Hands and Sin

In the Sermon on the Mount we read this well-known statement from Christ:

"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" (Matt 5:27-30).

Okay, well, perhaps "well-known" isn't exactly accurate. The best known part of it is the idea that Jesus classified looking on a woman with lust with adultery. Yeah, lots of people know that. I believe it was Billy Graham that suggested "The first look is normal; the second look is lust" to which others countered, "Depends on how long the first look is" and so forth. In other words, we've spent time dissecting this idea of lustful look = adultery. Fine. We've been pretty careful, however, to avoid the rest of what He said. I mean, seriously, this whole "tear out your right eye" and "cut off your right hand" thing is, well, a bit over the top, isn't it?

One would certainly think so, but, as it turns out, this wasn't the only time Jesus made such a proposition:

"Woe to the world for temptations to sin! For it is necessary that temptations come, but woe to the one by whom the temptation comes! And if your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life crippled or lame than with two hands or two feet to be thrown into the eternal fire. And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into the hell of fire" (Matt 18:7-9).

Now, let me start out by being perfectly clear about something here. I am not suggesting that it was actually Jesus's intention that if your eye (or hand or feet or whatever) causes you to sin that you should in reality dismember yourself over it. As I reviewed the commentaries on these passages I found that they were all in agreement with me ... with the possible exception of Origen, an early Church father who apparently castrated himself in an attempt to obey this command. No, no, that's not where I'm going with this. I believe that Jesus was speaking here in hyperbole.

So where am I going with this? Well, it's a funny thing. Once we all agree that Jesus was exaggerating -- that He was not actually telling us to mutilate ourselves -- it seems as if Christians sigh a sigh of relief and ... throw the passage away. That is, if we don't actually have to pluck out our eye or cut off our hand or amputate feet, we don't actually have to do anything. Now, I would hope that this would seem completely nonsensical to you. I mean, the function of hyperbole -- of exaggerating a point to make the point -- is not to eliminate the point. It is to make the point.

So if Jesus was exaggerating to make a point, what point was He trying to make? It seems quite obvious to me. Do whatever it takes to rid yourself of the temptations that cause you to stumble. "Yeah, well, that doesn't mean cutting off your hand, right?" Okay, I'll buy that. But what about this? What about you guys who cannot go to the beach without lusting? How about not going to the beach? Is that too much to ask? If you have a tendency toward pride, perhaps being the leader of the worship team (any place up in front where you can draw attention to yourself) isn't the best place for you. If you are having a hard time fighting off temptation for Internet pornography, is the Internet really so important that you can't cut it off? If television is taking you away from important matters like reading your Bible, spending time with family, and so on, is it really unreasonable to remove television entirely? If TV is causing you temptation (buying, lusting, desiring stuff, lousy thinking, etc.), is TV so important that you cannot get rid of it? Ladies, is it really more important to be "fashionable" and "appealing" in your dress than the temptation it causes? ("Woe to the one by whom the temptation comes.") Here's what I'm asking. Assuming that a literal reading of "pluck out your eye" really is just a bit much, what is not too literal? Or, to put it another way, if avoiding Hell and having a right relationship with God is important, what would you consider more important -- important enough to allow to remain in the way?

I often see this argument that "That portion of Scripture isn't to be taken at face value; it was hyperbole" or some such. Oddly enough in almost every case the result of that position seems to be "therefore, we don't have to understand that portion to mean anything at all." There can be no doubt that some of Scripture is intended to be an exaggeration to make a point. I'm confident that the passages in this post are exactly that. The point, however, is not "Don't worry; you don't need to do anything about your sin. I was only joking about poking out your eye." No! The point is "Sin is a serious problem, and you ought to do whatever it takes to get it out of your life!" That would be taking the Bible "literally" -- as written. And our refusal to take the necessary steps to do just that is not a good thing.