Pursuit of pleasure and possessions has no enduring benefit

Chapter 2

.lb,h; aWhAμg' hNehiw“ b/fb] haer“W hj;m]cib] hk;S]n"a} aN:Ahk;l] yBiliB] ynia} yTir“m'a;  1

I said in my heart, ‘Come now, I will test you with mirth, and (you, oh heart) look for good.’  But behold, this too is an illusion.

yBiliB] ynia} yTir“m'a; Solomon begins this chapter with an discussion conducted inside himself.  Contrary to common usage today in English and other European languages, the term ble in classical Hebrew is the seat of rational thought, not the seat of emotion.  The concept of the brain being the organ of though was unknown throughout the biblical period – the Greeks though that the function of the brain was to cool (literally) hot blood like a kind of thermostat.

aN:Ahk;l] These words begin Solomon’s internal debate.  The verb form is a 2ms qal imperative of 9lh with a paragogic h.  The aN:A is an enclitic particle of entreaty that adds a note of urgency but is frequently best left untranslated into English.

hk;S]n"a} This verb begins the sentence that expresses the thought that Solomon is pondering.  The verb form is 1cs piel imperfect of hsn (try, test) with a 2ms pronominal suffix.  Solomon is talking with himself, but the specific object of the prospective test is not identified until verse 2:3 -- yric;B], ‘my flesh.'  The verb could be rendered as either a simple imperfect ‘I will test you’ or as a cohortative ‘let me test you.’

The scope of this investigation has two branches.  The first consists of ‘testing his flesh (physical being) with mirth.’  The term hj;m]ci means ‘gladness, joy, mirth.’  The practical problem is that not even Solomon could gain ‘gladness’ or ‘mirth’ on command – even if he had a court jester.  Verses 2:3 through 2:10 describe what he did to obtain mirth for his test.

b/fb] haer“W This clause presents the second branch of the investigation.  The verb form is 2ms qal imperative of har, which means ‘see, look, perceive.’  Thus, Solomon is going to exercise his volition to test his physical being with what generally would be considered as things and experiences that bring joy, and he is commanding the seat of rational perception (heart) to consider what is good (pleasant and desirable) in these experiences.

lb,h; aWhAμg' hNehiw“ Even before he begins the investigation, he presents his conclu­sion: It is empty, an illusion.  Clearly, the antecedent of the demonstrative pronoun must be b/f, because hj;m]ci is a feminine noun.  But why is seeking out and considering what is good and desirable in one’s experiences devoid of substance, illusory?

.hc;[o hZÕAhm' hj;m]cil]W ll;/hm] yTir“m'a; q/jc]li  2

To laughter I said, ‘Madness!’ and to mirth, ‘What does it accomplish?’

This verse expresses why the proposed investigation is empty of real substance.  The term q/jc] is a less common synonym for q/jx], and it often has the negative connotation of derision.  The continual pursuit of (coarse) jests is the habitual conduct of a person without rational sense (madman); mirth accomplishes nothing because it is not enduring.  A nice or pleasant experience lasts only as long as the experience itself; either that experience or a different experience must be repeated over and over again.

d[' tWlk]siB] zjoa‘l,w“ hm;k]j;B' ghenÕ yBiliw“ yric;B]Ata, ˆyiY'B' Ë/vm]li yBilib] yTir“T'  3

.μh,yYej' ymey“ rP's]mi μyIm'V;h' tj'T' Wc[}y" rv,a} μd;a;h; yneb]li b/f hz,Ayae haer“a,Arv,a}

With my heart I sought to cheer my flesh with wine while my heart was conducting itself with wisdom and to grasp folly until I can see if this is beneficial for the sons of Adam to do under the sun the numbered days of their lives.

yBilib] yTir“T' The verb form is 1cs qal perfect of rwT meaning ‘seek out, explore.’ yBilib] is an adverbial prepositional phrase that identifies the instrument by which Solomon conducted this investigation of pleasure: the seat of his rational being.

yric;B]Ata, ˆyiY'B' Ë/vm]li This phrase identifies the first form of self-indulgence he will used to investigate the value of mirth: to cheer my flesh (physical being) with wine.

tWlk]siB] zjoa‘l,w“ hm;k]j;B' ghenÕ yBiliw“ Formally, these two clauses are parallel; however, they are contradictory.  The first clause is rendered above as a relative clause of attendant circumstance.  That is, while he was giving himself to his self-indulgence, his heart continued monitoring all of his activities with wisdom hm;k]j;B'.  In essence, he is saying that he conducted this activity like a detached scientist doing an experiment on a laboratory rat – but he is also the laboratory rat.  The next clause ‘lay hold of folly’ introduces the nature of the experiment being conducted, and the remainder of the verse describes the intended duration of the experiment.

haer“a,Arv,a} d[' The construction Arv,a} d[' functions as a relative conjunction expressing duration.  The verb form is a 1cs qal imperfect of har.  The English idiom requires either a simple present (until I see) or a modal verb form.

Wc[}y" rv,a} μd;a;h; yneb]li b/f hz,Ayae The construction b/f hz,Ayae literally means ‘if this is good.’  The antecedent of hz, can only be the self indulgence of ‘cheering my flesh with wine.’  The construction μd;a;h; yneb]li is a generic expression referring to human beings (i.e., the human species).  Thus, his purpose is to continue his experiment until he has determined if there is something beneficial for people to do while they continue living under the sun.  The clause introduced by Wc[}y" rv,a} describes the limitation on the scope of activity.  It concerns the things that people may do while they are alive here and now on the face of the earth.  The major problem is that this period of time is strictly limited: their days under the sun are numbered (μh,yYej' ymey“ rP's]mi).  For each person, that period of time has a beginning and will have an end, and the total for any person will be brief. 

.μymir:K] yli yTi[]f'n: μyTiB; yli ytiyniB; yc;[}m' yTil]D"g“hi  4

I expanded my works.  I built houses for myself; I planted vineyards for myself.

The second aspect of his self indulgence consisted of stuff – possessions.  As king he had all of the resources of the entire kingdom at his disposal.

.yrIP,AlKo 6[e μh,b; yTi[]f'n:w“ μysiDer“p'W t/NG" yli ytiyci[;  5

I made gardens and parks for myself, and I planted every kind of fruit tree in them.

μysiDer“P' This is classified as a Persian load word for an enclosed pleasure garden.  It is the source for the term ‘paradise’ in English.  Current scholarship has used this word as one indication for the late authorship of the book.  See previous comments on the problems associated with using vocabulary as the basis for determining the date of authorship for biblical books.

.μyxi[e j'me/x r['y' μh,me t/qv]h'l] μyIm; t/krEB] yli ytiyci[;  6

I made for myself water channels to irrigate groves of sprouting trees.

rq;b; hn<q]mi μG" yli hy:h; tyIb'Ayn´b]W t/jp;v]W μydIb;[} ytiynIq;  7

.μyIl;v;WryBi yn"p;l] Wyh;v, lKomi yli hy:h; hBer“h' ˆaxow:

I purchased male and female servants, and I had household servants.  Moreover, my many possessions of cattle and sheep exceeded everyone who had preceded me in Jerusalem.

t/nydIM]h'w“ μykil;m] tL'g¨s]W bh;z:w“ 5s,K,AμG" yli yTis]n"K;  8

.t/Dviw“ hD:vi μd:a;h; yn´B] tgOWn[}t'w“ t/rv;w“ μyrIv; yli ytiyci[;

I also collected for myself silver, gold, and the property of kings and of the provinces.  I obtained for myself male and female singers, and the dainties of the sons of Adam, and male and female cupbearers.

t/nydIM]h'w“ A suggested emendation is t/dm¨j}w" ‘and precious things.’  The text as it is in the MT has t/nydIM]h'w“ μykil;m], two nouns in construct with tL'g¨s]W, which is highly irregular if not impossible.  The emendation eliminates this syntactic oddity, but that is its only justification.  It could be rendered ‘silver, and gold, and property of kings, even precious things.’  This is possible but not likely the original text.

.yli hd:m][; ytim;k]j; 5a' μIl;v;WryBi yn"p;l] hy:h;v, lKomi yTip]s'/hw“ yTil]d"g:w“  9

I became great, and I gained more that all who were before me in Jerusalem, moreover my wisdom stood with me.

μIl;v;WryBi yn"p;l] hy:h;v, lKomi As before, he is comparing himself with rulers who preceded him in Jerusalem.  The only such rulers we know of from the Bible are David and Melchizedeck, but Jerusalem was such a strong Jebusite citadel that it resisted the invasion of the Israelites for about 400 years.  Clearly, those kings were relatively powerful, even though there is no preserved record of their names or history.

yli hd:m][; ytim;k]j; 5a' The term 5a' as a simple conjunction indicates something in addition to what has preceded.  Solomon gained all of this material stuff during the course of his investigation, and his wisdom also remained present without becoming wrapped up in the possessions themselves.

hj;m]ciAlK;mi yBiliAta, yTi[]n"m;Aalo μh,me yTil]x'a; alo yn"y[e Wla}v; rv,a} lkow“ 10

.ylim;[}AlK;mi yqil]h, hy:h;Ahz<w“ ylim;[}AlK;mi j'mec; yBiliAyKi

And anything that my eyes desired I did not withhold from them.  I did not hold back my heart from any delight, because my heart took pleasure from all my toil, and this was my portion from all my toil.

yn"y[e Wla}v; rv,a} lkow“ Syntactically, this is a subordinate clause.  Its position before the independent clause is emphatic.  The verb in this clause is a 3cp qal perfect of lav which normally means ‘ask, inquire, demand.’  The term is used here with a derived sense of ‘seek, desire.’  This sense is attested in three or four other passages in scripture.

yTi[]n"m;Aalo … yTil]x'a; alo The two independent verbs in the verse are synonyms meaning ‘withhold.’  The second verb in the sequence is the more common on the two; lxa is a less commonly used denominative (derived from a noun) root.

This verse presents the preliminary conclusion from Solomon’s investigation concerning indulgence in pleasure.  The pleasure of the moment is itself the only benefit to be obtained from the labor of acquiring ‘stuff.’

t/c[}l' yTil]m'[;v, lm;[;b,W yd"y: Wc[;ve yc'[}m'Alk;B] ynIa} ytiynIp;W 11

.vm,V;h' tj'T' ˆ/rt]yI ˆyaew“ j'Wr tW[r“W lb,h, lKoh' hNEhiw“

But I considered all my works that my hands had done and the toil that I had undertaken, and it was all an illusion and striving after the wind, and there is no advantage under the sun.

yc'[}m'Alk;B] ynIa} ytiynIp;W The verse beings with a vav conjunction.  The translation above uses the adversative sense, because the semantic content of the verse is in stark contrast to the content of the previous verse.  The independent verb is a 1cs qal perfect of hnp having a root meaning of ‘turn.’  Usage in the present context refers to a mental turning to consider a different aspect of the matter just evaluated.  yc'[}m'Alk;B] ‘in all my deeds’ is an adverbial prepositional phrase and constitutes the predicate for ytiynIp;, which is an intransitive verb.  From the standpoint of the literal Hebrew grammar, it probably indicates the sphere of consideration (i.e., ‘with respect to’); the English translation above renders the phrase as the direct object of the independent verb.

j'Wr tW[r“W lb,h, lKoh' hNEhiw“ Repetition of this clause marks a structural division within the argument of the book.

vm,V;h' tj'T' ˆ/rt]yI ˆyaew“ This clause also occurs repeatedly in this book and provides an answer to the question posed in verse 1:3 – ‘What benefit is there for a man in all the toil that he does under the sun?’  His answer after the first investigation is that there is no enduring benefit from the pursuit of pleasure and possessions -- but why? 

yKi tWlk]siw“ t/lle/hw“ hm;k]j; t/ar“li ynIa} ytiynIp;W 12

.WhWc[; rb;K]Arv,a} ta, Ël,M,h' yr´j}a' a/bY:v, μd:a;h; hm,

So I considered wisdom and madness and folly, for what will the man who comes after the king do with what he has already done.

t/ar“li ynIa} ytiynIp;W            Literally, ‘and I turned to see …’  This expression is a hendiadys (two words used to express a single idea) that is essentially equivalent to ytiynIp;W alone in the previous verse, except the vav cannot be rendered as an adversative.

tWlk]siw“ t/lle/hw“ hm;k]j; This phrase is repeated from vs 1:17.  At that point, Solomon set out to gain detailed experiential knowledge of these matters.  This represents the first facet of that experiential knowledge that he set out to gain.

μd:a;h; hm, yKi The conjunction yKi introduces the rhetorical question that constitutes the second half of the verse.  The term hm, is an interrogative that may be used either as a pronoun ‘what’ or as an adverb ‘how.’  Grammatically, this clause can be interpreted as a verbless clause (What is the man who will come after the king), but the result does not fit the context or the remainder of this verse.  Either the independent verb hc,[}y: must be assumed from the context, or it has dropped out of the textual tradition due to a scribal error.

WhWc[; rb;K]Arv,a} ta, Assuming the addition as described above, the verb hc[ is transitive and requires a direct object.  This function is fulfilled by the interrogative pronoun at the beginning of the verse, so the grammatical relationship of this phrase to the independent clause is problematic.  The term ta, can either introduce a definite direct object or function as the preposition ‘with.’  If the clause is taken as a direct object, then it is in apposition to hm,: ‘What will he do (but) what he (the king) has already done.’  If ta, is taken as a preposition, then the question becomes ‘What will he do with what he (the king) has already done?’

The verb in the subordinate clause is a problem for either interpretation.  Formally, WhWc[; is a 3cp perfect form with a 1ms pronominal suffix ‘they have done it.’  Several manuscripts among the translations change the verb form to singular, which fits the context.  The rendering above takes the prepositional interpretation of ta, and converts the verb to singular.  This interpretation is supported by the discussion in vv 2:18 ff in which Solomon is concerned about the need of leaving all he has done to someone else who may be a fool. 

.Ëv,joh'Aˆmi r/ah; ˆ/rt]yKi tWlk]Sih'Aˆmi hm;k]j;l' ˆ/rt]yI vy´v, ynIa; ytiyair:w“ 13

Now, I have seen that there is an advantage to wisdom over folly like the advantage of light over darkness.

tWlk]Sih'Aˆmi hm;k]j;l' This is one of several constructions by which Hebrew expresses the comparative degree: ‘A is better than B.’  Both nouns in this construction are definite.  Here, the article is used to indicate class: all those who are characterized by wisdom have an advantage over all those who are characterized by folly.  The Greek text of the LXX rendered these words literally including the definite articles, but this usage of the article is foreign to English usage and so was left untranslated.

Ëv,joh'Aˆmi r/ah; ˆ/rt]yKi This construction exactly matches that of the previous phrase and provides the basis for evaluating the advantage of wisdom over folly.  Light and darkness are opposites, and darkness is the absence of light.  The same comparisons apply to wisdom and folly.

Ële/h Ëv,joB] lysiK]h'w“ /varoB] wyn:y[e μk;j;h, 14

.μL;KuAta, hr<q]yI dj;a, hr<q]Miv, ynIa}Aμg" yTi[]d"y:w“

The wise man has his eyes in his head, but the fool walks in the dark; but I also know that the same destiny will befall both of them.

The first half of the verse provides a summary evaluation of the comparison between the man whose life is characterized by the practice of wisdom and the man whose life is characterized by folly.  The second half of this verse and the first half of the next verse express the ultimate frustration associated with this first investigation: no matter how much a man gains, no matter how wise he may become, he has exactly the same destiny as any fool.

ynIa}Aμg" yTi[]d"y:w“ Formally, the verb is a 1cs perfect with a vav conjunction followed by an emphatic statement of the subject ‘even I.’  However, it expresses a stative condition.  It could be ingressive – ‘I, even I, have come to know’ – or more simply gnomic – ‘Indeed, even I know.’

ynIr´q]yI ynIa}AμG" lysiK]h' hr´q]miK] yBiliB] ynIa} yTir“m'a;w“ 15

.lb,h, hz<AμG"v, yBilib] yTir“B'dIw“ rte/y za; ynIa} yTim]k'j; hM;l;w“

So I said in my heart that the destiny of a fool will befall me -- even me.  So why have I become so wise?  And I said in my heart that this too is an illusion.

ynIr´q]yI ynIa}AμG" This clause is grammatically peculiar.  ynIa}AμG" literally means ‘moreover, I …,’ and the form of the pronoun is that for the subject of a sentence.  The form of the verb is 3ms imperfect with a 1cs proneminal suffix – ‘it will befall me.’  The anacoluthon (disruption in grammatical structure) reflects Solomon’s agitation over this situation.  This agitation and frustration is expressed by the question in the second half of the verse: So why have I become so wise?

lb,h, hz<AμG"v, yBilib] yTir“B'dIw“ This clause and variations of it occur so frequently in this book that it tends to lose its impact.  However, the clause has an important role in the structure and message being presented.  In each case, the key is to identify the antecedent of the near demonstrative pronoun hz<.  Here, the antecedent can only be the content of the preceding rhetorical question ‘Why have I become so wise?’  The illusion is the idea that he has gained such supreme practical skill in living.  If his practical skill in living really was so superlative and faultless, he would not be doomed to the same destiny as any fool.  That is the limitation imposed on the human condition by God’s curse: ‘What has been bent cannot be straightened, what has been lost cannot be counted.’

μl;/[l] lysiK]h'Aμ[i μk;j;l, ˆ/rk]zI ˆyae yKi 16

.lysiK]h'Aμ[i μk;j;h, tWmy: Ëyaew“ jK;v]nI lKoh' μyaiB;h' μymiy:h' rb;K]v,B]

For there is no more remembrance for the wise man than for the fool forever in that everything will be forgotten in the coming days, and how the wise man must die along with the fool.

ˆ/rk]zI ˆyae yKi The conjunction yK indicates that the following verse provides the basis for the evaluation presented in the previous two verses.  He indicates two reasons why the wise man ultimately has no advantage over the fool 1) He will have no more significant memorial than any fool, and 2) He will die just like any fool.

jK;v]nI lKoh' μyaiB;h' μymiy:h' rb;K]v,B] This is a subordinate clause, but its syntactical relationships are extremely difficult to resolve.  The subordinating conjunction is a combination of ]rv,a} + B].  This combination is uncommon, but a literal rendering of the component parts produces ‘in that,’ which corresponds well to the LXX rendering kaqovti ‘because, in view of the fact that.’ μyaiB;h' μymiy:h' is a definite plural noun followed by a modifying participle ‘the coming days;’ lKoh' is a definite singular (collective) noun; the verb is a 3ms niphal perfect form.  In order to produce an intelligible translation, one must assume either that the fractured syntactic structures are intentional or the result of scribal errors.  Perhaps, the least extensive modification to the extant text produces the following translation: ‘because the days are already coming (when) everything is forgotten….’

lysiK]h'Aμ[i μk;j;h, tWmy: Ëyaew“            This clause amounts to a plaintive cry: not only are both wise and fools forgotten by future generations, but the wise must die just like the fools in their own generation.

vm,V;h' tj'T' hc,[}M'h' yl'[; [r" yKi μyYIj'h'Ata, ytian´c;w“ 17

.j'Wr tW[r“W lb,h, lKoh'AyKi

So I hated life, because work under the sun (seemed) bad to me, for everything is an illusion and a chase after the wind.

μyYIj'h'Ata, ytian´c;w The direct object of the independent clause μyYIj'h'Ata, is definite.  As before, this use of the article in Hebrew identifies ‘life’ as a class of things.

yl'[; [r" The preposition l[; has the primary meaning of ‘on, upon, according to, on account of.’  In expressions dealing with emotion, it is used to indicate that a particular emotional response has an impact on or is working on its object.

j'Wr tW[r“W lb,h, lKoh'AyKi The repetition of this phrase marks the end of the investigation and also summarizes its conclusion.  All of the accumulated things and all his wisdom are an illusion because they provide no ultimate advantage and therefore no enduring satisfaction.  Both are good and satisfying only for the moment.

 vm,V;h' th'T' lme[; ynIa}v, ylim;[}AlK;Ata, ynIa} ytian´c;w“ 18

.yr:j}a' hy<h]YIv, μd:a;l; WNj,yNIa'v,

So I hated all my toil that I had done under the sun that I must leave to the man who will be after me.

What had been a source of joy becomes a source first of revulsion.  The term WNj,yNIa' is a 1cs hiphil form of jwn with a 3ms pronominal suffix ‘I will cause it to rest.’  In this context, the root developed a derived meaning of ‘bequeath’ based on the concept ‘cause (property) to rest with someone following death.’

yTil]m'[;v, ylim;[}Alk;B] fl'v]yIw“ lk;s; /a hy<h]yI μk;j;h, ['dE/y ymiW 19

.lb,h; hz<AμG" vm,V,h' tj'T' yTim]k'j;v,w“

And who knows whether he will be a wise man or a fool, but he will be master over all my labor that I have done masterfully under the sun.  This also is an illusion.

yTim]k'j;v,w“ yTil]m'[;v, This verbal pair constitute a hendiadys within an adverbial subordinate clause modifying the noun ylim;[} ‘my toil,’ which itself is a metonymy of the deed for the fruit of that effort.  The first verbal form duplicates the root of the noun stated ‘that I toiled;’ the second describes the manner in which those efforts were conducted ‘that I undertook skillfully (with life skill).’ 

.vm,V;h' tj'T' yTil]m'[;v, lm;[;h,AlK; l[' yBiliAta, vaey"l] ynIa} yti/Bs'w“ 20

Then I turned to despair within my heart on account of all the toil that I had done under the sun.

ynIa} yti/Bs'w“ The verb is a 1cs perfect form of bbs and has essentially the same force as the root hnP in verses 2:11 and 2:12.  Both are used figuratively to describe a mental change from one state to another.  The predicate complement if a piel infinitive construct of vay ‘make my heart despair.’  The verse expresses a progression in his attitude toward the fruit of his efforts.  First, he came to regard his expended effort as bad (unpleasant); next, he began to hate (view with revulsion) all of his toil; and finally, he descended to despair (beyond all hope of finding value).   

Today this would be called professional burnout.  The only other place that I know of where "professional burnout" is mentioned is Malachi 1:12, 13.  Here the priests of his time expressed the attitude that their service was tiresome and unprofitable.  Professional burnout has become a significant problem primarily in the most developed countries of the world, but it was almost unknown in the ancient world.  On reflection, I think that the reason for this is that virtually everybody then had to spend essentially all day every day just to obtain the bare necessities of life.  Today, especially in the most developed countries, most people have both the necessities of life plus a significant amount of leisure time to reflect on the significance of their occupations.  This was the situation of Solomon as well as the priests of Malachi's time.

ˆ/rv]kib]W t['d"b]W hm;k]j;B] /lm;[}v, μd:a; vy´AyKi 21

.hB;r" h[;r:w“ lb,h, hz<AμG" /ql]j, WNn<T]yI /BAlm'[; aLov, μd:a;l]W

When there is a man who toils (lit.,whose toil is…) with skill and knowledge and success, and he must give his portion to a man who has not toiled with it (skill, etc), this too is illusory and a great wrong.

μd:a; vy´AyKi This verse presents the reason for Solomon’s ultimate despair over the fruits of his efforts.  The introductory yKi could be understood as causal, conditional, or temporal.  The expression μd:a; vy´ is a simple existential statement ‘suppose there is a man,’ but he is really referring to himself – there is such a man and he is the foremost example.

ˆ/rv]kib]W t['d"b]W hm;k]j;B] /lm;[}v,, This is a verbless clause introduced by the relative pronoun -v,.  The first noun, ‘his toil,’ is the subject of the clause, and the next three nouns form a pleonasm for the manner with which the toil was undertaken.  Each of the three nouns describe a slightly different facet:

·      hm;k]j; refers to skill in conducting oneself in life.

·      t['d" refers to intimate detailed knowledge concerning a particular matter or thing.

·      ˆ/rv]Ki is variously rendered by ‘skill, success, profit.’  As such, its meaning is close to that of hm;k]j;.  The primary difference is that ˆ/rv]Ki describes what results from the practice of hm;k]j;.

The product of this toil, /ql]j,, is implied by the term ˆ/rv]Ki but not explicitly stated.

/BAlm'[; aLov, μd:a;l] This phrase constitutes the indirect object of the independent verb.  Its position ahead of the verb is emphatic.  The /B is an adverbial prepositional phrase modifying the verb in the subordinate clause.  The antecedent of the pronominal suffix can only be the pleonasm in the previous clause.  The point is not that this man will obtain all that his predecessor has produced during his life under the sun but that this man has not toiled with wisdom, knowledge, and success.

/ql]j, WNn<T]yI The verb form is a 3ms imperfect of ˆtn with a 3ms pronominal suffix as direct object.  The interpretive problem is that this pronominal suffix has no antecedent in the preceding context.  Clearly, /ql]j, ‘his portion’ is the thing that the first man must hand over to the second, so /ql]j, is in apposition to the pronominal suffix attached to the verb.

hB;r" h[;r:w“ lb,h, hz<AμG" This is one of several variations on the common refrain.  The illusion is that this world is a moral world in which just consequences prevail.  If just consequences really did prevail in this world under the sun, a worthy man characterized by skill, knowledge, and success would always have worthy heirs.  In fact, history demonstrates such is frequently, or even usually, not the case.  Realization of this fact results in hB;r" h[;r:, ‘great misery’ or ‘great distress.’

.vm,V;h' tj'T' lme[; aWhv, /Bli ˆ/[r"b]W /lm;[}Alk;B] μd:a;l; hw<hoAhm, yKi 22

For what kind of being is there for the man in all of his toil and in the striving of his heart that he does under the sun?

μd:a;l; hw<hoAhm, yKi Verses 22 and 23 both begin with the conjunction yKi, indicating that these verses provide the reason for Solomon’s assessment of this man’s condition.  The verb form hw<ho is a ms participle of the root hwh, which is either a rare synonym of hyh or else an Aramaism.  In either case, the participle form is not equivalent to the present tense of the verb, though it is frequently translated in that way.  Syntactically, it is the subject of a verbless clause.  Semantically, the participle in classical Hebrew is a verbal adjective and can have the same syntactic relationships as any other adjective.  In this case, it represents a condition or state of being.  This semantic content has been represented by the phrase ‘kind of being’ in the translation above.  The term μd:a;l; is definite, indicated that the man in the first clause of verse 21 is the specific man in question, not generic mankind.

/Bli ˆ/[r"b]W /lm;[}Alk;B] This string clearly consists of two adjectival prepositional phrases.  The force of the preposition B is to describe the state or condition that habitually characterizes the man’s life.  

.aWh lb,h, hz<AμG" /Bli bk'v;Aalo hl;y“L'B'AμG" /ny:n“[i s['k'w: μybiaok]m' wym;y:Alk; yKi 23

For all of his days bring pain, and his task is a vexation.  Even by night his heart has no rest.  This too is an illusion.

/ny:n“[i s['k'w: μybiaok]m' wym;y:Alk; This string is composed either of one verbless clause with a compound predicate or of two verbless clauses.  If this is taken as a single verbless clause, then wym;y:Alk serves as subject, and /ny:n“[i s['k'w: μybiaok]m' forms a compound predicate.  μybiaok]m' refers to either physical or mental pain; the fact that this form is plural indicates that each day is filled with pain of its own.  s['k' refers to an irritant that provokes one to anger.  In this case, his task or occupation is itself the irritant.  However, should /ny:n“[i s['k'w: be interpreted as a construct chain (and the vexation of his toil) or as a second verbless clause?  The Massoretic tradition presents s['k'w: with the vowel for a definite article, indicating that it cannot be the governing word in a construct chain.  If one accepts the Massoretic vowels, then wym;y:Alk is the subject of one verbless clause, and /ny:n“[i must be taken as the subject as the subject of a second: ‘All of his days bring pains, and his occupation is the vexation.’  (However, neither of these alternatives can be definitely established.  The vowel pointing for a compound predicate should be /ny:n“[i s['k'w“; the vowel pointing for a separate verbless clause should be /ny:n“[i s['K'h'w“.)

/lm;[}B' b/f /vp]n"Ata, ha;r“h,w“ ht;v;w“ lk'aYov, μd:a;B; b/fAˆyae 24

.ayhi μyhiloa‘h; dY"mi yKi ynIa; ytiyair: hzoAμG"

There is no good in the man that he should eat and drink and cause his soul to see the good in his toil.  This also I have seen is from the hand of God.

μd:a;B; b/fAˆyae The ordinary English translation of this clause runs ‘There is nothing better among men…’  There are two problems with this rendering.  First, μd:a;B; is definite, not generic.  The definite string μd:a;l; was used in verse 22 to refer to a specific human taken to be a reference to Solomon himself.  It would seem most natural to continue that force here.  Second, although the preposition B] can express the sense ‘among’ a group, there is no parallel to this specific context.  Taken as rendered above, the clause asserts that there is no legitimate basis or good resident within the man (Solomon himself) that provides the basis for his enjoyment of the activities that make up his life.  (The LXX text agrees with the translation I have given above.)

/lm;[}B' b/f The use of the preposition B in this phrase does not clearly fit any of the standard categories (position, proximity, accompaniment).  The following list indicate a range of senses that might be possible: 

·      Position:      Cause his soul to see the good aspect of his toil (the good in his toil).

·      Instrumental:      Cause his soul to see the good by means of his toil.

·      Causal:      Cause his soul to see the good because of his toil.

ayhi μyhiloa‘h; dY"mi yKi ynIa; ytiyair: hzoAμG" This is the first completely positive statement in the book.  Taking himself as the prime example, no man has the resident goodness that makes enjoyment of life his due.  All mankind along with the entire creation exist under the consequences of God’s curse, and the fruits of one’s efforts under the sun have no capacity to reduce the impact of that curse for any man.  However, the capacity to enjoy life and to see good in one’s occupation is a gift God has granted on an individual-by-individual basis.

.yNIM,mi 6Wj vWjy: ymiW lk'ayo ymi yKi 25

For who can eat and who can perceive joy apart from him (lit., me)?

vWjy: ymiW lk'ayo ymi            This verse provides the basis for the previous assertion. 

.yNIM,mi 6Wj The text as it stands states ‘For who should eat and who should enjoy other than me?’  This implies that no human more deserves to enjoy his life than Solomon himself; however, this text does not fit the context.  If one assumes that yNIM,mi is a scribal error for /NM,mi, the disruption to the contextual flow is immediately resolved: The capability of enjoying life despite the consequences of the global curse comes from the hand of God as a gift to those who serve and worship him.  This understanding of the text is supported by the LXX reading and validated by the following verse.

ˆt'n: af,/jl'w“ hj;m]ciw“ t['d"w“ hm;k]j; ˆt'n: wyn:p;l] b/Fv, μd:a;l] yKi 26

.j'Wr tW[r“W lb,h, hz<AμG" μyhiloaÖh; yn´p]li b/fl] ttel; s/nk]liw“ 5/saÖl, ˆy:n“[i

For to a man who is good before him he gives wisdom and knowledge and joy, but to the sinner he has given the task of gathering and collecting in order to give to the one who is good before God.  This too is an illusion and a chase after the wind.

hj;m]ciw“ t['d"w“ hm;k]j; ˆt'n: wyn:p;l] b/Fv, μd:a;l] yKi This verse begins with yK indicating that it provides the explanation for the previous statement in verse 25.  The clause itself is a simple declarative sentence: God is the subject (he), ‘wisdom, knowledge, and enjoyment’ is the compound direct object, and ‘a man who is good before him’ is the indirect object (recipient).  Note that the indirect object is indefinite, indication that Solomon did not have himself specifically or uniquely in mind in this instance.

af,/jl'w“ …. wyn:p;l] b/Fv, μd:a;l] yKi The verse establishes a strong contrast between two different kinds of people under the sun: those who are pleasing to God and those who are not.  Solomon clearly does not intend to suggest that some people are without fault or sin in all their ways (c.f., Ecc 7:20); neither does the term af,/jl'w“  identify a person who is always evil in every aspect of his life.  Both the ‘one who is good in God’s sight’ and the ‘sinner’ live in the same world and both have been affected by the common curse (Ecc 1:13, 15).  Both have sin in their lives, but both retain the image of God in their being that they had from their original creation, though this image has been affected by sin.  The difference is that one retains an essential reverence for God, and the other does not.  This difference establishes a corresponding difference both in their lives under the sun and in their ultimate destiny (cf. Ecc 8:12, 13).  One will receive the capacity to enjoy this present life despite the curse; the other will bear the futility of becoming the channel for blessing to the former without being able to truly enjoy the fruit of his own toil.

What is bent cannot be straighted

I intend to publish a set of detailed notes on the entire book of Ecclesiastes in sequence.  (Refer to the synthetic outline published previously to see how each section relates to those before or after it.)  But why Ecclesiastes?  I have published translations for about half of the כתובים books of the bible as well as most of the minor prophets.  My answer is this:  Ecclesiastes speaks to us and the problems that we experience in a way that no other book in the bible does.

·      Have you heard of or experienced professional burnout?

·   I can’t get no satisfaction….  How can one find a source of satisfaction and contentment that transcends circumstances?

·      How can one live in such a way that he does not become the source of calamities that enter his life?

These and many other practical questions that frequently arise today are addressed in this book.

DETAILED NOTES ON THE HEBREW TEXT OF ECCLESIASTES

Chapter 1

.μIl;v;WryBi Ël,m, dwiD;AˆB, tl,h,qo yreb]Di 1

The words of koheleth, son of David, king in Jerusalem.

tl,h,qo This word is derived from the root lhq, assemble or come together.  This particular form of the root occurs seven times in Ecclesiastes and nowhere else in the Hebrew Scriptures.  The root meaning is taken to be ‘collector of verses’ by BDB with a derived meaning of ‘preacher.’  This etymology corresponds well with the description in Ecc 12:9, which states that koheleth searched out and arranged many proverbs.  Thus, the term is taken to be the name for an office or an official function.  This first verse is not a complete sentence but rather takes the form of a superscription or title for the remainder of the book.

.lb,h; lKoh' μylib;h} lb,h} tl,h,q1o rm'a; μylib;h} lb,h} 2

Koheleth says: Most illusory, most illusory, everything is illusory.

lb,h, The basic meaning of this term according to BDB is ‘breath’ or ‘vapor.’  Most commonly it is translated by ‘vanity’ or ‘futility’ in this book due to the LXX translation of mataiovthı found in Eccesiastes.  There are at least two other Hebrew words that are frequenty translated by the English word ‘vain,’ but their actual semantic content is not remotely related to that of lb,h,.

aw“V;l' Úyh,loa} hwhyAμveAta, aC;ti lao Ex 20:7

You shall not lift up the name of the Lord your God for something insubstantial (unreal).

The term aw“v; is difficult to translate into English precisely.  It is used to refer to something that is insubstantial, void, without reality, or completely false.  The force of this commandment is to forbid the use of God’s covenant name hwhy in an oath whose purpose is to deceive or manipulate the hearers.  That is, the object of the oath is without reality or substance, having the intent to deceive, and the one making the oath knows it.

qyriAWGh]y, μyMiaul]W μyi/g Wvg]r; hM;l ;o Ps 2:1

Why do the nations rage, and why do the peoples devise a vain thing?

The term qyri signifies something that is empty.  In this case the plans of the ‘peoples’ are empty (without possible realization), because they are directed in specific opposition to the will of God and his Messiah.

In contrast, the term lb,h, signifies something having the appearance of substance but no concrete reality – like a fog bank or a mirage.  For this reason, I have rendered it by ‘illusory’ in most cases.  The major difference between this word and aw“v; is that something really can identified as representing the matter, but what is observed proves to be an illusion or at least lacking in concrete substance.

μylib;h} lbeh} This construct is formally one of the ways in which Hebrew expresses the superlative degree of an adjective, but lb,h, is a noun, not an adjective.  The construct chain approximates the semantic force of a Greek partitive genitive: “of all illusory things, this is the most illusory.”

.vm,V;h' tj'T' lmo[}Y'v, /lm;[}Alk;B] μd;a;l; ˆ/rt]YIAhm' 3

What is the benefit for a man in all of his toil that he does under the sun?

This question introduces the subject that will be the primary focus of the entire book.  What is the ultimate benefit that a man derives from all his labor during this life on earth under the sun, and how can he keep from having his life becoming completely meaningless?  The next seven verses present the problem that concerns koheleth by means of an overview of natural occurrences.

.td,m;[o μl;/[l] 6r,a;h;w“ aB; r/dw] Ëleho r/D 4

A generation comes and a generation goes, but the world remains forever.

Genesis 1 states that this creation had a beginning, and the curse presented in Genesis 3:14 – 19 implies that it will have both a climax and a conclusion.  However, by examining the genealogical records of the scriptures or by merely examining general records, one finds that one generation follows another and that the overall state of the world changes little, if any at all.  No meaningful progression or development is evident.

.μv; aWh j're/z 5ae/v /m/qm]Ala,w“ vm,V,h' ab;W vm,V,h' jr"z:w“ 5

The sun rises, and the sun sets and rushes to its place for rising there (again).

bv; wyt;boybis]Al['w“ j'Wrh; Ële/h bbe/s bbe/s ˆ/px;Ala, bbe/sw“ μ/rD;Ala, Ële/h 6

.j'Wrh;  

Turning to the south and turning to the north, turning, turning goes the wind, and upon its circuit the wind returns.

(As an aside note: Solomon did not have access to photographs from space, but due to the coriolis effect, all major weather systems in the northern hemisphere rotate counter clockwise, consistent with the above description.)

alem; WNn,yae μY:h'w“ μY:h'Ala, μykil]ho μylij;N“h'AlK; 7

.tk,l;l; μybiv; μhe μv; μykil]ho μylij;N“h'v, μ/qm]Ala,

All of the rivers go to the sea, but the sea is not filled.  To the place where the rivers run, there they return to run (again).

The natural world presents exactly this same picture. The sun rises and sets, the winds blow round about, and the rivers flow continuously from the mountains to the seas.  There is no sign of progression or development and no obvious advancement toward any conclusion. 

rBed'l] vyai lk'WyAalo μy[ig´y“ μyrIb;D]h'AlK; 8

.['moV]m iˆz,ao aleM;tiAalow“ t/ar“li ˆyi[' [B'c]tiAalo

Everything is so wearisome that a person cannot speak (of it).  The eye is not satisfied with seeing, and the ear is not filled with hearing.

The patterns that have existed in the past remain here and now.  If a person is inclined to go sight seeing, there will never be enough: there will always be something else to see.  If a person is inclined to listen to stories, music, or the like, there will never be the last song to sing or story to hear (or book to read, movie to see, or CD to play, etc.).

.vm,V;h' tj'T' vd:j;AlK; ˆyaew“ hc,[;Yev, aWh hc;[}N"v,Ahm'W hy,h]Yiv, aWh hy;h;V,Ahm' 9

What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done.  And there is nothing new under the sun.

As far back as we can assess from human records, the above patterns have bound human life.  As far forward as we can imagine (apart from divine intervention), they will continue to do so. From this perspective, no aspect of our lives and no experience that might enter our lives have changed from the beginning of time under the sun. (This observation is confirmed within the Bible.  God’s oath to Noah in Gen 8:22 following the flood stated that these patterns would not cease so long as the earth remains.  Yet, these very words imply a conclusion will come at some time.)

 .WnnEp;L]mi hy;h; rv,a} μymil;[ol] hy;h; rb;K] aWh vd;j; hz<Ahaer“ rm'aYov, rb;D; vye 10

Is there a message saying, ‘Look! This is new!’  It has already existed in the times that were before us.

In the late 1800’s some bureaucrat in Washington asserted that the patent office was of no further value, because there was nothing left to be invented.  Today virtually none of the gadgets that we deem to be essential existed even 10 years ago, and the pace at which ‘new stuff’ appears on the scene only increases year by year.  However at the most fundamental level, all of these ‘new gadgets’ consist merely of the rearrangement or repackaging of material or concepts that have been present from the time of Adam and Eve.  Consider music, for example.  Every generation or culture has had its own favored style of music.  But whether that music is based on the octave scale, 12-tone scale, or chromatic scale, it is all based on sound waves ranging from 40 Hz to 1200 Hz.  Both popular and classical music employ the same tones with varying rhythm and beat patterns.  The same can be said of art, literature, science, and mathematics.  More than once the newest great discovery was merely a rediscovery of something that was once known and later forgotten.  (For example, the ancient Greeks knew that the earth was a globe and calculated its circumference to a high degree of accuracy.)  Much of the renaissance was merely the rediscovery of what the Greeks had known 1500 years earlier.  From this perspective, nothing is really new but merely a rearrangement of what has previously existed.

Wyh]Yiv, μyniroj}a'l; μg"w“ μynivoaril; ˆ/rk]zi ˆyae 11

.hn:roj}a'l; Wyh]Yiv, μ[i ˆ/rK;zi μh,l; hy<h]yIAalo

There is no remembrance of the former things, and also the latter things that will be will have no remembrance with those who will live in later times.

More than one writer has noted that any generation who fails to learn from the errors of prior history will be doomed to repeat those errors.  Here the author asserts that this fault is characteristic both of people as individuals and of entire societies.  Read today’s newspaper (or new internet bulletin) and then read one from 50 years, 100 years ago, or 2500 years ago.  Details will be different, but many of the problems being addressed will be essentially the same.  The human creature has not changed from the day that God cursed Adam, Eve, and all the earth; the problems that the earliest human cultures have experienced remain with us still in essentially the same form.  We tend to be so wrapped up in our own circumstances that we forget that no problem we face today really is new: it has all happened before.

.μIl;v;WryBi laer:c]yiAl[' Ël,m, ytiyyih; tl,h,qo ynia} 12

I koheleth was (have been) king over Israel in Jerusalem.

There were just two kings who reigned over all Israel from Jerusalem: David and Solomon.  Verse 1 states that koheleth was the son of David, much of the book stresses the great wisdom possessed by koheleth, and chapter 2 describes some of the great building projects and wealth attributed to Solomon.  Without a doubt, the author is claiming to be Solomon.  Modern scholars generally assert that this book is late, dating from about 200 to 350 BC.  The bases for this assertion are as follows:

·      The theology and the perspective that bad things may happen to good (relatively speaking) people is considered to be a late development in the prophetic development of Israel.

·      The language and perspective of the book are quite similar to those of Job, which is also often considered to be late for the same reason  as that listed above.

All such arguments are deficient from several different perspectives.

·      Language and literary styles certainly do change over time.  One merely needs to read English literature written 150 years ago to observe such differences.  However, all of the Hebrew biblical texts were preserved as manually copied manuscripts for at least 2000 years before the first printed book existed.  There is strong evidence that scribes routinely replaced obsolete orthography, spelling, and in some cases vocabulary during that time.  Consequently, vocabulary in a book of the Massoretic Text does not provide adequate information to establish a date of authorship.

·      The concept that ‘bad things happen to good people’ is certainly not a late teaching in the Hebrew scriptures.  Such things are presented in the stories of Abel, Joseph, and Jeremiah as well as many of David’s psalms.

·      Although vocabulary, syntax, and literary styles for any particular language certainly do change over time (linguistic drift), far too little of ancient Hebrew vocabulary has been preserved with a reliable time stamp to use that as a basis for dating any text.  (The only existing texts that have reliable time stamps are monumental inscriptions and ostraca found in situ during archaeological digs.)  The date of authorship for prophetic writings can generally be dated with reasonable certainty based on internal evidence, but nobody can assess with certainty what affect 1000 years or more of scribal activity has had on the spelling and vocabulary in those texts.

The internal evidence of the text presents this as the work of Solomon.  The state of the Massoretic Text shows numerous textual corruptions, indicating that this particular book was among the less carefully preserved of the Hebrew texts, and these same corruptions are often contained word-by-word in the LXX.  This suggests that the book hardly could have been a work of late composition.

 μyim;V;h' tj'T' hc,[}n' rv,a}AlK; l[' hm;k]j;B' rWtl;w“ v/rd]li yBiliAta, yTit'n:w“ 13

./B t/n[}l' μd:a;h; yneb]li μyhi/la‘ ˆt'n; [r: ˆyn}[i aWh

And I applied my heart to examine intently with wisdom all that is done under the sun:  God has given a profoundly unpleasant task to mankind to be occupied with.

yBiliAta, yTit'n:w“ This is the primary clause of the verse. yTit'n:w“ is a 1cs qal perfect of ˆt'n: and has the basic meaning of ‘give.’  In the present context, it describes concentrated application to a particular task.  yBiliAta, is the direct object of the transitive verb.  In classical Hebrew, the term ‘heart’ refers to the seat of reason and conscious determination, not the seat of emotion or passion.

hm;k]j;B' rWtl;w“ v/rd]li This phrase consists of two qal infinitive constructs followed by an adverbial prepositional phrase.  The two infinitives are predicate compliments to the finite verb and describe the task that koheleth intends to undertake.  The basic root meaning of vrd is ‘seek,’ and its range of usage includes ‘investigate, study, practice.’  The root meaning of rWt is ‘seek out, explore.’  The combination is a hendiadys (two words used to express a single idea) to describe a determined, concerted examination of a particular subject.  The adverbial prepositional phrase hm;k]j;B' identifies the tool for this examination: ‘wisdom.’  In classical Hebrew, hm;k]j; refers primarily to the practice of practical skills in life, not the accumulation of information or the speculative knowledge that characterized Greek thought.  English does not have any single word that has an equivalent semantic content.

μyim;V;h' tj'T' hc,[}n" rv,a}AlK; l[' This phrase presents the object of this examination: concerning everything that is done under the sun.  The verb form hc,[}n' is a 3ms niphal perfect.  The interpretive question is whether to translate it into English with a simple past form, a progressive past form, or one of the various perfect forms.  In the translation above I opted for simple past, but past progressive and present perfect are also possible. 

/B t/n[}l' μd:a;h; yneb]li μyhi/la‘ ˆt'n; [r: ˆyn}[i aWh This clause presents the conclusion of his study concerning all that is done under the sun before he begins describing the details of that study.  The grammatical core of the clause μd:a;h; yneb]li [r: ˆyn}[i  ˆt'n; μyhi/la‘ : God has given an unpleasant task to the sons of Adam.’  The remainder is merely amplification.  [r: ˆyn}[i is an appositive explicating the content of the direct object; /B t/n[}l' is an infinitive phrase describing the nature of the problem: habitual occupation with an unpleasant task.  This unpleasant task that God has inflicted on the sons of Adam is the core of the curse in Gen 3:19: ‘With the sweat of your face (lit. nose) you shall eat your bread until you return to the ground.’

[r: This adjective is almost always translated as ‘evil,’ and English speakers often assume that the term ‘evil’ always describes moral evil or something sinful.  In reality, the classical Hebrew usage of [r: is similar to that of the English term ‘evil,’ i.e. something that is bad, unpleasant, or undesirable.  All moral evil and sin certainly are bad and always have ultimately undesirable consequences, but not all bad (unpleasant or undesirable) things or deeds are sinful.  In this book the term [r: usually does not refer to moral evil but to something that is unpleasant or undesirable.  

μd:a;h; yneb]li Grammatically, this phrase constitutes the indirect object of the transitive verb. μd:a;h; yneb] is a construct chain that is ordinarily translated ‘the sons of Adam.’  The peculiar thing is that μd:a;h; has the definite article attached even though it is often taken as a personal name.  Since personal names in Hebrew are always definite, use of the article is not appropriate.  Consequently, the author appears to be using this term as a generic expression for ‘human,’ or ‘mankind’ and not as the personal name ‘Adam.’  This usage is confirmed by the expressions in 2:18, 21,22, 24, 26, 3:11, 12, 20, etc.

.j"Wr tW[r]W lb,h, lKoh' hNEhiw“ vm,V;h' tj'T' Wc[}N"v, μyci[}M'h'AlK;Ata, ytiyair: 14

I have seen all of the deeds that are done under the sun, and everything is an illusion and striving after wind.

Wc[}N"v, μyci[}M'h' These are two different forms of the same root.  Formally, the first word is an mp hiphil participle of hc[, but the hiphil stem for this root is not otherwise attested in biblical Hebrew.  The term is used and interpreted as a noun, ‘deeds’  (i.e., human activities).  The second form is 3mp niphal perfect with a prefixed relative pronoun Av,, ‘that are done.’

j"Wr tW[r]W lb,h, lKoh' hNEhiw“ This clause and its variants are structurally significant literary markers.  They are repeated throughout the book at the end of each major segment of text like the refrain in a song or poem.  Semantically, this refrain means: what has just been presented is as futile as trying to find substance in a mirage or trying to catch the wind.  The term tW[r] is a fs noun derived from the root h[r signifying ‘associate, companion, close friend;’ ˆ/y[]r" is a ms noun from the same root having much the same meaning.  Just try to be a close companion with the wind!

.t/nM;hil] lk'WyAal ˆ/rs]j,w“ ˆqot]li lk'WyAal tW:[um] 15

What is bent cannot be straightened, and what is missing cannot be counted.

This is the first of many proverbs presented throughout the text of this book.  It is intended to summarize what has just been stated.  Understanding the content of these proverbs is essential for gaining an accurate understanding the message that the author is trying to convey.  Formally, tW:[um] is a pual participle of tw[ (be bent, twisted, crooked); ˆqot] is a qal infinitive construct (become straight); ˆ/rs]j, is an ms noun from rsj (deficiency, thing lacking); t/nM;hi is a niphal infinitive construct of hnm (count, number, reckon).

What is bent?  The creation is bent by the curse of God, and that curse cannot be undone by anything we can do:  ‘Cursed is the land because of you’ (Gen 3:17).  Yeshua bore the judicial curse of the law for those who believe in him, but he has not yet eliminated the curse on this creation.  That will not happen until the creation is made new after the end of his 1000-year reign following his bodily return to the earth.

What is missing?  Innocence, and that original innocence cannot be restored even by the second birth: ‘I heard your voice in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked’ (Gen 3:10).  Restoration of innocence will not occur for those under the sun until they who have been redeemed possess glorified material bodies.  The redeemed will be confirmed in sinlessness following their physical death, but they will not again live under the sun until after their resurrection.

hm;k]j; yTip]s'/hw“ yTil]D"g“hi hN´hi ynia} rmoale yBiliAμ[i ynia} yTir“B'DI 16

.t['d:w: hm;k]j; hBer“h' ha;r; yBiliw“ μIl;v;Wry“Al[' yn"p;l] hy:h;Arv,a}AlK; l['

tWlk]ciw“ t/lle/h t['d'w“ hm;k]j; t['d'l; yBili hn:T]a,w: 17

I spoke with my heart, saying, “Behold, I have become great, and I have gained more wisdom than all of those who preceded me over Jerusalem.  And my heart has seen much wisdom and knowledge, and I have given my heart to know wisdom, knowledge, madness, and folly.

yBiliAμ[i ynia} yTir“B'DI This is one of several ways in which classical Hebrew expresses concerted, rational thought.  To understand the significance of the expression, one must realize that that the heart, not the mind was the seat of reason in classical Hebrew thought.  Inclusion of the pronoun ynia} following the verb is unnecessary and therefore emphatic.

μIl;v;Wry“Al[' yn"p;l] hy:h;Arv,a}AlK; l[' This construction represents is one of several mechanisms used in biblical Hebrew to express a comparison.  But how extensive is his comparison?  David was the only Israelite ruler that preceded Solomon over Jerusalem.  Prior to David’s conquest, the city was occupied by Jebusites; and in Abraham’s day it was ruled by Melchizedek.  Y110:4 shows that David took the king-priest status of Melchizedek seriously; 2 Sam 6:14 and 1 Ch 15:27 state that David wore an ephod, a garment permitted only for priests.  Potentially, Solomon is claiming that the scope of his wisdom exceeds that of Melchizedek, who was the only king other than David to reign over Jerusalem before him whose name is preserved in scripture. 

...yBili hn:T]a,w: ... ha;r; yBiliw“ These two clauses define the scope of his experience.  Specifically, he has gained both an accumulation of information and the practical skill in applying that information to the practical circumstances of life.  He has examined both the positive side – wisdom and knowledge – as well as the negative side – madness and folly.  The term t/lle/h is fp noun based on the poel stem of llh (be boastful); in modern Hebrew, this noun is used to mean ‘madness, hilarity.’  The term tWlk]ci is an orthographic variant of tWlk]si, which is a fs noun from the root lks, and it represents the actions or deeds of a fool, one devoid of hm;k]j;.  One endowed with wisdom (hm;k]j;) can examine and assess the motives and activities of a fool; but a fool has no understanding of his own motives and actions, much less those of one endowed with wisdom.

.j'Wr ˆ/y[]r' aWh hz,AμGæv, yTi[]d'y:

.b/ak]m' 5ysi/y t['D' 5ysi/yw“ s['K;Abr: hm;k]j; broB] yKi 18

I know that this is also striving after wind; because much vexation comes with much wisdom, and he who increases knowledge increases pain.

The second half of vs 17 is the first of many repetitions of the j'Wr ˆ/y[]r' aWh hz,AμGæv, refrain.

Structurally, verse 18 consists of two verbless clauses that exactly parallel one another.  The verse is introduced by the relative conjunction yKi, which indicates that this verse contains the explanation why the proposed investigation is ultimately illusory (futile in the sense that it will not resolve or change anything).

s['K;Abr: hm;k]j; broB] The subject of this clause is the second element; the first element is a prepositional phrase and can only be a predicate adjective.  The term s['K; is an ms noun meaning ‘anger, vexation, irritation.’  The inverted order of subject and predicate lays emphasis on the predicate adjective.

b/ak]m' 5ysi/y t['D' 5ysi/y The two elements of this clause are exactly parallel in structure, so the first element should be taken as subject and the second as predicate noun.  The reversal in the order of subject and predicate in the two clauses is a stylistic feature called chiasmus and occurs frequently in Hebrew poetry. 

The author concludes his introduction with an ironic summary: the investigation that he has undertaken is in of itself a futile exercise for two reasons.  First, the very process of increasing wisdom (practical skill in living) will magnify the frustrations that he has already experienced and expressed.  Second, increasing knowledge (accumulation of facts) about what transpires here on earth under the sun will increase the pain (mental anguish) that one may experience over the inequities of life.