Qoheleth on Greed and Satisfaction in Life

Qoheleth on Greed and Satisfaction in Life Loren Lineberry, 2009

The Problem

Al Sikes writes in The Trinity Forum that the recent financial collapses offer us a “teaching moment.” The disappearance of wealth, the collapse of our housing markets, the downfall of major banks, the demise of credit has brought on the need to reevaluate wealth and how we use wealth. Having forgot the lessons of the Great Depression, we need to reinvest ourselves in “the wisdom of Solomon, whose thought offers a rich tableau of enduring truths.”1

At one level, the problem concerns the interface between greed and satisfaction in life. The question is: What can wealth do for me? And, in addition, what is wealth unable to do for me? Taking Sikes’ hint, we may turn to the book of Ecclesiastes in the Old Testament to hear the Wisdom of Solomon on matters of greed and satisfaction in life. Hopefully, in this teaching moment, we can hear once again the voice of Wisdom.

In this article, we shall investigate Eccl 5:7-11; 6:7-9. Overall, we shall listen to Qoheleth’s wisdom as it pertains to our teaching moment. He tells us that economic injustice is ever-present [5:7]; be forewarned and react accordingly. He will also tell us that governmental and economic corruption is endemic [5:7]. Then, he will alert us to the value of self-sufficiency [5:8]. Then, in Eccl 5:9-11, Qoheleth will specifically tackle the fact that there are those who cannot be satisfied in life. To account for this, he will lift out the pointlessness of loving money [5:9], and the fact that nothing is achieved by living to consume [5:10]. He concludes with reflections on the benefit of not living to consume. Finally, in Eccl 6:7-9, Qoheleth delves into the human contribution to living a dissatisfied life. He affirms that the problem is that appetites are insatiable [6:7]. Moreover, one’s cultural standing in society has nothing to do with, nor does it provide any insulation to that fact that slavery to appetites is ever-present [6:8]. Finally, Qoheleth concludes with a bit of wise advice – learn to enjoy what one already has [6:9].

The Text

The text that informs this essay is Ecclesiastes 5:7-6:9. The overall structure of the passage may be schematized thus:2

Those who cannot be satisfied in life, 5:7-11Those who cannot enjoy life, 5:12-16

That which is good in life, 5:17-18So, live a little, 5:19

That which is bad in life, 6:1-2Those who cannot enjoy life, 6:3-6

Those who cannot be satisfied in life, 6:7-9

As this schema shows, Qoheleth3 describes the place of wealth by noting those who cannot be satisfied in life, as well as those who simply refuse to enjoy life. He also has something to say concerning the good and the bad in life. At the very center of his thought is his advice to live a little. Taken together, this passage can teach us much, in this moment, on wealth, greed, and satisfaction in life.

1Al Sikes, “A Teaching Moment,” in The Trinity Forum, 2009. 2For the chiastic structure of this passage, see William Foxwell Albright and David Noel

Freedman, ed., The Anchor Bible, vol. 18C, Ecclesiastes, by C. L. Seow (New York: Doubleday, 1997), 217; David Hubbard and Glenn Barker, ed., Word Biblical Commentary, vol., 23A, Ecclesiastes, by Roland Murphy (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1992), 49.

3Qoheleth is the transliteration of the name the writer of Ecclesiastes gives to himself [Eccl 1:1].

1


Those Who Cannot Be Satisfied in Life, 5:7-11; 6:7-9

Those who cannot be satisfied in life, Eccl 5:7-11

The Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible in Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia [BHS] separates 5:7-8 from the remainder of the passage. Accordingly, we treat 5:7-8 first.

Translation4

(5:7) If, as is likely, you experience in the province oppression of the poor, and particularly, a wresting away of just due, then, do not be astounded over the matter, after all, one high official protects another high official, moreover, high officials [are] over them! (5:8) However, an advantage of land in all respects [is] this: [he is] a king [who] cultivates land.

The function of this passage in the context is to provide a sense of the cultural background within which 5:7-6:9 is written. That is, Qoheleth affirms that economic injustice is ubiquitous [5:7a]. Accordingly, the instruction advises one not to be overly astonished at the endemic nature of economic inequality [5:7b]. The motive that supports this somewhat cynical outlook is that an omnipresent officialdom watches out to protect the members of its guild [5:7c]. Ultimately, self-sufficiency is an antidote to this entrenched rapacity [5:8].

Before tackling some of the specifics of this background passage, we will benefit from considering the genre of the unit.5 Eccl 5:7-8 is a wisdom instruction that realistically acknowledges the perpetuity of a socioeconomic system that enables economic oppression. Moreover, the wisdom instruction affirms the value of not being dumbfounded when, as is likely, one finds economic injustice in one’s world, as well as the perpetuation of a culture of greed. In the final analysis, a positive value is place on self-sufficiency. Taken as a whole, Qoheleth’s tone in this unit is one of resignation.

Economic injustice as ever-present. Qoheleth wastes little time signaling the omnipresent reality of economic injustice. In 5:7a, he writes: If, as is likely, you experience in the province. The syntax of this protasis of the conditional clause signals that the author is considering something that either possibly or even probably occurs in the present.6 The upshot is that Qoheleth speaks of realities, not hypotheticals.

Indeed, when Qoheleth claims that if, as is likely, you experience, he signals an ongoing sort of occurrence. That is, you experience uses a present aspect of the verb to indicate an event or state of affairs

4All translations are the author’s.

5Genre is crucial to reading a text with its literary form in mind. That is, a genre is “a group of texts that bear one or more traits in common with each other,” [Moisés Silva, Foundations of Contemporary Interpretation, ed., Literary Approaches to the Bible, by Tremper Longman III (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 141]. The net effect of appreciating the genre of a passage is that the reader approaches a text with certain expectations in mind, owing to his or her understanding of genre.

In the case of the passage before us, Eccl 5:7-8 is a wisdom passage that contains instruction. The net effect is that this wisdom instruction prescribes statements concerning values, [see Rolf Knierim and Gene Tucker, The Forms of Old Testament Literature, vol. 13, Wisdom Literature: Job, Proverbs, Ruth, Canticles, Ecclesiastes, and Esther, by Roland E. Murphy (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1981), 177].

6On the use of the particle םא with the imperfect, see Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, ed. E. Kautzsch, revised by A. E. Cowley (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970), § 159l [hereafter abbreviated GKC]; and Ronald J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax: An Outline (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1976), § 515; and Bruce Waltke and Michael O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 38.2d [hereafter abbreviated IBHS].

2


that is ever-present over a period of time.7 Accordingly, by using an open-ended tense-aspect, Qoheleth again indicates that the experience of economic injustice is recurring.

To be sure, he ironically adds that this abiding experience of economic injustice occurs in the province. The Hebrew term used here points to an administrative district or legal jurisdiction.8 As we shall soon note, the just due owed to the less powerful is wrested away from them in the very place where justice should be expected.

Qoheleth portrays economic injustice in stark terms. He depicts oppression of the poor, and particularly, a wresting away of just due. The syntactical relationship between these two phrases is that of the basic claim – oppression of the poor – to the specific situation that exemplifies the claim – wresting away just due.9 Taken together and in light of the preceding material, this depiction is a recurrent theme.

By oppression of the poor, Qoheleth indicates the poor are the direct recipients of the activity of oppression.10 The nature of oppression may suggest economic oppression, or even extortion.11 Given the contextual concern for greed, we may well infer that oppression involves some sort of economic oppression.

The noun that is glossed poor is a participle that should be read to reflect a generalized designation of poverty, whether in economic or social situations.12 Given the economic overtones in the context, we might want to look upon the poor in economic terms.

Moreover, Qoheleth explicates13 the idea of oppression by specifying the oppression in terms of a wresting away of justice and righteousness. The two terms, justice and righteousness, may be taken

7The verb in the passage, you experience – הארת [Qal, imperfect, 2nd, masculine, singular]. For the non-perfective aspect of an ongoing action or state of affairs, see GKC § 107f; IBHS 31.3b.

8The Hebrew term for province – הנידמ – may be glossed province, administrative district [Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, translated and edited by M. E. J. Richardson, vol. 1 (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 549r [hereafter abbreviated KB¹]. Interestingly, Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968; reprint, Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 1979), 193r [hereafter abbreviated BDB] adds that the noun comes from the verb ןיד, to judge, implying that the nominal form indicates a place where justice prevails and should be administered.

9See IBHS 39.2.1b.

10For the essentially verbal character of the lead term in the genitive that is aimed at the second term, see IBHS 9.5.2c.

11For this sense of the noun, see KB¹, 897. The noun is used in the sense of extortion [Lev 5:23; Ps 62:11: Eccl 7:7 (parallel to bribe); Jere 22:17; Ezek 18:18; 22:12, 29]. The LXX glosses with συκοφαντίαν, a noun that may be glossed either oppression or extortion [Henry Liddell, Robert Scott, and Henry Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968), 1671 [hereafter abbreviated LSJ].

12The Hebrew text for the term poor – שר [Qal, participle, masculine, singular]; for the gloss, see

Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, translated and edited by M. E. J. Richardson, vol. 2 (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 1005 [hereafter abbreviated KB²].

13For the use of the phrasal waw to explicate, see IBHS 39.2.1b. The oppression is clarified and specified in terms of denial of justice and righteousness.

3


together to form a single idea,14 “righteous judgment or just due.”15 The net effect is that just due carries connotations of equity, of what is right, of justice that is dispensed to persons.16 It is this equity, this social contract of living together by what is right, that Qoheleth affirms is denied or wrested away.

The Hebrew term glossed wrest away17 is a term that indicates something is torn away, seized by violence, robbed, or simply wrested away from one. The prophet Micah refers to tearing away the skin [3:2] as a graphic depiction of those leaders who withhold justice. Moreover, the prophet Isaiah uses the term of those leaders who deprive the poor of their rights by withholding justice [10:2].

Take in stride what cannot be changed. The advice Qoheleth gives to this situation seems to be marked by resignation – do not be astounded by the matter [5:7b].18 The net effect is that Qoheleth, having described a more or less systemic condition of socioeconomic injustice, offers counsel against undue shock at the failure of leadership to administer justice. As noted, there seems to be an element of acquiescence in this counsel. As Fox notes, “When faced with government corruption and abuses, all he has to offer is lame advice not to be surprised at the sight, because that’s just the way things are (5:7).”19

Let’s take a moment to summarize Qoheleth’s characterization of his socioeconomic background. At the very least, his portrait of the basic institutions in his society is dismal. He affirms that economic injustice is ever-present, 5:7a. Moreover, this omnipresent injustice occurs in the province, the very place one would expect to find just due administered. Sadly, such in not the case.

Moreover, Qoheleth portrays economic injustice in harsh terms. He depicts oppression of the poor, and particularly, a wresting away of just due in terms of something that is torn away, seized by violence, or simply wrested away from one. Indeed, Qoheleth’s depiction of oppression may suggest economic oppression, or even extortion. The overall picture is a society in which the powerless and less influential are denied their just due in the sense of equity, of what is right, of justice that is dispensed to persons. Robert Gordis writes that when Qoheleth comments on the basic institutions in his environment, “he finds that corruption is inherent in the very nature of government, with its endless hierarchy of officials.”20

In the face of this bleak depiction of his socioeconomic environment, Qoheleth simply advises the wise person – do not be astounded over the matter. There may well be resignation in this advice, since there are things here one cannot change. However, it is difficult to ignore the irony or even sarcasm in this

14IBHS 4.4.1b.

15Michael V. Fox, A Time To Tear Down and a Time To Build Up (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1999), 233.

16KB², 1005.

.a noun, masculine, singular, construct – לזג17

.has an adverb of negation followed by a Qal, imperfect, 2nd, masculine, singular המתת־לא 18Overall, the construction has a jussive sense [see IBHS 34.2.1a] that probably connotes a piece of advice or counsel [see IBHS 34.3b]. We may gloss the verb to be astounded, to be amazed about [with the preposition לע, as we have here; see KB², 1744; see also BDB, 1069].

19Fox, 66. Seow writes, concerning this counsel, “Qoheleth contends that one should not be overly worked up over things that one cannot change.” Indeed, Qoheleth “counsels one to take things in stride,” [Seow, 215]. Commenting on the sense of be astounded – המת, Murphy writes, “Qoheleth is probably making an ironic observation about dishonest bureaucracy – that one should not expect anything better from such operators,” [Murphy, Ecclesiastes, 51].

20Robert Gordis, Koheleth: The Man and His World (New York: Schocken Books, 1968), 126.

4


bit of counsel. Overall, there is some level of soundness in this advice; that is, there are some things one is simply not in a position to change, so take them in stride. As Derek Kidner notes, “if we are looking on the world on its own terms of thoroughgoing secularism, we cannot expect too high a moral tone, either from the system we find in force or any other.”21

These observations impact the problem of greed and satisfaction in life. That is, Qoheleth may be asking us to weigh and consider the inherent limitations on economic satisfaction in life owing to one’s socioeconomic environment. If, as he affirms, economic injustice is endemic, then boundaries exist on one’s pursuit of wealth. This perspective on inherent limitations on economic satisfaction could reign in the obsessive greed that pursues wealth at any cost. The sky is not the limit; the limits are closer than that.

Corruption is endemic. Returning to Ecclesiastes 5:7c, Qoheleth seems to justify this cynical outlook by pointing to the omnipresent officialdom that watches out to protect its own. He writes: one high official protects another high official, and high officials are over them.

Syntactically, 5:7c provides a motive for the statement of resignation in 5:7b.22 Moreover, where a writer or speaker offers a motivation that he seems to believe has information that is generally well known or widely accepted, we may gloss, after all.23 Qoheleth, then, takes it as axiomatic that he lives in a socioeconomic environment wherein the bureaucracy offers little more than a predatory self-absorption. High officials protect one another.

Qoheleth uses the same term throughout the sentence for high official.24 Qoheleth has in mind persons with the authority and responsibility to insure just due in the province. At the same time, he characterizes them as persons whose arrogant self-absorption informs how they oversee matters within their sphere of responsibility. That is, Qoheleth seems to be referring to persons who are “arrogant in their wealth or power.”25

The crux of Qoheleth’s assertion is that this guild of officials is self-protective. He writes that they protect one another.26 As noted below, these high officials take care of one another. That is, they are

21J. A. Motyer, The Bible Speaks Today, ed. The Message of Ecclesiastes: A Time to Mourn and a Time to Dance, by Derek Kidner (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1976), 55.

22Christo H. J. Van der Merwe, Jackie A. Naudé and Jan H. Kroeze, A Biblical Hebrew Reference

Grammar (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), § 40.9 [hereafter abbreviated Van der Merwe].

23Ibid.

24High official glosses the Hebrew adjective – הבג. KB¹, 171 and BDB, 147 both gloss the adjective, high or exalted. The adjective is used three times in Ecclesiastes, 5:7; 7:8; 12:5. In the use of the adjective in 7:8, there are clear connotations of arrogance. The use of the adjective in 12:5 is not obvious, the line being obscure to most readers. Elsewhere in the Old Testament, the high or exalted does appear in settings where arrogance or haughtiness are in view. הבג can refer to one who is simply arrogant [1 Sam 2:3 (one who speaks arrogantly); Psalm 101:5 (haughty look // an arrogant heart); 138:6; Proverbs 16:5 (arrogant/proud in heart); Isaiah 5:15].

There is no particular basis for restricting the use of the adjective to bureaucratic figures in the Old Testament. However, in this context, the placement of הבג in a provincial setting, 5:7a, does indicate that refers to those of political and/or socioeconomic power who are above the poor [on this point, see הבגSeow, 203-4].

25Seow, 204. Recent examples of this attitude would seem to include CEOs of companies that

accept government bail out monies, while, at the same time, taking lavish business trips for company business. We are amazed at their brazenness; Qoheleth would see this attitude for what it is: arrogance.

26Literally, the Hebrew – רמש הבג לעמ הבג – may be glossed a high official over a high official watches. The Hebrew term glossed watches is better translated in this sentence take care of, preserve,

5


prone to take care of their own as opposed to delivering just due for those for whom, and to whom, they are responsible. These haughty and ambitious people have enough clout to allow them to “think that they can achieve anything they want at anyone’s expense.”27

The upshot of Eccl 5:7 is a kind of resignation over the “system” that Qoheleth observes. Indeed, he depicts the harsh reality of economic injustice perpetuated by those with enough power to keep inequality alive and well. The force of this verse communicates not a matter of if this occurs, but when it happens. The “system” is endemically unfair to those who lack the power to fight it. To be sure, the poor are those without economic or social clout; they are those who are in need of fair treatment, but only have fairness torn away by those charged with the task of insuring just due. The problem is that the poor are trapped within a system that is a self-serving and self-protecting hierarchy. As Murphy writes, “Qoheleth is probably making an ironic observation about dishonest bureaucracy – that one should not expect anything better from such operators. They look out for each other.”28

This acquiescence to the injustices of the system, as Qoheleth reviews it, leads to the obvious tension – Where is Yahweh? As Murphy notes, “Nowhere does Qoheleth narrate an actual divine intervention that would correct injustice, although God remains a judge (3:17; 5:4-5).”29 This tension between what Qoheleth knows God to be – just – and the fact that there is injustice is a tension that Qoheleth is unable to reconcile. He simply “maintains a single, but conflicted view: God is just, but there are injustices.”30 In the final analysis, Qoheleth makes no effort to solve this tension; he simply seems to affirm that it is what it is. Facing this tension is key.

That is, these observations impact what we have noted above – there are limitations in life. If, as he affirms, economic injustice is endemic, then boundaries exist on one’s pursuit of wealth. This perspective on inherent limitations on economic satisfaction might reign in the obsessive greed that pursues wealth at any cost. In terms of 5:7, one of these limitations is the failure to extend fairness by those with the ability to tender it. Sadly, self-preservation trumps altruism, and that is the system within which mankind all too often lives. Reevaluating wealth, and the lengths to which one is willing go to acquire it, might include the sober realization that we must kick against the goads of injustice.31 Mankind is what mankind is and God is strangely silent. At the end of the day, one might be better off to scale back ambitions in life and be content with 5:19 – Live a little.

The value of self-sufficiency. Regardless of the difficulties in reading this verse,32 it does seem to offer a glimmer of hope in contrast to 5:7. We translate 5:8a – However, an advantage of land in all respects [is] this.

protect [see KB², 1582].

27Seow, 218.

28Murphy, Ecclesiastes, 51.

29Ibid.

30Fox, 69.

31To take a simple example, most of us are aware of the unfairness of fees upon fees upon fees attached to credit card use. The arrogant abuse of the power to inflict fees upon those who use credit cards is an example of the haughtiness of the economic bureaucracy. Government may attempt to close the loopholes that allow these fees, but who is optimistic that other loopholes will not be found? Shouldn’t this inherent limitation force a reevaluation of the use of these cards?

32For an overview of the difficulties related to understanding 5:8, see Seow, 204ff; Fox, 234; Murphy, 46. Wherever one goes with this verse, caution in making claims about it is the order of the day.

6


This sentence contrasts with 5:7.33 Accordingly, the resignation in 5:7 is countered with some level of optimism. In addition to this, taken together, 5:8a and 5:8b have the look of a wisdom saying, a genre that communicates a statement of value based on experience.34 The upshot is that this form of saying alerts us to the fact that Qoheleth wishes to teach some lesson or value that he regards as not open to question. Indeed, 5:8a is in the syntactical form of a noun clause, a sentence in which the subject and predicate are nouns, or their equivalents.35 The import of the fact that Qoheleth uses a noun clause is that he wishes to signal that 5:8a represents something “fixed, a state, a being so and so.”36 The basic value is this: there is an advantage to land in every respect.

The nature of the value concerns the advantage of land. The term glossed advantage is found only in Ecclesiastes in the Hebrew Bible.37 Even English language readers pick up on the implicit comparison implied in the use of the term, advantage. As Michael Fox points out, the term advantage indicates that when two things are being compared, “the preferable thing has, or is, a yitron,”38 an advantage. As the disjunctive waw indicates, the comparison is between the states of affairs in 5:7 in comparison to 5:8. The upshot is that, compared to the arrogant and self-serving socioeconomic forces endemic to one’s culture, one has an advantage with land.

The Hebrew Bible has some interesting ways in which it uses this term, land.39 It would seem that in combining the sense of land as productive soil [5:8a] with cultivating [5:8b], Qoheleth is lifting out the comparative advantage of having a means of self-sufficiency in an environment where self-serving abuse of power is to be expected. The gist of 5:8a is a wisdom saying, a statement inculcating a value: one is better off to be as self-sufficient as possible, especially where burdened by a self-serving and multi-layered bureaucracy.

The net effect is this: [he is] a king [who] cultivates land.40 The question, on this reading of the sentence, is: How is king being used? We gloss the term, king, to point to a king, ruler [of varying status].41

33The sentence is opened with a disjunctive waw that signals a contrast with the preceding line [IBHS 39.2.3a; see also J. C. L. Gibson, Davidson’s Introductory Hebrew Grammar ~ Syntax (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1994), § 141. Moreover, there is a pausal form that points to a division between 5:8a and 5:8b.

34Murphy, Wisdom Literature, 184.

35GKC § 140a.

36Ibid., § 140e.

37Advantage, ןורתי [noun, masculine, singular], occurs in Eccl 1:3; 2:11, 13 (twice); 3:9; 5:8, 15; 7:2; 10:10, 11]. The glosses vary somewhat; KB¹, 453, offers result, profit, advantage, while BDB, 452, opts for advantage, profit.

38Fox, 112.

39Qoheleth uses for land the term – ץרא [noun, feminine, singular]. The Hebrew Bible uses this term in two ways that may well be germane to our passage. First, there is the use of the term for land, soil [that is productive]; see Gen 1:11, 12; Lev 19:9; 25:9; 26:4; Psalm 72:6, 16, and others. A second use of the term concerns its use for people of the land, especially when contrasted with officials and princes [BDB, 76]; see 2 Kings 11:18-19; Ezekiel 7:27. At the very least, the first nuance – land as productive soil – fits a context that refers to cultivation in 5:8b.

40This is a fairly wooden translation of the Hebrew – רבענ הדשל ךלמ. The verb in the line,

cultivates, רבענ [Niphal, perfect, 3rd, masculine, singular] is glossed till or cultivate [KB¹, 774; BDB, 713].

41KB¹, 591. The term need not imply some implicit royal status.

7


Now, we should remember what has been written in the context. First, 5:8b is part of a contrastive verse. Second, the principle actors in 5:7c were high officials. Accordingly, one wonders if Qoheleth might be contrasting, in a figurative manner, reputed high officials [5:7c] with real kings [5:8b].42 If so, then the value judgment in the wisdom saying in 5:8 is this: He is a king who can provide for himself, especially in a land overrun with a rapacious economic and political hierarchy.43

Summary. So, how does Ecclesiastes 5:7-8 impact those who cannot be satisfied in life, 5:7-11? The short answer is this: One’s economic and political environment places severe limitations on finding satisfaction in life. In other words, the system often works against satisfaction in life, and, since there is little one can really do to change this, take it in stride. Remember, he is a king who can take care of himself!

As we have noted, one’s environment is usually infected with economic injustice to one degree or another. The fact that matters ought to be different in the province is no proof that they will be. There simply are leaders, both economic and political, who wrest away fairness from those to whom it is justly due. Economic injustice works against satisfaction in life.

Moreover, corruption is endemic. As we have noted, Qoheleth takes it as axiomatic that he livesin a socioeconomic environment wherein the bureaucracy offers little more than a predatory self-absorption. High officials protect one another. Indeed, he depicts the harsh reality of economic injustice perpetuated by those with enough power to keep inequality alive and well. The force of this verse communicates not a matter of if this occurs, but when it happens. The “system” is endemically unfair to those who lack the power to fight it. The net effect is that one’s environment, to the extent that it is infected with the sort of cronyism Qoheleth describes, works against satisfactions in life.

Let’s now turn to consider the remainder of 5:7-11, Ecclesiastes 5:91-11, and how this line fills out how one cannot find satisfaction in life.

Translation

(5:9) Anyone who loves money is never satisfied with money, nor [is] anyone who loves abundance [satisfied] with profit; this also is utterly senseless! (5:10) When the good things in life increase, consumers increase: but, what is achieved for their owners, except examining it with his eyes? (5:11) Pleasant [is] the sleep of the workingman, whether a little or much he consumes; however, the abundance of the rich man does not permit him to sleep.

Genre. Ecclesiastes 5:9-11 is another wisdom saying, inculcating a value statement.44 The thrust of the value statement is: a life lived for wealth and consumption does not lead to a satisfied life, 5:9. Indeed, it is pointless to love money. Moreover, when abundance increases and consumption with it, what has one achieved with this lifestyle? Nothing comes the reply in 5:10. Ultimately, the man who can provide what he can for himself is better off than the man caught up in the endless cycle of consumption, 5:11.

42Stephen Ullmann refers to the use of figurative language or imagery as a “figure of speech expressing some similarity or analogy.” This figure of speech is “concrete,” yet with an element of surprise, in the sense of being “striking and unexpected.” All of this is certainly the case with the use of king, as we have proposed in 5:8b. See further, S. Ullmann, Language and Style: Collected Papers (Oxford: Blackwell, 1966), 177-78.

43This reading is supported in 5:11a, where we have the term for cultivate used in the Qal stem referring to the working man whose sleep is serene.

44See Murphy, Wisdom Literature, 184.

8


The pointlessness of loving money. In a section that deals with those who cannot be satisfied in life, Qoheleth lifts out one of the reasons – loving money does not satisfy, 5:9a-b.

In Eccl 5:9a, Qoheleth signals the focus of the sentence by front loading – those who love money.45

The Hebrew term Qoheleth uses – בהא – is a term that comes from a semantic field that communicates an emotive-attitudinal event that “expresses liking in the sense of desiring.”46 Moreover, the fact that Qoheleth uses a participle – those who love – signals that he has in mind those who are in the more or less continual, uninterrupted exercise of desiring.47 As Driver notes, this continual desiring is tantamount to a state.48 The nature of this state is well summarized by Kidner, “the love of money grows by what it feeds on.”49

The crux of the problem with living to desire wealth is that one is never satisfied with money [5:9a]. The problem, as Qoheleth sees it, involves the fact that one is never satisfied. The verbal aspect of the non-perfective verb points to a state that is ongoing,50such that one whose desires are focused on acquiring wealth discover the trap of insatiability – there is always more and they are never satisfied.

The verb glossed satisfied is a common Semitic term that communicates to get one’s fill of or to satisfy oneself with.51 Indeed, Qoheleth uses this verb elsewhere in Ecclesiastes to communicate the idea that satisfaction in life can be illusive. For example, in Eccl 1:8, Qoheleth notes: the eye is not satisfied with seeing. The referent in 1:8 is the futility inherent in words to communicate understanding of what one sees or hears. No matter what one sees or hears, “Qoheleth’s appetite for understanding [is] never appeased.”52 Or, in another example of the illusiveness of getting one’s fill so as to desire no more, in Eccl 4:8, Qoheleth refers to a man whose eyes were never satisfied with riches. Yet, this same man lived in such a way that there was no end to his toil [4:8]. The utter pointlessness of living in such a way as to find no end in sight of one’s work without ever being satisfied with it is sheer folly. Yet, there this man is!

It is significant that three of the four uses of this verb, satisfy, in Ecclesiastes come in contexts that deal with wealth.53 The net effect is that Qoheleth seems to be of the opinion that wealth, as an avenue of satisfaction in life, is illusive and, ultimately, pointless. Little wonder that, at the end of the couplet, his assessment is – this also is utterly senseless!

45Fronting is a way of providing the focus of an utterance [Van der Merwe § 47.2].

46Willem A. VanGemeren, ed., New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998), “בהא,” by P. J. J. S. Els [CD-ROM; hereafter abbreviated NIDOTTE].

47GKC § 116a; see also S. R. Driver, A Treatise on the Use of the Tenses in Hebrew (Oxford:

Clarendon Press, 1969), § 135, and Van der Merwe § 20.3.1.

48Driver § 135.

49Kidner, 56.

50The Hebrew text has עבש־אל [negative particle with a Qal, imperfect, 3rd, masculine, singular]. The verbal aspect of the imperfect may be termed a habitual non-perfective, which describes a repeated, general, non-specific situation [IBHS 31.3e].

51KB², 1303r.

52Fox, 167.

53Eccl 4:8; 5:9; 6:3.

9


Eccl 5:9b adds to the thought of 5:9a. 5:9b reads: nor [is] anyone who loves abundance [satisfied] with profit. On the surface, the absurdity of this line is patently obvious. A lover of abundance not satisfied with a profit? Indeed, the term glossed profit54 points to the means of gaining wealth. The irrational bind here is that the very means of gaining what one strongly desires – wealth – does not satisfy.

Eccl 5:9c spins out the appraisal of 5:9a-b: this also [is] utterly senseless! The noun glossed senseless as used in Ecclesiastes resists any single translation.55 As we consider Qoheleth’s designation of 5:9a-b, we have the idea that he is evaluating these human phenomena as simply irrational, self-defeating, self-destroying, or, as Fox has it, warped. That a man who loves money is never satisfied with what he loves is simply absurd; that one should continue living trapped in this absurdity is irrational. Moreover, that a man who loves abundance is not satisfied with a profit is a pointless state of affairs and renders a man’s position senseless.

These observations on the pursuit of wealth as an end in and of itself impact the problem of greed and satisfaction in life. What this section forces us to reflect upon is the pointlessness of living to acquire wealth. There comes a point where wealth simply does not have the capacity to satisfy. In terms of the teachable moment, this is one of the tenets of Wisdom that needs to be considered.

As we have noted, the Hebrew term Qoheleth uses for loving money – בהא – is a term that comes from a semantic field that communicates an emotive-attitudinal state of sincere desire. Most often, the use of this verb in the Hebrew Bible has appropriate objects: God, our wives or husbands, our children, friends and so on. One wonders if perhaps our teachable moment – in light of our financial chaos – should include a reevaluation of what and whom we should truly love.

Or, take the matter of satisfaction itself. Should there not be a red flag here? That is, as we have noted, the verb glossed satisfied is a common Semitic term that communicates to get one’s fill of so as to desire no more. Wouldn’t a teachable moment include some reflection on the pointlessness of desires that ensnare one in the trap of insatiability – there is always more and one is never satisfied? Indeed, one wonders if our teachable moment might well include a reflection on Eccl 4:8, where Qoheleth refers to a man whose eyes were never satisfied with riches. Yet, this same man lived in such a way that there was no end to his toil [4:8]. The utter pointlessness of living in such a way as to find no end in sight of one’s work without ever being satisfied with it is sheer folly. Yet, there this man is! And, there many of us are too!

Nothing is achieved by living to consume. Eccl 5:10 is another wisdom saying offering a reason why there are those who cannot be satisfied in life – living to consume achieves nothing! Indeed, Eccl

,may be glossed the produce, yield, harvest of land or harvest in the sense of profit [KB² האובח541679r]. BDB, 100r, offers income, revenue. Murphy, 51, notes that the saying “stresses the subjective element, the self-destroying and self-defeating nature of greed.” As Fox notes, 235, “if one heads for riches, the horizon ever recedes.”

55The noun glossed senseless is לבה and appears 73 times in the Hebrew Bible, 38 of these in Ecclesiastes. English versions often have vanity, but this is a gloss that really doesn’t communicate much. The lexicons offer a bit more help; KB¹, 237, offers breath [a metaphor of what is transitory], vanity, fruitless, pointless. BDB, 210, offers vapor, breath, as a figure of what is worthless, fruitless, or to no point. The LXX glosses with ματαιότης. Studies on the noun have offered incomprehensible, unknowable, mysterious, meaningless, ironic, enigmatic and absurd among others. Michael Fox has written insightfully on this term in Qoheleth. He offers the following for understanding how Qoheleth uses the term. To begin with, לבה is a description of the way things are: “Whether or not there is meaning beneath or beyond the visible surface of events, that surface, which is the world as it presents itself to humans, is warped,” [Fox, 34]. Beyond this, the quality that best describes the warped nature of things is absurdity. Fox defines this term very carefully, “To call something ‘absurd’ is to claim some knowledge about its quality: the fact that it is contrary to reason – perhaps only to human reason, but that is the only reason we have access to, unless one appeals to revelation,” [Fox, 34]. The upshot is that Qoheleth has simply discovered and affirms, “some things are inequitable and senseless,” [Fox, 35]. For further study, see Seow, 102.

10


5:10a, as we shall see, offers us another opportunity in the teachable moment – abundance leads to increased consumption, but where is the achievement in this?

Eccl 5:10a reads – when the good things in life increase, consumers increase. This opening line presents an economist’s dream – the availability of goods and consumption are strong. In and of themselves, material increase and consumption are simply presented by Qoheleth as a matter of fact.

When the good things in life increase is a temporal infinitive phrase that runs simultaneous with consumers increase.56 As long as the means of pleasure increases, there will be consumers to dispose of it.

The term glossed the good things in life is a favorite of Qoheleth.57 Given the context, the means of pleasure Qoheleth has in mind may well be material possessions [see BDB] or, more broadly, the means of prosperity [see KB¹]. Either way, as these increase and become more readily available, consumption increases. It is here, in terms of consumption that Qoheleth begins to hint at a problem.

The verb glossed consume may well point to the voracious appetite of the greedy for consuming more and more of the means of prosperity.58 The fact that Qoheleth uses a participle here indicates that he has in mind an activity –consumption – that is characteristic of this sort of person, probably the one who loves money [5:9a].59 Indeed, the same verb, consume, appears in 5:11. But there, the referent is the man who consumes what he can, whether much or little; here, the referent is to the one of whom consumption is more a way of life.

Eccl 5:10a rounds out with: when the good things in life increase, consumers increase. The question is: increase in what sense?60 The verb would seem to point to the rapid growth of consumers as a group in times of material abundance. We would be inclined to say – the consumer culture swells in size. The upshot of 5:10 is that as long as the good things in life are plentiful, the consumer culture grows along with it. However, there is a warning.

In 5:10b, Qoheleth rhetorically asks – but what is achieved for their owners, except examining it with his eyes? It is with the rhetorical question that Qoheleth impresses upon his readers a difficulty in their

56The verb glossed increase, תוברב, is a Qal, infinitive construct. With the prefix, ב, the construction places the action of the infinitive – when material goods increase – simultaneous with the action of the main clause – consumers increase [Van der Merwe § 19.5]. The sense of the two lines is: as long as material goods increase, consumption will increase along with it.

is found, as a noun, in 4:8; 5:10, 17; 6:3, 6; 7:14; 9:18. BDB, 375r, identifies the use in הבוטה575:10 in terms of material possessions. KB¹, 372r, is probably closer to the sense of the term in this context with the prosperity one encounters in life, the good things in life. The sense of the term as the good things in life points to the pleasurable things in life, “the activities and means of pleasure,” [Fox, 116].

58Consume glosses הילכוא, a Qal, participle, masculine, plural with a 3rd, feminine, singular suffix.

This suffix is a back reference to the feminine noun, the good things in life. The verb may be glossed figuratively as consume [KB¹, 46]; BDB, 37, opts for devour, consume. Either way, these glosses point to an insatiable character to the consumption.

59On this use of the participle, see IBHS 37.2b]. 60Qoheleth uses a slightly different verbal root here; that is, in 5:10a, he used הבר, while here, he

uses the root, בבר. KB², 1175r, glosses the latter to be/become numerous; while BDB, 912r, glosses to be/become many, much. This is the only time Qoheleth uses this root in Ecclesiastes. The verb does appear most often in Psalms [8 times], and does, in some cases, point to the rapid growth of some entity [Ps 3:2; 25:19; 38:20; 69:5 (rapid growth of adversaries); 94:19 (rapid growth of anxious thoughts)]. In light of the lexical data, some such notion as become numerous or rapidly grow would fit the context.

11


teachable moment. Ultimately, Qoheleth impresses upon his audience that there really is nothing gained or achieved in life by living to consume. The consumer culture is a trap!

To begin with, when an author uses a rhetorical question, he or she is making a statement or rendering an evaluation in a passionate way.61 Moreover, by posing a question to his readers, Qoheleth is involving them in his discourse by forcing some kind of answer. The answer in this case amounts to a negative appraisal – there is no advantage, nothing gained, by living a life to consume!

Only Qoheleth uses the term glossed achieved.62 In this line, the value judgment he makes is that nothing is achieved in a life that lives for consumption. It is tempting to nuance this verb along with the Septuagint translator and affirm – there is no virtue in a life lived for consumption. In any event, the problem with living to consume revolves around what is achieved, or what is gained, or even what is virtuous about such a life? The answer is nothing. This wholesale disconfirmation of such a life lived to consume is ironically cast in the final clause – nothing except what one sees!

The final clause in 5:10b is glossed, more or less woodenly – except examining it with the eyes. The phrase, examining it with the eyes, describes the person who simply watches, observes, or checks on his holdings and possessions [his or her portion of the good things in life].63 The irony [or sarcasm] is that checking on what he or she has in the way of the good things in life is the achievement. The upshot is that there is no real gain, nor virtue, at all.

The benefit of not living to consume. The third and final wisdom saying in this section, 5:11, affirms the benefit of not living to consume. Accordingly, it is an antidote to [1] the pointlessness of loving money, and [2] nothing being achieved by living to consume.

The structure of this tricolon, 5:11, differs from the structure of the preceding two wisdom sayings. That is, in 5:9, the opening two lines, 5:9a-b, refer to those who love money, i.e., the rich man. Likewise, in 5:10a-b, the opening lines refer to the rich man. In 5:11, however, we have a tricolon that opens with a reference to the workingman [5:11a] and ends with a contrast to the rich man [5:11c]. It is difficult not to be struck by the climax offered here: there is some benefit to a life not lived to consume.

Eccl 5:11a presents the thesis of the wisdom saying: pleasant is the sleep of the workingman. By the workingman,64 Qoheleth points to the laborer, or what we would call the “working class.”65 Moreover, if our reading of 5:8a is correct [he is a king who cultivates the land], then a workingman who can simply

61See IBHS 18.2g. Moreover, Qoheleth introduces his rhetorical question with the interrogative pronoun, המ. The import of this particular interrogative is to introduce a “rhetorical question in which a speaker usually expresses a value judgment about something or someone. This value judgment is usually negative,” [Van der Merwe § 43.3.2.iii; see also IBHS 18.3g].

,may be glossed profit, advantage [KB¹, 503r; so also BDB [noun, feminine, singular] ןורשכ62507]. The noun points to what is gained or achieved [Alex Luc, “רשכ,” in NIDOTTE]. It is interesting that the LXX translator chooses to gloss with άνδρεία, a term that may be glossed virtue or even skill [LSJ, 128]. Fox, 236, goes with benefit; Seow, 205, opts for accomplishment; Gordis, 251, prefers value.

63Examining with the eyes glosses ויניע תיאר, a genitive construction that may be translated an examination [תיאר] with his eyes [ויניע], with the implication of watching, checking, observing [KB², 1163r]. This is the only appearance of this phrase in the HB.

64 is an articular participle. The best gloss for the verb is probably labor, work, do work [BDB, 713r], or toil, one doing the work [KB¹, 773r]. It is noteworthy that Qoheleth uses this verb only twice, here and 5:8. There would seem to be a conceptual link between the value of self-sufficiency [5:8] and the ability to find some level of rest in life.

65Seow, 206.

12


provide for himself without falling prey to the mania to consume is rewarded with pleasant rest [5:11a]. Furthermore, assuming this link with 5:7-8 is accurate, then our workingman in 5:11a may also be one who is threatened by economic injustice and endemic corruption at all levels. The upshot is that 5:11a does seem to provide a means of evading the turmoil associated with living to consume.

The workingman is said to enjoy a level of peace. That is, the workingman enjoys pleasant sleep. In the Wisdom literature, sleep or rest are barometers of one’s inner sense of peace and security in life [Prov 3:24; Psalm 3:6; 4:9]. Earlier in Ecclesiastes, Qoheleth has compared rest, in the sense of the emotional state of peace, quiet, or repose, to insatiable toil after wealth [4:6]. Commenting on 4:6, Fox notes, “Qoheleth teaches that a small amount of property (or none at all) that is acquired without strain is better than twice as much gained through exertion and stress.”66 Scrambling for financial gain through never-ending work is simply a fool’s game. But, there is yet more to be considered in terms of 4:6. As Murphy points out, Eccl 4:6 is informed by Eccl 4:4.67 In 4:4, Qoheleth does admit that insatiable toil after wealth does produce personal wealth, but at what price? At the social price of what we call the “dog eat dog” mentality. Qoheleth laments the rivalry that emerges between people who struggle to get ahead [4:4]. Murphy observes, “This is the dark side of human activity (cf. Prov 14:30). Not only the feeling of jealousy, but the competitiveness that sparks the desire to outdo the other.”68 The net effect is that the workingman who can sleep at night [5:11a] evidently sees the wisdom of not living to consume. Content with the meeting of his needs, he eschews scrambling for financial gain and the stress that goes with it; he also is relieved of the necessity to swim with the sharks in order to get ahead, thus not becoming, as Fox notes, “a source of social corrosion.”69

Eccl 5:11b may offer an insight into how the workingman can enjoy peace: he has learned to be content with what he does have. Indeed, Eccl 5:11b asserts that the workingman is not tethered to living to consume, since he can rest whether little or much he consumes.

The syntax of the phrase, whether little or much, indicates that both alternatives are of importance in the context.70 The net effect is that the workingman has learned to be content with either alternative. At the very least, the wisdom of this view of life signals a refusal to struggle after more and more.

Finally, in Eccl 5:11c, Qoheleth contrasts the sleep and rest of the workingman with the insomnia of the wealthy: however,71 the abundance of the rich man does not permit him to sleep. Abundance does not bring the kind of peace necessary for rest. The term for abundance72 indicates one who has pretty much all he or she wants. Even in this state, abundance does not permit sleep.73 The sense of the line is: the

66Fox, 221.


68Ibid.

69Fox, 221. 70See Van der Merwe § 40.5; GKC § 162; and Paul Joüon, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, vol. 2,

translated by T. Muraoka (Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1996), § 175 [hereafter abbreviated J-M].

71The disjunctive waw points to a contrast with the preceding sentence [IBHS 39.2.3b]. may be glossed satiation [KB², 1304r; BDB, 960r]. The sense of the noun is to have עבשה72

enough so that one does not desire anymore [Fox, 118]. 73The construction is: authorize [חינמ, Hiphil participle] him [ול] to sleep [ןושיל, Qal infinitive

construct]. The gloss for the participle, חינמ, may be - permit him to sleep [BDB, 629r] or authorize him to sleep [KB¹, 680r].

13


wealthy have so much “invested that they cannot sleep because they worry too much. Their material abundance will not permit them to sleep.”74

Summary. How does Ecclesiastes 5:9-11 impact those who cannot be satisfied in life, 5:7-11? The short answer is: greed does not satisfy. In one way or another, this wisdom unit decries the culture of greed as emotionally bankrupt to satisfy. As Prabhu Guptara writes in Trinity Forum, “unless we confront the fact that what we have is an officially sponsored culture of greed for the first time in history, we will not even begin to understand what is going on, let alone begin to address it.”75 In our own teaching moment, we must grasp and honestly confront our culture of greed.

` Qoheleth confronts the culture of greed by affirming the pointlessness of loving money. Loving money does not bring one satisfaction in life. Part of the reason for this is that loving money, greed if you will, leaves one in a more or less continual and uninterrupted state of desire. The upshot is that one is never satisfied with money. The trap is that one’s desires are insatiably focused on acquisition in such a way that one is always desiring and never satisfied. Indeed, the pointlessness of loving money is rhetorically underlined with the obviously absurd statement in 5:9a – nor is anyone who loves abundance satisfied with a profit. A lover of money not satisfied with a profit? Is this not a trifle perverted? Qoheleth thinks so, calling it utterly senseless! However one chooses to translate this catchword in Ecclesiastes, לבה [vanity, senseless, absurd], it is certainly the case that to love money and not be satisfied with a profit is warped. Accordingly, one cannot be satisfied in life as long as he or she is living in the irrational. Indeed, as we have noted above, our teachable moment must point out the absurdity of living to get one’s fill while never being satisfied!

Qoheleth also confronts the culture of greed by affirming that nothing is achieved by living to consume. Perpetual consumption does not bring satisfaction in life.

In Eccl 5:10, Qoheleth remarks that when the good things in life increase, consumers increase. As long as the means of slaking one’s pleasures exist, there will be consumers to take advantage of this. However, the question is: just what is achieved by this? By using a rhetorical question, Qoheleth confronts the perpetual consumer with his or her teachable moment – there really is nothing gained in life through endless consumption. In a twist of irony, Qoheleth uses a term for achieve that essentially means success. Indeed, in the consumer culture, where or how does one define success? The next line tells us!

The perpetual consumer is left with what he or she simply sees; this is success! As we noted above, except examining it with the eyes – is a description of one who watches, observes, and checks on one’s holdings and possessions. In other words, watching and checking on one’s means of consumption is the only benefit to them, more or less defining what success, at this level, is.

During the recent economic plunge, checking on our 401k investments was an eye-opener! We checked to see just how much we had lost; we watched as month by month the report declined; we wondered where our success had gone. Such is the outcome of living to consume.

We now turn to the opposite end of our chiasm and consider those who cannot be satisfied in life in terms of Ecclesiastes 6:7-9.

Those who cannot be satisfied in life, Eccl 6:7-9

Translation

(6:7) All of man’s toil [is] for his mouth; and yet, the appetite is not satisfied. (6:8) Indeed, what advantage [does] the wise man [have] over the incompetent? What [is the advantage] for the poor who is able to walk

74Seow, 206. 75Prabhu Guptara, “The Institutionalization of Greed,” in The Trinity Forum, 2009.

14


before the living? (6:9) Better [is what the] eyes see, than the roving of the appetite; this is senseless, a chasing after the wind!

Genre. Ecclesiastes 6:7-8 is a wisdom saying that inculcates a value concerning insatiable desire. The substance of the value statement is that uncontrolled desire is an utterly senseless way of chasing after what cannot be caught. The intent of this wisdom saying would seem to be to underline the futility of nursing cravings that fill the mind and never give one rest.

To this end, 6:7 is a wisdom saying that sets the stage for the entire unit [6:7-9], teaching that all of a man’s labor never brings satisfaction of desires. Life’s longings just keep on coming. In 6:8, two rhetorical questions further underscore the futility of slaking one’s desires through skill and intelligence or sheer struggle. Either way, regardless of one’s station in life, all meet the futile quest to satisfy insatiable desires. In a concluding better-than statement, 6:9a-b, Qoheleth makes a positive judgment – one is better off enjoying what one actually has than dreaming over what he or she does not have. A closing appraisal is made, 6:9c-d, to the effect that living life with a jumble of unfulfilled and endless desires, cravings, or lusts is an utterly senseless way of striving for what cannot ever be attained.

Appetites are insatiable. Ecclesiastes 6:7 presents what amounts to the thesis of this wisdom unit – appetites are insatiable.

Eccl 6:7a opens the wisdom saying with a statement concerning the purpose of a man’s toil: all of a man’s toil [is] for his mouth. Ostensibly, there is some reason behind a life of labor.

The term for toil in Ecclesiastes has a kind of darkness, an onerous quality, attached to it.76 In fact, as Fox notes, “The word has sombrous connotations that almost by themselves exclude the likelihood of adequate reward for the efforts it designates.”77 Indeed, Qoheleth opens his book with a reflection on toil [1:3], and seems to imply that toil does not have any particular advantage [ןורתי]. An advantage, in Qoheleth’s estimation, points to some gain, profit, or result, and toil doesn’t appear to have any significant return attached to it. Moreover, in Eccl 2:10, Qoheleth’s reflection on toil leads him to conclude that his life of toil and labor was ultimately hebel [לבה]. As we have already noted, hebel places its referent in a category of fruitlessness, purposelessness, or an activity that is ultimately senseless.

All of this labor is for the mouth.78 The metaphor – for the mouth – implies the pressure one feels to meet one’s basic appetitive needs. The onerous and burdensome toil one lives with is geared to meet one’s most basic human needs. In the final analysis, Fox is probably correct in affirming that the metaphor includes more than one’s basic needs in life. He notes that the metaphor “does not refer to hunger alone (5:11), but rather to the diffuse yearning for possessions of all sorts.”79 This observation is supported by the parallel term in the next line – appetite.

The upshot is that there does appear to be some point to the toil that a man engages in throughout his life. While toil does entail a quality of troublesome and arduous difficulty to it, toil is pointed toward

76The Hebrew term glossed toil is למע. The basic glosses that BDB, 765, offers are trouble, labor, toil. BDB, 765r, glosses 6:7a in the sense of toil, labor. KB¹, 845, offers care, anxiety for 6:7a. Fox, 99, notes that in our passage, the term stands for “hard labor,” or simply “to work hard.”

77Fox, 99.

78The Hebrew text has – והיפל [a prefixed preposition, ל, on noun, masculine, singular construct]. The preposition signals purpose [IBHS 11.2.10d; Williams § 277; BDB, 515].

The noun for mouth is used in Proverbs 16:26 in a line that may be translated: for his mouth [hunger] urges him on. The verb in 16:26 – urges – conveys a sense of pressing someone hard [KB¹, 47]. The point of the metaphor is that hunger [for the mouth] is a felt pressure that compels a person.

79Fox, 245.

15


meeting one’s basic appetitive needs. Moreover, if Fox is correct, toil may be the way to slaking a yearning for possessions in general. But, there is a joker in the pack!

In Eccl 6:7b, Qoheleth points out the nagging counterpoint to 6:7a. Even though a man labors and toils with varying levels of pain and distress, yet the appetite is not satisfied.

The term for appetite is crucial in grasping Qoheleth’s point. The appetites come from deep within a person, pointing to the deeper cravings or desires one feels in life.80 Indeed, appetite is a term that is often translated soul, living being, life, person, self, desire, emotion, appetite, or passion.81 The counterpoint is that satisfaction at the depths does not come through hard work. Indeed, one’s appetite [although at the root of human activity, is never really satisfied.”82“ ,[שפנ

The term we gloss satisfy is different from the one used in 5:9 [עבש]. Indeed, in 6:7b, the term Qoheleth uses implies that a person’s deepest cravings are never filled.83 The sense of the line is that, while appetites are open-ended and ever-present, there is never a time when fulfillment comes. The fact of the matter is that we are at the mercy of deep-seated passions and cravings in life that are never fulfilled. The compulsions that drive a person are the master of the man.84

Slavery to appetites is ever-present. Eccl 6:8 drives home the ubiquity of cravings that master mankind: both the wise and poor are trapped in the human snare of insatiable appetites.

In Eccl 6:8a, Qoheleth affirms, through a rhetorical question, that the wise man is not much better off than the unskilled man in this context of being ensnared in insatiable desires. Accordingly, Qoheleth asks: what advantage [does] the wise man [have] over the incompetent?85

We may nuance the term glossed wise to reflect more than intellectual prowess. As related to the context – the ubiquity of insatiable appetites – the wise refers to those who are skilled or shrewd86 or the clever and experienced87 in the arena of toil as a means of fulfilling one’s most basic cravings. In this circumstance, Qoheleth probably has in mind the shrewd and skilled person who is adept at enriching

80The Hebrew term used here – שפנה – points to the center of a person, as the transmitter of feelings and perceptions, including desires, longings, cravings, passions [KB¹, 713]. Indeed, BDB, 660r, affirms that this noun points to the seat of the appetites, whether of specific appetites or appetites in general. Finally, we should note that this noun does have a definite article prefixed to it, probably an article used generically. That is, the generic use of the article marks out “a class [emphasis mine] of persons, things, or qualities that are unique and determined in themselves,” [IBHS 13.5.1f].

81BDB, 659.

82Murphy, 54.

83The Hebrew term, אלמ [Niphal, imperfect, 3rd, feminine, singular] may be glossed to be filled or to be satisfied [BDB, 570r]; KB¹, 583r, simply opts for to be filled.

84For the thought, see Kidner, 61.

85For the rhetorical question as a means of imparting information with passion, see IBHS 18.2g. We may gloss as a statement – the wise man has no advantage over the fool. The context of the statement is bracketed in the unit [6:7-9] by שפנ [6:7b and 6:9b] or appetite.

86BDB, 314. We might note that the adjective, wise, like its parallel in 6:8b, poor, both have the generic article attached [see IBHS 13.5.1f; GKC § 126l]. Neither class of persons has an advantage over the other in the matter of appetites.

87KB¹, 314.

16


himself through hard work. Even in this optimal case, the clever and successful worker is still at the mercy of deep-seated passions and cravings in life that are never fulfilled.

At the other end of the scale, the incompetent fares no better. The term glossed incompetent, an antonym to wise, points to one who is not interested in either knowledge or understanding.88 The term, in this context, points to one who is inept in matters relating to the practicalities of hard work. The upshot is that neither competence nor incompetence matters one whit as far as fulfilling one’s ongoing, deep-seated passions and appetites in life. Both classes of persons are at the mercy of the same insatiable appetitive drives, and neither has any particular advantage over the other. Indeed, 6:8a affirms that even the savvy worker, although he or she may be gifted and shrewd in the skill of amassing wealth, really gains nothing [no advantage]; such a person is still enslaved to insatiable appetites.

In Eccl 6:8b, Qoheleth changes the images to consider one who actually manages to more or less cope in life. Here, too, there is no real advantage to coping skills as regards fulfilling one’s ongoing, deep-seated passions and appetites in life. Again, Qoheleth makes use of the rhetorical question to make the point: even the poor person who can actually manage to cope with life has no benefit in terms of quenching unappeasable appetites.

The poor89 references those whom we would call survivors: the needy and the struggling [Job 24:9], specifically, those who are in the need of help with none to assist [Job 29:12], acquainted with pain and distress [Psalm 69:30; Proverbs 15:15], those who have accepted a certain level of humility in life [Proverbs 16:19], as well as those who are exploited [Proverbs 22:22]. Accordingly, Qoheleth lifts out the careworn in this world and notes, even when they manage to survive, there is still no real benefit that accrues to them in terms of easing insatiable appetites.

Qoheleth acknowledges that these survivors manage to be able to walk among the living.90 The phrase points to those who successfully cope with or navigate life. The struggling – the survivors – evinces some skill in dealing with life. The net effect is that even this apparently laudable person faces the limiting fact of having no net gain, when considered against the standard of living above the level of insatiable appetites.

88For this sense of ליסכ, see BDB, 493; KB¹, 489, opts for stupid [in practical things]. This nuance offered by KB¹ probably points to the sense of ליסכ in this context: one who is incompetent in his work [see Fox, 245].

,As we have noted .[ינע – with a definite article, on the adjective ,ל ,prefixed preposition] ינעל89the definite article marks out a class of persons [IBHS 13.5.1f]. Indeed, the article may denote collectives in the sense of “the sum total of individuals belonging to that class,” [GKC § 126 l].

The term is glossed poor where the reference is to those who are wretched, in a needy condition [KB¹, 856r]. The adjective comes from a fairly wide semantic field that includes terms for oppression and affliction [see “Affliction and oppression” in NIDOTTE]. The adjective appears only here in Ecclesiastes.

90 Able to walk among the living opens with a participle – those who are able [עדוי (Qal, participle, masculine, singular)]; the sense of the participle followed by ל with an infinitive is probably to know how to do a thing, to be able to do something, or even to be skilled in doing something [BDB, 394; see also KB¹, 391].

The object of this skill is to walk among the living [םייחה דגנ ךלהל (prefixed preposition, ל, Qal, infinitive construct]. The metaphorical sense of walk may be, in this context, to behave or to associate with [KB¹, 247]; BDB, 234-35, also opts for metaphorical uses in the sense of live, in a general sense. Murphy, Ecclesiastes, 45, glosses how to cope with, and notes that this verb – walk – simply indicates to conduct oneself.

The prepositional phrase – among the living – may indicate a spatial positioning sense of before [Van der Merwe § 39.16; see also KB¹, 666-67]. The object of the preposition, the living [םייחה (article, adjective, masculine, plural)], refers to the living, those who are alive [BDB, 312r; human beings (KB¹, 308r)].

17


Learn to enjoy what one already has. In Eccl 6:9, Qoheleth rounds out his discussion of insatiable appetites with a Better-than saying.91 The line opens in 6:9a with: Better – what the eyes see. This phrase – what the eyes see – points to enjoying what one actually has – seeing/enjoying – in his or her possession.92 As Murphy puts it, “Seeing is superior to desire because it implies some kind of possession.”93

The “better” part of the better-than saying concerns enjoying what one actually has at hand to get pleasure from.

Eccl 6:9b points to the flip side: better is enjoying what one actually has to enjoy than roving appetite. Obviously, the operative term here is roving.

The term glossed roving is a figurative use of a verb, implying to wander about.94 That one’s appetites wander about is an apt metaphor for desires that are never fully met. As Seow remarks, the term we have glossed roving points to “the voracious appetite of those who are discontented with their lives.”95 Yearning, when a more or less permanent state of affairs in life, means that what we yearn for, even if we find some satisfaction, melts away into yet another yearning. The upshot is that a roving appetite strongly suggests obsession with the objects of one’s appetites.96 This roving of the appetites, a preoccupation with what one does not yet possess, is a prescription for dissatisfaction in life. In the final appraisal, Qoheleth says this state of affairs is utterly senseless.

Eccl 6:9c-d is an appraisal of all of this living at the level of insatiable appetites: it is senseless and chasing after the wind. The overall force of the appraisal is simple enough – to live at the level of the appetitive, to toil and labor, whether one is skilled [6:8a] or a survivor [6:8b], without enjoying some of what one has [6:9a] is sheer nonsense. The savvy and gifted person who amasses wealth or the survivor who manages to cope in spite of his circumstances are both hebel if their appetites continue to outrun the enjoyment of what one already has.

Not only is the senseless, it is chasing after the wind.97 Overall, this metaphor is a negative assessment, pointing to the absurdity of chasing after what cannot be attained. To strive after the satisfaction of one’s appetites, to the extent that these appetites are insatiable, is to strive after what will never be gained. To the extent that one is truly obsessed with one’s appetites and the meeting of them,

91The better-than saying is a “wisdom saying that involves a comparison”; it is “used as a rhetorical device in Qoheleth to introduce and conclude certain thoughts,” [Murphy, Wisdom Literature, 173]. In this case, Qoheleth uses the better-than saying to conclude his observation – in a positive sense – on the matter of appetites.

92The Hebrew has a genitive construction – seeing of eyes [םיניע הארמ] – where the collocation

may be glossed the power of seeing (and enjoying)[BDB, 909r].


94Roving glosses ךלהמ [Qal, infinitive construct]; for the gloss to wander about, see KB¹, 246r.

95Seow, 215; Murphy refers to “the futility of desire’s unfulfilled yearning [Murphy, Ecclesiastes, 49n9a].

96See Fox, 246.

97This phrase occurs seven times in Ecclesiastes [1:14; 2:11, 17, 26; 4:4, 6; 6:9]. In all but one of these references, it follows hebel. Overall, we may note that, whatever the precise sense, the phrase is a negative appraisal formula that points to futility.

The term glossed chasing points to what one strives after [KB², 1265r; see also BDB, 946r]. Moreover, the term that is translated wind is a figure of something without substance, futile, nothingness [KB², 1198r]. Accordingly, striving after nothingness is surely a metaphor of futility.

18


one’s mind leaping from one desire to another, and none of them satisfied, this “jumble of thoughts, imaginations and desires that fill the mind”98 is chasing after the wind.

Summary. So, what is the contribution of Eccl 6:7-9 to understanding those who cannot be satisfied in life? The essential contribution is that Eccl 6:7-9 affirms that all of a person’s efforts do not quench one’s appetites. The simple truth is that appetites are insatiable and always outrun one’s ability to gratify them. Accordingly, one who lives for one’s appetites is setting oneself up for dissatisfaction in life.

Qoheleth makes this point by claiming that appetites are insatiable. Indeed, Qoheleth links one’s labor in life, which is ostensibly intended to satisfy appetites, with the undeniable fact that appetites are never really fulfilled, 6:7a-b. These appetites come from deep within each of us, and it is these deeply ingrained appetites that cannot be satisfied, even through hard work. This challenge seems to be endemic to humanity.

Furthermore, in what may be read as a magnificent depiction of this paradox, Qoheleth notes that our appetites can never be filled. Like attempting to fill a sieve, he who attempts to fulfill one’s appetites is locked into a trap. The drives that move us to satisfy our appetites become the masters of us, with no ultimate resolution possible.

Recently, one result of our economic collapse has been to single out the predatory practices of lenders and financial institutions. To be sure, there is undeniable truth in this. As we noted in terms of Eccl 5:7-8, there are predators who prey upon the consumer. However, Eccl 6:7-9 affirms that self-absorbed predatory lenders prey upon consumers whose appetites cannot possibly be fulfilled. In our teachable moment, we might want to consider the power of our desires to be used by the predators in our economic environment. A bit of personal insight combined with wisdom can never hurt!

Moreover, Qoheleth makes the point that one’s socioeconomic class is really not the problem when it comes to dissatisfactions in life. Indeed, slavery to appetites is ever-present, crossing socioeconomic boundaries.

Qoheleth makes the point that the shrewd and skilful worker, the upwardly mobile, aggressive breadwinner, remains at the mercy of cravings and appetites that can never really be fulfilled. At the other end of the socioeconomic scale, the more or less incompetent or indolent worker fares not one whit better. He too is left to contend with appetites he can in no way fully satisfy.

The ubiquity of slavery to appetites, regardless of one’s socioeconomic class, goes to the heart of the American mythology of the “good life.” The good life is partly a matter of rising above a lower socioeconomic class to a higher one. We catch the cultural images of the “good life” in terms of the benefits tied to higher socioeconomic classes. These benefits include wealth, homes, vehicles, clothing, travel and the like. The net effect is that the shrewd and skilful worker over loads his credit cards to purchase his or her toys; those in the lower classes wish they could. However, Qoheleth reminds us, in our teachable moment, that satisfactions in life really are not tied to one’s socioeconomic culture. Indeed, in Eccl 6:8a, he claims that even the shrewd and savvy worker really gains nothing – no advantages – from amassing wealth. The upshot is that cultural values, those that inform and shape our sense of what the good life looks like, are poor guides. For, they lead us to an endless trap of slavery to appetites that are ever-present and largely beyond any meaningful satisfaction.

Ultimately, Qoheleth does offer an antidote to slavery to appetites: learn to enjoy what one actually has [Eccl 6:9]. The antidote to the roving appetite is the appreciation of the blessings one already has. Actually enjoying what one has in life is far better than yearning for what one does not yet have. This tendency to ask more of life than it can deliver may be offset by appreciating what God has already given [Eccl 5:17-19].99

98Ibid., 45.

99In a subsequent article, we will consider what Qoheleth has to say to this issue.

19


20

Qoheleth on Greed and Satisfaction in Life

Documents