Jumpstarter 4 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion

Question 4

On “do not give what is holy to dogs… pearls before swine” (Matt 7:6), the early Christians applied it not only to evangelism but also to communion and baptism—what assumptions about holiness, repentance, and the church’s boundaries are embedded in that early Christian practice, and where does it clash with how your tradition handles the Lord’s Supper and baptism?

Another way to ask: Early Christians applied “do not give what is holy to dogs… pearls before swine” to communion and baptism too. What does that show about how they saw holiness, repentance, and who counts as “inside” the church, and where does that conflict with how your church handles the Lord’s Supper and baptism?

Direct Answer The transcript suggests early Christians assumed the church has real boundaries: “holy” things like communion and baptism are for those who are baptized, repentant, and not living in serious sin. This can clash with traditions that offer communion broadly or treat baptism as appropriate even when repentance and conversion are unclear.

Support from Transcript:

Bercot says the saying was applied in evangelism: at some point continuing with mockers is “casting the pearl, the gospel before swine.”
He says early Christians also applied it to sacraments: “to baptism and communion… you don’t give communion to an unholy person… or certainly never to an unbaptized person.”
He adds: if a baptized Christian is “in serious sin,” “you don’t give what is holy to them.”
On baptism: “you don’t give baptism to somebody who is not truly repented.”
He clarifies the entry requirement: “They do need to repent. They need to believe… a strong indication that there’s been a conversion.”

Discussion Follow-ups How does your church define “unholy” in a way that is faithful to Jesus but avoids becoming harsh or elitist?

Jumpstarter 4 of 10

Add your phone number?

Thank you!

Jumpstarter 4 of 10