Authority over the Sabbath
In response to Jewish leaders, Jesus demonstrated that he is Lord even over the Sabbath Day - Mark 2:23-3:6.
Religious leaders from Jerusalem objected to Christ’s looseness to their Sabbath traditions, but he used the opportunity to demonstrate that the “Son of Man” is “Lord” even over that day. God did cease His creative activities on the seventh day, but its formal establishment as a regulated day did not occur until the Torah was given at Sinai (“Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy”).
It was forbidden for an Israelite to journey more than a short distance on the seventh day, a so-called “Sabbath day’s journey.” How far the disciples did walk on this day is not stated. The traditional regulation specified a “journey” of no more than 1,999 paces, approximately eight hundred meters.
Additionally, the disciples plucked ears of grain and rubbed them in their hands to separate the grain from the chaff. Under the “tradition of the elders,” that qualified as “reaping and winnowing,” an activity prohibited on the Sabbath - (Mark 2:23-28).
It was permissible under the Law for anyone passing through a grain field to pick grain by hand for immediate consumption (“gleaning”). The Pharisees objected because the disciples were doing this on the Sabbath, not because of any violations of the property rights of the landowner - (Deuteronomy 23:25).
A RESPONSE FROM SCRIPTURE
Jesus responded with a question based on the life of David. One day, famished, he and his men ate bread forbidden to them by the Law. The story refers to the “shewbread” or the “bread of the presence,” the twelve loaves of sanctified bread placed in the Tabernacle every Sabbath. Only the priests were allowed to eat it - (1 Samuel 21:1-6).
The circumstances in David’s story were not the same as those of Jesus and his disciples. They were not in a state of physical distress, and he did not cite the violation of a Torah regulation by David as an excuse. Instead, for him, it was a precedent.
Since the “Son of Man” is the true King of Israel, if that which is “holy” was set aside for common use by David, how much more appropriate is it to set aside that which is “holy” for use by the Greater David?
His declaration is most appropriate - “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.” In their zeal to obey the law, some Jews forgot its purpose - To do good to men and women.
As the day of rest and worship, God did not intend for anyone to be deprived of the necessities of life on the seventh day. That day was for the well-being of humanity, and even slaves and animals were allowed to rest.
Since the Sabbath was made to benefit mankind, it follows that the “Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.” He is the designated representative and ruler of Israel. In the Greek sentence, “Lord” is emphatic and stresses the point - his authority as the “Son of Man” and the “Lord.” The version recorded in Matthew adds the following:
- “Or have you not read in the Law, that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple break the Sabbath, and are innocent? But I say to you, that something greater than the temple is here. But if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the innocent.”
Sabbath restrictions are not absolute. Temple priests engage in “work” on it and other feast days while carrying out their priestly duties. Jesus, the “Son of Man,” is something “greater than the Temple.”
If priests are authorized to violate the Sabbath in the Temple, and Jesus is greater than the Temple, how can he be restricted in his work by Sabbath regulations?
HEALING ON THE SABBATH
- (Mark 3:1-6) – “And he entered again into a synagogue, and there was a man with his hand withered and they were narrowly watching him whether he would heal on the Sabbath that they might accuse him. And he said to the man who had his hand withered: Arise into the midst! And he said to them: Is it allowed on the Sabbath to do good or to do evil? To save life or to slay? But they remained silent. And looking around on them with anger, being at the same time grieved on account of the hardening of their heart, he said to the man: Stretch forth your hand! And he stretched it forth, and his hand was restored. And the Pharisees, going out immediately with the Herodians, were giving counsel against him that they should destroy him.”
the version of this story in Luke adds the following - “But they themselves were filled with rage and discussed together what they might do to Jesus. And it was at this time that he went off to the mountain to pray and he spent the whole night in prayer to God.”
“Is it lawful on the Sabbath to save life or to kill?” Like the Sabbath, the Mosaic Law is intended to bring good to humanity. The first part of the question refers to what Jesus intended to do for the man with the withered hand, good rather than evil. Not restoring his hand is tantamount to doing him evil. The second half refers to what his opponents were plotting, to destroy Christ, the Messiah of Israel.
Healing on the Sabbath was forbidden, but there was an approved exception. It was permissible to heal if life was at stake.
In this case, the man’s life was not at risk. He would come to no harm if Jesus waited until evening to restore his hand. But he refused to draw such a narrow distinction between saving a life and restoring the man to wholeness. To delay healing for even a few hours is to deny the Law’s intent.
Moreover, anyone with a physical deformity was not allowed to enter the Temple and could not function as a full member of the covenant community. The task of restoring the man was paramount – doing so must not be delayed - (Leviticus 21:16-21).
Christ’s actions answered his question. Not only is it permissible to do good on the Sabbath it is right and merciful to do so. The narrow attitude of his religious opponents could only lead to the destruction of life.
This incident is a major turning point in his Galilean ministry. The reaction of his opponents transformed them from critics to conspirators. From this point, they determined to destroy him.
