Ecclesiastes 6:8

For what hath the wise more than the fool,.... More delight and pleasure, in gratifying his senses, by eating and drinking: the wise man enjoys no more than the fool; the fool finds as much pleasure

For what hath the wise more than the fool? what hath the poor, that knoweth to walk before the living? For what hath the wise more than the fool?

The fool, to wit, in these matters. Both are equally subject to the same calamities, and partakers of the same comforts of this life. Before the living, to wit, before the poor, that doth not know this; which words are easily understood by comparing this clause with the former. And such defects are usual, both in Scripture and other authors, as hath been formerly noted, by a figure which the learned call anantapodoton. And by this phrase, that knoweth, &c., he means such a poor man who is ingenious and industrious; who is fit for service and business, and knows how to carry himself towards rich men, so as to deserve and gain their favour, and to procure a livelihood.

Ecclesiastes 6:8 For what hath the wise more than the fool? what hath the poor, that knoweth to walk before the living?Ver. 8. For what hath the wise more than the fool?] Nothing at all in this vanity of human nature, that it needeth still new supply of nourishment to preserve it. When a wise man hath eaten, is he not again hungry? and must not his hunger again be satisfied as well as a fool’ s hunger? Indeed, as any man is more wise, he is more temperate: he eats to live, not lives to eat. He needs not much, nor is a slave to his appetite, or to his palate. He can feed upon gruel for a need, with Daniel; upon coleworts, with Elisha; upon a cake on the coals and a cruise of water, with Elijah; upon locusts and wild honey, with the Baptist; upon barley bread, with the disciples; upon a herring or two, as Luther, &c. This a fool can ill frame to. He eats as a beast with the old world - Tρωγοντες - and "feeds without fear"; he "caters for the flesh" and "overchargeth it with surfeiting and drunkenness"; he measureth not his cheer by that which nature requireth, but that which greedy appetite desireth, as if therein consisteth his whole happiness. What hath the poor that knoweth to walk before the living,] viz., The poor wise man that lives by his wits can "serve the time," in St Paul’ s sense (if ever he meant it there, Romans 12:11), and make an honest shift to rub through the world. What hath such a one more than a simpler man in this particular? Doth not his hunger return - his stomach crave new nourishment? Animantis cuiusque vita est fuga, saith the philosopher: Were it not for the repair of nutrition, the natural life would be soon extinguished.

(8) That knoweth to walk.—Understands how to conduct himself. But why this should be limited to the poor is not obvious.

Verse 8. For what hath the wise more than the fool?] They must both labour for the same end. Both depend upon the labour of themselves or others for the necessaries of life. Both must eat and drink in order to live; and the rich man can no more eat two meals at a time, than he can comfortably wear two changes of raiment. The necessaries of life are the same to both, and their condition in life is nearly similar; liable to the same diseases, dissolution, and death.

8. For what hath wise more than the fool?] The question so far is easy. In this matter, the gifts of intellect make no difference. The wise, no less than the fool, is subject to the pressure of bodily necessities, and has to labour for them. The second clause is somewhat less clear. Of the many interpretations that have been given, two have most to commend them, (1) supplying the subject of comparison from the first clause, what advantage hath the poor that knows to walk before the living (i.e. that has learnt the art to live) over the fool (who is the mere slave of appetite)? what does wisdom and self-control and freedom from the snares of wealth really profit him? and (2), treating the sentence as elliptical, What advantage hath the poor over him who knows how to walk before the living (i.e. the man of high birth or station, who lives in public, with the eyes of men on him)? The latter explanation has the merit of giving a more balanced symmetry to the two clauses. The question, with its implied answer, seems at first at variance with the praise of the lot of the labouring poor in ch. Ecclesiastes 5:12, “Don’t trust,” the writer seems to say in his half-cynical, half-ironical mood, “even to poverty, as a condition of happiness. The poor man is as open to cares and anxieties as the man of culture and refinement. After all, poor and rich stand on nearly the same level.”

8. The familiar question is asked, If this be the case, What hath, etc. — The latter part should be, What hath the poor more than he who knoweth, etc.