Question on Matthew 5:29

[speculator]

The meaning comes from the context too; and Jesus was talking of a married person who for the fact that he Continued to look to a woman with the aim to having her adulterated his marriage at the very kernel of his heart.

 

[speculator]

The interpretation is mine from wescott and Hort.
Your interpretation does really agree with JW and not with me,

 

[tgGodsway]

It has taken the Church over 2000 years to master the skill of hermeneutics. So many horrible interpretations over the years through both Catholic and Protestant groups, that it is scary.

But the skill to make a face value interpretation has become perfected in many ways. Unfortunately, still many groups need the skill.

 

[De_Maria]

It has taken the Church over 2000 years to master the skill of hermeneutics. …

We believe that the Catholic Church is the hermeneutic which Jesus Christ put here to Teach His Word. Unfortunately for them and their followers, 500 years ago, the Protestants cast aside God’s authorized Teacher and struck out on their own.

 

[tgGodsway]

Yes De_Maria you do believe that.

 

[De_Maria]

Yes De_Maria you do believe that.

Jesus said,

Matthew 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Do you think that it took Jesus 2000 years to master the hermeneutics of Scripture? Or do you think He withheld His knowledge of Scripture from the Church? After all, this is the Church which is described as the Pillar of Truth (1Tim 3:15) and the Teacher of the Wisdom of God (Eph 3:10).

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Are there any known cases where someone has actually had one of their “members” removed in the interest of this statement?

Yes, there are many historic cases of this. The ones I read about usually involve men castrating themselves (in some cases cutting everything off and I do mean everything) to avoid lust.

However, in the last 1-2 centuries, such actions are usually viewed as mental illness, and rightly so.

As others stated, the speech was hyperbole and not a literal call to go cutting off your limbs and organs.

 

[tgGodsway]

You should know De_Maria, how Jesus told many parables without interpretation. Certainly He held back, not so much knowledge, but understanding. And yes, the Church is a pillar of truth, a truth received from her foundational leaders such a Paul or Peter or John. Eph. 3:10

 

[De_Maria]

Certainly He held back, not so much knowledge, but understanding.

2000 years of guidance into all truth, by the Holy Spirit.

John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

 

[SeraficLeo]

I personally suspect the earliest Christians understood this of scandal and the Church, with the cutting off of members meaning excommunicating public sinners - particularly authorities in the Church. By tolerating scandalous example or behaviour in the positions of leadership the whole body would or could become corrupt, so it would be better to cut off such a one then suffer widespread corruption.

 

[tgGodsway]

Yes and amen.

 

[De_Maria]

Yes and amen.

Serious question. Do you believe that “Sola Scriptura” is a hermeneutic?

I was thinking about this because of the discussion between “us” (you, Inman, TULIPed and myself) vs Johan and I forget who else. You know, the one about holiness, works and salvation.

Anyway, I was wondering how a hermeneutic, using an inerrant instrument, can arrive at such disparate results and still be considered useful? Do you see what I mean? If you’re all using the same hermeneutic to come with truth, you shouldn’t be coming up with contradictory results. Unless the hermeneutic is false. Make sense?

 

[tgGodsway]

Do you believe that “Sola Scriptura” is a hermeneutic?

Hermeneutic is a science of interpretation with proven rules to accomplish a face value interpretation. To say, only scripture, is a hermeneutic is nonsensical to me. What is your definition of it?

 

[De_Maria]

Hermeneutic is a science of interpretation with proven rules to accomplish a face value interpretation. To say, only scripture, is a hermeneutic is nonsensical to me.

Lol! I’ve said the same thing, but not in those precise words.

What is your definition of it?

I’ve never been able to get anyone to tell me. I’m glad we agree. Thanks.

PS @tgGodsway, would you change your mind if I used the terminology, “hermeneutical principle”. I looked up an old discussion and found that wording.

 

[Wm777]

By tolerating scandalous example or behaviour in the positions of leadership the whole body would or could become corrupt, so it would be better to cut off such a one then suffer widespread corruption

On the same token - although it was a complete rationalization… that’s actually what Caiaphas said to do with Jesus…

Its an interesting problem, though…

Peter would kick people out of the church for practicing things like simony, but, then, when Paul writes letters saying things, like “we’re the dregs”… while we’re being fed to lions, burnt at the stake, or being blamed by Nero for torching Rome… its hard to say how much “credibility” they had anyway…

I guess you’re right in that the only thing they would have had going for them was their innocence… or at least a penitential disposition… Still the notion of excommunication seems incredibly harsh, especially with respect to the woman caught in adultery, who was forgiven… Excommunication would’ve been something like a death sentence, but the adultress wasn’t judged in such a way by Jesus…

 

[SeraficLeo]

I was thinking in instances where the member refused correction. “Cut off/cutting off” has precedents in the OT, as when God says any male who does not become circumcised will be “cut off” from his/the people for breaking the covenant. Since this is Jesus, we might infer (assuming excommunication of members of the Church is what is meant) that the Lord Himself would do this. So perhaps in grave situations when a member has fallen into serious or grave sin (worth eternal punishment even by the language of the text), Jesus is saying such a person would be cut off from His mystical body, at least spiritually? Still, given the rigorism and general literalism in the practice and application of the Lord’s teaching by the early Church (e.g. taking the real presence “This is my body” literally), I think the earliest Christians certainly would not just say this teaching was only a form of hyperbole, for example. I just have a hard time seeing that.

 

[SeraficLeo]

The relationships that must be removed and “thrown away”, when necessary, are as intimate as with your spouse who has the handle of all your affairs (your hand) or is more intelligent than you and you have full confidence in him/her (your eye).

It must be thrown away, even after cutting off and removal, otherwise the sinful situation will repeat itself.

Yes, I think this is closer to the idea being conveyed by the passage. Again, the “cutting off” language makes me think it is analagous to the “cutting off” of violators of the covenant, even as males who were not circumcised would be “cut off” from the body of the people/the body of Israel.

The spousal context (it is immediately situated between adultery and divorce) could also lend itself to having covenental significance and remaining in the body of the Lord/the body of the people (of the Lord). In this way, when Jesus immediately after says a certificate of divorce is not to be granted except in cases of infidelity/adultery, the Lord might effectively be teaching that excommunication or separation of the body should (or will by Him) only be applied or occur in grave crimes or offenses against the covenant: so for example in cases of heresy, apostasy or schism, perhaps.

If my interpretation is anywhere near the mark, then it means the Church has always practiced and retained this teaching in the form of Church doctrine and discipline. As also the teaching (as others have pointed out) to avoid persons, situations and things that cause a person to be tempted to grave sin when it is in their power to avoid it. It would explain why early Christians did not have a reputation for amputating themselves also lol.

 

[tgGodsway]

Would I change my mind about what? The science of hermeneutics has many proven principles to make an interpretation. But I’m not sure what you are asking?

 

[De_Maria]

Would I change my mind about what? The science of hermeneutics has many proven principles to make an interpretation. But I’m not sure what you are asking?

Whether Sola Scriptura is considered a hermeneutical principle? I don’t think the slight difference in terminology should make a difference. I just want to be sure.

You’re probably wondering why I’m asking. A couple of reasons.

1. I guess you could say, I’m sharpening my sword. And that would be accurate. I asked the question expecting you to agree with that description and was hoping to mine some nuggets of understanding so that I could better prepare a defense against it in the future.
2. Again, I asked the question fully expecting you to agree with those who consider Sola Scriptura a hermeneutic or a hermeneutical principle. To my surprise, you responded exactly as I would have, even more bluntly. So, I didn’t get my nuggets. And I’m now making sure that I understood you correctly that we have the same difficulty with that description of Sola Scriptura.
3. And, finally, I thought we have moved into a more benevolent stage of discussion. What a better way to have a friendly conversation about this contentious topic.

 

[tgGodsway]

Wow De_Maria. I’m not sure how to read this. You and I have had many disagreements over the years but today we agree on something. This is great.

I’m not sure what this hermeneutic issue is all about or those who claim sola scriptura is a hermeneutic. I don’t know what they mean by this.

The word Hermeneutic comes from Greek mythology hermes. The word was borrowed only to use
as a reference to the science of interpretation. Some scholars use these skills, others do not.
I am a firm believer in them. Here’s why: Making a good bible interpretation is probably one of the most important things you will ever do when reading the scriptures. We’ve had over two-thousand years of practice and today we’ve gotten it down to a very trustworthy science.

Most, if not all doctrinal error can be traced to a flimsy and weak interpretation, or driven by a theological predisposition (or school of thought.) In other words if our hermeneutic is only controlled by our accepted theology / tradition / denominational premise, etc. … then it is very possible the bible can be misinterpreted because of bias and prejudice.
Unfortunately, some bible-teachers have either thrown out the practice of hermeneutics, or never had one in the first place.

Here are 5 basic rules to a good interpretation.

1. Rule #1: Scripture never contradicts scripture
2. Take Scripture in its context.
3. Compare Scripture with Scripture.
4. Let Scripture define Scripture
5. Let Scripture interpret scripture.