There is nothing better for a man, than that he should eat and drink, and that he should make his soul enjoy good in his labour. This also I saw, that it was from the hand of God.

Is it not better to eat and drink, and to shew his soul good things of his labours? and this is from the hand of God.

There is nothing good for man, but that he should eat and drink, and that he should make his soul enjoy good in his labour. This also I saw, that it was from the hand of God.

There is nothing good in a man who eateth, and hath drunk, and hath shewn his soul good in his labour. This also I have seen that it is from the hand of God.

There is nothing better for a man than taking meat and drink, and having delight in his work. This again I saw was from the hand of God.

There is nothing better for a man than that he should eat and drink, and make his soul enjoy pleasure for his labour. This also I saw, that it is from the hand of God.

Is it not better to eat and drink, and to show his soul the good things of his labors? And this is from the hand of God.

Nothing better for a man, than that - literally, no good in man that etc. The one joy of working or receiving, which, though it be transitory, a man recognizes as a real good, even that is not in the power of man to secure for himself: that good is the gift of God.

There is nothing better for a man - The sense of this passage is well expressed in the following lines: -
"For these disorders wouldst thou find a cure,
Such cure as human frailty would admit?
Drive from thee anxious cares; let reason curb
Thy passions; and with cheerful heart enjoy
That little which the world affords; for here,
Though vain the hopes of perfect happiness,
Yet still the road of life, rugged at best,
Is not without its comforts -
Wouldst thou their sweetness taste, look up to heaven,
And praise the all-bounteous Donor, who bestows
The power to use aright."

[There is] nothing better for a man, [than] that he should eat and drink, and [that] he should (p) make his soul enjoy good in his labour. This also I saw, that it [was] from the hand of God.
(p) When man has all laboured, he can get no more than food and refreshing, yet he confesses also that this comes from God's blessing, as in (Ecclesiastes 3:13).

There is nothing better for a man than that he should eat and drink,.... Not in an immoderate and voluptuous manner, like the epicure and the atheist, that disbelieve a future state and the resurrection of the dead, and give up themselves to all sinful and sensual gratifications; but in a moderate way, enjoying in a cheerful and comfortable manner the good creatures of God, which he has given; being contented with them, thankful for them, and looking upon them as the blessings of divine goodness, and as flowing from the love of God to him; and thus freely using, and yet not abusing them. Some render it, "it is not good for a man to eat" (a), &c. immoderately and to excess, and to place his happiness in it: or, "there is no good with man" (b); it is not in the power of man to use the creatures aright. Jarchi renders it by way of interrogation, "is it not good?" which comes to the same sense with ours, and so the Vulgate Latin version;
and that he should make his soul enjoy good in his labour; not leave off labouring; nor eat and drink what he has not laboured for, or what is the fruit of other men's labour; but what is the effect of his own, and in which he continues; and this is the way to go on in it with cheerfulness, when he enjoys the good, and reaps the benefit and advantage of it; which is certainly preferable to a laying up his substance, and leaving it to he knows not who.
This also I saw, that it was from the hand of God; not only the riches a man possesses, but the enjoyment of them, or a heart to make use of them; see Ecclesiastes 5:18. The Midrash interprets this eating and drinking, of the law and good works: and the Targum explains it, causing the soul to enjoy the good of doing the commandments, and walking in right ways; and observes, that a man that prospers in this world, it is from the hand of the Lord, and is what is decreed to be concerning him.
(a) "non est igitur bonum", Vatablus. (b) "Non est bonum penes hominem", Junius & Tremellius, Gejerus, Gussetius.

English Version gives a seemingly Epicurean sense, contrary to the general scope. The Hebrew, literally is, "It is not good for man that he should eat," &c., "and should make his soul see good" (or "show his soul, that is, himself, happy"), &c. [WEISS]. According to HOLDEN and WEISS, Ecclesiastes 3:12, Ecclesiastes 3:22 differ from this verse in the text and meaning; here he means, "It is not good that a man should feast himself, and falsely make as though his soul were happy"; he thus refers to a false pretending of happiness acquired by and for one's self; in Ecclesiastes 3:12, Ecclesiastes 3:22; Ecclesiastes 5:18-19, to real seeing, or finding pleasure when God gives it. There it is said to be good for a man to enjoy with satisfaction and thankfulness the blessings which God gives; here it is said not to be good to take an unreal pleasure to one's self by feasting, &c.
This also I saw--I perceived by experience that good (real pleasure) is not to be taken at will, but comes only from the hand of God [WEISS] (Psalm 4:6; Isaiah 57:19-21). Or as HOLDEN, "It is the appointment from the hand of God, that the sensualist has no solid satisfaction" (good).

"There is nothing better among men, than that one eat and drink, and that he should pamper his soul by his labour: this also have I seen, that it is in the hand of God." The lxx, as well as the other Greek transl., and Jerome, had before them the words באדם שיאכל. The former translates: "Man has not the good which he shall eat and drink," i.e., also this that he eats is for him no true good; but the direct contrary of this is what Koheleth says. Jerome seeks to bring the thought which the text presents into the right track, by using the form of a question: nonne melius est comedere; against this Ecclesiastes 3:12, Ecclesiastes 3:22; Ecclesiastes 8:15, are not to be cited where טוב אין stands in the dependent sentence; the thought is not thus to be improved; its form is not this, for טוב rof ,siht, beginning a sentence, is never interrog., but affirm.; thus טוב אין is not = הלא טוב, but is a negative statement. It is above all doubt, that instead of שׁיּ בּאדם we must read בּאדם משּׁיּ, after Ecclesiastes 3:12, Ecclesiastes 3:22; Ecclesiastes 8:15; for, as at Job 33:17, the initial letter mem after the terminal mem has dropped out. Codd. of the lxx have accordingly corrected ὃ into πλὴν ὃ or εἰ μὴ ὃ (thus the Compl. Ald.), and the Syr. and Targ. render ש here by אלא דּ and אלהן דּ unless that he eat; Jerome also has non est bonum homini nisi quod in his Comm.; only the Venet. seeks to accommodate itself to the traditional text. Besides, only מ is to be inserted, not אם כי; for the phrase לאכל אם כי is used, but not כי אם ס. Instead of ba-a-da-m, the form la-a-da-m would be more agreeable, as at Ecclesiastes 6:12; Ecclesiastes 8:15. Hitzig remarks, without proof, that bāādām is in accordance with later grammatical forms, which admit ב = "for" before the object. ב, Ecclesiastes 10:17, is neither prep. of the object, nor is ἐν, Sir. 3:7, the exponent of the dative (vid., Grimm). bāādām signifies, as at 2-Samuel 23:3, and as ἐν ἀνθ, Sir. 11:14, inter homines; also Ecclesiastes 3:12 designates by טוב טוב what among them (men) has to be regarded as good.
It is interesting to see how here the ancient and the modern forms of the language run together, without the former wholly passing over into the latter; משׁי, quam ut edat, is followed by norm. perfects, in accordance with that comprehensive peculiarity of the old syntax which Ewald, by an excellent figure, calls the dissolution of that which is coloured into grey. טוב הד is equivalent to לו הי, Psalm 49:19, the causative rendering of the phrase טוב ראה, Ecclesiastes 3:13, or ר טובה, Ecclesiastes 5:17; Ecclesiastes 6:6. It is well to attend to בּעמלו by his labour, which forms an essential component part of that which is approved of as good. Not a useless sluggard-life, but a life which connects together enjoyment and labour, is that which Koheleth thinks the best in the world. But this enjoyment, lightening, embellishing, seasoning labour, has also its But: etiam hoc vidi e manu Dei esse (pendere). The order of the words harmonizes with this Lat.; it follows the scheme referred to at Genesis 1:4; cf. on the contrary, Ecclesiastes 3:6. Instead of גּם־זה, neut. by attraction, there is here the immediately neut. גּם־זה; the book uniformly makes use of this fem. form instead of זאת. This or that is "in the hand of God," i.e., it is His gift, Ecclesiastes 3:13, Ecclesiastes 3:18, and it is thus conditioned by Him, since man cannot give it to himself; cf. minni, Isaiah 30:1; mimmenni, Hosea 8:4; mimmennu, 1-Kings 20:33.
This dependence of the enjoyment of life on God is established.

Enjoy - That he should thankfully take, and freely and chearfully enjoy the comforts which God gives him. It was - A singular gift of God.