Chosen for Rest
A very different New Testament scholar, Dale Bruner, warns all who have had the privilege of experiencing the risen Christ’s miraculous presence to see whether we have given him his rightful place in our lives. Capernaum seems to have had a sort of town motto based on Isaiah 14:13, “lifted up to the skies” (11:23), indicating perhaps a sense of civic pride in having Jesus’ ministry based in their city, but they smugly rejected him as their Messiah. In the same way, modern countries that have been privileged to experience Jesus’ miraculous presence through the work of the church and Word and who may even boast, “In God We Trust,” as we do in America, are called to account for what we have done with Jesus. Bruner writes:
Christian countries are in special trouble on judgment day, not because Jesus has not really been in their communities but because he has. Jesus’ presence, without change, can lead to a damnation deeper than Sodom’s.… Capernaum stands for all self-conscious Christianity, for all Christianity smug in its possession of Jesus, in its being the center of Jesus’ work.… Jesus is not always impressed. It is going to go better in the judgment day for notorious pagans than for self-satisfied saints. The sum of the matter is this: Christians should take Jesus seriously. When they do, they escape judgment; when they do not, they invite it.
These are serious words, but no less serious than Jesus’ warning to the cities that had been privileged to witness his ministry but then rejected him out of their own smugness and hardened heart.
A very different New Testament scholar, Dale Bruner, warns all who have had the privilege of experiencing the risen Christ’s miraculous presence to see whether we have given him his rightful place in our lives. Capernaum seems to have had a sort of town motto based on Isaiah 14:13, “lifted up to the skies” (11:23), indicating perhaps a sense of civic pride in having Jesus’ ministry based in their city, but they smugly rejected him as their Messiah. In the same way, modern countries that have been privileged to experience Jesus’ miraculous presence through the work of the church and Word and who may even boast, “In God We Trust,” as we do in America, are called to account for what we have done with Jesus. Bruner writes:
Christian countries are in special trouble on judgment day, not because Jesus has not really been in their communities but because he has. Jesus’ presence, without change, can lead to a damnation deeper than Sodom’s.… Capernaum stands for all self-conscious Christianity, for all Christianity smug in its possession of Jesus, in its being the center of Jesus’ work.… Jesus is not always impressed. It is going to go better in the judgment day for notorious pagans than for self-satisfied saints. The sum of the matter is this: Christians should take Jesus seriously. When they do, they escape judgment; when they do not, they invite it.
These are serious words, but no less serious than Jesus’ warning to the cities that had been privileged to witness his ministry but then rejected him out of their own smugness and hardened heart.
Invitation (vv. 25–30). Why did the religious leaders rebel against John and Jesus? Because they (the leaders) were intellectually and spiritually proud and would not become little babes in humility and honesty. There is a vast difference between the spoiled children of the parable (Matt. 11:16–19) and the submissive children of this statement of praise. The Father reveals Himself to the Son, and the Son reveals Himself and the Father to those who are willing to come to the Son in faith. These verses indicate both the sovereignty of the Father and the responsibility of the sinner. Three commands summarize this invitation.
“Come.” The
Tyre and Sidon (v. 22), cities on the Phoenician coast 35 and 60 miles, respectively, from the Sea of Galilee (cf. 15:21), and Sodom (11:23), more than 100 miles south—would have repented if they had seen Jesus’ miracles. Their judgment, though terrible, is less than that on the Jewish cities. All three Galilean cities, in spite of their greater “light,” rejected the Messiah, and are today in ruins. Though Jesus lived in Capernaum for some time, it would not be lifted up to the skies, or exalted. Instead its inhabitants would go down to the depths, literally, to hades, the place of the dead.
11:25–30. In contrast with His condemnation on the three Galilean cities (vv. 20–24), Jesus issued a great call to those who in faith would turn to Him. Jesus had previously condemned that generation for their childish reactions (vv. 16–19). Here He declared that true discipleship can be enjoyed only by those who come to Him in childlike faith. God in His good pleasure (cf. Eph. 1:5) had hidden the great mysteries of His wise dealings from the wise and learned (the leaders of that day) but had revealed them to little children. This was possible because God the Son and God the Father know each other perfectly in the intimacy of the Trinity (Matt. 11:27). (“Father” occurs five times in vv. 25–27.) Hence the only ones who can know the Father and the things He has revealed are those whom the Son chooses (cf. John 6:37).
Therefore Jesus issued a call to all … who are weary (hoi kopiōntes, “those tired from hard toil”) and burdened (pephortismenoi, “those loaded down”; cf. phortion, “load,” in Matt. 11:30) to come to Him. People’s weariness comes from enduring their burdens, probably the burdens of sin and its consequences. Rather, they should come and yoke themselves with Jesus. By placing themselves under His yoke and learning from Him, they may find rest for their souls from sins’ burdens. By yoking, they become true disciples of Jesus and join Him in His proclamation of divine wisdom. To learn (mathete) from Him is to be His disciple (mathētēs). People can trade their heavy, tiring burdens for His yoke and burden (phortion, “load”), which by contrast are easy and light. To serve Him is no burden, for He, in contrast with those who reject Him, is gentle (praus; cf. 5:5) and humble.
Third, by driving out demons, He was proving He was greater than Satan. He was able to go into Satan’s realm (the strong man’s house), the demonic world, and come away with the spoils of victory (12:29). Since He could do this, He was able to institute the kingdom of God among them (v. 28). If He were driving out demons by Satan’s power, He certainly could not be offering the people God’s kingdom. That would be contradictory. The fact that He was coming to establish the kingdom clearly showed that He worked by the power of the Spirit of God, not by Satan’s power.
The nation, because of its leaders, was on the brink of making a decision that would bring irreversible consequences. They were about to attribute incorrectly to Satan the power of the Holy Spirit exercised through Jesus and thus to commit the blasphemy against the Spirit. This specific sin cannot be reproduced today, for it required Jesus’ presence on earth with His performing miracles through the Spirit’s power.
God gave the Sabbath as a day of rest and holiness. The fourth commandment specified that no work was to be performed on the Sabbath, so that the day would be kept holy to God (Ex. 20:8–10). Over time the Sabbath became one of the most distinctive characteristics of the Jewish people, along with circumcision and dietary laws. But the mandate not to work was understood differently by sectarian groups within Israel, so it had to be interpreted for the people. With their emergent oral tradition, the Pharisees developed an extensive set of laws to guide the people so that they would not violate the Sabbath.
Jesus has a profound divine self-consciousness. He was validated at the baptism as the Son (3:17), tested as the Son of God (4:2–10), worshiped as the Son of God (14:33), confessed as the Son of the living God (16:16), validated at the Transfiguration as the Son (17:5), alludes to himself as the Son in the parables of the landowner and wedding banquet (21:23–46; 22:1–14), refers to himself as the Son of the Father (24:36), emphasized as Son of God strongly in the trial and crucifixion (cf. 26:39, 63; 27:43, 54), and associated with the Father and Holy Spirit in the baptism of new disciples (28:18–20). The Son theme is one of the high points of Matthew’s Christology as well as Synoptic Christology generally.
In both his incarnate and eternal state as Son, Jesus and the Father know each other in an exclusive way, which in biblical language means that they enjoy an exclusive relationship. For Jesus as Son, the Father is “my Father.” They enjoy a direct, intuitive, and immediate knowledge that is grounded in their divine relationship as Father and Son. As such, what the Father and Son share stands apart from all human relationships and all human knowledge.23 Thus, Jesus’ sonship involves more than a unique filial consciousness; it involves an exclusive essential relationship between Father and Son.
Jesus has a profound divine self-consciousness. He was validated at the baptism as the Son (3:17), tested as the Son of God (4:2–10), worshiped as the Son of God (14:33), confessed as the Son of the living God (16:16), validated at the Transfiguration as the Son (17:5), alludes to himself as the Son in the parables of the landowner and wedding banquet (21:23–46; 22:1–14), refers to himself as the Son of the Father (24:36), emphasized as Son of God strongly in the trial and crucifixion (cf. 26:39, 63; 27:43, 54), and associated with the Father and Holy Spirit in the baptism of new disciples (28:18–20). The Son theme is one of the high points of Matthew’s Christology as well as Synoptic Christology generally.
In both his incarnate and eternal state as Son, Jesus and the Father know each other in an exclusive way, which in biblical language means that they enjoy an exclusive relationship. For Jesus as Son, the Father is “my Father.” They enjoy a direct, intuitive, and immediate knowledge that is grounded in their divine relationship as Father and Son. As such, what the Father and Son share stands apart from all human relationships and all human knowledge.23 Thus, Jesus’ sonship involves more than a unique filial consciousness; it involves an exclusive essential relationship between Father and Son.
Invitation (vv. 25–30). Why did the religious leaders rebel against John and Jesus? Because they (the leaders) were intellectually and spiritually proud and would not become little babes in humility and honesty. There is a vast difference between the spoiled children of the parable (Matt. 11:16–19) and the submissive children of this statement of praise. The Father reveals Himself to the Son, and the Son reveals Himself and the Father to those who are willing to come to the Son in faith. These verses indicate both the sovereignty of the Father and the responsibility of the sinner. Three commands summarize this invitation.
“Come.” The
While walking along, “his disciples were hungry and began to pick some heads of grain and eat them.” It would have been easy for them to reach down and pick a few grains of wheat to quell the afternoon hunger as they walked along the paths that bordered agricultural fields. The law made provision for people who were hungry to eat from a neighbor’s field (Deut. 23:24–25). Similarly, the edges of a field were not normally harvested, so that the poor and hungry, foreign travelers, and orphans and widows might have grain available to them. This also included olives and grapes left after the first harvest (24:19–22; cf. Ruth 2:2–3).
Jesus defends his disciples (12:3–7). Jesus’ reply puts the Pharisees on the defensive because he uses the Old Testament itself, on which they prided themselves as experts, to combat their accusations against his disciples. Instead of rebuking his disciples, Jesus cites two Old Testament examples that render ineffective the Pharisees’ charge and then goes on to give a third response that clarifies his use of these examples. He is not entering into their rabbinic debate but, as in the SM, will show how his authoritative arrival and teaching has fulfilled the law.
(1) The first example is the incident when David was fleeing from King Saul, who was trying to kill him (1 Sam. 21:1–7; 22:9–23). The “consecrated bread” refers to the twelve loaves of bread stipulated to be baked and placed in the tabernacle on each Sabbath as an offering representing the covenant made by God with the twelve tribes of Israel. This bread was only to be eaten by the priests (Lev. 24:5–9). Jesus indicates that technically David and his men did what was unlawful, but what is important to note is that Scripture does not condemn them for eating the bread, nor does it condemn the priest, Ahimelech, for allowing them to do so.
Jesus’ intention in his appeal to this Old Testament incident and its relationship to the charge against Jesus’ disciples has been understood variously. Apparently Ahimelech understood that as God’s anointed, David was serving God and was thus entitled to the bread at his time of need. The significance of Ahimelech’s action in giving the bread to David becomes clear later, when Saul ordered Ahimelech and the others of the family of priests to be put to death because he aided David, the future king, and his men (cf. 1 Sam. 22:9–23). Ahimelech served God’s purposes by feeding the fleeing David. The intent of the law is to serve God’s people, not for God’s people to serve the law. The next two responses clarify this point.
The two following incidents are recorded by each of the Synoptic Gospels (cf. Mark 2:23–3:6; Luke 6:1–11) and give a profound principle for the place of the Sabbath for Jesus’ disciples. Like Jesus’ interpretation of the Law and the Prophets in the Sermon on the Mount (cf. 5:17–47), he gives a stunning authoritative pronouncement about the Sabbath that takes us to the heart of God’s intent and motive in giving that commandment. This passage, therefore, should be read in the light of the preceding chapter, where Jesus condemned the current generation whose religious leaders, especially the Pharisees, had wearied and burdened the people with legal obligations of their traditions. Jesus has come to bring rest to those who take on his yoke of discipleship (cf. 11:28–30), the kind of true rest to which the Sabbath rest was designed to point.
Matthew’s structure follows the standard form for many ancient reports of arguments: he summarizes the situation (12:1–2), presents arguments by example (12:3–4), analogy (12:5), comparison (12:6), citation (12:7) and ultimate basis (12:8).
12:1. Jewish law based on Deuteronomy 23:25 (cf. Ruth 2:2–3) provided for the poor to eat food as they passed through a field. The issue here is thus not that the disciples took someone’s grain but that they picked it on the sabbath; later rabbinic law specifically designated this as one of thirty-nine kinds of work forbidden on the sabbath.
12:2. The modern picture of Pharisees as legalists unfairly trivializes the Pharisees’ piety (probably intentionally, so modern legalists will not have to address Jesus’ real bases for criticism). Not only the Pharisees but other Jewish people throughout the ancient world honored the sabbath and celebrated it with joy. The Bible itself had forbidden infractions of the sabbath under pain of death, so the Pharisees were naturally disturbed when it appeared that Jesus dishonored the day.
12:3–4. Although highhanded rejection of the sabbath was regarded as rebellion against God, different Jewish groups made arguments for differing interpretations of sabbath laws and were not in a position to legally enforce their views against others. Jesus’ arguments here would not have satisfied the Pharisees, but they might have satisified elders or priests serving as judges on local courts.
12:5–6. As we know from later sources, most rabbis would have questioned an argument based merely on example such as the one in 12:3–4 and Mark 2:25–26; it is significant that Matthew, writing for Jewish readers, has an argument from the law itself.
The law of Moses commanded work for priests on the sabbath (Num 28:10). This is a Jewish “how much more” argument: if acceptable for the guardians of the temple, how much more for one greater than the temple? The temple had become the central symbol of the Jewish faith, and the suggestion that a human being could be greater than the temple would have struck most ancient Jewish ears as presumptuous and preposterous. Jewish teachers could, however, accept and argue from the principle that some things took precedence over sabbath observance (temple ritual, saving a life, defensive warfare, etc.).
12:7–8. Jesus goes on the offensive here with a still higher principle of the Old Testament; cf. 9:13.
In chapter 11 no one opposes Jesus directly. In chapter 12 opposition turns explicit and ugly. First, the Jewish authorities called Jesus on the carpet for breaking their Sabbath laws (vv. 1–14). Although it cannot be proven that Jesus went beyond the infringement of the “oral law” to violating the Old Testament itself, part of the argument Jesus made on His behalf appeals to Old Testament precedent in which the very provisions of the Mosaic law were violated (v. 4). Matthew reasoned that in Jesus something greater than both David and the temple (the king and priestly cult) is present. Surely very serious infractions indeed would be needed to have elicited the Pharisees’ extreme response (v. 14). Jesus withdrew from hostilities and in so doing again fulfilled Scripture (vv. 15–21).
Matthew gives two examples of how Jesus’ yoke is easy and his burden light (11:30). In both examples, Jesus opposes the Pharisees’ imposition on others of their burdensome way of observing the fourth commandment (Ex. 20:8–11; Deut. 5:12–15). The purpose of the Sabbath law was to show mercy to human beings and their farm animals by mandating regular rest from the hard labor of agrarian life (Matt. 12:8; Ex. 23:12). If its “observance” somehow made hungry people more miserable by forbidding them from obtaining food, or required a disabled person to remain disabled longer than necessary, then the purpose of the law itself had been violated (Matt. 12:7, 12; Hos. 6:6; Mic. 6:6–8).
Christians of every age and culture have formulated ideas about how the moral teaching of Scripture should be obeyed in their own time and place. Often these ideas become translated into rules for avoiding temptation in basic areas where Christians must interact with a non-Christian culture, whether over clothing, food, speech, or entertainment. Matthew 12:1–14 cautions believers as they engage in such rule-making to understand what they are doing: they are not formulating authoritative Scripture but giving fallible human advice, however prudent (5:29–30; 18:8–9), on how best to obey Scripture in particular circumstances. Whenever the tendency of these rules hinders the basic concern of Scripture for mercy, justice, and kindness, the rules have themselves become a hindrance to obeying God and need to be set aside.
12:2 not lawful to do on the Sabbath. Actually, no law prohibited the plucking of grain in order to eat on the Sabbath. Gleaning handfuls of grain from a neighbor’s field to satisfy one’s immediate hunger was explicitly permitted (Deut. 23:25). What was prohibited was labor for the sake of profit. Thus a farmer could not harvest for profit on the Sabbath, but an individual could glean enough grain to eat.
12:3 He said. Jesus’ answer in vv. 3–8 points out that the Sabbath laws do not restrict deeds of necessity (vv. 3, 4); service to God (vv. 5, 6); or acts of mercy (vv. 7, 8). He reaffirmed that the Sabbath was made for man’s benefit and God’s glory. It was never intended to be a yoke of bondage to the people of God (Mark 2:27). See note on Luke 6:9.
12:4 the showbread. The consecrated bread of the Presence, 12 loaves baked fresh each Sabbath, which was usually eaten by the priests only (Lev. 24:5–9). God was not offended by David’s act, done to satisfy a legitimate need when his men were weak with hunger (1 Sam. 21:4–6). See notes on Mark 2:26; Luke 6:30.
12:5 profane the Sabbath, and are blameless. I.e., the priests have to do their work on the Sabbath, proving that some aspects of the Sabbath restrictions are not inviolable moral absolutes, but rather precepts pertaining to the ceremonial features of the law.
12:6 greater than the temple. This was a straightforward claim of deity. The Lord Jesus was God incarnate—God dwelling in human flesh—far superior to a building which God merely visited.
12:7 mercy and not sacrifice. Quoted from Hos. 6:6. See note on 9:13.
12:8 the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath. Christ has the prerogative to rule over not only their man-made sabbatarian rules, but also over the Sabbath itself—which was designed for worshiping God. Again, this was an inescapable claim of deity—and as such it prompted the Pharisees’ violent outrage (v. 14).
According to the Pharisees, plucking wheat from its stem is reaping, rubbing the wheat heads between one’s palms is threshing, and blowing away the chaff is winnowing!
Jesus, however, disputed the Pharisees’ claim, using three illustrations. First, he cited an event in the life of David (Matt. 12:3–4). As he fled from Saul, David was given the consecrated bread which had been removed from the tabernacle (1 Sam. 21:1–6), and was normally reserved for the priests alone (Lev. 24:9). David believed that preserving his life was more important than observing a technicality. Second, the priests in the temple were involved in work on the Sabbath (Matt. 12:5; cf. Num. 28:9–10, 18–19), yet they were considered blameless. Third, Jesus argued that He Himself was greater than the temple (Matt. 12:6; cf. “One greater” in vv. 41–42), for He is Lord of the Sabbath, that is, He controls what can be done on it, and He did not condemn the disciples (the innocent) for their action. The Pharisees were splitting hairs with their technicalities about reaping, threshing, and winnowing. They failed to understand compassion for people’s basic needs (in this case, the disciples’ hunger; cf. Deut. 23:24–25), but were intense in their concern for the sacrifices. Jesus reminded them of the words in Hosea 6:6, I desire mercy, not sacrifice, that is, inner spiritual vitality, not mere external formality.
12:9–14. The first controversy (vv. 1–8) was barely over when Jesus arrived in the synagogue. Since it was the Sabbath Day, one would expect Jesus to be in the synagogue. A man with a shriveled hand was there. Since the Pharisees were continually looking for some way to accuse Jesus, they undoubtedly planted this man in the synagogue to create an incident. The Pharisees raised the question, Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath? Jesus answered their question, as He often did, with another question. If one’s sheep would fall into a pit on the Sabbath, would he not … lift the sheep out of the pit, even though this might be construed as work?
Sabbath observance was in fact one of the three most important and distinctive badges of Jewish life, along with circumcision and the dietary laws. If coming to Jesus provided rest for the whole of life, then it is not surprising that he should come into conflict with regulations that prevented various kinds of work on one specific day out of seven. At the very least, Jesus shows that he feels free to disregard the oral laws that had grown up around the Sabbath. But his words will suggest more than this (see comments under vv. 3–8), namely, that the Fourth Commandment itself is fulfilled in him and therefore need no longer be observed literally. The apostle Paul will make these conclusions more explicit in Col 2:16–17 and Rom 14:5–6.
But Jesus was not of Levitical, priestly lineage; nor is there any evidence that his life was in danger or his needs nearly as urgent as David’s. Jesus’ point is not that analogous circumstances exist to warrant exceptional practices but that “one greater than the temple is here” (v. 6). By implication the point of v. 4 is therefore also that “one greater than David is here” (cf. 22:41–45). It is not, therefore, the particular situation in which Jesus finds himself that justifies his disciples’ behavior but his very nature and authority which can transcend the law and make permissible for his disciples what once was forbidden.38 Thus the passage displays the same logic as 5:17–48. Verse 8 brings the dialogue to its logical climax. Jesus’ sovereign authority will determine how the Sabbath is now fulfilled in the kingdom age.
How, then, does this apply to Jesus and his disciples? They were not desperate and famished, unlike David and his men. It is not even clear how they were breaking any OT law, where commandments about the Sabbath were aimed primarily at regular work. The disciples were not farmers trying to do some illicit work, but they were itinerant preachers casually picking some heads of grain. Indeed, apart from Halakic interpretations, it is not at all obvious that any commandment of Scripture was being broken. It seems, then, that Jesus used the David incident not merely to question the Pharisees’ view of the Sabbath, for the David incident was not directly relevant. Rather he was questioning their approach to the law itself.
There is more. In the incident to which Jesus referred, regulations (even of the written law) were set aside for David “and his companions.” Is there not therefore a case for setting aside regulations (which had no clear base in the written law) for Jesus and those with him (so Hooker, Son of Man, pp. 97f.)? This analogy holds good only if Jesus is at least as special as David, and it is to this conclusion that the argument builds in the following verses
those who come to the Lord with a questioning heart in need of rest. It may be a person who suffers at work under an uncaring boss; it may be a person in a marriage with an uncaring or cheating spouse; it may be a faithful parent with a spiritually wayward child; or it may be a young person who has lost a friend in a tragic death. Oftentimes these kinds of people will come into a worship setting to question—sometimes respectfully, other times not—the Lord’s control of life. They are seeking some kind of resolution in their heart to a big question in their lives for which they have no answer and for which they may even doubt that God has an answer. What they need is rest.
11:28. God offered rest to the weary (Is 40:28–31; cf. the invitation of divine Wisdom in Ecclus 24:19); this was not the promise an ordinary teacher would make.
11:29–30. When a man carried a yoke he would carry it on his shoulders (cf., e.g., Jer 27:2); Judaism applied this image of subjection to obedience. Jewish people spoke of carrying the yoke of God’s law and the yoke of his kingdom, which one accepted by acknowledging that God was one and by keeping his commandments. Matthew intends Jesus’ words about rest as a contrast with Pharisaic sabbath rules in the following passage (12:1–14): the promise of “rest for your souls” comes from Jeremiah 6:16, where God promises to stay his wrath if the people turn to him instead of to the words of the false religious leaders (6:13–14, 20).
11:28–30 Jesus now invites all who hear or read his words to experience the refreshment of being his disciple. His metaphor is drawn from the world of field work, where the labor is hard and the loads difficult for man and beast. Within the context of Matthew’s Gospel, this imagery probably refers to the heavy load of religious observances that the scribes and Pharisees had bundled together and placed on people’s backs (23:4).
The Mosaic law itself was not intended to be burdensome to keep (Deut. 30:11) but a delight and a blessing to the humble person who trusted God (Ps. 19:7–11; 119). The scribes and the Pharisees, however, had twisted God’s law into a means of self-congratulation and showing off, by observing it in unnecessarily ostentatious ways devised by “learned” calculation (Matt. 23:5, 16, 18, 23, 25, 29–30). Those who were not learned—the “little children” to whom Jesus referred in 11:25—would likely have experienced the teaching of the scribes and Pharisees on these matters as burdensome.
Jesus offers relief to his disciples from the burden of religious observance as a means of attaining self-worth. Learning from Jesus is more like rest than work because Jesus, unlike the scribes and Pharisees, is meek and humble. This passage is the only place in all four Gospel accounts where Jesus tells us about his heart—and he says it is “gentle and lowly” (v. 29). He is ready to help all those who are themselves humble enough to admit their need of his mercy and grace. Indeed, he delights to do so.
11:28–30 Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden. There is an echo of the first beatitude (5:3) in this passage. Note that this is an open invitation to all who hear—but phrased in such a way that the only ones who will respond to the invitation are those who are burdened by their own spiritual bankruptcy and the weight of trying to save themselves by keeping the law. The stubbornness of humanity’s sinful rebellion is such that without a sovereignly-bestowed spiritual awakening, all sinners refuse to acknowledge the depth of their spiritual poverty. That is why, as Jesus says in v. 27, our salvation is the sovereign work of God. But the truth of divine election in v. 27 is not incompatible with the free offer to all in vv. 28–30.
11:29 you will find rest. I.e., from the endless, fruitless effort to save oneself by the works of the law (cf. Heb. 4:1–3, 6, 9–11). This speaks of a permanent respite in the grace of God which is apart from works (v. 30).
Invitation (vv. 25–30). Why did the religious leaders rebel against John and Jesus? Because they (the leaders) were intellectually and spiritually proud and would not become little babes in humility and honesty. There is a vast difference between the spoiled children of the parable (Matt. 11:16–19) and the submissive children of this statement of praise. The Father reveals Himself to the Son, and the Son reveals Himself and the Father to those who are willing to come to the Son in faith. These verses indicate both the sovereignty of the Father and the responsibility of the sinner. Three commands summarize this invitation.
“Come.” The Pharisees all said “Do!” and tried to make the people follow Moses and the traditions. But true salvation is found only in a Person, Jesus Christ. To come to Him means to trust Him. This invitation is open to those who are exhausted and burdened down. That is exactly how the people felt under the yoke of pharisaical legalism (Matt. 23:4; Acts 15:10).
“Take.” This is a deeper experience. When we come to Christ by faith, He gives us rest. When we take His yoke and learn, we find rest, that deeper rest of surrender and obedience. The first is “peace with God” (Rom. 5:1); the second is “the peace of God” (Phil. 4:6–8). To “take a yoke” in that day meant to become a disciple. When we submit to Christ, we are yoked to Him. The word “easy” means “well-fitting”; He has just the yoke that is tailor-made for our lives and needs. The burden of doing His will is not a heavy one (1 John 5:3).
“Learn.” The first two commands represent a crisis as we come and yield to Christ; but this step is into a process. As we learn more about Him, we find a deeper peace, because we trust Him more. Life is simplified and unified around the person of Christ. This invitation is for “all”—not just the people of Israel (Matt. 10:5–6).
What I love about Jesus’ invitation here is (a) whom he invites and (b) to what he invites them. Jesus does not invite those who have found their self-worth. He does not invite the self-satisfied. He does not invite the self-righteous. He does not invite those living the life of ease, with their legs outstretched and their feet pushing through the soft sand of the beach. Here Jesus invites “all who labor and are heavy laden” (v. 28). He invites the tired, the poor, the tempest-tossed, the wretched refuse, those huddled masses yearning to be free.
The contrast is between those whose pride and self-sufficiency have caused them to reject Jesus’ message and those whose humility and recognition of their own neediness allow them to be open to God’s unqualified care through Jesus’ announcement of the arrival of the kingdom. Jesus will use his teaching in parables as a way to test the hearts of the people, so that those who are spiritually responsive will learn more while those who refuse to repent will have their hearts and ears closed (cf. 13:10–16). Jesus praises the Father’s sovereignty and wise plan of redemption, but also the Father’s motivation behind it, which was his “good pleasure” (11:26). It is the Father’s will that all receive his care in the same way, as humble and repentant children.
“Weary” evokes the image of persons exhausted from their work or journey, while “burdened” indicates persons weighted down with heavy loads. They are like the crowds whom Jesus said earlier are harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd (9:36).
In the light of the following statements, the scribes and Pharisees seem once again to be the target of Jesus’ criticism (cf. 5:20; 6:1–18). Jesus will later condemn outright the Jewish leaders for the burden that their legalistic traditions has put on the people (23:4), so this is an invitation to the crowds to become his disciples and find a rest in him that cannot be found in the legal casuistry of the Pharisees.
Israel’s return from the Egyptian captivity is described as release from the heavy yoke of servitude: “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt so that you would no longer be slaves to the Egyptians; I broke the bars of your yoke and enabled you to walk with heads held high” (Lev. 26:13; cf. Ex. 6:6–8). And the prophets promised a time when God would break off the yoke of foreign oppression and give rest to the people of Israel when they repented and were restored to the land (e.g., Isa. 14:25; Jer. 2:20; 5:5; 30:8; Ezek. 34:27).
Jesus’ invitation is in stark contrast to the religious burden of Pharaisism or the militaristic burden of foreign oppressors. His yoke—a metaphor for discipleship to him—promises rest from the weariness and burden of religious regulation and human oppression, because it is none other than commitment to him. His disciples learn directly from him.
While discipleship to Jesus brings relief from the burden of Pharisaic regulations, it is not lawlessness. He goes on to say, “For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.” These two clauses are in synonymous parallelism to emphasize Jesus’ way of discipleship. His discipleship is an easy or serviceable yoke because his teaching equips us most effectively to live out God’s will in the way life was designed to be lived. Furthermore, his discipleship is not the oppressive burden of Pharisaic legalism (23:4) but instead turns the load of life into one that is manageable (cf. Gal. 6:5). Jesus does not release his disciples from burdens, just as he did not escape the burdens of human life in his Incarnation. Illness and calamity and tragedy remain a part of this fallen world until the final renewal, but for those in the kingdom of heaven there is a promise of Jesus’ sustaining help as we carry his yoke of discipleship.
In fact, in Jesus’ interpretation of the Law the challenge of following him may be seen as even more demanding than the Pharisees, because he calls us to fulfill the Law from the obedience of the heart, not simply through external obedience (5:21–47), and he calls his disciples to be perfect, as their heavenly Father is perfect (5:48). But Jesus’ demands are still a yoke that is easy to bear and a burden that is light to carry, because in the coming of the kingdom and the inauguration of the new covenant, his Spirit provides the same strength to carry the load that Jesus himself relied upon to carry his own load of redemptive service to humanity.
Jesus says that our yoke is easy and our burden is light. Why? Primarily because Jesus shares the yoke and burden with us. Doug Webster comments on both the challenge and the promise of the easy yoke and light burden that Jesus extends to us:
His easy yoke is neither cheap nor convenient. The surprising promise of the easy yoke was meant to free us from a self-serving, meritorious, performance-based religion. It is easy in that it frees us from the burden of self-centeredness; liberates us from the load of self-righteousness; and frees us to live in the way that God intended us to live.… The easy yoke sounds like an oxymoron. Plowing a field or pulling a load is hard work! And nowhere does Jesus promise soft ground for tilling or level paths for bearing the load. What he does promise is a relationship with Himself. The demands are great but the relationship with Jesus makes the burden light.
John may have been the reminder he needed to call himself back to the message that he had preached for so long. The youth pastor ousted from his former position needed to be reminded that even if he is not appreciated by one person, that does not cancel out the thousands of lives that he touched throughout his years of ministry. He needs to learn from this difficult experience, but not allow it to cancel out the memory of the effectiveness of his past ministry or deter him from future ministry.
Webster concludes his study of the easy yoke with these penetrating words:
Apart from the grace of Christ and the saving work of the Cross, it would be impossible to convince people that the easy yoke is doable, let alone easy. But for those who live under the yoke there is absolutely no other way to live. Who in their right mind would go back to the gods of Self, Money, Lust and Power? Who would return on bended knee to the shrines of pious performance and judgmentalism? Is not love better than hate, purity better than lust, reconciliation better than retaliation? And is not “better” really “easier” when measured in character rather than convenience, rest for the soul rather than selfish pride?
(2) The next Old Testament incident referred to by Jesus alludes to the directive in the Pentateuch that required priests to make sacrificial offerings on the Sabbath (e.g., Num. 28:9–10): “Or haven’t you read in the Law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple desecrate the day and yet are innocent?” Priests regularly violated the Sabbath when they performed their duties on the Sabbath, yet they were considered guiltless. Since God’s law required them in their duties to work on the Sabbath, God made allowance within the law. Like the incident of David and his men, the law made allowance for violations when God called people to a task that would put them into conflict with a strict interpretation of the law.
Jesus presses the point by giving his rationale. “I tell you that one greater than the temple is here.” Using typical rabbinic logic, Jesus emphasizes that if the guardians of the temple were allowed to violate the Sabbath for the greater good of conducting the priestly rituals, how much more should Jesus and his disciples be considered guiltless when doing the work of God given to them. After all, he is someone greater than the temple. This must have been a stunning remark to the Pharisees. What could be greater than the temple? And what is the “greater” that is now here? This word points to either the ministry of Jesus and his disciples in proclaiming the arrival of the kingdom of heaven, to Jesus himself, or to a combination of both. The following comments that focus on Jesus’ Christological status seem to indicate that “greater” refers to Jesus himself, but focuses on the quality of superior greatness in his ministry more than his personal identity.
(3) Jesus’ third response takes the argument one step further by quoting a second time from Hosea 6:6 (cf. 9:13): “If you had known what these words mean, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the innocent.” Jesus’ disciples are the innocent ones who deserved mercy from the Pharisees, not condemnation. God in his great mercy has given the Sabbath to give his creatures relief from daily burden, not so that people would perform weekly sacrifice. The disciples were not guilty according to the Old Testament law but only according to the Pharisaic interpretation of the law. If they had not just read the prophet but had understood him, they would have known that in their adjudication of the Sabbath, they should have extended mercy, not demanded more sacrifice. Jesus attacks the very core of the Pharisaic tendency to add burdens to the daily lives of people by their accumulation of oral traditions.
In other words, Jesus does not challenge the Sabbath law itself but the prevailing interpretation of it. Even though David had lied to the priest Ahimelech about his mission and he and his men ate the bread in the tabernacle that was not designated for them, it was the mercy of God that did not condemn David. It is the mercy of God that does not strike dead the priests who minister on the Sabbath in the temple, because his mercy is the basis that underlies the entire sacrificial system.