אִ֣ישׁ אֲשֶׁ֣ר יִתֶּן־לֹ֣ו הָאֱלֹהִ֡ים עֹשֶׁר֩ וּנְכָסִ֨ים וְכָבֹ֜וד וְֽאֵינֶ֨נּוּ חָסֵ֥ר לְנַפְשֹׁ֣ו מִכֹּ֣ל אֲשֶׁר־יִתְאַוֶּ֗ה וְלֹֽא־יַשְׁלִיטֶ֤נּוּ הָֽאֱלֹהִים֙ לֶאֱכֹ֣ל מִמֶּ֔נּוּ כִּ֛י אִ֥ישׁ נָכְרִ֖י יֹֽאכֲלֶ֑נּוּ זֶ֥ה הֶ֛בֶל וָחֳלִ֥י רָ֖ע הֽוּא׃ (Ecclesiastes 6:2)
The Syntactic Puzzle of Possession and Deprivation
This verse from Ecclesiastes presents a complex yet masterfully constructed sentence describing an existential irony: a man granted everything by God—wealth, possessions, honor—yet prevented from enjoying it. The syntax emphasizes both abundance and alienation, establishing a theological tension that threads through the book.
Relative Clauses and Nominal Fronting
– The subject אִישׁ (“a man”) is defined by a long relative clause: אֲשֶׁר יִתֶּן־לֹו הָאֱלֹהִים…
– The relative clause itself contains nested object complements: עֹשֶׁר וּנְכָסִים וְכָבֹוד (“wealth, possessions, and honor”).
– The fronting of the noun אִישׁ and expansion of this clause is syntactically heavy, building anticipation and emphasizing the *blessed yet passive* role of the subject.
Coordinated Objects and Syntactic Richness
Three items are coordinated using the vav-conjunction:
– עֹשֶׁר (wealth),
– נְכָסִים (possessions),
– וְכָבֹוד (honor)
These are cumulatively positioned before the negation clause וְאֵינֶנּוּ חָסֵר לְנַפְשֹׁו—creating a rhythm of abundance.
Negative Existential and Result Clauses
– וְאֵינֶנּוּ חָסֵר… — “he lacks nothing for himself” is a negative existential clause, showing his complete fulfillment.
– Yet the contrastive clause follows: וְלֹא־יַשְׁלִיטֶנּוּ הָאֱלֹהִים לֶאֱכֹל מִמֶּנּוּ — “but God does not empower him to eat from it.”
– The verb יַשְׁלִיטֶנּוּ is hiphil imperfect 3ms + 3ms suffix, meaning “cause him to have power.”
This clause uses causative negation—a divine withholding of enjoyment despite abundance.
Final Clauses and Thematic Closure
– כִּ֛י אִ֥ישׁ נָכְרִי יֹֽאכֲלֶ֑נּוּ — “because a stranger will eat it” introduces the ultimate reversal. The use of כִּי shows causal inference.
– The verse ends with a judgment clause: זֶה הֶבֶל וָחֳלִ֥י רָע — “this is vanity and a grievous evil.”
Discourse Framing: Repetition and Emphasis
– The repetition of הָאֱלֹהִים twice places divine agency at the beginning and middle of the verse, showing both giving and withholding.
– The final judgment phrase is syntactically detached (a verbless clause), amplifying its solemnity.
Heaven Gives, Then Forbids
The verse’s syntax mirrors its message: layering of gifts, followed by a sharp syntactic break—the negation and reversal clause—mirrors the emotional rupture between possession and pleasure. Qohelet’s irony is grammatical: blessing ends in futility. Through this construction, the reader is made to feel both the fullness of fortune and its futility.
