The Sabbath Controversy in Matthew: an Exegesis of Matthew 12:1-14

The Sabbath Controversy in Matthew: An Exegesis of Matthew 12:1-14 John Mark Hicks

First Published in Restoration Quarterly 27.2 (1984) 79-91

Matthew underscores the Pharisaic opposition to Jesus by reporting his debate with the Pharisees over the observance of the Sabbath (Matt. 12:1-14). The intention of this article is to understand Matthew’s purpose in recording this controversy for his readers.1 The article is divided into three sections: (1) the accusation of the Pharisees against Jesus’ disciples; (2) Jesus’ response to the accusation; and (3) an explication of the second confrontation over the Sabbath in the light of the first. This article, due to considerations of length, will focus on the first confrontation between the Pharisees and Jesus over plucking ears of corn on the Sabbath (Matt. 12:1-8). There are several reasons for this procedure. First, it is the more difficult of the two confrontations to understand. Second, it contains a major section of unique Matthean material (Matt. 12:5-7). Third, the second confrontation, as will be seen, is intimately connected (perhaps dependent upon, at least as Matthew records it) the first confrontation. The main body of this study, therefore, will devote its attention to the controversy over the ears of corn.

The Pharisaic Accusation

Context. The importance of the Sabbath controversy for Matthew is emphasized by its place in the Gospel. The theme of chapters 11-13 is the rejection of Jesus’ message. Even in 10:17-25 Jesus had warned his disciples of future rejection and persecution. In Matthew 11 this warning becomes reality for Jesus himself as Matthew begins to emphasize that there is some opposition to Jesus. At the end of the Baptist periscope, the rejection of Jesus and John the Baptist is clearly implied (Matt. 11:16-19). This is immediately followed by the condemnation of Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum because they did not repent of the preaching of Jesus (Matt. 11:20-24). Further, the Sabbath controversy is followed by yet another Pharisaic accusation that constituted a blasphemy of the Holy Spirit (Matt. 12:22-24). They had attributed the work of the Holy Spirit (that is, Jesus’ miracles) to the Devil himself. Matthew states that “at this time” Jesus and his disciples were traveling through a grainfield. This phrase appears three times in Matthew: here, 11:25 and 14:1 (but not in any other Gospel). This is not so much a note of time as it is a device to link what follows with the above context.2 Thus, Matthew’s three uses all occur within the context of controversy or immediately following it (as with 14:1 after the parables). This device, then, calls special attention to the Sabbath material (even more so since it is the second or

1 This is not to say that the actual event is unhistorical or doubtful. The issue here is not historicity, but the reason Matthew preserved this event for his readers. Further, in comparison with Mark and Luke, why does Matthew expand the account? Why does not Matthew omit the content of Matthew 12:5-7 as do Mark and Luke? 2 W. C. Allen, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to S. Matthew, ICC (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1912), 3rd ed., pp. 125-126. He notes that formulas of three like this occur often in the Gospel. These serve to connect the contexts into a single unit. The unity in this instance is one of controversy between Jesus and the Pharisees. middle use of the three-fold device). It is the first instance of direct Pharisaic opposition recorded in Matthew. All the Gospels indicate that the breaking point between Jesus and the Pharisees was the Sabbath controversy (cf. Mark 3:6; Luke 14:11, John 5:9ff., and Matthew 12:14). Through the Sabbath controversy one discovers in what particular the Pharisees opposed Jesus. Moreover, this confrontation reveals a large chasm between Jesus’ understanding of the Law and the Pharisaic understanding. The Action and Accusation. During this period of controversy (which is the context of this incident in both Matthew and Mark) Jesus and his disciples were walking through a grainfield on the Sabbath. Matthew records that they passed through, “his disciples were hungry and they began to pluck heads of grain and to eat” (12:1). However, when the Pharisees saw this, they pointed out that what the disciples were doing was “not lawful to do on the Sabbath” (12:2).3 The action of the disciples seems to be altogether unlawful since, we presume, it was not their field in the first place and not only because it was done on the Sabbath. The accusation, however, was not that the disciples were stealing, but that they were plucking and eating ears of grain on the Sabbath. In fact, the Torah permits a neighbor, when walking through a grainfield, to pluck some kernels with his hands, but not to use a sickle to his standing grain (Deut. 23:25).4 The Pharisees did not question the legality of such a plucking, but they did question whether or not such was permitted on the Sabbath. Rabbinic law is quite clear on this subject. Plucking grain would be considered reaping, but reaping is one of the thirty-nine tasks forbidden on the Sabbath in Shabbath 7:2. Further, according to the rabbinic tradition, one was forbidden to eat anything that was not prepared the previous day (Sanbat 19a).5 This is also evidenced by Jubilees 2:29, which reads, “they (children of Israel) should not prepare thereon (Sabbath) anything to be eaten or drunk, and that it is not lawful to draw water, or bring in or take out thereon through the gates any burden, which they had not prepared for themselves on the sixth day.” Thus the Pharisees had at least two infractions of rabbinic law that they could use against Jesus.6 However, their accusation is not based directly on the Torah, but is rooted in oral tradition. McConnell argues that “in the two Sabbath pericopes it is primarily the rabbinic understanding of Sabbath observance that is opposed because the points at issue involve rabbinic ordinances.”7 This observation is important if we are to understand Jesus’ 3 Matthew changes Mark’s question into a declarative statement (cf. Mark 2:24). This may be stylistic, but perhaps Matthew changes it in order to mark the contrast between the Pharisaic halakah (2:12) and Jesus’ halakah (12:12). 4 According to Boaz Cohen, “The Rabbinic Law Presupposed by Matthew 12:1 and Luke 6:1,” Harvard Theological Review 23 (January 1930): 91, 92, at the beginning of the second century the rabbis began to restrict this to those who worked in the field. However, in Talmud Baba Mezia 93a one rabbi finds a scroll that quotes Deut. 23:25 and adds that he “extends the priviledge to all.” 5 The Damascus Document also forbids these items. In X, 22 it reads: “Let only that be eaten on the Sabbath day which has been prepared (on the previous day).” Interestingly, the writer adds: “And whatever is lost in the fields…let it not be eaten.” 6 Leon Morris, The Gospel According to Luke: An Introduction and Commentary, TNTC (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1974), p. 122, in noting Luke’s added details (Luke 6:1), sees four infractions: plucking would be reaping, throwing away the husks would be winnowing, rubbing in the hands would be threshing, and they would be eating food prepared on the Sabbath. 7 Richard J. McConnell, Law and Prophecy in Matthew’s Gospel: The Authority and Use of the Old Testament in the Gospel of Matthew (Basel: Friedrich Reinhardt Kommissionsberlag, 1969), p. 69. response to the accusation correctly. Further, we must take a fuller look at the rabbinic understanding of Sabbath observance. Yet, it must be pointed out with Barth that the disciples did not “wantonly break the Sabbath.”8 Rather, they did it out of a certain need: hunger. This detail is peculiar to Matthew. Matthew is concerned to point out that the disciples were not acting out of disregard for the Sabbath. This may indicate, as Barth suggests, that Matthew’s community was still involve in Sabbath-keeping, whereas this detail was unimportant to Mark because his community did not keep the Sabbath.9 In any event, the Matthean addition brings out the parallel between David and Jesus in an emphatic way since Matthew points out that the disciples were hungry just as David and his men (12:3). The Jewish Conception of the Sabbath. In the first century there were two major currents of thought with respect to what was lawfully permitted on the Sabbath. One is represented by the Dead Sea sect, as illustrated by the Damascus Document. The other is what generally appears in the rabbinic material. The first is more stringent, the second more liberal. For instance, the Damascus Document XI, 16-17 forbids the saving of a life on the Sabbath day, whereas this was permitted by the rabbis (Yoma 8:6,7; Mekilta Exodus 22:2; 31:13). Further, the Dead Sea sect forbade helping an animal out of a pit or ditch (Damascus Document XI, 13); the Pharisees granted that right (Shabbath 15:1ff; bShabbath 128b). Thus, the rabbis, at least in some respects, were more liberal than the Dead Sea community.10 However, the Mishan agrees that the practice of medicine where life is not in danger (such as the setting of a broken bone) is forbidden (Shabbath 22:6). From the data it is clear that Jesus’ controversy was with the rabbinic understanding and not with the Dead Sea sect. In Matthew 12:11 it is assumed that the Pharisees would permit a man to help his ox out of a ditch on the Sabbath. This indicates that Matthew’s audience was more influenced by the rabbis than by the Dead Sea sect. There were certain activities that were permitted on the Sabbath. One is mentioned by Jesus in Matthew 1:5: the sacrificial activities of the priests. Further, “the school of Hillel allowed visitation of and comfort of a sick man on the sabbath.”11 Thus there was some diversity of thought as to what was permitted and what was not permitted on the Sabbath. Jesus himself is caught up in this controversy. Not only so, but Matthew wishes to speak to his community concerning the proper observance of the Sabbath within a Jewish context. This is indicated by the expansion of the Markan material in Matthew 12:5-7.

8 G. Barth in Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew, ed. G. Bornkamm, et. al., and trans. P. Scott (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1963), p. 81. 9 Ibid., p. 81. It must be remembered that the early Christian community neither required nor discouraged “Sabbath-keeping,” Many Jewish Christians, however, retained many Jewish practices as customs (cf. Acts 21:18-26). Paul considered the “regarding of days” as something indifferent (Rom. 14:5; cf. Col. 2:16). Therefore, it would not be surprising to find a Jewish Christian community (like Matthew’s audience) keeping the Sabbath but a Gentile community (like Mark’s audience) disregarding the Sabbath. 10 S. T. Kembrough, “The Concept of Sabbath at Qumran,” Revue de Qumran 5 (1966): 483-502, exmines the concept from the perspective of Qumran, the intertestamental period, the Old Testament, and rabbinic material. He compares the strictness of each in parallel columns. His conclusion is the same as that indicated in the text of the article. 11 Jack P. Lewis, The Gospel According to Matthew, Part I, The Living Word Commentary (Austin: Sweet Publishing Co., 1976), p. 172. Jesus’ Response

Rabbinic Argumentation. Most commentators see Jesus’ response to the Pharisaic accusation in three stages: (1) the example of David (Matt. 12:3,4); (2) the example of the temple service (12:5,6); and (3) the quotation from Hosea 6:6.12 But there are several problems with this structure. First, it leaves the final saying in Matthew 12:8 without a proper context. It does not appear to be integral to the argument in this three-stage construction, but the gar of verse 8 indicates that it is closely linked with verse 7. Second, the introduction to the quotation from Hosea 6:6 indicates that Jesus is appealing to a principle that underlies his two examples. It is, as we shall see, the proper principle by which to judge what is lawful and not lawful on the Sabbath. Thus Hosea 6:6 is not merely another argument, but undergirds the first two examples. In order to understand the response, it is necessary to understand the nature of the question at stake. Among the many types of questions that the rabbis raised, two are especially important for understanding this passage. There were (1) haggadic questions and (2) halakaic questions.13 Generally, haggadic teaching centered around the use of examples, while halakaic teaching was based directly on a precept of the Law. Haggadic arguments “might serve to inculcate moral lessons, general religious truths and wisdom, and they might also serve to illustrate and corroborate a halakah. But it could not be used to justify the abrogation of a law.”14 In the rabbinic system, a halakah was a detailed rule that rested directly or indirectly on a scriptural statement. A halakah could be deduced from a scriptural precept indirectly if it is derived “by means of the recognized norms of hermeneutics.”15 The question is: Does Jesus’ response to the halakaic question of the Pharisees fall into the category of haggadah or halakah? If his response is haggadic, then it is technically invalid or inconclusive in a rabbinic context. But if it is halakaic, then Matthew has portrayed Jesus as a good rabbi who reasons according to rabbinical hermeneutics. The Two-Case Arguments. The first example Jesus uses in response to the Pharisaic accusation is that of David, who ate the “bread of the presence” when he was hungry—an act that was only permitted to priests (cf. 1 Sam. 21:1-6). The parallel that Matthew seeks to make clear is apparent in his phraseology. Just as the disciples were “hungry” and did “eat” what was “unlawful” (according to oral tradition) for them to eat, so did David and his mean eat what was unlawful for them to eat when they were hungry. This analogy, however, raises a number of questions. First, is the analogy even applicable to the present question? There is no indication in the Old Testament or Matthew’s account that David’s action took place on the Sabbath. The rabbis considered David’s action to be justifiable on some other principles,16 but can it be done on the

12 Eduard Schweizer, The Good News According to Matthew, trans. D. E. Green (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1975), p. 278 and Lewis I, p. 169. 13 David Daube, The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism (London: University Press, 1956), pp. 67-71. 14 D. M. Cohn-Sherbok, “An Analysis of Jesus’ Arguments Concerning the Plucking of the Grain on the Sabbath,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 2 (1979): 31-41. 15 Daube, The New Testament, p. 68. 16 Robert Banks, Jesus and the Law in the Synoptic Tradition (Cambridge: University Press, 1975), p. 114. Cf. H. L. Strack and P. Billerbeck, Kommentar Zum Neuen Testament Aus Talmud und Midrash I (Munchen: C. H. Bek’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1962), pp. 618-619. Sabbath? Apparently the rabbis answered affirmatively since it was generally agreed among that this action did take place on the Sabbath day.17 However, as Barth has pointed out, though Matthew may have been aware of this tradition, he did not use it. His emphasis is not “that David ate on the Sabbath, but that he ate the consecrated showbread,” and that, one might add, he ate it out of a need—hunger.18 The similarity between the disciples’ action and that of David is not that both were done on the Sabbath, but that both did what was forbidden on the basis of some need.19 Second, is the analogy a reasonable one for justifying an action on the Sabbath? If the disciples’ lives had been in danger due to hunger, the Pharisees would not have questioned their plucking and eating grain on the Sabbath since “whenever there is doubt whether life is in danger this overrides the Sabbath” (Yoma 8:6). However, the disciples do not appear to be in such danger and “since the disciples were not famished, there was no obvious necessity which would justify this breach of the Sabbath.”20 Though this observation is true, it misses the point that is being made in the context of Matthew’s Gospel.21 If we interpret the analogy as one example or illustration of the principle embodied in Hosea 6:6, then Matthew’s point is clear. The issue is whether human need overrides a ceremonial law such as consecrated bread or the Sabbath. Hosea’s answer, which Matthew quotes in 12:7, is “I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.” Thus the analogy is not based on the Sabbath day as such, but it revolves around the idea that human need (mercy) supersedes ceremonial law (sacrifice). Minor acts of labor to meet human needs do no violate the spirit of the Sabbbath.22 Third, is the analogy rabbinically valid? Both Cohn-Sherbok and Davies answer in the negative since the example only has haggadic significance. This is because “historical narrative belongs to the province of haggadah.”23 Thus, in a rabbinic context Jesus’ first response is invalid since it attempts to answer a halakaic question by a haggadic example.24 This is not to say that Jesus’ argument is unsound or that his point is actually false, but merely that within a rabbinic community or debate his argument would not have been accepted unless it were merely supporting a halakaic argument. 17 Cf. Eduard Loshe, “sabbaton, sabbatismos, paraskeue,” in The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, VII, ed. G. Friedrich and trans. G. W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971), p. 22. 18 Barth, Tradition and Interpretation, p. 81, n. 4. 19 Cf. McConnell, Law and Prophecy, p. 67, and Allen, Matthew, p. 127. 20 Cohn-Sherbok, “Jesus’ Arguments,” p. 35. 21 Even in Mark, Jesus’ point remains the same though it is not elaborated to the extent Matthew’s Gospel takes it. With Alan Cole, The Gospel According to Mark: An Introduction and Commentary, TNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1961), p. 73, the point is that the “law of need takes precedence over the law of the ceremonial.” Cf. William Lane, The Gospel According to Mark, NIC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), pp. 114-120. Mark’s example of David is sufficient for his Roman community, but not for Matthew’s Jewish- Christian one. 22 Cf. Sherman E. Johnson, “The Gospel According to Matthew,” in The Interpreter’s Bible, VII, ed. G. A. Buttrick (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1951), p. 392. F. V. Filson, A Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Matthew, HNTC (New York: Harper & Row, 1960), p. 146, sees the argument running like this: “If Daivd (and his men) could do this, even more can the Son of David (i,1) and his followers.” But the text does not say that Jesus participated and thus does not draw the parallel. Though this may be in the background, it is not Matthew’s explicit point. 23 Cohn-Sherbok, “Jesus’ Arguments,” p. 36 and W. D. Davies, The Setting of the sermon on the Mount (Cambridge: University Press, 1963), p. 103. 24 Mark did not need the halakaic answer for his community. The point may be correct even though technically invalid in a rabbinic context. However, Matthew’s further account of the debate demonstrates that even in a rabbinic context the point is a correct one. Interestingly, this is exactly what we find in Matthew’s account. Matthew adds to Mark’s record another argument from the temple service that is, as we will see, halakaic in nature. This is not to say that this is a mere Matthean construction. Rather, it is a historical saying that Matthew includes and Mark omits. As Hill observes, Matthew required something more than example of haggadic significance to justify the action of Jesus’ disciples for his audience.25 The second example, which is unique to Matthew, concerns the service that the priests performed every Sabbath day. According to the Law, the priests were to make certain sacrifices every Sabbath day (Num. 28:9, 10). Technically the priests were “profaning” the Sabbath. In Sabbath 18:3, permission is given to “profane the sabbath” on certain occasions such as the offering of sacrifices or the performing of a circumcision if the eighth day fell on the Sabbath. Jubilees 50:10 commands that no work is to be done on the Sabbath “except burning frankincense, and bringing oblations and sacrifices before the Lord.” Thus, Jesus’ example stood squarely within rabbinic tradition as well as within the Torah itself.26 The significance of the example is not clear until verse 6, where Jesus says that “something greater than the temple is here.” This expression raises several questions. First, to what is Matthew referring when he writes that something (neuter gender) greater than the temple is here?27 This phrase is used twice elsewhere in Matthew 12 (12:41,42). Immediately before these two occurrences Matthew has argued that through the working of the Holy Spirit one should be able to discern that “the Kingdom of God has come upon you” (12:28). After this saying the scribes and Pharisees request a sign from Jesus (12:38). He responds by arguing that they should have heeded his preaching since the men of Nineveh repented at the preaching of Jonah and “something greater than Jonah is here” (12:41). In the context, this appears to be the present reality of the kingdom of God in the person of Jesus.28 Second, how do verses 5 and 6 function as a response to the Pharsaic accusation? The Pharisees asked a halakaic question that needed, if it were to be rabbinically valid, a halakaic response. The conjunction of the example of verse 5 with the principle of verse 6 constitutes such a response. The example of the priests profaning the Sabbath is rooted in an explicit precept of Scripture and therefore has halakaic significance. Daube stated

25 D. Hill, “On the Use and Meaning of Hosea vi.6 in Matthew’s Gospel,” New Testament Studies 24.1 (1977): 114. 26 E. Levine, “The Sabbath Controversy According to Matthew,” New Testament Studies 22.4 (1976): 480- 483 argues that Jesus is not referring to the activity of the priests in the temple, but “to the widely contested and rigorously defended Pharsaic practice of reaping the first sheaves offering.” However, why does Matthew mention the temple and the priestly cult in this case? Further, Matthew draws attention to the fact that this is recorded “in the law” (Torah). But the reaping of the sheaves on the Sabbath is not explicitly mentioned in the Torah. 27 The less-attested reading of the TR is masculine gender, would explicitly refer to Jesus himself. But the neuter reading appears to be the better one since it would be hard to explain why a scribe would substitute a “natural” masculine reading with a difficult neuter ending. 28 Cf. D. Hill, The Gospel of Matthew, NCB (Greenwood, SC: Attic Press, 1975), p. 211; and Herman Ridderbos, The Coming of the Kingdom, trans. H. de Jongste (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1962), pp. 74-103. But both Johnson, VII, 392 and A. H. McNeile, The Gospel Accoridng to St. Matthew: The Greek Text with Introduction, Notes and Indices (London: Macmillan Co., 1915), p. 169, think that verse 6 first belong to another context. But there is no reason to think this since it fits the rabbinic argument and a similar phrase is found later in this context twice (12:41, 42). Jesus’ argument would be incomplete without this minor premise. that a halakah or rule may be deduced from a precept if the norms of rabbinical hermeneutics are followed.29 Verse 6 utilizes one of those rabbinic hermeneutical principles. Matthew uses the inference a fortiori, “or as the Rabbis termed it, qal wahomer, ‘the light and weighty’.” This is “an inference from the less to the more important.”30 Thus the form of Jesus’ argument runs like this: If the priests may profane the Sabbath in temple services, then his disciples may profane the Sabbath in the service of the kingdom since the kingdom is greater than the temple. Though the form of the argument is rabbinically valid, is the analogy between the priests and the disciples sound? Cohn-Sherbok argues that “unlike the priests, Jesus’ disciples were not engaged in any form of religious observance, nor were they serving Jesus by plucking ears of grain.”31 However, in the context of the entire Gospel, the disciples must be seen as those in the service of the kingdom (in consequence of their commission in Matthew 10). Just as in the presence of the temple the priests performed their functions, so in the presence of Jesus, who embodies the kingdom, the disciples carry on their activities (even minor acts like plucking grain).32 Therefore, according to Matthew, Jesus presented a haggadic example (David) as support for his halakaic argument. By including this halakaic argument, Matthew has “presented a rabbinically more technical and, therefore, more forceful argument than Mark and Luke who have only made use of the example of Daivd. This is another indication of the ‘scholarly’ Herkunft of Matthew.”33 He strengthens Mark’s argument since, as it stands in Mark, it would not have been accepted by his Jewish Christian audience who were probably involved in a similar debate with the rabbis of their area. Matthew has portrayed Jesus as a careful rabbi who argues his case in good rabbinic fashion. The Principle. Verses 7 and 8 stand as a unit that reveals the true intention of the Law and Jesus’ authority to interpret that Law. There is a break between verses 6 and 7, which is indicated by the de as well as the phrase that introduces the quotation from Hosea 6:6. In effect, Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for even needing the above examples. If they had understood the intention of the Law, they would never made the accusation. If they had understood that God desires “mercy and not sacrifice,” they never would have accused the disciples of doing anything unlawful. This quotation from Hosea 6:6 is extremely significant for several reasons. First, if Gundry is correct, Matthew has independently translated this verse from the Hebrew rather than taking it from the LXX as he usually does. This demonstrates that he did not

29 Daube, New Testament, p. 68. 30 Cohn-Sherbok, “Jesus’ Arguments,” p. 37. McConnell, Law and Prophecy, p. 68, thinks that this same principle was used in the first example in comparing Jesus with David, but the parallel is not made explicit as it is in this case. 31 Cohn-Sherbok, “Jesus’ Arguments,” p. 39. 32 Ridderbos, Kingdom, p. 304, argues that Jesus’ mission “exempted him from keeping ceremonial precepts if they conflicted with his own divinely prescribed purposes. Something similar is found in Matthew 17:24-27, where Jesus vindicates his exemption from paying taxes for his Father’s house on the basis of his Sonship.” Further, even minor acts are indicative of the nature of Jesus’ ministry. For instance, while John’s disciples fasted, the disciples of Jesus did not since the time of fulfillment had arrived (Matt. 9:14-17). In some real sense the kingdom is present in Jesus, yet future as well (Matt. 16:28). 33 Davies, The Setting, p. 456. Cf. H. B. Green, The Gospel According to Matthew in the Revised Standard Version: Introduction and Commentary, NCB (Oxford: University Press, 1975), p. 123. receive it from any tradition.34 Second, this quotation appears only in Matthew and it appears twice (here and 9:13). Third, the word for mercy (eleos) appears in Matthew’s Gospel only three times: here, in 9:13 and in 22:23. Each time it is used in controversial dialogues involving the Pharisees. Fourth, the quotation’s introduction in both 9:13 and here indicates that it is a principle for interpreting the Law. From reading Hosea 6:6 the Pharisees should have understood why Jesus ate with sinners and why it is permissible for disciples to pluck and eat ears of grain on the Sabbath. This points us toward the real intention of the Law or what the Law means. This is yet another instance in Matthew where Jesus points his audience’s attention to the true meaning of the Law in opposition to the rabbinic understanding (cf. the antitheses of Matthew 5; 7:12 and 15:1-20). What, then, is the meaning of Hosea 6:6 as it is applied by Matthew? Hill sees the background of the term eleos in the Old Testament since it does appear in an Old Testament quotation. The Hebrew term behind eleos is hesed, a word that refers to “covenant loyalty” as an expression of man’s relationship to God. Hill concludes that “in man’s relationship to God, what is desired is not sacrifice…but the compassionate attitude and merciful action which give concrete expression to one’s faithful adherence to and love for God.”35 On three different occasions Matthew condemsn the Pharisees for lacking this compassionate attitude. They devote their time to incidentals or trivialities (like plucking ears of grain on the Sabbath) rather than being concerned with the weightier matters of the Law (Matt. 23:23, 24). In particular, it is the demands of eleos that take precedence over the Sabbath law itself. The real intent of the Law is eleos, not sacrifice. Once again, as in the case of David, there is a clear priority of human need and attitudes over ceremonial Law (or in this case, a human addition to the Law). The first controversy concludes with an assertion of Jesus’ authority as the Son of Man. The authority aspect of this assertion is emphasized by the word order in Greek: kurios gar estin tou sabbatou ho huios tou anthropou (12:8). The authoritative concept (kurios) occurs first in the word order: “Lord of the sabbath is the Son of Man.”36 Sabbath-keeping must be governed by the true intention of the Law. As Green puts it, Matthew argues that “the final authority is not the Mosaic law as it stands [that is, interpreted by the rabbis, JMH], but as reinterpreted by Jesus.”37 Jesus as the interpreter of Sabbath Law has the right to go beyond existing tradition: he is the proper authority. He is Lord of the Sabbath. He is the Messianic Son of Man who embodies the kingdom of God. He alone discerns what is the true will of God.38

34 R. H. Gundry, The Use of the Old Testament in St. Matthew’s Gospel with Special Reference to the Messianic Hope (Supplement to Novum Testamentum 18) (Leiden: Brill, 1967), p. 111. 35 Hill, “Hosea vi.6,” p. 110. Sjef Van Tilborg, The Jewish Leaders in Matthew (Leiden: Brill, 1972), suggests that eleos means the “non-condemning of the innocent ones” such that it refers to the “forgiving and condemning of guilt.” But this does not accord well with the Old Testament conception. Yet certainly Matthew is depending upon the Old Testament idea since it is an Old Testament quotation and it is applied here as the true intention of the Law. 36 Note that Matthew has excluded Mark’s universalistic concept of the Sabbath (Mark 2:27a). Though the formula existed in Judaism according to different forms (The Exodus Mekilta 31:14), Matthew probably excludes it since his concern is the true intention of Sabbath-law, not the universal nature of Jesus’ claim. 37 Green, Matthew, p. 124. 38 Barth, Tradition and Interpretation, p. 83. Thus, if Matthew’s community is going to keep the Sabbath, it must be governed by the proper principle. The Messianic nature of the “Son of Man” title is discussed by Ridderbos, pp. 81-95. A Further Confrontation

The Accusation. Hill correctly points out that there is a close connection between this confrontation and the previous one, at least for Matthew. In fact, Hill argues that “vv. 1-8 are not making any self-contained point, independent of what follows in vv. 9-14.”39 This is indicated by the use of the pronoun “their” with reference to the synagogue of the Pharisees and the fact that in Matthew it appears that the confrontations occurred on the same day (although that is not explicitly stated, the easy flow between the two controversies is quite different from that of Mark and Luke). Upon entering the synagogue, Jesus notices a man who has a withered hand. In Matthew the Pharisees immediately ask Jesus a halakaic question: “Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath?” As was noted above, the rabbis considered any use of medicine except in the case of life-and-death situations to be work and thus it was forbidden on the Sabbath.40 Since the man’s life was not in danger, the healing could very well wait till the next day. To perform the miracle would be to practice medicine and thus “work.” Jesus’ Response. In response Jesus uses the rabbinic principle of qal wahomer, reasoning from the lesser to the greater. The rabbis admitted (though the Dead Sea sect did not) that it was permissible to help an animal out of a ditch on the Sabbath. If this is the case, Jesus reasons, “Of how much more value is a man than a sheep?” Thsu, Jesus deduces from what was taken to be a halakah another halakah in accordance with a proper rabbinic hermeneutical principle. In fact, he concludes that “it is lawful to do good on the sabbath.” Matthew thus provides a halakah for his own community. If it is good, that is, it is in accordance with eleos, then it is lawful to do it on the Sabbath. Therefore, it was lawful for the disciples to pluck and eat ears of grain on the Sabbath when hungry and it was lawful for Jesus to heal on the Sabbath. Jesus does not, at least at this point, abrogate the Sabbath law, but merely reinterprets it by setting forth the true intention of the Law.41 Result. At this point, the Pharisees begin to plot Jesus’ downfall. He has asserted his authority over the Sabbath and has set himself up as the true interpreter of the Law as opposed to the Pharisees. In order for them to retain their prominence, they must get rid of Jesus. It is important that the plot to kill Jesus is introduced here after this conflict over the interpretation of the Law in questions of halakah. Matthew’s community need not be bothered by the rabbis of their area regarding the proper observance of the Sabbath. Jesus has already properly interpreted the true intent of the Law and it is summarize in one halakah for Jewish Christians: “So it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.”42

Conclusion

Matthew’s point in this section of his Gospel may be summarized in this statement: Jesus is the rabbi for his church, the one who correctly interprets the Law for

39 Hill, “Hosea vi.6,” p. 115. 40 Lohse, TDNT VII, p. 13, notes that “the deciding principles is that anything is prohibited which can take on the character of work.” 41 Schweizer, Good News, pp. 278, 279. 42 Just as Mattahew 12:2, so here in 12:12 Matthew changes Mark’s question (Mark 3:4) into a declarative statement. This is to emphasize the halakaic nature of Jesus’ declaration. This accords well with the Jewish character of Matthew’s Gospel. his people. He does not stand opposed to the Law, but he draws out its true intention or real meaning (Matt. 5:17,18). It is not that there is something greater than the Law here, but something grater than the temple (with its priestly cult). A new community has arrived (the kingdom of God) and Jesus is its rabbi who interprets the Law for his community. In this section it is important to note Jesus’ judgment upon two important issues. First, not only is Jesus the authoritative interpreter for the church, Scripture itself is the final appeal of authority. In this controversy, Jesus clearly elevates Scripture over human tradition, that is, Hosea 6:6 over rabbinic additions to the Old Testament Sabbath law. Christians, likewise, ought not to overlay Jesus’ interpretation with human traditions. Second, Jesus gives validity to a hermeneutical principle, that is, reasoning from the lesser to the greater. In this debate, Jesus takes a scriptural precept and example from which to deduce an equally authoritative implication. The use of hermeneutical principles does not, therefore, mean that the text being interpreted is necessarily obscured. Necessary inferences or implications according to established rules of hermeneutics are as sound as the precepts or examples upon which they are based. Matthew’s inclusion of this section probably stems from the fact that his community was still keeping the Sabbath, and was involved in a conflict with contemporary rabbinism over its proper observance. Matthew’s periscope answers the needs of such a community perfectly as Jesus is raised to the status of interpreter for the church, but one who maintains the integrity of the Law as opposed to Pharisees (and rabbinism), who neglect the mercy the Law demands in order to offer sacrifices. Thus this section not only answer’s his church’s concerns about the Sabbath, but speaks to the larger issue of the church’s identity as opposed to legalistic Judaism.43

43 Hill, Gospel, p. 209, and Barth, Tradition and Interpretation, p. 81.