Devotion.al

  • I Swear On My Oath to Vow

    I Swear On My Oath to Vow

    Judges 13:2–25; Jeremiah 35:2–14; Acts 21:15–25

    People make vows every day. In the , when a couple gets married, they say their vows. In older traditions, priests/pastors are said to “take their vows” when they are ordained.

    What about vows and your yes is yes and your no in no (see Matthew 5:36)? Swearing and vowing are different things. They have similarities. Part of it is our own language use.

    We swear oaths (i.e., oaths of office or service). Yet, in a number of cases (military and police oaths of service for example), it might actually be better to say vows. They are making a structured and defined commitment.

    A dictionary difference is that an oath is a personal affirmation of a statement; a vow is the commitment made in words. Sounds pretty similar, doesn’t it? If the dictionary standard holds true than many wedding vows are oaths. The English language is fun, isn’t it?

    A Nazirite was supposed to be a person who willingly took a vow of consecration to God (Numbers 6:1–21). However, the first Biblical example is that the Nazirite lifestyle choice was made for someone who wasn’t even born! A vow was supposed to be part of the lifestyle choice, but Samson didn’t have that choice to start with.

    Which, in many respects, was the situation with the Rechabites. They followed a commandment of a ancestor, and none of them were alive at the time, either! It should be noted that the Rechabites obedience to Jonadab may not have included obedience to God. It isn’t mentioned either way, yet God uses their obedience to Jonadab as the example, not their obedience to him.

    made “Jewish” vows himself. Based on the head shaving, there was a least some similarity between this and the Nazirite ritual. This is not the first time that Paul has done this. It also appears that this was maintained (at least at the beginning) in early Christian circles.

    There is certainly something to vows and oaths. We may not entirely get it. We still do it.

    ※※

    , you gave us guidance on our yes and no. Help us in our , as we still try to cover for the failings of ourselves and in keeping our , and being people of our word. Amen.

    ※Questions※

    1) Yes, no, oath, or vow? What’s the difference? When would you use each of these?

    2) What are some oath’s you can think of? How about vows?

    3) How does obedience fit into vows and/or oaths?

  • Calling

    Calling

    Matthew 11:16–19; Matthew 12:22–28; Matthew 21:23–27

    Authenticity is appreciated. Hypocrisy is condemned. That is nothing new.

    What is more, the issue than even whether something is called authentic or hypocritical is when something is declared such (either way). Both Jesus’ and John’s ministries could have been declared authentic. With both men, you got what you got.

    By Jesus’ own words we see how each of them approached their ministry was quite different. Jesus wasn’t making a comparison. It was an observation.

    John followed a historic precedent by wearing a hair shirt and eating cakes of locust and honey. This certainly wasn’t a requirement, but a number of respected Jewish sects (the Essenes, for example) followed this sort of practice.

    Other than preaching and miracles, Jesus acted more like one of the guys. He went to parties. He hung out with people.

    Two very different takes.

    The religious leaders had problems with both and attacked both for their practices.  In the case of John, it does seem somewhat risky as the practices were followed by respected people. Jesus’ practices were pretty , and yet they were challenged, too.

    Both men were accused, basically, of being false, and different measures were used to condemn or disregard them.

    We see the real intent (as if we didn’t know) with the exorcisms that Jesus performed. The Jewish leaders accused Jesus of being in league (if not in the house of) the devil. He was doing the same thing they were, but because it was Jesus, it must be the devil.

    We can reasonably infer that there was nothing John or Jesus could do while remaining to their calling, that would satisfy the religious leaders. That is a sad indictment. When religious practice and traditions find nothing of value in faithfully filled callings, it puts practice, , and even in question.

    ※※

    , help us to be faithful to your on our lives. Help us to practices and traditions that inhibit faithfully fulfilling our call. Guide us also into and , especially through others, so that we do not deceive ourselves. Amen.

    ※Questions※

    1) Have you ever experienced a tension between something you were taught was “right”, but seemed to go against your calling? How did you resolve it?

  • Time Alone

    Time Alone

    Matthew 14:1–23

    Jesus’ cousin and herald was dead. He was murdered. Why was he murdered? He called the powerful to account.

    Herod’s marriage to Herodias had some issues. Herod had visited Herodias while she was still married to Herod’s brother, Philip. They decided they like each other, so they decided to be married.

    However, Herodias didn’t want to share the house with Herod’s current wife who wisely read the writing on the wall and fled to her ‘s house. As a historical aside, this created bad feelings and ultimately led to the military defeat of Herod, eventual downfall and exile.

    So, Herod wasn’t really divorced or a widower. His brother was still alive. Yet Herod married his brother’s wife. The only time in Jewish law that was appropriate was when the brother had died with no .

    John the Baptist condemned it. Herod, probably more to please Herodias than anything, put John in jail. Herodias wasn’t satisfied, and we read the of the story.

    Jesus’ first wasn’t to call Herod to account. Jesus made no public declaration at all. How different than our current age.

    Jesus’ first response was to withdraw. Just like the rest of us at times, Jesus was not going to just on. It is easy to infer that Jesus needed time to grieve and spend time with God the Father, even though the Scriptures do not give a full explanation.

    Not that it’s bad to step away and grieve. It’s healthy, and there is a Jewish practice that goes with that (something that the needs to approach). 

    Even more so for Jesus, John was his herald, his baptizer, his cousin, and probably the one person that Jesus felt a spiritual kinship due to their tied- callings.

    What happened next is sad, but we see it today. A famous person has a bad (or good) event, and people clamor around them. Famous people today have PR people deliver a statement that often asks for personal and private space to grieve. How sad that it isn’t given automatically.

    Jesus may have intended such, but then see how he loved them. Jesus set aside his needs for .

    However, there are a couple of pieces that need to be addressed. First, the amount of time spent was actually minimal. It also had an . Then once the people were satisfied, he sent the disciples away, the people away, and he had time between himself and God.

    Often the focus is that Jesus set his needs aside for others. He did. Jesus also still made sure his needs were met.

    In times of trial and trouble, such as caring for that are ill, it is easy to set one’s needs aside. In the end, that breaks us unnecessarily. Not only are we hurt, but often we hurt others as our internal limits are broken.

    We are not machines that can go and go. Honestly, machines can’t either. Machines need maintenance. So do we. Make sure that you are finding time for yourself and finding time for God. This is not a waste of time. It is what makes the rest of the time sustainable.

    ※Prayer※

    Jesus, as we live in a high-performance culture, help us to keep the vital rhythm of care for ourselves and fellowship with you. Amen.

    ※Questions※

    1) What practices do you have to “maintain” yourself? Do you have any that involve doing nothing?

    2) Have you ever experience relief of anguish or pain because you were distracted by other needs? What happened to the anguish or pain?

  • The Way of…

    The Way of…

    Romans 8:1–17; Ephesians 2:11–22

    No condemnation. Those are powerful words. We just don’t live them out well. We condemn ourselves for our faults. We condemn for theirs.

    What does it mean to be set free? This is not a small question. We often immediately say, free from sin. While that is correct, it is also utterly weak, thin, and a completely insufficient understanding.

    Sin is “merely” an aspect of who we are. It is a big one. It is still only an aspect.

    When we read ‘s flesh versus spirit, we stick to these 2 concepts as if they are what Paul is talking about. We take Classical (or “Greek”) thought of spirit (good) and flesh (evil), setting aside that God created the flesh. Is it corrupt? Yes. Is it evil? No.

    Flesh, in and of itself, is not evil. In fact, were we to take that perspective, the of Paul’s writings would be pointless. When Paul speaks of flesh, he speaks of the “way of the flesh”. The “way of the flesh” and flesh (our bodies) are not inherently the same. Confusing these two continue to be an issue in the church.

    The opposite of the “way of the flesh” is the “way of the Spirit”. That’s readily apparent from Paul’s words, yet still, the concept of the flesh being tied to our body rather than the sinful ways of the world creates its own issues.

    There are many body image issues out there. Some of them are weight. Some of them are premature balding. There a myriad of issues. Now we have the rise of gender dysphoria. It would be easy to condemn this as the “way of the flesh”, while it is in truth a cry of the soul.

    There was a time where people damaged their bodies (sometimes call flagellants) for the “mortification” of the flesh. This is not a healthy view of the body. Some have taken it (tongue-in-cheek) to the point of saying, “the body is evil; kill it with alcohol.” Even the “world of the flesh” took this view to some degree.

    The true danger of this view is that it actually lessens the apparent danger of the “way of the flesh”. If it is “just” our bodies, then our new “spirit” bodies will be fine, the ones we get after we die. This still puts Paul’s words into a place he didn’t intend. What happens after is more a matter of and speculation. Paul is referring to the now.

    The “way of the flesh” is summed up in not submitting to God’s law. The “way of the spirit” is to submit. This also was the danger of circumcision. This was a different mortification of the flesh, yet it provided the same illusion.

    The reality is, as implied in Paul’s letter to the Ephesians, the way of the spirit is a journey, not a destination. The way of the spirit goes the opposite direction of the way of the flesh. One goes toward God (and submission to God). The other goes away from God (and leads to rebellion to God).

    ※※

    Jesus, you took on the flesh of Creation and into a new stage of with us. Help us honor your , and live lives that bring you honor and . Amen.

    ※Questions※

    1) What do you think of when you the “flesh”? What is the difference when you hear “the way of the flesh”?

    2) Why might confusing “flesh” and “way of the flesh” an issue? How might it affect our Christian walk?

  • Do It Good

    Do It Good

    Psalm 34; Amos 5:4–24; 1 Thessalonians 5:1–22

    Turn away from and do what is good;
    seek peace and pursue it.
    —Psalm 34:14

    Pursue good and not evil
    so that you may live,
    and the LORD,
    the God of Armies,
    will be with you
    as you have claimed.
    —Amos 5:14

    See to it that no one repays evil for evil to anyone, but always pursue what is good for one another and for all.
    —1 Thessalonians 5:15

    Especially in the middle of the Psalm and the otherwise disturbing passage of Amos are very similar words. urges the Thessalonians to do the same. Yet, pursuing or doing good can seem so vague.

    On one hand, handing a panhandler money on the corner is probably not, ultimately, good for the panhandler. However, giving that same panhandler a meal in a safe and warm environment is. On the surface, both seem good. They might be also done for the right motive (love versus ). One is easy. One is harder (with others, can still be easy).

    The Psalmist is focused more on God giving encouragement to those that love him to do the right thing. In the context of the Psalm, it is like a parent encouraging and guiding. This is what it means, the Psalmist implies, to love God and love others.

    Amos’ words are those received when people do not love God and love others. Yet, as part of Amos’ admonishment to Israel is their claim that God is with them. They are right, as God is omnipresent. However, that doesn’t mean that they are with God, a nuance they missed.

    Paul was a bit more explicit about doing good. When he wrote about doing good, it was to be for the benefit of others. This is self-less good. There is plenty of good, but self-less good is a step beyond. Other-than-self love is what grows the .

    However, doing good and seeking the good of others seems to be in short supply these days. One could say that Amos’ words apply to today, too. The rich and powerful, but not just them, are one-upping each other, and others pay the price.

    Doing good for others isn’t just wearing masks in public (they certainly are annoying). It isn’t just yielding one more time to someone who thought that one more car length was diving into your line before they hit the cement barrier. It is one of many tiny, small, medium, and sometimes (just sometimes) it’s those really big things.

    Doing good for others is supposed to be integral to walking with .

    ※※

    Jesus, give us your to do good to and for others, even when they don’t recognize it. Help us to live in such a way that we do good without thinking about it, so as to give you . Amen.

    ※※

    1) Why do we often relegate good deeds to those that “deserve” them?

    2) Think of someone you don’t like (or might even “hate”). What good deeds have they done? (Be honest with yourself)

    3) When is a good deed authentic? Can you tell when you or someone else is authentic with their good deeds?

  • Animate Clay

    Animate Clay

    Jeremiah 18:1–13

    The story of Jeremiah visiting the potter’s house is probably quite familiar to you.

    In many respects, it is an odd sort of story. That is the way it is often used. We are in the hands of God. It sounds good, but that’s not really the point.

    Like most of the prophets of whom we have record, Jeremiah wasn’t exactly delivering to the people of Israel. Much of his message was dark and about impending doom.

    Like people today who hear impending doom and disregard the message so too were the people of Israel. They didn’t really want to hear the message. They didn’t really want to pay attention to the world-changing around them.

    The greatest deceit and greatest cruelty of the false prophets were that they told the people what they wanted to hear, not what they needed to hear. They became a “drug” of a sort, dulling the senses to both the Israelite relationship to God and the significant changes (world-conquering kinds) around.

    These false prophets fed the desires of false hearts. They told lies that because they were God’s people, nothing bad would happen. They told lies that God really doesn’t care that they pagan gods.

    They believed because they wanted to. God tried a different method.

    When God talks about treating Israel as a potter treats clay, it is an ultimate question. What is the purpose of Israel in regards to God?

    God’s purpose was not to make Israel equal to clay, but to point out that God is…God. God was and is capable of doing so. God is Creator. God is capable of destroying .

    God doesn’t. God won’t. Some would say, dangerously, that God can’t because to do so would mean that God denies God’s own love (self-giving and -sacrificing love).

    When God brings Jeremiah to the potter’s house, it is not to say that God can and will, but that God can and doesn’t want to.

    What was going on around Israel would eventually cause Israel to fall. Israel was spared, for the moment, due to God’s saving hand. Israel could make a different choice.

    We know their choice. Our choice is before us.

    ※※

    , may our hearts, minds, spirit and habits be open to your molding work of us. Amen.

    ※※

    1) Do you tend toward the complete potter (destroy/reshape/mold/control) thinking, or more toward the “could, but won’t” understanding of God? What shaped that thinking of yours?

    2) Clay does not reach it’s final form (pottery) until it is fired in the kiln. How might the of the kiln provide insight into the ?

    3) If (big if) the potter were to destroy his craftwork, how might the pottery be reused to make something beautiful? How might (big might) this provide insight into God

  • Following Further

    Following Further

    Acts 18:24–19:5; 1 Corinthians 3:5–15; 1 Corinthians 3:18–23 (read online ⧉)

    Continuing from yesterday, Peter and Paul were, and remain, examples to follow. In particular, it is their following of Christ and their wrestling with the for themselves and others.

    Not too long into things, however, already following fell into camps. Peter and Paul were the “original” camps and later, that of Apollos. The separation of camps was certainly not the intent of Peter, Paul, or Apollos.

    The primary concern of the Corinthians was Paul and Apollos. Paul did note that Peter (Cephas) was tied into this as well. One can imagine that the 3 camps were broken into apparently ideological categories: old/Apostolic guard (Peter), Jewish guard (Apollos), Gentile/revolutionary guard (Paul).

    Was this really the case for these 3 men? Neither the nor Church histories provide any evidence of it. This was something that likely started with relationships and attraction.

    We see this today, as people will follow a particular pastor. If that pastor moves on, so do they. We also often seen this camp development as a precursor to church splits.

    People will settle into camps over many issues: political party, environment, race, taxation, “freedoms”, immigration, world events, and so on. People will often find and focus on more that divides, rather than unites.

    In this environment of being divided and then further subdivided, and then divided again, followers of Jesus should buck the trend and figure out how to unite. Currently, we are on the same path as the rest of the world in that regard and that does not.

    We also know from the Scriptures and Church history that the early leaders did not all agree on everything at all times. Yet, their paramount allegiance was to Jesus Christ.

    One could dismiss their agreement on the reality that they were oppressed or at least strongly opposed. If that’s the case, perhaps instead of greater , we should pray for further difficulty (dark humor).

    It wasn’t easy to stay unified. It also isn’t as if they were unified on everything. They were being unified over Jesus, which is all we can really ask of one another. That isn’t happening today.

    As we always look for and at those who are one step ahead of us, we must still keep our eyes upon Jesus. The person we follow may turn away, and if we blindly follow, we too will walk away from Jesus. Keeping our eyes upon Jesus will help keep us going toward him, and not away.

    ※※

    Jesus, while we look at others to help us in our Christian walk, help us to keep our eyes on you. Amen.

    ※Questions※

    1) Which people are you watching or following right now? How do they lead you to Jesus?

    2) Is Jesus (not “being Christian”) your lens when looking at and listening to others?

    3) How do you converse generously in love, , and with others whose understanding of following Jesus is different than yours?

  • Following Followers

    Following Followers

    Matthew 16:13–20; Acts 11:1–18; 2 Corinthians 11:16–30

    Peter appears to have been the first one to put it all . He declared that was the Messiah.

    We often look back at Peter, thinking, “Well, that was obvious!” There were actually a number of people wandering around saying they were the messiah. Jesus wasn’t the only one.

    The other (false) messiah’s had followers, a lot of them. Some of the false messiah’s sought to overthrow the Roman government. They and their followers were killed (crucified) as rebels.

    The religious leaders weren’t any better than the Roman government, as many of them were in league with them. Also, the religious leaders had certain expectations of the messiah (some Scripture-based, many not) that no one could fulfill (and note that Jesus didn’t fulfill all of theirs).

    Peter’s declaration of the Messiah was a big deal. He assembled the “clues” together. Despite the failures and deaths of other messiahs, Peter still declared it. There would be a cost for that.

    It doesn’t matter whether one takes Jesus’ statement about “the rock” as literal (i.e., the Roman Catholic church), a figurative based upon Peter’s declaration (most Protestant traditions), or the fact the Peter was the first of the church. Peter’s place in Church history as both leader and declarer of the Messiah is undeniable.

    Peter is also the one that was first called to reaching the (non-Jews) with the saving message of the . Thus, as most of the Church is now “Gentile”, Peter’s place should be unquestioned.

    The second person that was the greatest impact on the Gentiles for the Church was Paul. Paul was almost exclusively a missionary to and a leader of the Gentiles. He, like Peter, was accused of “watering-down” the Word of God by not requiring Jewish practices for the Gentiles.

    Paul, more-so than Peter, could make a “Jew-of-Jew” claim. Paul did this so that his Jewishness would not be questioned, and neither would the grace, love, and mercy of God toward the Gentiles.

    It is hard to imagine how the message of God’s love through Jesus’ on the cross would have been shared and spread without these two. Both had significant flaws. In today’s overly sensitive world (in regards to all streams of to morality), both men would likely be attacked.

    When following Jesus, sometimes our best path is to follow the guidance of those such as these two.

    ※※

    Father God, you have called many people to follow your Son. , you have enlightened many to lead people to the Son. Jesus, you have many who are your followers. May we hear and obey the , and being the light of the world. Amen.

    ※Questions※

    1) What words would you use to describe Peter? How about Paul?

    2) Why is it important to recognize not just their place as “doctors” of the Church, but also their humanity?

    3) What do they teach you about being a follower of Jesus? What does it mean to follow a follower?

Devotion.al

I Swear On My Oath to Vow

Judges 13:2–25; Jeremiah 35:2–14; Acts 21:15–25

People make vows every day. In the , when a couple gets married, they say their vows. In older traditions, priests/pastors are said to “take their vows” when they are ordained.

What about vows and your yes is yes and your no in no (see Matthew 5:36)? Swearing and vowing are different things. They have similarities. Part of it is our own language use.

We swear oaths (i.e., oaths of office or service). Yet, in a number of cases (military and police oaths of service for example), it might actually be better to say vows. They are making a structured and defined commitment.

A dictionary difference is that an oath is a personal affirmation of a statement; a vow is the commitment made in words. Sounds pretty similar, doesn’t it? If the dictionary standard holds true than many wedding vows are oaths. The English language is fun, isn’t it?

A Nazirite was supposed to be a person who willingly took a vow of consecration to God (Numbers 6:1–21). However, the first Biblical example is that the Nazirite lifestyle choice was made for someone who wasn’t even born! A vow was supposed to be part of the lifestyle choice, but Samson didn’t have that choice to start with.

Which, in many respects, was the situation with the Rechabites. They followed a commandment of a ancestor, and none of them were alive at the time, either! It should be noted that the Rechabites obedience to Jonadab may not have included obedience to God. It isn’t mentioned either way, yet God uses their obedience to Jonadab as the example, not their obedience to him.

made “Jewish” vows himself. Based on the head shaving, there was a least some similarity between this and the Nazirite ritual. This is not the first time that Paul has done this. It also appears that this was maintained (at least at the beginning) in early Christian circles.

There is certainly something to vows and oaths. We may not entirely get it. We still do it.

※※

, you gave us guidance on our yes and no. Help us in our , as we still try to cover for the failings of ourselves and others in keeping our , and being people of our word. Amen.

※※

1) Yes, no, oath, or vow? What’s the difference? When would you use each of these?

2) What are some oath’s you can think of? How about vows?

3) How does obedience fit into vows and/or oaths?