Oct 09 2008
Matthew 12
The Pharisees accuse Jesus of allowing his disciples to break the Sabbath rest. Green (p144) points out the irony of this, coming immediately after Jesus’s offering in him ‘rest for your souls’. Jesus is quick to answer in a way that not only justifies the actions of the disciples, but also hints at his own identity. First, he draws their attention to a case (1 Sam 21:1‑9) where David and his men ate consecrated loaves from the Temple because of need, even though these were reserved only for the priests (the hint here is that Jesus is greater than David, and so he and his disciples can do likewise). Secondly, he referred to the fact that the priests in the Temple work on the Sabbath because Temple worship takes precedence over Sabbath regulation (the hint here being that now Jesus, greater than the Temple, also takes precedence). Finally he quotes Hosea 6:6 again reminding them that God desires mercy above sacrifice.
In any case, there is nothing in the written Law of Moses that prevents the disciples from doing as they did. They contravened only the oral Law, which to the Pharisees sometimes seemed to take precedence over the Law given by God (e.g. 15:6). What the disciples were doing was specifically permitted in Deut. 23:25, although it is not specified that it is also permitted on the Sabbath. However, the context in Deuteronomy is specifically drawing a contrast between something that could be considered as work (gathering into bowls) and something that is merely to satisfy hunger (plucking grapes to eat), which would certainly imply that in the eyes of God’s Law it would be a permissible act on the Sabbath. In fact, as the purpose of the Sabbath was rest, given as a reflection of God’s seventh day of rest after Creation, the Sabbath rest imitated the Edenic tradition, and in Eden there was cultivating and plucking fruits and grains for food (Gen 1:29, 2:15) as opposed to the harder workaday toil that came afterwards (Gen 3:17-19). In this way, the disciples were in fact resting from their labour (11:28) and celebrating the Sabbath. Chrysostom notes that in any case, keeping company with Jesus was in itself a Sabbath (XXXIX:3).
Chrysostom draws an interesting contrast between the Pharisees’ response to this violation of their beloved oral law, a short rebuke, and their response to the next violation, when Jesus heals the man’s withered hand. Again Jesus defends his action (this time with a comparison with something in their own oral law). Upon this healing, Matthew reports, they plot to have him killed. They see the same violation in two forms, and yet have a different reaction. Chrysostom suggests plausibly that the first was not so infuriating as a simple act of the disciples’ eating, but the second was insupportable as an act of great kindness and mercy (XXXIX:1). Why? Presumably because while the people would not pay a great deal of attention to the first, healing always drew them closer to Jesus as it elevated his status, making him all the more dangerous from the Pharisees’ point of view.
