Verse 23
Jesus’ critics permitted an act on the Sabbath that resulted in the health of part of a person, and an infant at that, on the Sabbath. They should not, therefore, object to His healing a whole adult then. Moreover they performed circumcisions regularly on the Sabbath, but Jesus had only healed one man on one Sabbath. Circumcision was an operation designed to insure good health. The circumcised child was not even ill. Jesus on the other hand had healed a man who had suffered with a serious handicap for 38 years. Moreover circumcision was only a purification rite, but healing a paralytic involved deliverance from enslavement. Therefore it was unfair for Jesus’ critics to be angry with Him for what He had done.
The Jews had established a hierarchy of activities by which they judged the legitimacy of performing any work on the Sabbath (cf. Matthew 12:9-10). They based this hierarchy on necessary need, urgency. Jesus also operated from a hierarchical viewpoint, but He based His hierarchy on what was best for people (Mark 2:27).
"Had his opponents understood the implications of the Mosaic provision for circumcision on the Sabbath they would have seen that deeds of mercy such as he has just done were not merely permissible but obligatory. Moses quite understood that some things should be done even on the Sabbath. The Jews had his words but not his meaning." [Note: Morris, p. 362.]
Be the first to react on this!
