Introduction: Wisdom Discourse and Literary Ambiguity in Qohelet
Ecclesiastes 10:19 is a compact yet theologically and grammatically dense aphorism. As with much of Qohelet, its ambiguity is deliberate, and its grammar is tightly structured to allow multiple interpretive layers. The verse reads:
לִשְׂחֹוק֙ עֹשִׂ֣ים לֶ֔חֶם וְיַ֖יִן יְשַׂמַּ֣ח חַיִּ֑ים וְהַכֶּ֖סֶף יַעֲנֶ֥ה אֶת־הַכֹּֽל׃
Bread is made for laughter, and wine gladdens life, and money answers everything.
This verse concludes a section reflecting on folly and wisdom in political and social life. It is syntactically structured in a triadic form: each clause presents a subject, a verb, and an object or complement. The grammatical nuance—particularly the nominal infinitive לִשְׂחֹוק and the interplay of imperfect verbs—adds to the philosophical and literary tone. This article explores how verbal and nominal forms function in tandem to create a paradoxical reflection on materiality, joy, and economic reality in wisdom literature.
Grammatical Feature Analysis: Nominal Infinitive and Verbal Clauses
The verse opens with a rare syntactic construction: לִשְׂחֹוק עֹשִׂים לֶחֶם. Here, לִשְׂחֹוק is an infinitive construct of the root שׂ־ח־ק (“to laugh”), prefixed by the preposition לְ (“for”), rendering “for laughter.” It serves as a nominal purpose clause, indicating the functional goal of the subsequent action.
The verb עֹשִׂים is a qal participle plural (“they make” or “is made”), and the object is לֶחֶם (“bread”). The word order—infinitive + participle + noun—is unusual and poetic. The meaning is effectively: “Bread is made for laughter.” Though grammatically plural, עֹשִׂים likely functions impersonally, as in general maxims or proverbial speech (cf. Waltke & O’Connor §23.2c).
The second clause, וְיַיִן יְשַׂמַּח חַיִּים, uses the imperfect verb יְשַׂמַּח (piel imperfect, “gladdens”) to describe a habitual or general truth: “wine gladdens life.” The subject יַיִן (“wine”) is fronted, possibly for emphasis or poetic rhythm. The object חַיִּים (“life”) is abstract but functions concretely in Qohelet as vitality or human experience.
The final clause, וְהַכֶּסֶף יַעֲנֶה אֶת־הַכֹּל, is syntactically clear: יַעֲנֶה (“answers”) is a qal imperfect 3ms verb from ע־נ־ה, with the subject הַכֶּסֶף (“money”) and the object אֶת־הַכֹּל (“everything”). This construction intensifies the claim by making money the agent that responds to or solves all things. The imperfect again expresses either habitual or proverbial action.
Exegetical Implications of Form and Syntax
Grammatically, the progression from purpose-infinitive, to habitual imperfect, to climactic statement creates a rising structure of tension. The infinitive לִשְׂחֹוק sets the tone: laughter is not merely emotion but goal. Bread and wine serve as the means to joy, but money transcends utility—it becomes a universal “answer.”
Interpreters debate the tone of the final clause. Is it cynical? Satirical? Or affirming the practical role of wealth in society? Grammatically, the perfective certainty of יַעֲנֶה (“it answers”) contrasts with the contingent tone of the first two clauses. This could suggest a satirical punchline: material realities dominate all others.
Qohelet often uses grammatical juxtaposition to force the reader to wrestle with apparent contradictions. Bread and wine are framed in terms of pleasure, but money is cast in functional, even theological, terms—it answers everything. The clause may reflect social commentary more than doctrinal statement.
Cross-Linguistic and Literary Comparisons
In Ugaritic and Akkadian wisdom texts, parallelism and repetition are used to intensify meaning and contrast values. The use of infinitive constructs as nominal predicates is rarer in Akkadian but more common in poetic Hebrew. Arabic, which maintains clear infinitive verbal nouns (maṣdar), reflects a similar flexibility, allowing nouns to express goals or states of action.
The Septuagint translates this verse as:
εἰς γέλωτα ποιοῦσιν ἄρτον, καὶ οἶνος εὐφραίνει ζῶντας· καὶ τὸ ἀργύριον ὑποτάσσει πάντα.
This rendering accentuates the universalizing of money (ὑποτάσσει πάντα = “subjugates everything”), suggesting that wealth not only “answers” but rules. The LXX reflects an interpretive gloss, possibly emphasizing Qohelet’s irony and critique of materialism.
Theological and Literary Significance of Verbal and Nominal Structures
The triadic structure—bread (joy), wine (life), money (power)—moves from pleasure to vitality to control. The grammar enacts this shift: infinitive (purpose) → imperfect (effect) → imperfect (totalizing claim). This literary technique is typical of wisdom literature’s method of destabilizing certainties by formal equilibrium.
Qohelet does not moralize directly but uses grammar as a medium of irony. The absence of divine reference here is theologically loaded. Bread and wine evoke cultic associations, yet the focus remains anthropocentric and economic. The grammatical structure subtly subverts expectation—what begins in laughter ends in money’s universal dominion.
Qohelet’s Grammar of Disillusionment
Ecclesiastes 10:19 is an example of how Biblical Hebrew syntax communicates more than propositional truth. The nominal infinitive, participle constructions, and imperfect verbs create a liturgical rhythm of life under the sun: joy, sustenance, and ultimately economic determinism.
Through its grammar, Qohelet articulates a theology of tension—where laughter and life are gifts, but money speaks louder than both. The syntax invites reflection not on the moral status of wealth, but on the structural realities of human society. In this way, the verse’s grammar becomes its theology, and its irony is carried in its verbal form.
