Matthew 18:7-9

I've decided to do a commentary on one of Jesus' most well-known talks about sin.

In Matthew 18:7-9 Jesus talks about the importance and the weight of sin. Most Christian commentaries focus on two things about this passage: 1. The fact that Jesus never actually meant for us to mutilate ourselves and 2. That this is not a salvation-related issue (though some Reformed circles have started tackling the issue of "perseverance of the saints" and reconciling it with this verse, stating that those who are unwilling to take extreme precautions against sin and who are not taking it seriously as Jesus puts it here, might not be saved to begin with though this will not be the focus of this commentary). I want to focus in on historical study of the verse by understanding what might have been heard and understood by Jesus' disciples at that time which might provide us with another perspective on what Jesus might actually be tackling in this verse and why Jesus used the language that he did to describe the precautions that must be taken to addressing sin.

Jesus mentions gouging off one's eyes (verse 9) and cutting off limbs (verse 8). After reading this verse many times in preparation for the small groups I was attending that week, I recalled the other instances in scripture where "eye-gouging" seems to be mentioned. Exodus 21:23-25 can be summarized as "if there is harm that is incurred to another party in the form of physical damage, then it must be repaid likewise". Other instances of eye-gouging are in Judges 16:21 when Samson was blinded, 1 Samuel 11:2 when Nahash offered to make peace with Gilead on the condition that every man in the city must gouge his right eye, and in 2 Kings 25:7 when King Zedekiah's sons were executed and the Babylonians blinded him. The last three verses were tied to conquest and the idea of gouging your enemies' eyes out carries with it a burden of shame. I don't think it would have been directly related to what Jesus was teaching, though it might be important to note that eye-gouging might have had that connotation attached to it in those days.

However, the idea of gouging your eyes out and mutilating yourself made me look into how Jews at the time viewed this idea. In most commentaries I've read about the rabbinic laws against self-mutilation seems to point to the idea that it is forbidden. In rabbinic Judaism, human beings are not given uncontrolled autonomy over their bodies and actions, but instead are to be stewards of the body that God ultimately created and owns. This emphasizes the importance of preserving the living human body. Even agents who are hired to carry out acts (that would endanger or physically harm the party, that either hired them or waived the right to be free from harm from the agent) are liable for even partaking in an act that would injure an individual physically. Jesus, in mentioning that the measures one must take to cutoff sin, seems to condone (at least on the surface) an illegal act at the time. Jesus' disciples and those who would hear about this teaching, would be aware of what Jesus was saying and that Jesus used an example that if to be taken literally, would mean to break the law.

The existence of this mindset is further reinforced in the Mishnah and the Bar Kokhba revolt. Simon Bar Kokhba, a messianic figure in the early-2nd century led a revolt against the Roman empire. In order to have the support of the majority of the Jewish people he needed to have the support of the rabbis. One of the practices he was forced to abandon was how he initiated soldiers into his army. The Talmud points out that one of the two initiation methods of Simon Bar Kokhba was to cut-off the initiate's finger. The rabbis frowned upon this self-mutilation and thus Bar-Kokbha had to resort to the alternative initiation method, which was that each soldier must uproot a cedar tree. The Mishnah also states that a person asking to be injured is liable to the self-injury, as well as anyone else who was asked to participate even if it was stipulated that any party involved would be exempt. The only instance where an exemption would be accepted is if the damage asked to be performed is not to a physical body (Bava Kamma 8:7)

So what was really Jesus getting at? At surface value it seems that Jesus is truly forcing the listeners and readers to consider the weight of sin and its eternal consequences. However, understanding the mindset behind Jewish self-preservation of the body should force us to consider that it's possible Jesus is also attacking this issue. Jesus knew that the people at the time had a self-preservation mindset that to an extent dilutes the message of scripture (another example of this is Leviticus 19:16, and Jesus giving the parable of the Samaritan) and often muddles the true heart of these laws. And so I believe Jesus presented the Jews at the time with a dilemma: whose law are they truly obeying. In this episode Jesus implies a dichotomy between the laws of the land (the end of which is protecting people and encouraging good moral behavior) and the expectations of scripture (where protection and moral behavior are by-products and not the end).

While you can interpret what Jesus said in many ways, he still decided to use mutilation as the extreme approach, knowing that mutilation was illegal at the time. And the unwillingness to perform the illegal act is eternal damnation. Many Christians today would assert that Jesus is just highlighting the severity of sin BY pointing out hell, but Jesus actually highlights the severity of hell BY contrasting it against temporary shame (as pointed out earlier) and possible punishment from the law.

Many Christians are hindered from fighting sin and taking it seriously, blinded by the false assurance that they are already saved. Though no one is ever in a position to say one is not saved, the opposite can also be said: no one is ever in a position to say one is assuredly saved (both err on the presumption that we know other men's hearts and that the fruit of the Spirit are complete in any one person). Jesus confronted a problem at his time which is still prevalent in our time, especially in Western Christianity. This should bring a sense of urgency in our lives and we must constantly test ourselves as Paul asserts in 2 Corinthians 13:5