Devotion.al

  • Pagan Response

    Ezekiel 27:1–36, Ezekiel 28:20–23, Luke 10:13–16

    To understand ‘ “woe” statements, one needs to understand history. While Tyre and Sidon were now (in Jesus’ time) prosperous cities, their pride, pagan behavior, and anti-Israel behavior had gotten them a lot of punishment. After Ezekiel’s prophesy, the cities weren’t washed clean, but wiped-off-the-map cleansed. Because of their geography, those locations would recover (and even retain their name), but the penalty received had been severe.

    In the time of Jesus, Tyre and Sidon were still very pagan, Las Vegas and New Orleans (during Mardi Gras) pagan. Devotion to gods or God was perfunctory at best. was the ruler. Yet…
    Jesus stated that those cities would have responded (positively) to the of God, while the so-called devoted of Judah were apathetic or antagonistic!

    We look at our culture and often sadly proclaim that if they could just see Jesus, they would convert. Or if they joined the , everything would be fine. Or (yes, foot-stomping ahead) if only and the Bible would be allowed in schools again…

    The Jews had prayer. They had the . They had “the church” (i.e., the and synagogues). It was all tightly integrated into their culture and their (more foot-stomping). Look where that got them! Chided and lectured by Jesus!

    1) Truly…are we all that different now than the Jews were then?

    2) Politicians—of all stripes—are rightly pulling and poking at our religious- and -strings. They see what we aren’t good at seeing…our inconsistency. They use it to bolster their kingdom. How can you the religious and faith truths from the political lies? How will you do that as each political group takes some, but not all, of the Christian ideology for political talking points?

    3) If the world is like Tyre and Sidon, and we are like the Chorazin and Bethsaida (the unrepentant Jewish cities), what do they (the world) see that we don’t about Jesus and the Kingdom of God?

  • Lamb Expectations

    Numbers 27:15–17, John 10:1–16, Luke 10:1–12

    Shepherds have long held a in the story of Israel. were part of Abraham’s, Isaac’s, and Jacob’s, and the 12 patriarchs’ lives. Moses, too, was a . Therefore, it is not a surprise that he talks about the people of Israel needing a shepherd. And, after being “bitten” by them numerous times, he probably thought they acted like sheep. Moses even goes and uses shepherding language (go and come back) to describe his successor.

    Goes and comes back terminology is used by Jesus, too, as he calls himself the shepherd. Jesus goes further and says that his sheep will know his , and run from the voice of a stranger. What’s really interesting is that John then makes an aside and calls it a figure of . As John was writing much later, one can safely that John saw many “running” away from Jesus, who had once proclaimed to follow Jesus. Thus he saw Jesus’ words more figural because the sheep sure didn’t seem to be listening.

    When taking all the sheep and shepherding imagery together, it becomes a little more obvious that when Jesus sends out the 72, his expectations are not high. He calls them lambs. This means that they are innocent. In many respects, lambs are innocent even of what it means to be a sheep. The innocent lamb being sent out has no protection in the herd, meaning that the threat of wolves is even more significant. This lamb has no protection (money, food, clothing, weapon).

    The other part of being called lambs, especially in the of the shepherd, is that they are his little lambs of his little flock. Someday, they up to be big sheep. As big sheep, they will lead, guide, and teach the new lambs what it means to be sheep, and who the shepherd is, who the shepherd isn’t, all while the shepherd isn’t present.

    1) Who are the lambs in the (don’t jump to just the easy !)?

    2) Who are the “big sheep” in the church (again, don’t jump to just the easy answers!)?

    3) How do you, we, the church teach who the shepherd is? Can you think of new ways? What about old ways no longer used?

  • Path Selection

    2 Samuel 24:1–25

    What the reason was for inciting the census has remained a . Why God would incite David to do this, and thus punish the Israelites, is also a mystery. Some have claimed that this was still the penalty of David’s murder of Uriah and his affair with (and marriage to) Bathsheba. The implication is that while David was the empowered person who did wrong, the people also did wrong by standing by and doing nothing.

    When David could not choose a path and left it to God, God chose the supposed lesser penalty against the people. That David gave up the choice to God, and God chose this path strongly implicates the peoples’ in something. Why the plague for a census? That’s another interesting thing. In Exodus 30:11–16, there is a penalty for everyone if a census is taken and each man (males over 20) does not pay a half shekel. Apparently, there were many who could not pay the price.

    In the midst of his indecision, David’s (people against him for 3 months) resulted in the of his people, those for whom he was responsible. He obviously came to a point of remorse and regret and knew that the path taken was his responsibility. He chose to make amends the best way he knew how…sacrificial .
    Even the site and animal sacrifices (not inexpensive) were offered to him for free, but he chose the correct path and paid for it. The site of this saving ? It became the home of the built by Solomon. This site which was first used to atone for the census (and whatever else we don’t “see”) became the place where people “met” God.

    1) While we understand that “meeting” God happens in all sorts of places, no matter where we are, we humans like (some say need) places to God. What are your thoughts regarding how God transformed this place of sacrifice?

    2) How did God transform the suffering of the Israelites and David?

  • Covenantal Bride

    Ezekiel 16:7–22, 2 Corinthians 11:1–4, Revelation 19:6–9

    The image of the church as the of was not a new concept. Israel/Judah was often compared to a wife, though, sadly, often an unfaithful wife. Despite the seeming graphic nature of this passage in Ezekiel, there is a strong implication of innocence, harking back to the Garden of Eden (prior to the Fall), when Adam and Eve were naked and unashamed. The bride (Israel/Judah) found in the wilds was innocent.

    Where it becomes interesting (and disturbing) is after the hinted marriage (covenant). Very quickly the bride wanders away all that she has to others that are not her husband. This motif of unfaithfulness covers much of the story in the Old Testament. The People—the bride of God—did not remain to the one who chose them.

    Despite this being the central theme of the Old Testament, it is not as if God gave up. Paul uses the imagery of a virgin (i.e., innocent) bride being presented to Jesus (God). It is not insignificant that Paul perceived the need to use this imagery. Despite the unfaithfulness to God in the Old Testament and the unfaithfulness to God (Jesus) in the New Testament, there is something significant in this marriage motif.

    Despite the altered state of marriage in our day and age in a myriad of ways, marriage is still very much part of God’s plan for us. While we, the “church”, usually focus on marriage as a societal, cultural, and religious piece, for God it is something far deeper. Paul uses the marriage imagery in a culture that does not, generally, view it as covenant. It is contractual. Yet, Paul maintains its covenant view, even apologizing for being /silly. Imagine trying to convey the depth of the covenantal nature of marriage to people who don’t in it.

    Paul wants the Corinthians (and us) to not view our with Jesus as transactional, but relational and covenantal. This covenantal view means that Jesus is at the center and core of the relationship, not just with God, but with others.

    Both Paul (2 Corinthians) and John (Revelation) view the bride as being prepared. Of course, in Revelation, it is at the conclusion of it all. For Paul, it is the ever-present tension of a bride being ready to all (prepared) and getting ready to give all (preparing). The bride will always be getting more ready, to always be closer to perfection, even if it is at an inch at a time. The question is, does the bride think He is it?

    1) When you look at yourself, how do you see yourself prepared for and preparing for Jesus? How do you think the church is prepared and preparing for Jesus?

    2) How have you been transactional in your relationship with Jesus? How do you think the church has been transactional in its relationship with Jesus?

  • Closing the Gap

    Exodus 32:1–14, Numbers 14:11–24, Ezekiel 22:30-31, Matthew 18:18–20

    Standing in the gap has long been a phrase used for intercessory , and it is fitting. Sometimes, however, standing in the gap doesn’t always mean what we think it means.

    Twice Moses stands “in the gap” apparently between God and the Israelites. The Israelites have betrayed their agreements with God, even so quickly after their miracle-filled escape from Egypt. What possessed Moses to stand between God and the Israelites? Was it truly concern for God’s ? Scripture only really provides that interpretation. In fact, it happens twice. Moses stands between God and the Israelites.

    It’s Moses! Of course, Moses can do that! There is the time Abraham sort-of steps in between God and the city of Sodom, but it wasn’t the same.

    Yet, in Ezekiel, we see that perhaps it isn’t an Abraham or Moses task to stand in the gap. It’s anyone’s task (or even everyone’s). Re-read those 2 verses in Ezekiel. It seems as if God is disappointed that no one is standing between God and consequences. God was looking for a person to stand up and defend the sinners, lost, and unrighteous! Sound familiar? There is an inference that there was such a lack of believers and followers that they couldn’t, wouldn’t, or felt they shouldn’t stand in the gap.

    Where does that leave us? Let’s look at ‘ words. They have long been used by the Roman Catholic for certain practices of theirs. Abuses of it helped to trigger the Reformation. However, in so doing, these words are avoided by Protestant circles. Regardless of our personal feelings, these words of Jesus remind us that we are called to stand in the gap for .

    While we are especially to stand in the gap for those in the extended of believers, we are also called to do the same for those currently outside of the family of believers.

    1) What do you think of the “whatever” that is in Jesus’ words?

    2) For whom in the family of believers are you standing in the gap? For whom that are outside of the family are you standing in the gap?

    3) Looking at (Abraham,) Moses, Ezekiel, and Jesus, what does it mean to be standing in the gap?

  • Consequential Freedom

    Psalm 75, Amos 1:3–2:8, Ezekiel 18:25–32

    While Israel is being foretold of its doom, it is probable that a great many people were responding to the prophets (and therefore, God) that God just wasn’t being fair. Why shouldn’t they be able to be “free” as the other nations?

    While the focus is on them, their sins, and their need for repentance, God tells them that the other nations that they want to be like will also be receiving consequences. The interesting part about this passage in Amos is that God repeatedly says that those nations also had a choice. Their choice was how they would fulfill their part of the of Israel. They overdid it.

    How exactly it works is a . God released the surrounding nations to Israel and Judah. However, these nations, instead of just (for example) invading, they destroyed and annihilated.

    Definitely not the intent. So, while Judah and Israel can expect some misery ahead, so can the countries around them.

    1) What does this tell us about the of God?

    2) Why is important to understand that both the “” and “not-chosen” will receive discipline from God?

    3) What is discipline when it comes from God?

  • Blessings and Consequences

    Exodus 34:1–27, Ezekiel 18:1–32

    There are many instances in where guilt and consequences appear to be related, but at the same time aren’t.

    Often times, especially for “simpler” crimes, we see only the person convicted, not the victims. And when we see the victims, we see the victim of the crime itself and not the “invisible” victims. The invisible victims? There are many. Often there are far more invisible victims than visible ones. This is not (in any way) intended to diminish the actual victims and their pains…not at all. It is to widen our understanding of consequences.

    When God appears to threaten families (whole lineages) with the sins of a forebear, it can seem to be too much. Of course, if one notices the are for 1000 generations and the “” for only 4, there does seem to be an odd imbalance. How does it work when 1 generation is , and the next is faithless? Is it an equation of 1000-4=996? Then the next generation is faithful, and it is again 1000? Perhaps.

    On the other hand, there might be another thing going on here. We have to recall that is everything in the ancient world. The thought of the 1000 generations after you would have been a strong motivator to do right. Watching your children, grandchildren, and (if you live long) your great-grandchildren suffer the consequences of your wrongs would be a strong deterrent.

    This is why understanding who the invisible victims of crime are is so important. The children of the criminal are often deeply affected (for life). The children of victims are deeply affected. The extended families of both perpetrator and victim suffer. It may be in small ways, but the smallest thing can turn a to good or bad.

    The consequences of the sins are carried on. There is a reason why (especially) negative traits (e.g., alcoholism, abuse) are passed down in families. The offender (e.g., the alcoholic or abuser) may have repented, but the damage has been done and usually gets passed down. That is reality.

    That there has to be a clarification of this tells us that there had been some sort of abuse. Whether it was “just” the saying, or if there was something that was far deeper, pervasive, and (or sinful) is up for interpretation. That God saw it as necessary to clarify would seem to indicate a strong spiritual problem that needed to be addressed.

    With these 2 passages, we see guilt and consequences. People may incur guilt with God and . They can , seek forgiveness, and receive it. The consequences, however, remain. The guilt is ours. The consequences are not. When we sin, it may seem it affects only us, but we may never fully understand the consequences our sins have for others.

    1) What does it mean to be guilty? Toward whom are you guilty?

    2) Have you seen or experienced the consequences of another person’s sins? How did you feel about those consequences? How did you feel about the person as a result of those consequences?

    3) There is a trap when we focus on these two passages, and that is ignoring collective sin. What are collective sins that you can think of? What do you think the consequences were/are?

  • Unpolishing the Church

    Haggai 2:1–9, Matthew 16:13–20

    There is a lot of hand-wringing about the demise of the church. To put things in , it is often better to read the Old Testament than the New. Yet people often skip all the prophets because it appears so dark and -wrenching. It is.

    God’s sadness, anger, , are all there in those pages. The hearts of the prophets are there, too. God and prophets yearning for the people to fully to God.

    As the church looks around and sees its influence diminishing, and churches closing, and people leaving the church, and then the , it would seem that all is lost. The shininess is all gone, now.

    The was once big and shiny. It had lots of beautiful things. It had lots of worshippers and visitors. It had lots of priests. It didn’t last long. The church, on the other hand, has had a long run of it. Perhaps, just perhaps, it’s time for us to dispense with the shiny.

    Haggai’s message was that a shiny temple didn’t mean that God wasn’t present. In fact, God’s has nothing to do with the shiny temple.

    ‘ disciples didn’t have a shiny place. While they were tolerated, they were allowed to worship at the temple, but eventually (over time) that became dangerous. They couldn’t gather at they synagogues, either. They could only gather in private homes. The gatherings were about Jesus, not the place, just as the Jewish gatherings should have been about God, not the place.

    1)When you think about the “state” of the “church”, what do you feel?

    2) When others comment or make a declaration about the “bad” state of the church, how do you ?

    3) Do you think your responses are based more on you, or on God?

Devotion.al

Pagan Response

Ezekiel 27:1–36, Ezekiel 28:20–23, Luke 10:13–16

To understand ‘ “woe” statements, one needs to understand history. While Tyre and Sidon were now (in Jesus’ time) prosperous cities, their pride, pagan behavior, and anti-Israel behavior had gotten them a lot of punishment. After Ezekiel’s prophesy, the cities weren’t washed clean, but wiped-off-the-map cleansed. Because of their geography, those locations would recover (and even retain their ), but the penalty received had been severe.

In the time of Jesus, Tyre and Sidon were still very pagan, Las Vegas and New Orleans (during Mardi Gras) pagan. Devotion to gods or God was perfunctory at best. was the ruler. Yet…
Jesus stated that those cities would have responded (positively) to the of God, while the so-called devoted of Judah were apathetic or antagonistic!

We look at our culture and often sadly proclaim that if they could just see Jesus, they would convert. Or if they joined the , everything would be fine. Or (yes, foot-stomping ahead) if only prayer and the Bible would be allowed in schools again…

The Jews had prayer. They had the . They had “the church” (i.e., the and synagogues). It was all tightly integrated into their culture and their (more foot-stomping). Look where that got them! Chided and lectured by Jesus!

1) Truly…are we all that different now than the Jews were then?

2) Politicians—of all stripes—are rightly pulling and poking at our religious- and -strings. They see what we aren’t good at seeing…our inconsistency. They use it to bolster their kingdom. How can you separate the religious and faith truths from the political lies? How will you do that as each political group takes some, but not all, of the Christian ideology for political talking points?

3) If the world is like Tyre and Sidon, and we are like the Chorazin and Bethsaida (the unrepentant Jewish cities), what do they (the world) see that we don’t about Jesus and the ?