Shared ground

Ecclesiastes 6:1–2 presents a painful mismatch the speaker says he has observed “under the sun”: a person can have enormous resources and status, yet still be unable to truly benefit from them. The text treats this as a serious wrong or misfortune that “weighs heavily” on people.

The passage makes a sharp distinction between having (“riches, wealth, and honor… lacks nothing”) and enjoying (“no power to eat of it”). In the speaker’s example, the end result is reversal: someone outside the man’s circle (“an alien”) ends up consuming what he amassed. The speaker’s verdict is unambiguous: this outcome is “vanity” and a “grievous affliction.”

Where interpretation differs (only where needed)

1) Who is “the alien”? Some read “alien” as a literal foreigner (for example, a political outsider, conqueror, or non-family claimant) who ends up with the property. Others take it more broadly as any outsider: a non-relative heir, a stranger, or simply “someone else” not intended by the wealthy person.

2) What does “power to eat” mean? Many understand it as the ordinary ability to enjoy wealth—time, opportunity, freedom from trouble, and the capacity to take pleasure in one’s goods. Others emphasize inner capacity: an inability to enjoy because of anxiety, compulsive hoarding, or restless desire. Both readings keep the basic contrast: possession without real benefit.

3) How should “God gives… yet God does not give” be understood? Some read this as direct divine action in both the giving of wealth and the withholding of enjoyment. Others understand it as a way of speaking that credits God with life’s big outcomes while still describing a world where enjoyment can be blocked by many secondary factors (health, circumstances, death, social upheaval). Either way, the text’s explicit claim is that the ultimate “ability to enjoy” is not guaranteed by wealth itself.

Why the disagreement exists The key phrases are compact and can point in more than one direction. “Alien” can be narrow (foreigner) or broad (outsider). “Power to eat” can describe external opportunity or internal capacity. And the repeated “God gives” language raises the question of whether the speaker is describing direct causation in every detail or stating a bigger reality about human limits under God.

What this passage clearly contributes The passage adds a sober theological insight within Ecclesiastes’ wider argument: material abundance is not the same as satisfaction, and even the enjoyment of good gifts is itself a contingent gift rather than a human achievement. Wealth can fail at the very point it promises most—secure enjoyment—and can even end up benefiting someone else. This supports Ecclesiastes’ recurring claim that life “under the sun” often breaks the expected link between effort, reward, and lasting gain (compare Ecclesiastes 5:10).