Thursday, July 30, 2009

Law... (good God y'all) what is it good for?

Okay, so part of my thinking behind the depth of these last few posts on the Spirit and Prophecy was that Andy had asked me if I could preach in two Sunday's time. The only thing I suggested that I might be able to work up into a sermon in that time was my elective from MYC. My first step was to see if my logic was sound via the blog. If successful I would tell Andy I could do it.

However, as I failed to verbalise any on this, Andy has since asked Matt to preach instead. That's fine. I'm looking forward to it. But it has taken the proverbial wind out of my prophecy sails.

So until the desire returns, we've been preparing to study Exodus this semester at uni Bible Study. As part of this we have been discussing with our student leaders the place of the Law for the Christian. My co-worker in the gospel Gordon Cheng helpfully summarised the reason why Jesus needed to reinterpret the law in Matthew 5:21-22. (I know reinterpret isn't the right word, but you get the gist.)

This is what Jesus says;


You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not murder; and whoever murders shall be liable to judgment.' But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment...
This is Gordo's summary;


The Pharisee's didn't get the principles behind the law. "I know" they say, "The Law says you shouldn't stab a guy until he bleeds to death. I know. Sure, I stabbed him. And he bled. But he didn't die."

2 comments:

  1. Good stuff Izaac. I'm preaching next week on one of the "woes" (Matthew 23) - in particular the passage about tithing spices but missing the whole spirit of the law.

    I haven't read all that much Wright - and I know Gordo's feelings on the man - but isn't his basic premise that the Pharisees weren't so pharisaic about the law? That our understanding of their understanding of the law is wrong?

    I don't know how that works in with Matthew 5 and 23.

    ReplyDelete
  2. If I understand your question, which I'm not sure I do, then I believe the answer lies in the perspicuity of scripture. Wright wants to explain away the plain reading of Scripture by appealing to the historical context.
    Thus he is saying;
    1. A simpleton can't read the Bible without first obtaining a degree in Middle Eastern history,
    2. When Jesus says the Law and he doesn't mean the Law,
    3. And consequently the Holy Spirit through Luke could have been clearer, if he just knew what he was doing.

    In summary, for extra brownie points try and work the word perspicuity into your sermon. It possibly won't help the congregation, but any members with a theological degree will give you an extra brownie point.

    ReplyDelete