Jesus’ response to the Pharisees’ accusations consists of three arguments from the Old Testament. Each is introduced with an insulting insinuation that the Pharisees may know the words of Scripture but do not have even the meagerest of understanding. These arguments are not necessarily a correction of the Pharisee’s understanding of the Sabbath as such but point out that their entire approach to Scripture is errant. Thus, Jesus’ point is hermeneutical rather than legal. The debate about the Sabbath is set aside for a moment to get at the greater issue: the interpretation of Scripture. This is a contest of authority between Jesus and the Pharisees to determine who has the right to explain, exegete, or reveal the Father. These three rebukes prove that Jesus, not the Pharisees, is the only One who can reveal the Father (11:27).
First Argument: The Pharisees use Inconsistent Application (vv. 3-4)
“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?”
The initial words “have you not read?” are demeaning and insulting. To the crowds Jesus speaks in terms of what they have heard (5:21, 27, 33) but to the Pharisees Jesus’ aim is more personal. This is akin to asking a constitutional lawyer if they have ever read the bill of rights. The expected response is that of course they have read these words.[1] The Pharisees are the teachers of Israel after all. That they are familiar with these words is taken for granted, but have they made any sense of them?
Jesus points the Pharisees to 1 Sam. 21:1-6, a passage which describes David’s desperate interaction with the priests of Nob during his flight from Saul. Having left with such hast they failed to pack provisions. David came to Nob, the location of the tabernacle, in order to obtain food and equipment for his men. Nothing was available to eat at Nob except the holy bread of the presence (Lev. 24:5-9). So, after David deceived Ahimelech the priest regarding the real reason he was there, Ahimelech gave the bread to David and his men. Jesus’ choice of this passage is interesting for several reasons.
First, David is not blameless. While the text of 1 Samuel 21 does not explicitly condone David’s actions, neither does it condemn him.[2] Yet, any intelligent reader should understand that David is clearly not innocent. The first word out of David’s mouth is a lie (1 Sam. 21:2). This is reason enough to condemn him. Even so, this is not the point that Jesus draws attention to. Rather, it is the fact that David and his men ate of the consecrated bread of the presence which was not permissible for him or his men to eat but the priests alone.
The bread of the presence refers to the twelve loaves kept in the holy place on the golden table as a constant representation of the twelve tribes of Israel (Lev. 24:5-9). Every Sabbath, fresh loaves would be baked and placed on the table as an everlasting covenant between Yhwh and Israel (v. 8). The only men allowed to consume the old bread were the Levitical priests, the sons of Aaron and they must do so in a “holy place” (v. 9). Jesus’ description of David’s actions is extremely curious as He makes it sound as if David entered into the holy place (εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὸν οἶκον τοῦ θεοῦ) to retrieve the bread. This stimulates a myriad of questions. Did David enter the tabernacle itself or only the outer courts? Did David take up the bread from the table or did Ahimelech bring the bread out? Did David violate the holy place? Where did David and his men sit down to eat this bread? Yet none of these questions are what concerns Jesus. To Him, the point is that David and his men consumed what was not lawful/authorized (ἔξεστιν) for them to eat. David, a man of the stock and tribe of Judah, had no business eating what was reserved for the sons of Aaron alone (Lev. 24:9).
Second, rabbinical teaching worked overtime to portray David as blameless. Most of the rabbinical teaching on this passage attempted to justify David’s actions.[3] Their arguments are not consistent with each other (indeed they directly contradict one another[4]) but crystalize on the assumption that David did no wrong. It is crucial to them that the great David is innocent in this matter, so much so that they argue in circles and at times imagine details that have no basis in reality. In short, they attempt to justify the guilty. Their inconsistent application of traditional Sabbath law is part of Jesus’ point.
Third, there is an obvious connection being made between Jesus and His disciples with David and his men. (1) Matthew introduced this narrative as occurring on a Sabbath. This is obviously the same time of the week when David entered the tabernacle court at Nob. The bread was replaced every Sabbath, and the old bread consumed every Sabbath. The fact that it was available at all insists that the event occurred on the Sabbath. (2) Both Jesus and David are alone and yet are accompanied by others. Ahimelech’s first question to David was why he was alone (1 Sam. 21:1) and Jesus is not presented as being directly among His disciples (Matt. 12:1-2). At the same time, David asks for provision for those men who will meet him (1 Sam. 21:2) and Jesus is obviously within visual contact with His disciples. (3) Those with Jesus and David are hungry for similar reasons; namely, they did not bring provisions. David did not have time to prepare for his flight and the disciples were commanded to rely upon the receptiveness of the people for their food. (4) The means by which David and the disciples obtained food is called into question, yet here there is an important difference. David lied to obtain what was not lawful/permissible (ἔξεστιν) for him to have while the disciples supposedly did what was not lawful/permissible (ἔξεστιν) for them to do in order to obtain what was well within their rights to obtain. The differences here are every bit as important as the similarities. The point being that Jesus is clearly drawing a line of comparison between David and Himself.
Finally, the main thrust of this argument is to expose the Pharisee’s inconsistent application of their heavy and burdensome Sabbath regulations. They exonerate David who clearly violated Lev. 24:9 while condemning the disciples who are blameless according to Deut. 23:25. This inconsistency proves that they lack the ability to interpret God’s Word and thus are not able to reveal His will. They cannot do what Jesus does. In addition to this point, there is an unspoken implication of someone or something greater than David. David, Yhwh’s anointed king, was not authorized (ἔξεστιν) to fulfill the role of king and priest. Yet isn’t Messiah expected to be a king (Ps. 2) and a priest (Ps. 110)? Therefore, the anticipated Son of David (Matt. 9:27) would be able to do what David was not permitted (ἔξεστιν) to do. This implicit reasoning becomes explicit in Jesus’ next argument.
Second Argument: The Pharisees Possess Insufficient Understanding (vv. 5-6)
“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.”
Jesus’ second argument comes with the same scathing rebuke as the first. The Pharisees read and yet do not understand. Moving from the Latter Prophets (1 Samuel) to Torah[5] (Numbers), Jesus alludes to the description of the special offerings the priests were to make each Sabbath day (Num. 28:9-10). The daily sacrifices, the morning and evening offerings, do not stop simply because it is the Sabbath. But in addition to these, special Sabbath offerings were made each week. To put it simply, the priests’ work multiplies on the Sabbath rather than abates. They have more to do, not less. If the Pharisees were consistent with their view of Sabbath keeping, would not the priests be guilty of profaning the Sabbath? The Pharisees’ inconsistency has already been dealt with in vv. 3-4. By going back to the Old Testament’s commands for priestly service on the Sabbath, Jesus calls into question whether the Pharisees even understand the point of the Sabbath.
Jesus is downright provocative in His choice of words. He speaks of the priests profaning (βεβηλόω – to violate, desecrate, profane) the high and holy Sabbath.[6] Their “work” brings the commonplace into the realm of the holy and thus violates the sanctity of the day. That is, according to the Pharisees’ reasoning. Yet, the Scriptures not only fail to condemn the priests, but they are found innocent or blameless (ἀναίτιος). For the Pharisees, the Sabbath is more about what one can not do. This not only makes it difficult to explain why the priests are commanded to do so much but also exposes the fact that the Pharisees have utterly missed the point of the Sabbath.
When Jesus states that something[7] greater than the temple is here, He tips His hand and reveals the answer. This is an argument which places the correct emphasis on things according to how God ordained it. Jesus is arguing for authorial intention presiding over subjective interpretation. The pieces of the puzzle begin to fall into place when we realize the following:
First, there is a connection between the previous rhetorical question regarding David’s conduct and the present question about the priest’s service. That connection is the presence of Yhwh in the temple/tabernacle. When Jesus states that David entered the “house of God” (τὸν οἶκον τοῦ θεοῦ) He is indicating the tabernacle. The bread in question was the “bread of the Presence” (τοὺς ἄρτους τῆς προθέσεως) which has already been defined as the loaves that represented the nation of Israel always before Yhwh. Now, the discussion points to the priests who serve in the temple, in Yhwh’s presence, and the “thing” that is greater than the temple. The temple as the abode of Yhwh’s presence is a central theme to the discussion.
Second, there is a progression in Jesus’ presentation from the shadow to the reality. David’s tabernacle was the forerunner of the temple. Both were said to house the presence of Yhwh. Thus, this “thing” that is greater than the temple must house the presence of Yhwh in some better or fuller way.
Third, the temple was more than a building. It contained the physical manifestation of Yhwh’s presence on earth. The priests who served in the temple were not just doing chores (working, laboring) but were actively in the service of Yhwh. The priests were a special caste of people who were Yhwh’s own possession (Ex. 28:43; 38:21; Lev. 21:1-24; Num. 1:47-54; 2:33; 3:44-51). While the rest of the nation enjoyed the blessing of Yhwh’s rest, these continue to serve Him. They are exempt, not because of who they are, but because of whom they serve.
Finally, just as the temple is more than the presence of Yhwh, so too is the “thing” which is greater than the temple. That is, Jesus, as the king, speaks of the coming kingdom as the “thing” that is greater than the temple. David ate the bread of the Presence as a shadow of the anointed servant of Yhwh . The priests serve the temple as the chosen servants of Yhwh . And now the disciples eat heads of grain because they serve the king while proclaiming the coming of His kingdom. The Pharisees are not only maddeningly inconsistent in their arbitrary rules of Sabbath keeping but they completely missed the point of the Old Testament’s teaching on the subject. The point and purpose of the Sabbath is explained as a day set aside for Yhwh’s glory. The priests keep the Sabbath by serving Yhwh as they were directed. The people keep the Sabbath by (1) remembering Yhwh’s completed perfection, (2) reflecting on Yhwh’s present provision, and (3) anticipating Yhwh’s completed redemption. The tabernacle, temple, and now Jesus are all microcosms of Yhwh’s true Sabbath: the rest that comes with the kingdom. Therefore, one keeps the Sabbath by serving Yhwh as He directed and not as man imagines. The disciples are not only innocent of the charges, but the Pharisees are found guilty by implication. Something greater than the temple is here. Rather than serving the kingdom and the king (and thus truly keep the Sabbath), they fight against it. The Pharisees are guilty of the very thing they condemn the disciples for. This truth comes to light in Jesus’ third and final argument.
Third Argument: The Pharisees are Ignorant of Revelation (vv. 7-8)
“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.”
There may be an increase to Jesus’ demeaning stance toward the Pharisees. Before, He cynically and rhetorically asked if the Pharisees had ever bothered reading their Old Testaments. Here, Jesus explicitly calls out the Pharisees’ ignorance of the Old Testament. Jesus uses the same 2nd class conditional construction as He did when condemning the Galilean cities (11:21, 23). The sense is that the Pharisees did not know and therefore they did condemn the innocent. Jesus is revealing their ignorance of Scripture.
The passage in question is Hos. 6:6, a passage already quoted by Jesus to the Pharisees (9:13). At a glance, Jesus’ use of Hos. 6:6 here is very much the same as it was before: true obedience, repentance, and submission from the heart rather than external showmanship is the will of God for His people. This is of course true but the context of Hos. 6:6 is strikingly similar to the context of Matt. 12:7. Both texts are found in what can only be described as rebukes or even condemnation passages (Matt. 12:3-8 vs. Hos. 6:4-11) which are preceded by calls for repentance (Matt. 11:28-30 vs. Hos. 6:1-3). In both places, the rebuke implies that those being addressed are concerned with what God does not will/desire (θέλω). The Pharisees of northern Galilee are again compared with the rebellious norther tribes of Israel who did not come and repent to Yhwh (Hos. 6:1).
Moving forward, it is necessary to understand these words as they were penned by both the prophet Hosea and then repeated by the apostle Matthew. Hosea preached against the outward showmanship of apostate Israel that was being passed off as faithfulness. The rebellious north had set up their own priesthood, temples, and altars with all the trappings as prescribed in the Law. However, all these things were in fact violations of explicit commands regarding the place where Yhwh chose for His name to dwell, the singularity of the altar, and the Levitical origin of the priesthood. Only an ignorant outsider would confuse what occurred in Bethel with what was prescribed in Jerusalem. But with all these things set aside, the northern rebels had completely missed the point. The objective of the Law was not to demand outward conformity (even though they missed this as well) but to bind the people to Yhwh through faith. Conformity to the Law is the fruit of faith, not the objective. The northern tribes of the 8th century BC missed on both counts.
The same can be said of the Pharisees and religious leaders of the first century AD. Not only had they made outward conformity the objective that defined faithfulness rather than the fruit that exposed saving faith, but their outward conformity was not conformed to the revealed word and will of God. Just like the rebels of Hosea’s day, the second temple Judaism of Jesus’ day was completely apostate. They had missed the entire point of the Scriptures. Specifically, they had made the Sabbath (a gracious gift to Israel as a reminder, motivator, and anticipator of God’s perfection completed) into a laborious weight to hang around the people’s neck.
Once again, the point revolves around the ability to reveal the Father. The Pharisees’ approach to revelation is to begin with tradition. Jesus first approaches the Scriptures. Clearly, the Pharisees are unqualified to reveal the Father. If only they weren’t ignorant of Hosea (which they were) they would not have made the mistake of condemning the blameless (which they did). This conditional statement circles back to the accusation of v. 2. Simply put, Jesus tells the Pharisees that they could not have been more wrong. In v. 8 He tells them why.
“For” introduces the reason or rationale for Jesus’ comment. By this time there is no question that (1) Jesus refers to Himself as “the Son of Man” (ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου – 9:6; 10:23; 11:19) and (2) Jesus implies the full weight of Dan. 7:13-14 by using that title. There is a Sabbath implication and assumption in the kingdom that is granted to the one like a Son of Man by the Ancient of Days. Here, that Sabbath connection is made explicit. That same Son of Man is the master or Lord of the Sabbath. The Sabbath is under the Son of Man’s domain. This statement carries several implications.
First, and perhaps most obvious, is the implication that Jesus claims to be one with the Father. This is hardly surprising after His statements in 11:27, but it cannot be overlooked. There is only one Lord of the Sabbath, and that is the one to whom the Sabbath belongs; namely, Yhwh (Ex. 20:8-11; Lev. 26:2; Deut. 5:12-15).
Second, and tightly connected to the first, is the fact that “Lord” (κύριος) in this context means something much more than simply “master” or “the one in charge”. There is only one Lord of the Sabbath. In this context, it is nearly certain that the Greek κύριος stands for the Hebrew יְהוָה (Yhwh). Jesus is not only claiming to be equal with God. He is claiming to be God.
Finally, and most important to the context, is the fact that Jesus is claiming to be the only one who can accurately determine what is and what is not a violation of the Sabbath. As the only one who knows the Father and the only one who might reveal the Father (11:27), Jesus alone has the innate ability to discern what violates the Sabbath. As the Lord to whom the Sabbath belongs, only Jesus can determine who is guilty and who is blameless.
It’s bad enough that these Pharisees are so backwards in their judgment. But their real crime is that they attempted to usurp Jesus’ authority. The wolves of Israel who pretend to be her shepherds tried to lay a trap for God with His own possession. Though their ignorance knows no bounds, this is nevertheless a power struggle. One from which Jesus arises truly triumphant. It is amazing that no reply is recorded from the Pharisees. Jesus left no room for debate as He dotted every “i” and crossed every “t” as only He, the Son who reveals the Father, can do.
[1] Οὐκ within the context of a question implies that the answer to the rhetorical question is “yes”.
[2] Example: 1 Kings 10:26-29 does not explicitly condemn Solomon for amassing war horses and wealth for himself. Yet, these actions are in violation of the commandments given regarding Israel’s future king (Deut. 17:16-17). This connection is made explicit at the beginning of 1 Kings 11 which hints at the condemnation of Solomon amassing wives (also a violation of Deut. 17:17). The reader is supposed to understand narrative within its own context as well as within the context of all Scripture.
[3] Strack & Billerbeck, p. 699.
[4] One theory suggests that David met Ahimelech on a Friday. Thus, the bread was common bread (made on the wrong day) and perfectly fitting for anyone to eat. Another suggests the loaves were baked on the Sabbath, but this fact made them profane for the Sabbath was supposedly broken in their preparation. Thus, the loaves were common and permissible for any to eat. Still others suggest that it is not the day of the backing in question (for certainly the loaves consumed were the loaves taken from the table and not the new loaves placed on the table) but the circumstance. It was permissible for David to eat this bread because his need was greater than the Sabbath.
[5] By “the Law” (τῷ νόμῳ) in this context refers specifically to the books of Moses.
[6] John Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew, The New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2005), p. 484.
[7] Μεῖζον is the neuter form of μέγας (something greater) rather than the masculine form (someone greater).
Comments