“Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces.”
7:6
“Do not give what is holy to the dogs;
Both dogs and swine were unclean animals according to Mosaic Law. Dogs were not pets in those days but roving scavengers. The “holy” here is the truth of God. We do not present truth to people who radically reject its truth.
nor cast your pearls before swine,
Swine were wild and vicious in Palestine. Since they were unclean, they were not for food.
lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces.
The picture here is of a wild dogs and boars tearing their prey into pieces. That is a symbolic picture of those with very high negative volition toward the gospel. These people mock the gospel as indicated by trampling it under foot and even going further in tearing apart the gospel message itself.
PRINCIPLE:
There is no need to present the gospel to those with negative volition toward God.
APPLICATION:
It is wrong to try to force the gospel on people. There is no need to share the gospel with people who reject it outright. We have responsibility to carry the gospel to everyone, but once we make the presentation, the responsibility lies on the individual to choose negative or positive volition. If a person chooses negative volition, then there is no necessity for any further presentation of the gospel. Once a person clearly rejects the gospel, there is no further reason to present the gospel to them.
Jesus did not talk to Herod (Lu 23:9) and Paul drew limits when speaking to people who rejected the Word (Ac 13:46).
“Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves. Therefore be wise as serpents and harmless as doves.” Mt 10:16
“Do not speak in the hearing of a fool, For he will despise the wisdom of your words.” Pr 23:9
I’m wondering if there isn’t more of a connection between Matt. 7:1-5 and verse 6, including verses 7-12. I know this is a constant conversation that is probably going on out there, but here is my thought. After verse 1, Jesus teaches on how to approach someone that has a spec in their eye. He does not say don’t try to help with the spec, but that one should remove the log from their own eye first. So discerning judgment is allowed. Verse 6 then is guiding one who might, with discerning judgment, approach someone about unrighteousness or sin in their life. Jesus categorically says that there are people that will not accept your attempt at admonition/correction (dogs/pigs) no matter how genuine and non-judgmental, but will only turn it on you in some negative and harmful way. I can’t get my mind around this being a stand alone verse that is about preaching the gospel to people who are resistant. Especially, in light of verse 12 (Golden Rule), it seems that this whole text flows out of the worry for food, drink, clothing, etc., and the want for those things affecting relationships with others in some way. Rather than judgment or casting pearls before unconcerned dogs, we should ask, seek and knock and the Father will make sure that we have what we need. Verse 12 concludes by saying, “So in everything…” This seems to me to be the summary of a larger section where God is described as faithful to his little ones. In the meantime our calling is to do to others as we would have them do to us, again as Jesus said earlier, fulfilling the law/prophets. I might need to organize these thoughts a little better, but this is the gist of it. What do you think? peace, rc
Randy, there may be something to what you say because the whole Sermon on the Mount deals with the standard for entering God’s kingdom, a different kind of righteousness man man possesses.
I wonder if this could also be interpreted to mean be careful how much light of the gospel you share since those who mock God's ways will be held accountable for how much of the gospel they have seen/known/been taught. Consider the children of Israel in the wilderness. They saw God's presence and goodness in a way that few have and yet refused to believe that He would help them overcome the Caananites. They were judged more harshly because of that. Just a thought.
In keeping within the context of the preceding verses: could this not also mean that as we "consider the log in our own eye" not to ask forgiveness from those who would not/could not forgive us? In this way our tender heart of repentance would not be "torn to pieces". Perhaps this is what God considers as pearls? Just another thought.
David, thanks for your thoughtful blogs. I like the way you think in terms of contextualizing a passage.
I do not intend in this verse to speak absolutely as if that same person will not reach a different point in their lives where they may be open to the gospel. That may happen and there may be another chance to present the gospel. My father was a case in point.
As you know there are many "stand alone" statements in the sermon on the mount. The general argument of the sermon is that Jesus is presenting His kingdom to Israel and He is showing the standards or the criteria for the kingdom. It may be that verse six is a stand alone within that context drawing attention to those who explicitly reject Jesus's kingdom offer.
If we do operate on your principles of context then we would need more extant, explicit information to draw that conclusion.
Randy, what you said addresses perfectly my concern with and lack of understanding of this passage. I couldn't figure out the relationship to verses 1-5 but knew there had to be one, and the author doesn't do a good job at all of exploring that. Thanks for your post
The difficulty I have with Randy's suggestion that this verse applies to believers who are resistant to accept correction is their description as 'dogs' and 'swine'. Such labelling seems far too strong for application to people who are being stubborn and rebellious but are nonetheless regenerate followers of Christ. For example, in Phil 1:15 Paul does not give a 'dog' or similar derogatory name to people who preach out of envy and rivalry to cause him problems. However, in Phil 3:2 when speaking of the evildoers (Judaisers) he calls them 'dogs' because they are not regenerate people.
To Dr. Grant Richison, I am in complete agreement with your commentary on this verse in which I found quite valuable. Thank you
What about 2peter2:20? Clearly they had the revelation knowledge of Christ but cast it aside and then became overcome by them, meaning the false teachers, and went back into bondage of the law again. They gave up, they cast their pear, the truth to the side! They never possessed the truth they never treasured the truth. They just like in Matthew23:13, they shut out the kingdom of God, they neither go in and prevent others from going in themselves.
Margaret, go to my study on 2 Pe 2:20.
For what it’s worth, perhaps any verse has an application point as a standalone statement and also as a contextual one. Ecclesiastes 3 says enough about how everything is purposeful. In this passage, I think the commentary from a standalone point is valid for some people in some situations, and from a contextual one it will be valid for many others.
In the preceding verses it speaks of judging and how one ought to look inward and address one’s own heart issues (the log) before judging others to help with their issues (the speck). Taking the heart of those verses into this one might suggest that you should never approach someone with biblical principles (or the Gospel) citing how they are unrighteousness, sinful people and thus illustrating that they are dogs and pigs, but to approach people tenderly, knowing that we ourselves are (or were once) dogs and pigs too. If I apporached a nonbeliever throwing my pearls of righteousness at them, citing everything God requires of us and (by extension) how I am now above them because I am accomplishing those things, why would they not turn, reject what they hear and moreover (defensively) attack me?
Scripture and the principles of God are beautiful gems, things to behold with understanding, and accordingly must be handled with humility. If you try to “show off” these things, Jesus is frank to tell us what to expect.
I am most concerned by Russ’ suggestion that a verse of scripture may have two applications, one as a standalone statement and the other as a verse in context. Essential to the application of any verse is an understanding of the passage’s genre, context and original audience. Standalone interpretation of Matthew 27:5 leads the casual reader to the conclusion that an appropriate response to feelings of remorse is to hang oneself.
Terry, I took Russ’ statement to refer to the hermeneutical principle that interpretation is one but application is many. I agree with your point that the application must be represented by the interpretation principles you indicate. However, if Russ means by “stand alone” in the postmodern sense where the interpreter creates his own meaning, then I, as well, would have a problem with it.
My pastor preached on this verse recently and explained that it had to do with TIMING as well as receptiveness. We should consider our timing when we present the Gospel to someone or offer “righteous correction”. Have they recently had a traumatic experience? Are they having a bad day and angry? We need to consider the feelings of our audience and how that might affect their receptiveness to anything, much less our words. When we categorize folks as dogs or swine that cannot or will not listen to us, we then are making judgement. The verse would then be saying to use “common sense” before we approach others, based on their present attitude. We should give them “their space” and check back later.
When Jesus said don’t give what is holy to the dogs,I think since these were naturally wild pest or being domesticated their duty was to mind do the will of their masters.but being a dog it will never change its way of living.this also applies to the Jews.even when Jesus to redeem them they didn’t want to believe in Him and they adhere to to the law and Jesus knew very well that the same people he came for are going to betray .so to it wasn’t necessary to preach the word to them they will trample it and use their law as a basis to kill Him.so whoever reject the word of God is referred to as dogs
Taking into consideration the end of verse 5 of the position of a minister (Jesus is talking to his future ministers that will continue on his ministry) who has applied a pearl, an insight given to them by the spirit, to remove the log (the self-righteous attitude of the Pharisees who’s insecure mental position was to point out the faults of others in condemnation) from their own way of seeing things and freeing them to clearly see past the faults or outward behaviors (specks in eye) of others and truly understand their core issues of hurt, pain and misunderstanding. That pearl, given by the spirit of God, was a personal enlightenment that that minister was ready for. (Consider the pearl of the revelation of Jesus being the Christ, the son of the Living God that was given to Peter by his Father in heaven) And the minister (and we all are ministers but should honestly ask – what is it that I am ministering?) would naturally have an inner excitement and zeal concerning a pearl – a liberating, spiritual insight. But just because you as a minister get overly excited about a personal insight doesn’t mean that everyone else will share that same level of excitement. Some might interpret your zeal as control and fight back as a vicious dog or undomesticated pig would do even though your intent is pure with the goal of helping them. Everyone that we meet is at a different stage of their spiritual journey and not ready for your pearls. But they are ready for a minister to lay down their life in relational ministry/servanthood to them and to be made to feel like someone actually cares about them as a person and not to get overly excited or agitated by what they do – the speck in their eye. In light of the wisdom that we as ministers will need in honestly connecting with others Jesus laid it out in the following verses for us to continually ask, seek and knock about how to do just that. These verses were laid out in context of gaining insight on how to minister to others instead of the more popular, self-indulgent interpretation – ministering to ourselves. If you read between the lines of what Jesus is saying I believe that you will come to find a pearl of great price.
Just a thought… I’m just now coming to a place where I can admit to myself and accept that I have a rather large root of bitter resenting unforgiveness… that has only grew along the way, since rebirth because I did not understand what I felt spoken to me in my spirit, “Forgiveness is NOT reconciliation… but reconciliation is not safe without true repentance and forgiveness. Forgiveness is our part, repentance belonging to those who trespass against us. To a repentant, remorseful heart forgiveness can be a beautiful drink of water or even a treasure gem BUT to someone who doesn’t see an issue with their trespasses against you -or does not otherwise show any regret- forgiveness is devoured by ravenous dog like appetite (maybe as an attempt to strike and re-enslave the person sacrificing their pain and frustrations in the name of keeping peace and joy). These types of people when given the realization of your forgiveness (which because of now near impossible it feels to forgive sometimes must be sacred), will open jump on you and try to devour you further to ensure not to lose their power over you… Comments? I know I may be reaching, but this just strikes so close to my current sito.
Traci, you are right in your analysis. There are people who may take advantage of our confession and will not be reconciled with us. They seem to be totally obtuse to their own problems. With that said, the onus is on us to take the initiative of reconciliation with them. Having done that, there are some people who will not be reconciled. It is valid to accept this as a reality. See my study on Romans 12:18, http://versebyversecommentary.com/romans/romans-1218/ It is not always possible to be reconciled with some people. The person who attempts to be reconciled with these types should not feel guilty for failing to reconcile with them.
In the Evidence Bible AW Pink gives a excellent quote concerning Mathew 7:6. Before anyone can understand The Gospel, He or She must first understand The Law. It is the Law that bring a Sinner to Christ. The law Condems the Gospel Saves. Roman’s 3:19 &20, Galatians Chapter 3.
Timothy, so true.