The Sabbath Archives » Page 10 of 10 » From Daniel to Revelation

2016-08-132022-08-05

The religious leaders wanted Jesus to heal on the Sabbath

EXTRACT: The rulers of the chosen nation actually wanted Jesus to heal on the Sabbath so that, on the basis that the Old Testament prescribed the death penalty for working on the Sabbath, they could justify His execution. Are we the same? Will it happen again?

Matthew 12:9-14 and Mark 3:1-6

Summary

Israel had no king or civil rulers at the time. It was governed by religious leaders, but they only wore a religious cloak. They were not acquainted with God. Jesus’ healing miracles were clearly visible, but it only annoyed them, and even more astounding, made them want to kill Him.

The Old Testament is silent on healing on the Sabbath, but healing was a contravention of the Jewish traditions. These traditions were many times more detailed and complex than the Law of Moses and were regarded by the Jews as equally important to the Law of Moses. It applied the Sabbath extremely strictly. It disallowed anything that even remotely looked like work.

For the religious rulers their religious rules, including the Sabbath, were tools whereby they controlled the masses. But when Christ challenged their traditions, He challenged their authority. In order to maintain power, they were intent on killing Him. They actually wanted Jesus to heal on the Sabbath so that, on the basis that the Old Testament prescribed the death penalty for working on the Sabbath, they could justify His murder.

When accused of breaking the Sabbath, Jesus never disputed the binding nature of the Sabbath, but rather debated with the Pharisees what is allowed on the Sabbath. This means that He accepted the Sabbath commandment as binding.

But He changed the nature of the seventh day. The Law of Moses requires the seventh day simply as a day of rest, prohibiting all work; passively allowing rest to servants and animals. By allowing work on the Sabbath, on the condition that that work is to supply the needs of those in distress, Jesus put a very different perspective on the seventh day, converting it to a day of activity.

The religious leaders were seeking evidence against Jesus.

One Sabbath He entered into a synagogue. Among the people in the synagogue, there was this man with his withered hand. The religious leaders were watching Jesus. They knew about His earlier Sabbath healing miracles and expected Him to also in this case to heal on the Sabbath. But rather than be amazed by His miracles, they saw this as an opportunity to obtain evidence against Jesus:

“They were watching Him to see if He would heal him on the Sabbath, so that they might accuse Him”. (Mark 3:1)

They were intent on killing Him. They did not wait for Jesus to act, but initiated the confrontation by asking Jesus:

“Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?” (Matt 12:10 and Mark 3:1)

They did not ask this because of concern for the sick man, or because they desired to understand. They were convinced that they knew the answer to their own question but put this question to Christ to trick Him into healing on the Sabbath so that they might condemn Him on the basis of their laws.

To heal on the Sabbath was prohibited by the traditions

The Old Testament is silent on healing on the Sabbath, but this incident shows that the Jews were confident that to heal on the Sabbath—even miracle healing—was a contravention of the Sabbath. Since there is nothing about this in the Law of Moses, this prohibition must have been in their traditions. To understand this incident it is very important to understand the role of the traditions in Jewish society. The traditions were many times more detailed and complex than the Law of Moses and were regarded by the Jews as equally important to the Law of Moses. It was so detailed and complex that, to know it, required a lifetime of study. It had more than 1000 rules with respect to the Sabbath, applying the Sabbath rest extremely strictly. It disallowed anything that even remotely looked like work. On the Sabbath sick people were left to fend for themselves; they could only expect help after the end of the Sabbath after the sun went down.

This incident contains an important message.

Christ knew the traditions well, and He knew that He would be regarded as a transgressor if He would heal on the Sabbath, but He did not back off. He invites the man forward. He said to the man with the withered hand:

“Get up and come forward!” (Mark 3:3)

Even though He knew that they were seeking justification to kill Him, He deliberately and publicly contravened the traditions by healing this man. Being the image of the Father (John 14:7), we know that Christ never acted stubbornly. Everything He did and said was important, according to the infinite wisdom of the Father. To heal on the Sabbath, therefore, said something important about the Sabbath. Our question now is what His message was.

He desired to teach the Jews.

Jesus desired to break through the dull spiritual understanding of the religious leaders so that they would appreciate the absurdity of the situation, namely that, on the Sabbath, they were planning to kill (Him), while He was saving lives and bringing happiness to multitudes through God’s supernatural working. He, therefore, answered their question with another question:

“Is it lawful to do good or to do harm on the Sabbath, to save a life or to kill?” (Mark 3:4)

He accepted the Sabbath as binding.

Notice that He did not dispute the binding nature of the Sabbath. By debating with the Pharisees what is allowed on the Sabbath, Christ confirmed that certain things are not allowed on the Sabbath. He thus accepted the Sabbath commandment as a binding obligation. There is no indication in His teaching that the Sabbath law is no longer relevant or that it ever will become irrelevant.

But they kept silent (Mark 3:4). They refused to admit that they were wrong. The opportunity they had to reflect and realize their mistake has passed. By adding refusal to admit their error to their intention to kill Christ they became even more confirmed in their opposition to God.

Not emergency healing only

Jesus then answered His own question:

“What man is there among you who has a sheep, and if it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will he not take hold of it and lift it out? How much more valuable then is a man than a sheep! So then, it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.”

We should not conclude, on the basis of this example, that Christ here authorizes healing in emergencies only, because He used this example to justify the healing of a man’s withered hand, which was not an emergency. Not one of Christ’s seven Sabbath healing miracles was an emergency. The point of this example is rather that, since a man worth much more than a sheep, and since we all, even on the Sabbath, help a sheep that is in trouble, how much more should we not help a man that is in trouble, even on the Sabbath?

Jesus changed the nature of the seventh day.

The question that hovers over the entire incident is: what is lawful on the Sabbath?:

This is the question put by the experts of the law to Jesus (Matt 12:10) when they tried to get Him to heal on the Sabbath so that they can accuse Him of sin.

This is the question with which Christ responded in an effort to soften their consciences (Mark 3:4).

This is also Christ’s concluding words after the Pharisees confirmed their aggression to Jesus through their silence: “it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath”.

This is a key concept in the current study. “To do” is to work. What Christ said is that work is allowed on the Sabbath, if that work provides relief to people and animals in distress. “To do good” includes healing. The Sabbath is the time to express kindness and mercy toward others through kind deeds. Jesus thereby changed the nature of the seventh day:

The Law of Moses, including the Ten Commandments, requires the seventh day simply as a Sabbath, which means a day of rest. It prohibited any work. It was “a sabbath of complete rest … You shall not do any work” (Lev 23:3)

By allowing work on the Sabbath, if that work is “to do good”, Jesus put a very different perspective on the seventh day. While the Sabbath commandment focused on what must not be done on the Sabbath (work), Christ focused on what may and even must be done on the Sabbath, converting it from a day of idleness to a day of activity.

For this view of the seventh day, Christ seems to go beyond the time of Moses to the origin, namely the creation account, which states that the seventh day was blessed (Gen 2:3), which implies it is intended to be a blessing to mankind.

It also seems as if He used the fact that the Sabbath was a memorial of the divine redemption from the bondage of Egypt (Deut 5:15) to convert the day:

From passively allowing rest to servants and animals;

To actively performing deeds of compassion to people and animals;

In His view, on the seventh day, animals should not only be lead to water but should also be allowed other joys that are not available on other days. Any work that is required to achieve this, for instance taking animals somewhere and bringing them back, is allowed.

The point is that Christ attached a meaning to the seventh day that is not immediately evident from the Ten Commandments or the Law of Moses. We, like the Pharisees, would not have arrived at His view by simply studying the Law of Moses.

Israel’s rulers wore a religious cloak.

“After looking around at them with anger, grieved at their hardness of heart, He said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” And he stretched it out, and his hand was restored.” (Mark 3:5)

Christ was “grieved at their hardness of heart” (Mark 3:5) because He loved His people and earnestly desired that they would accept His message.

“The Pharisees went out and immediately began conspiring with the Herodians against Him, as to how they might destroy Him” (Mark 3:6).

It is with surprise that we read that the Jewish leaders were not impressed by Jesus’ healing miracles. Right in front of their eyes the man with the withered hand, whom they knew well, was healed. In another incident, the synagogue official was annoyed when he saw that Jesus made the woman erect (Luke 13:10-17). He should have been amazed. It was not like claiming to heal for some invisible illness, such as AIDS, where one can see no immediate change. The people knew this woman and this man and their physical problems. Their healings were clearly visible. If they were God’s children, the religious leaders would have appreciated the infinite invisible Power faintly reflected in physical healings. They would have fallen on their knees and begged for mercy. But this healing miracle only annoyed the synagogue official. Even more astounding, “the Pharisees went out and immediately began conspiring with the Herodians against Him, as to how they might destroy Him”.

To understand this we need to remember that Israel had no king or civil rulers at the time. It was governed by its religious leaders, and as in all human government systems, it is the people with dominating personalities that become the leaders; not the meek and humble children of God. Effectively, Israel’s rulers wore a religious cloak. They were not acquainted with God, and to them, His voice through Christ was the voice of a stranger.

Religion for them was a method of maintaining their power over the people. The Sabbath was for the Jewish leaders a tool whereby they controlled the people.

The man with the withered hand did not ask to be healed and he did not have to prove his faith before he was healed. Jesus simply used him to divinely condemn the Pharisees and their traditions. But when Christ challenged their religious system, He challenged their authority. The Pharisees were not angry because Christ did heal on the Sabbath. They were angry because Christ was a threat to their authority. Jesus came by the authority of God, bearing His image, fulfilling His word, and seeking His glory; yet He was not accepted by the leaders in Israel because His teaching demanded the sacrifice of self, while the Jews “receive glory from one another and … not seek the glory that is from the one and only God” (John 5:44). Christ was a threat to their power. He gained an influence with the people because they could understand His words and because their hearts were warmed and comforted. He spoke of God, not as an avenging judge, but as a tender Father. He revealed the image of God as mirrored in Himself.

In order to maintain their own power, these leaders determined to break down Jesus’ influence. They actually wanted Him to heal of the Sabbath. They asked Him whether it is lawful to heal on the Sabbath (Matt 12:10) to trick Him into committing the “sin” of healing on the Sabbath, so that, on the basis that the Old Testament prescribed the death penalty for working on the Sabbath, and on the basis of their traditions, they could justify His murder.

The Sabbath is a day for good deeds.

The Sabbath is not intended to be a period of useless inactivity. The necessities of life must be attended to and the sick must be cared for. It is a day for planned good deeds to supply in the wants of the needy. We are guilty if we neglect to relieve suffering, especially on the Sabbath. God’s holy rest day was made for man, and acts of mercy, including healing, are in perfect harmony with its intent.

ARTICLES IN THE SERIES ON THE SABBATH

Does Romans 14:5-6 say that the weekly Sabbath is optional?

Excerpt: Romans 14:5 indicates that each person must decide for himself whether to regard one day above another. This is often interpreted as that the Sabbath is optional. But verse 5 must be read within its context, and the context is a dispute in the church about eating meat. In this context, the days in verse 5 probably were days on which some Christians thought one should abstain from eating meat. Then verse 5 does not mean that the Sabbath is optional.

The first four verses of Romans 14 read that we are allowed to eat all things, but some Christians in Rome, being weak in the faith, believed that Christians should eat vegetables only. Paul instructs mature Christians not to judge such a person. Then verses 5 and 6 continue:

Romans 14:5 One person regards one day above another,
another regards every day alike.
Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind.
14:6 He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord,
and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God;
and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God.

PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS

Romans 14:5 and 6 do not use the word “meat”, but the context of the previous verses implies that verse 6 refers to eating meat.

In the first four verses the focus is on eating meat. Verse 5 shifts the focus to days, but verse 6 shifts the focus back to eating meat. The statements about days are therefore surrounded by arguments about eating meat.

Verse 6 implies three categories of people:

1. He who observes the day.
2. He who eats.
3. He who eats not.

The KJV adds one more people category, between the first and second, namely “He that regardeth not the day”. However, the Pulpit Commentary says of this phrase, ‘omit, as ill-supported, as well as unnecessary’.

The word “alike” in Romans 14:5 has been added by the translators. In the view of some interpreters, this word distorts the meaning of the passage, but that word seems to be implied by the alternative, which is to regard “one day above another”.

According to verse 5, it is equally acceptable to regard “one day above another” and to regard “every day alike”.

THE SABBATH IS HUGE.

Many interpreters believe that Paul includes the weekly Sabbath in the “day” in these verses. From that, they conclude that Sabbath observance is optional. The main purpose of this article is to address this matter.

The Sabbath is huge in the Old Testament. The seventh day was sanctified and blessed at creation and included in the Ten Commandments, together with nine other eternal principles, as a Sabbath (day of rest). The Sabbath was the sign of the covenant Sabbath-breaking was the sign of Israel’s unfaithfulness, leading to their captivity into Babylon. (See Sabbath in the Law of Moses.)

The Sabbath is huge in the gospels. Christ deliberately sought confrontation with the Jews by healing on the Sabbath. His Sabbath-breaking, as viewed by the Pharisees, was one of the main reasons for His crucifixion: “For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God” (John 5:18, see also 9:16). (See Deliberately breaking the Sabbath.)

The Sabbath was huge in the first years of the church, when the church still existed as a Jewish sect and complied with all Jewish laws, including the Sabbath (See Jerusalem Phase of the Early Church).

The Sabbath controversy is still huge today. The older protestant (reformed) churches adhere to the Sabbath commandment, but now on the first day of the week (Sunday). But the newer churches view the Sabbath as a ceremonial commandment that has passed away at the Cross.

In contrast, the Sabbath is a non-issue in the New Testament letters. Paul mentioned the Sabbath explicitly only once in his letters, and that in a technical term that refers to the entire system of Jewish holy days. (See Feasts … New Moons … Sabbaths.) There are only three of perhaps four texts in Paul’s writings that might be relevant to the Sabbath. This means that the Sabbath, by itself, was not a matter of controversy in the first century. Either everybody kept the Sabbath, or nobody kept the Sabbath.

Romans 14:5 is one of the few statements by Paul that possibly are relevant to the Sabbath. It is therefore very important to understand what this verse says about the Sabbath.

ROMANS DOES NOT SAY THAT THE SABBATH IS OPTIONAL.

For the reasons below it is proposed here that Romans 14:5 does not say that the Sabbath is optional:

First, if Romans 14:5 applies to the Sabbath, then Paul contradicted himself.

In Galatians, Paul rebukes Christians for observing “days” (Gal. 4:10), but here in Romans, he allows each person to decide for himself whether to regard one day above another. In Galatians, some Christians were compelling other Christians to comply with the Law of Moses (Gal. 6:12; 2:14). It is therefore quite possible that the “days and months and seasons and years” in Galatians 4:10 are the Old Testament feasts and special days. The “days” therefore might include the Sabbath. If the days in Romans 14:5 also include the Sabbath, then it would be rather inconsistent of Paul to reprimand the Galatians for doing the same thing that he allows the Romans to decide about each man for himself.

Second, Romans 14 is devoid of Jewish elements.
Therefore it does not deal with the Old Testament Laws.

Nothing is mentioned in Romans 14 that is specifically Jewish.

As shown in a separate article, even the word unclean in verse 14 does not refer to the Old Testament unclean meats.

The main controversy in the chapter is abstinence from meat and wine (14:2, 21). This is not a controversy over the Law of Moses. The Old Testament permits the eating of meat. Leviticus 11 explains the difference between clean and unclean animals. It explains what meat is allowed as food. It does not prohibit the eating of meat. Neither does the Old Testament forbid the drinking of wine. Consequently, the strong man who “has faith that he may eat all things” (Rom 14:2) is not asserting his freedom from the Law of Moses.

If Romans 14 is devoid of Jewish elements, then the days in verse 5 do not relate to the Jewish Laws either.

Third, these were matters of opinion.

The chapter commences with the instruction, “accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions” (14:1). The current verse indicates that “each person must be fully convinced in his own mind“. Later in the chapter, we read that “to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean” (14:14) and “the faith which you have, have as your own conviction” (14:22). These are confirmations that, what is discussed in this chapter, are matters about which the Bible does not give clear guidance. Therefore the Sabbath could not have been part of the controversy.

Fourth, Paul would not have said each person must decide for himself with respect to something so huge as the Sabbath.

Above it was mentioned how huge the Sabbath was in the Old Testament, in the gospels and in the Early Church. It is not likely that Paul would leave something, as huge as the Sabbath, as optional. It is simply unthinkable that Paul would have said that each person must decide for himself whether any of the Ten Commandments are still relevant.

In the Epistle to the Galatians, where Paul opposed the Christians who compelled other Christians to adhere to the law of Moses, Paul has nothing good to say about the law. But in the book which we are currently discussing (Romans) Paul says many positive things about the law. He describes God’s law as “holy, just and good” (7:12). He describes himself as “serving the law of God” (7:25). In the closing verses of Romans 13, he links the second table of the Ten Commandments to the great commandment to love one’s neighbor. He explicitly mentions four of the Ten Commandments, namely adultery, murder, stealing and coveting, and then adds, “and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, “YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF” (Rom. 13:8-10). After saying these wonderful things about the law, would he then ten verses later describe one of the Ten as optional?

The weekly Sabbath was extremely important to the Jews, and since the early church consisted only of Jews, continuing all Jewish practices, the church at first observed the Sabbath. (See Jerusalem Phase of the Early Church.) Paul also, during his life as an apostle of God, frequently met with the Jews on the Sabbath (Acts 17:2; 18:4). The Sabbath, therefore, was experienced as important in the early church. For these reasons, any change to the Sabbath would have caused serious controversy. If Paul in Romans 14:5 was advising the church to move away from the Sabbath, he would have said it loudly and clearly. He would not have interjection it as a side issue into a chapter that deals with a dispute over eating meat.

Since we must “abhor (hate) what is evil” (Romans 12:9), we should rather reverse the logic and argue, when Paul says “each person must be fully convinced in his own mind” with respect to days (Romans 14:5), that such days cannot include something as huge as the Sabbath.

Fifth. these were “days” on which the eating or non-eating of meat was regarded as important.

The entire Romans 14 is about Christians judging each other with respect to eating meat. The statements in verses 5 and 6 that deal with days are surrounded on all sides by arguments about judging one another for eating meat. Paul wrote extremely context-dependent. If we read one of his sentences out of context, we are in trouble. To properly understand Paul, we must interpret every sentence in the context of the surrounding sentences. We must, therefore, understand the statements about days as part of the discussion of eating meat. It is therefore proposed that these were “days” that were regarded as special days as far as eating meat was concerned.

The two contrasts support this conclusion. In verse 2 Paul contrasts the person that eats meat with the one that “eats only vegetables”. Then, in verse 5, he contrasts the man that “esteems one day as better than another” with the man that “esteems all days alike”. In verse 6 he again contrasts the man that eats meat with the one that only eats vegetables. These contrasts, in close proximity, seem to be parallel. This supports the notion that these were days on which the eating or non-eating of meat was regarded as important.

In other words, these verses do not describe four, but only two people groups:

1. The “weak” don’t eat meat on certain days.
2. Mature Christians regard all days alike as far as eating meat is concerned.

As discussed in the article New converts from idolatry viewed meat sacrificed to idols as unholy, the meat-issue probably had something to do with meat offered to idols. Some Christians who previously were idol-worshipers believed that meat offered to idols is unholy (1 Cor. 8:7-9); not suitable for Christian consumption.

The days in Romans 14:5 might have included the Sabbath, but if they did, then they do not speak to whether the Sabbath must be observed, but to how the Sabbath must be observed. More specifically, these verses address the issue of eating meat on the Sabbath.

Lastly, if Romans 14:5 applies to the weekly day of worship, and every person therefore may decide for himself on which day to worship, then the church no longer has a weekly day of worship.

The Jews of the Old Testament and all Christians today have a weekly day of public worship. That seems to be good practice and consistent with the establishment of the seven-day cycle as part of the creation. Also, Paul himself “customarily” (Acts 17:2) met with “Jews and Greeks” on the Sabbath in the synagogue (Acts 18:4). This does not prove that Paul observed the Sabbath, but the point is that a weekly day of worship was integral to the environment in which Christians found themselves. Since regarding “one day above another” (14:5) is optional (14:6), it is fair to assume that it is the “weak” that still clung to special days. The “strong” (15:1) ”regards every day alike“. If this applies to the weekly day of worship, then the church no longer has a joint weekly day of worship. Would that be Paul’s intention, seeing what confusion it would cause?

CONCLUSION

Just like verse 1 will be misunderstood unless it is read in the context of a dispute about eating meat, verse 5 will also be misunderstood unless it is read in the same context. The days in 14:5 cannot be separated from eating meat.

ARTICLES IN THIS SERIES

- - Romans 1: God will not override human freedom.
  - Romans 2: The doers of the Law will be justified.
  - Romans 3:1-8: Did God reject Israel?

ROMANS 9 AND 11

- - Complete Article: Who Israel is in the Book of Revelation?
  - All Israel will be saved: Topical summary of the previous article
  - Election: God chose Israel to save the nations of the world.

ROMANS 14

- - 1-4 – The dispute in Rome was not over the Law of Moses.
  - The meaning of the word “unclean” (koinos)
  - Why new Christians feared eating meat sacrificed to idols.
  - 5-6 – Is the Sabbath is optional?
  - 7-13 – God will judge all people by their deeds.
  - 13-23 – Rather abstain from meat than causing a brother to stumble.

For a more complete description of these articles, see the List of available articles on Romans. For general discussions of theology, I recommend Graham Maxwell, who you will find on the Pineknoll website.