Tag: nation

  • Called to do or be?

    2 Kings 2:11–15, Malachi 4:4–6, Mark 9:11–13, Luke 9:18–21, John 1:19–28 (read online ⧉)

    Moses was the Great Propet of Israel, as he brought the Torah to Israel. Through the and humanness of Moses, the Israelites became more than a collection of related families. They became a . You would think, therefore, with his place at the forefront of Israelite history, Moses would be the one the First Century Jews would be waiting for. He, Moses, led them out of captivity to the most powerful nation (at that time) on earth. Who else would lead the Jews (the remnants of Israel) out of their current captivity/oppression of the First Century’s most powerful nation on earth, Rome? Yet, it was Elijah who was expected.

    To be clear, this is not a reincarnation story. Neither Moses nor Elijah were expected to be reincarnated. Our familiarity with other religions can actually lead us down false trails, as we all use the same language and words to convey different understandings. The language used is similar, but its intent is to convey something different. From the perspectives of the Scriptures, whether we’re talking about Malachi or all the words spoken about John the Baptist or Christ regarding Elijah, it is not literally Elijah, but the person whose time and place it is to be an Elijah. In other words, the person called has called at a particular time or place to bring the descendants of Israel back into with God.

    Malachi expected this “ of Elijah” to lead Israel back to God, restoring relationship and right to the people. By the time of John the Baptist and Jesus Christ, Elijah was more of—though not solely—a cleansing spiritual that would restore the people’s desire for God, not just relationship and worship. In that regard, John the Baptists did “carry” the “spirit of Elijah.” People came to him in repentance and to be spiritually restored and healed. Jesus Christ, himself, recognized that John the Baptists bore the “spirit of Elijah.” Only John denied it.

    There could be a number of reasons why. There are two likely reasons. The first reason would be that he didn’t want to draw attention away from the Messiah. That is a reasonable thing, as everyone was looking forward to a Messiah, just as they were looking for an Elijah. There would be pressure and expectation (as if John the Baptist probably didn’t already have it) to be an Elijah. John the Baptist already knew he wasn’t the Messiah.

    Probably the most likely reason is that John the Baptist didn’t seem himself as Elijah. Yes, John the Baptist probably did see ministry in himself. Whether it was quiet (does not see himself as an Elijah) or studied humility (did not want to take away from the Messiah), either one is defensible and either one is good. John also, however, did not stop being who God called him to be and doing what the led him to do.

    1) Does it really matter whether John the Baptist bore the “spirit of Elijah?” Why or why not?

    2) Often people dismiss themselves, their abilities, or their calling by saying something like, “I’m not like…,” or “I don’t have….” How have you dismissed your calling lately?

    3) People expected whoever had “the spirit of Elijah” to lead them. What is wrong with that expectation? What is valid with that expectation?

  • 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…human. He had a temper. He certainly had a confused . 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 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 , “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 Jesus 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., of origin, birth , native tongue, etc.). Other things we can identify with. Hopefully, you have chosen—at this point—to identify as a Child of God through Jesus Christ and the . 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 physical reaction to that? Why do you think that is?

  • Same Change, Different Day

    Galatians 1:21–2:10 (read online ⧉)

    The often states that the message from God has never changed. That’s not entirely accurate. God’s amazing was before all and in all. God’s expression of grace was certainly in multiple forms from Adam to Jacob’s (Israel’s) sons. Through Moses, the message changed from a group to a nation (we often miss this change). The nation and Law was not something we see as grace, yet it took a nation of slaves and transformed them into God’s people. From there grace transformed them into a powerful nation. From there grace kept their identity as God’s people intact, even when they abandoned God, and ended up in other nations. The message always changed. The Truth did not.

    We Christians look at Jesus and the Gospel as the message that never changed. It is possibly more accurate to say that through Jesus and the Gospel that the message was expressed to its fullest. Yes, that is a nuance. However, that nuance is not small in any way, , or form. If it was small, Paul wouldn’t have gone to Jerusalem.

    Jesus’ first followers, and his core followers, were Jews. Everything was from a Jewish . For them, therefore, this was a Jewish thing. It makes perfect sense that many would not be able to separate Jewish practices from their Messiah. Hence we ourselves need to be more grace-filled towards those we read about in the New Testament. Remember, they were learning just what all this meant. Paul was pretty sure what it all meant. He just had to convince .

    This is a long preface to a new and old truth. Mode and method do not equal message. Not too long ago, we had church splits over worship music. Mostly, that’s over, though some still complain about one sort of music or the other. There is the comparisons between contemporary format (which all Generations Sunday services have) and “traditional” liturgical services. It seems so obvious to many now that these are merely different ways to still share the Gospel and gather together. Now there are digital churches. Then there are microexpression churches. This form of church caters to a specific interest group or demographic. Is it bad? In many respects, yes, for it continues the “one hour on Sunday is the most segregated hour of the week.” Granted, it is often no longer over race. It does reach people who would not otherwise be reached by “normal” church.

    The church has long needed to reinvent itself, perhaps not so much to reach new people (though that really does help), but to reinvigorate itself. The church seems to have entered a period of stagnation. Either the stagnation needs to be flushed out, or the church can suffocate. It seems harsh, yet in many respects that is exactly what Paul had to deal with. The church that was forming had to reinvent itself. It had to separate itself from the ways that kept in mired in the past. Once it broke free, the freeing message of the Gospel got wings.

    1) Why do people hold onto traditions? How do you know when a tradition is stagnate, and when it is ?

    2) What “how church is done” thing do you hold onto? Why? How does it you life?

    3) What is one “new” church thing that you enjoyed and/or found life-giving once you actually started doing it?

    Action: Take your “church thing” and explain not only what it is, but also how it builds up the church and fellow Christians.

  • The Aha Pilgrimage

    1 Kings 10:23–24, Isaiah 60:1–6, Micah 4:1–5, Matthew 2:1–12, Revelation 21:22–24 (read online ⧉)

    People approaching another country’s king with respect, almost as a pilgrimage, was not uncommon. We read the passages and often are lacking the context that kingdoms would often send delegations to a new , just to set a good basis for relationships. They would travel long miles to do so. Sometimes it’s even questionable if it was “ it”. Part of it was to gather information, but much of it really was to build relations. When you didn’t know who would be your next , it was wise to plant positive seeds of the as far as one could. The other part of this was also a showing of and wealth. If such-and-such a country could send this much and this person (usually a person of theoretical importance), then perhaps currying favor was smart.

    The Queen of Sheba visiting Solomon was a little outside the norm. According to the writer(s) of Kings, it seemed pretty natural, for the whole world wanted to talk to Solomon. While it was normal to send delegations, the author(s) of Kings seems to be emphasizing it, almost as if there was something far greater at work.

    The concept of people coming to Israel because of what God was doing was by no means new. And the writer(s) of Kings knew it. However, what was a “nice” thing, became an important piece of the prophetic narrative in regards to exile. Isaiah and Micah both indicate that the nations will come to Israel. It takes on a deeper role than just earthly kingdoms. The spiritual aspect was implicit in this . It was a calling of Israel to its role…a light to the world.

    When Jesus was born, there was no great fanfare in the larger world. Sure, some shepherds saw and heard some angels, but they were only shepherds. The so-called wise and powerful of Israel certainly didn’t care for some poor child born during the census, especially since the child’s importance was only witnessed by some (dirty, disgusting, untrustworthy, worthless) shepherds. And, really, what does it matter that some crazy prophet and prophetess announced Jesus, or any of the crazy story about some old priest (Zechariah, the of John the Baptist). The so-called wise and powerful received, just like in days of old, dignitaries from foreign places. It echoed the “glory days” of Solomon. They probably celebrated their seeming rising importance.

    Yet, these dignitaries weren’t looking for this particular court of man. Instead, they were looking for the “court” of the new king. The witness these dignitaries followed was a star! They didn’t receive a notice of a new king by messenger, they looked to a star! This is another piece of the story. The nation from and for whom the Messiah would come didn’t even notice. In many respects, this was the first case of reverse evangelism, where the ones that missionaries used to send people to, now send people back to restore the .

    1) When it comes to the word “”, who had it? The Israelites, the Romans, the foreigners?

    2) Epiphany is supposedly proof that Jesus calls non-Israelites (i.e., non-Jews) to him. Do you think the story of the Magi shows that? Is so, how? If not, why not?

    3) If Christians are the Jews and powerful people in the story of Epiphany, who are the Magi? What might these Magi have to show us what it means to be followers of Jesus?

  • Stand On Hope

    Isaiah 26:1–6, Psalm 18:1–9, Nehemiah 6:15–16 (read online ⧉)

    What is hope? Hope is knowing deeper than deep that God has got your back. The struggle for us is that having our back doesn’t always mean avoiding or consequences.

    Isaiah’s vision of Jersualem is that of a city that can withstand whatever the world can throw at it. It will be occupied by a . Characteristics of this nation are righteous, , God-reliant, peaceful, , humble. These are to be the universal attributes of those who call themselves God’s.

    God is the rock of hope. This hope is not bound in the world’s hopes of , things, , or influence, but solely on God’s , , and . As God is everlasting, God-ly hope will not fade away. The world’s hopes, along with the world itself, will pass away.

    God as rock (i.e., foundation) and walls, we can “stand on” God and are protected by God. Often the times we are truly aware of God is when it is only God’s foundation and protective walls keep us safe.

    1) Why is foundation and wall so integral to hope?

    2) What do you think of these characteristics of the nation in Isaiah’s vision?

    3) How are ways you can explain God-ly hope versus worldly hope?

  • Stars of Hope

    Genesis 22:15–18, Deuteronomy 1:10, Isaiah 54:1–10, Romans 4:13–25 (read online ⧉)

    Twice God promised Abraham (and once for Jacob) that his descendants would be as numerous as the stars. Imagine all the stars without our modern lights drowning them out. For Abraham that was a beyond , and certainly beyond anything that God needed to promise for Abraham’s obedience. God made this promise of God’s own free will.

    As inheritor’s of God’s promise, Moses reminded the Israelites of God’s fulfilled promise prior to their entry into the Promised Land. The Israelites were the result of Abraham’s . That God was gave them as they entered the promised land, as long as they listened to God.

    Often keeping the of hope going is a challenge while everyone else’s life seems to be a huge successful bonfire. The promise of uncountable descendants is extraordinarily painful when one is childless. Isaiah speaks of Israel that has no children. This symbolic Israel is God’s faithful . She has no children of faith, for they have all left the faith. The enemies of and in the world have drawn her offspring away from the Water of Life. God, however, promises the now barren Israel will have innumerable children.

    This is what Paul is referring to as the Promise of Faith. Being the of Nations (Abraham) is no longer an issue of blood, but the fulfillment of the faith that Abraham showed to God and those that put their hope in . Through Jesus, we all become part of “the blood” of Abraham, and part of the “nations” that he fathered.

    1) Why do you think Isaiah used barren as a of hope?

    2) Why is important to recall the fulfilled promises of God? What does it do for us?

    FD) Why do you think hope often symbolized by a flame?

  • Hope Together

    1 Chronicles 29:14–19, Psalm 31, Isaiah 2:1–5 (read online ⧉)

    It is pretty universal across humanity for people to question their value and their purpose. In the ancient world, the view of gods was often not particularly positive. Much of the activity was done to appease the wrathful gods and to “bribe” them enough to maybe get what was desired. The progressive understanding of the Israelites was that while God required sacrifice it was much more than that.

    David rarely seemed to view himself particularly highly (which have actually been a problem, at times). This gave David an interesting perspective insofar as he knew that while God had him (and his family), he didn’t take it for granted. He was grateful and amazed. In addition, part of his history (and that of Israel) was one of constant strife with the nations around them, and often at the losing .

    It was the non-losing end that remained the underlying story of the Israelites…hope. David understood that while Israel was often in trouble, often through its own misbehavior, with God’s selection of David and his family that there was indeed hope that the people would finally be unified. Through unification, perhaps the people of Israel would finally be strong enough to stand against the forces around them.

    Regardless, for David at least, it all relied on God. While David and his military might could protect the to some degree, it was only through God’s mighty hand and care that the nation, and its people, would thrive. In Psalm 31, David calls upon God’s . Foreshadowing a significant event in the death of his descendant, David wrote, “…into your hand I entrust my spirit.” Hope and trust in God are what allows us to continue in when we cannot see in the dark.

    Isaiah’s vision shows us that even then God was looking forward to everyone worshiping God with each other. This worship would cross national, ethnic, language, and cultural barriers. This hope, of a world in worship of God, is what we have to with those who don’t know God. Let us take the of hope forward into our lives.
    1) Have you ever questioned your value or purpose? What do David’s words say to that?

    2) Why is entrusting yourself to God such an important perspective?

    3) There is more than just worship involved in Isaiah’s vision? What else is there?

    FD) What do you think David means by trusting his spirit to God?

  • 25 November 2019

    Zechariah 12:1–8, Revelation 18:1–10, Matthew 20:20–23, Luke 22:14–20 (read online ⧉)

    A cup is a common thing. You probably have a few in your cupboards. You might even have so many you have to get rid of one to fit another. You might have ones for special times (like china for Thanksgiving). You might have Christmas themed ones. You probably have ones that were given to you as a reminder or an advertisement. There is nothing special really special about cups. However, as we read the , cups star in a number of places.
    Joseph used his cup (his very special one that only he had) to entrap his brothers. Pharoah and Nebuchadnezzar had their cupbearers. These cupbearers had authority within the courts of the . Cups, it seems, were not always so common.

    The prophet Zechariah has a vision of Judah being a cup. Nations would drink of this cup. The consumption part represents well the takeovers, wars, slavery, and exile. The nations around Judah (even their Semitic cousins in Samaria) really did a number on Judah. It’s not that Judah did the right things and was still on the losing end. Judah had continually made the wrong decisions. God wasn’t just going to restore his people once they yielded their hearts. God would use Judah as the source of retribution for all the nations that had (by their actions) treated Judah wrongly.

    This imagery is echoed in Revelation. This time, instead of the small underdog nation being the source of retribution, it would now be the leading city (symbolized as Babylon) that would be the source of its own destruction and the nations that followed it. This symbolic Babylon was completely lost in the depths of unGodly practices. The nations that idolized it or followed its practices would end up with the consequences of their choices.

    In Matthew, Jesus uses similar imagery to hint to James and John that the contents of Jesus’ cup will do the same to them as it will do to him. Of course, they did not yet understand what that meant. Is some ways, while Jesus did not “give” them the seats at his right or left hand, he still symbolically handed his to them when he said they would drink from his cup. They probably felt better about not getting their “seats”, at least until they realized the cup’s contents.

    This really comes to a culmination in the Cup of . The “blood” of the New shared by Jesus with his disciples and eventually with us. The cup is Christ’s. When we the cup, we share in the name and identity of Jesus. We also identify ourselves with and by the New Covenant. We also identify ourselves by his and the we bought. Lastly, though, each of us may have something that needs to be sacrificed to live a life with and for Christ. We have chosen to drink from the cup and by so doing stated that we will accept what it brings.

    1)Do you have a favorite cup? Why is it your favorite? Without knowing the story of if, what could people learn about you from it?

    2) God’s and love are often found in “ordinary” things. In what other “ordinary” things do you find God’s grace and love?

    3) Why is it important to look for and ‘s grace and love in ordinary things?