Semper Reformanda

If a man beget an hundred children, and live many years, so that the days of his years be many, and his soul be not filled with good, and also that he have no burial; I say, that an untimely birth is better than he. Ecclesiastes 6:3 (KJV)

---

The offspring are indicators of God’s blessing, in a general sense. (Provan, 147) Or as Henry writes, the worldly man is ‘supposed’ to have many families. But even when the worldly man has acquired these ‘indicators’ of a blessed life, he still does not have the actual blessings. Usually, as Seow notes, it was customary for the rich to secure their burial sites. (211) But this man, though be rich and presumed to be blessed is bereft of such peace – to have a proper end to his life, a proper burial. The rich man has everything and yet he is not free from constant ridiculous complaints. Bartholomew writes, “this person’s resultant lack of a decent burial indicates what was true of his life as a whole—it was unfulfilled despite his wealth and extended family, and lacking a burial site he will not be remembered.” (201) The presumed emphasis here is that, even though the natural man may labour and acquire all the indicators of a blessed man, he will nonetheless not be able to acquire the peace of a blessed man; which only God can give.

References:

Bartholomew, C. (2009). Ecclesiastes, Baker Academic

Henry, M. (1706). Commentary on the Whole Bible, Complete, Eccl. 6:1-6

Provan, I. (2001). Ecclesiastes/Song of Songs: The New Application Commentary, Zondervan

Seow, C.L. (1997). Ecclesiastes, Yale University Press

A man to whom God hath given riches, wealth, and honour, so that he wanteth nothing for his soul of all that he desireth, yet God giveth him not power to eat thereof, but a stranger eateth it: this is vanity, and it is an evil disease. Ecclesiastes 6:2 (KJV)

---

‘… a man to whom God giveth,’ translates to ‘a man, that God should give to him.’ (Seow, 210) The formulation seems to be from a human perspective. Seow notes that the subject is ‘anticipatory.’ So, perhaps it is stating that according to our perspective that God should give wealth wherein the man and his offspring could enjoy it. But there seems to be a divergence of expectation as Qoheleth states, that is, the man could not enjoy it. Seow notes that the statement is universally true – God gives wealth. But the reference here is not about a particular person, but a certain person – as in, anyone. Qoheleth seems to refer to ‘situation,’ i.e., this is true for anyone in this specific situation. The assertion perhaps is this that there is no necessary relation between wealth and the enjoyment of it, as we humans most confidently seem to perceive. Wealth in itself is not necessarily a sign of God’s blessing, God’s authority rests on who enjoys it.

Reference:

Seow, C.L. (1997). Ecclesiastes, Yale University Press