“What Is Good For Man?” An Exposition Of Ecclesiastes 7:1-14

By Jay K. Hollinshead

[Jay K. Hollinshead is Senior Pastor, Community Fellowship Church, Washington, DC.]

Qohelet’s deep musings about life’s inequities and enigmas take a decidedly different turn in chapter 7 with a change to terse proverbial “good” (טוֹב) and “better than” (טוֹב מִן) sayings. Qohelet’s new direction begins with the transition of 6:10-12, as Longman observes: “This short section marks the middle of the book according to Masoretic marginal notation. It also marks a transition in Qohelet’s focus . . . here he leaves his explicit search for meaning and in the second half of the book focuses on advice and commentary about the future.”[1] Kruger concurs: “The section 6:10-12 can be read as an introduction to the critical discussion of various bits of advice for the conduct of life in 7:1-14 (but beyond that also through 10:20),” even though he sees this in a negative light.[2] Schrader’s chiastic outline makes this transition clear by noting that the second discourse of Qohelet begins with 6:10.

A. Introductory Title (1:1)

B. Opening Poem (1:2-11)

C. First Discourse (1:12-6:9)

C.´ Second Discourse (6:10-11:6)

B.´ Concluding Poem (11:7-12:8)

A.´ Conclusion (12:9-14)[3]

So 6:10-12 sets the tone for much of the second half of Ecclesiastes. The expressions denoting “inscrutability” and/or “ignorance” are characteristic of this second half of the book as seen in the phrases “does not know” or “cannot know” (6:12; 9:1,12; 10:14; 11:2, 6) and “does not discover” or “cannot discover” (7:14, 24, 28; 8:17). This fits the underlying premise from the previous six chapters, which Hubbard summarizes as follows: “Human destiny is so solidly fixed in God’s hands that fretting about the past or striving to plot the future are activities on which no energy should be fixed.”[4] However, Qoheleth gave many recommendations, including commendations of basic truths or aphorisms (“it is good,” 7:18; or “x is better than y,” 7:2, 5; 9:16, 18), as well as imperatives throughout 6:10-11:6. As Crenshaw states, “Solomon’s intention with this practical advice was to exhort Israel to fear God (7:18, 8:12; 12:13) and to live obedient lives that would please Him (cf. 7:26 with 2:26).”[5]

Ecclesiastes 6:10-12

“Whatever exists has already been named, and it is known what man is; for he cannot dispute with him who is stronger than he is. For there are many words which increase futility. What then is the advantage to a man? For who knows what is good for a man during his lifetime, during the few years of his futile life? He will spend them like a shadow. For who can tell a man what will be after him under the sun?”

In this transitional passage, “a pivot between units,”[6] three summary remarks are followed by three rhetorical questions. The remarks introduce an argument from the lesser to the greater, involving the weaker before the stronger. Ogden and Zogbo give an insightful summary of the remarks in verse 10. “We can divide the verse into three parts. The first clause makes a general observation about all matter in existence, human and other. All is identified and characterized. The second clause narrows the focus to human beings within creation. The third clause gives an example of what is known about the human condition.”[7]

The rhetorical questions that follow connect both halves of Ecclesiastes. The first question is summarily linked to seven questions asked previously; and the two that follow it are expanded throughout the remainder of Ecclesiastes, especially in chapter 7.

The scope of verse 10 narrows from all matters of existence (“whatever”) to the common human condition (“man,” אָדָם), to noting man’s inherent weakness (the “limits to human existence [that] are set for all humans”),[8] thus making man unable to prevail with one stronger than he is. Although some take the one “stronger” to be an allusion to God,[9] because it is set within the verbal idea of a legal dispute (לָדִין), it is probably better to leave it broad, as written. In this way it would refer to a common truism: “Though you can dispute with someone more powerful . . . you cannot expect to win the argument.”[10]

In verses 11-12 the three rhetorical questions follow a short concluding statement that links the first of these with verse 10. Longman notes that verse 11 continues “the thought of the previous verse, which dismissed wordy litigation and harangue against a stronger person as ineffective, [and now] observes that numerous words increase the emptiness and futility already present.”[11] Johnson points out the significance of the first question. “What then is the advantage to a man? . . . The first question, which appears in verse eleven, is the final of the book’s eight ‘What profit’ questions . . . [and] is the most succinct expression of that formula. Perhaps [it] is exactly the function of the question of 6:11 to anchor the ensuing discussion in the established theses of vanity and ‘profitlessness’ and thus provide a basis for the ensuing questions of 6:12.”[12]

In other words whether דְּבָרִים is taken as “words” with the previous line of thought in verse 10 (arguing one’s case or “disputing” with someone greater), or as “sayings” referring to all wisdom maxims, still the multiplication of words adds to the seeming overall futility discussed up to this point. Johnson concludes that “the summarizing function of 6:11b augments the assertion of 6:11a that vanity or futility (הָבֶל) increases in direct proportion to the attempt to overcome it. There can be no advantage or ‘profit’ (מַה־יֹּתֵר) because the effort to produce an ultimate gain finally yields only more vanity/vapor/emptiness/futility.”[13] Ogden and Zogbo concur, with this remark about vanity. “When Qoheleth admits that this is hevel, he is saying that there is no rational or practical way he can demonstrate that yithron ‘benefit’ is available. We can never solve the question of yithron by debate and argument. It is this fact that allows us to understand what the two questions in verse 12 refer to.”[14]

The next two rhetorical questions introduce the discourse in 7:1-11:6.[15] Prior to 6:12 Qohelet had already observed and argued that it is outside the purview of humankind to determine “absolute good” for themselves, as Kruger recognizes. “What is ‘good’ cannot be determined by human beings themselves (cf. 1:12-2:26); it is given to them in advance by God through God’s creative activity (cf. 3:11-13).”[16] So then the fact that he asked the question is itself more than just a means of giving a summary answer to his previous discourse. The question seeks to motivate the reader to think more deeply about life and death, and what “good” may yet be enjoyed. There remains then a sense of “relative good”[17] that should be explored, especially in light of the end of all men who live “under the sun,” but “work like a shadow,”[18] that is, “individuals (who) move toward darkness, like a shadow that lengthens until lost in darkness.”[19]

The third rhetorical question in this transitional paragraph is in 6:12b, which mentions the dilemma of not knowing the future: “Who can tell a man what will be after him under the sun?” This question, like the one immediately before it, involves issues of what may be known, for יַגִּיד means to “tell, announce, report, and declare,” as well as to “make known, and expound,” as in revealing something not known and even mysterious.[20] Both thoughts are to be taken as a negative affirmation,[21] as Hubbard concedes. “The crowning human limitation is the inability to know the future (v. 12). ‘Who knows?’ and ‘who can tell?’—the double question is to be answered in the negative: No one but God knows and he is not telling (3:11).”[22] But has He given any hints?

Exegesis of 7:1-14

Now answering his questions in 6:10-12 Qoheleth began with the subject of what is “good” or “better” for humankind. Ogden and Zogbo give a brief introductory sketch of 7:1-14.

The first part of the chapter (verses 1-14) attempts to answer the first question, “Who knows what is good for man during his life on this earth?” In Hebrew verse 1 begins with the word “good” (literally “it is good a name more than perfume”), as Qoheleth lists what is good or best for people. The word “good” is used repeatedly throughout this section—7.1 (2 times); 7.2; 7.3 (2 times); 7.5; 7.8 (2 times); 7.10; 7.11; 7.14. Most of the occurrences make up “better” sayings of the type found in earlier chapters. In fact verses 1-8 make up the largest group of “better” sayings in the Old Testament.[23]

Eaton concurs and also sees a theme of suffering and sin as a backdrop in his overall division of this passage (7:1-8:1). He says the emphasis is on suffering with a hortatory impulse to action for getting the wisdom that is encapsulated in these “better than” proverbs in verses 1-14. “Thus the first half of ch. 7 follows up the theme of Ecclesiastes as a whole with the question: Will the life of faith survive hard and troublesome times when the ‘good old days’ have gone and the ‘days of adversity’ come? The second half moves from the crookedness of life (13) to (the crookedness) of mankind (29).”[24] In a more assertive way Proven maintains, “Qohelet has never deviated from his conviction that some ways of being are better than others. . . . The point is now underlined in the opening verses of ch.7, as numerous ‘good’ (tob) things are described and often compared to ‘better’ (also tob) things.”[25] This seems most likely in light of the preceding.

Dyer proposes an initial outline of these verses: “In 7:1-7 [Qohelet] said that serious living is better than frivolity. In 7:8-10 he noted that patience is better than haste, and in 7:11-14 he observed that wisdom is better than prosperity.”[26] Ogden and Zogbo’s outline follows the tight organization of 7:1-14.

I. Reflecting on Death Is Better Than Just Having Fun (7:1-4)

v. 1 Double “better” saying

v. 2 The house of mourning is better than the house of feasting (Explanation introduced by “for,” v. 2b)

v. 3 Sorrow is better than laughter (Explanation introduced by “for,” v. 3b)

v. 4 Explanation

II. The Wise Man and the Fool (7:5-7)

v. 5 A wise man’s rebuke is better than a fool’s song [of praise]

v. 6 Statement of “hebel” (Explanation introduced by “for,” v. 6a)

v. 7 Bribes make fools of wise men

III. Advice on How to Be Wise (7:8-10)

v. 8 Double “better” saying

v. 9 First exhortation (negative): “Don’t be quick to anger” (Explanation introduced by “for,” v. 9b)

v. 10 Second exhortation (negative): “Don’t say, ‘Why were the old days better than today?’ ” (Explanation introduced by “for,” v. 10b)

IV. The Advantages of Wisdom (7:11-12) (Explanation introduced by “for,” v. 12a)

V. Call to Reflection (7:13-14)

v. 13 First exhortation (positive): “Consider!” Proverb (rhetorical question)

v. 14a Second exhortation (positive): “Be happy . . . and consider”

v. 14b Conclusion[27]

I. Reflecting on Death Is Better Than Just Having Fun (7:1-4)

Ecclesiastes 7:1

“A good name is better than a good ointment; and the day of one’s death is better than the day of one’s birth” (7:1).

The first line of 7:1 has an inclusio or “book-ending” of the phrase with טוֹב (“better” and “good/precious”) at both the beginning and the end: טוֹב שֵׁם מִשֶּׁמֶן טוֹב. This is a string of “delightful words” (12:10) that intrigue the mind and also satisfy the aesthetic sense. The first use of טוֹב (“good”) in this series of proverbs is a predicate adjective functioning as a comparative (“better”), especially in that it is used with מִן 28 (“than”) in מִשֶּׁמֶן (“than ointment”).

Qohelet’s use of שֵׁם (“name”) and שֶׁמֶן (“ointment”) is a paronomasia,[29] and is the first point of comparison. The noun שֵׁם, like its English equivalent “name,” is “indifferent to moral value but can receive that connotation from [the] context.”[30] It does not need to be qualified by טוֹב to denote the idea of a “good name” or a “good reputation,” as is seen elsewhere in wisdom literature (e.g., Job 30:8; Prov. 22:1).[31] Eaton notes that “God at the time of the exodus ‘got himself a name’ (Neh. 9:10),”[32] and there is no reason to assume the name in Ecclesiastes 7:1 is anything other than noble.

The noun שֶׁמֶן (“ointment” or “oil”) may be comparable to “fine perfume” as in Proverbs 27:9 and Song of Solomon 1:3 and 4:10. Elsewhere in Ecclesiastes (9:8) it is associated with “joy.” Since it was also used to rub or prepare corpses, perhaps this is a fitting association with the theme of death in 7:1-2. As Fox writes, “Since oils were used in preparing a corpse for burial, we can understand 7:1a in a double sense: a (good) reputation is better than a pleasant rub-down with fine oils; and a remembrance is better than a proper burial.”[33] In Ecclesiastes oil is likely used as a symbol indicating some good advantage in life, such as wealth or luxury (cf. Job 29:6; Prov. 21:17). Used in light of the immediately preceding context of the book, following the lament over riches and toil from 5:9-6:9, שֶׁמֶן may stand as a metonymy for the prosperity and luxuries of life, its “finer” things, its advantages.[34] Qohelet makes his point in a pithy chiastic proverb: the first “good” is to recognize that a good reputation is better than the luxuries life may give.[35] “The word play of name (שֵׁם) and oil (שֶׁמֶן) is preserved in the saying ‘Better is name than nard,’ by Williams, and in Martin’s aphorism ‘Fair fame is better than fine perfume.’ ”[36]

The second line in 7:1 is problematic, abrupt, and shocking. In fact Seow maintains that “unlike the first tob-saying about one’s name (v 1a), the second saying is without parallel anywhere in the wisdom literature of the ancient Near East.”[37] The meaning of the second line is to be deduced in comparison with the first. As Eaton notes, “Hebrew comparisons often put two statements alongside each other leaving out ‘As . . . so’ (cf. Pr. 17:3).”[38] The comparison may be stated as follows. “A good name is better than precious ointment; and the day of death, than the day of birth.”

Eaton states the comparison in this way: “As a good name is better than oil, so the day of death is better than the day of birth.”[39] This is most likely the intention of Qohelet not only in its proximate relation, but also in that “the second line introduces the topic of the succeeding verses (2-4): death.”[40]

Taken together, these facts have led many to see Qohelet as proposing that one’s reputation is neither complete nor secure until death, but once a person has died with the name in good standing, the day of death then proves superior to the day of birth.[41] Lohfink concurs. “With razor sharp wit he cuts to the insight that this supposedly great benefit of reputation accrues at death, whereas it is totally absent at birth.”[42] However, some, including Longman, believe that “it expresses Qohelet’s relief that life is over. In the context of his speech as a whole, this relief arises not because of work completed and well done but because death means escape from life’s oppression and meaninglessness.”[43] Yet in light of the elements of the comparison, the succeeding explanatory expansion on the subject, the hortatory conclusion of the book as a whole (12:13-14), and the many positive intermediate remarks about “good” and “joy,” Longman’s conclusion seems incongruent.

Instead, this comparative proverbial remark (intentionally shocking?) compels the reader to consider the end of the most important matter at hand, about which he has been speaking in the last six chapters, over which no one has final say, namely, one’s own life! Then the reader is to anticipate its end—to ponder it—for reasons mentioned and reasons that will yet be discussed. Schrader gives this paraphrase for verse 1: “As a good reputation is better than the luxuries of life, so the day of one’s death with a good reputation is better than the day of one’s birth with its auspicious beginning yet uncertain future.”[44] The following verses continue this train of thought and expand on it.

Ecclesiastes 7:2

“It is better to go to a house of mourning than to go to a house of feasting, because that is the end of every man, and the living takes it to heart.”

Verse 2 explains Qohelet’s previous remark and opens with another comparative טוֹב (“better”) saying. In fact, as noted by Lohfink, “Verse 2 and vv 3-4 are constructed in parallel form: ‘Better . . . Better. . . .’ At the same time, the outer lines form, through a chiastic correspondence of key words (‘hall of grieving,’ ‘festive hall’/ ‘hall of grieving,’ ‘hall of joy’), a frame containing the inner lines, each of which ends in ‘heart.’ ”[45] This structure indicates that there is a common theme running through these verses, which not only holds them together, but also influences the perception of any one part of the passage. The phrase בֵּית־אֵבֶל (“house of mourning”) carries forward the idea of death already introduced, the house being the place for reflection, for thinking about the כָּל־הָאָדָם סוֹף (“end of all men,” or taken in the distributive, “end of every man”).

In contrast what follows is the opposite, “a house of feasting” (בֵּית מִשְׁתֶּה). This contrast is better explained by verses 3 and 4 that follow. However, it is worth noting a possible connection with verse 1, as stated in The IVP Bible Background Commentary: “Banqueters in the ancient world were often treated by a generous host to fine oils that would be used to anoint their foreheads. This provided not only a glistening sheen to their countenance but also would have added a fragrance to their persons.”[46] A good name is related to the day of one’s death, on which one is to reflect in the house of mourning. Though oil structurally parallels the day of one’s birth—the start of life and the potential for advance—it may, however, not be directly related. Nevertheless oil certainly may relate to the house of feasting, in which there is life and apparent prosperity, however temporary.

The Hebrew word for “end” (סוֹף) may be understood in the sense of terminal point, not as a goal but as a conclusion, like a finish line.[47] Qohelet wanted his readers to “take to heart” this truth, namely, that death is the terminus of everyone, and it is “good” (better) to go to a place that causes reflection on this. Certainly it is better than to go to a place where there is feasting or merrymaking, but where there is no pondering of the end of life. However, this is not a restriction against all banqueting or feasting as such.

Ecclesiastes 7:3

“Sorrow is better than laughter, for when a face is sad a heart may be happy.”

Seow observes that “if taken seriously, the proverb here contradicts Qohelet’s own teachings elsewhere in the book.”[48] However, Fox seems closer to the point of the verse, calling this “the value of reproof,” and alleging that “verse 3b presents a paradox.”[49] Qohelet, however, seems intent on giving a proverbial explanation for preferring the house of mourning over the house of feasting. The explanation builds on the previous line of thought. In the house of mourning is כַּעַס (“sadness, grief, vexation”),[50] and to experience that is good because “by sorrow of face [countenance] the heart is made glad” (כִּי־בְ'רעַ פָּנִים יִיטַב לֵב). The לֵב (“heart”) is the seat of the inner life, for from it springs all that issues into action and in it occurs a rich inner world of contemplation and imagination. But what is the meaning of יִיטַב, “may be happy” (or “is made glad,” RSV)? The lexical range of יִיטַב includes “to make a thing right,” “to do well, right,” and “amend one’s ways.”[51] This concept of “put right” fits well (cf. Jer. 7:3; 18:11). As Eaton relates, “That the heart ‘may be put right’ or ‘. . . is put right’ is the appropriate translation (better than made glad), for it means that the inner life may be ‘better situated’ for making right judgments and estimations, i.e. ‘put right’ in one’s approach to life (cf. NIV).”[52] Thus Qohelet advanced his theme of what is “good” by sharing what is good for the reader’s heart. This is in keeping with the focus of wisdom on both the inner being as well as the outer actions that issue from it.

Ecclesiastes 7:4

“The mind [lit., ‘heart’] of the wise is in the house of mourning, while the mind [lit., ‘heart’] of fools is in the house of pleasure.”

Qohelet included a new theme in 7:4 with the terms “wise” people (חֲכָמִים) and “fools” (כְּסִילִים), which also occur in verses 5 and 9. As Longman notes, “Qohelet makes the transition from the predominant emphasis on death to the other major theme of the section, the comparison of wisdom and folly.”[53] “The two phrases house of mourning and house of mirth (or, feasting) are the major inclusions binding verses 2-4. With this saying Qohelet moves from the ‘better’ form to the contrastive form typical of sayings in the Book of Proverbs.”[54] Also the word לֵב (“heart”), which is used in both verses 3 and 4 provides the key for the transition from the “place” in which the heart may be “set right” to the intention or direction for which it is set right, namely, wisdom.[55] Verses 1-4 present a chief means of directing or redirecting the heart for the primary attainment of wisdom, cast in the “better” saying formula: “So that you may be among the wise it is better to go to the house of mourning and contemplate the day of death—the end of everyone—instead of feasting and/or focusing on whatever else seems to be materially advantageous.”

II. The Wise Man and the Fool (7:5-7)

Ecclesiastes 7:5

“It is better to listen to the rebuke of a wise man than for one to listen to the song of fools.”

As a unit verses 5-7 expand on the previous assertions with additional advice. Resuming the “better” sayings, some connections with the previous verses are evident: the “wise” and the “fools” are mentioned in verse 5 as well as in verse 4. Qohelet was directing his readers toward wisdom, specifically to “listen” to it (v. 5). In addition “the song of fools” (שִׁיר כְּסִילִים, v. 5) may be associated with “the house of pleasure” in verse 4, a connection that Eaton makes clear. “It has been maintained that the song of fools means ‘the song of praise and flattery,’ ‘the compliments showed by fools’ (cf. GNB, NEB). But since the word song (sir) is always used of quite literal songs (more than seventy times in the Old Testament), it is likely that the reference is to the songs of jubilation in the house of festivity.”[56] Fox sees that an “antonymic pair (here ge’arah/sir) opposes rebuke to merrymaking, not rebuke to praise.”[57] Contributors to the NET Bible see a use of metonymy of association when noting, “The collocation of ‘song’ (שִׁיר) in 7:5 with ‘laughter’ (שְׂחֹק) in 7:6 suggests simply frivolous merrymaking: ‘song of fools.’ ”[58] In this contrast Qohelet was placing the emphasis on “hearing,” noting what is better to listen to.

Previously the “better” sayings started with a contrast in nouns, a good name is “better than a good ointment” (7:1), followed by a contrast in verbs of action, “better to go . . . than to go” (v. 2). This same pattern occurs again, with nouns in verse 3: “Better is sorrow than laughter,” followed by verbs of action in verse 5: “Better to listen . . . than . . . to listen.” By stating what is “good” for humankind in using the “better” sayings, Qoheleth was urging his readers to go where they may ponder the end of life, and to listen to the wise in preparation for that end. He urged his readers to prefer to hear those who are wise, even (especially?) their rebuke, over the song of fools (presumably in the house of merrymaking). He follows this with an explanation in verse 6.

Ecclesiastes 7:6

“For as the crackling of thorn bushes under a pot, so is the laughter of the fool; and this too is futility.”

This verse is related to the preceding verse by the conjunction “for” (כִּי) as either an explanation or an illustration. Regarding the initial assertion, “For as the crackling of thorn bushes under a pot, so is the laughter of the fool,” Fox notes the pleasant use of alliteration in the Hebrew sounds in this play on words.[59] Eaton quotes Moffat’s translation, “Like nettles crackling under kettles,” for the first half of the verse.[60] Though the sound play is apparent in the Hebrew text, the point of the comparison (or pun) is debatable. Crenshaw proposes that “thistles provide quick flames, little heat, and a lot of unpleasant noise.”[61] Eaton concurs: “Thus fools’ laughter is a sudden flame, a fine display of sparks, accompanied by plenty of noise, but soon spent and easily put out.”[62] Though the point of comparison is summarized in the concluding remark, “This too is futility,” there is some ambiguity about whether futility (הָבֶל) refers only to the laughter of fools in the immediate comparison, or whether it also covers what precedes it, perhaps even back to verse 5.[63] Crenshaw allows for some ambiguity here, although he cites 2:12-15 as evidence for a preceding pattern.[64] However, in that passage Qohelet was giving a running autobiographical argument, and that is not the case here in chapter 7. Eaton has the simplest approach and is most likely correct in limiting the comment on futility to the immediate remark in this verse. He says, “The last phrase notes that the superficiality of the fool is part of life’s vanity, which elsewhere is said to characterize both the environment of man (1:2 ff) and man himself (6:12).”[65] This remark also provides a conceptual connection to the next series of verses.

Ecclesiastes 7:7

“For oppression makes a wise man mad, and a bribe corrupts the heart.”

This occurrence of the conjunction כִּי probably is an asseverative to be translated “surely.” Some scholars have said verse 7 introduces a new section, usually 7:7-10.[66] However, in this verse it seems that Qohelet, in light of the preceding context, may be giving a cautionary note about other corrupting influences that may get to the “heart” of the wise. As Hubbard explains, “The nub of the thought in this verse seems to be that, despite the vast gap between the behavior of the wise and the fool, there are pitfalls to which even the ‘wise’ may be vulnerable. These hazards seem to be ‘oppression’ . . . and its companion ‘bribery.’ ”[67] Whether הָעֹשֶׁק is translated “oppression” or “extortion,” a specific form of oppression, both expressions indicate a form of injustice (cf. “oppression” in 4:1 and 5:7 [Eng. 8]). The emphasis then is this: Wisdom is better for anyone, though one must be careful, for the human heart may yet be led astray from wisdom. It is wise to note these perils and avoid them.

III. Advice on How to Be Wise (7:8-10)

Ecclesiastes 7:8

“The end of a matter is better than its beginning; patience of spirit is better than haughtiness of spirit.”

This verse adds a new train of thought, though it builds on the previous verses. Also it continues the pattern of giving wise advice through the comparative “better” sayings. Kruger sets this within the transition queries of 6:10-12 when he points out, “Structurally, this repeats the argument of v. 1b (‘better is the day of one’s death’) with conditions reversed. Common to both attitudes toward life is the orientation of present actions toward the expected future—which must seem problematic after 6:12b (cf. 7:14b).”[68] Yet Qohelet shares that there are many relatively “good” things for man. In this case the end is a good thing, in fact it is better than the beginning. The use of אַחֲרִית (“end,” which has the idea of “the final lot, or even the ultimate issue of a course of action”), with the word דָּבָר (“matter” can also be “something” or “anything”) seems to mean “a thing” or “any matter,” since there is no immediate reference to speech in this passage. The second line in verse 8 has a double reference to רוּחַ (“spirit”), in the two descriptions אֶרֶךְ־רוּחַ (“‘length’ or ‘patient’ in spirit”) and גַּבַהּ־רוּחַ (“ ‘lofty,’ ‘exalted,’ or ‘haughty’ in spirit”). The New Jewish Version speaks of “a patient spirit” being better than a “haughty spirit.”[69] Though Eaton would limit these matters to trials and sufferings in life,[70] together these proverbial sayings seem to be broader and cover all matters experienced or undertaken, which require patience if their end is to be reached.[71] Longman adds, “No one knows the outcome of anything until it is completed, so patience, not pride, is called for.”[72]

Ecclesiastes 7:9

“Do not be eager in your heart to be angry, for anger resides in the bosom of fools.”

Qohelet gave more supporting advice regarding reaching the end of a matter at hand, by admonishing his readers against anger. He began with a negative admonition, “Do not be angry,” and a second negative admonition is in the next verse. The second “better” saying in verse 8 ends with two references to רוּחַ (“spirit”), and verse 9 begins with a reference to בְּרוּחֲךָ (“in your spirit”). The concept behind the haughty spirit in the previous verse is conveyed in this verse by the mention of haste. This advances the same thought from earlier, in that כַעַס (“anger”) would arise out of impatience (along with injustice or misfortune—two themes in the book) and out of pride (Prov. 13:10). Although some see a flat contradiction in Qohelet’s references to anger in verses 3 and 9,[73] Hubbard, Whybray, and Fox demonstrate that there are legitimate nuances of meaning that occur within Ecclesiastes itself (1:18, 2:23; especially in the context of “mourning” in 7:3).[74] Qohelet continued to warn against כְּסִילִים (“fools”), the antithesis of the wise.

Ecclesiastes 7:10

“Do not say, ‘Why is it that the former days were better than these?’ For it is not from wisdom that you ask about this.”

In verse 10 Qohelet began with an admonition, citing a general question, and then he gave an explanation about his admonition. Instead of debating whether the “former days” were better, Qohelet warned the reader not to ask about the comparison, whether it be about a change of circumstances, fortunes, or any other matter. Several reasons are proposed as to why it is not wise to ask about the former days. (1) The very framing of the question betrays a bias and perhaps not a sincere inquiry. (2) Qohelet has been presenting, with explanation, the need to move toward a future “end”; and with the end being better than the beginning, it would not be wise to inquire backwards, dividing one’s focus and perhaps energies. (3) “This longing for the past and dissatisfaction with the present (may well be) symptoms of impatience and pride also spoken of in v. 8.”[75] (4) Whatever the compilation of wisdom, the conclusion is certain: this query has not proven to be satisfactory. It is just “not wise” to ask this question.

IV. The Advantages of Wisdom (7:11-12)

Ecclesiastes 7:11-12

“Wisdom along with an inheritance is good and an advantage to those who see the sun. For wisdom is protection just as money is protection, but the advantage of knowledge is that wisdom preserves the lives of its possessors.”

In answer to the rhetorical question in 6:12, “Who knows what is good for a man during his lifetime, during the few years of his futile life?” Qohelet continued to build his list of what is good. He affirmed that wisdom is good (טוֹבָה חָכְמָה), in which טוֹבָה refers to what is valuable and beneficial. Delitzsch explains that this verse is not saying wisdom is as good as an inheritance. Instead wisdom is beneficial when it is held “ ‘in connection with wealth’ (possessions).”[76] This fits the word for “inheritance,” נַחֲלָה, used only here in Ecclesiastes.

Hubbard states that elsewhere it means “possessions passed from generation to generation at the death of the father (Prov. 17:2; 19:4). They may seem reliable because they are already in the hands of the family. But without ‘wisdom’ in their use, they may be squandered or embezzled, as Koheleth had already warned (5:10-17; 6:1-9).”[77] This fits well with the development of the passage, for in the next line this combination is a true “advantage” (יֹתֵר) to those who “see the sun,” that is, the living. This word “advantage” goes back to a basic theme, or guiding question, related earlier, of what is “profitable” or “advantageous” (1:3; 2:15; 6:8, 11). It also anticipates the next verse.

The word “protection” in verse 12 is literally the word “shadow” or “shade” (צֵל), which is often used as a metaphor for protection (Gen. 19:8; Num. 14:9; Isa. 30:2, 3; Jer. 48:45).[78] Longman correctly asserts that “it is clear that what is meant is protection, presumably from the hard realities of life.”[79] The use of the conjunction כִּי (“for”) at the beginning of verse 12 introduces this present argument of comparison in support of the previous assertion.

In the next phrase Qohelet emphasized the superiority of wisdom (roughly synonymous with knowledge for his purposes here, as elsewhere; cf. Prov. 1:7). Again he used a key term יִתְרוֹן (“advantage”) to reinforce what is “good” for man (6:12). Knowledge and wisdom are good for man, not only with an inheritance, but even superior to an inheritance, in that “wisdom preserves the lives” of those who have it.” An inheritance (v. 11) and money (v. 12) are good, but wisdom is superior in that it gives life to those who have it, something money may not do.

V. A Call to Reflection (7:13-14)

Ecclesiastes 7:13-14

“Consider the work of God, for who is able to straighten what He has bent? In the day of prosperity be happy, but in the day of adversity consider—God has made the one as well as the other so that man will not discover anything that will be after him.”

Here Qohelet began with a command to “consider” (רַאֵה), or “see,” which implies reflecting soberly and pondering. Verse 13 includes the first mention of God in chapter 7. Qoheleth mentions “the work of God”—the whole of God’s enterprise—for serious reflection and points out the “crooked” first, in the form of a question. This is in keeping with his style of bringing up the most difficult conundrums first. So the focus is especially on those things that are crooked. In other words Qohelet assumed that his readers would have a question about the “crooked” things (first introduced in 1:15) in that he asked who is able to straighten (לְתַקֵּן, “to put right”) what has already been made “crooked.” Most commentators consider God to be the subject of the verb עִוַּתוֹ (“he has made crooked” or “he has bent”). The answer expected would be, “No one could straighten out such things.” God is absolutely sovereign in all He does. This, like one’s end, is to be pondered.

Having previously commanded his readers to consider the sovereignty of God, Qohelet now encouraged a good response to the good days. Fox elaborates on the nuances used: “The gender distinction between tob and tobah, though not usually significant, here cues us to a shift in usage: when in tobah, a good situation, enjoy the tob, the good feeling. ‘Enjoy the good’ (הַיֵה בְטוֹב) is lit. “be in good” [v. 14]; cf. the similar expressions in Ps. 25:13; Job 21:13.”[80]

In a similar vein Qohelet admonished that in the days that are “evil” (רָעָה, with a wide-ranging idea of difficulty and adversity, a standard expression used throughout the Old Testament) one is to “consider” or “reflect” (רַאֵה) on the fact that God has made both kinds of days, the “day” being a metonymy of the “time” in which the good or evil transpires.[81] The reader is to enjoy the good in good times and to ponder God’s work in adversity, realizing that both fall into an inscrutable divine plan or pattern. For “man does not know” or “will not discover” what “stretches into life ahead.” In this case the verb “will not discover” (lit., “cannot know”) “suggests that man is on a search, looking for something.”[82] These admonitions are the wisest directives regarding the inscrutable nature of what comes “afterward” in the life of any person—something one cannot find out. This concludes the section by answering what man may know about the future: he cannot know it.

Conclusion

Qohelet—Solomon—was an especially wise man, who reflected deeply on the antinomies inherent in human existence. Drawing on history and his experience, he sought to address the hard questions of life and the enigmas of the world that seem to make life so futile. Ecclesiastes, then, though admittedly difficult, is a work that explores ultimate questions, and that exploration is intended to bring back some “balance” from extremities. Though there are inherent limitations in wisdom, including its inability to foresee the future, still it proves to be profitable for living in the present in preparation for the “end” in every person’s future in this life.

The book of Ecclesiastes has a unified theme; it is not simply a haphazard collection of observations from a variety of sources. Overall the main body of the book may be divided into two halves with a formal division between 6:9 and 6:10. This transition section of 6:10-12 finalizes the first half, which records a variety of personal observations and experiments that show that the world is enigmatic and is filled with futility. This transition section also sets the stage for the opening proverbs and admonitions of chapter 7. In 7:1-14 Qohelet began to bring out a much-needed balance, answering two of the three rhetorical questions asked in 6:10-12, namely, “Who knows what is good for a man?” and “Who can tell a man what will be after him?” Glenn astutely observes, “The key to this section [7:1-14] is found in verse 14a where Solomon declared that God is the author of both adversity and prosperity. . . . The ramifications of this for Solomon were that adversity might have positive benefits and prosperity might have ill effects. . . . Thus in verses 2-4 Solomon portrayed the positive benefits of the greatest adversity, death, if wisely considered, and in verses 11-12 he portrayed the benefits of prosperity if wisely used.”[83]

Thus the first 14 verses of chapter 7 begin to present, explain, and expand on “what is good for man.” In this series of “good” and “better” sayings Qohelet proposed that it is good for man to think and live in view of his end (7:1-4). This is foundational in light of the warning in 12:14, “God will bring every act to judgment, everything which is hidden, whether it is good or evil.” This is the starting point: “Begin with your death—the end of everyone—and build a wise life in marching to that end! Make it count!”

Notes

1. Tremper Longman III, The Book of Ecclesiastes, New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 176.
2. Thomas Kruger, Qoheleth: A Commentary, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004), 132.
3. Stephen R. Schrader, “Hebrew Exegesis of Ecclesiastes” (class notes, Capital Bible Seminary, Lanham, Maryland, spring, 1988).
4. David P. Hubbard, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Communicator’s Commentary (Dallas: Word, 1991), 156; and Robert Gordis, Koheleth—The Man and His World, 3rd ed. (New York: Schocken, 1987), 262.
5. James L. Crenshaw, Ecclesiastes, Old Testament Library (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987), 131.
6. Michael V. Fox, A Time to Tear Down and a Time to Build Up: A Rereading of Ecclesiastes (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 247.
7. Graham S. Ogden and Lynell Zogbo, A Handbook on Ecclesiastes (New York: United Bible Societies, 1997), 208.
8. Norbert Lohfink, Ecclesiastes, trans. Sean McEvenue (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003), 88.
9. For example Longman writes, “Though it is an allusion, it is nonetheless obvious that this is a reference to God (see the Targum which makes this explicit)” (Ecclesiastes, 177); and Hubbard says, “We are human, not divine. Therefore we lose all arguments (‘cannot contend’) with God who is not just slightly but infinitely mightier than we” (Ecclesiastes, 156).
10. Ogden and Zogbo, A Handbook on Ecclesiastes, 209.
11. Crenshaw, Ecclesiastes, 131.
12. Raymond Eugene Johnson Jr., “The Rhetorical Question as a Literary Device in Ecclesiastes” (PhD diss., Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1986), 182-83. In a later summary of the framing function of rhetorical questions, Johnson notes four important items that suggest 6:12 is pivotal in framing a new line of thought: “That the questions in 6:12 signal a shift in emphasis . . . is, however, suggested by four items: (1) the disappearance of the ‘What profit’ questions from the second half of the book, (2) the increased frequency of ‘Who knows’ questions, (3) the contextual linking of the ‘What profit’ question of 6:11 with the questions of 6:12, and (4) the decline of עָמָל(toil) vocabulary” (ibid., 243).
13. Ibid., 183.
14. Ogden and Zogbo, A Handbook on Ecclesiastes, 210.
15. Addison G. Wright, “The Riddle of the Sphinx: The Structure of the Book of Qoheleth,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 30 (July 1968): 322, 330.
16. Thomas Kruger, Ecclesiastes: A Commentary, 133, n 4.
17. “By the use of the ‘better-than proverb,’ however, Qohelet does indicate that some things are better than others. That is, he gives expression to what he believes are relative values” (Longman, Ecclesiastes, 179).
18. Whether the verb וַיַעֲשֵׂם refers to God as its subject (Longman, Ecclesiastes, 178), or to men as its subject (James L. Crenshaw, Ecclesiastes: A Commentary, 132; and R. N. Whybray, Ecclesiastes, Old Testament Guides [Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1997], 11) does not change its meaning in the immediate context regarding the brevity and ignorance of human life that ends in death.
19. Crenshaw, Ecclesiastes: A Commentary, 132.
20. Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1907), 616.
21. E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible (reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1968), 949-51.
22. Hubbard, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, 157.
23. Ogden and Zogbo, A Handbook on Ecclesiastes, 214.
24. Michael A. Eaton, “Suffering and Sin: Ecclesiastes 7:1-8:1,” in Reflecting with Solomon, ed. Roy B. Zuck (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994), 291.
25. Iain Proven, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), 133.
26. Charles Dyer, “Ecclesiastes” (class notes in Old Testament Poetry and Wisdom Literature, Capital Bible Seminary, Lanham, Maryland, fall 1987).
27. Adapted from Ogden and Zogbo, A Handbook on Ecclesiastes, 215-16.
28. Ronald J. Williams, William’s Hebrew Syntax, 3rd ed. (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2007), 33, 121.
29. Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, 312.
30. Fox, A Time to Tear Down and a Time to Build Up, 251.
31. Longman points out that wisdom literature emphasizes the value of a good name, but he notes that whether precious jewels or fine ointment is referred to, both were “expensive and sought after item(s)” (Ecclesiastes, 182).
32. Eaton, “Suffering and Sin: Ecclesiastes 7:1-8:1,” 292.
33. Ibid. And Crenshaw connects it euphemistically (Ecclesiastes, 133).
34. Dyer writes, “As Solomon drew the first section of the book to a close (6:9) he concluded that man’s personal labor results in vanity—short lived, transparent returns—for a heavy investment” (“Ecclesiastes,” 289).
35. Fox, A Time to Tear Down and a Time to Build Up, 250-51. He adds that precious oil may even pertain to a “proper” burial.
36. G. Currie Martin, ed., Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs, rev. ed. (Edinburgh: Clark, 1908), 253, quoted in Eaton, “Suffering and Sin: Ecclesiastes 7:1-8:1,” 292.
37. Seow, Ecclesiastes, 244.
38. Eaton, “Suffering and Sin: Ecclesiastes 7:1-8:1,” 292.
39. Ibid.
40. Fox, A Time to Tear Down and a Time to Build Up, 251.
41. So Gordis, Koheleth—The Man and His World, 266-67; Crenshaw, Ecclesiastes: A Commentary, 131-32; Charles Bridges, Ecclesiastes (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Trust, 1992), 133-34. Also J. Stafford Wright writes, “Preserve your good name until the day of your death and you achieve the potentiality of your birth inheritance (v.1; cf. v. 8a)” (Ecclesiastes,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 5 [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991], 1174).
42. Lohfink, Qoheleth, 93.
43. Longman, The Book of Ecclesiastes, 182. Fox observes, “Given Qohelet’s recurring melancholy, he may well be praising death for releasing man from the awareness of injustice and the toils to which birth exposes him (4:3; 6:3)” (A Time to Tear Down and a Time to Build Up, 254).
44. Schrader, “Hebrew Exegesis of Ecclesiastes,” 77. See also Donald R. Glenn, “Ecclesiastes,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary,Old Testament, ed. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck (Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1985; reprint, Colorado Springs: Cook, 1996), 992.
45. Lohfink, Qoheleth, 92.
46. John H. Walton, Victor H. Matthews, and Mark W. Chavalas, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2000), 573.
47. T. A. Perry, Dialogues with Kohelet: The Book of Ecclesiastes (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1993), 120.
48. Seow, Ecclesiastes, 246.
49. Fox, A Time to Tear Down and a Time to Build Up, 252.
50. “The word ka’as ‘sorrow’ also means ‘vexation’ or ‘trouble’ (see verse 9), but in this context ‘sorrow’ almost certainly refers to mourning the death of a neighbor” (Ogden and Zogbo, A Handbook on Ecclesiastes, 221).
51. Brown, Driver, and Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, 405-6.
52. Eaton, “Ecclesiastes,” 292 (italics added).
53. Longman, The Book of Ecclesiastes, 184.
54. Ogden and Zogbo, A Handbook on Ecclesiastes, 222.
55. Ibid.
56. Eaton, “Suffering and Sin: Ecclesiastes 7:1-8:1,” 293.
57. Fox, A Time to Tear Down and a Time to Build Up, 253.
58. NET Bible, 1131, n 18.
59. Ibid. “Note the repetition of the k/q sounds, sibilants, and ‘i’ vowel.”
60. Eaton, “Suffering and Sin: Ecclesiastes 3:1-8:1,” 293.
61. Crenshaw, Ecclesiastes: A Commentary, 135.
62. Eaton, “Suffering and Sin: Ecclesiastes 3:1-8:1,” 293.
63. “It is much more likely that it goes back to verse 5 and the relative superiority of wisdom over folly. In other words, these two verses function similarly to 2:12-16. Both sections assert the relative advantage of wisdom but then throw doubt on its value” (Longman, The Book of Ecclesiastes, 185). See also Hubbard, Ecclesiastes,Song of Songs, 163.
64. Crenshaw, Ecclesiastes: A Commentary, 135.
65. Eaton, “Suffering and Sin: Ecclesiastes 7:1-8:1,” 293.
66. Ibid. See also Fox, A Time to Tear Down and a Time to Build Up, 250.
67. Hubbard, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, 163.
68. Kruger, Qoheleth: A Commentary, 137.
69. Ogden and Zogbo, A Handbook on Ecclesiastes, 231.
70. Eaton, “Sufferings and Sin: Ecclesiastes 7:1-8:1,” 294.
71. So Hubbard, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, 164.
72. Longman, The Book of Ecclesiastes, 188.
73. “Qohelet contradicts himself concerning anger, and so we have further evidence of his confusion here” (Longman, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, 188). Gordis sees this as another proof of a collection of a variety of proverbs (Koheleth—The Man and His World, 268).
74. Hubbard, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, 164; Whybray, Ecclesiastes, 116-17; Michael Fox, Qohelet and His Contradictions (Sheffield: Almond, 1989), 230. “Neither verse makes a statement about anger in all circumstances, and the present verse does not condemn irritation flatly, but only hasty vexation” (Fox, A Time to Tear Down and a Time to Build Up, 254).
75. Longman, The Book of Ecclesiastes, 189 (cf. Whybray, Ecclesiastes, 117; and Gordis, Koheleth—The Man and His World, 272).
76. Franz Delitzsch, Commentary on the Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes, trans. M. G. Easton (Edinburgh: Clark, 1981), 320. This position also has the support of the ancient translations (cf. Longman, The Book of Ecclesiastes, 189-90).
77. Hubbard, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, 165.
78. Fox, ATime to Tear Down and a Time to Build Up, 256.
79. Longman, The Book of Ecclesiastes, 190.
80. Fox, A Time to Tear Down and a Time to Build Up, 259.
81. Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, 594.
82. Ogden and Zogbo, A Handbook on Ecclesiastes, 244.
83. Glenn, “Ecclesiastes,” 991.