Devotion.al

Tag: mystery

  • Join the Feast

    Join the Feast

    Matthew 22:1–14

    When you were a child, perhaps one of your favorite times was when you were invited to a birthday party. For some, an invitation was proof that they were actually “seen”. Even if that person was thought to be a friend, it was a surety that the was true. If your parent(s) said you couldn’t go, oh, the drama!

    As a ruler and public person, culturally, the king would be expected to have a (semi-)public feast, where at least the connected or (at least of) the correct blood would be invited. Also, the cultural would be—barring something truly serious (illness and being about it)—to accept the invitation and attend.

    So, the same people were invited again. Those that went on to their mundane (i.e., not culturally serious enough to not attend) tasks insulted the king in one way. By abusing and even killing the king’s servants, the found a different way to insult the king. Servants were often the “carriers” of the king’s will, so killing them would be similar to declaring war.

    Which helps explain the next part. The king declares war. Some sort of retribution to salvage his would be required. Add to that the killing of his representatives…nothing good would come of it. ‘ listeners would understand.

    Those originally invited were, to the hearers and our understanding, the Jews (who were the remnant of Israel). So, why waste the feast? It would be shameful to have an empty feast. So, all the unconnected and non-blood were invited. For those keeping track, this would be the Gentiles (most of us).

    It is here that there is another unexpected twist. Culturally, everyone would be expected to show up dressed appropriately. This is not the tuxedo or suit, but a more common, yet special, overwear that displayed that one was honoring the host.*

    The man dishonored the king. The king had had enough dishonoring, but at least he only tossed the guy out. The commonness of the “overwear” means that this was a deliberate choice. That shows it was more than being poor. It was something more.

    Jesus’ concluding statement, though, tells us something far more. All too often, people believe they are called to God (they are). However, they allow the things of the world to be a priority over God. Others think that God’s magnanimousness is carte blanche to do whatever, as long as they “just” show up.

    While the Jews, at the time, were accused of caring more for the world (and the forefathers) more than God (and God’s prophets), others (in general, could be Samaritans or Romans or other Gentiles) were also being accused of wanting the spoils without even showing the slightest care for the one who gave them.

    Truly, these accusations can be justly put at the feet of all of us at some point in our lives. There is an ebb and flow to each. Yet, the Lord of the Banquet calls us to the Love Feast, and we have to be at least somewhat prepared.

    ※Prayer※

    Lord of the Feast, help us prepare the ways of so that we come to the table hungry for you. Amen.

    ※Questions※

    1) Can you think of a time when some wore inappropriate attire to a gathering? What was the gathering? What made it inappropriate?

    2) Have you ever made an excuse to not attend a function that you were otherwise perfectly able to attend? Why? What did it you not to attend?

    3) While it appears the king had an open door invite to the feast, that really wasn’t so. What kind of other situations have you experienced like that?

    *This is more of a guess than anything. Several commentators leave it as a mystery, yet as we look to the for clues, we see garments of white with the implication of them being over the stained (representing ) clothes that we wear. Hence, my conclusion.
  • Intimate Purity of Heart

    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 , 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 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 from , 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 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 ) 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 , soul, mind, and ways to diligently seek intimacy with you. Amen.

    ※※

    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 your/ours/the ?

    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?

  • Seashell Summer

    Seashell Summer

    Matthew 3:1–13; Mark 10:35–40; John 13:1–11; 1 Peter 3:18–22 (read online ⧉)

    What is one thing you think of when it comes to Summer? How about a Summer trip or vacation? Today is the first day of Summer. Today is also National Seashell Day, in honor of trips to the ocean being the summer trip that many people take.

    For those of us more familiar with coastal , the sea may not represent the most interesting thing. For many, it is a place of recovery and . For others, it is a place of power and majesty (there really is nothing like a on the Pacific coast). For others still, it is a place of family and fun. Then for others, it represents the most dreaded time of all, concentrated time with family.

    The seashell actually has a place in the Christian world, too. If you are familiar with Lutheran, Episcopal/Anglican, and Roman Catholic baptism traditions, it is not uncommon for the priest to pour water over an infant 3 times using a seashell invoking, “In the name of the Father (pour 1), and in the Son (pour 2), and in the (pour 3).”

    Where and how the seashell (in particular the Scallop seashell) was tied to baptism is tied to 2 men. The first would be St James the Greater who supposedly used the seashell to beg for alms on his pilgrimage, allowing even the poorest person to feel generous and able to give. How this exactly would have gotten tied to baptism is a mystery, so is unlikely.

    The other likely avenue is St. Augustine, who had a vision of a boy trying to empty the sea with a seashell. After suggesting the boy why of this pointless activity, the boy retorted why are you trying to comprehend the entirety of the mystery of the Trinity. This as some greater weight, tying in water, pouring of water, and the Trinity. Still, someone would have had to make a huge leap.

    There is another theory that John the Baptist used such to “aid” in baptism. However, one of our Jewish friends made a valid point that John would not have used an “unclean” (or non-Kosher) item to do such. Of the 3, the tie to Augustine makes the most sense.

    However, there appear to be mosaics and frescos that predate Augustine that still have the seashell. Take your favorite theory and it’s fine. Just note that using a seashell for baptism is not mentioned in the Bible, so it is neither necessary nor forbidden.

    The methods of performing baptism (immersion once, immersion thrice, pouring, drawing the cross, infant, child, confessing, adult) have long been an issue in the church. It is one well worth wrestling over for it is a command of Jesus. Yet, seashells are a weird non-sequitur, and there may be others you can think of. Such traditions and symbols can be valuable, but only if used and explained.

    While denominations have been formed over methods and timing of baptism, none of them deny the significance of baptism. Wesleyans (such as the Church of the Nazarene, of which Generations is a part) believe that baptism is an outward (public profession) of inner faith. Other traditions hold that baptism is the by which a person (particularly a child) is irrevocably sealed to the family of God. There are myriads of understandings.

    What isn’t up for debate is whether one should be baptized. The symbolism of and . The public profession of faith. The commandment of Jesus. All are part of the Christian journey and life.

    One thing to leave you with. The tradition (inherited from the Jews) is baptism in “” water. If you do make a trip to the sea or rivers, take some time with God and your baptism.

  • Opprobrium

    Opprobrium

    Matthew 9:18–26; Mark 5:21–43; Luke 8:40–56 (read online ⧉)

    People often use scripture to justify certain things, or at least state that whatever “this” is, it is nothing new. One of those is a thought that the woman in today’s Scriptures had been bleeding due to a botched abortion. This, of course, is conjecture. There are several other medical conditions which this could fall under, so making this kind of conjecture is often not helpful. This is especially the case when such conjecture takes away from the that is already present in the Scripture.

    Think about the other healings that Jesus performed. In the other healings, he was approached then would act. He was just on his way to heal someone else, and this women surreptitiously approaches him and just touches his clothes to be healed.

    The Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) have slightly different tellings of the story. Yet, the woman’s initiative to approach Jesus and touching his clothing to be healed is consistent. Both Mark and Luke talk about the crowds surrounding Jesus. This took courage for this woman.

    The primary thought that this bleeding was similar to menstrual bleeding (hence the aforementioned piece about abortion). If that is so, while the woman would not have to declare “unclean” as a leper, should would be ceremonially unclean, and probably unwelcome, if anyone knew. She, probably some sort of outcast, would have to go among those who likely mocked and scorned her. If she was successful, for 12 years, to keep her condition secret, then she would have likely been overwhelmed by and inadequacy.

    In Mark and Luke, this story takes on another interesting twist. She approached; she touched; she was healed. There was no “action” by Jesus. This unique aspect should be one of those moments where we stop and , what is different?

    Anything is conjecture, as the Bible does not directly say anything. One possibility is that in this story we see God and Man. The Godly power left Jesus. Jesus the Man was surprised. Both aspects of Jesus were in full display. There is even this odd hint of the Water of being spent, which would then be refilled by God.

    On the other hand, there is an echo of the time in Eden after Adam and Eve had eaten the Fruit of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Adam and Eve had heard God walking in the Garden and hid because they were naked. God asked where they were. Adam and Eve revealed themselves in shame. Sounds somewhat like the woman who revealed herself.

    There is also the beauty of trust that this woman has. It isn’t just trust of being healed, but when she reveals herself and tells her story, there is a vulnerability that requires an explicit trust in Jesus.

    This woman has no name in the Scriptures (outlined here). Her cured affliction has been noted for history, but the shame of her condition is not tied to her name. Just as the shame that once weighed her down was gone, so was what needed . She left it behind. Her gift was that her was not her condition. She moved forward in .

    ※ ※

    Lord, we thank you for taking our shame. Though we may still bear the scars and of it, the shame is gone. May this freedom that you have given us, not be misused or unused for your . Amen.

    ※ Questions ※

    1) Why do you think each of the Gospel writers (especially Matthew), chose to tell the story the way they did? What do you think of the additional piece that Mark and Luke have?

    2) What is your biggest takeaway regarding the woman of our story?

    3) What do you think the response was of those who were acting on Jairus’ behalf?

  • God of Sight

    God of Sight

    Numbers 24:2–9; Matthew 6:19–24; Ephesians 1:15–20 (read online ⧉)

    Eyes are fascinating organs (sounds odd, doesn’t it?). Our eyes, when functioning, can see things near and far. They see colors. They can even see heat waves (under certain conditions).

    Other creatures have interesting eyes, too. Predators and prey have different eyes depending on need. Insects have compound eyes that are so different than ours (part of what makes them hard to swat) that see dozens if not hundreds of images.

    Under even more special conditions, eyes see visions. Some cast them aside as a delusion. Some see them as nothing more than daydreams.
    Today, we think we know all about it. However, the reality is that even in our fictional stories, we understand that there is a in the eyes. As an old man once said, “Your eyes can deceive you. Don’t trust them.”

    If you’ve taken any of a myriad of tests, or seen memes, you know that between your eyes and your brain, what can be done is amazing. Yet, we take so much of it for granted. As we get older, we lose certain aspects of our eyes. We can get glasses to get some of them. However, some lose their eyesight forever. Others never had eyesight, or lose their eyesight, they can still “see”, it’s just not the same.

    In ages far past, the eyes were supposedly the “window to the soul”, or (as said) the lamp of the body. This is where concepts such as the “evil eye” came from. There is a touch of in the concept. When some have certain mental illnesses or are on certain medications, their eyes may display a lack of vitality. When we look at a person’s eyes, we draw far more conclusions than we are aware of. That doesn’t mean that we’re always right. It just means that we view the eyes as something more than just a pair of organs that allow us to see.

    It’s not just Jesus’ words that guide us in this direction. , too, talks about it in a strange way. In most modern English translations, it is “the eyes of the .” The King James Version actually translates it as “the eyes of your understanding.”

    What does this mean? In a simple way, our eyes guide us to understanding. Actually, this isn’t that hard to understand in our day. We read. We watch. We write. All require, fundamentally, sight. Seeing is important, and how we see is even more important. By now, we aren’t just talking about the physical, but the mental and spiritual, as well.

    Perhaps, “see” and “eyes” are the wrong . They are the words provided by scripture, so they are using and worth thinking about.

    ※ ※
    Lord, give us your eyes to see your Creation as you want us to. Help us to see the world with your heart. Amen.

    ※ ※
    1) If you were to use something other than eyes as a symbol to use in the context of Paul’s words, what would you use? Why?
    2) Sight and Sound are the 2 primary ways we express interacting with God. How would you use touch, taste, smell to discuss interacting with God?
    3) How do you think eyes are “windows” or “lamp” for the soul?

  • In the Meantime

    Exodus 28:39–29:9; Exodus 32:1–21; Romans 5:1–11 (read online ⧉)
     
    The pomp, display, , pageantry (and politics) that surrounds the elevation of a cardinal (or, per rule, any Roman Catholic male) to the position of pope is pretty amazing and can be quite stirring. It should not be lost on anyone that there are “liturgical” steps that are followed for every pope.

    The Old Testament is filled with many “liturgical” steps itself, particularly for the priests. Aaron was going to be anointed and appointed High Priest of the entire of Israel. His sons would also receive the same. For a people that escaped and left Egypt through the miraculous works of God, this should have been a sure personal coup for Aaron.

    God was talking to Moses about this, in the meantime, Aaron was definitely acting as a high priest, just not of God. One could even see a foreshadow of the priests (High and other) during the time Jesus. No courage of conviction (or perhaps no real conviction) when confronted by the people.

    Aaron’s place as Moses’ second (we always have to keep in mind that Aaron was the mouthpiece of Moses) couldn’t be ignored. The people are too impatient to wait (What’s waiting 40 days in comparison to 430 years?) and are quick to abandon their God and their leader.

    That whole thunder on a mountain, pillar of smoke by day, pillar of fire by night, annihilation of the world’s biggest army,…meh, too much time. And then, eventually, there was a new nation, a bunch of prophets, exile, ,…and silence for another 400 years.

    Another 400 year period of silence, then John the Baptist showed up. The time of silence was over. Jesus, the Son of God, walked on the Earth…

    …in the meantime, people lived. People died. People sinned, and sinned, and sinned. Jesus died.

    It was “finished” on the cross that day. Jesus Christ died for people who were sinning right up to that very moment, and Jesus Christ died for all those who sinned afterward.
    Aaron’s had very little to do with Aaron, and everything to do with God. Jesus’ on the cross had little to do with us, and everything to do with God.

    That last sentence probably jarred you a bit. We are taught (and the state, such as this passage in Romans) that God died for our sins. Yet, in many respects, God died to be true to God’s self…self-sacrificing love for others. In other words, while our sins were the trigger, God’s very nature was the reason.

    Prayer

    O God, whose Son Jesus is the good of your people; Grant that when we his we may know him who calls us each by , and follow where he leads; who, with you and the Holy Spirit, lives and reigns, one God, for ever and ever. Amen. [BCP]

    Questions

    1) In the case of Aaron and us, God is doing something great for us, while we are often doing something against God. What does that tell us about God and ourselves?

    2) Why is it critical to understand that Jesus Christ died for all sins through all time?

    3) How does Romans 5:1 relate to Aaron’s consecration?

  • Unyielding Prayer

    Psalm 39; 2 Samuel 12:13–23; Luke 18:1-8 (read online ⧉)

    It’s hard to grasp why God would appear to condemn an innocent child to die. How it occurs is a . We can infer that David understood that the child would die and that God would not save it. This would be in contrast to God sentencing a healthy child to . In other words, what if the child had a definite birth defect and would die shortly after birth. God had the capability to save the child, yet the child died of natural causes, rather than supernatural causes. Yes, this isn’t much of a help. However, there are other circumstances around the child that ought to be considered, too.

    David’s fathering left a lot to be desired. The drama surrounding his (and his life) would do a soap opera proud. The poor child, a product of adultery and murder, would have had a horrible childhood, and probably an awful adulthood. Again, it doesn’t help much, but perhaps God was wise.

    While this isn’t the focus of this devotional, it does lead into David’s prayer. David prayed, and prayed, and fasted, and prayed, and so on. He didn’t give up. The prophet Nathan had given David no hope. David still prayed. God (through Nathan) had made the pronouncement. David still prayed.

    The lesson isn’t solely that David prayed for something he “knew” wasn’t going to happen. After not getting what he prayed for, David returned to “normal” life and worshiped God. His child died and he worshiped God. It’s not to say he didn’t mourn. We are long past the of high infant mortality rates (though some still experience such momentous losses). Yet, any person that has lost a child understands the loss that David felt. It’s not that David was happy the child died. David knew that worshiping God was also important.

    The persistent widow never gave up. This seemed a matter she would not give up until she died. That is persistent prayer. How long was she pursuing it? Jesus doesn’t say. It isn’t Jesus’ point. This was a woman who did not give up until she either received what she sought or death (hers or her adversary’s). Note that Jesus did not say she was right in what she was pursuing, though it is implied as the judge was unrighteous. This is important, too, as it helps us to think that God is righteous and we are not, so what would God do?

    How many people, however, are not like David? They pray for something (whether minor or major) and it doesn’t happen. They do not (as the song goes) thank God for unanswered prayers. They get angry with God. It’s not that anger at God is a sin. It’s when that anger at God draws you out of fellowship with God or to a place of doubting God that problems come. In and misdirected anger, people make themselves an of God.

    Prayer

    Heavenly Father, as you are patient with us, grant us to be patient and enduring in our prayers. Jesus, may your words guide our hearts and prayers. Holy , live and breathe in us, that we may pray in ways and for things that bring and honor to God. Amen.

    1) What is the longest you have prayed for something (or are praying for something)? If you have stopped praying for it, why? If you haven’t stopped praying for it, why?

    2) Do you see yourself more like David, the widow, or something/one else?

    3) What do you do say to those who are frustrated with their prayers not being answered?

  • At His Word

    At His Word

    Psalm 19; Proverbs 1:1–8; Romans 15:4–13 (read online ⧉)

    When you read the , are you reading words or are you reading the ?

    If you have been a Christian for any length of time you know what the “right” answer is. That doesn’t mean that for you it is the true answer. Many people read the Bible because it is the “right” thing to do, or they’ve developed habits (which is good, too).

    The saddest situation is those that read the Bible but have lost the joy and wonder with reading. If you’ve never had any joy or wonder, then the opening question applies. If you’ve lost the joy and wonder…it might be time to pause and reflect.

    There are a lot of ways and methods and suggestions on how to read the Scriptures. It’s not that they don’t matter, they aren’t the first step. You need to know your reason for reading the Scriptures. One could say that the most you get out of it will be based on what you put into it. Yet, that really doesn’t fit with the Scriptures, at least not as a whole. What you might get out of Deuteronomy will likely be different then you get out of the Psalms which will be different than Proverbs.

    The closest description one can probably use regarding all of the Scriptures (other than “the Word of God”) is a letter. Yes, it is a very long love letter. It also is filled with many hard things. We look around us, and the world is much the same. It is filled with beauty and love. It is filled with .

    There are a few absolutes in the Scriptures about the Scriptures. The psalmist writes about the instructions. Solomon writes about God’s wisdom. Paul talks about how the past speaks to the now and the future.

    Prayer

    , somehow you are the Word of God and so are the Scriptures we have been given. Thank you for this , for it shows us time and time again the unfathomableness of God. Holy , guide as we read the Word. Help us to see the ‘s love to us. Amen

    1) What is your favorite book of the Bible (if it is a Psalm, which one)? Why? How does it tell you about God, and about you?

    2) How would you describe the Scriptures to another believer? How would describe them to a non-believer?

    3) If you were stuck on an island (or in your house), would the bible be enough for you? Would it be sufficient?