Sermon Extension: Joy

 This past Sunday, the focus of the sermon was on JOY! I wanted us to start off the Advent season looking at embracing the glad tidings of great joy that the birth of Jesus is for all people. I think it's one of the major things that we miss out on--of course, there is another part of the issue that I didn't get deeply into during the sermon.

I did touch on the idea that joy, being a fruit of the Spirit, is much like regular fruit: it takes time to cultivate and grow it. That means that we're probably better off to work all through the year to cultivate joy and not just wait until Christmas to try and find space for joy. It's not the answer most of us want: we want joy right now like we want patience yesterday! but the truth is, growth takes time. 

Now, as with all motivational talk, remember this point: the best time to start was back then, the next best time is right now. After all, you don't want to wait another year to start, right?

Some additional:

A book I just finished, which I did lean on for this sermon, was Alastair Sterne's Longing for Joy  which was recently published by IVPress. I've read another work by Sterne, Rhythms for Life, and have enjoyed his writing style. He's much more of a creative type of person than I am, which fits since he's worked in creative career fields before entering paid ministry. 

I would highly endorse this particular book.

Sermon Addendum for October 16 2024

 We continue on in our sermon series in 1 John. There's not enough space in a sermon or this blog to cover all the details of the Johannine Letters. I would recommend you pick up Letters to the Church by Karen Jobes for some of those background pieces of information.

An important part of the background material on any letters in the New Testament is who wrote it. When you look at the letters of John, there are several theories of authorship related to these three short books. First, you should take note that, unlike the Pauline Letters, John's letters carry absolutely zero authorship claims. The closest you get is that 2 and 3 John claim to be written by "The Elder," but this is a title and not a name.

Our options for authorship are the traditional view that John the Apostle, author of the Gospel of John, wrote these letters. He's not named in named as the author of any of these letters, but longstanding church traditions identify him as the author. We, of course, cannot prove it. This tradition is generally held, it does not really have any significant counter-evidence. It's more a matter of questioning whether or not the lack of evidence is enough to drive us to a different view.

The second view, which does have a fairly solid following, is that there is another early church leader named John who wrote the letters, but he's not the same guy as the Apostle John. This theory separates "John the Apostle" from "John the Elder."

This comes from a comparison of grammar and vocabulary between the Gospel and the letters. Some scholars interpret the differences between 1 John and 2/3 John as showing that the author of the first letter is not the author of the other 2. 

The last viewpoint of significance is that the letters are written much later, after the 1st century, and attributed to John by a group of disciples who trace their heritage back to John. That holds sway in some academic circles, but there are some manuscripts of these letters that do not allow them to be composed much later than 150 AD. 

Why does the authorship matter?

Well, 1 John starts off talking about being an eyewitness to Jesus. If John the Apostle wrote it, he's an eyewitness to Jesus and many other things. If it's written by an anonymous group some fifty years later, that's another matter entirely.

The authorship issues also connect with date issues: when are 1, 2, and 3 John written? They are probably not written in the same year as each other, though 2 and 3 have some similarities that suggest they were written close together.

The timing of the writing then helps us understand what issues may have prompted John to write. It also tells us whether he's writing to churches that possibly have written Gospels of Matthew, Mark, or Luke in hand, or maybe have received letters from Paul.

Information like this does not dictate the meaning of the text, but it helps us as we strive to understand what's happening in the text.

Sermon Addendum: Letters of John

So, I just didn't really finish strong on Psalm PSeptember 2024 with additional sermon information. You know what they say: you can't win them all. And I'm a Razorback fan, so sometimes not only can I not win them, I can't close out good starts well, either.

We're going to move forward, though, instead of dwelling on past mistakes, let's go make some new mistakes!

Our next two months of sermons will come from the Letters of John in the New Testament. These three books, labeled I John, II John, and III John (or 1, 2, and 3 John, depending on your Bible printer!) are traditionally ascribed to John the Apostle, but there will be some discussion of that later.

Instead, what I want to do here is give you some resources to look at, partly as a glimpse toward sermon production. I know I've covered some those ideas before on this blog, but let's face it: it's been a while and you probably didn't read those posts anyway.

The first resource for a sermon is the only one that is absolutely critical: you've got to have a Bible. You can't preach without a Bible. And preferably a Bible in your own language, because that's the language you will preach in and your hearers will listen in! Fortunately, gone are the days, at least in most Christian traditions, where the Scripture was read in Latin, the sermon (or homily) was delivered in Latin, and the non-Latin speaking churchgoers just had to hope it was okay.

On Bibles, I like using a more "formal" type of translation. For years, I used the New American Standard Bible translation, the 1995 Update. Then I decided to be a good Southern Baptist and use the very nice Christian Standard Bible translation (2013 version) that Lifeway gave me. Both the NASB95 and the CSB are good translations. The CSB is a little less "formal" than the NASB, and what that means is the English is more like how we talk and a little less like the Greek odd structures. 

These days, I use the NET Bible translation, the most recent print version in their "Full Notes Edition." I like the methodology and such. 

That's always the first thing for a sermon: Bible. If you don't have one handy, preach only what you have correctly memorized. If you're not sure you have the verse right, don't preach it.

Second resource: I'm using my Tyndale House Greek New Testament. I'm happy to be back preaching in the New Testament because I can do some of my own language work. I won't preach "my translation" because I am not good enough with Greek to correct Bible translators, but I am good enough that it helps me understand better. And I can see what is going on underneath the English. This resource couples with the Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek (GE for quick reference) and the third edition of A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature (BDAG for short). Along with the occasional glance at a reference grammar like Wallace's Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics.

(This helps me understand some of the differences in 1 John 1:1 between translations. More on that, probably next week.)

Third resource stack is the commentary stack. Commentaries come in several "profiles," from technical to devotional. The technical ones do a lot with grammar and historical studies; the devotional ones do a lot with "what it means for us now." Most commentaries do all of the above, but the mix is what defines the profile.

Commentaries also come with different assumptions. Some, like the New American Commentary/Christian Standard Commentary series assume most of the traditional understandings of the text, like John the Apostle being the author, etc., are true and should only be abandoned if there is an abundance of indisputable evidence. Others, like the Word Biblical Commentary Series, tend to go the other way: assume the tradition is not valid unless you can prove it.

There are others that note specific aspects of the text. These look at ideas like "socio-rhetorical" issues or "discourse analysis" issues. Either one helps you look at the text a little differently than just as normal English writing on a page. After all, the original was not mass-printed English writing in a book.

It was hand-written by a person in a culture, place, time, and situation. The more we learn about those, the better we might understand what was meant in the writing!

Commentaries that I will use for 1-3 John sermons? Here's a list:

I, II, III John: A Handbook on the Greek Text (Baylor Handbook on the Greek New Testament) by Martin M. Culy.

1-3 John (Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament) by Robert Plummer and E. Roderick Elledge.

1, 2, 3 John: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture (vol. 38, New American Commentary) by Daniel L. Akin.

An Exegetical Summary of 1, 2, and 3 John by John L. Anderson.

Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on Titus, 1-2 Timothy and 1-3 John by Ben Witherington.

1, 2, and 3 John (Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament) by Karen H. Jobes.

There will be others--I'll consult with my Ancient Christian Commentary volume that covers these books as well as a few other options, but those ar the starting points.

That is how the sermon series starts: a lot of background learning as well as consulting with others who God has blessed us with, others who can help me understand the text of the Word of God.

Sermon Addendum for 1 Samuel 14

This past Sunday, I wrapped up preaching on 1 Samuel (for this year). A section I skipped over was 1 Samuel 14, which is the story of Jonathan, the son of Saul, going to pick a fight with the Philistines with just his armor-bearer.

What makes this story relevant is that Saul had violated God's instruction in 1 Samuel 13 because Saul was afraid the army was deserting him and the Philistines would mop the valley floor with what he had left. So, Saul broke God's law by offering the burnt offerings to consecrate the warriors and seek God's favor in battle. Samuel arrived and rebuked Saul, and this is one of the early steps in Saul's decline as a king. 

His fear, though, is shown to be misplaced. Jonathan and his armor-bearer climb over to the Philistines, start the battle, and the people of Israel win a significant victory. In truth, the only downside of the whole situation is when Saul vows that no one should eat or drink until the battle is won. He makes this vow, pronouncing a curse on anyone who violates it!

Naturally, you cannot see everything that is happening, nor can you get the word of your vows all around the battlefield. Jonathan, who started the battle, gets hungry as he chases Philistines and comes across some honey. He eats a bit, gets his energy renewed...just in time to hear that his father has cursed those who did such a thing!

Further, after the battle, the warriors are so hungry they are eating unclean meat from animals in the aftermath of the battle. Saul does have the good sense to get involved and make sure the meat is properly served kosher so that they do not bring more judgment from God.

Then, Saul finds out that Jonathan has eaten during the battle and plans to put him to death...but the rest of the army stops him. It is, after all, hard to execute the hero.

What is relevant here?

First: sometimes our fears feel very real, but they are less than we think. Saul feared losing the battle, and that fear drove him to disobedience. Jonathan proves this fear was wrong--even though it was grounded in logic and normal situations, it was not quite as bad as Saul thought.

Second: vows that you make before the Lord God should only include yourself. You ought not vow that others will do something. That's not in your rights, even if it is within your power to try and enforce compliance.

Third: bad vows should be abandoned. Seriously: Jephthah in Judges and Saul here show us that rash vows are destructive. Destructive to trust, destructive to faith, destructive to lives.

There's a whole sermon there, but something to keep in mind: through all of this, following God's commands would have made it simpler. And trusting God's promises to deliver would have alleviated a great deal of stress.

That's a lesson worth remembering.

Sermon Extension: Lord's Supper Thoughts August 2024

This week's sermon wasn't really one that I think there are details or rabbit trails that had to be left aside to stay on track. Instead, we were observing the Lord's Supper. Rather than rehash the details, instead I would point you here to different types of sermons.

Some sermons are meant to push ahead and plow new ground. By that, not new Scripture, but rather introduce new concepts to the congregation. The way I understand preaching, that comes in helping people see the connection between the timeless truth of the text and a current application of that timeless truth. A good example would be revisiting the truth of James 1:27 about caring for orphans, connecting that application to the idea that we ought to be personally involved in such things, and showing a new pathway to meet needs for orphans in the community. It's a timeless truth connecting to a "new" application.

(After all, there's not 'new' truth in the text. There may be truths that we haven't talked much about or have overlooked, but it's all been there since the beginning.)

Some sermons are meant to push hard against a known problem, revisiting a well-known truth and a well-known application, but seeing that the congregation just, well, is not doing what the text says to do. An example would be found in the timeless truth that God's love is for all people and that eternity sees "every tribe, tongue, and nation" gathered around the throne in worship, which then helps us to see that judging some races as "not as good as us" is sinful. If racism is cropping back up, the sermons that push back are coming up again. It's a reminder, perhaps a rebuke.

Other times, though, the reminder sermon is more encouraging. The well-known truth is that God loves you and will never leave you alone. The application of this timeless truth is to trust in God as everything else goes crazy, and that we should be there to encourage and support one another. As plants close and jobs disappear, as chaos develops around us, that's easy to forget. So we need that reminder.

Lord's Supper Sundays hit another reminder: a time for reflection, a time for remembering all that has gone before us. A time for remembering that we are not the only Christians nor even the first Christians! Instead, we can remember that we are part of two thousand years of the work of God in this world.

And that's more what the focus was: a bit more introspective and contemplative. Now, whether or not it came out that way is another story! But that was the goal--every sermon seeks to accomplish a purpose. Communicating the basics of the Gospel should always be part of the goal: that Jesus died, Jesus rose, Jesus ascended, Jesus is coming back. There are, however, additional purposes.

One thing I've seen some preachers talk about is the value of doing a feedback group of mature church members, but I've so far not found a good way to approach that.

Sermon Addendum for June 30 2024

 What got left out of the sermon this past Sunday?

Lots of things:

First, background on 1 Samuel: It's a long work, and as best can be told, our 1 and 2 Samuel were 1 work, divided at the "this scroll is too big" line. We do not know who wrote it, but it covers too long of an era to likely have a single author. At the very least, the author works from records passed forward to his time frame. (Yes, given the source culture it is reasonable to assume a male author.) Some traditions put everything from 1 Samuel through the end of 2 Kings as compiled in their final form by one author working from the official court records of Israel, then Israel and Judah. 

We do see him anticipate the installation of kings over Israel as well as the inauguration of the Temple. The references to both of these institutions at the beginning suggest that the author is familiar with them, and some scholars think the authorship fits post-Exile, meaning he's perhaps even pining for them.

Speaking of things being "post-Exile," it's a good time to remind you of the general outline of Old Testament History:

You start with: Adam, Noah, Abraham, and Moses. 

Then you take the people into the Promised Land with Joshua, have the time of the Judges and Ruth.

After which comes the United Kingdom, Israel, has three kings: Saul, David, and Solomon, and it falls apart into two kingdoms. The Northern Kingdom is called "Israel" and has all bad kings. The Southern Kingdom is called "Judah" and some good, but mostly bad, kings. Israel is destroyed by Assyria in 722 BC, Judah is destroyed by the Neo-Babylonian Empire in 586 BC. 

The destructions resulted in exile and resettlement, but under the Medo-Persian Empire, the Israelites return to the land under the leadership of Ezra and Nehemiah.

1 Samuel covers the development from the Judges to the United Monarchy.

Second, textual info in 1 Samuel: 1 and 2 Samuel pose some of the bigger challenges in Old Testament textual criticism--that is, the science of discerning the original document from the extant sources. I'm not an expert in the field, so we won't really delve into it. I would recommend a good technical commentary on 1 & 2 Samuel to help examine what is happening here. There are some significant differences that will come up between the Masoretic Text (the Hebrew text most English Bibles are based on), the Septuagint (the Greek text made around 200 BC), and the Dead Sea Scrolls (both their Hebrew and other language versions of this text). 

The main points of doctrine and even of history are the same, but some of the details develop a bit differently.

Finally, left out of Sunday's sermon was a strong critique of a society that valued women primarily for childbirth. Why? While it may seem appropriate to note that women should not be limited to only one future and not be counted worthwhile without meeting that one target, it's not present in this text. We do not see anyone say to Hannah: "No, you are valid and worthwhile without children and everyone needs to straighten up."

Instead, we see God answer her prayer. Over the course of all Scripture, I think we can see the critique of the "moms are better than anything else" point of view, but it's not here. We should be careful not to press a viewpoint into the text if it is not there.

On top of that: where does the situation go, if Hannah is not used by God to bring Samuel into this world? What happens then?

Also left out, because I would not likely have chased it anyway: the attempt to read this narrative downward from the definite work of God to it being just another "hero story" like many ancient cultures, beginning with the "heroic birth" of the special child. First, I think that downplays the uniqueness of the Bible. Second, arguably, the "hero" of 1-2 Samuel is David. Samuel, Saul, Hannah, Eli, are all part of the setup. I don't buy it, but my presupposition is that the text of the Bible says what the truthful God wants it to say. Interpretations that start from a perspective of "God's not particular about being honest" are outside what I will consider, normally.

Sermon Addendum June 23rd 2024

 Sermon Addendum June 23rd 2024

(Keep in mind, the date is for the sermon, not the post :) )

This past Sunday, I wrapped up the sermon series in Acts that I’ve been doing for several months. There wasn’t enough time to get all the way through Acts, and when it comes to Acts you either need about 2 years or you have to leave something out. After all, one of my “want but am not spending the money” book purchases is Craig Keener’s four volume commentary on Acts. We do Acts a disservice if we only read it as one-off actions stories.

So, what’s going on in Acts 15?

First, it’s the justification for what is called in church history The Conciliar Movement. At least, one of my textbooks used that label. Most of what we deem standard (orthodox) Christian doctrine is born from bodies of church leaders in the 2nd-5th Centuries AD gathering and establish what Scripture means, how Christianity understands the truths contained in the Word. For example, our understanding of God in Three Persons, the Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, was defined by the Councils of the Early Church. It is drawn from Scripture’s revelation of the nature of God, but there is a lot of Bible about God.

And the idea that a group of wise Jesus-followers can make plain what Scripture means starts here in Acts 15, where Peter, Paul, James, Barnabas, and others gathered to sort out how the Old Testament Law needed to be applied on the current church.

Second, we see some basic guidelines on how the Old Testament Law needs to be applied on the current church! Note the nature of the four instructions passed on to the Gentiles. As we look at the expectations given to the people, these were about clear worship (abstaining from idols); clear lifestyle (abstaining from sexual immorality); and clear fellowship (avoiding foods that would have re-divided Jew and Gentile). And the last one we see some development through later years under Paul’s authority as he mitigates that command somewhat. (He never backs up from avoiding idolatry and immorality.) As we examine the traditions and expectations of years gone by, our questions could rightly come back to these: are we clearly worshiping only Jesus? Are we honoring God with our lifestyle? Are we strengthening our fellowship with one another or being self-absorbed?

Third thing that we see here is some of the leadership of the church in Jerusalem. We see James, and we know it is not James Zebedee, as he died earlier in Acts (Acts 12). So it’s another James. Usually we connect him to James the (half-)brother of Jesus, and author of the Biblical book of James. We see Peter, we see Paul, we see Barnabas. Both the primacy of James as spokesman and the equality of all to share their views are important here.

Finally, Acts 15 wraps up with perhaps one of the sadder moments in the flow of the story of the early Christians. Paul and Barnabas have a sharp disagreement, sharp enough that they no longer work together. The text’s statement of “they parted company” implies something deeper than a “well, agree to disagree, see you later,” moment but more of a “Nope, we’re done” kind of event. Tragically, we sometimes go down that path: it is okay to have a disagreement, but strive to keep it from causing you to “part company.” That’s an important idea to keep in mind, that we can disagree. We can even decide that we are not going to work with someone because our approaches are too different. But preferences and styles should never drive us apart in our relationships.

Sermon Recap for March 31 2024

Good morning! Here we are, done with March and moving into April...here is yesterday (Easter Sunday) morning's sermon.

Discussion thoughts on February 25 2024 Sermon

 I'm still experimenting with PulpitAI to create supporting content for the sermons...here are some discussion questions it generated from February 25th's sermon:

1. In Mark 10:35-45, James and John seek positions of honor beside Jesus, yet Jesus teaches a lesson on servant leadership. Reflect on a time when you sought personal advancement. How does this passage challenge your understanding of true greatness in the kingdom of God?

2. Jesus describes His mission as giving His life as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45). What does the concept of ransom mean to you, and how does it deepen your understanding of Jesus's sacrifice?

3. The sermon speaks to the value that God places on us, suggesting that we are worth more than the greatest treasures of the world. How does this notion of divine worth influence the way you see yourself and others?

4. How can we practically live out servant leadership in our daily lives? Consider Philippians 2:3-4, which encourages us to value others above ourselves and look to their interests. Discuss ways you can embody this scripture in your community.

5. Discuss the importance of gratitude and praise in our spiritual walk, as mentioned in the sermon. How can cultivating a thankful heart impact our perspective on life's challenges?

6. Reflect on the historical context of ransom and redemption. How does understanding the weight of this concept in ancient times enrich the meaning of Christ's sacrifice for us today?

7. The sermon suggests that many remain unaware of their spiritual liberation. In light of Matthew 28:19-20, how can we as a church body work to share the message of freedom found in Christ?

8. The sermon concludes with a call to spread the life-changing message of Christ's liberating sacrifice. How can you, as an individual and as part of a faith community, contribute to this mission? Consider Acts 1:8 as a starting point for this discussion.

9. In your own journey of faith, how has the idea of living as a servant leader transformed your relationships and approach to leadership within your family, workplace, or church?

10. The sermon emphasizes that through Jesus's ransom, we are liberated from sin and death and can return to the Father. How does this assurance of spiritual freedom and divine acceptance affect your day-to-day life and decisions? Reflect on Romans 8:1-2 as you discuss this question.

Sermon Addendum: Mark 7

 This week's sermon was from Mark 8, as we looked at the feeding of the 4,000. You can go back to yesterday's post to watch or listen if you're interested. 

What I feel like I should catch up on here is Mark 7, which I skipped over entirely. Why? Well, I know that some preachers can be interesting while staying in the same book of the Bible for 3 years; others have multiple opportunities to preach, so they can keep one series on the same book for a long time and do other portions of Scripture at other times.

I can't. Truth be told, I get a bit bored my own self, because one of the aspects of sermon prep that I love is background study, and after awhile, you've studied the background and there's not much else to dig out. Unless, of course, you have the budget to load up on an entirely new pallet of resources. Who doesn't love more books?

Still, Mark 7 has some important points. At the end of the chapter, there are two key moments of Jesus teaching and healing among the Gentiles. He's in the region of Tyre and then in the region of the Decapolis, and it is from the Decapolis that the crowd for the Feeding of the 4,000 came.

The first is the oft-discussed encounter with the Syro-Phoenician woman, where we have to wrestle with Jesus appearing to be unnecessarily harsh with a person in need. After all, He initially turns down the request, then seems to call her a dog. At the very least, He accepts her self-designation as somewhat less than a child. Usually, we see this as a discussion of priority in Jesus' mission: He goes first to the people of Israel, she is a Gentile and therefore comes after the children of God. Yet we also see that Jesus readily performs this miracle (and in a parallel passage, commends her faith in a way that never does an Israelite!), so perhaps the bigger point is that neither she, nor any of the Greeks, are a dog. 

They are all children of God.

Then Jesus moves down to the region of the Decapolis (Ten Cities, all around the Sea of Galilee) where He encounters a deaf man who has difficulty speaking--usually considered a deaf-mute, but it just reads slightly odd for that to me. Jesus heals the man after taking him away from the crowd. Jesus sticks His fingers in the man's ears, spits (where, we don't know), and then touches the man's tongue.

And the man is healed. It has to be the oddest connection of actions described in connection with a miracle of Jesus that we see in the Gospels. Why does He do all of this when He can heal at a word? And at a distance?

We have no idea. There are some who think Jesus is hiding meaning in His actions, but it is very infrequent that Jesus does not explain the hidden meaning to someone--like His disciples. All in all, we do not know.

We do know that He can heal. He can make possible the restoration of those things which are lost, whether children or senses or even just our own self-worth: you're not a dog. You're a child of God. Your redemption will be costly, but He would not have you left unredeemed.

Sermon Addendum for January 21 2024

 This past Sunday, January 21, 2024, I preached on the Feeding of the 5,000 as it is recorded in Mark 6. I thought I'd take a moment here to highlight a couple of things that I didn't draw out on Sunday. After all, the more I draw out, the longer the sermon draws out...

First, we should note that the Feeding of the 5,000 (I don't think the style guide says that should be capitalized, but it's a singular event in history, so that's a good way to be clear) comes right on the heels of Jesus hearing about John the Baptist's death. Jesus had sent his disciples to preach, teach, and heal (Mark 6:7-13), and while they were gone, Herod got worked up. I don't think I made clear in the sermon as well as I should that, while Mark tells of John's execution here, it's clearly something that had taken place farther in the past.

The drive for the Feeding of the 5,000 is Jesus wanting to take the Apostles away from the chaos to rest up after their preaching mission. However, Mark clearly wants to draw a contrast with Jesus and Herod here, so he puts the remembrance of the execution here.

So, the people who have come out to see Jesus, hear Jesus teach, and who eventually eat the bread and the fish are uninvited interlopers in a private meeting. Yet there is no reproach from the Lord Jesus to them for showing up. Instead, they are greeted with compassion, teaching, and feeding. 

How do we manage the uninvited? There are several ways to unravel that knot, but just consider: often, churches have "targeted" outreach. Somewhere, a committee has decided who they really want in church, and then the church designs for them.

What happens when other people show up? People who are younger? Older? Richer? Poorer? More Black, Hispanic, White, Korean, Chinese? More Republican? More Democrat? You get the point.

Do we feed them? Do we have compassion? Do we teach them? Or do we say to them, "You set over there on the floor, these seats are reserved."?

The answers to those questions should come from Jesus, not our marketing experts or denominational gurus.

Second, we should note that the disciples point out that it is already "very late" in v. 35. They've really pushed past the point where anybody will have a good solution to the problem. This isn't the preacher going until 1:30 and the buffets are closed, He's gone until the Taco Bell has closed for the night. There are no good options out there.

The disciples were leaning toward sending the people away in the dark, hungry, to go figure it out when the individuals would have no better luck solving this problem than the group would. The disciples were trying to wash their hands of any responsibility for fellow human beings. Jesus was not going to put up with that. He won't tolerate it from us forever, either.

Third, God does nothing by half-measures. There is no doubt when God works. He is never "just enough." He's always more than--much more. Not a lagniappe but a dozen extra baskets!

Sermon Addendum for August 22 2023

Following up on yesterday's sermon, it's important for us to understand how much had changed in Israel leading into the time of Haggai. These were not simple times in Haggai 2, because the people of Israel were not really in a place to do what their ancestors had done: most of the people gathered for the dedication of the new Temple were born after the original had been destroyed. Many had come back from Babylon, where their songs had been much more akin to Psalm 137 than Psalm 24.

Additionally, it is worth remembering that we often see the past in what I've heard called "rosy retrospection." That is, we look back and think things were far better than they were: we remember the good parts, but one can turn the pages back to the end of 2 Kings and know that things in Jerusalem were not good at all when the Exile came. One can, and should, weep over the loss of good things from the past, but be careful to remember all the aspects of the past and do not weep for that which was wrong. We can, in our day, rightly weep that the time has gone in which you could leave your doors unlocked or when firearms at school were probably squirrel guns left in the truck in the parking lot. These losses are tragic.

It is not tragic, however, to have lost racial segregation or to have empowered women to flee abusive marriages--both of which are changes in law and social habits that started in the late 20th century as the sad changes happened. Be careful not to weep over things which are not worthy of it. The Israelites would have been right to weep over losing the Temple, but they should also have remembered it was their own idolatry that brought the Exile and destruction in the first place.

Further, looking ahead, we do have to separate what was the clear work of God in bringing the Messiah from what is our responsibility. God brought the greater glory to the Second Temple through bringing Jesus. We will not see the Messiah come back quite the same way, so this batch of events and promises is more about helping us see how God has worked in the past and draw hope and inspiration, rather than a template going forward.

Because God does continue to work, even in the days when it looks like there is very little left to work with.

Sermon Addendum August 15 2023

This past Sunday, we looked at three of the times that God led people across a body of water that would have been an obstacle. The main passage was Joshua 3 as they crossed the Jordan River coming into the Promised Land, but the other examples were Exodus 14 and 2 Kings 2. The first is the well-known crossing of the Red Sea and the second is Elijah and Elisha's crossing of the Jordan before Elijah's passing.

The primary aim was to raise our awareness that God does not always work exactly the same way, but He does always retain and demonstrate the same character. God does not change who He is, even as how He works adjusts in various times. For example, the ways in which God worked through faithful people to part waters was different in each story--each event was unique, though all three showed God is bigger than the obstacles in front of you. And bigger than the chaos.

What else can we gather from this? A few quick points:

1. There are always obstacles. There are always challenges. Giving up is not the option that you think it is--notice what happens if you do not follow through from where you were stuck: the Egyptians get you. The Promised Land remains unentered. You never see the chariots of fire and glimpse the spiritual reality behind normal vision.
2. Obeying God will bring you to those obstacles. We need to get over our mindset that obedience is always easy, that God will smooth the path before we get to the hurdles. We will encounter resistance and then we will have to come back to faith and obedience again.
3. There are always next steps to take after the big ones. And those can be just as challenging.

Sermon Addendum: Wrapping up the Flood

 As we finish off the Flood narratives, there are a few additional thoughts on the entire story that I think fit this category of “sermon addendum.”

First, we should note that the whole of the Flood situation arises because of God pouring out His judgment on the Earth. Sin has negative consequences and the accumulation of it gets worse and worse. That includes what we may believe is a disproportionate response, but is honestly as fair as it can be. We usually underestimate the impact of our choices—we downplay the good we do, but we also tend to substantially truncate the side-effects of the bad things we do. It is not really for us to minimize our own sins.

Second, we should notice that “Noah finding favor in the eyes of the Lord” does not equate to him being sinless. It just means he met with God’s grace in the situation. God does not require perfection to save you—salvation is a display of His grace. 

This is not to say that somewhere, somehow, perfection is not required. For lack of any better understanding, we see perfection in Jesus and that is how we are saved. His perfection, not ours.

Third, catch that the story is told with some repetitions: chapter 6 has Noah gathering 2 of every kind of animal and chapter 7 has 2 of the unclean and 7 of the clean. A reasonable understanding of this would suggest that Noah is bringing a breeding pair of all animals for survival and then additional animals for food and sacrifice. 

Fourth, one thing that is a bit questionable here: how does Noah know what is clean and what isn’t? The delineations between clean and unclean animals has NOT been given in Scripture. We do not get that information. There are suggestions that Noah knows this by received tradition, potentially dating back to Adam.

However, we do not know. It is here that I should perhaps remind you that, while we can try to fill in the gaps with what we imagine, that gap-filling is not the same as revealed truth. Even if you know the culture, know the Scripture, you do not know what exactly happened. That’s important to separate out. And remember: neither does your favorite Bible teacher or preacher know. I know you grew up hearing the story of Noah and this interaction with the world around him or that interaction, but we have only a few New Testament references to Noah and should be careful reading our current idea of “preacher of righteousness” back on to him. Hebrews suggests that the condemnation came from seeing Noah obey and choosing to reject God more than rejecting a tent-meeting style sermon series.

Fifth, there is always a debate about what animals were on the Ark, what animals were not. It is useful to remember that “kind” is not equivalent to “species,” for we are dealing with conversational vocabulary rather than scientific vocabulary. Something we should all realize is that, in post-Space Race America, we all have a basic science education well beyond what was once considered normal. So we tend to think in different categories than much of history has. 

Those are some of the post-sermon thoughts now that we are post-Flood.

Sermon Addendum for June 26 2023

 This week’s sermon was a bit shortened because we also had the reminder and rehearsal of God’s work as we celebrated the Lord’s Supper. So, today we will have a brief thought or two about both parts of Sunday’s proclamation.

The first: I drew the sermon out of Isaiah 55. Since it was a “one-off” sermon, not really starting a series or continuing one in Isaiah, I did not do any background on the authorship or context of Isaiah. Also, the background on Isaiah takes a bit of time, which was another reason not to broach it on a Sunday morning. Isaiah has complications and I’m not even going there here and now.

The main part I want to highlight is that Isaiah 55 comes from the latter part of Isaiah, which has a markedly different tone than the earlier parts. Isaiah 6, for all its glory as the “call of Isaiah,” still has a very bleak feel. As one gets into the back parts of the book, however, Isaiah speaks more and more of restoration for the righteous. Especially for those who repent and seek that restoration. Isaiah 55 is no exception to this: there is a call-out that one should seek God while He may be found. 

From this, we should not take that there are times where God is missing or absent. Rather, see the idea as God declaring there will be a time when access is closed. The general idea is that God will, at some point, be present to execute judgment and seeking His mercy should be a priority.

I think there is something applicable here for the church: we want people to seek God’s mercy. That may require a modicum of expounding upon impending judgment, but the primary thing we long for people to do is find mercy. So let us proclaim His mercy.

The other time of our service was directed to the observation of the Lord’s Supper. Now, whole books are written about the theology of the Lord’s Supper, proper ways to observe the Eucharist, relevant paths to celebrate Communion—all of which weigh on the subject matter. 

You don’t need to stare at this screen long enough to sort through those. Instead, I would encourage you to focus on a couple of salient points:

1. I do not think we capture the meaning of the Lord’s Supper right when it’s a tagged-on ending to a service nor when we just sit in straight rows and our participation is simply to wait until we’re handed a disposable cup and a styrofoam-tasting wafer. There is a participation that we’re missing when we treat Holy Communion like getting a hot dog from a vendor at the ballpark.

2. The reminder that we are responsible for the sacrifice of Jesus—it is for us that His body was torn, that His blood was poured out—goes alongside the reminder that we are also the beneficiaries of that same sacrifice. One does not need to theologize this into weird pretzels. One can simply be very grateful, humbled, honored, and encouraged all at the same time.

Sermon Addendum for June 12: More on Genesis 6

 June 12th’s sermon was on Genesis 6, which meant we took a speed past Genesis 5. I also did not delve too deeply into the background questions of identity for the “sons of God” and “daughters of men” or the Nephilim. Except to point out that the Nephilim were *not* rock monsters. Sorry Russell Crowe.

Now, one reason to have left these issues aside is that they are not settled and definite issues. That is, there are debates among people who take the Bible seriously about what is really going on with the best way to translate and understand what we find in the text.

As an aside: you will find two basic groups of Biblical scholars: those who take the task of Biblical scholarship seriously and those who do not. Those who do not may not take the Bible part seriously—doubting that the Bible has any divine advantage in its existence—or they may not take the scholarship part seriously—never really studying or asking questions, just buying into the easiest understanding they can find. Those who take Biblical scholarship seriously do so by recognizing the Bible is God’s word to humanity and doing the work to understand what is present there. Those folks occasionally come to different conclusions, and that’s when I have learned to be less agitated about which conclusion a preacher has come to.

So, let’s take the first question: “sons of God” and “daughters of men.” The LES Septuagint cuts straight through it and takes “sons of God” as angels and “daughters of men” to be any human females. The other major view is that “sons of God” refers to the God-honoring offspring of Seth and the “daughters of men” refers to the less worshipful offspring of Cain, taking the idea that the two lines of descent had been separated between those who follow the LORD and those who did not. Then, the two lines mingled, and all of mankind turned to wickedness.

Now, which is the better one? In favor of the former view, the phrase “sons of God” only occurs elsewhere in the Old Testament in reference to angelic beings. In favor of the latter view, there is no indication anywhere else in the text of Scripture that it is possible for angelic beings to procreate with human beings—and the one passage that might touch on the idea would be understood to be against it. (Matthew 22:30)

These arguments then go on in a loop, with proponents of each view assuring you that the loop stops with them. This is why I did not bother with it in the sermon: there are scholars of both conclusions I respect. And the end result is irrelevant to the Christian life: God promises at the end of the Flood narrative not to destroy the world that way again, and I doubt any of us would show more love, joy, faith, or patience because that might be angel next door than we will because we are indwelt by the Holy Spirit. If you would do more for an angel than you would for God…there’s a problem.

Now, on to the Nephilim: how you take the Nephilim may depend slightly on how you resolve the earlier dilemma: some who hold to the angelic beings mingled with human beings will say the Nephilim are the offspring of that union. I’d note you still have to deal with v. 4’s “and also after this” if you take this view: after what? The Flood? Nobody is supposed to make it there that is not on the boat.

The other way to take the Nephilim is the idea of “mighty ones,” that the point Moses is making is to anchor some of the legends of “old times” into the era around the Flood. This is my preferred understanding, but I have not studied it well enough to make a solid statement. 

And again—how does resolving this impact the life of a believer? It really does not. You can love your neighbor as yourself without worrying whether he’s a Nephilim. It won’t matter. So you can have a good discussion over it, you can ask questions, you can leave it open…some issues are just not going to finalize, and being okay with that is good.

When I hit matters like this, I try to leave them out of the sermon, usually striving to focus on what we *do* know, and then what we follow that up with in action.

Sermon Recap for May 28 2023

 It's Tuesday, so we're going to hit two birds with one stone and have both the sermon recap and the sermon addendum post put together. One thing I am considering is that, since we only do one sermon per Sunday around here, doing that on a regular basis anyway.

Here is what you’ll find: there is an audio player with the sermon audios built-in to it, just click to find the one you want. You’ll also find the embedded YouTube videos of each sermon.

If you’d like, you can subscribe to the audio feed here: http://feeds.feedburner.com/DougHibbardPodcast

Audible Link is coming soon! Search "Doug Hibbard" to see if it's there yet

Spotify is here: https://doughibbard.libsyn.com/spotify

The video is linked on my personal YouTube Page here: https://www.youtube.com/user/dheagle93

Sermons are stockpiled here: http://www.doughibbard.com/search/label/Sermons

Now, on to the "addendum" portion:

Genesis 4 picks up the story of the first family in Creation: Adam and Eve and the birth of their first child, Cain. His birth gets a verse. Abel, his younger brother, gets a verse. 

And that leaves a decently large number of gaps in the story. First, of course, we can see that years pass by that are summarized simply by the statement that "Abel took care of flocks, Cain cultivated the ground." How many years? We don't know. Most likely less than 130, because Genesis 5:3 tells us that Seth is born when Adam's at 130.

How did they learn these skills? Did they have other options? Does the typical depiction of raw cavemen developing agriculture fit here? Or did Adam and Eve leave the orchard with more knowledge and skill and it was easier to develop life?

I think we do them a disservice to make them low-intelligence, barely-human individuals. Keep in mind, childbirth is not an easy thing to deal with--even in modern day, women still die from complications of childbirth (and more in the US than almost any other 'developed' nation, which we should see as shameful because it is; no reason for a woman to be 10 times more likely to die from medical pregnancy complications in the US than in New Zealand), but Eve has both Cain and Abel and hardly anything is said about challenges from this. 

That's not an ignorant first couple, folks. We do them a disservice when we wholesale copy the evolutionary mindset onto the first chapters of Genesis and make Adam and Eve and their immediate descendants barely competent with life.

Onward we go: there is an interesting fill-in from the LXX (Greek translations of the Hebrew Scriptures) in Genesis 4:8, because the available Hebrew text does not have what Cain said. It just kind of hangs there...Cain said to Abel his brother... and then nothing. 

We will jump ahead to address a wrong-headed nonsense that shows up from time-to-time: there is just no justification to think the "Mark of Cain" (Genesis 4:15 references the Lord putting a special mark on Cain) has any connection to a racial or ethnic concept. This also comes up later, after the Flood, with Ham and Canaan. It is an abhorrent twisting of the Word of God to justify racial hatred. Don't do it. And it does NOT matter which of your theological heroes said, he was wrong.

Moving on: we wrap the chapter with Cain's descendants, including the infamous Lamech who threatens extra vengeance for something as simple as a wound. You also get the implication that many of those who started or popularized various skills are in Cain's descendants. This is another space where we are short on information: obviously, Cain has a wife. Who is she? From whence did she come? The logical answer is...his sister. We're not fond of that answer, but it is difficult to find a better one.

The chapter closes on a somewhat higher note, as Seth is born, seen by Eve as the replacement for Abel. Seth's line begins, and "at that time, men began to call on the name of the Lord."

That's a good step. Probably, one could craft a whole sermon on that idea but I didn't :)

Sermon Addendum for April 30

 This past Sunday's sermon was on Genesis 1:26-28. (See here) Since we only have a few weeks that we're spending in Genesis, I bypassed looking at each of the days separately after Day One. Let's look at each day here.

First, of course, is Day One: God creates light, separates it from darkness, and names both the day and the night. He sees the light as "good," something which pleases Him and is the result that He intended. Further, the idea that "God saw that the light was good" should be understood in the idea that "God saw to it that the light was good" or "saw it to completion." We should not think God wasn't sure how the Light was going to turn out.

Next, we see Day Two: The Expanse between the waters, the "waters above" and the "waters below." This, well, we are not entirely sure how to picture this work. Part of that is because we are not entirely sure where the "waters" came from--they are there in verse 2 for the Spirit of God to be hovering over. What we see here is the result of a separation, where the sky is made between water above us and water below us. There is also some question about how this informs the Flood in Genesis 6-9, so it may be that we cannot fully picture it because the world was fundamentally changed in the Deluge. God is bringing about an orderly Creation. You can't have the Sun until you have a sky for it to shine in, after all.

Then, Day Three brings us the establishment of dry land and the growth of plants. Here we would do well to again remember: God is above and beyond and outside of His creation. This was and is an important reminder when many would find deity in the trees and plants and never look up--God created all of these. Further, they were part of the work of the same God. 

Day Four establishes the Sun, Moon, and stars. These are given to mark days, years, and seasons--those great astronomical calendars of the ancient civilizations? Those were societies using the signs in the heavens exactly as God intended humanity to use those signs! Now, worshiping the signs rather than the Sign-maker is a problem called idolatry, and that's a place we still tend to go wrong.

We come to Day Five and get fish and birds, so all you outdoorsy folks are now two-thirds of the way to happy: there's ducks to hunt and fish to catch. The deer come on Day Six. We see God creating the large spaces for the living things to dwell in, then the living things that dwell in them.

The capstone is Day Six, where the animals and the humans are created. There is a separation in those two, and the creation of people was the focus of the sermon so we'll leave that aside.

Day Seven will feature in a future sermon, but it is important to note that there are not six days of creation. There are seven. We ought not pull the Lord ceasing from His creating away as if it is not part of the action.

Now, one can easily get out into the weeds with some of the varied understandings of this passage: are the days symbolic? 24-hour? How does the latter work with no Sun until Day Four? How does the former work with the phrasing of "evening and morning"? 

Both sides of that argument miss that the main point here is that God has worked in Creation in ways that were unique to the descriptions of how the world had come to be used by other nations at the time. The focus here is on the fact that God did it--and did it ALL. Nothing is beyond His scope or concern.

Sermon Addendum for April 16 2023 Genesis 1

 I'm going to bring back a blog feature that I was doing, oh, a decade ago...If you don't know it, most preachers and teachers of the Bible usually generate far more information than fits in the short time allotted to their presentation. For example, if I put in everything I found in a passage--background, connections to other parts of Scripture, inspiration thoughts--I would likely preach for more than an hour or two. 

Which, while I know most church folks will act like this is okay, it is not okay. The mind can only absorb what the other end can endure, and pews are far more comfortable if you lay out on them and nap than if you're sitting on them. Plus, there's long enough between breakfast and lunch.

Which means: let's put it here. This will still not be everything additional, but just a few thoughts that sit in the background.

First of all, this is creation narrative. And I've written about Genesis 1 more than once here on the blog, just look for the Genesis tag. It's important because it is the background on which the rest of the Scripture unfolds. Even Revelation: there is no part of the story of God working that does not unfold inside the world created in Genesis 1. 

That ought to spur us to care about what we see here.

Second is the idea that this is creation narrative given in a specific context. That context is what we tend to call the Ancient Near East (ANE) in the middle of the second millennium BC. The points of emphasis will answer questions that would be asked in that time frame. The information will be accessible to people in that era--the finer details that we can see with an electron microscope or the Hubble Telescope will not be addressed. 

So there is more present in the story about the work of God Almighty in contrast with the creation stories of other nations--especially Egypt!--than we might look for in our modern era. It's a bigger deal that God overcame chaos in creation, because in some ANE stories, chaos is part of the creating act. Not so in the Bible: Chaos is overcome in the; Wisdom (see Proverbs) is involved.

Third, we have to admit there are parts of our scientific understanding of reading God's general revelation (the remains of that which He has created) that are not mentioned nor easily subsumed into the account of creation in Genesis 1. This rolls back into the second point: context of the original audience.

What do we do with that?

Depends on how trustworthy you think the Almighty God of the universe is. There's trusting Him to say what He meant to say in the text, and there's thinking we should correct Him. I'd recommend the former.

Finally, note that this passage can be seen as somewhat poetic. It doesn't quite rhyme, but it's more of a narrative with some features of poetry. That affects how we should understand it to a certain extent, but does not mean we dismiss what is plainly stated.

And that's the Sermon Addendum for April 16 2023 :)

Sermon Recap for May 2 (and a bit before)

So, I’ve been offline and non-communicative since….February.

Oops. In that time, we have relocated and taken on a new church ministry assignment. There’s more to be said about that, later, but for now, we have relocated to Mt. Olive Baptist Church, Crossett, Arkansas. More on that in a few days.

For now, I wanted to share sermon and service audio and video. The video links to either the church’s Facebook page (where the backlog of content is and will stay, though we will be working to develop more) or to my YouTube page as in days past. Audio is a fresh feed to the podcast system.

Facebook link (no FB account should be necessary, but we all know they want you to have one):

Audio player:

Now, you may not know it but Ann and I have done daily videos (of varying quality, she’s always awesome, me…not so much) since last March. They’re a peek into our daily mornings. I drink coffee, she tries to get me to be reasonable and intelligent. Here’s a starter link:

Here is what you’ll find: there is an audio player with the sermon audios built-in to it, just click to find the one you want. You’ll also find the embedded YouTube videos of each sermon.

If you’d like, you can subscribe to the audio feed here: http://feeds.feedburner.com/DougHibbardPodcast

Audible Link is coming soon! Search "Doug Hibbard" to see if it's there yet

Spotify is here: https://doughibbard.libsyn.com/spotify

The video is linked on my personal YouTube Page here: https://www.youtube.com/user/dheagle93

Sermons are stockpiled here: http://www.doughibbard.com/search/label/Sermons