The Old School Preacher

Many preachers are giving up the old ideas about the fall and total depravity of man. People are not often plainly told how that they are guilty sinners before a holy God. The sermons of our forefathers — who used to press this so constantly upon their hearers — are looked upon in many quarters as relics of the dark ages, only fit for the old curiosity shop. There is, however, one preacher left of the old school, and he speaks today as loudly and clearly as ever.

He is not a popular preacher, though the world is his parish, and he travels over every part of the globe, and speaks every language under the sun. He visits the poor; he calls upon the rich; you may meet him in the workhouse, or find him moving in the very highest circles of society. He preaches to both churchmen and dissenters, to people of every religion, and of no religion, and whatever text he may have, the substance of his sermon is always the same.

He is an eloquent preacher, he often stirs feelings which no other preacher can reach, and brings tears into eyes that are little used to weep. He addresses himself to the intellect, the conscience and the heart of his hearers. His arguments none have been able to refute; there is no conscience on earth that has not at some time quailed in his presence; nor is there any heart that has remained wholly unmoved by the force of his weighty appeals. Most people hate him, but in one way or another he makes everybody hear him.

He is neither a refined nor polite preacher. Indeed, he often interrupts the public arrangements, and breaks in rudely upon the private enjoyments of life. He lurks about the doors of the theater and ballroom, bingo club and public house; he frequents the shop, the office, the mill; he has a master key which gives him access into the most secluded chamber; he appears in the midst of legislators, and fashionable churches; neither the villa, the mansion or palace daunt him by their . greatness; and no court or alley is mean enough to escape his notice. Your name is listed for visit.His name is Death.

You have heard many sermons from the old preacher. You cannot take up a newspaper without finding that he has a corner in it. Every tombstone serves him for a pulpit. You often see his congregations passing to and from the graveyard. Every scrap of mourning is a memento of one of his visits. Nay, he has often addressed himself to you personally. The sudden departure of that neighbor, the solemn parting of that dear parent, the loss of a valued friend, the awful gap that was left in your heart when that fondly loved wife or that idolized child, was taken — have all been loud and solemn appeals unto you personally from the old preacher. Some day very soon, he will have you for his text. Are you ready? Are you saved? And in your bereaved family circle, and by your graveside, he will preach unto others. Let your heart turn to God this moment, to thank Him, that you are still in the land of the living — that you have not ere now Died in your sins!

You may get rid of your Bible. You may disprove to your own satisfaction, its histories; you may ridicule its teaching, and despise its warnings; you may reject its Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, of whom it speaks. The day may come when the rising tide of infidelity will cover this land to such an extent that it will be difficult to find a house with a Bible in it. You may get away from the preachers of the gospel. You are not compelled to go to either church, chapel or mission hall. You can cross the street if there is an open air meeting in progress. You can destroy this tract, and make the preaching of Christ a criminal offense. You may get rid of God's word, and God's servants. But what will you do with the old preacher of whom I have spoken? You cannot touch him, or approach unto him. Men may change their opinions and beliefs. But this old preacher has gone on in perfect indifference to the changing events and times of the world for almost 6,000 years. All histories of all time give the same account of him.

Therefore dear reader consider the prospect before you:
Your little day will soon be done. Your pleasures will have an end. Your occupations will be laid aside. Your wealth and honors will be worthless in the solemn hour — for after all "you must needs die." Reader, consider thoughtfully: Life is short,death is sure, sin is the cause, but Christ is the cure.

As saith the scripture — "By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin: and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned" (Romans 5:12), "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgement." (Hebrews 9:27)

Thus sin and death witness to man's great need met in Christ Jesus the LORD. Therefore, God has in love and by the principle of grace made full and tree provision in Christ crucified to meet man's need, and to give it to him exclusively by faith alone in the Lord Jesus Christ, when man has fully repented towards God.

As saith the scripture — "Repent ye and believe the gospel" (Mark 1:15), "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through Him might be saved." (John 3:16-17), "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God not of works lest any man should boast" (Ephesians 2:8-9).

Therefore dear reader — "This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners" (1 Timothy 1:15). Has he saved you? If not, why not? God loves sinners, Christ died for sinners, and will save you a guilty sinner, provided you really believe you are a sinner, and willingly take the sinners place before God, then "Whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved" (Acts 2:21). Do so now, giving God the glory.

- C. A. Coates

If You Believe God Is Real You Will...

Uncomfortable
When revolutionaries start talking about their ideas people start getting uncomfortable. Usually the people most uncomfortable are the people in power and those enjoying the current state of affairs, both these groups have a vested interest in perpetuating the status quo. But there are always people on the fringes, people who are unsatisfied, people who think that there should be something more to life. Whether a movement is political, cultural or spiritual, these groups quickly become apparent whenever a revolutionary shows up. When William Willberforce started talking about abolishing the slave trade in the United Kingdom, a lot of people got uncomfortable. He fought for abolition the rest of his life and only saw the results of his work shortly before his death. When Dr. Martin Luther King jr. showed up in Washington in 1964 to have one of the largest rallies in Washington's history a lot of people were uncomfortable, they were so uncomfortable they wanted him dead, they got their wish but not before he had sparked one of the most transformative movements in American history - the civil rights movement. But there is a far more important revolutionary movement that all too many people have missed. It is more powerful than Democracy, more demanding than Tyranny, it requires more sacrifice than Communism, it is more dominating than Sharia law and is more liberating than Anarchy. It is total surrender to the King of the Universe, the greatest revolutionary who ever lived - Jesus Christ. Concerning the nature of the Lord Jesus' reign, Napoleon said: "Alexander, Caesar, Charlemagne, and I have founded empires. But on what did we rest the creation of our genius? Upon force. Jesus Christ founded His empire upon love; and at this hour millions of men would die for Him." Are you among the millions that would die for Him? They exist, but I think the overwhelming majority of them live in China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia and the hundreds of other countries around the world where to be Christian means commitment, faithfulness, social stigma, being an outcast, public humiliation and often death.

What are the implications of believing in God?
I know a lot of people who say they believe in God but are actually atheists, I know because I used to be one of them. If you would have asked me as a teenager if I was an atheist I would have fervently denied it, but in reality I didn't think about God or base any of my decisions on what God thought. I was one of the people the Bible describes as having "no fear of God before their eyes" (Romans 3:18). Many practical atheists crowed churches on Sundays, they sing hymns, read Christian books and go to entertain themselves at Christian rock concerts which they call "worship events" and pay $35 dollars to get in but haven't ever put that much money in an offering box or ever considered giving that much money away to someone less fortunate. These people are practical atheists because their life shows that they don't trust God, they aren't committed to Him, He has never revolutionized their life. As Al Martin said: "The cross radically disrupts the very center and citadel of your life from self to Christ. And if the cross has not done that (for you) your not a Christian!"

What is True Christianity?
"True Christianity is an all-out commitment to the Lord Jesus Christ. The Saviour is not looking for men and women who will give their spare evenings to Him or their weekends or their years of retirement. Rather He seeks those who will give Him first place in their lives. He looks today, as He has ever looked, not for crowds drifting aimlessly in His track, but for individual men and women whose undying allegiance will spring from their having recognized that He wants those who are prepared to follow the path of self-renunciation which He trod before them. Nothing less than unconditional surrender could ever be a fitting response to His sacrifice at Calvary." -William MacDonald

What Makes a Reconstructionist? A Hatred of "Fundamentalism"

This is a continuation of my posts Is Social Justice compatible with the great commission? and The Churches Main Purpose. This post gives another characteristic of Reconstructionists (those who think we can turn our current world into a heaven on earth).

A Hatred of Fundamentalism.
In my article What is Fundamentalism? and Why Does Everybody Hate It? I define Fundamentalism as the Christian position (not Muslim, they don't call themselves that) that the Bible is fully inspired and infallible, that Jesus Christ is fully God and Man, that He was virgin born and that He died and rose again and is coming back, it also sees the Church as the only organization that is currently inside the redemptive work of Christ and believes "the whole world lies under the sway of the wicked one" (1 John 5:19). Fundamentalism started as a coalition of Christians in the United States whose mission was to stem the tide of unbelief that was flowing from the Theological Liberal movement.

The Theological Liberals of the late 19th century and early 20th century disposed of the truth of the gospel in exchange for a social gospel. A gospel that focused on making the world a better place. One of the most well known and well loved theological liberal was Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. What he had to say about the Fundamentalists is typical of what most of them thought (and still think): "The fundamentalist is quite aware of the fact that scholars regard the garden of Eden and the serpent Satan and the hell of fire as myths analogous to those found in other oriental religions. He knows also that his beliefs are the center of ridicule by many. But this does not shake his faith--rather it convinces him more of the existence of the devil. The critics, says the fundamentalist, would never indulge in such skeptical thinking if the devil hadn't influenced them. The fundamentalist is convinced that this skepticism of scholars and cheap humor of the laity can by no means prevent the revelation of God."
Modern day liberal Rob Bell joins the chorus of fundamentalist bashing by saying: “the people who talk most about heaven when you die talk least about bringing heaven to earth right now.” Sadly, even Tim Keller talks about the "old Pharisaical Fundamentalists." To give Tim the benefit of the doubt, there have been some, like Jerry Falwell, who claimed to be Fundamentalists but were really right-wing evangelicals. But to say the "Old" Fundamentalists, would imply that he is not talking about Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority. I wonder who he is talking about? J. Gresham Machen? R. A. Torrey? C. I. Schofield? B. B. Warfield? These were the original leaders of the Fundamentalist movement, they were a lot of things, but Pharisaical was not one of them. On the contrary, they exposed the Pharisaical practices of the Liberal Church, who claimed Christianity as a title, yet denied Christianities core teachings in exchange for the doctrines of man. Tim Keller's book Generous Justice is helpful on this point. He argues that Justification is the only doctrine that could lead someone to sacrificial care for the poor. He encourages Christians to be poor in spirit, recognizing their sinfulness and the free grace of Jesus Christ when they go to do acts of service to the poor. I think this is an important note to sound, and I think this is really the thrust of Keller's message, although he does have some illusions about redeeming the culture.

Fundamentalists Don't Want To Help Anyone
The Fundamentalists have been caricatured by the Theological Liberals as being uncaring toward the poor. This lie has been spread so much that many Christians have believed it. I sight a whole list of organizations in my post What is Fundamentalism? that have done, and are doing a lot to help the poor. The Fundamentalists saw the error of getting political and separated themselves from politics, however many of them did focus on social concerns like homelessness in America and medical aid and education around the world, but this was done with evangelism as the main purpose. I'm not saying the Fundamentalists did everything right, but they did a lot more right than people give them credit for. Fundamentalism's separation from the media, political sphere and the higher realms of academia left them without a voice in those realms, and therefore an easy target for ridicule and lies, sounds like a similar position to the world that Jesus had in mind for the church when He said "Woe to you when all men speak well of you, For so did their fathers to the false prophets" (Luke 6:26).

So why does the world hate Fundamentalism? Because Fundamentalism undermines the world's philosophy of making the world a better place. The Reconstructionists call the Fundamentalists names like Fundies, Bible Thumpers, Extremists. The media lies about the history of Fundamentalism, grouping them with Terrorists and the Pharisees. But the real reason they hate the Fundamentalists is because they are the biggest threat to the Reconstructionits takeover of the Church.

So should we call ourselves Fundamentalists?
I'm not, the name just has too much baggage in too many peoples minds. I'd rather stick with biblical titles, like "heir of God" or "Christian." The reason I make such a stink about the Fundamentalists is that it is an important chapter in Christian history that has been re-written to make Bible-believing Christianity apologetic about its godly heritage, instead of thankful to the Lord for the work that that generation did. The same thing happened to the Anabaptists. For years it was thought that they were heretical, but when more of their writing was uncovered in the early 20th century it was shown that they were much more biblical in their practices than many of the Reformers that persecuted them. E. H. Broadbent gives a great overview of this in his book The Pilgrim Church. Whenever a Christian group gets bashed a lot by the world (the popular media, academia and political parties), and then certain Christian leaders start doing the same thing, be very suspicious.

The Churches Main Purpose

What is Churches Main Purpose?
This needs to come from the Bible, not from Churches leaders or from para-church organizations. The Lord Jesus said "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature" (Mark 16:15). He didn't say "go into all the world and make it better for everybody," because He is the only one with the power to do that, He is the only One who can say "Behold, I make all things new" (Revelation 21:5). Now that doesn't mean that Christians are let off the hook from doing good. James exhorted us that "Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world" (1:27). As Christians, we need to be doing good and all the basic things that Social Justice organizations are doing are great, but what is their motivation for doing good? If it is not to proclaim the gospel, then it will do little in the light of eternity. There are several things that mark Social Justice groups, the first is Reconstructionism.

Reconstructionism
This is the view that we can make the world a better place to live. Why do Christians think this when the word clearly says "the world is passing away, and the lust of it" (1 John 2:17)? Usually because they have post-millennial eschatology, in other words they believe that Christ is already reigning over the earth right now and that the Church is going to usher in the millennium the Old Testament prophets talked about when "They shall beat their swords into plowshares, And their spears into pruning hooks; Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, Neither shall they learn war anymore" (Isaiah 2:4). What this theology fails to recognize is that the millennium is tied to the second coming of Christ, Isaiah 2:4 opens up with "He shall judge between the nations, And rebuke many people." It is only Christ who can usher in a world wide peace, "The Sun of Righteousness shall arise With healing in His wings; And you shall go out and grow fat like stall-fed calves" (Malachi 2:4). Unfortunately many Christians are falling prey to the idealism tide up into making the world a better place, prominent Christian leaders are promoting this view like N. T. Wright. It sounds great, but is it what Christ had in mind for the Church during this dispensation?

Is Social Justice Compatible With The Great Commission?

World Vision makes a big difference to many children around the world by linking sponsers in wealthy countries with poor children in 3rd world countries. International Justice Mission focuses on rescuing children from sex slavery and labor slavery. Right To Life is a Christian pro-life group that helps pregnant women find alternatives to abortion. None of these projects are by any means bad, no one but the most heartless would ever slam these organizations for what they're trying to do. Perhaps that is why no one dares criticize anything they do, but I have to ask, what is their underlying philosophy for doing these things? As a Christian, I believe that it is good to do good things, but there is more that matters than just doing good. What is the most important thing in life if life goes on after we die?

What these organizations and many other similar non-profits have in common is that they all promote world betterment before they promote the gospel. The gospel is the good news that Christ died for our sins, that He was buried and rose again and is willing to offer eternal life to anyone who turns from their sin to receive Him as the Master of their life and as the only one who can set them free from their inner evil (sin) and make them right with God. Its not that these social justice groups are against the gospel, its just that it isn't number one on their priority list, it often doesn't even make it on the list of priorities. If you talk to a World Vision worker, or listen to someone from IJM or get involved with Right To Life, all of which I have done, you will hear statistics about the great physical needs of children around the world, but nothing of their spiritual condition. In the words of Jesus, "What will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses his own soul?"

Many books have also come out promoting the same agenda. Timothy Keller's new book Generous Justice, is about the need for Christians to get involved in social problems like poverty, aids and clean drinking water. Another book that highlighting these concerns that has been quite popular among evangelical circles is The Hole in Our Gospel by Richard Stearns from World Vision. Richard Streans says that social justice is a necessary part of preaching the gospel. Timothy Keller almost goes that far, but stops short. I think this is a classic example of what Dave Breese warned about, that talking about the social implications of the gospel quickly leads to talking about the social imperatives of the gospel, which is a confusion of the gospel. The gospel is a message about what the Lord Jesus has done and can do to make us right with God, not a message about we can do to make the world a better place, Jesus will do that and that is part of the effects of the gospel. He is going to do that, and when He does, He won't be needing our help. In the mean time we are to love our neighbor and do as much good as possible, but all with the goal of reaching lost people with the word of life, not with the misguided hope of re-decorating a doomed world.

Playing Offense

"If you don't play offense you'll never win," that quote came from controversial American radio host, Rush Limbaugh. Love him or hate him, Rush has got a point. He was speaking about politics, of course, but I think that maxim is true for all realms of life. If a sports team never plays offense (or offence if you're British) they'll never put points on the board, and points are necessary to win. If politicians only slam the other candidates and never present their intended plan of action, they will never get elected, we hope. If an army has great walls for their bases and armor for their troops but no artillery it won't win any wars. The same is true for Christianity, if all it does is defend itself against people and ideas that attack it, it can at best only hope to keep its members, but as a result from all the attacks, will most likely start to lose members over time. I think this is what we are seeing in western Christianity.

Should Apologetics be the New Evangelism?
I've heard Christian leaders say that our age is the age of the apologist, with so many attacks against Christianity, it needs to be defended so the next generation won't leave the faith. Many evangelical seminaries offer advanced degrees in apologetics so our Christian leaders can be well equipped to answer objections to the faith that come from other leading disciplines like philosophy and science. However, as I look at the current scene of modern evangelicalism I see a lot of really educated leaders like the philosopher and president of Fuller Seminary Richard Mouw, The globe trotting evangelist and apologist Ravi Zacharias, the New York City pastor and author of The Reason For God Tim Keller, but are they seeing a lot of converts? A few, but they don't see many. The problem with apologetics replacing evangelism is that it allows the opponent to set the agenda. Of course it depends on how you define apologetics and I think there is a good argument for seeing apologetics as both offensive and defensive as William Lane Craig defines it in his apologetic treatis, that I highly recommend, Reasonable Faith. "Offensive apologetics seeks to present a positive case for the Christian truth claims. Defensive apologetics seeks to nullify objections to those claims" (Reasonable faith pg. xv). The problem I see with most Christian apologetics is that they are very defensive in nature. For example, about 7 years ago a slew of atheistic books came out by "the new atheists," Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and Daniel Dennet. Then the Christians came back with their flood of books answering the atheists objections. Another example would be the ongoing creation debate, Christians knew about evolution back when the Origin of Species came out in 1859, but aside from a general consensus that Evolution was bad, no Christians gave any good scientific counter argument until the 1960's when A. E. Wilder Smith wrote Man's Origin Man's Destiny. The same thing has happened with most debates, the church is next to silent on an issue, like tongues, Hell, modern philosophy, abortion etc. The enemy attacks those weak points and then the church responds, but just a little bit too late. As author and speaker Jabe Nicholson said "the Church suffers a heresy for every doctrine it fails to teach, if the Church doesn't want to deal with a doctrine, the Devil is happy to teach it for them." A lot of those reactionary books from Christians are good, but if the Church continues to only play defense it will continue to lose.

"Preach to people's consciences not to their questions," My friend Sandy Jack said this to me recently. Sandy is on the board of Precious Seed Magazine, which is an extremely helpful Magazine whose primary focus is Bible teaching. Sandy attributed the quote to John Nelson Darby and although I could not find the quote, I trust that it was something to that effect. I think that is another important maxim for Christians to remember, especially when preaching the gospel. The Lord did not answer peoples questions the way they expected, sometimes He didn't answer them at all. When reading John 3, Jesus conversation with Nicodemus, you'll notice that Nicodemus asks questions that get odd answers. Nicodemus says: “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the signs you are doing if God were not with him.” Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.” That's a reply? If someone replied to you that way you might think they didn't hear you, but the Lord was clearly steering the conversation to what mattered most, Nicodemus' soul. The same thing happens in the next chapter with the woman at the well. "The Samaritan woman said to him, “You are a Jew and I am a Samaritan woman. How can you ask me for a drink?” (For Jews do not associate with Samaritans.) Jesus answered her, “If you knew the gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water.” Jesus completely sidesteps her question to get to something infinitely more important, the fact that she isn't just meeting an ordinary Jew, she is meeting the Messiah.

From Epistemology to Sin
A good example of the implications of playing offense instead of defense is the story of when my friend Dave Hammond and a bunch of young guys went to do some evangelism on the University of Nebraska campus in Omaha. Some of the guys and I were taking turns open air preaching, and Dave, a very gifted evangelist from Iowa, was looking for people to talk to. He spotted a college student sitting on a wall within ear shot of the preaching and went over to engage him in conversation. Dave asked the young man what he was reading and he looked up and sarcastically said something like "I'm reading about epistemology, the study of how we know things, and I don't know if you're real, or what that guy over there is saying is real or if anything is real." Dave thought "oh, man I shouldn't have asked," but then said, "well I don't know anything about epistemology, I'm just a dirt farmer from Iowa, but I do know something that's real. My father was an alcoholic for over 20 years and one day he went to church, heard a message about Jesus dying on the cross for his sins and rising again. My dad came home that night and poured all his liquor down the drain and never drank again." The college student had tears in his eyes at this point and admitted that his Dad was an alcoholic, he apologized for being rude and Dave had a great opportunity to explain the good news to him. That is preaching to someone's conscience instead of to their questions, that is playing offense instead of defense. It means that we have to rely on the Holy Spirit's guidance, instead of our own wit. It doesn't mean that we will never defend the faith, there is certainly a need for that as Jude says: "I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints." But our primary message should be one of presenting the Word of God to man, not answering man's objections to the idea of God. “Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things (Luke 24:46-48).

Ecclesiastes Overview

The Old Man And The Sea, written by the Qoheleth of the 20th century, Ernest Hemingway, is the tale of an old fisherman who hasn’t caught a fish in 80 days. He goes out to sea determined to catch something, and rows out further than he has ever gone. When he is about 20 miles off the cost of Cuba a giant sword fish grabs his line; he holds on for dear life as he and his little row boat are dragged out to sea. He knows this is the biggest fish he has ever caught and that it will bring a big prize back home. For a day and a half he holds on to the fish until he is finally able to pull it close enough to his little boat to spear it to death. He eats some of it, since his food has run out, and he begins rowing back home, dragging the fish in the water. On the way back sharks attack, and try as he might, he cannot fend them off. By the time he arrives back at the dock, all that is left of the fish is a long skeleton. The other fishermen are amazed at what he has done, but the only thing to do with the bones is to throw them back out to sea. This is the story of Ecclesiastes; the story of our life without God.
About Ecclesiastes
The genre of the book is wisdom literature, but is more philosophical then Job or Proverbs as Peter Kreeft says: “Ecclesiastes is the only book of philosophy, pure philosophy, mere philosophy, in the Bible.” Traditionally scholars have attributed it to Solomon, which seems the best guess since to assume otherwise would mean that the author was impersonating Solomon. Although the book does not use Solomon’s name, it gives hints as to who wrote it in verses like: “I the Preacher have been king over Israel in Jerusalem. And I applied my heart to seek and to search out by wisdom all that is done under heaven… I said in my heart, I have acquired great wisdom, surpassing all who were over Jerusalem before me” (English Standard Version, Ecclesiastes 1:12, 16). It would make the most sense that this is referring to Solomon since the Lord had promised him wisdom: “I give you a wise and discerning mind, so that none like you has been before you and none like you shall arise after you” (1 Kings 3:12), and the Bible says that “he was wiser than all other men” (1 Kings 4:31); however, the fact that the book does not tell us who wrote it is probably more important than arguing about who the author is. The name comes from the Greek word for preacher, but it is called “the words of the preacher” in Hebrew. The Hebrew title shows us that the identity of the preacher does not matter as much as what he is saying. The Hebrew word for preacher is Qoheleth, which has a deeper meaning than the English word preacher; it literally means “one who calls an assembly,” conveying the idea of a debater. Assuming Solomon was the author, the book was probably written in Jerusalem a little later in his life, around 930 B.C. Although some have disputed Ecclesiastes’ right to be in the Bible because of its contrast to the rest of the Bible, that has actually been one of the better reasons for keeping it in the Scriptures. People often best learn things by contrast, and Ecclesiastes provides a contrast to the rest of the Bible by showing what life would be like without God. Solomon wrote this book after his life of chasing after meaning. He had been “wiser than all other men” (1 Kings 4:31), but had made many foolish decisions. He was writing to warn people of the dangers of trying to find ultimate meaning in any of the pursuits of life. He concludes that only a relationship with God can provide ultimate meaning and purpose.
Ecclesiastes has been called “one long comment on the words of Christ, ‘Everyone who drinks of this water will be thirsty again.’”

Ecclesiastes is a hard book to outline, at first glance it seems disorderly and meandering, but the author is doing this on purpose in order to give a sense of the purposelessness of life, a rambling to nowhere. He is actually setting out on a quest. More than just an intellectual question, a quest is a lived question. Qoheleth sets out to examine the aimlessness of life. In chapters one through two he examines the things he has sought - wisdom, pleasure, money and power, ritualized religion and altruism - and declares them all worthless. In chapters three through six he looks at the things he has seen, examining the emptiness of what the world has to offer. Throughout the book he continuously explains why everything “under the sun” is incapable of offering real satisfisfaction. He then looks at the things he has studied in chapters seven through ten - the frustration of the fleeting nature of life, the fallacy of being great in life, and the failure of life’s end. Then he turns to the facts of the triumph of fate and folly in life. His summary, in chapters 11 and 12, is admiting that life is vain aside from fearing the Lord.

Peter Kreeft summarized the theme of the book as an argument: “All toil is ‘under the sun,’ all ‘under the sun’ is vanity; therefore, all toil is vanity.” Ecclesiastes helps us see the need for God by His absence. Like all the truly important people who are never fully appreciated until they are gone, God’s absence from the book of Ecclesiastes is an explanation of the need for his inclusion in life. One biblical truth from the book is relevancy. Through the centuries Ecclesiastes has stayed relevant because it explains what life is all about. No matter where people are, where they live, what language they speak or what socio-economic background they come from, the picture of life given in Ecclesiastes is applicable to them. In this way Ecclesiastes is screaming that God is relevant. No matter what "new" things are invented, or what "new" intellectual movements happen, “there is nothing new under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 1:9). Without God involved in every area of life, it is pointless. This true knowledge of God in every area of life - knowing the relevant God - involves fearing Him and keeping His commandments. Jesus later explains that the motivation to keep his commandments comes out of a love for him, “If you love me, you will keep my commandments” (John 14:15).

The brevity of life is another important theme in the book. There are many verses in the Bible that speak about our life being like grass - hear today and gone tomorrow. The book of Ecclesiastes opens with a barrage of verses like this: “A generation goes, and a generation comes, but the earth remains forever” (1:4), and ends similarly, “Remember also your Creator in the days of your youth, before the evil days come and the years draw near of which you will say, I have no pleasure in them” (12:1). Ecclesiastes is a reminder of how short life is in a world where we cannot see God. By showing us the brief nature of this life it inadvertently points us beyond what we can see with our eyes to God, who we can only see with the eye of faith.

Many current philosophies admit that life is meaningless. The atheist Richard Dawkins says about the meaning of life: “DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music,” in his view we exist, but have no meaning. Buddha said that “All this is not mine, I am not this, this is not myself,” according to him, we don’t even exist let alone have meaning. Ecclesiastes affirms these popular views of life as pointless, but then offer an alternative view. Life as seen through the lens of fearing God - respecting His presence - and obeying God – coming into a relationship with Him in which we love Him and keep His commandments – will lead to true meaning in life.

Background information about Ecclesiastes used in this article was gotten from William MacDonald's Believers Bible Commentary, John Phillips' Exploring the Scriptures, A. M. Hodgkin's Christ in All The Scriptures and Peter Kreefts' Three Philosophies of Life