The episode about plucking grain on the Sabbath must have happened out in the open field, where the disciples’ action could be seen by the authorities. But now, we read, “he left that place. . . .”
“And entered their synagogue”! That ominous “their” again.
Yes, Matthew is making it quite clear who’s in charge in the synagogue. And we’re back in town now, since that’s where synagogues were located. And what follows looks very much like a set-up. The authorities are hoping to catch Jesus in a clearcut violation of the Sabbath law.
I don’t mean that the paralyzed man was a “plant.” He was probably just a regular member of the community. He may even have hoped for a cure when he learned that Jesus was entering the synagogue.
They do rather put Jesus on the spot with the question “Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath?” If he does so, he can be charged with working on the Sabbath. Doctors don’t charge for no reason; what they do is work!
Yes. And if he doesn’t heal the man, would that mean that the Good News his miracles exemplify is out of order on the Sabbath? He’s in an awkward spot.
And he counterattacks.
Yes, essentially. He poses a challenge to his critics based on their own practice, since they would think it normal to work on the Sabbath in order to rescue an endangered animal—particularly if it’s your only one. The paralyzed man, to be sure, isn’t a perfect parallel, since his condition isn’t life-threatening. But Jesus counters that possible objection by saying that a human life is more valuable than that of an animal. At least, that’s how the NRSV translators have it. I think one could translate the Greek more literally as simply “A human being is quite a different matter from an animal!”
So he heals him on the Sabbath?
Yes, but he does it in such a way that, his opponents have no proof. There can be no real doubt as to what has happened and yet no one has really seen Jesus do any work on the Sabbath. He didn’t so much as touch the man, just said “Stretch out your hand.” It reminds me of the story of Elisha healing the enemy general Naaman (2 Kings 5). Elisha just sent his servant out to tell Naaman to go wash his leprosy off in the Jordan. Naaman was irate: “I thought that for me he would surely come out, and stand and call on the name of the Lord his God, and would wave his hand over the spot, and cure the leprosy!” Miraculous healing wasn’t supposed to be this simple, quiet, inconspicuous!
So the set-up didn’t work.
And that makes the devout really angry. After all, he’s neatly foiled their plan. “The Pharisees went out and conspired against him, how to destroy him.” This is a major step in the developing conflict. They’re no longer just criticizing him behind his back or debating with him in public. They want to see the end of him. Does this mean they want to see him dead at this point? Not necessarily. But they at least want to deprive him of his audience. Since they are sure that their own interpretation of the Torah is correct, they are determined to be rid of this person who challenges it.
This, of course, is an age-old problem among religious folk. We confuse our fallible and sinful selves with the God, the ultimate Truth, to which we owe allegiance. We lose track of the distance between our finitude and imperfection and God’s boundless perfection. And we are capable of coming down with great fury on anyone whose interpretation differs from ours. I’m not talking just about religious conservatives; religious liberals are also prone to write off or condemn those who disagree with us. Nor is this dangerous propensity found only in the context of religion. People with strong commitments to communism, capitalism, environmentalism—any ‘ism you can think of—are just as capable of working up a hatred for those who disagree with them.
So what we have here is a first, fatal step toward crucifixion—though that cannot have been the conscious intent of any one at this point.
And Jesus leaves the arena!
Isn’t that interesting? Matthew specifies that he withdrew because he recognized exactly what was going on. Angering the Pharisees doesn’t seem to have been his purpose. But he isn’t willing to refrain from healing in order to satisfy them, either. So he simply moves his work away from them.
The Greek word for “departed” here is often translated “withdrew.” It’s the word used later on for what hermits and anchorites like St. Antony of Egypt did. They left the towns and withdrew from the crowds to live out in the open country—even in deserted, uncultivated “wilderness.” “Withdraw” might be a better translation than “departed” here. What Jesus is doing is moving away from conflict. His opponents will now have to come looking for him—as they do later on in Chapter 12.
But for now, he’s back with the crowds who’ve come to be cured.
But why does he order them not to make him known? It would hardly be possible to keep all this a secret when people start coming home cured and everybody insists on knowing what’s happened.
One part of it is to underline that Jesus didn’t using healings to gain popularity. Another part of the answer lies in the quotation from Isaiah 42:1-4 that follows. It describes a person who doesn’t “wrangle or cry aloud,” who wouldn’t so much as “break a bruised reed or quench a smoldering wick.” This is a peaceful and harmless person. But one who comes with an utterly serious aim that could indeed be dreaded by many: to bring justice to victory.
The ongoing conflict here is not of Jesus’ instigation. But perhaps it is an almost inevitable reaction—given the depth and complexity of human sin—to all that he stands for.
And here we have those Gentiles again. . . .
Yes, Matthew keeps pointing us to this dimension of Jesus’ teaching. Even though few Gentiles have actually crossed his path, he keeps making challenging comparisons between the devout of Israel and Gentiles who may be more righteous than they—despite being, by definition, impure and unholy.
It’s worth reminding ourselves again that this isn’t an issue of Judaism vs. Christianity. As we’ve noted before, Matthew is very much a Jewish writer, concerned with how to interpret the Law and Prophets—how to understand and practice the Jewish religion. For him, Jesus has shown the right way to do this. Mtthew is a Jew who follows Jesus’ understanding of Judaism rather than that of the priests, the scribes, the Pharisees or any other group. It’s quite possible that his own Christian community didn’t include any Gentiles. But the contrast here is not primarily ethnic, even though Jesus uses ethnic terms in describing it. The contrast is between those who seem to themselves “wise and intelligent” and those whom they despise as “infants” (compare 11:20).
And note that, even with all this talk about the possibility that Gentiles may surpass Jews in righteousness, Jesus is in no hurry to address Gentiles directly. He even told his disciples to stay away from Gentile towns (10:5). What he’s trying to do here is foster the development of humility among the pious!

Next up: OPEN CONFLICT—FROM SABBATH TO EXORCISMS (12:22-37)