NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER SEVEN

Part I (con’t)

Verses 3-5: “Why do you notice the small piece of dust that is in your friend’s eye, but you don’t notice the big piece of wood that is in your own? Why do you say to your friend, ‘Let me take that piece of dust out of your eye’? Look at yourself first! You still have that big piece of wood in your own eye. You are a hypocrite! First, take the wood out of your own eye. Then you will see clearly to get the dust out of your friend’s eye.”

While our Lord makes no reference to it here, there is a notable similitude between the point He is making and what happened between King David and the prophet Nathan after the prophet told him the story of the rich man with many sheep, who took the one little female lamb of his poor neighbor to use as a meal for a traveler who stopped by. After hearing this, David erupted in anger and yelled, “‘As the Lord lives, the man who did this should die! He must pay four times the price of the lamb because he did this terrible thing and because he had no mercy.’ Then Nathan said to David, ‘You are that man!’”¹ It is clear that although David immediately saw that what this rich man did was wrong, he could not see the horrific error that he committed.

Too often we judge other people’s misdeeds without looking at our own list of blunders. When it came to the dust and wood plank, Jesus never intended for this to be taken literally; how many people go around with a stick in their eye trying to remove splinters in other people’s eyes? But the proverb does take some thought in order to get the message. The point our Lord is trying to make is that when we assume superiority and commence judging others’ weaknesses or faults before we address our own faults and weaknesses, it makes us less capable of really helping the other person. If you’ve ever flown on an airplane and they give the safety instructions while taxiing out to the runway, the stewardess will always say to the adults, when the oxygen mask falls down put yours on first before putting the other one on your child.

We have a phenomenon in our world today: people without children telling parents how to raise theirs, and unwed marriage counselors instructing married couples how to get along. To take it one step further, in our churches we have those who criticize others for not reading their Bibles, praying often enough, attending services more frequently and giving more in the offering, while they themselves are having trouble with telling the truth, acting morally right, addicted to gossip, or showing no compassion for the needy. But more than anything, only a true judge can render a verdict and proceed with sentencing. And the one true judge is God. While we certainly can point out an error, a mistake or even a crime, judging can only come after all the facts and evidence is known. So we have every right to offer advice and suggest options, but leave the judging up to those qualified to do so.

After David was confronted with his own crime by the prophet Nathan, David had this to say: “O God, don’t look at my sins. Erase them all. Create a pure heart in me, and make my spirit strong again. Don’t push me away or take your Holy Spirit from me. Your help made me so happy. Give me that joy again. Make my spirit strong and ready to obey You. I will teach the guilty how You want them to live, and the sinners will come back to You.”² This is the attitude Jesus wanted His followers to adopt in their own lives. One reason why Jesus was such a good communicator is that He knew the character of those He came to save, and with compassion pointed out to them a better way using traditions the were already familiar with.

For we read where one noted Rabbi said: “If the judge said to a man, ‘Take the splinter from your eye,’ he would retort, ‘Take the beam from between your eyes.’ If the judge said, ‘Your silver contains dross,’ he would retort, ‘Your wine is mixed with water’ ³.”⁴ And to show that this was a common maxim among the Jewish Rabbis, they said: “It was taught in a Baraita:⁵ Rabbi Tarfon said, I wonder whether there is any one in this generation who accepts reproof, for if one says to him: Remove the mote from your eyes, he would answer: Remove the beam from your eyes!”⁶

This concept of taking care of your own hangups before you start pointing out the hangups of others was expressed in different ways by other Jewish teachers. In their lectures we read: “It has been taught that Rabbi Nathan said: ‘Do not taunt your neighbor with the blemish you yourself have.’”⁷ Then again: “O House of David, thus saith the Lord, execute justice in the morning;⁸ and if they may not be judged, how could they judge: is it not written, ‘Gather together, gather yourselves, nation devoid of shame;⁹ which Resh Lakish interpreted. ‘dress yourself first and then dress others.’”¹⁰ And according the John Gill, Jewish writer David Kimchi also made a comment on this verse in his Commentary in Zephaniah 2:1: “Inquire first into your own blemishes, and then inquire into the blemishes of others.”¹¹

It is obvious that Jesus could have drawn from a number of sources the quote that He wanted to show that He believed that a person should first reform themselves before they try to deal with others, and any faults he may find in others, should not be something he is guilty of himself. This pretty much put everyone listening to Him outside the court room of opinion and left the judge’s seat empty. On the other hand, one should not take wise advice and council and waste it on those who have no desire to reform once their blemishes are shown to them in love and compassion.

Augustine gives his view on what Jesus is teaching here. He writes: “For those who are so spiteful as to see the smallest errors in others, how can you be so remiss as to not see your own mistakes, and thereby avoid noticing your greatest faults? Can’t you see that Jesus does not forbid judging, but commands to that we first remove the beam from your own eye, so as to be able to see better in helping others with their problems? For indeed each person knows his own faults better than those of others; and sees the bigger ones better than the smaller ones. And each person loves himself more than his neighbor. So if you really want to be a guardian for others, I urge you to take care for yourself first, because your mistakes may be of greater concern. But if you neglect yourself, it is quite obvious that you will not be able to look out for your brother in a way that helps him, but in a way that hurts him, wishing only to expose his faults. If he is to be judged, it should be by someone who is without fault, not by you.”¹²

Augustine has an interesting take on what it means to be a hypocrite. He writes: “Whenever necessity compels one to reprove or rebuke another, we ought to proceed with godly discernment and caution. First of all, let us consider whether the other fault is such as we ourselves have never had or whether it is one that we have overcome. Then, if we have never had such a fault, let us remember that we are human and could have had it. But if we have had it and are rid of it now, let us remember our common frailty, in order that mercy, not hatred, may lead us to the giving of advice and admonition. It this way, whether the advice ends up helping or hurting the one for whose sake we are offering it (for the result cannot be predicted), we ourselves will not be liable because we did the best with what we had to give. But if upon reflection we find that we ourselves have the same fault as the one we are about to reprove, let us neither correct nor rebuke that one. Rather, let us bemoan the fault ourselves and thereby influence to other person to watch out for the same thing, without asking them to submit to our correction.”¹³

Verse 6: Don’t give something that is holy to dogs. They will only turn and hurt you. And don’t throw your pearls to pigs. They will only step on them.

If we take what Matthew records here as a continuous narrative from Jesus, we might be hard pressed to explain how this verse fits with the one before it and the one after it. We may find an answer in what Solomon says: “Criticize a person who is rude and shows no respect, and you will only get insults. Correct the wicked, and you will only get hurt. Don’t correct such people, or they will hate you. But correct those who are wise, and they will love you. Teach the wise, and they will become wiser. Instruct those who live right, and they will gain more knowledge.”¹⁴ In other words, Jesus had just warned about judging others before you examine yourself. But once you’ve corrected your mistake, you can certainly help others avoid the same pitfall. However, there are some people who will take no advice, no matter how meaningful or well intended it may be.

Joseph H. Thayer, in his well-known Greek Lexicon, categorizes the word “holy” used here as something to be revered and worthy of veneration. He goes on to note that as it is used in this text, it references the gospel, or the teaching that Jesus is giving His disciples on this occasion. As one anonymous Bible commentator put it: “This biblical text is generally interpreted to be a warning by Jesus to His followers that they should not offer biblical doctrine to those who were unable to value and appreciate it.” In that sense, Solomon states: “Don’t try to teach fools. They will make fun of your wise words.”¹⁵ And the same goes for the last part of this verse.

As far as our Lord’s statement about pigs, Solomon only says, “A beautiful woman without good sense is like a gold ring in a pig’s nose.”¹⁶ In that same vein, a gold ring in a pig’s nose would make it look no better than a string of pearls around it’s neck. In other words, in the Jewish mind there was no way to dress up a pig to make it look beautiful. Likewise, putting a wreath of wise sayings around the neck of a fool will have the same effect. This has led many scholars to suggest that the word “pearls” may have been an improper Greek translation of the Aramaic word used by Jesus. At the same time, proverbs or wise sayings were often called pearls of wisdom. It is also possible that Jesus was using the term “swine” metaphorically. That means, He was referring to a certain group of individuals whose habits and thought processes are no better than the common pig. For if you wash a pig, it will only go and wallow in the mud again.

But our Lord may have been referring to an abhorrent practice that was forbidden, and that was when an animal was dedicated to be used as a sacrifice but found to have a blemish, it was then used for other purposes. The Rabbis taught: “If one has dedicated an animal not suitable for use, a permanent blemish is required in order to redeem it. So can you not prove from here that one may redeem dedicated animals in order to give dogs to eat? Rather, say: It is dedicated in that it is left to die.”¹⁷ Again, the same subject is further discussed, and they talk about an animal dedicated to God could become unfit for sacrifice because of some blemish. It reads: “Our Rabbis have taught: Scriptures says: ‘You may kill and eat flesh. ‘You may kill’ implies no sharing, ‘and eat’, it’s not for your dogs.’”¹⁸

The Jerusalem Talmud had established this rule even earlier than the Babylonian Talmud. Rabbi Yosé was teaching on things sanctified and dedicated for God’s use, and states quite clearly, “For they do not redeem sanctified items to feed them to dogs.”¹⁹ Another illustration is given by the Rabbis says: “If a deer which had been bought with second tithe money died, it may not be redeemed to feed it to dogs and thus it must be buried together with its hide.”²⁰ In Jewish verbal traditions there were instructions on feeding certain things to animals. The compilers include this statement: “Remember this day, on which you went free from Egypt, No leaven shall be eaten today²¹ which prohibits even feeding dogs.”²²

Augustine has quite a bit to say about this distinction between dogs and swine. He writes: “Now, in this precept by which we are forbidden to give what is holy to the dogs, and to cast our pearls before swine, we must carefully determine what is meant by the words holy, pearls, dogs, and swine. A holy thing is something for which it is irreverent to violate or corrupt; and any attempt or intent to commit that crime is held to be criminal, although that holy thing should remain in its nature unassailable and incorruptible. By pearls, again, are meant whatever spiritual things we ought to set a high value upon, both because they lie hid in a secret place, are as it were brought up out of the deep, and are found in wrappings of allegory, as it were in shells that have to be opened by an expert. We may therefore legitimately understand that one and the same thing may be called both holy and a pearl: but it gets the name of holy for this reason, that it ought not to be corrupted; of a pearl for this reason, that it ought not to be despised. Everyone, however, endeavors to break in two what he does not wish to remain intact: but he despises what he thinks worthless, and reckons to be as it were beneath himself; and therefore whatever is despised is said to be trampled on. And hence, inasmuch as dogs spring at a thing in order to tear it in pieces, and do not allow what they are tearing in pieces to remain in its original condition, “Give not,” says He, “that which is holy unto the dogs:” for although it cannot be torn in pieces and corrupted, and remains unharmed and intact, yet we must think of what is the wish of those parties who bitterly and in a most unfriendly spirit resist, and, as far as in them lies, endeavor, if it were possible, to destroy the truth. But swine, although they do not, like dogs, pounce on an object with their teeth, yet by recklessly trampling on it defile it: “Do not therefore throw your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and bite you.” We may therefore not inappropriately understand dogs as used to designate the assailants of the truth, swine the despisers of it.”²³

Augustine goes on to say: “But when He says, they turn again and bite you, He does not say, they rip apart the pearls themselves. For by trampling on them, just when they turn in order that they may hear something more, they yet tear him by whom the pearls have just been cast before them which they have trampled on. For you would not easily find out what pleasure the man could have who has trampled pearls under foot, i.e. has despised divine things whose discovery is the result of great labor. But in regard to him who teaches such individuals, I do not see how he would escape being ripped to pieces through their anger and wrath. Moreover, both animals are unclean, the dog as well as the swine. We must therefore be on our guard, lest anything should be opened up to him who does not receive it: for it is better that he should seek for what is hidden, than that he should either attack or rebuff what has been opened. Neither, in fact, is any other cause found why they do not receive those things which are manifest and of importance, except hatred and contempt, the one of which gets them the name of dogs, the other that of swine. And all this impurity is generated by the love of temporal things, i.e. by the love of this world, which we are commanded to renounce, in order that we may be able to be pure. The man, therefore, who desires to have a pure and single heart, ought not to appear to himself blameworthy, if he conceals anything from him who is unable to receive it. Nor is it to be supposed from this that it is allowable to lie: for it does not follow that when truth is concealed, falsehood is uttered. Hence, steps are to be taken first, that the hindrances which prevent his receiving it may be removed; for certainly if pollution is the reason he does not receive it, he is to be cleansed either by word or by deed, as far as we can possibly do it.”²⁴

So we can see how this passage was understood and taught in the early church and compare it with how it is taught today. I like the way Augustine defines dogs as those who assault the truth, and swine as those who despise the truth. Dogs assault it because by nature they want to tear it apart, and swine despise it because they don’t like what was given to them, so they turn and attack the giver. However, I would not suggest calling someone who disagrees with you a dog, nor when someone makes fun of what you teach to call them swine or they may turn on you in anger. Our Lord was referring to their instincts and inherent nature, not their outward appearance.