> but it was considered work and was forbidden on the Sabbath.

The question is: considered by whom? Not by the Law of Moses, certainly, but instead only by the petty rules that had been fabricated since then.

> If you are correct, and God changed His mind about Jews gathering food on the Sabbath, then why didn’t Jesus simply say that?

God didn't change his mind about Jews gathering food on the Sabbath. The Sabbath celebrated Gn. 2.1-3, when God came to "rest" in their presence, which means He came to live among them, to engage with His people, and to have a love relationship with them. The Sabbath was a recognition of YHWH as the one who rules and brings order. People were to recognize God's authority by refraining from attempts to control their own lives (working to earn money or to subsist) on the Sabbath. It was a labor law for the protection of workers and a symbolic participation in the life of God. It has nothing to do with forbidding the gathering of food.

The teachings in Exodus 16 pertain to obedience (v. 20) and trust (v. 27). It pertained specifically to the wilderness wanderings, but the principles are ageless: (1) You don’t need to work all seven days. Trust the Lord to provide for you, and he will; (2) Devoting one day to the Lord will not adversely affect your economic health and wellbeing. There is no rehashing in Exodus 20, or any other passage, about what specifically happened in Ex. 16, or about not gathering food on the Sabbath.

In Exodus 31 we read about the important connection between the tabernacle and the Sabbath—both of which were signs of God's covenant promises (Ex. 31.13-18). "Work" is defined as labor for subsistence and for financial gain in which we participate 7 days a week. It's clearly about what is a person's job.

In Numbers 15.32-33, years later, a story is told of a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath. Notice that it was not clear what should be done with him (Num. 15.34). Even this was not a clear case of work. The story, however, comes on the heels of legislation regarding unintentional sin and defiant sin. Ex. 35.1-3 specifically mentions not lighting a fire in the house on the Sabbath. We presume the man was being defiant and gathering wood to light a fire.

Of course, none of this has anything to do with gleaning a field for food as the disciples we're doing. God hasn't changed his mind at all.

> Why didn’t Jesus say “That Law is incorrect. All Jews can gather grain on the Sabbath”.

The Law was not incorrect. The Law didn't stipulate that food could not be gathered for consumption on the Sabbath. They weren't supposed to engage in harvesting crops, but there is no law about not gathering food.

> Jesus carved out an exemption to the Law. Arguing an exemption to the Law is different than arguing the validity of the Law.

Jesus did not carve out an exemption to the Law. There was no law about not gathering food.

I agree that plucking grain from another’s field was not theft, but it was considered work and was forbidden on the Sabbath.

If you are correct, and God changed His mind about Jews gathering food on the Sabbath, then why didn’t Jesus simply say that?

Why didn’t Jesus say “That Law is incorrect. All Jews can gather grain on the Sabbath”.

Instead, Jesus carved out an exemption to the Law. Arguing an exemption to the Law is different than arguing the validity of the Law.

> That kind of thing doesn't seem like it would hold up in court. "I didn't steal his car officer, because the law doesn't define 'car'."
> Work is work. If it says don't do any work, then you don't do any work. That's what it means. If you do any work, then you've broken that law.

Do you remember Bill Clinton's famous line, "It depends on what the meaning of the word *is* is"?

The Jews went to extravagant and sometimes absurd lengths through the centuries to define exactly what is meant by "work," because the Bible doesn't define it. They stipulated that you could walk, but only so far. Walking was not work until, according to their rules, you had passed a sort of average distance it would take to walk to the temple or synagogue. So was walking work or not? It wasn't, and it was. Nowadays pushing an elevator button or switching a light switch on or off is considered "work." Are you seriously trying to tell me that "work is work"—that moving a light switch is like going to your job for the day? Obviously you're not, so where are the lines drawn? When you say, "If you do any work, you've broken that law," I can legitimately ask, "And what qualifies as work?" And that's the very question at hand. The rules of the rabbis are not the same as the rules outlined by Scripture. Exodus mentions, "Six days you shall work, but not on the 7th." OK, that's clear: don't go to work, do your job, or engage in your daily labors on the 7th day. That has nothing to do with picking grain for food or rubbing it between your hands, just as it has nothing to do with flicking a light switch or pushing an elevator button.

The Rabbis themselves seem to have been aware of the flimsy structure of their injunctions and prohibitions. In Chagigah 10a, one of them said, "Some of the laws of the Sabbath are like mountains suspended on a hair."

> for us to properly understand Jesus' point that in this case the Law didn't matter, as it was overridden by a higher concern of God's care for human need.

It was never Jesus's point that the Law didn't matter. Jesus was a keeper of the Law. He never relaxed the requirements for any law, nor lowered the bar about keeping it. He never opposed any prescription of the written or oral law of Moses. He always maintained that the proper way for keeping the Law was to fulfill the purpose for which it was given.

Jesus advocated giving alms to the poor, prayer, and fasting. He presupposed the validity of the temple, the sacrifices, and Israel's holy day. He read and quoted the Scriptures and viewed them as authoritative. He fully accepted the authority of Torah. He NEVER treated the Law as if it didn't matter. What he challenged were the add-on interpretations of it and the sometimes absurd applications of it (Mt. 12.10-13). Was stretching out your hand "work"? It certainly takes as much energy, motion, and muscle movement (if that's "work" as flipping a light switch). But they had all done that to get dressed that morning.

It was most assuredly NOT Jesus's point in this case that the Law didn't matter. They hadn't broken any Law. They were doing what was explicitly permissible a la Dt. 23.25. His point about David was a kal vachomer type of argument: If the major thing David did wasn't wrong, then certainly this legitimate behavior my disciples have done is not wrong.

> They weren't breaking the Sabbath, because the Law doesn't define "work".

That kind of thing doesn't seem like it would hold up in court. "I didn't steal his car officer, because the law doesn't define 'car'."

Work is work. If it says don't do any work, then you don't do any work. That's what it means. If you do any work, then you've broken that law.

> Jesus was asserting (in his reference to David) that the claims of human need took precedence over their man-made ritual rules. it is notable that the Scriptures don't condemn David for his action.

Yes, that's the entire point. But we need to be clear that the Law did state that they shouldn't work on the sabbath, for us to properly understand Jesus' point that in this case the Law didn't matter, as it was overridden by a higher concern of God's care for human need.

That's correct. I was wondering when someone was going to bring that up.

First, and possibly small: the Deuteronomy passage isn't about stealing, but about landowners providing for the poor.

Second, it still applies. We take the whole Law as a set. The Law (Dt. 24.25) says it's OK for the poor to glean fields by picking the grain with their hands. There is nothing in the Sabbath section of the Law (Ex. 20.8-11; Dt. 5.12-15) stipulating that picking grain is considered "work" that is forbidden. Certainly people were allowed to prepare food and eat it on the Sabbath. It was later that the Sabbath laws went haywire with all sorts of preposterous and trifling rules.

This is the law that Jesus and His disciples were operating under when they picked the grain and ate them. Jesus justifies the action:

1. They certainly weren't stealing, because such gleaning was allowed. [And we note that the Pharisees didn't accuse him of stealing].

2. They weren't breaking the Sabbath, because the Law doesn't define "work". A safe assumption is that the word meant "work" (doing your job), not picking grain. The Pharisees had made the Sabbath laws into something they were never intended to be, and they were complicated and detailed. (Even now on the Sabbath, certain Jews won't even push an elevator button, considering that as "work".)

3. Even if they were somehow breaking a sacred custom in the eyes of the religious leaders, Jesus was asserting (in his reference to David) that the claims of human need took precedence over their man-made ritual rules. it is notable that the Scriptures don't condemn David for his action.

4. The Gospel text is really about Jesus using the opportunity to reveal something about His identity (Lord of the Sabbath).

The Deuteronomy text, though it is not strictly about Sabbath law, is still the motivation for the legality of what Jesus's disciples are doing, and nothing in the Sabbath law abnegates that.

> Deuteronomy 23.25 explicitly allows plucking the grain, not just picking up the windfalls.

Read it in context. That passage is about stealing from a neighbour's field, not about sabbath law.

This particular command and incident occurred before the Ten Commandments, as you have observed. It pertains particularly to the gathering of manna and they foreshadow what is coming. The "Ten Words" of Exodus 20, elaborated in Deuteronomy, become the official covenant. This text (Ex. 16.22-30) doesn't pertain to the issue at hand in Matthew 12, which is more about Jesus's identity that it is about picking grain. And, as I have already established, Deuteronomy 23.25 explicitly allows plucking the grain. Also remember that Deuteronomy is an explication of the covenant given in Exodus.

Exodus 16:22-30:

22 And so it was, on the sixth day, that they gathered twice as much bread, two omers for each one. And all the rulers of the congregation came and told Moses. 23 Then he said to them, “This is what the Lord has said: ‘Tomorrow is a Sabbath rest, a holy Sabbath to the Lord. Bake what you will bake today, and boil what you will boil; and lay up for yourselves all that remains, to be kept until morning.’ ” 24 So they laid it up till morning, as Moses commanded; and it did not stink, nor were there any worms in it. 25 Then Moses said, “Eat that today, for today is a Sabbath to the Lord; today you will not find it in the field. 26 Six days you shall gather it, but on the seventh day, the Sabbath, there will be none.”
27 Now it happened that some of the people went out on the seventh day to gather, but they found none. 28 And the Lord said to Moses, “How long do you refuse to keep My commandments and My laws? 29 See! For the Lord has given you the Sabbath; therefore He gives you on the sixth day bread for two days. Let every man remain in his place; let no man go out of his place on the seventh day.” 30 So the people rested on the seventh day.

This Commandment concerning gathering food on the Sabbath was given by God before the Ten Commandments and way before scribes and Pharisees existed, much less had the opportunity to add on laws.

Deuteronomy 23.25 explicitly allows plucking the grain, not just picking up the windfalls. That action was therefore not contrary to the Law. What was allowed was plucking them or picking them up, rubbing them in one's hands, and eating them. What was not allowed was using a sickle (harvesting) to the standing grain.

> Dr. David Flusser writes, "According to the general opinion of Jesus’s day, it was permissible on the Sabbath to pick up fallen ears of grain and rub them between the fingers.

The passage explicitly says that isn't what the disciples were doing. The text uses the word "pluck", they were actually plucking the ears of grain, not just picking up windfalls. And that was considered work.