Greater than Shabbat?

Matthew 12:1-14 is a passage used most frequently by antinomians to rebuke observance of the biblical 7th day sabbath. Their understanding is that Yeshua’s words in this passage serve as a sort of diatribe against the sabbath or at the very least that Yeshua’s intent was to diminish the sabbath by comparing it to himself. This they derive from the words in verse 6 which they will insist is properly translated “Someone greater that the sabbath is here.” More on this later.

This passage is less frequently used by pronomians as a polemic against Pharisaic teaching or the oral Torah because such Pharisaic understanding is integral to combating the antinomian position that this passage diminishes sabbath observance. Be that as it may, most pronomians with an anti-Pharisaic disposition are only willing to concede that point with the caveat that Yeshua is still disagreeing with Pharisees and that he is using their own teachings against them should only speak to their ignorance and hypocrisy. A sort of See!? He is owning them with their own teachings! kind of attitude is typical to encounter among Torah pursuant believers.

That Yeshua does in fact utilize and dignify Pharisaic teaching in this passage and the inherent implications of that is often ignored or downplayed for the sake of sustaining the 'Pharisee bad' mentality. 

Granting the above for what it is, this passage is well worth examining not only because it is a primary exhibit of Yeshua utilizing Pharisaic reasoning, but because it also exhibits the how and why of that reasoning. It’s a perfect example of the kind of argumentation which might be found in the Talmud. Arguments which, contrary to popular belief, are not extra-biblical. Rather, arguments which are derived directly from the biblical text and employed in order to determine precedence in the grander and broader context of scripture rather than from a direct and literal reading. 

A Brief Overview

In synopsis, the passage between verses 1-8 begins describing Yeshua and his disciples walking through a grain field on the sabbath. The disciples were hungry, so they plucked grains from the field to eat them. Upon witnessing this, some Pharisees approached Yeshua to inform him that his disciples were violating sabbath law.

Responding to this Yeshua asked those same Pharisees if they were familiar with the story of David and his men eating the showbread from the temple which is forbidden for anyone but the priests to eat, then he further inquired of their familiarity with the process of temple service. In particular the continual burnt offering which must be tended to constantly even on the sabbath.(Exodus 29:38). 

He then suggests that these Pharisees do not understand the words- I desire mercy, not sacrifice.(Hosea 6:6) and asserts that his disciples are in fact, without guilt regarding the matter and states The Son of Man is the Lord of the sabbath.

Some Halachic Questions

The beginning of this passage poses a few questions regarding halachic compliance which unfortunately have no answers, given the understanding that the closest an agricultural field might have been to a city is just within the limit of what would be a sabbath day's journey. Reading this passage a skeptical Jew who understands this might ask why Yeshua was in the field so close to and possibly even beyond the limit of what a sabbath day's journey might have been. But then why were these Pharisees also so close to this limit? Relevant to this are questions like “what part of the sabbath was it? Closer to its beginning or its end or right in the middle of the day? Was Yeshua traveling into town or out of town or was he simply lingering around this area? How hungry were his disciples? When did they last eat? And why did the Pharisees not offer them food?

The answers to these questions would determine the Halachic compliance of Yeshua, his disciples, and the Pharisees in this passage. Unfortunately the passage does not grant enough information about the event to determine one way or another on the possible problems of Halacha inherent in those questions. At face value the Pharisees and Yeshua see no problem with being where they are on the sabbath day and the only violation of Halacha mentioned is that the disciples of Yeshua plucked grain on the sabbath and the response Yeshua gave these Pharisees was satisfactory enough that these Pharisees did not bring charges against his disciples to the Sanhedrin. It’s that answer that is the focal point of this passage. 

One Interpretation Dismissed

Yeshua presented two examples from the text of scripture in which the events that transpire are in violation of some legal precedent found in the written Torah. Contrary to antinomian understanding, something about these two examples was directly relevant to the accusation of sabbath violation. Antinomians generally read this passage as prophetic of the coming end to the law in which the only relevance the two examples have to the Pharisees' accusation is that they are all part of the law of Moses. The more clever might even draw the correlation that as this passage is when Yeshua does away with the sabbath, that along with this action Yeshua prophetically mentions the next two establishments of Levitical law in the order in which they are established in Torah. As the sabbath came first so it would be the first to go. Next the priesthood, then the temple. 

This is a rather inorganic reading of the text. A monumental stretch given that it doesn’t account for why the Pharisees were satisfied by the answer. The antinomian reasoning to account for this might be that the Pharisees simply couldn’t refute Yeshua because they knew he was right but stubbornly didn’t want to admit it cause they wanted to hold onto the power which that legal system afforded them. Or something of that nature. It’s not really an answer to the problem. More so just a way of doubling down on the position via argument from silence. 

What was the accusation?

Pronomians believers who still bear an anti-Pharisaic sentiment might dispute the charge itself. Contesting that no Law from the written Torah had been violated and that only some rabbinic tradition is being violated. Even if presented with Exodus 34:21 which specifically states that harvesting is forbidden on the sabbath, they might contest that “plucking individual grains is not harvesting”. Interestingly, this opens the discussion into an area where specifics and baselines become of paramount importance and one may run the risk of realizing that while a word might be understood 5 different ways by 5 different people, in order for that word to have a legally binding effect on observance it MUST have a universally accepted definition within the culture that endeavors to use it as a legal term. Thus when G-d gave the command not to harvest on the sabbath he meant something very specific that was universally understood by every Israelite present. The Pharisees seem also to have had an understanding of the word which was universally understood and therefore dignified even by Yeshua. Harvesting is quite simply the removal of a crop item from the field in which it was grown. Plucking grain is in fact harvesting in this context.

A Rabbinic Hermeneutic

How this violation of Harvesting on the sabbath is relevant to the second example of the continual burnt offering in the temple might be obvious. Both are, presumably, violations of sabbath law. But how is the first example of David eating the consecrated bread relevant to the sabbath or violating the sabbath?

It’s not. Not in any direct way. This example seems more pertinent to the actions of Yeshua’s disciples in eating the grain they’d plucked. 

The example of David eating the showbread in the temple is actually more so a matter of violation of temple law. Leviticus 24:5-9 outlines the details of the sacred bread to be set before Hashem every week. Verse 9 in particular outlines that it is specifically for Aaron and his sons to eat(therefore forbidden to everyone else).

So the situation is that Yeshua’s disciples stand accused of violating Shabbat by harvesting grain to feed themselves. Yeshua’s response was not to deny the accusation, but to acknowledge it as valid and then point out that the priests in the temple also violate Shabbat in their duties pertaining to the continual burnt offering, and then further still to point out that David and his men violated temple law by feeding themselves something forbidden to them. 

Yeshua seems to be building a case for his disciples' actions based on jurisdiction. 

They stood accused of violating Sabbath law. Yeshua points out that within the jurisdiction of the temple, violating sabbath law is permissible as the jurisdiction of temple law supersedes that of sabbath law. The Temple is allowed, nay commanded, to violate Shabbat laws because the Temple is greater than the Sabbath.

Yeshua then points out that great human need(hunger) appears to supersede the jurisdiction of the temple in the example of David who was permitted to break temple law by eating sacred bread. David and his men were allowed to break Temple law because their need (human life) is greater than the Temple.

So the formula seems to be: "Temple law" is greater than "Sabbath law", followed by "Human need" is greater than "Temple law". Then the conclusion is obviously that "Human need" is greater than "Sabbath law."

This is a classic "kal v'chomer" (Hebrew for "from a stronger case") Rabbinic/Pharisaic style argument, where one presents an argument by demonstrating from an even stronger position why a thing is permitted/forbidden and concluding that the same is true in a weaker case also. By demonstrating that the Temple laws are greater than the Sabbath, and that even in Temple law and exception can be made for human need, then "kal v'chomer" human need is greater than the Sabbath.

Yeshua actually states this himself in Matthew 12:6 which many translations render as “someone greater than the sabbath is here.” or even simply “One greater than the sabbath is here.”

This is a favorite translational bias among antinomians because they read into it that Yeshua is diminishing the sabbath by comparing the sabbath to himself and thus insinuating that he has the authority to halt and disregard sabbath law for the sake of his disciples. 

This makes no sense as the Pharisees didn’t acknowledge that authority and would have brought his disciples to the Beit Din(House of Judgement aka rabbinic court) for their sabbath violation regardless of Yeshua’s own pompous statements of self aggrandizement if that is truly what he said or meant. It’s irrational to assume that intent onto Yeshua’s words and furthermore, this translation doesn’t take into consideration the alternative possible translations for the Greek word μεῖζόν(Meizon). 

While “someone” is a perfectly valid translation of Meizon it is not the only translation. This word also just as easily translates as “Something”. Therefore Yeshua’s statement that “Something greater than the Sabbath is here.” is referring to the Human need at hand(his disciples hunger) which even by Rabbinic law is a true statement. 

This comes not only on the basis of "kal v'chomer" but also from an already established rabbinic principle called “Pikuach Nefesh” (the preservation of life). The concept in short is that basically any of the Torah's laws are to be superseded by Pikuach Nefesh under certain circumstances in order to ensure the preservation of life. The only exceptions are Murder, Adultery, and Idolatry. 

For example, if someone commands you to kill another person under threat of your own life or someone else's, you may not kill that person. This is different from self defense or protecting another from an attacker (Which is not only permitted but mandated).

Imagine that someone is holding a gun to your head or even another person's head, they  hand you a gun, and tell you that you must shoot another person or else they will shoot you and/or the other person they are threatening. For you to do this would be murder even if your intent was to save yourself or someone else. You have still committed murder by shooting someone who was not a threat to you or anyone else. 

The other two should be obvious. If someone threatens to kill you or another unless you commit adultery or idolatry, these also are not valid reasons to commit such violations of Torah law. These are the three exceptions. Other than that, most any law is subject to supersession by Pikuach Nefesh. This is because Hashem says of the commandments “you shall live by them” not “you shall die by them” (Lev. 18:5). 

It's worth noting here that the concept of pikuach nefesh can be used in other not so dire situations. For example the Rabbis invoke the concept in the case of a pregnant lady on Yom Kippur. Pregnant women are basically not allowed to fast on Yom Kippur, because of the mere potential for some kind of medical harm it may do to either mother or baby (interestingly, the ruling does not specify which).

Additionally, one is not permitted to fast on shabbat (unless it's for Yom Kippur, since Yom Kippur overrides the Sabbath). In fact there is even a ruling against intermittent fasting on Sabbath, where a person should have something to eat before midday, and a person is not permitted to abstain from food till after midday (Pesachim 12b). Therefore, yet another Rabbinic principle can be applied here, and that is the "override principle" which states simply that in the case that a positive command and a negative command (a "do" command and a "don't" command) were to intersect in such a way that the person must choose one or the other, that the positive command "overrides" the negative one.

Not fasting on the Sabbath is regarded as a positive commandment because of the way it is worded in scripture, it is not specifically listed as a prohibition (negative command).

"Regarding Oneg Shabbat (the Mitzvah of enjoyment of Shabbat) one is obligated to enjoy Shabbat through eating and drinking, as the verse in Yesh'aya says (Chapter 58), “And you shall call Shabbat [a day of] pleasure.” From this our Rabbis have ruled that, one may not fast on Shabbat, for by doing so, one is prevents themself from enjoying Shabbat. ("Fasting On Shabbat" by Catriel Zer-Garland)

So, it may also be in this particular case, since harvesting is a sabbath prohibition, that the disciples were taking some pieces of grain from somebody's "peyot" (edges of the field left unharvested for the poor) in order to not fast on the sabbath, to fulfill "the mitzvah of enjoyment of Sabbath."

Though given Yeshua's comparison to David and his men, it seems to imply that their reason for eating was more serious than abstaining from fasting, and that they very well may have been in an extreme state of hunger. Hence the comparison and why it seems that the Pharisees accepted this argument.

One last thing to address is Yeshua's concluding words "the son of man is lord of the sabbath." While "son of man" can be (and often is used as) a Messianic title, an argument can easily be made that in this case it simply means "human beings" like it does in the case of the prophet Ezekiel. This once again harmonizes the use of the phrase with the concept of "pikuach nefesh" which is clearly the argument Yeshua is using here, rather than trying to shoehorn the idea that Yeshua is claiming to be the new Sabbath and lord over it to a group of people who would not accept that as a real answer, using an argument that is entirely irrelevant to that point.

In fact, since Yeshua seems to be invoking the concept of pikuach nefesh, this actually is an acknowledgment that he also considers plucking grain to be considered "work" and prohibited on the Sabbath. Otherwise Yeshua would simply argue "this is not actually work" or "you're defining 'work' incorrectly" to the Pharisees. If he does not consider it to be "work" then there is no violation of the Sabbath, and there is no need to justify overriding the Sabbath by invoking any principle that allows the override at all.

In this passage, Yeshua not only acknowledges and validates the accusation from the Pharisees, he employs a couple of Pharisaic modes of reasoning to determine the legal status of his disciples actions with those Pharisees. The reason these Pharisees had no answer is not because Yeshua diminished Pharisaic tradition, doctrine, or teachings and explained how superior his own legalistic literalist interpretation of Torah law was. Such an answer would have been meaningless to the Pharisees. 

They had no answer because Yeshua’s defense fell within the confines of their own traditions and teachings. This passage isn’t very good evidence against Pharisaism or against Yeshua’s own affiliation with the Pharisees. It actually presents a solid framework from which to view Yeshua as a Pharisee. One with an advanced grasp of Pharisaic hermeneutics at that.