WHY DID JESUS HEAL ON THE SABBATH?

by Ivan Maddox

West End Bible Fellowship

Atlanta, GA

It has become popular today for Christians who seek to justify unbiblical behavior to point to Jesus' healing on the sabbath, and the opposition of the Pharisees and religious leaders to his doing so, as evidence that it is sometimes necessary to break "the letter of the law" in order to fulfil "the spirit of the law." (We should note here that neither of these phrases are biblical. "The letter", meaning "the Law of Moses", and "the spirit" are contrasted in Romans 2:29, Romans 7:6, and II Corinthians 3:6. "The letter" alone is used in reference to the Law in Romans 2:27. "The spirit," when contrasted with "the letter," refers not to the Law of Moses at all, but rather to the spirit of God given to those who believe on Jesus Christ )

In essence, the argument seems to be this: Jesus Christ occasionally found it necessary to disobey the written Word of God in order to do what God really wanted him to do. Likewise, we will find it necessary on occasion to disobey God's written Word in order to faithfully carry out God's will.

Is this the case? Did Jesus Christ break the Law in order to keep it? Is it ever necessary for us to disobey God's Word in order to obey God? It should be clear already that this argument opens up a very large can of worms for any Christian trying to carry out the will of God. Once you break free from the written Word of God as your standard for truth, you can justify ANYTHING -- lying, stealing, adultery, murder -- as necessary for carrying out God's will, based on the expected beneficial results. Without the written Word of God as our standard, it is very hard not to fall back on "the end justifies the means" as our standard of behavior.

Why did Jesus heal on the sabbath? Was he blatantly breaking the Law in order to do what he knew in his heart was God's will? Or did he have a concrete, biblical reason for doing what he did? Since we are supposed to be imitators of him in our walk with God, it is important that we find out why he did what he did, so that we know what we, ourselves, are supposed to do in similar circumstances, and why.

Jesus gave a clue to his reasons in his castigation of the Pharisees in Matthew 23.

Two things stand out here. First, Jesus wasn't reproving the Pharisees for their strict adherence to the Law. Rather, he reproved them for their hypocrisy, for play-acting, for faking it in their walk with God. They were careful to look on the outside like they were carrying out God's Law, while their hearts and motives remained filthy.

Second, Jesus pointed out here that some parts of the Law are "weightier" than others. In other words, some parts of the Law have priority over others. In keeping the Law, then, obedience in the "weightier" parts should take priority. This does not, however, excuse you from doing the rest. Rather, you should endeavor "not to leave the other undone."

But does that not leave us right back where we started? Fortunately, this is not all Jesus had to say on the subject of his Sabbath activities. Isaiah had prophesied that the Messiah would be of "quick understanding in the fear of the Lord..." (Isaiah 11:3) Nowhere is this more evident than in Jesus' handling of the Sabbath issues. Far from disobeying the Law regarding the Sabbath, Jesus understood it and obeyed it far better than anyone before or since.

Jesus gave at least eleven different reasons for apparently breaking the Sabbath law .

As we examine these reasons, we will see the greatness of his respect for and adherence to God's written revelation. We will see how carefully Jesus distinguished between what men said, and what God said. We will gain greater insight into how Jesus applied the scriptures to everyday life, and how he balanced walking in love with walking according to the scriptures. And we will gain an even greater appreciation of the incredible insight Jesus had into the heart of God.

In this instance, Jesus was preparing to heal someone on the Sabbath. Knowing that the lawyers and Pharisees were going to make an issue of this, he raised the question himself: Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath day?

The lawyers and Pharisees knew the "legal" answer to this question. The Sabbath law in the scriptures did not address this at all.

However, in defining the word "work," the rabbis had concluded that giving medical attention to an individual on the Sabbath constituted work. They ruled, for instance, that if someone broke his or her arm on the Sabbath, the arm could not be set until the Sabbath was over. They also ruled that a person with a toothache could not suck on vinegar (the common toothache remedy) to ease his or her pain. (The sufferer could, however, choose to drink vinegar with his or her regular meals.) In light of these rulings, healing on the Sabbath was definitely out of the question.

The lawyers and Pharisees, though, wisely decided to keep their mouths shut. Jesus gave his own answer to his question emphatically and unequivocally by healing the sick man in front of him. He then gave the lawyers and Pharisees his reason for doing so.

While the rabbis had forbidden people from coming to the aid of other people in distress, no such rule applied to animals. Routinely, people who found their animals in a potentially dangerous situation rescued them from it. There are two logical reasons for this. First, rescuing the animal showed mercy to the animal; something that was encouraged in the scriptures.

Second, not rescuing the animal could result in major financial loss, or, in some cases, loss of livelihood. The rabbis, by their silence, gave their approval to what was technically a breaking of the Sabbath law. Jesus did not disagree with this practice; he simply extended the same courtesy that was routinely given to animals to human beings. If it was lawful to help an animal who MIGHT be injured on the Sabbath, how could it possibly be wrong to help a human being who was already hurt?

Jesus gives another reason for healing on the Sabbath in John 17.

Jesus gave an example here of a situation where two provisions of the Law are in conflict. Under the Law, a male child was to be circumcised on the eighth day. However, the Law also required that no work be done on the Sabbath day. Circumcising a child was clearly work. What did you do, then, when two provisions of the Law were in conflict?

The rabbis had concluded that the provision requiring that the child be circumcised took precedence over the Sabbath prohibition against work. Jesus agreed with their conclusion, but argued that a similar issue was at stake on the issue of healing on the Sabbath.

The Law required that a man love his neighbor as himself.

Jesus identified this as one of the two key provisions of the Law.

When you are sick, there is no real question about what you would like for yourself: you want to be made whole. What does it mean, then, to love your neighbor as yourself when your neighbor is sick or injured? It means helping your neighbor regain his health; whether that means setting a broken bone or ministering divine healing. For Jesus, loving your neighbor meant making a valid exception for adhering to the Sabbath law in order to minister to the very real need of your neighbor.

In Matthew 12, two incidents of apparent Sabbath law breaking by Jesus and his disciples are decided. In the second of these incidents, the issue was healing on the Sabbath. Jesus once again used the animal in a pit argument to make his case.

But Jesus makes another statement here; and it is this which is really the point he is making: it is not contrary to the Law to do that which is good on the Sabbath days.

Jesus understood that the purpose of the Law was not merely to get people to follow the right rules, but to produce a changed heart which issued forth willingly the right thoughts and actions desired by God. The provisions of the Law were a means to an end.

Jesus’ point was that ministering to the needs of a man who needed healing was just the kind of righteous act, issuing forth from righteous motives, that God was looking for from those who obeyed Him by obeying His Law. This act of love was not a violation of the Sabbath, even though it technically involved working on a day on which the Law forbade work. Rather, it was exactly the kind of loving act that obedience to the Law was meant to encourage.

The end purpose of knowing and doing the Law was bringing forth the right kind of fruit. Psalm 1 says of the man who delights in God’s Law and meditates on it (speaks it to himself) day and night, that he will be like a tree "that brings forth his fruit in his season." A certain scribe grasped this when he said in Mark 12:33,

And the Apostle Paul echoed this when, after listing the fruit of the spirit in Galatians 5, he wrote, "against such there is no law." (Galatians 5:23.)

In healing a man on the Sabbath day, Jesus was not rebelling against God’s instructions; rather, he saw in this man’s need an opportunity to bring forth exactly the kind of fruit God was looking for, and he did not use the provisions of the Sabbath law as an excuse for not walking in love toward his neighbor. He balanced his obligation to love God with his whole heart and his obligation to love his neighor as himself, in this instance, by ministering to his neighbor on the Sabbath even though that was technically a violation of the Sabbath law. There is no law against bringing forth righteous fruit.

In the other incident in this passage -- the incident which occurs first -- Jesus was accused, not of healing on the Sabbath, but of allowing his disciples to pick and eat grain on the Sabbath. On the surface, this appears to be a much more grievous violation of the Sabbath law, and seems indefensable. However, Jesus gave at least five reasons for allowing his disciples to do what they did.

First, Jesus pointed to the incident where David and his men ate the shewbread, described in I Samuel 21.

As Jesus pointed out, what the priest did for David was contrary to the Law. But Jesus here makes his argument from the silence of the scriptures, for God nowhere in the scriptures condemns what the David and the priest did, but silently passes over it. From this, Jesus concludes that neither David and his men nor the priest were guilty of sin, even though they were disobeying an explicit provision of the Law. Rather, the priest was showing mercy to David in the best way he could. If he had had common bread on hand, he would have given that only to David, and strictly upheld the provisions of the Law. But he had no common bread on hand, and thus was forced to choose between not showing mercy, and disobeying a clear and explicit commandment of the Law. He chose the latter, and God honored his decision.

Second, Jesus pointed out that the priests work every Sabbath day. The Law required that the priests offer both a morning sacrifice and an evening sacrifice seven days a week. However, this is at odds with the Sabbath law, which requires that men refrain from work on the Sabbath day. The priests were forced to choose between regularly omitting the commanded sacrifices each Sabbath, or regularly and systematically disobeying the Sabbath law in order to obey the sacrifice law. They chose the latter, and God approved of their decision. The ministry required of them in the Temple was important enough to warrant making an exception to the Sabbath law.

Third, Jesus pointed out that if the ministry of the Temple was important enough to warrant this, the ministry of the Messiah was even more important. Thus the Messiah, in the course of carrying out his God-given duties, might need on occasion to make an exception to the Sabbath law in order to carry out the work God had given him to do.

Fourth, Jesus quoted part of a verse from Hosea.

Jesus explained that if one understood the meaning of the words, "I desired mercy, and not sacrifice," one would refrain from condemning one who had done no wrong in this matter. By pointing his hearers to this verse, Jesus was emphasizing that what God was looking for from men was not external obedience to a set of rules, but rather a changed heart from which sprang forth love for God, and lovingkindness and mercy for one’s fellow men. This truth is emphasized by a passage in Zechariah.

When Jerusalem rebelled against God, what was God’s plea to her? Was it, "Return to offering your sacrifices?" or, "Return to your fasting?" or even, "Return to keeping the Sabbath day holy?" Or was it instead, "Be honest in your judgments, and show mercy and love to your brother?" What was the bottom line of God’s will for them? If you understand this, you will understand the point that Jesus was trying to make here. It is not that the other things were not important; rather the point is that love and mercy and justice are the bottom line of what God is looking for, and not these other things.

Fifth, and most important, Jesus pointed out that as the Messiah, he is the Lord of the Sabbath. This is not a minor point at all, but strikes right at the heart of the issue of Jesus’ actions and attitude with regard to the Sabbath.

The Sabbath is a day of rest ordained by God, set at the end of the week rather than at the beginning. It was patterned after God’s work in the creation of the world, at which time He labored for six days, then rested on the seventh day. Man and woman were created on the sixth day: just in time to enter into God’s rest with Him.

Unfortunately, man chose to sin and disobey God. One consequence of this was that man was forced to labor by the sweat of his brow for what he needed, rather than resting in what God had provided.

The Sabbath was given to Israel as a promise of rest in the future. This promise of rest was tied to Israel’s possession of the Land promised to them by God. But when God commanded Israel to take possession of the Land, Israel refused. As a result, God swore in His wrath that they would not enter in to His rest.

Israel eventually did enter into the Land under the leadership of Joshua. But Hebrews makes it clear that this was not a complete fulfilment of that promise.

Since there still remains a Sabbath-rest to the people of God, when will His people receive this rest? When God plants His people in their Land under the rule of the True David, the Messiah. The weekly Sabbath foreshadows this, signifying the hope of God’s people that God will establish a day when their labors will be behind them, and they can enter into God’s rest.

Jesus was -- and is! -- the Messiah. He was sent by God to Israel to invite them into God’s rest: the kingdom of the Messiah. Those who received him were promised entrance into the Messiah’s kingdom, and entrance into God’s rest. Those who refused him rejected also the True Sabbath.

The sad reality is that Israel had forgotten the true point of the Sabbath. It had become to them little more than a mandatory day off. They had forgotten that the Sabbath day was meant to be an object lesson, a reminder that a day was coming when God would give true rest to His people.

The rest promised in the True Sabbath was not merely rest from physical labor. In the kingdom of the Messiah there will be rest from sickness and death as well, and rest from hunger and war. When Jesus healed the sick on the Sabbath, then, he was giving a foretaste of the True Sabbath, for there will ultimately be no sickness in the kingdom of the Messiah. When Jesus raised the dead, he was giving a foretaste of the True Sabbath, for there will ultimately be no death in the kingdom of the Messiah. When Jesus fed the multitudes with loaves and fishes, he was giving a foretaste of the True Sabbath, for there will be famine or lack in the kingdom of the Messiah.

There was an incredible irony in the charge of Sabbath-breaking brought against Jesus and his disciples by the Pharisees. Jesus’ disciples were being charged here with not properly observing the shadow of the True Sabbath which was the weekly Sabbath. The reality was that the disciples, by taking part in the ministry of Jesus the Messiah, were engaged with him in establishing and offering to Israel the True Sabbath. In rejecting Jesus and his ministry, the Pharisees, who were so intent on properly observing the weekly Sabbath, were setting themselves in opposition to everything the Sabbath represented.

In Mark 2:23 - 3:6 is found a parallel record of this incident; but in this record, Jesus adds another reason for what he did.

Jesus was pointing out here that man was not made to serve the Sabbath, but rather the Sabbath was given by God to serve man. The Sabbath law was given by God to man as a means of blessing him; it was not intended to enslave him.

By their interpretations, the rabbis had turned the Sabbath law into a minefield for the unwary. The original prohibition was against doing your labors on the Sabbath. The rabbis had changed this into a prohibition against doing almost anything on the Sabbath. Looking into a mirror (because you might see a gray hair and be tempted to pluck it), giving alms to a beggar at your door, taking a loaf of bread to a hungry neighbor next door, and walking through a field of grain that was a little too high -- because you might accidentally knock down some grains and "harvest" -- were all considered violations of the Sabbath law. None of this had anything to do with what God had commanded. Such petty interpretations turned the day of rest intended by God into a grievous burden.

Jesus seemed to be indicating here that the alleged violation of the Sabbath by his disciples did not constitute the kind of work the Sabbath law prohibited, but rather was a violation of the far too strict interpretation of the law given by the rabbis. As such, the charge made against his disciples was invalid.

If the Pharisees had been willing to live by these rigid interpretations, that would have been one thing. But along with these interpretations they had devised ingenious loopholes for those in the know, so that they themselves could do on the Sabbath things they had forbidden others to do. If your neighbor next door needed bread, for instance, the Pharisees held that you were breaking the Sabbath if you took a loaf next door, and your neighbor was breaking the Sabbath if he came next door and got a loaf; but one in the know could toss a loaf out the window to his neighbor in the window next door, and thus avoid "working."

Jesus condemned this system of rigid interpretations coupled with loopholes in Matthew 23.

Another consideration that puts this incident in perspective is the fact that the disciples were picking this grain from someone else’s field. A Jew was allowed, if hungry, to pick enough food from someone else’s field to eat on the spot. However, if you took some with you to eat later, you were stealing. The grain the disciples picked from the fields on this occasion was not enough in quantity to constitute stealing. Why, then, should it be regarded as enough to constitute work? Clearly there is something wrong with this conclusion.

Again in Luke 6:1-11 we have a record of Jesus apparently working on the Sabbath, but this record also parallels Matthew 12:1-13, and gives us little information that is not available there. For this reason, we will omit this record from our study in the interest of brevity.

In Luke 13 Jesus healed a woman who had a spirit of infirmity for eighteen years. When confronted about working on the Sabbath, he gave as his reason a variation on the argument about rescuing an ox on the Sabbath.

Jesus pointed out here that while working on the Sabbath was prohibited, opening a stall and leading an animal to water, while clearly work, was not. This was permitted so as not to cause hardship and suffering on the part of an animal. Jesus argued that if it was permissible to take action to keep an animal from suffering on the Sabbath, how much more permissible was it to do the same for a human being?

Finally, John 5 records Jesus' healing of a lame man on the Sabbath. When the man was seen carrying his bed on the Sabbath and accused, he replied that the man who healed him had told him to do this. The Jews confronted Jesus with working on the Sabbath, and Jesus responded with still another reason for what he had done.

Jesus' argument here is simple and brutally effective. The work he was doing was supernatural, and required God's active participation for its accomplishment. God was Jesus' accomplice in this deed, his "partner in crime." This ended the discussion, but strengthened the resolve of the Jews to kill Jesus.

Many people read the records in scripture concerning Jesus and the Sabbath, and conclude that Jesus arbitrarily disregarded the Sabbath laws whenever they seemed to get in the way of what he felt was the loving thing to do. The reality is not quite so simple. The several different reasons that Jesus gave for his actions make it clear that he had given this issue much thought, and that central to his thinking was faithfulness to what his Father had revealed in His written word.

The basis of Jesus' apparent willingness to break the Sabbath laws on occasion was his in-depth knowledge and understanding of the written word of God. Jesus took great care to understand what God's priorities were, and to apply these when he made his decisions. Furthermore, he applied himself to understand not only what the Law said, but why it said it. In addition, he made a sharp distinction between the word of God and the commandments and doctrines of men. Because of these things, he was able to stay on solid ground, firmly within the will of his Father, even when it appeared to others that he was disobeying the commandments of God. Jesus never once disobeyed his Father, but always did his Father's will.

That's the pattern he wants us to follow. Like Jesus, we can so abide in God's word that we understand not only what God has said, but why He has said it. When we understand this, and when we understand God's priorities, we will be able to handle even difficult situations in a way that maintains faithfulness not only with God's written word, but with God's heart as well.