Matt 5: 29, 30 used to justify shunning

Jules Saturn

I had a family relative use this scripture found here to justify shunning. The scripture reads as followed

If, now, your right eye is making you stumble, tear it out and throw it away from you.+For it is better for you to lose one of your members than for your whole body to be pitched into Ge·henʹna.*+ 30 Also, if your right hand is making you stumble, cut it off and throw it away from you.+For it is better for you to lose one of your members than for your whole body to land in Ge·henʹna.

Now my personal opinion is that at first glance it looks like it is something that Jesus said that justifies shunning but if you read back to a couple verses before 29 and 30 you will find that Jesus is speaking of adultery and the scriptures read:

You heard that it was said: ‘You must not commit adultery.’+ 28 But I say to you that everyone who keeps on looking at a woman+ so as to have a passion for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Correct me if I’m wrong but using this in the context of shunning is incorrect. I interpret the scripture as being more anti masturbation as opposed to being pro shunning to having your right eye and right hand removed if you look at woman with lust.

I think it’s one of those scriptures that are misapplied by Witnesses to be pro shunning when taken out of context. It’s annoying that they do that

dubstepped

If association with me makes you stumble, perhaps we need to hang out more because clearly you walk a weak path.

JWs can spin anything to justify shunning out of a book of fairy tales. It's not usually even worth arguing. They see what they want to see.

DesirousOfChange

How do they rationalize that with Matt 5:44-- "But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, . . ."

Also, there is Acts 20:35'' "I have shown you in all things that by working hard in this way,+ you must assist those who are weak and must keep in mind the words of the Lord Jesus, when he himself said: ‘There is more happiness in giving+ than there is in receiving.’” An article in the WT [w79 4/15 p. 24-25] entitled "Assist Those Who Are Weak" was based on this verse. You assist them by shunning them? WTF?

carla

Are jw's supposed to emulate Jesus?

Mark 2:15-15 While Jesus was having dinner at Levi’s house, many tax collectors and sinners were eating with him and his disciples, for there were many who followed him. 16 When the teachers of the law who were Phariseessaw him eating with the sinners and tax collectors, they asked his disciples: “Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?”

17 On hearing this, Jesus said to them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”

jw's won't even greet a so called apostate, how do they reconcile this?

Jesus said, “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Matthew 5:44). He also said, “Do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you” (Luke 6:27–28).

Do jw's ever pray for non jw's, so called apostates and leaders of the world?

1 Timothy 2-I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; 2For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.

heck, we could play scripture volleyball all day long.

One last thing, " have a passion for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart."- jw's don't consider that having lustful thoughts as a 'sin'. At least my jw was surprised to hear this. In a discussion once I mentioned that just thinking it is already a sin, he would be guilty of adultery, if he claims to go by the bible. Now, think about all the stories here and elsewhere where some jw woman was brought in the back room to be told her nipples, underwear, toe cleavage, etc... was getting someone all hot and bothered, who would be guilty of 'adultery' in that case? the guy/woman who was staring at her behind during a service/meeting or the woman who had no clue someone was 'lusting' after her while they were supposed to be concentrating on the word of the gb, err, I mean the word of God.

Another example- 1 John 3:15 -Anyone who hates a brother or sister is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life residing in him.- I recall some wt quote where they were supposed to 'hate' apostates, something on that order. In essence then, the wt was condoning 'murder' according to this scripture.

Diogenesister

One last thing, " have a passion for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart."- jw's don't consider that having lustful thoughts as a 'sin'.

They do, sadly. I drove myself insane with believing every little thought i had that wasnt perfect was unchristian and that i was a terrible person. Holding on to scriptures like that is why so many jws have such low self esteem.

steve2

well if JWs are able to twist these words to justify shunning, there is no much left to say. Jesus is talking about one's own tendencies not others' tendencies (If your own behaviour is causing you to sin, take this measure to protect yourself).

waton

looking so as to have a passion for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. JS

Wt doctrine, practice seems to be that this is only sinful, worthy of attention, because it might ultimately lead to actually doing it. otherwise it's ok. and it applies only to a case where one of the parties, the looker or the admired object,- is married.

keep looking for that seat with a clear sight line to the best looking chick, so as to have a good perspective during the 2 hrs droning on at the meeting.( even if she is married)

shun, shame yourself.

stuckinarut2

Further to everyone's great comments above, it is clear by the context that the JWs are misapplying that scripture.

It says nothing about shunning family members.

Any group that interferes with family relationships and causes division is a cult. Pure and simple.

carla

Well, what do I know? once again my jw did not get the memo I guess. He was shocked and said, "you mean I am guilty for just thinking something?" then claimed you are only guilty if you act on it. I don't know, it is hard to keep up with jw doctrine and then his apparent confused version of it and all the history of it I have read.

Wild_Thing

I can't believe they are using something out of context to justify their behavior. It's so unlike them.

Matt 5: 29, 30 used to justify shunning

Share this