2:12 As indicated earlier (cf. comments on 1:16–17; 2:1–3), the Preacher is willing to take a close look at the unpleasant side of reality. By examining madness and folly he hopes to gain a better understanding of wisdom (v. 12a). In this particular instance his consideration of folly is motivated by the uncertainty of whether his successor to the throne will be wise or foolish (vv. 18–19).

The Hebrew of verse 12b has textual variants and is difficult to render,31 leading many scholars to add words in translation not part of the original text. Many renderings of verse 12b make it a question about what the man who comes after the king can or will “do,” supplying that verb to the Hebrew text. Such grammatical constructions are common in the OT, and one usually supplies a form of the verb “to be” in the past, present, or even future tense depending on the context. Garrett observes, “If the Hebrew is to be interpreted as it stands, the line can be translated literally as, ‘What is the man who will come after the king whom they have already made?’”32 In the OT, “What?” questions are often not asking to identify something that is being observed but rather are inquiring about its significance (cf. Zech. 1:9; 4:3–5, 11–13; 6:4). Rather than asking about what that king’s successor can or will do, this poses the question as to what his significance will be. The traditional Hebrew text therefore is best rendered, “What will be the significance of the man who comes after the king, whom they have already made?” The question thereby assumes that the Preacher’s successor has already been installed in power, thus bringing the Preacher’s own narrative arc full circle from his accession to the throne (Eccles. 1:12) to his retirement in the present verse. It is noteworthy that after this chapter the Preacher makes no further observations from the standpoint of one who reigns but rather speaks as a knowledgeable and interested bystander (cf. Introduction: Author, Date, Occasion).

Since the Preacher has surpassed all his predecessors in wisdom and splendor (1:16; 2:9), it seems inevitable that his successor will fail to live up to that same high level of wisdom and accomplishment. Hence the Preacher is troubled by the prospect of handing over all his achievements to someone less gifted than he (cf. 2:18–19).

2:13–14a The fact that the Preacher is considering “madness and folly” along with “wisdom” (v. 12a) does not imply that he doubts the superiority of the one over the other. The benefit of wisdom over folly is as obvious as the difference between light and darkness (v. 13); it is comparable to the ability to see as opposed to being blind (v. 14a). This truth is so self-evident that it needs no further empirical or logical demonstration.

2:14b–17 While the superiority of wisdom over foolishness needs no extensive argument, wisdom’s advantages are not limitless. When it comes to human mortality, wisdom has no advantage over foolishness, for the “same event”—death—occurs to both the wise and the foolish (vv. 14b–16). The Preacher will later commend wisdom’s ability to extend and enrich one’s earthly life (7:12), but at this moment he is troubled that it cannot deliver one from death, the “last enemy” (1 Cor. 15:26). Viewed from this particular angle, even wisdom can be called an unprofitable “vanity” (Eccles. 2:15). Mortality is the most serious of issues facing any human being, and wisdom’s ineffectiveness in countering its inevitability leads the Preacher to question whether the pursuit of wisdom is even worth it.

In verse 16 the Preacher reaffirms his previous observation in 1:11, that earlier generations are forgotten by later ones when they pass away. Whether “wise” or “foolish,” there is no “enduring remembrance” of a person when he or she dies. The Preacher speaks mostly in general, third-person terms, but it is clear that it is his own mortality weighing upon him (2:15). This leads to his emotional outburst that he came to “hate life” (v. 17). Despite the strong language here, the Preacher makes comments elsewhere in the book that are unambiguously life-affirming (9:4; 11:7–8). For this reason 2:17 is to be understood as hyperbole. The Preacher is speaking in emotionally exaggerated terms to make a point. Similar rhetoric will occur in verse 18 with regard to the subject of toil. In both cases the idea is that he grew disgusted with his life and work, since in the end he saw their significant limitations. (On the Preacher’s use of hyperbole cf. Introduction: Stylistic and Rhetorical Features.)

2:18–23 The hyperbole of verse 17 continues into verse 18, as the Preacher declares how he came to “hate” his toil as well. As with his remarks concerning hating life in verse 17, the Preacher has other very positive things to say about work and toil, even in this section of the book (v. 24; cf. 3:22; 5:18). This should therefore be understood as a rhetorically exaggerated outburst due to his great vexation. What particularly galls him is that he must leave everything for which he toiled to the “man who will come after me” (2:18). The reality of one’s inevitable death means that one has no choice but to hand over all one’s possessions and achievements to someone else, but no one knows for certain whether that successor will be wise or foolish (v. 19). If one is highly accomplished, as the Preacher was, then it is almost certain that one’s successor will represent a decline in some way. This inevitable handing over of one’s entire life work leads the Preacher to a low moment of despair over his life of toil (vv. 20–21). In addition to calling this “vanity” he also calls it a “great evil.” While the word “evil” (Hb. raʿah) refers often enough to moral evil, in this instance and in several other places in Ecclesiastes it has more of the sense of “adversity,” “affliction,” or “trouble” (e.g., 5:13, 16; 6:1; 7:14; 8:6; 11:2; 12:1). To observe a fool taking control of one’s life work and misusing or ruining it is indeed a painful affliction to endure.

These gloomy reflections on toil lead the Preacher in 2:22 back to a slightly different form of the opening question of 1:3: What does a man have from all his toil and “striving of heart”? In the Bible the heart is often conceived of as the center of man’s thought and rational faculties (cf. comment on 1:16–17). In 2:23, then, the Preacher is acknowledging that for most people one cannot easily separate the work one does from the thoughts that occupy him or her. Some people may be able to compartmentalize their lives and leave their work at the office when they go home at night, but work and life are too closely intertwined for many people. As a result, they continue to think about their work even at home, and when they lie down to sleep their minds remain awake wrestling with their toil.

2:24–26 The Preacher has learned of some of the important limitations pertaining to wisdom and to work in verses 1–23, but despite his extreme frustrations (vv. 17–18) he does not conclude that life or work is utterly meaningless. In the first of several “enjoyment” passages the Preacher urges people to take delight in eating, drinking, and working (v. 24). Although wisdom literature often describes how one course of action is “better” than another (e.g., Prov. 22:1; Eccles. 7:1–3, 5, 8), here and in many of these carpe diem passages the Preacher expresses a superlative: there is “nothing better for a person” than to receive and enjoy these blessings as gifts from God, who makes their enjoyment possible (2:24–25). Earlier the Preacher discovered that an entirely happy-go-lucky approach to life is unsustainable (vv. 1–3), but nevertheless the Lord’s gifts are real and are to be gratefully received and enjoyed.

In verse 26 the Preacher affirms a general biblical principle that a faithful life that pleases God typically results in the bestowal of such blessings, while those who persist in sinful behavior ultimately forfeit their blessings (they “gather and collect” only to turn it over to the godly). This pattern is found throughout Scripture, from the Law (e.g., Deuteronomy 28) to the Prophets (e.g., Isa. 1:19–20) and the Wisdom Literature (e.g., Prov. 3:33) This is not to be understood as merit theology, according to which one’s righteous deeds earn favor with God. Rather, this is an integral dynamic of the covenantal relationship, in which obedience typically results in blessing, while disobedience typically results in punishment. The Preacher, like the rest of the Bible, is aware that many apparent anomalies to this pattern exist, as he sometimes observes that the righteous do not always enjoy a blessed life, while the wicked appear to prosper (e.g., Eccles. 8:14). This in itself demonstrates the fallacy of a merit theology (cf. Introduction: Theology of Ecclesiastes). God’s gifts are sovereignly bestowed or withheld at his discretion; for reasons known only to him there are exceptions to the general pattern of what one encounters in real life.