Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
Introduction
Mathew underlines the Pharisaic antagonism directed to Jesus by forwarding his case to the Pharisees regarding the adherence of the Sabbath provisions (New Revised Standard Version, Matt. 12:1-8). The Pharisees accused Jesus and His disciples of unlawful undertakings on the Sabbath after they plucked and feasted on the ears of corn. The move showed the opposition Jesus faced in His endeavors of spreading the Gospel as manifested by the confrontation emerging from the Pharisaic authorities. In this regard, this paper seeks to reveal Mathew’s stress that necessity does not overshadow percept through his characterization of Jesus as authoritative in the book.
Meaning of the Text
A correct comprehension of the passage related by Mathew portrays that Jesus was not demonstrating that necessity overshadows percept. Instead, Jesus acted in defense of His disciples from the unjust confrontation as he simultaneously questioned the motives of the hypocritical Pharisees.
Firstly, Mathew relates that as Jesus passed through the cornfields on a Sabbath, his disciples felt hungry and plucked the grain heads before eating (12:1). However, this act by the disciples did not infringe on the laws of the land by then as eating was allowed under the Law of Moses (Deut. 23:25). Thus, the law provides clearly that necessity could not dominate perceptions regarding the Sabbath since it was unlawful to eat corn under that Law of Moses.
Secondly, Jesus uses his authority to defend his disciples’ actions regarding their activities on a Sabbath by revealing the ill motives of the Pharisee’s condemnation (Matt. 3-4). In His defensive approach, Jesus talked of the instance when David and those with him became hungry on a Sabbath (1 Samuel 21:1-6). In this regard, the inconsistent application of the law revealed the Pharisees’ ill intentions towards Jesus and His disciples. A manifestation of the motive appeared later as the Pharisees plotted the destruction of Jesus (Matt. 12:14). Afterward, Jesus criticized the Pharisees’ twisted understanding of the concept of working on the Sabbath (Matt. 12:5) by describing the priests as blameless as well since they engaged in lawful acts, not because necessity overpowers percept. Therefore, the unkind motives of the Pharisees reveal that the confrontation concerning eating the corn on a Sabbath was just an approach to undermine the authority of Jesus.
Finally, Jesus proceeded to declare his authority by saying “I tell you, something greater than the temple is here.” (Matt. 12: 6). By declaring so, Jesus underscored that he was the Messiah with authority. Moreover, His authority was emphasized in the book of Mathew as Jesus told the Pharisees, “For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath” (Matt. 12:8). Therefore, an accurate exegesis of Mathew’s text reveals that attacks emanating from the Pharisees to the disciples emanated from malicious intentions. It should be noted that entirely in the book of Mathew, he demonstrates that Jesus is Lord, implying that his authority ought to gain respect among the multitudes.
Literary Function of the Text
The text written by Mathew possesses literary functions that unearth the different perspectives regarding law application. Further, Mathew reveals the different motives that authorities could possess in their law enforcement endeavors as seen by the envious and impure hearts of the Pharisees. Additionally, Mathew utilizes literary skills that link Jesus’ experiences concerning the Sabbath law with past events with similar contexts thereby exposing the issue of necessity overshadowing percept.
For this reason, intertexture analysis of the text written by Mathew reveals similar episodes in the Bible where individuals disregarded the teachings of the Scriptures owing to unique circumstances that necessitated “breaking” the law. Therefore, the disciples acted in line with the provisions of God’s laws, but they infringed on the Pharisees’ misinterpretation of the law. In condemning the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, Jesus considered his disciples as “guiltless” (Matt. 12: 7) because, in essence, they had not done anything wrong according to the laws of God. Besides, Jesus emphasized that it is wrong to condemn the ‘guiltless” based on a tortured interpretation of the law (Matt. 12:7). Thus, the text underlined the essence of radicalism in a bid to overcome rigid and traditional perceptions. In this respect, Mathew reveals that the law should act in favor of the people instead of the converse. Mark echoes this aspect by relaying Jesus’ sentiments that “The Sabbath was made for humankind and not humankind for the Sabbath” (Mark: 2:27).
Mathew’s Characterization of Jesus in the Text
Mathew depicts Jesus as a figure that consciously challenges the Scripture experts by making them remember and then properly comprehends the text included in the Scripture. In this case, Mathew depicts Jesus as an individual concerned with the level through which the authorities understand the law that they purpose to implement on the subjects. In so doing, Jesus delivered His teachings not as an alternative for Torah, but for the sake of unearthing God’s character of mercy, love, and generosity. For this reason, Mathew portrays Jesus’ character as one that seeks to reinterpret or redefine the Torah in a manner that shows that inevitability should not dominate perceptions regarding the law.
Further, Matthew associated the character of Jesus with authority. Through necessity, Jesus introduced a new manner of spirituality and living aimed at carrying Israel beyond the temple’s demise. As a result, Jesus’ authority was perceived as a direct threat to Pharisaic claims pertaining to authority among the people. Additionally, Mathew intended to reveal that Jesus had control over the law by claiming his sovereignty over the law (Matt. 12:8) since he was not held in bondage like the Jews for disregarding the Sabbath. In this regard, the disciples’ plucking of the grain was not only associated with necessity triggered by human need but also the authority of Jesus over the Sabbath.
Mathew unmasks the character of Jesus as one that embraces radicalism. During Jesus’ time, the Roman Empire presented enormous challenges denoted by urbanization, militarization, and commercialization. However, amid the changes, the Pharisees stayed rigid to the changes as they embraced conservativeness thereby undermining their ability to embrace change. However, through His authority, Jesus brought radicalism to the Pharisees by stamping his authority on the law concerning the Sabbath issue. In this case, the character of Jesus envisioned the coming of the post-Herodian world that would worship God in a higher place than the earthly temple Matt. 12:6).
Conclusion
In conclusion, the capitalistic society today could relate to Mathew’s text regarding the Sabbath as more business enterprises open on sacred days with the aim of accumulating profits. In this case, necessity could be perceived to dominate religious teachings thereby triggering authorities to consider the practice as unlawful thereby creating controversy. Additionally, Mathew reveals that the authorities could apply the law based on bias or malicious intentions in a bid to secure their stakes. Similarly, the Pharisees’, the objective ought to protect God’s blessings through the authoritative adherence to the Torah interpretation. However, they ended up restricting people from the presence of God. Accordingly, bureaucracy is usually guilty of inhibiting individuals from benefiting an organization to the maximum of their potential. Moreover, strategies have a legal place but one ought not to forget that eventually, individuals are the strategy.
Works Cited
New Revised Standard Version. Ed. Bruce Metzger. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998. Print.
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.