A reader recently sent in this question about Mark 7:10.
I was able to pre-order your book [The Atonement of God] and I can’t stop readingaF it! I am now on my third time around. It truly has continued to redeem my thought about our loving God, just like your blog. Thank you so much for blessing us with such a profound book.
Could you please help me with a passage I am having trouble understanding? Maybe you have written about it before, it’s Mark 7:10 where Jesus seems to agree with Moses “For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’” I love the way you have taught us to understand the Old Testament, but here it seems like Jesus is agreeing with Moses about “God’s law” to put someone to death if they do not honor father or mother. I now know God is not violent, so what am I missing?
Thank you so much for considering my question.
Here is an expanded version of how I responded to him:
What I wrote on page 195 in the book helps explain Mark 7:9-11. On that page, I explain that according to the book of Hebrews, one reason Jesus came was to redeem sin, and especially a certain kind of sin, the parabainō type of sin. This type of sin is the sin of misusing the law. This was using the law in a way that allowed people to sin and in so doing, legally do the exact opposite of the spirit of the law.
In Mark 7:9-14 The religious leaders had found a way to obey the letter of the law while completely ignoring its intent. People were dishonoring their parents (and in a way, even cursing them to death), but were not being “put to death” in response. Quite to the contrary, the religious leaders were saying that it was okay for children to not honor their parents and provide for them if the money that would normally be used to do so was given to the temple.
Those who focus intently on the law almost always find loopholes in the law so that they can obey the letter of the law while completely ignoring it’s intent.
This is a parabainō sin, a transgression of the law, and was the main type of sin Jesus was concerned with in His ministry. The “sins” that most of us Christians are concerned with today were never really on Jesus’ radar. He was only concerned with the religiously approved sins which turned the law on its head so that people could “obey the law” while completely disregarding its intent.
So when Jesus quotes the law in Mark 7:10 about putting children to death for cursing their parents, He is not necessarily quoting it with approval, but is instead pointing out how the religious leaders were using the law to do the exact opposite of what the law said. These adult children were dedicating their money to the temple so that they didn’t have to support their parents in their old age. And the way the Corban law worked, they could keep their money until they died.
In effect, these adult children were cursing their parents to death, which was the exact opposite of what the law said they should do.
Jesus responds to this situation by saying that if the religious leaders were really going to obey the law, these children who essentially curse their parents to death should themselves be stoned to death.
But then does this mean that Jesus agrees with what the law says on this point? Does Jesus condone the death penalty for children?
Well, first of all, it is the adult children of elderly parents who are in view.
Even still, I don’t think Jesus was saying that people should be put to death if they fail to take care of their parents. He doesn’t seem to be quoting that particular law from Exodus 21:17 favorably.
Instead, I think Jesus was simply pointing out that the religious leaders were not following the law at all, but were instead misusing the law in a way that allowed them to dishonor their parents, which was the exact opposite intention of the law (see 7:13).
What then would be the proper use of the law in these situations? What was the spirit of the law?
The law was focused on life. The goal of the law is life. The law didn’t want either children or their parents to die.
So the spirit of the law in this case would be that the children who had the money would not be allowed to dedicate it to the temple, but would be required by the temple and the priesthood to use the money to support their parents.
“Oh, but then how would the priests pay for the temple?” Maybe they wouldn’t. What’s more important, a building or your parents?
“Are you saying that people shouldn’t give to God?” No. What I’m saying is that giving to a temple is not the same thing as giving to God, and that God Himself seems to prefer that we use our money to support our family than for supporting the “work of the Lord” as the priestly class defines it. In other words, according to God, supporting your family IS the work of the Lord (cf. 1 Tim 5:4, 8).
Children “give to God” by supporting their parents; not by supporting a priesthood.
Anyway, those are my thoughts. What are yours? Provide your input in the comment section below.
That is a good explanation of the passage. It reinforces my understanding of Jesus teachings on the misuse of the law.
As usual, Jeremy, your titles shock! Very glad that you responded the way you did, otherwise I would have stopped reading your blog. Lol!
Jeremy you really have answered this persons question very well. Christ was revealing double standards of those who selectively applied the law to suit themselves. Blessings
Excellent answer as usual.
Thanks for this piece; it’s really knowledgeable and informative. It also highlights this point too: why do we even have to think about arguing these sorts of points? Jesus would never have condoned stoning children – or anyone, for that matter – so clearly He meant ‘something else’. What that ‘something else’ is is, of course, the point of your article.
It also brings to my mind the following argument. The ‘freedom’ brigade, those who believe in Grace over Law (and I count myself as one of these), would say that most if not all of today’s ‘religious’ rule-set is man-made rules based on different people’s own interpretation of the Bible, and presupposing it as a Rulebook. The Law over Freedom people, however, would say that it’s not Man’s Law, it’s God’s, and who are we to break the Rules of God?
This passage, however, clearly illustrates to me the futility of the manmade Law. Because if the Bible really *is* God’s Great Rulebook, then why don’t we ‘obey’ that part of it and execute children who ‘disobey’ their parents? And of course that could be interpreted however the particular religious group wants – as they do with so many legalism issues – would a kid be stoned for cheeking his parents? What about refusing to eat his lunch? Clearly, even the strictest legalistic Pharisees in the Church would (quite rightly) stop short at stoning children.
But then they would be obeying a man-made Law, because ‘God’s Rules’ say that disobedient children must be stoned. So who are we to argue with God’s Rules? To me, this simply illustrates a classic piece of selective rule-making – by men – that shows just how much these Legalists make things up as they go along.
For me, it’s Grace all the way. It’s certainly far simpler! 🙂
(Please note that in no way am I condoning executing children; I am simply using this as a case-in-point against legalism. Hope that’s clear.)
A side note on the death penalty in Jesus’ ~time, and now (for me):
Per the Jewish Virtual Library, “…the Mishnah (Mak. 1:10; Mak. 7a) [states] that a Sanhedrin that kills (gives the death penalty) once in seven years (R. Eleazer b. Azariah said: once in 70 years) is called “bloody” (ḥovlanit, the term “ḥovel” generally implying a type of injury in which there is blood).”
Though this is from the Mishnah, which was written after the time of Jesus, certainly some of the traditions in it were from the Second Temple Era. (We’ll have to ignore certain groups of *people’s’* unauthorized attempts to stone Jesus and their successful stoning of Stephen!) To me, it means that while the death penalty as one of God’s ordinances was/is still to be issued, it was/is not to be carried out… which is why I cannot sit on a capital jury. This might sound like they were and I am attempting to change one of God’s ordinances, but I defer to Jesus. He said He would die for our sins in our place. I’m not sure what the Sanhedrin deferred to, but it was the right thing to do.
Thanks for this article.
The way I see it is that , like any good lawyer , Jesus was using their words i.e. The law of Moses, against them to show their hypocrisy. Like you said , quoting it doesn’t imply that He agreed with it.
Good point. Jesus often did this, and it is a good strategy.
Hello Jeremy I have a question related to this subject.
What about Matthew 15: 4 which is similar to the verse in Mark you are explaining here.
In the verse in Matthew it seems like Jesus is saying that the death penalty for disobedient children is a commandment of God and must be carried out! Ok in the verse in Mark you are explaining, it talks about Moses giving this commandment but here in Matthew it seems like it comes from God.
It confuses me a lot regarding our Savior. How can Jesus agree with this?
Please can you give an answer on this verse it would help me greatly
God bless you
I would say that Jesus is not condoning this command, but is quoting it to point out the hypocrisy of the religious leaders. They claim to follow the law, yet even they know that a law like this is wrong, so they made an excuse to not follow it. Jesus is basically saying, “Good job … sort of … You recognized that this command was bad … that’s good … but then you created a command that allowed children to not take care of their parents … that’s bad … and to top it all off, you claim you are following and obeying the law … which you aren’t!”
It’s a masterful argument from Jesus. No matter which way the religious leaders go, they are stuck by their own wrong interpretation of the text.
Hello: Could you please comment on 2 questions ? 1.Why would our loving God in the first place ever even command children to be killed if they cursed their parents ? 2.Why did Jesus not clearly say that he felt this command from God was wrong so furture theologians and people could not just explain it by stating that Jesus does not seem to have “condoned” it ? ( I am a red letter Christian ONLY following the words of Jesus so I actually agree with your explanation because I believe Jesus came to change the old testament such as God commanding death for 35 “sins” including for an old women collecting firewood on the Sabbath,But PLEASE do not comment on my belief and please answer the first 2 questions.,Thank-you and God Bless you.)