Harry Scherer

Mutilate to Sanctify? An Analysis of Matthew 5:29–30 in Light of Augustine’s Treatment

Harry Scherer

If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.

—Matthew 5:29–30

ven for the trained Scriptural exegete, it is understandable that these two verses from Matthew could cause difficulty for readers. These confusions are to be expected, and our Lord’sE demand to instruct the ignorant (Matt 28:19–20) requires those who know to teach and clarify the true meaning of even the most difficult passages of Scripture. For this reason, the anticipated confusions will be outlined and provided a charitable interpretation so as to engage with these difficulties and in this way provide a clearer path to understanding. Then, it will be beneficial to briefly survey both early and modern exegetes so as to better understand the depth of this teaching; the exegesis of Augustine will be paid particular attention. Finally, the force of Augustine’s interpretation will be evaluated and the contemporary pastoral relevance of properly understanding this passage will be confirmed and detailed.

The first clear source of confusion for this passage is the possibility that our Lord is encouraging self-mutilation as a means of avoiding or curtailing vicious behavior. A literal interpretation of the Scripture immediately suggests that Christ would encourage his disciples to pluck out their eye or cut off their hand if one of those members “causes [them] to sin.” Although it is ultimately erroneous to interpret the Scripture in such a way, this interpretation should not be dismissed without consideration. After all, taken literally, this demand of our Lord could serve as a sign that a member of the Church

cares more of his soul than his body, and that he is even willing to harm his body, which is fleeting, for the benefit of his soul, which is eternal. Yet a subscription to this interpretation implicitly denies the Incarnation; it is impossible for the incarnated second Person of the Trinity to suggest the commission of an evil act. Non-life-sustaining self-mutilation is an evil act. Therefore, the incarnated second Person of the Trinity would not encourage the commission of such an act. In addition, because the material manifestation of an act is not required for culpability, one without an eye to see could be culpable for lust and one without a hand to grasp could be culpable for theft as long as he consents to either act.

Another understandable misinterpretation of this text concerns the reading of the nouns “eye” and “hand” as actual eyes and hands. Augustine provides nuanced commentary that allows for a deeper figurative interpretation. He considers the eyes to be “such a thing as is ardently loved” and the hands to be a “beloved helper and assistant in divine works.”1 Augustine expands the understanding of the eye from the merely anatomical level to the spiritual level; in the same way, the interpretation of the hand extends from the anatomical to the relational. Augustine’s interpretation of Christ’s words in this regard seems to be wholly consistent with the perennial teaching of the Church.

A deepening of the soul’s relationship with Christ necessitates a fundamental redirection of focus from that which he currently loves and desires to Christ. Because Christ simultaneously understands the condition of man and detests sin, this plucking out of the eye can be understood as a sure rebuke against all sin or occasion thereof: “Whatever is an immediate occasion of sin, however near or dear it may be, must be abandoned (Menochius), though it prove as dear to us, or as necessary as a hand, or an eye, and without delay or demur.”2 Augustine’s interpretation confirms Fr. Haydock’s commentary in their mutual insistence that the redirection of the soul must be total and lasting. One of the Church’s most revered mystical teachers, St. John of the Cross, confirms this total abandonment of earthly things, even good things, in search of Christ: “the more the desire for that thing fills the soul,” i.e., that thing that is not God, “the less capacity

1 St. Augustine, On the Sermon on the Mount (Buffalo: Christian Literature, 1888), bk. 1, aa. 37–38. 2 George Leo Haydock, “Commentary on Matthew 5:29,” in George Haydock’s Catholic Bible Commentary, 1859.

has the soul for God.”3 In other words, greater intimacy of the soul with God is dependent on the desires that the soul encourages. Christ says the same thing, in more extreme figurative terms, so as to emphasize the spiritual, emotional and at times physical pain that can accompany this redirection of the soul.

Augustine’s understanding of the act of cutting off one’s hand if it causes one to sin is distinct from that of his contemporaries; more on this distinction will follow. He understands the right hand to be one who advises in divine matters. This interpretation suggests that these advisors can be either good or bad. The bad one, Augustine says, can be easily identified “if he endeavors to lead one into any dangerous heresy under the guise of religion and doctrine.”4 The bishop’s experience with Manicheism before his total embrace of the faith confirms that these leaders should be avoided. The heretical teachings of these sects will certainly lead the soul away from the Truth and will damage one’s soul if it chooses to consent to their more externally attractive alternatives to the Christian life. Augustine almost certainly would have thought of his teacher Ambrose as a good teacher and “right hand” leading him on the path of virtue. The fulfillment of Augustine’s long conversion was dependent on the virtuous or vicious guidance of those around him; the deceptions of Mani and his disciples allowed him to continue his life of promiscuity and intellectual pride in the profession of rhetoric while the counsel of Ambrose initiated Augustine’s centered focus on the things of heaven. For all these reasons, Augustine’s insistence on the importance of external guides on this earth should come as no surprise. This is not to say that his interpretation is solely based on his personal experience. Instead, he was able to inform the interpretation in light of his particular experience, recognizing that the invitation to which he provided an extraordinary response is still common across times and cultures.

The commentary that Augustine provides for this passage suggests that Christ is not recommending deformation, but reformation. In order for the soul to recognize whether or not something must be plucked out or cut off, he must thoroughly inspect his thoughts, words and actions. The soul must be “aware that what is

3 St. John of the Cross, Ascent of Mount Carmel, trans. E. Allison Peers (Mineola: Dover, 2008), 34. 4 St. Augustine, Sermon on the Mount, 38.

best in us may soon devolve into vice.”5 Jerome, along with Augustine, recognizes that man is only consistent in his inconsistency and that sin and occasions of sin must be plucked out and cut off at the root. While refraining from scrupulosity, the soul must be ever mindful, cognizant of weakness, to reject any entertainment of temptation. The harsh words of our Lord seem to make more sense when the condition of sin and man’s interaction with that condition are clarified by the Church Fathers. Augustine does not consider this metaphor of plucking out the eye to be a gross violation against the dignity of the human body as a temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 6:19). On the contrary, he maintains the necessary message of Christ’s words but reformulates the presentation to become somewhat more palatable with his figurative interpretation.

Augustine’s commentary is helpful in understanding this difficult teaching of Christ. The precision of his words is necessary, especially for these two verses of the Gospel that are open to confused and even damaging interpretations when not read with the Church and through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Augustine seems to be unique, though, in his interpretation of the hand mentioned by Christ as a guide or counselor. Where Augustine thinks of a friend, Jerome thinks of “the beginnings of the will and of feeling, so that what we conceive with the mind, we would fulfill in deed.”6 Jerome considers Christ’s reference to a hand in this case to be the will to act in a certain manner after the eye senses a certain thing. The most similar interpretation to Augustine’s is that of St. John Chrysostom. When asking himself why Christ included hand in addition to the eye, he says, To show you that not of limbs is He speaking, but of them who are near unto us. Thus, “If,” saith He, “ you so love any one, as though he were instead of a right eye; if you think him so profitable to you as to esteem him in the place of a hand, and he hurts your soul; even these do you cut off. ”7 Chrysostom’s focus is similar to that of Augustine, but the former does not specify the “hand” as one who counsels or guides; instead, he suggests that a person cut off any other person around him who harms his soul, to the extent that this cutting off is practical. Both

5 St. Jerome, The Fathers of the Church: St. Jerome Commentary on Matthew, trans. Thomas P. Scheck (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2008), 82. 6 Ibid. 7 St. John Chrysostom, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Volume X; St. Chrysostom: Homilies on the Gospel of St. Matthew (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1978), 115. 34

Chrysostom and Augustine, while they predate St. John of the Cross, seem to anticipate and imitate the placement of God above all else, that primary emphasis of the Spanish mystic, even if one perceives that his other desires are good in nature.

Augustine’s specificity and nuance with his commentary on these two verses is particularly refreshing. In addition, placing his thought in dialogue with his contemporaries has proven to be helpful in clarifying his own thought. Deeper study of his thought is beneficial in both the academic and pastoral realms. The pastoral relevance for this particular passage manifests itself in two ways. First, an understanding of these rather difficult sayings of our Lord aids in helping the flock discern the true meaning of Christ’s words in the midst of a culture that tends to prooftext passages of Scripture with the intention of rejecting the legitimacy of the inspired words. If secular forces, for example, refute the Gospel because of a literal interpretation of its content, the pastor should be prepared to provide a thorough presentation of the Church’s understanding of these passages. Second, an enthusiastic presentation of Augustine’s interpretation, in conjunction with that of Fr. George Haydock and Ss. John Chrysostom and Jerome, further illustrates and confirms the demands that are required of a person seeking to live out the Christian life to the fullest. A repudiation of even the good things of this world does not appear prima facie to be a typical way to live life. This proper ordering of goods flies in the face of common experience for those who do not place God at the center of their lives. Because the Christian life is definitionally atypical, an enthusiastic portrayal of the method and fruits of this life would strengthen the flock to live out that life until they meet their reward, by the grace and mercy of God, in holy beatitude.