Skip to main content

The Richmond Briefing

A Weekly Bible Reading for Bridge Builders

The Richmond Briefing has been a weekly feature of the Reachout web site for five years and is now available on the blog. To find out more and read earlier briefings go here

Reading ā€“ The Law Falls Short of Godā€™s Ideal (Mark 10:1-16)

The law is a useful thing to have by you at times of compromise and accommodation. When youā€™re in a tight spot a good lawyer can make the law say all sorts of things that those who originally drafted it never intended. Socrates was dead set against writing things down for that very reason. He argued that writing conveyed content without context and can therefore, in a different context, mean something quite other than what was intended. We see this at play in this passage. The Pharisees were trying to catch Jesus out on a subject about which he had already said a good deal. Each of the gospel writers reports Jesusā€™ teaching on marriage so his views must have been well known. This works out rather similar to the paying taxes question (Mt.22:17) in that they thought whatever answer he gave he would be wrong. The Pharisees asked if it was lawful for a man to divorce his wife (Matthew adds, ā€œfor any reasonā€). If Jesus answered no then he would be speaking against Moses but if he said yes then he would contradict himself.

His answer was damning of those who asked the question as he pointed out that Moses granted them divorce, not because it was Godā€™s best for them, but because they were weak and hardhearted. The Law that granted them divorce was an example of Godā€™s condescension in accommodating their weakness. Sin was at the root of broken relationships, sin and selfishness, and so God allowed a way for men and women to escape each otherā€™s sin and cruelty in loveless marriages. Godā€™s best all along had been lifelong commitment as demonstrated in the relationship of our first parents.

This is an issue that goes directly to the motives of the heart as men and women prove supremely capable of laying aside Godā€™s best for their own selfish motives. In the context of Godā€™s intentions divorce was a compromise and the law permitting it would never, therefore, lead to our living as God intended. Law never does bring us to the heart of Godā€™s purposes, rather law makes us conscious of our falling short of Godā€™s perfect will (Ro.3:20). Law also, as we see in this lesson, provides opportunities for sin as we cleverly work out our own interpretation of it.

As this passage ends we see Jesusā€™ disciples rebuking parents for bringing children for Jesus to bless. It is a wonderful teaching opportunity as Jesus said, ā€œLet the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.ā€ In Israel a person became a ā€œchild of the Lawā€ at the age of twelve. It was from this time that they began to relate to God through the Law. Jesusā€™ message was clear, i.e. that to enter the kingdom and relate to God according to his purposes meant to reject the Law and simply rely on the love and grace of God.

Today there are those, both inside and outside the church, who attempt to build a code of law designed to teach how best to approach God, how best to serve him. But the purposes of God are never served by legalism, which only adds burdens to our already burdened hearts, but by being close to the heart of God and depending on his grace to save. The next time we are tempted to judge others, or ourselves, according to some doctrinal ā€œready-reckonerā€ we should stop and ask, not what is permitted or prohibited, but what is the heart of God in this matter.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Obama's mother posthumously baptized into LDS Church - Salt Lake Tribune

In the wake of his remarkable success it seemed that the world and his wife wanted to claim President Obama as their own with even an Irish connection being dug up. Now the Mormons have got in on the act by posthumously baptising his mother. They have in the past upset the Jewish community, the Catholic Church and now the American President with this wacky and unbiblical practice but there is no indication that they will review it. And, of course, it is always someone elseā€™s fault and they promise a thorough inquiry to uncover the real culprits. Maybe they should try looking in the mirror. President Barack Obama's mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, who died in 1995, was baptized posthumously into The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints last year during her son's campaign, according to Salt Lake City-based researcher Helen Radkey. The ritual, known as ā€œbaptism for the dead,ā€ was done June 4 in the Provo temple, and another LDS temple rite, known as the ā€œendowment,ā€ was...

Mormon Christians? Whats in a Name?

The Mormon Church, disturbed by the continuing identifying of polygamus sects in the news with the name Mormon, recently issued a press statement aimed at "clarifying" issues. It is interesting to note that if you substitute the name "Christian" where they use the name "Mormon" it makes a very good argument for us against the claims of the Mormon Church. The full press release is reproduced below in italics with each paragraph rewritten in ordinary text to present it from a Christian perspective. SALT LAKE CITY 10 July 2008 On 26 June, Newsroom published a package of information featuring profiles of ordinary Latter-day Saints in Texas. With no other intention but to define themselves, these members provided a tangible depiction of what their faith is all about. They serve as the best distinction between the lifestyles and values of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and a Texas-based polygamous group that has recently attracted media attent...

Is atheism an intolerant belief?

The Big Questions , Sunday 2 August 2009, third question. A growing number of Britons say they are certain there is no God - but how do they know? Professor John Adams of the North Yorkshire Humanist Association begins by asking theists what evidence they have for their beliefs. Paul Woolley of Theos continues by pointing out Richard Dawkins description of faith as a 'virus', and the appalling track record of atheism in the 20th Century, as spearheaded by Pol Pot and Stalin. Chloe Clifford-Frith of the Humanist and Secular Students Society contends that Stalin did not do the things he did because he was an atheist, but because he was evil. Paul Woolley rejoins that atheists are trying to have it both ways when they claim that religion is the cause of evil, but refuse to acknowledge the ideological impetus of atheism when it comes to many evil acts. Mao and Stalin both replaced God with the State - a 'religious' manoeuvre. Rev Alistair Rycroft of St Michael Le Belfrey Ch...