jESUS VLORD OF SUNDAY

CHAPTER 12

——————

THEME: Conflict and final break of Jesus with the religious rulers

Again let me call your attention to the movement in the Gospel of Matthew. If you miss it, you miss the message that is here. Matthew is not trying to give a biography of the life of Jesus, nor is he recording the events in chronological order. He presents Christ as King—He was born a King and gave what we call the Sermon on the Mount, which was the ethic of the Kingdom, the manifesto of the King. He demonstrated that He had the dynamic in the miracles He performed, then He sent out His apostles. The reaction was rejetion! And then the King pronounced judgment on the cities.

Now there breaks out into the open a conflict between the Lord Jesus and the religious rulers of that day—the Pharisees in particular. Apparently, they were friendly to Him at first, but now they break with Him over the question of the Sabbath day.

We will see the Sabbath question in two places: on the outside in the field, then again on the inside in the synagogue.

JESUS CLAIMS TO BE LORD OF THE SABBATH

At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungered, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat [Matt. 12:1].

We will see in this episode that Jesus asserts that He is Lord of the Sabbath day. But before we get involved in the sabbatic argument (which has been raging ever since!), let’s look at the reason the disciples were pulling off and eating the grain. Why were they doing it? Because they were hungry. Why were they hungry? Because they were following Jesus. You remember that He had said to the young man who wanted to follow Him, “The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head” (Matt. 8:20). And at this time, they were hungry. This is another reminder of the poverty that our Lord bore. And we will see Him defend His disciples’ actions. This is where the break with the religious rulers came.

But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day [Matt. 12:2].

The Pharisees say to the Lord Jesus, “Why do You permit it?”

But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungered, and they that were with him [Matt. 12:3].

We find the record of this in 1 Samuel 21:1–6. It was during the days of David’s rejection as king while Saul was ruling. Likewise, the Lord Jesus was being rejected as King; His messianic claim had not been acknowledged. Now He takes care of His men—regardless of the Sabbath day observance. And David took care of his men although it meant breaking the Mosaic Law.

How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?

Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless? [Matt. 12:4–5].

The priests worked on the Sabbath day.

But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple [Matt. 12:6].

The Lord Jesus here claimed superiority over the most holy center of their religious life, which was the temple. As far as the Pharisees were concerned, He had blasphemed. Not only had He broken the Sabbath, but He had blasphemed.

But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless [Matt. 12:7].

“I will have mercy and not sacrifice” comes from Hosea 6:6. Our Lord defends His men by saying that they did not break the Sabbath day. Why?

For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day [Matt. 12:8].

Believe me, He put His hand on the most sacred observance they had when He said that He was Lord of the Sabbath day. In the eyes of the Pharisees, He could make no greater claim. It certainly engendered their bitterness and their hatred.

Now we leave the fields where this encounter took place, and we go into the synagogue—but we are still faced with the same Sabbath question.

And when he was departed thence, he went into their synagogue [Matt. 12:9].

Notice that “he went into their synagogue”—not ours but theirs. He said something similar regarding the temple. At first it was God’s temple, but He finally said, “Your house is left unto you desolate.”

And, behold, there was a man which had his hand withered. And they asked him, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath days? that they might accuse him.

And he said unto them, What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out? [Matt. 12:10–11].

Was this man with the withered hand “planted” there, deliberately, by the Pharisees to trap Jesus into healing him? If so, then there are two important admissions on the part of the enemies of Jesus:

1. They admitted He had power to heal the sick. As we have seen, the enemies of Jesus never questioned His ability to perform miracles. You have to be two thousand years away from it and working in a musty library on a master’s or doctor’s degree before you can question His miracles. The Pharisees freely admitted that He had power to heal the sick. This is why they planted this man with the withered hand.

2. They acknowledged that when a helpless man was placed in His pathway, He was moved by compassion to heal him, even on the Sabbath day. What an admission!

Their question about the legality of healing on the Sabbath day was designed to trap Him. But Jesus actually trapped His enemies. They conceded that a sheep should be rescued on the Sabbath day—in fact, the Mosaic Law made allowances for that.

How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the sabbath days [Matt. 12:12].

This is the crux of the whole matter: Should He do good on the Sabbath day? Regardless of their answer—

Then saith he to the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it forth; and it was restored whole, like as the other [Matt. 12:13].

Jesus healed the man on the Sabbath day. Did He break the Law? What is your answer? My answer is that He did not break the Law.

¹

Rebellion against His Principles (Matt. 12:1–21)

Jesus deliberately violated the Sabbath traditions on several occasions. He had taught the people that mere external laws could never save them or make them holy; true righteousness had to come from the heart. The Hebrew word sabat means “repose or rest,” which explains why Matthew introduced these Sabbath conflicts at this point. Jesus offers rest to all who will come to Him; there is no rest in mere religious observances.

It was lawful to satisfy your hunger from your neighbor’s field (Deut. 23:24–25). But to do it on the Sabbath was a breach of the Law according to the traditions of the scribes and Pharisees; for it meant doing work. Jesus gave a threefold reply to their accusation.

He appealed to a king (vv. 3–4). The consecrated bread was to be eaten only by the priests, yet David and his soldiers ate it. Certainly the Son of David had a right to eat His Father’s grain from the field! And if David broke the law and was not condemned, surely Jesus could break man’s traditions and be guiltless (see 1 Sam. 21:1ff).

He appealed to the priests (vv. 5–6). The priests had to offer a given number of sacrifices on the Sabbath (Num. 28:9–10) and yet were not condemned. In fact, their service was in obedience to the Law given by God. This suggests that man’s traditions about the Sabbath were wrong, for they contradicted God’s own Law.333

He appealed to a prophet (v. 7). The quotation is from Hosea 6:6, one that Jesus had already quoted (Matt. 9:13). The Sabbath law was given to Israel as a mark of her relationship to God (Ex. 20:9–11; 31:13–17; Neh. 9:12–15). But it was also an act of mercy for both man and beast, to give them needed rest each week. Any religious law that is contrary to mercy and the care of nature should be looked on with suspicion. God wants mercy, not religious sacrifice. He wants love, not legalism. The Pharisees who sacrificed to obey their Sabbath laws thought they were serving God. When they accused Christ and His disciples, they thought they were defending God. How like religious legalists today!

Note that Jesus appealed to prophet, priest, and king; for He is Prophet, Priest, and King. Note too the three “greater” statements that He made: as the Priest, He is “greater than the temple” (Matt. 12:6); as Prophet, He is “greater than Jonah” (Matt. 12:41); and as King, He is “greater than Solomon” (Matt. 12:42).

In declaring Himself “Lord of the Sabbath,” Jesus was actually affirming equality with God; for God had established the Sabbath (Gen. 2:1–3). He then proved this claim by healing the man with the paralyzed hand. It is sad that the religious leaders used this man and his handicap as a weapon to fight against Jesus. But the Lord was not afraid of their threats. Not doing good on the Sabbath Day (or any other day) is the same as doing evil. Jesus argued that if a farmer could care for his animals on the Sabbath, shouldn’t we care for man, made in the image of God?

They responded to this deliberate challenge by plotting to kill Him. They had accused Him of blasphemy when He healed the paralytic (Matt. 9:1–8), and of lack of separation when He ate with Matthew’s friends (Matt. 9:11–13). But this deed was even worse. He had deliberately violated the law of God! He had worked on the Sabbath by harvesting grain and healing a man.

Our Lord’s response to their hatred was withdrawal. He did not openly fight His enemies, but fulfilled the prophecy in Isaiah 42:1–4. His enemies were but broken reeds and smoking flax. Note the double mention of the Gentiles, another hint from Matthew that Israel would reject her King and the kingdom would go to the Gentiles.

The Lord’s withdrawal at this point is an anticipation of His “retirement” described in Matthew 14–20. During that time, Jesus avoided direct conflict with His enemies that He might stay on the “divine timetable” and be crucified on schedule. Also, during that time, He taught His disciples and prepared them for His crucifixion.²

12:1, 2 The way Jesus observed the Sabbath was a primary point of contention between Himself and the religious authorities. The Pharisees and scribes recognized that the Sabbath was the sign of the Mosaic covenant. Therefore, to desecrate the Sabbath was to flaunt disobedience to the entire Law of Moses (Num. 15:30–36). While reaping was forbidden on the Sabbath (Ex. 34:21), the disciples were picking grain to eat, not for profit. They were not breaking God’s law. The Pharisees had established thirty-nine categories of actions to be forbidden on the Sabbath, and according to them, the disciples were “harvesting” and therefore breaking the Sabbath. The Pharisees were trying to make Jesus into a lawbreaker and accuse Him of wrongdoing.

12:3–5 profane the Sabbath: On the Sabbath the priests carried out their work of ministry, showing that their official service had priority over the normal Sabbath observance³

The Messiah as Lord of the Sabbath

12:1 At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. And His disciples were hungry, and began to pluck heads of grain and to eat. ² And when the Pharisees saw it, they said to Him, “Look, Your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath!”

³ But He said to them, “Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, he and those who were with him:
⁴ how he entered the house of God and ate the showbread which was not lawful for him to eat, nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests? ⁵ Or have you not read in the law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are blameless? ⁶ Yet I say to you that in this place there is One greater than the temple. ⁷ But if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless. ⁸ For the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”

—Matthew 12:1–8

The deepest aspects of a person’s character are often revealed under stress. In chapter 12 a series of happenings placed Jesus in situations of stress, revealing His integrity, convictions, and personal discipline. When good confronts evil, the result is an increase of defensiveness which actually increases the expression of evil to its own ruin by extreme exposure. The strategy of the good is to “overcome evil with good,” but at times this victory may mean the increased expression of evil until its own inadequacy is exposed. Evil is not so much a power against the good as it is a perversion of the good, until the good has been altered to serve wrong ends.

Jesus’ conflict with His opponents maintained the integrity of His mission but also exposed the inadequacy of their position in relation to the purposes of God. One cause of clash between Jesus and the Pharisees was their legalism, the keeping of laws as ends in themselves. Value was sought in the legalistic act rather than in the sense of fidelity to God. Jesus reminded them of the meaning of the prophetic word which they failed to understand: “For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings” (Hos. 6:6, kjv).

The interchange regarding the Sabbath was precipitated by the disciples’ acts of plucking and eating some heads of grain as they walked through the fields. Matthew adds the note that the disciples were hungry. Walking along the path through the fields, they rubbed the grain out in their hands and ate. But the Jewish community had extensive laws forbidding work on the Sabbath and this act violated their laws. These laws included forbidding a man to spit on the ground on the Sabbath lest he rub it with his sandal and role up a ball of dirt, which would be plowing. Another forbade a woman to look in the mirror on the Sabbath lest she see a hair on her face and be tempted to pull it!

In answer to the Pharisees’ charge that the disciples had violated the Sabbath rules, Jesus lifted two illustrations from their religious history and rites. First is the illustration from David’s experience: fleeing from Saul, and being hungry, he entered the tabernacle and ate “the bread of Presence,” which was only to be eaten by the priests. Following this reference to David, the highest person in their national history, He turned to the temple, the highest level of sanctity in their religious life. He pointed to the temple priests who were breaking the code by their work, yet who were blameless.

Having answered with illustrations impossible for the Pharisees to refute, Jesus then made two major affirmations about Himself. In Mark’s account Jesus emphasized God’s purpose in mercy, “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath” (Mark 2:27). But Matthew shows Jesus as Lord of the Sabbath. Jesus attacked the two highest religious rites: first, He attacked temple dominance in their worship, of which Jesus says, “I say to you that in this place there is One greater than the temple.” Second, he attacked legalistic Sabbath observance with the words, “For the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.” As greater than the temple and as Lord of the Sabbath, Jesus is the ultimate authority regarding service and worship in the will of God. This offers Christological principles for our theological reflection.

The principles of Jesus stand in remarkable contrast to the picayunish way in which the Pharisees interpreted the acts of the disciples; they were plucking the grain—reaping; they were rubbing out the heads in their hands—threshing; and they were blowing the chaff from the kernels—winnowing! But Jesus gave a New Interpretation of Law, stressing the God-intended values of Sabbath renewal.

An outline for this section could be (1) conflict about the Sabbath, vv. 1–2; (2) considerations of the Sabbath, vv. 3–6; and (3) Christ the Lord of the Sabbath, vv. 7–8. The conclusion places mercy above ritual, and love above law. The larger passage from verse 1 through verse 14 expresses the Messiah as Liberator: (1) the denunciation, vv. 1–2; (2) the declaration, v. 8; and (3) the demonstration, vv. 9–14. Jesus showed us that human need takes precedence over rites, codes, or cultural taboos.

⁴

Jesus is the Lord of the Sabbath makes him GOD.

12:1–9. The sabbath day, i.e., the seventh day of the week, corresponding to our Saturday (cf. Mk 2:23–3:6; Lk 6:1–11). However, in New Testament times it began at sunset on Friday and lasted until the following sunset. The Pharisees had burdened the Sabbath with a multitude of detailed observances which were not laid down in the Mosaic law. Correspondingly, in this incident they had objected to the manner in which Jesus’ disciples had plucked grain on the Sabbath, violating the command against reaping on that sacred day (Ex 20:10). In responding to their legalistic traditions, Jesus always referred to Scripture. Have ye not read …? The passage referred to is 1 Samuel 21:1–6. The point that our Lord makes is that in the case of necessity the ceremonial law might be overruled. He uses the illustration of David eating the showbread. These loaves were placed on the table in the holy place in the Tabernacle each Sabbath. They were to be eaten only by the priest and his family (cf. Lev 24:5–9; Num 28:9). The priests prepared the sacrifices on the Sabbath in spite of the general prohibition of work. If the necessities of temple worship permitted the priests to profane the sabbath, there was all the more reason why the service of Christ would allow a similar liberty. I will have mercy, and not sacrifice. The application of this principle is that ethics are more important than ritual. The passage clearly asserts that Jesus had the right to interpret the Mosaic ordinances in light of their spiritual intention, rather than their literal application.⁵

Two Precedents from the Law

I love the way Jesus responded: He said to them, “Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, he and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God and ate the showbread which was not lawful for him to eat, nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests? Or have you not read in the law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are blameless?” (vv. 3–5). Jesus answered His accusers with two precedents drawn from Scripture. It was as if He were saying, “Don’t you ever look at the Bible when you are formulating your traditions?”

Jesus first referred to an incident in the life of David, from a time when he was basically an outlaw. Samuel had anointed him to become Israel’s second king, but Jonathan had warned David that King Saul was trying to kill him, so David and his men were on the run and were hungry. David went to the city of Nob and asked Ahimelech the priest for food. Ahimelech had no food except the showbread, the special bread that was placed before God in the sanctuary (see Ex. 25:30). This bread was replaced on a regular basis with fresh bread, and the priests had the privilege of eating the bread after its ritual use. David explained the situation to Ahimelech and asked for the bread, and the priest willingly acceded to David’s request.

Some commentators argue that Ahimelech allowed David to take the bread because it was within his prerogative to exercise mercy to anyone who was hungry. Others say that he allowed this exception because it was David who requested it, assuming that Ahimelech knew that David was the Lord’s anointed king, and he was willing to feed David out of respect for his office.

Regardless of the reason Ahimelech gave the bread to David, the incident allowed Jesus to make a very telling point to the Pharisees. First, it was a priest, one of Israel’s religious leaders, who permitted a violation of the sanctuary law. But even more important, Jesus was telling the Pharisees that mercy is more important than ritual. Of course, ritual is not unimportant, but there are occasions when higher necessities need to be addressed. As Jesus put it, “If you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless” (v. 7). Just as David was guiltless in an apparent violation of the sanctuary law, the disciples were guiltless of violating the Sabbath. The need for mercy overruled ritual.

Jesus then cited a second precedent: “Or have you not read in the law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are blameless?” Again He asked, “Have you not read … the law?” God had commanded His people to work for six days and then rest on the seventh day. But the priests, of course, could not rest on that day. Jesus was telling the Pharisees that the priests were exempt from the Sabbath law. They were not considered Sabbath-breakers when they did their God-ordained duties on that day.

One Greater Than the Temple

Then Jesus made a statement that caused a serious escalation in this confrontation with the Pharisees. By pointing out the examples of David and the priests, He had set the stage to make a point by use of an argument from the lesser to the greater. He said, “Yet I say to you that in this place there is One greater than the temple” (v. 6).

To grasp the significance of these words, we need to understand the importance of the temple in the Jewish mind. The temple, like the tabernacle before it, represented the presence of God in the midst of His people. It was the center of the Jews’ religious life, the central place of worship and sacrifice. Jesus, however, said there was One “in this place”—clearly He was speaking of Himself—who was greater than the temple. The Pharisees must have been absolutely stunned when He said this.

Yet, they should have known this. Everything in the tabernacle and later in the temple, all of the symbolism that God so meticulously prescribed for these magnificent sanctuaries, pointed beyond itself to the living temple, to the living presence of God in the midst of His people, to His incarnate Son. God was actually dwelling in the temple of Jesus’ body (John 2:21), whereas He only lived symbolically in the temple made of wood and stone. Jesus was the one to whom the temple pointed. That is why John wrote that “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us” (1:14a). In the original language, this verse says, “the Word become flesh and tabernacled among us.” Jesus fulfilled the tabernacle and the temple.

So, Jesus was asserting that He was greater than the temple that the priests so diligently served on the Sabbath. Thus, His disciples had a greater service than those priests. Likewise, by implication, Jesus was asserting that He was greater than David. If it was acceptable for David to eat the showbread from the sanctuary, it was acceptable for Jesus’ disciples to eat a few heads of grain on the Sabbath.

Jesus then went back to the Old Testament again to say, “If you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless.” This verse contains a quotation from Hosea 6:6, but God was not saying that the sacrificial system needed to be abolished. Rather, He was assigning a hierarchy of values. He was saying: “Yes, I want sacrifices. Yes, it’s important to offer the sacrifices as part of your religious obligations. But mercy is much more important than ritual. When there is a conflict between ritual and mercy, always default to mercy.” Jesus was subtly showing the Pharisees that they had taken the Sabbath, a gift God gave to His people for their refreshment and joy, and made it a cumbersome burden with all of their detailed restrictions. Because of that, they had condemned the guiltless—His disciples.⁶

1 McGee, J. V. (1991). Thru the Bible commentary: The Gospels (Matthew 1-13) (electronic ed., Vol. 34, pp. 162–165). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

2 Wiersbe, W. W. (1996). The Bible exposition commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 41–42). Wheaton, IL: Victor Books.

3 Radmacher, E. D., Allen, R. B., & House, H. W. (1999). Nelson’s new illustrated Bible commentary (Mt 12:1–5). Nashville: T. Nelson Publishers.

4 Augsburger, M. S., & Ogilvie, L. J. (1982). Matthew (Vol. 24, p. 18). Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Inc.

5 Hindson, E. E., & Kroll, W. M. (Eds.). (1994). KJV Bible Commentary (p. 1913). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

6 Sproul, R. C. (2013). Matthew (pp. 362–365). Wheaton, IL: Crossway.