The unrepentant Pharisees are judged as unwilling to acknowledge Jesus as Lord and Master, and so resolving to destroy him. Mark notes the irony in their conduct: their reasoning that to heal and restore life on the Sabbath is forbidden, but to plot death on the Sabbath is permitted (Mark 3:6). Matthew stresses, instead, Jesus’ self-revelation as the Owner of Israel. The man who was healed recognized his Master, but Israel failed to recognize him (Mark 3:6).
The conflict over the Sabbath is understandable, burdened as it is with human rules, and difficult as it is to serve God according to his Word for that commandment. Jesus teaches us to ask What is lawful to do? (Isaiah 1:3), while the Pharisees ask only What is not lawful? (John 5:16).
The Pharisees, unwilling to acknowledge Jesus as their Lord and Master, convened and formally resolved, as Matthew 12:14 states, to destroy him. Mark highlights the glaring contradiction in their conduct: according to their reasoning, to heal and restore life on the Sabbath was forbidden, yet to plot death on the Sabbath was somehow permissible (Matthew 12:14). Matthew, by contrast, does not pursue this line of irony; instead, he concentrates on Jesus’ self-revelation as the true Owner of Israel. The man who was healed—like the sheep lifted upright—recognized his Master, but Israel, God’s covenant people, failed to recognize him (Isaiah 1:3).1
The Pharisees did not repent at the sight of the miracle; in fact, it became their judgment. That the conflict broke out specifically over the Sabbath is understandable. After all, no commandment is so easily overburdened with human regulations, and with no commandment is it more difficult to truly serve God according to his Word than in the case of the fourth. Jesus teaches that we must ask, What is lawful to do (Matthew 12:7), while the Pharisees asked only What is not lawful (Matthew 12:7).2
14 But the Pharisees went out and conspired against him, how to destroy him.