The last two controversies of the five we have been considering are sabbath controversies. The nature of these controversies illustrates a perennial problem among those who take the words of God seriously. That problem is one of arbitrary selectivity.
Before considering the import of the incidents themselves, we need to deal briefly with a distraction that has taken up more energy than perhaps it should have. Jesus says that David ate the showbread in the days of Abiathar the priest. The problem is that the priest who gave David the showbread was Abiathar’s father, Ahimelech (1 Sam. 21:1). Some of the solutions to this problem have been more ingenious than helpful, but some of them are far more plausible than the infidel’s assumption that Jesus, or Mark, or somebody, didn’t know his Old Testament. The most reasonable of the explanations is that of Beza, who suggests that both Abiathar and Ahimelech had these two names, and the names were used interchangeably — see, for example, 2 Sam. 8:17; 1 Chron. 18:16, and 24:3.
The first sabbath collision went like this. Jesus and His disciples were walking through a grain field on the sabbath, and the disciples picked some grain as they went (v. 23). The Pharisees objected, because reaping on the sabbath was a forbidden activity, even this kind of tiny reaping (v. 24). But the Scriptures distinguished between what the disciples were doing and reaping proper (Dt. 23:25). Although they did not have a point, Jesus grants the unlawfulness of what was done for the sake of argument. We know this because He appeals to something David did which really was unlawful (vv. 25-26). A certain kind of mind thinks that if the law of God is perfect, it must therefore be made out of blocks of wood. Consider the meaning of those works permitted on the Lord’s Day — works of piety, necessity, and mercy. Necessary? How necessary? This was His scriptural argument. Then came His theological argument — He rebuked the Pharisees for having a completely fouled-up understanding of means and ends. God did not create men in order to have someone around who could keep the sabbath. It was the other way around. The sabbath is a servant to man (v. 27), under the authority of God. This brought the conclusion. This does not mean that autonomous man gets to decide that whatever he wants to do is okay on the sabbath. The reasoning must always be biblical, and in submission to the Son of Man (v. 28). But the Son of Man is not as uptight as some people think.
Then came the second collision. After this Jesus goes into a synagogue (probably at Capernaum), and a man is there who had a withered hand (v. 1). The attitude of Jesus’ adversaries has hardened into a settled hostility, and so they are looking for trouble (v. 2). The man had a withered hand; they had withered hearts. Jesus sets up the situation by telling the man to stand up (v. 3).
Note carefully that the Pharisees had worked out all these questions before. Healing was only permitted on the sabbath if someone’s life was in danger. But this was obviously not the case with the man with a withered hand. Why could not Jesus simply have told the man to wait around a few hours until sunset, and then have healed him? Instead, He asks hard questions, and notice what He equates (v. 4). To do good, even a small unnecessary good, is to save a life. Jesus looked around at these people, trapped in the grip of a bad idea. He is simultaneously angry and grieved (v. 5). Then, Jesus speaks. There was no law about talking on the sabbath, was there? Notice the results when Jesus gets angry — a man was healed. Man’s anger is consistently destructive. When Jesus got angry, a withered hand was made whole.
As a result of this healing outrage, the the Pharisees found common cause with another faction, very much unlike them (v. 6). And they begin plotting against the life of Christ. It was not lawful to save a life by healing a man, but it was lawful to take a life? This is the withered sabbatarian heart. We must mediate on the implications for us. As Christians who hold that the fourth commandment is as precious as the other nine, we should take care to learn what a counterfeit of this obedience looks like. First, it is inconsistent. Note Christ’s question about what is lawful and unlawful, and what they do on the sabbath. They plot against His life. Those who think saving lives is unlawful will wind up thinking taking lives on the sabbath is lawful. And second, we see the problem of tidy minds. People who want everything in place usually wind up getting the most important things out of place.