Qoheleth offers another reason for doing as the king says. It is in the form of a noun clause introduced by For in Revised Standard Version. But the introductory baʾasher is ambiguous. It could be introducing a clause that explains why the king can do whatever he pleases (verse 3), or it could be introducing the reason for doing what the king says (verse 2). If the use of a conjunction like For is a problem, “And” or “Also” can be substituted.

The word of the king is similar in meaning to the phrase “mouth of the king” in verse 2, indicating how closely this verse is related to the command to obey in that verse. Obeying the word of the king, or “what the king commands,” describes how the wise person will react.

Supreme is how the Revised Standard Version translates the noun shilton. Qoheleth has used the root shlt in 2.19; 5.18; and 6.2 in the sense of having power over someone or something. He uses it twice in verse 8 (“power,” “authority”) and again in verse 9 (“lords it over”). Here the noun functions as an adjective describing the power of the royal command. Supreme obviously means that no word is more powerful than the king’s, so we can also say “all-powerful” or “paramount” (Jerusalem Bible). Other languages may express it as “above all,” “heaviest in the land,” “the head of all.” New English Bible “carries authority” does not necessarily mean that it is the highest authority. Although in Hebrew a word itself can be said to have power, it may not always be appropriate to express the meaning in that way. The authority of the speaker is what carries weight; what he says should be obeyed because it is spoken by someone who holds power. We may have to say something like “the king’s word carries his royal authority” or “because it is the king who speaks, everyone must obey.” We could also make the meaning even more specific: “The king is the highest authority in the land, and what he says must be obeyed.”

And who may say to him…? is another of the several “who” questions in this section. Here it is a rhetorical question expecting the answer “No one.” We can render its meaning by copying the question form or by transferring to a statement form. Who may say…? in this context is better rendered as “Who would [dare to] say…?” or “Nobody would [dare to] say….” In English the word may often suggests permission, whereas Qoheleth is actually illustrating the fact that the king’s word is absolute; only the fool would dare to question what the king orders. In this context the verb say has the sense of questioning someone while expressing disagreement, so “to question” or “to challenge” are appropriate also. To him refers to the king and this can be stated unless it is redundant.

What are you doing?: this gives the content of the question. If we use a statement form or indirect speech, this becomes “what the king does” or “what the king would do.” In some languages this question-within-a-question can be maintained, but translators should be careful to punctuate properly so no misunderstanding results. If we decide to follow the good suggestion offered by Good News Translation, then “to challenge the king” or “to challenge him” will be quite fitting.

Translators can consider the following examples:

• Also the king’s word is all-powerful. Who would dare challenge him [or, question what he does]?

• Furthermore, the king’s word carries his authority. Nobody would dare question what he [the king] does.

• [Remember,] the king’s word is supreme. Who would dare ask him, “What are you doing?”

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 .