Even a Roman officer

This is one of the most compelling NT reads so far as it relates to my interest in legalism and deconstructionist thought.

We read about three separate healings. First is a direct request for healing, couched in the simple terms of "If you want to, you can make me well again." The second is an expression not only of Jesus' willingness to heal, but the extension of His supernatural ability to heal. The Roman officer clued in to the simple fact that since Jesus *can* heal people, once one accepts that faith, that suspension of rational disbelief, then there are no limits on the thought process to which that faith leads. That is, if one accepts the ability of Jesus to heal "magically," then why put limits on it? This Roman officer, a representative of the despised occupiers of the land, showed ultimate faith in the infinite power and reach of Jesus, far more faith than Jesus had seen yet in the land of Israel. The final healing is not even requested. We read of a woman lying in bed with a high fever, but we don't read of a request for healing. We don't know if there were a request, but no request is documented. The meaning behind the healing with the lack of a documented request seems interesting to me.

First, there is the request of the leper. A simple cause and effect statement. You can heal me. This simplest example seems to represent an early description of the faith process.

Second, there's the issue of the Roman officer. Here is a man, a member of the hated ruling police force, who expresses a faith in the power and authority of Jesus that is far beyond what the natives of the land are expressing. And Jesus uses this fact to prove a point about faith versus religion. Jesus states that many Gentiles will eat with Abraham and Isaac in the Kingdom of Heaven, and many Israelites will be cast out. By utilizing the word Gentile, Jesus is describing those who are not part of the religious or genetic heritage of the Israelites, essentially those who are not, by legalistic interpretation, Jews. And by specifically naming the Israelites, He is using a convention of legalism to describe a group of people not only bound by genetic lineage, but also a shared attestation of faith.

So, those who adhere to this attestation, the legalistic interpretation of the Torah handed down by their ancestors, then can become excluded from the Kingdom of Heaven. And those who express faith in Jesus, regardless of legalistic approaches toward their faith otherwise, can be included in the Kingdom of Heaven.

But to me, here's the rub. The Jews believe in a written word and congregate in groups in contemplation of that word, as it represents the nature of God. As we Gentiles pursue our faith, all we have are written attestations of that faith, or our own "words." The generational assessment of these words can create their own legalism, much the same way that Judaic legalism could be created. The words our ancestors use to teach us about faith may be what we find faith in, not that which is represented in those teachings. And as we pursue interpretative meaning in the text, we begin to lose sight of the power and authority of Jesus, so that emphasis on the interpretation can blind us to the awesome power of Jesus, as the Israelites seem to have been blinded, and only someone with a fresh perspective, this Roman officer, could see the far reaching extent of Jesus' power.

But if words are all we have, and we choose to believe in Jesus, then we blind ourselves by insistence on our own legalistic interpretations of specificities of the bible. There was a definite "in-group" and "out-group" as it regarded Gentiles vs Israelites. Sectarian religion, or fundamental differences created by differing interpretations, creates its own ability to blind a person to the far-reaching redemptive and healing nature of Christ. So, after the initial simple expression of faith from the leper, we see a much more in-depth issue created by the Roman officer.

The final healing episode, to me, seems to resonate remarkably when contemplating the first two healing episodes. Peter's mother-in-law was healed, and there was no documentation of a request to heal. Does this mean that words are not necessary, as it immediately follows this assessment of faith versus legalism? Will Jesus heal, even regardless of words? Is this an ultimate expression of faith, starting with a simple request, leading to an example of faith vs legalism, and then finally on to a wordless request.

Is this too far to stretch this reading? Have I over-interpreted this? Is there any meaning to the way these episodes of healing are documented, and in this particular manner? If one says no, then is one guilty of an over-legalistic interpretation, telling me that my interpretation is invalid? If one is espousing such legalism, does then one belong to the group of Israelites who will be cast out?

It seems to be a continuous spectrum and a constantly growing, living document. But at the end of the day, putting wordplay aside, faith seems, yet again, to be the key ingredient. When we try to figure all these things out, we are reminded:

"Trust in the Lord with all your heart; do not depend on your own understanding. Seek his will in all you do, and he will direct your paths."

Good advice for those of us who are confused.