Sorry, I don’t quite understand what you’re saying here.People who’ve experienced the gift of faith claim to possess a treasure-but one that others may ridicule them about. It’s an intimate connection-which might be very strong or barely holding on- with themselves, with their own very God-created nature that the world deems too innocent for serious consideration, and through this nature to God Himself. The world just doesn’t like having her values rejected.
Neither do I.Sorry, I don’t quite understand what you’re saying here.
But I still don’t know why he would say that. In the Gospel of Matthew, this saying is sandwiched between two of the most profound statements Jesus makes: “Judge not lest ye be judged” and “Do unto others as you would have them do to you.”Neither do I.
Jesus was Jewish, and he spoke like a Jew. I don’t think he meant to imply that any human being was less than human, because Jesus was also the God who made all men in his image. I think he was just using a common colloqialism of the time.
OK, so any idea what the colloquialism might mean? Many have had the experience of witnessing to their faith-something quite valuable to them- only to have it stomped on-not that it’s unexpected, Catholicism is denigrated all the time.Neither do I.
Jesus was Jewish, and he spoke like a Jew. I don’t think he meant to imply that any human being was less than human, because Jesus was also the God who made all men in his image. I think he was just using a common colloqialism of the time.
Gentiles were considered “unclean”. Jews were not supposed to eat with them or go into their houses. So that is why were the Jews not supposed to give what is holy to the Gentiles.But I still don’t know why he would say that. In the Gospel of Matthew, this saying is sandwiched between two of the most profound statements Jesus makes: “Judge not lest ye be judged” and “Do unto others as you would have them do to you.”
Using a common derogatory (and possibly racist) term in this way seems offensive and arrogant. Why were the Jews not supposed to give what is holy to the Gentiles?
I’m sure it loses something in the translation. In the 70’s pretty girls were called “foxes”. Its just a culteral thing.OK, so any idea what the colloquialism might mean?
Okay, I get what you’re saying. So what is the lesson that Jesus is teaching? Are we not supposed to be a witness to our faith around people that might stomp on it?OK, so any idea what the colloquialism might mean? Many have had the experience of witnessing to their faith-something quite valuable to them- only to have it stomped on-not that it’s unexpected, Catholicism is denigrated all the time.
No, I’m not saying that Jesus was judging them. It just seems really out of place and offensive. It would be like somebody explaining the importance of Catholic virtues, and then in the middle of the speech throwing in “Remember, you shouldn’t give the Eucharist to fags.”Gentiles were considered “unclean”. Jews were not supposed to eat with them or go into their houses. So that is why were the Jews not supposed to give what is holy to the Gentiles.
In using this term, Jesus did not “judge” the Gentiles, nor did he do anything bad to them. Prior to his establishment of the New Covenant through his death and resurrection, Jesus was obedient to the Law of Moses. I think that’s really all there is to it.
I don’t know that he’s necessarily talking about Gentiles here. Jesus used even worse terms than “dogs” for describing the Pharisees and in the same chapter He’s teaching on Pharisees as well as false prophets. And yet Pharisees, for one, being learned in the law while lacking real love for God would probably make mincemeat out of a common believer in Christ if the believer dared discuss his faith with him. Also, in various places in the gospel and letters people of weak faith are.brought up as those who might be swayed to lose their faith. Just some thoughts.Okay, I get what you’re saying. So what is the lesson that Jesus is teaching? Are we not supposed to be a witness to our faith around people that might stomp on it?
My PERSONAL opinion is that people are too easily offended these days. We live in a culture today where people want to sue you for any perceived slight. Perhaps your reaction to this verse is more a result of the overly-sensitive culture we live in than the actual text itself.No, I’m not saying that Jesus was judging them. It just seems really out of place and offensive. It would be like somebody explaining the importance of Catholic virtues, and then in the middle of the speech throwing in “Remember, you shouldn’t give the Eucharist to fags.”
No, no, we should not inject modern-day 21st century Western sensibilities on a 1st-century Jewish context. That’s what causes many a grieviance when reading Scripture. Just as Catholicc already said, a lot of people are too easily offended these days. Note that stereotypes, prejudices and xenophobia are rampant in the ancient world - they simply never had “political correctness” yet (a modern 20th-21st century idea). You can say that so-and-so are a bunch of say, drunk immoral hillbillies and chances are, you’ll have everyone agreeing with you - sometimes including the targeted group itself!But I still don’t know why he would say that. In the Gospel of Matthew, this saying is sandwiched between two of the most profound statements Jesus makes: “Judge not lest ye be judged” and “Do unto others as you would have them do to you.”
Using a common derogatory (and possibly racist) term in this way seems offensive and arrogant. Why were the Jews not supposed to give what is holy to the Gentiles?
D-R Bible, Haydock Commentary:“Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.” (Matthew 7:6)
Dog was a derogatory term to refer to the Gentiles. So why does Jesus say this, and what exactly does he mean?
Interesting interpretation. Thanks.No, no, we should not inject modern-day 21st century Western sensibilities on a 1st-century Jewish context. That’s what causes many a grieviance when reading Scripture. Just as Catholicc already said, a lot of people are too easily offended these days. Note that stereotypes, prejudices and xenophobia are rampant in the ancient world - they simply never had “political correctness” yet (a modern 20th-21st century idea). You can say that so-and-so are a bunch of say, drunk immoral hillbillies and chances are, you’ll have everyone agreeing with you - sometimes including the targeted group itself!
While “dogs” are used to refer to the goyim (but not as often as many would have you believe), in this context who these are are ambiguous - just as what the “holy things” are: the Romans, unbelievers, heretics, and unprofessing Christians have all been suggested.
There have already been a lot of suggestions as to what purpose this saying serves: a statement to counterbalance “do not judge” (with the point that not judging can be taken too far); an extension and generalisation of verses 1-5 making the point that stupid acts (such as judging others) bring God’s judgment on oneself; a sarcastic restatement of vv. 3-5 (i.e. ‘your pearls of helpful criticism are not going to be appreciated’); a relaying of a (Pharisaical?) proverb expressing a restrictive view only in order to overturn it on the basis of the (to-be-imitated) pattern of God’s generosity as laid out in verses 7-11 to follow; or a restriction to be imposed on vv. 7- 1 1 (good things do not come to ‘dogs’ or ‘pigs’).
Here is the whole passage in question:
1: "Do not judge so that you will not be judged.
2: For by the standard you judge you will be judged, and by the measure with which you measure it will be measured to you.
3: And why do you see the twig in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the beam of wood in your own eye?
4: Or how will you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove the twig from your eye;’ and behold, a beam is in your own eye?
5: Hypocrite! First remove the beam from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the twig from your brother’s eye.
6: "Do not give what is holy to dogs or cast your pearls before pigs; lest they trample them under their feet and turn around and tear you to pieces.
7: “Ask and it will be given you; seek and you will find; knock and it will be opened to you.
8: For all who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened.
9: Or what man is there among you who, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone?
10: Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake?
11: If you then, although you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good things to those who ask Him!
12: Therefore in everything, whatever you want men to do to you do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.”
“What is holy” could refer to various things but within the imagery emerging its natural reference is to sacrificial meat intended for the temple. This would at one and the same time be highly desirable from the point of view of the “dogs” (who are most likely scavenging wild dogs), but a profanation of all religious sensibilities. “What is holy” and “pearls” are obviously both inappropriate as food, but for quite different reasons: dogs get rubbish, while “what is holy” belongs to God; pearls may be very fine for other uses, but they are quite useless as swine food.