055. Chapter 34 - The Sabbath Controversy

Chapter 34 - The Sabbath Controversy Matthew 12:1-21;Mark 2:23-28;Mark 3:1-12;Luke 6:1-11 Human Need and Sabbath Regulations The controversy which had raged so fiercely in Jerusalem was carried back into Galilee when Jesus returned from the feast. Even before this encounter at the capital, the national leaders had become so nervous over the enormous popularity of Jesus in Galilee that they had sent skillful scholars to try to combat His movement (Luke 5:17). Now the discussion about Jesus’ refusal to keep the Sabbath regulations arose anew in Galilee. “Now it came to pass on a sabbath, that he was going through the grainfields; and his disciples plucked the ears, and did eat, rubbing them in their hands. But certain of the Pharisees said, Why do ye that which is not lawful to do on the sabbath day?” (Luke 6:1, Luke 6:2). This scene raises the interesting question as to why the disciples were hungry and how often in their ministry the pressure of their exciting and incessant labors prevented them from securing ordinary food. Did they often suffer such lack as they traveled in the desert or in hostile territory? They were seasoned campaigners by this time, accustomed to the hardships of labor and travel. Jesus later assured them that in their widespread ministry they would find everywhere someone who loved God and would be glad to care for His messengers and that in the exceptional cases where this would not be true, they could shake the dust off their feet and seek a place of labor and rest elsewhere (Matthew 10:11-15). This same program was doubtless followed by Jesus in His own ministry. This picture of Jesus’ disciples traveling along the highway reminds us of Gideon’s three hundred heroes securing what water they could to satisfy their need while they continued on the march. There is no suggestion in the Gospels that Jesus was trying to satisfy His hunger by thus plucking grain from the wayside fields. Was it still true as at Sychar that He had meat to eat that they knew not — that He was so engrossed in His tremendous labors that it left Him no inclination to eat even as it had left the disciples no opportunity? A little later we find the pressure of the eager, needy multitudes so great that there was neither time to eat nor sleep. In the last week at Jerusalem, Jesus, being hungry, sought food from a wayside fig tree. Inasmuch as this was early in the morning and the disciples are not described as hungry, here again we find anguish or labor preventing Jesus from securing the normal sustenance of the body. Jesus must have had a powerful body to withstand such a constant drain upon His physical resources. His disciples found themselves in a ministry which taxed their sturdy resistance to the utmost so that Jesus at a later time gently suggested: “Come ye yourselves apart into a desert place, and rest awhile” (Mark 6:31). And even on that occasion that search for relaxation found the excited multitudes pursuing them into the deserts. The Specific Charge As the disciples traveled the highway, they reached out to pluck the heads of the wheat which was now ripe. This furnishes a chronological touch which helps to show that this scene naturally follows the visit to the passover in John 5:1-47, for the grain usually ripens in April and May. There is no suggestion that the disciples were guilty of stealing in thus appropriating handfuls of grain to satisfy their hunger. The Pharisees, eager to make any possible attack upon Jesus, did not charge the disciples with stealing. A provision of the Old Testament law gave permission for the needy to take any grain they might reach from the highway, but they were not permitted to trespass upon the grainfield (Deuteronomy 23:25). The Pharisees did charge the disciples with breaking the Sabbath. Specifically they were held guilty of reaping, threshing, and winnowing as they plucked the grain, rubbed it out in their hands, and blew off the chaff.

Outline of Defense The defense of Jesus is based upon five arguments. (1) The conduct of David when he ate the shewbread to appease his hunger. (2) The conduct of the priests in carrying on laborious tasks of temple sacrifice on the Sabbath. (3) The principle enunciated by Hosea that God desires mercy above sacrifice. (4) The fundamental purpose of God in ordaining the Sabbath for man and not creating man for the Sabbath. (5) The crowning declaration that the Son of man is Lord of the Sabbath. Matthew gives all of these with the exception of (4). Mark omits (2) and (3). Luke gives only (1) and (4). Here is a good place to test the Two-source Theory. Let the modernists explain, if they can, why Matthew, if he copied from Mark, omitted argument (4); why Luke, if he copied from both, gave only two out of the five arguments. What reason can be assigned for such variation except that these are independent narratives and not concoctions copied from “sources”? The Case of David The first argument does not attempt to discuss the propriety of David’s course when, in his flight from Saul, he sought food for himself and his hungry men from the friendly high priest and when no other food was available ate the shewbread, which the law strictly forbade any but priests to eat. It is the “argumentum ad hominem” — the argument based upon that which the opponent accepts. The Jews did not criticize David for eating the shewbread under such trying circumstances; why criticize the disciples when they were but breaking the Pharisees’ interpretation of the Sabbath law? There is seemingly a scribal error in the record concerning this Old Testament incident. Mark says, “Abiathar was high priest,” whereas 1 Samuel 21:1-6 states that Ahimelech, the father of Abiathar, was high priest. But in 2 Samuel 8:17 and 1 Chronicles 18:16 the names are reversed. This shows some confusion in our present Old Testament text also, unless there are some details of names, relationship and office unknown to us. The Temple and the Sabbath The second argument shows that there were certain inevitable conflicts of duty arising from the law which God had left man to work out according to his own conscience. The law forbade any work on the Sabbath. The law commanded certain sacrifices to be offered in the temple. When these sacrifices came on the Sabbath, the priests gave precedence to the law for sacrifice in the temple rather than that providing rest on the Sabbath. Again, the argument is: they did not criticize the priests for thus breaking the Sabbath law; why criticize His disciples? This argument is sealed by a majestic declaration of His deity “One greater than the temple is here.” The Son of God had shown His authority over the temple in the presence of the assembled nation. If the priests in the temple were guiltless in their work of offering sacrifices on the Sabbath, how much more the disciples of the eternal High Priest whose ministry supersedes and ends the temple in Jerusalem? The third argument furnishes a quotation from Hosea: “I desire mercy and not sacrifice.” Notice the Hebraism — the limited negative — “I desire not only sacrifice but also mercy.” Jesus declares that His disciples are “guiltless” and that if the Pharisees had understood Hosea’s words they would not have criticized His disciples. This quotation very subtly joins together all the arguments of Jesus. “The greatest of these is mercy.” Mercy had led to saving the lives of David and his men even though they broke the regulation as to who should eat the shewbread. Mercy permeates the sacrifices offered in the temple. Mercy was the moving purpose of the ministry of Jesus which overshadowed the temple. The last argument is a clear declaration of the personal authority of Jesus over the Sabbath. The Son of man is Lord over both the temple and the Sabbath — the two great institutions of the Old Testament. The Principle Involved The application of the principle Jesus here enunciated, that works of necessity and of mercy limit the strict observance of the Sabbath, raises the question as to what are works of necessity and mercy. As we plan our routine physical labors and our spiritual ministry on the Lord’s day, where does the dividing line run between works of necessity and mere comfort or luxury? between mercy upon the suffering of men and indulgence for the whims of a pleasure-loving generation? The state of physical health and spiritual need will naturally cause variation in the answer which every Christian must settle with his own conscience. It should be noted that the whole tenor of the arguments of Jesus reflects back to real need for food on the part of the disciples as they plucked the grain, and not the mere satisfaction of a passing fancy. Moreover, their strength was completely devoted to the spiritual tasks confronting them. Their whole-hearted dedication of themselves to these tasks had reduced them to the necessity of securing the scanty food available as they traveled alongside grainfields. The Scene in the Synagogue The destination of the company on this Sabbath day was the synagogue and as soon as they arrived the controversy was resumed. Here again the principle of works of mercy being appropriate on the Sabbath was set forth by Jesus. The miracle which He worked in the synagogue served to set the seal of heaven on His whole position. For a man with a withered hand was present in the assembly. Whether he came by custom or eager desire to see Jesus, we do not know. The scribes and Pharisees were watching to see if Jesus would heal the man on the Sabbath and they may have brought it about that he was present in order to furnish a test case. Certainly the man did not reveal any alliance with the Pharisees, but responded immediately to the commands Jesus gave him. Matthew states that the Pharisees asked Jesus whether or not it was lawful to heal on the Sabbath; Mark and Luke state that Jesus asked them whether it was lawful to do good or to do harm on the Sabbath? to save a life or to kill? Luke also notes that Jesus read the thoughts of their hearts. Evidently, when Jesus in answer to their thoughts called the man forth, some of the Pharisees voiced their objection by a question and then Jesus replied with a question. The three writers do not contradict but supplement each other. Incidentally, they furnish here another hard knot for the Two-source Theory advocates to untangle. Matthew records the opening question of the Pharisees, but omits the command of Jesus to the man to stand forth. Mark and Luke omit the question and record the command. Luke, alone, emphasizes the sharp contrast between the underhand program of the Pharisees and the open methods of Jesus. They followed Him about, watching to entrap Him; but He read their unspoken thoughts and openly healed and taught. The man was asked to stand forth in order to test his faith and obedience. It also served to concentrate the attention of all on the critical issue. The man might have been healed later or in private, but Jesus not only healed him on the Sabbath but had him stand out where everybody might see the miracle. Thus His answer to the Pharisees was as direct and as impressive as possible. He had two objects: (1) to help the man; (2) to expose the false teaching of the Pharisees and to set forth the truth. Mercy upon lost men was the motive which led Him toward both objects. His pertinent illustration from everyday life showed that the Pharisees had more mercy for a dumb animal in its suffering on the Sabbath than for a man in need (Matthew 12:11, Matthew 12:12). The Discussion Closed The question which Jesus asked in closing the discussion was not at all parallel to their opening question. They had asked, “Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath?” Jesus asked, “Is it lawful to do good or to do harm? to save a life or to kill?” This gave a most embarrassing turn to the discussion. They were not able or willing to answer. Mark records how Jesus “looked round about on them with anger, being grieved at the hardening of their hearts.” What a look that must have been! Some interpret His question as meaning to save the man’s life by healing him or to kill him by refusing to heal him because it was the Sabbath. But this does not fit the use of the strong word “kill” (the man’s condition seems chronic rather than critical) nor the whole context which shows how desperately the Pharisees were plotting Jesus’ death. It rather means to save a life” (as I am doing to this man) or “to kill” (as you are plotting to do to me). This laid bare the hypocrisy of the Pharisees who objected to Jesus’ healing the crippled man on the Sabbath, but were themselves spending the day in plots to kill Jesus. They had daily grown more bitter in their hatred of Him and more desperate in their plots to kill Him because He was continually defeating them in argument, proving their teaching and customs false, uncovering their hypocrisy and wresting the leadership of the people from them. Jesus healed the man after He had again tested his faith by commanding him to stretch forth the withered hand. The Pharisees left the synagogue in search of the Herodians who were a powerful political party in Galilee devoted to the interests of the Herod family. They were naturally enemies of the Pharisees, but a common hatred of Jesus now caused them to join forces in their plots to kill Jesus. The Merciful Ministry of Jesus

Jesus withdrew from the center of population after these exciting encounters with the Pharisees. Luke declares that “He went out into the mountain to pray and he continued all night in prayer to God.” Both Mark and Luke state that the choice of the twelve apostles followed immediately. Matthew and especially Mark describe the crowds that followed Jesus and pressed upon Him seeking to be healed and to be taught. Matthew quotes a beautiful passage from Isaiah in which the prophet had predicted the humble, patient ministry of the Messiah. He is pictured as declaring “judgment to the Gentiles” and we read that now among the teeming multitudes from all over Judaea, great crowds were coming to Him even from the Gentile country of Tyre and Sidon (Mark 3:8). Isaiah declares, “He shall not strive nor cry aloud; neither shall any one hear his voice in the streets. Jesus had just retreated before His enemies, but it was not from fear of them nor of death at their hands. It was not yet time for Him to offer Himself. It was God’s will that He should proclaim the truth to the nation before His death. He spoke out boldly for the truth, but He refused to defend Himself against the violence which His enemies used against Him. When persecuted and finally crucified, He did not cry aloud in self-defense nor in accusation of His murderers. Here where His enemies plotted His death after the Sabbath controversy, He did not use His miraculous power to destroy them, but meekly went to other communities to preach. He was as bold as a lion in defense of the truth, but as meek as a lamb in resenting personal attacks. The quotation closes with a declaration: “A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench, Till he send forth judgment unto victory. And in his name shall the Gentiles hope.” This is a touching delineation of the mercy of Jesus to the sinful, the sick, the suffering, and the downtrodden. A bruised reed suggests the man oppressed by sin or misfortune whom Jesus will not destroy if he seeks forgiveness and help. Smoking flax is the wick of the lamp which is about to flicker out for lack of oil or because of imperfection of the wick. The light is feeble and the smoke annoying, but Jesus will not snuff it out; He will rather replenish and fan it to a flame. Jesus even had mercy upon the hypocritical Pharisees and continually sought to save them. The clause “sent forth judgment unto victory” portrays the final triumph of the gospel.