“If your hand or foot causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you. It is better for you to enter into life lame or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into the everlasting fire. And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you. It is better for you to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes, to be cast into hell fire.” (Matthew 18:8-9)
These verses have sometimes been taken literally and, in extreme cases, used as a reason for bodily mutilation or removal of a hand, foot or eye. But is this really what Jesus meant for his followers to do?
The answer is found in two simple facts. First, Jesus often used figurative language in instructing his disciples and the crowds he taught. In fact, Jesus specifically used the eye and the hand with clear figurative intent on other occasions. Consider these two examples also found in the Gospel of Matthew: “The eye is the lamp of the body” (Matthew 6:22), and “… when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing” (Matthew 6:3). Clearly neither of these statements is meant to be understood literally.
Secondly, sin is caused by the mind and not by any bodily part or organ (James 1:14-16); and it is not possible for a hand or eye to sin of itself. For example, if our eye is involved in lusting, taking it out does not remove the sin because the mind can still continue to lust. The only way to remove the sin is to effect an inward change of the mind, as Jesus himself taught (for example, Matthew 23:25-27). The Hebrew Scriptures forbid cutting the body (Leviticus 19:28), and Jesus never contradicted any part of the law in his own teaching (Matthew 5:17-20) – only, on occasion, strengthening it.
When we remember that Jesus so often spoke figuratively using metaphors, similes, and parables, we can understand that in speaking of a hand, foot or eye that cause us to sin, he was really referring to someone or something in life that might be instrumental in causing us to sin. In fact, there is good indication that Jesus was actually referring to people in our lives who might cause us to sin. The words of Matthew 18:8-9 and Mark 9:43-47 appear directly after the statement that “If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them if a large millstone were hung around their neck and they were thrown into the sea” (Mark 9:42). The context would seem to indicate, then, that Jesus was referring to individuals who might cause sin to occur and who must be “cut off” even if they are as close to us as a part of our own body.
In Matthew 5:29 a similar figure of speech regarding removing a hand or eye is used in a different context, that of adultery, but once again there is no reason not to conclude that it is the person involved in the adulterous behavior that we must remove from our lives, not a physical body part.
This principle was applied directly by the early church in removing or “cutting off” any individual who, as part of the “body” (Romans 12:5), caused others in the church to sin (1 Corinthians 5:1–13, etc.).
“Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?” (Matthew 13:55)
Mainstream Christianity is divided on the understanding of this verse and its parallel in Mark 6:3. Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians, as well as some Anglicans and Lutherans, believe the brothers and sisters mentioned were in fact Jesus’ cousins, or children of Joseph by a former marriage, and that Mary remained a virgin throughout her life. The main argument for this view is that the Greek word adelphos used in this scripture can also sometimes be used in a broader sense meaning step-siblings or cousins.
Most Protestants believe that because there is no indication in scripture of this former marriage, and for several other reasons, it is better to understand sisters and brothers as literal siblings. They argue that although adelphos can sometimes mean “cousin,” its normal use is “brother,” and the actual word for “cousin” in Greek (anepsios) is never used of any of Jesus’ family members. If the children mentioned as being with Mary in Matthew 13:55 were from a former marriage of Joseph, those brothers and sisters are not mentioned when Mary and Joseph went to Bethlehem, or to Egypt, or returned to Nazareth.
Another argument sometimes proposed in this context is that in three of the Gospels, when Jesus is told, “Your mother and your brothers are standing outside, wanting to see you,” he replied: “My mother and my brothers are those who hear the word of God and do it” (Matthew 12:46-50; Mark 3:31-35; Luke 8:19-21). This is sometimes said to show that Jesus’ brothers and sisters were just disciples, but it seems clear that these scriptures are speaking metaphorically because the apostle John wrote that Jesus “… went down to Capernaum with his mother, his brothers, and his disciples …” (John 2:12), and here Jesus’ actual family members are clearly distinguished from his disciples.
A final issue to consider is that Protestants believe other scriptures such as Matthew 1:25 which says of Joseph, “ But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son…” and Luke 2:7 which says of Mary: “and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son” indicate Jesus’ brothers and sisters were physical siblings. By the second century, this was the position of some members of the early Church such as Tertullian (c. AD 160 – c. 225), whereas others believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary.
Yet ultimately far more important than any theological or historical discussion of whether Jesus did have siblings is the fact that the Son of God now does have brothers and sisters. The Book of Hebrews tells us that we who follow Jesus since His resurrection become his brothers and sisters in the family of God: “Both the one who makes people holy and those who are made holy are of the same family. So Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers and sisters. He says, ‘I will declare your name to my brothers and sisters…’” (Hebrews 2:11-12). It is clear that those with whom we share fellowship in Christ are now His brothers and sisters, as well as ours.
“Neither shall they say, Lo here! Or, lo there! For, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.” Luke 17:21 KJV
Some Christians see this verse as a statement that the Kingdom of God is a somewhat ethereal thing - a principle at work “in men’s hearts
,” but is this really what Christ had in mind in discussing the Kingdom of God?
This scripture is actually a classic example of how carefully looking at context can be so important in understanding what the Bible says. When we read the seventeenth chapter of the Gospel of Luke we see that the context is very clear:
“Once, on being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, “The coming of the kingdom of God is not something that can be observed, nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is in your midst.” Then he said to his disciples, “The time is coming when you will long to see one of the days of the Son of Man, but you will not see it” (Luke 17:20-22).
Notice three things about this expanded context. First, Jesus was talking directly to the Pharisees – individuals he said were like “whited sepulchers that … on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean” (Matthew 23:27). It is clear from this context that Jesus would not have said the kingdom of God was within those hypocritical religious leaders of that day.
Second, notice that the phrase “within you” as it appears in the King James Version is more properly translated “in your midst” (as we see in the NIV, ESV, Holman and most other modern translations). Jesus was standing “in the midst” of the group of people with whom he was talking when he made this statement and he – and he alone – at that time represented the Kingdom of God.
Finally, we see that Jesus was, in fact, referring to himself in that he directly told his disciples that they would soon long to see him, but would not be able. He then continued to describe the events of his future return and the full establishment of the Kingdom of God (Luke 17:24-30).
So, rather than being an ethereal principle “within the hearts of men,” Jesus explained that the Kingdom of God was tied directly to him: that it was even then among mankind (see also Matthew 4:17), and that he would eventually return as King to rule the expanded kingdom as a tangible reality. That is why the New Testament speaks of us entering the Kingdom of Heaven (2 Peter 1:11) rather than it entering us. God does place His Spirit within us (1 Corinthians 3:16, etc.), of course, and we can pray that God will let the rule of His Kingdom be established over our lives, but that is not the same as the idea that God’s Kingdom exists merely “within” us.
“All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had… And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need” (Acts 4:32–35).
Many have used these verses in Acts to try to prove that the early Christians followed a form of communism, but a careful reading of what the Bible says here shows that nothing could be further from the truth. We should note immediately that this seems to have been a temporary situation while the fledgling church was becoming established and before any formal mechanisms for helping the poor within the church were in place. Many of those who had come to Jerusalem to keep the Feast of Pentecost (Acts 2) and had been converted now were staying there and had as yet no means of support. So many shared what they had at that time. But we should also remember that once this temporary situation passed, there is no evidence that the early church continued in exactly the way described here.
Unlike communism as it is known in the modern world, the State was not in any way involved in this sharing; the Christians did not all share their property as a result of some decree or decision – rather “from time to time” people would decide to give, and only those people gave who wanted to. There was also no requirement to share, as Peter himself clearly tells us in the story of Ananias and Sapphira: “Ananias.…why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back for yourself part of the proceeds of the [sale of your] lands? While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? …You did not lie to men but to God!” (Acts 5:3–4). Finally, we should notice that the early Christians’ goods were not equally divided among everyone, but were “distributed to anyone who had need” (Acts 4:35).
This is all very different from modern era communism in which the State forcibly redistributes all wealth – theoretically sharing it equally between everyone in the society. There is also a clear difference in attitude. As has been jokingly said, though not without some truth, communism operates on a principle of “What’s yours is mine,” whereas the early Christians operated with the attitude of “What’s mine is yours.”
We should also remember that there is no room for communism in the teachings of Jesus. Although he recommended a certain rich young ruler sell all he had and give to the poor (not distribute it among Jesus and his followers), this appears to have been an individual test. We see that Jesus had Judas look after his funds and these were used as were needed and, on occasion, some funds were given to the poor (John 13:29) rather than anything that was received being automatically equally distributed. Communism is, in fact, diametrically opposed to a great many of the teachings of Jesus, as we can see in the parable of the “talents” (Matthew 25:24–30) and the parable of the “minas” (Luke 19:12-27) where the servants are unequally rewarded, and elsewhere.
“Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father” (John 14:12).
The words of Jesus are clear, yet we may wonder how this can be. Jesus performed miraculous deeds seen by many, healed the lame and the blind, raised Lazarus from the dead – how can we do greater works than these?
A key in understanding this verse in John is to realize the difference between the “signs,” “wonders,” “miracles” and “works” performed by Jesus. There is certainly some overlap in the use of these terms, but generally speaking there is a difference. The words “signs” (Greek semeion), “wonders” (Greek teras), and “miracles” (Greek dunamis) are all frequently used of the miraculous deeds Jesus performed as signs of his Messiahship. Jesus spoke of his followers doing such things, though usually in the context of faith – that if we have faith we, too, would be able to accomplish great deeds with God’s help.
But beyond these miraculous deeds, Jesus also performed many other works of teaching, guiding and helping his disciples and the crowds that followed him. The word “works” (Greek erga) used in John 14:12 can include miraculous deeds, but it signifies other non-wondrous works as well. In fact, erga can include ongoing duties, works, business, rather than just individual acts; and the word certainly covers Christ’s ongoing teaching and guidance.
When we look at the broader and often more ongoing sense implied by erga, we can see that Christ’s statement that his followers would do greater “works” than he had done likely refers to his work of teaching, guiding, etc. Such deeds were not entirely dependent on faith to accomplish them, and faith is usually not mentioned in the same context – as it is not in John 14:12. These works would be “greater” than those he had done, and this can mean greater in extent rather than greater in type. Although Jesus taught large crowds, sometimes of thousands of people, we have only to look at the eventual effects of the printing press and, in our own age the internet, when used to spread the word of God and to explain its teachings to millions of people, to see the extent of these works has indeed been greater than any individual could have accomplished in the time of Christ. But we should also remember that “no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him” (John 13:16) – the greater works that might be done in later ages by Jesus’ followers are still done by Him through us!
In 2 Samuel 24:1 we are told that: “Again the anger of the Lord was aroused against Israel, and He moved David against them to say, ‘Go, number Israel and Judah.’” Because this chapter goes on to say that God punished David when he did take a census of Israel’s fighting men, the biblical account is difficult to understand at this point. Another odd aspect about the story is that it appears to differ in an important detail in the parallel account in 1 Chronicles which tells us: “Now Satan stood up against Israel, and moved David to number Israel” (1 Chronicles 21:1).
So who moved David to count the Israelite men – and if it was God, why was David punished for this? There are several aspects involved in clarifying this situation. First, as at least one commentary points out, it is possible that the first sentence of 2 Samuel 24:1 –“And again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel” – is actually the title for the section of text that follows, so that the following “He” in “He moved David” in this verse might be understood as Satan, as in 1 Chronicles 21.
Notice that when David was challenged regarding taking the census by his military commander, Joab, David did not claim that God had instructed him to do this, but nevertheless “the king’s word prevailed” (2 Samuel 24:3-4). Further, we see that as soon as the census was taken, David regretted what he had done: “David was conscience-stricken after he had counted the fighting men, and he said to the Lord, “I have sinned greatly in what I have done. Now, Lord, I beg you, take away the guilt of your servant. I have done a very foolish thing’” (vs. 10). If God had instructed David to take the census, David’s words at this point would not make any sense.
So one solution to the apparent problem is to see Satan as being behind rousing David to conduct the census in both accounts. But at a deeper level we can also understand that in some ways God can be said to influence individuals by creating the circumstances in which He knows the individual is likely to act. In this way Exodus tells us that Pharaoh’s heart was hardened toward Israel (Exodus 8:19) when God created circumstances in which this might happen. In this sense 2 Samuel 24:1 may mean that God allowed Satan to tempt David because, as the verse stresses, His anger “was aroused against Israel” for its sinfulness at that time. Note that it was primarily Israel that was punished, not David; but it is as if God decided to punish Israel at a time and in a way that would teach David an important lesson regarding his own failings.
It seems that David’s sin in numbering Israel was due to his underlying motive for carrying out the census. God actually instructed Moses to number the Israelite fighting men for a specific reason on two occasions (Numbers 1:1-3; 26:2-4). But, as the Wycliffe Bible Commentary points out, there were only two logical reasons for taking a census in David’s time: to tax the population or (more likely because it was the fighting men who were counted) to prepare to conscript an army. Because God had blessed David with both physical abundance and safety, the taking of a census may have demonstrated a failure on David’s part through pride in his military strength or, conversely, lack of trust in not looking to God for economic or military help that might be needed.
Recent Comments