We'd appreciate you allowing the use of cookies. They are anonymized while allowing us to see how the site is used.

Devotion.al

Tag: righteous

  • 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 questions that come up with these passages, as they make them uncomfortable. They are indeed not the idealized “nuclear” American family 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 father’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 give birth, any sons birthed would not be of age 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?

    Action: Ask God to give you a heart 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 sin and unrighteous act can be—ultimately—redeemed by Jesus Christ.

  • 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 pain 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 righteous nation. Characteristics of this nation are righteous, faithful, God-reliant, peaceful, trusting, 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 money, things, power, or influence, but solely on God’s love, grace, and mercy. 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?

  • Right Words Right Choice

    2 Chronicles 18:12-22, Mark 15:1–15 (read online ⧉)

    Ahab was an interesting king. He set himself up against God and the prophets multiple times. His greatest prophetic adversary was Elijah. However, Elijah was by no means his only one. Micaiah was apparently well known to Ahab. As Ahab told Jehoshaphat that Micaiah never says anything good to him (Ahab), we can infer the Micaiah was known to visit Ahab, probably often to chastise him for continue to worship Baal (and encouraging the people too).

    Knowing that Ahab could behave in a weak fashion (see the story about Naboth’s vineyard), it is interesting to reflect on him bringing a known adversary to his court for consultation, especially in the presence of another king. This is not the behavior of a weak king. On top of it, Ahab is apparently smart enough to recognize that all his other “seers” are blowing hot air, for when Micaiah echoes their words, Ahab challenges that. He’s pretty certain that Micaiah is following the crowd and not his calling.

    Why Micaiah succumbed to echoing the others is never answered, but there could be a number of answers. The likeliest answer of all was that Ahab wouldn’t respond to the truth, so why bother with it. People in power might ask people of influence or morals for advice (such as in this case). However, that can be merely a checkbox to show open-mindedness and wisdom, when in fact it is just a show. While Ahab took a risk calling in Micaiah, because he sought Jehoshaphat’s military aid, he probably felt that he needed to put on an appropriate show for the God-following Jehoshaphat.

    In Jesus’ time, Pilate was the theoretical ruler of Jerusalem. He was under and sent with the authority of the Roman Empire. Only by his command could death be imposed. As the Jewish religious leaders needed his approval, they set him up. In many respects, Pilate knew it. He knew that the real issue was that Jesus challenged the influence of the Sanhedrin. Pilate, though, needed the Sanhedrin to control the people without always having to resort to arms. He and the Sanhedrin played a political game of chess, and Pilate gave up. He actually had a winning hand but succumbed to the pressure of the crowd. The Sanhedrin knew the political pitfalls that Pilate had to walk and took advantage of them.

    Ahab and Pilate faced hard choices. For us, we don’t see them as too hard, but both were “political animals”. We see much the same today; people who cannot not be in politics. Every person has decisions to make. What matters is which direction each one of those steps leads.

    1) Have you ever had to make a political choice that did not feel like it was the correct (e.g., righteous, moral) choice? Why did you make the choice you did? What were the results politically and spiritually?

    2) For “political animals” (no disrespect intended), often the political game blinds them to good or wise decisions. Where do you see that occurring? Is it only that person or people?

    3) People’s wiring for decisions is often different than our own. We may even come to the same decision via a completely different route. How do we work with others whose thought processes (again, not the conclusions) are so different from our own?

  • Dressing the Part

    Matthew 6:25–34, Romans 13:11–14:1, Galatians 3:19–28 (read online)

    Have you ever put on clothes, whether someone else’s or at the store, and say, “that is not me?” There are a number of shows about clothes, and a lot of them are about what the clothes say about the person. The shows state a belief that the clothes say more about what the person thinks of themselves.

    If you wear really baggy clothes (skipping the supposed in fashion part), you could just want to be comfortable, or you are so uncomfortable with yourself that you use the clothes to hide. That’s silly, you might say. However, if you really think about it, what clothes we were do affect how we think about ourselves. You may not wear a tux or a ballgown often, but when you do, it affects you. This is part of the reason we do see so many struggles with clothes.

    One of the first things we judge a person we haven’t met before is their clothes. If you dress casually normally, and they’re dressed up, you may think they are too stiff or formal. If you normally dress up, you may think another person is too casual, and thus lazy or uncaring. These views often show up at church, but they also show up in other social settings.

    “Dress the part,” is often the advice given to people applying for a new job, or seeking to move up in an organization. If, for example, the president wears a suit, you wear a suit. There are, of course, exceptions when it comes to that as certain occupations require certain clothes. Even there, though, if you don’t take care of the clothes you’ll receive a different reaction.

    Jesus tells us not to worry about the clothes we wear. Yet, we do. In Jesus’ time, clothes are often a luxury. By and large, in the US, people can get fairly decent clothes for a relatively cheap price. However, obsessing about the latest fashion is probably not the most Christian thing. On the other hand, lecturing others for their expensive fashion is not our place either (the world does enough judging of its own there).

    While not included in today’s passages, there is a time when Jesus speaks about having food that others do not know about and being the living water. These words can help us reason with Jesus’ words, especially when we read Paul’s words. While Jesus was concerned with people’s well-being on earth, His other concern was the life to come. There the clothes and food we concern ourselves about today, will not even be a whisper of a thought.

    This leads us to Paul’s words. “Put on Jesus.” Is Jesus a coat or a robe that I just put on like clothes? This phrase often strikes people as odd. Unless you’re putting on an Edgar suit (see MIB), you don’t put on a person. If we’re honest with ourselves, putting on a Jesus suit seems pretentious, false, and, well…“not me”.

    Putting on the Jesus suit is awkward. It doesn’t feel like us. It isn’t. In religious/spiritual/psychological circles we talk about changing from the inside-out. In Christian-speak, we would say the Holy Spirit transforms us from the inside-out. However, the Jesus suit puts that into question. It’s where borrowing from a different Christians tradition is helpful. In the Reform circles, there is an emphasis on imputed righteousness. In other words, we’re righteous because God said so. They (and we) know that we still aren’t righteous. God is still working on us from the inside.

    Yet, when we became Christians, we were issued a Jesus suit.

    1) Assuming that your Jesus suit was white when given to you, what color do you think it is now?

    2) Think about a piece of white clothing that gets washed over and over (and especially with other colors of clothing). What color does it turn into? Do you think a Jesus suit would discolor (i.e., no longer be white) after lots of washing?

    3) How does a Jesus suit get washed?

    4) Why a Jesus suit, and not a costume?

  • Work to Death or for Life

    Acts 6:1–7, James 2:14–26

    In his book, With Unveiled Faces, Kieth Drury writes, “Serious Christians get into lifesaving boats and go to sea to rescue people in need, refusing to sit in our warm lighthouses waiting for the shipwrecked to wash up on shore.”
    As we talk this week about connecting with God through the work of our hands, one of the biggest ways the church has done this is through serving the poor. Sadly, there has come a time where serving the poor has become business dressed in the clothes of mercy. This does not excuse Christians from serving the poor, but it does require greater discernment than it has in the past.

    Does this mean that everyone is called to directly serve the poor? No. That’s why there were certain people tasked with doing it, as shown in Acts. However, the “greater” church was behind them both in moral support, but also with the resources necessary.

    One of the big (and valid, to a point) arguments against the church helping those outside of “the church” is that “charity starts at home.” This was actually written by Charles Dickens. There is a great amount of truth in that statement, and it should be the case within the Christian framily. However, “start” is the operative word. It must start at home, for that is where the groundwork is laid. It is groundwork. It is foundational. Yet, just like for a home, a foundation is only the beginning.

    Martin Luther struggled with the book of James, in particular this passage. Luther struggled with the concept of works as faith. James’ words were too similar to earning one’s way to Heaven, one of the issues that was at the root of his separation from the Roman Catholic church. James’ point was not that works would earn grace, but works were the evidence of faith and grace poured out.

    1) Many Christians have been taught to avoid “works righteousness”. What are they? What is the difference between that and “faith and grace” poured out?

    2) Why are actions so important in regards to our faith?

    3) Why do we struggle so much with action?

  • Strong Protecting Love

    Isaiah 26:1–6, Psalm 18:1–9, Nehemiah 6:15–16

    Strength is measured in many ways. When you’re the one being attached, often it is by fists (or equivalent). Another way is deterrent. In other words, what will be the cost to attack? When a strong city is called out, it is a city that, yes, can defend itself. It is also a city that others would not want to attack. This particular city, Jerusalem, had God as its ultimate defense.

    What country or military power would want to attack God? This was the hope of the Israelites, that God would protect them.

    God does want to protect those who love God, and worship and honor God. The phrasing, however, gets odd when we talk about jealousy. Jealousy always seems to be bad. Even when we say God has a jealous love for us, it sounds bad.

    Rev. George Harrison calls jealousy the shadow of love. That doesn’t sound much better. However, he notes that what we often call jealousy is actually love corrupted by envy. True jealousy—or righteous jealousy—is when wholesome love and devotion are denied, betrayed, or destroyed.

    God, then, is jealous when the love due by right (as Creator) and relationship (whether Israelite, Christian or the not quite) is no longer. God’s jealous love is the heart of one betrayed. As the one whose love is faithful and never-changing, God would do just about anything for those God loves.

    1) Re-read the last paragraph. What sign do we have of this?

    2) Re-read the scriptures with this understanding of God’s jealous love. Does your understanding change?

    3) What is important to understand God’s jealous love and our lives, and how we live them?

  • Binding Ties

    1 Samuel 2:12–17, 1 Samuel 2:22–36, Matthew 10:16–23, Ephesians 6:10–20

    Who or what are the dark powers that Paul talks about in Ephesians? Perhaps they are the family members that oppose believers. Perhaps they are the family members the “dress up” in righteous clothing and whose behavior is unrighteous.

    Eli’s sons Phinehas and Hophni are the second set of “pastor’s” kids in the Scriptures (the first were Aaron’s sons) who went off the deep end. Their lack of respect for others’ sacrifices was bad just on an interpersonal level. It was a form of bullying. Was there a penalty? Yes, but that doesn’t really improve the results. How many people were scarred toward the priesthood? How many became reluctant attendees because of their behavior? This can only be thought of through conjecture. Just based on human behavior, it seems likely that the behavior of Eli’s sons caused a ripple effect of unseen damage. For cultural, societal, and religious reasons people would still go, for the cost of not going could result in ostracization.

    What kind of opposition was Jesus expecting? Families kicking out believers. Families turning in believers. Family gatherings devolving into religious arguments and divisions. Even Jesus’ own family was divided until at least after his death.

    The dark powers really are the sin of humankind. Yes, there are dark supernatural powers and influences. Sadly, however, humanity has enough darkness inside itself that outside influence is often not required to make a mess of things. Jealousy, envy, hatred are in many respect the true dark power of humanity. Along with pride, humanity will often do many things which appear to be contrary to the concept of humanity.

    Within families, the excesses often seem to be magnified. While we often think about the awkward family reunion, sometimes we find it in other “families”, whether they be fraternal orders, unions, clubs, church, Homeowners Associations, or whatever. There are always powers that work to separate the ties that bind us together.

    1) What have you experienced that tests the bonds of your relationships with others?

    2) Do you have a tendency to look at yourself or at others first when there is a problem?

    3) What is the strongest tendency you have that pushes others away from you? What is the strongest tendency you have that draws others to you?

  • Countercultural Love

    2 Samuel 1:17–27, Romans 12:9–21, Romans 13:1-10

    David had been pursued by the House of Saul for many years. Even after Saul acknowledged that David had been acting more righteous than he, there wasn’t restoration. David was cut off from his friends (like Saul’s son, Jonathan), his first wife, his nation. He was in exile. David had been anointed to be king but was kept from the throne by an unrighteous man.

    In the political climate of today, we can easily imagine the celebrations of the other “side” (whichever one that is) celebrating the death of the king and his family. In fact, it seems to have become a tradition for the last few presidents to have people asking and praying for their deaths. David was not like that with Saul.

    David could have been angry and arrogant. Instead, he mourned. He wrote a song to mourn the passing of the House of Saul. He insisted others learn it and share it. He was not happy that the throne was his. He was miserable for the loss of the leading family. In the current political climate, do you see that happening for any politician?

    When Paul wrote to the Christians in Rome, we have to remember that they were lower than the Jews in Roman eyes. Paul still charged them to love. Bless the persecutors? No eye for an eye? Be at peace? With them? Talk about countercultural!

    “Do not be conquered by evil, but conquer evil with good.”
    —Romans 12:21

    While the Roman government was certainly no friend of Christians, Paul still told them to submit. While there is an ongoing distrust of government today (been there since the founding of the country), the odd thing is, in the US the citizens choose their leaders. We are still called to pray for them as much as we may not agree with their decisions.

    This also leads back to love. If we view people with whom we disagree as anything other than people for whom Jesus Christ died, we have a problem. When we behave or believe that we cannot be wrong, we have removed God from the throne of our heart and put ourselves back on it. Back to the way our hearts were before we found salvation in and through Jesus Christ.

    1) There is a strong human need for an enemy…an other. When have you been tempted (or succumbed) to treat another with whom you disagree as an enemy? What if they are family or framily?

    2) We are called to be of one mind with Christ. How does treating a Christian as an enemy make a person of one mind with Christ?

    3) One of the greatest tools of the enemy is division. How can you oppose this tool with the heart of Jesus?

  • Denial and Grace

    Luke 23:50–24:12, John 19:38–42, Matthew 10:32–33

    Joseph of Arimathea is described differently by Luke and John. Luke describes him as good, righteous, and looking forward to the kingdom of God. John describes him as a secret disciple of Jesus. On the surface, these appear to be different. And, depending on the audience, they can be very different indeed. However, Joseph’s attitude toward Jesus was fairly clear. Joseph greatly admired Jesus. He also did (to a point) follow Jesus as “the women” from Galilee were with him, indicating that he did have a place in the larger circle of disciples.

    Joseph of Arimathea was part of the Sanhedrin. The religious and civil ruling council of the Jews is the “body” that pushed for Jesus’ crucifixion. Earlier in the Gospels, it seemed that the Sanhedrin was unanimous in its thinking. Joseph of Arimathea shows that there wasn’t unanimity in Sanhedrin. Joseph was concerned, however, with his place in the Sanhedrin. John calls it out as fear of “the Jews”. Luke doesn’t specify that, but as Luke does only note that Joseph went to Pilate, Joseph definitely did it cautiously and did try to avoid making a scene.

    John even pulls Nicodemus into the conversation. Nicodemus is first seen at night meeting Jesus (John 3:1–21). Next Nicodemus is seen defending (in a roundabout way) Jesus. Then we see him now bringing an amount of myrrh and aloe that was excessive (culturally). Nicodemus is still not declaring anything in the name of Jesus, but his actions show a heart turned toward Jesus.

    The actions of both men could seem to be contrary to Jesus’ words in Matthew 10:32–33. In fact, many of us might well be guilty of this. It all depends on how one defines “deny”. It could be like Peter, who denied Jesus 3 times. That’s pretty blatant, yet God’s grace carried Peter forward to be the first leader of the Church. Peter, like Joseph and Nicodemus, was afraid.

    In the world, fear drives many of our actions. Around the world, Christians are hated and hunted. Muslims that have converted to Jesus (and often in mysterious ways) hide their conversion in fear, as they are (justifiably in many cases) afraid of being killed for the family’s honor. In India, Hindu extremists target Christians regularly. There have been a number of bombings of churches recently. Are these Christians denying Christ by not proclaiming Jesus from the rooftops, street corners, family gatherings, their homes?

    Many preachers, who are living in and are accustomed to religious and speech freedom, have said exactly that over the years.

    1) If you are not declaring Jesus to everyone you meet, especially to every family member who is not a Christian, why not? In light of Jesus words, then, what is failing to acknowledge Jesus?

    2) What is the difference, if any, between denying Jesus, and not acknowledging Jesus?

    3) When was the last time you acted like Peter, Joseph of Arimathea, or Nicodemus out of fear?

  • Deceptive Holiness

    1 Timothy 4:6–16, Colossians 2:1–23

    myth: usually a traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon.

    Myths are powerful. Often the struggle of myths is their competition with one another. Focusing on “…explain a practice, belief…”, we all know that there are plenty of practices and beliefs in church that people have. Many of these have been built up to such a point that the Gospel seems to lose to “the way things must be.” The Church of the Nazarene is no different (we’ll try to be careful walking on eggshells). The first Church of the Nazarene was “born” on the streets of Los Angeles’ Skid Row (or its equivalent). There was a huge problem with alcoholism and alcohol in general. So, one of the principles was no drinking, and it makes perfect sense. The Christian life was held up as an example to live up to, and one of the ways to escape the path of destruction was to stop drinking. Having a religious and social “contract” created a place of restoration and health.

    However (you knew this was coming), the righteous rationale became a litmus test for holiness. If you consumed, sold, or make alcohol, you were obviously not holy. This sounds a little over the top, doesn’t it? Does that mean generations of Christians (including Paul’s successor, Timothy) were not holy? Of course not! There is an argument (questioned by many) regarding the alcohol content difference between Biblical wine and today’s wine, but that really isn’t the issue. If we took things to the extreme, we would only be holy if we were monks or nuns (or the Protestant equivalent). That seems pretty silly, too.

    Let’s be clear. We can look around us and see alcohol (and many other things) are a significant problem. Alcohol (and those other things) can easily lead one away from family, church, and God. On the other hand, many of these things should not be presumed to do this. Do many of the troublesome things lead us away from Jesus? Absolutely! God is full of grace and mercy, and still constantly calls us to him, and away from those things we find tempting.

    Alcohol is an easy one. What about the internet? The internet has enabled the destruction of many families and churches. There are many people addicted to the internet (or something on it). The church isn’t calling for the banishment of the internet (okay, there are probably local churches that are). In fact, the internet may be the greatest evangelism tool we’ve had since the printing press. Alcohol, the internet, food, money all have the potential to destroy humanity.

    With that being said, then, what are we to do? Holiness isn’t just personal. John Wesley noted that holiness is only truly found in social holiness. That means we are all to be holy to/with/for each other. The rules of holiness, just like the rules of the Jews, are shadows of things to come. We are called to walk with each other toward Jesus. We are to study together, pray together, weep together, praise together, worship together. We are called to live as framily. Rules are easier than holiness. Rules are a checkbox to complete. Sadly, often when we complete the checkboxes we think we’re done. Until we’ve gone through the veil of death, we are never done walking the road of holiness toward Jesus.

    1) Have you ever accused or thought of someone not being “holy” or living the “Christian Life”? Why? Was it a “rule”, or was it Scriptural?

    2) Who are you walking with on the road of holiness? Are you actually talking to them about your holiness journey and theirs?