Matthew 7:6 and pearls before swine
Matthew 7:6 has Jesus saying, "Do not give
dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do they
may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you in
pieces." A reader wonders what he meant. We all wonder what he meant.
I think the view taken by Donald Hagner and R.T France
is probably the prevailing one. Hagner says it is urging discernment in
preaching the gospel and France says that what is holy and valuable
(with the primary stress on teaching) "must be given only to those who
are able to appreciate them." Hagner goes in that direction but stresses
response rather than the character of the hearers. Hagner says
if hearers aren't receptive the disciples are to stop preaching to
them. He links it with Matthew 10:13-14 where the disciples are
expressly told to do just that.
Maybe that view is correct but there are aspects of it
that just don't ring true. There's nothing in 7:6 that suggests they
should preach and then if they experience rejection that they should
stop. There's just a plain declaration that they were not to do it and
if it has to do with teaching then they weren't to do it at all. Matthew 7:6 is not at all like 10:13-14 in that respect.
And how would you be able to tell who was worthy of hearing holy truth?
Would we have thought the Corinthians were? Even after they got it?
Probably not and yet Paul taught them for eighteen months and taught
them by post later.
The images are clear. Imagine a priest going to the
altar, taking a piece of sacrificial meat and throwing it to one of the
mangy street dogs. Imagine a woman taking valuable pearls (instead of
peas) and throwing them to hungry pigs. Both acts are the abuse of the
holy and the valuable. It's not simply a lack of discernment, as if
people didn't know better. These are unthinkably stupid and in the case
of holy meat given to dogs there's the added moral/spiritual offence.
It wouldn't matter if the dogs licked the giver's hand
in gratitude or if the pigs simply walked off disappointed but
non-violent; the acts would be what they would be whatever the
response—offensive and abusive. Whatever the images are to convey—it is
plainly forbidden!
Maybe we're not supposed to figure out who the dogs and
pigs are or what they represent (if they're supposed to represent anyone
or anything in particular). This isn't an allegory. I think we're supposed to recognise what is holy and valuable and treat it accordingly.
To minister to the needy became an occasion for
self-aggrandisement (6:1-3)—sacrificial meat to dogs and pearls before
pigs. Prayer and times of special devotion became a stage to strut on
(6:5-8)—meat and pearls for dogs and pigs. Personal integrity,
relationships between husbands and wives and brothers were all being
abused and dishonoured—pigs fed on pearls and dogs on holy meat.
Such moral stupidity and insolence may well damn a man
or woman (7:6) but whether, in the end, they do or they don't—they're
forbidden by Jesus Christ.
When he speaks of the possibility of the animal turning
on the giver I think he's saying that the abuse of the holy and the
valuable could have self-destructive consequences. We've all said things
like, "Those words of yours will come back to haunt you." And we all
know, I suppose, what it is to reap what we sow.
So, in the end, it isn't about how dogs or pigs will react it's about our use and treatment of what is holy and precious.
©2004 Jim McGuiggan. All materials are free to be copied and used as long as money is not being made.
Many thanks to brother Ed Healy, for allowing me to post from his website, the abiding word.com.