“At that time, Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath, and His disciples were hungry and began to pick grain heads and eat. So, the Pharisees seeing [this] said to Him, ‘Behold! Your disciples are doing what is not authorized on the Sabbath!’ So, He said to them, ‘Have you not read what David did when he was hungry and those with him? How he entered the house of God, and they ate the bread of the Presence, which was not authorized for him to eat nor those with him, but the priests alone? Or have you not read in the Law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple desecrate the Sabbath and are blameless? So, I say to you that something greater than the temple is here. But if you had known what this is: I desire mercy and not sacrifice, you would not condemn the blameless. For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.’”
The Pharisees have always been on the fringe of Matthew’s presentation (3:7; 5:20; 9:11, 14, 34) but here we have the first major collision between them and Jesus. By default, Jesus’ agenda was never going to be well received by the Pharisees because any new or different agenda would automatically conflict with the status quo which the Pharisees worked tirelessly to maintain. In this dustup, it is worth noting that it is the Pharisees who pick the fight as they officially place a target on Jesus’ back. Matthew presents this conflict in three stages: (1) the arena of context, (2) the accusations from the Pharisees, and (3) Jesus’ defensive(?) arguments.
The Arena (v. 1)
That Matthew intends to logically connect this scene with Jesus’ final statements in chapter 11 is obvious enough, though the details that Matthew includes in this simple introductory verse is worthy of meditation. Two things are brought out by Matthew: (1) when this event took place (on the Sabbath) and (2) what the disciples were doing (picking and eating heads of grain) and why (because they were hungry).
The Sabbath
“At that time, Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath.”
The Sabbath was (and is) the single greatest part of Judaism. There are other cultures who practiced circumcision, maintained a temple cult complete with priests and sacrifices, honored high and holy days, but the Sabbath was a sign that was exclusively Israelite. As the sign of the covenant that Yhwh made with Israel at Sinai (Ex. 31:12-17) the seventh day was held in high esteem by all and yet the keeping of the Sabbath had morphed and changed significantly through the centuries.
Originally, the seventh day (our Saturday) is associated with God’s completed work of creation (Gen. 2:1-3). Yhwh set the seventh day aside, made it holy (separate from the ordinary) because His work was complete. Thus, the seventh day was used to reflect on God’s completed work. This point cannot be overstressed. Flashing forward a few thousand years, the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are transformed into the nation of Israel with whom Yhwh made covenant to be their God and they His people (Ex. 20-23). Within this covenant we see emphasis on the seventh day as a Sabbath (שַׁבָּת) now known as the fourth and longest commandment (Ex. 20:8-11). Because of the fall and the curse of labor combined with the promise of a coming restorer (Gen. 3), this rest is no longer exclusively reflective but includes a sense of anticipation. The commandment to rest on the seventh day was not given to Israel simply as being commemorative of God’s rest (even God needs a day off?) but is a commandment of anticipation when God will complete His work of redemption and the world will be as it was originally created: very good (Gen. 1:31). By the time of Jesus’ advent in the first century AD, that sense of the Sabbath had been completely lost.
Through the ages, the emphasis shifted from the purpose of the Sabbath to the keeping of the Sabbath. No one worried too much why the Sabbath was given (and it truly was a gift) to Israel as they concerned themselves with how to keep the Sabbath. The general instruction to cease from labor (Ex. 20:8-11; Deut. 5:12-15) was given more definition with thirty-nine specific prohibitions (forty minus one) taken from the various tasks needed to erect the tabernacle (Ex. 40). These thirty-nine tasks were subdivided into numerous minute tasks that would cover all areas of life. These things were not prohibited by God. Rather, the rabbinical tradition had placed extra demands upon the people making their burden heavy indeed. The celebration of God’s good creation and the anticipation of His redemption had been replaced by oppression.
History is full of examples where this Sabbatical obsession resulted in the destruction of the very people it was supposed to bless. During the Maccabean revolt, a group of Jewish rebels hiding in a cave were set upon by the Greeks on a Sabbath day. Unwilling to break the Sabbath, the rebels refused to lift a finger to block the cave’s entrance, much less offer resistance. As a result, the whole group, men, women, children, and livestock were slaughtered (1 Macc. 2:29-41). A similar event is recorded by Josephus when the Roman general Pompey laid siege to Jerusalem. He was able to build an earthwork for his siege engines unmolested because his engineers began building it on a Sabbath. The Jews inside the city watched without firing a shot. This is the kind of oppression that rabbinical tradition brought upon the people. All this is necessary to understand as Jesus went through this grainfield.
The Disciples’ Hunger
“And His disciples were hungry and began to pick grain heads and eat.”
That Jesus traveled through a grainfield is not particularly surprising, for He ministered at a time when property lines were not fenced, and little footpaths crisscrossed through the fields with grain growing right up to the edge of the paths. To travel anywhere off the main roads would necessitate cutting through these fields with the grain growing within an easy hand’s reach. These are not meaningless details but are provided specifically by Matthew to complete the context for the following scene.
Note that Jesus is introduced as an individual. Matthew does not say “they” were going through the grainfields but that “Jesus went through the grainfields” (ἐπορεύθη ὁ Ἰησοῦς τοῖς σάββασιν διὰ τῶν σπορίμων). Yet clearly the disciples are nearby. It seems that the context set up in 11:1 (Jesus sending the disciples out and then following them from city to city where they preached the coming kingdom) is still in play. This is an important point to make because the disciples were hungry.
The last instruction the disciples were given regarding their food preparation was to make none (10:9-15). Their ministry of kingdom proclamation was to be supported by those who welcomed them, the kingdom, the king, and the one who sent the king (10:40-42). If they are hungry, it is only because they have not been fed. This is an indication that the proclamation of the kingdom has not been well received. As such, they are reduced to glean the heads of grain as they walk.
The Accusation (v. 2)
“So, the Pharisees seeing [this] said to Him, ‘Behold! Your disciples are doing what is not authorized on the Sabbath!’”
That the Pharisees are there at all is something of note. Why are they watching Jesus and the disciples rather than being at home with their families celebrating the Sabbath? The implication is that they are watching Jesus intently so that an opportunity may present itself that they might silence Him. Their mock surprise (behold!) fails to conceal their glee that they now have a clear case against Jesus.
We must make note of several things. First, the charge against the disciples is a charge against Jesus. The Pharisees do not make an accusation directly against Jesus, but against His disciples. Jesus was not picking heads of grain and thus cannot be directly accused, yet He is held responsible for the actions of His followers. This will actually provide Jesus with a tactical advantage in the following verses because Jesus will not be defending Himself, but others.
Second, the charge itself assumes the rabbinic tradition that picking grain constitutes harvesting and that rubbing it in the hands to break the kernels loose constitutes threshing. In this manner the Pharisees accuse the disciples of doing what is not allowed, or authorized (ἔξεστιν) on the Sabbath.
Third, this interpretation is completely groundless. The Scriptures not only make merciful allowance for the hungry traveler to glean from the fields, but also make a clear distinction between gleaning and harvesting (Deut. 23:25). To pick the heads of grain is to glean. To wield a sickle is to harvest. The disciples are perfectly within the commandments of God.
Finally, this accusation is cold and calculating. Profaning the Sabbath is a death sentence (Ex. 31:14-15; 35:2) that is not without biblical precedent (Num. 15:32-36). To convict the disciples of profaning the Sabbath will lead to their death and perhaps the death of their Lord. Make no mistake, this is the first attempt on Jesus’ life by the Pharisees.
To be continued...
Comments