A commentary on Ecclesiastes

I. (1.) The words of Koheleth, the son of David, king in Jerusalem. The meaning of the term Koheleth, and the question of authorship of the book, is discussed in the introduction. We have only to remark here on the use of the word דבר as it occurs in this book in the technical sense not only of a ‘word’ or ‘reason,’ but also including the matter or thing which the word represents. Usually it refers to words, reasonings, and matters connected with the mysteries of Providence——the whole treatise itself being argumentative and didactic, discussing the vanity, that is, the transitoriness, of human existence, as its topic.

(2.) Vanity of vanities, said Koheleth; vanity of vanities (very emphatic), the whole (הכל, with the article giving a slightly different notion to כל, the ‘whole collectively’ therefore; the word is equivalent to the Greek τὸ πᾶν, with the limitation however to human life in this world, as will become manifest in the course of the book) is vanity, (הבל, that which is ‘evanescent’ or ‘transitory,’ but never used in the modern sense of being frivolous or empty.) There is nothing of scoffing epicureanism in this book; the life of man is ever spoken of in the most serious and solemn tones. There is, indeed, much sarcasm, but it never touches upon lightness or indifference; it is always grave and solemn, and even when to superficial observation appearing equivocal or sceptical, proves, on further examination, to hide promises and hopes beneath its bitterness. This first verse may be looked upon as the text or topic of the discourse; Koheleth next proceeds to work out the argument suggested by it in detail.

(3.) What is? (expecting the answer no, and so nearly equivalent to a denial) the profit (יתרון, a word peculiar to this book——occurs chapter i. 3; ii. 11, 13 twice; iii. 9; v. 9 (8), 16 (15); vii. 12; x. 10, 11——i.e. ten times in all; it is a technical word, and is used to signify that which remains over and above after the act is performed, and apart from its present results. Koheleth uses frequently these nouns ending in ון——thus יתר ‘to extend,’ ‘run over,’ יתרון ‘remainder,’ זכר ‘remember,’ זכרון ‘remembrance,’ etc. These nouns are in their nature abstracts, but differ from the ordinary abstracts; see chapter i. 14) to man (לאדם, this word occurs in its different combinations forty-eight times in this book, and always with the signification of man as a member of the human race. There is a tone of personification about the word similar to that which occurs in the expression ‘the old Adam;’ when this generic character is not to be expressed, then איש or אנוש is used instead; see chapters i. 8; ix. 14 and 15), in all his toil (עמל, a favourite word of Koheleth, and used as frequently in this book as in all the rest of Scripture put together. The exact meaning to be affixed to it, and which, carefully kept in view, will be found to explain more than one otherwise obscure passage, is that toil, care, or anxiety which labour produces, and answers to the idea contained in our metaphor ‘takes pains;’ see chapter ii. 20), which he toils at (this is the first instance which occurs of the contracted relative ש־ joined to the word. Koheleth uses also the full relative אשר, but with a slight difference of meaning. The contracted relative refers to the word only which it joins, and in case of verbs often gives a subjunctive or optative meaning; the full relative refers back to the whole idea or clause. Hence the meaning of this passage is this, ‘Is there any abiding advantage to humanity of the pains of his labouring in so far as he does take pains, or toils’) under the sun (or in this present state of existence). The phrase תחת השמש occurs twenty-five times in this book, and is always expressive of a limitation. It shows that what is affirmed is to be understood as confined to its relation to this sublunary existence only. The idea implied is that of man toiling under the sun in the heat of the day in the sweat of his brow (Genesis iii. 17), and earnestly desiring the shadow (Job vii. 2), which shadow is yet the symbol of decaying life. It is true that Ecclesiastes is never quoted in the New Testament, but there are certainly several allusions to it, more or less direct; one of these apparently occurs Revelation vii. 16: οὐ πεινάσουσιν ἔτι, οὐδὲ διψήσουσιν ἔτι, οὐδ’ οὐ μὴ πέσῃ ἐπ’ αὐτοὺς ὁ ἥλιος, οὐδὲ πᾶν καῦμα——‘They shall hunger no more, neither thirst any more, neither shall the sun light on them by day, nor any heat.’ The Chaldee Targum expresses this idea quaintly but forcibly: ‘What advantage is there to a man after his death from all his labour which he laboured under the sun in this world, except he studied the word of God, in order to receive a good reward in the world to come from before the Lord of the world?’ In order to remind the reader of this meaning of the words ‘under the sun,’ I have whenever they occur paraphrased them by ‘in this hot work-day world’——not that this paraphrase is quite satisfactory, but it is the best I could find.

To answer the above question, Koheleth cites eight different instances; four from natural, and four from moral experience. Those we might call the eight unbeatitudes of this sermon.

(5.) And rises (i.e. ‘bursts out’ or ‘irradiates’) the sun, and sets the sun (as ‘sun’ is repeated, the second is equivalent to that same sun) and towards his place panting (this word ‘pant,’ שאף, occurs Job vii. 2; Psalm lvii. 3; Psalm cxix. 131, and denotes earnest desire: the metaphor is a very beautiful one in this context)——rising (irradiating) is he there.

(6.) Going (i.e. ‘walking,’ ‘proceeding,’ as in verse 4) towards the south (the quarter of warm winds), and turning round towards the north (the place of cold), turning turns, going the wind (there is in the Hebrew a concourse of sibilant letters imitating the sound of the wind, which is attempted to be rendered in the paraphrase), and in its turnings returns the wind (that is, ever goes round in the same circuits, as the Authorized Version translates). Thus we have an allusion to the four cardinal points of the universe, North, South, East, and West.

(7.) All the torrents (נחל, a mountain stream especially) are going to the sea, and the sea it is not full (equivalent to ‘that sea which is never filled or any fuller’), to the place to which the rivers (contract relative, meaning these same rivers) are going, thence are they returning to go back. (So the LXX.; others with the Authorized Version translate, ‘Thither they return again.’) It is to be remarked that this fact is scientifically accurate in statement. The Targum has the gloss that the rivers flow into the ocean which surrounds the world like a ring, and that they return again through the subterranean channels, but Koheleth knows nothing of such false philosophy.

(8.) All the words (with the article, and therefore generic; ‘matters’ or ‘things,’ in the technical sense of things reasoned about, see verse 1) are fatiguing (so the LXX. and Vulgate; Ginsburg has ‘feeble;’ Preston, ‘in activity;’ and Hengstenberg, ‘all words become weary;’ but the ancient verses make better sense with the context), not possible is it for a man (not אדם here, but איש = ‘one,’ or ‘any one’) to utter them (לדבר, ‘to speak rationally concerning them,’ and so to account for their existence or explain their nature. The impossibility of exhausting a subject by talking or reasoning about it is here the point, as is evident from the order of the words); not satisfied (answering to the ‘not possible’ above) is the eye with seeing, and not is filled the ear by sound (or by what it hears). So then, while the consideration of any matter is pretty sure to produce weariness, it is quite certain not to produce satisfaction.

(9.) What is that which has been? it is the same which will be; and what is that which has been done? it is the same which will be done (so the LXX., literally following the Heb. text), and there is nothing all new under the sun. The Authorized Version understands by this ‘no new thing;’ but the peculiar position of this word ‘all’ seems to imply that ‘nothing’ must be taken with some slight qualification,——nothing morally new. The next verse admits material novelty.

(10.) There is (יש, which is so far different from היה that it assumes the existence as a fact, ‘There really are matters which are called new’) a matter which one says (contracted relative joined to the verb, and giving an emphasis to it, equivalent therefore to our ‘of which it may be said, indeed’) see this new it is (emphatic) the present (כבר occurs eight times, viz., i. 10, ii. 12, 16, iii. 15 twice, iv. 2, vi. 10, and ix. 6, 7——in Ecclesiastes only; it is a technical word used to denote the present state of things, that part of the עלם or ‘age’ which is now in existence. In the later Hebrew and Syriac it is used as an adverb, ‘already,’ but that is not its use here. This remark is the more important because it is one of those so-called Aramaic words, the occurrence of which is supposed to indicate the late period of this book’s composition. A careful observance of its real import will throw considerable light on several very obscure passages. Generally, it may be taken for granted that if Koheleth uses a new word or form not known in other parts of the Scriptures, it is because he desires to indicate a new idea.) It was to the ages which (full relative, referring back, therefore, to the whole sentence) were from before us (as we have ages in the plural, followed by a singular verb, היה, the meaning is some one of the ages). This thing which is said to be new is really one of those forgotten matters which existed in one or other of the eras which were before our time.

(12.) I (emphatic) Koheleth was king over Israel in Jerusalem. Ginsburg supposes that by this declaration that he was king, he intends to imply that he was so no longer; but not only does the LXX. render by an imperfect, but the same word occurs in precisely the same form at Exodus ii. 22, and clearly at the time there mentioned Moses continued to be a stranger in Midian. The object in stating this fact is rather to show that as a king he possessed peculiar facilities for making the investigation, an account of which follows.

(13.) And I set my heart (gave great pains to, or thought much on, see i. 17, vii. 21, viii. 9, 10; Daniel x. 12; 1 Chronicles xxii. 19) to inquiring (דרש, being used of something lost or hidden, Genesis xxv. 22, Deuteronomy xxii. 2) and to investigating (תור, refers to spying out or searching, Numbers xiii. 15, chapter vii. 25) in wisdom (the Authorized Version considers that wisdom was the means by which inquiry was made) concerning (על, over) all which (equivalent to ‘all that which’) is done (but being niphal it has an objective sense, and includes what is suffered) under the heavens (this formula occurs chapter ii. 3, and iii. 1, and is of larger import than under the sun) it is (‘I mean that’ is the equivalent expression in English) uncertainty (ענין, this is another technical word, it occurs eight times, chapter i. 13, ii. 23, 26, iii. 10, iv. 8, v. 3 (4), viii. 16, and a careful comparison of places will show that the meaning is ‘uncertainty,’ accompanied with ‘anxiety’ as to what is to happen in the future) which is an evil (for it is without the article) given of God (without the article; because God is here used personally, it is nominative to נתן of course, but as the nominative follows the verb, this is the best way of rendering in this case) to the sons of the Adam (the ‘whole human race’ is the meaning of this form), that they may be made anxious (LXX. τοῦ περισπᾶσθαι) therewith (emphatic).

(14.) I have seen (I have observed, that is) with respect to all actions (את is here emphatic as standing first) which are performed (niphal and contracted relative, hence having the meaning in so far as they are or may be done) under the sun (for without this limitation the above proposition would not be true), and behold (asserting a matter of fact patent to all) the whole (with the article and in its usual sense, see chapter i. 2) is a vanity (i.e. an instance of something evanescent) and a vexation of spirit (רעות, occurs seven times in this book, viz., chapters i. 14, ii. 11, 17, 26, iv. 4, 6, and vi. 9; רעיון occurs three times, i. 17, ii. 22, iv. 16. These words have usually been regarded as absolutely synonymous, and hitherto the difference of meaning has not been noticed; but there is a slight difference, as a comparison of places will show. The exact sense to be attached to them is a matter of dispute, and ‘a windy notion,’ ‘striving after the wind,’ have been proposed, but the rendering of the LXX., προαίρεσις, ‘distraction,’ represents the meaning best. With regard to רעות we may notice that it is formed quite regularly from רעה, which is ‘evil,’ in the sense of something that ‘hurts’ or ‘offends,’ and is in the nature of a collective plural; so do we account at once for the peculiar pointing and for the rendering of the LXX. On the other hand, רעיון has, as nouns with this termination usually have, a more subjective meaning; the distinction between the two is that between ‘vexations of’ and ‘vexing of’ spirit; thus in verse 17, where the trouble came from his own spirit, caused by his inability to explain the difficulty which confronted him in his argument, Koheleth uses the subjective form).

(15.) A crookedness (occurs chapters vii. 13, xii. 3, and Amos viii. 5, whence it appears that the precise meaning is moral obliquity) not enabled to be set in order (occurs chapter i. 15, vii. 18, xii. 9, only), a defect (occurs here only, but see Deuteronomy xxviii. 48, 57, where the root is used of famine, and 1 Kings xvii. 16, to denote the failure of the oil) not enabled (repeated, hence we must render ‘it is equally impossible’) to be numbered (infinitive plural niphal). The meaning of this verse has been very much disputed, but if it be considered as the sequel to what went immediately before, the sense will be quite plain. We may discern in it a fourfold description of human life, in respect of its cares and anxieties and uncertainties, the first point being (i.) that this care is for something evanescent; (ii.) that it is vexatious; (iii.) and then this anxiety is useless, because life is so perverted as to be beyond the possibility of being set in order by any care of ours; (iv.) and so defective that no account can be given which would set it right: ‘which of you by taking thought can add one cubit to his stature?’

(16.) Reasoned I myself together with my heart to say (as reasoned stands first, this is the subject of the whole, and the words ‘to say,’ לאמר, are the usual formula of introduction of the thing said; they are equivalent to our ‘to this effect.’ This then is Koheleth’s reasoning, the result of which is to be given), I behold (stating it as an admitted and patent fact) I have been made great, and I have been added to in wisdom above all which were before me in Jerusalem, and my heart has seen the much (with the article expressed; equivalent therefore to very much, or as much as possible of) wisdom and knowledge.

(17.) And I have given my heart in order to know wisdom (that is, he made wisdom his special study and object) and the knowledge of (‘know’ being repeated rises into special prominence, and hence the meaning is to know wisdom, or to be wise enough to recognise) false expectations and prudences. (This passage is one of great difficulty, but the exact sense will become apparent on investigating the meaning of the two words הוללות and שכלות; now הוללות occurs chapter i. 17, ii. 12, vii. 25, ix. 3, and pointed with Shurek at x. 13, and is peculiar to Ecclesiastes. It is a technical word, and is correctly translated ‘folly,’ but it is that kind of folly which displays itself in false joy. The future poel from which this noun is derived occurs Job xii. 17, chapter vii. 7, Isaiah xliv. 25; and the participle at chapter ii. 2, Psalm cii. 89. Thus we see the connexion between this sense and the more ordinary one of ‘praise;’ it is the ‘bepraised’ used in a bad sense. The word שכלות occurs here only, but it is rendered by the LXX. ἐπιστήμη, and by the Syriac , compare also Genesis xli. 33, with the meaning ‘prudence,’ and with this agrees the later Hebrew. Now these meanings make consistent sense. Koheleth wished to know wisdom and the knowledge of folly and prudence; in other words, to have a wisdom which could tell the one from the other. Thus the LXX. render הל״ by παραβολὰς, which A² has altered into περιφορὰν; this apparently very strange rendering is thus intelligible enough, especially to those who had the Hebrew before them. To alter the text to סכלות, as some have proposed, is not even to cut the Gordian knot, for with the true meaning of this word, ‘clever-folly,’ ‘false-wisdom,’ no better sense will be made, although it is quite possible that שכ״ may have been chosen for the equivoke it gives, not even differing in sound, if the pointing can be trusted, from סכ״. The truth is that so much of our elaborate wisdom and best plans are but elaborate mistakes, that to attempt to judge the one from the other is a hopeless task. Hence then the following) I know (this is the fourth time this word occurs in the clause, thus it is brought out with the very strongest prominence, and gives the meaning ‘what I do know is’) that even this (שגם, compare places chapter ii. 15, viii. 14, has a peculiar meaning, expressive of surprise that this should be so) really is vexing of spirit (רעיון, not רעות, as above; because in this case the vexation is subjective,——the idea conveyed by the whole passage being ‘what I do know as the result of my wisdom and knowledge being just even this, that it is only a vexing of the spirit’). It may be observed that רעיון occurs in the Chaldee of Daniel——see Daniel ii. 29, 30; iv. 19 (16); v. 6, etc., always in the sense of a ‘painful reflection,’ but in later Chaldee and Syriac as ‘a reflection’ of any kind. As the sense in which Koheleth uses the word is the nearest to the root-meaning, is it not an evidence, so far, of earlier composition of his book?

(18.) For (introducing a reason for this conclusion as follows) in much wisdom is much grief (grief in the sense of ‘vexation,’ caused by disappointment——see chapter ii. 23, vii. 3, 9, xi. 10, 1 Samuel i. 6. The LXX. translate by γνῶσις, ‘knowledge’! Is it possible that they intended to refer to Genesis ii. ♦17, using γνῶσις in a bad sense?) and he that increases knowledge increases sorrow (chapter ii. 23; Exodus iii. 7, of the Israelitish sorrows at the hands of their task-masters). ‘In a world like this much science is much sorrow, for it is the knowledge of penury, the statistics of starvation, the assurance that our case is desperate.’——[Hamilton.]

Even the wisdom of Solomon having failed to find any solution of the problem of human anxiety, he next tries mirth, but with no better success. This experiment takes only two verses to record, for it was but soon over.