“8If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off, and cast it from you. It is better for you to enter into life maimed or crippled, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into the eternal fire. 9If your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out, and cast it from you. It is better for you to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into the Gehenna of fire.”
(Matt 18:8-9 WEB)
In the Sermon on the Mount the whole body is cast into Gehenna, but in Matt 18:8-9 it is both hands, both feet and the body that are cast in. This, together with the mention of feet, the reference to entering into life and the addition of “of fire” after Gehenna, make this passage a closer parallel to Mark 9:43-48 than to Matt 5:29-30. Its context is also similar to that of the parallel passage in Mark 9. However, nearby can be found teaching that is closely related to the first antithesis (Matt 18:15-19, cf. Matt 5:22) and also further teaching on adultery (Matt 19:3-12), suggesting that both Matthew and Luke are recording the same, but separate, instance of similar rhetoric to that used in the Sermon on the Mount.
(Mark 9:43-48 WEB)“43If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life maimed, rather than having your two hands to go into Gehenna, into the unquenchable fire, 44‘where their worm doesn’t die, and the fire is not quenched.’ 45If your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life lame, rather than having your two feet to be cast into Gehenna, into the fire that will never be quenched— 46‘where their worm doesn’t die, and the fire is not quenched.’ 47If your eye causes you to stumble, cast it out. It is better for you to enter into the Kingdom of God with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into the Gehenna of fire, 48‘where their worm doesn’t die, and the fire is not quenched.’”
Mark’s version is a coherent sub-section of a wider dialogue which addresses the seriousness of leading others astray. The full passage, its interpretation, and its context, are considered in more detail in separate notes on Mark 9:36-50. Teaching on false leadership is in keeping with the subtext of Matt 5:29-30 and so it would be understandable that similar sayings might be used in teaching on that subject (as they are in Matt 18:8-9).
Mark’s version omits the stress on the right side, but by failing to qualify which hand and eye, it looses the inter-textual biblical nuances discussed below.
In Mark the foot is mentioned as well as the hand and the eye. This supports the suggestion that Job 31:5-12, a passage mentioning offenses of the hand, eye, and foot, was an inspiration behind the saying in Matt 5:29-30 (again explored below). In doing so it heightens the sense that Matt 5:29-30’s failure to mention the foot is a deliberate allusion to Zech 11:16-17.
The triplicate phrase “where their worm doesn’t die, and the fire is not quenched” (Mark 9:44, 46, 48 WEB) is not present in Matthew and to some extent seems superfluous as it partially duplicates the statements already made. However, as this is a quotation from the last words of Isaiah (Isa 66:24), where it describes the fate of those who rebel against God, the emphasis on it provides a strong indication that Mark 9:43-48 addresses that very issue.
The general symbolic significance of the eye within the Hebrew Bible is explored in the background notes on the eye. Suffice it to say that the eye was seen as an active organ, not only acting as a source of truth revealing illumination, but also a source of judgement and compassion. However, the picture of gouging out of an eye carries its own message and, within Judaism, the gouging out of the right eye particularly so.
The biblical incidences of imposed blindness overwhelmingly portray it as a means, within that culture, by which rulers imposed their authority upon potentially rebellious prisoners. The idea being that such maiming rendering the individual unable to fight, so putting any further rebellion completely out of the question. That the practice was commonplace is attested in the Exodus account, for, when Dathan and Abiram rebel against Moses’ authority, they ask if he is seeking to make himself a prince over them (Num 16:12-13) and query “will you put out the eyes of these men?” (Num 16:14 WEB). A link between Matt 5:29 and this passage is suggested by Jesus’ picture of descent into Gehenna as the alternative to accepting maiming, for in Rabbinic tradition, when the earth swallowed Korah, Dathan, and Abiram (Num 16:28-32), they descended bodily into Gehenna (m. B. Bat. 74a). Another biblical example is found when the Philistines sought to subjugate Sampson, they not only cut off his hair, rendering as weak as any other man, but also put out his eyes (Judg 16:21). Similarly, when Nebuchadnezzar subjugated Zedekiah, he blinded his captive (2 Kgs 25:7; Jer 39:7, 52:11), and when the Syrians came down against Elisha, the Lord struck them blind so that they would accept the prophet’s authority (2 Kngs 6:18).
Less obvious references are found in Ps 69:23, where “Let their eyes be darkened, so that they can’t see” is paralleled with “Let their backs be continually bent” (Ps 69:23 WEB), i.e. blinding is related to enforced servitude. The same, but in inverted form, is found in Ps 146: “The Lord frees the prisoners. The Lord opens the eyes of the blind. The Lord raises up those who are bowed down” (Ps 146:7-8 WEB).
The practice is also widely attested amongst the artifacts and literature of other cultures of the ancient near-east (Freeman 1972, 185). For example, in the Egyptian moralistic tale of Truth and Falsehood, from the New Kingdom period, a similar fate is suffered by Truth at the hands of Falsehood. When Falsehood triumphs over Truth in a court case, Truth is then blinded and forced to serve as a doorkeeper in his adversary’s house until avenged by his son (Lichtheim 1973, 211). Another example is the graphic depiction of a prisoner being blinded by an Assyrian ruler found at Khorsobad (Freeman 1972, 185).
The Hebrew Bible’s single particular reference to the gouging out of the right eye comes as Nahash the Ammonite encamped against Jabesh Gilead. The beleaguered city sought to save their skins by entering into a covenant to serve Nahash, but Nahash required that they accept the putting out of their right eyes, as if he had captured them in battle, do that Israel’s reputation could be undermined. This prompted them to appeal to the king of Israel for help (1 Sam 11:1-2). Such removal of a single eye may have been a familiar practice, for it impairs a warriors spatial judgement, rendering him less effective as an adversary, but still leaves him able to carry out menial work.
Speaking of how Nahash treated the Jews east of the Jordan prior to moving against Gibeah, Josephus provides the following observations:
(Ant. 6.69–71, Whiston)“(60) He also reduced their cities into slavery, and that not only by subduing them for the present, which he did by force and violence, but by weakening them by subtilty and cunning that they might not be able afterward to get clear of the slavery they were under to him: for he put out the right eyes of those that either delivered themselves to him upon terms, or were taken by him in war; (70) and this he did, that when their left eyes were covered by their shields, they might be wholly useless in war”
The general symbolic significance of the right and left hands within the Hebrew Bible and first-century Palestine is explored in the background notes on the rignt and left hand., the right hand being particularly associated with power and asserting authority, the left with security and covering over. Once again the reference to cutting off the hand focuses attention on more specific aspects.
The Hebrew Bible’s earliest reference to the cutting off of a hand is in Deut 25:11, where it is used to punish a woman for grasping the private parts of here husband’s opponent, in order to rescue her spouse. For Philo, a first-century Jewish philosopher, it was the sheer audacity involved in such an act that was being punished by the loss of the hand (Spec. laws 3 147). Philo’s conclusion takes us a little closer to the practice of cutting off a hand as Jesus would have known it.
The Hebrew Bible contains another, and more subtle reference to cutting off of hands and it is in Judg 8:5-6. In response to Gideon’s plea for food to sustain his pursuit of Zebah and Zalmunna, ‘the princes of Succoth said, “Are the hands of Zebah and Zalmunna now in your hand, that we should give bread to your army?”’ (Judg 8:6 WEB). Sometimes severed hands were used to provide gruesome evidence of the number of warriors killed. Hence, in its account of the battle of Megiddo (15th C. B.C.E.), in The Annals of Thutmose III the scribe lists the plunder carried off as “hands, prisoners of war, horses, gold and silver chariots and pla[in ones]” (COS 2.2A:11, Hoffmeire). It is this practice that appears to lie behind the comment in Judg 8:6. However, it was not only those slain on the battlefield who might be mutilated, it could happen to prisoners as well.
The practice of mutilating prisoners of war is well attested in the ancient near-east, one example being an inscription of Asshur-izirpal (who reigned from 883 B.C.E.) that describes how, following the captured of a city: “Their men, young and old, I took prisoners. Of some I cut off the feet and hands; of others I cut off the noses, ears, and lips; of the young men’s eyes I made a heap; of the old men’s I built a minaret” (Freeman & Chadwick 1998, 188-9). Nevertheless, the practice was relatively uncommon, as it hindered the prisoners ability to function as slaves (Adamson 1990, 318). The Hebrew Bible refers to this general practice of mutilation, as when king Adoni-bezek has his thumbs and big toes cut off, to treat him as he had treated captive kings (Judg 1:5–7), or where the prophet Ezekiel warns that the Assyrians cut of the nose and ears (Ezek 23:25).
The Romans were particularly inclined to use the amputation of hands as punishment for rebellion, a couple of examples cast light on the process.
(Holmes 1899, 192-3)“that his clemency was notorious, and had no fear that any measures which he might be forced to adopt would be misunderstood. He determined, therefore, to inflict upon the garrison a punishment so appalling that all malcontents should in future remain quiet. He would not put his prisoners to death, because, if he did, their fate, though it might be talked of for a time, would soon be forgotten. They were to remain as a living warning to intending rebels. He ordered their hands to be cut off, and sent them forth to exist as they best might.”
From somewhat closer to both the temporal and geographical contexts
of the
Sermon comes Josephus’ autobiographical account of how he, with twenty
men, faced down a large and treacherous Galilean mob. Josephus (37-c100 C.E.), having secured
his house, used a pretext to invite a representative of the mob to
come. He then had the Galilean whipped, cut off one of his hands,
and sent him out. Seeing this, the crowd concluded that Josephus had
sufficient men with him to impose a similar pumishment on all of them,
and so they disbursed (Josephus, Life.
145-8).
On another occasion Josephus, in a bid for the support of Justus,
reminded Justus how the Galileans had cut off the hands of Justus’
brother, because he had been accused of being a rogue (Josephus, Life. 177). Josephus
also describes how, at the
siege of Jerusalem in 70 C.E., captive rebel’s hands were
severed before Titus then released them back
into the city so that their report might undermine certain false
rumors of even worse Roman
brutality (Josephus, Wars.
5.455). However, enforcing subjugation was not the only
context Jodephus gives for such mutilation, for he also states that the
cutting off of both hands was used as a
fitting punishment for theft (Josephus, Life 177).
It is noticeable throughout, that the practice of cutting off hands is
often used for the punishment of rebellion. Such an association is
found
as early as the Laws of Hammurabi, where §195 specifies cutting off the
hands as the punishment for a son who beat his
father (COS 2.131.348).
But it is still apparent, centuries after Jesus, when Constantinus
(272-337 C.E.) ordered Eusebius, Bishop of Samosata (died c.
379 C.E.) to
relinquish a document, under threat of loosing his right hand should he
refused (Theodoret, Ecclesiastical History
2.28).
In this passage, the word generally translated “fall,” “stumble,” “offend,” or “sin” is σκανδαλίζωr (skandalizo). France (1985, 121-2) notes that this word is only ever used metaphorically within the New Testament. The related word σκάνδαλον (skandalon) is frequently encountered in the Septuagint, but σκανδαλίζωr (skandalizo) is far less common, occurring three times in the wisdom teaching of Sirach and once in the Psalms of Solomon.
Perhaps the most notable occurrence of σκανδαλίζωr
(skandalizo) in the
Septuagint is in Sir 9:5-6, where it occurs in the
context of sexual sin and juxtaposed with a warning that
harlotry can lead to loss of your inheritance: “Gaze
not on a maid, that thou fall not by those things that are precious in
her. Give not thy soul unto harlots, that thou lose not
thine
inheritance” (Sir 9:5–6 KJV).
However, it is also found in an injuncton to accept God’s discipline: “Whoso feareth the Lord will receive his
discipline; and they that seek
him early shall find favour. He that seeketh the law shall
be
filled therewith: but the hypocrite will be offended thereat”
(Sir 32:14–16 KJV).
The single reference to σκανδαλίζωr (skandalizo) in the Psalms of Solomon is again in the context of restraint from sexual sin (Ps Sol 16:7).
The meaning of σκάνδαλον (skandalon) illuminates the interpretation of its rarer cousin. In Ps 68:22-3 LXX (= Ps 69:22-3 in the Hebrew) it is found immediately preceding the parallelism already noted for its association with the practice of blinding those forced to serve:
(Ps 69:22-3 WEB)“22Let their table before them become a snare.
May it become a retribution and a trap [=skandelon].
23Let their eyes be darkened, so that they can’t see.
Let their backs be continually bent.”
In the LXX, σκάνδαλον is consistently used in this fashion, of a snare, net, or trap, e.g.:
(Josh 23:13 LXX [Brenton])And:“13 know that the Lord will no more destroy these nations from before you; and they will be to you snares and stumbling-blocks [=skandala], and nails in your heels, and darts in your eyes, until ye be destroyed from off this good land, which the Lord your God has given you.”
(Ps 9:15–17 LXX [Brenton])“15 The heathen are caught in the destruction which they planned: in the very snare which they hid is their foot taken. 16 The Lord is known as executing judgments: the sinner is taken in the works of his hands.”
Significantly, although σκάνδαλον (skandalon) is not found in the LXX version of Pr 7:18-25, the man who responds to this hypothetical-adulteress’ allure is still likened to an animal stepping into a trap, or a bird enticed to a snare. This is a way that leads astray:
(Prov 7:18-9, 21-5 WEB)“18 Come, let’s take our fill of loving until the morning.
Let’s solace ourselves with loving.
19 For my husband isn’t at home.
He has gone on a long journey” . . .. . . 21 With persuasive words, she led him astray.
With the flattering of her lips, she seduced him.
22 He followed her immediately,
as an ox goes to the slaughter,
as a fool stepping into a noose.
23 Until an arrow strikes through his liver,
as a bird hurries to the snare,
and doesn’t know that it will cost his life.
24 Now therefore, sons, listen to me.
Pay attention to the words of my mouth.
25 Don’t let your heart turn to her ways.
Don’t go astray in her paths”
The instruction to cast the severed member away uses the word βάλλω (ballo). As it has no parallel in Mark 9:43-48, one must ask whether its used here is to add a particular emphasis. The word is fairly frequent in the LXX where it is particularly associated with casting lots (e.g. Ps 21:19, Joel 4:3), throwing stones (e.g. Sir 22:20) and raising siege works (e.g. Isaiah 29:3, Ezekiel 21:27). However, Isaiah makes the trappings of idolatry the subject of such a call to cast away (ἐκβάλλω in LXX) (Isa 2:20), urging men to do so before their land, which is full of idols, is judged on the day of the Lord (Isa 2:12, 17).
The use of βάλλω (ballo) for the consignment of the whole body into Gehennah, the place of fiery cleansing, may be inspired by the Septuagint’s account of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego being cast (ἐβλήθησαν) into the fire (Dan 3:21, cf. Matt 13:41-2). In the furnace, an antitype of Gehennah, the bonds that kept the men captive were burned away whilst the three remained unharmed (Dan 3:25). Matt 5:29-30 parallels the use of βάλλω (ballo) for the disposal of the eye, and hand as well.
However, if the sentiment of casting something from you is, in this case, more significant than the wording, Ezek 18:31 is also significant, for it occurs in the context of deviating from God’s ways and calls Israel to casting away their rebellion, פָּשַׁע (pashaʿ), lest they die:
“29 Yet the house of Israel says, “The way of the Lord is not fair.” House of Israel, aren’t my ways fair? Aren’t your ways unfair? 30 Therefore I will judge you, house of Israel, everyone according to his ways, says the Lord GOD. Return, and turn yourselves from all your transgressions; so iniquity shall not be your ruin. 31 Cast away from you all your transgressions, in which you have transgressed; and make yourself a new heart and a new spirit: for why will you die, house of Israel? 32 For I have no pleasure in the death of him who dies, says the Lord GOD: therefore turn yourselves, and live. ”
(Ezek 18:29-32 HNV)
Such transgression also features, in the context of the Lord’s way, in Hosea’s concluding remark:
(Hos 14:9 HNV)“Who is wise, that he may understand these things?
Who is prudent, that he may know them?
For the ways of the LORD are right,
and the righteous walk in them;
But the rebellious stumble in them”
Within biblical cultures, self afflicting a minor punishment was a way of showing remorse and avoiding a more significant punishment. Indeed, this seems a likely rational behind donning sackcloth, sitting amidst the ashes, and fasting at times when divine judgement was anticipated (e.g. Esth 4:1-3, Jer 6:26). A later example of this kind is found in the Talmud, where Nahum of Gamuz is credited with invoking upon himself blindness, amputation of his hands and feet, and boils, all because he let a poor man die of hunger and presumable feared a reciprocal judgement before God (b. Taʿan. 21a).
From the first century C.E. period, when Josephus was active in his attempts to quell Jewish rebellion against Rome, comes an interesting anecdote concerning a Galilaean who was offered self mutilation as an alternative to suffering some worse fate. After Josephus had gained control over the mutinous senate of Tiberius by a mock show of power, there was a call for the ring-leader Clitus to be punished. So Josephus called to Clitus and said “Since thou deservest to lose both thine hands for thy ingratitude to me, be thou thine own executioner, lest, if thou refusest so to be, thou undergo a worse punishment.” After which Josephus recounts “he earnestly begged of me to spare him one of his hands, it was with difficulty that I granted it. So in order to prevent the loss of both his hands, he willingly took his sword, and cut off his own left hand; and this put an end to the sedition” (Josephus, Life 172b-3 [Whiston]).
From the above incident it is clear that voluntarily accepting mutilation, of the type often inflicted by a victor to subjugate a captive combatant, was a way of showing that you would no longer resist the victor’s authority and so deserved mercy. This fits extremely well with the inter-textual context of the mutilation in Matt 5:29-30.
The use of συμφέρω (sumphero = profitable, better, or more advantageous) in Matt 5:29-30 is of interest, for again this word is relatively rarely used in the Septuagint. Of the eleven occurrences, Prov 19:10 seems particularly pertinent, with its warning that “Delicate living is not appropriate for a fool, much less for a servant to have rule over princes” (Prov 19:10 WEB). There were those in Judea who felt that Jesus should submit to their control, whilst, in practice, they were supposed to be servants of the prince of peace.
There is a single passage in Job which seems to draw together many of the key themes found in Matt 5:29-30 (Stott 1992, 88). It starts as Job anticipates the theme of Matt 5:28: “I made a covenant with my eyes, how then should I look lustfully at a young woman?” (Job 31:1 WEB) Job moves on to reflect how God brings calamity upon sinners, so if he has walked unworthily then let that be judged. Then comes the crux “if my step has turned out of the way,” (Job 31:7a WEB), a theme most pertinent to the Sermon on the Mount. The statement forms part of a triple parallelism, each couplet exploring how Job might have failed and what punishment he imagines to be appropriate:
(Job 31:5-10 WEB, layout and notes emphasis mine)“5 If I have walked with falsehood,
and my foot has hurried to deceit
6 (let me be weighed in an even balance,
that God may know my integrity);
“7 if my step has turned out of the way,
if my heart walked after my eyes, [a phrase later taken to imply enticement by a woman]
if any defilement has stuck to my hands,
8 then let me sow, and let another eat.
Yes, let the produce of my field be rooted out.
“9 If my heart has been enticed to a woman,
and I have laid wait at my neighbor’s door, [by implication to see when his wife is alone]
10 then let my wife grind for another,
and let others sleep with her.”
There are four potential failings here, the foot that has carried its owner astray, the eye that has distracted their heart, the hand that has picked up defilement, and the heart that has been enticed by a woman.
Having introduced the offence of the eye and the offence of the hand, Job then reflects that, had he done such things, they would have been terrible crimes, worthy of judgement, for they kindle a consuming fire, capable of burning to Abaddon, i.e. complete destruction, and sufficient to burn any unrighteous increase back to the root (Job 31:11-12). It is not hard to see the similarities between the fiery outcome anticipated in Job and the fate, of consignment to Gehenna, that Matt 5:29-30 cautions against.
It is worth noting that the three bodily members mentioned in Job 31:5-10, foot, hand and eye, are those found in Matt 18:8 and Mark 9:45. This leaves the Sermon’s reference to only hand and eye appearing deliberate. Eyes and hands had a particular significance within the context of God’s commandments which feet did not, for Individuals judge through their eyes and exerted their authority with their hands (e.g. cf. Exod 15:16, Job 40:12-14). Hence, the Israelites were instructed to bind God’s commandments on their hands and between their eyes (Exod 13:9 & 16, Deut 6:8), a continual reminder that the use of these organs was subject to God’s rule. However, it is also true that only the severed hand and the plucked eye provide the necessary inter-textual allusions to suggest that people should deal with their ensnaring sin by accept Jesus’ authority (as discussed above).
The reference to eye and hand, but not foot, would also have helped target Jesus’ allusions more particularly toward leaders. Leaders were held accountable for the actions of their eyes and hands, as in the case of an individual found unaccountably slain (Deut 21:1-9), where the local leaders had to declare that “Our hands have not shed this blood, neither have our eyes seen it” (Deut 21:7 WEB). Thus, in the case of Zechariah’s worthless shepherd who slays the choice ones, God warns that their arm and the right eye will be struck with a sword (Zech 11:16-17). Therefore, to call for a leader to self-afflict such a mutilation, was to call for an acknowledgement of error in their leadership.
In the Parable of the Weeds, Jesus explains how all causes of sin (σκάνδαλον) will be thrown (βαλοῦσιν) into the fiery furnace (Matt 13:41-2, cf. Dan 3:21).
The book of Acts contains two incidents that link blindness to acceptance of authority. When Jesus confront’s Saul he uses blindness to impose his authority (Acts 9:8) until Saul chose to voluntarily accept that authority, sought out Ananias, and was healed. As Paul, he would mediated a similar blinding of Elymas to establish his superior authority (Acts 13:11). Paul’s letters also contain references to blindness in which one might detect echoes of the Sermon’s teaching. In that to the Galatians, he speaks of their former willingness to submit to him despite his weakened physical state (Gal 4:14), contrasting their current lack of blessedness with that earlier attitude: “What was the blessing you enjoyed? For I testify to you that, if possible, you would have plucked out your eyes and given them to me. So then, have I become your enemy by telling you the truth?” (Gal 4:14-15). In Romans, the Apostle, speaking of Israel’s failure to accept the authority of Jesus, cites Ps 69:22-3 from the LXX (i.e. Ps 68:22-3 LXX): ‘David says, “Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, a stumbling block, and a retribution to them. Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see. Bow down their back always’ (Rom 11:9-10 WEB), The relationship of the psalmist’s words to the practice of blinding prisoners has already been noted.
(Aquinas 1841, 188 [Newman])“Every thing, however good in itself that offends ourselves or others, we ought to cut off from us. For example, to visit a woman with religious purposes, this good intent towards her may be called a right eye, but if often visiting her I have fallen into the net of desire, or if any looking on are offended, then the right eye, that is, something in itself good, offends me. For the right eye is good intention, the right hand is good desire”
(Chrysostom, Homily XVIII, 3 [Prevost])‘Why then did He mention the right eye, and add the hand? To show thee that not of limbs is He speaking, but of them who are near unto us. Thus, “If,” saith He, “thou so lovest any one, as though he were in stead of a right eye; if thou thinkest him so profitable to thee as to esteem him in the place of a hand, and he hurts thy soul; even these do thou cut off.” And see the emphasis; for He saith not, “Withdraw from him,” but to show the fullness of the separation, “pluck it out,” saith He, “and cast it from thee.”’ . . .
. . . ‘This same reckoning do thou make with regard to men also and women: that if he who harms thee by his friendship should continue incurable, his being thus cut off will both free thee from all mischief, and he also will himself be delivered from the heavier charges, not having to answer for thy destruction along with his own evil deeds.’
For Vermes (2004, 348-349), this passage is indicative that the Kingdom was to take absolute priority and its message employs the sort of hyperbolic imagery, taken to extremes in Matt 19:12’s advocacy of self-castration, that is typical of Jesus (Vermes 2004, 396).
Stott (Stott 1992, 89) notes that the use of similar phrases elsewhere in the gospels are not specifically linked to sexual sin, but the principal appears to be more generically applicable. He observes that “a few Christians, whose zeal greatly exceeded their wisdom, have taken Jesus au pied de la lettre and mutilated themselves” (Stott 1992, 89), cites the well known case of Origen of Alexandria who castrated himself, then cautions that the Council of Nicea (325 C.E.) forbade Christians from such practices (Stott 1992, 89). He suggests that plucking out your right eye means “don’t Look,” in other words, “behave as if you had actually plucked out your eyes” (Stott 1992, 89), the advice concerning the hand being similar, i.e. “don’t do it” or “don’t go” (Stott 1992, 89). As a result Stott anticipates that the Christian may have to become “culturally maimed in order to preserve our purity of mind” (Stott 1992, 90). Stott’s approach is fine for interpreting Mark 9:43-48 or Matt 18:8-9, however it seems inadequate to explain the Sermon’s application of the principle only to the right eye (Matt 5:29), thus leaving the left side to continue seeing and doing.
For Bonhoeffer (2001, 83) “even momentary desire is a barrier to the following of Jesus, and brings the whole body into hell, making us sell our heavenly birthright for a mess of pottage.” This is a matter of preserving one’s birthright, but one in which we are bound to fall short for “If we decide not to take it literally, we should be evading the seriousness of the command, and if on the other hand, we decided it was to be taken literally, we should at once reveal the absurdity of the Christian position” (Bonhoeffer 2001, 84). He sees looking to Jesus as the solution to this conundrum, for the eye that looks to Jesus is always pure (Bonhoeffer 2001, 84).
The Mishnah probably reflects an older tradition when it observes that, when the Philistines blinded Samson, he received an appropriate judgement for having followed his eyes (m. Sota 1:7 D; Judg 16:21).
The severing of hands is also attested in the Talmud, through the story of King Janni and the high priest Issachar, of Kefar. The king held that goat’s flesh was the better, but his queen argued that lamb was best. So the king summoned the priest, concluding that one who administered the sacrifices should know. When asked to judge between these opinions, the priest waved his hand in contempt, and inferred that lamb was better, but that the king could order goat to be sacrificed if he so wished. The king was so incensed that he ordered that the cleric’s right hand be cut off (b. Ker. 28b). Neither king, nor high priest, can be identified, so it had been assumed that they dated from a poorly documented part of the second temple period. However, recently it has been suggested that this story is better understood as a satirical parody on Matt 25:31-46 (Amit 2010, n.p.). Certainly, through its link with Jacob’s prophecy over Issachar (Gen 49:14-15 envisages that tribe as a donkey), the name Issachar brings to mind the third-century C.E. Alexamentos graffito, a mocking anti-christian display of a boy worshiping a crucified donkey-headed man from the Palatine Hill (Bauckham 1992, 815). Either way, the story still bears witness to cutting off a hand being considered a fitting punishment for insolence. If the story is indeed satirical, then the satirist’s choice of punishment may represent a particularly barbed swipe, based on the teaching of Matt 3:29.
. . . commentary continues with Matt. 5:31-32
Adamson, P. B. 1990. Medical Complications Associated With Security and Control of Prisoners in the Ancient Near East. Medical History 34:311-319.
Amit, Aaron. 2010. "A Rabbinic Satire on the Last Judgement.” Journal of Biblical Literature 129 (Winter 2010): 679-97. Cited 12 Jan 2012. Online: http://www.sbl-site.org/assets/pdfs/JBL1294.pdf
Aquinas, Thomas. 1841. Catena Aurea: Commentary on the Four Gospels, Collected Out of the Works of the Fathers, Volume 1: St. Matthew. Translated by John Henry Newman. Oxford: John Henry Parker.
Bauckham, Richard. 1992. “Jesus (Person) (The Worship of Jesus).” Pages 812-9 in Vol. 6 of ABD.
Bonhoeffer, Deitrich. 2001. The Cost of Discipleship. Canterbury: SCM.Brenton, Lancelot Charles Lee. 2009. The Septuagint Version of the Old Testament. Bellingham, Wash.: Logos Research Systems.
Caesar.
1917. The Gallic War; With an English translation.
Translated by H. J. Edwards.
Loeb classical library. Published 1917 by Harvard University Press, W.
Heinemann in Cambridge, Mass, London.
Chrysostom, John. 1997. “Homily XVIII.” Translated by George Prevost. Pages 115-123 in Vol. 10of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Series 2. Edited by Philip Schaff 1886-1889. 14 vols. Edinburgh: T&T Clark; Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems.
Drinkard, Joel F. Jnr. 1996. “Left, Left Hand.” Pages 273-4 in Volume 4 of David Noel Freedman Ed. The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary. New York: Doubleday.
France, Richard Thomas. 1995. The Gospel According to Matthew: An Introduction and Commentary in Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. Edited by Leon Morris. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1985. Repr. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press.
Freedman, H. 1935. “Shabbath.” No pages. In Soncino Babylonian Talmud. Edited by Isidore Epstein. London:Soncino. 1935-1948. Cited 10 Oct 2011. Online:http://www.halakhah.com/pdf/moed/Shabbath.pdf.
Freeman, James. 1972. Manners and Customs of the Bible. Plainfield, New Jersey: Logos International.
Freeman, James M. and Harold J. Chadwick. 1998. Manners & Customs of the Bible; Rev. ed. North Brunswick, N.J.: Bridge-Logos.
Hallo, William W. Ed. 2000. Monumental Inscriptions from the Biblical World. Vol. 2 of Context of Scripture. Leiden; Boston: E. J. Brill.
Hoffmeier, James K. Translator. 2000. “The Annals of Thutmose III.” (COS 2.2A: 7-13).
Holmes, Thomas Rice. 1899. Caesar’s conquest of Gaul. London:Macmillan.
Josephus, Flavius. 1996. The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged. Translated by William Whiston. Peabody: Hendrickson.
Lichtheim, Miriam. 1973. “Truth and Falsehood.” Pages 211-213 in Vol 2 of Ancient Egyptian Literature. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Maximus, Valerius. 2004. Memorable Deeds and Sayings: One Thousand Tales from Ancient Rome. Translated by Henry John Walker. Indianapolis:Hackett.
Roth, Martha. Translator. 2000. “Laws of Hammurabi.” (COS 2.131.335-53).
Simon, Maurice. 1935. “Berakoth.” No pages. In Soncino Babylonian Talmud. Edited by Isidore Epstein. London:Soncino. 1935-1948. Cited 10 Oct 2011. Online:http://www.halakhah.com/pdf/zeraim/Berachoth.pdf.
Theodoret. 1997. “Ecclesiastical History of Theodoret.” Translated by Blomfeld Jackson. Pages 33-159 in Vol. 3 of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Series 2. Edited by Philip Schaff 1886-1889. 14 vols. Edinburgh: T&T Clark; Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems.
Stott, John. 1992. The Message of the Sermon on the Mount: Christian Counter-culture. Leicester, England: Inter-varsity Press.
Vermes, Geza. 2004. The Authentic Gospel of Jesus. London: Penguin.