Mark 7 11&12

[Just_me_Mike]

Hi, I am having difficulty understanding these verses. Anyone care to give their opinion of them.
Much appreciated.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

What part do you not understand?

Context:

9And he said to them, "You have a fine way of(O) rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition! 10For Moses said,(P) 'Honor your father and your mother'; and,(Q) 'Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.' 11But 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)[d]— 12then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother, 13thus(R) making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do."

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Umm. verse 12 is just not computing. Could you rephrase it or maybe illustrate the point.
Thank you.

 

[gzusfrk]

If you give all your money to God how are you going to help your family and those in need. Bear one anothers burdens, and thus fulfill the law of Christ. Galatians 6:2

 

[idea]

Here is the same idea in Matt:

4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.
5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;
6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.
7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,
8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
(New Testament | Matthew 15:4 - 9)

 

[Oberon]

Mark 7:1- 23 is concerned with Jesus' ruling on purity laws.

After being accused of "unclean" or "impure" actions by the Pharisees, Jesus' comes back with a two-fold response. First, he shows directly attacks the pharisees as hypocrites, and then he delivers his own ruling on purity.

The lines you are interested in , 11& 12, concern Jesus' attack against the Pharisees.

He begins by quoting Isaiah, saying that the Pharisees basically follow the letter of the law, but they miss what it is really about. He then demonstrates this in verses. 10-13.

First, Jesus quotes the commandment given to Moses (and if anything is considered the law of God to Jesus' contemporaries, it would be one of these commandments) that one should honor mother and father. Then, in verses 11-13, he shows how the specific interpretation of the Pharisees violates this basic commandment.

Basically, Jesus refers to a practice, which the Pharisees follow, in which a man can get out of giving to his parents their due, simply by declaring that whatever he owes them is "qorban" or a dedication to Yahweh. In other words, "I am not giving you what I owe you, I am dedicating it to God." According to Jesus, this tradition violates the commandment of God to honor mother and father.

He then follows this attack by giving his own halakha on purity.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

So, is Jesus saying the Jews were teaching to give everything to God and not help mother and father (figuratively).

Does this go with the parable he spoke to the disciples about helping him when he was sick and hungry and in prison, and the disciples responded when did they help? Jesus said if you help anyone with these needs, it was the same as helping him.

In other words, is he saying the Jews were taking from people in the name of God, but not really helping anyone but themselves?

Hope I asked that correctly.

 

[Oberon]

So, is Jesus saying the Jews were teaching to give everything to God and not help mother and father (figuratively)

Not the "Jews" but a specific group of Jews. And not exactly. I am sure that for the most part "Qorban" or dedications to Yahweh were done with the best intentions. However, Jesus saw that this practice could be used a loophole (and probably was) to get out of giving one's parents their due.

In other words, is he saying the Jews were taking from people in the name of God, but not really helping anyone but themselves?

Not really. First, you have to understand that in Jesus' day there were a lot of various interpretations on what exactly was God's law. Jesus is addresssing one interpretation about one aspect of the law. His attack on the pharisees is really peripheral to his main goal. Think of it like a debate tactic. He starts out by showing how the pharisees were really hypocrites, because their practice of dedication to Yahweh could be used to break Yahweh's commandments. Then he goes to the REAL point, which is actually about purity laws. The pharisees began the whole debate by accusing Jesus of being unclean because he did not follow their interpretation of purity laws.

He starts out with his attack, and then he rules on this topic, by saying that food can't make someone unclean.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Not the "Jews" but a specific group of Jews. And not exactly. I am sure that for the most part "Qorban" or dedications to Yahweh were done with the best intentions. However, Jesus saw that this practice could be used a loophole (and probably was) to get out of giving one's parents their due.



Not really. First, you have to understand that in Jesus' day there were a lot of various interpretations on what exactly was God's law. Jesus is addresssing one interpretation about one aspect of the law. His attack on the pharisees is really peripheral to his main goal. Think of it like a debate tactic. He starts out by showing how the pharisees were really hypocrites, because their practice of dedication to Yahweh could be used to break Yahweh's commandments. Then he goes to the REAL point, which is actually about purity laws. The pharisees began the whole debate by accusing Jesus of being unclean because he did not follow their interpretation of purity laws.

He starts out with his attack, and then he rules on this topic, by saying that food can't make someone unclean.

Thank you I will go back and look it over.

 

[lockyfan]

really he was pointing a hole in the traditions that man had put upon God's Law

he was saying that they were wrong in what they were doing and had to change their way basically