i don't think this passage means what you think it means.
Mark 9:42
“If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them if a large millstone were hung around their neck and they were thrown into the sea."
it does not say "it would be better for them if
they hung a large millstone around their neck and
threw themselves into the sea." think about it.
Jesus on Cutting Off Temptations (Mark 9:42-50) - Analysis and Commentary
the website name may be a little off-putting but it is very well written and not at all atheistic. it is simply explaining the meaning of your quoted scripture. it is a really good article and i recommend you read it all.
42 And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea. 43 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: 44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. 45 And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: 46 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
47 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire: 48 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. 49 For every one shall be salted with fire, and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt. 50 Salt is good: but if the salt have lost his saltness, wherewith will ye season it? Have salt in yourselves, and have peace one with another.
Jesus, Sin, and Hell
We find here a series of warnings of what awaits those foolish enough to give in to temptations to sin. Scholars have argued that all of these sayings were actually stated at different times and in different contexts where they would have made sense. Here, however, we have them all drawn together on the basis of thematic similarity.
Whereas earlier passages were designed to explain some of the dangers of prophetic discipleship, here we have warnings about inauthentic discipleship. If one is willing to follow Jesus, they will have to be willing to do so consistently and honestly.
The word used here in this translation is “offend.” Sometimes it is rendered as “scandalize,” but a more accurate translation would be “to cause to fall away” (in Greek, literally “be tripped”
. What is meant is that none of the “little ones” (children, the powerless, or those weak in faith) should be caused to “fall away” from the “good news.” Anyone who acts in a manner that does cause this will be in trouble.
Thus Jesus’ disciples are cautioned not to lose their “saltness,” which means they should not lose their effectiveness at what they do. For this, they must stop vying with one another for positions of power and privilege; instead, they should focus on the task at hand which is to spread Jesus’ message and serve others.
It is curious that the verse “Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched” is repeated here three times: 44, 46, and 48. The King James Version is just about the only translation to do this. Nearly every other translation leaves out 44 and 46 entirely, retaining just the instance in verse 48. This is apparently consistent with most of the ancient authorities on Mark but it does cause a problem for those modern Christian who insist that only the KJV is in any way authoritative.
Gerd Lüdemann argues that what we have here are remnants of a pre-Marcan catechism. Once the repetitive verses are stripped away, we are left with a series of parallel statements that definitely have the flavor of a catechism where entering the Kingdom of God is contrasted with Gehenna:
- 43 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched
45 And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched
47 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire
It’s even plausible that the repetitive phrases really were original after all — they read an awful lot like the “response” portion of either the responsorial Psalms (where a lector recites a verse and the congregation responds with the antiphon) or the “General Intercessions” where a lector reads a prayer for intercession (such as for world peace) and the congregation responds with “Lord, Hear our Prayer.” Although this sounds very negative and pessimistic, it’s not an unreasonable perspective for a community suffering from persecution. Of course there would be an emphasis on the need to avoid anything that would cause one to fall away from Christian faith, to focus on maintaining the community, and the dire consequences that await backsliders in the apocalypse which must be very close at hand.
One common interpretation of this passage of Mark is that Christians must keep themselves separate from evil and sin in order to remain near to God in themselves. If this requires denying or removing some aspect of themselves, then that is a price they must be willing to pay because it would be better to go to heaven without that part of themselves than to remain whole but also in the fires of hell.
Some Christians have taken all of this literally and have gone so far as to cut off pieces of their body in order eliminate any temptations those body parts. Even many Christian theologians have recognized, however, that taking these lines literally is to seriously misunderstand them because earlier statements of Jesus argue that that which is “unclean” comes not from the outside, but rather from a person’s heart and mind.
If that is the case, then we must conclude that temptation, too, is more a product of hearts and minds than of hands and feet. Even if we attribute temptations to Satan, it would still be an error to blame our eyes. So how should we read this? I think that the point being made is that temptation can be very much a part of our lives but that, in order to avoid temptation, sometimes we may have to cut ourselves off from some aspect of our lives.
We might, for example, be living in a dysfunctional relationship where a person is a constant source of temptation, such as, always offering us drugs or alcohol. This may be a very old relationship which we find very comforting most of the time, but Jesus’ message is that it would be better for us to give it up rather than give in to the temptations it forces upon us.
The fate of those who give in to temptation is, however, rather disturbing. This isn’t the only passage where Jesus emphasizes the idea that those who do not follow him are destined to spend eternity in torment down in hell. One has to wonder what sort of “love” Jesus is here to share when such a penalty awaits those who don’t accept that love.
To say “love me or I will punish you and make your existence one of suffering and torment” is characteristic of an abusive boyfriend or husband — and we don’t normally say that such people really “love” their partners. They may think that they love, but in fact they have confused power and control for love and kindness. The same might be said here about Jesus and God: instead of accepting people unconditionally, despite their flaws and faults, Jesus is insisting that the only way he will accept them is if they can fit into his model of how humans should behave, specifically by following him and obeying his commands.
It should not be assumed that such an attitude is unique to Christianity. On the contrary, this was very much in keeping with Jewish traditions. Similarly dysfunctional ideas about how God relates to humanity can be found throughout the Old Testament in the descriptions of how God treats the nation of Israel. Marriage and even rape are used in places like the Book of Hosea, Ezekiel, and Jeremiah as metaphors for the relationship between God and the Jews. The “appropriate” response of God to Israel’s infidelity is chastisement and punishment; only when they agree to be subservient and obedient are they again shown anything like affection and tenderness.
