Intimate Purity of Heart

Leviticus 18:6–18; Jeremiah 13:1–11; Hosea 1:1–3; Hosea 3:1–5

Sexual purity has long been a staple of Christian culture, and with good reason. Even as the culture around Christianity has changed and some Christians’ perspectives have changed about what is sexual purity, sexual purity remains important.

While we could go down the road of what is sexual purity, and how it interacts with general and Christian culture, the why is significantly more important.

The Law of Leviticus has ties to Genesis. Noah became drunk and was naked. His son, Ham, mocked him. Shem and Japeth (Noah’s other sons) covered their father without looking at him (see Genesis 9:18–27).

Noah’s nakedness was shameful, culturally. What had happened was not good. We know that the intimacy and mystery of the parental bed and relationship were marred.

This flows into the concept of Leviticus, where the intimacy and mystery of sex were to be protected. What makes this even more striking is that this was set in the context of tents and shared spaces. While the mechanics (and perhaps occurrences) were known, the final curtain separated the act from others, maintaining mystery and intimacy.

This flows into the concept in Leviticus, where the intimacy and mystery of sex were to be protected. While the mechanics of sex (and even when it occurred) was known in the context of tents and shared spaces, the act was still private. Whether separation was by a physical curtain or something else, the mystery and intimacy of the act between husband and wife was maintained.

While “uncovering nakedness” is often translated as “having sexual intercourse with”, the focus on sex often blinds us to the nakedness shame that is intended. Yes, sex was undeniably part of it. The nakedness is as much a part of the intimacy and mystery.

In fact, focusing on the sex may actually be helping to demystify and depurify sex itself, as nakedness is (usually) a precursor. By raising nakedness to the level that scripture brings it would certainly raise sex, too.

The raising of nakedness to an appropriate level helps us to contextualize this weird passage in Jeremiah about buried underwear. Through our contemporary lens, we just see it as underwear (i.e., functional).

As the passage in Jeremiah shows, another’s underwear is uncovering their nakedness. No, this is not a statement on doing your own laundry. This is about God’s “nakedness” being revealed by Judah.

By uncovering God’s nakedness, Judah destroyed the intimacy and mystery of their special relationship with God. When we get to Hosea, it’s even more apparent at just how intimate God viewed his original relationship with Israel.

Jeremiah wrote to Judah (post-split of Israel) as their falling away was climaxing with exile. Hosea wrote to Samaria (i.e., the Northern Kingdom) who was running away from God almost at the very beginning of the split of Israel.

Samaria was quite far gone (and this was around a century before Jeremiah). God skipped the underwear and talked about promiscuity. Samaria was sleeping with whatever flavor of god it was that day.

It is probably quite jarring to talk about God figuratively wearing underwear and having sex. That was God’s point. God viewed the relationship with Israel (and even the divided Judah and Samaria) as something as intimate as the naked and sexual relationship between husband and wife.

When intimacy with God is talked about, yes, it’s this intimate. This is why the purity of our hearts in regards to our relationship with God (and our spouse or potential spouse) is important to grasp.

※Prayer※

My One and Only God, guide my heart, soul, mind, and ways to diligently seek intimacy with you. Amen.

※Questions※

1) What is your concept of sex and intimacy? (this is probably not a group question)

2) How does the culture’s concept of intimacy shape your/ours/the church?

3) How does the culture’s transactional view of sex affect or impact the views of you or the church?

4) How do you think body-shaming is different from the shame of nakedness? How does body image fit into either/both?

2020 07 07
Under Yoke

Jeremiah 27:1–11; Jeremiah 28:1–17; Matthew 11:28–30

One of the ongoing themes of contemporary Christianity is to look at stories such as Jeremiah, and say, “of course he’s God’s prophet!” Looking back it is obvious to us. We’ve had a lot of history since then.

We know that Jeremiah was one of the 66 books of the Bible that was affirmed. We know that Jewish tradition also upholds Jeremiah. It’s obvious to us.

For the Jews, it wasn’t so clear. Sure, the “real” prophets usually were not full of good news. However, the thought of submitting to Babylon felt like a bad joke. God wouldn’t allow that, would he?

The cultural concept of American Exceptionalism and founding documents invoking God (honestly, though, more in a Deistic fashion, rather than a Christian one) and individuality, a yoke is an awful thing to contemplate.

A yoke means that one is not choosing the way. Another is choosing the way for you.

A yoke is usually pairing two or more together. So, not only is the way not of your choosing, but neither is your companion.

If a yoke is born by a single person, they are carrying a very heavy load, and often the load would not be their own.

This doesn’t fit into the thinking of many Americans raised and taught a particular “brand” of individual freedom. While contemporary American thinking and Jewish thinking have differing perspectives of the yoke (individual freedom versus Babylon), the end conclusion is the same.

The yoke must be broken!

The “prophet” Hananiah admonished Jeremiah. Hananiah, just like everyone else (even Jeremiah), didn’t want the yoke of Babylon.

What they wanted, however, wasn’t what was necessary. Why was the yoke of Babylon necessary? Pride.

Israel was quite prideful. Americans are quite prideful. Often that is what really hurts when we are confronted by yokes…our pride.

Hananiah responded to Jeremiah (and God) in pride (and blind hope). He broke the symbol of shame, and received a different yoke (death), and gave (through the example Israel followed) a heavier yoke for Israel.

Jesus promises a lighter yoke. The heaviness of Jeremiah’s yoke (and subsequently Hananiah’s) is ultimately based upon our pride. Jesus’ yoke is his pride.

This means that the yoke that Jesus offers us allows us to cast aside our concerns of our pride, for Jesus will take care of his own pride. Jesus’ pride was so humble and faithful, that it lead to his death on the cross.

Another way to think of it is that if Jesus is paired with us, Jesus bears his and our weight. That is a very light yoke indeed.

※Prayer※

Jesus, may we look for the lighter burden you seek to give us. Help us to relinquish the yoke of our pride, so that we are paired with you. Amen.

※Questions※

1) In what areas do you feel pride? What might the “yokes” be in those areas?

2) Why is it often easier to bear our burdens and not the burdens of others? How does Jesus turn that upside down?

3) Can a burden be so light that it doesn’t weigh you down? Does a burden always need to be compared to another burden?

2020 07 06
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 church, when a couple gets married, they say their vows. In older Christian 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 family 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.

Paul 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 tradition 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.

※Prayer※

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

2020 07 06
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 normal, 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 faithful 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, tradition, and even religion in question.

※Prayer※

Holy Spirit, help us to be faithful to your call on our lives. Help us to set aside practices and traditions that inhibit faithfully fulfilling our call. Guide us also into wisdom and truth, 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?

2020 07 05
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 father’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 son.

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 rest of the story.

Jesus’ first response 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 move 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 church 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-together 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 others.

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 end. 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 family 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?

2020 07 04
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 others 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 Paul’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 rest 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 faith 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).

※Prayer※

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

※Questions※

1) What do you think of when you hear the word “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?

2020 07 03
Do It Good

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

Turn away from evil 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. Paul 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 guilt). 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 Kingdom of God.

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 worth 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.

※Prayer※

Jesus, give us your strength 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 glory. Amen.

※Questions※

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?

2020 07 02
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 comfort 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 good news 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 worship 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 Creation.

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.

※Prayer※

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

※Questions※

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 fire of the kiln provide insight into the Holy Spirit?

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

2020 07 01

Intimate Purity of Heart

Leviticus 18:6–18; Jeremiah 13:1–11; Hosea 1:1–3; Hosea 3:1–5

Sexual purity has long been a staple of Christian culture, and with good reason. Even as the culture around Christianity has changed and some Christians’ perspectives have changed about what is sexual purity, sexual purity remains important.

While we could go down the road of what is sexual purity, and how it interacts with general and Christian culture, the why is significantly more important.

The Law of Leviticus has ties to Genesis. Noah became drunk and was naked. His son, Ham, mocked him. Shem and Japeth (Noah’s other sons) covered their father without looking at him (see Genesis 9:18–27).

Noah’s nakedness was shameful, culturally. What had happened was not good. We know that the intimacy and mystery of the parental bed and relationship were marred.

This flows into the concept of Leviticus, where the intimacy and mystery of sex were to be protected. What makes this even more striking is that this was set in the context of tents and shared spaces. While the mechanics (and perhaps occurrences) were known, the final curtain separated the act from others, maintaining mystery and intimacy.

This flows into the concept in Leviticus, where the intimacy and mystery of sex were to be protected. While the mechanics of sex (and even when it occurred) was known in the context of tents and shared spaces, the act was still private. Whether separation was by a physical curtain or something else, the mystery and intimacy of the act between husband and wife was maintained.

While “uncovering nakedness” is often translated as “having sexual intercourse with”, the focus on sex often blinds us to the nakedness shame that is intended. Yes, sex was undeniably part of it. The nakedness is as much a part of the intimacy and mystery.

In fact, focusing on the sex may actually be helping to demystify and depurify sex itself, as nakedness is (usually) a precursor. By raising nakedness to the level that scripture brings it would certainly raise sex, too.

The raising of nakedness to an appropriate level helps us to contextualize this weird passage in Jeremiah about buried underwear. Through our contemporary lens, we just see it as underwear (i.e., functional).

As the passage in Jeremiah shows, another’s underwear is uncovering their nakedness. No, this is not a statement on doing your own laundry. This is about God’s “nakedness” being revealed by Judah.

By uncovering God’s nakedness, Judah destroyed the intimacy and mystery of their special relationship with God. When we get to Hosea, it’s even more apparent at just how intimate God viewed his original relationship with Israel.

Jeremiah wrote to Judah (post-split of Israel) as their falling away was climaxing with exile. Hosea wrote to Samaria (i.e., the Northern Kingdom) who was running away from God almost at the very beginning of the split of Israel.

Samaria was quite far gone (and this was around a century before Jeremiah). God skipped the underwear and talked about promiscuity. Samaria was sleeping with whatever flavor of god it was that day.

It is probably quite jarring to talk about God figuratively wearing underwear and having sex. That was God’s point. God viewed the relationship with Israel (and even the divided Judah and Samaria) as something as intimate as the naked and sexual relationship between husband and wife.

When intimacy with God is talked about, yes, it’s this intimate. This is why the purity of our hearts in regards to our relationship with God (and our spouse or potential spouse) is important to grasp.

※Prayer※

My One and Only God, guide my heart, soul, mind, and ways to diligently seek intimacy with you. Amen.

※Questions※

1) What is your concept of sex and intimacy? (this is probably not a group question)

2) How does the culture’s concept of intimacy shape your/ours/the church?

3) How does the culture’s transactional view of sex affect or impact the views of you or the church?

4) How do you think body-shaming is different from the shame of nakedness? How does body image fit into either/both?