Devotion.al

Tag: assume

  • A Different Kind of Backsliding

    A Different Kind of Backsliding

    Acts 10:30–47; Acts 15:5–12; Galatians 2:11–16 (read online ⧉)

    Peter was called/sent to the first “real” Gentile converts, post-Resurrection. There is some fuzziness in this as we cannot assume that there were no other Gentile converts. The likelihood was that they, prior to Cornelius, were converts to Judaism first.

    This is an important distinction, as there seemed to be no question of Cornelius’ devotion to God. However, the language and framing of the story draw the conclusion that Cornelius had not done a full conversion to Judaism.

    In the earlier part of the story, Peter invited the servants of Cornelius (likely Gentiles themselves) inside for lodging, and one would presume food. Already, Peter seemed to have a clue about his earlier vision about clean versus unclean (Acts 10:1–29). He dared (against more rigid Jewish protocol) to provide shelter and food for Gentiles.

    Later, as the spreads, the conflicts between Jewish expectations and Gentile realities start to affect the unity of the church in doctrine, rule, and . So, they had a meeting. Who knows how long the meeting really was. It does feel like it was abbreviated in the Scriptures.

    Peter stood up and familiarized or reminded people of his story. While we (rightfully) call Paul the Apostle to the Gentiles, Peter was the first. As the “rock” of the church, Peter had a first among equal standing. His words carried weight. James, too, as one of the original Apostles also had significant weight.

    With this as the groundwork, it would seem completely obvious that everything was resolved, and that the Law was finally set aside as a guide and a history, and not the road of salvation.

    Except…apparently that was only for a time. The list of people Paul accuses of backsliding is interesting: Peter (the “first” Apostle to the Gentiles), James (the Apostle that gave a further argument in defense of Gentile requirements), Barnabas (partner in Gentile travels with Paul). There were also that had backslid into the Law.

    This is not a minor issue, hence Paul’s concern, and his willingness to put ink to paper to exclaim it. Reverting to the practices of the Law denied ‘ . It also separated Jew from Gentile, which was, it seems, Paul’s biggest issue.

    The bloodline that separated Jew from Gentile was erased by the blood of Jesus. This was unreasonable and opposed the . Paul did not just let it stand.

    The truth is that it is easy for any of us to fall into old habits and thought patterns, especially those that were experienced during childhood or under the influence of personally significant people. It is not unexpected that Peter would revert to those tendencies, nor the others. Paul didn’t seem particularly surprised, just upset.

    Apparently, this was resolved, yet this kind of thing is forever a shadow in the church.

    ※ ※
    Father, , and Holy , constantly guide us in all Truth. Shape and form us to be better conformed to your will. Amen.

    ※ Questions ※
    1) What is an old religious habit that you keep fighting? Is it a “rule” or a way of thinking?
    2) What do you think the original intent of the “rule” or way of thinking was?
    3) What does the cast of characters tell us about ourselves and the church? What does it show how we are to correct or admonish one another?

  • Silence is Not Always Golden

    Deuteronomy 5:1–31; Matthew 26:57–62; Acts 6:8–15 (read online ⧉)

    Perjury is a crime. Knowingly providing false witness under oath is a criminal offense, as it should be. Knowing our system, however, perhaps the penalty is not severe enough. People “white lies” thinking they are doing the right thing (again, in a court case). People speak blatant falsehoods to change the results.

    Depending on the falsehood can result in a guilty man being freed and an innocent man being sent to death. One of the other oldest legal codes—Hammurabi’s Code—sets the penalty for such perjury as death.

    There is no question that bearing false witness was a sin according to God. Yet, in the 2 instances that we read today—Jesus and Stephen—that “minor” sin, that could easily be blotted out with a “minor” , resulted in the death of innocent men.

    Matthew and Luke (the author of Acts) make it a point to state that the witnesses are knowingly bearing false witness. Was this an incidental miscarriage of , or was this a systemic one? While we really can draw too firm a conclusion, this is an indication that justice and truth were often not met.

    We often wonder why we have so many laws, and then we read stories like this (and these are not that unique in history). There were the false witnesses. Those who either paid or otherwise recruited the false witnesses. There were those who were the “lawyers”. Then there were those who were the leaders of this travesty.

    All were party to it. All had culpability in it. By the letter of “the Law”, only those who were “actual” witnesses would be “guilty”. This would also assume that those who knew they were guilty actually did something about it. Of course, they didn’t for they achieved their goals.

    We all struggle with those who lie. It is that which empowers the lies that is the greater issue. With no culture of lying, lying becomes rare. A culture that disgraces the truth encourages lying. A structure that encourages lying creates a culture that sends innocent people to death or punishment.

    This is also a culture that ceases to honor God. Instead, it uses God to strengthen the perception of itself, so that no one will struggle or oppose it. God becomes a —a tool—and the relationship that the word is supposed to represent dies.

    , as we walk through this life, counsel our hearts and tongues to speak truth and to be truth-seekers. Guide our hearts and minds to bring the light of Jesus’ Truth into our lives and the lives of . May all that we do bring honor and to you, oh, God. Amen.

    Questions

    1) Why is it important to talk about more than just the lier? How does its relative importance to the commandment of false witness mean for you?

    2) What do you think other tribunals in front of these people were like for day-to-day things?

    3) How can and will you encourage a culture of truth?

  • Maundy Thursday

    Note: If you are reading this as group, have different people read each passage. Even more difficult, do so around a small , like a candle.

    Exodus 12:1-14; Psalm 116:12-19; John 13:1-20; Luke 22:7-20; John 13:21-35 (read online ⧉)

    Passover is a key, if not the key festival of Jewish life. It is expected that all observant Jews participate. was no exception. Some scholars have concluded that as a Rabbi, it was expected that Jesus would host a Passover for his disciples. By no means should we that this was the only Passover they celebrated , but it certainly was the most important for us.

    Jesus humiliated himself (by the world’s standards) by washing his disciples’ feet. The sacrament of was established. The words Jesus used effectively wiping away the old covenant. The last piece of journey to the cross is completed by Judas Iscariot. Lastly, a new commandment is given.

    By , the “Maundy” of Maundy Thursday is derived from mandatum, Latin for command.

    “…love one another. Just as I have you, you also should love one another.”
    John 13:34

    All of this done for love: God’s love for Israel, God’s love for the Gentiles, God’s love for , God’s love for you.

    1. Imagine that you know a meal is your last with your loved ones, but they don’t know it. How do you think you would feel? What would you want them to know?

    2. Why do you feel Jesus called the bread his body, and the wine his blood?

    3. Have you ever had your feet washed, or washed the feet of as we read? If so, what was your of that experience? If not, how do you think you would respond?

  • Plan Pushing

    Psalm 22:23-31; Genesis 16:1-6; Romans 4:1-12 (read online ⧉)

    The story of Sarai and Hagar is strange. Did Abram not God to him a son through Sarai? Or did they (Abram and Sarai) that as Sarai was not conceiving that this would be through Hagar? It wasn’t, from their , unreasonable. Yet, as we know by reading further along in Genesis, that this really wasn’t God’s intent for Abram and Sarai.

    Abram and Sarai rushed God’s plan. That is not to say that Abram was not being or not trusting God, but that his limited understanding caused him to follow a path that was not God’s intent. suggests that the union of Abram and Haggar was an event of works. It is only the union of Abram and Sarai that truly fulfills the promises of God to Abram.

    Another way to say this is that God blessed Abram’s union with Hagar, because Abram was still in relationship with God. However, the fulfillment of God’s and was fulfilled through Abram and Sarai.

    1. Have you ever rushed God’s plan?
    2. Has God ever honored a decision you made, despite it not being what God revealed to you? If so, once you got back on the path God laid out for you, what happened?
    3. Why do we tend to trust that we “know” in the physical world (such as Abram and Hagar having a child), rather than trusting in God’s promises (such as Abram and Sarai having a child)?

  • Child Identified

    Exodus 3:1–12, 1 John 2:28–29, 1 John 4:7 (read online ⧉)

    Moses was not a shining example of humanity. He was…. He had a temper. He certainly had a confused identity. He was a child of the court of Egypt. How he fit (or didn’t ) into the courts of the Pharoahs is an unknown. A Pharoah’s daughter pulled him from the Nile, knowing he was a Hebrew. Then she gave him to a Hebrew to be a nurse. We don’t know anything that really occurred in his from his assigning to a Hebrew nursemaid to the day he killed an Egyptian overseer. We can reasonably assume that Moses dealt with two identities, one as an adopted child of the Pharoahic court, and one the blood child of a Hebrew. Moses was, in many respects, destined to be forever confused and torn by his two identities. This is much the same with us. We have our human earthly identity, and we have our heavenly identity. We often become confused between them.

    John writes, “ Everyone who does what is right, has been born of him.” Most of us look at these words and ask, “What about me?” We see them in the light of our own weaknesses and failures. With that , it’s hard for the words to bring us . Knowing to whom John was writing (people he loved, cared for, and wanted the best for), we can be assured that it wasn’t his goal. Our identity in Christ is something far different than our identity on earth. It is to that identity that John writes. That identity has done what is right and has been born of him.

    When John speaks later about everyone born of God loves, we are again tied back to the one of whom we are born…Jesus Christ. So much of who we are is our identity. Some of our identity is nothing we can control (i.e., family of origin, birth , native tongue, etc.). Other things we can identify with. Hopefully, you have —at this point—to identify as a Child of God through Jesus Christ and the Spirit. Holding onto and affirming this identity is what creates the space in our hearts and lives to be right and (Godly) loving.

    Moses, like us, had two identities, Hebrew and of Pharaoh. In many respects, both are earthly identities prone to failures and flaws. Yet, Moses did choose to be a Hebrew. Then he accepted (granted, somewhat grudgingly) the leadership of a people taking them from earthly nation to Godly nation. Moses made mistakes before and during the journey. The Hebrews made plenty of their own mistakes. Despite all of that, however, God still identified them as his chosen people.

    1) What do you see as your earthly identities? How do they coexist, and how do they conflict?

    2) While God calls us his children, why do we tend to undermine that identity by identifying with our failures, mistakes, and tendencies?

    3) Say out loud, “I am a loved child of God.” What was your emotional and reaction to that? Why do you think that is?

  • How To Win

    Matthew 19:16–21, Matthew 21:28–32, Luke 13:22–30

    What must I do to win? In many respects, that question is the underlying thought in all 3 of these stories. The admiration of the rich and leaders is no new thing. Often people look at and , how do I get where they are? Often this is confused with envy or greed, however, there is also the desire to win. Over the years academics and sociologists, recognizing this, champion a of language, especially in children’s sports, “everyone’s a winner!” What ended up happening, though, was this became an empty thing. What academics and sociologists may have recognized but didn’t communicate wasn’t that the “participation trophy” made the child a winner, it was the people around them, especially their . A lot of the kids who play sports are not winners as far as a championship, but leadership, exercise, teamwork? That’s a different story.

    Think of an American football team. There are a number of teams who just are not good this year. Yet, most of the athletes get up and go to work, and come back to play the game, and they don’t dwell on the last game lost. They look at the game to come. No matter how bad the team may be, there is one rule in sports, never assume you’re going to win or lose. In some ways, athletes take the narrow road. For them, taking the narrow road is what matters.

    In each of these stories, it is not just what do I have to do to win, it is also what is the least I have to do to win. That is certainly the point of the third story. ‘ is more along the lines of, “you’re asking the wrong question. It’s not what I do; it’s who I love.” We cannot earn our way to . Salvation was already won. Our response cannot be what must I do to earn it. Nor can our response be, what can I avoid doing in response to it.

    1) What does it look like to win for you? How would you or another know you won?

    2) If you had to earn your salvation, how far would you go? At what point would you think, it’s not it?

    3) What does it look like to lose for you? How would you respond to losing?

  • No Face Value

    Genesis 20:1–18, 1 Samuel 16:7, Proverbs 21:2, Romans 1: 18–25

    When you look at someone, can you tell they are a ? If you can, there are a few reasons why: (1) Pride…yours for God knows and weighs the heart; (2) Their life and show Jesus; (3) is there a 3rd one?

    In the Scriptures, we are cautioned to not assume that a person is right with God. Abraham made that mistake and almost caused a man to commit adultery who was innocent. Abraham assumed Abimelech did not God. Abraham may have been right when it came to the surface. However, Abimelech listened to God.

    As a , Christians have taken affirmations of at face value, for the very reason that we do not know the heart. does note in 1 Corinthians 12:3, that no one can say that Jesus is Lord without it being of the . However, in Romans 10:9, Paul also says that we are only saved if we believe in our hearts. One is an outward statement, and the Spirit goes before all. The other is an inward statement that can only be between a person and God.

    There is a lot of finger-pointing in the world, and some of it involves avowed Christians (i.e., people who say they are Christians and/or follow Jesus Christ) pointing at other avowed Christians, and accusing them of apostasy (i.e., false teaching and/or walking away from the faith) or not being Christian. If we take the Scriptures seriously, then accusing another of not being a Christian because they don’t agree with us on certain issues (especially non- issues) is not in line with what the Scriptures say becomes a very dangerous road to walk.

    1) Have you ever accused (whether out loud or in your mind) another person of not being a Christian, when they state they are one?

    2) What are some good ways to engage other Christians regarding important topics on which we ?

    3) When should disagreements be brought up, and when should they be left alone?

  • 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 , 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 speech. 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 , 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 (, food, clothing, weapon).

    The other part of being called lambs, especially in the light of the shepherd, is that they are his little lambs of his little flock. Someday, they grow 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?