Plucking out your eye
Today’s post is another entry in response to a recent Facebook conversation. This post won’t be as long as yesterday’s post, but I would like to say a few words about Jesus’ unsettling teaching in Chapter 18 of Matthew’s Gospel:
“…if your hand or your foot causes you to sin cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life maimed or lame than with two hands or two feet to be thrown into the eternal fire.
And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into the hell of fire. – Matthew 18:7-9
This passage from Matthew’s Gospel is rather interesting in that, in my experience, it’s a verse which fundamentalists never take literally (along with John 6 and Acts 2:38). Now, you’ll find pockets of Christians who handle snakes (Mark 16:18), but I have yet to meet someone to apply the same literalistic hermeneutic to that passage. The funny thing about this passage is that the literal sense here is clear – it is better to lose everything in this life rather than to lose Heaven – even hands and eyes.
The central message Jesus teaches here is that we can’t take sin lightly. You can’t treat sin as though it were something with which you can negotiate. You don’t negotiate with cancer! You don’t sit down with a tumour and ask it not to grow too large. No, you cut that stuff out! You eradicate it as quickly as possible because, if left unchecked, it’ll be your ruin. The same is true with sin.
What might be an application of this passage? Well, I would say that we can understand this passage in the context of what is known in Catholic circles as “the near occasions of sin”, which the times and places where we know we can easily fall from grace. In particular, I’d like to apply this passage to the issue of porn.
If you know you are tempted to watch porn when staying a hotel, the best thing to do is cut it off at the source, literally, by phoning ahead and asking the hotel to put a block the channels on the TV. I remember Matt Fradd referencing this passage when speaking about the temptation to watch porn on a smart phone:
“If your iPhone causes you to sin, disconnect it and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life with a dumb phone and poor connectivity, rather than to be thrown into the eternal fire with a touchscreen and wifi access”
i heard a great explanation once (can’t remember where) that this passage can’t be taken literally because your hand or eye CANT cause you to sin, since to do so requires your moral faculties….
Exactly… I know I heard Doug Wilson making the point that it is not the body which causes sin, but the heart – and therefore, the passage points out the necessity of “killing the old man.”
Thanks for sharing 🙂
Hello Pilgrim, can’t say that without thinking of John Wayne. Ha!
Anyway, versus like these always make me struggle with the claims of certain lines of protestantism. Specifically once saved always saved. This of course comes with the view of atonement I’ve always understood growing up. Jesus took my place on the cross and paid for all my sins.
I was reading something from John MacArthur today on matt. 18.
“But His sovereign permission does not absolve us of the guilt of our actions. We must never assume that our sin is the Lord’s fault because He allows it; sinners alone are culpable for their evil decisions (Acts 2:23).”
Interesting, these versus really give me struggles with how I’ve always viewed soteriology, especially when coupled with protestants agreeing that we will accountable for our sin. Growing up, Romans or Galatians are more talked about than the sermon on the mount. If I remember correctly I’ve always thought Jesus said these things because it was a wake up call to their sin and their position and doesn’t necessarily apply literalistically now because that (sermon on the mount) was pre crucifixion/resurrection.
Im curious if you understand the difference in ‘accountability’ for grievous sin in light of this verse? (the protestant view vs Catholic view)
I know its strange to ask you this, but when I talk with some reformed friends they simply try to sway or forcefully convince that their view is right rather than just presenting it and leaving it to me to decide.
Zeke
Hey Zeke, welcome to Restless Pilgrim!
You might be interested in reading some of my posts which I’ve previously written on the subject of “Once Saved, Always Saved”. Here’s the first one:
https://restlesspilgrim.net/blog/2010/08/19/once-saved-always-saved/
With regards to your question, I would say that the Catholic Church pretty much lets those verses speak for themselves, rather than jamming into a pre-conceived soteriology. I would say Matthew 18 makes the following assertions:
* We should become like children, trusting in our Father (1-4)
* Causing another to sin is grievous (5-6)
* It is better to lose everything rather than fall into sin (7-9)
* God goes looking for sinners (10-14)
* Likewise, we too are called to bring sinners back (15-20)
* The forgiveness that we offer should be limitless (21-22)
* …because this is what God does for us (23-34)
I hope this helps,
God bless,
David.