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 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’ 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.
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 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. 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 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.