The Sermon on the Mount 8 - Matt 5:29-32

Jesus has just said, “that whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” Instead of the physical act of adultery, Jesus is condemning the very thought. Since he said, “looketh” he continues, “and if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of them members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.” That is pretty intense, and we have to consider that they didn’t have the modern medicine that we do today, the loss of an eye or a hand can mean that you are no longer an asset to your family. Let’s think about all the people who beg and who Jesus heals, they are all physically infirm, that includes the blind, and the man with the withered hand. There are no prosthetics at this point in time, there is no Americans with Disabilities Act, there are no wheelchairs or Braille. Physical infirmity many times meant that your family starved or that you were cast out of society and begged for the rest of your life. This statement can be seen as the equivalent of “it is better that you starve to death then to commit a wicked act.” And while that’s harsh, that’s a sucker punch truth.

The IM reminds us that this graphic description isn’t to be taken literally saying, “The Joseph Smith Translation makes it clear that the Savior did not encourage His followers to literally cut or disfigure themselves. The Savior said, ‘And now this I speak, a parable concerning your sins; wherefore, cast them from out, that ye may not be hewn down and cast into the fire.’ The Savior used startling images to teach followers the importance of casting away their sins ad removing themselves from sinful places, people, and situations.” JTC comments, “The law forbade the awful sin of adultery; Christ said that the sin began in the lustful glance, the sensual thought; and He added that it was better to become blind than to look with evil eye; better to lose a hand than to work iniquity therewith.” The IM mentions President Joseph Fielding Smith as giving another perspective as to the meaning of this statement from the Savior, saying, “President Joseph Fielding Smith taught that the terms ‘right eye’ or ‘right hand’ can mean ‘close friends or relatives who (endeavor) to lead us from the path of rectitude and humble obedience to the divine commandment s we receive from the Lord. If any friend or relative endeavors to lead a person away from the commandments, it is better to dispense with his friendship and association than to follow him in evil practices to destruction.”

The Lord teaches in parables and metaphors, so it would make sense that it would apply to this most gruesome teaching as well. We’ve all heard that friends have an enormous influence over who you are and what you do, the whole peer pressure thing is a pretty big deal. When I was in the army, during one of my own little social experiments, I made the connection that those who cheat all hung out together and those who didn’t cheat all hung out together. There were many more who cheated, so that kind of skewed the results a bit, but that was my determination from what I observed. It would be hard to distance yourself from a life long friend or a family member because they are making poor choices, the Jesus is saying here, it’s better to distance yourself then to come under their influence. And how does that reconcile with the idea of eating with “publicans and sinners?” How can you disassociate yourself with someone but still love them in a Christ-like manner? Let’s look at how the Savior acted with people. He was friends with them, he had discussions with them that were always instructive and uplifting. He was kind to them, but he did not engage in the same behavior they did, he did not say, “do you boo.” He did not shun, he would still sit by someone in church who was having a hard time keeping a commandment, he would invite them to dinner, he would walk with them, talk with them, welcome them to where he was, but he would not go to the wicked places with them. This is what we are to do. This is hard because I have to look at my own interaction with people, one specifically, and ask myself if I’m treating him in a Christ-like manner.

Circling back to adultery, the Savior makes a statement that is difficult for me to understand. He says, “It hath been said, whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.” This is tough for me because I am divorced and this makes it sound like any woman that’s divorced and remarries is committing adultery. The Savior makes it clear that it’s the men who are divorcing their wives for invalid reasons, but then it’s the women who have been cast out of their marriages that are punished as adulterers when they get married again. This is especially egregious when we consider that at that time, women were more or less considered property with few rights on their own. Being taken away from their husbands would strip them of their means of survival, and discouraging other men to marry women who were divorced would endanger these castoffs even more by denying them the opportunity to be taken care of by someone else. Because of that view point, this teaching has always been difficult for me to understand because I know that Jesus is the ultimate champion of women.

JTC gives more insight by teaching, “Touching the matter of divorcement, in which great laxity prevailed in that day, Jesus declared that except for the most serious offense of infidelity to marriage vows, no man could divorce his wife without becoming himself an offender, in that she, marrying again while still a wife not righteously divorced, would be guilty of sin, and so would the man to whom she was so married.” This is the reason why Herodias was so angry with John the Baptist, he was pointing out that she had not been properly divorced from her first husband Phillip. I feel that this is more Jesus’ way of reminding the men of their obligation to their wives and families. You don’t get to just throw away your responsibility to your family because you are bored or want something else. I think it could be said that there is great laxity in the divorce laws today. So does that mean that Jesus wants people to stay in unhappy marriages just because there is no adultery? Not at all. He wants people to turn to Him, and make their marriages happy. He wants people to work on their relationships instead of just throwing them away hoping to find a better one. He wants people to know that the grass isn’t greener on the other side, it’s green where you water it.