What has Qoheleth to do with Camus? Rethinking the message of Ecclesiastes

Ahead of a sermon series on Ecclesiastes I gathered our preaching team to discuss its message and how to preach from this book.

I had been heavily influenced by Derek Kidner’s excellent book, in particular his view of Ecclesiastes as preparing us for Christ through exposing the meaninglessness of this life.  To my surprise, but confirming an unease I had about seeing Ecclesiastes as modern nihilism before its time, I was forced to rethink this interpretation by other material and by a closer look at the text.

In preparing for the team session I sent round some notes, which reflected this question I have about the “Ecclesiastes as pessimist” approach and its accuracy to the text in context. Below is the content of the paper sent to our preachers.

Who wrote the book?

Any of the substantial commentaries review this question thoroughly.

More sceptical writers assign the book to post-exile, pointing to its allegedly late Hebrew style and on the debatable basis of its sceptical message.

However the royal/court language, and apparent context of a time of peace and blessing in Israel/Judah suggests rather that the origin is at least pre-exilic and perhaps close to or among the royal family. I am persuaded that the author could quite easily be Solomon himself, since the links between the themes and message of the book and the events recorded of his reign, especially in 1 Kings 4 and 8, are so strong. The closest link of the title “Ecclesiastes” (literally, “the gatherer of the people”) is also to Solomon in 1 Kings 8:1, 5, 22) (the verb “to assemble”; the noun “assembly” = qahal (Heb.) = ecclesia (Gk)).


What is the purpose of the book?

See the excellent article by Philip H Eveson who first reviews the history of interpretation and then gives his view of why the author is writing. Also the detailed work in Daniel C Fredericks (Apollos OTC).

Three readings which Eveson (to me, with very well-argued reasons) is critical of:

Ecclesiastes as apologetics: moving the hearer along a pathway towards conviction of their need of God (see eg Eaton, TOTC).

Ecclesiastes as regretful testimony: Solomon in old age is repenting of living for this world and forgetting God. Again, the text as a whole does not seem to support this – 12:8-14 is not a contrast to the previous tone of the book but rather (in the third person now) a summary of its consistent message.

Ecclesiastes as pessimism preparing us for hope (Kidner, Tremper Longman). Both authors, excellent in much textual commentary, take the view that Ecclesiastes is about the “meaningless” of life IF lived without God. Von Rad goes as far as to describe Qoheleth as a bitter sceptic, “suspended over the pit of despair”. This interpretation hinges on these writers’ (disputed) translation of the word “hebel” as meaningless (on which see below).

So here is the interpretation I find most faithful to the text of this remarkable book:

Ecclesiastes as wisdom for the life of faith in the real world. It is written to be a corrective to naïve interpretations of the promises of Proverbs and Deuteronomy – the false teaching that there is a simple link of righteousness and blessing, “do good and God will bless you”. It is a reaction to simplistic views of the world of faith, rather as Job is to simplistic answers to the presence of suffering. Ecclesiastes is observing that it is not always so “under the sun”, in this life; but that does NOT mean that righteousness, the fear of God is not still the wisest and best course, or that much in this life is not to be enjoyed for its own sake.


In support of this fourth interpretation, Eveson helpfully discusses the meaning of the key repeated word “hebel”. His argument, convincingly to me, is that it consistently means “transient/temporary”, “short-lived” or “vain”. It should not be taken to imply “meaningless” (as NIV unfortunately translates it). The related noun means “breath”. A great deal of how we read and preach Ecclesiastes hangs upon which way we go on this translation of the Hebrew, and as I understand it, the weight of evidence falls upon the meaning being “temporary/transient”, not “meaningless”.

The two related phrases of Qoheleth, “under the sun” and “chasing after the wind” make this same point – not that life is pointless without God, but that this life is short – with or without him . Eveson makes the excellent point that, writing nearly 3000 years ago, we should not read his work as if coming from the pen of an enlightenment or post-modern philosopher musing on the “meaninglessness” of life – a very “modern” question. As Provan put it, “Qoheleth is not Camus”.

Rather we should read him in historical and Biblical context as a writer of wisdom for life. He is teaching us how to order personal life and surroundings according to the teaching of Scripture.

So we should almost certainly translate “hebel” as “transient” or “temporary”, and see the writer as giving us an honest evaluation of how life is experienced, as temporary and short-lived, despite its moments of joy coming from the goodness of God. The value of anything in this life is therefore real, but short-lived, and so there is nothing better than to “fear God and keep his commandments” in light of eternity.


What are the main messages and themes?

The creation and its fallenness. Contrary to some commentators, Ecclesiastes is full of references to other parts of the Bible, especially to Genesis 2 and 3. Creation is celebrated in its potentiality and diversity, but is also mourned over in its decay and transience. “Dust you are and to dust you will return” (3:20) directly seems to quote Genesis 3:19.

The relevance of this today is multiple: it is a critique of materialism (the present is not our ultimate hope or home); also of the health and wealth gospel (God does not promise perfect life or health); it refreshes us that the Bible describes life not with rose-tinted spectacles (as sceptics accuse) but as it really is, a mixture of life and decay; it helps us to have realistic expectations of life and God, and so is an antidote to disappointment with God when things “go wrong”.

Time and its brevity. Along with the key word, “hebel” described above, other common ideas are the short and cyclic “seasons” of life (especially in the famous poem of ch. 3), the idea of how “few” or short are our years on earth, and the reality of ageing (11:7-12:7) Parallel teaching that this life is short and temporary are found throughout the OT and NT (Isaiah 40:6; Psalm 39:4-6, Psalm 90:12; Job 7:6-7 & 14:5 James 4:14.)

Other key themes which seem self-explanatory upon reading the book are:

Wisdom lies in doing what is good

Contrast of good and evil

Joy and pleasure (a bigger theme than many commentators acknowledge)

Sovereignty and responsibility (God gives good gifts, time and wisdom, but his ways are ultimately above comprehension for us, and it is best to seek godliness, not understanding)

Where is Jesus in Ecclesiastes?

We have a gospel as NT believers and our task as preachers is to teach the message of the book (see some ideas on that above), and also how it points ahead to Christ.

Jesus entered our fallen world and suffered its futility like us. He suffered death to take the curse of sin (mortality) on our behalf, releasing us from its ultimate grip and giving the hope of resurrection that makes the temporary and fruitless nature of this life look pale (2 Corinthians 4:16-18). So our realism is mixed with hope.

This life, as Ecclesiastes says, makes us yearn with creation for eternity, for something that lasts, just as Romans 8:18-24 teaches. In Christ we know that redemption is coming not just for our mortal bodies but for all of creation, and it is secure through the love of Christ – nothing can separate us from the love of God in Him. We groan, but without yearning; we grieve, but not as those without hope (1 Cor. 15; 1 Thess. 4:1-12). The Preacher prepares us for the resurrection by making us face the brevity of this life.

Eveson’s concluding section entitled “The Preaching” expands some of these ideas.

Structure of the book

Again much-debated: some say there is none owing to the repetitive/cyclic nature of material! Subsections are listed by commentators, totalling anything from 12 to 36! Fredericks gives a useful structure in around 13 sections.

However AG Wright came up with this one in 1968 which has been very helpful:

1:1-11           Prologue

1:12-6:9        Part One: Intro followed by six sections each beginning “vanity” or “chasing the wind”

6:10-11:6      Part Two: Meditation on the themes of “who can find out?”/”who can know?  – the elusiveness and value of wisdom

11:7-12:7     Poem on youth/old age

12:8-14        Epilogue in the third person

(see Murphy (below) p.xxxviii)

What are the best commentaries or articles to help preachers?


Article, “Preaching from Ecclesiastes” Philip H Eveson


Best commentary:

Daniel Fredericks, “Ecclesiastes” in Apollos OTC  Vol. 16


Others (shortest to longest)

Goldsworthy (in Gospel and Wisdom) good overall summary, though sees no sequence to the book and thinks author is later than Solomon

Kidner (BST) – good, excellent on meaning of verses, but see above comments on the purpose of the book

Michael A Eaton (IVP OTC) – good solid reference; but see comments on message/purpose above

David Gibson “Living Life Backward” – helpful on the frustration theme and NT fulfilment.

Roland Murphy (Word) – very good on pre-critical interpretation of the book, structure and textual work – a bit more technical. Takes a similar line to Eveson & Fredericks on “hebel

Philip Graham Ryken (Preaching the Word series) – good on application and finding Jesus in Ecclesiastes; but see comments on message/purpose above

Tremper Longman (NICOT) – solid; but see comments above


Ten books to recommend to a new Christian

Have you ever wished you had something to give a new Christian to read alongside the Bible, to encourage them in their faith and help them begin to live for Christ from a Christ-centred Biblical worldview? Over the years I have recommended countless good books 1:1 or from the pulpit, but I thought it was about time to be more intentional about this habit, for my own sake, and that of our church members. Maybe what follows will help you too.

The idea of a “top ten” list (yes, I realise that such a thing is usually shameless marketing) came from a visit to Tim Keller’s Redeemer Church in Manhattan two years ago during a sabbatical. The service was thoughtful and deeply Christ-honouring, but one of my main take-homes came afterwards, over coffee a couple of floors up from the worship auditorium. An unremarkable folding table was set out to one side of the room, with a selection of books for sale,  a couple of signs, and a friendly church member on hand.

What was the stroke of genius? A simple guideline as to which books to read, and in what order. The books were arranged into three groups, not by the usual categories, “Bible”, “Christian living”, “Prayer” etc, but as “Read first”, “Read next”, and “After those”  (maybe not the precise titles, but you get the idea). Keller had written a short explanation of the book-recommendation policy he had followed,

“instead of a bookstore for the whole community, we offer a book table carrying “next step” reading for worshippers at Redeemer…the order in which you read books has a big impact on the kind of believer you become…That is why many people will ask me – “Is this a good book to read?” and my answer is, ‘Yes – eventually, later, in the right place – but not now’.”

Keller had thought hard about the best books to start young believers with, and those to recommend later. I think that is incredibly good pastoral care, and am planning to introduce this wise approach when we move to pastor our new church in Norwich in the summer.

So here are my ten “Read First” books, copies of which I’d have always on hand to give away or to sell. The order doesn’t mean much. In future posts I will suggest my “Read next” and “After those” selections.

Read First (Top Ten):

Knowing God (J.I. Packer)

The Prodigal God (Tim Keller)

How to read the Bible for all its Worth (Gordon Fee/Douglas Stuart)

The Freedom of a Christian (Martin Luther)

Just do Something (Kevin DeYoung)

Discipling (Mark Dever)

How to Walk into Church (Tony Payne/Colin Marshall)

God’s Big Picture (Vaughan Roberts)

The Cross of Christ (John Stott)

Mere Christianity (C.S. Lewis)


I hope this gets you asking what you would recommend to a new believer – and what you’d agree they should read, but only later. Let me know what you think.

She is our mother

What is Mother’s Day about?

The celebration of our human mothers only goes back to 1914 in the USA, where it is celebrated on May 9th, the anniversary of the death of the mother of its American promoter, Anna Jarvis.

The custom of celebrating motherhood in Lent started here in 1920 when Constance Smith suggested that the Bible reading for the Fourth Sunday of Lent would be a suitable pointer to thanking God for our mothers:

“But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother.” (Galatians 4:26)

There is huge value in reminding ourselves annually of the care shown by our mothers and honouring them in this way through sending flowers, cards and Simnel cakes. The care shown by mothers also reminds us of the “brooding” of God’s Spirit over chaos before creation began (Genesis 1:2) and of Jesus’ longing to protect his own Jewish people in Jerusalem (Luke 13:34). We celebrate motherhood as an image of God’s love creating life and protecting his children.

Mother’s Day (as it is known outside the Church) has largely ceased to be a religious occasion in the UK, as in the USA. Anna Jarvis regretted the growing commercialisation of the day, even to disapproving of pre-printed Mother’s Day cards. “A printed card means nothing,” she said, “except that you are too lazy to write to the woman who has done more for you than anyone in the world.”

As we nonetheless continue to thank God for his gracious provision of motherhood, we can also reclaim the original meaning of that text for the Fourth Sunday of Lent about the Church. The Church, wonderfully composed of all in Christ from east to west, young to old, on earth and in glory, gathered around His throne, is our mother. For centuries Mothering Sunday has seen people gather at their local “mother” church or cathedral.

In the text from Galatians above Paul is making the point that God’s people are free in Christ. In the context, he draws the contrast between the children of Hagar, Abraham’s slavegirl, and the children of Sarah, his wife. He then makes a radical claim that those who see Jewish law, instead of faith in Christ, as the way to be right with God are not children of Sarah but of Hagar, because only those in Christ are free from sin and law. Those who are children of the promise by faith in Christ, whether Jew or Gentile, are free, children of God’s heavenly city Jerusalem. She is our mother.

I think it’s brilliant that in the middle of Lent we have this text. It reminds us that:

  • earthly mothers are remarkable, but belonging to our heavenly mother the Church matters even more
  • membership of God’s family rests not on what we do but on what Christ has done in fulfilling the Law of God, and paying the price on the Cross for us who broke it

Paul goes on in the remainder of Galatians to apply these truths by calling us who are free in Christ not to let ourselves become slaves either to law or to sin again.

Let’s pray that the Freedom message of Mothering Sunday will set many free to know and live for Christ, secure in our heavenly family as we honour our earthly one.



“Is it true?” is still the question

Questioning the truth

There were over 100 talkative students packed in to the marquee which had been set up in a prominent spot at the centre of the university campus, and the guest speakers for this week of gospel-sharing events were wrapping up the final sessions. What struck me was not only the level of spiritual interest within this supposedly post-Christian generation, but the topic: is the resurrection of Jesus “true”, and what does it mean for us today? The speakers did a great job of outlining in an attractive and compelling way both the evidence for the physical resurrection of Jesus on Easter morning, and the implications of it for our life today.

I am used to hearing speakers enthuse about the “difference Jesus makes”, and even also the hope he to argue that the “post-modern” unconverted need to see that faith “works”, and are not asking “is it true?” The seekers that I meet want to know both, and they are smart enough to know that one (pragmatic relevance) rests upon the other (historical truthfulness). So what a joy to find that in 2017 spiritually interested undergraduates are hearing about the truth of the resurrection.

The resurrection of Jesus is true?

One speaker rehearsed the historical probability of the gospel accounts being literally true when they speak of a tomb with no body in it, and of appearances to a number of disciples on different occasions. He had clearly read and spoken on this theme many times before.

He offered Karl Venturini’s  swoon theory, proposed early in the nineteenth century and later adopted in form by Friedrich Schleiermacher (and more recently, Michael Baigent and Barbara Thiering). According to this, Jesus fainted on the cross, and then revived in the tomb and was rescued by his followers. The experienced student evangelist pointed out the historical improbability of this theory, given the professionalism and effectiveness of Roman execution, and the powerful effect of Jesus post-resurrection on all who met him.

The theory that the women who were the first at the tomb on Sunday morning mistook an empty tomb for the grave of Jesus was rightly dismissed as not only sexist (!) but as poorly fitting the gospel accounts. These record that multiple visits were made to the tomb by followers of Jesus, who had noted his burial place carefully. Furthermore, if they got the wrong grave, why did the Jewish authorities not immediately point out the mistake?

The speaker then alluded to the idea that Jesus’ body had been stolen by the authorities, and pointed out that if this was the case, the corpse is very likely to have been revealed since, but it has not. The suggestion that the disciples were creating a hoax about Jesus’ resurrection to achieve public fame for themselves was shown to be equally unfit as historical theory, given the same absence of a body, and also that most of them soon willingly faced prison and execution for this claim.

Finally, the theory that the disciples and women who saw the risen Jesus according the first written sources were hallucinating was recounted, and against it, the evidence of eminent psychiatrists that the appearances in the accounts do not remotely fit the pattern of hallucinations.

The speaker finished by challenging his sceptical listeners to come up with a better theory that has not been thought-of in the last 2000 years, or to accept the truth of the resurrection.

Time and again, historians and lawyers (see further reading, below) have trawled through the historical evidence and concluded that the interpretation of the eyewitness authors of the gospels is the most likely: on Easter morning Jesus had left the tomb and was about to appear to numbers of people over the following days and weeks showing his victory over sin and death to be complete and commissioning his Church to tell the world this news.

Evidence for God?

There are other strong arguments for the existence of God:

The cosmological (the existence of material objects and causes point to the existence of an immaterial Being who was before creation and initiated change and motion)

The teleological (the order, design and purpose in material objects point to the existence of a final cause, or Being, who has sovereignly overseen their creation to his own glory)

The ontological (the fact that we can imagine a Being as perfect as God points to the existence of such a Being)

The existential (the presence throughout history of a sense of the divine in human culture, especially in the witness of Christians to a transcendent and personal encounter with God through Jesus Christ, points to the existence of God as the source of these experiences)

The moral (the universal sense of right and wrong in human culture points to a Creator whose moral goodness has left this spark of conscience in us)

The aesthetic (the presence and awareness of beauty in the cosmos, whether in the form of music, art or nature, points to the perfect beauty of its Creator, of whom these things are each a taste or scent)

The ecclesiological (in the 2000 years since Jesus’ incarnation, the Church has made mistakes, but its influence upon culture, education, art, compassion, community life, and upon our attitudes to the sick, the disabled, slavery, race, women, and children, has been overwhelmingly good)

Even if some of these evidences for God are arguably stronger than others, I personally, like many, find these evidences for God compelling when gathered together.

Historical evidence that it’s true

But for me the most compelling and reliable place to look for the existence of God, and even more important, for His knowledge, is in His self-revelation in the historical events of the incarnation, crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, for which the historical accounts of the eyewitnesses provide testimony. One of Jesus’ first followers, the apostle Paul, writing within two decades of the events, underlines the centrality of the historical resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15:14, “If Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith”. The reliability of the gospel accounts, on which the truth of the resurrection largely rests, has endured more than a century of sceptical attack from those arguing that the stories are embellished or concocted, but most of this attack has been upon the records of Jesus’ words (not the resurrection accounts), most of it has been well refuted by Biblical scholars, and none of it has yet found a convincing means or reason by which the gospel writers could have invented the resurrection as an explanation for Jesus’ extraordinary influence.

Further reading

Frank Morrison, Who moved the stone? (Authentic Media, 2006)

Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ (Zondervan, 1998)

John Wenham, The Easter Enigma: are the resurrection accounts in conflict? (Wipf and Stock, 2005)

N.T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God (SPCK, 2003)







Tim Keller on doubting our doubts

I have not yet read his new book Making Sense of God but saw this very helpful excerpt on The Gospel Coalition website in which Mr Keller tim-keller-making-sense-of-godsummarises some neat work by Michael Polanyi on exposing the wrong beliefs that sit underneath our sceptical questions. As I am preparing a sermon at the moment on Doubt, I liked the head-on confrontation of the big triggers which make us sceptical, such as unjust suffering, moral atheists, and religious hypocrisy, and the call Polanyi makes on us to see the “defeaters” or unchallenged beliefs which undermine the doubt each time. I look forward to reading the rest of Keller’s book!

The two-thirds Word?

Scrolls-2This month I had the privilege of leading two seminars for our church introducing the Old Testament. I started from the position that for most of us this is a largely closed book (barring Genesis 1-3 and Psalm 23), but that if it is 2/3 of the Bible, we cannot leave it that way.

The Bible after all tells of one covenant (albeit seen from different angles from Noah to Jeremiah) and one God (even if we caricature the God in each “testament” as at odds with that in the corresponding one). The New Testament writers have the Jewish Scriptures running through their veins and regard the two covenants as a continuity through Jesus, who of course lives and quotes “the Bible Jesus read” at all points in the gospels.

It was a rich experience to approach the Old (or better, “first”) Testament through Hebrew eyes in the threefold division of the Hebrew Bible. That is:

The Law (the first five books)

The Prophets (which include not only Isaiah and the others we think of here, but also many “historical” books such as Joshua and Kings, which are profoundly “prophetic”.

The Writings (perennial, proverbial and poetic works headed by Psalms and including Daniel, Ruth, Lamentations and Esther). It was a great exercise to come up with a summary title for each book: so Proverbs is “For when life is complicated” and Job “For when life is tough”.

The audios of the sessions are now on our church website here.

Recommended Books Introducing the Old Testament

I highly rate Alec Motyer’s “Loving the Old Testament” which is as pastoral as it is clear and brief. For heart-warming theology through evangelical but critical use of selected OT books I love Walter Moberley’s “Old Testament Theology”, but those who want a more detailed student-level introduction I’d point towards Dillard and  Longman, or the older and drier, but exemplary, Introduction by GW Anderson. Fee and Stuart’s “How to Read the Bible Book by Book” does the work of a study Bible excellently for those coming cold to, say,  Deuteronomy or Obadiah. For fine print on origins and documentary formation Georg Fohrer’s Introduction is a key reference a serious student can’t ignore, even if a very critical one.

Has evangelicalism forgotten to teach about God?

Teaching a recent series on the nature of God over recent weeks I was asked by several members of our congregation, most of them quite mature Christians, why they had not heard  about some of this stuff before. We like to teach doctrinal series as an alternative to the usual pattern of preaching through a book of the Bible in any one season. Recent series on Christian belief have included The Work of Christ, The Apostles’ Creed,  and The Atonement, but none previously have provoked this puzzlement or felt so  fresh for contemporary evangelicals.

It got me thinking why that would be. Do we not believe that God has a nature or essence at all? Do we believe that if He does, we cannot teach about it because it is too holy (holiness being part of his essence, ironically) or too unknown (which is a denial of the doctrine of revelation and of Christ all in one go).

Our series was not especially “new”. We explored God’s

  • unchangeableness (immutability)
  • majesty (infinity)
  • eternity
  • wisdom (omniscience)
  • oneness (simplicity)
  • holiness
  • love

All of these and more have for centuries been standard ways of naming God’s “attributes”, whether we see each of them as incommunicable (true of God fully, but of us never) or communicable (true of God fully and of us potentially). None of them alone describes God fully, and no words are ever able fully to describe the immortal, wise and invisible God (Romans 16:27, 1 Timothy 1:17) in any case. Yet that should not stop us humbly saying as much as we can about God, for the sake of honouring his majesty and grasping his perfection.

So why do so many evangelical churches rarely, if ever, preach about them?

One answer might be that they are not seen as biblical, since some of these words such as ‘immutability’ or ‘simplicity’ are not used explicitly of God in the Scriptures. In part they owe their language to Greek philosophy such as Stoicism and Platonism. So God’s unchanging character, his “faithfulness”, is a huge Biblical theme, but  his inability to change or develop in knowledge or in nature from his eternal perfection is less so. Calvin preferred to preach about how God acts towards us, not what God is in Himself, feeling this to be the focus of Scripture.

Yet it is hard to argue that these ideas are not fully Christian as theology has adopted them. They are an accurate picture of the God of the Bible in his essence. They have been preached and written about from the earliest Christian centuries in the works of theological greats such as Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Augustine and Aquinas.

So if we as evangelicals should welcome and not be fearful of speaking about the nature of God, why do we not do so more? I can see two reasons:

The emphasis on Biblical Theology as a way of interpreting Scripture has led us to a focus on the activity of God and a neglect of his nature. Biblical theology in the work of Graham Goldsworthy and others has been an invaluable approach to tracing the patterns and purposes of God’s work in salvation history. It has rescued the one Biblical gospel from death by a thousand cuts at the hands of liberal fragmentation and existentialism. Yet I wonder if this focus on the activity of God through the Biblical story has made us neglect systematic theology in general (which attempts to put together the overall truths of God) and the doctrine of God in particular. It has been striking to me how hard it is to find recent works at a popular or undergraduate level about the nature of God. Pete Sanlon’s excellent “Simply God” and Gerald Bray’s “The Doctrine of God” are notable recent exceptions, but there is a dearth of evangelical writing in this area, leaving JI Packer’s “Knowing God” as still to my view the best around, though written over 40 years ago.

The other reason I suspect evangelicals have steered clear of exploring the nature of God is that within our own movement we have emphasised the immanence (closeness to us) of God at the expense of his transcendence (greatness over us). Both aspects of God’s relation to us are precious. However evangelicalism in the last hundred years has moved away from seeing God as majestic, holy and “other”(with notable counter-voices such as Karl Barth and, more conservatively, JI Packer again, along the way) in pursuit of a God who is primarily forgiving, helping and guiding. Puritans such as Stephen Charnock preached sermons about God’s simplicity (meaning His perfection, not his being easily understood!) and in the early 1900s AW Tozer wrote about “The Knowledge of the Holy”, but more recently, God has become “smaller” to us. Put bluntly, we have created an image of God as a “plastic Jesus” who fits in our pocket, ready to bring out when we need him to fix a problem, but not one who awes us, humbles us, and leaves us lost for words.

What can we do to rediscover the otherness, greatness, purity, and perfection of God? I’d love to see more evangelical churches preaching on these themes directly, or when they arise in expository sermons, as a healthy corrective to the “how to” practical sermons that have become common. Let God become bigger to us again.

Such topics as those above are not dry or irrelevant. They bring us face to face with God as He truly is (Isaiah 6), and nothing changes our lives as much as that encounter.