Ecclesiastes 7:16 - Coke's Commentary on the Holy Bible

Why shouldst thou destroy thyself?— Why shouldest thou be left alone? There is a very remarkable opposition in this and the following verse between the several excesses there mentioned, and a very proper distinction between the consequences which are to be apprehended from them. I cannot say that modern interpreters have entirely destroyed that opposition. Righteous and wicked, wise and foolish, are very proper terms of opposition; but that they may remain so each of them must retain the signification wherein that opposition lies; and that signification cannot be retained, if you represent either righteousness or wickedness, wisdom or folly, as productive of consequences which can never be apprehended from what is commonly understood by those words: For in that case the reader is led to conclude that they are taken in a different sense from that wherein their opposition is visible; and then he is at a loss where to find this opposition. Thus the opposition itself may be at least weakened and obscured by a neglect which seems at first to affect a different part of the sentence only; and I am afraid it is greatly so in our version: Ecclesiastes 7:16. Be not, &c.—Why shouldest thou destroy thyself? Ecclesiastes 7:17. Be not, &c.—Why shouldest thou die before thy time? One easily perceives how a premature death is the consequence of an excess of wickedness and folly; but, to make destruction a consequence of an excess or over-affectation of wisdom or righteousness, looks like propounding a riddle. It is true, we are dissuaded from both; yet it is plain from what follows, as well as from the nature of the subject, that they are not to be put upon a level; yet this would be the consequence of Solomon's advice, as worded in the received version; for destruction undoubtedly implies more, and is a worse evil, than death. Therefore, if the over-righteous and over-wise be the man who strives to be foolishly particular, and to distinguish himself from the rest of the world by an ill-judged affectation of righteousness and wisdom, (as his being set in opposition to the wicked and foolish requires that he should,) it is not probable that Solomon represented destruction as the consequence of such a man's behaviour. Now the original word תשׁומם tishomem, might be translated, be made an object of wonder: which signification tallies very well with the case of a man who strives to distinguish himself by running into an over-affectation either of righteousness or wisdom: therefore it is not possible to determine ourselves for the one, rather than for the other, except it be from the farther consideration of some other circumstance. The two warnings annexed by the sacred orator to the directions that he gives, that one should avoid the opposite excesses, must, by the manner in which they are worded, answer each other. Thus it is necessary that something which a man would fain avoid should be mentioned in the first as well as in the second; and this consideration has induced me, with Le Clerc, to prefer the first signification. See Desvoeux, and Le Clerc.