Comments on: Chewing on pearls

By: sandi

sandi — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 04:31:08 +0000

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.

By: Manuel Rojas

Manuel Rojas — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 17:25:40 +0000

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).

By: David

David — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 05:20:04 +0000

Good comments, Oliver. As I said earlier, these pearls hang on a thin thematic string.

By: Brace Yourself « Discipulus Scripturae

Brace Yourself « Discipulus Scripturae — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 15:23:25 +0000

[...] posts by other people. The most recent example was at Lingamish, which was quite fun to read up on: Chewing on Pearls [...]

By: David

David — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 13:20:05 +0000

Serendipitous pearls!

By: J. K. Gayle

J. K. Gayle — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 10:53:05 +0000

“… 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)

By: Oliver Stegen

Oliver Stegen — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 07:49:48 +0000

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

By: Oliver Stegen

Oliver Stegen — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 07:20:58 +0000

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

By: David

David — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 04:23:59 +0000

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.

By: David

David — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 04:20:07 +0000

I fixed the slip in your comment.

By: David

David — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 04:16:11 +0000

Well, you’ve pretty much shot holes in my postmodern posturing…

And yes to straws 1 and 2.

By: David

David — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 04:14:29 +0000

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.