03_Wilson_201_221_201_221 10/07/15 12:41 Pagina 216 216 WALTER T. WILSON 216 the latter’s anti-Pharisaic thrust 54. For his part, Jesus claims to be “gentle and humble” in spirit (11,29; cf. Num 12,3; Matt 5,5; 21,5). His yoke, accordingly, is crhsto,j (“easy, kind, benevolent”), a term often joined in Scripture with e;leoj 55. All this contrasts with the “burdens” borne by those addressed in 11,28, which anticipates Jesus’ polemic against the “heavy burdens” imposed on others by the scribes and the Pharisees in 23,4, which in turn contrast ironi- cally with the “heavier” matters of the law that according to Jesus they have failed to observe (23,23), namely, justice, mercy (e;leoj), and faithfulness 56. The mercy that informs the interpretation of Sabbath observance in 12,1-14, then, illustrates both the “gentle” nature of the teacher himself as well as the “benevolent” nature of his yoke, that is, his way of interpreting the Law 57. Such observations are germane to comparisons that might be drawn between Philo’s representation of the Mosaic Law in the pas- sages surveyed above and Matthew’s representation of Jesus as a teacher of the Law in 12,1-14. In both authors we find a form of legal interpretation that entails drawing analogies between the treat- ment of animals and the treatment of people by means of a minori ad maius argumentation grounded in a commitment to mercy and related moral values 58. While Philo interprets laws about the treat- 54 C. DEUTSCH, Hidden Wisdom and the Easy Yoke. Wisdom, Torah and Discipleship in Matthew 11.25-30 (JSNTSup 18; Sheffield 1987) 41-43; Cf. LUZ, Matthew, II, 172. 55 Pss 68,17; 99,5; 105,1; 106,1; 108,21; Jer 40,11; Wis 15,1. Cf. Pss. Sol. 2.36; 5.12; PHILO, Spec. 3.116. 56 Note the verbal links: 11,28 (pefortisme,noi); 23,4 (forti,a bare,a); 23,23 (ta. baru,tera). Cf. H.-J. BECKER, Auf der Kathedra des Moses. Rab- binisch-theologisches Denken und antirabbinische Polemik in Matthäus 23, 1-12 (ANTZ 4; Berlin 1990) 145-161; R. BEATON, Isaiah’s Christ in Mat- thew’s Gospel (SNTSMS 123; Cambridge 2002) 164-172. 57 YANG, Sabbath, 159-161; R.K. MCIVER, “The Sabbath in the Gospel of Matthew”, AUSS 2 (1995) 235; D. VERSEPUT, The Rejection of the Humble Messianic King. A Study of the Composition of Matthew 11–12 (EUS 291; Frankfurt am Main 1986) 132, 153-155. 58 Comparison also indicates variations in how such argumentation could be communicated verbally. For his part, Matthew prefers constructions with diafe,rein (see below), while Philo employs constructions with po,rrwqen, makro,qen, ma/llon, to. ple,on, or periou,sioj. Also noteworthy in this regard is the use of rhetorical questions. Besides Matt 6,26; 11,11, see PHILO, QE 2.12; Spec. 2.89; Hum. 133; PLUTARCH, Esu carn. 996A.