Last week’s post focused on the controversy and conflict that emerged because Jesus’ disciples did not fast. Although conflict and controversy arise due to differing interests, the difference between conflict and controversy is that the former is a clash of interests while the latter is a public debate about a matter that arouses strong opinions.
Today’s post focuses on the controversy when Jesus’ disciples plucked heads of grain as Jesus and his disciples went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. It falls into the first category of an observable pattern of complaints, where there were complaints to Jesus about the disciples, and Jesus responded.
The Pharisees complained to Jesus about his disciples’ actions on the Sabbath because of the law, which states that “the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; in it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your manservant, or your maidservant, or your cattle, or the sojourner who is within your gates” (Exodus 20:10). Jesus intervened referring to David’s similar action and how he is the Lord of the Sabbath.
Setting
This story appears in Matthew 12:1-8, Mark 2:23-28, and Luke 6:1-6 with slight differences. The three narratives say the event happened on the Sabbath as Jesus and his disciples went through the grainfields. However, only Matthew’s account states that the disciples were hungry (Matt 12:1). While Matthew’s account says they plucked the grains to eat (Matt 12:1), Luke’s account says they plucked the grains, rubbed them in their hands, and ate them (Luke 6: 1).
On seeing this, the Pharisees complained to Jesus. Their comments to Jesus are the same, though reordered in the various narratives: “Look, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the sabbath.” (Matt 12:2), “Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the sabbath?” (Mark 2:24). However, Luke’s account does not say the Pharisees complained to Jesus. It reads: “But some of the Pharisees said, “Why are you doing what is not lawful to do on the sabbath?” (Luke 6:2).
The response of Jesus
Due to the nature of this controversy, one considers Jesus’ response as a party in the controversy and as a mediator. As a party to the issue, Jesus sought to defend the disciples. In response to the comments of the Pharisees, Jesus referred to a similar precedent action. He said: “Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need of food? He entered the house of God, when Abiathar was high priest, and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and he gave some to his companions” (Mark 2:25-26). Matthew’s and Luke’s accounts do not indicate that Abiathar was the high priest then.
Furthermore, in Matthew’s account, Jesus gave another example in defence of the disciples and introduced the concept of mercy. He said: “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” (Matthew 12:5-7).Mark also reports that Jesus added a new dimension to the situation when he emphasised the preeminence of people over the law. Jesus said: “The sabbath was made for humankind, and not humankind for the sabbath” (Mark 2:27).
Jesus’ response here shows that he knew that the disciples were wrong to have done what they did on Sabbath as eating directly from the grainfields was a sort of harvesting—something not to be done on Sabbath. Hence, his response did not negate the accusation. Nevertheless, he focused on the importance of human welfare as the foundation of human laws and the consideration of mercy and human welfare in interpreting laws.
The second dimension is Jesus’ response as a mediator, where Jesus clearly stated that he was the Lord of the Sabbath. The three accounts report this (Matt 12:8; Mark 2:28; Luke 6:5). This corroborates Matthew’s account above, where Jesus noted that something greater than the temple was present here. This means that if the priest broke the Sabbath law because they were in the temple, how much more Jesus’ disciples if the Lord of the Sabbath, the man greater than the temple, was present? Therefore, in this dimension, Jesus sought to resolve the controversy between the Pharisees and the disciples, affirming the position of both parties.
Lessons from Jesus
(a) The Sabbath was made for humans
Conflict and controversy often concern laws because the introduction of a new law, the inability to implement a law, and the interpretation of a law in a particular situation affect the interests of concerned parties. Jesus teaches that the Sabbath law and all other laws were meant for humankind and not vice versa.
In this way, he shows us that human life and welfare are the most important determiners of legislation and law interpretation.
(b) The conflicting party is not always wrong
Throughout the gospels, Jesus confronted the Jewish leaders who considered him a threat to their influence. The Jewish leaders always sought ways to trap Jesus to find something to hold against him. Hence, one might say that they were Jesus’ enemies. Yet, although they opposed Jesus and lived in ways contrary to Jesus’ love and care for all, it does not mean that all they did or argued for was wrong.
The controversy about the Sabbath is one of them. They were right in the law regarding the Sabbath because plucking grains from the field to eat was harvesting. This was why Jesus did not condemn them. He simply justified why the law should not be interpreted strictly in the case of the disciples—they were hungry and harvested what to eat, not what to sell or store. The second is the presence of Christ, the Lord of the Sabbath. On various occasions, Jesus showed that his presence gave the disciples some immunity concerning some religious laws.
(c) Navigating being a party and a mediator
As conflicts are common, we are often in a conflict where we are both a party and a mediator. For instance, someone complains to us about the tensions between them and our family member or friend. We are sometimes directly or indirectly involved in causing that tension. This is where navigating being a party and a mediator is essential. Jesus shows us that it is possible. He did not condemn the Pharisees because they were right. He did not condemn the disciples because they were hungry and needed food. He justified the disciples’ actions as a special case, thereby validating the concerns of the Pharisees.
May God continue to help us🙏🏾
K’ọdị🙋🏾♂️
