Ecclesiastes (TOTC) by Michael A. Eaton

Author:Michael A. Eaton [Eaton, Michael A.]
Language: eng
Format: epub
ISBN: 9781783592470
Publisher: Inter-Varsity Press
Published: 2009-04-16T16:00:00+00:00

b. Poverty and wealth (5:8–6:12)

The various proverbs of this section are bound together by the theme of poverty and wealth. We have reference to ‘the poor’ (5:8), ‘money’ (5:10), the increase of ‘good things’ (5:11), the ‘rich man’ (5:12), ‘riches’ (5:13–14), ‘riches and wealth’ (5:19; 6:2), the ‘poor man’ (6:8).

i. The poor under oppressive bureaucracy (5:8–9). First the Preacher considers the frustrations of oppressive bureaucracy with its endless delays and excuses, while the poor cannot afford to wait, and justice is lost between the tiers of the hierarchy. At this point the Preacher offers no remedy; this is what human nature is like.

8. The meaning of province (RSV) or district (NIV) will depend on the date given to Ecclesiastes (see comments on 2:8). The explanation (For …) has been taken to refer to suspicious rivalry between officials (one official preying on another, Moffatt). This, however, is scarcely an explanation, although a hostile meaning to the verb is found in 1 Samuel 19:11 and Psalm 56:6, nor do AV and RV give a good rendering; the translation required by the context is ‘One official looks after the interests of another’ (cf. GNB). The final phrase, and there are high-ups over them, refers to the successive tiers of authority. This is preferable to taking the plural as one of majesty referring to the king (NEB) or to the overriding providence of God (NEB mg.).

9. The beginning of the verse may be translated: And an advantage to (or for, or of) a land is … Then the Hebrew becomes difficult. Should it be translated ‘for all’ (AV, JB), ‘in all’ (RSV), ‘on the whole’ (Barton, Leupold), ‘over everything’ (Gordis), ‘after all’ (NASV, Moffatt) or ‘always’ (Delitzsch)? Is the word ‘served’ (Heb. ne‘ĕbad) to be attached to ‘king’ or (as the Massoretic pointing suggests) to ‘land’, and does it have a simple adjectival sense (‘served’, ‘cultivated’) or a permissive sense (‘allowed to be cultivated’)?24 This in turn leads to numerous possibilities of translation. Is the advantage ‘a king whose own lands are well tilled’ (NEB)? Or that ‘even a king is subject to the soil’ (Gordis cf. AV)? Or is the advantage ‘a king for a field under tillage’ (Plumptre)? Or ‘a king who has control’ (Moffatt)? Or ‘that a cultivated land has a king’ (as a counterweight to bureaucratic corruption; so Lauha, cf. also Barton)? In context the main point must be that bureaucratic officialdom does not totally override the value of kingly authority. A likely translation is therefore: ‘But an advantage to a land for everyone is: a king over cultivated land.’ This understands the ‘all’ to refer back to the poor, the officials and the higher officials of v. 8; hence ‘for everyone’. It is also possible to take ‘land’ (śadeh) to refer to a specific country (Ruth 1:1, RSV). If Aalders is right in suggesting that ‘cultivated’ has permissive force, then another likely translation is ‘… a king over a land which is allowed to be cultivated’. If either of these two translations is correct, the writer is sensitive to oppression (v.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.