The Law

Don: The third pillar of community is found in Matthew 18:7-11:

“Woe to the world because of its stumbling blocks! For it is inevitable that stumbling blocks come; but woe to that man through whom the stumbling block comes!

“If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than to have two hands or two feet and be cast into the eternal fire. If your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out and throw it from you. It is better for you to enter life with one eye, than to have two eyes and be cast into the fiery hell.

“See that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you that their angels in heaven continually see the face of My Father who is in heaven. For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost.

This is radical, puzzling, and almost un-Jesus-like language. What does Jesus mean? It sounds like a command to shun evil and do good. But unlike taking responsibility for others, which we discussed last week, this seems to be a call for self-responsibility, self-control, and self-judgment.

Most people today might view the statements as metaphorical. We readily say things like “I’d give my right arm for this,” or “I’d give my eye teeth for that.” Giving up a vital part of our bodies is a fairly common metaphor. But there was a time when this passage and others like it were taken literally.

In many faiths, the idea of self-mortification and self-mutilation is a common theme. Hindu holy men walk on hot coals, sleep on beds of nails, and so on. Shia Moslems flagellate themselves until they bleed. Some Christians in the Philippines are nailed to crosses in ritual voluntary crucifixion. Even the Jewish rite of circumcision is seen by some as a similar kind of mutilation.

In fact, the mutilation of the gonads has figured more in history than the mutilation of other parts of the body. This was especially so in the early Christian church. It perhaps stemmed from Matthew 19:12:

For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it.

The centuries-old idea of mortifying one’s gonads in order to enter into a closer relationship with God is fairly well documented. Most famously, Origen, in the 2^nd century, is said by some to have castrated himself on the basis of Matthew 19. But by the time of Augustine in the 4^th century, the idea came to be downplayed and even derided as eliminating the very basis for self-control. Take away the gonads, and what else does a man have to lose?

Eunuchs were highly valued in the ancient world, because they were rare and could safely be left alone with women (it was supposed), and because lacking the ability to procreate and leave a lineage meant that they were much less of a threat to the kings and emperors they served. They tended to be well paid, such that some boys volunteered to undergo castration, though the mortality rate was very high: 9 out of 10 would die because of the procedure.

Isaiah 56 has a fairly long passage about eunuchs. The notion that self mutilation was valuable on behalf of society or of god himself was engrained in the early Christian church but became to be viewed as barbaric and derisory by the 4^th century.

Is there any way in which Matthew 18 could be taken literally? The very last sentence in the passage—that the son of man has come to save that which was lost—may be seen as context for the concept of self mutilation. But the suggestion that there is something (like self-mutilation) that I could do, whether literally or metaphorically, to keep myself out of hell is quite counter to much of the gospel message.

The idea that my self-denial can get me a good response from god is really not the essence of the gospel message. To add to the puzzle: In Matthew 5:28, sin is seen not as a matter of the limbs or organs but of the heart, the mind, the soul.

David: The key word in Matthew 18 seems to be “stumble,” and it’s a question of whether “to stumble” means to commit a merely venal sin or original sin—to fall out of grace, out of the kingdom of god. The latter would certainly be the worst thing that could happen to one, so it would in that case certainly be worth giving an arm or a leg or an eye for. The wording in the passage is so strong, that it seems to me  it must mean that stumbling is referring to original sin, something far more serious than an Adventist surreptitiously downing a steak or a beer.

Don: I agree that the gravity of what is being discussed is extremely high level.

Alice: Mortifying the body is not the point. The point is to cut off anything that causes us to sin. It could be one’s job, money, possessions, spouse. No matter how important it is to me, I must cut it off, I must mortify my ego.

Eb: At the beginning of the passage, Jesus points to a little child. Children are innocent and unafraid to associate with anyone. Black and white children play happily together for years before prejudice sets in. If one is childlike, one’s mind is clear. Fasting can help to clear the mind. Cutting off the hand won’t help if the mind is thinking evil thoughts. The mind has to be trained to think only good thoughts.

Don: Fasting is a way of mortifying the body, and is a common—almost universal—religious rite.

David: Lenten fasting seems to have fallen into disuse in Christianity.

Don: It is not practiced in the SDA church, though there is a day of fasting (at which soup and sandwiches feature prominently!)

David: Does Lenten fasting have any relationship with our discussion?

Don: It is a form of self-denial. It is control of an appetite, and by doing it one honors god and clears oneself of impurities. Moslems do it during Ramadan.

Robin: In the verses prior to the passage under discussion, Jesus talks about hanging a millstone around one’s neck if one causes a child to stumble. It seems that people who cause children to sin should be expected to recognize themselves in this passage, which perhaps should be called a parable.

David: The passage only makes sense if the word stumble refers to the ultimate, original, sin of cutting oneself off from god. Or cutting a child off from god.

Alice: Perhaps if we cause the children to stumble in this way, perhaps our hands, feet, and eyes are causing us to stumble first, and then causing the child to stumble.

David: What is the responsibility of the child who does the actual stumbling? If it is not the child’s fault (and why should it be?) why should the child be cut off from god? This is a slippery subject!

Alice: Hands, feet, and eyes are literally attached to the body. So anything to which  we are so strongly attached, such as a bad relationship, is hard to cut off.

Robin: It seems that what Jesus is saying is that children are not the ones offending. They are being offended. They are being taught sin. In Jewish culture, children are not responsible for their sins until a certain age (12?) at which point it is decided they are old enough to distinguish between right and wrong.

David: The question for me is whether Jesus really said those things or are merely a misinterpretation or misrepresentation.

Don: Such criticism can be and is often leveled at all aspects of scripture. In context, Jesus is talking to self-righteous, religious people who think they can impress god by doing the right thing. The rich young ruler who asks what he must do to achieve eternal life and is told to give up everything is ultimately unwilling to cut himself off from his riches. Jesus is applying law-keeping to those who value and celebrate law-keeping.

It’s as if Jesus is saying: “You want to live by the law? OK. Let me tell you what the law is: If you do anything wrong, you have to cut off your hand, your eye, etc.  You have no idea what the law is about. You think the law is given to help you overcome sin; but actually it is given so sin can overcome you.” The law is like a mirror, as Paul says. You look into it and you see what you are not. “You cannot possibly make it to the level of lawfulness demanded, so you have diluted the law to something you can handle, but you no longer know what the law is really about, how deep and serious the undiluted law really is.”

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus goes about re-raising the standard of the law in all its awe-ful-ness: Murder and adultery are not breaking the law—just thinking about murder or adultery are breaking the law! People are incapable of keeping such law, and Jesus knows that.

He is saying we cannot appreciate the good news until we’ve heard the bad news. The bad news is: This is what the law requires. If you want to live by the law, then this is what it looks like. The good news is that somebody else has kept the law for you.

Mattthew 5:21: “…unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.” He is saying that the righteousness of the scribes is way below what god requires. In 2 Corinthians we see that the law is holy, righteous and good, and if we try to live by it, it will condemn us and show us our inadequacies. The purpose of the law is to bring ourselves to an end, to show us that we cannot abide by the law as long as we live.

We are failed sinners in need of grace. If we are self-righteous we will never appreciate the Savior. The awe-ful-ness of the law exposes our fraudulence, our spiritual arrogance, our pride, and that’s why Jesus is being so radical. “If you insist on this path of self-reliance then you’d better be prepared to cut off your limbs, and even then it won’t be enough. The only thing that’s acceptable is total and absolute unsullied perfection” is what he is saying.

The good news in Matthew 5:17: “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.” We are not perfect and never will be, but we have a perfect savior. He came to prepare our hearts for god’s grace. “You are not perfect, but I am. You have no idea how radical the demands of law abidingness are, but I do. Don’t trust your own righteousness; trust in mine, trust in the grace you can obtain through me.”

So pillar 3 of community is the grace that binds us together in brotherhood. When we are self-righteous, it is divisive and judgmental.

David: I’d like to think that this was what Jesus meant; it’s a beautiful interpretation. But then why didn’t he just say it that way? How many people have mutilated themselves because they took it literally?

* * *