I was given Matthew 15:1-9 by my Twitter atheist friend as a passage in which it is clear (to him) Jesus advocates the "murdering of children". Here is the Tweet:
Lets look at the reading
Lets look at the reading
Matthew 15:1-20
1 Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, 2 “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!”3 Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’ and ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’ 5 But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is ‘devoted to God,’ 6 they are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7 You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:
8 “‘These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
9 They worship me in vain;
their teachings are merely human rules.’”
The first "issue" in TA's (I have taken to call him TA, since he has not given me permission to use his twitter handle) interpretation of this passage which jumps at me is the use of the word "children". If you read closely Jesus never uses this word, instead he uses the word "anyone". This reveals something I have noticed about many atheists, they display a deep and special concern towards the well-being of children, albeit, sometimes this concern spills over when considering anything deist...like reading things in scripture which are just not there.
To be fair to TA I will concede that someone with no idea of Jesus' teachings and the things he stood for could, under very specific circumstances, make the claim that by using the inclusive word "anyone" Jesus is talking about all individuals which could possibly be considered as "children". Of course this raises the troubling possibility that Jesus is talking about all types of children, to include: infant, toddlers, teens, young adults and adults. This interpretation is problematic for many reasons: The way Jesus talks about small children in other parts of the Gospels, the way he treated them, the way his followers treated children, especially unwanted newborns at the time this Gospel was written would provide enough reason to think that Jesus had something else in mind when he said "anyone". However the strongest reason to reach this conclusion is the fact that Jesus never said this word either; in fact Jesus never said any of the words we read in the Gospels! Jesus spoke Aramaic and the Gospels were written in Greek, so what we read in English Bibles is a translation of a translation. It goes without saying that this translation process added some inaccuracies to the modern English version of the Ancient Aramaic, which, if not careful, might lead to misinterpretations of Scripture (Like TA's).
Now we do not need to get a degree on Greek to understand Jesus' meanings. The greater message of his words could be understood from our English versions. However when we start quarreling about this word or that word it is best to apply a bit of textual analysis to solve our problems. Lets do this to this passage to see were it takes us.
The first thing we notice is that Jesus is talking to some people called "Pharisees" and "Teachers of the Law" who came from a place in Jerusalem to ask him a question, about the "washing of hands". Jesus answers their questions with another question:
The first thing we should ask our-selves is: what is going on on this passage? Recall on my previous post (Helping Atheists Understant the Bible: An Introduction) that the bible is composed of many writing styles. In this passage what we are reading is what, by today's standards, could be considered as a "legal argument". We know, from experience, that when legal experts engage in discussions of these type, they quote sources, in this case Jesus, the Pharisees and the Teachers of the Law are quoting precedent law to each other. This in itself is significant since in legal arguments the level of agreement or disagreement between the arguing parties with the presented law is not important, what matters is how is the law interpreted and applied. Jesus quoting these laws says nothing about his agreement or disagreement with them.
The text follows:
A quick search will find that these two laws come from one of the oldest books in the bibles: Exodus. Here is the first law quoted:
The context of this law is NOT The Decalog. The very first time we find this law is in a section of laws covering personal/physical injury. Just two verses before we see a very similar law:
There is another instance of this law in the Jewish Holy books. It is in Leviticus 20:9. Here is the complete section for more context, with the law highlighted:
To be fair to TA I will concede that someone with no idea of Jesus' teachings and the things he stood for could, under very specific circumstances, make the claim that by using the inclusive word "anyone" Jesus is talking about all individuals which could possibly be considered as "children". Of course this raises the troubling possibility that Jesus is talking about all types of children, to include: infant, toddlers, teens, young adults and adults. This interpretation is problematic for many reasons: The way Jesus talks about small children in other parts of the Gospels, the way he treated them, the way his followers treated children, especially unwanted newborns at the time this Gospel was written would provide enough reason to think that Jesus had something else in mind when he said "anyone". However the strongest reason to reach this conclusion is the fact that Jesus never said this word either; in fact Jesus never said any of the words we read in the Gospels! Jesus spoke Aramaic and the Gospels were written in Greek, so what we read in English Bibles is a translation of a translation. It goes without saying that this translation process added some inaccuracies to the modern English version of the Ancient Aramaic, which, if not careful, might lead to misinterpretations of Scripture (Like TA's).
Now we do not need to get a degree on Greek to understand Jesus' meanings. The greater message of his words could be understood from our English versions. However when we start quarreling about this word or that word it is best to apply a bit of textual analysis to solve our problems. Lets do this to this passage to see were it takes us.
1 Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, 2 “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!”
The first thing we notice is that Jesus is talking to some people called "Pharisees" and "Teachers of the Law" who came from a place in Jerusalem to ask him a question, about the "washing of hands". Jesus answers their questions with another question:
“And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’ and ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’
The first thing we should ask our-selves is: what is going on on this passage? Recall on my previous post (Helping Atheists Understant the Bible: An Introduction) that the bible is composed of many writing styles. In this passage what we are reading is what, by today's standards, could be considered as a "legal argument". We know, from experience, that when legal experts engage in discussions of these type, they quote sources, in this case Jesus, the Pharisees and the Teachers of the Law are quoting precedent law to each other. This in itself is significant since in legal arguments the level of agreement or disagreement between the arguing parties with the presented law is not important, what matters is how is the law interpreted and applied. Jesus quoting these laws says nothing about his agreement or disagreement with them.
The text follows:
But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is ‘devoted to God,’ 6 they are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition.As you can see after Jesus quotes the laws, he critiques his interlocutors interpretation for applying these laws to their advantage. Here we must pause and take a look at how these laws were created and how their interpretation evolved, to help us define Jesus true meaning.
A quick search will find that these two laws come from one of the oldest books in the bibles: Exodus. Here is the first law quoted:
Exodus 20:12 “Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the LORD your God is giving you."The context of this law is The Decalog, or The Ten Commandments. It was given as one of the first 10 laws the Jewish people received from God.
Exodus 21:17 “Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death."
The context of this law is NOT The Decalog. The very first time we find this law is in a section of laws covering personal/physical injury. Just two verses before we see a very similar law:
Exodus 21:15 “Anyone who attacks their father or mother is to be put to death.I should say that the word "attack", is really the Hebrew word referring to a physical attack which could cause death. This is very significant since it puts Ex 21:17 in context. The personal injury we are talking about is not cause by just the uttering a curse against your mother and father, but a by an action which can cause great personal injury or affront to them. Words spoken in haste, by an angry child do not qualify as a violation of this law.
There is another instance of this law in the Jewish Holy books. It is in Leviticus 20:9. Here is the complete section for more context, with the law highlighted:
Lev 20:7-21 “ ‘Consecrate yourselves and be holy, because I am the LORD your God. 8 Keep my decrees and follow them. I am the LORD, who makes you holy.This time the "curse against parents" law is placed at the head of a group of laws condemning sexual deviancy (Adultery, Incest, bestiality, etc.) Again, by this context, it is clear that the "curse" being punished with death is not just the simple ramblings of an upset child, but the type of offense that would bring great dishonor, and damage to a parent.
9 “ ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death. Because they have cursed their father or mother, their blood will be on their own head.
10 “ ‘If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death.
11 “ ‘If a man has sexual relations with his father’s wife, he has dishonored his father. Both the man and the woman are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
12 “ ‘If a man has sexual relations with his daughter-in-law, both of them are to be put to death. What they have done is a perversion; their blood will be on their own heads.
13 “ ‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
14 “ ‘If a man marries both a woman and her mother, it is wicked. Both he and they must be burned in the fire, so that no wickedness will be among you.
15 “ ‘If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he is to be put to death, and you must kill the animal.
16 “ ‘If a woman approaches an animal to have sexual relations with it, kill both the woman and the animal. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
17 “ ‘If a man marries his sister, the daughter of either his father or his mother, and they have sexual relations, it is a disgrace. They are to be publicly removed from their people. He has dishonored his sister and will be held responsible.
18 “ ‘If a man has sexual relations with a woman during her monthly period, he has exposed the source of her flow, and she has also uncovered it. Both of them are to be cut off from their people.
19 “ ‘Do not have sexual relations with the sister of either your mother or your father, for that would dishonor a close relative; both of you would be held responsible.
20 “ ‘If a man has sexual relations with his aunt, he has dishonored his uncle. They will be held responsible; they will die childless.
21 “ ‘If a man marries his brother’s wife, it is an act of impurity; he has dishonored his brother. They will be childless.
One last place we will look at for context is in the commentary made by ancient Jewish Rabbis in a work named Jerusalem Talmud. This is a commentary in all the laws and traditions of the Jewish people and its valuable information on the type of "curse", punishable by death, this law codifies:
He who is liable for cursing his father is liable for cursing his mother. He who is not liable for cursing his father is not liable for cursing his mother.So as you see in order for someone to loose their lives for breaking this law, the "curse" in question has to be so great that even if one "curses" one of the parents, because of the nature and seriousness of this action, one is liable for cursing the other parent.
With all this in mind, we look at Jesus' words and realize that he is not only quoting established legal precedence known to his opponents, but he is using this law the way it was intended. You see, during the times of Jesus there were no social nets like we have today. For a person to become unable to work, was a sure sentence to destitution, unless this person had children. The grown children of elderly parents were expected to take care of them and in fact, it was expected that part of their income was to be given to the care of their parents. Unless... This money was to be given to cover other charities. The pharisees and Teachers of the Law were using this as a loop hole to release themselves and others from the responsibility of taking care of their elderly parents.
The "curse" Jesus is speaking about is the life of poverty and destitution this practice caused on the elderly. In Jesus' eyes, a child which refuses to take care of his parents, and neglects his social responsibilities is liable of death. Jesus is not only quoting Law to them, he is showing how to apply it to common practices of this time. It is clear now that Jesus is not advocating the murdering of children but calling his interlocutors to accept the responsibility in God's eyes of honoring their parents in their old age.
I hope this helps clarify this passage.
"Viva Cristo Rey!!"
"Viva Cristo Rey!!"
Posts
