Expositor's Bible Commentary Commentary Matthew 12

The Jewish rules of conduct about the Sabbath were extremely detailed, though for many Jews of Jesus’ day, the Sabbath was a joyful festival, a sign of the covenant, a reminder of divine creation in six days, and, provided the rules were obeyed, a means of gaining merit for Israel.

The point at issue in this section is burdensome Pharisaic regulations (cf.

contrast to 11:28–30). The scene depicted here seems to be the disciples going on a Sabbath afternoon stroll within the permitted legal distance (a Sabbath day’s journey); otherwise the Pharisees would not have been there. As they were doing so, they picked some grain along the path .

The Pharisees’ charge that the disciples were breaking the law was based, not on their picking grain in someone else’s field, but on the fact that picking grain was one of thirty-nine kinds of work forbidden on the Sabbath under prevailing Jewish regulations. Though exceptions to these were granted in the case of temple service and where life was at stake, neither exception applied here.

The use of counterquestion and appeal to Scripture was common in rabbinic debates (cf. v.5; 19:4; 21:16, 42; 22:31). The account to which Jesus refers is from 1 Samuel 21:1–6. David entered the tabernacle at Nob, and he and his companions ate what should only have been eaten by the priests and did so after lying to the priest about their mission.

The argument takes a common rabbinical form, namely, the juxtaposition of two apparently contradictory statements from Scripture in order to draw a conclusion regarding regulations for conduct. On the one hand, David ate; on the other, it was unlawful for him to do so. Jesus’ point is not simply that rules admit of exceptions but that the Scriptures themselves do not condemn David for his action; therefore the rigidity of the Pharisees’ interpretation of the law is not in accord with Scripture itself, for they could not explain the incident of David.

How, then, does this apply to Jesus and his disciples? They were not desperate and famished, unlike David and his men. It is not even clear how they were breaking any OT law, where commandments about the Sabbath were aimed primarily at regular work. It seems that Jesus used the David incident not merely to question the Pharisees’ view of the Sabbath; rather, he was questioning their approach to the law itself.

There is more. In the incident to which Jesus referred, regulations (even of the written law) were set aside for David “and his companions.” Is there not therefore a case for setting aside regulations for Jesus and those with him? This analogy holds good only if Jesus is at least as special as David, and it is to this conclusion that the argument builds in the following verses.

The use of counterquestion and appeal to Scripture was common in rabbinic debates (cf. v.5; 19:4; 21:16, 42; 22:31). The account to which Jesus refers is from 1 Samuel 21:1–6. David entered the tabernacle at Nob, and he and his companions ate what should only have been eaten by the priests and did so after lying to the priest about their mission.

The argument takes a common rabbinical form, namely, the juxtaposition of two apparently contradictory statements from Scripture in order to draw a conclusion regarding regulations for conduct. On the one hand, David ate; on the other, it was unlawful for him to do so. Jesus’ point is not simply that rules admit of exceptions but that the Scriptures themselves do not condemn David for his action; therefore the rigidity of the Pharisees’ interpretation of the law is not in accord with Scripture itself, for they could not explain the incident of David.

How, then, does this apply to Jesus and his disciples? They were not desperate and famished, unlike David and his men. It is not even clear how they were breaking any OT law, where commandments about the Sabbath were aimed primarily at regular work. It seems that Jesus used the David incident not merely to question the Pharisees’ view of the Sabbath; rather, he was questioning their approach to the law itself.

There is more. In the incident to which Jesus referred, regulations (even of the written law) were set aside for David “and his companions.” Is there not therefore a case for setting aside regulations for Jesus and those with him? This analogy holds good only if Jesus is at least as special as David, and it is to this conclusion that the argument builds in the following verses.

Jesus’ second appeal is from Nu 28:9–10. Formally speaking the Levitical priests “desecrate” the Sabbath every week, since the right worship of God in the temple required them to do some work (changing the consecrated bread [Leviticus 24:8] and offering the doubled burnt offering [Numbers 28:9–10]). In reality, of course, the priests were guiltless; the law that established the Sabbath also established the right of the priests to “desecrate” it.

But how does this apply to Jesus and his disciples? The form of the argument is valid only if the “one greater than the temple” is truly greater. So the question is: Who (or what) is greater than the temple? The most likely answer is that the “something greater” is either Jesus himself (the more likely interpretation; cf. 26:61) or the kingdom. In fact, the two merge. If the kingdom, it is the kingdom Jesus is inaugurating; if Jesus, it is not only Jesus as a man but as Messiah, Son of David (vv.3–4), Son of Man (v.8), the one who ushers in the Messianic Age.

Jesus’ argument, then, provides an instance from the law itself in which the Sabbath restrictions were superseded by the priests because their cultic responsibilities took precedence: the temple, as it were, was greater than the Sabbath. But now, Jesus claims, “something [NIV note] greater than the temple is here.” And that, too, takes precedence over the Sabbath. This solution is entirely consistent with what we have seen as Jesus’ attitude to the law in this gospel. The law points to him and finds its fulfillment in him . Not only, then, have the Pharisees mishandled the law by their traditions (vv.3–4), but they have failed to perceive who Jesus is. The authority of the temple laws shielded the priests from guilt; the authority of Jesus shields his disciples from guilt.