ปัญญาจารย์ 2:24 วิจารณ์

Solomon having pronounced all vanity, and particularly knowledge and learning, which he was so far from giving himself joy of that he found the increase of it did but increase his sorrow, in this chapter he goes on to show what reason he has to be tired of this world, and with what little reason most men are fond of it. I. He shows that there is no true happiness and satisfaction to be had in mirth and pleasure, and the delights of sense (Ecc 2:1-11). II. He reconsiders the pretensions of wisdom, and allows it to be excellent and useful, and yet sees it clogged with such diminutions of its worth that it proves insufficient to make a man happy (Ecc 2:12-16). III. He enquires how far the business and wealth of this world will go towards making men happy, and concludes, from his own experience, that, to those who set their hearts upon it, "it is vanity and vexation of spirit," (Ecc 2:17-23), and that, if there be any good in it, it is only to those that sit loose to it (Ecc 2:24-26).

INTRODUCTION TO ECCLESIASTES 2 Solomon, having made trial of natural wisdom and knowledge in its utmost extent, and found it to be vanity, proceeds to the experiment of pleasure, and tries whether any happiness was in that, Ecc 2:1. As for that which at first sight was vain, frothy, and frolicsome, he dispatches at once, and condemns it as mad and unprofitable, Ecc 2:2; but as for those pleasures which were more manly, rational, and lawful, he dwells upon them, and gives a particular enumeration of them, as what he had made full trial of; as good eating and drinking, in a moderate way, without abuse; fine and spacious buildings; delightful vineyards, gardens, and orchards; parks, forests, and enclosures; fish pools, and fountains of water; a large retinue, and equipage of servants; great possessions, immense riches and treasure; a collection of the greatest rarities, and curiosities in nature; all kinds of music, vocal and instrumental, Ecc 2:3; in all which he exceeded any that went before him; nor did he deny himself of any pleasure, in a lawful way, that could possibly be enjoyed, Ecc 2:9. And yet on a survey of the whole, and after a thorough experience of what could be found herein, he pronounces all vanity and vexation of spirit, Ecc 2:11; and returns again to his former subject, wisdom; and looks that over again, to see if he could find real happiness in it, being sadly disappointed in that of pleasure, Ecc 2:12. He indeed commends wisdom, and prefers it to folly, and a wise man to a fool; Ecc 2:13; and yet observes some things which lessen its value; and shows there is no happiness in it, the same events befalling a wise man and a fool; both alike forgotten, and die in like manner, Ecc 2:15. And then he takes into consideration business of life, and a laborious industry to obtain wealth; and this he condemns as grievous, hateful, and vexatious, because, after all a man's acquisitions, he knows not to whom he shall leave them, whether to a wise man or a fool, Ecc 2:17. And because a man himself has no rest all his days, nothing but sorrow and grief, Ecc 2:22; wherefore he concludes it is best for a man to enjoy the good things of this life himself; which he confirms by his own experience, and by an, antithesis between a good man and a wicked one, Ecc 2:24.

There is nothing better for a man than that he should eat and drink,.... Not in an immoderate and voluptuous manner, like the epicure and the atheist, that disbelieve a future state and the resurrection of the dead, and give up themselves to all sinful and sensual gratifications; but in a moderate way, enjoying in a cheerful and comfortable manner the good creatures of God, which he has given; being contented with them, thankful for them, and looking upon them as the blessings of divine goodness, and as flowing from the love of God to him; and thus freely using, and yet not abusing them. Some render it, "it is not good for a man to eat" (a), &c. immoderately and to excess, and to place his happiness in it: or, "there is no good with man" (b); it is not in the power of man to use the creatures aright. Jarchi renders it by way of interrogation, "is it not good?" which comes to the same sense with ours, and so the Vulgate Latin version; and that he should make his soul enjoy good in his labour; not leave off labouring; nor eat and drink what he has not laboured for, or what is the fruit of other men's labour; but what is the effect of his own, and in which he continues; and this is the way to go on in it with cheerfulness, when he enjoys the good, and reaps the benefit and advantage of it; which is certainly preferable to a laying up his substance, and leaving it to he knows not who. This also I saw, that it was from the hand of God; not only the riches a man possesses, but the enjoyment of them, or a heart to make use of them; see Ecc 5:18. The Midrash interprets this eating and drinking, of the law and good works: and the Targum explains it, causing the soul to enjoy the good of doing the commandments, and walking in right ways; and observes, that a man that prospers in this world, it is from the hand of the Lord, and is what is decreed to be concerning him. (a) "non est igitur bonum", Vatablus. (b) "Non est bonum penes hominem", Junius & Tremellius, Gejerus, Gussetius.

"Is it not good for man that he eats and drinks and shows his soul satisfaction in his labour? And even that, I perceived, is from the hand of God. For who should eat and who should make haste except me? To the man who pleases Him He has given wisdom, knowledge and joy; but to the sinner He has given the urge to gather and amass - that he may hand it on to one who is pleasing to God. That, too, is vanity and a vexation of the spirit." After I examined all things and saw that nothing was more unjust than one man enjoying the work of another, then this work seemed to me to be the most righteous, and like a gift of God, seeing that a man may enjoy his own labour, drinking and eating, and for a time refraining from amassed wealth. And sometimes it is a gift of God, that such a mind as is bestowed upon righteous men, that they squander those things, which they have sought with great attention and vigilance. In fact on the other hand, it is the character of the anger of God, which is set against the sinner, so he amasses wealth day and night and uses if for no purpose, then he bequeaths it to those men who are righteous in the sight of God. But, he says, looking at this more closely and noticing that all things come to a common end with death, I have judged it to be the most vain of all. These readings are very close to the text though, so that I do not seem to completely miss the plain meaning of the words, and while I follow spiritual riches, disdain the poverty of history. For what is good then, or what kind of gift of God is it, either to covet his wealth and like a man in flight gather desire prematurely, or to turn someone else's work to ones own pleasures, and then to think that this is a gift of God, if we take pleasure in others' discomfort and toil? It is good though, to take our own food and drink, which we have found by divine will, from the flesh and blood of a Lamb. For who is either able to eat or when there is need to spare in the absence of God? He warned that sacred food must not be given to the dogs [Cfr Matth. 7, 6.], and he teaches how rations ought on occasion to be given to slaves [Cfr Matth. 24, 45.], and similar to another meaning, that is we ought to eat only honey that has been found, and only as much as is needed. But God gives wisdom and knowledge and happiness to the man who is good. [Cfr Prov. 25, 16.] For unless he was good and corrected his ways beforehand by his own judgement, he will not be worthy of that wisdom, knowledge and happiness, according to that which is said in another place: "Plant for yourselves in justice, make a vintage of the fruit of life, enlighten for yourselves the light of knowledge." [Os. 10, 12. (as in LXX)] In fact, righteousness ought to be planted first, and the fruit of life must be reaped, only then, afterwards the light of knowledge will be able to appear. Therefore just as God gave the good man wisdom and other gifts, in the same way he has forsaken the sinner according to his own judgement, and made him amass riches and contrive false doctrines therefrom. When a saintly man who is pleasing to God sees these things, he understands them, since they are vain and composed of the conceit of the spirit. Nor should we admire what he has said: "he gave vexation to the sinner" and so on. For this must be seen in concordance with that meaning which I have often explained: that for this reason anxiety or vexation has been given to him, since he was a sinner, and the cause of vexation was not in God, but in himself, who had sinned previously by his own volition. <h2>CHAPTER 3</h2>

(Ecc. 2:1-26) I said . . . heart-- (Luk 12:19). thee--my heart, I will test whether thou canst find that solid good in pleasure which was not in "worldly wisdom." But this also proves to be "vanity" (Isa 50:11).

English Version gives a seemingly Epicurean sense, contrary to the general scope. The Hebrew, literally is, "It is not good for man that he should eat," &c., "and should make his soul see good" (or "show his soul, that is, himself, happy"), &c. [WEISS]. According to HOLDEN and WEISS, Ecc 3:12, Ecc 3:22 differ from this verse in the text and meaning; here he means, "It is not good that a man should feast himself, and falsely make as though his soul were happy"; he thus refers to a false pretending of happiness acquired by and for one's self; in Ecc 3:12, Ecc 3:22; Ecc 5:18-19, to real seeing, or finding pleasure when God gives it. There it is said to be good for a man to enjoy with satisfaction and thankfulness the blessings which God gives; here it is said not to be good to take an unreal pleasure to one's self by feasting, &c. This also I saw--I perceived by experience that good (real pleasure) is not to be taken at will, but comes only from the hand of God [WEISS] (Psa 4:6; Isa 57:19-21). Or as HOLDEN, "It is the appointment from the hand of God, that the sensualist has no solid satisfaction" (good).

"There is nothing better among men, than that one eat and drink, and that he should pamper his soul by his labour: this also have I seen, that it is in the hand of God." The lxx, as well as the other Greek transl., and Jerome, had before them the words באדם שיאכל. The former translates: "Man has not the good which he shall eat and drink," i.e., also this that he eats ... is for him no true good; but the direct contrary of this is what Koheleth says. Jerome seeks to bring the thought which the text presents into the right track, by using the form of a question: nonne melius est comedere ...; against this Ecc 3:12, Ecc 3:22; Ecc 8:15, are not to be cited where טוב אין stands in the dependent sentence; the thought is not thus to be improved; its form is not this, for טוב rof ,siht, beginning a sentence, is never interrog., but affirm.; thus טוב אין is not = הלא טוב, but is a negative statement. It is above all doubt, that instead of שׁיּ בּאדם we must read בּאדם משּׁיּ, after Ecc 3:12, Ecc 3:22; Ecc 8:15; for, as at Job 33:17, the initial letter mem after the terminal mem has dropped out. Codd. of the lxx have accordingly corrected ὃ into πλὴν ὃ or εἰ μὴ ὃ (thus the Compl. Ald.), and the Syr. and Targ. render ש here by אלא דּ and אלהן דּ unless that he eat; Jerome also has non est bonum homini nisi quod in his Comm.; only the Venet. seeks to accommodate itself to the traditional text. Besides, only מ is to be inserted, not אם כי; for the phrase לאכל אם כי is used, but not כי אם ס. Instead of ba-a-da-m, the form la-a-da-m would be more agreeable, as at Ecc 6:12; Ecc 8:15. Hitzig remarks, without proof, that bāādām is in accordance with later grammatical forms, which admit ב = "for" before the object. ב, Ecc 10:17, is neither prep. of the object, nor is ἐν, Sir. 3:7, the exponent of the dative (vid., Grimm). bāādām signifies, as at Sa2 23:3, and as ἐν ἀνθ, Sir. 11:14, inter homines; also Ecc 3:12 designates by טוב טוב what among them (men) has to be regarded as good. It is interesting to see how here the ancient and the modern forms of the language run together, without the former wholly passing over into the latter; משׁי, quam ut edat, is followed by norm. perfects, in accordance with that comprehensive peculiarity of the old syntax which Ewald, by an excellent figure, calls the dissolution of that which is coloured into grey. טוב ... הד is equivalent to לו הי, Psa 49:19, the causative rendering of the phrase טוב ראה, Ecc 3:13, or ר טובה, Ecc 5:17; Ecc 6:6. It is well to attend to בּעמלו by his labour, which forms an essential component part of that which is approved of as good. Not a useless sluggard-life, but a life which connects together enjoyment and labour, is that which Koheleth thinks the best in the world. But this enjoyment, lightening, embellishing, seasoning labour, has also its But: etiam hoc vidi e manu Dei esse (pendere). The order of the words harmonizes with this Lat.; it follows the scheme referred to at Gen 1:4; cf. on the contrary, Ecc 3:6. Instead of גּם־זה, neut. by attraction, there is here the immediately neut. גּם־זה; the book uniformly makes use of this fem. form instead of זאת. This or that is "in the hand of God," i.e., it is His gift, Ecc 3:13, Ecc 3:18, and it is thus conditioned by Him, since man cannot give it to himself; cf. minni, Isa 30:1; mimmenni, Hos 8:4; mimmennu, Kg1 20:33. This dependence of the enjoyment of life on God is established.