4:4–6 As often happens in wisdom literature, in verse 4 an observation on reality is offered with minimal accompanying commentary; the reader is expected to ponder the reality to discern the way in which it is to be evaluated and applied personally. The Preacher observes the reality of professional jealousy in the sphere of labor and achievement. Some scholars have questioned whether the envy is the motivation for one’s labors or the result of them, in which case it would refer to envy provoked in others by one’s success. The former interpretation is preferable, since the Preacher is cautioning against this phenomenon by calling it “vanity.” The laborer cannot control how others respond to his success, so there would be no reason to warn against such a result. In fact, focusing on potential negative results of hard work would only lessen a person’s inclination to engage in it, which is precisely the problem addressed in verse 5.

In verse 4, then, the Preacher is cautioning against being motivated chiefly by rivalry or a competitive spirit rather than by an enjoyment of the work itself (cf. 2:24) and a desire to glorify God. The short anecdote that forms a bookend to this unit (4:13–16) likewise urges the reader to pursue wisdom for its own merit and not for less noble motives. There is probably an element of intentional hyperbole in verse 4 when the Preacher says that “all toil and all skill” are motivated by envy; in reality, most people’s motives in working are a mixture of envy, financial necessity, vocational fulfillment, and so on. The basic point calling for some careful self-examination is the truth that envy and jealousy are more significant motivations for most people than they would care to admit.

The toil and success of verse 4 is immediately contrasted with the lazy “fool” of verse 5, who does not work but simply “folds his hands” in inactivity. A failure to work is self-destructive (equivalent to eating one’s “own flesh”), since it will obviously result in hunger and financial ruin. A balance between relentless work and sloth is struck in verse 6, which enjoins a modest approach to material gain with contentment (“a handful of quietness”) rather than the attempt to multiply one’s wealth excessively while experiencing frustration (“two hands full of toil and a striving after wind”).

4:7–12 The theme of toil continues to resonate in the following section, though the focus moves from one’s internal motivation to work (or lack thereof) to external factors, namely, the good of others. The Preacher now observes an Ebenezer Scrooge of a man: he has no family members, works incessantly but is never satisfied with riches, and is painfully aware that his lifestyle involves only sacrifices without any enjoyment (v. 8). Implicitly he is an example of the phenomenon of verse 6: he has “two hands full of toil” but nothing more. This is twice called “vanity” (vv. 7, 8) and “unhappy business.”

This poignant example leads the Preacher in verses 9–12 to praise the blessing of working in community with others. In view of the lonely man of verse 8 the reader naturally thinks of family relations, but the terms used in verses 9–12 are numerical (“one, two, three”) rather than familial (“son, brother”). Thus the Preacher could be speaking of the “friend who sticks closer than a brother” (Prov. 18:24) in addition to family members. The reference to “two” who “lie together” in Ecclesiastes 4:11 is not a reference to marriage but instead reflects the common experience of people sleeping huddled together in cold weather. Working in community brings a better result from one’s efforts (v. 9), provides assistance when facing personal hardship (v. 10), offers relief amid adverse conditions (v. 11), and affords greater protection from external threats (v. 12). The concluding reference to a “threefold cord” (v. 12) is an example of numeric rhetorical patterns that serve to build to a climax, such as the passages in Proverbs that speak of “three things . . . four things” (Prov. 30:15–31) or in the prophets that threaten judgment “for three transgressions . . . and for four” (Amos 1:3, 6, 9, 11, 13; 2:1, 4, 6). If two are better than one, then three are even better.

As a unit, Ecclesiastes 4:9–12 helps to bring out an important aspect of one’s motivation for working: to be of benefit to others and a larger community. This perspective stands in contrast to that of the self-obsessed, solitary man in verses 7–8, whose work benefits no one. Moreover, verses 9–12 serve also as a corrective to the problem raised in verse 4: some people work diligently but are motivated by sinful jealousy, but others work hard in order to be a blessing to their communities. One’s labors should not be entirely for one’s own benefit.

On a more profound level these verses reveal that the believing community is designed not for the survival of the fittest but for the survival of the weakest: the Lord has brought together the different “members of the body” (1 Cor. 12:12) so that the one who has fallen can be lifted up, the one who is freezing may be kept warm, and the one who is about to be overpowered can be delivered and come out victorious. The reality is that every Christian will fall down at some point—the “ifs” of Ecclesiastes 4:10–12 can just as easily be translated as “whens”—and it is the grace of God that draws believers into a community in which we can “bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ” (Gal. 6:2).

4:13–16 These verses relate a short anecdote on the theme of wisdom, one that has proven deceptively difficult to interpreters. Many attempts have been made to correlate this story with a particular historical event, though so far no suggestion has gained a broad consensus among scholars. Moreover, the Hebrew text is ambiguous at crucial points, so it is unclear whether the story involves two characters (a foolish old king and a poor but wise youth) or three (the king, the wise youth, and a second youth, according to one interpretation of v. 15). Grammatical ambiguity also makes it difficult to determine whether the ascent from prison to the throne is that of the old king or the poor youth. It will be argued here that the simplest reading of the story is as a creative, fictionalized story based on Joseph’s ascent to power (Genesis 37–50), adding and changing some features of the original Genesis account for the Preacher’s own purposes in exhorting his hearers to wisdom. According to this understanding, the “poor youth” does not entirely supplant the “old king” but simply serves at a high rank within the royal administration. Despite the interpretive difficulties, the basic point is communicated clearly in Ecclesiastes 4:13, 16: wisdom, even if accompanied by humble circumstances (such as poverty), is preferable to wealth or the power of kingship if those things are accompanied by foolishness and a refusal to take advice (v. 13).

The story introduces two characters, a “poor and wise youth” and an “old and foolish king” (v. 13), which immediately introduces a surprising, counterintuitive element. In general the Bible associates wisdom with age rather than with youth (Job 12:12; 32:7). Moreover, an ancient reader would have assumed a poor person to be lacking an education, having had little time or means to pursue one. By the same token wealth and wisdom were generally associated with each other (cf. Prov. 3:16; 8:18, 21; 21:20; 24:4). Therefore, the fact that the wise person in the story is both young and poor is unexpected (cf. Eccles. 9:15).

The introduction to the anecdote accords generally with the Joseph narrative. In the Genesis account Pharaoh is referred to as a “king” (Gen. 40:1, 5) and Joseph as a “youth/boy” (Gen. 37:30; 42:22). As a prisoner in Egypt, Joseph would have been considered poor, though he is also described as exceedingly wise (Gen. 41:39). To highlight further the youth’s wisdom a creative element is introduced by calling the king “old and foolish” and no longer able to “take advice.” Given the track record of the pharaohs in the Bible, it is not unreasonable for the Preacher to suggest that Pharaoh, despite his reliance upon Joseph for many years, at some point ceased to listen to his counsel. After all, Ecclesiastes 4:13 implies that the king at one time did in fact know how to take advice but eventually stopped doing so. One of the lessons of the story, then, is the need to persevere in wisdom; wise behavior during one stage of life does not guarantee it later.

Verse 14 indicates that “he” went from prison to the throne despite having been born “poor” in “his own kingdom.” The pronouns are ambiguous; read in light of the Joseph story, “he” would refer to the poor youth released from prison, while “his kingdom” would refer not to the poor youth’s kingdom but to that of the “old and foolish king” (v. 13). The Hebrew text says literally that the youth was released “to rule” (Hb. malak) but does not explicitly state that he was made a king or possessed a kingdom. Similarly, Joseph’s position was one of power and rule, and, while he was never made king of Egypt, it is noteworthy that his family asks (Gen. 37:8), “Are you indeed to reign over us?” using the same verb (malak). The fact that the youth is said to have been born poor “in his [i.e., Pharaoh’s] kingdom” could be attributed to the fact that Canaan and the Levant were associated with Egypt’s domain due to regional proximity (cf. Gen. 47:13–15), or it could simply be a creative element added to the story’s retelling.

The vast influence and power of the youth is described in Ecclesiastes 4:15–16: “All the living who move about under the sun” were under his control (v. 15), and “there was no end of all the people” he led (v. 16). In the same way, “all the earth came to Egypt to Joseph to buy grain” during the prophesied famine (Gen. 41:57). The difficult expression “the second youth” (Eccles. 4:15 ESV mg.) is best understood as referring to the poor but wise youth’s position within the king’s administration rather than to a second youth who later came to power. Thus, just as Joseph was “second” to Pharaoh (Gen. 41:40, 43), so this poor but wise youth became “second” to the king and thus could “stand in his place” to act on his behalf.

Another surprising twist to the story—but one that accords with the biblical storyline—is that ultimately the tremendous service Joseph did for the nation he served was apparently all for naught, and later generations did not “rejoice in him” (Eccles. 4:16). We find here an illustration of the old adage qualis rex, talis grex (“As the king, so the flock”): just as the “old and foolish king” stopped taking advice, so also the people of the kingdom eventually came to disregard the faithful service of this wise youth. When a new king arose who “did not know Joseph” (Ex. 1:8), he and his people forgot the tremendous service rendered by this wise youth and began instead to oppress and mistreat his descendants. This by no means diminishes the youth’s wisdom and achievements, but it does serve as a reminder that wise and godly behavior should be pursued for its own sake and not for any possible fringe benefits it might bring, such as a lasting legacy. The Preacher has already noted that labors and achievements are “vanity and a striving after wind” (Eccles. 2:11). Hence the story provides a fitting bookend to the opening of this entire section, which asserted that one’s labor is “vanity” if it is motivated entirely by envy of one’s neighbor (4:4). Wisdom, just like work, should be pursued because it is an inherently good and blessed thing; one should not strive after it out of jealousy, a desire to acquire a famous reputation, or the like.