http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=5155
Did Jesus Break the Sabbath?
One
common misconception regarding the behavior of Jesus is that, on
occasion, in healing the sick and performing other benevolent actions,
He broke the Sabbath in order to accommodate the higher law of love.
This viewpoint leaves the impression that law is sometimes, if not
frequently, antithetical to being loving. It implies that sometimes
breaking God’s laws is necessary in order to be loving. This notion, of
course, is flawed and contrary to Bible teaching. As Paul explained to
the Romans: “he who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the
commandments…are all summed up in this saying, namely, ‘You shall love
your neighbor as yourself.’ Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore
love is the fulfillment of the law” (Romans 13:8-10). Paul meant that
when you obey the law’s directives concerning how to conduct yourself
toward your neighbor, you will be engaging in loving behavior. To love,
one must enact God’s laws.
The fact is the perfect Son of God obeyed all of God’s laws, never
violating even one Divine precept (Hebrews 4:15). Sin is defined as
violation of God’s law (1 John 3:4). Since Jesus was sinless, He never
broke God’s laws. Hence, He could not have broken the Sabbath. Those who
leveled such an accusation against Him were, in fact, mistaken.
the pool
Take, for example, the incident in John 5, when Jesus caused a man, who
suffered from a 38-year-old ailment, to rise from his bed of
confinement and walk. The fact that Jesus’ action took place on the
Sabbath drew the criticism of the Jews who promptly informed the man,
“It is the Sabbath; it is not lawful for you to carry your bed” (vs.
10). Many would suppose that Jesus would not be concerned with careful
conformity to the Law. They would assume that He would chide the Jews
for their “nit-picky, legalistic” approach to religion, and that He
would be quite willing to dismiss the requirements of the Law in order
to give priority to human need in the name of compassion. But this
viewpoint is fraught with error, not the least of which is its demeaning
assessment of law—law which God, Himself, authored. Law, according to
God, is given for human well-being (Deuteronomy 6:24; 10:13; Proverbs
29:18). God’s law is “holy and just and good” (Romans 7:12), and serves
divinely intended, positive purposes (e.g., Romans 3:20). Indeed, Jesus’
handling of His critics illustrates the high regard He had for law, the
necessity of carefully conforming to that law, and the critical
importance of applying it accurately.
In John 7, calling attention to the miracle He performed in chapter 5,
Jesus offered a logical rebuttal to the allegation that He violated the
Sabbath. Here is that argument placed in syllogistic form:
Premise 1: If the Law of Moses requires the circumcision of a male infant on the 8th day after birth—even when the 8th day falls on the Sabbath—then healing a man on the Sabbath is equally legal.
Premise 2: The Law of Moses requires the circumcision of a male infant on the 8th day after birth—even when the 8th day fell on the Sabbath.
Conclusion: Therefore, healing a man on the Sabbath is equally legal.
Jesus then offered a concluding admonition that cinched the validity of
His argument: “Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with
righteous judgment” (vs. 24). Making application of God’s laws based on
“appearance” refers to doing so based on how things seem or look to the
person making the judgment, i.e., forming an opinion based on
inadequate evidence.
To the contrary, to “judge with righteous judgment” means to make
accurate assessments by drawing only warranted conclusions from the
evidence, i.e., thinking and acting rationally. One must be very careful
that he is “accurately handling the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15,
NASB) and not “handling the word of God deceitfully” (2 Corinthians
4:2).
The Synagogue
Another instance in which Jesus was falsely accused of breaking the
Sabbath is seen on the occasion when Jesus entered the synagogue and
encountered a man who had a deformed hand (Matthew 12:9-13). This
circumstance prompted His enemies to ask Him a question in hopes of
being able to accuse Him of breaking the Law. They asked: “Is it lawful
to heal on the Sabbath?” Of course, they had pre-decided that the answer
to the question was “no,” and that, in fact, the Law would naturally
forbid such an action.
Unfortunately, the prevailing interpretation of the Law of Moses at the
time, at least among the Jewish leaders, was that the Sabbath law
enjoined total inactivity—as if everyone was to sit down for 24 hours
and
do absolutely nothing. This view was a distortion
of God’s Law on the matter. The Law gave the right, even the obligation,
to engage in several activities (that could rightly be designated
“work”) that did not constitute violation of the Sabbath regulation. On
this occasion, Jesus pinpointed one such instance: “What man is there
among you who has one sheep, and if it falls into a pit on the Sabbath,
will not lay hold of it and lift it out?” (vs. 11). Jesus was recalling a
directive from the Law of Moses:
You shall not see your brother’s ox or his sheep going astray, and
hide yourself from them; you shall certainly bring them back to your
brother. And if your brother is not near you, or if you do not know him,
then you shall bring it to your own house, and it shall remain with you
until your brother seeks it; then you shall restore it to him. You
shall do the same with his donkey, and so shall you do with his garment;
with any lost thing of your brother’s, which he has lost and you have
found, you shall do likewise; you must not hide yourself. You shall not
see your brother’s donkey or his ox fall down along the road, and hide
yourself from them; you shall surely help him lift them up again
(Deuteronomy 22:1-4; cf. Exodus 23:4-5).
Such passages give insight into the nature of God and provide
tremendous assistance in making proper application of God’s laws to
everyday circumstances.
Observe that God’s laws never contradict or countermand each other.
Unlike manmade laws which often manifest inconsistency and
contradiction, God’s laws function in perfect harmony with each other.
The Mosaic passage to which Jesus alluded demonstrates that the general
principle of the cessation of usual work on the Sabbath did not conflict
with any number of specific circumstances in which benevolence and
compassion were to be expressed. In an agriculturally based society, a
family’s survival depends on its farm animals. If a sheep, ox, or donkey
were to break out of its stall, flee the premises, and then fall into a
pit from which it would be unable to extricate itself, the animal would
most likely die or become seriously ill if left in its predicament for
24 hours. To expend the necessary effort (i.e., “work”) to retrieve the
animal from danger was not considered by God to be included in the
Sabbath prohibition. Hence, Jesus stated the logical conclusion: “Of how
much more value then is a man than a sheep?” (vs. 12). If action could
be exerted to see to the well-being of a dumb animal, then obviously,
God would approve of action taken to see to the physical care of a human
being! Here, once again, is Jesus’ argument placed in syllogistic form:
Premise 1: If the Law of Moses requires a person to
manifest care, concern, and physical effort to recover a neighbor’s
escaped, endangered farm animal—even when the incident occurs on the
Sabbath—then healing a man on the Sabbath is equally legal.
Premise 2: The Law of Moses requires a person to
manifest care, concern, and physical effort to recover a neighbor’s
escaped, endangered farm animal—even when the incident occurs on the
Sabbath.
Conclusion: Therefore, healing a man on the Sabbath is equally legal.
The logic is penetrating and decisive. Indeed, “they could not answer
Him regarding these things” (Luke 14:6; see also Luke 6:6-11). Far from
suggesting that law is unimportant and may be ignored under the guise of
“human need,” or implying that humans can break the “letter of the law”
in order to keep the “spirit of the law” (see
Miller,
2003), Jesus demonstrated that inherently built into God’s laws are all
concerns deemed by Deity to be necessary. The benevolent, loving thing
to do will
always harmonize with God’s laws, since “love is the fulfillment of the law” (Romans 13:10), i.e., every truly
loving action has already been defined by God in His legal admonitions.
The Grain Field
A final instance in which Jesus was accused of breaking the Sabbath is
seen in the grain field incident (Matthew 12:1-8). Many commentators
automatically assume that the charge leveled against Jesus’ disciples by
the Pharisees was a scripturally valid charge. However, when the
disciples picked and consumed a few heads of grain from a neighbor’s
field, they were doing that which was perfectly lawful (Deuteronomy
23:25). Working would have been a violation of the Sabbath law. If they
had pulled out a sickle and begun harvesting the grain, they would have
been violating the Sabbath law. However, they were picking strictly for
the purpose of eating immediately—an action that was in complete harmony
with Mosaic legislation (“but that which everyone must eat”—Exodus
12:16). A modern equivalent might be reaching for a box of cereal on the
pantry shelf, pouring it in a bowl, retrieving the milk from the
refrigerator, pouring it on the cereal, and eating it. The Pharisees’
charge that the disciples were doing something “not lawful” on the
Sabbath was simply an erroneous charge (cf. Matthew 15:2).
Jesus commenced to counter their accusation with masterful, penetrating
logic, advancing successive rebuttals. Before He presented specific
scriptural refutation of their charge, He first employed a rational
device designated by logicians as
argumentum ad hominem
(literally “argument to the man”). He used the “circumstantial” form of
this argument, which enabled Him to “point out a contrast between the
opponent’s lifestyle and his expressed opinions, thereby suggesting that
the opponent and his statements can be dismissed as
hypocritical” (Baum, 1975, p. 470, emp. added). This variety of argumentation spotlights the opponent’s
inconsistency,
and “charges the adversary with being so prejudiced that his alleged
reasons are mere rationalizations of conclusions dictated by
self-interest” (Copi, 1972, p. 76).
Observe carefully the technical sophistication inherent in Jesus’
strategy. He called attention to the case of David (vss. 3-4). When
David was in exile, literally running for his life to escape the
jealous, irrational rage of Saul, he and his companions arrived in Nob,
tired and hungry (1 Samuel 21). He lied to the priest and conned him
into giving to his traveling companions the showbread, or “bread of the
Presence” (12 flat cakes arranged in two rows on the table within the
Tabernacle [Exodus 25:23-30; Leviticus 24:5-6])—bread that legally was
reserved
only for the priests (Leviticus 24:8-9; cf.
Exodus 29:31-34; Leviticus 8:31; 22:10ff.). David clearly violated the
law. Did the Pharisees condemn
him? Absolutely not!
They revered David. They held him in high regard. In fact, nearly a
thousand years after his passing, his tomb was still being tended (Acts
2:29; cf. 1 Kings 2:10; Nehemiah 3:16; Josephus, 1974a, 13.8.4; 16.7.1;
Josephus, 1974b, 1.2.5). On the one hand, they condemned the disciples
of Jesus, who were
innocent, but on the other hand, they upheld and revered David, who was
guilty. Their inconsistency betrayed both their insincerity as well as their ineligibility to bring a charge against the disciples.
After exposing their hypocrisy and inconsistency, Jesus next turned to
answer the charge pertaining to violating the Sabbath. He called their
attention to the priests who worked in the Temple on the Sabbath (12:5;
e.g., Numbers 28:9-10). The priests were “blameless”—
not guilty—of
violating the Sabbath law because their work was authorized to be
performed on that day. As previously noted, the Sabbath law did not
imply that everyone was to sit down and
do nothing. The
Law gave the right, even the obligation, to engage in several
activities that did not constitute violation of the Sabbath regulation.
Again, examples of such authorization included eating, Temple service,
circumcision (John 7:22), tending to the basic care of animals (Exodus
23:4-5; Deuteronomy 22:1-4; Matthew 12:11; Luke 13:15), and extending
kindness or assistance to the needy (Matthew 12:12; Luke 13:16; 14:1-6;
John 5:5-9; 7:23). The divinely authorized Sabbath activity of the
priests
proved that the accusation of the Pharisees
brought against Jesus’ disciples was false. [The term “profane” (vs. 5)
is an example of the figure of speech known as metonymy of the adjunct
in which “things are spoken of
according to appearance,
opinions formed respecting them, or the claims made for them” (Dungan,
1888, p. 295, emp. added). By this figure, Leah was said to be the
“mother” of Joseph (Genesis 37:10), Joseph was said to be the “father”
of Jesus (Luke 2:48; John 6:42), God’s preached message was said to be
“foolishness” (1 Corinthians 1:21), and angels were said to be “men”
(e.g., Genesis 18:16; 19:10). Priestly activity on the Sabbath gave the
appearance
of violation when, in fact, it was not. Coincidentally, Bullinger
classified the allusion to “profane” in this verse as an instance of
catachresis, or incongruity, stating that “it expresses what was true according to the
mistaken notion of the Pharisees as to manual works performed on the Sabbath” (1898, p. 676, emp. added).]
After pointing out the obvious legality of priestly effort expended on
the Sabbath, Jesus stated: “But I say to you that in this place there is
One greater than the temple” (12:6). The underlying Greek text actually
has “something” instead of “One.” If priests could carry on
Tabernacle/Temple service on the Sabbath, surely Jesus’ own disciples
were authorized to engage in service in the presence of the Son of God!
After all, service directed to the person of Jesus certainly is greater
than the pre-Christianity Temple service conducted by Old Testament
priests.
For all practical purposes, the discussion was over. Jesus had
disproved the claim of the Pharisees. But He did not stop there. He took
His methodical confrontation to yet another level. He penetrated
beneath the surface argument that the Pharisees had posited and focused
on their
hearts: “But if you had known what this means,
‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the
guiltless” (12:7). In this verse, Jesus quoted from an Old Testament
context (Hosea 6:6) in which the prophet of old struck a blow against
the mere external, superficial, ritualistic observance of some laws, to
the neglect of heartfelt, sincere, humble attention to other laws while
treating people properly. The comparison is evident. The Pharisees who
confronted Jesus’ disciples were not truly interested in obeying God’s
law. They were masquerading under that
pretense (cf.
Matthew 15:1-9; 23:3). But their problem did not lie in an attitude of
desiring careful compliance with God’s law. Rather, their zest for law
keeping was
hypocritical and unaccompanied by their own
obedience and concern for others. They possessed critical hearts and
were more concerned with scrutinizing and blasting people than with
honest, genuine applications of God’s directives for the good of
mankind.
They had neutralized the true intent of divine regulations, making void
the Word of God (Matthew 15:6). They had ignored and skipped over the
significant laws that enjoined justice, mercy, and faith (Matthew
23:23). Consequently, though their attention to legal detail was
laudable, their
misapplication of it, as well as
their own neglect and rejection
of some aspects of it, made them inappropriate and unqualified
promulgators of God’s laws. Indeed, they simply did not fathom the
teaching of Hosea 6:6 (cf. Micah 6:6-8). “I will have mercy, and not
sacrifice” is a Hebraism (cf. Matthew 9:13) [McGarvey, 1875, pp. 82-83].
God was not saying that He did not want sacrifices offered under the
Old Testament economy (notice the use of “more” in Hosea 6:6). Rather,
He was saying that He did not want sacrifice
alone. He wanted mercy
with sacrifice. Internal motive and attitude are
just as important to God as the external compliance with specifics.
Samuel addressed this same attitude shown by Saul: “Has the Lord as
great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice
of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed than
the fat of rams” (1 Samuel 15:22). Samuel was not minimizing the
essentiality of sacrifice as required by God. Rather, he was convicting
Saul of the pretense of using one aspect of God’s requirements, i.e.,
alleged “sacrifice” of the best animals (1 Samuel 15:15), as a smoke
screen for violating God’s instructions, i.e., failing to
destroy
all the animals (1 Samuel 15:3). If the Pharisees had understood these
things, they would not have accused the disciples of breaking the law
when the disciples, in fact, had not done so. They “would not have
condemned the
guiltless” (Matthew 12:7, emp. added).
While the disciples
were guilty of violating an injunction that the Pharisees had
concocted (supposing the injunction to be a genuine implication of the Sabbath regulation), the disciples were
not guilty
of a violation of Sabbath law. The Pharisees’ propensity for enjoining
their uninspired and erroneous interpretations of Sabbath law upon
others was the direct result of cold, unmerciful hearts that found a
kind of sadistic glee in binding burdens upon people for burdens’ sake
rather than in encouraging people to obey God genuinely.
Jesus placed closure on His exchange with the Pharisees on this
occasion by asserting the accuracy of His handling of this entire
affair: “For the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath” (vs. 8). In
other words, Jesus affirmed His deity and, therefore, His credentials
and authoritative credibility for making accurate application of the Law
of Moses to the issue at hand. One can trust Jesus’ exegesis and
application of Sabbath law; after all, He wrote it!
Matthew 12 does
not teach that Jesus broke the Sabbath or sanctions occasional violation of His laws under extenuating circumstances. His laws are
never
optional, relative, or situational—even though people often find God’s
will inconvenient and difficult (e.g., John 6:60; Matthew 11:6; 15:12;
19:22; Mark 6:3; 1 Corinthians 1:23). The truth of the matter is that
if the heart is receptive
to God’s will, His will is “easy” (Matthew 11:30), “not too hard”
(Deuteronomy 30:11), nor “burdensome” (1 John 5:3). If, on the other
hand, the heart resists His will and does not desire to conform to it,
then God’s words are “offensive” (Matthew 15:12), “hard,” (John 6:60),
“narrow” (Matthew 7:14), and like a hammer that breaks in pieces and
grinds the resister into powder (Jeremiah 23:29; Matthew 21:44).
Conclusion
The religion of Christ surpasses all human religion. It is rooted in
the very essence of Deity. When Jesus took on human form on Earth, He
showed Himself to be the Master logician and exegete Who always
conducted Himself in a rational manner and conformed His actions to
divine law. May we do likewise.
[NOTE: For more on Jesus’ handling of the Sabbath, see Miller, 2004.]
REFERENCES
Baum, Robert (1975),
Logic (New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston).
Bullinger, E.W. (1898),
Figures of Speech Used in the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1968 reprint).
Copi, Irving (1972),
Introduction To Logic (New York: Macmillan).
Dungan, D.R. (1888),
Hermeneutics (Delight, AR: Gospel Light).
Josephus, Flavius (1974a reprint),
Antiquities of the Jews (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Josephus, Flavius (1974b reprint),
Wars of the Jews (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
McGarvey, J.W. (1875),
Commentary on Matthew and Mark (Delight, AR: Gospel Light).
Miller, Dave (2003), “The Spirit and Letter of the Law,” Apologetics Press,
http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1225.
Miller, Dave (2004), “Situation Ethics—Extended Version,” Apologetics Press,
https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=645&topic=38.
Q.