kal va-chomer
“I tell you, something greater than the Temple is here.” Matthew 12:6 ESV
Something greater – In footnote to a discussion of this event, Marc Turnage makes an incredible important observation. It’s worth citing in full:
Many interpreters of Matthew 12:6 assume that, when Jesus spoke about “something greater than the temple,” He referred to Himself, particularly in light of His statement, “The son of man is lord of the Sabbath.” There are two problems with this interpretation: (1) the Greek of Matthew 12:6 for “something greater” is in the neuter case, and therefore, cannot refer to Jesus, which should have been in the masculine case. Charity towards others fits the neuter case. (2) Jesus’ statement about the “son of man is lord of the Sabbath” does not refer to Jesus either as the parallel in Mark makes clear: “The Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath.” The son of man in this instance is the common use of the term in Hebrew meaning “a human being” (see Psalm 8). In the Gospels, Jesus used the term son of man in three ways: (1) meaning a human being, the everyman, (2) as part of the Passion predictions, and (3) to speak about the future end-of-days judge. Quite simply, the only one of these three meanings that makes sense in the context of Matthew 12:6 is “the everyman.” The son of man is not a messianic title. Moreover, we find an exact parallel of the Markan statement, “The Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath” in the earliest rabbinic commentary on Exodus, the Mekhilta de Rabbi Ishmael, which verifies my reading of the sentence that “the son of man (i.e., a human being) is lord of the Sabbath.” This statement, too, is not about Jesus”[1]
Do you find this surprising? Perhaps shocking? Turnage is absolutely correct about the Greek grammar and the prior reference in the rabbinic material. He is correct in noting the parallel in Mark. Why then do we assume that the statement about “something greater” must be a reference to Yeshua as Messiah? Where did that idea come from? Who provided that exegesis? Why was that exegesis promulgated in the Church?
Are we open-hearted enough to put aside erroneous interpretation even if it causes distress to our view of the Messiah? Are we ready to listen to what the text actually says rather than hold on to a theological doctrine we have derived from a misreading of the text?
Let me offer one explanation, a speculative one, for sure, that might answer the question, “Where did this erroneous exegesis originate?” If we read the text as a reference to the Messiah, then we endorse a theology that sets aside the necessity of Shabbat. If we have the Messiah, and the Messiah is greater than the Sabbath, then we no longer need to follow the “Jewish” requirements of the Sabbath. Reading the text in this way justifies our Christian doctrine that Jesus set aside the Jewish legalism and that Jesus as Savior is greater than the legal requirements of Moses. Both ideas are essentially anti-Semitic. Do you suppose that behind this grammatically incorrect and historically inaccurate exegesis of Matthew 12:6 lies an incipient anti-Semitic theology? And if this is true of such a commonly understood statement, how many other statements of Yeshua have been interpreted according to an anti-Semitic theology?
Topical Index: Matthew 12:6, something greater, meizon, Sabbath, anti-Semitism
[1] Marc Turnage, Windows into the Bible, p. 384, fn. 256.
What is your interpretation and explanation of the “something greater” references in verses 41-42 in the same chapter [Matt. 12]? Who or what was greater than Jonah and Solomon, that was “here”?
The text of Matthew 12:41-42 uses a Greek term from the root polys. In this case, it is a neuter, single adjective. The problem with some translations is that they gloss the word as if it were masculine, therefore translating it as “someone greater.” That read theology into the text. The second issue is that Yeshua is speaking Hebrew, not Greek. So, TDNT notes ” In Greek polloí is used exclusively (“the many” as distinct from “all”), but in the OT it has an inclusive sense, due to the fact that Hebrew has no plural word for “all.” This is especially clear when the article occurs (cf. 1 Kgs. 18:25; Is. 53:11; Dan. 9:27).
b. Without Article. Even without the article the use is often inclusive, as in Pss. 109:30; 71:7; Ex. 23:2.
So the translation might be something like “a greater is here,” but then that would render it as a noun, which it is not. Perhaps we should read it as “greatly more than Jonah.” If it is not a masculine noun (i.e., someone greater), then Yeshua’s reference does not overthrow Turnage’s claim. It only shows us that we must be careful of the grammar in Matthew 12 as well. “Greatly more than Jonah” (or Solomon) can refer to the circumstances, the teaching, the event, the comparison, etc. But this much seems clear. The Greek does not support the idea that Yeshua referred to himself.
Thanks very much, Skip!
Skip, you have been talking about this in different ways for several years. I haven’t come across it in some of your materials yet, I don’t have all your books and audios, but are you going to discuss how Jews see the Messiah or who they believe the Messiah is to be or look like or behave so we can make the case when speaking with our Jewish brothers and sisters to show that Yeshua is the Messiah who came first as Messiah ben Yosef and is coming back as Messiah ben David?
That’s a great suggestion. I will have to consider compiling what I have written and adding to it. Thanks
In the parallel verses no reference is made to something greater… Which could also mean the terms was added during a translation period or era…
But given Yeshua the source or initiator of salvation the term if included in the original text could also imply that the kingdom was at hand, redemption was possible or God in flesh. So rather referring to Emmanuel than the messiah or even himself.
Thanks, I guess this warrants further thought.
I fail to see “charity” in this context (12:6), but “mercy / compassion” (12:7) may fit.
However, Pharisee halakhah accepts that mercy trumps Sabbath keeping.
The Kingdom (as Seeker mentioned) Offer, is an excellent interpretation.
– Context is the millennium (1000 year Sabbath): Reinforcing the importance of Sabbath keeping by us, if we want to be part of the bride.
– Offered by Yashua (as Ben David), to be rejected by the “un-divorced” bride (Yahudah).
– Killed as Messiah (Ben Yosef) and resurrected to enable marriage to the divorced bride (Yisrael) .
– The Temple, is an appropriate comparator, as one of the “pillars (idols) of Judaism”.
Thanks for this. I re-read Matthew 12 after reading your article. I can see the “something greater” as relaying relationship over ritual; compassion over a ritualistic view of sacrifice. My view is that the Sabbath as well as the other commands have relationship value. I see this even more now.
Another way of viewing this “humans as lord of the sabbath” is that the Sabbath serves man, man does not serve the Sabbath. I’ve thought this for years but it was just a thought. Today a deeper connection was made; meaning over information.
Definition of charity-
Charity involves helping those who need it; is hospitable; it does mean we are to be friendly, compassionate,
and kind to anybody around us—including strangers!
If we are a charitable person, we will start caring for other people more than we care for ourselves.
To be charitable is to be a sacrificial giver of every part of our life, from our money to our time.
Without love, charity is nothing more than a good deed done for some type of selfish reason.
Charity suggests benevolence and generosity, an act of the powerful and wealthy for the benefit of the poor and needy, that leads to tzedakah for charitable activity. The root word of tzedakah means “justice” , as an economic and social justice matter, of tikkun olam , which also means to fix or repair the world.
I was thinking of chesed, more than ‘lovingkingness’ or compassion.
I have often wondered too “how many other statements of Yeshua have been interpreted according to an anti-Semitic theology?”
Shalom.
With all due respect, Turnage is in error on a number of points. As regards Jesus’ use of “son of man”, it is always with the article as in the Son of [the] Man (ho huios tou anthrōpou). “The Son of Man” is a term Jesus uses self-referentially 79 times in the New Testament (including Matthew 12:8 and Mark 2:28). In addition, twice it is used by those paraphrasing Jesus (John 12:34, twice in this one verse), and once it is used by Stephen in Acts 7:56 referencing Jesus whom he saw at the right hand of God. This is compared to “son of man” (without the article = huios anthrōpou), which does, of course, mean human, which is used only 3 times in the NT: Heb 2:6 in which it hearkens back to Psalm 8:4, and Revelation 1:13, 14:14, which allude to Daniel 7:13.
Jesus’ use of the Son of Man is not as a title, true, but it is not to strictly denote His humanity. He uses it as the one “who gives his life as a ransom for many” (Mt 20:28, Mk 10:45), implying a salvific function, which is made explicit elsewhere (Lk 19:9-10) – a power reserved for deity, not a mere human. Similarly, but more convincingly, in John 9:35 a soteriological function of the Son of Man is surely implied by Jesus’ direct question to the man formerly blind: “Do you believe in the Son of Man?”
Moreover, the parallel to Matthew 12:8 is Mark 2:28, not 2:27:
And while “Charity towards others fits the neuter case” is not incorrect, there are a host of other possible interpretations for Jesus’ statement that “one greater than the Temple is here.” However, like always, context is the key to draw proper exegetical conclusions. I’ll quote Grant Osborne (Matthew; Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, {Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2010}, p 453) on this:
(cf. John 2:18-22)
If one wants to see the specific uses of “(the) son of man” in the NT, see here:
https://notunlikelee.wordpress.com/2016/01/15/the-son-of-god-given-authority-to-judge-because-he-is-human-a-study-in-john-527-pt-3/
Thank you Craig for a link with a very in-depth discussion of the term Son of Man as more relevant to His own way of referring to His nature and purpose.. I heard an interesting discussion of this reference also implying that the neuter understanding would also refer to those following Jesus’ footsteps His true disciples in in our modern age… Those revealing the same powers as stated in the great commission.
If one doubts what I wrote above regarding the distinction between the Son of Man and son of man, one should look at the most immediate prior use of “the Son of Man” in the Matthew and the Mark contexts. In Matthew 11:18-19 there’s a comparison between John the Baptist (Jesus’ forerunner) and “the Son of Man”, which obviously refers to Jesus. In Mark 2:18 we find that “the Son of Man (again a self-reference of Jesus) has authority to forgive sins”. Would we think that just any man can forgive sins?
I appreciate the counterpoint. However, as to your last question, while it is true that not ANY man can forgive, it is also true that YHVH granted the ability to forgive (on His behalf) to many men, e.g. the Levites, prophets, and, of course, Yeshua’s own disciples. The authority to forgive can be passed to someone who represents the only One in the Tanakh who is actually the source of forgiveness.
Skip,
While it is not untrue that men can be granted the ability to act as mediator in forgiving the sins of others, only God can actually forgive sins. This is why the “teachers of the Law” exclaimed that Jesus had blasphemed (Matthew 9:3).
To save me some time I’ll cite the work of another (https://bible.org/seriespage/12-authority-forgive-sins-matthew-91-8):
Yes, but’s that’s the point. He says, to show you that the son of Man has authority to forgive sins on earth, I will do the following. This does NOT mean he claimed to be God. It means that he claimed to be granted the authority of God on earth. Notice, if you will, that he does not claim carte blanche authority. He claims that he has the authority ON EARTH. Once again, it is paradigm that determines HOW we read the text. The text does not DEMAND a certain reading. It can be interpreted either way, and since it can be interpreted in a way that does not violate the concept of a single, supreme God, why should we read it as if it does?
To answer your question – in a way I see by your various posts on here that you’d disagree – because there are various other texts pointing in that direction. As but one “the Son of Man” example, John 9:35-41 indicates belief in “the Son of Man” has some salvific benefit, and Jesus Himself claims that He’d come into the world for “judgment” (krima). Judgment of what, who, etc.; and on whose authority? If by God’s authority, then this is surely something unusual, even for a messianic figure. If you can find a text to support the latter (a text contemporaneous with or prior to the writing of John’s Gospel), I’d be very interested.
We have to wonder why “the teachers of the Law” claimed that Jesus blasphemed in forgiving the paralytic’s sin, given that others before Him had been granted authority as mediator to forgive sins. What differentiated this particular situation to the others?
Maybe I’m being simplistic, but for me, 1 Corinthians 15:27 makes this discussion pretty clear: God put ALL THINGS under Yeshua’s feet EXCEPT God Himself. All things. To me that includes the authority to forgive. God alone remains not in subjection to the Messiah. In fact, the next verse makes plain the fact that Yeshua is at all times in subjection to God. This plain speaking makes no sense at all if Yeshua is God.
Thomas Elsinger,
First of all, the Corinthians passage is speaking post-incarnationally. I’ll address that just below. In the present context, during Christ’s Incarnation, the unanswered question I posed remains:
“We have to wonder why ‘the teachers of the Law’ claimed that Jesus blasphemed in forgiving the paralytic’s sin, given that others before Him had been granted authority as mediator to forgive sins. What differentiated this particular situation to the others?”
In 1 Corinthians 15:27 the context is about God the Father (see verse 24; verse 27 truncates the full title to “God”) and what he’s given to Christ, i.e. the Son. Of course Jesus, or Yeshua if you like, is not God the Father. From a Trinitarian perspective – which I hold to – both Father and Son are God, though distinct in ‘Person’ (or Greek prosōpon, which means “face”, used in reference to the LORD in Exodus 33:20 in the LXX {Greek OT} and in the Trinitarian proceedings in later 4th (3rd?) – 5th centuries AD). Christ/Messiah is subject to God the Father functionally, though he’s co-equal in Deity/Divinity.
Though not the only text, one of the clearest Scriptures indicating Christ/Messiah’s Deity is Colossians 1:17 (in fact all of 1:15-20 is pertinent – and note verse 19 in conjunction with 2:9). He is “before all things” indicating that He predates creation, including time itself, which is an aspect of creation. More importantly, Messiah/Christ holds/sustains “all things”, referring to creation. The verb tense-form here is the perfect (not to be confused with the English perfect tense), which means a continual state, implying that even during His earthly ministry He was holding all things together (cf. Hebrews 1:3).
Craig I read in the Jewish annotated NT that Yeshua actions implied that He gave His disciples authority to define Sabbath practices… For me meaning the understanding would be a direct violation of the 10 Commandments, this could be the reason for their response.
A matter of judging before investigating or listening to all witnesses could also be the reason.
Also remember that the manuscripts were not complete and in some instances only those translated into Greek, by the time Matthews gospel was documented as part of the bible, were used for completeness…
Seeker,
I’m not exactly sure to what you refer regarding Jesus’ actions implying “that He gave His disciples to [re]define Sabbath practices”; but, this could be consistent with the idea the Jesus came to fulfill the Law (Matt 5:17). This goes to my position – the Christian stance – that certain OT practices/laws were either abandoned or modified. Some of the “laws”, such as those governing the Sabbath were overly tedious, and Jesus attempted to set the Pharisees straight in this regard (see Mark 2:27, and 3:2-6).
You wrote, “A matter of judging before investigating or listening to all witnesses could also be the reason.” And, that goes to my point: Jesus already knew the man’s sins were forgiven because He was more than a mere mediator, and the Pharisees understood Him to mean just that. He didn’t follow the usual protocol.
As regards the NT manuscripts, all were originally written in the common language of the time: Koine Greek – not Hebrew and not Aramaic, though there are some transliterations of Aramaic and Hebrew into Greek. Some have claimed Aramaic or Hebrew as the original, but there’s no extant evidence of that.
Keep in mind that even the Old Testament was translated into Koine Greek circa 200BC in what is known as the LXX or Septuagint. I’m not meaning to imply that the Hebrew OT was done away with; however, my point is that Koine Greek was the common language of the day. Certainly, at least some of the Jews spoke in Hebrew/Aramaic; however, it just made sense that they had to be conversant in Greek, given Roman rule.
Craig Thank you for more info. The annotation was taken verbatim from the notes referenced to the verse.
What is your understanding of 1 Cor 16:49-58
I’m not sure which Scripture your are referring to. I Cor. 15:49-58?
Sorry to drop in uninvited…
In Matt 6 the disciples were taught to forgive so that they can be forgiven. Here in Matt 12 Jesus applies this exact principle…
I was thinking the same thing seeker. Not to mention he gives them authority to forgive sins in John 20.23: “if you forgive anyone’s sins they are forgiven if you retain anyone’s sins they are retained.” How does this fit into a trinitarian/non-trinitarian view point?
Sorry David cannot respond from Trinitarian view.
At times I think the Trinitarian view may be deduced from the three heavens read of in Jewish rabbinic discussion documents…
The reality with forgiving sins is that these are sins against oneself and by not remaining angry frees ones own spirit…
Craig. Sorry yes 1 Cor 15.
Seeker,
I’ll answer it briefly, as, in deference to Skip and his blog, this goes a bit beyond the scope of this particular blog post. That is, unless I’m missing your connection to it.
In 1 Corinthians 15:49-59 Paul describes a future event (“at the last trumpet” – v. 52) in which all believers will receive an immortal, imperishable body (can’t wait!). This, then, begins our experience in the eternal realm (though at conversion all can be said to have entered into eternal life, we don’t experience it to the full until then). Verses 56-57 speak about sin which is exposed by the Law (Ten Commandments), but Christ/Messiah provides victory over that through His crucifixion, death and subsequent rising from the dead (see 15:1-5) – to those who believe in Him.
Craig. Thank you. Beyond the scope not really. The blog starts with discussion on the Sabbath rule, then into forgiveness of sin. Then the authority to forgive sin.
Eph 2 deals with the forgiveness of sin and it’s impact from death to life… From a learnt Rabi’s view.
1Cor 15 explains the result of the forgiving of sin and the birth of a spiritual entity united with God… From the same Rabi.
Reading this backwards may answer why Jesus was accused of blasphemy… As the Rabbis’ understood that forgiveness of sin is how God unites souls with Him and only God can do this…
OK, I see your connection now!