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.
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.