Raphjd ~
R: "Depending on your christian view, Jesus or his father or both gave the 10 Commandments and laws to Moses."
Right. And Moses gave the Law to Israel. (And later, when Jesus came to earth, the covenant that Jesus initiated was not only for Israel, but for all humankind.)
R: "If it was his father that gave them to Moses, then he didn't honor or obey his father's wishes."
The Law stipulated that it be enforced by the established authorities -- i.e., the elders, such as the people Jesus was speaking with -- in accord with the protocol that the Law describes: the curser's parents present him before the elders, and so forth. As far as I know, Jesus never was in the presence of such a scene, so I don't know what grounds you are basing for your claim that Jesus did not keep the Law about this. (You might be able to make a stronger case for this line of reasoning, btw, if you were to use the case of the woman caught in adultery; the Law prescribed that adulteresses be stoned but obviously Jesus let her go.)
R: "In fact he totally dismisses his father's wishes, unless of course Jesus agrees that people should kill their kids."
You're making some assumptions and misreadings.
First, the cursing-child (the word "child" may lead to a picture of an immature child, but I mean it merely in the sense of an individual who is the offspring of the father and mother) was not to be killed by the parents but by the community, after they had considered the parents' testimony.
Second, unlike modern criminal-codes, some of the laws in the Law of Moses were written mainly to establish moral principles -- i.e., even though they *can* be literally enforced, their main purpose is to serve as platforms for other teachings. I think that here in the Kill-the-One-Who-Curses-His-Parents we have such a law -- a law that, as far as the entire text of the Old Testament is concerned, we have no example of a literal enforcement. A parent in Israel would be within his/her rights to present a parent-cursing child to the elders, as the Law says, but as far as we can tell, no parent ever actually did so. (Right? Right.)
When Jesus brings up this law, I don't think He's trying to ignite a campaign to rally parents to kill their parent-cursing children. (As far as we can tell, nobody in Israel was literally cursing their parents at the time, and if they were, then as far as we can tell, their parents were not doing anything about it.) Nor is He saying that it would be wrong for parents in Israel to bring their parent-cursing child before the elders to consider whether or not he deserves to be executed (though this would involve a complicated sub-question of whether or not the elders, or the Romans, should be regarded as the valid governmental authority in capital-punishment cases). Jesus is just pointing out that the principle which that commandment teaches -- that children ought to respect their parents, and that it is a very serious offense against God and Israelite society to do otherwise -- is being undermined by the religious teachers' instructions about what is "Corban."
There's no contradiction there. Jesus does not, in this passage, teach that the Law should not be enforced. He's not arguing case-law; He merely cites the law as an example of the establishment in the Law of the idea that children should honor their parents (not only younger children, but adult children. It's adult children, btw, who are in view in the NT passage -- adult children who have the means to provide for their aged parents, but don't).
Now, later on, Jesus /does/ supercede the Law, when He established the new covenant of grace. In the new covenant, we're not bound to stone parent-cursing children; not at all. As Scripture says, if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law. But Christians are obligated to honor their parents, and Christian children are obligated to obey their parents in the Lord (i.e., recognizing a chain of command and recognizing that God's commands outweigh those of any humans, including parents). That's not a contradiction, though; that's a graduation.
Yours in Christ,
Waterrock
R: "Depending on your christian view, Jesus or his father or both gave the 10 Commandments and laws to Moses."
Right. And Moses gave the Law to Israel. (And later, when Jesus came to earth, the covenant that Jesus initiated was not only for Israel, but for all humankind.)
R: "If it was his father that gave them to Moses, then he didn't honor or obey his father's wishes."
The Law stipulated that it be enforced by the established authorities -- i.e., the elders, such as the people Jesus was speaking with -- in accord with the protocol that the Law describes: the curser's parents present him before the elders, and so forth. As far as I know, Jesus never was in the presence of such a scene, so I don't know what grounds you are basing for your claim that Jesus did not keep the Law about this. (You might be able to make a stronger case for this line of reasoning, btw, if you were to use the case of the woman caught in adultery; the Law prescribed that adulteresses be stoned but obviously Jesus let her go.)
R: "In fact he totally dismisses his father's wishes, unless of course Jesus agrees that people should kill their kids."
You're making some assumptions and misreadings.
First, the cursing-child (the word "child" may lead to a picture of an immature child, but I mean it merely in the sense of an individual who is the offspring of the father and mother) was not to be killed by the parents but by the community, after they had considered the parents' testimony.
Second, unlike modern criminal-codes, some of the laws in the Law of Moses were written mainly to establish moral principles -- i.e., even though they *can* be literally enforced, their main purpose is to serve as platforms for other teachings. I think that here in the Kill-the-One-Who-Curses-His-Parents we have such a law -- a law that, as far as the entire text of the Old Testament is concerned, we have no example of a literal enforcement. A parent in Israel would be within his/her rights to present a parent-cursing child to the elders, as the Law says, but as far as we can tell, no parent ever actually did so. (Right? Right.)
When Jesus brings up this law, I don't think He's trying to ignite a campaign to rally parents to kill their parent-cursing children. (As far as we can tell, nobody in Israel was literally cursing their parents at the time, and if they were, then as far as we can tell, their parents were not doing anything about it.) Nor is He saying that it would be wrong for parents in Israel to bring their parent-cursing child before the elders to consider whether or not he deserves to be executed (though this would involve a complicated sub-question of whether or not the elders, or the Romans, should be regarded as the valid governmental authority in capital-punishment cases). Jesus is just pointing out that the principle which that commandment teaches -- that children ought to respect their parents, and that it is a very serious offense against God and Israelite society to do otherwise -- is being undermined by the religious teachers' instructions about what is "Corban."
There's no contradiction there. Jesus does not, in this passage, teach that the Law should not be enforced. He's not arguing case-law; He merely cites the law as an example of the establishment in the Law of the idea that children should honor their parents (not only younger children, but adult children. It's adult children, btw, who are in view in the NT passage -- adult children who have the means to provide for their aged parents, but don't).
Now, later on, Jesus /does/ supercede the Law, when He established the new covenant of grace. In the new covenant, we're not bound to stone parent-cursing children; not at all. As Scripture says, if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law. But Christians are obligated to honor their parents, and Christian children are obligated to obey their parents in the Lord (i.e., recognizing a chain of command and recognizing that God's commands outweigh those of any humans, including parents). That's not a contradiction, though; that's a graduation.
Yours in Christ,
Waterrock
