Mark 7:9-13 and pacifism

[Bootstrap]

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

I am trying to unnderstand what you are getting at.

Galatians is the clearest statement in the NT about the relationship between the Christian and Old Testament law. Read it together with the Sermon on the Mount, of course. And it really is helpful to read each of them from start to finish, several times, with this question in mind.

[JohnH]

Yet Jesus never repealed the law or the guilt we have under the law, other than him personally offering us forgiveness by offering us salvation.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 have. I don't see where Galatians negates the commandments not to murder or commit adultery.

The point is, as believers, we can seek Jesus to forgive of us our sins, and indeed atone for them without resorting to the requirements in the old law, which was (and still is, although it is made clear in Romans that actual compliance with it is mostly impossible) the other way for humans to atone for their sins before God.

[Thomas_muntzer]

I have not been on this forum for a while to to moving house and working on that. But I am still trying to follow some topics here. It's been very valuable and educational.
But I have a question.

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 hope somebody can help me here.

Thank you in advance.

9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. 10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death: 11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free. 12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother; 13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Mark 7:9-13

It seems to me that this verse speaks of how the Pharisee leaders were hypocritical in criticizing Jesus (in whom the Law of Moses and all the prophecies of the Old Testament are fulfilled) for not literally following some ordinances of Mosaic Law, such as performing physical activities on the Sabbath, healing the blind and lepers. At the same time, the Pharisees disobeyed the commandment to honor fathers and mothers through the men's commandment of the Corban.

I don't really see the connection to stoning children very clearly. The Bible speaks of disciplining with the rod (Proverbs 23:1).

[Justfiguringitout]

I think disciplining children with the rod, is about children in the age of child rearing.
The stoning is about adult children, seeing which vices are mentioned, and the fact that it has to happen where the child lives. That implies he doesn't live with his parents anymore.

[barnhart]

I don't really see the connection to stoning children very clearly. The Bible speaks of disciplining with the rod (Proverbs 23:1).

I think this illustrates some of the care necessary in using and understanding scripture. I discipline my own children on occasion but I am cautious of using Proverbs 23 as justification or model. Not everything in Proverbs is to be put into practice in Jesus' kingdom. For example there are many Proverbs about how kings should rule or how society works that are not for us to emulate (17:8).

As I understand it Justfiguring is asking a different question about understanding things Jesus said or spoke positively about. I think Jesus spoke in different register in different occasions and it is probably a mistake to put everything he said in the same category of interpretation. He did on rare occasion use exaggeration (a beam in the eye) or irony, which is where I see the comment about stoning children or the woman taken in adultery.

[JohnH]

I don't really see the connection to stoning children very clearly. The Bible speaks of disciplining with the rod (Proverbs 23:1).

I think this illustrates some of the care necessary in using and understanding scripture. I discipline my own children on occasion but I am cautious of using Proverbs 23 as justification or model. Not everything in Proverbs is to be put into practice in Jesus' kingdom. For example there are many Proverbs about how kings should rule or how society works that are not for us to emulate (17:8).

As I understand it Justfiguring is asking a different question about understanding things Jesus said or spoke positively about. I think Jesus spoke in different register in different occasions and it is probably a mistake to put everything he said in the same category of interpretation. He did on rare occasion use exaggeration (a beam in the eye) or irony, which is where I see the comment about stoning children or the woman taken in adultery.

I would view the law as actual commandments, whereas Proverbs is not a list of commandments, legislation, etc.

For example, Proverbs says to give alcohol to people who are perishing and whose life is bitter.

[Justfiguringitout]

I don't really see the connection to stoning children very clearly. The Bible speaks of disciplining with the rod (Proverbs 23:1).

I think this illustrates some of the care necessary in using and understanding scripture. I discipline my own children on occasion but I am cautious of using Proverbs 23 as justification or model. Not everything in Proverbs is to be put into practice in Jesus' kingdom. For example there are many Proverbs about how kings should rule or how society works that are not for us to emulate (17:8).

As I understand it Justfiguring is asking a different question about understanding things Jesus said or spoke positively about. I think Jesus spoke in different register in different occasions and it is probably a mistake to put everything he said in the same category of interpretation. He did on rare occasion use exaggeration (a beam in the eye) or irony, which is where I see the comment about stoning children or the woman taken in adultery.

This is interesting. I hadn't thought of this in terms of irony at all!!

[Ernie]

I have not been on this forum for a while to to moving house and working on that. But I am still trying to follow some topics here. It's been very valuable and educational.
But I have a question.

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 hope somebody can help me here.

Thank you in advance.

Regarding some Jews trying to get out of providing for parents...
I think caring for parents is a universal command for all times and places since the principle is often reaffirmed in the New Testament. Jesus was addressing that.

Regarding stoning those who disobey...
I look to the teaching of Jesus AND his example. He was God. He could have stoned them. He didn't. And the rest of his teaching does not indicate that he thinks stoning is in order in his day. He looked out for the woman caught in adultery. (BTW, the new communist edition of the Bible says that the Jews didn't stone her so Jesus did. They can't tolerate a book that allows for mercy.) The New Testament also teaches "Vengeance is mine, I will repay says the Lord." So if Jesus did not see a need to stone the Jews for disrespecting their parents, I assume that the Lord will repay these people in the Judgment.
Because Jesus neither taught that people should be stoned nor stoned people himself, I assume that he was trying to teach something about the seriousness of cursing parents and not reaffirming the need to stone people in the New Testament.

[JohnH]

the new communist edition of the Bible

Well, that's a bit of a surprise, although I'm not surprised to hear that Communists are in favour of mass executions.

[ohio jones]

the new communist edition of the Bible

Well, that's a bit of a surprise, although I'm not surprised to hear that Communists are in favour of mass executions.

I guess the CCP and Thomas Jefferson have more in common than one would expect. Not the executions, but the editing of the Bible.