Rules and Relationship

In my previous parish, I lived near Yellowstone National Park. At the park entrance, the rangers hand out a map and other park information. Included is an extensive list of park rules and regulations. The important ones are also posted on signs throughout the park. Do not feed wildlife. Stay on walkways.  Do not toss objects into geysers or thermal pools. Do not pick the flowers. Keep off the grass. The rules are designed to protect both the park and its visitors. With thousands of people visiting the park each year, rules about such things as where to camp (designated sites only), where to walk (stay on path) and what not to do (do not remove any artifacts) are necessary so that the place is not wrecked by the hordes of visitors who come to enjoy it. Rules are also necessary to protect park visitors from each other (People on path below. Do not throw objects off cliff!) and from their own poor judgement (Warning! Many visitors have been gored by buffalo. Buffalo are dangerous! Do not approach!) However, despite the preponderance of regulations, and the common-sense nature of many of the rules, not a summer goes by without someone getting injured or killed because they tried to get to get a close-up photo of a bison, or fell into a thermal pool, or tried to pass another car in a no-passing zone and got in a head-on collision.  

Rules are an integral part of human community. And yet they can be troublesome. Some rules seem so obvious that they can be remain unspoken, at least until someone breaks one.  Some rules are clearly necessary, but others are overbearing.  Some rules are useful, and are forged in the crucible of tragic experiences, while other rules are enacted in order to prevent hypothetical situations from occurring, and thus can be overly bureaucratic and even ridiculous.  Some rules, although useful when they were enacted, have become outdated, and are either hopelessly obsolete or need to be translated into a new context.  The hard part is that there aren’t any hard and fast rules about when to ignore or change the rules!

Link to the First Reading

Although these are commonly referred to as “The Ten Commandments,” that phrase does not actually occur in this passage.  However, such details aside, these words from God are designed to protect our relationship with God and with our neighbors.  These commandments establish boundaries in which all may be safe. They begin with God’s self-declaration about God’s identity and relationship with Israel: “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt” (vs. 2). The commandments flow out from that starting point. God says, in effect, “This is who I am and this is what I have done for you. Therefore, this is how you are to live....”

In these words there is both threat and grace. Disobedience has consequences which are not to be ignored or taken lightly (see verses 5 and 7).  The threat of punishment underscores the importance of the commandments. That threat is specifically attached to the commandments concerning one’s relationship with God, which never ceases to amaze my confirmation classes, who always guess that the *big* threat is attached to an “important” commandment like the one about murder.   

Exodus 20:5 ties the threat of multi-generational punishment to violation of the commandment about idol worship. God’s gracious, all-encompassing claim on us ought to leave no room for apostasy.  The text does not mince words: one’s actions have consequences, not only for oneself, but also for one’s children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren.  While one might think it unfair of God to blame a person for their great grandparents’ sins, in a very real sense, we are affected by the choices our parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents made. For instance, had my paternal grandfather not died young, my father’s life would have turned out differently, and the chain of decisions which led my grandmother to Bellingham, where my father ultimately met my mother, would not have happened.  The point of this passage is not to focus on the past and lay blame on one’s ancestors for one’s personal problems, but to raise our awareness that our current actions have consequences – not just for ourselves, but for our entire family system. This passage invites us to consider our actions in light of what it means for our futures. There is also the promise of blessing for those who stand in right relationship with God (verse 4), and with their parents (verse 12). That promise (steadfast love to the thousandth generation) far outweighs the threat (punishment visited upon the third and fourth generation).   

The rationale for commandment to observe the Sabbath (verses 8-11) grows out of God’s creative work. Just as God rested on the seventh day, so too, everyone is to rest including one’s children, slaves, foreigners, and livestock.  In contrast, Deuteronomy 5:12-15 connects the command for Sabbath rest to God’s redemptive activity in the Exodus.  

The rest of the commandments are stated without threat or rationale. These are the rules which are the building blocks for human community, for they protect life, relationship, and property.

Link to the Second Reading

Paul leads the reader in a circular discussion about wisdom and folly. The wise ones of the world don’t understand the meaning of the cross because God has chosen “foolishness” instead of wisdom as a means of revealing God’s action and purpose in the world. The fact that the world’s wisdom cannot comprehend God doesn’t imply that the Christian claim about God is to be rejected as nonsense; instead, it means that God’s wisdom is greater than human wisdom. The route to understanding the cross is found neither in human wisdom nor human reason, but in faithful reliance on God’s power. The rules of logic and rhetoric won’t lead one to faith. Faith comes in the gift of being in relationship with Christ.  

Link to the Gospel

John’s version of Jesus driving the moneychangers out of temple differs significantly from the three synoptic gospels. Whereas Matthew, Mark, and Luke place the cleansing of the temple at the end of Jesus’ ministry, after his triumphal entry into Jerusalem (see Matthew 21:12-13, Mark 11:15-19, Luke 19:45-46), John sets it at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry. John’s account relishes the small details, carefully describing the inventory that is being sold, and the blow-by blow account of driving out the livestock, pouring out the coins, overturning tables, and telling the dove-sellers to cease and desist. In John’s account, Jesus’ actions are explained by his zeal for his Father’s house (a quotation from Psalm 69:9). And, in contrast to the synoptics’ objections that the commercial activity in the temple disrupts its purpose of being a “house of prayer for all nations;” in John’s gospel, Jesus objects to turning “his Father’s house” into a commercial emporium (see Zechariah 14:21).  

In response to the demand for a sign (verse 18), Jesus challenges them to destroy the temple and he will raise it in three days (verse 19).  This is a double entendre, typical of the Johannine use of misunderstanding as a literary device. The characters in the story don’t understand. They think Jesus is talking about the Jerusalem temple, while Jesus is speaking of his own body. This both foreshadows his death, and also provides a retrospective for the disciples, who gain understanding (and come to faith) by their future remembrance of this episode (verse 22).   

For Jesus, the issue boils down to relationship. Using the temple as a marketplace, although convenient for worshipers needing to buy animals for sacrifices and exchange their offering money for temple currency (which, unlike Roman coinage bearing the likeness of Caesar, lacked any ‘graven image’), violated the temple’s purpose as a place devoted solely to worshiping God.

Questions for Discussion

Which statement most closely expresses your attitude toward rules?

• "Rules are meant to be broken"
• "There's an exception to every rule."
• "It's important to play by the rules."

Under what circumstance would each of those statements be true? Under what circumstances would it be false?

2. What’s the difference between “good rules” and “bad rules”?  How do you know when it is right to ignore or change a rule? On what basis do you make those decisions?  In what ways do rules help establish and maintain healthy relationships? In what ways do rules get in the way of healthy relationships?  

3.What do you see as the purpose of the 10 commandments?  Do you see them as rigid or flexible? As you hear Exodus 20:1-17 as a word of God addressed to you, how would you describe God’s tone of voice? As you consider the 10 commandments, do you find them to be more of a burden or a blessing? In what way 

4.If Jesus were to show up on your congregation’s doorstep this weekend, how would he react to what he found going on there?  What might he want to “drive out”? What would he bless?