Lord of the sabbath day (Mt 12:3-8)

Denny Petrillo (WVBS course notes)

3But He said to them, “Have you not read what David did, when he became hungry, he and his companions; 

***See article: “Matthew 12 And Situation Ethics”. 

Have you not read? This is a rebuke. Of course they had read!

4how he entered the house of God, and they ate the consecrated bread, which is not lawful for him to eat, nor for those with him, but for the priests alone? 

Jesus makes reference to 1 Samuel 21:6. It is called the “show bread” or the “loaves of presentation” because it was publicly set out. What David ate was bread that had been removed, not that which was freshly baked and ready for the table. But still, according to the Law of Moses, it was to be eaten only by the priests (see Lev 24:5-9). 

The Pharisees would never have condemned David’s eating of the bread. They would never say David broke the Law. But now they are finding fault with Jesus’ men because they broke the law of the uninspired traditions of the Jews. David clearly violated Law, but they do not condemn him. Jesus did not sin, but they convict Him. The Pharisees are inconsistent. 

5Or have you not read in the Law, that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple break the Sabbath, and are innocent? 

Second argument. Here again is the biting rebuke of Jesus. “Have you not read...?” The priests were to do a lot of work on the Sabbath (Lev 24). For them it was the busiest day of the week. But the Pharisees taught that one cannot work on the Sabbath. The priests broke that teaching every week! Activity for the work of God was allowed and acceptable. 

6But I say to you, that something greater than the temple is here. 

This is argument #3. The Greek literally reads “something” greater is here, rather than “someone,” as found in some translations. Jesus is not referring to Himself, but rather to the kingdom of God (cf. 12:41-42). 

What made the temple great, the stones or what was done in the temple? The preaching by the apostles about the kingdom is greater than the temple. The Pharisees cannot see what is most significant - what is really important. All the Old Testament prophecies point to this right here, the preaching of the gospel of the kingdom and the Pharisees are worried about the picking of grain on the Sabbath. They have missed the whole point of what is happening. 

7But if you had known what this means, I desire compassion and not a sacrifice, you would not have condemned the innocent. 

This is argument #4. Notice the biting rebuke, “If you had known what this means...” Once again He quotes Hosea 6:6 (cf. Mt 9:13). The form is nothing if the heart is wrong. God wanted sacrifice but, more than that, He wanted the heart. 

Matthew 23:23 - He condemns these same Pharisees in their merciless treatment of the people. 

His fourth argument is that they were breaking God’s law by being merciless. The disciples should have received mercy and compassion because they were hungry. But instead they receive criticism and condemnation. 

You would not have condemned the innocent. The apostles were innocent. They had not broken any of God’s laws, only the traditions of the scribes and the Pharisees. 

8For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.” 

This is the fifth and final argument. Jesus is referring to Himself. He is the ruler or the Master of the Sabbath. Jesus, as Lord of the Sabbath, is going to offer the proper interpretation of Sabbath Law. The Sabbath Law did not demand that one go hungry. 

Mark 2:27 says, in addition, that the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath. What laws God did give for man on the Sabbath were for the directives of man. God did not place men in the position to start adding to or taking away from God’s Sabbath Laws. 

See Daniel 7:13. They understood the “Son of Man” terminology had Messianic indications. Jesus is giving them the rebuke they need to hear. If Jesus is the Messiah would He not have the right to explain the Sabbath Law?