Did Jesus break the Sabbath law?

Jesus knew their machinations (Luke 6:8), but was not to be diverted out of His course of "doing good." He bade the afflicted man to rise and stand out in the midst in sight of the whole company. Then the Lord, desirous of awakening the dormant consciences of the Pharisees and scribes to a sense of their own guilty motives, asked them, "Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath or to do harm? to save life or to kill?" (Mark, Luke). To this piercing question, which exposed the hidden sophistries of their minds, they had no reply, and were dumb before Him. They had reasoned within themselves that, since the commandment of God forbade all work on the sabbath, Jesus, by healing the withered hand, would be working, and therefore breaking the sabbath. But the Lord's words put the matter on a different plane altogether. The question was not, as they supposed, one between activity and passivity; it was between doing good and doing harm, between saving a life and destroying a life by refraining from saving it. The law of God was given for the repression of evil, not for the repression of good. "There is none good save one, that is, God," and it is inconceivable that He, "the Goodness of goodness," would promulgate a law which would prevent the doing of good. Indeed to refrain from doing good when opportunity is offered is to display unlikeness to God. "Whoso has this world's good, and sees his brother have need, and shuts up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwells the love of God in him" (1 John 3:17)?

Now another matter concerning the sabbath brings out even more glaringly the bitter animosity of the Pharisees against Him. Though He had reminded them that the priests carried out their duties for the help of Israelites on the sabbath day, yet the Pharisees were adamant in their opposition to His healing on the sabbath. They raise the question as to whether it is lawful to heal on the sabbath days, since a man with a withered hand is present. But their object is to accuse Him. He answers by referring to their own practice. For them to rescue a sheep out of a pit was certainly harder physical work then for Him to heal, yet they would do this on a sabbath day. If a sheep should be shown such consideration, how much more so should a man, who is of far more value! He finalizes this with the emphatic announcement, "it is lawful to do well on the sabbath days." What honest man could dare to object to this?

A man is present with a withered hand. They desire now to find some new ground of accusation again Him. Their first attempt had failed. He had read their evil thoughts, and by His answer He had shown that He anticipated the question they now put to Him, "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?" Awful motive, which stands alongside of the question, showing the depths of Satan "that they might accuse Him." The question also discloses the fact that they believed in His healing power. We may well imagine the scene in that synagogue. The Lord in His divine calmness, the unfortunate man with the withered hand, the malicious, accusing Pharisees with their Satanic desire. And now the stillness broken by His voice, "What man shall there be of you who has one sheep, and if this fall into a pit on the Sabbath, will not lay hold of it and raise it up?" There was no answer; of course none could stand up and declare he would not deliver his one sheep out of the pit. "How much better then is a man than a sheep! So that it is lawful to do well on the Sabbath." What a divine logic! How unanswerable this statement!

We have seen that the sabbath was made for the purpose of ministering to the needs of men. Now the Lord in the synagogue encountered a man who was in manifestly serious need. But his need meant nothing to the Pharisees compared to their zeal for the sabbath day. Knowing His compassion, they suspect that He will heal the man in spite of their opposition. He does not tell the man to meet Him elsewhere out of sight of the Pharisees, but makes a decided issue of the matter. For they were contesting God's right to show mercy. Having the man stand forth, He asked them a simple question that was fully to the point. Did the law allow one to do good on the sabbath days or to do evil? -- to save life or to kill? So far as they were concerned, they would rather see one die on the sabbath than to see him healed. They would not answer, for they knew that an answer either way would incriminate them, unless they gave up their foolish prejudice.

The Lord even challenges them publicly, and says, "I will ask you if it is† lawful on the sabbath‡ to do good or to do evil? to save life, or to destroy [it]?" They were doing evil; it was His to do good. They were seeking to destroy His life; He was willing to save theirs. "And having looked around on them all, he said to him,§ Stretch out thy hand." It was enough: the man did so, "and his hand was restored as the other."|| How simple, and yet how truly Divine! Was this, then, a work done? Was the Son's healing what God had forbidden? Was this unworthy of God? Was it not, on the contrary, the very expression of what God is? Is not God always doing good? Does He forbear to do good on the Sabbath day? Was not the very Sabbath itself a witness how God loved to do good, and a pledge that He will bring His people into His own rest? Was not Jesus doing so to this sufferer, and giving a witness of the gracious power that will do so fully by and by? "I will ask": so AD, later uncials, most cursives, Syrr., Arm., Aeth.; but Edd. adopt "I ask," from ℵBL, Amiat., Memph. †"If it is": so Edd., after ℵBDL, Syrr., Amiat., Memph. A and many cursives, "what is." ‡"Sabbath": so ℵBDL; for "sabbaths" (T.R.). §"Him": so Edd., following ABEΔ, etc., Syrr. "The man" is found in ℵDL, 1, 33, 69, Amiat., Memph. ||"As the other": so AD, etc., 1, 69, Syrr. After "restored" some later uncials with 69 insert "whole," which Edd. reject, after ℵABDKL, many cursives (1, 33), Old Lat., Vulg., Syrr. Memph. (from Matthew), whilst ℵBL and some cursives (33) leave out also "as the other" (so Edd.).

The Lord had the man stand forth in the midst. He then asked the penetrating question as to what is lawful on the Sabbath days, to do good or to do evil, to save life or to destroy it (v.9). How perfectly He brings things into their proper perspective by His simple words! The Pharisees could make no reply, for there was no way out for them except to acknowledge His perfect right to heal on the Sabbath day. He looked at all of them in turn, certainly inviting an honest response. How could any of the objectors meet that gentle, steady gaze? He told the man to stretch forth his hand, which he did, and the hand was immediately restored In the case of the paralyzed man of Chapter 5:18, he was totally helpless, a picture of one lost and in his sins. The man with the withered hand is typical rather of a believer who needs restoration from a state in which he has lost ability for positive works of good. The left hand speaks of works from a negative viewpoint, that is, a believer might desist from evil works and yet be badly impaired as to positive good works (of which the right hand speaks). He needs the grace of the Lord Jesus for restoration.

(Vv. 23-29). In the incident that took place on the Sabbath, we see a further intimation that the whole system, represented by the Sabbath, was about to be set aside. In raising the question of the Sabbath, the Pharisees profess great zeal for the outward observance of a day, while wholly indifferent to the fact that the Lord of the Sabbath, and His disciples were left to hunger. They assumed to be glorifying God at the very moment when they were rejecting His witness. The Lord exposes their unreality by recalling the history of David and his companions, who in the day of their rejection were left to hunger. In these circumstances, when God's anointed was rejected, and hunted, and hungered, the shewbread ceases to have its value in His sight, and therefore no sin was committed though David and his companions acted contrary to the letter of the law in eating of the shewbread. So with the Sabbath: it was for the blessing of men, and not for increasing the sufferings of hungry men. Moreover, "The Son of Man is Lord also of the sabbath," and therefore above the Sabbath that He instituted.

FROM THE HEIGHTS reached in the last chapter, we descend into the depths of human folly and blindness as displayed by the Pharisees. In this chapter we see Him very definitely rejected by the leaders of the Jews, and not merely by the cities of Galilee. In the first two instances the contention raged round the sabbath. The Lord defended the action of His disciples on at least four grounds (ver. 3-8).

When David, God's anointed king, was in rejection, his needs took precedence over a matter of tabernacle order, and his followers were associated with him in this. David's greater Son was now refused, so should not the needs of His disciples be met, even if it infringed their sabbath regulations? But, second, the temple had taken precedence over the sabbath, for the priests had always worked on the sabbaths; and Jesus claimed to be greater than the temple. God was indeed in Christ in infinitely fuller measure than He ever had been in the temple. Third, there was that word about mercy in Hosea 6, to which previously He had referred; that applied in this case. And, fourth, Jesus claimed that as Son of Man He was Lord of the sabbath: in other words, the sabbath had no binding power over Him. He was its Master, and He could dispose of it as He saw fit.

298 Let us now see what the New Testament directly affords us on the sabbath. Is any hint as to its sacredness to be found? Matthew 12:1 is evidently of great consequence here. The Pharisees complained of the disciples' plucking and rubbing the ears of corn. The Lord's answer is remarkable. It is not to rebuke the Pharisees as He does elsewhere, but to shew that the sabbath and other ceremonial enactments have been set aside for sufficient cause, and that a greater than any obligation of the sabbath was there. Could God say, I am greater than a moral commandment? Would that be a divine way of putting things if it were a question of hating a brother or coveting another man's wife? Such a thought would revolt at once. But that is the Lord's reasoning as to the sabbath. First a rejected Messiah made all common, for another obligatory commandment, the sabbath, gave way under God's own eye. Christ was greater than the temple; and if they knew God's heart, they would not have condemned His disciples. All this proved the Pharisees wrong and unjustifiable. But, besides, the Son of man was Lord of the sabbath. Surely this could not be said of a commandment as to right and wrong! He had a title to dispose of the sabbath, through the dignity of His person and office. Could all this have been said if the Lord were insisting on the maintenance of its authority? He adds that it is lawful to do well on the sabbath. The parallel passage in Mark adds, The sabbath was made for man.

Matthew's gospel gives us dispensational changes, and, on that ground, Christ's person as divine; and the place He took as Son of man laid the ground for dealing with the sabbath as Lord of it. Here Christ is the servant-prophet, and we have another ground laid: the sabbath was made for man. It was in favour of — for — man; and hence He who ordered all for man, as the head of the race according to God, was Lord of it. It was a benefit conferred on man for his advantage, and the Son of man was the competent disposer in the matter. Could this be said of a divinely binding law?

In Mark 3:2; Luke 6:7; 14:1-5; 16:10-16, all are cases where He purposely heals so as to draw attention to it on the sabbath-day, diligently offending their prejudices (to say the least) making their zeal as to it a proof of hypocrisy, without a word to save any legal force. Is not this singular that the Holy Ghost only signalizes His casting a slur on their rigid observance of it? Can any one find any other testimony as to the sabbath in the New Testament? In the Old I find on every occasion a special insisting on it, as we have seen. In the New only statements which declare His title over it, or upset legal exactness as to it.

The sabbath did begin in Paradise: "And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it; because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made." Into this rest man never entered, as Hebrews 4 assures us. That it was a law imposed upon man departed from God has no sort of scripture proof; and I flatly deny it. To make one totally departed from God an obliged partaker in God's rest, nothing but unintelligent legalism could have thought of. But I believe, from the Lord's own statement, that "the sabbath was made for man;" that its observation would have been a temporal blessing to man condemned to labour, and a continual remembrancer, in the scene into which sin had brought him, that his hopes and blessings were elsewhere. That men forget all this we know too well. But the moment that God brought man, in a covenant way, into relation to Himself by redemption, He made the sabbath a sign of the covenant. God's rest belongs to God's people. As the form of that covenant was legal, it was given in a legal way. And it is remarkable that in every particular institution, on which in any respect the relationship of God with Israel was based under the old covenant, the sabbath enters for part; and the prophets allude to this as a sign of the covenant. Outside this we only get traces of it in hebdomadal [weekly] divisions of time, as in the cases of Noah and Jacob.

87 But that old covenant, in which the sabbath was made legally obligatory, was to be done away, and the time of Messiah, the true rest of His creation, was to come in. We have here, therefore, to consider how the Lord Jesus deals with the sabbath. We have already seen that He does not introduce it in His spiritual summary of practice in the Sermon on the Mount. Nor can the smallest instance be found in which He sets up or insists upon its authority. But when He goes out of Judaism and reveals Himself as Son of man, He declares that He is Lord of it. Speaking in His divine character, when charged with the breach of it, His language is still more striking — "My Father worketh hitherto, and I work." Grace might labour in a world of sin; but neither the holiness nor the love of the Father and Son could find their rest in a world of sin and misery. No one can find in the writings of the New Testament a word that insists upon the moral obligation of the sabbath. When the question arose between Jew and Gentile Christians as to what was to be maintained as obligatory, the sabbath was not one of the things insisted upon. Have we then lost the rest of God? or even every trace of it here below? God forbid! And I have no doubt that the last words, "The sabbath was made for man," remain in practice a true blessing now for man; but when we come to spiritual hopes of that rest, it is a different matter. The rest of God in the first creation is over, because sin has entered. It will, I doubt not, have its sabbath; but that will be in the millennium, in a new order of things. It is not a seventh day, but the seventh day — God's rest after finishing His work.