1 The words of the Teacher, son of David, king in Jerusalem:
2 “Meaningless! Meaningless!”
says the Teacher.
“Utterly meaningless!
Everything is meaningless.”
3 What does man gain from all his labor
at which he toils under the sun?
4 Generations come and generations go,
but the earth remains forever.
5 The sun rises and the sun sets,
and hurries back to where it rises.
6 The wind blows to the south
and turns to the north;
round and round it goes,
ever returning on its course.
7 All streams flow into the sea,
yet the sea is never full.
To the place the streams come from,
there they return again.
8 All things are wearisome,
more than one can say.
The eye never has enough of seeing,
nor the ear its fill of hearing.
9 What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.
10 Is there anything of which one can say,
“Look! This is something new”?
It was here already, long ago;
it was here before our time.
11 There is no remembrance of men of old,
and even those who are yet to come
will not be remembered
by those who follow.
Yes. Inedible.
But is this observation True or False?
And if true, then to what extent is it true??
And if false, then how come its in the Bible?
True: but this truth is dependent upon perspective.
So, I believe that the common interpretation is that without God, this is the best worldview that you can rationally come up with. With God, this worldview no longer works:
13 Now all has been heard;
here is the conclusion of the matter:
Fear God and keep his commandments,
for this is the whole duty of man.
14 For God will bring every deed into judgment,
including every hidden thing,
whether it is good or evil.
I think this is the way to respond… is my exegesis incorrect?
I meant Incredible, rather than Inedible.
Oops.
Yes, I’ve heard that view, Stephenmac, but the trouble is that the writer believes in God, and says so throughout, not just in Ch 12. He is not thinking about a world ‘without God’, but a life under the sun with God. Was there any such thing as a wide-spread atheism when it was written anyway?? (Genuine question)
I think that the conclusion has in it some resolution, but not in a way that negates his previous difficult observations.
thanks for the comments guys.
JM – i’m encouraged by the questions you regularly ask in your blog posts and comments. sometimes i’m not sure if you’re playing devil’s advocate or not… which i like… it makes me think!!
i’ll probably be doing some ecclesiastes talks over the summer holidays on a camp… so will probably post some more the more i think about it.