Rebuke of the Pharisees Regarding the Sabbath: Compassion, Not Sacrifice

The pharisees accuse Jesus' disciples of breaking the Sabbath by picking a bit of grain and eating it. Jesus refutes them with three arguments from the writings, law and prophets and concludes by stating that the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.

Arc

editing

Matthew 12:1-8

nasb

a At that 1 time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath,

and His disciples became hungry

and began to b pick the heads of grain and eat.

progression

But when the Pharisees saw this,

they said to Him,

“Look, Your disciples do what a is not lawful to do on a Sabbath.”

ideaexplanation

temporal

But He said to them,

“Have you not read what David did when he became hungry, he and his companions,

how he entered the house of God,

and a they ate the 1 consecrated bread,

which was not lawful for him to eat nor for those with him,

but for the priests alone?

negativepositive

Or have you not read in the Law, that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple 1 break the Sabbath

and are innocent?

But I say to you that something a greater than the temple is here.

series

But if you had known what this 1 means, ‘ a I desire 2 compassion , and not a sacrifice ,’

you would not have condemned the innocent.

conditional

For a the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.”

ground

Rhetorical question: Surely you have read...

Rhetorical question: Surely you have read in the law...

Second class conditional contrary to fact: "If you had known (which you did not), then you would not have condemned the innocent (which you did)."

discourse

Phrase

Matthew 12:1-8

Setting

At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath,

and His disciples became hungry

and began to pick the heads of grain and eat.

Accusation

But when the Pharisees saw this, they said to Him,

“Look, Your disciples do what is not lawful to do on a Sabbath.”

First Defense (from the Writings)

But He said to them,

“Have you not read what David did when he became hungry, he and his companions,

how he entered the house of God,

and they ate the consecrated bread,

which was not lawful for him to eat nor for those with him,

but for the priests alone?

Second Defense (from the Law)

Or have you not read in the Law, that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple break the Sabbath

and are innocent?

But I say to you that something greater than the temple is here.

Third Defense (from the Prophets)

But if you had known what this means, ‘I desire compassion, and not a sacrifice,’

you would not have condemned the innocent.

Conclusion

For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.”

First defense from the writings: David violated the law due to circumstances and was not condemned. A new David has arrived.

Second defense from the law: This is a "how much more" argument. The temple was greater than the Sabbath law. Now something greater than the temple has come - Jesus and His kingdom.

Third defense from the prophets: Compassion is more important than religious rituals.

phrasing

Comments

About Biblearc · Online courses · Report abuse

Disclaimer: The opinions and conclusions expressed on this page are those of the author and may or may not accord with the positions of Biblearc or Bethlehem College & Seminary.

Biblearc app Path Courses Courses Learning Resources Login / Free Account Subscription
Glories Authors Groups Donate Gift certificates Ownership, thanks, copyrights and terms