Have you protected your copyright yet? Copyright piracy is estimated to cost millions every year. Before letting anyone see your work, make sure you've registered your work for copyright protection. For more information, click here.

3:16. Anticipating a possible objection to the perfection of God's plan (cf. comments on another anticipated problem in vv. 14-15), Solomon stated that he had not ignored the problem of injustice (cf. 4:1; 8:14). He himself had observed in this life (under the sun; cf. comments on 1:3) that injustice was often evident in a place where one should least expect it - in the courts, the place of judgment and of justice. The repetition of the phrase wickedness was there emphasizes his surprise and consternation. Moreover, he affirmed in 3:17 that God was not ignoring injustice; He has both a future disposition and a present purpose for it.

(2) Future disposition: God will judge.

3:17. Solomon affirmed that God will judge both the righteous and the wicked (cf. 11:9; 12:14) but that this judgment will come only in His time. The time of this judgment is ambiguous; it is future and in God's time but the verse neither states nor implies that it will be in the afterlife. Solomon undoubtedly believed with the wisdom writers in general that the judgment would take place on earth (cf., e.g., Job 27:13-23; Ps. 37:2, 6, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17-40; 73:18-20, 27; Proverbs 22:22-23).

(3) Present manifestation: To demonstrate human finitude (3:18-21).

3:18-20. The connection of verses 18-21 with the preceding is not well reflected in most English translations. The phrase as for men means literally, "for the sake of/because of men" and is generally taken by commentators to refer back to the injustice mentioned in verse 16: "injustice is both for the sake of and because of men." Thus Solomon affirmed a second purpose for injustice, namely, that by it God shows people that they are like the animals (lit., "they are animals, they with respect to themselves"). This does not say that people are nothing more than animals, with no immortal souls. It does suggest that people, like animals, die (cf. Psalms 49:12,20). They have a common mortality, as Ecclesiastes 3:19-20 indicates.
Both people and animals come from the same dust of the earth, are animated by the same life breath (cf. Job 34:14-15; Psalms 104:29), and go to the same place, that is, return to the dust (Ecclesiastes 3:20). So Solomon argued that man has no advantage over an animal, for both are transitory (hebel can be rendered "transitory" here rather than meaningless; cf. 6:12, and kol can be rendered "both" rather than everything, as in 2:14; 7:18).

3:21. Moreover, any possible advantage man might claim over an animal was, according to Solomon, beyond empirical demonstration. This is indicated by his rhetorical question, Who knows if the spirit of man rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth? No living person can observe or demonstrate a difference between people and animals by watching them as they die. Some commentators, it is true, say that Solomon is here affirming a difference in the destinies of men and animals. They see vestiges of a belief in man's immortality expressed here and point to the absence of an "if" in the Hebrew text before spirit (cf. KJV, NASB). However, this conflicts with several things: (a) the context where Solomon is emphasizing the sameness of man's fate with the animals (vv. 19-20); (b) the use of the word "spirit" in this passage which refers to the breath of life which man shares with the animals (v. 19); (c) the rhetorical question in verse 22, "Who can bring him to see what will happen after him?" which denies Solomon's knowledge of an afterlife; and (d) the uniform testimony of many Bible versions which do reflect an interrogative in verse 21. Solomon had earlier argued that death negates all differences between a wise person and a fool (2:14 c-16). Here he argued that death negates all differences between people and animals. Though people are endowed with a sense of rationality and a sense of eternity (3:11), injustice demonstrates their finitude, mortality, and ignorance of God's plan.

(4) Recommendation: Enjoy life.

3:22. Since people are mortal (vv. 19-21), Solomon recommended that a man... enjoy his work (and probably, by metonymy, the fruits of his work or labor; cf. 2:24; 3:12). This is man's lot (a word that means lit., "portion, share, or allotment"; NASB translates this wrongly in 5:18-19; 9:9). This was especially pertinent in view of the fact that, as he had shown, people are ignorant of God's plan and cannot know what the future, including life after death, holds for them. He summarized this point in the rhetorical question, Who can bring him to see what will happen after him?

(5) Alternative response: Gloomy despair.

4:1-3. Solomon also supported his advice to enjoy life (cf. 3:22) by describing his further reflections on injustice: Again I looked at all the acts of oppression (cf. 3:16) that occur on the earth (under the sun; cf. comments on 1:3). Plaintively Solomon lamented the desperate and hopeless plight of the oppressed who cry out for help but find none because of the irresistible power and authority of their oppressors. The repetition of the words they have no comforter emphasizes their plight. Therefore Solomon stated that a man is better off dead or, better still, never having been born than having to witness (and possibly experience - the verb "see" often means "experience," as in 8:16) the evil oppression that takes place on earth because of injustice. In other words the only alternative to enjoyment of life as a gift from God's hand is the gloomy despair caused, in part at least, by reflection on unchecked oppression.

This section employs the characteristic refrain "meaningless, a chasing after the wind" as a bracketing introductory and concluding formula (vv. 4,16). This device, called an inclusio, is a common rhetorical feature in biblical literature (cf., e.g., Psalms 8:1,9). Ecclesiastes 4:4-16 is also characterized by the repeated use of the word "meaningless" (vv. 4,7-8,16) and the word "better" (vv. 6,9,13) by which Solomon characterized certain motivating incentives of labor as futile and inappropriate.

a. Labor is sometimes motivated by envy (4:4-6)

4:4-6. The first inappropriate incentive Solomon referred to was envy of others. He said that all labor and all achievement (undoubtedly hyperboles) spring from man's envy of his neighbor and that envy is futile or meaningless and a chasing after the wind (cf. 1:14,17; 2:11,17,26; 4:6,16; 6:9). Some uncertainty exists about the meaning of 4:5 because the metaphors folds his hands and "eats his meat" (lit. trans, for ruins himself) refer elsewhere to sloth and self-destruction (Proverbs 6:10-11; 24:33-34; Isaiah 49:26). However, the view that Ecclesiastes 4:5 refers to a commendation of contentment with the simple needs of life ("eats his meat"; cf. Exodus 16:8; Deuteronomy 12:20) with a minimum of effort (i.e., folding his hands) fits in better with Solomon's recommendation in Ecclesiastes 4:6 to be content with one handful (i.e., a little) accompanied by tranquility ("rest," NASB; "quietness," KJV; the same Heb. word is rendered "rest" in 6:5 and the related Heb. verb is rendered "rested" in Exodus 20:11) rather than a lot (two handfuls) accompanied by toil and anxious striving, which he characterized as chasing after the wind (cf. Ecclesiastes 4:4).

b. Labor is sometimes motivated by selfish greed (4:7-12)

4:7-8. Selfish greed is another inappropriate incentive that Solomon said is futile or meaningless (that word, occurring at the beginning of v. 7 and the end of v. 8, points up another inclusio; cf. comments under "3. Labor is often motivated by inappropriate incentives [4:4-16])." On the words under the sun see comments on 1:3. Greed is the insatiable covetousness characterized by a man's having no end to his toil, not being content with his wealth, and not sharing with anyone, not even a son or brother (this refers to sharing in partnership, not to inheritance, as vv. 9-12 make clear). In the end, Solomon stated, such a greedy person would wake up and realize that it was futile or meaningless to toil incessantly to gather wealth which he neither shared nor enjoyed. Such a greedy person's questions, asked rhetorically, show his disparaging of his behavior. Solomon added that such futile or meaningless toil was a miserable business ('inyan ra', "a bad or unpleasant task"; trans. "a heavy burden" in 1:13 and "some misfortune" in 5:14; cf. 'inyan, "burden," in 3:10).

4:9-12. In contrast with the futility of selfish greed, Solomon commended sharing with others by citing several advantages that come from companionship: better profit (a good return) from one's labor (v. 9), help in time of difficulty (v. 10), comfort in time of need (v. 11; one's body heat can keep another person from freezing), protection in time of danger (v. 12). The last three of these are illustrated by examples from the benefits of two persons traveling together. In the case of the second and third of these (vv. 10 b, 11 b) Solomon lamented the perils of isolation (characteristic of selfish greed; cf. "a man all alone," v. 8 a).
Having set forth the advantages of joint effort and the mutual benefits of sharing one's toil and its fruit with another, Solomon stated climactically that if two are better than one (v. 9) then three are even better (v. 12). One's efforts and benefits should not be confined to merely two persons.

c. Labor is sometimes motivated by the desire for advancement and prestige (4:13-16)

4:13-16. The emphasis in these verses is on the transitory nature of fame and prestige. However, the precise interpretation and significance of these verses is somewhat unclear because of the ambiguity of the number of individuals involved and their relationship with each other. It is unclear whether there are two young men who in turn succeed to the throne of an old and foolish king or whether there is only one young man. It is also unclear whether the pronouns (in Heb.) in verse 15 refer to the poor yet wise young man (v. 13 a) or to the old and foolish king (v. 13 b). Though there are several ways to interpret these ambiguities, it seems best to follow the interpretation reflected in general in the NIV. Taken in this way the passage refers to a poor but wise youth who had advanced from poverty (he was born in poverty within his [i.e., the old king's] kingdom). The young person also lacked influence (he had come from prison; cf. Joseph's situation, Genesis 39:20-41:45). From this lowly position the youth advanced to great popularity and prestige: all who lived and walked under the sun (i.e., "on the earth"; cf. comments on "under the sun" in Ecc. 1:3) followed the youth, the king's successor. He also had great authority; he became the master of innumerable subjects (4:16; lit., "no end to all the people before whom [at whose head] he was"; cf. Numbers 27:17). However, his prestige and authority were short-lived: those who came later were not pleased with the successor.

This passage illustrates the moral of Ecclesiastes 4:13: it is better to be poor (and without influence) than to be powerful and influential. Why? Because power, influence, and prestige are all transitory. Though the truth of verse 13 also commends wisdom over folly and commends responsiveness to criticism or counsel over unresponsiveness, these are not directly illustrated in the passage, which is confined to the futility of advancement. The point of the passage seems to be that the desire for prestige and advancement, two incentives which often motivate a person's labor, is, like envy and greed, futile or meaningless and a chasing after the wind (cf. 1:14,17; 2:11,17,26; 4:4,6; 6:9).

The argument of this passage has often been misunderstood. This is because of three things: (a) the use of the imperative mood in 5:1-7, (b) the absence of formal indications of divisions within 5:1-6:9, and (c) the failure of some commentators to make some connections between verses which Solomon apparently intended. This passage concludes with the last of nine occurrences of the characteristic formula "meaningless, a chasing after the wind" (6:9).

a. Labor's fruits may be lost to God through a rash vow (5:1-7)

5:1-7. These verses are often wrongly interpreted as an interlude in Solomon's argument. They are assumed to give advice on proper worship, including the proper attitude for worship (v. 1), the proper practice of prayer (vv. 2-3), and the proper payment of vows (vv. 4-7). In reality, however, they are an important part of Solomon's argument, warning against the folly of rash vows which could cause a person to lose the fruits of his labor through God's destroying the work of his hands (v. 6). Thus Solomon warned against the folly of rash vows which he called the sacrifice of fools (v. 1) and the speech of a fool (v. 3). He warned against uttering a hasty and ill-considered vow to the Lord: Do not be quick with your mouth; do not be hasty in your heart (v. 2).

Solomon also warned that it would do no good to try to get out of fulfilling such a vow by pleading with the priest that it was a mistake (v. 6, something done inadvertently; cf. "error" in 10:5). The temple messenger probably refers to the priest as in Malachi 2:7. The basis for this warning was Deuteronomy 23:21-23, where vows were described as voluntary but binding once made, because failure to fulfill them was called sin and would result in God's punishment. Thus Solomon called foolish vows wrongdoing (they do wrong, Ecclesiastes 5:1) and warned that a person's mouth could lead him into sin (v. 6), which could result in God's displeasure (v. 4) and anger (v. 6). Such a sin can ultimately lead to the loss of all a person worked for (v. 6).

Since a rash vow might result in the destruction of the fruits of one's labor (and his labor might thus prove futile), Solomon compared rash vows to futile or meaningless dreams. This is the thought in verse 7 a, which may be translated somewhat literally, "Through many dreams there is futility and also through many words." So Solomon exhorted his readers to fear God (v. 7 b), being cautious not to make rash vows (vv. 1-2) and to fulfill the vows they had made (v. 4).

b. Labor's fruits may be lost to corrupt officials through extortion (5:8-9)

The point of these verses and their connection with Solomon's argument has often been misconstrued because of erroneous interpretations of some enigmatic expressions in verses 8 b-9. Though many other interpretations are possible, as is obvious from the diversity in various translations (e.g., KJV, NASB, NIV), these verses probably refer to a hierarchy of corruption. This view, reflected in the NIV, seems to fit Solomon's overall argument in 5:1-6:9 best.

5:8-9. Having shown that the fruits of labor could be lost through a rash vow to God (vv. 1-7), Solomon added that one should not be surprised if the result of his labor were lost to the next highest authority, the king and his officials. In terms much briefer than but similar to Samuel's view of some typical evils of kingship (1 Samuel 8:10-18), Solomon described the oppressive exactions of officials at all levels. They were watching not to protect the poor and oppressed (cf. Ecclesiastes 4:1) but to find ways to squeeze revenue out of the officials under them. At the head of this whole corrupt system was the king who himself profited from the fields of the oppressed. The potential of all a man worked for, the increase from the land, could be taken or extorted by all these corrupt officials.

Many commentators, arguing that Solomon would scarcely have depicted his own government in such poor light, have seen this passage as evidence that he did not write this book. But there is no evidence that Solomon was referring to any specific government. Like the other references in 2:18-6:9 (e.g., the hypothetical case in 4:13-16), Solomon was generalizing. Moreover, Israel's demand that Rehoboam, Solomon's successor (1 Kings 12:1-10), reduce his oppression suggests that the provincial governors under Solomon had made financial demands to support his opulence (1 Kings 4:7,22-23). Solomon's government could scarcely be excluded from the truth in Ecclesiastes 5:8-9.

c. Labor's fruits may not be enjoyed because of one's own covetousness (5:10-12)

5:10-12. Having shown that the fruits of one's labors might not be enjoyed because they might be lost to God (vv. 1-7) or to governing officials (vv. 8-9), Solomon next argued that a person's own covetousness might keep him from enjoying them. Calling covetousness or the love of money futile or meaningless, Solomon argued that a covetous person never derives enjoyment from his wealth (v. 10) because his increased wealth merely brings him increased anxiety (v. 12 b). While a laborer might rest content with little or much, a covetous person cannot sleep (his abundance permits... no sleep, v. 12). He has to be constantly on guard to protect his riches from the ever-growing number of people who would try to consume them. Thus Solomon asked satirically what benefit a covetous person gets from increased riches except to keep an eye on them (v. 11, lit., "to look at them with his eyes"). In summary, Solomon argued that the only results of increased wealth for a covetous person are increased anxiety and increased vigilance, not increased enjoyment.

d. Toiling to accumulate the fruits of labor may result in misery (5:13-17)

5:13-14. Solomon concluded his treatment of the futility of toil by showing how transitory its fruits really are and how striving to accumulate them brings only misery. Such striving and loss is a grievous evil (or, perhaps better, "a depressing misfortune"); the word for "grievous" (holah) is literally, "sick"; and the word for "evil" (ra'ah) is often