Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Dutchboy88

Here is a question for you. If Jesus’ words were absolutely literal, why only one “eye”? Why only one “hand”? What sin can you commit with only one eye [unless you have only one to begin with]? What sin can you commit with only one “hand”?

The Greek has plurals. Jesus could either have said, ‘Pluck both eyes out,” or “cut both hands off,” or He could have said, ‘Start by plucking/cutting one out/off, and if that doesn’t work, pluck out/amputate the remaining one.’ That is, if it is totally literal.

I agree with you that Jesus is making this a direly urgent matter. But the literal argument fails to address the fact that He didn’t use plurals. For example, if viewing pornography is a problem, plucking out an eye won’t cure it. One could still view the offending images with the remaining eye.


549 posted on 12/09/2014 11:08:53 AM PST by Fantasywriter (Any attempt to do forensic work using Internet artifacts is fraught with pitfalls. JoeProbono)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 535 | View Replies ]


To: Fantasywriter
"Here is a question for you. If Jesus’ words were absolutely literal, why only one “eye”?"

It appears that you believe I am simply arguing for a "literal" interpretation. But, if that were the case, (as you said), "Why only one eye?" Good point.

My point, however, was the hermeneutic, not the interpretation. That is, if at this point in the story line of the Bible, Jesus is teaching the Jews the true weight of the Law, then all of the demands He pointed to were "literal" demands of the Law...but directed at the Jew. If a man looks on a woman, you have committed adultery (broken the Law). If you get angry with your brother, you have committed murder (broken the Law). Even the so-called "Golden Rule" ends with "...for this is the Law and the Prophets", not "...for this is good Christian living." Each layer of demand He expounded was intended to bear upon the Jew to the point of them admitting, "This is impossible!" And, then like the rich, young ruler, "What is impossible with man is possible with God."

If we Gentiles are not grafted into the picture until the blood was shed (according to Paul in Eph. 2), then none of the "teaching" Jesus set out in Matt, Mark, Luke & John was directed at us...any more than the teaching of Isaiah was directed at us. And, there is an enormous difference between being directed at us and being beneficial for us. One tells us what to do, the other tells us what was being done. Did that help?

550 posted on 12/09/2014 12:10:44 PM PST by Dutchboy88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 549 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson