Is it okay to talk about casting pearls before swine?

[Omena]

in all of the threads on the teachings of Jesus i have not seen any one fight against the teachings of Jesus


only people disagreeing about their present perception.

I think that, beneath the surface, it's a little more black and white than that. I don't want to focus just on this forum, because I also see the same problem in the rest of the world.

So many Christians will profess to believe in the teachings of Jesus, and they will all say "amen" if one of these teachings is quoted from the Bible. But if we don't apply these teachings to our lives, they become pretty pointless, don't they?

That's where it becomes more black and white, I feel. When we begin to discuss HOW we apply Jesus' teachings, we see people moving into one camp or the other. If it was only a matter of perception, there would be an environment for discussion. Instead (again, not just on this forum, but in the rest of the world, and I'm not naming names) there is just a flat out refusal to talk about how we apply the teachings of Jesus, and a vendetta to silence or ignore anyone who does want to discuss it.

 

[Spiritlight]

you both enlighten me and rebuke me

and i am blessed in both - ty for that post

I didn't mean to rebuke you and I sure would not do that to anyone intentionally. We are just having a friendly chat about it.

 

[RDKirk]

That's where it becomes more black and white, I feel. When we begin to discuss HOW we apply Jesus' teachings, we see people moving into one camp or the other. If it was only a matter of perception, there would be an environment for discussion. Instead (again, not just on this forum, but in the rest of the world, and I'm not naming names) there is just a flat out refusal to talk about how we apply the teachings of Jesus, and a vendetta to silence or ignore anyone who does want to discuss it.

However, it might not be any more enlightening if they did. If we were in Jesus' time, there could be an argument as to whether it was better to do good deeds on the Sabbath or to refrain from doing anything that might seem like work.

 

[Norah63]

Some do not post on threads that. Are not leading anywhere.
I would not have to use a scripture for that.

 

[Alithis]

I didn't mean to rebuke you and I sure would not do that to anyone intentionally. We are just having a friendly chat about it.

no i know that was not your intent .. but through your post, i felt a reprimand
and by that reprimand i was instructed
and receiving instruction i was corrected
and in that correction i was realigned with the Lord, in peace .

the very fact that you had no intent to rebuke, made it all the more sweet to my soul .. for it was not of you but of the Lord

Let the righteous one strike me-- it is an act of faithful love; let him rebuke me-- it is oil for my head; let me not refuse it. Even now my prayer is against the evil acts of the wicked.Psalm 141:5

 

[flowergrave]

So many Christians will profess to believe in the teachings of Jesus, and they will all say "amen" if one of these teachings is quoted from the Bible. But if we don't apply these teachings to our lives, they become pretty pointless, don't they?

Good point. I think there could be a problem with Christians who say "lord lord", but then do not even try to obey the teachings of Jesus. Jesus himself said there would be a problem with this kind of thing.

There is so much that is appealing about Jesus' message of love, the idea of eternal life, and the kingdom of Heaven. People like to hear about that message of love and God wiping away all tears, etc.

But what they do not like to hear about is discipline and sacrifice (unless it's Jesus doing all the sacrificing).

People who want God's blessings, but do not want his discipline will invariably try to come up with some way to reconcile that inconsistency. Some of these attempts are easy to see through and some of them are quite tricky, especially if the people promoting them know how to use words and argue well.

As long as the convenient doctrines work, the people promoting them can be extremely sweet and caring. But, when someone who can see through the convenient doctrines comes along and exposes them for what they are, the people promoting them start to change.

They become irrational in their attempts to explain away obedience to Jesus and any attempts to address that irrationality only seems to create more irrationality. This irrationality (or double-mindedness) eventually causes them to make the issue personal; they seek out ways to discredit the messenger rather than discussing the message.

That is when they cross over into acting like swine looking for ways to trample the message.

 

[Luke1433]

It is interesting that so many other passages of scripture are tolerated, yet some assume that even discussing the passage about casting pearls before swine must automatically mean that someone is trying to insult just for the sake of insulting.

I accept that the word swine (like the words viper, hypocrite, and heretic) can very easily just be thrown at someone in anger. I also accept that the words need not be addressed to the one concerned. However, I see that, just as happened with Jesus and his disciples, there needs to be teaching on discernment, where we can recognise a wolf in sheep's clothing.

I believe that teachings about it always being wrong to correct/criticise/rebuke another person do not really help in this area. It suggests a very positive and smiley exterior, but many years of experience have shown that the sweetest words often come from the sourest hearts. This ought not to be, but it is what often happens... as was the case in Jesus' day too.

 

[Stones]

work smart, not hard..... cast not hard won wisdom on people who do not listen
...

So, I would assume in this case that scientists could say it isn't worth throwing pearls before swine, referring to Christians, because they will ignore it at every turn to hold on to their imaginary beliefs. Should the wise tolerate fools? Isn't that what jesus was saying?

Is it ok for non believers to use the same offensive approach towards Christianity since it is more applicable and fits perfectly to the scientific arguments with Christianity more so than it does some argument about beliefs based on nothing more than imagination.

 

[Luke1433]

I've tried reading your post a few times, Stones, to see if I can work out just what it is that you are saying. I think you are saying that Christian faith is based on imagination, and science is based on facts, and that Jesus was being offensive in comparing people who do not accept what he taught as being "swine" (assuming that their hesitance is so strong that it leads to attacks on those promoting the teachings of Jesus), whereas there is far more justification for scientists being offended that Christians do not accept all that they teach as truth. Is that correct?

Quite apart from your apparent feeling that Jesus should not have said what he said, I will comment for the benefit of those who feel that Jesus DID have it right in saying what he said, whereas the problem may lie with how we interpret what he said.

Let's assume that Stone's approach amounts to rejecting something that Jesus taught (a pearl?) and that his criticisms of Jesus for having taught it (or perhaps of those of us who are inclined to support Jesus in having said it) amount to some kind of "rending". From what has been said earlier, the thing to do would be NOT to get into a debate with Stones, but to just interpret the warning from Jesus to mean that we should avoid any further debate. But (again, based on stuff that has been said in this thread) one might possibly discuss with other "believers" what they have done, i.e. that we felt the debate was heading nowhere, and so we walked away from it, in keeping with what Jesus said in that passage.

Of course, if we did that, then it still could get back to Stones (especially given that this is a public forum to which he is a subscriber), and so he would still be offended (and possibly rightly so in this case, if we were to interpret his simple arguments as a personal attack on those of us who believe Jesus was right in what he said).

I'm not saying at all that Stones has done anything wrong; but I am trying to work out how our comments would play out in a real situation where there is a disagreement, and where a word like "swine" is used (probably by both sides) in a way which offends someone.

I am thinking of another N.T. passage, where Paul says (to Titus, I believe) that we should reject anyone who is still a "heretic" even after two or three "admonitions". "Heretic" is another one of those offensive terms, though I've heard that it just means something like "argumentative" in that context. At least in Paul's formula, a few attempts are allowed before one jumps to the conclusion that it's not worth persevering.

Considering that one needs to use SOME kind of criteria to determine that someone else is rejecting the Pearl of Jesus' teachings, I think it's safe to assume that Jesus too expected that we would make two or three attempts to share that pearl with someone BEFORE we interpret their reaction to be that of a "swine", i.e. disinterest and something akin to aggression against what is being shared, thus causing us to turn away and ignore them.

What do others think about this application?

 

[Stones]

I've tried reading your post a few times, Stones, to see if I can work out just what it is that you are saying. I think you are saying that Christian faith is based on imagination, and science is based on facts, and that Jesus was being offensive in comparing people who do not accept what he taught as being "swine" (assuming that their hesitance is so strong that it leads to attacks on those promoting the teachings of Jesus), whereas there is far more justification for scientists being offended that Christians do not accept all that they teach as truth. Is that correct?

Quite apart from your apparent feeling that Jesus should not have said what he said, I will comment for the benefit of those who feel that Jesus DID have it right in saying what he said, whereas the problem may lie with how we interpret what he said.

Let's assume that Stone's approach amounts to rejecting something that Jesus taught (a pearl?) and that his criticisms of Jesus for having taught it (or perhaps of those of us who are inclined to support Jesus in having said it) amount to some kind of "rending". From what has been said earlier, the thing to do would be NOT to get into a debate with Stones, but to just interpret the warning from Jesus to mean that we should avoid any further debate. But (again, based on stuff that has been said in this thread) one might possibly discuss with other "believers" what they have done, i.e. that we felt the debate was heading nowhere, and so we walked away from it, in keeping with what Jesus said in that passage.

Of course, if we did that, then it still could get back to Stones (especially given that this is a public forum to which he is a subscriber), and so he would still be offended (and possibly rightly so in this case, if we were to interpret his simple arguments as a personal attack on those of us who believe Jesus was right in what he said).

I'm not saying at all that Stones has done anything wrong; but I am trying to work out how our comments would play out in a real situation where there is a disagreement, and where a word like "swine" is used (probably by both sides) in a way which offends someone.

I am thinking of another N.T. passage, where Paul says (to Titus, I believe) that we should reject anyone who is still a "heretic" even after two or three "admonitions". "Heretic" is another one of those offensive terms, though I've heard that it just means something like "argumentative" in that context. At least in Paul's formula, a few attempts are allowed before one jumps to the conclusion that it's not worth persevering.

Considering that one needs to use SOME kind of criteria to determine that someone else is rejecting the Pearl of Jesus' teachings, I think it's safe to assume that Jesus too expected that we would make two or three attempts to share that pearl with someone BEFORE we interpret their reaction to be that of a "swine", i.e. disinterest and something akin to aggression against what is being shared, thus causing us to turn away and ignore them.

What do others think about this application?

Firstly, Paul died under Nero before Titus or his father ever came to power.
Secondly, I think Scientists are more astonished than offended. I mean, if I teach my daughter that 1+1=2 and she doesn't get it, she always resorts back to 1+1=11. Then I would be astonished at her lack of understanding, not offended.

As for what Jesus said, I think there is wisdom in what he said. From what I understand he was saying that if you tell people what you believe and they think it is ridicules then don't waist your time trying to convince them because you have no proof.

However, since science works with evidence instead of imaginary beliefs we can determine the facts but it is astonishing to see Christians reject the facts for fantasies. Now, it doesn't offend me at all unless they want to push there beliefs on me but from what I can tell, Jesus is saying, don't do that, don't waist your time trying to push your beliefs on others who reject them because of a lack of any common sense or evidence...

I'm sure Jesus was a nice guy for the times he lived in but I'm also sure that if he lived in the 21st century he wouldn't believe the same things as he did back then because he would have science to work with instead of Judaism which is 100% what he was teaching. it isn't as thou he was teaching something new, like say, Charles Darwin...

 

[candle glow]

As for what Jesus said, I think there is wisdom in what he said.

Can you give two or three examples?

 

[Omena]

I'm sure Jesus was a nice guy for the times he lived in but I'm also sure that if he lived in the 21st century he wouldn't believe the same things as he did back then because he would have science to work with instead of Judaism which is 100% what he was teaching. it isn't as thou he was teaching something new, like say, Charles Darwin..

Jesus was teaching 100% Judaism...gosh, I have had a HUGE misunderstanding of what Judaism is!!!

I have to disagree, Stones. Jesus WAS teaching something new, and that's why people were so shocked (and angered by Him). Look at the things he said about the Sabbath, for example. Most of the chapters (6, 7, and 8) in Matthew quote Jesus as saying things like: "It's been said...but now I tell you...". Can you explain, Stones, how the things Jesus taught were the same as what the pharisees were teaching?

Considering that one needs to use SOME kind of criteria to determine that someone else is rejecting the Pearl of Jesus' teachings, I think it's safe to assume that Jesus too expected that we would make two or three attempts to share that pearl with someone BEFORE we interpret their reaction to be that of a "swine", i.e. disinterest and something akin to aggression against what is being shared, thus causing us to turn away and ignore them.

What do others think about this application?

I think it makes sense to at least try, maybe once or twice like Paul talked about. It becomes a bit tricky because I feel if I try too much, it eventually becomes less about impressing upon people the significance of Jesus' teachings, and more about me "winning" an argument. Walking away from someone who has the last word is not easy, because of pride.

I think classifying someone as "swine" also has a lot to do with their attitude. Some people can disagree with what Jesus said, but they can do so in a more humble way. I have some friends who really appreciate my preaching ministry, to the point that if I'm their area, they invite me over for dinner. But they don't actually believe in much of what I talk about, and they are quite honest about the aspects they don't agree with. I would not classify them as swine.

 

[RDKirk]

Jesus was teaching 100% Judaism...gosh, I have had a HUGE misunderstanding of what Judaism is!!!

I have to disagree, Stones. Jesus WAS teaching something new, and that's why people were so shocked (and angered by Him). Look at the things he said about the Sabbath, for example. Most of the chapters (6, 7, and 8) in Matthew quote Jesus as saying things like: "It's been said...but now I tell you...". Can you explain, Stones, how the things Jesus taught were the same as what the pharisees were teaching?



I think it makes sense to at least try, maybe once or twice like Paul talked about. It becomes a bit tricky because I feel if I try too much, it eventually becomes less about impressing upon people the significance of Jesus' teachings, and more about me "winning" an argument. Walking away from someone who has the last word is not easy, because of pride.

I think classifying someone as "swine" also has a lot to do with their attitude. Some people can disagree with what Jesus said, but they can do so in a more humble way. I have some friends who really appreciate my preaching ministry, to the point that if I'm their area, they invite me over for dinner. But they don't actually believe in much of what I talk about, and they are quite honest about the aspects they don't agree with. I would not classify them as swine.

A couple of things. First, Jesus was talking to followers, and this particular comment was embedded in an overall very significant doctrinal message. This is not "evangelistic" material--none of it is really for those who do not yet believe.

The point about both dogs and swine (dogs are part of the full sentence) is that the are naturally unable to appreciate these points. Another old saying provides better context for us today:

"Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig."

Why not try to teach a pig to sing? Because a pig is not physically capable of singing.

This is really what Jesus is saying here. Not everyone is spiritually capable of receiving the Gospel (perhaps not at that moment, some people perhaps not ever). You might even be the wrong person for them. There is no point in haranging them about it, no point in even blaming them. They can accept it or they can't. If they can't move on. Come back later when the Holy Spirit bids you or let another worker handle it.

This was never meant to be a noxious retort as some Christians have used it. It's meant as an means to avoid exasperation--ours as well as theirs. Realize that some people are just not able to receive, stop trying to make them do something they're literally not capable of doing, and just tip your hat.

We always need to understand something: Our enemy is never flesh and blood. The person who does not accept the gospel is never, ever our enemy, and we should never treat him as such. Our speech is always supposed to be "seasoned with grace and salt." Leaving with a noxious retort just makes it more difficult for the worker who follows us.

 

[Luke1433]

Can you give two or three examples?

I fully support Candle's question, Stones. I'm wondering how much you know of what Jesus actually taught. I think that many of us here would fully agree with you about problems that exist in the churches, and so you may be arguing points that we actually agree on.

This thread was started to focus on just one teaching of Jesus, but there are many others. Sadly, some people have bad experiences with professing Christians and then chalk that up to Jesus.

It might even be helpful, Stones, if you could share a little bit about your own experience with religion/religious people, and how it has led to where you are now?

 

[Norah63]

RDKirk you hit the nail on the head. Well stated.

 

[Luke1433]

A couple of things. First, Jesus was talking to followers, and this particular comment was embedded in an overall very significant doctrinal message. This is not "evangelistic" material--none of it is really for those who do not yet believe.

The point about both dogs and swine (dogs are part of the full sentence) is that the are naturally unable to appreciate these points. Another old saying provides better context for us today:

"Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig."

Why not try to teach a pig to sing? Because a pig is not physically capable of singing.

This is really what Jesus is saying here. Not everyone is spiritually capable of receiving the Gospel (perhaps not at that moment, some people perhaps not ever). You might even be the wrong person for them. There is no point in haranging them about it, no point in even blaming them. They can accept it or they can't. If they can't move on. Come back later when the Holy Spirit bids you or let another worker handle it.

This was never meant to be a noxious retort as some Christians have used it. It's meant as an means to avoid exasperation--ours as well as theirs. Realize that some people are just not able to receive, stop trying to make them do something they're literally not capable of doing, and just tip your hat.

We always need to understand something: Our enemy is never flesh and blood. The person who does not accept the gospel is never, ever our enemy, and we should never treat him as such. Our speech is always supposed to be "seasoned with grace and salt." Leaving with a noxious retort just makes it more difficult for the worker who follows us.

I agree with Norah (for a change! lol) This is a very good post, Kirk.

There may be some difference in emphasis with regard to "enemies", however. I believe that Jesus loved the Pharisees as much as he loved anyone else, but he also recognised that they were the ones who were going to eventually scheme to have him killed. Enemies? Yes and no. One cannot get much more enemy-like than trying to kill you; but at the same time, Kirk's point about the real problem being certain spiritual powers (as opposed to flesh and blood) is a good one. Nicodemus was, for example, a reasonably open Pharisee, and Paul was apparently a sincerely misguided Pharisee; yet Jesus made some sweeping statements about the Pharisees, and cautioned his disciples about their hypocrisy. The point was not to insult the Pharisees, but in fact, they WERE insulted, as expressed in such passages as the one that says "They perceived that he was speaking against them" in reference to a parable or something else which I don't recall at the moment.

So I think we all agree that the swine passage is not meant to be used as a way of hitting out at someone. That isn't really the question here. The question is whether we are entitled to discuss amongst ourselves on a forum that is ostensibly for believers, just what is meant by not casting pearls before swine.

Someone said earlier that the "swine" should never be other believers. But weren't the Pharisees "believers" in the good Jewish sense? I cannot accept that everyone who says Lord, Lord, is a fellow believer, and I daresay at least 90% of the people who post on this forum feel the same, i.e. that they cannot accept that anyone who posts here is undeniably sincere in wanting to follow Jesus.

So if there are swine, dogs, Pharisees, hypocrites, heretics, vipers, wolves, or whatever you want to call them AROUND (as in on this forum), can we discuss at least in a generic sense, how to recognise them? I think we MUST do that, in the same way that Paul and other early Christians, including Jesus himself, did when warning against such things as false prophets, who will come to us in sheep's clothing, but actually be wolves underneath.

 

[Norah63]

A kingdom divided will not stand.

 

[Luke1433]

A kingdom divided will not stand.

What's happening here? I'm agreeing with Norah once again! Must be something in the water! lol

 

[Norah63]

Then that would be the living water of the Word, that renews the mind.
Thanks be to our Lord Jesus.

 

[toLiJC]

In Matthew 7 Jesus gave instructions about not casting our pearls before swine.

In Christian forums in general, I've seen people reference this teaching to insult others and there are times when I've seen people use it to explain a genuine circumstance.

However, it seems there is not time when one can reference this verse and NOT offend someone, since no one likes to be referred to as swine.

And yet, it is a legitimate teaching from Jesus. That being the case, is it okay to reference this verse, knowing that it will probably offend some people, even if it is referenced accurately?

it is about the fact that if the believers support the spiritual/religious iniquity, then the result of this can be prejudicial not only to others, but even for the supporters of the sin, exactly this is the meaning of Matthew 7:6, here is a quote with notes in it:

Matthew 7:6 "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs(viz. do not bless/support the misdeeds), neither cast ye your pearls before swine(viz. neither bless/support the spiritual/religious iniquity(-ies)), lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you."

Blessings