Devotion.al

Tag: word

  • Another Test?

    Nehemiah 8:1–6; Luke 24:18–27; Acts 17:10–15 (read online ⧉)

    The Israelite Exiles have returned home, sort of. As Ezra reads the , the remnant of Israel learns what it means to be God’s people. Generations had already wandered away emotionally and spiritually. Then they went into exile in a foreign land with various gods and practices and unlearned even more. The confrontation with God’s was probably startling to many, and -wrenching for .

    Even when theoretically well-established with the Scriptures, and even being (outer) disciples of , disciples such as Cleopas still needed to have things explained further to him. Perhaps, like many of us, it needed that “one more time” to get. Perhaps Jesus said it the “right” way this time so that Cleopas understood. Maybe for Cleopas, it took the report of the and Jesus’ explanation and the breaking of the bread to “get it”. We just don’t know why it took so much for Cleopas (and we really can’t forget Cleopas’ companion) to get it, but each of us has had a similar experience, where we just need to go over it and over it and over it (whatever “it” is).

    This is what makes the Bereans a good example. They eagerly dug into the Scriptures to validate what they were told.

    1) When was the last time you eagerly dug into the Scriptures?

    2) The Israelites needed to test things against the Scriptures but didn’t. How is your habit of things against the Scriptures?

    3) Do you recall that we are to test the Scriptures through the lens of God’s for us as displayed by Jesus Christ? In what ways is this displayed by Jesus’ explanations to Cleopas and his companion?

    : take one opinion or commentary regarding or from the world and test it against the Scriptures.

  • Mocking Truth?

    Luke 23:32–43, 2 Peter 3:1–18 (read online ⧉)

    Humor can be cruel. Often it is aimed at an who is different than us. Sometimes cruel humor helps us avoid our own insecurities. Humor can be quite painful at times. However, it the cruelty that wraps itself in humor that becomes something completely different. It leads to diminishing of , not just for a laugh (though that can be quite painful), but for a lifetime. It also leads to blindness, especially blindness to .

    Crucifixion was not uncommon in ‘ day. It was designed to be what it was…a murderous spectacle. Yet, there were certain things that were added on to it that were not : the purple robe, being hailed as “King of the Jews,” the crown of thorns. The soldiers mocked him. The Jewish leaders mocked him. The people mocked him. In the people’s defense, their of both the Roman soldiers and the Jewish leaders put them in a situation were likely many of them felt as if they had no choice but to join the mocking. However, just like many of us, this doesn’t particularly excuse it.

    By the time of Peter’s letter, the of the Lord seemed that it would never happen. The people, therefore, were being mocked for their . In addition, because their expectation was “obviously” false, their way of life and their beliefs were also mocked.

    Peter seeks to remind them that God’s words never return void (Isaiah 55:11). By implication, he is pointing out that God’s promises have come true. By implication, he also points out that the Prophets often did not know the exact timing, just that God was moving. That was the same situation that the church was experiencing. God was moving, it was just not the way and the when they were expecting.

    As Peter also felt the need to reinforce “the ” conveys some concern the people were diminishing the truth and/or the validity of the Scriptures. Just like many of us are experiencing in this day and . We experience the scoffers and the doubters, who look at us and the Scriptures and shake their heads in despair of us. They pity us. As belief in the Truth of Christianity wanes, we approach the disbelief alive at the time of Peter (though there is a long way to go). It becomes progressively harder as the ratio of believer to non-believer changes amongst our families, friends, coworkers.

    1) How do you maintain your trust in the Word in the midst of all this disbelief?

    2) What other concerns do you think Peter had in this passage?

    3) Have you ever been mocked or scorned? How about for your faith?

  • Do Black Sheep Stay Black?

    Genesis 49:1–2 and 49:8–12, 2 Samuel 7:12–16, Luke 1:67–79, Revelation 5:2–14 (read online ⧉)

    You might have gathered from all the that this is about the lineage of Judah. The lineage of the same guy from yesterday’s devotion who seem to not particularly care about those of his lineage that followed him. Despite that, his made a pronouncement that Judah had the scepter and the staff. The scepter represents the ability and position of rule. In other words, kingship was the domain of Judah. In addition, the same word also can be translated as branch or offshoot, which are also words that were applied to the Messiah. The staff probably mentioned in the translation you likely read is troublesome. The KJV is closest with ruler (and that is the way it is often translated elsewhere with Judah). In Hebrew, it also means engraved. Where does this lead us? Combining ruler and engraved is similar to a seal, so going out on a limb…authority. Kings, rulers, presidents have power. Authority is the right to use power.*

    David’s eventual rule over the Kingdom of Israel seemed to begin the fulfillment of Jacob’s prophesy. Then Nathan delivered the Lord’s message. What a message that was! What an amazing way to fulfill an old prophetic message from Jacob the patriarch of Israel. What seems odd is that there does not appear to be a direct acknowledgment of Jacob’s message. It’s there, but it is more implied than directly stated. It seems a reverse of Judah’s perspective. This also shows that despite Judah’s behavior, good can still come from bad. It all depends on what we do with it when we turn to God.

    During Zechariah’s over his son John (the Baptist), Jesus’ lineage is tied to David. This sees a deliberate tie to the message from God about David’s specific line having the authority. This same line is still the line of Judah. The Israelite concept of a Messianic figure comes long after Judah dies (though it is easily argued that there was plenty of foreshadowing). There is no way that Jacob or Judah could have imagined that God would have become man through their lineage. It would have been far beyond their imagining.

    When Jesus walked the earth, his lineage was predominantly tied to David. After his death and resurrection, however, the of Judah regained some prominence in all that surrounded Jesus the Christ. We see this in Revelation where it all gets tied : Judah, David, Messiah, , eternity. What beautiful symmetry.

    1) Does your family or social circle have a “black sheep” (i.e., the person all avoid)? What makes that person a black sheep?

    2) Judah was a black sheep insofar as his behavior ( yesterday, plus other things). The Messiah, your savior, came from a line of the black sheep. What does that tell you about the potential of your family’s (again, or social circle’s) black sheep?

    3) Why is understanding God’s redemption of black sheep important for our lives and ?

    Action: Look for a way to begin the of a black sheep.

    *This is not a statement on whether current people in power have authority (that can be argued multiple ways with multiple bases), just to be clear. That there was a perceived need to make this statement should also cause each of us to pause and wonder what is really going on in our hearts.

  • Rest or Death?

    Psalm 23 (read online ⧉)

    Psalm 23 is that one Psalm that even many non-Christians appreciate (if not love), and even those who have walked away from the faith still hold onto. Even with people who do not fully understand the imagery of a and shepherd grasp some of the very important pieces from it, even when they don’t believe in God.

    God loves them. Yep. That’s part of what makes this Psalm so amazing. People understand the caring and cherishing love that is conveyed in this Psalm. Those who don’t believe in God or have long struggled with the concept of a loving God versus a harsh God still get it! They want it!

    God cares about them. Making people . Places of calming. Places of . Who doesn’t want that? And it calls to the unbeliever too!

    Yes, there is a lot more in this Psalm that has called, drawn, nourished, healed people for generations. That is part of the problem. This Psalm is peaceful. It draws into a place of peace. That’s all good. However, it’s supposed to be a place of rest. If it is a place of rest, that means one needs to rest from something. Too often, though, we just want to rest. Rest is good. God built us that way. Too much rest is bad. We become more and more lethargic. We don’t want to /go. We want to remain at rest.

    At the risk of taking too much out of context, let’s look at the מְנֻחֹות [mânuchah /men·oo·khaw]. Depending on the translation it means still (KJV, ESV) or quiet (NIV, CSB). When applied to water, there is a concept of the water’s being relaxing. In a culture that did not view water as particularly relaxing (there was more ), this is very important. We, on the other hand, have a more relaxed view of the water.

    Still or quiet does not mean stagnant. While the water is still or quiet, it is still “alive”. It moves. It has in it. Too often we believe we want still or quiet, but we up with stagnation. Water that is not stagnant has a cycle of its own. Stagnant water evaporates into nothingness. It ends up being nothing. It ends up being useless.
    Resting in God is essential. It is important. It needs to be regular. The purpose of God-based rest is to do God’s work. Far too many people rest and are resting too long.

    1) What does it mean to be stagnant in God’s ?

    2) People, programs, ministries, facilities, thought processes, and so on can all become stagnant, even the ones we love. Where do you see stagnation?

    3) What is the difference between stagnation and building up over a long period of time? How can you tell the difference?

  • Eternal Clay

    2 Corinthians 4:7–13, James 4:13–17 (read online ⧉)

    What are you living for? Who are you living for? These are not simple . They can be difficult thoughts. They can actually be kind of depressing. They can be quite depressing really. For when we talk about what we are living for, we acknowledge that the we are living now will come to .

    This is why Paul’s words can actually be encouraging. You’re a clay pot! Wow! Sounds great! I’m fragile. I’m breakable. Yep, that really encouraging.

    The tale goes like this (how much , who knows), a boy was throwing rocks into random caves. He heard a shattering noise. When he got to the cave, he found parchment inside a clay jar. What he found, we now call the Dead Sea Scrolls. What was in many clay jars in a series of caves were books from the Bible. Phrased a different way, the of God was in jars of clay. Scripture in jars of clay that lasted (in some cases) more than 1500 years.

    We often look down on ourselves for we often see our and our mortality. Yet a fragile person (or group of them) managed to preserve delicate parchment in breakable jars of clay, and it survived 1500 years. All too often we look at ourselves and limit what we can do. Yet, look at what people who were just trying to do their best could do. The Essenes (the ones responsible for the Dead Sea Scrolls) were people who simply lived their best lives for God. We have been blessed because they did.

    Our fragile beings, which suffer along with the rest of humanity, have the opportunity, however, to carry something much greater than we ought to be able to. We get to carry Jesus inside of us. When the image of God was placed into humanity, who could have imagined that we would also be able to receive so much more than the image.

    It’s odd, if you think about it, that by living in these bodies we have, we get to identify with the incarnation of God in Jesus, and we also identify with his . In other words, by identifying with our jars of clay, we identify with eternity.

    1) What do you say about yourself about what you are not able to do for the ?

    2) If we have eternity inside of us, why are we so worried about that which disappears like a vapor?

    3) If you couldn’t fail, what would you do for the of God?

  • The 3 Rs: Regret, Remorse, Repent

    Matthew 27:3–4, Luke 17:1–4, Acts 8:9–25, Acts 16:22–34 (read online ⧉)

    According to Merriam-Webster…

    regret means (1)(a) to mourn the or of, (b) to miss very much; (2) to be very sorry for

    remorse means (1) a gnawing distress arising from a sense of for past wrongs, self-reproach

    means (1) to turn from sin and dedicate oneself to the amendment of one’s ; (2)(a) to feel regret or contrition, (b) to one’s mind

    The words we use mean something. We often use regret and repent interchangeably when we talk about sin and forgiveness. How we use these two words really matter. The key to this is ‘ words. If the brother repents, then forgive them (and we won’t talk about the counting piece, as that is merely a distraction for today). We, understandably, question how we can tell that someone has repented. If we were to take Jesus’ words literally, we would especially question it if the person came back 7 times in a day repenting. If we use the understanding of feeling sorrow and changing one’s mind, it seems that the person really didn’t change their mind.

    Yet, if something has been ingrained and habituated, 1 day of repentance isn’t going to make a heart-, mind-, and behavior-deep change. If that were so effective, the percentage of people “breaking” their New Year’s resolutions wouldn’t be increasing day-by-day. Repentance (sorrow along with change of mind/heart) may not be a short road to walk for many issues. Sometimes the repentance for an may be jeopardized by other behaviors and habits that resulted in the behavior repented for. For example, one doesn’t just have an adulterous affair one day (with certain psychological issues being the exception). It builds up. Staring at the other sex. Flirting with them. Placing them above your spouse. It all builds on one another. While a person may repent (whole-heartedly) of their adultery, the other behaviors that lead to it still need to be addressed.

    Regret, on the other hand, is something different. People will often regret their bad actions, but only because they were caught. Or they might regret their actions because they perceive they lost out on something they wanted. Another way to think of it can be found in the current cultural phenomenon called FOMO, which is an acronym of Fear Of Missing Out. FOMO is a fear of the potential regret one might feel for not doing something. The reality is that we all have regrets.

    The difference between regret and repent is different than a similarity in the potential grief of both, which is often where we confuse them. Regret, by and large, is selfish. This is not always the case, granted. However, if one thinks about when feelings of regret (or conveyed) it usually is not about harm inflicted upon another (that is remorse), it is about how the bad thing affected the person feeling regret. Remorse lies between regret and repent. At least remorse is about another (i.e., less selfish), but there is still selfishness involved.

    Many Christians, probably most of us, the repent until they need to repent. We don’t mind regretting, too much. We’re okay with remorse. The reason why regret and remorse are tolerable is they don’t really require anything of us. Repentance, on the other, requires all of us.

    1) What have you regretted in life? Why?

    2) What have you felt remorse for in life? Why? Did you make amends, or what happened?

    3) Skipping the often ingenuine “I repented of all my sins”, what have you repented of? If you committed the action that you repented of, did you really repent, or was it really regret and/or remorse?

  • Speaking of Children

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • 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 future . They would travel long miles to do so. Sometimes it’s even questionable if it was “worth 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 relationship as far as one could. The other part of this was also a showing of strength and wealth. If such-and-such a country could send this much and this person (usually a person of theoretical importance), then perhaps currying 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 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 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 father 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 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 faith.

    1) When it comes to the “epiphany”, 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 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?