Pengkhotbah 2:24

Enjoy Work and its Benefits

2:24 There is nothing better for ¹  people ²  than ³  to eat and drink,

and to find enjoyment ⁴  in their ⁵  work.

I also perceived that this ability to find enjoyment ⁶  comes from God. ⁷ 

Pengkhotbah 3:22

3:22 So I perceived there is nothing better than for people ⁸  to enjoy their work, ⁹ 

because that is their ¹⁰  reward;

for who can show them what the future holds? ¹¹ 

Pengkhotbah 5:6

5:6 Do not let your mouth cause you ¹²  to sin,

and do not tell the priest, ¹³  “It was a mistake!” ¹⁴ 

Why make God angry at you ¹⁵ 

so that he would destroy the work of your hands?”

Pengkhotbah 6:2

6:2 God gives a man riches, property, and wealth

so that he lacks nothing that his heart ¹⁶  desires, ¹⁷ 

yet God does not enable ¹⁸  him to enjoy ¹⁹  the fruit of his labor ²⁰  –

instead, someone else ²¹  enjoys ²²  it! ²³ 

This is fruitless and a grave misfortune. ²⁴ 

Pengkhotbah 6:12

6:12 For no one knows what is best for a person during his life ²⁵  –

during the few days of his fleeting life –

for ²⁶  they pass away ²⁷  like a shadow.

Nor can anyone tell him what the future will hold for him on earth. ²⁸ 

[2:24]  ¹ tn The preposition בְּ (bet) on בָּאָדָם (ba’adam) has been taken in two ways: (1) locative with טוֹב (tov, “good”) in reference to man’s moral nature: “There is nothing [inherently] good in man.” (2) advantage with טוֹב (“good”) in reference to the enjoyment theme of 2:24-26: “There is nothing better for a man than…” (this assumes a comparative מִן, min, on מִשֶׁיֹּאכַל, misheyyo’khal); see text critical note on the word “than” below). The latter is preferred for two reasons: (1) The preposition בְּ is used with a similar idiom in 3:12 in collocation with the particle phrase אִם…כִּי (ki…’im, “except”): “There is nothing better…than to rejoice/be happy” (NASB, NIV). (2) The theme of 2:1-26 focuses on the futility of human toil, concluding that the only real reward that man has in his labor is to find enjoyment in it (e.g., 2:10, 24-26). The section says nothing about man’s inherent sinful nature.

[2:24]  ² tn Heb “man.”

[2:24]  ³ tc The MT reads שֶׁיֹּאכַל (sheyyo’khal, “that he should eat”; Qal imperfect 3rd person masculine singular from אָכַל, ’akhal, “to eat,” with relative pronoun שֶׁ, she, “that”). However, the variant textual tradition of מִשֶּׁיֹּאכַל (misheyyo’khal, “than he should eat” (comparative preposition מִן, min, “than” + Qal imperfect 3rd person masculine singular from אָכַל “to eat”) is reflected in the LXX, Coptic, Syriac, Aramaic Targum, Old Latin, and Jerome. The textual error, an example of haplography, arose from a single writing of מ (mem) from בָּאָדָם מִשֶּׁיֹּאכַל (ba’adam misheyyo’khal). The same idiom appears in the expanded form אִם…כִּי followed by טוֹב…אֵין (’en tov … ki ’im, “there is nothing better for man than …”) in Eccl 3:12; 8:15.

[2:24]  ⁴ tn Heb “to cause his soul to see good.” The idiom רָאָה טוֹב (ra’ah tov, “to see good”) is a metonymy of association, meaning “to find enjoyment” (e.g., 3:13; 5:17; 6:6). In 3:12-13 and 5:17-18 it is in collocation and/or parallelism with בְּ (bet) + שָׂמַח (samakh, “to rejoice in,” or “to find satisfaction or pleasure in” something). Here, it is used in collocation with חוּשׁ (khush, “to enjoy”). The term נַפְשׁוֹ (nafsho, “his soul”) is a metonymy of part (i.e., soul) for the whole (i.e., whole person), e.g., Num 23:10; Judg 16:30; Pss 16:10; 35:13; 103:1 (see E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech, 640-41).

[2:24]  ⁵ tn Heb “his.”

[2:24]  ⁶ tn The phrase “ability to find enjoyment” is not in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity.

[2:24]  ⁷ tn Heb “is from the hand of God.”

[2:24]  sn The phrase “from the hand of God” is an anthropomorphism (depicting God, who is an invisible spirit, in the form of man with hands) or anthropopatheia (depicting God performing human-like actions). The “hand of God” is a figure often used to portray God’s sovereign providence and benevolence (see E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech, 878). The phrase “the hand of God” is often used to connote the favor or grace of God (2 Chr 30:12; Ezra 7:9; 8:18; Neh 2:8, 18; see BDB 390 s.v. יָד 1.e.2).

[3:22]  ⁸ tn Heb “man.”

[3:22]  ⁹ tn Heb “his works.”

[3:22]  ¹⁰ tn Heb “his.”

[3:22]  ¹¹ tn Heb “what will be after him” (cf. KJV, NASB, NIV) or “afterward” (cf. NJPS).

[5:6]  ¹² tn Heb “your flesh.” The term בָּשָׂר (basar, “flesh”) is a synecdoche of part (i.e., flesh) for the whole (i.e., whole person), e.g., Gen 2:21; 6:12; Ps 56:4[5]; 65:2[3]; 145:21; Isa 40:5, 6; see HALOT 164 s.v. בָּשָׂר; E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech, 642.

[5:6]  ¹³ tc The MT reads הַמַּלְאָךְ (hammal’akh, “messenger”), while the LXX reads τοῦ θεοῦ (tou qeou, “God”) which reflects an alternate textual tradition of הָאֱלֹהִים (ha’elohim, “God”). The textual problem was caused by orthographic confusion between similarly spelled words. The LXX might have been trying to make sense of a difficult expression. The MT is preferred as the original. All the major translations follow the MT except for Moffatt (“God”).

[5:6]  tn Heb “the messenger.” The term מַלְאָךְ (mal’akh, “messenger”) refers to a temple priest (e.g., Mal 2:7; cf. HALOT 585 s.v. מַלְאָךְ 2.b; BDB 521 s.v. מַלְאָךְ 1.c). The priests recorded what Israelite worshipers vowed (Lev 27:14-15). When an Israelite delayed in fulfilling a vow, a priest would remind him to pay what he had vowed. Although the traditional rabbinic view is that Qoheleth refers to an angelic superintendent over the temple, Rashi suggested that it is a temple-official. Translations reflect both views: “his representative” (NAB), “the temple messenger” (NIV), “the messenger” (RSV, NRSV, NASB, MLB, NJPS), “the angel” (KJV, ASV, Douay) and “the angel of God” (NEB).

[5:6]  ¹⁴ tn The Hebrew noun שְׁגָגָה (shÿgagah) denotes “error; mistake” and refers to a sin of inadvertence or unintentional sin (e.g., Lev 4:2, 22, 27; 5:18; 22:14; Num 15:24-29; 35:11, 15; Josh 20:3, 9; Eccl 5:5; 10:5); see HALOT 1412 s.v. שְׁגָגָה; BDB 993 s.v. שְׁגָגָה. In this case, it refers to a rash vow thoughtlessly made, which the foolish worshiper claims was a mistake (e.g., Prov 20:25).

[5:6]  ¹⁵ tn Heb “at your voice.” This is an example of metonymy (i.e., your voice) of association (i.e., you).

[6:2]  ¹⁶ tn Heb “his appetite.”

[6:2]  ¹⁷ tn Heb “There is no lack in respect to his appetite”; or “his desire lacks nothing.”

[6:2]  ¹⁸ tn The verb שָׁלַט (shalat) in the Qal stem means “to domineer; to dominate; to lord it over; to be master of” and in the Hiphil stem “to give power to” (BDB 1020 s.v. שָׁלַט) and “to grant” (HALOT 1522 s.v. שׁלט). God must grant a person the ability to enjoy the fruit of his labor, otherwise a person will not be able to enjoy his possessions and wealth. The ability to partake of the fruit of one’s labor and to find satisfaction and joy in it is a gift from God (e.g., Eccl 2:24-26; 3:13; 5:18 [19]; 9:7).

[6:2]  ¹⁹ tn Heb “to eat of it.” The verb אָכַל (’akhal, “to eat”) functions as a metonymy of association, that is, the action of eating is associated with the enjoyment of the fruit of one’s labor (e.g., Eccl 2:24-26; 3:12-13, 22; 5:17-19; 8:15; 9:9).

[6:2]  ²⁰ tn The phrase “the fruit of his labor” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity.

[6:2]  ²¹ tn Heb “a stranger.” The Hebrew expression אִיש נָכְרִי (’ish nokhri, “stranger”) sometimes refers not to a foreigner or someone that the person does not know, but simply to someone else other than the subject (e.g., Prov 27:2). In the light of 6:3-6, it might even refer to the man’s own heirs. The term is used as a synecdoche of species (foreigner for stranger) in the sense of someone else other than the subject: “someone else” (BDB 649 s.v. נָכְרִי 3).

[6:2]  ²² tn Heb “eats.”

[6:2]  ²³ sn Instead, someone else enjoys it. A person may be unable to enjoy the fruit of his/her labor due to an unfortunate turn of events that robs a person of his possessions (5:13-14) or a miserly, lifelong hoarding of one’s wealth that robs him of the ability to enjoy what he has worked so hard to acquire (5:15-17). Qoheleth recommends the enjoyment of life and the fruit of one’s labor, as God enables (5:18-20). Unfortunately, the ability to enjoy the fruits of one’s labor is often thwarted by the obstacles described in 6:1-2 and 6:3-9.

[6:2]  ²⁴ tn Heb “an evil sickness.”

[6:12]  ²⁵ tn Heb “For who knows what is good for a man in life?” The rhetorical question (“For who knows…?”) is a negative affirmation, expecting a negative answer: “For no one knows…!” (see E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech, 949-51). The translation renders this rhetorical device as a positive affirmation.

[6:12]  ²⁶ tn The vav prefixed to וְיַעֲשֵׂם (vÿya’asem, conjunction + Qal imperfect 3rd person masculine singular from עָשַׂה, ’asah, “to do” + 3rd person masculine plural suffix) functions in an explanatory or epexegetical sense (“For …”).

[6:12]  ²⁷ tn The 3rd person masculine plural suffix on the verb וְיַעֲשֵׂם (vÿya’asem, conjunction + Qal imperfect 3rd person masculine singular from ָָעשַׂה, ’asah, “to do” + 3rd person masculine plural suffix) refers to מִסְפַּר יְמֵי־חַיֵּי הֶבְלוֹ (mispar yÿme-khayye hevlo, “the few days of his fleeting life”). The suffix may be taken as an objective genitive: “he spends them [i.e., the days of his life] like a shadow” (HALOT 891 s.v. I ָָעשַׂה 8) or as a subjective genitive: “they [i.e., the days of his life] pass like a shadow” (BDB 795 s.v. ָָעשַׂה II.11).

[6:12]  ²⁸ tn Heb “Who can tell the man what shall be after him under the sun?” The rhetorical question (“For who can tell him…?”) is a negative affirmation, expecting a negative answer: “For no one can tell him…!” (see E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech, 949-51). The translation renders this rhetorical device as a positive affirmation.