 |
| Moses Receiving the Tablets of the Law; Marcus Chagall 1966 (Fair Use 17 USC §107) |
Laws and rules are commonplace throughout cultures and societies.
They seem to serve the same general purpose within communities;
To maintain a standard of behaviors that will encourage good order, discourage disorder, and maintain a moral equilibrium.
This is the way the Israelites saw the law. This is the way the Pharisees saw the law. This is the way Jesus’ audience sees the law, and today, this is the way that we see the law.
Not just religious laws but civil laws and even the laws that dictate the way we play games.
Last week, during the Super Bowl I watched as armchair referees lit up social media with complaints about the poor officiating.
Initially, my friends who have maintained their allegiances to the New England Patriots for years, erupted with cries for justice and fairness as the first half of the game fell in favor of the underdogs; the Atlanta Falcons.
As the second half unfolded, it is unclear what had changed for these Patriots fans.
Maybe they believed the officials checked their Twitter feeds or perhaps had heard their cries through the television screens?
Responding to those cries to have their eyes checked by visiting the locker room optometrists that must have been on standby?
Or maybe they believed the officials had checked up on the rule books during the halftime performance, as so many Patriots fans had suggested?
But I’m not too certain that the Falcons fans agreed during the second half of the game when outrage ensued following illegal blocks and poor ball spotting, based on Falcon fan’s observations.
This illustrates a theme that is threaded throughout the texts we have read today;
When the law works in our favor, we declare the law just and righteous.
But when we are convicted by the law, whether that be a religious law, a civil law, or even the laws that dictate the way we play a game, we find ourselves crying afoul, pleading for justice, and declaring those who judge, inept, unqualified, or simply a bias voice that is out to get us.
 |
| The Court of Chancery, J. Hill and Harraden 1808 (Public Domain) |
A central tenant of Lutheran theology is a balance between law and gospel, but today our gospel reads more like law than gospel.
Jesus declares some pretty harsh penalties for a variety of actions in the gospel today, and if you don’t find yourself in violation of any of these rules presented, well….
I would have to just say; “Thanks for joining us for worship today, Jesus! I hope the sermon was salvageable!”
Because we are all in violation of these guiding principles being outlined in the Sermon on the Mount.
In fact, one certainly would be hard pressed to have not found themselves a bit uncomfortable with the Word Jesus proclaims each of these past three Sundays.
And next week, we will be instructed in following the most difficult law of all;
Loving our enemies.
And so, we are all convicted and condemned by these laws and the consequences for our failure are pretty intimidating, explicit, and since we are all convicted how can we not stomp our feet and call these rules unfair, impossible, perhaps even unjust?
The conundrum we find ourselves in can be summed up in one word; consistency.
Our inconsistency is grounded in our application of the law.
We apply the law harshly to others when it serves our own purpose.
And while this makes us feel a bit more righteous than the one we are convicting, our conviction of another doesn’t absolve us of our own sin, it only turns the conviction of the accuser back upon them.
This is nothing more than self righteousness; the sin of hypocrisy, the highest handed sin of all.
Regardless, our whole approach to the law is a mess.
Because, the law is something that we can never fully obey and this is due to a much more important issue than ignorance.
Jerry Seinfeld once asked, “What are lawyers really? To me a lawyer is basically the person that knows the rules of the country. We are all throwing the dice, playing the game, moving our pieces around the board but if there’s a problem; the lawyer is the only person that has read the inside of the top of the box.”
That isn’t too far out of line from the way Jesus’ audience interprets the role of the scribes and the Pharisees.
They not only know the law, but they are considered experts on the law.
So, when Jesus declared to us in our Gospel from last week that “unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and the Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.”
This declaration suggests that righteousness is grounded in something deeper than memory verses and proof texting.
Because that was the very purpose of the scribes and the Pharisees, to dictate the rigid literal law and judgement of others based on it, for no other reason than an empty pietistic devotion to it.
Quoting Scripture for the sake of condemning another is not a practice that died out in Jesus’ day. It is a recurring practice that we continue to embrace today as well.
Substantiating our moral superiority through scripture, only to find that contradictory verses and views can easily be used to substantiate the views of one's opponent.
Taking the Bible, the instrument that is intended to reveal God’s love, grace, and mercy to a world in need, and turning it into a weapon that is bent to do our will, to vindicate us in our own ethical superiority.
THAT is the conflict Jesus has attempted to address in today’s gospel.
Because even when we are caught, dead to rights, embroiled in our sinful state of lawlessness there is always an excuse.
Jesus declares quite harshly, “If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away; because it is better for you to lose one of your members than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.”
Anybody want to take that one literally?
How about if we consider another option Jesus presents;
“If your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; because it is better for you to lose one of your members than for your whole body to go into hell.”
Any takers on that one?
Certainly not!
I’m willing to bet the crowd that heard this advice wasn’t rushing down off that mountain to complete the task either.
I can only imagine the number of knives or swords that were chucked into the bushes when the crowd heard of this decree!
The point in this advice is to consider the root of the problem and the root of the problem is the same in Deuteronomy as it is in Matthew’s gospel.
Neither the hand that sins nor the eye that sins is the root of the problem, the root of the problem is the heart.
If we are to remove an arm or an eye that sins, the other will still remain in place to carry out the sin that resides, not in our limbs, but in our hearts.
In Deuteronomy, chapter 11, within the explanation of the very first commandment it is suggested that the law, the word of God, as given to those people and yes, to us too is intended to be etched into our hearts and souls.
 |
| Moses Showing the Tablets of the Law to the Israelites, Marten de Vos 1574-1575 (Public Domain) |
A word we cannot fully live up to, a law we cannot live into.
So, how can that law be a thing we could ever carry in our hearts?
Carrying our own damnation within the place reserved for affection and hope?
~
One of the most fascinating chapters of recent American political history for me has been the relationship between two of our nation's Supreme Court justices.
In the years leading up to the death of Justice Scalia, he and Justice Ginsberg sat in polar opposite ends of the legal spectrum.
Justice Scalia was known far and wide for his conservative views and his originalist interpretation of the United States constitution, while Justice Ginsberg remains well known for her liberal views and interpretation of the constitution as a living document.
Yet, these two powerful opposing voices at the highest level of the judicial branch of government shared mutual interests ranging from opera to souvenir shopping.
But it was the one passion that they shared that drew them together as best friends, regardless of their heated differences while sitting on the high court.
Regardless of how they interpreted the law, they both had a deep passion for it.
Both Scalia and Ginsberg believed that the law was a reflection of the best in the American people, especially the United States constitution.
They believed in it and even in the midst of their own disagreements, they believed in one another’s love for it.
~
Both our first lesson and our gospel are quite explicit in their call to follow the law.
Last week, as we read from the previous versus of this chapter, Jesus proclaimed that he had not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it.
And this week’s Gospel furthers our initial interpretations of the law.
Our first lesson proclaims that "If you obey the commandments of the Lord your God you will live,"
Followed by a plea from God to choose life, a life that reflects the law.
But we don’t and we can’t.
We fail and we deserve to be convicted for that failure.
But is that the point of the Word today?
To walk away, knowing that we’ve failed and we are damned to continue in our failing?
I don’t think so.
Today’s call is not to fulfill the law ourselves, certainly we know that is not possible, and if that is the expectation of Jesus I’m not certain he would have ever been prepared to be called a Savior in the first place.
Today’s lesson is not about fulfilling the law, it is about receiving the law in our hearts.
Because when we receive the law in our hearts as the gift it is, we receive the desire to be righteous even if that is something we are not.
Even if righteousness is not a goal we can reach on our own.
Even if righteousness is not a goal we can reach on our own.
Because when we know the value of the gift offered on that cross in spite of our failures to attain it for ourselves.
It makes both the gift of God’s law and the gift of God’s grace that much sweeter.
And they are both gifts that God longs for us to receive, through the conviction of the only righteous man to ever fully live out that law.
Amen
 |
| Calvary (Golgotha), Marc Chagall 1912 (PD-US) |
Sources
David, Larry, Jerry Seinfeld, Steve Skrovan, Bill Masters, Jon Hayman, and Peter Mehlman. “The Movie” [Seinfeld]. Season 4. Episode 14. Directed by Tom Cherones. Columbia Tristar Television: NBC, 1993. Television.
Johnson, Richard. “The Internet Thinks Super Bowl 51 Was Fake News.” February 6, 2017. Accessed February 8, 2017. http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2017/2/6/14523088/super-bowl-rigged-patriots-falcons-james-white-donald-trump.
No comments:
Post a Comment