Some Pharisee Critics Argue with Jesus, 12:1-21
Since Luke reports that the episode of healing the man with the withered hand took place on a different sabbath (Lk 6:6), Matthew has grouped two incidents in which some Pharisees criticized Jesus' activities on the sabbath together.
Matthew also places his record of both of Jesus’ encounters with the Pharisees about the Sabbath (12:1-14) right after the Lord’s invitation to the weary and heavy-loaded with life’s trials and with the added burden of Pharisaic accretions to the law, to come to him and take his yoke of discipleship upon them and find “rest” (11:28-30). Now “rest” is precisely what the Sabbath is all about (Gen 2:2). But here we see Jesus’ critics doing precisely what Jesus’ invitation was intended to relieve the weary and heavy-laden of: laying on them extra burdens that went far beyond what the scripture actually required (Matt 23:2-4)! Furthermore, their criticisms show that they have failed to understand the meaning of the key verse quoted here by Jesus: “I desire mercy more than sacrifice” (Hos 6:6). These critics have no concern for the hungry and weary disciples of Jesus or for the man with the withered hand. Their only concern is that they impose their view of the law of Moses on all Jews and force conformity to their way of life on everyone. In so doing they show themselves to be blind to God’s truth.
Concerning the Sabbath, 12:1-14
Example 1: Plucking Grain, 12:1-8
1 At that time Jesus went through the grain fields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick some heads of grain and eat them. 2 When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, “Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath.” 3 He answered, “Haven’t you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? 4 He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread—which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. 5 Or haven’t you read in the Law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple desecrate the day and yet are innocent? 6 I tell you that one greater than the temple is here. 7 If you had known what these words mean, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the innocent. 8 For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sa (Matthew 12:1-9 NIV)
Verses 1-2. Jesus is challenged here by the Pharisees for allowing his disciples to violate their rules of sabbath observance. It was a matter of interpretation, since the Old Testament teaching was not precise as to what constituted forbidden "labor" on the sabbath day. But the rabbinic tradition of the Pharisees classified picking even a few ears of grain as "harvesting" and rubbing the ears to release the kernel (mentioned in Luke, but not in Matthew) as "milling." Both of these activities were considered "labor." As a rabbi, Jesus would be expected to know and honor this interpretation and to teach and enforce it with his disciples. His failure to stop them and teach them not to do this would be a failure on his part as a Pharisaic rabbi.
Verses 3-8. Jesus' reply and justification for his disciples' actions consists of three different arguments, all utilizing different precedents.
The first (vv 3-4) appealed to something that David did when he was fleeing from King Saul, accompanied by his men. The story is found in 1 Samuel 21. Arriving at Nob, a city inhabited by priests, David and his hungry men were in need of food; so they requested it from the high priest, Ahimelek. Led to believe by David that he and his men were on an official mission of King Saul, Ahimelek was glad to assist them. But lacking any unconsecrated bread, he offered him some of the consecrated bread that was being replaced by fresh loaves. According to the law (Exod 25:30; Lev 24:5-9) this bread was for the exclusive use of the priests themselves. Since Saul considered David to be a rebel and pretender to the throne, he later executed Ahimelek himself and the other priests for giving food to David, since in Saul's eyes it was an act of treason. But nothing is said in the biblical text to indicate that for David to eat this particular bread was a violation of the law. And since the high priest himself offered it to David, Ahimelek himself—and perhaps others in that day—understood the law to mean that these loaves were for the needs of the priests, but they might share them with others in need.
The analogy Jesus wishes to draw is that in both that case and the present one there is an eating that according to one interpretation of the law of Moses could be considered a violation, but which the high priest Ahimelek (acting for God) permitted in the case of David and his men. David and his men were not just any hungry men. At that time David had already been anointed in secret as God's chosen king for Israel. But a rejected king—Saul—was resisting God's will and seeking to kill God's anointed king. Like David, Jesus is God's "anointed one" (Greek meaning of "Christ"), and is at this very moment being persecuted wrongly by the Pharisees, who are filling the role of Saul who opposed the new thing that God was doing through David. They too are plotting his death.
According to Mark and Luke, Jesus concluded his case by claiming that the Son of Man is lord of the sabbath. Matthew, however, includes a second argument, that seems to have been prompted by a Pharisaic objection that the illustration of David did not come from the sacred Torah, the law of Moses: it was just a story about something David did, and was therefore not a real source for legal permission. So Jesus' second example comes from the Torah itself. According to the Torah, God allowed the priests in the temple to do work on the sabbath in order to make it possible for others to worship God and find forgiveness and healing. Implied is the fact that he and his disciples were doing just that on this Sabbath, as they made their way through the fields to another place where they would teach and heal.
"Yes," his critics may have answered, "but that exception concerns only the temple!" So Jesus replied, "Something greater than the temple is here." By this he may have meant the kingdom of God, which he was proclaiming, or he may have meant himself as the messiah. But there was more to be said.
Next (in v 7) Jesus put his finger on the heart of his critics’ problem, when he cited Hosea 6:6. He had already quoted this verse to them in 9:13. There too, as here, neither Mark nor Luke chose to include this saying by Jesus.
From the viewpoint of the Pharisees, the verse should have read "I desire sacrifice and not mercy," or at least substantiate the conclusion that sacrifice (obedience) is more important than mercy. Yet Hosea, speaking for Yahweh, put the emphasis upon mercy (Hebrew hesed, "steadfast love") even to the extent of denying the absolute importance of sacrifice. Mercy is a better way of obeying God than sacrifice. Some things are more important than strict obedience to the letter of the law. At its heart, Jesus' healing ministry was about mercy—the granting of unmerited favor to the unworthy. The "religion" of the Pharisees would have left such needy people under an unbearable burden of extra requirements—weary and heavy-laden and without hope.
By failing to understand God’s system of priorities, which put mercy above sacrifice, these critics have committed the grave sin of condemning innocent persons (verse 7, the Greek for "the innocent" is plural), because the Son of Man is lord of the sabbath. What does this mean? According to all three synoptic gospels, this was the final defense Jesus gave for his and his disciples’ actions here. It must be of primary importance. Jesus often used the phrase “the Son of Man” to describe himself. Others—even his closest followers—never used it of Jesus. Nor do any of the other New Testament writers. This is strange, if the phrase was meant to be a title, like "Christ" or "Son of God."
It is hotly debated just what significance this phrase had for Jesus himself. Some think it indicates his status as the representative Man, who alone could assume the guilt of humanity and atone for it in his death. One could hardly object to that truth, but is that what "the son of man" actually meant in Jesus' mouth?
Others think it refers to the passage in Daniel 7:13-14 (LXX) where a figure called “one like a son of man” appears in the presence of God, who is called “the Ancient of Days” and receives a kingdom. When at his trial before the High Priest Caiaphas, Jesus stated that they would someday see "the son of man" (meaning himself) standing at the right hand of God, they proclaimed that he had blasphemed (Matt 26:63-65). But was the blasphemy Jesus calling himself "the son of man" or because he claimed he would be standing at God's right hand? The upshot is that we simply don't know for certain what specific meaning Jesus invested in the phrase "the son of man," when he used it to refer to himself.
Instead of criticizing him, his critics should be coming to him as the lord of the Sabbath to inquire how they might obey and worship God appropriately on this his holy day. They should heed the invitation that he had given earlier to those who were “weary and heavy-laden” and come to him for true Sabbath rest. But unlike Jesus’ disciples, these critics had no true hunger to know God. They would not come to him to find spiritual food and true rest from their frantic efforts to justify themselves by the law.
Check back tomorrow (Monday) for the next segment of Matthew 12.
It is hotly debated just what significance this phrase had for Jesus himself. Some think it indicates his status as the representative Man, who alone could assume the guilt of humanity and atone for it in his death. One could hardly object to that truth, but is that what "the son of man" actually meant in Jesus' mouth?
Others think it refers to the passage in Daniel 7:13-14 (LXX) where a figure called “one like a son of man” appears in the presence of God, who is called “the Ancient of Days” and receives a kingdom. When at his trial before the High Priest Caiaphas, Jesus stated that they would someday see "the son of man" (meaning himself) standing at the right hand of God, they proclaimed that he had blasphemed (Matt 26:63-65). But was the blasphemy Jesus calling himself "the son of man" or because he claimed he would be standing at God's right hand? The upshot is that we simply don't know for certain what specific meaning Jesus invested in the phrase "the son of man," when he used it to refer to himself.
Nevertheless, when in this passage Jesus—using the phrase "the son of man" to refer to himself—claimed to be "lord of the sabbath," he was also clearly claiming God-given authority to determine what was appropriate activity on the Sabbath day.
Instead of criticizing him, his critics should be coming to him as the lord of the Sabbath to inquire how they might obey and worship God appropriately on this his holy day. They should heed the invitation that he had given earlier to those who were “weary and heavy-laden” and come to him for true Sabbath rest. But unlike Jesus’ disciples, these critics had no true hunger to know God. They would not come to him to find spiritual food and true rest from their frantic efforts to justify themselves by the law.
Check back tomorrow (Monday) for the next segment of Matthew 12.
