Throwing Your Margaritas to the
Pigs:
A Rhetorical Reading of Matt. 7:6
Lorin L. Cranford
“Do not give what is holy to dogs;
and do not throw your pearls before
swine,
or they will trample them under foot
and turn and maul you.” (NRSV)[1]
This
aphorism is one of the more intriguing sayings in Matthew’s version of the
Sermon on the Mount. Its surface level meaning is clear, but its deeper
spiritual significance has puzzled Bible students for centuries – and continues
to do so even today.[2]
A major interpretative challenge surfaces in regard to the literary context.
Often 7:6 is taken with 7:1-5 as a single logion. The difficulty here is the
seeming contradiction between the two segments: verses 1-5 stress reaching out
in redemptive actions to others in need, but verse 6 issues a warning against
reaching out. Yet, if the logion is
taken as an independent saying -- detached from the immediate context -- the
difficulty of establishing meaning is multiplied manifold. The result is a
frequent conclusion that no clear meaning can be attached to the pericope.[3]
My
proposal argues that a literary context is present but is to be seen from the
larger literary structure of the sermon itself. Attempts to link this pericope
with either 7:1-5 or 7:7-11 as keys for determining meaning are inadequate and
misleading. But when the larger structural context is appropriately considered,
this expanded context provides essential links that help provide meaning to the
aphorism.
First, the contextual signals provide parameters for determining this deeper meaning. Then the surface level meaning of the pericope needs to be established, since any perceived deeper meaning of the saying must grow naturally and logically out of the surface level meaning, whose parameters are then defined by the context.
The
initial signal of literary context comes from the proposal of Gunther Bornkamm
in his article “Der Aufbau der Bergpredigt.”[4]
This suggestion has been a seedbed for proposals over the past several decades.[5]
The structural flow of 5:1-6:18 has been understood relatively uniformly by
scholars. Its layout is rather clear from the signals inserted in the text by
the gospel writer. But huge disparity over the internal organization and the
contextual connection to 5:1-6:18 exists regarding 6:19-7:12. Here modern
scholars typically take very divergent paths in their exegesis.[6]
Most problematic in this section is 7:6.
My
proposal understands the structure along the following lines. [7]
Narrative Setting:
5:1-2[8]
Beatitudes (Sermon
Introduction): 5:3-12
Mission
(relational emphasis): 5:13-16
Contrast
with the old (6 contrasts): 5:17-48)
The
Law (introduction to 5:17-48): 5:17-20
Anger (‘antithesis 1’): 5:21-26
Adultery (‘antithesis 2’): 5:27-30
Divorce (‘antithesis 3’): 5:31-32
Oaths (‘antithesis 4’): 5:33-37
Retaliation
(‘antithesis 5’): 5:38-42
Loving Enemies (‘antithesis 6’):
5:43-47
Perfection
(climatic): 5:48
Practicing
piety (3 models): 6:1-18
Foundations:
6:1
Almsgiving
(6:2-4)
Praying
(6:5-15)[9]
Fasting
(6:16-18)
Living out one’s prayers (6 obligations):
6:19-7:11
Treasure
in Heaven (6:19-21, =6:9b)
Light of the Body (6:22-23, =6:10a)
God and Mammon (6:24, 6:10b)
Anxiety (6:25-34, =6:11)
Judging (7:1-5, =6:12)
Pearls (7:6, =6:13)
Pray (climatic): 7:7-11
Golden Rule (relational): 7:12
Calls
to Decision (Sermon Conclusion): 7:13-27
Narrative Climax:
7:28-29
Thus,
when one considers the Pearl pericope in 7:6, the context becomes clear, as
well as its connection to the immediately preceding and subsequent
pericopes. The disciple is to live out
his/her prayer life in a series of attitudes and actions that both reinforce
the prayer petitions and flow as natural consequences of these petitions. In
this way, a healthy spiritual relationship is nourished with the Heavenly
Father and productive relationships with others is fostered.
A
quick synopsis of these six petitions with their prerequisite stances will
further define the context of 7:6.
In
Mt. 6:9b, disciples are taught to pray, “Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your
name” (NRSV).[10] Thus Jesus’
followers are to follow the traditional Jewish reverencing of the sacred name
as a reflection of their sense of awe and respect of the Heavenly Father. The
amplification of this comes in 6:19-21, “19 Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth,
where moth and rust consume and where thieves break in and steal; 20 but store up for
yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust consumes and where
thieves do not break in and steal. 21 For
where your treasure is, there your heart will be also” (NRSV). For a disciple
to show proper reverence toward God, his/her priorities must be in correct
order. What dominates the inner self will either flow naturally into outward
expressions of respect for God as supreme authority, or else will undermine and
turn into hypocrisy prayer expressions of reverence.
In
Mt. 6:10a comes the admonition to pray, “Your kingdom come” (NRSV).[11]
The heart’s desire of the disciple should be
that God would be able to rule supremely in this world. His/her prayers should
express this passionately. But for those prayers to have legitimacy the
disciple must not set up barriers to God’s rule as 6:22-23 admonishes, “22 The
eye is the lamp of the body. So, if your eye is healthy, your whole body will
be full of light; 23 but if your eye is unhealthy, your whole body will be
full of darkness. If then the light in you is darkness, how great is the darkness!”
(NRSV). When we adopt attitudes etc. that obstruct the light of God from
penetrating into the deepest part of our lives, any declaration wishing for
God’s rule becomes hypocritical and borders on blasphemy. Only the posture of
submission to God’s authority that flows from deep within us can validate our
petition for the coming of God’s rule.
In
Mt. 6:10b comes the third prayer petition: “Your will be done, on earth as it
is in heaven” (NRSV).[12]
This petition completes the triadic emphasis upon the vertical dimension of the
disciples’ relationship with the Heavenly Father with the expression of
complete submission to and desire for the perfecting of the Heavenly Father’s
will in this world. The amplification in 6:24 succinctly sums up the necessary
commitment that must be foundational to this petition for the Father’s will:
“No man is able to be a servant to two masters: for he will have hate for the
one and love for the other, or he will keep to one and have no respect for the
other. You may not be servants of God and of wealth” (NRSV). If our prayers
that God’s leadership be perfected on earth are to have any legitimacy, then we
have to come to grips with who our real master is, God or mammon. If God, then
our petition has validity; if mammon, then such petitions are hypocrisy.
In
Mt. 6:11 we are taught to pray, “Give us this day our daily bread” (NRSV).[13]
The second triad of petitions (vv. 11-13) shift to the so-called horizontal
relationships aspect. They follow a cycle of relationship to material things
(4th petition); to people (5th petition); to the Evil One (6th petition).
With
this fourth admonition to ask God to take care of our basic physical needs,
comes the largest amplification in 6:25-34 admonishing the disciple to resist
the inclination to disabling worry over basic physical needs of food and
clothing: “25 Therefore
I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or what you will
drink, or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food, and
the body more than clothing? 26 Look
at the birds of the air; they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and
yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they? 27 And can any of you by
worrying add a single hour to your span of life? 28 And why do you worry about clothing? Consider the
lilies of the field, how they grow; they neither toil nor spin, 29 yet I tell you, even
Solomon in all his glory was not clothed like one of these. 30 But if God so clothes the
grass of the field, which is alive today and tomorrow is thrown into the oven,
will he not much more clothe you — you of little faith? 31 Therefore do not worry,
saying, ‘What will we eat?' or ‘What will we drink?' or ‘What will we wear?' 32 For it is the Gentiles who
strive for all these things; and indeed your heavenly Father knows that you
need all these things. 33 But
strive first for the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things
will be given to you as well. 34 So
do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will bring worries of its own.
Today's trouble is enough for today” (NRSV).
The connection between prayer and the necessary stance toward the
material is clear. Any request to the Heavenly Father to take care of our basic
needs without a corresponding confidence in His ability to do is more than
hypocrisy. Such lack of trust in God turns our request into worthless talk with
a high degree of repugnancy.
In
Mt. 6:12 comes the admonition “And forgive us our debts, as we also have
forgiven our debtors” (NRSV).[14]
Proper relationships with people around us are vital to the spiritual health
Jesus advocated. We are to ask for God’s help in establishing productive,
non-destructive relationships. These relationships are so important that the
petition acknowledges that they are closely linked to our relationship with the
Heavenly Father. The key connection is forgiveness of others who have acted in
improper ways toward us. Our request for divine forgiveness is then made
conditional on our spirit and actions of forgiveness toward people who have
wronged us.[15] What plays
a vital role then in our ability to forgive others? The amplification in 7:1-5
lays out the issue very dramatically: “1 Be not judges of others, and you will not be judged. 2 For as you have been
judging, so you will be judged, and with your measure will it be measured to
you. 3 And why do
you take note of the grain of dust in your brother's eye, but take no note of
the bit of wood which is in your eye? 4 Or how will you say to your brother, Let me take out
the grain of dust from your eye, when you yourself have a bit of wood in your
eye? 5 You false
one, first take out the bit of wood from your eye, then will you see clearly to
take out the grain of dust from your brother's eye.” (NRSV) Nothing will hinder the ability to forgive
more than a spiritual elitism that positions the disciple in an attitude of
superiority toward others. Forgiveness in such an attitude becomes a repugnant
expression of pity toward the offending person, and takes on the tones of the
Pharisee’s prayer “God, I thank you that I am not like other people: thieves,
rogues, adulterers, or even like this tax collector” (Lk 18:11, NRSV), which
Jesus condemned. Authentic forgiveness of others must stem from a spirit of
humility and sensitivity to the potential destructiveness of sin that motivates
us to reach out to others in redemptive actions. Only in this posture can we
truly be able to forgive others.
This
brings us to the sixth petition of the model prayer (Mt. 6:19): “And do not
bring us to the time of trial, but rescue us from the evil one” (NRSV).[16] The amplification then comes in 7:6, “Do not
give what is holy to dogs; and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they
will trample them under foot and turn and maul you” (NRSV). Before exploring in
detail the possible connection between these two pericopes, more attention
needs to be given to the aphorism in 7:6 itself.
When
the aphorism of 7:6 is first read, its surface meaning comes through relatively
clear. The rhetorical structure is synonymous parallelism, and can be set up in
translation as follows:
Do not give what is holy
to dogs,
neither
Throw your pearls to the
swine,
lest they trample them
under foot
and
having
turned
they tear you
apart.
The two admonitions are cast as prohibitions and make the same essential point: valuable items should not be given to dumb animals who cannot appreciate their value. The aphorism plays off unfilled expectation in that these animals are expecting food and instead receive something else, which in turn creates anger that is then focused on the ones doing the feeding. The rather obvious assumption here is that the person doing the feeding of these animals would be sufficiently smart to avoid making such a dumb mistake that could jeopardize his own life.
Simple
enough. But obviously the point of this saying is not about wise feeding of
dumb animals. The surface level meaning points to a spiritual principle of some
sort. This is where uncertainty and diversity of views quickly surface. Sorting
this out to make a case for an interpretative understanding requires
consideration of both the use of these ideas at a figurative level of meaning
in the ancient world, and of the literary context of this saying.
First, an
exploration of the key ideas in their ancient historical context. In the first
admonition is the expression to; a&gion which is variously translated as
“what is holy” (RSV, NRSV, NASB, NKJV, NLT, TEV, LB, HCSB, NJB); “holy things” (NCB,); “that which is holy”
(KJV, ASV, BBE, Douay-Rheims, Wey); “what is sacred” (NIV); “sanctum” (Vlg); “qui est sacré”
(La Bible de Jérusalem); “les choses saintes” (Segmond); “das Heilige” (Luther,
Elberfelder, Jer Bibel); “heilige Dinge” (Gute Nachricht).
The term is
commonly taken to refer to sacrificed meat in the Jerusalem temple.[17]
To give such meat, now consecrated, to dogs was wrong. If the reference is
limited to sacrifical meat, -- and also if the frequent contention of this
saying being set up in chiastic fashion is accurate[18]
-- then the logic of the picture doesn’t hold true. The analogy builds off the
premise that the dogs expect to get something to eat, and when what is given
isn’t eatable, they turn on the one feeding them. But meat, even though sacred
from the human standpoint, would appear as meat to the dog and thus something
desirable. The sacred meat understanding only works if the chiasm is not
present and the attacking response is limited to the pigs. But the intensity of
the first core statement is blunted in the resulting meaning of a prohibition
against giving sacred meat to unholy dogs. If the designation of ‘what is holy’
is understood more broadly, especially in non-food terms, then the logic of the
prohibition – along with the chiastic structure view – holds true to the logic
of the picture.
Although OT
references such as Exod. 29:33-34 clearly define sacrificial meat as holy and
to be eaten only by priests with the non-eaten and non-sacrificed parts to be
destroyed by fire, other sacrificial items, such as various grains (Lev.
2:1-16; 22:1-16), could be offered. These items would not have been appealing
as food to semi-wild dogs. To be sure legal codes did provide for throwing
‘mangled meat’ to the dogs, meat that otherwise could have been used for
sacrifice.[19] Thus the
ancient temple sacrificial guidelines provide a basis for understanding ‘what
is holy’ as a more inclusive designation beyond just sacrificial meat.
The term toi'ß kusivn is universally translated as ‘dogs.’[20]
Although domesticated dogs were sometimes found as pets in first century Jewish
homes, these animals were generally detested.[21]
In all likelihood, the ‘dogs’ alluded to here were the somewhat wild mongrels
which roamed the streets of Palestinian villages and towns.[22]
In basic terms, dogs often symbolized the bad and the dumb[23];
thus comparison to a dog was insulting and dishonoring.[24]
They typified the unholy.[25]
At the beginning of the Christian era, Rabbi Aqiba named his two dogs Rufus and
Rufina “because the Gentiles are like dogs in their manner of life.”[26]
The association of Gentiles with dogs shows up in the teachings of Jesus in
Matt. 15:26-27 (//Mk. 7:28-29),[27]
although in general "they [dogs] did not refer to distinct classes of men
but to all men of all classes who set themselves in opposition to the
Gospel."[28] Thus Paul
could say in Phil. 3:2 (NRSV), "Beware of the
dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of those who mutilate the flesh!"
when referring to individuals he considered in opposition to the apostolic
preaching of the gospel message.
This
understanding of the symbolism of the dogs led to associating dogs with
heretics in post-apostolic traditions. Ignatius in Ephesians 7:1 declared,
"there are some who make a practice of carrying about the Name with wicked
guile, and do certain other things unworthy of God; these you must shun as wild
beasts, for they are ravening dogs, who bite secretly, and you must be upon
your guard against them, for they are scarcely to be cured."[29]
In the Didache (9:5), Matt. 7:6 is explicitly cited as a basis for refusing the
Eucharist to the unbaptized.[30]
The Gospel of Thomas (logion 93) applies Matt. 7:6 to instruction of disciples
with the declaration, "Don't give what is holy to dogs, for they might
throw them upon the manure pile. Don't throw pearls [to] pigs, or they might…it
[…]."[31] Thus, the
symbolism of dogs as representing the unclean and unholy was continued in early
Christian teaching with much the same meaning that it had in Jewish tradition;
it was just applied to different situations.
The
viciousness of dogs, along with their veracious appetite, played an important
role in their symbolic value. In the use here in Matt. 7:6, this background
significance is certainly present in the saying. The 'holy thing' that
triggered the dogs' vicious response on the feeder did not satisfy their
appetite either because the dogs didn't consider it eatable or because it was
of too little quantity.
In the second
strophe of the Matt. 7:6 saying, the 'holy thing' now becomes the 'pearl.'[32]
This very costly precious stone in the ancient world typically symbolized
something of great value that was to be prized.[33]
One cannot be certain whether the Hebrew Bible uses the term for pearl. tAma.r in Job 28:18 (especially), Ezek.
27:16 and Prov. 24:7 has sometimes been translated as 'pearl' but the LXX never
uses margarivth" to translate it.[34]
Thus, the Jewish background of usage comes from the non-canonical literature.
Frequently a pearl was the point of comparison for an especially important
saying, particularly in Jewish preaching where the stringing together of
passages from the Torah could be called strings of pearls.[35]
The eight uses in the New Testament range from the literal pearl as an
expensive item of dress (1 Tim. 2:9; Rev. 17:4; 18:12, 16), to a simile for the
Kingdom of Heaven (Matt. 13:45-46), to a picture of the twelve gates of the New
Jerusalem made of pearls (Rev. 21:21). Uniformly through these various uses is
the idea of value and costliness, demonstrating the continuation of figurative
meaning for pearl found in the preceding Jewish usage. Thus in Matt. 7:6 that
same idea of value stands at the heart of whatever symbolic meaning it may have.
One important
rhetorical consideration needs to be examined here. What is the relationship
between 'what is holy' and 'pearls'? Sometimes over the interpretative history
of this passage this issue has led to the assumption that the 'what is holy' represents
a mistranslation of the Aramaic original, which should have been translated
into Greek with the English meaning 'the ring.' This, because of a perceived
incongruity between 'what is holy' and 'pearl.'[36]
The proposal of incongruity has never attracted much acceptance, but it does
raise an important point about the connection between these parallel elements.
The first element clearly is symbolic of something with religious connections,
while the second element does not inherently contain the religious connection.
Its value is self-evident as a precious stone. This raises the point of the
nature of the parallelism: (A) what is holy – dogs; (B) pearls – pigs. The use of pearls in the second strophe may
possibly suggest sometime more than synonymous parallelism, as is commonly
assumed. This can be fully explored once all four key elements in the two
strophes are analyzed.
The fourth key
element in this logion is the word tw'n coivrwn translated as 'swine' or 'pigs.'[37]
That pigs were unclean animals in the ancient Jewish tradition is well
established.[38] Pigs were
forbidden animals for eating (Lev. 11:7; Deut. 14:8).[39] It could symbolize destructiveness (Psalm
80:13). To be forced to eat swine was to face horrible religious pollution as
is seen in 2 Macc. 6:18-20 (NRSV): "Eleazar, one of the scribes in high
position, a man now advanced in age and of noble presence, was being forced to
open his mouth to eat swine's flesh. But he, welcoming death with honor rather
than life with pollution, went up to the rack of his own accord, spitting out
the flesh, as all ought to go who have the courage to refuse things that it is
not right to taste, even for the natural love of life."[40]
This strongly negative view stood in contrast to positive views toward swine
often found in other ancient Semitic and the Greco-Roman cultures. These
animals were frequently eaten, and used as sacred animals for sacrifice. The
New Testament continues the strongly negative attitude toward swine where all
but one of the references focus on the healing of the demoniac with the command
by Jesus that the swine rush into the sea where they drowned (Matt. 8:28-34;
Mk. 5:1-20; Lk. 8:22-39). Thus, the usage in Matt. 7:6 obviously plays off the
very negative view of pigs as unclean animals with which no contact was
allowed. The point of the symbol is important. Was it a religious image? Was it
merely a negative, repulsive image without necessary religious overtones? The
interpretative history goes in various directions.
In coming back
to the issue of the parallelism between the two strophes in the logion, I'm
inclined to see these as essentially synonymous expressions, thus making the
one essential point of wise use of things precious. To be sure, a point might
be made for the second strophe (pearls – pigs) extending the idea of the first
strophe (holy things – dogs) to a broader, less religiously connected point.
But the religious associations with both 'holy things' and 'pigs' seem to serve
as inclusia bracketing the two strophes together in an essentially synonymous
structure.
The issue of
the chiasm also needs consideration. The issue revolves around whether the
expression "they will trample them under foot" refers to either dogs
or swine. If the chiastic structure ABB'A' is correct, then the dogs do the
trampling under foot and the swine turn and maul. If the chiasm is not present
here, then the swine both trample under foot and then turn and maul the one
feeding them. The majority of Bible translators follow the non-chiastic pattern,[41]
while many commentators adopt the chiastic understanding.[42]
The essential thrust of the logion remains the same in either understanding of
the literary structure. The dependent clause (mhvpote…) statement, whether describing the activity of both dogs and pigs, or
just pigs, defines destructive actions that confirm the lack of wisdom in
giving the holy things/pearls to these animals.
Thus at the
surface level, the logion appears simple. Some things in life are very precious
and valuable. That value may very likely have a religious basis. Therefore be
wise and don't waste what is precious. To waste is to throw it away in
destructive spheres that can come back to inflict destruction on you.
The ultimate
question about Matt. 7:6 is 'What does it mean?" This, in terms of the religious
significance of this logion historically and currently. Typically the religious
meaning of the logion is based on perceived associations first with the two
animals and then with the two objects as food. Both dogs and pigs occasionally
had association with Gentiles in the ancient Jewish world, as explained in the
preceding section. Luz in the EKK
reflects the most basic view that these are metaphors for Gentiles while 'what
is holy' is the Law and the 'pearls' signify its interpretation.[43]
This is based on the assumption of the logion being directed to a Jewish Christian
community. The Christian layer of meaning then is directed to apostates. Luz
suggests this as a possibility, although he is not certain what the aphorism
really means in its Matthean context.
To be certain,
although the association of dogs and pigs with Gentiles does show up in ancient
Jewish sources, most of these are later rabbinic sources and represent only one
small part of the associations of these animals, as demonstrated above. More
basic is the essentially negative image of these animals in figurative
expression; they could easily suggest anything improper or immoral. The later
association of dogs and pigs with Christian apostates in Didache 9:5[44]
-- as a basis for refusing to serve them the Eucharist because of this logion
-- represents more of a proof-texting treatment of the Matthean gospel in order
to justify pre-conceived bias, than it signals serious interpretative effort at
understanding what Matt. 7:6 was trying to communicate. An earlier Christian declaration may
possibly set the stage for such an interpretation in 2 Pet. 2:21-22 (NRSV):
"For it would have been better for them never to
have known the way of righteousness than, after knowing it, to turn back from
the holy commandment that was passed on to them. It has happened to them
according to the true proverb, 'The dog turns back to its own vomit,' and, 'The
sow is washed only to wallow in the mud.'"
Yet,
barriers to this connection exist. The association of 2 Peter 2 and Matthew 7
are at best very tenuous because the two aphorisms are used very differently
from each other. This connection becomes feasible only when the Matthean logion
is assumed to have no context in its present location in the gospel. Either
context of 7:1-5 or of 6:13 renders this association virtually impossible. In
the history of interpretation, the religious meaning of 'what is holy' and
'pearls' ranges from the Jewish Torah to the Eucharist to the gospel, and has
been closely linked to the perceived connection of dogs and pigs. In general,
these items have been interpreted as referring to 'something' distinct and
separate from believers themselves.
In
a detached setting the saying becomes virtually incomprehensible, and almost
any preconceived meaning can be attached to it. The assumption of contextal
links, then, becomes essential for making religious sense of the logion, but
which context?
The
arguments for the contextual link to 7:1-5 appear strained.[45]
The preceding pericope of 7:1-5 is focused on reclaiming for the kingdom the
Christian brother who is in trouble spiritually. In its connection to 6:12,
these admonitions in 7:1-5 focus on the issue of authentic forgiveness in
Christian relations inside the community of faith. To view 7:6 then as imposing
restrictions on who should be brought into the community of faith seems
disjointed and unnatural.
A
better understanding is possible. When the full impact of the larger contextual
understanding proposed above is taken into consideration, a viable alternative
view becomes possible. The prayer petition in 6:13 (NRSV), "And do not
bring us to the time of trial, but rescue us from the evil one," clearly
encourages seeking the help of the Heavenly Father in dealing with the evil
one. But what can undermine that
credibility of that request? Lack of discernment about the sacred can negate
our praying. The two symbols of the sacred, 'what is holy' and pearls, should
be taken in the broad sense of the disciple having spiritual insight into the
uniqueness of relationship with God and with God's creation. This includes other people and comes from
the experience of divine grace through Jesus Christ. The sense of awe
regarding the sacred is the point of the logion in 7:6. Lack of this can
easily lead the believer to treat his relationship with God and others with the
same level of contempt and spiritual dumbness as reflected in throwing holy
things to dogs and pearls to pigs. This sense of the sacred should include
one's own self, somewhat in the fashion of Paul's admonition in 1 Cor. 6:19-20.[46]
The believer lives in a very real world of evil. If God's help in resisting it
is to be given, then the believer is obligated to treat what God supplies with
the proper sense of awe and reverence. Otherwise, the request for God's help is
meaningless and becomes hypocrisy.
This
contextual understanding means that 7:6 provides the amplification to the sixth
and final petition in the model prayer, perhaps somewhat in ancient Jewish
midrashic fashion.[47]
The sixth petition focuses on relations with the world of evil; the
amplification demands sensitivity to the sacred as a necessary prerequisite for
receiving divine help in resisting evil. Implied in this is spiritual insight
sufficient to distinguish clearly between what is sacred and what is evil. Thus
the model prayer is brought to its logical climax with 6:13.
The
amplification of this in 7:6 is then logically followed by dramatic
encouragement to engage in prayer as defined and explained by Jesus (7:7-11;
NRSV): "Ask, and it will be given you; search, and you will find; knock,
and the door will be opened for you. For everyone who asks receives, and
everyone who searches finds, and for everyone who knocks, the door will be
opened. Is there anyone among you who, if your child asks for bread, will give
a stone? Or if the child asks for a fish, will give a snake? If you then, who
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!" The traditional
command/promise structure in triplicate underscores the intensity of the
admonition. The focus on the graciousness of the Heavenly Father in responding
to prayer, prayed as defined here, further encourages the use of prayer as an
essential tool for spiritual nourishment and spiritual maturity. The climatic
nature of 7:7-11 to 6:19-7:6 replicates the climatic nature of 5:48 to 5:17-47.
Thus the first and third major sections of the sermon utilize identical
rhetorical patterns. The center section, 6:1-18, develops a threefold emphasis
on authentic piety with prayer as the centerpiece of that religious devotion.
Just as the first section,, 5:17-48, builds to the emphasis of the center
section in 6:1-18, so 6:19-7:11 grows out of and amplifies this center section.
Matt.
7:6 then stands consistently in this literary context and provides the
essential explanation of what is required when God's help in resisting evil is
sought. We must develop spiritual insight to stand in awe of the sacred and
then make wise use of it as we deal with the evil around us. Otherwise, our
praying for God's help stands as hypocrisy.
[1]The Greek and Hebrew fonts
used herein are the BST fonts available free at the Bible Study Tools website: http://bible.crosswalk.com/OtherResources/BSTFonts/.
[2]See a most recent discussion
of this in Glen H. Stassen, “The Fourteen Triads of the Sermon on the Mount
(Matthew 5:21-7:12),” Journal of Biblical
Literature 122 (2, Summer 2003), 289-295. Note the comment of Ulrich Luz,
"Das Logion ist ein Rätsel." [Das
Evangelium nach Matthäus, vol 1.1 in the Evangelisch-Katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament (Zurich:
Benziger Verlag, 1985), 381]
[3]For a summary of
interpretative history, see T.J. Bennett, "Matthew 7:6 – A New
Interpretation, Westminster Theological
Journal 49 (1987), 371-386. Also, H. von Lips, "Schweine füttert Man,
Hunde nicht – ein Versuch, das Rätsel von Matthäus 7,6 zu lösen," Zeitschrift für Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft
79 (1988), 165-186, and Luz, Matthäus,
EKK, 191-197. One of the more curious
interpretations of Matt. 7:6, not usually included in these summaries, is that
of Hippolytus (160-235 AD) in his Refutatio
Omnium Haeresium (V, 7, 33) where the logion is used as an argument against
sexual relations on the basis of sexual activity being the work of dogs and
pigs.
[5]Cf. Stassen, JBL, 295-308.
[6]See Ulrich Luz, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus (Mt 1-7),
vol. 1.1 in the Evangelisch-Katholischer
Kommentar zum Neuen Testament (Zürich: Benziger Verlag, 1989), 185-187.
[7]First set forth in my A Study Manual of the Sermon on the Mount: Greek
Text (Fort Worth: Scripta Publishing Inc., 1988).
[9]In this I concur with German
scholarship reaching back to Martin Luther that the model prayer is the pinnacle
of the Sermon simply because prayer is foundational to relationship with God
and other aspects of that relationship grow out of and are nourished by prayer.
In my estimation Jesus both taught this and modeled it during his earthly
ministry. Matthew’s redacting of the Jesus Tradition is designed to highlight
this central point.
[10]The Greek Pavter hJmw'n oJ ejn
toi'" oujranoi'", aJgiasqhvtw to; o[nomav sou is expressed as “Our Father
in heaven, may your name be honored”(NLT); “Our Father in heaven: May your holy
name be honored” (TEV); “Our Father in heaven, may your name be kept holy”
(BBE); “Unser Vater in dem Himmel! Dein Name werde geheiligt” (Luther); “Unser
Vater, der du bist in den Himmeln, geheiligt werde dein Name” (Elber).
[11]The Greek ejlqevtw
hJ basileiva sou is variously translated as “May your Kingdom
come soon” (NLT); “may your Kingdom come” (TEV); “Let your kingdom come” (BBE);
“Dein Reich komme” (Luther); “dein Reich komme” (Elber).
[12]The Greek genhqhvtw to; qevlhmav sou, wJ" ejn oujranw'/ kai; ejpi; gh'" is translated as “May your
will be done here on earth, just as it is in heaven” (NLT); “may your will be
done on earth as it is in heaven” (TEV); “Let your pleasure be done, as in
heaven, so on earth” (BBE); “Dein Wille geschehe auf Erden wie im Himmel”
(Luther); “dein Wille geschehe, wie im Himmel also auch auf Erden” (Elber).
[13]The Greek to;n
a[rton hJmw'n to;n ejpiouvsion do;" hJmi'n shvmeron is variously translated as
“Give us our food for today” (NLT); “Give us today the food we need” (TEV);
“Give us this day bread for our needs” (BBE); “Unser täglich Brot gib uns
heute” (Luther); “Unser nötiges Brot gib uns heute” (Elber).
[14]The Greek kai; a[fe" hJmi'n
ta; ojfeilhvmata hJmw'n, wJ" kai; hJmei'" ajfhvkamen toi'"
ojfeilevtai" hJmw'n surfaces as “and forgive us our sins, just as we have forgiven
those who have sinned against us” (NLT); “Forgive us the wrongs we have done,
as we forgive the wrongs that others have done to us” (TEV); “And make us free
of our debts, as we have made those free who are in debt to us” (BBE); “Und
vergib uns unsere Schuld, wie wir unseren Schuldigern vergeben” (Luther); “und
vergib uns unsere Schulden, wie auch wir unseren Schuldnern vergeben”
(Elber).
[15]One should also note the
additional emphasis on this fifth petition in the model prayer found in
6:14-15, “14 For if
you let men have forgiveness for their sins, you will have forgiveness from
your Father in
heaven. 15 But if
you do not let men have forgiveness for their sins, you will not have forgiveness
from your Father for your sins.” (NRSV) The causal connecting conjunction ‘for’
(gavr)
links this pericope back to the model prayer as amplification and explanation,
thus defining in more specific language what the fifth petition was targeting.
[16]The Greek kai;
mh; eijsenevgkh/" hJma'" eij" peirasmovn, ajlla; rJu'sai
hJma'" ajpo; tou' ponhrou' is variously translated as
“ And don't let us yield to temptation, but deliver us from the evil one”
(NLT); “Do not bring us to hard testing, but keep us safe from the Evil One”
(TEV); “And let us not be put to the test, but keep us safe from the Evil One”
(BBE); “Und führe uns nicht in Versuchung, sondern erlöse uns von dem Übel”
(Luther); “und führe uns nicht in Versuchung, sondern errette uns von dem
Bösen” (Elber).
[17]“what is holy, meant from sacrifices. Such meat was to be consumed by the priest or the worshiper; giving it to dogs would be sacrilege.” (Michael D. Coogan, ed., The New Oxford Annotated Bible, 3rd ed. [New York: Oxford University Press, 2001], NT17. “Consecrated meat from animals sacrificed in the Temple.” (Henry Wansbrough, ed., The New Jerusalem Bible [New York: Doubleday, 1984], 1619. “Auch das