Ecclesiastes 2:24-26

[Ryan&Amber2013]

What is the practical takeaway for the Christian in regards to these verses, and how they contrast the sinner from the godly? What does that look like for my life? This passage is very interesting to me, especially "to the sinner he has given the business of gathering and collecting, only to give to one who pleases God", but I don't know if I'm putting it in context properly. Thanks!

"There is nothing better for a person than that he should eat and drink and find enjoyment in his toil. This also, I saw, is from the hand of God, for apart from him who can eat or who can have enjoyment? For to the one who pleases him God has given wisdom and knowledge and joy, but to the sinner he has given the business of gathering and collecting, only to give to one who pleases God. This also is vanity and a striving after wind."

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Life under the sun, life in this (fallen) world, is essentially one of rising from sleep, eating and drinking for strength, and the performance of some work. This is what all men, in some capacity or another, do for as long as they live. To quit from embracing this pattern (modified to individual cases), voluntarily or not, is to die, probably sooner than later.

Those who embrace the pattern, believers or unbelievers alike, find them some part of the purpose for life under the sun, even if the grand design of God is inscrutable to them. Believers embrace God's pattern because it is God's, and it was given to them to follow. This makes "nothing better" than this supreme engagement a real contentment. He has his lot from the hand of God, his Maker. And with that pattern and devotion, he is blessed with true wisdom, knowledge and joy.

But what profit does the unbeliever--even one who embraces the pattern of creation--have in his eating, drinking, and working? Does he have any hope of benefiting himself ultimately? Or just proximately? Can he be assured his labor will benefit mankind as a whole? Will it be forgotten almost as soon as he is gone, or will his work be superseded and dustbinned? If it lasts as long as this creation lasts, what happens to its worth if (in a godless universe) when all comes to a dark and cold death? Is it not vanity, or will it not be vanity eventually?

If the unbeliever does produce something that has utility beyond his own momentary happiness, who does it ultimately profit? It was done under the oversight of God, who alone could give (and did give) some enjoyment to the laborer. But now that his self-centered work has gone to review, what good will it do him? It will not bring him any acceptance before God--no justification. It will not serve as a sign of his improvement to a "passing mark"--no sanctification. The accumulation of residual effort is rightfully (as God judges) assigned to the property of him that pleases God.

In the last analysis, there is only One who pleased the Father, the Heir of all things. He enjoys the full inheritance, and shares his property with them who belong to him. If you "please God" in him--and there is no other way to such approval--then you too will gain not only of that which you have done in faith (which is properly his work, and not your own); but also you will inherit the earth, and all good things. They will all be added unto you.

 

[Ed Walsh]

What is the practical takeaway for the Christian in regards to these verses, and how they contrast the sinner from the godly? What does that look like for my life? This passage is very interesting to me, especially "to the sinner he has given the business of gathering and collecting, only to give to one who pleases God", but I don't know if I'm putting it in context properly. Thanks!

I am no expert, but when I am discouraged, even when that word is a gross understatement, Ecclesiastes is my go-to Book for relief.
About three weeks ago, I was at the point described above, and I went through the Book three times in one week. Two of those times, all 12 verses at a sitting. Once, verse by verse, reading some of what others have said of this oft-neglected and misunderstood Book.

To me, Ecclesiastes is a book of disillusionment. Sounds negative, doesn't it? But think for a moment. As a Christian, do you want a delusive, unattainable view of this life under the sun?

But back to your question. In its context, verse 24 seems to be the conclusion of all that came before. The verse could be read as if the word 'therefore' was inserted between the second and third words. I.e., "There is, 'therefore,' nothing better..."

Ecclesiastes 2:24 (ESV)​

24 There is nothing better for a person than that he should eat and drink and find enjoyment in his toil. This also, I saw, is from the hand of God,​

Since "this passage is very interesting to [you]," here's a little tidbit I read about.

Our English words, 'vain' and 'vanity,' can have a bit of a negative conation.
Dictionary[.]com has as their first two definitions in order of usage:

1. feelings of excessive pride.​

Synonyms: amour propre, conceit, self-love​

​

2. the trait of being unduly vain and conceited; false pride.​

Synonyms: conceit, conceitedness​

But I do not think it is often (if ever) used this way in Ecclesiastes.

The word 'hebel' is pronounced as if there was another 'h' after the first 'e.' 'heh-bel,' sometimes that exhaling 'heh' sound is significant, having to do with spirit, wind, breath, etc. E.g., Yah-weh.

One commentator I read suggests that in our time, vanity, as it is used in Eccles. might be better translated as 'vapor,' something transient like a breath; the idea of here today gone tomorrow. As you read through Ecclesiastes, notice how vanity is rarely or never used for something wrong or sinful, as in some other places.
Roman 1:21 [KJV] "...they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened."
ESV, NIV & NASV have 'futile.' YLT has 'vain.' CSB ha 'worthless.'

In the NT, the Greek word 'pneuma' is used 385 times in 350 verses, variously translated, [most often as 'spirits' (unholy), 'spirit' [heart, soul], Spirit & Holy Spirit,], but also as 'wind.' There's that exhaling "haa" sound again.

Jesus used a play on words when talking to Nicodemus about the necessity of being born again.

John 3:8 (ESV)​

The wind [πνεῦμα] blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit. [πνεῦμα]"​

Well, I've said too much already.

Ed

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

Life under the sun, life in this (fallen) world, is essentially one of rising from sleep, eating and drinking for strength, and the performance of some work. This is what all men, in some capacity or another, do for as long as they live. To quit from embracing this pattern (modified to individual cases), voluntarily or not, is to die, probably sooner than later.

Those who embrace the pattern, believers or unbelievers alike, find them some part of the purpose for life under the sun, even if the grand design of God is inscrutable to them. Believers embrace God's pattern because it is God's, and it was given to them to follow. This makes "nothing better" than this supreme engagement a real contentment. He has his lot from the hand of God, his Maker. And with that pattern and devotion, he is blessed with true wisdom, knowledge and joy.

But what profit does the unbeliever--even one who embraces the pattern of creation--have in his eating, drinking, and working? Does he have any hope of benefiting himself ultimately? Or just proximately? Can he be assured his labor will benefit mankind as a whole? Will it be forgotten almost as soon as he is gone, or will his work be superseded and dustbinned? If it lasts as long as this creation lasts, what happens to its worth if (in a godless universe) when all comes to a dark and cold death? Is it not vanity, or will it not be vanity eventually?

If the unbeliever does produce something that has utility beyond his own momentary happiness, who does it ultimately profit? It was done under the oversight of God, who alone could give (and did give) some enjoyment to the laborer. But now that his self-centered work has gone to review, what good will it do him? It will not bring him any acceptance before God--no justification. It will not serve as a sign of his improvement to a "passing mark"--no sanctification. The accumulation of residual effort is rightfully (as God judges) assigned to the property of him that pleases God.

In the last analysis, there is only One who pleased the Father, the Heir of all things. He enjoys the full inheritance, and shares his property with them who belong to him. If you "please God" in him--and there is no other way to such approval--then you too will gain not only of that which you have done in faith (which is properly his work, and not your own); but also you will inherit the earth, and all good things. They will all be added unto you.

Thanks so much! Do you think this is speaking only in the life to come, like all things are ours? Or do you think there is truth to the sinner giving to the one who pleases God, in the here and now? I wonder exactly what Solomon was thinking when he wrote it in his context.

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

I am no expert, but when I am discouraged, even when that word is a gross understatement, Ecclesiastes is my go-to Book for relief.
About three weeks ago, I was at the point described above, and I went through the Book three times in one week. Two of those times, all 12 verses at a sitting. Once, verse by verse, reading some of what others have said of this oft-neglected and misunderstood Book.

To me, Ecclesiastes is a book of disillusionment. Sounds negative, doesn't it? But think for a moment. As a Christian, do you want a delusive, unattainable view of this life under the sun?

But back to your question. In its context, verse 24 seems to be the conclusion of all that came before. The verse could be read as if the word 'therefore' was inserted between the second and third words. I.e., "There is, 'therefore,' nothing better..."

Ecclesiastes 2:24 (ESV)​

24 There is nothing better for a person than that he should eat and drink and find enjoyment in his toil. This also, I saw, is from the hand of God,​

Since "this passage is very interesting to [you]," here's a little tidbit I read about.

Our English words, 'vain' and 'vanity,' can have a bit of a negative conation.
Dictionary[.]com has as their first two definitions in order of usage:

1. feelings of excessive pride.​

Synonyms: amour propre, conceit, self-love​

​

2. the trait of being unduly vain and conceited; false pride.​

Synonyms: conceit, conceitedness​

But I do not think it is often (if ever) used this way in Ecclesiastes.

The word 'hebel' is pronounced as if there was another 'h' after the first 'e.' 'heh-bel,' sometimes that exhaling 'heh' sound is significant, having to do with spirit, wind, breath, etc. E.g., Yah-weh.

One commentator I read suggests that in our time, vanity, as it is used in Eccles. might be better translated as 'vapor,' something transient like a breath; the idea of here today gone tomorrow. As you read through Ecclesiastes, notice how vanity is rarely or never used for something wrong or sinful, as in some other places.
Roman 1:21 [KJV] "...they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened."
ESV, NIV & NASV have 'futile.' YLT has 'vain.' CSB ha 'worthless.'

In the NT, the Greek word 'pneuma' is used 385 times in 350 verses, variously translated, [most often as 'spirits' (unholy), 'spirit' [heart, soul], Spirit & Holy Spirit,], but also as 'wind.' There's that exhaling "haa" sound again.

Jesus used a play on words when talking to Nicodemus about the necessity of being born again.

John 3:8 (ESV)​

The wind [πνεῦμα] blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit. [πνεῦμα]"​

Well, I've said too much already.

Ed

This is good knowledge! I've also regularly gone back to that book. Thank you!

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Thanks so much! Do you think this is speaking only in the life to come, like all things are ours? Or do you think there is truth to the sinner giving to the one who pleases God, in the here and now? I wonder exactly what Solomon was thinking when he wrote it in his context.

I think the notion is unavoidably eschatological. There are innumerable instances of sinners (ref. the godless in this case) who control their own wealth till the day they die, but then they give it up, Ps.17:14. Read Psalm 49, and consider the many earthly advantages of the wicked, but their portion is ultimately neither for them, nor even for their heirs that continue their heedless pursuit. Psalm 73 counsels against a false impression of the worldly comfort of the ungodly.

I believe Solomon could both see the reality of life before his eyes, and see beyond this life. As earthly king and viceregent to the LORD, he might judge the people and render an imperfect analogue to ideal justice of heaven, transferring an ill-gotten gain from the sinner to the righteous and deserving man. But this life cannot supply the final accounting, and balance transfer. Only a Day of Reckoning will do that.

The inheritance of the righteous is with the LORD and is the LORD, Ps.16:5. Solomon would have not only his incomparable wisdom to apply to these questions, while he meditated on divine things and even prophesied himself according to the Spirit of truth; he also had his father's theology, and that of Moses and the other writers of Scripture.

Solomon was a deeply flawed man who did not fulfill all the promise of the hoped-for Son of David, but the Bible gives enough data to encourage us that in spite of all his wrongdoing yet he was a saint, having an OT understanding of the true Hope of Israel. I don't think he was wrapped up in a carnal mind when writing in this context. I suppose the Book of Ecclesiastes bears witness to his faith near the end of his life, though after many vain dalliances.

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

I think the notion is unavoidably eschatological. There are innumerable instances of sinners (ref. the godless in this case) who control their own wealth till the day they die, but then they give it up, Ps.17:14. Read Psalm 49, and consider the many earthly advantages of the wicked, but their portion is ultimately neither for them, nor even for their heirs that continue their heedless pursuit. Psalm 73 counsels against a false impression of the worldly comfort of the ungodly.

I believe Solomon could both see the reality of life before his eyes, and see beyond this life. As earthly king and viceregent to the LORD, he might judge the people and render an imperfect analogue to ideal justice of heaven, transferring an ill-gotten gain from the sinner to the righteous and deserving man. But this life cannot supply the final accounting, and balance transfer. Only a Day of Reckoning will do that.

The inheritance of the righteous is with the LORD and is the LORD, Ps.16:5. Solomon would have not only his incomparable wisdom to apply to these questions, while he meditated on divine things and even prophesied himself according to the Spirit of truth; he also had his father's theology, and that of Moses and the other writers of Scripture.

Solomon was a deeply flawed man who did not fulfill all the promise of the hoped-for Son of David, but the Bible gives enough data to encourage us that in spite of all his wrongdoing yet he was a saint, having an OT understanding of the true Hope of Israel. I don't think he was wrapped up in a carnal mind when writing in this context. I suppose the Book of Ecclesiastes bears witness to his faith near the end of his life, though after many vain dalliances.

This is super helpful, and beneficial. Thank you! By any chance, do you have your sermons or anything like that posted online?

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Solomon was a deeply flawed man who did not fulfill all the promise of the hoped-for Son of David, but the Bible gives enough data to encourage us that in spite of all his wrongdoing yet he was a saint, having an OT understanding of the true Hope of Israel. I don't think he was wrapped up in a carnal mind when writing in this context. I suppose the Book of Ecclesiastes bears witness to his faith near the end of his life, though after many vain dalliances.

This is excellent Bruce. Thanks