Yeshua, Lord of the Shabbat?

We have all heard the expression, “Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath”. Usually, this is said in the context of a sermon teaching that, “Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath—that means he can do away with the burden of the Sabbath, so we don’t have to worry about it any more! Isn’t that great?!?!?!”

But, as happens so often, closer examination reveals that this anti-Torah bias finds no support in the original texts. In fact, we at the Mishkan David maintain that the writers of the Messianic Besorah had exactly the opposite idea in mind when they related the story of Yeshua and his critics. How can that be? Let’s take a look at the texts involved, and see what they have to say…

Mark 2:23-28

Matthew 12:1-8

Luke 6:1-5
One Shabbat Yeshua was passing through some wheat fields; and as they went along, his talmidim began picking heads of grain.(24) The P’rushim said to him, “Look! Why are they violating Shabbat?”(25) He said to them, “Haven’t you ever read what David did when he and those with him were hungry and needed food? (26) He entered the House of God when Evyatar was cohen gadol and ate the Bread of the Presence,”—which is forbidden for anyone to eat but the cohanim—”and even gave some to his companions.”(27) Then he said to them, “Shabbat was made for mankind, not mankind for Shabbat; (28) So the Son of Man is Lord even of Shabbat.“ One Shabbat during that time, Yeshua was walking through some wheat fields. His talmidim were hungry, so they began picking heads of grain and eating them.(2) On seeing this, the P’rushim said to him, “Look! Your talmidim are violating Shabbat!”(3) But he said to them, “Haven’t you ever read what David did when he and those with him were hungry? (4) He entered the House of God and ate the Bread of the Presence!”—which was prohibited, both to him and to his companions;—it is permitted only to the cohanim.(5) “Or haven’t you read in the Torah that on Shabbat the cohanim profane Shabbat and yet are blameless?(6) I tell you, there is in this place something greater than the Temple! (7) If you knew what ‘I want compassion rather than animal-sacrifice’ meant, you would not condemn the innocent.(8) For the Son of Man is Lord of Shabbat!” One Shabbat, while Yeshua was passing through some wheat fields, his talmidim began plucking the heads of grain, rubbing them between their hands and eating the seeds.(2) Some of the P’rushim said, “Why are you violating Shabbat?”(3) Yeshua answered them, “Haven’t you ever read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? (4) He entered the House of God and took and ate the Bread of the Presence”—which no one is permitted to eat but the cohanim.(5) “The Son of Man,” he concluded, “is Lord of Shabbat.”

Here we have laid out all three instances of this story. The statement about Yeshua being “Lord of the Sabbath” occurs three times, in the three synoptic Besorot (Gospels), in very nearly identical context. Mattityahu includes some additional detail comparing Yeshua to the Temple, but the basic story and Yeshua’s teaching about the Shabbat are identical in all three writings.

What Happened?

So, what happened? What was the event that triggered the teaching we have set out before us? What were Yeshua and his students doing that elicited a reaction from the religious leaders of his day?

As it turns out… they were eating!

OK… well… they were doing a little more than eating. It isn’t like they had a Jewish delicatessen down at the street corner where they could go grab a corned beef sandwich. There were no refrigerators where they could get a little cold chicken salad. So, what were they eating?

Yeshua and his talmidim/disciples were walking through some wheat fields. They grew hungry, and decided to pluck a few heads of grain to chew on (again, there was no Wrigley’s gum to hold over the hunger pangs, either). They were walking on Shabbat and eating. What’s the big problem?

What Was the Problem?

We are told pretty quickly what the problem was. Those who were watching alleged, “You are violating the Shabbat!”

The problem is, we have to understand what specific violation was being charged. Is there a commandment anywhere in the Torah prohibiting eating on Shabbat? No. How about a prohibition against walking in a wheat field? No. So, what was the issue?

Yeshua and his followers were accused of violating Shabbat. Why? Not because they were eating, but because they were engaging in picking and cleaning grain in preparation for the eating—what their questioners regarded as threshing grain on Shabbat. They were supposed to be violating Shabbat because they were engaged in threshing!

If That’s the Problem, What’s the Solution?

So, the conflict between Yeshua and his accusers was based on the allegation that he was allowing his men to do something that was disallowed as work on the Shabbat. If that is the case, then how do we resolve the issue?

There are a couple different ways we might be tempted to resolve this dilemma.

  1. We might say that the challengers didn’t understand what constituted threshing, and they were out of line. This position appeals to many, because it allows modern interpreters to disregard the rabbis and their “man-made rules”.
  2. We could say, as is popular in certain circles, that Yeshua had the authority to set aside the Sabbath so that his followers could do whatever they saw fit. After all, Messiah is “Lord of the Sabbath”, right? Doesn’t that mean he has the right to do away with the Shabbat, if he so chooses?

Either of these two solutions sit just fine with those who have no knowledge of the Torah. The first kills two birds with one stone—not only does it solve the conflict at hand, but it has the additional “fringe benefit” of justifying the setting aside of all rabbinic teachings.

The second is pleasing to some because it flatly states that the Shabbat is irrelevant to the point of being completely eliminated. And, of course, that opens the door to claims that the passage teaches the complete abrogation of the entire Torah.

There Has to Be a Better Way!

Clearly, both of those approaches are unsatisfactory to anyone who in concerned for the integrity of Hashem, and the consistency of Scriptures. But what other option is there?

In response to the charge of violating the Shabbat, Yeshua (in typical Jewish fashion) told a story. He reminded his questioners of the time David and his men were on the run, and needed something to eat (Sh’muel Alef/First Samuel 21). David showed up at the town of <a href=”http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/unearthing-the-mystery-of-the-priestly-city-of-nob-1.209482”>Nov</a>, known as “the city of the priests”, and asked for whatever provisions they could spare. As it turns out, the only bread available was the consecrated showbread that had been removed from the table in the Mishkan that very morning.

So, bread is bread, right? Well, it turns out that the priests had developed a tradition of reserving the bread for only priests to eat. Not because there is any commandment in the Torah to that effect, but because of tradition. When confronted with real human need, the priest reasoned that it would be acceptable to give the bread to David as long as he and his men met a minimal level of ritual purity.

Applying the Story

The problem with using stories like this to answer a question is that it is sometimes difficult to see the basis for comparison between the problem and the solution presented in the story. We have to understand the underlying assumptions that led the speaker to use that particular story in answering that particular question.

In this case, it is tempting to suggest that the story of David tells us that it is acceptable to set aside tradition just because we find it inconvenient. This conclusion fits nicely with the first solution considered just above. However, there is another key principle that solvess the interpretive puzzle for us.

The story of David illustrates the principle that human health and safety takes precedence over all ritual laws (with the exception of idolatry). This is a principle that has been adopted by all modern Jewish teachers. So, just as it was proper for David to eat bread that had been designated for the priests, so it was appropriate for Yeshua and his friends to pluck and eat grain, even on Shabbat.

Masters and Novices

At this point, we’re done, right? We have identified the problem raised in the text, presented a few possible solutions, and selected a reslution based on a principle drawn from the story of David and his companions. Doesn’t that about do it for us?

Well… except for one little thing. Just when it seems like the story is over, and Yeshua is about to go his merry way, this is one more statement. What was that statement?

“The son of man is lord of the Shabbat.”

What on earth does that mean?

Most people assume that it means Yeshua has authority over Shabbat, and is able to disregard it, if he chooses. This, in fact, is the very reason so many like to believe that the point of the story is the setting aside of the Shabbat. This view fits fine if we believe the word “lord” (Greek, “kurios”) means that one is allowed to be arbitrary and lawless. That is, after all, the idea we get when we read of medieval kings and lords. They have unquestioned control over their circumstances and surroundings, literally having the power of life and death over their subjects.

Basically, we are used to thinking in terms of, “I’m the boss, so I can violate the Sabbath if I want to!”

But is that how Yeshua meant his statement? We know that, in other passages, he contrasted the behavior of Gentile authorities who dominate their subjects, with the proper model of servant leadership (Mark 10:42). Does it make sense that he would lay claim to such lordship in this context?

Let’s take a look at another usage of the word “lord”, or “kurios”.

Have you ever heard the expression, “Master of Disguise”? How about “Master Chef”? Perhaps you’ve had a “Master Plumber” work on your pipes. When we see terms like this in English, we recognize their meaning immediately. The purpose is to indicate that someone knows all about the subject, and is a capable practitioner. The reference is to mastery of a field of endeavor.

The same sort of idiom exists in Hebrew. When one has repented after falling away from the faith for a time, he is referred to as a “Ba’al Teshuvah”, a “Master/Lord of Repentance”. Similarly, one who has mastered the melodies and pronunciation of the Torah texts, he is known as a “Ba’al Koreh”, a “Master Chanter”. In Jewish thought, one is a “master” of a particular Torah topic when he has gained full mastery of the subject matter. .

I can hear you asking… “What makes all this “master” stuff an important topic for our purposes?”

Because that is exactly the phrase we find Yeshua employing in the Gospels! That enigmatic final phrase follows the idiom, “Master of…”. Of what did Yeshua claims to be master? The Shabbat!

So, we find that Yeshua never claims to be able to supersede the Shabbat. He never said the Father’s instruction had been set aside. He didn’t even say the sages of his day were wrong to prohibit threshing on Shabbat. Their ruling was good! But it was incomplete. It failed to grasp the full significance of the Shabbat—human well-being. Shabbat is made for man, to provide rest and restoration after six days of labor. Having that bigger picture enabled Yeshua to see that eating a bit of grain plucked from a stalk does not violate Shabbat at all. In fact, it falls right in line with the designated purpose.

Yeshua had the authority to make that ruling because he was a “Ba’al Shabbat”, a “Master of the Sabbath”.