How does Matthew 7:6 fit in with the previous verses?

Explanation:

Jesus tells the disciples not to throw pearls to pigs. What does this phrase mean in light of Matthew 7:1–5? To help us understand what Jesus means we should first identify what Jesus means by what is holy and pearls, as well as dogs and pigs. We know from Matthew 13:45–46 that Jesus compares the kingdom of heaven to a pearl of great value.⁶ We can also deduce by reflection that there is nothing more valuable than the message of the gospel, because the gospel is the message of reconciliation with God.⁷ So what is holy is the message of the gospel.

What about the dogs and pigs? In Jesus’ time most dogs were wild scavengers and pigs were unclean for the Jews.⁸ Thus, we can deduce that Jesus uses dogs and pigs to characterize wicked people. In fact, there are other passages when an author uses the imagery of a dog to cast someone in a derogatory light (Philippians 3:2; 2 Peter 2:22). Thus, when Jesus tells the disciples not to cast their pearls before pigs, he means that they should not explain the gospel carelessly to those who are vehemently opposed to it.   

Counterargument:

The problem with this view is that there are other options for what Jesus means when he refers to what is holy and pearls. This is most clearly shown by the fact that what is holy should not be given to the dogs. When Jesus says that, he likely has the temple meat in mind. The temple meat was offered to God as a sacrifice and should not be given to the dogs to eat.⁹ Also, pearls could be used metaphorically for the wise sayings of the sages, or accurate interpretations of the Jewish law.¹⁰

Response to counterargument:

The fact is, what is holy and pearls could mean any number of things, so to appropriately narrow our options, we should consider what these mean in light of the themes of Matthew’s Gospel. So, while it might be the case that temple meat was sometimes eaten by dogs, or that pearls could refer to sages, Jesus has something wider than the temple traditions and Torah interpretations in mind. We already said that there is a strong connection between pearls and the kingdom of heaven. There is also a strong connection between the ministry of Christ not being fit for dogs. In Matthew 15:1–39, a Canaanite woman begs Jesus to heal her demon-possessed daughter (Matthew 15:22). Jesus tells her it is not right to give the children’s bread to the dogs, implying that his ministry, which included miracles, is reserved for the Israelites (Matthew 15:24). The woman counters by saying that even the crumbs are fed to the dogs (Matthew 15:27). When Jesus hears this, he declares the woman a person of faith, and heals her daughter (Matthew 15:28). The scene illustrates the fact that what is holy has to do with the gospel of Christ, and the dogs are those who might reject his kingdom.

Explanation:

Jesus tells the disciples not to give what is holy to dogs, or throw their pearls to pigs, lest they be trampled on. This means that the disciples should be careful about how and to whom they share the message of the gospel. And we can understand why Jesus says this by interpreting it in light of Matthew 7:1–5.

In Matthew 7:1–5 Jesus tells his disciples not to develop a judgmental attitude toward one another. Of course, such a command is easy to misunderstand, so that the disciples would be not only non-judgmental but also naive.¹¹ Jesus does not want his disciples to be judgmental, but neither does he want them to be naïve, so he includes Matthew 7:6 to give nuance to what he means in Matthew 7:1–5. Jesus wants his disciples to share their knowledge of Christ with others, but the fact is, there are malicious people who respond to the message of the gospel with violence and hatred.¹² The disciples must not only be non-judgmental, but they must also be discerning.

Counterargument:

We should not try to interpret Matthew 7:6 in light of Matthew 7:1–5 because Matthew 7:6 is a later addition. It made its way into Matthew’s Gospel through a source that likely had Jesus’ original teaching of Matthew 7:1–5, plus the addition of Matthew 7:6.¹³ Since Matthew was faithful to the tradition, he included Matthew 7:6 even though it did not fit the context.¹⁴

Response to counterargument:

There are two damaging problems with this counterargument. First, even if we grant the notion that Matthew used a source to compile some aspects of his Gospel, how could anyone determine whether Matthew 7:6 is a later addition? The fact is, Matthew 7:6 carefully tempers Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 7:1–5 and thus finds itself right at home. Second, Scripture comes to us in a final form. We know that Scripture was written by many writers over many centuries, but it comes to us as one complete unit. This means that it goes against exegetical best practices to interpret verses outside of their context, or the canon as a whole. Passages must be interested in their immediate and broad literary context.

Explanation:

Jesus tells the disciples not to develop an attitude of judgmentalism, but he also wants them to discern how they share the pearls of the gospel. We see this way of interpreting Jesus’ statement confirmed in other passages. For example, in Matthew 10:14, after Jesus instructs the disciples to go into the towns and present the gospel, he warns them to shake the dust off their feet from any house that refuses the gospel.¹⁵ We also know from Matthew 15:14 that Jesus tell his disciples to leave certain Pharisees for they are blind guides.¹⁶ Further, in the books of Acts we learn that Paul explains the gospel to the Jews but they revile him. In following Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 7:6, Paul shakes the dust from his clothing and leaves the Jews to bring the gospel to the Gentiles instead (Acts 18:5–7). Thus, Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 7:6 is confirmed in action.

Counterargument:

It is hard to see how the above examples are relevant to Matthew 7:6. In none of those instances does Jesus mention pearls, or what is holy, or dogs or pigs. Thus, we can only assume that these passages are examples of Jesus' principles in action. Of course, it is circular for us to assume that these passages are examples of Jesus’ principles in action, and then to use them to show that they confirm how to interpret Jesus’ principles.

Response to counterargument:

We are not using these passages to explain the meaning of Jesus' teachings in Matthew 7:6. Rather, we have built a cumulative case for how to interpret Matthew 7:6 through arguments 1) and 2) and we notice that this interpretation is confirmed by other passages. Thus, these examples of Jesus’ teaching in action are used to confirm our interpretation, not to inform it.

Possible weaknesses:

At first it is not clear that this saying from Jesus fits in with the context of Matthew 7:1–5. In some ways it sounds like an entirely new statement from Jesus that ought to be interpreted by its own accord. The fact is, Matthew does present Jesus’ sermon as mini themes so it is not always clear when Jesus begins a new thought, and when his teaching should be understood in light of what came before it. This is not to say that Matthew 7:6 is a later addition and should be interpreted outside the canon, but we should be careful to identify when a new theme is introduced and interpret passages accordingly.

Explanation:

Jesus tells the disciples that they are not to give what is holy to the dogs, nor their pearls to pigs. Our clue as to what Jesus means is found in the meaning of the phrase, what is holy. Things that are holy are things that belong to God. Thus, if something belongs to God, it should be given to him. Of course, giving what is holy to God is contrasted with giving what is holy to the dogs. The dogs are the antithesis of God. Where else do we find the antithesis to God? In Matthew 6:24, Jesus explains you cannot serve God and money. Thus, Matthew 7:6 has to do with dispersing our resources. Our resources are what is holy and valuable, and all our resources should be committed to God. Compared to God, everything else we spend our resources on is a dog or a pig.¹⁷

Counterargument:

This interpretation is hard to square for several reasons. First, while it is true that Jesus discusses money in Matthew 6:24, he has since moved on from that theme. For example, Matthew 7:1–5 is about not judging one’s brother, while Matthew 7:7–12 has to do with asking God for provision. Thus, we ought to interpret Matthew 7:6 in light of its immediate context, which is now far removed from the theme of money. Second, while Scripture does explain that our resources are from God and that we should use them to further God’s kingdom, nowhere does Scripture commit us to the notion that whenever we use our resources for something other than God’s kingdom it is like giving what is holy to dogs. The fact is that Christians are free to go on vacation, purchase scooters, or collect old books. God calls us to seek his kingdom first, and generously share our resources with joy. Still, we can use our money for pleasure too.

Third, it is arbitrary to suggest that giving what is holy to dogs is akin to giving our resources to anything other than God. Where does this correlation come from? Where in Scripture is what is holy equivalent to our resources? Or giving resources to anything other than God equivalent to giving to dogs? Unfortunately, this view is unable to substantiate itself.

Possible weaknesses:

The potential problem with this view is that it is not grounded on anything outside of itself. This means that while Jesus could use the metaphor of giving what is holy to dogs to explain that one should not give resources to anything other than God, there is no scriptural precedent for such a metaphor. In fact, there is no semantic precedent in the sense that what is holy is never equated with one’s resources, and there is no theological precedent in the sense that Christians are not restricted to only using their resources for God.

Explanation:

To understand what Jesus means we need to understand what holy things and pearls are used for. We know from Scripture that what is holy belonged to the priests and the Levites.¹⁸ Of course the Levites would never drop what is holy to unclean animals.¹⁹ We also know that pearls are meant to be worn around one’s neck.²⁰ So we can deduce that both what is holy and pearls are objects that one should keep to oneself.

Further, we know from Matthew 7:1–5 that Jesus tells his disciples not to judge others. Thus, what Jesus has in mind here is that the holy commands that Jesus offers his disciples should not be judgmentally applied to others but should be applied to oneself.²¹

Counterargument:

It is difficult to make sense of this interpretation. For one, it is not clear how what is holy and pearls could refer to Jesus’ commands. When we look at Matthew 7:1–5 for clues, we find Jesus telling his disciples not to judge, lest they be judged. There is nothing in Matthew 7:1–5 to suggest that Jesus has his commands in mind. Second, this interpretation of Jesus’ metaphor is laboured to the point of being nonsensical. We can draw this out by paraphrasing Matthew 7:6. Jesus says, Don’t give dogs what is holy or they will tear it to pieces. It is difficult to see how to square this with don’t judge others with Jesus’ commands. Jesus tells us not to give something to others, whereas this interpretation has to do with applying something to oneself. Further, the reason we should not give what is holy to others is that they will tear it to pieces. This interpretation fails to incorporate this aspect of Jesus’ teaching.