From Sabbath to Sunday

Christ and the Lord’s Day

The paralytic and the blind man

This relationship between the Sabbath and the work of salvation is well brought out in the two Sabbath miracles reported in the Gospel of John (John 5:1-18; 9:1-41). Owing to their substantial similarity, we shall consider them together. The resemblance is noticeable in several ways. The healed men had both been chronically ill: one an a invalid for 38 years (5:5) and the other blind from birth (9:2). In both instances Christ told the men to act. To the impotent man he said, "Rise, take up your pallet, and walk" (5:8); to the blind man, "Go, wash in the pool of Siloam" (9:7). In both cases the Pharisees formally accuse Christ of Sabbath-breaking and view this as an evidence that He is not the Messiah: "This man is not from God, for He does not keep the sabbath" (9:16; cf. 5:18). In both situations the charge against Christ does not involve primarily the actual act of healing, but rather the breaking of rabbinical sabbatical laws, when ordering the invalid to carry his pallet (5:8,10, 12) and when preparing the clay (9:6, 14). (54) In both instances Christ repudiates the charge of Sabbath-breaking, arguing that His works of salvation are not precluded but rather contemplated by the Sabbath commandment (5:17; 7:23; 9:4).

Before examining Christ’s justification for His Sabbath saving activities, attention should be drawn to the verb "answered—apekrinato" used by John to introduce Christ’s defense. Mario Veloso, in his incisive analysis of this passage, notes that this verbal form occurs only twice in John. (55) The first time when Christ replies to the accusation of the Jews (5:17) and the second time when He clarifies the answer given (5:19). The common form used by John over fifty times is "apekrithe" which in English is also translated "answered." The special use of the middle voice of the verb "apekrinato" implies, on the one hand as Veloso explains, a public and formal defense (56) and on the other hand, as expressed by J. H. Moulton, that "the agent is extremely related with the action." (57) This means not only that Christ makes a formal defense but that He also identifies Himself with the content of His answer. The few words of Christ’s defense deserve, therefore, careful attention.

What did Christ mean when He formally defended Himself against the accusation of Sabbath-breaking, saying, "My father is working still, and I am working" (John 5:17)? This statement has been subjected to considerable scrutiny and some far-reaching conclusions have been advanced. J. Daniélou maintains that "the words of Christ formally condemn the application to God of the Sabbath rest understood as idleness... The working of Christ is seen to be the reality which comes to replace the figurative idleness of the Sabbath." (58) W. Rordorf argues that "John 5:17 intends to interpret Genesis 2:2f in the sense that God has never rested from the beginning of creation, that He does not yet rest, but that he will rest at the end." (59) In the light of the parallel passage of John 9:4, he conjectures that "the promised Sabbath rest of God . . . found its fulfillment in the rest of Jesus in the grave." (60) Therefore, he concludes that "Jesus derives for Himself the abrogation of the commandment to rest on the weekly sabbath from the eschatological interpretation of Genesis 2:2f." (61) Paul K. Jewett reproposes Oscar Cullmann’s explanation, interpreting the expression "My Father is working until now" as implying a movement in redemptive history "from promise to fulfillment," that is to say, from the promise of the Old Testament Sabbath rest to the fulfillment found in the day of the resurrection. (62) The argument hinges on the view that "the rest of God was not achieved at the end of the first creation" but rather, as Cullmann puts it, "is first fulfilled in the resurrection of Christ." (63) Sunday, then, as the day of the resurrection, represents the fulfillment and culmination of the Divine rest promised by the Old Testament Sabbath.

To assess the validity of these interpretations we need first to ascertain the meaning of the expression "My Father is working until now—heos arti" and subsequently to establish its relationship to the Sabbath-Sunday question. There is a wide consensus of opinion for viewing the "working still" (5:17) of the Father as a reference to the work of creation mentioned in Genesis 2:2f. (64) The reasoning behind this interpretation is that since God has been "working until now" in creative activities, He has not as yet experienced the creation Sabbath rest, but a time will come at the eschatological restoration of all things when this will become a reality. Sunday, however, being by virtue of the resurrection, as Jewett says, "the earnest and anticipation of that final Sabbath," is already celebrated by Christians in place of the Sabbath. (65)

The interpretative categories utilized to reach this conclusion are borrowed from the Hellenistic Jewish philosopher Philo, who advocated the idea of continuous creation to avoid a too anthropomorphic view of God’s rest. "God never ceased to act," writes Philo, "but as it is the property of fire to warm, so it is of God to create." (66) Apparently, however, Philo distinguished between the creation of mortal things which was completed with the divine rest and the creation of divine things which still continues. (67) Later (ca. A.D. 100-130) Rabbis Gamaliel II, Joshua ben Chananiah, Eliezer ben Azariah and Aqiba explicitly declared in Rome that God continues His creative activity. (68)

This notion of a continuous divine creation present in Hellenistic Judaism is, however, foreign to the teachings of the Gospel of John. In harmony with the view of all the books of the Bible, John teaches that God’s works of creation were accomplished in a past time known as "beginning" (1:1). At this beginning, through the Word that was with God (1:1) "all things were made . . . and without him was not anything made that was made" (1:3). Both the phrase "In the beginning—arche" and the aorist form of the verb "egeneto—made or came into being," indicate with sufficient clarity that the works of creation are viewed as concluded in an indefinite distant past. Moreover the fact that in John 5:17 the works of the Father are identified with those performed by Christ on earth indicates that it could not possibly refer to creative works, since Christ at that moment was not engaged in works of creation. (69) To distinguish between the works of the Father and those of the Son would mean to destroy the absolute unity between the two which is emphatically taught in John’s Gospel.

What is then the "working until now" of the Father? There are conclusive indications that the expression refers not to the creative but to the redemptive activity of God. The Old Testament provides an explicative antecedent. There, as G. Bertram shows, "God’s activity is seen essentially in the course of the history of Israel and the nations." (70) M. Veloso well remarks that "it is not a question of a history viewed as a mere succession of human acts, but rather of a history molded by the saving works of God, through which it becomes the history of salvation." (71) In the Gospel of John these works of God are repeatedly identified with the saving ministry of Christ. Jesus says, for instance, "the works which the Father has granted me to accomplish, these very works which I am doing, bear me witness, that the Father has sent me" (5:36). The purpose of the manifestation of the works of the Father through the ministry of Christ is also explicitly stated: "This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent" (6:29). And again "If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me; but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father." (10:37, 38 cf. 14:11, 15:24). (72)

This sampling of references clarifies the redemptive nature and purpose of the "working until now" of God mentioned in John 5:17. A brief comparison with the parallel passage of John 9:4 should remove any lingering doubts. Jesus says, "We must work the works of him who sent me, while it is day; night comes, when no one can work" (9:4). The striking similarity between the two texts is to be seen not only in their content but also in their context. In both instances Christ defends His Sabbath "works" from the accusation of Sabbath-breaking launched by His enemies. However, in John 9:3-4 the redemptive nature of the works of God is absolutely clear. Not only is the Father described as the One "who sent" the Son to do His works, thus implying the missionary character of Christ’s activity, but the very healing of the blind man is described as the manifestation of "the works of God" (9:3). These evidences force the conclusion that the "working until now" of the Father of John 5:17 does not refer to an uninterrupted creative activity of God which would nullify any Sabbath observance but rather to the works of salvation accomplished by the Father through the Son. "Speaking with qualification," to use the well-chosen words of Donatien Mollat, "there is but one ‘work of God’: that is, the mission of the Son in the world." (73)

If our identification of the "working until now" of the Father (5:17) as the saving mission of Christ is correct, a conclusion which to us appears inescapable, then those interpretations mentioned earlier which explain Christ’s words as a reference to the creation Sabbath rest which allegedly God has never kept yet, are altogether unwarranted, since the notion of creation is not present at all in John 5:17.

A question however still remains, namely, does not the fact that Christ defends His Sabbath healings on the ground of the uninterrupted saving activities of His Father manifested through Him imply that, as stated by Jewett, "by His redemptive work, Jesus sets aside the Sabbath"? (74) To assume that through His Sabbath deeds Christ was announcing (though in a veiled fashion) the end of Sabbath observance, is to hold the same position of those Jews who accused Christ of Sabbath-breaking (John 5:16, 18; 9:16). But this is the very charge that Christ consistently refuses to admit. In the healing episodes we noticed earlier how Christ defended His Sabbath saving activities on the basis of the humanitarian considerations foreseen, at least in part, even in their rabbinical Sabbath legislation. Similarly in John, Christ refutes formally the charge of Sabbath-breaking by a theological argument admitted by His opponents. Before considering Christ’s argument, it must be emphasized that Jesus in this and in all the other instances does not concede to have transgressed the Sabbath, but rather defends the legality of His action. As aptly stated by M. Veloso,

"a defense is never intended to admit the accusation, but on the contrary to refute it. Jesus does not accept the charge of Sabbath-breaking leveled at Him by the Jews. He is accomplishing the work of salvation which is lawful to do on the Sabbath." (75)

To understand the force of Christ’s defense in John, we need to remember what we already discussed in part, namely that the Sabbath is linked both to the cosmos through creation (Genesis 2:2-3, Exodus 20:8-11) and to redemption through the exodus. (Deuteronomy 5:15). While by interrupting all secular activities the Israelite was remembering the Creator-God, by acting mercifully toward fellow beings he was imitating the Redeemer-God. This was true not only in the life of the people who, as we noticed, on the Sabbath were to be compassionate toward the lower orders of the society, but particularly in the service of the temple. There on the Sabbath the priests performed many common works which the Israelites were forbidden to do. For instance, while no baking was to be done in the home on the Sabbath (Exodus 16:23), yet in the temple bread was baked on that day (1Samuel 21:3-6) to replace the week-old bread of the presence (Leviticus 24:8; 1Chronicles 9:32). The same is true of all the works related to the maintenance and sacrificial system of the temple. Many activities which were common per se became holy acts on the Sabbath since they contributed to the salvation of the people. These saving activities could be performed on the Sabbath, since God Himself, as the Psalmist says, "is from of old working salvation in the midst of the earth" (Psalm 74:12).

On the basis of this theology of the Sabbath admitted by the Jews, Christ defends the legality of His Sabbath saving acts, saying, "My Father is working still, and I am working" (John 5:17). That is to say, I am engaged on the Sabbath in the same saving activity as the Father, and that is perfectly lawful to perform. To avoid misunderstanding Christ explains the nature of the works of the Father which "the Son does likewise" (5:19). These consist in raising the dead, giving life (5:21) and in conducting a saving judgment (5:22-23). For the Jews who were unwilling to accept the Messianic claim of Christ, this justification of performing on the Sabbath the works of salvation of the Father, made Him guilty on two counts: "He not only broke the sabbath but also ... [made] himself equal with God" (5:18).

This hostile reaction made it necessary for Christ to clarify further the legality of His action. In John 7:21-23 (a passage which most commentators recognize to be related to chapter 5), (76) we find the echo of the controversy. Here Christ elaborates His previous theological justification for His Sabbath acts, by wisely using the example of the circumcision:

"You circumcise a man upon the sabbath. If on the sabbath a man receives circumcision, so that the law of Moses may not be broken, are you angry with me because on the sabbath I made a man’s whole body well? Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment." (7:22-24).

Why was it legitimate to circumcise a child on the Sabbath when the eighth day (Leviticus 12:3) after his birth fell on that day? No explanation is given since it was well understood. The circumcision was regarded as a redemptive act which mediated the salvation of the covenant. (77) It was lawful, therefore, on the Sabbath to mutilate one of the 248 parts of the human body (that was the Jewish reckoning) (78) in order to save the whole person. On the basis of this premise Christ argues that there is no reason to be "angry" with Him for restoring on that day the "whole body" of man (7:23). (79)

This example clarifies and substantiates Christ’s previous statement about the "working still" of His Father, since it suggests that works of salvation are accomplished on the Sabbath not only by the Father in heaven but also by His servants such as the priests on the earth. The Sabbath is then for Christ the day to work for the redemption of the whole man. In both healings, in fact, Christ looks for the healed men later on the same day and having found them, He ministers also to their spiritual needs (John 5:14; 9:35-38). His opponents cannot perceive the redemptive nature of Christ’s Sabbath ministry because they "judge by appearances" (7:24). They regard the pallet which the paralytic carried on the Sabbath as more important than the physical restoration and social reunification which the object symbolized (5:10-11). They view the mixing of clay on the Sabbath as more significant than the restoration of sight to the blind mind (9:14, 15, 26). (80)

Christ’s provocative infringement of rabbinical regulations (such as those dealing with the carrying of a pallet or mixing of clay on the Sabbath) were designed therefore not to invalidate the Sabbath commandment but rather to restore the day to its positive function. M. J. Lagrange aptly notes that

"Christ was careful to distinguish between that which was contrary and that which was in harmony with the spirit of the law.... Jesus was working like the Father and if the actions of the Father in no way contradicted the rest prescribed by the Scriptures, then the activities accomplished on the Sabbath by the Son were not contrary to the spirit of that institution." (81)

We can conclude that the works of the Father to which Christ refers when He says, "My Father is working still, and I am working" (John 5:17) are not the works of creation which John views as completed but those of redemption. God rested at the completion of creation but because of sin He is "working still" to accomplish its restoration. These works of salvation, on which the Father is constantly engaged, are contemplated and permitted by the Sabbath commandment. Christ therefore denies having acted against the Sabbath when He restored sick persons, since He was accomplishing the very same saving mission as the Father. Moreover in John 9:4, Jesus apparently extends to His followers the same invitation to do God’s work "while it is day; night comes when no one can work" (9:4). Some interpret the "night" as a reference to the death of Christ (82) which inaugurated the true rest of God by virtue of the resurrection commemorated by Sunday observance. While it is true that for Christ the "night" of the cross was very near, it can hardly be said that the term applies exclusively to Christ’s death, since the "night" is described as a time when "no one—oudes" can work" (9:4). The death of Christ can hardly be regarded as the interruption of all divine and/or human redemptive activity. Could not this term allude to the end of the history of redemption when God’s invitation to accept salvation will no longer be extended? On the other hand, the expressions "the Father is working still" (5:17) and "we must work . . . while it is day" (9:4) which were spoken by Christ to defend His saving ministry on the Sabbath day well epitomize the Savior's’s understanding of the Sabbath, namely, a time to experience God’s continuous salvation by sharing it with others. (83)

The plucking of ears of corn

This redemptive function of the Sabbath is further clarified in the episode of the plucking of the ears of corn by the disciples on a Sabbath day (Mark 2:23-28; Matthew 12:1-8; Luke 6:1-5). An argument ensued between Christ and the Pharisees, who held Jesus responsible for the action of the disciples. Some scholars interpret Mark’s expression "the disciples began to make [their] way—odon poiein—plucking ears of grain" (Mark 2:23) as meaning the clearing of a pathway for Christ through the cornfield. Thus the ire of the Pharisees would have been caused by the great quantity of grain being harvested. While it must be admitted that the expression "to make a way—odon poiein" taken literally could support such conclusion, in the light of the context this can hardly be the case. If the disciples’ intention was to clear a pathway through the cornfield for their Master, (84) they would have trodden down or cut down the corn with a sickle, not merely plucked ears of corn by hand. Moreover, if the disciples had actually dared to clear a pathway through a cornfield, they would have been charged not solely with Sabbath breaking, but also with trespassing, destroying and stealing private property. The plucking of ears of corn, therefore, occurred not "to make a way" for their Master, but rather, as translated by the RSV, "as they made their way" (Mark 2:23) along a path that went through the fields. (85)

In the opinion of the rabbis, however, by that action the disciples were guilty on several counts. By plucking the ears of grain they were guilty of reaping, by rubbing them in their hands they were guilty of threshing, by separating the grain from the husk they were guilty of winnowing; and by the whole procedure they were guilty of preparing a meal on the Sabbath day. (86) Therefore, regarding their action as an outright desecration of the Sabbath, the Pharisees complained to Christ, saying, "Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?" (Mark 2:24).

One wonders, first of all, why the disciples were assuaging their hunger by eating raw ears of grain plucked along the hedge of a field. And also, where were they going on a Sabbath? The fact that the Pharisees made no objection to the distance being covered by their journey suggests that theirs was no more than a Sabbath day’s journey of approximately two-thirds of a mile. (87) The texts provide no hint about their destination, but the presence of the Pharisees among them on a Sabbath day suggests the possibility that Christ and the disciples had attended the service at the synagogue and, having received no dinner invitation, they were making their way through the fields to find a place to rest. If this were the case, then Christ’s reply to the Pharisees, particularly the quotation, "I desire mercy and not sacrifice" (Matthew 12:7), could well contain a veiled rebuke to their negligence to practice Sabbath hospitality. An important aspect of the preparation of the Sabbath meal was in fact that of planning for eventual visitors. Christ then apparently, as well stated by R. G. Hirsch, "answers their charge with another charge. For the act of the disciples there was some excuse; for the Pharisees’ neglect to provide the Sabbath meals, there was none." (88)

The motivation for the action of the disciples (which in Mark is implied in Christ’s defense of their act) is explicitly stated by Matthew when he says, "His disciples were hungry" (Matthew 12:1). W. Rordorf argues that Matthew’s mention of the disciples’ hunger provides no justification for their breach of the Sabbath, since (1) it implies negligence on their part in "not having prepared their meals on the previous day as everyone else"; (2) "they could have fasted for the whole day" if on account of their missionary commitments they had been unable to prepare their food ahead of time; and (3) the disciples were not "in danger of life through sheer exhaustion." (89) Our author reasons as a skilled rabbi, but he fails to recognize that Matthew’s justification for the conduct of the disciples is not based on the rabbinical view of the Sabbath but rather on that of Christ. The sayings and examples of Christ reported by Matthew present the Sabbath not as an institution more important than human needs, but as a time of "mercy" (12:7) and service to humanity (12:12). In this perspective the hunger of the disciples could legitimately be satisfied on the Sabbath. (90)

A closer look at the various arguments put forward by Christ to meet the criticism of His opponents, will provide additional insight into Christ’s concept of the Sabbath. First of all, Christ reminded the Pharisees of David and his men, who once assuaged their hunger by eating the showbread which was forbidden except to the priests (1Samuel 21:1-7). The implication is clear. If it was right for David to allay his hunger by eating of the bread consecrated to holy use, then it was legitimate also for the disciples to provide for their needs by plucking ears of grain during the holy time of the Sabbath. (91) In both instances, holy bread and holy time were used exceptionally to meet human needs. Their use was justified by the fact that the intention behind all divine laws is not to deprive but to ensure life. The exception therefore does not nullify but corroborates the validity of the commandment. (92)

The contrast between the case of David and that of Christ adds force to the argument. David’s followers were soldiers (1Samuel 22:2) while those of Christ were peaceful men. David to allay his hunger ate of the forbidden showbread which is far less lawful to be touched than ears of corn. David’s hunger, in fact, set aside a specific divine regulation (Leviticus 24:5; Josephus, Antiquities, 3, 10, 7) while the disciples’ hunger set aside mere rabbinical notions. By appealing to an exception approved by countless generations (93) ("Have you never read . . . Mark 2:25) Christ reasons a majori ad minus to demonstrate that His disciples were guiltless (Matthew 12:7), since like David, they had obeyed the higher law of necessity. (94) The point to observe, however, is that Christ does not minimize the infraction of the precept by introducing a more liberal casuistry. (He sees that all forms of casuistry enslave man.) (95) On the contrary, Christ states explicitly and strikingly that David’s action was "not lawful" (Mark 2:26). The disciples too, He implies, by their action had broken the Sabbath law of complete rest. Nevertheless in both instances they were blameless because the larger obligation overruled the lesser, that is to say, mercy was more important than sacrifice.

This concept is further elaborated in Matthew by Christ’s saying regarding the priests who "profane the Sabbath" (12:5) by performing in the temple a host of activities illegal for the ordinary person, yet are innocent (12:5). On the Sabbath, in fact, the work in the temple was augmented by the double amount of offerings (Numbers 28:9-10). (96) Why were the priests "guiltless" (12:5) though working more intensely on the Sabbath? The answer lies, as we noted earlier, in the redemptive nature of their Sabbath work, designed to provide forgiveness and salvation to needy sinners. The priests performed activities on the Sabbath which per se were rightly condemned by the commandment, yet they were guiltless because they were fulfilling the purpose of the Sabbath which is to supply the spiritual needs of the people. But, how could Christ defend His actions as well as those of His disciples by this example of the service performed by the priests on the Sabbath, when neither He nor His disciples were fulfilling the divine law of sacrifices on that day? The answer is found in the subsequent statement Christ made, "I tell you something greater than the temple is here" (Matthew 12:6). (97)

The symbolic function of the temple and its services had now found its fulfillment and were superseded by the service of the True High Priest. Therefore, on the Sabbath, and even by preference on the Sabbath, Christ also must intensify His "sacrificial offering," that is to say, His ministry of salvation on behalf of needy sinners; and what He does His followers, the new priesthood, must do likewise. We found in John 7:22-23 that Christ expresses the same concept. As the priest on the Sabbath by the redemptive act of circumcision extended the blessing of the covenant to the newborn, so Christ on the Sabbath must work for the salvation of the entire human being. Christ finds in the temple and its services a valid frame of reference to explain His Sabbath theology, since their redemptive function best exemplified both His Messianic mission and the divine intended purpose for the Sabbath. In fact by identifying His saving mission with the Sabbath, Christ reveals the ultimate divine purpose of the commandment, namely, fellowship of man with God. The Sabbath becomes through Christ a time not only to commemorate God’s past creation but also to experience the blessings of salvation by ministering to the needs of others.

The humanitarian dimension of the Sabbath unfortunately had largely been forgotten in Christ’s day. The claims of rituals had taken the place of the claims of service to human needs. In the statement reported by Matthew, Christ openly attacks this perversion of the Sabbath, saying, "If you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless" (Matthew 12:7). For Christ the disciples are "guiltless" though they had contravened the Sabbath law of complete rest, because the true meaning of the commandment is ‘‘mercy and not sacrifice.’’ What do ‘‘mercy" and "sacrifice" stand for? The prophet Hosea, from whose book these words are quoted, rebukes his people for "seeking the Lord . . . with their flocks and herds" (5:6) as if God could be propitiated by the many costly sacrifices (cf. 1Samuel 15:22). The prophet reminds them that what God desires is "mercy and not sacrifice" (6:6). This mercy desired by God is characterized both in the Old and New Testament, as noted by R. Bultmann, not by a vague "disposition," but rather by a concrete attitude that finds expression in "helpful acts." (98) In the Gospel of Matthew, especially, "mercy" denotes the acts of aid and relief that members of the covenant community owe to one another (Matthew 5:7, 9:13; 12:7, 23:23). As well expressed by I. R. Achtemeier, "Members of a community, no matter who they be—Scribes, Pharisees, tax collectors, sinners—are to give love and aid and comfort to one another." (99) It was this pity and sympathy for anyone in distress that the Pharisee’s lacked. Therefore, the hunger which plagued Christ and His disciples did not kindle within their hearts any feeling of tenderness or eagerness to help. Instead they were condemning the disciples.

This showing of love by acts of kindness represents for Christ the true observance of the Sabbath, since it acknowledges the very redemptive activity of God, which the day commemorates. In fact, as memorial of the divine redemption from both the bondage of Egypt (Deuteronomy 5:15) and the bonds of sin (Luke 5:18-19; 13:16; John 5:17), the Sabbath is the time when believers experience God’s merciful salvation by expressing kindness and mercy toward others. Therefore, the order of the true Sabbath service which Christ sets up requires first the living-loving service of the heart and then the fulfillment of cultic prescriptions. It is a sobering thought that in the Gospels less is said about the preaching ministry of Christ on the Sabbath in the Synagogue and more about His ministry of compassion and mercy on behalf of needy sinners.

This fundamental value of the Sabbath is emphasized by Christ in another saying pronounced in conjunction with the same episode, but reported only by Mark, "The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath" (2:27). (100) Some authors have interpreted this famous pronouncement of Christ as meaning that "the well-being of man is superior to the Sabbath rest" (101) and since the Sabbath "no longer spelt blessings but hardship, it had failed in its divine purpose, and as a consequence rebellion against it or disregard of it was no sin. (102) The least that can be said of this interpretation is that it attributes to God human shortsightedness, since from this viewpoint He would have given a law that could not accomplish its intended purpose and consequently was forced later to abolish it. By this reasoning the validity of any God-given law is determined not by its intended purpose but rather by the way human beings use or abuse it. Such a conclusion would make man and not God the ultimate arbiter who determines the validity of any commandment.

What did Christ actually mean by the affirmation that "the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath" (Mark 2:27)? To interpret this saying as meaning that "the well-being of man is superior to the Sabbath rest" would imply that the Sabbath rest had been imposed arbitrarily upon man to restrict his welfare. But this interpretation runs contrary to the very words of Christ. "The Sabbath," He said, "was made on account of (dia) man and not man on account of the Sabbath." This means that the Sabbath came into being (egeneto) after the creation of man, not to make him a slave of rules and regulations but to ensure his physical and spiritual well-being. The welfare of man, then, is not restricted but guaranteed by its proper observance. As aptly stated by Charles R. Erdman,

"Herein lay the error of the Pharisees. They had so interpreted the Sabbath day and so loaded it with minute, absurd and vexing requirements and restrictions, that its observance was no longer a delight but a burden. The Law, instead of being a servant, had been transformed into a cruel master, and under its tyranny men were groaning." (103)

By this memorable affirmation "the sabbath was made on account of man," Christ then does not abrogate the original Sabbath commandment, foreseeing the institution of a new day, but rather He strikes off the shackles imposed by the rabbinical Sabbath theology of post-exilic Judaism which had exalted the Sabbath above human needs. To require the disciples to deny their needs in order to keep the Sabbath is to pervert its intended function, namely, to be a day of blessing, not one of hardship.

Some have argued that when Christ says that the Sabbath was made for man, He means to condemn the prevailing Jewish exclusivistic notion that the Sabbath was not for the Gentiles but only for Israel and thereby proclaims its universal scope. (104) While undoubtedly Christ takes this wider view of the Sabbath, this meaning is quite alien to the context of the passage, where the question discussed is not the universal scope of the Sabbath rest but rather its fundamental function. (105)

To sanction with His Messianic authority His interpretation of the Sabbath, Christ adds a memorable pronouncement reported by all the Synoptics, "So the Son of man is lord even of the sabbath" (Mark 2:28 par.). This conclusion has been thought by some to be logically disconnected in Mark from the previous statement (2:27) where the Sabbath is related to man in general and not to Christ. Since it was the disciples and not the Son of man who had been accused, it is argued that Christ’s proclamation of lordship over the Sabbath would not justify His disciples’ breaking it. It is suggested, therefore, that the formula "son of man" could be a mistranslation of the Aramaic barnasha which can mean man as well as "son of man." In this case Christ originally said, "‘The sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So man [not the Son of man] is Lord even of the Sabbath" (Mark 2:27-28). (106) The change from "man" to "Son of man" was made allegedly by the primitive Church because she was afraid to assume personal responsibility for the violation of the Sabbath and, therefore, timidly sought only in Christ the freedom from its obligation. (107)

The idea that the formula "Son of man" is a mistranslation of an Aramaic phrase is gratuitous. "If the Aramaic is mistranslated in verse 28," as D. E. Nineham aptly remarks, "why not in verse 27?" (108) We find however that the phrase occurs earlier in the chapter (2:10) when Christ in a similar dispute with the Pharisees designates Himself "Son of man" to affirm His authority to forgive sin. This is in fact Christ’s favorite designation for Himself (it appears in the Gospels some 80 times) because seemingly it denotes His Messiahship. Therefore the interpretation that "Son of man" is equivalent to "man," as well stated by Josef Schmid, "runs counter not only to the literary use of Mark, in whom the words ‘Son of man’ are found only as a title whereby Jesus designates Himself, but also to the fact that Jesus Himself recognized the Sabbath as something instituted by God." (109) In fact, it would be difficult to reconcile Christ’s affirmation that the Sabbath was established by God for man (verse 27) with the conclusion that man in general is lord of the Sabbath, that is to say, free from its obligation. (110) In this case verse 28 would not ‘make verse 27 more intelligible but on the contrary would represent a negation of its principle.

Moreover, even granting that, as perspicaciously pointed out by Richard S. McConnell in his dissertation,

"the original meaning of Jesus’ words was that man is the Lord of the Sabbath, it is doubtful whether this means that the Sabbath law was no longer binding at all, as Rordorf maintains. The meaning could be that Jesus gave the disciples the right to decide how they could honor and worship on the Sabbath. The disciples were not the servants of the Law, but they were given authority to determine by their Master’s example how to fulfill the intention behind the Sabbath law." (111)

To interpret the saying of Christ as the effort of the primitive Church to justify the replacement of the Sabbath by a new day of worship, is to read into the passage an issue which is not there. The controversy is not Sabbath versus Sunday, but rather over the conduct of the disciples who, according to the charge of the Pharisees, were "doing what is not lawful on the sabbath" (Mark 2:24 par.). We noticed that Christ refutes this criticism by putting forth several arguments to demonstrate that the action of satisfying the hunger by plucking ears of corn was in harmony with the intended function of the Sabbath. After enunciating the fundamental purpose of the Sabbath, namely a day established to ensure man’s well being, Christ concludes by affirming His Lordship over the day.

It is claimed that the two clauses "the sabbath is made for man, and so the Son of man is lord even of the sabbath" do not fit, since the latter represents "a weakening and a limitation" (112) of the former. This conclusion rests on the sole comparison of "man with Son of Man," without taking into account what is said about each of them. The train of thought, however, becomes clear when one focuses on what is said about the two. Of man it says that the Sabbath was made (egeneto) for him, and of the Son of man that He is the Lord (kurios) of the Sabbath. The inference "so—hoste" depends on the fact that the Son of man is Lord of the Sabbath (verse 28) because He made the day for man’s benefit (verse 27). The emphasis in the Greek construction is in fact not on the Son of ‘man but on the predicate "Lord" which is rightfully placed first. Its English literal translation reads, "therefore Lord is the Son of man also of the Sabbath." (113) Christ’s lordship over the Sabbath is grounded, then, on the previous affirmation that the Sabbath was made for man’s benefit.

Some may ask, how can the instituting of the Sabbath for man’s benefit constitute the ground of Christ’s lordship over the day? The answer is found in the fact that the Son of God can rightfully claim both to have created man and also to have instituted the Sabbath to ensure his well-being. Ultimately, therefore, Christ’s lordship over the Sabbath represents His authority over man himself.

Seen in this perspective the two clauses do fit logically, the latter representing not a weakening but a strengthening of the previous statement. Several exegetes acknowledge this logical dependency of the two clauses. Henry Barclay Swete writes for instance, "In Mark the sequence of thought is clear. The Sabbath, being made for man’s benefit, is subject to the control of the ideal and representative Man, to whom it belongs. (114) Similarly Joseph Huby explains the nexus between the two clauses, saying, "The Sabbath having been made for the welfare of man depends upon the lordship of the Son of Man whom God has ordained as arbiter of what is suitable for the spiritual well-being and for the salvation of men. (115) Therefore by proclaiming Himself "Lord of the Sabbath," Christ is not granting to His disciples "fundamental freedom with regard to the Sabbath" (116) but rather He is affirming that, as stated by Richard S. McConnell,

"He has the authority to determine in what manner the Sabbath is to be kept so that God is honored and man is benefited."

We have noticed that Christ’s defense of His disciples’ plucking ears of corn on the Sabbath is a rather long speech built up by stages as argument is added to argument. Five basic thoughts are reported by the Synoptics to demonstrate not only the innocence of His disciples but especially the true meaning of the fourth commandment (Exodus 20:8-11). First, Christ refers to the case of David to clarify the general principle that necessity knows no law. Holy bread or holy time can be used exceptionally in order to sustain life. Secondly, Christ moves from a general principle to a specific example of exceptional use of the Sabbath by the priests to prove that the commandment does not preclude but contemplates ministering to the spiritual needs of people. Being Himself the superior Anti-type of the temple and its priesthood, Christ as well as His followers, like the priests, must also intensify on the Sabbath their ministry of salvation to needy sinners. Thirdly, by citing Hosea’s statement, "I desire mercy and not sacrifice," Jesus explains that the order of priorities in the observance of the Sabbath is first a loving service of kindness to needy people and then the fulfillment of ritual prescriptions. Fourthly, Christ reaffirms the fundamental principle that the Sabbath was instituted to ensure man’s well-being, and therefore any denial of human needs on account of the Sabbath commandment would be a perversion of its original purpose. Lastly, Christ provides the final and decisive sanction of the conduct of His disciples and of His interpretation of the Sabbath commandment, by proclaiming His Messianic lordship over the Sabbath. Guiltless therefore are the disciples who accepted Christ’s lordship and were doing what He allowed them to do, but condemned are those who thought to honor the Sabbath by adhering to often foolish rabbinical traditions while dishonoring its intended purpose and its Lord.

In the light of this Messianic proclamation of lordship over the Sabbath, it is well to consider the meaning of Christ’s summons recorded in Matthew as a preface to the subsequent Sabbath conflicts. The Savior's says,

"Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest (anapauso). Take my yoke upon you and learn from me; for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest (anapausin) for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden light (Matthew 11:28-30)."

Twice in this invitation Christ promises rest to those who come to Him and learn from Him. This pronouncement, as several commentators have noted, was apparently made on a Sabbath and should be connected with the subsequent Sabbath material, since the following verse begins with "At that time—en ekeino to kairo" (12:1). (117) The possibility exists therefore that the rest that Jesus promises is, as stated by J. Daniélou, "the anapausis [rest] of the true Sabbath." (118) In this case Christ’s Sabbath rest is viewed as an easy yoke" and "light burden" possibly by contrast with the heavy yoke of rabbinical requirements which weighed heavily upon the people. (119) This figure was familiar to Christ’s hearers, since the rabbis referred to the Law as a "yoke" and to the disciples as those who put their neck under the "yoke." (120)

What is the new "Sabbath rest" that Christ promises to those who labor in vain to procure rest for themselves by fulfilling burdensome legal obligations? In our previous analysis of the Sabbath material of the Gospels, we noticed that Christ made the Sabbath the fitting symbol of His redemptive mission. Not only did Jesus announce His mission as the fulfillment of the sabbatical time of redemption (Luke 4:18-19), but on the Sabbath He intensified His works of salvation (John 5:17; 9:4) on behalf of needy sinners, so that souls whom "Satan bound" (Luke 13:16) would experience and remember the Sabbath as the day of their liberation. Moreover, it was on a Friday afternoon that Christ completed His redemptive mission on this earth and having said "it is finished" (John 19:30), He hallowed the Sabbath by resting in the tomb (Luke 23:53-54; Matthew 27:57-60; Mark 15:42, 46). As the Sabbath rest at the end of creation (Genesis 2:2-1) expressed the satisfaction and joy of the Godhead over a complete and perfect creation, so the Sabbath rest now at the end of Christ’s earthly mission expresses the rejoicing of the Deity over the complete and perfect redemption restored to man. In the light of Christ’s teaching and ministry, the Sabbath rest epitomizes the blessings of salvation which the Savior's provides to burdened souls.

The Sabbath in the Letter to the Hebrews

The echo of this redemptive meaning of the Sabbath is found in Hebrews, to which we alluded earlier, where God’s people are reassured of the permanence of the blessings of the "Sabbath rest—sabbatismos" (4:9) and are exhorted to accept them (4:11). (121) The author of Hebrews is laboring with a community of Jewish Christians who apparently shared the conviction that the blessings of Sabbath keeping were tied to the Jewish national covenant. Sabbath observance was associated in fact with the material prosperity which only the members of the covenant community would enjoy in a state of political peace. (122) To wean these Jewish-Christians away from such an exclusive and material view of the Sabbath and to establish its universal, redemptive and spiritual nature, the author welds together two Old Testament texts, namely Genesis 2:2 and Psalm 95:11. By the former, he traces the origin of the Sabbath rest back to the time of creation when "God rested on the seventh day from all His works" (Hebrews 4:4; cf. Genesis 2:2-3; Exodus 20:11; 31:17). The fact that the Sabbath rest originated with God gives to it universal and eternal validity. "This Sabbath of God," as well stated by Adolph Saphir, "is the substratum and basis of all peace and rest—the pledge of an ultimate and satisfactory purpose in creation." (123) By the latter (Psalm 95:11) he explains the scope of this "Sabbath rest" which includes the blessings of salvation to be found by entering personally into "God’s rest" (4:10, 3, 5).

To demonstrate this universal redemptive scope of the "good news" (4:2) of the Sabbath rest which "came to us just as to them [i.e. the Israelites" (4:2) and which can be appropriated personally by "faith" (4:2), the author of Hebrews draws several remarkable conclusions from Psalm 95. First, he reasons that God’s swearing in Psalm 95:11 that the Israelites should not enter into His rest indicates that God has promised a Sabbath rest, which, however the wilderness generation "failed to enter [i.e. in the promised land of rest] because of disobedience" (4:6; cf. 3:16-19). (124) "Therefore," he argues, "it remains for some to enter it" (4:6). Secondly, he proceeds to show that God’s Sabbath rest was not exhausted even in the following generation when the Israelites under Joshua did enter the land of rest, since "David so long afterward" (4:7) says "Today, when you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts" (Hebrews 4:7, cf. Psalm 95:7). The fact that long after the original proclamation of the good news of the Sabbath rest, even in David’s time, God "again" renews His promise by saying "today," indicates that the promise of entry into ‘God’s Sabbath rest (sabbatismos) still "remains . . . for the people of God" (4:9). (125) Lastly, the writer implies that, as well stated by G. von Rad, "the ‘today’ in which the Psalm renews God’s offer of rest has dawned with the coming of Christ" (4:7). (126) By this line of reasoning he is able to demonstrate that the Sabbath has a three-dimensional meaning. It commemorates first the completion of creation. Later it came to symbolize the promise of entry into the land of rest and its temporal realization. Lastly, "these two meanings," which, as noted by J. Daniélou, were "the prefiguration and the prophecy of another sabbatismos, of a seventh day, which had not yet come about," have been fulfilled and become a reality for the people of God through Christ. (127) By the juxtaposition of the two texts (Genesis 2:2; Psalm 95:11), the writer of Hebrews provides unshakable assurance that God’s people through Jesus Christ shares at length in the whole purpose of creation and redemption epitomized by the Sabbath rest.

It may be argued that since the author of the Epistle is not discussing the actual observance of the Sabbath but rather the permanence and fulfillment of its blessings, no inference can be drawn regarding its literal observance. Such observation is hardly justified since the Epistle is addressed to a Jewish-Christian community that highly regarded Jewish observances such as Sabbath keeping. (128) The fact that the author is not engaged in a polemic defense of the validity of Sabbath observance, but rather in an exhortation to experience its blessing which "remains . . . for the people of God" (4:9), makes his testimony all the more valuable, since it takes its observance for granted. What the recipients of the Epistle needed to know was not the binding obligation of the Sabbath commandment, but rather its true meaning in the light of the coming of Christ.

The majority of commentators by interpreting the "sabbath rest (Or the keeping of a Sabbath) that remains for the people of God" (4:9) as an exclusive future realization, have failed to grasp the implication of the exhortation for its present observance. Samuel T. Lowrie suggests a plausible explanation for the prevailing misunderstanding of the teaching of the Epistle concerning Sabbath keeping. The Epistle won canonical recognition (in the West in about the 4th century) only long after the existence of "churches made up of converted Hebrews." The result has been that Gentile interpreters, unfamiliar with the circumstances of the original readers of the Epistle, have missed the points that would be apprehended by primitive Jewish converts. (129)

It should be noted that while the reassurance of a "Sabbath rest ‘that’ remains . . . for the people of God" (4:9) and the exhortation "to enter that rest" (4:11) can suggest a future realization of its blessings, the whole passage also contains several significant indications of a present Sabbath keeping experience. In verse 3, for instance, the writer emphatically states, "for we who have believed are entering (eiserkometha) into the rest." The present tense here, as noted by R. C. H. Lenski, is not expressing an abstract universality, for then it should read "they enter." (130) The personal form "we enter" refers to the writer and readers who "having believed" (4:3) enter in the present into the "rest" which is qualified in the following verse as being God’s Sabbath rest available since the creation of the world (4:3-4). Similarly the verb "remains—apoleipetai" (4:6,9) which literally means "to leave behind," is a present passive and therefore does not necessarily imply a future prospect. Verse 9 can be literally translated, "Then a Sabbath rest is left behind for the people of God" since Joshua’s generation did not exhaust its promises (verse 8). The present tense emphasizes its present permanence rather than its future possibility.

The force of the two "Today—semeron" in verse 7 is also significant. The "today" of the Psalm in which God renews the "good news" (4:6) of His rest, indicates to the writer that since the gospel of the Sabbath rest was reoffered in the days of David, (131) it does extend to Christian times. The condition for accepting it is the same: "Do not harden your hearts," "when you hear his voice" (4:7). This is not a future but a present "today" response to the "good news." This response well epitomizes the meaning of Christian Sabbath keeping. In verse 10 this concept is further clarified by means of the analogy between the rest of God and that of man, (literally) "for whoever entered God’s rest also rested from his works as God did from his." Both verbs "entered—eiselthon" and "rested—katepausen" are not future but aorist tense, indicating therefore not a future experience but one which, though it occurred in the past, continues in the present. In the RSV both verbs are given in the present ("enters . . . ceases") apparently since the context underlines the present and timeless quality of God’s rest (4:1,3,6,9, 11). The failure to see this has misled some expositors to interpret this rest as the rest of death (132) or the future celestial inheritance of the believers. This can hardly be the author’s sole design, since he is laboring to show that a Sabbath rest still remains in the present for the people of God (4:9).

The point of the analogy in verse 10 is not the works themselves, since God’s works are good while man’s are evil (cf. Hebrews 6:2 "dead works"); rather the analogy is made in terms of man’s imitation (osper) of God’s resting from work. This is a simple statement of the nature of the Sabbath, since cessation from work is its essential element, for it is written that "God rested on the seventh day from all his works" (Hebrews 4:4). The author therefore explains the nature of the Sabbath rest—sabbatismos—that remains for the people of God (4:9) by referring to its basic characteristic, namely cessation from work (4:10). But what does this mean? Is the author of Hebrews merely encouraging his readers to interrupt their secular activities on the Sabbath? Being Jewish-Christians, they hardly needed such a reminder. Moreover this yields only a negative idea of rest, and the blessings of the Sabbath rest can hardly be only a pure negation. Obviously the author attributes a deeper meaning to the resting on the Sabbath. This can be seen in the antithesis between those who failed to enter into its rest because of "unbelief—apeitheias" (4:6, 11)—that is, faithlessness which results in disobedience—and those who enter into it by "faith—pistei" (4:2, 3), that is, faithfulness that results in obedience. The act of resting on the Sabbath represents then the stopping of one’s doing in order to be able to experience the being saved by faith (4:2, 3, 11). Believers, as Calvin expresses it, are "to cease from their work to allow God to work in them." (133) By resting on the Sabbath after the similitude of God (4:10), the believer, as K. Barth puts it, "participates consciously in the salvation provided by Him [God]. (134)

The Sabbath rest that remains for the people of God (4:9) is for the author of the Epistle not a mere day of idleness, but rather an opportunity renewed every week to enter God’s rest, that is to say, to make oneself free from the cares of work in order freely to accept by faith God’s total blessings of creation-redemption. It should be noted, however, that this Sabbath experience of the blessings of salvation is not exhausted in the present, since the passage goes on to say that we should "strive to enter that rest" (4:11). This orientation toward the future corresponds to, or even may be caused by, the anticipation of the final redemption which the Sabbath epitomizes. Both in the Old Testament and in rabbinical literature the Sabbath is viewed also as a type of the world to come. (135) Thus in its own way the Epistle to the Hebrews expresses the essence of Sabbath keeping (which is also the core of the Christian life), namely, the tension between the experience in the present of the blessing of salvation and the eschatological consummation in the heavenly Canaan. (136)

This expanded interpretation of Sabbath keeping was apparently designed to wean Jewish Christians away from an external and material conception of its observance. We do not know how far our author was acquainted with the Sabbath material of the Gospels, but we cannot fail to perceive in his interpretation a reflection of Christ’s redemptive view of the Sabbath discussed earlier. The meaning of the permanence of God’s Sabbath rest of Hebrew 4 (cf. verses 3, 4, 5, 10) is for instance well implied in the Lord’s words in John 5:17, "My Father is working still, and I am working." (137) The rest of God is indeed His uninterrupted saving activity designed to restore fallen man to Himself. Christ as the One sent by the Father to redeem and to restore man, is the supreme manifestation of God’s rest. Hence Christ’s great promise to give rest (anapausis) unto all that come to Him (Matthew 11:28), is the core of the Sabbath rest (sabbatismos—katapausis) available to the people of God (Hebrews 4:1, 3, 6, 9, 11). These blessings of salvation which we enjoy by faith even now on the Sabbath, will be fully experienced at the end of our earthly pilgrimage. The fact that in Hebrews 4 we find a reflection of ‘Christ’s view of the Sabbath as the time to experience the blessings of salvation, goes to prove that primitive Christians (at least some) interpreted Christ’s teachings as implying not the literal abrogation but the spiritual valorization of the commandment.

An Admonition of Christ Regarding the Sabbath

We shall conclude this survey of the Sabbath material of the Gospels by considering briefly Christ’s unique warning given to His disciples, when predicting the destruction of Jerusalem: "Pray that your flight may not be in winter or on a Sabbath—mede sabbato" (Matthew 24:20).

Several explanations have been advanced to explain the reason for Christ’s singular admonition. The flight on a Sabbath could be hindered, for instance, by closed city-gates, by a mood psychologically adverse to fleeing, by the refusal on the part of strict observers to help those in need, by the fear of breaking rabbinical regulations which allowed only a short Sabbath day’s journey of two-thirds of a mile, or by the rage of "fanatical Jews who would become furious at a supposed desecration of the Sabbath." (138)

Some argue, however, that since the words "neither on a Sabbath— mede sabbato" are omitted in Mark 13:18, they represent a later Jewish-Christian interpolation. (139) Even granting such possibility, the fact remains that the interpolator regarded the Sabbath as binding at the time of his writing. Taking into account, however, Matthew’s respect for Jewish institutions, and the Jewish-Christian composition of his readership, (140) there appears no reason to question the authenticity of the phrase. Mark’s (13:18) omission could be explained by the fact that he was writing to a different audience, not impeded by Jewish restrictions, and therefore he did not have to retain Christ’s reference to traveling on the Sabbath.

Others believe that this passage reflects "the uncertainty with regards to the Sabbath precept" of the Jewish-Christian community which was endeavoring to solve the Sabbath problem but had not yet abandoned its observance. (141) The text really offers no reflection regarding the observance of the Sabbath, since it deals exclusively with the future flight, and the winter and the Sabbath are introduced incidentally only as possible obstacles. The uncertainty is not about the observance of the Sabbath, but rather regarding the arrival of the great "tribulation" (Matthew 24:15,21). The fact that the Sabbath is mentioned not polemically but incidentally as an element unfavorable to a flight, implies that Christ did not foresee its substitution with another day of worship, but rather that He took for granted its permanence after His departure.

It could be argued that the statement taken by itself hardly reflects Christ’s view of the Sabbath, since it is inconsistent with the Savior’s defense of use of the Sabbath to sustain life. But is Christ, in this instance, actually prohibiting fleeing on the Sabbath? His admonition is to pray for conditions favorable to a flight. The winter and the Sabbath are introduced merely as external circumstances that could interfere with a hasty flight. Christ in no way implies that fleeing in winter or on a Sabbath would be unlawful. He is solely expressing His sympathetic concern for His followers, who might be hampered in their flight by these adverse elements. The considerations for the plight of women pregnant or with nursing babies (Matthew 24:19) as well as for the travel difficulties caused by the winter and by the Sabbath (verse 20) are not judgmental values but only indications of Christ’s tender concern for human frailty. From the standpoint of His disciples, Christ sees the Sabbath as a time inappropriate for fleeing, since, being a day of rest, Christians would be unprepared for a flight and fanatical Jews would possibly hamper their flight. (142) Christ, therefore, in this admonition is not defining Sabbath behavior but merely exhorting His disciples to pray for favorable circumstances. The fact, however, that Sabbath keeping is taken for granted, presupposes, on the one hand, that Christ foresaw the permanence of its observance and, on the other hand, that, as stated by A. W. Argyle, "the Sabbath was still observed by Jewish Christian when Matthew wrote." (143)

Conclusions

Several conclusions emerge from this analysis of the Sabbath material of the Gospels. The ample report of the Gospel writers of the conflicts between Christ and the Pharisees on the manner of Sabbath observance, is indicative first of all of the serious estimate in which the Sabbath was held both in Jewish circles and in primitive Christianity. The extensive accounts of Christ’s Sabbath pronouncements and healing activities presuppose, in fact, that primitive Christians were involved in debates regarding the observance of the Sabbath. We found, however, that they understood Jesus’ attitude toward the Sabbath not as a veiled forecast of a new day of worship, but rather as a new perspective of Sabbath.’keeping. This consisted both in a new meaning and a new manner of observance of the Sabbath.

Concerning the latter, the Sabbath was viewed not as a time of passive idleness but of active, loving service to needy souls (Mark 3:4; Matthew 12:7, 12; John 9:4). This new understanding is attested in as early a document as the Epistle to Diognetus (dated between A.D. 130-200). The Jews are here charged with "speaking falsely of God" when claiming that "He [God] forbade us to do what is good on the Sabbath-days—how is not this impious"? (144)

We found this positive and fundamental value of Sabbath keeping to be forcefully established by Christ through His program of Sabbath reforms. The Lord, we noticed, on the Sabbath deliberately acted contrary to prevailing restrictions, in order to liberate the day from the multitude of rabbinical limitations and thereby restore it to its original divine intention, namely, to be a day of physical and spiritual well-being for mankind. We noted, however, that Christ presents the showing of love by acts of kindness on the Sabbath to be not merely the fulfillment of the humanitarian obligations of the commandment, but primarily the expression of the believer’s acceptance and experience of the divine blessing of salvation (John 9:4; Matthew 11:28).

This relationship between the Sabbath and redemption we found brought out in the Gospels in several ways. God’s Sabbath rest, for instance, is presented by Christ, not as a time of idleness, but as His "working until now" (John 5:17) for man’s salvation. Likewise the priests’ legitimate use of the Sabbath to minister to needy sinners (Matthew 12:5; John 7:23) is presented by Christ as an indication of the redemptive function of the Sabbath. But we found the supreme revelation of its redemptive meaning in the Messianic claims and Sabbath ministry of Christ. The Savior's not only inaugurated (Luke 4:16) and closed (Luke 23:53-54) His ministry on a Sabbath but He also explicitly announced His Messianic mission to be the fulfillment of the promises of redemption and liberation of the sabbatical time (Luke 4:18-21). Moreover on the Sabbath Christ intensified His saving ministry (John 5:17; 9:4; Mark 3:4) so that sinners whom "Satan bound" (Luke 13:16) might experience and remember the Sabbath as the day of their salvation.

The Sabbath, then, in Christ’s teaching and ministry was not "pushed into the background" or "simply annulled" to make room for a new day of worship, but rather was made by the Savior's the fitting memorial of His salvation rest available to all who come to Him in faith (Matthew 11:28). (145)

This redemptive meaning of the Sabbath we found exemplified in the fourth chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Here the "Sabbath rest" that "remains ... for the people of God" (4:9) is explained to be not a material experience reserved exclusively for the Jewish nation (4:2, 8) but rather a permanent and spiritual blessing available to all who enter by faith into God’s rest (4:2,3, 11). By ceasing on the Sabbath from one’s labor after the similitude of God ‘ (4:10), the believer makes himself available to receive by grace and not by works the foretaste of the blessings of the final redemption which, through Christ, have already become a certainty (4:7). This positive interpretation of the Sabbath indicates that the primitive Church understood Jesus’ Messianic pronouncements (Mark 2:28; Matthew 12:6; John 5:17) and His healing activities, not as the supersession of the Sabbath by a new day of worship, but as the true revelation of the meaning of its observance: a time to experience God’s salvation accomplished through Jesus Christ.