The Lord of the Sabbath
Luke • Sermon • Submitted
0 ratings
· 1 viewIf we hope to do as Christ did—loving our neighbor well while loving God well, then we must be with him. We must accompany him and allow him to live not only in us, but through us as well.
Notes
Transcript
Sermon Tone Analysis
A
D
F
J
S
Emotion
A
C
T
Language
O
C
E
A
E
Social
Introduction
Introduction
When Jesus was asked what the greatest commandment was, he responded by saying that the greatest commandment was to love the LORD your God with all your heart, soul, and mind. Then he answered a question that had not been asked. He gave the second greatest commandment. You shall love your neighbor as yourself. It is often thought, whether intentionally or unintentionally, that these two commands are usually opposed to one another. As if my loving my neighbor well means going against God’s law or loving God well means being an offense to my neighbor. But if we go back to the question Jesus answered, we find something striking:
And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.
This is the great and first commandment.
And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
The second commandment to love your neighbor is like the first commandment of loving God. The word there is homoios. It means to be like or to be similar. Thus, loving God and loving neighbor are not the exact same thing, but they are similar things. They are not dissimilar; they are very much alike! Jesus would use this same Greek word to describe the kingdom of God. It is like a mustard seed. It is like leaven. It is like a treasure in a field or a pearl of great price. John would use this to say that we as Christians are to be like Christ. In other words, the word “like” is to show similarities and even representations. It is not to show dissimilarities or contradictions.
The Pharisees missed this point and I think many Christians do as well. So as we look at today’s passage, I want us to look at these two narratives that are getting across one main point and one main application: who Jesus is and who we are to become. We see four parallels between these stories that end in a single outcome. The first parallel is the day. The second the dilemma. The third is the discussion. The fourth parallel is the decision. Finally, the outcome of these events is a deliberation about Jesus. But again, all of this is to teach us who Jesus is and who we are to become.
The Day
The Dilemma
The Discussion
The Decision
The Deliberation
On a Sabbath, while he was going through the grainfields, his disciples plucked and ate some heads of grain, rubbing them in their hands.
But some of the Pharisees said, “Why are you doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath?”
And Jesus answered them, “Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, he and those who were with him:
how he entered the house of God and took and ate the bread of the Presence, which is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and also gave it to those with him?”
And he said to them, “The Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath.”
On another Sabbath, he entered the synagogue and was teaching, and a man was there whose right hand was withered.
And the scribes and the Pharisees watched him, to see whether he would heal on the Sabbath, so that they might find a reason to accuse him.
But he knew their thoughts, and he said to the man with the withered hand, “Come and stand here.” And he rose and stood there.
And Jesus said to them, “I ask you, is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good or to do harm, to save life or to destroy it?”
And after looking around at them all he said to him, “Stretch out your hand.” And he did so, and his hand was restored.
But they were filled with fury and discussed with one another what they might do to Jesus.
The Day
The Day
So we start with the first parallel: the Day. Both of these events took place on the Sabbath. Now, they were on different Sabbaths, but they were both on the Sabbath day. Now we Westerners don’t tend to keep Sabbath anymore. We talk about the Sabbath. We may even like the concept of the Sabbath, but we really don’t understand the Sabbath and we definitely don’t keep the Sabbath as a people. I don’t want to go into everything about the Sabbath, but just enough to give us an idea about how the Bible describes it and how the people in Jesus’s day saw it.
The Sabbath literally means “rest.” Any day or days where there was to be no work done were known as Sabbaths. Thus, if there was an entire year (like the seventh year) where no work was done, it was a Sabbath year. It was to be a time to rest. And in that rest, one was to “rest in the Lord.” They were to trust him to take care of their needs. So in the wilderness, the people were to gather two days worth of manna on the sixth day, even though any other time, trying to gather two days worth would end in it spoiling and filled with maggots. They were to trust God to provide in their rest.
It’s hard to do that, isn’t it? The biggest time of rest we have is when we are asleep. And often times that sleep is kept from us, not because we aren’t tired or sleepy, but because we have a control problem. We cannot rest our eyes, our minds, or our bodies, because we do not trust God with our lives, our jobs, our families, our friendships, while we lie unconscious and helpless.
This was the same problem just in a grander scale that the Israelites had. Some did not gather the manna on day six as they were supposed to, expecting they’d be able to do the work on the Sabbath. For 490 years the Jews felt like they couldn’t just let their land lay fallow on the Sabbath years, and so they worked the land year in and year out, not trusting God to provide. After God’s bringing the land its rest while the Israelites were in exile, the people returned and began their same ways again! Nehemiah and Ezra had to put an end to all the trading and treading, sowing and reaping that was happening on the Sabbath. It’s hard to Sabbath—to rest in God’s providence and sovereign power.
By the Jesus was born, the rabbis, scribes, and Pharisees had helped the people to understand what it really meant to keep the Sabbath. What had once been guidelines to help people understand had become equivalent to laws. One cannot walk more than 1,000 cubits—a little more than a quarter of a mile. They weren’t supposed to draw water to drink or make a fire. And again, one could wrap a wound, but not put ointment on it as that would help in the healing process. Some of the guidelines had changed. At one time there was to be no warring on the Sabbath. Guess what happened? The people of Israel were overtaken by their enemies—twice! That guideline and law got changed, but it took two instances for it do so. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me! Another was that it was not right to help one’s animal out of a ditch. Guess what! Animals are expensive. If one dies or is crippled because it struggled to get out of a ditch and couldn’t, you’re out a bunch of money. That guideline/law changed pretty quickly too.
So here is the day that these events occurred. It’s the Sabbath day. A day to rest in God. The Pharisees weren’t trying to be jerks. They weren’t trying to be legalist. They were trying to be holy. And to be holy meant remembering the Sabbath day and keeping it holy.
The Dilemma
The Dilemma
This leads us to the second parallel. Each narrative has a dilemma. The first is that a “work” has been done on the Sabbath day. The disciples had picked grain, rubbed them between their hands to thresh the husks and such away. And then ate the seeds. Now the picking on the road was not the work. Nor was the eating. It was the threshing between the hands that was considered work. Thus, the dilemma is simply, should they do it or not do it? Or to put it more bluntly, should Jesus have allowed this to happen or should he have stopped it? Is it okay or not okay?
The second narrative’s dilemma involves a man with a withered hand. It’s been paralyzed for whatever reason. It’s his right hand, which means that it was his stronger, more dominant hand. He couldn’t use it. If you’ve ever hurt your dominant hand, you know how difficult life becomes. So the dilemma is put forth: is it okay to heal the man on the Sabbath day or should Jesus wait for another day? If it was wrong to aid in the body’s own healing process, how much more of a wrong to actually do the healing altogether!?
And we need to think about this. We know the how Jesus responds to these dilemmas. But we need to think about the arguments that could be made. First, why couldn’t the disciples have just brought food with them? Why didn’t they get it ready the day before? They could have carried it in their pockets or pouches. Their poor planning does not constitute an emergency on the Sabbath, does it? Let them learn their lesson to plan ahead. It’s a good life-lesson, isn’t it?
And why couldn’t Jesus just wait another day? Why did he have to heal on the Sabbath? This guy has been living with a withered hand for who knows how long!? Surely one more day isn’t going to kill him! Wait another day and then everyone will be happy. The Pharisees will be happy that “work” wasn’t done on the Sabbath. Jesus will be happy that he healed a guy. The guy will be happy to have the use of his arm back. It’s a win, win, win.
It’s so easy to spiritualize inactivity, don’t you think? Concerned about our personal testimonies, we refuse to truly befriend the friendless. Rather than confront a brother or sister about a sin, we pretend like it isn’t happening, thinking that any and all confrontation is sinful. Giving to those in need is perpetuating their laziness, and that would be wrong. But in each one of these we are faced with the dilemma: do we act or do we not? Is it right or is it wrong?
The Discussion
The Discussion
Which leads us to the third parallel. The first was that both narratives were on a certain day. The second involved certain dilemmas. The third parallel is that each situation involves a discussion.
The first discussion comes when the Pharisees ask a question
But some of the Pharisees said, “Why are you doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath?”
Now, when they use the word lawful, it actually means authorized. You may remember that back in chapter 5, Jesus said that he would heal the paralyzed man to show he had authority to forgive sins. That word was “exousia,” a noun: “Authority.” The verb form is “exestin” which is the word used here. So the question is “Why are you doing what is not authorized to do on the Sabbath?”
Jesus would later ask a similar question about authority when the man with the withered hand stood in their midst. Whereas the first discussion was brought on by the Pharisees asking a question, the second was brought on by the thoughts the Pharisees had: mainly to find a way to bring charges against Jesus. Jesus knew what they were thinking, so he brought up a topic to discuss:
And Jesus said to them, “I ask you, is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good or to do harm, to save life or to destroy it?”
“I ask you, it is authorized on the Sabbath to do good?” These discussions are about authority and who has the authority and what is truly authorized or not. Remember that both of these narratives are pointing us to who Jesus is and who we are to become. And so these discussions help us to see this point and its application.
Who is Jesus? He explains himself by giving the Pharisees a Bible lesson. He asked if they had never read the story of David and his eating of the bread of presence, along with those who were with him. If you’re not too familiar with the story, it basically goes like this: King Saul was hunting David because he saw David as a threat. So David fled from Saul and was running for his life with nothing but the clothes on his back. His men were to meet up with him at a specific location. And while he was on the run, he came to the town of Nob where the tabernacle was. He was starving and asked the high priest for food, but all there was to give him was the bread of presence. This was reserved for the priests. No one else was to eat it. But the priest allowed David to take it and eat it along with his men. And nothing bad happened to David.
Now, “if we want to compare notes,” Jesus was saying, “let’s compare notes.” What David did actually was unlawful, not just against tradition. What the disciples did was unauthorized according to the Pharisees standards, but not God’s. But that’s not even the crux of the matter. The point was that there were extenuating circumstances: David’s life was at stake! And in extenuating circumstances, the ordinary sense of the law is suspended.
This is the same idea with the withered hand. Jesus asked if it was authorized/lawful to do good or harm, to save life or destroy it? One would argue that healing a paralyzed hand isn’t saving his life, but certainly would make it better. But Jesus is equating it to saving his life. The doing good is parallel to saving the life. There’s no in between here. There is no indifference in Jesus’s mind.
And perhaps most of you are listening to me and going, “that’s heresy.” But let me ask you what the purpose of the law is humanly speaking—in regards to humanity? Jesus answered it: it is to love our neighbor as ourselves. In other words, God gave us the law as a sign of love from him to us and from us to each other. Thus, if we are using the law of God to harm or destroy life, then we have misunderstood the intention and ordinary sense of the law! If we are using the law of God to stop us from doing good then we have misunderstood the intention and ordinary sense of the law.
St. Augustine said, “Anyone who thinks that he has understood the divine scriptures or any part of them, but cannot by his understanding build up this double love of God and neighbor, has not yet succeeded in understanding them.” I go back to what I said earlier that the Pharisees and many Christians think that loving God well or loving neighbor well are at odds with each other. But the two are extremely similar—to the point that loving neighbor is a representation of loving God.
The Decision
The Decision
Which leads us to the fourth parallel in these narratives. Jesus let his decision be known. The dilemma was whether it was right or wrong to do these acts on the Sabbath. Was it good or bad? And in both cases, Jesus decided it was right to do them. And both decisions are derived from his being.
Once he reminded the Pharisees of David’s experience, he made reference to when he had healed the paralyzed man who had been lowered through the roof of the house.
And he said to them, “The Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath.”
The Son of Man: that’s what he called himself back with the paralyzed man. And in that case he said that he would heal the paralyzed man to prove to the Pharisees that he—being the Son of Man, the heavenly being with an earthly kingdom—had the authority to forgive sins. Now, he was telling them that the Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath. Stop for a moment and think about that. God instituted the Sabbath back on day 7 of creation. Every Sabbath day or year was in commemoration of God’s instituting the Sabbath on day 7. For Jesus to say that he was lord of the Sabbath meant that he was in charge of the Sabbath. Again, there was no mistaking what Jesus was saying about himself: Jesus’s authority is God’s authority.
So when the Pharisees asked him “why do you do what is unauthorized,” or Jesus asked them, “Is it authorized to do good or harm,” the answer is simply that Jesus is authorized because Jesus is the one with authority. He is lord of the Sabbath!
Thus, the picking, threshing, and eating of fresh grain was authorized because Jesus authorized it. The healing of a withered hand—doing good and not harm, saving a life and not destroying it—was authorized because Jesus authorized it. It was Jesus’s decision to make; not theirs.
Jesus was not superseding the law. He was demonstrating what it was all about. It was loving God and loving neighbor.
On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”
Now let’s stop and think for a moment. We don’t usually put the direct object at the beginning of our sentence, with the subject at the end. So let’s switch it so it reads like we usually speak: “All the Law and the Prophets depend on these two commandments.” In other words, God has hashed out how loving God and loving neighbor are supposed to look. Those ten commandments and all the rest of the law and prophets are pointing us to loving him and loving others. We too often put the cart before the horse, as if the law of loving our neighbor is contingent on the ten commandments. That’s what the Pharisees did. They were focused on the fourth commandment: remember the sabbath day and keep it holy, as if loving God and neighbor was contingent upon that. And not an expression of how one loves God and neighbor. It’s a subtle difference, but an important one.
Jesus was showing this subtlety; hence, we as followers of Christ, are to follow suit. We are to become this way. We are to weigh our decisions about the law based on love for God and neighbor, seeking to rectify those two and seeing them for all their similarities and not contradictions. This is why Mark also wrote the part about Jesus saying,
And he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.
It’s not just the Sabbath that was made for man, but the entire law. The Sabbath was the law that was in reference at this point. But the law was made for the good of man; man was not made for the law.
So Jesus, having asked which was authorized: to do good or harm, to save a life or destroy it, looked around the room. No one answered him. And he decided to demonstrate what the law was all about and so he healed the man on the Sabbath. I love what Leon Morris wrote about this when he said that Jesus gave them a chance to speak up, to voice their opposition or their opinion and they didn’t take it. He started a discussion, but no one was willing to talk with him and so Jesus healed the man right then and there in front of everyone.
The Deliberation
The Deliberation
Which takes us to the ultimate conclusion: the outcome of the two narratives. And like a master historian and story-teller, Luke has been building to this point with each mention of the Pharisees. Things are progressively getting more and more uncomfortable and more and more aggravating for them. Now, they have had enough. They deliberate.
What’s the big deal with Jesus healing on the Sabbath? It’s not just about him going against their teaching. It’s about where it might lead. The Pharisees were not trying to be legalistic. They were seeking to be holy and to bring Israel into a state of holiness. These traditions, regulations, laws were designed to help that come about. They believed the Messiah would come if the nation was holy enough. They remembered that their ancestors were exiled because they had not kept the Sabbath properly. Now here is a man, claiming to be the Messiah at a time when they did not believe Israel to be holy enough and he is doing work on the Sabbath day! What should they do with this man?
What a great question. It is one that we all must ask and answer. There are two options: reject him or embrace him. Jesus would say later on
Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.
There’s no middle ground, neither with him or his ministry. There is no neutrality when it comes to Jesus. As the late, great Al Martin said, “There is no neutral zone in which any one of you is found this morning, any more than there was a neutral zone when our Lord spoke these words.” You, like the Pharisees, must deliberate about what you might do with Jesus. Are you with him or against him? Are you about imitating him—becoming like him in his work, or opposing his work?
The Pharisees, as a whole, rejected him. We know that not every single one did. But as a whole, they would be against him and his ministry. That is the way most people will choose. Is that the way you will choose?
For those who will go with him, know that he has done more for you than you could ever do for yourself. He kept the law perfectly. Not as humans have determined it to be, but as God intended it to be. He did that on your behalf, as your substitute. He died in his perfection on behalf of you so that you could be seen as he is seen, and he would receive the wrath that was for you so you would not receive it. He rose from the dead to bring you into peace with God. To be with him is to receive these blessings. To reject him is to turn these blessings away. That’s the truth of the matter. There is no neutral ground.
Conclusion
Conclusion
As we finish this portion of Luke, we have seen four areas in which these two narratives parallel one another and the final outcome that involved the Pharisees gathering together to decide what to do with Jesus. Both narratives are continuing to show Theophilus, those lovers of God, who Jesus was. He is the Son of Man who is lord of the Sabbath and the one who shall go against the traditions of men in order to display acts of love to humanity.
He was pouring new wine, but the old wine skins—the old traditions—would not hold it. He was bringing in a new garment that didn’t match the old one. The Pharisees saw holiness as doing in order to become. Jesus was showing that holiness was a matter of being that would turn into doing. Thus, we are to be like Christ in order to do like Christ. If we hope to do as Christ did—loving our neighbor well while loving God well, then we must be with him. We must accompany him and allow him to live not only in us, but through us as well.