Last Friday we covered Hebrews 8: The Promise of a New Covenant/I Am His and He Is Mine. Everyone pretty much agreed - the lesson in the Listening for God book was...hard to understand and respond to. If you weren't there on Friday, is there anything you want to discuss?
What did you think about the John Wesley quote on page 55? Could you pray that prayer?
"I am no longer my own, but Yours. Put me to what You will; put me to doing, put me to suffering; let me be employed for You or laid aside for You, praised for You or humbled for You; let me be full, let me be empy; let me have all things, let me have nothing; I freely and cheerfully yield all things to Your pleasure and disposal."
What are you all's thoughts on pg. 55 second set of questions, why didn't God start with the second convenant? It is that we needed to see that we are broken and appreciate his justice and mercy?
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed reading the John Welsey quote. It was one of reading that one line or phrase I'm thinking "yep, that sounds good" then the next line "ooo that sounds good but HARD" and I think that depicts that Christian walk :) Hard but worth every bit as God us Himself as a sacrifice to redeem us so how can we not "be empty" for him or "let me have nothing".
ReplyDeleteOk I've got a few more questions to throw out there...p. 56 middle of the page - Do you find Communion to be a time of renewal and commitement and Why?
ReplyDeleteI see it more as rememberance, maybe b/c that word is always associated with it in scripture.
second question: bottom of p. 57 Why does God insist on establishing His covenants with blood? Perhaps there's something in the OT that would shine some light on this.
Let me know your thoughts if you have time :)
Well, I don't know why God didn't "start" with the second covenant, but the 2nd covenant is the fulfillment of the first.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the blood: I have read that in many ancient cultures covenants were made by both parties cutting themselves and mingling their blood to signify that they were united, together, sharing life. This eventually evolved into a ceremony where the two participants in the covenant would split an animal and walk between the halveds. If either party broke the covenant, they were as dead as the animal they walked past. Then the animal would be cooked an eaten. This is what God did with Abraham. Covenant making was serious business.
And then there is the idea of sacrifice - that humans would give up something valuable to God, that somehow the taking of a life would take care of the sin of the person and bring reconciliation. Maybe this showed the earnestness on the part of the one sacrificing, or the desire the make things right with God.
I find communion to be a time of renewal and commitment as much as a remembrance. Christ calls the cup the "new covenant in my blood" and asks us to gather and eat the bread and drink the wine in remembrance of him. Covenants would signal a new life in union with someone else and a big commitment. Okay. Maybe I see communion more of a time of renewal and commitment. I'm getting old. I can use as much renewal as I can get. And I'm finally getting the hang of commitment. :)
ReplyDelete