Question on Matthew 5:29

Adultery has to do with marriage; hasn’t it? (verse 27-28)

Divorce has to do with marriage; hasn’t it? (verses 31-33).
Verse 29 -30 between the said verses has to do with marriage and a sin in marriage.

Today we say of a man handling all the affairs of another that he is “his right arm” and of a man who can solve difficult situations we say that he “has a good eye”.

He is not talking of sinful habits that we must eradicate, otherwise why should it be necessary to throw away a rotten eye or an arm? It is rotten and can do no real arm.

If he is talking if a rotten person if you do not throw away that person he or she will come back and make you sin.

Persons are not objects and therefore more precious but more dangerous and sinful too. We sometimes must separate ourselves.

That’s a far cry from “it’s all about marital vows”, which is what your earlier claim was.

What you say now is akin to saying, “they serve hot dogs at baseball games, don’t they? they serve hamburgers at baseball games, don’t they? Therefore, baseball is all about eating meat.” :wink:

So, I would assert that these verses have to do with sinful behavior in the general context of the Mosaic law. More to the point, Jesus is asserting a standard that’s more stringent than the Mosaic law – one can imagine that He was being accused of introducing new teaching in contradiction to the law, and He’s asserting that His teaching is in line, and even more so!

1 Like

He speaks of marital problems for persons.

What mosaic law compels to agree with your adversary before going to a tribunal?

At that time Jesus was a teacher and not lawgiver or lawyer.

Teacher of life

I disagree. Matthew presents Jesus as the “new Moses”.

1 Like

Why is there so much hyperbole in the Bible ? Wouldn’t it be better just to state straight out and clearly what you mean instead of using hyperbolic language which can be misinterpreted ? Further, there can be confusion as to what is supposed to be taken literally and what is supposed to be taken allegorically or hyperbolically. Is it a good thing to have this type of confusion?

Jesus came for one main purpose, to give Testament to the Truth and sacrifice himself.

Many things were said to shock folk to grab their attention!!

Yes many would have walk away scared or worried , but most importantly he had grabbed their attention.

Jesus never wanted anyone to hurt themselves in any shape or form. Simply a metaphor.

He knew his life would be short as a human and time was drawing near.

I think Jesus was simply using the law effectively. The best thing the law could ever produce is an honest guilt. It’s better to obey than to lose a limb. But they could never fully obey. This state could only produce a willingness to fall upon God’s mercy alone.

Allegory and hyperbole must leave ground to the interpersonal relationships in the text and between the writer and the audience…

To give testament to the truth means to say how things are from God’s point of view.

He said things to grab the attention when they didn’t listen with their ears.

He said hurtful things when necessary for instance the temple destroyed and woe and blood over the Pharisees.

Jesus was going beyond the law and he grounded on the two main commands love of God and love of your neighbours.

As regards your neighbour who is your wife you must not adulterate her.

The mosaic law could be fulfilled by only one:Jesus.

Ahh! Why must you ask a gazillion questions? :wink: :rofl:

There’s hyperbole because, seemingly, that was a common mode of speech in that time and place. (Heck, it’s common today!) The problem isn’t the presence of hyperbole, it’s the willingness and ability to recognize it!

It’s a good thing that we have an authoritative interpreter of Divine Teaching. :+1:

The Mosaic law was never expected to be fulfilled perfectly by the people of God. If it had been, then there would have been no need to include penalties for breaking the provisions of the law in the law itself. :wink:

  1. What is the authoritative interpreter of the Bible for Protestants, Jews, Muslims and non-Catholics?
  2. Has the authoritative interpretation of the Bible changed over the years or has it remained completely consistent?

The Catholic Church. They just don’t accept that to be the case, however.

On the other hand, if you’re asking “who do these groups think is their authoritative interpreter?”, then the answer is “themselves personally, guided by the Holy Spirit”, “various answers”, and “no one – they don’t believe in the Bible”, respectively.


In such a case, and since the plurality of religions is willed by God, why would it not be better to have unambiguous expressions and characterizations in the Bible so that all would be able to benefit from them without any confusion arising from hyperbole, allegory and general ambiguity?

I think I would say that it is ‘allowed’, rather than ‘willed’. If you don’t make that distinction, then you end up thinking that God wants it, per se.

You recognize that people dispute the Bible, even in its “unambiguous expressions and characterizations”, right? It’s not the ambiguity that they’re disputing… but rather, their unwillingness to accede to the assertions found there.

All can benefit from them, as it is. If one chooses not to, is it the fault of the text or its Divine author? :wink:

1 Like

The divine author has inspired the writers of the New Testament to write in Greek. I therefore recognize texts in Greek and I don’t recognize translations.

There are Greek textual variations but the comparison of texts, can render the most probable original text.

The interpretation or translation of the Greek text requires
Extratextual knowledge too.

Basically, you are your own authority and you want the rest of us to recognize you as an authority.

But you are not the authority over the Word of God. Jesus Christ established a Church and commanded that Church to pass on His Commandments. It is this Church which wrote the New Testament.

Now, as for Matt 5:29, it is about adultery. Not about marriage. The eye which is cast out is the eye which committed the sin of lusting for a woman which is not one’s wife.

Your understanding of the text, whether in Greek or any other language, is in error.

1 Like

It 's about adultery.
Can you commit adultery without marriage ? (not symbolically).

If not it must be about marriage.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit