Genesis 19 #eebc2018

There are certain parts of the Scripture that have made their way into the public consciousness even among those who do not care for the Word of God. The Good Samaritan, David and Goliath, even Samson and Delilah show up in commercials, movies, politics, and more...but I don't know that any of those match Sodom and Gomorrah. After all, it has only been the last few decades that "sodomy" laws have been stricken from the books in this country.

That's a pretty long recollection, and a pretty infamous one. Why would our memory of Sodom and Gomorrah be so long and so angry? A few reasons. First of all, you probably noticed that Genesis 18 ended with Abraham speaking with God about sparing these cities from destruction.

After all, a gracious God wouldn't destroy the righteous with the wicked (Genesis 18:25), right? Yet after going so far as to say that He would not destroy the cities if 10 righteous men could be found there...Sodom and Gomorrah are destroyed. And it's not that God didn't look hard enough.

The story opens like some tales we find in ancient mythology, where the gods come down in disguise to test humanity. Usually, the stories survive where only a handful pass the test.(See Bacchus and Philemon (not Bible Philemon) as an example, also note The Iliad and The Odyssey for some discussion). Given the antiquity of the events of Sodom and Gomorrah, however, this could be the event behind the evolved legendary tales.

Either way, God's messengers come to Sodom and are offered hospitality only by Lot. Here he is a foreigner, but the only one who fulfills the expectations of hospitality. And, by extension, the only one who stands between Sodom and Gomorrah...and judgment.

And as a practical matter: 1) Christians, if you are the one righteous family in town, perhaps your behavior in a righteous manner is part of how God shows grace to your town. You could be the one that God uses. 2) It would be pretty terrible to be a resident of a place that is so sure of its own righteousness that only the foreigners and outsiders get life right.

The angels come, Lot provides them with hospitality, and then things go very wrong. The men of the city, pretty much all of them, come and demand the angels be given over for sexual purposes. There's a lot left unsaid here, though a question I still have is this: Do they do this to every new person in town? If so, what about Lot?

Note that the angels are not clearly angels to the people, so there is no weird lust for the supernatural beings. Instead, it is a desire for power through sexual dominance. We see how far Lot has fallen, that he offers the crowd the freedom to abuse his daughters in place of the men. And, no, "hospitality" is no excuse for this: it would be one thing for Lot to have armed himself and his sons (if had any) and they all died fighting to protect the angels.

But sacrificing his daughters to the crowd's lust? This is not a righteous, excusable action under any circumstances.

After seeing the lust of the crowd and their fervor for unrighteousness--no matter your view on human sexuality, even if it departs from the Biblical ethic, I doubt anyone finds forced sexual activity righteous--then the angels pull Lot and his family out. We see how weak Lot's influence is when his own sons-in-law (marriage processes were different, they were not yet married to his daughters but still defined as this relationship) refuse his summons to escape. His wife looks back, longingly, for the life they had in the wicked places...and is lost.

Ultimately, the two biggest trouble-making nations for Israel, Moab and Ammon, have their origin here. Lot's daughters turn their father's earlier offer on its head, and use him for their needs. The drunken incest brings about the Moabites and Ammonites, two nations that fight Israel for many centuries. And, it may be noted, worship terrible idols.

The long and short of it is this: Lot may have been related to Abraham, but he never grabbed hold of Abraham's relationship with God. There is no long-term "once removed" relationship with God: every one must follow God themselves.

Genesis 17-18

Note to the reader: Well, I'm way late. I've got excuses but they won't benefit you. As such, I've got apologies. I'm going ahead and writing/catching up so that it's here for future reference.

Growing up, one of the TV shows we watched fairly regularly was Dragnet. If you know the show, you're familiar with the line: "The names have been changed to protect the innocent." After all, you'd hate to be blamed for something you didn't do--so a shield of anonymity can be helpful.

In ancient cultures, though, name changes weren't typically to hide yourself. They were used to mark significant milestones in your life or to show a new allegiance. Which, of course, to the new king, was a significant milestone in your life.

And so we come to the name change for Abram. The Lord Almighty determines that it is time to mark a new beginning for Abram and so renames him Abraham. (An interesting note in one of the newer Greek New Testaments makes the opening syllable more aspirate, like "Ha-braham," which would sound more Middle Eastern.)

The meaning change, based on Study Bible notes, is basically a shift from "Exalted Father" to "Father of Many (or a Multitude)." The "Abr..." part is the "father" commonality. Taken this way, it's primarily a reminder from God that Abraham's heritage is more than just Isaac. He'll only live to see his grandsons reach the teenage boy phase, which means he may be tempted to take them out on his own. Or at least give up on feeding them.

What difference does this make? Well, God alone has the right to make the change and this is part of the narrative where God pushes Abram to make an even bigger step. In this chapter, God commands the covenant sign of circumcision. We won't hit the details of that here, but realize that this becomes a long-lasting part of the identity of the people of Abraham. And as you read the New Testament, you see it's significant in the life of the early church. (Check Galatians 6 for some thoughts on the matter.)

God shows His sovereignty in bringing Abraham and Sarah a child--and note that God also changes Sarai's name to Sarah, showing that God is her sovereign, directly, without intermediary--and reminds them both through the change of names. Then, a sign of the covenant was established, one that would be memorable and permanent.

What of us? Do we remember God's covenant? Do we understand the permanence of the One True God's promises and covenants?

Sermon Recap for January 28

Here is what you'll find: after each sermon title, there's an "audio" link that allows you to play or download that sermon's audio file. Then there should be an embedded Youtube Link to the sermon.

If you'd like, you can subscribe to the audio feed here: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/east-end-baptist-church/id387911457?mt=2 for iTunes users. Other audio feeds go here: http://eebcar.libsyn.com/rss

The video is linked on my personal Youtube Page here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJBGluSoaJgYn6PbIklwKaw?view_as=public

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

Thanks!

Sunday Morning January 28 (audio download)

Audio Player

Video:

John 6:59-7:53 #eebc2018

It's Monday morning, which is when we tend to think life is challenging. Yesterday was hopefully a great day gathered with the Body of Christ, and now is a day to put the rubber on the road, energized by the encouragement from the day.

As we start on that, what do we see in today's Scripture passage? The first portion is a challenging moment. Jesus has taught the truth, but the people are not willing to stick around and live it out.

The turn to John 7 gives us a peek into the extended dynamics of Jesus' family life. We see that His brothers did not believe Him at the time, though we know that at least two did later. (Read James and Jude...)

The CSB gives us an odd translation, especially if you're used to the more traditional 'Feast of Tabernacles' or 'Feast of Booths,' rendering the phrase as 'Festival of Shelters.' It harkens back to the time of the Exodus and the establishment of the nation of Israel (see Leviticus 23 for more information).

Going forward, the debate apparently continues in Jerusalem about whether or not Jesus is the Messiah. You should notice John 7:41-43 and see that the crowd is divided because they lack the fullness of the facts--some argue, rightly from Scripture, that the Messiah does not come from Galilee but from Bethlehem. They are just acting on incomplete information: Jesus is from Bethlehem. It's just not a well-known fact.

Then we see the chapter wrap up with Nicodemus moving toward public affirmation of Jesus. What do we do with all of this?

Read it and think through a couple of questions:

1. Is there anything that you could find in the Word of God that would drive you away? Not in man's interpretation, but in the Word of God?

2. A follow-up: have you added anything to God's Word that drives people away? We tend to do that--it builds up over time and then, suddenly, people don't want to hear from Christians because they associate all kinds of rules and lifestyles that *aren't* Christian.

3. How ready to extend grace are we? The church in its infancy was led partially by the brothers of Jesus--especially James--and yet here we seem them not believing. Are we willing to allow people to grow, mature, and then be involved?

John 6:1-58 #eebc2018

John alternates back to sharing the signs of Jesus as the Messiah in this chapter, where John 5 was primarily focused on a discourse. This time, we see signs 4 and 5.

These are actually two of the most famous miracles of Jesus. The first one is present in all four Gospels. Outside of the last week of Jesus, the Passion Week, it's a rarity to find something in all 4 Gospels. The birth of Jesus isn't in all four. Several events in John (Nicodemus, Cana, the woman at the well) are only in John...and so forth.

There are some useful details here, such as the extended interaction with the disciples about the food situation. It's also from John 6:15 that we see Jesus aware that the crowd wants to make Him king by force...and so He withdraws.

Then He walks on water, making the fifth sign. Peter's dip into the waters is not mentioned at all, and then the boat gets where it was going.

What do we do with either of these?

Put them in context with the teaching passages. Jesus finishes out the section pointing out that the Israelites had eaten manna, bread from God, in the wilderness back in Exodus. Now, He has fed them with bread. I think left unstated is that Jesus has shown that parting the Red Sea isn't necessary again, because Jesus can walk on the water and Peter (showing those who follow in faith) could, too.

Except the people got hung up on the first part. They did not grasp the idea of Jesus Himself being "the bread" rather than just providing them food. It was a metaphor that they could not wrap their heads around, and so they just shut down on Him.

Do we ever do that? We hear something being taught and then stop listening? Maybe it was too hard to understand, or just too different? Or worse, it was easy to understand and hard to do, so we didn't do it.

Then we wonder why we don't have the rest of the information, the rest of what we wanted to know. And it's because of this: we never got the first part.

It's like baking a cake and skipping the "preheat the oven" stage. Get the first thing right...and remember that when it's time to add eggs, it means out of the shell, too. You have to do what God has said to understand what He said to do next.

More on John 6 is here

Genesis 15 and 16 #eebc2018

Genesis 15 and 16 are today's readings. There's two major events, one for each chapter.

First, Genesis 15 provides us with the formal initiation of a covenant between Abram and God. Abram expresses his concern that his household will die out with him. After all, Lot has gone his own way and Abram has no children of his own. The custom of the time suggests that his chief servant would inherit, though I saw one source that suggests this would have been a stewardship until another person of greater social standing came along.

That is, if everything had passed to Eliezer, the household would have ceased fairly soon. Either the servants and slaves would have been free to depart or another "great" person would have taken over for him. Either way, it looks to Abram like God's promise is pretty well done for.

God, though, has a different purpose. Before we go any farther, though, take note of those small caps where the word "Lord" is (or "God" in the combination "Lord God"). You're dealing here with the divine name of God, not some generic deity of no certainty. Remember that: God makes His covenant in His own name.

The covenant ceremony, a symbolic action demonstrating the lifelong commitment, takes place in a dream for Abram. As you reach the end of Genesis 15, you see the promise of God that Abram's descendants will possess everything from the edge of Egypt to the Euphrates River. It takes some time--nearly 100 years--but this does come to pass.

The next chapter is a bit more tragic. Sarai suggests to Abram that he father a child through her slave, Hagar. This may have been a custom at the time, in may have been an idea picked up in their wanderings. (It does seem to have inspired the dystopian writings of The Handmaid's Tale, a work typically seen as showing a future if Christians run the world, though it's based in this story which foreshadows Islam.)

Either way, Hagar is treated badly here. She is the focus of this story--she conceives, is thrown out from the family, but then God reveals Himself to her. She is one of the few women in the Patriarchal Age (really until the time of the Judges) that speaks with God.

The unfortunate downside is that Abram, by fathering a son who would not be the one of the covenant, ends up bringing into being a line that eventually becomes antagonistic to his other descendants. Family ties run deep in many places, and Israel, Arabia, Jordan, and the rest of the modern Middle East is one of those places. Many of the Arab peoples trace their lineage to Ishmael (and some to Esau), while the Israelis trace theirs to Isaac, who comes later. It's a family feud that has run for millennia.

(for more on Sarai/Sarah and Hagar, check out Vindicating the Vixens, chapters 7 and 8)

For more on Genesis 15 go here (also here) and Genesis 16, see here (and here)

Genesis 14 #eebc2018

Genesis 14 gives us two major events to consider.

The first is Abram's rescue of Lot. You should remember that in the last chapter, Lot and Abram had gone their separate ways. Lot had gone toward the cities and the wealth of the region. Abram had gone the other direction. Now, that wealth comes back to be a problem. The local kings rebel against their overlords and, as was typical, the overlords came down to straighten out the situation.

Lot is captured in battle. There's no textual indication that Lot had taken part in the battle. He may have avoided it entirely, which would explain his survival. It is likely that, in the process of Lot being captured, he may have lost some of the men in his household in battle. The testimony of Genesis 14:16 would support that, like a good A-Team plan, nobody was lost once Abram got involved. But that doesn't say anything about before he shows up.

There's a couple of thoughts to deal with from this, the main one being that wealth is great until someone tries to take it. Then there is a real risk of being collateral damage. The other thought is about the importance of being ready to stand and fight when the time comes. Abram may have typically been peaceful, but the time came to fight, and he fought.

Then we get the joy of Melchizedek. He is mentioned again in Psalm 110 and Hebrews 5 and Hebrews 7.

The point I'd like to draw from this passage right now, though, is Abram's differing responses to Melchizedek and the king of Sodom. First of all, note the downplay of the king of Sodom’s name. It may not even be the same one from 14:2 to 14:21. Ancient warfare wasn’t kind to losing kings. But the identity of the priest of God Most High is clear.

This is the same thing you get in Exodus: no name for the king of Egypt, but the midwives are named.

Carrying on, notice that Abram gives to Melchizedek and refuses anything, even a shoelace, from the king of Sodom. I wonder if I have such a commitment to only being enriched by God-honoring behavior that I would turn down the wealth offered to Abram here. I think we as Christians need to think long and hard about the lengths we go to for the purpose of stuff.

What, then, do we fight for? We fight for family, we fight for truth, but we do not fight as mercenaries on behalf of the world. That may be relevant for how we as Christians and churches get involved in the political realm.

Some additional posts: Genesis 14, tithing, Melchizedek, Genesis 14 sermons