Ecc 8:2-4 | KD | STEP | The faithfulness of subjects, Koheleth says, is a religious duty: “I say: Observe well the kings’ command, and that because of the oath of God.” The author cannot have written as it here stands; אני hovers in the air. Hitzig reads, with Jerome, שׁמר, and hears in a servile person speaking who veils himself in the cloak of religion; in follows the censura of this corrupt theory. but we have already remarked that accords with , and is thus not a corrupt theory; besides, this distribution of the expressions of the Book of Koheleth between different speakers is throughout an expedient resting on a delusion. Luther translates: I keep the word of the king, and thus reads אשׁרּ; as also does the Jer. Sanhedrin 21 b , and Koheleth rabba , under this passage: I observe the command of the king, of the queen. In any case, it is not God who is meant here by “the king;” the words: “and that because of the oath of God,” render this impossible, although Hengst. regards it as possible; for (1) “the oath of God” he understands, against all usage, of the oath which is taken to God; and (2) he maintains that in the O.T. scarcely any passage is to be found where obedience to a heathen master is set forth as a religious duty. But the prophets show themselves as morally great men, without a stain, just in this, that they decidedly condemn and unhesitatingly chastise any breach of faith committed against the Assyrian or Chaldean oppressor, e.g. , ; ; ; cf. Jer 27:12. However, although we understand mělěk not of the heavenly, but of an earthly king, yet אשׁמר does not recommend itself, for Koheleth records his experience, and derives therefrom warnings and admonitions; but he never in this manner presents himself as an example of virtue. The paraenetic imper. שׁמר is thus not to be touched. Can we then use ani elliptically, as equivalent to “I say as follows”? Passages such as (Elst.), where לאמר is omitted, are not at all the same. Also , where הנני is strengthened by ani , and the expression is not elliptical, is not in point here. And also does not apply to the case of the supposed ellipsis here. In an ingenious bold manner the Midrash helps itself in Lev 18 and Num 14, for with reference to the self-introduction of royal words like פרעה אני it explains: “Observe the I from the mouth of the king.” This explanation is worthy of mention, but it has little need of refutation; it is also contrary to the accentuation, which gives Pashta to ani , as to ראה, , and לבד, , and thus places it by itself. Now, since this elliptical I , after which we would place a colon, is insufferably harsh, and since also it does not recommend itself to omit it, as is done by the lxx, the Targ., and Syr., - for the words must then have a different order, המלך פי שׁמר, - it is most advisable to supply אמרתּי, and to write אם אני or אני אם, after ; -18. We find ourselves here, besides, within an I section, consisting of sentences interwoven in a Mashal form. The admonition is solemnly introduced, since Koheleth, himself a king, and a wise man in addition, gives it the support of the authority of his person, in which it is to be observed that the religious motive introduced by ו explic . ( vid ., Ewald, §340 b ) is not merely an appendix, but the very point of the admonition. Kleinert, incorrectly: “Direct thyself according to the mouth of the king, and that, too, as according to an oath of God.” Were this the meaning, then we might certainly wish that it were a servile Alexandrian court-Jew who said it. But why should that be the meaning? The meaning “ wegen ” because of, which is usually attributed to the word-connection עלדברת here and at ; , Kleinert maintains to be an arbitrary invention. But it alone fits these three passages, and why an arbitrary invention? If על־דּבר, ; , etc., means “ von wegen ” on account of, then also על־דברת will signify “ propter rationem, naturam ,” as well as ( ) ad rationem . שׁב אל is, as elsewhere שׁב יה, e.g. , , a promise given under an appeal to God, a declaration or promise strengthened by an oath. Here it is the oath of obedience which is meant, which the covenant between a king and his people includes, though it is not expressly entered into by individuals. The king is designated neither as belonging to the nation, nor as a foreigner; that which is said is valid also in the case of the latter. Daniel, Nehemiah, Mordecai, etc., acted in conformity with the words of Koheleth , and the oath of vassalage which the kings of Israel and Judah swore to the kings of Assyria and of Babylon is regarded by the prophets of both kingdoms as binding on king and people.

‏ Ecclesiastes 8:2-4

The faithfulness of subjects, Koheleth says, is a religious duty: “I say: Observe well the kings’ command, and that because of the oath of God.” The author cannot have written Ecc 8:2 as it here stands; אני hovers in the air. Hitzig reads, with Jerome, שׁמר, and hears in Ecc 8:2-4 a servile person speaking who veils himself in the cloak of religion; in Ecc 8:5-8 follows the censura of this corrupt theory. but we have already remarked that Ecc 8:2 accords with Rom 13:5, and is thus not a corrupt theory; besides, this distribution of the expressions of the Book of Koheleth between different speakers is throughout an expedient resting on a delusion. Luther translates: I keep the word of the king, and thus reads אשׁרּ; as also does the Jer. Sanhedrin 21 b, and Koheleth rabba, under this passage: I observe the command of the king, of the queen. In any case, it is not God who is meant here by “the king;” the words: “and that because of the oath of God,” render this impossible, although Hengst. regards it as possible; for (1) “the oath of God” he understands, against all usage, of the oath which is taken to God; and (2) he maintains that in the O.T. scarcely any passage is to be found where obedience to a heathen master is set forth as a religious duty. But the prophets show themselves as morally great men, without a stain, just in this, that they decidedly condemn and unhesitatingly chastise any breach of faith committed against the Assyrian or Chaldean oppressor, e.g., Isa 28:15; Isa 30:1; Eze 17:15; cf. Jer 27:12. However, although we understand mělěk not of the heavenly, but of an earthly king, yet אשׁמר does not recommend itself, for Koheleth records his experience, and derives therefrom warnings and admonitions; but he never in this manner presents himself as an example of virtue. The paraenetic imper. שׁמר is thus not to be touched. Can we then use ani elliptically, as equivalent to “I say as follows”? Passages such as Jer 20:10 (Elst.), where לאמר is omitted, are not at all the same. Also Eze 34:11, where הנני is strengthened by ani, and the expression is not elliptical, is not in point here. And Isa 5:9 also does not apply to the case of the supposed ellipsis here. In an ingenious bold manner the Midrash helps itself in Lev 18 and Num 14, for with reference to the self-introduction of royal words like פרעה אני it explains: “Observe the I from the mouth of the king.” This explanation is worthy of mention, but it has little need of refutation; it is also contrary to the accentuation, which gives Pashta to ani, as to ראה, Ecc 7:27, and לבד, Ecc 7:29, and thus places it by itself. Now, since this elliptical I, after which we would place a colon, is insufferably harsh, and since also it does not recommend itself to omit it, as is done by the lxx, the Targ., and Syr., - for the words must then have a different order, המלך פי שׁמר, - it is most advisable to supply אמרתּי, and to write אם אני or אני אם, after Ecc 2:1; Ecc 3:17-18. We find ourselves here, besides, within an I section, consisting of sentences interwoven in a Mashal form. The admonition is solemnly introduced, since Koheleth, himself a king, and a wise man in addition, gives it the support of the authority of his person, in which it is to be observed that the religious motive introduced by ו explic. (vid., Ewald, §340 b) is not merely an appendix, but the very point of the admonition. Kleinert, incorrectly: “Direct thyself according to the mouth of the king, and that, too, as according to an oath of God.” Were this the meaning, then we might certainly wish that it were a servile Alexandrian court-Jew who said it. But why should that be the meaning? The meaning “wegen” because of, which is usually attributed to the word-connection עלדברת here and at Ecc 3:18; Ecc 7:14, Kleinert maintains to be an arbitrary invention. But it alone fits these three passages, and why an arbitrary invention? If על־דּבר, Psa 45:5; Psa 79:9, etc., means “von wegen” on account of, then also על־דברת will signify “propter rationem, naturam,” as well as (Psa 110:4) ad rationem. שׁב אל is, as elsewhere שׁב יה, e.g., Exo 22:10, a promise given under an appeal to God, a declaration or promise strengthened by an oath. Here it is the oath of obedience which is meant, which the covenant between a king and his people includes, though it is not expressly entered into by individuals. The king is designated neither as belonging to the nation, nor as a foreigner; that which is said is valid also in the case of the latter. Daniel, Nehemiah, Mordecai, etc., acted in conformity with the words of Koheleth, and the oath of vassalage which the kings of Israel and Judah swore to the kings of Assyria and of Babylon is regarded by the prophets of both kingdoms as binding on king and people. Ecc 8:3

The warning, corresponding to the exhortation, now follows: One must not thoughtlessly avoid the duty of service and homage due to the king: “Hasten not to go away from him: join not in an evil matter; for he executeth all that he desireth.” Regarding the connection, of two verbs with one idea, lying before us in תּלך ... אל־, as e.g., at Zec 8:15; Hos 1:6, vid., Gesen. §142. 3 b. Instead of this sentence, we might use אל־תבהל ללכת מפניו, as e.g., Aboth v. 8: “The wise man does not interrupt another, and hastens not to answer,” i.e., is not too hasty in answering. As with עם, to be with the king, Ecc 4:15 = to hold with him, so here מפניו הלך means to take oneself away from him, or, as it is expressed in Ecc 10:4, to leave one’s station; cf. Hos 11:2 : “They (the prophets of Jahve) called to them, forthwith they betook themselves away from them.” It is possible that in the choice of the expression, the phrase נבהל מפני, “to be put into a state of alarm before any one,” Job 23:15, was not without influence. The indef. רע דּבר, Deu 17:1; Deu 23:10, cf. Deu 13:12; Deu 19:20, 2Ki 4:41, etc., is to be referred (with Rosenm., Knobel, Bullock, and others) to undertakings which aim at resisting the will of the king, and reach their climax in conspiracy against the king’s throne and life (Pro 24:21). אל־תּעמד בּ might mean: persist not in it; but the warning does not presuppose that the entrance thereon had already taken place, but seeks to prevent it, thus: enter not, go not, engage not, like 'amad bederek, Psa 1:1; 'amad babrith, 2Ki 23:3; cf. Psa 106:23; Jer 23:18. Also the Arab. 'amada li = intendit, proposuit sibi rem, is compared; it is used in the general sense of “to make toward something, to stretch to something.” Otherwise Ewald, Elst., Ginsb., and Zöckl.: stand not at an evil word (of the king), provoking him to anger thereby still more, - against Ecc 8:5, where רע דבר, as generally (cf. Psa 141:4), means an evil thing, and against the close connection of בּ עמד, which is to be presupposed. Hitzig even: stand not at an evil command, i.e., hesitate not to do even that which is evil, which the king commands, with the remark that here a servilismus is introduced as speaking, who, in saying of the king, “All that pleaseth him he doeth,” uses words which are used only of God the Almighty, Joh 1:14; Psa 33:9, etc. Hengst., Hahn, Dale, and others therefore dream of the heavenly King in the text. But proverbs of the earthly king, such as Pro 20:2, say the very same thing; and if the Mishna Sanhedrin ii. 2, to which Tyler refers, says of the king, “The king cannot himself be a judge, nor can any one judge him; he does not give evidence, and no evidence can be given against him,” a sovereignty is thus attributed to the king, which is formulated in 3b and established in the verse following. Ecc 8:4 “Inasmuch as the word of a king is powerful; and who can say to him: What doest thou?” The same thing is said of God, Job 9:12; Isa 45:9; Dan 4:32, Wisd. 12:12, but also of the king, especially of the unlimited monarch of a despotic state. Baasher verifies as בּשׁ at Ecc 2:16; cf. Gen 39:9, Gen 39:23; Greek, ἐν ᾧ and ἐφ ̓ ᾧ. Burger arbitrarily: quae dixit (דּבּר for דּבר), rex, in ea potestatem habet. The adjectival impers. use of the noun shilton = potestatem habens, is peculiar; in the Talm. and Midrash, shilton, like the Assyr. siltannu, ^{▼▼Vid., Fried. Delitzsch’s Assyr. Stud. p. 129f.} means the ruler (vid., under Ecc 5:8). That which now follows is not, as Hitzig supposes, an opposing voice which makes itself heard, but as Ecc 8:2 is compared with Rom 13:5, so is Ecc 8:5 with Rom 13:3.