From Sabbath to Sunday

Christ and the Lord’s Day

The sayings of Christ found in the Gospels do not contain the expression "Lord’s day." The Synoptics (Matthew 12:8; Mark 2:28; Luke 6:5), however, contain a similar locution, namely "Lord of the Sabbath—kurios tou sabbatou," a phrase used by Christ at the end of a dispute with the Pharisees over the question of legitimate Sabbath activities.

Various authors have sought to establish a causal relationship between Christ’s proclaiming himself "Lord of the Sabbath" and the institution of Sunday as the "Lord’s day." C. S. Mosna, for instance, emphatically states that "Christ proclaimed Himself master of the Sabbath specifically to liberate man from formal burdens like the Sabbath, which had become unnecessary." (2) He sees in this pronouncement Christ’s intention to institute His new day of worship. Wilfrid Stott similarly interprets Christ’s logion as an implicit reference to Sunday: "He is the Lord of the Sabbath and in this expression, quoted by all three of the Synoptics, there is a covert reference to the Lord’s day. He, as Lord, chooses his own day." (3)

To assess the validity of these assumptions, we must determine Christ’s basic attitude toward the Sabbath. To put it forthrightly, did Christ genuinely observe or intentionally break the Sabbath? If the latter were the case, then we would need to find out if Christ by His words and actions intended to lay the foundations for a new day of worship which would eventually replace the Sabbath.

Form critics would regard this investigation as futile, since they view the Gospels’ report of Christ’s Sabbath teachings and activities, not as authentic historical accounts but as later reflections of the primitive Church. What Jesus Himself may have thought, they claim is impossible to ascertain. (4) We see no justification for such historical skepticism, especially since a new quest for the historical Jesus has begun which casts shadows on previous methodologies and promises to find in the Gospels a much larger number of genuine deeds and words of Jesus. (5) However, even if the sabbatical materials of the Gospels represent later reflections of the Christian community (which to us is inadmissible), this point would not diminish their historical value. They would still constitute a valuable source for studying the attitude of the primitive Church toward the Sabbath. (6) In fact, the considerable space and attention given by the Gospel writers to Christ’s Sabbath healings (no less than seven episodes are reported) (7) "and controversies, are indicative of how important the Sabbath question was at the time of their writing.

The Sabbath’s Typology and its Messianic Fulfillment

A good place to start our enquiry into Christ’s concept of the Sabbath is perhaps the fourth chapter of Luke’s Gospel. Here we find excerpts from the sermon Christ preached in the synagogue of Nazareth on a Sabbath day upon inauguration of His public ministry. It is noteworthy that in the Gospel of Luke the ministry of Christ not only begins on the Sabbath—the day which, according to Luke (4:16), Christ habitually observed—but also ends on "the day of preparation as the sabbath was beginning" (23:54). The sabbatical ministry of Jesus which provoked repeated rejections (Luke 4:29; 13:14, 31; 14:1-6) appears to be presented by Luke as a prelude to Christ’s own final rejection and sacrifice.

In His opening sermon Christ refers to Isaiah 61:1-2 (cf.58:6), which says,

"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord" (Luke 4:18-19).

Practically all commentators agree that the "acceptable year of the Lord" (4:19) which Christ is officially ordained ("anointed") to proclaim, refers to the sabbatical year (i.e. the seventh year) (8) or the Jubilee year (i.e. the fiftieth year, after seven Sabbaths of years). At these annual institutions, the Sabbath became the liberator of the oppressed of the Hebrew society. The land was to lie fallow, to provide free produce for the poor, the dispossessed and the animals. (9) The slaves were emancipated if they so desired and debts owed by fellow citizens were remitted. (10) The jubilee year also required the restoration of property to the original owner. (11) That the text of Isaiah, read by Christ, refers to these sabbatical institutions is clear by the context which speaks of the liberation of the poor, captives, blind (or prisoners), oppressed.

It is significant that Christ in His opening address announces His Messianic mission in the language of the sabbatical year. His brief comment on the passage is most pertinent: "Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing" (4:21). As P. K. Jewett aptly remarks, "the great Jubilee Sabbath has become a reality for all those who have been loosed from their sins by the coming of the Messiah and have found an inheritance in Him." (12)

We may ask, why did Christ announce His mission as the fulfillment of the sabbatical promises of liberation? Did He intend to explain, perhaps in a veiled fashion, that the institution of the Sabbath was a type which had found its fulfillment in Himself, the Antitype, and therefore its obligation had ceased? (In such a case Christ would have paved the way for the replacement of the Sabbath with a new day of worship.) Or did Christ identify His mission with the Sabbath in order to make the day a fitting memorial of His redemptive activities?

To answer this dilemma we need, first of all, to remind ourselves of the Messianic redemptive implications of the Sabbath. Inherent in the institution of the Sabbath is the assurance of divine blessings, "God blessed the seventh day" (Genesis 2:3 cf. Exodus 20:11). The Old Testament notion of "blessing" is concrete and finds expression in full and abundant life. The blessing of the Sabbath in the creation story (Genesis 2:3) follows the blessing of the living creatures (Genesis 1:22) and of man (Genesis 1:28). Therefore, it expresses God’s ultimate and total blessing over His complete and perfect creation (Genesis 1:31). By blessing the Sabbath God promised to be man’s benefactor during the whole course of human history. (13)

The blessings of the Sabbath in the unfolding of the history of salvation, become associated more specifically with God’s saving acts. For instance in the Exodus version of the commandments, Yahweh introduces Himself as the merciful Redeemer who liberated Israel "out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage" (Exodus 20:2). To guarantee this newly granted freedom to all the members of the Hebrew society, the Sabbath commandment enjoins that rest be granted to all, including even the animals (Exodus 20:10). In the Deuteronomic version of the decalogue, the redemption motif not only appears in the preface (Deuteronomy 5:6) to all the commandments (as in Exodus 20:1), but also is explicitly incorporated into the Sabbath commandment itself. It was perhaps to drive home the immediate relevancy of the Sabbath commandment to the Israelites and to all ensuing generations, that in this reiteration of the commandments the Sabbath is grounded not in God’s past act of creation (as in Exodus 20:11), which does not always speak to people’s immediate concerns, but rather in the divine act of redemption:

"You shall remember that you were a servant in the land of Egypt and the Lord your God brought you out thence with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm: therefore the Lord your God commanded you to keep the sabbath day" (Deuteronomy 5:15). (14)

Here the reason for observing the Sabbath is, as well stated by Hans Walter Wolff, "that affirmation which was absolutely fundamental for Israel, namely, that Yahweh had liberated Israel from Egypt. On every Sabbath Israel is to remember that her God is a liberator." (15) This call to remember the exodus deliverance through the Sabbath was for the Israelites a concrete experience which involved extending the Sabbath rest to all those who were not free to observe it. The resting on the Sabbath, however, was not designed merely as a mnemonic aid to help Israel recall her historical exodus deliverance, but rather, as Brevard S. Childs observes, it meant experiencing in the present the past salvation history. (16)

A. M. Dubarle confirms this interpretation when he writes that through the observance of the Sabbath

"was effectively realized and actualized during the whole course of time the deliverance accomplished for the first time in the month of Abib. It was not, however, only a question of commemorating by a simple souvenir, but rather a rejoicing resulting from the constant renewal of the initial benefit." (17)

We might say that the Sabbath contained a three-dimensional scope: it commemorated the past, present and future deliverance. The weekly release from the hardships of life which the Israelite experienced in the present, epitomized also the past Passover liberation as well as the future Messianic redemption. Because of their close nexus, both the Passover and the Sabbath could symbolize the future Messianic deliverance. (It is noteworthy that as the Sabbath became for the Israelites the weekly extension of the annual Passover, so Sunday later became for many Christians the weekly commemoration of the annual Easter Sunday.)

The redemptive function of the Sabbath was seemingly understood as a prefiguration of the mission of the Messiah. The liberation from the hardship of work and from the social inequalities, which both the weekly and annual Sabbath granted to all the members of the Hebrew society, was viewed as foreshadowing the fuller redemption the Messiah would one day bring to His people. The Messianic age of the ingathering of all the nations is described in Isaiah as the time when "from Sabbath to Sabbath all flesh shall come to worship before me" (66:23). The mission of the Messiah is also described by Isaiah (in the very passage which Christ applied to Himself in His opening address—Luke 4:18-19) in the language of the sabbatical year (61:13). P. K. Jewett aptly comments that God in the act of redemption and restoration of the sabbatical and jubilee year,

"appears again as the Redeemer who guarantees the individual his personal freedom and preserves for the poor a share in the inheritance of his people. Surely this is not a dated, ceremonial conception, for God has supremely manifested himself as Redeemer in Christ the Mediator, the Son who has made us free indeed (John 8:36)." (18)

Another significant Messianic typology of the Sabbath can be seen in the experience of the Sabbath rest—menuhah which A. J. Heschel defines "as happiness and stillness, as peace and harmony." (19) Theodore Friedman in a learned article shows persuasively that the peace and harmony of the Sabbath is frequently identified both in the writings of the Prophets and in the Talmudic literature with the Messianic age, commonly known as the end of days or the world to come. He notes, for instance, that

"Isaiah employs the words ‘delight’ (oneg) and ‘honor’ (kaved) in his description of both the Sabbath and the end of days [i.e. Messianic age] (58:13—"And thou shall call the Sabbath delight ... and honor it"; 66:11— ‘And you shall delight in the glow of its honor’). The implication is clear. The delight and joy that will mark the end of days is made available here and now by the Sabbath. (20)

Friedman presents also an informative sampling of Rabbinical sayings where "the Sabbath is the anticipation, the foretaste, the paradigm of the life in the world to come [i.e. Messianic age]." (21) A somewhat similar interpretation of the Sabbath is found in late Jewish apocalyptic where the duration of the world is reckoned by the "cosmic week" of six epochs of 1000 years each, followed by the Sabbath of the end of time. In the overwhelming majority of the passages this eschatological Sabbath is explicitly thought to be the days of the Messiah which either precede or are identified with paradise restored. (22)

The theme of the Sabbath rest which appears in Hebrews 3 and 4 may represent another strand of Messianic typology carried over from the Old Testament. G. von Rad notes a development of the theme of "rest" in the Old Testament from the concept of national and political peace (Deuteronomy 12:91; 25:19) to a spiritual and "wholly personal entering into God’s rest" (cf. Psalm 95:11). (23) This concept, as we shall later see, is reproposed in Hebrews, where God’s people are invited to enter into the "Sabbath rest" (4:9) by believing (4:3), obeying (4:6, 11) and accepting by "faith" God’s "good news" (4:1-2). The author rejects the temporal notion of the Sabbath rest understood as entrance into the land of Canaan (Deuteronomy 12:9; 25:19), since he argues that the land which Joshua gave to the Israelites (4:8), is not the "Sabbath rest" (4:9) which God has made available to His people since creation (4:3,4, 10). The latter can be experienced by accepting "today" (4:7) the "good news" (4:2, 6) of salvation. The allusion to the Christ-event is unmistakably clear. It is in Him that the Old Testament Sabbath rest finds its fulfillment and it is through Him that it now can be experienced by all the believers. (24)

This brief survey has sufficiently established the existence of an Old Testament Sabbath typology alluding to the Messiah. In the light of this fact the claim that Christ made in His inaugural address to be the fulfillment of the redemptive function of the Sabbath, acquires added significance. By identifying Himself with the Sabbath, Christ was affirming His Messiahship. This explains why Christ, as it will later be shown, revealed His Messianic mission particularly through His Sabbath ministry. (25) That this was well understood is evidenced, for instance, by the joint accusation Jewish leaders leveled against Christ: "He not only broke the Sabbath but also called God his Father, making himself equal with God" (John 5:18). In the actual trial it appears that the accusation of Sabbath breaking was not brought against Christ. Apparently, as W. Rordorf well remarks,

"His opponents obviously preferred to concentrate on the Messianic claim which was implicit even in His infringements of the Sabbath." (26)

The Attitude of Christ to the Sabbath

The fact that Christ claimed to be the fulfillment of the Messianic expectations inherent in the Sabbath, raises a most vital question, namely, how did Christ view the actual observance of the Sabbath? Did He uphold the validity of the institution for His followers as the unquestionable will of God? Or did Christ regard the obligation of Sabbath keeping as fulfilled and superseded by His coming, the true Sabbath?

Some scholars interpret the Sabbath debates and healing activities of Christ as intentional provocateur acts designed to show that the Sabbath commandment no longer had binding force. J. Daniélou holds, for instance, that in the healing episodes, "Christ appears concretely as inaugurating the true Sabbath [i.e. Sunday] which replaces the figurative Sabbath [i.e. Saturday]." (27) W. Rordorf expresses the same conviction, though more emphatically, when he writes that, "the Sabbath commandment was not merely pushed into the background by the healing activity of Jesus: it was simply annulled." (28)

Early patristic interpretations

Unfortunately these conclusions often have not been based on an analysis of what Christ actually did on, or said about the Sabbath, but rather in the light of the early patristic interpretation of the Sabbath material of the Gospels, which has become, and to a large extent still is, a traditional and an undisputed legacy. From the second century onward, in fact, patristic writers produced a list of the "breaches of the Sabbath" mentioned in the Gospels, adding to these constantly new ones in order to build a strong case against the Sabbath. From the Gospels they took up those examples of alleged "Sabbath-breaking" mentioned by Christ in His debate with the Pharisees, namely: David who on the Sabbath partook of the forbidden showbread (Matthew 12:3; cf. 1Samuel 21:1-7), the priests who on the same day circumcise (John 7:23) and offer sacrifice (Matthew 12:5) (29) and God Himself who does not interrupt His work on the Sabbath (John 5:17). (30) This repertoire was enriched with other "proofs" such as the example of Joshua who broke the Sabbath when "he commanded the children of Israel to go round the walls of the city of Jericho," (31) of the Maccabees who fought on the Sabbath (32) and of the patriarchs and righteous men who lived before Moses supposedly without keeping the Sabbath. (33)

Assuming (without conceding) that these arguments are based on sound criteria of Biblical hermeneutic, would not these exceptions only confirm the binding nature of the Sabbath commandment? Furthermore, should not the person who accepts the early Fathers’ interpretation and usage of the Sabbath material of the Gospels to determine Christ’s attitude as well as his own toward the Sabbath, also subscribe, to be consistent, to their negative and conflicting explanations of the meaning not only of the Sabbath but also of the whole Jewish economy? It would be interesting to find out if any Biblical scholar would concur, for instance, with Barnabas’ claim that "the literal practice of the Sabbath had never been the object of a commandment of God," (34) or that the Jews lost the covenant completely just after Moses received it" (4:7); or with Justin’s view that God imposed the Sabbath upon the Jews as a brand of infamy to single them out for punishment in the eyes of the Romans; (35) or with the notion of Syriac Didascalia (21) that the Sabbath had been imposed on the Jews as a time of mourning; (36) or with Aphrahates’ concept that the Sabbath was introduced as a result of the fall. (37)

If these interpretations of the meaning and nature of the Sabbath are to be rejected as unwarranted by Old Testament scriptural evidences, then there is no justification for using as "proof" their arguments against the Sabbath, since to a large extent these are based on this kind of fallacious presuppositions. Later in our study we shall notice that a combination of conditions which heightened the tension between Rome and the Jews and between the Church and the Synagogue in the early part of the second century, contributed to the development of an "anti-Judaism of differentiation." This situation expressed itself in a negative reinterpretation of both Jewish history and observances like Sabbath keeping. We cannot therefore evaluate the references to Sabbath in the Gospels in the light of its early patristic interpretation, but rather we must assess Christ’s attitude toward the Sabbath by examining the documents exclusively on their own merits.

Early Sabbath healings

The Gospels of Mark and Luke suggest that Christ at first limited His Sabbath healing activities to special cases, undoubtedly because He was aware of the explosive reaction that would result from His proclamation of the meaning and usage of the Sabbath. In Luke, Christ’s initial announcement of His Messiahship as a fulfillment of the Sabbatical year (Luke 4:16-21) is followed by two healing episodes. The first occurs in the synagogue of Capernaum, a city of Galilee, during a Sabbath service and results in the spiritual healing of a demon-possessed man (Luke 4:31-37). The second is accomplished immediately after the service in Simon’s house, and brings about the physical restoration of Simon’s mother-in-law (Luke 4:38-39). In both cases Christ acts out of necessity and love. In the first instance, it is the necessity to liberate a person from the power of Satan and thereby restore order in the service that moves Christ to act. The redemptive function of the Sabbath, which is already implied in this act of Christ, will be more explicitly proclaimed in later healings. In the second instance Christ acts out of deference for one of His beloved disciples and for his mother-in-law. In this case the physical healing makes the Sabbath a day of rejoicing for the whole family. It is also noteworthy that the healing results in immediate service: "immediately she rose and served them" (verse 39).

The meaning of the Sabbath as redemption, joy and service, already present in an embryonic phase in these first healing acts of Christ, is revealed more explicitly in the subsequent Sabbath ministry of Christ. At this early stage, however, the bulk of Christ’s healing activities are postponed until after the Sabbath apparently to avoid a premature confrontation and rejection:

"Now when the sun was setting, all those who had any that were sick with various diseases brought them to him, and he laid his hands on every one of them and healed them" (Luke 4:40; cf. Mark 1:32).

The man with the withered hand

The next healing episode of the man with the withered hand, reported by all the three Synoptics (Matthew 12:9-21; Mark 3:1-6), is the test case by which Christ begins His Sabbath reforms. Jesus finds Himself in the synagogue before a man with a paralyzed hand, brought there in all probability by a deputation of Scribes and Pharisees. (38) These had come to the synagogue not to worship, but rather to scrutinize Christ and "see whether he would heal him on the sabbath, so that they might accuse him" (Mark 3:2). According to Matthew they ask Christ the testing question: "Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath?" (Matthew 12:10). Their question is not motivated by a genuine concern for the sick man, nor by a desire to explore how the Sabbath is related to the healing ministry. Rather they are there as the authority who knows all the exemptions foreseen by the rabbinic casuistic, and who wants to judge Christ on the basis of the minutiae of their regulations. Christ reading their thoughts is "grieved at their hardness of heart" (Mark 3:5). However, He accepts the challenge and meets it fairly and squarely. First He invites the man to come to the front, saying, "Come here" (Mark 3:3). This step is possibly designed to waken sympathy for the stricken man and at the same time to make all aware of what He is about to do. Then He asks the experts of the law, "Is it lawful on the sabbath to do good or to do harm, to save life or to kill?" (Mark 3:4). To bring this question into sharper focus, according to Matthew Christ adds a second in the form of a parabolic saying (which appears twice again in a modified form in Luke 14:5; 13:15),

"What man of you, if he has one sheep and it falls into a pit on the sabbath, will not lay hold of it and lift it out? Of how much more value is a man than a sheep" (Matthew 12:11, 12). (39)

These statements raise an important issue. By the question of principle, which Christ illustrated with the second question containing a concrete example, did He intend to abrogate radically the Sabbath commandment or did He aim at restoring the institution to its original divine value and function? Most scholars subscribe to the former option. L. Goppelt emphatically states that

"Jesus’ double question marks the end of the Sabbath commandment: it is no longer a statutory ordinance and it no longer has absolute validity if this all-embracing, overlapping alternative is valid— namely to save life." (40)

This interpretation rests on the assumption that "to save life" is contrary to the spirit and function of the Sabbath. Can this be true? It may perhaps reflect the prevailing misconception and misuse of the Sabbath, but not the original purpose of the Sabbath commandment. To accept this supposition would make God guilty of failing to safeguard the value of life when instituting the Sabbath.

W. Rordorf argues for the same conclusion from the alleged "faulty manner of deduction" of Christ’s question of principle and of example. He explains that from the question of whether it is lawful to save or to kill and from the example of rescuing an animal in urgent need, "one cannot legitimately draw inferences which are valid also for a sick human being who does not absolutely need immediate assistance on a Sabbath." (41) The Mishnah is explicit on this regard, "Any case in which there is a possibility that life is in danger, thrust aside the Sabbath law." (42) However, in the case of the man with the withered hand as well as in each and all the other instances of Sabbath healing, it is never a question of help given to a sick person in an emergency, but always to chronically ill persons. Therefore, Rordorf concludes that the principle of saving life is not a descriptive value of Sabbath observance, but rather a reference to the nature of the mission of the Messiah, which was to extend salvation immediately to all in need. In the face of this "messianic consciousness," then "the Sabbath commandment became irrelevant . . . it was simply annulled" (43)

This kind of analysis does not do justice to several points of the narrative. In the first place, the test question which had been posed to Christ was specifically concerned with the matter of proper Sabbath observance, "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?" (Matthew 12:10). Secondly, Christ’s reply in the form of two questions (one implying a principle and the other illustrating it) also dealt explicitly with the question of what was lawful to perform on the Sabbath. Thirdly, the apparent faulty analogy between Christ’s question about the legitimacy "to save life or to kill" (Mark 3:4) on the Sabbath and the chronically stricken man whose life would be neither saved nor lost by postponing the act of healing until after the Sabbath, can be satisfactorily explained by the new value which Christ places upon the Sabbath. This is explicitly expressed in the positive statement reported by Matthew: "So it is lawful to do good on the sabbath" (Matthew 12:12). If it is right to do good and to save on the Sabbath then any refusal to do it means to do evil or to kill. We shall later see that this principle is exemplified in the story by two opposite types of Sabbath-keepers.

Unfortunately, since Rordorf cannot fit Matthew’s positive interpretation of the Sabbath into his scheme, he attempts to solve the problem by accusing him of "beginning the moralistic misunderstanding of Jesus’ attitude toward the Sabbath." This misunderstanding allegedly consists in assuming "that the obligation to love one’s neighbour displaces in certain circumstances the command to keep a day of rest." (44) One wonders whether Matthew really misunderstood or truly understood Christ’s meaning and message of the Sabbath, when he wrote, "it is lawful to do good on the sabbath" (Matthew 12:12). It is true that in post-exilic Judaism an elaborate fence had been erected around the Sabbath to assure its faithful observance. The multitude of meticulous and casuistic regulations (according to Rabbi Johanan there were 1521 derivative laws) (45) produced to guard the Sabbath, turned the observance of the day into a legalistic ritual rather than into a loving service. However, it is a misunderstanding to view the Sabbath exclusively in the light of this later legalistic development.

"The obligation to love one’s neighbour" was the essence of the earlier history of the Sabbath and its related institutions. In the various versions of the Sabbath commandment, for instance, there is a recurring list of persons to whom freedom to rest on the Sabbath is to be granted. The ones particularly singled out are usually the manservant, the maidservant, the son of the bondmaid, the cattle, the sojourner and/or alien. This indicates that the Sabbath was ordained especially to show compassion toward defenseless and needy beings. "Six days you shall do your work, but on the seventh you shall rest; that your ox and your ass may have rest and the son of your bondmaid and the alien may be refreshed" (Exodus 23:12). (46) Niels-Erik Andreasen aptly comments that "the landlord must be concerned with the human value of his subjects, just as Yahweh was when he secured freedom for his people." (47) It is indeed moving that the Sabbath was designed to show concern even for the cattle. But, as well remarked by Hans Walter Wolf,

"it is more touching that, of all the dependent laborers, the son of the female slave and the alien are especially singled out. For when such persons are ordered to work, they have no recourse or protection." (48)

This original dimension of the Sabbath as a day to honor God by showing concern and compassion to fellow beings, had largely been forgotten in the time of Jesus. The Sabbath had become the day when the correct performance of a ritual was more important than a spontaneous response to the cry of human needs. Our story provides a fitting example of this prevailing perversion, by contrasting two types of Sabbath-keepers. On the one side stood Christ "grieved at the hardness of the heart" of his accusers and taking steps to save the life of a wretched man (Mark 3:4-5). On the other side stood the experts of the law who even while sitting in a place of worship spent their Sabbath time looking for faults and thinking out methods to kill Christ (Mark 3:2, 6). This contrast of attitudes may well provide the explanation to Christ’s question about the legitimacy of saving or killing on the Sabbath (Mark 3:4), namely that the person who is not concerned for the physical and spiritual salvation of others on the Sabbath, is automatically involved in destructive efforts or attitudes. (49)

Christ’s program of Sabbath reforms must be seen in the context of His overall attitude toward the law. (50) In the Sermon on the Mountain, Christ explains that His mission is to restore the various prescriptions of the law to their original intentions (Matthew 5:17, 21ff.). This work of clarifying the intent behind the commandments was a dire necessity, since with the accumulation of traditions in many cases their original function had been obscured. As Christ put it, "You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God, in order to keep your tradition!" (Mark 7:9). The fifth commandment, for instance, which enjoins to "honor your father and your mother," according to Christ, had been made void through the tradition of the Corban (Mark 7:12-13). This apparently consisted in translating a service or an obligation to be rendered to one’s parents, into a gift to be given to the temple. The Sabbath commandment was no exception and unless liberated from the many senseless casuistic restrictions, would have remained a system for self-righteousness rather than a time for loving the Creator-Redeemer and one’s fellow beings.

The crippled woman

To gain further understanding into the scope of Christ’s Sabbath reforms, we shall briefly consider additional healing episodes. The healing of the crippled woman reported only by Luke (13:10-17) is apparently the last act performed by Christ in the synagogue. The mounting opposition of the authorities must have made it impossible for Christ to continue His Sabbath ministry in the synagogue. This episode, as compared with the previous healing of the man with the withered hand (Luke 6:6-11), shows a substantial evolution.This can be seen both in the more decided attitude of Christ who automatically moves into action declaring the woman "freed" from her infirmity (13:12) without being asked, and in His public rebuke to the ruler of the synagogue (13:15). The authorities also—in this case the president of the synagogue— protest now not outside the synagogue but inside, by condemning publicly the whole congregation for seeking healing on the Sabbath (13:14). Finally, the redemptive function of the Sabbath is expressed more explicitly. The verb "to free—luein" is now used to clarify the meaning of the Sabbath. It is hard to believe that the verb was used by Christ accidentally, since in the brief narrative it recurs three times, though in the English RSV translation it is rendered each time with a different synonym, namely "to free, to untie, to loose" (13:12, 15, 16).

The verb is used by Christ first in addressing the woman, "you are freed from your infirmity" (verse 12). The woman who for eighteen years had been "bent over" (verse 11) at the words of Christ "immediately . . . was made straight and she praised God" (verse 13). The reaction of the president of the synagogue brings into sharper focus the contrast between the prevailing perversion of the Sabbath on the one hand and Christ’s effort to restore to the day its true meaning on the other. "There are six days," the president announced, "on which work ought to be done; come on those days and be healed" (verse 14). For the ruler, who viewed the Sabbath as rules to obey rather than people to love, healing was a work unfit for the Sabbath. For Christ, who was concerned to restore the whole being, there was no better day than the Sabbath to accomplish this saving ministry.

To clarify this liberating function of Sabbath, Christ twice again uses the verb "to free." First, by referring to a rabbinical concession: "You hypocrites! Does not each of you on the sabbath untie his ox or his ass from the manger, and lead it away to water it?" (13:15). It should be noticed that the watering of an animal on the Sabbath does not fall into the same emergency category as rescuing a sheep from a pit (Matthew 12:11). Any beast can survive for a day without water though it may result in loss of weight and consequently in less marketing value. One wonders if Christ was alluding to this perverted sense of values, namely that the financial loss deriving from neglecting an animal on the Sabbath was more important to some than supplying the needs of human beings who would bring no financial returns. Perhaps this is reading too much into Christ’s words. However, the point Jesus makes is clear, namely, that a basic service is provided on the Sabbath even to animals.

Building upon the concept of untying an animal, Christ again uses the same verb in the form of a rhetorical question in order to draw His conclusion: "And ought not this woman, a daughter of Abraham whom Satan bound for eighteen years, be loosed from this bond on the sabbath day" (13:16)? Arguing a minori ad maius, that is, from a minor to a greater case, Christ shows how the Sabbath had been paradoxically distorted. An ox or an ass could be freed from his manger on the Sabbath, but a suffering woman could not be released on such a day from her physical and spiritual infirmity. What a perversion of the Sabbath! Christ acted therefore against the normative tradition to restore the Sabbath to God’s intended purpose. It should be noticed that in this and in all instances Christ is not questioning the binding obligation of the Sabbath commandment, but rather He argues for its true values which had been largely forgotten.

The imagery of Christ on the Sabbath loosing a victim bound by Satan’s bonds (13:16), recalls Christ’s announcement of His mission "to proclaim release to the captives" (Luke 4:18; cf. Isaiah 61:1-3). The liberation of a daughter of Abraham from the bonds of Satan on the Sabbath represents then the fulfillment of the Messianic typology of the day. Paul K. Jewett perspicaciously comments in this regard,

"We have in Jesus’ healings on the Sabbath, not only acts of love, compassion and mercy, but true "sabbatical acts," acts which show that the Messianic Sabbath, the fulfillment of the Sabbath rest of the Old Testament, has broken into our world. Therefore the Sabbath, of all days, is the most appropriate for healing." (51)

This fulfillment by Christ of the Old Testament Sabbath symbology (as in the case of its related institution, Passover) does not imply, as suggested by the same author, that "Christians therefore are.., free from the Sabbath to gather on the first day," (52) but rather that Christ by fulfilling the redemptive typology of the Sabbath made the day a permanent fitting memorial of the reality, namely, His redemptive mission. (53) We may ask, how did the woman and the people who witnessed Christ’s saving interventions come to view the Sabbath? Luke reports that while Christ’s "adversaries were put to shame" (13:17) by the Lord’s justification for His Sabbath saving activity, "the people rejoiced" (13:17) and the woman "praised God" (13:13). Undoubtedly for the woman and for all the people blessed by the Sabbath ministry of Christ, the day became the memorial of the healing of their bodies and souls, of the exodus from the bonds of Satan into the freedom of the Savior.