Ecclesiastes 3:21

Ecc 3:21 Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?

Ver. 21. Who knoweth the Spirit?] q.d., Who but a man that is spiritually rational, and rationally spiritual? Who but he that hath "the mind of Christ?" {1Co 2:16} that hath seen the insides of nature and grace? Whether Plato and Cicero believed themselves in what they wrote touching the immortality of the soul, is a great question.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

3:21 the human spirit goes up: Cp. 12:7.

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Meaning, that reason cannot comprehend that which faith believeth herein.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

Who knoweth--Not doubt of the destination of man's spirit (Ecc 12:7); but "how few, by reason of the outward mortality to which man is as liable as the beast and which is the ground of the skeptic's argument, comprehend the wide difference between man and the beast" (Isa 53:1). The Hebrew expresses the difference strongly, "The spirit of man that ascends, it belongeth to on high; but the spirit of the beast that descends, it belongeth to below, even to the earth." Their destinations and proper element differ utterly [WEISS].

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 21. Who knoweth the spirit of man] I think the meaning of this important verse is well taken by the above able writer: -

The nobler part of man, 'tis true, survives

The frail corporeal frame: but who regards

The difference? Those who live like beasts, as such

Would die, and be no more, if their own fate

Depended on themselves. Who once reflects,

Amidst his revels, that the human soul,

Of origin celestial, mounts aloft,

While that of brutes to earth shall downward go?"

The word רוח ruach, which is used in this and the nineteenth verse, has two significations, breath and spirit. It signifies spirit, or an incorporeal substance, as distinguished from flesh, or a corporeal one, 1Kg 22:21-22, and Isa 31:3. And it signifies the spirit or soul of man, Ps 31:6; Isa 57:16, and in this book, Ec 12:7, and in many other places. In this book it is used also to signify the breath, spirit, or soul of a beast. While it was said in Ec 3:19, they have all one breath, i.e., the man and the beast live the same kind of animal life; in this verse, a proper distinction is made between the רוח ruach, or soul of man, and the רוח ruach, or soul of the beast: the one goeth upwards, the other goeth downwards. The literal translation of these important words is this: "Who considereth the רוח ruach) immortal spirit of the sons of Adam, which ascendeth? it is from above; (היא למעלה hi lemalah;) and the spirit or breath of the cattle which descendeth? it is downwards unto the earth," i.e., it tends to the earth only. This place gives no countenance to the materiality of the soul; and yet it is the strongest hold to which the cold and fruitless materialist can resort.

Solomon most evidently makes an essential difference between the human soul and that of brutes. Both have souls, but of different natures: the soul of man was made for God, and to God it shall return: God is its portion, and when a holy soul leaves the body, it goes to paradise. The soul of the beast was made to derive its happiness from this lower world. Brutes shall have a resurrection, and have an endless enjoyment in a new earth. The body of man shall arise, and join his soul that is already above; and both enjoy final blessedness in the fruition of God. That Solomon did not believe they had the same kind of spirit, and the same final lot, as some materialists and infidels say, is evident from Ec 12:7: "The spirit shall return unto God who gave it."

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

(21) The LXX., followed by a great body of interpreters, ancient and modern, translate, “Who knoweth whether the spirit of man goeth upward?” &c, and this agrees better with the context of this paragraph. The sceptical thought is, “We see that death resolves into dust (Gen_3:19; Ecc_12:7; see also Sir_41:10) the bodies of men and animals alike; and if it be alleged that there is a difference as to what becomes of their spirits, can this be asserted with the certainty of knowledge?” The writer here seems to have read both Psa_49:14 and Pro_15:24.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

21. Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward] The words imply a strictly sceptical rather than a negative answer. They do not actually deny, still less do they affirm, as some have thought, that the spirit of man does ascend to a higher life, while that of the brute returns to dust. This would indeed be inconsistent with the whole context, and the consensus of the LXX., the Vulgate, the Targum, and the Syriac versions, all of which give “Who knoweth whether the spirit of man goeth upward?” is practically decisive. It is not till nearly the close of the book, with all its many wanderings of thought, that the seeker rests in that measure of the hope of immortality which we find in ch. Ecc_12:7. Here we have the accents, almost the very formula, of Pyrrhonism (Diog. Laert. ix. 11, §. 73), as borrowed from Euripides:

τίς δʼ οἶδεν εἰ τὸ ζῇν μὲν ἐστι κατθανεῖν,

τὸ κατθανεῖν δὲ ζῇν νομίζεται βροτοῖς.

“Who knoweth if true life be found in death,

While mortals think of what is death as life?”

Once more Lucretius echoes the phase of thought through which the Debater was passing:

“Ignoratur enim quae sit natura animai,

Nata sit an contra nascentibus insinuetur,

Et simul intereat nobiscum morte dirempta,

An tenebras Orci visat vastasque lacunas.”

“We know not what the nature of the soul,

Or born, or entering into men at birth,

Or whether with our frame it perisheth,

Or treads the gloom and regions vast of death.”

De Rer. Nat. i. 113–116.

So far, however, as scepticism is a step above denial, we may note this as an advance. There is at least the conception of a spirit that ascends to a life higher than its own, as a possible solution of the great enigma presented by the disorders of the world.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward?.... There is indeed a difference between a man and a beast; though they have one breath, they have not one spirit or soul; man has a rational and immortal soul, which, when he dies, goes upwards to God that gave it; to be judged by him, and disposed of by him, in its proper apartment, until the day of the resurrection of the body;

and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth? when the beast dies, its spirit goes down to the earth, from whence it came, and is resolved into it, and is no more. But who is it that sees, or can see and know with the eyes of his body, the difference of these two spirits, or the ascent of the one, and the descent of the other?, Or who knows by the dint of reason, by the strength of his own understanding, without a divine revelation, that man has an immortal soul which goes upwards at death, when that of a beast goes downwards? No man, clearly and fully, as appears from the doubts and half faith of the wisest Heathens concerning it: or rather who knows and considers this difference between the spirit of a man and the spirit of a beast, and thinks within himself what a precious and immortal soul he has, and is concerned for the salvation of it? Very few; and hence it is they live and die like beasts, as they do. The Midrash interprets this of the souls of the righteous that go up to heaven, and of the souls of the wicked that go down to hell.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Who knoweth, &c., viz., experimentally; since no one in this life can see a spirit. But as to the spirits of the beasts, which is merely animal, and becomes extinct by the death of the beast, who can tell the manner it acts so as to give life and motion, and by death to descend downward, that is, to be no more? (Challoner) --- Few are able to prove that the soul of man is immortal rather that that of beasts, since the bodies of both are subject to the like inconveniences. The objection is answered [in] chap. xii. 7. (Calmet) --- The difficulty of answering is intimated by "Who?" &c., Psalm xiv. 1. (Menochius)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

It might be objected, that the conditions of men and beasts are vastly differing, because man’s spirit goeth upward to God, Ecc 12:7, but the spirit of a beast goeth downward, together with its body, and perisheth with it. To this he answers, Who knoweth this? which is not to be understood as if no man did know it, or as if the thing were utterly uncertain and unknown, for he knew it, and positively affirms it, Ecc 12:7; but that few know it; as the same manner of expression is understood, Pro 31:10, Who can find? Isa 53:1, Who hath believed? &c.; which note the scarcity or difficulty, but not the nullity or impossibility of the thing. Besides, he seems here to speak not so much of a speculative as of a practical knowledge, as such words are most commonly used. Who considers or regards this, or layeth it to heart? True it is, there is such a difference, which also is known and believed by wise and good men; but the generality of mankind never mind it; their hearts are wholly set upon this life, and upon present and sensible things, and they place all their hopes and happiness in them, and take no thought nor care for the things of the future and invisible world. And as to them with whom Solomon hath to do in this matter, the argument is strong and good, being, as logicians call it, an argument to the man; and there is no considerable difference between sensual men and beasts, because their affections are set upon the same objects, and both of them are partakers of the same sensual satisfactions, and subject to the same sensual pains and miseries, and their hopes and felicity perish together, to wit, at death, and therefore such men are no more happy than the beasts that perish. Others understand it thus, Who knoweth this? to wit, by sense or experience, or merely by his own reason, or without the help of Divine revelation. But, with the leave of so many worthy interpreters, and with submission to better judgments, the former seems to be the truer sense.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

21. Who knoweth, etc. — Let us bear in mind that this is the language of a distressed man, who certainly finds no comfort in what his eyes can see. Shall consolation be found in the invisible? This verse is of the nature of a challenge. Who can show that the spirit of man takes after death any course different from that taken by the spirit of a beast? Or, if we render it, as Hebrew questions are often rendered, by the opposite declaration, “No man knoweth,” etc., we need not be alarmed. At this stage of the inquiry, the affirmation of a future life would be out of place. We shall by and by see it in its place.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth? The statement is here too categorically rendered, though, for dogmatical purposes, the Masorites seem to have punctuated the text with a view to such interpretation. But, as Wright and others point out, the analogy of two other passages, (Ecc_2:19 Ecc_6:12) where "who knoweth" occurs, intimates that the phrases which follow are interrogative. So the translation should be, "Who knoweth as regards the spirit (ruach) of the sons of men whether it goeth upward, and as regards the spirit (ruach) of the beast whether it goeth downward under the earth?" Vulgate, Quis novit si spiritus, etc.? Septuagint, Tiv ei=de pneuma uiJwn tou ajnqrwpou eij ajnabainei aujto anw; "Who ever saw the spirit of the sons of man, whether it goeth upward?" The Authorized Version, which gives the Masoretic reading, is supposed to harmonize better with the assertion at the end of the book, (Ecc_12:7) that the spirit returns to the God who gave it. But there is no formal denial of the immortality of the soul in the present passage as we render it. The question, indeed, is not touched. The author is confirming his previous assertion that, in one point of view, man is not superior to brute. Now he says, looking at the matter merely externally, and taking not into consideration any higher notion, no one knows the destiny of the living powers, whether God deals differently with the spirit of man and of beast. Phenomenally, the principle of life in both is identical, and its cessation is identical; and what becomes of the spirit in either case neither eye nor mind can discover. The distinction which reason or religion assumes, viz. that man"s spirit goes upward and the brute"s downward, is incapable of proof, is quite beyond experience. What is meant by "upward" and "downward" may be seen by reference to the gnome in Pro_15:24, "To the wise the way of life goeth upward, that he may depart from Sheol beneath." The contrast shows that Sheol is regarded as a place of punishment or annihilation; this is further confirmed by Psa_49:14, Psa_49:15, "They are appointed as a flock for Sheol: death shall be their shepherd their beauty shall be for Sheol to consume But God will redeem my soul from the power of Sheol; for he shall receive me." Koheleth neither denies nor affirms in this passage the immortality of the soul; that he believed in it we learn from other expressions; but he is not concerned with parading it here. Commentators quote Lucretius" sceptical thought ("De Rer. Nat.," 1:113-116)

Ignoratur enim quae sit natura animal, Nata sit, an contra nascentibus insinuetur, Et simul interest nobiscum, morte dimenta, An tenebras Orci visat vastasque lacunas.

We know not what the nature of the soul, Born in the womb, or at the birth infused, Whether it dies with us, or wings its way Unto the gloomy pools of Orcus vast.

But Koheleth"s inquiry suggests the possibility of a different destiny for the spirits of man and brute, though he does not at this moment make any definite assertion on the subject. Later on he explains the view taken by the believer in Divine revelation. (Ecc_12:7)

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Who knoweth? - True it is, there is a difference, which is known by good men; but the generality of mankind never mind it: their hearts are wholly set on present and sensible things, and take no thought for the things of the future and invisible world.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

"Who knoweth with regard to the spirit of the children of men, whether it mounteth upward; and with regard to the spirit of a beast, whether it goeth downward to the earth?" The interrogative meaning of העלה and הירדת is recognised by all the old translators: lxx, Targ., Syr., Jerome, Venet., Luther. Among the moderns, Heyder (vid., Psychol. p. 410), Hengst., Hahn, Dale, and Bullock take the h in both cases as the article: "Who knoweth the spirit of the children of men, that which goeth upward ... ?" But (1) thus rendered the question does not accord with the connection, which requires a sceptical question; (2) following "who knoweth," after Ecc 2:19; Ecc 6:12, cf. Jos 2:14, an interrogative continuance of the sentence was to be expected; and (3) in both cases היא stands as designation of the subject only for the purpose of marking the interrogative clause (cf. Jer 2:14), and of making it observable that ha'olah and hayorěděth are not appos. belonging as objects to רוח and ורוח. It is questionable, indeed, whether the punctuation of these words, העלה and היּרדת, as they lie before us, proceeds from an interrogative rendering. Saadia in Emunoth c. vi., and Juda Halevi in the Kuzri ii. 80, deny this; and so also do Aben Ezra and Kimchi. And they may be right. For instead of העלה, the pointing ought to have been העלה (cf. העלה, Job 13:25) when used as interrog. an ascendens; even before א the compens. lengthening of the interrog. ha is nowhere certainly found

(Note: For ה is to be read with a Pattach in Jdg 6:31; Jdg 12:5; Neh 6:11; cf. under Gen 19:9; Gen 27:21. In Num 16:22 the ה of האישׁ is the art., the question is not formally designated.

instead of the virtual reduplication; and thus also the parallel היּר is not to be judged after היּי, Lev 10:19, הדּ, Eze 18:29, - we must allow that the punctation seeks, by the removal of the two interrog. ha (ה), to place that which is here said in accord with Ecc 12:7. But there is no need for this. For יודע מי does not quite fall in with that which Lucretius says (Lib. I):

"Ignoratur enim quae sit natura animai,

Nata sit an contra nascentibus insinuetur?

An simul intereat nobiscum morte diremta?"

It may certainly be said of mi yode'a, as of ignoratur, that it does not exclude every kind of knowledge, but only a sure and certain knowledge resting on sufficient grounds; interire and ירד לם are also scarcely different, for neither of the two necessarily signifies annihilation, but both the discontinuance of independent individual existence. But the putting of the question by Koheleth is different, for it discloses more definitely than this by Lucretius, the possibility of a different end for the spirit of a man from that which awaits the spirit of a beast, and thus of a specific distinction between these two principles of life. In the formation even of the dilemma: Whether upwards or downwards, there lies an inquiring knowledge; and it cannot surprise us if Koheleth finally decides that the way of the spirit of a man is upwards, although it is not said that he rested this on the ground of demonstrative certainty. It is enough that, with the moral necessity of a final judgment beyond the sphere of this present life, at the same time also the continued existence of the spirit of man presented itself to him as a postulate of faith. One may conclude from the desiderium aeternitatis (Ecc 3:11) implanted in man by the Creator, that, like the instincts implanted in the beasts, it will be calculated not for deception, but for satisfaction; and from the למעלה, Pro 15:24 - i.e., the striving of a wise man rising above earthly, temporary, common things, - that death will not put an end to this striving, but will help it to reach its goal. But this is an indirect proof, which, however, is always inferior to the direct in force of argument. He presupposes that the Omnipotence and Wisdom which formed the world is also at the same time Love. Thus, though at last, it is faith which solves the dilemma, and we see from Ecc 12:7 that this faith held sway over Koheleth. In the Book of Sirach, also, the old conception of Hades shows itself as yet dominant; but after the οὐκ ἀτηάνατος υἱὸς ἀντηρώπου, 17:25, we read towards the end, where he speaks of Elias: καὶ τὰρ ἡμεῖς ζωῇ ζησόμεθα, 48:11. In the passage before us, Koheleth remains in doubt, without getting over it by the hand of faith. In a certain reference the question he here proposes is to the present day unanswered; for the soul, or, more correctly, according to the biblical mode of conception the spirit from which the soul-life of all corporeal beings proceeds, is a monas, and as such is indestructible. Do the future of the beast's soul and of man's soul not then stand in a solidaric mutual relation to each other? In fact, the future life presents to us mysteries the solution of which is beyond the power of human thought, and we need not wonder that Koheleth, this sober-minded, intelligent man, who was inaccessible to fantastic self-deception, arrives, by the line of thought commenced at Ecc 3:16, also again at the ultimatum.

Keil & Delitzsch — Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament (1861–1891) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API. (Old Testament only.)

Who knows whether the spirit ... into the earth?

The author asks this rhetorical question to emphasize that no one truly knows what happens after people and animals die. This question can be written as a statement. AT: "No one knows whether the spirit ... into the earth." (See: Rhetorical Question)

there is nothing better for anyone than to

See how you translated this phrase in Ecclesiastes 3:12.

Who can bring him back to see what happens after him?

The author uses this rhetorical question to emphasize that no one will see what happens after he dies. This question can be written as a statement. AT: "No one of us knows what happens to us after we die." (See: Rhetorical Question)

translationWords

spirit

earth

works

assign

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

Who knows Like (Joel 2:14): “Whoever knows shall repent.” Who is it who understands and puts his heart to [the fact] that the spirit of the children of men ascends above and stands in judgment, and the spirit of the beast descends below to the earth, and does not have to give an accounting. Therefore, one must not behave like a beast, which does not care about its deeds.

Rashi on the Tanakh — English translations: “The Judaica Press complete Tanach with Rashi, translated by A. J. Rosenberg” (CC BY 4.0); “Pentateuch with Rashi's commentary by M. Rosenbaum and A.M. Silbermann, 1929-1934” (public domain); “The Metsudah Tanach series, Lakewood, N.J” (CC BY 4.0); and “The Book of Joshua, Metsudah Publications, 1997” (CC BY 4.0). Text via Sefaria.