Ecclesiastes chapter 1

I really should start my sermon for next Sunday. But at the moment, I'd rather just get back into my morning routine.

vs 1

And of course we start of straight away with Qoleheth, what it means, who wrote the book, and all that jazz.

Of course, pretty much all modern scholars think it was written by some wisdom writer that wasn't Solomon. I think even Childs, who might say it is claiming canonically to be from that time, would not accept it. That says a lot. If it was written by Solomon, why doesn't he name himself? Why isn't this strange life-experiment written about anywhere else? Why didn't Solomon follow his own conclusions?

For me, I think it's too weighty - someone else, possibly another person in the Davidic line, has raised this, but as more of a thought experiment than a real life experiment. Obviously I don't know when it was written - most people say post-exile, but who knows? - so I'm pretty much prepared to leave it at that.

vs 2

At least he's open about it. This is the premise of the book. Of course, we have to ask ourselves what meaning is before we can ask whether something is meaningful. It will become clear what Qoleheth thinks is meaningful as we move on.

You'll notice that the NASB and KJV repeated their "vanity of vanities", while the (T)NIV retranslate it to be "Utterly meaningless", arguing that the doubling of the word represents in Hebrew a more forceful idea. A similar thing happens in Ruth 1, but all the translations pretty much follow the NIV ruling, interestingly.

vs 3

This question on its own is fairly simply answered - food to eat, satisfaction of a job well done, something to keep them busy - there's all sorts of things that people get from work. But that's not what Qoleheth thinks is meaningful.

vs 4

This is the point that he seeks to make - that without eternal meaning, there is no meaning. Which is interesting, really, because a humanistic worldview could quite easily argue that all humans make an eternal contribution to the universe, because whatever we choose to do or not do will create a set of ramifications that cannot be undone, and therefore is our eternal contribution.

Of course, I think any realistic humanist would also realise that such a nebulous and pointless contribution to the universe is not likely to be valued by most people - it will just make them feel even more insignificant.

Qoleheth doesn't really deal with that, which I thinkis significant, because his understanding of the universe is not humanistic, it is theistic, and as such assumes a God whom gives things meaning and can remove any contribution made by man.

vs 5

A picture of the endless cycle of life that the whole of creation is subject to. Regardless of the happenings of man, the sun will still rise.

vs 6

The wind isn't new - it is recycled. Just the same air blowing around from place to place. If creation isn't really giving us anything new, then where are we going to find it?

vs 7

Another picture of endless, almost pointless, repetition in nature.

vs 8

Since there's nothing new, perhaps humanity could be satisfied with seeing and hearing everything? Perhaps once we attain the ability to experience every experience that is available to humanity, we can be satisfied? Nope, apparently not. After all, we enjoy the second peach pretty much as much as the first - we're always thirsty and hungry, and we chase pretty much the same of everything throughout our whole lives.

vs 9

The Internet is just very fast horses. Computers are just Stonehenge with more processing power. All games are based on the stick game. Guns are basically an advanced tool for throwing rocks at people. You get the idea - we might work out how to do something better, but it's not new.