In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus provides one of Scripture’s most vivid, memorable, and convicting images when he turns his attention to lust (Matt 5:27–30).1 Jesus not only exposes the lustful thoughts that lead to adultery (5:27–28), but he also challenges us to take extreme action to eliminate opportunities to lust. If necessary, we must “tear out” our eye or “cut off” our hand if by either we engage in lust (5:29–30).2 On the surface, Jesus’s commands in 5:29–30 are straightforward. Yet their intensity causes us to wonder how to apply them. Further, even if we were to obey them literally (i.e., following the exact details), how could we expect external means to accomplish internal work? These questions have led to a litany of interpretations, leading one commentator to conclude: “The precise thrust of vv. 29–30 in the present context remains elusive.”3

I, however, contend that we must let the details of Jesus’s commands in Matthew 5:27–30 land before we seek to clarify their application. If we do, we learn a key means by which Jesus desires us to accomplish the thrust of his demands. When Jesus commands us to tear out our eye or cut off our hand, he implies that doing so will help us lust less. In this passage, Jesus draws attention to the role of the outer self in the fight against lust.4 Through vivid illustration, Jesus intends to teach that the outer self does not merely reflect the inner self but also affects the inner self. In context, this teaching applies specifically, though perhaps not only, to sexual sin. Though the extreme example presented is merely hypothetical, Jesus expects his followers to observe the force of his command with no less vigor.

To be clear, the Sermon on the Mount and the whole of Scripture place the priority of the Christian life on the inner self (Matt 5:21–26; 6:19–23; Rom 12:2; 2 Cor 4:16; Eph 2:8–9; Phil 3:1–11). Good works should stem from inner change (Matt 7:24–27; Jas 2:17); conversely, a wicked heart will expose itself by its evil works (Matt 7:15–20). Jesus has a name for those who invert this order and prioritize the outer self at the expense of the inner self: hypocrites (Matt 6:1–18). Therefore, Matthew 5:27–30 does not subvert our necessary emphasis on the inner self.

Yet Matthew 5:27–30 also recognizes that God made us as whole people. We are embodied, therefore our outer selves are not incidental to our Christian life. Instead, our outer selves play a key role in battling lust in particular. According to Matthew 5:27–30, disciples should ruthlessly eliminate external sources of sexual sin. In doing so, disciples will lust less in their hearts. To arrive at this thesis, I walk through each of Jesus’s two statements (Matt 5:27–28 and 5:29–30) in turn. In each section, I seek to help us best understand the statement by addressing the three most important interpretive questions related to the statement. Finally, I attempt to show not only how these two statements are logically connected but also how this connection informs the meaning of Jesus’s commands in Matthew 5:29–30.

1. Matthew 5:27–28: Lust and Adultery

Jesus addresses lust in a section of the Sermon on the Mount typically styled the “antitheses” (Matt 5:21–48). Though some reject the potential antinomian connotations arising from the term, “antitheses,” most agree that this section contains six examples of the principle Jesus elucidates in Matthew 5:17–20. Since Jesus came to fulfill the law (i.e., “the body of guiding precepts that shape the stipulations of the old Mosaic covenant and that are found within the Law/Torah/Pentateuch, most specifically in Exodus–Deuteronomy”5), he reserves the right to correctly interpret the law. In each of the six examples, Jesus quotes from the law (e.g., Ἠκούσατε ὅτι ἐρρέθη in Matthew 5:27) and then gives his definitive interpretation (ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν).6 Frederick Bruner notes that the ἐγὼ is fronted in Jesus’s interpretations, which serves to emphasize that Jesus’s words carry greater authority than even the law.7 However, in contrasting the law with his interpretation, Jesus does not mean to put his words in opposition to the law. Rather, he seeks to unveil the heart behind the law, thereby revealing the lofty righteousness of God and the true expectations for those in his kingdom (2 Cor 3:12–18).

In Jesus’s second example (Matt 5:27–30), he addresses adultery (μοιχεύσεις). R. T. France points out that, after quoting the sixth commandment “verbatim” from the LXX (Exod 20:15; Matt 5:21), Jesus here does the same from the seventh commandment (Exod 20:13).8 In other words, Jesus means to tackle fundamental doctrine. Jesus affirms the prohibition against adultery yet takes the matter deeper. No one can claim they have obeyed the law if they have simply avoided sexual contact with a married woman or with someone other than one’s spouse. Instead, even a lustful look constitutes adultery.

Interpreters have long observed that Jesus seems here to connect the seventh and tenth commandments.9 Craig Keener notices that the term used for looking lustfully (ἐπιθυμέω) in Matthew 5:28 is identical to that which we typically translate as “covet” in LXX Exodus 20:17 (οὐκ ἐπιθυμήσεις τὴν γυναῖκα τοῦ πλησίον σου).10 Additionally, Keener cites numerous Jewish texts that link lust to adultery, concluding that Jesus was not informing his hearers of anything new.11 Thus Jesus, in Matthew 5:27–28, draws a seemingly straightforward connection between lust and adultery by way of covetousness. However, questions regarding this passage still arise at three major points: (1) In what ways is lust similar to adultery? (2) What constitutes lust? and (3) Does the context of Matthew 5:27–28 restrict its application?

1.1. In What Ways Is Lust Similar to Adultery?

The answer to this first question requires that we carefully define both lust and adultery. We can define adultery more easily. Adultery is an outward, obvious act. It happens at the point where two people, at least one of whom is married, initiate sexual contact. Jesus, however, teaches that adultery has “already” happened when someone lusts. If this is true, several other factors must be true as well. First, the kind of lust Jesus refers to in this passage is sexual lust. Though ἐπιθυμέω can refer to non-sexual desire (e.g., the desire for a neighbor’s possessions in the tenth commandment, Exod 20:17 LXX), more often the term refers to a specific kind of sexual desire.12 Second, the nature of lust must be similar to adultery. By linking the seventh and tenth commandments, Jesus identifies that both adultery and lust find at their root covetousness, an inordinate desire for what one does not have (Jas 4:1–2). Therefore, both lust and adultery are a kind of sexual covetousness. Third, adultery must originate from lust. Adultery is, in a sense, a worse sin than lust.13 Yet adultery cannot happen without lust, while lust can happen without adultery. The outward act of adultery merely brings the inward act of lust to full flower. Fourth, lust must, at least at first, be temporally prior to adultery. If lust is adultery before physical adultery has taken place, then it must occur at some point before the physical act. Lust occurs in the heart (ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ αὐτοῦ) before it manifests outwardly.14 Therefore, due to these four factors, we might rightly define lust as “heart adultery.”

1.2. What Constitutes Lust?

If lust is heart adultery, i.e., sexual covetousness before adultery from which adultery originates, then a second question arises: What qualifies as lust? In other words, how do I know when I have crossed the line? On the one hand, not all looking is lust. Otherwise, no one with eyes could obey Jesus’s command. On the other hand, according to this passage, lust is a kind of looking. Jesus does not prohibit looking at women, but rather looking at women lustfully. In a sense, this is uncomplicated. John Stott says pointedly, though perhaps imprecisely, “We all know the difference between looking and lusting.”15 However, France recognizes the pastoral challenge latent in this passage and therefore exhorts us to avoid interpretations that unnecessarily offend “tender adolescent consciences.”16

Some find the key to arriving at the distinction between lust and otherwise in the finer points of grammar in Matthew 5:27–28. For instance, some place weight on the aspect of the word “looks” (βλέπων). Noting that this participle is in the present tense (imperfective aspect), they argue that Jesus does not refer to a look but rather to continuous looking. In other words, “Jesus refers not to noticing a person’s beauty, but to imbibing it, meditating on it, seeking to possess it.”17 However, though the present tense can carry a continuous sense, it does not do so in every circumstance. If the present tense always carries a continuous sense, then, as Daniel Wallace humorously identifies, four verses later Jesus must only be addressing those who continuously divorce their wives (Matt 5:31).18 Scot McKnight is therefore cautious to avoid the presumption that the present tense carries a continuous sense in this case, lest the reader believe that Jesus merely condemns the length of time a man looks lustfully at a woman (i.e., “if anyone stares at a woman…”).19 Jesus also condemns the quick, lustful look.

Others focus not on βλέπων but on the function of the infinitival phrase πρὸς τὸ ἐπιθυμῆσαι. This line of thinking seeks answers not in the length of the looking but in the nature of the look. Interpreters typically follow one of two paths. Some argue that the phrase expresses result. In this case, Jesus prohibits looking at a woman with the result that one lusts after her. This does not seem to be simply another way of arguing that Jesus condemns staring. Rather, advocates for this view seem to imply that the initial look itself may include sexual attraction, yet it does not qualify as “lust” until it meets certain criteria. For instance, Dale Allison argues that the text “implies that the sin lies not in the entrance of a thought but in letting it invite passion.”20 On this view, it seems that interpreters seek to distinguish between a fleeting sexual thought and lust, the point at which a person entertains and feeds the thought.

Most follow a different path, believing that the infinitival phrase expresses purpose. Bruner, for example, differentiates between looking “with lust” and “in order to lust.”21 The former is unavoidable; it captures the natural, intrinsically good attraction to that which is beautiful and desirable. The latter describes lust, the “second look or stare” that crosses the line into objectification of that which is beautiful and desirable for selfish and sinful purposes.22 In Bruner’s mind, Jesus only prohibits the intentional or passive actions taken by one who desires to lust.23

Like Bruner, Aquinas also seems to view purpose as the key signifier of a kind of look that is adulterous. In Matthew 5:27–30, he sees two kinds of “concupiscence” (i.e., desire) and a movement between the two. The first he calls “propassion,” a desire which may be sexual yet lacks “the consent of reason.”24 The propassion shifts to “passion” at the point of “concomitance…and then there is a mortal sin.”25 In other words, one may look and find that he lusts, but one sins when one looks in order to lust.

To summarize, those who opt to translate the infinitival phrase πρὸς τὸ ἐπιθυμῆσαι as expressing result do so because they seek to differentiate between a passing, interested glance and an invitation to the lust which that glance aroused. Those who opt for purpose believe this turn happens when someone conspires with his or her desires and embraces lust. Therefore, in one sense, these options seem identical. In both situations, the person who lusts intends to lust. Framing this movement as a “result,” however, could imply that one may simply slide into lust without wanting to. Yet this is never possible. Whether or not one recognizes that they have crossed the line into cultivating lust, no one does so merely passively. Jesus would not have implicated us for our lust if lust was not our fault. Even proponents of the “result” option recognize the presence of willful desire in lust. Again, Allison believes that “sin lies not in the entrance of a thought but in letting it invite passion” (emphasis mine).26 Therefore, it seems best to say that πρὸς τὸ ἐπιθυμῆσαι expresses purpose.

So, a look is lustful when it is done with lustful purpose. Yet even still, this definition does not seem to be precise enough. Allison, Bruner, and Aquinas each seem to allow that the initial, pre-adulterous look can include sexual attraction, though they do not call it sin. At the core of their allowance seems to be a true recognition that we are attracted to beauty in creation and that this appreciation for beauty is, at a minimum, not objectively wrong. Indeed, Scripture does not here or anywhere condemn appreciating objective beauty, yet this is not the issue. Jesus here condemns any look laden with sexual covetousness. One can indeed recognize something as objectively beautiful without lusting. Yet Jesus teaches that we cross the line into lust the moment we desire what we must not have.27

Therefore, the meaning of Jesus’s teaching in Matthew 5:28 does not lie in the difference between purpose and result nor between a quick look and a leering stare. Rather, the meaning lies in Jesus’s identification of lust as sexual covetousness. Therefore, Jesus prohibits any lustful look, which means Jesus prohibits any desire to take that which is illicit.

1.3. Does the Context of Matthew 5:27–28 Restrict Its Application?

Having established that lust is sexual covetousness and that lust occurs at the moment one desires that which is illicit, a third question remains regarding Matthew 5:27–28: Does the context of Matthew 5:27–28 restrict the application of this passage in any way? Commentators have offered several possibilities: (1) restricted to flirtation, (2) restricted to married women, and (3) restricted to men alone. Carson represents the first common attempt.28

Following Klaus Haacker, Carson observes that there are two feminine pronouns (πρὸς τὸ ἐπιθυμῆσαι αὐτὴν ἤδη ἐμοίχευσεν αὐτὴν) and concludes that one is unnecessary. Carson reconciles this apparent redundancy by arguing that the man in this scenario is enticing the woman to lust after him. In doing so the man commits adultery, even if the pair never acts on it. Therefore, Jesus’s condemnation deals specifically with lustful flirtation rather than lustful thoughts.

There are several reasons to doubt this interpretation.29 Grammatically, Ulrich Luz argues that this would break from Matthew’s typical use of πρὸς plus the infinitive.30 Contextually, Jesus’s link between the seventh and tenth commandments equates lust with covetousness, which is an action of the heart. On Carson’s view, Jesus condemns flirting, which is a level shallower than the heart level. Even so, Carson believes, “This does not weaken the force of Jesus’ teaching. The heart of the matter is still lust and intent.”31 Yet it does seem to weaken Jesus’s teaching since it places adultery at the point of flirtation instead of the lustful thought.

Others contend that Jesus here restricts only lustful looks directed at a married woman.32 They do so for two reasons. First, they recognize that the tenth commandment prohibits lust directed at a neighbor’s wife. Second, they observe that Jesus’s teaching on adultery (Matt 5:27–30) runs directly into his teaching on divorce (Matt 5:31–32), perhaps implying a connection. Since each of these three passages (Exod 20:17 LXX; Matt 5:28, 31–32) uses the same generic word for “woman” (γυνή), and two of the passages require that this woman is married, it seems that the third would as well. Therefore, Luz concludes that Matt 5:28 “deals with intentional looking with the aim of breaking the marriage of another man.”33 Prince Peters then takes this perspective to its potential conclusion: “There is nothing in the passage outside lusting after a married woman that makes a man’s sexual fantasies a sin.”34

Again, however, this interpretation is doubtful. Though both the tenth commandment and Jesus’s admonition regarding divorce specifically reference married women, the present text on adultery does not. In the antitheses, Jesus routinely strips the law down to the studs, laying bare the base heart intention that precludes the visible breaking of the law. Limiting Matthew 5:28 to married women does not seem to capture the consistent severity of Jesus’s demands. The rest of Scripture echoes Jesus’s extreme stance on lust (Job 31:1; Rom 1:24–27).

Finally, it must be noted that the context need not limit Jesus’s condemnation of lust to that of a man lusting after a woman. If we believe that the text conveys this limitation, then we would need to further specify that Jesus only condemns male heterosexual lust. Yet intuition tells us that Jesus’s commands apply to both sexes. Otherwise, several antitheses earlier, we must insist that Jesus only specifies how we should reconcile with men, not women (Matt 5:23–26). Instead, we should assume that Jesus intends his words for men and women, each of whom can commit adultery and each of whom can lust (Matt 5:32).35

Therefore, it seems that we should not restrict Jesus’s words beyond this compound truth: Any lustful look is the sin of sexual covetousness, and all lust is adultery. We may, however, be able to apply this truth more widely. For instance, Grant Osborne contends that if lusting after a woman is adultery, then certainly Jesus means to also implicate pornography.36 Certainly, then, Jesus must also implicate lustful thoughts recalling prior looks. The presence of a woman to look at is not the issue.37 Rather, it is the disposition of the heart that desires to take what does not belong to it.38

2. Matthew 5:29–30: Removing Eyes and Hands

If Matthew 5:27–28 implicates lust, Matthew 5:29–30 details the means we should employ to eliminate lust and the massive consequences if we do not. On the surface, Jesus’s dual commands are easy to understand. In our efforts to eliminate lust, we should determine if any of our body parts contributes to our lust (σκανδαλίζει σε). If so, we should remove that body part lest we continue to use it in lusting. Jesus reasons that it would be relatively better to go through life maimed than to keep that body part as one suffers eternal punishment. However, as with the previous section, three interpretive questions remain: (1) How do I know when I should remove my eye or my hand? (2) Why my eye and my hand? and (3) What do I accomplish by removing my eye and my hand?

2.1. How Do I Know When I Should Remove My Eye or My Hand?

If Jesus means his disciples to take drastic measures to avoid condemnation, then we seemingly should know when a body part qualifies for amputation. Thankfully, Jesus specifies that we should remove those parts that “ σκανδαλίζει” us. Yet how should we understand this term?

Broadly, this term carries the sense of “causing to stumble” (so NASB, LSB, NIV).39 We can observe this usage in the LXX, where the noun form of the word can refer to a “snare,” a “trap,” or a “hindrance.”40 The NT usage carries a similar sense, undoubtedly affected by the near-technical use of the term in the LXX. However, though in some cases the LXX does not place blame on the person being tripped up (e.g., Lev 19:14), in the NT the term becomes exclusively moral. In considering the 14 instances of the verb σκανδαλίζω used in Matthew alone, France argues that most picture something “catastrophic, a stumbling which deflects a person from the path of God’s will and salvation (13:21; 18:6; 24:10; 26:31–33), and a ‘stumbling-block’ is a person or thing which gets in the way of God’s saving purpose (13:41; 16:23; 18:7).”41

France also notes a “relatively mild sense of the verb” in Matthew (11:6; 13:57; 15:12; 17:27) yet regards these as also conveying moral complicity.42 In these milder cases, the term denotes offense or scandal. In contemporary speech, “offense” merely indicates something external to us that repulses us. Yet in each of these so-called milder cases, the person offended chafes at Jesus’s teaching or actions. They are “offended” in that they do not receive him or his message. Thus, they too sin because they reject the Messiah.43

“Offends” is therefore a fair translation of σκανδαλίζει in Matthew 5:29, because it conveys moral complicity on the part of the hearer (so the KJV).44 The causes of stumbling (i.e., the eye and the hand) in Matthew 5:29, however, are complicit in the crime of lust and must be removed. This contrasts with the passages containing the term’s more minor uses, in which Jesus is the cause of stumbling. Therefore, Matthew 5:29 better fits the criteria of the more severe of the two uses of σκανδαλίζει, thus requiring a stronger translation.45

For this reason, the best translation of σκανδαλίζει in Matthew 5:29 is something like “cause to sin” (ESV, CSB, NET)46 or “lead into sin.”47 This highlights that Jesus identifies the eye and hand as the culprits; therefore, they must be removed. One problem with these translations, however, is that “cause” or “lead” may seem to absolve the luster of at least some guilt. Yet Jesus does not allow this possibility. Already, he has emphatically declared that the person who lusts has sinned without allowing for any exceptions. Additionally, he makes clear that the person who does not part with that which causes him to sin will find himself in hell. The NLT makes this contextual connection most explicit: “So if your eye—even your good eye—causes you to lust…”

Therefore, based on this translation of σκανδαλίζει, I conclude that the occasion for Jesus’s dual command in Matthew 5:29–30 is the point at which a person becomes aware that his or her eye or hand is partnering or could partner with the person in lusting. However, this does not answer all our questions. What about the eye and the hand cause a person to sin? How do they do so? The answers to these are explored next.

2.2. Why My Eye and My Hand?

Having established that certain bodily members may partner with an individual in lusting, I turn my attention to the members themselves. To understand Matthew 5:29–30 properly, interpreters must determine why Jesus included these body parts instead of others, such as the leg, mouth, or spleen. Many conclude that, given the context and most readers’ general intuition, the eye and the hand have some particular connection to sexual sin that the spleen does not.

Regarding the eye, Carson believes its inclusion is evident, given that it is “the member of the body most commonly blamed for leading us astray, especially in sexual sins.”48 Hagner adds that lust is only made possible through sight, an act that necessitates an eye.49 Some, however, also find sexual connotations in the hand. Allison believes that “hand” refers euphemistically to “onanism” (i.e., masturbation).50 In other words, Jesus would have us cut off our hand if by our hand we inflame or externalize lust. Carson goes further, indicating that “hand” probably refers to “the male sexual organ.”51 In this case, Jesus would have us take the most extreme measures if necessary. Additionally, Osborne believes that Jesus means not only to stress the complicity of eye and hand in lust but also to illustrate a pathway and progression. Lust begins in the eye but ultimately consummates through the hand.52

Yet other passages apart from Matthew 5:27–30 could suggest that “eye” and “hand” do not carry sexual connotations. Jesus references the eye at several other points in the Sermon on the Mount, yet in these cases the eye illustrates revenge (5:38), greed (6:22–23), and proper judgment (7:3). Later in Matthew, Jesus draws on the same imagery of removing hands and eyes (18:7–9). Yet he also adds the foot, and the context is not specifically lust but rather general temptation and the possibility of being a temptation to others (cf. Mark 9:42–47). So, it seems that Jesus routinely utilized the same imagery to provoke others to consider the severity with which they should battle temptation.53 Therefore, since the basic imagery does not necessarily carry sexual overtones, context would need to indicate what overtones Jesus intends.54

The context of Matthew 5:27–30, however, strongly suggests these sexual overtones. Primarily, Jesus tightly connects lust with the eye (“everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent”), indicating that his reference to the eye is not incidental. Additionally, as many have noted, the hand is a member with a particular ability to engage in sexual sin. The possibility that Jesus intends this connection between eye, hand, and sexual sin becomes stronger when we notice that he ignores the foot. By not mirroring his phraseology in Matthew 18:7–9 and Mark 9:42–47, Jesus in Matthew 5:29–30 may be drawing attention to the individual members.55

Finally, we should also ask why Jesus stresses the “right” member in both cases. To some, Jesus repeats the term simply to “enhance the parallelism” between the two phrases (5:29 and 5:30), thus binding them together.56 However, most attempt to show that Jesus’s contemporaries would have universally understood that the “right” is of greater value than the “left.”57 If this is true, then Jesus means to stress the seriousness with which we should battle lust. Even our most valued body parts should be eligible for the chopping block.

So, then, why does Jesus reference the eye and hand? It seems that he means the physical eye and hand. These parts are “touchpoints” between the lust in our inner selves and external temptation. They are a “means” or “occasion” by which our outer selves externalize lust, bringing the lust in our hearts to fruition.58 They are also fodder for lust, feeding and inflaming lust. Yet the latter of these two uses is primarily in view here. While eyes and hands and any number of body parts allow us to externalize lust, moving from lust to adultery, Jesus’s logic works backward. In the present passage, Jesus teaches us to consider external causes of lust (i.e., touchpoints with temptation) and to remove them. Regardless of the intricacies of how Matthew imagined the eye and hand might cause one to lust, his point is that they might. Therefore, Matthew 5:27–30 teaches that we should eliminate that which inflames lust. In doing so, we tamp down lust, not simply minimize its opportunity to show itself.

2.3. What Do I Accomplish by Removing My Eye or Hand?

If the eye and the hand summarize various external touchpoints between lust and temptation, what exactly does eliminating them accomplish? In the previous section, I introduced my argument that eliminating touchpoints with lust helps kill lust, while allowing these touchpoints to remain inflames lust. I will now unpack this argument.

To begin, we must address the commands in Matthew 5:29–30. As I have argued above, Jesus teaches that some body parts may cause one to sin. His demanded response allows no caveat or compromise. In the case of the eye, we must “tear it out” (ἔξελε). If the problem lies in the hand, we must “cut it off” (ἔκκοψον). These two terms, though different, convey virtually identical meanings. This is evidenced by the parallelism between Matthew 5:29 and 5:30. Both terms denote destruction and total loss (ἀπόληται). In both situations, the member is unceremoniously removed and thrown away (βάλε ἀπὸ σοῦ).

Yet despite Jesus’s clarity, opinions vary widely on how to apply his teaching. Luz observes that this passage’s history of interpretation runs on two tracks, what I will call the “radical” and the “reasonable” track.59 The radical track aims to respect the severe nature of Jesus’s commands. In doing so, this first track has been known to widen the application of Jesus’s command so much that an aversion to anything sexual and perhaps even material develops. In other words, if we are to remove that which could lead us into lust, then perhaps our body or sex itself is the problem (e.g., Origen’s fateful decision, priestly vows of chastity, asceticism, and a hesitancy surrounding even married sexual attraction in certain church fathers).60

Most modern interpreters running on the radical track continue to recognize the loftiness of Jesus’s commands, though in general without the same tendency to implicate sex itself. To battle lust, Jesus demands that we “go to the limit,”61 taking “decisive”62 and “drastic”63 action to “deal radically”64 with that which tempts us, “eliminating them at all costs.”65 In other words, most recognize that Jesus commands us to take extreme measures to eliminate touchpoints with lust. However, most of these same commentators also run on a parallel, though seemingly contradictory track. This second, “reasonable” track aims to make the text readily applicable to daily life.

Many are quick to point out one apparent incongruity between Jesus’s commands and the results of our literal obedience. In our zeal to kill lust, we may find ourselves with one fewer hand but still full of lust. Quarles therefore concludes that we should not apply Jesus’s commands literally since we would still be able to sin with our left hand.66 Further, even literal obedience might betray a hypocritical heart desirous of a quick fix. Carson reasons that even emasculation “is not radical enough, since lust is not thereby removed.”67 In other words, most conclude that we should maintain the force of Jesus’s command yet deny its immediate application.

This presents a problem. How should we take Jesus’s commands if not literally? In surveying the literature on Matthew 5:27–30, I have noted that interpreters understand Jesus’s commands in one or more of the following ways: hyperbole, symbolism, or hypothetical.68 These categories overlap greatly, and all capture some aspect of Jesus’s intention. However, I conclude that to best understand Jesus’s commands we should view them as hypothetical.

2.3.1. Hyperbole

“Hyperbole” seems to be the most common way of understanding Jesus’s commands in Matthew 5:29–30. Many use the word “hyperbole,”69 while others add or instead use the related words “exaggeration”70 or “metaphor.”71 In every case, they mean the same thing: Jesus does not intend anyone to tear out one’s eye or cut off one’s hand. Most arrive here by reasoning that since sin begins inwardly, Jesus cannot mean that we may exterminate sin through external means. 72 Turner declares: “It should go without saying that these two commands are hyperbolic.”73 On this view, Jesus uses hyperbole to “shock” his hearers into seriously pursuing holiness.74 However, those who view this text hyperbolically still tether the most immediate application to temptations toward lust.

2.3.2. Symbolism

Others prefer to describe this passage as “symbolic.” In many ways, symbolism is similar to hyperbole. Those who view Matthew 5:27–30 as primarily symbolism, however, are set apart by their willingness to apply the principles in the text more widely.75 For instance, Pennington believes readers should take this passage “allegorically or figuratively,” which allows for the principle to be applied to essentially all thoughts, people, or other church members that might lead us into any kind of sin.76 This follows Aquinas, who allowed that this passage might be applied to false teachers, bad company, bad ideas, over-contemplation, laziness, or even works done with good intentions yet which come with strong temptations.77 The only interpretation he prohibits is the “corporeal” interpretation.78 Otherwise, no part of us would remain, for there is “no member of the body which may not scandalize.”79 Thus, for some, Jesus does not intend to describe strategies for battling lust at all. Therefore, viewing Jesus’s words in this passage symbolically allows us to focus on Jesus’s aim “with no particular interest in distinguishing between strategies that relate to the inner life, the physical body, or the arrangement of the external circumstances of life.”80

2.3.3. Hypothetical

Finally, Quarles commends respecting that Jesus means to be taken literally, even if the situation he describes is hypothetical.81 In other words, if our eye or hand truly was the cause of sin, Jesus would have us remove it.82 Thankfully, this will never be necessary, as those who view this text hyperbolically or symbolically will agree. Surely in every case a disciple could find a less violent solution to the problem of lust, such as removing oneself from tempting situations, looking away, gaining accountability, or seeking God’s help when temptation seems unavoidable (Matt 6:13). Yet to describe Jesus’s commands as “hypothetical” seeks to respect both the radical and reasonable nature of Jesus’s commands. Jesus wants us to consider everything in our lives that causes us to lust and to eliminate it. We should be willing to part with anything, even our physical members. When wisdom dictates that we should forcibly remove something from our lives, we should do so expediently.

Therefore, only a hypothetical reading allows the reader to run on both the radical and reasonable track without contradiction. Surely Jesus is speaking hyperbolically and symbolically. Yet the terms “hyperbole” or “symbolism” and the way many interpreters use these or related terms somewhat undermine the radical nature of Jesus’s commands in an effort to be reasonable. “Hyperbole” prioritizes 5:27–28 over 5:29–30. It moves too quickly away from the content of the commands toward how we can reasonably apply these principles to lust without considering how the content of the commands might give us clues. “Symbolism” prioritizes 5:29–30 over 5:27–28. It threatens to move the most immediate application away from the central idea in the text, distracting from the text’s focus on lust. Yet viewing Jesus’s commands as “hypothetical” requires that we let Jesus’s commands land first before removing their sting. A hypothetical reading will conclude that if our eye or hand were in some way responsible for lust and there was no other way to avoid lust, we should be willing to go through the rest of our lives with one of each. Yet this will never be necessary, since we will always be able to find more effective means of cutting off external means of engaging in sexual sin.

To summarize, most recognize that Jesus in Matthew 5:29–30 demands that his followers take extreme action to eliminate touchpoints between lust and temptation. Yet some move quickly to qualify the severity of Jesus’s commands while others loosen the tight connection between the commands and lust. The problem is not that we qualify these commands. Otherwise, Christian obedience would require mutilation. Instead, the problem comes from attempting to qualify too quickly while still hoping to maintain the force of Jesus’s commands. In doing so, we miss the mechanism by which Matthew 5:29–30 affects 5:27–30; we fail to answer the question: If lust occurs in the heart, yet temptations are external, how does eliminating external temptations diminish lust? If we adopt a hypothetical view of Matthew 5:29–30, then we can coherently merge both the “radical” and “reasonable” tracks. On this view, we will rightly and ruthlessly cut off external sources of temptation, willing even to dismember, yet always finding more effective means of cutting off sin.

3. Implications of Matthew 5:27–30

Jesus’s teaching on lust occurs in two parts. In the first (Matt 5:27–28), Jesus teaches that adultery finds its root in lust. Lust occurs inwardly and begins at the moment when we desire that which externally tempts us.83 In the second part (Matt 5:29–30), Jesus details how one should respond to external temptations. Jesus requires that we remove any touchpoint between lust and temptation that might inflame desire and cause us to stumble. He singles out the eye and hand because of their specialty in inflaming lust.

Therefore, I conclude that the second statement (Matt 5:29–30) is the means by which we obey the first (Matt 5:27–28). Jesus assumes that our lust itself will diminish if we obey him by removing touchpoints with lust. These touchpoints are not mere externalizations of our inward lust; otherwise, we could not expect to affect our inner self through outward means. Instead, Jesus teaches us that the outer self has the power to change the inner self. Lust indeed occurs in the heart. Yet Jesus’s commands only make sense if our outer self can either inflame or tamp down lust. Following Jesus’s logic, if we were to remove our touchpoints with lust we would diminish lust, as evidenced by our subsequent avoidance of hell. Conversely, if we were to allow our touchpoints with lust to remain, then we can expect to be thrown into hell, apparently for our lust.

These conclusions fit with the emphasis on the whole person seen throughout the Sermon on the Mount. In particular, Jesus pits his ways against that of the “hypocrites,” whose inward disposition and outward display lack alignment (Matt 6:1–21). Pennington sees this emphasis summarized in Jesus’s call to be “perfect” (5:48), which is less a summons to moral perfection and more to integrated wholeness.84

Consequently, how we understand this passage has massive ramifications for the way we battle sin. If our outer self can help or hinder our sanctification, then we should deal ruthlessly with that which tempts us, knowing that this will truly help us. Of course, we cannot attend to the outer self and neglect the inner self. Hilary acknowledges that “when pervasive concupiscence is manifest, the loss of the body is superfluous since the impulse of the will remains.”85 Yet he recognizes that “the cutting-off of a member is useful if there is an indictment of the heart.”86 In other words, an internet filter will not help people committed to their lust. Yet a person committed to Christ with a strong desire to hate sin can and should apply an internet filter if he or she finds that the open internet is a temptation. Further, he or she should expect that this internet filter will truly help him or her to lust less.87 This in turn will create more advantageous circumstances for the person to go about the most necessary work of inward heart change.

Two other examples might further illustrate this point. First, we should not be surprised if consuming sexually provocative media increases our lust. Many Christians regularly and casually observe titillating media content. If they observed these same situations in real flesh and blood standing in front of them, they would avert their eyes. Yet their consciences are not pricked because they are viewing it on a screen. Jesus warns, however, that consuming this content will lead to heart adultery and implores us to take the same extreme measures to eliminate it as we would toward that which tempts us toward physical adultery. Second, we will fail to consistently win the war against lust if we fail to address the outer man. Those seeking counsel for lust should rightly hear that their primary problem is heart-level idolatry. Yet those offering counsel should not divorce this counsel directed at the inner self from Jesus’s call to attend to the outer self. These practical considerations are not somehow unspiritual but are merciful and necessary aids toward sanctification. Sanctification looks like repenting of lust, bathing in Scripture, and applying an internet filter.

4. Conclusion

If adultery refers to the physical, sexual act, then lust refers to the heart-level issue that eventually grows into adultery. Lust is the seed; adultery is the tree. External temptation, therefore, is the water, sun, and fertilizer. In Matthew 5:27–30, Jesus teaches us to eliminate touchpoints with external sexual temptation. Jesus expects that when we do so, we will diminish lust rather than simply eliminate opportunities for lust to manifest. Therefore, this passage teaches that while lust occurs in the inner self, controlling our outer self is a means by which we may dampen lust. Jesus calls believers to eliminate external means of introducing sin internally, even if that external means is something precious.

Therefore, internet filters, accountability groups, and perhaps even avoidance of certain people, places, or media are not simply methods by which we shun opportunities to externalize lust;88 these practices serve to diminish lust: limiting the water, sun, and fertilizer that help lust thrive. If we expand the application beyond sexual sin, we find the same principle at play. My desire to over-indulge increases when delicious food is within reach. I am far more likely to covet tools I do not need when I am at a hardware store. In both situations, when I remove the source of desire, the desire decreases. My capacity for illicit desire remains, but this is not the same as saying that I am just as covetous when I am not coveting. It matters what we do, and what we do influences what we want. Therefore, according to Matthew 5:27–30, if my right hand causes me to sin, I should prefer to learn to write left-handed. However, in every case, I should instead be able to simply remove that at which I grasp.

Book Reviews

---

1 Thanks to Dan Kane, Jim Williams, Chris O’Mara, my wife Sarah, and fellow brothers and sisters at College Park Church who helped make this article better.
2 All Scripture quotations come from the ESV.
3 John Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 238.
4 Scripture acknowledges that each human is both material and more than material. It uses the term “inner self” to collectively refer to all that is immaterial in each person: the will, intellect, emotions, etc. (2 Cor 4:16). However, in referencing an inner and outer self throughout this article, I do not mean to imply that my argument hangs on a certain model of human constitution (e.g., monism, dualism, trichotomy), though I myself am most persuaded by holistic dualism. Jesus does not explicitly teach a model for human constitution in the present passage, therefore I believe that those who hold any orthodox belief regarding human constitution (e.g., not pure materialism or idealism) and who also embrace some level of holism between our outer and inner selves could agree with my conclusions. Contra Shinall, who believes that this and other Matthean “dismemberment logia” (5:29–30; 18:8–9; 19:12; 24:45–51) explicitly support dualism. Myrick C. Shinall Jr., “Dismemberment, Dualism, and Theology of the Body in the Gospel of Matthew,” BTB 44 (2014): 185–94.
5 Jason S. DeRouchie, Delighting in the Old Testament: Through Christ and for Christ (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2024), xxii.yet incorrect teaching of its texts abounds in the church. Without effectively studying these stories, covenants, and kingdoms within their close, continuing, and complete biblical contexts, believers miss the beauty of the Old Testament, including how it points to Jesus, and why it still matters today.Jason DeRouchie helps Christians delight in the books of the Old Testament and read them the way God intended—as relevant parts of Christian Scripture. This accessible guide stresses the need to keep Christ at the center and to account for the progress of salvation history when applying the Old Testament today. It helps Christians interpret the Old Testament, see how it testifies to Jesus, believe that Jesus secured every divine promise, and understand how Jesus makes Moses’s law still matter. By more strongly comprehending Old Testament teachings and how they relate to the New, Christians will better enjoy the Old Testament itself and increasingly understand all that Jesus came to fulfill.In-Depth Study: Shows the lasting relevance of Old Testament laws, history, prophecy, and wisdom, and gives insight into the authors and audience of Old Testament booksA Great Resource for Pastors, Students, and Small Groups: Prepares Christian leaders to faithfully teach the Old Testament and equips all Christians to embrace that the Old Testament is Christian ScriptureAccessible: Includes numerous case studies, “Review and Reflection” points for every chapter, and a glossary of key terms.
6 The exception, perhaps, being the sixth example of loving one’s enemies (Matt 5:43–48). Instead of quoting the Law, Jesus may here be quoting a typical understanding of the Law, which took hating one’s enemy as an implication of loving one’s neighbor, looking to the imprecatory Psalms as examples.
7 Frederick Dale Bruner, Matthew 1–12: The Christbook, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 220.
8 R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 204.
9 See, for example, Aquinas, who also approvingly quotes Augustine. Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on the Gospel of St. Matthew, trans. Paul M. Kimball (Camillus, NY: Dolorosa, 2012), 194–95.
10 Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 187.
11 Keener, The Gospel of Matthew, 186–87.
12 D. A. Carson notes that this word can even have a “positive force,” though it more often conveys something negative. He points to Romans 1:24 as a key example of this negative sense tied explicitly to sexual sin. D. A. Carson, “Matthew,” in Matthew–Mark, ed. Tremper Longman III and David E. Garland, rev. ed., EBC 9 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010), 185.
13 Though all sins are equally deserving of God’s punishment (Jas 2:10), some sins are worse than others in that they generate greater consequences and require that the sinner act with a higher level of complicity (John 19:11).
14 Here and consistently throughout Scripture the heart refers not simply to our feelings but rather our inner self: what drives us, motivates us, and ravishes us (cf. Matt 5:8). See Jeremy Pierre, The Dynamic Heart in Daily Life: Connecting Christ to Human Experience (Greensboro, NC: New Growth, 2016).
15 John R. W. Stott, The Message of the Sermon on the Mount, BST (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1985), 87.
16 France, The Gospel of Matthew, 204.
17 Keener, The Gospel of Matthew, 189 (emphasis original).
18 Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006), 616.
19 Scot McKnight, Sermon on the Mount, SGBC (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2013), 87–88.
20 W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, Matthew 1–7, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988), 523.
21 Bruner, Matthew 1–12, 220.
22 Bruner, Matthew 1–12, 221.
23 Bruner, Matthew 1–12, 221.
24 Aquinas, Commentary on the Gospel of St. Matthew, 195.
25 Aquinas, Commentary on the Gospel of St. Matthew, 195.
26 Davies and Allison, Matthew 1–7, 523.
27 See Jared Heath Moore, “A Biblical and Historical Appraisal of Concupiscence with Special Attention to Same-Sex Attraction” (PhD diss., The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2019), 172–74.
28 Carson, “Matthew,” 184.
29 Most commentators do not explicitly follow Carson’s lead. Those who oppose Carson’s argument include: Davies and Allison, Matthew 1–7, 523; Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 1–13, WBC 33A (Dallas: Word, 1993), 120; Grant R. Osborne, Matthew, ZECNT 1 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010), 196 n. 4.
30 Ulrich Luz, Matthew 1–7, trans. James E. Crouch, rev. ed., Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), 294.
31 Carson, “Matthew,” 184.
32 See, for instance, France, The Gospel of Matthew, 204.
33 Luz, Matthew 1–7, 294.
34 Prince E. Peters, “Adultery as Sexual Disorder: An Exegetical Study of Matthew 5:27–30,” HTS 78 (2022): 5.
35 Craig L. Blomberg, Matthew, NAC 22 (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1992), 110.
36 Osborne, Matthew, 196.
37 Though lust is often fed by visual images, lust does not require visual stimulation. A person blind from birth could still lust since lust is not by definition visual but rather an internal desire for that which is illicit. This is why many commentators locate lust in the realm of the “imagination.” See Carson, “Matthew,” 185; Hagner, Matthew 1–13, 120; Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew, 235.
38 Additionally, women (and men) should draw the valid conclusion that they should dress and act in such a way that does not cause a brother (or sister) to stumble (Matt 18:16). Truly, Jesus’s words place the fault squarely on the luster. They do not justify overly restrictive clothing restrictions or modesty codes. However, based on Jesus’s following admonitions in Matthew 5:29–30, no woman (or man) motivated by the love of neighbor and the Christian responsibility to bear one another’s burdens (Matt 22:39; Gal 6:2) should want to become something that needs to be “cut off.” For a detailed Jewish and Roman background to the issue of male lust and female modesty, see Kent E. Brower, “Jesus and the Lustful Eye: Glancing at Matthew 5:28,” EvQ 76 (2004): 291–309. Note: I do not share Brower’s conclusions regarding 1 Corinthians 11 nor his belief that Jesus intends in Matthew 5:27–30 to undermine gender roles.
39 Moisés Silva, “ σκανδαλίζω,” NIDNTTE 4:297.
40 Silva, “ σκανδαλίζω,” 4:296–297.
41 France, The Gospel of Matthew, 205.
42 France, The Gospel of Matthew, 205.
43 Silva, “ σκανδαλίζω,” 4:296–299.
44 A possible allusion to this passage in Rabbinic literature may reinforce that the eye and hand here are deemed “offensive.” If true, Basser believes that σκανδαλίζει would need to carry this same sense. Herbert W. Basser, “The Meaning of ‘Shtuth,’ Gen. R. 11 in Reference to Mt 5:29–30 and 18:8–9,” NTS 31 (1985): 148–51.
45 John Cornell points out that typically scandal refers to “interpersonal antagonism.” In other words, the scandal is usually related to another person which leaves us scandalized. He builds on this observation to interpret this passage as a kind of comedy. Jesus means us to find it absurd that we would blame our body parts for our lust (they scandalize us), treating them as if they are our enemies. While his observation regarding scandal is true in other contexts, it is foreign to the current context and therefore cannot justify his interpretation of this passage. John F. Cornell, “Anatomy of Scandal: Self-Dismemberment in the Gospel of Matthew and in Gogol’s ‘The Nose,’” Literature and Theology 16 (2002): 270–90.
46 BDAG, s.v. “ σκανδαλίζω.”
47 Silva, “ σκανδαλίζω,” 4:297.
48 Carson, “Matthew,” 184.
49 Hagner, Matthew 1–13, 120.
50 Davies and Allison, Matthew 1–7, 525. Also McKnight, Sermon on the Mount, 89.
51 Carson, “Matthew,” 185. Others, however, explicitly deny that Jesus instructs men to cut off their genitals. See I. J. Du Plessis, “The Ethics of Marriage According to Matt. 5:27–32,” Neot 1 (1967): 22.
52 Osborne, Matthew, 196. Also David L. Turner, Matthew, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 170–71.
53 I use the term “temptation” throughout the paper to refer to external trials. The Greek root behind the term we translate in English as “temptation” (πειρασμός) can sometimes carry the sense of “test” (Matt 4:1), and often the translation reflects this meaning (Jas 1:2). Since Jesus experienced this kind of temptation, others who experience the same are not sinning. Other times, however, πειρασμός refers to a kind of temptation for which the one tempted is morally culpable. I group this latter kind of temptation into the category of lust since it is said to arise from our sinful desires (ἐπιθυμία).
54 Alternatively, Will Deming argues that Matthew 5:29–30 and Mark 9:42–47 share in being influenced by a particular Jewish text with sexual content. If true, Mark removed the sexual content while Matthew retained it. Will Deming, “Mark 9:42–10:12, Matthew 5:27–32, and B. Nid. 13b: A First Century Discussion of Male Sexuality,” NTS 36 (1990): 130–41.
55 France, The Gospel of Matthew, 205.
56 Davies and Allison, Matthew 1–7, 524.
57 See, for example, France, The Gospel of Matthew, 205; Hagner, Matthew 1–13, 121.
58 Turner, Matthew, 170–71; Aquinas, Commentary on the Gospel of St. Matthew, 196.
59 Luz, Matthew 1–7, 292–94.
60 “If a man marries in order to have children he ought to practice self-control. He ought not to have a sexual desire even for his wife, to whom he has a duty to show Christian love. He ought to produce children by a reverent, disciplined act of will.” Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis, Books One to Three, trans. John Ferguson (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America, 1991), 292.
61 Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew, 235.
62 Bruner, Matthew 1–12, 223.
63 Hagner, Matthew 1–13, 121.
64 Carson, “Matthew,” 185.
65 France, The Gospel of Matthew, 206.
66 Charles L. Quarles, Sermon on The Mount: Restoring Christ’s Message to the Modern Church, ed. E. Ray Clendenen, NACSBT 11 (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2011), 120.
67 Carson, “Matthew,” 184. Also Keener, The Gospel of Matthew, 188. Christy Gambrell gives two additional incongruities. First, to obey literally, if consistent, might require us to cut out our hearts, since that is the ultimate location of our lust (Matt 5:28). Second, the Law prohibited self-harm (Lev 19:28). While Jesus fulfills the Law, he does not set himself in opposition to the Law. Christy Gambrell, “Does Jesus Condone Self-Mutilation in Matthew 5:29–30?” Christian Research Journal 41 (2018): 8–9.
68 One unique, minority alternative sees sarcasm in Jesus’s commands. On this view, Jesus lampoons his listeners based on their unstated assumptions. After teaching them that lust itself is adultery, he expects that they will protest. How could anyone avoid lust if we can continue to see? So then, in commanding them to tear out their eye, he means to poke fun at them. He expects them to become offended, thus exposing that they still assume sin originates and terminates in the body. Therefore, on this view, Jesus does not intend his followers to act on Matthew 5:29–30. Instead, he uses these “commands” to recenter his followers back on Matthew 5:27–28. This view, however, does not respect Jesus’s logic in Matthew 5:29–30 nor how seriously he warns those who ignore it. Jesus says, If you lust, and if your eye or hand are the cause, then lose the body part to avoid hell. His appeal to avoiding hell with body intact makes no sense if he does not intend his hearers to contemplate whether they might avoid that fate by parting with one of their members. Cornell, “Anatomy of Scandal,” 271.
69 Hagner, Matthew 1–13, 121; Turner, Matthew, 171.
70 France, The Gospel of Matthew, 205; McKnight, Sermon on the Mount, 89.
71 Osborne, Matthew, 195; Keener, The Gospel of Matthew, 187; Blomberg, Matthew, 109.
72 Llewelyn and Robinson argue literarily. They believe that Matthew uses various words “metonymically,” therefore signaling to his readers that when he says one thing he intends to reference another. They argue that Matthew equates “eye,” “sight,” and “desire;” therefore, when Matthew exhorts disciples to tear out their eyes, he means them only to remove their sources of desire. It is far from obvious, however, that Matthew intends this metonymy in the text. Instead, Matthew references all three terms in relation to one another, not as equals. He says, “If your sight leads you into lust, cut off the source of the sight.” Stephen Robert Llewelyn and William Robinson, “‘If Your Hand Causes You to Stumble, Cut It Off’: Questions Over the Figurative Nature of Mark 9:43–47 and Its Synoptic Parallels,” NovT 63 (2021): 425–51.
73 Turner, Matthew, 171.
74 Turner, Matthew, 171.
75 Luz seems to pit the hyperbolic against the symbolic. He entertains the hyperbolic interpretation but eliminates it due to the presence of δεξιός. To him, Jesus’s emphasis is on giving up what is most precious, symbolized by the “right,” to avoid judgment. Through this interpretation, Luz rids this passage of any sexual or physical applications, something Luz intends. Luz, Matthew 1–7, 297–98.
76 Jonathan T. Pennington, The Sermon on the Mount and Human Flourishing: A Theological Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2017), 188.
77 Aquinas, Commentary on the Gospel of St. Matthew, 197–98.
78 Aquinas, Commentary on the Gospel of St. Matthew, 196.
79 Aquinas, Commentary on the Gospel of St. Matthew, 196.
80 Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew, 239.
81 Quarles, Sermon on The Mount, 122.
82 The Mishnah seems to support this view in its requirement that a man who uses his hand for personal sexual arousal should have the hand cut off, even if we have no recorded instances of this being carried out. Nolland, however, sees the Mishnah as occurring in a different context and therefore unable to inform Matthew 5:29–30. In particular, the Mishnah describes a corporate, legal punishment as opposed to an individual self-maiming for the purposes of discipleship. Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew, 238–39.
83 Someone might cite James 1:13–15 to question whether all illicit desire is sinful. This passage seems to teach this progression: first, the kind of temptation that arises from illicit desire, then sin, then death. Therefore, rather than saying that illicit desire is sin, should we not instead say that illicit desire leads to sin? In response, we should note that the word for desire (ἐπιθυμία) in James 1:14–15 is the same as lust in Matthew 5:28 and carries the same negative connotation. Previously, I argued that lust is sexual covetousness. James also links illicit desire to covetousness (Jas 4:2). Therefore, James already assumes that the desire that gives rise to our internal temptations is covetous and therefore sinful. The progression in James 1:13–15, however, shows that sinful, illicit desire becomes more morally culpable and detrimental the more one inflames that desire. Therefore, as I have argued thus far, we should seek to limit the opportunities we give to our desires to drag us further down the path leading to death.
84 Pennington, The Sermon on the Mount and Human Flourishing, 203–6.
85 St Hilary of Poitiers, Commentary on Matthew, trans. D. H. Williams (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America, 2012), 69.
86 St Hilary of Poitiers, Commentary on Matthew, 69.
87 Martyn Lloyd-Jones links this passage to the biblical idea of mortification, famously extrapolated by John Owen. Mortification is not cutting off our hands, because sin does not dwell in our physical members. Mortification, however, does involve our physical members. While sin does not reside in them, they are the means by which we externalize sin. Therefore, they should be “brought into subjection” (Rom 8:13; 13:14; 1 Cor 9:27; Col 3:5). See D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Studies in the Sermon on the Mount, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971), 218–21.
88 Recognizing that some may chafe at the thought of avoiding salacious or even mildly tempting media if by doing so they may be seen as an uncultured “ignoramus,” Lloyd-Jones responds: “Our Lord’s reply is that, for the sake of your soul, you had better be an ignoramus, if you know it does harm to know these things.” Lloyd-Jones, Studies in the Sermon on the Mount, 220.

---