¹ tn Heb “which the Lord of Heaven’s Armies [traditionally, “the Lord of hosts”] will bless [it], saying.” The third masculine singular suffix on the form בֵּרֲכוֹ (berakho) should probably be emended to a third feminine singular suffix בֵּרֲכָהּ (berakhah), for its antecedent would appear to be the feminine noun אֶרֶץ (ʾerets, “earth”) at the end of v. 24.

¹ tc The Hebrew text reads literally, “Send [a plural imperatival form is used] a ram [to] the ruler of the land.” The term כַּר (kar, “ram”) should be emended to the plural כָּרִים (karim). The singular form in the text is probably the result of haplography; note that the next word begins with a mem (מ).

² tn Traditionally צַלְמָוֶת (tsalmavet) has been interpreted as a compound noun, meaning “shadow of death” (so KJV, ASV, NIV), but usage indicates that the word, though it sometimes refers to death, means “darkness.” The term should probably be repointed as an abstract noun צַלְמוּת (tsalmut). See the note at Ps 23:4.

¹ tc The verb “pass away” is singular in the Hebrew text, despite the plural subject (“worthless idols”) that precedes. The verb should be emended to a plural; the final vav (ו) has been accidentally omitted by haplography (note the vav at the beginning of the immediately following form).

² tc The editors of BHS suggests that גַם אָנִי (gam ʾani, “me also”) should be inserted. Although there is no textual evidence for the insertion, it seems clear that the first person common singular referent is emphatic in MT הַשְׁמִיעִינִי (hashmiʿini, “Let me hear it!”).

⁶ tn The adjective אָיֹם (ʾayom) has been nuanced “terrible” (KJV, RSV), “frightful, fear-inspiring” (Delitzsch), “majestic” (NIV), “awesome” (NASB). In the light of its parallelism with יָפָה (yafah, “beautiful”) and נָאוָה (naʾvah, “lovely”) in 6:4, and יָפָה (“fair”) and בָּרָה (barah, “bright”) in 6:10, it should be nuanced “awe-inspiring” or “unnervingly beautiful.”

³ tn Heb “to the eyes.” The term “eyes” is a synecdoche of part (i.e., eyes) for the whole person. Used with the idiom “to see the sun” (i.e., to be alive), Qoheleth is simply saying that the experience of a life is a pleasant thing that should be savored.

⁴ sn The phrase you do not know is repeated throughout this section (11:2, 5-6). Human beings are ignorant of the future. This should motivate a person to invest their financial resources wisely (11:1-3) and to work diligently (11:4-6).

⁶ tn The imperfect tense verb יִתֵּן, yitten (from נָתָן, natan, “to give”) functions in a modal sense, denoting obligation, that is, the subject’s obligatory or necessary conduct: “should” or “ought to” (see R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax, 31-32, §172; IBHS 508-9 §31.4g).

⁷ tn The parallelism with יִתְרוֹן (yitron), “profit; advantage; gain”) indicates that הֶבֶל (hevel) should be nuanced as “profitless, fruitless, futile” in this context. While labor offers some relative and temporal benefits, such as material acquisitions and the enjoyment of the work of one’s hands, there is no ultimate benefit to be gained from secular human achievement.

² tn The imperfect verb (תֹאכֵל, toʾkel) is used in its past habitual sense. The verbs describing the woman from verses 12-29 include 19 perfects and 9 preterites which describe actions with past time references. Thus the four imperfect verbs that describe her (vv. 14, 18, 21, 27) should be understood as modal and operating in a past time frame.

¹ tn This is the only participle used in the description of the woman. Since participles receive their time frame from context, this should be understood to be part of the past time frame of the passage. Here it provides the contrast to the idleness mentioned in the latter half of the verse.

³ tn This is the same verb form that began verse 19, the Piel perfect of שָׁלַח (shalakh). It may have the same plurative notion emphasizing that she often ministered to the poor. As the perfect form of a dynamic verb it should be understood as past tense or perfective.

² tn The imperfect verb (תִירָא, tiraʾ) is used in its past habitual sense. The verbs describing the woman from verses 12-29 include 19 perfects and 9 preterites which describe actions with past time references. Thus the four imperfect verbs that describe her (vv. 14, 18, 21, 27) should be understood as modal and operating in a past time frame.

¹ tn The verb שִׁלְּחָה (shill^ekhah) is the Piel perfect of the root שָׁלַח (shalakh) “to extend; send.” As the perfect form of a dynamic verb, it should be understood as past tense or perfective. The Piel stem is commonly plurative for dynamic verbs. Applied here, the plurative notion refers to the repetition of reaching to the spool while working cloth.

¹ tn The verb דָּרַשׁ (darash) means “to seek; to inquire; to investigate.” The Hebrew perfect form of a dynamic verb should be understood as past or perfective; here it is part of listing her past accomplishments. She was proactive in obtaining these products and perhaps had inspected them for quality so that she could work with them with satisfaction rather than frustration.

³ tn The imperfect verb (תָּבִיא, taviʾ) is used in its past habitual sense. The verbs describing the woman from verses 12-29 include 19 perfects and 9 preterites which describe actions with past time references. Thus the four imperfect verbs that describe her (vv. 14, 18, 21, 27) should be understood as modal and operating in a past time frame.

¹ tn As the perfect form of a dynamic root, the verb (גְּמָלַתְהוּ, g^emalat^ehu) should be understood as past or perfective. It represents prototypical behavior whose effects continue. The verb means to “repay; reward.” This is how she has rewarded her husband’s trust.

³ tn The verb שָׂבְאָה (sav^eʾah) means “to eat/drink one’s fill; to satisfy oneself.” Most translations make it present tense (KJV, ESV, Holman, NASB, NIV). As the perfect form of a dynamic root, it should be understood as past or perfective, a condition known to have been true, which is prototypical.

² tn Heb “but from the Lord [is] justice of a man.” The last part uses the construct state followed by the genitive, which here shows the advantage—it is justice for the person. The implication of the matter is that people should seek the Lord’s favor (rather than a human ruler’s) if they want true justice.