Yeshua the Sabbath Breaker?

The setting of this event is probably the first of the seven weekly Sabbaths which are counted from the Passover Sabbath to the Feast of Weeks. See Luke 6:1 in the Greek, where there is an odd word — δευτεροπρωτω (deuteroproto), “second first” (i.e., the second first Sabbath). The first first Sabbath would have been the Passover Sabbath on 15 Aviv, which normally occurs during the week some time; i.e., not on the weekly Sabbath. This is called the Sabbath in Leviticus 23:11,15. The weekly Sabbath after the Passover Sabbath could then be called the, “second first Sabbath” to distinguish it from the great Sabbath because it is the second in Passover week as well as being the first of the seven weekly Sabbaths to Shavuot, or the Feast of Weeks. Bear in mind, however, that this word, `δευτεροπρωτω’, has confused western scholars for many centuries, because it is otherwise unknown in contemporary Greek literature, and so there are plenty of theories and disagreements over it.

Now the exact weekly Sabbath involved is not necessarily of crucial importance, but knowing it does give us a clue as to what the disciples were actually doing.

If we have correctly located the time of this incident to the first of the counted Sabbaths to Shavuot, then the first fruits of the barley crop had just been offered that week on the Feast of First fruits (which falls on 16 Aviv). This is also called the Wave Sheaf Offering.

Since the first fruits of the barley crop were already offered, this means that the barley harvesting had already commenced and was in progress. However, the Torah specifies that the corners of the fields and the gleanings (leftovers) were to be left unharvested in order to provide food for the poor and for travellers:

Leviticus 23:22 — “When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not wholly reap into the corners of your field, neither shall you gather the gleanings of your harvest: you shall leave them for the poor, and for the foreigner. I am YHWH your God.”

Putting together the time of year (barley harvest) along with the Torah’s provision for the poor and for travellers, we have the necessary clues to understand what the disciples were doing: they were most likely availing themselves of the leftovers of the barley harvest in accordance with Torah.

So, regardless of the exact and correct interpretation of the enigmatic word `δευτεροπρωτω’ (= `deuteroproto’), we now have a good idea of what the disciples were very likely engaged in doing: that is, something that was in accordance with the Torah, which (at least on any non-Sabbath day) they were entitled to do.

When the Pharisees accused Yeshua’s (Jesus’) disciples of doing what is not permitted by law, he did not respond by saying in any way that their interpretation of the Law was in error, and that his disciples were, in fact, doing what was lawful. Instead, he conceded their point and offered a defence of the action from precedents in Scripture.

Yeshua also did not respond with any version of, “You are not my boss, I’ll do what I please because I am the Son of God.” Yeshua himself was bound by God’s Law, and the defence he gave to the Pharisees had to be within the context of what was allowed by the Law, or it would have been an entirely useless defence. As we shall see, this is precisely what Yeshua did—he defended himself in accordance with Torah.

What Yeshua did say blew the socks off the Pharisees, for they had no possible response but to admit defeat on their own terms. This was probably quite humiliating to those who had thought they knew the Law, but they were no match for the perfect knowledge of the Law that Yeshua had.

This is the argument that defeated the Pharisees:

This is what logicians call a valid argument. This means that the form of the argument guarantees that the conclusion is true as long as the premises are true. Yeshua’s argument concludes: H > S, based on H > T > S, which is based on the premise that H > T and T > S (Human Need > Temple service and Temple service > Sabbath). Yeshua’s argument is valid because it is undeniably true that if A > B and B > C then A > C also.

Because Yeshua proved both of the premises from Scripture, which all accepted as absolute truth from God, then his argument was not only valid but also sound. A sound argument is one that uses correct logic and true premises. A sound argument is, in effect, a proof, and this proof using the absolute truth of Scripture is what defeated the false accusation of the Pharisees.

Since Yeshua proved his two premises both from Scripture and from the Pharisees’ own midrashes, his larger argument is proved by force of logic alone. This was a humiliating defeat for the Pharisees, which Yeshua rubbed in further by saying that if they had known what, “I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,” meant, then they would not have condemned the guiltless, those being his followers who were working on the Sabbath by harvesting and winnowing grain to eat in order to alleviate severe hunger.

Note that the idea and inspiration for this article came after having flipped through a book back in 2014, which presented the core thesis of the present work.