"gouge out your eye" . . . literal or figurative

[Tina]

Im married, so if the question is have I desired a woman sexually, the answer is yes.
To answer the next question, no, I dont lust after women not my wife.
To go further, if I were lusting after other women and couldnt get control of it no matter what I tried, yes, I might consider some extreme measure.

I wonder whether your answer would be same if you were single ....

And perhaps this is an example of how even single and married Christian men would interpret scriptures differently .....


:biglol

 

[francisdesales]

I cannot believe you guys are even talking about this in a literal manner.

Ditto...

Jesus Himself said that it is the heart that leads to sin. He said even thinking and lusting after a woman was a sin, thus, the member doesn't cause the sin, despite the well-known euphemism regarding the male member thinking for itself...

This is shock and awe of the 1st century, hyperbole...

 

[Cornelius]

The statement can only be a "shock factor" thing, to make a person think about their actions.

No, its just talking about removing a brother or a sister from fellowshipping, when they continue in their sin and they do not want to repent. We then remove an "eye" or a "foot" from the Body of Christ , because a little leaven , leavens the whole lump. That is why, if we allow people who are unrepentant to stay in fellowship with us, they can drag the whole body to hell.

 

[Heneni]

Was Jesus being literal when he said, "if your eye offends you, cut it out"? If the premise is that "a person is better to enter heaven with one eye than burn for all eternity with both eyes", . . . is that a way to handle the situation? If figurative, then we can look at what was said with the "shock factor" that perhaps was intended.

However, IF it were meant to be literal, . . . is it good counsel? If someone steals something, does "cutting off the hand" do anything to address the reason why the person felt the desire/need to steal? If summary judgement just cuts off the hand, you then have a person with one less hand and still the issues he originally had that caused his initial actions. It would be better to counsel him, find out why he feels the need to steal, . . . or whatever his behavior is (lust, lying, etc), and work with him to address them, find a solution that will work, . . . in other words, rehabilitate him to become a better person in society! The other way, you just have disfigured people, who will probably become jaded, still carrying the catalyst that caused the deviant behavior.

That's why I COULD only see such a statement (cutting off the hand, gouging the eye) as a "shock factor", not meant to be taken literal, but to get people's attention, to make them SEE what is being said, reflect on it, and come to a place in their life where THEY CHOOSE to change who they are.

I am not going to debate with anyone who tells me that "I am wrong to believe it to be figurative". This is the way I feel. I am interested in hearing your take on the story and your reasoning.

And. . . . . . . . . . begin!

I love that scripture! First of all, if you need to courge out your eye to go to heaven, does that mean you can enter heaven maimed as you can enter hell intact??

The context of the scripture shows that jesus was talking about those who cause his little ones to sin who beleive in him. He is telling them, if you cant keep your hands of my children cut them off! If your eye is evil toward my kids pluck it out! Its better for you to have no limbs and possibly enter life than to have them all and be thrown into hell for harrasing my kids. God will avenge the hurt done to his children. And hurting his children means you entice them to sin, because you act evil toward them! Thats at leat how i understand it.

 

[JohnEboy1983]

Right, free. If someone were to take a LITERAL view of this concept to its fullness, . . . one would ask for forgiveness, then immediately find a way to end his life before he sins again.

I think it is mainly figuratively, but like free said it can be literal. The reason I say that this may refer mainly to figuratively speaking is because Paul in Romans 3:7-8 says 7For if the truth of God has increased through my lie to His glory, why am I also still judged as a sinner? 8 And why not say, "Let us do evil that good may come"?

We can look at this scripture and compare it with the scripture of Jesus. If we were to kill ourselves, we are doing evil. If we are to kill ourselves to not commit anymore sin, I can say that it is in relation to doing evil that good may come of it which paul completely speaks against doing.

 

[Orion]

Catch 22.

 

[Free]

Ditto...

Jesus Himself said that it is the heart that leads to sin. He said even thinking and lusting after a woman was a sin, thus, the member doesn't cause the sin, despite the well-known euphemism regarding the male member thinking for itself...

This is shock and awe of the 1st century, hyperbole...

The shock and awe is that you stated what you did above but yet can't see that that is precisely why it can be taken literally. I fail to see why so many are having trouble with this concept.

Anyway, another mountain has been made out of a mole hill. The final point, which we all agree on, is to get rid of the source of the sin.

 

[Orion]

francis and free (and whoever else cares to), would you all please do some SINCERE praying to God about this topic and hopefully you will receive, via the Holy Spirit, if it was literal or figurative? I would appreciate it.

I'm on the side of it being completely figurative, but others are saying literal.

 

[Free]

francis and free (and whoever else cares to), would you all please do some SINCERE praying to God about this topic and hopefully you will receive, via the Holy Spirit, if it was literal or figurative? I would appreciate it.

I'm on the side of it being completely figurative, but others are saying literal.

It doesn't matter how you look at it--the whole point is the same. I've said that many times now.

 

[Orion]

People are disagreeing with you, though, by saying that it is ONLY figurative. Hence, the need for someone to ask God about it.

 

[Free]

But that's my point. People can disagree since the end meaning is the same. No need to pray about it.

 

[Orion]

I understand that, in the end, it is the ridding of sin that's the issue. But that doesn't resolve the debate on whether or not the statement is literal or figurative. Some say "completely figurative", some say, "could be both", others say, "completely literal". It is just very confusing.

 

[follower of Christ]

The final point, which we all agree on, is to get rid of the source of the sin.

Precisely.
Whatever that source is...even if it finally be a hand or an eye.
BETTER to lose that hand or eye than take it into hell.
Cant get much more literal than that.

 

[follower of Christ]

I understand that, in the end, it is the ridding of sin that's the issue. But that doesn't resolve the debate on whether or not the statement is literal or figurative. Some say "completely figurative", some say, "could be both", others say, "completely literal". It is just very confusing.

You have to not do what the OP did and look at Christs ENTIRE statement.
He says it is BETTER to lose this body part than to take it into hell.
When the statement is understood as a WHOLE, rather than someone trying to get some shock value out of PART of it, then it is more easily understood and reconciled.
Clearly we dont hack off a limb the first time we're having a problem with something like masturbation/lust.
The FIRST thing we'd do is remove the source of the lust.
If all else fails tho, in the end it IS BETTER to remove the eye, hand or sexual organ RATHER THAN taking them into eternal punishment.
Do you agree ? Or do you believe its better to face eternal punishment and keep the hand ?

Christ was very literal. It IS BETTER to hack off a limb, as severe as that temporary pain is, rather than take it into perpetual torment.

 

[NIGHTMARE]

I understand that, in the end, it is the ridding of sin that's the issue. But that doesn't resolve the debate on whether or not the statement is literal or figurative. Some say "completely figurative", some say, "could be both", others say, "completely literal". It is just very confusing.

Not really O,,,,its not and I repeat no literal,,,,,,and heres why,,,,,my hand cant make me sin,,,my leg cant make me sin my elbow my hair nor my eyes or ears can make a person sin....

It is the brain that makes you sin it is a thought that is acted upon so cutting of body parts wouldnt work you would have to cut your brain off (suicide) and we know Gos doesnt allow that....

The scripture is about christians as we are the body of Christ,,,,,now if a part of that body of Christ starts to mess things up,,,lie bring in false doctrine then you cut them off.......Them you kick them out you exclude them for it is better for the body of Christ to get into heaven missing some parts then not make it at all........Remember body parts cant make you sin,,,,satan and man fleshy nature/brain makes us sin.....

 

[Free]

Not really O,,,,its not and I repeat no literal,,,,,,and heres why,,,,,my hand cant make me sin,,,my leg cant make me sin my elbow my hair nor my eyes or ears can make a person sin....

As I have stated many times, that is also why it can be considered literal.

The scripture is about christians as we are the body of Christ,,,,,now if a part of that body of Christ starts to mess things up,,,lie bring in false doctrine then you cut them off.......Them you kick them out you exclude them for it is better for the body of Christ to get into heaven missing some parts then not make it at all........Remember body parts cant make you sin,,,,satan and man fleshy nature/brain makes us sin.....

No it isn't about Christians. Jesus was talking to Jews and there was no such thing as a Christian at that point.

 

[whirlwind]

[quoteNo it isn't about Christians. Jesus was talking to Jews and there was no such thing as a Christian at that point.

Do you believe the Bible was written just to them? Do you think He was only instructing the Jews of that time?

 

[Free]

[quoteNo it isn't about Christians. Jesus was talking to Jews and there was no such thing as a Christian at that point.

Do you believe the Bible was written just to them? Do you think He was only instructing the Jews of that time?

Please read what I wrote.

 

[whirlwind]

[quoteNo it isn't about Christians. Jesus was talking to Jews and there was no such thing as a Christian at that point.

Do you believe the Bible was written just to them? Do you think He was only instructing the Jews of that time?

Please read what I wrote.

I did. I just wanted to be certain that was what you meant and I'm still not sure. Please be specific....do you believe those words were only written to the Jews of His day and not to us?

 

[NIGHTMARE]

Not really O,,,,its not and I repeat no literal,,,,,,and heres why,,,,,my hand cant make me sin,,,my leg cant make me sin my elbow my hair nor my eyes or ears can make a person sin....

As I have stated many times, that is also why it can be considered literal.

[quote:326xjyui]The scripture is about christians as we are the body of Christ,,,,,now if a part of that body of Christ starts to mess things up,,,lie bring in false doctrine then you cut them off.......Them you kick them out you exclude them for it is better for the body of Christ to get into heaven missing some parts then not make it at all........Remember body parts cant make you sin,,,,satan and man fleshy nature/brain makes us sin.....

No it isn't about Christians. Jesus was talking to Jews and there was no such thing as a Christian at that point.[/quote:326xjyui]

NOPE

13Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.

14Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.