Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Ecclesiastes 3:18

I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts.

18. I said in mine heart ] The word “estate” expresses fairly the meaning of the Hebrew noun, which may be rendered “word,” “matter,” or “subject.” In the next clause for “that God might manifest them,” we may better read, that God might separate, sift, or try them, i.e. in modern phrase, He leaves the disorders of the world unredressed, as part of man’s probation. This comes into the heart of the seeker as a partial explanation of the disorders noted in Ecc 3:16.

that they might see that they themselves are beasts ] The pronoun in the original has, as in the English version, the strong emphasis of iteration, that they are beasts, they by themselves. The thought implied is that without a higher faith of some kind whether in the Divine Righteousness or in Immortality, is not yet defined Man stands, as having only an animal life, on the same level as other animals. In the words of an old English poet:

“Unless above himself he can

Erect himself, how poor a thing is man!”

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

Verse 18. That they might see that they themselves are beasts.] The author of Choheleth has given a correct view of this difficult verse, by a proper translation: “I said in my heart, reflecting on the state of the sons of men, O that God would enlighten them, and make them see that even they themselves are like beasts.” These words are to be referred to those in authority who abused their power; particularly to the corrupt magistrates mentioned above.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

I said in my heart; and further I considered with myself.

Concerning the estate of the sons of men; concerning their condition and deportment in this present world.

That God might manifest them; God suffers these horrible disorders among men, expressed Ecc 3:16, that he might discover men to themselves, and by permitting these actions show what strange creatures they are, and what vile hearts they have, which men would not otherwise understand or believe. See 2Ki 8:13,14.

That they themselves are beasts, Heb. that they are beasts to themselves; either,

1. One to another, devouring and destroying one another. Or,

2. In their own judgment, or themselves being judges; that although God made them men or reasonable creatures, yet they have made themselves beasts by their brutish practices; and that men, considered only with respect unto the present life, which is the only thing valued and regarded by most men, and the vanity whereof is the principal subject of this book, are as vain and miserable creatures as the beasts themselves, the great differences between men and beasts being such as respect the other life. For men seem here to be called beasts in both these respects, and the latter he prosecutes more largely in the following verses.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

18. estateThe estate offallen man is so ordered (these wrongs are permitted), that God might”manifest,” that is, thereby prove them, and thatthey might themselves see their mortal frailty, like that of thebeasts.

sons of menrather,”sons of Adam,” a phrase used for “fallen men.”The toleration of injustice until the judgment is designed to”manifest” men’s characters in their fallen state, to seewhether the oppressed will bear themselves aright amidst theirwrongs, knowing that the time is short, and there is a comingjudgment. The oppressed share in death, but the comparison to”beasts” applies especially to the ungodly oppressors(Psa 49:12; Psa 49:20).They too need to be “manifested” (“proved”),whether, considering that they must soon die as the “beasts,”and fearing the judgment to come, they will repent (Da4:27).

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men,…. He thought of the condition of the children of men, their sinful and polluted state; he weighed and considered in his mind their actions, conversation, and course of life; and was concerned how it would go with them at the day of judgment on account of the same. Some render it, “I said in mine heart after the speech of the children of men” r; speaking in their language, and representing the atheist and the epicure, as some think the wise man does in the following verses; though he rather speaks his own real sentiments concerning men, as they are in their present state, and as they will appear in the day of judgment;

that God might manifest them; or “separate them” s; as the chaff from the wheat, and as goats from the sheep; as will be done at the day of judgment, Mt 3:10; or “that they might clear God” t; as they will, when he shall judge and condemn them;

and that they might see that they themselves are beasts; as they are through the fall, and the corruption of nature, being born like the wild ass’s colt, stupid, senseless, and without understanding of spiritual things; nay, more brutish than the beasts themselves, than the horse and the mule that have no understanding, Ps 32:9; “mulo inscitior”, as is Plautus’s u phrase; see Ps 49:12 Isa 1:3; this is now made manifest to the people of God by the word and Spirit; is seen, known, and acknowledged by them,

Ps 73:21; and the wicked themselves will see, know, and own what beasts they are and have been, at the day of judgment; how they have lived and died like beasts; how like brute beasts they have corrupted themselves in things they knew naturally; and that as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, spoke evil of things they understood not, and perished in their own corruption, Jude 1:10 2Pe 2:12; and that they have been beasts to themselves, as Jarchi renders and interprets it; made beasts of themselves by their brutish gratifications; have been cruel to themselves, ruining and destroying their own souls; or among themselves, and to one another, “homo lupus homini”; hence wicked men are compared to lions, foxes, evening wolves, vipers, and the like. So Mr. Broughton renders it, “how they are beasts, they to themselves.”

r “super verbum filiorum Adam”, Montanus; “verbis hominum”, Arabic and Syriac versions. s “ut discernat illos”, Cocceius; “quia delegit eos”, some in Vatablus; so Aben Ezra and Ben Melech. t “Ut ipsi expurgent Deum”, Anglic. in Reinbeck; some in Rambachius render it thus, “ut seligant ipsi (homines) Deum”; so Varenius. u Cisteilaria, Act. 4.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

“Thus I said then in mine heart: (it happeneth) for the sake of the children of men that God might sift them, and that they might see that they are like the cattle, they in themselves.” Regarding for the sake of = on account of as at Ecc 8:2, vid., under Psa 110:4, where it signifies after ( ) the state of the matter. The infin. is not derived from . – , Ecc 9:1, is only the metaplastic form of or – but only from , whose infin. may take the form , after the form , to tread down, Isa 45:1, , to bow, Jer 5:26; but nowhere else is this infin. form found connected with a suff.; , Hos 11:3, would be in some measure to be compared, if it could be supposed that this = , sumendo eos . The root proceeds, from the primary idea of cutting, on the one side to the idea of separating, winnowing, choosing out; and, on the other, to that of smoothing, polishing, purifying ( vid., under Isa 49:2). Here, by the connection, the meaning of winnowing, i.e., of separating the good from the bad, is intended, with which, however, as in , Dan 11:35, the meaning of making clear, making light, bringing forward into the light, easily connects itself (cf. Shabbath 138 a, 74 a), of which the meaning to winnow (cf. , Jer 4:11) is only a particular form;

(Note: Not “to sift,” for not but , means “to sift” (properly, “to make to keep up,” “to agitate”); cf. Shebith v. 9.)

cf. Sanhedrin 7 b: “when a matter is clear, brwr, to thee (free from ambiguity) as the morning, speak it out; and if not, do not speak it.”

In the expression , the word is, without doubt, the subject, according to Gesen. 133. 2. 3; Hitz. regards as genit., which, judged according to the Arab., is correct; it is true that for li – imti – hanihim allahi (with genit. of the subj.), also allahu (with nominat. of the subj.) may be used; but the former expression is the more regular and more common ( vid., Ewald’s Gramm. Arab. 649), but not always equally decisive with reference to the Heb. usus loq. That God delays His righteous interference till the time appointed beforehand, is for the sake of the children of men, with the intention, viz., that God may sift them, i.e., that, without breaking in upon the free development of their characters before the time, He may permit the distinction between the good and the bad to become manifest. Men, who are the obj. to , are the subject to to be supplied: et ut videant ; it is unnecessary, with the lxx, Syr., and Jerome, to read (= ): ut ostenderet . It is a question whether

(Note: thus accented rightly in F. Cf. Michlol 216 a.)

is the expression of the copula: sunt ( sint), or whether hemmah lahem is a closer definition, co-ordinate with shehem behemah . The remark of Hitzig, that lahem throws back the action on the subject, is not clear. Does he suppose that lahem belongs to liroth ? That is here impossible. If we look away from lahem , the needlessly circumstantial expression … can still be easily understood: hemmah takes up, as an echo, behemah , and completes the comparison (compare the battology in Hos 13:2). This play upon words musically accompanying the thought remains also, when, according to the accentuation , we take hemmah along with lahem , and the former as well as the latter of these two words is then better understood. The in is not that of the pure dat. (Aben Ezra: They are like beasts to themselves, i.e., in their own estimation), but that of reference, as at Gen 17:20, “as for Ishmael;” cf. Psa 3:3; 2Ki 5:7; cf. , 1Sa 1:27, etc. Men shall see that they are cattle (beasts), they in reference to themselves, i.e., either they in reference to themselves mutually (Luther: among themselves), or: they in reference to themselves. To interpret the reference as that of mutual relation, would, in looking back to Ecc 3:16, commend itself, for the condemnation and oppression of the innocent under the appearance of justice is an act of human brutishness. But the reason assigned in Ecc 3:19 does not accord with this reciprocal rendering of lahem . Thus lahem will be meant reflexively, but it is not on that account pleonastic (Knobel), nor does it ironically form a climax: ipsissimi = hchstselbst (Ewald, 315a); but “they in reference to themselves” is = they in and of themselves, i.e., viewed as men (viewed naturally). If one disregards the idea of God’s interfering at a future time with the discordant human history, and, in general, if one loses sight of God, the distinction between the life of man and of beast disappears.

Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament

SIMILARITY OF MEN TO BEASTS

Verses 18-20 affirm Solomon’s desire that men under the sun might be caused to see that they are like beasts in that:

1) They die like beasts; they are powerless to prolong life, Vs 19.

2) Like beasts, they are unable to retain the breath by which they live, Vs 19.

3) Like beasts, their bodies return to the dust of earth, Vs 20.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

18. The fact that this verse begins like the preceding indicates that it introduces an additional and independent thought. Yet or also might be inserted to make it plainer.

That God might manifest Better, That God has made them conspicuous, even that they might see that they are like beasts. As if a beast were unconscious that he is a beast, but man, by his superior intellect, is made to see and feel this concerning himself.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Death Is The Great Leveller ( Ecc 3:18-22 ).

Now we discover the conflict taking place within him. He has had a concept of everlastingness and of the necessity for future judgement. How then does this tie in with the fact that all die, both man and beast?

Ecc 3:18-19

‘I said in my heart, “Because of the sons of men, that God may put them to the test, and that they may see that they themselves are but as beasts, for that which befalls the sons of men, befalls beasts, even one thing befalls them. As the one dies so does the other die. Yes they all have one breath, and man has no pre-eminence over the beasts. For all is vanity.” ’

The question arises here as to what is the subject of ‘because of the sons of men’. Some see it as referring back to Ecc 3:16. But the idea of wickedness in the place of justice would not impress on man that he was like the beasts. It might indeed rather emphasise man’s difference from the beasts. What impresses on him the fact that he is like the beasts in context is that he dies like they do. Furthermore what is the point of putting them to the test in judgment if they then all simply die? Thus we are probably to look forward and see the subject as being ‘even one thing befalls them’.

This would then mean that he sees dying like the beasts as being a kind of test to men. In the face of it what will be their reaction to God? What are they going to do in the face of this?

If we are to connect it to Ecc 3:17-18, and not as a totally new thought, it must be because he automatically assumes that death will be the consequence of the wicked being brought into judgment. To a despotic king, even a good one, the death sentence was a constant consequence of justice. Thus the fact that men are judged and executed demonstrates that they are but like the beasts. But this is not consistent with Ecc 3:17 where the righteous are also in mind.

‘For that which befalls the sons of men, befalls beasts. Even one thing befalls them. As the one dies so does the other die. Yes, they all have one breath, and man has no pre-eminence over the beasts, for all is vanity.’ He has now come back to his pessimism. All die in the same way, both man and beast. They have similar ‘breath’ (of life – Gen 2:7; Gen 7:22) and they lose it in a similar way. So man is no different from the beasts. He experiences the same inevitable end. Thus all is meaningless. This fact is then emphasised.

Some see this likening to the beasts as including (or should we say excluding) the moral dimension. Man behaves like the beasts as well as dying like them. But it is questionable whether this is what The Preacher means. Not all behave like beasts, only the powerful. His concentration is rather on the fact that both die in the same way and become dust.

Ecc 3:20

‘All go to one place, all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.’

The grave is the destiny of both man and beast. Dust they are and to dust they will return. So again he emphasises that there is no difference between them. Their dead bodies are dealt with in the same way.

Ecc 3:21

‘Who knows the spirit of man, whether it goes upward, and the spirit of the beast, whether it goes downwards into the earth?’

But again the Preacher has a moment of questioning. Again something challenges him to think. It is only a question, but it reveals the uncertainty in his thinking. Who knows what happens to the ‘spirit’? We should note that whether the breath of life and the spirit are to be seen as the same thing does not matter. What matters here is the possibility that there is something in man, his essential life, which perhaps goes upwards towards God (compare Ecc 12:7), in contrast to that of the beast. If that were the case the death of the man and the beast may not be the same after all. However, for the present he dismisses the idea. (It is only later that he finally accepts it (Ecc 12:7), the idea that man will in some undefinable way partake of everlastingness).

Ecc 3:22

‘So I saw that there is nothing better than that a man should rejoice in his works. For that is his portion. For who will bring him to see what shall be after him?’

So he concludes that the best thing for man to do is to rejoice in what he does, to enjoy his life and his work, for it has been allotted to him by God, and not be concerned about the distant future. The word is not used, but the idea is that he should live his life by trust in God.

‘What shall be after him.’ It is pointless for a man to worry about what will be after him. This is in contrast with Ecc 2:18-19. But there the reference was to someone who had spent his life building up his possessions unnecessarily, whereas here he is speaking of one who has lived his life before God without building up excessive possessions and therefore need not worry about the future in this way. Compare Ecc 6:12; Ecc 10:14.

From our position we might see here that The Preacher has not come to the logical conclusion. He has accepted the everlastingness of God, and His intervention in what goes on in the earth, he has recognised that there should be justice for all, even for those who die before they can receive justice, he has recognised the quality of life enjoyed by God’s true people. But at this stage he fails to accept the logical consequence of it all. Instead he sinks back into pessimism. He cannot at this stage grasp the possibility of resurrection. So he fails to follow through on what he has discovered.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Ecc 3:18. That God might manifest, &c. That I should assert God, and see that they themselves are beasts. Desvoeux.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

Ecc 3:18 I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts.

Ver. 18. That they might see that they themselves are beasts. ] It is reckoned a great matter that wicked men are made “to know themselves to be but men,” and no more. Psa 9:20 But God will make good men see and say with David, “So foolish was I and ignorant; I was as a beast before thee.” Pulchre addidit, “apud te,” saith Ambrose upon those words. a Elegantly said the Psalmist, “Before thee,” because, in respect of God, what is man but an unreasonable beast? He that is wisest among men, said Socrates, who himself was held the wisest of men, if he be compared to God, Simia videbitur, non sapiens, he will seem rather an ape than a wise man. b David calls himself not a “beast” only, but “beasts,” in the plural, c behemoth, or at least a very great beast, not an ape, but an elephant. And this is that which God would have all good men see, hemmah lahem, as this text hath it, themselves to themselves, in their humble account of themselves, as holy Agur did. Pro 30:2 See Trapp on “ Pro 30:2 “

a Ambr. in Ps. lxxxiii,

b Socrat. apud Platon.

c Eram apud te sicut bestiae. – Mercer.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)