Herold Weiss writes:
"Since the discourse that follows [John 5:18] denies the 'Jewish' understanding of the equality of the Father and the Son, is the 'Jewish' charge that Jesus had broken the sabbath to be taken seriously? I suggest that in John's view the 'Jews' are wrong both in their understanding of the equality of the Father and the Son and of Jesus as a sabbath breaker."
See "The Sabbath in the Fourth Gospel," Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 110, No. 2. (Summer, 1991): 311-321.
Regards,
Edgar
3 comments:
Edgar, how does one account for the words "not lawful" in Matt. 12:4 and "profane" or "desecrate" in Matt. 12:5, if Jesus was in fact arguing that His disciples were not breaking the sabbath, instead of arguing that He has the authority to dispense them from the obligation of keeping the sabbath?
Hi Jason,
You write:
"Edgar, how does one account for the words 'not lawful' in Matt. 12:4 and 'profane' or 'desecrate' in Matt. 12:5, if Jesus was in fact arguing that His disciples were not breaking the sabbath, instead of arguing that He has the authority to dispense them from the obligation of keeping the sabbath?"
I do not believe that Jesus is strictly agreeing with his opponents, who charge the disciples with practicing what is "unlawful" on the Sabbath (Matthew 12:1-2). The Lord is replying to the baseless aspersions of the Pharisees who suggest that what the disciples of Jesus are doing on the Sabbath is unlawful or prohibited. But Christ invokes the examples of David and the priests who work on the Sabbath to prove that God allows those engaged in his work to do what otherwise could be viewed as "unlawful" or could be seen as technically profaning the Sabbath. However, notice that Christ says the priests who continue working on the Sabbath are blameless (Matthew 12:5). A fortiori, why should not Christ's disciples also be deemed blameless while they carry out God's work and pluck grain from the fields through which they walk (Matthew 12:6)?
There are some interesting observations found on this account in Aquinas' Catena Aurea. John Chrysostom states that the disciples broke the Sabbath law, but not "absolutely"; they were given an "out" (so to speak) because they were hungry. Jerome thinks that the disciples "broke the letter of the Sabbath," but he appears to believe that the initial charge of the Pharisees was false. Jerome writes:
"But the laws of God are never contrary one to another; wisely therefore, wherein His disciples might be accused of having transgressed them, He shews that therein they followed the examples of Achimelech and David; and this their pretended charge of breaking the sabbath He retorts truly, and not having the plea of necessity, upon those who had brought the accusation."
John Nolland (The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text) notes that the first mention of the Sabbath in Matthew's Gospel is found at our text in 12:1. After providing commentary that centers on what ancient Jewish writings (including the Philonic texts) stated about the Sabbath, Nolland then writes:
"a sympathetic viewpoint on the situation of the needy is likely to have treated their [the disciples'] eating in the fields on the sabbath as not constituting work that would violate the sabbath. Such was not the view of Philo or of the Pharisees we meet in the Gospels. But it clearly is the view of Jesus" (p. 482).
Commenting on Matthew 12:5, Nolland also maintains:
"Again what is established is that the non-work requirement of the sabbath is not absolute . . . Once more at best the comparison creates a space in which apparently unlawful behavior may be justified on other grounds" (p. 484).
Another comment that I believe sheds light on this subject is what we find in Daniel J. Harrington's Sacra Pagina Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, particularly, how he exegetes Matthew 12:5.
Harrington explains:
"There are rules in the Torah itself that allow priests to do work in the Temple on the Sabbath: setting out the bread of the presence (Lev 24:8), and doubling the daily burnt offering (Num 28:9-10). By finding precedents within the Torah Matthew places the activity of Jesus' disciples on the Sabbath within the confines of Jewish law" (p. 172).
Regards,
Edgar
Post a Comment