Tag: commentary

Commentary Roundup: “A Commentary on Exodus (Kregel Exegetical Library)” by Duane Garrett

~ Bob Hayton

A Commentary on Exodus (Kregel Exegetical Library)

Book Details:
• Author: Duane A. Garrett
• Publisher: Kregel Academic (2014)
• Format: hardback
• Page Count: 816
• ISBN#: 9780825425516
• List Price: $39.99
• Rating: Highly Recommended

Publisher’s Description:
A thorough exegetical and homiletical analysis of each passage of Exodus.

The true fountainhead of Old Testament theology, Exodus illuminates the significance of the name Yahweh and introduces the title I AM. It tells of Israel’s formative historical event, the exodus, as well as the making of the covenant at Sinai. It includes the first code of the Law in the Decalogue and Book of the Covenant. It details Israel’s besetting sin in the idolatry of the golden calf episode, but it also describes Moses’s intercession and the great revelation of God’s mercy. In its display of the Tent of Meeting, it presents the theology of the priesthood, the sacrifices, and the central sanctuary. A Commentary on Exodus explores all of these events with a view toward their significance both for the meaning of the Old Testament and for the message of the Christian church. Exegetically deep enough to satisfy the scholar and logically organized to meet the needs of the pastor, Garrett’s commentary promises to become standard reference material in Exodus studies.

– Every verse is given a fresh translation with copious explanatory notes, and particular attention is given to the poetry of Exodus, which the author demonstrates to be more abundant than previously believed.

– The commentary also helps to dispel much confusion about Exodus by introducing the reader to Egyptian history and by carefully analyzing questions about the date of the exodus and the location of Mount Sinai.

Commentary Type:
This is a technical commentary that provides both a detailed exegetical analysis of the Hebrew text and theological take-home points for applying the message of the text for today’s hearers.

Structure and Features:
Duane Garrett’s Commentary on Exodus is organized in consistent manner which makes it easy to peruse and use as a reference. After the lengthy introduction (145 pages), each section of the text is treated individually, grouped into 7 parts. Garrett’s own translation of the Hebrew, separated with one line per Hebrew clause begins each section. Included are a host of pertinent linguistic and translational footnotes that often included detailed discussions of difficult terms. For sections of poetry, he provides the Hebrew underneath the English and includes a treatment of how and why that section should be understood to be poetic. The the commentary proper follows and is further divided from the text. Following the commentary section, is a section labeled: “Theological Summary of Key Points.” This is the take-home part of the commentary where Garrett draws out the points that a preacher will be able to hone in on, in a message on this text. The commentary doesn’t address homiletical strategies, but the big picture that can be drawn from the text at hand. Occasionally an excursus follows this section, and allows for an extended discussion of a particularly thorny aspect of the text, such as how Moses’ birth story compares with that of Sargon’s, or how Paul’s discussion of Moses’ veil in 2 Cor. 3 fits in with a proper understanding of Exodus. Throughout the commentary one will find footnotes and tables, but no maps or diagrams or drawings are to be found.

Excerpt:
This excerpt is taken almost at random, it highlights the theological take-home punch that Garrett distills from the text. The section concerns Exodus 26:1-27:21.

4. Whatever the external two tent layers looked like, entering the Tent of Meeting itself would have been visually stunning. The priest, going into the holy place, would enter a chamber illuminated by the soft light of the seven lamps of the menorah. As his eyes adjusted, the fine linen inner tent with its colorful tapestry of cherubim would have suggested entry into heaven, where the angels in splendor were in attendance upon God. The tent frames of gold, reflecting the lamps, would have seemed to twinkle like stars and would have suggested a glorious hallway towards God’s throne room. The screen before the holy of holies, with its cherubim, would have suggested an angelic honor guard standing between the priest and YHWH. The priest thus would have a sense of being in the earthly representation of the outer chamber of God’s heavenly abode.

5. There was probably a cosmic dimension to this. That is, the outer chamber represented the lower heavens (what we would call the physical heavens) and the inner chamber, the holy of holies, would represent the upper heaven, God’s abode. The Tent of Meeting was a microcosm of the created universe and of the heavenly throne room that was above the created universe. That is, God’s glory fills all of creation, but there is yet a heavenly throne room that is above and beyond the physical universe. The Tent of Meeting is a smaller version of this cosmic reality. it is also the place where God who dwells in the highest heavens can be present or immanent in the world.

The overall message of this aspect of the tent complex is that God is holy. The barriers between the people and the interior of the tent, as well as the altar of burnt offering, all indicate that because of sin, people are kept apart from God. For the Christian, the barriers that separated the Israelites from the holy of holies remind us that in Christ the barrier is removed and that we have access to God (Matt. 27:51). Even so, we should not fail to take away an important message in the tent structure: that God is holy, that we should fear God, and that in worship, we should approach in reverent respect and also with constant brokenness of heart and repentance, knowing that we have no right of ourselves to approach God. (pg. 579-580)

Evaluation:

I absolutely loved this commentary. The introduction should be required reading at any conservative evangelical study as it responds masterfully to the increasingly common tendency to treat the Exodus as pure myth. He also deals with the JEDP documentary hypothesis and lasting versions of that. This also covers many other questions and betrays a wealth of Egyptian background knowledge which adds color to any study of this important book. He gives detailed pros and cons for 4 major Biblical chronologies. While he may lean toward the late Exodus date, ultimately he concludes that there are supporting texts and archaeological evidence for each major chronology view, and there are also archaeological problems as well. He cautions against getting too hung up on defending any one chronological scheme since the text doesn’t refer to specific Pharaoh’s by name. “The minister or Bible teacher, therefore, should refrain from specifying that this or that exodus event took place in the reign of this or that pharaoh” (p. 101-102). In short, we haven’t been given enough information to make a definitive conclusion. But we do have confidence that there is ample evidence to bolster the belief that the Exodus story is historically factual.

Another discussion in the introduction centered on the route the Israelites took as they left Egypt and crossed the Yam Suph (traditionally translated “the Red Sea”). This also brings up the question of where on a map we can place the Biblical Mount Sinai. As one who has read several popular accounts which provide compelling reasons for disagreeing with the standard Exodus route that one finds in most study Bibles, I was delighted to find a detailed study into the Bible’s record and the archaeological testimony to this route. Garrett finds it probable that Sinai was located in Northwest Arabia, across the Gulf of Aqaba, but the exact location of the crossing is likely lost forever. His detailed study is careful to avoid sensationalism, but doesn’t discount the insights of other scholars who may not hail from the scholarly guild of biblical studies. He largely agrees with the conclusions of Colin Humphreys (a physicist) with some reservations.

The translation and discussion of Hebrew terms is second to none. Garrett has a mastery of the language and the relevant literature and his translation deserves to be consulted. He also provides a helpful correction to the translation of 2 Cor. 3, a text that bears on the understanding of Exodus. His excursus on that topic is important and helpful.

Garrett finds several Hebrew poems placed strategically throughout Exodus, and in some cases this sheds new light on a passage. His treatment of Exodus 6:2-8 is an example. Rather than the text stating that previous generations did not know the name Yahweh, the text is a poetic affirmation to Moses that God will be with him. Garrett’s discussion of the Hebrew terms used in this passage are extremely helpful and here as in a few other places, my understanding of the meaning of the text has been adjusted for the better.

Almost all the puzzling questions that Exodus raises are covered. Garrett addresses the problem of Hebrew numbers briefly, and he grapples with the genealogy of Moses. He illuminates obscure customs (such as Zipporah’s circumcision of her son), and explains some of the ancient techniques referenced in the Tabernacle instructions.

Garrett is thoroughly evangelical in his treatment of Exodus, but he doesn’t shy away from following clues in the text where warranted. His explanation of the plagues allows for several of them to have natural causes (such as algae causing the Nile to look “red”), but guided in a supernatural way. Whereas I would have thought such an approach to belie a lack of faith, Garrett shows from the text and archaeological history why this may very well be so. But he still holds to the miraculous character of the Exodus as a whole.

He covers many textual problems and doesn’t hesitate to show a Christian application or Christological takeaway from the text. As noted in his treatment of 2 Cor. 3 above, Garrett has a mind for how the later Scriptural authors interact with Exodus. This concern benefits pastors and teachers who necessarily approach the text from a canonical and wholistic framework. At times, however, I wish he would say more, or deal with additional questions, such as the NT book of Hebrews placing the incense altar in the holy of holies, or Acts mentioning Moses’ eloquence in seeming contrast to the Exodus account. But all in all, this text provides a thorough and up to date, treatment of the book of Exodus that is worthy of close study.

The book does suffer from a lack of charts, maps and diagrams, however. I guess a commentary cannot be expected to furnish these. But when studying Exodus, in particular, such amenities would prove useful. Still his discussion of the route of the Exodus and the design of the Tabernacle is able to be followed without the help of diagrams.

I highly recommend this commentary for pastors and teachers everywhere. It will prove to be a reliable guide and a catalyst for theologically rich, exegetically informed appreciation of the Biblical text.

About the Author:
Duane A. Garrett (PhD, Baylor University) is the John R. Sampey Professor of Old Testament Interpretation and Professor of Biblical Theology at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and has served as a pastor and missionary. He coauthored A Modern Grammar for Biblical Hebrew and coedited the NIV Archaeological Study Bible, as well as having written numerous Old Testament commentaries.

Where to Buy:
• Westminster Bookstore
• Christianbook.com
• Amazon.com
• Direct from Kregel

Disclaimer:
This book was provided by Kregel Academic. I was under no obligation to offer a favorable review.

Another Look at Zipporah and Her “Bloody Husband” (Exodus 4:24-26)

~ Bob Hayton ~ 1 Comment

A Commentary on Exodus by Duane A. GarrettThe short account of Zipporah being forced to circumcise her son is one of the most enigmatic and puzzling texts for modern readers. I want to look at the text here briefly and allow Duane A. Garrett to help clear things up. Garrett is the author of the latest commentary in the Kregel Exegetical Library. His A Commentary on Exodus is absolutely superb, I am thoroughly enjoying it and hope to have a review up soon.

Here is our text, first in the ESV and then in Garrett’s translation provided in the commentary:

24 At a lodging place on the way the Lord met him and sought to put him to death. 25 Then Zipporah took a flint and cut off her son’s foreskin and touched Moses’ feet with it and said, “Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me!” 26 So he let him alone. It was then that she said, “A bridegroom of blood,” because of the circumcision. (ESV)

24 Now it happened along the way at a lodging place that YHWH encountered him and sought to put him to death. 25 And Zipporah took a flint, and she cut off her son’s foreskin, and she touched his feet, and she said, “You are my hatan damim (kindsman by the blood of circumcision)!” 26 And he let him alone. In that episode she said hatan damim with reference to the circumcision ritual. (Garrett, p. 222-223)

I cannot reproduce Garrett’s entire discussion, but will provide the introduction to his discussion of this text. I’ll also summarize some of his many arguments (against the “standard interpretation” and for his own) and then present his conclusion. I’ll also excerpt his theological take-home points as well.

This text is very difficult. What would probably pass for the standard interpretation among evangelical Protestants is as follows. Moses had two sons, but he had not yet circumcised one of them. On the way to Egypt he was suddenly incapacitated (by a severe illness) as a punishment from God for this neglect. Moses, calling from his sickbed, told Zipporah what the problem was and that she had to circumcise the boy, and she performed the circumsion. By doing this, she averted the wrath of God against Moses. But she found the whole process disgusting and blamed Moses for putting her through the ordeal, so she threw the boy’s foreskin at Moses’s feet and called him bloddy and disgusting). Her revulsion toward what had happened was so great that she went back to her father at that time; we do not see her again until Exod. 18:2.

Every aspect of the above interpretation, except that Zipporah circumcised her son, is almost cerainly wrong…. (p. 225-226)

Some of his key arguments are that the text calls the boy “her son” and focuses on Zipporah, not Moses. There is no indication in the text that Moses is present with her at this time. The pronoun “him” likely points forward to the boy as being sick. The text doesn’t say Moses told Zipporah to do anything. Zipporah a shepherdess was likely very familiar wtih anatomy and familiar with circumcision rites in her own tribe. The most natural reading of the text is that she touches the boy’s feet – not those of Moses. “Feet” can be a euphemism for genitals, but doesn’t need to be in this case. It could be a ritual touching of the feet, similar to the annointing in Leviticus that puts blood and annointing oil on the priest’s big toes. The same word for “touch” here is used in Exod. 12:22 which may point to this being a ritual ceremony.

Garrett’s longest discussion is on the “bloody bridegroom” terminology and the use of the various Hebrew terms. He takes it as a liturgical expression that was probably used in Midianite circumcisions and it survives here in Exodus as a “linguistic fossil,” and does not follow normal Hebrew meaning. The specific interpretation he gives for the entire account does seem quite probable and I tend to agree with his view here on this term, particularly since it doesn’t mention Moses but is said of the circumcision act. Verse 26 has to remind the Hebrew readers what this phrase was directed toward, since it is an unusual expression even for Hebrew readers.

Here then is Garrett’s interpretation:

We might, therefore, suggest the following reconstruction of the story behind this text. Moses and Zipporah set out for Egypt. Along the way, their son suddenly became deathly ill. Zipporah recognized that the boy needed to be circumcised, and she did the act with a flint knife (flint can be more finely sharpened than can bronze and is therefore better for performing surgery). After the removal of the foreskin, she ritually touched the boy’s feet (or genitals) with her hand or the flint while saying, “You are hatan damim to me” (a member of my community by virture of the blood of circumcision). These formulaic words concluded the circumcision ceremony. The act formalized the inclusion of the boy in the community. After that, the boy recovered. Ziporah had turned aside the wrath of God.

Which son was it? We do not know, but since there is no birth report for Eliezer during their time in Midian, it is possible that he was born right about the time Moses set out for Egypt. This would explain Moses’s desire to get a donkey for the woman and the children. Why was one son not circumcised? Again, we do not know, but if the above conjecture is correct, it may be that they thought it dangerous to circumcise the boy right as they set out on a journey across the wilderness. ON the other hand, it may be that the uncircumcised son was Gershom, the firstborn, as some Jewish interpreters have maintained. Why is the boy called “her son” and not “Moses’s son”? Probably because Moses play no role in the story; this is about what Zipporah did.

An important feature of the text, however, is how it is linked to its context. In v. 20, Moses provides for “his sons,” while v. 23 speaks of “my son” and “your son,” and v. 25 speaks of “her son.” Thus, the issue of how parents treat their sons dominates this passage. In addition, as Sarna points out, 4:22-23 is focused on the life and death of the “firstborn,” while 4:24-26 indicates that the son must be circumcised in order to live…. This parallel further suggests that it was the son, not Moses, whose life was in danger…. In the broader context of Exodus, the portrayal of Zipporah turning aside God’s wrath from her son is paralleled in Moses’s doing the same for all of Israel in Exod. 32:9-14. (p. 230-232)

From this interpretation of the text, here are a few of Garrett’s theological take-home points:

The circumcision of Zipporah’s son makes the point that one cannot be considered to be part of Israel, and so to be YHWH’s son, unless one is circumcised. For the Israelites, the warning was that they could only escape the great wrath of God directed against Egypt’s sons by being sure that their own sons were circumcised. By analogy, one is not one of God’s people by mere association….

Zipporah, in her actions, demonstrates spiritual insight applied to the protection of her children. Spiritual wisdom and intervention is necessary in order to save one’s children from destruction….

Christ is the supreme example of the obedient son. He is also the true firstborn of God, and he provided for us the circumcision that removes the defilement of the flesh and allows us to join the people of God (Eph. 2:11-13; Col. 2:11). (p. 232)

I found this treatment extremely helpful and illuminating. This is an example of the care with which Garrett handles the text and is representative of his exegetical treatment throughout the commentary. He is not usually offering an innovative interpretation (as he does above), but he brings clarity and his masterful knowledge of Hebrew to bear on the questions at hand.

Check out the book’s detail page at Kregel.com, where you can find an excerpt. Or pick up a copy at any of the following retailers:

• Westminster Bookstore
• Christianbook.com
• Amazon.com
• Direct from Kregel

Disclaimer: This book was provided by Kregel Academic for review. The reviewer was under no obligation to offer a positive review.

Further Reading on Old Earth Creationism

~ Bob Hayton ~ 7 Comments

Redeeming Science by Vern PoythressMy recent post in response to Justin Taylor’s article explaining Biblical reasons for viewing the six days of creation as not 24-hour periods has received a lot of attention. My Facebook profile doesn’t normally light up so much! And I engaged in some endless blog debates at Sharper Iron, and another site.

I’ve read a lot more on old earth creationism lately, and see the need to continue my studies in this area personally. Justin Taylor recommended a few sources for additional reading, and I wanted to share those here with a couple additions of my own, for the benefit of my readers.

For a simple explanation from a Christian geologist of the evidence for an old earth, this post (and his series, linked at the bottom) are helpful.

My primary reason for holding to an old-earth position is detailed in this article – God speaks through creation and He doesn’t deceive. For additional explanation of how the Bible allows for an old earth, see this post.

For two free e-books from a Reformed persuasion, which model a helpful and careful consideration of this debate, see:

Redeeming Science: A God-Centered Approach by Vern Poythres – ebook (free – PDF) / paperback (Westminster Bookstore)

A Reformed Approach to Science and Scripture by Keith Mathison – ebook (free) / not available in paperback

Justin Taylor also recommends the Presbyterian Church in America’s “Report of the Creation Study Committee”.

A brief booklet by Vern Poythress is also available free in pdf: Christian Interpretations of Genesis 1.

Rejecting Geocentrism: What’s the Real Motivation?

~ Bob Hayton ~ 9 Comments

I feel that the question of the age of the earth has become much more caustic in recent years. This debate has been increasingly polarized with each camp thinking the absolute worst of the other. But how important is such a debate anyway? I would contend that the earth’s age is not all that important as Christians who firmly reject natural evolution are to be found on both sides of that question.

Recently this debate was again brought to our attention through a pair of high profile blog posts. Justin Taylor (Senior VP and Publisher at Crossway), whose blog is hosted by The Gospel Coalition, shared the following post: “Biblical Reasons to Doubt the Creation Days Were 24-Hour Periods.” This post was not well accepted by young earth creationists such as Ken Ham. Ham came out with a strongly worded response: “Rejecting Six Literal Days — What’s the Real Motivation?” Now, never mind that just a couple days prior, Taylor had shared “5 Scientific Problems with Current Theories of Biological and Chemical Evoluion.” Poor guy, he is getting flak from both sides of the creation science debate!

As I read Ham’s title and then his blog post, I first bristled at his willingness to read Taylor’s motives. Is not grappling with the text important, whether or not modern science pulls us one way or another? Here is a sampling of Ham’s reasoning:

I have found over and over again that because of the outside influence from the secular world in regard to an old earth/universe… many… will try to reinterpret the days of creation, or somehow allow for long ages somewhere in Genesis 1… to justify meshing Genesis with what is claimed to be “science.” Of course, when the word science is used in relation to the age of the earth/universe, we are dealing with historical science (beliefs based on fallible assumptions) not observational science (the kind of science that builds technology).

I am prepared to go out on a limb, on the basis of my experience in the biblical creation apologetics ministry and of all I’ve read over the past 40+ years, to say this. When Christian leaders today are rejecting a dogmatic stand on six literal, 24-hour days of creation and a young earth, if you search their writings or question them, you will find that ultimately their thinking is being controlled by the belief in an old earth/universe (billions of years)…. You simply do not get the idea of millions or billions of years from Scripture—it comes from outside of Scripture….

And thus I am saying the age of the earth/universe comes down to an authority issue.

On second thought, Ham might be right. At the root of attempts to re-examine Genesis stands the scientific discovery that the earth is unimaginably old. But ultimatley, we must ask, is it wrong to examine afresh our interpretation of Scripture in light of science? I would argue no, and I believe Ham himself is guilty of the same thing.

I’m talking about geocentrism – the idea that the earth is at the center of the universe. This was the Christian interpretation of the world prior to Copernicus’ revolution. Even the early Reformers did not countenance a rejection of this view. I just shared a review of a Christian scholar from the 1960s who still held to a preference for geocentrism even then. And some conservative Christian professors today still argue for such a view.

Science is clear, and the observations shows that the earth is not the center of the universe, and looking at Scripture in a fresh light, the church came to agree that phenomenological language does not constitute an assertion that the earth actually has 4 corners, and is fixed on pillars, with the sun going on a journey around the immobile earth each day.

Ham tries to quibble over the science behind an old earth by claiming that such science is not observational – but this is to turn science on its head. Much of the science that gives us techonology is not strictly observational, but based on observations which reinforce interpretations based on an examination of the evidence. And there are scientific tests done with carbon-14 and a host of other elements, that all agree. Blind tests with controls. Ham and many dispute the validity of such tests but have yet to come up with alternative tests that consistently (with similar controls) demonstrate a young age for the earth. These tests done by modern science converge with astronomical observations and learnings from astrophysics. At the very least many creation scientists would claim that the earth has an appearance of age. Doesn’t Answers in Genesis spend a lot of time grappling over the question of distant starlight?

Rejecting a young earth is not necessarily a matter of authority. The Scripture has authority, we all agree. The question is what does the text actually say. To go back to Taylor’s post, this really is an interpretational issue. There are clues in the text that today’s widespread Christian interpretation about the age of the earth may be in error. This would be similar to the widespread views of Christians in the 1600s being wrong about the position of the earth. Is it wrong to look anew at our interpretations and the Ancient Near Eastern evidence of Genesis 1-3 being of a particular genre. Could not some of the arguments Taylor offers be an honest grappling with the text in light of the influence of science and history.

Bending on our interpretation, reexamining the evidence — these actions do not prove one is abandoning biblical authority and embracing natural evolutionary science. Taylor himself gives us 5 reasons to doubt the current state of evolutionary theory. Instead these actions are incumbent on faithful Christian leaders. We need to make sure our interpretation is firmly grounded in the text. A lot is at stake in getting this right. Let’s make sure we die on the proper hill.

Some have examined the evidence afresh and have come away with a stronger position for a young earth. Don’t look at those who disagree with you and criticize them for examining the evidence too. We all are trying to grapple with science and our interpretation of Scripture. Where we disagree, lets do so charitably and with recognition that this isn’t an authority issue. Both sides uphold the authority of the text. We are all trying to make sure our interpretation is sound.

Sunday Evening Services: Helpful or Not Helpful?

~ Bob Hayton ~ 14 Comments

smallchurch“I Want to Be More than a Sunday-Go-To-Meeting-Christian,” says an old-time song. For many, that means we take pride in attending church every time the doors are open. Some church traditions have a mid-week service and others have a Sunday evening service, with many having both. These, of course, are in addition to the Sunday School hour and the Sunday morning worship service.

But in Evangelicalism lately, more and more churches are abandoning the Sunday evening service. Is this a move toward a “lite” version of Christianity? Are such churches compromising or lowering their standards?

Most of the time the answer is clearly no. There are a variety of reasons for abandoning the Sunday evening service. And one reason is that the tradition of a Sunday night service is relatively new. The notion of a Sunday evening service dates to the revivalist days of the 1800s where this service would often be evangelistic in nature – and an early draw was the modern innovation of gas lamps or even electric lighting. But this is not entirely a new idea. Earlier, in both the Reformed and Puritan traditions, there were often second services held in the afternoon (when it was still light). The second service was often for catechism, and spending the day at church helped prevent people from profaning the Sabbath.

There is nothing wrong with additional church services, but we must remember that the very notion of a church service is not possible in some scenarios where the church is persecuted. Certainly the custom of the Church has had to change over the years. It appears that an evening service was the only one possible when slaves were members in NT times (and they had to work 7 days a week). Culture and regional preferences resulted in a variety of traditions over the centuries. The Bible doesn’t mandate specific meeting times, other than an emphasis on meeting on the Lord’s Day. We should not be hesitant to adapt to the culture we find ourselves in. Our age is so busy, that packing in an extra service on the Lord’s Day usually doesn’t lead to a more restful and worshipful reality. More services might be better, but must all worship and study be done in a formal church gathering? In many churches, the faithful are worn out from all the service they render for the church and don’t have enough energy left to get much out of the final service of the day. It seems the more active a church is, the more services it requires of its members–and the more obligated and stretched these members feel.

Many consevative churches eschew the evening service to make small groups easier to schedule. It isn’t about avoiding church so much as encouraging more effective ministry and fellowship. Other churches don’t want to ask too much of people preferring their members to focus on the primary message and enjoy rest and fellowship with their families.

An extra service may weigh down the congregation. It can become a measuring stick to see who is performing well. My legalistic heart and background probably clouds my perception, but I find such demands burdensome and have a hard time resisting the urge to measure up every chance I can. Worship should be about the Lord, not about us checking off boxes or jumping through hoops. Personally, I enjoy the freedom of an extra night with family – and more time to think on the things I’ve heard and studied. Every other Sunday afternoon we host a small group in our home. We can do this much more easily without the extra burden of another service.

I’m spurred to share my thoughts on this in light of a recent article from a Fundamental Baptist leader, Paul Chappel. His article is not intended to offend, but it is almost impossible not to read between the lines and see what he really thinks of churches that don’t have a Sunday evening service. Another pastor recently shared a response that was charitably written and helpful. Reading the two posts back to back can give a fuller picture and provide a helpful contrast in evaluating this topic.

Don’t get me wrong, Sunday evening services can be wonderful. There is nothing wrong with churches choosing to meet regularly in this way. But neither is there anything wrong with churches choosing to drop such a service. May we view people on both sides of this question with respect and love. May God bless us as we seek to follow Him more closely, in our families and our churches.

Here are the posts for your further consideration and I welcome any comments below.