August 16, 2009 Proper 20
1Kings 3:9 Give your servant a heart to understand how to discern between good and evil...
I want to begin with a somewhat detailed discussion of the Hebrew texts which make up this verse from I Kings. They are important because they determine the possibilities for the translation of key words and also provide an introduction to some crucial theological concepts that are still of significance today. The ASV using the Masoretic text translates it “a hearing heart” .This version of the OT which comes from the first century of the Common Era is significant because it introduced vowels which were absent from earlier written Hebrew. The RSV using other Hebrew texts reads “an understanding mind”. The Hebrew root is shemah which the dictionary defines as “to hear and obey”.[1] The concept is better know to us as it appears in Deuteronomy 6: 9 the so-called Jewish creed “Hear, (shemah) O Israel .... The Summary of the Law in the Prayer Book. All this is a somewhat tedious way of saying that the heart was regarded by Israel as the inner core of a human being and thus the seat of the intellect, the will, the emotions or whatever aspect of human nature is involved basically at the time. A concept obviously not shared by many members of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee.
What is translated as “discern” is an attempt to describe the process known as “mishpat”, a process of rendering judgment according to precedent. There is always a religious connotation implied. In the very early period of Jewish history when either a matter of faith or of practice came up for decision, it was customary to seek a ruling from God at the shrine. The cult official sought this on behalf of the inquirer. If the inquiry came from a priest , the answer was sought either by casting the sacred lot or by examining the entrails of a bird or beast. If he were a prophet, the answer would be found in a vision or dream or possibly in an ecstasy. The word which thus came straight from God was called a “torah” probably from the ancient custom of casting a sacred lot. However, if the same question came up again there was already a precedent and since the same answer had been given before it was then known as a “mishpat. The king always governed by “mishpat” viz. custom, precedent.[2] But if something new cropped up he could send for a new ruling to the shrine. What Solomon was asking for was the ability to discern understand the will of God and obey it whether as it was declared in the first place by “torah” or as known by human experience viz. “mishpat”. It seems clear that by the time of Solomon (he is believed to have suceeded David about 969BCE) a quite sophisticated legal system was in place. We cannot be sure but it seems likely that discernment allowed for a reasonable latitude on the part of the ruler to decide whether he should pursue the way of “torah” or “mishpat” in order to decide what was the will of God. With the disappearance or decline in use of casting the sacred lot to discern the will of God and with the ascendancy of the great prophets as the “voice”of God, the role of mishpat becomes more and more decisive. With the destruction of the Temple in 60 CE - “torah” becomes fixed and the Talmud carries on to the present day of rendering judgments which reflect the will of God in the tradition of "mishpat”.
The details of the origins of the Jewish practice of rendering judgment reveal an important implications for the religious concerned with discerning good and evil. Two aspects of this tradition are particularly critical. The first concerns the experience of what might be called the distancing of God from direct involvement in rendering judgment. This is reflected in the end of the practice of casting the sacred lot. When Jesus disciples tried it they found that there was a much greater dimension to the involvement of God in their destiny than could be revealed in the results of a casting of the sacred lot. In effect they were forced to reconsider their whole understanding as to how God was at work in the world.
The second involves the practice of what I would like to call making connections. It is with this exercise that the concept of discernment particularly applies. To explain what I have in mind, let me make a brief digression. Think for a moment how we understand the series of events which occupy the interest of both physical and biological science. We might say of them that they see patterns in the overall structure of randomness which drives the system. I realize that using “drive" and “structure” seems to contradict the randomness but nevertheless I think the description is accurate. What makes sense of the scientific enterprise is its ability to make connections in our understanding where none previously were present. The role of particle[3] physics in the development of molecular biology is a good example. Very often these connections also indicate a new aspects of human responsibility which then (and I am now back to the matter of discernment) will require a “misphat" a judgment as to good and evil or, if you are very careful, a sense that we have delved further into that mystery which we call the will of God.
Our tradition has made one important caveat which it comes to the development of and operation of discernment - it takes place in the context of a community which remembers “torah” finally resides in the presence of Jesus the Christ. The readings from Ephesians and John are a reminder of what this understanding of community has meant over time. However as we consider what has actually happened we discover there has been an ongoing struggle over the meaning of “torah” and “mishpat”. The result is a very different set of connections. The recent Papal Encyclical, Caritas in Veritate reveals some interesting observations about several critical problems facing humanity. Pope Benedict makes a connection between the environmental crisis and the widespread existence of abortion. Presumably both reflect significant attacks on the sanctity of life. He is, however, somewhat less vocal on the problems of world population and its threat to food supply because it would obviously have to come to terms with issues related to family planning and contraception. Ross Southat’s recent op-ed in the New York times called “The Audacity of the Pope” notes that Benedict XVI has called attention in a very forceful way to the necessity of making connections[4]. He also has noted that Caritas in Veritate has quite rightly called attentions to the absence of discussion in political debate about the kind of connections we are prepared to make between the major problems facing the whole human world. The Pope’s writing suggests he is making a claim that what he is saying is “torah”. Does this mean that the only hope for the world is to start taking orders directly from God? I think not but then we had better start making some other connections.
[1]N.H. Snaith, Interpreter’s Bible, Vol. III, Abingdon, New York, 1954, pp.41-42
[2]Ibid, p.42
[3]June 29, 2009
[4]Ross Southat, The Audacity of the Pope, NY Times, July 13, 2009
