[Dutchboy88]

"Do you have any actual evidence that self-righteous people, if they failed, resorted to eye-plucking and hand-chopping? [I.e.: their own eye or their own hand, not to be confused with the sadism practiced by the self-righteous of Islam, never upon themselves but upon those who have no choice.]"

You know, after I wrote that I suspected you may take it that way. I do not mean "self-righteous" as in, the fellow is so self-righteous. I meant it as in, the Pharisees were under the impression that the Law was intended to teach a man how to be righteous by his efforts and anyone who really, really applies themselves will by the effort make themselves acceptable to God...self-made righteousness.

Jesus is removing all possibilities of this happening by filling the Law so full that Jews would say, "Wait just a damn minute here, Bud. Who do you think you are to talk to us this way?" Now we are getting somewhere. And, if one follows the story line, this is precisely why they wanted Him crucified. What sounded nice at first soon became so burdensome that the people despised Him. His "version" of the Law was impossibly harsh (cannot create self-made righteousness) and the PEOPLE (not simply the Pharisees and Saducees) hated this condemnation. Of course they would not pluck an eye out...but it was necessary if you wished to make yourself self-righteous. And, yes, it still would not fix the problem, so of course it sounded excessive.

[Fantasywriter]

Thank you for that response. Agree that the nuances of this discussion are fairly subtle/discreet. But in an effort to stick to the point, allow me to recall the beginning. Jesus gave a command. Oddly, the command concerned only one of two eyes, and one of two hands. I.e.: Jesus offered a solution that, had it been literally applied/practiced, would not have solved the problem.

That is the point that caught my interest, and the one, if possible, to stick to in this discussion. Namely, if this command was no exaggeration, then it was intended literally. But I’m not ready to concede that I’m more literal or legalistic than Jesus’ Pharisaical listeners. They were a class of their own, in terms of literality and legalism. I could aspire to compete with them if I wanted to, which I don’t.

So what I’m saying is, their reaction to Jesus’ command would not be, “Wait just a damn minute here, Bud. Who do you think you are to talk to us this way?”

It would be, ‘Can’t you count? There are two eyes and two hands. What good would it do to dispose of one of either? The sinning could go merrily on its way with the one remaining, in either case.’

If that makes sense?