Law vs Instruction

Another inspiring sermon today. Our pastor discussed the translational difficulties of the bible and pointed out the struggle between legalism and intent which was occurring at the time of Jesus ministry.

Apparently, the original sacred texts had been recorded in Hebrew, but at the time of Jesus, the common tongue of the translation was Greek. Therefore, there was a dichotomous approach to the bible. The "learned scholar" studied the original Hebrew translation, but the common flock had only a Greek translation by which to adhere.

The disparity of this approach created, in itself, an in-group and out-group of the faithful, breeding by itself its own brand or legalism. The "correct interpretation" of the sacred text became more important than the deeper meaning behind the text. Judaism could be seen at the time to have been frozen into this legalistic top-down approach, where authority was given to those who had the intellectual gifts and opportunities to translate the bible the "right way."

In one translation, Torah could mean "instruction." In another, it could mean "law." As society spreads and cultures rise and fall, languages change, and ideas evolve, we see that there is a constant struggle to understand. In one of the the earliest messages given to us by God (in yesterday's reading), we see that God changes Jacob's name to Israel, meaning, one who wrestles with God. One of my great friends tells me that this is why his religion (Judaism) reveres the intellectual and moral responsibility to wrestle with the Word, so that the Word creates a meaning in our lives, personally, for us to keep in mind in all our daily activities.

So, we see this struggle being played out in today's NT reading. The Pharisees, representatives of this legalistic, top-down, approach to religion, try to trap Jesus in several ways. They ask Him if it is right to harvest grain on the Sabbath. They ask Him if it is right to heal a man on the Sabbath.

His responses hearken back to something He had already stated, that it is the intent which guides us, that which is in our hearts, that matters, not necessarily the representation of the "law." He once again quotes Hosea 6:6, reminding the Pharisees that God wants mercy, not sacrifice. He also reminds them of the story of the great hero of their faith, David, who ate sacrificial bread when he was hungry. By giving these replies, Jesus once again shoots down a heartless legalism in favor of tenderness and mercy in one's heart.

Society will always struggle with legalism and emotionalism, translational difficulties, the rational vs the irrational. And as in yesterday's scripture, we see the validity of the effort by the results which arise from it. If David created a nation even though he broke a "law," and that nation were just and moral, how does one judge his actions? If a man's hand gets healed, even though a narrow minded interpretation is violated, how does one judge that action?

How does one judge any legalistic vs non-legalistic approach? What benefit to the poor and suffering do nihilistic deconstructionists espouse? What benefit to the poor and suffering do heartless religious legalists, more concerned with doctrinal purity than mercy of heart, show?

It's interesting that the psalm of David describes who may enter God's presence, those, "...speaking the truth with sincere hearts..." Not only is an attempt intellectually to understand God's word important (truth), but the engine of that intent is equally important (sincerity of heart). What are the fruits of a labor such as this? What goodness will grow by this discipline?

It's a constant struggle, and it seems that this struggle is important, because it is in the struggle, if that is where my mind is focused, that I grow more toward God in my actions and my words. If I don't concentrate on this, I become complacent and fearful. Wisdom is shown to be right by what results from it. Comparing those two sets of results, I think that the former, the struggle, is the wiser course.