“And passing on from there, He entered into their synagogue. And behold! A man who had a withered hand. And they questioned Him saying, ‘Is it authorized to heal on the Sabbath?’ So that they might accuse Him. So, He said to them, ‘What man among you would have one sheep and if it should fall into a pit on the Sabbath would not seize it and raise it? Thus, how much more valuable a man is than a sheep! So then, it is authorized to do good on the Sabbath.’ Then He said to the man, ‘Stretch out your hand!’ And he stretched it out and it was restored to health as the other one. So, coming out, the Pharisees took counsel together against Him, so that they might destroy Him.”
This text is structured neatly along chiastic lines.[2] The introduction (v. 9) and conclusion (v. 14) have the various parties entering and exiting the synagogue. Next comes the bait in the form of a man with a withered hand (v. 10a and v. 13). The center of the chiasm is the battle between Jesus and the Pharisees. The Pharisees set their trap (v. 10b) and Jesus springs it without stepping into it (vv. 11-12). Thus, this second Sabbath scuffle is presented in two parts (each half of the chiasm) where the Pharisees first attempt to bait Jesus into an ambush (vv. 9-10) followed by Jesus turning the tables on the Pharisees with their own trap (vv. 11-14).
An Ambush is Laid (vv. 9-10)
As with all ambushes, several factors are in play. First, the victim must enter into a predesignated kill zone. In this instance, the local synagogue serves nicely. Next, it is helpful if there is some kind of bait to draw the victim’s attention to the waiting trap. This narrative provides such bait in the form of the man with the withered hand. Finally, the trap must be set. As they form their devious question and put it to Jesus, the Pharisees are all too happy to play their part.
Jesus Enters the Kill Zone (v. 9)
“And passing on from there, He entered into their synagogue.”
A change of scenery has occurred.[3] Jesus is no longer in the grainfields (nor are His disciples in view) but is seen entering a synagogue on a different (Lk. 6:6) Sabbath day. Yet, there remains a close connection to the previous paragraph. Just as “He” can only refer to Jesus, “they/their” has no other antecedent but the Pharisees of v. 2 (not explicitly mentioned until v. 14). This is the beginning of a new skirmish with the Pharisees, and it will happen on their own turf. Jesus entered their synagogue.
The significance of Jesus walking into “their” synagogue is twofold. Fist, Matthew once again makes a subtle distinction between the unbelieving populous and Jesus. This distinction extends to his readers in the late 30’s or early 40’s AD. Those who follow Jesus alone are no longer a part of the synagogue system and thus it is specifically their synagogue and is no longer generically referred to as the synagogue. Second, this synagogue is specifically the home ground of the same Pharisees whom Jesus debated with in the grainfields (vv. 1-8). Thus, Jesus is not only walking directly into the lion’s den, but He does so knowingly. An uninformed observer may view this as Jesus’ walking unsuspectingly into a trap, waltzing into an ambush kill zone. Yet, it is more likely that Jesus walks into this synagogue on purpose. Jesus is taking the fight to the Pharisees. Jesus is taking the offensive.
The Bait is Placed (v. 10a)
“And behold! A man who had a withered hand.”
Matthew’s favorite interjection (behold! – ἰδοὺ) points to a single individual within the synagogue’s gathering–a man with a withered hand. Nothing is known about this man other than the condition of his hand.[4] That it was withered (ξηρός – dried up, shrunken, paralyzed) is not particularly descriptive as to the cause (Injury? Disease? Birth defect?). The point is only that this man’s hand was quite useless, a dead appendage at the end of his limb. In a day when the vast majority of men made their living as tradesmen or unskilled laborers, such a handicap would be no small obstacle.
That Matthew draws the reader’s attention to this man is a curious thing. This is a synagogue gathering on the Sabbath. We can safely assume that many people were present in addition to the Pharisees. Yet, this man is immediately singled out for our attention. The implication is clear: this is a man in need of healing. Jesus’ track record for healing all who are brought to Him is well established (4:24; 8:16; 9:35). His instructions to the apostles were to follow this same example as evidence of the kingdom they proclaimed (10:7-8). Thus, the expectation that Jesus will heal this man is already assumed on the part of the reader. So, why bring this one man to the reader’s attention so emphatically? Because this man is being used as bait by the Pharisees. That fact is made clear as the verse continues.
The Trap is Set (v. 10b)
“And they questioned Him saying, ‘Is it authorized to heal on the Sabbath?’ So that they might accuse Him.”
“They” points back to “their” of v. 9 which of course points back to the Pharisees of vv. 1-8. The Pharisees orchestrated this encounter and dangle this handicapped man in front of Jesus as bait placed in a trap. Their trap comes in the form of a question: is it authorized to heal on the Sabbath? The question of what is authorized (ἔξεστιν) connects us back to what was supposedly not authorized (vv. 2&4). The Pharisees’ tactics have adapted but only slightly. In the grainfields, they accused Jesus’ disciples of doing what was not authorized/permitted on the Sabbath. Here, they question Jesus as to what is authorized/permitted on the Sabbath; namely to heal. They of course already have an answer to their question formed in their minds.
What we must understand is that rabbinic tradition never gave a straightforward answer to any question. Their reasoning was always based on particular circumstances and situations and then qualified with carefully laid out steps. The Mishna[5] records that healing was allowed on the Sabbath, but only when one’s life was in danger or if there was at least doubt if life was threatened (Yoma 8:6). Yet, what therapeutic measures were to be given on the Sabbath were limited (Shabb. 22:6). The point we must take away is that, in the Pharisees’ mind, this is not a simple answer of “yes” or “no”. They do not mean to ask Jesus a general question (is healing permitted on the Sabbath?) but a specific question (is it permitted to heal this man in this context on the Sabbath?). If Jesus answers “yes”, then they expect Him to demonstrate how this man’s life is in danger and then to justify the measures taken to heal him so as to not break the Sabbath’s limitations on work. This would be a difficult case to argue. If Jesus answers “no”, they not only expect a similar explanation but would also, and more to the point, have Jesus over a barrel. Did He not recently claim to be the Lord of the Sabbath? If this is true, then why cannot the Lord of the Sabbath heal on the day belonging to Him? This is a trap, pure and simple.
Ultimately, it does not matter what Jesus answers. The Pharisees reckon that they have Jesus pinned. But that is the whole point. They don’t want to learn from Jesus or have some kind of theological discussion with Him. It is their intent and purpose[6] to bring an accusation against Him. The trap is set. The bait is in place. Now all they have to do is watch Jesus take the bait and fall into their snare.
The Tables are Turned (vv. 11-14)
As the first half of the chiasm tracks the Pharisees’ progress in laying the trap, this second half records Jesus’ response to it. A trap is only as good as the skill and care taken to lay it. A trap that is poorly concealed or hastily set up is easily spotted and avoided. Better yet, a trap may be sprung without stepping into it and the bait taken without harm or fear. This is precisely what Jesus does. Rather than taking the bait and falling to the Pharisees’ trap, Jesus turns the tables against them.
Jesus Springs the Trap (vv. 11-12)
Jesus’ response is directed to those who questioned Him, namely, the Pharisees. Yet, as He speaks, Jesus includes the whole synagogue. “What man among you” places the focus on each individual present. There is no hiding within the crowd when Jesus speaks. This response has three parts: an illustration (v. 11), an inference (v. 12a), and a conclusion (v. 12b).
The Illustration (v. 11)
“So, He said to them, ‘What man among you would have one sheep and if it should fall into a pit on the Sabbath would not seize it and raise it?”
Jesus answers the Pharisees’ question with a question of His own. This question is theoretical[7] in nature but is formed from the common practice of the people. In one sense, Jesus answers according to the Pharisees’ expectations. Discussions of the law were rarely connected to the concrete and were held in the hypothetical. Yet, by linking His response to what was commonly practiced, Jesus’ response hit much too close to home than anyone expected. In this illustration Jesus makes several points with an economy of words.
First, Jesus places little value on the sheep itself. He clearly articulates that only one (ἕν) sheep fell into the hypothetical pit. This does not indicate that there is only one sheep, making it more valuable to the owner[8] but that there is only one that fell. In an agrarian society, every animal is valuable, but is it worth breaking the Sabbath for just one sheep?
Second, this practice was condemned by rabbinic tradition. The consistency of rabbinic tradition was its inconsistency. This very situation is addressed in several places with a wide range of suggestions as to what could be done for the animal. Some suggested throwing down some feed for it. Others permitted only the provision of bedding to make it comfortable and perhaps encouraging it to get out on its own. Still others strictly forbade any sort of assistance, figuring that’s what the sheep gets for being a sheep. Though there was no unity in rabbinic tradition regarding a solution, there was a unanimous voice prohibiting the farmer from actively getting the sheep out on Saturday.
Third, Jesus hits on something that was clearly common practice. Who wouldn’t get a sheep out of a pit on the Sabbath? To leave it in there would not only be cruelty to the animal but would also have a devastating effect on the owner. Few men can afford to lose an animal with such flippancy. That Jesus phrases His question in this manner betrays the fact that even the Pharisees would certainly get the poor creature out regardless of what day of the week it was. In other words, this situation is a clear example of individuals tossing tradition aside without a second thought.
Fourth, and probably should have been mentioned first, this practice does not violate the written Law of God. What is more, the text of the Old Testament implicitly encourages the rescue of the hypothetical sheep. Deut. 22:4 explicitly warns Israel of the evil of seeing a neighbor’s livestock in fix and ignoring it: “you will surely raise them!”. There is nothing in this instruction regarding exceptions for the Sabbath. This is a standing order. If such care is to be taken regarding a brother’s livestock, how much more one’s own? In this case, violating tradition is necessary in order to fulfill the Law of God.
Finally, the image of the sheep implies the persistent shepherd motif in this section of Matthew’s gospel (9:36; 10:5). What kind of shepherd would let even one sheep fend for itself until Sunday? Jesus is here laying a trap of His own. If the Pharisees deny that they would certainly get their sheep out (which would be a lie) then they would be confessing their utter disregard for those placed under their care.
The Inference (v. 12a)
“Thus, how much more valuable a man is than a sheep!”
This statement is the intended inference[9] from the illustration. If a shepherd would rescue just one sheep on the Sabbath, what then of a man who is worth more than a sheep? The comparison between animals and mankind is reminiscent of earlier comparisons in Matthew (6:26; 10:29-31) but also of God’s created order (Gen. 1-2). The argument is from the lesser to the greater. There is no doubt that a good shepherd would save the life of a fallen sheep on the Sabbath. Why then is there a question regarding the healing of a man?
The Conclusion (v. 12b)
“So then, it is authorized to do good on the Sabbath.”
The result[10] of Jesus’ reasoning produces what is authorized (ἔξεστιν) on the Sabbath; namely, to do what is good. This is sound reasoning to be sure, but how does it answer the Pharisees’ question? Simply put, it doesn’t.
The Pharisees’ trap only worked if Jesus answered their question as they framed it. If Jesus strayed from the script the trap wouldn’t work. Jesus, recognizing this, exposes the error upon which the question was based, asks His own question, and then answers it. The Pharisees asked, “is it authorized to heal on the Sabbath?”. Jesus asks, “is it authorized to do good on the Sabbath?”.[11]
The idea behind what is “good” (καλῶς) is not subjective. Goodness (καλός/καλῶς) as such describes what objectively meets a high standard. In speaking of actions and behavior it describes what is commendable, excellent, correct, right, appropriate, and free from objection. This is the word group (καλός) that describes God’s completed very good creation (καλὰ λίαν - Gen. 1:31 LXX). That same creation once completed led to God’s rest (Gen. 2:1-3). To do good (καλῶς ποιεῖν) is thus not a subjective statement but on objective reality as it complies with and conforms to God’s deeds and desires. In this sense, man is never inactive (doing nothing) but is either doing good or doing evil. Thus, Jesus’ question becomes a trap of His own. The question “is it authorized to do good?” implies a follow up question: “is it authorized to do evil on the Sabbath?” One might phrase the implication this way: is it authorized to entrap an innocent man for the purpose of forming an accusation against him on the Sabbath?[12]
By sidestepping the Pharisees’ question, Jesus proverbially sprung their trap with a stick, rendering it harmless and ineffective. By placing a trap of His own in plain view, Jesus secures the field and shuts the Pharisees’ mouths. Now, it is safe to take the bait for Himself.
Jesus Takes the Bait (v. 13)
“Then He said to the man, ‘Stretch out your hand!’ And he stretched it out and it was restored to health as the other one.”
Jesus’ attention, and the flow of the narrative, now returns to the man with the withered hand from v. 10. It seems that all but Jesus had forgotten him as the tension built within the synagogue. This man was placed as bait for Jesus, luring Him into the Pharisees’ trap. Now that the trap has been rendered ineffective, Jesus takes the bait without fear of reprisal.
It is important to note the language used of this miracle. Matthew says that the man’s hand was restored (ἀποκαθίστημι[13]). As a further definition, Matthew adds that the restoration was in accordance with his other “good” hand. Not only was the use of the hand restored, but there was not even a hint of muscle loss. Is this not a fitting miracle for the Sabbath, a day that anticipates the restoration of God’s very good creation? Is this not something good for Jesus to do?
Ignoring this man’s plight was not an option. Jesus very well could have waited until the next day to heal him. But doing so would have (1) been as good as admitting that the Pharisees were right (it is not permissible to heal on the Sabbath in this case) or worse (2) a confession that Jesus was something far less than Lord of the Sabbath. Heal the man, He must. But the manner in which Jesus goes about His business is truly beautiful to behold.
Jesus literally does nothing. He lifts not a finger nor even issues forth a command for the hand to be healed. It was by sheer will that Jesus restored the man’s hand to its former state. All that was said was a command for the man to stretch out his hand. Try as they might, the Pharisees will be hard pressed to contort this act as some kind of work that (in their minds) violates the Sabbath.
The Pharisees Exit the Killzone (v. 14)
“So, coming out, the Pharisees took counsel together against Him, so that they might destroy Him.”
The narrative concludes to mirror its introduction. Jesus entered the synagogue in v. 9 and now the Pharisees exit. Simply put, the Pharisees quit the field of battle and begrudgingly concede the victory to Jesus. But they do not go quietly. They leave the synagogue to conspire against Jesus for the purpose[14] of destroying Him. They no longer pretend to banter. They mean to kill Jesus.
This strong reaction from the Pharisees makes two things clear to Matthew’s audience. The first is that the Pharisees were soundly beaten. They made no response to Jesus’ question and offered no public objection to the healing. Their trap failed while Jesus’ trap forced them to either confess Him as Lord of the Sabbath or keep their own mouths shut. Second, the issue at hand is not over the Sabbath so much as it is over authority. The Pharisees claim the exclusive right of interpreting tradition and thus the sole place of instructing the people. Jesus claims the exclusive right of revealing the Father’s will and sole position of revealing that will to whom He desires (11:27). They hate Jesus because of who He is, the Son of God. Their death grip on rabbinic tradition is a denial of God’s revelation. Every encounter they have with Jesus makes it all the clearer that they both can’t be right. Thus, Jesus has to go.
It is interesting that they question the validity of healing on the Sabbath and yet find no problem with conspiracy to commit murder. Such is the thought process of those who reject revelation in favor of tradition.
Komentar