Екклезіяст 6:10

"That which hath been, its name hath long ago been named; and it is determined what a man shall be: and he cannot dispute with Him who is stronger than he." According to the usage of the tense, it would be more correct to translate: That which (at any time) has made its appearance, the name of which was long ago named, i.e., of which the What? and the How? were long ago determined, and, so to speak, formulated. This שׁ ... כּבר does not stand parallel to היה כבר, Ecc 1:10; for the expression here does not refer to the sphere of that which is done, but of the predetermination. Accordingly, אדם ... ונו is also to be understood. Against the accents, inconsistently periodizing and losing sight of the comprehensiveness of אדם ... אשׁר, Hitzig renders: "and it is known that, if one is a man, he cannot contend," etc., which is impossible for this reason, that אדם הוא cannot be a conditional clause enclosed within the sentence יוכל ... אשׁר. Obviously ונודע, which in the sense of constat would be a useless waste of words, stands parallel to שׁמו נקרא, and signifies known, viz., previously known, as passive of ידע, in the sense of Zac 14:7; cf. Psa 139:1. Bullock rightly compares Act 15:18. After ידע, asher, like ki, which is more common, may signify "that," Ecc 8:12; Eze 20:26; but neither "that he is a man" (Knobel, Vaih., Luzz., Hengst., Ginsb.), nor "that he is the man" (Ewald, Elst., Zckler), affords a consistent meaning. As mah after yada' means quid, so asher after it may mean quod = that which (cf. Dan 8:19, although it does not at all stand in need of proof); and id quod homo est (we cannot render הוּא without the expression of a definite conception of time) is intended to mean that the whole being of a man, whether of this one or that one, at all times and on all sides…

In this chapter, I. The royal preacher goes on further to show the vanity of worldly wealth, when men place their happiness in it and are eager and inordinate in laying it up. Riches, in the hands of a man that is wise and generous, and good for something, but in the hands of a sordid, sneaking, covetous miser, they are good for nothing. 1. He takes an account of the possessions and enjoyments which such a man may have. He has wealth (Ecc 6:2), he has children to inherit it (Ecc 6:3), and lives long (Ecc 6:3, Ecc 6:6). 2. He describes his folly in not taking the comfort of it; he has no power to eat of it, lets strangers devour it, is never filled with good, and at last has no burial (Ecc 6:2, Ecc 6:3). 3. He condemns it as an evil, a common evil, vanity, and a disease (Ecc 6:1, Ecc 6:2). 4. He prefers the condition of a still-born child before the condition of such a one (Ecc 6:3). The still-born child's infelicity is only negative (Ecc 6:4, Ecc 6:5), but that of the covetous worldling is positive; he lives a great while to see himself miserable (Ecc 6:6). 5. He shows the vanity of riches as pertaining only to the body, and giving no satisfaction to the mind (Ecc 6:7, Ecc 6:8), and of those boundless desires with which covetous people vex themselves (Ecc 6:9), which, if they be gratified ever so fully, leave a man but a man still (Ecc 6:10). II. He concludes this discourse of the vanity of the creature with this plain inference from the whole, That it is folly to think of making up a happiness for ourselves in the things of this world (Ecc 6:11, Ecc 6:12). Our satisfaction must be in another life, not in this.

6:10–7:22 God’s sovereign rule over everything is sobering, but it is ultimately a source of hope. 6:10 Everything has already been decided: Cp. Rom 8:29; Eph 1:5, 11. • It was known long ago what each person would be: Cp. Ps 139:15-16. • no use arguing with God about your destiny: Cp. Rom 9:20-24.