Mark 7:9-13 and pacifism

[Justfiguringitout]

That is a good point. I have tried to take the teaching of Jesus and the apostles as directives for the church which includes me and my time.

I think the law of Moses was God's word for the time and place it was for.
[/quote]

Well, I think so too, hence my confusion about this verse. Because Jesus says this about the lawto the Pharisees, but he also speaks to Jews, when he teaches non-violence.

[JohnH]

That assumes the law of Moses was God's directive for all people for all time. Is that your understanding? I have always understood the law of Moses was for a specific people in a specific time.

Romans seems to make it clear that if we don’t accept Christ’s grace, we are guilty under the law. And Jesus did not come to do away with the law but to “fulfil” it.

[barnhart]

Today Gavin Ortlund posted a video about whether or not God commanded children to be stoned. In the comments, one commenter wrote how he was doing research on stoning and capital punishment. And he said that in Mark 7:9-13, Jesus not only repeats the command to stone children for disresoecting their parents, but that he assumed continuity and even reinforces the death penalty for it. So I read the passage and I can see how he would come to this conclusion. What would be the Anabaptist non-violent rebuttal to this?

I think this passage is parallel in some ways to John eight where Jesus allows for stoning in accordance with Mosaic law, "let him that is without sin among you cast the first stone..." In both cases he clarifies his critique is more about the slavishly legalistic or self interested, hypocritical interpretation of the law, not a moral judgment of the law one way or another.

[Justfiguringitout]

That assumes the law of Moses was God's directive for all people for all time. Is that your understanding? I have always understood the law of Moses was for a specific people in a specific time.

Romans seems to make it clear that if we don’t accept Christ’s grace, we are guilty under the law. And Jesus did not come to do away with the law but to “fulfil” it.

But then what do you mean by law? The whole law, or just the 10 commandments? Or, more to the point, what law was Paul then talking about? I assume he meant everything, including eating kosher etc. So are we guilty of that as well, when we don't accept Christ's grace?

[JimFoxvog]

What is the point Jesus is making here? Isn't it that one has a duty to support one's parents? The religious establishment said that you are holy to give those funds to us instead. Greed replacing compassion is what's wrong.

[Bootstrap]

What is the point Jesus is making here? Isn't it that one has a duty to support one's parents? The religious establishment said that you are holy to give those funds to us instead. Greed replacing compassion is what's wrong.

Exactly. Jesus does not say they are setting aside the law by not stoning children. He says they are setting aside the law by saying people can decide to give money to Jewish causes instead of supporting their parents - a practice that benefited Pharisees and religious institutions.

9 And he continued, “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions! 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’ and, ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’ 11 But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is Corban (that is, devoted to God)— 12 then you no longer let them do anything for their father or mother. 13 Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.”

If you want to explore whether thought Mosaic stonings should be mandatory, John 8 is a better text:

2 At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

[JohnH]

What is the point Jesus is making here? Isn't it that one has a duty to support one's parents? The religious establishment said that you are holy to give those funds to us instead. Greed replacing compassion is what's wrong.

Exactly. Jesus does not say they are setting aside the law by not stoning children. He says they are setting aside the law by saying people can decide to give money to Jewish causes instead of supporting their parents - a practice that benefited Pharisees and religious institutions.

Yet Jesus never repealed the law or the guilt we have under the law, other than him personally offering us forgiveness by offering us salvation. But the law is still in full force and full effect.

"Thou shalt not murder" - is still in full effect, and indeed the guilt for murder is still in full effect.

The question we have today is - is it our duty to enforce these laws as the Christian? No, it is not; we leave that up to God to sort out. This calls us out from society to be "pilgrims and strangers".

[Bootstrap]

What is the point Jesus is making here? Isn't it that one has a duty to support one's parents? The religious establishment said that you are holy to give those funds to us instead. Greed replacing compassion is what's wrong.

Exactly. Jesus does not say they are setting aside the law by not stoning children. He says they are setting aside the law by saying people can decide to give money to Jewish causes instead of supporting their parents - a practice that benefited Pharisees and religious institutions.

Yet Jesus never repealed the law or the guilt we have under the law, other than him personally offering us forgiveness by offering us salvation. But the law is still in full force and full effect.

"Thou shalt not murder" - is still in full effect, and indeed the guilt for murder is still in full effect.

The question we have today is - is it our duty to enforce these laws as the Christian? No, it is not; we leave that up to God to sort out. This calls us out from society to be "pilgrims and strangers".

Read through Galatians a few times carefully. Then let's talk.

[Justfiguringitout]

Exactly. Jesus does not say they are setting aside the law by not stoning children. He says they are setting aside the law by saying people can decide to give money to Jewish causes instead of supporting their parents - a practice that benefited Pharisees and religious institutions.

Yet Jesus never repealed the law or the guilt we have under the law, other than him personally offering us forgiveness by offering us salvation. But the law is still in full force and full effect.

"Thou shalt not murder" - is still in full effect, and indeed the guilt for murder is still in full effect.

The question we have today is - is it our duty to enforce these laws as the Christian? No, it is not; we leave that up to God to sort out. This calls us out from society to be "pilgrims and strangers".

Read through Galatians a few times carefully. Then let's talk.

I am trying to unnderstand what you are getting at.

[Justfiguringitout]

What is the point Jesus is making here? Isn't it that one has a duty to support one's parents? The religious establishment said that you are holy to give those funds to us instead. Greed replacing compassion is what's wrong.

Yes of course, but my question was about people saying that this is also Jesus affirming and reinforcing the stoning mandate. And since I am fairly new to the whole non-violent thing, I couldn't reason it through from that perspective myself.