Because Jesus differed with their tradition, these Pharisees apparently assumed that he differed with Scripture (the way some people today identify Scripture with their tradition, calling even fellow Bible believers "liberals"). As these Pharisees well knew, a challenge to the behavior of the disciples was a challenge to the teacher who was responsible to train them in proper behavior (compare Goodman 1983:79; Daube 1972:4-6). Yet in his honor-dominated culture, Jesus was quite able to respond to their challenges and defeat them at their own game. Haven't you read . . . ? (compare 19:4; 21:16, 42; 22:31) is a strong insult against those who claim to be Scripture experts.

Jesus' first example is the story of a breach of the law for David in an emergency-the man of God and his companions were hungry (12:3-4; see 1 Sam 21:1-6). Although Jesus' opponents may have insisted on beginning with an explicit legal text, he appeals instead to inspired narrative-a Bible story-to show how God expected legal statements to be qualified in practice. Jesus thus challenges his opponents' entire method of legal interpretation. When we fail to take into account the nature of many of Jesus' teachings (radical, succinct statements usually unqualified) by comparing them with the narratives (such as Jesus' relative patience with his disciples in not repudiating them), we repeat the mistake of Jesus' opponents (except that Jesus' opponents were more justified in their mistake, since we often treat as law texts that are not even legal statements).

Jesus' second example is the law's explicit allowance for sabbath activity of priests in the temple (Mt 12:5-8; see Num 28:9-10). After making his argument by example, Jesus proceeds with a traditional Jewish "how much more" argument. Others constructed similar arguments; for instance, an early-second-century rabbi contended that saving a human life takes precedence over the sabbath, for even the temple service overrides the sabbath (t. Sabbat 15:16). Others reasoned similarly from the biblical fact that the temple service overrode sabbath regulations (compare m. `Erubin 10:11-15). The way ancient lawyers argued for exceptions was by showing that at least one exception was already implicit in the law (Quint. 7.6.5). Yet Jesus ranks not saving a life but his own authority above the temple: if the temple service warrants suspension of the sabbath, how much more the presence of one greater than the temple (12:6, 41-42). For Jesus as Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath. Jesus' self-claim was veiled enough to prevent legal charges of blasphemy but obvious enough to enrage his opponents (see v. 14).

Jesus' third argument to validate his interpretation method is an appeal to the prophets' proclamation: the law's principles take precedence over its rituals (v. 7; compare Hos 6:6). Everyone acknowledged that an emergency need, such as a human life endangered (CD 11.16-17), warranted an exception to any ritual; but Jesus makes such exceptions the rule. Not merely human life but human need in general takes precedence over regulations. Kindness in response to others' genuine need-such as disciples' hunger-precedes rules whose purpose is to please the God who values such kindness more highly (compare 9:13). (As a modern example, many Christians today would look with disfavor on another Christian who, having only her tithe money and finding that her neighbors had no food, would use it to feed them.) With this third argument Jesus has appealed to all three sections of the Old Testament, treating them with equal authority: the Law, the Prophets and the Writings. (Later rabbis also liked to produce proofs from all three divisions-for example, b. `Aboda Zara 19b.)