Devotion.al

Year: 2019

  • Frameworks

    Genesis 35:9–15, Genesis 37:1–2

    While the “ of the story” appears to mostly be about Joseph, it is incredibly important to understand that from a familial , this is the continuing story (in comic book terms, the “origin” story) of Israel, both the man (born as Jacob) and the people (the 12 male descendant lines of Israel).

    Laying the groundwork is very important to understand the framework of the story. In many respects, the story of Joseph and his brothers is told within the larger framework of Israel, which is part of the larger framework of Abraham, and God’s to Abraham and his line.

    In fact, we can look at the of Abraham as a single line (which it was), until the sons of Israel. With the sons of Israel, the line branched and become a fuller, more complete version of itself. What it also bears a testament to is God’s faithfulness in the midst of brokenness.

    This was a heritage that was anything but healthy. It was, by any account, a complete and utter mess. God did something beautiful with it.

    1) Have you ever thought that your was too messy for God to fix? Do you have friends or family who think that?

    2) Imagine if God waited for the Israelite family to get it “all ”. Why do you think people believe that God will only accept them after they have it all together? What can we do to the that says, “come as you are”?

  • Family Issues Galore

    Genesis 29:21–30:24, Genesis 35:16–20

    Jacob’s (as we read yesterday) were already a mess. His Uncle Laban did not help relational stability by setting up his own daughters to have discord in their marriage.

    The consequence is that sister wives fought over their husband. They also used their -women as bargaining chips. From our , what occurred with Jacob’s wives, their servants, and the resultant sons is crazy. We can reasonably condemn Jacob for allowing this. At the same time, sons were the “greatest” wealth. He would do what was necessary to make sure of that. However, his is deeply in question.

    1) What do you think the relationships between the brothers would have been like? How would the relationships between the four mothers impacted the brothers’ relationships between each other and their parents?

    2) Blended families bring in the traumas of more than 2 families, and often create more trauma on top of it. What can the do to help in that? Do you know blended families? How do you related to them?

    3) Our modern concept of the “nuclear” family would seem to be in sharp contract to Jacob’s family. What are both positive and negative lessons we can from these families?

  • Sibling Strife

    Genesis 25:19–34, Genesis 27:1–45

    If you have siblings or multiple children, you probably understand the tension that exists between siblings. Often, the tension may seem completely silly, but it is still there.

    Rabekah’s War in the Womb was definitely a precursor to the strife between the brothers. Twins (or multiples) generally do push and pull (and kick and punch) each other as they try to get comfortable. In a place that usually fits one, in now shared by more than that. The room is not infinitely expandable ( any mother of multiples).

    The quick glimpses into their lives and their with one another are quite jarring. Esau did not seem to be a thinker. Surrendering his inheritance for a bowl of stew is not a sterling example of good thinking. Culturally, it would be viewed as having contempt for his . Isaac was asked to as he was too powerful, wealthy, and successful. This is the inheritance that Esau sold to sate his stomach.

    Jacob is no sterling example, either. He took advantage of his brother’s hunger. Later, he took advantage of his father’s infirmities (granted, at the direction of his mother) to claim the , too. He took the last thing that Esau could have received from his father. On top of that, his mother even told him it was his responsibility, despite setting him to the task. Then he ran away (again, at the direction of his mother).

    The history of Jacob is not a great example. This is the into which Joseph was born.

    1) What lessons as a parent and as a child can we take away from this story?

    2) What emotional and spiritual baggage do you think a person would carry away from this family?

    3) Where do you see similarities to your own family story? What baggage did you get with that similarity?

  • Were and Being Sent

    Luke 9:1–6, Luke 10:1–16, Luke 22:35–38

    This series of passages shows a progression of being sent out. The first passage is Jesus’ immediate 12 disciples being sent out. Their was to tell about the and to heal people. Pretty simple goals. Difficult mission. This seems to be the test run, for Jesus later sends out 72.

    These 72 are told that there are few workers. The 12 didn’t get that “pep-talk”. In both cases, they (whether 12 or 72) are to only preach to those who are open. Jesus tells them to “shake the dust off” if people are not receptive. In our day and where were seek to not offend, this can seem pretty harsh. Yet, often we are called to plant seeds and on so that we can plant more seeds. If you plant one seed, but just stay in one place to make sure it grows, everywhere else you could have gone remain unseeded.

    Even still, there is a balance. While they are directed to move from town to town, while they are in one town, they only stay in one place. This is a not-so-subtle reminder that humans play . The latest prophet (or one sent by that prophet) is the latest “star”. Imagine how far too many people would clamor to host them, creating strife in a where the of God is being preached.

    However, the last “sending” has a much darker and starker tone. Now, they are to be fully prepared and even armed. As an aside, many commentators struggle with Jesus telling them to have swords while at the same time being the and (to many) a pacifist. That’s actually what makes this third sending so dark and stark. The reality of the world is that being means that you will be destroyed. Now, there is the pacifist route, the self-defense route, and the armed aggressor route. As we look back at history, there is no question that the armed aggressor “evangelism” is against the Kingdom of God. Where the balance between pacifism and self-defense is a discussion that is still going on to this day.

    Regardless, though, we know that the ways and the hows of sharing about the Kingdom of God are always changing. The message does (and must) remain the same, but how we it changes constantly. One of the most common phrases used is, “this is the way we’ve always done it.” While, at the same time, how groceries, tools, gas, cars, and many other things are purchased has massively changed. Modes of communication have expanded. The ability to see across the world in real-time is everywhere. Yet, we want to deliver the message the same way?

    1) Where have you been guilty of saying/thinking/feeling “that’s the way we’ve always done it?” What do you think the underlying emotions are?

    2) Tossing the old just for the new can be just as bad. How can the old inform the past, and how can the new transform the past?

    3) All too often we operate as if it is old versus new. How can we operate old and new?

  • Circumcised Relationship

    Genesis 17:1–14, Deuteronomy 10:14–22, Luke 1:59–80

    The ritual of circumcision existed before the people of Israel came into being (yes, Abraham was their forefather). This was a ritual the physically made the people of Israel different than those around them. It was (and is) the ceremony that “enters” a boy into the . In the modern ceremony (which, in all likelihood, had similarities to the ceremony John went through), the parents respond with, “As this child has entered into the covenant, so may he enter into Torah, the wedding canopy, and good deeds.” This is also the time when the boy officially receives his Hebrew .

    While we’re certain that John didn’t get married, he certainly learned (“entered”) the Torah and did “good” deeds. When we recognize the receiving of a name as part of this ceremony, we understand where the is a bit confused regarding the name that John receives, which isn’t Hebrew. John’s name in and of itself indicates that John is set apart at the tender age of 8 days (plus the whole angel visitation) to be different. The Brit Milah is a big family occasion. What a time to make waves!

    While obeying the (Jewish) Law is good, obeying the Law for the Law’s sake is not. As we talked about a few days ago, the Law was never the point. It was a relationship with God. The event of Brit Milah was both the entering into the covenant and recognizing the One who created that community…God.

    Often we get sidetracked by the good things: , Bible reading, Groups, even prayer. As we “check-off” the list, we neglect a relationship with the One around whom all these revolve. The tasks overtake the relationship. That being said, there are far too many people who say, “I can worship God better (here) than at (church/life groups).” They might be correct…for a time. However, when we worship God in isolation, we become the only one who holds us accountable. Except in rare cases, that means the worship (let alone the relationship) fades away.

    When Moses talked about circumcising the , it wasn’t supposed to be a task to be “checked-off”, it was a relationship to be had.

    1) When we look at the tradition of circumcision, we can see the similarity with infant baptism. What are the similarities? What are the differences? Why do those differences matter?

    2) At the circumcision, there are 3 aspects of life that are addressed. What are they? How do they echo the life?

    3) Age is no barrier to making waves; John’s parents were well advanced in years, and their was 8 days old. What does this tell you about the age barriers in the Christian life? What does this tell you about making a difference for God’s kingdom?

  • By Their Sin, They Are Known

    Genesis 18:16–33, Luke 13:1–5

    The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is often used as an object lesson regarding the result of select sins. In today’s passage, we don’t address those sins, for they aren’t really the subject of today’s section in Genesis.

    What do you think of God and Abraham in this story? God debated whether to tell Abraham about the impending judgment of Sodom. God chose to inform Abraham. The reasoning probably had a lot to do with Abraham having (Lot) in Sodom. What we should draw from this passage is that Abraham didn’t question the of God’s inquiry. In other words, Abraham knew bad stuff was happening in Sodom. Abraham did what the threshold was for enough people needed to prevent destruction. Abraham believed that there had to be one. Note that God didn’t push back on Abraham, either. Abraham was very humble in his approach but kept asking until he was satisfied.

    There is something else to take into consideration. The gods of the area were not known for their self-control. The gods were expected to destroy anything and everything of a village, let’s say if one person offended them. In that context, Abraham gives us a picture of God that is different from the other gods that Abraham would have been familiar with.

    This same motif comes into play when talks about those who died at the Tower of Siloam. There is not some mean-hearted god who waits for a person (or people) to and then destroy them. That is not God at all! For some who brought this up to Jesus there were those that felt that those Galileans were the worst of sinners (for various political reasons), so deserved what they got. Jesus’ point was that everyone needs to , not just some people.

    1) The litany about righteous men in Sodom (or the lack thereof) can be heard in our culture, our churches, our families. How many people does it take for a family, , or culture to be “okay” and not be condemned by those around it? How often have you condemned a group of people based on the behavior of one person?

    2) We often measure suffering. There are 2 basic measures. If the sufferer is , there is a comparison of suffering to being attacked by the Adversary. If the sufferer is not Christian, there is a comparison of suffering to their lack of repentance or the amount of sin in their . Have you done any of these comparisons? What makes either of these comparisons dangerous?

  • Freeing the Rules

    Psalm 119:153–168, Deuteronomy 6, Galatians 5:1–15

    Rules and regulations. We often don’t like them. At the same time, there are many who are calling for more and more rules and regulations. People want to control people’s thoughts and their expressions of their thoughts. People want to control ‘ behavior, but don’t want theirs controlled.

    When refers to the Law of the Jews (e.g., circumcision), there is a Jewish understanding that the Jews failed miserably to follow the Law perfectly. So, to do a better job of following the law that they couldn’t already follow, they added more laws.

    The whys of rules and regulations should often be more the focus than the actual rules and regulations. When Moses talks about the whys, it is contained within Deuteronomy 6:4–6. “Listen, Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. the LORD your God with all your , with all your soul, and with all your strength. These words that I am you today are to be in your heart.”

    It’s not that breaking the rules wasn’t serious. It was. What was of primary importance was a with God.

    Note also what comes after that, teaching and guiding others into that same relationship.

    Then, and only then, do we get to the rules. Many Bibles have a heading before verse 10 to the effect of Remembering God Through Obedience. So, the rules aren’t about the rules, they’re about God. For Christians, the “rules” of Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers are more like guidelines, good and healthy guidelines for , but guidelines. They are for a time and place and context, which isn’t ours.

    So, Christians create more rules. These rules are in many ways far worse than the rules of the Law. Many people use the “new” rules to condemn people to Hell, without knowing them. The rules are often used with and intimidation. That certainly isn’t the that Paul was talking about.

    1) When you think of rules, what are your feelings? How do you feel when someone else breaks the rule? How about when you break the rules?

    2) Why do you think the rules and remembering are tied ? How does that affect the way you feel about rules?

    3) We all set rules and expectations regarding the behavior of others. What do you do when someone violates them?

  • Faith and Tradition

    Psalm 40:1–16, John 7:21–24, Acts 15:1–21

    To this very day, churches (and thus the church) struggle with what exactly their faith means and its implications. Certain things appear to have been settled, but others haven’t. Although, perhaps it is better to say that when push comes to shove people will finally get to the point where doctrine and orthodoxy are finally separated from .

    In many denominations and churches, tradition has been so wrapped into doctrine and orthodoxy that not following tradition is viewed as dangerous and even non-Christian. As the Church of the Nazarene is rooted in the Wesleyan tradition, we view tradition as a key component to understanding our faith. At the same time, we (as Wesley) are “descendants” of the Reformation, which has as a motto, “Semper Reformanda,” always reforming. In other words, while certain essentials of the faith must be predominately left alone, everything else should be of dispute and .

    If we re-read the passage from John and Acts in the of the above, we see tradition and Semper Reformanda at work. In the Book of John, Jesus heals on the , violating tradition, yet reforming the practices to be more aligned with the heart of God.

    In the Book of Acts, traditionalists (honestly believing they are doing the right thing) try to get (non-Jews) to take on the Jewish rite of circumcision. They get into a discussion with Paul and Barnabas, and it gets sent to committee. However, unlike our committees, a decision was made and shared. The message didn’t denigrate tradition, but it reformed it.

    Local churches (i.e., Generations Church) often have traditions that had a time and place, but that may no longer be the case. The tradition may be 50 years, 20 years, 5 years, or even 5 months old. Regardless, it should always be viewed as whether it is still effective in sharing the Gospel and discipling believers.

    1) is the big of tradition. If we look at how Jesus lived, why should that concern us?

    2) Tradition is neither inherently good nor bad. How do you analyze the why of a tradition? If you don’t analyze a tradition, why not?

    3) Acts 15:2 shows that discussion (even if heated) is good and healthy when it comes to tradition and even theology. Where do you see that of discussion happening? Where do you think it needs to happen more?