Devotion.al

Tag: age

Devotionals tagged with age.

  • How Desperate Are You?

    Genesis 38:1–26, Ruth 1:3–14, Mark 12:18–27 (read online ⧉)

    Whether it be the situation such as with Judah and Tamar or Ruth or the one proposed by the Sadduccees, most modern American Christians skip over the that come up with these passages, as they make them uncomfortable. They are indeed not the idealized “nuclear” American of husband and wife and 2 kids. It is reasonable that it makes many people uncomfortable, though sometimes (especially with Ruth) we dress it up with similar clothing.

    Initially, Judah’s issue with Tamar was that it seemed his sons would die around her. He didn’t want another son to die. It seems somewhat reasonable. Yet, Judah still knew what was appropriate culturally, and even for his own lineage. It does seem that he planned it. One normally didn’t put a widow back into her ‘s house, as it was the father-in-law’s responsibility to assure that children were produced. Something about this was off, for through his actions Judah displayed a cultural disregard for his and his sons’ duties (produce heirs). Culturally, he was highly irresponsible.
    Judah’s behavior also trapped Tamar. She was engaged to a boy who Judah didn’t want to be her husband (regardless of reason). Judah was cruel to her. While her behavior was inappropriate, she was more righteous than Judah, which he acknowledged.* Some Biblical commentators suspect that Judah even started off wrong by “getting” a wife for his son, Er, from someone who was not of his people. If that was the case, Judah would have been an even greater disappointment.

    Ruth is often the one dressed in nuclear family “clothes”. Naomi wanted to send her away (back to her Father’s house, just like Judah did to Tamar). Catch the reasoning. Naomi knew that even were she to remarry and successfully birth, any sons birthed would not be of until Ruth was much older. Naomi probably wasn’t optimistic about the remarriage piece either. Naomi, interestingly enough, acted as if she was carrying the burden of her husband and sons to produce heirs. Compare that to Judah who seemed eager to avoid the whole thing.

    While the previous stories have extenuating circumstances, the “test” that the Sadducees bring to Jesus is just plain ridiculous. Of course, reasonableness wasn’t the point of the question, it was to test Jesus. It carried the “law” to its extreme. It is an interesting mental exercise to wonder how this would work. The text implies that the seven marriages were consummated, and the text doesn’t provide a marriage timeline. That seven consummated marriages did not result in a child shows either a non-producing male lineage (a pretty severe one at that) or a truly infertile woman. Yes, this was “just” a test, but at the same time is displays how the desperation of lineage worked.

    As a culture, we have only somewhat recently grown out of that (maybe). The desperation that people felt by not have descendants is beginning to fade. It is especially becoming so today as we lose connection to the people before us. As such, it seems we might be losing something that is deeply connected to that…evangelism. Evangelism is, in many respects, reproduction. Instead of being biological, it is spiritual.

    1) What are your views on evangelism? How is that expressed by your life?

    2) Why do you think we are lukewarm about evangelism? Why are we not as desperate to evangelism as people were to have children?

    3) Many people adopt instead of having biological children. What can they teach us about evangelism?

    : God to give you a desperate for evangelism.

    *A quick note that Tamar later gave birth to Judah’s twin sons, Zerah and Perez. Perez is in the lineage of Jesus. Yet, another example of how a and unrighteous can be—ultimately—redeemed by Jesus Christ.

  • Speaking of Children

    Psalm 131, Matthew 18:1–9, Matthew 19:13–15 (read online ⧉)

    As adults, many of us look at the carefree nature of many kids and wish we had that now (especially if it was taken from us). Our general society has increasingly put barriers of protection around children, while at the same time put more burdens on them. It’s rather strange when you think about it. Then the prioritization of those burdens can also be unhealthy. Teenagers are limited to a certain number of hours (and a certain number of days per week) to work and earn a wage. On the other hand, if a teenager is playing a sport, they can spend as much (and often more) time supporting a sport than earning a wage. By and large, most of those children will not play sports professionally or even collegiately, yet there is a preference for certain play versus work. This is not to say sports dedication is necessarily bad, just that there seems to be a level of hypocrisy.

    Part of that is our understanding of children and childhood. We can see some of this very tension within the . Depending on how one defines weened, a weened child was anywhere from 2 to 4 years old. However, as the child aged, we start to see an odd tension. Around the of 13, a male went through the Bar Mitzvah and females the Bat Mitzvah. We see an allusion to this in Luke 2:41–52 (though was 12). At that point, a child became responsible in regards to the Law and theoretically had attained majority status. Yet, “men” were not counted in the Old Testament until they were 20. As Judaism (and the Law, and Israelite custom) are the ancestor of Christianity, these ages are important to consider when we look at the Scriptures when children are involved, as these are the background of the writers of both New and Old Testaments.

    From a Greek , a child is anyone prior to puberty (or that what the general use of the ). While the Greek was the language used to write Matthew, Jewish and thinking would still deeply affect the intent of and influence the writer.

    This is a very long way of saying, no one knows how old the child in question was, but likely it was up to 5 or 6. In other words, weened but not “there” yet insofar as being a teenager.

    When Jesus presents the child as a perspective example, it is likely that the perspective (if not the words) of Psalm 131 were in play, and would certainly fit a pre-adolescent person. The child, as defined by Psalm 131, does “…not get involved with things too great or too wondrous…” What could that mean? It could mean many things. However, if we look at (for example) the English language, some counts put its vocabulary at over 1 million words, but when the King James Bible was written the estimate was 20-40 thousand. The reason this is brought up is that our language, just in words, is complicated, and only growing more so. We add words in an attempt to provide nuance. Not a particular surprise as written language does not succinctly communicate emotion, background, and overtone well.

    In other words, we are making our language seemingly “great and wondrous”, and really making a mess of it. The Great Commandments (summarized: God; love ) is simple. We make it so complicated.

    1) Do you think complicated thinking is why Jesus presented a child as an example? Do you think it might be another reason?

    2) Why does complicated thinking make it hard to the about Jesus?

    3) What do you think of the 2 versions of adult presented above? Can you think of similar examples in our society? Why do you think these differences in “adult” are trying to achieve?

  • Childless Futurism

    Genesis 18:1–11, Luke 1:5–25, Luke 1:36–56 (read online ⧉)

    We are now in a time where having children is no longer an assumed item on the checkboxes of . As people, especially women, become more educated the birth rate drops. The practical reality is that because women are educated they too can provide for the in ways other than housework and childbearing. This is a cultural (actually across many cultures) reality. It does not mean it should be, only that it is. As women are increasingly joining the workforce, having children becomes less of a priority (for both husband and wife), for careers prominence.

    There is something else that is occurring, and that is the rise of anti-natalists. These are people who believe that having children is immoral, because of ecological reasons or because of the human condition of suffering. In many respects, they have a point. What’s interesting is that this is not an abortion thing, so the pro-live versus abortion debate doesn’t really have a place (generally) with anti-natalists.

    These reasons, along with advances in medical science, start to affect how we look at the stories of Sarah and Elizabeth. In our , either there is no excuse to not have children (other than ), or there is no good reason to have children.

    This is not to disparage anyone’s choices, but to help peel back the layers of yet another thing that the world no longer understands: the of a woman who had lost to have children, but now God would her with one.
    Mary’s visit to Elizabeth ties the messenger and the message . God has come! God is here! While it is called Mary’s Magnificat, how could Elizabeth have not worshiped and rejoiced with Mary in this wonderful redemptive movement of God. Through old and barren Elizabeth’s pregnancy to Mary’s impossible Spirit-made pregnancy, God was doing something new! REJOICE!

    1) Why is redemption tied to joy? How are they different?

    2) If you were to decide to not have children, what is another way you might express or show an example of that kind of joy?

    3) Whose joy was better/greater, Elizabeth’s or Mary’s? Why?

  • Hope and Fulfillment

    Psalm 33:16–22, Luke 21:25–28, Titus 2:13–3:7 (read online ⧉)

    Waiting is hard. The psalmist is waiting for God. The psalmist grasps the that an army—no matter how big and powerful—will not save a soul. Such an army might save the wellbeing, but physical wellbeing is not the ultimate goal of God’s . Often God will on our physical circumstances. That doesn’t reduce the importance of the eternal in salvation. It actually emphasizes it. The other—perhaps more important—piece is that the physical saving is a moment in time, while salvation is eternal and timeless. That salvation is both a moment in time (i.e., when we “were saved”) and is ongoing (i.e., we are still being and will continue being saved) is at the of understanding God’s own nature.

    When Jesus “arrived”, the people were waiting for the Messiah. Some were waiting in optimism (i.e., “wouldn’t it be nice if the Messiah showed up?”). Others were waiting in hope (i.e, “God has saved us before. God will save us again.”). While Jesus was walking on the Earth, he conveyed that (such as we just read) that his time then was, even as Messiah, a foreshadowing of his final , which would unite all of with God. So, even while fulfilling the hopes of the Messiah, there was still more to come! There was still more to for!

    Paul understands this as he refers to his “present age” with the acknowledgement that Jesus would return. Paul had missed Jesus on Earth. Yes, he had had a -changing encounter with Jesus, but it wasn’t the same as the other Apostles had had. For Paul, Jesus’ return was hope and fulfillment. As Jesus would be returning, Paul wanted everyone to be encouraged to continue on. He didn’t want them to lose heart or hope. For Paul, and any , Jesus’ return is always just around the corner.

    1) What do you hope for? Is it hope, or is it optimistic wishing?

    2) How does the timelessness of salvation affect hope?

    3) Why do you think so many people concern themselves with the exact date of Jesus’ return?

  • Deepest Hope

    1 Samuel 1:12–20, 2 Kings 4:8–17, Hebrews 11:32–40 (read online ⧉)

    For many people having a child is the deepest yearning that they have. Not everyone is able to have children. Some have gone through miscarriages. Many more have gone through stillbirths. Still more lose their children when they were young. When dreams of our deepest longings are destroyed, often soon follows.

    Hannah was not able to conceive. This created a trial for her. Her fellow wife made her miserable and used her own children as emotional weapons against Hannah. Hannah’s husband probably felt as lost as Hannah did. While he did have children with his other wife, his hurt for Hannah. It would seem, on its surface, to not have been the best experience between Hannah and Eli. In fact, Eli did not seem to be much of a spiritual counselor, but more like a grumpy old man. Regardless, Hannah took something away from that encounter, and the weight in her heart was cast off. She had hope.

    The Shunammite woman (oddly, never named), too, wish for a child. In an echo of Abraham and Sarah, apparently he (at least) was old. A child seemed out of reach. In the case of Hannah, wasn’t mentioned, implying that she would be unable to explain the situation. The Shunammite woman, on the other hand, had a rationale for her lack of hope. She “knew” that things had passed a point of no . Elisha was able to restore that hope with a . What she had experienced with Elisha is open for thought. Whatever her experience with him allowed her to his words, and to have hope.

    The author of Hebrews is trying to instill this same kind of hope into believers who are feeling under pressure and persecution. The writer, through the examples given, shows that God is of having hope in. Not the weak hope of a wish, but the firm hope of knowing that God is there, and working in and through all things, even when we don’t understand, and especially when it is scary and it hurts.

    1) Have you ever had a hard time you had to have hope in God to make it through? What was it like to have that hope?

    2) What do you think the key to having hope and trust in the darkest parts of ?

    3) Why do you think “ to life” is important concept in hope?

    FD) What do you do to have hope when you are struggling?

  • Herald of the King

    Isaiah 40:3–11, Malachi 3:1–2, Luke 1:39–44, Luke 1:59–80 (read online ⧉)

    It has been said (by Christians, of course) that John the Baptist was the last Old Testament prophet. By that, they meant that Jesus (and his , death, resurrection, and the subsequent of the ) was the New Testament. In some ways, they are correct. The New Testament is about the life and work of Jesus Christ, and the new work of the Holy (through the church). John the Baptist was the last one (though not really) to say that God was coming before God actually came. John the Baptist sounded like many of the prophets of old.

    It seems peculiar to John the Baptist, well, the Baptist. According to the , perhaps he should be John the Herald. It would certainly be appropriate. It would also call to mind John’s purpose, heralding the coming of God, rather than focusing on his acts of baptism. It’s not that the baptisms he performed were bad, but ultimately they were a witness to the coming of Jesus.

    That John, in the womb (!), “leaped” at the of Mary is startling (though babies do recognize voices in the womb). Even in the womb, John was heralding the coming king. It is sad, in some ways, that John’s place seems to have been decided from a young age, yet he could have made a different decision.

    Ultimately, John’s purpose was by heralding Jesus’ arrival. Like so many do, he could have opposed Jesus, and many would have listened. He didn’t. By his actions, he fulfilled the words of his . John guided the people to the only one whose way is the path of .

    1) John’s place was definitely one of number 2. Have you ever been a number 2 or lower? How did you feel? Did you just spiritualize your answer?

    2) Why do you think “the Baptist” became John’s title rather than “the Herald” or something else?

    3) What do you think about John going to the wilderness when he grew up? Why do you think he did that? Do you think he was alone?

  • Kingly Control

    1 Samuel 8:4–9, Psalm 24, Jeremiah 23:1–6, Matthew 21:1–9, 1 Timothy 6:12–16 (read online ⧉)

    One of ‘ titles is King of Kings. In our day and kings are more of a symbolic position, so it has become difficult for us to understand the significance of this title. We can only intellectually understand the that many kings had over their people. If you were to read beyond the outlined passage in 1 Samuel, he (Samuel) outlines the power the kings have over the people. If we go back to Joseph in the story of Genesis, by the time Joseph was done, the Pharaoh had everything, including the people.

    What is interesting is that there seems to be a strong desire to put itself under a strong person…even a commanding one. If that were not the case, we would not continually see dictators and totalitarian regimes. We can regularly look at history and see people turning towards it. Even with the last two presidents of the US, we all heard language that puts them in a salvific role, one that isn’t theirs.

    Much of this desire is a feeling (right or wrong) of security, or at least that this would be more secure than the current circumstances. People turn to that appear to have the power to control (not necessarily ) things, in hopes that these people can control bad circumstances.

    The struggle that many people had with Jesus was that he didn’t take control. His triumphant entry or the time the people wanted to crown him, he never took up the scepter of power. Instead, he took a path of . When he entered Jerusalem on a donkey, he entered as a king of peace. Had he come riding a warhorse, he would have been coming in power to take power. Many people wanted this. Their own tyrant was better, so they thought, than a tyrant of Rome. It’s not to say that Jesus would have been a tyrant, but that the people would have preferred one of their blood on a bloody throne, then keep the Romans.

    Today, one of the common arguments against believing that there is a God, especially a loving one, is that this God hasn’t taken control, just like God hadn’t taken control in Samuel’s day.

    1) Have you ever witnessed someone submitting to another person who was in power? Why? Did you support or did you question?

    2) How does Jesus use power differently than “earthly” powers? How does this inform you of how to use power? How does this inform you how you should how others use power?

    3) What does Jesus being King of kings mean to you? What does being a king mean to you?

  • Are You Blind?

    Matthew 23:16–22, Luke 18:31–43 (read
    online ⧉    )

    uses the concept of blindness as a teaching point. In the ancient world, blindness was a severe handicap. Over the years we have developed tools and practices to help blind people navigate a world of . This was not the way of things in Jesus’ day. All the blind were good for was consuming food, space, and getting alms. This is not to dismiss their value as beings, but in that , there was little they could do. Today, with help, blind people can read. Blind people can operation manufacturing machines. The blinds can navigate the world, and the world works to help that. That wasn’t so.

    Jesus wasn’t being nice. He was being brutal. He was telling the world that the teachers that people looked up to were useless, at best. In Matthew, he implies that anyone that follows these teachers will not end up anyplace good. However, they vaunted religious teachers aren’t the only blind ones. His disciples were often blind too. The prediction of his was “hidden” from them. In many ways, thought Jesus’ future death wasn’t so much hidden as denied. Why would the disciples want to think about Jesus’ death? Have you ever had a “hilltop” experience? Imagine having them for 3 years. It is likely that it got to a point that they couldn’t see beyond that. Sadly, in at least Judas’ case when he did see beyond it, he likely felt betrayed and thus betrayed Jesus.

    That the future was hidden from them per the , and then we immediately get to a story about a blind man receiving sight does not appear coincidental. In fact, according to Jesus the man’s had both saved him and led to his being able to see. In some ways, the 11 disciples that remained (after Judas’s betrayal and death) did not see either until they had faith. It’s not to say that they didn’t have faith in God, or even in Jesus, but that their faith matured and transformed so that they were able to look back and look forward and in .

    1) Have you ever lost any sense (taste, smell, sight, touch) for a time? What was it like? Did it have far-reaching effects?

    2) Blindness of the can lead anyone down a false path. What areas of blindness have you had to deal with? How did you deal with them?

    3) The world is often spiritually blind. If the world cannot see without faith, how do we get them to “see”?