Haggai 1: Neglect For The House of God Is Never a Good Idea

In the second year of Darius the king, on the first day of the sixth month, the word of the LORD came by the prophet Haggai to Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, governor of Judah, and to Joshua the son of Jehozadak, the high priest, saying,  "Thus says the LORD of hosts, 'This people says, "The time has not come, even the time for the house of the LORD to be rebuilt."'"  Then the word of the LORD came by Haggai the prophet, saying,

 "Is it time for you yourselves

    to dwell in your paneled houses

    while this house lies desolate?" 

Now therefore, thus says the LORD of hosts,

  "Consider your ways! 

  "You have sown much,

    but harvest little;

    you eat, but there is not enough to be satisfied;

    you drink, but there is not enough to become drunk;

    you put on clothing, but no one is warm enough;

    and he who earns, earns wages to put into a purse with holes." 

Thus says the LORD of hosts,

  "Consider your ways! 

  "Go up to the mountains,

    bring wood

    and rebuild the temple,

    that I may be pleased with it and be glorified," says the LORD. 

"You look for much, but behold, it comes to little;

    when you bring it home, I blow it away.

Why?" declares the LORD of hosts,

  "Because of My house which lies desolate,

   while each of you runs to his own house. 

"Therefore, because of you the sky has withheld its dew

    and the earth has withheld its produce. (Haggai 1:1-10 NASB)

Way back in 586/7 BC, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob punished His people by sending the last of them (Judah) into exile in Babylon.  There they stayed for seventy years.  Once the Persian King, Darius took Babylon, he released the captives, incuding Judah, to return to their lands and rebuild.  The first group back was led by Zerubabel as governor, and Joshua as high priest.  They ran into obstacles, and eventually progress slowed down to a crawl, then stopped.  The people stopped working to rebuild Jerusalem, and started just existing.  God wasn't ready to leave them that way.

The prophet, Haggai, was given a "word from the LORD" to the leaders.  It's an interesting "word".  It seems that work on the Temple had stopped, people had finished their own houses, and were now consumed with providing for themselves.  The people had said, "The time has not yet come for the house of the LORD to be rebuilt."  Now, God does not "live" in houses constructed by human hands (Acts 7:48).  So, why is He so upset here?  I believe that my Master is looking for a particular change of heart.

In each of the phrases translated "Consider your ways!" the literal term is "Set your heart on your ways!"  It may not seem like a big difference, and really it has to do with Hebrew idiom, but by bringing the word, "heart" into it, I believe it puts in front of me the issue my Master has.

It is the desire of my Master that I have a heart passionate for the things that are His.  Notice two things in this passage.  First, He doesn't condemn them for having houses to live in, but rather for having taken care of their houses, but then didn't work on His.  Second, the people were seeking to do the things necessary for life, and it wasn't working.  It's like Matthew 6:31-34, where Jesus' comment on running after these things is that such behavior is like "Gentiles" or unbelievers.  Jesus' answer is "But seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you."

God's answer to His people through Haggai is to start work on the things of His, and the necessities of life will be taken care of by Him.  How often do I think of things others are not doing?  How often do my own "necessities" distract me from my Master's Kingdom?  When does it become clear that I am passionate for the things of my Master more than my own?

Wouldn't it be nice to not have a bank account with "holes"?  I would love to be "satisfied".  The way I get there is to become passionate for the things of my Master.

Genesis 20: Divine Conversations With Pagan Kings

But God came to Abimelech in a dream of the night, and said to him, "Behold, you are a dead man because of the woman whom you have taken, for she is married."  Now Abimelech had not come near her; and he said, "Lord, will You slay a nation, even though blameless?  Did he not himself say to me, 'She is my sister'? And she herself said, 'He is my brother.' In the integrity of my heart and the innocence of my hands I have done this."  Then God said to him in the dream, "Yes, I know that in the integrity of your heart you have done this, and I also kept you from sinning against Me; therefore I did not let you touch her.  Now therefore, restore the man's wife, for he is a prophet, and he will pray for you and you will live. But if you do not restore her, know that you shall surely die, you and all who are yours." (Genesis 20:3-7 NASB)

Abraham leaves his buddies in Hebron and moves south to the deserts of the Negev.  There he settles by a place called Gerar.  Archeologically speaking, Gerar is a problem.  It's either in the wrong place, or the wrong time.  That Isaac and Abraham both come here and meet Abimelech is also odd.  But that doesn't bother me or teach me as much as the conversation God has with this king.

Abraham's explanation of why he lied starts with his belief that there was no fear of God in this place (v.11), and yet that God comes to Abimelech and that they have a conversation tells me otherwise.  There are a few clues that indicate to me that Canaan had "pockets" of faithful followers of God.  This is one of them.  Melchizedek may have called Him El Elyon, but Abraham understood him to serve the same One he served.  Later on, during the conquest, Shechem is never destroyed or faught againt, it's just included as if it was already part of the Tribes of Israel.  Even later, when David takes Jerusalem (the same city of Melchizedek), this priest, Zadok makes his apperence for the first time, as if he was there all the time, and he shares the high-priest duties with Abiathar.  He eventually takes over the role completely under Solomon.

I sometimes have to fight my religious prejudices.  They surprise me, ambushing me while talking with people I consider unlikely brothers or sisters.  Or rather, I discover them in those conversations, but they have unfortunately been there all along.  I pre-judge people on apperance, or on speech, or on some other measurement, and my Master shows me that I am so wrong. 

I like to think that I am fairly sensitive to spiritual discernment.  I like to think that I am a fairly good judge of character.  I like to think those things, but I sometimes need reminders that my "gift" of discernment or whatever judgment of character I have, I have from my Master.  They are from Him, and I need to depend on Him for my understanding of them.  I run into these "discoveries" of my mental limits when I am relying on my own wisdom and insight.  When I rely on His wisdom and His insight, I may be surprised by what I find, but not by my own prejudices.  Perhaps I will find a king in a pagan land who also knows and speaks with my Master; maybe a homeless person.

Genesis 20: But it was only sort of a lie…

Now these are the records of the generations of Terah. Terah became the father of Abram, Nahor and Haran; and Haran became the father of Lot.  Haran died in the presence of his father Terah in the land of his birth, in Ur of the Chaldeans. Abram and Nahor took wives for themselves. The name of Abram's wife was Sarai; and the name of Nahor's wife was Milcah, the daughter of Haran, the father of Milcah and Iscah.  Sarai was barren; she had no child.  Terah took Abram his son, and Lot the son of Haran, his grandson, and Sarai his daughter-in-law, his son Abram's wife; and they went out together from Ur of the Chaldeans in order to enter the land of Canaan; and they went as far as Haran, and settled there.   The days of Terah were two hundred and five years; and Terah died in Haran. (Genesis 20:27-32 NASB)

And Abimelech said to Abraham, "What have you encountered, that you have done this thing?"   Abraham said, "Because I thought, surely there is no fear of God in this place, and they will kill me because of my wife.  Besides, she actually is my sister, the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother, and she became my wife; and it came about, when God caused me to wander from my father's house, that I said to her, 'This is the kindness which you will show to me: everywhere we go, say of me, "He is my brother.”’” (Genesis 20:10-14 NASB)

In Genesis 12, Abram has Sarai claim to be his sister while they are in Egypt, and the Pharaoh tries to take her as a wife, and Abram is amply rewarded.  The resulting plagues on Pharaoh’s house incline him to give Sarah back and expel them from Egypt.  When I recently reviewed that account, I proposed that Abram was actually shrewd rather than faithless.  My reasoning went like this:  Saying Sarah was his sister would lose her as his wife; as her brother, if he tried to keep her from being married, he would be in as much or greater danger than as her husband.  So, actually trusting that Yahweh would protect all that was his, Abram was confident that he could use this ruse and survive, perhaps wealthier than he had been.  In fact, God does seem to defend and bless Abram in this activity.

In this passage I’m running out of space to defend Abraham.  First off, where’s the danger?  Sarah is 90 years old and despairs of having the joy of her husband anyway, can she still be thought of as a “looker”?  Second, Abraham has a much more detailed explanation for his actions here.  In chapter 12, he said to Sarai that he was afraid the Egyptians would kill him for her, but an answer to Pharaoh is never recorded.  Here he does not explain to Sarah, he explains to Abimelech that he was afraid the people of Gerar would kill him for his wife.  But he also explains that she is his wife.  This is where I have a problem.  If she were actually his “half-sister”, I would expect a note to that effect in Genesis 11.

In Genesis 11 the children of Terah are listed descriptively.  Terah has three sons.  The youngest of Terah’s sons, Haran, seems to have died in his home country, but has three children; a son, Lot, and two daughters, Milcah and Iscah.  The eldest daughter marries her uncle, Nahor, Terah’s middle son.  Abram has a wife, Sarai, and the only description of her is that she is barren.  If she had a filial connection, it seems that it too would have been described since that sort of description was part of this account.  I suspect that Abraham is lying here, and I’ve may run out of room to defend him.

On the other hand, God seems to, again, bless this line of behavior.  God stops Abimelech from going near Sarah, and instructs Abimelech to have Abraham pray for him so that he will be healed.  Really?  If this was something involving lying, why does God seem to support it, defend it, and even participate in it?  Abimelech gives Abraham a bunch of stuff to make it right between them, and Abraham does pray for Abimelech.  It’s truly strange.

So, what does this mean for me?  I see a few things for my own use.  First off, I learn that I don’t have as many answers to Scripture and, therefore, the character of my Master as I would like.  This passage challenges me to trust that the things in Scripture I do understand are still true, and that, in this instance, I’m just not getting the whole story.  I just have to trust that, because this looks suspiciously like the Master of all matter and some Mesopotamian nomad are scamming the Canaanite locals (Abraham claims this is just what he does, everywhere).  I just find that hard to believe.  Maybe it’s a cultural thing I don’t understand or something.  Anyway, I need to continue to swing from the belief that my Master is the definition of Good, Pure, Righteous, and Holy.

The second thing I see in this passage is that my Master works with His people in odd ways.  If Abraham is really afraid, it’s interesting that he goes at all?  Why not stay in Hebron by the Oaks of Mamre where he spent over 10 years waiting on God to speak?  Whether it was Abraham just wanting to see the rest of the land his Master was giving his descendants or just because he needed more/different pasture land, God blesses him as he goes.  God seems to have used Abraham in Hebron with Mamre and his brothers, and here in the desert of the Negev, God seems to be using him again, this time to reach Abimelech.  And the reaching is wildly effective.  God used a lie to do it, whether it was God’s idea or just His ability to weave mistakes of His creatures into His plan, Abimelech speaks with God and is esteemed by God to be righteousness (or at least honest), or at least they talk together – which is good.

I suppose, I need to widen my understanding of how my Master works with His human creatures, what He might use them for, and stop condemning other servants for what I disagree with in their lives.  I can call them on it, but I have to leave room for God’s work in their lives.  He may be using what looks disagreeable to me for His wider, greater purpose.

So to sum up, I’m not as smart as I want to be about my Master, I’m not as wise as I want to be about Scripture, and I’m not as insightful as I want to be about my fellow followers of Jesus.  Well, okay then.  I suppose I have a lot of growing to do…I better get after it.

The Fractured Reality of Sodom 5: The View From Outside

Abram settled in the land of Canaan, while Lot settled in the cities of the valley, and moved his tents as far as Sodom. Now the men of Sodom were wicked exceedingly and sinners against the LORD. (Genesis 13:12-13 NASB)

Then they took all the goods of Sodom and Gomorrah and all their food supply, and departed.  They also took Lot, Abram's nephew, and his possessions and departed, for he was living in Sodom. (Genesis 14:11-12 NASB)

 The king of Sodom said to Abram, "Give the people to me and take the goods for yourself."  Abram said to the king of Sodom, "I have sworn to the LORD God Most High, possessor of heaven and earth, that I will not take a thread or a sandal thong or anything that is yours, for fear you would say, 'I have made Abram rich.'  I will take nothing except what the young men have eaten, and the share of the men who went with me, Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre; let them take their share." (Genesis 14:21-24 NASB)

Now the two angels came to Sodom in the evening as Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. (Genesis 19:1 NASB)

But they said, "Stand aside." Furthermore, they said, "This one came in as an alien, and already he is acting like a judge; now we will treat you worse than them." So they pressed hard against Lot and came near to break the door. (Genesis 19:9 NASB)

The problem of Sodom and Gomorrah wasn't a secret.  When Lot settled there after he and Abram left Egypt, it was known what sort of place it was.  In spite of that, he settled close.  Very shortly thereafter, he is found living inside the city, having given up his tents (we're not sure about the flocks, herds, etc.).

Abram knows what sort of place Sodom is, how it's view by his Master, and doesn't accept anything from their king.  In fact he says something rather interesting, he says that he doesn't want the king of Sodom to be able to say that he made Abram rich.  The reason I find that interesting is how he ties wealth to Sodom.  Lot's wealth seems to evaporate, yet the city and its king are known for wealth.  There isn't a reason given, but in that time period, trade is the usual manner in which cities and people gained wealth.  The reason that Lot chose that area was because, as the text says, it was lush like the garden of God.  So, agriculture would likely have played an important part, both farming and herding.

On the other hand, they really weren't soldiers or at least not good ones, and one consistent thing about agrarian cultures is that they can usually wallop city-folk.  They only lose because they don't have the numbers, but man-for-man bet on the farmer.  That's not very..."good" deductive reasoning or even an educated guess; really it's more personal observation and prejudice.  But it leaves room for another marginal hypothesis on where the wealth of Sodom came from.  What if it were gambling and other "pleasure" commerce?  Is it a general truth that people who work hard, also play hard?  Maybe not, but it is often true, especially if they work hard remote from their homes and families.  So what if Sodom were filled with distilleries, bordellos, casinos, and restaurants?  Perhaps all of these were combined into an "Inn" where travelers passed the night.  Who knows, but it's not as likely as trade commerce.  Those sorts of things may have been present, but it is a long shot that they fueled the economy (although distilleries do burn well...).

The reason I bring up those particular business types is because they fuel the degradation of my culture and country, at least in my opinion.  Those sorts of businesses make  their income from the weakness of people.  Both legal and illegal chemicals to loose touch with reality are available here.  While prostitution is illegal (except in outlying regions of Nevada), it is a common vice in major cities.  Now casinos are popping up on Native American Reservations all across the country.  And restaurants feed a natural, but over indulged human appetite.

I like restaurants, and frequent them; but I'm gaining weight (not their fault, but they don't hep either).  I don't drink, don't have a problem with people who do, but it's hard not to read at least one local news source without one of the articles announcing another alcohol-related death.  Prostitution is wrong, most people agree with that, yet in movies, advertising, and other entertainment sex is usually a part of the "attraction".  Gambling consumes peoples time, finances, and souls; my opinion, and I know it's not alone in that, but there it is.  These examples of "commerce" are hurting my country and my people.

As I said, I do participate in some of these businesses, well, restaurants anyway.  So, in a sense I too am "entranced" by Sodom, giving in to the attraction of what I know to be wrong, or at least dangerous.  On other elements, I look on but don't address the problems, somewhat like the cities and regions around Sodom.  They traded with them, contributing to their wealth and, therefore, their degradation.  How far off am I from Lot and others?  Not as far as I should be.  I believe my Master calls it "holiness" and it gets tough really fast.  Time to, once again, put on my "big boy pants" and get after it.  See you tomorrow?

The Fractured Reality of Sodom 4: The Fractured Reality of Lot

Lot went up from Zoar, and stayed in the mountains, and his two daughters with him; for he was afraid to stay in Zoar; and he stayed in a cave, he and his two daughters.  Then the firstborn said to the younger, "Our father is old, and there is not a man on earth to come in to us after the manner of the earth.  "Come, let us make our father drink wine, and let us lie with him that we may preserve our family through our father."  So they made their father drink wine that night, and the firstborn went in and lay with her father; and he did not know when she lay down or when she arose.  On the following day, the firstborn said to the younger, "Behold, I lay last night with my father; let us make him drink wine tonight also; then you go in and lie with him, that we may preserve our family through our father."  So they made their father drink wine that night also, and the younger arose and lay with him; and he did not know when she lay down or when she arose.  Thus both the daughters of Lot were with child by their father.  The firstborn bore a son, and called his name Moab; he is the father of the Moabites to this day.  As for the younger, she also bore a son, and called his name Ben-ammi; he is the father of the sons of Ammon to this day. (Genesis 19:30-38 NASB)

The cities of the valley (except for Zoar) are all slag.  They probably still smoke.  Lot and his two daughters are the only survivors of the dramatic conflagration of the most sinful cities on the planet.  Yet, he's afraid to stay in Zoar.  I would think he'd be somewhat of a celebrity and have a great story to tell.  But he is afraid, and it doesn't say what of.  Perhaps he feared that God would complete the destruction of the valley with Zoar, and he didn't want to be anywhere near there.

So, he leaves with his two daughter, and where does he go?  The mountains to live in a cave.  I don't get that.  Sure the angels told him to run to the hills, but they never said to live there!  They said to leave the region, then relented and let him reach Zoar.  They were safe, of sorts.  All he had was lost to Sodom before the angels appeared.  He leaves with himself, his wife, and his two daughters, and only he and his daughters make it.  They are of marrying age, so where else would you take such ladies to live?  A cave is such an obvious choice...oh wait.

What I can't figure out is why he didn't return to Abraham.  Obviously the problem they had before was not a problem now since Lot didn't have herds and flocks, and so on.  He had to know that Abraham would take him back since he had already gone to such lengths to save him from the raiding kings of the east.  Why it never occurs to him to "go home" is really puzzling to me.  If it's pride, he's only in for more shame.  And if it's for shame, it's about to get worse.  The final degradation of Lot only shows his own fractured reality, and how it is passed on to, and through, his daughters.

His two daughters decide to get their father drunk, and have children by him.  They can't imagine husbands for themselves while they live in a cave (I'm with them on that one).  So incest seems the best solution to them.  But they know that their father won't cooperate willingly, so they use the common "date rape drug" of the time, wine.  While I think the unwillingness of Lot, and that his daughters knew that about him is a credit to his character, I can't balance that against the decision to live in a cave in the first place.  His character is overshadowed by a broken reality.  Their solution makes me shudder, but I can understand (but only at a distance) why they felt it was necessary.  They are without hope, and their father's faith isn't one they want to be a part of.

So where is the point for me?  Where do I fit in this picture of a fractured reality?  Unfortunately way too close.  Addicts of any sort on their way toward sobriety will be able to see themselves in this account.  The Big Book of AA calls it "hitting bottom"; it's when the fractured reality fractures and reality hits home like a sledge hammer.  The illusions finally implode, unable to support the consequences kept at bay by denial for so long.  What becomes clear looking back over the wreckage of life is how far away from reality I could get.  It was surreal, and hard to believe, even seeing it in print (Step 4, the moral inventory).  It was like it happened to someone else.

The common theme of a lost touch with reality, the behavior out of control, and the ruinous effects on families is all part of the addiction.  Even that Lot lost everything (seemingly before the angels arrived - there were no household servants or flocks, herds, or anything to save) is so familiar to recovering addicts.  The addiction will consume everything material, emotional, and, eventually, spiritual.  So, to an embarrassing degree, I do get Lot.  I do actually understand being so driven by shame that I believed I couldn't go home, couldn't be honest, couldn't let anyone into my life because they'd hate me, reject me, hurt me, and I'd be alone (which is where I was because of my behavior anyway - duh).  Yep, being a bonehead is something I have on my "resume" for wherever I go.  I own it now, seeking in honesty, to keep it from happening again.  I seek that painful ground in reality that hurts, is uncomfortable, and creates dependence on my Master and His other followers.  So, my lot in life is to be an example that it's possible to go home again.  It may hurt, and it is a lot of shame to own, but it is possible.  And it is a lot better than living in a cave; lots better.

The Fractured Reality of Sodom 3: Why Is It So Hard To Leave?

When morning dawned, the angels urged Lot, saying, "Up, take your wife and your two daughters who are here, or you will be swept away in the punishment of the city."  But he hesitated. So the men seized his hand and the hand of his wife and the hands of his two daughters, for the compassion of the LORD was upon him; and they brought him out, and put him outside the city.  When they had brought them outside, one said, "Escape for your life! Do not look behind you, and do not stay anywhere in the valley; escape to the mountains, or you will be swept away."  But Lot said to them, "Oh no, my lords!  Now behold, your servant has found favor in your sight, and you have magnified your lovingkindness, which you have shown me by saving my life; but I cannot escape to the mountains, for the disaster will overtake me and I will die; now behold, this town is near enough to flee to, and it is small. Please, let me escape there (is it not small?) that my life may be saved."  He said to him, "Behold, I grant you this request also, not to overthrow the town of which you have spoken.  Hurry, escape there, for I cannot do anything until you arrive there." Therefore the name of the town was called Zoar.  The sun had risen over the earth when Lot came to Zoar.  Then the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven, and He overthrew those cities, and all the valley, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and what grew on the ground.  But his wife, from behind him, looked back, and she became a pillar of salt. (Genesis 19:15-26 NASB)

Okay, so Lot knows who these guys are, they tell him they are here to destroy the city, and yet, he can't seem to get it together to leave.  Really?  A roving mob of nocturnal rapists makes up the most common past time of the place and yet Lot can't let the place go.  I find it difficult to understand why he's there in the first place.  I was hoping that he was hoping to share the influence of his God with them.  But his refusal to leave flies in the face of that.  If he truly believed in the power of God and truth of the coming destruction, I would hope his faith would impel him to get out of Dodge.

The text is alarmingly specific here.  Lot "hesitated".  The angels had to take he, his wife, and his two daughters by the hand and bring them out of Sodom.  They were told to run for the hills, but Lot then negotiates to make for a small town on the plain because the hills are too far.  The angel tells him that nothing will happen until he's safe, but he wants the town.  And God gives him that. 

The text is also specific that this is happening for Lot because of the compassion of God and his love of Abraham.  I would also include the patience of God.  These two angels put up with way more than they should have from Lot.  So strong was the love and compassion of God (in the midst of His wrath - don't miss the irony here) that He endured the failures of Lot as He saved he and his family. 

We are not told, and I find it really difficult to guess at the attraction of Sodom.  What was it that was so difficult to give up, especially given the description of the place?  On the other hand, I am not so far out of my own refuse pile of sin that I can't remember how difficult it is to release.  There are many things to which people give themselves that consume them and yet are difficult to let go.  I remember mine, and still, occasionally feel it's pull back.  So, while the text may not tell us what it was specifically with Sodom, I suspect that it had to do with all those things to which a person can loose themselves.  I suspect Lot had his, even though we may not be told what it was specifically.  It was as if all the addictions off humanity were located in those two cities.  That would explain such a fractured reality on an entire community.

I see the difficulties and the casualties of my own sin in my life.  I see here the description of Lot's (and his gets worse on in the chapter).  While I'm not told the specific sin, the consequences are described, and I can readily recognize the connections with my own life.  In fact, there are still things I find it difficult to give up, and I don't know why.  Perhaps I need to spend more time here letting the lesson of Lot sink in.  There is a message from my Master to my soul here: LET IT GO!

The life I live in this world, I should be living in relationship with my Master.  Only then is life truly eternal.  Isn't it another kind of fractured reality to endure something in my life that hinders this relationship?  Does it make any more sense for me to hold on to anything, sinful sounding or not, that impedes my walk with my Master, my availability to Him, my ability to hear Him, and therefore obey Him?  In these ways, am I not like Lot?  A little too much for my comfort.

The Fractured Reality of Sodom 2: The Mob, The Judge, And The Angels

Before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, all the people from every quarter; and they called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them."  But Lot went out to them at the doorway, and shut the door behind him, and said, "Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly.  "Now behold, I have two daughters who have not had relations with man; please let me bring them out to you, and do to them whatever you like; only do nothing to these men, inasmuch as they have come under the shelter of my roof."  But they said, "Stand aside." Furthermore, they said, "This one came in as an alien, and already he is acting like a judge; now we will treat you worse than them." So they pressed hard against Lot and came near to break the door.  But the men reached out their hands and brought Lot into the house with them, and shut the door.  They struck the men who were at the doorway of the house with blindness, both small and great, so that they wearied themselves trying to find the doorway. (Genesis 19:4-11 NASB)

I don't know where to start.  I was expecting to be shocked, to find a wickedness, but the depths of this shocked me.  I was hoping to somehow rescue the character of Lot from his surroundings, but I'm failing.  I'm trying to find some cultural or ethnic tradition or something that explains what I read, but I'm not finding it.  So, I will simply unpack it and let be what it is.

The men of Sodom, from all over the city and from all age groups, form a mob.  It's not said this is usual or not, a festival or not, but they circle themselves around the house.  Their intent is the men who came to Lot's house; they want to "know" them, and, in this case, it would be "biblically".  So a mob, forming for no other clear reason than to take the men who just came to the city, encircle Lot's house and call for him to send them out.  Remember that Lot strongly urged the angels, who intended to stay in the plaza, to stay with him.  I infer from this that the mob was neither an isolated occurrence, nor surprising to Lot.  He seemed to know what was coming.

Some sort of "carnival" (in the ancient sense of that word) would go a long way to explain their behavior, but none is mentioned.  Perhaps every night was "carnival night" in Sodom.  The moral conditions of the place are not explained, but merely described.  It's creepy.  The attitude that spawns such behavior is in every part of the city, and in every generation of them.  They don't "grow out of it" at some point.  It is pervasive, insidious, and completely irrational.

Before you jump all over the "irrational" judgement, ask yourself, how do these people conduct trade with other cities or regions if this is how they treat visitors?  How can they survive without commerce?  The very fact that they are known by other cities and regions was demonstrated in chapter 14, so how can they adopt this mode of behavior and still remain a viable presence?  It is truly irrational to behave as they are.

And yet, Abraham considers them a moral blight on the land even as he rescues their goods (and Lot) from conquering kings.  So, they are known for their evil even before this.  And yet, they are tolerated by their neighbors.  They aren't a military power (they lost a battle where 318 + 4 won), so what is it that they have which is so "tolerable" to their neighbors?  And it's not just their neighbors.

When Lot goes out to speak with them, he calls them "brothers"!  Really?  Seriously?  The whole passage quickly takes on the surreal psychotic feel very quickly.  How can such a place exist?  Even during the 30-years war, the Catholics and Protestants agreed on one thing, the destruction of Muenster was necessary.  They joined forces and burnt it to the ground.  It was recognized by both sides as an evil place.  Why that hasn't happened here, long ago, baffles me.

"And everyone's okay with this?"  Lot's answer to their plea is to send out his virgin daughters.  I'm shocked!  I have no explanation for such a suggestion.  It could be part of hospitality in that culture, but I don't find other examples of it.  First he calls them "brothers" and then offers them his daughters if they will just leave the visitors alone.  They refuse.  Of course they do.  Why would a mob of men want a couple of women when there are two men as options?  The place is upside down, and the condition is pervasive, and for whatever reason, "acceptable" to their neighbors.

So, at what point does such insidious evil become acceptable to me?  What has to happen to me and what do I need to experience to find such things acceptable?  Probably way too much.  But what if the people and attitude of Sodom wasn't "acceptable" to their neighbors (they didn't necessarily do the same things), but the neighbors were apathetic?  Now I'm closer to fitting the description.  How often to I turn a blind eye or deaf ear to the wickedness of my own country?  It's become such a cacophony that it blends into a constant noise I have learned to ignore.  There's just too much of it to deal with, it seems hopeless to stand against it.

But that is me living in Sodom, calling the people "my brothers", and seeking to mollify them by sacrificing what is precious to me.  I haven't reached that point yet, but really, how far away is it?  When I don't speak out against the vocal evil, isn't that tacit acceptance?  When I refuse to point out that my Master is against behavior am I not loosing my moral ground?  At least Lot tried to be a judge to bring some semblance of righteousness to the place.  It did no good but have I even tried that? 

I think I am supposed to judge from my Master's perspective.  I am to be vocal about what my Master says is important.  I am supposed to be "judgmental" because my Master has given me, and all His followers, the responsibility to be a vocal proponent and an object lesson of what He says.  But am I?  Do I address the evil around me as the evil it is?  Do I point out wickedness?  No, I don't.  And more often than not it is because I am aware of the wickedness in my own life and do not see myself as qualified to point it out.  I fear being a hypocrite who is as bad as those he criticizes.  But my Master calls me to be His broken and cracked jar of His glory.  He has called me and my fellow believers to own the failures of our lives and cry out against the evil around us.  It takes both confession and proclamation.  It's not comfortable; less comfortable than apathy against the evil.

So, to change I have to man-up, put on my "big boy pants", and stand in integrity against the evil of my community.  Integrity means owning my failures, but not letting them disqualify me from vocally and actively standing for my Master's views.  Bold words.  Now I need to give them hands and feet, and therefore steel.  Deep breath.  Okay, let's do it.

The Fractured Reality of Sodom 1: The Unexpected Judge

Now the two angels came to Sodom in the evening as Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground.  And he said, "Now behold, my lords, please turn aside into your servant's house, and spend the night, and wash your feet; then you may rise early and go on your way." They said however, "No, but we shall spend the night in the square."  Yet he urged them strongly, so they turned aside to him and entered his house; and he prepared a feast for them, and baked unleavened bread, and they ate. (Genesis 19:1-3 NASB)

In this chapter I am going to wander into the spooky world that is Sodom before it's destroyed.  Right off the bat, in the first few verses, I find what I would never expect.  In the ancient days of cities, the gates were important places.  It constituted the "courts" of their day.  The elders of a city would sit and deliberate various civil cases that people brought before them.  The elders were said to be "sitting in the gate" for this purpose.  This phrase appears right in verse 1, and it's Lot!  What this verse essentially says is that at this time Lot is an elder in Sodom, the most sinful place on the planet at the time.

What does it mean to be an elder in Sodom?  Lot clearly has enough of his sensibilities to recognize the two angels for what they were.  His greeting is much like Abraham's in the previous chapter.  It doesn't say specifically he was the only elder, but no one else is mentioned.  I infer from the way it's worded here that he is the only one.  Could it be that "elder" and judge over civil disputes is a job that, instead of being highly regarded, was held in contempt?  What if Lot took the job because no one else was willing, and he saw it as important?  With all the sin in the city, why wasn't he so busy he may not have even noticed the angels?  It's like he's a judge and an elder, but without respect or recognized authority. 

What if Lot's ability to recognize the angels infers some degree of "righteousness" still exists with him?  In that case, the city would have had a "righteous judge" whom they completely ignored.  He should have had influence for God in that place as an elder and judge, but didn't.  There should have been constant inquiries of what Lot thought on a matter, and there wasn't.  Consider what sort of city has a righteous judge whom they completely disregard and hold in contempt.  Laws are only effective when the society enforces them.  It is understood (but rarely contemplated) that people have to agree to live by laws for those laws to have their desired effect.  It takes more than force for laws to begin to work.  The force of a few rarely works for long against the unwillingness of a mob to comply.  The right to assemble is a frightening thing for those in power.

What's my point?  It's common for us to point at another city and say, "Sin City!"  But in my own town, in my own neighborhood, do I have any effect on the moral health of those around me?  What about the sin in my city, in my neighborhood?  Does my Master have influence through me in these places?  It's easy to point at other places, other people, and other mobs, but what about my place, my people, and the mob of people around me?  What sort of influence am I here?  If I were to "sit in the gate" here would I be ignored?  If I put myself forward as an elder, would I be respected?  Would people in my neighborhood wonder what I thought of matters of concern to them?

It's not about how great I might be, it's about how much influence my Master has through me.  I'm not really wise, I try to be sensitive to my Master's Spirit leading me.  I'm not "powerful", I rely on the power of my Master.  I'm not respected around here, instead I try to let my Master's words gain respect for Him.  So, what sort of influence do I have?  How effective am I in my efforts to point others to my Master?  I'm somewhat ashamed to say that I don't know.  I feel I should, at least know more than I do.  I believe, wrongly or rightly, that there should be some tangible evidence of my influence for my Master right here where I live.  But I don't know of it.  I'm not complaining, I'm just pointing out an area of my life where I believe I'm lacking.  I also believe the answer is fearless devotion to my Master.  So, it's time for me to take a deep breath and take a step out my door and into the lives of those I live around.  Scary, but necessary.

What Difference Have I Made?

The LORD said, "Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do, 18 since Abraham will surely become a great and mighty nation, and in him all the nations of the earth will be blessed?  For I have chosen him, so that he may command his children and his household after him to keep the way of the LORD by doing righteousness and justice, so that the LORD may bring upon Abraham what He has spoken about him."  And the LORD said, "The outcry of Sodom and Gomorrah is indeed great, and their sin is exceedingly grave.  I will go down now, and see if they have done entirely according to its outcry, which has come to Me; and if not, I will know."  Then the men turned away from there and went toward Sodom, while Abraham was still standing before the LORD.  Abraham came near and said, "Will You indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked?  Suppose there are fifty righteous within the city; will You indeed sweep it away and not spare the place for the sake of the fifty righteous who are in it?  Far be it from You to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous and the wicked are treated alike. Far be it from You! Shall not the Judge of all the earth deal justly?"  So the LORD said, "If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare the whole place on their account."  And Abraham replied, "Now behold, I have ventured to speak to the Lord, although I am but dust and ashes.  "Suppose the fifty righteous are lacking five, will You destroy the whole city because of five?" And He said, "I will not destroy it if I find forty-five there."  He spoke to Him yet again and said, "Suppose forty are found there?" And He said, "I will not do it on account of the forty."  Then he said, "Oh may the Lord not be angry, and I shall speak; suppose thirty are found there?" And He said, "I will not do it if I find thirty there."  And he said, "Now behold, I have ventured to speak to the Lord; suppose twenty are found there?" And He said, "I will not destroy it on account of the twenty."  Then he said, "Oh may the Lord not be angry, and I shall speak only this once; suppose ten are found there?" And He said, "I will not destroy it on account of the ten."  As soon as He had finished speaking to Abraham the LORD departed, and Abraham returned to his place. (Genesis 18:17-33 NASB)

After discussing the coming child, as Abraham is sending his important guests on their way, they stop along the way '...down toward Sodom' (v.16).  Now the Maker of all matter in the universe asks (I still don't know who) if He should tell Abraham what's about to happen.  Obviously a rhetorical question, but it presents an opportunity to, once again, cover the covenant promise.  It seems that Yahweh has heard the outcry of the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah.  It is so bad that their sin cries out to Yahweh.  It's so sinful, sin doesn't approve any more.  Yet He never says He will destroy the place, Abraham has an idea of what He will find (okay, already knows, but there's a "game afoot" here), and connects the dots.

So, as the two "artillery spotters" leave, Abraham sidles up to Yahweh and begins to negotiate with the Ruler of the universe.  What if there are 50 righteous in the two cities?  Can the Righteous Judge treat the wicked and the righteous the same?  How about 45, 40, 30, 20, and finally, 10.  What is Abraham up to?  I'm not alone is supposing he is trying to save his nephew, Lot.  Lot moved to the valley, right next to Sodom with his entire "household".  Surely, out of such a large household, 50 of them would still be righteous.  But you would think at least 10.  Prior to the next chapter, Lot is never described as being married nor of having daughters old enough to be married.  Much has been added to Lot's household, so surely now, with a wife and daughters, there should be 10 righteous, at least.

In the preceding chapters, we're never told how much contact Abraham had with Lot after the battle of the four Kings of the East.  In fact, we're not told what sort of communication they had.  It might be assumed that there was some sort of contact, but we're never given any indication.  Clearly Abraham cared enough to go to war for his nephew.  Here he is willing to haggle with the Omniscient One, which is tough because He already knows everything you might say.  How do you provide Him "additional" information?  What Abraham is banking on, hoping for, and counting on is that Lot has maintained some sort of influence for righteousness in that place.  Whether he has or not is answered in the next chapter.

So, I'm left with the question for myself, "what sort of influence have I had?"  I don't live in one of Satan's cities (that's 8 hours south of here), but if my Master did want to destroy my town, would I have had enough of an influence for ten righteous to be found here?  This is really a rhetorical question since we already have more than that, and did before I got here.  My point has to do with my level of influence among the people I live near.  How much influence for righteousness have I had?

Now, I can say that I've only been here less than a year.  I can point out that I don't interact much because I work all day in my "inescapable" office, a slave to my IP phone.  I can complain that I'm still getting to know my neighbors.  I can say all that, but the question still remains, because none of these questions excuses me from the responsibility to be an influence for my Master.

In my accountability group, we have a great question, "Did you accomplish things of eternal significance each day?"  Wow!  I have to answer "no" most of the time.  I deal with customers all across the US, and in some foreign countries, and don't really know what sort of "eternal significance" the interactions might have.  But, what about with my family?  What about with my wife?  What about with my daughter?  My church family?  My neighbors?  I have plenty of opportunity to accomplish something of eternal significance, but do I take it?  If someone had to negotiate with the Master of the universe for this city, would I have had enough influence here that my Master would spare it?

Well, now that I've beaten myself up with such demands and challenges, I suppose I should get after it.  I'm burning daylight, and have things of eternal significance to pursue.  Maybe today I will accomplish one or more of them.  Do they carry over to the next day?  I suspect not.

She Who Laughs Second

Then they said to him, "Where is Sarah your wife?" And he said, "There, in the tent."  He said, "I will surely return to you at this time next year; and behold, Sarah your wife will have a son." And Sarah was listening at the tent door, which was behind him.  Now Abraham and Sarah were old, advanced in age; Sarah was past childbearing.  Sarah laughed to herself, saying, "After I have become old, shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also?"  And the LORD said to Abraham, "Why did Sarah laugh, saying, 'Shall I indeed bear a child, when I am so old?'  "Is anything too difficult for the LORD? At the appointed time I will return to you, at this time next year, and Sarah will have a son."  Sarah denied it however, saying, "I did not laugh"; for she was afraid. And He said, "No, but you did laugh." (Genesis 18:9-15 NASB)

So, in chapter 17, we have Abraham falling on his face laughing when El Shaddai tells him Sarah will bear a son.  Because of that the child will be named Isaac.  The child would be born in one year (..."at this season next year." Genesis 17:21b).

Here Sarah laughed "to herself" or literally "inside herself" when Yahweh said she would bear a son.  The timing is very similar to last chapter, "this time next year".  There are enough similarities between these two chapters that it would seem to be different examples of the same event.  That probably bothers some people, in fact it would probably bother a lot of comfortable Sunday school teachers.  But it shouldn't.

The issue winds up being one of inspiration and "inerrancy".  If these are the same event, but two very different perspectives, how can they both be "without error"?  Ironically, the people asking this question seem to be just fine with four different Gospels in the Christian Scriptures.  So why have a problem here?

As I've said before, my view of Scriptures, both Hebrew and Christian is "flexible" enough to incorporate such duplication without a problem.  In fact, in my estimation, that there are two indicates a stronger case for their importance and inspiration.  The Master I serve is not threatened by two different accounts of the same event of Him speaking personally with one of His human creatures.  Something so disruptive to any person's psyche could easily make various impressions at various times.  If He's not threatened, why should I be?

The point of application for me is that this is an example of my Master accommodating His human creatures.  He visits Abram, eats his food, changes his name to Abraham, discusses the covenant and circumcision, asks about Sarai, changes her name to Sarah, predicts her delivering Isaac in one year, they both laugh, the child is to be named Isaac for their laughter, and then comes the discussion of God "nuking Sodom and Gomorrah from orbit".

What makes it into Scripture is this event in two pieces.  In fact, there were probably other things said that didn't make it into the text.  Since there wasn't a transcriptionist hanging on every word, I can't be sure there wasn't more said.  So, my Master doesn't look at what was remembered, and say, "What have you done?! You got it all wrong!  Scrap that and go back and do it again?"  And the people editing this "anthology" of God didn't say, "Oops, we have two versions here.  Which one do we keep?  How do we 'meld' them if we keep both?"  Instead they kept both, and kept them distinct.  They recorded the two versions faithfully because they viewed them as both being inspired accounts of God visiting His servant Abraham.

God inspires the text to be written, but fails to protect the "inerrant" original texts?  Really?  So, He's capable of forming stars and galaxies, and subatomic particles, but protecting His inspired texts is just beyond Him?  That was too hard?  Read the text! "Is anything too difficult for the LORD?"  Is my Master sovereign over all matter except pens?  If these inerrant original texts were all that important for my Master to demonstrate His inspiration of them, is it rational to believe that He would not protect them?  If they no longer exist, then isn't it also rational to believe they're unnecessary to demonstrate inspiration? 

If followers of Jesus can agree that God is sovereign, why can't we also agree that the texts we have are the ones that God wants us to have?  And if we agree on that, why can't we accept them as they are without some sort of reference to non existent texts we don't have because God didn't preserve them?  Why fight over the very thing that reveals to us that our Master wants to bring us together and love each other?  The world going to hell will know our Master by our love for each other?  If there's no love shown, will they still know our Master?

Now, that being said, I still wade into arguments about versions and texts.  I still debate Sianaticus versus Vaticanus versus Alexandrinus.  I am not above weighing various text differences in order to translate a passage from Hebrew and Greek.  So, in a way I too contribute to the "war of words" regarding the words of my Master.  But I still need to live by what I discover as I delve into those words.  I must still open my heart and mind, both, to permit my Master to build faith and teach me obedience.  As I sift, I must also submit.  It does me no good, and is one of the darkest evils of my life, to work with Scripture but not permit it to enter my heart and mind.

The things I do as I study should drive these words of my Master deeper into my soul, not wear them as as a badge of honor on the surface.  If they have no impact on my life, I have wasted the amazing gift given to me by Master, the gift of His Scriptures, the gift given to His children across this globe.  And it is a gift that so many of His children do not have a chance to enjoy.  How can I neglect such an amazing gift?  I live in a land where I have no excuse and have an education that is supposed to impel me even more.  Time to grab the SCUBA gear and pen; I'm diving in!

What Do You Feed the Creator of All Matter?

Now the LORD appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre, while he was sitting at the tent door in the heat of the day.  When he lifted up his eyes and looked, behold, three men were standing opposite him; and when he saw them, he ran from the tent door to meet them and bowed himself to the earth, and said, "My lord, if now I have found favor in your sight, please do not pass your servant by.  "Please let a little water be brought and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree; and I will bring a piece of bread, that you may refresh yourselves; after that you may go on, since you have visited your servant." And they said, "So do, as you have said."  So Abraham hurried into the tent to Sarah, and said, "Quickly, prepare three measures of fine flour, knead it and make bread cakes."  Abraham also ran to the herd, and took a tender and choice calf and gave it to the servant, and he hurried to prepare it.  He took curds and milk and the calf which he had prepared, and placed it before them; and he was standing by them under the tree as they ate.

Chapter 17 begins by saying that God appeared to Abram (v.1) and when He was done speaking to Abraham, He ascended (v.22).  From this I gather that this was a physical appearance.  One thing said in that personal encounter was that Sarah would bear Isaac by this season the following year.  No mention was made of the hospitality of Abraham.  In that conversation, Abram's name is changed to Abraham, the name used in chapter 18.  The impression given is that 18 happens afterward.  Yet in chapter 18, the same comment about Sarah bearing Isaac around this time next year is made again.  It's just weird.  Now the other content is different, like God being called El Shaddai in 17, and Yahweh in 18.  Also circumcision is prescribed in 17, and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah in 18.  There are obvious glaring differences, but the subtle similarities are also striking.

But whatever is thought about the relationship between the two, one glaring difference which has always arrested my attention is the hospitality of Abraham.  In 18, he sees "three men" so runs, and bows down before them.  The first verse says that Yahweh appeared (much like 17), and Abraham calls Him Lord (not by name).  But Abraham's behavior is not as one to an equal (like Mamre and his brothers) but as to a Sovereign.  It's his behavior that suggests Abraham knows exactly Who has shown up at his tent.  Abraham's response is hospitality.  So, what does one feed the Creator of all matter?

From Abraham's choice of items, it seems that his best beef and fresh bread is what makes the perfect meal served with butter and milk.  He also stood by as their waiter, attending to their every need.  The scene then, as Yahweh informs Abraham of the coming of Isaac (again?) is the three men seated beneath the "Oaks of Mamre", enjoying the fresh meal, Abraham standing to attend to them, and Sarah listening at the tent opening.  It makes an interesting setting.  This account of a personal visit by the Maker of all things has engaging story elements, and visualizing it is much easier than in Chapter 17.  In fact, the whole encounter in Chapter 18 is more experiential or existential (as those terms really should be understood, not as philosophy has redefined them today). 

The point where these verses hit me most personally is in Abraham's immediate response to seeing the three men.  He recognizes his Master and immediately responds with hospitality.  Would I be able to really recognize my Master so well?  If I did, would I be able to keep my wits about me enough to be properly hospitable?  What does "properly hospitable" even mean when my Master comes to visit?  How is it even possible to be properly anything where a personal encounter with God is involved?  He makes stars!  What can I do, what do I feed, what do I say that can "properly" respond to such a One?

Abraham simply does what his cultural traditions dictate is done when an important person comes by.  He is himself in his setting at that time.  And his Master participates.  They wait, they eat (really?), and then have a conversation with Abraham (and Sarah as it turns out).  God is pleased with Abraham's preparations and treatment of Him.  Isn't it important to note that the Creator and Master of billions of galaxies accommodates the traditions and culture of one of His creatures?  I think I get so caught up in what "form" my Master may want, but when He hasn't "prescribed" a "form" I think this passage reveals that He isn't concerned about the form as much as He is the encounter, the relationship.  He does so much concern Himself with what format my prayers are in, as much as He is that I pray.  When I sing in worship, He is not so concerned that I am on key as much as He is concerned that what I sing reflects my adoration of Him.  It's not what's on the plate, it's that I serve it to Him.  Now, that is grace.  Well, I better get cooking, you never know who's coming to Sunday lunch!

He Who Laughs First

Then God said to Abraham, "As for Sarai your wife, you shall not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall be her name.  I will bless her, and indeed I will give you a son by her. Then I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of peoples will come from her."  Then Abraham fell on his face and laughed, and said in his heart, "Will a child be born to a man one hundred years old? And will Sarah, who is ninety years old, bear a child?"  And Abraham said to God, "Oh that Ishmael might live before You!"  But God said, "No, but Sarah your wife will bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac; and I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him.  "As for Ishmael, I have heard you; behold, I will bless him, and will make him fruitful and will multiply him exceedingly. He shall become the father of twelve princes, and I will make him a great nation.  "But My covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear to you at this season next year."  When He finished talking with him, God went up from Abraham. (Genesis 17:15-22 NASB)

This is the main place this chapter overlaps with the next.  In addition to the charge to circumcise, enough to fill a conversation all by itself, God also gives the timing of the child of promise, and the missing detail that he will come through Sarah (quick name change to grow her up, you know, now that she's 90 and all).  The element about Sarah bearing a child is more than Abraham can bear, and he falls further on his face (see verse 3).  It's as if he falls down laughing, so I imagine him going from a bowing position to rolling over holding his belly laughing.

I can only imagine all the emotion that the laughter contains.  He has waited 13 years for another word from his Master, he has raised a son he loves, he has achieved a "grove", and now to have it interrupted...again.  It couldn't have been easy wondering for the last 13 years where this child he invested his heart into would fit, or even if he would fit, into God's plan.  Again with the life interruption.  Again with the plan changes.  It could very well have been that if Abraham hadn't laughed, he would have cried.

So now the name of the child will be Isaac, he laughs.  Here it is Abraham laughing, yet still pushing for minimal disruption in his world.  "Oh that Ishmael might live before You!"  A plea for the child he has come to love, his child, first born son, and the one he has poured 13 years into.  God hears the plea, and His word to Abraham sounds a lot better than the "donkey man" speech He gave to Hagar.  But it is clear that Ishmael will not be the chosen one.  So what were the last 13 years about anyway?

This time next year Isaac will be here.  One more year to wait and the child of promise will finally arrive.  It's been 13, and now there is one more.  What is the thing God is revealing about Himself that is so important?  What do I learn about my Master from Abram's waiting 13 years for a name change and a "frag order"?  What do I learn about my Master from dragging out the fulfillment of this promise, the gradual revelation of various details, the name changes, and the incorporation of the one not chosen?  What's the lesson?

Who am I to put my Master in a box or framework to enable me to understand Him?  When does it become possible that He will accommodate my timing over His own?  What plan can I come up with that covers the bases, dots the i's and crosses the t's to a more thorough degree than His?  Why do I continue to see the world around me through lenses I create, grind, and wear, knowing they distort the truth my Master wants me to see (I call these lenses 'fear')?  Seriously, the lesson I believe in this passage for me is, "How long before I finally relent and let God be the Master of all?"

The laugh of Abraham could also have been one of relief.  The peace missing for the last 13 years, caused by the tension of knowing that the child before you isn't the child of promise, but having no other alternative.  The released tension of wanting desperately to hear the voice of his Master, yet being left to muddle or trudge through on his own; well at least feeling that way.

Perhaps what I need to learn is to laugh with Abraham; to release my tension and receive His peace; to finally drop my lenses; to finally disassemble my "framework" limiting my Master; to quit planning for Him, finally, and just let Him be the God Who Hears, Who laughs, Who sees me, and Who permits me to see Him and live.  Maybe what I need is a good laugh.  So, a horse walks into a bar, and the bartender says, "Why the long face?"

Beyond The Pain, Why This Mark?

God said further to Abraham, "Now as for you, you shall keep My covenant, you and your descendants after you throughout their generations.  This is My covenant, which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: every male among you shall be circumcised.  And you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin, and it shall be the sign of the covenant between Me and you.  And every male among you who is eight days old shall be circumcised throughout your generations, a servant who is born in the house or who is bought with money from any foreigner, who is not of your descendants.  A servant who is born in your house or who is bought with your money shall surely be circumcised; thus shall My covenant be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.  But an uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant."  (Genesis 17:9-14 NASB)

The custom of circumcision among Jews is the most well known of the practices, but it seems it isn't necessarily the oldest.  Herodotus wrote of it in the 5th Century BC and considered an ancient custom then.  The date of this custom with Abraham would be over 1000 years prior, almost 2000 years.  If that is considered ancient by the standards of Herodotus this could pre-date the Egyptian custom.  There is a wall depiction in the tomb of a priest/physician which depicts the custom in detail, and dates from the 6th Dynasty.  That would put the custom fairly well established somewhere between 2500 and 2000 BC, right around this time.  So it could have been in common practice when Abram visited there right after entering Canaan.

As my wife would say, "So what?"  The reason I look at this custom is made up of a couple of elements.  The elements answer the questions, "why this?" and "why now?"  I don't want to argue for or against the practice, but rather grapple with the question of why use this as a sign of a covenant.  The covenant it signifies has already been bound by God through a semi-Hittite covenant ratification ritual where God bound Himself to the promise.  Here it is Abraham who is bound to the promise.  But he's bound in a way that imposes this sign on the entire household, actually only the males of the household.  How involved were they in this promise prior to this?  If nothing else it would be a sign of their dedication to Abraham.

Another part of my reason for considering this important is that the custom is not typically something commonly observable in normal interactions.  It's a sign that would be private, as if between the person and God.  And yet it is something that Abraham had to know as customary in the cultures around him.  So while it would mark to him and his household the sign of the covenant for people and the land to his people, that would not be obvious to others, even if they found out about Abraham's custom.  What I mean is that when it was established, it wasn't that unique.  It became unique as the Greeks swept through the nations around the Jews, and the practice died out everywhere else.  That was 1500 years at least after this dialogue between Abraham and God.

So, this private sign of a covenant, a sign not that uncommon in Abraham's world, signified for his entire household that he believed in covenant between God and him.  It also signified that his household was now intimately involved in the promise contained in the covenant.  So, why this, and why now?

I believe the answer lies in the intimate nature of the sign and the timing of Isaac's coming.  The intimate nature of the sign on the household of Abraham meant that it was a sign that each of them understood, but those outside the household knew little of.  It was personal and bound them tightly distinguishing them from other households, even if not from other cultures (like the Egyptians).  Everyone entering the household either through birth or money entered into this custom and were a part of the covenant promise. 

A year after this custom is initiated, Isaac is born.  So after the required healing, after the household returned to some semblance of normalcy, Sarah is with child.  The household could care for her special needs effectively, and Isaac knows nothing of an uncircumcised life.  For him, the covenant is an eternal thing beginning before him and continuing on well after.

I believe the point of application for me is in acknowledging the same desire my Master has for intimate private relationship with me.  Not that I need this sign, but perhaps my heart does.  Perhaps, as the prophet Jeremiah says, I need to circumcise my heart (Jeremiah 3:4).  The sign of my belief, a sign that is private and intimate between my Master and me, may be the best application of this passage.  Am I unwilling to take painful steps?  Am I against personal pain?  Of course!  But it shouldn't keep me from honoring my Master.  In fact withholding such an offering because of personal pain would, I believe, dishonor myself and my Master; or possibly even worse.  I could lose the very thing I seek to save by saving myself from the pain! 

Essentially, my belief is that my heart must be circumcised, set apart for my Master, focused energetically on my Master's face, and constantly seeking His pleasure rather than my own comfort.  I don't see other options.  Walking in the path of Abraham in his relationship with the same Master, I will probably do things that make little sense to those around me and will even hurt my own heart.  For my Master, there can't be any reservation.  Again, I'm not a fan of causing myself pain, I don't endure it well either.  But circumcision of heart means painfully removing those secret intimate things that no one else sees, but still keep me from my Master.  And so I hand my Master the stainless steel circular saw, lay back on the table, and get ready for the quadruple bypass of cardiocircumectomy.  It just sounds fun doesn't it?  What anesthesia?

Same Song, Different Dance

Abram fell on his face, and God talked with him, saying, "As for Me, behold, My covenant is with you, And you will be the father of a multitude of nations. No longer shall your name be called Abram, But your name shall be Abraham; For I will make you the father of a multitude of nations.  I will make you exceedingly fruitful, and I will make nations of you, and kings will come forth from you.  I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your descendants after you.  I will give to you and to your descendants after you, the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God." (Genesis 17:3-8 NASB)

So let's recount here how many times have we read so far that God will give Abram descendants and the land of Canaan.  In Chapter 12 (the land, not descendants) as God told Abram to go to Canaan, again in Chapter 13 (both land and descendants), again in Chapter 15 where God binds Himself to the promise in a complex Hittite form of covenant, and finally here in chapter 17 where Abram's name is changed and he is bound to God through circumcision.  That makes this the fourth recitation of the promise of God in one form or another.  Why such repetition?

Well, this isn't the last time the promise is covered.  In Chapter 18, we have another rendition of Chapter 17 except it is a more interactive encounter with God, a somewhat more detailed appearance, and the part about circumcision is missing.  The discussion content is remarkably similar.  So, the total of these promise repetitions will number about 5 before Isaac even makes an entrance.  What's up with that?

Each time the promise is repeated, something is added.  Sometimes a detail is added, or sometimes an additional element is added.  The progressions goes something like this, 1) Promise = Land, 2) Promise = Land + Descendants, 3) God binds Himself to Promise of Land + Descendants, 4) God binds Abram to Promise of Land + Descendants through name change and circumcision and gives detail of timing (next year at this time).  In the next chapter, the timing will be repeated, but Sarah laughs as Abram did in this chapter.  There is a certain logic to the progression.

The progression is gradually building faith in Abram until Abraham will eventually sacrifice Isaac.  The progression starts with moving Abram from his family region around Haran to an unknown land.  Then the promise grows, but there is no real "proof" and the fulfillment is delayed.  Then God binds Himself to the promise, and Abram and Sarai attempt to bring it about through traditional cultural means.  Then, after their attempts fail to produce the child of promise, God binds Abram (now Abraham) to the promise.  Here God is no longer building Abram's faith, He is tempering it through test after test.  And the tests will continue even after Isaac is born.

So, is this the process God uses with everyone?  Does God lead me through a progressive revelatory faith-building process, and then a tempering process?  I'm not sure if this pattern works globally or universally as a pattern for His work with everyone.  I don't see it in the case of Moses, unless it is compressed down into the burning bush incident.  I don't see these details in the case of Joshua, but I do with Gideon.  I don't with Samuel but I do with Saul.  I don't with David nor Solomon, and I don't have a lot of detail in these interactions beyond these.  Perhaps with Elisha God follows this pattern?  Yet Elijah just shows up whole, so I don't have any idea how God did that.

From this I can conclude that the pattern is not the point.  The point is the end-product, the faith-filled relationship between God and His chosen pawn.  Even the tension within this relationship is not enough to sever the connection.  I am to be in a faith-filled relationship with my Master.  That is the point.  I am to be willing to sacrifice the "child of promise".  I am to be obedient to challenge the evil of the land, the Pharaoh, the evil king, and the Philistines.  I am to be courageous to take on the lion, the bear, and the giant.  I am to be confident to stand against the enemy alone when my fellows desert me.  I am to be sure of what I cannot see, and claim the hope given to me as evidence of its completion.  It is an odd life, but an amazing adventure to be a part of.  Truly it is the life of a knight of the realm of the Master of the universe, and a servant to the Creator of all matter.  I am to live it with a sword in one hand, and a towel in the other.  Do I paint a strange picture?  Good, then I'm on the right track.

Every Decade or So

Now when Abram was ninety-nine years old, the LORD appeared to Abram and said to him, "I am God Almighty; Walk before Me, and be blameless.  "I will establish My covenant between Me and you, And I will multiply you exceedingly."  Abram fell on his face, and God talked with him, saying,... (Genesis 17:1-3 NASB)

Chapter 16 finishes by telling me that Abram was eighty-six years old.  Now, thirteen years later, God shows up again for a chat.  Thirteen years!? I'm not confident that my faith would hold out a full decade while I'm heading through my eighties and nineties waiting for God to fulfill His promise.  He made it clear to Hagar that Ishmael wasn't the "one", so...where is he?  And finishing out his nineties isn't where Abram wants to be when he has a child.  He probably looks back on the early years with Ishmael and would rather not repeat it, especially not now.

Well, while I'm very sure about the time, but the Scriptures also make it very clear that Abraham's "nineties" are not like what people endure or live like in their nineties now.  There's strength and "iron" in Abraham that is lacking in people of this modern time.  I believe the passage and others in Scripture make a good case for Abraham wanting Ishmael to be the promised one because he loved the boy very much.  While Abraham may complain that he's too old to have kids, later passages are not implying that's not the case, they state it plainly (Genesis 25:1-4).  So, his complaint had to do with something else.

So, I may not want to wait a decade through my nineties for a word from my Master, but can I really use the age as an excuse?  What about through my forties?  What about through my thirties or fifties?  The age really isn't the issue, it's the time.  Am I so patient that I can wait for a word from my Master?  Until then what do I do?  I live.  Really the only option while waiting is living out the life called to.  What was the last thing my Master asked me to do?  Wait, worship and walk before Him, sort of like what He commanded of Abraham here.

Even through the good strong years of my life (about 3 years right after I got out of the Army, after that, well...) I don't think that I would have been patient to wait for the next word from my Master.  I tend to get bored, get into trouble, and it begins to become all about me.  Really, it isn't even "patience" as much as steadfast faith that is the real issue.  Do I have the faith to stay the course He has laid out even when I haven't heard from Him in the last nine or thirteen years?

One of the common complaints I use for why I left ministry is that I never had a mentor to help me through the rough spots and avoid pitfalls.  But as I read this passage, where was Abraham's mentor?  The thing is, I really have no excuse where I can blame another, or blame the circumstances, or the "people" or anyone else.  I made the choice I made at the time believing it was the right thing to do.  It wasn't even a choice I made thinking that it was in my best interest.  What went through my head wasn't self-centered, it was removing myself from the place of distraction so God could get directly at them.  What I didn't understand is that God really doesn't choose to work that way.  The church failed anyway, families from there caused other churches to fail, ran into sin obliterating marriages, and disintegrating families.  I'm not sure I could have stopped that, but I certainly didn't succeed in enabling them to hear God better. 

Rather than ask whether or not I should have waited it out, what I need to ask now is what am I waiting for?  Is there a promise that my Master has given me that I'm holding out for?  Unfortunately, I'm not sure.  I suppose I'm really just waiting for the next thing, trying to be open to what that might be.  I believe I'm in a much better place to hear my Master than I have been before.  So, I suppose that, since my last marching orders were wait, worship, and walk before Him, I'll do that.  Since it's Sunday, the middle one should be easy, but Monday's coming...