"For some inexplicable reason Christians do not seem to realise that Jesus would have approved of the scenario portrayed above."PW then quotes Matthew 15:1-9 to support a claim that a mother can behead her son, merely for using inappropriate language, or a single gesture of disrespect and rebellion since this is covered allegedly in the OT as an act of rebellion, then the boy must be put to death.
Ironically perhaps the act of decapitating a boys head through beheading was a Freudian slip on the part of the literalist fundamentalist Muslim camp who want Sharia Law in the U.K, and who endorse Sharia Law everywhere in the Muslim world, where in fact they enjoy and execute such beheadings every-year.
After (in the comment section), it was pointed out that Israelites were not allowed to take the Law into their own hands (PW then acknowledges the characterization of the said commandment is wrong), it is then pointed out to Paul, how the Law in it's application extends further than to merely speak a word of evil.
But, Paul emphasizes his original claim:
"“Whoever speaks evil of father or mother must surely die.”
Note “speaks evil” – nothing about rape or murder which are covered by other commandnments."
Williams then, would have us believe than in Israelite society one slip of the tongue and spout of inconsequential youthful child like disobedience from a little boy, would result in a parent reporting their own beloved child to the authorities in order for capital punishment in ensue. The simple use of rationality of course (absent in the case of PW), might infer the parent will love the child enough as to never report such an incident. Obviously if any sort of critical thinking was employed one could quickly result in knowing that parents in general, and even the Bible itself expect children to be rebellious by nature in this stated sense, so what exactly is PW even talking about? If we take this commandment as the hyper-literalists Ijaz Ahmed and Paul Williams do, we might expect there to be no Israelite nation left, if one minuscule act of expected rebellion from children was to be punished every time, then who would be left?
Williams as usual seems to be unconcerned with genuine scholarship, but very concerned with establishing the so called hypocrisy of Christians, when it is PW himself who offers the most literalist and fundamentalist interpretations of the verse, this is the true irony. PW thus criticizes Christians on the grounds that he interprets the Bible as a fundamentalist and literalist, and then accuses the Christians of the hypocrisy!
Paul correctly deduces to a moderate Christian brother:
"That is your extremely free interpretation."
While Paul himself maintains a strict hard line, hyper literalist perspective:
"It is not what the commandment prohibits. I have already pointed out that other commandments probit murder etc
First lets take a look at the passages in the Old Testament, and then we'll see what Jesus says about them.
"Whoever curses his father or his mother shall be put to death." (Exodus 21:17 ESV)
For anyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death; he has cursed his father or his mother; his blood is upon him. (Lev 20:9 ESV)
If one curses his father or his mother, his lamp will be put out in utter darkness. (Proverbs 20:20 ESV)
"'Cursed be anyone who dishonors his father or his mother.' And all the people shall say, 'Amen.' (Deuteronomy 27:16 ESV)The Gospels quote Jesus as saying:
For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother'; and, 'Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.' (Mar 7:10 ESV)
For God commanded, 'Honor your father and your mother,' and, 'Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.' ESV Matthew 15:4Since PW depends on English translations so much the first thing he can do is agree with them:
"18 tn Heb "makes light of his father and his mother." Almost all English versions render this as some variation of "curses his father or mother." (NET Bible Note Leviticus 20:9)
Appealing to PW's usual standard of following the majority English translation, so much for his overly-simplified "speaks" understanding.
The NET Bible makes another note on Lev 20:9: " 17 tn Heb "If a man a man who." Therefore showing in the Hebrew the person subject to the punishment is a grown adult. This of course would be completely compatible with the context that is addressing commandments especially for men. Later we will see not only this refers to men, but specifically the parents mentioned are elderly, meaning in context the children are adult children.
The literal reading of the term "curses" here is explained by Bible scholars:
61 tn The form is the Piel participle of קָלַל (qalal), which means "to be light"; in the Piel stem it means "to take lightly; to treat as worthless; to treat contemptuously; to curse." Under the Mosaic law such treatment of parents brought a death penalty (Exo 21:17; Lev 20:9; Deu 27:16). (NET Bible Note Proverbs 20:20)And:
15 tn The Hebrew term קָלָה (qalah) means to treat with disdain or lack of due respect (cf. NAB, NIV, NRSV "dishonors"; NLT "despises"). It is the opposite of כָּבֵד (kaved, "to be heavy," that is, to treat with reverence and proper deference). To TREAT a parent lightly is to dishonor him or her and thus violate the fifth commandment (Deu 5:16; cf. Exo 21:17). (NET Bible Note Deuteronomy 27:16)
In other words, in Israelite culture, to honor your parents, was not a single act of praise, gratitude and affection, but rather an on-going process, a commitment that every son and daughter had the responsibility to carry out. Likewise to dishonor a parent was to abolish your own obligation to those duties. This is brought out more clearly here:
38 tn The form is a Piel participle from קָלַל (qalal), meaning in Qal "be light," in Piel "treat lightly, curse, revile, declare contemptible, treat shamefully." (See its use in Lev 19:14; Jos 24:9; Jdg 9:26-28; 1Sa 3:13; 1Sa 17:43; 2Sa 16:5-13; Pro 30:10-11; Ecc 7:21-22; Ecc 10:20.) It is opposite of "honor" (כָּבֵד, kaved; Qal "be heavy"; Piel "honor," as in Exo 20:12) and of "bless." This verse then could refer to any act contrary to the commandment to honor the parents. B. Jacob (Exodus, 640) cites parallels in Sumerian where people were severely punished for publicly disowning their parents. "Exo 21:15, Exo 21:17 taken together evoke the picture of parents who, PHYSICALLY AND VERBALLY, are FORCIBLY turned out of the house (cf. Pro 19:26)" (C. Houtman, Exodus, 3:148). (NET Bible Note Exodus 21:17)Further more, a man was expected to honor his parents by taking care of them in all respects due to their old age:
"7:10-13 honor your father and your mother (cf. Ex. 20:12; 21:17; Deut. 5:16). No one questions the importance of this law in the Ten Commandments; disregarding it was punishable with death in ancient Israel. Part of honoring father and mother is to care for them, both financially and personally, in their old age."And finally we come to the New Testament. Why did Jesus accuse them of voiding the word of God, for their tradition?
"However, Jewish tradition allowed that funds originally dedicated to the care of parents could be declared Corban (Hebrew/Aramaic for legally "dedicated to God"; cf. Lev. 1:2; 2:1; etc.), meaning that the person would no longer be required to do anything for . . . father or mother. These funds could now be given to the temple, if so desired. Such human traditions thus allow room for the depravity of the human heart, directly opposing the Law of Moses which so often serves to protect the weak and helpless, in this case, parents in their feeble old age (making void the word of God). The "Corban" tradition is an example (along with many such things you do) of disregarding and rejecting the more important aspects of the Mosaic law. (ESV Bible Study Note Mark 7:10-13)"The motif in this passage seems to be clear, Jesus is not saying young children be killed for acting like brats and snobs to their mothers, but rather Jesus is picking on one example from the double standards of the Pharisees who do not observe the God's commands themselves, they complain that Jesus disciples violate tradition, when they themselves violate tradition, so why are they coming before him and accusing him, when they truly don't care about voiding God's commands?
Now when the Pharisees gathered to him, with some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem, 2 they saw that some of his disciples ate with hands that were defiled, that is, unwashed. 3 (For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands, holding to the tradition of the elders, 4 and when they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other traditions that they observe, such as the washing of cups and pots and copper vessels and dining couches.) 5 And the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, "Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands?" 6 And he said to them, "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, "'This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; 7 in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.' 8 You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men." 9 And he said to them, "You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition! 10 For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother'; and, 'Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.' 11 But you say, 'IF A MAN tells his father or his mother, "Whatever you would have gained from me is Corban"' (that is, given to God)-- 12 then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother, 13 thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do." 14 And he called the people to him again and said to them, "Hear me, all of you, and understand: 15 There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him." (Mar 7:1-15 ESV)Jesus does not object to the Pharisees for refusing to stone disobedient rebellious children, rather he represents his opponents position as "IF A MAN tells his" showing the category of people referred to is not young children, but adult children. The text quite explicitly detailed this as one example of many double standards the Pharisees practice. Matthew's account says:
Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, 2 "Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat." 3 He answered them, "And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God commanded, 'Honor your father and your mother,' and, 'Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.' 5 But you say, 'If anyone tells his father or his mother, "What you would have gained from me is given to God," 6 he need not honor his father.' So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God. 7 You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said: 8 "'This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; 9 in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.'" 10 And he called the people to him and said to them, "Hear and understand: 11 it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth; this defiles a person." 12 Then the disciples came and said to him, "Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this saying?" 13 He answered, "Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be rooted up. 14 Let them alone; they are blind guides. And if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit." 15 But Peter said to him, "Explain the parable to us." 16 And he said, "Are you also still without understanding? 17 Do you not see that whatever goes into the mouth passes into the stomach and is expelled? 18 But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person. 19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. 20 These are what defile a person. But to eat with unwashed hands does not defile anyone." (Mat 15:1-20 ESV)While they continuously attempt to argue Jesus violates the command of God, Jesus interprets the command of God to mean a person is defiled by what is on the inside and he uses the very Hebrew scriptures to justify his argument! Notice this is the follow up to his conversation with the Pharisees, not what is made manifest in the minds of the Islamics. The example Jesus cherry picks from the Old Testament fully fulfills it's role to show these two faced vipers errs, proving they lost a debate against a better opponent. I imagine PW would lose the same debate against Jesus.
In summary then, in reality there is no fantasy world a Muslim may appeal to where Jesus advocated and endorsed the killing of young children for the crime of being cheeky and defiant to their parents, like many children naturally are.
No comments:
Post a Comment