oakleys.org.uk

The Philistine cows “went straight in the direction of Beth-Shemesh … they turned neither to the right nor to the left” (1 Sam 6:12), because it’s better to die in Israel that to live in Philistia – especially if you get to die as an offering to the LORD (v. 14).

Sin is like operating a pneumatic drill without ear defenders in at least 25 ways:

1. It might seem at first glance like the quickest and easiest option,
2. but it damages you right from the moment you start,
3. and it’s completely destructive in the long term,
4. so you’ll certainly regret it afterwards.
5. You’ll find lots of fools saying it won’t do you any harm,
6. and they’ll probably laugh at you if you avoid it,
7. but wise people will certainly warn you against it,
8. and deep down, you’ve got a sneaking suspicion they’re right.
9. In fact, there is probably a law against it somewhere.
10. You’d realise the truth if you could think straight for more than about 10 seconds,
11. but the whole trouble is that once you get started it’s hard to think straight.
12. In fact, it becomes harder to think straight the longer you carry on,
13. so what you really need is someone from outside the situation to come alongside you and do some straight talking.
14. Once the straight talking begins, some of your friends will probably tell you there’s no point in changing now,
15. but they’re wrong.
16. If you stop, those friends probably won’t want to hang out with you so much,
17. despite the fact you’ll obviously be in better shape than before.
18. On the other hand, there’s a chance that you might be able persuade some of them to give up too,
19. in which case they’ll be grateful afterwards,
20. even though they might not thank you at the time.
21. If you stop, you’ll still be tempted to do other things that are just as stupid,
22. and you’ll probably suffer the after-effects for some time,
23. but at least the symptoms won’t get any worse;
24. in fact, you’ll almost certainly get gradually better,
25. and one day the damage will be put right for good.

Jesus thought it was a good idea to begin with Moses (Luke 24:27), and so should you – especially now that www.beginningwithmoses.org has been redesigned and relaunched, with a whole pile of articles, blogs, links and other bits and pieces.

Thoughts on 1 Samuel 1-3 (and Genesis):

• If you can remember Genesis 11-50, you’ll roll your eyes at yet another man with two wives (1 Sam 1:1-4 – remember Jacob and Rachel and Leah?). After all, Genesis is (in one sense) all about the mess people get themselves into when they tinker with the divine institution of marriage.
• On the other hand, Genesis also teaches us to expect the LORD to bring something good out of the unpleasant situation in 1 Sam 1 – probably through the “barren” wife.
• The LORD’s provision of a son for Hannah is cast in terms of resurrection in 1 Sam 2:6: “The LORD kills and brings to life; he brings down to Sheol and raises up.” Genesis reveals the same connection between children and resurrection when Abraham displays his willingness to sacrifice Isaac because he “considered that God was able even to raise him from the dead” (Heb 11:19; cf. Gen 22).
• The LORD’s message to Samuel in 3:11 (the two ears of everyone who hears it will tingle), like Hannah’s response to Samuel’s birth in 1:20 (I have asked for him from the LORD) both reflect the meaning of Samuel’s name (heard of God).
• Samuel was known to be “established as a prophet of the LORD” (3:20) because just as in Gen 18:17ff. (cf. Gen 20:7) the “Lord GOD does nothing without revealing his secret to his servants the prophets” (Amos 3:7).

There are few biblical characters (other than those who appear only in genealogies and list and suchlike) about whom we know less than Shamgar (Judges 3:31; 5:6-7). Consequently, preachers wanting to find out about him (which last week included me) will be more likely than usual to turn to the commentaries for help.

The coverage is variable, to put it mildly. Most of them spend two pages explaining what the other commentaries say before hastily moving on. Fortunately, a few stand out from the crowd. Here are the ones I looked at, together with a rating from ***** (great commentary) to * (great doorstop).

Block (NAC). *****
Jordan. *****
Younger (NIVAC). ****
Wilcox (BST). ***
Schneider (Berit Olam). **
McCann (Interpretation). **
Boling (ABC). *
Gray (NCBC). *
Lindars (Jdg 1-5 only).*
Niditch (OTL). *
Soggin (OTL). *

Preacher: Steve Jeffery

Shamgar was…

1. A humble farmer who refused to give up

2. A faithful foreigner who put God’s people to shame

1. The faithful leader Ehud was praised because he stood out from the crowd

2. The pagan king Eglon was mocked as he perished in his own filth

Richard Dawkins accuses faith schools of “indoctrinating” children, ahead of a TV documentary that accuses them of being “socially damaging” (HT: Christian Institute).

But a 2009 report by Prof David Jesson of the University of York found that faith schools promoted better community cohesion than secular schools.

Don’t the the evidence get in the way of a good bit of prejudice…

“People don’t like Calvin because he doesn’t flatter them” (Steve Palframan).

Luke 9:7-9 records that Herod was intrigued by what he heard about Jesus, and “sought to see him” (v. 9). But then Herod disappears from the narrative (apart from a passing mention in 13:31) as abruptly as he appeared, and doesn’t reappear until chapter 23, where he finally meets Jesus, whom (we are reminded) “he had long desired to see” (v. 8).

Herod is left hanging in mid-air for most of Luke’s Gospel.

It’s as if Luke is saying, “Yeah, Herod the Tetrarch really wanted to see Jesus, but it turned out that Jesus was busy with more important things like feeding the poor and healing sick children and talking with women.”

“The third petition of the Lord’s Prayer is repeated daily by millions who have not the slightest intention of letting anyone’s will be done but their own.” (Aldous Huxley)

Sometimes people ask what an “evangelical church” is. Some people think it’s something to do with money-grabbing “TV evangelists,” while others just aren’t sure. So what does “evangelical” mean?

There are two things to say here.

(1) “Evangelical” means “focused on the good news about Jesus Christ.” The old English word “evangel” comes from a Greek word that means “good news”. As an evangelical church, we’re committed to proclaiming the good news about Jesus’ life, death and resurrection to the world.

(2) “Evangelical” means “Bible-based.” We believe the Bible is God’s word, the ultimate authority in every area of life. This doesn’t mean that we interpret the Bible in a simplistic or literalistic way – we’re not fundamentalists. But neither do we abandon the Bible just because it conflicts with the shifting sands of religious tradition or contemporary opinion. We believe that the ancient truths of the Bible speak to every aspect of the modern world. As an evangelical church, we’re unashamedly committed to reading the Bible, working hard to understand it, and following wherever it leads.

“And the hilt also went in after the blade, and the fat closed over the blade, for he did not pull the sword out of his belly; and the excrement came out” (Judges 3:22).

Disgusting. But it’s in the Bible, so somehow it must be “for our instruction” (Rom 15:4). Click here to find out how.

Speaker: Steve Hayhow

Preacher: Steve Jeffery (preached 25 July 2010)

Apologies for the delay in posting this one – somehow it slipped through the net.

In Luke’s gospel, the account of the Pharisees’ question about fasting and Jesus response about the bridegroom and the new wineskins (5:33-39) takes place on the same occasion as Jesus’ calling of Levi and his feasting with his friends (5:27-32). This simple observation sheds light on a couple of details of the narrative.

• When the Pharisees ask why Jesus’ disciples eat and drink rather than fasting, they’re obviously talking about the newly-repentant tax-collector friends of Levi (5:33). And the eating and drinking referred to is obviously the feast they’re eating at that very moment.
• This means that the “wedding guests” (5:34), too, are those same “tax collectors and sinners,” and that Jesus is their “bridegroom”.
• When Jesus tells the parable of the wineskins, he’s addressing the obvious (implied) question from the Pharisees, “Hey, what about us – we’re God’s people, right; aren’t we the wedding guests at the LORD’s feast?”  Jesus has already answered this in part in 5:32 (No you ain’t – I’ve come to call sinners like these, not you righteous people). The old/new wineskins parable takes the explanation further. The new wineskins into which the wine of the feast is poured are to be identified with the repentant tax collectors and sinners sitting around him. After all, they’re at a feast – wine is quite literally being poured into them at that very moment.

Most of us have an opinion about the big issues that dominate the news headlines – the credit crisis, violent crime, poverty. But how often do we have a chance to talk about these things, to think again, to hear a different point of view?

After Hours is your opportunity to talk about the issues that matter to you, to listen to what other people have to say, and to hear a Christian perspective.

Relax over a drink in Costa Coffee, Southgate, listen to live music from saxophonist André Brown, watch some video footage to get things started, and see where the conversation leads.

Here are the subjects we’re going to be talking about:

29 Sep – Fat cats: What’s wrong with big business?
20 Oct – Blood on the streets: What’s the solution to violent crime?
17 Nov – Too many mouths to feed: Who’s responsible for poverty?

Entry is free, you only need to pay for your coffee. Everyone is welcome, from any religious perspective. There’s no need to book. Come alone or bring a friend. Sit back, relax, and think again.

Click here to view the full flyer.

Oh, one other thing: music. Here’s a sample of what you’ll be hearing:

Preacher: Steve Jeffery (preached 22 August 2010)

When Jesus begins his ministry in Luke 4, his first encounter is with the Devil (vv. 1-13). The Devil concludes his temptations with the suggestion (!) that Jesus should throw himself down from the pinnacle of the Temple, citing Ps 91:11-12 in support of the idea.

Apparently Satan’s Scripture Memorisation System didn’t get as far as Ps 91:13: “You will tread on the lion and the adder; the young lion and the serpent you will trample underfoot.”

Jesus then moves on to the Synagogues (note the inclusion in vv. 15 and 44; cf. also vv. 16, 20, 28, 33, 38). He gets a cool reception. The crowds respond particularly badly when he mentions the Elijah-Zarephath and Elisha-Naaman episodes, no doubt perceiving the implied comparison between themselves and the godless Israelite nation in 1-2 Kings.

Ironically, their reaction tells us all we need to know about them. While Satan had urged Jesus to jump from the pinnacle of the Temple, the Israelites wanted to “throw him down the cliff” (v. 29).