Luke
6:1-5 Perhaps as a continuation of the subject of salvation through grace vs.
works, we have now the story of how Jesus' disciples were gleaning and eating
on the Sabbath. The Pharisees were evidently present when this happened so they
could immediately object that they were doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath.
(Exodus 31:12-17) The Sabbath was to be a sign to the people of Israel of God's
covenant with them, and whoever worked on the Sabbath was to be cut off from
God's people, or be put to death. Jesus' response has two points. First He
cites the example of David eating the consecrated bread that was set apart for
the priests, and also giving it to his compatriots. This passage is found in I
Samuel 21:3-6. It would seem to be a violation of Exodus 29:32-33. However,
this passage in Exodus specifically deals with the consecration ceremony for a
priest. The bread of the Presence is mentioned several other places in law, but
in none of these places does it state that the bread of the Presence which
David and his companions ate was not to be eaten by laymen. (Exodus 25:30,
35:13, 39:36; Number 4:7). What Jesus did by citing this example is not to
provide a logical argument that the prohibition against working on the Sabbath
was also an interpolation beyond what God had told Moses, but to point to
Himself as being the bread of the Presence. Just as in David's case, the bread
symbolizing His presence was not reserved for the priests alone, but available
to all, so in His presence rules about work on the Sabbath were transcended. So
this is His second point: He came to earth to bring salvation by grace through
faith, not a result of works, so that no one could boast. (Ephesians 2:8-9). He
is The Lord of the Sabbath.
Luke
6:6-11 The narrative continues with another Sabbath story. Jesus is in a
synagogue and heals a man with a withered hand on the Sabbath. The scribes and
Pharisees were watching to see if He would do it again - that is, heal on the
Sabbath - and He knew perfectly well what they were thinking. So He asks them a
question we might deem rhetorical: Is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good? Of
course they do not reply. He looks at them and then heals the man's withered
hand. The scribes and Pharisees were filled with rage and left discussing what
they might do to Jesus. The word translated rage, "anoias", is more aptly rendered folly than rage, which is
quite appropriate, given the nature of their objection to God working
supernaturally on the day He told the Israelites to rest. Perhaps they thought
that God would limit Himself by the same rules that He gave the Israelites. If
so, they seemed to have a very weak understanding of God's overarching
character of love, compassion, and forgiveness.
Perhaps we could look at this response differently.
The Pharisees and scribes believed that they understood God through their
theology, which interpreted the revelation that they had received up to that
point. When God healed on the Sabbath, this was inconsistent with their
theology. There are really only two possible responses to revelation like this.
One response is to admit that we did not fully understand God and that we have
to revise our understanding of Him in light of what He has now shown us. The
alternative is to reject what God has shown us and cling to our own
understanding and traditions of what God must be like. Unfortunately, the
scribes and Pharisees chose the latter course. We should be on guard lest we
think we understand God so well that we cannot accept new input to our theology
when He reveals Himself to us in some way outside of our theological prison.
No comments:
Post a Comment