For the first time Qoheleth uses the personal pronoun I. This is a signal to us that we have finally reached Qoheleth’s own reflections based on his investigations. The information in this verse is the same as in verse 1, but it is in a different form.

Here I and the Preacher refer to the same person. Both are the subject of the verb have been or “was.” It looks as though Qoheleth was once king in Jerusalem but is so no longer. The phrase king over Israel in Jerusalem is difficult. Though it seems precise, it does not really identify who is being talked about. It states clearly that Qoheleth was a king over Israel, and that he resided in Jerusalem. Only two kings ruled over all Israel from this city, David and Solomon. After Solomon died the kingdom was divided into Israel in the north and Judah in the south. Jerusalem continued as the capital, but only of Judah. What is unclear about Qoheleth’s statement is which king he is alleging to be. We presume Solomon is intended, because he was a sage, that is, a person who was known for his wisdom. Later details in the book also point to a link between Qoheleth and Solomon: excessive wealth, extensive building projects, magnificent properties, and a great number of wives. Like Solomon, then, Qoheleth was also a great sage who was able to thoroughly test every possible aspect of human life and experience (see 2.9). However, as in the case of verse 1, specific reference to Solomon should not be made, since Qoheleth never speaks of him by name.

We can give the sense of this sentence as “I, Qoheleth, was Israel’s king…,” or we can use a verbal form and say “I, Qoheleth, ruled Israel from Jerusalem.”

Quoted with permission from Ogden, Graham S. and Zogbo, Lynell. A Handbook on the Book of Ecclesiates. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 1997. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .