7:6 Do not give what is holy to dogs or throw your pearls before pigs; otherwise they will trample them under their feet and turn around and tear you to pieces. 8
8 tn Or “otherwise the latter will trample them under their feet and the former will turn around and tear you to pieces.” This verse is sometimes understood as a chiasm of the pattern a-b-b-a, in which the first and last clauses belong together (“dogs…turn around and tear you to pieces”) and the second and third clauses belong together (“pigs…trample them under their feet”).
(Matthew 7:6, NET Bible)
What’s interesting to me about this verse is that the standard exegetical methods fail to help you understand or apply this passage.
1. Look at the immediate context
This doesn’t help for a couple of reasons. First, this is a section of Matthew in which a series of parables or sayings are strung together (like pearls) but only by the most tenuous thematic string. I fail to see how verse 6 is related to verses 1-5 or verses 7-12.
2. Look at parallel passages
There are none. None of the other evangelists include this saying.
3. Look at cross references
Possibly Matthew 15 could be considered a related passage. Possibly Luke 15 and the Prodigal Son. But there is no clear thematic tie to this passage anywhere in the Bible. 2 Peter has a clear collocation of pigs and dogs:
Of them the proverbs are true: “A dog returns to its vomit,” and, “A sow that is washed goes back to her wallowing in the mud.”
(2 Peter 2:22, NIV)
4. Dig into the Greek
Possibly there is something in the structure of the passage that indicates that it is connected to what precedes or follows it. Unfortunately, the section seems to be self-contained. If most translations, and in fact most Greek editions, have put verse six at the end of the preceding passage it is only because it clearly doesn’t make sense at the beginning of the next passage.
5. Historical context
Dogs and pigs are common props in the New Testament. They are unclean, scavengers and, metaphorically, dog is a pejorative term for non-Jewish peoples.
This verse is quoted in the late 1st century in the Didache:
But let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist, unless they have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, "Give not that which is holy to the dogs."
6. Commentaries
There’s a nice selection of older commentaries at Biblios.com: Matthew 7:6. But I’m not seeing anything very helpful there. At this point I would usually dig into some modern commentaries and tools like the IVP Bible Background Commentary. IVPBBC doesn’t have any thing to offer. Morris is likewise uncertain of the position of the verse in the context and it’s interpretation.
Morris does mention an interesting reference:
An interesting use is for the utterances of a great person: “The mouth that uttered pearls…” (Qidd. 39b).
7. Grasp at straws
- Ask a child what it means
- Google it on the Internet
- Blog about it and hope someone comments with an insight
- Admit you don’t know what it means (Very progressive and postmodern position, these days… )
So, I don’t know what to do with this verse. Any ideas?
I checked both of the Matthew commentaries on my shelf here and they were in agreement. The purpose of this saying is to give guidance to those that are spreading the good news. Once the Jew and Gentile has heard the good news, if they reject it, do not continue to press the issue until the end of time. Basically, don’t continue to waste your time on those that will never appreciate the holy/pearl that is the good news, which has already been revealed to them.
The commentaries go into quite a bit more depth, and I might be able to email them to you if you want more detail. They both supported the chiastic structure as well. By the way, they are the Word and Expositors Bible Commentaries. I will be at the University library later today and will have a look at some of the other commentaries.
Thanks for looking into this. I confess that their answer is extremely unsatisfying. How does that relate to anything that Jesus is saying in this entire section of Matt 5-7? It’s a sound doctrinal position and the verse can be used to back that up. But I’m unconvinced that is what Jesus was saying here.
I look forward to any other ideas.
this is where understanding aramaic comes in handy. matthew black deals with this passage in his ‘aramaic approach to the gospels and acts’. essentially the greek trans. misunderstands its underlying aramaic source and bungles it. a proper rendition is
hang not precious rings on dogs
and adorn not the snout of swine with pearls.
in the context, then, it all makes perfect sense- don’t waste your time evangelizing the uninterested.
I think this is the first time you’ve ever given me a straight answer. I’m unsure what to do at this point…
Fascinating reference to Black. This sounds slightly like Proverbs 11:22, “Like a gold ring in a pig’s snout is a beautiful woman who shows no discretion.”
I still don’t see how that makes sense in the context. But I’ll look at it again.
But did you hear about the hurricane in Scandinavia? Apparently God was casting swirls before pine
Thank you for that. I’m running off to tell it to my kids…
If you have some ice cream, I will give it to you. If you have no ice cream, I will take it away from you. It is an ice cream koan.
Jesus did not give his followers “the sound of one hand clapping” cryptic koans. I resist the notion that Jesus’ statements were meant to be incomprehensible or to ponder in their incongruity. But I’m also unwilling to grab an interpretation out of the air that isn’t somehow tied to the context. And that’s what the “don’t waste the gospel on those who won’t receive it” interpretation sounds like to me.
[...] by Chuck Grantham on June 30, 2009 David Ker examines this verse in a blog post and finds it resistant to normal exegetical methods (context, parallels, cross references, word [...]
David,
So have you done straws 1 and 2 yet?
This portion of chapter seven looks very much like a sayings collection. Of course, it could all be from the same occasion, since the whole Sermon on the Mount doesn’t take that long to read aloud, and Jesus had all day audiences, didn’t he?
The range of traditional alternate interpretations isn’t that large, judging by what I found on my blog. The confusion lies in the various uses of the quote, I think.
And isn’t the postmodern position that I think something and you can think something else, and who cares what the author meant, because things only mean anything to separate individuals?
Well, you’ve pretty much shot holes in my postmodern posturing…
And yes to straws 1 and 2.
I always took straw #4. I’d sort of assumed it was said in an unrecorded context, perhaps a noteworthy flurry of activity for example, but Matthew didn’t give the full story. This might have been because it was assumed at the time that everyone knew the story. If that were so surely the Didache source is our best bet as a roseta stone. Still I wouldn’t bet a pearl or even a slice of pork on any interperetation. Hope someone else can shed more light on the matter.
it’s the first time you’ve asked a serious one…
http://thisbread.blogspot.com/2009/01/do-not-cast-your-pearls-before-pigs.html
The commentaries seem in agreement that this verse does not really connect to the passages before or after it, however they also feel that it is original. Some suggest that Matthew may have included it from his source (Q) and may or may not have understood it’s meaning. Also, the meaning may have been a hidden secret, understood only by the audience. If so, it’s interpretation lies closer to the Didache and other works such as G. of Thomas. This may mean that the holy things and pearls refer to the Eucharist and the teachings of Jesus.
Many of them rejected reading into the conjectured Aramaic, as Jim suggests, though the summary is surprisingly similar. Also, many of them were quick to point out that we may never know the real meaning, and one even refused to give an explanation for this very reason. The best commentaries on it that I found were Hermeneia, Int’l Critical Commentary, and Word Biblical Commentary in that order.
Also, the idea in JK Gayle’s link was refreshing, though not in any of the ten commentaries which I went through today. Thanks for the interesting question, as it was quite interesting to read up on. There are quite a few other nuanced views that were covered and dismissed, but are interesting reading if you want to have a look at those commentaries.
Arabic should read Aramaic! haha
I fixed the slip in your comment.
yeah i dont think anyone in their right mind has suggested an arabic Sitz im Leben.
The kingdom of heaven is compared to a pearl. But here the margaritas are plural.
Thanks, Nathan for the homework. This is a case where in translation at least a footnote would be in order indicating that the relation of this verse to its surroundings and its precise interpretation are not understood.
The first thing that jarred me about this verse is that Jesus is telling his followers not to judge in verse 1 and then calling people pigs and dogs in verse 6. How can we do that without judging?
PS, thanks JK for the link to Jason’s post (and Willard’s quote). He’s right on in my estimation.
“… unless we understand it as one discourse, purposely organized by its highly competent speaker, its parts — the particular statements made — will be left at the mercy of whatever whims may strike readers as they contemplate each pearl of wisdom” (page 133).
-Willard’s claim on interpreting the sermon (from speaker Jesus thru writer/translator Matthew)
Serendipitous pearls!
Hmmm – are you sure that Jesus ever said in one go what Matthew reports in 7:1-11? The so-called “Sermon on the Mount” looses quite a bit of cohesion in chapter 7. My take on it is that Matthew had a collection of disconnected sayings of Jesus from which he chose those suitably related to his theme and strung them together towards the end of this speech (other candidates for being contextless bits may be 6:22-23 or 7:13-14). The original context is lost, so imho there’s no way to get exactly and beyond doubt what Jesus originally meant. Which doesn’t prevent us from applying the verse to other situations (like Nathan and countless others before him have done and probably more will continue to do).
Let me take it as a given that the theme of Jesus’ teaching in this speech (or Matthew’s theme in reporting Jesus’ teaching) is the relationship between the old teaching and the new. Chapters 5 and 6 seem to focus on the content of the Law and how Jesus re-defines it: “You have heard that it was said … But I tell you” (5:21f, 27f, 31f, 33f, 38f, 43f) and “When you X, do not …” (6:2, 5, 16). By contrast, chapter 7 then talks about the inter-personal application, for whom these teachings are and how to tell appropriate and inappropriate applications apart.
Based on this summary, my take of verse 6 is that it coheres much better with what is following than with what precedes. The theme of giving (my paraphrased exegesis: “Do not give these new teachings to non-Jews or to people who don’t care for them”) is taken up in verses 7-11, contrasting what and to whom we *should* give. So is the theme of people turning against you and tearing you to pieces in verse 15.
Hope this is helpful.
Oliver
Btw, I wrote this after Nathan’s first comment and only saw all the other comments after posting this. Hadn’t realised that my connection was *that* slow
Good comments, Oliver. As I said earlier, these pearls hang on a thin thematic string.
[...] posts by other people. The most recent example was at Lingamish, which was quite fun to read up on: Chewing on Pearls [...]
Excuse me for the Spanish. De acuerdo a Ulrich Luz, el lenguaje metafórico los perros y los cerdos se referirían a los paganos. Las perlas a las palabras de los sabios y lo santo a la carne sacrificial que no debe darse a los perros. De ahí, su uso litúrgico posterior. “El versículo podría expresar casi proverbialmente una advertencia: las palabras de los sabios no son para necios. Entonces, el versículo desaconsejaría ofrecer la predicación o, más exactamente el conjunto de la ley o sus ‘perlas’, es decir, sus interpretaciones, a los paganos” (Luz).
What ever happened to the bible being the living word of God? So,the passage means different things to different people, and may also mean different things to the same person at different time.