Matthew Henry on Ecclesiastes 5:9-17
Solomon had shown the vanity of pleasure, gaiety, and fine works, of honour, power, and royal dignity; and there is many a covetous worldling that will agree with him, and speak as slightly as he does of these things; but money, he thinks, is a substantial thing, and if he can but have enough of that he is happy. This is the mistake which Solomon attacks, and attempts to rectify, in these verses; he shows that there is as much vanity in great riches, and the lust of the eye about them, as there is in the lusts of the flesh and the pride of life, and a man can make himself no more happy by hoarding an estate than by spending it.
I. He grants that the products of the earth, for the support and…
Read the whole note in the consoleJamieson-Fausset-Brown on Ecclesiastes 5:16
Even supposing that he loses not his wealth before death, then at least he must go stripped of it all (Psa 49:17).
laboured for the wind-- (Hos 12:1; Co1 9:26).
John Gill on Ecclesiastes 5:16
And this also is a sore evil, that in all points as he came,
so shall he go,.... This seems not to be an evil or vanity, distinct from the former; but the same repeated and confirmed, and expressed, if possible, in stronger terms, that a man is in all respects alike, when he goes out of the world, as when he came in. A man's birth is signified by "coming", that is, out of his mother's womb, and into the world; and which is a description of every man born into it, John 1:9; he is of the earth, earthly; comes forth like a flower, and springs up as grass; he comes not of himself, nor casually, but by means of his parents; and according to the determinate will of God, and to answer some end or…
Read the whole note in the consoleKeil & Delitzsch on Ecclesiastes 5:16
A transition is now made to rich men as such, and the registering formula which should go before Ecc 5:14 here follows: "And this also is a sore evil: altogether exactly as he came, thus shall he depart: and what gain hath he that laboureth in the wind?" Regarding זה; and regarding כּל־ע שׁ,
(Note: I n H. written as one word: כּלעמת. Parchon (Lex. under עמת) had this form before him. In his Lex. Kimchi bears evidence in favour of the correct writing as two words.)
The writing of these first two as one word [vid. note below] accords with Ibn-Giat's view, accidentally quoted by Kimchi, that the word is compounded of כ of comparison, and the frequently occurring לעמּת always retaining its ל, a…
