Below is a paper that I shared with theologically minded friends. I would appreciate feedback from scholars and amateur Bible students like myself; "amateur" in the sense that we do it for the love of it.
If this summary already makes sense, or you know of a commentator who says much the same thing, no need to read further. Just point me to the other commentator. Otherwise, welcome to my ponderings.
I think this is error. More careful observation of the text and context free us from fear of pious amputation and lead us to thoroughly gospel-grounded interpretation.
Jesus follows the same structure, merely substituting different body parts or associated removal actions. The differences are synonymously parallel. The body parts seem interchangeable. This suggests a puzzle to solve. I’ll return to that idea after further observations.
Since people often fixate on “cut off” and “tear out,” I feel the need to head off that fixation. So, I will start at the end of the passage and make 4 observations in backwards order. Counting down from 4...
If we interpret this whole passage as hyperbole, then the reader must interpret it by toning down, by not taking it as seriously as the words actually say. But the whole point of this passage seems to be the opposite. Jesus makes whatever body part “is causing you to sin” a matter of eternal destiny. We cannot risk “toning it down.”
By making this an issue of being in or out of the kingdom, Jesus also positions this theologically in the domain of justification, not sanctification. This idea is continuous from verse 3 where Jesus warned his disciples, “unless you change and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.” This wasn’t a matter of getting holier. It was a matter of getting in.
This is the part we like to tone down. So we often suggest instead of amputation, admonition. Instead of saying to body parts “be gone,” we say, “beware.” Jesus doesn’t give that option. But this will be clearer as we go.
If an inveterate thief decided to “take sin seriously” and “cut off his hand,” would that stop him from thieving? Not likely, he still has another hand. Chop that one off. Are we good? People are clever, he’ll figure out another way.
If men struggling with lust pluck out an eye, will that stop lust? (See parallel passage in Matthew 5:29). There’s still another eye. Take that one, too? The imagination feeds on memory. Lust continues.
Running the thought experiment, keeping the if in mind frees us from actual amputation, and forces us to ask the question: So, if it’s not the hand, foot, or eye that is causing our ruin, what is?
Jesus does not answer that in this passage, but Matthew and other gospel writers make it plain elsewhere, and no experienced Bible student would struggle at this point to answer the question. The cause of our ruin is our own heart. That realization negates the hyperbole interpretation. If Jesus’ statements in Matthew 18:8-9 are figures of speech at all, they are understatements because they failed to identify the cause. And when we finally arrive at the cause, the solution proves more drastic than amputating a limb or plucking an eye. If the cause is our heart, and cutting off is the solution, then we have a cure that we can’t survive. The problem now appears worse than when we started.
Summary
Jesus' instruction to cut off body parts is not hyperbole. Actually cutting off body parts also misses the point. Jesus was not proposing amputation as a way of sanctification. Nor was he exaggerating to get us to take sin seriously. Jesus’ words invite us into a thought experiment. “Cutting off” is the solution, but what body part needs to be cut off? He poses the puzzler, but gives no answer in this instance. However, approaching the text as a thought experiment leads us to conclude that the human heart is the problem. Cutting out the heart is closer to other sayings of Jesus about finding life by losing it, taking up your cross. This interpretation also leads more naturally to Jesus' cross where He was cut off for us.If this summary already makes sense, or you know of a commentator who says much the same thing, no need to read further. Just point me to the other commentator. Otherwise, welcome to my ponderings.
The Text
And if your hand or your foot is causing you to sin, cut it off and throw it away from you; it is better for you to enter life maimed or without a foot, than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into the eternal fire. 9 And if your eye is causing you to sin, tear it out and throw it away from you. It is better for you to enter life with one eye, than to have two eyes and be thrown into the [h]fiery hell. (Matthew 18:8-9, NASB)Introduction
Students doing math word problems often fixate on numbers. Knowing that they have to do calculations, they immediately begin mashing numbers in various ways, without actually understanding the problem. Sermons I have heard on Matthew 18:8-9 strike me as following the same failure. Interpreters fixate on the supposed application to “cut off” body parts. They immediately jump to protecting their flock by saying it’s only a hyperbole. Jesus, they say, is just trying to get us to take sin seriously.I think this is error. More careful observation of the text and context free us from fear of pious amputation and lead us to thoroughly gospel-grounded interpretation.
Observations
In Matthew 18, Jesus says the same thing twice, just substituting a few words. Look at them side-by-side.| Verse 8 | Verse 9 |
| And if your hand or your foot is causing you to sin, cut it off and throw it away from you; it is better for you to enter life maimed or without a foot, than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into the eternal fire. | And if your eye is causing you to sin, tear it out and throw it away from you. It is better for you to enter life with one eye, than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fiery hellh. h Lit Gehenna of fire |
Jesus follows the same structure, merely substituting different body parts or associated removal actions. The differences are synonymously parallel. The body parts seem interchangeable. This suggests a puzzle to solve. I’ll return to that idea after further observations.
Since people often fixate on “cut off” and “tear out,” I feel the need to head off that fixation. So, I will start at the end of the passage and make 4 observations in backwards order. Counting down from 4...
4. Enter Life
Jesus contrasts “enter life” with “be thrown into the eternal fire,” phrases familiar to Jewish people as descriptions of final judgment. And this immediately highlights the problem of sermons I recall, which conclude two things. 1) That this is hyperbole, and 2) that the application is to take sin seriously.If we interpret this whole passage as hyperbole, then the reader must interpret it by toning down, by not taking it as seriously as the words actually say. But the whole point of this passage seems to be the opposite. Jesus makes whatever body part “is causing you to sin” a matter of eternal destiny. We cannot risk “toning it down.”
By making this an issue of being in or out of the kingdom, Jesus also positions this theologically in the domain of justification, not sanctification. This idea is continuous from verse 3 where Jesus warned his disciples, “unless you change and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.” This wasn’t a matter of getting holier. It was a matter of getting in.
3. Cut it off - tear it out - throw it away
The action is extreme, matching the dire eternal consequences of failing to act.This is the part we like to tone down. So we often suggest instead of amputation, admonition. Instead of saying to body parts “be gone,” we say, “beware.” Jesus doesn’t give that option. But this will be clearer as we go.
2. Is causing you to sin
The whole phrase is a translation of a single Greek word σκανδαλίσῃ from which we get scandalize. English usage of scandal downgrades it to a mere ruin of reputation, something to make gossips’ tongues wag. But the Greek connotes something more severe. It brings to mind snares meant to end the life of an animal. The sense of the word and the way Jesus uses it repeatedly in the broader context (see verses 6 and 7), suggest that “causing you to sin” means a situation purposefully designed to keep people from the life and glory that God means for us, and to waste us (Gehenna being a local Jewish garbage dump). To help us capture the seriousness of σκανδαλίσῃ, I suggest we equate them with modern landmines.1. If
And here is the word that I think we ignore the most, but unlocks the interpretation if we attend to it.If + σκανδαλίσῃ
Typical sermons pushing the hyperbole interpretation leave us with an understanding that forces a paraphrases thus: If you sin using your hand/foot/eye… But I checked 60 English translations, and 48 of them translate using the word cause. So, Jesus is not talking about body parts as if they are merely instruments of our ruin. He pushes us to consider where in our being we find the cause of ruin.Observations from wider contexts
- Jesus’ uses σκανδαλίσῃ in association with two woes (verse 7). Woes are not meant to be toned down. Another indication that Jesus was not hyperbolizing.
- Σκανδαλίσῃ is used 6 times (verses 6-8). Four times precede verses 8 and 9. Their usage corresponds to narrowing concentric circles. (More detail on narrowing concentric circles available upon request.)
Interpretation
Jesus is not exaggerating via hyperbole. Instead, He pairs if with cause to invite us into a mental experiment. Let’s do the experiment.If an inveterate thief decided to “take sin seriously” and “cut off his hand,” would that stop him from thieving? Not likely, he still has another hand. Chop that one off. Are we good? People are clever, he’ll figure out another way.
If men struggling with lust pluck out an eye, will that stop lust? (See parallel passage in Matthew 5:29). There’s still another eye. Take that one, too? The imagination feeds on memory. Lust continues.
Running the thought experiment, keeping the if in mind frees us from actual amputation, and forces us to ask the question: So, if it’s not the hand, foot, or eye that is causing our ruin, what is?
Jesus does not answer that in this passage, but Matthew and other gospel writers make it plain elsewhere, and no experienced Bible student would struggle at this point to answer the question. The cause of our ruin is our own heart. That realization negates the hyperbole interpretation. If Jesus’ statements in Matthew 18:8-9 are figures of speech at all, they are understatements because they failed to identify the cause. And when we finally arrive at the cause, the solution proves more drastic than amputating a limb or plucking an eye. If the cause is our heart, and cutting off is the solution, then we have a cure that we can’t survive. The problem now appears worse than when we started.
