Matthew Chapter 7 verse 6 Holy Bible

Pulpit Commentary

Pulpit CommentaryVerse 6. - Matthew only. Give not that which is holy, etc. While you are not to be censorious towards brethren (vers. 1-5), you must recognize the great and fundamental differences that there are between men. You must not treat those who are mere dogs and swine as if they were able to appreciate either the holiness or the beauty and wealth of spiritual truth. Give Observe that "give," "cast," are naturally used of feeding dogs and swine respectively. That which is holy (τὸ ἅγιον). The metaphor is taken from the law that the things offered in sacrifice were no longer to be treated as common food (Leviticus 22:1-16, especially ver. 14, τὸ ἅγιον). Unto the dogs. The scavengers of Eastern cities, which by nature and habit love and greedily devour the most unholy of things (cf. Exodus 22:31). Neither cast ye your pearls, Pearls. Only here and Matthew 13:45, 46 in the Gospels. In form not so very unlike swine's food of beans or nuts, they here represent the beauty and precious wealth of the various parts of the Gospel, in which Christ's disciples are accustomed to delight (ὑμῶν). Ignatius ('Ephesians,' § 11) calls his bonds his "spiritual pearls." Before swine; before the swine (Revised Version). Probably in both cases the article is used with the object of bringing the particular dogs and swine to whom these are given more vividly before us. Swine. Which have no care for such things, but rather wallow in filth (2 Peter 2:22). Dogs... swine. The terms seem to so far indicate different classes of men, or more truly different characters in men, as that the one term points to the greedy participation of the wicked in open profanation, the ether to the sottish indifference of sinners to that which is most attractive. Lest they; i.e. the swine. Dogs, even though wild in the East, would not "tread down" the food. Trample them under their feet (Matthew 5:13). In ignorance of their real worth and in disappointment that they do not afford them satisfaction (For the future, καταπατήσουσιν, cf. Matthew 5:25, note.) It here expresses the greater certainty of the trampling than of the rending (aorist subjective). And turn again - Revised Version omits "again" - and rend you. In rage at the disappointment experienced. The clause expresses the personal enmity which those who wilfully reject the gospel often feel towards those that have offered it to them. It might be thought difficult to carry out this command, as it is evident that we cannot know beforehand who will accept the gospel or not. But in cases where the character of the person is not known (e.g. as when St. Paul preached at Athens, etc.), the command does not apply. Our Lord supposes the case where the character is apparent (cf. 1 Timothy 5:24). Theodoret (vide Resch, 'Agrapha,' pp. 103, 168), in quoting this verse, adds, "My mysteries are tot me and mine," which, clearly an adaptation of Symmachus and Theodotion's rendering of Isaiah 24:16, רזי לי (cf. also Targ. Jon.), seems to have become almost an authorized, and certainly a true, interpretation of our verse.

Ellicott's Commentary

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers(6) That which is holy.--The words point to the flesh which has been offered for sacrifice, the "holy thing" of Leviticus 22:6-7; Leviticus 22:10; Leviticus 22:16, of which no un clean person or stranger, and a fortiori no unclean beast, was to eat. To give that holy flesh to dogs would have seemed to the devout Israelite the greatest of all profanations. Our Lord teaches us that there is a like risk of desecration in dealing with the yet holier treasure of divine truth. Another aspect of the same warning is brought out in the second clause. The fashion of the time had made pearls the costliest of all jewels, as in the parable of Matthew 13:45 (comp. also 1Timothy 2:9), and so they too became symbols of the preciousness of truth. The "dogs" and the "swine," in their turn, represent distinct forms of evil, the former being here, as in Philippians 3:2, Revelation 22:15, the type of impurity, the latter (as in Psalm 80:13) of ferocity. The second comparison may possibly imply, as in a condensed fable, the disappointment and consequent rage of the swine at finding that what they took for grain was only pearls. We are to beware lest we so present the truth, either in direct teaching or by an undiscerning disclosure of the deeper religious emotions of the soul, to men, that we make them worse and not better than before. . . .