At church, we've been looking at the Sermon on the Mount for a few weeks, and last night came the turn of the challenging passage of Matthew 7 and the passage about "judge not lest ye be judged". Without going into too much about the personal challenge of the passage (for those interested, you can listen to the sermon here), the main thrust was that passage was not an excuse to not challenge ungodly behaviour in fellow Christians, but rather to correct others with humility and an awareness of your own sin. In the context, we came across the somewhat puzzling passage of Matthew 7:6:
With these in mind, an alternative suggestion was floated in small group afterwards, that the pearl might be alluding to the "pearl of great price" of Matthew 13:45-46, and so might be the gospel. This interpretation would say don't preach the gospel (the pearl) to non-Christians who have consistently rejected it (the pigs or dogs). This has the appeal that it is allowing scripture to interpret scripture, but this still seems to not fit right. The result of this might lead to a withdrawal of any hope of grace on certain people, that there are some people that we might be led to feel are beyond the call of the gospel and so we needn't bother preaching it to them, which might be right but feels wrong somehow.
I was therefore continuing to mull this through my head this morning, and my thoughts were returned to thinking of some comments N.T. Wright had made at a sermon in Oxford last year, which encouraged me to look back at the other "pearl" passage in Matthew:
So how does that affect Matthew 7:6? Well, if the pearl is the kingdom of heaven, or to use different language, the rule of Christ, then we need to be careful in how we approach moral issues with non-Christians. With Christians who have strayed, it is wise to approach in humility to encourage one's brother (and also oneself) to submit their live more in line with God's word. But this approach is because you and your brother have sold all for the pearl of great price, and appreciate to some degree the greatness of Christ's rule. To take a similar line with non-Christians won't work, they scoff at God's rule, so why cast our pearls in front of them to convince them? Rather, we need to proclaim the beauty of the pearl itself, and hope that God opens their eyes to appreciate the pearl themselves.
To clarify, I'm not saying that non-Christians are necessarily unpersuaded to live God's way in some areas, but rather to try and convince them to adapt to some moral solely because it is God's will is misguided, and we rather need to address the core problem of rebellion to God before focusing of living lives according to the will of God.
"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."Now in the context of the encouragement to humbly correct our fellow Christians, the way that this verse was thought about was that sometimes we will correct others in all humility but still find it taken badly, so the encouragement is not to lose heart in humble correction to be the right thing to do. Now this makes a lot of sense, but I still feel a little uncomfortable about it - firstly, Jesus' words seem to read as an endorsement not to even try something, rather than an encouragement for those who have had bad experiences trying to do the right thing, and secondly the wording seems a little strong, after all reference to pigs doesn't tend to be made lightly.
With these in mind, an alternative suggestion was floated in small group afterwards, that the pearl might be alluding to the "pearl of great price" of Matthew 13:45-46, and so might be the gospel. This interpretation would say don't preach the gospel (the pearl) to non-Christians who have consistently rejected it (the pigs or dogs). This has the appeal that it is allowing scripture to interpret scripture, but this still seems to not fit right. The result of this might lead to a withdrawal of any hope of grace on certain people, that there are some people that we might be led to feel are beyond the call of the gospel and so we needn't bother preaching it to them, which might be right but feels wrong somehow.
I was therefore continuing to mull this through my head this morning, and my thoughts were returned to thinking of some comments N.T. Wright had made at a sermon in Oxford last year, which encouraged me to look back at the other "pearl" passage in Matthew:
"Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant looking for fine pearls. When he found one of great value, he went away and sold everything he had and bought it."It seems that the pearl of great price isn't quite the gospel, but the "kingdom of heaven". Now the kingdom of heaven is a reference, I think, not only to the future rule of Christ that will happen when all things have been completed, but also his influence and rule on earth now. Elsewhere in Matthew (such as 4:23, 24:14), the gospel is referred to as "the gospel of the kingdom" or "the Good news of the kingdom". This would suggest that the thing of value isn't the gospel as such, but rather that the gospel is such good news because it declares the kingdom of heaven and God's rule to be available through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.Matthew 13:46-47
So how does that affect Matthew 7:6? Well, if the pearl is the kingdom of heaven, or to use different language, the rule of Christ, then we need to be careful in how we approach moral issues with non-Christians. With Christians who have strayed, it is wise to approach in humility to encourage one's brother (and also oneself) to submit their live more in line with God's word. But this approach is because you and your brother have sold all for the pearl of great price, and appreciate to some degree the greatness of Christ's rule. To take a similar line with non-Christians won't work, they scoff at God's rule, so why cast our pearls in front of them to convince them? Rather, we need to proclaim the beauty of the pearl itself, and hope that God opens their eyes to appreciate the pearl themselves.
To clarify, I'm not saying that non-Christians are necessarily unpersuaded to live God's way in some areas, but rather to try and convince them to adapt to some moral solely because it is God's will is misguided, and we rather need to address the core problem of rebellion to God before focusing of living lives according to the will of God.
