|
Post by michelle on Feb 8, 2007 20:49:49 GMT -8
12/05:
Ok, I'm a little confused by verse 6 "Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces." Is it just me or does this statement seem to come from left field? And what does it mean? I'm sure it's more than meets the eye, but I am thrown for a loop here.
|
|
hume
Advanced Member
Posts: 136
|
Post by hume on Feb 9, 2007 16:51:13 GMT -8
12/05:
Yeah, it is kind of jarring. I don't pretend to know what it means. I'll just comment that one reason it's surprising is that it does not seem to be connected to the previous verses -- it's like a sudden change of topic. But this whole passage, and other similar passages in the gospels, appears to be less a record of a single, unified "sermon" than a collection of sayings that people remembered from various occasions.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 9, 2007 16:51:57 GMT -8
12/05:
Yep- definitely, which is abundantly clear when you compare it to similar passages in Luke
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 9, 2007 16:52:34 GMT -8
12/05:
My commentary tries to make sense of it this way, which I think is actually kinda insightful: "The disciples, who have already been exhorted to love their enemies and not to judge, might fail to consider the subtleties of the arguments and become undiscerning simpletons. This verse guards against such a possibility."
This would be a warning to the disciples that the Gospel wasn't necessarily to be handed out in an undiscerning fashion: there were some who were not willing or ready to hear it and it would only bring disaster (and unnecessary persecution) to proclaim it without thought to the hearer.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 9, 2007 16:53:03 GMT -8
12/05:
St. Augustine (354-430 AD) says of this passage:
"Therefore we must be careful not to reveal anything to one who cannot bear it, for it is better that one make a search for what is concealed than assail or despise wahat is revealed. Indeed, it is only through hatred or contempt that people refuse to accept truths of manifest importance. Hence for one reason some are called dogs, and for the other reason some are called swine"
|
|
|
Post by nathaniel on Feb 9, 2007 16:56:17 GMT -8
12/05:
How do you think this plays out in our lives? I was thinking of a couple ways this may pertain to our lives. let me know if you think these are apt. I think there can be a tendency for Christians to bang people over the head w/ morality. and while it may be true that certain things, (e.g. pornography, homosexuality) are wrong, depending on who you're trying to tell it may do no good or even turn out badly. and in the end could put up a road block for the most important truth. another way i was thinking is in the way many try to introduce the gospel. The method of, "if ya got Jesus you go to heaven if ya don't ya go ta hell." While this may be true (and a little more complex), the person hearing it may not be ready for something like that.
While writing this, i considered if this is what happened to me when i was first introduced to Christ. For those who don't know: when i was about 10 or 11 i was told that if you except Jesus as your personal savior you go to heaven if you don't you go to hell. I don't know if i would classify myself as a dog or swine at that time, but i don't know if i was ready to hear that, like that. It seemed like an obvious choice, and probably scared the crap out of me, at the time, but for the next some odd years caused a lot of grief.
"Nate's way around"- Thanks for the insight, even if it's not totally a way around. i thought about it a little more and the narrow gate idea at least in our world seems pretty self evident. i just don't like how it makes it seem like it will always be like that. also, it's amazing how much relates to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, and how subtle it can be.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 9, 2007 16:57:05 GMT -8
12/05:
Wow- great thoughts on how we present our faith. I think you're on to something, although I guess the point is that everyone reacts differently to different presentations. But I think we should be careful not to just have one 'stock' approach to explaining our faith-- especially by starting with a morality diatribe.
Paul's speech to the Athenian philosophers (Acts 17) is a great example, I think. He barely touches on morality at all- he tells a story (in this case, the history of the universe from God's perspective). Elsewhere, most of the New Testament evangelistic speeches to the Gentiles are more about telling a story (like the story of the resurrection) than brow-beating.
The times I can think of where the disciples did hammer on morality where the speeches delivered to the Jews themselves, who already had a mostly accurate theology in place.
|
|
|
Post by michelle on Feb 9, 2007 16:58:32 GMT -8
12/05:
I totally agree with you Nate on the ways in which we present our faith. And Josh you have some valid point as well regarding not having only one way in which we present our faith. I think the most important thing is understanding who we are talking to. It's important to determine if the person is motivated by fear, reasoning, rhetoric, etc.
|
|
|
Post by sarah on Feb 9, 2007 16:59:48 GMT -8
12/05:
I guess I have always thought about this in reference to the receptiveness of your "audience". Being aware of where someone is at should affect what and how you share with someone. Is the person just looking for an argument and not receptive at all to truth? If so, then perhaps you should not spend a lot of time trying to convince and argue with them, just find a way to love and support them. I think a lot of people get caught up in trying to convince an unreceptive person. I think it is wiser to look for the Holy Spirit to open opportunities to speak into a person's life. Then your words are effective, but if you spend all your time throwing pearls to someone who is mostly just toying with you for their own amusement, you may miss the people who are actually looking for truth.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 9, 2007 17:00:52 GMT -8
2/4/06:
Ken Collins explains it this way:
"There is a difference between being a witness and creating a scene. If you create a scene, you will just add material to the comics on the cable channels and you will be transformed into a public buffoon. Instead of furthering the cause of Christ, you will actually set it back by bringing it into ridicule. They’ll tear you to pieces with their jokes after you leave the room. Therefore, keep your feet on the ground. Think not just about the message you are sending, but how it sounds to those who receive it. Remember, Paul preached in gentile terms to gentiles and in Jewish terms to Jews. You also must be mindful of your audience."
|
|
|
Post by nathaniel on Feb 9, 2007 17:04:35 GMT -8
12/05
"Do not give dogs..." i thought that was kind of random too especially cause it doesn't seem to tie into anything Jesus had just been talking about. my commentary says, "teaching should be given in accordance w/ the spiritual capacity of the learners." this commentary and the one josh has seem kind of mild for the language Jesus used. i mean come on, DOGS and PIGS, that's pretty harsh.
7:12 "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you..." my commentary says that this so-called Golden Rule was found in the negative form in rabbinic Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, etc. in the negative form, but Jesus stated it in positive form. what would the negative form be? don't do to others...
also, the "many through the broad gate, few through the narrow" passages have always kind of bugged me. it doesn't give much room for optimism. and from a purely numbers scale it kind of seems like God loses. i've always thought there might be/should be some well reasoned way around the most obvious way to take this: mucho en hell, pocito en heaven.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 9, 2007 17:05:03 GMT -8
12/05:
I think the reason for the extreme language is that the "dogs" and "pigs" would be people who would want to put them to death, and indeed, would put them to death: Jewish religious authorities and Roman officials. Yes, the negative of the golden rule was... "don't do unto others what you wouldn't have done to you"
I don't think you can get out of the "narrow gate" passage, myself. Of course few doesn't have to mean 1/100 or 1/50, it could be 1/3. But, ultimately, numbers aren't the best way to count success. Quality often trumps quantity. Hard things are the best things in many cases.
Over and over again Jesus stressed the difficulties in entering the kingdom: the difficulties being mainly our pride.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 9, 2007 17:05:38 GMT -8
12/05:
Nate, In thinking more about your comment:
I must say that again I do see the primary historical reference point for this passage in the destruction that will come on Jerusalem and the Temple system. This is reinforced by a couple of things: the destruction language (although vague) in v. 13, the mention of false prophets in v. 15 (which is seen as a sign that the destruction of Jerusalem is soon to come in Matt 24:11), the tree branches being cut and burned in v. 17-20(we've discussed the use of this metaphor in relation to AD 70 before), and then finally the house on the rock vs. the house of sand (v. 24-27) has echoes of Jerusalem's fall (it's collapse was great!). The house metaphor is primarily meant for the individual, but can be seen in terms of the entire nation. Remember, the Christians were saved from the destruction of Jerusalem.
So, all that to say: Jesus may be primarily saying that few of Israel will be saved before it's devastation within their lifetime. Remember, the prophet Zechariah prophesied that only 1/3 would survive the second destruction of Jerusalem.
Still, I think based on experience, that this few will be saved thing does continue to reflect a timeless truth. But maybe that depends on one's perspective, the time period in which we live, or the region of the world were we are.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 9, 2007 17:06:11 GMT -8
12/05:
The early Church father Origen seems to back up the notion that the primary context here is "few of Israel (in the flesh) will be saved" (i.e., his contemporary countrymen)
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 9, 2007 17:07:28 GMT -8
12/05:
9"Which of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? 10Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? 11If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him!
Passages like this can be hard for those who have had really awful 'father' experiences. Understanding God as a good father can be difficult. I recently read this, which some may find helpful:
"George MacDonald gave this advice to those for whom the positive image of "father" has been stained: 'You must interpret the word by all that you have missed in life'.
|
|