In Ecclesiastes 5:9 is the king the servant?

Discussion must focus on the Hebrew text (including text criticism) and its ancient translations, not on archaeology, modern language translations, or theological controversies.
Forum rules
Members will observe the rules for respectful discourse at all times!
Please sign all posts with your first and last (family) name.
Ruminator
Posts: 52
Joined: Mon Dec 25, 2017 10:09 am

In Ecclesiastes 5:9 is the king the servant?

Post by Ruminator »

The JPS reading is very different from others:

https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cd ... hi/true#v8

Vs:

https://biblehub.com/ecclesiastes/5-9.htm

Is there merit to their reading that the other translations are missing?
---------------
William Ross
ducky
Posts: 766
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:01 pm

Re: In Ecclesiastes 5:9 is the king the servant?

Post by ducky »

Hello, William

The verse is וְיִתְרוֹן אֶרֶץ בַּכֹּל הוּא (היא) מֶלֶךְ לְשָׂדֶה נֶעֱבָד

This verse talks about the advantage of working the land and the second part of the verse seems to be like a common proverb its time מלך לשדה נעבד.

The first link that you put here uses the word "subservient" and it is linked to the king himself.
But it is hard to accept this kind of interpretation because the word נעבד in this meaning doesn't come in the Bible, nor in the Mishna.

The מלך לשדה נעבד - is probably a common proverb in its time that comes to say that he who works his land/field is like a king.
Since he takes care of his own food and doesn't rely on trading and so on, and doesn't depend on others - Therefore he is like a king.

And in the next verse, as a contradiction, it says:
אהב כסף לא ישבע כסף
And compare it to Proverbs 12:11, 25:19
עֹבֵד אַדְמָתוֹ יִשְׂבַּע לָחֶם

which shows the difference between chasing after money and between he who works his field.
David Hunter
Ruminator
Posts: 52
Joined: Mon Dec 25, 2017 10:09 am

Re: In Ecclesiastes 5:9 is the king the servant?

Post by Ruminator »

Okay, thanks.
---------------
William Ross
ducky
Posts: 766
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:01 pm

Re: In Ecclesiastes 5:9 is the king the servant?

Post by ducky »

I would just like to add a few notes because I read the multiple translations in the link. and I think I understand them but not sure.

The main point that I want to make is that the word נעבד must be linked to the word שדה
(and not to the word מלך=king).

The שדה נעבד comes together - as a tilled field.

The word נעבד (עבד - Niphal) can be only referred to the land, and not to a person.
And if I understood the translations right, it seems that they link the נעבד to the מלך.

As saying that the king "serve" the field.
And that is exactly as one says that he is a servant of the field, right? (or am I wrong?)
As if the king is the נעבד.

But the נעבד is the שדה - a tilled field.
And a king is he who owns a tilled field.
מלך - לשדה נעבד.
David Hunter
Ruminator
Posts: 52
Joined: Mon Dec 25, 2017 10:09 am

Re: In Ecclesiastes 5:9 is the king the servant?

Post by Ruminator »

Could the idea be, "A king is someone whose field is tilled for him"?
---------------
William Ross
ducky
Posts: 766
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:01 pm

Re: In Ecclesiastes 5:9 is the king the servant?

Post by ducky »

Not so much.

I understand your point.
Because there is no difference in the views between a man who works his field and between a rich man who has slaves that work his field for him.

And maybe you actually mean for a real king that gains from the taxes from the fields that are tilled by others.

But that ruins the whole message of the verse.
Because What does that verse comes to say?
It comes to say that the rich man is not the one with money and slaves and horses and so on.
But the rich man is the one who works his field - and making his own food and doesn't depend on others.
And so, this working man, that can also be poor - he is compared to a king. (as a rich man).

If I read it as "A king is someone whose field is tilled for him".
Then the verse glorifies the land and its fruits.
But when we read two verses later, it talks about how sweet is the sleep of the worker, in comparison to the sleep of the rich man who always thinks about money.

And so, the context comes to actually glorify the simple working man.
And when we translate it as you suggested, it has the connotation as if only the rich men who own lands that are tilled for them are considered kings.

And even though this verse that glorifies the working man include itself also those who have slaves who work the land for them (because it doesn't matter), still, the translation should be general that would refer to anyone who has a tilled land (also the poor man with no slaves).
As he who works his land and making his own food is considered a king.
(and not those who always chase money even if they and gain it)
Therefore, when you wrote "for him" it kinda ruins the message.
David Hunter
Ruminator
Posts: 52
Joined: Mon Dec 25, 2017 10:09 am

Re: In Ecclesiastes 5:9 is the king the servant?

Post by Ruminator »

Okay, thanks again.

So farming your own land is sustainable. In Capitalism everyone in the supply chain has their hand out for a piece of the profit.
---------------
William Ross
Ruminator
Posts: 52
Joined: Mon Dec 25, 2017 10:09 am

Re: In Ecclesiastes 5:9 is the king the servant?

Post by Ruminator »

Looking again at this passage with fresh eyes I'm wondering if Qeholet is saying that despite greed and corruption at the local level the LORD (who is at the top of the chain of command) provides for all by turning the king's heart where he will, ensuring that all are fed?

The reason I'm looking there is that I see Paul echoing this passage here:

[Rom 13:1-7 NLT] (1) Everyone must submit to governing authorities. For all authority comes from God, and those in positions of authority have been placed there by God. (2) So anyone who rebels against authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and they will be punished. (3) For the authorities do not strike fear in people who are doing right, but in those who are doing wrong. Would you like to live without fear of the authorities? Do what is right, and they will honor you. (4) The authorities are God's servants, sent for your good. But if you are doing wrong, of course you should be afraid, for they have the power to punish you. They are God's servants, sent for the very purpose of punishing those who do what is wrong. (5) So you must submit to them, not only to avoid punishment, but also to keep a clear conscience. (6) Pay your taxes, too, for these same reasons. For government workers need to be paid. They are serving God in what they do. (7) Give to everyone what you owe them: Pay your taxes and government fees to those who collect them, and give respect and honor to those who are in authority.

[Col 4:1 NLT] (1) Masters, be just and fair to your slaves. Remember that you also have a Master--in heaven.

I guess the first question I should ask is, is Ecclessiastes 5:9 continuing the thought of God's sovereignty in Ecclessiasted 5:8?

If so, what is the larger thought? Am I correct to associate this with Romans 13, regarding the LORD's control of the king?

I sure hope he's not advocating "trickle-down Reaganomics"!
---------------
William Ross
Isaac Fried
Posts: 1783
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 pm

Re: In Ecclesiastes 5:9 is the king the servant?

Post by Isaac Fried »

Notice that the Good News Translation (GNT) puts Ecclesiastes 5:9
וְיִתְרוֹן אֶרֶץ בַּכֹּל היא (הוּא) מֶלֶךְ לְשָׂדֶה נֶעֱבָד
similarly as
"Even a king depends on the harvest"
or in common words
"The superiority of the land is paramount, even the king is enslaved to it."

Isaac Fried, Boston University
kwrandolph
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: In Ecclesiastes 5:9 is the king the servant?

Post by kwrandolph »

Ruminator wrote:So farming your own land is sustainable. In Capitalism everyone in the supply chain has their hand out for a piece of the profit.
Farming your own land is the ultimate in capitalism. The same with a small sole-proprietor business in town hiring at most a few people. These huge multi-national corporations cozying up to big government to protect them from competition are not capitalism, rather are a form of Marxist socialism.

This is a discussion on Biblical Hebrew, not the New Testament. There are several mistranslations in that passage of Romans 13:1–7, but I won’t go into detail here.

As for this verse, I’ll start from the back:

The word נעבד can be either a first person plural verb, or a third person masculine singular niphal verb that can also be used as an adjective for the previous word.
The word שדה is masculine, in spite of ending with a heh and its plural form is שדות.
The two together can mean “a served field” in the sense that it is “a tilled field”.
The word מלך can either mean “king” or a prefixed mem on an irregular form of the verb הלך.
The first part of the verse doesn’t have words with double meanings, but hard to decipher none-the-less. יתרון ארץ בכל היש “the remainder of the land is among all”. I think this makes sense if in Solomon’s day there was still a lot of unclaimed and untilled land in Israel, so there was not the necessity of taking over already tilled land to get some for one’s own fields.

I found this a difficult verse to read, and I’m not sure that I read it correctly.

Karl W. Randolph.
Post Reply