Short term gain, long term loss...

It seems that life is filled with the types of choices that hold the promise of short term gain against long term loss. In today's OT reading, we see a rather extreme example of that. Esau trades his birthright away for food when he is hungry after a hunt. For the short term gain of assuaging his hunger, Esau loses his place in the lineage that was rightfully his. The short term gain is so little relative to his long term loss that the point is made very concretely. Wisdom and patience would have kept Esau from so great a sacrifice, but instead he proceeded with his decision, indifferent to its consequences. If he had known what the consequences would be, would he have done the same? Probably not, who would? But often we do not know the consequences of any decision we make, and therefore wisdom and introspection should precede most decisions. A pursuit of wisdom would have allowed Esau to know the gravity of his decision, but instead, he chose to spend his days hunting.

In the NT reading, Jesus gives two examples of "short term gain, long term loss." The first example is in the negative. When one of the teachers of religious law says that he will follow wherever Jesus leads, Jesus makes sure to remind him about the hardship of that life, saying that He has no place even to lay his head. He is reminding the man that his request will result in a short term loss (of comfort, security, etc), but that the reward is a long term gain.

Conversely, Jesus warns the disciple who wishes to go bury his father to "let the dead bury their own dead." By saying this, he cuts short the man's request for his short term gain (inheritance, etc.) and admonishes him not to pursue a course that will result in a long term loss. Following Jesus is not convenient, or something that can be "gotten around to" when everything else is accomplished. Following Jesus is a derivative of His earlier command to "make the Kingdom of Heaven your primary concern." The end result of that command is an inversion of our normal earthly priorities, so that all our actions are secondary to our pursuit of Christ.

Does that mean I don't have to pay my bills, or go to work? No, but one needs to understand that *everything,* every action, every reaction, absolutely every part of one's life, must be interpreted in light of one's involvement with God. God is FIRST. Period. End. Only in realizing this do we come awake to the fundamental realities of life, and rise again from our spiritual deaths. To do anything else is to eventually die again, to be the dead burying their dead.

In the last part of the NT reading, we see an entire village give an example of short term gain, long term loss. Upset at the loss of a herd of pigs, and afraid of the power of Jesus, they ask Jesus to leave their village.

"Jesus, go AWAY and leave us alone!" Who says that? Who would ever say that? We turn to Jesus over and over in our lives when our lives fall apart, and we are left standing in the rubble. We may casually ignore our spiritual responsibilities, hoping to fall back on Jesus when we need Him, but do we ever demand that He leave our lives? If He came into your house, and you knew it was Him, by reputation and acclaim, would you turn Him away, and ask Him to never bother you again?

Again, for the short term gain of decreasing discomfort of fear and anger over the loss of a herd of pigs, the village created the long term loss of Jesus from their lives.

How many decisions will we make today that result in a long term loss, just because there is an immediate, short term gain? And at the end of it all, how many times is the short term gain overshadowed by the awesome nature of the long term loss it produces? When we find ourselves hating, because loving seems so hard, or when we are afraid, because we do not choose to live in faith... From Jacob and Esau to our own present day, every day, how do we ever, ever learn?

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.

Assumptions

How often do we make assumptions that turn out to be invalid. And how often does that process of assuming lead to pain.

Again, Abraham states to his neighbors that his wife is his sister. Although we find out that this is partly true, as they are half-brother and half-sister, the greater truth is that they are, indeed, married. That is the truth that Abimelech fears the most when it is revealed to him. When God tells Abimelech of the true relationship between Abraham and Sarah, Abimelech asks Abraham why he said such a thing.

Essentially, Abraham had assumed that he was living among godless people who would kill him and take Sarah. This assumption nearly cost Abimelech dearly. So, the process of assumption was a possible sin not only against his marriage, but also against an innocent man, Abimelech. Because of the lack of intent on Abimelech's part, and God's enduring protection of Abraham, God steps in to right a wrong before it occurs.

Sarah assumes that she will never be able to bear a child for Abraham, and so she introduces a complication into her own life by having her servant Hagar act as a surrogate. Out of this union comes Ishmael, and then there are further downstream consequences when Sarah banishes Hagar. As Hagar wanders aimlessly, putting Ishmael down to die, the tragedy of Sarah's assumption is almost finished, but again, God steps in to put right these consequences of inappropriate assumptions.

I am sure that Abraham assumed that God would want him to keep his son Isaac, but when God tells him to offer Isaac as a sacrifice, one thing that Abraham does not do is protest. For Abraham, following the commands of the Lord puts aside all assumptions. The abandonment of assumptions, in favor of faith in God, is greatly rewarded. Not only does Abraham keep his son, but he is given the promise of an incredible heritage of faith.

Jesus warns against false prophets. In so doing, it seems He is making a backhanded warning against assumptions. Just because someone sounds good, and seems persuasive, and is speaking in Godly terms, one should not cavalierly assume that they are a "true" prophet. He asks the listener to judge the speaker. And He states that the false prophet is detectable by the way he acts, as you can identify a tree by its fruit. Blind, assumptive following is not espoused, for it will create the opportunity for pain and failure when the false prophets really turn out to be wolves who attack them. Instead, discernment and judgment must be applied to what one hears, in order to ascertain if the speaker is a "true" prophet. And in this case, judgment is based on the actions of the individual in question.

Assumptions always get one into trouble. Assessment of a person by judging how the person behaves, not what they say, seems to be an appropriate response. It's all too common in human behavior, especially behavior driven by fear, to rely on assumptions before all the facts are in place. And again, faith seems to be the answer to the question of decreasing one's assumptions.

...make the Kingdom of Heaven your primary concern...

There seemed to be an awful lot of bargaining in today's reading.

As God announces His plans to eradicate Sodom and Gomorrah, Abraham asks God for mercy. He is allowed to use a rational, human based, thought process to keep God from visiting justice on both the just and the unjust without prejudice. He bargains God from 50 men down to 10 good men that would be enough to spare the remainder of Sodom. The point seems to be the number of times that Abraham is allowed to ask God, plus the mercy the God shows to continue to decrease the relative threshold He has for the conditionality of Sodom's destruction.

We go from there to Lot's request as he is being ushered out of Sodom. He asks for mercy in his instructions to flee to the mountains. He asks, instead, if he can go to a closer village. He is granted this request.

Two men of faith ask for special dispensation and it is given to them.

As we see in the New Testament reading, Jesus also describes the fruits of faith. You don't have to worry about material gain, for you are greater than that which God already blesses. You don't have to worry about tomorrow. You don't have to worry about "fixing" your brother, but you do have to remove the log from your own eye.

All these promises come without a request similar to what we see from Abraham and Lot, but they do come with a condition. And any condition implies a bargain...

"...and He will give you all you need from day to day if you live for Him and make the Kingdom of Heaven your primary concern."

The conditional "if" clause implies the fulfillment of a bargain. If we live for Him, our needs will be met. Our human brain, or mine at least, always pays more attention to the conditional "if" clause. How can I live for Him? What will I do? What will I give up? I have to remind myself of the non-conditional statement, "He will give you all you need..."

That awesome concept seems to be lost in the noise of man's insistent bargaining. What if, what if, what if..., as Abraham asked. It's not the "what if," it's the promise that you will receive all you need. Your focus, your primary concern, needs to be the Kingdom of Heaven, and He will give you all you need. He *will.* Concentrate on that, and the "what if" questions fade in their immediacy, or their relevance. The "He will" supersedes everything.

In the OT reading, we see examples of two women who fail at bargaining. Unwilling to wait for the fulfillment of God's mercies, they do something which touches on one of Christ's reasons for the evilness of divorce, that it forces another to sin.

By getting their father drunk, the daughters remove free will from their father, and he has no choice to avoid sin. The sin becomes greater by the daughter's "forcing" their father into doing something that he otherwise would not have done. The seed of that action becomes the Moabites and the Ammonites. How the deconstructionists or Chinese menu-ists choose to interpret the this "fable" as the twisted origin of a hated clan becomes less important, at least to me, than the underlying destructiveness of one person forcing another into sin. The downstream effect of their actions becomes a destructive influence.

Two further admonishments from Jesus for following the conditional path of the Kingdom of Heaven include a command to stop judging others and we will not be judged, as well as a command not to give that which is Holy to unholy people.

How often do I read the words and start to consider myself among the Holy, just because I am reading them. But, how often have I taken what is Holy from others and then done just as a swine would do, and turn around and attack them. Had I truly been following Him, I would not have taken what is Holy from someone else in the way I did. The words are not for others, they are for me.

In all of these points, I am yet again reminded of the need to seek His will, and wait for things in His time frame. He *will* grant me all I need.

Perspectives

It seems today's reading has a lot to do with perspectives. Given my interest in post-modern deconstructive influences and their erosion of the moral authority of biblical teaching, this theme has particular resonance for me.

Sarai's desire to take things into her own hands is one example. Not content to wait on God's plan, she sends Hagar in to have a surrogate child by Abram. From her perspective, God's plan was either coming to slowly, or was not going to be fulfilled by her, even though Abram had been promised by God that his seed would be more plentiful than grains of sand on the beach. So, Sarai sends in Hagar, and the product of that is painful to her. And not only is it painful to Sarai, but it is also painful to Hagar and Ishmael. Pain is created in multiple lives by failing to wait and live in God's promise. How often do we "take things into our own hands" and then find out later that that was not what God had intended for us?

And then there is the perspective of covenant representation. God expressed favor to Abram, and Abram expressed faith in God. The representation of this faith (faith being the prime idea) is the physical representation of circumcision. However, circumcision is essentially a "hidden" covenant, as we don't often wave that part of our anatomy in the air for all to see. Our faith in God is a private matter, and the physical representation that follows the expression of faith is also private. Covenant representation by "actions" are also admonished to be private by Jesus in the NT reading. He warns against public displays of religious affectation, and commands to give in secret. These actions, also representations of covenant, should remain for our own perspective. Much like this mitzvot. So faith, then, becomes a private matter between us and God.

However, what about the legalists who demand structured external representation in order to define whether people have the right "faith?" As a way of drawing boundaries around what is "right" and "wrong" by making sure that people adhere to the covenant representations described in the bible. Are we only God's child if we are circumcised, and then the external "form" of faith becomes more important than that greater ideal which it is designed only to represent. Who decides what is more important, faith or its covenant representations?

The answer to that leads into my favorite section of today's reading, which appeals to what has always stimulated me most about perspective.

"A pure eye lets sunshine into your soul. But an evil eye shuts out the light and plunges you into darkness. If the light you think you have is really darkness, how deep that darkness will be!"

"...you think..." above defines the issue of perspective. What happens when you have one view of the world, and do things according to that view, and someone else has another view, and does things according to their view, and their actions cause you pain? In their mind, they are being true to their perspective, so how can you fault them? I used to think this was always what was wrong with "others." For example, behavior leading to a divorce seemed "evil" to me, but the person who was doing it felt absolutely justified in their behavior, because from their perspective, it was "right" in their minds. How I wish "others" would get it right and do things the "right way."

I say that tongue in cheek, because, as we will see in upcoming sections, Jesus tells us to remove the plank from our own eye before worrying about the speck in our brother's eye. How long I thought this applied to "others" and how much sorrow do I have now, late in life, knowing that it applied to me all along. How the light I thought I had was really darkness, and how dark that darkness became. How many of God's gifts have I lost by insistence on my own perspective, on the "...you think..." part of my life.

So what does one do? Well, I think this is it. Pray. Seek God. Seek wisdom. Do not lean on your own rationality, but search out meaning. Don't get hung up on your own "light" but rather look to God with a pure eye for His sunshine.

Perspective is a killer.It can make you do things that cause pain to you and to others. It can cause you to demand legalistic purity to make sure that someone else is "appropriate," blinding one to the person's inner heart. And it can lead into a darkness out of which lifelong regret can follow.

But at the end of the day, when private covenant representation becomes the way you live your life, you have a chance.

In order not to be trapped into our own perspective, we seek wisdom. With wisdom, we avoid those traps, as long as we keep a healthy understanding of who is in charge.

"Cry out for insight and understanding. Search for them as you would for lost money or hidden treasure. Then you will understand what it means to fear the Lord, and you will gain knowledge of God."

At the end of it all, what else is there to live for other than a greater knowledge of God. When you come to the end of your life, and you are facing the future, beyond the end, what else is there?

...righteous because of his faith...

So many great concepts in the reading today...

"And Abram believed the Lord, and the Lord declared him righteous because of his faith."

Immediately following this declaration by God, Abram begins to question and ask for proof. Does faith, then, mean that we cannot ask for proof? If the absolute next concept, following the declaration of Abram's righteousness, is that he is acquitted for asking for proof, then how may we also be acquitted for our fears and our desire for proof of God's loyalty to us. Our search then is part of our faith process. We don't have to have "blind faith" but we are encouraged by this to ask God, "how will we know," or "how can we be sure?" Going to God in prayer and asking for that is not an admission of a lack of faith, but rather a declaration of that faith by the expectation of the answer. Would you ask a wall to talk to you? Of course not, your belief, your faith, is that the wall will not talk. But asking God to answer you is a declaration of the belief that He exists, is your God, and will answer, and that is a profound declaration of faith in Him.

Abram was willing to see God's vision, despite its "darkness and horror." While the end result of God's promise was a bounty to the seed of Abram, the intermediate life experiences of the Jewish people, prior to the deliverance promise from God, was pain and enslavement. Four hundred years of pain and enslavement, which, through a tempered faith in God, would result in the manifestation of God's glory in his chosen people. This strikes home to me very seriously. Does following God's promise mean it will always be wonderful? Absolutely not. It can result in terrible earthly suffering. But God's promises will be fulfilled. Faith, and the righteousness of humanity through faith, will not only endure, but will overcome and prosper.

Abram was also a wise man. When he gave back all to Sodom that he had recaptured from Sodom's enemies, he stated to the King of Sodom that he did so so that the King could never say "'I am the one who made you rich.'" Give freely, and be careful lest you ever give anything with strings attached, for then you will be associated with Sodom. Be careful of accepting any generosity from someone who may use it against you in the future. And be careful to draw a clear definition against that person so that person knows that you will never allow such an accusation. In so doing, Abram separated himself and his descendants from Sodom for all time.

The NT reading was also very enlightening.

In regards to divorce, it is interesting that Jesus chose to put it this way, "I say that a man who divorces his wife, unless she has been unfaithful, causes her to commit adultery." People can deconstruct this text until it holds no meaning for them. People can also interpret unfaithful in many ways. But at the end of the day, the proscription against divorce is stated in a way that suggests that the biggest evil from it is forcing another to sin. While divorce is bad, creating the situation in which someone else is forced into a life of sin is worse. Giving someone no option but to live in sin is the worst thing you may do to another human. Conversely, doing all you can to remove sin from another's life becomes the highest aim of the Christian.

This admonishment reconciles well with His earlier statements. "If your eye causes you to lust, gouge it out..." Again, the post-modern deconstructionists and the Chinese menu followers can salivate over this nugget of translational difficulty. But the subtext is similar. If you force another to sin, that is terrible. If something forces you to sin, that is also terrible. Do what you need to do to eradicate sin from your life, and from other's lives, and don't force, or be forced, into sin.

I believe that the method in which this thought process blends with the downstream manifestation of "turning the other cheek" gives a wonderful insight into the very nature of God. How does turning the other cheek not encourage someone to sin? How does mercy not encourage sin? Mercy is a tremendously hard concept to reconcile with "justice." Justice is rational. Justice can be applied to human endeavor, and has its roots in ethics and morality, and in human interpretations of such concepts in specific social situations. But at the end of the day, human justice is a reliance on our own intellect, which, left uncontrolled, leads to a pride which leads away from humility and obeisance to God. Emphasis on an irrational response to violence reminds us that our rationality is not, at the end of the day, in charge. Our astounding intellects may trick us into thinking we are in charge, but God has control of the situation. Following an irrational course of action reminds us of God's love in our own lives. Do we deserve God's "justice" (in human terms) for all the evil we have ever committed? I hope not, because by that account, I am damned over and over and over again. But we pray for God's mercy, and as we saw in the Old Testament reading, we receive it. And Jesus reminds us that this irrational approach is definitely, therefore, God-like. "In that way, you will be acting as true children of your Father in heaven."

God's nature reconciles mercy and justice. Contemplation of that and fervent prayer for guidance as a declaration of faith, brings us closer to God. Manifesting God's love by acting in His mercy, creating that human tension and drama with "justice," defines our human existence. How do we set ourselves apart unless we behave this way?

How should I respond but with mercy and love?

...be reconciled...

Wow, what do you do with today's reading? Apparently, it's okay for a 75 year old man to trade his beautiful young wife into prostitution and profit by her services in the Pharaoh's harem. I mean, after all, Abram did it. And when the Lord visited plagues on the Pharaoh, Abram was allowed to leave with the earthly spoils of his dishonest dealings with the Pharaoh. It seems that the seeds of the worldly treasures of the Abrahaminic dynasty came from this initial act of prostitution.

Is that it? Or are we supposed to learn a lesson about God's mercy about our human intent? Clearly, there is no intent for prostitution on Abram's part. The intent is to decrease the risk of someone else committing sin (murder agains Abram). Even though Abram knows he will be treated well because of Sarai's beauty, the original intent is to avoid murder, or suicide from Abram's perspective.

So, even though we do the best we can with what we know, and the end result can be described as a failure according to God's law, God will come through in the end and protect His chosen. Is that just wishful thinking on my part, that even though I failed in heeding His call, I can still depend on His mercies to me? My intent was to avoid a greater sin because I was afraid, well, I knew, I would fail. Now that I am looking at my past with new eyes, and seeing who I was and who I wish never to be again, I can depend on God's mercy to grant me what it is I need, as long as I continue to serve and have faith?

And even though one of Christ's effects was to break the political power of the legalistic Pharisees, He clearly espouses legalism in His words "...even the smallest detail of God's law will remain until its purpose is achieved. So if you break the smallest commandment and teach others to do the same, you will be the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. But anyone who obeys God's laws and teaches them will be great in the Kingdom of Heaven." Mk 5:18-19.

So then if legalistic interpretation of biblical teaching is espoused by Christ, then should we legalistically interpret the worldly benefits of prostitution?

I don't think so. The Lord set right the sin that Abram committed by dishonesty and prostitution. That Abram was saved is an example of mercy, not necessarily of justice. It's the latter part of the story that needs assessment, not the former. And divine guidance cannot be taken away.

I heard what I was supposed to do, and this morning I realize that if that is what I am supposed to do, and God wills it, then there is nothing that I can do, or not do, to make His plan not happen. Letting go of self-recriminations and moving forward has to be the lesson learned. Go, and sin no more.

Yesterday's reading discouraged mocking. In today's reading, Christ says, "God blesses you when you are mocked and persecuted and lied about because you are my followers." People might say this exercise is foolish, but it's my mitzvot, and really just designed to bring myself closer to God.

The last section of the reading is an admonishment not to abjure wisdom. What is wisdom? I have prayed for it, and I have sought it, and I have turned over a lot of rocks in my search. But the answer is in this reflection on the bible. Sure, there may be critics like Derrida who state that there can be no ultimate meaning in any written language, but what tool did they use to make that point? Language! So, obviously, meaning can be attributed to language, and so they disprove their own point. Meaning can be found in the bible, yielding a moral authority to biblical teachings. Wisdom is in the bible. It is in the search.

So, mock away. Go ahead. But where is your ultimate meaning? What is your rock, your island upon which to stand?

Christ tells us to go and be reconciled to those to whom we owe something. To drop our sacrifices and run to that person. At some point in our lives, we choose, either by action or inaction, to take on or *not* take on, the mantle of being a Christ follower. When we make that choice, we have made a choice from which all other choices determining the remainder of our lives will flow. The central point of existence then becomes this initial choice, and as imperfect humans, we owe our healing and salvation to the product of our choice, to our God, to Christ. How can we not then, go and be reconciled, to Him to whom we owe every point of our existence?

It seems wisdom is there.