Ecclesiastes 5:14 · Bible study
Ecclesiastes 5:14 Commentary: When Wealth Vanishes and a Son is Left Empty
Hebrew · 8 what the commentators say
Meaning in one sentence
Commentators agree: Ecclesiastes 5:14 shows the tragedy of losing wealth to misfortune, leaving nothing for the next generation, a call to trust God, not money.
Research Summary
- Meaning: Wealth accumulated with the hope of passing it on can vanish through unforeseen misfortune, leaving the next generation with nothing.
- Key words: "Perish" (lost entirely), "misfortune" (adverse event beyond control), "son" (the intended heir), "nothing in his hand" (empty legacy).
- Main debate: Whether the loss is due to divine judgment for ill-gotten gain (Gill, Targum) or simply the uncertainty of life under the sun (Keil, Matthew Henry).
- Theological theme: The vanity of trusting in riches; the sovereignty of God over wealth and circumstances; the need for contentment and fear of the Lord as the true foundation.
- Best use: Teaching on financial stewardship, legacy planning, and the biblical call to hold material things loosely while investing in eternal treasures.
Translation Comparison
BSB Berean Standard Bible 2020
or wealth lost in a failed venture, so when that man has a son there is nothing to pass on.
WEB World English Bible 2000
Those riches perish by misfortune, and if he has fathered a son, there is nothing in his hand.
KJV King James Version 1769
But those riches perish by evil travail: and he begetteth a son, and there is nothing in his hand.
ASV American Standard Version 1901
and those riches perish by evil adventure; and if he hath begotten a son, there is nothing in his hand.
YLT Young's Literal Translation 1898
And that wealth hath been lost in an evil business, and he hath begotten a son and there is nothing in his hand!
Darby Darby Bible 1890
or those riches perish by some evil circumstance, and if he have begotten a son, there is nothing in his hand.
Douay-Rheims Douay-Rheims Bible 1899
As he came forth naked from his mother's womb, so shall he return, and shall take nothing away with him of his labour.
Translations in other languages (10 available)
Las cuales se pierden en malas ocupaciones, y á los hijos que engendraron nada les queda en la mano.
Porque as mesmas riquezas se perdem com negócios malsucedidos; e quando gera algum filho, nada lhe fica em sua mão.
Comme il est sorti du ventre de sa mère, il s’ en retourne nu ainsi qu’ il était venu, et pour son travail n’ emporte rien qu’ il puisse prendre dans sa main.
Denn der Reiche kommt um mit großem Jammer; und so er einen Sohn gezeugt hat, dem bleibt nichts in der Hand.
Of de rijkdom zelf vergaat door een moeilijke bezigheid; en hij gewint een zoon, en er is niet met al in zijn hand.
Queste ricchezze vanno perdute per qualche avvenimento funesto; e se ha generato un figliuolo, questi resta con nulla in mano.
Jako nagi wyszedł z żywota matki swojej, tak się wraca, jako był przyszedł, a nie odnosi nic z pracy swojej, coby miał wziąć w rękę swoję.
Как вышел он нагим из утробы матери своей, таким и отходит, каким пришел, и ничего не возьмет от труда своего, что мог бы он понести в руке своей.
因遭遇禍患，這些 資財 就消滅；那人若生了 兒子，手裡 也一無 所有。
And I saw the destruction of his wealth by an evil chance; and when he became the father of a son he had nothing in his hand.
Verse in Context
Scholars' Consensus
Commentators broadly agree that this verse illustrates the sudden and complete loss of wealth, leaving the owner's son with nothing. The phrase "perish by misfortune" (KJV: evil travail) points to an adverse event beyond the owner's control, failed business, theft, fire, or economic collapse (Barnes; Gill). Keil and Delitzsch describe it as a casus adversus, a stroke upon stroke like what destroyed Job's possessions. The son is the intended heir, but the father's hand is empty when he should be passing on an inheritance. Adam Clarke notes that the man has been "stripped of his property by unfortunate trade or by plunderers" and therefore has nothing to leave. Matthew Henry sees this as part of Solomon's broader argument: riches held for oneself often turn to harm, and even the hope of a legacy is frustrated. The core consensus: trusting in wealth to secure a family's future is vanity, because loss can come through no fault of the owner.
How settled is the interpretation?
Interpretive difficulty: Medium
Main views:
- Divine judgment view: Riches gained through dishonest or selfish means are subject to God’s active removal, leaving the son empty (Gill; Targum paraphrase).
- Life's uncertainty view: Even virtuous wealth can be lost through normal misfortune—bad markets, theft, disaster—pointing to the vanity of any human plan (Keil; Barnes; Matthew Henry).
- Relational loss view: The 'grievous evil' is not just financial but personal: the father loses his dream for his son, and the son loses his heritage (Clarke; Lange).
What is clear: Wealth held for future transmission can disappear through circumstances beyond human control, leaving the intended heir with nothing—demonstrating the futility of trusting in riches to secure one's legacy.
What Scholars Agree and Debate
| Topic | Agreed | Debated |
|---|---|---|
| Cause of the wealth's loss | The loss comes through an 'evil' circumstance, something harmful and beyond the owner's control. | Some commentators see the 'evil travail' as a consequence of the owner's sin or poor stewardship (Gill, Targum). Others view it as a neutral description of life's uncertainty, the same 'evil event' that befell Job (Keil, Barnes). |
| The fate of the son | The son ends up with nothing, the father's hand is empty when transmission was expected. | Does 'nothing in his hand' mean the son is left in poverty immediately after the loss (most commentators), or could it also include the son quickly wasting any remaining inheritance (Gill mentions this as an alternative reading from the Targum)? |
| Moral judgment on the original wealth | The passage warns against trusting in riches. | Gill and the Targum imply the riches were 'not well got' or obtained in an 'evil way,' thus provoking divine loss. Keil and Matthew Henry see no necessary moral condemnation of the riches themselves, they simply describe the vanity that can attend any wealth, ill-gotten or not. |
| The 'grievous evil' of v.13 and its relation to v.14 | Verses 13-14 describe a single 'evil' scenario: wealth kept to the owner's harm, then lost. | Is the evil primarily the owner's 'hurt' (emotional, spiritual) or the objective loss of a legacy for the son? Most agree it includes both: the owner's heart is wounded, and the son is left destitute. |
Historical & Cultural Context
Ecclesiastes 5:14 sits within a sustained reflection on the limitations of wealth (5:10, 20). The Preacher (Qoheleth) has observed that love of money brings no satisfaction (v.10), that more goods only attract more consumers (v.11), and that abundance often robs a person of sleep (v.12). Then comes a "grievous evil" he has seen: wealth hoarded for its owner actually harms him (v.13). Verse 14 gives the concrete example: those riches vanish in a bad business or evil event (the Hebrew phrase ʿinyan raʿ carries the sense of an unfortunate or harmful circumstance).
In ancient Israel, an inheritance was not merely money, it was the family's stake in the land, its security and identity across generations. A son who received nothing could lose his place in the community, forced into debt or servitude. The book of Proverbs repeatedly warns against trusting in uncertain riches (Prov 23:4, 5), and Job's story demonstrates that wealth can be stripped away in a day (Job 1:13, 19). The Preacher sharpens this: even the careful planner who "succeeds" may see everything vanish.
The cross-references reinforce the theme. I Samuel 2:6, 8 declares that Yahweh brings poverty and makes rich; He raises the poor from the dust. Job 20:15, 29 declares that the wicked person who swallows riches will vomit them up, God casts them out. So the loss is not random in a cosmic sense; it lies within the sovereign and often inscrutable purposes of God. The Preacher's point is not to accuse the sufferer of sin, but to expose the folly of pinning hope on what can disappear in a moment.
Textual Notes
The supplied commentary sources note no significant textual variants for Ecclesiastes 5:14. The differences among English translations, 'misfortune' (WEB), 'evil travail' (KJV), 'failed venture' (BSB), 'evil business' (YLT), reflect interpretive choices for the same Hebrew phrase ʿinyan raʿ rather than a variation in the underlying manuscript tradition. The verse is stable across the major Hebrew witnesses.
Reception History
Through church history, Ecclesiastes 5:14 has been used to warn against the illusion of security in material wealth. Early church fathers such as John Chrysostom and Jerome cited it when urging Christians to give alms rather than hoard treasure that can be lost. In the monastic tradition, the verse supported the value of voluntary poverty, abandoning the quest for an earthly legacy altogether. Reformers like Martin Luther and John Calvin read it as part of Scripture’s call to trust God alone, finding assurance not in possessions but in divine providence. In modern preaching, the verse is often paired with the parable of the rich fool (Luke 12:16, 21) to challenge the assumption that a large estate equals a secure future. It remains a sobering text for funeral homilies and financial stewardship sermons, reminding hearers that every human legacy is fragile and that the only lasting inheritance is the hope of the resurrection.
Preaching This Verse
Three-point outline
- The illusion of security. Wealth promises stability for the future, especially for one's children. But the Preacher has seen it vanish in a stroke, no warning, no recovery.
- The exposed emptiness. When the son comes to receive his inheritance, there is nothing in the father’s hand. The legacy the father thought he built is gone. The son is left not only poor but unprepared.
- The call to real trust. The Preacher does not say stop working or providing. He says stop building your hope on what can be lost. True legacy is not money transferred but faith lived and the gift of contentment in the Lord (5:18, 20).
Five-point outline
- The dream: A man works hard, saves, and intends to pass on something substantial to his son.
- The disaster: The wealth perishes through an "evil travail", a bad investment, a lawsuit, a theft, a natural disaster. It is out of his hands.
- The disappointment: The son stands before his father, or after his father's death, with an empty hand. The promised inheritance is gone.
- The diagnosis: This is a "grievous evil" because it shows how fragile life under the sun truly is. No amount of foresight can guarantee a legacy.
- The wisdom: Instead of hoarding, enjoy what God gives today (vv. 18, 20). The only inheritance worth passing on is faith in a God who cannot lose His riches.
Illustration hooks
- A business owner spends decades building a company to leave to his children. A market crash, a lawsuit, or a dishonest partner wipes it out in months. The children are left with nothing but memories of what might have been.
- A family saves carefully for their child's college education by investing in a retirement account. A sudden medical crisis drains the savings. The student has a dream but no funds.
- A retiree watches his hard-won 401(k) collapse in an economic downturn. His adult children, who counted on an inheritance, find themselves needing to support him instead.
Questions your congregation is asking
- Is it wrong to want to leave an inheritance for my children? Doesn't the Bible encourage planning ahead?
- I've lost savings before. Does this verse mean I made a mistake or that God is punishing me?
- How do I teach my children to work hard and save without making money their ultimate hope?
Leading a Discussion
Ecclesiastes 5:14 gives us a snapshot of life's fragility. The man has done what seemed right, he kept his wealth for the future and for his son. Then it all vanished. This passage invites us to examine where we place our trust and how we prepare the next generation for real life, not just financially but spiritually.
Discussion questions
- Observation: What happens to the man in this verse? What two things are in tension, the man's plan and the outcome?
- Observation: The verse mentions a son. Why does the Preacher include the son? What did the father intend for him, and what actually happened?
- Interpretation: The verse calls the loss of riches a "grievous evil" (v.13). Why is this evil "grievous"? What makes it particularly painful for the father and the son?
- Interpretation: How does this verse connect with the surrounding passage (vv.10, 20) about the vanity of loving silver and the sweetness of a laborer's sleep?
- Interpretation: Look at the cross-references: Job 20:15, 29 and 1 Samuel 2:6, 8. What do those passages add to our understanding of wealth's fragility?
- Application: In what ways do you find yourself trusting in money or a financial plan to secure your family's future? How might this trust become a form of vanity?
- Application: How can you intentionally prepare your children (or those you mentor) for the possibility of loss? What kind of legacy matters more than money?
Cross-References
Source: Treasury of Scripture Knowledge (TSK, public domain)
| I Samuel 2:6 | “Yahweh kills and makes alive. He brings down to Sheol and brings up. |
| I Samuel 2:8 | He raises up the poor out of the dust. He lifts up the needy from the dunghill to make them sit with princes and inherit the throne of glory. For the pillars of the earth are Yahweh’s. He has set the world on them. |
| I Samuel 2:36 | It will happen that everyone who is left in your house will come and bow down to him for a piece of silver and a loaf of bread, and will say, “Please put me into one of the priests’ offices, that I may eat a morsel of bread.”’” |
| I Kings 14:26 | and he took away the treasures of Yahweh’s house and the treasures of the king’s house. He even took away all of it, including all the gold shields which Solomon had made. |
| Job 5:5 | whose harvest the hungry eat up, and take it even out of the thorns. The snare gapes for their substance. |
| Job 20:15 | He has swallowed down riches, and he will vomit them up again. God will cast them out of his belly. |
| Job 20:29 | This is the portion of a wicked man from God, the heritage appointed to him by God.” |
| Job 27:16 | Though he heap up silver as the dust, and prepare clothing as the clay; |
Cross-reference data from OpenBible.info (CC BY 4.0). Commentaries are public domain.
For personal reflection
Read the devotional page — prayer, application, and "for families"
What the Commentators Say
8 public-domain commentaries, condensed into plain language.
Adam Clarke's Commentary Methodist/Wesleyan 1826
Clarke notes that the man who fathers a child yet holds no possessions has been robbed of all he owned. He leaves nothing for his offspring.
Barnes' Notes on the Bible Protestant 1832
Barnes clarifies that the phrase "evil travail" refers to adverse accident or unsuccessful employment, not moral evil. He sees it as describing the frustrating and fruitless outcomes that can accompany human labor, a theme he connects to other passages about toil and disappointment.
Geneva Bible Notes Reformed 1599
The commentator points out the stark reversal at death: a person enters the world naked from the womb and leaves just as naked, unable to take any fruit of their labor with them. No amount of work or wealth accumulated in life can be carried beyond the grave.
Gill's Exposition of the Bible Baptist 1748
Gill observes that ill-gotten or poorly managed wealth tends to disappear during the owner's lifetime or shortly after. Even if the owner hoards riches for his son, they often perish through bad business, disaster, or the son's own wasteful habits, leaving the son empty-handed and worse off than if he had been raised to work.
Keil & Delitzsch OT Commentary Protestant 1876
Keil and Delitzsch see a very serious kind of harm caused by wealth. It is a deep wound that leads to sudden loss despite careful keeping. This hurts the man even more because he hoped his son would have something left.
Lange's Commentary Reformed 1857
Lange reads Ecclesiastes 5 as three practical means for advancing happiness: faithful worship, justice toward neighbors, and temperate enjoyment of life's gifts. He insists that the enjoyment commended at the chapter's close is not Epicurean self-indulgence but the grateful recognition that every good comes from God,
Matthew Henry's Commentary Reformed/Presbyterian 1710
Henry notes that Solomon teaches the desire for wealth is just as vain as other human desires because having much money does not bring true happiness. He shows that people who think money makes them happy end up leaving nothing behind when they die.
Wesley's Explanatory Notes Methodist/Wesleyan 1754
Wesley notes that by pursuing evil actions one brings about destruction. He also says that nothing remains for a person’s children after their parent dies.