At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the sabbath; his disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck heads of grain and to eat. When the Pharisees saw it, they said to him, “Look, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the sabbath.” He said to them, “Have you not read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? He entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him or his companions to eat, but only for the priests. Or have you not read in the law that on the sabbath the priests in the temple break the sabbath and yet are guiltless? I tell you, something greater than the temple is here. But if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless. For the Son of Man is lord of the sabbath.”
(Matthew 12:1-8 NRSV)

In the context of Matthew’s audience, Jesus’ disciples’ violation of the Sabbath is fruitful ground for interpretation. I will be primarily looking at this text from a first century Jewish context, focusing on the five perspectives Jesus uses to justify the actions of the disciples. I have classified these perspectives as; the Davidic precedent, the priestly precedent, Jesus’ comparison to the temple, the reference to Hosea, and the “Lord of the Sabbath” statement. I will also focus on how the story relates to the tone and themes of the rest of Matthew’s gospel. Finally, I will discuss the parallel text in the synoptic gospels and the significance of the difference between those passages.

First, we should consider this passage in light of the rest of Matthew. Jesus’ attitude toward the Law in Matthew is especially important. Clearly this passage is not an abolishment of the Sabbath regulations. “[Jesus'] argument, drawing upon both the Torah and a prophetic verse, accords nicely with Jesus’ affirmation that he has come ‘not to abolish the Law and the Prophets, but to fulfill them.’” Jesus is talking to the Pharisees in this passage, so his method of argumentation is hardly surprising and is in line with his method in other parts of Matthew. Because he is upholding the Law, I consider this to be an example of Jesus participating in the halakhic dialogue of the Scribes and the Pharisees. Although they reject his justification and reasoning, as is shown in Mt 12:14 when they conspire against him, Jesus is still acting as a participant in the Pharisaic discourse rather that ignoring their perspective outright.

The Davidic Precedent
Jesus references the story in 1 Samuel 21:1-6 of David asking the priest Ahimelech for bread. There is no mention that this occurred on the Sabbath, so this is most likely simply a justification for an exception to the established Law. The Old Testament story adds another layer of context to this story that is especially appropriate. Ahimelech is willing to give David the holy bread, but reminds him that the men must be ritually pure through abstinence from sex if they are going to eat it. David’s response affirms their purity but also adds that “the vessels of the young men are holy even when it is a common journey; how much more today will their vessels be holy?” (1Samuel 21:5 NRSV) So the purpose of their journey bears some significance on whether they are allowed to violate the prohibition against eating the holy bread. With this context, Jesus seems to imply that his disciples are justified in their actions because of the nature of their journey. In his account, Jesus also adds that David and his companions were hungry, which is not in the Old Testament text. This may be significant because it would appeal to the principle of piqquah nefesh “by which it is permissible to violate a commandment if this is necessary in order to preserve life.” That would fit with the idea of Jesus engaging in Pharisaic discourse, but I am not inclined to accept that interpretation. If this were a use of that principle, it would be quite poorly justified unless both David’s group and the Jesus’ group were literally starving to death. Neither account indicates there was that level of hunger. Another interesting perspective is brought up by R.T. French in The New International Commentary on the New Testament focusing on Jesus’ statement that he is “something greater” than the temple. So the exemption for David was because of who he was. “It was David, as David, who was permitted to do what was not lawful; and now Jesus places his own authority alongside that of David.” This argument flows well with the rest of the passage, but it does presuppose that this was intended to be a Christological argument, whereas the entire passage could be understood to refer to a more general discussion of the Law. If we accept that Jesus is teaching the Pharisees about proper interpretation of the Law, I think it fits better to make this less focused on Jesus’ right to an exemption from Sabbath practice and focus more on the general principles he is supporting.

The Priestly Precedent and the Temple
The example of David eating the bread of the presence is taken a step further with Jesus’ reference to priests’ activity on the Sabbath. Having established that the disciples’ mission had some bearing on their legal requirements, he extends this principle to the specific activity of working on the Sabbath. As Menahaem Kister points out, this principle was explained by R. Akiva in tShabbat 15:16 “the Temple service supersedes the Sabbath”. “The priests profane the Sabbath in the Temple, and the Temple service thus overrides the Sabbath, but ’something greater than the Temple’ (and thus also the Sabbath) ‘is here’.” The priestly exemption for services on the Sabbath does not seem to be in dispute here, but Jesus’ claim that he is greater than the Temple certainly would have been more controversial. “It is hard to overestimate the shock value of this pronouncement… Its priestly establishment was the nearest thing Israel still possessed to a government of its own. To threaten the temple, as Jeremiah had discovered long ago, was to commit unpardonable treason.” Even so, his argument could rest on the priestly exemption alone if the Davidic precedent of mission or piqquah nefesh was taken seriously by the Pharisees. Again, this point could also stand alone on the severity of the disciples’ hunger, which seems to have been an accepted exemption among the Pharisees.

Mercy not Sacrifice
Jesus quotes Hosea here for the second time in Matthew’s gospel. The context is quite different. Earlier, in Matthew 9:13 Jesus uses the same reference “Go and learn what this means, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ For I have come to call not the righteous but sinners.” In that passage he is responding to the Pharisees regarding eating with tax collectors and sinners. “The principle here is not to sacrifice as such (which Jesus does not rule out, 5:23-24) but to the Pharisees’ preoccupation with ritual purity, which overrides concern for those in need.” In the trajectory of his entire argument, I think this interpretation fits well. After giving examples of when exceptions may be made to the Law for the sake of a higher ideal, Jesus is appealing to the higher ideal of mercy over the sacrificial keeping of the Sabbath. Kister affirms this point by saying that Jesus implies “that mercy supersedes the Temple service, thus mercy supersedes the Sabbath too.” This would also open the question of whether Jesus is referring to himself when he speaks of “something greater” or if he is actually referring to God’s desire for mercy being greater than the stricture of the Law that the Pharisees present. Both interpretations rest on how the phrase “Son of Man” is interpreted in the final verse.

Lord of the Sabbath
The final perspective Jesus gives in this passage is in many ways the most enigmatic. He simply declares that “the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.” (Matt. 12:8) France brings up the scholarly disagreement about the interpretation of the phrase “Son of Man” arguing that taking it to mean humanity in general would be inconsistent. Although it seems that Jesus is referring to himself here, I think the more general reading would be more reasonable to the Pharisees. As he suggests, the change in usage from general to specific may have been introduced by the later Christian community. I would argue that the logic of the argument flows better using the more general understanding of the phrase, especially when considering the parallel passage in Mark which prefaces the final statement with “The Sabbath was made for humankind, and not humankind of the Sabbath.” (Mk 2:27) This may also be evidence of the semantic shift between the writing of the two gospels.

Synoptic Parallels
In his article The Chreia, David Gowler suggests that the form of this passage reflects a standard format of elaboration delineated by Hermogenes. I think that his suggestion is quite apt and ties in well with the rhetorical style of this passage. If Matthew’s audience was more firmly entrenched in the Pharisaic tradition than Mark’s and Luke’s, it is hardly surprising that the author would have elaborated the argument as was appropriate in the rhetorical style of the time.
All of the synoptic gospels include a version of this story, but I think the differences are quite striking. Mark’s account has the most interesting differences for me. First, most of the arguments are left out, adding credence to Gowler’s suggestion that the account in Matthew was an elaboration. Only the Davidic precedent and the “Lord of the Sabbath” statement remain, but Mark includes an argument about the purpose of the Sabbath, which is absent in the other two accounts. This could be taken to reflect the two interpretations found in the Old Testament. By directing the Sabbath practice toward humans, Mark may be recalling the justification given in Deuteronomy: “Remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God brought you out from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm; therefore the LORD your God commanded you to keep the sabbath day.” (Deuteronomy 5:15 NRSV) This verse points much more strongly toward Mark’s interpretation; that the Sabbath is for the sake of humans. But Matthew and Luke omit that reference, which implies that they are looking toward the justification given in Exodus: “For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but rested the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and consecrated it.” (Exodus 20:11 NRSV) This passage practically removes the human motivation for Sabbath practice, and focuses it much more on the holiness of the Sabbath.

There seem to be many nuances in the interpretation of this passage, but overall I think the entire interpretation rests on if this is read as a general interpretation of the Law or a specific exemption for Jesus. In the context of the lax treatment of the Sabbath in the Lutheran church, the former interpretation is certainly more appealing but that would suggest that the phrase “Son of Man” should be read to apply to all humanity rather than to refer to Jesus himself. If there was in fact as semantic shift in the meaning of this phrase in the early Christian community, I suspect it would be evident in a comparison of the usage of the term in Mark and Matthew.