Chapter 7
Verses 1 through 12 consist of proverbs consisting
of one or two verses each, and most of these compare two related aspects of
life. Each proverb asserts that a
particular approach to life is superior to its alternative. In my opinion, these proverbs have been
arranged here in a particular sequence to make a specific point. Two questions should be considered for each
of this group of assertions:
· Is the assertion of the
proverb actually true; and if true, in what way is it true?
· What is the common point or
focus of these proverbs as a group?
./dl]W:hi
μ/Ymi tw<M;h' μ/yw“ b/f ˆm,V,mi μve b/f 1
A good name is better than
good oil, and the day of death is better than the day of his birth.
This proverb consists of a comparison between two
circumstances in life. The fact
that they are joined together implies that they are intended to be interpreted
in light of one another. The first
comparison – A good name is better than good oil – seems self-evident,
but what does this have to do with the second comparison – The day of (one's) death
is better than his birthday? On
the day of a person's death in ancient Israel, a person's body would be wrapped
with fragrant spices and oils to mask the stench of decay; but the
effectiveness of those oils would last only a few days. The person's soul departs at the moment
of death, but his name – the legacy of the life he lived – will be remembered potentially
for many years by those who remain.
On the day of the person's birth, there was joy in the clan for the
birth, but nothing exists for the infant except potential. There is no way to know in advance how
that infant will live out that potential.
At the time of a person's death, the person normally will have lived out
his life and thereby established his legacy good or bad.
hT,v]mi tyBeAla, tk,L,mi lb,aeAtyBeAla, tk,l,l; b/f 2
./BliAla, ˆTeyI yj'h'w“ μd:a;h;AlK; 5/s aWh rv,a}B'
It is better to go to a
house of mourning than to a banquet, because it is the end of every man, and
the living will put it to his heart.
This proverb expands the second half of verse 1 and
explains one rationale for the comparison between the day of one’s birth and
the day of one’s death. This verse
compares the mourning of a family over death with that of a banquet, presumably
to celebrate a birth. hT,v]mi tyBe literally means 'a house of
drinking,'
but by usage in the Hebrew text, it refers to any kind of banquet, or
celebration. Commending the house
in mourning over that of a celebratory banquet is unexpected, so the second
half of the verse presents Kohelet's rationale. Death is the end of every human life under the sun, but the person's name
– his legacy – will live on in memory, at least for a time. Remembering this fact will provide a
restraining influence on the conduct of those who remain alive.
.ble
bf'yyI μyniP; ['rob]AyKi qjoC]mi s['K' b/f 3
Affliction is better than derision,
for the heart may be joyful with a sad face.
s['K' According to BDB, this ms noun has primary meanings of 'vexation,
anger.' Since 'anger'
does not seem to fit the overall context, 'vexation' appears to be the
better choice. However, the
English term 'vexation' is no longer in common use and so itself needs some
explanation. The more modern
synonym is 'irritation, annoyance, affliction, agitation.'
qjoC] This term is an ms noun meaning 'laughter, sport, derision,' and
the tern is regularly used with respect to a person who is the object of
derision.
μyniP; ['rob] The term ['ro is an ms noun that is regularly translated by 'badness,
evil.' However, this
combination is generally understood as 'sadness of face.'
ble bf'yyI bf'yyI is a qal 3ms imperfect from either bfy (be glad, be joyful)
or bwf
(be pleasant, be delightful).
This verb form is coupled with ble six times in the MT, and
each time it is translated 'the heart is joyful.' In such a context, ble is a reference to the inner
man and encompasses mind, will, and emotions.
What then is the point of the proverb within this
context? A person may experience
agitation or annoyance due to external circumstances and still retain a level
of joy and contentment that transcends circumstances. The ability to live above circumstances over which we have no
control is one of the major emphases in this section of the book. Circumstances tend to be transitory,
but the fundamental attitude of one's seat of consciousness and will (ble) can remain fixed and
focused.
.hj;m]ci
tybeB] μyliysiK] blew“ lb,ae tybeB] μymik;j} blee 4
The heart of wise men are in
the house of mourning, but the heart of fools is in a house of mirth.
μyliysiK] Refers to fools or dullards.
The term is normally considered derogatory.
hj;m]ci Refers to joy, mirth, or what can bring joy. hj;m]ci tybeB] is another way of referring
to a kind of party.
At very least, this proverb asserts that a fool
seeks mirth and pleasure as his primary focus (see Ecc Ch 2), but a wise man intentionally
goes to a place where there is mourning. While the superficial character of a fool may be expected,
the assertion concerning the wise man is not. Within the present context, the comparison is between what
is superficial and transitory and what endures beyond immediate circumstances. The focus of mourning is not stated,
but the present context suggests that it is the house where people are mourning
the death of a loved one, and the wise man is there mourning with those who
mourn.
.μyliysiK]
ryvi ['mevo vyaime μk;j; tr"[}g' ['mov]li b/f 5
It is better to listen to a
rebuke from a wise man than for a man to listen to the song of fools.
.lb,h;
hz,Aμg'w“ lysiK]h' qjoc] ˆKe rySih' tj'T' μyrIySih' l/qk] yKi 6
Like the sound of thorn
bushes under a pot so is the laughter of the fools – this too is futile.
Verses 5 and 6 go together as a single proverb. As with the previous verses, the point
of this proverb is concerned with what has value that endures beyond immediate
circumstances.
μk;j; tr"[}g' A person described as μk;j; is one who is endowed with
practical skill in a particular aspect of life, such as a master
craftsman. A rebuke from such a
person in his area of expertise is always beneficial even if the rebuke is not
pleasant to the recipient of that rebuke.
μyliysiK] ryvi The μyliysiK] are those people who are
devoid of practical skill in life in general or in a particular aspect of life. Commendations from such a one may be
very pleasant but seldom prove to have enduring value or substance.
rySih' tj'T' μyrIySih' l/qk] This is a simile. The
image is that of thorn bushes being used as fuel under a cooking pot: big flash
of fire, lots of snap, crackle, and pop; then the fire is gone, and the pot is
still cold. Thorn bushes have no
value as the source of fuel for a cooking fire; neither do the pleasant words
of a fool have any enduring practical value.
.hn:T;m'
bleAta, dBea'ywII μk;j; lle/hy“ qv,[oh; yKi 7
If extortion should make a fool of a wise man, it will
destroy a heart with a bribe.
μk;j; lle/hy“ qv,[oh; yKi The
structure of this proverb is ambiguous because the conjunction yKi has ten different uses
(Williams ¶444-452), three of which might fit the present context:
·
When extortion makes a fool of a wise man…
·
If extortion should make a fool of a wise man …
·
Indeed, extortion makes a fool of a wise man …
Because not every wise person gives in to a bribe,
the last option probably does not represent the intended meaning. Similarly, the most common translation
– For extortion makes a fool of a wise man – is not appropriate because
this verse has no causal connection with the previous verse.
qv,[oh; Thus term is a definite ms noun meaning either 'oppression, extortion,
gain from extortion.' The
definite article here is used to express a particular class of things (Williams
¶92) that might defeat the wisdom of a wise man at a particular point in his
life.
lle/hy“ The
verb is a poel 3ms imperfect from the root llh meaning 'make a fool of.' The force of the imperfect form depends
on how one understands the use of yKi.
hn:T;m' bleAta, dBea'ywI The significance of the conjunction at the beginning of this clause
also depends on the meaning of yKi in the first clause. The common translation of this clause interprets hn:T;m' as the subject of the verb
and ble
as its direct object – … and a bribe destroys the heart. The difficulty with this interpretation
is that hn:T;m' is fs and dBea'ywII is 3ms.
This is not a fatal objection, because verbal gender concordance
sometimes is lacking when a feminine subject is stated after the verb. However, if we take the second clause
as an elaboration of the first instead of a repetition of it, the subject is qv,[oh; from the previous clause,
and hn:T;m' ble is a construct chain with hn:T;m' as the means or agent
producing the action of the verb (Williams ¶45). These considerations are the basis for the translation
presented above. The one difficulty
with this interpretation is that hn:T;m' bleAta, is indefinite, but the
phrase is introduced with ta,, which is normally used only with definite direct
objects.
In the above context, the wise man's heart is
capable of focusing on enduring realities rather than transitory
circumstances. Yet if a wise man
becomes corrupted by a bribe, then his integrity is destroyed, and his conduct
becomes just like that of a fool at that time or with respect to a particular
situation.
.j'WrAHb'G“mi
j'WrAËr<a, b/f /tyviarEme rb;D: tyrIj}a' b/f 8
The conclusion of a matter
is better than its beginning; a patient spirit is better than a haughty
(arrogant) spirit.
/tyviarEme rb;D: tyrIj}a' tyrIj}a' is an fs noun meaning 'after
part, end;' tyviarE is an fs noun meaning 'beginning, chief, first.'
j'WrAHb'G“mi j'WrAËr<a, Ër<a, is an ms adjective in construct form meaning 'long of;' in
combination with j'Wr it is used to describe patience.
Hb'G“ is an ms adjective in construct state meaning 'high, exalted;'
in combination with j'Wr it is used to describe haughtiness, which is often
describes a person who is arrogant.
Although one may accept the general applicability of
this proverb, how does it fit into the present context? Throughout the previous seven verses, the
person characterized by hm;k]j; focuses on enduring realities rather than the transitory
circumstances of the moment. This
automatically implies that the wise man has the patience to allow those
realities to develop to their conclusion.
The person who jumps to a conclusion based on present circumstances may
be guilty of forming a hasty generalization, but this proverb asserts that such
a person is haughty. Why? Projecting a conclusion based on
current circumstances constitutes an implicit claim that the person knows what
the future holds, but this nobody can know with any certainty – Who knows
what will be after him under the sun?
.j'Wny:
μyliysiK] qyjeB] s['k' yKi s/[k]li Új}WrB] lheb'T]Ala' 9
Do not allow your spirit to
become quickly annoyed, because annoyance rests in the breast of fools.
s/[k]li Új}WrB]
lheb'T]Ala' The finite verb form is a piel 2ms imperfect from the root lhb meaning 'hasten, act
hastily;' here it is used to express a negative command. Standard grammars of classical Hebrew assert
that Ala'
followed by a second person imperfect form is used to express a one-time
prohibition or a prohibition with respect to a specific circumstance, and AaOl followed by a second person
imperfect form expresses an absolute prohibition. However, virtually every negative command included as part
of a proverb is formed with Ala'. I
have concluded that this situation exists because proverbs were never intended
to serve as absolute commands but rather to inform the wise to conduct
themselves with wisdom on a case-by-case basis.
Új}WrB] The meanings of several verbal roots change based in the particular
preposition used to introduce its verbal complement. This root, lhb, occurs twice in Ecclesiastes. In the first occurrence (5:1) the
preposition Al[' introduced the verbal complement, and here the complement is
introduced by AB]. Since these are the only
occurrences with this particular construction, it is not possible to determine
if any special idiomatic use was present.
Consequently, I have taken the base meaning to be 'do not hasten
within your spirit...'
s/[k]li The verb form is a qal infinitive construct of s[k. According to BDB the root meaning of s[k in the qal stem is 'be
vexed, be angry;' according to Jastrow it is 'to be dark, hot, angry.' Now, the qal stem occurs just four
times in the MT, so fine shades of meaning cannot be established with any
certainty. If we accept the basic
meaning in BDB, then 'be vexed' requires explanation for most modern
speakers of English. Generally
accepted modern equivalents are 'be troubled, be irritated, be afflicted, be
agitated.' Regardless of which
of these meanings is accepted, the result is a state of internal agitation that
is negative. This internal state will
affect both the individual and those about him negatively.
j'Wny: μyliysiK] qyjeB] s['k'
yKi yKi here is explanatory,
introducing a rationale for the previous prohibition. s['k' is the nominal form of the root s[k, so the discussion
concerning the verbal root applies to it as well. qyjee is an ms noun from the root qwj and refers to the male or
female chest area. Among other
things it referred a fold of the outer garment in this area where items might
be hidden; so the image is that regardless how a fool presents himself, s['k' resides hidden at his
breast next to or above his heart.
hL,aeme
μybi/f Wyh; μynivoarIh; μymiY:h'v, hy:h; hm, rm'aToAla' 10
.hz<Al[' T;l]a'v;
hm;k]j;me alo yKi
Do not say, ‘Why were the
former days better than these?’ for you do not ask this from wisdom.
There is no particular grammatical
or syntactic problem with this verse.
The assertion that the former times were better that the present times
is very common today, and such assertions were made by the ancient Greeks as
well. So why does Kohelet state
that this idea does not arise from wisdom? Consider:
·
1:9 – What has been? It is
that which will be.
· 1:11 – There is no remembrance of the former things, and what exists
now will be forgotten in the future.
The problem is that we all
have selective memories of events from our own past, and we have no real experiential
knowledge of what went before our own individual lives. Evidently, each generation has felt
that the problems and circumstances of their individual lives are harder than
those of former generations. This
perception may give some existential comfort, but it provides no solution or
resolution: each individual is confronted by his own unique set of challenges
in life. If hm;k]j; is viewed as the practical
skill in life, then looking back to an abstraction of the past will provide
little insight in confronting the particular combination of difficulties that actually
confront an individual at any point during his life.
.vm,V;h'
yaerol] rteyOw“ hl;j}n'Aμ[i hm;k]j; hb;/f 11
Wisdom is a good thing along
with an inheritance, and it (wisdom) has an advantage for those who see the
sun.
hl;j}n'Aμ[i hm;k]j; hb;/f hm;k]j;
hb;/f is a
verbless clause, and identifying the subject of such a clause is always an
ambiguity associated with this type of construction. There are two rules that may be used to resolve this
ambiguity:
· Usually the subject of the
clause is stated first unless particular emphasis is being placed on the
predicate.
· If the order of subject and
predicate are reversed, then the subject is the most definite of the two.
In this case, hm;k]j; is more definite that hb;/f, so hm;k]j; is probably intended to be
the subject of the clause. The
preposition μ[i can express accompaniment (with) or coordination (along with). The first alternative implies that both
together are necessary to be beneficial; the second alternative that both
individually are beneficial. Since
rteyO
in the second clause is singular, I think the second alternative was probably
the meaning intended. In addition,
the singular state of rteyO also implies that hm;k]j; is superior to hl;j}n', but the reason is not specifically
resolved here.
.h;yl,[;b]
hY<j'T] hm;k]j;h' t['D" ˆ/rt]yIw“ 5s,K;h' lxeB] hm;k]j;h' lxeB] yKi 12
Because wisdom like money (lit silver) is a protection, but an advantage of knowledge is the wisdom can
preserve the life of the one who possesses it (lit of its owner).
This verse provides the rationale for the assertion
in verse 11. lxeB] … lxeB]
yKi – both
wisdom and an inheritance (5s,K;h') provide a person with a measure of protection, but
the one who possesses wisdom (hm;k]j;h') has an advantage over the one who has just
material wealth. A fool can easily
lose all his wealth, but wisdom can preserve the life of the one who possesses
it.
hm;k]j;h' t['D" ˆ/rt]yIw“ These three words are all nouns, but the syntactic relation between
them is ambiguous. There are three
possibilities:
· The advantage of the
knowledge of wisdom…
· An advantage is the
knowledge of wisdom...
· The advantage of knowledge
is the wisdom…
Since the finite verb hY<j'T] is a piel fs imperfect form
and ˆ/rt]yI
is an ms noun, the first option is not possible. The semantic difference between the remaining two
possibilities is not great, but the Masoretic accents favor the last choice.
Verses 7:13-22 continues the presentation of
proverbial wisdom, but the structure of these verses is different from those
that preceded. These proverbs
present somewhat more elaborate scenarios. The previous group of proverbs asserted that wisdom has
enduring benefits and it is able to preserve the life of the one who possesses
it. These proverbs assert that
despite the benefits of wisdom, it does not exempt a person from calamities and
difficulties in life. Wisdom can
assist a person in dealing with such difficulties when they do arise, but the
lack of wisdom can become the cause of calamities that enter one's life.
./tW“[i
rv,a} ta, ˆQet'l] lk'Wy ymi yKi μyhiloa‘h; hce[}m'Ata, haer“ 13
Consider the work of God,
for who is able to straighten what he has bent?
/tW“[i rv,a} ta, ˆQet'l] lk'Wy
ymi This
repeats the first proverb of verse 1:15, but the terms are reversed and turned
into a rhetorical question. The
focus in verse 1:15 is the overall situation facing mankind. Here the focus is less universal, as
indicated by the following verse.
μyhiloa‘h;
hc;[; hz<AtM'[ul] hz,Ata, μG' haer“ h[;r: μ/yb]W b/fb] hyEh‘ hb;/f μ/yB] 14
.hm;Wam] wyr:j}a'
μd:a;h; ax;m]yI alov, tr"b]DIAl['
In a day of bounty be with
good things, and in a day of famine consider: God has done both for the purpose
that the man can discover nothing about what comes after him.
b/fb] hyEh‘ hb;/f μ/yB μ/yB is a temporal usage of the
preposition, and the idiom signifies 'During a time when there are good
things.' hyEh‘ is a 2ms imperative form,
but the predicate b/fb] is ambiguous. Here b/f is clearly the object of
the preposition, but it could be either an ms noun or an infinitive
construct. Since the verbal usage
does not make good sense, the form must be a noun meaning 'good things.' In other words, Kohelet is saying, 'During
a time of plenty, enjoy that abundance.'
haer“ h[;r: μ/yb]W This clause considers a time opposite to a time of abundance –
famine h[;r:. As in the previous
clause, haer“ is a 2ms imperative from har, which here signifies
mental assessment of a situation.
hz<AtM'[ul] hz,Ata, tM'[ul] consists of an fs noun that is the object of a preposition and also
the governing word in a construct chain.
The complete construction is an idiom literally meaning 'with this
corresponding to this.'
hm;Wam] wyr:j}a' μd:a;h;
ax;m]yI alov, tr"b]DIAl[' This clause reflects the
assertion of verse 3:22 as well as 6:12.
Human beings may have the conviction that God has an ultimate purpose
behind all that happens; but apart from special revelation he cannot determine
what that purpose might be with any accuracy, and he cannot determine what will
happen in the future.
./t[;r:B]
ËyrIa}m' [v;r: vyEw“ /qd“xiB] dbeao qyDIx' vyE ylib]h, ymeyBi ytiyair:
lKoh'Ata, 15
I have seen everything in
the days of my breath – there is a righteous man who perishes with his
righteousness, and there is a wicked one who prolongs his days with his evil.
ytiyair: lKoh'Ata, The assertion is similar to the English expression, 'I have seen
it all.' Clearly, this
assertion is not literally true for anybody, but the scope of Kohelet's
observation is explained by the following clause.
ylib]h, ymeyBi A common English translation for this prepositional phrase is 'in
the days of my vanity.'
Clearly, Kohelet means 'during my life,' so ylib]h, could be understood here literally
as a reference to the time during which he has breath. When a person dies, that breath departs
from the body.
/t[;r:B] ËyrIa}m' [v;r: vyEw“
/qd“xiB] dbeao qyDIx' vyE Within the bible the common
expectation is that those who are righteous before God will have long life filled with
blessings from God, and those who are wicked will be cut off by divine
judgment. However, the observation
of Kohelet asserts that this expectation is not always realized – There are
righteous men who die before they have lived out their full measure of years, and
there are wicked men who prolong their years of wickedness. What is bent cannot be straightened.
.μme/VTi
hM;l; rte/y μK'j't]TiAla'w“ hBer“h' qyDIx' yhiT]Ala' 16
Do not be excessively
righteous, and do not make yourself too shrewd – why should you be the cause of
your own desolation.
hBer“h' qyDIx' yhiT]Ala' The syntax of this clause is not difficult, and the meanings of the
individual words are not obscure.
But what does it mean to be righteous as opposed to 'excessively
righteous?' Based on the next
two clauses, Kohelet appears to mean 'do not become self-righteous.' Such an individual makes himself his
own standard of conduct and then tries to impose that standard on others.
rte/y μK'j't]TiAla'w“ μK'j't]Ti is a hithpael 2ms imperfect form of μKj, but the hithpael of this
root occurs just twice in the Hebrew bible (Ex 1:10 and Ecc 7:16), and Jastrow
lists the form but supplies no references for its use in rabbinic
writings. As a result, there are
limited resources for establishing a precise meaning for the usage here. The hithpael stem often conveys a
reflexive force, and the pael stem can intensify the root meaning. The example in Exodus 1:10 shows that
the verb can reflect actions and attitudes that are self-serving at the expense
of others. Since the last clause
cannot be understood positively, the usage here must be similar to that in
Exodus – Let us deal shrewdly with him (Israel)…
μme/VTi hM;l; μme/VTi is also a hithpael 2ms
imperfect from μmv. There are five
occurrences of this stem in the bible, so its usage is somewhat better
attested. The generally accepted
meaning is 'be astounded, be appalled, cause one's own devastation.' The implication is of the previous
verses is that difficulties may arise from two different sources:
· Difficulties may arise
simply because we live in a world that has been bent by the judicial decree of
God. No human is exempt from such
calamities.
· A person may become the
cause of calamities that enter his life as the result of the choices that he himself
makes.
.ÚT,[i
aloB] tWmt; hM;l; lk;s; yhiT]Ala'w“ hBer“h' [v'r“TiAla' 17
Do not be excessively wicked
and do not be a fool. Why should
you die before your time?
hBer“h' [v'r“TiAla' [v'r“Ti is a qal 2ms imperfect form from [vr, and its normal meaning is
'be wicked, become wicked.'
So what does his admonition, 'Do not become excessively wicked,'
mean? Does it mean that a little
wickedness is acceptable?
Kohelet's specific answer to this question is deferred until verse 20.
lk;s; yhiT]Ala'w“ This admonition should be self-evident from previous passages in the
book. The fool walks in darkness,
the fool delights in his own repose, the fool concentrates on momentary
pleasures without considering long term consequences. The fool may not be specifically wicked, a criminal, or a
habitual sinner, but by failing to consider possible consequences of his
choices he sets himself up for catastrophe.
ÚT,[i aloB] tWmt; hM;l; From the Semitic perspective a full life consisted of 70 or 80 years
(Ps 90:10). Many people – perhaps
most – failed to reach this full span due to chance circumstances from which
none of us are exempt. The point
here is that the way an individual conducts himself can be the cause of
calamities that enter his life, and those calamities can have fatal
consequences.
Úd<y:Ata,
jN'T'Ala' hZ,miAμg'w“ hz,B; zjoa‘T, rv,a} b/f 18
.μL;KuAta, axeyE
μyhiloa‘ arEy“AyKi
It is good that you should
grasp the one, and from the other do not relax your hand. Indeed, he who fears
God will go forth with both.
hz,B; zjoa‘T, The verb form is a qal 2ms imperfect from the root zja meaning 'grasp, take
hold of, take possession of.'
The verb is transitive and regularly takes a complement introduced by AB.
hZ,miAμg'w“ Literally, 'and also from this…'
Úd<y:Ata, jN'T'Ala' The verb form is a hiphil 2ms imperfect from jwn meaning 'cause to rest, set
down.'
μL;KuAta, axeyE μyhiloa‘
arEy“AyKi The most common approach in translation is to
render nearly every yKi in a context like this by for or by because. However, this clause does not give a
cause for the previous statement nor does it give an explanation. Rather, the force appears to be a
strong affirmation. The
interpretive problem is the content of what is being affirmed. Taken by themselves, these verses appear
to assert that one who fears God should be just a little bit righteous and also
a little bit wicked. Yet this
understanding is directly contradicted by the assertions in verses 8:12 and
8:13. The apparent conflict is
resolved by the following two verses.
.ry[iB;
Wyh; rv,a} μyfiyLiv' hr:c;[}me μk;j;l, z[oT; hm;k]j;h' 19
Wisdom is stronger for the
wise man than ten rulers who have been in the city.
μk;j;l, z[oT; hm;k]j;h' The verb form is a qal
3fs imperfect from zz[ with a root meaning of 'be strong.' Here, the form has been interpreted as
gnomic – a universal truth. The
verbal complement expresses advantage – for the benefit of the wise man.
μyfiyLiv' hr:c;[}me The preposition ˆmi expresses comparison – more than ten rulers. Without context, it is impossible to
determine if the verse refers to rulers present at the same time or to a
succession of rulers.
Nevertheless, this gives a rationale for seeking wisdom, which is the
focus of the first 14 verses in the chapter, but it does not directly address
the issue about qyDIx and [v;r:. That is present here.
ry[iB; Wyh; The qal 3mp form could
be rendered into English by simple past or by any perfect form. ry[iB; is definite, implying that
a particular city, perhaps Jerusalem, is in mind. If Jerusalem is in mind, the then reference is to a
succession of rulers that some in the city may still remember. The strength of the Jebusite city was
based on geography, strong walls, a strong army, and a water source inside the
city. The city was taken by
stealth and strategy not by the might of David's army.
.af;j‘y<
alow“ b/FAhc,[}y" rc,a} 6r<a;B; qyDIx' ˆyae μd:a; yKi 20
Because there is no
righteous man in the land, who does good and never sins.
6r<a;B; qyDIx' ˆyae μd:a;
yKi The yKi here does appear to give an
explanation as to why wisdom is more powerful than rulers as well as why
obsessing over righteousness is not advisable. Specifically, there is no righteous man in the land (the country
of Israel or the entire world for that matter). By definition, righteousness consists
in conformity to an external standard.
If that standards is Torah, then nobody except Yeshua has done it successfully
without fault.
af;j‘y< alow“
b/FAhc,[}y" rc,a} This clause defines what is meant
by righteous: a person who always does b/f and never misses the
mark. In this case, b/F must be what God has
defined as good, not good from a human perspective. Similarly, one who sins is by definition one who practices
wickedness. So, one who is excessively
righteous is one who is righteous in his own eyes – self-righteous – but
one who strives to be righteous in God's eyes will strive not to sin often.
ÚB,li
ˆTeTiAla' WrBed"y“ rv,a} μyrIb;D“h'Alk;l] μG" 21
.Úl,l]q'm] ÚD“b]['Ata,
[m'v]tiAalo rv,a}
Also, do not give your heart
to all of the words that are said (they say) so that you will not hear your
servant cursing (belittling, making light of) you.
μyrIb;D“h'Alk;l] This phrase is the predicate complement to ˆTeTi; it is presented first in
the clause for emphasis. WrBed"y“
rv,a} is a
relative clause modifying μyrIb;D“h'. The
relative clause literally means 'that they say,' but the impersonal
plural is often used as a substitute for the passive – to everything that is
said. Since there is no
antecedent to serve as subject for the verb ˆTeTiAla' ÚB,li is the core of the
sentence. Literally it means 'do
not give your heart,' but a more modern English rendering would be 'do
not pay attention.'
[m'v]tiAalo rv,a} The second half of the verse consists of a single relative clause
introduced by rv,a} and expressing result.
The specific result indicated is 'that you will not hear your servant….' Úl,l]q'm] is an irregular piel ms
participle from the root llq with a 2ms pronominal suffix as direct object. (The correct form is Úl,L]q'm].) This form is regularly translated 'curse,' but the
root meaning is 'be light;' so the ultimate force might be more like 'impugn,
make light of, belittle, denigrate.'
.μyrIjea}
T;l]L'qi hT;a'AμG' rv,a} ÚB,li [d"y: t/Br" μymi[;P]AμG' yKi 22
For also many times you
yourself know that even you have belittled others.
ÚB,li [d"y: [d"y: is a qal 3ms perfect from
of [dy. Here the perfect expresses a state or
condition that has been established over a period of time and now exists. ÚB,li – your heart, the
inner man – is the subject, so the net force is 'you know within yourself.'
hT;a'AμG' The adverb μG' appears twice in this verse. The first occurrence appears to be a standard
use meaning 'also,' but the second occurrence appears to have a less
common emphatic force – even you.
.yNiM,mi
hq;/jr“ ayhiw“ hm;K;j]a, yTir“m'a; hm;k]j;b' ytiySinI hz,AlK; 23
All of this I have tested
with wisdom. I said, ‘I will be
wise,’ but it (attaining to wisdom) was far from me.
hm;k]j;b' ytiySinI hz,AlK; Kohelet says 'All of this…,' but what is he referring
to? As a minimum, he is referring
to the preceding contents of chapter 7, but he could be referring to the entire
contents of the book up to this point.
yNiM,mi hq;/jr“ ayhiw“ hq;/jr“ is an fs adjective meaning 'far off' in either space or
time. Here it is used figuratively
to mean 'inaccessible.'
This is not a common use of the term in either biblical or later forms
of Hebrew. The irony of this verse
is that Kohelet begins by saying he tested everything with hm;k]j;, but he says in the last
clause that hm;k]j; was inaccessible to him.
That is, wisdom and understanding with respect to the specific two
questions under examination has eluded him.
.WNa,x;m]yI
ymi qmo[; qmo[;w“ hy:h;V,Ahm' q/jr: 24
Far off whatever it is and
very deep. Who can find it?
“hy:h;V,Ahm' q/jr: hm' is normally just an interrogative pronoun, interrogative adverb, or
exclamation, but when it is not the first element in its clause it can take the
significance of an indefinite pronoun – whatever. Here I have rendered the perfect form
of the verb as a stative, because he assumes an explanation exists whether he
can find it or not.
WNa,x;m]yI ymi This is a rhetorical question expecting a negative answer. If Kohelet cannot find the ultimate
meaning of things, then nobody else can either.
ˆ/Bv]j,w“
hm;k]j; vQeb'W rWtl'w“ t['d"l; yBiliw“ ynIa} yti/Bs' 25
.t/lle/h tWlk]Sih'w“ ls,K, [v'r< t['d"l;w“
I – even my heart – turned to
know and to explore, to seek wisdom and an accounting (explanation), and to
know wickedness of stupidity and the folly and madness.
vQeb'W rWtl'w“ t['d"l;
yBiliw“ ynIa} yti/Bs' This clause restates Kohelet's original objective presented in 1:13-17
– he set out to know by personal experience wisdom, madness, and folly. Yet, the verb string vQeb'W
rWtl'w“ t['d"l; poses an interpretive problem.
First, this combination of verbs was not used in the previous
passage. Second, the verb forms
are not all the same. The first
two are qal infinitive construct forms expressing purpose; the third is a piel
ms imperative form. This could
simply be the result of a scribal error for an original vQeb'l]W – and that is how the LXX
and most modern translations interpret the passage. Since the next clause begins with another infinitive
construct, this is the most likely explanation.
ˆ/Bv]j,w“ hm;k]j; vQeb'W ˆ/Bv]j,w“ hm;k]j; form a compound direct object for the verb. The pursuit and practice of hm;k]j; has been a major concern of
Kohelet from the beginning, but this is the first appearance of ˆ/Bv]j,. This term is an ms noun from the root bvj that occurs just three
times in the bible, so the precise meaning intended is difficult to
determine. In later Hebrew the
term referred to an accounting or to a reckoning of an account, and this is its
regular meaning in modern Hebrew.
t/lle/h
tWlk]Sih'w“ ls,K, [v'r< t['d"l;w“ This clause consists of a qal infinitive construct followed by a
compound direct object. The verb t['d"l; implies that he is seeking
intemate and experiential knowledge of the items listed as the direct
object. This direct object
consists either of four independent nouns, a construct chain followed by two
independent nouns, or two construct chains. Contradictory syntactic elements within the text make
absolute determination of the intended construction impossible. The three different possibilities are
as follows:
·
And to know wickedness,
stupidity, folly, and madness.
·
And to know wickedness of
stupidity, folly, and madness.
·
And to know wickedness of
stupidity and the folly of madness.
ls,K, is an ms noun that occurs about 11 times in the bible. BDB lists the meaning 'stupidity'
for this passage based on the root meaning of lsk, but it literally means 'loins.'
If we accept the meaning 'stupidity'
then the force of the construct chain is either 'the practice of wickedness
is stupid' (subjective genitive) or 'stupidity results in the practice
of wickedness' (objective genitive). Similarly, tWlk]si is an fs noun from the root lks that occurs seven times in the bible, all in this book. If we accept the construct chain
interpretation, then the combination means either 'foolishness arises from
madness' or 'madness results in foolishness.' (The problem with this interpretation
is that tWlk]Sih is
definite, making its use as as the governing word in a construct chain
ungrammatical.) t/lle/h is an fp noun from hl;le/h, which occurs just three
times in the bible. The nominal
form is developed from the poal stem of llh, which is rendered by 'be
mad' by BDB. The LXX
translation of this verse uses the term periforavn, which means 'going
around, revolving, error.'
μyrIWsa}
HB;li μymir:j}w" μydI/xm] ayhiArv,a} hV;aih;Ata, tw<M;mi rm' ynia}
ax,/mW 26
.HB; dk,L;yI afe/jw“
hN;M,mi fleM;yI μyhiloa‘h; ynep]li b/f h;yd<y:
I am finding the woman more
bitter than death who is a snare, her heart is a trap, and her hands are chains. A good man before God will escape from
her, but the sinner will be captured by her.
μydI/xm] ayhiArv,a}
hV;aih;Ata, tw<M;mi rm' This
forms a verbless clause that constitutes the direct object to the verb ax,/m. hV;aih;Ata, is the definite direct object, and tw<M;mi
rm' is the
predicate of the verbless clause. ayhiArv,a}… begins a relative clause
modifying hV;aih; and describes the character of a manipulating woman. Solomon loved many women, and scripture
says that his 1000 wives and concubines became a snare to him with the result
that he became disobedient to YHWH.
His disobedience had two aspects:
· In direct disobedience to
the command of Torah, he accumulated many wives, most of whom were foreign and
worshipped other gods.
· To please his foreign wives
he allowed the construction of altars to their foreign gods so his wives could
continue worshipping them.
hN;M,mi fleM;yI μyhiloa‘h;
ynep]li b/f The one who is 'good before God' is the
person who receives abundance plus the capability to enjoy what he has received
from God. Apparently Kohelet
excludes himself from this category, because he was ensnared by and sought to
please many such women.
.ˆ/Bv]h,
axom]li tj'a'l] tj'a' tl,h,qo hr:m]a; ytiax;m; hz< haer“ 27
See, this I have found, says
Kohelet, adding one thing to another to find an accounting,
ytiax;m; hz< haer“ Usually a pronoun is a substitute for a noun mentioned in the
immediately prior context, but in this case hz< looks forward to the
explanation in verse 28.
ytiax;m;
alow“ yvip]n" hv;q]BiAd/[ rv,a} 28
.ytiax;m; alo
hL,aeAlk;b] hV;aiw“ ytiax;m; 5l,a,me dj;a, μd:a;
… which still my soul
continues to seek, but I have not found.
I have found one man out of 1000, but a woman in all these I have not
found.
ytiax;m; alo hL,aeAlk;b]
hV;aiw“ Since Solomon had 1000 wives and concubines, he
could not have had a deep relation with many of them, and perhaps not any of
them. Those women were people too
and in need of company and comfort.
But they were confined to a harem and could have no relationship with
anybody except eunuchs or other harem women, and their children. On that basis it is not surprising that
all 1000 of Solomon's wives might have been scheming for his attention.
rv;y:
μd:a;h;Ata, μyhiloa‘h; hc;[ ;rv,a} ytiax;m; hz<Ahaer“ db'l] 29
.μyBir" t/nboV]ji
Wvq]bi hM;hew“
See, this alone I have found – God made man upright,
but they have sought out many explanations.
ytiax;m; hz<Ahaer“ db'l] Kohelet
has already stated that he had not been able to gain ultimate wisdom concerning
the specific questions he posed, but he did gain one specific insight.
rv;y: μd:a;h;Ata, μyhiloa‘h; hc;[;; This
is Kohelet's assessment of the way in which God originally created the world,
and particularly mankind. rv;y: is an ms adjective with a
primary meaning of 'straight,' though it is usually rendered by 'upright'
here. In either case, this
original state of being straight (upright) is in direct contrast to /tW“[i
rv,a}; that is,
the entire creation, and man's relation with God as well as with one another
are now bent, and according to verse 13 God is the one who bent it.
μyBir" t/nboV]ji Wvq]bi hM;hew“ This
clause expresses the human reaction to the bent condition under which he is
constrained to live. The
interpretive problem is that the scope of t/nboV]ji is nowhere specifically
elaborated. As a minimum, the
following may be included:
·
Many different gods having many different names, powers, and
characteristics.
·
Many different methods for trying to gain the favor of these gods.
·
Many different accounts of how the world came into being.
·
Many different accounts of how the gods govern the world.
·
Many different systems of governance between men.
None
of these accounts except Torah are straight, and the Torah confirms that our
relationship with God and with one another are now bent.
