Question 1

In verses 13–14, what two different “grievous” outcomes related to riches does the speaker describe?

Accepted Answer

Verse 13 describes wealth that is kept by its owner “to his harm,” focusing on the way holding onto riches can damage the person who has them. Verse 14 shifts to a different problem: riches that perish through “misfortune,” meaning the wealth is lost due to adverse circumstances rather than preserved. The second scenario adds a family dimension: even if the man fathers a son, the loss can leave him with “nothing in his hand,” so there is nothing left to provide or pass on. The two outcomes overlap but are distinct: self-harm through keeping, and sudden disappearance through loss.

Question 2

What does the repeated phrase “in his hand” contribute to the passage’s argument (vv.14–15)?

Accepted Answer

“In his hand” is used as a concrete way to talk about what a person can actually hold, control, or deliver. In verse 14, the father ends with nothing “in his hand,” highlighting his inability to provide for his son or secure the future he hoped for. In verse 15, the phrase is used again for the final boundary: nothing from one’s labor can be carried away “in his hand” at death. Together, the repetition links everyday loss (empty-handed in life) with ultimate loss (empty-handed in death), reinforcing the point that wealth is not finally secure.

Question 3

How do verses 15–16 use birth and death imagery to make a general claim about human limits?

Accepted Answer

The passage draws a direct parallel: as a person comes from the mother’s womb “naked,” so he will go again “as he came.” This is more than a poetic reminder; it functions as a general rule about what can and cannot be retained. The speaker then states the implication: a person “shall take nothing for his labor” that he can carry away. Verse 16 repeats the conclusion (“in all points as he came, so shall he go”) and frames it as a “grievous evil,” emphasizing how absolute this limit is regardless of how hard someone worked.

Question 4

What does the question “What profit does he have who labors for the wind?” (v.16) imply about work and gain?

Accepted Answer

The question assumes that some kinds of “profit” are expected from labor, but then challenges whether that expectation holds when the end result cannot be secured. “Wind” represents something real but ungraspable: you can feel its force, but you cannot hold it. In context, the speaker is not denying that work can produce results during life. He is pressing a deeper point: if wealth can vanish through misfortune and must be left behind at death, then labor cannot guarantee an enduring surplus that remains “in hand.” The implied answer is that the ultimate profit is thin or elusive.

Question 5

How does verse 17 function as a conclusion to the section’s observations about riches and loss?

Accepted Answer

Verse 17 paints the lived experience that can accompany the realities described in verses 13–16. Instead of describing wealth as bringing settled enjoyment, it shows a person spending “all his days” eating “in darkness,” paired with frustration, sickness, and wrath. The verse functions like a closing snapshot: when wealth is hoarded, threatened, or lost—and when a person is confronted with the limits of what can be kept—life can feel shadowed and tense rather than bright and secure. It completes the argument by moving from economic facts (loss, empty-handedness) to their human cost.

Question 6

What role does the father-and-son scenario (v.14) play compared with the broader statements about everyone (vv.15–16)?

Accepted Answer

The father-and-son picture is a focused, relational example that makes the loss more concrete and painful. It shows that wealth is often pursued not only for personal comfort but for family continuity and inheritance; when riches perish, the disappointment is not abstract. Verses 15–16 then widen the lens to a universal claim: regardless of family plans, every person enters life with nothing and leaves the same way. The example and the universal statement work together: the story illustrates the fragility of hoped-for legacy, and the general principle explains why even the best-laid economic goals cannot become final security.

Ecclesiastes 5:13-17

Scripture