Devotion.al

  • Nourishing

    Exodus 16:13–36, John 6:29–41

    Who’s On First? was a comedy routine honed and made famous by the comedy team of Abbot and Costello. It is a masterful—and frustrating—play on words.

    Mana ≈ What is it?

    How would you like your food—for 40 years, no less—to be named, “what is it?” Imagine teaching a child the language, and how confused the poor child would be when they asked, “what is it?” And the answer was, “exactly” or “yes”.

    “What is it?” was a daily food for 40 years. It behaved differently than food. 6 days a week it appeared, and on 1 of those days you gathered twice more than you did on the other five days, and it lasted for 2 days, even though that which was gathered on other days rotted. “What is it?” is both a great question and a great answer.

    “What is it” was the nourishment of God. It was a daily reminder that they were daily dependent upon God. There was no question that without God’s provision, the Israelites would have been in deep trouble. One would think that after 40 years, especially the children who were raised with it, would have an ingrained understanding and habit that God is the provider. It is reasonable to that these same people would not have been self-reliant, independent, or quick to turn away from God. One could make those assumptions. One would be wrong.

    “What is it” wasn’t just a question regarding the food, it was also a philosophical question. “What is it” defined the patterns of the Israelites. In so doing, it placed the Israelites in the context of God. “What is it” defined what it means to eat from the table of God.

    “What is it” also is fitting when it comes to the Bread of Heaven—. There have been many theological arguments over what exactly is . When we “eat of the body” and “drink of the blood”, is it literal, spiritual, symbolic, mere ritual, a …what is it?

    1) Does “what is it” drive you a little crazy? Do you need to have an answer?

    2) Why is it important to allow “what is it” with our walk with God?

    3) When we think of “manna”, we don’t think of “what is it”. What other little things are we missing when we read the ?

  • What God’s Will?

    Genesis 37:16–27, Deuteronomy 30:15–20, Matthew 12:46–50

    One of the most heartbreaking things taught by certain traditions is that God wills bad things to happen to people. One of the reasons they draw that conclusion is that we are able to look back at stories like Joseph’s and say, “God knew/planned/designed this to happen.” For people who have no or have believed themselves betrayed by God, how could such a perspective bring them or joy? In fact, it is not surprising that they would never such a God.

    One of the other presumptions often followed is blind faith. Blind faith often means “following your ” without any . This is not Joseph’s faith, or at least scripture doesn’t provide that description. Part of the other problem with our looking back and imposing our own stories is that we forget or neglect a basic reality—and it certainly was Joseph’s—life is hard. What Joseph experienced is probably not that different than experienced in the same era. We can draw that conclusion fairly easily, for selling into slavery is still a story being experienced today in many parts of the world. It doesn’t make it easy, though.

    When Moses sends off the Israelites to the promised land, he presents a choice: life or . One would think that was an easy and simple choice. As the story of the Israelites unfolds, however, we can see that it isn’t the case. Yet, again, the conclusion could be drawn that God planned that the Israelites would not choose life. Yet, that isn’t God’s intent, purpose, or God’s heart (as revealed by his prophets). Yes, God knew, and God loved them anyway. God knew, and he loved everyone so much that he permitted awful things, even while he cried out to them to return.

    God did not seek to send Joseph to death or slavery. Joseph’s brothers had a choice. There were plenty of choices that could have been made differently, Israel (or Jacob) could have made different decisions, as could have Leah and Rachel. Joseph definitely could have made different decisions. It’s not what God directs or allows, it’s what God redeems that is the real story.

    What is God’s will for us? Well, God’s will for Joseph was that Joseph interpret dreams that God gifted him the ability to interpret. God’s will for Moses that he guide the people to the Promised Land. They both did it, but not fully and in the best way.

    God’s will for Jesus’ family was that they raise and love the Messiah. They did, but as the “blooming” of the Messiah occurred, they weren’t so happy. What was God’s will for them? They partially succeeded but had a slight change of heart. Did they fully oppose God’s will? No. They just made things a little more difficult for the Messiah. Being true to form, Jesus redeemed it, teaching us what it means to be Jesus’ family.

    1) Why is “being in God’s will” so attractive? Why is the view of God controlling everything the opposite of “being in God’s will”?

    2) What is the difference between being in “God’s will” and blind faith? What are the similarities?

    3) Why is such an important piece of understanding “God’s plan” versus God redeeming our choices?

  • Boundaries of Service

    Numbers 32:16–22, Matthew 3:13–17, John 13:1–17, 2 Corinthians 5:14–17

    Service takes many forms. We are often tied into our mind’s understanding of service, and thus become blind to what service can look like. In the case of Reubenites and Gadites, their service took place in the form of aiding their fellow Israelites to secure the Promised Land. The Reubenites and Gadites would have to that their families and livestock would be safe while they were away. There was no guarantee that they would nor when. We would not normally view this as service, but it is, for they put their own interests (and the concern’s for their families) beneath the needs of others.

    Often the biggest issue to service is not the task, but ourselves. We put ourselves before others. This is not to say that we need to be floor mats. Nor does this mean that we must where we do not feel called. The issue is when we are called and we choose not to because it is not convenient. Or we choose to not respond because it must be someone else’s responsibility. Or we choose to not respond because we might fail.

    Sometimes we think we aren’t serving because it is the “right” thing to do. When convinced John the Baptist to baptize him, it wasn’t that Jesus needed to be baptized for his , but to show others what the right way to begin is. He could have been the prideful type, saying that it was below his station (even though he would have been correct). He could have commanded John the Baptist, but instead requested that it be “allowed” which gave John the Baptist a say and also recognized his calling as the last Old Testament prophet.

    When we come to the washing of the feet at the Last Supper, we say Jesus made himself a (which he was). However, he was leading foremost by example. As the “host” of the dinner, he made sure that his “guests” were cared for. However, when Peter went further than appropriate (“wash all of me”), Jesus did draw a line. Yet, often we say, “Jesus did this,” and fail to follow that with, “and so should I.”

    reminds us of this , when he writes, “…those who live should no longer live for themselves…” We are all guilty of for ourselves. It is not to say that there are no healthy boundaries. It is just that what we often call “healthy” boundaries are not Jesus boundaries. The “healthy” boundaries of the world are for the selfish, sinful, fallen, unredeemed person, not of “…the one who died for them and was raised.”

    1) Whose boundaries are you using to define your service, the world’s or Jesus’?

    2) Do you continually pray how you may better serve “…the one who died for [you] and was raised?”

    3) What is one new way that you can serve this week?

  • Grace for the Askers

    Luke 24:36–49, Matthew 28:16–20, James 1:2–18, Jude 20–25

    So, this guy you’ve been hanging out with for three years dies a brutal death. A few days later, he’s alive. He was dead and buried, and now alive. Must be a ghost…except they could touch the wounds and he ate. They doubted. After some more time, they on a mountain. They worshipped Jesus, yet they still doubted.

    We all have doubts. Sadly, however, when verses such as James 1:6 are badly used, we can question our . Some even go so far as to lose their faith. People take such passages and twist them so that a person cannot question or be perceived to doubt. James’ warning is sound in so far as being about requesting things (such as wisdom) from God, but false expectations of God. In other words, don’t be surprised when God doesn’t answer your and walk away from the faith.

    The grave danger is that if we take James’ words without a large measure of grace and love, people will truly walk away. Jude’s words are to be gentle with doubters. Imagine a person who suffers with depression, and in the depths of depression doubts. Would you cast them out? What about a person in the midst of grief who is crying out to God? Will you shame them for doubt in the midst of their pain?

    What about the person who was raised as a non-believer and/or strict secular scientist? If they struggle with believing as it conflicts with their growing up, will you them and tell them they are unbelievers and should disappear?

    In our world, we should actually be encouraging doubt, or perhaps a better phrasing would be questioning. The world as it is needs a lot more asked. There may not be , but often when we questions aloud, the doubt and that can go with them loses much of its power.

    Last, but not least, often those that seek to silence the doubt and questions of others are those who have the deepest fears. When those fears remain buried, faith, love, and hope can easily be lost in a flash.

    1) Do you ever doubt or question your faith? Do you feel ashamed? Why?

    2) What can other Christians do to support you when you question? What can you do when Christians their own doubts?

    3) Jesus asked his followers about the why of their doubts but did not seem to diminish them because of it. Why does it appear that James does? How do you balance that with Jude?

  • Law and Grace

    Exodus 20:1-21, Psalm 51, 2 Samuel 11:1-12:13

    The law (whether Jewish, US, or ) would seem to be pretty black and white. Yet, if you spend any time driving, you can quickly realize that while the speed limit is 60, only one lane of traffic goes that slowly, and even the state patrol passes others.

    In the movie, The Pirates of the Caribbean: The of The Black Pearl, there is a scene after a “negotiation”:

    Elizabeth: Wait! You have to take me to shore. According to the Code of the Order of the Brethren

    Barbossa: First, your to shore was not part of our negotiations nor our agreement so I must do nothing. And secondly, you must be a pirate for the pirate’s code to apply and you’re not. And thirdly, the code is more what you’d call “guidelines” than actual rules.

    We often look at the “rules” (especially as we “look back” upon the Jewish rules in the time of ) as rigid and unforgiving, however, there is more to the rules, than rigidity. One of the biggest objections to the rules in the time of Jesus was that they lead to the of and soul. That hadn’t been the point. They were to be rules of .

    In the story of David and Bathsheba, David violated the following commandments: do not murder, do not commit adultery, Do not covet…your neighbor’s wife…

    Then the prophet Nathan judges David as having violated the commandment against stealing.

    So, David was guilty of violating 3–4 commandments. 2 of these violations were supposed to have earned the death penalty. Instead of death, Nathan said, “…the LORD has taken away your ; you will not die.”

    Commentators and theologians seem to agree on why; David was contrite and repented. Death was still a consequence, just not David’s death. The first of David and Bathsheba was the blood for the violations of the law. An innocent life paid the price.

    1) Have you ever held someone to a particular standard (law), and then given yourself grace or an excuse regarding the same or similar violation?

    2) Have you ever given grace or excuse to another, while holding yourself to a higher or just more rigid standard?

    3) How do you think Jesus shows us how to walk between the two?

  • Living in the Gray

    Nehemiah 13:4–22, Matthew 12:1–8

    Nehemiah was “just” a layperson. He probably had no formal religious or other education. He wasn’t a “” of the people. He did, however, have an important position of with King Artaxerxes. To be the cupbearer meant that you were trusted with the king’s and even the life of his royal guests. Nehemiah had an important place of trust and service. Since it was such a trust-based position, it is telling that King Artaxerxes valued Nehemiah enough to be willing to have another take the place of the cupbearer while Nehemiah was away.

    Nehemiah had a hard task of restoring the city of Jerusalem while politicians in the surrounding area jockeyed for position and control of Jerusalem. No doubt it was hard and trying. However, the harder task was fixing what started the mess…the hearts of the People of God. The became the place to stay. The was a day like any other. The Levites were landless and in dire straits. The remnants of Israel had lost their center. They had lost their God. Nehemiah threw out the “guest” in the temple, so the Levites would have their (appropriate) space. Nehemiah restored the tithe so that the Levites could do their job. Then Nehemiah added to their tasks, making them the preservers of the Sabbath (by force of arms if needed).

    By the time of , the Sabbath was being followed religiously. The Levites were receiving their tithe. The Levites had a place to stay. If just looking at these things in the time of Jesus, one could be convinced that Nehemiah was very successful. Outward appearances can be deceiving. The rituals were all in place. The rules were all in place. Even more, were added, just to make sure. The rules, however, became oppressive. You might be aware of a phrase, “they Jesus, but not the .” That’s where many people were. They God, but they wanted nothing to do with the religious leaders.

    Between Nehemiah (rules needed) and Jesus (rules are too much), there has to be a middle-ground. The problem with the middle-ground is that it is hard and often undefined. We like our nice and neat categories. We want black and white; no gray. That is not life.

    1) Where do you see more rules being needed?

    2) Where do you see fewer rules being needed?

    3) Where do you see a balance being needed?

  • Work Assignment

    Genesis 14:17–20, Hebrews 5:1–4, Acts 13:1–3

    The calling of God is mysterious. The Levitical line produced the priests, but who would be called was something different.

    The calling of pastors is equally mysterious (including to the pastors). How and why God calls certain people to be pastors and doesn’t other equally equipped (or equipable) and faithful people remains a .

    In many respects, King Melchizedek is emblematic of the issue. He just pops into scripture as a priest of God, and then is gone again. The first person titled priest is a mystery. That is really part of the whole point. That the calling of a person to more directly and intimately interact and act (in particularly limited ways) in the place of God can often be hard to fathom.

    The author of Hebrews does provide us a boundary, which is good. “No one takes this on himself…” One of the blessings of the current culture is that people aren’t pursuing ministry due to its cultural respect (yes, it’s a sad thing, too). In this culture people are making not just a financial , they are also making a cultural sacrifice. In the Middle Ages, for example, the younger or daughter would be sent into the church, providing the influence (some security about inheritance fights). The younger son didn’t often have a choice. That being said, many of them became great blessings to the church through their faithful service and guidance. While people angled to use the church (and their children) to gain and influence, many of them surrendered fully to God making a big difference. While those that were sent to the church may have been sent with deceptive or unrighteous purpose, the boundary that the author of the book of Hebrews made was still fulfilled.

    While priests and pastors have a particular (maybe peculiar) call, all Christians have a call. Yours may not have been assigned. Sometimes the call can be within our work, our hobby, our friends, our neighborhood. In fact, in each of these places, we are “assigned” to work for the . However, there are certain areas that God has more strongly called us to do the work.

    One of the biggest clues is how you are wired, and what activities you enjoy. How we are wired and what we enjoy makes our work for the kingdom more infectious and effective. There are limits, of course, to the activities. Not all activities are a .

    1) What activities are you most -filled doing?

    2) How can those activities be used at church, family, work, other social circles, to build the Kingdom?

    3) Roles we are assigned or fill aren’t necessarily joy-filled. How can you take the activities and apply them to your roles? Be creative.

  • Who Are You?

    Exodus 3:1–15, 1 Samuel 18:15–28, 2 Samuel 7:11–21, 1 Chronicles 29:10–19

    There is one question spoken in each of these passages, who am I?

    When we are born, we have no concept of self. Eventually, we look in the mirror and say, “that’s me.” As a child, we and . The “who am I” question may fade for a time but then come back full-force during the teenage years. Sociologists have noticed that the “who am I” period is lasting longer. We have many options of what we can be, and what we can do. Sociologists are also starting to if we have too many choices of what we can be, and what we can do.

    Yet, the problem is that we can do and what we can be often are not the answer to, “who am I.” Many of you reading this may think to yourself, “I know who I am.” Are you sure?

    This is not a rhetorical question. This is a question.

    Who are you?

    Notice that the question was asked in the context of a major encounter with God. God took a person who viewed himself as unworthy and insignificant. God did not.

    No matter how small or insignificant you think you are, your or impact is, God knows you and does not view you as insignificant.

    We look at the heroes of the bible, and say, who am I.

    God says, you are my child.

Devotion.al

Nourishing

Exodus 16:13–36, John 6:29–41

Who’s On First? was a comedy routine honed and made famous by the comedy team of Abbot and Costello. It is a masterful—and frustrating—play on words.

Mana ≈ What is it?

How would you like your food—for 40 years, no less—to be named, “what is it?” Imagine teaching a child the language, and how confused the poor child would be when they asked, “what is it?” And the answer was, “exactly” or “yes”.

“What is it?” was a daily food for 40 years. It behaved differently than food. 6 days a week it appeared, and on 1 of those days you gathered twice more than you did on the other five days, and it lasted for 2 days, even though that which was gathered on other days rotted. “What is it?” is both a great question and a great answer.

“What is it” was the nourishment of God. It was a daily reminder that they were daily dependent upon God. There was no question that without God’s provision, the Israelites would have been in deep trouble. One would think that after 40 years, especially the children who were raised with it, would have an ingrained understanding and habit that God is the provider. It is reasonable to that these same people would not have been self-reliant, independent, or quick to turn away from God. One could make those assumptions. One would be wrong.

“What is it” wasn’t just a question regarding the food, it was also a philosophical question. “What is it” defined the patterns of the Israelites. In so doing, it placed the Israelites in the context of God. “What is it” defined what it means to eat from the table of God.

“What is it” also is fitting when it comes to the Bread of Heaven—. There have been many theological arguments over what exactly is . When we “eat of the body” and “drink of the blood”, is it literal, spiritual, symbolic, mere ritual, a …what is it?

1) Does “what is it” drive you a little crazy? Do you need to have an answer?

2) Why is it important to allow “what is it” with our walk with God?

3) When we think of “manna”, we don’t think of “what is it”. What other little things are we missing when we read the ?