Relaxed Torah

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?” Matthew 12:3-4

Not Lawful – In Torah Club Volume Four there is a discussion of the claim that Yeshua broke the Sabbath legislation.   The purpose of this discussion is to fortify the argument that the Sabbath remains God’s designed day of rest and that Yeshua meticulously upheld the Sabbath.  But Christian theology often claims otherwise, arguing that passages like this one in Matthew demonstrate that Yeshua set aside the Sabbath requirements.  However, there are some peculiarities about this event that we need to understand before we can conclude that Sabbath-keeping no longer applies.  Let’s look carefully at what the verse says, and what it doesn’t say.

The context:  certain religious Jews notice that Yeshua’s disciples are husking grain as they walk through a field on the Sabbath.  Rolling the grain between their palms in order to remove the husk was considered work.  Therefore, they conclude that Yeshua’s followers are Sabbath-breakers and they charge Him with the same sin.

There was nothing illegal about taking grain from the field.  God provided specific Torah legislation that allowed the poor or needy to take what they could eat provided only that they did not reap with tools.  Gathering by hand was not forbidden.  The objection is to the “work” of husking the grain.  But notice that Yeshua recognizes his disciples are doing what is not lawful.  The Greek text reads ouk exon, literally “never to be.”  Yeshua upholds the prohibition.  His disciples are violating Sabbath, but notice that He does not.  He goes hungry rather than husk the grain.  Yeshua grants that the Pharisees are correct.  Then He draws an example from Scripture.

David also broke the Sabbath when he and his men ate the bread of presence.  Just like Yeshua’s disciples, they were guilty.  But there is another principle at work here, a principle that both the Pharisees and Yeshua knew.  The rabbinic principle is tsad heter, a principle that allows for the relaxation of the Torah instructions if there is a demonstrable precedent.  Yeshua pushes the point even further by remarking on the apparent contradiction that the temple priests actually do “work” on the Sabbath when they sacrifice an animal.  Yeshua demonstrates that there are conditions when Sabbath law is relaxed and no guilt is incurred.  The Pharisees’ argument is defeated.

But notice that the Christian argument about Sabbath-keeping is not supported with this event.  Yeshua clearly states that the Sabbath has been violated.  He simply points to a higher need (hunger) and a previous example (David).  He does not set aside the commandment.  Furthermore, since the text specifically says that His disciples were eating, but He was not, He shows Himself to be in strict conformity with the Sabbath.  The charge against Him comes as a result of the assumption that the behavior of His disciples reflected His own teaching, which He subsequently denies.

What do we learn from this story?  We learn that there are times when the Sabbath has certain flexibility.  But we also learn that Yeshua did not participate in that flexibility on this occasion.  We see that He endorsed keeping the Sabbath.  We find nothing here that implies He set it aside.  So, if you’re famished on the Sabbath and you happen to be walking through a field of grain, feel free to take some kernels and eat them.  You are permitted.  But that’s not quite the same as driving to the store, is it?

Topical Index:  Sabbath, not lawful, ouk exon, Matthew 12:3-4