But if Jesus Christ did not break the Sabbath, and did not say or do any thing which showed that it would be abolished, or the obligation to keep it holy be relaxed, why were the Pharisees so constantly at variance with him on this subject; and why did they so often accuse him of breaking the Sabbath? Because they hated him, and because he violated their traditions about the Sabbath. The fact was, they had added to the Sabbath law, as they had to other laws, numerous traditions of their own, and they regarded these more than they did the law itself. Thus they often made void the law through their traditions. These traditions Jesus disregarded, and showed by words and deeds that they were vain. He thus demonstrated that they were false teachers: blind leaders of the blind. This greatly enraged them, and led them to watch occasions of accusation against him.
For instance: they said, that if a son should say of that portion of property with which he ought to assist his parents, "It is corban," that is, a gift devoted to the Lord, he was released from his obligation to assist them, though God had commanded him to do it. Thus they made void the law of God through their traditions. So it was with the fourth commandment. They had added to it numerous and cumbrous errors, which tended to lead the mind to a blind and superstitious regard for them, and to overlook and disregard the spiritual meaning and real object of the Sabbath.
They enumerated about forty primary works, which they said were forbidden to be done on the Sabbath. Under each of these were numerous secondary works, which they said were also forbidden. These were so explained as to include works of mercy performed by Jesus, and thus to make him a Sabbath-breaker. Hence, they said he could not be the Messiah, for he did not, in the sense of their traditions, keep the Sabbath.
Among the primary works which were forbidden, were ploughing, sowing, reaping, winnowing, cleaning, grinding, etc. Under the head of grinding was included the breaking or dividing of things which were before united. Of course, when the disciples broke off the heads of grain, and rubbed out the kernels in their hands, and ate them, it was a dividing of things which were before united, a species of grinding, which was, in their view, forbidden, and unlawful on the Sabbath-day.
Another of their traditions was, that, as threshing on the Sabbath was forbidden, the bruising of things, which was a species of threshing, was also forbidden. Of course, it was a violation of the Sabbath to walk on green grass, for that would bruise or thresh it. So, as a man might not hunt on the Sabbath, he might not catch a flea, for that was a species of hunting. As a man might not carry a burden on the Sabbath, he might not carry water to a thirsty animal, for that was a species of burden; but he might pour water into a trough and lead the animal to it. It was on this ground that they objected to a man's carrying his couch189from the pool of Bethesda. Yet should a sheep fall into a pit, they would readily lift him out, and bear him to a place of safety. They would also loose an ox or an ass on the Sabbath, and lead him away to watering. Yet they objected to our Saviour's loosing a woman from her infirmity, though she had been bound by it eighteen years, and he could loose her by a word. Thus they "strained at a gnat, and swallowed a camel."
They said a man might minister to the sick for the purpose of relieving their distress, but not for the purpose of healing their diseases. He might put a covering on a diseased eye, or anoint it with eye-salve for the purpose of easing the pain, but not to cure the eye. Hence the eagerness with which they watched the Saviour, to see whether he would heal on the Sabbath, that, if he should, they might accuse him. And when he did heal, and did it on purpose to show the futility of their objections, as well as his power to remove diseases, they were filled with wrath, and sought to kill him, though he showed from the Scriptures, and from their own admissions, that he had done nothing wrong. He stripped the Sabbath of the false appendages which they had attached to it, vindicated its divine authority and permanent obligation, pointed out its true objects and the proper manner of observing it, that his disciples, guided by his teaching and example, might in all ages remember it and keep it holy.
They would not on the Sabbath even take down the bodies of those who were crucified. Hence, they besought Pilate that the death of Jesus, and of those who were crucified with him, might be hastened by the breaking of their legs, so that their bodies might be taken down before the Sabbath began.
But, with all this scrupulosity, they could with wicked hands, crucify him, and impiously say, "His blood be on us, and on our children." With good reason, therefore, did he say, "Ye hypocrites, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?" Without repentance of their sins and faith in him as their Redeemer, they could not escape.
"But if the Sabbath was to be remembered and kept holy, according to the requirements of the moral law, why did Jesus not say more about the keeping of it? Why did he not exhort them to rest from their labors?" Because it was not needful. As to external rest, they already kept it, and with superstitious exactness. Those who would not on that day heal the sick, walk on green grass, take water to a thirsty animal, carry a couch or catch a flea, did not need to be exhorted to abstain from worldly business. They knew that to be a duty, and of permanent obligation. What they needed was, to have the keeping of it stripped of the false glosses and superstitious observances with which they had encumbered it; to have the true object of the day, and the spirit with which it should be kept, pointed out. This was what he did, by word and deed, even at the hazard of his life.
Did they contend that hunger should go unappeased rather than that a man should pluck heads of grain, rub out the kernels, and eat them? He suffered his disciples to do this, and from the Bible vindicated their course.
Did they contend that the sick should not be healed, even by him who could do it with a word? He repeatedly did it: saying to the woman who had been eighteen years ill, "Thou art loosed from thine infirmity;" to the paralytic, "Stretch forth thine hand;" and to the man at the pool of Bethesda after thirty-eight years of confinement, "Rise, take up thy bed, and walk." They immediately did so—a most conclusive testimony from God that the silly traditions of the Pharisees were in opposition to his will. The blind received their sight, the lame walked, lepers were cleansed, the deaf heard, the dead were raised, and the poor had the Gospel preached to them; thus demonstrating that he was the Messiah, that the Pharisees, in opposing him, were of their father the Devil, and that the lusts of their father they would do.
At all points he rebuked their superstitions, stripped off false glosses, and trampled down their traditions. But he never broke the fourth commandment, or violated any of the moral laws. He never said or did any thing which countenanced the idea that there was not to be a weekly Sabbath under the Gospel, or that it was not to be kept in as holy a manner as under the law. But all that he said and did was adapted to show that "the Sabbath was made for man:" not for the Jews only, or for any particular part of the human race, in one age or country, but for the whole human family. *
But does not Paul say or imply, 2 Cor. iii, 2, etc., that the moral law is done away under the Gospel; and thus the obligation to keep the Sabbath has ceased? No: he says and implies no such thing. All that he says, here or elsewhere, instead of making void the moral law, goes to establish it; not as a ground of justification, but as a rule of duty; not as a part of the Jewish dispensation, for that was abolished at the death of Christ, but as a part of the moral government of God, which is binding under all dispensations. The obligation to obey this law, instead of being diminished, is increased by the Gospel. One of the peculiar glories of the Gospel, and that which renders it so far superior to the Jewish dispensation is, that under the Gospel the Holy Spirit much more extensively writes this law upon the hearts of men, inclining them to obey it, not outwardly or in the letter merely, but in spirit and in truth.
It is not in having the letter of the law on tables of stone, or in their hands, that will save men, but it is having the law written upon their hearts by the Holy Spirit, as is done to a much greater extent under the Gospel than it was under the law. It is this that constitutes the superior glory of the Gospel. And it is this superior glory of the Gospel, as the dispensation peculiarly of the Spirit, that Paul sets forth in the third chapter of the second Epistle to the Corinthians. The Jews were prone to place a high value upon the former dispensation, and to glory in it, while they set themselves in opposition to Christ, saying, "We know that God spake to Moses; but as for this fellow, we know not whence he is." "This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the Sabbath-day." "Give God the praise, for we know that this man is a sinner."
There was, at the giving of the law, and the introduction of the Jewish dispensation, great visible glory, and much that was calculated to impress the senses. It caused the face of Moses so to shine that the people could not steadfastly behold it. But there was under the Gospel much greater glory; not material, impressing the outward senses, but spiritual, affecting the feelings and dispositions of the heart. The one was as much superior to the other, as its effects would be more durable and glorious. Under the one, the moral precepts were written on tables of stone, and their observance was inculcated by outward forms and ceremonies, numerous and burdensome, called in the New Testament, "carnal ordinances." The other taught them with greater clearness and fullness, and proclaimed them with greater effect; writing them on the fleshly tables of the heart, in fulfillment of the promise: "I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts, and will be their God and they shall be my people." But this, instead of doing away the law, established it, and gave it practical power over the hearts and lives of men. As this was done to a greater extent under the Gospel, it was on that account, in view of the Apostle a more glorious dispensation.—Sab. Manual.