Here we meet the third imperative of this subsection. The theme is careless speech, which can lead to problems in our relationship with God. We keep in mind the background from Deuteronomy 23.

Let not your mouth lead you into sin: mouth has the same meaning as in verse 2, that is, it represents all the things we might say. The Hebrew is literally “Do not allow your mouth to cause your body to sin.” Sin is the general word found elsewhere in the Old Testament, but in this context it has the meaning of saying something false or promising something that we fail to honor. For this reason the imperative here is not very different from that of verse 2.

Certain languages may require a more literal translation: “Don’t let the words of your mouth get you into trouble”; others may require a more general one: “Do not let what you say [or, vow] lead you to offend God” or “Do not let your words get you into trouble.”

And do not say … that it was a mistake: this imperative is essentially parallel with the previous one. Although the structure of the sentence suggests otherwise, it would be more logical if this were a result clause indicating what would happen if a person’s words caused such trouble. This is the Good News Translation position. Do not say does not mean that we should never admit to making a mistake; it warns us to do everything possible to avoid having to confess “I was wrong!” In translation we can preserve this imperative form if we use the verb “avoid”; for example, “Avoid having to say … I made a mistake!” We can also say “Don’t end up having to say … I was wrong to make that vow.” Alternatively we can use a result clause like “and then you will not need to confess…” or Good News Translation “so that you have to tell….”

Before the messenger is a problem text. Some versions read “before God,” but there is more evidence in favor of “messenger.” If that is correct, we have two possible translations, “messenger” and “angel.” Messenger is a term used in the Old Testament to describe a king’s envoys as well as God’s messengers, the angels. In a setting of worship it is generally the priest who administers the taking of vows, so the word “messenger” almost certainly refers to the priest, as Good News Translation states (“God’s priest”). The Jerusalem Bible footnote agrees. In Mal 2.7 the priest is called a “messenger.” Thus if a person confesses to failing to keep a vow, such confession would have to be made to the priest. The Good News Translation model is a good one to follow.

Whether any translation should include footnotes or not will depend on the audience for whom the translation is intended. Since the Hebrew text causes many difficulties here, it is recommended that translators choose the more appropriate interpretation. In this case the messenger is the “priest.” Then a footnote is needed informing the reader that the text reads “messenger,” a term that some understand to mean “angel,” or even “God himself.”

Mistake translates a term found frequently in the priestly material of Leviticus (4.22, 27) and Numbers (15.22). It refers to mistakes made unintentionally. These are the only ones the priest is authorized to forgive. At this point we see how familiar Qoheleth is with the work and function of a priest. A fool who makes vows that he cannot fulfill faces the embarrassing situation of having to tell the priest that he can no longer keep it. Good News Translation “you didn’t mean it” is vague and can mean that the person didn’t mean to make the vow originally. This is surely not correct. The mistake was in making the vow in the first instance and then not fulfilling it. Forgiveness is possible, but it is an embarrassment to have to ask for it.

Translators can consider the following examples:

• Avoid having to confess to the priest that it was a mistake to make the vow [in the first place].

• Avoid having to tell the priest that you can no longer keep the vow you made.

• How foolish it would be to have to say to the priest, “I made a mistake in taking this vow.”

Why should God be angry at your voice…?: once again voice carries the sense of what a person says, or it can even refer to the person speaking. Qoheleth uses a rhetorical question to emphasize his point. The question form challenges the reader to think about the consequences of such failure. Behind this question lies the thought that the person will suffer in some fashion because God is angered by the person’s failure to keep the vow made.

Why should God be angry…?: this can be understood literally, “God gets angry when people fail,” but this ignores the setting in which vows are made. A person generally took an oath asking to be punished by God if the vow could not be fulfilled. We have a good example of this in 1 Kgs 20.10, when Benhadad swears with the words “May the gods do so to me, and more also if….” So Qoheleth is saying that, when a person makes a vow and fails to keep it, the punishment called down at the time the vow was taken will be fulfilled.

And destroy the work of your hands: the actual form of the punishment called for in this case is not known, but Qoheleth suggests that it will be the destruction of all the person does. The expression here is very general, and that should be preserved in translation. Thus the question of whether it refers to everything a person has already done, or will do in the future, cannot be answered. The phrase work of your hands reminds us of the frequent use of the verb “do, work” in places like 2.4, 11. It is a phrase describing everything a person does, with hands representing the whole person. So Qoheleth claims that failing to fulfill a vow will result in God frustrating everything the person does. Only fools would expose themselves to that risk. So here we have a warning to the wise: “Only vow what you know you can fulfill; otherwise you face the consequence of the oath you take, and you will suffer for it.”

A first suggestion for translation is:

• Why give God cause to be angry because of what you promised [or, your oath]? Why put at risk all you have done?

As is usually the case, the rhetorical question why … hands? can be translated in statement. A negative imperative form will preserve the question’s meaning:

• Don’t let God become angry with you and destroy everything you do just because you didn’t keep the vow you made.

• Don’t cause God to be angry with you for not keeping your vow. He could destroy everything you do.

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 .