Jesus healed to bring peace and wholeness to the lives of humanity, for whom the Sabbath was made.

Jonathan A. Campbell

            Along with circumcision and the avoidance of impure food, few practices characterized Jewish faith in the Second Temple Period, like resting on the Sabbath. As a practicing Jew, Jesus also kept Sabbath, yet not without controversy. The Gospels tell of clashes with religious leaders over proper Sabbath-keeping. Aside from the issue of picking grain (Mark 2:23–27), these controversies involved the permissibility of healing on the Sabbath (Mark 3:1–6; Luke 13:10–17; 14:1–6; John 5:1–15; 9:1–16). In these narratives, religious leaders believed it to be unlawful to perform such healings on Sabbath. Jesus disagreed. The controversies serve to highlight Jesus’ mercy toward the sick and disabled.

            Historical Jesus scholars are relatively unanimous in seeing Jesus as a practicing Jew who engaged in discourse regarding the way in which one should live according to the will of God. In a forceful article on the Sabbath controversies, Donald A. Hagner makes this very point, noting “it is a priori extremely unlikely that Jesus could come with his revolutionary message about the dawning of the kingdom of God and never speak of his relation to something as common as the question of Sabbath observance.”[1] Those who have written against the historicity of these narratives typically discuss perceived editorialization on the part of the Gospel writers, or the apparently minor extent of Jesus’ infractions.[2] In his article, Hagner argues for the historicity of the Sabbath healing controversies as meeting all the typical criteria used in historical Jesus research. Shortly before his article went to press, the fourth volume in John P. Meier’s A Marginal Jew was published. In his new volume Meier offered the most persuasive argument to date against the historicity of the Sabbath healing controversies.[3] Hagner includes a brief response to Meier’s new volume at the end of his article, but was unable to answer him fully due to the timing of publication.

            This present article builds upon Hagner’s work by responding to the arguments presented by Meier. Meier’s methodology of weighing historical criteria has been criticized by recent studies on memory and oral tradition. Others have argued that the Gospels show signs of being comparable to other ancient histories and thus are more trustworthy than Meier suggests. Yet neither approach defeats Meier’s contention regarding the Sabbath healing controversies. Meier presents two major challenges: one historical, the other based on logic. For the historical argument, Meier contends there is no evidence that healing on the Sabbath was unlawful in the first century A.D. Instead, he suggests these controversies were invented by early Christians as a way to respond to debates within Christian communities. This study will show that debates about healing on Sabbath make more sense within a first-century Jewish context than within a Christian one. Regarding the argument based on logic, Meier suggests the actions involved in Jesus’ healing—speaking a few words—could never have been construed as labor. This argument misidentifies the nature of unlawful Sabbath labor as defined in Second Temple Judaism.

Rabbinic Views on Sabbath Healing

            Fundamentally, the Sabbath meant work stoppage. Exodus 20:9, 10 and Deuteronomy 5:13 and 14 state that six days were for labor and the seventh day for rest. The Sabbath was therefore a happy day in which Jews could rest from their “toilsome life.”[4] Hagner suggests that “All would have agreed that the Sabbath was a gift of God to Israel, and that it was made for human welfare.”[5] This avoidance of work guided every other aspect of Sabbath observance in the Second Temple period. The rabbis famously stipulated thirty-nine activities that were forbidden on Sabbath, encompassing agriculture, food preparation, clothing manufacture and repair, hunting, writing, and building.[6] Especially pious Jews took precaution to ensure that not even the slightest hint of work would be performed on Sabbath. Because fire was used in so many work-related activities, sources often mention the lighting of fires as a forbidden activity, reflecting Exodus 35:3. Outsiders, commenting on the perceived laziness of the Jews, attest to the fact that rest was essential to Sabbath observance.[7] Work stoppage was therefore at the core of Sabbath keeping.

            Could goodwill be extended to others on Sabbath? Sources disagree on what labor could be carried out on behalf of someone else. After Judas Maccabeus defeated Nicanor, he is said to have given out spoils “to those who had been tortured and to the widows and orphans” only after the Sabbath had ended.[8] Shammai taught that charity and prayers for the poor and sick were not appropriate on Sabbath, but Hillel disagreed.[9] Philo assumed Jews would not accept charity on Sabbath.[10] The Mishnah allows for charity as long as the carrying of the gift is shared between the giver and the receiver, in order to prevent any one person from transferring the gift between domains (m. Mishnah Shabbat. 1.1). Similar scruples pertained to healing. The rabbis generally forbade healing on the Sabbath as an act of labor, albeit with exceptions. Medicine could be taken, but only if it were in a form that would be regularly used, such as food or oil.[11] In other words, the use of medicine as only medicine was prohibited—the healing must be a side-effect. Likewise, injuries could not be treated unless it were in a manner typical of everyday washing: “Nor should one straighten [the limb] of a child, nor restore a broken [limb]. He whose hand or foot was dislocated: one must not plunge them into cold [water], but he [may] wash in his [normal] way and if he is healed, he is healed.”[12] On the other hand, the rabbis allowed for a sick man to be transported out of a house on a stretcher, but there is no indication this would be done for the purpose of healing.[13] In sum, the rabbis allowed healing on the Sabbath when it was not the primary intention of an action. Conversely, intentional acts of healing were prohibited.

            The rabbis did agree that it was appropriate to save life on the Sabbath. As it says in the Mishnah, “Doubt [about] lives overrides the Sabbath.”[14] If someone were at risk of losing their life, it was always lawful to help them, at least in Mishnaic Judaism. This could mean preventing a fire from spreading, saving someone from drowning, or assisting in childbirth.[15] Tertullian seems to be well-acquainted with this provision for life-saving when he summarizes the Sabbath commandment: “Remember the day of the sabbaths, to sanctify it: do no servile work on it, except what pertains to life.”[16] It should be noted that Jesus’ Sabbath healings were done for patently non-life-threatening maladies. The disabilities had been endured for 18 years (Luke 13:11), 38 years (John 5:5), or since birth (John 9:1). The illnesses themselves were often such that waiting one day would not have caused extreme distress (Mark 3:1–6; Luke 14:1–6). The Mishnah expected parents to wait to circumcise their son until after the Sabbath, and the same could be expected for those who would be healed by Jesus.[17] If the rules found in the Mishnah regarding Sabbath were taught and enforced in Jesus’ day, it would come as no surprise that these healings were challenged.

            Meier raises the question of whether the prohibition against Sabbath healing can be dated to the time of Jesus. He points out that healing does not appear in the biblical list of prohibited Sabbath offenses: “Most of the prohibitions [in the Hebrew Bible]—buying and selling, lighting a fire, cooking, and indeed most kinds of agricultural work—are completely irrelevant to the Gospel stories recounting disputes about sabbath observance.”[18] Based on the extra-biblical lists of Sabbath laws that are reliably dated before the time of Jesus, namely those in CD 10–11 and Jubilees 2 and 50, “Jesus emerges absolutely blameless.”[19] He correctly observes that the first specific mention of the prohibition of healing on the Sabbath outside of the Gospels comes from the Mishnah. Thus, “the total silence in such a wide range of witnesses of different times and tendencies—the Jewish Scriptures, the deuterocanonical books, Jubilees, the Damascus Document, the Cave 4 fragments from Qumran, Philo, and Josephus—places the burden of proof on anyone who would want to claim that, prior to A.D. 70, any significant segment of Jewish opinion branded an act of healing a breach of sabbath.”[20] Rabbinic material is the only evidence outside of the Gospels for prohibitions against Sabbath healing.

            While the Mishnah was likely compiled around 200 C.E,, some of the material it contains is older. According to Meier, this is not the case for the Sabbath healing prohibitions. He views the sometimes-contradictory Sabbath laws in the Mishnah as evidence that Sabbath halakha was not settled as late as the early third century A.D. He sees these laws having “a certain air of tentativeness,” with many qualifications and disputes.[21] Meier points to an allowance in the Tosefta for healing amulets to be worn, which would make no sense “if healing per se were an activity always, everywhere, and in all its forms forbidden on the sabbath.”[22] Meier identifies in the Mishnah a newly introduced field of inquiry into the legality of Sabbath healing. For him, the fact that the Gospels portray the matter as settled, at least in the minds of the religious elites, represents an anachronism.

            If Jesus lived in the late second or early third century, there would be no difficulty in accepting the historicity of the disputes between Jesus and the religious leaders regarding healing on the Sabbath. The situation is complicated by the fact that the Gospels are the earliest reference to controversy over this particular matter of Sabbath praxis. How one views these episodes in the Gospels will be determined in part by how one reconstructs the setting in life of first-century A.D. Palestine.

Reconstructing First-century Praxis

            Rabbinic traditions from the first century A.D.

            As discussed above, Meier claims the Mishnah’s discussions about healing on the Sabbath cannot be traced back to the first century A.D., based on the observation that opinions on the subject were apparently still in flux at the start of the third century. David Instone-Brewer disagrees and includes several of the regulations against healing on Sabbath in his Traditions of the Rabbis From the Era of the New Testament. In this ongoing series, he takes an optimistic view of the accuracy with which previous traditions had been handed down. “The whole ethos of rabbinic literature suggests that it was praiseworthy to record past rabbis accurately, even when they disagreed with the view of the consensus or the view of the person who recorded the saying.”[23] Biographical data is often embellished in rabbinic sources, and citations purportedly by the earliest rabbis were sometimes created when biblical justification for a given ruling was lacking.[24] When these trends are accounted for, attributions attached to sayings “have been found to be generally accurate,” allowing him to reach conclusions about the date of many Mishnaic traditions based on the known history of the rabbi associated with a given saying.[25]

            For those sayings with no attribution, the method of logical precedence can assist in dating. If saying B, attributed to a rabbi from the mid-second century, logically builds off of saying A, then saying A must be earlier than saying B.[26] External attestation—from sources like the Dead Sea Scrolls, Josephus, Philo, or even the New Testament—can also provide a basis for dating rabbinic material.[27] Using these methodologies, Instone-Brewer has attempted to identify those passages in the Mishnah that reasonably could have come from the first century A.D.

            Applying his method to the rulings about healing on the Sabbath, Instone-Brewer first views the prohibition list in Shabb. 7:2 as being compiled before the first century A.D. Rulings ascribed to first-century rabbis, such as Shabb. 22:3, seem already to assume the existence of those 39 Sabbath prohibitions. He suggests that healing became a point of contention only during the time of Jesus, after the list had already been established.[28] He considers the specific rulings against Sabbath healing in Shab 14:3–4 and 22:6 to come from before the fall of Jerusalem.[29] However, the basis upon which he makes these decisions is tenuous. In the above two examples, decisions about dating come not from attestation, but from Gospel evidence. Instone-Brewer assumes the historicity of the Gospel Sabbath controversies, which in turn allows him to determine the date of the rabbinic saying. This methodology would preclude these sayings from being used to prove the historicity of the Gospels, because this would lead to circular reasoning. While the traditions regarding the saving of life on the Sabbath are based on named attribution, explicit prohibitions from healing on the Sabbath are not.[30]

            Rabbinic attestation cannot prove the prohibitions against Sabbath healing existed in the first century, but logical precedence may be useful. Thomas Kazen points out that healing would not necessarily have appeared on the list of Shabb. 7:2, given it is outside of regular household duties.[31] Lutz Doering is perhaps more persuasive, however, in suggesting that the allowance for saving a life on the Sabbath and later assurances of this allowance would not have been necessary if it were thought that healing on Sabbath was acceptable.[32] The discussion in the Mishnah seems to be looking for exceptions to an assumed prohibition, rather than to an assumed allowance. The specific stipulations found in the later teaching of the rabbis thus represent the refining of principles already found within the Pharisaic tradition of Jesus’ day.[33] This argumentation provides reason to doubt Meier’s claim that all rabbinic evidence for Sabbath healing prohibition post-dates Jesus.

            The historical viability of the Gospels

            Based on the typical criteria of historicity within the field of historical Jesus studies, the Sabbath healing controversies are quite solid. Meier himself admits that multiple sources support the idea that Jesus faced criticism over healing on the Sabbath, with material from Mark, Luke, John, and possibly Q.[34] Furthermore, these narratives meet the criterion of discontinuity from Judaism, given they highlight one way in which Jesus broke from the dominant religious teachings on the subject.[35] Despite this appearance of historicity, Meier states, “sometimes a brief inspection employing the criterion of multiple attestation can be deceiving.”[36] For him, the typical criteria of historicity are overturned by the silence of the extra-biblical sources regarding Sabbath healing. While admitting this is an argument from silence, in this case he takes the silence as a “metaphorical shout.”[37] He believes that the sayings of Jesus regarding the Sabbath are historical, because they tend to relate to more than just healing. “The critical difference is that the dispute narratives make sense only if Jews in general at the time of Jesus held acts of healing on the sabbath to be violations of the sabbath.”[38] For Meier, the Gospels accurately preserve Jesus’ sayings about the Sabbath, but have manufactured the context in which those sayings are recorded.

            As seen in the discussion of Instone-Brewer’s methodology, it is true that no sources from the first century A.D. speak of Sabbath healing only if the Gospels are discounted. This speaks to a wider issue regarding the way in which the Gospels are to be used in historical reconstruction. Benjamin I. Simpson points out that Meier exhibits “the old form-critical assumption that the Gospels present the theology of the early church as opposed to accurately presenting the historical Jesus.”[39] Others have questioned whether this assumption is warranted. In his work Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, Richard Bauckham argues that Gospel material was informed by the testimony of those who were witnesses to Jesus’ life. The Gospels should not be overlooked as mere theological treatise or sectarian propaganda. The intention of the authors was to present what had actually happened. “From a historiographic perspective, radical suspicion of testimony is a kind of epistemological suicide. It is no more practicable in history than it is in ordinary life.”[40] Papias, one of the earliest commentators on the making of the Gospels, is solely interested in their accuracy vis-à-vis their connection to an eyewitness.[41] Based on Bauckham’s work, the Gospel writers were more interested in recounting actual history than is assumed by Meier’s approach.

            Setting aside Bauckham’s challenge to the suspicion with which the Gospels have been treated, there are nonetheless two problems with Meier’s conclusion from a historical perspective. First, it assumes in the latter half of the first century that Christians chose to invent a controversy about healing on the Sabbath. While admitting we know very little about common Jewish Christians living at that time, he asserts, “these Christian Jews seek to justify their less-than-stringent approach to sabbath observance by recounting how Jesus had shown that their archetypal opponents, the Pharisees, were both ignorant of Scripture and unreasonably harsh in their treatment of innocent activity on the sabbath.”[42] If this were the case, one would not expect disparate sources (Mark, John, Luke) to have all independently manufactured similar healing stories to make their point. It would be especially impressive that such a theological insertion could make it into small details in unrelated portions of Scripture, as is the case with Jews waiting until after sunset to seek Jesus for healing (Mark 1:32; Luke 4:40). The historicity of these narratives offers a more probable explanation for their origin. It should not be forgotten that “the early church’s theology originated from Jesus’ own reflections.”[43] If Christian Jews had opinions about proper Sabbath praxis, it is not unreasonable to assume those opinions were influenced by Jesus’ life and teachings.

            Further, if there is little evidence for healing on the Sabbath being prohibited in first-century Judaism, there is even less evidence for controversies about Sabbath praxis among first-century Christians. While the notion of observing certain days as sacred was occasionally discussed (Rom. 14:5; Gal. 4:10; Col. 2:16), there is no indication that healing on the Sabbath was a point of contention within early Christian communities. The question seems to have been whether certain festival days were to be celebrated, but not how they should be celebrated. Yet the Gospels’ Sabbath controversies revolve around the manner in which Sabbath should be observed. There is no evidence that the early Christians were asking questions about proper Sabbath observance. As Tom Holmén puts it, “There is no apparent reason why the early Church would have created these kinds of stories.”[44] Hagner agrees, arguing that it would be unlikely for a story to be created in which there was no need within the church community.[45] With no external support for healing controversies within either Jewish or Christian communities, we are left with only the Gospels themselves. The “metaphorical shout” of silence is just as loud from Christian sources as from Jewish ones.

            The second problematic assumption that is entailed in Meier’s position is in the separation of Sabbath teachings from Sabbath narratives. As mentioned above, Meier views Jesus’ teachings in the Sabbath controversy narratives to be historical, given that they tend to explain broad principles about Sabbath praxis. He argues these sayings would make sense in a variety of contexts, but the narratives themselves “make sense only if Jews in general at the time of Jesus held acts of healing on the sabbath to be violations of the sabbath.”[46] For example, he views the saying about saving an animal from a pit (Matt. 12:11; Luke 14:5) as reacting against the stricter precepts of the Essenes and possibly the Pharisees. “None of these sayings states explicitly that some Jews hold healing to be a breach of the sabbath.”[47] However, it is not so easy to divorce the saying from the narrative. Regarding the above example, one might ask what is the purpose of the saying if not to prove that healing is acceptable on the Sabbath. The example of saving an animal is used to illustrate the greater example of saving human life. This “lesser to greater” argument was often used within rabbinic debates. The logic here is that if it is acceptable to help an animal on the Sabbath, then it is even more acceptable to assist a person. Even the Damascus Document, with its stringent regulations, allowed for life to be saved on the Sabbath, albeit without tools.[48] So, against whom is Jesus arguing? Discussing Luke 13:15 and 14:5, Holmén states, “If healing is not work, we do not know why Jesus would compare it to pulling an ox, child and/or a sheep out from a well or a pit.”[49] The sayings, if authentic, indicate that Jesus clashed with His interlocutors regarding what could be done on the Sabbath. There must have been some disagreement between Jesus and the religious leaders of his day about how one kept the Sabbath. But if the Sabbath healing controversies are deemed unhistorical, we are left to wonder whether Jesus ever did anything contrary to the Sabbath regulations of His day.

            Doubting the historicity of the Sabbath healing controversies brings more questions than answers. How one views the dating of the rabbinic material is heavily influenced by how one views the Gospels. There seems to be little reason for the early church to have manufactured these narratives, and Jesus’ sayings about the Sabbath seem to presuppose them. There remains the question of why healing may have been deemed unlawful on the Sabbath.

Jesus—the Professional Healer?

            While Meier’s historical argument is worthy of consideration, his logical argument is perhaps his strongest. In the story of the healing of the man with a crippled hand, Jesus first commands the man to stand. He then performs the miracle by speaking a mere three (Mark 3:5) or four (Matt. 12:13; Luke 6:10) words. “Why should Jesus’ two short commands, which do not urge any action that would be illicit on the sabbath, constitute such a violation?”[50] Even if it were granted that certain acts of healing were deemed unlawful to perform on the Sabbath in the first century A.D., it seems difficult to explain why a few spoken words would fall under the umbrella of unlawful actions.

            Part of the difficulty comes from a misunderstanding regarding the way in which Sabbath rest was viewed in the Second Temple Period. Rather than merely disallowing physical exertion, the emphasis was on resting from one’s regular means of making a living. No effort was to be made for gaining money on the Sabbath, at least according to religious leaders.[51] Summarizing early rabbinic interpretations on Sabbath keeping, Jacob Neusner states, “on the Sabbath it is prohibited deliberately to carry out in a normal way a completed act of constructive labor, one that produces enduring results, one that carries out one’s entire intention.”[52] Presumably one could work up a sweat doing an activity that was either not one’s typical mode of labor or which did not produce a beneficial result. This prohibition meant that commercial endeavors could not even be discussed on the Sabbath, as this would violate the spirit of the day.[53]

            Jews avoided going to the courts on Sabbath. Again, the matter of appearing before a judge and speaking may not have the appearance of labor. Yet it would be done for the purpose of enrichment or self-preservation. For this reason, Augustus gave Jews an exemption from appearing in court on Friday evening or Sabbath.[54] Commercial and juridical labor, as much as physical labor, was prohibited because they broke the Second Temple understanding of proper Sabbath-keeping: the avoidance of the typical means by which a person sustained life. This is a crucial point in the question of the historicity of the Sabbath healing controversies. How one defines the fundamental task of Sabbath keeping will either assist or hinder one’s understanding of these narratives.

            There were almost certainly people in Jesus’ day who made their living as healers and exorcists. Rural settings such as those portrayed in the Synoptic Gospels would have been especially likely to need the services of folk healers—people who healed using folk remedies, prayer, or magic.[55] Bernd Kollman argues that the Second Temple period saw an incorporation of “white magic” into Jewish culture. This supernatural practice was purged of pagan syncretism, and therefore deemed acceptable within Judaism.[56] Literature from the period recast famous heroes of the Hebrew Bible as exorcists.[57] Erkki Koskenniemi suggests this practice may have served the purpose of legitimizing exorcists by tying their practices to noted men of God.[58] Even if this were not the intended purpose of creating such biblical embellishments, it may have been the result. The literature from the time of Jesus indicates that professional healers or exorcists could have practiced their craft within the monotheism of Second Temple Judaism.

            Not only is it possible to establish that healers and miracle workers could have earned a living in Jesus’ day, there are examples of people who appear to have done just that. As Paul Achtemeier observes, both Gentiles and Jews “had their famous wonder-workers.”[59] Josephus mentions Honi the Circle-drawer, who was noted for calling on God for rain.[60] He also mentions Eleazar, whom Kollman rightly refers to as a professional exorcist.[61] The Mishnah characterizes Hanina ben Dosa as a “man of good deeds” or “miracle worker.”[62] Eric Eve poses the possibility that the “many healers” of Mark 5:26 and the unnamed exorcist of Mark 9:38 could have also fallen into the category of professional healers.[63] These examples suggest that at least a few people around the time of Jesus made their living from healing and casting out demons. If Jesus were to be regarded as a professional healer, He would not have been alone in such a field.

            The Gospels clearly portray Jesus as a healer and exorcist. The summaries of His ministry that appear periodically throughout the Gospels invariably mention Him healing the sick and/or casting out demons (Matt. 4:23; 9:35; Mark 1:34, 39; 6:19; 9:6, 11; 13:32; John 6:2). Like apprentices learning a trade, the disciples of Jesus were trained and sent out to do the same (Matt. 10:8; Mark 6:13; Luke 9:6). Jesus was by no means merely “a folk-healer simpliciter,”[64] yet healing was clearly a crucial part of His ministry. His status as a healer seems to have been a primary reason for His popularity with the crowds (Matt. 14:14, 35, 36; Mark 6:56; Luke 5:15). Furthermore, Jesus did not hold any other occupation during the time of His ministry. The women mentioned in Luke 8:2, 3 may have provided all of the financial support needed, or further support may have been given by the families of those healed. Regardless, those looking at Jesus’ work from the outside would have assumed His livelihood was coming from healing and exorcisms, as it did for other professional healers.

            Within the culture of His day, Jesus fell within the rubric of “miracle-worker” or “folk-healer” with regard to the way in which Hi supported Himself and His disciples. With this in mind, it makes sense that, for Him, healing would be disallowed on the Sabbath. Returning to Hagner: “If Jesus were regarded as a healer, furthermore, then any kind of healing by his agency whatsoever would probably have been regarded as work.”[65] A merchant should not strike a deal on the Sabbath, even though no physical labor would be involved. Similarly, Jesus the healer could not practice His occupation on the Sabbath, despite only speaking a few words.

            Given this understanding, the key tension point of the Sabbath controversies is not proper Sabbath practice, but rather Jesus’ identity and vocation. Was Jesus a healer, like many others? Then healing on the Sabbath was forbidden. However, for the Messiah, such healing would be lawful because the Messiah would perform miracles for others, not for financial gain (Isa. 35:5, 6; Mal. 4:2). With this reading, the connection between the stories of the disciples plucking grain and the man with the withered hand becomes clear. When the Pharisees speak against the disciples plucking grain, Jesus rebuts them by saying, “‘the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath’” (Mark 2:28, NIV). This statement provides background for the healing narrative. A healer would be forbidden from plying his trade on the Sabbath. But if Jesus is truly “lord of the Sabbath,” it is lawful for him to heal on the Sabbath, because healing is not His primary profession. When He heals the man, Jesus is not earning a living; He is simply doing good (Mark 3:4).

            No physical labor was involved in the Sabbath healings, but rest from physical labor was not the essential Sabbath command as understood in the first century A.D. Instead, it was forbidden for a person to practice a profession on the Sabbath. For those who considered Jesus to be a professional healer, the Sabbath healings would have represented a transgression of the most fundamental Sabbath law.

Summary

            Meier’s two main arguments against the historicity of the Sabbath healing controversies have been shown to be faulty. He argues that healing on the Sabbath could not have been a matter of controversy in the first century A.D. due to the lack of Jewish evidence for prohibitions against such healing. Yet the exact thing could be said regarding Christian sources. Either the Gospels reflect the setting in life of the early Christian Church, or they portray a historical controversy regarding Jewish law. If external sources are silent on both sides, the decision should be in favor of the documents informed by eyewitnesses. While Meier further argues that a controversy arising from Jesus’ healing would be illogical, it was shown that the logic depends upon a proper understanding of Sabbath rest.

            Finally, one might ask whether the religious leaders were justified in accusing Jesus of carrying out His profession on the Sabbath. The answer would be in the affirmative if it were assumed that Jesus was first and foremost a healer. This was likely the way in which most people viewed Him, but the Gospels show that it was not how He viewed Himself. He was the Messiah (Matt. 16:16, 17; Mark 14:61, 62), the one sent to proclaim the kingdom of God (Matt. 4:23; Mark 1:14; Luke 4:43). In John Jesus is the one sent from the Father (John 5:36, 37; 6:57). Jesus viewed Himself as living out a calling according to the will of God. Healing was a part of that calling, but it was not the essential core of His mission. Furthermore, Jesus’ calling was purely focused on benefiting other people. He did not heal to support Himself; He healed to bring peace and wholeness to the lives of others. In doing so, He was benefiting humanity, for whom the Sabbath was made (Mark 2:27).

Jonathan A. Campbell, MDiv, PhD, is the Chair of the Religious Studies Department and Assistant Professor of New Testament Studies at Burman University, Lacombe, Alberta, Canada.

REFERENCES