Dogs and Swine

DMLJ: There is not a single statement in Scripture that gives a more awful picture of the devastating effect of sin upon man as this verse.

Studies in the Sermon on the Mount, by D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones

Jesus Christ: His Life and Teaching, Vol.2 - The Sermon on the Mount, Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev

MHA: We have come to a passage whose exact meaning has remained a mystery for many centuries:

Matthew 7: 6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

Immediately preceding this, the Lord spent significant effort in cautioning us about judging others – more specifically, as we have seen, cautioning about the spirit by which we judge and the conclusions we draw when judging.

He follows this with a statement that seems to be almost the opposite.  Instead, He is making clear that the preceding was not the entire teaching on the matter.  Had He left it there, we would be left with a false picture, one that would exclude discrimination and proper judgement.

DMLJ: There would be no such thing as discipline in the Church, and the whole of Christian life would be chaotic.  There would be no such thing as exposing heresy and pronouncing judgement with regard to it.

What is meant by the key terms in this verse: swine, dogs, holy things, and pearls?  Metropolitan Hilarion looks to the Old Testament to offer an understanding of these.

MHA: Swine are considered an unclean animal in the Jewish tradition…Dogs were also considered unclean and despised…the dogs that were mentioned referred to feral dogs that were ready to pounce on people…

The term “holy things” …was used especially with reference to sacrificial meat…as well as other objects offered to God…Pearls were perceived…as a symbol of the most valuable thing a person could possess. 

Very early in the Church, in the Didache, the “holy thing” was understood to be the Eucharist.  Athanasius the Great and John Chrysostom would write accordingly.  Cyril of Jerusalem would speak of the Eucharist to catechumens only after they received baptism.  The idea of closing the doors at the beginning of the Eucharist, still the practice in the Orthodox Church, was a method of protecting this “holy thing.” 

Lloyd-Jones see the “holy thing” as the Christian message, the very thing that Jesus is preaching on in this Sermon.  With respect to this truth, Jesus is separating out some people as dogs and swine.  However, this cannot mean that we do not preach; we are commanded to go out to the nations.

The different lenses between Orthodox and Protestant can be seen vividly in this different understanding of the “holy things.”  In an Orthodox liturgy, the Eucharist is the object; in a Protestant service, the sermon (the Christian message) is the focal point.

In the early Church, “swine” and “dogs” were understood to refer to various kinds of false prophets, heretics, and apostates.  The apostle Peter wrote of this: when referring to false prophets, he cited a proverb where the dog returns to his vomit and the washed sow returns to wallowing in the mire.

MHA: Athanasius the Great said that one must not open the mysteries of the faith to such people, lest they “turn and tear you apart, having produced schisms and heresies.” Gregory the Theologian used both images of dogs and swine, [referring] to persons who alter the true doctrine….

As noted in the opening paragraph, this verse makes clear the devastating nature of sin.  It has given man an antagonism to the truth.  Sin makes man hate God, and hate one another. 

Lloyd-Jones is examining this verse through the lens of Jesus’s own actions.  He spoke to different people differently; He did not speak to the self-righteous the way He did when confronting common sinners.

DMLJ: When examined by Pilate, our Lord answered; but when He was questioned by Herod, who should have known better, and who just had a morbid, unhealthy curiosity and was looking for signs and wonders, He answered him nothing.  He just would not speak to him.

The apostle Paul stopped preaching to the Jews and instead went to the Gentiles.  In other words, he discriminated one from the other.  He concluded what would be beneficial for his work. 

We must also be careful as to how we present the truth.  Starting a conversation with “Are you saved?” may not always be the best strategy.  We must know which aspect of the truth is appropriate for the audience to whom we are speaking.  Are we with an audience that requires milk, or are we with one that will benefit from meat? 

Conclusion

Gregory of Nazianzus would write that talking about God should be done “not before every audience, nor at all times, nor on all points; but on certain occasions, and before certain persons, and within certain limits.”

MHA: In our time this saying of Jesus is usually understood as a call not to share what is holy and dear to us with people who are unable to appreciate it in the proper way.

This is how I understand the verse.  There are times when it is clear that the soil is not ready or willing to hear such a message or have such a discussion.  There are times when the hatred is so strong that to continue is not only pointless and futile, but dangerous with no good outcome worth the risk and antagonism. 

There are times when continuing to push the message only increases the antagonism toward it, more firmly closing the door.