Did Jesus alude to the sin of self-abuse (sexual that is)?

[WesPilgrim]

I 've only seen this connection made in one published source, and I don’t recall the source. But the text I have in mind is from the Sermon on the Mount, specifically

Matthew 5:39
*And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one of your members than to have your whole body go in to Gehenna.*NAB

Certainly hyperbole is in play, but as to context-- Jesus has just mentioned adultery, lust, looking with lust (plucking the eye out…). I think it’s at least probable that the “right hand” refers back to sexual sin.

blessings, Wes

 

[Brickmaker]

I 've only seen this connection made in one published source, and I don’t recall the source. But the text I have in mind is from the Sermon on the Mount, specifically

Matthew 5:39
*And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one of your members than to have your whole body go in to Gehenna.*NAB

Certainly hyperbole is in play, but as to context-- Jesus has just mentioned adultery, lust, looking with lust (plucking the eye out…). I think it’s at least probable that the “right hand” refers back to sexual sin.

blessings, Wes

Left-handed people are OK then?

 

[NotWorthy]

Left-handed people are OK then?

Wow! I wish I would have known that 30 years ago!

 

[NotWorthy]

I 've only seen this connection made in one published source, and I don’t recall the source. But the text I have in mind is from the Sermon on the Mount, specifically

Matthew 5:39
*And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one of your members than to have your whole body go in to Gehenna.*NAB

Certainly hyperbole is in play, but as to context-- Jesus has just mentioned adultery, lust, looking with lust (plucking the eye out…). I think it’s at least probable that the “right hand” refers back to sexual sin.

blessings, Wes

I always considered it to be anything, such as theft or violence. But I never considered the context.

Now you’ve got me thinking!

 

[Mintaka]

Well, at first I thought you were wrong about the sexual sin context, since we pretty much always see this in the context of any sort of sin. (Which is the obvious extension of the principle of what He said.)

But you’re right about the adultery thing coming right before, and he goes right back to the adultery and divorce thing after that.

Moreover, the parallel passage in Matthew 18:8-9 comes right after and right before Jesus threatening people who do bad stuff to “these little ones”. So in that case, it would seem that he’s talking about pedophilia, which was a real problem in Greco-Roman society and may have bled into Hellenized Jewish society.

However, I don’t think He was talking about things you do with yourself. The context in those passages was doing stuff with women who you’re not married to, and little ones you’re not supposed to lead astray.

This doesn’t mean that I think Jesus was okay with sinning against yourself; God’s law was already fairly clear. It just came under the general heading of sexual immorality.

 

[WesPilgrim]

I appreciate the early feedback; yes including the “left-handed” humor, too. Since Catholicism is not my background, I was/am interested to see if perhaps there was/is a scholarly trail that exists on this side of the Tiber, of which I’ve not been aware, speaking to this text.
Secondly, I agree with Mintaka’s position, as I take it, that moral theology for the Church’s position, namely that masturbation is grave matter, exists— over and apart from adopting this passage as a proof text.
That said, there is a lot of ambiguity in various ecclesial communities on this subject. Therefore, if Jesus were insisting that we flee from lust of the eye (clearly he is), and in the same passage— flee from self abuse as lust’s *handmaiden *— then we’ve hit exegetical pay dirt. IMView.

blessings, Wes