As will be explained herein, many have taken this statement to justify anti-Semitic sentiments, or to explain horrible incidents like the Holocaust when millions of Jews were killed in gas chambers. But is it possible that a “curse,” which is placed by parents on their children and future generations, can automatically bring about such terrible results? Some turn for an explanation to the “curse” which God placed on parents and children who “hate” Him. 

In a previous Q&A, we asked and answered the question what it means that God will visit the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generation of those who hate Him (compare Exodus 20:5), and explained that this does not contradict Scriptures such as Deuteronomy 24:16, stating that children are not to be put to death for their fathers, but that a person “shall be put to death for his own sin.”

We pointed out that the children will only be punished if they themselves are sinning, stating: “The Companion Bible comments to Ezekiel 18: 4, 20: ‘Descendants were not punished for the sins of their ancestors unless they persevered in their ancestors’ sins.’ The same thought is expressed in Exodus 20. Note that Exodus 20:5 speaks of those ‘who hate Me.’ Soncino points out that the phrase, ‘of those that hate Me,’ applies to the children, i.e. God will punish the children if they [the children] hate Him. Soncino comments, too, that the punishment will be brought upon the children, ‘when they retain the evil deeds of their fathers.’”

We also explained that “the conduct of the parents may have a lot to do with the fact whether their children or grandchildren love or hate God. The sins of the fathers do affect future generations — and so does the penalty for sin… When Adam and Eve sinned, the penalty imposed on them affected all mankind. Through their sin, they cut themselves – and man – off from God. Sin separates us from God (Isaiah 59:1-2), and since all have sinned, all have incurred the death penalty for sin (Romans 5:14). One might say that the sin of Adam and Eve affected, at the very least, the third and fourth generation, but since Cain sinned, his sin affected the next four generations, and so on. The effect of sin is cumulative. Finally, sin had become so all-encompassing that God decided to destroy the entire world in a flood.

“Christ, in showing the evil influence of their parents and their own culpability in their continued hate of God, pointed out in Matthew 23:31-36, how the principle of Exodus 20:6 was fulfilled in the persons of the scribes and Pharisees at Christ’s time.”

We also stressed that the “vicious cycle of sin, penalty, and death can be interrupted, however, when a person turns to God, repents, and obtains forgiveness.” Norbert Link’s recent sermon, “The Fate of Our Children,” explains this topic in much detail, showing that “God determined to call some in this day and age to have a special relationship with Him. This includes the children of called-out parents. Whether they may realize it or not, parents have a tremendous influence on their children and grandchildren—in good and bad ways.”

In light of this concept, let us return to Matthew 27:25. In the context of that passage, Pilate washed his hands and stated that he was “innocent of the blood of this just Person,” Jesus Christ.   In response, the crowd yelled, “His blood be on us and on our children,” demanding His death by crucifixion.

Many commentaries feel indeed that this saying had automatic consequences for their future generations.

Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary writes: “The Jews’ curse upon themselves has been awfully answered in the sufferings of their nation.”

The Pulpit Commentary says: “A mad and impious imprecation, the fulfillment of which quickly commenced, and has continued unto this day. The terrible events connected with the destruction of Jerusalem, the overthrow of the theocracy, and the eighteen centuries of exile and dispersion, bear witness to the reality of the vengeance thus wantonly invoked.”

Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible writes: “… his blood was in the sense they wished it; and for the shedding of it, wrath came upon them to the uttermost, in the entire destruction of their nation, city, and temple, and very remarkable it is, that great numbers of them were put to death by crucifixion; and very likely some of those very persons, that were so clamorous for the crucifying of Christ; and if not, at least their children; five hundred of the Jews and more, were sometimes crucified in a day, whilst Titus was besieging the city; till at length there wanted ‘room for crosses’, ‘and crosses for bodies’, as Josephus (u) says, who was an eyewitness of it: and to this day, this dreadful wish of the blood of Christ upon them, is to be seen in their miserable, abject, and captive state; and will be, until such time that they look to him whom they have pierced, and mourn…”

Barnes’ Notes on the Bible says: “The Jews had no right to call down this vengeance on their children, but, in the righteous judgment of God, it has come upon them. In less than forty years their city and temple were overthrown and destroyed. More than a million of people [sic] perished in the siege. Thousands died by famine; thousands by disease; thousands by the sword; and their blood ran down the streets like water, so that, Josephus says, it extinguished things that were burning in the city. Thousands were crucified suffering the same punishment that they had inflicted on the Messiah… To this day, also, the curse has remained. They have been a nation scattered and peeled; persecuted almost everywhere, and a hissing and a byword among people. No single nation, probably, has suffered so much; and yet they have been preserved. All classes of people, all the governments of the earth, have conspired to overwhelm them with calamity, and yet they still live as monuments of the justice of God, and as proofs, going down from age to age, that the Christian religion is true – standing demonstrations of the crime of their fathers in putting the Messiah to death, and in calling down vengeance on their heads.”

Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible says: “If this man be innocent, and we put him to death as a guilty person, may the punishment due to such a crime be visited upon us, and upon our children after us! What a dreadful imprecation! and how literally fulfilled!… they fell victims to their own imprecation, being visited with a series of calamities unexampled in the history of the world. They were visited with the same kind of punishment; for the Romans crucified them in such numbers when Jerusalem was taken, that there was found a deficiency of crosses for the condemned, and of places for the crosses. Their children or descendants have had the same curse entailed upon them, and continue to this day a proof of the innocence of Christ, the truth of his religion, and of the justice of God.”

The People’s New Testament says: “His blood be on us. That is, let us have the responsibility and suffer the punishment. A fearful legacy, and awfully inherited. The history of the Jews from that day on has been the darkest recorded in human annals.”

Wesley’s Notes say: “His blood be on us and on our children – As this imprecation was dread, fully answered in the ruin so quickly brought on the Jewish nation, and the calamities which have ever since pursued that wretched people, so it was peculiarly fulfilled by Titus the Roman general, on the Jews whom he took during the siege of Jerusalem. So many, after having been scourged in a terrible manner, were crucified all round the city, that in a while there was not room near the wall for the crosses to stand by each other. Probably this befell some of those who now joined in this cry, as it certainly did many of their children: the very finger of God thus pointing out their crime in crucifying his Son.”

This will suffice. Even though the human mind might hastily conclude that the sufferings of the Jews are the direct result of a curse uttered by parents for them and future generations, such interpretation is not biblical. However, the consequences of this kind of interpretation have indeed been terrible. Adolf Hitler used this Scripture and the concept that the “Jews killed Christ” to exterminate millions of them during the Holocaust. Others, prior to him, had used the same “justification” for their horrible and ungodly deeds towards the Jews. But what is forgotten is the fact that the Jews were persecuted long before the death of Christ—we may recall that in the book of Esther, all the Jews would have been killed if it had not been for Esther’s intervention. Clearly, Satan was behind that attempt to exterminate the Jewish people to make prophecy “fail,” by trying to prevent the birth of Jesus Christ—knowing that He would be a descendant of the house of Judah.

The Nelson Study Bible comments that “The destruction of Jerusalem was one of the results of this sin [the curse uttered by the parents].” For proof, the commentary points at Matthew 23:32-39. However, that passage describes the results of the sins of those who were involved—it does not inflict a curse on innocent children who do not participate in the evil life style of their parents. In addition, we should realize that this was not a curse uttered by God, but a curse uttered by ignorant people. God is not bound by such a curse. To the contrary, we read that no one can curse or effectuate a curse on someone whom God does not curse (Numbers 23:8).

Recognizing the injustice of categorically condemning all future generations to a terrible curse uttered by some of their ancestors, some commentaries take a more differentiated point of view. The New Bible Commentary: Revised states that the “saying has been wrongly used in later generations to persecute the Jews.” The Broadman Bible Commentary agrees, saying: “Verse 25 has unfortunately been used in anti-Semitism, and such use is to be deplored. Jesus was crucified by Romans at Jewish initiative, but not all Jews then supported the crime, and Jews today are no more guilty than any other people. Jesus died on account of the sins of the world, not of the Jews alone.”

This is indeed true. Christ came to die for all men—Jews and Gentiles—and all of us are guilty of His death, because all of us have sinned, and the wages of sin is death. In addition, our sins—not unfriendly words uttered by ignorant men—bring about curses in our lives. Christ came to free us from sin and the death penalty through the shedding of His precious blood, and to remove from us the curse of eternal death (For more information, please read our free booklet, “Jesus Christ—a Great Mystery.”). It is also a fact that this is Satan’s world, and that Satan is anxious to destroy all of mankind. Millions of people have died in wars, famines, disease epidemics and “natural” catastrophes, and millions of Christians were murdered during the times of the Inquisition. As explained in this Q&A, we suffer the consequences of our own misconduct, and we are only responsible for the misconduct of our parents if we adopt their life style and make it our own.  To say that Jews were singled out by God and persecuted and killed throughout history because of a curse uttered by some Jews at the time of Christ’s death is equally as wrong as to hold the current generation of Germans responsible for the crimes of some of their fathers and grandfathers against the Jews and others during Nazi Germany.

We should also focus on another possibility as to how to understand Matthew 27:25. Even though the Jews who uttered these terrible words were misled and meant them as a rejection of Christ to be applied to them and their children—apparently not realizing what they were saying—God might have inspired the recording of these statements to point out quite a different concept. For instance, we read that the high priest recommended the death of Jesus Christ, as “it is expedient to us that one man should die for the people, and not that the whole nation should perish” (John 11:49-50). He meant that Jesus should die so that the Romans would not come in to destroy Judah, but God inspired this saying for quite a different reason. As John 11:51-52 explains: “Now this he did not say on his own authority; but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, and not for that nation only, but also that He would gather together in one the children of God who were scattered abroad.”

In that sense, some commentaries understand the saying in Matthew 27:25 in a similar way. The One Volume Bible Commentary by J.R. Dummelow refers to the Jews’ saying also as “a blessing upon believers, on whom the blood of Jesus came for sanctification, and the remission of sin, compare John 11:50.” Indeed, when the blood of Jesus covers our sins, this will have a positive influence on our children. When a parent is becoming converted and accepts the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ for the remission of his sins, his children become “holy” or “sanctified” (1 Corinthians 7:14); that is, they are being set aside for the holy purpose of realizing their potential of entering into a relationship with God. In that sense, the “curse” of the parents in Matthew 27:25 could perhaps be understood, in God’s eyes, as the (unrealized) cry for a blessing for them and their children.

God will answer that cry. He will soon send Jesus Christ to this earth to offer all of mankind—Jews and Gentiles alike—the gift of eternal life and freedom from sin and the curse of eternal death. That is why we are to pray daily for the coming of God’s Kingdom (Matthew 6:10).

Lead Writer: Norbert Link

We read in Hosea 1:2-3 that God told the prophet Hosea to “take yourself a wife of harlotry” and that Hosea did so and married “Gomer the daughter of Diblaim” and that she had children with him. In Hosea 3:1-3, God commanded Hosea to “love a woman who is loved by a lover and is committing adultery,” and that Hosea bought her for fifteen shekels of silver and one and one-half homers of barley, but that he had no sexual relationship with her.

The question in this Q&A is whether these passages are to be understood literally, even though, in any case, they represent God’s relationship with Israel.

Commentaries are divided on the issue.

To begin with Hosea 1:2-3, Barnes’ Notes on the Bible states that Hosea was to take as a wife “one who up to that time had again and again been guilty of that sin” and that her children “shared the disgrace of their mother, although born in lawful marriage.”

The Life Application Bible also proposes the literal understanding of the passage. It states:

“Did God really order his prophet to marry a woman who would commit adultery? Some who find it difficult to believe God could make such a request view this story as an illustration, not an historical event. Many, however, think the story is historical… Hosea knew ahead of time that his wife would be unfaithful and that their married life would become a living object lesson to the adulterous northern kingdom… It is difficult to imagine Hosea’s feelings when God told him to marry a woman who would be unfaithful to him. He may not have wanted to do it, but he obeyed.”

This rationale is very difficult to accept. It is hard to believe that God would order one of His prophets to commit an act which would be in blatant defiance of His law, and have the prophet actually carry out that act. Some refer to God’s command to Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac, but this was only a test and God PREVENTED Abraham from carrying out the act. There are other incidents when God commanded His people to commit certain acts seemingly in contradiction to His law, but these occurrences appeared in vision, not literally. We might think of Peter’s vision when God commanded Him to eat unclean meat, to show him that no man was unclean in God’s sight. But even in that vision, Peter did not carry out the act of eating unclean meat.

It is for some of these reasons that several commentators feel that Gomer’s conduct did not constitute physical fornication, but that it describes her spiritual separation from God.

For instance, Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible applies the sinful conduct of Gomer and her children in a spiritual way. He states that Gomer was  “a wife from among the Israelites, who were remarkable for spiritual fornication, or idolatry. God calls himself the husband of Israel; and this chosen nation owed him the fidelity of a wife… He therefore says, with indignation, Go join thyself in marriage to one of those who have committed fornication against me, and raise up children who, by the power of example, will themselves swerve to idolatry.”

However, this explanation poses another problem. It would require that Hosea—a righteous prophet—would marry an idolatrous woman. This would violate God’s command in the Old and the New Testament, not to marry an ungodly person. In light of this difficulty, the Soncino commentary adds the following thoughts:

“Ibn Ezra repudiates the suggestion that the command is to be understood literally. The chapter is, according to him, the record of a vision which is to be interpreted allegorically. Some Talmudic authorities held it to be a command which Hosea literally obeyed, to impress his contemporaries with the heinousness of their infidelity… Most moderns explain the words as meaning ‘a woman who would lapse into harlotry,’ not that she was a harlot at the time of marriage… It was only on reflection, when Gomer’s character had become manifest, that Hosea saw how this divinely ordered marriage was the symbol of Israel’s apostasy from God, and his own love for the erring wife was the prophecy of God’s unfailing compassion to Israel… Modern commentaries find support for the historicity of the marriage in the fact that these names (“Gomer the daughter of Diblaim”) bear no allegorical meaning…  the paternity of the first child was not in doubt, but after his birth Gomer became unfaithful to her husband…”

However, these explanations do not explain the problem that God would have ordered the prophet to commit acts in violation of His Law, and that He would have ORDERED him to get married to someone whom He knew would be (or become) unfaithful. The reference to a name (“Gomer”) is not sufficient ground to insist that the passage must be literal. In a parable or a vision, fictitious names can be easily attached to invented or real persons. For instance, Christ told a parable about Lazarus and the rich man, but it is not to be necessarily concluded that this was a literal account about living people. Christ was simply explaining the fate of those in the first and the third resurrection.

As a consequence, some commentators feel that God’s command to Hosea was not to be understood and carried out literally at all. Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible proposes that none of it really happened:

“Some think this was really done; that the prophet took a whore, and cohabited with her… but this seems not likely… It seems best therefore to understand the whole as a parable, and that the prophet, in a parabolical way, is bid to represent the treachery, unfaithfulness, and spiritual adultery of the people of Israel, under the feigned name of an unchaste woman, and of children begotten in fornication; and to show unto them that their case was as if he had taken a woman out of the stews, and her bastards with her; or as if a wife married by him had defiled his bed, and brought him a spurious brood of children…”

The Geneva Study Bible seems to agree with that interpretation, stating: “… not that the Prophet did this thing in effect, but he saw this in a vision, or else was commanded by God to set forth under this parable or figure the idolatry… of the people.”

The Jamieson, Fausset and Brown commentary reaches the same conclusion that this was “not externally acted, but internally and in vision, as a pictorial illustration of Israel’s unfaithfulness… the loathsomeness of such a marriage, if an external act,… would require years for the birth of three children, which would weaken the symbol… ‘children of whoredoms’ means that the children, like their mother, fell into spiritual fornication… Being children of a spiritual whore, they naturally fell into her whorish ways.”

This seems to be the correct view. Hosea is telling a parable, relating what he saw in a vision, to impress on the people in what horrible spiritual state they were. This understanding has of course consequences for the correct interpretation of the “events” in Hosea 3:1-3. Since the passage in Hosea 1:2-3 has been judged to be allegorical or fictitious, the same must be true for the continuation of the story in Hosea 3.

When addressing Hosea 3:1-3, we find, of course, that the same difference of opinion prevails in commentaries as to the literal or figurative understanding of this passage.

Barnes’ Notes on the Bible states that the woman mentioned in that chapter “is the same Gomer, whom the prophet had before been bidden to take, and whom, (it appears from this verse) had forsaken him, and was living in adultery with another man. The ‘friend’ is the husband himself, the prophet. The word ‘friend’ expresses, that the husband of Gomer treated her, not harshly, but mildly and tenderly so that her faithlessness was the more aggravated sin… Gomer is called ‘a woman,’ in order to describe the state of separation, in which she was living. Yet God bids the prophet to ‘love her’…  He is now bidden to buy her back, with the price and allowance of food, as of a worthless slave, and so to keep her apart, on coarse food, abstaining from her former sins, but without the privileges of marriage, yet with the hope of being, in the end, restored to be altogether his wife. This prophecy is a sequel to the former, and so relates to Israel, after the coming of Christ, in which the former prophecy ends.”

The Broadman Bible commentary disagrees in regard to the value of the price, even though it also takes the passage quite literally, stating: “Such specification [of the amount] underscores the historicity of the passage. The varied items and measures suggest that Hosea was probably hard pressed to raise the purchase price for his wife, having to resort to both silver and grain as opposed to all of one or the other. There is no way to determine the precise amount which Hosea paid for Gomer, but the price of a slave was generally reckoned at 30 shekels of silver… It was at considerable price, but for a poor man of the eighth century, that Hosea redeemed his wife. He expended his accumulated possessions in exchange for one who had despised him publically. Only a love like that of God could so prompt a man to forgive and redeem.”

Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible, which understands Hosea 1:2-3 in a strictly spiritual sense, as describing spiritual idolatry and not physical adultery, continues to point out the following regarding Hosea 3:1-3:

“This is a different command from that mentioned in the first chapter. That denoted the infidelity of the kingdom of Israel, and God’s divorce of them. He gave them up to their enemies, and caused them to be carried into captivity. The woman mentioned here represents one who was a lawful wife joining herself to a paramour; then divorced by her husband; afterwards repenting, and desirous to be joined to her spouse; ceasing from her adulterous commerce, but not yet reconciled to him. This was the state and disposition of the Jews under the Babylonish captivity. Though separated from their own idols, they continued separated from their God. He is still represented as having affectionate feelings towards them; awaiting their full repentance and contrition, in order to renew the marriage covenant. These things are pointed out by the symbolical actions of the prophet.”

Most would disagree that Hosea 3 describes a different woman than the one in Hosea 1. It appears that the same woman is described in both passages. Therefore, Clarke’s reference to the “Jews under Babylonish captivity” misses the point. Hosea was a prophet sent to the house of Israel, prior to their captivity through the Assyrians. The Jews—the house of Judah—would be captured much later through the Babylonians. Hosea addresses the same woman in both chapters, referring to the house of Israel in both cases.

In light of this confusion, the following comments by Soncino are more convincing in this context. It points out some problems with the concept of taking this passage literally, stating that “at the bidding of God, Hosea gives his wife, who had left him for another man, a chance to retrieve herself… Although Gomer had betrayed him, he was to take her back as the wife he had formerly loved… The Torah (Deuteronomy 24:1 ff.) forbade the return of a divorced wife after she had lived with another man.”

Therefore, it would be difficult to understand this passage in a literal way, rather than as a vision and a parable with spiritual applications.

The Jamieson Fausset and Brown commentary, which had understood Hosea 1:2-3 as a vision, states pertaining to Hosea 3:1:

“The prophet is to take back his wife, though unfaithful, as foretold in [Hosea] 1:2. He purchases her from her paramour, stipulating she should wait for a long period before she should be restored to her conjugal rights… at last she shall acknowledge Messiah, and know [God’s] goodness restored to her.”

Again, it seems to be the correct understanding that Hosea did not carry out literally, what is described in Hosea 3:1-3, but that he received God’s words in a vision to tell in a parable that Jesus Christ—the YHWH of the Old Testament–would marry spiritual Israel at the time of His return, after His Old Testament unfaithful “wife” had repented and obtained forgiveness of sin and the gift of the Holy Spirit at the time of baptism, thereby becoming spiritual Israel. God will marry her after “His wife has made herself ready” (Revelation 19:7-9).

Lead Writer: Norbert Link

In certain Islamic countries, thieves and others are maimed, by cutting off their hand. Was such a procedure ever condoned or even enjoined in the Bible, under any circumstances? The passage in Deuteronomy 25:11-12 states:

“If two men fight together, and the wife of one draws near to rescue her husband from the hand of the one attacking him, and puts out her hand and seizes him by the genitals, then you shall cut off her hand; your eye shall not pity her.”

Was this command to be applied literally?

In a previous Q&A, we explained the meaning of the “lex talionis” in the Old Testament—the “eye for an eye” and “a tooth for a tooth” principle.

We pointed out the following:

“The ‘an eye for an eye’ principle is commonly known as the ‘lex talionis,’ which is Latin for the ‘law of retaliation.’ It is mentioned in the Old Testament in Exodus 21:23-27; Leviticus 24:18-20; and Deuteronomy 19:21. Rather than requiring the literal maiming of a guilty person, this law has been correctly understood as requiring equivalent monetary compensation. The law made it also clear that victims were to be compensated fairly, as determined by judges and magistrates. Victims were not to resort to ‘self-help.’

“… the Church of God has taught consistently that the ‘an eye for an eye principle’ was not meant to be applied literally in the sense of maiming a person…”

In that Q&A, we cited numerous commentaries and Scriptural evidence for this conclusion. In addition, Friedman, Commentary on the Torah, explains on pages 400-401 (in discussing Leviticus 24:20): “… the earliest postbiblical Jewish sources already understood ‘an eye for an eye’ to mean monetary, and not literal, compensation.”

To include another statement, which we did not quote in the above-mentioned Q&A, Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible explains, in discussing Leviticus 24:19:

“‘And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour’…. Does him any hurt or mischief, causes any mutilation or deformity in him by striking him: ‘as he hath done, so shall it be done unto him’: not that a like damage or hurt should be done to him, but that he should make satisfaction for it in a pecuniary way; pay for the cure of him, and for loss of time, and in consideration of the pain he has endured, and the shame or disgrace brought on him by the deformity or mutilation, or for whatever loss he may sustain thereby…”

With this background, let us review the passage in Deuteronomy 25:11-12. Was this command of cutting off the woman’s hand to be carried out literally?

Some commentaries think so.

For instance, Barnes’ Notes on the Bible writes:

“This is the only mutilation prescribed by the Law of Moses, unless we except the retaliation prescribed as a punishment for the infliction on another of bodily injuries (Leviticus 24:19-20). The act in question was probably not rare in the times and countries for which the Law of Moses was designed. It is of course to be understood that the act was willful, and that the prescribed punishment would be inflicted according to the sentence of the judges.”

Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible also allows for the literal application of this command, stating:

“‘Then thou shall cut off her hand’… Which was to be done not by the man that strove with her husband, or by any bystander, but by the civil magistrate or his order. This severity was used to deter women from such an immodest as well as injurious action… though the Jewish writers interpret this not of actual cutting off the hand, but of paying a valuable consideration, a price put upon it… and Aben Ezra compares it with the law of retaliation, ‘eye for eye’, Exodus 21:24… and who adds, if she does not redeem her hand (i.e. by a price) it must be cut off:

“‘thine eye shall not pity her’; on account of the tenderness of her sex, or because of the plausible excuse that might be made for her action, being done hastily and in a passion, and out of affection to her husband; but these considerations were to have no place with the magistrate, who was to order the punishment inflicted, either in the strict literal sense, or by paying a sum of money.”

Other commentaries reject the view of requiring or even allowing a literal application of this command. The Soncino commentary states:

“The interpretation is that she has to pay monetary compensation for the shame she caused the man…Even if she be poor she must pay the fine.”

This has to be the right view. Since the “an eye for an eye” principle has been correctly understood as referring to monetary compensation, it would make little sense to inflict the punishment of maiming a woman for her immodest conduct in the heat of passion, while coming to the defense of her husband. This conclusion is even more compelling when considering the fact that Jesus used similar wording in the New Testament. He spoke of cutting off our hand which tempts us to sin, but He never meant this to be understood literally.

In the afore-mentioned Q&A, we explained this as follows:

“In the New Testament, Jesus Christ sometimes used figures of speech to stress a point, but He did not mean a literal application in those cases. For instance, He said in Matthew 5:29-30: ‘If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you… And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you…’ Christ did not mean, of course, to apply this literally; rather, as the Lamsa Bible explains, these are Aramaic idioms, meaning that we are to stop envying [with our eyes] or stealing [with our hands]…

“Jamieson, Fausset and Brown clarify in their Commentary on the Whole Bible, that Jesus was not stating, in any way, that under Old Testament Law, offenders had to be maimed. Christ was addressing quite a different issue: ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth,’ i.e., whatever penalty was regarded as a proper equivalent for these. This law of retribution–designed to take vengeance out of the hands of a private person, and commit it to the magistrate–was abused in the opposite way… [justifying in the minds of the people] a warrant for taking redress into their own hands, contrary to the injunctions of the Old Testament… (Prov. 20:22).’”

Jesus used similar wording in Matthew 18:6-9 and in Mark 9:42-48. In each case, He insists that we must refrain from using our hands for the purpose of sinning. Rather, we are told in James 4:8 that sinners must cleanse their hands. Paul explains in Romans 6:13: “And do not present your members as instruments of unrighteousness to sin, but present yourselves to God as being alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God.”

In Old Testament times, when dealing with carnal and unconverted people, a woman, seizing another man with her hand by his private parts (Living Bible: “grabbing the testicles of the other man”; New Revised Standard Version and Revised English Bible: “seizing his genitals”), had to be fined to impress on her the need to refrain from using her hand in such an inappropriate way. Her hand was to be “cut off” figuratively, not literally; and compensation had to be paid for the misuse of her hand towards a member of the other man’s body which was to be treated with respect (compare the principle in 1 Corinthians 12:23).

Lead Writer: Norbert Link