Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.comKeil and Delitzsch Commentary - Ecclesiastes 6:10 - 6:10
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
“That which hath been, its name hath long ago been named; and it is determined what a man shall be: and he cannot dispute with Him who is stronger than he.” According to the usage of the tense, it would be more correct to translate: That which (at any time) has made its appearance, the name of which was long ago named, i.e., of which the What? and the How? were long ago determined, and, so to speak, formulated. This שְׁ ... כְּבָר does not stand parallel to הָיָה כבר, Ecc 1:10; for the expression here does not refer to the sphere of that which is done, but of the predetermination. Accordingly, אָדָם ... וְנוֹ is also to be understood. Against the accents, inconsistently periodizing and losing sight of the comprehensiveness of אדם ... אשׁר, Hitzig renders: “and it is known that, if one is a man, he cannot contend,” etc., which is impossible for this reason, that אדם הוא cannot be a conditional clause enclosed within the sentence יוכל ... אשׁר. Obviously וְנוֹדָע, which in the sense of constat would be a useless waste of words, stands parallel to שׁמו נקרא, and signifies known, viz., previously known, as passive of ידע, in the sense of Zec 14:7; cf. Psa 139:1. Bullock rightly compares Act 15:18. After ידע, asher, like ki, which is more common, may signify “that,” Ecc 8:12; Eze 20:26; but neither “that he is a man” (Knobel, Vaih., Luzz., Hengst., Ginsb.), nor “that he is the man” (Ewald, Elst., Zöckler), affords a consistent meaning. As mah after yada' means quid, so asher after it may mean quod = that which (cf. Dan 8:19, although it does not at all stand in need of proof); and id quod homo est (we cannot render הוּא without the expression of a definite conception of time) is intended to mean that the whole being of a man, whether of this one or that one, at all times and on all sides, is previously known; cf. to this pregnant substantival sentence, Ecc 12:13. Against this formation of his nature and of his fate by a higher hand, man cannot utter a word.
The thought in 10b is the same as that at Isa 45:9; Rom 9:20. The Chethı̂b שֶׁהתַּקִּיף
(Note: With He unpointed, because it is omitted in the Kerı̂, as in like manner in כְּשֶׁה, Ecc 10:3, שׁה, Lam 5:18. In the bibl. Rabb., the ה is noted as superfluous.)
is not inadmissible, for the stronger than man is מִנֵּהּ ... מָרֵי. Also הִתְקִיף might in any case be read: with one who overcomes him, has and manifests the ascendency over him. There is indeed no Hiph. הִתְ .hpiH found in the language of the Bible (Herzf. and Fürst compare הִגְ, Psa 12:5); but in the Targ., אַתְקֵף is common; and in the school-language of the Talm., הִתְ is used of the raising of weighty objections, e.g., Kamma 71a. The verb, however, especially in the perf., is in the passage before us less appropriate. In לֹא־יוּכַל lie together the ideas of physical (cf. Gen 43:32; Deu 12:17; Deu 16:5, etc.) and moral inability.