Eclesiastes 4
Warren Wiersbe · Citado em PreceptAustin
Eclesiastes 4
Wiersbe - “Politics” has been defined as “the conduct of public affairs for private advantage.” The nation of Israel had an adequate judicial system (Ex. 18:13–27; Deut. 17; 19), based on divine law; but the system could be corrupted just like anything else (Eccl. 5:8). Moses warned officials to judge honestly and fairly (Lev. 19:15; Deut. 1:17), and both the prophet and the psalmist lashed out against social injustice (Ps. 82; Isa. 56:1; 59:1ff.; Amos 1–2). Solomon had been a wise and just king (1 Kings 3:16–28), but it was impossible for him to guarantee the integrity of every officer in his government. (Bible Exposition Commentary) NET NOTE on Then I looked again - The prefixed vav on וְשַׁבְתִּי (véshavti, vav + perfect 1st person common singular from שׁוּב, shuv, “to turn”) might be: (1) introductory (and left untranslated): “I observed again”; (2) consequence of preceding statement: “So I observed again”; or (3) continuation of preceding statement: “And I observed again.” This section is closely related to the preceding: Qoheleth’s observation of oppression (Ec 4:1–3) links back to his previous observation of oppression and injustice (Ec 3:16). It stands in stark contrast with his admonition for man to enjoy life on earth as the reward for one’s work (Ec 3:22). Now, Qoheleth turns his attention to consider the sorry fate of those who are not able to enjoy life on earth and their work because of oppression (Ec 4:1–3), over-obsessive competitiveness (Ec 4:4–6), and loneliness (Ec 4:7–12). THEN I LOOKED AGAIN - Heb “I turned and I saw.” The phrase וָאֶרְאֶה … וְשַׁבְתִּי (véshavti … va’er’eh, “I turned and I saw”) is a verbal hendiadys (the two verbs represent one common idea). Normally in a verbal hendiadys, the first verb functions adverbially, modifying the second verb which retains its full verbal force. The verb וְשַׁבְתִּי (vav + perfect 1st person common singular from שׁוּב “to turn”) is used idiomatically to denote repetition: “to return and do” = “to do again” (e.g., Gen 26:18; 30:31; 43:2) or “to do repeatedly” (e.g., Lam 3:3); see HALOT 1430 s.v. שׁוב 5; BDB 998 s.v. שׁוּב 8; GKC 386 §120.e: “I observed again” or “I repeatedly observed.” On the other hand, the shift from the perfect וְשַׁבְתִּי to the preterite וָאֶרְאֶה (vav + Qal preterite 1st person common singular from רָאָה, ra’ah, “to see”) might indicate a purpose clause: “I turned [my mind] to consider.” The preterite וָאֶרְאֶה follows the perfect וְשַׁבְתִּי. When a wayyiqtol form (vav + preterite) follows a perfect in reference to a past-time situation, the preterite also represents a past-time situation. Its aspect is based on the preceding perfect. In this context, the perfect and preterite may denote definite past or indefinite past action (“I turned and considered” as hendiadys for “I observed again” or “I repeatedly observed”) or past telic action (“I turned [my mind] to consider”). See IBHS 554–55 §33.3.1a. ALL THE ACTS OF OPPRESSION - Heb “all the oppressions” or “all the oppression”; alternately, “all the various kinds of oppression.” The term עֹשֶׁק (’osheq) denotes “oppression,” e.g., Jer 6:6; 22:17; Ezek 18:18; 22:7, 12, 29; Pss 73:8; 119:134 (see HALOT 897 s.v. עֹשֶׁק 1; BDB 799 s.v. עֹשֶׁק 1). It occurs several times in the book, always in reference to personal rather than national oppression (4:1; 5:8 ET [5:7 HT]; 7:7). The noun הָעֲשֻׁקִים (ha’ashuqim) is plural and articular (Heb “the oppressions”). The article indicates a generic class (“oppression”). The plural may be classified in one of two ways: (1) a plural of number, which refers to specific kinds of oppression that occur on earth: “the various kinds of oppression”; (2) an abstract plural, which is used to refer to abstract concepts: “the oppression”; or (3) a plural of intensity, which describes the oppression at hand as particularly grievous: “awful oppression” or “severe oppression.” The LXX renders it as a plural of number: συκοφαντίας (sukophantias, “oppressions”), as does the Vulgate. Most English versions treat it as a plural of number: “the oppressions” (KJV, ASV, NAB, RSV, NRSV, MLB, YLT); however, a few treat it as an abstract plural: “the oppression” (NJPS, NIV, Moffatt). WHICH WERE BEING DONE - Heb “is done.” The term נַעֲשִׂים (na’asim, Niphal participle mpl from עָשַׂה, ’asah, “to do”) is a probably a verbal use of the participle rather than a substantival use (NEB: “all the acts of oppression”). This verbal use of the participle depicts durative or universal gnomic action. It emphasizes the lamentable continuity of oppression throughout human history. The English versions translate it variously: “[all the oppressions that] are done” (KJV, ASV, Douay, YLT), “[all the oppression] that goes on” (NJPS, Moffatt), “[all the oppressions] that are practiced” (RSV, NRSV), “[all the oppressions] that occur” (MLB), “[all the acts of oppression] which were being done” (NASB), “[all the oppressions] that take place” (NAB), “[all the oppression] that was taking place” (NIV). THE OPPRESSED - The term הָעֲשֻׁקִים (ha’ashuqim, Qal passive participle mpl from עָשַׁק, ’ashaq, “to oppress”) is a passive form, emphasizing that they are the objects of oppression at the hands of their oppressors. The participle functions as a noun, emphasizing the durative aspect of their condition and that this was the singular most characteristic attribute of this group of people: Their lives were marked by oppression. TEARS OF THE OPPRESSED - Heb “the tear of the oppressed.” Alternately, “the oppressed [were in] tears.” The singular noun דִּמְעָה (dim’ah, “tear”) is used as a collective for “tears” (2 Kgs 20:5; Isa 16:9; 25:8; 38:5; Jer 8:23; 19:7; 13:17; 14:17; 31:16; Ezek 24:16; Mal 2:13; Pss 6:7; 39:13; 42:4; 56:9; 80:6; 116:8; 126:5; Lam 1:2; 2:18; Eccl 4:1); see HALOT 227 s.v. דִּמְעָה; BDB 199 s.v. דִּמְעָה. It is often used in reference to lamentation over calamity, distress, or oppression (e.g., Ps 6:7; Lam 1:2; 2:11; Jer 9:17; 13:17; 14:17). The LXX translated it as singular δάκρουν (dakroun, “the tear”); however, the Vulgate treated it as a collective (“the tears”). Apart from the woodenly literal YLT (“the tear”), the major English versions render this as a collective: “the tears” or “tears” (KJV, ASV, NEB, NAB, NASB, RSV, NRSV, NJPS, MLB, NIV). The term דִּמְעָה functions as a metonymy of association for “weeping” (e.g., Isa 16:9; 8:23): “the oppressed [were weeping with] tears.” The genitive construct דִּמְעָת הָעֲשֻׁקִים (dim’at ha’ashuqim, literally, “tear of the oppressed”) is a subjective genitive construction, that is, the oppressed are weeping. The singular דִּמְעָת (dim’at, “tear”) is used as a collective for “tears.” This entire phrase, however, is still given a woodenly literal translation by most English versions: “the tears of the oppressed” (NEB, NAB, ASV, NASB, RSV, NRSV, MLB, NIV, NJPS). Some paraphrases attempt to fill out the meaning, e.g., “the oppressed were in tears” (Moffatt). NO ONE TO COMFORT - tn Heb “comforts.” The verb נָחַם (nakham, “to comfort”) is used as a metonymy of effect (i.e., comfort) for cause (i.e., deliverance), e.g., it is used in parallelism with גָאַל (ga’al, “to deliver”) in Isa 52:9 (see E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech, 560–67). William Barrick (Ecclesiastes 4 Commentary) on Ec 4:1-3 - Four elements in verse 1 accentuate the text’s emotional intensity: (1) the root word for “oppress” occurs three times; (2) “behold” lends a dramatic effect; (3) “tears” and “comfort” highlight the emotional side of the situation; and, (4) the repetition of “no one to comfort.”2 The writer does not approach this section dispassionately; he personally identifies with the reality of oppression, with the abuse of power. Possessors of power are the perpetrators of oppression The writer employs the root word for “oppress” only two other times in the book (Eccl 5:8 and Eccl 7:7). Elsewhere, Solomon uses the root five times (Ps 72:4; Prov 14:31; 22:16; 28:3, 17), demonstrating that he had knowledge of oppressive rulers and their oppressed subjects. Possessors of power are the perpetrators of oppression (“on the side of their oppressors was power,” Eccl 4:1). Solomon observes the “tears of the oppressed,” revealing his sympathy for them. Oppressed persons feel helpless and hopeless, because they have “no one to comfort them” (stated twice for emphasis). Similar declarations occur in Job 16:2; 21:34; 30:28 and five times in Lamentations 1:2, 9, 16, 17, 21 as well as Psalm 69:20, Isaiah 54:11, and Zechariah 10:2 in order to emphasize a pathetic condition. The repetition sets the stage for the later discussion of loneliness and companionship (vv. 7–12). Readers of the New Testament cannot help but be reminded that God’s people receive comfort from all three Persons of the godhead (Acts 9:31; 2 Cor 1:3–7). Solomon congratulates (or, praises) the dead for being better off than the oppressed who cannot enjoy their life under the sun (Eccl 4:2; cp. Job 3:3–5, 11–19; Jer 20:14–18). In Eccl 3:15–17 the writer advances future divine justice as the resolution of oppression. Here (Eccl 4:1–3), however, death itself (even before the time of divine vindication and establishment of justice) offers a better alternative. This is consistent with the logical development of the text, since the writer introduces a discussion of death in the intervening section (Eccl 3:18–22).3 Even better off is the individual who never existed, who had never been born (Eccl 4:3). Such “better (than)” axioms occur 23 times in Ecclesiastes. The form also characterizes many of the wisdom statements contained in the central sections of the book of Proverbs, where they appear 24 times. H. C. Leupold declares that, “There is nothing skeptical or cynical about such an attitude. It is the only permissible estimate that can be put upon earthly values apart from the heavenly.”4 Long ago, Franz Delitzsch commented on the statement that death or non-existence is better than living with oppression: “so long as the central point of man’s existence lies in the present life, and this is not viewed as the fore-court of eternity, there is no enduring consolation to lift us above the miseries of this present world.”5 Solomon’s early assertion that God has “set eternity” (Eccl 3:11) in the hearts of human beings supplies a source for hope in the midst of the negative experiences of life. For those who deny Solomonic authorship for Ecclesiastes, the text’s discussion of oppression appears “awkward when attributed to the mind of Solomon. Not only could Solomon have done something about oppression, but he, according to the historical books, contributed heavily to it in the last days of his life (1 Kings 11).”6 Such an approach ignores the depth of Solomon’s God-given wisdom, the breadth of his international relationships, the extent of his access to situations in many neighboring lands, and the variety of his personal experiences. Scripture condemns the abuse of power. God consistently reminds His people of the sins of exploitation and oppression (Exod 22:21; 23:9; Lev 19:13; Deut 24:14; Ps 62:10; Zech 7:10; Mal 3:5). The godly not only refrain from oppressing others, they will actively seek justice for the oppressed (Deut 16:19–20; Ps 106:3; Prov 21:3, 15; Isa 1:17; Mic 6:8; cp. Matt 23:23; Col 4:1). 2 See these elements identified by R. N. Whybray, Ecclesiastes, NCBC (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1989), 81. 3 Duane A. Garrett, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, NAC 14 (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1993), 306. 4 H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Ecclesiastes (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1971), 104. 5 Franz Delitzsch, Commentary on the Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes, trans. by M. G. Easton, Commentaries on the Old Testament, C. F. Keil and Franz Delitzsch (reprint, Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1970), 274. 6 Tremper Longman III, The Book of Ecclesiastes, NICOT (Grand Rapids: William Charles Bridges on Ec 4:1-3 - A SINFUL world is a world of selfishness. Men—instead of feeling themselves to be members of one great body—each bound to each other in mutual helpfulness—live only to “seek their own” (Eph. 4:16, with Phil. 2:21) at whatever cost to their fellow-creatures. Solomon had already taken one view of this sad spectacle. He had seen with his father “the vilest men exalted—the throne of iniquity framing mischief by a law.” (Chap. 3:16, 17, with Ps. 12:8; 94:20, 21.) He now returns and considers. He takes a wider survey. He sees oppression in every corner—not only in the courts of justice—but in every sphere—not only for the sake of godliness—but all the oppression that was done under the sun.1 Behold!—he cries—the tears of such as be oppressed. The power also on the side of the oppressor darkens the picture. It is like Israel in “the iron furnace”—dragging along a heavy chain of life in a wearisome existence. (Exod. 2:23, 24; Deut. 4:20.) Twice does he allude to the deep and poignant aggravation—no comforter—no one to afford relief to soul or body. The tyranny of the oppressor here reaches his summit of cruelty. This keen trial has often been the lot of the Lord’s suffering people. “I looked on my right hand”—said a true child of tribulation—“but there was no man that would know me; refuge failed me; no man cared for my soul.” (Ps. 142:4. Comp. 2 Tim. 4:16.) Nay, was not this beaten track consecrated by the footsteps of the Son of God? “Reproach hath broken my heart; I am full of heaviness; I looked for some to take pity, but there was none; and for Comforters, but I found none.” (Ps. 69:20.) Sympathy with sorrow is indeed a precious privilege. “Remember them that be in bonds” (under oppression) “as being bound with them.” (Heb. 13:3.) If we cannot tread in the footsteps of a Howard, might not much more be done? Might not there be a more active, self-denying alleviation of suffering? Might not prayer and effort be in more lively exercise to bring the sufferers to an interest in the endearing sympathy of “The Man of sorrows”—so tenderly—even in his glorified state “touched with the feeling” of his people’s sorrow? And yet how very little do we realize the sorrow of others; either because they are at a distance from us, or because we have ourselves no intelligent and experimental acquaintance with the particular pages of the history of sorrow! As to the sorrow here expressed, Mr. Cecil mentions that he often ‘had a sleepless night from having seen an instance of cruelty in the day.’1 Our tender-hearted poet thus gives vent to his indignant grief:— Oh, for a lodge in some vast wilderness, Some boundless contiguity of shade, Where rumour of oppression and deceit, Of unsuccessful or successful war, Might never reach me more! My ear is pain’d, My heart is sick with every day’s report Of wrong and outrage with which earth is fill’d. Task, Book iv. So keen were Solomon’s sensibilities, that, looking at the comparison merely in the light of temporal evil, he considered death, or even non-existence, preferable, as a refuge from this suffering lot. The patriarch, in his crushing sorrow, looked to the grave as his hope of rest. “There”—said holy Job—“the wicked cease from troubling, and there the weary be at rest. There the prisoners rest together; they hear not the voice of the oppressor.” (Job, 3:17, 18.) Look onward to the great end. Behold the tears of such as were oppressed—then to be “wiped away”—when “the rebuke” of the oppressor “shall be taken away from off all the earth. (Isa. 25:8.) Meanwhile let us be careful to cherish our sensibilities—not in barren sentimentalism, but in practical exercise. Our Great Pattern not only gave his tears but his blood, for the misery of man. Not only did he weep for sorrow as the fruit of sin, but he “laid down his life” for it. (1 John, 3:16.) Behold (02009) hinneh is an interjection meaning behold, look, now; if. "It is used often and expresses strong feelings, surprise, hope, expectation, certainty, thus giving vividness depending on its surrounding context." (Baker) Hinneh generally directs our mind to the text, imploring the reader to give it special attention. In short, the Spirit is trying to arrest our attention! And so hinneh is used as an exclamation of vivid immediacy (e.g., read Ge 6:13)! Hinneh is a marker used to enliven a narrative, to express a change a scene, to emphasize an idea, to call attention to a detail or an important fact or action that follows (Isa 65:17, Ge 17:20, 41:17). The first use of hinneh in Ge 1:29 and second in Ge 1:31 - "And God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day." Hinneh is often used in the idiom "Here I am" in Ge 22:1, 7,11 Ge 27:1,18, Ge 31:11, Ge 46:2 Ex 3:4 1Sa 3:4, 3:16, 12:3, 2Sa 1:7, Isa 52:6, Isa 58:9. Hinneh is used most often to point out people but also to point out things (Ge 31:41, 17:4). God uses hinneh to grab man's attention before He brings destruction (Ge 6:13, 17). God uses hinneh when He establishes covenants (Ge 9:9, 15:12, 17 [when Jehovah cut the Abrahamic covenant], Ge 17:4, cp Ge 28:13, 15), when He provided a sacrificial substitute for Isaac (foreshadowing His giving us His only Son!) (Ge 22:13). Hinneh is translated in the Septuagint with the interjection idou (strictly speaking a command in the second person aorist imperative, middle voice) a demonstrative particle (used 1377 times in the Septuagint and NT) which is found especially in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke.
Eclesiastes 4
Wiersbe - two are better than one when it comes to their watchcare, especially at night (Ec 4:12). “Though one may be overpowered, two can defend themselves” (Ec 4:12, NIV). It was dangerous for anyone to travel alone, day or night; most people traveled in groups for fellowship and for safety. Even David was grateful for a friend who stepped in and saved the king’s life (2 Sam. 21:15–17). Solomon started with the number one (v. 8), then moved to two (Ec 4:9), and then closed with three (Ec 4:12). This is typical of Hebrew literature (Prov. 6:16; Amos 1:3, 6, 9, etc.). One cord could be broken easily; two cords would require more strength; but three cords woven together could not be easily broken. If two travelers are better than one, then three would fare even better. Solomon had more than numbers in mind; he was also thinking of the unity involved in three cords woven together—what a beautiful picture of friendship! (Bible Exposition Commentary) Ray
Eclesiastes 4
Wiersbe - Disgusted with what he saw in the “halls of justice,” the king went down to the marketplace to watch the various laborers at work. Surely he would not be disappointed there, for honest toil is a gift from God. Even Adam had work to do in the Garden (Gen. 2:15), and our Lord was a carpenter when He was here on earth (Mark 6:3). Solomon considered four different kinds of men. The first two were the industrious man and the idle man.It was natural for Solomon first to find a laborer who was working hard. For, after all, had not the king extolled the virtues of hard work in the book of Proverbs? The man was not only busy, but he was skillful in his work and competent in all he did. He had mastered the techniques of his trade. Solomon moved from one extreme to the other and began to study a man who had no ambition at all. Perhaps the king could learn about life by examining the antithesis, the way scientists study cold to better understand heat. (Bible Exposition Commentary) "I've tried everything that life has to offer, but all I see is one guy trying to outdo another in a futile attempt at happiness." --A modern cynic This too is vanity (hebel - fleeting, insubstantial, short-lived; Lxx - mataiotes - emptiness, nothingness, purposelessness) and striving after wind - Emptiness, futility and trying to grasp wind with our hands! Ray
Eclesiastes 4
Wiersbe - The third man Solomon observed, the integrated man, was a man whose life was balanced: He was productive in his work, but he was also careful to take time for quietness. He did not run in the rat race, but neither did he try to run away from the normal responsibilities of life. A 1989 Harris survey revealed that the amount of leisure time enjoyed by the average American had shrunk 37 percent from 1973. This suggests that fewer people know how to keep life in balance. They are caught in the rat race and don’t know how to escape. Why have both hands full of profit if that profit costs you your peace of mind and possibly your health? Better to have gain in one hand and quietness in the other. When a heart is controlled by envy and rivalry, life becomes one battle after another (James 3:13–4:4, and see Prov. 15:16). Paul’s instructions about money in 1 Timothy 6 is applicable here, especially verse 6, “But godliness with contentment is great gain.” (Bible Exposition Commentary) Contentment can exist where the individual actually possesses fewer material goods, but finds satisfying rest William Barrick (Ecclesiastes 4 Commentary) - By means of yet another proverb, the writer of Ecclesiastes expresses the truth that contentment can exist where the individual actually possesses fewer material goods, but finds satisfying rest (Eccl 4:6). “Fists” consists of a word that indicates the cupping of the hands to be able “to take as much as possible” (Eaton, Ecclesiastes, 93; Barton, Ecclesiastes, 115.) (see Ex 9:8; Lev 16:12; Prov 30:4; Ezek 10:2, 7). In other words, preoccupation with the pursuit of wealth is as evil as laziness. Solomon declared in Psalm 127:2, It is vain for you to rise up early, To retire late, To eat the bread of painful labors; For He gives to His beloved even in his sleep. Elsewhere, he binds contentment to the believer’s relationship to the Lord (Prov 15:16; 16:8) and to harmonious and loving relationships with others (Prov 15:17). Ray Stedman on one hand full of rest is better - It would be much better, says the Searcher, to lower your expectations and choose a less ambitious lifestyle. 🙏 THOUGHT - Is your life a carbon copy of the bestseller Tyranny of the Urgent? Consider pursuit of margin over pursuit of treasure. You don’t need to fill every moment with toil. Release yourself from the pressure to prove your worth by productivity or wealth. Value rest, family, worship, and peace as treasures richer than overtime pay. Are you grasping the wind with both hands, or living with one hand content with rest? Lord, help me to release my clenched fists. Teach me to live with one hand open — trusting Your provision, cherishing Your peace, and choosing rest over relentless pursuit. May my labor be fruitful, not frantic. May I seek You more than I strive for gain. Greedy Grasping Better one handful with tranquillity than two handfuls with toil and chasing after the wind. Ecclesiastes 4:6 Today's Scripture & Insight : Ecclesiastes 4:4–8 In the ancient fable The Boy and the Filberts (Nuts), a boy sticks his hand into a jar of nuts and grabs a great fistful. But his hand is so full that it gets stuck in the jar. Unwilling to lose even a little of his bounty, the boy begins to weep. Eventually, he’s counseled to let go of some of the nuts so the jar will let go of his hand. Greed can be a hard boss. The wise teacher of Ecclesiastes illustrates this moral with a lesson on hands and what they say about us. He compared and contrasted the lazy with the greedy when he wrote: “Fools fold their hands and ruin themselves. Better one handful with tranquillity than two handfuls with toil and chasing after the wind” (4:5–6). While the lazy procrastinate until they’re ruined, those who pursue wealth come to realize their efforts are “meaningless—a miserable business!” (v. 8). What are you driven to pursue and grasp? How can you apply the wise words of Ecclesiastes in order to find tranquility? God, thank You for Your provision and faithful presence in my life. Help me to live in a contented way, exhibiting true gratefulness to You. Ecclesiastes 4:7 Then I looked again at vanity under the sun. Ec 4:1 Ps 78:33 Zec 1:6 Then I looked again at vanity (hebel - fleeting, insubstantial, short-lived; Lxx - mataiotes - emptiness, nothingness, purposelessness) under the sun - This is Solomon's third reference to observing (I looked - Ec 4:1, I have seen - Ec 4:4). William Barrick (Ecclesiastes 4 Commentary) - Whereas Eccl 4:1–3 speak of no comforter and Eccl 4:4–6 imply no rest, Eccl 4:7–12 dwell on the concept of no companion. (Kaiser, Ecclesiastes: Total Life, 73.) Charles Bridges on Ec 4:7-8 - Solomon’s mind was in constant exercise. We find him returning from one side to another, only to fasten upon some new illustration of this world’s vanity. The slothful fool sits with his folded hands—preferring quietness at any cost. Contrasted with him, we have the covetous fool—full of active energy. He has chosen money for his God. The miser—how well does he deserve his name! the wretched slave of Mammon, grown old as a toiling, scraping, griping drudge! He cannot plead in excuse the necessary claims of a large family. He is alone, and there is not a second; yea—he hath neither child nor brother. Yet so long as he can add one farthing to his hoard, he cannot bear the thought of giving up. There is no end of his labour. Labour indeed it is, without rest or satisfaction, however he may heap up his treasure. His eye is not satisfied with riches. Still he craves for more. The less need, the more raking. ‘He hath enough for his back, his calling, the decency of his state and condition; but he hath not enough for his eye.’1 All is sacrificed—even to the bereaving his soul of common good. And for whom all this labour? “He heapeth up riches, and knoweth not who shall gather them.” (Ps. 39:6.) Illustrations from real life are not wanting: The Great Marlborough—scraping together a fortune of a million and a half—would walk through the rain at night to save sixpence! bereaving himself of good—for whom? for a family, whom he had always regarded as his enemies.2 But it is not only the miser. Here also is the man that spends his money upon himself, and upon his own selfish gratifications, forgetting its true use and responsibility. When once we acknowledge the bond—“Ye are not your own” (1 Cor. 6:19)—readily shall we add—Neither is our silver or our gold our own, but God’s; worthless—worse than worthless; as a selfish possession; an acceptable gift, when consecrated to the service of God and his Church. The man of covetousness would keep his money within his last grasp. No other satisfaction can he realize. But all this is vanity, and a sore travail. Never has he soberly calculated profit and loss. Comfort, peace, usefulness, and—what is infinitely more important—the interests of the immortal soul—all is sacrificed to this mean and sordid lust. A perishing sinner—his shadowy portion snatched from him; and his state for eternity irremediable misery—such is the picture! His call is sudden in the midst of all his purposes of aggrandizement. He has “received his good things.” All is now infinite and unchangeable ruin. “So is he”—adds our Divine Instructor—“that layeth up treasure for himself, and is not rich towards God.” (Luke, 12:18–21; 16:25.) ‘Envy thou not the fool’s paradise here, that has hell at the end of it.’1 Now mark the contrast—The child of God in poverty, yet in possession of the Gospel treasure. “As having nothing, and yet possessing all things” (2 Cor. 6:10)—enriched and honoured for both worlds—partaker with his Lord of the kingdom. Reader—be sure that this is thy joy—thy portion—first in thine eye and in thy heart. Ecclesiastes 4:8 There was a certain man without a dependent, having neither a son nor a brother, yet there was no end to all his labor. Indeed, his eyes were not satisfied with riches and he never asked, “And for whom am I laboring and depriving myself of pleasure?” This too is vanity and it is a grievous task. one: Ec 4:9-12 Ge 2:18 Isa 56:3-5 he hath: Ge 15:2,3 no: Isa 5:8 is his: Ec 1:8 5:10 Pr 27:20 Hab 2:5-9 1Jn 2:16 For: Ps 39:6 Isa 44:19,20 Lu 12:20 it is: Ec 1:13 2:23 Isa 55:2 Mt 11:28 Compare Pix of Lone Ranger with Tonto THE LONE RANGER WITHOUT TONTO Tonto is a fictional character; he is the Native American companion of the Lone Ranger, a popular American Western character. There was a certain man without a dependent, having neither a son nor a brother - Literal = "YLT There is one, and there is not a second; even son or brother he hath not, and there is no end to all his labour! His eye also is not satisfied with riches, and he saith not, 'For whom am I labouring and bereaving my soul of good?' This also is vanity, it is a sad travail." This man is completely alone — he has no family, no heirs, no companions. In Hebrew culture, this was especially tragic, since legacy and inheritance were highly valued. His theme song could have been "One is the loneliest number." God advocates companionship over solo lives. yet there was no end to all his labor. Indeed, his eyes were not satisfied with riches Despite his isolation, he works endlessly. He’s a workaholic, perhaps accumulating wealth with no real purpose. He is driven by greed or ambition, always craving more, but never content. "Eyes not satisfied” is a Hebrew idiom for insatiable desire (cf. Proverbs 27:20). Warren Wiersbe - Solomon noticed a solitary man, very hard at work, so he went to question him. The king discovered that the man had no relatives or partners to help him in his business, nor did he desire any help. He wanted all the profit for himself. But he was so busy, he had no time to enjoy his profits. And, if he died, he had no family to inherit his wealth. In other words, all his labor was in vain. The Greek philosopher Socrates said, “The unexamined life is not worth living.” But the independent man never stopped long enough to ask himself: “For whom am I working so hard? Why am I robbing myself of the enjoyments of life just to amass more and more money?” (Bible Exposition Commentary) Man all alone in dark with his money and he never asked, “And for whom am I laboring and depriving myself of pleasure?” He’s so consumed by toil that he never pauses to reflect on the WHY behind his work. This rhetorical question highlights his blindness to futility: no one benefits from his sacrifice — not even himself. The tragedy here is not just working too hard — it’s working without meaning, without people, and without asking why. This too is vanity (hebel - fleeting, insubstantial, short-lived; Lxx - mataiotes - emptiness, nothingness, purposelessness) and it is a grievous task - Grievous task describes a painful, heavy burden, so this is not just empty (hebel) but emotionally draining. William Barrick (Ecclesiastes 4 Commentary) - An exact rendering of the opening words of Ec 4:8YLT reveals both the concise nature of the statement and the usage of two numbers: “There is one and there is not a second.” The writer introduces a discussion of loneliness (the one alone) and companionship (the one with a second). He qualifies what he means by “not a second”: “neither a son nor a brother.” Even the Lone Ranger needs Tonto. An individual who isolates himself from companionship fails to experience community and its God-ordained blessings. God Himself declared of the perfect man in his unfallen state, “It is not good for the man to be alone” (Gen 2:18+). God advocates companionship over solo lives. Self-made hermits tend to be selfish and focused on the riches they hope their labor will bring to them. “Indeed, his eyes were not satisfied with riches” reminds the reader of the earlier proverb in Ec 1:8. A third mention arises in Ec 5:10 where the writer offers further clarification: “He who loves money will not be satisfied with money, nor he who loves abundance with its income.” Why do people end up alone? There are various reasons a person like this ends up alone. We can speculate as to why, and his workaholism may provide a clue. It is more likely that for circumstantial reasons this person has found himself alone, and in this rough situation, he has sought meaning in work and wealth. But they fail to provide the meaning he seeks. (Bartholomew, Ecclesiastes, 189) Barrick (Ecclesiastes 4 Commentary) on he never asked, “And for whom am I laboring and depriving myself of pleasure?” - Note that the translators of NAU have placed “and he never asked” (Eccl 4:8) in italics. The phrase does not occur in the original language. Does Solomon himself ask the question or is this just a general hypothetical illustration? Some commentators find in verses 7–8 a situation involving the absence of an heir, while verses 9–12 involve the absence of a companion, and verses 13–16, the absence of a successor. (Murphy, Ecclesiastes, 41) Duane Garrett offers a pithy and apropos synopsis: “Money is their only kin.”Preoccupied with climbing the corporate ladder, a man often tells himself that he does so in order to take care of his family, but, in reality, he is caught up in his projects to make a name for himself. His family soon becomes a casualty due to his neglect for their real welfare. Do you know someone who fits the illustrative examples that you read about here in Ecclesiastes? Ray
Eclesiastes 4
Wiersbe - Solomon’s experience with the independent man caused him to consider the importance of friendship and the value of people doing things together. He may have recalled the Jewish proverb, “A friendless man is like a left hand bereft of the right.” Perhaps he watched some pilgrims on the highway and drew the conclusion, “Two are better than one.” Two are certainly better than one when it comes to working (Eccl. 4:9) because two workers can get more done. Even when they divide the profits, they still get a better return for their efforts than if they had worked alone. Also, it’s much easier to do difficult jobs together because one can be an encouragement to the other. (Bible Exposition Commentary) William Barrick (Ecclesiastes 4 Commentary) - Solomon identifies three examples of solitary existence in contrast to companionship in order to make his point. All three might arise from the experience of travel in the ancient Near East. The first might refer to falling into a pit or a ravine (Eccl 4:10), the second might describe attempts to keep warm outdoors during the cold of night (Eccl 4:11), and the third might refer to robbers encountered along the road (Eccl 4:12). The lessons should not be restricted to travel, however. A helper, a comforter, and a defender all apply to many life settings. Ray
Eclesiastes 4
Wiersbe - Two are better when it comes to walking (Eccl. 4:10). Roads and paths in Palestine were not paved or even leveled, and there were many hidden rocks in the fields. It was not uncommon for even the most experienced traveler to stumble and fall, perhaps break a bone, or even fall into a hidden pit (Ex. 21:33–34). How wonderful to have a friend who can help you up (or out). But if this applies to our physical falls, how much more does it apply to those times when we stumble in our spiritual walk and need restoration (Gal. 6:1–2)? How grateful we should be for Christian friends who help us walk straight. (Bible Exposition Commentary) But woe to the one who falls when there is not another to lift him up. - Solomon then present the contrasting (but = term of contrast) disadvantage of one by themselves. Pursue meaningful relationships — don’t go through life alone. Ray
Eclesiastes 4
Wiersbe - Two are better than one when it comes to warmth (v. 11). Two travelers camping out, or even staying in the courtyard of a public inn, would feel the cold of the Palestinian night and need one another’s warmth for comfort. The only way to be “warm alone” is to carry extra blankets and add to your load. (Bible Exposition Commentary) Ray