis contraria intelliguntur. δֹ ?μֵ ?μεּ ?ϊ = δεֹ ?μֵ ?μεּ ?ϊ, Ecclesiastes 10:13; comp. the similar formation ηָ ?λְ ?ξεּ ?ϊ, Proverbs 1:20; Proverbs 9:1, etc., and Ewald, Manual, § 165 c), and ωִׂ ?λְ ?μεּ ?ϊ, want of sense and folly are also thus placed together in Ecclesiastes 2:12 only, that the latter word is written ρִ ?λְ ?μεּ ?ϊ with more etymological exactness (comp. also Ecclesiastes 2:3; Ecclesiastes 2:13, etc.).—I perceived that this also is vexation of spirit. For ψַ ?ςְ ?ιεֹ ?οψεּ ?ηַ see Ecclesiastes 1:14; and comp. ψַ ?ςְ ?ιεֹ ?ομִ ?αּ ?ε the striving of his heart, Ecclesiastes 2:22, as well as the same word in the Chaldee of the Book of Daniel (Ecclesiastes 4:16; Ecclesiastes 5:6; Ecclesiastes 5:10; Ecclesiastes 7:28), where it signifies thought. ζֶ ?δδεּ ?ΰ, a pleonasm, of which there are many in the book. Ecclesiastes 1:18. For in much wisdom is much grief; and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.—Ger. Proverb: “Much wisdom causeth headache;” also Cicero, Tusc. III. Ecclesiastes 4 : “videtur mihi cadere in sapientem ζgritudo,” and what Elster remarks on this passage: “Such an enlargement of the practical knowledge of human life destroys the natural ease and simplicity of the individual life, and by comparisons with others, awaking the consciousness of being variously affected in one’s own existence through influences operating from without, produces a feeling of insignificance and feebleness of each individual life as such; and by exciting man to many aspirations and desires which remain unfulfilled, and therefore leave painful impressions behind. It is still more important to think of the manifold disillusions which a deeper insight of the moral arena in a stricter sense produces, because it not only teaches how confidence in the strength and worth of individuals is often unjustifiable, but also shows how in the great and sacred institutions of humanity, which have originally a purely ethical aim, this ethical object is frequently lost, and that those only exist in reality through a linking of interests that are entirely foreign to their real nature.”—εְ ?ιεֹ ?ρִ ?ισ is an antecedent: “and if one gathers wisdom, if one makes much wisdom.” Ewald, Elster, et al., consider ιεֹ ?ρִ ?ισ (here as well as in Isaiah 29:14; Isaiah 38:5) an active participle from the stem reverting from Hiphil, into Kal, with ι—instead of—(Ewald, Manual, §127 b.; 169 a) while others find in it simply an impersonal future Hiphil, and compare it on account of the scriptio plena with δεֹ ?ρַ ?τְ ?ϊִּ ?ι Ecclesiastes 1:16. AND ETHICALHuman effort, confined to the conditions of life and the objects of knowledge of this earthly world, can attain no enduring wealth of happiness or success, either in a practical or theoretical relation. For every thing that is accomplished under the sun, that is, in this contracted sublunary world subjected to the curse of temporality, is, like the great heavenly light of our planet, or, like the mysterious course of the wind and the water, confined to a changeless circuit beyond which there is no progress. All efforts after the attainment of a higher and more durable happiness, which man by means of his own natural power may institute, fail at this stern barrier of the earthly and temporal. Be it the cheerful enjoyment of life, and the active cooperation with it, be it fulness of knowledge and wealth of treasures, of intellectual truth and insight, as long as man, standing simply in his own strength as a mere child of earth, commanding no other than earthly and natural powers, endeavors to place himself in possession of these treasures, will he be ever obliged to experience the utter vanity of his labors. Only in submission to the eternally Divine, which remains fixed and constant in all the vicissitudes of time, (Psalms 102:25 ff.), does he obtain the power to overcome the imperfections and annoyances of temporal existence, or, at least, true consolation while suffering their pressure. Faith alone is the anchor of safety which is able to preserve the bark of life, tossed to and fro by the storms of time, from sinking into the awful depths of despair and inconsolable doubts regarding our temporal and eternal welfare. Of these fundamental thoughts of the section before us, only those referring to the vanity of earthly life and its wisdom are specially treated. Of the religious solution of the conflict, which, according to numerous and prominent allusions in the subsequent pages, forms the deeper background for the grievous lamentations of the preacher, there penetrates, for the time, scarcely anything through his picture of the vanity of all earthly things. It is, substantially, only the sad contrast between human aspirations after wisdom, and the absolutely unsatisfying result in this world, to whose description the author directs his attention; that conflict between the ardent desire of life and its enjoyment, between thirst after knowledge and its failure, whose deep significance Fabri, in his work—“Time and Eternity”—has as strikingly as beautifully delineated when, in p. 10 f., in direct connection with the lamenting commencement of this book he says: “Who does not know, from his own thousand-fold experience, this wonderful feeling of a deep temporal grief that often, as an armed foe, overwhelms the spirit of man with a secret shudder in the midst of the loudest merriment? Who does not know the pressure and the pain of time, when we see it in steady flow hurrying quietly by us, nay, when we see ourselves, entirely helpless, carried away by its stream, and daily approaching nearer to the limits of life? Do we not then feel as the occupant of a frail boat, which, drawn into the current of a mighty stream, finds itself carried down with arrowy speed, and if not in its course dashed to pieces on the rocks, hastens with inevitable destiny to the cataract that is to bury it in that deep from which no one may ever rise and begin the course anew?” That is the periculum vitζ, the danger of life, of which the wise men of old have spoken, and have recognized as the inevitable destiny of every thing born into this lower world. Thus time, with its restless and continuous going and coming, appeals to the direct feelings of every man as an oppressive destiny, as a travail, as Solomon says, (Ecclesiastes 1:13; Ecclesiastes 1:18), as a tragic conflict between what ought to be and what is. AND In the homiletical treatment of the section, the evangelical preacher should not be satisfied in merely presenting this sad conflict without its solution; he should rather connect with the lament concerning the vanity of earthly things, the consolation of the unchanging grace of the Eternal One; and thus regard the gloomy picture of the author in the light of divine revelation, to which the entire course and contents of the book encourage us. In this intent we might use the entire chapter as a text for a connected view whose theme might be as follows: That which is visible is temporal, that which is invisible is eternal (2 Corinthians 4:17); or also—“For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.” “But when that which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away.” (1 Corinthians 13:9-10); or: The flight of earthly things, its cause and its cure, (with reference to the 90th Psalm, and appropriate spiritual hymns). In case the text is divided, there should not be more than two parts. Then make Ecclesiastes 1:2-11 the text for the thought: “There is nothing new under the sun;” and from 12–18 for the thought: “In much wisdom there is much grief.” With a view to the practical treatment of the individual passages, examine the following homiletical hints and helps from ancient and modern exegetical writings. Ecclesiastes 1:2. Luther:—In the introduction he gives us the subject of the whole book, when he tells us that there is the greatest vanity in all human pursuits, to such a degree that men, neither content with the present, nor able to enjoy the future, turn even their best things into misery and vanity, all through their own fault, not that of the things themselves. M. Geier:—The more the vanity of the world is discovered, the more will the disgust of it increase in the true Christian; and on the contrary, a desire will arise for the heavenly and eternal.—Hengstenberg:—The right solution of the problem is this: Between the assertion—“And behold, all was very good,” and that other: “All is vanity,” lies the fact of the fall. With this latter a whole new order of things has appeared. The creation, which was good in itself, was no longer fitting for degenerate man. “All is vanity,” is no accusation of God. It is rather, if we keep in view the nature of man, a praise of God. It is precisely in this doom of punishment, and in the adjustment of the economy of the Cross, that God shows Himself especially great and glorious. Ecclesiastes 1:3. Luther:—The creature is indeed subject to vanity, as Paul testifies, Romans 8, but nevertheless the things themselves are good. Otherwise he would have called the sun itself a vanity; but this he excepts, because he says, under the sun. It is not, therefore, of the works of God he treats, which are all good and true, and above the sun, but the works beneath the sun,—what we do here in this earthly life.—Starke:—Since with decay the profit of all outward occupation vanishes, it is folly for men to be so absorbed with external things that they thereby forget the care of their own souls. Ecclesiastes 1:4-7. Cramer:—That the world has not existed from eternity, one sees in all its parts, because these are not fixed and constant the whole cannot, therefore, remain unchanged. But the constant order in creatures and their employments, proves that there is a God who sustains every thing.—Starke:—In nature every thing is governed by the laws of motion; how - much more should man direct his steps according to the rules of life prescribed to him by God (Galatians 6:16; Psalms 119:9; Psalms 100:5).—Wohlfarth:—The existence of the world clearly depends upon the unchangeable order given to nature by God, and just because it follows these divine laws without deviation, is nature, yet to-day, as it was thousands of years ago, the inexhaustible dispenser of the blessings and joys of men. Let us herein acknowledge the wisdom, goodness, and might of the Eternal One, and adore him who once said: “Let there be!” and there was ! who called the sun of the day, as well as the night, into existence, who prescribed to the waters their course, and gave command to the winds. Let us comprehend that we can only then be happy and make others happy, when, as nature unconsciously, obeys natural laws, we obey with clear consciousness the commands of virtue and the laws of nature for the spirit world. Ecclesiastes 1:8. Zeyss:—The immortal spirit of man can find no real rest in temporal things, but only in God, the highest and eternal good, Matthew 11:29.—Hansen:—External things do not satisfy. David in Psalms 17:15 gives us clearly to understand that he recognizes the same truth; for he says: “I will behold thy face in righteousness,” and adds, “I shall be satisfied, when I awake, with thy likeness.” He hopes, therefore, in the contemplation of God, to obtain what he cannot have in the form of this world. And for this very reason Solomon calls all things vain that belong to this sensual life.—Berleb. Bible:—“The avenues of the soul bear many thousand objects or things to the heart, with which man fatigues and distracts himself, as with a boundless mountain of sand. From these his mind forms numberless images, which he gazes at, and inwardly handles. From these come the manifold thoughts and the distracted spirit of poor man. Therefore, by apostacy from God, his Creator, he has gone out with his heart after many things, and now, instead of God, in whom he would eternally have had enough, he embraces so many thousand creatures in his desires, and cannot oven then be satisfied. For the immortal essence of the soul can by no means repose in the empty creature; it seeks ever farther, and will ever have more; it is a fire that burns without ceasing, and would gladly seize all things.” Ecclesiastes 1:9-11. Luther:—If we understand these words, nothing new beneath the sun, of the things themselves, and of the works of God, it would not be true. For God is every day doing what is new; but we do nothing new, because the old Adam is in all. Our ancestors abused things, just as we abuse them. Alexander, Cζsar, had the same disposition; so had all Kaisars and Kings; so have we. As they could never be satisfied, so never can we; they were wicked; so are we.—Cramer:—No man has so great a cross that he finds none like himself; for we are not better than our fathers, 1 Kings 19:5.—Hengstenberg:—“There is nothing new under the sun;” let that serve to sober down the fantasies which gather grapes from the thorns of the world, but not discourage the friends of the Kingdom of God, which has its real seat, not under the sun, but above the sun, and whose heavenly protector, by ever creating new things (Jeremiah 31:22) gives material to a new song, Psalms 40:4. Ecclesiastes 1:13-15. Luther [to Ecclesiastes 1:14]:—All painful anxiety and care in making provision, whether in public or private, through our own counsels, and our own wisdom, are condemned is this book. God disappoints the thoughts and plans that are not grounded on His word. And rightly too; for why should we prescribe and add to His wisdom? Let us learn, then, to submit to His counsels, and abstain from those cares and thoughts which God has not commanded. Ecclesiastes 1:15. Human concerns cannot be so managed as that all things should be rightly done, and that there should not still remain many evils. The best way, then, is to walk in faith, which lets God reign, prays for the coming of His Kingdom, tolerating in the meantime, and patiently enduring, all evils, or committing them to Him who judgeth righteously. Freiberg Bible:—In spiritual as in corporeal things, God alone can make the crooked straight and smooth.—Harman (to Ecclesiastes 1:13 f.—Bible Reflections of a Christian, Vol. I., p. 103):—All human wisdom labors, and has care and sorrow for its reward; the farther wisdom looks, the greater is the labyrinth in which it loses itself. It is with reason as to the eyes with a magnifying glass, when the most delicate skin becomes disgusting, the most luscious dish a mess of worms, and the finest work of art a mere botch. We see the impossibility of removing all inequalities of human society, and we see in it an overwhelming number of faults and failings; yes, the weakness of our senses and judgment leads us to find faults in beauties, because we examine all things only fragmentarily. Ecclesiastes 1:16-18. Hansen (to Ecclesiastes 1:17):—Many thousand actions are considered prudent and wise, which in reality are silly and foolish. It is an arduous task to correct one’s error in respect to all this, and regard the world, and human life in the world, with just eyes.—(To Ecclesiastes 1:18).—Wisdom, as such, is no cause for uneasiness of mind; it is rather a cause for contentment. It sometimes happens, however, that peace of mind is disturbed by wisdom. The deeper our vision, the more clearly we perceive the imperfections among the children of men, and that usually produces unrest in the mind.—Starke:—But because knowledge easily puffeth up (1 Corinthians 8:1), wise and learned men have so much greater need to beg God to keep them in true humility.—Every righteous teacher, yes, every true Christian, must resign himself to many evils which must meet him in the endeavor to acquire genuine wisdom. [Olamio or Ionian Words in Scripture—Eternities or World-Times—Cyclical Ideas in Koheleth.—The passage, Ecclesiastes 1:3, rendered, “the earth abideth forever,” is the one most commonly quoted as their key text by those who would not only give a limited sense to ςεμν here, which it undoubtedly has, but would, thereby, weaken the force of this whole class of words in all other parts of the Bible, and especially when they are used in reference to a future state of being. On this account, the whole subject has seemed worthy of a fuller discussion than it has generally received in Commentaries, and this the passage to which such an exegetical examination can be most appropriately attached. The best rendering of the word μְ ?ςεֹ ?μָ ?ν Ecclesiastes 1:3, is “for the world-time,” or “for the world,” as we have given it in the metrical version annexed. It may seem strange to ears not accustomed to it, but it is the true translation, not only here, but in many other places, where its proper significance is concealed under general or inadequate phrases. In Ecclesiastes 3:11 it has been once rendered by our translators, “the world,” which is correct enough in itself, but may mislead by raising in the reader’s mind the conception of a space world. For further remarks on that important passage see note, p. 67. The word μְ ?ςεֹ ?μָ ?ν cannot here (Ecclesiastes 1:3) mean for ever, in the sense of endless duration, though it may be used for such idea when the context clearly demands, as when it is employed to denote the continuance of the Divine existence, or of the Divine Kingdom, or any thing else connected with the proper Divine eternity as the word is now taken. It is, however, in that case, only the employment of necessarily finite language to express an infinite idea strictly transcending all language, unless poorly represented by a conceptionless, negative word, which, although logically correct, is far inferior in vividness and power to some vast though finite term, which, by its very greatness and immeasurability, raises in the mind the thought of something beyond, and ever still beyond, worlds without end. This effect is still farther increased by plurals and reduplications, such as the Hebrew ςμξιν, and ςεμν, the Greek ἀιῶνες, and αἰῶνεςτῶναἰώνων, the Latin secula, and secula seculorum, the old Saxon, or old English, of Wicliffe, to worldis of worldis (Hebrews 13:21), or our more modern phrase, for ever and ever, where ever (German ewig), was originally a noun denoting age, or vast period, just like the Greek, Latin, and Hebrew words corresponding to it. Another mode of impressing the idea of absolute eternity is by the use of language in the context, or general scenic representations, which bring up the thought of finality in the passage, giving it the aspect of something settled, never to be disturbed, having nothing beyond that can possibly change it, as in that most impressive close of Matthew 25. In Ecclesiastes 1:3 it evidently expresses the duration of the earth as coeval with the great order of things called the world, whether in the time or space sense, and vastly transcending the γּ ?εֹ ?ψ, generation, or life-time (the ζon, as we might call it in a still more limited sense) of man. There is a similar contrast, Psalms 110:1, where γεψεγεψ “generation and generation,” or “all generations,” as it is rendered, refers to the human history, whilst, ξςεμνςγςεμν from world to world, ἀπὸ τοῦ αἰῶνοςκαὶ ἕωςτοῦ αἰῶνος, a seculo et usque in seculum von Ewigkeit zu Ewigkeit, refers to the Divine existence as measured, conceptually, by, work times, even as our brief individual life-time ii measured by years (Ps. 110:90), and our own peculiar world-time by dorim, or generations. These words correspond in all the language referred to. They arise from a philological exigency, from the demand for some word to express that idea of time, or rather conception of time (since all language is primarily for the sense want), which goes beyond any known historical and astronomical measurements,—some great period, cycle, or age, not having its measurement from without, but in itself, or, at least, seemingly independent of outward phenomenal measurement. It is something supposed to have its own chronology, separate from other chronologies. In a lower, or more limited, sense, an olam, ζon, age, world, or world-time, may be historical; that is, such indefinite periods may be regarded as coming, one after another, during the continuance of the same earth or kosmos; truly historical, yet divided from each other by some intrinsic character, rather than by mere years or centuries. Thus we say the old world, the new world, the ancient world, the modern world, the Greek world, the Roman world, &c. This would correspond to our use of the word ages, and that would make a good sense, Ecclesiastes 1:10, “the worlds or ages (ςμξιν) that have been before.” They may also have a higher sense than the historical, regarded as the history of one earth or kosmos, continuing as it is without any great physical change. They may be cosmical ζons, carrying the idea of a new dispensation, with a change in the space-kosmos with which they are connected, or some change in the human state or relation that is equally significant. It might be conceived as a decay, dissolution, and restoration,—a renewal, rather, instead of an absolute creation de novo. Such an idea of new cosmical worlds, or ζons, is favored in a certain aspect of it by some passages of Scripture which speak of a new (or rather renewed) heavens and earth, Psalms 102:26; Isaiah 66:22. Or it might be more like an idea which was certainly very ancient, of the same worlds coming over and over again, with all things and all events repeated, just as they had taken place. This was an old Egyptian and Arabian view, probably arising from the observations of astronomical cycles (see Pareau de Notiliis Vilζ Futurζ ab antiquissimo Jobi Scrtptore, etc., pp. 65, 66, etc.). Something like it was taught by Pythagoras and Plato in their doctrine of the magnus annus, as also by the Stoics in their doctrine of the cyclical return of the world, and all things in it, through a process of rarefaction and condensation (with a final conflagration), from which came again that rare elementary state which is in the beginning of each cycle,—a kind of thinking to which the modern nebular theories present a fair counterpart. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ Ecclesiastes 2:1-26.1. The vanity of practical wisdom in itself, proved by the example of Solomon (Ecclesiastes 2:1-19).1I said in mine heart, Go to now, I will prove thee with mirth, therefore enjoy pleasure: and behold, this also is vanity. 2I said of laughter, It is mad; and of mirth, What doeth it? 3I sought in mine heart to give myself unto wine, yet acquainting mine heart with wisdom; and to lay hold on folly, till I might see what was that good for the sons of men, which they should do under the heaven all the days of their life. 4I made me great works; I builded me houses; I planted me vineyards: 5I made me gardens and orchards, and I planted trees in them of all kind of fruits. 6I made me pools of water, to water therewith the wood that bringeth forth trees: 7I got me servants and maidens, and had servants born in my house; also I had great possessions of great and small cattle above all that were in Jerusalem before me: 8I gathered me also silver and gold, and the peculiar treasure of kings, and of the provinces: I gat me men-singers and women-singers, and the delights of the sons of men, as musical instruments and that of all sorts. 9So I was great, and increased more than all that were before me in Jerusalem: also my wisdom remained with me. 10And whatsoever mine eyes desired I kept not from them, I withheld not my heart from any joy; for my heart rejoiced in all my labour: and this was my portion of all my labour. 11Then I looked on all the works that my hands had wrought, and on the labour that I had laboured to do: and behold, all was vanity and vexation of spirit, and there was no profit under the sun. 12And I turned myself to behold wisdom, and madness, and folly: for what can the man 13do that cometh after the king ? even that which hath been already done. Then I saw that wisdom excelleth folly, as far as light excelleth darkness. 14The wise man’s eyes are in his head; but the fool walketh in darkness: and I myself perceived also that one event happeneth to them all. 15Then said I in my heart, As it happeneth to the fool, so it happeneth even to me; and why was I then more wise? Then I 16said in my heart, that this also is vanity. For there is no remembrance of the wise more than of the fool for ever; seeing that which now is, in the days to come shall all be forgotten. And how dieth the wise man as the fool. 17Therefore I hated life; because the work that is wrought under the sun is grievous unto me: for all is vanity and vexation of spirit. 18Yea, I hated all my labour which I had taken under the sun; because I should leave it unto the man that shall be after me. 19And who knoweth whether he shall be a wise man or a fool? yet shall he have rule over all my labour wherein I have laboured, and wherein I have shewed myself wise under the sun. This is also vanity. 2. The aim of life to be attained in consideration of the empirical vanity of practical wisdom Ecclesiastes 2:20-26.20Therefore I went about to cause my heart to despair of all the labour which I took under the sun. 21For there is a man whose labour is in wisdom, and in knowledge, and in equity; yet to a man that hath not laboured therein shall he leave it for his portion. This also is vanity and a great evil. 22For what hath man of all his labour, and of the vexation of his heart, wherein he hath laboured under the sun? 23For all his days are sorrow, and his travail grief; yea, his heart taketh 24not rest in the night. This is also vanity. There is nothing better for a man than that he should eat and drink, and that he should make his soul enjoy good in his labour. This also I saw, that it was from the hand of God. 25For who can eat, or who else can hasten hereunto more than I? 26For God giveth to a man that is good in his sight wisdom, and knowledge, and joy: but to the sinner he giveth travail, to gather and to heap up, that he may give to him that is good before God. This also is vanity and vexation of spirit. [Ecclesiastes 2:1.—πָ ?ΰ. A particle of address or appeal, come on now, sometimes of entreaty. Here it denotes another trial with an ironical intimation of its failure. The address is to his heat, and the strong entreaty, or emotion, is shown in the paragogic δ in ΰֲ ?πַ ?ρְּ ?λָ ?δ, O let me try thee again!—T. L.] [Ecclesiastes 2:3.—ϊַּ ?ψְ ?ϊִּ ?ι—μִ ?ξְ ?ωׁ ?εְָֹ ?κְ. See Exeget. and Notes. ξִ ?ρְ ?τַּ ?ψ is sometimes used to denote paucity, as Numbers 9:20; Genesis 34:30; Psalms 105:12, &c. Here the whole phrase may be rendered numbered days, i.e., few days. See Metrical Version.—T. L.] [Ecclesiastes 2:5.—τַּ ?ψְ ?γֵּ ?ρִ ?ιν. See Exeget. and note to Introduction, p. 32.—T. L.] [Ecclesiastes 2:8.—ξְ ?γִ ?ιπεֹ ?ϊ. Int. Ap., p. 34, ωִׁ ?γּ ?εֹ ?ϊ ,ωִׁ ?γָּ ?δ. See Exeget. and Note; also Int. to Metrical Version.—T. L.] [Ecclesiastes 2:10.—ΰָ ?φַ ?μְ ?ϊִּ ?ι rendered denied, but more properly withold from, primary sense to separate, place by itself, Genesis 27:36.—T. L.] [Ecclesiastes 2:13.—ψָ ?ΰִ ?ιϊִ ?ι denotes more properly here the judgment of the mind than seeing stated as a fact. I thought, I judged. Such a sense is a very common one in the Arabic root, and in the Rabbinical usage. It occurs also in the oldest Hebrew, as in the language Genesis 2:19, “He brought them unto Adam,” μִ ?ψְ ?ΰεֹ ?ϊ, for Adam to see (judge) what name he should give them. It is only an opinion expressed here. See Metrical Version.—T. L.] [Ecclesiastes 2:14.—ξִ ?χְ ?ψֶ ?δ. See Exeget. and Note, p. 58—T. L.] [Ecclesiastes 2:16.—αְּ ?ωֶׁ ?λְּ ?αָ ?ψ. The full form would be αַ ?ΰֲ ?ωֵׁ ?ψλְּ ?αָ ?ψ. For an examination of such words, and the manner in which they have become abbreviated, whether in later or earlier Hebrew, or as a mere matter of orthography, see text note to Genesis 6:3 [αְּ ?ωׁ ?βַ ?ν].—T. L.] [Ecclesiastes 2:20.—εְ ?ρַ ?αּ ?εֹ ?ϊִ ?ι. See Exeget. and Note.—T. L.] [Ecclesiastes 2:21.—λְּ ?ωָׁ ?ψεֹ ?ο. One of the words relied upon to prove the late date; but it is most parely Hebrew, and a noun of the same root, and the same sense, is found in that old composition Psalms 68:7 : λεֹ ?ωָׁ ?ψָ ?δ prosperity, very wrongly rendered chains in E. V., as though from χωׁ ?ψ. See Huppeld.—T. L.] [Ecclesiastes 2:24.—ωֶׁ ?ιֹּ ?ΰλַ ?μ. See Exeget. and Note.—T. L.] [Ecclesiastes 2:25.—ιָ ?ηεּ ?ωׁ ηεּ ?υ. Literally hasten beyond, go father—more without. There is the figure of a race. See Matrical Version; also the Exeget. and Note, p. 55—T. L.] AND Of the two divisions of this chapter, the first, (Ecclesiastes 2:1-19), treats of the vanity of the practical efforts of men, and thus supplements the description of the vanity of the theoretical strivings after wisdom, whilst the second division (Ecclesiastes 2:20-26) is of a more general character, and deduces a provisional result from the nature of human strivings after wisdom as therein set forth. Each of the two divisions contains two subdivisions or strophes within itself, of which, naturally, that of the first longer division (the one of nine, the other of eight verses) is especially comprehensive, and is, in addition to this, provided with a short introductory proposition (Ecclesiastes 2:1-2). The complete scheme of the contents of this chapter is therefore as follows:—I. Division. The vanity of practical wisdom aiming at sensual enjoyment and magnificent enterprises, proved by the example of Solomon: a. (proposition, Ecclesiastes 2:1-2), in general; b. (first strophe, Ecclesiastes 2:3-11), in reference to that seeking after enjoyment and extensive activity; c. (second strophe, Ecclesiastes 2:12-19) in reference to the uncertain and deceptive success of the efforts alluded to.—II. Division: The aim of life to be attained in consideration of the empirical vanity of practical wisdom; a. (first strophe, Ecclesiastes 2:20-23): Negative proof of the same, as not consisting in grasping after earthly and selfish wisdom, and after external worldly success; b. (second strophe, Ecclesiastes 2:24-26): Positive showing of the life aim of the wise man, as consisting in the cheerful enjoyment of worldly benefits offered by God to those in whom he delights. 2. First Division. Proposition or general Introduction: Ecclesiastes 2:1-2.—I said in my heart. ΰְַ ?πִ ?ι with ΰָ ?ξַ ?ψְ ?ϊִּ ?ι is essentially pleonastic, as also in Ecclesiastes 1:16; Ecclesiastes 2:11; Ecclesiastes 2:14; Ecclesiastes 2:18; Ecclesiastes 3:17, etc., for it is in no wise apparent that a special significance is in these passages to be given to the subject speaking (Hengstenberg), and pleonasms of all varieties are very characteristic in the somewhat broad and circumstantial style of the author. Go to now, I will prove thee with mirth, i.e., I will try whether thou wilt feel contented and happy in this new object of thy experience, namely, in cheerful sensual enjoyment, whether, on this path of pleasure and joy thou canst become a μֵ ?αθεֹ ?α (Ecclesiastes 9:7). For the address to his own heart (or own soul) comp. Psalms 16:2; Psalms 42:5; Psalms 43:5; Luke 12:18-19; for the construction, to prove one with something πִ ?ρָּ ?δαְּ 1 Kings 10:1.—Therefore enjoy pleasure. (Lit. Ger., behold pleasure).—This beholding, is here considered as connected with an enjoyable appropriation of the object beheld, which sense the preposition strongly expresses by virtue of its reference to the conception of lingering with the beheld object; comp. ψָ ?ΰָ ?δαְּ in Genesis 21:16 : Job 3:9; and therewith the simple ψָ ?ΰָ ?δ in the expression ψָ ?ΰָ ?δθεֹ ?αָ ?δ Ecclesiastes 6:6, or in ψָ ?ΰָ ?δηַ ?ιּ ?ιν Ecclesiastes 9 : and in ψָ ?ΰָ ?δωֵׁ ?πָ ?δ Ecclesiastes 8:10, etc. Ecclesiastes 2:2. I said of laughter, It is mad. “Of laughter,” does not mean as much as “in reference to laughter” (Knobel, Vaih., etc.): but the laughter, i. e., the unrestrained cheerfulness attending sensual enjoyment, seems here to be personified, just as mirth in the next clause. λְ ?δεֹ ?μָ ?μ Part. Poal, as in Psalms 102:9, means really one void of sense, one infatuated, and might more properly be considered masculine, than as neuter (with Vaih., Hitzig, etc.), so that Luther’s translation: “Thou art mad,” apart from the address, seems substantially justified. See Hengstenberg, who strikingly compares with it ἄφρον Luke 12:20, and justly finds in this passage the germ of the Parable of the Rich Man, Luke 12:16-21. And of mirth, what doeth it? i. e., what does it accomplish, what fruit does it bring forth (comp. ςωδτּ ?ψι) Luther, in imitation of the Sept. Vulg., etc., considers the question as an address to mirth (“what doest thou)?” but it is rather, as the word ζδֹ shows, a bitterly contemptuous exclamation addressed to some third person, and an answer is not expected. For the form fit instead of ζֹ ?ΰϊ comp. Ecclesiastes 5:15; Ecclesiastes 7:23, 1 Kings 6:19. Some exegetists, especially of the rationalistic period, have unjustly desired to find a contradiction in the fact that Koheleth here despises cheerful sensual enjoyment, whilst in conclusion (Ecclesiastes 2:24, f.) he vaunts it as the principal aim of life. What he here blames and condemns as foolish, is clearly only that empty merriment which accompanies the wild exhilaration of sensual enjoyment, or sensual pleasure, as only end and aim of human effort, not a thankfully cheerful enjoyment of the benefits bestowed by God. Comp. Luther on this passage, and see the ho-miletical hints. 3. First division, first strophe: Ecclesiastes 2:3-11.—I sought in mine heart to give myself unto wine. (Lit. Ger., to comfort my flesh with wine). of the sensual joy indicated in the first verse, a special kind is hero named, by which the preacher first sought to obtain satisfaction, and then follow, to the sixth verse inclusive, still other such separate means of sensual enjoyment. The word ϊַּ ?ψְ ?ϊִּ ?ι therefore, recommences the account where the ΰֲ ?πַ ?λְּ ?λָ ?δ Ecclesiastes 2:1, had begun it, and is in substance synonymous with that verb. Comp. Numbers 13:18; Numbers 15:39; etc., where ϊּ ?εּ ?ψ is always used in the sense of trying, experimenting, and not in that of thinking, re fleeting. (Elster). ξְ ?ωֹׁ ?καָּ ?ωָׂ ?ψ is most justly explained by Gesenius, Hitzig, Hengstenberg etc., as “to nourish the body,” i. e., to keep it in action or condition, to make it lasting and strong so that the expression: “bread which strengtheneth man’s heart” (Psalms 104:15), seems parallel with it. Others explain it differently, as Knobel and Vaihinger: “To keep my sensual natur with wine;” Ewald, Elster: “to attach m; sense to wine;” Herzfeld: “to entice my body b; wine,” etc. Yet acquainting mine hear with wisdom. (Lit. Ger., my heart led me wit] wisdom), a parenthetical clause that clearly indicates what the inner man of the preacher did whilst his flesh rioted in pleasures and enjoyments. The sense is therefore: I did not plunge headlong into coarse, fleshly gratifications, but true to the warning counsel in Proverbs 31:4, f. I tested with calm reflection, and in a compose way, whether real contentment was to be secure by means of sensual joys. The exposition o Ewald and Elsteb, which allies πδβ with the Aramaic πδβ “to sigh,” and the correspond ing Arabic verb, in the sense of “experiercing disgust with something” (“whilst my heart was weary with wisdom”), is too far-fetched, an contradicts what is said in Ecclesiastes 9:13; ff., which confirms our conception of the passage. for in the sense of guiding, leading, comp. Isaiah 11:6; 1 Chronicles 13:7; 2 Samuel 6:8, etc.—And to lay hold on folly, or also to seize folly.—With “folly” (ρִ ?λְ ?μεּ ?ϊ) cannot here naturally be meant as an exclusive contrast with wisdom; therefore not folly in the absolute sense, but mainly that foolish, sensual pleasure, which is referred to in Ecclesiastes 2:2, or even that mentioned in Ecclesiastes 2:3, “comforting the flesh with wine;” therefore a disposition which gives the reins to pleasure, and lives thoughtlessly in accordance with the assertion of Horace: Dulce est desipere in loco. Koheleth, from the beginning, recognizes this sentiment as folly, and thus designates it in contempt. But nevertheless he will prove it, and try whether it may not be relatively best for man, better than cold, fruitless, and wearisome wisdom, which when gained produces sorrow, and with which he was disgusted according to chapter first.” (Elster).—Till I might see what was that good for the sons of men, etc. Comp. Ecclesiastes 7:19.—Which they should do under the heaven all the days of their life. There is in these words a kind of mournful resignation. Short as is the period of human life on earth, oven for this little span of time it is not always clear to man what is really good and beneficial for him; and many, and mostly bitter and painful experiences, are needed to bring him to this knowledge. Ecclesiastes 2:4. I made me great works; I builded me houses. We are here certainly to understand the structures of Solomon in a general sense (1 Kings 7:1, ff.; 1 Kings 9:19; Ecclesiastes 10:18, ff., but hardly a special allusion to the temple, which Solomon could not have counted among his houses.—I planted me vineyards The Song of Solomon, Ecclesiastes 8 :II, mentions one of these; and that Solomon had more of them, and had not overrated his wealth arbitrarily, and in violation of historic truth, (as Knobel supposes), is satisfactorily proved by the several vineyards of David enumerated in 1 Chron. 28:27. Ecclesiastes 2:5. I made me gardens and orchards,—in the environs of these houses or palaces, (comp. 1 Kings 21:2; Jer. 62:7; also the Son 1:16, f.). For the etymology of the See Int. to the Song, § 3, obs. 2.—And I planted trees in them of all kind of fruits; therefore not merely one of one kind, but many of many kinds of fruit trees. The emphasis does not rest on τְּ ?ψִ ?ι as if it would declare the King’s object to be to raise trees affording delightful and delicate enjoyment (Knobel), but on λָּ ?μΞ whereby the rich variety of fruit trees is pointed out. Ecclesiastes 2:6.—I made me pools of water; perhaps those mentioned in the Song (Ecclesiastes 7:4), as at Heshbon; perhaps also the king’s pool at Jerusalem, mentioned in Nehemiah 2:14, which a later tradition, at least, marked as a work of Solomon. (Josephus, b. Judges 5:4; Judges 5:2); and certainly those situated in Wadi Urtβs, near Bethlehem and Erham, “Pools of Solomon,” mentioned in the exposition of the Song of Solomon, and which are doubtless here principally meant.—To water therewith the wood that bringeth forth trees, intransitive as in Proverbs 24:31; Isaiah 5:6; Isaiah 34:15. The object of these pools as artificial basins for irrigating the extensive orchards of the king, testify to the magnificence and expense of these grounds. Ecclesiastes 2:7. I got me servants and maidens, and had servants born in my house. (Lit., were to me, as in Ecclesiastes 2:10), namely, from the marriages of the men and maid servants in my house. αְּ ?πֵ ?ιαַּ ?ιִ ?ϊ Genesis 15:2, or ιְ ?μִ ?ιγֵ ?ιαַּ ?ιִ ?ϊ Gen. 12:27; Jeremiah 2:14, are slaves born in the house (vernζ, οἰκογενεῖς), and on account of their natural fidelity and affection a very valuable possession; here, however, named mainly because their presence was the sign and necessary result of numerous servants, and, consequently, of a large and flourishing household.—Also I had great possessions, of great and small cattle. After the wealth in men and maid servants, as in Genesis 12:16; Genesis 30:43, directly follow the great possessions of cattle, and then comes his wealth in unproductive treasures, silver and gold, as Genesis 13:2. The historical books of the Old Testament mention not only David (1 Chronicles 27:29, f.), but also his son and heir Solomon (1 Kings 5:3; 1 Kings 8:63), as wealthy possessors of herds. For the concluding words of this verse: above all that were in Jerusalem before me, see remarks on Ecclesiastes 1:16. Ecclesiastes 2:8. I gathered me also silver and gold. λָּ ?πַ ?ρְ ?ϊּ ?ι lit., “I heaped up,” that is in treasuries, as in the gorgeous apartments of my palace. The result of this unceasing activity of Solomon in collecting treasures, is depicted in 2 Chronicles 1:15; 2 Chronicles 9:27; 1 Kings 10:27 : “Silver and gold at Jerusalem were as plenteous as stories.”—And the peculiar treasure of kings, and of the provinces. For λְ ?ζγִ ?ιπָ ?δ province, district, comp. Int. § 4, obs. 2. ρְ ?βֻ ?μָּ ?δ lit. property, is here and in 1 Chronicles 29:3, equivalent to wealth, treasures. By “kings” are naturally first meant those tributary rulers of the neighboring lands treated of in 1 Kings 5:1; 1 Kings 10:15; but farther on those friendly rulers, who, as the Queen of Sheba, 1 Kings 10:2 ff., brought voluntary gifts, or even sent them, (as through the ships of Ophir, 1 Kings 9:28; 1 Kings 10:11; 1 Kings 10:14; 1 Kings 10:22; 2 Chron. 8:28). The provinces are those twelve districts into which Solomon divided the land for the purpose of taxation, 1 Kings 4:7 if.—I gat me men-singers and women-singers;—the latter doubtless belonging to the women used for courtly display, mentioned in the Song of Solomon under the name of “Daughters of Jerusalem,” or “Virgins without number,” (Ecclesiastes 6:8); the former were of course not singers of the temple (as in 1 Kings 10:12; 1 Chronicles 25:1 ff.; 2 Chronicles 5:12), but singers of lively, worldly songs, as kept by David according to 2 Samuel 19:36, and afterwards certainly by Solomon for enhancing the pleasures of the table, (comp. Isaiah 5:12; Amos 6:5).—For ςָ ?ωָֹׁ ?δ to get, to keep, comp. 2 Samuel 15:1; 1 Kings 1:6.—And the delights of the sons of men, as musical instruments, and that of all sorts (Zφckleb has rendered ωִׁ ?γָּ ?δεְ ?ωִׁ ?γּ ?εֹ ?ϊ die Hulle und Fulle, in great abundance.—T. L. The words ωִׁ ?γָּ ?δεְ ?ωִׁ ?γּ ?εֹ ?ϊ are most probably to be translated according to the Arabic by “multitude and multitudes,” or also by “heap and heaps” (Ewald, Elster, etc.), whereby a very great abundance is meant, and indeed of ϊַּ ?ςֲ ?πֻ ?βεֹ ?ϊ i. e., of caresses, of enjoyments and pleasures’ of sexual love, to which Solomon was too much given according to 1 Kings 9:3; Son 6:8. J. d. Michaelis, Rosenmueller, Herzfeld, Knobel, Hitzig, etc., translate “mistress and mistresses,” or “woman and women,” a signification which they seek to justify etymo-logically in various ways from the Arabic, but which can no more be considered certain than the explanation resting on the Chaldaic ωְׁ ?γָ ?ΰ “to pour,” which ancient translators turn into cupbearers, male and female (Sept. οἰνοχόονςκαὶ οἰνοχόας, Hieronymus, ministros vini et ministras). Ecclesiastes 2:9. So I was great and increased. (Lit. I became great and added thereto (δεֹ ?ρִ ?σ as Ecclesiastes 1:16). This is meant, of course, in the sense of possessions and riches, consequently in the sense of Gen 26:13; Job 1:3.—Also my wisdom remained with me: ςָ ?ξְ ?γָ ?δΞμִּ ?ι Lit. (It stood by me), it remained at my side, left me not, notwithstanding the fact that my outward man yielded to these follies and vanities. Thus must it be rendered according to Ecclesiastes 2:3, and not “My wisdom served me," (Ewald), or “sustained me,” Elster. (Comp. the Vulg. persevcravitmecum). Ecclesiastes 2:10. And whatsoever mine eyes desired I kept not from them. That is, I possessed not only an abundance of all earthly goods, but I sought also to enjoy them; I withheld from me no object of my pleasure. Concerning the eyes as seat and organ of sensual desire, consult Psalms 145:15; 1 Kings 20:6; 1 John 2:16— I withheld not my heart from any joy. Koheleth does not mean thereby that he enjoyed every imaginable pleasure, but only that I lie kept his heart open for every pleasure that i presented itself to him, and profited by every one; i that he avoided no pleasure that presented itself to him, (comp. Hitzig). That this is the sense is proved by the following: For my heart rejoiced in all my labour; and this was my portion of all my labours. Koheleth allowed himself, therefore, those pleasures and enjoyments which resulted from his continued exertion and labor, which formed agreeable resting places in the midst of his painful and fatiguing life; he sought and found in the hours of cheerful enjoyment, that interrupted his mainly painful existence, a recompense for his troubles and sorrows,—a recompense, it is true, that was only of a transitory nature (consequently no lasting, but simply an apparent, ηֶ ?μֶ ?χ and which thus, just as the toil and labor, belonged to that vexation of spirit that formed mainly the sum and substance of his experience. For ωָׂ ?ξַ ?ηξִ ?ο “to extract joy from anything,” comp. Proverbs 5:18; 2 Chronicles 20:27. In opposition to the explanation of Hahn et al.—my heart rejoiced after all my labor, stands the following expression: This was my portion (i. e., my profit, my advantage), of all my labor. Ecclesiastes 2:11. Then I looked on all the works, etc., lit.: I turned to all my works (λָּ ?πָ ?δαְּ as Job 6:28); comp. Ecclesiastes 2:12. And on the labour that I had laboured; to do, i. e., to produce these, my toilsome works. And, behold, all was vanity and vexation of spirit. “All,” that is, the substance of all my efforts, those referring to the collecting of great riches, and the founding of a great dominion, as well as those aiming after cheerful enjoyment; “in nothing of all this did I recognise a lasting ηֶ ?μֶ ?χ a real ιִ ?ϊְ ?ψεֹ ?ο (comp. Ecclesiastes 1:3); everything seemed to me rather as ψְ ?ςεּ ?ϊψεּ ?ηַ (see Ecclesiastes 1:14).” In how far and why this formed the result of his experience, is shown in the sequel (Ecclesiastes 2:12-19); there only does this general conclusion: there is no profit under the sun, as here expressed in anticipation, find its full justification. 4. First Division, second strophe: Ecclesiastes 2:12-19. That there is no profit under the sun, appears above all clearly from the fact that the wise man, with reference to his final destiny, and the end of his life, has no advantage over the fool, in so as he meets the same death as the latter through a necessity of nature, and is obliged to eave the fruits of his labor often enough to foolish heirs and successors. Ecclesiastes 2:12. And I turned myself to behold wisdom, and madness, and folly; i. e., to observe them in their relation to each other, and consider their relative value; comp. Ecclesiastes 1:17. Hitzig’s conception that “madness and folly” are correlatives is altogether too artificial; he holding that by these the result of the consideration of wisdom is expressed, and that a connective (“and, behold, it was)” has been omitted. For what can the man do that cometh after the king? even that which hath been already done. This, "that has already been done,” consists naturally in a foolish and perverted beginning, even in the destruction of what has been done by a wise predecessor, and in the dispersion of the treasures and goods collected by him, (comp. for this negative, or rather catachrestic sense of the verb to do, Matthew 17:12). J. D. Michaelis, Knobel, and Hengstenberg, substantially coincide with this explanation of the somewhat obscure and difficult words; it is confirmed as well by the context as by the masoretic punctuation. Nearest allied to this is the conception of Ko-senmueller: "For who is the man who can come after the king? Answer: For what has been he will do.” Thus also De Rougement: “Who is the man who could hope to be more fortunate in following after him (King Solomon) on this false path? We can try it, but it will be with us as it has been with all before us.” Hitzig reads in the concluding line ) ςֲ ?ωׂ ?εֹ ?δεּ instead of ςָ ?ωׂ ?εּ ?δεּ and therefore translates: What will the successor of the king do? “That which he hath already done.” Luther, Vaihinger, as also the Septuagint and the Vulgate, only translating more concretely,, do not take ΰֶ ?ηΰֲ ?ωֶׁ λְּ ?αַ ?ψςָ ?ωׂ ?εּ ?δεּ as an independent, responsive clause, but as a relative clause: “What will the man be who will come after the king, who has already been chosen?” (Luther, “whom they have already made”). Hahn also says: “What is the man who will come after the king, in respect to that which has already been done;” and Ewald and Elster: “How will the man be who follows the king, compared with him whom they chose long ago,” i.e., with his predecessor? Some Rabbinic exegetists, whom even Drusius is inclined to follow, have referred ςָ ?ωׂ ?εּ ?δεּ to God as active subject, which is here expressed as a plurality (trinity): “with the One (or beside the One) who has made him;” for which sense they refer to Psalms 149:2 : Job 35:10; Isaiah 54:1, etc. Ecclesiastes 2:13. Then I saw that wisdom excelleth folly, as far as light excelleth darkness.—The poet recognizes the absolute worth of wisdom, just as in the first clause of Ecc 2:14 he more clearly describes its profit for the individual. For the comparison of wisdom and folly with light and darkness, comp. Proverbs 4:23; Matthew 6:33 f.; John 8:12, etc. “As light is a creative power that bears within itself an independent life, and produces life wherever it penetrates, and darkness, on the contrary, is a negation of light, a numb and dead element,—so is the real strength of life in wisdom alone, whilst folly is vain, empty, and unsubstantial” (Elster). Ecclesiastes 2:14. The wise man’s eyes are in his head; but the fool walketh in darkness.—An assumed syllogism, in which the conclusion is wanting: “therefore, it stumbles and falls;” comp. John 9:10. By the eyes which the wise man carries in his head, i. e., in the right place, are meant, of course, the eyes of the understanding (Ephesians 1:18), the inward organ of spiritual knowledge, the eye of the spirit (Proverbs 20:27; Matthew 6:28, etc.), Comp. Cicero, deNatura Deorum, 2, 64. Totam licet animis tamqttam oculis lustrare terram.—And I myself perceived also that one event happeneth to them all.—βַּ ?ν adversative, as Ecclesiastes 3:13; Ecclesiastes 4:8; Ecclesiastes 4:16. ξִ ?χְ ?ψֶ ?δ literal: occurrence, accident or chance; comp. Ecclesiastes 2:15; Ecclesiastes 3:19, etc., which here clearly designate death, the physical end of man, the return to dust of one born of dust, as a destiny resting on the Divine curse (Genesis 3:19).Ecclesiastes 2:15. As it happeneth to the fool, so it happeneth even to me.—The general assertion of the latter clause of Ecc 2:14 is now specially applied to the person of Koheleth, as belonging to the class of wise men.—βַּ ?νΞΰֲ ?πִ ?ιιִ ?χְ ?ψֵ ?πִ ?ι literally: “I also, it will happen to me.” The person being made prominent by the isolated pronoun in the nominative, placed at the beginning, as in Genesis 24:27; Ezekiel 33:17; 2 Chronicles 28:10.—And why was I then more Wise?—That is, “what profits me now my great wisdom? what advantage does it afford me compared with the fool?” For this expression comp. 1 Corinthians 15:30; Galatians 5:11.—ΰַ ?ζ now, therefore, if such is the case, is said in view of the dying hour, from which the author looks back on the whole of his past life.—ιϊֵֹ ?ψ a participle used substantively, synonymous with ιִ ?ϊְ ?ψεֹ ?ο advantage, profit, here an adverb, excessively, too much, comp. Ecclesiastes 7:16—That this also is vanity.—“This,” namely, the arrangement that the wise man dies as the fool, that the same night of death awaits them both. Observe that Koheleth does not declare this disposition an injustice, but only as vanity, for a new phase of that fullness of vain, empty appearances which his experience in life has made him acquainted with, δֶ ?αֶ ?μ here signifies, as at the end of Ecc 2:19 (also Ecclesiastes 8:10; Ecclesiastes 8:14), something objectively vain, in contrast to the vanity of subjective Human thoughts, knowledge and efforts hitherto indicated by it. It means the same objective ματαιότης of this lower world, derived from the fall, of which Paul, Romans 8:20, says, that the entire earthly creature, like man himself, is subjected to it. Ver.16. For there is no remembrance of the wise more than of the fool forever—i. e., as is the fool, so is the wise man forgotten after his death; posterity thinks of the one as little as of the other. This assertion is, of course, to be relatively understood, like the similar one in Ecclesiastes 1:11; not all posthumous fame of men is denied; it is simply asserted to be ordinarily and most generally the case, that posterity retains no special remembrance of those who have previously lived, which, in reference to the great majority of individuals is certainly wholly true.—ςִ ?νδַ ?λְּ ?ρִ ?ιμ lit., “with the fool,” is equivalent to “as the fool;” comp. Ecclesiastes 7:10; Job 9:26; Job 37:18.—μִ ?ςεֹ ?μָ ?ν belongs in conception with ζִ ?λְ ?ψεֹ ?ο “no remembrance for eternity,” the same as, no eternal remembrance, no lasting recollection.—Seeing that which is now in the days to come shall all be forgotten.—δַ ?ιָּ ?ξִ ?ινδַ ?αָּ ?ΰִ ?ιν is the accusative of time, comp. Isaiah 27:6; Jeremiah 28:16.—λְּ ?αַ ?ψ is to be connected with the verb, as also chap, Ecclesiastes 9:6, and is therefore to be rendered: “because every thing will have long been forgotten” (πִ ?ωְׁ ?λַ ?η the future past).—And how dieth the wise man? as the fool!—(A simple exclamation in the Ger.). A painful cry of lamentation, ) which, by an appeal to the experience of the reader, is to represent what is asserted as incontestable. Ecclesiastes 2:17. Therefore I hated life.—ωָׂ ?πֵ ?ΰ does not indicate the strong effect of actual hatred or hostile feeling, but the feeling of disgust, weariness, antipathy towards a thing. Comp. the Vulg.: tseduit me vilse mess, and also for this same milder sense of the verb, Isaiah 14:1; Amos 5:13; Malachi 1:3.—Because the work That is wrought under the sun is grievous unto me.-That is, the view of every thing occurring under the sun bore painfully upon me, tortured me with an oppressive feeling; comp. Ewald, Manual, § 217, i. y.; comp. also Ecclesiastes 1:14. Ecclesiastes 2:18.—Yea, I hated all my labor, etc.-Not simply the doings of men in general, but also his own exertions, appeared hateful to the Preacher, because they were vain and fruitless.—Because I should leave it to the man that shall be after me-that is, to my successor, heir; comp. Ecclesiastes 2:12. He must leave to his heirs not the labor itself, but what he had acquired thereby, its fruit, its result, and this grieves him-why, the following verse tells.-For the form ΰַ ?πִּ ?ιηֶ ?πּ ?εּ Imp. Hiph. from πεη comp. Ewald, § 122, e.Ecclesiastes 2:19 heightens the thought of Ecc 2:18, and thereby leads back definitively to Ecclesiastes 2:12, as the starting point of the present reflection on the uncertainty and transitory nature of all earthly possessions (for wise men as well as for fools)—Wherein I have labored, and wherein I have showed myself wise under the sun.—ωֶׁ ?ςָ ?ξַ ?μְ ?ϊִּ ?ιεְ ?ωֶׁ ?δָ ?λַ ?ξְ ?ϊִּ ?ι lit., “which I have obtained by trouble, and in which I have employed wisdom.” A zeugma for: by whose wearisome acquirement I have showed myself wise. 5. Second Division, first strophe.Ecclesiastes 2:20-23. On account of the painful truth of what has just been demonstrated, one must despair of all external earthly success of this earthly life, as does the Preacher at the evening of his life.—Therefore I went about to cause my heart to despair.–(Lit. Ger., “turned around”). εְ ?ρַ ?αּ ?εֹ ?ϊִ ?ι different from εְ ?τָ ?πִ ?ιϊִ ?ι Ecclesiastes 2:12, does not mean to turn in order to sec any thing, but a turning around in order to do something, comp. Ecclesiastes 7:25; 1 Samuel 22:17-18. The idea of turning from a former occupation is also included.-The Piel ιָ ?ΰֵ ?ωׁ to permit to despair, to give up to despair, is only found here in the O. T.; the Niph. πεֹ ?ΰַ ?ωׁ desperavit is more usual (or also the neuter participle: desperatum est), whilst the Kal does not occur. Ecclesiastes 2:21. For there is a man whose labor is in wisdom, and in knowledge, and in equity.—Lit., whose labor is with wisdom, etc. (ωֶׁ ?ςֲ ?ξָ ?μεֹ αְּ ?ηָ ?λְ ?λָ ?δ), or also: whose labor has been, etc.; for δָ ?ιָ ?δ the verb supplemented to ςֲ ?ξָ ?με, can express both a present and a perfect sense. Wisdom is not here designated as the aim of labor, as Ewald supposes (“whose labor aims after wisdom”), but as the means whereby the aim of ςָ ?ξָ ?μ, the fruit of human Exertion shall be attained. Besides wisdom, knowledge and equity are also named as means to this end. (γּ ?ςϊ comp. Ecclesiastes 1:16; Ecclesiastes 1:18; Ecclesiastes 2:26); for this is what λִּ ?ωְׁ ?ψεֹ ?ο here means, not success, favorable result, as Ecclesiastes 5:9. The Sept. is also correct, ἀνδρέια, and substantially so also the Vulg (sollicitudo), and Luther (ability, capability).- Yet to a man who has not labored thereir shall he leave it for his portion.—ωֶׁ ?μֹּ ?ΰςָ ?ξַ ?μΞαּ ?εֹ for αּ ?εֹ refers to tho principal thought of the preceding clause, and not to ηָ ?λְ ?ξָ ?δ. For ςָ ?ξַ ?μαְּ, to labor for a thing; comp. Jonah 4:10 The suffix in ιִ ?ϊְ ?πֶ ?πּ ?ε also refers to ςָ ?ξָ ?μ, and ηֶ ?μְ ?χεֹ is a second object: “he gives it to him as him portion, his share” Ecclesiastes 2:22. For what hatl man of all his labor, δָ ?εָ ?δ lit.: falls to, falls suddenly down upon (Job 37:6); in the late Chaldaic style, to happen, to become, to be ap pointed to; comp. Ecclesiastes 11:2; Nehemiah 6:6.—And of the vexation of his heart.-Herewith are principally, if not exclusively, meant these there synonyms: Wisdom, knowledge and equity, ver 21. The aspiration of the heart is the essence of the plans and designs which form the motiv of the labor and exertion of man, and give t them their direction and definite aim. Ecclesiastes 2:22 Wherein he hath labored under the sun.—The relative refers to λָּ ?μςֲ ?ξָ ?μεֹ as well as to ψַ ?ςְ ?ιεֹ ?ομִ ?αּ ?εֹ ?Ecclesiastes 2:23. For all his days ar sorrows and his travail grief.—ςִ ?πְ ?ιָ ?πεֹ (comp. Ecclesiastes 1:13) bears here again the meaning of daily labor (Hitzig, Elster, Vaihinger, etc.), a stronger expression that would remind us of Psa 42:3 Comp. also Psalms 90:10.—Yea, his heal taketh not rest in the night-that is, it n maineth awake, troubled by anxious thoughts and plans, or tortured by unquiet dreams; comp Ecclesiastes 5:12; Son 5:2. 6. Second Division, second strophe.Ecclesiastes 2:24-26. We are not always to remain in this abandonment of hope of external happiness, but to seek the necessary contentment of the heart in the cheerful and grateful enjoyment of the blessings of life, which God bestows on those of His children who find favor in His sight; and even this enjoyment is something vain and futile, so far as it does not stand in the power of man, but must be graciously conferred by God.—There is nothing better for man than that he should eat and drink, etc.—The words ΰֵ ?ιοθεֹ ?ααְּ ?ΰָ ?γָ ?νωִׁ ?ιֹּ ?ΰλַ ?μεְ ?βε permit a threefold conception:1. Interrogative: “Is it not better for man to eat,” etc. (thus Luthher, Oetinger, Hengstenberg, and the Vulg.: “Nonne melius est comedere et bibere,” etc.). 2. Purely negative: “There is no happiness for the man who eats,” etc. (thus the Sept., M. Geier, Dathe, Knobel, Hahn). 3. On the supposition of the omission of ξִ ?ο or of λִּ ?ιΰִ ?ν before ωֶׁ ?ιֹּ ?ΰλַ ?μִ, “there is no happiness for man but in eating.” This last translation has the most to recommend it, because the interrogative and the unconditional negative conception do not so well comport with the context, and because this latter especially would be in contradiction with the passages of Ecc 3:12; Ecclesiastes 3:22; Ecclesiastes 5:18 ff; Ecclesiastes 7:14; Ecclesiastes 8:15; Ecclesiastes 9:7-9, which recommend serene enjoyment of life as a means of acquiring happiness and contentment. And because, further, the ancient Aramaic translations confirm the omission of ξ (compare Ecclesiastes 3:22)before ωֶׁ ?ιֹּ ?ΰλַ ?μ an omission which, on account of the αְּ in αָּ ?ΰָ ?γָ ?ν. and the like ending, might so easily take place, and finally because the idea of αְּ in αָּ ?ΰָ ?γָ ?ν with the sense of μ, consequently in a sense designating an object, is confirmed by Ecclesiastes 3:12; Ecclesiastes 10:17; and the instrumental conception of this attempted by Geier and Knobel, is therefore unnecessary To eat and drink, and let one’s soul be merry, is therefore the triad of sensual life, which is sometimes used in a bad sense-, of vicious excess and indulgence, and again in a good or morally unpreju-dicial sense. The former is found in Exodus 32:6; Proverbs 23:7-8; Jdt 12:13; 1 Corinthians 10:17,etc., the latter in this passage, and in Ecclesiastes 3:13; Ecclesiastes 5:17; Ecclesiastes 8:15; and also in 1 Samuel 30:16; Isaiah 65:13; Son 5:1, etc. Comp. Zφckler, Theologia Naturalis, p. 651 f., where are also produced from the classics many parallels of this combination of ideas in eating, drinking, and being merry; (e.g., Euripides, Alcest., 783; Arrian, Anab., II. 5,4; Plautus, Mil. glor., III., 1, 83).—That these maxims, to eat, drink, and be merry, are not here meant in the Epicurean sense of 1 Corinthians 15:32, is proved by the important addition αַּ ?ςֲ ?ξָ ?μεֹ in his labor, in his toil, on which a special emphasis rests, and which excludes every thought of idle debauchery and luxurious enjoyment. See Int. § 5, and especially p. 24.—This also I saw, that it was from the hand of Grod. That is, not: I observed that as all else, so also this comes from the hand of God, but, at the same time with that truth, that eating, drinking, etc., is the best for man, I perceived also that only the hand of God can bestow such cheerfulness in toil, and such a joyous and contented feeling in the midst of the fatigues of worldly avocations. Ecclesiastes 2:25.For who can eat, or who else can hasten hereunto more than I? Lit. Ger., and who enjoy, except from Him? ηεּ ?ωׁ lit., to make merry, to pass a life in carousing, deliciis afflaere (Vulg.) hence to enjoy, to delight, not drink, tipple (Sept. Syr., Ewald).—Instead of ηεּ ?υξִ ?ξֶּ ?πִּ ?ι we must read with the Sept., Syr., Hieronymus and eight manuscripts ηεּ ?υξִ ?ξֶּ ?πִּ ?ι except from Him. For ηεּ ?υξִ ?ξֶּ ?πִּ ?ι ia the comparative sense, “except me,” or just as I, does not afford a thought in accordance with the text, and would not harmonize with the ιָ ?ηεּ ?ωׁ and ιֹ ?ΰλַ ?μ (see Vulg. Luther, etc.). But the translation of Hahn: “for who shall eat and who shall pine for food, is beyond me, is beyond my power,” is insufferably harsh. On the contrary, ξִ ?ξֶּ ?πּ ?εּ from Him (comp. the preposition ξִ ?ο 2 Samuel 3:37; 1 Kings 20:33), accords admirably with the connection, and furnishes that thought reminding us of Jam 1:17, which we here above all things need. And, moreover, the reading ξִ ?ξֶּ ?πִּ ?ι appears to coincide with the equally faulty ωֶׁ ?ιֹּ ?ΰλַ ?μ for ξωׁ ?ιΰλμ of the preceding verse. See Hitzia on this passage.Ecclesiastes 2:26. For to the man that is good in his sight, that is, to the just and God-fearing (comp. Nehemiah 2:5; 1 Samuel 29:6), the opposite of ηεֹ ?θֵ ?ΰ. The idea of the retributive justice of God, meets us here for the first time in this book, but not yet so thoroughly developed as subsequently, e. g., Ecclesiastes 3:17; Ecclesiastes 11:8; Ecclesiastes 12:14.—But to the sinner he giveth travail, to gather and to heap up. μָ ?ηεֹ ?θֵ ?ΰ stands absolute and is not to be supplemented by a new μְ ?τָ ?πָ ?ιε (like the θεֹ ?α of the first clause of the verse), as if the sense were, to the one who is. offensive to Him, who isa sinner in His sight. That he may give to him that is good before God. The object of μָ ?ϊֵ ?ϊ is not the travail of the sinner, but the goods gathered by him through toil and travail, the treasures heaped up by him, but finally falling to the just. The same thought occurs in Proverbs 13:22; Proverbs 28:8; Job 27:17.—This also is vanity and vexation of spirit, namely, that one seeks his happiness in the cheerful enjoyment of sensual blessings, (according to the maxim in verse 24). This is also vanity, because the acquisition of goods and pleasures in this life, is by no means in the power of man, but depends solely on the free grace of God, which gives to its beloved while sleeping, (Psalms 127:2); but permits the wicked, instead of pleasures, to heap up vain wrath against the day of judgment, (Romans 2:5; James 5:3). Others consider the heaping up of travail on the part of the wicked, as the subject of the phrase (Elster and Hengstenberg), or that it designates the arbitrary distribution of the blessings of life on the part of God as vanity and vexation (Knobel), but thereby they depart equally far from the true train of thought which the author maintains since verse 24. AND ETHICAL. (With Homiklical Hints.) The transition of Koheletii in the beginning of the chapter, especially in vers.1–8, from the striving after wisdom and knowledge to enjoyment, and from that to action, to the organizing and artificially producing deed (Ecclesiastes 2:4-8) presents a certain similarity with the progress of Goethe’s Faust from knowledge to enjoyment, and from that (in the sec. act) to the more serious duty of laboring and producing. For the magnificent undertakings, structures, and extension of possessions and acquirements described in Ecclesiastes 2:4-8, can scarcely be considered as mere means of sensual enjoyment in the sense of Ko-heleth (as in Elster, p. 55). He expressly confesses to have connected therewith a certain ideal object, if not of a religious, at least of an ethical aad human character; this lies in the repeated assertion (Ecclesiastes 2:3; Ecclesiastes 2:9), that in the midst of these eudemonistic and practical efforts, wisdom remained the ruler of his heart. But the great difference between Faust and the Preacher, consists in the final solution of the grand enigma of earthly life, which in the former ends in an obscure, sentimental, and philosophical mysticism, whilst the latter returns from his wanderings in the sphere of effort after earthly wisdom, enjoyment and acquisition, into the safe haven of a clearly conscious, modestly practical, and filially pious faith in God’s gracious and just government of the world. It is the humble, confidently trusting, and gratefully contented reliance on God’s gracious hand, which, at the close of his vivid and almost startling description of the vanity of all earthly things, he recommends as the only true aim for the life and labors of man, (Ecclesiastes 2:21-26). That all human exertions are vanity, even that modest striving after cheerful enjoyment and serene employment described in Ecclesiastes 2:21, is firmly fixed in his mind, (according to Ecclesiastes 2:26). But the acknowledgment of this fact does not impel him to a sullen despair of all happiness and peace, but father leads from such a feeling of discontent and discouragement into the blissful repose of a heart wholly given to God, and thankfully enjoying the good and perfect gifts dispensed by Him. Not the indolent man of enjoyment, but the industrious, cheerful laborer; not the greedily grasping misanthropic miser, but the friend of humanity delighting in God, and well-pleasing to Him; not the sinner, but the pious child of God, strong in the faith, forms the ideal that he presents at the close of his observations on the vanity of human life, which, though agitated and complaining indeed, nowhere extend to despairing grief or frivolous scepticism. A comprehensive homileticar consideration of the whole chapter, would, therefore, be able to present as its theme: “The vanity of all earthly things, and the consoling power of a faithful reliance on God;” or, in order to show more clearly the feature distinguishing this chapter from the preceding: “The wrong and the right way to seek one’s happiness on earth;” or: “Divine grace as tile bestowcr of that happiness of men, vainly sought after by their own power and with earthly means,”(comp. the following passages in the N. T: John 6:65; John 15:5; Ephesians 2:8; James 1:17, etc.). The principal divisions for a discourse on these contents would be: 1. No earthly enjoyment or possession leads to genuine happiness, (1–11); 2. Even the happiest and wisest man remains subject to the curse of death, common to all the sons of men, (12–19); 3,Genuine and lasting happiness (surviving this life) can only be obtained for man by a childlike, contented, and grateful reliance on God’s gracious and paternal hand, (20–26). HINTS TO Ecclesiastes 2:1-2. Luther: Many a one arranges all his matters with much toil and trouble, that he may have repose and peace in his old age, but God disposes otherwise, so that he comes into affairs that cause his unrest then to commence. Many a one seeks his joy in lust and licentiousness, and his life is embittered ever after. Therefore, if God does not give joy and pleasure, but we strive after it, and endeavor to create it of ourselves, no good will come of it, but it is, as Solomon says, all vanity. The best gladness and delight are those which one does not seek (for a fly may easily fall into our broth), but that which God gives to our hand. Staeke: The joy of the world is so constituted that it entails repentance, mortification, and grief (1 John 2:17; Luke 16:19; Luke 16:23); but the pleasure that the faithful find fh God, is spiritual, constant, satisfying, and inexpressible, (Isaiah 35:10; John 16:22). Staeke: Ecclesiastes 2:3 ff.: Every natural man seeks, in his way, his heaven in sensual delights. But he too often sins thereby, and misuses the gifts of God (Wisdom 2, 6 ff.). God grants to man what is necessary to his body, as well as that which tends to his comfort. But how many forget God thereby! Geier: It is allowable to possess riches if they have been righteously acquired. But bo-ware of avarice as well as extravagance. Wohlfakth: He who thinks to find the aim of his life in the highest measure of sensual enjoyment, is the victim of an error which will demand of him a fearful revenge in proportion as he tears himself from God, strives simply after false treasures, and neglects and despises the treasures of a higher world; he heaps upon himself a weighty responsibility on account of the misuse of his time, the wasting of his powers, and the evil administration of the goods confided to him by God, and by all this excludes himself, unconditionally, from the kingdom of God. Hansen:-9–11. The things of this world belong to the preservation, delight and convenience of external, sensual life. One may arrange them, therefore, with as much pomp, majesty and beauty as is possible; they can never, according to their nature, do more than delight our senses.-If we estimate their worth too high, they can take from us in inward ease of mind much more than they grant us in sensual delights and convenience, and become to us then a genuine scourge of the spirit. Staeke:—If the children of the world are not without vexation and trouble in the accomplishment of their sinful lusts, the children of God should be less surprised, if they in their work in the Lord must experience various disappointments and vexations. Hamann (Ecclesiastes 2:10):—We here find a trace of Divine goodness, which, notwithstanding the vanity of all our works, has placed in labor, and especially in useful occupations, which strike the eye and gain our approbation as well as that of others, a species of joy, a spice of pleasure which delights us more than the work itself, because we often do not esteem that which was so agreeable to us in the process of production. Luther: Ecclesiastes 2:12-19. (To Ecclesiastes 2:15). Therefore it is better to commend the highest government of all things to the God who made us. Let every one perform his duty with all diligence, and execute what God places to his hand; if things do not always turn out as we expected, let us commend them to God. What God gives, that accept; and again, what He prevents, that accept also as good. What we are able to do, that we ought to do; what we cannot do, we must leave undone. The stone that thou art not able to lift, thou must leave lying. Gerlach (to Ecclesiastes 2:17):—If God has disappeared from the efforts of men, a disgust of life appears sooner or later (John 4:8 ff..).Geier (to Ecclesiastes 2:18-19):—It is hard for flesh and blood to leave the fruits of its toil to others; but a Christian arms himself against this with the reflection that every thing that he has or does is given to him by God, 1 Corinthians 4:7. Wohlfarth (Ecclesiastes 2:13-19):-What must we feel it our duty to do, -on perceiving that the earth can afford no perfect satisfaction to our demand for happiness ?—The wise man is pained on perceiving that all earthly things are vain and unsatisfactory; his eye indeed becomes serious, and his expression reflective. But for that very reason, he hears not only the cry of the grave, but also the words of consolation: “Lift up thy eye, citizen of heaven in the garb of a pilgrim; true as it is, that the world with all its treasures cannot satisfy thy longing for what is lasting and perfect, so foolish is it to seek therein peace and perfect satisfaction.” Zeyss (Ecclesiastes 2:20-23):—This life is full of trouble throughout, with all men and all classes. Why should we not, therefore, ardently long for a better life ? (Philippians 3:14).—Starke:—The travail of soul, by which one obtains salvation through fear and trembling, is therein different from worldly toil, in bearing its profit unto eternal life. Osiander (Ecclesiastes 2:24-26):—It is pleasing to God that we should cheerfully enjoy our labor in His fear, so much as our calling may permit it, Psalms 128:1-2. Joachim Langb:—According as man is virtuous or vicious, even his eating and drinking is good or evil. Because the natural man lives either in a state of fleshly security or of servitude, and there is nothing really good in him that avails with God and satisfies the conscience. Starke (Ecclesiastes 2:26):—Seek above all things to please God by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; else, with all external happiness, thou art still unhappy. The wicked often have worldly goods, and seek in every way to increase them; but tney do not have real profit and lasting fruit from them, because their works do not proceed from the faith. He, on the contrary, who possesses the fruits of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22) and is faithful therein, is ever favored by God with greater mercy (Matthew 5:28-29). Hansen (Ecclesiastes 2:26):-If we examine it closely, the want of genuine wisdom and pure knowledge is the reason why many do not prosper in the blessings which they possess in the world. Men of impure and confused conceptions, who are fettered by dazzling imaginations, must suffer with all their abundance, and lead a miserable life. Hamann (Ecclesiastes 2:26).:—All the vanity, all the toilings of men after wisdom, happiness and rest, which in so many ways lead men to the grave, where ceases all the distinction which they strive to obtain on earth, are not allotted to the pious man by God; they are a curse which sin has laid upon man, but which God will make a blessing to His chosen ones. For these busy, restless creatures gather and heap up for those who are good in God’s eyes. And these latter shall gratuitously receive by the sinner’s labor what he (the sinner) seeks and finds not, what ho labors for and cannot enjoy: wisdom, knowledge, joy.-What is the Divine word, and whence are taken this wisdom, knowledge and joy that in it exist ? Are they not honey made by bees in the slain beast? What are the stories that they tell us but examples of sinners’ toil, of the vanity and folly into which men have fallen? Hengstenberg (Ecclesiastes 2:26):—It is manifest that the expression: “This also is vanity ” is not meant in the sense of an accusation of God, but as a cry of warning to human perverseness, that seeks its happiness only there where, according to God’s will, it should not be sought. [For reflections on this and other parts of the book, the reader is referred to Matthew Henry. In no commentary is there to be found a richer treasure of most choice, discriminating and highly spiritual apothegms, rendered most pleasing and ornate by what may be styled a holy humor, or a sanctified wit. They are unsurpassed by any thing in the devout German writers here quoted, but the ready access to the work, for all English readers, renders it unnecessary that the volume should be swelled by inserting them. Besides, among such rich materials, it would not be easy to make a limited selection. Much also of a very rich homiletical character may be obtained from Wordsworth.—T. L.]. Footnotes:[There is no contradiction, real or apparent, to be reconciled, if Ecclesiastes 2:24 is only rightly rendered as it simply stands in the Hebrew, without any addition. See Note on that passage.—T. L.] [ϊַּ ?ψְ ?ϊִּ ?ι —ϊּ ?εּ ?ψ, is very emphatic here. It denotes a deep and earnest search. The primary sense to go about, hence, investigate, appears very strong, Ecclesiastes 7:25 : I went round about (ρַ ?αּ ?εֹ ?ϊִ ?ι), “I and my heart, to know and to explore (μϊεψ), and to seek out wisdom, etc.” It is the word used of the spies sent out to search the land, Numbers 13:2; Numbers 13:16-17; Numbers 13:21; Numbers 13:25; Numbers 13:32; Numbers 14:6-7, etc., also of travelling merchants, peregrinators (2 Chronicles 9:14; 1 Kings 10:15) seeking for precious merchandize. αְּ ?μִ ?αִּ ?ι not, with my heart as an instrument, but in my heart as the dark place to be explored. He resolves to act as a spy upon himself, or, to use the quaint language of Halliburton in detailing his religious experience, “to see what his heart was doing in the dark”—like those whom Ezekiel saw in “the chambers of imagery”—or to find out how it might be possible in this interior chamber of the soul, to reconcile a devoted pursuit of pleasure, and, at the same time, a true pursuit of wisdom. The language implies a most intense study, as well as effort, to solve a difficult problem.—T. L.] [Ecclesiastes 2:3, μִ ?ξְ ?ωεֹ ?κְ. This passage and word have given much trouble. Zφckler’s view, though substantially that of Gesenius and Hengstenberg, is unsatisfactory. It is very remotely derived, if it can be derived at all, from the ordinary sense of ξωׁ ?κְ, to draw, draw out, and is supported by little or no analogy in language. The Latin tracto, from traho, never has the sense curare, which would come the nearest to it. The Syriac ξωׁ ?κ with which Gesenius compares it. is a very rate and doubtful word, given by Castell without any examples, and nowhere found, either in the Syriac Scriptures, or in any well known Syriac writings. Knobel gives ξָ ?ωַׁ ?κְ the sense of holding fast, which would have done very well had he attached to it the idea of restraining, holding back, and made flesh the object, instead of the contrary, of retaining, not remitting (the use of wine). Heiligstedt’s trahere, attrahere, attract, is inconsistent with the preposition α in αιιο. Michaelis, sense of protracting is wholly unsuited to αωִ ?ψ, flesh, as its object. Ewald’s an den Wein zu heften meine Sinne, to fasten on the wine, etc., gives hardly any sense at all, and what little there is, is opposed to the evident context. The same may be said of Herzfeld: anzulocken meinen Leib; the flesh needs no alluring or drawing to the wine; besides the preposition α is here also inconsistent with such a meaning. The LXX ῆ καρδίαμουὲλκύσειτὴνσάρκαμουὠςοἶνον, wholly inverts the idea. The Syriac μξαρξε delight my flesh, is a mere accommodating guess. The Vulgate abstrahere, a vino carnem mcam, suits very well with μξωεκ, but would require the preposition ξ (ξιιο instead of αιιο). Our English version, “to give myself to wine,” is as safe a guess as any, but it leaves out the important word αωψι “my flesh,” unless it is intended to have its meaning conveyed in the word myself, as though it were equivalent to πֵ ?τְ ?ωִׁ ?ι. This, however, is without warrant in the Scriptures. Besides, it destroys the contrast evidently intended between αωψ and μα, the body and the mind, which μα more generally means (comp. Proverbs 7:7; Proverbs 17:7, with most of the places where it occurs in that book and this), or the soul generally, as in Psalms 73:25, where it is in contrast with ωΰγ—“my flesh and heart”—body and soul. The ordinary Hebrew meaning of ξωκ is to draw out. Closely allied to it is the sense of the Arabic γάάΣί to hold, lay hold of, which runs through all the Arabic conjugations. This is the primary, and the sense most likely intended here: to lay hold of, hold back my flesh, that is, to govern, check, restrain it. The unusual style of the language shows that there is a figure here, and what that figure is is suggested by the word πδֵֹ ?β in the following clause. The ordinary, and, we think, the primary sense of this word is egit agitavit. Hence it is applied to the driving of flocks, Genesis 31:18; Exodus 3:1; Psalms 80:2, but more especially and significantly, to the driving or guiding of horses and chariots, as 2 Samuel 6:3; 2 Kings 9:20, where the noun ξִ ?βְ ?δָ ?β is most graphically used to describe the mad driving of Jehu. From this use in the Scriptures, the Rabbins have, very naturally, and according to the analogy of secondary senses as they spring up in other languages, employed it, with an ethical and philosophical meaning, to denote a course, of thinking, conduct (ductus) or as a rule for the guidance of life. Thus viewed it strikingly suggests some such figure as seems hinted in ξωγ though there the metaphor may be said to lie concealed: all the more impressive, however, when seen, on account of its inobtrusiveness. It is noticed by Hitzig, who sees the figure, yet misapplies it, or falls back, after all, to the other idea of supporting, sustaining generally: “to draw with wine my flesh, that is, die Maschine damit im Gange zu erhalten, to keep the machine going, parallel with the expression to support the life with bread. Here he seems to drop the metaphor, yet takes it up again when he says, “the wine here is compared to a draught horse, or as we say of one who drinks on the way, he hath taken a relay.” This is a vulgar view of the comparison, resembling some common Americanisms beneath the dignity of the real figure. And then he interprets what follows, of “wisdom guiding,” by comparing it to the coachman sitting on the box. Stuart follows him in this, but both may be said to err in making wine the unruly horse that needs guidance, instead of the flesh (αωψι). “On the whole,” says Stuart, “there can be no doubt that the sense thus given by Hitzig is significant; the main difficulty is the seeming strangeness of the figurative representation.” With a little change, however, it is the same with Plato’s more full and ornate comparison in the Phζdrus 54 F, or as it may be called, the myth of the charioteer and his two horses. The body (the flesh with its lusts, its appetites) is the wild horse so graphically described as κρατεραύχηνμελάγχρως, ὕφαιμοςκ. τ, λ., “strong-necked, black, with bloodshot furious eyes, full of violence, coarse, shaggyeared, deaf, hard-yielding, either to the whip or the spur.” The gentle horse is the pure feeling, the “Platonic love,” or celestial Eros, and the charioteer is the Νοῦς, or Reason, the Hebrew μα guiding or driving with ηλξδ. If it seems strange to interpret Koheleth by Plato, it may be said that the figure is, in itself, very easy and natural, coming directly from primary analogies, and in accordance with the whole train of the preacher’s thought: I sought diligently, when my flesh was furiously driving on in wine, or pleasure (αιιο here not denoting the instrument, or figurative chariot, but the state or condition) to draw it, to restrain it, to bridle it, to keep it, in the path of temperance. On this account we have rendered it in the Metrical Version, “to rein my flesh in wine,” and this is in harmony with the figure, as we find it so deeply grounded in language generally—a fact which makes its use by Koheleth so little strange when properly considered. It is frequent in the Latin, both in prose and poetry. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ SECOND Of Earthly Happiness, its Impediments and Means of AdvancementChap. 3–5.A. The substance of earthly happiness or success consists in grateful joy of this life, and a righteous use of it. Ecclesiastes 3:1-22.1. The reasons for the temporal restriction of human happiness (consisting in the entire dependence of all human action and effort on an unchangeable, higher system of things) (Ecclesiastes 3:1-11.)1To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven: time to be born, and 2a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted; 3A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up; 4A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance; 5A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and 6a time to refrain from embracing; A time to get, arid a time to lose; 7a time to keep, and a time to cast away; A time to rend, and a time to sew; 8a time to keep silence, and a time to speak; A time io love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace. 9What profit hath he that worketh in that wherein he laboureth ? 10I have seen the travail, which God hath given to the ons of men to be exercised in it. 11He hath made every thing beautiful in his time; also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end. 2. The nature of the temporally restricted human happiness (Ecclesiastes 3:12-22.)12know that there is no good in them, but for a man to rejoice, and to do good in his life. 13And also that every man should eat and drink, and enjoy the good of all his labour; it is the gift of God. 14I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him. 15That which hath been is now; and that which is to be hath already been; and God requireth that which is past. 16And moreover I saw under the sun the place of judgment, that wickedness was there; and the place of righteousness, that iniquity wxs there. 17I said in mine heart, God shall judge the righteous and the wicked: for there is a time there for every purpose and for every work. 18I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts. 19For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no pre-eminence above a beast: for all is vanity. 20All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again. 21Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth ? 22Wherefore I perceive that there is nothing better, than that a man should rejoice in his own works; for that is his portion: for who shall bring him to see what shall be after him ? [Ecclesiastes 3:1.—זְמָן This is one of the words relied upon to prove the later Hebraic, or Chaldaic, period of the book. We have, however, no right to say that a word running through the Shemitic tongues [as thia is found in Arabic, Syriac, Ethiopia, as well as Hebrew] is peculiar to any one of them, or borrowed from any one of them, though circumstances may have made it rare in an oariy dialect, perhaps on account of a precision of meaning raruly needed, whilst it has become loose and vulgarized in another. It may have been well known in the days of Soiomon, though seldom used when the more indefinite עֵת would answer.עֵת means time generally, מוֹעֵד a fixed time (like a yearly festival), זמן its earlier sense, before it became vulgarized, a time or an occasion precisely adapted to a purpose. Hence we see its very probable connection with זמם proponit, and having also tho sense of binding, like Arabic ׂדّ ?’ the purpose linked to the due occasion. This suits all the acts following, as more or less tho result of purpose In a time proposed. It has good support, too, etymologically, in the final ם changiug to the ן as is the tendency in other words. Thus, besides other examples, Lamentations 3:22, according to Rabbi Tanchum, תּמם becomes תּמן to avoid the harshness of tho final מ making תָּמְמוּ = תָּמְנוּ “they are not consumed,” or spent [that is, the mercies of the Lord instead of “we are not consumed.” We may be assured that the writer did not intend a tautology hero. זמן is more precise than עת as it has more of purpose than מוֹעֵד which relates to things immovable.—T. L.] [Ecclesiastes 3:18.—על־דּברת E. V. On account of the sons of men. Compare Psalms 110:4, after the manner of.LXX., נוסὶ כבכיᾶ ?ע Vulgate, simply, de filiis. Syriac, על ממללא after the speech of men—morehumano—humanly speaking,which seems the most suitable of any, for reasons given in the Exeget. and Note.—T. L.] [Ecclesiastes 3:18.—הֵמָה לָהֶם Literally, themselves to themselves—in their own estimation. לְבָרָם to prove them—make it clear, literally, (LXX., היבךסיםוῖ בὐ ?פןὺ ?עvulg ut probaret), let them see from themselves, or from their own conduct fo themselves, how like beasts they are. This qualified sense is very different from asserting that they are beasts absolutely. The key to it all is in the על דברת above. The writer is speaking more humano-tho judgment that must bo pronounced if men were judged by their own ways.—T. L.] [Ecclesiastes 3:21—הָעֹלָה It can only mean, as it stands in tho text, “that which goeth up.” An effort has been made to give it another turn by pointing ה as interrogative. It is sufficient to say that it is against the text For oLhtr reasons against H, see Exeget. and Note—T. L] AND The unconditional dependence of man on God’s government of the world, in all his efforts for happiness, which formed the concluding thought ! of the preceding discourse (Ecclesiastes 2:24-26), now becomes the starting point of a new and independent reflection, in so far as temporal conditions and restrictions of human happiness are deduced therefrom, and its essence is placed in gratefully cheerful enjoyment and a devout use: of the earthly blessings bestowed by God. For Divine Providence in its controlling power here below will ever remain obscure and mysterious, so that man, in this its hidden side, can neither alter its course nor observe any other conduct than humble submission and godly fear (Ecclesiastes 3:9-11; Ecclesiastes 3:14-15). In the same way the view of the many wrongs in this life, and of the extreme obscurity and concealment of the fate that will overtake individual souls after death, obliges.us to cling to the principle of a cheerful, confiding and contented enjoyment of the present (Ecclesiastes 3:16-20).—In the more special development of this train of thought, we may either (with Vaihinger and Keil) make three principal sections or strophes of the chapter (Ecclesiastes 3:1-8; Ecclesiastes 3:9-15, and Ecclesiastes 3:16-22), or, what appears more logical, two halves; of which each is divided into sec-tions of unequal length. 1. Ecclesiastes 3:1-11 show the reason for the temporal restriction of the earthly happiness of man-a, as consisting in the dependence of all human action on time and circumstances (Ecclesiastes 3:1-8); b, as consisting in the short-sightedness and feebleness of human knowledge in contrast with the endless wisdom and omniscience of God (Ecclesiastes 3:9-11). 2. Ecclesiastes 3:12-22 describe human happiness in its nature as temporally restricted and imperfect—a, with reference to the awe-inspiring immutability of those decrees of God which determine human fate (Ecclesiastes 3:12-15); b, with reference to the secret ways adopted by Divine justice, in rewarding the good and punishing the evil in this world, and. still more in the world beyond (Ecclesiastes 3:16-22). 2. First Division, first strophe.Ecclesiastes 3:1-8. Every human action and effort are subject to the law of’ time and temporal change.—To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under heaven.—“Every thing,” namely, every thing that man undertakes or does on earth; a very general expression, more clearly defined by the following כָּל־חֵפֶץ every business, every undertaking, but more clearly illustrated in the subsequent verses in a number of special examples.—זְמָן lit., precision, limitation, indicates in later style (Nehemiah 2:6; Esther 9:27; Esther 9:31), a certain period, a term for any thing, whilst tho more common עת [lime) signifies a division of time in general. Ecclesiastes 3:2. A time- to be born and a time to die.—This is the original text, as is the same turn until the 8th verse. The Sept. and the Vulg. express this construction genitively [ךביסὸ ?ע פןῦ פ�ךוים tempus nascendi, etc.) The word לָלֶדֶת does not stand for the passive לְהִוָּלֵד to be born (Vulg., Luther, Ewalt, Gesenius, Elsies.),, but like all the fol-lowing infinitives, is to be taken actively: to bear. The constant usage of the Old Testament favors this rendering with reference to the verb יָלַד and also the circumstance that with, לֶהֶת an undertaking (חֵפֶץ), a conscious and intentional action or business is to be named, which can only be said of the maternal part of the act of human birth, and not of that of the child. Death fittingly follows closely to birth. By this juxtaposition of the acts which mark the entrance into life and the exit from it, the whole arena within which the subsequent actions are performed, is from the beginning “ marked by its fixed limits ”(Hitzig). A time to plant and a time to pluck up that which is planted.—For the affinity between these two ideas and that of birth and death, comp. Proverbs 12:12; Ps. 1:37; 37:35 f.; Psalms 92:13 f.; Psalms 128:3; Daniel 4:11; Daniel 4:20; Matthew 3:8-10; Matthew 7:17 f.; Matthew 15:18. לַעֲקוֹר probably from Chald. עִקָּר“root,” means originally to root out, to unroot, but is always elsewhere in the o. T. used metaphorically, e.g., of the destruction of cities (Zephaniah 2:4), of striking down horses or oxen, and making them useless by severing the sinews of their hind feet. (Genesis 49:6 :). Ecclesiastes 3:3.—A time to kill and a time to heal.—A negative thought here precedes, as also in the subsequent clauses, till the first of Ecc 3:5, after which, until the end, the positive or negative idea alternately precedes. “To kill” (הֲרוֹג lit., cut down, or stab) indicates the inflicting of the very wounds whose healing the following verb points out. Ecclesiastes 3:4 : A time to weep, etc.—לִבְכוֹת appears only on account of similarity of sound to be placed immediately after לִּבְוֹת as in the following clause: רְקוֹד to leap, to danee, appears to be chosen on account of its like sounding ending as a contrast to סְפוֹד to lament (ך�נפוףטבי plangere).Ecclesiastes 3:5. A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together.—In this first expression there is, of course, no allusion to the destruction of the temple, of which, according to Mark 13:2, not one stone shall remain upon another (as Hengstenberg and others think), and quite as little to the stoning of malefactors, or to the throwing of stones on the fields of enemies, according to 2 Kings 3:19; 2 Kings 3:25 (Hitzig, Elster, etc. But הַשְׁלִיךְ אֲבנים is here identical with סִקֵל “to free from stones,” Isaiah 5:2; Isaiah 62:10, and alludes therefore to the gathering and throwing away of stones from the fields, vineyards, etc.; whilst the latter expression naturally means the collecting of stones for the construction of houses (as Vaihinqer justly observes).__A time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing.—Whether the connection of the preceding expressions with חֲבוֹק to embrace, is really effected by the fact that one embraces with the hand the stone to be cast, as Hitzig supposes, is very doubtful. At all events, however, חבק means the embrace of love (Proverbs 5:20), and-the intensive in the second rank is purposely placed there to indicate that every excess of sexual intercourse is injurious. Ecclesiastes 3:6. A time to get, and a time to lose.—אִבֵּד as a contrast to בִּקֵּשׁ must clearly here mean to lose (or also to be lost, to abstain from getting, Vaihinger) although it every where else means to destroy, to ruin; for in all the remaining clauses of the series, the second verb asserts directly the opposite of the first. In contrast to the unintentional losing, the corresponding verb הַשְׁלִיךְ of the second clause then indicates an intentional casting away of a possession to be preserved (2 Kings 7:15; Ezekiel 20:8).—A time to rend and a time to sew.—One might here suppose the rending of garments on hearing sad tidings (1 Sam. 1:11; 3:39; Job 1:20; Job 2:12; Matthew 26:63), and again the sewing up of the garments that had been thus rent as a sign of grief. And also by the following “to keep silence” one would first think of the mournful silence of the sorrowing (Genesis 34:5; Job 2:13) Ecclesiastes 3:8. A time to love, etc.—Love and hatred, war and peace, forming an inter-relation with each other, are now connected with the contents of the preceding verse by the intermediary thought of the agreeable and disagreeable, or of well and evil doing. 3. First Division, second stropheEcc_3:9-11. In consequence of the temporal character of all worldly action and effort, human knowledge is also especially ineffective and feeble in presence of the unsearchable ruling of the Eternal One.—What profit hath he that worketh in that wherein he laboureth?—That is, what profit do all the various, antagonistic actions, of which a number has just been quoted (Ecclesiastes 3:3-8) bring to man ? The question is one to which a decidedly negative answer is expected, and draws therefore a negative result from the preceding reflection: There is nothing lasting, no continuous happiness here below. Ecclesiastes 3:10. I have seen the travail, etc.—Comp. Ecclesiastes 1:13. This verse has simply a transitional meaning; it prepares us for the more accurate description given in Ecclesiastes 3:11 of the inconstant, transitory and feeble condition of human knowledge and effort, in the presence of the unsearchable wisdom of God. Ecclesiastes 3:11. He hath made every thing beautiful in his time—The principal emphasis rests on the word בְּעִתּוֹ “in his time,” as the connection with the foregoing Ecclesiastes 3:1-8 shows. God has arranged all things beautifully in this life (comp. Genesis 1:31), but always only “in his time,” always only so that it remains beautiful and good for man during its restricted time, but after that becomes an evil for him; therefore always only so that the glory of this earth soon reaches its end.—Also he hath set the world in their heart.—(Zצckler’s rendering, eternity in their heart).—That is, in the hearts of men; for the suffix in בְּלִבָּם refers to the children of men in Ecclesiastes 3:11, whilst in the subsequent clause the individual man הָאָדָם is placed opposite to the one God. This clause clearly holds a rising relation to the contents of the preceding: God has here below not only arranged all things well for man in this temporal period; He has even given them eternity in their hearts. This is clearly the author’s train of thought. With eternity given to the heart cf man, he also means the knowledge of God’s eternal nature and rule, innate even in the natural man, that notitia Dei naturalis insita s, innata, which Paul, Romans 1:19 f., describes as an intellectual perception of God’s eternal power and divinity, peculiar as such to man, and which develops itself in the works of creation. It appears as well from the word בְּלִבָּם(heart, here in the same sense as Ecclesiastes 1:13-17, etc.)i as from the following: “So that no man can find out,” that it is substantially this natural knowledge of God, namely, something belonging to the realm of human conception, a moral good from the sphere of intellectual life,—that the author means by the expression הָעוֹלָם (consequently not simply the character of immortality)—although he must have considered this closely connected with the natural conception of God, according to Ecclesiastes 7:7. For this restrictive clause clearly expresses a restriction of human nature in an intellectual sense, an inability to find, which is equal to an inability to know. But as certainly as this inability to know refers to the extent and limits of Divine action, so certainly will also the knowledge of the human heart, expressed by הָעוֹלָם be a religious knowledge referring to God and Divine things. Therefore we would reject as opposed to the text those explanations of הָעוֹלָם which give to this expression the sense of “world” (Vulg., Luther, Umbreit, Ewald, Ulster, etc.), or “worldly-mindedness” (Gesenius, Knobel), or “worldly wisdom,” “judgment” (Gaab, Spohn); also Hitzig, who, however, contends for עֵלֶם instead of עולם And besides the connection, the style of the entire Old Testament and of this book is opposed to this rendering; according to them עולם is always eternity (comp. Ecclesiastes 1:4; Ecclesiastes 1:10; Ecclesiastes 2:16; Ecclesiastes 3:14; Ecclesiastes 9:6; Ecclesiastes 11:5) and first receives the signification of “world macrocosmos” in the literature of the Talmud.—So that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.—That is, this one restriction is laid on this human conception of the Eternal One, that it can never obtain a perfect and truly adequate insight into the Divine plan of the world, but rather, is only able to perceive the unsearchable ways and incomprehensible decrees of God, fwgmentarily and in a glass darkly (Rom. 2:32; 1 Corinthians 13:12).מִבְּלִי אֲשֶׁר is here clearly in the sense of only that, “except that,” therefore synonymous with אֶפֶס כִּי formerly used for this (Amos 9:8; Judges 4:9; 2 Samuel 11:14). Comp. Ewald, Lehrbuch, § 354 b. The deviating significations Vulg., Gesenius: “ita tit non;” (Sept., Herzpeld ὅ ?נשע לὴ: “in order not,” Knobel: “without that;” Hitzig, Umbreit, Hahn: “without which,” etc.) are not only inconsonant to the text, but without suflicient linguistic authority, so far as regards the signification of מִבְּלִי אֲשֶׁר—The author is here silent in respect to the profoundesfc reason why man cannot thoroughly know and comprehend the works and reign of God, that is the interruption of the original pure harmony of his Spirit by means of sin; he is so because he would seem rather, as it were, purposely to presuppose this fact than emphatically to express it. 4. Second Division, first strophe. Ecclesiastes 3:12-15. Human happiness is temporally restricted, consisting mainly in the cheerful enjoyment and proper use of tfte moment, because it depends on the immutable decrees qf divine laws, claiming fear and humble submission, rather than bold hope and effort.—I know that there is no good in them—namely, in the “children of men,” (Ecclesiastes 3:10) to whom the Ecclesiastes 3:11 already referred. בָּם “in them with them,” is mainly synonymous with “for them;” comp. Ecclesiastes 2:24. יָדַעְתּי is literally, “I have perceived, and I know in consequence thereof;” it means the past, in its result reaching into the future, here also as in Ecclesiastes 3:14.—But for a man to rejoice and do good in this life—Together with the gratefully cheerful enjoyment of life’s goods, the “doing good” is here named more distinctly than in Ecclesiastes 2:26, as a principal condition and occupation of human happiness. Anil therewith is also meant, as that passage shows, and as appears still more definitely from the parallels in Psalms 34:14; Psalms 37:3; Isaiah 38:3, etc., not merely benevolence, but uprightness, fulfilment of the divine commands (comp. Ecclesiastes 12:13). For the meaning of עֲשׂוֹת טוֹב in the sense of “be of good cheer,” to be merry (Aben Ezra, Luther, de Wette, Knobel, Hitzig, etc.) there is not a single philological proof; for in chap, Ecclesiastes 2:24; Ecclesiastes 3:22; Ecclesiastes 5:7, etc., there are similar phrases, but still materially different from this one, which express the sense of being merry.” —בְּחַיָּיו lit., “in his life” refers again to the singular הָאָדָם Ecclesiastes 3:11, so that in this verse the singular and the plural use of this verb alternates as in the preceding. Ecclesiastes 3:13. And also that every man should eat and drink, etc., it is the gift of God. Clearly the same thought as in Ecclesiastes 2:24-25. The particle וְנַם introducing still another object of perception to יָדַעְתִּי besides that named already in Ecclesiastes 3:12, refers to the whole sentence. As to the peculiar construction of the first conditional clause without אִם or other particle, see Ewald, § 357, c. Ecclesiastes 3:14. I know that -whatever God doeth it shall be forever. Herein it appears that all human action is dependent on the eternal law of God, and that especially all cheerful, undisturbed enjoyment of the blessings of this life, depends on the decrees of this highest law-giver and ruler of the world. Comp. the theoretical description of the ever constant course of divino laws in Ecclesiastes 1:4-11.—Nothing can be put to it, nor anything taken from it. To it (עָלָיו) namely, to all that everlastingly abiding order which God makes, to all those eternally valid enactments of the Most High. for the construction אֵין לְהוֹסִיף Comp. Ewald, § 237, c. For the sentence: Sir 18:5; Revelation 22:18.—And God doeth it, that men should fear before Him.—And this by those very immutable laws of his world-ruling activity, on which men, with all their deeds and destiny, depend; comp. Ecclesiastes 9:12; 2 Corinthians 5:11; and for the construction: Ezekiel 36:27; Revelation 13:15. As in those places, so also here, the expression “doeth it that,” does not mean “in order that,” but “effecting that” “making it to be so,” accomplishing. By יָרִא “to fear,” Koheleth does not mean a feeling of terror and horror, but rather that sacred feeling of holy awe which we call reverence; but nevertheless “he here considers this reverence not as a beneficent blissful sensation, but rather as a depressing feeling of the yanity of man in contrast with the boundless fulness of the power of God, as an inward shudder at the bonds of the divine decree, which envelop him, and by which, in his conception, every spiritual movement is restricted in advance to a certain measure,” (Elster). Ecclesiastes 3:15. That which hath been is now, and that which is to be hath already been.—(כְּבַר הוּא) i.e. already long present, comes of old (not exactly; is something old, as Hitzig translates, turning the adverb into a substantive). The second clause containing אֲשֶׁר לִהְיוֹת says, literally, as in the English rendering: “that which is to be.” For the sentence comp. Ecclesiastes 1:9; Ecclesiastes 6:10, and especially Job 14:5; Psalms 139:15, where still more clearly than here, is expressed the predestination of all the destinies of man by God.—And God requireth that which is past. (Lit., and God seeketh that which was crowded out). He again briags forth that which the vicissitudes of time had already crowded out, or pushed back into the past; Deus instaurat, quod abiit (Vulgate). This signification alone of יְבַקֵשׁ אֶת נִרְדָף is in accordance with the context not that given in the Sept. Syridc, Targ., Heng-stenberg, etc., according to which the allusion here would be to the divine consolation and gracious visitation of the persecuted, (Matthew 5:10; Luke 19:10, etc.). 5. Second Division, second strophe. Ecclesiastes 3:16-22. The restriction of human happiness appears especially in the numerous cases of.unsatisfactory, indeed, apparently unjust, distribution of happiness and unhappiness, according to the moral worth and merit of men, as this mundane life reveals it, as well as in the uncertainty regarding the kind of reward in the world beyond, which ever exists in this world below. And moreover I saw under the sun.—The “moreover” (עוֹד) refers to Ecclesiastes 3:12, and therefore introduces something which comes as a new conception to the one there described (and also in Ecclesiastes 3:14 f.), and which holds the same relation to that as the special to the general.—The place of judgment, etc. Lit., at the place of judgment; for מְקוֹם here, and in the subsequent clause is strictly taken, not as the object of “I saw,” but, as the accents indicate, is an independent nominative (or locative)—an abrupt construction which produces a certain solemn impression well adapted to the excited feelings of the poet.מִשְׁפָט and צֶדֶק judgment and righteousness, differ materially as objective and subjective, or as the judgment that must serve the judge as the absolute rule for his decisions, and as the practical judgment in the life of the normal man; the latter expression is, therefore, largely synonymous with “innocence,” virtue. In contrast to both ideas, Koheleth calls הָרֶשַׁע “the evil,” “the crime,” thinking of course, in the first place, of objective, and in the second place of subjective wrong, or, the first time, of crime as a wicked judge practices it, the second time, of the wantonness of the wicked in general. Ecclesiastes 3:17. God shall judge the righteous and the wicked.—He will appoint to them, therefore that “judgment” which, according to Ecclesiastes 3:16, is so frequently in human life, either not to be found at all, or not in the right place; comp. Ecclesiastes 5:7; Deuteronomy 1:17; Psalms 82:1 ff.—For there is a time there for every purpose, and every work.—That is, in heaven above, with God, the just judge, there is a time to judge every good and every evil deed of men. שָׁם pointing upwards, (as in Genesis 49:24, מִשָּׁם) and עֵת here as elsewhere, is the “time of judicial decision, the term;” comp. Ecclesiastes 9:11-12, as well as the New Testament ἡ ?ל�סב 1 Corinthians 3:13; 1 Corinthians 4:2, etc. Others read שָׂם instead of שָׁם “He has set a time for everything,” (Houbigant, Van dee Palm, Dצderlein, Hitzig, Elster), but which is quite as unnecessary as the temporal signification of שָׁם=time, in tempore judicii (Hibronymus), or as referring the expression to the earth as the seat of the tribunal here meant (Hahn), or as the explanation of שָׁם according to the Talmud, in the sense of “appraising, taxing” (Furst, Vaihinger: “And He appraises every action”), or, finally, as Ewaln’s parenthesizing of the words כִּי עֵת לְכָל־חֵפֶץ whereby the sentence acquires the following form: “God will judge the just and the unjust (for there is a time for everything), and will judge of every deed.”Ecclesiastes 3:1-8.Concerning the sons of men, that God might manifest them. As the introductory words: “I said in my heart,” connect the verse with the preceding one, it assumes the same relation to Ecclesiastes 3:16 as to that, and to עַל־דִבְטרַת בְּנֵי הָאָדָם and, therefore, the principal thought of this 16th verse is to be thus supplied: “On account of the sons of men, does this unfinished toleration of wrong on earth exist, in order that God may manifest (try) them, i. e., grant them their free decision for or against His truth (comp. Revelation 22:11). For בָּרַר, to test, prove, compare chap, Ecclesiastes 9:1; Dan. 9:35, as well as the Rabbinic style, according to which this verb means “to sift,” “to winnow” (Schebiit, 5, 9). לְבָרָם הָאֱלֹהִים is lit. “for God proving them,” a somewhat harsh construction, but which has its analogy in Isaiah 29:23.—That they might see, namely, the sons of men, for whose instruction the test is indeed instituted; since God, for His part, needs not to see it, for He knows in advance of what men are made, (Psalms 103:14).—That they themselves are beasts. Men are here declared to be beasts, that is, not better than the beasts of the field, not on account of their conduct (as Psalms 73:22), but on account of their final dissolution, and their inevitable sinking under the dominion of death; comp. Ecclesiastes 3:19 f.; Ecclesiastes 9:12, and also Habakkuk 1:14; Psalms 49:20. Therefore, not the brutal disposition, and the lawlessly wild conduct of the natural mind (Hitzig, Elster, etc.), but his subjection to the rule of death, and the curse of vanity (Romans 5:12 ff; Romans 8:19 ff.), furnish the reason for this placing our race on a level with the brutes (as Luther, Hengstenberg, Vaihinger. correctly assume).—“They themselves,” i.e., apart from God’s redeeming influence, Which can finally secure to their spirit eternal life and blessedness notwithstanding the subjection of the body to death (Ecclesiastes 12:7; Ecclesiastes 12:13).—לָהֶם casts the action back on the subject, and serves to bring out this latter with special emphasis, comp. Genesis 12:1; Amos 2:14; Job 6:19, etc. According to Ewald, § 315, a.—הֵמָּה לָהֶם is a playful intensity of the sense something like the Latin ipsissimi; but Bwald can quote no other proof than this very passage. Ecclesiastes 3:19 affords a still further illustration of the comparison between men and beasts, which extends to Ecclesiastes 3:21 inclusive, with the view of forcibly expressing the uncertainty of the destiny of the former in and after their death.—For that which befalleth the sons of men, befalleth beasts. [Lit. Ger. For chance are the sons, of men, and chance the beasts); this because they are both equally under the dominion of chance (מִקְרֶה, as chap, Ecclesiastes 2:14-15), because the lot of both is inevitably marked out for them from without, (Hengstenbebg). But it is arbitrary to refer this appellation “chance,” simply to the beginning of life in men and beasts, as “the issues of a blind fate,” (Hitzig) and it is in opposition to the remark immediately following: (in the German) “and one fate, or chance, overtakes them all;” which shows that the end of both is death, striking them all the same inexorable blow; on which account it is, by a bold metaphor, called “chance.”—As the one dieth, so dieth the other, that is, in external appearance, which is authoritative for the author’s present judgment; for he is now disregarding that life which exists for man after death, as ho simply wishes to call attention to the transitory character of the earthly existence of our race.—Yea, they have all one breath, so that man has no pre-eminence above a beast, רוּחַ is here as in Ecclesiastes 3:21, not spirit, in the stricter sense, but breath, or force of life, the animating and organizing principle in general, and is therefore, in that more extended sense, applicable to men as well as beasts, as in Genesis 7:21 f.; Psalms 106:29, and Ecclesiastes 8:8, of this book. On account of the broader latitude of the conception רוח, “breath,” the following remark, that man has no preeminence (מוֹתָר) over the beast, is meant not in the sense of an absolute, but simply of a relative equality of both natures; the poet will place both on the same level only in reference to the external identity of the close of their life (and not as Knobel supposes, who here thinks materialism openly taught). Comp. also the dogmatical and ethical section. Ecclesiastes 3:20. All go unto one place, i.e., men and beasts; for they both alike become dust, as they were formed of dust. The following clause shows that by the “one place,” is meant the earth as a common burial place for the bodies of men and beasts; and not Scheol, “the house appointed for all living,” (Job 30:23).—All are of the dust, and all turn to dust again. Comp. Genesis 3:19; Psalms 104:29; Psalms 107:4; Sir 40:11; Sir 41:10. All these passages, like this one, regard man solely as a material being, and, in so far, assert a perfect likeness in his death to that of beasts. The question whether the spirit of man shares this fate, is yet unanswered. The following verse refers to that, not to afford a definite answer, but to affirm the impossibility of an answer founded on sense-experience. Ecclesiastes 3:21. For who knoweth the spirit of man that gosth upward?—The interrogative form of this and the following clause, is unconditionally required by the structure of the sentence and the context. Therefore הָעֹלָה is not, as in the masoretic text, to be written with the ה articuli, but with the ה interrogativum, (thus, הֲעלָה) and the same way in the following, or הֲיֹרֶדֶת. That construction is therefore not, as in Joe 2:14, that of an affirmative question, but rather that of a doubtful one, expressing uncertainty. As in Psalms 90:11, or above in Ecclesiastes 2:19, מִי יוֹדֵעַ הֲ points out that the matter is difficult of conception, not, at first view, clear and apparent, but rather eluding the direct observation of sense. This verse does not, therefore, assert an absolute ignorance (as Knobel. supposes), but rather some knowledge regarding the fate of the spirit in the world beyond, though wanting certainty and external evidence. Concerning the return of the spirit of man to its Divine Giver, it maintains that no one, in this world, has ever seen or survived it, just as emphatically, and in like manner, as John [Ecclesiastes 1:18; Ecclesiastes 1:1 Epist. Ecclesiastes 4:12] asserts of the sight of God, that it has never been granted to any man. A denial of the immortality of the spirit of man, as an object of inward certainty of faith [as later testimony from this standpoint of faith shows, Ecclesiastes 12:7], is as little to be found in this passage as in the assertion of John, “no one has ever seen God,” is to be found a doubt of the fact, certain to faith, of the future beholding of God (1 John 3:2). Ignoring this state of the case, the Masora, in order to destroy the supposed skeptical sense of the passage, has punctuated the twice repeated ה, before עלה and before ירדת as articles, and so reached the thought maintained by many moderns (Geier, Dathe, Rosenmueller, Hengstenberg, Hahn): “Who knoweth the spirit of man, that which goeth upward? and the spirit of the beast, that which goeth downward to the earth?” The only just conception, according to connection and structure, is that given by the Sept., Vulg., Chald., and Syr., which not only the “rationalistic exegesis,” as Hengstenberg supposes, but also Luther, Starke, Michaelis, Elster, and many others, have adopted, who are very far from attributing to the Preacher skeptical or materialistic tendencies.Ecclesiastes 3:22. A return to the maxim already given in Ecclesiastes 3:12, that one must cheerfully and joyously seize the present as now offered by God, and use it to get a sure path into the future.—Than that a man should rejoice in his works—בְּמַעֲששָׂיו, i.e., in his labor and efforts in general, in his works as well as in their fruits; comp. Ecclesiastes 5:18. This “rejoicing in his own works,” is not materially different from the passage in Ecclesiastes 2:24, that he should make his soul enjoy good in his labor [Hitzig thinks otherwise], nor from the expression (Ecclesiastes 3:12-13) “to rejoice and do good,” etc.—For that is his portion—i.e., for nothing farther is allotted to him here below, comp. Ecclesiastes 2:10.—For who shall bring him to see what shall be after him?—That is, not into the condition after death, into the relations of human life in another world, but, as shown by the parallel passages, Ecclesiastes 6:12; Ecclesiastes 2:19 : into the future conditions of human life, into the relations as they shall be on earth after his departure from life (especially in his immediate surroundings and sphere of activity, comp. Ecclesiastes 2:19). This sentence involves, therefore, neither a denial of the personal continuance of man (Hitzig), nor an authorization of the Epicurean principle: “Enjoy before death, that you may not go out empty” (Knobel), nor, indeed, any reference to the world beyond, but simply an exhortation to profit by the present in cheerful and diligent occupation, without being anxious and doubting about the future, which is indeed inaccessible to our human knowledge. Hengstenberg justly observes: “Man knows not what God will do,” Ecclesiastes 3:11. Therefore, it is foolish to chase after happiness by toilsome exertion, or to be full of anxiety and grief, Ecclesiastes 3:9-10; and quite as foolish (chap, Ecclesiastes 6:12) to engage in many wide reaching schemings, to chase after the ἀ ?החכ�פחפב נכן‎ פןץ (1 Timothy 6:17) to gather and heap for him to whom God will give it, Ecclesiastes 2:26; but, on the contrary, it is rational to enjoy the present. Properly understood, therefore, this verse draws its practical consequence not from the verses 19–21 immediately preceding, but from the contents of the entire chapter. TO THE [Interpretation of Verses 11, 14, 15; the Inquisition of the Ages, Ecclesiastes 3:15,יְכֵקִּשׁ אֶת נִרְדָּף וְהָאֱלהִים This remarkable language is rendered, in our English Version, “God requireth that which is past,” or, as given in the margin, “that which is driven away.”—Zצckler has das Verdrהngte, that which is pushed away, crowded out. None of these give the exact force of נִרְדָף, nor do they seem to. recognize the very peculiar figure which is so strongly suggested by. נִרְדָּף and יְבַקֵשׁ when thus taken together. Pursued, the true rendering, is something different from being driven away, or crowded out. The expression does, undoubtedly, refer to time past, but not after the common representation of something left behind U3, but rather of something sent before, or gone before, which is chased and shall be overtaken. It is more like an idea very frequent in the Koran, and coming undoubtedly from the ancient Arabic theology, that the lives of men, and especially their sins, are all gone before to meet them at the judgment. The flight of time is a common figure in all languages, and especially its great swiftness—sed fugit interea fugit irreparabile tempus. The representation of the ages driving away their predecessors, and taking their places, is also a familiar one, as in Ovid Met. XV. Ecc 181: ut unda impdlilur unda, Urgeturque prior venienti, urgetque priorem,Tempora sic fugiunt pariter pariterque sequuntur.The figure here, however, although presenting this general image, has something else that is both rare and striking. We know it from the words נִרְדָּף and יְכַקִּשׁ which, as thus used, immediately call, up the idea of the flying homicide with the avenger or the inquisitor [יְכַקִּשׁ ?] behind him. See how רדף is used in such passages as Deuteronomy 19:6; Joshua 20:5 [הַדָּם אַחֲרֵי הָרצֵ֗תַ וְגו יִרְרּף גאֵ֗ל], and בִּקֵּש denoting inquisitor (pursuer or avenger), in places like 2 Samuel 4:11 [אֲכַקִּשׁ אֶת דָּמו֗ ?], Ezekiel 3:18; Ezekiel 3:20; Ezekiel 33:8, and, without דם [blood], 1 Samuel 20:16, besides other places where this old law of pursuit is referred to. They all show that the words [and especially בִּקֵּש] had acquired a judicial, a forensic, or technical sense. The figure here, however strange it may seem, can hardly be mistaken: God will make inquisition for that which is pursued, that which has gone before us, seemingly fled away, as though it had escaped forever. They are not gone, these past ages of wrong; they shall be called up again. They shall be overtaken and made “to stand up in their lot,” at some “latter, day” of judgment and inquisition. There can be no severance of times from each other; מָה שֶּׁההָיָה כְכָר חוּא; What was is present now; The future has already been; And God demands again the ages fled. The thought is closely allied to the cyclical idea so prominent elsewhere in this book (see Ecclesiastes 1:9-10; Ecclesiastes 6:10), and the idea of the olam as the unity of the cosmos in time. As each power or thing in space, according to an old thought existing long before Newton, is present dynamically and statically in every other part of space, so is every time present in every other time, and in the whole of olamic duration. The cosmos is one in both respects. It is the עולם of God “to which nothing can be added (Ecclesiastes 3:14) and from which nothing can be diminished.” But besides this cyclical idea, which would seem like asserting an actual reappearance, it may be said, with equal emphasis, that the ages come again in judgment, and as really, too, in one sense, as when they were here, in the events to be judged. God shall arraign these homicidal centuries; “He shall call to them and they shall stand up, and say here we are” (Isaiah 48:13; Job 38:35). It is the same great idea of judgment that seems to pervade all the writer says, and which comes out so clearly, and so solemnly, at the close: “For God will bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.” It is that great thought which has ever been in the souls of men, and, which they cannot get rid of. It appears in the Old Testament, Psalms 1:5 [לֹא יָקוּמוּ רְשָעים בַּמִּשְׁכָּט, “the wicked shall not stand in the judgment];” Daniel 12,; Ecclesiastes 12:11; Job 21:30 [כִי לְיוֹם אֵיד יֵחָשֶׂךְ רָע]; Proverbs and Prophets sparsim. How prominent the idea, though indefinite as to time and manner, in the Greek dramatic poetry: there must be retribution for wrong, however it may take place, and however long delayed,—retribution open, penal, positive, and not merely as concealed in blind physical consequences. It presents itself more, or less in all mythologies; but its deepest seat is in the human conscience. If there is any thing that may be called a tenet of natural religion, it is this, that there will be, that there must be, a righting of all wrongs, and a way and a time for its manifestation. It holds its place amid all speculative difficulties; it rises over all objections that any philosophy, or any science, can bring against it in respect to time, place, or manner; it remains in the face of all doubts and questions arising out of any doctrine of eschatology, so called. Deeper than , any speculative reasoning lies in the soul the feeling that tells us it must be so. We cannot bear the thought that the world’s drama shall go on forever without any closing act, without any ףץםפ�כויב, reckoning, or winding up, whether final, or preparatory to some higher era. We cannot read a poor work of fiction, even, without feeling pain if it does not end well,—if right is not made clear, and wrong punished, even according to our poor fallen standard of right and wrong. The worst man has more or less of this feeling. We have all reason to fear the judgment; but when the mind is in something of a proper state, or when reason and conscience are predominant, the soul would rather suffer the pain arising from the risk and fear of the individual condemnation, than obtain deliverance from it by the loss of the glorious idea. This doctrine of judgment is not only in harmony with that cyclical idea which is strongly suggested by the general aspect of the passage, and especially by what immediately precedes in this same verse, but may be regarded, in some respects, as identical with it. If any choose so to view it, the ages past may be said to be judged in the ages that follow, though still in connection with the thought of some general and final manifestation. Such, is the view which, is most impressively given by Rabbi Schelomo in his comments on the passage. He deduces from it a notion similar to one that is now a favorite with some of our modern authorities. It is, that history repeats itself; the events in one age being types of succeeding events on a larger scale in another. The Jewish writer has the same thought, though he gives it more of a retributive aspect, as though these types came over again in judgment. As we should expect, too, he draws his examples from the Scriptural history, or from traditions connected with it. Thus Esau pursues Jacob. It is the same thing coming over, on a larger scale, when Egypt pursues the children of Israel. Other examples are given from other parts of the Jewish history, and then he says, generally: “that which is going to be in the latter day is the exemplar [דוגמה, it should be דיגמה, a Rabbinical word formed from the Greek הוῖ ?דלב, נבס�הוידלב] of what already has been; as in the first, so it is in the last” [באחרונח כאשר בראשונח]. He means that the first event is the הוῖ ?דלב, the נבס�הוידלב, or paradigm, to which the latter is adapted, either retributively, or for some other purpose, and taken, generally, on a larger scale. The commentary of Aben Ezra on the passage is also well worthy of note. His general remark on the whole verse is that God’s way is one—that is, that the world, whether regarded in space or time, has a perfect unity of idea, אלהים על דרך אהת מּעשה, and then he thus proceeds to explain the verse: “What was (or is), already had there been like it, and that which is to be, of old there had been the same; and that which is pursued (נִרְדָּף), or the past, is that which is present, and that (the present) lies between the past and the future. The meaning of it is that God seeks from time that it shall be pursued, time pursuing after time, and never fail; for the time that is past again becomes the present [העִומד that which stands], and the time that is to be, shall be again like that which was, and So it is all one time. If we divide time into the future and the past, then, in the course of things (גלגל the wheel, or mundane orbit), it becomes clear that every portion ever pursues after one point (or towards one point), and that is the centre, so that the portion that was in the East appears again in the West, and conversely; and to the place of the world’s revolution there is no beginning from which such motion commences; for every beginning is an end, and every end a beginning, and that which is pursued, that is the centre, and so it is clear to us that all the work of God is on one way,”—or, as we would say, on one idea, ever repeating itself. See something like this in the Book of Problems, ascribed to Aristotle, Vol. XIV., Leip.; Prob. XVIII., Sec. 3, on the question, “How shall we take the terms Before and After?” (on the supposition of an eternal repeating cycle). It is the idea in Ecclesiastes 3:14 which seems mainly to have influenced Aben Ezra, and other Jewish commentators [such as Levi Ben Gerson, in his profound book entitled Milhamoth ha-Schem], in the interpretation of these words of the 15th: “I learned that all which God made is for eternity [or the world time, לעולם]; to it there is no adding, and from it there is no diminishing, and God made it that men might fear before him.” This, in their view, would seem to refer not merely to the amount of matter in the cosmos, or the amount of force, or motion, or even to the amount of space and time assigned to it, but to the amount of eventualities making up the olam,—or, as we might rather say, the amount of historical action, as one great drama, having a perfect unity, both of movement and idea, so that any change would be a diminution or an addition, out of harmony with the one great spiritual thought to whose manifestation it is devoted. This is shown, “that men might fear before him,” מלפניו, in the presence of such a God; as though there was something more awful in such an exhibition of the eternal thought, than in any display of mere power, whether in the matural or the supernatural. See remarks on the Divine constancy in the greater movements of Nature, and the quotation from Cicero in Note on the Olamic Words, p. 61. Some modern writers who dogmatize about the supernatural, and deny its possibility, might, perhaps, regard the philosophizing author of Koheleth, especially when thus interpreted by these Jewish doctors, as being of the same opinion. Thus, in Ecclesiastes 3:14, he would seem to say, that there is no change out of a fixed law and fixed idea of the universe, whatever may have been his conception of the world’s extent. There is no addition, no diminution, and this would seem to exclude every thing that was not provided for in the original arrangement of forces, and in the system of causation which it embraces, with all its machinery, great and small. Now we may say that these venerable Rabbis, although sincere and devout believers in the supernatural, understood the nature of this argument as well as any of its modern, English, French and German propounders. No where has it ever been more profoundly discussed than by Levi Ben Gerson in the Sixth book of the work before referred to, where he treats of Miracles and Prophecy,—although written nearly a thousand years ago. If by the supernatural is meant any departure from the system of things which God arranged from the beginning, or any change in the great series of causes and effects, antecedents and consequents, which constitute the sum of things, including the Divine will, thought, and action, among them,—then is there no supernatural. But this would be reducing the whole great question to a trifling play upon words, If, however, by the words supernatural, or miraculous—though they do not mean exactly the same thing—there be intended the changes which God Himself may introduce into the visible nature, “according to the counsel of His own will,” but which are physically connected with no prior working of cosmical dynamical agencies, then there is a supernatural, although this supernatural belongs as much to the one great idea, or I system of things, as the most seemingly regular causation, or most familiar sequence of antecedents and consequents ever presented to our senses. Far more than this—it is not merely a part of that one great idea, but truly constitutive of it, as its very essence. The supernatural, as differing from the merely miraculous, is something eternal, lying above nature, upholding nature in its origin, regulating its creative days, sending into it new creative words to raise it to higher and still higher planes, deflecting, if need be, its general course, and, at times, interrupting its movements, thus producing what we call miracles, prodigies, signs, etc. These, however, in distinction from originating or creating acts, must be regarded as belonging to a world, or to a department of the world, where evil, or moral irregularity, predominates. We may feel warranted in saying, that in a state sinless in the beginning, if God had so willed to secure it, or which had continued sinless, if God had so willed to keep it, or in one which had reached a sinless condition, and where the moral order was unbroken, there would be no miracles, so called, no interruptions in the constant harmonious series of things and events. There would be no need of them; for nature itself would be religious, ever manifesting instead of hiding God. In such constancy of movement there would be, for holy souls, no dimming of the Divine glory, no deifying of second causes, no veiling of a personal Deity under the sheltering name of natural law. There would be sublimity, admiration, exalted contemplation, reverence never lowered, adoring study never tiring, wonder never diminished by familiarity,—all miranda, yet no miracula, as we now use the term, no prodigies, portents, ףחלוῖ ?ב, פ�סבפב, arresting signs, startling displays of power, such as may be demanded in the regulation of that lower sphere where moral and spiritual disorder have their mirrored counterpart in a dark and refracted nature. In such a fallen world, however, miracles, signs, etc., may be parts of the Divine plan, having their proper place, and to be brought in at such intervals of time”, with such intermissions, and in such ways, as the eternal wisdom may decide. They are all in the great idea, together with all such means, if need be, for their bringing out in time. If not regular, in the sense of calculable recurrence, they are all regulated. They belong to עוֹלָם, the world, or whole (Ecclesiastes 3:14), which cannot be added to nor diminished. “God hath done it that men may fear before him.” To a fallen race there is ground for fear both ways. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ B. The Impediments to Earthly Happiness, proceeding partly from personal misfortune of various kinds, and partly from the evils of social and civil lifeEcc_4:1-16.1. The personal misfortune of many men (Ecclesiastes 4:1-6)1So I returned and considered all the oppressions that are done under the sun; and behold the tears of such as were oppressed, and they had no comforter; and on the side of their oppressors there was power; but they had no comforter. 2Wherefore I praised the dead which are already dead more than the living which are yet alive. 3Yea, better is he than both they, which had not yet been, who hath not seen the evil work that is done under the sun. 4Again, I considered all travail, and every right work, that for this a man is envied of his neighbor. This is also vanity and vexation of spirit. 5The fool foldeth his hands together, and eateth his own 6flesh. Better is an handful with quietness, than both the hands full with travail and vexation of spirit. 2. The evils of social life (Ecclesiastes 4:7-12)7, Then I returned and saw vanity under the sun. 8There is one alone, and there is not a second; yea, he hath neither child nor brother: yet is there no end of all his labour, neither is his eye satisfied with riches: neither saith he, For whom do I labour, and bereave my soul of good? This is also vanity, yea, it is a sore travail. 9Two are better than one; because they have a good reward for their labour 10For if they fall, the one will lift up his fellow: but wo to him that is alone when he falleth; for he hath not another to help him up. 11Again, if two lie together. then they have heat: but how can one be warm alone? 12And if one prevail against him, two shall withstand him; and a threefold cord is not quickly broken. 3. The evils of civil life (Ecclesiastes 4:13-16)13Better is a poor and a wise child, than an old and foolish king, who will no more be admonished. 14For out of prison he cometh to reign; whereas also he that is born in his kingdom becometh poor. 15I considered all the living which walk under the 16sun, with the second child that shall stand up in his stead. There is no end of all the people, even of all that have been before them: they also that come after shall not rejoice in him. Surely this also is vanity and vexation of spirit. [Ecclesiastes 4:1. εְ ?ωַׁ ?αְ ?ϊּ ?ιΰֲ ?πִ ?ιεָ ?ΰֶ ?ψְ ?ΰֶ ?η: I turned and saw, or I returned and saw, I looked again—ωַׁ ?λְ ?ϊִּ ?ι used adverb ally, to denote repetition.—T. L.] Ecclesiastes 4:2. εְ ?ωַׁ ?αֵּ ?ηַ ΰֲ ?πִ ?ι the participle piel with ξ omitted, ξְ ?ωַּׁ ?αֵּ ?ηַ. The examples Zφckler brings in support being the infinitive, do not bear him out. Comp. ξַ ?δֵ ?ψ for ξְ ?ξַ Zephaniah 1:14, in like manner the Pual participle without ξ, asμֻ ?χָ ?η 2 Kings 2:10, for ιεּ ?μָּ ?γ ,ξְ ?μֻ ?χָּ ?η for ξְ ?ιֻ ?μָּ ?γ Judges 13:8, and ιεּ ?χָ ?ωִׁ ?ιν Ecclesiastes 9:12, for ξְ ?ιεּ ?χָּ ?ωִׁ ?ιν. [Ecclesiastes 4:5. λִּ ?ωְׁ ?ψεֹ ?ο. See remarks, p. 53.—T. L.] [Ecclesiastes 4:8. εּ ?μְ ?ξִ ?ι. “and for whom.” The apparent conjunction ε, here, seems rather to have the force of an interjection, as in εֹ ?ΰְֵ ?ικְ Ecclesiastes 2:16 (see remarks on it, p. 58). Alas! how is it; so here, Ah me! for whom. Our conjunction has sometimes a similar emphatic instead of a mere copulative force. Or, it may be doubted whether, in such cases, instead of being copulative at all, it is any thing more than the exclamation ζَ ?Η in Arabic, which is, in like manner, joined to other words, as waika, vae tbin, or wa laka, eheu tibi, and sometimes to exclamatory phrases, as wa-sawa ta hu, in one word, proh dolr; O what a calamity! The abrupt exclamation is much more impressive and significant than the filling up of our English Version, “ neither does he say.” This is, moreover, false, since the writer does mean to represent the solitary rich man as thus saying. It is pressed out of him by a sudden sense of his folly. Dr. Van Dyke, in his late Arabic translation, makes it thus abruptly follow, which is the more easily done, since his Arabic word so nearly resembles the Hebrew, whilst the conjunction έ instead of ζ gives it more of subjective connection. In such cases as this the Hebrew particle was doubtless pronounced wu, instead of the mere vowel sound u. In like manner, wa is ua, or oua, like the French oui. Compare Greek οὐά, Mark 15:29 (also found in classical Greek), and the more frequent οὐαι also the Hebrew εֹ ?ι ,ΰεֹ ?ι woi, or ou-oi. Even as a conjuction it has an emotional power: “and O, for whom, etc.”—T. L.] [Ecclesiastes 4:14. δָ ?ρεּ ?ψιν evidently a contraction for δָ ?ΰֲ ?εּ ?ψιν. It is written according to the sound,—the ΰֲ with its light shewa, becoming a quiescent and disappearing, as in ΰֲ ?ωֶׁ ?ψ when it becomes ωׁ. This writing words according to the sound may mark an earlier period, when some changes had taken place, but attention had not been much drawn to the radical orthography as in later times. It is, however, very unsafe to draw any inference from it as to dates, either way. In Jeremiah 37:15, we have αֵּ ?ιϊδָ ?ΰֵ ?ρεּ ?ψ, the singular of the word written in full, and used as synonymous with αֵּ ?ιϊδַ ?λֶּ ?μֶ ?ΰ, house of restraint.—T. L.] AND The plan of this section is extremely simple and clear. Each of the three divisions or strophes, as given above, is again divided into two smaller parts or half strophes, with which, each time, new turns of thought commence. The complete scheme is as follows: First strophe: The personal misfortune of men: Ecclesiastes 4:1-6; first half strophe: Ecclesiastes 4:1-3; second half strophe: Ecclesiastes 4:4-6. Second strophe: The evils of social life: Ecclesiastes 4:7-12; first half strophe: Ecclesiastes 4:7-8; second half strophe: Ecclesiastes 4:9-12. Third strophe: The evils of civil life: Ecclesiastes 4:13-16; first half strophe: Ecclesiastes 4:13-14; second half strophe: Ecclesiastes 4:15-16.—Comp. Vaihinger, Comment., p. 32 f., and also the Doctrinal and Ethical portion of this section. 2. First strophe: Ecclesiastes 4:1-6. It is not the really unfortunate men that alone suffer sorrows, oppressions, and violence of the most various nature (Ecclesiastes 4:1-3); the fortunate also find the joy of their life embittered by envy and want of true repose of soul (Ecclesiastes 4:4-6).—So I returned—namely, from the previous course of my reflections (which, according to chap. 3, had dwelt upon the foundation and nature of the earthly happiness of men). Hengstenberg justly claims for this passage, as well as for Ecclesiastes 4:7 and Ecclesiastes 9:11 (and also for Zechariah 5:1), the acceptance of εְ ?ωַׁ ?αְ ?ϊּ ?ιΰֲ ?πִ ?ιεָ ?ΰֶ ?ψְ ?ΰֶ ?δ in the sense of: “And I turned back and saw,” which is the same as: “And again I saw” (Ewald), and indicates the transition, to a new object of reflection, not the repetition of a reflection already made, as Hahn contends. Luther, Elster, Vaihinger, etc., are not correct in saying: “And I turned,” etc.; for ωׁ ?εּ ?α expresses a sense different from τָּ ?πָ ?δ or ρָ ?αַ ?α (Ecclesiastes 2:12; Ecclesiastes 2:20, etc.).—And considered all the oppressions.—As in Amos 3:9, ςֲ ?ωֻׁ ?χִ ?ιν must here also be taken in an abstract sense: “oppressions,” “violence;” for πַ ?ςֲ ?ωִׂ ?ιν does not harmonize with the concrete sense, “oppressed,” whilst in the following clause the concrete sense “oppressed” appears from the context.—And behold the tears of such as were oppressed.—In the original, tear of the oppressed (γִּ ?ξְ ?ςָ ?δ a collective). The description presents a vivid reality, and does not magnify the actual conditions in a fantastic or sentimental manner, or from a bitter and peevish misanthropy, but simply reports facts; and facts such as the author had frequently experienced in consequence of the civilly dependent and depressed condition of his people.—And on the side of their oppressors there was power.—λֹּ ?ηַ here is equal to ηָ ?ζְ ?χָ ?δ (1 Samuel 2:16; Ezekiel 34:4) violence. The repetition of the expression, “but they had no comforter,” realizes, with striking emphasis, the hopeless and desperate condition of those who suffer. Comp. the similar repetitions of the same tragic turn in Isaiah 9:11; Isaiah 9:16; Isaiah 9:20; Isaiah 10:4; Mark 9:44; Mark 9:46; Mark 9:48. Ecclesiastes 4:2. Wherefore I praised the dead which are already dead.—ωַׁ ?αֵּ ?ηַ is not a participle with D omitted, but an infinitive absolute, which here contains the finite verb, as in Ecclesiastes 9:11, and in 1 Chronicles 5:20 (comp. Berth, on this passage, and also Ewald, § 851 c).—More than the living which are yet alive.—ςַ ?γֶ ?πָּ ?δ contracted from ςַ ?γδֵ ?ο ,ςַ ?γΞδֵ ?πָּ ?δ adhuc, yet. For the sentence comp. Ecclesiastes 7:1 f.; also Herodotus 1:31: ἄμεινονἀνθρώπῳ τεθνάναιμάλλονἢ ζώειν, as also Ecclesiastes 4:6 of Menander: Ζωῆςπονηρᾶςθάνατοςαἰρετώτερος. Ecclesiastes 4:3. Yea, better is he than both they, which hath not been.—For this intensifying of the previous thought, comp. Ecclesiastes 6:3-5; Ecclesiastes 7:1; Job 3:13 ff.; Jeremiah 20:18, and Theognis, Gnom., v. 425 ss.: Πάντωνμὲνμὴ φῦναιἐπιχθονίοισινἄριστον, Μηδ’ ἐσιδεῖναὐγὰςὀξέοςἡελίου, Φύνταδ’, ὅπωςὤκισταπύλας ’Αϊδαοπερῆσαι, Καὶ κεῖσθαιπολλὴνγῆνἐπαμησάμενον. Other parallels will be found in the classic authors, as Sophocles (�d. Col., 1143 s.), Euritides. (Cresphontes fragm.13) Chalcidamus, Posidipp., Philemon, Val. Maxim. Ecclesiastes 2:6; Solinus (polyhist, e. 10), etc. Examine also Knobel on this passage, and Hengstenberg, p. 160 f. The difference between such complaints in heathen authors, and the same in the mouth of our own, is found in the fact that the latter, like Job and Jeremiah, does not stop at the gloomy reflections expressed in the lamentation, but, by proceeding to expressions of a more cheerful nature, announces that the truth found in them is incomplete, and only partial. Ecclesiastes 4:4. Again—I considered all travail and every right work.—λִּ ?ωְׁ ?ψεֹ ?ο, as in Ecclesiastes 2:21, not of the successful result of work, but of its excellence in kind and manner; the Septuagint is correct: ἀνδρεία, and mainly so the Vulgate: industriee. But it is clear that the author is thinking mainly of such excellent and industrious people whose exertions are crowned with success, so that they can become objects of envy or jealousy. He is therefore now no longer regarding simply the unhappy and the suffering, as in Ecclesiastes 4:1-3, but also the relatively happy.—That for this a man is envied of his neighbor.—χִ ?πְ ?ΰַ ?ϊΰִ ?ιωׁ ξֵ ?ψֵ ?ςֵ ?δεּ ?] i.e., jealous endeavor to anticipate another in available effort and corresponding success; consequently envious disposition and action, invidia (comp. Ecclesiastes 9:6, where χִ ?πְ ?ΰָ ?δ has the same meaning, and also Isaiah 11:13, etc.).—This is also vanity.—Because in the uncertainty of all earthly circumstances, it is of no true profit to surpass one’s neighbor in diligence and skill. Ecclesiastes 4:5. The fool foldeth his hands together, and eateth his own flesh.—Probably a proverb of like tendency with those of Pro 6:10; Proverbs 24:33, i. e., directed against idleness; it is therefore not the expression of the author, but a quotation of au envious person who endeavors to defend his zealous effort to surpass his neighbor in excellence, but which is immediately refuted in Ecclesiastes 4:6. Hitzig is correct in this view (comp. also the Int., § 1, Obs. 2), whilst Luther, Geier, Oetinger, Bauer, Vaihinger, etc., see rather the jealous man designated as a fool, who folds his hands in vexation and despair, and consumes his own flesh in wild passion, and Ewald, Hengstenberg, Elster, etc., think that the author is contrasting idleness with envy as its opposite extreme, in order to warn against the former; this were manifestly to presuppose a very abrupt and obscure mode of presentation. Concerning the phrase “foldeth his hands” as a Biblical expression for idleness, comp. Proverbs 6:10. “Eateth his own flesh” is to exhaust one’s strength, to use one’s fortune, to ruin one’s self, as occurs on the part of the idle; comp. Isaiah 49:26; Psalms 27:2; Micah 3:3; Numbers 12:12.— Ecclesiastes 4:6. Better is a handful with quietness, than both hands full with travail and vexation of spirit.—This is plainly the answer which a defender of a contented, quiet spirit, void of envy, would give to that feverish jealousy which in Ecclesiastes 4:5 he had rebuked as foolish indolence, the disposition not to rival one’s neighbor in skill and diligence.—ξְ ?μֹ ?ΰλַ ?σ, lit., “to be filled, to be full of hand.” It means “a little,” as taken in contrast with ξִ ?μֹ ?ΰηָ ?τְ ?πַ ?ιִ ?ν “both hands full,” i. e., superfluity of any thing, great abundance. “Quiet” (πַ ?ηַ ?ϊ) and so also ςָ ?ξָ ?μ “travail,” do naturally present, not only the respective dispositions and demeanors, but, at the same time, the casual circumstances connected with them, and forming their background; at one time a modest portion of worldly goods, at another a great fortune, collected with much exertion, but bringing only care and sorrow. 3. Second strophe. Ecclesiastes 4:7-12. By avarice, the nearest relative and affiliated vice of the envy just described, man brings himself into sad isolation and abandonment of friends, which is the greatest misfortune in social life, as it not only embitters all enjoyment of the amenities of this life, but robs us of all protection against men of hostile intent. For Ecclesiastes 4:7 compare what is said above of Ecc 4:1. Ecclesiastes 4:8. There is one alone, and there is not a second—i. e., one standing entirely alone, without friends and companions, also without near blood relations (according to the following clause), consequently so much the more isolated and obliged to make friends by the free use of his riches, but which he does not do.—Neither is his eye satisfied with riches, i. e., he does not cease to cravo new treasures; comp. Ecclesiastes 2:10. The ςֵ ?ιπָ ?ιε must be retained, and need not be exchanged for ςֵ ?ιπε. Comp. 1 Samuel 4:15; 1 Kings 14:6; 1 Kings 14:12; Psalms 37:31.—For whom do I labor and bereave my soul of good?—Lit., “let my soul fail of the good,” a pregnant construction like that in Psalms 10:18; Psalms 18:19. This question is put into the mouth of the covetous, but as one finally arriving at reflection, and perceiving the folly of his thus collecting treasures; comp. Ecclesiastes 2:18-21; Luke 12:16-21. But it does not follow from this sudden revulsion from foolish to sensible views, without further explanation, that Koheleth means himself (as above Ecclesiastes 2:18 ff.) in the person here described (as Hitzig contends). Ecclesiastes 4:9. Two are better than one..—That is, it is better, in general, to be associated than isolated, comp. Genesis 2:18, and the saying of the Talmud: “A man -without companions is like the left without the right hand” (Pirke Aboth; f. 30, 2).—Because they have a good reward for their labor.—Lit., who have a good reward for their labor. What this good reward consists of, the three subsequent verses show by three examples, which point out, in a similar manner, the pleasure as well as the profit and protection afforded by socially living and cordially co-operating with one’s fellows. Ecclesiastes 4:10. For if they fall, i. e., the one or the other. We cannot think of both falling at the same time, because they then would both need aid.—But woe to him that is alone when he falleth.—ΰιμε “woe to him” comp.ΰִ ?ιψָ ?κְ Ecclesiastes 10:16, and also the kindred δִ ?ι Ezekiel 2:10. Ecclesiastes 4:11. If two lie together, then they have heat.—The conjugal lying together of man and wife is certainly not intended, but rather that of two travelling: companions who are obliged to pass the night in the open air. The necessity of this in Palestine, on account of the prevalence of cold nights there, can easily cause great embarrassment, especially as poorer travellers have no other covering with them than their over-garment; comp. Exodus 22:26; Son 5:3 Ecclesiastes 4:12. And if one prevail against him.—ϊχσ means to overcome (comp. the adjective ϊַּ ?χִּ ?ισ powerful, Ecclesiastes 6:10), not to attack (Knobel, Elster), or fall upon (Ewald). ιִ ?ϊְ ?χְ ?τεֹ is an indefinite singular with an object presupposed in the suffix: “if one overwhelmed him, the one;” comp. 2 Samuel 14:6; Proverbs 13:24; and Ecclesiastes 2:21, which passages satisfactorily show that Ewald’s proposition to read ιִ ?ϊְ ?χְ ?τεּ is unnecessary.—(Comp. Ewald, Lehrbuch, § 309 c).—Two shall withstand him.—Of course not the one mentioned in the first part, but rather his opponent, who forms the unnamed subject in ιִ ?ϊְ ?χְ ?τεֹ. Comp. similar cases in Ecclesiastes 5:18; Ecclesiastes 6:12; Ecclesiastes 8:10; as well as the phrase ςָ ?ξַ ?γπֶ ?βֶ ?γ “to oppose somebody,” to resist one; 2 Kings 10:4; Daniel 8:7. Ewald and Elster are not so correct in saying: “thus stand two before him,” namely, the attacked one himself and his companion—which clearly affords too weak a thought.—And a threefold cord is not quickly broken.—That is, if three of them, instead of two, hold together, then so much the better. The symbol is taken from the fact that a cord of three strands holds more firmly than one consisting of a simple strand, or of two only. Comp. the well-known fable of a bundle of arrows, and the German proverb: “Strong alone, but stronger with others.” There is no allusion to the sacredness of the number three, and still less to the Trinity, which a few older commentators thought to find herein. Moreover, the title of several books of devotion is derived from this passage, e. g., the celebrated book of the Priest of Rostock, Nikolaus Russ, about the year Ecc 1500: de triplici funi:ulo, in which faith, hope and love are described is the three cords of which there must be made the rope that is to rescue man from the abyss of ruin. And so of later works, as (Lilienthal) “A Threefold Cord,” a book of proverbs for every day in the year (for every day a saying containing a promise and a prayer.)—New. Ed., Hamburg, Sigmund. A threefold cord, woven out of the three books of St. Augustine: Manuale, Soliloquia, et Meditationes, 1863. 4.Third strophe.Ecclesiastes 4:3-16. That fortune often shows itself deceptive and unreliable enough in civil life, and in the highest spheres of human society, is illustrated by the double example of an old incapable king whom a younger person pushes aside, and that of his successor, an aspirant from a lower class, who, in spite of his transitory popularity, nevertheless falls into forgetfulness, like so many others. Like the fact alluded to in Ecclesiastes 9:13-16, this example seems to be taken from the immediate contemporary experiences of the author, but can only, with great difficulty, be more nearly defined on its historical basis. Only the first clause of 4:18 suits the history of Joseph, and, at most, Ecclesiastes 4:13 contains an allusion to David as the successor of Saul; Ecclesiastes 4:15 may allude to Rehoboam as successor of Solomon, and Ecclesiastes 4:14 perhaps to Jeroboam. But other features again destroy these partial resemblances every time, and demonstrate the impossibility of discovering any one of these persons in the “poor but wise youth.” Thus, too, the remaining hypotheses that have been presented concerning the enigmatical fact (e.g., the references to Amaziah and Joash, and to Nimrod and Abraham), can only be sustained by the most arbitrary applications. This is especially true of Hitzig’s supposition that the old and foolish king is the Onias mentioned by Josephus (Antiquities Ecclesiastes 12:4) as High Priest and προστάτηςτοῦ λαοῦ, and that the youth supplanting him was his sister’s son, Joseph, who, if he did not succeed in robbing him of the priestly office (which his son Simon inherited) [see Sir 50:1 ff.], at least wrested from him the προστασία i.e., the lucrative office of a farmer of the Syrian revenues that he had then exercised twenty-two years, not indeed to the satisfaction of the people, but in a very selfish and tyrannical manner. This hypothesis does all honor to the learned acumen of its originator, but has so many weak points as to forbid its acceptance. For in the first place the ruler of a realm is portrayed in Ecclesiastes 4:15-16, and not a rich Judaic-Syrian revenue collector; secondly Onias was high-priest and not king, and lost only a part of his functions and power by that Joseph; thirdly, the assumption that the author exaggerates petty circumstances and occurrences in a manner not historical, is destitute of the necessary proof; fourthly, the supposition forming the base of the entire hypothesis of an authorship of Koheleth towards the end of the third century B.C. is quite as arbitrary and bare of proof; comp. Int., § 4, Obs, 3. We must, therefore, refrain from specially defining the event to which these verses allude; in which case the two following suppositions remain possible: either the author feigns an example, or, in other words, has presented the contents of Ecc 4:13-16 as a possible ease (thus think Elster, Hengstenberg, Vaihinger, el al.), or he refers to an event in the history of the nation or State, at his period, not sufficiently known to us (the- opinion of Umbreit, Ewald, Bleek, etc.). In the latter case, we could hardly think of a change of succession in the series of Persian monarchs; for the history of the rise of the eunuch Bagoas about the year 339 B.C. harmonizes too little with the present description to be identified with it, but we would sooner think of such a change in some one of the States subject to Persia, as Phenicia or Egypt.—Better is a poor and wise child, etc.—Clearly a general sentence for the introduction of the following illustration: “better” not here said of moral excellence, but “happier,” “better off,” just as θεֹ ?α in Ecclesiastes 4:3; Ecclesiastes 4:9.“Wise” here is equivalent, to “adroit, cunning,” comp. Job 5:13; 2 Samuel 13:3.—Who will no more be admonished.—ιָ ?γַ ?ςμְ with the infinitive, as Ecclesiastes 5:1; Ecclesiastes 6:8; Ecclesiastes 10:16; Exodus 17:16. Ecclesiastes 4:14. For out of prison he cometh to reign.—αֵּ ?ιϊδָ ?ρεּ ?ψִ ?ιν contracted from αֵּ ?ιϊδָ ?ΰֲ ?ρεּ ?ψִ ?ιν (comp. similar contractions in 2 Chronicles 22:5; Ezekiel 20:30), also synonymous with αֵּ ?ιϊΰֲ ?ρִ ?ιψִ ?ιν, Judges 16:21; Judges 16:25 (comp. Genesis 39:20). Or else this reading δָ ?ρεּ ?ψιν must owe its origin to the opinion that Joseph’s elevation from the prison to the throne (Genesis 41 :) is here alluded to, in which case we should read αֵּ ?ιϊδַ ?ρּ ?εּ ?ψιν, and explain this either by “house of the outcast” “of the degraded” (Ewald, comparing Isaiah 49:21), or “by house of the fugitives” (Hitzig, comparing Judges 4:18; 2 Samuel 3:36). But these varied meanings would produce very little difference in the sense,—Whereas also he that is born in his kingdom becometh poor.—λִּ ?ιβַ ?ν, after the λִּ ?ι of the preceding clause, introduces not so much a verification of it, as an intensification, by which is expressed that the prisoner (or fugitive) has not merely transiently fallen into adversity, but that he was born in poor and lowly circumstances; and this αְּ ?ξַ ?μְ ?λεּ ?ϊεֹ “in his kingdom,” i. e., in the same land that ho should afterwards rule as king (Hitzig, Elster, Vaihinger and Ewald, who are mainly correct). Rosenmueller, Knobel and Hahn translate: “although he was born poor in his kingdom;” Hengstenberg: “for although born in his kingdom, he becomes poor nevertheless”—both of them less suitable meanings, of which the latter should be rejected as too artificial and contrary to the accentuation. Ecclesiastes 4:15. I considered all the living which walk under the sun, with the second child, etc.—A somewhat in-Sated description of the dominion and adherents which that youth (or child) had acquired. For the same child is doubtless meant as that named in Ecclesiastes 4:13-14, as the repetition of the expression ιֶ ?μֶ ?γ shows, as well as the words ΰֲ ?ωֶׁ ?ψιַ ?ςֲ ?ξֹ ?γϊַּ ?ηְ ?ϊָּ ?ιε at the end, which indicate clearly enough the prospective introduction of the child into the place of the old and foolish king. The imperfect ιַ ?ςֲ ?ξִ ?γ marks the future in the past—comp. 2 Kings 3:27; Psalms 78:6; and ςָ ?ξַ ?γ in the same sense, as e. g., (Daniel 11:2-3). Hahn, in connection with some older writers, considers the ιֶ ?μֶ ?γδַ ?ωֵּׁ ?πִ ?ι different from the ιֶ ?μֶ ?γ in Ecclesiastes 4:13, and identifies it with the Messiah child or the Christ child of Isa 9:5; Isaiah 11:1 ff.; Micah 5:1; but the contents of the following verse, which characterizes the splendor of the child most clearly as transitory and vain, are very decidedly against this position as something that would never be in accordance with the rule of the Messiah.—And moreover, from the expression: “All the living which walk under the sun,” it is by no means necessary to deduce that the author had in his eye one of the great Asiatic empires, as Hengstenberg supposes with reference to Daniel 4:7 ff.; but the language here, as in the following verse, is largely hyperbolical, and is intended -merely to give an idea of the numberless masses adhering to the usurper; comp. similar hyperboles in the Son 6:8; Joshua 11:4; Judges 6:5; Judges 7:12; Exodus 10:4 ff.—There is no end of all the people, even of all that have been before them.—δָ ?ιָ ?δμִ ?τְ ?πֵ ?ι denotes here, as in 1 Samuel 13:16;2 Chronicles 1:10, the headship or leadership (comp. also Micah 2:13). [Zφckler says this to support his translation, an deren Spitze er stand, “all at whose head he stood,” notwithstanding all the connections of the passage show that priority in time is meant here by μִ ?τְ ?πֵ ?ιδֶ ?ν, and not priority of position. The references he makes to 1 Samuel 18:16, etc., do not, at all, sustain him, since; in every one of them, there are other words (such as “going in and out before them”), which wholly change the case.—T. L.]. Ewald, following the Sept., Vulg., and Luther, translate: “all that have been before them,” and indicate an antagonism between these earlier ones and those immediately after called ΰַ ?ηֲ ?ψεֹ ?πִ ?ιν but he thereby violates the connection, which clearly shows that the generations later, not those earlier than the king in question, were compared with him. It is said of them μֹ ?ΰιִ ?ωְׂ ?ξְ ?ηεּ ?Ξαεֹ not αָּ ?ν—They also that come after shall not rejoice in him.—That is, they have no pleasant experiences of him whom they once greeted with joyful hopes, either that he deceived the just hopes of his people by later misrule, or that the fickle breeze of popularity became untrue to him without his fault. In either case, Koheleth could and must find a confirmation of his favorite expression concerning the vanity of earthly things. This clause is therefore again composed of the strain with which he closes his reflections. [Alleged Historical Allusions in Koheleth.—See the general remarks on the passages here-alluded to, in the Appendix to the Introduction, p. 30. The older commentators who were firm in respect to the Solomonic origin, first began this kind of speculation. The Jewish Rabbis were excessively absurd in some of their midrashin. And so the older Christian interpreters were very fond of treating such passages as describing real historical events. They referred them to Rehoboam, Jeroboam, Joseph, Abraham, or any body else, because they thought it for the honor of the book, or of the Scriptures generally; as, in this way, one part confirmed another. The attempts to verify such hypotheses, however, only led to confusion, and tended rather to discredit than to increase confidence in the production. What was still worse, the Rationalists, whose interest it was bring the book down to a very late date, began, in like manner, to use these supposed references for their own purposes. The result has been a still greater confusion; and the great difficulty of making any thing clear out of them, ought to satisfy every sober mind of the falsity of the entire historical theory. Regarded as general illustrations, they are in perfect harmony with the authorship of Solomon; whilst the attempts of another kind show the insuperable difficulty of settling upon any other date than the one claimed in the book itself. The most extravagant hypothesis is that of Hitzig, as is shown by Zφckler and Stuart. A priest has to be turned into a king, and when even that fails, the taking away of a very subordinate office is to be treated as a dethronement. “What an outcry would be made by Ewald and his school, should they find similar wrenchings of language and history in commentators called orthodox ! As presented by Hitzig and others, it becomes all a mass of rationalistic confusion. Even if the author was of so late a date, he certainly means to personate the old king of Israel. He must, therefore, himself have been “old and foolish,” or consistency would have kept him from using as an illustration an incident so evidently anachronistic, as compared with any historical example likely to be given by Solomon. A writer assuming to personate some one in the days of Queen Elizabeth, and then using an illustration, insignificant in itself, and savoring wholly of the time of Gladstone, Bright, and Queen Victoria, would not have acted more absurdly. The confusion and difficulty which such a mode of treatment (whether by Orthodox or Rationalist) has made in the interpretation of Ecc 4:13, have been greatly increased by a wrong translation of Ecc 4:14 th. It has been most commonly held that the, pronoun in ξַ ?μְ ?λεּ ?ϊεֹ (his kingdom) refers to the young man, and πεֹ ?μָ ?γ, to some one, or to the subjects generally, born under his usurped power. This certainly destroys the contrast which the arrangement and the particles of the two verses seem to intend. Again, πεֹ ?μָ ?γ (as a participle), or πεֹ ?μַ ?γ, has been taken as referring to the young man himself, born in his, that is, the old man’s, kingdom—said young usurper himself afterwards becoming poor. Such seems to be Zφckler’s view partially. All sorts of twists are resorted to by others to make this applicable to Jeroboam, or Hitzig’s “young man” Joseph, or to somebody else. Our E.V. is ambiguous as to which is meant, and leaves the sense in total darkness. There is a striking contrast intended here, as is shown by the order of the words, and the particles λִּ ?ιֹ βַ ?ν. There is meant to be the most direct antithesis, as best illustrating such a vicissitude of fortune. The one born to a throne and becoming poor, is put in strongest contrast with the one born in obscurity and rising to power: “For out of prison (out of servitude or some condition of restraint, it may be actual imprisonment) the one comes forth to reign, whilst the other, though born in his kingdom (in his royal state), becomes a pauper. “The particle βַּ ?ν has an emotional force; it expresses astonishment at such a case: yea, more—what is stranger still—“the royally born becomes poor.” There is good authority for such a view, although most of the commentators wander after something else. The Vulgate renders it most clearly and literally: De carcere et catenis quis egrediatur inlerdum ad regnum, et alius, natus in regno, inopia consumatur: “From prison and from chains one may sometimes come forth to a kingdom, whilst another born in a kingdom may be reduced to want.” It is clear, from the mode of expression, that the Latin translator looked upon it as a general illustration of the changes in human fortune. A still better authority is the old Greek Version of Symmachus, the best of the Greek interpreters: ‘O MEN γὰρἐκφυλακῆςͅ ἐξῆλθεβασιλεῦσαι, ‘ΟΔΕ, καίπερβασιλεὺςγεννηθέις, ἐστινἐνδεής: “The one comes from prison to reign, the other, born a king, becomes needy. This is confirmed by the Syriac translation of Origen’s Hexapla, which follows the Greek of Symmachus, word for word. See it, as given in the Syriac marginal translations to Middledorpf’s edition of the Codex Syriaco-hexaplaris.Ecclesiastes 4:15. “I beheld all the living walking beneath the sun,” etc. Zφckler may well call this “a somewhat inflated description of the dominion which that youth had acquired.” It is indeed uberschwanglich, high-flown, most extravagant, as thus applied; and the thought should have shown him that there must be something false in the application. It is barely suggested by what was said before (Ecclesiastes 4:14) about the vicissitudes of the individual life, but has no other connection with it. It is a rising of the view to a higher scale, so as to take in the world, or race at large, and its olamic vicissitudes, as they might be called. ψΰιϊι, I saw, I surveyed, or contemplated. It is presented as a picture of the mind taking in not single events, but all the living, λָּ ?μδַ ?ηַ ?ιִּ ?ιν. No where else in the Bible is this most sweeping language applied to such narrow uses as are here supposed. Where it is not used abstractly for life, as the plural ηιιν often is, it is never found in any less sense than the human race, or of the living as opposed to the dead. Comp. Job 28:12; Isaiah 8:20, “Land of the living,” Psalms 142:6, “Light of the living,” similar expressions, Psalms 116:9; also Ecclesiastes 6:8; Ecclesiastes 9:5, and other places. Here λμ joined with it (and it is the only place where it is so joined) makes it still more difficult to restrict it to such a narrow sense. The language rises beyond this: “I surveyed, I contemplated, all the living, as they walked beneath the sun,” cunctos viventes ambulantes sub sole. These are certainly very lofty words to apply to a crowd running after Jeroboam, or Hitzig’s ambitious youth, or any other personage of that kind. No artificial rule of criticism, de universalibus restrinfendis, etc., can justify the use of such language, in such a case. The true idea, moreover, is intensified by the participle ξְ ?δַ ?μְּ ?λִ ?ιν, in piel, marching, stately stepping, denoting a bold and proud movement, as in Ecclesiastes 11:9 δַ ?μֵּ ?κְ “march on in the ways of thine heart.” The piel does, indeed, seem, sometimes, to be used like the kal, but here every thing calls for its intensive or frequentative force. Comp. ξְ ?δַ ?μֵּ ?κְ, the bold invader, Proverbs 6:11, in parallelism with ΰִ ?ιωׁ ξָ ?βֵ ?ο “man of the shield.” In this intensive sense of marching it would seem to picture the grand procession of the race, moving on, squadron after squadron, the countless multitude that has already passed, ςִ ?νδַ ?ιֶּ ?μֶ ?γδωֵׁ ?πִ ?ι, together “with the second generation,” as we do not hesitate to render it, that shall stand in its place,—the ςִ ?ν here simply denoting the connection between the different parts of the picture or survey. The old procession that he thus saw walking beneath the sun (a term every where else used for the theatre of the human race), or the old part of it, is disappearing, whilst a younger world is now coming upon the stage and continuing the same ceaseless movement. As this rises before the mental vision of the seer [δָ ?ψֹ ?ΰֶ ?δ], he cries out, ΰֵ ?ιοχֵ ?υμְ ?λָ ?μδָ ?ςָ ?ν “ there is no end to all the people,”—there is no numbering the ranks of this vast host, as they ever come and go. As applied to Jeroboam, such language as this would not be a mere hyperbole, but a transcendental bombast, unworthy of the author and his most serious book. It calls to mind that sublime picture which Addison presents in his Vision of Mirza, the countless multitudes on the broken bridge of life, as they are ever coming out of the dark cloud on the one side, and passing away with the great flood of eternity on the other. It is this evident pictorial element in the verse, when rightly rendered, that strongly opposes the idea of any such comparatively petty historical references, and forces us to regard it as a representation of the great human movement through time into eternity. “No end to all that were before; yea, these that come after shall not rejoice in it [αּ ?εֹ ?] that is, the ςָ ?ν the people, the all, that were before it, now regarded collectively as the past in whom there is no more delight,—each generation satisfied with itself, and boasting of itself, as ours does, deeming itself, as it were, the all on earth; for what are all the ages past to this nineteenth century ! Now the pronoun in ϊָּ ?δְ ?ϊָּ ?ιε though singular in form, may have a collective antecedent, a case too common in the Hebrew language to require citations. The only antecedent of this kind, or of any kind, in the verse, is the ΰֶ ?ϊΞλָּ ?μΞδַ ?ηַ ?ιִּ ?ιν the all of the living, and which the makkephs, and the accents, show to be taken as one: “all the living, etc., with the second generation that shall arise in its stead.” The evident parallelism favors this choice of the singular pronoun; but if we are to overlook all this for the purpose of maintaining a historical reference, then we must go back two verses, and find the antecedent in “ the old and foolish king,” in whose place this second child, with “all the living beneath the sun, and the people without end,” marching with him, is to stand! The common sense of the reader must judge in this matter. If, then, the pronoun in ϊַּ ?ηְ ?ϊָּ ?ιε has for its antecedent the ΰֶ ?ϊΞλָּ ?μΞδַ ?ηַ ?ιִּ ?ιν, grammatical consistency would demand, as the antecedent of the pronoun in αּ ?εֹ (in it, instead of in him), the λֹּ ?μΰֲ ?ωֶׁ ?ψ just before, especially as joined with the singular substantive verb δָ ?ιָ ?δ. Besides the desire to find historic allusions, two verbal peculiarities here seem to have had much influence upon translators. One is the use of this singular pronoun which has just been explained, and which the parallelism of the picture so strongly demands. The other is the somewhat peculiar use of the word ιֶ ?μֶ ?γ in Ecclesiastes 4:15, and its contiguity to ιֶ ?μֶ ?γ in Ecclesiastes 4:13, leading to the false inference that they must be used in precisely the same manner. Now though the use of ιֶ ?μֶ ?γ for generation is not found elsewhere in the Bible Hebrew, yet it is perfectly natural and in harmony with the frequent generic use of αּ ?ο. It is, too, highly poetical, thus to regard one generation as the offspring, the child, of the preceding. It is only using ιֶ ?μֶ ?γ for the cognate ϊּ ?εֹ ?μְ ?γָ ?δ from the same root, and the unusual expression may have been suggested by the ιֶ ?μֶ ?γ in Ecclesiastes 4:13, giving such a turn to the thought and the language. The order of ideas would be this: as the “young man” succeeds the old, so does the young race succeed its progenitor. So the primary sense of γένος in Greek is child, offspring, and from this comes its use for race, generation. Whilst, then, it may be said that the word, etymologically, fits the thought, nothing could be more graphic than, the mode of representation. Agreeing with this is an interpretation given by that acute Jewish critic, Aben-Ezra, except that it takes the pronoun in αּ ?εֹ as referring to the ςεֹ ?μָ ?ν or world, so frequently mentioned. After stating the other view, he proceeds to say: “There are those who interpret δַ ?ιֶּ ?μֶ ?γδַ ?ωֵּׁ ?πִ ?ι the second child, as denoting the generation that comes after another (δγεψδαΰΰηψιε) and the meaning as being, that he saw the living as they walked beneath the sun, and they, with their heirs that shall stand in their place, are like those who went before them, and these, as well as those, shall have no joy (αּ ?εֹ) in it, that is, αςεμν in the world.” It is the same procession so curtly, yet so graphically, described eh. Ecclesiastes 1:4 : “generation comes, and generation goes,” μςεμν Rashi regards ιμγ as meaning generation, but strangely refers it to the generation of Noah, and the ΰηψπιν or “they who come after,” to that of Peleg. The Hebrew preposition ςν like the Latin cum and the English with when used for and, may denote a connection in thought, or in succession, as prmterea, besides, as well as, like the Arabic γَ ?Ϊً ?Η “I saw all the living walking, etc., and together with, or along with them, or besides this, I saw the second generation." This is a well established use of the preposition. Comp. 1 Samuel 17:4; 1 Samuel 16:12 : ΰγξεπιςνιτδξψΰδ “ruddy as well as fair,” and in this book, Ecclesiastes 2:16, ηλνςνδλνιμ “the wise man as well as the fool,” 1 Chronicles 25:8, ξαιοςνϊμξιγ “teacher (with) as well as the disciple,” Psalms 106:6, “we with our fathers,” we and our fathers, or we as well as our fathers; also Nehemiah 3:12; Psalms 115:13; Daniel 11:8; Psalms 104:25, “the great as well as the small,” and other places. The great difficulty in the way of the common view is the word δַ ?ωֵּׁ ?πִ ?ι “The second child,” “the child the second,” must denote one of two or more. A concordance shows that there is no exception to this. To take it in the sense of successor to something of a different kind (a second one) is without an example to support it. No mention is made of any other “child,” or “young man.” The difficulty has led some to give δωּׁ ?πι the sense ηαψ, companion, for which they seek a warrant in the 10th verse; and then they refer it to a son of Hiram, who was Solomon’s friend or companion: “I saw the child (the son) of my friend.” See Notes to Noldius Heb. Part. No.1023. This is very absurd; and yet the one who defends it denounces the absurdity of the more common reference to Jeroboam. Whoever wishes to see “confusion on confusion heaped,” in the treatment of these passages, and in the attempt to restrict the extent of this language, may consult De Dieu, Crit. Sac., p. 183. Take these verses, however, as general reflections on the vicissitudes of the individual and of the race, and all this confusion immediately gives place to harmony.—T. L.] AND ETHICAL(With Homiletical Hints.) Among the examples in proof of the imperfection and inconstancy of earthly happiness, which the Preacher communicates in the above section from the rich treasures of his own experience, we find the relation of an ascending grade from lower to higher and more brilliant conditions of happiness. From the sad lot of victims innocently suffering from tyrannical persecution and oppression (1–3), the description proceeds directly to the more lucky but not more innocent condition of persons consumed with envy, dissatisfaction and jealousy, and who with toilsome efforts chase after the treasures of this earth, looking with jealous envy on the successful rivals of their struggles, and with scorn on those less fortunate, who are contented with a more modest lot (4–6). Then follow reflections regarding the happiness of such persons as have risen through the abundance of their goods to a distinguished and influential position in human society, but who, in consequence of this very wealth, run the risk of falling into a helpless, joyless, and isolated condition, destitute of friends and adherents (Ecclesiastes 7:12). The illustration hereby induced of the value of closer social connection of men, and harmonious co-operation of their powers to one end (9–12) leads to the closing reflection; this is devoted to the distress and disaster of the highest circles of human society, acknowledging the fate even of the most favored pets of fortune, such as the occupants of princely or kingly thrones, to be uncertain and liable to a reverse, and thus showing that the sentence against the vanity of all earthly things necessarily extends even to the greatest and most powerful of earth (13–16). “There is no complete and lasting happiness here below, neither among the lofty nor the lowly,” or: “Every thing is vanity on earth, the life of the poor as of the rich, of the slave as of the lord, of the subject as of the king;”—this would be about the formula of a theme for a comprehensive consideration of this section. The effort of Hengstenberg to restrict the historical references of this section to the sufferings of the children of Israel mourning under the yoke of Persian dominion, is quite as unnecessary as the corresponding position in the preceding chapter; yet still the most of the concrete examples for the truth of the descriptions given, may be drawn from the history of post-exile Israel, which are therefore thus to be chosen and arranged in the homiletical treatment. HINTS ON Ecclesiastes 4:1-3. Brenz:—The word of God teaches us that crosses and sufferings pave the way to eternal bliss, and that the Lord grants to the wicked in this world a free hand for the exercise of their crimes and violence, with the view of sinking them ever deeper in their lusts; but it teaches also that the faith of the pious is to be maintained through suffering, and to be finally brought to light in the judgment of the last day, in the great decision of all things. Starke:—Thou miserable one, who sighest and weepest at violence and wrong, know that the Lord sees and counts thy tears (Psalms 56:9). Beware of impatience, distrust, and self-revenge against thy persecutors (Romans 12:19)! Hengstenberg:—Such an experience of human misery (as is here depicted, and also in Jer. chap. 20.) is not only natural, but it lies in the purpose of God, who brings about the circumstances that call it forth. God wishes to draw us to Him, by making this world thoroughly distasteful, and nothing but vanity to us. We must be liberated from earthly things through many trials, and thus enter into the kingdom of heaven. Ecclesiastes 4:4-6. Brenz:—The world greatly errs in always demanding for its satisfaction a superfluity of goods and treasures, and in regarding modest possession as deprivation and misery. And yet one can live contented and satisfied just as well with a little as with rich superfluity, if one only aims, in a proper manner, after contentment, or in such a way that one lets God the Lord be his treasure and highest good. Geier:—One should not consider a rich man happier than a poor man, because of his many possessions. He who has much, has also much unrest and care, and is moreover greatly envied by others. Wohlfarth:—With true wisdom, Solomon warns us just as much against a passionate and excessive effort after a lofty aim, as against that indolence which folds its hands in its lap and waits for miracles. He admonishes us rather to a sober and well-ordered labor in our vocation, and thus, in every respect, recommends the just medium in our activity. Ecclesiastes 4:7-12. Melanchthon:—Solomon here shows how necessary for human life is the social combination of men for the advancement of the arts, industries, and duties of life. All classes need such mutual aid and assistance, and each individual must prosecute his labor for the welfare of the whole, must advance their interest, and make every effort to prevent division and separation. Cramer (Ecclesiastes 4:7-8):—The slaves of mammon are blinded, and are their own tyrants. They do not leave themselves space enough to enjoy their blessings; therefore the rust of their gold and silver is a testimony against them. (James 5:3). Zeyss (Ecclesiastes 4:9-12):—If a community of the body is so useful a thing, how much more useful must be a community of spirit, when pious Christians with united strength of spirit withstand the realms of Satan. Wohlfarth:—It is not merely a sacred desire that draws men to men, brings together souls of like inclination, and binds kindred hearts. We can neither rejoice in our happiness, nor finally bear the trials that meet us, nor joyfully advance in the way of piety and virtue, if we have not true friends. Oh how sacred, therefore, is the union of wedlock, of parents and children, of relatives and friends! Von Gerlach:—Joy shared is two-fold joy; grief shared loses half its pain. Ecclesiastes 4:13-16. Brenz:—Faith has here a good probationary school, in which it can learn and try its powers. For when God elevates the lowly, faith can cherish hope, but when He bends and overthrows the proud necks of the rich, it learns to fear. God presents such examples to the eyes of His chosen, that they may increase and be exercised both in the fear of His holy wrath, and in hope of heavenly glory. Weimar Bible:—We should never depend on large possessions and great power, and much less seek true happiness therein, Psalms 75:5-6. Starke:—It is a clear indication of Divine Providence, that in no place, and at no epoch, is there a failure of children and posterity to fill the places of the aged as they disappear. Footnotes: [There is a still more striking contrast, a double antithesis, it may be said, between the classical and the Scriptural poets. In their descriptions of nature and of human life we often find the former class of writers beginning in the joyful or major mood, and ending in the minor. It may be called the melancholy of Epicureanism. Thus it is with Anacreon, though he lived before the time of the sensual philosopher. How often does he begin with “flowers, and love, and rosy wine ”— Επὶ μυρσίναιςτερείναιςΕπὶ λωτίναιςτεποίαιςκ. τ. λ.On beds of softest fragrance laid, Soft beds of lote and myrtle shade. And so goes on the joyful strain—but not far before the modulation changes into the mournful key—into a wail of despair, as it would almost seem: βιότοςτρέχεικυλισθεὶς, ὀλίγηδὲ κεισόμεσθαSo swiftly runs the wheel of life, And we shall lie—a little dust— A heap of mouldering bones. See also how similar jovial strains are closed by his sad picture of old age, and the still darker one of the dreadful Hades: Ἀἴδέωγὰρἐστὶ δεινὸςκαθόδος—— For dreadful is that gloomy vale; And then the dark descent so deep, That none can reascend the steep. This peculiarity is no less striking in Horace. Thus, in the 4th ode of the 1st Book, there is a most charming picture of spring, continuing for some distance, till it closes with the exulting strain— Nunc decet aut viridi nitidum caput impedire myrto;Aut flore terrζ quam ferunt solutζ.And then, without any warning prelude, there comes the mournful minor: Pallida mors ζquo pulsat pede pauperum tabernas, Regumque turres.Pale Death, with equal step, at kingly tower, And at the poor man’s cottage, knocks. Again, Ode 7th, Lib. iv., commencing with— Diffugere nives, redeunt jam gramina campis.The snows are fled, the flowers again return. Then the picture of the dancing Graces, when immediately a different voice seems to meet our ears: Immortalia ne speres,———Damna tamen celeres reparant c�lestia lunζ—Nos ubi decidimus, Pulvis et umbra sumus: Hope not for immortality——— The waning moons again their waste repair; But we, when once to death gone down, Are nought but dust and shadow.In contrast with this, how joyfully rings out the prophetic strain, Isaiah 26:19 : Awake and sing, ye dwellers in the dust. How different, too, in these respects, from Horace and Anacreon, are the lyrics of the Psalmist. The most mournful descriptions of the frailty and transitory state of man on earth are so frequently succeeded by assurances of some future blessedness, which, although not clearly defined, and containing little or no direct allusions to an after life, do ever seem to imply it as the ground of confidence in the Divine goodness. “He is not the God of the dead, but of the living.” Thus in the 103 Psalm, Ecclesiastes 4:15, etc.: Frail man—like grass his days; As the flower of the field, so he flourishes. For the wind passes over, and it is gone; Its place knoweth it no more. Immediately hope rises: But the mercy of the Lord is from everlasting— Even unto everlasting, upon those who fear him; His righteousness to children’s children. Again,—encouragement in the contemplation of human weakness is derived from the thought of the Divine permanence and eternity, Psalms 102:1 : My days are like a shadow that declineth; I am withered like grass; But thou, Jehovah, dost endure forever. Thy remembrance unto all generations. Again, Psalms 115:17 : The dead praise not the Lord——— and immediately the language of hope, implying something more than that mere selfish thought of survivorship, which the rationalist would give it: But we will bless the Lord, From henceforth and forever—hallelujah. A similar transition, Psalms 73:26 : My flesh and heart do fail: Body and soul both suffer from their connection with a fallen spiritual state, and a degenerate nature. But God is the rock of my soul; He is my portion for ever. Similar illustrations of these affecting contrasts might be derived from Job, as in chapters 14 and 19, especially the latter, where the triumphant strain, “I know that my Redeemer liveth,” follows so soon after what might Seem almost a piteous cry of despair. In Koheleth there are no such vivid bursts of joy and hope, but there is to be found in him a species of transition similar, and equally striking. It is when be rises from the seemingly doubting mood, to a firm faith in the ultimate Divine justice, and to a most confident expression of his belief that somehow, and somewhere, and at some time , every wrong shall be righted. conceding to him this, we are led, irresistibly, to infer something else which is necessary to give meaning to the announcement,—namely, that there shall be a real forensic manifestation with a conscious knowledge of it on the part of every intelligent subject, or object, of such righteousness.—T. L.] [This is not so clear, although Zφckler has with him most of the commentators. There is good reason for regarding it as the language of the idle envier, who would justify his sloth by making a pretended virtue of it. “why all this labor? Better take the world easy.” It has something of the look of the “sour grapes” fable; or it may be compared to the bacchanalian song of the shiftless idler, assuming to despise what he has not the talent nor the diligence to acquire: “Why are we fond of toil and care?” The view taken by Zφckler and others seems very confused it is not easy to discover any true connection in it. The perplexity, we think, comes from assuming that ver.5 is a quoted proverb, and not the very languages of the author, setting the idle envious fool and his words (in ver.6) in contrast with the diligent and prosperous laborer whom the fool envies but cannot imitate. This is the view presented in the Metrical Translation: The fool [in envy] folds his hands, and his own flesh devours. For better [saith he] is the one hand filled with quietness, Than both hands full of toil, and windy vain desire. It seems to make a clearer connection.—T. L.] [One of the best illustrations of the is to be found in captain Kane’s Journal of his Arctic Voyage, Vol. II., p. 144. He describes his camping out on the snow, in company with the Esquimaux chief, Kalatunah, and the agreeable warmth arising from the close contact of their bodies, at a time when the thermometer showed a most intense degree of cold. The comfort of the position overbalanced all the repulsiveness that, under other circumstances, he should have felt towards his squalid companion.—T. L.] C. Means for the Advancement of Earthly HappinessEcc_5:1-201. First means: Conscientious devotion in the worship of God, in prayer and vows (Ecclesiastes 5:1-7.)1Keep thy foot when thou goest to the house of God, and be more ready to hear, than to give the sacrifice of fools; for they consider not that they do evil. 2Be not rash with thy mouth, and let not thine heart be hasty to utter any thing before God: for God is in heaven, and thou upon earth: therefore let thy words be few. 3for a dream cometh through the multitude of business; and a fool’s voice is known by multitude of words. 4When thou vowest a vow unto God, defer not to pay it; 5for he hath no pleasure in fools: pay that which thou hast vowed. Better is it that thou shouldest not vow, than that thou shouldest vow and not pay. 6Suffer not thy mouth to cause thy flesh to sin; neither say thou before the angel, that it was an error: wherefore should God be angry at thy voice, and destroy the work of thine hands? 7for in the multitude of dreams and many words there are also divers vanities: but fear thou God. 2. Second means: Abstaining from injustice, violence, and avarice (Ecclesiastes 5:8-17.)8If thou seest the oppression of the poor, and violent perverting of judgment and justice in a province, marvel not at the matter: for he that is higher than the highest 9regardeth; and there be higher than they. Moreover, the profit of the earth is for all: the king himself is served by the field. 10He that loveth silver shall not be satisfied with silver; nor he that loveth abundance with increase: this is also vanity . 11When goods increase, they are increased that eat them: and what good is there to the owners thereof, saving the beholding of them with their eyes? 12The sleep of a labouring man is sweet, whether he eat little or much: but the abundance of the rich will not suffer him to sleep. 13There is a sore evil which I have seen under the sun, namely, riches kept for the owners thereof to their hurt. 14But those riches perish by evil travail: and he begetteth a son, and there is nothing in his hand. 15As he came forth of his mother’s womb, naked shall he return to go as he came, and shall take nothing of his labour, which he may carry away in his hand. 16And this also is a sore evil, that in all points as he came, so shall he go: and what profit hath he that he hath laboured for the wind? 17All his days also he eateth in darkness, and he hath much sorrow and wrath with his sickness. 3. Third means: Temperate and contented enjoyment of the pleasures and treasures of life granted by God (Ecclesiastes 5:18-20.)18Behold that which I have seen: it is good and comely for one to eat and to drink, and to enjoy the good of all his labour that he taketh under the sun all the days of his life, which God giveth him: for it is his portion. 19Every man also to whom God hath given riches and wealth, and hath given him power to eat thereof, and to take his portion, and to rejoice in his labour; this is the gift of God. 20For he shall not much remember the days of his life; because God answereth him in the joy of his heart. [chap.Ecclesiastes 5:1. ωְׁ ?ξֹ ?ψψַ ?βְ ?μְ ?ικָ in the Hebrew Bibles, the German and Dutch versions, the Vulgate, and some others, this is absurdly placed as the last verse of the 4. chapter. In the English, Tremellius, and others, it commences the 5., where it evidently belongs; although the division of chapters, as given in this book is, in any way, of little valne. The Masora has pointed ψַ ?βְ ?μְ ?ικָ for the singular, corresponding to LXX and vulgate, though the sense is equally good in the plural. For the connection of this part with the precending, consult Wordsworth, who sees in the train of though, in all these remarks about reshness in the divine service, and in respect to vows and rash religious speaking, smothing closely connected with the true Solomonic experience, and therefore furnising evidence of the solomonic authorship of the book. As uttered by any one else, it would seem disconnected and chaotic, just as some critics have pronounced it. For remarks on χψεα and ξϊϊ see Exeg. and Marginal Note.—T. L.] [Ecclesiastes 5:6. μַ ?δֲ ?θιΰ for μְ ?δַ ?δֲ ?θִ ?ιΰ, Hiph. Infinit. δַ ?ξַּ ?μְ ?ΰָ ?κְ see Exeg. and Marginal Note.—T. L.] [Ecclesiastes 5:7. εּ ?γְ ?αָ ?ψִ ?ιν, the same.—T. L.] [Ecclesiastes 5:8. ηֵ ?τֶ ?υ, a very general and indefinite word, hero rendered, in E.G., matter (thing),LXX. πράγματι, Vulgate negotio. It never, however, loses its sense of purpose, will, etc., either as positive or permissive,—as it may be rendered here, allow ance God’s permission of such a thing: see Met. Version.—T. L.] [Ecclesiastes 5:9. πֶ ?ςְ ?αָ ?γ. see Exeg. and Marg. Note.—T. L.] [Ecclesiastes 5:10. ψְ ?ΰιϊ: The Keri has ψְ ?ΰεּ ?ϊ, It is one of those words in εּ ?ϊ that have been cited as evidence of a later language. It is, however, one of those more studied solomonic words, denoting something philosophical, ethical, or abstract, denanded by the very subject and style of his writting. They are a higher class of words than were needed by the plainer historian, or prophet. They may have been invented by solomon as to form (from old and common roots), and afterwards have become vulgarized in the latter writtings—thus giving rise to the later Aramaic forms, instead of having been derived from them: Vision of the eyes, a somewhat more polished, or loftier word, than the infinitive to see, or Sight.—T. L.] Ecclesiastes 5:16. ψָ ?ςָ ?δηεμָ ?δ: Gesenius makes ηεμδ from ηָ ?μָ ?δ to be sick, weak, etc., but this does not seem to give a sense strong enough. Rabbi Tanchum makes it from ηεּ ?μ, to be in great pain, torqueri doloribus, and compares it with the participle ξִ ?ϊְ ?ηεֹ ?μֵ ?μ (Jeremiah 23:19,) overwhelming, or a “storm hurled (ρַ ?ςַ ?ψ) on the head of the wicked”—a very sore and “overwhelming evil,” is this, if man has to return just as he came, e tenebris in tenebras, out of darkness. see Tanchum Comm., Lamentations 4:6 Same verse λָּ ?μΞςֻ ?ξַּ ?ϊ The grammarian, Jona Ben Gennach, in his sepher Harikma, p. 30, regards this as one word, or as an example of λ added (as it sometimes is with slight addition to the meaning) to μςξϊ, (as in direct contrast). ςֻ ?ξַּ ?ϊ is cited as one of the words Sequioris Hebraismi, but the root ςξν although, only occurring as a verb, Ezekiel 28:3; Ezekiel 31:8, is very old in the language, as appears from ςָ ?ν people, the preposition ςִ ?ν with, ςִָ ?ξιϊ society, companion, all denoting, radically, comparison, one thing along with, or laid by the side of another (compare the Arabic Ϊَ ?γَ ?ّ ? and many Greek words commencing with ὁμ such as ὁμός, ὅμως, ὁμῶς, ὁμοῖς, with their numerous derivatives, all implying comparison, society, likeness, etc.). This word ςֻ ?ξָּ ?δ occurs in Exodus 25:27; Exodus 28:27. Ecclesiastes 5:18. ΰָ ?πִ ?ι: [On the effect of the accent here see Exeg. and Marg. Note. The same on ζδֹ Ecclesiastes 5:19.—T. L] AND Of the three divisions of this section, the first two are divided each into two strophes of about equal length, and each of the two strophes of the second division, being very full in sense and rich in clauses, is again divided into two half strophes. The third division consists of only one not very comprehensive strophe. The complete scheme of the section stands, therefore, thus:—I. Division: Of true piety; a. (1 strophe): in worship and prayer, Ecclesiastes 5:1-3; b. (2 strophe): of vowing and the fulfilment of vows: Ecclesiastes 5:4-7.—II. Division: On avoiding various vices; a, (1 half strophe): of injustice and violence: Ecclesiastes 5:8-9; b, (Ecclesiastes 5:3-5, half-strophe): of avarice: Ecclesiastes 5:10-17.—III, Division: Of the temperate and thankfully contented enjoyment of life: Ecclesiastes 5:18-20, strophe 5.—Vaihinger combines Ecclesiastes 5:8-12, and then Ecclesiastes 5:13-20, each as a principal division or strophe, and overlooks the fact that the theme of avarice does not begin at Ecclesiastes 5:13, but at Ecclesiastes 5:10 (consequently with the first half strophe of strophe 3d, comprising Ecclesiastes 5:8-12), and that, therefore, with verse 18,’ introduced by the words δִ ?πֵּ ?δΰֲ ?ωֶׁ ?ψψָ ?ΰִ ?ιϊִ ?ι, begins an entirely new series of thoughts, which bears a concluding relation to the main contents of the chapter. 2. First division, first strophe: Ecclesiastes 5:1-3. Of true piety in, the worship of God, and in prayer.—Keep thy foot when thou goest to the house of God. The k’tib ψַ ?βְ ?μֶ ?ικָ is to be preferred to the keri ψַ ?βְ ?μְ ?σ. The latter appears to be modeled according to the passages in Proverbs 4:26; Proverbs 25:17, and others, which present “foot ” in the singular. For “feet” in the plural in similar expressions comp. Proverbs 1:16; Proverbs 6:18; Psalms 119:59, etc. The sense of this exhortation is: “guard thy steps when thou goest to the house of the Lord, that thou mayest enter it with sacred composure, and carefully avoid everything that would interfere with thy devotion.” See Hengstenberg: “The object is to preserve the heart, but as he goes, the heart receives its impressions, and is thus affected by it. The author doubtless speak of the feet because by them has often been discovered the’ tendency of the heart.” And be more ready to hear, etc. (Ger., to approach in order to hear is better). The preposition ξִ ?ο, without θεּ ?α, may in itself express the preference of one thing over another; comp. Ecclesiastes 9:17; Isaiah 10:10; Ezekiel 15:2. χָ ?ψεֹ ?α is not here for the imperative “be near,” (Luther, Hengstenberg, etc.), but is an actual infinitive absolute, and as such subject of the sentence; comp. Proverbs 25:27; Isaiah 7:15-16. “To hear” does not mean to listen to the reading of the Thora during the service, (Hitzig) but “to obey, to regard the voice of God with the heart, to do His will;” comp. 1 Samuel 15:22; Jeremiah 7:23. We have here the same contrast between external sacrifice and holy intent as in Proverbs 21:3; Proverbs 21:27; Isaiah 1:11 ft.; Hosea 6:6, etc.—Than to give the sacrifice of fools. This sacrifice (ζֶ ?αֲ ?η) is specially pointed out from among the number of sacrifices, as also in Psalms 40:6; Hosea 6:6; 1 Samuel 15:22. “To give the sacrifice,” does not mean to give a sacrificial feast, (Hitzig), but to offer a sacrifice to God in order to satisfy him, or in order to appease one’s conscience.—For they consider not that they do evil. Fools, whose sacrifice is an offence to God on account of their evil dispositions (comp. Proverbs 21:27; and also the exegetical illustrations of this passage) do evil in sacrificing to Him, and nevertheless know it not, but rather suppose, in their folly, that their conduct is well pleasing to Him. As this thought (comp. Luke 23:34) exactly fits the passage, and there is no linguistic difficulty in the explanation (for the construction ΰֵ ?ιπָ ?νιεֹ ?γְ ?ςִ ?ινμַ ?ςֲ ?ωׂ ?εֹ ?ϊψַ ?ς, “they know not that they do evil,” comp. Jeremiah 15:15; 1 Kings 19:4; Nehemiah 13:27) the renderings of the passage that vary from this are to be condemned. They are such as that of Hahn, (and many older commentators): “in their ignorance they can only do evil,” or of Knobel and Vaihinger: “They are not troubled about doing evil,” or of Hitzig; “For they know not how to be sorrowful” (for which sense reference is made to 2 Samuel 12:18; Isaiah 56:12, etc.). The nearest to our view is that of the Vulgate, and of Luther: “for they know not what evil they do,” which, however, cannot be philologically justified. Ecclesiastes 5:2. Be not rash with thy mouth. This censure of outward sacrifice is immediately followed by that of thoughtless words, and empty babbling in prayer, the next important element of divine worship in the temple. “To be rash with thy mouth” is essentially the same as that βαττολόγειν against which Christ warns us, perhaps with conscious reference to this passage, Matthew 6:7, f.—And let not thine heart be hasty to utter anything before God. “Before God,” i.e., in the temple, in the place of the special presence of God, comp. Psalms 42:2; Isaiah 1:12. This warning against rash, thoughtless, and unnecessary words in prayer, is as little in contradiction with apostolic directions as found in 1 Thessalonians 5:17; Colossians 3:17; Philippians 4:6, as is the warning of Christ against idle words, at war with His own repeated admonitions to zealous and continuous prayer, e.g., Luke 11:5 ff; Luke 18:1, ff.; John 14:13; John 16:23, etc.—For God is in heaven, and thou upon the earth. The majesty of God, in contrast with the lowliness of men, is here made clear by the contra-position of heaven and earth, as in Psalms 115:3; Psalms 115:16; Isaiah 55:7 ff; Isaiah 66:1; Matthew 5:34, f. Ecclesiastes 5:3. For a dream cometh through the multitude of business; and a fool’s voice is known by a multitude of words. That is, just as a too continued, exciting, and anxious occupation of the mind (ςִ ?πְ ?ιָ ?ο) produces the phenomenon of confused and uneasy dreams, by which the sleep is disturbed, so the habit of an excess of words, causes the speech to degenerate into vain and senseless twaddle. The first clause of the verse serves solely as an illustration of the second; the comparison, as in Ecclesiastes 7:1; Proverbs 17:3; Proverbs 27:21; Job 5:7, etc., is effected by simply placing the sentences in juxtaposition, merely putting the copulative conjunction before the second (comp. the Int. to Proverbs, § 14 p. 32). Ewald assumes a continuous train of thought, asserting that from too much annoyance come dreams, from these, all kinds of vain and superfluous words, and, finally, from these, foolish speech; but this is decidedly opposed to the fact that δַ ?ηִַ ?μεֹ ?ν is necessarily to be understood as a designation of the actual dream, not of a dreamy, thoughtless nature, and that the derivation of a wordy nature from the latter would be in violation of all psychological experience. 3. First Division, second strophe.Vers, 4–7. Of pious conscientiousness in vowing and the fulfilment of vows. For Ecclesiastes 5:4-5 see Deuteronomy 23:22-24, whose ordinances are here almost literally repeated.—For he hath no pleasure in fools.—λּ ?ρִ ?μִ ?ιν are frivolous men, who are equally ready to make vows of every kind, but then delay their performance from indolence or selfishness. Of them it is said: ΰֵ ?ιοηֵ ?τֶ ?υαָּ ?δֶ ?ν “there is no pleasure in them,” namely, with God; for the context obliges us thus to finish the thought, Ecclesiastes 5:5. Better is it that thou shouldst not vow, than, etc.—.Comp. Deuteronomy 23:22 : “But if thou shalt forbear to vow, it shall be no sin in thee;” also Acts 5:4. Ecclesiastes 5:6. Suffer not thy mouth to cause thy flesh to sin.—αָּ ?ωָׂ ?ψ here marks the body as the seat of desire, therefore of sensuality and fleshly sense in general, as the New Testament σ̓ ?́άρξ; Ecclesiastes 2:3 is also similar to this. The description of James, in Ecclesiastes 3:6 f. of his Epistle, gives a clear testimony that the sensuality of man is sinfully excited by the sins of the tongue, or the mouth, and can be enkindled by the fire of evil passion; and Hengstenberg should not have quoted this passage as a proof of his position that “flesh” here signifies the entire personality. Hitzig translates: “Let not thy mouth bring thy body to punishment,” but fails to give the proof for the possibility of the rendering of δֶ ?ηֶ ?θιΰ in the sense of “bringing to punishment, atoning for.”—Neither say thou before the angel that it was an error.—[Zφckler here renders ξַ ?μְ ?ΰָ ?κְ messenger, to accommodate to his exegesis.—T. L.]. ξַ ?μְ ?ΰָ ?κְ, Messenger, i.e., Jehovah’s [Comp. Haggai 1:13; Malachi 1:3], is here the designation of the priest or announcer and expounder of the divine law; comp. Malachi 2:7, the only passage of the O. T. where this expression is used of the priest; and see also in the N. T. Revelation 1:20; Revelation 2:1 ff., where ἄγγελος is used essentially in the same sense. “That it was an error” [ωְׁ ?πָ ?βָ ?δ as in Numbers 15:27 ff.] is the characteristic evasion of religious superficiality and levity, which seek to excuse unfulfilled vows by declaring the neglect of them a mere error or precipitation [an unintentional error]; cornp. Malachi 1:8; Matthew 15:5, etc. Hitzig: “it was a thoughtlessness,—that is, that I made the vow at all.” But a vow solemnly declared before the priest could not thus be recalled without further ceremony by declaring that it was vowed in a, thoughtless manner. The thoughtless delinquent will wish to represent the evasion of its fulfilment as simply a sin of weakness or precipitation, whilst it is in reality a crime of a very serious character [comp. Elstee and Hengsten-beeg on this passage].—Why should God be angry at thy voice [which thou dost misuse in a vile, sophistical and God-tempting evasion] and destroy the work of thy hands—that is, punish thee, therefore, by a failure of all thy undertakings, and destruction of all treasures and goods? For the warning sense of the question with μָ ?ξָּ ?δ comp. Ecclesiastes 7:16-17; Psalms 90:17; 2 Chron. 10:37; Ezra 4:22; Ezra 7:23. Verse 7. For in the multitude of dreams and many words there are also divers vanities. Just as in verse 3, dreams are here also to be taken only as examples of the vanity of making many word, and of its bad consequences. As we can reasonably conclude that one who has much to do with dreams [comp. Jeremiah 23:33; Zechariah 10:1] is an unreliable man, little fitted for the duties and afl’airs of sober reality, therefore the wordiest babbler will inspire in us the least confidence. Ewald and Heiligstedt’s view: “for in too many dreams are too many vanities and words,” is opposed by the connection, which shows that no information is to be imparted here concerning the nature and signification of dreams, and then also the circumstance that it is not very clearly to be seen in how far dreams may cause much useless prattle.—But fear thou God, so that thou dost really try to fulfill what thou hast vowed to Him. λִ ?ι, because co-ordinate with the preceding, is to bo translated by “but,” and not “thus;” for it expresses in a conclusive manner the contrast to verse 6.4. Second Division, first strophe, a: Ecclesiastes 5:8-9.—On avoiding injustice and violence—If thou seest the oppression of the poor, and violent perverting of judgment and justice in a province. Comp. Ecclesiastes 3:16; Ecclesiastes 4:1, ff. (Ger., robbery of judgment and justice). This is a robbery committed against these objective and divine laws, a violation of them by exactions, and other violence. Such violations of judgment are most likely to be practiced in the provinces, far from the seat of the king and the highest courts, by governors and generals. Therefore here ξְ ?γִ ?ιπָ ?δ, by which is doubtless meant the province in which the author lives, that is, Palestine. Comp. Ezra 5:8; Nehemiah 1:3; Nehemiah 7:6; Nehemiah 11:3, and also the Int. § 4, Obs. 2.—Marvel not at the matter.—ηֵ ?τֶ ?υ [Comp. Ecclesiastes 3:1], is neither absolutely the same as “cause, matter,” [Hitzig] nor does it indicate the divine pleasure, the execution of divine decrees, (as Hengstenberg). It is rather the violent doing of the thieving officials that is meant, the “such is my pleasure,” of rulers, “who usually commence their edicts with these words: it seems good to me, it is good in presence of the king, Daniel 3:22; Daniel 6:2; Daniel 4:22; Ezekiel 5:17.” (Hengstenberg). For the exhortation not to marvel at such things, not to be surprised, comp. 1 Peter 4:12 : ἀγαπητὸιμὴ ξενίζεσθεκ. τ. λ.—For he that is higher than the highest regardeth; and there be higher than they. That is, over the lofty oppressor stands a still higher ruler, the king; and even over him, should he not aid suffering innocence in its rights, is a still higher one, the King of kings, and Supremo Judge of the world. βְ ?αδִֹ ?ιν is, as it were, a plural of majesty, serving for a most emphatic designation of the fulness of eternal power in the Godhead; it is the same construction as αּ ?εֹ ?ψְ ?ΰִ ?ιν, “Creator,” Ecclesiastes 12:1; χְ ?γεֹ ?ωִׁ ?ιν Proverbs 9:10; Proverbs 30:8; Hosea 12:1. ςֶ ?μְ ?ιεֹ ?πִ ?ιν, Daniel 7:18; Daniel 7:22, etc. Comp. Ewald, § 178 b. We cannot let this expression refer to the king as the highest earthly judge and potentate, on account of its analogy with other plural names of Deity. It is extremely unfitting, indeed almost absurd, to refer the second high one to a supreme judge, and the βְּ ?αδִֹ ?ιν to the governor (Hitzig). For a poor consolation would be offered to the oppressed by a reference merely to these courts, as certain as “that one crow does not pick out the eyes of another,” (a very poorly sustained proverb, quoted by Hitzig himself). Ecclesiastes 5:9. Moreover, the profit of the earth is for all; the king himself is served by the field. That is, notwithstanding that God alone rules as highest judge and avenger over all the destinies of men, we are not to despise the protection and safety which an earthly authority affords, especially a strong kingly government, that can protect the fields from devastation, and their boundaries from intrusion. αְּ ?λָ ?μδִ ?ιΰ [so is it to be read, as in the K’tib, instead of αְּ ?λָ ?μδεּ ?ΰ] is of like meaning with αְּ ?λָ ?μζֹ ?ΰϊ, “in all this”—or “notwithstanding all this,” as it is Isaiah 9:11. The concluding words ξֶ ?μֶ ?κְ μְ ?ωָׂ ?γֶ ?δπִ ?ςְ ?αָ ?γ can neither mean: “a king honored by the land” (Knobel and Vaihinger), nor: “a king honored throughout the whole land” (Hahn), nor: “a king to till the field” (Luther, Starke, etc.), nor: “a king subject to the field” (Herzfeld), nor: rex agro addictus, (Rosenmueller, Dathe, etc.), nor: “a king to the tilled field,” namely, “a profit and advantage to it,” (Hitzig, Hengstenberg, comp. also the Sept.). πֶ ?ςְ ?αָ ?γ is here used -rather in the sense of “made, installed, placed,” in accordance with the Chaldaio signification of ςωׂ ?δ=ςαγ, Daniel 3:1; Daniel 3:15; Daniel 3:29; Daniel 7:21; Ezra 4:19, etc., and ωָׂ ?γֶ ?δ, field, is a poetical synonym of ΰψυ (Comp. Genesis 2:5; Genesis 4:7; Rth 1:6), here undoubtedly chosen because agriculture, this principal occupation of the provinces (comp. Ecclesiastes 2:8) can only prosper through the protection and propitious influence of the king. Compare the very close connection in which the religion of the Chinese, Persians, Egyptians, and Romans placed the royal office with agriculture. It does not militate against the view sustained by us that there is no definite article before ωγδ. Comp. Ewald. § 277, b; and quite as little does this view disagree with the verbal collocation, as will be seen by comparing Ecclesiastes 9:2; Isaiah 42:24; Daniel 6:8.5. Second Division, first strophe b, and second strophe a. b: Ecclesiastes 5:10-17. On avoiding avarice and covetousness.—As in Deuteronomy 16:19; Amos 8:4 ff.; Proverbs 15:25-27; Sir 10:8, so we have here the condemnation of the coarser form of covetousness, which does not shun open injustice and violence, and, directly afterwards, that of the love of money and desire of gain operating with more delicate, more genteel, and apparently more just means.—He that loveth silver shall not be satisfied with silver, i. e., not satisfied in mind, and consequently not happy. Comp. the Horatian line: Semper avarus eyet (Ep. I, Ecclesiastes 2:20); also Ovid Fast. I, 211 S.: “Creverunt et opes et opum furiosa cupido; Et cum posideant plurima plura volunt” Nor he that loveth abundance with increase. Lit.,“loveth tumult;” δָ ?ξεֹ ?ο in other places, “noise, turmoil of a great multitude of people,” here means, as in Psalms 37:16, the multitude of possessions; and ΰδααְ means as elsewhere ητυֹ αEcclesiastes 5:11. When goods increase, they are increased that eat them. Lit. “their eaters, their consumers.” The meaning here is clearly the numerous servants of a rich household. Comp. Job 1:3; 1 Kings 5:2, if.—And what good is there to the owners thereof ?—λִֹּ ?ωְׁ ?ψεֹ ?ο here, “fortune, gain,” different from Ecclesiastes 2:21; Ecclesiastes 4:4. The plural αςμιν has here a singular meaning, as in Ecclesiastes 5:12; Ecclesiastes 7:11; Ecclesiastes 8:8; Proverbs 3:27.—Save the beholding of them with their eyes, i.e., only the empty, not really satisfying feeling of pleasure at the sight of heaped-up treasures. In place of ψְ ?ΰִ ?ιϊ read ψְ ?ΰεּ ?ϊ with, the Keri. Ecclesiastes 5:12. The sleep of a laboring man is sweet, whether he eat little or much; i. e., whether he enjoys a generous food, or must be satisfied with a scanty nourishment.—ςαֵֹ ?γ “laborer” is different from ςֶ ?αֶ ?γ “slave,” and also from ξַ ?ρςαֵֹ ?γ “serf;” it means in general every one, who according to divine direction in Genesis 3:19; Exodus 20:9, must earn his bread in the sweat of his brow, be he vassal or freeman.—But the abundance of the rich will not suffer him to sleep. Hieronymus justly says: incocto cibo in stomachi augustiis ζestuante.—δַ ?ωָׂ ?αָ ?ςμֶ ?ςָ ?ωִׁ ?ιψ, a paraphrase for the genitive like δַ ?φּ ?εֹ ?τִ ?ινμְ ?ωָׁ ?ΰεּ ?μ 1 Samuel 14:18, etc.; comp. Ewald, § 292, a.—For this sentence comp. Horace, Sat. I., 1, 76 ss.; Juvenal, Sat. X., 12 s.; XIV., 304; also Publ. Syrus: “Avarum irritat non satiat pecunia.” Ecclesiastes 5:13-17. Second strophe: The annoying and inconstant nature of wealth. There is a sore evil; lit., “a painful evil;” ηεֹ ?μָ ?δ equivalent to the participle Neph πַ ?ηְ ?μָ ?δ Jeremiah 14:17; Nahum 3:19.—Riches kept for the owners thereof to their hurt. Carefully guarded wealth proves a misfortune to the possessor when the latter loses this transitory and unreliable possession, and becomes, thereby, more unhappy than if he had never possessed it. The only correct illustration of this thought is afforded by Ecclesiastes 5:14. Ecclesiastes 5:14. But these riches perish by evil travail.—ςִ ?πְ ?ιָ ?ο, lit., “annoyance, hardship,” as in Ecclesiastes 1:13; Ecclesiastes 4:8, does not here mean the unprofitable business, the unfortunate administration of the affairs of the rich, but any misfortune, an evil occurrence of the nature of those in Job 1:14-19, caused by robbers, tempests, storms, etc.—And he begetteth a son, and there, is nothing in his hand. εְ ?δεֹ ?μִ ?ιγ is correctly taken as a preterit in the Sept., Vulg., and Syriac; for after the failure of his means, he who was rich leaves off begetting sons. Ecclesiastes 5:15. As he came forth of his mother’s womb, naked shall he return to go as he came.—ιָ ?ωׁ ?εּ ?αμָ ?μֶ ?λֶ ?ϊ, lit., “he repeats his going,” i.e., he goes away again, namely out of this life. We find the same reflection concerning the inexorable operation of death in Job 1:21; Psalms 49:10; 1 Timothy 6:7, and also in the classics, e.g., Propert, Carm. III., 3, 35 s.: Haud ullas portabis opes Acherontis ad undas;Nudus ad inferna stulte, vehere rate! Comp. P. Gerhard in the hymn: “Why should I then grieve ?” Naked lay I on the earth, When I came, when I drew At first my breath. Naked shall I pass away, When from earth again I flee, Like a shadow. And shall take nothing of his labor. Lit., “does he lift up through his labor;” ιִ ?ωָׂ ?ΰ as in Psalms 24:4.—Which he may carry away in his hand. ιֹ ?μֵ ?κְ is optative Hophil [ιεֹ ?μִ ?ικְ ?=, Micah 3:4; Micah 6:13, etc.], and need not be changed into ιֵ ?μֵ ?κְ, as Hitzig does in accordance with the Sept. and Symmachus. For the thought that a rich man at his death can take none of his treasures with him, is extremely fitting here, in case one does not think of the rich man described in Ecclesiastes 5:14, who, previously to his death, was bereft of all his possessions by misfortune. And this is so much the less necessary, since before this verse death has not been considered the final end of all wealth and desire of acquiring it. Ecclesiastes 5:16 emphatically repeats the thought of the preceding verse, in order to show more strongly the entire fruitlessness and folly of toiling after earthly wealth, and to prepare for the closing description in Ecclesiastes 5:17 of the tortured existence of a rich miser.—And this is also a sore evil, namely, not simply that named in Ecclesiastes 5:13, but also that added in Ecclesiastes 5:15; consequently not merely the πλούτουἀδηλότης there described (1 Timothy 6:17), but also death, that places an unconditional limit to all wealth, and toiling after riches. The views of Hengstenberg, Vaihinger, etc., are correct, whilst Hitzig wrongfully supposed that the second: “sore evil” is not named until the last clause of this verse, and that it consists in the miserable existence of the miser, full of vexation and profitless. This “having no profit,” and “laboring for the wind,” coincides rather (like the contents of Ecc 5:17) with the vanity of this world, and its inconstancy and hardship, as described in Ecclesiastes 5:13-14, so that the reflection at its end again leads back to its beginning. Ecclesiastes 5:17. All his days also he eateth in darkness, that is, in a gloomy, peevish state of mind, in subjective darkness as described in Matthew 6:23; John 11:10. λָּ ?μΞιָ ?ξָ ?ιε can be very easily taken as the object of ιΰֹ ?λֵ ?μ, although the phrase “eateth his days” does not appear again, and therefore the meaning of “all his days” seems the more likely to be merely used as defining the time; but comp. for this view the instances at least approximately analogous in Job 21:13; Job 36:11. The Sept. seems to have read εָ ?ΰֵ ?λֶ ?μ instead of ιֹ ?ΰλֵ ?μ and so in the following clause, instead of εְ ?λָ ?ςַ ?ν they must have read εְ ?λַ ?ςַ ?ν, and for εְ ?ηָ ?μְ ?ιεֹ they must have read εָ ?ηֳ ?μִ ?ι; for they translate: καίγεπᾶσαιἁιἡμέραιαὐτοῦ ἐνσκότεικαὶ ένπένθεικὰιθυμῷ πολλῷ κὰιἀῥῤηστίᾳ κὰιχόλῳ. Ewald and some other moderns follow it herein; but certainly with regard to the change of ιֹ ?ΰλֵ ?μ, at least without sufficient reason; comp. Hitzig and Elster on this passage. But nothing obliges us, in the second clause,, to deviate from the Masoretic text, as Hengstenberg has correctly shown in opposition to the authors last named. For λָּ ?ςַ ?ν as 3d, prζterite, suits the adverb δַ ?ψְ ?αֵּ ?δ better than does the substantive λַּ ?ςַ ?ν; but the closing words εְ ?ηָ ?μְ ?ιεֹ εָ ?χָ ?φֶ ?σ give an excellent sense as an independent animated exclamation: “and he hath much sorrow and wrath with his sickness!” What is meant is the sickness of soul produced by the annoyance and dissatisfaction felt as against those things that oppose his striving after riches, [in substance the same as that darkness in the preceding line] a sickness which can eventually extend to his body and then torment him only the more severely.6. Third Division: Ecclesiastes 5:18-20. Concerning a moderate and gratefully contented enjoyment of life, as the only true and wise conduct for the poor and for the rich; comp. the exactly similar closing sentence of the first discourse, Ecclesiastes 2:24-26, and also the close of the first part of the second discourse, Ecclesiastes 3:22.—Behold that which I have seen: it is good and comely, etc. Hitzig and Hahn say: “What I have found good, and what beautiful;” Hengstenberg: behold what I have seen, that it is good and handsome, etc. This latter translation is the only one that corresponds exactly to the accentuation, which (by a rebia over ΰπι) strongly separates the θεֹ ?α from what precedes, but scarcely expresses the sense originally intended by the author himself. Our own view corresponds rather to this original sense, which alone is rightly in accordance with the position of ΰֲ ?ωֶׁ ?ψ before ιָ ?τֶ ?δ.—To eat and to drink, and to enjoy the good of all his labor. The suffix in ςֲ ?ξָ ?μεֹ belongs to the previously unexpressed subject of the infinitive clauses μֶ ?ΰֱ ?λֹ ?μ etc.; comp. Ecclesiastes 7:1; Ps. 4:9; 65:9, etc. The eating, and drinking, and enjoying the good [lit., “seeing the good,” comp. Ecclesiastes 2:24) is as little meant in an Epicurean sense here as in similar earlier passages; it expresses simply the normal contrast to the grasping avarice previously censured.—For it is his portion, [λִּ ?ιִ δεּ ?ΰηֶ ?μְ ?χεֹ: ,“that it should be his portion;” λִּ ?ι denoting end, purpose, or, as it is rendered in the Metrical Version, “to be his portion here,”—so as not to interrupt the flow of the sentence.—T. L.] It is his lot divinely appointed unto him for this life, that he cannot take with him into the world beyond (Ecclesiastes 5:15) and which he must consequently properly profit by here below (comp. Ecclesiastes 3:22). Ecclesiastes 5:19. Every man also to whom God hath given riches and wealth. Hitzig unnecessarily renders ΰֲ ?ωֶׁ ?γπָ ?ϊַ ?ομεֹ “that God gives him,” (or “if”) etc. The anakolouthon between the nominative absolute “every man” and the final clause: “that is the gift of God,” cannot be thus removed.—And hath given him power to eat thereof, etc. For δִ ?ωְׁ ?μִ ?ιθ “to cause to rule, to empower any one,” comp. Psalms 119:133; Daniel 2:28; Daniel 2:48. That is the gift of God. The emphasis does not rest on ΰֱ ?μδִֹ ?ιν, as in the similar thought in Ecclesiastes 2:24, but on ξַ ?ϊַּ ?ϊ, which here therefore means a noble gift (δόσιςἀγαθή, δώρηματέλειον, James 1:17) a gracious present, as the following verse teaches. Comp. also Horace, Epis. I., 4, 6; Dξ tibi divitias dederunt, arlemque fruendi.Ecclesiastes 5:20. For he shall not much remember the days of his life. That is not as Ewald says: “Memory and enjoyment of this life do not last long,” which would clearly give a totally foreign thought, but he now forgets all toil and vexation of his former life, and learns, in consequence of the divine beneficence which he gratefully and contentedly enjoys, to forget the “miserable life” (Luther) that he previously led, and cares no more concerning the rapid flight and short duration of his earthly days, (comp. Ecclesiastes 6:12). Because God answereth him in the joy of his heart. The second αִּ ?ι is subjoined to the first one in the commencement of the clause, and is therefore better translated with “because” or “since” than with “for.” ξַ ?ςֲ ?πֶ ?δαְּ lit. “he answers him with,” i.e., he hears him by vouchsafing, etc.; for this signification of the Hiph, of ςπδ comp. 1 Kings 8:35; 2 Chronicles 6:26; Hosea 2:23. All other meanings are contrary to the language and connection, e.g. Hitzig: “he makes him ready to serve;” Kφster: “he makes him sing with the joy of his heart;” Vaihinger (according to the Sept. and Vulg.): “he occupies him with the joy of his heart,” etc. AND ETHICAL(With Homiletical Hints,) The threefold means given in this chapter for obtaining and advancing earthly happiness, are the fulfilment of duty towards God, our neighbors, and ourselves; or the three virtues corresponding to these three kinds of duties—εὐσέβεια, δικαιοσύνη and σωφροσύνη (Titus 2:12; Matthew 22:37-39). Among the duties to God, special attention is directed to proper demeanor in regard to prayer and vows; among the duties to our neighbor, the avoiding of injustice and covetousness, and as duties to ourselves, temperance and serene cheerfulness in the enjoyment of the pleasures of this life. Each of these special directions regarding moral demeanor is so presented that its relation to the happiness and peace of men’s souls clearly appears. And thus, especially, in the sphere of religious duties, the necessity of pure truthfulness, sacred earnestness, and careful bridling of the tongue (in prayer as in vows), or, in a word, the just fear of God is insisted on as the essence of all those conditions on which depends the preservation of the Divine favor (Ecclesiastes 5:4), and thus the foundation of all internal and external happiness. In the obligations of justice and unselfishness towards our neighbor (Ecclesiastes 5:8-17) special reference is made to the certainty of judicial visitation on the part of God or the King (Ecclesiastes 5:8-9), to the freedom from stinging avarice and torturing care (Ecclesiastes 5:10-17), and to the superiority of heavenly treasures, which one is not obliged to leave here and sacrifice at death, as is the case with earthly treasures (Ecclesiastes 5:13-16); and these are represented as just so many sources of real inward happiness and peace. With regard to the serenity of life recommended at the close as a means of properly fulfilling the duties to one’s self (Ecclesiastes 5:18-20), sensual enjoyment in itself is not so much praised as a principal means of happiness, as is the grateful consciousness that all joys and blessings of this life come from God, together with the diligence and zealous activity in vocation that truly give flavor to the enjoyment of these pleasures (“to enjoy the good of all his labor,” Ecclesiastes 5:18; “to rejoice in his labor,” Ecclesiastes 5:19); and just in this manner is demonstrated the way of acquiring genuine and lasting happiness, in contradistinction to Epicureanism and all that philosophy which declares pleasure to be the chief good. In a comprehensive homiletical treatment of the section, the theme might be presented as follows: “Of a godly, just, and chaste life in this world, as the foundation of all genuine happiness in this world and the next;” or: “Of a right truthfulness, in prayer before God, in administration of earthly goods before men, and in the wise enjoyment of the pleasures of life in presence of one’s own conscience;” or also (with special reference to contents of verses 8 and 9): “Honor all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king” (1 Peter 2:17). HINTS ON Ecclesiastes 5:1. Hieronymus: Non ingredi domum Dei, sed sine offensione ingredi, laudis est. Melancthon:—Solomon declares that the principal and best worship of God is to listen to His word and faithfully follow it. But it has always been the case that men have invented a multitude of sacrifices, and various ceremonies; thus the heathen, the Pharisees and the monks have falsified the proper way of reverencing God. This audacity of man is here condemned as a deep sin, however much its originators may defend it and praise their superstition as a glorious virtue. Starke:—We must visit the church as creatures who humble themselves before their Creator, as subjects doing homage to their Lord, as paupers begging for spiritual gifts, as sick men imploring aid, as Christians ready to serve Him with willing and pure heart. Berleburg Bible:—One must not be satisfied with simple hearing, else it is this and nothing else, and this was not meant. The outward is simply outward; the true object of external worship must only be to lead to the internal. Ecclesiastes 5:2-3. Brenz:—Because God alone dwells in heaven, i.e., is alone true, wise and just, and we live on the earth, and are, therefore, liars, fools, and sinners, it in no manner becomes us with our human wisdom, which in God’s eyes is folly, to judge of divine and heavenly things, and to indulge in many words with God concerning our worldly affairs, experiences and knowledge. But we must listen to God; leave to Him every decision, and silently obey His word as the only true wisdom. Geier:—Think at all times in thy prayer of the majesty of God with whom thou speakest, and of thine own unworthiness, this will then strongly move thy heart in pious devotion. Berleb. Bible:—“Let thy words be few;”—how far-reaching is this precept, in teaching, in preaching, in prayer, and in ordinary life! How many a long sermon would be condemned by this censorship, although it might fulfil all the requirements of the preacher’s art! And how few spiritual things would be found in many discourses, if they were purified of all useless, unedifying, vain, annoying, and improper words, as they indeed should be !—The Saviour has regarded this counsel, and hence has given a very short formula of prayer, in the very beginning of which He impresses on the suppliant the majesty of God who is in heaven, but tempers it with the loving name of father, etc.Ecclesiastes 5:4-7. Brenz:—Vows, which proceed from unbelief, or violate the precepts of brotherly love, the Christian should neither make nor fulfil if he has made them. But if the vow proceeds from faith and love, and accords with their commands, then it must be kept: else God will judge thee as the fool, i.e., as the ungodly. Lange:—Dear man, seek to maintain thy baptismal vows, therein hast thou vows enough. Hansen (Ecclesiastes 5:6):—The mouth causeth the flesh to sin when it promises what the flesh neither can nor will perform. Starke (Ecclesiastes 5:7):—The fear of the Lord is the essence of all true virtue, and it also teaches how one should wisely use his tongue (James 1:26). Hengstenberg:—He who really fears God will say nothing concerning Him but that which proceeds from his inmost heart, and vow nothing but that which he is resolved inviolably to keep. Ecclesiastes 5:8-9. Luther:—This book teaches thee to give thy heart to rest, and not to fret and pine too much when things go wrong, but, when the devil engages in malice, violence, injustice and oppression of the poor, to be able to say; “this is the course of the world; God will judge and avenge it.” Let each one, therefore, in his sphere do his work with best diligence, according to the command of God: the rest he may commit to God and suffer. Let him await then what the godless and unjust men may do!— The stone thon canst not lift, let lie; Thy strength upon some other try. Melancthon (Ecclesiastes 5:8):—Observe here the difference between a king and a tyrant. A tyrant devastates and destroys; a good ruler cherishes his country, protects and furthers the interests of agriculture, the prosperity of the Church, the arts and industries, and all good things. Starke:—God is the ruler of all nations (Psalms 82:8). The loftiest noble and the meanest peasant must alike humbly acknowledge Him a3 his Lord, and reverence and obey Him. Wohlfarth:—What Solomon says we see yet to-day. Although Church and State make every effort to advance the cause of righteousness and retard that of sin, the realm of evil is nevertheless wide-spread, and covetousness, pride, envy, deceit, voluptuousness, every where raise in oppression their repulsive heads. But let us remember that the earth is ever a land of imperfection; then this will not surprise us; but we shall rather be inclined to find in the contrast in which the reality stands with the belief in Divine justice, a reason for our hope of immortality and final reward, and, while we seek according to our strength to prevent evil, we will ourselves shun every sin, that we may hereafter stand rejoicing before God’s throne. Ecclesiastes 5:10 ff. Luther:—What is a miser but a poor, tortured, uneasy soul and heart, that is always looking after that which it does not possess; it is therefore vanity and wretchedness. Are not those happy people who are satisfied with the present favors of God, and comfortable nourishment for the body, and who leave it to God to care for the future ?—If now God gives thee riches, use thy share as thou usest thy share of water, and let the rest flow by thee; if thou dost not do so, thy gathering will be all in vain. Geier:—The best inheritance that a rich man can leave to his children is Christian instruction in the discipline and admonition of the Lord, and thorough education in the arts and sciences. Zeltner:—How happy are hearts that are heavenly inclined, that are contented with what the beneficent hand of God has bestowed on them, and enjoy it with His blessing in gratitude. Wohlfarth:—How foolishly do those act who live solely for their earthly existence. Ecclesiastes 5:18-20. Luther:—To “eat in darkness” is nought else than to pass one’s life in melancholy. All avaricious and troublesome people find something that does not please them, where they can fret and scold. For they are full of care, vexation, and anxiety; they cannot joyfully eat, nor joyfully drink, but always find something that annoys and offends them. Lange:—A true Christian uses the nourishment and needful supplies of his body, to the especial end that he may recognize the goodness of God in all his labor under the sun. Hansen:—In order to enjoy the good that there is in the riches of this world, it is necessary that one have a perfect rule over them, i.e., that in the use of them he may at all times act in accordance with the Divine purpose, Psalms 62:10. Berleb. Bible:—As “to the pure every thing is pure” (Titus 1:15), so also wealth may be used by such a one in purity, and it will therefore depend mainly on each one’s own heart how it stands in the presence of God. But if one does not remain contented and quiet when house and home burn up, or some other injury happens to his possessions, then is he not yet rightly placid and tranquil; this is the proof of it. Footnotes:[The example that Zφckler gives of ξ comparative, without any comparative word before it, will not bear him out. In Ecclesiastes 9:17, it is dependent on πִ ?ωְׁ ?ξָ ?ςִ ?ιν; in the other cases cited ν is either partitive, or has its usual proposition sense. If any comparative word might be thus omitted it might be the familiar word θεֹ ?α, but there are other ways of explaining the apparent grammatical anomaly without any such harshness, which would be like leaving out, in English, any comparative word before than—to hear than to give. If we regard χָ ?ψεֹ ?α as an adjective it may have the sense of fit, suitable, appropriate, coming very easily from its primary and usual sense of nearness: to hear is more appropriate than to give; it is nearer in the sense of better. That such a connection of senses is natural, is shown from the Latin prope propior, as HORACE, Sat. 4,42, sermoni propiora, better for prose; Terent. Heant: nulla alia delectation quce propior esset; Ovid. Mel., cura propior luctusqe. It might be proved still more clearly from the Arabic use of a comparative from this very root Ηήْ ?Ρَ ?Θُ ?)=ΰַ ?χְ ?ψַ ?α) in the sense of better- that which is nigher, more appropriate. Of this there are frequent examples in the Koran, as in Surah. 2:238, Ηήْ ?Ρَ ?ΘααΚَ ?ήْ ?ζَ ?μ better for piety, more pious; so Surah 18:80, Ηήْ ?δΡَ ?ΘΡΝΫΗ better for compassion, more compassionate. See also Surah 3:160; 4:12; 5:11; 16:79; 20:13. Thus in Hebrew, χָ ?ψεֹ ?α —ξִ ?ϊֵּ ?ϊ, nearer, more appropriate, more acceptable (a better χָ ?ψְ ?αָּ ?ο or offering) than to give, etc.,—audire propius esset quam dare etc. It may be objected to this that such an infinitive with μ as μִ ?ωְׁ ?ξֹ ?ςַ, is not used subjectively, or very rarely. It, however, comes very much to the same thing, if we take χָ ?ψεֹ ?α directly as an infinitive, or as used for an imperative: be nigher to hear, that is, more ready, more prompt(propior facilior) to hear, than fools are to offer sacrifice (taking λριμιν as the subject of ϊֵּ ?ϊ). Or the comparative ξ may depend on ωְׁ ?ξψֹ in the first clause, the influence of which may be regarded as extending to the second: be more careful (ωְׁ ?ξψֹ —ξ) to hear, or to draw nigh to hear, etc. In such case, we get a governing word for the infinitive χָ ?ψεֹּ ?α. If it be said that it is implied or understood; that is always the case where the infinitive seems thus used for the imperative. Some familiar word of admoninon, or warning, is ever implied (look out, take care, etc.).as sometimes in the animated language of the prophets, and as is frequently the case in Greek and Latin.—T. L.] [This is another case where those who maintain the late date of the book give a word an unusual sense, and then build an argument upon it. There is no reason why ξַ ?μְ ?ΰָ ?κְ should not be taken in its usual meaning, as an angel of God, visible or invisible, supposed sometimes to appear in terror, the avenging angel, as 2 Samuel 24:16, who came to punish Israel and their king for his rash words. There may be an express reference here by Solomon to his father’s fatal error; and the words εְ ?ΰַ ?μϊֹּ ?ΰξַ ?ψ may be rendered very easily as a caution, that thou mayest not have to confess thine error, as David did (2 Samuel 24:17). It must have made a deep impression on the young mind of the Prince. It is perfectly in accordance, too, with the belief and the recorded facts of the Solomonic times; and this would be the case even if we regard the ξַ ?μְ ?ΰָ ?κְ, mentioned in Ecclesiastes, as being Gad, the messenger sent to David. Or it may refer to the belief in the presence of angels as invisible witnesses to our sins and our improprieties—a belief belonging not only to the Old Testament, but also to the New, as appears from 1 Corinthians 11:10,διὰ τοὺςἀγγέλους. “because of the angles” (invisible), indecencies in the Church were to be avoided.—T. L.] [Ecclesiastes 5:7. The simplest and most literal rendering here would seem to be the best, taking the conjunction ε, in each case, as it stands, and in the usual way. The copulative ε has, indeed sometimes, an assertive force, but then the context will always clearly demand it. Here there is no need of it: “Though in multitude of dreams,” or “though dreams abound, and vanities, and words innumerable, yet (λִּ ?ι) fear thou God.” The first λִּ ?ι may be rendered for, and regarded as connecting, causally, this verse with what precedes, or they may both be regarded as adversative, giving the reason against, or notwithstanding. See explanation of λִּ ?ι Int. to Metrical Version, p 176. The word γְּ ?αָ ?ψִ ?ιν we have rendered, in the Metrical Version, presagings (idle predictions, fortune tellings, such as go with dreams). γָּ ?αָ ?ψ is used, Numbers 23:5; Numbers 23:16, for oraculum. It is the oracle given to Balaam, and though, there, a divine message given to a bad man, yet there is nothing in the word itself to prevent its denoting a false, as well as a true prediction. If the view taken be correct, there must be meant, here, false or superstitious presagings, like the Greek βάξις, which is used by Aristophanes for the false predictions of the oracle-mongers, by whom Greece was infested. γָּ ?αָ ?ψ is used in the same manner, Ecclesiastes 10:14, where the context shows that it means either pretended oracular words, or fortune-tellings, or some such rash sayings about the future as are condemned James 4:13. The other rendering: “in multitude of dreams and vanities there are also words,” besides having seemingly but little meaning, puts its main assertion in the first clause, and thus makes the second: “fear thou God,” a merely incidental or rhetorical addition, though really the important thought: “notwithstanding the abounding of (all these superstitions) dreams, vanities and fortune-tellings without number, yet fear thou God. In the other rendering, too, besides being less simple and facile, there is lost, or obscured, the contrast evidently intended between δεισιδαιμονια, in the bad sense, or superstition, and ἐυσέβεια, true religion, reverence, ιψΰϊιδεδ, “the fear of the Lord.” For an illustration. see the picture of the superstitious man (δεισιδαίμων) as given by Theophrastus in his Characters, sec.16.—T. L.] [The plural intensive undoubtedly exists in Hebrew, but a great deal that is said about the pluralis majestaticus is very questionable. The best Jewish commentators deny its existence. The plural βְּ ?αδִֹ ?ιν, here, may easily be taken as a sort of summing up, denoting all the powers that stand above the petty oppressor, from the earthly king, through “principalities in the Heavens” up to God Himself. Our English Version gives it well, “and there be higher than they,” leaving the application indefinite. Stuart regards ε as intensive: “Yea there be higher than they,”—the petty oppressors. Or it may be an assertion that there is a vast series of ascending powers in the olam, or world, regarded in its rank, rather than its time or space aspect. See note on Olamic Words, p. 51. The reader may imagine the gradation of ranks for himself. Of course, God is at the highest, however great it may be. This would accord with the simplest rendering of the words: Height over height are keeping watch, and higher still than they. These vile oppressors, with all their boasts of rank, are away down in the lowest parts of the scale.—T. L.] [Ecclesiastes 5:9. The interpretations of Zφckler, Hitzig, Stuart, etc., though differing from each other, seem forced. They all destroy the parallelism, making only one proposition of what evidently contains two clauses, one an illustration of the other. Their rendering of αλμδιΰ, as though it were equivalent to αλμζΰϊ, Isaiah 9:11; Isaiah 9:20, cannot be supported. δִ ?ιΰ is a feminine used for the neuter, and may have, in such case, an antecedent masculine in form, if it expresses what is inanimate or impersonal. “The profit of the soil, in everything is it”,—like,ωββδδιΰ, “an error is it,” Just above. “It is in all,” in everything, in every rank of life. The word πֶ ?ςְ ?αָ ?γ has more of a deponent than of a passive sense. In other cases, Deuteronomy 21:4; Ezekiel 36:9; Ezekiel 36:34, it is applied to the field that is made use of, worked, in distinction from the barren. This is the only case in which it is applied to persons, and according to the same analogy, it does not mean served as a master, which would be the direct passive of the Kal, but subservient to, or made to serve, coming near to the Kal sense, or the sense of the noun: made useful, or devoted to use. The connection, then, is very clear. The oppressor is reproved, not by extolling the king as the guardian of justice, and patron of agriculture, but by setting forth the value of the lowly, the cultivators of the soil, to whom the highest ranks, and, ultimately, the king himself, are subservient,—on whom they are dependent, and to whom they may be said, in the last resort, to owe homage. This more Republican idea, and so much more in harmony with the whole spirit of the passage, is sustained by wordsworth. The resort to the Chaldaic signification of ςָ ?αַ ?γ = to the Hebrew ςωδ, is wholly needless and unsatisfactory. If the monarchical interpretation, as we may call it, fails, then also falls to the ground what is said about the Persians, and “the king’s protection of agriculture in the provinces,” together with the inference that would then be drawn in respect to the date of the book. Such a dependence of the king upon the field is just n truth which would be perceived by the wise Solomon, but would be unheeded by a Persian monarch, or any writer who would wish to extol him. Herzfeld’s interpretation is very nigh this. Our English Version. “the king is served by the field,” or from the field, would require a different preposition.—T. L.] [See the explanation in the text note.—T. L.] [αςπιοψς may mean here the labor and travail expended in acquiring the riches. “That wealth perishes with all the labor,” etc., it took to get it. Such is the more literal sense of α, as well as the more expressive. He has lost all his labor and travail as well as his wealth. Compare the Metrical Version. With the sore travail [it had cost] that wealth departs. T. L.] [We have the similar phrase in English—“consumeth his days”—but it is questionable whether ΰλμ is ever thus used in Hebrew. In Job 21:13; Job 36:11, the verb is different.—T. L.] [Hitzig regards the text here as corrupt, and proposes to read αְּ ?δָ ?μְ ?ιεֹ and λַּ ?ςַ ?ν. There is no serious difficulty in taking λָּ ?ςַ ?ν as a noun [the first patach lengthened, as Jona Ben Gannach shows may be done]. The other correction, and Hitzig’s charge of corruption, only show that a very acute critic, not having much imagination, may not sympathize with the poetical style, or the emotional earnestness of such a writer as Koheleth, and must therefore, often fail in interpreting him. The apparent irregularity of the sentence shows a vehement utterance, the thoughts crowding together, coming in, some of them out of their order, as though anticipated, or in danger of being forgotten. The most literal, therefore, is the rendering which is most true to this subjective emotional state: “great grief, sickness his, and wrath;” or to give it something of its rythmical order: Yea, all his days, doth he in darkness eat; Abundant sorrow, sickness too is his, and chafing wrath.T. L] [Those noble scholars, the Buxtorfs, and the learned as well as devout Boston, were not altogether without reason in their belief that the Hebrew system of accents, as found in our Hebrew Bibles, partook, in some degree, of the biblical inspiration. There is a critical acuteness, a spiritual-mindedness, we may say, manifested by those early accentuators. from whom came the traditional masora, that is truly wonderful. There are many examples in the Psalms. There is an instance of it, we think, in this passage, vers.18 and 19. They have place a rebia, a disjunctive accent, over ΰָֹ ?πִ ?ι ver.18 thereby separating it from θεֹ ?α that follows. This our English translators have observed, as also Hahn, Hengstenberg and others, who, after all, do not make the right use of it. Zφckler acknowledging though disregarding the accents, renders: “behold what I have seen as good, that it is fair to eat,” etc.,—making ΰֲ ?ωֶׁ ?ψ, a conjunction. To follow the accentuation, however, is the only way to bring out the sense in all its force and clearness. The other method makes θεֹ ?λ and ιָ ?τֶ ?δ synonymous, and represents eating and drinking as the good per se, without qualification; the assertion afterwards made, about its being the gift of god, having no effect in changing, or modifying this positive declaration. On the contrary, the accentual rendering, makes the perception and the consciousness of this [δַ ?θּ ?εֹ ?αμִ ?ψְ ?ΰεֹ ?ϊθεֹ ?α], the very thing that constitutes the “good which is fair” [θεֹ ?αΰֲ ?ωֶׁ ?ψιָ ?τֶ ?δ], in distinction from the mere pleasure which he epicurean would call good. Thus it reads, according to the accents: “good that is fair, to eat and drink, etc.,(that is, in eating and drinking), and to see the good,” etc.,—intimating that there is a good, or seeming good, that is not fair, or beautiful a θεֹ ?α that is not ιָ ?τֶּ ?δ. To make ΰֲ ?ωֶׁ ?ψ thus as a relative pronoun, is the only way to avoid a tautology; for the other rendering makes no distinction between θεֹ ?α and ιָ ?τֶ ?δ, or rather regards the one as but a repetition of the other. It is true that, in such use of ΰֲ ?ωֶׁ ?ψ, the personal pronoun generally follows [θεֹ ?αΰֲ ?ωֶׁ ?ψιָ ?τֶ ?δδεּ ?ΰ] but not always, as Genesis 7:8, δָ ?ςεֹ ?σεְ ?λֹ ?μΰֲ ?ωֶׁ ?ψψֹ ?ξֵ ?ωׂ, and similar cases, especially Hosea 12:8, “they shall not find in me, ςָ ?εֹ ?οΰֲ ?ωֶׁ ?ψηֵ ?θְ ?ΰ, iniquity that is sin,” — meaning by ηֵ ?θְ ?ΰ a qualification of the general term ςָ ?εֹ ?ο, or a known and wilful sin, one deserving of punishment, as both Kimchi and Aben Ezra explain it. Grammatically and logically it is precisely similar to this case. It is not easy to resist the conclusion that a logical differentia, some qualifying of θεֹ ?α, was hero intended. It is, in fact, that same distinction which is made by the ordinary mind, if devout, and which we find in Plato, the mystical, as some style him, but who is, in reality, the clearest, and in the truest sense of the term, the most common-sense of all the philosophers. It is the ἀγαθὸν that is καλὸν (since the sensualist also has his ἀγαθόν, so called, which is not καλὸν, but only ἡδὺ) the βέλτιστον, or to use similar language of Cicero, the bonum that is pulchrum, the dulce that is honestum. It is the word, used Ecclesiastes 3:11 to denote the beauty of everything in its season, as God made it, ΰֶ ?ϊΞδַ ?λִֹ ?μςָ ?ωָׂ ?διָ ?τֶ ?δαְּ ?ςִ ?ϊּ ?εֹ, or as the world was pronounced all good, all fair, at creation, whilst still in unison with the divine name and presence. The θεֹ ?α that is ιָ ?τֶ ?δ, the good that is fair, must have some other element in it than mere sense-enjoyment, or voluptas (velle quod optat). This appears by another accentual mark. The same acute critics have place a zakeph gadhol, another strong disjunctive accent, upon the demonstrative pronoun ζ֕ ?δׄ in ver.19, thereby making it more emphatic, by separating it from the adjoining words, thus constituting it a clause by itself, as it were, to which special attention is called. By being thus separated from what is near, it goes back to the θεֹ ?α mentioned some ways above. or to the idea contained, and carries it through all the clauses: “good that is fair, to eat and drink, and see the good,” etc., (through all that follow in the long recital) “this” —this (good) I say — is God’s own gift.” The meaning is, that the recognition and the consciousness of this are necessary to make it good, or the good emphatically — “the good that is fair”—and that, without this it would not be ιָ ?ωֶׂ ?δκαλόν, honestum, etc., but sheer sensualism, which in itself, he so often pronounces worthlessness and vanity. The whole passage, 18–20, has the air of a solemn recapitulation, in which the writer means to express his deepest and truest feeling: “and now, behold what I have seen: good that is fair,” etc.; all such good is from above, and there is really no other that deserves to be so called. It is imbued throughout with the name of God, as though His name were inseparable from any true idea of the good. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ THIRD Eof true practical Wisdom.Ecclesiastes 6:1 to Ecclesiastes 8:15.A. It cannot consist in striving after earthly sources of happiness Ecclesiastes 6:1-12.1. Even those most richly blessed with earthly possessions do not attain to a true and lasting enjoyment of them (Ecclesiastes 6:1-6.)1There is an evil which I have seen under the sun, and it is common among men: 2A man to whom God hath given riches, wealth, and honor, so that he wanteth nothing for his soul of all that he desireth, yet God giveth him not power to eat thereof, but a stranger eateth it: this is vanity, and it is an evil disease. 3If a man beget an hundred children, and live many years, so that the days of his years be many, and his soul be not filled with good, and also that he have no burial;. I say, that an untimely birth is better than he. 4For he cometh in with vanity, and departeth in darkness, and his name shall be covered with darkness. 5Moreover he hath not seen the sun, nor known any thing: this hath more rest than the other. 6Yea, though he live a thousand years twice told, yet hath he seen no good:, do not., all go to one place? 2. He who strives most zealously after earthly happiness, never gets beyond the feeling of the vanity of all earthly things, and the hope of a totally obscure future (Ecclesiastes 6:7-12.)7All the labour of man is for his mouth, and yet the appetite is not filled. 8For what hath the wise more than the fool? what hath the poor, that knoweth to walk before-the living? 9Better is the sight of the eyes than the wandering of the desire: this is also vanity and vexation of spirit. 10That which hath been is named already, and it is known that it is man: neither may he contend with him that is mightier than he. 11Seeing there be many things that increase vanity, what is man the better? 12For who knoweth what is good for man in this life, all the days of his vain life which he spendeth as a shadow? for who can tell a man what shall be after him under the sun? [Ecclesiastes 6:3. δַֹ ?πָּ ?τֶּ ?μ (πֶ ?τֶ ?μ) this peculiar word occurs Job 3:16, Psalms 58:9, as well as here; in all which places it has the same meaning of premature birth, or abortion. It comes from the Hiphil sense of the verb as used in such places as Isaiah 26:29, where it is applied to the earth as giving birth. For a similar use of the Greek πίπτω, compare Homer, Iliad, xix. 110.—T.L.] [Ecclesiastes 6:4. λִּ ?ι; See Remarks in Introduction to Metrical Version, p. 177.—T.L.] [Ecclesiastes 6:6. ΰִ ?μִּ ?εּ said to be a particle Sequioris Hebraismi (See Gesenius) but it is only a matter of pronunciation. It is only what ΰִ ?νμεּ would be in sound if written in full—the ξ in such cases, where the words are pronounced rapidly together, being elided in sound. This belongs to the Hebrew, as well as the Syriac and Arabic, and its appearance or non-appearance in writing is only a peculiarity of orthography which is not determinative of date, any more than the abbreviations of ΰֲ ?ωֶׁ ?ψ which are found in the ancient as well as in the later Hebrew writings. It would easily come from a copyist following the sound.—T.L.] [Ecclesiastes 6:10. ΰָ ?γָ ?ν, the point intended here requires that this should be rendered as the proper name. The reference is to the naming, Genesis 2:7.—T.L.] AND This section contains firstly the negative of the illustration relative to the nature of true wisdom, which forms the contents of the third discourse, or a censure of the vain and perverse efforts of those who seek that wisdom in the way of external and earthly happiness. In two clearly marked sections or strophes of equal length, the author first shows that all worldly blessings are of no avail to him who is not able to enjoy them (Ecclesiastes 6:1-6) and then that this very incapability of enjoyment depends partly on the perception of the vanity of earthly things, and partly on the necessity, affecting all men, of depending on a totally dark and uncertain future, while dissatisfied with the present (Ecclesiastes 6:7-12). The latter of these two sections (especially in its second half, Ecclesiastes 6:10-12) reminds us of previous reflections, as Ecclesiastes 1:2-11; Ecclesiastes 3:1-9; and partially also of Ecc 5:12-16. But that the last named passage reappears in its principal thoughts in the present place, is an unjustified assertion of some commentators (also of Vaihinger, p. 34). For, as Hitzig properly observes, there the rich man loses his blessings without having enjoyed them; here, on the contrary, he retains them.— Ewald, Elster, Hahn, and some others, begin a new leading section with Ecclesiastes 6:10 of this chapter (Ewald, indeed, a new discourse, which he extends from Ecclesiastes 6:10; Ecclesiastes 8:16). But since Ecclesiastes 6:10-12 clearly belong to the description of the vanity of earthly happiness commenced in Ecclesiastes 6:1, whilst the admonition to walk in. the ways of true wisdom does not commence until Ecclesiastes 7:1, etc., our division, which corresponds with the division of the chapters, is to be preferred. 2. First strophe. Ecclesiastes 6:1-6. The unhappiness of not being able to enjoy present earthly blessings. There is an evil which I have seen under the sun. In words similar to Ecclesiastes 10:5; and in like manner to chap. 5. 13.—And is common among men. (Zφckler’s translation, and it bears heavily on man). Literally: “And is a great thing on man.” ψַ ?αָּ ?δ cannot here have been intended to show the frequency of the evil (Luther, “and is common among men;” Vulg. “malum frequens”), but only its extent and weight, as is shown by the expression ψָ ?ςָ ?δψַ ?αָּ ?δ in the parallel passages Ecclesiastes 2:21; and Ecclesiastes 8:6 Ecclesiastes 6:2. A man to whom God hath given riches, wealth, and honor. The same tuiad of sensual goods: 2 Chronicles 1:11; comp. similar combinations in Proverbs 3:16; Proverbs 8:18; Proverbs 22:4. Hengstenberg is arbitrary in (he assertion, that by the rich man is meant the Persian, and by the “stranger,” named immediately afterwards, the successor of the Persian in the dominion of the world. This discourse is much too general in its character to permit us to seek in it such special historical and political allusions. For the doubtful propriety of affirming such political allusions in this book, see Introduction, § 4, Obs. 3.—So that he wanteth nothing for his soul of all that he„desireth. (Zφckler, “of any thing”). This is clearly the meaning of εְ ?ΰֵ ?ιπֶ ?πּ ?εּ ηָ ?ρֵ ?ψμְ ?πַ ?τְ ?ωׁ ?εֹ ξִ ?λֹּ ?μ as is shown partly by the suffix in ΰֵ ?ιπֶ ?πּ ?εּ, and partly also by the construction of ηָ ?ρֵ ?ψ with ξִ ?ο occurring in Ecclesiastes 4:8. Therefore not: “he wanteth for his soul nothing of all” ( Vulg., Drusius, Bauer, etc.), but “of any thing.” The Septuagint is more correct, καὶ οὐκἔστινὑστερῶντῇ ψυχῆ αυτοῦ, also Luther and nearly all the modern commentators.—Yet God giveth him not power to eat thereof. This incapacity of enjoyment can proceed from the sickness of the wealthy possessor, or from the’ burden of heavy cares which rob him of his sleep (comp. Ecclesiastes 5:12), or from a soul made gloomy by melancholy or dejection (comp. Ecclesiastes 5:17). The author can only mean such an inability to enjoy blessings as is connected with a steady continuance of their possession, as more clearly appears in Ecclesiastes 6:3; Ecclesiastes 6:6; consequently not an inability caused by the deprivation of them, by some other misfortune, or by early death, as Ewald and Vaihinger suppose. For δִ ?ωְׁ ?μִ ?ιθ, to empower, to enable, i.e., “to allow or grant,” comp. Ecclesiastes 5:19. God’ must grant us the possession of goods, and also the power to enjoy them—the same God who in an ethical sphere provides all in all, the Posse, the Velle, and the Perficere.—But a stranger eateth it—i.e., not some robber of his goods, (Ewald, Vaihinger) or the successor of the Persian in the rule of the world (Hengstenberg), but the reckless heir of the rich man, who, during the lifetime of the latter, and when he is tortured by disease, sorrow, or foolish avarice, already begins to riot and revel with his goods, and after his death will exhaust them in feasting and merry-making. (Comp. Ecclesiastes 2:18).—This is vanity, and it is an evil disease. “Evil disease” is an expression originating perhaps in Deuteronomy 28:59, which here signifies an evil resembling a very malignant disease. The word ηֳ ?μִ ?ι however, has no sort of etymological connection with cholera (χολέρα from χολή, gall). Ecclesiastes 6:3. If a man beget a hundred children. For the high appreciation, in the old covenant, of the blessing of many children, comp. Genesis 24:60; Psalms 127:3-5; Job 27:14; and for the value attached to long life, Exodus 10:12; Deuteronomy 11:9; Deuteronomy 11:21; Psalms 49:9.—And live many years, so that the days of his years be many. Herein is meant the sum of all the days of which all his years consist (Psalms 90:10.) To the first clause, “and live many years,” is added the latter equivalent one, as explanatory and emphatic, without producing an absolute tautology.—And also that he have no burial, that is, an honorable burial, that testifies of the real love of his posterity, and therefore truly deserves the name of “burial.” The opposite of such an honorable burial is that found in Isaiah 53:9.—“He made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death;” or in Jeremiah 22:19.—“He shall be buried with the burial of an ass;” or in the neglect of burial and the lying on the face of the earth like dung (Jeremiah 8:2; Jeremiah 9:21; Jeremiah 25:33; Isaiah 14:19-20; Psalms 79:3). The cause of such dishonorable χְ ?αεּ ?ψδ, which is not truly χְ ?αεּ ?ψָ ?δ we are clearly to find in the absence of filial piety and esteem on the part of the posterity of the avaricious rich man, and not in the sordid meanness of the latter himself, who “ex turpi tenacitate non audeat aliquid honestie sepullurse destinare” (Schmidt, Ramb., and Vaihinger). Hengstenberg unnecessarily assumes for χְ ?αεּ ?ψָ ?η the signification of “grave, tomb,” a meaning elsewhere quite common. As in this passage, so also does the context in Jeremiah 22:19 rather demand the sense of exeqόise, funus. Hitzig’s position that the words: “and also that he have no burial‚” is simply a note originally written on the margin of verse 5, is pure caprice.—I say that an untimely birth is better than he;—because such a birth has enjoyed no pleasure in this life, but has also experienced no suffering; comp. Ecclesiastes 4:2 f., and especially Job 3:16. Verses 4 and 5 continue the comparison of the untimely birth.—For he cometh in with vanity, i.e., falls into nothingness from his mother’s womb. And his name shall be covered with darkness, i.e., he receives no name, “but is given over to absolute oblivion.” (Elster). Moreover he hath not seen the sun;—this sun which shines brightly and lovingly, but also shines on a great deal of vanity and vexation, of woe and misery; wherefore it may be considered a good fortune not to have seen it. This hath more rest than the other. “Rest,” i.e., freedom from the annoyances, toils, and troubles of this life. We are certainly not to think with Hitzig of that passive, dreamy rest so desired by the Orientals. For the use of the comparative ξִ ?ο here, comp. Psalms 52:3; Habakkuk 2:16. Ecclesiastes 6:6. Yea, though he live a thousand years twice told; therefore twice as long as the life of the oldest patriarchs from Adam to Noah. Hieronymus is correct in saying: “et non tit Adam prope mille, sed duobus millibus vixerit annis,” “Not lived, as Adam, near a thousand, but two thousand years,”—Yet hath he seen no good. Comp. Ecclesiastes 2:24; Ecclesiastes 3:12, etc. Do not all go to one place? namely, to Scheol, in which all arrive equally poor, and where we cannot regain what we have failed to enjoy on earth; comp. Ecclesiastes 9:10; Ecclesiastes 11:8. As an extension to the principal clause, this question might be introduced with the expression: “I ask then.” 3. Second strophe. Ecclesiastes 6:7—12. The cause of this inability to enjoy earthly blessings, consists in the vanity of the present and the uncertainty of the future conditions of the happiness of men. All the labor of man is for his mouth, and yet the appetite is not filled.—(Zφckler, “the soul.”) That is, all human life is a grasping after enjoyment, but after an enjoyment vain in itself, and affording no true satisfaction. “Mouth and soul” stand in contrast to each other as representatives of the purely sensual and therefore transitory enjoyment (comp. Job 12:1; Proverbs 16:26) as compared with the deeper, more spiritual, and, therefore, more lasting kind of joy. The clear sense of this verse, in essential harmony with Ecclesiastes 1:8, is, that the necessity of the inner man for a more substantial and lasting enjoyment is not satisfied by pleasures of that kind, namely, by eating and drinking (Ecclesiastes 2:21; Ecclesiastes 3:13; Ecclesiastes 5:18; Ecclesiastes 8:15); and therefore πֶ ?τֶ ?ωׁ here cannot be translated by “desire, sensual desire;” and this same remark applies to Ecclesiastes 6:2, or Ecclesiastes 6:9, notwithstanding the opposite view of Hitzig, Vaihinger, Elster, etc. Luther’s translation is also unfitting; he gives “heart,” but his entire conception of the verse is grammatically inaccurate: “Labor is appointed to every man according to his strength, but the heart cannot abide by it.” Ecclesiastes 6:8. For what hath the wise more than the fool? That is, one may strive after the more earnest and real, instead of the mere sensual pleasure, and thus, by a desire for food for his soul, show himself a wise man in contrast with the fool who seeks only to satisfy his mouth: but the former has no real advantage over the latter, since neither attains to the desired “satisfaction of the soul.” This sentence clearly holds a confirming relation to the preceding, and not an opposing one, as Elster holds; he translates λִּ ?ι by “nevertheless,” as does Hitzig, who regards this verse as opposing the contents of the verse preceding. Hengstenberg affirms an extravagant comparison between the wise man and the fool, when he supposes that both are here equally accused of avarice. On the contrary, a distinction is here clearly drawn between the desire of the fool, aiming at possession and enjoyment, and the more thoughtful, more self possessed, more honorable and worthy conduct of the wise man. The latter is indicated in the second clause by the words: The poor that knoweth to walk before the living. Here the word poor (ςָ ?πִ ?ι humble) shows the moral condition and demeanor of the wise man, by virtue of which, with a more just conception of himself as an humble “quiet one in the land,” he leads a modest and retired life (comp. Psalms 10:2; Psalms 34:6; Psalms 37:2; Zechariah 9:9, etc.); but “knowing to walk before the living,” is understanding the correct rule of life, and the true and godly intercourse with one’s fellow—men, and is, therefore a circumlocution to express the idea of “wise” in the solemn Old Testament sense. Ewald, following the masoretic accentuation (which is here not authoritative), separates ιεֹ ?γֵ ?ς (knowing) from the following infinitive clause, and regards this as the subject: “What profits it to the patient man, to the understanding man to walk before the living (i.e., to live)?” But the adjective conception of ιεֹ ?γֵ ?ς “knowing, intelligent,” is neither sustained by Proverbs 27:27, nor Ecclesiastes 9:11, and the parallel passages Proverbs 4:13; Proverbs 4:17, and many others, support the direct connection with the following word μַ ?δֲ ?μֹ ?κּ The explanations of Luther are ungrammatical. “Why does the poor man dare to be among the living?” and the Vulg. “Et quid pauper, nisi ut pergat iliac, ubi est vita?” Ecclesiastes 6:9. Better is the sight of the eyes than the wandering of the desire, (Zφckler, “of the soul”). That is, because the wise man with his strivings after higher aims, has nothing better than the pleasure-seeking fool, therefore a contented enjoyment of the present is the most desirable, more to be desired than a restless striving without satisfaction, or than the wearying one’s self with manifold designs with no hope of their success. The “sight of the eyes” is here, as in Ecclesiastes 6:11; Ecclesiastes 6:7, the pleasant enjoyment of that which is before the eyes, or of the good and the beautiful which are present. (See Luther on this passage, in the Homiletical Hints). The wandering of the soul (not of the desire, see Ecclesiastes 6:7), is the uneasy scheming of the man dissatisfied with his modest lot, the passionate ζεσθαι (Luke 12:29) or the φρόνειντὰ ὑψηλά (Romans 12:16), consequently the same as the expression: “His soul shall not be filled” in Ecclesiastes 6:3; Ecclesiastes 6:7, only marking more clearly than this the self-caused guilt of the want of spiritual contentment. This sentence has many parallels among the classic authors; e.g., Horace, 4 Ep. I. 18, 96 ss: Inter cuncta leges, et percontabere doctos, Qua ratione queas traducere leniter ζvum, Ne te semper inops agitet vexetque cupido, Ne pauor et rerum mediocriter ulilium spes.Comp. Marcus Aurelius 3:16; 4:26; Juvenal, Sat. 14:178; Lucian, Necromant. I, 194 etc.—This is also vanity and vexation o spirit; namely this maxim: “Better is the sight of the eyes,” etc., and a life and conduct in accordance with it. A partial reference of βַּ ?νΞζֶ ?δ to the “wandering of the soul” (Luther and Hengstenberg) corresponds quite as little to the sense as the extension of the thought to everything from Ecclesiastes 6:7 onward [Vaihinger and Elster]. Comp. the case precisely similar t this in Ecclesiastes 2:26. Ecclesiastes 6:10. That which hath been is named already. This remark reminding us of Ecc 1:9 f., proves the author’s way for the description of the total uncertainty and obscurity of the future of man, in so far a it points to his banishment, into the fixed circle of all creature life and action. “That which hath been is named already,” i.e., it has already been, in the past, something in its nature manifest and well-known. The exclusive reference of the clause to man, by means of which Genesis 5:2; Psalms 139:16, etc., would become parallels of this passage, is forbidden by the neuter ξָ ?δ. The discourse does not make special reference to man until we reach the following clause. And it is known that it is man, [Zφckler, “the man”]. Here Ewald and Elster are correct; it is not “that he is a man” (Knobel, Vaihinger, Hengstenberg) or, “what the man is” (Rosenmueller), or, “who the man is” (Hahn), or finally, “that if one is a man he cannot contend,” etc., (Hitzig),—these are all conceptions that militate against the connection, and do not correspond to the simple expression ΰֲ ?ωֶׁ ?ψΞδεּ ?ΰΰָ ?γָ ?ν. Neither may he contend with him that is mightier than he. That is with God, namely, with Him who is δַּ ?χִּ ?ισ or ωַׁ ?γַּ ?ι [Job 5:17; Rth 1:20-21, etc.], who is superior to man just because He is mightier than man [ξξπεδַ ?ϊַּ ?χִּ ?ισ] or because He has ordained the whole circle of human existence with absolute creative power, so that man may neither contend with Him nor break through the limit to which he is assigned. For the word γιο, “to contend with anyone,” compare πָ ?γεֹ ?ο 2 Samuel 19:10, which there, as elsewhere, has this sense. For the sentence compare also the question (originating perhaps in this very passage): μὴ ἰσχυρότεροιαυτοῦ ἐσμέν? 1 Corinthians 10:22 Ecclesiastes 6:11. Seeing there be many things that increase vanity. That is, human life abounds in possessions, chances, vicissitudes of fortune, trials and dangers which strengthen in us the feeling of the vanity and weakness of this earthly existence, and show us that we are absolutely dependent on a higher power against which we cannot contend. The context decides against the ordinary rendering: “for there are many words which,” etc., [Sept., Vulg.,. and also Ewald, Hitzig, Elster and Hahn], for the reference to useless talk, etc., is foreign to it.—What is man the better? Namely, that he possesses, experiences, or enjoys these many things that simply increase vanity. Ecclesiastes 6:12. For who knoweth what is good for man in this life?—Namely, what of earthly things, whether happiness or unhappiness, wealth or poverty, the fulfilment of his desires or their disappointment. The concealed nature of man’s own future is expressed by this question.—All the days of his vain life. Literally: “the number of the days,” etc. ξִ ?ρְ ?τָ ?ψ (Com. Ecclesiastes 5:18) is the accusative of measure or duration.—Which he spendeth as a shadow. Literal: “and he passeth them,” etc. Because ιξι (days of) is separated from ιַ ?ςֲ ?ωֵׂ ?νλַּ ?φֵּ ?μ by a compound genitive, the copula is placed before this clause which is to be considered as relative (Hitzig). With ςָ ?ωָׂ ?διְ ?ξֵ ?ιηַ ?ιִּ ?ιν compare χρόνονποιεῖν Acts 15:33, dies facere, Cicero ad Attic. v. 20.—For who can tell a man?, ΰֲ ?ωֶׁ ?ψ‚ here, is not equivalent to “so that,” but is substantially synonymous with λִּ ?ι “for,” (comp. Deuteronomy 3:24; Daniel 1:10), expressing an affirmative and intensified sense. Comp. Psalms 10:6; Job 5:5; Job 9:15; Job 19:27. In the present clause the effort is certainly to intensify the truth that man is not permitted to look into the future of his earthly existence.—What shall be after him under the sun. “After him,” i.e., after his present condition, not after his death; comp. Ecclesiastes 3:22; Ecclesiastes 8:14; and see the exegetical illustrations to the former passage. AND ETHICAL(With Homiletical Hints.)The theme of this section is too narrowly drawn, if, with Starke, we find only therein depicted “the extremely unhappy nature of the miser,” or, with Hengstenberg, “the vanity of wealth,” [and indeed, as Hengstenberg supposes, illustrated by the example of the rich Persians and the poor Israelites]. That which in the present chapter is discountenanced, and presented as incompatible with true wisdom, is not merely the striving after money and possessions, but also the desire for honor, long life, many children (Ecclesiastes 6:2-3; Ecclesiastes 6:6), and, in short, the struggle for earthly happiness in general. And firstly, in Ecclesiastes 6:1-6, wealth without a cheerful and contented feeling in the heart, then in Ecclesiastes 6:7-9 sensual enjoyment without satisfaction of soul, and finally in Ecclesiastes 6:10-12, a happy present with an obscure and uncertain future, are named as those things which must bring men to the consciousness of the vanity of all earthly goods and pleasures, and forbid them to strive after them. All the conditions and circumstances named, belong to those “many things that increase vanity,” as found in Ecclesiastes 6:11, and which, according to Ecclesiastes 6:3-6, permit the longest life, and the one most richly blessed with posterity, to seem scarcely any better than the lot of an untimely birth that has not even seen the light of this world. It is a bitter and cutting thought, which, like the similar one in Ecclesiastes 4:2, f., is only softened and, as it were, excused by the admonition to a contented, resigned and grateful enjoyment and use of life, which clearly forms its background [distinctly visible in Ecclesiastes 6:9], and again practically takes away the one-sided character of the apparent accusation of the Creator and Ruler of the world. Only the insatiable, ever-dissatisfied chasing after earthly means of happiness is thereby forbidden, as in opposition to the divinely-appointed task of human life. A temperate and modest striving after a cheerful and useful course of life, (which verse 8 expressly praises as the characteristic of the wise man) is emphatically recommended, not only in the preceding Ecclesiastes 5:18-20, but in those immediately following [especially in Ecclesiastes 7:11 ff.] It is the cheerful and noble form of σωφροσύνη, that cardinal virtue, not merely of the ancient classical but also of biblical ethics, which forms the framework of this mainly gloomy and admonishing picture, and presents a corrective to contents so apparently dubious, and easily misunderstood. The principal thought of this chapter might be well represented by the following quotations: “Set your affections on things above, not on things on the earth;” or, “Lay not up for yourselves treasures on earth,” etc.; or, “And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abidelh forever.” (Colossians 3:2; Matthew 6:19; 1 John 2:17). Homiletical hints on separate passagesEcc_6:1-2. Brenz: The scheming and striving of our old Adam is of such a nature, that it measures the happiness of this life solely according to the abundance of treasures and riches. Let this old Adam go, for it is of no use! Dost thou think that nothing would be wanting to a happy life if thou only hadst an abundance of riches and honors ? The matter is very different, as daily experience teaches.—Weimar Bible: The lamentations of the miser are not removed by excess of riches, by the number of children, or by long life; they are rather increased by these things (1 Timothy 6:10).—Lange: The desire for temporal things clings to us all, and when we cease to watch and pray, we can soon be put to sleep, and charmed to our ruin, by such earthly love. Ecclesiastes 6:3-6. Geier: A long life without rest and peace in God, is nothing but a long martyrdom.—Starke: To have many children is a special blessing of God (Psalms 127:3; Psalms 128:3, f.); but apart from the enjoyment of divine favor, this also is vanity.—Lange: What the untimely birth loses of natural life without any fault of its own, that the miser wantonly robs himself of in spiritual life. … Because his soul has no firm foundation in communion with the good God, it goes to ruin, (Galatians 6:8). Ecclesiastes 6:7-8. Tubingen Bible: Above all things let us strive that our immortal spirit be filled with heavenly treasures, which alone can truly satisfy it.—Lange: He who cares not to appease and satisfy his soul, finds his proper place among fools, Luke 12:19 f.—Hengstenberg: That the soul of man is never satisfied, notwithstanding his narrow capacity for enjoyment, is very strange, and a mighty proof of the degree to which our race, since Genesis 1:3, has yielded to sin and folly, producing “many foolish and hurtful lusts,” (1 Timothy 6:9). Ecclesiastes 6:9. Luther: It is better that we use what is before our eyes, than that the soul should thus wander to and fro. Solomon means that we use the present and thank God for it, and not think of other things, like the dog in the fable that seizes the shadow and drops the meat. And he therefore says: what God has placed before thine eyes (the present) that use contentedly, and follow not thy soul which does not become filled.—Therefore let every Christian and believer rest with what he has, and be satisfied with what God has given him in the present! But the ungodly are not thus; all that they see is a torture to them; for they use not the present, their soul is never filled, and it wanders hither and thither. He who has immense sums of money has not enough; he does not use it but desires more; if he has one wife he is not satisfied but wants another; if he has a whole realm, he is not contented; as Alexander the Great could not be satisfied with one world.—Cramer: Be contented with what thou hast; this is better than in greed to be ever desiring other things.—Berleb. Bible: This is the wandering of the soul, that rung about among creatures, and, like Esau, on the field of this world, chases after a palatable food, which wisdom finds only at home, and in the repose of contentment.—Hengstenberg: is better to rejoice in that which is before our eyes, however humble it may be, since man really needs so little, than to yield to the caprices of one’s lusts, and to torture one’s self with plans and hopes that so easily deceive us, or, if they are fulfilled, afford so little happiness. Ecclesiastes 6:10-11. Cramer: That man should leave a pleasant name and memory behind is not unchristian; but the highest good does not consist therein. For as time discovereth all things, so it covereth all things up. (Psalms 31:13; Exodus 1:8).—Hansen: All human things are subjected to God. He often deposes the highest from the throne of their glory where they least expect it, Daniel 4:27-30.—Hengstenberg: If man is in a state of unconditional dependence on God, he should not permit to himself many vagaries, and should not torture himself with schemes and stratagems; because he cannot protect what he has acquired, and is not for a moment certain that he may not hear the cry: “thou fool, this night thy soul will be demanded of thee;” therefore it is foolish to envy the heathen because of their wealth, which can so soon wither away, like the flower of the field, James 1:10-11.—The rich man has, in truth, no more than the poor one; what the former seems to have over the latter, proves, on closer inspection, to be but show and vanity. It disappears as soon as the judgments of God pass over the world. Ecclesiastes 6:12. Luther: Men’s hearts strive after all sorts of things: one seeks power, another wealth, and they know not that they will acquire them; thus they use not their present blessings, and their hearts ever aspire to that which they have not yet, and see not yet.—Why do we thus annoy and torture ourselves with our thoughts, when future things are not for a moment in our power? Therefore we should be contented with the present that God gives us now, and should commit all to God, who alone knows and rules both the present and the future.—Rambach: From all which it appears, that there is nothing better than to proscribe base avarice, be content with the present, and enjoy it with a pious cheerfulness.—Zeyss: Although a Christian may not know how it may be with the things of this world after his death, yet he can be assured by faith that he, after death, will be with Christ in heaven.—Hengstenberg: One would only be justified in esteeming wealth in case he knew the future, and had it in his power. The merest chance can suddenly rob one of all that has been gathered with pain and toil. A great catastrophe may come and sweep everything away as a flood. The practical result therefore is that one should strive after the true riches. As P. Gerard says; “Earthly treasures dissolve and disappear, but the treasures of the soul never vanish.” Footnotes:[The phrase ΰִ ?ιωׁ πָ ?λְ ?ψִ ?ι, “a stranger man,” cannot possibly mean here an heir, or one of kin, either near or remote. Besides the context, and especially the mention of his having no funeral, shows an utter dispossession, in whatever way it may be supposed to have taken place. He, and his hundred sons, are all reduced to poverty, and there is none to do him the honor of such a funeral as his estate might have demanded. This is the soreness of it.—T. L.] [It should be rendered “though it cometh in with vanity,” etc. See the remarks on λּ ?ι, as denoting a reason notwithstanding, as well as a reason for, Introd. to Metrical Version p. 177. The rendering for completely changes the sense, and makes the reader think of the rich man, until the context forces to the other conception. The same effect is produced in our E. V. by the rendering he instead of it, which is more properly applicable to the abortion, conceived of as impersonal. See Met. Ver.—T. L.] [The word πַ ?ηַ ?ϊ does not primarily mean rest, repose, in either sense, but simply a lying down. It refers to the state or condition taken as a whole. So ξְ ?πεּ ?ηָ ?δ, from the same root, means a place of rest, rather than rest itself, as in Psalms 23:2, ξְ ?ιξְ ?πεּ ?ηεֹ ?ϊ means not “the still waters,” but the streams by which the sheep lie down to rest. It does not refer to the quality of rest, much less to its quantity as our E. V. would make it: “More rest than the other;” but is simply an affirming that the state or condition, on the whole, of the vainly born is better, more desirable, than that of the man who vainly lived. The one is better off than the other.—T. L.] [Stuart’s view here is worthy of consideration. “It is the λִּ ?ι apodictic,” he says, “i. e., such as is employed in sentences of this nature: If—so and so; then (λִ ?ι) this or that consequence.” He takes it as an objector’s language, or the author personifying an objector, thus: “The appetite is not satisfied;—then (asks the inquirer) how do the wise have any advantage, etc.?” Stuart says “the question is not answered here;” “but it may be regarded as having a suggested, if not a direct response in the verse following: better the sight of the eyes, that is, the contented enjoyment of the wise, than the fool’s ever roving desire. This is the view adopted and (expressed in the Metrical Version.—T. L.] [Ecclesiastes 6:10. “That which hath been is named already, and it is known that it is man.” This rendering of our English Version seems to have little or no meaning, and points to no connection with the following verse. Stuart’s is little better. Zφckler sheds no light upon it. He has no right to regard so distinct and emphatic a phrase as πχψΰωξε, as meaning simply a known existence in the past. The other interpretations, of Ewald, Elster, Knobel, Vaihinger, Hengstenberg, Rφsenmueller, Hahn, fail to satisfy. Their very discrepancies as to the rendering of so simple a phrase as ΰωψδεΰΰγν, show that they have missed some fundamental idea which would at once take away from it all uncertainty. Hitzig’s is the most unmeaning of them all. The older commentators, such as Munsterus, Mercerus, Tirinus, Pineda, Ar. Montanus, Geier, and even Grotius (see Pole’s Synopsis) saw in it an allusion to the narrative, Genesis 2:19, of Adam’s giving names to things (nomen inditum conveniens rei cujusque naturζ) and to the name of Adam itself, as derived from Genesis 2:7 and Ecclesiastes 6:2. They fail however to bring it clearly out. Among the moderns, Wordsworth distinctly favors this view. See also the remarks of the spiritually minded Matthew Henry. The key of the passage would seem to be given in the words λαψπχψΰωξε (comp. Genesis 2:19 δεΰωξε), “its name was named of old.” There is no need of departing here from the most close and literal rendering, or for seeking any foreign idea in the word naming, as though it were a mere expression for existence (Stuart and Zφckler) or for being well-known. The reference is to the supposed fact, or idea, that names denote (as the best philology shows they were originally intended to denote) the nature of the thing named,—an idea which certainly seems to be implied in the account Genesis 2:19. Keeping this in view, we get a clear meaning from the most literal rendering: ξδωδιδ “what a thing is” (ξδ here used indefinitely like the Greek τι, Latin quid, aliquid, see Job 13:13; Proverbs 9:13; 2 Samuel 18:27; Ecclesiastes 1:9; Ecclesiastes 3:15; Ecclesiastes 3:22; Ecclesiastes 7:24; Ecclesiastes 8:7; Ecclesiastes 10:14; or, with ΰֲ ?ωֶׁ ?ψ or ωֶׁ, illud quod), “what each thing is,” or, “each thing, what it is, its name was named of old,”—that is, it was named according to what it is (comp. Aristotle’s peculiar expression for the idea, or individuality, of a thing, its τὸ τίἦνεἶναι, its being what it is, or its being something). And then what follows is stated by way of example; the conjunction ε being used comparatively as it often is: εְ ?πεֹ ?γָ ?ς, “and so, known what he is (ΰωψδεΰ), is man,” or rather “ Adam” (keeping the proper name in translation as the only way of giving force to the play upon the name. Thus known for what he is (by his name), or thus made known (denoted what he is) is Adam (man from earth). Then there is seen immediately the connection with the next verse, expressing his weakness as well as earthliness. The whole, then, may be thus paraphrased: ‘Names of old were given to things, to each thing, according to their nature; so man was denoted, made known, or simply, known, from what he is, his earthliness and frailty.’ The objection of Zφckler in respect to the gender of ξδ has no weight. It is taken indefinitely, and so what (that which) was used instead of who. Compare Psalms 8:5 ξָ ?δΰֱ ?πεֹ ?ωׁ, Psalms 144:3 ξָ ?δΰָ ?γָ ?ν, “what is man?” The Metrical Version follows a close literality at the expense of smoothness,—the words in brackets not at all adding to the sense, but necessary to give the English reader the play upon the name. It is as though there had been used the word mortal, which is taken in English for a name or epithet of man, or the Greek βροτὸς, which is so much used in Homer for the same purpose. There is probably some allusion to the peculiar language of this passage in the Midrash Rabba (on Numbers 19) where we have the following account: “When the Holy One had created Adam, He brought before him the animals, and said of each, see this (ξδζδ what is this), what is its name (ξδωξε)? Adam said, this is ωׁ ?εֹ ?ψ, shor, (ox)—this is ηַ ?ξεֹ ?ψ, chamor, (ass)—this is ρεּ ?ν sus (horse), and so on. And thou—what is thy name? He answered, I should be called ΰָ ?γָ ?ν, (Adam) because I was taken from adamah. And I,—what is my name? Thou shouldst be called ΰֲ ?γπָֹ ?ι, Adonai, for Thou art Adon (ΰγεομλμαψιεϊικ), the Lord of all Thy creatures.” There can be good reasons given for Koheleth's philology here, but its correctness or incorrectness is of no account in reference to the allusion, or the idea of humanity which it conveys. See Genesis, p. 203, marginal note.—T.L.] [On the contrary the contrast seems clearly to point to the rendering words, although Zφckler agrees here with our English Version, and with that of Luther. It is confirmed by What follows: “who knows”—“who can tell.” It indicates the disputations which had commenced in the speculative or philosophical world, and which Solomon had doubtless heard of, although perhaps not familiar with them. His intercourse with the Egyptians, Ph�nicians, Sabζans, and Arabians (perhaps with some of the more eastern people to whom his ships had gone), was sufficient for this purpose. The speculative mind began very early to inquire concerning the design and end of human life, de finibus bonorum et malorum. Philosophy was then rising in Greece; though, at this early time, its schools bad not yet assumed shape. “Many were saying (ψַ ?αּ ?ινΰֹ ?ξְ ?ψִ ?ιν, Psalms 4:7) who will show us the good.” We have seen how the Psalmist answers the questions there (Marg. note p. 95) by directing lo the real good, ΰεֹ ?ψτָּ ?πֶ ?ικָ, the true εὐδαιμονία, the favor of God, or blessedness in distinction from mere happiness,—“the light of thy countenance.” Koheleth here regards as vanity all merely human disquisitions of this kind. They only “increase vanity” (see 1 Corinthians 7:1, ἡ γνῶσιςφυσιοῖ. “knowledge puffeth up,” bloweth up), or as it may be read, taking δֶ ?αֶ ?μ adverbially, they multiply in vain” What is man the better for all this talk? Who knows what is good for him? Who can tell him what shall be after him? By way of contrast compare Psalms 119:129-130 : “Thy testimonies are wonderful; the entrance of THY words giveth light; they give understanding to the simple.”—T. L.] [A false historical hypothesis, especially if it be in the face of the claim made by the writing itself, produces great mischief in continually warping exegesis. Nothing shows this more than Hengstenberg’s continually turning the most general remarks into something about the Persians and the Persian times.—T. L ] B. The true Wisdom of Life consists in Contempt of the World, Patience, and Fear of GodEcc_7:1-221. In contempt of the world and its foolish lusts (Ecclesiastes 7:1-7.)1A good name is better than precious ointment; and the day of death than the 2day of one’s birth. It is better to go to the house of mourning, than to go to the house of feasting; for that is the end of all men; and the living will lay it to his 3heart. Sorrow is better than laughter: for by the sadness of the countenance the heart is made better. 4The heart of the wise is in the house of mourning; but the 5 heart of fools is in the house of mirth. It is better to hear the rebuke of the wise, than for a man to hear the song of fools: 6For as the crackling of thorns under a pot, so is the laughter of the fool: this also is vanity. 7Surely oppression maketh a wise man mad; and a gift destroyeth the heart. 2. In a patient, calm, and resigned spirit (Ecclesiastes 7:8-14.)8Better is the end of a thing than the beginning thereof: and the patient in spirit is better than the proud in spirit. 9Be not hasty in thy spirit to be angry: for anger resteth in the bosom of fools. 10Say not thou, What is the cause that the former days 11were better than these? for thou dost not inquire wisely concerning this. Wisdom is good with an inheritance: and by it there is profit to them that see the sun. 12For wisdom is a defence, and money is a defence: but the excellency of knowledge is, that wisdom giveth life to them that have it. 13Consider the work of God: for who can make that straight, which He hath made crooked? 14In the day of prosperity be joyful, but in the day of adversity consider: God also hath set the one over against the other, to the end that man should find nothing after him. 3. In earnest fear of God, and penitential acknowledgment of sin (Ecclesiastes 7:15-22.)15All things have I seen in the days of my vanity: there is a just man that perisheth in his righteousness, and there is a wicked man that prolongeth his life in his wickedness. 16Be not righteous over much; neither make thyself over wise: why shouldest thou destroy thyself? 17Be not over much wicked, neither be thou foolish: 18why shouldest thou die before thy time? It is good that thou shouldest take hold of this; yea, also from this withdraw not thine hand: for he that feareth God shall come forth of them all. 19Wisdom strengtheneth the wise more than ten 20mighty men which are in the city. For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not. 21Also take no heed unto all words that are spoken; lest thou hear thy servant curse thee: 22For oftentimes also thine own heart knoweth that thou thyself likewise hast cursed others. [Ecclesiastes 7:3. λַּ ?ςַ ?ρ. The primary sense is excitement of mind, or feeling, of any kind, or from any cause. Fuerst, commotum, concitatum esse. It is like the Greek θυμὸς, or ὀργὴ, in this respect. It may he grief (sorrow), or anger. The context determines. Here, in Ecclesiastes 7:3, it evidently means the opposite of ωְׁ ?ηεֹ ?χ laughter, mirth, joy. In Ecclesiastes 7:9 th, on the other hand, it must have the sense of anger, though both ideas are probably combined.—T. L.] [Ecclesiastes 7:7. ςωֶׁ ?χ means the disposition or state of mind from which oppression comes (ὔβρις, insolence, pride) rather than the act. It is also to be determined from the context whether it is violence, insolence, etc., exercised upon the wise man, or by him, that is, whether it is objective, or subjective. The latter sense, here, best suits the context. Such a spirit in the wise man may make mad even him, or make him decide wrong, if we regard ηָ ?λָ ?ν here, as meaning a judge—T.L.] [Ecclesiastes 7:12. αְּ ?φֵ ?μ is regarded by some of the best critics as a case of beth essential, or as having an assertive force, as the Arabic, but there is no good reason for this.—T. L.] AND 1. This section, which describes the nature of genuine, practical wisdom, just as the preceding one presents the contrary, is clearly divided into three divisions or strophes. The first of these (Ecclesiastes 7:1-7) treats of the contempt of worldly pleasure, and the sacred earnestness of life,—the second, (Ecclesiastes 7:8-14) of a forbearing, patient, and resigned disposition,—the third, (Ecclesiastes 7:15-22) of godly demeanor, and humble self-appreciation, as conditions and essential characteristics of that wisdom. A division of characteristics of these that strophes into half strophes is superfluous (Vaihinger); there is only observable a sharper and deeper incision in the train of thought, in the middle of the last strophe, or in the transition from the fear of God to self-appreciation, after verse 18. 2. First Strophe; Ecclesiastes 7:1-7. Of the advantage of stern contempt of the world over foolish worldly pleasure.—A good name is better than precious ointment. Comp. Proverbs 22:1, where ωֵׁ ?ν signifies, just as in this passage, a good name, a good reputation or fame; see also Job 30:8, and for the paronomasia in ωֵׁ ?ν and ωξο see Son 1:3. [In this place Zφckler gives us specimens of play upon words in German, such, as arise from Gerόcht and Wohlgeruch, etc., which are not translatable, except by a general reference to the metaphors to be found in English and other languages, wherein character, reputation, etc., is said to hare its good or evil odor. It might be compared with the opposite Hebrew word δִ ?αְ ?ΰִ ?ιωׁ he stank, odiosus fuit, 1 Samuel 27:12.—T. L.—And the day of death than the day of one’s birth. For the suffix in δִ ?εָּ ?μְ ?γֹ ?ε comp. Ecclesiastes 5:18; Ecclesiastes 8:16; Isaiah 7:5; Jeremiah 11:5 and similar cases of relation of a definite suffix to an indefinite subject. The sentence is the same as Ecclesiastes 4:3; Ecclesiastes 6:3-5. It here serves as a preparation for the following sentences, whose aim is to heighten the duty of a sacred earnestness of life, just as the commendation, in the first clause, of a good name as something better than precious ointment, is to pave the way for this recommendation of a serious disposition despising the pleasures of the world. In this common relation of the two clauses to the fundamental thought of the necessity of a serious purpose, lies the inward connection, which we may no more deny [with Hengstenberg and many others] than erroneously assert on the basis of the false assumption that the second clause refers specially to the fool, or through any other similar subtilties. Elster is correct in saying: “Because a good and reputable name, which secures an ideal existence with posterity, is more valuable than all sensual pleasure, such as is obtained through precious ointments, therefore the day of death must seem to bring more happiness than the day of birth; for this ideal existence of posthumous fame does not attain its full power and purity until after death: but external pleasures and enjoyments, which we are accustomed to desire for a man on the day of his birth, pleasures which are dependent on his sensual life, prove to be more empty and vain than the joy afforded by the thought of a spiritual existence in the memory of posterity.” Ver 2. It is better to go to a house of mourning. That is, a house wherein there is mourning for one deceased, “a house of lamentation” (Luther). The connection of the expression favors this sense of the significant αֵּ ?ιϊΰֵ ?αֶ ?μ‚ taken backwards as well as forwards; and also with Ecclesiastes 7:3 f. For the expression for αֵּ ?ιϊξִ ?ωְׁ ?ϊֵּ ?δ “house of carousal,” of drinking (not specially a drinking resort) compare the similar expression in Esther 7:8. For the entire sentence comp. the Arabic proverb (Schulten’s Anthology, p. 48, 73): “If thou nearest lamentation for the dead enter into the place; but if thou art bidden to a banquet pass not the threshold.” For that is the end of all men. “That,” (δεּ ?ΰ) i.e., not the mourning, but the fact that a house becomes a house of mourning. It is therefore δεּ ?ΰ for διΰ on account of the attraction of ρεσ as Hitzig rightly regards it.—And the living will lay it to his heart. Ecclesiastes 7:3. Sorrow is better than laughter. λַּ ?ςַ ?ρ here, does not, of course, mean that passionate sorrow or anger against which we are warned as a folly in Ecclesiastes 7:9, but is essentially the same as ΰֵ ?αֶ ?μ in Ecclesiastes 7:2, consequently a grief salutary, and nearest allied to that godly sorrow spoken of 2 Corinthians 7:10. For ωְׂ ?ηεֹ ?χ, “laughter,” boisterous, worldly merriment, comp. Ecclesiastes 2:2, and also Ecclesiastes 7:6.—For by the sadness of the countenance the heart is made better.—ψςַ τָ ?πִ ?ιν like τָ ?πִ ?ινψָ ?ςִ ?ιν, Genesis 11:7; Nehemiah 2:2, signifies not an evil countenance, but a sad, sorrowful one, and ιִ ?ιθַ ?αμֵ ?α is not to be understood of the moral amendment, but of the cheering up and gladdening of the heart; comp. the Latin, cor bene se habet, as also the parallels Ecclesiastes 9:9; Judges 19:6; Judges 19:9; Rth 3:7; 1 Kings 16:7. But cheerfulness and contentment of the heart, with a sad countenance, can only be imagined where its thoughts have begun to take the normal direction in a religious and moral aspect; moral amendment is therefore in any case the presupposition of δֵ ?ιθִ ?ιαμֵ ?α, and there is, therefore, no contradiction but the clearest harmony with Proverbs 16:13; Proverbs 15:13; Proverbs 27:22; Proverbs 28:14. Ecclesiastes 7:4. The heart of the wise is in the house of mourning. Drawing his conclusion from Ecclesiastes 7:2-3, the author returns to the expression of the second sentence. Because a serious disposition is everywhere more salutary than boisterous worldly merriment, it is plain that the former will be peculiar to the wise man, as the latter to the fool. Vaihinger observes very correctly, “that one perceives from this passage that the preacher, however often he recommends enjoyment of life, never means thereby boisterous pleasures and blind sensual enjoyment, but rather worthy and grateful enjoyment of the good and the beautiful offered by God. Such an enjoyment is not only possible with a serious course of life, but is indeed only thereby attainable.” Ecclesiastes 7:5. It is better to hear the rebuke of the wise. For βְּ ?ςָ ?ψָ ?δ, “rebuke,” censure, reproof on account of foolish or criminal behaviour, comp. Proverbs 18:1. Intercourse with wise men, i.e., strictly moral and religious individuals, who can easily impart those censures, belongs to those expressions of a serious, world-contemning spirit, of which a few other examples have been cited, such as to “go into the house of mourning,” to “be of a sad countenance.”—Than for a man to hear the song of fools. Literal: “Than a man hearing the song of fools.” Flattering speeches are not specially meant here (Vulg. adulatio), but the extravagant, boisterous and immoral songs that are heard in the riotous carousals of foolish men, in the αֵּ ?ιϊξִ ?ωְֹׁ ?ϊֶּ ?δ or “house of feasting.” Comp. Job 21:12; Amos 6:5; Isaiah 5:11-12. Ecclesiastes 7:6. For as the crackling of thorns under a pot. The fire of dry thorns, quickly blazing up, and burning with loud crackling and snapping, and also quickly consumed (comp. Psalms 58:9; Psalms 120:4; and especially Psalms 118:12) is here chosen as the emblem of the loud, boisterous, and vacant laughter of foolish men, who are at the same time destitute of all deeper moral worth. This also is vanity; namely, all this noisy, merry, vacant and unfruitful conduct of fools. Ecclesiastes 7:7. Surely oppression maketh a wise man mad; and a gift destroyeth the heart. λִּ ?ι in the beginning of this verse can neither be considered as containing a cause or a motive [this is the opinion of the most commentators, also of Hitzig, Vaihinger, Hengstenberg, Hahn, etc.), nor as an adversative equivalent to “yet,” or “but” [Ewald, Elster]. Like the ΰֲ ?ωֶׁ ?ψ in Ecclesiastes 6:12, it here clearly expresses an intensifying sense (comp. λִּ ?ι in Isaiah 5:7; Job 6:21, etc.). The connection with the preceding is as follows: So great is the vanity of fools, and so powerfully and rapidly does it spread, like the blazing fire of thorns, that even the wise man is in danger of being infected by it; and deluded from the path of probity in consequence of brilliant positions of power, striving after riches, offers of presents or bribes, etc. ςωֶׁ ?χ (for which Ewald in his Biblical Annual 1856, p. 150, unnecessarily proposed to read ςωֶׁ ?ψ—a conjecture abandoned by him afterwards) does not mean in a passive sense the oppression of the wise man by others, but rather the “pressure” which he is tempted to exercise, just as ξַ ?ϊָּ ?πָ ?δ means a “present, or bribe which is offered to him. The wise man is regarded as a judge, who, in the exercise of his functions, needs true wisdom, so much the more because he may easily be deluded by bribery and be tempted to misuse his official power. For the expressions δεֹ ?μֵ ?μ “to delude, to make a fool of,” and ΰַ ?αֵּ ?γμֵ ?α “to corrupt the heart,” corumpere, comp. Isaiah 44:25; Jeremiah 4:9. For the sentence see Deuteronomy 16:19; Sir 20:27; [but not Proverbs 17:8; Proverbs 18:16; Proverbs 19:6, etc., where allowable giving is meant]. 3. Second strophe. Ecclesiastes 7:8-14. Of the value of patience, tranquility, and resignation to the will of God. Better is the end of a thing than the beginning thereof. The sense is not the same as in Ecclesiastes 7:1, but rather, according to the second verse, as follows: it is better quietly to await the course of an affair until its issue, and not to judge and act until then, than to proceed rashly and with passionate haste, and bring upon one’s self its bad consequences. The peculiar sense of ΰֶ ?ψֶ ?κְ ?Ξψεּ ?ηַ corresponds to the calm demeanor expressed by the term “long-suffering” in the sense of the New Testament μακροθυμία (Colossians 1:11; Hebrews 6:12; Hebrews 6:15; James 5:7-8); and for the violent temper described in the second place, we have the state of mind denoted by the word βְ ?αַ ?δּ ?Ξψεּ ?ηַ, “haughty,” or “presumptuous.” Comp. 1 Kings 20:11. Ecclesiastes 7:9. Be not hasty in thy spirit to be angry. The word λְּ ?ςεֹ ?ρ “to be morose,” sensitive [see remarks on Ecclesiastes 7:3 above], is a peculiar species of haughtiness mentioned in the previous verse, and one very frequently and easily occurring; it is not fully expressed by βְ ?αַ ?δּ ψεּ ?ηַ, as Hengstenberg supposes [quite as little as βְ ?αַ ?δּ ψεּ ?ηַ is expressed by ΰֶ ?ψֶ ?κְ ΰַ ?τַ ?ιִ ?νβραδύςείςὀργήν, James 1:19].—For anger rests in the bosom of fools; that is, a fretful, irritable disposition is mainly found in fools, is deeply rooted in their nature and has its homo there. For πεּ ?ηַ, in this sense see Proverbs 16:33; Isaiah 11:2; Isaiah 25:11. For the sentence see Job 5:2; Proverbs 12:16. Ecclesiastes 7:10. Say not what is the cause, etc. Finding fault with the present, and a one-sided praise of past times, is a well-known characteristic of peevish and fretful dispositions, and of those surly carpers at fate of Ecc 7:16, and those difficiles, queruli, laudatores temporis acti of the Horatian epistola ad Pisones, (line 173). For thou dost not inquire wisely concerning this. That is, not so that thy question is made on the basis of wise reflection, and therefore proceeds from this source. Comp. the similar use of the preposition ξִ ?ο, Ecclesiastes 2:10; Psalms 28:7. Ecclesiastes 7:11-12. The praise of wisdom, in so far as it is in harmony with a thoughtful, patient, and even soul.—Wisdom is good with an inheritance. [Zφckler: as an inheritance]. ςִ ?νπַ ?ηֲ ?μָ ?δ does not mean “with an inheritance or fortune,” as if the sense were the same as that in Ecclesiastes 5:18 (Sept., Vulg., Luther). The connection decides against this, as well as against the view of Ewald: “in comparison with an inheritance,” and against the still more unfitting view of Hahn: “wisdom is good against destiny.” (!) ςִ ?ν is undoubtedly used in the same sense as in Ecclesiastes 2:16; Genesis 18:23; Psalms 73:5; Job 9:26.—And by it there is profit to them that see the sun; i.e., for the living (comp. Ecclesiastes 6:5; and the Homeric ὁρανφάοςἠελίο̣ιο, also the Latin, diem videre). Herzfeld, Hitzig, and Henostenberg unnecessarily take ιֹ ?ϊֵ ?ψ in the adverbial sense of “more, better still,” in order to let the second clause appear as an intensification of the first. The adjective or rather the substantive sense, corresponds better to the poetical character of the passage, and is equivalent to ιִ ?ϊְ ?ψεֹ ?ο; in support of which Ecclesiastes 6:8 may be quoted, and in which the second clause becomes the exact parallel of the first. Ecclesiastes 7:12. For wisdom is a defence, and moneys is a defence. (Lit. Ger., in the shadow of wisdom, in the shadow of money). That is, he who dwells in the shadow of wisdom is just as much protected as he who passes his life in the protection of much money; therefore an exact, parallel in sense with Ecclesiastes 7:11, first clause. Symmachus is correct: σκέπεισοφιαὡςσκέπειτὸ ἀργύριον; but the Vulgate is not wholly so: “Sicut enimprolegit sapientia, sic protegit pecunia.” Knobel and Hitzig are too artificial in saying that αְּ here is the beth essentiζ, which would be therefore translated: “Wisdom is a shadow, (that is a defence) and money is a shadow.” αְּ ?φֵ ?μ is rather to be taken here as in Psalms 91:1, where it is parallel with αְּ ?ρֵ ?ϊֶ ?ψ. The shadow is here used as a symbol of protection, with the subordinate idea of the agreeable, as also in Psalms 121:4; Isaiah 32:2-3; Isaiah 32:2; Lamentations 4:20, etc.—But the excellence of knowledge is; i.e., the advantage that knowledge (γַּ ?ςַ ?ϊ comp. Ecclesiastes 1:16) has over money, that which makes it more valuable than money. γַּ ?ςַ ?ϊ here alternates with ηָ ?λְ ?ξָ ?δ simply on account of the poetical parallelism.—Wisdom giveth life to them that have it; lit., “it animates him” (ϊְּ ?ηַ ?ιֶ ?δ). ηִ ?ιָ ?δ is not “to keep in life” (Hitzig), but “to grant life,” i.e., to bestow a genuine happy life. Comp. Job 36:6; Psalms 16:11; Psalms 38:9; Proverbs 3:18; especially the last passage, which may be quoted as most decisive for our meaning. Hengstenberg lays too much stress on ϊְּ ?ηַ ?ιֶ ?δ in claiming for it the sense of reanimating, of the resurrection of that which was spiritually dead (according to Hosea 6:2; Luke 15:32, etc.); and Knobel too little, when he declares: “wisdom affords a calm and contented spirit.”Ecclesiastes 7:13. Consider the work of God; for who can make that straight which He hath made crooked? A return to the exhortations to a calm, patient spirit (Ecclesiastes 7:9-10), with reference to God’s wise and unchangeable counsel and will, to which we must yield in order to learn true patience and tranquility. The connection between the first and second clauses is as follows: In observing the works of God thou wilt find that His influence is eternal and immutable; for who can make that straight which He hath made crooked, i.e., harmonize the defects and imperfections of human life decreed by Him; comp. Ecclesiastes 1:15; Ecclesiastes 6:10; Job 12:14; Romans 9:9. As this connection of thought is evident enough, one need not, with Hitzig and others, take λִ ?ι in the sense of “that,” to which indeed the interrogative form of the second clause would be unfitting. Ecclesiastes 7:14. In the day of prosperity be joyful.—αְּ ?θεֹ ?α is equivalent to αְּ ?μֶ ?αΞθεֹ ?α. Comp. Ecclesiastes 9:7; 1 Kings 8:66; Sir 14:14.—But in the day of adversity consider. “Behold, look at, observe” [namely the following truth]; comp. ψָ ?ΰָ ?δ in Ecclesiastes 7:13. Ewald is harsh and artificial in his rendering: “and bear the day of misfortune,” taking ψָ ?ΰָ ?δαְּ in a sense that he claims is sustained by Genesis 21:16.—God also hath set the one over against the other. This is the substance of that which one must consider in adversity, fully corresponding with what Job says in Ecclesiastes 2:10.—To the end that man should find nothing after him; i.e., in order that he may fathom nothing that lies beyond his present condition (ΰַ ?ηֲ ?ψָ ?ιε as in Ecclesiastes 3:22; Ecclesiastes 6:12), or in order that the future that lies behind him, or, according to our more usual expression, that lies before him, remain hidden and concealed from him, and that he may, in no wise, count on it, but rather remain in all things unconditionally dependent on God, and His grace (Elster, Vaihinger and Hengstenberg are correct on this point). ςַ ?μγִֹּ ?αְ ?ψַ ?ϊωֶׁ ?μֹּ ?ΰ lit.: “on account of that, that not” (comp. ςַ ?μγִּ ?αְ ?ψַ ?ϊ, “on account of,” Ecclesiastes 3:18; Ecclesiastes 8:2) is not equivalent to “so that not,” [Luther in his Commentary], or, “therefore, because not” [Hitzig and Hahn], but clearly introduces the divine dispensation in assigning sometimes good and sometimes evil days; therefore it should be rendered “to the end that.” 4. Third strophe. Ecclesiastes 7:15-22. Of the value of the fear of God and humble self-appreciation. All things have I seen, etc. “All,” i.e., not all kinds [Luther, Vaihinger, Hengstenberg], but everything possible, everything that can come into consideration, everything to whose consideration I could be directed (according to Ecclesiastes 7:13-14). In the days of my vanity. i.e., since I belong to this vain, empty life of earth. There is no indication that these vain days passed completely by during the life of the speaker, and this passage cannot, therefore, be used as a proof that Solomon, who became repentant in his old age, is the speaker.—There is a just man that perisheth in his righteousness.—ιֵ ?ωׁ, “there is,” does not belong to ΰαֵֹ ?γ, but to φַ ?γִּ ?ιχ, therefore the meaning is not “the just man perisheth.” αְּ ?φִ ?γְ ?χεֹ is not “through his righteousness” (Umbreit, Vaihinger, Hitzig); but in it; comp. Ewald, Lehrbuch, § 217, 3, f. The intention here is to announce something which Koheleth saw, an evident fact; but this is only the external connection, the association of righteousness and misfortune; not, on the contrary, the misfortune effected through righteousness. The same thing occurs in the following clause, where αְּ ?ψָ ?ςָ ?ϊεֹ is not to be understood as “through” but in, that is, in spite of his wickedness. But the author desires by no means to present that righteousness in which one perisheth as blameless, but has doubtless here in view, as in the subsequent verse, that self-righteousness, that apparent outward righteousness which our Lord so often had to censure in the Pharisees (Matthew 5:20; Luke 5:32; Luke 15:7, etc.) and which appeared quite early in Old Testament history as a religiously moral tendency, comp. Int. § 4, Obs. 3.—And there is a wicked man that prolongeth his life in his wickedness. ξַ ?ΰֲ ?ψִ ?ικְ with ιָ ?ξָ ?ιε understood, comp. Ecclesiastes 8:12-13; Deuteronomy 22:7; Proverbs 28:2; Proverbs 28:16, etc.Ecclesiastes 7:16. Be not righteous overmuch neither make thyself overwise. Clearly a warning against that strictly exact, but hypocritical and external righteousness of those predecessors of the Pharisees to whom the preceding verse referred. δִ ?ϊְ ?ηַ ?λֵּ ?ν (Reflexive of ηִ ?λֵּ ?ν “to make wise”) can scarcely here signify anything else than as in Exodus 1:10; therefore sapientem se gessit, not sapientem se putavit. This expression “make thyself not over wise,” is consequently not a warning against vainly imagining that one is wise, but against the effort to appear eminently wise, and against, a pretentious assumption of the character of a teacher of wisdom, in short, against that Pharisaical error which Christ ensures in Matthew 23:6-7 : φιλοῦσιν—καλεῖσθαιὑπὸ τῶνἀνθρώπωνῤαββί, ῤαββί. Why shouldst thou destroy thyself? Namely by the curse which God has put upon the vices of arrogance, and hypocrisy; Comp. Christ’s expressions of woe unto you Pharisees ! in Matthew 23. Hitzig says: “Why wilt thou isolate thyself?” This is a useless enfeebling of the sense; foreEcc Ecclesiastes 7:15, as well as Ecclesiastes 7:17-18 show that the warning of the author is meant in all seriousness, and that he refers to divine and not merely human punishment. Comp. also the sentence of Eze 33:11, so closely allied with this present one: “Why will ye die; O house of Israel?” and also Ecclesiastes 4:5. Ecclesiastes 7:17. Be not over much wicked, neither be thou foolish. Koheleth does not recommend a certain moderation in wickedness as though he considered it allowable, but simply and alone because he recognizes the fact as generally acknowledged and certain that in some respects at least, every man is somewhat wicked by nature; see Ecclesiastes 7:20-22. He who is “over much wicked” is the maliciously wicked or downright ungodly one (δָ ?ψָ ?ωָׁ ?ς), who sins not merely from weakness, but with consciousness of evil (comp. Lev. 42:27; Numbers 15:27; Ecclesiastes 5:6). Such a one is eo ipso “foolish” (ρָ ?λָ ?μ) μαινόμενοςοῇ ἀδικία, that is, a fool in the sense of Psa 14:1; Psalms 53:1.—Why shouldst thou die before thy time? That is, before the time assigned thee by God. For this thought of the shortening of the days of the wicked through divine justice, comp. Proverbs 10:27; Psalms 55:23; Job 15:32; Job 22:16. Ecclesiastes 7:18. It is good that thou shouldst take hold of this; yea, from this also withdraw not thine hand. A recommendation to avoid the two extremes of false righteousness and bold wickedness (of the Pharisees and Sadducees) harmonizing with the thought of Horace: “Medium tenuere beati; medio tutissimus ibis:” and this is not meant in the superficial sense of the ethical eclecticism of the later Greeks and Romans, but in that stern religious sense, which the Lord expresses when, in Matthew 23:23, in words most nearly allied to these, (ταῦταδὲ ἔδειποσῆσαικἀκεῖναμὴ ἄφιεναι) He demands the most conscientious connection between the outer and the inner fulfilment of the law.—For he who feareth God shall come forth of them all. Namely from the bad consequences of false righteousness and those of indecent contempt of the law, and bold immorality. ιָ ?φָ ?ΰ with the accusative, signifies here as in Jeremiah 10:20, (αָּ ?πַ ?ιιְ ?φָ ?ΰֻ ?πִ ?ι, “my children desert me”), Genesis 44:4 (ιָ ?φְ ?ΰεּ ΰֶ ?ϊΞδָ ?ςִ ?ιψ “they went out of the city”), Amos 4:3, etc.: “to go from something, to escape a thing,” (comp. also 1 Samuel 14:41). Hitzig’s view gives a somewhat different sense: “He who feareth God goes with both,” i.e., does not strive to exceed the just medium; this is similar to the Vulgate (nihil negligit) and to the Syriac (utrique inhζret). But the usus loquendi is rather more in favor of the former meaning. Ecclesiastes 7:19. Wisdom strengtheneth the wise. Lit., “proves itself strong to him (ϊָּ ?ςֹ ?ζμֶ ?ηָ ?λָ ?ν) more than,” etc., i.e., it protects him better, defends him more effectually. More than ten mighty men which are in the city; than ten heroes which are at the head of the troops, than ten commanders surrounded by their forces, to whom the defence of the besieged city is entrusted. For the sentence comp. Proverbs 10:15, (where χִ ?ψְ ?ιַ ?ϊςֹ ?ζ reminds of ςָ ?ζַ ?ζμְ) Proverbs 21:22; Proverbs 24:5. The wisdom whose mightily protecting and strengthening influence is here lauded, is of course, that genuine wisdom which is in harmony with the fear of God; it is that disposition and demeanor which hold the true evangelical mean between the extremes of false righteousness and lawlessness, which forms the necessary contrast and the corrective to “the being over wise” censured in Ecclesiastes 7:16. Ecclesiastes 7:20. For there is not a just man upon earth who doeth good and sinneth not. Therefore (this is the unexpressed conclusion), every one needs this true wisdom for his protection against the justice of God; no one can dispense with this only reliable guide in the way of truth. This sentence confirms the 19th verse in the first place, and then the whole preceding warning against the extremes of hypocrisy and impenitence. Comp. the similar confessions of the universal sinfulness of our race in Psalms 130:3; Psalms 143:2; Job 9:2; Job 14:3; Proverbs 20:9; 1 Kings 8:46. Ecclesiastes 7:21-22 are not simply connected with Ecclesiastes 7:20, as Knobel supposes, (who brings out the sequence of thought by means of the idea that as sinners we fall short of our duty, and cause adverse judgments against ourselves) but is also connected with all the preceding verses from the 15th on, so that the connection of ideas is as follows: You will certainly receive the manifold censure of men for living according to the doctrines of this wisdom (you will be considered hypocritical, excessively austere, eccentric, etc.,); but do not be led astray by this, and do not listen to it; and this out of humility, because you must ever be conseious of your faults, and therefore know sufficiently well what is true in the evil reports of men, and what is not.—Also take no heed unto all the words that are spoken. That is, do not cast all to the wind that thou hearest, but only, do not be over anxious about their evil reports concerning thee; do not be curious to hear how they judge thee. We are therefore warned against idle curiosity and latent desire of praise, and reminded of the very significant circumstance that one’s own servant may accord to the vain listener disgrace and imprecation, instead of the desired honor. Ecclesiastes 7:22. For ofttimes also thine own heart knoweth that thou thyself likewise hast cursed others. The expression, “thine own heart,” is clearly equivalent to the guilty conscience that accuses man of his former sins, especially of his unkindness to his neighbor, and his violations of the eighth commandment, and thereby demands of him a more humble self-appreciation, and a wiser restraint in intercourse with others. τְ ?ςָ ?ξִ ?ινψַ ?αּ ?εϊ may be considered either as the accusative of time—“many times”—or the objective accusative—“many cases”—but belongs in either case closely to ιָ ?γַ ?ς, not to χִ ?μַּ ?μְ ?ϊָּ. The first βַ ?ν is, in strictness, superfluous. ΰֲ ?ωֶׁ ?ψ at the beginning of the second clause, is not “so that” (Elster), but “there where” (“where it happened that,” etc.); comp. Genesis 35:13-15; 2 Samuel 19:25. AND ETHICAL(With Homiletical Hints.)This section has three divisions describing the nature of genuine wisdom in three principal phases;—as an earnestness of life, despising the world, as patience, resigned to God, and as an humble penitent fear of God. Of these, the third affords a rich harvest in the dogmatic field, and mainly by emphasizing one of the most important anthropological truths of the entire Old Testament revelation, namely, the universal sinfulness of the human race (see especially Ecclesiastes 7:20, and also the parallel passages there quoted from Psalms, Job and the Proverbs). This truth appears here in a connection which is the more significant because it forms the background, and the deepest motive, to all the preceding admonitions. It explains not only the preceding warning against the two extremes of hypocritical and false righteousness and bold lawlessness, (the cardinal vice of Jew and Gentile before Christ, or the fundamental error of Pharisees and Sadducees among the later Jews); but it also finally serves as a basis and impulse (in the first two strophes) to the admonitions to holy earnestness, and to a calm and resigned state of soul. In the admonition to a stern contempt of the world and its pleasures, this is especially clear; for this admonition closes in verse 7 with the highly impressive reference to the fact, that even wise men are exposed to the seduction of vices and follies of divers kinds, whence directly springs the duty of turning from the busy tumult of the world, and of anxious zeal for one’s own salvation in fear and trembling. But the second division (Ecclesiastes 7:8-14) also presupposes the fact that men, without exception, lie under the burden of sin; as it declares wisdom [which is unconditional resignation to the divine will] to be the only dispenser of true life (Ecclesiastes 7:12) and describes, as the salutary fruit of such wisdom, the patient endurance of the evil as well as the good days which God sends. It needs no further illustration to prove that this significant attention to the principal anthropological truth of the Old Testament gives to this chapter a peculiarly evangelical character,—especially with the quite numerous parallels in New Testament history. (Comp. Matthew 5:4; Luke 6:25; James 5:9, etc., with Ecclesiastes 7:3-4; Ecclesiastes 7:6; and 2 Corinthians 7:10 with Ecclesiastes 7:3; James 5:7-8 with Ecclesiastes 7:8; James 1:19 with Ecclesiastes 7:9; Matthew 23:5 ff. with Ecclesiastes 7:16 ff.; Matthew 23:23 with Ecclesiastes 7:18; Romans 3:23 with Ecclesiastes 7:20). We may regard the following as the leading proposition of the entire section : The universality of human sin and the only true remedy for it. Or, God withstands the arrogant and grants His favor to the humble; or, “Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted; Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth; Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness : for they shall be filled” (Matthew 5:4-6, three beatitudes of the sermon on the mount, corresponding to the three divisions of this chapter).—Comp. also Starke. Two rules for Christian conduct: 1. Be ever mindful of death (1–7); 2. Be patient and contented (8–29). homiletical hints on separate passagesVer. I. Cramer:—Faith, a good conscience, and a good name, are three precious jewels; we can get nothing better than these from this world.—Starke :—The death of the saints is the completion of their struggle against sin, the devil and the world; it is to them a door of life, an entrance into eternal rest and perfect security.—Hengstenberg:—The difference between the proposition in the latter clause of the first verse, and similar expressions in the Gentile world, is that the Gentiles did not possess the key to explanation of human sorrows on earth, and did not understand how to bring them into harmony with divine justice and love. Ecclesiastes 7:2. Melanchthon:—In prosperity, men become reckless; they think less of God’s wrath, and less expect His aid. Thus they become more and more presumptuous; they trust to their own industry, their own power, and are thus easily driven on by the devil.—Tόbingen Bible: Joy in the world is the mark of a man drowned in vanity. It is much better to mourn over sin, and, in reflecting on this vanity, to seek a higher joy that is in God.—Starke:—Although not all cheerfulness is forbidden to the Christian (Philippians 4:4), it is always safer to think with sorrow of one’s sin, guilt, and liability to punishment, than to assume a false gladsotmeness.—Hengstenberg:—Periods of sorrow are always periods of blessings for the Church.—Deichert: [Sermon on Ecclesiastes 7:3-9, in the collection of Old Testament sermons: “The Star out of Jacob, Stuttgard, 1867, p. Ecc 208:]” The house of lamentation is a school of humility. 1. In the house of mourning proud thoughts are abased; 2. There, especially, is the vain pleasure of the world recognized in its emptiness; 3. There, also, we learn to prize the end of a thing more highly than its beginning. Ecclesiastes 7:6-7. Luther:—The joy of fools seems as if it would last forever, and does indeed blaze up, but it is nothing. They have their consolation for a moment, then comes misfortune, that casts them down: then all their joy lies in the ashes..... Pleasure, and vain consolation of the flesh, do not last long, and all such pleasures turn into sorrow, and have an evil end.—Starke:—(Ecclesiastes 7:7), Even a wise and God-fearing man is in danger of being turned from the good way (1 Corinthians 10:12); therefore watchfulness and prayer are necessary that we may not be carried back again to our evil nature (1 Peter 5:8). Ecclesiastes 7:8. Melanchthon:—.In this saying he demands perseverance in good counsels (Matthew 10:12); for the good cause appears better in the event. Though much that is adverse is to be borne, nevertheless the right and true triumph in the end.—Lange:—The beginning and the continuance of Christianity are connected with sorrows; but these sorrows are followed by a glorious and blissful end (2 Corinthians 4:17.—Berleb. Bible:—Blessed is he who under all circumstances behaves with quiet patience, arms himself with humble resignation and great cheerfulness, adapts himself to good and evil times, and ever finds strength and pleasure in the words: “Thy will be done!”—Hengstenberg:—It is folly to stop at what lies immediately before our eyes; it is wisdom, on the contrary, in the face of the fortune of the wicked, to say: “For they shall soon be cut down like the grass and wither as the green herb.” Psalms 37:2; Psalms 92:7; Psalms 129:6). If we only do not hasten in anger, God in His own time will remove the inducement to anger from our path. Cramer:—It proceeds from men alone that time is better at one period than at another; on their account also time must be subjected to vanity.—Geier:—The best remedy against evil times is to pray zealously, penitently to acknowledge the deserved punishment of sin, patiently to bear it and heartily to trust in God.—Wohlfarth:—Let us hear the voice of truth! In its light, impartially comparing the present and the past, we shall arrive at the conviction that every period has its peculiar advantages and defects, and that with all the unpleasant features that rest upon our time it nevertheless presents a greater measure of happiness than any former one. Instead, therefore, of embittering the advantages of our epoch by foolish complaints, making its burdens heavier, and weakening our own courage, we should seek rather to become wisely familiar with it, and to remove its defects or make them less perceptible. Ecclesiastes 7:11-14. Starke: (Ecclesiastes 7:11-12):—If you are to have but one of two things, you should much rather dispense with all riches than with heavenly wisdom, that after this life you may have eternal blessedness (Wis 7:8-10).—Cartwright (Ecclesiastes 7:13):—When a bird is caught in a net, the more he struggles the more tightly is he held. So if a man is taken in the net of Providence, the safest course for him, is to yield himself wholly to the divine will as that which, with the highest good, does nothing unwise or unjust (Job 34:12).—Hengstenberg:—We must be led to contentment in sorrow, by the reflection that it comes from the same God that sends us happiness (Job 2:10). If the sender is the same, there must be in the sending, in spite of all external inequality, an essential equality. God, even when He imposes a cross, is still God, our heavenly Father, our Saviour, who has thoughts of peace regarding us. Ecclesiastes 7:15-18. Luther:—The substance is this: Summum jus summa injuria. He who would most rigidly regulate and rectify everything, whether in the State-or in the household, will have much labor, little or no fruit. On the other hand, there is one who would do nothing, and who contemns the enforcement of justice. Neither is right. As you would not be over-righteous, see to it that you be not over-wicked,—that is, that you do not contemn and neglect all government committed to you, thus letting everything fall into evil. It may be well to overlook some things, but not to neglect everything. If wisdom does not succeed, you are not, therefore, to get mad with rage and vengeance. Mind that you be just, and others with you, enforce piety, firmly persevere, however it may turn out. You must fear lest He come as suddenly and call you to judgment, as he took away the soul of the rich man in the night he thought not of.—Cramer, (Ecclesiastes 7:16) :—Those rulers are over-just who search everything too closely; and the theologians are over-wise who, in matters of faith, wish to direct everything according to their own reason.—Zeyss, (Ecclesiastes 7:17):—Wickedness itself is already a road to ruin; but where foolish arrogance joins it, so that one boldly sins, divine punishment and vengeance are thereby hastened (Sir 5:4 ff.).—Hengstenberg:—Godly fear escapes the danger of Phariseeism by awakening in the heart an antipathy against deceiving God by the tricks of a heartless and false righteousness; but it also escapes the danger of a life of sin, because the power arising from the confession of sin is inseparably connected with it (Isaiah 6:5); for with the fear of God is connected a tender aversion to offending God by sin (Genesis 39:9) as also the lively desire to walk in the way of His commandments (Psalms 119:16.) Ecclesiastes 7:19-22. Zeyss, (Ecclesiastes 7:19-20):—The universal ruin produced by sin must lead every one to heartfelt penitence and humility (Ezra 9:6.)—Starke, (Ecclesiastes 7:21-22):—The wisdom of the Creator has given us two ears and only one tongue, in order to teach us that we must hear twice before we speak once (James 1:19). If anything grieves thee, examine thyself to learn whether thou hast not deserved it by evil conduct; humble thyself concerning it before God, suffer patiently, and do it no more!—Hengstenberg:—In times of severe sorrow it is important that, in the suffering, we recognize the deserved punishment for our sins. That brings light into the otherwise obscure providence of God, a light that stills the rising of the soul, that animates the hope. If we recognize the footsteps of God in the deserved sorrow, the confidence in His mercy soon becomes strong. C. True Wisdom must be Energetically Maintained and Preserved in Presence of all the Attractions, Oppressions, and other Hostilities on the part of this WorldEcc_7:23 to Ecclesiastes 8:151. Against the enticements of this world, and especially unchastity (Ecclesiastes 7:23-29)23All this have I proved by wisdom: I said, I will be wise; but it was far from 24me. That which is far off, and exceeding deep, who can find it out ? 25I applied mine heart to know, and to search, and to seek out wisdom, and the reason of things, and to know the wickedness of folly, even of foolishness and madness: 26And I find more bitter than death the woman whose heart is snares and nets, and her hands as bands : whoso pleases God shall escape from her; but the sinner shall be taken by her. 27Behold, this have I found, saith the Preacher, counting one by one, to find out the account: 28Which yet my soul seeketh, but I find not: one man among a thousand have I found; but a woman among all those have I not found. 29Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions. Footnotes:[See Metrical Version, and the remarks on this passage Introd. to Met. Vers. page 179.—T. L.] [The common view of this passage as given in E. V., which makes the wise man the object of oppression, is unquestionably wrong, though so often quoted and used as historical illustration. It does not agree with δεֹ ?μֵ ?μ, which does not mean the madness of frenzy caused by a sense of wrong, but vain glory, extravagance, inflation, coming from inward wrong-feeling. Zφckler is doubtless right in saying that it does not denote passively the oppression which the wise man suffers from others; but his rendering “pressure” seems forced and far from being clear. ςωֶׁ ?χ may denote a state of soul leading to wrong and oppression, as well as the outward act itself; as in Psalms 73:8, εִ ?ιγַ ?αְּ ?ψεּ ςωֶׁ ?χ is parallel to ξִ ?ξָּ ?ψεֹ ?νιְ ?αֵּ ?ψεּ, “they speak lofty,” arrogantly. Compare also Isaiah 59:13, where it is joined with ρָ ?ψָ ?δ “perverseness,” and falsehood. See also Psalms 62:11. The connection, then, is with Ecclesiastes 7:5 : “To hear the reproving of the wise is better than to listen to the song of fools.” Ecclesiastes 7:6 is simply an illustration of what is meant by the song of fools, and then follows the brief clause, “this too is vanity,” which, although connected by the accents with Ecclesiastes 7:6, must refer to the whole context that precedes; since it would seem superfluous thus to characterize simply the empty talk of fools. It is frequently the case in Koheleth that an admonition, or serious maxim, given in one sentence, is afterwards qualified, if not wholly modified or retracted, in another; as though there were some vanity even in the gravest of human words or acts. βַּ ?ρΞζֶ ?δδָ ?αֶ ?μ, “this too may be vanity.” that is, “the reproof of the wise,” or of the judge, (as Zφckler, from the context, correctly regards him); for his own arrogance, or perverseness of temper, may lead him astray, or a bribe may corrupt his heart. And thus there is brought out, what seems evidently intended, a contrast between the inward and outward deranging power. —T. L.] [There seems no good reason for departing here from the usual sense of ςִ ?ν with, in connection with. The other passages referred to explain themselves. The word πַ ?ηֲ ?μָ ?δ, as used in many places, does not mean inheritance generally, like ιְ ?ψֵ ?ωָׁ ?δ but a rich and ample possession, in a most favorable sense, as one given by the Lord, or inherited from one’s father, an estate, or property. The sense is obvious: Wisdom is a good alone, but when joined with an ample estate, as a means of doing good, then is it especially an advantage to the sons of men. See Metrical Version.—T. L.] [Ecclesiastes 7:12. δַ ?ηָ ?λְ ?ξָ ?δϊְּ ?δַ ?ιֶּ ?δ, rendered “wisdom giveth life.” We cannot help thinking that Koheleth means more here than Zφckler‘s interpretation would give, or any of the others he mentions. There is a contrast, too, giving the connection of thought, which they all fail to bring out. “In the shade of wisdom, as in the shade of wealth;” that is, in both is there a defence. Defence of what? Of life evidently. In this they both agree; but knowledge, wisdom (variety of expression for the same thing), does more than this. Its great pre-eminence is, that it giveth life to its possessors (ϊְּ ?ηַ ?ιֶּ ?δ makes them alive). This means something more than mere animating, in the ordinary sense of cheering, enlivening, or making happy, etc. Knowledge is life. Vivere est cogitare. It is, in a high sense, the soul’s being. It is true of mere human knowledge, science, philosophy, intuition. Much more may it be said of divine or spiritual knowledge. “Man lives not by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God,” Deuteronomy 8:3; Matthew 4:4. “The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life,” John 6:63. It is not merely spiritual, that is, moral reanimation, as Hengstenberg would have it, but the very life of the soul. It is a sufficient argument against the other interpretations given, that in falling short of this they lose the contrast, and fail to exhibit that connection to which the antithetical nicety of the proverbial diction evidently points.—T. L.] [Ecclesiastes 7:16. “Be not over-righteous,” etc. There is no reason for regarding φַ ?γִּ ?ιχ, in the 15th verse, as having any other than its ordinary sense, or the truly righteous man. It is the same experience that Koheleth presents elsewhere, the just man in this world having the same lot as the wicked, and sometimes suffering when the wicked seems to escape with impunity,—like the experience of the Psalmist, Psalms 73:4-5. The φַ ?γִּ ?ιχ, in the 16th verse, is, doubtless, suggested by that in the preceding, but such a fact would not necessitate their having precisely the same meaning; since the connection may be poetical, or suggestive, rather than logical. Zφckler’s idea, therefore, of its meaning here the self-righteous, or Pharisaical, might be sustained, perhaps, without carrying the idea into the preceding verse. His view of the φַ ?γִּ ?ιχδַ ?ψְ ?αֵּ ?δ, the over-righteous, is very similar to that of Jerome, who interprets the passage as a condemnation of one who over-judges, rigidum et trucem ad omnia fratrum peccata,—the worthy father, perhaps, little thinking how distinctly he was giving a feature of his own character. “Do not,” he says, “in this respect, be too just (that is, too rigid), because ‘an unjust weight,’ be it too great or too small, ‘is an abomination to the Lord.’ ” And then he cites our Lord’s precept, Matthew 7, Judge not, etc. The being over-wise he refers to proud or curious inquiring into the hidden works and ways of God, such as Paul condemns, Romans 9:20, and the confounding to the effect produced by God’s rebuke, or such an answer as the Apostle gives: “Nay, who art thou, O man?” Stuart renders it, “do not overdo.” Rabbi Schelomo, following the Targum and Jewish authorities so early as to be referred to by Jerome, regards φַ ?γִּ ?ιχ as meaning kind or merciful, and alleges the example of Saul, who through mistaken clemency, spared the life of Agag. Others refer it to a too strict judging of the ways of Providence, or the arraigning them for what seems to us unjust; as when we see the righteous perish and the wicked man living on in his wickedness. An argument for this interpretation is the support it seems to have from Ecclesiastes 7:15. Another interpretation regards it as a caution against asceticism and moroseness, in denying one’s self innocent pleasures for fear of finding sin in them. This is the view of Maimonides in the yad Hachazakah, Part I., Lib. 4., Sec. III., 3, 4. Akin to this is the view, stated by him, which regards it as rebuking works of supererogation, —as when a man attempts to do more than the law requires. If we keep in view, however, the general scope of this musing, meditative, book, it will be found, we think, that the two members here mean very much the same thing: Do not view the world, or the ways of God, too narrowly, as though we, from our exceedingly limited position, could determine what it would be just or unjust for God to do, or permit. This is in harmony with the preceding verse. It furnishes us with a key to the transition in the train of thought: When you see the righteous suffer, and the wicked prosper, do not let the thought, or even feeling, arise in your mind that you could, or would, be more equitable, if you had the management of the world. This is agreeable to the general style of Koheleth,—one thought correcting what seems too strongly stated, or which may be liable to misunderstanding, in another. It is also in perfect harmony with what follows: “Be not overwise;” that is do not speculate too much, or theorize too much, ΰַ ?μϊִּ ?ϊְ ?ηַ ?λַּ ?ν, do not play the philosopher too much; you know too little; your Baconianism (as he might have said had he lived in these our boasting times) has too small an area of inductive facts from which to construct systems of the universe (especially in its moral and spiritual aspects) out of nebular hypotheses. This corresponds with what is said Ecclesiastes 3:11, about “the world so given to the minds of men that they cannot find out the work that God worketh, the end from the beginning.” It is the same idea that we have Ecclesiastes 8:17 : “Man cannot find out the work that is done under the sun, and even if a wise man (a philosopher) say that he knows it, he shall not be able to discover it.” The Vulgate renders it, neque plus sapias quam necesse est. Jerome, in his Latin Version, ne quζras amplius, LXX μὴ σοφίζου. The whole precept, then, may be taken as a condemnation of that spirit which would be more just and wise than God. No man professes this, or would oven admit that he thus feels, yet it is realized when any one, in any way, finds fault with, or even doubts, or has difficulty with, the ways of God in the world. Such a temper is also condemned Ecclesiastes 5:8 : “If thou seest oppression of the poor, etc., be not astonished concerning such a matter, for He who is high above all is watching them.” Compare also Job 4:7, where the Spirit-voice says to Eliphaz δַ ?ΰֱ ?πεֹ ?ωּׁ ξֵ ?ΰֱ ?μεֹ ?δַּ ιִ ?φְ ?γָּ ?χ, “shall a man (βροτὸς, mortalis) be more just than God?” This is being φַ ?γִּ ?ιχδַ ?ψְ ?αֵּ ?δ. So also Psalms 37:1 : “Fret not thyself against the evil doers.” The Hithpahel form, ϊִּ ?ϊְ ?ηַ ?λַּ ?ν, would authorize us to understand it of a seeming or affected wisdom, but it more properly means here a prying into the divine mysteries, whether of revelation, or of the supernatural, or an arrogant denial of both, grounded on the comparative infinitesimality of our knowledge. μָ ?ξָּ ?δϊִּ ?ωּׁ ?εֹ ?ξֵ ?ν (for the fuller Hithpahel ϊִּ ?ωְׁ ?ϊּ ?εֹ ?ξֵ ?ν) ne obstupescas (Jerome); rather “why shouldst thou be desolate,” or “make thyself desolate,” which would correspond to the first interpretation of ϊϊηλν, “alone in thy wisdom;” or “why shouldst thou be confounded.” He who presumes to settle matters too high for him, will surely, in some way, be taught his ignorance and his folly.—T. L. [There is no indication to the contrary, it should rather be said. The Hebrew is remarkably plain, and there is no way of making it mean “since I belong to this vain empty life.” This is too much practised by those who deny the Solomonic origin of the book, thus to take away the force of certain passages that plainly speak for it, and then to reason on their own false hypothesis. Had this expression not occurred at all, the whole hook furnishes evidence that it was written by one who had an unusual experience of the vanities and vicissitudes of life. A mere personator could never have expressed it so feelingly.—T. L.] The Syriac has something here which is not in the Hebrew, nor in any other version, γμΰϊρϊπΰ “that thou mayest not be hated.”—T. L.] [This seems exceedingly forced and far-fetched. Knobel’s view is more so. The simple order of thought may be stated thus: Wise men are scarce, being to the strong men, the ωμιθιν, captains, or principal men in a city, about as one to ten; but one, a truly righteous, or perfectly righteous man, is not found on earth, etc. The wise man of Ecc 7:19, is not the pious man necessarily, or the one who fears God, though that may be included, but wise, simply, in distinction from men of power or political eminence, or wise like the one described Ecclesiastes 9:15, “who saved the city.” Such may be found, but the perfectly righteous is a character that does not exist upon earth. The particle λִּ ?ι here is emphatic, calling attention to the fact regarded as strange, and yet well known. See Metrical Version.—T. L.] 2. Against the temptations to disloyalty and rebellion in national and civil relations (Ecclesiastes 8:1-8)1Who is as the wise man? and who knoweth the interpretation of a thing ? a man’s wisdom maketh his face to shine, and the boldness of his face shall be 2changed. I counsel thee to keep the king’s commandment, and that in regard of the oath of God. 3Be not hasty to go out of his sight: stand not in an evil thing; for he doeth whatsoever pleaseth him. 4Where the word of a king is there is power: and who may say unto him, What doest thou? 5Whoso keepeth the commandment shall feel no evil thing: and a wise man’s heart discerneth both time and judgment. 6Because to every purpose there is time and judgment, therefore the misery of man is great upon him. 7For he knoweth not that which shall 8be: for who can tell him when it shall be ? There is no man that hath power over the spirit to retain the spirit: neither hath he power in the day of death : and there is no discharge in that war; neither shall wickedness deliver those that are given to it. 3. Against the oppressions of tyrants and other injustices (Ecclesiastes 8:9-15.)9All this have I seen, and applied my heart unto every work that is done under the sun: there is a time wherein one man ruleth over another to his own hurt. 10And so I saw the wicked buried, who had come and gone from the place of the holy, and they were forgotten in the city where they had so done: this is also vanity. 11Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil. 12Though a sinner do evil an hundred times, and his days be prolonged, yet surely I know that it shall be well with them that fear God, which fear before him: 13But it shall not be well with the wicked, neither shall he prolong his days, which are as a shadow; because he feareth not before God. 14There is a vanity which is done upon the earth; that there be just men, unto whom it happeneth according to the work of the wicked: again, there be wicked men, to whom it happeneth according to the work of the righteous: I said that this also is vanity. 15Then I commended mirth, because a man hath no better thing under the sun, than to eat, and to drink, and to be merry: for that shall abide with him of his labour the days of his life, which God giveth him under the sun. [Ecclesiastes 7:29. μְ ?αַ ?ψ is not rightly rendered only—“this only have I found.” More correctly, this by itself, or besides, as something beyond what is said before of both sexes.—T. L.] [Ecclesiastes 8:1. ιְ ?ωֻׁ ?πֶּ ?ΰ; there is no need of saying of this that it is more Chaldζo; some such interchange of ΰ for δ is quite common in Hebrew—see the extensive list of cases given by the Jewish grammarian, Jona Ben Gannach. The 70 read ωָׂ ?πֵ ?ΰ to hate. So did the Syriac. ςֹ ?ζτָ ?πָ ?ιζ denotes the sternness, or austerity, of the countenance. Wisdom clears it up, changes it to a bright and joyful aspect. See M. V.—T. L.] [Ecclesiastes 8:2 ΰֲ ?πִ ?ιτּ ?ιΞξֶ ?μֶ ?κְ, Zφckler would supply ΰָ ?ξַ ?ψְ ?ϊִּ ?ι here. There is hardly need of that—I a kings’s mouth; supply simply the substantive verb, “I am a king’s mouth—that heed.” It is an assertion by the writer of his royal right to give such advice. See M. V.—T. L.] [Ecclesiastes 8:10. εּ ?αְ ?λֵ ?ο. See Exeget.—T. L.] [Ecclesiastes 8:11. τִ ?ϊְ ?βָ ?ν. See remarks on the appendix to Introduction, p.33.—T. L.] [Ecclesiastes 8:15. εְ ?ωִׂ ?τַ ?δְ ?ϊִּ ?ι; the conjunction ε here, has more than the mere copulative force. It denotes time, as it frequently does, and also a reason. Its mere conjunctive force is seldom alone when it connects sentences: “’Twas then I praised joy”—that is, when I took this view of things. ΰְַ ?ωֶׁ ?ψ=not simply to ὅτι, but to ὡςὅτι, how that there is, etc.; and that this ιִ ?μְ ?εֶ ?βּ ?εּ will remain, adhere to him.—T. L.] AND The subdivision of this section into three equal divisions or strophes, is indicated by the introductory remarks on the general contents, which are found in Ecclesiastes 7:23-29; Ecclesiastes 8:1; and Ecclesiastes 8:9. The divisions beginning with these passages are clearly different from each other in contents; Ecclesiastes 7:25-29 warns us against voluptuousness; Ecclesiastes 8:2-8 against rebellion towards civil authority; Ecclesiastes 8:9-15 against injustice. Since this latter theme does not close until the 14th and 15th verses, it seems quite improper to extend the third section simply to Ecclesiastes 8:10, as do Hengstenberg, Hitzig, et al., [the general introduction of the first part of Ecc 8:14 is, in comparison with Ecclesiastes 8:1; Ecclesiastes 8:9, and Ecclesiastes 7:23-25 too insignificant to be able to serve as the opening of a new division], just as we must declare the separation of Ecc 8:15 from the preceding, as the beginning of an entirely new section, (Hahn) decidedly inexpedient and destructive of the sense. 2. First Strophe. Introduction. Ecclesiastes 7:23-25. Concerning the difficulty of finding true wisdom, and Koheleth’s zealous search after it.—All this have I proved with wisdom—This, therefore, formed the means and the goal of his searching. For the expression πִ ?λָּ ?δαַּ ?ηָ ?λְ ?ξָ ?δ compare on the one hand ϊּ ?εּ ?ψαַּ ?ηָ ?λְ ?ξָ ?δ Ecclesiastes 1:13, and, on the other, πִ ?ρָּ ?δαְּ ?ωִׂ ?ξְ ?ηָ ?δ, Ecclesiastes 2:1. “All this” certainly does not refer to all the preceding from the beginning of the book, as Hengstenberg asserts, but mainly to the rules of life and practical counsels contained in Ecclesiastes 7:1-22.—But it was far from me—“It,” i.e., wisdom in the absolute sense, perfected wisdom. A partial possession of wisdom is by no means excluded by this humble confession of not having found any; see Ecclesiastes 8:5; Ecclesiastes 7:11-16; Ecclesiastes 7:19, etc. Ecclesiastes 7:24. That which is far off—i.e., the real innermost essence of wisdom lies far from human comprehension; comp. Job 28:12 ff.; Sirach 24:38 ff.; Bar 3:14 ff. Rosenmueller, Herzfeld, Hahn, Elster [and, at an earlier period, also Ewald] correctly consider ξָ ?δωֶּׁ ?δָ ?ιָ ?δ as the subject of the clause; but δָ ?ιָ ?δ cannot then be taken in the preterit sense, as is done by the three first named commentators [Herzfeld : “that remains far off which was far off;” Rosenmueller: procul abest, quod ante aderat; Hahn: “that is far off which has been”]. Knobel, Hitzig, Vaihinger, and, lately, Ewald, affirm that there is an emphatic prefixing of the-predicate “far” before the relative pronoun ξָ ?δ : “That which is far off, and exceeding deep, who can find it out.” But the examples quoted from Ecclesiastes 1:9; Job 23:9 scarcely justify so harsh a construction. The interpretation of Hengstenberg: “that is far off. which, has been,” i.e., the comprehension of what has been or is (τῶνὄντωνγνῶσις, Wisd. of Sol. 7:17) is opposed by the circumstance that, practical wisdom alone is here considered, and not theoretical, for which reason also there can scarcely be a reference to the objective cognition of wisdom, or the knowledge of its objects. The interpretations of most of the ancients are decidedly ungrammatical, as of the Septuagint (μακρὰνὑπὲρὅ ἧν), Vulgate (multo magis quam erat), Luther (“It is far off, what will it be?”); thus also is that of Kφster (“It is far off, what is that”), and so many others.—And exceeding deep.—Lit., “deep, deep.” The repetition of ςָ ?ξֹ ?χ expresses the superlative idea (Ewald, Lehrbuch, § 303 c). Deep signifies difficult to be fathomed, comp. Proverbs 20:5, and especially Job 11:8, where the Divine doing and the Divine government are declared to be the absolute limit of all wisdom, or as “deeper than hell;” see also Psalms 139:8; Romans 11:33. Ecclesiastes 7:25. I applied mine heart.—Lit., “I turned, I and my heart,”—a figure similar to that in Acts 15:28 : ἔδοξεντῷ πνεύματιἁγίωκαὶ ἡμῖν; comp. also the Son 5:2. That the heart also participated in the turning, shows it to be no thoughtless action, but one resting on deep reflection. The simple ρַ ?αּ ?εֹ ?ϊִ ?ι does not express a return from a path formerly followed, but now perceived to be an erroneous one (Hitizig’s view). It is different with εְ ?ρַ ?αּ ?εֹ ?ϊִ ?ι, “then I turned,” Ecclesiastes 2:20, which clearly marks the entrance into a path entirely new, whilst in this passage nothing is affirmed but the transition from a superficial to a deeper and more solicitous searching after wisdom. Comp. Hengstenberg and Vaihinger on this passage, which latter correctly gives the connection thus: “Although wisdom in its fullness is unsearchable and unattainable, I did not refrain from searching after an insight into the relations of things, in order to learn the causes of the want of moral perfection; I wished, however, in learning wisdom, to learn also its counterpart, and thus to see that iniquity is every where folly.”—To know, and to search, and to seek out wisdom, etc.—The two accusatives, wisdom and reason, belong only to the last of the three infinitives (αַּ ?χֵ ?ωׁ); before which μ is left out, in order to separate it externally from the two preceding ones. ηֶ ?ωְׁ ?αּ ?εֹ ?ο is here, as in Ecclesiastes 7:27, “reason, calculation,” a result of the activity of the judgment, in examining and judging of the relations of practical life, therefore equivalent to insight, practical sagacity and knowledge of life. Vaihinger’s interpretation of ηָ ?λְ ?ξָ ?δּ εְ ?ηֶ ?ωְׁ ?αּ ?εֹ ?ο in the sense of “wisdom as calculation,” is unnecessary, and indeed in direct contradiction to the construction in the following clause. The copula also in Ecclesiastes 8:2 does not express the explanatory sense of the expression, “and indeed.”—And to know the wickedness of folly, and even of foolishness and madness.—(Zφckler: “wickedness as folly, foolishness as madness”). That this is to be thus translated is proved by the absence of the article before the second accusative. Comp. for this construction Ewald, § 284 b, and for the sentence, Ecclesiastes 1:17; Ecclesiastes 2:12 f.; Ecclesiastes 10:13. 3. First Strophe. Continuation and Conclusion. Ecclesiastes 7:26-29. A warning concerning an unchaste woman and her seductive arts. Hengstenberg, following older writers [and thus Seb. Schmid, Michael., Lampe, J. Lange, Starke, etc.) maintains that this harlot is an ideal personage, the false wisdom of the heathen; but that she is a representative of the female sex in general in its worst aspect, appears to be incontrovertible from Ecclesiastes 7:28-29, where women in general are represented as the more corrupt portion of humanity, corresponding with Sir 25:24; 1 Timothy 2:12-15. And as parallels to this passage we find above all those warnings of the Proverbs of Solomon against the “harlot” or “strange woman,” i.e., against unchaste intercourse with, women in general; comp. Proverbs 2:16 ff; Proverbs 5:2 ff; Proverbs 7:5 ff; Proverbs 22:14; Proverbs 23:27. And quite as arbitrary as the idealizing of this lascivious woman into the abstract idea of “false wisdom,” is the view of Hitzig, namely, that therein allusion is made to a definite historical person, Agathoclea, mistress of Ptolemy Philopater.—And I find more bitter than death.—For this figure comp. 1 Samuel 15:32; Sir 28:25; Sir 41:1; also Proverbs 5:4, etc.—The woman whose heart is snares and nets.—ΰֲ ?ωֶׁ ?ψ is to be connected with the suffix in μִ ?αָּ ?δּ and δִ ?ιΰ is to be regarded as copula between subject and predicate, which here emphatically precedes. In the comparison of the heart of the harlot to “snares and nets,” and her hands to “bands,” we naturally think, in the first instance, of her words and looks (as expressions of the thoughts of her heart), and, in the second, of voluptuous embraces.—Whoso pleaseth God shall escape from her.—Lit. “He who is good in the sight of God.” Comp. Ecclesiastes 2:26. The meaning is here as there, the God-fearing and just man, the contrary of ηεֹ ?θֵ ?ΰ or sinner, who by her (αָּ ?δּ) i.e., by the nets and snares of her heart, and by her loose seductive arts, is caught. Ecclesiastes 7:27. Behold, this have I found, saith the Preacher.—Notwithstanding Ecclesiastes 1:1; Ecclesiastes 2:12; Ecclesiastes 12:9, where χδֶֹ ?μֶ ?ϊ is without the article, we must still read here ΰָ ?ξַ ?ψδַ ?χּ ?δֶֹ ?μֶ ?ϊ (comp. Ecclesiastes 12:8) and not ΰָ ?ξְ ?ψָ ?δχδֶֹ ?μֶ ?ϊ; for the word χδֶֹ ?μֶ ?ϊ is every where else used as masculine, and the author cannot wish to express a significant contrast between the preaching wisdom and the amorous woman, since the expression, “saith the Preacher,” is here, as in those other passages, a mere introductory formula (though Hengstenberg thinks otherwise).—Counting one by one—namely, considering, reflecting. Lit., “one to the other,” i.e., adding, arranging. The words are adverbially used, as in the phrase λָּ ?πִ ?ινΰֶ ?μλָּ ?πִ ?ιν Genesis 32:31.—To find out the account.—[ηֶ ?ωְׁ ?αּ ?εֹ ?ο as in Ecclesiastes 7:25], giving the result of this action of arranging one after the other. This did not consist in comparison between woman and death, but in a summing up of those unfavorable observations concerning her which necessitates the final judgment, namely, that she is “more bitter than death.” The whole verse clearly refers to the foregoing, and does not, therefore, serve as an introduction to the contents of Ecc 7:28-29, as Hahn and several older authors contend, who begin a new section with this verse. There is rather a certain break immediately before Ecclesiastes 7:28, as the words ΰֲ ?ωֶׁ ?ψςεγαִּ ?χְ ?ωָׁ ?δεְ ?βε at the beginning of this verse show. Ecclesiastes 7:28. Which yet my soul seeketh.—The soul is represented as seeking, to indicate how much this seeking was a matter of the heart to the preacher; comp. the address: “thou whom my soul loveth,” Son 1:17; Son 3:1 ff. The “finding not” is then again attributed to the first person : “and that which I found not.”—One man among a thousand have I found—i.e., among a thousand of the human race, I found, indeed, one righteous one, one worthy of the name of man, and corresponding to the idea of humanity. ΰָ ?γָ ?ν here stands for ΰִ ?ιωׁ as, in the Greek, ἄνθρωπος for ἀνήρ. For the expression “one among a thousand” [lit., out of a thousand] comp. Job 9:3; Job 33:23; but for the sentence, Ecclesiastes 7:20 above, and Job 14:5; Micah 7:2, etc. The hereditary corruption of the entire human race is here as much presupposed as in the parallel passages; for Koheleth will hardly recognize the one righteous man that he found among a thousand as absolutely righteous, and therefore as ΰָ ?γָ ?ν in the primeval, pure and ideal sense of the first man before the fall.—But a woman among all these have I not found. That is, one worthy of the name ΰִ ?ωָּׁ ?δ, in the primeval ideal sense of Gen 2:22-25, I did not find among all that thousand, which presented me at least one proper man. That he never found such a one, consequently that he considered the whole female sex as vicious and highly corrupt, cannot possibly be his opinion, as appears from Ecclesiastes 7:29, as also in Ecclesiastes 9:9. (See the praise of noble women in other documents of the Chokmah literature, as Proverbs 5:19; Proverbs 18:22; Proverbs 31:10 f.; Psalms 128. ff.). But that moral excellence among women, taken as a whole, is much more rarely found than among men, that sin reigns more uncontrolled among the former than the latter, and in the form of moral weakness and proneness to temptation, as well as in the inclination to seduce, to deceive and ensnare—such is clearly the sense of this passage, a sense that harmonizes with Genesis 3:16; Sir 25:24; 2 Corinthians 11:3; 1 Timothy 2:12 ff., as also with numerous other extra-biblical passages. Comp. also these sentences from the Talmud: “It is better to follow a lion than a woman;”—“Who follows the counsel of his wife arrives at hell;”—“The mind of women is frivolous;” also the Greek maxims: θάλασσακαὶ πῦρκαὶ γυνὴ κακὰ τρία;—ὅπουγυναῖκεςεἰσιπάντ̓ ἐκεῖ κακά. Compare also the following Proverb from the Arabic of Meidani; “Women are the snares of Satan,” etc. (Comp. Wohlfarth, Knobel and Vaihinger on this passage). Ecclesiastes 7:29. Lo, this only have I found. μְ ?αַ ?γ, “alone, only” (an adverb as in Isaiah 26:13), here serving to introduce a remark intended as a restriction of what precedes. The fact of the universal sinful corruption of man, expressed indirectly in Ecclesiastes 7:28, is here to be so far restricted that this corruption is not to be considered as innate in humanity through a divine agency, but as brought into the world by man’s own guilt.—That God hath made man upright. ιָ ?ωָׁ ?ψ, upright, good, integer; comp. Genesis 1:26 f.; Genesis 5:1; Genesis 9:6; Wis 2:23.—But they have sought out many inventions. δִ ?ωְּׁ ?απֹ ?εֹ ?ϊ are not “useless subtleties,” (Ewald), but, as the contrast to the idea of ιָ ?ωָׁ ?ψ teaches us: malζ artes, tricks, evil artifices, conceits. 4. Second strophe, Introduction, Ecclesiastes 8:1.—Of the rarity and preciousness of wisdom.—Who is as the wise man? This is no triumphant question, induced, or occasioned by that lucky finding in the last verse of the preceding chapter (Hitzig), but simply an introduction to what follows, by which true wisdom is to be declared a rare treasure of difficult attainment, just as in Ecclesiastes 7:23; Ecclesiastes 8:16 f.—In λְּ ?δֶ ?ηָ ?λָ ?ν, the usually contracted form λֶּ ?ηָ ?λָ ?ν is again expanded, in accordance with a custom often occurring in later authors; comp. Ezekiel 40:25; Ezekiel 47:22; 2 Chronicles 10:7; 2 Chronicles 25:10, etc.—And who knoweth the interpretation of a thing; Zφckler, “of the word,” (γָּ ?αָ ?ψ) namely, of the following assertion, which emphasizes the great work of wisdom according to its influence on the physical well-being and morally just demeanor of men. τֵ ?ωֶׁ ?ψ, a Chaldaic word (comp. Daniel 2:4 ff., Daniel 2:24 ff.; Daniel 4:6; Daniel 4:15), holding the same relation to the synonymous τִֹ ?ϊְ ?ψεֹ ?ο as ιֶ ?ϊֶ ?ψ to ιִ ?ϊְ ?ψεֹ ?ο.—A man’s wisdom maketh his face to shine. That is, it imparts to him a cheerful soul and this on account of the fortunate and satisfactory relations into which it places him. The same figure is found in Numbers 6:25; Psalms 4:7; Job 29:24.—And the boldness of his face shall be changed. ςζֹ τָֹ ?πָ ?ιε is to be explained without doubt according to expressions δֵ ?ςֵ ?ζτָ ?πִ ?ιν, Prov. 7:13; 21:39; or ςַ ?ζΞτָ ?πִ ?ιν Deuteronomy 28:50; Daniel 8:23, and signifies, therefore, that repulsive harshness and stiffness of the features which are a necessary result of a coarse, unamiable, and selfish heart (not exactly “boldness,” as Dφderlein, Dewette, and Gesenius translate, or “displeasure,” as Knobel, Grimm, and Vaihinger). It is therefore the civilizing, softening and morally refining influence of true wisdom on the soul of man, that the author has in view, and which, according to the question in the beginning of the verse, he describes as something mysterious and in need of explanation, and which he explains, partly at least, by the subsequent precepts regarding wise conduct in a civil sphere. Ewald’s comprehension of the passage is in sense not materially different from ours: “And the brightness of his countenance is doubled”—but this is in opposition to the usual signification of ςζֹ as well as that of ωָׁ ?πָ ?δ, which can hardly be rendered “to double.” The explanations of the septuagint, resting on a different punctuation, ιִ ?ωָּׂ ?πֵ ?ΰ instead of ιְ ?ωֻׁ ?πֶּ ?ΰ give a widely different sense ἀναιδὴςπροσώπῳ αὐτοῦ μισήθησεται, which gave rise to that of Luther: “But he who is bold, is malignant;” and Hitzig, in conjunction with Zirkel (and the Vulgate) reads ιְ ?ωַׁ ?πֶּ ?ΰ and thus obtains the sense, “and boldness disfigureth the countenance.” But the word ςζֹ alone hardly means “boldness,” and the change adopted in the punctuation appears the more unnecessary since the sense resulting from it brings the assertion in the last clause into contrast with the one before it, which is in decided opposition to the connection. 5. Second strophe. Continuation. Ecclesiastes 8:2-4. A proper demeanor towards kings the first means of realizing true wisdom.—I counsel thee to keep the king’s commandment. To ΰֲ ?πִ ?ι supply ΰָ ?ξַ ?ψְ ?ϊִּ ?ι or ΰξֵֹ ?ψ, a somewhat harsh ellipse, for which however we may quote parallels in Isaiah 5:9; Jeremiah 20:10, and elsewhere. Therefore it is unnecessary, with Hitzig, to punctuate ωֹׁ ?ξֵ ?ψ “I keep the king’s commandment” (thus the Vulgate). That ωׁ ?εֹ ?ξֵ ?ψ stands in Ecclesiastes 8:5 below in scriptio plena would form no valid objection against the allowableness of this change of the imperative into the participle; for ωֹׁ ?ξֵ ?ψ is also found in Ecclesiastes 11:4. But, as Elster correctly observes: “it would be surprising if Koheleth did not appear here in his usual manner as a teacher who admonishes others, but only as announcing what he has laid down as a principle to himself.” “To regard the mouth of the king” means of course, to render obedience to his commands; comp. Genesis 45:21; Exodus 17:1; Job 39:27, etc.—And that in regard of the oath of God, which thou hast vowed to him, the King. The duty of obedience to worldly authority is here insisted on with reference to loyalty towards God, the heavenly witness to the vow made to the king; comp. Matthew 22:21; Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-17. These New Testament parallels should have prevented Hengstenberg from endeavoring to cause the “king” to mean the heavenly King Jehovah, because nominally, “the obedience to the heathen lords of the O. T. in general was not enjoined as a religious duty,”—a remark that is in direct contradiction with passages like Proverbs 16:10-15; Isaiah 45:1 ff.; Jeremiah 27:12-13; Jeremiah 29:5-7; Ezekiel 17:12 ff. The conjunction εְ in εְ ?ςַ ?μ is not “and indeed,” but “also,” adding the remembrance of the assumed oath as an additional motive to the one already contained in the precept. The “oath of God” is an oath made with an appeal to God as witness (Exodus 22:10; 2 Samuel 21:7; 1 Kings 2:43), and here especially such an oath of fidelity to the sovereign, sworn in the presence of God (comp. 2 Kings 11:17; Ezekiel 17:12 ff.). Ecclesiastes 8:3. Be not hasty to go out of his sight. The first verb only serves to express an adverbial qualification of the second. The hasty going out from the king is not to indicate an apostacy from him, or a share in rebellious movements (Knobel, Vaihinger), but simply the timid or unsatisfactory withdrawal from his presence, in case he is unfavorably inclined; it is directly the opposite of the “standing” forbidden in the subsequent clause. Hitzig’s opinion, that the king is considered as an unclean heathen, and that the aim of the entire admonition is to counsel against the too strict observance of the Levitical laws of cleanliness in presence of heathen princes, has too little connection with the context, and is in every respect too artificial.—Stand not in an evil thing, (Ger., “evil word”); i.e., when the king speaks an angry word (γָּ ?αָ ?ψψַ ?ς) do not excite his anger still more by foolishly standing still, as if thou couldst by obstinately remaining in thy place compel his favor. Ewald and Elster correctly give the general sense of the admonition as follows: In presence of a king, it is proper to appear modest and yet firm, to show ourselves neither over timid nor obstinate towards him. The Vulgate, Luther, Starke, etc., are less consistent: “Stand not in an evil thing,” i.e., remain not in evil designs against the king, if you have become involved in such;—Hengstenberg gives the same. Vaihinger: “Do not appear in an evil thing.” And thus finally Hitzig: “Stand not at an evil command” [i.e., even though the king should command an evil thing, thou must do it, as Doeg, 1 Samuel 22:18], a translation which rests on the erroneous supposition that the author presents as speaking, in Ecclesiastes 8:2-4, an opponent of his teachings, a defender of a base worldly expediency and a false servility.—For he doeth whatever pleaseth him. This formula serves in other places to show the uncontrolled power of God as ruler of the world (Jonah 1:14; Job 23:13) but must here be necessarily accepted in a relative sense, as an emphatic warning against the fearful wrath of a monarch who is all-powerful, at least in his own realm; comp. Proverbs 16:14; Proverbs 19:12; Proverbs 20:2. Ecclesiastes 8:4 completes the last clause of Ecc 8:3.—Where the word of a king is there is power. ωִׁ ?μְ ?θεֹ ?ο here, and in Ecclesiastes 8:8, need not be considered as an adjective; it can quite as easily express the substantive sense of “ruler, commander,” as in Daniel 3:2-3 (Chaldaic).—And who may say to him, What doest thou ? That is, who can utter an objection to his ordinances and commands ? An expression like that at the close of the preceding verse, which is elsewhere only used in glorification of divine power (Job 9:12; Isaiah 45:9; Daniel 4:32; Wis 12:12), but which therefore justifies neither Hengstenberg’s nor Hahn’s reference of the passage to God as the heavenly King, according to Hitzig’s assertion: “We have here the servility of an opponent of the king, introduced by the author as speaking in a style which usually indicates the omnipotence of God.” 6. Second Strophe. Conclusion. Ecclesiastes 8:5-8. Admonition to submit to the existing arrangements of this life, all of which have God as their final author.—Whoso keepeth the commandment shall feel no evil thing.—ξִ ?φְ ?εָ ?δ “the commandment,” is undoubtedly the same as γְּ ?αַ ?ψΞξֶ ?μֶ ?κ, Ecclesiastes 8:4, therefore not the Divine law (Vaihinger, Hahn, Hengstenberg, etc.), but the law of earthly authority as the Divine representative. The feeling no evil thing (μΰιγςγαψψς) most probably signifies the remaining distant from evil counsels, taking no part in rebellious enterprises (Knobel, Vaihinger, etc.), so that, therefore, γαψψς here expresses a sense different from that in verse 3 above. Yet another explanation of the language, and one consistent with the context, is as follows: “He experiences no misfortune, remains protected from the punishment of transgressing the laws” (Elster, Hengstenberg). But Heiligstedt, on the contrary, is wrong (comp. Ewald): “he pays no attention to the evil that is done to him, and does not grieve about the injustice that he suffers, but bears it with equanimity;” and also Hitzig: “the keeper of the commandment (the servile slave of tyrants) does not first consider an evil command of his superior, in so far as it is morally evil, but executes it blindly, and thus commits a sin at the bidding of a higher power; the wise man, on the contrary, etc.”—a declaration which stands and falls with the previously quoted artificial understanding of Ecc 8:2-4 as antagonistic in speech.—And a wise man’s heart discerneth both time and judgment.—That is, the wise man knows that for every cvil attempt there comes a time of judgment; see Ecclesiastes 8:6. This explanation alone, which is that of the Septuagint [καὶ καιρὸνκρισέωςγινώσκεικαρδίασοφοῦ ?] is in accordance with the text; one needs think as little of the judgment which awaits all men, especially wicked princes and tyrants, as of the appointed time of existence of all civil ordinances [Elster], or of the proper time and authority to do any thing, or not (Hahn). Ecclesiastes 8:6. For the first clause compare Ecclesiastes 3:17.—Therefore the misery of man is great upon him.—That is, on him who unwisely disregards the important truth that there is a time and judgment for every purpose, and therefore takes part in rebellious undertakings against the king; a heavy misfortune visits him as a well-deserved punishment, and he falls a victim of his foolish effort to struggle against the Divinely sanctioned ordinances of this world. Ecclesiastes 8:7. For he knoweth not that which shall be.— He knows not the issue of the undertakings in which he has thoughtlessly allowed himself to be involved; and because the future is veiled to us men, he cannot see what consequences they may have, and how weighty may be the destinies that it entails upon him.—For who can tell him when it shall be ?—(Ger., “how it shall be”).—Therefore he is not only ignorant of future destinies in themselves, but does not even know their “how,” the manner of their entrance. Herzfeld and Hitzig say: “When it shen it shall bem,” etc. But λַּ ?ΰְַ ?ωֶׁ ?ψ no where else in this book signifies “when,” not even in Ecclesiastes 4:17; Ecclesiastes 5:4, where it is to be taken as conditional; and the idea of time is by no means in harmony with the passage. Ecclesiastes 8:8. There is no man that hath power over the spirit to retain the spirit.—ψεּ ?ηַ here is different from that in Ecclesiastes 11:4-5, where it clearly signifies “wind” (comp. Proverbs 30:4); it must here be taken in a sense very usual in the O. T., that of “breath of life,” “spirit;” comp. Ecclesiastes 3:19-21. The meaning of the following clause is most nearly allied to this, and that we find αָּ ?ψεּ ?ηַ and not in αְּ ?ψεֹּ ?ηεֹ proves nothing in favor of the contrary acceptation of Hitzig, Hahn, etc.; for the author denies the ability of men to control the breath of life, and purposely in the most general way, in order to show, in the strongest manner, his unconditional dependence on God [just as in the following clause he has the very general αְּ ?ιεֹ ?νδַ ?ξָּ ?εֶ ?ϊ and not αְּ ?ιεֹ ?νξεֹ ?ϊεֹ ?—-And there is no discharge in that war.—That is, as little as the law of war, with its inexorable severity, grants a furlough to the soldier before the battle, just so little can a man escape the law of death which weighs on all, and just so unconditionally must he follow when God calls him hence by death.—Neither shall wickedness deliver those that are given to it.—Lit., “its possessors;” comp. Ecclesiastes 7:12; and for the sentence, Proverbs 10:2; Proverbs 11:4, etc. This clause clearly contains the principal thought of the verse, as prepared by the three preceding clauses, and which here makes an impressive conclusion of the whole admonition begun in verse 2 concerning disobedience and disloyalty towards authority. Ecclesiastes 8:7. Third Strophe. First half. Ecclesiastes 8:9-13. The many iniquities, oppressions and injustices that occur among men, often remain a long time unpunished, but find, at last, their proper reward, as a proof that God rules and judges justly.—All this have I seen.—A transition formula, serving as an introduction to what follows, as in Ecclesiastes 7:23. “To see ” is here equivalent to observing through experience, and “all this” refers, in the first place, to Ecclesiastes 8:5-8, and then to every thing from Ecclesiastes 7:23 onward.—And applied my heart unto every work.—For πָ ?ϊַ ?οΰֶ ?ϊΞμֵ ?α comp. Ecclesiastes 1:13.—The infinitive absolute with copula prefixed indicates an action contemporaneous with the main verb. For what follows comp. Ecclesiastes 1:14; Ecclesiastes 2:17; Ecclesiastes 4:3, etc.—There is a time when one man rules over another to his own hurt.—These words clearly form an explanation to what precedes: “every work that is done under the sun;” and they therefore more closely designate the object of the author’s observation to be a whole epoch or series of oppressions of men by tyrants.—The words are usually regarded as an independent sentence: “There is a time wherein,” etc.; or, “sometimes,” or, “at times,” “a man rules,” etc. (Vulgate, Luther, Vaihinger, Hengstenberg, etc.). But the word ςֵ ?ϊ alone is not equivalent to “there is a time,” or “sometimes;” and to refer the pronoun in μεֹ to the first ΰָ ?γָ ?ν (to his own hurt,” i.e., to the hurt of the tyrant) is not in harmony with what follows. Also Knobel’s explanation: “truly I have also seen tyrants who practiced evil unpunished through whole eras,” seems quite unfitting, because it anticipates Ecclesiastes 8:10, and introduces into the text the word “truly” that is in no wise indicated. Ecclesiastes 8:10. And so I saw the wicked buried, who had come and gone (to rest).—εּ ?αְ ?λֵ ?ο lit.: and under such circumstances, comp. Esther 4:16. The wicked, of whom it is here affirmed that they were buried and went to rest, i.e., they received a distinguished and honorable burial [comp. Isa. 4:19; Jeremiah 22:19; and also Eccles. Ecclesiastes 6:3] are the same as those named in Ecclesiastes 8:9, who rule over others to their hurt, and are therefore tyrannical oppressors and violent rulers. αָּ ?ΰεּ lit.: “they entered in,” namely, to rest, an abbreviation of the full form which is found in Isaiah 57:2.—Gone from the place of the holy.—[Zφcklek : But went far from the place of the holy.]—The wicked are clearly here no longer the subject, but as in the following clause, “those who did righteously,” whose undeservedly sad fate the author well depicts in contrast with that of the former. Therefore the “place of the holy” from which they wandered afar [ξִ ?ο, as in Isaiah 26:14; Zephaniah 3:18; Job 28:4] is the grave, the honorable burial place which these just ones must fail to obtain; to refer this expression to Jerusalem (Hitzig), or to the sacred courts of the leaders of the people (Knobel), or to the community of the saints (Hengstenberg), is all arbitrary, and opposed to the context. ιְ ?δַ ?μְּ ?λεּ, “they wandered, they went,” does not, of course, mean a wandering of the souls of the unburied after death, but simply [in contrast to that word αָּ ?ΰεּ ?] the wandering or being carried to another resting place than that holy place,” the burial in a grave neither sacred nor honorable. Hitzig’s emendation,ιַ ?δֲ ?μֹ ?λεּ “they pass away,” is as unnecessary as the view of Ewald, Elster, Vaihinger, etc., that the Piel δִ ?μֵּ ?κְ is here synonymous with the Hiphil δεֹ ?μִ ?ικְ as though the sense were “I saw them driven away, castout from the holy place.”—And they were forgotten in the city where they had so done (Zφckler: “who there justly acted).—For ςָ ?ωָׂ ?δλֵּ ?ο “to do right,” to act uprightly, comp. 2 Kings 7:9 : for “being forgotten in the city,” i.e., in their own place of residence [not in Jerusalem, as Hitzig declares], Comp. Ecclesiastes 6:4; Proverbs 10:7; Psalms 73:19-20. Instead of εַ ?ιִ ?ωְׁ ?ϊָּ ?λְּ ?ηεּ the Septuagint, Vulgate, and twenty-three manuscripts had εַ ?ιְ ?ωֻׁ ?αְּ ?ηεּ “and they were praised;” but this reading appears clearly to be an emendation, and would render necessary this grammatically inadmissible translation: “and they were Praised in the city, as if they had acted justly.”—This is also vanity.—That is, also this unequal distribution of destiny in human life, is an example of the vanity pervading man controlling all earthly relations; comp. Ecclesiastes 2:26; Ecclesiastes 4:14; Ecclesiastes 4:16; Ecclesiastes 7:6, etc.Ecclesiastes 8:11. Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily.—Because speedy justice is not executed—a very common reason for the increase crime and wickedness. τִ ?ϊְ ?βָ ?ν originally a Persian word [ancient Persian, patigama, modern Per. paigam, Armenian patkam]; lit., “something that has happened or taken place,” and, therefore, command, edict, sentence; comp. Esther 1:20. Since in this passage, as in the Chaldaic sections of Ezra and Daniel (e.g., Ezekiel 4:17; Daniel 3:16; Daniel 4:14), the word is always treated a masculine, we should have expected πַ ?ςֲ ?ωָׂ ?δ instead of πַ ?ςֲ ?ωֶׂ ?δ But comp. the examples of the masculine quoted by Ewald, § 74, gr., which, in later authors, are used as feminine.—Therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in him to do evil.—Therefore they venture on evil without any hesitation; comp. Ecclesiastes 9:3; Esther 7:5; Matthew 15:19. Ecclesiastes 8:12-13. In spite of the universal and ever-increasing prevalence of evil over justice and righteousness, hitherto depicted, the wicked at last find their deserved reward, and oppressed innocence does not perish.—Though a sinner do evil a hundred times.—ΰֲ ?ωֶׁ ?ψ does not here signify “because” (Hitzig), but “although,” “considering that,” as λִּ ?ι does sometimes (Lat. quod si). Comp. Leviticus 4:22; Deuteronomy 11:27; Deuteronomy 18:22; Ewald, § 362, b. Before ξְ ?ΰַ ?ϊ supply τְּ ?ςָ ?ξִ ?ιν—And his days be prolonged—namely, in sinning. μεֹ with ξַ ?ΰֲ ?ψִ ?ικְ shows that this verb is not to be supplemented by ιָ ?ξִ ?ιν, as in the following verse.—Yet surely I know that it shall be well with them that fear God.—λִּ ?ιβν, “yet,” makes here a strong contrast. Koheleth represents the idea of just retribution as something certain and lasting, although experience seems so strongly to teach the contrary, and consequently as a conviction that does not rest on empirical observation, but on direct religious faith. “There is not expressed in this verse, as some commentators suppose, the thought of a retribution in after life, but it must be confessed that the standpoint of observation on which Koheleth here places himself could easily lead to this conclusion, although it is not here drawn (Elster).—Which fear before him.—Not, “because they fear before him;” ΰֲ ?ωֶׁ ?ψ is here really a relative pronoun, pointing out the conformity of the conduct of the God-fearing to their designation as such. Comp. 1 Timothy 5:3 : χήραςτίματὰςὄντωςχήρσς.—But it shall not be well with the wicked, neither shall he prolong his days.—This denial of long life to the wicked does not contradict what is said in Ecclesiastes 8:12; for there the question was not of long life, but of prolonged sinning.—Which are as a shadow; because he feareth not before God.—[Zφckler: He is as a shadow who feareth not before God.] We have had the same figure in Ecclesiastes 6:12. The Vulgate, as well as most modern commentators, are correct in not joining λַּ ?φֵּ ?μ, with the Masoretic accentuation, to what precedes [thus also Luther, Vaihinger, Hengstenberg; “and as a shadow will not live long”], but to what follows [Vulg. “transeunt”]. 8. Third Strophe. Conclusion. Ecclesiastes 8:14-15. Since the unequal distribution of human destiny points to the futile character of all earthly occurrences and conditions, we must so much the more enjoy present happiness, and profit by it with a contented mind.—There is a vanity which is done upon the earth.—See Ecclesiastes 8:10 and Ecclesiastes 3:16. That the lots of the just and the wicked are frequently commingled and interchanged in this world, seems to the Preacher as vanity, i.e., as belonging to the evil consequences of the human fall; but it does not, therefore, make on him an especially “bitter and gloomy” impression, as Elster supposes. Comp. Hengstenberg: “If there were righteous men such as there should be, wholly righteous, then the experience here given would certainly be in a high degree alarming. But since sin is also indwelling in the just, since they deserve punishment and need watchful care, since they can so easily slide into by-paths and fall into a mercenary worldliness, the shock must disappear for those who really dwell in righteousness. These latter are often severely disturbed by the fact here presented to view, but it is for them only a disturbance. The definitive complaint regarding this comes only from those who without claim or right count themselves among the just. And it is clear that the equality of result for the evil and just is only an external and partial one. To those whom God loves, every thing must be for the best, and the final issue separates the evil from the good.” Ecclesiastes 8:15. Then I commended mirth, etc.—Comp. the exegetical remarks on Ecclesiastes 2:24; Ecclesiastes 3:22; Ecclesiastes 5:19.—For that shall abide with him of his labour the days of his life.—Lit., “That clings to him,” etc., i.e., that and that only becomes truly his; comp. in Ecclesiastes 3:22; Ecclesiastes 5:19, which is synonymous in sense. The optative meaning of ιִ ?μְ ?εֶ ?πּ ?εּ (Hitzig: “that may cling to him;” Herzfeld: “that may accompany him,” etc.), is unnecessary and runs counter to the analogy of those earlier parallels. AND ETHICAL(With Homiletical Hints)The warnings against seduction through the snares and amorous arts of women, concerning rebellion against authority, and wicked oppression and violence, are quite dissimilar in their nature, and hang but loosely together. For in the first of these warnings the attention of the author is principally directed to the depraved nature of woman as the originator and principal representative of the ruin of man through sin; in the second, it is less the Divine necessity that is made especially emphatic, than the human utility and profitableness in the obedience to be rendered to kings; and in the third, the principal object of attention is not the wicked conduct of sinners in itself, but the fixed, certain, and just retribution of God for this conduct, together with the useful lesson which the good man is to draw therefrom. The questions concerning the origin, goal, and remedy of human depravity, [the most important problems in anthropology], are in this way touched, but by no means exhaustively treated; and the indicated solutions reveal a certain one-sidedness on account of the brevity of the illustration. It appears, at least, in Ecclesiastes 7:28, as if the female sex were thoroughly and without exception evil, and the first woman was represented as the sole originator of the sin of humanity; and just so it seems as if the remedy against sin and its bad effects were mainly (Ecclesiastes 8:2 ff.) unconditional obedience to earthly authority; and then, again, it would appear (Ecclesiastes 8:15) that a frivolous and thoughtless joyousness were recommended. But that this is mere appearance, is proved by the connection of each of the respective passages. As in Ecclesiastes 7:29, not women alone, but sinning humanity as a whole, are presented as the destroyers of the originally upright, pure, and God-like nature [corresponding to the words of Paul, ἐφ̓ ῳπάντεςἥμαρτον Romans 5:12]; not less in Ecclesiastes 8:2 ff. is the duty of obedience to authority to be, from the beginning, Divinely influenced, and therefore subordinated to the higher duty of obedience towards God [corresponding with Acts 4:19]. And finally, the joy recommended in Ecclesiastes 8:15 appears clearly as the joy of one fearing God [comp. Ecclesiastes 8:12-13], and consequently it no more forms an exclusive contrast to the rejoicing with trembling of Psa 2:11 than it contradicts the Apostolic admonition: “Rejoice in the Lord always” (Philippians 4:4). In short, it is every where the conduct of the truly wise man, who, as such, is also the God-fearing man, to which the Preacher directs us, and in which he gets a view of the true ideal in the sphere of ethical anthropology (comp. Ecclesiastes 7:23-25; Ecclesiastes 8:1; Ecclesiastes 8:5). Thence is drawn for a collective homiletical treatment of this section the following theme : the truly wise man fears God, and guards himself as well against unchastity as against the disloyalty and injustice of this world. Or, the truly wise man in conflict with the enticements of this world, as he meets them first in the cunning of women, secondly, in the desire of rebellion, and thirdly, in the wickedness and arrogant violence of tyrants. homiletical hints on separate passagesEcc_7:23-25. Geier:—Our knowledge is fragmentary: the more we learn, the more we perceive how far we are removed from true wisdom, Sir 51:21 f.; 1 Corinthians 13:9.—Hansen:—No one on earth has the ability and skill to acquire a perfect knowledge of the works of God. They remain unfathomably deep and hidden from our eyes.—We must exert all the powers of our soul to discover the difference between wisdom and folly.—Starke:—Depend not on your own strength in Christianity. You imagine that you make progress, but in reality you retrograde, and lose, in your spiritual arrogance, that which you had already acquired (2 John 1:8).—The best teachers are those who teach to others what they themselves have learned by experience. Tόbingen Bible:—Man was created in innocence, justice and holiness, and this is the image of God, that he lost after the fall, but after which he should again strive with all earnestness.—Hengstenberg:—After the fall, man forgot to remain in a receptive relation, which, in respect to the ἄνωθενσοφία is the only proper position; he chases after schemes of his presumptuous thoughts. The only means of becoming free from so dire a disease, and of being delivered from the bonds of his own thoughts and phantoms, is again to return to Divine subjection, and renouncing all his own knowledge, to permit himself to be taught of God. Ecclesiastes 8:1. Zeyss :—Impenetrable as is the human heart in itself, it is nevertheless often betrayed by the countenance.—Starke:—The innocent man looks happy and secure. He who cherishes injustice in the heart looks at no one cheerfully nor rightly.—Hengstenberg:—When, by the transforming power of wisdom, the heart of flesh has taken the place of the heart of stone, and inward flexibility and obedience that of terror in presence of God and His commandments, it becomes also evident in the countenance. Ecclesiastes 8:2; Ecclesiastes 8:6. Luther:—It is enough for you to do so in the state, that you should obey the king’s commands, and listen to him who is ordained of God. Here you see how civil obedience is comprehended in obedience to God. So Paul would have servants obey their masters, not as submitting to men, but as to God.—Melanchthon:—Thus is obedience ordained. Obey the Divine voice first; then the king commanding things not repugnant to the Divine law.—This will be in conformity with the rule given Acts 4:19.—Starke (Ecclesiastes 8:3):—The powerful ones of this world have among men no higher one over them, to whom they must give an account, but in heaven there is One higher than the highest. Wisdom of Solomon Ecclesiastes 6:2-4.—(Ecclesiastes 8:5): He who keeps the commandments of God will, for the sake of God and his conscience, also obey the salutary commands of authority, Colossians 3:23.—Hengstenberg (Ecclesiastes 8:5):—The wise heart knows well that as certainly as God will judge justly in His own time, so certainly also can he not be really and lastingly unhappy who keeps the commandments, and therefore has God on his side.—(Ecclesiastes 8:6): With all his power, man is nevertheless not independent, but is subjected to the heavy blows of human destiny. Thus all men will be unable to place any impediment to the execution of the justice of God for the good of His children. Ecclesiastes 8:7-8. Hieronymus (Ecclesiastes 8:8): We are not to mourn, though often oppressed by the unjust and powerful; since all these things come to an end in death, and the proud potentate himself, after all his tyrannical cruelties, cannot retain the soul when taken away by death.—Cramer (Ecclesiastes 8:7):—It is vain that we anxiously trouble ourselves about the progress and issue of things to come; therefore we should abandon our prying desire. Psalms 37:5.—Geier:—The last conflict and struggle is the hardest and most dangerous; but a pious Christian should not be terrified at it; for the conquest of Jesus over death will become his own through faith; temporal death is for him only a dissolution, a passing away in peace. Melanchthon:—This question tortures all minds; so that many who see the prosperity of the wicked, and the misfortunes of the just, begin to think there is no Providence. It is the excelling strength of faith, that it is not broken by such spectacles, but retains the true cognition of God, and waits patiently for the judgment.—Osiander:—It does not become us to dictate to God how He shall rule the world. Let it satisfy us that God rules, and will finally bring to light the justice of His judgment.—Because God delays a while in the punishment of sin, men falsely convince themselves that their wickedness will go wholly unpunished, Sir 5:4-5.—J. Lange:—The children of God consider the patience of the Lord their salvation [2 Peter 3:15]; whilst the wicked consider this patience as a privilege to sin the more boldly (Romans 6:1). But however happy they may esteem themselves, they nevertheless die unblessed, and their happiness is changed into eternal shame. Ecclesiastes 8:14]. and 15. Berleb. Bible: Joy is a godly cheerfulness and serenity of soul; since the just man, though he may suffer from the vanities of this world, which are common to all, keeps his soul free from vain cares, calm through faith in God, and hence cheerful and ready in the performance of its duties; so that he eats, drinks and rejoices, i.e., enjoys what God gives him, in a calm, cheerful, and fitting manner.—Hengstenberg:—[See previous exegetical illustrations to Ecclesiastes 8:14. Footnotes: [The confusion arises here from disregarding the meditative, soliloquizing, exclamatory style of this book,—in a word, its poetical character. These divisions into the practical and theoretical regard it too much as an abstract ethical or didactic treatise, with its logical and rhetorical arrangement. This is at war with its subjective, emotional aspect, and hence much forced and false interpretations. See the remarks p. 172 in the Introduction to the rhythmical version. The most literal rendering is the best, since it preserves this broken, interjectional, ejaculatory style, in which the writer is giving vent to his emotions at the thought of the great past, and how small human knowledge is in respect to it. He expresses it as he feels it, in fragmentary sighs, and repetitions, or as one who says it over and over to himself without thinking of others, or of any didactic use, and yet in this very way, making the most vivid and practical impression. O that I might be wise, I said; but it was far from me; Far off! The past, what is it? Deep—a deep—O who can find? There is strong emotion in the paragogic or optative form of ΰֶ ?ηְ ?λָ ?ξָ ?δ. It expresses the most intense and longing desire, but with little hope of knowing the great secret of the long past, much less of the far stretching future. The interjections used in rendering really inhere in the style. What should we think of an attempt to lay off Young’s Night Thoughts in ‘strophes of the practical and the theoretical?’ And yet it is fully as capable of such divisions as this most emotional poem of Koheleth. In the Hebrew, ψָ ?ηεֹ ?χ is accentually joined with ξַ ?δωֶּׁ ?δָ ?ιָ ?δ, but it is rhythmical rather than logical, and would not prevent ξַ ?δ from being an interrogative pronoun: ξַ ?δΰωψδιδ, “what—that which was?” or, “that which was, what is it?” As though he had been going to say merely, “far off the past,” but the emotion throws it into the more broken or exclamatory utterance, and then he adds: “and deep—deep—who can find it?” The ξִ ?ι as personal interrogative, corresponds to the general interrogative ξδ. In the expression, “O let me be wise,” we have at once suggested to us the passage 1 Kings 3:5-12, Solomon’s dream at Gibeon, the Lord’s appearing unto him, and his earnest prayer for a μֵ ?αδָ ?λָ ?ν “a wise and understanding heart.” With all his errors the love of wisdom (φιλοσοφία and θεοσοφία) had been a passion from his earliest youth,—wisdom speculative as well as practical,—wisdom not only “to govern so great a people,” and to “discern,” ethically, “between good and evil,” but to understand, if it were possible, the ways of God, and the great problem of humanity. Rightly considered, this strong desire, thus expressed, is a special mark of the Solomonic authorship. “O let me be wise, I said.” He said it in his dream at Gibeon. “Deep—deep—O who shall find it!” Like other passages of Scripture, this is capable of an ever expanding sense. We may think of the earthly past, so much of it historically unknown; but the style of thought in Koheleth carries the mind still farther back to the great past “before the earth was” (Proverbs 8:23),—to the ςεμξιςμξινπρὸ τῶναἰώνων, 1 Corinthians 2:7, “before the ages of ages,” or worlds of worlds. There are two views here that may be pronounced exceeding narrow. The one is that of the Scriptural interpreter who recognizes no higher chronology to the whole universe than a few thousand of our sun-measured years. To this he adds six solar days, and then slides off into a blank antepast eternity, a chronological nothingness, we may say, where Deity dwelt, had ever dwelt, ἄχρονος, without time, without creative manifestation—all worlds, whether of space or time, and all ranks of existence below the Divine, having had their origination in this single week (as measured by earthly revolutions) that he assigns to them. The other view, still more narrow—for if is an infinite narrowness—is the one held by some modern thinkers of high repute. It is that of an eternal physical development, or evolution, carried on through an infinite past of duration, ever evolving progressively, and yet with nothing more or higher evolved, ever evolved, than the very finite and imperfect state of things we now behold,—man the highest product of this eternal evolution that has ever been reached in any part of the universe,—man as yet the “etre supreme”—man, too, lately evolved, or within a few thousand years, from some of the animal classes just below him. All before is a descending inclined plane, with an uninterrupted evenness, and an infinitesimal angle, falling away lower and still lower forever-more, in the infinite retrocession from the present advanced state of things!! In contradistinction to the meagre poverty of both these views stands the Scriptural malkuth kol olamim (Psalms 145:13) βασιλείατῶναἰώνων (1 Timothy 1:17)—a kingdom of all eternities, with its ages of ages, its worlds of worlds, its ascending orders of being, its mighty dispensations embracing all grades of evolution in the physical, and an unimaginable variety in the holy administrations of Him who styles Himself Jehovah tsebaoth, the Lord of hosts. This alone leaves the mind free in its speculative roamings, allowing it to compete with any philosophy in this respect, whilst binding it ever to an adoring recognition of the one absolute and infinite personality, “according to whose will all things are, and were, created.” The Targum explains ξδωδιδ here of the great unknown past, regarding it as equally mysterious with the secrets of the unknown future: “It is too far off for the sons of men to know that which was from the days of eternity.” Rashi and Aben Ezra give substantially the same interpretation, with a like reference to the creation and the creative times: “What is above, what is below, what is before, what is after,—it is deep, deep, too deep for our power to think.” The impassioned impressiveness of Koheleth’s language amply justifies such a style of interpretation.—T. L.] [Zφckler’s rendering, “wickedness as folly, foolishness as madness,” weakens the sense. It is more impassioned without the conjunctions, or any other particles to break its earnest and hurried style: “wickedness, presumption [stubbornness, as λֶּ ?ρֶ ?μ may mean], yea, stupidity, madness,” all given in a running list: To seek out wisdom, reason,—sin to know— Presumption, folly, vain impiety.—T. L.] [See text note on μְ ?αַ ?γ.—T. L.] [This is undoubtedly meant as proof of the late authorship of Koheleth, but it amounts to no more than this, namely, that the old manuscript of Ecclesiastes, whose copies have come down to us, was made by a scribe writing from the ear as another read aloud, in consequence of which he has sometimes given in full a letter known to exist etymologically, though lost in sound, as in this case; whilst, on the other hand, and more frequently, he has given it as abbreviated is sound, like ωֶּׁ for ΰֲ ?ωֻׂ ?ψ, or ΰִ ?μּ ?εּ for ΰִ ?νμεּ, though generally written in the full old etymological form; and again, in other cases, he has written a like sounding letter in place of the true one, as ωׂ ?λμεϊ for ρλμεϊ, and other similar cases. The same remark is applicable to Ezekiel, and the very instances that Zφcklerquotes. They are evidences of late chirography in manuscripts, but are little to be relied on as proofs, or disproofs, of original authorship.—T. L.] [This would require the article, or the demonstrative pronoun, or both: δγαψδζδ.—T. L.] [No more Chaldaic than it is Hebrew. It is merely a variation of orthography for the like sounding word τϊψ, Genesis 40:8. Who knows how early the change to the sibilant took place? as there are no other examples of either form between Moses and Solomon, or between Solomon and Daniel?—T. L.] [See text note.—T. L.] [Among all these conflicting interpretations, it may be suggested that the best way is to take Ecclesiastes 8:5 as a qualification of the positiveness and strictness of the previous precepts: the ordinary man who simply yields literal and passive obedience, will be safe in so doing; but the wise man will use his wisdom in judging as to the manner of doing the command, or of modifying, avoiding, or, it may be, of resisting, as Daniel did. This mode of qualifying, or partially retracting, a precept that seems general and exclusive, is not uncommon with Koheleth. Comp. Ecclesiastes 9:11 and al. Such is in general the idea of Stuart, especially as to the last clause, though he interprets μΰιγς in the first, as meaning, “he (who obeys) will have no concern about the evil command;” that is, will not trouble himself about its rectitude.—T. L.] [We cannot help regarding this as a forcing the text into the support of the extreme monarchical doctrine of passive obedience, notwithstanding the qualification adverted to in the previous note. There is, too, an omission, unusual for Zφckler, of all comment on the first part of Ecc 8:6, which contains not only the connection with what precedes, but furnishes the key to what follows. “The heart of the wise man will acknowledge time and reason” (Ecclesiastes 8:5): “for there is time and reason to every thing, although the misery of man (the oppression, the evil rule, under which he suffers) be so great upon him” [ςָ ?μָ ?ιε implying something laid upon him like a heavy burden). It is all made clear by rendering the second λּ ?ι although, as adversative to the first—a frequent sense of the particle in this book, as is generally shown by the context. It is a strong and passionate assertion: The world is not all confusion; there is time and reason; they will appear at last, though misery so abounds; therefore be patient; watch and wait. Obedience is indeed inculcated to lawful (not merely monarchical) authority, but it is also intimated that it is not to be wholly passive, unreasoning, and blind.—T. L.] [There is precisely the same argument for rendering it spirit in chap.Ecclesiastes 11:5 (the way of the spirit), as exists for it here. See excursus on that passage, p. 147.—T. L.] [Perhaps there is nothing, that shows the unspirituality of some commentators more than their obstinate determination to render ψεη wind, and often in utter defiance of the context, as in Genesis 1:2, and in such places as these.—T. L.] [εּ ?αְ ?λֵ ?ο is the particle of illustration: “and in such a case,” or, taken in the connection: “and so it was.” See the Metrical Version— ’Twas when I saw the wicked dead interred.—T. L.] [Zφckler’s version here, which is substantially that of Hitzig, and even of Geier, seems very forced. How is he to get the sense of “wandering far,” or of “being driven away,” from ιְ ?δַ ?μֵּ ?λεּ ?? Then, again, the rendering ΰֲ ?ωֶׁ ?ψλֵּ ?οςָ ?ωׂ ?εּ “they who had done rightly,” and making it the subject of ιְ ?δַ ?μֵּ ?λεּ, are both unwarranted. Stuart well says that the makkeph in λֵּ ?οΞςָ ?ωׂ ?εּ shows that the Masorites regarded λֵּ ?ο as the usual adverb so, and therefore joined it closely to the verb as simply qualifying. The references of Zφckler and Hitzig do not bear them out, and there cannot be found a clear case in the Bible where λֵּ ?ο is used absolutely for justice. There are two objections to the finding in this phrase the subject of ιְ ?δַ ?μֵּ ?λεּ; one is the separation it makes between it and εָ ?αָ ?ΰεּ; the second is its coming so late after its verb, making a very unusual Hebrew construction in keeping the sense so long suspended. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ FOURTH Of the relation of true wisdom in the internal and external life of man(Ecclesiastes 8:16 to Ecclesiastes 12:7) A. The unfathomable character of the universal rule of God should not frighten the wise man from an active part in life, but should cheer and encourage him thereto (Ecclesiastes 8:16 to Ecclesiastes 9:16) 1. It cannot be denied that the providence of God in the distribution of human destiny is unfathomable and incomprehensible (Ecclesiastes 8:16 to Ecclesiastes 9:6)16When I applied mine heart to know wisdom, and to see the business that is done upon the earth: (for also there is that neither day nor night seeth sleep with his eyes:) 17Then I beheld all the work of God, that a man cannot find out the work that is done under the sun: because though a man labour to seek it out, yet he shall not find it; yea, further; though a wise man think to know it, yet shall he not be able to find it.Ecclesiastes 9:1 For all this I considered in my heart even to declare all this, that the righteous and the wise, and their works, are in the hand of God: no man knoweth either love 2or hatred by all that is before them. All things come alike to all: there is one event to the righteous and to the wicked; to the good, and to the clean, and to the unclean; to him that sacrificeth, and to him that sacrificeth not; as is the good, Song of Solomon 3 is the siuner; and he that sweareth, as he that feareth an oath. This is an evil among all things that are done under the sun, that there is one event unto all: yea, also the heart of the sons of men is full of evil, and madness is in their heart while they live, and after that they go to the dead. 4For to him that is joined to all the living there is hope: for a living dog is better than a dead lion. 5For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. 6Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun. 2. Therefore it behooves us to enjoy this life cheerfully, and to use it in profitable avocations (Ecclesiastes 9:7-10)7Go thy way, eat thy bread with joy, and drink thy wine with a merry heart; for God now accepteth thy works. 8Let thy garments be always white; and let thy head lack no ointment. 9Live joyfully with the wife whom thou lovest all the days of the life of thy vanity, which he hath given thee under the sun, all the days of thy vanity: for that is thy portion in this life, and in thy labour which thou takest under the sun. 10Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might, for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest. 3. The uncertain result of human effort in this world should not deter us from zealously striving after wisdom Ecclesiastes 9:11-1611I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all. 12For man also knoweth not his time: as the fishes that are taken in an evil net, and as the birds that are caught in the snare; so are the sons of men snared in an evil time, when it falleth suddenly upon them. 13This wisdom have I seen also under the 14sun, and it seemed great unto me: There was a little city, and few men within it; and there came a great king against it, and besieged it, and built great bulwarks against it: 15Now there was found in it a poor wise man, and he by his wisdom delivered the city; yet no man remembered that same poor man; 16Then said I, Wisdom is better than strength: nevertheless the poor man’s wisdom is despised, and his words are not heard. [Ecclesiastes 8:17.—αְּ ?ωֶׁ ?μ equivalent to αΰωψμ, “in that which to”—“in proportion to;” Vulgate well renders it quanto plus. LXX. ὅσαἐὰν; “in proportion to that which one shall labor”—or “the more he labors.” It is found elsewhere only in Jonah 1:7, or, in composition, αְּ ?ωֶׁ ?μְ ?ξִ ?ι and αִּ ?ωֶׁ ?μּ ?ι. It is certainly not a Chaldaism, but it is said “to belong to the later Hebrew,” and the argument runs in this way: Koheleth must belong to the later Hebrew, because this word is elsewhere found only in Jonah; and Jonah must belong to the later Hebrew, because this word is elsewhere found only in Koheleth. It is also called a Rabbinism in Koheleth; but it is rather a Kohelethism much employed, with other Kohelethisms, by the earliest Rabbins, because that book was a great favorite with them, and regarded by them as a specimen of the more elegant and courtly, as well as the more philosophical Hebrew.—Ecclesiastes 9:1, εְ ?μָ ?αεּ ?ψ; it has the same meaning here with αψψ, Ecclesiastes 3:18, to explore—prove, by exploring—primary sense, separate, purify. It is an example of the affinity, or of the interchange of meanings, in verbs ain wau and double ain.—T. L.] AND 1.Vaihinger deviates from the above analysis of this section into three divisions, but only so far as to extend the first division simply to Ecclesiastes 9:3, which does not well coincide with the contents of Ecc 8:4-6, that clearly refer to what immediately precedes. Several commentators begin a new section with Ecclesiastes 9:11 [Hahn,indeed a new discourse], and deny in this way that the principal theme of the whole piece–the contrast between the inscrutability of human destinies, and the wisdom which still retains its worth, and is to be sought after as the highest good—is also treated in this last division, and that it is more closely allied with the fore going than with that which follows Ecclesiastes 8:17.—Hengstenberg also very improperly separates Ecclesiastes 8:11-12 from the four subsequent ones, with which they are most closely connected; see below at Ecclesiastes 8:13. First Strophe, first division. Ecclesiastes 8:16-17.The universal rule of God is unfathomable.—When I applied mine heart.—Lit., “gave;” comp. Ecclesiastes 8:9, λַּ ?ΰֲ ?ωֶׁ ?ψ introduces the longer primary clause, to which then, in Ecclesiastes 8:17, a still longer secondary clause corresponds, introduced by εְ or εְ ?ψָ ?ΰιϊִ ?ι There is no closer connection with the preceding, such as is affirmed by Rosenmueller, Hitzig, hengstenberg and hahn, according to the example of most old authors. The commendation of pleasure in Ecclesiastes 8:15, like the earlier praise of cheerfulness [Ecclesiastes 2:24; Ecclesiastes 3:22; Ecclesiastes 5:18; Ecclesiastes 5:20], fittingly closes the preceding, whilst this clause, as is shown by λִּ ?ι Ecclesiastes 9:1, serves as a basis and preparation for the subsequent reflections. To know wisdom, and see the business—Comp. Ecclesiastes 1:13; Ecclesiastes 1:17. The word ςִ ?πְ ?ιָ ?ο is here as there the travail caused by a zealous searching after the grounds and aims of human action, fate, and life. For also there is that neither day nor night. λִּ ?ι here gives the nature and operation of the travail; or is inferential, “so that,” as Genesis 40:15; Exodus 3:11, etc. [comp. Vaihinger]. The parenthetical interpretation of this third clause [Ewald, Elster, hahn,etc., is also unnecessary.] comp. Genesis 31:40; Proverbs 6:4; Psalms 132:4 (Lat. somnum videre). Ecclesiastes 8:17. Then I beheld all the work of god. ΰֶ ?ϊΞλָּ ?μΞξַ ?ςֲ ?ωֵׂ ?δΰֱ ?μֹ ?δִ ?ιν is the accusative of relation: “I saw in relation to all the work of god”. The work that is done under the sun, that we find in the subsequent clause, is the same as the “work of god,” the universal rule of the most High; and the inability to find this work, its incomprehensibility and inscrutability [comp. Psalms 147:5; Romans 11:33] form from the beginning the principal theme of the assertion. To “find” is used in the sense of “to comprehend, to fathom;” comp. Ecclesiastes 3:11; Ecclesiastes 7:24—Because though a man labour to seek it out.—That is, however much he may try, in spite of all his toil, etc. αְּ ?ωֶׁ ?μΰֲ ?ωֶׁ ?ψ is equivalent to—αַּ ?ΰֲ ?ωֶׁ ?ψ—μַ ?ΰֲ ?ωֶׁ ?ψ [comp. the similar crowding of relations in Jonah 1:7-8; Jonah 1:12, and also the Aramaic αְ ?γִ ?ιμγִ ?], and signifies, when taken together with the following verb ιַ ?ςֲ ?ξֹ ?μ “with that which is in it,” etc.; that is, “with that which there is in his labor,” or “with that zeal and talent perceptible in it.” Compare Hitzig on this passage, who correctly rejects as unnecessary Ewald’s emendation αְּ ?λָ ?μΰֲ ?ωֶׁ ?ψ in place of αְּ ?ωֶׁ ?μΰֲ ?ωֶׁ ?ψ, although the 70., Vulgate, and Syriac seem to have so read it.—Yea further, though a wise man think to know it.—ΰִ ?νιֹ ?ΰξַ ?ψ “should he presume,” “should he attempt;” comp. Exodus 2:14; 2 Samuel 21:16. 3. First strophe, second division. Ecclesiastes 9:1-3. All men, the just, as well as the unjust, are subject to the same fate, especially to the law of mortality.—For all this I considered in my heart. Namely, when I applied my heart to know wisdom, Ecclesiastes 8:16. “All this” refers to what immediately follows.—Even to declare all this. The infinitive construct with μָ ?αεּ ?ψΣμְ continues the finite verb, as elsewhere the infinitive absolute; comp. Isaiah 38:20; Isaiah 10:32, αּ ?εּ ?ψ equivalent to αψψ (Ecclesiastes 3:18) is found only in this passage in the O. T.—That the righteous and the wise, and their works, are in the hand of God. That is, wholly dependent, on Him, not capable, in any manner, independently to shape their life; so that their best actions may be followed by the saddest fate. Comp. Hengstenberg on this passage, who correctly shows that there is affirmed an unconditional dependence, not of human action in itself, but of its results on God.—No man knoweth either love or hatred. That is, no man knoweth in advance whether God will grant him love or hatred (i.e., happiness or unhappiness); (Michaelis, Knobel, Vaihinger, and Hengstenberg are correct). Others read: “No man knoweth whether he will love or hate;” [Hitzig, Elster]. But this interpretation is not in harmony with the text, and would give a sense which is foreign alike to the passage and the book, and for which Ecclesiastes 2:5 cannot be quoted as proof, as is done by Hitzig.—By all that is before them. That is, not as affirmed by Hieronymus, Geier, and Rosenmueller,—all their destinies are clear, and as it were visible before their eyes, but the reverse: all their destinies lie in the dark uncertain future before them; they have yet everything to experience, happiness as well as unhappiness, good as well as evil. Comp. Ecclesiastes 7:14, where ΰַ ?δֲ ?ψָ ?ιε “behind him” signifies just the same as here μִ ?τְ ?πֵ ?ιδֶ ?ν “before them.” Knobel unnecessarily insists that λּ ?μ here means: Everything is before them, everything can occur to them—even great misfortune—a sense that would need to be more clearly indicated by the context than is here the case. Ecclesiastes 9:2.—All things come alike to all. That is, every thing happens to the wise and just as to all others; the just have no special fortune, they share the common fate of all (in this world of course). Knobel, Ewald, Heiligstedt, Umbreit, and Hengstenberg correctly take this position, whilst Hitzig and Elster include the following words ξִ ?χְ ?ψֶ ?δΰֶ ?ηָ ?γ, and so bring out this somewhat obscure and distorted thought: “All are as all, they meet one fate;” but Vaihinger takes δַ ?λֹּ ?μ at the beginning of the verse as an elliptical repetition from Ecclesiastes 9:1 : “Yes all! Just as all have the same destiny,” etc.—There is one event to the righteous and to the wicked. Not that they are the offspring and the victims of one and the same blind power of chance [Hitzig], but they are subjected to one and the same divine providence as regards the issue of their life. Hengstenberg justly says: “Chance (ξִ ?χְ ?ψֶ ?δ) just as in Ecclesiastes 3:19 (comp. Ecclesiastes 2:14-15), does not form the counterpart to divine providence, but to the spontaneous activity on the part of the just.”—To the good and to the clean and to the unclean. In order that one may not take clean and unclean in the levitical or externally legal sense, but in the moral sense, the kindred thought of θεֹ ?α (good) precedes that of θָ ?δεֹ ?ψ (pure) as explanatory.—He that sweareth as he that feareth an oath. That is, the frivolous swearer, and he that considers an oath sacred. That this is the sense is plainly seen in Ecclesiastes 8:2, from which passage it appears that, it does not enter the author’s mind to condemn the oath in general as something immoral. Vaihinger is of opinion that by him that feareth an oath, as by him that does not sacrifice, is meant an Essene, or at least a representative of growing Essenianism. But the designation is by no means clear enough for this; and the one not sacrificing seems clearly to be a wicked contemner of the levitical laws concerning the temple and sacrifices, and not an unreasonably conscientious ascetic in the sense of Essenianism. Ecclesiastes 9:3.—This is an evil among all things that are done under the sun. ψַ ?ςαְּ ?λֹ ?μεְ ?βε cannot mean the worst of all, etc. (Rosenmueller, Vaihinger) but in the absence of the article before ψַ ?ς (comp. the Son 1:8; Joshua 14:15, etc.), simply bad, evil among all things, or in all things; therefore an evil accompanying and dwelling in every earthly occurrence.—That there is one event unto all. Namely, that befalls all. ξִ ?χְ ?ψֶ ?δ must be taken as in verse 2, and points out, therefore, not what one meets with in life, but its issue, its end. The equal liability of all to death, even the good and the just, is designated by Koheleth as that evil, that evil thing that is mixed with every earthly occurrence; (comp. Romans 5:14; Romans 5:21; 1 Corinthians 15:55 f.; Hebrews 2:15). Yea, also the heart of the sons of men is full of evil; namely, in consequence of this their liability to the power of death, which, therefore, also in addition exerts a demoralizing effect on them; comp. Ecclesiastes 8:11.—And after that they go to the dead. The suffix to ΰַ ?ηֲ ?ψָ ?ιε is to be considered as neuter, (“and after this condition,” comp. Jeremiah 51:46), not masculine as if the sense were “and after it” (i.e., after this life) as in Ecclesiastes 6:12; Ecclesiastes 10:14. The preposition of motion (ΰֶ ?μ in ΰֶ ?μδַ ?ξֵּ ?ϊִ ?ιν) “indicates that the sense of ‘it goes,’ is to complete the sentence,” Hitzig. 4. First strophe, conclusion. Ecclesiastes 9:4-6. In spite of the presentation just given, the condition of the living is ever to be preferred to that of the dead—For to him that is joined (Zφckler, taking the reading ιְ ?αֻ ?ηַ ?ψ translates it, “who is it that is preferred?”—T.L.). Thus according to the reading ιְ ?αֻ ?ηַ ?ψ, pual of αηψ “to choose, prefer,” does Vaihinger more correctly give the sense: “There is no one who would be here preferred and accepted, or who would have a choice, who would be exempted from death; since dying is a common fate; each one must go to the dead; but in death there is nothing more to hope.” In the same way, substantially, does Elster translate, except that he punctuates ιִ ?αְ ?ηַ ?ψ, and therefore gives it actively; “For who has any choice ?” Many later commentators adhere to the k’ri ιְ ?ηֻ ?αַּ ?ψ, which the 70. read (τίςὅςκοινωνεῖ πρὸςπάνταςτοὺςζῶντας) together with Symmachus and the Targum. They translate, therefore, with Ewald, “who is joined to the living has hope,” or, with Hitzig, interrogatively, “who is it who would be joined to all the living?” But the sense thus arising makes a very forced connection; and the translation of Hahn, who takes the word ηαψ in the sense of “charming,” is open to very weighty linguistic objections.—To all the living there is hope. Literally, “for all living,” for all as long as they live. The grammatical expression does not accord with Hengstenberg’s interpretation: “One may trust to all living;” for ΰֶ ?μ is used with the verb αθη (Psalms 4:6; Psalms 31:7), but not with the substantive αִּ ?θָּ ?ηεֹ ?ο for the introduction of the one in whom the confidence is placed. Comp. Job 11:18.—For a living dog is better than a dead lion. For the most contemptible and hateful thing that lives (comp. for the proverbial use of the dog in this relation, 1 Samuel 17:43; 2 Samuel 9:8; Isaiah 66:3; Matthew 15:26; Revelation 22:15, etc.) is more valuable than the most majestic of all beasts if it is dead; (for the majesty and glory of the lion as the king of beasts, consult Isaiah 38:13; Hosea 13:7; Lamentations 3:10; Job 10:16). This proverb is also known to the Arabs. See Golius, Adag. Cent. 2, n. 3. Ecclesiastes 9:5.—For the living know that they shall die. The consciousness of the necessity of death, is here presented not as the only, but yet as the characteristic superiority of the living over the dead, just as if only the necessity of death were the object of human knowledge—an individualizing statement of an ironical and yet most serious nature.—Neither have they any more reward. Not that they have had their share (Hitzig) but that God no longer exercises retributive justice towards them, because they are wanting in conscious, personal life. The fact of a retribution in a world beyond, is only apparently denied here, for the author now sees only the conditions of this world; on the subsequent fate of a spirit returned to God he is for the present entirely silent (Ecclesiastes 12:7; comp. Ecclesiastes 11:9).—For the memory of them is forgotten. So entirely do the dead remain without reward; not even the smallest thing that could profit them here below, not even the preservation of their memory with their posterity, is granted to them. Comp. Psalms 31:12; Job 14:21. It is doubtful whether ζֶ ?λֶ ?ψ “memory” is intended to rhyme with the preceding ωָׂ ?λָ ?ψ “reward” (as Hitzig supposes). It is more probable that such a rhyming is made in the following verse between ωִׂ ?πְ ?ΰָ ?ϊָ ?ν and χִ ?πְ ?ΰָ ?ϊָ ?ν. Ecclesiastes 9:6. A continued description of the sad fate of the dead; “from the very beginning with touching depth of tone, a strain of lamentation overpowering the author” (Hitzig). Also their love and their hatred and their envy is now perished. That is, not that they are deprived of the objects of their love, hatred, or envy (Knobel), but these sentiments and activities themselves have ceased for them; as ψτΰιν they are destitute of all affections, interests, and exertions, and lead rather a merely seeming life. (Rosenmueller, Hitzig). The sad existence of departed souls in Scheol, as described in Job 14:11 ff., seems here to hover before the author, just as in ver 10 below, he expressly speaks of it. It is significant that he denies them love as well as hatred, and would seem thereby to mark their condition as one extremely low. 5. Second strophe, Ecclesiastes 9:7-10. On account of this superiority of life, compared with the condition of the dead, and the uncertainty of human fate in general, it behooves us to enjoy life cheerfully (Ecclesiastes 9:7-9), and to use it zealously in the activity of our vocations (Ecclesiastes 9:10).—Go thy way, eat thy bread with joy, and drink thy wine with a merry heart. (Comp. Ecclesiastes 2:24; Ecclesiastes 5:19). This collective triad, “eat, drink, and be merry,” is here, as it were, increased to a quartette; joy being doubly designated, first as it finds its expression in cheerful adornments of the body and appropriate ornament, and then in loving unison with a wife.—Wine is used as a symbol and producer of joy, and also in Ecclesiastes 10:19; Genesis 27:25; Psalms 104:15, etc. For αְּ ?μֶ ?αΞθεֹ ?α “of joyful heart, gay,” comp. 1 Samuel 25:38; also Ecclesiastes 7:3 of the foregoing.—For God now accepteth thy works. That is, not that God finds pleasure in just this eating, drinking, etc. (Hitzig), but, thy moral conduct and efforts have long pleased Him, wherefore thou mayst hope in the future surely to receive thy reward from Him. (Hengstenberg correctly takes this position). Ecclesiastes 9:8. Let thy garments be always white. White garments are the expression of festive joy and pure, calm feelings in the soul, comp. Revelation 3:4 f.; Ecclesiastes 7:9 ff. Koheleth could hardly have meant a literal observance of this precept, so that the conduct of Sisinnius, Novatian bishop of Constantinople, who, with reference to this passage, always went in white garments, was very properly censured by Chrysostom as Pharisaical and proud. Hengstenberg’s view is arbitrary, and in other respects scarcely corresponds to the sense of the author: “White garments are here to be put on as an expression of the confident hope of the future glory of the people of God, as Spener had himself buried in a white coffin as a sign of his hope in a better future of the Church.”—And let thy head lack no ointment. As in 2 Samuel 12:20; 2 Samuel 14:2; Isaiah 61:3; Amos 6:6; Proverbs 27:9; Psalms 45:8, so here appears the anointing oil, which keeps the hair smooth and makes the face to shine, as a symbol of festive joy, and a contrast to a sorrowing disposition. There is no reason here for supposing fragrant spikenard (Mark 14:2), because the question is mainly about producing a good appearance by means of the ointment, comp. Psalms 133:2. Ecclesiastes 9:9.—Live joyfully with the wife whom thou lovest. That is, enjoy life with her, comp. Ecclesiastes 3:1; Psalms 34:12; and also Ecclesiastes 7:28, above, to which expression, apparently directed against all intercourse with women, the present one serves as a corrective.—All the days of the life of thy vanity. This short repetition of the preceding (“all the days of thy vain life, which he has given thee under the sun”) is left out of the Septuagint and Chaldaic, but is produced in the Vulgate, and should be by no means wanting, because it points with emphasis to the vanity of life as a principal motive to joy.—For that is thy portion in this life and in thy labor, etc. That is, for this cheerful and moderate enjoyment of life shall, according to the will of God, compensate thee for the toil and labor which this life brings with it; comp. Ecclesiastes 2:10; Ecclesiastes 3:22; Ecclesiastes 5:18. Ecclesiastes 9:10.—Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might, The word αְּ ?ληֲֹ ?κָ is by the Vulgate and most modern authors joined to ςֲ ?ωֵׂ ?δ, whilst according to the accents and the collocation, it belongs to what precedes. But it is a vigorous doing, nevertheless, that is here recommended; for the sense is clear: whatsoever presents itself, is to be performed with thy strength, whatsoever offers itself to thee as an object for thy exertion, that do ! For the expression, “whatsoever thy hand findeth to do,” comp. 1 Samuel 10:7; 1 Samuel 23:8;. Judges 9:33; also Isaiah 10:13-14.—For there is no work nor device, etc., in the grave whither thou goest. comp. Ecclesiastes 9:6. As Koheleth gives a motive here in his admonition to an active life, by pointing to the lifeless and inactive condition of departed souls in the realm of death, so speaks Christ in John 9:4 : ἐμὲ δεῖ ἐργαζεσθαιἕωςἡμέραἐστίς. ἔρχεταινύξὅτεοὐδεὶςδύναταιἐραγάζεσθαι. Since the νύξ (night) mentioned in John 9:4 and elsewhere, is clearly something else than the ωְׁ ?ΰεֹ ?μ of this passage, there is no definite reference to the latter, as Hengstenberg affirms, but between the two assertions there is a certain analogy. 6. Third strophe, Introduction. Ecclesiastes 9:11-12. Human actions in this world depend entirely on divine fate, and their success, therefore, is too often in no comparison with the real ability and strength of the actor.—I returned.—Comp. Ecclesiastes 4:1. For the infinitive absolute εְ ?ψָ ?ΰδֹ comp. Ecclesiastes 8:9.—That the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong. These remarks serve only to illustrate what follows: “Neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favor to men of skill.” ηֵ ?ο favor, as in Exodus 3:22; Exodus 11:3; Exodus 12:36, etc.—But time and chance happeneth to them all.—That is, the success of human actions depends wholly on that higher power which controls the change of seasons, and permits men to be met sometimes by this, sometimes by that (τֶּ ?βַ ?ς) which “happens, meets;” (comp. 1 Kings 5:18). A New Testament parallel is found in Romans 9:16, where, instead of time and chance, divine mercy is called the highest power in all human affairs. Ecclesiastes 9:12. For man also knoweth not his time. A conclusion, a majori ad minus. “Even over his time itself, over his person and his life, to say nothing of his actions (Ecclesiastes 9:11), there is a controlling power outside of him” (Hitzig). The “time” of a man is here clearly equivalent to the time of his destruction; as elsewhere the “day,” of Job 18:20; or the “hour,” Job 12:27; Mark 14:41. Comp. also Ecclesiastes 7:17 preceding.—As the fishes that are taken. For net, and noose, and trap, as symbols of the judgments overtaking men, comp. Hosea 7:12; Ezekiel 12:13; Ezekiel 32:3; Proverbs 7:23; Luke 21:35.—So are the sons of men snared. ιεּ ?χָ ?ωִׁ ?ιν Part. Pual see Ew. § 169. d. The word strikingly represents the helpless condition of men in the presence of divine destiny, that can put an end to their life at any moment, as the fowler who suddenly robs† of its life the bird caught in the snare. An allusion to the catastrophe threatened to the Persian kingdom by a new universal monarchy, the Macedonian, is not found in the passage, as Hengstenberg supposes. 7. Third strophe. Conclusion. Ecclesiastes 9:13-16. In spite of that dependence of human destiny and success on a higher power, which often violently interferes with them, wisdom remains, nevertheless, a valuable possession, still able to effect great results with inconsiderable means of an external character, as is seen in the example of a poor and despised man, who, by his wisdom, became the deliverer of his native city from threatening danger of destruction. Whether this example is a purely feigned didactic story (thus think Hengstenberg, Luther, Mercerus, Starke, et at.), or whether it refers to an historical fact within the" experience of the author, must remain uncertain, on account of the general character of the description; and this so much the more so, because the only passage that could seem to refer to a definite fact from Persian history (Ecclesiastes 9:15) is of doubtful exposition.—This wisdom have I seen also under the sun. (Zφckler, this have I seen as wisdom). The words βַּ ?νζδֹ ψָ ?ΰִ ?ιϊִ ?ιηָ ?λְ ?ξָ ?δ must clearly be thus translated (comp. the similar construction in Ecclesiastes 7:25), not, “thus also saw I wisdom,” etc. (thus usually), or, “this also have I seen: wisdom,” etc. (as Hitzig renders it,) changing ζδֹ into ζδ.—And it seemed great unto me, i.e., it appeared large, comp. Jonah 3:3. Ecclesiastes 9:14.—There was a little city, and few men within it. That is, not few inhabitants in general, but few fighting men available for defence—a circumstance which shows the danger of the city to be so much greater, and the merits of its deliverer to be so much more brilliant.—And there came a great king against it. We cannot deduce from the expression that the great king was the Persian; because the predicate βָ ?γεֹ ?μ attributed to the hostile king serves mainly to show the contrast to the smallness of the city, and the great size of the army led against it.—And built great bulwarks against it. ξְ ?φεֹ ?γִ ?ιν (from ξφεγ “an instrument for seizure,” hence sometimes a “net;” e.g. Ecclesiastes 7:26) is here used only in the signification of bulwarks, and must therefore not here be confounded with the more customary ξְ ?φεֹ ?ψִ ?ιν Deuteronomy 20:20; Micah 4:14), as two manuscripts here read. Ecclesiastes 9:15. Now there was found in it a poor wise man. Literal, “one found in it,” impersonal—not, “he, the king found.”—yet no man remembered that same poor man. [Zφckler renders in the pluperfect “had remembered,” etc., and then makes it the ground of the remarks that follow.—T. L.] We can neither urge against this pluperfect rendering of εְ ?ΰָ ?γָ ?νμֹ ?ΰζָ ?λָ ?ψ the circumstance that the one in question is here designated as ΰִ ?ιωׁ ξִ ?ρְ ?λֵּ ?ο and not as ηָ ?λָ ?ν (for the predicate poor is clearly to point out why they did not remember him—), nor also the contents of the following verse. For in it the emphasis lies upon the commendation of wisdom contained in the first clause, not on the subsequent restrictive remark concerning the contempt and disregard that it often meets with. Vaihinger is correct in his deviation from Hitzig, Ewald, Elster, and most modern authors, who, like the Vulgate and Luther, translate: “no man remembered.” As certain as this sense, according to which the discussion would be concerning a deliverer of his country, rewarded with the ingratitude of his fellow-citizens, is approached neither through language nor connection, just so certainly may we not (with Ewald and some ancient authors) here find an allusion to Themistocles as deliverer of Athens from the hand of Xerxes; and this latter so much the less because Athens could scarcely have been designated by the author as ςִ ?ιψֹ χְ ?θַ ?πָּ ?η. Hitzig is of opinion that the besieged city is the little sea-port Dora, vainly besieged by Antiochus the Great in the year 218 (Polyb. v. 66); but nothing is known of the deliverance of this city by a “poor wise man,” and for many reasons the epoch of this book cannot be brought down to so late an era as that of Antiochus Magnus. Comp. the Introduction, § 4, Obs. 3. Ecclesiastes 9:16. The moral of the story, is given in the words of Koheleth uttered immediately after he had heard it.—Then said I, wisdom is better than strength. Comp. similar sentences in Ecclesiastes 7:19; Proverbs 14:29; Proverbs 16:32; Proverbs 21:22; Proverbs 24:5.—Nevertheless the poor man’s wisdom is despised. These words, which again limit the praise of wisdom expressed above, depend also on the expression, “Then said I.” They refer, according to Ecclesiastes 9:15, to the fact that in the beginning no one had thought of the wisdom of that deliverer of the city—and not even of the ingratitude afterwards shown to him, or of not having followed his wise counsels (which latter view however would be in antagonism with Ecclesiastes 9:15, according to which the sorely pressed city was really delivered). AND ETHICAL(With Homiletical Hints) As the previous section contained a series of ethical precepts with an anthropological foundation (similar to the one preceding it) so is this one a combination of theological and ethical truths, which the author lays to the heart of his readers. And it is especially the doctrine of the incomprehensibility of the decrees and judgments of God, and of the hidden character of His universal rule that the author treats, and from which he derives the duties of a cheerful enjoyment and use of the blessings of life (Ecclesiastes 9:7-9) of an untiring activity (Ecclesiastes 9:10) and of continued striving after practical wisdom as a possession that is valuable under all circumstances. The contents arc therefore similar to those of chap. 3, only that there the principal thought is of the conditioning and restrictive character of the divine counsels and acts of universal rule; here, on the contrary, the prominent idea is their hidden and unsearchable nature (Romans 9:33; 1 Corinthians 13:12). This section is also in close relation with chap, 6, especially in regard to its ethical and practical precepts (comp. Ecclesiastes 9:9, with Ecclesiastes 6:12; Ecclesiastes 9:14, with Ecclesiastes 6:8; Ecclesiastes 9:1-6, with Ecclesiastes 6:2-6, etc.), only that from the former, the conclusions drawn are mainly serious and gloomy, while from the latter they are predominantly cheerful. Homily on the whole section. The thought of the brevity of human life, and the obscurity of that which awaits us in it, should not discourage but impel us to a ready and cheerful use of the blessings granted us hero below, as well as of the powers for a truly wise exertion; or more briefly: Of the blessing and value of reflections concerning death, as an impulse to the zealous fulfilment of the avocations of life. homiletical hints to separate passagesEcc_8:16-17. Hieronymus:—He shows that there are causes for all things, why each thing should thus be, and that there is righteousness in all, though they may be latent and beyond the comprehension.—Zeyss: a Christian should neither show himself negligent in investigating the works of God, nor too curious.—Hansen: God’s works that He performs among the children of men have eternity in view, and nothing short of eternity will open up to us their inner perfection, Revelation 15:3.—Berlenb. Bible :—O ye poor blind men, who think to fathom by your wisdom the cause of divine providences; ye are indeed greatly deceived! You condemn everything that surpasses our understanding, when you should rather confess that these things are so much the more divine, the more they surpass your comprehension. The more trouble you take to fathom the secrets of wisdom by your own study, so much the less do you attain your goal. The true test that a man possesses genuine wisdom, is when he is assured that he cannot comprehend the mysteries of God as He deals with souls.—Hengstenberg:—Blessed is the man who accepts without examination all that God sends him, in the firm trust that it is right, however wrong it may appear, and that to those who love God all things must be for the best. Ecclesiastes 9:1-3. Brenz (Ecclesiastes 9:1):—There are those whom God loves and whom He hates. For He does not cast off the whole human race, though He might justly do so; neither does He embrace all men in His favor; but to some He deigns to grant His mercy, whilst others He leaves to their own destruction. There is, however, no one who can know by any external sign, whom God receives or rejects.—(Ecclesiastes 9:2-3). Whoeverin faith looks into the word of God may easily know that, though the wicked may now seem to have the same fortune with the pious, there shall come, at last, a clear discrimination between the good and the bad, adjudging the one class to eternal punishment, the others to the happiness of everlasting life.—Geier (Ecclesiastes 9:2-3). We cannot judge of the condition of the dead after this life, by our reason, but only by its accordance with the revealed word of God.—Hansen:—Wo are to ascribe it to the peculiarities of this present life, if the just suffer with the wicked; Sir 40:1 ff. Zeyss:—A child of God should love this life not on account of temporal prosperity, but for the honor of God, and the welfare of his neighbor. Cramer:—So long as the wicked lives, it is better for him than if he is dead, since he has yet time to repent. But when he is dead then all hope for him is lost. Starke:—Atheists live in the foolish delusion that after death all is over and that the soul ceases with the death of the body; but they will receive the most emphatic contradiction on the great day of judgment. Ecclesiastes 9:7-10. Luther (Ecclesiastes 9:7):—You live in a world where there is nothing but sorrow, misery, grief, and death, with much vanity: therefore use life with love, and do not make your own life sour and heavy with vain and anxious cares.—Solomon does not say this to the secure and wicked children of the world, but to those truly fearing and believing God. These latter he consoles, and desires that they may cheerfully take comfort in God. To the former He says rejoice, but does not bid those to drink wine, eat, etc., who are but too much inclined to do so, and pass their lives in idleness and voluptuousness as wicked and depraved men. Zeyss (Ecclesiastes 9:7):—The believers have more claim to the gifts of God than the unbelievers (1 Corinthians 3:21-22), although they may enjoy them the least.—(Ecclesiastes 9:9). Marriage is a sacred and wise ordinance of God; therefore the Christian may use it with a good conscience; but it must be enjoyed in the fear of God, Ephesians 5:31. Starke (Ecclesiastes 9:8):—Arrogance, pride, and display in dress are very common vices in these latter times: the children of God find it very difficult to suppress these in themselves.—(Ecclesiastes 9:10). The obligations that you owe to the body, you owe doubly to the soul. O man neglect not the labor due to thy soul; the night of death is coming when no one can work.—Cramer (Ecclesiastes 9:10):—We should perform the work of our calling with a resolute and confident spirit, and never hesitate in our charge.—Hengstenberg (Ecclesiastes 9:10):—That we should do all that lies in our power is required by the facts that what we leave undone here below is never done, that the tasks placed upon us by God for this life, and which here remain unperformed, never find their performance, and that the gifts and powers conferred on us for this life must be used in this life. Ecclesiastes 9:11-12. Tόbingen Bible:—Even in temporal things it does not depend upon any one’s will or movements, but only on God’s mercy. Everything is derived from God’s blessing.—Starke (Ecclesiastes 9:12) :—By his skill man can calculate the rising and setting of the sun; but human wisdom does not extend so far that one can tell when the sun of his life will rise or set.—Hengstenberg:—If it seems sad with the people of God when the world triumphs, let us reflect that such result does not depend on the might, or the weakness of men; and that a sudden catastrophe may overwhelm the highest, and cast him to the ground. Have we God for our friend? it all comes to that as the only thing that can decide. Ecclesiastes 9:13-16. Melanchthon:—Such a poor man, in a city, was Jeremiah, as he himself writes, a man who saved the church in the midst of disorder and confusion. At the same time the precept admonishes us that good counsels are listened to by the few, whilst the worst please the many. And thus he says; The poor man’s wisdom is despised.—Cartwright:—Wisdom, however splendid, if in lowly state, is so obscured by the cloud of poverty that in a brief time it has all eyes averted, and utterly falls from the memory. Cramer:—Thou shouldst laud no one on account of his high estate, and despise no one on account of his low estate. For the bee is a very little creature, and yet gives the sweetest fruit.—Starke:—The heart of mail is by nature so corrupt that to its own injury it is inclined to run after folly, and be disobedient to wisdom.—But true wisdom always finds those who know and love her. Though a wise man may for a time dwell in obscurity, he will nevertheless be drawn forth from it before he is aware. Wisdom of Solomon Ecclesiastes 10:13-14. [I. Koheleth’s Idea of the Dead.—Ecclesiastes 9:5 :— The living know that they must die, the dead they nothing know; For them there is no more reward—forgotten is their name; Their love, their hate, their zeal, all perished now; Whilst the world lasts, no portion more have they In all the works performed beneath the sun. Stuart thinks that the Preacher “claims small merit for the living, merely the knowledge that they must die.” “Is this,” he asks, “better than not knowing any thing?” He argues, besides, that there is an inconsistency in such a view, made greater by the fact that this praise of life one of the cheering passages, whereas such declarations as Ecclesiastes 7:1; Ecclesiastes 4:2-3 are from the desponding mood. Is not this, however, a mistake ? The language here is gloomy, if not wholly desponding. Koheleth is perplexed and bewildered as he contemplates the apparent state of the dead, especially as it presents itself to the sense, inactive, motionless, silent, unheeding. He turns to the living, and surveys their condition, so full of vanity, with only the superiority of a little knowledge, one important element of which, is a knowledge that this vanity must come to an end. It is just the survey that would give rise to that touching irony already spoken of, that mournful smile at human folly, in which a just contempt is blended with deepest sympathy,—an irony, not sneering, but tenderly compassionate, such as we find in some other Scriptures. As, for example, in Genesis 3:22, where God is represented as ironically repeating the wolds of Satan, but in a spirit how different from that of the fiend! Ah, poor wretch! he knows it now, the difference between good and evil! See Gen., p. 210. So here, as though he had said, “Alas, their boasted knowledge! They know that they must die,—this is the substance of it, the remotest bound to which their science reaches.” There is something of the same feeling in what is here affirmed of the state of the dead. It gloomily contemplates only the physical aspect, or the physical side of death, such as presents itself, sometimes, to the Christian, without any feeling of inconsistency, and without impairing that hope of future life which he possesses in a higher degree than Koheleth. We may even say that it is good for us, occasionally, to fix our minds on this mere physical aspect of our frail humanity. O when shall spring visit the mouldering urn? O when shall day dawn on the night of the grave? It was not an infidel, but a devout believer, that wrote this. And so, too, there may be, at times, a sort of melancholy pleasure in thinking of death mainly in its aspect of repose from the toils and anxieties of the present stormy life; as in that mournful dirge so often sung at funerals— Unveil thy bosom, faithful tomb; Take this new treasure to thy trust; And give these sacred relics room To slumber in the silent dust. Nor pain, nor grief, nor anxious fear, Invade thy bounds; no mortal woes Can reach the peaceful sleeper, here. We feel no inconsistency between such strains, even when they assume a more sombre aspect, and that brighter view which the Christian takes in contemplating the spiritual side of our strange human destiny, or even as it sometimes presented itself to the Old Testament believer (Psalms 16:11; Psalms 17:15; Psalms 78:24). They no more jar upon our speculative theology than the language of our Saviour, John 9:4 : “The night cometh, when no man can work” [comp. Ecclesiastes 9:10; Ecclesiastes 11:8], or that touching language of the New Testament which represents death under the soothing conception of a sleep—κοίμησις—a lying down to rest. This term is not confined to the body, as the best exegesis would show, but would seem to denote also a most blessed state of quiescence for the spirit,—a state rudimental, imperfect, unfinished, anomalous, preparatory, yet most secure,—tranquil yet not torpid—inactive, yet not inert—a holy conscious rest, a lying “under the shadow of the Almighty,”—separate from the present world, away from all its busy doings, if not from all its memories, and thus cradled again, nursed and educated, we may say, for that higher finished life, when death shall be fully conquered. He is the last and greatest enemy [1 Corinthians 15:26] who, until that time, retains some dominion over all humanity,—even over those “who sleep in Jesus,” or “through Jesus,” as it should be rendered,—the saved, or rather, the being saved [present participle, οἱ σωζόμενοι] the being healed, or made alive, as the Syriac has it, those in whom the redemptive life of Christ is overcoming death, and growing to the matured and perfect life of eternity. For it is clear, even from the New Testament, that this “state of death,” or reign of death, still continues, in a certain sense, and in a certain degree, until the resurrection. Its power is over all men, and over the whole man, soul and body, although for the Christian, whose “life is hid with Christ in God” [Colossians 3:3], its sting is taken quite away. There is no mistaking the language, 1 Corinthians 15:54 : ὅτανδὲ τὸ φθαρτὸντοῦτοἐνδύσηταιἀφθαρσίανκ. τ. λ. It is only when this corruption puts on incorruption, and this mortal puts on immortality, that there is brought to pass the saying, “Death is swallowed up in victory.” Till then, Death and Hades go together. One is but the continuation of the other. Being in Hades is being in the kingdom of the dead. Till then, the Old Testament idea still holds of death, not as extinction, non-existence, or not being [see Genesis, Notes, pp. 273, 586], but as a state, a state of positive being, though strange and inexplicable,—a state of continued personality, real though undefined, utterly unknown as to its condition, or only conceived of negatively as something that differs, in almost every respect, from the present active, planning, toiling, pleasure-grasping, knowledge-seeking life “beneath the sun.” That there is something strange about it, something difficult to be thought, is intimated in our Saviour’s language respecting the Old Testament saints, Luke 20:38, πάντεςγὰραὐτῷ ζῶσιν, “for they all live unto Him” [unto God],—as though what was called their life was something out of them, and could only be made dimly conceivable to us by this remarkable language. Compare the Jewish expression as we find it, 1 Samuel 25:29, and as it is interpreted and often quoted by Rabbinical writers, φְ ?ψεּ ?ψָ ?δαִּ ?φְ ?ψεֹ ?ψδַ ?ηַ ?ιִּ ?ιν “bound up in the bundle of life with Jehovah thy God,” or as the Vulgate renders it—anima custodita quasi in fasciculo viventium apud Dominum Deum tuum.There is yet a reserve to the doctrine of the immediate after life, still a veil cast over it, we may reverently say, even in the New Testament. The most modern notions of a sudden transition to the highest Heavens, and to the perfect life, are, perhaps, as far to the one extreme, as the descriptions of mortality which Koheleth gives us, in his gloomy mood, may be in the other. This idea of the dead passing straightway into a busy active state of existence, in these respects resembling the present life, with its proud talk of progress, was unknown to the early Church, as its liturgies and funeral hymns most evidently show. See especially the earliest Syriac hymns, much of whose language the modern notions would render almost unintelligible. Christ has indeed “brought immortality to light,” but it is chiefly by the doctrine of the resurrection, that great article so clear in the New Testament, though having its shadow in the Old. But there is another doctrine there, however little it is studied. We are taught that there was a work of Christ in Hades. He descended into Hades; he makes proclamation [ἐκήρυξεν] in Hades (1 Peter 3:19) to those who are there “in ward.” He is our Christian Hermes, belonging to both worlds. He is the ψυχαγωγὸς, the conductor and guide of redeemed spirits in Hades, the “Shepherd and Bishop of souls” (1 Peter 2:15), the “Good Shepherd” (Psalms 23), who leads his spiritual flock beside the still waters, in the Cetzalmaveth, the “valley of the death shade,” or terra umbrarum, and, at the same time, the great High Priest above, to whom is “given all power in Heaven and in earth.” He is the ξμΰκδβεΰμ the Redeeming Angel of the Old Testament, to whom the righteous committed their spirits [Psalms 31:6] and the Mediator more clearly revealed in the New. The doctrine of the immediate after life, as we have said, has still a shadow cast upon it. We should not, therefore, wonder to find Koheleth still more under the veil. His very language implies continuance of being, in some way, although presenting a state of inactivity, and, in a word, a want of all participation in the doings and even memories of the present “life beneath the sun.” It did not fall in the way of his musing to speak of differences, in this state, between the “righteous and the wicked;” but, in other passages of the Old Testament, it appears more clear, though still barely hinted, as in Proverbs 14:32; Psalms 73:20; Psalms 49:15. It is a state in which the one is “driven away,” whilst the other “has hope.” Elsewhere, however [Ecclesiastes 3:17; Ecclesiastes 12:13-14], Koheleth affirms his strong belief that at some time, and in some way, the two classes will be judged, and the difference between them most clearly manifested. In the rhvthmical version of Ecc 9:10, ηָ ?λְ ?ξָ ?δ is rendered philosophy, because the writer seems, in this place, to take it in its more pretentious sense, or for human wisdom in distinction from the Divine,—speculative inquiry, Very much as Paul uses σοφία, sometimes, in the New Testament. And so, perhaps, we would come nearer to the intended force of the other word γַּ ?ςַ ?ϊ by rendering science, although not exactly corresponding to it in the most modern acceptation of the term. It is Paul’s γνῶσις, “curious knowledge,”—not mere knowing, as consciousness, whether Koheleth held to any such consciousness or not. Comp. it with ηֶ ?ωְׁ ?αּ ?εֹ ?ο (plan, reckoning) in immediate connection. So, too, even when speaking of the perfect psychological state (1 Corinthians 13:8) Paul says of knowledge (γνῶσις), καταργηθήσεται—not, “it shall cease,” as rendered, but “it shall be deposed”—put one side—no longer made the highest thing, as in this fallen life, where the intellectual is placed above the moral nature. In the blessed and perfect life to come, moral or spiritual contemplation, pervaded by ἀγάπη, shall be the highest exercise of the soul. Even the intermediate state is to be regarded as superior to the present existence in ontological rank, and the terms embryotic or rudimental, if applied to it, must be taken simply as denoting a formative state of repose, preparatory to the more glorious life that follows.—T. L.] [II. The Alleged Epicureanism of Koheleth. Note on Ecclesiastes 9:7-10, in connection with Ecclesiastes 11:9-10. These passages have given rise to much comment. Stuart, with many others, regards the first of them as expressing the real advice which Koheleth would give in regard to the conduct of life, and then says: “In all this there is nothing Epicurean.” What then is Epicureanism ? Or how shall we distinguish? It would seem to be almost too sober a word. The language here used may almost be characterized as Anacreontic: “Eat with joy thy bread, and drink with mirth thy wine,—thy garments always white, and oil ne’er lacking to thy head:” Πίνωμεν, ὦ πίνωμεν—Τὸ ῥόδοντὸ καλλίφυλλονΚροτάφοισινἁρμόσαντες. How, then, shall we avoid what seems to be on the very face of the passage ? It will not do to resort to any special interpretation on account of a mere exigentia loci; although it might, with perfect truth, be said, that such Anacreontic advice is not only contrary to all the more serious portions of the Scriptures, Old and New, but also to the deeply solemn views in regard to human vanities, and the great awaiting judgment, that Koheleth himself has, in other places, so clearly expressed. All this outward argument, however, would not justify us in calling it irony, unless there were some internal evidence, something in the very style of the passage which called for such a conclusion. A careful examination, made in the spirit of the whole book, shows that there are such internal grounds of criticism. It was a feeling of this that led Jerome, the most judicious of the Patristic commentators, to call it a προσωποποιί̈α, a personification, or dramatizing, more rhetorum et poetarum, or what the Jewish critics (see p. 71) called “the case speaking,” the language of human life and human actions, in view of the pure earthliness of its condition. It is the language of the author so far as he puts himself forth as the representative of such a despairing state: quasi dixerit, O homo quia ergo, post mortem nihil es, dum vivis in hac brevi vita fruere voluptate, etc.: “O man since, after death, thou art nothing, then, whilst thou livest thy short life, enjoy pleasure, indulge in feasts, drown thy cares in wine, go forth adorned in raiment ever white (a sign of perpetual joy), let fragrant odors be ever breathing from thy head; take thy joy in female loveliness (quζcunque tibi placerent feminarum, ejus gaude complexu, et vanam hanc et brevem vitam vana et brevi voluptate percurre) and in brief pleasure pass this thy brief life of vanity,” etc. He then represents Koheleth as retracting all this in the passage immediately following, where he says, “I turned again, and saw that the race was not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, nor wealth to the prudent, etc.,” in other words, that thus to live in joy was not in man’s power, but that all things happened as they were disposed by God: Hζc, aliquis inquit, loquatur Epicurus et Aristippus, et ceteri pecudes philosophorum, ego autem (inquit Koheleth) mecum diligenter retractans, invenio non est velocium cursus, necfortium prζlium, etc, etc.There are two things in the passage itself that lead the serious reader to such a feeling, and such a view of its ironical, or, rather, its dramatic character. The first is the exuberance of the language, its extravagance, its Bacchanalian style, we might almost call it, inconsistent with, or certainly not demanded by, such a moderate, rational, sober view, or such a sober advice to live a contented life, as Stuart contends for, or, in other words, a judicious, virtuous Epicureanism. The joy so oft repeated, the mirth, the wine, the white raiment, the aromatic oils—what has such superlativeness of style to do with such a moderate, sober purpose ? It was no more needed than the language which Euripides (Alcestis 800) puts into the mouth of Hercules when playing the Bacchanalian, and which this Solomonic irony so closely resembles:— Εὔφραιυεσαυτὸν, πῖνε. τὸνκαθ̓ ἡμέραυΒίονλόγίζουσόν. τὰ δ̓ ἄλλατῆςτύχης.Τίμαδὲ καὶ τὴνπλεῖστονἡδίστηνθεων.Οὔκουν, μεθ̓ ἡμῶν, τὴνλύπηνἄφεὶς, πίη,Στεφάνοιςπυκασθείςκ. τ. λ.Make glad thy heart, drink wine, the life to-day Regard thine own; all else belongs to chance. In high esteem hold Love’s delightful power. In social joy indulge—with chaplets crowned; And drive dull care away. Hear Koheleth: Go then and eat with joy thy bread, and drink with mirth thy wine, In every season be thy garments white, And fragrant oil be never lacking to thy head; Live joyful with the wife whom thou hast loved. The one kind of language seems but the echo of the other. If we disregard the spirit and the design of Koheleth, there is an Epicurean zest in his description, not surpassed, to say the least, by that of Euripides. We may say, too, on the other hand, that it is not easy to distinguish his language, and the spirit of it, from that of Paul in his quotation, 1 Corinthians 15:32 : “Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die.” If it be said that the context there makes it impossible for us to mistake the Apostle’s ironical meaning, the same may be said in respect to the writer who tells us, only a short distance back, Better to visit sorrow’s house, than seek the banquet hall; Better is grief than mirth; For in the sadness of the face the heart becometh fair. It is the very nature of rhetorical irony, especially if it be the irony of sorrowful warning, to paint the thing in higher colors, we may say, than would suit its description in a more direct and didactic admonition. Had it been a piece of Isocratean moralizing in commendation of a moderate, contented, frugal, and thankful enjoyment of life, it would naturally have been in a lower and calmer strain. The wine, the odors, the splendid raiment, would have been all wanting. They are just the points in the picture, however, to make an impression on the serious mind when it is felt to be a description of the vanity of life. We may even say that they are just the things that lead to such a feeling. The second internal evidence showing the true character of this passage, is the feeling of sorrow, which, amidst all its apparent joyousness, the writer cannot suppress. We have called it irony, but the irony of the Bible is not only serious, but sometimes most tender. Whilst, then, the language here criticised is not the mere worldly advice that Stuart and others would represent, neither is it, on the other hand, the hard irony of sarcasm, or of unpitying satire. Koheleth’s thoughts of death, and its awful unknown, have depressed his faith, and there seems to have come over him a feeling akin to despair. His idea of God’s justice, and of some great destiny, or world, over and encompassing the present, is not lost—for it reappears strongly afterwards—but, for the moment, the thought of man, as he is seen in the earthly state, becomes predominant, and he breaks out in this strain, in which pity is a very manifest element. “Go then and enjoy thy poor life.” There is strong feeling in it, a most tender compassion, and this shows itself in that touching mention of the transient human state, and, especially, in the pathetic repetition of the words The days of thy vain life,—that life Which God hath given to thee beneath the sun; Yea, all thy days of vanity. This plaintive tone is utterly inconsistent with the Epicurean interpretation, however moral and decent we may strive to make it. Again, there are two arguments against such a view that may be said to be outside of the passage itself, though one of them is derived from another place in the book. First—in Ecclesiastes 11:9-10, we have a strain so precisely similar, in style and diction, that we cannot help regarding it as possessing the same rhetorical character. It may be thus given metrically, yet most literally, and with the full force of every Hebrew word: Rejoice O youth in childhood; let thy heart Still cheer thee in the day when thou art strong; Go on in every way thy will shall choose, And alter every form thine eyes behold. It is not easy to mistake the character of this, even if it were not followed by that most impressive warning: But know that for all this, thy God will thee to judgment bring: O then turn sorrow from thy soul, keep evil from thy flesh; For childhood and the morn of life, they, too, are vanity. Here the caution is clearly expressed, although we feel that such expression is just what the previous words, rightly comprehended in their spirit, would have led us to expect. Rhetorically regarded, such an addition would have been exactly adapted to this place (Ecclesiastes 9:7-10). It would have been in harmony with the tone of what had gone before. It is, however, so suggested by the whole spirit of the passage, and especially by that irrepressible tone of commiseration that appears in the words before cited (the pathetic allusion to our poor vain life), that it may well be a question whether any such distinct warning, or any mere moralizing utterance. could have had more power than the “expressive silence” which leaves it wholly to the feeling and conscience of the reader. The passage Ecclesiastes 11:9-10, is so important in itself, and has such a bearing on the one before us, as to justify its fuller interpretation in this place. Many modern commentators regard these verses also as a serious advice to the young man, if the term serious could, with any propriety, be applied to such an admonition. The older commentators, however, are mostly the other way. They regarded the passage as indeed most serious, but as having this character from its sharp pet mournful irony. So Geier says : “magnam interpretum partem hζc verba imperative, ironice accipere.” Among these were Kimchi, Munsterus, Mercerus, Drusius, Junius, Piscator, Cartwright, Cajetan, Vatablus, Ar. Montanus, Osorius, Mariana, Menoch, Pineda, Jac. Mathiζ, and others, among whom may be reckoned Tremellius, if we may judge from the tone and style of his Latin translation. Luther was the other way, and it may be said that he has given the tone to many that have come after him, evangelical as well as rationalist. “This is said seriously by Solomon,” he tells us, “de licita juventutis hilaritate, concerning the permitted joy fulness of youth, which ought not to be unbridled, or lascivious, but restrained within certain limits.” But what right has he to say this ? What limits are assigned ? The language seems wholly without limitations, or reserve : “Walk in the ways of thine heart, and in the sight of thine eyes,” terms which every where else in the Hebrew Scriptures are used, in malam partem, to denote sensual and ungodly conduct; as in Numbers 15:39 : “Ye shall not go (roam) ΰַ ?ηֲ ?ψֵ ?ιμְ ?αַ ?αְ ?λֶ ?νεְ ?ΰַ ?ηֲ ?ψֵ ?ιςֵ ?ιπֵ ?ιλֶ ?ν after your own heart, and after your eyes.” Compare also the frequent phrase ωְׁ ?ψִ ?ιψεּ ?ϊμֵ ?α, commonly rendered “the imagination of the heart,” but really meaning the turnings (choices) of the heart,—doing as one pleases. See Deuteronomy 29:18; Psalms 71:13 where it is synonymous with ιֵ ?μְ ?εּ αְּ ?ξεֹ ?ςֲ ?φεֹ ?ϊֵ ?ιδֶ ?ν “walking in their own counsels,” also Jeremiah 9:13, and other places. Compare especially Job 31:7, where, for “the heart to follow the eye” is placed among the grievous sins, being regarded, in fact, as the very fountain-head of sin: ΰִ ?νΰַ ?ηַ ?ψςֵ ?ιπַ ?ιδָ ?μַ ?κְ μִ ?αִּ ?ι, “if my heart hath gone after mine eyes,” the will (the conscience) after the choice, the velle after the optare, the voluntas after the voluptas. “Walk in the way of thine heart;” what an admonition this to a young man, even if such a one ever needed an exhortation to hilarity, or to the following of his own pleasure! This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ B. In Presence of the Insolence, Bold Assumption and Violence of Fortunate and Influential Fools, the Wise Man can only Preserve his Peace of Soul by Patience, Silence and TranquilityEcc_9:17 to Ecclesiastes 10:201. Of the advantage of a wise tranquility over the presumptuous insolence of fools (Ecclesiastes 9:17 to Ecclesiastes 10:4) 17The words of wise men are heard in quiet more than the cry of him that ruleth 18 among fools. Wisdom is better than weapons of war: but one sinner destroyeth much good. 1Dead flies cause the ointment of the apothecary to send forth a stinking savour: so doth a little folly him that is in reputation for wisdom and honour. 2A wise man’s heart is at his right hand; but a fool’s heart is at his left. 3Yea also, when he that is a fool walketh by the way, his wisdom faileth him, and he saith to every one that he is a fool. 4If the spirit of the ruler rise up against thee, leave not thy place; for yielding pacifieth great offences. 2. Of the advantage of quiet, modest wisdom over the externally brilliant but inconstantfortune of fools (Ecclesiastes 10:5-10) 5There is an evil which I have seen under the sun, as an error which proceedeth 6from the ruler: Folly is set in great dignity, and the rich sit in low place. 7I have seen servants upon horses, and princes walking as servants upon the earth. 8He that diggeth a pit shall fall into it; and whoso breaketh an hedge, a serpent shall bite him. 9Whoso removeth stones shall be hurt therewith; and he that cleaveth wood shall be endangered thereby. 10If the iron be blunt, and he do not whet the edge, then must he put to more strength: but wisdom is profitable to direct. 3. Of the advantage of the silence and persevering industry of the wise man over the loquacityand indolence of fools (Ecclesiastes 10:11-20) 11Surely the serpent will bite without enchantment; and a babbler is no better. 12The words of a wise man’s mouth are gracious; but the lips of a fool will swallow up himself. 13The beginning of the words of his mouth is foolishness: and the end of his talk is mischievous madness. 14A fool also is full of words: a man cannot tell what shall be; and what shall be after him, who can tell him? 15The labour of the foolish wearieth every one of them, because he knoweth not how to go to 16 the city. Wo to thee, O land, when thy king is a child, and thy princes eat in the 17 morning! Blessed art thou, O land, when thy king is the son of nobles, and thy 18 princes eat in due season, for strength, and not for drunkenness! By much sloth-fulness the building decayeth; and through idleness of the hands the house droppeth through. 19A feast is made for laughter, and wine maketh merry : but money answereth all things. 20Curse not the king, no, not in thy thought; and curse not the rich in thy bed-chamber: for a bird of the air shall carry the voice, and that which hath wings shall tell the matter. *[Ecclesiastes 10:8. βεּ ?ξָּ ?φ. A ditch, or pit, Vulg., fovea, LXX. βόθρͅον. The Syriac Version, has the same word. It is, however, no more Aramaic than Hebrew, being rare in both languages, though the verb, signifying to dig, is found in the latter. Its form is unusual in having dagesh after shurek, as is noted in the margin.—T. L.] *[ Ecclesiastes 10:8 βεּ ?ξָּ ?υ. A ditch, or pit, Vulg., fovea, 70 βόθρον. The Syriac Version has the same word. It is, however, no more Aramaic than Hebrew, being rare in both languages, though the verb, signifying to dig, is found in the latter. Its form is unusual in having dagesh after shurek, as is noted in the margin.—T.L.] [Ecclesiastes 10:9. ιִ ?ρָּ ?λֵ ?ο; for ιִ ?ωָׂ ?λֵ ?ο, a denominative from ωַׂ ?λִּ ?ιο, “a knife,” and, therefore, having no relation to the verb ρλο as found, with quite a different meaning, Job 22:2; Job 33:3; Job 15:3; Isaiah 22:15, etc. Lit., “shall be cut,” or, “may be cut thereby.” It is another example of variant orthography, showing that the first manuscripts of this work were written from the ear. See remarks on ωִׂ ?λְ ?μεּ ?ϊ and similar words, page 116.—T. L.] [Ecclesiastes 10:10. χִ ?μְ ?χַ ?μ; the sense of swinging, which Zφckler, Hitzig, and Elster give to this word, is not confirmed by Ezekiel 21:26, to which they refer. Gesenius gives the sense to sharpen, polish, but derives it from the primary idea of light moving, as in the rapid motions of a whet-stone, which is very probable. The accents connect it τπιν faces, edges, though the Vulgate and LXX have disregarded it.—T. L.] AND Of the three sections of this division, as we lay them down in essential conformity with Vaihinger, the first compares the entire nature of the wise man with that of the fool, whilst the second draws a parallel between the two regarding the conditions of their happiness; but the third points out the more profound causes of their opposite destinies in two special qualities of both (the loquacity and indolence of fools, and the opposite of these faults in the wise man). This train of thought is less clear on account of the peculiar form of the sentences,—nearly all being proverbs of two lines, concise in extent, and significant and aphoristic in character;—but it must not therefore be disregarded, nor displaced by the acceptance of an incongruity of plan or connection, as if it were a conglomerate of many groups of maxims or of separate proverbs with no internal connection. By an atomistic and disintegrating process, this section has been divided by Hengstenberg into five divisions, by Hahn into eight, and by Elster even into nine; (1) Ecclesiastes 9:17 to Ecclesiastes 10:1; (2) Ecclesiastes 10:2-3; (3) Ecclesiastes 10:4; (4) Ecclesiastes 10:5-7; (5) Ecclesiastes 10:8-10; (6) Ecclesiastes 10:11-14; (7) Ecclesiastes 10:15; (8) Ecclesiastes 10:16-19; (9) Ecclesiastes 10:20; we shall present the special refutation of this system in our illustrations of the words and sense of the individual verses. 2. First strophe. Ecclesiastes 9:17 to Ecclesiastes 10:4. Of the patient and tranquil nature of the wise man in contrast with the arrogant insolence and irascibility of the fool.—The words of wise men are heard in quiet more than the cry of him that ruleth among fools. Observe the connection with the section immediately preceding, Ecclesiastes 9:13-16, which shows the superiority of wisdom by a single example. But this verse opens a new section in so far as it begins to treat specifically of tranquility as a characteristic and cardinal virtue of the wise man. He who hears in quiet, proves himself thereby a lover of quiet and tranquility, and therefore a wise man. A quiet attention to wise words is a condition necessary to their practical obedience, and consequently to becoming wise and acting wisely. The counterpart of this is shown by the boisterous and passionate cry of the “ruler among fools,” i.e., not absolutely of the “foolish ruler” (Vaihinger, etc., referring to Psalms 54:6; Job 24:13, ff.), but of a ruler who, as he rules over fools, is foolish himself; comp. Ecclesiastes 10:16. Elster correctly observes : “Two pictures are here compared, the wise man among his scholars, who receive his teachings with collected attention, and thoughtful quiet, and a ruler wanting in wisdom to control, and who, in undignified and boisterous ostentation, issues injudicious commands to those who execute them quite as injudiciously. Comp. the mild and tranquil nature of the servant of God, with the criers in the streets: Isaiah 42:2; Matthew 12:19. Ecclesiastes 9:18. Wisdom is better than weapons of war; i.e., it is stronger, more effective, and indomitable than the greatest physical strength and warlike preparation, χְ ?ψָ ?α poetical, and equivalent to ξִ ?μְ ?ηָ ?ξָ ?δ comp. Psalms 55:19; Daniel 7:21; and therefore, λְּ ?μֵ ?ιΞχְ ?ψָ ?α as elsewhere we have λְּ ?μֵ ?ι ,πִ ?μְ ?ηַ ?ξַ ?δ not merely weapons of war (Vulgate: arma bellica; Elster, et al.), but implements of war, warlike instruments, and apparatus, war material in general .—But one sinner destroyeth much good. “One sinner,” i.e., a single one of those coarse miscreants or fools, who can command physical strength, but are destitute of wisdom. There certainly can be no intention to make a special allusion to the “heathen world-monarch,” i.e., the Persian king (Hengstenberg), nor in the expression, “much good” is there any reference to the prosperity of the Persian realm. This expression θεֹ ?αָ ?δδַ ?ψְ ?αֵּ ?δ can rather be only intended to show what is homogeneous with wisdom and belonging to it, consequently the salutary creations and measures of wisdom, its blessings in the various spheres of the civil, and, especially, of the moral life of men.—Nine manuscripts read εְ ?ηֵ ?θְ ?ΰ instead of εְ ?ηεθֵ ?ΰ “and one sin destroyeth much good;” but the connection imperatively demands the retention of the Masoretic reading.— Ecclesiastes 10:1. Dead flies cause the ointment of the apothecary to send forth a stinking savour. Literal, “flies of death,” etc. The singular ιַ ?αְ ?ΰִ ?ιωׁ, with the plural ζְ ?αεּ ?αֵ ?ι, is to be taken distributively: each individual dead fly can make the ointment stink, as soon as it falls into it. For this construction comp. Hosea 4:8; Proverbs 16:2; Son 2:9; Gesenius, Lehrgebδude, pp. 665, 713. ιַ ?αִּ ?ιςַ means literally “turns into liquid, causes to bubble up,” i.e., sets into fermentation, and in that way produces the decomposition and rottenness of the ointment. ψεֹ ?χֵ ?ηַ, dealer in spices. This addition gives us to understand that the valuable ointment of commerce is meant, and by no means a worthless article.—So doth a little folly him that is in reputation for wisdom and honor. [Zφckler’s comment is based upon his translation : “Weightier than wisdom, than honor, is a little folly,” which is essentially different from our English Version.—T. L.]. ιχψ is here used in its original signification “heavy, weighty,” namely, in the eyes of the dazzled multitude, that is, accustomed to esteem folly, and indeed a very small amoun.t of folly, of more value than all real wisdom and honor. “Wisdom and honor” correspond in this second clause to the costly ointment of the first and the “little folly” [ξְ ?ςַ ?θ] corresponds to the fly, the little dead animal, that nevertheless corrupts the whole pot of ointment; comp. 1 Corinthians 5:6. Ecclesiastes 10:2. After Ecclesiastes 10:1 has explained and developed the second clause of Ecc 9:18, the author turns back to the illustration of the great advantages of wisdom over folly, that is, to the first clause of Ecc 9:18. A wise man’s heart is at his right hand. That is, it is in the right place, whilst the fool’s is really at the left, i.e., has sinister and perverse purposes. “Heart” is here equivalent to judgment, as in the subsequent verse, and in Proverbs 2:2; Proverbs 14:33; Proverbs 15:28. Ecclesiastes 10:3. Yea also, when he that is a fool walketh by the way, his wisdom faileth him. That is, when he goes out he lets people perceive his want of judgment in various ways—for which reason he would do much better to remain at home with his stupidity.—And he saith to every one that he is a fool. Namely, because he considers himself alone wise, and as a fool he can do no otherwise; for as soon as he should consider himself a fool, he would have made the beginning of his return to the path of wisdom. Knobel, Ewald, and Vaihinger render; “it is foolish.” But ρָ ?λָ ?μ stands elsewhere only for persons; for the adjective sense it would be necessary to assume the reading ρֶ ?λֶ ?μ. Ecclesiastes 10:4 is not a specific maxim incidentally dropped, (Elster) but an admonition holding the closest connection with what precedes, and which forms the practical conclusion of the whole discussion (beginning with Ecclesiastes 9:17) concerning the relation between wise gentleness and foolish passionateness. For the ruler among fools (Ecclesiastes 9:17) here clearly appears again as “ruler;” the “great offences” point back to the “sinner” of Ecclesiastes 9:18; and thus also is there made a close connection with Ecclesiastes 10:2-3 of this chapter. Hence Luther is correct in his rendering : “Therefore, when the insolence of a mighty one,” etc. If the spirit of the ruler rise up against thee. For the expression ψεּ ?ηַ ϊַּ ?ςֲ ?μִ ?δςַ ?μ in which ψεּ ?δַ does not mean spirit (Sept., Vulg., Hengstenberg), but anger, comp. 2 Samuel 11:12; Psalms 78:21; Ezekiel 38:18.—Leave not thy place; i.e., do not be disconcerted, do not become dissatisfied, as this would develop itself in a changed position of thy body in a manner that would entail danger on thee. In this obvious illustration it is not necessary, with Hitzig, to explain ξְ ?χεֹ ?ξְ ?κָ by “thy condition of soul, thy usual state of mind,”—an interpretation for which the appeal to the soul—“maintain thy place”—in the Arabian story of the “Golden Necklace,” scarcely affords a sufficient reason.—For yielding pacifieth great offences, i.e., prevents them, smothers them in the birth, and does not let them come to light. We find similar sentences in Proverbs 10:12; Proverbs 15:1; Proverbs 25:15. 3. Second strophe. Ecclesiastes 10:5-10. Of the apparent but inconstant fortune of fools, and of the superiority of the modest, but effective and sterling influence of wisdom.—For Ecclesiastes 10:5, first clause, comp. Ecclesiastes 6:1.—As an error which proceedeth from the ruler. By the comparative λְּ in λִּ ?ωְׁ ?βָ ?βָ ?δ, the evil in the first clause is marked as one that is not simply an error of a ruler, but which only appears as such, manifests itself as such, so as to draw after it much worse evils, (Ewald is correct in translating, “apparently in error”). We can also understand this λְּ as λְּ veritatis, and either leave it untranslated (as Elster, according to Luther and many older authors) or give it through our turn : “there is an evil in respect to an error” (Hitzig); it is then indicated that the particular action in question corresponds to the general idea of an evil (ψָ ?ςָ ?δ); compare 2 Samuel 9:8.—The explanations of Knobel, Vaihinger, and Hahn are censurable in making λְּ equivalent to the expressions “according to, or in consequence of which;” as are also those of Hengstenberg, who, following the example of Hieronymus and a Jewish adept in Scripture learning whom he questioned, understands the term “ruler” (δַ ?ωַּׁ ?μִּ ?ιθ) to be God, and thence thinks of an act of divine power that seems like a fault, but is none,—an interpretation which is untenable on account of the manifest identity of ωַׁ ?μִּ ?ιθ with ξεֹ ?ωֵׁ ?μ in Ecclesiastes 10:4. Ecclesiastes 10:6-7 give two examples of errors of rulers.—Folly is set in great dignity; namely, by the caprice of a ruler who elevates an unworthy person to the highest honors of his realm. πִ ?ϊֵּ ?ο lit., “is given, is set,” comp. Esther 6:8; Deuteronomy 17:15. The abstract δַ ?ρֶּ ?λֶ ?μ stands for the concrete δַ ?ρָּ ?λָ ?μ which the Septuagint, Vulgate, etc., seem to have read directly, but which is not therefore to be put in the place of the Masoretic text, because the latter gives a much stronger thought; it is not simply a fool, it is personified folly.—And the rich sit in low place, i.e., by virtue of those very despotic acts of a despotic ruler,, the rich (i.e., the noble and distinguished, whose wealth is patrimonial and just,) homines ingenuos nobiles (comp. Ecclesiastes 10:20, as also the synonym αֶ ?οΞηεֹ ?ψִ ?ιν Ecclesiastes 10:17) are robbed of their possessions and driven from their high places. Hitzig says: “Sudden and immense changes of fortune proceeding from the person of the ruler are peculiar to the East, the world of despotism, where barbers become ministers, and confiscations of large fortunes and oppression of possessors are the order of the day.” Ecclesiastes 10:7. I have seen servants upon horses, and princes walking as servants upon the earth. A contrast to sitting on horseback, which, among the Hebrews was considered a distinction for the upper classes. Comp. 2 Chronicles 25:28; Esther 6:8-9; Jeremiah 17:25; and to this add Justinian 41:3: “Hoc denigue discrimen inter servos liberosque est, quod servi pedibus, liberi non nisi eguis incedunt.” Here also, as in the preceding verse, the persons compared are to be considered as contrasted not merely in their external condition but also in their character; the princes are really princely, and princely-minded persons, but the servants are men with base servile feeling, which qualifies and makes it right for them to serve. Ecclesiastes 10:8-10 show that in spite of this sudden elevation, so easily gained by unworthy and foolish persons, their lot is by no means to be envied; because their fortune is rife with dangers, because the intrigues by means of which they excluded their predecessors from their possessions, can easily overthrow them, and because the difficult tasks that devolve on them in their high offices can easily bring upon them injury and disgrace. Wherefore genuine wisdom, of internal worth and business-like capacity, is far preferable to such externally brilliant but unreliable and inconstant fortune of fools. The close connection between these verses and Ecclesiastes 10:5-7 is correctly perceived by Hitzig, Hengstenberg and Hahn, whilst Elster and Vaihinger isolate their contents too much in wishing to find nothing farther in them than a warning against rebellion, or resistance to divine command.—He that diggeth a pit shall fall into it. This is different from Psalms 7:15; Proverbs 26:27; Sir 27:26; it is not a pit for others, but simply a pit, the result of severe exertion of a dangerous character, with the implements for digging. Falling into the pit is not presented as a necessary, but only as a very possible case.—And whoso breaketh a hedge, a serpent shall bite him; namely, in accordance with the well-known and frequently confirmed fact, that serpents and other reptiles nest in old walls; comp. Isaiah 34:15; Amos 5:19. The breaking of this hedge appears clearly as an action by which one seeks to injure his neighbor. Ecclesiastes 10:9. Whoso removeth stones shall be hurt therewith; and he that cleaveth wood shall be endangered thereby. Hitzig, taking the futures ιֵ ?ςָ ?φֵ ?α and ιִ ?ρָּ ?λֵ ?ο too much in the mere potential sense, says: “can injure himself.” See Ecclesiastes 10:8, second clause. For δִ ?ρִּ ?ις, “to break loose, to tear out,” that is stones from the earth (not “to roll away,” as Knobel says), comp. 1 Kings 5:31.—ιִ ?ρָּ ?λֵ ?ο is not equivalent to “endangereth himself” (Sept., Ewald, Knobel and Vaihinger), but is to be derived from ωַׂ ?λִּ ?ιο a knife (from ρλδ “to cut;” comp. Proverbs 23:2) and is to be translated in accordance with the vulnerabitur of the Vulgate by, “he will injure or wound himself,” (Hitzig, Elster, Hengstenberg); see Luther also. Ecclesiastes 10:10. If the iron be blunt. (Zφckler translates: “If one has blunted the iron”). Since χֵ ?δָ ?δ as piel of χָ ?δָ ?δ “to be blunt,” can scarcely mean anything else than to make blunt, we must either consider the indefinite “one,” as the subject, or the wood-chopper of the previous verse. Ewald(“Authors of the O. T.”), Hengstenberg and most ancient authors (also the Vulgate and Luther) say, that χֵ ?δָ ?δ is to be taken intransitively, and as equivalent to hebescit, retusum fuit, but this is opposed by the following δεּ ?ΰ before μֹ ?ΰΞτָּ ?πִ ?ιν, which clearly shows a change of subject, forbidding the thought that iron can be the subject of this clause. The view formerly entertained by Ewald, “one leaves the iron blunt” (Poetical Books, 1 Ed.), he afterwards discarded as incorrect.—And he do not whet the edge. Zφckler translates: “And it is without edge.” Hitzig is correct in saying that μֹ ?ΰΞτּ ?πιν is formed as μֹ ?ΰαָ ?πִ ?ιν “childless,” 1 Chronicles 2:30; 1 Chronicles 2:32, and is equivalent to saying, “without an edge, or edgeless.” The subsequent χִ ?μְ ?χַ ?μ is not to be connected with these words, but with the following ones, especially as, according to the only passage in which it occurs (Ezekiel 21:26,) it does not signify to “polish, to sharpen,” but “to shake, to swing.” (Hitzig and Elster are correct, though in opposition to most modern writers, who translate: “And he has not whet the edge”). Then must he put to more strength; i.e., in splitting the wood he must swing the ax with all his strength.—But wisdom is profitable to direct. Zφckler translates : “But it is a profit wisely to handle wisdom.” Read (with Hitzig and Elster) δַ ?λְ ?ωִׁ ?ιψ instead of δַ ?λְ ?ωֵׁ ?ιψ thus making the infinitive construct, which, with its object ηָ ?λְ ?ξָ ?δ (as predicate to ιִ ?ϊְ ?ψεֹ ?ο) forms the subject (i.e., it is a profit, an advantage, or, it is the best; comp. the opposite εְ ?ΰֵ ?ιοιִ ?ϊְ ?ψεֹ ?ο in Ecclesiastes 10:11 th. For the phrase δִ ?λְ ?ωִׁ ?ιψηָ ?λְ ?ξָ ?δ occurring only here (lit., to make wisdom straight, i.e., to direct it successfully, to handle it skillfully) comp. a similar turn δֵ ?ιθִ ?ιαηֶ ?ρֶ ?γ in Rth 3:10. It is usual to retain the infinitive absolute δַ ?αְ ?ωֵׁ ?ιψ as a genitive dependent on Σιִ ?ϊְ ?ψεֹ ?ο “And wisdom is the profit of prosperity” (Knobel); or, “wisdom has the advantage of amendment” (Hengstenberg); or, “and wisdom is the profit of exertion” (?) Ewald); or, “wisdom gives the advantage of success” (Vaihinger). But all these renderings give a thought less clear and conformable to the text than ours. Luther is not exact: “Therefore wisdom follows diligence,” (in harmony with the Vulgate, et post, industriam sequetur sapientia). The rendering of Hahn is nearest to ours: “And the favor of wisdom is an advantage,” wherein the sense of “favor” for δλωιψ does not seem quite appropriate. The entire sense of the verse is essentially correct in the following rendering of Hitzig : Whosoever would proceed securely, and not expose himself to the dangers that are inseparable, even from the application of proper means to ends, toils in vain if he undertakes the task in the wrong way (like those fools in Ecclesiastes 10:6-9); the direct, sensible way to the end is the best”—namely, that very humble, modest, but effective way of wisdom, which the author had recommended already in Ecclesiastes 9:17-18; Ecclesiastes 10:2-3, and now in Ecclesiastes 10:12 ff., farther recommends. 4. Third Strophe. Ecclesiastes 10:11-20.—Of the advantage of the silent, sober, and industrious demeanor of the wise man, over the indolent and loquacious nature of the fool.—Surely the serpent will bite without enchantment. This sentence in close connection with verse 10 advises to a zealous and dexterous application of the remedies at the command of the wise man; but, at the same time, shows the necessity of such application by an example chosen perhaps with reference to verse 8; thus forming the transition to the warning against empty loquacity and its evil consequences contained in Ecclesiastes 10:12-14. Koheleth does not here allude to the charming of spiritual serpents, i.e., of vicious men, by importunate requests (Hengstenberg) but undoubtedly means the actual art of charming serpents; the possibility of which, or rather the actual existence of which he clearly presupposes in possession of wise and skillful persons, just as the author of the 58th Psalm (Ecclesiastes 10:4-5), indeed, as Christ himself affirms in Mark 16:18; Luke 10:19. (Comp. also Exodus 7:11, and the learned observations of Knobel on the art of charming serpents among the ancients). αְּ ?μֹ ?ΰμָ ?ηַ ?ωׁ literally, “without enchantment,” i.e., without that softly murmured magic formula, which, it was pretended, formed the principal agent in expelling poisonous reptiles, if spoken at the proper period, and thus guarded against the danger of being bitten. αַּ ?ςַ ?μδַ ?μָּ ?ωׁ ?εֹ ?ο literally, the “master of the tongue,” i.e., who has the poisonous tongue of the reptile in his power, and knows how to extract the poison, or to prevent its biting; or it may also mean the “ one with a gifted tongue,” who by means of his tongue can produce extraordinary results (Hitzig, Hahn). The latter interpretation is preferable as much on account of the analogy of αַּ ?ςַ ?μλָּ ?πָ ?σ Proverbs 1:17, and similar expressions, as on account of the context, which clearly shows that the author has in his eye one of ready tongue not making timely use of his gift, a hero with his tongue, but without energy and promptness in action. Ecclesiastes 10:12. The words of a wise man’s mouth are gracious. Such a one therefore should not be silent, as the slack serpent-charmer in Ecclesiastes 10:11, but should speak often and much, because he does nothing but good, and acquires favor everywhere with his “gracious” words (Luther). ηֵ ?ο here means id quod gratiam seu favorem parit, or graciousness; comp. Proverbs 31:30; and for the sentence in general Proverbs 15:2; Proverbs 15:26.—But the lips of a fool will swallow up himself. Comp. Proverbs 15:2; Proverbs 10:8; Proverbs 10:21; Proverbs 13:16, etc. Any other reference of the suffix in the verb ϊְּ ?αַ ?μְּ ?ςֶ ?πּ ?εּ than to the logical subject λְּ ?ρִ ?ιν is inadmissible. For the plural form ωִׂ ?τָ ?ϊεֹ ?ϊ comp. Isaiah 59:3; Psalms 59:7. Ecclesiastes 10:13. The beginning of the words of his mouth are foolishness; and the end of his talk is mischievous madness. That is, there is nothing discreet either in the beginning or the end of his foolish twaddle (Hitzig); he remains a fool in everything that he says; comp. Proverbs 27:22. “The end of his talk” is the end which his mouth makes of speaking, the last and most extravagant of his foolish speeches. Of this it is here affirmed that it is mischievous madness, namely, even for himself injurious and mischievous madness; comp. Proverbs 18:7; Psalms 64:8, etc.Ecclesiastes 10:14. A fool is also full of words. To the error of his silly speech, he adds that of endless loquacity. And he is most apt to prattle gladly and much about things of which, from their nature, he can know the least, namely, about future events. And to this fact there is again reference in what is said in the second and third clauses.—A man cannot tell what shall be. ξַ ?δΞωֶּׁ ?ιּ ?δְ ?ιֶ ?δ must not be changed into ξַ ?δΞωֶּׁ ?δָ ?ιָ ?δ, according to the Septuagint, Symmachus, Vulgate, and Syriac, Vaihinger, etc.; for the subsequent clause does not form a tautology with the present one, even when retaining the Masoretic reading, because there is here denied in the first place only the knowledge concerning the future in itself, and then the actual existence of a foreteller of future events (as a reason for the ignorance of the future).—And what shall be after him who can tell him? As in ΰַ ?ηֲ ?ψָ ?ιε of Ecclesiastes 6:12, (but different from that in εְ ?ΰַ ?ηִַ ?ψָ ?ιε of Ecclesiastes 9:3), the suffix in ξֵ ?ΰַ ?δֲ ?ψָ ?ιε refers to the subject δָ ?ΰָ ?γָ ?ν, not to ξַ ?ηΞωֶּׁ ?ιִּ ?δְ ?ιֶ ?δ as though there were a distinction here drawn between the near and the remote consequences of the talk of the fool (Hitzig). A restriction of the here mentioned res futurζ to the evil consequences of the thoughtless twaddle of the fool, is quite as inadmissible as defining it to consist of his lofty plans and bold projects (Hengstenberg). There is simply a general mention of coming events, precisely as in the similar passage in Ecclesiastes 6:12. Ecclesiastes 10:15. The labor of the foolish wearieth every one. Literal, “the labor of fools:” the plural is used distributively just as in verse 1; comp. Hosea 4:8. The author here passes from the empty and annoying loquacity of the fool to his indolence, his downright inertness, and feeble slothfulness, as to qualities forming a close connection with, and mainly the foundation of, this loquacity.—Because he knoweth not how to go to the city. Hitzig less correctly says: “him who knoweth not,” and Ewald “the one who,” etc. But this second clause is rather intended to give the reason of the premature fatigue of the fool, as also of the feebleness and unprofitableness of his exertions. “Not to know how to go to the city,” is doubtless a proverbial expression allied to that in Ecclesiastes 6:8 : “to walk before the living,” denoting ignorance in respect to behaviour and general incompetency. The way to the city is here mentioned as that which is the best known, most traveled, and easiest to find (Vaihinger, Hengstenberg), not because it leads to those great lords described in Ecclesiastes 10:16-19, whom it avails to bribe [Ewald], but simply in so far as the city is the seat of the rulers, of the officers, whence oppression proceeds, and whence also may come relief for the inhabitants of the land (Hitzig, Elster) Hahn is peculiar, but hardly in accordance with the true sense of the word Σΰֲ ?ωֵׁ ?ψ “The travail which foolish rulers (?) prepare for their subjects makes these latter tired and faint, brings them to despair, so that they do not know regarding their going to the city, whether, or when, or how it must take place, in order not to violate a law.” Ecclesiastes 10:16-19 have so loose a connection with Ecclesiastes 10:15, that Hitzig seems to be right when he perceives in them the words of the prattling fool previously described (Ecclesiastes 10:12-15), instead of the actual speech of the author. The lament about the idle lavishing of time, and luxurious debauchery of a king and his counsellors in these verses, would be then given as an example of the extreme injudiciousness of a foolish man in his talk, and the following warning against such want of foresight (Ecclesiastes 10:20) would then be very fittingly annexed. The whole tendency of the section would then seem directed only against thoughtless and idle loquacity, together with its evil consequences; whilst the indolence and luxury of extravagant nobles (Ecclesiastes 10:16; Ecclesiastes 10:18-19) form no object of the attack of the author, although he may consider the complaints of the foolish talker as well grounded, and may himself have lived under an authority attended with these vices. For him who will not accept this view, for which the relation between Ecclesiastes 10:5-6 of the fourth chapter may be quoted as analogous, there is no other course than, with the great majority of commentators, to see in these verses a farther extension of the theme of indolence, business incapacity and slothfulness of fools, the treatment of which was begun in Ecclesiastes 10:15. Ecclesiastes 10:16 would then pass from indolent fools in general to indolent, supine and inefficient rulers and nobles in particular. But there would then exist a very imperfect, if, indeed, any, connection with the final warning in Ecclesiastes 10:20; indeed the open manner in which complaints are made, in what immediately precedes, regarding the bad conduct of rulers, would seem to be in direct contradiction to this warning about uttering these complaints loudly.—Woe to thee, O land, when thy king is a child!—That is, an inexperienced, thoughtless fool, incapable of governing; comp. 1 Kings 3:7 : Isaiah 3:4; Isaiah 3:12,—which passages also describe it as a great misfortune to be governed by a child [νήπιος]. Therefore πַ ?ςַ ?ψ is not to be rendered by “servant, slave,” which latter would rather be expressed by ςֶ ?αֶ ?γ [contrary to Dφderlein, Herzfeld, et al.).—And thy princes eat in the morning.—A sign of especially excessive intemperance and gluttony; see Isaiah 5:11 ff.; Acts 2:15, and compare also the classical parallels in Cicero, Phil. 2:40; Catullus, Carm. 47:5, 6; Juvenal, Sat. 2:49, 50. Ecclesiastes 10:17. Blessed art thou, O land, when thy king is the son of nobles.—(αֶּ ?οΞηεֹ ?ψִ ?ιν compare αַּ ?ϊΞπָ ?γִ ?ια Son 7:2; Isaiah 32:8); a noble not merely by birth, but also in disposition, vere nobilis, generosus.—And thy princes eat in due season, for strength and not for drunkenness.—Therefore make that proper use of wine treated of in Psalms 104:15; 1 Timothy 5:23; not that perverted use against which we are warned in Proverbs 31:4. λִּ ?βִ ?αεּ ?ψָ ?δ is not “in strength” (Hahn), or “in virtue” (Ewald), but “for strength,” for obtaining strength. The prep. αּ relates to the object on whose account the action occurs, just as in αּ ?ΰγν Ecclesiastes 2:24 (comp. αּ ?ν Ecclesiastes 3:12). Ecclesiastes 10:18. By much slothfulness the building decayeth.—That is, the edifice of state, that is here compared to a house that is tottering and threatening to fall (comp. Isaiah 3:6; Amos 9:11). The intent here is to point out the bad effects of the rioting idleness of the great ones who are called to govern a state. ςֲ ?φַ ?μְ ?ϊַּ ?ιִ ?ν literally: “the two idle” [hands]; comp. Ewald, § 180 a, 187 c. The expression is stronger than the simple form ςַ ?φְ ?μָ ?δ or ςַ ?φְ ?μεּ ?ϊ (Proverbs 19:15; Proverbs 31:27); “double idleness,” i.e., “great idleness.”—And through idleness of the hands the house droppeth through.—That is, the rain penetrating through the leaky roof. The words ωִׁ ?τְ ?μεּ ?ϊιָ ?γַ ?ιν are used as elsewhere ψִ ?τְ ?ιεֹ ?οΞιָ ?γָ ?ιν “idleness of the hands,” Isaiah 47:3; comp. Proverbs 10:4. Ecclesiastes 10:19. A feast is made for laughter.—A return to the description of riotous and ruinous conduct as given in verse 16. μִ ?ωְׂ ?ηεֹ ?χ “for laughter,” as elsewhere αִּ ?ωְׂ ?ηεֹ ?χ with laughter; comp. for this use of μְ 2 Chronicles 20:21; Psalms 102:5.—-ςωֹׁ ?ινμֶ ?ηֶ ?ν literally, “they make bread;” i.e., they give banquets, have riotous feasts. ςָ ?ωָׂ ?δμֶ ?ηֶ ?ν is therefore used here in a sense different from that in Ezekiel 4:15, where it signifies “to prepare bread, to bake bread;” comp. ςָ ?ωָׂ ?δ in Ecclesiastes 3:12; Ecclesiastes 6:12.—And wine maketh merry.—The suffix is wanting just as in ςֹ ?ωִׂ ?ιν the δֵ ?ν was left out. Comp. moreover, Psalms 104:15, where an innocent and reasonable enjoyment of wine is meant whilst here the allusion is to a perverted and debauching use of it, as in Ecclesiastes 7:2 ff.—But money answereth all things.—That is, to these luxurious rioters, who, counting on their wealth, declare in drunken arrogance that “money rules the world,” “for money one can have every thing that the heart desires, wine, delicacies,” etc., etc. For this Epicurean rule of life see Horace, Epis. I., 6, 36–38. ςָ ?πָ ?δ literally, “to answer, to listen to” (Ecclesiastes 5:10), but is here equivalent to “to afford, to grant;” comp. Hosea 2:23. Hitzig unnecessarily considers ιַ ?ςֲ ?πֶ ?δ as Hiphil (“makes to hear”). Ecclesiastes 10:20. Concerning the probable connection with the preceding, consult Ecclesiastes 10:16-19 above.—Curse not the king, no, not in thy thought.—ξַ ?γָּ ?ς elsewhere “knowledge,” here “thought,” Sept. συνείδησις. The signification, “study chamber,” given by Hengstenberg, lacks philological authority. For the sentence comp. 2 Kings 6:12. Hengstenberg is correct in saying; “We have here a pure rule of prudence (not a formal precept of duty), a tenet that may be simply summed up in the expression of the Lord : γίνεσθεφρόνιμοιὡςοἱ ὅφεις.”—And curse not the rich in thy bed chamber.—The rich here represents the noble, the prince, or the counsellor of the king (comp. Ecclesiastes 5:16).—For a bird of the air shall carry the voice.—That is, in an inconceivable manner, which no one would consider possible, will that he betrayed which thou hast said. See the proverb: “The walls have ears;” also Habakkuk 2:11; Luke 19:14.—And that which hath wings shall tell the matter.—αַּ ?ςַ ?μδַ ?λְּ ?πָ ?τִ ?ιν equivalent to αַּ ?ςַ ?μΞλָּ ?πָ ?σ Proverbs 1:17. The K’ri would unnecessarily here strike out the article before λְּ ?πָ ?τִ ?ιν. AND ETHICAL(With Homiletical Hints) Although the conclusion of the chapter—the warning against injudicious speeches assailing the respect due to kings in Ecclesiastes 10:20—may have been written with conscious reference to the relation of Israel to its Persian rulers, the section, taken as a whole, is simply an unambiguous illustration of the relation between wise men and fools. The allegorical conception of Hengstenberg, by virtue of which he sees in Ecclesiastes 10:1-3 the idea that the people of God, groaning under the tyranny of the world, will be sustained by reference to the fact that the hostile world, i.e., the Persian world, is given over to folly, and that thus its destruction cannot be far off,—this conception, we say, finds no sufficient support in the text; it is, rather, very decidedly opposed by the exceeding general character of the morally descriptive as well as of the admonitory parts. The contents and the tendency of the section form an eloquent, figurative, vivid and popular illustration of the superiority of wisdom over folly. The theme here treated is that favorite one of the Proverbs—the parallels between wisdom and folly [Proverbs 1:20 ff; Proverbs 9:1 ff; Proverbs 10:1 ff; Proverbs 14:1 ff; Proverbs 24:1 ff.]; and simply with the difference that here are more emphatically and accurately described the insolence and haughtiness of fools, as well as their loquacity and indolent levity, in contrast to the corresponding virtues of the wise. See exegetical illustrations above, No. 1. A Homily on the entire Chapter: Of a few dominant qualities and principal characteristics of wisdom and folly.—Or, of genuine wisdom as the only remedy against the vices of pride, levity and arrogance, together with their evil consequences.—Comp. Starke: Three moral precepts: 1. Esteem genuine wisdom (Ecclesiastes 10:1-15). 2. Avoid indolence and debauchery (Ecclesiastes 10:16-19). 3. Curse not the king (ver.20). homiletical hints on separate passagesEcc_9:17; Ecclesiastes 10:4. Melanchthon (Ecclesiastes 9:17): The words of the wise are heard by the silent—that is, by those who are not carried away by raging lusts, but who seek for things true and salutary. (Ecclesiastes 10:10). Good counsels, sound teaching, well ordered methods, are constantly marred and rendered unavailing by trifling meddlers, who are more readily heard, both in courts and by the people, than the more modest and poor, who give right instruction and salutary advice. Lange (Ecclesiastes 9:18). He who has learned any thing thoroughly can effect much good thereby, but also much evil, if he wickedly uses what he has learned against the great purposes of God. Cartwright:—Such patient submission calms the most violent tempests of the soul; it makes tranquil the most swollen waves of passion; it turns the lion into a lamb. Let us strive then to be imbued with this virtue by which we may please God as well as men, even those who are the farthest removed from piety and humanity. Starke (Ecclesiastes 10:3):—It is difficult to expel folly and instil wisdom; but it becomes still more difficult when man in his folly considers himself wise (Romans 1:22).—(Ecclesiastes 10:4). To suffer and patiently commend one’s innocence to God is the best remedy against misused power and the wrong that we have endured, Jeremiah 11:20. Geier (Ecclesiastes 10:5) :—Lofty positions and great power have not the privilege of infallibility. Therefore, the higher one stands, the more careful let him be, entreating God that he may not fall into error and vice.—Hansen (Ecclesiastes 10:6-7) :—The want of foresight in rulers ever exerts evil influences in the world. The unworthy are thereby preferred to the worthy, and everything takes a wrong course.—(Ecclesiastes 10:10):—It depends more on wisdom and foresight than on physical strength, to carry on the occupations of men with success.—Hengstenberg (Ecclesiastes 10:9): He who proceeds with violence in the moral sphere, and thus performs actions that, in respect to this quality, are similar to the breaking of stone or the splitting of wood, will suffer inevitable injury.—(Ecclesiastes 10:10). He who in wisdom possesses the corrective whereby he can sharpen the blunt iron of his understanding, must rise, however deep he may be sunken. He who does not possess it must go to ruin, however high he may have risen. Ecclesiastes 10:11-15. Brenz:—There is nothing in man which contributes more to bring him into sin than his tongue. Truth is satisfied with the fewest and simplest words, and the wiser the man, or the more attached to truth, the more sparing is he in his speech. (Ecclesiastes 10:15). This teaches that no labor, no diligence, will produce fruit, if one knows not the legitimate use of labor. As the unskilled steward has much toil, with little or no result, if he knows not how to put to use the goods acquired in the proper manner, or does not carry them to market in the city.—Cramer:—The unprofitable babblers prattle about things of no import; but the wise weigh their words with a golden balance, Sir 21:27.—Starke: Ecclesiastes 10:15. That men must painfully toil is a thing of universal necessity since the fall; but to toil in profitless and sinful things is double folly and sin, Isaiah 57:10.—Zeyss [Ecclesiastes 10:15] :—Remember the city of the living God (Hebrews 12:22) and learn the right way thither, which is indeed narrow and not easy to find (Luke 13:24).—Geier (Ecclesiastes 10:16):—In judging a wise man we are not to regard his years, but the power of his mind, and what they manifest, 1 Samuel 16:17; 1 Timothy 4:12.—[Ecclesiastes 10:17]. A pious and virtuous magistracy we should gratefully recognize as an inestimable gift of God, and heartily pray to him for their preservation.—Zeyss (Ecclesiastes 10:18-19):—Beware, above all things, that the house of thy soul be not ruined by neglect, whilst thou art yielding to the flesh and its sinful desires.—Tub. Bib.:—Observe this rule of wisdom: speak no evil of thy ruler, nor of any one else, James 4:11.—[Matthew Henry] (Ecclesiastes 10:14):—A fool also is fond of words, a passionate fool especially, that runs on endlessly, and never knows when to take up; it is all the same, over and over; he will have the last word, though it be but the same with that which was the first. What is wanting in the strength of his words he endeavors in vain to make up in their number. The words that follow may be taken either (1) as checking him for his vain-glorious boasting in the multitude of his words (in respect to the future), namely, what he will do, and what he will have, not considering what every body knows, that a man cannot tell what shall be in his own time while he lives (Proverbs 27:1), much less can one tell what shall be after him, when he is dead and gone. Or (2) as mocking him for his tautologies; he is full of words, for if he do but speak the most trite and common thing, such as a man cannot tell what shall be, then, because he loves to hear himself talk, he will say it over again, what shall be after him, who can tell him? like Battus in Ovid: Sub illisMontibus (inquit) erant, et erant sub montibus illis. Whence vain repetitions are called Battologies (Matthew 4:7).—[Ecclesiastes 10:15. The foolish tire themselves in endless pursuit’s, because they know not how to go to the city, because they have not capacity to apprehend the plainest thing, such as the entrance to a great city. But it is the excellency on the way to the heavenly city, that it is “a highway” in which “the wayfaring men, though fools, shall not err” (Isaiah 35:8); yet sinful folly makes men miss that way.—T. L.] Footnotes:[The objections to the rendering of Zφckler, Hitzig, Stuart, and others, are 1st: the unusual meaning “heavier” which it gives to ιָ ?χָ ?ψ, a sense existing primarily in the root, and appearing in the Syriac and the Arabic, but having no other example in the Hebrew; 2d, the filling up, or supposed ellipsis (“in the eyes of the ignorant and foolish”), which is required if we give it the more common Hebrew significance of “precious, honorable;” 3d, and chiefly, the singular incongruity that; by either of these authors, is introduced into the comparison: “as the dead fly taints the precious ointment, so a little folly outweighs wisdom,” etc., or, is more precious in the vulgar opinion. It is evidently a comparison in either rendering, though the particle of comparison is omitted, as in many other cases, especially of the concise sententious kind [see the long list in the Grammar of Jona Ben Gannach]. The objection to the common English rendering (which is also that of Geier, Tremellius, and the great critic Glassius) is that it requires a repetition of ιαΰιω in the second member; but for such ellipsis, especially in proverbial expressions, and when the context evidently favors it, there is good and clear authority. Comp. Proverbs 13:2; “From the fruit of his mouth a man shall eat good, but the soul of the wicked—folly;” that is, shall eat folly [with ellipsis of ϊּ ?ΰֹ ?λַ ?μ]. Comp. Proverbs 26:9; Jeremiah 17:11. A still stronger case is found, Job 24:19, where there is, in fact, a double ellipsis, and yet the comparison and the meaning are both quite clear: “Heat carries off the snow waters, Sheol—have sinned;” that is, so “sheol (carries off those that) have sinned”—ωΰεμηθΰε. There is an ellipsis both of the governing verb, and of the relative pronoun. “The dead fly taints the fragrant ointment, so a little folly [taints] one honorable for wisdom,” etc. Nothing could be more apt, or true. This rendering preserves also the analogy between a good name and precious odors, a metaphor common in all languages, and so strikingly introduced Ecclesiastes 7:1, and Son 1:3 : Dead flies spoil the fragrant ointment, a little folly the good name. This is in accordance, too, with a common usage in Hebrew, by which the sense of δαΰιω is transferred from the literal ill savor to odiousness of character. The preposition ξ with the sense of propter, on account of, is also well established: ιָ ?χָ ?ψξֵ ?ηָ ?λְ ?ξָ ?δξִ ?λָּ ?αεֹ ?γ, “precious,” that is, held in esteem “for wisdom and honor.” The two verbs ιαις and ιαΰιω are to be taken together, or the one as qualifying the other: “make corrupt, make ferment,” or froth, that is, corrupt by fermentation— “with frothy taint.” See Metrical Version.—T. L.] [The meaning given to ιρָּ ?λֵ ?ο is probably the correct one (see text note), as derived from the noun ωַׂ ?λִּ ?ιο “a knife” (Arabic Σίνδ); but ωׂ ?λδ = ρλδ, means to see, and is only rendered to cut from its supposed affinity to the Latin seco, and to accommodate it to this word. The sense of ρλο “to become poor,” as in Isaiah 41:20 (pual), and in the Arabic, might perhaps answer here, but it would mar the parallelism.—T.L.] [See Text Note and Metrical Version.—T.L.] [ιַ ?ψְ ?αֶּ ?δγְּ ?αָ ?ψִ ?ιν. It is not mere “loquacity” that is here intended. The best explanation is that of Aben Ezra, who refers it to vain predictions, [see note on γαψιν Ecclesiastes 5:5, Eng. Ecclesiastes 5:7, p. 91], or rather, boasting assertions in respect to the future: “I will eat and drink, says the fool, but he knows not what shall be in his life or in his death; as is said in another place [Ecclesiastes 5:7, Ecclesiastes 6:12], there are many words that increase vanity, yet who knoweth what is good for man etc.” So also Rashi: “In his simpleness, the fool is full of words, deciding confidently and saying, ‘to-morrow I will do so and so, when he knoweth not what shall be on the morrow,—or when he would undertake a journey for gain,’ and knoweth not that he may fall by the sword.” Comp. Luke 12:20, James 4:13. This is also the interpretation of Martin Geier, at least in relation to the 14th verse. It is strongly confirmed by the immediately following context. In such a rendering ε in ερּ ?λμ, has an adversative force: “Though the fool multiply words, yet man knows net, etc.” “For who shall tell him what shall be after him?’ This does not mean the remote future, nor even the future generally, as would be expressed by ΰηψιο, but the near, the immediate, which is the sense given by the preposition in the compound ξֵ ?ΰַ ?δֲ ?ψָ ?ιε, “from after”—that which comes from, out of or directly after the present,—or, “on the morrow,” according to the language of these Jewish interpreters, and that of St. James. Comp. Fuerst’s derivation of ξָ ?ηָ ?ψ (to-morrow), which he regards, not as an independent root, but as a contraction of ξַ ?ΰֲ ?ηַ ?ψ, as he makes it, or ξֵ ?ΰַ ?ηַ ?ψ or ξָ ?δΞΰַ ?ηַ ?ψ (see Marg. Note to Ecclesiastes 10:7, p. 91). This shows, too, the direct connection with the verse that follows, and furnishes a key to that obscure expression on which there is so much comment to so little purpose. Our English Version: “The labour of the foolish wearieth every one of them, because he knoweth not how to go to the city,” is hardly intelligible in any sense that can be put upon it. The same may be said of Hitzig’s and Zφckler’s attempts to explain it. The expression, ςξμδλριμιν is a collective one, “the toil of fools,” equivalent to “a foolish toil,” to be taken as a nominative independent, or what De Sacy styles, in his Arabic Grammar, Vinchoatif, or detached subject. Its separation from the verb following is shown by the change of gender,—the feminine prefix in ϊְּ ?ιַ ?βְ ?ςֶ ?πּ ?εּ being used to show that the immediate grammatical subject is the neuter, or indefinite, fact: “Vain toil of fools! it only wearieth him;” the singular objective pronoun in ϊְּ ?ιַ ?βְ ?ςֶ ?πּ ?εּ referring, not to λριμιν taken distributively, but to the vain predicter in Ecclesiastes 10:14, and who is kept in view throughout. “It wearieth him,”—is too much for him—surpasses his knowledge. Then ΰֲ ?ωֶׁ ?ψ gives the reason: “One who knoweth not μμλϊΰμςιψ, the going to the city”—so plain a fact as that—or “that he shall go to the city;” even this comes not within his knowledge of the future. “How to go,” says our E. V., and that is the idea conveyed by most others; but there is a great difficulty in making any sense out of it, and the grammatical construction does not require it. In the small number of cases in Hebrew where we find ιγς followed by the infinitive (whether with or without μ) it is to be determined by the context whether it means a knowing how to do a thing, or a knowledge of the doing, as a fact or event. Thus in Ecclesiastes 4:13, it cannot mean, “knows not how to be admonished,” which makes a very poor sense, but, “no longer knows (that is, heeds or recognizes) admonition,” or the being admonished. In Exodus 36:1, 2 Chronicles 2:13; 1 Kings 3:7; Isaiah 7:16; Amos 3:10; the context favors the sense of “knowing how.” In Isaiah 47 it is decidedly the other way: ιγςωλεμ does not mean “know how to be bereaved,” but, “know bereavement.” Still more clear, and precisely parallel to this case, is Ecclesiastes 4:17 (Eng. Bib. Ecclesiastes 5:1) where ΰιπνιεγςινμςωεϊψς can only mean the fact: “They know not that they are doing evil” in their sacrifices. So Ewald renders it. Hitzig and Stuart find there too the sense of knowing how: “They know not how to do evil,” or, according to the turn they give it, “how to be sad;” a meaning which we do not hesitate to pronounce absurd in itself, and also altogether unsupported by 2 Samuel 12:18, to which they refer. According to the view we have taken, the whole passage (Ecclesiastes 10:14-15) may be thus rendered:— Predicting words he multiplies, yet man can never know The thing that shall be; yea, what cometh after who shall tell? Vain toil of fools! it wearieth him,—this man who knoweth not What may befall his going to the city. It is no paraphrase, but only so expressed as to give the spirit of the Hebrew as shown by the general connection, and by the evident reference of the ιγς in Ecclesiastes 10:15, to the μΰιγςδΰγν in Ecclesiastes 10:14. The difference between ιγςμλϊ, and ιγςμμλϊ, is very slight, but the μ makes it correspond more nearly to our English genitive phrase, “to know of a thing,”—that is, as an event or fact. The relative ΰωψ here, has an inferential sense, just as ὅς, sometimes, in Greek and the Latin qui when equivalent to quia: “who knoweth not”=to “seeing he knoweth not,” or (quod) “because he knoweth not.” Such a mention of “going to the city,” as one of the most common and familiar illustrations of human ignorance of the future, suggests immediately James 4:13 : “Go to ye who say to-day, or tomorrow, we will go to a certain city, etc., ye who know not (ὅιτινες used exactly as ΰωψ is here) what shall be on the morrow, etc.” It may have been this very passage, thus understood, that suggested the illustration to the Apostle; since his language is almost identical with the very words of Rashi’s interpretation. The great difficulties under which Hitzig and Zφckler labor, and their far-fetched reasons, warrant the offering of the above explanation, as one that deserves attention, to say the least, in clearing up this obscure passage. We may arrive at the same general idea, even if we render μΰιγςμμλϊ “knows not how to go, etc.;” and such is substantially the conclusion of Aben Ezra in another comment on the 15th verse: “The fool is like one who would pry into things too high or too wonderful for him, when he knows not the things that are visible and familiar, or like a man who purposes to go to a city when he knoweth not the way, and so he gets weary, and fails in his design.” It is the same general lesson, the folly of confident assertions or confident plans respecting the future. Taken in either of these ways, it avoids the exceedingly forced explanations which Zφckler here, and Hitzig in his commentary, give of the passage. The expression ιεֹ ?γֵ ?ςַ μַ ?δֲ ?μֹ ?κְ Ecclesiastes 4:8, may, perhaps, be cited as a parallel case to ιγςμψλϊ. An answer might be found in the different form of the infinitive μλϊ, which is used more like a substantive denoting the event, or fact, as the object of knowledge. This reference, however, is at once disposed of by a consideration of the accents, which, in Ecclesiastes 6:8, separate the two words, and require the rendering: “What to the poor man who knows,”—or “what to the intelligent poor man, to walk,”—or “that he should walk before the living.” In other words: What profit is his intelligence in his walking before the living? Thus it becomes, according to the usual law of parallelism, an amplification of the thought just above it: “What profit to the wise?” It is another example of the spiritual and critical acuteness that dictated the Masoretic accentuation (see 2d Marginal Note, p. 94). Zφckler thinks the accents here of no authority; but that great critic Ewald holds himself governed by them. The assertion, moreover, that ιεγֵ ?ςַ never has the adjective sense intelligens, is refuted by simply looking into a concordance, and noting the places where it is joined with the participle ξαιο having a like adjective force. With this view agrees also Aben Ezra, the prince of Jewish critics. It is fortified, too, by the difficulty which all commentators have felt in making any clear sense out of the language: “Who knows how to walk before the living?” The references given by Hitzig, Genesis 17:1, and 2 Kings 4:13, are not parallel; since the preposition, on which the meaning of the phrase so much depends, is entirely different.—T. L.] [This most absurd and far-fetched view of Hitzig only shows how a false critical theory of division may turn one of the most impressive passages of the book into a fool’s gabble. It all comes from looking for logical connections where they do not exist, and from overlooking the poetical subjective character of the work as a series of meditations, each one prompting the other, but by associations discerned by the feeling rather than the ethical reason. It is the free discursive view of human folly, and of the inefficiency of man’s best wisdom, that brings out the exclamation: O ill-governed land with its weak king and drunken nobles, where folly so abounds; and then this calls up the picture of the higher and purer ideal. He may have thought of the weak son to whom his kingdom was soon to be committed; it may have been a humbling thought of himself and of his own misgovernment, although there is in the way of this that Solomon’s youth was the best part of his life; or it may have been prompted by his general historical experience. View it any way, it is far more expressive in this exclamatory and discursive aspect, than though it were bound together by the closest syllogistic ties. And this appears in what follows. In perfect poetical harmony does this free, contemplative style of thought turn again from the political to the common life—from the revelry and misgovernment of kings and nobles to the slothfulness, luxury, and mercenary spirit that are found in the lower plane. Yet “revile not the ruler,”—that is the next thought that arises. Obedience and reverence are still due to authority, since evils abound in all ranks. Things are described as they are, and to find here an authority for wine drinking is about as rational as to seek an excuse for sloth and shiftlessness.—T. L.] [As drunkenness is condemned here, or, rather, excess of any kind, revelling, or high banqueting, which is the predominant meaning of ωְׁ ?ϊִ ?ι [comp. ξִ ?ωְׁ ?ϊֶּ ?δ convivium], whilst not a word is said about any moderate drinking, this remark must be regarded as rather gratuitous. What makes it more than gratuitous is the fact that in Proverbs 31:4, instead of a mere warning against perverted use,” there is enjoined upon “kings and princes” total abstinence from “all wine and strong drink,” as something only fit to be given to persons in extremis, in great pain or debility [the perishing, the ξָ ?ψֵ ?ιπֶ ?τֶ ?ω or “bitter in soul”], and therefore unfit for those in health, and especially for all who have responsible duties to perform.—T. L.] [In Psalms 104:15 a certain effect of wine is mentioned; nothing is said about either its innocent or its immoral use. All such remarks are gratuitous.—T. L.] [][These ethical and logical divisions are not easy to trace. The different methods adopted by different commentators, warrant a strong suspicion of their reality. There is, doubtless, a connection in the thought, but it is poetical rather than logical, suggestive rather than formally didactic. In the Metrical Version there is an attempt to group into separate cantos the thoughts that seemed to have the nearest relation to each other; but these might, perhaps, be differently arranged, and with equal effect. The mind of the author may be regarded under different aspects. And so, too, of the reader, it may be said, that the division for him may depend very much on his own spiritual state; for it is the very nature of all such musing, emotional writing, to suggest more to one mind than to another. It may even give a wider and higher train of thought to the reader than the writer himself possessed; and that too legitimately, or without any violence to the text; for there is a spirit in words witnessing with our spirits, and, under favorable spiritual circumstances, there may be seen a light in our author's language which he did not see, or but dimly saw, himself. And this we may suppose to have been the very design of the higher or divine author, in giving such a dramatic or representative work a place in His holy written revelation. The whole book is a meditation, or a series of meditations. The thoughts do not, indeed, follow each other arbitrarily; but, like our best thinking, are connected more by emotional than by logical bands. Place ourselves in the same subjective state—read it as poetry, not as a formal didactic ethical treatise—and we shall readily see what there is in each part, in each verse, in a single word sometimes, that makes the writer think of what follows, though all logical, or even rhetorical criticism might fail to find it. (See remarks p.176). Take, for example, these verses of the 9 and 10 chapters, as apparently the most disconnected of any in the whole poem. The ever-recurring, or underlying thought is wisdon in its two apparently contradictory aspects of preciousness and vanity—wisdom, of such inestimable value in itself as compared with folly, and yet, through folly, rendered so unavailing. The episodalmention of “the poor wise man” leads on the general train of thought, but it immediately (ver.7) how one sinner (one fool) may destroy its effect upon a community. This prompts the parallel thought, how, in the individual, too, a little folly taints all his better acquisitions,—the mode of expressing this being, doubtless, a favorite proverbial form commending itself less for its nicety than for its exquisite appositeness. This again makes him think how readily the fool exposes his folly: as the most striking example of which there occurs to the mind the rashness with which such bring upon themselves the displeasure of the ruler. Then comes readily up the folly of rulers themselves,—then examples of it in subverting the proper relations of life. A pause, perhaps, occurs: some links pass silently through the mind, but the chain of thought still shows itself. It is transferred from the higher to the more ordinary avocations of life. It is still the unavailingness of human wisdom. With all our care, and all our skill, there is danger everywhere, liability to mistakes and mishaps in every business, and in evey act. Another pause; it is the same thought but it takes a different form—the unavailingness of eloquence, or the gift of speech (that splendid evil, ὁ κόσμοςτῆςἀδικίας, James 3:6, or “ornament of unrighteousness”). Here, too, there is to be traced the influence of the proverbial association: “the serpent bites without enchantment;” so is the gift of speech to its possessor when misemployed in vain babbling or in slander. In such a tracking of ideas and emotions, the transitions may seem slight and even fanciful; but they are more natural, more sober, more impressive, we may say, in their moral and didactic effect, than those formal, logical divisions which commentators so confidently propose, and in which they so greatly differ. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ C. The only true way to happiness in this world and the world beyond consists in benevolence, fidelity to calling, a calm and contented enjoyment of life, and unfeigned fear of God from early youth to advanced ageEcc_11:1 to Ecclesiastes 12:71. Of Benevolence and Fidelity to Calling (Ecclesiastes 11:1-6) 1Cast thy bread upon the waters, for thou shalt find it after many days. 2Give a portion to seven, and also to eight, for thou knowest not what evil shall be upon the earth. 3If the clouds be full of rain, they empty themselves upon the earth, and if the tree fall toward the south, or toward the north, in the place where the tree falleth, there it shall be. 4He that observeth the wind shall not sow, and he that regardeth the clouds shall not reap. 5As thou knowest not what is the way of the spirit, nor how the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child: even so thou knowest not the works of God who maketh all. 6In the morning sow thy seed, and in the evening withhold not thine hand; for thou knowest not whether shall prosper, either this or that, or whether they both shall be alike good. 2. Of a Calm and Contented Enjoyment of Life (Ecclesiastes 11:7-10) 7Truly the light is sweet, and a pleasant thing it is for the eyes to behold the sun : 8But if a man live many years, and rejoice in them all; yet let him remember the days of darkness, for they shall be many. All that cometh is vanity. 9Rejoice, O young man, in thy youth; and let thy heart cheer thee in the days of thy youth, and walk in the ways of thine heart, and in the sight of thine eyes; but know thou, that for all these things God will bring thee into judgment. 10Therefore remove sorrow from thy heart, and put away evil from thy flesh: for childhood and youth are vanity. 3. Of the Duty of the Fear of God for Young and Old (Ecclesiastes 12:1-7)1    Remember now thy Creator in the days of thy youth, while the evil days come not, nor the years draw nigh, when thou shalt say, I have no pleasure in them; 2While the sun, or the light, or the moon, or the stars, be not darkened, nor the clouds return after the rain: 3In the day when the keepers of the house shall tremble, and the strong men shall bow themselves, and the grinders cease because they are few, and those that look out of the windows be darkened. 4And the doors shall be shut in the streets, when the sound of the grinding is low, and he shall rise up at the voice of the bird, and all the daughters of music shall be brought low; 5Also when they shall be afraid of that which is high, and fears, shall be in the way, and the almond-tree shall flourish, and the grasshopper shall be a burden, and desire shall fail: because man goeth to his long home, and the mourners go about the streets: 6Or ever the silver cord be loosed, or the golden bowl be broken, or the pitcher be broken at the fountain, or the wheel broken at the cistern. 7Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it. [Ch. 11 Ecc 11:3.—ιְ ?δεּ ?ΰ. If it is allowable at all to vary from the text that has come down to us, this may be regarded as equivalent to ωָ ?νδεּ ?ΰ (comp. Ecclesiastes 1:5) “there is he,” there it is. It might easily arise in writing from the ear, the shewa sound being hardly perceptible. If we regard it as the future of the substantive verb διδ, or δεδ, with ΰ for δ, it is not a Syriasm, since the future of the Syriac verb would be ιδֶ ?εֱ ?ΰ or rather πֶ ?δְ ?εֶ ?ΰ.—T. L.] [Ecclesiastes 11:5.—λַּ ?ςְַ ?φָ ?ιν) with ellipsis of γֶּ ?ψֶ ?κְ, equivalent to λψψοςφξιν.—T. L.] [Ecclesiastes 12:3.—ιָ ?ζֻ ?ςεּ. This is called Aramaic, but it is as much Hebrew as it is Aramaic or Arabic. The intensive form, εςες, occurs Habakkuk 2:7. It is one of those rarer forms that are to be expected only in impassioned writing, like this of Solomon, or in any vivid description. Its frequency or rarity would be like that of the word quake, in English, as compared with tremble. The rarer word [as is the case in our language] may be the older one, only becoming more frequent in later dialects according as it becomes common by losing its rarer or more impassioned significance.—T. L.] [on the difference between ιַ ?μְ ?ψεּ ?ϊ and αְּ ?ηεּ ?ψεֹ ?ϊ Ecclesiastes 11:9 the words ωַׁ ?δְַ ?ψεּ ?ϊ Ecclesiastes 11:10, αָּ ?θְ ?μεּ Ecclesiastes 12:3, ιָ ?πֵ ?ΰυ Ecclesiastes 12:5, ιֵ ?ψָ ?ηֵ ?χ Ecclesiastes 12:6, and ϊָּ ?ψֶּ ?υ and πָ ?ψεֹ ?υ Ecclesiastes 12:5, see the exegetical and marginal notes.—T. L.] AND The close connection of verses 1–7 of the 12th chapter with chap. 11 is correctly recognized by most modern commentators; a few, as Hitzig and Elster, unnecessarily add to it also Ecclesiastes 12:8. A section thus extended beyond the limits of the 11th chapter concentrates within itself, as the closing division of the fourth and last discourse, all the fundamental thoughts of the book, and in such a manner that it almost entirely excludes the negative and skeptical elements of earlier discussions and observations [only that the words λֹּ ?μΞδֶ ?αֶ ?μ return again in Ecclesiastes 11:8; comp. Ecclesiastes 11:10], and therefore lets its recapitulation very clearly appear as a victory of the positive side of its religious view over the gloomy spectre of doubt, and the struggles of unbelief (comp. Int. §1, Obs. 2). The entire section may be clearly divided into three subdivisions or strophes, the first of which teaches the correct use of life as regards actions and labor, the second concerns enjoyment, and the third the reverence and fear of God, with an admonition to these respective virtues. 2. First Strophe, first half. Ecclesiastes 11:1-3. An admonition to benevolence, with reference to its influence on the happiness of him who practices it. Hitzig, instead of finding here an admonition to beneficence, sees a warning against it, an intimation that we hope too much for the good, and arm ourselves too little against future evil; but every thing is opposed to this, especially the words and sense of Ecc 11:3, which see.—Cast thy bread upon the waters.—That is, not absolutely cast it away (Hitzig), nor send it away in ships (as merchandise) over the water (Hengstenberg), but “give it away in uncertainty, without hope of profit or immediate return.” The admonition is in the same spirit as that in Luke 16:9; Proverbs 11:24 f. The Greek aphoristic poets have the expression “to sow on the water;” as Theog., Sent. 105. Phocyllides 142 c.The entire sentence (most probably as derived from this source) is found in Ben Sira (Buxtorf, Florileg. Heb., page 171), and among the Arabians as a proverb: Benefac, projice panem tuum in aquam; aliquando tibi retribuetur (Diez, Souvenirs of Asia, II., 106).—For thou shalt find it after many days.—ϊִּ ?ξְ ?φָ ?ΰֶ ?πּ ?εּ is here clearly used in the sense of finding again.—αְּ ?ψֹ ?αδַ ?ιָּ ?ξִ ?ιν literally, “in the fullness of days, within many days.” Comp. Psalms 5:6; Psalms 72:7, etc. The sense is without doubt this: Among the many days of thy life there will certainly come a time when the seeds of thy good deeds scattered broadcast will ripen into a blessed harvest. Comp. Galatians 6:9; 2 Corinthians 9:6-9; 1 Timothy 6:18-19; also Proverbs 19:17 : “He that hath pity upon the poor lendeth unto the Lord.” Ecclesiastes 11:2. Give a portion to seven and also to eight.—That is, divide thy bread with many; for “seven and eight” are often used in this sense of undetermined plurality, as in Micah 5:4; comp. also “three and four,” Proverbs 30:15 ff.; Amos 1:3; Amos 2:1 ff.—Hitzig runs entirely counter to the text, and does violence to the usual signification of ηֵ ?μֶ ?χ saying: “make seven pieces of one piece, divide it so that seven or eight pieces may spring from it,” which admonition would simply be a rule of prudence (like the maxim followed by Jacob, Genesis 32:8) not to load all his treasures on one ship, that he might not be robbed of every thing at one blow. This thought comports neither with the context nor with Ecclesiastes 11:6, where the sense is entirely different.—For thou knowest not what evil shall be upon the earth.—That is, what periods of misfortune may occur when thou wilt pressingly need strength by community with others; comp. Luke 16:9. Ecclesiastes 11:3. If the clouds be full of rain, they empty themselves upon the earth.—Not that evil or misfortune “occurs from stern necessity, or in immutable course” [Hitzig, and also Hengstenberg, who here sees announced the near and irrevocable doom of the Persian monarchy], but exactly the reverse: let the good that thou doest proceed from the strongest impulse of sympathy, so that it occurs, as from a natural necessity, that rich streams of blessings flow forth from thee; comp. John 7:38; also Proverbs 25:14; Sirach 35:24; also the Arabian proverbs in the grammar of Erpenius, ed. Schultens, p. 424. Pluvia nubis co-operiens, dum dona funderet, etc.—And if the tree fall toward the south or toward the north, in the place where the tree falleth there it shall be.—This is apparently a parallel in sense to the second clause of Ecc 11:2, and therefore refers to the irrevocable character of the doom, or the Divine decree that overtakes man [Hitzig, Hengstenberg, etc.; also Hahn, who, however, translates the last clause thus: “One may be at the place where the tree falls,” and consequently be killed by it]. But it seems more in accordance with the text, and with the introduction [not with λִּ ?ι but with the simple copula εְ ?] to find the same sense expressed in this second clause as in the first, and consequently thus: “the utility of the tree remains the same, whether it falls on the ground of a possessor bordering it to the north or the south; if it does not profit the one, it does the other. And it is just so with the gifts of love; their fruit is not lost, although they do not always come to light in the manner intended” (Elster; comp, also Vaihinger and Wohlfarth, etc.). Geier and Rosenmueller are quite peculiar in the thought that the falling tree is the rich man, who is here warned of his death, after which he can do no more good deeds (similar to this are the views of Seb. Schmidt, Starke, Michaelis, etc.). ιְ ?δεּ ?ΰa secondary Aramaic form of ιִ ?ηְ ?ιֶ ?δ and therefore literally equivalent to: “it will be, it will lie there;” for which consult Ewald, § 192 c, as well as Hitzig on this passage. There is no grammatical foundation for the assertion that it is a substantive to be derived from an obsolete verb ιδΰ and explained by the word “break” [ωָׁ ?νιְ ?δεּ ?ΰ “there occurs the break or fracture of the tree,” as says Starke]. 3. First strophe, second half. Ecclesiastes 11:4-6. An admonition to zealous, careful, and untiring performance in one’s calling [μὴ ἐκκακεῖν, “not to faint,” as before he was warned ποεῖντὸ καλὸν, to be earnest in well doing, Galatians 6:9]. He that observeth the wind shall not sow.—A warning against timid hesitancy and its laming influence on effective and fruitful exertion. He whom the weather does not suit, and who is ever waiting for a more favorable season, misses finally the proper period for action. The second clause expresses the same admonitory thought regarding excessive considerateness. Ecclesiastes 11:5. As thou knowest not what is the way of the spirit, nor how the bones do grow in the womb of her who is with child.—[Zφckler renders “way of the wind.” See the excursus appended, p. 150.—T. L.]—That is, as thou canst not comprehend nor see through the mysteries of nature. That the origin and pathway of the winds is in this regard proverbial, is shown by John 3:8 [comp. above, Ecclesiastes 1:6]. For the formation of the bones in the womb of the mother as a process peculiarly mysterious and unexplainable, comp. Psalms 139:13-18.—Even so thou knowest not the works of God who maketh all.—The “works” or action of God are, of course, His future dealing, which is a mystery absolutely unknown and unfathomable by men; wherefore all success of human effort can neither be known nor calculated in advance. “Who maketh all;” for this comp. Amos 3:6; Matthew 10:28-29, Ephesians 3:20, etc.[The Unknown Way of the Spirit and of Life.—Ecclesiastes 11:5.—“As thou knowest not the way of the Spirit, nor how the bones do grow,” etc. The words γֶּ ?ψֶ ?κְ δָ ?ψεּ ?ηַ are rendered here by Zφckler, Stuart, and Hitzig, “the way of the wind.” There would be good reason for this from the verse preceding; but what follows points to the sense of spirit, although the word was undoubtedly suggested by what was said in Ecclesiastes 11:4 of the wind. The best way, however, is to regard the double idea of wind and spirit as being intended here, as in our Saviour’s language, John 3:8. About the words following there can be no mistake. The process described is set forth as the peculiar work of God, a Divine secret which human knowledge is challenged ever to discover. “Thou knowest not the way of the spirit” [ψεּ ?ηִ ?ι Genesis 6:3, “my spirit,” that I have given to man], “nor how the bones do grow,” that is, how that spirit, or life, reorganizes itself each time, clothes itself anew in the human system, making the bones to grow according to their law, and building up for itself a new earthly house in every generic transmission. This is the grand secret, the knowledge and process of which God challenges to Himself. Science can do much, but it can never discover this. We may say it boldly, even as Koheleth makes his affirmation, science never will discover this; for it lies above the plane of the natural; and in every case, though connected with nature, demands a plus power, or some intervention, however regulated by its own laws, of the supernatural. The Bible thus presents it as God’s challenged work [comp. Genesis 2:7; Genesis 6:3; Job 33:14; Psalms 139:13; Jeremiah 1:5], the same now as in the beginning when the Word of life first went forth, and nature received a new life power, or, rather, a rising in the old. The passage of life from an old organism to a new is as much a mystery as ever. We mean the transition from the last enclosing matter of the former, through the moment of disembodiment, or material unclothing (see note, Gen., p. 170), when it takes that last matter of the previous organization, or of the seed vessel, or seed fluid, and immediately makes it the commencing food, the first material it uses in building up the new house in which it is to dwell. In respect, too, to the mystery of supernatural origin, it is as much a new creation as though that unclothed and immaterial power of life [whether in the vegetable or in the animal sphere] had for the first time begun its manifestation in the universe. It is the same Word, sounding on in nature, or, as the Psalmist says, “running very swiftly,”—πνεῦμανοερὸν, ἐυκίνητον, ἐυεργετικὸν, παντοδύναμον, πάσηςκινήσεωςκινητικώτερον, καὶ διὰ πάντωνδιήκον, διὰ τὴνκαθαρότητα; Wis 7:23-24. It is the transmission, not merely of an immaterial power (though even as a power science can only talk about it or find names for its phenomena), but also of a law and an idea (νοερὸν as well as ἐνεργετικὸν, an intelligent working we may say) representing, in this dimensionless monad force the new life exactly as it represented the old in all its variety, whether of form or of dynamical existence,—in other words, transmitting the species, or the specific life, as that which lives on, and lives through, and lives beyond, all the material changes that chemistry has discovered or can ever hope to discover. Science may show how this life is affected in its manifestations by the outward influences with which it comes in contact, the changes that may seem to enter even the generic sphere, and it may thus rightly require us to modify our outward views in respect to the number and variety of strictly fundamental forms; but the transmission itself of the species (however it may have arisen or been modified) into the same form again of specific life, or the carrying a power, a law, and an idea, in a way that neither chemical nor mechanical science can ever trace,—this is the Divine secret towards which the Darwinian philosophy has not made even an approach. Its advocates know no more about it, than did the old philosophers who held a theory precisely the same in substance, though different in its technology. They talked of atoms as men now talk of fluids, forces, and nebular matter; but give them time enough, or rather give them the three infinities of time, space, and numerical quantity of conceivable forms, and they would show us how from infinite incongruities falling at last into congruity and seeming order, worlds and systems would arise, though their form, their order, and the seeming permanence arising from such seeming order, would be only names of the states that were; any other states that might have arisen being, in such case, equally entitled to the same appellations. Like the modern systems, it was all idealess, without any intervention of intelligence either in the beginning or at any stages in the process. It is astonishing how much, in the talk about the Darwinian hypothesis, these two things have been confounded,—the possible outward changes in generic forms, and the inscrutable transmission of the generic life in the present species, or in the present individual. The theory referred to is adapted only to an infinity of individual things, ever changing outwardly, and which, at last, fall into variety of species through an infinite number of trials and selections, or of fortunate hits after infinite failures. It makes no provision, however, for one single case of the transmission of the same specific life, either in the vegetable or the animal world. There it has to confess its ignorance, though it treats it sometimes as a very slight ignorance, soon to be removed. How pigeons, taken as an immense number of individual things, undergo an eternal series of outward changes,—how existing pigeons spread into varieties, by some being more lucky in their selections than others—all this it assumes to tell us. But in the presence of the great every day mystery, the wonderful process that is going on in the individual pigeon’s egg, invisibly, yet most exactly, typing the pigeon life that now is, it stands utterly speechless. One of its advocates seems to regard this as a very small matter, at present, indeed, not fully understood as it will be, but of little consequence in its bearing on the great scheme. It has its laws undoubtedly, but the principle of life, he maintains, is chemical,—that is, it is a certain arrangement of matter. Now this we cannot conceive, much less know. We are equally baffled whether we take into view the grosser (as they appear to the sense) or the more ethereal kinds of matter, whether as arranged in greater magnitudes, or in the most microscopic disposition of atoms, molecules, or elementary gases constituted by them. We may attempt still farther to etherealize by talking of forces, motions [motions of what ?] heat, magnetism, electricity, etc. They are still but quantities, matters of more or less. And so the modern chief of the positive school has boldly said: all is quantity, all is number; life is quantity, thought is quantity (so much motion); what we call virtue is quantity; it can be measured. And so all knowledge is ultimately mathematics, or the science of quantity. There is nothing that cannot, be reduced, in its last stages, to a numerical estimate. There is, moreover, just so much matter, force, and motion in the universe,—ever has been, ever will be. And there is nothing else. But how life, a thing in itself dimensionless, to say nothing of feeling, thought, and consciousness, can come out of such estimates is no more conceivable of one kind of matter, however moving, than it is of another. Still more do we fail to imagine how it can, in any way, be the result of figure, arrangement, position, quantity, or of σχῆμα, τάξις, θέσις as Leucippus and Democritus called their three prime originating causalities [see Aristot., Met. II. 4]. But so it is, they still continue to insist, though chemistry has searched long and could never find it, or even “ the way to its house,” as is said, Job 37:20, of the light. Prof. Haeckel, of Jena, in his Natόrliche Schφpfungsgeschichte maintains “that all organized beings are potentially present in the first matter of the nebular system.” He looks upon “all the phenomena of life as a natural sequence of their chemical combination, as much as if they were conditions of existence, though the ultimate causes are hidden from us.” There may be some truth in what is said about conditions [for conditions are not causes], but it is the other remark that demands attention: “though the ultimate causes may be hidden from us.” Ho seems to regard this as a very slight circumstance, which ought to have little effect on the great argument of what calls itself the exact, and “positive philosophy.” There is yet indeed an unimportant break in the chain; a link or two is to be supplied; that is all, they would say. But what data have we for determining what is lacking before the full circuit of knowledge is completed ? A most important inquiry this: how great is the separation made by the unknown? Is it a few inches, or a space greater than the stellar distances? Is it a thin partition through which the light is already gleaming, or is it a vast chasm, compared with which any difference between the most ancient and the most modern knowledge is as nothing ? Is it something that may be passed over in time, or is it the measureless abyss of infinity which the Eternal and Infinite Mind alone can span? “ They are yet hidden from us,” he says. Is there the least ray of light in the most advanced science that shows us that we are even approaching this mysterious region of causality? Is there any reason to think that we know a particle more about it than Aristotle did, or those ancient positivists who talked of σχῆμα, τάξις, and θέσις, or any of those profound thinkers of old whose better reasoned atheism Cudworth has so fully refuted in his great work? And yet this professor of “exact science” talks of his monera, the prototypes of the protista, and how from these came neutral monera, and from these, again, vegetable and animal monera, just as freely as though he knew all about it from his inch of space and moment of time, or had not just admitted an ignorance which puts him at an inconceivable distance from that which he so confidently claims to explain. For it should be borne in mind that science has not merely failed to discover the principle of life, as “positive knowledge;” she cannot, even conceive it; she cannot form a theory of it which does not run immediately into the old mechanical and chemical language of number and quantity, out of which she cannot think, nor talk, without bringing in the supernatural, and that, too, as something above her province. After what is told us about the monera, etc., the writer proceeds to say: “ this once established, from each of the archetypes, we have a genealogy developed which gives us the history of the protozoan and animal kingdoms,” etc., as though any thing had been established, and he had not admitted his ignorance of a prime truth without which he cannot take a step in the direction in which he so blindly hastes. There is nothing new in this, in substance, though there may be much that is novel in form and technology. It is the old philosophy of darkness. It is as true of this modern school as it was of the old cosmologists of whom Aristotle first said it, ἐκνῦκτὸςπάνταγεννᾴν, “that they generate all things out of Night.” This bringing every thing out of the nebular chaos through mechanical action and chemical affinities, and these grounded on nothing else than σχῆμα, τάξις, and θέσις, is nothing more than the Hesiodean generations, or the Love and Discord, the attractions and repulsions, of Empedocles. It is the pantogony of these old world builders, but without their splendid poetry. “All organized beings in the first nebular matter,” and that from eternity! Then, of course, there has been no addition in time, no plus quantity, or plus power, or any plus idea combined with power; for that would be something which previously was not. Newton was in the toadstool; for what is not in cannot come out, or be developed; and so every toad-stool now contains a Newton; every fungus contains an academy of science, or a school of “positive philosophy.” The carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, or still earlier and more formless matter out of which this thinking arises, is there, only in a different τάξις and θέσις, perhaps. There has been no more addition to nature in the physical development of the rationalist commentator than in that of the λִּ ?πִּ ?ιν (Exodus 8:17; Psalms 105:31) or Egyptian lice, whose immediate production he regards as beneath the dignity of any supposed Divine or supernatural action. And so there can be no real or essential difference in rank. The kinnim were as ‘much in the first matter as the phosphorus that thinks in the brain of the theologian; they had as high and as old a place. The idea, too, of the kinnim was there, and all the machinery of their development; so that there was no saving of means or labor; their immediate genesis would cost no more, or be any more of a belittling work, than their mediate, or developed production. These insignificant creatures were provided for from all eternity. But providing means foreseeing, foreknowing; and language revolts. We cannot consistently talk atheism or materialism in any human dialect; God be thanked for such a provision in the origin and growth of speech. We can, indeed, say in. words, as one of the boldest of this godless school has said, ohne Phosphor kein Gedanke, “ without phosphorus no thought;” but then we must give up the word idea as, in any sense a cause originating; for there could be no idea antecedent to the phosphoric matter, or that order and position of it, out of which idea, or the development of thought, was to arise; that is, any idea of phosphorus before phosphorus. There is, then, nothing eternal, immutable, undeveloped, or having its being in itself, and to which, as an ideal standard, the terms higher and lower can be referred to give them any meaning. For all risings of matter, or form, to higher forms regarded as any thing else than simply unfoldings of previous matter, or previous arrangements of forces, are creations as much as any thing that is supposed first to commence its being as a whole; since more from less involves the maxim de nihilo, as well as something from nothing in its totality. If they were in that previous matter without a new commandment, a new word, and a plus activity accompanying it, then they are not truly a rising. They are no more, in quantity, than what they were; and quantity is all. Quality, according to Comte, is but a seeming; it is not a positive entity, but only σχῆμα, τάξις, and θέσις, an arrangement of matter. The potentiality, then, has all that there is, or can be, in any actuality. Even that inconceivable power which causes any potentiality to be thus potential, is, itself, only a potentiality included in the infinite sum of potentiality, which, as a whole, is also, in some way, caused to be what it is, and as it is. We say, in some way; for to say for some reason, would, at once, be bringing in a new word, and a new idea, utterly foreign to this whole inconceivable scheme. According to the other philosophy, Reason is “in the beginning,” ἐνἀρχη̇ ἦνὸ Λόγος (John 1.; Proverbs 8:22). But here reason is junior to matter, something developed, and which could, therefore, neither as intelligens nor as intellectum, be made a ground of that from which itself proceeds. We can never get out of this labyrinth; for the moment we bring in a plus quantity, or a plus activity, or a plus idea, or any thing seeming to be such, we only have a new causative potentiality, and that demanding another, which is potential of it, and so on ad infinitum; the infinity, too, not proceeding from the highest downward, but from the lowest state [or that which is next to nothing], as being the first possible manifestation of being in the universe of conceivable things. Again, it may be asked, why has not this infinite potentiality, in this infinite time, developed all things potential, so that pigeons should long since have become arch-angels, and our poor, earthly, dying race long since risen “to be as gods.” Or how, if we shrink from that, are we to avoid the converse conclusion, that the whole state of things now actual, now developed, is still infinitely low, and that the highest and best in the sphere of soul, and thought, and’ reason, is not only as yet undeveloped, but infinitely far in condition, and eternally far in time, from its true actuality,—if, in such a scheme, highest and best have any real meaning. It makes the lowest and most imperfect first, the best and perfect last, or at such an infinite distance that it may be said they never come. Religion and the Scriptures just reverse this. They put soul first, mind first, the Personal first, the all Holy, the all Wise, the all Righteous, the all Perfect, first, whilst every seeming imperfection contributes to the manifestation of the infinite excellency and infinite glory of the one separate personal God who is first of all and over all. How poor the science of Koheleth, it may be said, and yet he has propounded here a problem having regard to one of the most common events of life, but which the ages are challenged to solve: “As thou knowest not the way of the spirit, or even how the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child, even so thou knowest not the work of God who worketh all,”—ΰֶ ?ϊΞδַ ?λֹּ ?μ the all, the great paradigm which He is bringing out in space and time [ch. Ecclesiastes 3:14], and for those moral and spiritual ends to which the natural, with all its changes, and all its developments, is’ at every moment subservient In one sense, indeed, it has no plus quantities. All is provided for in Him “ who is the A and the Ω, the First and the Last, the ἀρχὴ καὶ τέλος, the Beginning and the End.” “All that God doeth is for the olam, the Great Eternity” [Ecclesiastes 3:14]. “Nothing can be added to it or taken from it;” but this, instead of excluding the supernatural, or shutting all things up in nature, necessitates the idea that there is a world above nature, a power, or rather an Eternal “Word [ἐνᾦ τὰ πάντασυνέστηκε (Colossians 1:17)] in whom all things consist,” or stand together. This Word still speaks in nature. There, still abides its constant voice, χεֹ ?μγְּ ?ξָ ?ξָ ?δγַ ?χָּ ?δ [1 Kings 19:12], susurrus aurζ tenuis, its “thin still voice,” that is heard “after the fire and the wind,” its ωֶׁ ?ξֶ ?υγָּ ?αָ ?ψ “whisper word,” as Job calls it, Job 26:14; and then again there is the “going forth” of its “mighty thunder voice,” ψַ ?ςַ ?νβְּ ?αεּ ?ψֹ ?ϊָ ?ιε which “none but God can understand,” speaking in its great periodic or creative utterances, as it did of old, and as it shall speak again, when it calls for the “new heavens and the new earth,” giving to nature its new movement and its still holier Sabbath. It is this greater utterance that brings into the natural development its plus powers and plus ideas, not from any undeveloped physical necessity, but from a Divine fullness, not arbitrarily, but from its own everlasting higher law. Throughout all the seeming nature there remains this mysterious, generative, life-giving process in the vegetable, the animal, and especially in the human birth, as a constant symbol of the supernatural presence, or of the old unspent creative force, still having its witness in continually recurring acts, ever testifying to the great Divine secret that baffles science, and to the explanation of which she cannot even make an approach. There is an allusion to this mystery of generation, Psalms 139:13 : “Thou didst possess my reins [claim them as thine own curious work], thou didst overshadow me in my mother’s womb.” So also in Psalms 139:15 : “My substance was not hid from thee,”—ςַ ?φְ ?ξִ ?ι my bone, the same symbolic word that is here employed by Koheleth. In fact, it was ever so regarded by the earliest mind, as it must be by the latest and most scientific. Koheleth simply expressed the proverbial mystery of his day. It existed in the thinking and language of the most ancient Arabians; as is evident from the use Mohammed makes of it in the Koran. His mode of speaking of it shows that it was a very old query that had long occupied the thoughts of men. Hence his adversaries are represented as proposing it to him as a test of his being a true prophet (see Koran Sur. 17. 78): “They will ask thee about the spirit (ΪδΗαΡζΝ); say: the spirit is according to the command of my Lord, and ye have been gifted with knowledge but a very little way.” When he says “the spirit is by the command of my Lord,” he has reference to a distinction that was made (and very anciently it would seem) between the creation of spirit, and that of matter, or nature strictly. The latter was through media, steps, or growth, whilst spirit was immediate, by the command of God, according to the language of Psa 33:9, or the frequent expression in the Koran which so closely resembles it, ίُ ?δْ ? έίΗδ, “be, and it was.” Al. Zamakhshari, in his Commentary, p. 783, 2, tells us that the Jews bid the Koreish ask Mohammed three questions—one about the mystery of “the cave and the sleepers,” one about Dhu l’ Karnein, and the third, this question about the spirit. If he pretended to answer them all, or if he answered neither of them, then he was no true prophet. He answered the first two, but confessed his ignorance of the human soul, as being something “the knowledge of which God had reserved to Himself.” Then he told them that there was the same reserve in their law (the Old Testament) which revealed to them nothing about the way of the spirit, γψκδψεη. If Mohammed knew any thing about the Bible (and there is but little reason in the contrary supposition), then it may bereasonably thought that in what is thus said of him by the Koranic commentator, he had reference to such passages as this of Ecclesiastes (compare also Ecclesiastes 3:21, ξιιγςψεη, “ who knoweth the spirit,” etc.), or to the general reserve of the Old Testament respecting the soul, or in a more special manner to Genesis 2:7; Genesis 6:3, where there are ascribed to God the more direct creation of, and a continued property in, the human spirit. This would seem, too, from Psalms 104:29, to be asserted, in some sense, even of the animal creation.—T. L.] Ecclesiastes 11:6. In the morning sow thy seed.—The sowing of seed is here a figurative designation of every regular vocation or occupation, not specially of benevolence; comp. Job 4:8; Psalms 126:5; 1 Corinthians 9:10-11.—And in the evening withhold not thine hand.—Literal, “towards evening” (μָ ?ςֶ ?ψֶ ?α), i.e., be diligent in thy business from the early morning till the late evening, be incessantly active.—For thou knowest not whether shall prosper, either this or that.—ΰֵ ?ιζֶ ?δ, not “what,” but “whether;” the expression refers, as it seems, to the double labor, that of the morning and that of the evening. “We are to arrange labor with labor, because the chances are equal, and we may therefore hope that if one fails, the other may succeed. God may possibly destroy one work—and who knows which ? (comp. Ecclesiastes 5:6); it is well if thou then hast a support, a second arrow to send” (Hitzig).—Or whether they shall both be alike good—i.e., whether both kinds of labor produce what is really good, substantial and enduring, or whether the fruit of the one does not soon decay, so that only the result of the other remains. λְּ ?ΰֶ ?ηָ ?γ “together,” as in Ezra 6:20; 2 Chronicles 5:13; Isaiah 65:25. 4. Second strophe. Ecclesiastes 11:7-10. Admonition to calmness and content, ever mindful of divine judgment, and consequently to the cheerful enjoyment of the blessings of this life.—Truly the light is sweet, and a pleasant thing it is for the eyes to behold the sun. Hitzig correctly gives the connection with the preceding: The tendency of the advice in Ecclesiastes 11:1-6 (mainly in Ecclesiastes 11:6) to secure guaranties in life, is justified in Ecclesiastes 11:7. “Life is beautiful and worthy of receiving care.” Elster is less clear and concise: “Such an energy of mental activity (as that demanded in Ecclesiastes 11:1-6) will only be found where there is no anxious calculation about the result; but where man finds alone in the increased activity of his mental powers, (?) and in the intense striving after an eternal goal, his satisfaction and reward,” etc. The “light” here stands for life, of which it is the symbol. (Comp. Psalms 36:9; Psalms 49:19; Psalms 56:13; Job 3:20). And so the expression: “ to behold the sun,” for which see not only Psalms 36:9; John 11:9, but also passages in classic authors, e. g., Euripides, Iphig. in Aul. Ecc 1218: ἡδυγὰρτὸ φῶςβλέπειν; also Hippol. Ecclesiastes 4 : φῶςὁρῶντεςὴλίου; Phoeniss: εἰ λεύσσειφάος. Ecclesiastes 11:8. But if a man live many years. λִּ ?ι here greatly increases the intensity of thought (comp. Job 6:21; Hosea 10:5); it is consequently to have no closer connection with the following ΰִ ?ν; comp. Proverbs 2:3; Isaiah 10:22, etc.—And rejoice in them all; [Zφckler renders: Let him rejoice in them all]; therefore daily and constantly rejoice, in harmony with the apostolic injunction, χαίρετεπάντοτε. See the “ Doctrinal and Ethical” to know how this sentence is to be reconciled, in Koheleth’s sense, with the truth that all is vanity, and at the same time to be defended against the charge of Epicurean levity.—Yet let him remember the days of darkness, for they shall be many. λִּ ?ι is here the relative, not the causal ὅτι; comp. the Septuagint: καὶ μνησθήσεταιτὰςἡμέραςτο͂υσκότους, ο͂τιπολλαὶ ἔσονται. “ The days of darkness are those to be passed after this life in Scheol, the dark prison beneath the earth (Ecclesiastes 9:10), the days when we shall no longer see the pleasant light of the sun, or the period of death;” comp. Job 10:21, f.; Job 14:22; Psalms 88:12, etc.—All that Cometh is vanity; that is, that cometh in this world; everything that exists in this life, consequently all men especially; comp. Ecclesiastes 6:4; John 1:9. Nevertheless the translation should not be in the masculine; the Septuagint is correct: πᾶντὸ ἐρχόμενον, ματαιότης. The sense given by Vaihinger and Elster is too broad : “ All future things are vanity.” But even this is more correct than the Vulgate and Luther, who refer ωֶׁ ?αָּ ?ΰ to the past. Moreover the clause is a confirmation of what precedes, though used without a connective, and therefore making a still greater impression. Ecclesiastes 11:9. Rejoice, O young man in thy youth.—Here we again have a vividly emphatic omission of the connective. That which the previous verse recommended in general, is now specially addressed to youth as that period of life especially favorable to cheerful enjoyment, and therefore, in accordance with God’s will, especially appointed thereto. But the necessary check is indeed immediately placed upon this rejoicing, by the reminder of the duty to forget not that God will bring to judgment. αְּ in αְּ ?ιַ ?μְ ?γεּ ?ϊֶ ?κָ does not give the cause or object of rejoicing, but, as also in αִּ ?ιξֵ ?ι in the following clause (comp. Isaiah 9:2), the period and circumstances in which it is to occur.—And let thy heart cheer thee in the days of thy youth, For this expression comp. Ecclesiastes 1:17; Ecclesiastes 3:18; Ecclesiastes 7:25, etc. The heart delights the whole man in proportion as it itself is θεֹ ?α, that is, of good cheer.—And walk in the ways of thine heart, i.e., in the ways in which it will go; follow it. Comp. Isaiah 57:17 and for the thought above Ecclesiastes 2:10.—And in the sight of thine eyes, i. e., so that thy observation of things shall form the rule for thy conduct, (comp. Ecclesiastes 3:2-8). This is in accordance with the K’ri αְּ ?ξַ ?ψְ ?ΰֶ ?δ, which is attested by all versions and manuscripts; the ketib αְּ ?ξַ ?ψְ ?ΰֵ ?ι which is preferred by Hengstenberg and others, would designate the multitude of the objects of sight as the rule for walking, which, as Hitzig correctly observes, would be an intolerable zeugma. We moreover decidedly condemn the addition of μֹ ?ΰ before αְּ ?ξַ ?ψְ ?ΰֵ ?δ: “and not according to the sight of thine eyes,” as is found in the Codex Vaticanus of the Septuagint, and in the Jewish Haggada; for the passage in Numbers 15:39, that probably furnished the inducement to this interpolation, is not, when rightly comprehended, in antagonism with the present admonition; for quite as certain as the allusion is there to amorous looks of lust, is it here, on the contrary, to an entirely innocent use of sight, and one well-pleasing to God.—But know thou, that for all these things God will bring thee to judgment. Comp. Job 11:6. The judgment (ξִ ?ωְׁ ?τָּ ?θ) is very certainly not merely to be considered as one of this world, consisting of the pains of advanced age (Hitzig), described in Ecclesiastes 12:1, ff., or of human destinies as periods of the revelation of divine retributive justice in general (Clericus, Winzer, Knobel, Elster, etc.). The author rather has in view the “judgment” in the absolute sense, the great reckoning after death, the last judgment, as the parallels Psalms 143:2; Job 14:3; Job 19:29, etc., incontestably show (comp. also Hebrews 9:27; Hebrews 10:27); the preludes of the final judgment belonging to this life come into view only as subordinate. Neither Ecclesiastes 11:8 of this chapter, nor Ecclesiastes 9:10 are opposed to this; for Koheleth in these teaches not an eternal, but only a long sojourn in Scheol. Our interpretation receives also the fullest confirmation in Ecclesiastes 3:17 as in Ecclesiastes 12:7; Ecclesiastes 12:14. Ecclesiastes 11:10. Therefore remove sorrow from thy heart. The positive command to rejoice, is here followed by the warning against the opposite of rejoicing λַּ ?ςַ ?ν “sorrow, dissatisfaction;” the Septuagint, Vulgate, Geier, etc., most unfittingly render it “anger,” just as the following, ψָ ?ςָ ?δ which means “ evil, misfortune,” they render, “ wickedness,” (πονηρία, malitia). The recommendation to cheerfulness instead of sadness and melancholy (comp. Malachi 3:14; Isaiah 58:3) is here clearly continued; comp. Ecclesiastes 9:7, ff. For αָּ ?ωָ ?ψ in the second clause, comp. Ecclesiastes 5:6.—For childhood and youth are vanity. The figure (δַ ?ωַּׁ ?ηֲ ?ψεּ ?ϊ a later expression for ωׁ ?ηψ; comp. the Talmudic ωַׁ ?ηֵ ?ψִ ?ιϊ, and the thing compared(δַ ?ιַּ ?μְ ?γεּ ?ϊ also a later word) are here, as in Ecclesiastes 5:2; Ecclesiastes 7:1, connected by a simple copula. Koheleth would have written more clearly, but less poetically and effectively if he had said “for as the dawn of the morning so is the period of youth all vanity” (i.e., transitory, fleeting, comp. Ecclesiastes 7:6; Ecclesiastes 9:9). [Koheleth’s Description of Old Age, chap. 12.—The imagery and diction of this remarkable passage show it to be poetry of the highest order; but it presents a very gloomy picture. Even as a description of the ordinary state of advanced life, it is too dark. It has no relief, none of those cheering features, few though they may be, which Cicero presents in his charming treatise De Seneclute. As a representation of the old age of the godly man, it is altogether unfitting. Compare it with the ωֵׂ ?ιαָ ?δθεֹ ?αָ ?δ, the “good old age” of Abraham and David, Genesis 15:15,1 Chronicles 29:28, the serene old age of Isaac, the honored old age of Jacob, the hale old age of Moses and Joshua. See how Isaiah (Isaiah 40:30-31) describes the aged who wait upon the Lord: “The youths may faint and be weary, even the young men may utterly fail, but they who wait on Jehovah shall renew their strength, they shall mount up on wings as eagles, they shall run and not be weary, they shall walk and not faint. A more direct contrast is furnished by the striking picture of aged saints, Psalms 92:15 : They are like the grandζval cedars of Lebanon; “ planted in the house of the Lord, they shall still bring forth fruit in old age; they shall be fat and flourishing” (more correctly, “still resinous and green”) evergreens; or, as Watts has most beautifully paraphrased it, The plants of grace shall ever live; Nature decays, but grace must thrive; Time that doth all things else impair, Still makes them flourish, strong and fair. Laden with fruits of age they show, The Lord is holy, just and true; None that attend His gates shall find, A God unfaithful or unkind. Another very striking contrast to this is that picture which Solomon twice gives us in the Proverbs 16:31; Proverbs 20:29, “the hoary head a crown of glory when found in the way of righteousness.” But one supposition remains; the picture here given is the old age of the sensualist. This appears, too, from the connection. It is the “evil time,” the “day of darkness ” that has come upon the youth who was warned in the language above, made so much more impressive by its tone of forecasting irony. It is the dreary old age of the young man who would “go on in every way of his heart, and after every sight of his eyes,”—who did not “ keep remorse from his soul, nor evils from his flesh ”—and now all these things are come upon him, with no such alleviations al often accompany the decline of life. Such also might be the inference from the words with which the verse begins : “Remember thy Creator while the evil days come not” (ςγΰωψμΰ). It expresses this and more. There is a negative prohibitory force in the ςγΰωψ: So remember Him that the evil days come not—“before they come,” implying a warning that such coming will be a consequence of the neglect. Piety in youth will prevent such a realizing of this sad picture; it will not keep off old age, but it will make it cheerful and tolerable, instead of the utter ruin that is here depicted. Another argument is drawn from the character of the imagery. The general representation is that of the decay of a house, or rather of a household establishment, as a picture of man going to his eternal house, his αιϊςεμν, ἀῑ ?̔δίονοἴκησιν. This earthly house (ἐπίγειοςοἰκία, 2 Corinthians 5:1) is going to ruin, but the style of the habitation is so pictured as to give us some idea of the character of the inhabitant. It is not the cottage of the poor, nor the plain mansion of the virtuous contented. It is the house of the rich man (Luke 16:19) who has “ fared sumptuously (λαμπρῶς, splendidly) every day.” The outward figure is that of a lordly mansion,—a palace or castle with its “ keepers,” its soldiers, or “ men of might,” its purveyors of meal and provisions, its watchers on the turrets. It is a luxurious mansion with its gates once standing wide open to admit the revellers, now closing to the street. The images that denote these different parts of the body, the different senses or gates of entrance to the soul, are all so chosen as to indicate the kind of man represented. It is the eye that looked out for every form of beauty, the mouth (the teeth) that demanded supplies of the most abundant and delicious food. It is the ear that sought for “singing women,” λָּ ?μαְּ ?πεֹ ?ϊδַ ?ωִּׁ ?ιψ, the loudest and most famed of the “daughters of song.” And so, too, the appurtenances at the close of the description, the hanging lamps, the golden bowl, the costly fountain machinery all falling into ruin, present the game indications of character, and of the person represented. Another very special mark of this may be traced in the expression εְ ?ϊָ ?τֵ ?ψδָ ?ΰֲ ?αִ ?ιּ ?εֹ ?πָ ?δ Ecclesiastes 11:5, rendered, “desire shall fail,” rather, “ shall be frustrated,” still raging but impotent. How characteristic of the old sensualist, and yet how different from the reality in the virtuous old age that has followed a temperate and virtuous youth! See how Cicero speaks of such failure of desire as a release, a relief, instead of a torment: libenter vero istinc, tanquam a domino furioso, profugi; De Senectute, 47. This view is rendered still stronger, if we follow those commentators who would regard ΰαιεπδ as denoting an herb used for the excitement of failing desire: It shall fail to have its effect. The meaning seems plain, however, as commonly taken, and there is, perhaps, no good reason for departing from the etymological sense. Everything goes to show that Watts has rightly paraphrased the passage— Behold the aged sinner goes, Laden with guilt and heavy woes, Down to the regions of the dead. The soul returns murmuringly to God, as though with its complaint of the cruel and degrading treatment it had received from “the fleshly nature” “in the earthly house,” or as a wailing ghost “driven away” (see Proverbs 14:32), naked and shivering into the uncongenial spiritual sphere. It is in view of such a life, and such a death, that we see the force of the closing exclamation—“ O vanity of vanities—all vanity !” As a finale to the life and death of the righteous, even if the writer, like Solon, had had reference only lo this world, it would have seemed inharmonious and out of place. If we regard it, however, as Solomon’s picture of himself repenting in extremis, then may we indulge a more cheerful hope in regard to its close, though still with the wail of vanity as its mournful accompaniment. One thing seems almost certain. Such a description as this, so sad, so full of feeling, must have been written by one who had had some experience of the situation described. There is a pathos about it that indicates personality, and a personal repentance. If so, no one is so readily suggested as the king of Israel, whose fall into sensuality and idolatry is so vividly described, 1 Kings 11, where the divine judgments upon him are also fully set forth. His repentance is not there mentioned, but it may be because this book of Koheleth, which he left behind him as his brief spiritual autobiography, contained such ample evidence of the fact.—T. L.]. 5. Third strophe. Ecclesiastes 12:1-7. An admonition to fear God during youth, and not to leave his till old age, the period when approaching death announces itself through many terrors—here depicted in a series of poetical figures drawn from the various realms of nature and human life.—Remember now thy Creator in the days of thy youth. For the plural αּ ?εֹ ?ψְ ?ΰִ ?ιν see Ecclesiastes 5:8 preceding. The word “remember” (ζλψ) is, of course, a remembering with becoming reverence, as well as with a feeling of gratitude for the many blessings received. It is therefore substantially the same with the fear expressly recommended in Ecclesiastes 12:13, and in substance, at least, in Ecclesiastes 11:9, second clause.—While the evil days come not. Literally, “until not,” i.e.,“before;” just as in Ecclesiastes 11:2 and in the later recapitulation Ecclesiastes 11:6. The “evil days” and the “years” following are naturally the years of old age, of the period immediately preceding death, in contradistinction to the joyous period of youth. Ecclesiastes 11:2. While the sun, or the light, or the moon or the stars be not darkened. The darkening of the sun and the light must here be synonymous with the diminishing and the saddening of the joys of life, as is experienced in advanced age. A more special interpretation of the sun and the light, as well as of the moon and the stars (only added to finish the description), is inadmissible, and leads to platitudes, as is the case with Glassius, Oeting, and F. W. Meyer, who think of the darkening powers of the mind or with Wedel, who would interpret the sun by the heart, the moon by the brain, the stars by the bowels(!), and the clouds and rain, even, by the catarrhal rheums of old age(!). Moreover the darkening of sun, moon and stars is a favorite figure for seasons of misfortune, punishment and judgment; comp. Joshua 3:4; Joshua 2:10; Amos 8:9; Isaiah 13:10; Ezekiel 32:7; Acts 2:20; Revelation 6:12. The same is also found in classic authors, e.g., Catullus Ecclesiastes 8:3; Fulsere quondam candidi tibi soles; Martial Epigr. Ecclesiastes 5:20, Ecclesiastes 11 : Bonosque soles effugere atque abire sentit.—Nor the clouds return after the rain. That is, one calamity follows another, one season of misfortune begins where the other ceases. The rainy season, or winter, is therewith described, in contrast to the mere showers or passing thunder storms of summer. Old age is symbolized as the winter (or autumn of life, as it has previously been termed the approaching night; comp. Job 29:3; where the mature age of man is designated as “ the days of autumn” (ιְ ?ξֵ ?ιηֹ ?ψֶ ?σ). So we too sometimes speak of the evening, the autumn, and the winter of life. Ecclesiastes 11:3-5. A more intimate figurative description of old age’s infirmity and proximity to death. This is here represented under the figure of a house whose inhabitants, formerly cheerful and animated, now become weak, inactive and sad. Umbreit and Elster condemn this view as harsh and devoid of taste, and consider the passage rather as a poetic description of the day of death, which is represented under the figure of a fearful tempest, see especially Gurlitt, Studien und kritiken, 1865, II., p. 331, ff. (comp. p. 27, preceding). Comp. also the subsequent remarks under the head of Doctrinal and Ethical.—In the day when the keepers of the house shall tremble. The human body is often compared to a house or a tent, e. g., Isaiah 38:12; Wis 9:15; Job 4:19; 2 Corinthians 5:1, ff.; 2 Peter 1:13, f. So also in profane writings, e. g., in the Arabian poet Hariri, (Rueckert’s Ed., p. 293); in Virgil, Eneid VI., 734. The “keepers of the house” are the arms with the hands, that are intended to protect the body, but which become tremulous in aged persons. These are considered as outside of the house, but as closely belonging to it. For the use of the hands as protection and armor for the body, comp. Galen, de usu partium I., (4 Opp. ed. Kuehn T., III., p. 8).—And the strong men shall bow themselves. That is, evidently the legs, which in old age lose their muscular power; whilst in the young, strong man they may be compared to marble columns, (comp. Son 5:10), they now shrink and become feeble, and crooked. Comp. the “ crooked knees” of Job 4:4; the “weak knees” of Psalms 109:24; “the feeble knees,” Isaiah 35:3; Hebrews 12:12; also 3Ma 4:5. “Men of strength,” is, on the contrary, a designation for valiant warriors: Judges 20:44; 2 Samuel 11:16; 2 Kings 24:16; and to these especially strong legs are very necessary: see Psalms 147:10; 2 Samuel 1:23, etc.—And the grinders cease because they are few. δַ ?θּ ?ηֲֹ ?πεֹ ?ϊ “the grinding maids” are to be construed as referring to the teeth, as is also shown by λִּ ?ιξִ ?ςֵ ?θεּ “for they have become few,” and by the subsequent mention of the “sound of the mill,” i.e., of the human speech proceeding from the wall of the teeth (Ecclesiastes 11:4). The closeness of the comparison between human teeth and a mill is proved by the designation “grinders,” for the molar teeth in many languages, e.g., in the Syriac (θηπεϊ), in the Greek (μύλακροιμολοδοντες) in the Latin (molares). The feminine form is in allusion to the customof all antiquity, according to which female slaves performed the grinding with hand-mills (Exodus 11:5; Job 31:10; Isaiah 47:2; Matthew 24:41), and is also in harmony with the use of ωֵׁ ?ο (tooth) as feminine, occurring in Proverbs 25:19.—And those that look out of the windows be darkened. These are the eyes, that are here the more fittingly designated as δָ ?ψֹ ?ΰεֹ ?ηπָּ ?ΰֲ ?ψֻ ?αּ ?εֹ ?ϊ, becauseςַ ?ιִ ?ο the “eye” is feminine, and since the eyelids, in other passages compared to the threads of a net (Proverbs 6:25), are here clearly compared to the bars of a grate or to the grating (ΰֲ ?ψֻ ?αּ ?εֹ ?ϊ), and since also it was very natural to present the eyes, the most noble of all our organs, as the mistresses of the house, who look quietly out into the exterior world, but the teeth on the contrary as the servants or slaves. Comp. Cicero Tusc. I., Ecc 20: Oculi quasi fenestrζ sunt animi; foramina ilia, quζ patent ad animum a corpore, callidissimo artificio natura fabricata est; also Lactantius, de opif. Dei, c. 8; Clemens, Stromata, VII., p. 685, §. See also the Cabalistic theory of the seven openings or doors of the head, of which the two sockets of the eyes are the most elevated and distinguished (Jezira, c. 4; comp. Talmud tract, Schabb. p. 152, Colossians 1; Buxtorf, Florileg. p. 320). Those looking out of the windows are said to be darkened with reference to the feebleness of sight in old persons, e. g., Isaac (Genesis 27:1), Jacob (Genesis 48:10), Eli (1 Samuel 3:2), Ahia (1 Kings 14:4),etc.; comp. also Psalms 119:23; Lamentations 5:17; Deuteronomy 34:7. Ecclesiastes 11:4. And the doors shall be shut in the streets. Namely, the mouth whose upper and lower lips are compared to the two sides or folds of a door (γְּ ?μָ ?ϊַ ?ιִ ?ν); comp. Psalms 141:3; Micah 7:5; Job 41:6.πִּ ?ωּׁ ?εּ ?χ literally, “on the street,” points to the function of the mouth as a means of communication with the outer world, whether by the reception of food or the sending out of words or other sounds. As the latter reference is not so close, and would anticipate the subsequent clause, we are doubtless to think of the mouth as the organ of eating, and the shutting of the doors as an allusion to the feeble appetite of old men, [in this Ewald id correct, in opposition to Knobel, Vaihinger, etc.]. Herzfeld and Hitzig are entirely too artificial: “ the lips of the toothless mouth cling together;” but Hengstenberg also says: “the shutting of the doors refers to the difficulty of hearing in old men, a common infirmity with them that would not be wanting here” (?!).—When the sound of the grinding is low. Zφckler translates: “the voice of the mill.” The mill is the teeth,† according to Ecclesiastes 11:3; its voiceis not, however, the noise caused by the chewing of food—which would be very harsh and unnatural (contrary to Ewald, et al.), but human speech breathed out, as it were, from the wall of the teeth [ἕρκοςὁδόντων], that voice which in old age usually becomes weaker and lower.—And he shall rise up at the voice of the bird. Zφckler translates: “and it seems like the voice of the sparrow.” Ewald and Hitzig are correct [in regard to the impersonal rendering of ιָ ?χεּ ?ν] with reference to Isaiah 29:24, where also a weak voice is compared to the low chirping, if not of the sparrow, at least of some other small birds. It is usually rendered (Sept., Vulg., Luther, Knobel, Vaihinger, etc.: “and he rises up at the voice of the birds,” i.e., in the early morning—which might also afford an allusion to the sleeplessness of old men. But it is more than doubtful whether χεּ ?νμְ ?χεֹ ?μδַ ?φִּ ?τεֹ ?ψ should express this sense of early rising. Instead of ιָ ?χεּ ?ν we should in that case have expected ιֵ ?ςεֹ ?ψ. And early rising is by no means a general custom of old men, and—what seems more weighty than all the rest—the context requires a reference to the low, whispering speech of old men; see the following clause. For χεּ ?νμְ in the sense here given to it, comp. Zephaniah 3:8; 1 Samuel 22:13.—And all the daughters of music shall be brought low, that is, all the songs in which the old man endeavors to join, but which he utters only with a trembling, and scarcely audible voice. The “daughters ” of a thing means in Hebrew style its special or specific announcement or utterance; comp. the Rabbinic αַּ ?ϊχεֹ ?μ as well as the expression “ Son of fruitfulness,” Isaiah 5:1, etc. Hitzig is correct, and Hengstenberg substantially so, who understands by the “daughters of song” the qualities required in singing. But Knobel is arbitrary, who, with Herzfeld, sees in the singers only singing birds (according to which the failing here described would be the deafness of the old man); Vaihinger sees an allusion to the organs of singing; and, finally, Umbreit and Elster understand the passage to be about the low flight of birds, and their uneasy fluttering at an approaching thunder storm. Ecclesiastes 11:5. The discourse continues to depend on αַ ?ιּ ?εֹ ?νωֶׁ at the beginning of the third verse, if not grammatically, at least logically.—Also when they shall be afraid of that which is high; i.e., of ascending an eminence which would be difficult on account of their sunken chests, and short breath; a remark in sympathy with what precedes concerning the feeble voice of old men. Nearly all modern commentators are correct on this point, as is now Ewald, who formerly translated: “ when they shall be afraid of the Lofty One,” that, is of God, the one supremely lofty.—And fears shall be in the way; namely, “threaten” them, “meet” them, who are too lame and weak easily too avoid such frights. For the abstract form of the plural ηַ ?ϊְ ?ηַ ?ϊִּ ?ιν, see Ewald, § 179, a.—And the almond tree shall flourish. Thus we must, without doubt, translate the words ιָ ?πֵ ?ΰυδַ ?ωָׁ ?χֵ ?γ, for ιָ ?πֵ ?υ (Hiphil of πφυ). For this compare Ewald, § 15, a.;§ 141, b. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ Review of the whole, and Commendatory Recapitulation of the truths therein containedEcc_12:8-14. 1. With reference to the personal worth of the author (Ecclesiastes 12:8-11). 8 Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher; all is vanity. 9And moreover, because the Preacher was wise, he still taught the people knowledge: yea, he gave good heed, and sought out, and set in order many Proverbs 10 The Preacher sought to find out acceptable words: and that which was written, was upright, even words of truth. 11The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails fastened by the masters of assemblies, which are given from one shepherd. 2. With reference to the serious and weighty character of his teachings (Ecclesiastes 12:12-14).12And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh. 13Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. 14For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil. Ecclesiastes 12:9.—ΰִ ?ζֵּ ?ο. The primary sense of this root must be the ear, or hearing; since it is easier to understand how the sense of weighing (as it is in the Arabic εζο) came from that, than vice versa. The latter sense is either by a very natural figure, or from the resemblance of a balance with its two ears, as they may be called. Its intensive piel sense here may denote listening attentively, as a prelude to judging, or the act of the mind itself. [Ecclesiastes 12:11.—αַּ ?ςֲ ?μֵ ?ιΰֲ ?ρֻ ?τּ ?εֹ ?ϊ would be, according to the common usage, “masters of collections,” or of gatherings. αςμ, however, sometimes only very slightly modifies the meaning of the following word, and there is nothing in the way of its having the objective sense, like other similar auxiliary words: “objects of collections,” rather than “makers of collections,”—the things gathered rather than the gatherers. So Hitzig views it, who has rendered it simply gesammelten, that is, collectanea or collections. In this way alone does it make a true parallel with the “words of the wise” in the previous number: “their gathered sentences,” as we have rendered it in the Metrical Version.—T. L.] [Ecclesiastes 12:12.—ρְ ?τָ ?ψִ ?ιν. See remarks, p. 30.—T. L.] AND This concluding discourse opens purposely with that sentence which opened the book (Ecclesiastes 1:2), namely, with a lamentation over the vanity of all earthly things. This exclamation cannot be considered as a conclusion to what precedes, because the very words that immediately precede (Ecclesiastes 12:7) had opened the view to something that is not δֶ ?αֶ ?μ, but the vanquishing of all δֲ ?αָ ?μִ ?ιν, and because, especially in the last section of the vanity of the world, or the negative side of the truths taught by the author, had fallen much behind the positive ideas of zeal in vocation, cheerful joy of life, and fear of God (as not vanities, but as virtue conquering vanity). Unlike the division followed by De Wette, Koster, Rosenmueller, Knobel, Ewald, Hitzig, Elster, etc., verse 8 is to be connected with what follows, in accordance with most of the older commentators (also with Dathe, Umbreit, Vaihinger, Hengstenberg, Hahn etc.) and is to be considered as an introduction formula of the Epilogue, purposely conforming to the beginning of the whole. This view is also strengthened by the circumstance that the εְ at the commencement of the ninth verse presents this, not as an introductory verse, but as the continuation of something already begun, whilst on the contrary the expression δֲ ?αֵ ?μδֲ ?αָ ?μִ ?ιν Ecclesiastes 12:8, according to the analogy of Ecc 1:2, is clearly used as an introductory formula. The object of this formula at the opening of the epilogue is again to present to the reader the negative summation of the observations and experience of the author, the fact of the vanity and perishability of all earthly things in order subsequently to establish the correctness of this result by a double testimony:—1. By vindication of the moral weight of the personality of the author as a genuinely wise man and teacher of wisdom (Ecclesiastes 12:9-11); 2. by referring to the very serious and important character of the precepts laid down by him (Ecclesiastes 12:12-14). These two divisions are characterized by equal length and analogous construction (i.e., that they both begin with εְ ?ιֹ ?ϊֵ ?ψ “and moreover”) as skilfully planned strophes or executions of the theme contained in Ecclesiastes 12:8, and not as two mere postscripts of the author added as by chance (Hitzig); whilst in the latter the positive result of the religious and moral observations of the Preacher appears again in the most significant and precise form possible (Ecclesiastes 12:13), strengthened, too, by an addition (Ecclesiastes 12:14) which presents most clearly the correct intermediation of the positive with the negative result in Ecclesiastes 12:8, and thus affords the only true solution of the great enigma from which Ecclesiastes 1:2 had proceeded. This solution consists simply in pointing him who is discontented and anxious about the vanity and unhappiness of this life, to the great day of universal reckoning, and in the inculcation of the duty of deferential obedience to a holy and just God,—a duty from which no one can escape with impunity. As this epilogue is in reality the first to offer the key to the correct understanding of the whole, (for the sum of the previously developed precepts of wisdom, is given neither so clearly nor impressively in Ecclesiastes 11:1-10; Ecclesiastes 11:7, as is the case here) we clearly perceive the untenability of that hypercritical view (v. d. Palm, Dφderlein, Berthold, Knobel, Umbreit, and, to a certain extent, also, of Herzfeld) which denies the authenticity of these closing verses (from Ecclesiastes 12:9). For a special refutation of their arguments comp. the Int. § 3, Obs. 2. First strophe. Ecclesiastes 12:8-11. The negative result of the book, attested in its truth and importance by reference to the personal worth of the author as a genuine teacher of wisdom. For verse 8 see partly the previous paragraph (No. 1), and partly the exegetical illustrations to chaps. 1 and 2. For the name χδֶֹ ?μֶ ?ϊ (here without the article) see the Intr., &1. Ecclesiastes 12:9. And moreover because the Preacher was wise. εְ ?ιֹ ?ϊֵ ?ψ (used substantively): “and the remainder” (comp. 1 Samuel 15:15), is here, and in verse 12, clearly equivalent to: “and there remains,” namely, “to say.” The indirect construction follows here, introduced by ωֶׁ (comp. the Lat. restat, ut, etc.), whilst in Ecclesiastes 12:12 we find the direct construction (comp. the Lat. Quod restat, or Ceterum). Gesenius, Winer, Knobel, Vaihinger, etc., translate εְ ?ιϊֵֹ ?ψωֶׁ ?δָ ?ιָ ?δ “and moreover, because,” and therefore accept this clause as preliminary, letting the subsequent one commence with ςεֹ ?γ (Luther does the same: “This same Preacher was not only wise,” etc.; and so, in sense, the Vulgate: “Cumque esset sapientissimus Ecclesiastes”). But this is opposed partly by the analogy of the commencement, Ecclesiastes 5:12, and partly by the circumstance that the ςεֹ ?γ alone could scarcely introduce the secondary clause. Hengst. correctly remarks concerning ηָ ?λָ ?ν: “A wise man, not in the sense of the world, but of the kingdom of God, not from one’s self, but from God (comp. Ecclesiastes 12:11), so that this passage is not in contradiction with Proverbs 27:2 : ‘Let another man praise thee, and not thine own mouth; a stranger, and not thine own lips.’ And nevertheless, Solomon could hardly have spoken thus of himself without incurring the censure of self-praise. And even another, who had written this with reference to him, would, in reality, have expressed something insipid and inappropriate, in case he really had the historic Solomon in his eye. For which reason the fictitious character of Koheleth, or his merely ideal identity with Solomon is quite apparent.—He still taught the people knowledge.—For ςεγ at the beginning of a sentence, comp. Genesis 19:12; Micah 6:10; Job 24:20.—Yea, he gave good heed, and sought out, and set in order many proverbs.—ΰִ ?ζֵּ ?ο “to consider, to weigh,” the root of ξֹ ?ΰζְ ?πַ ?ιִ ?ν “balances.” This verb in conjunction with the following εְ ?ηִ ?χֵּ ?ψ shows the means whereby he “set in order” (ϊִּ ?χֵּ ?ο comp. Ecclesiastes 1:15; Ecclesiastes 7:13), many proverbs. This product was the result of careful investigation and reflection—a relation of the three verbs to one another, which is clearly indicated by the absence of the copula before the third: ϊִּ ?χֵּ ?ο; comp. Genesis 48:14; 1 Kings 13:18; Ewald, 333 c.—By the “many proverbs” (δַ ?ψְ ?αֵּ ?δ as in Ecclesiastes 5:7; Ecclesiastes 9:8), the author evidently does not mean those mentioned in 1 Kings 5:12, but rather those sayings of Solomon that are contained in the Book of Proverbs; for he imitates mainly these latter in his own contained in this book. Ecclesiastes 12:10. The Preacher sought to find out acceptable words.—γִּ ?αְ ?ψֵ ?ιΞηֵ ?τֶ ?υ, pleasant, agreeable words (λόγονχαριτος, Luke 4:23), comp. ΰַ ?αְ ?πֵ ?ιηֵ ?τֶ ?υ Isaiah 54:12. Here are naturally meant words acceptable not to the great mass, but to serious minds, heavenly inclined, and seeking wisdom; words of honeyed sweetness in the sense of Psa 19:11, verba quζ, jure meritoque desiderari et placere debent, tamquam divinζ virtutis et certitudinis (S. Schmidt). The expression ηֵ ?τֶ ?υ can scarcely relate to mere acceptability and adornment of the form of speech (as asserted by Hitzig and Elster).—And that which was written was upright, even words of truth. The passive participle εְ ?λָ ?ϊεּ ?α expresses that which was written by the author in consequence of seeking after acceptable words; hence Herzfeld, and after him, Hengstenberg and Elster, are correct: “and thus then was written what was correct;” Ewald and Vaihinger, on the contrary, render erroneously: “but honest words were written,” which adversative rendering of the conjunction is decidedly injurious to the sense and opposed to the text. Hitzig reads εְ ?λָ ?ϊεֹ ?α the infinitive absolute: “to find (μִ ?ξְ ?φֹ ?ΰ) and write;” but this change is quite as unnecessary as the adverbial rendering of ιωֶׁ ?ψ in the sense of “correct, honest,” which latter rendering is also found in Luther, Knobel, Vaihinger, tlster, etc. It is ξֵ ?ιωָׁ ?ψִ ?ιν that expresses this adverbial sense every where else (Son 1:4; Son 7:10; Proverbs 23:31; Psalms 58:1). ιωֶׁ ?ψ is, on the contrary, here, as every where, a substantive, meaning straightforwardness, uprightness; and that in which this uprightness consists is expressed by the words in apposition, γִּ ?αְ ?ψֵ ?ιΰֶ ?ξֶ ?ϊ—“words of truth,” e g., in true teaching, acceptable to God, and therefore bringing blessings; teachings of the genuine “heavenly wisdom.” Comp. Proverbs 8:6-10; James 3:17. Ecclesiastes 12:11. The words of the wise are as goads.—The author, by bringing “the words of truth” under the general category of “words of the wise” (e g., of those ethical precepts as they issue from the circles of the Chakamim, to which he himself belongs according to Ecclesiastes 12:9), lends to them so much the more weighty significance and authority; for all that can be said in praise of the words of the Chakamim in general must now especially avail also of his proverbs and discourses. Hence the phrase γִּ ?αְ ?ψֵ ?ιηֲ ?λָ ?ξִ ?ιν would be more fittingly rendered by: “Such words of wise men” (comp. Hitzig). Hengstenberg takes too narrow, or, if we will, too broad a view of the idea of “wise men,” when he, in connection with older authors, as Luther, Rambach, Starke, etc., sees therein only the inspired writers of the O. T., or the authors of the Canonical Books; according to which this verse would contain a literal and direct self-canonization. But this is opposed by the fact that ηλξιν elsewhere always means the authors of the characteristic Proverbial wisdom, or Chokmah, the teachings of the Solomonic and post-Solomonic era, which is to be clearly distinguished from the prophetic and lyrico-poetical [Psalmistic] literature (see 1 Kings 4:30 f.; Proverbs 1:6; Proverbs 22:17; Jeremiah 18:18; and comp. §3 of the General Intr. to the Solomonic literature, Vol. XII., p. 8f.), so that Moses, Joshua, Samuel, David, etc., could not possibly have been reckoned in this category. This is quite apart from the fact that such a self-canonization expressed in the manner aforesaid, would have been neither especially appropriate nor sufficiently clear. λַּ ?γָּ ?ψְ ?αֹ ?πεֹ ?ϊ, “like goads,” e g., endowed with stinging, correctly aiming, and deeply penetrating effect, “verba, quζ aculeorum instar alte descendunt in pectora hominum, όsque manent infixa” (Gesenius; comp. Ewald, Hitzig, Hengstenberg and Elster). It is usually regarded as “ox-goads” (Septuagint, ὡςτὰ βούκεντρα; Targ., Talm., Rabb., and most of the moderns). But γָּ ?ψְ ?αεֹ ?ο: or γָּ ?ψְ ?αָ ?ο (1 Samuel 13:21), neither means specially, according to its etymology, a goad to drive cattle, nor does the parallel “as nails” lead exactly to this special meaning, to which the plural form of the expression would not be favorable. Neither is it the case that all the words of the wise, nor especially all the proverbs of this book, are of a goading, that is, an exhortatory, nature, as Hitzig very correctly observes. Therefore we must stop at the simple meaning of “goads,” and interpret this to signify the penetrating brevity, the inciting and searching influence of these precepts of wisdom of Koheleth and other wise men.—And as nails fastened by the masters of assemblies.—As the “fastened nails” doubtless form a synonym to the “goads,” so the masters of assemblies, literally “the colleagues of the assembly” [αַּ ?ςֲ ?μֵ ?ιΰֲ ?ρֻ ?τεֹ ?ϊ comp. chap.Ecclesiastes 10:11; Ecclesiastes 10:20; Proverbs 1:17; Isaiah 41:15] can only be another expression for those “words of the wise.” We are therein to understand collected maxims of wisdom, united into one assembly or collection, and not merely well connected proverbs, as Ewald and Elster would have it; for the verb ΰρκָ does not refer to the excellence and perfection of the collection; neither does the figure of the nails, which, at most, leads to the idea of juncture, and not to that of a specially beautiful and harmonious order. Highly unfitting also is the interpretation of αַּ ?ςֲ ?μֵ ?ιΰֲ ?ρֻ ?τεֹ ?ϊ as “masters of assemblies” (Luther), e g., partakers in learned assemblies [Gesenius] or principals of learned schools, teachers of wisdom [Vaihinger, etc.], or even authors of the individual books of the sacred national library, or authors of the separate books of the Old Testament Canon [Hengstenberg]. This personal signification of the expression is forbidden once for all by the parallelism with the “words of wisdom” in the first clause.—Which are given from one shepherd.—“That is, in so far as the “words of the wise” in the preceding book are united, they proceed from one author, who was not only a wise man, but a “shepherd” in the bargain, i.e., a wise teacher, the leader of a congregation, an elder of the synagogue. For this sense of “shepherd” as chief of a school, or a priestly teacher, comp. Jeremiah 2:8; Jeremiah 3:15; Jeremiah 10:21; Jeremiah 23:4. The oneness of the authorship is here thus pointedly expressed by way of contrast to the many “wise men” in the first clause. To refer the expression to God [Hieron., Geier, Michaelis, Starke, Hengstenberg, Herzfeld, Knobel, etc.], is quite as arbitrary as a reference to Moses [Targ.], to the historic Solomon [Jablonski, etc.], to Zerubbadbel [Grotius], or as the emendation ξψְ ?ςֶ ?δ for ξֵ ?ψֹ ?ςֶ ?δ by virtue of which Hitzig translates: “which are given united as a pasture” [reading πϊπεּ instead ofπָ ?ϊְ ?πεּ ?] 3. Second strophe. Ecclesiastes 12:12-14. The positive result of the book as a self-speaking testimony for the truth, worth, and weight of its contents.—And further, by these, my son, be admonished.—The word ξֵ ?δֵ ?ξָּ ?δ is closely but improperly connected by the Masoretic accentuation with εְ ?ιֹ ?ϊֵ ?ψ (it can as well be absolute as in Ecclesiastes 12:9 above): it refers to the “words of the wise given by one shepherd,” contained in Ecclesiastes 12:11, and thus, in short, to the maxims of this book [not of the entire Old Testament Canon, as Hengstenberg thinks], “From them” [comp. Genesis 9:11; Isaiah 28:7], the reader, the “son” of the wise teacher, is to be admonished. For αְּ ?πִ ?ι “my son,” which is equivalent to my scholar; compare Proverbs 1:8; Proverbs 10:15; Proverbs 2:1, etc., and for δִ ?ζָ ?δֵ ?ψ “be admonished,” “accept wisdom,” Ecclesiastes 4:13, preceding.—Of making many books there is no end.—That is, beware of the unfruitful, even dangerous, wisdom which others [partly in Israel, partly among the heathen, e g., Egyptians, Persians, Greeks, etc.—Comp. Intr., 3, Obs.] endeavor to spread and inculcate in numberless writings.It is not worldly literature, in general, in contrast to the spiritual literature of Divinely inspired writings, against which the author utters a warning (Hengstenberg), but the useless and deceitful literature of others which he contrasts with that genuine wisdom taught by him. The countless elaborations of false philosophers [Colossians 2:8], as they already then in the bloom of Hellenistic sophistry were beginning to fill the world, are presented to his readers by way of warning, as a foul and turbid flood of perverted and ruinous opinions, by which they ought not to permit themselves to be carried away. Herzfeld takes the infinitive ςֲ ?ωεֹ ?ϊ as a genitive dependent on ΰֵ ?ιοχֵ ?υ, and renders ΰֵ ?ιο in a conditional sense, “to making many books there would be no end.” Hitzig opposes this rendering, but improperly takes ΰֵ ?ιοχֵ ?υ as a mere adverbial modifier to δַ ?ψְ ?αֵּ ?δ instead of the ξְ ?ΰֹ ?γ elsewhere customary in such connection, and hence translates “the making of very many books,” requiring much exertion ofthe mind (μδβ) “is weariness of the body.” Thereby Koheleth would give his readers to understand that he might have written for them whole books filled with maxims of wisdom (comp. John 21:25), but would rather not do this, as being useless and fatiguing. But the term “infinitely many” would then involve a very strong hyperbole; and the equality and rhythmical harmony of the construction would be too much destroyed by such an affirmation of two subjects for the predicate ιִ ?βְ ?ςַ ?ϊαָּ ?ωָׂ ?ψ—And much study; Namely, the study of many books, much reading (Aben Ezra, Ewald,Vaihinger, Elster, etc.) not the writing of books (Hitzig), nor the thirst after knowledge (Hengstenberg), nor preaching (Luther, Hahn, etc.),—these are all renderings at variance with the simple and clear sense of μַ ?δַ ?βδַ ?ψְ ?αֵּ ?δ.—Is a weariness of the flesh.—Vaihinger correctly says, “the passion for reading, which weakens mind and body, whilst fruitful reflection strengthens both. Such a morbid desire corresponds entirely with the later Jewish eras. See above, Ecclesiastes 1:18. Ecclesiastes 12:13. Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: In contrast, that is, to this useless making of many books and much reading. ρεσ, “the end” (comp. Ecclesiastes 3:11; Ecclesiastes 7:2) does not literally signify the sum of all that has been previously said, but the limit which the author wishes just now to set to his discourse, the practical conclusion by which we are to abide. Therein we see that it is not the total and all-comprehending result of his observations and teachings, but only the positive or practical side of this result (in contrast to the negative one expressed in Ecclesiastes 12:8) that he will now express in the following maxim; see above No. 1.—γָּ ?αָ ?ψ points, even without an article, to the precise discourse of this book, and therefore to the entirety of γִּ ?αְ ?ψֵ ?ιχδֶֹ ?μֶ ?ϊ (comp. Ecclesiastes 1:1, and for γָּ ?αָ ?ψ in this collective sense, see 1 Samuel 3:17; Joshua 21:43, etc.) δַ ?λֹּ ?μ is really in apposition with γָּ ?αָ ?ψ, consequently, when strictly taken is to be translated, “ the end of the discourse,—of the whole,” and not, “the end of the whole discourse.” And therewith it is indeed intimated that in the end of the discourse the whole is included, or that the final thought is the ground thought (or at least one principal thought); comp. Hengstenberg and Vaihinger. Observe also that by the mutualπִ ?ωְׁ ?ξַ ?ς “let us hear,” the author subjects hjmself to the absolute commandment of fearing God and obeying Him.—Fear God, and keep His commandments. Literally, “God fear”—the object of fear emphatically placed before, as in Ecclesiastes 5:7.—For this is the whole duty of man. There is an ellipsis of the verb in the original, for which comp. Ecclesiastes 2:12; Jeremiah 23:5; Jeremiah 26:9. The correctness of our rendering, which is the same as Luther’s (“for that belongs to all men”) is confirmed by verse 14, where we are informed of a divine judgment of all men regarding their works. The Vulgate, Ewald, Herz-ield, and Elster say, “for that is the whole man,” which is as much as saying, “thereon rests his entire fate.” But this sense would be very obscurely expressed; and λָּ ?μΞδָ ?ΰָ ?γָ ?ν, moreover, never means “the whole man,” but "every man,” “all men. Ecclesiastes 12:14.—For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing. (Zφckler renders: “Judgment upon every hidden thing”). This direct connection of ςμλָּ ?μΞπֶ ?ςְ ?μָ ?ν with the preceding αּ ?ξִ ?ωְׁ ?τָּ ?θ is sustained by the construction of the verb ωָׁ ?τַ ?θ in Niphal with ςμ, Jeremiah 2:35, as well as by the frequent use of ςַ ?μ in the sense of “on account,” “concerning” The view of Hitzig that ςַ ?μ here stands for μ, the particle of relation, is too artificial, as is that of Vaihinger and Hahn, that ςμ=ςν “together with every secret thing.” The natural meaning is, the judgment in the next world, as also in Ecclesiastes 9:9, not simply that which is executed in the ordinary development of this world. This view is supported also by the addition, “every secret thing,” compared with Romans 2:16; 1 Corinthians 4:5, as well as by the subsequent, “whether it be good, or whether it be evil,”compared with 2 Corinthians 5:10; John 5:29, etc. Still the present judgment, executed in the history of the world, may come into consideration, here as well as in Ecclesiastes 9:9, and Psalms 90:8. (Comp. John 3:17 ff.; Ephesians 5:13, etc.). AND ETHICAL(With Homiletical Hints) The ground thought of this closing section, as already developed in No. 1 of the exegetical illustrations, is about as follows: The speech of the truly wise man infallibly proves itself to be such by its inner strength and truth; its effect, penetrating, like goads and nails, deeply into the heart, sharpening the dull conscience, mightily summoning the whole man to the fear of God and obedience to His sacred commandments, testifies in the most direct manner to its harmony with the word of God,—yes, even to its divine origin and character. It is the voice of eternity in time, of the imperishable, ever-living truth, rescuing us from sin and death in the midst of the vanity of this world. Thus is it to be understood when the preacher of the genuine truth proclaims to his hearers these two great truths of revelation: “All is vanity,” and, “Fear God and keep His commandments,” and thus it guides them to a correct knowledge of sin as well as of the way of salvation,—of the law as of the gospel. In accordance with this, the theme for a succinct homiletical treatment of the section, would be about the following: Of the inward power and truth of the divine word, as is shown in the preaching of the law and gospel (of repentance and faith) as the immutably connected, and fundamental elements of divine revelation.—Or, the knowledge of the vanity of all earthly things as the foundation for the knowledge and inheritance of heavenly glory.—Or: Of the wholesomeness of the wounds inflicted by the goads of the divine word. HINTS TO Ecclesiastes 12:9-10. Cramer:—It is not enough that a teacher be simply learned unto himself; it is his duty to serve others with the talent that God has given him, and not to bury it.—Starke:—He alone is skilful in leading others into the way of truth who himself has been a pupil of truth, who has been instructed in the school of Jesus. Geier (Ecclesiastes 12:10):—Every one who speaks or writes should endeavor with all zeal to present nothing but what is just, true, lovely, and edifying, Philippians 4:8; 1 Peter 4:11. Ecclesiastes 12:11-12. Brenz:—Unless you lay the foundation of faith in the word of God, you will be the sport of every wind; much reading, frequent hearing of discourses, will bring more of error, disquietude, and perturbation, than of genuine fruit.—Luther:—He exhorts us not to be led away by various and strange teachings. It is as if he had said: You have an excellent teacher; beware of new teachers; for the words of this teacher are goads and spears. Such also were David’s and the prophets’. But the bungler’s words are like foam on the water.—Geier:—In sermons and other edifying discourses, we must not speak words of human wisdom, or fables and idle’prattle, but the words of the holy men of God, which are, themselves, the words of the living God; godly preaching is proof of the spirit and the power, 1 Corinthians 2:4.—Hengstenberg:—We have here a rule for the demeanor of hearers towards the sermon; they are not to be annoyed if its goad penetrates them. Ecclesiastes 12:13-14. Melanchthon:—He sets forth a final rule which ought to be the guide of all counsels and actions: Look to God and His teaching; depart not from it, and be assured that he who thus departs rushes, without doubt, into darkness, into the snares of the devil, and into the direst punishments. Refer all counsels and all actions to this end, namely, obedience to God. Starke:—A sure sign of genuine fear of God, is to be zealous in keeping the commandments of God by the grace of the Holy Ghost.—Sibel:—Since God has given to us the spirit, let us keep pure and sound this noble deposit, that we may thus return it to the Giver and the Creator. So good and faithful men are wont to guard a deposit committed to their care (1 Timothy 6:20). On the health of the soul depends the health of the body, and of the whole man. The soul saved we lose nothing; when that is lost all perishes. Zeyss:—The thought of the day of judgment, is a salutary medicine against false security (Sirach 7:40), and a sweet promise of the rewards of mercy in eternal life. Wolle:—Because God is infinitely just, He will neither let hidden evil be unpunished, nor hidden good be unrewarded. To Him therefore be all the glory forevermore. AMEN. Footnotes:[The correctness of this would depend entirely upon the view we take of the preceding description. If it is the old age of the sensualist, the “aged sinner,” as Watts calls him, and as we have maintained in the note preceding the exegetical remarks on the section,—then this exclamation: Oh, Vanity! all vanity! Would be a very appropriate close. At the beginning of this scholium it would seem out of place under any circumstances, except, perhaps, as an imitation of the beginning of the book, for which there can be assigned no reason in any connection it has with what follows, whether regarded as all appended by a scholiast, or, which is the most probable view, that Ecclesiastes 12:9-10 are an inserted prose note by some other hand, intended to call special attention to the weighty concluding words that follow from the original author. These are clearly poetry, and as rhythmical as any thing in the book. Such inserted scholia should create no more difficulty than their evident appearance in Genesis, and elsewhere in the Pentateuch. The remark that follows, about the force of the conjunction ε has no weight whatever. It is so often used as a mere transition particle; and the idea of any logical, or even rhetorical, connection between the exclamation and the plain prosaic annotation that follows is absurd.—T. L.] [It should be said, rather, that the two divisions are made by the 9 and 10, on the one hand, and all that follows on the other. The fact that Ecclesiastes 12:12 begins with εְ ?ιֹ ?ϊֵ ?ψ is of no importance in this respect. But that which has a decided bearing on the division is overlooked, namely, that the first (9 and 10) is the plainest prose, whilst the second (beginning with the 11th) most clearly returns to the poetical both in thought and diction,—a fact which shows that the first belongs to a scholiast, the second to the main and original author of the book. See the Metrical Version.—T. L.] [See the remarks in Appendix to Introduction, p. 30, on ρτψιν as referring here to this very book of Koheleth itself,—the plural either denoting chapters, or parts of one treatise, as the term is used by Greek and Latin writers, or being equivalent to πολλὰ γράμματα, or multζ literζ, “much writing.” It may be rendered, therefore, collectively, or in the singular: “in making a great book there is no end.” It is an endless, a useless, labor. What is already written is enough; “therefore let us hear,” etc.—T. L.] [There is no maintaining this unless the date of Koheleth is brought down to a period nearly, if not quite, cotemporaneous with the Christian era. Even then, there was no such establishment of Jewish schools, or spread of Jewish books, as would render credible the existence among them of such a Lesewuth, or Lesesucht (“passion for reading,” “morbid desire for reading”) as is here spoken of by Zφckler and Hitzig. Such an idea is not hinted at in the New Testament. All this shows the difficulty of finding any place for this book of Koheleth between the time of Solomon and that of Christ. The application of such a remark to the times of Malachi would be utterly absurd.—T. L.] [λָּ ?μ, in the construct. state, rather means, “the whole of man.” The other expression, “every man,” might have the construct. from, but λֹּ ?μ, the absolute, with or without the article, would be the best adapted to it.—T. L.]