Ecclesiastes 2:24

2:18-26 Our hearts are very loth to quit their expectations of great things from the creature; but Solomon came to this at length. The world is a vale of tears, even to those that have much of it. See what fools they are, who make themselves drudges to the world, which affords a man nothing better than subsistence for the body. And the utmost he can attain in this respect is to allow himself a sober, cheerful use thereof, according to his rank and condition. But we must enjoy good in our labour; we must use those things to make us diligent and cheerful in worldly business. And this is the gift of God. Riches are a blessing or a curse to a man, according as he has, or has not, a heart to make a good use of them. To those that are accepted of the Lord, he gives joy and satisfaction in the knowledge and love of him. But to the sinner he allots labour, sorrow, vanity, and vexation, in seeking a worldly portion, which yet afterwards comes into better hands. Let the sinner seriously consider his latter end. To seek a lasting portion in the love of Christ and the blessings it bestows, is the only way to true and satisfying enjoyment even of this present world.

Ecclesiastes 2:24 . There is nothing better — Or, Is there any thing better for a man? — Which implies that there is nothing better, namely, for man’s present comfort and satisfaction; than that he should make his soul enjoy good in his labour — That, studying first to free his mind from overmuch care and anxiety, he should, instead of heaping up perpetually for his heirs, allow himself a moderate and decent use of all the good things that he hath gotten by his honest labours; praising God for them, and cheerfully communicating them with his friends and neighbours, and to the relief of the necessitous poor and afflicted. This also — Namely, that a man should thankfully take, and freely and cheerfully enjoy and communicate with others, the comforts which God gives him; I saw — was from the hand of God — Was a singular gift of God, and not to be procured by a man’s own wisdom and diligence.

(24) Nothing better. —“Not good” is the sense of the Hebrew as it stands, for it will be observed that the word “than” is in italics. But as this word might easily have dropped out by a transcriber’s error, interpreters, taking in connection Ecclesiastes 3:12 ; Ecclesiastes 3:22 ; Ecclesiastes 5:18 ; Ecclesiastes 8:15 , generally agree to modify the text so as to give it the meaning of our version, according to which the sense is: “Seeing the uncertainty of the future, the only good a man can get from his labour is that present pleasure which he can make it yield to himself; and whether he can even enjoy so much as this depends on God.” If the text be not altered, the sense is: “It is not good for a man to eat, &c, seeing it depends on God whether or not that is possible.”

There is nothing better for a man, than that he should eat and drink, and that he should {p} make his soul enjoy good in his labour. This also I saw, that it was from the hand of God. (p) When man has all laboured, he can get no more than food and refreshing, yet he confesses also that this comes from God's blessing, as in Ec 3:13.

24. 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, Ec 3:12, 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 Ec 3:12, 22; 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] (Ps 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 for a man; or, Is there any thing better for a man ? which implies that there is nothing better, to wit, for man’s present comfort and satisfaction; this is the chief, and indeed the only, considerable benefit of his labours. That he should make his soul enjoy good; that he should thankfully take, and freely and cheerfully enjoy, the comforts which God gives him. That it was from the hand of God; that this also is a singular gift of God, and not to be procured by a man’s own wisdom or diligence.

24 . There is nothing better for a man ] The Hebrew, as it stands, gives a meaning which is partly represented by the LXX., “There is no good for a man which he shall eat and drink,” as though the simplest form of bodily pleasure were condemned. Almost all interpreters however are agreed in adopting a conjectural emendation, which again in its turn has given rise to two different renderings: (1) “Is it not better (or “Is it not good”) for a man to eat and drink …?” or (2) “there is nothing good for a man but to eat and drink.…” The two last are of course substantially the same in their teaching, and both express what we may call the higher type of Epicureanism which forms one element of the book. The pursuit of riches, state, luxury, is abandoned for the simple joys that lie within every man’s reach, the “ fallentis semita vitae ” of one who has learnt the lesson of regulating his desires. The words “to eat and drink” are closely connected with “enjoying good in his labour .” What is praised is not the life of slothful self-indulgence or æsthetic refinement, but that of a man who, though with higher culture, is content to live as simply as the ploughman, or the vinedresser, or artificer. Λάθε βιώσας , “live in the shade,” was the Epicurean rule of wisdom. Pleasure was not found in feasts and sensual excess but in sobriety of mind, and the conquest of prejudice and superstition (Diog. Laert. x. 1. 132).

The real wants of such a life are few, and there is a joy in working for them. Here again the thought finds multiform echoes in the utterances of men who have found the cares and pleasures and pursuits of a more ambitious life unsatisfying. It is significant that the very words “eat and drink” had been used by Jeremiah in describing the pattern life of a righteous king ( Jeremiah 22:15 ). The type of life described is altogether different from that of the lower Epicureans who said “Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die” ( 1 Corinthians 15:32 ). So we have one Epicurean poet singing “Si non aurea sunt iuvenum simulacra per aedes Lampadas igniferas manibus retinentia dextris, Lumina nocturnis epulis ut suppeditentur, Nec domus argento fulget auroque renidet Nec citharae reboant laqueata aurataque templa, Cum tamen inter se prostrati in gramine molli Propter aquae rivum sub ramis arboris altae Non magnis opibus iucunde corpora curant, Praesertim cum tempestas adridet et anni Tempora conspergunt viridantis floribus herbas.” “What though no golden statues of fair boys With lamp in hand illumine all the house And cast their lustre on the nightly feast; Nor does their home with silver or with gold Dazzle the eye; nor through the ceilèd roof, Bedecked with gold, the harps re-echo loud.

Verse 24. - There is nothing better for a man, than that he should eat and drink . The Vulgate makes the sentence interrogative, which the Hebrew does not sanction, Nonne melius est comedere et bibere ? Septuagint Οὐκ ἔστιν ἀγαθὸν ἀνθρώπῳ ο{ φάγεται καὶ ο{ πίεται , "There is naught good to a man to eat or drink;" St. Jerome and others insert misi , "except for a man to eat," etc. This and the Authorized Version, which are more or less approved by most critics, make the writer enunciate a kind of modified Epicureanism, quotations in confirmation of which will be found set forth by Plumptre. It is not pretended that the present Hebrew text admits this exposition, and critics have agreed to modify the original in order to express the sense which they give to the passage. As it stands, the sentence runs, "It is not good in ( בָּ ) man that he should eat," etc. This is supposed to clash with later statements; e.g. Ecclesiastes 3:12, 13 ; Ecclesiastes 8:15 ; and to condemn all bodily pleasure even in its simplest form. Hence commentators insert מ ("than") before שֶׁיּלֺאכַל , supposing that the initial mere has dropped out after the terminal of the preceding word, adam (comp. Ecclesiastes 3:22 ). This solution of a difficulty might be allowed were the Hebrew otherwise incapable of explanation without doing violence to the sentiments elsewhere expressed. But this is not the case.