“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit” (John 12:12 RSV – all quotes from RSV unless indicated). Only after the resurrection and ascension of their Lord would the disciples gradually come to appreciate the profound significance of this analogy. They would recall the occasion when, in his company, they “went through the grainfields” and “began to pluck ears of grain and to eat” (Matt. 12:1).
Matthew 12:1-8 recalled and understood
At that time, they had received natural sustenance in the presence of the one who was “alone” in his sinlessness, yet who was willing to be the one who “dies” that his friends might receive such nourishment as would bring them eternal vitality. With poignant appreciation, they would recall the timing of this lesson: it was “on the Sabbath,” anticipating that sabbath day when the body of the Master would rest in the earth only to be raised and bear “much fruit.”
As they contemplated the matter further, the two scriptural allusions made to silence the Pharisees (Matt. 12:3-5) would be clearly illuminated.
Like David, they, too, were under sentence of death (I Sam. 20:31), were fleeing from an evil sovereign (Rom. 5:21), received a covenant blessing (I Sam. 20:42), hungered after righteousness (Matt. 5:6) and were fed by the priest with holy bread from the presence of God (I Sam. 21:1-6; Heb. 4:14-16).
Like the child circumcised on the sabbath, they, too, required circumcision of the heart (Rom. 2:28,29), separation from the defiling influences of their natural heritage, that they might enter into the Sabbath rest from sin through the work of the priest in the temple of the Lord (John 7:22,23; Heb. 10:19-22). Such lessons are regularly recalled by disciples who, in memorial fellowship, “proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes” (I Cor. 11:26).
We frequently misunderstand Matthew 12
As is often the case, spiritual significance of Christ’s allusions may not be immediately apparent. His words we are considering are found in statements addressed directly, not to his friends, but to his enemies. Further, using terms reflecting the preconceived notions of his enemies, the verses can present an expositional problem. Consequently, it is not uncommon in our community for Matt. 12:1-8 to be cited as illustrating a conflict that supposedly exists between various divine commandments.
On the basis of this hypothesis, people are required to establish a priority between such conflicting commandments. This approach implies:
- inherent conflict within the law of the Lord, and
- that human judgment is required to determine when it is proper to break a divine commandment.
- #1 is inconsistent with Paul’s conclusion that “the law is holy, and the commandment holy, just and good” (Rom. 7:12), and with the whole of Psalm 119 and with similar scriptures that revere the Law as a flawless divine production.
- #2 requires a different view of the human heart from such scriptures as Jer. 17:9 and Mark 7:20-23, where it is identified as a deceitful source of evil things. It also conflicts with the statement, “For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it” (James 2:10). The Law cannot be honored by the contravention of any of its requirements.
Further, the commands-in-conflict approach appears to require the following summary of Matt. 12:2-8: “The Pharisees accuse the disciples of sinning. Jesus cites two precedents of justifiable sins, of acceptable contraventions of God’s commandments, thereby legitimizing the disciples’ transgression. As Lord of the Sabbath, he claims the authority to set aside his Father’s requirements, exonerating the disciples’ conduct that otherwise would be unlawful.”
This explanation cannot be right
Such an explanation is in direct conflict with, “Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 5:19). There has to be a better way of understanding this record.
A better approach
For a start, notice Jesus’ conclusion that the disciples were, in this matter, “guiltless” (Matt. 12:7). Jesus therefore rejected the Pharisees assessment of their conduct as being “not lawful” (v.2). Consequently, it would be unnecessary to cite earlier “acceptable transgressions” as precedents.
Secondly, consider that the Pharisees perceived none of the spiritual principles of the Law. They had no appreciation of the Sabbath rest from sin while sharing in the true work of the Creator. They saw only prohibitions, which they multiplied without divine authorization.
Jesus could have established directly that the disciples were not engaged in such “work” as should be set aside for the day. However, as on many occasions, his approach was indirect, requiring careful contemplation (Prov. 25:2). Jesus says the priests “profane the Sabbath,” yet are “guiltless” (v.5). On the surface this involves a logical inconsistency. Those who actually profane the Sabbath are guilty (e.g. Ezk. 22:8).
The anomaly of Christ’s words
John 5 is helpful in this regard. Consider the significance of two phrases in v.18, “This was why the Jews sought all the more to kill him, because he not only broke the sabbath but also called God his father, making himself equal with God.” The highlighted phrases represented the assessment of the Pharisees; neither was true. If Jesus had actually broken the fourth commandment, he would have been a sinner (James 2:10).
In Matthew 12, there are two phrases requiring similar attention:
“…he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him to eat…” (v.4) and
“…the priests in the temple profane the sabbath and are guiltless” (v.5).
Both highlighted phrases reproduce the necessary conclusions of the distorted Pharisaic perception of the sabbath. Yet in both cases these actions were innocent in the eyes of God and the accusing Pharisees would undoubtedly agree with that.
The first phrase is a deliberate echo from verse 2. The second reflects that perverted perspective which would incorrectly categorize even the priestly duties as “profaning the sabbath.”
The sabbath law prohibited doing one’s own works on that day. In no sense were the priests doing their own works as were prohibited. Rather, such prescribed activities as circumcision and the offering of sacrifices proclaimed vital aspects of the Sabbath message to the benefit of the individual and the nation.
Truly keeping the sabbath
In John 7:23, Jesus asks, “If on the sabbath a man receives circumcision, so that the law of Moses may not be broken, are you angry with me because on the sabbath I made a man’s whole body well?” Again , the Pharisee’s view that acts of healing others contravened the sabbath law was grossly inaccurate. In fact, such works were supremely consistent with the sabbath message that involved Jesus, not with his own work, but with his Father’s (John 5:17).
Lord of the sabbath
Further, the designation of Jesus as “Lord of the sabbath” (Matt. 12:8), far from invoking authority to set aside its requirements, focused on his role as the embodiment of all the principles and promises involved in the sabbath provision. Here was the one who would lead the faithful into the ultimate rest from sin, freeing them to serve God without ceasing (Matt. 11:28-30).
Sadly, the Pharisees, so lacking in understanding of the written word, failed to recognize the personal embodiment of that divine revelation.
David’s eating of the shewbread
The constricted, condemnatory approach of the Pharisees would also require a wrong view of the conduct of David when “he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence…” (Matt. 12:4). The Pharisaical view of the law would force the categorization of such action as “not lawful.” Was it? Were they prepared to say that? Lord willing, this matter will be considered next month.
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One