GreyJay

Joel 2 is great comfort to me. When we have gone our own way and our lives bear the consequences of that choice, if we repent (v12), "I will restore to you the years that the swarming locust has eaten" (v25). God has the authority to restore to us our lost years... wow! There is no such thing as hopelessness with God.

@Tzephanyahu Thanks man, I hadn't thought of the feasts connection to the menorah. You're right about its appearance, I've seen some of the more ancient depictions. I think generally people see the leavened bread on Shavuot to signify the grafting in of gentiles, which is fulfilled by the events at Pentacost. I'm not sure why it would be the center lamp, though, except maybe for the image of the tongues of flame that separate and alight on the believers. I think -- and I could be wrong -- the center lamp is generally thought of as the last lamp, making the menorah look like: 123 7 456 - the center being sukkot. If that's the way we look at it, it's a pretty cool connection to the center lamp being understood as Sabbath, but also the sukkot "7-day rest" (rest on all the days) fulfilled in Rev 21:2-3, but also, maybe, a connection to Messiah as the lamp (i.e., v23). Maybe it's also interesting that the "last lamp" is lit first. I.e., it's both 123 7 456 and 234 1 567: "I am the first and the last," both the Passover lamb and the final, eternal dwelling of God among people.

I am curious about the menorah, and I have a question for those who might know more about it than me. I have read that the center lamp in the menorah is called the "shamash," which can mean "servant" or "helper." I have read some suggestions that this is a reference to Messiah, who is called "the servant" in Isaiah's servant songs. I have also read that the shamash is lit first, then is used to light the other lamps. I was wondering if anyone knows if there is any link understood between the shamash and the "helper" Jesus promised -- the Holy Spirit. If the Jewish NT believers understood the shamash as Jesus, was the symbolism at Pentacost a sign to those believers that their experience then was from Him? i.e., Acts 2:3 They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them.

Thank you for sharing so openly. We have to share the grief of the world together. Isaiah calls Jesus "a man of sorrows, acquainted with grief." Not always -- but sometimes -- it's enough to know that God sits with us in our pain. We have to, somehow, trust the promise that "Those who sow with tears will reap with songs of joy." So we, too, sit with one another in our grief, and hope together in the promises we share in Christ. Psalm 51 says, "My sacrifice, O God, is a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart you, God, will not despise." I take great comfort in that. When everyone seems to push you away because you are broken and used up, and you have nothing left in you to give them, the thing that God accepts is that very brokenness, and when all we have left is need, He won't turn us away.

Yeah, I think everyone here is probably saying the same things but getting hung up on terminology. "It makes sense (is justifiable) to believe in scripture" and "I believe in scripture even though it doesn't make sense (I don't fully comprehend it)" are both valid uses of the term "makes sense," and while they seem contradictory, they're both actually trying to communicate a similar idea, in context.

@nobleseed Oh, okay, you meant logic - the quality of being justifiable by reason. not logic - a particular system or codification of the principles of proof and inference. If that's the case, don't most people think their "strange conclusions and even stranger beliefs" do make sense and are logical? It seems like the admonition in your op is actually that people should have faith in scripture, in spite of whatever seems to "make sense, and be logical" to them.

@nobleseed I'm not comfortable with releasing my logical mind either, but I do, for a few reasons. The first reason is that life experience has humbled me. If you put your faith in your own ability to reason, but that path leads you into death, darkness and decrease, why continue on that path? If simple faith in God leads you into life, light and increase, why shouldn't that experience be what gives scriptures credibility for us, regardless of our own ability to comprehend it? This was not always my thinking on the subject, but life has taken away my faith in my own logic, and I've come to regard a simple, childlike trust as more valuable in connecting intimately with our Creator, and the life He intends to see us thrive in. Secondly, one of the things I think about regarding logic and scripture is the likelihood that we don't actually have access to all the premises needed to arrive at sound inferences or conclusions. If God has access to knowledge we don't about us, the universe, and Himself, then it seems likely that we would not be able to arrive at logically sound conclusions, since we lack access to the necessary premises. Trusting that the One who does have access to those universal truths has our best interests in mind makes it reasonable to release the need to judge the credibility of scripture by our own ability to understand it logically.

The song "Sing" by C3 Music from the album Saints has almost that exact line. But it's a female vocalist, not all synth, and no "compassion." You can find it on YouTube if you suspect that might be the one. Maybe someone did a cover of it or something. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/561f168ce4b00e84db80e902/t/5628bae3e4b00d6d157681c3/1445509859377/Sing+-+Chart+%2B+Lyrics.pdf

I think it's a sign of maturity when we finally arrive at a point where we just believe God, and we're okay with not fully comprehending Him. I worked in disability for many years as a support worker. I have come across people with significant intellectual disabilities who have a faith so profound it is really more of a knowledge than faith. Somehow, God just connected with them in a way where He made himself real to them to the point where doubt is not a struggle. That is an enviable position to me. The Lord famously teaches that "...it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God," and my own experience is that it is the same for intellectual "wealth." My doubt, fed by my own wisdom, has kept me from the Kingdom life in many ways, to my severe detriment. It has always led me into death, darkness, decrease, while simple faith has led me into life, light, and increase. Unfortunately, it has taken great personal tragedy in my life to rip away my faith in myself from under me: "My sacrifice, O God, is a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart you, God, will not despise." Psalm 51:17

God draws people to Himself the way He wants to, right? It's not a super comfortable situation for us to be in if we discredit the work God is doing because it doesn't fit our doctrine. When you experience the power of God in a way that transforms you forever, it's pretty tough be talked out of that experience by someone's doctrinal argument. I really like that. We do have this inherent human need for everything to make sense in a neat and tidy way, but whatever conclusions we arrive at, God is still going to just be God, and God does what He wants.

I think it is extremely important that we are careful to not put stumbling blocks in front of one another. If you say this perspective causes you to pursue a life of discipleship in Christ, and as an ambassador for the Kingdom to others, I see no reason why anyone should try to talk you out of it. You're on the path God set you on, there's no reason to entertain doubt. Steady on!

There's a novel from 1824 by James Hogg that criticizes predestination, called The Private Memoirs and Confessions of a Justified Sinner. It's a wild ride -- features a Calvinist serial killer. Check it out if you read books, and like bizarre tales. Anyway, I've seen a ton of fighting over this in the past... My own, purely anecdotal observations are: - People who believe in predestination don't seem to treat it like an excuse to not witness. - People who believe in predestination also seem to want to live the life they're chosen into, not make excuses to keep living the life they left behind (i.e., they don't seem to think of their "predestined" status as a reason to excuse sin, but a reason to pursue purity. - People who don't believe in predestination still seem to appreciate their identity in Christ as His chosen children -- it doesn't seem to cheapen their perspective of God's relationship with them. I think (but I expect someone may have experiences otherwise) that this is kind of a "cosmetic" issue... Where people come down on it doesn't really seem to impact how they actually live as Christians.

That is a grief that's easy to share in. It's Jesus' heart of compassion we feel when we are grieved about injustice. I think our impulse is sometimes to respond to despair with encouragement, hope, resolute determination. And there is a time for that. But sometimes, we do just need to listen to a person without trying to fix them, and share in a moment of solidarity to experience one another's grief together.

Yeah, I see the correlation there. I think the idea that Christians are the temples of the living God is incredibly profound: wherever we go, we bring God (Not that God needs us to bring Him anywhere, but is an honour to be allowed to serve as His hands and feet when he doesn't need us to do anything at all for Him). We are freed from so much as we understand the implications of that more and more deeply.

Yes, there is that to factor in as well. The Acts church also didn't want to burden the new Gentile Christians with too many rules, but it seems like the implication was that they would voluntarily continue to be transformed in other ways as their faith matured. Thanks, good point.

Wow, that is incredibly articulate. I understand what you mean. Protecting the integrity of others' consciences is an important consideration for a Christian, i.e., 1 Cor 10:27-30, and particularly v32. You are right about intellectualism; faith in one's self to save can easily replace faith in God to save. And freedom from that superstition is having the humility to accept that we are as powerless to save ourselves as an inert piece of carved wood or stone could be.

Hey @Willa. I certainly agree that we should not worship idols. Are you familiar with the passage from Jeremiah I briefly referenced?

I feel like that takes a lifetime to learn how to do! But I guess that's kind of the point... to ever press on toward the goal, the upward calling of Jesus.

Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world. - James 1:27 Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves - Philippians 2:3 I'm just going to start off by saying this isn't a thread about politics, even though I'm sure some people will just have read "this thread is absolutely about politics." It's really not:) Now, about politics! I kind of sense that current global political climates have unleashed a sentiment in conservative Christian groups in embracing tribalism/factionalism and aggression over humility and servanthood. I don't see any reason why God would determine the value of a person or the needs of that person more or less important based on what side of a border they're born on. So if it follows that we should have the mind of Christ, and see people as He sees them, we should also value people as God values them. Now, judging by past experiences, some people will probably be upset that I said that, because they will assume I'm talking about setting national policies, and that I want open borders, or I'm being duped by the deep state's plan to destroy all of culture and society or something like that. The thing people have said to me the most when I focus on "what about them" is "well, what about us?" Like, it doesn't seem fair to spend public money on them (refugees, illegal immigrants in need of medical treatment, poor people who can't afford insurance, whatever), when we are suffering and in need as well (underpaid public servants, injured public safety workers, soldiers with trauma and injuries, understaffed schools in disrepair, etc.) People will generally argue that we need to put our own needs first, because it isn't practical to take on the burdens of the whole world. I'm not talking about what a "Christian" national policy regarding need and public funds should be. I do think, though, that the "us vs. them" mindset is from the world, and not from God, and the church should be cautious of being "stained" by this philosophy. That doesn't mean we have to be impractical as Christians or can't be involved in politics, but it does mean that we should be open to God's heart of compassion for all people, who He loves equally. We give up our tribal/factional allegiances - to our political party, ethnicity, nationality, gender, whatever, in order to shift our allegiance to being a citizen of God's Kingdom, and make ourselves ambassadors to world for that Kingdom (Gal 3:28-29, 2 Cor 5:20). I think the best way for Christians who disagree about this issue politically might be this: If someone is focused on the needs of those suffering in their own country, then they have God's heart of compassion for those people. And if someone is compelled to act on the suffering of those not from their own country, then they also have been moved by God's heart of compassion for those people. We should give thanks for everyone who has been moved by God's heart of compassion to address whatever suffering they're compelled to help relieve. How can we, the church, continue to allow ourselves to be moved by God's heart of compassion for human suffering, instead of being "stained by the world" to justify hardening our hearts against the inherent value of all people, for the sake of our tribal/factional allegiances?

I'm mulling over some ideas. Just going to share this here for people to consider, comment on. Jesus, in Luke 4, references The Sidonite widow and Naaman the Syrian, and I'm sure we could spend a lot of time, beneficially, talking about why Jesus is talking about these two particular individuals to this particular crowd. And that would be a great conversation. I just want to talk about Naaman for the moment. So you know the story... Naaman's a Syrian/Aramean military commander who, apparently, raids Israel and takes its women as slaves. Anyway, Naaman contracts leprosy, and his wife's Israeli slave tells him the prophet of God in Israel can cure him. So long story short, that's exactly what happens -- through Elisha, God does heal him. Then there's an interesting exchange (2 Kings 5:17-19) “If you will not,” said Naaman, “please let me, your servant, be given as much earth as a pair of mules can carry, for your servant will never again make burnt offerings and sacrifices to any other god but the Lord. But may the Lord forgive your servant for this one thing: When my master enters the temple of Rimmon to bow down and he is leaning on my arm and I have to bow there also—when I bow down in the temple of Rimmon, may the Lord forgive your servant for this.” “Go in peace,” Elisha said. Now. I realize there are number of ways you could read this regarding superstitions. It seems fairly evident that if Naaman had the option to never set foot in a temple of Rimmon again, he wouldn't have. But he wants Elisha to know that even though he has to enter the temple of Rimmon, he won't be worshiping Rimmon in his heart. And to Elisha, that seems acceptable. If you're trying to make a "rule" out of all this, it seems to contradict the "Daniel in captivity/fourth man in the flames stories," so I'm not sure the point is for us to distill a law/rule/commandment out of that aspect it. I think the actual point is, God sees through what people appear as on the outside, and sees the true, inner person. We can tend to get hung up on distilling scriptures into rules and using those rules like blunt weapons on each other, instead of reading scripture to seek after the heart of God in it. We could easily be people who, in Elisha's position, would command Namaan to take a stand, probably risking his life, citing definitive-sounding scriptures with Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah as our evidence. We could even tell ourselves we would be acting in love by insisting so. But how to we get to place in our lives where we can be like Elisha where we would know to say "go in peace," seeing past the superstition, knowing that it has no real power (1 Cor 8:4-6, Jeremiah 10:5), and catching a glimpse of the heart of a person as seen through God's eyes?

Still continued on "Passover" thread:) Just gets too confusing to have one conversation in 2 places.

See response on the "Passover" thread:)

I felt angry about these same things for so many years. I completely know where you're coming from. The worst thing that can happen to us, though, is not to be deprived of wealth through the corrupt world systems, but to deprive ourselves of the best life God has for us by investing our time and effort into things that don't bring real fulfillment. I'm learning all this too, now in my late 30's, trusting that God can "restore... the years that the swarming locust has eaten" (Joel 2:25). You're not wrong. But if my experience worrying about those same things means anything, then please don't waste your life concerning yourself with all that. You can fully and completely live the life God wants for you -- a life to prosper you and see you thriving in contentedness and fulfillment -- in spite of all the injustices of the world system. Peace.

Agreed. If the way we remember the Sabbath is by living a life of continually learning to find our rest in Him, do we disregard the work of the Father as "null and void," or do we understand the purpose of the law as a means to point us to Jesus? I am convinced that Jesus' fulfillment of the law was not a change of the "rules," but a revelation that the law was never actually about outward ritual, but inward transformation. If I honor a day of the week, but don't know what it means to find my rest in Jesus daily in my life, then what good is the observance of that day, when the purpose of the day was always to point me to Jesus? Surely, then, we can agree that finding our rest in Jesus in our whole life is better than the observance of one day or another. So I hope we can all agree that the best way we could serve one other in this matter is by encouraging one another in learning how to rest in Jesus, and hoping together for the even greater rest that is to come.

Yeah, I think that's a fair way of understanding what idolatry is: when something takes a place in your life that should be reserved for God alone. It's pretty easy to understand why it was a rule that ancient Israel couldn't make graven images of anything. Everyone around them was making idols out of images, and they clearly were tempted to copy what the other nations were doing, so it was better to just remove the possibility of temptation. I guess we tend to think of ourselves as more enlightened now, less easily tempted to follow after superstitions. But if film is any indication of what the world thinks icons are to Christians, I sometimes can't help but wonder how much modern superstition and actual idolatry could have been avoided if, over the centuries, Christians had decided to alienate themselves from iconography. How others might perceive those icons is something we might think about when deciding to wear icons or not. We may be intending to send an innocent message, but we can't control what message is actually received, so the conscience of others is a valid consideration (i.e., 1 Cor 10).