Law Abiding Citizens? A Lectionary Meditation
Exodus
20:1-4, 7-9, 12-20
Philippians
3:4b-14
Matthew
21:33-46
Law
Abiding Citizens?
In a perfect world
perhaps laws and government wouldn’t be necessary, but in a less than perfect
world laws and governments provide protection for those who lack power and
might. Down through history we’ve seen
all manner of society come and go – oligarchy, plutocracy, monarchy, and
dictatorship. These forms of “government”
continue to exist today in one form or another.
There are places, like Somalia, where there is no government, and thus
chaos is the rule of the day. In the
time of Moses, Pharaoh set the rules and did so to his own benefit. In the time of Jesus and Paul, the Roman
Emperor set the rules, and again, did so to his benefit. There were no checks and balances, with the
one exception of a military coups, which was a continual threat, as most Roman
emperors were former generals. They
ruled their empires with a combination of a threat of violence, bread, and
circuses. Living as I do in the United States of the 21st
century, I am a citizen of a representative democracy with certain checks and
balances built into the system to prevent tyranny from taking hold. Of course, there are ways of circumventing
and controlling the system, so that a tyranny of the powerful can find ways of
controlling even democratic institutions.
Nonetheless, unless asked to act contrary to the ways of God, we assume
that it is best to be a law abiding citizen.
There are three texts
before us. In the first, Moses delivers
the Ten Commandments to the people of Israel.
These laws provide define what it means to live in covenant relationship
with Yahweh. In the Philippian letter,
Paul declares that he has been a law abiding citizen, a Pharisee among
Pharisees in his embrace of the Law. As
for Jesus, he offers us a reminder of what it means to live as a citizen in God’s
realm. God has planted a vineyard and
invited us to tend to it, so the question is – will we be mindful of the one
who entrusted it to our care or not? Is
this not a question of good citizenship?
So, we start with the
Law. Moses comes down from the Mountain of
Sinai and gathers the people together at the foot of the mountain, and the Lord
God delivers to them the Law, which we know as the Ten Commandments. Presumably it is through the voice of Moses
that this word of God is delivered. There
aren’t any Tablets yet, so it’s a matter of hearing words that outline a way of
living in covenant with God. God
declares to the people from the mountain:
“I am the Lord. I brought you
out of slavery and so you can’t have any other gods and you can’t make any
idols. Don’t abuse my name by swearing
upon it (could taking oaths by saying “so help me God” be an example of such
abuse?). And keep the Sabbath. These are all laws that define, presumably,
the relationship between Yahweh and the people.
Based on these precepts, Moses then delivers some guidelines for living
together as God’s people. Honor your
parents, don’t murder, commit adultery, steal, bear false witness (wow, we sure
do a lot of that these days), and don’t covet the things that belong to your
neighbor. Now, we moderns might have
some problems with some of the elements of property listed in that last set of
laws – are wives property? And
slaves? Not something we would accept as
an acceptable form of property. As the
word is delivered it is accompanied by a terrifying display of divine power –
thunder and lighting and trumpets and smoking mountains. The people are afraid and tell Moses – you talk
to us and we’ll obey, just ask that this display end. In response Moses says – don’t be afraid, God
is just doing this so you will fear God.
Doesn’t that make sense don’t be afraid, just be afraid! The point is – be a law abiding citizen (don’t
sin) and you’ll have nothing to fear!
As we look at these
laws, especially the second set, the ones that define our relationship with
another, it appears that they are designed not only to keep order in the land
but to protect the other from violence, whether it is physical (murder and
theft), verbal (dishonoring parents and bearing witness), or internal (coveting
what belongs to the other). Note that
this last of the laws, the one dealing with covetousness really sets up all the
others, including the first set. To
break the first set is to place one’s self in the position of God, doing
violence to God’s place in our lives. As
for the second set of laws, when we so desire what belongs to the other that we
must have it, we often resort to violence of some sort to get that which we
desire for ourselves!
In the Philippian letter
Paul takes up the issue of being a law-abiding citizen in a somewhat different
manner. Whereas, Moses cast the question
of obedience to the law as a sign of one’s relationship to the covenant, Paul
seems to have caught sight of our human tendency to turn what is good upside
down. Instead of being a guide to living
faithfully in covenant with God, it had become a competition. Who can be the best at keeping the law? And if that’s the criteria, Paul seems to
believe that he has few if any peers.
Indeed, “if anyone else has reason to be confident in the flesh, I have
more.” Now, if anyone has ever had a
strong ego, it was Paul. As to whether
he was righteous according to the Law of Israel, he was blameless. He had accomplished what every Pharisee
sought after – to keep the Law in its fullness.
In spite of all of this, he considered this to be all for naught when
compared to the richness of experiencing oneness with Christ and Christ’s
resurrection. Yes, the one whom he had
once resisted, and whose followers he had zealously persecuted, was now the one
to whom he would devote his life.
Anything else was rubbish, not worthy of his attention. And so rather than strive for perfection in
keeping the Law he will now forget what lies behind him and press onward “toward
the goal for the prize of the heavenly call of God in Christ Jesus.” It’s not as if, however, Paul is embracing
anarchy or antinomianism (no law), but rather recognizing that all of our
righteousness is wrapped up in pursuing this heavenly call of God.
The tenants in Jesus’
parable are hardly upstanding citizens.
They agree to tend the vineyard planted by this landowner. One would assume that the tenants had agreed
to an arrangement where they would tend to the vineyard and at the appropriate
time provide the owner with the produce of the land. And so when the time came to bring in the
harvest, the landowner sends representatives (slaves) to collect. The tenants react in a rather inappropriate
way – they beat one, kill another, and stone still another (as to the fate of
this third person, we’re not given full details as to whether he or she
survived). When the landowner sends
another set of representatives the same thing happens. Finally in desperation, assuming that this
lawless group of tenants would at least respect his son, he sends this son to
collect. But for some reason these
tenants get the idea that if they kill the heir they’ll get the land. Now, where they might get such a far-fetched
idea is beyond me. Why would tenants
become the heir if they killed the heir?
But, parables aren’t necessarily meant to make logical sense. Having told the parable, Jesus turns to his
audience, which seems to be composed of priests and Pharisees, and asks them –
what would the landowner do? The answer
is obvious, the landowner will come and kill them and give their leases to
others who will not only agree to the terms, but live up to them. And Jesus seems to nod in agreement, and then
says, have you not read the scriptures that say that the stone the builders
reject will become the cornerstone? So,
here’s the deal – you had access to the kingdom of God, but that access will be
taken from you and given to others. When
they heard this, they realized that they were the target of this statement. They would have arrested him, but they were
afraid of the people who regarded him as a prophet. So, if the religious leaders are the evil
tenants who reject the envoys of the landowner (God), then who are the new
tenants? Could it be the people, the
ones without power, who will now have access to the kingdom?
We needn’t take this in
an anti-Jewish direction so that God rejects the Jews in favor of Gentiles,
though that interpretation has been proffered down through history. But it is a warning to those who would seek
power over others, who would use religion and faith for their own good at the
expense of the other.
So, what does it mean
to be a law-abiding citizen when the rules seem to have changed, when there is
no need to compete in the game of self-righteousness? When the definition of power is different
than the one we’ve been taught?
Ultimately we have to go back to Exodus, where God makes provision for
living in covenant – love God and love neighbor -- that is the way to fulfill
those commandments laid out at the foot of Sinai. It’s not a game or a competition. As both Paul and Jesus seem to suggest, this has something to do with how we live together in the presence of God.
Comments
It is interesting to me that the very commandment that you find to be foundational is the one that I think doesn't belong. (God didn't ask me, but it is my opinion.)
My reason is that this is making it unlawful to have a thought or feeling. We cannot be free if people are trying to control our thoughts and feelings. Besides, how would you enforce such a law.
Of course, good rabbis teach that it is more a matter of personal spirituality than legalism. Still, I vote for an amendment to the 10 Commandments to eliminate covetousness. :-)
In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus does much the same -- he roots behavior in one's inner being. I believe it was David Noel Freedman in the Nine Commandments who makes this point. It is probably the best book I've read on the commandments.
Let me be clear, I'm not serious when I say I'm advocating a change in the 10 commandments. I just want to encourage people to live in freedom from fear. God won't punish you for having a thought or feeling. (I'm not implying that you are teaching this.)