Exegesis and Dismemberment

[Skyler]

"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.

Pertaining to eye gouging out, I don't think there are only two options. While Jesus is not actively *advocating* the mutilation of one's body as if it can make us sin, I also do not believe He is using hyperbole. Why? Because I don't think he is exaggarating on what our attitude toward sin ought to be! In other words, we ought to seriously prefer the loss of a body part than to commit the least of sins. I hope that makes sense. The use of Hyperbole would just mean that Christ was making it "a bigger deal" than it really was, which I don't think He was doing. He was, however, saying that one ought to prefer the greatest of evils done to them than to commit the least of sins.

I have been puzzling over this for some time now. If Jesus was not using hyperbole, then how do we (exegetically) determine that He is not actually "advocating the mutilation of one's body"?

 

[Wayne]

Think it through. If I gouge out my eyes, does that eliminate my ability to sin? Not in the least. In that light, go back and re-read Josh's comment.

 

[Skyler]

Think it through. If I gouge out my eyes, does that eliminate my ability to sin? Not in the least. In that light, go back and re-read Josh's comment.

And so because I could sin even if I follow Christ's command, I don't need to follow his command?

 

[Zenas]

He's using a metaphor for what our attitude toward sin and the causes thereof ought to be.

 

[jwithnell]

The overall context of this middle section of Matt. 5 is the full weight and extent of the law and our inability to keep it. I don't know about you, but I don't think I could reach out and chop off part of my body, and perhaps that's the point. And even if we could, that, as Wayne shows, would not keep us from further sin. It would just be another external demonstration such as is found in the Pharisees and scribes in vs. 20. Given the overall teaching of scripture to preserve life and health in keeping with the 6th commandment, I'd say we cannot take this as a physical action but as a wake-up call to the seriousness of our sin (even thinking about it, vs. 28).

Gotta add, your thread title caught my attention! I imagined our poor pastors trying to get ready for preaching!!!

 

[Skyler]

He's using a metaphor for what our attitude toward sin and the causes thereof ought to be.

What are some other examples of this?

---------- Post added at 02:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:36 PM ----------

The overall context of this middle section of Matt. 5 is the full weight and extent of the law and our inability to keep it. I don't know about you, but I don't think I could reach out and chop off part of my body, and perhaps that's the point. And even if we could, that, as Wayne shows, would not keep us from further sin. It would just be another external demonstration such as is found in the Pharisees and scribes in vs. 20. Given the overall teaching of scripture to preserve life and health in keeping with the 6th commandment, I'd say we cannot take this as a physical action but as a wake-up call to the seriousness of our sin (even thinking about it, vs. 28).

But wouldn't that reasoning also lead us to conclude that it was all right to dress immodestly? Because even dressing modestly isn't going to keep us from trying to show off.

Gotta add, your thread title caught my attention! I imagined our poor pastors trying to get ready for preaching!!!

Haha. I was initially just going to put the reference in the title, but then I thought "Naw, nobody's going to click THAT..." so I went for something more attention-getting.

 

[MarieP]

Other metaphors in that sermon:

Matthew 5
13 “You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt loses its flavor, how shall it be seasoned? It is then good for nothing but to be thrown out and trampled underfoot by men.
14 “You are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden. 15 Nor do they light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house. 16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven.

Matthew 7
1 “Judge not, that you be not judged. 2 For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you. 3 And why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove the speck from your eye’; and look, a plank is in your own eye? 5 Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.
6 “Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces.

 

[Skyler]

Second question, does this interpretation also apply to the other sections in the immediate context? Why or why not?

Divorce

31 "It was also said, 'Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.' 32 But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
Oaths

33"Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.' 34But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, 35or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. 36And do not take an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. 37Let what you say be simply 'Yes' or 'No'; anything more than this comes from evil.
Retaliation

38 "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' 39But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.

 

[jwithnell]

Modest dressing can be supported from other parts of scripture, so it almost doesn't matter if it is seen metaphorically or not here.

 

[Skyler]

Modest dressing can be supported from other parts of scripture, so it almost doesn't matter if it is seen metaphorically or not here.

Agreed. It can easily be demonstrated (in my opinion) that the passages on modest dress are not metaphorical (unlike this one).

 

[Pergamum]

Skyler drop the chainsaw!!!!!!!!!

 

[au5t1n]

It might be a reductio ad absurdum to prove that your right arm or eye cannot cause you to sin at all, as the Pharisees believed (if they really could, then why wouldn't you get rid of them? he's saying). Read the verses preceding. Jesus has already established that it is your heart, not your eye, that causes you to sin. "But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart" (v. 28).

Of course, it also carries the weight of needing to do whatever it takes to avoid sin, by logical implication (i.e. Jesus' reductio ad absurdum, if that's what it is, assumes that point to be true).

---------- Post added at 10:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:00 PM ----------

I am not convinced that Jesus is employing reductio ad absurdum, by the way, but I regard it as a strong possibility.

 

[Skyler]

It might be a reductio ad absurdum to prove that your right arm or eye cannot cause you to sin at all, as the Pharisees believed (if they really could, then why wouldn't you get rid of them? he's saying). Read the verses preceding. Jesus has already established that it is your heart, not your eye, that causes you to sin. "But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart" (v. 28).

Of course, it also carries the weight of needing to do whatever it takes to avoid sin, by logical implication (i.e. Jesus' reductio ad absurdum, if that's what it is, assumes that point to be true).

---------- Post added at 10:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:00 PM ----------

I am not convinced that Jesus is employing reductio ad absurdum, by the way, but I regard it as a strong possibility.

OK, I think I can see how that makes sense. It seems to fit a little bit better than the metaphorical explanation, since the other passages in the immediate context (the "you have heard" series) don't seem to use the same metaphorical style. Thoughts?