To clarify his meaning and to support his contention in verse 3, Solomon cited examples from nature. Work produces nothing ultimate or truly satisfying.
1:4 No person is permanent on the earth. The earth remains, but people die and the next generation replaces them. The point is that since man is not permanent it is obvious that his work cannot be either. While a person's work may outlive him or her (e.g., a skyscraper outlasts its builder) it will only last a little longer than he or she does. It too is only relatively temporary, not permanent as the earth is.
History does not answer the questions of ultimate meaning or purpose. These only come from divine revelation.
1:5-7 Science does not answer these questions either.
People's work is similar to the aspects of nature cited in these verses. In nature there are many things that recur in a cyclical pattern. They are never complete. For example, we never have a rainstorm that makes it unnecessary to have any more rainstorms (cf. Job 36:27-28). Our work is never complete in the sense that we never finally arrive at a condition in which no more work is necessary. There is always the need to do more work. Any home owner can testify to this!
One writer argued that the preacher did not intend verses 5-7 to show the futility of the phenomena he recorded. He intended to show only ". . . the limitations imposed on them by their allotted natures and functions, which necessitates their constant cyclical repetition."22These limitations reflect futility.
1:8-11 By saying, "there is nothing new under the sun"(v. 9), Solomon was not overlooking inventions and technological advances that have resulted in civilization's advancement through the centuries. Nevertheless these have been only innovations, not basic changes. Man still struggles with the same essential problems he has always had. This is the round of work that is a weariness to people similar to the repetitious rounds observable in nature (vv. 5-7). There appears to be a significant advance (e.g., social evolution) but that is only because people evaluate history superficially (v. 11a). We dream of futuristic utopias because we fail to see that man has made no real progress (v. 11b). Future generations will make the same mistake (v. 11c-d).
What about the doctrine of eternal rewards? The New Testament teaches that what a person does in this life, for good and for evil, affects his or her eternal state (Matt. 7:24-27; 1 Cor. 5:9-10; et al.). Is there not eternal "net profit"for believers who do good works? Solomon had an unusually broad perspective for a person living when he did. Evidently most of the Hebrews had an awareness that there is life beyond the grave. The patriarchs also had some revelation of life after death (cf. Gen. 1:27; 25:8, 17; 35:29; Ps. 16; 73; et al.).23However, Solomon evidenced no knowledge of revelation that deals with the effect a person's work has on his or her eternalcondition. In this respect his perspective was not as broad as those of us who benefit from New Testament revelation. Solomon was correct within his frame of reference. New Testament revelation has not invalidated Solomon's assessment of life from his perspective.
"Koheleth knew no such scenario as Jesus gave us in the parable of talents. The old sage had no real inkling of the ultimate judgment that offered, well done, good and faithful servant. . . . Enter into the joy of your Lord,' and You wicked and lazy servant,' your destiny is outer darkness' with weeping and gnashing of teeth' (Matt. 25:21, 26, 30)."24
A factor that makes our work of lasting value is God's enablement with His grace by His Spirit. Reference to either of these supernatural resources is totally absent in Ecclesiastes. This omission further highlights the fact that Solomon's viewpoint was that of earthly life without supernatural intervention.
The fact that the name "Yahweh"does not occur in the book also clarifies this perspective. Yahweh was the name God used to describe Himself in His relationships to people. The man "under the sun"in Ecclesiastes is one unaided by a personal relationship with God. Not that he was necessarily unsaved. The man in view is every man including the Israelites. Solomon's analysis simply omitted God's enablement in the human condition. He did assume man's belief in God, however.
"Ignoring the book's title (1:1), epigrams (1:2, 12:8), and epilogue (12:9-14), one discovers that Qoheleth begins with a poem concerning the profit'-lessness of man's toil (1:3-11) and ends with another poem calling man to enjoy life which he can (11:9-12:7) . . . . These two poems set the tone and direction of Qoheleth's investigation and reflection. From a focus on the pointlessness of a work orientation--on the profitlessness of man's toil when it is absolutized and, thus, misguided--Qoheleth turns to argue for the importance of enjoying life from God as a gift while we can. Enjoyment,' not work,' is to be our controlling metaphor of life."25
"The enigmatic character and polarized structure of the book of Qoheleth is not a defective quality but rather a deliberate literary device of Hebrew thought patterns designed to reflect the paradoxical and anomalous nature of this present world. The difficulty of interpreting this book is proportionally related to one's own readiness to adopt Qoheleth's presupposition--that everything about this world is marred by the tyranny of the curse which the Lord God placed upon all creation. If one fails to recognize that this is a foundational presupposition from which Ecclesiastes operates, then one will fail to comprehend the message of the book, and bewilderment will continue."26
