An interesting incident happened in Economics class during the 5th semester of my undergraduate engineering studies. Many of us had the habit of coming late to class owing to the fact that our teacher was, in many ways, a very patient lecturer. As is usual, liberties are bound to be stretched and some of us began to arrive casually halfway through the period. Despite gentle reminders and rebukes, we failed to mend our ways. Frustrated, one fine morning, Ms. Padma remarked, “Boys, all of my efforts at an external control can never make headway, as long as there does not exist an internal control within you.”
Myself, a latecomer at times, I began to turn this statement over and over in my mind until I better appreciated the depths of the statement.
Ever wondered why we needed a policeman to direct the traffic, if sticking to the rules is the best thing to do?
Is it not because we humans have an uncanny tendency to break the rules? Very often, the bad habit comes to us more naturally than the good. I've never had to teach my younger brother how to lie, but getting him to speak the truth takes quite a bit of effort.
Lets consider a slightly different angle of the matter. When I shine the above thought into my own heart, I begin to wonder as to who has the right to tell me what's right and what's not.
Can I not decide for myself whats morally correct? Oh yes! I may; no one can stop me from this. However, think of this: suppose I have the bright idea one morning to drive on the opposite side of the road. The trouble is, the policeman can not sympathize with me just because I was convinced that I was doing the right thing. His job is to uphold the law of the land that dictates which side of the road I am to drive on. At the end of the day, clutching a hefty fine, I'm still undecided as to who was right and who was not.
Hence, some may suggest that we ought to let the Government decide for us what is right for us and the best bet on fair governance might be a democratic system. Here again, I'm fine as long as I'm backing the winning horse but what if I'm not? My country, India, is a case in point. We've often witnessed how heeding a politician's pre-poll eyewash has only resulted in betrayal, the morning after.
There is a point at which human logic appears to bow down before its own inability to define morality. The courtroom is often the scene where this happens. Take for instance, the O. J. Simpson murder case that gripped American imagination, way back in 1995. The following links should give you a fine idea as to what I'm driving at.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O._J._Simpson_murder_casehttp://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Simpson/Shapiro.htmArgument upon argument, and counter-arguments to battle them, could not lead to a clincher. Even today, those of us in the gallery might scratch our heads in dismay and shrug off the whole thing like it never happened – except for the family of the slain, for whom the thought that the true killer evades justice, is a dagger to the heart.
The problem here is, our best laws and brightest lawyers, are powerless to coax the heart into cooperation and soon our arguments rise to a different arena – the battlefield of the minds, where only arguments and wordplay dominate.
Have you observed how our debates and discussions, whether minor or major, soon descend to an 'argument-for-the-sake-of-argument' realm and all end in stalemate? Both sides know that a look at the heart would be uncomfortable, so each retreats to the refuge of the mind where contentions may be safely manufactured by the dozen.
In the end, we are back at square one with the nagging question:
Who decides what's right and wrong?The Bible gives an account of how, many centuries ago, a multitude journeyed from Egypt(in Africa) to Canaan(in the Middle East). They were led by Moses, a man appointed as leader by God Himself. The full record of this epic journey spans the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. On the way, through Moses, God handed down a rigorous code of conduct for the Israelites to adhere to all their lives, now known as the Mosaic Law. As I said earlier, God deals with humans on the basis of covenants and the Israelites were no different.
God prepared a 10-point charter, as the foundational agreement on which the Mosaic Law would be based. We know this covenant today as
the Ten Commandments. Years later, Moses recounts to the nation:“So He declared to you His covenant which He commanded you to perform, the Ten Commandments; and He wrote them on two tablets of stone. And the LORD commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and judgments, that you might observe them in the land which you cross over to possess.” (Deuteronomy 4:13-14)
However, in spite of the exciting experiences of witnessing God's power and receiving His commandments firsthand, the people of Israel found themselves slipping into sin, time and again. Each time, God's justice necessitated punishment and in their pain, they often returned with tears and repentance. Nevertheless, their sincerity was short-lived and soon, they were back to their old ways. Even those who tried, found themselves swimming against the current and often failing. Eventually, the psalmist reached the following conclusion in Psalm 130: “If you, O LORD, kept a record of sins, O Lord, who could stand?” (verse 3)
Apostle Paul captures the classic struggle of the God-seeker in his letter to the Romans:
“
I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.”
(Romans 7:15-20)
As did the men of old, Paul discovered that the struggle with sin was a more internal affair than an external one. He pointed out that, although he knew through the Mosaic Law what was right and what was not, he failed in the face of temptation hence implying the urgent need for an inner change. In the face of a weak self, the First Covenant could do nothing more than rightfully condemn every wrongdoer – in short, every human being – of crossing God's boundaries.
The God of the Bible is revealed to be a fierce hater of sin and punishes sin with a separation from His Presence, inspite of the unchanging fact that His love for the sinner continues. This is as plain as the fact that light and darkness fails to coexist.
God made this evident in the Garden at the court hearing of Adam and Eve. The transgressors were banished from the Garden by Divine decree. As you turn the pages of the Gospels, you find Jesus repeating the words, “There is weeping and gnashing of teeth outside...” in His parabolic teachings (Mathew 8:12, 22:13, 24:51, 25:30, Luke 13:28) – ever wondered what this means? An obvious explanation lies in the state of today's world – having been cast out of God's presence, all of humanity seems to move in vicious circles of pain and hatred right from the days of Adam and Eve.
Behold what the First Covenant has accomplished!
If then, every sin leads to judgement and separation from God, does not every human being, ourselves included, stand with no basis to claim the blessings of the house of God?Much later, a priest named Jeremiah, and other prophets like him, began to foresee the coming of a New Covenant that would work differently as compared to the First. Inspired by the Spirit of God, he penned the following words sometime about 600 B.C.:
“
Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”
The modus operandi is different here – no more is the law merely an externally imposed system, rather it is written on the pages of the heart itself, supernaturally enabled by the delivering work of God Himself.
Would such a person seek the loophole in the absence of external policing? I think not.
A few centuries later, the author of the book of the Hebrews picks up the strand in a very different light. In the first century A.D., from the legalistic confines of a Jewish nation, a small band of people broke out, choosing to be known by the name of their so-called radical leader, Jesus Christ. Their claims were no less radical – having been put to death by the Roman government, Jesus had miraculously risen again from the dead, they claimed! Sure enough, they were met with stiff resistance and persecution, as they preached and practised theories that were seemingly contrary to conventional Judaism.
Seeking to encourage the struggling Christians, he patiently explains how Jesus Christ came to fulfill the First Covenant in its truest sense, and not to contradict it. Look at the Spirit-inspired words that flow from this pen:
“
...He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the First Covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.” (Hebrews 9:15)
Presto! Our thoughts come a full circle. We began with Ruth's journey towards a fresh identity. The issue of the inheritance of her dead husband, sold out in the face of famine, gradually emerged. En route, we glimpsed man's own need for redemption – a redemption from the power of sin within, and the separation it brings. Having sold himself for the vain pleasures of the moment, he stands helpless to regain the lost inheritance God had originally kept for him.
Helpless...unless our good Boaz steps in to make the difference!
Having approached the master with the symbolic plea to take her 'under his wing', Ruth is assured of his help. Naomi now asks her to wait “for the man will not rest until he has concluded the matter this day”. (Ruth 3:18)
God seems to one of the few who has still not been affected by the digital revolution and 'the iPod 3-click' syndrome. He still believes in such words as 'wait' because His timing is so different from our own perception of time. It is unfortunate that our obsession with speed seems to manifest itself even in matters of salvation and repentance. We might sometimes believe and teach that 'a sinner's prayer' and weekly attendance at church meetings is all it takes – but the Bible puts it differently.
We ought to be asking ourselves this:
Is our spiritual life being governed by assumptions of salvation, when in reality our haste may have caused us to miss the internal transformation and liberty promised under the New Covenant?
The story of Ruth continues...
