10. Lord of the Sabbath

Books, Dale Ratzlaff, Feature, Sabbath In Christ, The Sabbath

In this chapter we will examine two occurrences in the ministry of Jesus where He clearly exerts His authority over old covenant Sabbath law.

Authority over the Demonized

(Mark 1:21−34; Luke 4:31−44)

These passages describe three Sabbath events: (1) a Sabbath morning synagogue encounter with a demonized man, (2) the Sabbath afternoon healing of Simon’s mother-in-law, and (3) the “after sundown” ministry to the multitudes.

And they [Jesus and some of His disciples] went into Capernaum; and immediately on the Sabbath He entered the synagogue and began to teach. And they were amazed at His teaching; for He was teaching them as one having authority, and not as the scribes. And just then there was in their synagogue a man with an unclean spirit; and he cried out, saying, “What do we have to do with You, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who You are—the Holy One of God!” And Jesus rebuked him, saying, “Be quiet, and come out of him!” And throwing him into convulsions, the unclean spirit cried out with a loud voice, and came out of him. And they were all amazed, so that they debated among themselves, saying, “What is this? A new teaching with authority! He commands even the unclean spirits, and they obey Him.” And immediately the news about Him went out everywhere into all the surrounding district of Galilee (Mk. 1:21−28).

While this portion of Scripture speaks of Jesus’ teaching method, nothing is said about the content of His teaching. The people were amazed at His teaching authority—“He was teaching them as one having authority” (v. 22)—and His authority over the forces of evil—“He commands even the unclean spirits, and they obey Him” (v. 27). However we have no record of what He taught; only what He did.

Note that the unclean spirit recognized Jesus. The spirit knew Jesus was from Nazareth and that He was “The Holy One of God.” It can be inferred that the unclean spirit knew what the outcome was to be. “Have you come to destroy us?” Jesus’ answer in essence was, “Yes!” Jesus demonstrated the “gospel of the kingdom—the rule and reign of God over the forces of evil.1

One of the purposes of the Sabbath, perhaps the main purpose, was that it was a sign of redemption—deliverance from bondage. The Jubilee was to be a day of freeing the captives. How appropriate that Jesus takes these sabbatical concepts and on the Sabbath frees the captive of Satan, delivering this person from the bondage of enemy enslavement.

After the synagogue meeting Jesus and the disciples go to the home of Simon and Andrew.

And immediately after they had come out of the synagogue, they came into the house of Simon and Andrew, with James and John. Now Simon’s mother-in-law was lying sick with a fever; and immediately they spoke to Him about her. And He came to her and raised her up, taking her by the hand, and the fever left her, and she began to wait on them (Mk. 1:29−31).

Again, nothing is expressly taught about the Sabbath in this incident but much can be learned from observing Christ’s activities. The disciples, who had recently been called by Jesus, seemed to understand that His ministry was a healing ministry, for they immediately told Him about the sickness of Peter’s mother-in-law, indicating they expected Jesus to heal her. By healing her during the hours of the Sabbath Jesus made it clear He considered healing an acceptable, or even desirable, Sabbath activity even though this was not the accepted custom of the Jewish leaders. In Luke’s account Jesus “rebukes” the fever (Lk. 4:39) as if He were speaking to an intelligent entity. It can be inferred that the fever was probably caused by some malevolent spirit which Jesus rebuked.

This time in the cure there does seem to be in some sense a breach of the Sabbath prohibition [as understood by the Rabbis] on working. Touching by itself was not work, but touching to effect a cure may have been regarded as a breach of the law as E.P. Sanders claims.2

After this spirit left Peter’s mother-in-law she immediately began to serve them. Word of this healing must have spread immediately to the surrounding communities because a few hours later,

When evening had come, after the sun had set, they began bringing to Him all who were ill and those who were demon possessed. And the whole city had gathered at the door. And He healed many who were ill with various diseases, and cast out many demons; and He was not permitting the demons to speak, because they knew who He was (Mk. 1:32−34).

Scripture does not say why the people waited until after the Sabbath to bring their sick to Jesus. The fact that Jesus felt free to heal Simon’s mother-in-law on the Sabbath indicates that it was not so much His desire that the people wait until after sundown to come for healing as it was their own ideas regarding Sabbath observance.

Jesus was continually performing a liberating, freeing ministry, healing those sick with various diseases and casting out demons. Both Mark and Luke indicate Jesus continued this type of ministry on other Sabbaths.

And He went into their synagogues throughout all Galilee, preaching and casting out the demons (Mk. 1:39).

And He was teaching them on Sabbath days (Lk. 4:31).

Note how Jesus describes His liberating and healing activities in Luke 4:43,44.

But He said to them, “I must preach the kingdom of God to the other cities also, for I was sent for this purpose.” And He kept on preaching in the synagogues of Judea.

Jesus defines the “kingdom of God” as His liberating, jubilee ministry of healing the sick and casting out demons, a ministry that demonstrated His authority or kingdom rule over the forces of evil.

Summary of Mark 1:21−34 and Luke 4:31−44

In summary, nothing in this incident is expressly taught regarding the Sabbath. However, from the activity of Jesus we learn the following:

  1. Jesus’ Sabbath teaching was with such authority it amazed His hearers.
  2. Jesus commanded an unclean spirit to come out of a demonized person on the Sabbath. It obeyed.
  3. Jesus felt free to heal (by taking Simon’s mother-in-law’s hand and rebuking the fever) on the Sabbath.
  4. This method of healing on the Sabbath was probably considered a violation of Sabbath law by the Jewish leaders.
  5. Simon’s mother-in-law, who had just been healed, waited on them while it was Sabbath.
  6. Just after sundown, which marked the end of the Sabbath, Jesus healed many people with various diseases and cast out many demons.
  7. Jesus continued His liberating ministry on other Sabbath days in the synagogues of Galilee and Judea.
  8. Jesus called His ministry of healing and of casting out demons “preaching the kingdom of God.”
  9. Jesus seems to be fulfilling one of the purposes of the Sabbath—a sign of deliverance from bondage.

Authority over Sabbath Law

(Mk. 2:23−28; Mt. 12:1−8; Lk. 6:1−5)

This is a very important Sabbath encounter, recorded by all the Synoptic Gospels. Matthew adds some additional details not in Mark and also has some contextual material that must be studied in connection with it. The thrust of this incident bears directly on the topic of Sabbath behavior; therefore we must give our most careful attention to this passage. We will first examine the reference from

Mark and then consider the additional material found in Matthew. Luke adds no additional insights.

The Mark account comes immediately after Jesus’ discussion about putting new wine into old wineskins. Most interpret this section to refer to the contrast between Judaism and Christianity or the old and new covenants. In essence, Jesus was saying by this illustration that the fullness of the new covenant gospel could not be put into the rigid forms of Judaism. The gospel of Christ must be placed in a new “wineskin”the church.

And it came about that He was passing through the grainfields on the Sabbath, and His disciples began to make their way along while picking the heads of grain. And the Pharisees were saying to Him, “See here, why are they doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?” And He said to them, “Have you never read what David did when he was in need and became hungry, he and his companions: How he entered into the house of God in the time of Abiathar the high priest, and ate the consecrated bread, which is not lawful for anyone to eat except the priests, and he gave it also to those who were with him?” And He was saying to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. Consequently, the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath” (Mk. 2:23−28).

Matthew’s account of this Sabbath occurrence follows immediately after Christ made this proclamation:

Come unto Me, all who are weary and heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you, and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart; and you shall find rest for your souls. For My yoke is easy, and My load is light (Mt. 11:28−30).

In the Matthew account we also find that Christ’s defense of His disciples’ activities has two additional arguments not listed in Mark.

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 compassion, and not sacrifice,” you would not have condemned the innocent (Mt. 12:5−7).

First, let us look carefully at what the disciples were doing and why the Pharisees considered them to be breaking the Sabbath. It is very easy for us to denounce the Pharisees for their narrow interpretation of Sabbath law. Yet to rightly understand this incident and what Jesus was really teaching we must see it from their perspective. In this case the Pharisees understood the Sabbath law to require “complete rest” (Ex. 31:15) and refraining from all work (Ex. 20:10). The Pharisees recognized that these laws applied even to plowing and harvest time (Ex. 34:21). They were familiar with the instruction which said that on the Sabbath they were “to remain every man in his place” (Ex. 16:29). Further, they knew the Scripture which taught that food was to be gathered and prepared on the day before the Sabbath so no gathering or cooking would interfere with the rest of the Sabbath day (Ex. 16:23−26).

Looking through the eyes of the Pharisees we can see why they considered Christ’s disciples to be breaking the Sabbath on at least three counts: (1) They were “harvesting and threshing” the grain in their hands, which was work and therefore a violation of the Sabbath. (2) They were not completely resting, which was required on the Sabbath. (3) They had failed to “remember the Sabbath” in that they apparently had not prepared their food the day before.

Whether or not the disciples actually broke the letter of the biblical Sabbath law is not the most important point. Rather, it is the way Jesus responded to the accusations as He took authority over Sabbath law and defended His disciples by giving four powerful arguments to show that His disciples did not come under condemnation for their questionable Sabbath activities. Consider each of the arguments Christ put forward to show why His disciples were free from condemnation.

Argument one is:

Have you never read what David did when he was in need and became hungry, he and his companions: how he entered into the house of God in the time of Abiathar the high priest, and ate the consecrated bread, which is not lawful for anyone to eat except the priests, and he gave it also to those were with him? (Mk. 2:25,26).

In 1 Samuel 21:1−6 we are told that David was fleeing from King Saul, who was seeking to kill him. He came to the priest and in answer to the priest’s question as to why David was alone he answered,

The king has commissioned me with a matter, and has said to me, “Let no one know anything about the matter on which I am sending you with which I have commissioned you and I have directed the young men to a certain place.”

This was a lie. Nevertheless the priest believed it and gave David “consecrated bread” which he later shared with his men. It is important to note that David was not reprimanded by God for the violation of this ritual law regarding eating the sacred bread, as he was when he violated a moral law by taking another man’s wife.3

There are two possible conclusions which may be drawn from this illustration, both of which are valid. First, human need takes precedence over ritual law. This is a pattern we discerned when we earlier studied Christ’s relationship with ritual law and we will see this pattern played out over and over again in a later chapter. Second, David was exempted from the law because of who he was: the anointed of God, the coming King of Israel. It was all right for his men to eat this bread because they were associated with the coming King of Israel, who was above the letter of ritual law by virtue of his kingly office.

Correspondingly, Jesus was arguing that His disciples were innocent, not so much because they were hungry, but because they were involved with Him in His work, which took precedence over ritual, Sabbath law. Jesus was the anointed of God, the coming King of Israel; therefore, they were free from condemnation by virtue of their association with Christ. This offers a preview of the coming redemption of the new covenant gospel: you are complete in Him.

The second argument Christ placed before the Pharisees to justify His disciples’ questionable Sabbath activity is this:

Or have you not read in the Law, that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple break the Sabbath, and are innocent? (Mt. 12:5).

The priests are instructed in the law to do certain things on the Sabbath which would fall into the category of work and would normally be considered Sabbath breaking. These activities were probably the making and deploying of fresh showbread (Lev. 24:5−9) and the sacrificing of certain Sabbath offerings (Num. 28:9,10). However, because these activities were commanded in the old covenant law, the priests were innocent. Most pastors can relate to this argument. The day of worship is often, if not always, the hardest and most tiring day of their week.

Now notice how Christ applies this argument to the situation at hand. “But I say to you, that something greater than the temple is here” (Mt. 12:6). Jesus used this phrase several other times in this chapter and it becomes evident what He means.

The men of Nineveh shall stand up with this generation at the judgment, and shall condemn it because they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and behold, something greater than Jonah is here (Mt. 12:41).

The Queen of the South shall stand up with this generation at the judgment, and shall condemn it; because she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and behold, something greater than Solomon is here (Mt. 12:42).

That “something greater” is Jesus Himself and the kingdom He brings. It was God’s presence which made the tabernacle service important enough to allow the priests to violate the letter of ritual Sabbath law and yet be innocent. The presence of Jesus tabernacling (Jn. 1:14) in the temple of His body (Mt. 26:61) took precedence over ritual Sabbath law. Therefore, just as the priests could violate the letter of Sabbath law to fulfill the more important services of the temple, so the disciples of Jesus could violate the letter of ritual Sabbath law because they were engaged in the more important service of One who is greater than the temple.

The third argument of Jesus is:

But if you had known what this means, “I desire compassion, and not a sacrifice,” you would not have condemned the innocent (Mt. 12:7).

This is a quotation from Hosea 6:6. It reads:

For I delight in loyalty rather than sacrifice, and in the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings.

This text cuts to the very heart and meaning of covenant law. It shows that God is more concerned with the attitude of the heart than He is with ritual, even ritual which pointed forward to Christ’s death on the cross. In this argument, Jesus proves the disciples are innocent because of their heart loyalty and close association to Him, even though they may have broken the letter of Sabbath law.

Here again is the irony of the old covenant Sabbath laws as observed by the Pharisees. On one hand the Pharisees, who were keeping the very letter of the Sabbath laws, had no compassion or loyalty to the God of the covenant. On the other hand the disciples, who appear to have broken the letter of the old covenant Sabbath law, were loyally following their Lord!

The fourth argument of Jesus is:

The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. Consequently, the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath (Mk. 2:27,28).

The meaning of this verse has been vigorously debated. Some have argued it teaches that the Sabbath was instituted at creation for all mankind.4 However, this interpretation runs completely contrary to the Jewish understanding that the Sabbath was given only to the nation of Israel.5 While we agree that there was a seventh-day rest in Eden, we will find that it was not identical to the Sabbath of Sinai.

Here Jesus is saying that the Sabbath was made for the benefit of man and not man for the benefit of the Sabbath. Because of this, Jesus, as the Son of Man, controls the Sabbath and is not to be controlled by it.6 The term, the Son of Man, which Jesus used in reference to Himself, comes from Daniel 7:13, where it is used in connection with the dawning of the eschatological (end time) reign of God. Thus, in defense of Jesus’ disciples’ questionable Sabbath activities, Jesus announces His own authority as the Son of Man who is bringing the eschatological reign of God.

The thrust of Jesus’ argument is not in defining appropriate Sabbath behavior or a correct interpretation of old covenant Sabbath law; rather it is in showing how old covenant law, including Sabbath law, points to Him. In this respect it seems obvious that the Sabbath is a ritual law. Even Jewish scholars recognize the Sabbath as a ritual and not moral law.7 Thus, like the other ritual laws, the importance of the shadow falls away in the presence of the reality of the Messiah.

In summary, we see that Jesus is taking authority over Sabbath law. His presence allows greater freedom regarding Sabbath observance just as the priests were not bound by all the Sabbath laws in their temple services where God was present. His office as the Anointed, coming King of Israel, gave Him and those associated with Him freedom to infringe upon ritual Sabbath law. As the Son of Man, who has the mission of bringing in the eschatological reign of God, He is above the control of ritual Sabbath law.

We can safely conclude even more than this. When we consider that in both Mark and Luke this incident immediately follows the discussion about putting new wine in new wineskins we get overtones of coming changes. Remembering also that in Matthew this incident (Mt. 12:1,2) is connected to the three verses of the preceding chapter (Mt. 11:28−30) by the use of the phrase “at this time” (Mt. 12:1), leads us to conclude that the Sabbath itself may be associated with the eschatological rest of God.

At the same time, there is evidence for the fact that the Sabbath itself is associated with the theme of restoration and the messianic age. Within such a framework the fact that Jesus is the Lord of the Sabbath becomes the more significant, for the very concept of Sabbath begins to undergo transformation. That Jesus Christ is Lord of the Sabbath is not only a messianic claim of grand proportions, but it raises the possibility of a future change or reinterpretation of the Sabbath, in precisely the same way that His professed superiority over the Temple raises certain possibilities about ritual law. No details of that nature are spelled out here, but the verse arouses expectations.8

The way this incident contextually unfolds leads us to conclude that Jesus is the reality prefigured in old covenant rituals. More than that, He is showing that a violation of ritual law which was designed to point to Him now has little significance.

Summary of the Sabbath in a Grainfield

  1. The disciples may have violated the letter of old covenant law.
  2. In proving His disciples “innocent,” Jesus presented four powerful arguments, all of which show His authority over Sabbath law.
    1. David and his men violated the letter of the law by eatingthe consecrated bread. It is implied that David was innocent because of who he was: the anointed of God, the coming King of Israel. It is implied that his men were innocent because they were with David. Correspondingly, Jesus, by virtue of His kingly office, is above the letter of the law, and His disciples are innocent because they are with the Anointed of God, the coming King of Israel.
    2. The priests are innocent of breaking the Sabbath because their Sabbath “work” was necessary to the temple service. But “Something” greater than the temple was there with the disciples in the grainfield that Sabbath day. That “Something” was none other than God, who was “tabernacling” in the flesh—the temple of His body. Correspondingly, the disciples are innocent because they are in the service of Jesus, Someone greater than the old temple.
    3. God desired real, heartfelt compassion and loyalty over the ritual of sacrifice. Thus, the disciples were innocent of their violation of ritual law, because by following Jesus they demonstrated their heartfelt compassion and loyalty to Him, which took precedence over the letter of the law.
    4. The Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath. Consequently the Son of Man is Lord (has authority) over the Sabbath.
  3. The thrust of Jesus’ argument is not so much in defining appropriate Sabbath conduct as in showing how old covenant law points to Him.
  4. When taken as a whole and considering the context, Jesus’ response to the Pharisees lays the groundwork for the possibility of future changes.
  5. Jesus did not seem concerned with minor violations of Sabbath law. This indicates that Jesus understood the Sabbath law to be ritual and not moral.

Endnotes

  1. See Verle Streifling, PhD, “The Roman Catholic Church and the Decalogue”, Proclamation, 2001, Vol. 2, Nos. 5&6. www.ProclamationMagazine.com where he gives evidence that the Ten Commandments as listed in Deuteronomy is the original version.
  2. Alan Watson, Jesus and the Law, p. 14.
  3. 2 Sam. 11,12.
  4. Desmond Ford, The Forgotten Day, (Desmond Ford Publications, Newcastle, CA 1981) p. 81.
  5. Harold H. P. Dressler, “The Sabbath in the Old Testament”, in From Sabbath to Lord’s Day, p. 34. C. Rowland, “A summary of Sabbath Observance in Judaism at the Beginning of the Christian Era”, in From Sabbath to Lord’s Day, p. 46. Max M. B. Turner, “The Sabbath, Sunday and the Law in Luke/Acts”, in From Sabbath to Lord’s Day, p. 128.
  6. D. A. Carson, “Jesus and the Sabbath in the Four Gospels”, in From Sabbath to Lord’s Day, p 65.
  7. Although the Sabbath’s importance is suggested by its being the only ritual law in the Ten Commandments, there is little specific Sabbath legislation in the Bible. Rabbi Joseph Telushkin, Biblical Literacy, p. 429.
  8. Ibid., p. 66.

 

Dale Ratzlaff
Latest posts by Dale Ratzlaff (see all)

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.