M
MysticMissMisty
Guest
Salvete, omnes!
First of all, if I have misplaced this topic, please feel free to move it.
BASIC QUESTION: What, precisely, is the meaning of the “hand” and the “eye” as described in Matthew 5:29-30 and in Mark 9:43 ff.?
More specifically…
I have heard several interpretations of these verses both from within and outside of the Catholic Church. Some commentators (both ancient and modern) seem to understand the “hand” and the “eye” as referring in some way to the sinful thoughts of a man (the “eye” standing in for the “lust of the eye”, for instance?). Others seem to interpret the “eye” and “hand” s referring to particular objects in the world that are a cause for sin for someone and that the eye and the hand are used to represent that which, while good in and of themselves and perhaps even dear to a person, is yet in some way leading to sin in him.
This issue, I think, is even further confounded by the fact that, In Matthew’s account, the “right” hand and eye are specifically referenced while, in Mark’s account, only the “hand” and “eye” generally are cited.
Still fruther, the context at which these sayings occur differs in each account. In Matthew, it is surrounded by statements on adultery and divorce respectively. In Mark, it is preceded by the statement condemning anyone who would cause a disciple to stumble.
If the interpretation of the “hand” and “eye” as sinful thoughts related to each is to stand, it is problematized by the Matthew passage which specifies the “right” of each, seeming to indicate something important and/or dear. How can we, then, say that a sinful thought is considered “important” or “dear” to the one engaging in it?
So, then, are we to conclude from this that something physically present in the world is meant by the “eye” and the “hand”? If this is the case, several more issues are raised.
If an object in a man’s life leads him into sin, but only once, is he immediately to cast away that object, whether it be a person, a thing or even an occupation? What if this happens, but he later repents of his sin? Is he still required to cast it aside? Even if a man continually sins but sincerely repents each time, is he still required to cast off the object? What if the object is otherwise doing him or even others good by its continued presence in his life?
But, again, if we are to understand the interpretation outlined in the previous paragraph, can it not be replied that it is the will and not the object itself that is responsible for a man’s sin and that even the removal of the object may not necessarily remove the sinful inclination?
In sum, does the Church as a whole currently take any specific position on the interpretation ofthis passage? If so, what might this be and what is its exegetical basis? If not, what are your thoughts? Any other insightful commentaries I’ve missed on this subject?
Gratias.
First of all, if I have misplaced this topic, please feel free to move it.
BASIC QUESTION: What, precisely, is the meaning of the “hand” and the “eye” as described in Matthew 5:29-30 and in Mark 9:43 ff.?
More specifically…
I have heard several interpretations of these verses both from within and outside of the Catholic Church. Some commentators (both ancient and modern) seem to understand the “hand” and the “eye” as referring in some way to the sinful thoughts of a man (the “eye” standing in for the “lust of the eye”, for instance?). Others seem to interpret the “eye” and “hand” s referring to particular objects in the world that are a cause for sin for someone and that the eye and the hand are used to represent that which, while good in and of themselves and perhaps even dear to a person, is yet in some way leading to sin in him.
This issue, I think, is even further confounded by the fact that, In Matthew’s account, the “right” hand and eye are specifically referenced while, in Mark’s account, only the “hand” and “eye” generally are cited.
Still fruther, the context at which these sayings occur differs in each account. In Matthew, it is surrounded by statements on adultery and divorce respectively. In Mark, it is preceded by the statement condemning anyone who would cause a disciple to stumble.
If the interpretation of the “hand” and “eye” as sinful thoughts related to each is to stand, it is problematized by the Matthew passage which specifies the “right” of each, seeming to indicate something important and/or dear. How can we, then, say that a sinful thought is considered “important” or “dear” to the one engaging in it?
So, then, are we to conclude from this that something physically present in the world is meant by the “eye” and the “hand”? If this is the case, several more issues are raised.
If an object in a man’s life leads him into sin, but only once, is he immediately to cast away that object, whether it be a person, a thing or even an occupation? What if this happens, but he later repents of his sin? Is he still required to cast it aside? Even if a man continually sins but sincerely repents each time, is he still required to cast off the object? What if the object is otherwise doing him or even others good by its continued presence in his life?
But, again, if we are to understand the interpretation outlined in the previous paragraph, can it not be replied that it is the will and not the object itself that is responsible for a man’s sin and that even the removal of the object may not necessarily remove the sinful inclination?
In sum, does the Church as a whole currently take any specific position on the interpretation ofthis passage? If so, what might this be and what is its exegetical basis? If not, what are your thoughts? Any other insightful commentaries I’ve missed on this subject?
Gratias.