Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - Ecclesiastes 5:1 - 5:20
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Ecc_5:1-20
1. First means: Conscientious devotion in the worship of God, in prayer and vows
(Ecc_5:1-7.)
(Ecc_5:8-17.)
(Ecc_5:18-20.)
[chap.Ecc_5:1. ùְׁîֹø øַâְìְéêָ in the Hebrew Bibles, the German and Dutch versions, the Vulgate, and some others, this is absurdly placed as the last verse of the 4. chapter. In the English, Tremellius, and others, it commences the 5., where it evidently belongs; although the division of chapters, as given in this book is, in any way, of little valne. The Masora has pointed øַâְìְéêָ for the singular, corresponding to LXX and vulgate, though the sense is equally good in the plural. For the connection of this part with the precending, consult Wordsworth, who sees in the train of though, in all these remarks about reshness in the divine service, and in respect to vows and rash religious speaking, smothing closely connected with the true Solomonic experience, and therefore furnising evidence of the solomonic authorship of the book. As uttered by any one else, it would seem disconnected and chaotic, just as some critics have pronounced it. For remarks on ÷øåá and îúú see Exeg. and Marginal Note.—T. L.]
[Ecc_5:6. ìַäֲèéà for ìְäַäֲèִéà , Hiph. Infinit. äַîַּìְàָêְ see Exeg. and Marginal Note.—T. L.]
[Ecc_5:7. åּãְáָøִéí , the same.—T. L.]
[Ecc_5:8. çֵôֶõ , a very general and indefinite word, hero rendered, in E.G., matter (thing),LXX. ðñÜãìáôé , Vulgate negotio. It never, however, loses its sense of purpose, will, etc., either as positive or permissive,—as it may be rendered here, allow ance God’s permission of such a thing: see Met. Version.—T. L.]
[Ecc_5:9. ðֶòְáָã . see Exeg. and Marg. Note.—T. L.]
[Ecc_5:10. øְàéú : The Keri has øְàåּú , It is one of those words in åּú that have been cited as evidence of a later language. It is, however, one of those more studied solomonic words, denoting something philosophical, ethical, or abstract, denanded by the very subject and style of his writting. They are a higher class of words than were needed by the plainer historian, or prophet. They may have been invented by solomon as to form (from old and common roots), and afterwards have become vulgarized in the latter writtings—thus giving rise to the later Aramaic forms, instead of having been derived from them: Vision of the eyes, a somewhat more polished, or loftier word, than the infinitive to see, or Sight.—T. L.]
Ecc_5:16. øָòָä çåìָä : Gesenius makes çåìä from çָìָä to be sick, weak, etc., but this does not seem to give a sense strong enough. Rabbi Tanchum makes it from çåּì , to be in great pain, torqueri doloribus, and compares it with the participle îִúְçåֹìֵì (Jer_23:19,) overwhelming, or a “storm hurled ( ñַòַø ) on the head of the wicked”—a very sore and “overwhelming evil,” is this, if man has to return just as he came, e tenebris in tenebras, out of darkness. see Tanchum Comm., Lam_4:6 Same verse ëָּìÎòֻîַּú The grammarian, Jona Ben Gennach, in his sepher Harikma, p. 30, regards this as one word, or as an example of ë added (as it sometimes is with slight addition to the meaning) to ìòîú , (as in direct contrast). òֻîַּú is cited as one of the words Sequioris Hebraismi, but the root
òîí although, only occurring as a verb, Eze_28:3; Eze_31:8, is very old in the language, as appears from òָí people, the preposition òִí with, òִָîéú society, companion, all denoting, radically, comparison, one thing along with, or laid by the side of another (compare the Arabic Úَãَّ and many Greek words commencing with ὁì such as ὁìüò , ὅìùò , ὁìῶò , ὁìïῖò , with their numerous derivatives, all implying comparison, society, likeness, etc.). This word òֻîָּä occurs in Exo_25:27; Exo_28:27.
Ecc_5:18. àָðִé : [On the effect of the accent here see Exeg. and Marg. Note. The same on æäֹ Ecc_5:19.—T. L]
2. First division, first strophe: Ecc_5:1-3. Of true piety in, the worship of God, and in prayer.—Keep thy foot when thou goest to the house of God. The k’tib øַâְìֶéêָ is to be preferred to the keri øַâְìְó . The latter appears to be modeled according to the passages in Pro_4:26; Pro_25:17, and others, which present “foot ” in the singular. For “feet” in the plural in similar expressions comp. Pro_1:16; Pro_6:18; Psa_119:59, etc. The sense of this exhortation is: “guard thy steps when thou goest to the house of the Lord, that thou mayest enter it with sacred composure, and carefully avoid everything that would interfere with thy devotion.” See Hengstenberg: “The object is to preserve the heart, but as he goes, the heart receives its impressions, and is thus affected by it. The author doubtless speak of the feet because by them has often been discovered the’ tendency of the heart.” And be more ready to hear, etc. (Ger., to approach in order to hear is better). The preposition îִï , without èåּá , may in itself express the preference of one thing over another; comp. Ecc_9:17; Isa_10:10; Eze_15:2. ÷ָøåֹá is not here for the imperative “be near,” (Luther, Hengstenberg, etc.), but is an actual infinitive absolute, and as such subject of the sentence; comp. Pro_25:27; Isa_7:15-16. “To hear” does not mean to listen to the reading of the Thora during the service, (Hitzig) but “to obey, to regard the voice of God with the heart, to do His will;” comp. 1Sa_15:22; Jer_7:23. We have here the same contrast between external sacrifice and holy intent as in Pro_21:3; Pro_21:27; Isa_1:11 ft.; Hos_6:6, etc.—Than to give the sacrifice of fools. This sacrifice ( æֶáֲç ) is specially pointed out from among the number of sacrifices, as also in Psa_40:6; Hos_6:6; 1Sa_15:22. “To give the sacrifice,” does not mean to give a sacrificial feast, (Hitzig), but to offer a sacrifice to God in order to satisfy him, or in order to appease one’s conscience.—For they consider not that they do evil. Fools, whose sacrifice is an offence to God on account of their evil dispositions (comp. Pro_21:27; and also the exegetical illustrations of this passage) do evil in sacrificing to Him, and nevertheless know it not, but rather suppose, in their folly, that their conduct is well pleasing to Him. As this thought (comp. Luk_23:34) exactly fits the passage, and there is no linguistic difficulty in the explanation (for the construction àֵéðָí éåֹãְòִéí ìַòֲùׂåֹú øַò , “they know not that they do evil,” comp. Jer_15:15; 1Ki_19:4; Neh_13:27) the renderings of the passage that vary from this are to be condemned. They are such as that of Hahn, (and many older commentators): “in their ignorance they can only do evil,” or of Knobel and Vaihinger: “They are not troubled about doing evil,” or of Hitzig; “For they know not how to be sorrowful” (for which sense reference is made to 2Sa_12:18; Isa_56:12, etc.). The nearest to our view is that of the Vulgate, and of Luther: “for they know not what evil they do,” which, however, cannot be philologically justified. Ecc_5:2. Be not rash with thy mouth. This censure of outward sacrifice is immediately followed by that of thoughtless words, and empty babbling in prayer, the next important element of divine worship in the temple. “To be rash with thy mouth” is essentially the same as that âáôôïëüãåéí against which Christ warns us, perhaps with conscious reference to this passage, Mat_6:7, f.—And let not thine heart be hasty to utter anything before God. “Before God,” i.e., in the temple, in the place of the special presence of God, comp. Psa_42:2; Isa_1:12. This warning against rash, thoughtless, and unnecessary words in prayer, is as little in contradiction with apostolic directions as found in 1Th_5:17; Col_3:17; Php_4:6, as is the warning of Christ against idle words, at war with His own repeated admonitions to zealous and continuous prayer, e.g., Luk_11:5 ff; Luk_18:1, ff.; Joh_14:13; Joh_16:23, etc.—For God is in heaven, and thou upon the earth. The majesty of God, in contrast with the lowliness of men, is here made clear by the contra-position of heaven and earth, as in Psa_115:3; Psa_115:16; Isa_55:7 ff; Isa_66:1; Mat_5:34, f.
Ecc_5:3. For a dream cometh through the multitude of business; and a fool’s voice is known by a multitude of words. That is, just as a too continued, exciting, and anxious occupation of the mind ( òִðְéָï ) produces the phenomenon of confused and uneasy dreams, by which the sleep is disturbed, so the habit of an excess of words, causes the speech to degenerate into vain and senseless twaddle. The first clause of the verse serves solely as an illustration of the second; the comparison, as in Ecc_7:1; Pro_17:3; Pro_27:21; Job_5:7, etc., is effected by simply placing the sentences in juxtaposition, merely putting the copulative conjunction before the second (comp. the Int. to Proverbs, § 14 p. 32). Ewald assumes a continuous train of thought, asserting that from too much annoyance come dreams, from these, all kinds of vain and superfluous words, and, finally, from these, foolish speech; but this is decidedly opposed to the fact that äַçִַìåֹí is necessarily to be understood as a designation of the actual dream, not of a dreamy, thoughtless nature, and that the derivation of a wordy nature from the latter would be in violation of all psychological experience.
3. First Division, second strophe.
Vers, 4–7. Of pious conscientiousness in vowing and the fulfilment of vows. For Ecc_5:4-5 see Deu_23:22-24, whose ordinances are here almost literally repeated.—For he hath no pleasure in fools.— ëּñִìִéí are frivolous men, who are equally ready to make vows of every kind, but then delay their performance from indolence or selfishness. Of them it is said: àֵéï çֵôֶõ áָּäֶí “there is no pleasure in them,” namely, with God; for the context obliges us thus to finish the thought,
Ecc_5:5. Better is it that thou shouldst not vow, than, etc.—.Comp. Deu_23:22 : “But if thou shalt forbear to vow, it shall be no sin in thee;” also Act_5:4. Ecc_5:6. Suffer not thy mouth to cause thy flesh to sin.— áָּùָׂø here marks the body as the seat of desire, therefore of sensuality and fleshly sense in general, as the New Testament ó ̓́ Üñî ; Ecc_2:3 is also similar to this. The description of James, in Ecc_3:6 f. of his Epistle, gives a clear testimony that the sensuality of man is sinfully excited by the sins of the tongue, or the mouth, and can be enkindled by the fire of evil passion; and Hengstenberg should not have quoted this passage as a proof of his position that “flesh” here signifies the entire personality. Hitzig translates: “Let not thy mouth bring thy body to punishment,” but fails to give the proof for the possibility of the rendering of äֶçֶèéà in the sense of “bringing to punishment, atoning for.”—Neither say thou before the angel that it was an error.—[Zöckler here renders îַìְàָêְ messenger, to accommodate to his exegesis.—T. L.]. îַìְàָêְ , Messenger, i.e., Jehovah’s [Comp. Hag_1:13; Mal_1:3], is here the designation of the priest or announcer and expounder of the divine law; comp. Mal_2:7, the only passage of the O. T. where this expression is used of the priest; and see also in the N. T. Rev_1:20; Rev_2:1 ff., where ἄããåëïò is used essentially in the same sense. “That it was an error” [ ùְׁðָâָä as in Num_15:27 ff.] is the characteristic evasion of religious superficiality and levity, which seek to excuse unfulfilled vows by declaring the neglect of them a mere error or precipitation [an unintentional error]; cornp. Mal_1:8; Mat_15:5, etc. Hitzig: “it was a thoughtlessness,—that is, that I made the vow at all.” But a vow solemnly declared before the priest could not thus be recalled without further ceremony by declaring that it was vowed in a, thoughtless manner. The thoughtless delinquent will wish to represent the evasion of its fulfilment as simply a sin of weakness or precipitation, whilst it is in reality a crime of a very serious character [comp. Elstee and Hengsten-beeg on this passage].—Why should God be angry at thy voice [which thou dost misuse in a vile, sophistical and God-tempting evasion] and destroy the work of thy hands—that is, punish thee, therefore, by a failure of all thy undertakings, and destruction of all treasures and goods? For the warning sense of the question with ìָîָּä comp. Ecc_7:16-17; Psa_90:17; 2 Chron. 10:37; Ezr_4:22; Ezr_7:23. Verse 7. For in the multitude of dreams and many words there are also divers vanities. Just as in verse 3, dreams are here also to be taken only as examples of the vanity of making many word, and of its bad consequences. As we can reasonably conclude that one who has much to do with dreams [comp. Jer_23:33; Zec_10:1] is an unreliable man, little fitted for the duties and afl’airs of sober reality, therefore the wordiest babbler will inspire in us the least confidence. Ewald and Heiligstedt’s view: “for in too many dreams are too many vanities and words,” is opposed by the connection, which shows that no information is to be imparted here concerning the nature and signification of dreams, and then also the circumstance that it is not very clearly to be seen in how far dreams may cause much useless prattle.—But fear thou God, so that thou dost really try to fulfill what thou hast vowed to Him. ëִé , because co-ordinate with the preceding, is to bo translated by “but,” and not “thus;” for it expresses in a conclusive manner the contrast to verse 6.
4. Second Division, first strophe, a: Ecc_5:8-9.—On avoiding injustice and violence—If thou seest the oppression of the poor, and violent perverting of judgment and justice in a province. Comp. Ecc_3:16; Ecc_4:1, ff. (Ger., robbery of judgment and justice). This is a robbery committed against these objective and divine laws, a violation of them by exactions, and other violence. Such violations of judgment are most likely to be practiced in the provinces, far from the seat of the king and the highest courts, by governors and generals. Therefore here îְãִéðָä , by which is doubtless meant the province in which the author lives, that is, Palestine. Comp. Ezr_5:8; Neh_1:3; Neh_7:6; Neh_11:3, and also the Int. § 4, Obs. 2.—Marvel not at the matter.— çֵôֶõ [Comp. Ecc_3:1], is neither absolutely the same as “cause, matter,” [Hitzig] nor does it indicate the divine pleasure, the execution of divine decrees, (as Hengstenberg). It is rather the violent doing of the thieving officials that is meant, the “such is my pleasure,” of rulers, “who usually commence their edicts with these words: it seems good to me, it is good in presence of the king, Dan_3:22; Dan_6:2; Dan_4:22; Eze_5:17.” (Hengstenberg). For the exhortation not to marvel at such things, not to be surprised, comp. 1Pe_4:12 : ἀãáðçôὸé ìὴ îåíßæåóèå ê . ô . ë .—For he that is higher than the highest regardeth; and there be higher than they. That is, over the lofty oppressor stands a still higher ruler, the king; and even over him, should he not aid suffering innocence in its rights, is a still higher one, the King of kings, and Supremo Judge of the world. âְáäִֹéí is, as it were, a plural of majesty, serving for a most emphatic designation of the fulness of eternal power in the Godhead; it is the same construction as áּåֹøְàִéí , “Creator,” Ecc_12:1; ÷ְãåֹùִׁéí Pro_9:10; Pro_30:8; Hos_12:1. òֶìְéåֹðִéí , Dan_7:18; Dan_7:22, etc. Comp. Ewald, § 178 b. We cannot let this expression refer to the king as the highest earthly judge and potentate, on account of its analogy with other plural names of Deity. It is extremely unfitting, indeed almost absurd, to refer the second high one to a supreme judge, and the âְּáäִֹéí to the governor (Hitzig). For a poor consolation would be offered to the oppressed by a reference merely to these courts, as certain as “that one crow does not pick out the eyes of another,” (a very poorly sustained proverb, quoted by Hitzig himself). Ecc_5:9. Moreover, the profit of the earth is for all; the king himself is served by the field. That is, notwithstanding that God alone rules as highest judge and avenger over all the destinies of men, we are not to despise the protection and safety which an earthly authority affords, especially a strong kingly government, that can protect the fields from devastation, and their boundaries from intrusion. áְּëָì äִéà [so is it to be read, as in the K’tib, instead of áְּëָì äåּà ] is of like meaning with áְּëָì æֹàú , “in all this”—or “notwithstanding all this,” as it is Isa_9:11. The concluding words îֶìֶêְ ìְùָׂãֶä ðִòְáָã can neither mean: “a king honored by the land” (Knobel and Vaihinger), nor: “a king honored throughout the whole land” (Hahn), nor: “a king to till the field” (Luther, Starke, etc.), nor: “a king subject to the field” (Herzfeld), nor: rex agro addictus, (Rosenmueller, Dathe, etc.), nor: “a king to the tilled field,” namely, “a profit and advantage to it,” (Hitzig, Hengstenberg, comp. also the Sept.). ðֶòְáָã is here used -rather in the sense of “made, installed, placed,” in accordance with the Chaldaio signification of òùׂä=òáã , Dan_3:1; Dan_3:15; Dan_3:29; Dan_7:21; Ezr_4:19, etc., and ùָׂãֶä , field, is a poetical synonym of àøõ (Comp. Gen_2:5; Gen_4:7; Rth_1:6), here undoubtedly chosen because agriculture, this principal occupation of the provinces (comp. Ecc_2:8) can only prosper through the protection and propitious influence of the king. Compare the very close connection in which the religion of the Chinese, Persians, Egyptians, and Romans placed the royal office with agriculture. It does not militate against the view sustained by us that there is no definite article before ùãä . Comp. Ewald. § 277, b; and quite as little does this view disagree with the verbal collocation, as will be seen by comparing Ecc_9:2; Isa_42:24; Dan_6:8.
5. Second Division, first strophe b, and second strophe a. b: Ecc_5:10-17. On avoiding avarice and covetousness.—As in Deu_16:19; Amo_8:4 ff.; Pro_15:25-27; Sir_10:8, so we have here the condemnation of the coarser form of covetousness, which does not shun open injustice and violence, and, directly afterwards, that of the love of money and desire of gain operating with more delicate, more genteel, and apparently more just means.—He that loveth silver shall not be satisfied with silver, i. e., not satisfied in mind, and consequently not happy. Comp. the Horatian line: Semper avarus eyet (Ep. I, Ecc_2:20); also Ovid Fast. I, 211 S.:
“Creverunt et opes et opum furiosa cupido;
Et cum posideant plurima plura volunt”
Nor he that loveth abundance with increase. Lit.,“loveth tumult;” äָîåֹï in other places, “noise, turmoil of a great multitude of people,” here means, as in Psa_37:16, the multitude of possessions; and àäá áְ means as elsewhere çôõֹ á
Ecc_5:11. When goods increase, they are increased that eat them. Lit. “their eaters, their consumers.” The meaning here is clearly the numerous servants of a rich household. Comp. Job_1:3; 1Ki_5:2, if.—And what good is there to the owners thereof ?— ëִֹּùְׁøåֹï here, “fortune, gain,” different from Ecc_2:21; Ecc_4:4. The plural áòìéí has here a singular meaning, as in Ecc_5:12; Ecc_7:11; Ecc_8:8; Pro_3:27.—Save the beholding of them with their eyes, i.e., only the empty, not really satisfying feeling of pleasure at the sight of heaped-up treasures. In place of øְàִéú read øְàåּú with, the Keri.
Ecc_5:12. The sleep of a laboring man is sweet, whether he eat little or much; i. e., whether he enjoys a generous food, or must be satisfied with a scanty nourishment.— òáֵֹã “laborer” is different from òֶáֶã “slave,” and also from îַñ òáֵֹã “serf;” it means in general every one, who according to divine direction in Gen_3:19; Exo_20:9, must earn his bread in the sweat of his brow, be he vassal or freeman.—But the abundance of the rich will not suffer him to sleep. Hieronymus justly says: incocto cibo in stomachi augustiis æestuante.— äַùָׂáָò ìֶòָùִׁéø , a paraphrase for the genitive like äַöּåֹôִéí ìְùָׁàåּì 1Sa_14:18, etc.; comp. Ewald, § 292, a.—For this sentence comp. Horace, Sat. I., 1, 76 ss.; Juvenal, Sat. X., 12 s.; XIV., 304; also Publ. Syrus: “Avarum irritat non satiat pecunia.”
Ecc_5:13-17. Second strophe: The annoying and inconstant nature of wealth. There is a sore evil; lit., “a painful evil;” çåֹìָä equivalent to the participle Neph ðַçְìָä Jer_14:17; Nah_3:19.—Riches kept for the owners thereof to their hurt. Carefully guarded wealth proves a misfortune to the possessor when the latter loses this transitory and unreliable possession, and becomes, thereby, more unhappy than if he had never possessed it. The only correct illustration of this thought is afforded by Ecc_5:14. Ecc_5:14. But these riches perish by evil travail.— òִðְéָï , lit., “annoyance, hardship,” as in Ecc_1:13; Ecc_4:8, does not here mean the unprofitable business, the unfortunate administration of the affairs of the rich, but any misfortune, an evil occurrence of the nature of those in Job_1:14-19, caused by robbers, tempests, storms, etc.—And he begetteth a son, and there, is nothing in his hand. åְäåֹìִéã is correctly taken as a preterit in the Sept., Vulg., and Syriac; for after the failure of his means, he who was rich leaves off begetting sons.
Ecc_5:15. As he came forth of his mother’s womb, naked shall he return to go as he came.— éָùׁåּá ìָìֶëֶú , lit., “he repeats his going,” i.e., he goes away again, namely out of this life. We find the same reflection concerning the inexorable operation of death in Job_1:21; Psa_49:10; 1Ti_6:7, and also in the classics, e.g., Propert, Carm. III., 3, 35 s.:
Haud ullas portabis opes Acherontis ad undas;
Nudus ad inferna stulte, vehere rate!
Comp. P. Gerhard in the hymn: “Why should I then grieve ?”
Naked lay I on the earth,
When I came, when I drew
At first my breath.
Naked shall I pass away,
When from earth again I flee,
Like a shadow.
And shall take nothing of his labor. Lit., “does he lift up through his labor;” éִùָׂà as in Psa_24:4.—Which he may carry away in his hand. éֹìֵêְ is optative Hophil [ éåֹìִéêְ = , Mic_3:4; Mic_6:13, etc.], and need not be changed into éֵìֵêְ , as Hitzig does in accordance with the Sept. and Symmachus. For the thought that a rich man at his death can take none of his treasures with him, is extremely fitting here, in case one does not think of the rich man described in Ecc_5:14, who, previously to his death, was bereft of all his possessions by misfortune. And this is so much the less necessary, since before this verse death has not been considered the final end of all wealth and desire of acquiring it.
Ecc_5:16 emphatically repeats the thought of the preceding verse, in order to show more strongly the entire fruitlessness and folly of toiling after earthly wealth, and to prepare for the closing description in Ecc_5:17 of the tortured existence of a rich miser.—And this is also a sore evil, namely, not simply that named in Ecc_5:13, but also that added in Ecc_5:15; consequently not merely the ðëïýôïõ ἀäçëüôçò there described (1Ti_6:17), but also death, that places an unconditional limit to all wealth, and toiling after riches. The views of Hengstenberg, Vaihinger, etc., are correct, whilst Hitzig wrongfully supposed that the second: “sore evil” is not named until the last clause of this verse, and that it consists in the miserable existence of the miser, full of vexation and profitless. This “having no profit,” and “laboring for the wind,” coincides rather (like the contents of Ecc_5:17) with the vanity of this world, and its inconstancy and hardship, as described in Ecc_5:13-14, so that the reflection at its end again leads back to its beginning. Ecc_5:17. All his days also he eateth in darkness, that is, in a gloomy, peevish state of mind, in subjective darkness as described in Mat_6:23; Joh_11:10. ëָּìÎéָîָéå can be very easily taken as the object of éàֹëֵì , although the phrase “eateth his days” does not appear again, and therefore the meaning of “all his days” seems the more likely to be merely used as defining the time; but comp. for this view the instances at least approximately analogous in Job_21:13; Job_36:11. The Sept. seems to have read åָàֵëֶì instead of éֹàëֵì and so in the following clause, instead of åְëָòַí they must have read åְëַòַí , and for åְçָìְéåֹ they must have read åָçֳìִé ; for they translate: êáßãå ðᾶóáé ἁé ἡìÝñáé áὐôïῦ ἐí óêüôåé êáὶ Ýí ðÝíèåé êὰé èõìῷ ðïëëῷ êὰé ἀῥῤçóôßᾳ êὰé ÷üëῳ . Ewald and some other moderns follow it herein; but certainly with regard to the change of éֹàëֵì , at least without sufficient reason; comp. Hitzig and Elster on this passage. But nothing obliges us, in the second clause,, to deviate from the Masoretic text, as Hengstenberg has correctly shown in opposition to the authors last named. For ëָּòַí as 3d, præterite, suits the adverb äַøְáֵּä better than does the substantive ëַּòַí ; but the closing words åְçָìְéåֹ åָ÷ָöֶó give an excellent sense as an independent animated exclamation: “and he hath much sorrow and wrath with his sickness!” What is meant is the sickness of soul produced by the annoyance and dissatisfaction felt as against those things that oppose his striving after riches, [in substance the same as that darkness in the preceding line] a sickness which can eventually extend to his body and then torment him only the more severely.
6. Third Division: Ecc_5:18-20. Concerning a moderate and gratefully contented enjoyment of life, as the only true and wise conduct for the poor and for the rich; comp. the exactly similar closing sentence of the first discourse, Ecc_2:24-26, and also the close of the first part of the second discourse, Ecc_3:22.—Behold that which I have seen: it is good and comely, etc. Hitzig and Hahn say: “What I have found good, and what beautiful;” Hengstenberg: behold what I have seen, that it is good and handsome, etc. This latter translation is the only one that corresponds exactly to the accentuation, which (by a rebia over àðé ) strongly separates the èåֹá from what precedes, but scarcely expresses the sense originally intended by the author himself. Our own view corresponds rather to this original sense, which alone is rightly in accordance with the position of àֲùֶׁø before éָôֶä .—To eat and to drink, and to enjoy the good of all his labor. The suffix in òֲîָìåֹ belongs to the previously unexpressed subject of the infinitive clauses ìֶàֱëֹì etc.; comp. Ecc_7:1; Ps. 4:9; 65:9, etc. The eating, and drinking, and enjoying the good [lit., “seeing the good,” comp. Ecc_2:24) is as little meant in an Epicurean sense here as in similar earlier passages; it expresses simply the normal contrast to the grasping avarice previously censured.—For it is his portion, [ ëִּéִ äåּà çֶìְ÷åֹ : ,“that it should be his portion;” ëִּé denoting end, purpose, or, as it is rendered in the Metrical Version, “to be his portion here,”—so as not to interrupt the flow of the sentence.—T. L.] It is his lot divinely appointed unto him for this life, that he cannot take with him into the world beyond (Ecc_5:15) and which he must consequently properly profit by here below (comp. Ecc_3:22).
Ecc_5:19. Every man also to whom God hath given riches and wealth. Hitzig unnecessarily renders àֲùֶׁã ðָúַï ìåֹ “that God gives him,” (or “if”) etc. The anakolouthon between the nominative absolute “every man” and the final clause: “that is the gift of God,” cannot be thus removed.—And hath given him power to eat thereof, etc. For äִùְׁìִéè “to cause to rule, to empower any one,” comp. Psa_119:133; Dan_2:28; Dan_2:48. That is the gift of God. The emphasis does not rest on àֱìäִֹéí , as in the similar thought in Ecc_2:24, but on îַúַּú , which here therefore means a noble gift ( äüóéò ἀãáèÞ , äþñçìá ôÝëåéïí , Jam_1:17) a gracious present, as the following verse teaches. Comp. also Horace, Epis. I., 4, 6;
Dî tibi divitias dederunt, arlemque fruendi.
Ecc_5:20. For he shall not much remember the days of his life. That is not as Ewald says: “Memory and enjoyment of this life do not last long,” which would clearly give a totally foreign thought, but he now forgets all toil and vexation of his former life, and learns, in consequence of the divine beneficence which he gratefully and contentedly enjoys, to forget the “miserable life” (Luther) that he previously led, and cares no more concerning the rapid flight and short duration of his earthly days, (comp. Ecc_6:12). Because God answereth him in the joy of his heart. The second áִּé is subjoined to the first one in the commencement of the clause, and is therefore better translated with “because” or “since” than with “for.” îַòֲðֶä áְּ lit. “he answers him with,” i.e., he hears him by vouchsafing, etc.; for this signification of the Hiph, of òðä comp. 1Ki_8:35; 2Ch_6:26; Hos_2:23. All other meanings are contrary to the language and connection, e.g. Hitzig: “he makes him ready to serve;” Köster: “he makes him sing with the joy of his heart;” Vaihinger (according to the Sept. and Vulg.): “he occupies him with the joy of his heart,” etc.
(With Homiletical Hints,)
Melancthon:—Solomon declares that the principal and best worship of God is to listen to His word and faithfully follow it. But it has always been the case that men have invented a multitude of sacrifices, and various ceremonies; thus the heathen, the Pharisees and the monks have falsified the proper way of reverencing God. This audacity of man is here condemned as a deep sin, however much its originators may defend it and praise their superstition as a glorious virtue.
Starke:—We must visit the church as creatures who humble themselves before their Creator, as subjects doing homage to their Lord, as paupers begging for spiritual gifts, as sick men imploring aid, as Christians ready to serve Him with willing and pure heart.
Berleburg Bible:—One must not be satisfied with simple hearing, else it is this and nothing else, and this was not meant. The outward is simply outward; the true object of external worship must only be to lead to the internal.
Ecc_5:2-3. Brenz:—Because God alone dwells in heaven, i.e., is alone true, wise and just, and we live on the earth, and are, therefore, liars, fools, and sinners, it in no manner becomes us with our human wisdom, which in God’s eyes is folly, to judge of divine and heavenly things, and to indulge in many words with God concerning our worldly affairs, experiences and knowledge. But we must listen to God; leave to Him every decision, and silently obey His word as the only true wisdom.
Geier:—Think at all times in thy prayer of the majesty of God with whom thou speakest, and of thine own unworthiness, this will then strongly move thy heart in pious devotion.
Berleb. Bible:—“Let thy words be few;”—how far-reaching is this precept, in teaching, in preaching, in prayer, and in ordinary life! How many a long sermon would be condemned by this censorship, although it might fulfil all the requirements of the preacher’s art! And how few spiritual things would be found in many discourses, if they were purified of all useless, unedifying, vain, annoying, and improper words, as they indeed should be !—The Saviour has regarded this counsel, and hence has given a very short formula of prayer, in the very beginning of which He impresses on the suppliant the majesty of God who is in heaven, but tempers it with the loving name of father, etc.
Ecc_5:4-7. Brenz:—Vows, which proceed from unbelief, or violate the precepts of brotherly love, the Christian should neither make nor fulfil if he has made them. But if the vow proceeds from faith and love, and accords with their commands, then it must be kept: else God will judge thee as the fool, i.e., as the ungodly.
Lange:—Dear man, seek to maintain thy baptismal vows, therein hast thou vows enough.
Hansen (Ecc_5:6):—The mouth causeth the flesh to sin when it promises what the flesh neither can nor will perform.
Starke (Ecc_5:7):—The fear of the Lord is the essence of all true virtue, and it also teaches how one should wisely use his tongue (Jam_1:26).
Hengstenberg:—He who really fears God will say nothing concerning Him but that which proceeds from his inmost heart, and vow nothing but that which he is resolved inviolably to keep.
Ecc_5:8-9. Luther:—This book teaches thee to give thy heart to rest, and not to fret and pine too much when things go wrong, but, when the devil engages in malice, violence, injustice and oppression of the poor, to be able to say; “this is the course of the world; God will judge and avenge it.” Let each one, therefore, in his sphere do his work with best diligence, according to the command of God: the rest he may commit to God and suffer. Let him await then what the godless and unjust men may do!—
The stone thon canst not lift, let lie;
Thy strength upon some other try.
Melancthon (Ecc_5:8):—Observe here the difference between a king and a tyrant. A tyrant devastates and destroys; a good ruler cherishes his country, protects and furthers the interests of agriculture, the prosperity of the Church, the arts and industries, and all good things.
Starke:—God is the ruler of all nations (Psa_82:8). The loftiest noble and the meanest peasant must alike humbly acknowledge Him a3 his Lord, and reverence and obey Him.
Wohlfarth:—What Solomon says we see yet to-day. Although Church and State make every effort to advance the cause of righteousness and retard that of sin, the realm of evil is nevertheless wide-spread, and covetousness, pride, envy, deceit, voluptuousness, every where raise in oppression their repulsive heads. But let us remember that the earth is ever a land of imperfection; then this will not surprise us; but we shall rather be inclined to find in the contrast in which the reality stands with the belief in Divine justice, a reason for our hope of immortality and final reward, and, while we seek according to our strength to prevent evil, we will ourselves shun every sin, that we may hereafter stand rejoicing before God’s throne.
Ecc_5:10 ff. Luther:—What is a miser but a poor, tortured, uneasy soul and heart, that is always looking after that which it does not possess; it is therefore vanity and wretchedness. Are not those happy people who are satisfied with the present favors of God, and comfortable nourishment for the body, and who leave it to God to care for the future ?—If now God gives thee riches, use thy share as thou usest thy share of water, and let the rest flow by thee; if thou dost not do so, thy gathering will be all in vain.
Geier:—The best inheritance that a rich man can leave to his children is Christian instruction in the discipline and admonition of the Lord, and thorough education in the arts and sciences.
Zeltner:—How happy are hearts that are heavenly inclined, that are contented with what the beneficent hand of God has bestowed on them, and enjoy it with His blessing in gratitude.
Wohlfarth:—How foolishly do those act who live solely for their earthly existence.
Ecc_5:18-20. Luther:—To “eat in darkness” is nought else than to pass one’s life in melancholy. All avaricious and troublesome people find something that does not please them, where they can fret and scold. For they are full of care, vexation, and anxiety; they cannot joyfully eat, nor joyfully drink, but always find something that annoys and offends them.
Lange:—A true Christian uses the nourishment and needful supplies of his body, to the especial end that he may recognize the goodness of God in all his labor under the sun.
Hansen:—In order to enjoy the good that there is in the riches of this world, it is necessary that one have a perfect rule over them, i.e., that in the use of them he may at all times act in accordance with the Divine purpose, Psa_62:10.
Berleb. Bible:—As “to the pure every thing is pure” (Tit_1:15), so also wealth may be used by such a one in purity, and it will therefore depend mainly on each one’s own heart how it stands in the presence of God. But if one does not remain contented and quiet when house and home burn up, or some other injury happens to his possessions, then is he not yet rightly placid and tranquil; this is the proof of it.
Footnotes:
[The example that Zöckler gives of î comparative, without any comparative word before it, will not bear him out. In Ecc_9:17, it is dependent on ðִùְׁîָòִéí ; in the other cases cited í is either partitive, or has its usual proposition sense. If any comparative word might be thus omitted it might be the familiar word èåֹá , but there are other ways of explaining the apparent grammatical anomaly without any such harshness, which would be like leaving out, in English, any comparative word before than—to hear than to give. If we regard ÷ָøåֹá as an adjective it may have the sense of fit, suitable, appropriate, coming very easily from its primary and usual sense of nearness: to hear is more appropriate than to give; it is nearer in the sense of better. That such a connection of senses is natural, is shown from the Latin prope propior, as HORACE, Sat. 4,42, sermoni propiora, better for prose; Terent. Heant: nulla alia delectation quce propior esset; Ovid. Mel., cura propior luctusqe. It might be proved still more clearly from the Arabic use of a comparative from this very root ÇÞْÑَÈُ =