Death to the son who curses his parents??

[Orion]

Why does the Bible call for the death of a son who curses his parents? Why isn't it being done today? Is it because our current system of laws overrules Biblical principles?

 

[Benoni]

And sense when did Biblical principles dictate the laws of man? We are in the world but not of the world.

 

[Orion]

Are you saying that if a son DOES curse his parents, he should be put to death??? :o

 

[Benoni]

Yep.

Are you saying that if a son DOES curse his parents, he should be put to death??? :o

 

[Orion]

So, . . . . . . then does that mean that those people who DON'T are being disobedient?

 

[Benoni]

Yea; so are you perfect

So, . . . . . . then does that mean that those people who DON'T are being disobedient?

 

[Orion]

I don't have any children. . . . . . . . . so maybe! Just kidding.

"Perfection" isn't the issue.

 

[Benoni]

Of course it is do you know anyone one who is perfect who can overcome the law of Moses; that is why we need Jesus.

I don't have any children. . . . . . . . . so maybe! Just kidding.

"Perfection" isn't the issue.

 

[Orion]

The actual issue is "why would God call for the death of someone who curses his parents"? And why doesn't anyone do this, if it is a law set by God, . . . .regardless of whether or not Jesus forgives us for not doing so?

 

[Benoni]

In the OT law yes, God caused the death when man was cursed; death is a tool to accomplish God’s Will on earth.

The actual issue is "why would God call for the death of someone who curses his parents"? And why doesn't anyone do this, if it is a law set by God, . . . .regardless of whether or not Jesus forgives us for not doing so?

 

[cyberjosh]

Why does the Bible call for the death of a son who curses his parents? Why isn't it being done today? Is it because our current system of laws overrules Biblical principles?

The principles of the consequences for breaking God's moral law remain the same, and as James says if we have broken the law at one point we have broken the whole law, and thus are are condemned under sin.

Why there are not such as physically harsh measures taken today is because of the grace that Jesus brought to the keeping of the law, as it says in John 1:17 "For the law was given by Moses; grace and truth came by Jesus Christ". Jesus told Peter not to forgive just seven times, but seventy times seven - to have exceeding patience toward others, yet where necessary correct them. Jesus did not desire the physical destruction of others as he revealed when the Samaritans opposed his travels toward Jerusalem and disciples asked, "Lord, do You want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them?" But He turned and rebuked them, and said, 'You do not know what kind of spirit you are of; for the Son of Man did not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them.'" (Luke 9:54-56).

At the same time Jesus also said, "Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person’s enemies will be those of his own household. Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me" (Matthew 10:34-37).

Here Christ clearly lays out a spiritual principle of discipleship of the cost of following Christ. This is not contrary to the commandment to love one's father and mother, yet draws on the fact that one must honor God above all. So Jesus acknowledges that divides may occur, but physical destruction is not in the picture any longer (at least, offenses are generally greatly forebeared - but grevious and belligerent/persistent sins still can result in physical death Acts 5:5, yet is done by God alone). And actually in this latter case ("bring a sword") the divide is intended, or inevitable, in following Christ. For purpose of illustration though assume that such a divide occured wrongfully, by the son's rebellion against his parents. The parents most certainly have the right to discipline him yet (following Jesus' example) Christ showed compassion on those condemned to death - as to the adulteress to be stoned - and would stress the virtue of grace and forgiveness.

In the old testament the punishment was far worse and swift (physically speaking), and the Bible even goes so far as to say, "The eye that mocketh at his father, and despiseth to obey his mother, the ravens of the valley shall pick it out, and the young eagles shall eat it" (Proverbs 30:17). In other words, the son who mocks his father and mother will eventually end up dead in some battlefield in the future where the "ravens" (vultures) descend on the bodies and devour them, and their eye that mocked plucked out (a very common scene in OT times). The lesson is that death is in the future of those who rebel against their parents (and still today the New Testament promise, to the contrary, for obeying our parents is a long life - Ephesians 6:3; implying a short life for those that do not). It is a breaking of God's commandment to disobey our parents, and even under grace the sin is no less in God's eyes - only, His forebearance for the sake of Christ's atonement is greater on our behalf for the time being.

Yet let no one be mistaken, for even in the Gospels the "wrath to come" is spoken of often - and God's wrath with man's sin is not evaporated but merely postponed. Thus both John the Baptist's and Jesus' call "repent for the kingdom of God is at hand!", because salvation is being offered now, "today", and should be sought after while available before God's final wrath is released. "Behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation" (2 Corinthians 6:2). In the mean time God is patiently forebearing man's sin. The principle of the wheat and the tares is at play here.

But no doubt grace has entered in because of Christ, and that is why we do not see such swift measures taken today as in the Old Testament. But the consequences of sin are all the same.

I hope this has adequately touched on your question.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[Orion]

I understand the concept of "breaking all the laws if you break one". . . . . which I don't agree with, but that's for another topic.

My point is, . . .there are many "sins" in the Bible that don't result in the death of the person who commits it. I just don't understand why a rebellious son would be one of those that IS called for his death. It seems as though it would be far more usefull to teach the son how to be, WHY he should respect his parents, . . .rather than what the law called for. But it seems that this one would never be followed today, even though God called for it to happen.

 

[jasoncran]

no, the death of jesus on the cross and the resurrection thereof, has made a better way of dealing with things. Do we put witches to death or the adulters, or those who blashheme the name of the Lord, no rather we pray and try to lead them to repentece through the power of the holy spirit and only he can convict, and cause true repentence, if the sinner wants to.

jason

 

[Orion]

But Jesus stated that such an action should be taken place against this type of son. :gah

 

[Sparkey]

But Jesus stated that such an action should be taken place against this type of son. :gah

When did Jesus say this? Before he died on the cross? Just saying...

 

[Orion]

What does it matter if it was before or after. He said many things that we are supposed to follow (things we are and aren't supposed to do) before his death.

 

[jasoncran]

i have rebelled and hurt my parents yrs ago, and have recieved the gift of salvation of the Lord, isnt that better than stoning one who has sinned in this manner, let he who is without sin cast the first stone. No, i'm not justifying the sin, but honestly all sin is worthy of death, Romans 6:23

jason

 

[Sparkey]

K.I.S.S.

What does it matter if it was before or after. He said many things that we are supposed to follow (things we are and aren't supposed to do) before his death.

Don't pretend to be confused by this. The death and resurrection of Jesus on the Cross pays the price for sin. If you are really confused by this then we don't need to discuss things in too much detail until after you have understood the foundational things. No sense trying to construct things on the third story of a building when the foundation is yet to be laid.

You can't have it both ways, if you are not capable of understanding the basis of salvation then so be it. If you are able to understand and wish to further explore the specifics of the Law then also so-be-it. My only requirement is that you pick one lane and stay in it. You've labeled yourself as a "de-convert". I'm not fooled by your pretending here. Okay?

~Sparrowhawke

 

[Orion]

If you believe that I am "pretending", . . . that is your problem.

The ISSUE is that Jesus stated that such a son should be put to death. It doesn't matter whether or not "people's sins are forgiven after the cross". The FACTS are that Jesus saw this as something that should be done. Why? There are other sins that never called for the death of the person!

After the ressurection, there are sins that are required to be answered to. And where in the Bible does it say that the FORMER penalties are now void? I would be curious to see that, as I may be unaware of it.

 

[Sparkey]

It doesn't matter whether or not "people's sins are forgiven after the cross".

Are you speaking to me? Who are you quoting? Surely not me.