Luke 6:1-5 - Jesus and the Sabbath: A Debate with the Pharisees
On a Sabbath, while he was going through the grainfields, his disciples plucked and ate some heads of grain, rubbing them in their hands. But some of the Pharisees said, “Why are you doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath?” And Jesus answered them, “Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, he and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God and took and ate the bread of the Presence, which is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and also gave it to those with him?” And he said to them, “The Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath.” (Luke 6:1-5, ESV Bible)
The same account occurs in Matthew 12:1-8 and Mark 2:23-28. We will consider all accounts while looking at Luke 6:1-5. The context of Luke 6:1-5 centers around events occurring on the Sabbath. Before we dive into the text from Luke, let's look at why the Sabbath appears to be a big deal and ask, "Did Jesus break the Sabbath?"
The Sabbath - It’s Kind of a Big Deal
According to the Torah, breaking the Sabbath is a severe sin for a Jew. God requires the Jewish people to keep the seventh day holy and cease labor. It is one of the Ten Commandments; it ranks with the prohibitions on idolatry, adultery, and murder. The LORD declared the Sabbath as an eternal sign between Himself and the children of Israel, a statute to be observed by Israel throughout all generations. He made it a sign of His covenant with Israel and commanded it as an everlasting obligation upon Israel. According to the strictest interpretation of the Torah, a Jew who violated the Sabbath might incur the death penalty:
Everyone who profanes it shall surely be put to death; for whoever does any work on it, that person shall be cut off from among his People. For six days work may be done, but on the seventh day there is a sabbath of complete rest, holy to the LORD; whoever does any work on the sabbath day shall surely be put to death. So the sons of Israel shall observe the sabbath, to celebrate the sabbath throughout their generations as a perpetual covenant. (Exodus 31: 14-16)
Is Jesus a Sabbath Breaker?
His disciples plucked grain on the Sabbath; He defended them. He healed people on the Sabbath. He told a man to carry his mat home on the Sabbath. He healed a man with a withered arm on the Sabbath. Ordinarily, Christianity cites incidences like we see in Luke 6:1-5 to prove that Jesus was all about abolishing the Sabbath. Traditional Christian interpretation supposes that He did these things to send an implicit message that the Sabbath (along with the rest of the "Old Covenant) is no longer binding. If Christianity had not been hijacked by anti-Semitism and anti-Torah theology nineteen hundred years ago, every Christian Bible reader would understand the absurdity of this proposition. A Messiah who breaks the Sabbath and advocates breaking the Sabbath is no Messiah at all. He is a false prophet and a deceiver. God Himself commands the Jewish people to reject such a Messiah.
We know from Exodus 31:14-16 that the Sabbath is a big deal. God expects the Jewish people to take it seriously. In other studies, we have also established that a true prophet, teacher, or Messiah of Israel would not break the commandments of God. By doing so or teaching others to do the same, they declare themselves false prophets and teachers. This is based on Deuteronomy 13:
“If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or wonder that he tells you comes to pass, and if he says, ‘Let us go after other gods,’ which you have not known, ‘and let us serve them,’ you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams. For the LORD your God is testing you, to know whether you love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul. You shall walk after the LORD your God and fear him and keep his commandments and obey his voice, and you shall serve him and hold fast to him. But hat prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, because he has taught rebellion against the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt and redeemed you out of the house of slavery, to make you leave the way in which the LORD your God commanded you to walk. So you shall purge the evil from your midst. (Deuteronomy 13:1-5, ESV Bible)
If Jesus is truly breaking the Sabbath, then he is a sinner, defying the commandments of God. Did he break the Sabbath? Many Christians teach that he did, thereby accusing him of heresies much like it appears that the Pharisee onlookers did as well.
In addition to the Christian interpretation of Jesus and the Sabbath, Sabbatarians (Sabbath-keepers) have formulated their own opinion. Christian Sabbatarians rightly reject the notion that Jesus abolished the Sabbath. Even Sabbatarians, however, usually interpret the gospel stories about Jesus and the Sabbath to mean that He did not care about the particulars of Sabbath law. They would argue that He broke the "rabbinic" and "man-made" traditions about the Sabbath to show everyone that the Jewish interpretation of the Law is illegitimate. He let His disciples husk grain on the Sabbath, He healed on the Sabbath, and He made mud and smeared it on a blind man's eyes on the Sabbath, all to demonstrate that Judaism had misinterpreted the Sabbath. He did these things to show His followers that the thirty-nine types of labor that Jewish Law prohibits on the Sabbath may be safely disregarded.
Christian Sabbatarians sharply distinguish between the biblical Sabbath and traditional Jewish interpretation of the Sabbath. They teach that Jesus disregarded the Jewish interpretation. Because of this, Jewish believers who choose to be scrupulous about the particulars of traditional Sabbath observance might find themselves accused of legalism: "Don't you get it? Don't you understand that Jesus is the Lord of the Sabbath? Don't you know that Jesus is our Sabbath rest?"
What is Really Going On with Jesus and the Sabbath?
Neither the traditional Christian explanation (Jesus canceled the Sabbath) nor the Christian Sabbatarian explanation (Jesus canceled Judaism) adequately answers the questions raised by Jesus and the Sabbath stories. Does a third option exist?
The Messianic Jewish movement maintains that Jesus canceled neither the Sabbath nor Judaism. This viewpoint makes the most sense when looking at the Bible collectively. It also does not potentially put Jesus as a false prophet. Rather than abolishing traditional Jewish Sabbath legislation, Jesus’ teachings and examples uphold halachic (referring to matters related to halacha, which is Jewish religious law) observance of the Sabbath.
On a Sabbath, while he was going through the grainfields, his disciples plucked and ate some heads of grain, rubbing them in their hands. (Luke 6:1, ESV Bible)
The Torah seems to allow for snacking from someone's produce as you pass through:
"When you enter your neighbor's standing grain, then you may pluck the heads with your hand, but you shall not wield a sickle in your neighbor's standing grain" (Deuteronomy 23:25)
However, in Jesus' day, that freedom applied only to hired laborers at work in the field. "Someone just passing through did not have that privilege. It is inconceivable that a wayfarer could pick grain or grapes at will in Israel, where individual agricultural plots were rather small. Such indiscriminate picking would have ruined a farmer." In Jesus' day, picking grain from a grainfield while passing through would have been considered theft.
If so, why did the disciples feel free to pluck and eat? Given that the barley harvest was already complete or near completion, the disciples had the right to glean. The Torah allowed the poor to enter the fields after the harvesters and glean the standing grain and forgotten sheaves. The Torah also required the harvesters to leave the corners of the field for the poor. The disciples may have been plucking and eating from the still-standing corners of the fields.
Some disciples of the Pharisees were also traveling with Jesus. They may have been the same fellows who had sought Him out at Peter's house in Capernaum and later complained about Him eating with sinners and tax collectors at the home of Matthew. They were not antagonists trying to entrap Him; they were genuine seekers-associates of the disciples of John the Immerser-who still hoped that Jesus might be an authentic prophet or even the Messiah as John had claimed. Some of those Pharisees might have still hoped that Jesus would yet relent and receive them as His disciples-even if they were "old wineskins."
But some of the Pharisees said, “Why are you doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath?” (Luke 6:2, ESV Bible)
As they passed through the fields that Sabbath, they saw the disciples plucking and husking, and they said to Jesus, "Look, your disciples do what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath" (Matthew 12:2); "Behold! Why are they doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?" they asked (Mark 2:24). Though Jesus Himself did not pluck, husk, or eat the grain, the Pharisees lodged their complaint and posed their question against Him. As the rabbi over His school of disciples, He had responsibility for their behavior. By allowing the disciples to perpetrate the alleged Sabbath violation, He endorsed their behavior.
What is Work on the Sabbath?
The disciples' behavior astonished the Pharisees because it violated the Jewish interpretation of the Sabbath prohibition on work. Jewish law defines the biblical prohibition on melachah ("work") by thirty-nine categories of creative and productive acts. The English language contains no equivalent for the word melachah. "Work" is a poor translation of the Hebrew term:
For six days melachah may be done, but on the seventh day there is a sabbath of complete rest, holy to the LORD; whoever does any melachah on the sabbath day shall surely be put to death. (Exodus 31:15)
The Bible, however, provides a definition for the term. The word first appears in Genesis:
"By the seventh day God completed His melachah which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His melachah which He had done" (Genesis 2:2).
This context defines melachah as creative acts of production, including the creation of light, the creation of substance, formation, separation, planting, and creative activities of making, mixing, shaping, and altering-even when those works are performed miraculously or “out of nothing.” The Torah offers additional definitions by specifying forbidden forms of melachah, such as lighting a fire, gathering, plowing, harvesting, and carrying. Still, it never provides what could be considered an exhaustive list of prohibited activities.
The rabbis pointed to Exodus 31 and 35, where the Torah indicates that the activities required to build the Tabernacle constitute melachah, and it prohibits Israel from performing those acts of melachah on Shabbat even for the sake of building the Tabernacle:
Whoever does any melachah on it shall be put to death. (Exodus 35:2)
Bezalel and Oholiab, and every skillful person in whom the LORD has put skill and understanding to know how to perform all the melachah in the construction of the sanctuary, shall perform in accordance with all that the LORD has commanded. (Exodus 36:1)
The sages logically derived the thirty-nine categories of work based on the type of labor required to build the Tabernacle. They reasoned that since the forms of creation and craftsmanship necessary for the construction of the Tabernacle constituted melachah prohibited on the Sabbath, they could use those types of labor and activity to arrive at a precise definition of the word. They needed an accurate definition of the word because the Torah prescribed a death penalty for the Israelites who performed melachah on the Sabbath.
The accepted list of prohibited activities included reaping, threshing, and winnowing. The Pharisees objected that the disciples violated all three. The written sources that documented the rabbinic definitions of Sabbath observance were not recorded until the second and third centuries CE. However, judging from the Pharisees' remarks, these definitions already likely had some popular acceptance in Jesus's time.
From a Messianic Jewish point of view, Jesus neither cancels the Torah nor violates the Sabbath. For Him to do so would constitute sin and a disqualification for His Messianic claims. The apostolic community could not have reckoned Him as sinless if He violated the Sabbath or endorsed its violation. This tension has led Sabbatarian apologists (along with some Messianic Jewish interpreters) to explain that the disciples were not breaking the written Torah's Sabbath prohibitions but only the "rabbinic fences" and "man-made traditions" around Sabbath-keeping. According to this view, Jesus and the disciples held a "loose" view of Sabbath observance, which does not prohibit reaping by hand, husking by hand, and eating.
If that were the case, however, one should expect the Master to reply to the Pharisees with Him along these lines: "Hypocrites! Foolish Pharisees who lay your rules and traditions of men upon men's shoulders. Where is it written that picking grain and rubbing it in one's hands violates the Sabbath day? The Torah neither forbids picking grain nor husking it on the Sabbath day!"
In reality, the Torah does forbid harvesting on the Sabbath. Exodus 34:21 specifically prohibits harvesting. What is harvesting? Harvesting is picking grain. Jesus did not challenge or criticize the Pharisees' interpretation of Sabbath violations. Instead of saying, "No, you are in error. My disciples are not breaking the Sabbath," Rabbi Jesus admitted that they were breaking the Sabbath. Still, He defended their right to do so by citing two legal precedents from Scripture: the incident of David with the bread of the Presence and the Sabbath-day work of the priesthood in the Temple.
And Jesus answered them, “Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, he and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God and took and ate the bread of the Presence, which is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and also gave it to those with him?” (Luke 6:3-4, ESV Bible)
David, The Temple, and the Priesthood
Jesus briefly retold the story of how David, while on the run from King Saul, came to the Sanctuary set up at Nob and asked Ahimelech, the priest, for bread to supply him and his men. Ahimelech replied that he had no ordinary bread, but he did have the twelve loaves of the bread of the Presence. The holy bread on the table inside the Tabernacle was changed out with fresh loaves every Sabbath. The Torah says that only the priesthood may eat the bread of the Presence and only within the Sanctuary. Nevertheless, Ahimelech gave David the bread. David took the bread, ate it, and left with the rest of it.
The story of David and the holy Sabbath bread may have been a typical illustration used by the rabbis to discuss Sabbath observance and Halachah. The midrashic collection Yakut Shimoni uses the story to prove that the preservation of life takes precedence over the Sabbath:
It was Shabbat, and David saw that they were baking the bread of the Presence on Shabbat... Since he had not found anything there except the bread of the Presence, David said to him, "Give it to me so that we do not die of hunger, since when there is a case of doubt regarding life, it supersedes Shabbat." How much did David eat on that particular Shabbat? Rabbi Chuna said, "David ate almost seven se'ahs due to his hunger, since ravenous hunger had gripped him." (Yalkut Shimion 11.130 on I Samuel 21:5)
Note that the above midrash places the episode on the Sabbath day. The narrative of 1 Samuel 21 also indicates that this story about David may have happened on the Sabbath day- the day the bread was changed.
Jesus admitted that David and his companions did something "which is not lawful" when they took and ate the holy bread. In saying this, He conceded, by comparison, that His disciples also did something "which is not lawful" on the Sabbath. David and his men correspond to the disciples. Both parties were hungry and without food. Both parties acquired food by forbidden means. David violated the ritual sanctity of the Temple service by taking and eating the bread of the Presence. The disciples violated the sanctity of the Sabbath by plucking, husking, and eating grain on the Sabbath day.
David violated the sanctity of the Temple service because "he was hungry," as were "those who were with him." Jesus justified David on the basis that "he was in need and he and his companions became hungry" (Mark 2:25). Jesus reasoned that the "need" and "hunger" of David and his men provided them with adequate reason for violating the ritual sanctity of the Temple service by eating the bread of the Presence.
In the Matthew account of the same event from Luke, Matthew added additional words from Jesus:
At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck heads of grain and to eat. But when the Pharisees saw it, they said to him, “Look, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath.” He said to them, “Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him to eat nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests? Or have you not read in the Law how on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath and are guiltless? I tell you, something greater than the temple is here. And if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless. For the Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath.” (Matthew 12:1-8, ESV Bible)
Let’s take a look at each of these extra verses separetly.
Or have you not read in the Law how on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath and are guiltless? (Matthew 12:5, ESV Bible)
The Priesthood and the Temple
Jesus said, "Or have you not read in the Law how on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath and are guiltless?" (Matthew 12:5). In Matthew, Jesus took the argument a step further, pointing out that the priesthood serving in the Temple must necessarily violate the Sabbath prohibitions. Slaughtering animals, tending the altar pyre, igniting incense, lighting the menorah, baking bread, and so forth constitute explicit Sabbath violations. Still, the Torah commands the priests to do so on the Sabbath day. Jewish law also highlights contradictions between the Torah's positive and negative commandments. To reconcile such moral dilemmas, the Talmudic-era sages derived the following axiom:
Wherever you find a positive commandment and a negative commandment contradicting, if you can fulfill both of them, it is preferable; but if not, let the positive command come and supersede the negative command. (b.Shabbat 133)
The priests violated the Sabbath when serving in the Temple, but they were "innocent" because the Torah commanded them to do so. The positive commandment to conduct the Temple service superseded the negative commandment of the Sabbath prohibitions. In the words of the sages, "The Temple service takes precedence over the Sabbath." How does this argument fit the situation? The priesthood's violation of Sabbath prohibitions for the sake of the Temple service seems to have only tangential relevance to David taking the bread of the Presence, and neither example appears relevant to the disciples plucking and husking grain on the Sabbath day. What is the connection between the three episodes? Jesus tied them all together when He said, "I say to you, something greater than the temple is here" (Matthew 12:6).
I tell you, something greater than the temple is here. (Matthew 12:6, ESV Bible)
Something Greater than the Temple is Here
Based on the two case precedents He cited, Jesus declared the need and hunger of His disciples to be a greater priority than the Sabbath. His argument follows: 1) if the hunger and need of human beings take precedence over the sanctity of the Temple service (which He demonstrated by David taking the forbidden, holy bread when he was hungry and in need), and 2) if the Temple service takes precedence over the sanctity of the Sabbath prohibitions (which He demonstrated by the priesthood violating the Sabbath to carry out the Temple services), then 3) human need must take precedence over the Sabbath. The logic is simple: The Temple service trumps the Sabbath, and human need trumps the Temple service. "Something greater than the temple is here," namely, human need.
In the Talmud, the sages employ the same pattern of argumentation to defend the use of life-saving medical treatments on the Sabbath: "If the Service in the Temple supersedes the Sabbath, how much more should the saving of human life supersede the Sabbath laws?"
Christian interpretations generally prefer to see in Jesus' words that He is 'something greater than the Temple." The Christian interpretation paints Jesus as a self-righteous, conceded, ego-centric Messiah. This conclusion does not arise naturally from the flow of Jesus' argument, nor is it logical. Suppose Jesus argued that His Messianic or divine status granted Him the authority to set aside the Sabbath. In that case, we have returned full circle to the standard Christian interpretation that teaches that Jesus did not keep the Sabbath or require His followers to do so. When He said, "Something greater than the Temple is here," He could not have referred to Himself. Besides, would the Pharisees have accepted that defense? Instead, the thing "greater than the Temple" must be the need and hunger of the disciples.
The Preservation of Life
That the preservation of life (pikuach nefesh) takes precedence over the Sabbath is a valid and well-attested law in rabbinic literature. Rabbinic halachah (legal procedure) sets aside most of the commandments, even the Sabbath prohibitions, for the sake of saving a human life. The Torah says:
"You shall therefore keep my statutes and my rules; if a person does them, he shall live by them" (Leviticus 18:5).
The sages interpreted this to mean a commandment may be set aside to save a life. Life precedes the commandments, saying, "You shall live by them," not "die by them." Therefore, the sages derived that it is permissible to violate the Sabbath to save a life:
A man may profane one Sabbath, so that he may live to keep many Sabbaths. Rav Yehudah said in the name of Shm'uel, "If I had been there, I would have proved it [is permissible to break the Sabbath to save a life] with a better passage yet: 'He shall live by them." (b. Yoma 85b).
In the early second century, after the failed Bar Kochba revolt and during the horrendous Hadrianic persecutions, the leading, surviving sages of the generation met in Lydda to discuss what commandments a man might justifiably break to save his life. During Hadrian's persecutions, most outward observances of the Torah constituted grounds for arrest, punishment, and possibly execution. The sages decided that to save his life, a man was justified in breaking any commandment except the prohibitions on murder, idolatry, and sexual immorality:
If a man is commanded, "Break the commandment and you will not suffer death," he may transgress and not suffer death, excepting idolatry, sexual immorality and murder." (b.Sanhedrin 742)
The sages deemed it permissible to break the other commandments in order to save one's life in that the Torah says, "You shall live by the commandments," not "die by them."
And if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless. (Matthew 12:7, ESV Bible)
Mercy, Not Sacrifice
Continuing in the Matthew account of Luke 6, Jesus quotes a passage from Hosea 6:6. Pharisaic law teaches that the threat to their lives justified their violation of the Sabbath. The narrative does not indicate that Jesus and the disciples were near starvation--only that they were hungry. The Bible does not tell us how hungry they were, but it is safe to assume that their hunger was sufficient to warrant distress. As surmised above, sunset and the onset of the Sabbath may have overtaken them as they returned from a distant village. They may have walked without food all day, and the Sabbath began as they neared their destination. They may have been faint with hunger. Fasting on the Sabbath is always discouraged. Despite all of this, the passage gives us no grounds to imagine that, if not for the heads of grain in the grainfields, the disciples would have starved to death that Sabbath. Threat to life cannot be reasonably inferred.
Nevertheless, Jesus declared that His disciples were "guiltless." According to His argument, their hunger alone justified the transgression. He rebuked the Pharisees with a quote from Hosea 6:6, saying,
"If you had known what this means, 'I desire compassion, and not sacrifice, you would not have condemned the innocent" (Matthew 12:7).
Jesus often used the Hosea 6:6 passage to teach that compassion for human beings, explicitly alleviating human suffering, takes precedence over ceremonial and ritual concerns. For example, when the same Pharisees criticized Him for eating and drinking with sinners and tax collectors, He quoted Hosea 6:6 to justify His choice of table fellowship. He explained that He chose to associate with sinners because, like a physician caring for a sick patient, He sought to alleviate their spiritual sickness:
When Jesus heard this, He said, "It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick. But go and learn what this means: I desire compassion, and not sacrifice, for I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners." (Matthew 9:12-13)
The Hebrew word from Hosea 6:6, translated as "compassion," is chesed, which, in Judaism, is generally understood to mean lovingkindness, compassion, and acts of love. In the parable of the Good Samaritan, the Samaritan fulfilled the commandment to love his neighbor as himself by showing the wounded man chesed while the priest and the Levite failed to do so on the grounds of ceremonial concerns:
"Which of these three, do you think, proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell into the robbers' hands?" And he said. "The one who showed mercy (chesed) toward him." (Luke 10:36-37)
Rabbi Lichtenstein clarifies, "It is not his intention (heaven forbid!) to permit the desecration of Shabbat (as in the opinion of confused people); instead, the meaning is that [chesed] is more important to the Holy One, blessed be He, and so one takes precedence over the other. Likewise, in this verse (Hosea 6:6), the Prophet Hosea did not intend to nullify the sacrifices, but instead to teach that the internal service of the heart is more important, as he says there, 'And the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.
Mark 12:33 invokes the same passage (Hosea 6:6) when it says that "to love [God] with all the heart and with all the understanding and with all the strength, and to love one's neighbor as himself, is much more than all burnt offerings and sacrifices."
For I desire chesed and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings. (Hosea 6:6)
Rabbi Jesus used Hosea 6:6 to teach the principle of placing compassion for human beings and alleviating human suffering ahead of ceremonial concerns. In that regard, the alleviation of human suffering is greater than the Temple. Why was it permissible for David and his men to violate the sanctity of the Temple service by taking the bread of the Presence? Was King David greater than the Temple? No, he was not, but his human need and desperate circumstance were greater than the Temple service. Jesus applied this ethic to the situation with His disciples. Their need was greater than the Temple service because, like David, they were hungry. Compassion for human suffering is a higher priority than even the Temple service, and since the Temple service is already a higher priority than Shabbat, the disciples were "guiltless" in violating the Sabbath.
The Sabbath was Made for Man
In Mark's account of the same incident in the grain field, he adds:
And he said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. (Mark 2:27)
According to Jesus’ reasoning, the urgent human need of His disciples took precedence over ceremonial concern for the Sabbath. God desires mercy more than sacrifice. In the Mark version of the story, He punctuated His argument by explaining, "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath" (Mark 2:27). Compassion for human beings should be given priority over the Sabbath. Later Talmudic-era sages echoed the same sentiment. For example, the Talmud justifies the administering of life-saving medical treatment on the Sabbath by saying:
"The Sabbath has been given over to you, but you have not been given over to the Sabbath."
When Jesus said, "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath," He alluded to the creation narrative where the creation of Adam precedes the sanctification of the Sabbath day, just as the creation of Adam precedes the creation of Eve. God made man before He set apart the seventh day; likewise, He made man before He made Eve. Paul's letters also stress the order of creation:
"For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve" (1 Timothy 2:13).
"Man was not made from woman, but Woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man" (1 Corinthians 11:8-9 ESV).
Perhaps the parallel between Eve and the Sabbath (both of which were created after Adam and for Adam) explains why Jewish tradition speaks of the Sabbath as a queen and depicts the Sabbath as the bride of Israel. It also helps explain what the Master means when He says that the Son of Man is "lord of the Sabbath." The Hebrew equivalent, Ba'al HaShabbat, might also be translated as "husband of the Sabbath."
And he said to them, “The Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath.” (Luke 6:5, ESV Bible)
Lord of the Sabbath
According to all three synoptic versions of the story about the grainfield, the Master concluded His exoneration of His disciples by stating, "The Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath. What did He mean?
One might suppose that He referred to Himself. Jesus is lord over the Sabbath and all things that the Father has set beneath His feet. He often applied the title "Son of Man" to Himself. In Hebrew, the term "son of man" is (ben adam), a familiar biblical idiom for "a human being." Ben Adam corresponds to the Aramaic form (bar enosh), a common way to say "a human being." Ordinarily, the Master used the term in Hebrew or Aramaic, but we are not sure- in a definite sense: "The Son of Man" as if He was calling Himself "the Human Being." He used it as a messianic title, alluding to texts such as Psalm 8:5(4), 80:18(17), Daniel 7:13, and passages from the book of Enoch where the divine messiah figure is called the Son of Man.
In this instance, however, He must have used the term in the general sense of "human being" and not as a messianic title to indicate Himself. If Jesus closed His argument with the Pharisees by declaring He is the lord of the Sabbath, it seems to imply that He invoked His divine prerogative to set aside and even break the Sabbath. Again, this interpretation fits well with the traditional Christian reading. It argues that Jesus had abolished the Sabbath for His disciples, a power vested in Him to do so because He is lord of the Sabbath.
That interpretation is not satisfactory for Messianic Jewish theology. If we accept that reasoning, we must reject Jesus as a prophet and Messiah. A prophet who performs signs and wonders and teaches his followers to violate the commandments of the Torah is a false prophet. This interpretation falls into the hands of the anti-missionaries and the critics who say, "This man is not from God because He does not keep the Sabbath" (John 9:16).
In addition, if Jesus meant to declare to the Pharisees that He was lord of the Sabbath, the statement was disconnected from the argument leading up to it. The hunger of David and his men, the work of the priesthood on the Sabbath, the call for mercy and compassion instead of sacrifice, and the notion that the Sabbath is made for man and not man for the Sabbath all become irrelevant, swept aside when He suddenly switched to a new line of argument: "Besides, since I am lord of the Sabbath, my disciples don't need to keep the Sabbath or your silly rules.
Of course, the Messiah is Lord of all, including the Sabbath. This, too, is a sentiment consistent with Jewish theology. Rabbinic literature refers to the anticipated Messianic Era as the ultimate Sabbath of creation. The sages compare the Sabbath to the Messianic Kingdom and refer to it as a foretaste of the World to Come. They compare the waiting for redemption and this present age to the other six days of the week. As King of the Messianic Kingdom, the Messiah is lord of the ultimate Sabbath. This line of reflection, however, is far afield from the conversation Jesus had with the Pharisees that day in the wheat fields of Galilee. The Pharisees did not know that He was the Messiah, nor was He trying to convince them that He was. Instead, He was attempting to argue, on solid legal grounds, that His disciples were innocent of the charges against them. He was trying to legally justify their grain picking, not to establish His reputation as Messiah.
Far more likely, Jesus used the term "son of man," in this instance, in its more general and common Hebrew sense: a human being. In that case, He concluded His argument by saying to the Pharisees, "A human being is lord of the Sabbath." If so, His conclusion was completely consistent with His preceding argument:
Compassion for human need and suffering takes priority over the Temple service.
The Temple service takes priority over the Sabbath.
Therefore compassion for human need takes priority over the
Sabbath.After all, the Sabbath was made for human beings, not human beings for the Sabbath.
Human beings are lord of the Sabbath, and take priority over it.
By saying that a human being is lord of the Sabbath, Jesus uses a biblical Hebrew idiom to say that humans are above the Sabbath, not below it on the priority scale, as a husband is the head over his wife. In Hebrew, the term "lord" can mean ownership, stewardship, mastery, and, as noted above, husband. Just as Adam was the steward over his wife, who was created after him, human beings are lord of the Sabbath, which was created after them and for them. This reading of the passage seems evident in Mark's telling of the incident:
Jesus said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. So the [human being] is lord even of the Sabbath. (Mark 2:27-28)
A strong rabbinic parallel to the saying also supports reading "son of man" as "human being" in this instance instead of as a messianic title:
The Sabbath was given to you [i.e., human beings], you were not given to the Sabbath. (Mechilta, Shabbata 1)
In his Hebrew Commentary on the New Testament, Rabbi Lichtenstein recognized the argument Jesus was making, and he realized that the logic of the argument demands that son of man, in this instance, must be understood in the generic sense as "human being".
He did not intend to nullify the Sabbath by virtue of the Word of HaShem (the Logos) being clothed in him; neither Matthew, Mark, or Luke say anything of the sort, as it appears to me. That interpretation would also present a difficulty in that he himself said earlier, "I did not come to nullify the Torah" (Matthew 5:17). But he himself explains what he means in Mark 2: "And he said to them, "The Shabbat was made on account of man (so that your male or female servant may rest, etc.; Deuteronomy 5:14 in the Ten Commandments), and not man on account of the Shabbat. Therefore the son of man is master even of the Shabbat." The meaning is that man is greater than the Shabbat, since Shabbat was made on his account.
Summary - Halachah of the Master
The incident in the grainfields provides the ethical and legal framework for understanding all of the Master's Sabbath-conflicts with the religious authorities of His day. All of the ensuing conflicts about whether or not it is permissible to heal on the Sabbath center on this one point of contention: Jesus believed that compassion for human beings and the alleviation of human suffering take priority over ceremonial concern. God desires compassion for human beings above sacrifice and burnt offering.
The Gospels tell numerous stories of Rabbi Jesus’ healing work on the Shabbat, demonstrating that Sabbath-related issues remained completely relevant to the early believers for whom the Gospels were written.
Contrary to popular opinion, the Master did not mean to trivialize the Sabbath or even reduce the rabbinic fences placed around Sabbath observance. On the contrary, He was concerned with restoring a balanced perspective regarding Sabbath observance that prioritizes human need. His conflict with the Pharisees over the particulars of how one ought to observe the Sabbath proves that the Sabbath was an important institution to Him, one which He did not lightly dismiss or teach His disciples to disregard. Rather, He was concerned that the Sabbath be kept according to spirit in which God gave it. Jesus correctly interpreted God’s intention for the Sabbath and His interpretation is consistent with His owns words in Matthew 5:
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. (Matthew 5:17, ESV Bible)
Fulfilling the law is best understood as properly interpreting the law, walking it out, and teaching it. Jesus was clearly “fulfilling the law” in his interaction with the Pharisee’s in the grain field. His proper interpretation of the Sabbath and the priority of mercy and compassion over ceremonial matters is based on the principle of loving one's neighbor and God with all one's heart. Luke 6:1-5 is not a conversation over legalism because earning salvation is not the context of the conversation. Following God’s commandments is a good thing. Following them at the expense of loving others is not. Human need is important and we should not allow the rules to be so rigid that we allow suffering to be commonplace. In the New Testament, we see a large emphasis on loving one’s neighbor. Luke 6:1-5 reminds me of Matthew 5:23-24, where Jesus says:
"So if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift." (Matthew 5:23-24, ESV Bible)
The relationship between you and your brother, the love, mercy, and compassion you show each other, is more important to God than worshipping at the altar. Allowing our heart to be in the right place is more important to God than sacrifices and worship. In those moments when we prioritize loving each other, we make God happy. That is not to say the altar, the worship, and the ceremonial components are unimportant. Don't confuse this and misunderstand. They are just not as important as love, mercy, and compassion.
References
This lesson was curated from teachings from First Fruits of Zion “Chronicles of the Messiah.”