G. The right use of the sabbath (6:1–11)
G. The right use of the sabbath (6:1–11)
All four Gospels make it clear that a chief point in the conflict between Jesus and the Jewish authorities concerned the right way to keep the sabbath. The Jews took the sabbath seriously (a whole tractate in the Mishnah is given up to it). Many students of rabbinics hold that the sabbaath was a delight, but the rules for keeping it were certainly elaborate and repressive. The interesting thing about Jesus’ approach is that he did not simply argue that repressive regulations should be relaxed and a more liberal attitude adopted; he said that his opponents had missed the whole point of this holy day. Had they understood it they would have seen that deeds of mercy like his were not merely permitted – they were obligatory (cf. John 7:23f.)
1. Lord of the sabbath (6:1–5)
The disciples’ action in plucking and eating grain began a dispute which led up to Jesus’ notable pronouncement that he is lord of the sabbath.
1–2. One sabbath, as Jesus went through grainfields, his disciples plucked and ate some heads of grain. Wayfarers were permitted to help themselves to satisfy their hunger (Deut. 23:25), so the objection was not to the action in itself, but to its being performed on the sabbath. The Pharisees would find in the plucking of the ears a breach of the regulation which forbade reaping and in the rubbing in their hands that which prohibited threshing. Throwing away the husks probably represented winnowing, while eating showed that they had prepared food. Four distinct breaches of the sabbath in one mouthful! The Talmud regards reaping and grinding corn no greater in bulk than a dried fig as culpable (Shabbath 70b), so that small quantities were significant.
3–4. Jesus replied by directing the attention of the Pharisees to the action of David in eating the bread of the Presence (1 Sam. 21:3–6). This was bread prepared in a prescribed manner and meant for use only in the service of the temple (Lev. 24:5–9). David’s action was technically a breach of the law, for only the priests should eat this bread (Lev. 24:9). But the need of his band overrode the legal nicety and no-one blamed him. Human need must not be subjected to barren legalism.
5. Jesus now adds a further and very different justification. He claims that he, the Son of man, is lord of the sabbath. This is a staggering claim, for the sabbath was of divine institution (Exod. 20:8–11). To be lord of a divine ordinance is to have a very high place indeed. Some take Son of man to mean ‘man’ (as the Aramaic original often does). They take the verse to mean that man is supreme over the sabbath. This would fit neatly with the preceding, but there are difficulties. Jesus never taught that man is lord over a divine institution. Again, in the Gospels Son of Man invariably means Jesus. He is surely referring to his Messianic function. It may be significant that this follows a reference to David’s action. It is the Son of David who is Lord. If David could override the law without blame, how much more could the much greater Son of David do so?
2. Healing the withered hand (6:6–11)
Luke emphasizes his point by adding a story of a miracle Jesus worked on the sabbath. It is a demonstration in action of his lordship over the day and over disease. The rabbis did not object to healing on the sabbath if there was danger to life and they interpreted this liberally. ‘Whenever there is doubt whether life is in danger this overrides the Sabbath’ (Yoma 8:6). But if there was no danger they were adamant. Such healing was not allowed.
6. Once more Luke does not date his incident with precision, simply locating it on another sabbath. Jesus was teaching in the synagogue when there was a man present with a crippled hand. Typically Luke tells us that it was the right hand that was affected. Withered isa word used of plants or dried wood. Here it seems to mean some form of muscular atrophy.
7. Again the opposition comes from the scribes and the Pharisees. They watched him (the verb means ‘watched closely’) in the hope of seeing him heal and of thus finding matter for an accusation. They were interested in the accusation, not the healing.
8–9. Jesus sensed the challenge and met it head-on. Luke does not tell us how he knew their thoughts; probably this is part of the way he brings out the deity of our Lord. Jesus summoned the man with the useless hand to come and stand with him, evidently in a prominent place where there would be no doubt about what was happening. Then he addressed the opposition, challenging them with the question, is it lawful on the sabbath to do good or to do harm? He does not envisage the possibility of neutrality. ‘Jesus will recognize no alternative to the doing of good except the doing of evil. The refusal to save life is tantamount to the taking of it’ (Manson). There is no middle course. The man before him was leading an impaired life. To do nothing on the sabbath was to destroy life. Jesus came to save.
10. Having posed his alternatives Jesus apparently paused a moment while he looked around on them all. This gave them an opportunity of answering him, but they did not take it. So he told the man to stretch out his hand. He did so and found it restored.
11. The effect on the Pharisees and their allies was that they were filled with fury (‘beside themselves with anger’, NEB). We can understand that they were angry that Jesus defied them and got away with it. But there seemed nothing they could do, which is probably the reason for their discussion. Jesus had laid the case before them, asked what was right, and had received no answer. He could justly claim that they had been given the chance to say what should have been done, but had declined to take it.