III. At this point Koheleth commences another line of argument; he
notices that all things proceed according to a fixed and settled order
of providence. This truth he brings into great prominence by instancing
eight-and-twenty――a fourfold seven――different times or seasons existing
in human life. From this he deduces the conclusion, that as it is
impossible to alter the order of Providence, the toil of man is useless
to effect any real good, so far as this world is concerned. The way
in which this thought is worked out is peculiar. Koheleth is both
sarcastic and paradoxical in his arguments; but his sarcasms are never
ill-natured and his paradoxes promote thought. He also enlivens his
subject with a considerable number of plays upon words, and striking
and pregnant aphorisms.
│ SECTION III.――_Further
│ demonstration of the vanity
│ of human labour from
│ considerations touching
│ Providence and Morals._
│
TO every _thing there is_ │ TO everything is there a
a season, and a time to every │ determined period, and a time
purpose under the heaven: │ for every providence under
│ heaven.
(1.) =To all= (human life, that is) is a =season= (זמן, this word occurs
here and Nehemiah ii. 6, Esther xi. 27, 31, only, and the participle
past of the verb Ezra x. 14, Nehemiah x. 34 (35) 13, 21; it will be
seen by an examination of passages that this word differs from מועד,
which both Ezra and Nehemiah also use, and which is the common word in
the older books for ‘a _sacred_ season’ or ‘feast.’ זמן is a ‘settled
time,’ ‘a date.’ Fuerst considers the primary idea of the root is ‘to
count.’ It is clear that מועד would not have suited this context; this
of course so far weakens any argument for the late date of this work as
derived from the use of this word), =and a time= (general, the common
word) =to all= (repeated, and therefore emphatic, equal ‘that is to
all’) =providences= (חפץ, which, however, has the signification desire
as well, ‘a satisfactory undertaking therefore;’ Koheleth uses the word
technically with a reference to the divine providences of God. The word
occurs chapter iii. 1, 17, v. 4 (3), 8 (7), viii. 6, xii. 1, 10. The
LXX. here render πρᾶγμα, but chapter xii. θέλημα) =under the heavens=
(this meaning of חפץ may account for one use of this phrase here
instead of the more usual ‘under the sun,’――heaven being perhaps
employed as we sometimes use it, for God’s providence under heaven).
2 A time ¹to be born, and a │ (1.) A time to be born, and
time to die; a time to plant, │ a time to die;
and a time to pluck up _that │
which_ is planted; │ (2.) A time to plant, and a
│ time to root up that which is
¹ _Hebrew_ to bear. │ planted;
(2.) =A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time
to pluck up the planted.=
3 A time to kill, and a time │ (3.) A time to slay, and a
to heal; a time to break down, │ time to heal;
and a time to build up; │
│ (4.) A time to break walls,
│ and a time to build them up;
(3.) =A time for slaying, and a time for healing; a time for breaking
down, and a time for building up.=
4 A time to weep, and a time │ (5.) A time to weep, and a
to laugh; a time to mourn, and │ time to laugh;
a time to dance; │
│ (6.) A time to cry, and a
│ time to play;
(4.) =A time for weeping, and a time for laughing; a time of wailing,
and a time of dancing= (there is an alliteration here, and a slight
change in construction to the hiphil in the next clause; possibly to
mark the close of the first seven pairs).
5 A time to cast away │ (7.) A time to scatter stones
stones, and a time to gather │ away, and a time to gather
stones together; a time to │ stones again;
embrace, and a time to refrain │
from embracing; │ (8.) A time to embrace, and a
│ time to refrain from embracing;
(5.) =A time for scattering stones, and a time of collecting stones=
(does our Lord allude to this, Mark xiii. 2?); =a time for embracing,
and a time to refrain from embracing.=
6 A time to ¹get, and a time │ (9.) A time to seek, and a
to lose; a time to keep, and a │ time for loss;
time to cast away; │
│ (10.) A time to keep, and a
¹ _Or_, seek. │ time to cast away;
(6.) =A time to seek, and a time to lose= (the Masorets consider this
a Piel with the sense to destroy); =a time for keeping, and a time to
cast away.=
7 A time to rend, and a │ (11.) A time to rend, and a
time to sew; a time to keep │ time to sew;
silence, and a time to speak; │
│ (12.) A time to be silent,
│ and a time for speech;
(7.) =A time for rending, and a time for sewing= (see Genesis xxxvii.
29, 34); =a time for being silent, and a time to speak.=
8 A time to love, and a time │ (13.) A time of love, and a
to hate; a time of war, and a │ time of hate;
time of peace. │
│ (14.) A time of war, and a
│ time of peace.
(8.) =A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time
of peace.= (The slight changes in the rendering correspond to changes
in construction in the Hebrew, giving a pleasing variety to the whole
passage. There is also an observable difference in the second seven
pairs, which enumerate acts more emotional and subjective than the
first.)
9 What profit hath he that │ What advantage is there to
worketh in that wherein he │ the worker by reason of his
laboureth? │ own toil?
(9.) =What profit= (something ‘remaining over and above the present,’
in the technical meaning of this word, see chapter i. 3, references.)
=is the working= (an active participle with the article, and thus
generic, working then as such) =in which= (full relative, and thus
referring to the whole idea; we must render therefore ‘in respect of
its _being_,’ which will be emphatic, as it is followed by the pronoun)
=it is toil= (but we must remember that the exact meaning of this word
is――see Genesis xli. 51, Isaiah liii. 11――the ‘anxiety,’ or ‘care,’ the
labour produces. The question then is this, Is there any profit from
working in respect of its being care and pains? and the answer is, No.
The LXX. render somewhat _ad sensum_: Τίς περίσσεια τοῦ ποιοῦντος ἐν
οἷς αὐτὸς μοχθεῖ, ‘What advantage of him that works in those things
which _he_ toils?’ The Syriac, (‡ Syriac phrase) ‘What is the profit
in the work in that he toils?’ but both make the meaning clear. This
question is answered in the negative, the argument being elaborated
with much care).
10 I have seen the travail, │ I have observed with regard
which God hath given to the │ to the uncertainty which is
sons of men to be exercised in │ appointed of God to the human
it. │ race, to be made anxious
│ thereby,
(10.) =I have seen= (or ‘observed,’ as we should write, this formula
introducing a matter which observation makes manifest), =with regard
to the anxiety= (ענין, see chapter i. 13, references, the meaning
previously assigned of ‘_anxious care_,’ or ‘_uncertainty_’ generally,
the word being used to signify that special form of human misery which
consists in the _uncertainty_ in which man lives; this emphatic את the
LXX. notice and render by their adverbial σὺν, and to show us that the
observation was made, not _of_ the uncertainty, but _with respect to_
it) =which has appointed= (because this is the principal idea) even
=God= (the nominative follows, and is without the article, because it
is God in his personal character who is here referred to. The article
is used when the word occurs generically, as in the sense of ‘the
Deity’ or ‘the Almighty,’――‘which it is God’s appointment’ then is the
meaning) =to the sons of the man= (that is, the human race as children
of Adam) =to be rendered uncertain therewith.=
11 He hath made every │ that the whole is suitable at
_thing_ beautiful in his time: │ its proper time. Moreover, with
also he hath set the world in │ regard to the future, that too
their heart, so that no man │ is put into their desires, but
can find out the work that God │ so that Man cannot find out the
maketh from the beginning to │ working of the Almighty as _He_
the end. │ works it out from its beginning
│ even to its end.
(11.) =With respect to the whole= (again the emphatic את, and again
noted by Σύμπαντα in the LXX., some copies reading, σὺν πάντα ἃ, ‘the
whole which;’ as this preposition is repeated in the same clause, it
is specially emphatic here) =he made it fair= (that is ‘appropriate,’
which the LXX. render καλὰ) =in its time= (one of these providential
times or seasons above spoken of). =Moreover= (commencing another and
additional argument, confirming the above), =with respect to the age=
(again את repeated with the article, noticed as before by the LXX.,
and again by them rendered σὺν, meaning therefore generally, and also
with regard to the indefinite future generically it is, etc.) =is set=
(placed by God indeed, but the nominative is so far off that the verb
is almost impersonal, or in other words all emphasis on the nominative
is lost) =in their hearts from the want of which= (מבלי, occurs Job
iv. 11; this word joined to the full relative must mean ‘but as they
do not possess this knowledge of the future or this influence over the
age, or course of things present and future, so as to control it,’ for
this is the meaning of עלם, see chapter i. 4, references.) =does not
find= (emphatic, as standing before its nominative) =the man= (_i.e._
‘Humanity generally cannot find’ or ‘discover’) =with respect to the
working= (the LXX. do not render here by σὺν, probably because τὸ
ποίημα is clear enough without it) =which works= (‘is the work of’)
=the Deity from the beginning even unto= (this preposition being
separated and joined with a conjunction is much more forcible than the
mere affixed מ־ above, because, possibly, it is desired to render
emphatic this final word which is reserved to the close of the sentence)
=the end= (סוף, which occurs in this book in the sense of a final
conclusion, see chapter xii. 13, and which in the working of Divine
Providence is especially mysterious).
12 I know that _there is_ no │ I am aware that there can be no
good in them, but for _a man_ │ real good to any, if it be not
to rejoice, and to do good in │ to rejoice and to see this good
his life. │ in their lives.
(12.) =I know how there is nothing good= (‘nothing’ and ‘good’ are two
nouns in closest apposition, and hence having the meaning ‘there is no
good thing’) =in them= (emphatic and a distributive plural, referring
to אדם singular) =except to rejoice and to do good= (but not in the
sense of doing right, which, of course, is foreign to the train
of thought, but to the obtaining of good; and as this last idea is
repeated from what went before, we have the meaning ‘_that_ good’)
=in their lives= (which the LXX. render by the singular ‘in his
life,’ noticing the distributive plural. Hence then the sense of
the whole passage is plain: ‘I know that there can be no real good
thing belonging to them, except it be that they should rejoice and do
good each one in their lives,’ and this is exactly true, as death so
completely bounds the vision and terminates the earthly existence of
every human soul that what is not obtained in this life is clearly
not obtained at all. Of course the entire argument proceeds on the
supposition that we are regarding the whole matter as under the sun,
that is, limited to this earthly stage of existence).
13 And also that every man │ And beside, if any way humanity
should eat and drink, and │ should eat or drink, and thus
enjoy the good of all his │ sees this good by any of his
labour, it _is_ the gift of │ toil, it is simply God’s gift.
God. │
(13.) =And moreover= (an additional consideration added to the above)
=all the man= (_i.e._ all humanity generally, a proposition universally
true of the whole of them) =when he eats= (contract relative with
present tense of the verb, ‘as he eats then’――and eating is here put
as the general type of use and enjoyment) =and drinks= (this is not
superfluous; a man can drink when he can no longer eat; he can quench
the fever thirst when food is loathsome, hence drinking is the type of
solace) =and sees good= (as a past tense follows a present, we have the
equivalent of our imperfect; and as also the conjunction is repeated
before each verb, we may render them as dependent = ‘if he should eat
or even drink, and so should have a sight of a good’) =in all his toil=
(or by means of it). =A gift= (chapter v. 19, see also 1 Kings xiii. 17,
where it appears that the meaning of the word is a ‘present.’ LXX. δόμα)
=of God it is= (feminine, in close agreement with מתת. Here again we
think that there may be noticed a more subjective, or active idea,
when the feminine is used, than with corresponding masculines. In this
way we may possibly find a grammatical explanation of the anomalous
genders so common in Hebrew. In the Pentateuch הוא is used of females,
and a possible reason may be that in the earlier stages of the language
there was less tendency to regard mere grammatical concords and more to
follow the logic of the passage. It is worth noticing that grammatical
concord as such becomes more and more developed as the language
advances, hence Syriac is as strict as Greek or Latin in this respect.
Whatever be the reason, however, the fact of such closer connexion is
manifest by a careful collation of places).
14 I know that, whatsoever │ I am aware also that all
God doeth, it shall be for │ which the Almighty effects
ever: nothing can be put to │ must be done with regard to all
it, nor anything taken from │ time, that to it nothing can be
it: and God doeth _it_, that │ added, and that from it nothing
_men_ should fear before him. │ either can be taken away, and
│ that the Almighty acts that men
│ may _fear_ in his presence;
(14.) =I know how= (and as this is a repetition of the formula in
verse 12, we may add the word ‘also’ to show that the argument is
a continuation of the above) =all which does= (or is performed by)
=the Deity= (with the article) =it is= (emphatic, followed by the verb
substantive, and equivalent therefore to ‘it really is’) that which
=will be= (and so the LXX. render) =to the age= (to the indefinite æon,
or future that is, or rather, for both present and past are included
in this word, to the whole course of present existing things’), =to
it= (in the meaning of ‘over,’ or ‘above,’ as something dominating
over, which is the signification of על) =there is nothing to be added=
(niphal, which could be added) =and from it there is nothing to be
diminished= (Exodus v. 8, Job xv. 4, 8, or restrained. The relevancy of
this reasoning is now evident. Human labour and anxiety is vain, for
the course of providence cannot be altered by it, and if it could, the
alteration would be for the worse; what follows makes this more clear),
=and the Deity works that they may fear= (contract relative, with
the present as above. We have also the double jod; it occurs with the
single jod at chapter viii. 12, and again with double jod at chapter
xii. 5. There is no doubt a difference of meaning in these cases; see
a remarkable illustration of this in regard to the verb יקץ in Judges
xvi. 14 as compared with verse 20 in the same chapter) =from before
him= (מלפניו, with both מ and ל, and hence emphatic, ‘in _his_ presence’).
15 That which hath been is │ that what has been is just the
now; and that which is to be │ present, and whatever is to
hath already been; and God │ be is no other than the same
requireth ¹that which is past. │ present; and that the Almighty
│ will investigate with regard to
¹ _Hebrew_ that which is │ the wronged.
driven away. │
(15.) =What= is that =which was?= (the contract relative with the verb
substantive, _i.e._ what is _the past_?’) =the present state of things=
(כבר, see chapter i. 10, references; the word is a substantive with its
ordinary technical meaning as used in this book of the ‘present as it
now is,’ and of this he says) =it is= (emphatic) =and that which is to
be= (appointed so to be. The LXX. render ὅσα τοῦ γίνεσθαι, literally
‘things of the being,’ ‘or to happen’) =the present state of things
it was= (that is, ‘this _very_ same present it is;’ each age being in
this respect an exact reproduction of what went before it. It never was
subject to human control, and never will be) =and the Deity= (as this
word is repeated in the same clause, and stands as a nominative before
the verb, it is especially emphatic) =seeks= (‘asks after,’ ‘inquires
for,’ with the object of not allowing it to pass notice, see 1 Samuel
xx. 16) =with respect to a persecuted= (person or thing. He does not
allow any person or thing who is wronged to pass without notice).
No doubt St. Jerome has completely hit the point of the argument when
he writes, ‘Since all things fade with time, and there is a time of
destroying and building, weeping and laughing, for silence and speaking,
and those other things which are said concerning time, why do we strive
and press forward in vain, and imagine the brief labours of life to be
perpetual, nor are we content, according to the Gospel, with the evil
of to-day, and so take no thought for the morrow?’
16 ¶ And moreover I saw │ Yet, however, I have observed
under the sun the place of │ in this work-day world, that in
judgment, _that_ wickedness │ place of justice there is
_was_ there; and the place of │ impiety, and in the place even
righteousness, _that_ iniquity │ of right there is impiety also.
_was_ there. │
(16.) =And yet= (an objection to the foregoing) =I have seen under the
sun= (the limitation here introduced requires special attention) =a
place of the justice= (we must not limit place to mean _locality_, but
take it generally of state or position, etc., and observe also that
המשפט has the article, and is therefore generic); =there= was =the
wickedness= (again generic, and hence having the meaning that in place
of justice, as one would expect from the proposition stated above,
that the Deity has regard to the wronged, just the reverse occurred;
this is again enlarged in the following), =and in the place of the
right there was the wickedness= (the meaning is, that ‘just in the
very circumstances under which you would expect right to prevail,
there you will find rampant and successful wickedness.’ רשע has the
meaning of that kind of ‘wickedness’ which goes out into bold and open
transgression, see 2 Samuel xxii. 22; Psalm x. 2, 3, 4, 13).
17 I said in mine heart, God │ Then said I to myself:
shall judge the righteous and │ With respect to right and
the wicked: for _there is_ a │ wickedness, the Almighty does
time there for every purpose │ justice, because there is a
and for every work. │ time to every providence and
│ dominating over every action
│ which is done there.
(17.) =I said, I myself, in my heart= (which we have noticed commonly
introduces a thought more specious than true), =with respect to= (את,
which the LXX. note with their customary σὺν) =the righteous= (_i.e._
what is _made_ right or _done_ right; notice the hiphil form as
compared with that in the above), =and with regard to the impious=
also =judges the Deity, for= there is =a time to every providence, and
upon= (or ‘over,’ which the LXX. note by ἐπὶ) =all the working there=
(some copies of the LXX. join this to the next verse, but it is more
agreeable to the gist of the passage to refer it to the preceding, as
the Masoretic text does, and in this case ‘there’ refers back to the
age or period).
18 I said in mine heart │ Then said I to myself also:
concerning the estate of the │ By the reasonings of the
sons of men, ¹that God might │ human race in respect to any
manifest them, and that they │ discrimination of them by the
might see that they themselves │ Divine Creator, it seems that
are beasts. │ but brutes are they at best.
│
¹ _Or_, that they might │
clear God and see. │
(18.) =I said, I= did, =in my heart= (repeating the formula of the
preceding verse, and so lending emphasis to it), =upon the speech=
(this phrase occurs three times, and only in this book, viz. here, and
chapters vii. 14 and viii. 2. Notwithstanding that a similar phrase
occurs Psalm cx. 4, with the meaning ‘after the order,’ LXX. κατὰ
τὴν τάξιν, which is apparently sanctioned by New Testament exegesis,
compare Hebrews v. 6, etc.; this is really not to the point, for
that is על דברתי, the plural, while this is singular. According to
strict grammar דברת is the construct of דברה, and should therefore
mean ‘reasoning of,’ just as the LXX. render by περὶ λαλιᾶς, and
this, moreover, will make good sense in every passage in which this
phrase occurs) =of the sons of Adam= (_i.e._ the human race) =to the
discriminating them= (hence the LXX. διακρινεῖ αὐτοὺς, considering that
the root is ברר, which has the meaning ‘to sift,’ ‘purify by sifting,’
this is the only instance of the infinitive kal. Now we must take this
meaning, observing that the pronoun ‘them,’ which is involved in the
termination of the verb, is not emphatic; it is the discrimination
of God which is the point, the persons on which this is exercised
are subordinate. The Jewish commentators for the most part explain
לברם as the third person singular preterite of ברה with the objective
pronominal affix ם [the only instance, however, in which ברה has the
meaning ‘to choose’ is 1 Samuel xvii. 8]; as, however, some copies
read לבררם, we can have no difficulty in referring the word to the
root ברר, which makes good sense. It is also to be remarked that
though ברם does not exist as a root in Hebrew, it does so in Chaldee,
Syriac, and Arabic, and the meaning is that which is ‘twisted’ or
‘infolded’――compare Ezekiel xxvii. 24――a ‘garment’ worked in many
colours; this would make good sense also in this place, and may
possibly have been an intentional equivoke, which is not surely
improbable in a sentence in which such manifest artificial alliteration
occurs. The meaning then is, that) =the Deity= (discriminates men, or
makes a distinction between them and the lower creatures; but in what
respects? This is discussed at length) =and to see= (but rather might
this form of the infinitive be rendered, for which there is sufficient
authority, ‘_to the appearance_’) =that they= (contract relative, and
hence the meaning is that this appearance belongs to them, and them
only. In this may be found the key to the whole passage. In appearance
there is no choice or discrimination, as subsequent argument proves,
because they are) =a cattle= (singular, following a plural, and
thus giving the meaning that each one is so) =they to them= (which
Mendelssohn explains, following the LXX., ‘when left to themselves,’
or, as we should say, as ‘far as they can tell.’ With this Ewald
and Ginsburg agree, who consider this latter clause an ironical
‘_ipsissimi_,’――‘they themselves, indeed!’ Thus, then, the meaning of
the whole passage is, ‘I said, yes, I did in my heart again, so far
as human reasonings extend concerning any discrimination the Divine
Providence has made of them, and as far as appearances go with them, a
mere animal is each one of them, so far as they can tell.’ The sentence
is very sarcastic and equivocal, as the alliteration at the end shows.
Then, again, if we take the root ברם in the sense of ‘web,’ as we use
it for something intricate, in that case we should have the equivoke,
‘concerning the web of Divine Providence so far as it appears to them.’
Again, also, the Syriac renders as if לברם were לבראם, ‘their Creator,’
which also makes excellent sense; but this, again, may simply be
a rendering of another equivoke. Then, again, there is a possible
play between בהמה and the same word considered as המה with the
preposition――all these equivokes assist the sense). Consistent with
this is what follows:――
19 For that which befalleth │ For the event which happens
the sons of men befalleth │ to the human race, and the
beasts; even one thing │ event which happens to the
befalleth them: as the one │ brute-creation, is precisely
dieth, so dieth the other; │ the same event: the one dies
yea, they have all one │ just the same death as the
breath; so that a man hath no │ other; and the animal life
pre-eminence above a beast: │ is the same in both; and the
for all _is_ vanity. │ pre-eminence of man over the
│ brute is nothing at all; for
│ all alike are evanescent;
(19.) =For a happening of the sons of man, and a happening of the brute
creation, and a happening= which is =one= (as we should say, ‘precisely
the same’) =to them= (the threefold repetition of מקרה, ‘hap,’ brings
this word into strong prominence. It means, of coarse, that which
absolutely happens or results, or comes to them in the end. This is
exactly the same in both cases, as the sequel shows). =As is the death
of this, so= (‘exactly so’) is =the death of this=, and =the spirit=
(or ‘breath’) is =one to all, and the pre-eminence= (ומותר, this noun
occurs in this form only at Proverbs xiv. 23, and xxi. 5, and evidently
with the meaning of advantage or increase of one thing over another.
The LXX. translate this as if it were ומי יתר, ‘and what profit,’ but
this is simply to give the sarcastic turn to the sentence) =of the man=
(humanity generally) =over the beasts is nothing, for the whole= (in
its technical sense of the whole of life, as usual) is =a vanity= (or
evanescent).
20 All go unto one place; │ all alike go to the same place;
all are of the dust, and all │ all alike come from the same
turn to dust again. │ dust; and all alike return to
│ the same dust again.
(20.) And =the whole goes to one place, the whole= (repeating this
word so as to bring it into strong prominence) =was from the dust, and
the whole= (again repeated, making the fourth time, and so implying
universality) =returns to the dust=.
21 Who knoweth the spirit │ For who can tell how that the
¹of man that ²goeth upward, │ spirit of man ascends up on
and the spirit of the beast │ high, and that the spirit of
that goeth downward to the │ the beast descends downwards
earth? │ to the earth?
│
¹ _Hebrew_ of the sons of │
man. │
│
² _Hebrew_ is ascending. │
(21.) =Who knows?= (participle, poel, ‘who is knowing?’ or ‘who is
there that knows?’ The question does not assert the fact that there
_is_ no difference between man and beast; on the contrary, this clause
is so ingeniously contrived as to assert the very reverse). =The spirit
of the sons of men= (in its usual meaning, of the whole human race)
=is the ascending= (with the article, ‘the ascending thing’), =it
is= (emphatic) =to the ascent= (the repetition of the same root in a
different grammatical form gives prominence to this word. The human
soul is, it appears, especially an ‘ASCENDING thing’); =and the spirit=
of the =beast= a =thing descending= (participle, poel with article),
=it is= (emphatic, it really is this) =[to the] downwards to the earth=
(the ל, to, twice repeated, gives emphasis――‘even to’).
22 Wherefore I perceive that │ Thus I perceived that there
_there is_ nothing better, │ can be no real good above that
than that a man should rejoice │ present-pleasure which man can
in his own works; for that │ obtain from his work; as that
_is_ his portion: for who │ is what belongs to him: for who
shall bring him to see what │ can bring him to see what may
shall be after him? │ be the subsequent results?
(22.) =And I saw= (‘and thus I observed’) =how there is nothing of
real-good= (in the technical sense in which this word occurs so often
in this book) =from which= (full relative, ‘more than that in which,’
or ‘above that he should’) =he rejoices=, even =the man= does (humanity
generally), =in his workings= (or what he accomplishes, plural), =for=
(or, as כי has occurred in the corresponding clause previously, ‘as’)
=this is= (emphatic) =his portion= (‘lot’ or ‘inheritance,’ singular):
=for who= (כי again repeated, so we must render it ‘and as none’) =can
make him come to see= (this is not exactly equivalent to ‘make him
see;’ it is rather equivalent to ‘who could enable him to see,’ or
‘who could show him some method how he might discover’) =in what=
(‘of what sort’ is that work which) =which will be after him= (not
in respect of time, but results,――‘consequences,’ therefore). Thus
Koheleth’s reasoning is quite clear, conclusive, and connected. In
_ten_ particulars man and beast are alike. (1.) The result is the
same to both; (2.) their death is alike; (3.) their spirit or animal
life is the same; (4.) there is no pre-eminence of the one over the
other; (5.) they are alike evanescent; (6.) they all go to the same
place; (7.) they come from the same dust; (8.) and they all go to the
same dust, and no one can tell (_i.e._ for certain, or by ordinary
observations) that they differ in this; (9.) man’s soul goes up,
(10.) and the beast’s goes down. The arrangement of the whole, it will
be seen, is highly artificial.
The next stage in the argument opens with ‘I turned and saw.’ That
is a further observation of a point in which, it may be remarked
incidentally, man does differ from the beast: he is the only animal
that weeps. The object here is again to show that mere earthly labour,
as such, produces no satisfaction. At this point the argument becomes
somewhat less sustained, dealing rather with a succession of instances.