<p>12:7&nbsp;<em>But if you had known what this means</em>- This continues the challenge of :3- &quot;Have you never read?&quot;. They&nbsp;<em>had</em>&nbsp;read, but without understanding. They had read without perceiving meaning- and it led them to &quot;condemn the guiltless&quot;. Without unduly exalting intellectualism for its own sake, this is a sobering thought- that the crucifixion of God's Son was the result of a chronic lack of understanding of God's word. To pay lip service to Biblicism is not enough; the meaning in the words, the whole issue of interpretation, is crucially important; getting it wrong can lead to crucifying the Son of God afresh. The Greek&nbsp;<em>esti</em>&nbsp;translated 'means' is basically the verb 'to be'- if they had known what the Scripture 'is' they would've have condemned the guiltless. The Bible 'is' its true interpretation, and this idea comes to its ultimate term in the declaration of Jesus as being 'the word'.&nbsp;</p>
<p><em>I desire mercy</em>- Hos. 6:6 says that Yahweh &quot;desires mercy&quot;. These two Hebrew words sound similar to each other- mercy / grace is so identified with God's passion and desire. The same Hebrew words are to be found in the statements that He desires / delights in grace / mercy (Jer. 9:24; Mic. 7:18). If&nbsp;<em>He</em>&nbsp;delights in forgiveness and grace, then we should also; His passion should be ours. This of itself outlaws the critical eyes of the Pharisees, noticing the disciples' infringement of a law and feeling the need to 'take up the matter' with them. And it will be the same with us. The human tendency to observe others with eyes of criticism and sensitivity to their weaknesses will be displaced if we simply delight in mercy. The Hosea passage goes on to condemn the Jewish religious leadership in language which the Lord clearly used in constructing the parable of the good Samaritan: &quot;As troops of robbers wait for a man, so the company of priests murder in the way by consent&quot; (Hos. 6:8). But there's a subtle twist- the priest in the Lord's story passed by on the other side and simply did nothing. That inaction is paralleled with being as bad as the thieves themselves. The priest was returning from having offered sacrifice, but he didn't show mercy- and God wants mercy and not sacrifice. Note that the passage in Hos. 6:6 is perhaps purposefully ambiguous. It could mean 'I want to see you showing mercy, and not [so much offering] sacrifice'; or it could mean 'I myself want / love / delight in [showing] mercy rather than [receiving] sacrifice'. The ambiguity is because God's will / love / delight should be ours. And we can read the quotation of that passage here in Mt. 12:7 with the same double meaning. His passion for grace must be ours, and this precludes looking critically at others, eager to perceive their breaches of our perceptions of God's law.</p>
<p><em>And not sacrifice, you would not have condemned the guiltless</em>- Who exactly did the Lord have in mind? He has just used the same word when stating that the priests work on the Sabbath and are &ldquo;blameless&rdquo;. By condemning the disciples, the Pharisees were thus condemning the priests too. This argument of course supposes that the Lord&rsquo;s secular, spiritually ragtag followers were in fact priests- the priests of the new system He was bringing in. The ultimately guiltless was of course the Lord Himself, and He foresaw their final condemnation of Him, perceiving that in essence it had already happened. For whoever condemns His followers condemns Him, so deeply is He associated with them. But how would the Pharisees have avoided condemning the guiltless disciples by appreciating that God wants mercy and not sacrifice? I suggest that the Lord is again meeting them on their own level: &lsquo;You consider the disciples are guilty. OK, that&rsquo;s not what the Law says, but OK, let&rsquo;s assume they are. But if you simply&nbsp;<em>loved</em>&nbsp;showing mercy as God does, then you would not have condemned them anyway. You would&rsquo;ve overlooked the incident&rsquo;.</p>