Monte Canfield's Blog: ten commandments

Showing posts with label ten commandments. Show all posts

Wednesday, February 3, 2010

Do not covet, Commandment Ten

Originally published in Open Salon, FEBRUARY 2, 2010 3:13PM

The previous essays in this series can be accessed through the links in the left hand column of this page.

As with the other Commandments please remember that they are intended to apply to practicing Jews and Christians. Those who would apply them to others who have not chosen to follow them abuse the original intention of the Commandments. This essay is written from an orthodox Christian perspective.

We come now to the final essay on the Ten Commandments: You Shall Not Covet. In many ways the 10th Commandment is the most difficult for us to deal with because it obviously concerns what goes on inside of us, what no one but God can see; and therefore we might be tempted to think that we violate it because no one will know when we do. Of course, God will know, but we often think that we can take our chances with that.

The 10th Commandment deals with our attitudes, our motives. The actions that may well follow our coveting, that is, actually taking something belonging to someone else, are also prohibited. But this commandment prohibits the INTENTION to take something of another, to even to WANT that something.

In Hebrew the word for covet, hamad (hay-mad), means "desire" or "lust after." In other words, "You shall not DESIRE, or LUST AFTER a neighbor's things."

While this Commandment specifically deals with our interior thoughts, by now you know that I believe that ALL of the Commandments ultimately come down to our motives, even when, technically, they instruct only against what we DO.

That is simply because most of the things we do, both for good and for evil, are done because of our motives. We do them because we WANT to do them. To argue otherwise is to argue that we simply don't know, or can't control, what we are doing. While that can sometimes be true, usually it is a cop out, a convenient excuse, not a reason.

In a song from West Side Story, "Officer Krupky," the delinquents tell him that they should be released because "we are so misunderstood," but the next line, spoken only to themselves out of Krupky's hearing is, "but deep down inside we're no good!"

We may well blame our failures on the system, our parents, our biology, our environment, and a host of other convenient targets, but Christianity ultimately places the responsibility for our doing of good or evil on us. Jesus clearly tells us that we are responsible for our MOTIVES, our intentions, our desires, our lusts; in other words, we are responsible when we COVET!

Here is the Commandment in full.

17 You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.

Clearly it prohibits coveting things that belong to another, to "your neighbor." And the list here deals with property; that is, coveting the property of your neighbor. Yes, I know that the list says "your neighbor's wife." And, to us, that sounds like some sort of sexual prohibition - which it is, but not for the reason you might think.

Clearly, the "you" here that the Commandment originally addressed was male. But this is not primarily a sexually oriented commandment. The Commandment against adultery is more of a sexual prohibition, but it too was originally seen not primarily a sexual violation but rather as violating someone else's PROPERTY.

There was originally an unmistakable double standard at work here, as in several of the other Commandments as we have seen. In that day and age a "wife" was seen as the property of the husband, just like the house, or slaves, or livestock listed in the commandment. Today I hope that we find the idea of a wife as mere chattel, as a "thing" owned by her husband, to be a thoroughly repugnant idea.

There are places in the Bible where the wife is held in higher esteem, and there are places where she is held to be equal to the husband. Jesus clearly treated men and women, husbands and wives, as equals. But not here. This was a blatantly paternalistic society and wives were property.

But, however wives were thought of in that time, the issue that we need to focus on today is that we are not to covet, to desire, what belongs to someone else. And the reason for that, while not stated here, but which comes out in numerous other places in the Bible, is that, to covet, to envy, to want, to desire what another has, is to be dissatisfied with what God has given to you, thereby showing your lack of faith in God's love and provision for you.

And the envy which coveting generates can, and often does, lead to your doing something - if nothing else to your slandering or bad-mouthing - which will hurt your neighbor. And that is clearly inconsistent with God's command that we love one another.

It doesn't take a very big leap to realize that this Commandment is dealing with the very interior motives that precipitate violation of many of the other commandments, that, in turn, lead to violations of God's faith and trust in almost all walks of life. And that is why this commandment may well be the most violated of them all.

To truly obey this commandment we not only have to avoid certain actions which harm others, but we have to avoid even ATTITUDES and DESIRES which might lead us to harm others, attitudes like envy, greed and lust.

Coveting, by its very nature, is a basic source of social disorder and of trouble in inter-personal relationships. It can easily arouse such massive discontent in a person that it can lead to the personal abuse of others and even to crime.

Our modern affluent society is designed to encourage coveting, and is certainly driven economically by it. We are told now that we are in a recession that the nation will fold if we do not consume more and more; and so the ad mavens encourage us to not let our neighbor get ahead of us in the race for the next bigger and better thing. Of course we were also told that when we were not in a recession. And, we have been taught that the more something costs it simply must be better. And we are encouraged to lust after it until we get it.

Now that I own a 27" TV I can hardly imagine how I got by with the 13" and then the 19" that I had before. But seeing a 56" high definition set at a friend's house I realize how puny my 27" is and how much more realistic my sports shows would be if I only had a set like him.

I have a perfectly fine motorcycle, a 2005 Triumph Bonneville. But you should see the new 2010 Bonnevilles with bigger engines, cast wheels, and electronic fuel injection. Wow! Lots of my friends who ride Triumphs are going into debt for those!

The modern American's appetite for more and better - for AT LEAST keeping up with the neighbor - and preferably BESTING him or her in the acquisition wars - is apparently insatiable. We want what she has! We desire what he has! We lust after what she has. And, more and more, we find that we will do whatever it takes to get it! Even if it means going into enormous debt.

I have no idea what will turn off or at least turn down this faucet of lust, of craving, of coveting. But somehow, if we are to be even remotely true to God, we must learn how to distinguish between desiring what is wholesome and good and beneficial and that which feeds an insatiable hunger for more, much more, than we will ever need.

The danger is, it seems to me, all too clear. In our lemming-like run to the cliff of coveting we run the real risk of coming full circle from violating the Tenth and last Commandment to violating the First.

First and foremost our God tells us that we are to have no other god but Him. Yet when we pursue THINGS with far more passion and fervor than we can even conceive of pursuing a relationship with God, then we have certainly substituted the God of coveting and lust for the God of Israel.

I hope that you have found this exploration of the Ten Commandments to be of real benefit to you in your life. I tried very hard to be as clear as possible in showing you that these are not just abstract theological ideas, but that they can an do apply to us in our everyday lives. Hopefully this series has given you an opportunity to reflect on how they apply to you personally.

I also hope that you will remember that we cannot always obey all of the Commandments. If Christianity teaches nothing else it teaches that humans cannot NOT sin. Christianity also teaches that is why Jesus Christ came to us, to save us from ourselves through faith in him. There is an old saying that "confession is good for the soul." And it is. So is forgiveness.

God bless.

Friday, January 22, 2010

You Shall Not Bear False Witness Against Your Neighbor: Commandment #9

We near the end of our series on the Exodus and the Ten Commandments. The previous essays in this series can be accessed through the links in the left hand column of this page.

As with the other Commandments please remember that they are intended to apply to practicing Jews and Christians. Those who would apply them to others who have not chosen to follow them abuse the original intention of the Commandments.

Today we look at the Ninth Commandment, "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor." In Hebrew, the actual words are blunter. Ed Saqer literally means do not be a "lying witness."

Most modern dynamic translations of the Bible translate the Ninth Commandment simply "You shall not lie," which, I think, is the appropriate thrust of the Commandment for us today, even though that translation likely is broader than the original meaning of the Commandment.

Originally, the Commandment was a prohibition against a very particular kind of lying: lying in court against a fellow Israelite. It was not likely a prohibition against lying in general, although it clearly soon became that for the Israelites, and is still for modern Jews and Christians.

If you read the Old Testament closely you will notice that almost all crimes, even the most trivial ones, were usually punishable by death. Obviously, the people then did not have video cameras and forensic experts or any of the modern devices and methods we take for granted in building a case against a criminal.

Rather, cases against alleged criminals were largely decided upon by the testimony of witnesses. In other words, the foundation of justice was based upon the truthfulness of the accusing citizens.

The Israelites were well aware of the potential for abuse of such a system and built numerous safeguards against lying witnesses into their judicial system. These safeguards are all recorded in the Bible.

Because a lying witness could literally commit murder by lying in a capital case - and remember, almost all cases were capital cases - the witness had to also be the executioner if the accused was found guilty. Death was by stoning, and the accusing witness was the one who was required to "cast the first stone."

This was because, if he were lying, by casting the first stone he would himself be guilty of "blood-guilt" before God, which was considered a most heinous crime against God, not just against a fellow human.

In the same way, no one could be found guilty upon the testimony of one witness alone. And while this no doubt allowed some who were guilty to go free, it also guaranteed that at least two or three witnesses would have to be against the accused for him to be condemned. There were also prohibitions against joining others in a conspiracy of lying witnesses.

And, finally, the punishment for witnesses who were found to be lying was that they would receive the punishment that the accused would have received; in other words, that they themselves would be put to death by stoning. It was no casual thing to perjure oneself in those days!

Yet, while the original Commandment was probably fairly narrowly focused we see elsewhere in the Old Testament that it quickly was expanded to cover many other types of failure to be truthful.

As early as Chapter 23 of Exodus, God prohibits spreading false reports, joining hands with the wicked in malice against another, even in following the majority in wrong doing, and siding with the majority when you know they are lying and trying to pervert justice.

And in Leviticus, telling idle tales (gossip), and bearing false tales told by others (rumor mongering), dealing falsely with others (deception), lying in general, and swearing falsely in the Lord's name (blasphemy) are all prohibited.

Further expansions to cover any and all types of lying are found in Deuteronomy, Joshua and Hosea, including any deceptive, slanderous, idle or empty talk about others. In fact, any talk that would undermine the reputation of others, or cast them in a bad light, including deliberate efforts to deceive as well as casual gossip and rumor mongering that damages the esteem in which another is held was condemned.

And in many parts of the New Testament lying, gossip, slander and malicious talk is condemned as well, including St. James' scathing attack on the loose tongue, which is found in Chapters 3 and 4 of his Letter. Lying, in any form, has long been condemned as loathed by God.

While we naturally tend to focus on the harm done to the individual when we think about the consequences of lying - and that harm can be devastating and irreversible - there is, and always has been, a larger issue at stake here.

And that is that God has designed justice to depend upon the truthfulness of the people of the community. Without truth, justice crumbles; and the society with it.

There is, of course, a positive side to all of this when we choose to commit ourselves to the truth and to enhancing the well-being of others. But it is our choice. God always gives us the right to choose between good and evil.

In his glorious diatribe against the lying, slandering, maligning, deceitful, judgmental tongue, St. James clearly recognizes that it is the same tongue which lies that praises God, with which we bless God, and with which we ask blessings upon our fellow men and women. It is the same tongue that builds up and destroys.

And so, once again, with this Commandment as with all the others, it all comes down to motive. We can, and often do, tell the literal truth about another with the intent of doing them harm. Truth is elusive when there is mischief and deceit in the soul.

And truth itself is not always found in the facts, contrary to what our culture tries to tell us. Will we use factual truth for evil or for good? That is the question that is always presented to us by God.

Let me make up just one example from the hundreds that any of us could come up with to illustrate the point that motivation is the key. God, after all, has told us that he will look beyond the "facts" and see the truth. And we would do well to remember that.

Let's say that you are driving home very late one night, about 2:00 in the morning, in fact, and you see Henry coming out of John and Mary's house. And as you drive on it dawns on you that John is in Chicago all week on business.

And so, the next morning at a weekly coffee and cookies meeting at church, when things are a bit dull, you happen to tell the truth. "You know, I saw Henry coming out of Mary's house last night at 2:00 in the morning."

What have you done? Well, nothing. Right? I mean, all you did is tell the truth. And all present get that profound look on their faces that says, without words, "Well, you know what that means!" And, after the meeting, each goes about her and his business, which is to pass on this little tidbit of "factual information."

Now, as these "facts" get ground finer and finer in the gossip grist-mill a couple of days later someone who was not at the church coffee meeting decides to repeat to you what he has heard - which is, unbeknownst to him, of course, your original story, slightly skewed. He says, "I heard it from a reliable source that Henry and Mary are having an affair behind John's back."

Now, of course, it wouldn't occur to you that this is your rumor coming back to you. Rather, this is confirmation of your suspicion. This explains why Henry was coming out of Mary's house, sneaking out, come to think of it, in the middle of the night.

And you decide right then and there that this is something that the Pastor had better do something about. So, the next morning you go to him and tell him, "Pastor, I just thought that you should know that Henry and Mary are having an affair. Everybody knows it, and I even caught him sneaking out of her house the other morning before dawn."

The Pastor takes your information, thanks you, changes the subject, and finally ushers you out of his office. And you never hear word one from him about it again.

So what are you to do? Well, there is only one thing to do. At the next coffee and cookies meeting you tell everybody, "I found out from a completely reliable source that Henry and Mary are having an affair, which is why I caught him sneaking out of her house the other morning. And, as a good Christian I did my duty and told the Pastor about it. But he refuses to do anything about it. How can a so-called "man of God," when confronted with the facts, ignore this sin going on right under his nose!"

End of story.

What has happened here? Who has been built up? Who has been encouraged? Who has been hurt, maybe irrevocably, by this gossip, by this "innocent" recitation of "the facts?" Who has been given the benefit of the doubt? Who has been Christ-like?

Listen to St. James:

"Do not speak evil against one another, brothers and sisters. Whoever speaks evil against another or judges another, speaks evil against the law and judges the law; but if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge. There is one lawgiver and judge who is able to save and to destroy. So who, then, are you to judge your neighbor?"

Who indeed?

Next: the Tenth and final Commandment: thou shalt not covet.

God bless.

Saturday, January 16, 2010

You Shall Not Steal: Commandment Eight

First published January 13, 2010 8:10PM on Open Salon

We return to our series on the Exodus and the Ten Commandments. The previous essays in this series can be accessed through the links in the left hand column of this page.

As with the other Commandments please remember that they are intended to apply to practicing Jews and Christians. Those who would apply them to others who have not chosen to follow them abuse the original intention of the Commandments.

The Eighth Commandment, "You shall not steal," sounds simple enough. Hopefully, by the end of this essay you will realize that, like the other Commandments, it is not as simple as it sounds.

This Commandment probably originally related to two very different things, only one of which we think of as "stealing." Exodus Chapters 21 and 22, part of the "Covenant Code," which expands upon and applies the Ten Commandments to everyday situations, clearly indicate that this Commandment applies to the unauthorized taking of another's animals and other property. That much we can clearly understand as "stealing."

But it also applies to kidnapping (21:16); that it, "stealing a man," or, more literally in Hebrew, "stealing a soul." Kidnapping someone for slavery was a fairly common practice of the time, (Remember Joseph?) and was punishable by death.

This type of theft was the only kind of "stealing" punishable by death. All other stealing was generally covered by making restitution to the owner, sometimes "overcompensating" the victim up to double the value of the stolen property.

Like the other Commandments, the prohibition against stealing was designed to guard the fellowship of the community, to insure stability of the nation, and to promote peace among neighbors.

Israel understood property as many still do today: as an extension of one's "self." Then, as now, people were often valued by what they had more than by who they were. We are not so unlike them as we might think! Theft of property was seen as a violation of the person, an idea not so foreign to anyone who has been the victim of theft.

In Deuteronomy, at 25:16, the Commandment is extended to all forms of dishonesty, an important point which will become more clear as we continue with this essay.

Theft was viewed as an attack on the integrity of the human being by depriving one of the fruits of one's labor. After all, as we know from Genesis, work is part of God's plan for creation. God intends for people to work, and to receive the fruits of their labor.

And a thief does not respect this intention. Nor does a thief respect the gifts or talents that we use when we work, gifts which are blessings from God. Theft, then, makes a mockery of how God intends us to use creation: through the honest use of our time and our talents, as well as the resources of the planet.

Although I am not a great proponent of a "free market" economy, we should be clear that this is not an argument in favor of any particular form of economic system. Nothing in God's plan forbids communal ownership, as we can see by reading the Acts of the Apostles.

In fact, there the withholding of private property from the common use of the early Church resulted in a husband and wife, Ananias and Sapphira, dying - allegedly at the hands of God. In that story the withholding, the hoarding, of property from the good of the community was a type of "theft" that was described as abhorrent to God.

The question there was to do the will of God and to not test the Spirit's intention for the struggling new Christian community. By withholding valuables that were supposed to be pooled to benefit the entire community, this couple "stole" from the community and paid a very high price, indeed, for their "theft."

And while I do not believe that God would order such deaths, the question for us today is similar, but in many ways it is an even more difficult one. How do we apply this Commandment to our lives?

Most Jews and Christians understand the prohibition against stealing in its most obvious forms. We know not to steal something outright. And we know not to condone those who do. Even if we don't, there are laws that do, and that punish obvious theft. It is not the obvious theft that is the big issue for us today, although there is plenty of that going around.

Rather it is the subtle theft that should concern us. It is the kind of theft that we sometimes try very hard to call anything else but stealing, that we try to justify to ourselves, that should worry us. When we become like Pharisees, using the letter of the law, bending it, to do what we want, yet knowing that it is against God's intention, then we violate the Law just as surely as if we steal outright.

I did an essay not so long ago about how God promised to help us understand the Torah because he said that he would write what we needed to know on our hearts. Right and wrong today are still "Written on our Hearts." We all have a conscience. And we ignore it to our moral detriment.

Take taxes. We may hate to pay taxes. Yet, if we knowingly cheat on our taxes, even though we do not get caught, and we know that the chances of getting caught are slim, and we know that "everyone else" does it, we are still stealing.

Take contributing to the or synagogue or church. We know what God expects from us in giving back in thanksgiving for the gift of life God has given to us. Yet, if we have a plan to give a certain amount, but we chose to spend the money on a new "toy" that we don't need, but we really want, instead of giving our fair share to God, then what do you think God calls that?

What about when we sell something to someone and we know that it is defective, but we don't tell them? Or if someone offers to pay us far more for something we have than we know it is worth? Or if the clerk at Wal-Mart accidentally gives you an extra $20 on a busy day, and there is no way she will remember who she gave it to, or, if she did, how to track you down, what do you do?

What about, when you are at work and your boss goes out of town? Do you take advantage of the fact to slack off and fiddle around instead of doing the job for which you are paid? Do you even think that loafing on the job is a form of theft?

There are thousands more examples of how we, day after day, are confronted with decisions, choices, about whether to do the right thing, or to steal. We don't want to call it that, but that is what it is.

And I am less concerned when we aren't even bright enough to know we are stealing, than when we feel our conscience telling us that we are dead wrong, and we go ahead and rationalize our actions anyway. Just how do we honor God when we do that?

But we need to look even further, beyond the petty - and not so petty - thefts that we engage in through our own spiritual dishonesty to the thefts that we see going on all around us on a world-wide scale and either think nothing of or do nothing about. It is this subtle form of dishonesty that the extension of the Commandment in Deuteronomy seeks to confront.

We need to look at the structures of our corporate life together, locally, nationally and internationally, that we are ready and willing participants in, and ask ourselves just what God must think of them, our participation in them, or our indifference to their existence.

And to do that, we need to look first at American affluence. Now, don't laugh. By any economic standard of wealth as it is distributed in this world, most of us are affluent. And, if you literally are not affluent, if you have fallen victim to the economic crisis, have little or no income, and lost all or most of your valuables, then you can attest personally to how "affluent" the middle class family looks when viewed from the bottom of the economic bucket.

So we must ask ourselves about our attachment to the "things" of this life, about the extravagance of our lifestyles, about the mountains of waste we generate every year. How much food do you think is thrown away every day by the restaurants of this country, by the grocery stores that dare not display anything that is not "perfect"?

How many clothes do you already have in your closets that you seldom wear? Are they so bad that you are compelled to go out and buy more, over and over, as they stack up, hardly worn at all? Do we need, really need, all the things we have? But, worse, do we have to replace perfectly good "things" with other "things" just because they are "new"?

How do we justify how we spend our money in the face of the unbelievably wide-spread hunger and poverty in the world, in this country? I don't think that we can, that I can. I think we, you and I, if we are not out of work, homeless, or just plain broke, are stealing from the mouths of others.

Don't you find it sad that people in the lowest economic strata in the USA give more as a portion of their wealth than those in any other bracket? Is it true that you have to have known poverty to understand poverty? Aren't we smart enough to know how bad it must be to live that way without experiencing it ourselves?

Which brings me to the largest point of all. One that you may not even agree with. But that's all right, because it needs to be said, and we all need to think about it. That is all I ask. Think about it. Don't just react, think. We are going to talk a little theology, to tie together how all this gluttony affects our faith; because I think that God must be shaking His head in dismay at our ostrich-like attitude about the plight of others.

The goods, the resources, of this good earth were put here by God to be shared: by all of the people on it and all of the creatures of it. God created this earth for our use, not our abuse. It, and all the resources of it, are ON LOAN to us.

We may think we "own" it. We may even think that we "own" all the things that we have in our possession; but we don't. God does. God tells us, "The earth is mine." And he means just what he says.

The fact of the matter is that we have done a lousy job in distributing the wealth of the earth, God's wealth. When St. Paul talks about the principalities and powers, the rulers and dominions of this world, he is not talking some abstract theological nonsense.

They exist. And we allow them to exist. And we need to, in Walter Bruggemann's terms, "probe even the subtle forms of 'theft' that rob persons of their future." He points to kinds of "theft" that Jews and Christians too often have turned a blind eye to, things we may not have focused on as "stealing".

First, there is a terrible inequity of "haves" and "have nots" in our society. Babies born into acute poverty are, at the outset of life, denied any realistic chance of "becoming all they can be" or, in secular terms, "living the American dream." Where you are born, and who your parents are, can determine whether or not you have any reasonable chance at living a good life.

Yet those children have every bit as much a God-given right to live Christ's promised "abundant life" as do our own children. Very often those children are robbed of their future, not necessarily by "bad people," but rather by power arrangements and social structures that long ago relegated them to a permanent underclass in our society.

It is true, as Jesus said, that "the poor will always be with us." But do not misinterpret what He said. He was stating a fact; not a preference. As Christians, should we be contributing to the theft of the birthright of millions of children, even if we contribute to that theft only through our indifference?

Second, a major theft began to run rampant in the nineteenth century by the developed nations of the resources of the undeveloped nations. We always called it something else: "colonialism," "the white man's burden," "saving the world for democracy," "manifest destiny."

But whatever we called it then, or call it now, the fact is that the rich nations and companies often stole the resources of Africa, Asia and Latin America while giving them only a fraction of the value of those resources. Nor did they develop the infrastructures in those poor lands to allow the people there to become self-sufficient in the future.

And the sad truth is that the developed nations, seldom through direct action, but through the actions of our unchecked giant banks and corporations, continue this rape of smaller, dependent nations while turning a blind eye to corporate greed, and often aiding and abetting that greed through laws and regulations that encourage such stealing.

And while that is bad enough, current credit arrangements, military alliances, and the weakness of international cooperation keep those same countries in abject poverty even now, over a hundred and fifty years later. Thus the world watches a self-fulfilling prophecy as predictable wave after wave of violence, poverty, hunger, illness and plague sweep through those lands.

And what do we do? We soothe our collective conscience by coming in when it is all but too late, with disaster aid, which is, of course, better than nothing. But the root of the problem is institutional, and we do little or nothing to change those institutions. And so the principalities and powers, rulers and dominions of Paul's day are alive and well in our own.

When the theft is raw and obvious we raise our voices in sincere complaint for a day, a week, a month or a year. And then we move on to the next "interesting issue."

But the theft goes on, long after our sound bite attention span has moved on to yet another thing we can cluck our tongues at and shake our heads, "amazed" at the greed of others. Are we really all that amazed, or are we really not all that interested as long as we are not directly doing the raping of resources ourselves?

In our own nation we sit back and watch, and cluck our tongues as corporate executives rob and rape our greatest companies, executives who pay themselves at rates hundreds of times what they pay their employees.

We watch as government leaders turn their heads with indifference, or cluck their tongues, or blame it on someone else, or appoint yet another commission to investigate the greed of the nation's largest financial institutions, even as we give $700 Billion dollars to them to insure that nothing changes.

We support sports teams owned by arrogant billionaires who argue with spoiled millionaire players over who will get our money, all the while the costs to the fan skyrockets to where an ordinary family cannot afford to attend the games.

We think nothing of the fact that a baseball player can make $5 to 20 thousand dollars for every time at bat; a basketball player $3000 and more for every basket attempted, or a golfer more than a million dollars for winning just one match.

Where am I going with this? Just here. Our values are warped, my friends. And include me when I say "our." My values are warped. We, you and I, know what is right. We know the right things to do.

And if we cheat in our day-to-day lives with all the little thefts that we either commit or ignore, then how can we even begin to look seriously at the really huge thefts going on in the world at large? Aren't they just doing the same thing but on a more massive scale?

We might take a quick glance at the Eighth Commandment and think that it is simple and that obeying it is not all that hard. Well that is wrong headed thinking. It is not simple; applying it to your life is not simple; applying it to the principalities and powers that rule this earth is even harder; and, sometimes, obeying it seems almost impossible.

But what is impossible for man is possible for God. If we cannot stop ourselves from stealing without God's help, then we need to turn to God for the strength to "do the right thing."

If we cannot look at the structures of evil which distribute the wealth of this world so unevenly that vast numbers of people have no chance at the "abundant life," then we need to turn to God for the strength to look at the reality of the stealing of the life blood of others that we allow. And we need to do it now.

God bless.

Tuesday, January 5, 2010

Commandment Seven: You Shall Not Commit Adultery

Now that the holidays are behind us we can return to the completion of our series on the Exodus and the Ten Commandments. The previous essays in this series can be accessed through the links in the left hand column of this page.

As with the other Commandments please remember that they are intended to apply to practicing Jews and Christians. Those who would apply them to others who have not chosen to follow them abuse the original intention of the Commandments.

The Seventh Commandment is another terse statement of prohibition:
(Exo 20:14 NRSV) You shall not commit adultery. It is concerned with the physical act of adultery.

The first things I would like you to understand about this Commandment is that it is more narrowly conceived than most moderns realize. And it is difficult for us to understand its original meaning because the rules of the society then were so utterly different than our rules.

Likewise, we need to resist the temptation to read back into the original Commandment our understanding of what it means. To do so is to indulge ourselves in anachronistic thinking that perverts the original meaning.

There are responsible modern interpretations of the Commandment which we will discuss, and they are far different than the ancient interpretations. We must rigorously, however, not confuse the two.

First, let us look at the original application of the Commandment in ancient Israel.

One thing we need to understand before we can intelligently discuss this Commandment is that it was designed primarily to protect the stability of the family, the community and the nation. Issues of marital disloyalty struck at the very fabric of Israelite society.

Maintaining the family as the core of social order was considered so vital to the nation that adultery was punishable by death in the Covenant Code which applied the Commandments to the ancient Israelite society.

Adultery, as described in the Bible, applies to both men and women. It applies only to married persons, and to those who are betrothed to be married.

There is, however, a distinct "double standard" expressed in how this commandment was interpreted, since married men could commit adultery only with married women, while a married woman was said to have committed adultery if she had sex with any man.

Consensual adult sexual activity between unmarried persons was not expressly prohibited in those times, although many specific sexual acts are prohibited in later elaborations and applications of Torah.

For instance, the entire 18th chapter of Leviticus deals with prohibitions against several specific forms of incest, and includes many other sexual prohibitions, such as having sex during a woman's menstruation period, having intercourse with a relative's wife, homosexual sex between men, and sex with animals.

Men, however, are nowhere forbidden to have sex with prostitutes, and, consensual sex between a man, married or not, and an unmarried woman who was not a prostitute was not prohibited, provided the man then married that woman. Remember, a man then could have many wives.

If there was sexual intercourse between a man and an unmarried woman, whether or not the man was married, he was expected to marry the woman, but he was not punished for having sex with her before marriage.

In fact, it is clear that even the rape of a woman by a man was not specifically condemned, although it was frowned upon. But it was not condemned, provided the man married the women he raped.

The Bible story of the rape of Tamar is a story of the frustration of a raped girl and the revenge she and her brother took for the rape, when the King David, the girl's own father, did nothing about it.

The story tells of David's oldest son, Amnon, who raped his half-sister, Tamar, who begged him to marry her to take away the stigma. [There was no law against the marriage of siblings at that time.] But Amnon drove Tamar away, and while David felt disgraced and was saddened upon learning of the rape, he did nothing. Tamar then went to her full brother, Absalom, who had Amnon killed.

Clearly the biblical redactors saw this act of revenge as a form of justice or the story would not have survived in the Bible.

In a similar way, the Seventh Commandment was not a prohibition against polygamy, that is, a man having multiple wives, which was common practice in Old Testament times. Interestingly, polyandry, a woman having multiple husbands, was prohibited. This is simply a further example of the rampant double standard in those times.

Such ideas regarding the status and treatment of women are, of course, totally foreign to us; and they should be repugnant to thinking men and women today.

This double standard stemmed from the patriarchal nature of the society then. And while our society still has a long way to go in recognizing and enforcing equal rights for women, it has come a long way from the patriarchal society of ancient Israel.

Women had almost no rights in those times. Wives were considered the property of their husbands. They were chattel. If a woman were raped, for example, it was considered a big deal only because the rapist "used" another man's property without proper payment! But, if the rapist married the woman and paid an appropriate sum to the father of the woman, then the offended "owner" was compensated for his loss. The violation of the woman's very being was not an issue. That should be appalling to our ears today.

Let us now look at modern interpretations of the Commandment.

From this point in this essay the discussion focuses on modern Christian interpretation of the Commandment.

[It would be helpful if a Jewish reader of this series would, in comments here or in a separate post, give a brief explanation of modern Jewish interpretation of the Commandment.]

Modern Christian interpretation is based upon statements made by the founder of the Christian faith, Jesus of Nazareth.

I invite us now to focus on the very sharp contrast between the Seventh Commandment as interpreted in ancient Israel and Jesus' interpretation of it. Jesus says, (Mat 5:27-28, NRSV) "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

Jesus is not saying that the prohibition against adultery is not applicable. It is. Jesus is against physical adultery. But Jesus is also saying that our understanding of adultery as simply a physical act is too narrow.

In its most obvious form, adultery is a physical act. But Jesus raises the stakes for all Christians smug enough to look down on those who have succumbed to physical adultery, by telling us that lusting after a woman is also committing adultery.

The only difference between President Jimmy Carter's admission of looking at a woman other than his wife with lust in his heart and the vast majority of men in this world is that he admitted it. And he knew it was a sin. Carter knew he had sinned and wanted to use his sin as an example of what other men also do but never admit they do it.

It never occurs to most Christian men that they are, in fact, sinning by lusting after women who are not their wives. Rather most would deny it to be a sin at all, saying that "it is only natural" and that "all men do it." The fact that neither of those excuses address an issue that Jesus clearly says is a sin does not cross their minds.

But Jesus has raised the bar. Just as he included angry thoughts in the prohibition against murder, so too here he includes lust filled thoughts in the prohibition against adultery. He tells us that what goes on in our hearts and minds is every bit as important as what we actually do.

Jesus here, as in all of his teachings, is interested in our motives, our inner-most intentions, our thoughts, our desires - many of which we shamefully hide from the rest of the world. But we do not hide those things from him. An ancient prayer describes God as the one "from whom no secrets are hid." Well, the Christ, Jesus, is the one from whom no secrets are hid.

Knowing this, it seems to me that Christians need to take a step back from the false pride in which we so often indulge. Such pride only layers one sin upon another. It comes from thinking that we are righteous because we do not actually do things which are clearly against God's commands.

Worse, it can come from thinking that we have gotten away with cheating because nobody has caught us in the act. Pride like that is a terrible sin. When we think that we are better than those who have been caught, or those who have recognized and confessed their sin, we fool only ourselves. We do not fool God.

Our faith teaches us that those who have sinned, be it adultery or some other sin, and have recognized that sin and sincerely confessed it, intending not to commit such a sin again, are far better in God's eyes than are those who sin, either in their hearts or by their actions, and have no intention of ever admitting that sin. God considers those who have confessed their sin to God, and have asked for forgiveness, to be righteous.

Yes, Jesus condemns physical adultery; but he has chosen to use the prohibition against adultery to call us to a higher standard which includes examining our own lusts and desires.

And he has introduced compassion for sinners along with self examination into the equation when addressing the sin of adultery.

When the people wanted to stone the woman who was found in adultery,to kill her, he did not condone her sin. Nor did he condemn her. His focus was not on her sin; rather, it was on those who would kill her: "Let the one who is without sin cast the first stone," was his response to what they proposed to do.

He knew their hearts, and He knew that none was without sin. He also knew that there is no hierarchy of sins. Sin is sin. And yet we so often consider our own sin small and another's sin large. But Jesus did not say "those who are without the sin of adultery." He said "those who are without sin," for he knew that all sin makes us unrighteous in the eyes of God.

In summary, while it is not valid to take anachronistically the interpretation of ancient Israel of the Seventh Commandment and apply that to our own lives, there are some things that we do know about applying it to modern practicing Christians.

Adultery is still a sin and when we commit it we violate God's law. But Christians also believe that through the love of God in Christ, we can take our sins to him and that he has covered those sins with his love. We can be forgiven.

By the same token, however, Christians are not given license to go right on sinning and confessing, sinning and confessing, over and over again. Confession is not a game. Jesus knows our hearts and our true intentions, and when we abuse the grace of forgiveness he knows it. He knows when we are walking in darkness, away from the light of God.

And we have learned that Jesus has raised the bar, changing the meaning of adultery from simply a physical act to a sin of the heart as well.

Whatever loopholes we might think there were before, since Jesus there are no loopholes for Christians. And because Jesus looks at the habits of the heart, he knows that none of us is without sin, be it adultery or pride or a host of other sinful intentions.

We are human and the truth is that, try as we may, we simply cannot not sin. But the good news is clear as well. God, through Jesus, has provided an answer to our sin. We can never be wholly righteous, but Christ is. And through his righteousness, when we confess our sins, seek forgiveness and mend our ways, we are made right with God.

If you are a Christian, your task is to constantly monitor not only your personal behavior but also your thoughts and intentions, doing your best to conform them to the instructions of God. And, when you do not, your task is to turn in confession and repentance to the one who can and will cover your sin with his love.

God bless.

Saturday, December 12, 2009

"Thou Shalt Not Kill"

DECEMBER 11, 2009 3:02PM

The previous essays in this series can be accessed through the links in the left hand column of this post.

This essay covers the Sixth Commandment, "Thou Shalt Not Kill," one of the most difficult of the Ten to apply in modern day life. Please remember that, while many try to apply the Commandments to all members of society, they, in fact, apply only to practicing Jews and Christians. Much of the angry debate in the US about the Commandments originates in making the erroneous attempt to apply them to all people.

Please understand also that what I am writing about here is first a discussion of the meaning of the Sixth Commandment in the context of its original meaning for those who first heard it, then, second, in the context of today's world, and finally, third, some personal opinions used as examples of the application of this Commandment. Please do not confuse my analysis of the meaning of the commandment with my personal thoughts on it.

I need to warn you that if you are looking for simple, clear cut, answers about applying the Sixth Commandment in your lives, you aren't going to get them here. They don't exist. But, if you read carefully, you will get some sound guidance on what the Sixth Commandment is really about, and how you can use that knowledge to help you come to your own conclusions about using this Commandment in your life.

The first thing about the Sixth Commandment that you might notice is that I titled this essay, "Thou shalt not kill," which is how it is translated in the King James Version of the Bible. But most modern translations, translate the Hebrew as "You shall not murder." There is a big difference in most people's eyes between "killing" and "murder".

In our culture, killing is often justified. That is we, not necessarily God, often justify killing. But, by definition, "murder" is never justified. Murder is unjustified killing. So the modern translations would seem to take some of the confusion out of the Commandment by changing "Do not kill" to "Do not murder."

The trouble is, however, that it is not clear that the modern translations are correct. The Sixth Commandment in the Hebrew Bible is only two words. The first word translates "No" and the second word translates "killing." "No killing." That's it. That's the whole commandment: "No killing!"

Therefore, it is not clear that God only means "Do not murder." Nor do the more detailed clarifications of the Commandments in so called Covenant Codes found in Exodus Chapters 21 through 24 help much. If you recall those Codes were written to apply the Commandments to the Israelite nation.

In Chapter 21, verses 12-14, there is a distinction between "planned", or "premeditated" killing and "unplanned," or accidental killing. There God is seen as less strict with unplanned killing, saying He will provide a refuge to which the killer can flee. However, the premeditated killer is to be "put to death."

This brings us to a second point, which can be confusing. Having clearly told us not to kill, over and over again in the Old Testament as handed down, edited and redacted from oral stories, God often instructs us to kill. In Chapter 21 we are told that we are to put to death a premeditated killer, and, a couple of verses later, we are told to "put to death" anyone who strikes or even curses his mother or father! The word in Hebrew for "put to death" is a different word in Hebrew than the word for "kill," so obviously the author believed that God intended a distinction.

The distinction is this. The Old Testament says that, at his instruction, we may "put to death" someone, because we are acting for God. And there is another side to that coin. The best example of that is in First Samuel where God deals harshly with King Saul, stripping him of his kingdom, because he did not put all of the Amalkites: men, women and children, and their animals, to death.

Saul was well meaning, showing mercy to the Amalkite king and saving the best animals for a sacrifice to God. But, in the story, God would have nothing of Saul's argument. God had instructed him to kill every living person and their livestock, and when Saul did not, Saul was stripped of his crown! So the conclusion we get from the story is that we may kill if we are acting for God; and if we are told to kill by God we may not chose not to kill! That is how that Commandment was interpreted in ancient Israel.

So, it seems obvious that, if our only source of moral guidance is what the Old Testament tells us God did in the ancient world of the Israelites, God can tell us to kill, and when he does, we are justified in doing it. In fact, some of the most vile, vicious and disgusting acts recorded in the Bible are said to be done so at God's explicit direction. Massive slaughters of men, women, children, of "every living thing" are often ordered by God in the Old Testament.

Just so you'll know where I personally stand on this idea, let me say this. The God I worship would not issue such instructions; so I have never understood it; and if you ask me on my death bed, I still won't understand it. The God described in these stories is a God utterly different than the God that Jesus describes as his Heavenly Father. I seriously doubt that God issued such instructions which were written,redacted,edited and translated to what we read today. I do not accept those kinds of instructions as applicable today. But that is my belief and need not necessarily be yours.

But regardless of how I feel about those gruesome Biblical descriptions of God's orders, it does highlight the most important point about this Commandment. However you translate the Commandment: as "You shall not murder," or "Thou shalt not kill," the fact is that the Commandment is telling us that the only one who has the right to kill is God. God can kill. We cannot, unless we are acting for God, in God's interests, not ours.

That is a key to understanding the Sixth Commandment. The Sixth Commandment is designed to make clear that all life belongs to God who is the Creator of it.

In Genesis 4:10 God is appalled that Cain killed Abel. "And the Lord said, 'What have you done? Listen! Your brother's blood is crying out to me from the ground! And now you are cursed...!'"

And in Genesis 9:5-6 God tells Noah: "For your own lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning: from every animal I will require it and from human beings, each one for the blood of another, I will require a reckoning for human life. 6 Whoever sheds the blood of a human, by a human shall that person's blood be shed; for in his own image God made humankind."

The Bible is clear about one key theological issue. God gives life and God can take it away. But nowhere does it say that man can take life unless he does so when acting for God. Now I know that it doesn't often work the way God intends, but humans are never to kill on their own authority. They are to kill only as agents of God. If you understand that you are a long way toward understanding the Sixth Commandment.

So, we understand now that the Old Testament teaches that God says that there are legitimate and illegitimate killings. Any killing that God allows is legitimate and therefore justified, in spite of the Sixth Commandment. But any killing that God disallows is covered by the Sixth Commandment and is prohibited. And, ironically, the penalty for violation of the Sixth Commandment is to be "put to death."

I know that this is not easy to understand. And you may have to read the last two paragraphs slowly and carefully a few times to be straight on it. Even when you understand the principle enunciated here, it is not clear as to exactly how it is to be applied. Nor is it clear when to apply it and to whom.

So lets just jump into some hot water together here and see if we can swim out of it or if we will just get boiled. Lets get more specific as to its application in real life today. The Sixth Commandment is both cited and ignored by both sides, depending on where the side wants to come out, in discussions of many major social issues facing this nation.

Think about it. Abortion, war, including the preemptive strikes against Iraq and Afghanistan and the continued US presence in both countries, capital punishment, suicide, euthanasia, self-defense, stem cell research, and many other issues in this country all can be discussed in view of the Sixth Commandment. Is abortion killing? Is it murder? Is it ever justified? Capital punishment is killing. Is it, as many claim, only state sponsored murder? Or is it justified because the government is acting on behalf of God? Is war justified? If so, when? In war who can you kill? Does it matter how they are killed? These are but a few of the questions that people have related to the injunction of the Sixth Commandment.

On every one of these terribly difficult and emotionally laden issues someone is citing the Sixth Commandment as the answer. For example, the same people who are against capital punishment cite the Sixth Commandment as prohibiting capitol punishment, but ignore it when marching in "pro-choice" rallies.

And citing the Sixth Commandment in arguments about such things is somehow "acceptable" to many Christians even though the Commandment only applies to practicing believers! The simple implication of that, of course, is that they think that the Commandments either do apply to all people, when they clearly do not, or that they "should" apply to all people, even though that was never God's intention.

Now we are not going to resolve these debates here. In fact, none of them will ever be resolved to everyone's satisfaction. But believing Jews and Christians are arguing on shaky ground every time we ignore the Sixth Commandment unless we have logical proof that our actions supporting killing are, in fact, instructed by, or allowed by, God. And God has given us little guidance to know when that is the case.

Let me give you two examples. I will share with you my personal positions on these issues. Please do not focus on my positions, that is not the point here; but focus on how the Sixth Commandment comes into play. I will not argue with anyone about whether I am right or wrong. And I may change my mind later anyway. Just try to see how the Sixth Commandment comes into my thinking process as an example of how it does influence me in my own decisions.

Example number one. It is clear to me that the Old Testament, in spite of the Sixth Commandment allows capital punishment; and in many cases, instructs it. However, I do not support capital punishment. I base my position not on the Sixth Commandment, but on Jesus' words and actions.

For Christians, Jesus' words and actions supercede conflicting information in the Old Testament. And, for example, Jesus interfered with the stoning to death of the woman caught in adultery, which was a mode of capital punishment in that day. He said that whoever was without sin should cast the first stone. Since I am not without sin, I will not cast the first stone.

Others argue that the Bible not only allows, but instructs, capital punishment. And that is also true. But that instruction was to the ancient Israelites and I do not think that it is applicable to us today, in the light of the teachings of Jesus.

And I doubt seriously that those same people who support capital punishment would choose to apply capital punishment to someone who curses his or her parents, or would apply it to many of the other offenses listed in the Old Testament as punishable by death, many of which we would consider trivial, and often bizarre, today.

Example number two. In the same vein, because I believe that a fetus is a living human being, I oppose abortion in most cases. Notice I said "most cases," because I have known cases where the mother would die if she tried to carry the fetus to term, and the fetus had to be taken to save the mother. Some would chose otherwise and let the mother die.

In the case of abortion I use the Sixth Commandment to help guide me to my overall position on the issue. But, interestingly, I am also what is called "Pro Choice." While I am against abortion in most situations, I also strongly believe that the government should keep out of that decision. I believe that is a decision to be made by the woman, hopefully in consultation with her family and doctors. But in no way do I think that my religious belief should be enforced by the government.

The point of giving you these two examples is not for you to judge whether my positions on them are right or wrong. The point is to show that that these are not easy questions, and sincere people can come down differently on them. And, in spite of what the zealots on both sides of most of difficult issues involving life and death say, there are no easy answers.

So I hope we have learned that the Sixth Commandment does not provide anything like detailed guidance which would allow believers to say "yes" or "no" in specific cases. And God did not intend it to. He intends us to wrestle with difficult issues, all the while being aware of the great principle behind the Sixth Commandment: That all life belongs to God.

In sum, the Six Commandment states a non-negotiable principal: people should not kill. Killing is God's prerogative. Believers should not casually support killing just because we want to, or because it is easy, or because it offers a way of revenge, or even because we think it is right to do so.

When believers do kill or support killing, they had best be sure that they are doing it consistent with the reverence for life that God has, and with the knowledge that only God gives life and can take it away.

I believe that it is incumbent upon practicing Jews and Christians to act in these matters with utmost caution, and with genuine humility. We are not God, and it can be a terrible thing if we delude ourselves into thinking that we have God's authority when we do not.

God bless.

Next: You Shall Not Commit Adultery.

Thursday, December 3, 2009

Honor Your Father and Your Mother

Commandment Five

As we move toward the end of our series on Exodus and the Decalogue, we now look at the first of the Commandments which relate to our relationship with others.

The Fifth Commandment, which is verse 12 of Chapter 20, reads: Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be long in the land that the LORD your God is giving you.

You will have noticed by now that, as much as we might wish that the Ten Commandments were a "recipe book for moral living," the truth is that they are all necessarily subject to interpretation. This is especially true of the commandments concerning how we relate to others. In other words, they do not provide the clear-cut guidance that so many people think that they do.

Much of what I write about the remaining commandments will be interpretation. But, while the Commandments do require interpretation, they are not just random thoughts on how we should live. They are instruction, teaching, as to how God wants believers in him to live. That much is clear.

But what is not so clear is just how we are to obey these instructions. The how of obeying the Commandments is a matter for continuous reflection by the community of faith. It is never to be only the opinion of one self-righteous individual, out to set the world straight according to his or her own preferences. And that goes for theologians, priests, pastors and church leaders.

The first thing you need to know about the Fifth Commandment, Honor your father and your mother, is that it is not primarily about how minor children are to relate to their parents.

I remember statements from my Mother like, "As long as you live under this roof, you are going to do what I say, young man! Remember, the Bible says you are to obey me!" But, "honor" does not necessarily mean "obey." That was a convenient "interpretation" by my mother and by many parents. And it was mostly wrong. Minor children are supposed to "honor" their parents, but that obedience is only a tiny part of the Commandment.

When you are young, obedience is certainly one way to honor your parents. And a disobedient child does not honor his parents. But, nowhere does it say that the Commandment, or the Bible for that matter, is to be used as a club to beat kids into obedience.

This provides us with a good example of having to interpret the meaning of the text. "Honor" in Hebrew means a whole lot of things, and obedience is way down the list when translating the word into English.

Other English words and phrases capture the idea better, for example: respect, esteem, appreciate, be considerate toward, have regard for, have concern for, show affection to. All of these words and phrases capture the flavor of "honor" better than "obey." And there is one more English phrase that captures the essence of the Hebrew word most often translated as "honor." That phrase is "give weight to."

The Hebrew word for "honor" is "kabed" and literally means "to be heavy," or "to give weight to." That is, we are to give weight to our fathers and mothers and their ideas. That is not the same as saying that we are to be subservient to them, obeying their every whim. But it does mean that we are to take them seriously, and to treat them and their ideas with appropriate seriousness and respect.

Thus this Commandment clearly deals with the age old struggle between generations. On the one hand the older generation wants to cling to "the way we were," and their response to almost everything can often be, "No. We've never done it that way before!" On the other hand, the younger generation often says, essentially, that "Nothing important ever happened on earth until I got here!" And, "Frankly, Dad, you just don't get it."

But the assumption of this Commandment is that what our parents have to say does mean something, and, that our parents do "get it." The Bible is here teaching us the not so popular idea that our parents, by virtue of knowledge and wisdom they have gained through the years have acquired a certain "practical wisdom" that is actually valuable to us.

In the original setting of this commandment, it was assumed that parents know things about God, and how to relate to God that children do not. We'll come back in a little while to just how realistic that assumption is in today's world. But first we should look at why this was so vitally important at the time the Commandments were given.

To the Israelites this loyalty of a new generation to the world view of the last generation was a key to survival as a nation. It was emphasized over and over to the Israelites that they were to remember what God has done for them, to write it on their foreheads, and on their door posts, and to pass on that remembrance to their children, and to their children's children!

Accepting that instruction is precisely how Israelite children, both minor and adult children, were to "honor" their fathers and their mothers, In turn, they were to pass on that word of God to their children in an unbroken line of succession within the faith community.

By respecting, by giving weight to, by taking seriously, the religious teachings of the parents, Israelite children inherited the blessing, the instruction (Torah), and the promises of God. This is precisely why the Fifth Commandment does not stop with "Honor your father and your mother," but goes on to explain "so that your days may be long in the land that the LORD your God is giving you."

Only by honoring the teachings of the parents, and by honoring the parents themselves, could the next generation inherit the land and prosper in it. The phrase "so that your days may be long in the land that the LORD your God is giving you," was seen as less of a "carrot" to get the children to honor their parents, and more of a statement of fact.

That is, if they honored their parents then this would, in fact, happen. Why? Because, by honoring them, and by listening to and living by the religious precepts they teach the Israelites would be living according to God's will.

The irony of that original setting when the Commandment was handed down is that it was the generation of the original Israelites who decided not to cross the Jordan into the Promised Land, and thus God commanded the Israelites to wander in the desert until that generation was dead and a new generation would then have the courage to enter the Promised Land.

But while the first generation did not have the courage to cross over the Jordan that generation did teach their children the Shema and the Commandments so that the second generation knew what was at stake when they did cross over.

One final thing before we talk about how realistic all of this is in the modern day. The second phrase of this Commandment, "so that your days may be long in the land that the LORD your God is giving you," was not written to apply to individuals.

That is, one individual could not honor his parents and then assume that he, personally, would live a good and long life in the Promised Land even if no other Israelite did. The "you" here means "you all." "All of you Israelites, are to honor your mothers and fathers. And if you do, good things will happen to you all."

I point this out only because we have a very strong tendency in this country to see the Commandments as having to do only with individual morality, when they, in reality, are much more concerned with how the entire faith community behaves. In this case, the commandment is concerned that all of Israel inherit the Promised Land!

So, having discussed the meaning of "honor" and the application of the Commandment to the original generation of Israelites, the question remains: "How does it apply today?"

Let's start by admitting the obvious. Many of us Jewish and Christian believers are going to run into all sorts of problems trying to live by it. Lots of people have truly terrible parents; or have one really good parent and another parent who is just pond scum! We read in the paper every day about dead-beat dads, child abuse, molestation, and neglect. We read about drunken or stoned mothers, some carrying babies while on crack or heroin.

And, even if you have parents that are quite fine, if you were born in the last 25 years, the fact is that many parents have absolutely no clue about religion or the moral values that stem from religious teaching.

In fact, most of those parents will be unchurched. If you doubt that consider that most of the members of a typical Protestant congregation don't go to worship, or, if they do, they may go on Christmas and Easter. I'm talking about church members. And in this country most people today don't go to church at all.

For those who are not practicing believers the Commandments do not apply to them unless they accept them as something they intend to practice.

But they do apply to practicing Jews and Christians. So, for example, just how is a Christian child, minor or adult, supposed to receive religious blessings and instruction from parents who purport to be Christian but in reality are nowhere close to practicing the faith? The truth is that many will not. And it is also true for Jewish children of non-practicing parents.

But if a Jewish or Christian child, minor or adult, receives religious instruction via the Church or Synagogue then they should understand the Commandments and seek to apply them in their own lives, with or without practicing parents.

And now we come to a difficult, unpopular topic which all believers, Jewish and Christian, should view through the lens of our faith. We must understand that all issues have at least two sides. And on the other side of the parenting coin is the fact that parents are not the only people in a family who can be ignorant, willful, inconsiderate, selfish, prideful, and mean.

Let me start this discussion looking at a common problem between parents and adult children. What do we do with our parents when they get too old and frail to care for themselves?

I have a lot of personal experience with that question and some of the not so charitable truth about how it is often handled by children. It was particularly hard for me as a pastor to visit parents of adult children in nursing homes and to know that I saw those parents far more often than did their children. In fact, many children never once visited their parent in a nursing home.

Many was the time when I sat vigil with nursing homes with parents as they waited to go to their Lord and I was the only person who did so. That is a sad commentary on too many children whose parents were, in fact, practicing Christians.

One of the reasons a Pastor should always visit with nursing home residents and at-home shut-ins is so that s/he can be aware of the level and consistency of care by the family, and follow up with the children when they neglect their parents. One would think that there would be good reasons for the lack of visitations but I seldom heard any. Some lived far away from the parent and it was understandable that they could not visit frequently. Others had no such an excuse.

Part of the original purpose of the Fifth Commandment was to ensure that the children not kick out the parents when they became too old to work, and were therefore a "burden" on the children.

Today most of us would not "kick out" our parents in that way. But many of us do remove them from our immediate care. When the burden becomes too great, when we literally can't provide the care, and, sometimes when we just don't want to provide the care, mom or dad ends up in a nursing home.

I understand that sometimes that is actually best for everyone. As much as we don't like to admit it, too much of the elder abuse that is reported in the United States comes not from dead-beat children who won't try to take care of mom or dad, but from good children who snap after trying to do too much for too long. It starts with yelling, escalates to slapping and worse. And we are talking about people who would never think that they would do such a thing to an older person, let alone to their own parent.

It should be clear that this issue of elder care is not a simple issue, A simple recital of the Fifth Commandment provides little guidance beyond that the burden of proof falls upon those who decide not to be available to their aged parents.

There is no "one size fits all" solution to these problems. There are no good, clean, "easy" answers. At times there is no real choice but a nursing home if we cannot adequately provide for our parents. But that should never be an excuse to place a parent in a nursing home, walk away and never come back.

We deal with our elderly parents today far differently than when I was growing up. Nursing homes were not really an option then. And families took care of aged parents at home. But with Medicaid and Medicare those options are now available to most of us. And the government sets standards of care that shift some of the obligation of "honoring" our parents to the nursing homes.

But we would do well to ask ourselves if our parents are truly being "honored" by the elder care system to which we have entrusted them, and by our involvement with our parents who are in such care. I can't see how we are going to know how our parents who are in institutionalized settings are doing unless we stay actively involved in their lives.

Next: "Thou shall not kill?" What can that possibly mean? How can it possibly be applied?

Wednesday, October 28, 2009

The Mosaic Covenant: Its Origin and Conditions

This is the 6th of a series of essays that cover the origin of the Israelite nation and conclude with a discussion of the Ten Commandments. Links to the prior essays can be found in the left hand column of this post under Blog Archives.

We are ready to understand God's Covenant with Moses and the people that will lay the foundation of the Decalogue, the Ten Commandments. Without this Covenant there would be no Chosen People. There would be no Israelite nation. There would be no Ten Commandments. It all comes down to this event that we are going to discuss now.

Camped at the foot of Mt. Sinai, the Israelites wait as Moses goes up the mountain to God, who proposes to change the very nature of his relationship with the Israelites. God does this in two carefully distinct stages. First God tells Moses, "Thus you shall say to the house of Jacob, and tell the Israelites: You have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles' wings and brought you to myself."

Notice how God recites what He has done as the basis of everything that is to follow: how He saved them from the Egyptians, and "bore them on eagles' wings," protecting them, watching over them, as an eagle watches over its young.

This image, of God raising us up as on eagles' wings, has become one of the most beloved and treasured symbols of faith. Moses, in his farewell speech at the end of Deuteronomy, elaborates on God's theme, when, speaking of "Jacob", another name for the Israelites, Moses said to the Israelites, "He shielded him [meaning Jacob, the Israelites], cared for him, guarded him as the apple of His eye. As an eagle stirs up its nest, and hovers over its young; as it spreads its wings, takes them up, and bears them aloft on its pinions, the Lord alone guided him, no foreign god was with him."

And, most importantly, God tells Moses to tell the people that God alone, "brought you to myself." Here we get, for the first time, a glimpse of God's plan, of His overall intention: to bring this chosen people to Himself.

The flight from Egypt and all the hardship that they endured, all the times God intervened on their behalf, the miracles God performed to keep them alive, all this was not simply so that they might be free from bondage, or to bring them to the Holy Mountain, or even to have a better land to live in. Actually, the Promised Land will prove to be nothing like as fertile and productive as Egypt, which has the Nile river.

But the destination of the Israelites turns out not to be a place at all: the destination turns out to be God. "I brought them to me." All that God has done for them, He did that they might become his own beloved people.

We must understand that this grace, this deliverance, precedes any idea of establishing the Torah. God intends that the Israelites clearly understand what He has done for them before He makes any demands on them. And He will make demands upon them only if they understand and appreciate the enormity of God's love for, and commitment to, them. This point is critical in understanding the origin of and the intent of the Ten Commandments.

God has a plan; but it will be revealed to them only in stages, because that plan will succeed only with their cooperation. They must willingly understand all that God has done, and be grateful for it. And they must trust Him to provide in the future, as he has in the past.

This relationship is not to be founded on some theological abstraction. This relationship is to be based on God's deeds in the past and God's promises for the future. God has saved them for himself. They should now know that unequivocally. And Moses is to tell them. But the larger question remains, "Having saved them, what will God do with them?"

The answer is that God proposes to enter into a covenant with them. "Now therefore, if you obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession out of all the peoples. Indeed, the whole earth is mine, but you shall be for me a priestly kingdom and a holy nation."

There are several critical things that we need to understand about this invitation to covenant.

First, it comes only after God's grace, God's gift of deliverance.

Second, it is conditional. "If" you do this, "then" you shall be.... God's love for them is not conditional. But their particular, chosen, relationship to him is. He loves them, that is clear. After all, He wishes them to be his " treasured possession out of all the peoples". Yet God also makes it clear that this special, covenantal relationship is conditional: While all the earth is his, and all the people in it, the Israelites alone shall have this special relationship with God -- If.

Third, "obeying God's voice" comes before keeping the covenant; and before the Torah. Already, in the desert, God has tested the Israelites to see if they would obey him. Some did. Some did not. But the point is not whether the Israelites obeyed or failed, but that to obey the voice of God entails something more than simply obeying the Torah that will be given to them shortly. To obey the voice of God requires more than simply abiding by the rules.

To obey God's voice is an act of the heart. It starts with our intentions to listen for and be alert to what God is saying to us, and to act accordingly. To obey in love, and with love toward others, is an even greater obligation than keeping the Law. Remember, first, God says, "obey my voice." Only then, second, does God say, "and keep my covenant."

If they do this God tells Moses that the Israelites "shall be for me a priestly kingdom and a holy nation." Now we are not going to go into great detail about what that means in this essay. For now, just remember that to be a "priestly" nation is to be one who mediates between God and others. Because the earth, all of it, is God's, Israel's role will be that of mediator, intercessor, between the rest of the world and God. It is to function in the world as a priest would function in a religious community.

More importantly, it is to be "a holy nation," that is, one which embodies God's own purposes in the world. To be "holy" is to be set apart for God's purposes. Israel is to reflect God's light to the world; to set an example, to show the world what it is like to live the good life under God. All this goes back to the original covenant with Abraham some 400 years prior, where God told Abram, "...In you all the nations of the world shall be blessed."

We are ready for the big question: "How will Israel respond?" Knowing the story to date, and being aware of what will happen in the future, one should be surprised to know that, after Moses reported all this to the people, the Bible tells us, simply, "The people all answered as one: 'Everything that the LORD has spoken we will do.'"

What is amazing about this response is that it is totally uncharacteristic of what has preceded this encounter. Up to now they had whined and complained and tried to get around God's tests in the desert. They have hardly been ideal candidates for holiness!

And we already know that the rest of the Hebrew Bible is as much the story of their disobedience as it is of their obedience. And we will learn soon enough that their disobedience starts up again immediately! We also know that their disobedience results in them wandering in the desert for forty years rather than two.

But now, at this critical juncture in the history of the world, they say "Yes!" And, with that "yes" everything changes. Nothing will be the same from this time forward.

Let us not be hard on the Israelites for their disobedience. After all, we all know something about "good intentions," don't we? I can not even begin to count the times I have told God that I intend to do what he wants. Nor can I begin to count the times that I have failed. But that is the nature of the human condition. We even have a name for it. It's called sin.

Thankfully, the nature of God is something else entirely. God's nature is love and that love is manifest in forgiveness. It should not surprise us that a God who loves us so much, who forgives our sins, will do everything in his power to keep the covenant going, in spite of every error the Israelites - or we - might commit.

Do not look down you nose at "good intentions." God looks upon the heart. What you "intend" to do is far more important to God than what you actually are able to accomplish.

The Israelites intended to obey God. And that was enough for him. Today, we believers intend to obey God. And God will forgive us when we do not. That much has not changed.

Likewise, when we intend NOT to obey Him, but only go through the motions trying to convince others that we are in obedience, we are only fooling ourselves. God is not fooled, because God knows our intentions.

My advice to those of faith who want to try to please God is to keep having "good intentions." They have been important to God since before the foundation of the earth.

Next: we'll look at the rest of Chapter 19 and then it will be time to really take a hard look at the Ten Commandments.

God bless.

Tuesday, October 27, 2009

Exodus: the Gathering of the Traditions

Traditional Site 0f Mt. Sinai.

This is the 5th of a series of essays that cover the origin of the Israelite nation and conclude with a discussion of the Ten Commandments.

Prior essays are

http://open.salon.com/blog/monte_canfield/2009/10/19/birth_of_the_israelite_nation

http://open.salon.com/blog/monte_canfield/2009/10/20/torah_instruction_for_living

http://open.salon.com/blog/monte_canfield/2009/10/21/manna_bread_for_life_but_is_it_enough

http://open.salon.com/blog/monte_canfield/2009/10/22/testing_god

This will, in some ways, be the most difficult essay to understand of this series. But it will answer questions about the Bible that too many in the past have forgotten to ask; which has led to the misuse of Scripture to further not theological but ideological goals.

The Ten Commandments are also known as The Decalogue, a word worth knowing. We are now at Chapter 19 of Exodus. The Decalogue comes in Chapter 20.

But, unless we understand why and how we came to have the Decalogue we will miss much of what God is telling us; and, we can fall into the common Christian trap of taking the Commandments out of context and missing their true meaning. We want to avoid doing that. You can't truly understand any Biblical text without understanding the context in which it is written.

We come now to a point in our story that is absolutely critical to our understanding of who Jews and Christians are as people of faith: the formation of the nation of Israel.

Up to now the people had been led by and protected by Yahweh, but they claimed no special allegiance to him; and he made no universal demands on them.

In fact, when they complained it was usually to and about Moses, not God. Moses knew that when they complained against him they were really complaining about God. But the people did not quickly realize that to be the case, as the incident of the Water from the Rock showed us.

Yet, increasingly, they had begun to realize that Moses had no power except that which God gave him, and they were more and more turning to Moses not to provide his counsel, but to seek God's counsel through Moses.

God had tested the people in several specific ways, such as how they were to treat the manna he provided. Now a bigger decision will be made by God: he will decide to keep them as his own chosen people through whom he will seek to bless the nations of the world. That will be a monumental task, one at which they would sometimes succeed, but one at which they, like all humans, would often fail.

So Chapter 19, at the very heart of the Book of Exodus, is where God does make universal demands upon the people; and where they commit themselves wholly to God. By agreeing to become God's "priestly kingdom and a holy nation," they become partners in the covenant between God and Abraham.

This "new covenant" will be known as the "Mosaic Covenant," the "Covenant with Moses." It is more than its name for it is a covenant not only between God and Moses but between God and this chosen people. And it is really an extension of the larger covenant that God made with Abraham.

At its core what this covenant between God and the Israelites does is expand upon the covenant with Abraham to include an entire people, many of who bear no known direct relationship to Abraham, but who now form an elected, redeemed, believing, worshiping community.

In a similar way, Christians, who also have no known direct blood relationship to Abraham, will much later be called by another Jew whom Christians know as St. Peter, "...A chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his possession...." (1 Peter 2;9) Christians see themselves as descendants of this covenant because of the "New Covenant" which we entered through the blood of our Jewish Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth.

While this Mosaic covenant is really not new in its intent, this is truly a "new" covenant for those involved in it, those whom we call Israelites; a covenant made with a people who were held in slavery for over 400 years, a bunch of refugees, for whom the promises made by God to Abraham were but the dim recollections of a clouded history. For them it would be the beginning of a whole new way of life under God.

All of the covenant making, the giving of the Ten Commandments, and the expansion of the law in the "Covenant Code" which follows the Decalogue and details instructions on how those people were to live, as well as the establishment of all of the fundamental rituals of worship, the construction of the tabernacle, the ark of the covenant and all the related fixtures of worship: all of this takes place at the foot of Mr. Sinai.

Everything that happens in the rest of Exodus, in all of Leviticus, and in the first ten chapters of Numbers, all of it, happens at the Holy Mountain, where the people camp for just under one year. And all of it is further summarized in the Book of Deuteronomy.

In the Book of Exodus, what happens in Chapter 19 lays the foundation for everything that will follow in the rest of the Bible, both in the Old and the New Testaments. The section of text, the pericope, starting at chapter 19 through Chapter 24, informs forever the Israelite experience.

It is here where God offers His covenant with the people and demands obedience. It is here where the people respond positively. It is here where the Torah, the instructions for life under God, is promulgated. It is here where God shows himself to the people, and speaks directly to them, issuing the Ten Commandments, which are the foundation of the "Law", or Torah.

It is here where the people, fearful of further direct contact with Yahweh, seek Moses as an intermediary between them and this Almighty God. It is here where the "Covenant Code," that long list of detailed rules for day-to-day living, is given to the people; and, finally, it is here where God once more appears to the leaders of the people, and where the Covenant is completed. In other words, it is here that Israel is born. And, in a very real sense, it is here where the faith of modern Jews and Christians begins.

When we look at the critical first verses of Chapter 19, the first thing that we notice is that the first two verses repeat the obvious: That the Israelites came to the wilderness of Sinai about two months after they left Egypt, coming from Rephidim, and camped in the wilderness. Now they camp at the foot of the Holy Mountain, which we call today, Mt. Sinai, but was then more often called Mt. Horeb.

I am going to use this obvious repetition here at the beginning of Chapter 19 as a reason for us to take a side trip for the rest of this essay.
This side trip could have been taken earlier, but I wanted to wait until we were at a crucial point in the text. We need to understand how this part of the Bible was put together, so you'll begin to understand why the Bible often repeats itself, and sometimes even contradicts itself.

This repetition is obvious in the first five books of the Old Testament, which are called the "Pentateuch," (literally, "Five Books"), although it is readily apparent in other parts of the Old Testament and also in parts of the New Testament as well. In the Old Testament, for example, the 10 Commandments appear twice, not once, in Exodus and again in Deuteronomy. And the Commandments are not exactly the same in both places. (Deuteronomy translates roughly: "the second telling." That book is written as a series of speeches by Moses to the people prior to entering the Promised Land.)

In the case of Exodus and all of the Pentateuch and in many subsequent chapters of the Old Testament, you will find a lot of this overlapping repetition and the taking of different slants on the same event. This is because these books are an edited accumulation of at least four separate text streams. They were "redacted," that is cut and pasted together, and bound into a text with transitional words by the "redactor."

The sources of these words come from the different traditions of different groups of Israelites, and were gathered over a period of hundreds of years. They were first passed along by word of mouth, and only much later were they written down.

The four most obvious text sources in the Old Testament are called J, E, P and D.

"J" stands for "Yahwist," meaning that in that source God is called Yahweh. The "J" comes from the German spelling of Yahweh, which is "Jahweh." The J source is believed to come from*the traditions of the Southern tribes of Israel.

[ * When I say "believed to come from" I do not mean it is just a guess. Conclusions as to these source streams come after decades of careful analysis of the words, the forms of the language and careful and laborious study of the text.]

The "E" strand of tradition stands for "Eloist," because, in these sections of text, God is called "El" or "El-ohim," or some other variation of "El," which is translated as "God." The E source is believed to stem from the traditions of the Northern tribes of Israel.

The "P" source stands for the "Priestly" writer or editor. We do not know if it was a single editor, although that is how it is usually discussed. Likely there were multiple writers who worked together on these complicated texts.

This source is primarily responsible for all the information and details about building the tabernacle, the forms of ritual and ceremony, and other details of sacrifice and worship. In other words, this source is interested in the way the people are to worship of God. A huge part of the first five books of the Bible is devoted to this.

"D" stands for "Deuteronomist" and, in many ways this is the most important textual source of all. In addition to adding textual material to the Bible, it was the Deuteronomist who pulled all of the threads together. This source came hundreds of years after "J" and "E" and comes from the same writer, or writers, who compiled the Book of Deuteronomy.

Although the source is likely composed of a school of writers, this source is called often called simply the "Deuteronomistic Historian" because the writers' strong interest in getting a clear understanding of what actually happened to the Israelites from the time they left Egypt.

This interest continues through not only the Pentateuch but also through the books that follow. The Deuteronomistic History of the Bible runs all the way to the end of Second Kings. Thus, much of the heart of what we know as the Hebrew Bible, or Old Testament, was gathered together by this writer or group of writers.

The final form of the Bible that we see today is called the "canon," or "canonical" text. It is the text accepted by Jews and Christians who are members of the worshiping community as the authentic, sanctified record of God's relationship to us. It is this text that is "normative" for us: that is, it is the text from which we base our actions on how to live under God's leadership.

The "canonical text" of the Old Testament is the final result of many redactions over literally hundreds of years. And the New Testament underwent similar, but not as complete, redactions as well.

The final editors had to accommodate many different ideas, stories, and theological positions. That it is as coherent as it is seems to me truly amazing. So, as we read the Bible we need to keep in mind that the Bible is not a book written by one person at one time for one reason. Rather it is a beautiful tapestry, a quilt, woven over centuries.

As such we must try not to get hung up on the little inconsistencies, or the repetitions, or the lack of historical sequence in some of the chapters. It is important to remember that the Bible is primarily theology, not history; It is God's revelation of God's self to us.

Remember also that the so-called "history" in Bible comes to us through many different sets of eyes. Believers must evaluate the Bible through the eyes of faith. It is not science. Nor is it written as it would be written by a modern day historian. If you subject it to the tests of modern science or history writing, then you have simply missed God's purpose in giving us this documentation of God's relationship to us. It is to be judged by God's standards, not ours.

Just as we learn when looking at the gospel accounts of the death and resurrection of Jesus, different communities of faith often saw the same events slightly differently, saw some events that the other groups did not see at all, and reported all the events a little differently, one from the other.

But Jews and Christians believe that God guided the hearts and hands of those who wrote and edited these words. In other words, we believe that they were inspired by God.

Most conservative Christians also believe that the Bible as we have it today is also infallible and inerrant, even though wholly translated from texts written long after the events depicted, and even though no original manuscripts exist to our knowledge. Nevertheless, these Christians believe that these words are to be taken literally.

I do not think that position is tenable. It is based on assumptions long ago proven to be unsubstantiated. But each reader of the texts that make up the Bible must make that decision for him or her self.

One final thought on this. The canonical text of the Bible is often called "The Word of God." While I understand why that is said, I believe that to be wrong and I do not think it is just semantics when I say that. It is far too easy to say that and become so enamored with the Book that we forget that it is the Witness to God. It is not God.

The Bible stands as witness and contains many words of God to us. But we must never fall into Bibliolatry. We do not worship a book. We worship God. And there is a big difference. The Bible was written within, and is addressed to, the worshiping community. But God is still speaking to us and we must evaluate the words of the Bible in the context of the worshiping community today.

The Bible is both spoken to us and interpreted by the worshiping community. What may have been seen as acceptable interpretation of certain texts in the Bible in one generation or century may well not be acceptable to the worshiping community in a later generation or century in the light of a different understanding of how the Bible speaks to that later generation.

The Bible does not and cannot stand alone, isolated, out of the context of its intended audience. The traditions of the worshiping community and the experiences of that community today must be taken into account when deciding how God would have us live, and how we are to interpret what the Bible means for us today.

And so, while the Bible is ancient and honored, it is not to be confused with the whole truth that God has to reveal to us. Each generation of the faith community must read and understand the Bible within the context in which we find ourselves. In other words the Bible is, and has always been, a Living Bible.

We need to work to keep it as such and not become obsessed with anachronistic teaching which makes no sense for a current generation of believers.

Next: God calls Moses to take a message to the people! That message, and their response, will change everything!

God bless.

Monte Canfield's Blog

Wednesday, February 3, 2010

Do not covet, Commandment Ten

Friday, January 22, 2010

You Shall Not Bear False Witness Against Your Neighbor: Commandment #9

Saturday, January 16, 2010

You Shall Not Steal: Commandment Eight

Tuesday, January 5, 2010

Commandment Seven: You Shall Not Commit Adultery

Saturday, December 12, 2009

"Thou Shalt Not Kill"

Thursday, December 3, 2009

Honor Your Father and Your Mother

Wednesday, October 28, 2009

The Mosaic Covenant: Its Origin and Conditions

Tuesday, October 27, 2009

Exodus: the Gathering of the Traditions

Welcome to my blog

About Me

Blog Archive

Search This Blog

Friends Following this Blog

Wednesday, February 3, 2010

Friday, January 22, 2010

Saturday, January 16, 2010

Tuesday, January 5, 2010

Saturday, December 12, 2009

Thursday, December 3, 2009

Wednesday, October 28, 2009

Tuesday, October 27, 2009

Welcome to my blog

About Me

Blog Archive

Search This Blog

Friends Following this Blog

Subscribe to