SECTION III. SABBATH OBSERVANCE
Matt. xii. 1-14; Mark ii. 23-28; Mark iii. 1-6; Luke vi. 1-11; xiii. 10-16;
xiv. 1-6; John v. 1-18; ix. 13-17.
In no part of their conduct were Jesus and His
disciples more frequently found fault with than in respect to their mode of
observing the Sabbath. Six distinct instances of offence given or taken on this
score are recorded in the Gospel history; in five of which Jesus Himself was
the offender, while in the remaining instance His disciples were at least the
ostensible objects of censure.
The offences of Jesus were all of one sort; His
crime was, that on the Sabbath-day He wrought works of healing on the persons
of men afflicted respectively with palsy, a withered hand, blindness, dropsy,
and on the body of a poor woman "bowed together" by an infirmity of eighteen
years' standing. The offence of the disciples, on the other hand, was that,
while walking along a way which lay through a corn-field, they stepped aside
and plucked some ears of grain for the purpose of satisfying their hunger. This
was not theft, for it was permitted by the law of Moses;[7.26] but nevertheless
it was, in the judgment of the Pharisees, Sabbath-breaking. It was contrary to
the command, "Thou shalt not work;" for to pluck some ears was reaping on a
small scale, and to rub them was a species of threshing!
These offences, deemed so grave when committed,
seem very small at this distance. All the transgressions of the Sabbath law
charged against Jesus were works of mercy; and the one transgression of the
disciples was for them a work of necessity, and the toleration of it was for
others a duty of mercy, so that in condemning them the Pharisees had forgotten
that divine word: "I will have mercy, and not sacrifice." It is, indeed, hard
for us now to conceive how any one could be serious in regarding such actions
as breaches of the Sabbath, especially the harmless act of the twelve. There is
a slight show of plausibility in the objection taken by the ruler of the
synagogue to miraculous cures wrought on the seventh day: "There are six days
on which men ought to work; in them therefore come and be healed, and not on
the Sabbath-day."[7.27] The remark was specially plausible with reference to
the case which had provoked the ire of the dignitary of the synagogue. A woman
who had been a sufferer for eighteen years might surely bear her trouble one
day more, and come and be healed on the morrow! But on what pretence could the
disciples be blamed as Sabbath-breakers for helping themselves to a few ears of
corn? To call such an act working was too ridiculous. Men who found a Sabbatic
offence here must have been very anxious to catch the disciples of Jesus in a
fault.
On the outlook for faults we have no doubt the
Pharisees were; and yet we must admit that, in condemning the act referred to,
they were acting faithfully in accordance with their theoretical views and
habitual tendencies. Their judgment on the conduct of the twelve was in keeping
with their traditions concerning washings, and their tithing of mint and other
garden herbs, and their straining of gnats out of their wine-cup. Their habit,
in all things, was to degrade God's law by framing innumerable petty rules for
its better observance, which, instead of securing that end, only made the law
appear base and contemptible. In no case was this miserable micrology carried
greater lengths than in connection with the fourth commandment. With a most
perverse ingenuity, the most insignificant actions were brought within the
scope of the prohibition against labor. Even in the case put by our Lord, that
of an animal fallen into a pit, it was deemed lawful to lift it out--so at
least those learned in rabbinical lore tell us--only when to leave it there
till Sabbath was past would involve risk to life. When delay was not dangerous,
the rule was to give the beast food sufficient for the day; and if there was
water in the bottom of the pit, to place straw and bolsters below it, that it
might not be drowned.[7.28]
Yet with all their strictness in abstaining from
every thing bearing the faintest resemblance to work, the Jews were curiously
lax in another direction. While scrupulously observing the law which prohibited
the cooking of food on Sabbath,[7.29] they did not make the holy day by any
means a day of fasting. On the contrary, they considered it their duty to make
the Sabbath a day of feasting and good cheer.[7.30] In fact, it was at a
Sabbath feast, given by a chief man among the Pharisees, that one of the
Sabbath miracles was wrought for which Jesus was put upon His defence. At this
feast were numerous guests, Jesus Himself being one,--invited, it is to be
feared, with no friendly feelings, but rather in the hope of finding something
against Him concerning the Sabbatic law. "It came to pass," we read in Luke,
"as He (Jesus) went into the house of one of the rulers of the Pharisees to eat
bread on a Sabbath-day, that they were watching Him.[7.31] They set a trap, and
hoped to catch in it Him whom they hated without cause; and they got for their
pains such searching, humbling table-talk as they had probably never heard
before.[7.32] This habit of feasting had grown to a great abuse in the days of
Augustine, as appears from the description he gives of the mode in which
contemporary Jews celebrated their weekly holiday. "To-day," he writes, "is the
Sabbath, which the Jews at the present time keep in loose, luxurious ease, for
they occupy their leisure in frivolity; and whereas God commanded a Sabbath,
they spend it in those things which God forbids. Our rest is from evil works,
theirs is from good works; for it is better to plough than to dance. They rest
from good work, they rest not from idle work."[7.33]
From the folly and pedantry of scribes and
Pharisees we gladly turn to the wisdom of Jesus, as revealed in the animated,
deep, and yet sublimely simple replies made by Him to the various charges of
Sabbath-breaking brought against Himself and His disciples. Before considering
these replies in detail, we premise one general remark concerning them all. In
none of these apologies or defences does Jesus call in question the obligation
of the Sabbath law. On that point He had no quarrel with His accusers. His
argument in this instance is entirely different from the line of defence
adopted in reference to fasting and purifications. In regard to fasting, the
position He took up was: Fasting is a voluntary matter, and men may fast or not
as they are disposed. In regard to purification His position was: Ceremonial
ablutions at best are of secondary moment, being mere types of inward purity,
and as practised now, lead inevitably to the utter ignoring of spiritual
purity, and therefore must be neglected by all who are concerned for the great
interests of morality. But in reference to the alleged breaches of the Sabbath,
the position Jesus took up was this: These acts which you condemn are not
transgressions of the law, rightly apprehended, in its spirit and principle.
The importance of the law was conceded, but the pharisaic interpretation of its
meaning was rejected. An appeal was made from their pedantic code of
regulations about Sabbath observance to the grand design and principle of the
law; and the right was asserted to examine all rules in the light of the
principle, and to reject or disregard those in which the principle had either
been mistakenly applied, or, as was for the most part the case with the
Pharisees, lost sight of altogether.
The key to all Christ's teaching on the Sabbath,
therefore, lies in His conception of the original design of that divine
institution. This conception we find expressed with epigrammatic point and
conciseness, in contrast to the pharisaic idea of the Sabbath, in words uttered
by Jesus on the occasion when He was defending His disciples. "The Sabbath,"
said He, "was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath." In other words, His
doctrine was this: The Sabbath was meant to be a boon to man, not a burden; it
was not a day taken from man by God in an exacting spirit, but a day given by
God in mercy to man--God's holiday to His subjects; all legislation enforcing
its observance having for its end to insure that all should really get the
benefit of the boon--that no man should rob himself, and still less his
fellow-creatures, of the gracious boon.
This difference between Christ's mode of
regarding the Sabbath and the pharisaic involves of necessity a corresponding
difference in the spirit and the details of its observance. Take Christ's view,
and your principle becomes: That is the best way of observing the Sabbath which
is most conducive to man's physical and spiritual well-being--in other words,
which is best for his body and for his soul; and in the light of this
principle, you will keep the holy day in a spirit of intelligent joy and
thankfulness to God the Creator for His gracious consideration towards His
creatures. Take the pharisaic view, and your principle of observance becomes:
He best keeps the Sabbath who goes greatest lengths in mere abstinence from any
thing that can be construed into labor, irrespective of the effect of this
abstinence either on his own well-being or on that of others. In short, we land
in the silly, senseless minuteness of a rabbinical legislation, which sees in
such an act as that of the disciples plucking and rubbing the ears of corn, or
that of the healed man who carried his bed home on his shoulders,[7.34] or that
of one who should walk a greater distance than two thousand cubits, or
three-fourths of a mile,[7.35] on a Sabbath, a heinous offence against the
fourth commandment and its Author.
A Sabbath observance regulated by the principle
that the institution was made for man's good, obviously involves two great
general uses--rest for the body, and worship as the solace of the spirit. We
should rest from servile labor on the divinely given holiday, and we should
lift up our hearts in devout thought to Him who made all things at the first,
who "worketh hitherto," preserving the creation in being and well-being, and
whose tender compassion towards sinful men is great, passing knowledge. These
things are both necessary to man's true good, and therefore must enter as
essential elements of a worthy Sabbath observance.
But, on the other hand, the Sabbath being made
for man, the two general requirements of rest and worship may not be so pressed
that they shall become hostile to man's well-being, and in effect
self-destructive, or mutually destructive. The rule, "Thou shalt rest," must
not be so applied as to exclude all action and all work; for absolute inaction
is not rest, and entire abstinence from work of every description would
often-times be detrimental both to private and to public well-being. Room must
be left for acts of "necessity and mercy;" and too peremptory as well as too
minute legislation as to what are and what are not acts of either description
must be avoided, as these may vary for different persons, times, and
circumstances, and men may honestly differ in opinion in such details who are
perfectly loyal to the great broad principles of Sabbath sanctification. In
like manner, the rule, "Thou shalt worship," must not be so enforced as to make
religious duties irksome and burdensome--a mere mechanical, legal service; or
so as to involve the sacrifice of the other great practical end of the Sabbath,
viz., rest to the animal nature of man. Nor may men dictate to each other as to
the means of worship any more than as to the amount; for one may find helps to
devotion in means which to another would prove a hindrance and a
distraction.
It was only in regard to cessation from work that
pharisaic legislation and practice anent Sabbath observance were carried to
superstitious and vexatious excess. The Sabbatic mania was a monomania, those
affected thereby being mad simply on one point, the stringent enforcement of
rest. Hence the peculiar character of all the charges brought against Christ
and His disciples, and also of His replies. The offences committed were all
works deemed unlawful; and the defences all went to show that the works done
were not contrary to law when the law was interpreted in the light of the
principle that the Sabbath was made for man. They were works of necessity or of
mercy, and therefore lawful on the Sabbath-day.
Jesus drew His proofs of this position from three
sources: Scripture history, the everyday practice of the Pharisees themselves,
and the providence of God. In defence of His disciples, He referred to the case
of David eating the shewbread when he fled to the house of God from the court
of King Saul,[7.36] and to the constant practice of the priests in doing work
for the service of the temple on Sabbath-days, such as offering double
burnt-offerings, and removing the stale shewbread from the holy place, and
replacing it by hot loaves. David's case proved the general principle that
necessity has no law, hunger justifying his act, as it should also have
justified the act of the disciples even in pharisaic eyes. The practice of the
priests showed that work merely as work is not contrary to the law of the
Sabbath, some works being not only lawful, but incumbent on that day.
The argument drawn by Jesus from common practice
was well fitted to silence captious critics, and to suggest the principle by
which His own conduct could be defended. It was to this effect: "You would lift
an ox or an ass out of a pit on Sabbath, would you not? Why? To save life? Why
then should not I heal a sick person for the same reason? Or is a beast's life
of more importance than that of a human being? Or again: Would you scruple to
loose you ox or your ass from the stall on the day of rest, and lead him away
to watering?[7.37] If not, why object to me when on the Sabbath-day I release a
poor human victim from a bondage of eighteen years' duration, that she may draw
water out of the wells of salvation?" The argument is irresistible, the
conclusion inevitable; that it is lawful, dutiful, most seasonable, to do well
on the Sabbath-day. How blind they must have been to whom so obvious a
proposition needed to be proved! how oblivious of the fact that love is the
foundation and fulfilment of all law, and that therefore no particular precept
could ever be meant to suspend the operation of that divine principle!
The argument from providence used by Jesus on
another occasion[7.38] was designed to serve the same purpose with the others,
viz., to show the lawfulness of certain kinds of work on the day of rest. "My
Father worketh even until now," said He to His accusers, "and I work." The Son
claimed the right to work because and as the Father worked on all days of the
week. The Father worked incessantly for beneficent, conservative ends, most
holily, wisely, and powerfully preserving and governing all His creatures and
all their actions, keeping the planets in their orbits, causing the sun to rise
and shine, and the winds to circulate in their courses, and the tides to ebb
and flow on the seventh day as on all the other six. So Jesus Christ, the son
of God, claimed the right to work, and did work--saving, restoring, healing; as
far as might be bringing fallen nature back to its pristine state, when God the
Creator pronounced all things good, and rested,, satisfied with the world He
had brought into being. Such works of beneficence, by the doctrine of Christ,
may always be done on the Sabbath-day: works of humanity, like those of the
physician, or of the teacher of neglected children, or of the philanthropist
going his rounds among the poor and needy, or of the Christian minister
preaching the gospel of peace, and many others, of which men filled with love
will readily bethink themselves, but whereof too many, in the coldness of their
heart, do not so much as dream. Against such works there is no law save that of
churlish, ungenial, pharisaic custom.
One other saying our Lord uttered on the present
subject, which carries great weight for Christians, though it can have had no
apologetic value in the opinion of the Pharisees, but must rather have appeared
an aggravation of the offence it was meant to excuse. We refer to the word,
"The Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath-day," uttered by Jesus on the
occasion when He defended His disciples against the charge of Sabbath-breaking.
This statement, remarkable, like the claim made at the same time to be greater
than the temple, as an assertion of superhuman dignity on the part of the meek
and lowly One, was not meant as a pretension to the right to break the law of
rest without cause, or to abrogate it altogether. This is evident from Mark's
account,[7.39] where the words come in as an inference from the proposition
that the Sabbath was made for man, which could not logically be made the
foundation for a repeal of the statute, seeing it is the most powerful argument
for the perpetuity of the weekly rest. Had the Sabbath been a mere burdensome
restriction imposed on men, we should have expected its abrogation from Him who
came to redeem men from all sorts of bondage. But was the Sabbath made for
man--for man's good? Then should we expect Christ's function to be not that of
a repealer, but that of a universal philanthropic legislator, making what had
previously been the peculiar privilege of Israel a common blessing to all
mankind. For the Father sent His Son into the world to deliver men indeed from
the yoke of ordinances, but not to cancel any of His gifts, which are all
"without repentance," and, once given, can never be withdrawn.
What, then, does the lordship of Christ over the
Sabbath signify? Simply this: that an institution which is of the nature of a
boon to man properly falls under the control of Him who is the King of grace
and the administrator of divine mercy. He is the best judge how such an
institution should be observed; and He has a right to see that it shall not be
perverted from a boon into a burden, and so put in antagonism to the royal
imperial law of love. The Son of man hath authority to cancel all regulations
tending in this direction emanating from men, and even all by-laws of the
Mosaic code savoring of legal rigor, and tending to veil the beneficent design
of the fourth commandment of the decalogue.[7.40] He may, in the exercise of
His mediatorial prerogative, give the old institution a new name, alter the day
of its celebration, so as to invest it with distinctively Christian
associations congenial to the hearts of believers, and make it in all the
details of its observance subservient to the great ends of His incarnation.
To such effect did the Son of man claim to be
Lord of the Sabbath-day; and His claim, so understood, was acknowledged by the
church, when, following the traces of the apostolic usage, she changed the
weekly rest from the seventh day to the first,[7.41] that it might commemorate
the joyful event of the resurrection of the Saviour, which lay nearer the heart
of a believer than the old event of the creation, and called the first day by
His name, the Lord's day.[7.42] That claim all Christians acknowledge who,
looking at the day in the light of God's original design, and of Christ's
teaching, example and work, so observe it as to keep the golden mean between
the two extremes of pharisaic rigor and of Sadducaic laxity: recognizing on the
one hand the beneficent ends served by the institution, and doing their utmost
to secure that these ends shall be fully realized, and, on the other hand,
avoiding the petty scrupulosity of a cheerless legalism, which causes many,
especially among the young, to stumble at the law as a statute of unreasonable
arbitrary restriction; avoiding also the bad pharisaic habit of indulging in
over-confident judgments on difficult points of detail, and on the conduct of
those who in such points do not think and act as they do themselves.
We may not close this chapter, in which we have
been studying the lessons in free yet holy living given by our Lord to His
disciples, without adding a reflection applicable to all the three. By these
lessons the twelve were taught a virtue very necessary for the apostles of a
religion in many respects new--the power to bear isolation and its
consequences. When Peter and John appeared before the Sanhedrim, the rulers
marvelled at their boldness, till they recognized in them companions of Jesus
the Nazarene. They seem to have imagined that His followers were fit for any
thing requiring audacity. They were right. The apostles had strong nerves, and
were not easily daunted; and the lessons which we have been considering help us
to understand whence they got their rare moral courage. They had been
accustomed for years to stand alone, and to disregard the fashion of the world,
till at length they could do what was right, heedless of human criticism,
without effort, almost without thought.
This document (last modifiedSeptember 17, 1997) from Believerscafe.com
Home | Bible versions | Bible Dictionary | Christian Classics | Christian Articles | Daily Devotions
Sister Projects: Wikichristian | WikiMD
BelieversCafe is a large collection of christian articles with over 40,000 pages
Our sponsors: 
