When questioned by the Pharisees about his unsavory table fellows in Matthew 9:9-13, Jesus responds with a medical proverb, a remedial directive from Hosea 6:6, and a mission. This confrontational exchange raises two important questions about the Hebrew concept of ḥesed supplied by Jesus’ Hosea 6:6 quotation and the practice of mercy as it was understood by 1st century Jews. 1) How did the knowledgeable Pharisees, undoubtedly familiar with Hos 6:6 and ḥesed, understand this concept? 2) How does Jesus’ understanding compare to and correct the Pharisees’ view on this matter?
Most scholars dealing with Matt 9:9-13 recognize the significance of Jesus’ Hos 6:6 quotation. However, few have sufficiently fleshed out the covenantal nature of ḥesed, about which Hos 6:6 speaks, and how the covenantal thrust of this term and its context informs both Jesus and the Pharisees’ understanding of what it means that YHWH desires “mercy and not sacrifice.” F.P. Viljoen (“Hosea 6:6 and Identity Formation in Matthew,” 2014, p. 218) and Matthias Konradt (Christology, Torah, and Ethics in the Gospel of Matthew, 2022, p. 140) both acknowledge the association between covenant and ḥesed, but they fail to bring this understanding fully into their analysis of Matthew 9.
Karen Nelson (Ḥesed and the New Testament, 2023, pp. 62-77), however, rightly offers a more complete understanding of the covenantal context of Hos 6:6 for Jesus’ instruction in Matt 9:13. She states: “Those who appeared to be keeping the covenant meticulously and should have been agents of ḥsd/eleos were not.” Additionally, they “do not perceive that Jesus understands and does eleos” (p. 69). Though their ignorance can be attributed to hard, hypocritical hearts, the Pharisee’s misunderstanding of ḥesed is also likely the result of misguided tradition. Unfortunately, Nelson does not describe pharisaic teaching on ḥesed to allow for a comparison between their understanding and practice and Jesus’ in the NT. Eric Ottenheijm (“The Shared Meal—A Therapeutical Device,” 2011, pp. 16-19) also provides a brief analysis of rabbinic teaching on acts of mercy, but his discussion focuses primarily on acts of mercy as a method of atonement after the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. Furthermore, like Viljoen and Konradt, Ottenheijm fails to sufficiently identify the covenantal significance of ḥesed in Matt 9:13.
This paper will answer the proposed questions and expand on Karen Nelson’s analysis of the influence of Hos 6:6 and ḥesed on our understanding of Matt 9:9-13. Using a historical-grammatical method, we will examine the pharisaic teaching concerning ḥesed via comparative analysis of early rabbinic texts. As a result, we will argue that in Matt 9:9-13 Jesus offers a corrective for the practice of ḥesed over the fastidious but misapplied pharisaical practice of acts of mercy that stem from the Jewish oral tradition. It will show how the Pharisees misunderstood ḥesed by limiting its scope of practice and beneficiaries, how “tax collectors and sinners” represent the primary group in need of ḥesed, and how Jesus’ teaching and actions counteract faulty Pharisaic assumptions.