Back to Jn Vap., someone in the Church Times also made Trump connection viz. making rash promises, exhibitionism, currying favour, being sensitive to criticism
Sorry, but no. Roes are members of a species of deer that is fairly common in most of Britain. They are quite small, smaller than more well known Red ones with the big branching antlers as painted by Landseer and others. They look quite delicate. Like all species of deer, they come in both sexes. The male is a Roebuck. I agree that the context would suggest either female or young ones. I've no idea whether they were found in ancient Israel.
It seems God has particular opinions on latrine matters, because he walks in the camp and thinks the ...waste... is gross.
LOL.
I'm not a preacher, but I would TOTALLY preach on that. I've often said that Christianity is the religion of the Holy Shit - because God became human, and surely our Lord "eased himself" as humans must.
I think I'd have to develop the sermon a bit, though, or it would come off as a bit from a stand-up routine gone awry.
My memory is never to be trusted, but I can't recall any sermon concerning John 1:45-51:
Philip found Nathanael and said to him, “We have found him about whom Moses in the law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus son of Joseph from Nazareth.” Nathanael said to him, “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” Philip said to him, “Come and see.” When Jesus saw Nathanael coming toward him, he said of him, “Here is truly an Israelite in whom there is no deceit!” Nathanael asked him, “Where did you get to know me?” Jesus answered, “I saw you under the fig tree before Philip called you.” Nathanael replied, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!” Jesus answered, “Do you believe because I told you that I saw you under the fig tree? You will see greater things than these.” And he said to him, “Very truly, I tell you,[m] you will see heaven opened and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man.”
(NRSV transl.)
I'm pretty certain I've never heard a sermon on the issue of (1) whether anything good can come out of Nazareth; (2) whether it was that unusual to find an Israelite in whom there is no deceit; (3) whether sitting under a fig tree is a good proof of one's lack of deceit; (4) whether anybody is impressed that Nat proclaims Jesus as the Son of God long before Peter makes that attestation (and before Jesus even does his first public miracle); or (5) when Nat actually got the chance to see the angels engage in a sky ballet.
I am sorry to disillusion you but definitely had sermons on this passage. Normally the central theme is Evangelism i.e. that Philip went and fetched Nathanael and said "Come see" but one particular detail that I am pretty sure was from a sermon may interest you. That is it is speculated that what Nathaneal was doing under the fig tree was his morning devotions. I think the idea is that it was a known practice in the Church at John's time.
My son reckons it's a sermon topic for a gathering of Scouts. His reaction to Jael is along the lines of "Yowza!" I'm a bit concerned about my future daughter-in-law.
I've never heard anyone preach on this, not even at a service for women.
It used to be a favourite at my (boys only) Bible class when I was about 10. It was not, however, acted out (unlike Moses smashing the tablets on which the Commandments were written). This may or may not have been because the tent pegs were packed away after Camp and not easily extricated from the store.
Kwesi, I've never heard a sermon on Psalm 147: 10 (b) "he taketh not pleasure in the legs of a man." (KJV).
Apologies for the vanity of commenting on my own contribution, but I cant help wondering how the Almighty reflects on the legs of a woman. Of course, the Ancient of Days may be a woman herself. There's a thought. Clearly, this is a text that sorely in need of creative, if risqué, exposition!
Either way, I had never thought of the Almighty as a "leg man" . It seems the NRSV renders "the legs of a man" as "the speed of a runner."
His delight is not in the strength of the horse,
nor his pleasure in the speed of a runner;
but the Lord takes pleasure in those who fear him,
in those who hope in his steadfast love.
Mamacita: Either way, I had never thought of the Almighty as a "leg man" . It seems the NRSV renders "the legs of a man" as "the speed of a runner."
It may be comforting to some to be reassured that he isn't turned on by men's legs, assuming the eternal of days is, indeed, a 'he'. Much more intriguing if the creator is a 'she' and finds female legs pleasurable. Perhaps it's hinting that 'she' is not homophobic (if that's the right word). Much to explore here.
As for translations: we all know that KJV was Authorised by God, so don't dismiss my observations with other renderings!
What I would like to hear is a preacher prepared to do something as counter-cultural as to preach a sermon on Matthew 10:37, ideally on Mothering Sunday.
I've asked Military Chaplains if they have used this passage from Deut 20, and received an angry response from one.
Then the officials shall address the troops, saying, ‘Has anyone built a new house but not dedicated it? He should go back to his house, or he might die in the battle and another dedicate it. Has anyone planted a vineyard but not yet enjoyed its fruit? He should go back to his house, or he might die in the battle and another be first to enjoy its fruit. Has anyone become engaged to a woman but not yet married her? He should go back to his house, or he might die in the battle and another marry her.’ The officials shall continue to address the troops, saying, ‘Is anyone afraid or disheartened? He should go back to his house, or he might cause the heart of his comrades to fail like his own.’ When the officials have finished addressing the troops, then the commanders shall take charge of them.
The 1662 BCP wedding service says that matrimony 'is not to be taken in hand unadvisedly, lightly or wantonly to satisfy men's carnal lusts and appetites like brute beasts that have no understanding.' But you don't hear that at many wedding services nowadays either.
I think Deuteronomy 23:1 would be difficult.
"He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord."
It'd be interesting to combine this with circumcision. Maybe something about being cautious when following biblical directions: it's one thing to cut off a piece, just don't go overboard.
I think Deuteronomy 23:1 would be difficult.
"He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord."
It'd be interesting to combine this with circumcision. Maybe something about being cautious when following biblical directions: it's one thing to cut off a piece, just don't go overboard.
Combined with Isa 56 a progress in understanding by Judaism or God changing His mind could be demonstrated.
"Do not let the foreigner joined to the Lord say,
‘The Lord will surely separate me from his people’;
and do not let the eunuch say,
‘I am just a dry tree.’
For thus says the Lord:
To the eunuchs who keep my sabbaths,
who choose the things that please me
and hold fast my covenant,
I will give, in my house and within my walls,
a monument and a name
better than sons and daughters;
I will give them an everlasting name
that shall not be cut off.
And the foreigners who join themselves to the Lord,
to minister to him, to love the name of the Lord,
and to be his servants,
all who keep the sabbath, and do not profane it,
and hold fast my covenant—
these I will bring to my holy mountain,
and make them joyful in my house of prayer;
their burnt-offerings and their sacrifices
will be accepted on my altar;
for my house shall be called a house of prayer
for all peoples.
Thus says the Lord God,
who gathers the outcasts of Israel,
I will gather others to them
besides those already gathered."
What exactly does the term eunuch mean in the Bible, and does it mean something different at different times it is used (between the OT and NT, or between different books in the same testament)?
I'd like to see sermons on things which Jesus is sort of not supposed to say, rather than the corpse, shit and shagging verses that are much beloved by skoolboys.
Like "to him that has shall more be given, and to him that has not, even what he has will be taken away".
I have never heard the 1 Cor 7 passage at a Wedding Homily nor as the subject of a sermon. 1 Corinthians 7
I've mentioned this before, but I once attended a wedding where the chosen passage was John 4:1-26 and the text was v18, "The fact is, you have had five husbands, and the man you now have is not your husband."
Guilty as charged - i.e. in over 30 years of ministry I've never preached on Obadiah.
But do I get Brownie points for having preached on Hosea and Habakkuk?
I've preached on all three, Hosea I think more than once, although the last time - earlier this year - I didn't get beyond the first few chapters. Which are really interesting on dysfunctional families and how God uses them anyway.
I've never heard anyone preach on this, not even at a service for women.
I've heard two Sermons on this (or at least Judges 4). Both reasonably good.
The second was particularly memorable, I hadn't realised Sisera's lot were basically at Nazareth (she didn't mention it, but there was a map). But you got some stuff about past and present sexism, that was approached from the direction that sinks in more. Recognising that the violence is both dramatic but also troublesome. And a couple of other things held nicely in tension.
What neither had was the song version, or any mention of the rains (which I couldn't see in the narrative, but remembered from my children's bible, and is in the song version)
I am afraid my memory of the story of Jael in worship settings is a student spoof from my early teens when my father taught theology at a seminary. One year at the 'concert' there was a spoof Sunday School session whose text was the story of Jael.
Our Yoof Group had something similar at a 'concert', where the Lay Reader preached a most stirring, and hilarious, sermon on 'My Brother Esau Is An HAIRY Man, But I Am A SMOOTH Man', or something along those lines...
Texts that should be sermon fodder, but never seem to be:
(1) "Better is open rebuke than hidden love (Prov. 27:5)."
I have heard sermons on the next texts cited , but never on the specified combination of texts cited below.
(2) A sermon on Jesus' pedagogy and its relevance to our own spiritual quests based on Mark 4:11-12 and Matthew 7:6--both related to the famous messianic secret problem:
(a) "And He said to them, "To you has been give the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside, everything is in parables, in order that they may indeed look, but not perceive, and may indeed listen, but not understand; so that they may not turn again and be forgiven (Mark 4:11-12).""
(b) "Do not give what is holy to dogs; and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them underfoot and turn and maul you (Matthew 7:6)."
(3) I once read a sermon entitled "Raging Faith" based on Naaman's healing in 2 Kings 5:1-14. So I developed my own sermon on "Raging Faith" based jointly on Naaman's deliberately provoked healing rage and Jesus' anger in healing the man with the withered hand in Mark 3:1-6. Have any of you ever heard a sermon based on both texts?
I mention this because 2 weeks ago, an acquaintance, Ron, told me he healed his wife's advanced congestive heart failure (badly bloated legs, etc.) in a state of rage against her suffering by anointing her with oil and then cursing her ailment in a rage in Jesus' name. I had never even heard an account of a healing of congestive heart failure through prayer! Smith Wigglesworth was perhaps the most famous and effective faith healer of the 20th century, but he was often in an odd state of rage (against Satan) as he healed, even punching some of his supplicants!
On the subject of original sermons, consider this assignment from one homiletics professor. He asked his seminarians to photo-copy any sermon text of several verses, then yellow out the key words at the heart of their proposed 3-point sermon outline, and then hand it in. Then came the shock: he assigned them the task of writing a sermon based on the words they had not yellowed out!
I love the advice of another homiletics professor who advised new preachers to occasionally go backpacking in the Minor Prophets for obscure sermon texts.
I've quite often made the comment that because the full time clergy normally have some time off after Christmas, it's only Readers and non-stipendiary clergy that ever get lumbered with having to preach when the readings are the Massacre of the Innocents, or in 2017 when the 1st of January fell on a Sunday, the Circumcision. At our place, both challenges have been taken and preached on.
But I've never heard a sermon on Ezek 23:20 - or for that matter Song of Songs 4:5 or 1 Sam 25:34 as it is in the Authorised Version.
Why is preaching on the circumcision a challenge? Off the top of my head, I can think of 2 easy starters - this was the first time that Christ's blood was shed for us (ie, his incarnation was very real, he had indeed become fully human); and at the circumcision he received his name of Jesus, ie Saviour.
I can usually get me off on the Covenantal aspects of baptism and the relationship of Baptism to circumcision with that subject. You might get a good 20 minutes on that.
Why is preaching on the circumcision a challenge? Off the top of my head, I can think of 2 easy starters - this was the first time that Christ's blood was shed for us (ie, his incarnation was very real, he had indeed become fully human); and at the circumcision he received his name of Jesus, ie Saviour.
I can usually get me off on the Covenantal aspects of baptism and the relationship of Baptism to circumcision with that subject. You might get a good 20 minutes on that.[/quote]
Or a better 10 minutes. (And I won't dare ask what other things get you off.)
Basically, @Gee D, anything that will give the opportunity to explore something that tends to get neglected. I learnt some years ago not to be afraid of theology in the pulpit, and although I lost one or two people who wanted a feel good story about Jesus, they were more than replaced by those who appreciated the approach. Usual sermon length with me is about fifteen minutes; but the Missus as timed me at anywhere between 12 and 23 minutes. I was a little cross with myself for the latter performance.
We are of the school that teaches that a sermon should fit within 10 minutes maximum. After that, you've lost your congregation with most of them wondering how much longer it's going to be rather than listening to what, if anything, is being preached.
Comments
I have, and can confirm it as being exactly how you'd assume it would be.
Roes are fawns, right? I'd guess it was just because fawns are considered cute, and kind of feminine.
And it might make more sense(well, relatively) if the comparison was just to the heads of the animals, not the whole body.
I'm not a preacher, but I would TOTALLY preach on that. I've often said that Christianity is the religion of the Holy Shit - because God became human, and surely our Lord "eased himself" as humans must.
I think I'd have to develop the sermon a bit, though, or it would come off as a bit from a stand-up routine gone awry.
I am sorry to disillusion you but definitely had sermons on this passage. Normally the central theme is Evangelism i.e. that Philip went and fetched Nathanael and said "Come see" but one particular detail that I am pretty sure was from a sermon may interest you. That is it is speculated that what Nathaneal was doing under the fig tree was his morning devotions. I think the idea is that it was a known practice in the Church at John's time.
I've never heard anyone preach on this, not even at a service for women.
It used to be a favourite at my (boys only) Bible class when I was about 10. It was not, however, acted out (unlike Moses smashing the tablets on which the Commandments were written). This may or may not have been because the tent pegs were packed away after Camp and not easily extricated from the store.
Apologies for the vanity of commenting on my own contribution, but I cant help wondering how the Almighty reflects on the legs of a woman. Of course, the Ancient of Days may be a woman herself. There's a thought. Clearly, this is a text that sorely in need of creative, if risqué, exposition!
His delight is not in the strength of the horse,
nor his pleasure in the speed of a runner;
but the Lord takes pleasure in those who fear him,
in those who hope in his steadfast love.
More clarity, less poetry.
It may be comforting to some to be reassured that he isn't turned on by men's legs, assuming the eternal of days is, indeed, a 'he'. Much more intriguing if the creator is a 'she' and finds female legs pleasurable. Perhaps it's hinting that 'she' is not homophobic (if that's the right word). Much to explore here.
As for translations: we all know that KJV was Authorised by God, so don't dismiss my observations with other renderings!
Then the officials shall address the troops, saying, ‘Has anyone built a new house but not dedicated it? He should go back to his house, or he might die in the battle and another dedicate it. Has anyone planted a vineyard but not yet enjoyed its fruit? He should go back to his house, or he might die in the battle and another be first to enjoy its fruit. Has anyone become engaged to a woman but not yet married her? He should go back to his house, or he might die in the battle and another marry her.’ The officials shall continue to address the troops, saying, ‘Is anyone afraid or disheartened? He should go back to his house, or he might cause the heart of his comrades to fail like his own.’ When the officials have finished addressing the troops, then the commanders shall take charge of them.
1 Corinthians 7
As can I.
But do I get Brownie points for having preached on Hosea and Habakkuk?
"He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord."
It'd be interesting to combine this with circumcision. Maybe something about being cautious when following biblical directions: it's one thing to cut off a piece, just don't go overboard.
"Do not let the foreigner joined to the Lord say,
‘The Lord will surely separate me from his people’;
and do not let the eunuch say,
‘I am just a dry tree.’
For thus says the Lord:
To the eunuchs who keep my sabbaths,
who choose the things that please me
and hold fast my covenant,
I will give, in my house and within my walls,
a monument and a name
better than sons and daughters;
I will give them an everlasting name
that shall not be cut off.
And the foreigners who join themselves to the Lord,
to minister to him, to love the name of the Lord,
and to be his servants,
all who keep the sabbath, and do not profane it,
and hold fast my covenant—
these I will bring to my holy mountain,
and make them joyful in my house of prayer;
their burnt-offerings and their sacrifices
will be accepted on my altar;
for my house shall be called a house of prayer
for all peoples.
Thus says the Lord God,
who gathers the outcasts of Israel,
I will gather others to them
besides those already gathered."
Like "to him that has shall more be given, and to him that has not, even what he has will be taken away".
I've mentioned this before, but I once attended a wedding where the chosen passage was John 4:1-26 and the text was v18, "The fact is, you have had five husbands, and the man you now have is not your husband."
I've preached on all three, Hosea I think more than once, although the last time - earlier this year - I didn't get beyond the first few chapters. Which are really interesting on dysfunctional families and how God uses them anyway.
I've heard two Sermons on this (or at least Judges 4). Both reasonably good.
The second was particularly memorable, I hadn't realised Sisera's lot were basically at Nazareth (she didn't mention it, but there was a map). But you got some stuff about past and present sexism, that was approached from the direction that sinks in more. Recognising that the violence is both dramatic but also troublesome. And a couple of other things held nicely in tension.
What neither had was the song version, or any mention of the rains (which I couldn't see in the narrative, but remembered from my children's bible, and is in the song version)
(1) "Better is open rebuke than hidden love (Prov. 27:5)."
I have heard sermons on the next texts cited , but never on the specified combination of texts cited below.
(2) A sermon on Jesus' pedagogy and its relevance to our own spiritual quests based on Mark 4:11-12 and Matthew 7:6--both related to the famous messianic secret problem:
(a) "And He said to them, "To you has been give the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside, everything is in parables, in order that they may indeed look, but not perceive, and may indeed listen, but not understand; so that they may not turn again and be forgiven (Mark 4:11-12).""
(b) "Do not give what is holy to dogs; and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them underfoot and turn and maul you (Matthew 7:6)."
(3) I once read a sermon entitled "Raging Faith" based on Naaman's healing in 2 Kings 5:1-14. So I developed my own sermon on "Raging Faith" based jointly on Naaman's deliberately provoked healing rage and Jesus' anger in healing the man with the withered hand in Mark 3:1-6. Have any of you ever heard a sermon based on both texts?
I mention this because 2 weeks ago, an acquaintance, Ron, told me he healed his wife's advanced congestive heart failure (badly bloated legs, etc.) in a state of rage against her suffering by anointing her with oil and then cursing her ailment in a rage in Jesus' name. I had never even heard an account of a healing of congestive heart failure through prayer! Smith Wigglesworth was perhaps the most famous and effective faith healer of the 20th century, but he was often in an odd state of rage (against Satan) as he healed, even punching some of his supplicants!
On the subject of original sermons, consider this assignment from one homiletics professor. He asked his seminarians to photo-copy any sermon text of several verses, then yellow out the key words at the heart of their proposed 3-point sermon outline, and then hand it in. Then came the shock: he assigned them the task of writing a sermon based on the words they had not yellowed out!
I love the advice of another homiletics professor who advised new preachers to occasionally go backpacking in the Minor Prophets for obscure sermon texts.
Just spotted this - rather belatedly!
Yes indeed, the great Alan Bennett, in fine form.
I can usually get me off on the Covenantal aspects of baptism and the relationship of Baptism to circumcision with that subject. You might get a good 20 minutes on that.
I can usually get me off on the Covenantal aspects of baptism and the relationship of Baptism to circumcision with that subject. You might get a good 20 minutes on that.[/quote]
Or a better 10 minutes. (And I won't dare ask what other things get you off.)