8/14/2019 Jesus Argued Like a Jew.pdf

1/7

Leaven

Volume 19Issue 2Te Gospel of Mathew Article 5

1-1-2011

Jesus Argued Like a Jew Linda King elbbc@cox.net

Follow this and additional works at:h p://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/leavenPart of theBiblical Studies Commons ,Christianity Commons , and theReligious Tought,

Teology and Philosophy of Religion Commons

Tis Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Religion at Pepperdine Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Leaven by an authorized administrator of Pepperdine Digital Commons. For more information, please contactKevin.Miller3@pepperdine.edu.

Recommended CitationKing, Linda (2011) "Jesus Argued Like a Jew," Leaven: Vol. 19: Iss. 2, Article 5. Available at:h p://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/leaven/vol19/iss2/5

http://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/leaven?utm_source=digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu%2Fleaven%2Fvol19%2Fiss2%2F5&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/leaven/vol19?utm_source=digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu%2Fleaven%2Fvol19%2Fiss2%2F5&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/leaven/vol19/iss2?utm_source=digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu%2Fleaven%2Fvol19%2Fiss2%2F5&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/leaven/vol19/iss2?utm_source=digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu%2Fleaven%2Fvol19%2Fiss2%2F5&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/leaven/vol19/iss2/5?utm_source=digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu%2Fleaven%2Fvol19%2Fiss2%2F5&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/leaven?utm_source=digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu%2Fleaven%2Fvol19%2Fiss2%2F5&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/539?utm_source=digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu%2Fleaven%2Fvol19%2Fiss2%2F5&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/1181?utm_source=digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu%2Fleaven%2Fvol19%2Fiss2%2F5&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/544?utm_source=digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu%2Fleaven%2Fvol19%2Fiss2%2F5&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/544?utm_source=digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu%2Fleaven%2Fvol19%2Fiss2%2F5&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPagesmailto:Kevin.Miller3@pepperdine.edumailto:Kevin.Miller3@pepperdine.eduhttp://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/leaven/vol19/iss2/5?utm_source=digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu%2Fleaven%2Fvol19%2Fiss2%2F5&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPagesmailto:Kevin.Miller3@pepperdine.eduhttp://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/leaven/vol19/iss2/5?utm_source=digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu%2Fleaven%2Fvol19%2Fiss2%2F5&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/544?utm_source=digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu%2Fleaven%2Fvol19%2Fiss2%2F5&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/544?utm_source=digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu%2Fleaven%2Fvol19%2Fiss2%2F5&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/1181?utm_source=digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu%2Fleaven%2Fvol19%2Fiss2%2F5&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/539?utm_source=digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu%2Fleaven%2Fvol19%2Fiss2%2F5&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/leaven?utm_source=digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu%2Fleaven%2Fvol19%2Fiss2%2F5&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/leaven/vol19/iss2/5?utm_source=digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu%2Fleaven%2Fvol19%2Fiss2%2F5&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/leaven/vol19/iss2?utm_source=digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu%2Fleaven%2Fvol19%2Fiss2%2F5&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/leaven/vol19?utm_source=digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu%2Fleaven%2Fvol19%2Fiss2%2F5&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/leaven?utm_source=digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu%2Fleaven%2Fvol19%2Fiss2%2F5&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

8/14/2019 Jesus Argued Like a Jew.pdf

2/7

Jesus Argued Like a JewL INDA KING

tentiona llyor not, Chr istian sc holars have been rel uctant to ack nowle dge the Jew ishness of Jes us. To

be sure , no one denied Jesus ' birthplace in Judea to pare nts w ho were Jews . But the o bservation oftenstopped t here . Recently , however , Christians have begun to reconside r the Jewish ped igree ofthe gospe l

message, the Jewi sh nat ure of Jes us' thinking and teaching , and the ways he interpreted the Jewish scrip tures .For example , the confl ict stories of Matt hew 12 , when viewed t hrough a lens of Jewish rhetoric , yieldinsights into what Matthew 's Jesus ma y have been sa ying and how he said i t. As a first -century Je w, Jesusthought like a Jew , he re ad his Bible like a Je w, and h e mad e his ar guments like a Jew-which is to sa y,accordin g to Hillel .

THE SEVEN MI OT OF HILLEL

On scene in first -century Palestine was a great Jewish teacher named Hil le l; who developed a set ofexegetical principles known as the Seven Midd oth (a plura l Hebrew term meaning rules in this context )of Hillel .s The earliest li st contained seven of these rules ; however , the list later expanded to th irteen , thenthirty -two , and event ually (by the 1900s) , six hu ndred t hirteen . As the prevailing rhetorical strateg y of theday , these rules wou ld have been fam iliar to Jesus , his disciples , and his Pharisee interloc utors , as well as to

Matthew and his community . While vari ous midd oth have been i dentified throughou t the New Testa ment, themidd oth Jesus em ployed the mo st often were gezera h shawah and qa l wahomer. I sugges t that in Mat thew

I. In the literature, Hillel is occ asionally referred to as R abbi Hill el. See E. Earle Ellis, The Old T estament in Ea rly Christian ity:Ca non and Interpretation in Light ofModern Resea rch (Tu bingen: J. C. B. M ohr (Pa ul Siebeck ), 1991), 130. Howev er, since t he titleof Rabbi is not be lieved to have been formalized until after t he time of Hillel, most modern authorities refer to him si mp ly as Hille l, the great teac her Hill el, Hi llel t h e Elder , a sag e, or a scribe . See H enry A. Fischel, Rabbinic Litera tur e an d Greco- Roman Phi losop hy(Lei den: E. J . Bril l, 1973), 116. fn. 123 and 127, and 159, fn. 197. See also David Instone -Brewe r, Techniqu es an d Assumptions inJewish Exeges is befor e 70 CE (Tii bingen: J C. B. Mohr (Paul Si ebeck), 1992),2.2. In rabb inic liter ature, the Sev en Middoth of Hillel ar e recorded in thr ee documents, with slight variations: ARNa .37.IO, tSanh.7.I1,and the Introducti on to Sifr a .

3. Stated succinct ly, the Se ven Ru les of Hil lel are: Qal wah omer means light and heavy and r efers to an in ference f rom m inor and m ajor, an argum ent afortiori .

2. Gezerah . sha wah refers to an in ference drawn by analogy, by co mparison with a simil ar situation or simil ar words or phra ses in

scriptur e.3 . Binyan ab mika th ub e had refers to bui lding a fa mily from one passage; that is, constructin g a ge neral principle inferred from one

verse.4. Binyan ab m ishene ketuvim refers to building a famil y from two passages; that is, generalizing from a combin ation of two

scriptur al texts.5. Kelal u phera t means ge neral and spec ific; that is, a general principle may be quali fied b y specif ics , and co nversely, particular rul es

may be expanded t o generalizations.6. Kayo; e bo be maq om aher ( as a ppears from another scriptu ral text ) reaso ns that a difficu lty in one passage may be resolved by

compar ing it with an other text.7. Daba r h a lam ed me illyall o declares that a meaning may be established by the co ntext .

King: Jesus Argued Like a Jew

Produced by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2011

8/14/2019 Jesus Argued Like a Jew.pdf

3/7

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW LEAVEN 75

12, the author employs these middoth to conf irm two separate but related truths : Jesus as the ultimate rabbi

and interpreter of the law, and the summation of the law in the equation of righteousness with mercy.

The Basic Conflict

the narrative of Matthew 12, Jesus and his disciples are walking through the grainfields on a Sabbath. Thedisciples are hungry, so they pick grain and eat . The Pharisees accost Jesus, saying , Look , your disciples are

doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath (v. 3). Much of the remaining chapter is given to Jesus' veryJewish responses.

When the Pharisees allege that the disciples ' actions are unlawful, Jesus directly contradicts them ,calling his disciples innocent , guiltless. Is Jesus dismissing either the Sabbath or the law? I don 't think so.As M. Eugene Boring warns , It is misleading, superficial , and simplistic to attempt to understand the text

in terms of a conflict between Jewish legalism and Jesus' or the church's freedom from the Law. ? Rather ,Matthew assumes that his audience understands , respects and perhaps has participated in both the joy of theSabbath and the ongoing discussions about proper Sabbath observance. Commanded by God as part of theDecalogue (Exod 20.8-11 , even observed by God at creation (Gen 2.2-3 , the keeping of the Sabbathhad for centuries been central to Jewish identity. Observant Jews saw it as a gift, not a burden. Precisely

because the Sabbath was so central to Jewish life, its proper observance was important. > Over time , a bodyof traditions had developed (halakah), regulating what was permitted and what constituted forbidden workon the Sabbath .s In the grainfields story , Matthew exp lains none of this context . He assumes his audienceunderstands that the Pharisees are charging Jesus' disciples with reaping, a work specifically forbidden on

the Sabbath.Just what, then, made Jesus' statements so powerful and provocative? For the answer , let us review his

four replies to his challengers, considering what Matthew has chosen to emphasize and how he makes his

case for Jesus as the ultimate interpreter of the law.

The First Response the Example of DavidTo vindicate his disciples, Jesus points the Pharisees to the example of David 1 Sam 21 .1-6). Having fledto the priests of Nab , David and his men w ere hungry , so David asked the high priest for bread. Although

the only bread available was the showbread , David was given it to share with his men. Thus , Jesus implies ,some circumstances-such as hunger-can excuse a violation of the law . This argument by Jesus has beenidentified as a gezerah shawah , one of Hill el's seven middoth , in that it reasons by analogy, from similarwords, phrases and circumstances. Therefo re, Jesus may be seen as beating the Pharisees at their own game.However, this comparison is haggadic (based on story) rather than halakhic (based on legal ruling) , so some

interpreters would say that the gezerah shawah doesn 't hold: haggadah is ineffective to contradict halakhah .

The Second Response Priests in the TempleFor his second response, Jesus does move to halakhah, reminding his opponents that although the lawforbids work on the Sabbath, the priests in the temple are commanded to offer certain sacrifices everySabbath , technically profaning the Sabb ath (Num 28.9-10 . Thus , disobedience to a command of the law

4. M. Eugene Boring , Matthew , in The N ew Int erpreter s Bibl e: A Comm entar y Tw elve Volum es (Nashville : Abin gdon Pre ss,1995 ),8:277.5. Ibid.6. According to m.Sabb. 7:2 , thirty-nine classe s of work-inc luding reaping-w ere specified as prohibited on the Sabbath. Forexampl e, the rabbi s permitted the saving of a life on the Sabbath (rn.Yorna 8:6 ,7), as well as rescuing an animal from a pit or ditch(rn.Sabb. 15 : I; b.Shabb. 128b). However , healing where life was not in danger w as forbidden (rn.S abb. 22:6).

Leaven, Vol. 19 [2011], Iss. 2, Art. 5

http://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/leaven/vol19/iss2/5

8/14/2019 Jesus Argued Like a Jew.pdf

4/7

L V N Secon d Qua rter 2011

may be excus ed, eve n demanded, by obedience t o anothe r commandment o f the law.? In this case , Jesusempl oys H illel's principle of qal wahomer, whic h is an argument from m inor to major, a reasoning a fortiori .

If somet hing is tru e in a minor matte r, how much more will i t be true/greater/better /imperative in a majormatter . As Jesu s declare s, if th e priests who violate the Sabbath in service o f the tem ple are guiltl ess , how

much m ore innoce nt are th ese disciple s who viol ate the Sabbath for s omethin g greater than the templ e.Just what this som ething ma y be is not entirel y clear from the te x t.f Some inte rpreters believe it is Je sus;others, salvation or the kin gdom ; still others con clude it refer s to mercy (eleos) . The merc y meanin gmakes sense , in that the next words from Jesus ' lips are a quotation from Hosea 6. 6: For I desire mercy andnot sacri fice. Since this is a Semitic expression that is not intended to abrogate sac rifice but to show thepriority of mercy over sacrifice , a dual meaning may well have been intended . Both Jesus and the mercy herepresent s are the Something Greater.

The Third Response Quoting ScriptureAfter Je sus quotes Hosea 6.6 , he condemns the Pharisees for not understanding it s meaning. Obviousl y,neither Hosea nor Jesus was trying to outlaw th e practice of sacrif ice. A fter all , sacri fice was commandedby God and commended b y Jesu s.? The Greek word Matthe w uses for mercy , eleos, appears on Jesus' lipselsewhe re in this Gospel only in 9 .13 and 23 .23, each time in controvers y with th e Pharisees a bout the truemeaning of the la w. Therefore , its presence may well indicate what Jesu s meant when he demanded thathis discipl es' righ teousness e xceed that of the sc ribes and Pharisees (Matt 5 .19). This mercy does n ot me anlaxity about law-keep ing nor mere pit y and tend er feelings. Scholars note that the word c arries the meaningsof comp assion and lovin g-kindness but also ret ains some of its Old Testament con notation o f covenant-loyalty, f aithful a cts of righteou s conduct . 10The word translated merc y in thi s quot ation i s hesed in th eHebr ew t ext of Hosea , a word used to speak o f the way God loves ... showing steadfast 10 ve. 11 Mary H.Edin finds that for Matthew , righteousness and mercy are very nearly id entified wi th each other. And sincemerc y and lo ve are commanded in the Torah , Jesus was urging that the entire Torah be obser ved but inacco rdance with the priorities expressed b y God through Hosea. It is not simply that human needs overr ideall el se; rather , Matthew would say that the w orks oflove commanded in 25 :31 -46 ... take precedence

over th e Sabbath . 12 Sacrifice and Sabbath mus t subordinate to mercy.We should also notice that in all three arguments , Jesus first appeals to , then a ttack s, the Pharisees '

knowledge of sc ripture . If they had known the scriptures , he says , they would hav e behaved differently. This

may represent Jesu s' judgment in favor of scripture as the final authority over human tradition. P However,I am not so sure . Perhaps Jesus was attacking the Pharisee s' oral tradition , which was becoming a burden topeople (Matt 23 .4). Perhaps he w as attacking all religious tradition , which seems unlikel y, since he himselfparticipated in traditional religiou s practices ( such as synagogue customs) , which wer e beyond the mandate

7. Many co mm enta tors see this prece dence. this hierarchy of va lues, to be the ve ry gis t of Ma tthew' s point . That is, one div inedemand ma y overrule another; and si nce the co mm andment to love is the greate st comma nd of all, observance of it may on occa sionlead to disobedie nce to O'T leg islation. Dale C. Allison Jr. and W. D . Davie s, A Critical and Ex egetical C ommenta ry 11 the GospelAccording to Saint Matth ew (Edinbur gh: T T Clark, 1991),311 ,314. Thi s wo uld m ake Jesus not a v iolator of Torah b ut its upholderin the face of fa lse interpreters.8. The Greek wo rd translated a s something greater in verse 6 (mei:o ll) is neuter, not ma sculine or feminine , which c reatesamb iguity about its referent .

9. For example , Jesus war ned agai nst break ing even the leas t of the law's commandme nts (Ma tt 5.19), direc ted t he healed lep er to goto the prie st and offe r a sacrif ice (Ma tt 8.4 ), and pr esumed the ongoing practice of sacri fice (Matt 5.23 -24).10. David Hill , On the Use a nd Mea ning of Hosea V I.6 in Ma tthew's Gos pel, New Testame nt Studi es 24 (Oct 1977 ): 109.II. Ma ry H. Edin, Lea rnin g W hat Righteousness Means: Hosea 6 :6 and the Ethic of Me rcy in Matt hew's Gosp el, Word and W orld ,18:4 (1988), 358.12. Lu ise Sc hottroff a nd Wo lfgang Stege mann, The Sabbath W as Ma de for Ma n: The Interpretation of Mark 2:23 -28, in Gad of theLowly (Ma ryknoll, NY: Orb is Books , 1984), 121.13. Jo hn Mark Hick s, 'The Sa bbath Controversy in M atthew: an Exeges is of Matthew 12: 1-14 , Resto rati on Qu art er ly 27:2 ( 1984) , 90.

King: Jesus Argued Like a Jew

Produced by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2011

8/14/2019 Jesus Argued Like a Jew.pdf

5/7

8/14/2019 Jesus Argued Like a Jew.pdf

6/7

8 LEAVEN Second Quarter 2011

According to Dan Cohn-Sherbok , logically every qal wahomer has three propositions : two premi ses andone con clusion.

The fir st prem ise states that two thing s, A and B , stand to each o ther in the relati on of major

and minor importance. The second prem ise states that wit h one of these two thing s, A, acertain restrict i ve or permissive law is c onnected . The conc lusion is that the same l aw isapp licable to the other thing , B .19

In the present case, Jesus ' knows that it is beyond dispute t hat humans are of more value than sheep. The

second pr emise is that an ordinary person wou ld rescue his sheep from a pit on the Sabbath. Therefore , Jesusconc ludes , if it is lawful to rescue a sheep on the Sa bbath , how m uch more correct , lawful and God-pleasingis it to do good to a human being on the Sabb ath We shou ld notice that Jesus does not limit his conc lusionto healing , much less to healing of life-threat ening co nditio ns. He generalizes the conclus ion of hisqal wah omer to establish a broad principle that does not overt hrow the law but fulfills it : to do good on theSabbath , to act in accordance with eleos, is a pr oper observat ion of the law.

G RE ATER T HA N J O N A H ; G R E A T ER THAN SOLOMON MATTH E W 12 .3 8-42)

The last two greater than statements in Matth ew 12 are not fu lly fleshed-out qal wahomer arguments ,but are condensed, with some elements imp licit . Nevert heless , they fo llow the same logica l premises as theclassic qal wahomer and carry the same t heolog ical weight . When some of the scribes and Pharisees said toJesus , 'Teacher , we wish to see a s ign from you ' (v. 38), Jesus dec lares that the only sign to be given wi llbe his resurrection after be ing in the earth t hree days , just as Jo nah was in the be lly of the great fish for threedays . The qal wahomer elements are all contained in Matt hew 12 .41:

The peop le of Nineveh will rise up at the ju dgment w ith this generation and condemnit, because they repented a t the proclamat ion of Jonah, and see , something gr eater than

Jonah i s here

Jesus knows that his audience knows its Bib le. They are we ll aware ofthe story of Jonah preachingto the Ninevites , who heard the divine warning , repen ted an d were spared. The Ninevites were pagans ,but God sent a representative from afar (Jonah ) to preach repe ntance to them . Similarly , God has sent arepresentative from afar (Jesus) to preach repentance to the Israe lites , God 's chosen people (Premise A inthe Cohn-S herbok analysis of qal wahomer logic) . The Ninevites listened to their God -sent emissary ; hadthey not they would have been condemned and des troyed (Premise B). Because Jesus , the proclaimer tothe Israelites , is far superior to Jonah , the proc laimer to the Ninevites, how much more should the Is raelites

heed J esus' message and how much worse wil l be their condemna tion (the conclusion of the qal wahomercomparison) . On the last day , the Ninevites wi ll rise up and poi nt an accusing finger at Jesus ' opponents ,because Something Greater than Jona h is he re.

Next, Jesus intensifies his censure of his a ccusers wi th a secon d qal wahomer application of a Hebrew

Bible story, this time about Solomo n and the Quee n of the Sout h. Again, Jesus is certain that his audienceknows the story: the biblical account (1 Kgs 10 .1 -1 3 ; 2 Chr 9 .1 -12 of the Queen of Sheba , or Queen of theSouth , journeying from Arabia to test Solomon's wis dom. She came, listened, was convinced and blessed the

Lord for Solomon 's wisdom . In a similar way , these Israe lite sign -seekers have been exposed to heaven-sentwisdom that Je sus has come to preach (qal w ahome r Pre mise A) . However, unlike the Queen of the South ,the sign-seekers a nd their generation have failed to listen (qa l wahom er Premise B) . Because the wisdomoffered to them is greater than the wisdom of So lomon , how much worse wi ll be their condemnation onthe day of judgme nt. The Gentile queen herself wi ll rise up and accuse them because they did not listen tothe Something that was greater than So lomon The power of Jes us' arguments in this Matthean peri cope

19. Dan Cohn- Sherbok , Ra bbini c Persp ectives on t he New Testament (Lew iston, NY : The Edwin M ellen Pre ss, 1990) , 2 1 -22 .

King: Jesus Argued Like a Jew

Produced by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2011

8/14/2019 Jesus Argued Like a Jew.pdf

7/7

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW L V N

comes fro m the wren ching reversal of expectations 'v? which climaxes both th ese qal wahomer illustrationsfrom the Old Testame nt: his acc users are wo rse than the pagans

Under Hi llel 's her meneutica l rules, a qal wa homer argume nt could b e defeate d by demonstrat ing that

the two i tems being compare d did not stand in a mi nor-to-major relationship with each other. H owever , noneof Jesus ' accusers dared co ntest his as sert ion that so mething g reater than the te mple, someth ing greater

than Jonah and so methin g greater t han Solomon is here. Thus, wit h a maste rful accum ulation of four qalwahomer applicatio ns of Old Testa ment scriptures , Jesus spoke w ith authority a bout himself-wit h logica lreasoning ca lculated to reac h the li stening crow ds, if not the scribes a nd Ph arisees the mselves.

MATTHEW S ME A NING

I think Matthew meant for his audien ce to see that obedience to Torah include s-and always i ncluded-thelove of one's neighbor and th e discernm ent of the weig htie r matters o f the l aw, that Jesus of Na zareth-theson of man--did ultim ate ly turn out to b e Jesus Christ, the Son of Man , and th at acting out th e law i n a lifeof mercy i s not onl y be tter than sacrifi ce: it's the very me anin g of rig hteousness. Doing good on the Sa bbathis not j ust lawf ul: it is of the esse nce o f the law. Moreover, t he wis dom sent from Go d, Jesus himself, is thevoice that we s hould li sten to, a nd the sign sent from God-the sign of Jo nah, the res urrection of Jesus-is

the on ly sign we need.Using the hermene utical princip les o f his day and his cu lture-the middoth of Hi llel, Jesus in Matthew

invisib ly weaves his theology by reca lling stories from the Hebrew scr iptu res and reinterpreting them withqal wahomer . In Matthew 12 he lea ds his hearers thro ugh refrain after refrain of greater t hans, so thatwhen the fi nal high note comes , those with ears to hear can do so. Not on ly does Jesus offer some thinggreater than the temp le, somethi ng more va luable than a s heep , and somet hing greater than Jonah orSolomon. Not only is mercy greater t han sac rifice . Of utmost importa nce to Matthew's Jesus are the g reaterthan principles of the law-t he weightier matters -justice , mercy an d faith .

MEANING FOR TODAY

My pers onal response to the Matt hew 12 qa l wahom er appl icatio ns of Jesus is o ne of immense pleas ure.I enjoy every thing about the m, includin g the drama and a mbiguity, the tight ness of arg ument and the deft

comparis ons included in Jes us' exc hange w ith th e Pharisees. H oweve r, I doubt th at either Jesus or Matt hewintended these events to delimit the precise ways in which Sabbath-k eeping or cere monial wors hip mu styield to something greater. A s a Christian mini ster, would not u se these pericopae to make man (that is,people) the m easure of a ll thing s. Rather , would u se them , along with th e w hat-does -the-Lor d-requi re-of-you teac hing of Micah 6, the weig htier-matters-of-the-law teac hing of Jesus in Ma tthew 23, and t herighteo us-love -in-act ion exam ples of Matth ew 25 to show that in the mind of the Lo rd of the Sab bath, somethings matt er more t han others . Tit hing one's s pices is com mendable, b ut pract icing love , mercy and justicematters more. Kee ping the Sab bath (relig ious observance) is not casua l, opt ional , or inconsequential . Butneither is doing good , demonstrati ng eleos and hesed , and listening to t he wisdom from above . Lookingagain at these Matt hew 12 pericopae , I wou ld say that rabbinic disputation s do not preach we ll today, if theyever did. But bowing the k nee to the Lor d of the Sabbath , working in aid of those who are hungry , in need ,and besieged by critica l rule -keepers, healing the sick and listening to heaven-sent wisdom-these actionswill change l ives and do reasonab le justice to the qal wah omer teachings of Matthew 's Jesus.

DA KI NG IS A DOCTO RAL STU DEN T IN BIBLICAL I NTE RPR ETAT ION AT BRIT E DIVINITY SCHOO L AN D T EACHES AT

THE OK LAHOM A CITY CAMPUS OF SAI NT PAUL SCHOO L OF TH EO LOGY.

20. Bor ing, 297 .

Leaven, Vol. 19 [2011], Iss. 2, Art. 5

http://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/leaven/vol19/iss2/5