Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Associate Editor
Craig L. Blomberg, Denver Seminary
Advisory Board
Leslie C. Allen I. Howard Marshall
Fuller Theological Seminary University of Aberdeen
Donald A. Carson Elmer A. Martens
Trinity Evangelical Divinity Mennonite Brethren Biblical
School Seminary
Donald A. Hagner Bruce K. Waltke
Fuller Theological Seminary Knox Theological Seminary
Karen H. Jobes Edwin M. Yamauchi
Wheaton College Miami University
1. Bridging the Gap: Ritual and Ritual Texts in the Bible, by Gerald A. Klingbeil
2. War in the Bible and Terrorism in the Twenty-First Century, edited by
Richard S. Hess and Elmer A. Martens
3. Critical Issues in Early Israelite History, edited by Richard S. Hess, Gerald A.
Klingbeil, and Paul J. Ray Jr.
4. Poetic Imagination in Proverbs: Variant Repetitions and the Nature of Poetry,
by Knut Martin Heim
5. Divine Sabbath Work, by Michael H. Burer
6. The Iron Age I Structure on Mt. Ebal: Excavation and Interpretation,
by Ralph K. Hawkins
Divine Sabbath Work
Michael H. Burer
www.eisenbrauns.com
The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the
American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for
Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984. †Ê
Contents
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Scope of the Topic of Divine Sabbath Work 1
Method and Content of the Study 2
The Need for the Study 2
The Limitations of the Study 6
2. Defense of Sabbath Controversy as
Being Historically Plausible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Introduction 8
Assessment and Critique of Meier’s Treatment of
Miracles in General 9
Assessment of Meier’s Treatment of
Sabbath Controversy in Miracle Stories 14
3. Investigation of Relevant Background Material . . . . . . . . . 27
Introduction 27
The Hebrew Scriptures 29
Theology of שַׁ ּבָתfrom the Old Testament 50
Qumran 58
The Septuagint 62
The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha 65
Josephus 71
Philo 73
Mishnah and Tosefta 78
The Targums 82
The Midrashim 84
The Palestinian Talmud 95
The Babylonian Talmud 96
Summary and Discussion 100
4. Jesus, Sabbath Actions, and Divine Sabbath Work . . . . . . . 103
Introduction 103
The Global Question 104
Questions for the Global Picture 108
v
vi Contents
Even though you, the reader, might be tempted to skip over this preface
as simply the requisite thanks required when an author publishes a book, I
ask you to stay here for just a minute. Anyone who has published a schol-
arly work knows that the author is influenced in many directions. Coupled
with my personal conviction that scholarship and faith are at their very best
when realized in community, it is with true conviction that I offer these
accolades.
This monograph grew out of my doctoral dissertation at Dallas Theo-
logical Seminary. Thanks are due to Darrell L. Bock, W. Hall Harris III, and
Richard Taylor, formerly my readers but now gracious colleagues, for their
guidance and encouragement.
In seeking guidance on publishing my dissertation, I found expert help
from many individuals who generously gave of their time and energy to im-
prove the work. Thanks are due to the late Martin Hengel for his initial
advice, Friedrich Avemarie for his keen eye, and Henning Ziebritski for his
kind guidance. Thanks are due especially to Rick Hess and Craig Blomberg,
editors of the BBRSup series, who saw the value of my work and helped me
put it into final form.
Expert library help was readily available because of Debbie Hunn. She
helped me find resources and borrow materials from other libraries count-
less times, all with characteristic grace.
Two people are due special thanks. Jeffrey Miller, my pastor and friend,
joined me on this journey, with many conversations and a great deal of en-
couragement. Writing a book alone is a burden; sharing the burden with a
friend is a joy. My dear wife, Melony, as spouses of scholars do, endured nu-
merous hours of work and distraction with patience and love. Without her,
I would not have published this book, nor would it really have mattered.
I dedicate this work to the memory of Harold W. Hoehner. It was my
distinct privilege to have an office next to his, and we often discussed mat-
ters academic and personal. He was a wonderful mentor and dear friend. I
believe he would be proud of this work, but he would probably have pre-
ferred it to be in Turabian style, not SBL!
To God alone be the glory.
Maurepas, France
February 2011
vii
Abbreviations
General
LXX Septuagint (Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible)
MT Masoretic Text
net The NET Bible (New English Translation). 1st ed. Dallas: Biblical Studies
Press, 2005
NT New Testament
OT Old Testament
Reference Works
AB Anchor Bible
ABD Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by D. N. Freedman et al. 6 vols. New
York: Doubleday, 1992
ABRL Anchor Bible Reference Library
ACNT Augsburg Commentaries on the New Testament
AGJU Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des
Urchristentums
AnBib Analecta biblica
ArBib The Aramaic Bible
BBET Beiträge zur biblischen Exegese und Theologie
BBR Bulletin for Biblical Research
BDAG Bauer, W., F. W. Danker, W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich. Greek-
English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature.
3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999
BECNT Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament
BHS Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Edited by K. Elliger and W. Rudolph.
Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1983
BNTC Black’s New Testament Commentaries
BRS Biblical Resource Series
BSac Bibliotheca sacra
CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly
CC Continental Commentaries
CGTC Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary
CNT Commentaire du Nouveau Testament
CRINT Compendia rerum iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum
DJD Discoveries in the Judaean Desert
DJG Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Edited by J. B. Green and
S. McKnight. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1992
ix
x Abbreviations
Introduction
1. The NA27 textual apparatus presents evidence for three other variant spellings of
this name. The most well known is Βηθεσδα (Bethesda), the reading of the Byzantine text.
A decision regarding the original reading is difficult. I have chosen to follow the text of
NA27 on this issue.
1
2 Chapter 1
the works already cited by other scholars. These additional materials are
insightful for our understanding of Jesus’ Sabbath actions.
2. John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus (5 vols.; ABRL; New
York: Doubleday, 1991–).
3. See, for example, D. A. Carson, “Matthew,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (ed.
Frank E. Gaebelein; Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), 8:279–85; R. T. France, Matthew
(TNTC; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985), 201–5; Marie-Joseph Lagrange, Evangile
selon Saint Marc (EBib; Paris: Lecoffre, 1966), 51–60; William L. Lane, The Gospel according
to Mark (NICNT; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974), 114–26; C. E. B. Cranfield, The
Gospel according to Saint Mark (rev. ed.; CGTC; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1959), 114–22; Morna D. Hooker, The Gospel according to St Mark (BNTC; London: Black,
1991), 101–8, especially p. 106; Vincent Taylor, The Gospel according to St. Mark (2nd ed.;
repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1966), 214–24; Craig A. Evans, Luke (NIBCNT; Peabody,
MA: Hendrickson, 1990), 99–100; John Nolland, Luke 1–9:20 (WBC 35A; Dallas: Word,
1989), 251–62.
Introduction 3
the Judaism that the Pharisees practiced. “When Jesus failed to submit to
the scribal regulation of the Sabbath he broke the tradition, and authority
confronted authority. It was inevitable that conflict should ensue, and that
the Pharisees should seek to destroy Jesus.” 4
In his recent major treatment of the Sabbath, Lutz Doering identifies
six broad ways of understanding Jesus’ relation to the Sabbath: (1) Jesus was
against the Sabbath commandment itself. (2) Jesus was not against the Sab-
bath commandment but against the subsequent Pharasiac Halakah. (3) Je-
sus was not against the Sabbath commandment but, rather, its universally
binding application. (4) The eschatological focus of Jesus in his teaching
governed his approach to the Sabbath. (5) Jesus handled the Sabbath com-
mandment not as a strict ordinance but in keeping with its intent. (6) Jesus
lived in complete accordance with the Sabbath commandment. 5 It is im-
portant to note that the question here revolves largely around Jesus and his
relation to the Law. Few options hint at a deeper, theological issue that may
lie beneath Jesus’ actions. My contention is not that Jesus’ interpretation of
the Law is an inappropriate lens through which to view the issue of Jesus’
Sabbath work but that it is not the only lens that the interpreter can use; in
certain cases, it is not sufficient to understand the full import of a passage.
The investigation of Jesus’ work on the Sabbath is hampered when only one
basic interpretive grid informs the scholarly discussion: his interactions
about contemporary Jewish praxis based on written Torah or oral tradition.
Often discussion of Jesus’ interactions with regard to Sabbath law will
include more nuanced views of Jesus’ authority. 6 Many commentators
view Jesus as offering not simply a different interpretation of the Law but,
through his interaction about the Law, an indication that he is the one who
has the inherent authority to interpret the Law appropriately in keeping
with God’s initial design. In Donald Hagner’s comments about the nature
of Jesus’ authority as it is expressed in Matt 12:1–8, Hagner argues along
these lines. The issue begins with who has properly understood the Sabbath
Raymond Brown has the fullest discussion of the issue of divine work on
the Sabbath and how it relates to Jesus’ ministry. 12 His contention is that
rabbinic material is the basis for this theological understanding of Jesus’
work on the Sabbath, but this is the same material in essence referenced by
Dodd. In discussing John 5:17, Brown gives the following summation:
Verse 17 must be set against the background of the relation of God to the Sab-
bath rest. In the commandment concerning the Sabbath (Exod xx 11, but con-
trast Deut v 15) we have this explanatory clause: “In six days the Lord made
the heavens and the earth . . . but on the seventh He rested. That is why the
Lord has blessed the Sabbath and made it holy.” However, the theologians of
Israel realized that God did not really cease to work on the Sabbath. There are
a whole series of rabbinic statements . . . to the effect that Divine Providence
remained active on the Sabbath, for otherwise, the rabbis reasoned, all nature
and life would cease to exist. 13
10. This is an important point that is more relevant to Jesus’ activity on the Sabbath
than Carson indicates through his cursory reference. Relevant passages from Philo are
discussed on pp. 73–78.
11. D. A. Carson, The Gospel according to John (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1991),
247–48.
12. Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel according to John I–XII (AB 29; Garden City, NY:
Doubleday, 1966), 216–21.
13. Brown, John I–XII, 216–17.
6 Chapter 1
14. C. K. Barrett, The Gospel according to St. John (2nd ed.; Philadelphia: Westminster,
1978), 255–56; Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Gospel according to St. John (3 vols.; New York:
Seabury, 1968–82), 2:100–102; Marie-Joseph Lagrange, Evangile selon Saint Jean (5th ed.;
EBib; Paris: Gabalda, 1936), 140–41; Xavier Léon-Dufour, Lecture de l’évangile selon Jean:
Chapitres 5–12 (Paris: Seuil, 1990), 36–37.
Introduction 7
15. The majority of the literature examined is Greek or Hebrew. The noun שַׁ ּבָת
and the phrase יעיִ שׁ ִב
ְ יֹוםwill form the basis for searches in Hebrew literature; the noun
σάββατον, the phrase ἑβδόμη ἡμέρα and the term ἡ ἑβδόμη form the basis for searches in
Greek literature.
16. This is limited to Midrash Rabbah, Mekilta on Exodus, Sipra Leviticus, Sipre Numbers,
and Sipre Deuteronomy.
Chapter 2
Introduction
One fundamental assumption underlying this study is that Jesus was in-
volved in Sabbath controversy. To many scholars, this is not a debated point,
but some still question whether Sabbath controversy was part of Jesus’ life
and ministry at all. 1 The goal of this second chapter is to determine whether
a positive assessment of Sabbath controversy in Jesus’ life and ministry can
be made, so that a foundation can be laid for the investigation of divine
Sabbath work. This assessment will come through careful interaction with
John Meier’s published comments on this issue in his historical Jesus study,
A Marginal Jew. 2
Meier is the central focus in this chapter for two main reasons. First,
he is fairly conservative overall in his conclusions about the historical Jesus
compared with many other scholars in the field, such as the Jesus Seminar.
Thus he is a good foil for dialogue; he does not subscribe overtly to anti
supernaturalism, nor is he given to noncritical acceptance of the biblical
data. Second, his method is the most refined of recent studies, because it
carefully defines what historians may ask and answer, and he avoids various
presuppositions that plague the field.
My interaction with Meier will be quite focused. For each of the miracles
that results in Sabbath controversy in the text, Meier denies that the Sab-
bath controversy has a historical basis. 3 This is quite interesting in light of
his strong, positive stance toward miracles in the ministry of Jesus in gen-
1. Notable scholars in this regard are E. P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism (Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1985), 264–67; idem, The Historical Figure of Jesus (London: Penguin, 1993), 220–
23; Robert W. Funk, Roy W. Hoover, and The Jesus Seminar, The Five Gospels: The Search
for the Authentic Words of Jesus (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1993); Robert W. Funk
and The Jesus Seminar, The Acts of Jesus: The Search for the Authentic Deeds of Jesus (San
Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1998).
2. John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus (5 vols.; ABRL; New
York: Doubleday, 1991–).
3. To be fair, Meier is quite nuanced in his presentation. The specific details will be
discussed below.
8
Defense of Sabbath Controversy as Being Historically Plausible 9
eral. Jesus’ miracles and Sabbath activity often intersect, so one would think
that a positive assessment of the more difficult category of miracles would
lead to a positive assessment of the less difficult category of Sabbath con-
troversy. My goal is to challenge his conclusion about the secondary nature
of Sabbath controversy and also to examine evidence to the contrary. In or-
der to provide a sufficient entrée into the discussion, I will need to interact
with Meier carefully on the issue of miracles in general. This is both because
of the intersection between miracles and Sabbath controversy mentioned
above and because of the method that he uses to pronounce a positive judg-
ment on miracles in Jesus’ life. In addition, Meier does not treat Sabbath
controversy systematically in his work, so his discussion of miracles is the
primary gateway to addressing his conclusions about Sabbath controversy. I
plan to determine whether his historical method, which results in a positive
assessment of miracles in Jesus’ life and ministry, leads to the same conclu-
sion about Sabbath controversy when similarly applied.
5. In my opinion, Funk et al. (The Five Gospels) are guilty of this very problem. The
presupposition of their work is that the “real” Jesus must be rescued from the artificial
construct of contemporary conservative, fundamental Christianity. Take, for example,
the following statement from the preface regarding the advent of historical Jesus stud-
ies: “To know the truth about Jesus, the real Jesus, one had to find the Jesus of history.
The refuge offered by the cloistered precincts of faith gradually became a battered and
beleaguered position. In the wake of the Enlightenment, the dawn of the Age of Reason,
in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, biblical scholars rose to the challenge and
launched a tumultuous search for the Jesus behind the Christian façade of the Christ”
(p. 2). In addition, the final general rule of evidence—“Beware of finding a Jesus entirely
congenial to you” (p. 5)—is but a thinly veiled attack on individuals who accept the tradi-
tional orthodox understanding of Jesus.
6. This is not the same as arguing that history does not have an impact on faith.
The connection between the historicity of events and the faith that results from these
events is important. The point is that the practice of the discipline of history does not
delve into matters that can only be known by faith. The difference can be illustrated with
two sentences: “Jesus died” is a statement of history that can be addressed with historical
methods; “Jesus died for my sins” is a theological statement that, on certain levels, history
cannot address.
Defense of Sabbath Controversy as Being Historically Plausible 11
These questions are important in that they restrict the historian to the in-
vestigation of historical data and are disconnected from any statements of
faith about miracles in the life of Jesus. The first question focuses on the re-
ports, and this most naturally leads one to the Gospel documents that con-
tain accounts of Jesus’ miracles. The question is entirely valid historically
since it is a question about what was reported, which is certainly within
the realm of historical observation. The second question relates accounts
of Jesus’ miracles to other contemporary miracle accounts and seeks to
determine whether Jesus’ miracles were reported in ways that were similar
to or distinct from other reports of miracles. 10 The third question is more
difficult in that it seeks to determine Jesus’ actual actions, but this is still
within the realm of historical inquiry, since Jesus lived and acted within
history. The fourth question seeks the perceived meaning of Jesus’ actions
within the community of his followers and those who wrote about him. All
of these questions are historical in nature and are valid for this inquiry. They
do not delve into theological questions, which are in fact matters of faith.
Meier holds these questions in abeyance while first answering a global
question regarding the historicity of Jesus’ miracles. On the whole, can the
historian determine whether Jesus did startling, unusual deeds that would
have been regarded by himself and other people who saw them as miracles?
By walking through the criteria of authenticity, 11 Meier is able to answer
this question positively. The criterion that has the most weight in answer-
ing this question is the criterion of multiple attestation: “Every Gospel
source (Mark, Q, M, L, and John), every evangelist in his redactional sum-
maries, and Josephus . . . affirm the miracle-working activity of Jesus.” 12 This
is strong attestation indeed. Multiple attestation not only extends to the
sources of the stories but also the forms. 13 The criterion of coherence is
also satisfied: these actions of Jesus cohere well with his sayings and form a
large, connected picture of Jesus as in fact doing some startling, marvelous
things that he and his contemporaries considered to be miracles. The crite-
ria of discontinuity and embarrassment apply in only a limited degree. The
criterion of discontinuity as it relates to miracles is helpful if one examines
the entire scope of Jesus’ life and ministry.
Still more to the point: the overall configuration, pattern, or Gestalt of Jesus
as popular preacher and teller of parables, plus authoritative interpreter of the
Law and teacher of morality, plus proclaimer and realizer of the eschatological
kingdom of God, plus miracle-worker actualizing his own proclamation has
no adequate parallel in either the pagan or the Jewish literature of the time.
As I have already suggested, when the prickly question of the “uniqueness” of
Jesus is raised, his uniqueness is best discussed not in terms of any individual
aspect of his ministry taken in isolation but rather in terms of the total con-
figuration of his words and deeds. If the criterion of discontinuity applies at
all to the miracles of Jesus, it is only in this larger context or configuration. 14
The criterion of embarrassment does not apply since none of the events
depicted would be embarrassing to the early church. As far as their connec-
tion to the arrest, trial, and crucifixion of Jesus is concerned, there is not
much direct connection, although miracles could be seen as a mitigating
circumstance in the events surrounding Jesus’ death. 15
Meier replies to the global question with a strong affirmation: Jesus did
perform extraordinary deeds that he and others deemed to be miracles. In
fact, the traditions about Jesus’ miracles are supported more strongly than
other well-known, well-accepted aspects of his ministry.
Put dramatically but not with too much exaggeration: if the miracle tradi-
tion from Jesus’ public ministry were to be rejected in toto as unhistorical, so
should every other Gospel tradition about him. For if the criteria of historic-
ity do not work in the case of the miracle tradition, where multiple attesta-
tion is so impressive, there is no reason to expect them to work elsewhere. 16
The case for historicity of the global question is quite strong, and it can be
affirmed quite readily by those who are searching for the historical Jesus.
17. There is one pericope in the Gospels where Jesus exorcises a demon on the Sab-
bath, but no controversy results (Mark 1:21–28).
18. He makes no definitive comment about the Sabbath controversy in the passage
about plucking grain on the Sabbath.
19. Meier, A Marginal Jew, 2:681–84.
20. Meier, A Marginal Jew, 2:683.
21. Meier, A Marginal Jew, 2:683.
22. Meier, A Marginal Jew, 4:255 This same evidence is also determinative, in his esti-
mation, for Luke 13:10–17, 14:1–6.
Defense of Sabbath Controversy as Being Historically Plausible 15
cerning the healing of the bent-over woman in Luke 13:10–17. 23 The story
has a greater appearance of reality since Jesus actually touches the woman,
but then he agrees with Sanders that “verisimilitude does not automatically
equal historicity.” 24 When discussing the healing of the man with dropsy in
Luke 14:1–6, Meier returns to the argument that Sabbath controversy over
minute points of law would not occur among the general populace. The fol-
lowing quotation is in a discussion of whether Luke 14:1–6 is a variant of the
healing of the man with the withered hand in Mark 3:1–6.
However, if we try to go beyond the question of variant versions of the same
story and raise the possibility of similar events in the life of Jesus, there is the
persistent historical question we have already seen when treating the other
stories of healing on the Sabbath: would Jesus’ cure by a mere touch have been
considered a grave violation of the Sabbath by most Jews of the time? Prob-
ably not. 25
Meier argues against the Sabbath controversy in both the Johannine mir-
acles as well. The healing of the paralytic by the pool of Bethzatha in John
5:1–9 did not have the Sabbath controversy as part of the original story;
this is an addition by the evangelist. “An indication that at the very least
the story is not simply a creation of the evangelist is the fact that he has to
‘tack on’ the motifs of Sabbath and sin (5:9b, 14) to a story that originally
lacked them—and still lacks them in the miracle story proper.” 26 So the
Sabbath motif was added by the evangelist to a story that already existed;
the implication is that the Sabbath controversy represented in the story is
not historical.
Meier argues along redactional lines to dispute the historicity of Sabbath
controversy in the story of the healing of the man born blind in John 9:1–41.
Most probably a secondary addition to the miracle story, the motif of the
Sabbath acts as a springboard for the evolving controversy that fills the rest
of chap. 9: the controversy over who Jesus, a healer yet Sabbath-breaker, really
is. There is no need to go into this controversy material, not only because it is
not part of the miracle story in the narrow sense of the word, but also because
this controversy material is suffused with Johannine theology, reflecting in
particular the painful break of John’s church from the Jewish synagogue. 27
In his more recent work, Meier continues this same line of argumentation,
concluding that “the once promising batch of dispute stories involving heal-
ing on the sabbath dissolves under the glare of critical analysis.” 28
It is clear from his comments that Meier regards the historicity of the
Sabbath controversy preserved in the healing stories in the Gospels as
doubtful at best and at worst as totally secondary additions that are not
historical. This in effect removes all Sabbath controversy from the life and
ministry of Jesus. What I wish to argue for the balance of this chapter is
that Sabbath controversy in the life of Jesus is historical with a high degree
of probability. I will follow Meier’s lead and approach the question globally
and particularly.
34. This can be amply demonstrated from intertestamental documents such as the
book of Jubilees with its strong emphasis on Sabbath observance and the book of 1 Mac-
cabees with its recounting of persecution under Antiochus Epiphanes (see especially
1 Macc 1:41–49). For a definitive, seminal study on this issue, see E. P. Sanders, Paul, the
Law, and the Jewish People (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983).
35. S. Westerholm and C. A. Evans, “Sabbath,” DNTB 1035.
36. This is explicitly stated in Luke 4:16 and indicated by Jesus’ repeated presence in
the synagogue on the Sabbath in Mark 1:21; 6:2; Luke 4:31 (compare with 4:33); 6:6; 13:10.
By implication, other incidents of teaching in the synagogue very likely could have been
on the Sabbath (Matt 4:23; 9:35; 13:54; Mark 1:39; Luke 4:15; 4:44; John 6:59; 18:20).
37. See Samuele Bacchiocchi, From Sabbath to Sunday: A Historical Investigation of the
Rise of Sunday Observance in Early Christianity (Rome: Pontifical Gregorian University,
18 Chapter 2
from the Jewish culture of his time and the church’s ultimate practice that
followed. This argues for a higher degree of historical plausibility for the
Sabbath controversy. 38
The criterion of coherence also argues for the historical plausibility of
Sabbath controversy in the life of Jesus. If we posit that a central issue in Je-
sus’ treatment of the Sabbath was authority, then coherence is very helpful.
In actions and words accepted as historical by most scholars, Jesus claims
authority over various aspects of the Judaism of his day. For example, with
his action in the temple, which is generally recognized as historical, Jesus
was claiming authority over holy space. It would cohere very well to see Je-
sus, in claiming authority over the Sabbath, as claiming authority over Is-
rael’s holy time. Jesus’ preaching of the kingdom was an announcement of
God’s coming rule and an invitation to participate. Many of his healings
that were the center of Sabbath controversy can be viewed as the same kind
of action. 39 So coherence lends plausibility to the Sabbath controversies.
1977); D. A. Carson, ed., From Sabbath to Lord’s Day: A Biblical, Historical, and Theological
Investigation (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1982).
38. The applicability of the criterion of double similarity should be addressed at this
point. This criterion is developed by N. T. Wright (Christian Origins and the Question of
God, vol. 2: Jesus and the Victory of God [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996], 131–33), works hand
in hand with the criterion of dissimilarity, and is stated thus:
Along with the much-discussed ‘criterion of dissimilarity’ must go a criterion of double
similarity: when something can be seen to be credible (though perhaps deeply subver-
sive) within first-century Judaism, and credible as the implied starting-point (though
not the exact replica) of something in later Christianity, there is a strong possibility of
our being in touch with the genuine history of Jesus.
Arguably, Jesus’ treatment of the Sabbath is both dissimilar from and similar to his Jew-
ish context. As the central thesis of chap. 4 will argue, Jesus’ approach to the Sabbath
bypassed the legal Halakah that had developed around the Sabbath and instead returned
to its theological center as a proclamation of God’s activity of blessing on behalf of his
people. In this sense, Jesus is in step with the Judaism of his day, because this view of
the Sabbath arises directly out of the Hebrew Scriptures, which all Judaism accepted as
normative; but in another sense, he is out of step with the Judaism of his day, because he
shows no concern to maintain a particular behavior with regard to the Sabbath in order
to standardize it as an appropriate identity marker for Jews. What cannot be argued as
well is that Jesus’ attitude toward the Sabbath was both dissimilar from and similar with
Christianity. As discussed in the text above, Jesus’ approach to the Sabbath was different
from the early church’s, but how was it similar? There are no clear texts that deal with the
Sabbath in a vein similar Jesus’ approach. One might expect some theological discussion
along these lines somewhere in the NT, but they are noticeable by their absence. Further
study will have to show whether there was similarity between Jesus and the early church in
their approaches to the Sabbath. At this time, a judgment on the matter cannot be made.
39. See, for example, Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 191–96; Craig A. Evans,
“Inaugurating the Kingdom of God and Defeating the Kingdom of Satan,” BBR 15
(2005): 49–75.
Defense of Sabbath Controversy as Being Historically Plausible 19
40. This example ceases to pertain to this criterion, though, if through redaction the
author added this verse to material which had no association to Jesus’ rejection and ex-
ecution otherwise. This issue will be discussed further below.
41. The final criterion of historical presumption which Meier lists (Meier, A Marginal
Jew, 1:183) is not really a criterion to apply to the Gospel materials. It is instead a criterion
to apply to the historian.
42. Meier, A Marginal Jew, 2:681–84, 4:254–56.
20 Chapter 2
whole complex of stories from 2:1 to 3:5: “So the Pharisees went out im-
mediately and began plotting with the Herodians, as to how they could as-
sassinate him.” 43 Meier notes as well that the placement of this healing fol-
lowing the pronouncement story in 2:23–28 is redactional: “No doubt Mark
also sees the cure of the withered hand on the Sabbath as a confirmation
of what Jesus affirms at the end of chap. 2: the Son of Man is Lord even of
the Sabbath (2:28).” 44 Meier argues that 3:6 links the final pericope of this
extended unit with the first, where the charge of blasphemy is introduced;
when coupled with the charge of blasphemy that condemns Jesus in Mark
14, the redactional loop is closed. “All of these redactional manipulations by
Mark . . . point to earlier material that was inherited and reworked.” 45 In his
more recent work, Meier adds the argument that the emphasis of the pe-
ricope is Christological, not legal, thus fitting Mark’s redactional concerns
even more tightly. 46
In response, I do not disagree with Meier that redaction has occurred in
this pericope with the use of 3:6 as a closing of the story cycle. My disagree-
ment is with his subsequent doubt about the historicity of the Sabbath con-
troversy. The fact that redaction has occurred is clear enough. The perico-
pes of this complex in Mark 2:1–3:6 are grouped together because of their
controversy-story form; 3:6 functions as a story seam to close the cycle. It
does not necessarily follow, however, that the content of any one of the sto-
ries is now in doubt, because the arrangement of individual stories does not
automatically mean that the contents of the individual stories themselves
have been altered. 47 More pointed is the argument (although Meier does
not make it) that in contrast to Mark 3:6 there is nothing else in the Synop-
tics that supports a plot against Jesus so early in his ministry. When Mark
3:6 is compared with the parallel passage in Luke 6:11, however, this argu-
ment loses some of its weight. 48 In comparison with Mark 3:6, Luke 6:11
is more general in how it portrays the response to the controversy: αὐτοὶ
δὲ ἐπλήσθησαν ἀνοίας καὶ διελάλουν πρὸς ἀλλήλους τί ἂν ποιήσαιεν τῷ Ἰησοῦ.
Note that the pronoun αὐτοί leaves the specific actors vague (scribes and
Pharisees were mentioned in v. 7), and the verb ποιήσαιεν describes action
but does not specify exactly what action this was. On the basis of Markan
priority, one must argue that Luke consciously changed this wording from
specific to general, in contrast to Matthew, who only removed the historical
43. Unless otherwise noted, English Scripture citations are taken from the net.
44. Meier, A Marginal Jew, 2:682.
45. Meier, A Marginal Jew, 2:682.
46. Meier, A Marginal Jew, 4:254.
47. Indeed, see Meier, A Marginal Jew, 2:731 n. 16, for a discussion on this very point
regarding Mark 3:1–6, where he seems more inclined to accept the core controversy in
the story.
48. The parallel passage in Matt 12:14 reads almost exactly like Mark 3:6, except for
the verb ἔλαβον in place of ἐδίδουν and omission of the reference to the Herodians.
Defense of Sabbath Controversy as Being Historically Plausible 21
difficulty of the Herodians. 49 Luke’s change is quite adept, and it solves the
conundrum: it removes the historical difficulties in Mark 3:6 of the Hero-
dians and the early plot on Jesus’ life, all the while retaining the truth that
there was indeed controversy in the original event that generated a response
on the part of Jesus’ opponents. This more primitive nature of the subse-
quent Gospel testifies to the historical core that was redacted by Mark.
Meier then discusses two major points in denying the historicity of Sab
bath controversy in this pericope. The first concerns the attitudes of the
general population toward Sabbath observance. He argues that the aver-
age Galilean peasant would not quibble over minor points of Sabbath
observance.
Like most other Jews of 1st-century Palestine, Galilean peasants no doubt
observed the basic rules of the Sabbath: no secular everyday work, no buy-
ing and selling, no lengthy journeys, no lighting or extinguishing of a fire, no
cooking, no medical treatment of illnesses outside life-or-death situations,
and no military activity except in case of self-defense. But ordinary Galilean
peasants probably did not worry about the fine points over which special re-
ligious groups quarreled. 50
This argument makes a valid point, but it falls short in one major way: the
controversy that ensued over Jesus’ actions was not with the local peasants.
It was instead a controversy with a special religious group that did in fact
quibble over rules regarding Sabbath observance. Meier himself notes that
“the Mishna (compiled ca. a.d. 200) records disagreements between the
House of Hillel and the House of Shammai on the issue of sabbath obser-
vance, some of which may indeed reach back to the pre-70 period.” 51 Other
Scriptures indicate that the average peasant had no problem with Jesus’
deeds and in fact was glad to see them and benefit from them (e.g., Matt
9:8; Mark 5:20; Luke 13:17). Scripture is clear that the driving force for oppo-
sition to Jesus was from a special religious group in a position of leadership,
not from the average Galilean peasant. To vacate the Sabbath controversy
because of what the average Jew thought and believed is to miss the point.
The second major point that Meier makes along these lines is that Je-
sus actually did not perform any work on the Sabbath in this instance; he
merely spoke words to the man, and this speaking alone healed him.
If we take the story in Mark 3:1–6 at face value, Jesus literally does nothing—
that is, he performs no action—and so in no sense can he be said to break the
Sabbath by working. Thus it is incredible that Pharisees or anyone else would
seek to put Jesus to death for the event described in Mark 3:1–6. It is also diffi-
cult to believe that any group of Jews could or would accuse Jesus of breaking
49. For discussion, see John P. Meier, “The Historical Jesus and the Historical Hero-
dians,” JBL 119 (2000): 740–46; idem, A Marginal Jew, 2:560–65.
50. Meier, A Marginal Jew, 2:682–83.
51. Meier, A Marginal Jew, 3:526–27. Here Meier cites m. Šabb. 1:4–8.
22 Chapter 2
the Sabbath when all Jesus did was to speak a few words that brought healing
to a crippled hand. 52
Bethzatha. Meier argues that the Sabbath controversy has been “tacked on”
by the evangelist. 63 The best arguments against this are made by Raymond
Brown. 64 It is true that the Sabbath theme is introduced in John 5:9 in a
way that would appear to be an “afterthought.” 65 However, this might be an
example of a Johannine technique as the Sabbath is introduced in John 9:14
in the same way. Brown, arguing against Haenchen who denies the origi-
nality of John 5:9b–13, 66 points out that without the Sabbath controversy
this story would have little significance. It would not illustrate the faith of
the one healed, as many synoptic healings do, nor would it adequately dem-
onstrate Jesus’ concern for those who are suffering (cf. Luke 7:11–17). “One
almost needs the Sabbath motif to give this story significance.” 67 This story
exhibits parallels with Luke 13:10–17: Jesus heals, questions are raised about
Sabbath observance, then Jesus speaks regarding the Sabbath. 68 These ele-
ments point to the originality of the Sabbath motif in John 5, and as such it
has a claim to historicity greater than that which Meier assigns it.
The healing of the man born blind is a more complex case because the
ensuing Sabbath controversy involves what many believe to be a blatant
anachronism, that is, the casting out of the man from the synagogue in John
9:34. Meier denies the Sabbath controversy because it is not connected to
the miracle story proper but also because it “is suffused with Johannine the-
ology, reflecting in particular the painful break of John’s church from the
Jewish synagogue.” 69 The chapter endnote on this statement expands on
this argument.
Besides the typically Johannine language and style, John’s hand can be seen
in (1) the depiction of the Pharisees as a juridically competent body with the
authority to expel any Jew (including rulers, cf. 12:42) from the synagogue;
(2) the expression of this state of affairs in 9:22 by a compound adjective ap-
parently created by John (aposynagōgos, “cast out of the synagogue”), an adjec-
tive that appears in no other book in the NT; (3) John’s “realized eschatology,”
expressed in the idea that Jesus as the Son of Man passes judgment not on
a future “last day” but on the “last day” of decision that is right now, in the
moment of belief or unbelief; (4) the theme of Jesus as the light of the world,
who not only gives the blind man both physical sight and the insight of faith
but also passes judgment on the Pharisees, who despite their physical sight
plunge further and further into spiritual blindness (9:40–41). In particular,
John’s depiction of the Pharisees and their authority over Judaism reflects the
Meier has adopted the traditional, skeptical view regarding John 9, that the
depiction of the man being cast out of the synagogue did not occur during
Jesus’ ministry and is in fact a retrojection of the conflict that John’s com-
munity was undergoing at a later time. Therefore, the controversy depicted
there could in no way have originated in the ministry of Jesus. 71
This argument, however, ignores another feasible reading of the evi-
dence that understands John to be referring to an informal, localized, early
expulsion. On the basis of Ezra 10:8 and 1QS 6:24–7:25, it is possible that
excommunication from the synagogue was pre-Christian. 72 At the least,
this evidence shows that Jewish communities before and during the first
century practiced a discipline of members that restricted their access to the
community even to the point of complete expulsion from it. Evidence sur-
rounding the Twelfth of the Eighteen Benedictions, which specifically ex-
cludes Christians from the synagogue, is inconclusive and cannot be used as
a later starting point for any synagogue expulsions. Instead, it is best under-
stood as the culmination of a rather involved history of Jewish persecution
of Christians and gradual separation of the two communities. 73 In support
of this point, Paul himself was cast out of a synagogue in Acts 13:50, and he
speaks of prior persecution of Christians by Jews in Judea in 1 Thess 2:14. 74
On a related note, it is wrong to assume that the confession of Jesus as the
Christ, which many argue is in view in the Twelfth Benediction, arose only
after the resurrection. Jesus did in fact enunciate a test of discipleship dur-
ing his ministry that included public confession of him according to Matt
10:32–33 and 12:8–9; this finds a conceptual parallel in Mark 8:38. 75 This is
confirmed as well by the last Beatitude: Matt 5:11–12 is parallel to Luke
6:22–23, which is very close conceptually to John 9. 76 The evidence from
Jesus’ trial and crucifixion is also important: the charge of the high priest
shows the currency of the confession of Jesus as Messiah, 77 while the titu-
lus over the cross confirms the public nature of this confession. If there
was controversy surrounding Jesus and individuals who professed allegiance
to him, it is very likely that some form of synagogue discipline would be
enacted. The use of ἤδη in John 9:22 may also favor a positive assessment
of historicity because this word may indicate that during the life of Jesus
threats of expulsion were already taking place. 78
In a recent treatment, Klink argues that John 9 contains points of histor-
ical contact with Jesus’ own ministry because the evidence from the chap-
ter points to what had been occurring in Judaism for years—namely: “the
Jewish-Christian tension in the first century was part of the larger intra-
Jewish tension between related members of common familial roots,” not
between unrelated groups, that is, Christians and Jews. 79 Even if one argues
that the use of ἀποσυνάγωγος must refer to late first-century synagogue ex-
pulsions, it is possible that John is being intentionally anachronistic with his
description of the expulsion during the ministry of Jesus so that his read-
ers would understand the events surrounding this healing; this view simply
explains why John uses the specific term and does not deny the underlying
controversy and synagogue discipline that were imposed on the man in Je-
sus’ day. All of this evidence leads to the conclusion that Meier makes an
inappropriate judgment concerning the controversy here in John 9. There
are good reasons to regard it as historically plausible with an origin in the
life and ministry of Jesus.
In conclusion, although Meier argues against Sabbath controversy in
the life of Jesus (his conclusions range from an agnostic stance to outright
denial), the evidence is best taken as more positive historically. The global
question certainly affirms Sabbath controversy in the life and ministry of
Jesus, and it must be said that this global picture must have an appropriate
genesis, most likely from events that took place in Jesus’ life. The examina-
tion of the individual events and the controversy depicted in them shows
that there is good reason to accept these events as historical with a high de-
gree of probability in what they affirm, including the Sabbath controversy.
With this foundation laid, the way is now clear for an investigation of divine
Sabbath work and its impact on Sabbath controversy in Jesus’ life.
76. Beasley-Murray, John, 154; Jerome H. Neyrey, The Gospel of John (Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press, 2007), 176.
77. Carson, John, 370.
78. Carson, John, 371.
79. Edward W. Klink III, “Expulsion from the Synogogue? Rethinking a Johannine
Anachronism,” TynBul 59 (2008): 111.
Chapter 3
Investigation of
Relevant Background Material
Introduction
My goal in this chapter is to trace key ideas related to divine Sabbath
work in the literature that illustrates the conceptual and cultural issues
present but not necessarily explicit in the NT text. The primary problems
faced at this juncture relate to methodology and results. The Sabbath was
crucial to the life of Israel from its inception. It became a crucial sign to
mark Israel as distinct from without and from within: that is to say, other
nations noted Israel’s keeping of the Sabbath as distinct, 1 and Israel itself
noted that the Sabbath was a unique institution, meant only for the people
of Israel. 2 Because of the centrality of this institution to the life of Israel,
1. See, for example, Josephus, Ag. Ap. 1.209, where Josephus includes this report by
Agatharchides: “There are a people called Jews, who dwell in a city the strongest of all
other cities, which the inhabitants call Jerusalem, and are accustomed to rest on every
seventh day; on which times they make no use of their arms, nor meddle with husbandry,
nor take care of any affairs of life, but spread out their hands in their holy places, and pray
till the evening.”
2. See, for example, Deut. Rab. 1:21, which reads,
R. Jose b. Hanina said: A non-Jew who observes the Sabbath whilst he is uncircumcised
incurs liability for the punishment of death. Why? Because [non-Jews] were not com-
manded concerning it. And what is your reason for saying that a non-Jew who observes
the Sabbath becomes liable to the punishment of death? R. Hiyya b. Abba said in the
name of R. Johanan: In mundane affairs, when a king and his consort are sitting and
conversing together, should one come and interrupt them, does he not thereby make
himself liable to the punishment of death? So, too, the Sabbath is [a reunion] between
Israel and God, as it is said, It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel (Ex. xxxi, 17);
therefore ay non-Jew who, being uncircumcised, thrusts himself between them incurs
the penalty of death. The Rabbis say: Moses declared before God: “Master of the Uni-
verse, just because the Gentiles have not been commanded to observe the Sabbath, wilt
Thou show favour to them if they do observe it?” God replied to him: “Do you really
fear this? By your life, even if they fulfill all the commandments in the Torah, yet will I
cause them to fall before you.”
Also, Jub. 2:31 reads, “The Creator of all blessed it [i.e., the Sabbath], but he did not sanc-
tify any people or nations to keep the sabbath thereon with the sole exception of Israel.
He granted to them alone that they might eat and drink and keep the sabbath thereon
upon the earth.”
27
28 Chapter 3
3. This third reason is perhaps the most subtle but in a sense the most important.
Since the goal of this research is to relate the issue of divine Sabbath work to Jesus’ ac-
tions on the Sabbath, the statistically small number of passages that discuss this concept
might skew the results. Theoretically, it is entirely possible that this issue is the central
cultural issue to explain Jesus’ Sabbath actions, but methodologically, if there are a host
of other passages that provide a better explanation of Jesus’ Sabbath actions and I do not
list them, I run the risk of forcing Jesus into an unlikely context.
4. I have chosen in places to discuss passages that deal with Sabbath prohibitions
when in my judgment they are directly relevant to interpreting Jesus’ situation.
Investigation of Relevant Background Material 29
and these terms provide a control for my results. In essence, one finds a
broad theological grid that joins the Sabbath, eschatology, God’s actions for
his people, and God’s creative activity, and this grid provides a framework
for understanding Jesus’ activity on the Sabbath.
5. For a discussion of the importance of the larger narrative unit of Gen 1:1–2:4,
see Richard S. Hess, “God and Origins: Interpreting the Early Chapters of Genesis,” in
Darwin, Creation and the Fall: Theological Challenges (ed. R. J. Berry and T. A. Noble; Not-
tingham: Apollos, 2009), 86–98.
6. The verb שַׁבת
ָ does occur, once in v. 2 and once in v. 3.
7. It will become clear from many discussions about this passage, however, that it
was interpreted in just this way. For example, several passages in the midrashim depict
God and others as specifically keeping the Sabbath before it was ordained in the law by
Moses. The law is thus viewed as retroactive, but this occurs because Gen 2:1–3 is pro-
grammatic in this regard.
8. A word about source-critical concerns is apropos here. I do not think it is neces-
sary to delve into the documentary hypothesis and whether or not Gen 1:1–2:3 in fact is
from the Priestly source. Since my goal is to address the historical, cultural background
of the topic relative to the time of Jesus, the exact origins of the sources do not matter as
much as the final form of the sources themselves, especially since they were written and
formed before the time of Jesus. The proper question is how these sources formed the
theology of the Judaism of Jesus’ time, no matter when they were originally written. This
stance also pertains to other materials, the sources of which are debated—for example,
the book of Isaiah.
30 Chapter 3
9. To recognize it as such would be to put the legislative cart before the theological
horse.
10. Mark S. Smith (The Priestly Vision of Genesis 1 [Minneapolis: Fortress, 2010], 106)
notes that this “combination of blessing, sanctification, and rest appears in no other cre-
ation account.”
11. So Nahum M. Sarna, Genesis ( JPSTC 1; New York: Jewish Publication Society,
1989), 14: “Its distinctive character is the desistance from labor and its infusion with
blessing and sanctity.” God is understood to be the source of this blessing and sanctity.
12. Note also the exegesis found in Gen. Rab. 7:5; 10:9; 11:9.
Investigation of Relevant Background Material 31
The seventh day, then, does not represent for people simply an abstinence
of activity but an opportunity for God to bless both through man’s imita-
tion of him and through following God’s ordained order of creation—that
is, six days of work, then a day of rest. Just as the day itself received blessing
from God, the paradigmatic nature of the passage implies that it is a day
through which man can himself receive blessing from God. Of all the days
of the week, it becomes the primary day of blessing.
15. This figure was obtained through the BibleWorks software program using the
WTM module, which is the Groves-Wheeler Westminster Morphology and Lemma Da-
tabase, release 3.5, 2001. Thus WTM is essentially the morphologically tagged version of
BHS.
16. The word occurs in Exod 16:23, 25, 26, and 29.
Investigation of Relevant Background Material 33
“The Sabbath in the Pentateuch,” in The Sabbath in Scripture and History (ed. Kenneth
A. Strand; Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1982), 28–29; and other scholars.
21. Verse 8 ends with the phrase לקַ ְּדשֹׁו,
ְ and v. 11 ends with the phrase ַויְקַ ְּדשֵׁהּו.
22. The combination preposition plus the infinitive construct here most likely indi-
cates purpose, but it could also be epexegetical.
23. Bruce K. Waltke and M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Wi-
nona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 401.
24. Childs, Exodus, 415–16.
25. This is a very deliberate echo of the sanctification of the day that God accom-
plished in Gen 2:1–3. In much the same way that God acts on this day to sanctify it, the
Israelites are to do the same.
26. BDB, “מלָאכָה,” ְ 521–22. HALOT (“מלָאכָה,” ְ 586) lists six categories of usage for
this noun. Two of them refer to normal everyday activities: “1. trade mission, business
journey”; “2. business, work.” Two of them refer to the results of this business activity:
“3. handiwork, craftsmanship”; “4. objects, wares.” Two of them refer to specialized ac-
tivities: “5. service”; “6. service in the cult.” There is no indication that ְמלָאכָהis meant
to imply activity or exertion of any type. A defensible conclusion is that ְמלָאכָהrefers to
normal weekday activities associated with one’s occupation.
27. Nahum M. Sarna, Exodus ( JPSTC 2; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society,
1991), 112. His notes to this section list the following references for these classes of work:
leaving one’s place, Exod 16:29; agricultural activities, Exod 34:21; kindling fire, Exod
Investigation of Relevant Background Material 35
35:3; gathering wood, Num 15:32–36; conducting business, Isa 58:13, Amos 8:5, Neh 10:32,
13:15–18; carrying burdens, Jer 17:21, 24, 27; loading asses, Neh 13:15.
28. Durham, Exodus, 289.
29. So Childs, Exodus, 416.
30. Durham, Exodus, 290.
31. Childs, Exodus, 416.
32. This weekly observance was unique to Israel. See Richard S. Hess, Israelite Reli-
gions: An Archaeological and Biblical Survey (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2007), 166–67.
36 Chapter 3
33. In a similar vein, circumcision is a perpetual sign of the Abrahamic covenant (Gen
17:13).
34. Sarna, Exodus, 201.
35. This punishment receives amplification in Exod 35:1–3, which connects the pro-
hibition of work on the Sabbath to the kindling of fire. This connection becomes impor-
tant in the incident of the man collecting wood on the Sabbath in Num 15:32–36.
Investigation of Relevant Background Material 37
presence with Israel by means of the Tabernacle (Exod 25:1–31:11) and the
Sabbath (Exod 31:12–17). 36 By keeping the Sabbath as an eternal sign, the
people of Israel would remember the covenant that codified God’s gracious
gift of his presence. 37
Leviticus 16:29–31. Leviticus 16:29–31 makes an important connection
between the Day of Atonement and the Sabbath, primarily by way of imi-
tation. In the first part of chap. 16, the ritual of the Day of Atonement is
commanded and delineated. The primary purpose of the rites prescribed is
to prevent the deaths of Aaron and subsequent high priests when they enter
the presence of the Lord; the rites cleanse the Tabernacle from the sins of
the people. 38 In an extension of this atonement, the sins of the people are
then removed through the scapegoat, and thus they themselves are saved
from death. Within the context of the entire ritual, then, all of Israel—from
its place of worship to its high priest to its individual members—is purified.
After the details of the ritual are finished, the connection to the Sabbath
is made in vv. 29–31. The connection to the Sabbath is not one of calendar
but one of attitude. The Israelites were to approach the Day of Atonement
as they approached the Sabbath, but because of the supreme holiness of
the day, it required an additional measure of solemnity, as indicated by the
use of the word שַׁ ּבָתֹון39 in Lev 16:31. The question must be asked why the
Sabbath was so pertinent to the character of the Day of Atonement that
this connection was made in the first place. The answer lies in the empha-
sis placed on the sanctification of Israel in prior Sabbath contexts and the
sanctification that is central to the ritual of the Day of Atonement. This
sanctification finds its initial expression in God’s blessing of the day in Gen
2:1–3, which receives further expression in the foundation for the Sabbath
36. Thanks are due to Richard S. Hess for clarification of this point. In a different
vein, Hasel, “Sabbath,” 852, argues that the Sabbath is a multivalent sign:
Its “sign” signification is commemorative of God as Creator and Redeemer where the
sabbath-keeping community confesses its continuing relationship to its covenant Lord;
it is also prospective in signification in that it is a “sign” of the covenant history moving
forward to its appointed goal; it is at the same time a “sign” signifying the believer’s
present posture vis-à-vis God with physical, mental, and spiritual renewal taking place in
each sabbath celebration.
37. Durham, Exodus, 413–14.
38. See Gordon J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus (NICNT; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerd-
mans, 1979), 236–37.
39. Regarding the suffix ֹון-, HALOT (“שַׁ ּבָתֹון,” 1411) discusses three possible origins:
(a) an artificial amplification of ( שַׁ ּבָתKBL); (b) a diminutive of שַׁ ּבָת, so Barth Nominal-
bildung §196b; (c) by comparing the Akk. suffix -ān, ānum (von Soden Gramm. §56r) the
suggestion emerges that שַׁ ּבָתֹוןcan be distinguished from the basic lexeme as signifying
one individual and particular שַׁ ּבָת, such as one that is to be observed in a particularly
strict way, or one observed as a special celebration; the second of these suggestions
(b) should probably not be considered any further, and the first (a) is extremely weak;
this leaves the third (c) as the preferred explanation.
38 Chapter 3
40. This passage becomes the source of rich rabbinic discussion in the mishnaic trac-
tate ʿErubin on how one might establish a temporary place of residence away from one’s
customary place of residence.
41. See Hess, Israelite Religions, 167.
42. Baruch A. Levine (Leviticus [ JPSTC 3; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society,
1989], 155) states, “The main object of the Sabbath law, in this respect, is to avoid per-
forming one’s daily tasks on the Sabbath.”
43. See Richard S. Hess, “Leviticus,” EBC, 1:781–83.
Investigation of Relevant Background Material 39
in such a way, the author carried over the theological motifs of the origi-
nal Sabbath legislation into the yearly festival celebrations, most likely em-
phasizing remembrance of the Lord as one who sanctifies them. There are
other practical reasons why the Sabbath legislation might be included here.
Hartley argues,
First, the people’s faithful observance of the Sabbath would establish the pat-
tern for their faithful observance of the festivals. Second, the Sabbath plays
a role in determining the time for the celebration of the Feasts of Weeks
(vv 15–16). Third, the laws on Sabbath observance carry over to special solemn
days during the feasts; i.e., certain days of a feast are to be observed like a
Sabbath. 44
male landowner is similar to the list in Exod 20; the list in Deuteronomy is
slightly broader when it comes to listing the animals. 49 More importantly,
it definitely extends the purpose of this command to include the others in
the house in terms of their own rest and recuperation.
The decisive difference here in the restatement of the Sabbath command
and what is important to note for this study is its basis. In Exod 20:8–10, the
basis for the command was God’s act of creation: in six days, he created the
earth, and on the seventh day he rested. However, here in Deuteronomy
the basis for the Sabbath command is God’s definitive display of power and
salvation on behalf of his people in the exodus from Egypt. The focus is
not on God as Creator but on God as redeemer and savior. By observing
the Sabbath, the Israelites will remember and extol their redeemer, who de-
livered them from bondage. By releasing their animals and servants from
work, they will emulate their redeemer, who released them from perpetual
work. The Israelites were slaves in Egypt and were forced to work continu-
ously, but now they were free under the authority of the Lord to rest one
day out of seven. The more striking association, however, is the implication
that the Sabbath is directly related to the exodus; God gave the Sabbath
command as a direct result of the display of his divine power. Tigay states,
Commentators are divided over what this motive emphasizes. Some believe
that it is the memory of servitude, in order to create empathy for the servant’s
need to rest. Others believe that it is God’s redemption of Israel, in order to
either remind Israel of His kindness, to establish his authority to issue such
a command, or to encourage the Israelites to emulate Him by temporarily
relieving their servants’ bondage. 50
49. Neither lists the wife as one who should abstain from work. Christensen (Deuter-
onomy 1:1–21:9, 119) states, “This omission is probably not to be taken as a further instance
of ‘sexism,’ so much as a subtle attempt to avoid any suggestion that the law also applied
to necessary domestic activities.” It is appropriate to see these laws as given to the en-
tire adult population, both male and female; only when the danger of lust between sexes
arises, as in the tenth commandment, does it default to males only.
50. Jeffrey H. Tigay, Deuteronomy ( JPSTC 5; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society,
1996), 69.
Investigation of Relevant Background Material 41
of rest from their continual and monotonous labor, God’s deliverance made
them potentially a nation, and the sabbath was to function as a day of rest in
which the deliverance from the former bondage could be remembered with
thanksgiving. 51
question at hand. 57 The inscription is simple: “a psalm, a song for the Sab-
bath day” (שׁיר ְליֹום הַּשַׁ ּבָת ִ 58 The mighty works of the Lord are the
ִ )מזְמֹור.
central idea of this thanksgiving psalm, and, since the psalm is explicitly
tied to the Sabbath, it is entirely possible that the works of creation are in
view to some extent. 59 However, even if this is the case, the psalm does not
limit its praise to these works. The loyal love and faithfulness of the Lord
are praised (v. 2). In addition, the sovereign reign of the Lord is proclaimed
in v. 8, a verse that acts as a turning point in the message of the psalm. The
remainder of the psalm proclaims the Lord’s victory over his enemies and
his vindication of individuals who are loyal to him. 60
Sarna argues that there are two main reasons why this psalm would
have been connected to the Sabbath. 61 The first is the creation motif
present in the psalm through the invoking of the creation-combat myth
present in many ancient Near Eastern texts. 62 Because of the close tie be-
tween creation and Sabbath, both in the central passage of Gen 2:1–3 and
during a festival season. Frank-Lothar Hossfeld and Erich Zenger (Psalms 2: A Commentary
on Psalms 51–100 [trans. Linda M. Maloney; ed. Klaus Baltzer; Hermeneia; Minneapolis:
Fortress, 2005], 436) argue that the psalm originated in a “Wisdom milieu.” No matter
the redactional history of the psalm (e.g., Briggs and Briggs [Psalms, 2:284–86] argue for
glosses and additions at various points by a later redactor), the final form is the most ap-
propriate one for consideration, because this form would have been the form that had
the strongest influence in Second Temple Judaism.
57. The question should be asked whether the themes in this psalm are distinctive
and thereby contribute to the question. The themes of God’s reign, his defeat of the
wicked, and the vindication of his loyal followers are not necessarily unique to this psalm,
but this does not vacate the connection made by the inscription to the Sabbath day. This
psalm simply does explicitly what many psalms do implicitly.
58. This inscription is cited in other passages discussed subsequently: m. Tamid 7:4,
b. Sanh. 97a, b. Roš Haš. 31a, Mek. Shabbata 1:38–41.
59. Marvin E. Tate, Psalms 51–100 (WBC 20; Dallas: Word, 1990), 466.
60. Moses Buttenwieser (The Psalms [LBS; 1938; New York: Ktav, 1969], 841–42) ar-
gues that this psalm is essentially a crass defense of “material retribution” with little theo-
logical weight, lacking any tie to a specific historical situation. He makes this assessment
partly from a hypothetical borrowing of v. 7a from Ps 73:22, an argument for which he
offers no evidence. Weiser (Psalms, 613–16) argues differently, seeing serious theological
reflection in the psalm’s argument.
61. Nahum M. Sarna, “Psalm for the Sabbath Day (Ps 92),” JBL 81 (1962): 155–68.
62. Specifically, this myth connects the creation of the world to a divine battle in
which a particular god vanquishes his enemies, who often symbolize chaos. Trudinger
(The Psalms of the Tamid Service, 154–55) argues against this cultural connection in the
psalm on three grounds. First, there are enough differences between the Hebrew and
Ugaritic texts used as evidence for the connection to undermine the association. Second,
this connection requires v. 8 of the psalm to be interpreted in light of v. 10, essentially a
backwards interpretive move, when it would be more natural to interpret v. 10 in light
of v. 8 instead. Third, the psalm expresses conflict in “historical, not mythical, terms.”
A similar assessment—albeit entirely as an argument from silence—might be made by
David Toshio Tsumura (Creation and Destruction: A Reappraisal of the Chaoskampf Theory
Investigation of Relevant Background Material 43
elsewhere, the creation motif here would lend itself well to any liturgy that
emphasized the Sabbath. The second is the sociomoral motif of the con-
nection of creation to God’s righteousness, specifically in the defeat of his
enemies, whose evil threatens the very foundations of creation and the ex-
altation of the righteous. This theme would naturally lend the psalm to use
on the Sabbath with its emphasis upon God’s holiness and sanctification of
his people. The impact of this psalm, then, on the present investigation is in
the appropriateness of its themes for the Sabbath day. The creation(-com
bat) motif was a theological link used by the author or redactor to connect
this psalm to Sabbath, but with this would have been an implicit juxtapo-
sition of God’s definitive actions against the forces of chaos. Thus every
Sabbath the reading of this psalm reminded the hearers that God had acted
decisively to bring about the world in his act of creation, essentially a defeat
of chaotic powers. The sociomoral motif was another theological link used
by the author or redactor to connect this psalm to the Sabbath, but this
motif receives explicit expression in God’s acts against the wicked and for
the righteous. Every Sabbath the reading of this psalm reminded the hear-
ers that God acted for them against their enemies. Thus this Sabbath psalm
focused the hearers on God’s actions and not on his restful state. Although
this emphasis in the psalm is subtle, given the alignment it shows with other
Sabbath concepts, such as God’s actions to sanctify his people, the themes
are significant and contribute to the argument of this study. 63
Subsequent interpretation of the psalm in the rabbinic materials focused
on the eschatology of the Sabbath motif, 64 ostensibly viewing the actions
of God in the psalm as his ultimate eschatological actions. 65 Targum Psalms
also augments this eschatological dimension. 66 Thus, through subsequent
in the Old Testament [Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005]), who does not discuss this
passage in his comprehensive treatment of relevant biblical texts.
63. Trudinger (The Psalms of the Tamid Service, 227–28) argues that the Tamid psalms
form a coherent plot that deals with Yahweh’s rule of the earth and oppression of the
righteous due to inappropriate worship of him. Psalm 92 is the denouement, depicting
the blessed state of the righteous who praise Yahweh after resolution of their earthly
problems.
64. See the discussion below on m. Tamid 7:4, on p. 82.
65. Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms 2, 443, state,
To the extent that the Sabbath is the day on which the victory of the creator God over
mythic chaos and its historical agents is celebrated, Yhwh’s victory over his enemies,
hymnically celebrated in 92:5–12, and its concretization in the rescue of the petitioner
acquires [sic] a universal-historical and eschatological relevance (cf. esp. the futuristic
perspective of v. 10).
66. Hossfeld and Zenger (Psalms 2, 444) also argue that the LXX makes the same
theological move, although this is not as clear-cut as it may first appear to be. Hossfeld
and Zenger imply that the use of the future tense ἀγαλλιάσομαι in v. 5 in the LXX is an
intentional addition to heighten the eschatalogical focus of the psalm. A more natural in-
terpretation seems to be that the LXX has appropriately rendered the Hebrew imperfect
44 Chapter 3
verb אֲרַ ּנֵן, which here indicates a future action based on the specific prior action implied
in the perfective verb ;שּׂמ ְַחּתַ נִי
ִ see Waltke and O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical He-
brew Syntax, 511. They also argue that the LXX translation of εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος for
עֲדֵ י־עַדis an intentional change to heighten the eschatalogical focus of the psalm. This is
not a unique modification, however, for the LXX. The phrase עֲדֵ י־עַדoccurs in Pss 83:18;
92:8; 132:12; 132:14; Isa 26:4; 65:18. The LXX translates it as εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος in Pss
82:18 and 91:8, ἕως τοῦ αἰῶνος (which is perhaps more literal) in Ps 131:12 and Isa 26:4, and
εἰς αἰῶνα αἰῶνος (which is semantically equivalent to the phrase with the articles) in Ps
131:14. (Isa 65:18 LXX has no Greek equivalent for the Hebrew phrase.) The argument
could be made that the alteration in Ps 91:8 is not specific enough or unusual enough to
mandate the conclusion drawn by Hossfeld and Zenger; no similar conclusion is drawn
in their discussion of Ps 83. Two pieces of evidence are stronger than these: First, the su-
perscriptions added to several of the psalms in the LXX provide an eschatological focus
to Ps 92: “one begins the journey into the (new) week with the creation-theologically and
Torah-theologically equipped ‘entry psalm,’ Psalm 24, and comes, at the end of the jour-
ney, to Psalm 92, in which one thanks Yhwh for rescue from evil/the evil one and receives
blessing and fertility ‘in the house of Yhwh’” (Psalms 2, 444). Second, the LXX in 91:11
interprets ראםas μονόκερως, which in certain contexts can have “messianic overtones” (so
Joachim Schaper, Eschatology in the Greek Psalter [WUNT 2/76; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
1995], 126).
67. John D. W. Watts (Isaiah 34–66 [rev. ed.; WBC 25; Nashville: Thomas Nelson,
2005], 815–16) links Isa 56:1–8 to chap. 55 as a single unit. An important change in this
section that distinguishes it from chap. 54 is the shift from the feminine singular there
to the masculine plural here. The resultant interpretation is that the pronouncement’s
focus is now on the nations as well as Israel.
68. Claus Westermann (Isaiah 40–66: A Commentary [OTL; Philadelphia: Westmin-
ster, 1969], 310, 313) argues essentially that the particular command and the general com-
mand are equivalent.
Investigation of Relevant Background Material 45
that the Sabbath is a medium through which God extends his gracious pres-
ence and salvation to man (e.g., Exod 20:8–11, Deut 5:12–15); it is a sign of
the covenant between Israel and God, a covenant in which God graciously
takes Israel as his people (Exod 31:12–17). As such, the Sabbath itself be-
comes a shorthand for God’s gracious dealings with man. 69 So the parallel-
ism here is in fact not unequal.
Similar parallelisms are observed in vv. 3–7 but with the added surprise
of specifically including individuals in God’s covenant community who oth-
erwise could not be included. The structure of this subparagraph uses v. 3
as an introduction, in which both foreigners and eunuchs are mentioned. 70
Then in reverse order, eunuchs are highlighted in vv. 4–5 and foreigners in
vv. 6–7. Verse 8 serves as a final proclamation to close the unit. The Lord
promises eunuchs a permanent memorial 71 to them in his Temple if they
do certain things: “[For the eunuchs] who observe my Sabbaths and choose
what pleases me and are faithful to my covenant” (ִשׁ ְמרּו אֶת־שַׁ ְּבתֹותַ י ְ ֲשׁר י ֶא
יתי
ִ ִיקים ִּב ְבִרִ חזֲ ָצ ִּתי ּו ַמ
ְ ֲשׁר ָחפ
ֶ )ּו ָבחֲרּו ַּבא. As in the initial summons in vv. 1 and
2, Sabbath observance, highlighted in the first phrase, is set against two
broad commands that act as summations of the entire Torah and covenant
requirements, highlighted in the second and third phrases. This elevates the
Sabbath to a place above a simple law in the Torah to a symbol of the entire
relationship between God and Israel. 72 Foreigners will be included in the
worship of God’s covenant people if they do certain things: “As for foreign-
ers who become followers of the Lord and serve him, who love the name
of the Lord and want to be his servants—all who observe the Sabbath and
do not defile it, and who are faithful to my covenant” (ִלִוים עַל־ ְ ּובנֵי ַהּנֵכָר ַהּנ
ְ
ִיקים
ִ חזֲ ָדים ּכָל־ׁשֹמֵר ׁשַ ּבָת ֵמ ַחּלְלֹו ּו ַמִ הבָה אֶת־ׁשֵם יְהוָה ִל ְהיֹות לֹו ַלעֲב
ֲ ּול ַא
ְ ׁש ְרתֹוָ יְהוָה ְל
יתי ִ Again, as above, Sabbath observance ( )ּכָל־שֹׁמֵר שַׁ ּבָת ֵמ ַחּלְלֹוis set par-
ִ )ּב ְבִר.
allel to commands that ostensibly are summations of the entire covenant
obligation under which Israel lives and the devotion to the Lord that the
covenant embodies. Thus the Sabbath is no longer one law among many; it
is a pinnacle that represents the totality of God’s relationship to man and
69. This is essentially the argument of Edward J. Young, The Book of Isaiah (3 vols.;
NICOT; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1965–72), 3:390.
70. Eunuchs would be excluded from participation in Temple worship because of the
command in Deut 23:1. Watts (Isaiah 34–66, 820) holds that eunuchs are symbolic of all
people who would be excluded from worship by Torah regulations. Watts also argues here
that the foreigner in view is specifically a proselyte and that the place of a proselyte in
Judaism was controversial and unsettled.
71. HALOT (“יָד,” 388) specifically assigns the occurrence of יָדin Isa 56:5 the meaning
of “monument.”
72. John N. Oswalt (The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 40–66 [NICOT; Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans, 1998], 458) argues this on the basis of the first-person pronouns in v. 4. Young
(Isaiah, 3:389–90) argues this on the basis of the regularity with which the Sabbath em-
phasized theological truth about God inherent within its celebration—namely, that God
was Creator and Israel’s savior.
46 Chapter 3
his gracious dealings with him. Given the dual emphasis on Sabbath as com-
memorating God as Creator and redeemer in the Torah, this is appropriate.
The import on the question of divine Sabbath work is subtle yet powerful.
If the Sabbath day becomes a shorthand symbol for all of God’s gracious
dealings with man, then it becomes the day par excellence on which God
will act graciously toward his people. The Sabbath is not a day of total di-
vine inactivity; instead, it is a day above all others when God will extend his
blessings to Israel and to individuals who follow him in loyal love.
Isaiah 58:13–14. Isaiah 58:13–14 is similar to Isa 56 in that God will bless
his people in response to proper Sabbath observance, which involves not
only behavior but attitude as well. The larger context of this passage is an
admonition for true and honest devotion to the Lord. This applies to vari-
ous religious practices that Israel kept, such as fasting and caring for the
needs of the poor. The Lord commands Israel to do such things with the
right attitude of worship and honor, and in response he promises blessing.
The Lord asks for fasting that brings freedom to the oppressed (v. 6), and in
response he promises Israel’s restoration and his glorious presence among
them (v. 8). The Lord commands that Israel feed people in need (vv. 7,
10), and in response he promises a reversal of their desperate conditions
(vv. 10–12).
The final admonition of the chapter in vv. 13–14 is a conditional sentence
that serves rhetorically to motivate proper observance of and respect for
the Sabbath. Underneath this condition is the theological thought that the
day is a sign of the covenant that God has with his people; it is not simply
out of respect for the day that Israel must honor the Sabbath but out of love
and devotion to the Lord who sanctified this day for them. In response, the
Lord promises full joy, complete agricultural abundance, and occupation of
the land—eschatological blessings that are here connected directly to the
Sabbath.
The specific stance toward the Sabbath in v. 13 involves both attitudes
and actions. The first and third clauses focus primarily on actions specifi-
cally related to work on the Sabbath. The first clause uses foot and Sabbath
together metaphorically: ׁשי ִ ח ָפצֶיךָ ְּביֹום ָק ְד
ֲ ׁשיב ִמּׁשַ ּבָת רַ ְגלֶךָ עֲׂשֹות
ִ ם־ּת
ָ א. ִ 73 “In
this instance the sabbath is presented as a defined area into which one must
not tread to conduct business transactions.” 74 This is defined further by
73. I accept the textual emendation suggested by the BHS apparatus: with support
from 1QIsaa and the Septuagint, the preposition ִמןshould be prefixed to the participle
עֲשֹׂות. This is contra Young (Isaiah, 3:426 n. 13), who appears to argue that the preposition
governs both clauses because they are coordinate. Note the comment by Paul Joüon and
Takamitsu Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (rev. English ed.; Rome: Pontifical
Biblical Institute, 2006), §132.g, 456: “In poetry, in the case of two parallel members, the
preposition is sometimes understood before the noun of the second member; there are
only few examples which are text-critically sure: Is 15.8 ;עַד48.9 מעַן
֫ ַ ל.”
ְ
74. HALOT, “שוב,” 1433, which references H. A. Brongers, “Einige Bemerkungen
zu Jes 58:13–14,” ZAW 87 (1975): 213, who states, “An unserer Stelle wird der Sabbat als
Investigation of Relevant Background Material 47
the third clause that makes the prohibition against normal weekly business
activities more explicit: ֶפ ְצךָ ְודַ ּבֵר ָּדבָר ְ ו ִכּב ְַדּתֹו ֵמעֲׂשֹות ְּד ָרכֶיךָ ִמ ְּמצֹוא ח.ְ In be-
tween these two clauses is one which focuses on the attitude of the wor-
shiper: ָאת לַּשַׁ ּבָת עֹנֶג ִל ְקדֹושׁ יְהוָה ְמכֻּבָדָ ו ָקר.ְ This clause’s placement in the cen-
ter provides a point of emphasis through a small chiasm. It is not enough
simply to refrain from various activities on the Sabbath. The worshiper
must also find the Sabbath celebration a source of joy and delight, giving it
honor due as a time ordained by God for rest and worship.
The consequence of proper treatment of the Sabbath is given in v. 14.
In keeping with the primary emphasis upon attitude, the first consequence
listed involves the spiritual state of the worshiper ()אָז ִּת ְת ַעּנַג עַל־יְהוָה, and
the second and third involve the physical benefits which the worshiper will
receive (ָָביךִ חלַת יַעֲקֹב אֲ ַאכ ְַל ִּתיךָ נ
ֲ )ו ִה ְרּכ ְַבּתיךָ עַל־ ָּבמֳתֵ י ָארֶץ ְו ַה,
ְ namely, agricul-
tural fruitfulness and “undisturbed possession of the land.” 76 It is clear
75
from the passage that the Lord is not promising a relationship if his people
observe the Sabbath. He is approaching them based upon an already exist-
ing covenant relationship. Here he promises his eschatological blessing to
them within that relationship, specifically joy and prosperity, based upon
their attitude toward and conduct on the Sabbath. This is very much in
line with other passages referring to the Sabbath already mentioned. The
Sabbath becomes a vehicle for God’s blessing upon his people. Israel must
honor the day which belongs to the Lord, and in turn the Lord will bless,
because this day more than any other epitomizes the theological truth of
the relationship between the Lord and his people, that of gracious care on
the part of the Lord and humble dependence and submission on the part of
his people. 77
Isaiah 66:23. Isaiah 66:23, the final reference to the Sabbath in Isaiah, is
perhaps the most important in the book. In the context of the final eschat-
ological renewal that the Lord will accomplish, the Sabbath forms a frame-
work within which eternal praise to the Lord will be offered. In this passage,
the prophet declares the calendrical features of the eschaton, when the age
to come is consummated and God receives worship eternally. One key fea-
ture of the age to come is the continued demarcation of the Sabbath. Along
ein Raum vorgestellt, den man nicht zum Verrichten von Geschäftshandlungen betreten
soll.”
75. The only other place the expression ָ( ָארֶץ עַל־ ָּבמֳתֵ י ְו ִה ְרּכ ְַב ִּתיךlit., “ride upon the
backs of the land”) occurs in the MT is Deut 32:13. The context here implies sustenance
from the produce of the land. Coupled with the use in the next phrase of the Hiphil
stem of the verb אכלand the noun חלָה ֲ ַנ, which routinely refers to land as an inherited
possession, it is acceptable to understand the same basic concept in view here. This then
becomes a metonymy for all the blessings implied with Israel’s restored residence in the
land. James L. Crenshaw (“Wedōrēk ʿal-bāmŏtê ʾāreṣ,” CBQ 34 [1972]: 50–51) arrives at a
similar conclusion.
76. Westermann, Isaiah 40–66, 342; Crenshaw, “W edōrēk ʿal-bāmŏtê ʾāreṣ,” 51.
77. See Oswalt, Isaiah 40–66, 508–9; Young, Isaiah, 3:427.
48 Chapter 3
with the new moon, it will mark the eternal worship of the Lord. Thus the
Sabbath, a fundamental, programmatic calendrical feature of the present
age, remains a fundamental calendrical feature of the age to come. 78 This
passage marks the Sabbath as the day in the present age that symbolizes
God’s act of inbreaking and consummation of the age to come. Although
there is no specific mention of divine activity on this day, the very fact that
the Sabbath is tied to the age to come makes its focus God’s eschatological
activity.
Jeremiah 17:21–27. In Jer 17:21–27, the Lord warns the people of Israel
regarding keeping the Sabbath and describes the blessing that will come
from their obedience. There is a twofold emphasis on the blessing that God
will bestow on the people of Israel if they properly observe the Sabbath.
The first emphasis is contained in the very first line of the sermon: “Be very
careful if you value your lives.” This is an echo of the covenant blessings and
curses that appear in Deuteronomy. 79 The point of the admonition is that
proper attention to the covenant requirements is a source of life to Israel.
More to the point at hand, proper attention to the Sabbath will result in life
for Israel, a particular blessing from God. The second emphasis is found
in the latter half of the sermon, in which results from Sabbath observance
are described: continuation of the reign of Davidic kings, a large influx of
people into Jerusalem, and continual offerings to God in the Temple. There
is considerable debate whether this situation depicts a restoration of prior
conditions or a glimpse of future eschatological restoration. 80 Admittedly,
if eschatological renewal were in focus, this passage would align well with
78. There is some debate about the meaning of the construction x + ְּב+ x + מּדֵ י. ִ
HALOT, “ּדַ י,” 219, offers the glosses “from month to month” and “from Sabbath to Sab-
bath” for the phrases ָדׁשֹו ְ ִמּדֵ י־חֹדֶׁש ְּבחand מּדֵ י ׁשַ ּבָת ְּבׁשַ ּבַּתֹו,ִ respectively. Oswalt (Isaiah
40–66, 692) argues that the language here implies that worship is continuous. Young (Isa-
iah, 3:536) and Watts (Isaiah 34–66, 941) both suggest that the calendrical features implied
by new moon and Sabbath are still in view. There are only three other passages in the MT
with similar parameters—that is, x + ְבּ+ x + ִמּדֵ יwhere x is a calendrical term. 1 Samuel 7:16
reads ׁשנָה ָ ְו ָהל ְַך ִמּדֵ יin the context of Samuel’s judicial circuit; since v. 17 implies a reg-
ָ ׁשנָה ְּב
ular return to his home in Ramah, a logical conclusion is that this refers to an annual trip.
2 Chronicles 24:5 reads ׁשנָה ָ ִש ָראֵל ֶ ּכסֶף ְל ַחּזֵּק אֶת־ּבֵית אֱלֹהֵיכֶם ִמדֵ ּי ׂ ְ ְהּודה ְו ִק ְבצּו ִמ ָכּל־י
ָ ְצאּו ְלעָרֵ י י
ׁשנָה
ָ ;ּב
ְ this most naturally implies an annual collection of the tax. Zechariah 14:16 reads
ֶך יְהוָה ְצבָאֹות ְולָחֹג אֶת־חַג ַהּסֻּכֹות ְ ׁשּתַ חֲֹות ְל ֶמל
ְ ׁשנָה ְל ִה
ָ ׁשנָה ְב
ָ ְ;ועָלּו ִמּדֵ יthis most naturally implies
an annual pilgrimage to Jerusalem. This is evidence that here in Isa 66:23 the calendrical
features of the new moon and Sabbath are still the primary focus of their use.
79. See especially Deut 30:19.
80. See William McKane (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah [ICC;
Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1986], 1:419), who promotes an eschatological interpretation;
J. A. Thompson (The Book of Jeremiah [NICOT; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1980],
430), whose discussion allows for an eschatological viewpoint; and Jack R. Lundbom (Jer-
emiah 1–20 [AB 21A; New York: Doubleday, 1999], 807), who points simply to perpetual
continuation of present circumstances.
Investigation of Relevant Background Material 49
other passages that also have this focus. From the passage itself, however, it
is difficult to tell if this is in view. Regardless, the passage connects the Sab-
bath with an act of God on behalf of the community, whether for a restora-
tion of prior conditions or for eschatological renewal. This connection fur-
ther strengthens the connection between the Sabbath and God’s actions.
Ezekiel 20:12, 20. Ezekiel 20:12 and 20 are important because they repeat
an emphasis seen before in Exodus: the Sabbath as a special sign between
God and Israel. What is important to note is what the sign signifies. The
first reference is given in conjunction with an explanation in Ezek 20:9–12
for the reason that God acted in the exodus. The use of the word אֹותin v. 12
is the same as in the passage in Exodus: the Sabbath is understood to be a
special sign that shows that the Lord sanctifies his people Israel. The im-
portance of this motif can hardly be stressed enough. By keeping the Sab-
bath, Israel participates in God’s gracious activity to make them holy. God
thus acts in accordance with the Sabbath in a special way, in accordance
with his initial activity on the day, on behalf of his people. Block fleshes out
the argument slightly:
For him [i.e., Ezekiel] the Sabbaths served two functions. First, they were a
perpetual reminder of Yahweh’s covenant with them [i.e., Israelites]. What
the rainbow was to the Noachian covenant (Gen. 9:8–17), the Sabbath was to
Yahweh’s covenant with Israel—an attesting sign (ʾôt) of Israel’s relationship
with him. Second, they had a didactic function: to remind the nation that
their special status derives from Yahweh’s action alone. In a clever departure
from the decalogic Sabbath, which called on Israel to sanctify the day (qiddēš),
here the Sabbaths are perceived as gifts that declare that Yahweh had sancti-
fied them (mĕqaddĕšām). 81
The connection between the Sabbath and God’s actions on behalf of his
people is quite strong here. It receives further restatement later in the
chapter in God’s proclamation to the children of the generation that died
in the wilderness in vv. 18–20. The same basic argument is made here: the
Sabbath acts as the sign of a relationship between God and Israel. The dif-
ference here between the prior declaration to the original generation and
this declaration to the children of the wilderness generation is debated
with regard to its emphasis. 82 Even if the emphasis is lessened in the second
81. Daniel I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel, Chapters 1–24 (NICOT; Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans, 1997), 632.
82. Moshe Greenberg (Ezekiel 1–20 [AB 22; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983], 366)
argues that “when this purpose clause is repeated in vs. 20 the last phrase is replaced by
‘that I, Yhwh, am their God’; consecration to Yhwh and having him as God are equiva-
lent.” Block (Ezekiel 1–24, 635) argues differently:
Although the Sabbaths remain a sign (ʾôt) reminding Israel of their relationship with
Yahweh, with the deletion of mĕqaddĕšam from the recognition formula, the Sabbaths
lose their function as reminders of Israel’s sanctified status. Instead, as in v. 16, the Sab-
baths have become days that the people either sanctify (qiddēš) or defile (ḥillēl), as in
50 Chapter 3
the present case. The increasing seriousness of the tone suggests that Yahweh is losing
patience [with the successive disobedient generations].
83. See idem, The Book of Ezekiel, Chapters 25–48 (NICOT; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerd-
mans, 1998), 494; Leslie C. Allen, Ezekiel 1–19 (WBC 28; Dallas: Word, 1994), xxxiv–xxxvi;
Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 4.
Investigation of Relevant Background Material 51
rael is to mediate God’s presence to all the world. Keeping the Sabbath be-
came an important part of this function because Israel alone among all the
nations knew God as Creator and acknowledged him as such in the keeping
of the Sabbath.
The creation rest is carried to a new level in Deut 5:12–15. In this restate-
ment of the Decalogue, the Israelites are commanded to keep the Sabbath
because God redeemed them from slavery in the exodus from Egypt. This
is connected theologically to the statement of the Decalogue in Exod 20
because the exodus is routinely viewed as Israel’s creation as a nation through
God’s redemption. In building on this theological base in the Deuteronomy
text, Israel is to rest in commemoration of God’s creation of it as a nation
just as God rested from his creation of the world. The Deuteronomy pas-
sage emphasizes God’s role not as Creator but as redeemer and savior. By
keeping the Sabbath, the Israelites would continually remember that God
had created them and acted to redeem them from a life of slavery in which
they had no rest.
The Sabbath is initially described as a day that God sanctifies. It receives
its holiness only because God, who is holy, made it so. Thus the day be-
comes a mediator of God’s holiness to the Israelites. Siker-Gieseler states,
“The Sabbath signifies God’s sanctification of Israel (Exod 31:13), thereby
linking the Sabbath to Israel as that which calls Israel back into direct com-
munion with God. It denotes the special relationship between God and Is-
rael, for it points to the sanctification Israel receives from God as a result
of the Sabbath.” 84 The keeping of the Sabbath also becomes an important
indication of Israel’s relationship with God. Again Siker-Gieseler argues,
The Sabbath as covenant points to the portrayal of the Sabbath as a sign in
the OT (Exod 31:13, 16–17). It is an abiding sign that God sanctifies Israel
(31:13), and that the Sabbath rest is grounded in creation and in God’s own
resting (31:17). In both passages, however, the Sabbath is a sign only insofar as
Israel keeps it. The extent to which Israel keeps the Sabbath is a sign of the
degree to which Israel wishes to acknowledge God as sanctifier and creator.
Thus, the Sabbath is both a positive sign of Israel’s observance of the Sab-
bath rest, manifested in God’s sanctification of Israel, and a negative sign of
Israel’s failure to acknowledge God as the God of Israel, through neglecting
the Sabbath. 85
Not only does the Sabbath emphasize God’s holiness that is extended
to Israel; it also points to God’s very own presence in the midst of Israel.
This is one of the primary emphases of the narrative of Exod 16, in the giv-
ing of the quail and the manna to Israel in the wilderness. This is extended
further when the Sabbath is linked to a sign of the covenant in Exod 31.
84. J. S. Siker-Gieseler, “The Theology of the Sabbath in the OT: A Canonical Ap-
proach,” Studia biblica et theologica 11 (1981): 9.
85. Siker-Gieseler, “The Theology of the Sabbath in the OT,” 13.
52 Chapter 3
86. Howard N. Wallace, “Genesis 2:1–3: Creation and Sabbath,” Pacifica 1 (1988): 244.
Investigation of Relevant Background Material 53
Exodus 34:10. One key theme that will show up in this use of creation
terminology to describe God’s activity outside the creation narrative is
God’s salvific activity on behalf of his people. Exodus 34:10 is the first verse
in canonical order outside the creation narratives that does this. The con-
text of this passage is a reestablishment of the covenant between Israel
and God. This reestablishment is needed because Israel has already strayed
from complete devotion to God through the rebellion with the golden calf
in Exod 32. God first commands Moses to remake the stone tablets (Exod
34:1) and to prepare for another meeting with him (vv. 2–3). When they
meet, God proclaims to Moses his very nature (vv. 5–7), which consists of
loyal love and mercy to people who are in relationship with him and judg-
ment on people who sin against him. Moses responds by pleading with the
Lord to take Israel graciously as his people (vv. 8–9). Then the Lord begins
his proclamation of the work he is going to do. The creation and work ter-
minology is used in this passage directly of God and his actions on behalf
of his people in establishing the covenant with them and all that this en-
tails. 87 The root עשׂהfigures prominently in Exod 34:10; 88 it is used twice
as the verb ָשׂה ָ עand once as the noun ֲשׂה ֶ ַמע. The verse is clear regarding
the newness of what God is going to do: “I will do wonders which have
never been done in all the earth or in all the nations.” It is also important
to note that the verb בראfigures prominently in the verse. 89 God is going
to do something new, create something, that has not been seen before in
all the earth: he is going to enter into a covenant with his people that will
establish his relationship with them. In light of this covenant, he is going to
perform awesome wonders, such as driving out enemy peoples from before
the Israelites. This connection of the new activity of God to the covenant
is remarkable. It makes a direct connection in terms of magnitude between
the creation work that God ceased on the seventh day and the salvific ac-
tion that he undertakes on behalf of his people in establishing the covenant
with them. As Childs states, “God will make a covenant such that all people
will testify to the wonder of God’s work. Indeed the intervention of God on
Israel’s behalf requires the use of creation language: he will perform marvels
never before created!” 90
Numbers 16:30. Numbers 16:30 is important because it is in many ways
a contrast to the other passages that will be examined in this section. It
describes God as acting in creation not for salvation but for judgment. The
event depicted in Num 16 is the rebellion of Korah against the leadership
of Moses. Korah and his cohorts have refused to follow the leadership of
87. Durham (Exodus, 460) states that the driving out of enemy peoples from the land,
indicated in v. 11, is the first of many wonderful deeds of this sort.
88. This verb is also important in the Gen 2:1–3 account.
89. The Niphal stem gives the verb passive voice.
90. Childs, Exodus, 613. See also Umberto Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Exodus
(trans. Israel Abrahams; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1967), 441.
54 Chapter 3
Moses, and in preparation for their judgment, the Lord has separated the
rebels from the larger community of the Israelites. In a dramatic show of
his power to judge evil, the Lord uses Moses to enact their judgment: the
ground opens up under the feet of Korah, his cohorts, and their families,
and they are swallowed alive by the earth.
Key creation terminology is again present, both in verbal and nominal
form: “And if the Lord creates something entirely new” (ִברָא ְ ם־ּבִריאָה י
ְ ְו ִא
)יְהוָה. 91 Korah and his cohorts are about to receive judgment from the hand
of God, and it is something that has never been seen before. The use of
the cognate accusative emphasizes the newness and originality of what is
to occur. Here again, creation terminology is used in a setting that shows
creation work on the part of the Lord, this time for judgment. 92 In a fitting
fulfillment of the creation motif, the creation itself becomes an actor in
completing the judgment. Thus in this passage, God has worked, as indi-
cated by the creation motif, and in this instance for judgment.
Isaiah 4:5. In Isa 4:5, the prophet describes how the Lord will establish
his presence with his people in the age to come on Mount Zion. It is a de-
scription of his glorious presence among the remnant. The verb used here
is ברא. 93 The context of this oracle is of utmost importance: Isa 4:2–6 is
an oracle describing the future state of Israel when God restores the righ-
teous remnant and establishes his presence among his people. In conjunc-
tion with this eschatological renewal, the Lord will create something new
to establish his presence with his people. More to the point, the new cre-
ation is in fact God’s presence itself, which offers the nation complete se-
91. Because of the parallelism with the fulfillment in v. 31b, Jacob Milgrom (Num-
bers [ JPSTC 4; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1990], 137) argues that a bet-
ter translation would be “makes a great chasm.” Corroboration for this is sought in the
Piel stem of ;בראsee Paul D. Hanson, “The Song of Heshbon and David’s Nîr,” HTR 61
(1968): 297–320; and Howard E. Hanson, “Num. XVI 30 and the Meaning of Bārāʾ,” VT
22 (1972): 353–59. The evidence from the use of the verb in the MT, however, is that in the
Qal stem בראregularly means “to create.”
92. In commenting on the background of this statement, Milgrom (Numbers, 138)
states, “Perhaps it is the pagan background of the imagery that this verse tries to counter
by emphasizing that it is solely the creative act of the Lord that is responsible for the
activity of the earth.”
93. For ּו ָב ָרא, the LXX here reads καὶ ἥξει, “and he will come,” which indicates a Vor-
lage of ובא. It is entirely possible that the letter רwas accidentally omitted because of
similarity to the letter ב, but it is also possible that an intentional alteration is in view.
The arrival of Yahweh in cloud and fire is common in the OT, but the primary issue here
is protection of the remnant, not theophany; see John D. W. Watts, Isaiah 1–33 (WBC
24; Dallas: Word, 1985), 48; Hans Wildberger, Isaiah 1–12: A Commentary (trans. Thomas
H. Trapp; CC; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), 163. In light of this, the reading of the MT
should be retained.
Investigation of Relevant Background Material 55
94. So John N. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 1–39 (NICOT; Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans, 1986), 148–49; J. A. Motyer, Isaiah: An Introduction and Commentary (TOTC 18;
Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1999), 60; Wildberger, Isaiah 1–12, 172.
95. For a seminal discussion of creation theology in Isaiah, see Carroll Stuhlmueller,
“Theology of Creation in Second Isaias,” CBQ 21 (1959): 429–67. For a discussion of the
relationship between creation faith, Exodus tradition, and salvation faith in Isaiah, see
Philip B. Harner, “Creation Faith in Deutero-Isaiah,” VT 17 (1967): 298–306.
96. Young, Isaiah, 3:94–95.
97. For a similar conclusion, see Westermann, Isaiah 40–66, 81.
56 Chapter 3
Isaiah 43:1, 7, 15. Isaiah 43:1, 7, and 15 can be treated together because of
their similarity in the handling of the creation concept. Simply stated, each
passage uses the verb בראto describe God’s “creation” of Israel at the exo-
dus, essentially a salvific event. This is further evidence that the formation
of the nation is viewed in terms of creation. Regarding v. 7, Young states:
Three words describe the formation of the people, and inasmuch as these
three words are taken from Genesis 1, it would seem that they point to an
event of as great significance as the creation itself. As God once created,
formed, and made the world, so now He will create, form, and make His new
creation, the redeemed. . . . Isaiah is speaking of an utterly new and supernat-
ural work, the creation from an Israel that was such in name only and hence
no Israel, of an Israel that is one in deed and truth. To compare this work with
the original work of creation is to stress its magnificence and importance.
The verbs are in the first person singular. It is God alone who performs the
wonder of a new creation, the redemption of his elect people. 98
These words aptly describe the theological weight attached to the creation
language used in this context, and they also emphasize the fact that the
magnitude of what God is doing in this instance can only be construed as a
divine work. The import of the passage is that, in speaking of past redemp-
tive acts in terms of creation, the prophet opens the way for new redemp-
tive acts to be considered in the same light. 99
Isaiah 45:8. At the end of the oracle directed to Cyrus that proclaims
God’s complete sovereignty, there is a short hymn, 100 Isa 45:8, that places
salvation and deliverance in a context of creation: “O sky, rain down from
above! // Let the clouds send down showers of deliverance! // Let the earth
absorb it so salvation may grow, // and deliverance may sprout up along with
it. // I, the Lord, create it.” This is an interesting use of metaphor, for the
creation that God created is called on to produce the salvation that God
will create anew. The verb בראoccurs in the final line, so the connection of
the salvation and deliverance to the creation motif is clear.
Isaiah 65:17, 18. The eschatological climax to the book, Isa 65:17–18, re-
lies on the creation motif in a way that is stunning in its scope. In essence,
God promises a new creation fitting for the salvation he has extended to his
people and fitting for the glory that he displays. The verb בראoccurs three
times in these two verses, referring both to the new heavens and earth and
to Jerusalem. Within this passage is the eschatological climax both of God’s
creative work and his salvific activity; the metaphors in a sense coalesce and
become almost indistinguishable. This passage above all other passages uses
creation as a metaphor for God’s activity on behalf of his people. Not only
is creation language used, but the entire concept is new creation: creation
will be made again and never again will be subject to sin’s imperfection. This
passage views God again as taking up his creative work, specifically in an
eschatological context. 101
Psalm 51:12 (MT). Psalm 51:12 is unusual compared with the other pas-
sages discussed above because it is the only place where בראis used in what
is most naturally understood as an individualistic, spiritual sense, as opposed
to other occurrences that are national in scope. Despite these differences,
this text is not out of concert with them, and in fact it serves to comple-
ment the broader focus that this motif receives elsewhere. In this peniten-
tial psalm, the author cries out to God to change his inner being: “Create
for me a pure heart, O God! Renew a steadfast spirit inside me!” (לֵב טָהֹור
ֱלה ֹים ְורּו ַח נָכֹון חַּדֵ ׁש ְּב ִק ְר ִּבי
ִ ָא־לי א
ִ )ּבר.
ְ In light of the salvific and eschatological
contexts in which בראis used, the use of the verb here in reference to an
individual—specifically to the inner being of the individual—is remarkable.
The key to this use is found in the grievous result of the individual’s sin. 102
Whatever it was, the author’s sin had jeopardized his very own relationship
to God. In the very next verse, the author pleads with God not to cast him
from his presence or to remove his holy spirit. The whole tenor of the psalm
is one of complete and utter dependence on God for mercy. In fact, there
is no sacrifice to atone for the author’s sin. 103 The only things he can offer
are “a broken spirit” and “a broken and crushed heart” (ִׁשּבָרָה ְ רּו ַח נand לֵב־
ִדּכֶה ְ ִׁשּבָר ְונ
ְ )נ. This is the context for the author’s request that God create a
101. The verb בראalso occurs once in Jer 31:22. However, the third line of the verse,
the “new thing” that the Lord will create, is almost indecipherable: ְנ ֵקבָה ְּתסֹובֵב ָּגבֶר.
W. Rudolph, as indicated in the BHS apparatus, seeks to emend the text to read נְקַ ּבה
ּתסֹובַב ְג ִברָה,
ְ and the reading of the LXX ( Jer 38:22) is entirely different: σωτηρίαν εἰς
καταφύτευσιν καινήν, ἐν σωτηρίᾳ περιελεύσονται ἄνθρωποι. Standard commentaries rou-
tinely discuss variant interpretations. In light of the uncertainty surrounding the mean-
ing of this verse, it is best not to include it in the present discussion.
102. The superscription of the psalm connects it to David’s repentance after his sin of
adultery with Bathsheba, but this interpretation is not uniformly accepted. The dispute
usually centers on the fact that in the psalm God is addressed directly (“against you only
have I sinned”) when David clearly sinned against Uriah and Bathsheba as well. See Tate,
Psalms 51–100, 8–12, for discussion. Briggs and Briggs (Psalms, 3–4) connect this psalm to
the congregation in the time of Nehemiah; the historical allusion to David is “a con-
jectural illustrative situation, but without historical value.” Weiser (Psalms, 401) argues
that the last two verses are a later addition, the earlier form of the psalm originating in
preexilic times without any connection to David and the addition originating in the post-
exilic period of the reconstruction of the Temple. Buttenwieser (Psalms, 190–92) argues
similarly but dates the addition during the exile. Hossfeld and Zenger (Psalms 2, 18) are
convinced of a postexilic origin for the original psalm. Despite the difficulties of this crit-
ical problem, the import of the use of the verb בראin the psalm can be understood well
enough by the text of the psalm itself without reference to the exact historical situation.
103. It is generally argued that this is because of the willful, intentional, “high-
handed” nature of David’s sin with Bathsheba and against Uriah, although this interpre-
tation is contingent on the historical setting of the psalm.
58 Chapter 3
new heart within him. The only way the author can be saved from his sin is
for God himself to act within him. This is a request for creative action but
on an individual level. 104 Even though this request for action on God’s part
is individualistic, the action is still salvific and as such is complementary to
the other passages discussed. Here the author takes the creation motif as it
has been used for salvation of a national scope and simply turns it inward.
The salvation of the individual here complements the national salvation
available through the covenant.
Conclusion. In the Hebrew Scriptures, God again takes up his creative
work, even after he ceases this work in Gen 2:1–3. God still works on behalf
of his people in marvelous ways, ways depicted as creation or re-creation.
His ultimate action of eschatological renewal is indeed cast as a complete
remaking of the initial creation. The work of God on the inner being of the
sinner is called creation. These texts use the language of creation, God’s
work par excellence, to describe God working in salvific or eschatological
contexts. This is the key understanding to be drawn from this explanation
of the OT context: God still works on behalf of his people. This must be un-
derstood in light of the central passage relative to the question, Gen 2:1–3,
which declared that God ceased his creative work.
In light of all of the passages mentioned in the Hebrew Scriptures above
and the centrality that they will have for my overall argument, three sum-
mary statements can be made regarding the place of divine work on the
Sabbath depicted in this corpus: (1) The Sabbath is a day on which God acts
to extend his presence to his people and to sanctify them. (2) The Sabbath is
an appropriate day to celebrate God’s work—as creator, redeemer, the one
who acts in judgment on the wicked, and the onewho exalts the righteous.
(3) The Sabbath is an appropriate day on which to look forward to the future
work of the Lord, in which he will in a new act of creation usher in the age
to come.
Qumran
References to the Sabbath in the Qumran literature are quite numer-
ous: the noun שַׁ ּבָתoccurs 185 times within the nonbiblical manuscripts. 105
104. Briggs and Briggs (Psalms, 8) assert that the creation in view here is not creation
out of nothing but transformation of the existing heart and spirit into something entirely
new.
105. This number was gleaned from Martin G. Abegg with James E. Bowley and Ed-
ward M. Cook in consultation with Emanuel Tov, The Non-Biblical Texts from Qumran, in
The Dead Sea Scrolls Concordance (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 1/2:712–14. Texts deemed appropri-
ate for discussion were then checked again in Florentino García Martínez and Eibert
J. C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition (2 vols.; New York: Brill, 1997–98), and
appropriate volumes in the Discoveries in the Judaean Desert series. The search was also
done in BibleWorks and Accordance with some interesting differences that illustrate the
importance of understanding how the different tools have compiled the data. Abegg lists
185 occurrences of the noun שַׁ ּבָת: p. 712 has 42 instances, p. 713 has 60 in the left column
Investigation of Relevant Background Material 59
and 60 in the right column, and p. 714 has 23. A search for the triradical noun שׁבתin
BibleWorks (using the command line syntax of .@שׁבתn* to limit the search to nouns)
yields 276 hits in 240 verses, a difference of 91 hits, while a search in Accordance (using
the command line syntax [noun]@ שׁבתto limit the search to nouns) yields 277 hits in
241 verses, a difference of 92. The differences can be accounted for as follows: Abegg
includes words in the concordance that have been partially reconstructed, not entirely re-
constructed, as long as the nonreconstructed letter is from the root or an inflected form.
(The nonreconstructed letter can be doubtful; see Abegg, The Non-Biblical Texts from
Qumran, 713, on the concordance entry for shabbat in 4Q321 1:8, which reads ˚בשׁ[ת.) Nei-
ther BibleWorks nor Accordance makes this distinction between reconstructed and non-
reconstructed text in its Qumran modules, so each returns a larger number of hits. Two
of the BibleWorks hits and Accordance hits are discounted because they are from the
root שׁבֶת,
ֶ thus the numbers of hits that the computerized searches return are reduced to
274 and 275, respectively. BibleWorks returns 89 hits in reconstructed text contained in
brackets, while Accordance returns 90 hits of this sort. The BibleWorks and Accordance
searches differ by one because Accordance returns a hit in 11QT 26:0, entirely in recon-
structed text, which BibleWorks does not. Thus Abegg’s number of 185 occurrences and
the computerized results of 274 and 275 hits can ultimately be reconciled.
106. This and all other translations of Qumran texts are taken from García Martínez
and Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition.
60 Chapter 3
A casual reading gives one the impression that the juxtaposition of the Sab-
bath and feast days with the Lord’s “just stipulations and his truthful paths,
and the wishes of his will which man must do in order to live by them” is
lopsided. This, however, is simply in keeping with the emphasis given to the
Sabbath in passages such as Isa 56:1–8, in which the Sabbath is placed paral-
lel to the Torah in general. The Qumran community has taken up a similar
emphasis on the importance of the Sabbath. 107
A few quotations from the Damascus Document will suffice to explain the
general character and nature of the Sabbath commands in these materials:
“And on the day of the sabbath, no-one should say a useless or stupid word.
He is not to lend anything to his fellow. He is not to take decisions with
regard to riches or gain. He is not to speak about matters of work or of the
task to be carried out on the following day” (CD 10:17–19). And again:
No-one should go after an animal to pasture it outside his city, except for a
thousand cubits. He is not to raise his hand to strike it with the fist. If it
is stubborn, he should not bring it out of his house. No-one should remove
anything from the house to outside, or from outside to the house. Even if he
is in a hut, he should remove nothing from it nor bring anything into it. (CD
11:5–9)
107. This connection could have been made because of the basic character of the
Sabbath as a day that epitomizes what God does for man in his relationship to him. There
is no explicit mention of this in the Qumran documents, but it is not unreasonable to see
this presupposition operating under the surface.
Investigation of Relevant Background Material 61
108. There is another text that may refer to God’s act of creation of Israel in a sal-
vific context. Michael Wise et al. (The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation [San Francisco:
HarperSanFrancisco, 1996], 162) translate 1QM 13:9: “You, [O God], created us for
Yourself as an eternal people.” A different translation is posited by García Martínez and
Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, 135: “You, [God, have re]deemed us to be
for you an eternal nation.” These differences arise because of a large lacuna in the center
of this column, which has totally lost the first letter of a key word in the line and partially
obliterated the second letter of the same word. Wise, Abegg, and Cook propose בas
the first letter and רfor the second, which would make the resultant root ;בראGarcía
Martínez and Tigchelaar propose פfor the first letter and transcribe the second as ד,
which would make the resultant root פדה. There is no way to reconstruct this text with
certainty; therefore, it cannot be included in the discussion. See pl. 28 in E. L. Sukenik,
ed., The Dead Sea Scrolls of the Hebrew University ( Jerusalem: Magnes, 1955).
109. 4Q400–407, 11Q17, and Mas1k (found at Masada).
110. Carol A. Newsom, Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice: A Critical Edition (HSS 27; At-
lanta: Scholars Press, 1985), 19.
111. Philip S. Alexander, Mystical Texts (LSTS 61; London: T. & T. Clark, 2006), 72.
62 Chapter 3
at Qumran, the teaching regarding the Sabbath was not simply negative,
in terms of restrictions on behavior, but positive, in terms of appropriate
worship given to God on that day. This shows continuity with biblical texts
already discussed, although I must restate that these texts do not directly
address the question at hand of divine Sabbath work.
In sum, there are certain strands of thought continued in the Qumran
materials that began in the Hebrew Scriptures: the Sabbath is shorthand
for the entire Torah and covenant relationship, and the Sabbath continues
to hold a place in the eschatological future. In addition, God is viewed as
continuing his creative activity, which could be understood as a form of
Sabbath work. In contrast to this continuity with the Hebrew Scriptures,
however, there is a decisive change in the attitude toward the Sabbath. In
the Qumran materials, there is equal emphasis on the particulars of Sab-
bath observance and the way that a member of the community is to fulfill
the command but less emphasis on the meaning of the day, its theological
basis, or its place as a day of blessing from God.
The Septuagint
The terminology of the LXX is largely in line with what would be ex-
pected. The Greek term σάββατον figures prominently in the LXX as the
word normally used to translate the Hebrew noun ;שַׁ ּבָתthis is the case 96
times. Passages that do not essentially replicate the Hebrew Scriptures are
discussed below. 112
1 Maccabees 2:39–41
In 1 Macc 2:39–41, many of the Jews who rebelled against the persecution
of Antiochus Epiphanes are killed because they refuse to fight on the Sab-
bath, in direct obedience to their understanding of the prohibition against
work on the Sabbath. The discussion between Mattathias and his friends
concerning resolution of this problem is revealing about their attitudes to-
ward the Sabbath. The conflict represented in Mattathias’s speech is be-
tween the accepted understanding of what was permissible on the Sabbath
and an urgent need that overrode this requirement. Fighting was apparently
not considered an acceptable activity for the Sabbath, but when faced with
the alternative of extermination, people were permitted to rescind the Sab-
bath regulations against work, which had been overruled for this eventual-
112. The LXX was searched with BibleWorks on the BLM database, which is the
BibleWorks LXX Morphology. The BLM morphology database is an extensive adapta-
tion and correction of the 1991 LXX/OG Morphology and Lemma Database (LXM-2)
from the CATSS project at the University of Pennsylvania. Texts deemed appropriate for
discussion were then checked again in Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum graecum auctoritae
Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum (16 vols.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1931–2006).
Investigation of Relevant Background Material 63
ity. The key point to recognize is the basis for the exception that Mattathias
promotes: the Sabbath commands were not overridden simply for conve-
nience but, rather, for an extreme circumstance. Mattathias does present
the possible outcome as extreme—a complete extermination of the righ-
teous Jews. This was a crisis of significant enough proportions to warrant
abrogation of normal conduct on the Sabbath.
In addition, the person who allows the abrogation of the commands
must be taken into view. Mattathias had taken on a special role for Israel
as the one—indeed, the only one—who was able to save it during this time
of persecution. It is very reasonable to understand that this role for Mat-
tathias at this juncture allowed him to make the exception. If a commoner
had done the same thing in a different situation, it might not have been
accepted. Therefore, this narrative about Mattathias’s change of Sabbath
regulations opens the door to God’s special agents’ acting with regard to the
Sabbath as needed for their time.
1 Maccabees 9:43–49
1 Maccabees 9:43–49 depicts a battle between Jonathan and Bacchides in
which Jonathan mounts an attack on the Sabbath with God’s help and es-
capes to safety while at the same time killing a substantial number of enemy
warriors. This passage is significant for a number of reasons. It represents
an application of Mattathias’s decision to alter the prohibitions against
Sabbath work by allowing fighting on the Sabbath for the purpose of de-
fense and preservation. This passage represents another extreme situation
that could result in utter destruction; Jonathan notes that there is no place
where the Jews might escape. The main difference between this passage and
1 Macc 2:39–41 is that, here, Jonathan specifically instructs his men to cry
out for God’s help in his situation. Jonathan was expecting God to act on
his behalf to preserve him, even though the day was the Sabbath. Thus, not
only is Jonathan acting on the Sabbath in a way that could ostensibly be
construed as work on the Sabbath, he implores God to do the same. The
obvious conclusion of the passage is that God does indeed help Jonathan
and his men, for the last line indicates the extent of the damage that they
were able to inflict on the enemy. Although not near the surface of the pas-
sage, a theological conclusion can be drawn about God’s activity on this day,
especially on behalf of his agent.
This passage is also interesting because of its function with regard to the
author’s purpose of legitimizing Jonathan as being blessed by God. Gold-
stein argues,
With Judas’ death, our author had to prove the legitimacy of Jonathan’s suc-
cession and does so with great care. Anti-Hasmonaean Pietists might claim
that Jonathan, unlike Judas, was a wicked violator of the Sabbath and there-
fore had forfeited divine favor. Our author takes pains to tell how Jonathan,
long before the time of his prosperity, violated the Sabbath in self-defense,
64 Chapter 3
fighting and swimming across the Jordan (I 9:43–49). Far from displeasing
God, Jonathan’s escape was the beginning of his long series of successes. It
was a feat worthy to be compared to the deeds of Joshua and David. 113
2 Maccabees 8:21–29
2 Maccabees 8:21–29 relates a military event in which Judas routs Nica-
nor and his army. In comparison with the prior passage, in which Mattathias
determines that it is acceptable to fight on the Sabbath, here Judas and his
men do not pursue the enemy on the Sabbath. Instead they break off the
pursuit, ostensibly because the enemy has been routed and defensive action
is no longer necessary. Having won the victory, the Jews feel no compulsion
to override the Sabbath commandments. 114
A major element in this passage is the celebration of the Sabbath and the
narrator’s description of it. On the Sabbath, the Jews praise God, “who had
preserved them for that day.” The immediate context implies that the pres-
ervation in view is the military victory that was secured on the previous day.
Not only this, but God had actively “allotted [the Sabbath] to them as the
beginning of mercy” (ἀρχὴν ἐλέους τάξαντος αὐτοῖς). Foundational to this
statement is the view that the Sabbath represents a day of mercy. Although
the terminology used here is unique, the underlying theological concept is
similar to what has been seen before: the Sabbath is a day that both sym-
bolizes and embodies God’s gracious care for his people. This forms the
underlying theological framework of this text and its emphasis on proper
observance of the Sabbath.
2 Maccabees 15:1–5
In the interesting passage 2 Macc 15:1–5, Nicanor plans a Sabbath attack.
The interesting aspect of this passage is the juxtaposition of Nicanor’s in-
tent and the Jews’ protest, which gives insight into the nature and character
the Jews understand the Sabbath to have. It is clear that the concern of
the Jews is not to ensure that Nicanor keeps the Sabbath holy by abstain-
ing from work. Instead, his planned attack is considered heinous because
113. Jonathan A. Goldstein, I Maccabees (AB 41; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1976),
75.
114. Similar to this, Judas again keeps the Sabbath in the middle of a military cam-
paign in 2 Macc 12:38.
Investigation of Relevant Background Material 65
it violates the very nature of the day. Killing people on the Sabbath is con-
sidered a violation of the day on which God brought rest and restoration
to his people. Thus the Jews are aghast at the idea that this evil sovereign
would carry out his plans to kill Jews on the Sabbath. This passage does not
support the main thesis of divine Sabbath work, but it does show that the
general character of the Sabbath that arises out of the Hebrew Scriptures
still retains its currency.
Conclusion
The LXX shows evidence of the developing thought regarding the Sab-
bath. First and foremost is the precedence found for overriding the Sab-
bath commands: if there is an emergency, a crisis of significant propor-
tions related to the preservation of human life, Sabbath regulations can be
abrogated. In addition, there is a hint of movement toward God’s chosen
agents as individuals who can act as needed on the Sabbath. They can avoid
Sabbath prohibitions as necessary for their tasks and still retain the bless-
ing of God upon them. Both of these themes are developments out of the
Sabbath theology of prior texts. The former represents an application of
the Sabbath commands to a new, unforeseen historical situation. Faced with
complete extermination of the righteous Jews, God’s chosen people, Mat-
tathias argues that the Sabbath prohibitions can give way to more expedient
behavior. Mattathias’s importance as the leader of the Jews, God’s chosen
agent to preserve them during this time of persecution, leads to an infer-
ence that God’s special agent can act as needed on the Sabbath to fulfill his
mission without censure from God. Arguably, this viewpoint does not hold
true for the entire Jewish people, but it does provide a possible way to un-
derstand particular Sabbath actions that might prove fruitful in Jesus’ case.
115. This literature is particularly difficult to search because it exists in several dif-
ferent languages. There is no comprehensive printed concordance for the entire corpus.
I have used Albert-Marie Denis, Concordance grecque des pseudépigraphes d’Ancien Testament
(Louvain-la-Neuve: Université catholique de Louvain, Institut orientaliste, 1987), for the
Greek portions; Wilfried Lechner-Schmidt, Wortindex der lateinisch erhaltenen Pseudepig-
raphen zum Alten Testament (TANZ 3; Tübingen: Francke, 1990), for the Latin portions;
and the Accordance Pseud module, essentially an electronic version of R. H. Charles, The
Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English (2 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon,
1913), to access the remaining portions in English translation. A search for the word “sab-
bath” (with a wildcard character to find the plural as well) in the Pseud module yielded 66
66 Chapter 3
occurrences, 40 of which were in Jubilees. A search for the phrase “seventh day” yielded
14 occurrences.
116. O. S. Wintermute, “Jubilees: A New Translation and Introduction,” OTP, 2:38.
117. Wintermute, “Jubilees,” 44–45.
118. Lutz Doering, “The Concept of the Sabbath in the Book of Jubilees,” in Studies
in the Book of Jubilees (ed. Matthias Albani et al.; TSAJ 65; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997),
179.
119. This and other translations of Jubilees are from Wintermute, “Jubilees,” 52–142.
Investigation of Relevant Background Material 67
thus elevating the Sabbath above a normal, earthly institution. 120 The Sab-
bath gains a supernatural focus. Part of the purpose of the book, then, is to
emphasize the importance of the Sabbath for Israel and thereby promote
its proper observance.
As an outgrowth of this theological importance attached to the Sabbath,
Jubilees contains two halakic sections that stress the importance of Sab-
bath observance, Jub. 2:25–33 and 50:6–13. These sections contain specific
prohibitions for the purpose of helping Israel keep the Sabbath that are
similar to the regulations that we’ve already seen in the Qumran literature
and that we will see in the Mishnah. The first section does contain some
passages that connect the Sabbath to God’s original ordination of the day,
thus providing a theological understanding for the prohibitions, but the
prohibitions themselves are still quite normal (see, e.g., Jub. 2:29–30; 50:8,
12–13). These Sabbath rules contain many of the same themes as in other
passages—for example, preparation of food, journeys, and moving things
in and out of a residence. Jubilees is slightly different, however, in that the
theological importance of the Sabbath, with its emphasis on the divine ori-
gin and foreshadowing of the day, leads to a strict enforcement of the death
penalty for Sabbath breaking, with no differentiation between intentional
and unintentional actions. 121
A few comments regarding the attitude of Jubilees to the Sabbath are in
order relative to the question of this study. This document goes to great
lengths to show that the Sabbath was a divine institution, kept in heaven
before it was kept on earth. The implication is that God kept the Sabbath
and does so continually. By this very emphasis, there is little contributory
material to the concept of divine Sabbath work. There is an emphasis on
the blessing that God bestows on his people in conjunction with the Sab-
bath, but the connection is made between keeping the Sabbath and receiv-
ing this blessing. This book, arising as it does out of a stricter sect of Juda-
ism, does not directly contribute to the question about divine Sabbath work
except by way of contrast and by way of continuation of the theme of God’s
blessing on Israel in conjunction with the Sabbath. As a whole, the work
is a demonstration of the rigorous place that the Sabbath held in certain
strands of Second Temple Judaism as an identity marker for Israel.
Life of Adam and Eve
The L. A. E. is a curious text in that it is extant in a Greek version (the
Apocalypse of Moses) and a Latin version (Vita) with wide divergences be-
tween the two. Most likely the original document was composed in Hebrew,
with the Greek following, and then the Latin being dependent on either the
120. Doering, “The Concept of the Sabbath in the Book of Jubilees,” 187–88.
121. Doering, “The Concept of the Sabbath in the Book of Jubilees,” 199–200.
68 Chapter 3
The passages to which he refers in Vita 29 and 51 are indeed “easily identifi-
able.” There is an extensive interpolation found in certain manuscripts that
122. M. D. Johnson, “Life of Adam and Eve: A New Translation and Introduction,”
OTP, 2:251.
123. Johnson, “Life of Adam and Eve,” 252.
124. Both of these translations are from Johnson, “Life of Adam and Eve,” 258–95.
125. Vita 51 does this more clearly by referring to resurrection as “the rest of the com-
ing age.”
126. Johnson, “Life of Adam and Eve,” 252
Investigation of Relevant Background Material 69
might be said metaphorically about wisdom also. For all light has its origin
in it. And some of those belonging to the Peripatetic school have said that
wisdom holds the place of a lantern; for as long as they follow it unremittingly,
they will be calm through their whole life. 133
In this line of thought, the Sabbath as the seventh day becomes a special day
of contemplation in which the individual is connected to wisdom, which
secures a peaceful life. 134
Aristobulus also points to the continual providential activity of God on
the seventh day and beyond. In so arguing, he means that God continues
working to maintain what he has created even on the seventh day.
And it is plainly said by our legislation that God rested on the seventh day.
This does not mean, as some interpret, that God no longer does anything. It
means that, after he had finished ordering all things, he so orders them for all
time. For the legislation signifies that in six days he made heaven and earth and
all things which are in them in order that he might make manifest the times and
foreordain what precedes what with respect to order. For, having set all things
in order, he maintains and alters them so (in accordance with that order). And
the legislation has shown plainly that the seventh day is legally binding for us
as a sign of the sevenfold principle which is established around us, by which
we have knowledge of human and divine matters. [italics original]
A striking aspect of this quotation is the reference to the debate over God’s
activity. Aristobulus refers to others who understand Gen 2:1–3 to mean that
God entered a period of inactivity after the creation of the world. He does
not indicate who thinks this, but this is important evidence of the existence
of the debate; the fact that Aristobulus precedes the time of the NT by rela-
tively little is very worthy of note because it then becomes reasonable to see
the debate as extant within the first century c.e. Aristobulus’s argument is
that God continues his work by maintaining the order that he established
in the creation. Thus God is characterized by continual work, not perpetual
inactivity. The exact nature of this work concerns the continual manage-
ment of the creation. The context of the latter half of paragraph 11 in frag-
ment 5 is a discussion of Gen 2:1–3; Aristobulus is offering what amounts to
an interpretive exegetical argument on the passage. The phrase that refers
to the initial act of creation includes the related words τάξις and τάσσω: ἀλλ’
ἐπὶ τῷ καταπεπαυκέναι τὴν τάξιν αὐτῶν οὕτως εἰς πάντα τὸν χρόνον τεταχέναι.
Thus Aristobulus conceives of creation as an act of arrangement, 135 spe-
cifically related to the numerical principle of seven, as he makes clear in
the following discussion. As he discusses God’s ongoing activity vis-à-vis
133. This and all translations of Aristobulus are taken from Collins, “Aristobulus,”
837–42.
134. This line of thought is seen again in Philo; see Decalogue 100.
135. This is a major category of meaning for this word group; see LSJ, “τάξις,” 1756,
and “τάσσω,” 1760.
Investigation of Relevant Background Material 71
his rest, Aristobulus writes the following: τάξας γάρ, οὕτως αὐτὰ συνέχει καὶ
μεταποιεῖ. The aorist participle from τάσσω refers to the initial act of cre-
ation, and the present tense verbs συνέχει and μεταποιεῖ point to God’s cur-
rent activity 136 of supporting and maintaining the creation. 137 It should be
noted, however, that nowhere does Aristobulus say that God did anything
on the seventh day but only after this day.
There is a tantalizing section from a parallel fragment found in Clem-
ent that is important to note. In Strom. 6.16.141.7b, Clement writes, “Thus
God’s resting does not imply, as some suppose, that God ceased from activ-
ity; for, being good, if He should ever cease from doing good, then would
He cease being God, which is sacrilege even to say.” 138 God’s nature requires
continual activity commensurate with this nature. Although this quotation
probably has Aristobulus as its source, even though Clement does not men-
tion him specifically, 139 it is so different from the parallel material clearly
from Aristobulus that the most reasonable conclusion is that Clement has
modified the original with his own conceptions and wording. Thus, this
quotation should be excluded from consideration.
Thus, in Aristobulus we see arguments that the Sabbath is an important
day for the contemplation and acquisition of wisdom and that God contin-
ues to work after the seventh day to maintain his creation.
Josephus
Josephus, the Jewish historian who lived 37 to ca. 100 c.e., mentions
the Sabbath often, 140 yet his discussions of the day are in keeping with
the human-oriented viewpoint of Sabbath legislation and do not venture
into theological territory regarding God’s actions relative to this day. Many
136. These verbs are excellent examples of the present tense used to describe an ac-
tion that was begun in the past but continues to the present; see Daniel B. Wallace (Greek
Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament [Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan, 1996], 519–20), who calls these types of present tense “extending from past
present”; and Herbert Weir Smyth (A Greek Grammar for Schools and Colleges [rev. ed. Gor-
don M. Messing; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1956], 422–23), who calls these
types of present tenses “present of past and present combined.”
137. The verb μεταποιέω could be construed to imply a recreation of sorts, but the
context does not support this. More likely, Aristobulus uses the verb to emphasize God’s
continual creative activity within the original creation; see Holladay, Aristobulus, 229, an-
notation 139.
138. Holladay, Aristobulus, 183.
139. Holladay, Aristobulus, 224, annotation 120.
140. The texts of Josephus were searched with BibleWorks on the JOM database,
which is a morphologically tagged Josephus text prepared through the collaborative
efforts of J.-N. Aletti and A. Gieniusz of the Pontifical Biblical Institute, and Michael
Bushell of BibleWorks. Texts deemed appropriate for discussion were then checked
again in Josephus (trans. H. St. J. Thackeray et al.; 9 vols., LCL; Cambridge: Harvard Uni-
versity Press, 1926–65). Translations of Josephus are taken from this text.
72 Chapter 3
141. See Ant. 12.271–77, which parallels 1 Macc 2:39–41; and Ant. 13.12–14, which par-
allels 1 Macc 9:43–49. J.W. 1.146 refers to the decision made in 1 Maccabees; Ant. 14.63
is related to this passage as well but offers a further clarification of that refinement of
the Sabbath prohibitions. The story of Asineus’s military victory on the Sabbath in Ant.
18.318–24 is in the same vein as these passages.
142. Herold Weiss, “The Sabbath in the Writings of Josephus,” JSJ 29 (1998): 365.
143. Weiss, “The Sabbath in the Writings of Josephus,” 381.
144. Weiss, “The Sabbath in the Writings of Josephus,” 389.
Investigation of Relevant Background Material 73
Philo
Philo, the Hellenistic Jewish philosopher who lived ca. 20 b.c.e. to ca. 50
c.e., contributes greatly to the theme of divine Sabbath work from a variety
of perspectives. He speaks directly of the nature of God and of the Sab-
bath, and the themes that he details continue in the paths laid by passages
already examined. 146
145. This principle finds a parallel in Num 15:32–36, which appears to endorse at least
acting on the Sabbath to restrain a law-breaker.
146. Philo was searched with BibleWorks using the PHI/PHM database, which is
the Philo Concordance Database produced by Peder Borgen, Kåre Fuglseth, and Roald
Skarsten, Institute of Education and Culture, School of Professional Studies, Bodø Uni-
versity College, Norway. This electronic database was supplemented with the use of
Peder Borgen et al., The Philo Index: A Complete Greek Word Index to the Writings of Philo of
Alexandria (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans / Leiden: Brill, 2000), to find appropriate texts.
147. For a study of Philo’s understanding of creation, see David T. Runia, Philo of Al-
exandria and the Timaeus of Plato (PhAnt 44; Leiden: Brill, 1986).
148. All translations of Philo are taken from Philo (trans. F. H. Colson et al.; 10 vols.,
2 supplements, LCL; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1929–62).
74 Chapter 3
day to imitate God, rooted in God’s creation of the world. It was a special
day of rest for mortals: it meets their need for rest and leads them to virtue
and piety. A key section is 99–100, where Philo argues that the Sabbath is
not so much a day of worship as it is a day of imitation in which individu-
als act like God, emulating his rest and thereby increasing their piety and
devotion toward God. 153 On this day, people may rest from their physical
labors so that the mind may be engaged in contemplation of wisdom and
ultimately approach the same immortal life that God himself possesses. 154
Interestingly enough, the end result in Philo’s thought is not very much
different from the conclusions of the Hebrew Scriptures: the person who
observes the Sabbath receives blessing and benefit from God as he or she
obeys God’s command and emulates God’s pattern.
153. Runia (Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus of Plato, 345) argues that the term
εὐδαιμονία, the final term of Decalogue 100, is a key Philonic theme: “God is, according
to Philo, supremely εὐδαίμων as the result of the nature of his being and activity, i.e., his
oneness, transcendence, eternity, impassibility, goodness, wisdom and intellectual mode
of existence. Man is εὐδαίμων inasmuch as he receives these divine attributes as gifts
and draws himself nearer to God.” This theme would augment the Sabbath in Philo as a
source of divine blessing on man.
154. Jutta Leonhardt, Jewish Worship in Philo of Alexandria (TSAJ 84; Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 2001), 67.
76 Chapter 3
Against this view is context, Philo’s use of lexeme, and grammar: the citation
from Exod 16 quoted earlier in the context by Philo orients his discussion
to the Sabbath day, and Colson and Whitaker’s argument that “no manna
fell on the Sabbath” ignores the larger context of the events surrounding
the Sabbath in Exod 16. The manna that fell did not fall on the Sabbath, but
it certainly fell for consumption on the Sabbath so that its sanctity could
be preserved. In addition, I find no other clear uses of ἑβδόμη in Philo to
155. On this point, I deviate from the translation of Colson and Whitaker for reasons
to be specified in the subsequent discussion.
156. Philo, vol. 5, pp. 274–75 note a.
Investigation of Relevant Background Material 77
refer to the Sabbatical Year. When Philo does wish to refer to the seventh
year, he normally uses the adjective ἕβδομος and the noun ἔτος with appro-
priate agreement to reflect the neuter gender of the noun. 157 Based on this
evidence, it is my opinion that Philo is here referring to the Sabbath, not
the Sabbatical Year. 158 In either case, the underlying philosophical principle
remains the same: the time of Sabbath rest is a time when God extends
marvelous benefits to the world. For the purposes of this study, the most
important point to note is that Philo regards the Sabbath as the primary
day on which God distributes his wisdom throughout the universe. The de-
scription of this day is very picturesque and implies a powerful working of
God on this day in the life of the individual who contemplates him. This is
both in line with passages that describe the Sabbath as a day of blessing and
akin to passages from the Hebrew Scriptures that picture the Sabbath as
the preeminent day on which God sanctifies his people. 159
The placement of the Sabbath at the beginning of the world marks its be-
ginning, and thus the day takes on a character equal to eternity. 160
157. See Spec. Laws 2.39, 84, 86, 97, 105; 4.215; Virtues 1.97; Hypothetica 7.15, 17. In
Drunkenness 1.52, Philo cites the LXX of Gen 29:27: συντέλεσον τὰ ἕβδομα ταύτης. Here a
likely referent of τὰ ἕβδομα is a period of seven years, but this is not certain. Since this is
a biblical citation, it is difficult to say whether it reflects Philo’s own style.
158. This is the decision represented as well in C. D. Yonge, trans., The Works of Philo
(new updated ed.; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1993), 363.
159. Runia (Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus of Plato, 343–44) points to heavenly
food as another key Philonic theme.
160. The phrase γενέθλιος τοῦ κόσμου occurs as well in Creation 1.89; Moses 1.207;
2:210; Spec. Laws 2:59, 70.
78 Chapter 3
the week into two parts: six days for the body to work, and then one day,
the Sabbath, for the soul to work. The ultimate goal of the Sabbath is for
the soul of men and women to prosper through contemplation of teaching
that benefits “knowledge” and “the intellect.” Although with less emphasis
on the moral nature of man, this passage is similar to the text cited above in
that it shows the Sabbath as a day of benefit to the individual.
161. H. L. Strack and Günter Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash (2nd
ed.; trans. and ed. Markus Bockmuehl; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), 109. Abraham Gold-
berg (“The Mishna: A Study Book of Halakha,” in Literature of the Jewish People in the
Period of the Second Temple and the Talmud, 2/3: The Literature of the Sages, Part 1 [ed. Shmuel
Safrai and Peter J. Tomson; CRINT; Assen: Van Gorcum / Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987],
215) states regarding the work of Rabbi Judah ha-Nasi, “His political leadership and liter-
ary activity were within the confines of the last decades of the second century c.e., and
at the very latest, the first two of the third.” In discussing the reduction of the Mishnah
to writing, Goldberg on pp. 241–42 argues for a more complex argument about dating,
positing that the Haggadah was written first, followed by the Halakah, with the written
form of the Mishnah being finalized some time in the early part of the fourth century.
Investigation of Relevant Background Material 79
162. The tool used for these searches was Davka Software’s Judaic Classics Deluxe
Edition. This is a tool that allows for basic Boolean searches of words and character
strings in a wealth of unpointed Hebrew and Aramaic texts. Mishnaic texts deemed ap-
propriate for discussion were then checked again in Philip Blackman, Mishnayoth (6 vols.;
Gateshead, U.K.: Judaica, 1983). The eschatological passage mentioned is m. Tamid 7:4,
which is discussed on p. 82.
163. This and all translations of the Mishnah are taken from Jacob Neusner, trans.,
The Mishnah: A New Translation (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1988), but I have
removed his lettering and numbering system to preserve space and to improve readability.
Brackets and included material are original to Neusner’s translation; they indicate words
and phrases that do not occur in the Hebrew text. Presumably, they are translational ex-
pansions designed to convey further the sense of the passage to the reader. In addition,
there is an error in this particular citation of m. Šabb. 7:2 in Neusner’s edition: the first
category of work listed is “he who sews.” I have corrected this in the citation above.
80 Chapter 3
regarding the endurance of the results of the labor: “He who builds—how
much does he build so as to be liable [on that count]? He who builds—in any
measure at all. He who hews stone, hits with a hammer or adze, bores—in
any measure at all is liable. This is the governing principle: Whoever on the
Sabbath performs a forbidden act of labor and [the result of] his act of labor
endures is liable.” This governing principle would have an obvious impact
on Jesus’ healing actions on the Sabbath, which could readily be regarded as
enduring. 164
There are many passages in the Mishnah and Tosefta that present rul-
ings related to healings, even the saving of life, and humanitarian concerns.
Many of these would be of interest in a discussion of Jesus’ Sabbath activi-
ties. Certain activities are allowed on the Sabbath but not for the purpose of
healing; thus the motive behind the action becomes important. M. Šabbat
14:3 elaborates this line of thought.
M. Šabbat 18:3 is interesting because it juxtaposes suspension of Sabbath
prohibitions for helping in the delivery of a child, ostensibly for medical care
and preservation of life, with suspension of the prohibitions for circumci-
sion, a Jewish distinctive. 165 Related to this is t. Šabb. 9:22, which implies
that any action taken to preserve the life of a small child, in this instance
one who still nurses, is acceptable on the Sabbath: “A woman should not
squeeze her breasts and force the milk into a cup or plate and give her child
milk. They do not suck from a gentile woman or from an unclean beast. But
if it was a matter of danger to life—nothing whatsoever stands in a case of a
threat to life.” 166 The context may indicate that the final ruling is applicable
only to small children, not simply to anyone whose life is in danger.
The third category of passages in the Mishnah and Tosefta that would be
pertinent to Jesus’ actions are passages related to intention. In m. Sanh. 7:4,
there is a list of offenses that are punishable by stoning to death:
164. This ruling would not immediately be applicable to the plucking of grain on the
Sabbath, since this action was ostensibly to alleviate hunger, and there is no indication
that satisfying hunger is considered an enduring result. For additional passages in this
same vein, see m. Šabb. 7:1; m. Pesaḥ. 6:1–2; m. Beṣah 5:2; m. Menaḥ. 11:3; m. Ker. 3:10; t. Šabb.
5:6; 8:3, 5; 12:17; t. Pesaḥ. 5:1; t. Menaḥ. 11:5.
165. For additional passages in this vein, see m. Šabb. 19:1–3; 22:6; m. Yoma 8:6; t. Šabb.
1:23; 2:7; 5:6; 9:22; 12:8, 13; 14:3; 15:5, 11–13, 15–17; 17:19; t. ʿErub. 3:5, 8.
166. Passages from the Tosefta were examined in Saul Lieberman, Tosefot Rishonim
(4 vols.; Jerusalem: Bamberger & Wahrmann, 1936–39); and M. S. Zuckermandel, Tosephta:
Based on the Erfurt and Vienna Codices with Parallels and Variants (new ed.; Jerusalem: Wahr
mann, 1970). Translations of the Tosefta are taken from Jacob Neusner, ed., The Tosefta:
Translated from the Hebrew (New York: Ktav, 1977–86), but I have removed his lettering
and numbering system to preserve space and to improve readability. Brackets and in-
cluded material are original to Neusner’s translation; they indicate words and phrases
that do not occur in the Hebrew text. They are translational expansions designed to con-
vey further the sense of the passage to the reader.
Investigation of Relevant Background Material 81
These are [the felons] who are put to death by stoning: He who has sexual
relations with his mother, with the wife of his father, with his daughter-in-law,
with a male, and with a cow; and the woman who brings an ox on top of her-
self; and he who blasphemes, he who performs an act of worship for an idol,
he who gives of his seed to Molech, he who has a familiar spirit, and he who
is a soothsayer; he who profanes the Sabbath, he who curses his father or his
mother, he who has sexual relations with a betrothed maiden, he who beguiles
[others to idolatry], and he who leads [a whole town to idolatry], a sorcerer,
and a stubborn and incorrigible son.
Here a voyage that will coincide with the Sabbath is allowed if it is for a
“religious duty.” What this means is not described further in the context,
but very likely it involves a commandment of the law as opposed to a non-
religious purpose. 169 As with the previous passage, abrogation of certain
Sabbath restrictions is allowed for the right reason. Of interest here is the
underlying principle: the performance of a religious duty may override
the Sabbath. This puts Sabbath observance in a conditional light and pro-
vides an instance when Sabbath prohibitions against work may be ignored.
167. For additional passages in this vein, see m. Šabb. 16:6; t. Šabb. 1:3; 2:16–21; 10:19.
168. This passage is alluded to or cited in y. Šabb. 1.11/3, b. Šabb. 19a, and Num. Rab.
16:1. There are some slight variations in the presentation of the teaching, but the overall
understanding is the same in each.
169. See Marcus Jastrow (A Dictionary of the Targumim, Talmud Bavli, Talmud Yeru
shalmi, and the Midrashic Literature [repr., New York: Judaica Treasury, 2004], 823, s.v.
)מ ְצוָה,
ִ who states, “fr[equently] [ לדבר מ]צוהfor a religious purpose, opp[osite] לדבר
הרשותfor a secular or religiously indifferent purpose.” This is the exact pair of expres-
sions used above.
82 Chapter 3
Because there is no clear indication what this religious duty is besides travel
on a ship, it is not unreasonable to see this is as a general principle with an
intent to govern all Sabbath observance.
More pertinent to the focus of this study is one passage in the Mish-
nah that clearly reflects on the character of the Sabbath. Tractate Tamid is
a description of the daily service in the Temple. In m. Tamid 7:4, the sages
discuss the psalms that were sung each day of the week by the Levites in the
sanctuary. Regarding the psalm for the Sabbath, the following statement is
made: “On the Sabbath day they did sing, A Psalm, A song for the Sabbath day
(Ps 92)—A psalm, a song for the world that is to come, for the day which
is wholly Sabbath rest for eternity.” 170 This statement is eschatological in
focus and connects the Sabbath day celebrated in the present with the age
to come. The connection is made through the embodiment of rest: on the
Sabbath, the people of God are to rest. The day takes this on as its central
focus. The future age will be perpetual rest, so the Sabbath as a foreshadow-
ing of that day makes the connection quite natural. This passage comple-
ments many of the other passages in the Hebrew Scriptures that connect
the Sabbath to the age to come as a sign. This passage, within the entire
theological context of the Mishnah and Tosefta, is rather insignificant;
however, the fact that this eschatological Sabbath theme is present at all
in the documents of codified rabbinic Judaism speaks to its reality and its
pervasiveness in Judaism during the Second Temple period.
The Targums
The approach taken to the Sabbath in the targums 171 is similar to the
approach in the Hebrew Scriptures. This is understandable, of course, be-
cause the targums are translating the Hebrew text. Because of the uneven
nature of the translations, however, the targums are not without their un-
usual passages. 172 In a situation similar to the Mishnah, in the Fragment Tar-
gums to the Pentateuch there is one passage that makes an overt connection
170. This statement is alluded to or cited in the following passages discussed subse-
quently: b. Sanh. 97a; b. Roš Haš. 31a; Frg. Tg. Exod 20:8, 11; and Mek. Shabbata 1:38–41. Song
Rabbah 4:4 §6 is similar to m. Tamid 7:4 in wording and scope and thus does not substan-
tially add to the discussion, except to show that the concept retained its currency in later
times.
171. Searching through the targums is difficult because of a lack of concordances. In
order to access this literature, I examined standard editions of the targums for the key
passages from the Hebrew Scriptures cited above; see the bibliography for the standard
editions.
172. Targum Onqelos is generally considered the most literal of the targums, but even
so, it exhibits extensive paraphrasing in places. At the other end of the spectrum is Tar-
gum Pseudo-Jonathan, which is almost twice as long as the Hebrew text. For discussion,
see the following articles: Bernard Grossfeld and S. David Sperling, “Bible, Translations,
Ancient Versions, Aramaic: The Targumim,” EncJud 3:588–595; Philip S. Alexander, “Tar-
Investigation of Relevant Background Material 83
between the Sabbath and the age to come. Fragmentary Targum Exod 20:8,
11 reads as follows:
Remember : My people, My people, house of Israel, remember the Sabbath
day to keep it holy. <For:> For [in] six days, the Lord made the heavens and
the earth and the sea and all that is in them, and He rested on the seventh
day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it. It is the first
among the festivals, and most stringent among the fixed times, and the most
desirable [of gifts] bestowed upon the Israelites by the Torah. And whoever
honors the Sabbath he is considered before Me as one who honors Me upon
My throne of glory; because on account of honoring the Sabbath, the Israel-
ites will inherit the world to come, which is entirely Sabbath. 173
The Midrashim
The midrashim provide a wealth of information relative to the topic at
hand. 176 Interestingly, but not unexpectedly, this body of literature is not
unified in its presentation. The texts searched for Sabbath references were
Midrash Rabbah, Mekilta, Sipra, and Sipre. 177 These were chosen as the most
relevant and exegetically significant of the midrashim. These texts repre-
sent a broad chronological period, sometimes well past the first century.
Mekilta, for example, is dated to the second half of the third century c.e., 178
while some of Midrash Rabbah are dated to the medieval period. Even so,
many contain older traditions which could be useful for the current study.
176. My initial theory regarding this is that, since the midrashim reflect homiletic
haggadah as opposed to rabbinic Halakah, there was naturally more room for theological
discussion about the nature of the Sabbath.
177. The tool used for these searches was Davka Software’s Judaic Classics Deluxe
Edition. Citations in Genesis Rabbah were then checked against Julius Theodor and Cha-
noch Albeck, Berischit rabba: Mit Kritischem Apparat und Kommentar (3 vols.; Veröffent
lichungen der Akademie für die Wissenschaft des Judentums; Jerusalem: Wahrmann,
1965). Citations in other Midrash Rabbah texts were checked in Moshe Aryeh Mirkin,
Midrash Rabbah (11 vols.; Tel Aviv: Yavneh, 1956).
178. So Strack and Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash, 255.
Investigation of Relevant Background Material 85
came to create their bodies the holiness of the Sabbath commenced and He
did not create them. 179
179. This and all translations from the Midrash Rabbah are taken from H. Freedman
and M. Simon, eds., The Midrash Rabbah (3rd ed.; 10 vols.; London: Soncino, 1983). For
clarity and precision, I have chosen to retain the typesetting conventions in the original.
180. Freedman and Simon, The Midrash Rabbah, 52.
86 Chapter 3
to the sacred; but the Holy One, blessed be He, who knows His moments, His
times, and His hours, can enter it by a hair’s breadth. Genibah and the Rab-
bis discussed this. Genibah said: This may be compared to a king who made
a bridal chamber, which he plastered, painted, and adorned; now what did
the bridal chamber lack? A bride to enter it. Similarly, what did the world still
lack? The Sabbath. The Rabbis said: Imagine a king who made a ring: what
did it lack? A signet. Similarly, what did the world lack? The Sabbath.
181. This interpretation is supported by Freedman and Simon, The Midrash Rabbah,
1:78, who state, “Thus by means of the Sabbath itself God completed His work, and so
He actually finished it on the seventh day.”
182. This concept receives fuller expression in Exod. Rab. 30:9, which will be dis-
cussed below.
Investigation of Relevant Background Material 87
blessed be He, created three objects on each day: on the first, heaven, earth,
and light; on the second, firmament, Gehenna, and the angels; on the third,
trees, herbs, and the Garden of Eden; on the fourth, the sun, the moon, and
the constellations; on the fifth, birds, fish, and the Leviathan; on the sixth,
Adam, Eve, and moving creatures. R. Phinehas said: In the sixth He created
six things: Adam, Eve, creeping things, cattle, beasts, and demons. R. Banayah
said: Which God created and made is not written here, but Which God cre-
ated to make: whatever the Holy One, blessed be He, was to have made on
the seventh day, He created beforehand on the sixth.
The commentary by R. Phinehas and R. Banayah on this passage argues that
God would not create anything on the Sabbath. Indeed, the way R. Banayah
puts it God alters his initial plan of creation and moves the items for the
seventh day up to the sixth. The import of the commentary is that God
keeps the Sabbath and will not violate it with his own creative work.
Genesis Rabbah 11:10
Genesis Rabbah 11:10 is vitally important, for it clearly states the continual
work of God, specifically juxtaposed with his rest from creation.
R. Phinehas said in R. Oshaya’s name: Although you read: Because that in
it He rested from all His work which God created to make, He rested
from the work of [creating] His world, but not from the work of the wicked
and the work of the righteous, for He works with the former and with the
latter. He shows the former their essential character, and the latter their es-
sential character. And how do we know that the punishment of the wicked
is called work? Because it is said, The Lord hath opened his armoury, and hath
brought forth the weapons of His indignation, for it is a work that the Lord God hath
to do ( Jer. l, 25). And how do we know that the bestowing of reward upon the
righteous is called work? Because it is said, Oh how abundant is thy goodness,
which Thou hast laid up for them that fear Thee, which Thou hast wrought for them
that take refuge in Thee, in the sight of the sons of men (Ps. xxxi, 20)!
In this passage, there is clear discussion that God continues certain aspects
of his divine work, although his creative work stopped on the seventh day;
within the context of discussion of God’s rest after creation, the logical im-
plication is that God continues certain types of work even during his pro-
claimed period of Sabbath rest. God is free, even on the Sabbath, to deal
with people as he sees fit, the two main categories of people being wicked
and righteous. Although the specific nature of the work is not mentioned
in the passage, the idea is fairly clear: God has rested from the work of
creation, but he still works, in that he punishes the wicked and rewards the
righteous.
This passage is extensive and involved, but the importance for the under-
standing of the Sabbath is clear. There is a specific connection made here
between the Sabbath and the coming of the son of David, the specific agent
of God who will usher in the age to come. The connection is made by argu-
ing that the Sabbath is the equivalent of all the commandments and that
the age to come will arrive when Israel keeps all the commandments per-
fectly for a single day. Thus in this passage, the Sabbath is not only a sign of
the age to come, it is also the medium through which this very age can be
realized in the life of Israel.
90 Chapter 3
It should be noted that the dispute in the passage does not revolve around
whether God works on the Sabbath; this is almost a prerequisite to the logic
of the argument, that certain activities that God undertakes on the Sabbath
can be construed as work. Instead, the argument revolves around how this
work is not a violation of the prohibition against work on the Sabbath; since
the universe is God’s domain, anything he carries inside it on the Sabbath is
acceptable. Thus this passage testifies to the understanding that God con-
tinues his work even on the Sabbath but that there is no violation of legal
Halakah involved.
The implication is that the merit that Israel obtains by keeping the Sabbath
is what secures its redemption. In this passage, the Sabbath is a soterio-
logical key, as in other passages, but the emphasis is completely reversed.
Instead of focusing on the Sabbath as a day on which God extends his salva-
tion to Israel, this passage focuses on the Sabbath as a day on which Israel
obtains merit. The lens for understanding the Sabbath has been inverted.
in no way culpable for this activity. The implicit point connects the fact that
Joshua’s conquest of Jericho fell on the Sabbath to the action of God on the
Sabbath. It is clear from the account in the Hebrew Scriptures that God is
seen as a major actor in the conquest of Jericho. He directs Joshua and Israel
to act in a certain way, and through their obedience God works to bring the
walls of Jericho down. The underlying tension not addressed in this passage
is that, if Jericho fell on a Sabbath, the logical deduction is that God did a
mighty work on this day as well. Not much can be made of this since there
is no explicit mention of it in the passage, but it must at least be acknowl-
edged that this is a possible theological basis for the passage, because there
is no hint of discomfort at the implication that could be drawn. 185
Ruth Rabbah 3:3 and Qohelet Rabbah 1:15, §1
Ruth Rabbah 3:3 and Qoh. Rab. 115, §1 tell the same story with slight varia-
tion. Two wicked men were friends on earth. Before death, one repented;
the other did not. In the afterlife, the wicked man who did not repent com-
plains to the angels and asks for mercy: “He thereupon says to them, ‘Permit
me to go and repent!’ And they answer him and say, ‘You fool! Do you not
know that this world is like the Sabbath and the world whence you have
come is like the eve of the Sabbath? If a man does not prepare his meal on
the eve of the Sabbath, what shall he eat on the Sabbath?’” 186 Although
the point of the analogy is preparedness in the present life for the life to
come, it is interesting that the analogy places the Sabbath as the afterlife
or age to come. This is in keeping with many other passages in which the
Sabbath stands for the life to come; this was a common way to understand
the Sabbath.
185. A similar discussion is taken up in Num. Rab. 23:6, where the sin of Achan is dis-
cussed as a desecration of the Sabbath in that he took objects that had been devoted to
the Lord because they were won on the Sabbath.
186. This is Ruth Rab. 3:3.
Investigation of Relevant Background Material 93
187. The numbering system for Mekilta is not standardized. Here the first number
refers to the subdivisions of the tractate, and the second number refers to the Hebrew
line number as given in Jacob Z. Lauterbach, ed., Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael (3 vols.; JPSLJC;
Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1933).
188. Translations of the Mekilta are taken from Lauterbach, Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael.
189. See, for example, Lev. Rab. 3:1 and Qoh. Rab. 4:6, §1.
94 Chapter 3
your work were done. Another Interpretation: Rest even from the thought
of labor.” This is very similar to CD 10:19, which restricts the community
member from speaking of work to be done. Each of these passages appears
to be ensuring that the Sabbath command is followed by introducing fur-
ther restrictions that would guarantee obedience.
This passage in the context of the creation discussion argues that God’s
administration of justice never stops. The Scripture passages cited link this
Investigation of Relevant Background Material 95
both to God’s character and to his rule over his creation. The implication
could certainly be that God’s rule over the world, because it is based on
justice, never ceases either.
In sum, the midrashim show a wide range of thought regarding the con-
cept of divine Sabbath work. There are certain passages that indicate that
God in no way works on the Sabbath, but there are others that do argue for
God’s continued activity in some respects. The eschatological emphasis of
the Sabbath continues in this literature, as well as the right of certain agents
to override the Sabbath prohibitions. The Sabbath also begins to take on
meritorious value for Israel. Thus, there are strands of development that
show continuity with emphases in the Hebrew Scriptures, while at the same
time there is development in new directions.
Y. Berakot 1.8/4
In y. Ber. 1.8/4, which focuses on the recitation of blessings at appropri-
ate times, there is a short passage on the weight of the Sabbath command:
190. The tool used for this search was Davka Software’s Judaic Classics Deluxe Edi-
tion. Citations were then checked in the appropriate volumes of Peter Schäfer and Hans-
Jürgen Becker, eds., Synopse zum Talmud Yerushalmi (TSAJ; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
1991–). In addition, because of wide differences used in the numbering systems between
Jacob Neusner, trans., The Talmud of the Land of Israel: A Preliminary Translation and Ex-
planation (35 vols.; CSJH; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982–89), the edition of
the Palestinian Talmud used in the Davka Software, and the Schäfer and Becker edition,
the indexes in Neusner’s translation were used extensively for cross-checking references.
The numbering of the citations from the Palestinian Talmud follows the Schäfer and
Becker edition.
96 Chapter 3
commandments and statutes and laws by Moses thy servant’ [Neh. 9:14]. This
informs you that it [the Sabbath] is equal in weight to all of the command-
ments of the Torah.” 191
Y. Berakot 2.7/6
The Palestinian Talmud also reflects the conception of the Sabbath as a
source of joy to Israel. For this reason, mourning for the dead is prohibited
on this day. “This incident teaches us that there may be no mourning on the
Sabbath. [This is] in accord with what is written, ‘The blessing of the Lord
makes rich’ [Prov. 10:22], this refers to the blessing of the Sabbath; ‘And toil
[ʿṣb] adds nothing to it’ [ibid.], this refers to mourning. As it says, ‘The king
is grieving [nʿṣb] for his son’ [2 Sam. 19:2].” Although this is reflected with a
negative command, the underlying force of the ruling is clear, and the ruling
has a clear theological basis. The Sabbath is meant to be a day of blessing
from God, and consequently, mourning is out of character for the day; it is
thus prohibited.
191. This translation and the next are from Jacob Neusner, The Talmud of the Land of
Israel, vol. 1: Berakhot, trans. Tzvee Zahavy. For clarity and usefulness, I have retained the
explanatory glosses and additions contained in the original translation, set in brackets.
192. The tool used for this search was Davka Software’s Judaic Classics Deluxe Edi-
tion. Texts deemed appropriate for discussion were then checked again in I. Epstein, ed.,
Hebrew-English Edition of the Babylonian Talmud (30 vols.; London: Soncino, 1960–90).
Investigation of Relevant Background Material 97
Torah was given to Israel on the Sabbath. [For] here it is written, Remember
the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.” 193 This implies that God acted in a deci-
sive way for Israel on the Sabbath. There is no hint in the text of any dis-
comfort with this interpretation; it is likely that the blessing of the Sabbath
and the blessing of the Torah have coalesced in the theology of the rabbis.
B. Taʿanit 8b
B. Taʿanit 8b is also subtle, just as the previous passage was. It implies
that God acts benevolently on the Sabbath toward the poor: “R. Isaac fur-
ther said: Sunshine on the Sabbath is an act of kindness towards the poor,
as it is said, But unto you that fear My name shall the sun of righteousness
arise with healing in its wings.” This teaching depicts an action occurring on
the Sabbath and calls this action an act of kindness without stating who the
actor is. The implication is that God is being kind to the poor on the Sab-
bath, since no one else could make the sun shine on the Sabbath. Thus God
is shown to act on the Sabbath in keeping with both his own nature and the
nature of the day.
B. Berakot 57b
One emphasis seen consistently throughout the literature is the empha-
sis on the Sabbath as a symbol or foreshadowing of the age to come. This
emphasis is in the Babylonian Talmud as well: “Five things are a sixtieth part
of something else: namely, fire, honey, Sabbath, sleep and a dream. Fire is
one-sixtieth part of Gehinnom. Honey is one-sixtieth part of manna. Sab-
bath is one-sixtieth part of the world to come. Sleep is one-sixtieth part of
death. A dream is one-sixtieth part of prophecy” (b. Ber. 57b). Interesting to
note is the way the concept is handled in this text compared with Gen. Rab.
17:5. There the Sabbath is an “incomplete form” of the world to come; here
it is specifically 1/60th of the world to come—that is, the world to come is
60 times more wonderful than the Sabbath. This is a numerical metaphor
meant to emphasize on the one hand the similarity between the Sabbath
and the world to come and on the other hand the difference in their extent.
193. This and all other translations of the Babylonian Talmud are taken from Epstein,
Hebrew-English Edition of the Babylonian Talmud.
98 Chapter 3
and it is further said, A Psalm, a song for the Sabbath day, 194 meaning the day
that is altogether Sabbath—and it is also said, For a thousand years in thy
sight are but as yesterday when it is past.
The implication is that during the age to come the world will lie fallow,
just as the earth does during the Sabbatical Year. This teaching of R. Kat-
tina might not appear negative when viewed alone, but the interpretation
changes when the statement is set alongside another of his teachings on this
topic. The negative emphasis is more explicit in b. Roš Haš. 31a, 195 a section
that details the weekly psalms of the Levites sung in the Tamid service:
It has been taught: ‘R. Judah said in the name of R. Akiba: . . . . On the seventh
day they said, A psalm, a song for the Sabbath day, to wit, for the day which
will be all Sabbath. Said R. Nehemiah: What ground had the Sages for mak-
ing a difference between these sections? . . . on the seventh day, because He
rested. The point at issue between them is whether to accept or not the dic-
tum of R. Kattina; for R. Kattina said: The world is to last six thousand years,
and one thousand it will be desolate, as it says, And the Lord alone shall be
exalted in that day. Abaye, however, said: It will be desolate two thousand, as
it says, After two days He will revive us. 196
There is a connection in this text between the Sabbath, the age to come,
and a thousand-year desolation on the earth. The Sabbath is still connected
to the age to come, but the implication is entirely negative and does not
connote any positive traits of this day, as was the case in other passages that
make this eschatological connection. 197
B. Berakot 6b
The Babylonian Talmud also indicates that certain Sabbath prohibitions
may be circumvented for the right reasons. For example, in b. Ber. 6b, run-
194. This is apparently an allusion to m. Tamid 7:4. The citation of the line “A Psalm,
a song for the Sabbath day” differs slightly from the line found in the standard English
translation of the Soncino Talmud (see Jacob Shachter and B. A. Freedman, trans., San-
hedrin, in Hebrew-English Edition of the Babylonian Talmud [ed. Isidore Epstein; London:
Soncino, 1969]), which reads, “A Psalm and song for the Sabbath day.” I have edited this
line to match the translation in b. Roš Haš. 31a of the same line from Ps 92 on the grounds
that the reading of the Talmud in each place is the same ( )מזמור שיר ליום השבתand that
the two nouns are in apposition; the best way to render this apposition in English is
through simple juxtaposition of the nouns, not with the connective “and” between the
nouns.
195. Trudinger (The Psalms of the Tamid Service, 216–19) argues that the rabbinic as-
sociation of the Tamid psalms with the seven days of creation is later than the Second
Temple period.
196. This passage cites in order Ps 92:1; Isa 2:11; and Hos 6:2.
197. This may be an idiosyncratic teaching of R. Kattina, who lived during the third
century, because it is connected to him in both passages.
Investigation of Relevant Background Material 99
ning, an activity that would normally not be allowed on the Sabbath, is al-
lowed when one runs to hear Torah.
R. Helbo, in the name of R. Huna, says [further]: When a man leaves the Syna-
gogue, he should not take large steps. Abaye says: This is only when one goes
from the Synagogue, but when one goes to the Synagogue, it is a pious deed
to run. For it is said: Let us run to know the Lord. R. Zera says: At first when I
saw the scholars running to the lecture on a Sabbath day, I thought that they
were desecrating the Sabbath. But since I have heard the saying of R. Tanhum
in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi: A man should always, even on a Sabbath, run
to listen to the word of Halachah, as it is said: They shall walk after the Lord,
who shall roar like a lion, I also run. R. Zera says: The merit of attending a
lecture lies in the running. 198
B. Yoma 35b
There is one passage in the Babylonian Talmud, b. Yoma 35b, that is inter-
esting to note because it allows for abrogation of Sabbath restrictions based
on the character of the one for whom the action is done.
Our Rabbis taught: The poor, the rich, the sensual come before the [heavenly]
court—They say to the poor: Why have you not occupied yourself with the
Torah? If he says: I was poor and worried about my sustenance, they would say
to him: Were you poorer than Hillel? It was reported about Hillel the Elder
that every day he used to work and earn one tropaik, half of which he would
give to the guard at the House of Learning, the other half being spent for his
food and for that of his family. One day he found nothing to earn and the
guard at the House of Learning would not permit him to enter. He climbed up
and sat upon the window, to hear the words of the living God from the mouth
of Shemayah and Abtalion—They say, that day was the eve of Sabbath in the
winter solstice and snow fell down upon him from heaven. When the dawn
rose, Shemayah said to Abtalion: Brother Abtalion, on every day this house is
light and to-day it is dark, is it perhaps a cloudy day. They looked up and saw
the figure of a man in the window. They went up and found him covered by
three cubits of snow. They removed him, bathed and anointed him and placed
him opposite the fire and they said: This man deserves that the Sabbath be
profaned on his behalf.
Hillel had gone to extremes to hear the word of the Lord and needed care as
a result, care that would require breaking Sabbath restrictions such as kin-
dling a fire. Yet the final judgment is that the Sabbath breaking was accept-
able because of the worthiness of Hillel. The underlying principle seems to
be that, if the individual is worthy, the Sabbath may be broken to care for
his needs.
B. Šabbat 118b
One final passage from the Babylonian Talmud is worth mentioning. In a
vein of thought similar to Lev. Rab. 3:1, the rabbis argue in b. Šabb. 118b that
Israel’s salvation is tied to its keeping the Sabbath:
Rab Judah said in Rab’s name: Had Israel kept the first Sabbath, no nation or
tongue would have enjoyed dominion over them, for it is said, And it came
to pass on the seventh day, that there went out some of the people for to
gather; which is followed by, Then came Amalek. R. Johanan said in the name
of R. Simeon b. Yohai: If Israel were to keep two Sabbaths according to the
laws thereof, they would be redeemed immediately, for it is said, Thus saith
the Lord of the eunuch that keep my Sabbaths, which is followed by, even
them will I bring to my holy mountain, etc. 199
These teachings invert the original meaning of the Sabbath: it was to serve
as a sign of God’s redemption of Israel and his sanctification of them. In-
stead, the Sabbath has become a requirement, the keeping of which will
result in their salvation.
199. This passage cites in order Exod 16:27; 17:8; Isa 56:4, 7.
Investigation of Relevant Background Material 101
sense that it declares God’s rest, but within the Hebrew Scriptures this pas-
sage does not exhaust the possibilities of God and his work. God continues
to create even during the proclaimed period of his rest but, specifically, in
salvific and eschatological ways.
Second, there are many passages that imply that God continues to work
on the Sabbath; if they do not imply this fact, these passages at least associ-
ate the Sabbath with God’s work in such a fundamental way that the two
cannot be separated. The two most prominent passages are the Sabbath
commands in the Decalogue as given in Exod 20:8–11 and Deut 5:12–15.
Striking to note, as discussed in the exposition above, is that the grounds
for the Sabbath command differ in each place. In the Exodus passage, God’s
role as the creator who rested is the grounds for Sabbath observance, while
in Deuteronomy, it is God’s role as redeemer and savior that is stressed. In
the Sabbath celebration, then, Israel celebrates God’s mighty actions on its
behalf as its creator and redeemer by entering rest and extending this rest
to others. Thus the Sabbath becomes a means by which Israel celebrates
God’s mightiest works and remembers them perpetually. In much the same
vein, in another Exodus passage, the Sabbath becomes a sign that God sanc-
tifies Israel in gracious relationship. Just as God sanctified the day, he acts
to sanctify Israel through the medium of the Sabbath. By obeying his com-
mands and entering his rest on the Sabbath, Israel experiences God’s pres-
ence and blessing and is thereby sanctified.
Third, the Sabbath becomes a sign of the eschatological renewal of the age
to come. This receives expression in a number of ways. The Sabbath re-
mains part of the calendar of the eschaton in biblical and extrabiblical pas-
sages, and it is used in many of the background materials as a shorthand way
to connote the age to come. In these documents, the rest commanded for
this day generally forms the bridge to link the concepts, but in one key text
in the midrashim, it is the holiness of the day that makes the link.
Fourth, there are several texts in the background material that depict
either God’s agent or a righteous person doing things on the Sabbath that
would normally not be accepted. These agents either receive explicit com-
mands from God to act this way, or they are implicitly free of culpability be-
cause of the task in which they are involved. Jonathan fights in two military
battles on the Sabbath and is victorious, even calling on God to act upon his
behalf. Noted rabbis are not viewed as culpable on the Sabbath when they
serve the needs of Hillel, a person who was worthy to be cared for, even if
the care profaned the Sabbath. These individuals do work not allowed on
the Sabbath, but they are not culpable for their actions.
A thematic presentation of the data is helpful, but another fruitful way
to sift the data is through theological, chronological development. At the
least, this way of looking at the evidence points out which background ma-
terials could be construed as the most important for understanding Jesus’
actions. The passages examined above were listed in rough chronological
102 Chapter 3
order. There are differences between the passages in the Hebrew Scrip-
tures and elsewhere. The Hebrew Scriptures have a different tenor about
them; there is a sense of joy regarding the Sabbath, and all references to
Sabbath ultimately point to the God who established this day as special
among others. In other bodies of literature, more texts emphasize satisfac-
tion of the legal requirement of Sabbath observance than reflection on its
theological meaning. The Hebrew Scriptures evidence original theological
depth regarding the Sabbath, while other bodies of literature represent le-
gal discussion premised on the original theology but more centrally focused
on the contemporaneous situation. The halakic discussion specifically, al-
though based on the theological weight of the original Sabbath passages,
differs significantly in its basic nature and character. In a very real sense,
there is a shift in the center of gravity between the Hebrew Scriptures and
extrabiblical texts and, because of their theological priority, the Hebrew
Scriptures would be the paradigmatic passages.
What would have caused this changed situation? Simply put, new his-
torical, geographical, and political situations required a reinterpretation of
the original legal texts. Israel felt the constant need to define itself as a na-
tion, and the Sabbath—just like circumcision and dietary restrictions—was
an appropriate identity marker to emphasize. 200 In order to maintain this
distinctive and fulfill the Torah in situations unenvisioned by the original
authors, Jewish leaders and theological thinkers had to apply the law to the
new situation. Hence the different focus of the legal Halakah. This situa-
tion changed Israel’s theological thought radically enough, however, that
the Sabbath ceased to be a sign of the relationship between God and Israel
and became instead a meritorious act in certain texts. Thus in Jesus’ day,
there was a theological basis for understanding the Sabbath one way, which
arose out of the Hebrew Scriptures, as a day celebrating God’s mighty
works and the preeminent day of God’s blessing of Israel. Then there was
a legal and pragmatic basis for viewing the Sabbath another way, as a sign
that would mark Israel as distinct from other nations and in effect lead to
its deliverance. With this bifurcation in mind, we can now examine Jesus to
see where he fits on this spectrum of thought.
200. For a discussion of this viewpoint, see James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the
Apostle (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998), 354–59.
Chapter 4
Introduction
Whenever one attempts to place Jesus in his context, whether histori-
cal, religious, social, or cultural, many difficulties arise. First and most im-
portant, the interpreter must reconstruct a valid context for Jesus’ life. If
the reconstruction of the context is faulty, then the effort will be nullified
from the very beginning. Second, the interpreter must decide whether his
or her approach will be on a global level, looking at Jesus’ life and minis-
try as a whole, or on a particular level, looking at specific pericopes and
events. Finally, the interpreter must link Jesus to this context, all the while
using the appropriate tools—the tools of particular methods, such as form
or redaction criticism, or tools of historical research, such as the criteria of
authenticity.
My goal in this chapter is to place Jesus in his religious context via the
specific issue of divine Sabbath work. The burden of chap. 3 was to describe
this issue accurately as it obtained in Jesus’ religious context. As I showed,
the issue is multivalent; therefore, Jesus’ connection to this context may
be approached from a variety of angles. The burden of chap. 4 is to explain
Jesus’ Sabbath actions in light of the context elucidated in chap. 3 and to
provide insight into the way that Jesus’ Sabbath activity, in light of this con-
text, informed and amplified his message and ministry.
The second problem discussed above that interpreters face comes to the
forefront in the organization of this chapter. Benefits can be gained from
both a global and a particular approach. A global approach allows one to
see Jesus’ life and ministry as a whole; taking into account all the data and
forming a global picture can illuminate Jesus’ activity in ways that a more
limited view cannot. 1 But there are methodological problems here: What
reconstruction of Jesus’ life and ministry does one accept as a global pic-
ture? There are many variations among popular reconstructions. Does one
hold primacy of place above others? Would the issue of divine Sabbath work
1. This can be seen in Meier’s assertion of the historicity of miracles in Jesus’ life as
a whole. This is also akin to the approach of Darrell L. Bock, Jesus according to Scripture:
Restoring the Portrait from the Gospels (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2002).
103
104 Chapter 4
fit better within one framework than in others? The interpreter could easily
favor one reconstruction over another because it answers the question in a
way that another reconstruction might not. A more particular approach, in
which individual events or passages are examined, allows one to see in the
specifics of Jesus’ life whether the cultural issue does in fact come into play.
Methodologically, this could prove to be more sound, because any recon-
struction of Jesus’ context must begin with particulars, lest the resultant
structure become a house of cards. At the same time, the import of all the
data often provides insights that are not readily seen in a single event. In or-
der to provide a balance in my approach in this chapter, I will examine Jesus’
connection to divine Sabbath work from both perspectives. I will take both
a global and a particular approach in order to place Jesus within the context
of divine Sabbath work. I will first analyze Jesus’ ministry as a whole, us-
ing a recent portrait that has been developed in Jesus scholarship. The goal
will be to ask and answer several questions about Jesus and divine Sabbath
work, using this reconstruction as the gauge. I will then examine two spe-
cific events in Jesus’ life to see how they read within the cultural script of
divine Sabbath work and how this illuminates Jesus’ actions.
2. See, for example, Marcus J. Borg, Conflict, Holiness, and Politics in the Teachings of
Jesus (new ed.; Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1998); Sanders, Jesus and Juda-
ism; Geza Vermes, Jesus the Jew: A Historian’s Reading of the Gospels (New York: Macmillan,
1973); Geza Vermes, Jesus and the World of Judaism (London: SCM, 1983); Geza Vermes,
The Religion of Jesus the Jew (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993); Richard A. Horsley, Jesus and
the Spiral of Violence: Popular Jewish Resistance in Roman Palestine (San Francisco: Harper
& Row, 1987); Bruce Chilton, Rabbi Jesus: An Intimate Biography (New York: Doubleday,
2000); and many others.
3. Bock, Jesus according to Scripture; John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the His-
torical Jesus (5 vols.; ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 1991–); N. T. Wright, Christian Origins
Jesus, Sabbath Actions, and Divine Sabbath Work 105
Meier continues,
Besides being the eschatological prophet and miracle-worker clothed in the
aura of Elijah, Jesus not only taught his Jewish followers general ethical im-
peratives (e.g., love and forgiveness) but also presumed to give concrete direc-
tions on how to observe the Mosaic Law (hălākôt). . . . Some of his pronounce-
ments on the Mosaic Law led to disputes with other Jewish groups, not least
of all because at times Jesus, while certainly affirming the Law as God’s word
to Israel, took it upon himself to rescind or change some individual institu-
tions in the Law: e.g., divorce, oaths and vows, and, in the opinion of some ex-
egetes, even the kosher food laws of the Torah. This element of concrete-and-
controversial directives as well as general teaching on the Law added further
spicy ingredients to an already heady brew. Jesus not only presented himself
and the Question of God, vol. 2: Jesus and the Victory of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996);
James D. G. Dunn, Christianity in the Making, vol. 1: Jesus Remembered (Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans, 2003). Meier’s and Wright’s books are specifically historical Jesus studies,
while Bock makes clear that his study is not. Although Dunn’s present volume is primar-
ily a historical Jesus study, it is part of a larger project designed to provide “a comprehen-
sive overview of the beginnings of Christianity” (p. xiii).
4. Meier, A Marginal Jew, 1:1.
5. Meier, A Marginal Jew, 2:1042.
6. Meier, A Marginal Jew, 2:1044.
106 Chapter 4
as the eschatological prophet of the coming kingdom of God, not only pre-
sented himself as the Elijah-like miracle-worker who made the future king-
dom of God already effective and palpable to his followers, but at the same
time presented himself as a teacher who could tell Israelites how to observe
the Law of Moses—indeed, who could even tell Israelites what they should or
should not observe in the Law. 7
The question is a valid one, and Jesus is at the center of its answer. To answer
this question, five other questions must be answered: How does Jesus fit
into Judaism? What were Jesus’ aims? Why did Jesus die? How and why did
the early church begin? Why are the Gospels what they are? 10 Throughout
the work, Wright answers these questions with a goal of determining who
Jesus is and how he affected the history of his era. Wright’s conclusion is
similar to other formulations but perhaps with a more radical conclusion:
Jesus was an eschatological prophet, announcing the kingdom of God and
dying to bring it about. As Israel’s Messiah, Jesus saw himself as “the fo-
cal point of the people of Yhwh,” 11 the one who through his own life and
ministry would bring about God’s plans for Israel. His death on the cross
would be the means by which the victory of God would be won over all
evil. His resurrection would show that he had succeeded and that his fol-
lowers would now inherit the task of implementing what he had in his life
and death achieved. Jesus was the Messiah who through his eschatological,
prophetic ministry brought to completion God’s plan for Israel, which his
followers were then to take to the world.
In Jesus according to Scripture, Bock’s stated goal is not to produce a tech-
nical historical Jesus study but, rather, “to argue that a coherent portrait
of Jesus emerges from the canonical Gospels that is both rooted in history
and yet has produced its own historical, cultural impact because of the por-
trait these four Gospels give of him.” 12 The study is divided into four major
sections. The first is an overview of the message and organization of each
of the Gospels. The second and most lengthy section is a presentation of
Jesus according to the Synoptics, and the third is a presentation of Jesus ac-
cording to the Gospel of John. The fourth section is in some ways the most
important section, because it serves to unite the threads of the individual
Gospels into a coherent presentation of the theological themes that were
the warp and woof of Jesus’ message and ministry. According to Bock, all
of the theological threads presented in the Gospels point to Jesus as the
uniquely authoritative revelator of God:
The thrust of Jesus’ teaching was that he brought the promised new era of
the rule of God. As prophet and as the one hoped for, Jesus both explained
the divine program and embodied divine presence and authority. His mission
began with and focused on Israel, but his ultimate goal was to bring the pres-
ence and promise of God to the world. The kingdom presence that he inau-
gurated opened the way for the victory of God and the Spirit of God because
forgiveness was made possible along with the hope of everlasting life. . . . At
the center of this newly announced divine program stood the person of the
one who makes its presence and sustenance possible. Jesus portrayed himself
as the Son of Man, a human being who possessed divine authority because he
was also divine, as is shown by the fact that he has the right to sit in God’s very
presence in heaven. Jesus according to scripture is far more than a prophet.
He is far more than a king who promised deliverance. He is the revealer and
explainer of God’s plan, as well as the bridge of access to God. 13
His conclusion about Jesus seeks to highlight “the characteristic motifs and
emphases of the Jesus tradition.” 14 The portrait is similar to the portraits
already presented: Jesus was a Jew who taught Israel about the near arrival
of the kingdom of God. His mission involved bringing good news to the
poor and calling sinners, and he desired to motivate Israel to live rightly in
light of the kingdom. He was a teacher, prophet, and healer who had an inti-
mate sense of being God’s son but who also probably knew that his mission
would end in his demise. 15
As can be seen from the summaries given above, there is a common view
of Jesus in these portraits as an eschatological prophet who authoritatively
pronounced the kingdom of God to Israel and who in turn was the primary
agent through which this kingdom comes about. 16 This commonality is
useful because it shows definite connections to particular strands of the
conceptual background under discussion. This provides a foundation from
which I will work to place Jesus within the context of divine Sabbath work.
in terms of its character and the calendar. A third question may be asked in
light of this emphasis: does Jesus act on the Sabbath as an eschatological
prophet with this emphasis in mind?
Finally, there is a particular strand of discussion in the background lit-
erature regarding the performance of religious duty and someone’s acting
as God’s agent on the Sabbath. Under certain circumstances, individuals
who were engaged in special service to the Lord could ignore prohibitions
against work on the Sabbath and receive no censure. Is this a factor that
comes into play in Jesus’ Sabbath actions? The argument I wish to make at
this juncture is that as far as the global picture is concerned Jesus’ Sabbath
actions are best understood in light of the eschatological emphasis that the
Sabbath received as representing the time when God would decisively act
to fulfill the hopes of his people and in light of the Sabbath as a special day
of blessing for God’s people. These appear to be the best arguments that
can be made regarding Jesus’ Sabbath activity, the background concept as
it has been developed, and a global conception of Jesus’ life and ministry.
17. Graham H. Twelftree, Jesus the Exorcist: A Contribution to the Study of the Historical
Jesus (WUNT 2/54; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1993), 228. Twelftree comes to a similar
conclusion in his later work on miracles (Jesus the Miracle Worker: A Historical and Theolog-
ical Study [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1999]; see especially p. 347).
18. Craig A. Evans, “Inaugurating the Kingdom of God and Defeating the Kingdom
of Satan,” BBR 15 (2005): 49–75.
19. Eric Eve, The Jewish Context of Jesus’ Miracles ( JSNTSup 231; London: Sheffield
Academic Press, 2002).
20. Eve, The Jewish Context of Jesus’ Miracles, 386. Eve appears to be arguing for a form
of similarity/dissimilarity as advanced by N. T. Wright.
110 Chapter 4
similarity is manifest because Jesus, in his overall ministry but also specifi-
cally with his miracles, takes on the role of a prophet, a role that is well at-
tested throughout Jewish literature. The distinctiveness is based on several
significant factors. First, Jesus is unique in that he is portrayed as perform-
ing a large number of healings and exorcisms, when Jewish literature as a
whole did not attribute numerous miracles to any one agent. Second, the
Gospels are clear in presenting the source of Jesus’ miracle-working power
as the spirit of God, not his own spirit. Third, Jesus attached eschatological
significance to his exorcisms and healings. 21
It is appropriate to review more carefully how Eve arrives at this third
conclusion, because this will be important to this study. 22 There are a few
Jewish texts that connect healing with eschatological hope; 23 most likely
these texts used healings as metaphors for national renewal, but this under-
standing would have supported Jesus’ use of healing miracles as signs of es-
chatological fulfillment. Attached to this understanding at some point was
the overthrow of demonic powers as a sign of the eschaton as well as healing
as a metaphor for spiritual healing, “the need for turning to God for inner
as well as outward healing.” 24 Into this mix stepped Jesus, who transformed
this context into a specific aspect of his own ministry. Eve argues,
How, then, does Jesus come to attach eschatological significance to healing
and exorcism? The explanation may lie along the following lines. First, healing
and exorcism were, perhaps, the only types of miracles available to Jesus. Sec-
ondly, he was nevertheless an extraordinarily gifted healer and exorcist who
. . . excelled among the folk-healers of his time. Thirdly, he understood this gift
as an even greater empowerment by God’s spirit than of the great prophets
of old. This experience of divine empowerment (coupled with a special sense
of a close relationship with God) prompted Jesus to reinterpret, combine and
transform Jewish traditions. He then understood his individual acts of heal-
ing and exorcism as prophetic signs, not only of the imminence of the King-
dom of God, but of its nature. 25
Thus within Jesus’ ministry, healing and exorcism had an eschatological fo-
cus. How then does his work on the Sabbath come into play?
Luke 13:10–17
Exposition of the pericope. In Luke 9:51, the evangelist turns the narrative
toward Jerusalem. This major section of the Gospel, commonly known as
the Jerusalem journey (9:51–19:27), shows Jesus traveling toward Jerusalem
in light of his recently revealed mission: Peter had confessed Jesus as the
Messiah (9:18–22), but the concept of Messiah that the disciples knew must
be redefined in terms of Jesus’ mission, not popular conceptions. This larger
section of Jesus’ Jerusalem journey alternates between Jesus’ teaching on
discipleship and Jesus’ clashing with the Pharisees. It is within this broad
context that the healing of the crippled woman falls.
In this passage, a healing narrative unique to Luke, Jesus heals a woman
who was permanently bent over. The malady has affected her for long time,
and Jesus with a word heals her. Because the healing takes place on the Sab-
bath, the synagogue ruler reacts negatively, and in response Jesus defends
himself on the basis of the day’s character. The pericope opens with a refer-
ence to Jesus teaching in a synagogue on the Sabbath. This in itself is strik-
ing. Jesus had not entered a synagogue since the inception of the Jerusalem
journey, and he had recently identified the synagogue as a place of possible
27. Jesus acts on the Sabbath in the triple tradition (Mark 2:23–28 and parallels; Mark
3:1–6 and parallels), material unique to Luke (Luke 13:10–17; 14:1–6), material common to
Mark and Matthew (Mark 6:1–6 and Matt 13:53–58), material common to Mark and Luke
(Mark 1:21–27 and Luke 4:31–36), and material unique to John ( John 5 and John 9).
28. References to the Sabbath and actions on that day are found in pronouncement
stories (Mark 2:23–28 and parallels; Mark 6:1–6 and Matt 13:53–58), speeches (Matt 12:5–7,
John 7:22–23), and miracle stories (Mark 1:21–27 and Luke 4:31–36; Mark 3:1–6 and paral-
lels; Luke 13:10–17; 14:1–6; John 5; 9).
Jesus, Sabbath Actions, and Divine Sabbath Work 113
persecution for his followers in Luke 12:11. 29 The question arises why Jesus
would enter the synagogue at this point. Green argues cogently that this re-
turn to the synagogue is meant to evoke Jesus’ Galilean ministry, especially
his preaching at the synagogue in Nazareth. 30 The implications of this nu-
ance will be discussed more carefully below. 31
Following the description of the time and place of the setting, Luke in-
troduces the crippled woman. His description of her is purposeful in that it
explains her sickness and therefore sets the stage for the healing and con-
troversy to follow; it also elicits a response of concern in the reader. The
woman is described simply as “there”; she does not draw attention to her-
self intentionally, but her condition is certainly noticeable. Probably this
condition has brought shame on her in some sense, and the further descrip-
tion of the length of her condition compounds the problem. Within the
pericope, her condition is blamed ultimately on supernatural activity. She
is described as “having a spirit of weakness” (πνεῦμα ἔχουσα ἀσθενείας), and
Jesus later attributes her condition directly to Satan. 32 Arguably, this is not
an instance of possession, because no exorcism is performed; it is oppres-
sion of some type, which manifested itself in her physical symptom.
When Jesus sees her, he calls out to her. This is a prime example of Jesus’
intentions when he acts on the Sabbath: he initiates the healing. 33 People
in need of healing came to Jesus on other days of the week, as a rule, but on
the Sabbath, Jesus reaches out to offer healing to people in need, of whom
this woman is an extreme case. Jesus first speaks to the woman: “Woman,
you are freed (ἀπολέλυσαι) from your infirmity.” The importance of the verb
is twofold. First, it is a perfect passive verb. The perfect tense regularly de-
picts the present results of past actions. There are two possibilities for the
past action in view. It is conceivable that Jesus is speaking somewhat pro-
leptically and referring to the act of healing that he is about to commence.
This would be a very unusual use of the perfect, however. The other option
is that the past event was a salvific event that forms the basis for Jesus’ ac-
tions. This is a more likely option with two primary possibilities: either the
exodus or the inbreaking of the kingdom of God. Further discussion on the
exodus option will appear below. The passive voice of the verb and the ac-
tion that the verb describes logically make this verb a divine passive. Jesus
speaks of the woman’s being freed from her infirmity, and then he points
to God as the source of this freedom. The second important aspect of this
verb is its connotation. It is rather unusual for the verb ἀπολύω to be used
in reference to the healing of disease; its normal semantic domains are the
physical location of someone, the social status of someone vis-à-vis another
person (usually concerning the release of a slave or the divorce of a wife), or
the release of debts. 34 But this information in itself is vitally important, for
the use of this verb evokes a particular conceptual context that will come
into play later as well. After speaking to her, Jesus places his hands on her,
and she is immediately made well (παραχρῆμα ἀνωρθώθη). This is clear con-
firmation that God is working through Jesus, both because of the imme-
diacy and because of the completeness of the healing. In response to her
healing, the woman spontaneously rejoices by praising God.
In response to this event, the leader of the synagogue speaks out to all
who are present. In so doing, he becomes the antagonist, but he is also rep-
resentative of all who have been opposing Jesus throughout the narrative. 35
The narrator gives the explicit reason that the leader speaks out against Je-
sus. He is “indignant (ἀγανακτῶν) because Jesus had healed on the Sabbath.”
The leader’s response is directed to the attendees at large, but his obvious
intent is to chastise Jesus for his action. His words are important because
they explicitly reveal that the Sabbath is the central issue in the controversy.
Underneath his response is an understanding of Sabbath observance that
found explicit expression in the legal Halakah governing the Sabbath. 36 In
34. See BDAG, “ἀπολύω,” 117–18; LSJ, “ἀπολύω,” 208. BDAG mentions only this pas-
sage in connection with healing in section 2, and LSJ mentions only Hippocrates (Κωακαὶ
προγώσιες 564) in conjunction with an illness in section A.II.2.
35. Fitzmyer (Luke, 2:1011) argues that, in light of the prior pericope in the narrative,
which emphasizes “the need of repentance and timely reform,” this synagogue leader and
all of Jesus’ opponents are “prime examples of those who stand in need of such reform.”
A similar type of argument is made by Doering (Schabbat, 467), who states that for Luke
perhaps the Sabbath Halakah is less the center of attention than the correlation between
the synagogue leader and the unfruitful tree.
36. See, for example, m. Yoma 8:6.
Jesus, Sabbath Actions, and Divine Sabbath Work 115
his response, however, Jesus moves the focus off the legal Halakah and onto
the character and nature of the Sabbath day.
This is a decisive move that proves, at least for this pericope, that Jesus is
not acting on the Sabbath simply to engage with Jewish leaders on the issue
of their authority. Instead, he acts on the Sabbath because it is in keeping
with his larger mission. Jesus’ response generally falls along the lines of a
lesser-to-greater argument. First he acknowledges the actuality of Sabbath
practice among Jews: “Does not each of you on the Sabbath untie his ox or
his donkey from its stall, and lead it to water?” This is both an expression
of agricultural reality regarding the care of animals and an expression of
the humanitarian concern fundamental to the Sabbath commands in the
Hebrew Scriptures. Using this as the “lesser,” Jesus immediately moves to
the “greater”: “Then shouldn’t this woman, a daughter of Abraham whom
Satan bound for eighteen long years, be released from this imprisonment on
the Sabbath day?” The most important thing to discuss here is the analogy
Jesus is making between the treatment of this woman and the treatment of
animals. On the surface, Jesus makes a simple lesser-to-greater connection
between animals and this woman: on the Sabbath day, animals are “untied”
(λύει) from their bonds and led to water. In the same way, it is perfectly
appropriate for this woman to “be released” (λυθῆναι) from her bonds on
the Sabbath—even more so because she is not a simple farm animal but a
“daughter of Abraham.” It is true to say that on a certain level the analogy
does function in this way, but to view it only in this way is incomplete.
There is an escalation in Jesus’ argument far beyond the simple recog-
nition that a person is in view now instead of an animal. First, Jesus does
not refer to the woman qua woman. More than this, she is identified as a
“daughter of Abraham” (θυγατέρα Ἀβραάμ). This appellation makes the cen-
ter of Jesus’ focus her identity as an Israelite: she is connected to the cov-
enant that God made with Abraham. 37 Thus, Jesus introduces an entirely
new dynamic into the equation that evokes her relationship to God as a
member of the covenant community, not just as a member of the human
race. 38 Second, Jesus speaks of her condition with terms that evoke the im-
agery of imprisonment or bondage. Jesus uses the verb ἔδησεν, from the
root δέω, and the noun δεσμός to refer to her state. These words frequently
refer to literal imprisonment, 39 and the imagery would not be lost in this
instance. Third, Jesus states that her condition of bondage to this infirmity
is due to Satanic oppression of some sort. His reference to Satan as the one
37. Contra Luke Timothy Johnson (The Gospel of Luke [SP 3; Collegeville, MN: Litur-
gical Press, 1991], 212), who argues that essentially the animal-human comparison is in
view.
38. As Fitzmyer (Luke, 2:1013) notes, the similar appellation of “son of Abraham” will
be applied to Zacchaeus, so a similar dynamic is also in view in that pericope.
39. See BDAG, “δέω,” 221–22; LSJ, “δέω,” 383; BDAG, “δεσμός,” 219, section 1; LSJ,
“δεσμός,” 380, §§1–2.
116 Chapter 4
who has bound the woman makes this clear in itself and, in conjunction
with the narrator’s statement that the woman had a “spirit of infirmity” in
v. 11, this implication becomes unavoidable. The convergence of these three
allusions—the woman’s heritage as an Israelite, her infirmity as a form of
bondage or imprisonment, and the influence of Satan—point to a specific
image underlying the event: Israel and the exodus. This will be explained
more fully below. Based on this allusion, then, Jesus closes his argument by
pointing out that the Sabbath day is in fact the most fitting day for this
woman to be released from her infirmity. To close the account, the narrator
indicates the response to Jesus of all involved: the humiliation of his adver-
saries on the one hand and the rejoicing of the crowds because of his works
on the other hand.
The use of the Sabbath in the pericope. The place of the Sabbath in this
pericope is quite important. It first serves to highlight the setting for Jesus’
actions. As v. 10 indicates, on this day Jesus was teaching in one of the syna-
gogues. On the surface, this appears to be simply an indication of which
day of the week is in view. This is true in that it explains both Jesus’ teach-
ing and the controversy that ensues. There is a greater allusion, however,
that must be taken into account within the Lukan narrative. As mentioned
above, Jesus had not entered a synagogue since the inception of the Jerusa-
lem journey, and he had recently identified the synagogue as a place of pos-
sible persecution for his followers. The question must be asked why Jesus
would enter the synagogue at this point. Green makes a cogent argument
that this return to the synagogue is meant to evoke Jesus’ Galilean ministry,
especially his preaching at the synagogue in Nazareth. This is done through
Luke’s organization of three factors: synagogue, Sabbath, and Jesus’ teach-
ing. 40 In addition, the very content of the pericope harks back to Jesus’
preaching in the synagogue at Nazareth through the concept of “release.” 41
The question must then be asked, What was the central message of Jesus’
preaching in the synagogue in Nazareth?
Jesus’ preaching in the synagogue in Nazareth is recorded in Luke 4:16–
30. This pericope is programmatic for Jesus’ ministry in Luke because the
author has intentionally placed the pericope in its present location. It is
clear, based on a comparison of Luke 4:23 with 4:31–44 and with the par-
allel account in Mark 6:1–6, that Luke has intentionally moved this event
forward in the narrative, out of strict chronological sequence. Within the
narrative, this event is positioned as the beginning of Jesus’ Galilean min-
istry. This sort of intentional shift is an indication of the importance and
programmatic nature it holds for the author. Furthermore, the content of
42. Of interest to note is that in the original context, following Isa 58:6 is an admoni-
tion for Israel to observe the Sabbath in keeping with its original intent.
43. An important theological note is that this year ultimately finds its source in the
Sabbath. See discussion of Lev 23 on pp. 38–39.
44. So Bock, Luke 1:1–9:50, 412.
118 Chapter 4
Sabbath is not incidental to Jesus’ action but is in fact essential. What about
the Sabbath is so central that it can become for Jesus a sign or justification
for his healing action?
Discussion of the pertinent Sabbath background. As I discussed in chap. 3,
the Sabbath is an important day for a variety of reasons. It is a day that cel-
ebrates God as both creator and redeemer. It is a day that symbolizes God’s
gracious role as Israel’s covenant God. It is a day that looks forward to the
eschatological hope and fulfillment of God’s actions. Each one of these mo-
tifs comes into play in this passage and shows the underlying reasons that
Jesus considered his actions justifiable.
One of the primary emphases of the Sabbath is to celebrate God as the
one who redeemed Israel and brought the people out of bondage in Egypt
to a place of rest and freedom, as stated in Deut 5:12–15. Israel thus should
keep the Sabbath, a day of rest, as a memorial to that day. This background
understanding of the Sabbath lies under the surface when Jesus acts to heal
the woman. He in fact invokes this background through two concepts: the
reference to the woman as a “daughter of Abraham” and the use of bond-
age imagery. Referring to the woman as a daughter of Abraham emphasizes
her identity as an Israelite. She is a member of the covenant community
that was created when it was called out of Egypt by God, a covenant com-
munity to whom the laws regarding Sabbath observance were given. Using
the bondage imagery in conjunction with this focus on her identity as an
Israelite most naturally leads to a conclusion that exodus imagery is in view,
especially when Deut 5 so closely connects these two concepts. In the peric-
ope, Sabbath is not simply the day on which the healing occurs: it is the most
appropriate day for the healing to occur. When the woman receives release
from her infirmity, in a real sense she experiences exactly what the Sabbath
is all about: freedom from bondage for her as an Israelite. Not only this, but
the same actor is in place in both instances. The Sabbath commemorates
God’s activity as redeemer when he led his people Israel out of bondage
from Egypt. Here, through the use of Jesus as his agent, God again acts
to lead this woman, an Israelite, out of bondage. On a personal level, this
woman experiences physically what Sabbath is all about, and on a symbolic
level, she represents the Sabbath that God uses to bring salvation to his
people. Jesus makes this a central aspect of his action, indeed, his raison
d’être.
The Sabbath is also viewed as a day on which God graciously gives bless-
ings to his people. This is more generally what could be said about Jesus’
point for acting on this day. Numerous passages point to this aspect of
the Sabbath. The central Sabbath passage, Gen 2:1–3, implies that rest is a
paradigm for this day and that by observing the Sabbath humanity enjoys
the same rest as God does. A major aspect of Exod 16 is the Sabbath as
a means through which God abundantly provides for his people. Exodus
20:8–11 exalts God as a Creator who extends life and breath to his creation.
Jesus, Sabbath Actions, and Divine Sabbath Work 119
45. For a similar argument, see Bock, Luke 9:51–24:53, 1218–19; François Bovon,
L’Évangile selon Saint Luc (9,51–14,35) (CNT 3B; Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1996), 360. For a
theologically developed argument that appeals directly to God’s working on the Sabbath,
a claim that I do not think can be sustained for this event from the background materials,
see Arthur A. Just Jr., Luke 9:51–24:53 (Concordia Commentary; Saint Louis: Concordia,
1997), 542. For commentators who do not mention this line of thought, see, for example,
Marshall, Luke, 559; Nolland, Luke 1–9:20, 724–25; Green, Luke, 523–26.
120 Chapter 4
is meant to be a day of blessing for Israel and who acts to bring about this
blessing.
John 5:1–30
John 5 begins a new major section in the narrative of the Gospel. 46 Jesus
had already performed two signs in Cana in Galilee 47 and conducted two
private, telling interviews. 48 The author indicates by the inclusion of the
temple cleansing in John 2:12–22 that in some way his ministry was going
against the established religious system and its leaders. 49 John 5 marks a
decided change to more public ministry by Jesus and more pronounced op-
position to him by his opponents.
Historicity of the pericope. In light of scholarly skepticism regarding the
event in John 5:1–30, a short discussion of its historicity is in order. 50 The
very first issue on which one must pass judgment is the global question of
Jesus’ miracles. As I concluded in chap. 2 after interaction with Meier, the
tradition of Jesus’ miracles satisfies the criterion of multiple attestation
more than any other tradition about him. 51 The next issue on which one
must pass judgment is the relation of this pericope to the healing of the
paralytic in Mark 2:1–12. It has often been asserted that these two passages
are in fact different renderings of the same historical event and that the two
paralytics are the same man in reality. Even Chrysostom was familiar with
the view that the paralytic in John 5 was the same as in Matt 9:1–8, which
is parallel with Mark 2:1–12. 52 There are indeed some similarities between
the two pericopes: Jesus’ words in John 5:8 parallel the words in Mark 2:9,
46. Brown (John I–XII, xi) lists it as the beginning of a major section that deals with
Jesus’ activity at various Jewish feasts. Carson (John, 105) lists it as the beginning of a ma-
jor section that shows rising opposition to Jesus.
47. They were the turning of water into wine (2:1–11) and the healing of the noble-
man’s son (4:46–54).
48. They were with Nicodemus (3:1–21) and the Samaritan woman at the well (4:1–42).
49. The placement of the cleansing of the Temple in John (2:12–22) has been perhaps
the thorniest of problems in the historicity of John, because the author places it at the
beginning of Jesus’ ministry, while the Synoptics place it at the end as a crucial part of the
passion narrative (Matt 21:12–13, Mark 11:15–19, Luke 19:45–46). It is beyond the scope of
this book to propose a solution to the problem of its historicity in the Gospel of John.
However, I believe it can be said from a narrative viewpoint that the author means for
this event to cast a long shadow over Jesus’ ministry; all of the interaction he has with
the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem should be understood in light of this condemnation by
Jesus of the Temple and its authorities and the resulting controversy. Either the Temple
cleansing indicates that opposition to Jesus had already begun, or through foreshadowing
it indicates where Jesus’ ministry would lead.
50. The historicity of the resultant controversy was addressed in chap. 2.
51. For a discussion of this criterion, see Meier, A Marginal Jew, 174–75; and Gerd
Theissen and Annette Merz, The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide (trans. John
Bowden; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998), 115–18.
52. See Chrysostom, Hom. Jo. 37.
Jesus, Sabbath Actions, and Divine Sabbath Work 121
they both use the rare and late word κράβαττος, 53 and there is a connection
in both between the illness and sin. 54 Despite these similarities, however,
there are differences that indicate that the two accounts are separate and
distinct. Raymond Brown lists three: “in setting: Capernaum vs. Jerusalem;
in local details: a man brought to a house by his friends and lowered through
the roof vs. a man lying at the side of a pool; in emphasis: a miracle illustra-
tive of Jesus’ power to heal sin vs. a healing with only passing reference to
sin.” 55 These differences are striking enough that even Robert Funk, Roy
Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar acknowledge that they are distinct. 56 C. H.
Dodd argues that the similarity of the commands to the paralytic in Mark
2:11 (ἔγειρε ἆρον τὸν κράβαττόν σου καὶ ὕπαγε εἰς τὸν οἶκόν σου) and John 5:9
(ἔγειρε ἆρον τὸν κράβαττόν σου καὶ περιπάτει) are due to the formation of
the forms in the tradition, which would have added appropriate words for
Jesus to enact the healing, and not to any explicit borrowing by the author
of the Gospel of John. 57 Therefore, the scholarly opinion is fairly settled
that John 5:1–9 and Mark 2:1–12 do not relate the same event. There are now
three other factors to consider regarding historicity: one grammatical, one
geographical, and one literary.
There is a great deal of discussion about the way in which Jesus learns
about the man’s condition. John 5:6 reads τοῦτον ἰδὼν ὁ Ἰησοῦς κατακείμενον
καὶ γνοὺς ὅτι πολὺν ἤδη χρόνον ἔχει, λέγει αὐτῷ· θέλεις ὑγιὴς γενέσθαι (“Jesus,
having seen him lying there and having learned that he had been in that
condition a long time, said to him, ‘Do you want to be made well?’”). There
is intense focus on the means by which Jesus knew about the man’s condi-
tion. Often supernatural knowledge is seen as the means. 58 The grammat-
ical construction of this verse, however, may point away from supernatu-
ral knowledge. The verb ἔχει in the phrase γνοὺς ὅτι πολὺν ἤδη χρόνον ἔχει
is best classified as an extending-from-past present; the verb indicates an
action that was begun in the past and extends into the present. 59 This is apt,
given the context of the man’s condition, the adverbial modifier ἤδη, and
the attributive adjective πολύν modifying χρόνον. 60 However, this is not the
only way the verb is used. The present tense is used here also as a present
retained in indirect discourse. It is introduced by a declarative ὅτι, and it
follows a verb of perception. 61 Based on these grammatical features, the
inference could be made that Jesus was either told by someone else about
the man’s condition or he observed it; from the standpoint of the narra-
tive, then, he did not learn of it through supernatural means. 62 To support
this point, another argument can be made: the author’s discussion of what
Jesus knew is less specific than what had been mentioned earlier in the nar-
rative. In John 5:5, the author specifically mentions the length of time that
the man had been an invalid—38 years. However, in the very next verse, the
author mentions only that Jesus knew he had been sick “a long time.” If the
author had wanted to stress Jesus’ supernatural knowledge here, he would
have made Jesus’ knowledge at least as specific as his own, if not more so. 63
If these arguments about this issue are correct, the impact on deter-
mining the historicity of the passage is clear enough. The early church or
evangelists would have been reticent to introduce or create material in the
Gospel record that did not manifest an exalted picture of Jesus—espe-
cially in this Gospel. Therefore, elements in the narratives that cast Jesus
in a less-than-ideal light are presumed to have greater historical probability.
This evidence—that either Jesus was told about the man’s condition or he
observed it and did not have supernatural knowledge of it—is a very human
element that the church would not create; therefore, it fits the criterion of
embarrassment. Thus, it could be a historical element that goes back to Je-
sus himself. At the least, this interpretive option opens the door for greater
historical plausibility. That Jesus knew about the man’s condition through
supernatural means is certainly possible. Based on the fact that modern
commentators seem to prefer the view that the author is presenting Jesus
as learning about the man’s condition through supernatural means, it is
reasonable to think that the ancient church, as well as scribes and editors,
would have preferred this view as well. If so, the criterion of embarrassment
would not apply. It is my opinion, however, that the retained indirect dis-
The Copper Scroll from Qumran, which dates to between 35 and 65 c.e.,
also supports this archaeological evidence. 67 There are four main points
of contact between the archaeological findings regarding this pool and the
pericope in John: the five porticoes actually existed, there were ways for
people to access the pool easily, there was a water source that may have
been noticeable, 68 and the pool most likely existed during the time of Je-
sus. 69 These points of contact enable us to say with greater certainty that
the healing story in John 5:1–9 is historically plausible.
A final literary point to be made concerns the paralytic who is healed in
this pericope. One would expect that, if the evangelist or the early church
were the creator of this material, this man would act somewhat differently
from the way he acts. One expects him to be more complimentary and wor-
shipful toward Jesus, but this is not the case. In fact, he exhibits contrary
qualities. He is spiritually dull (5:7). He is socially ignorant (5:13). He even
70. Brown (John I–XII, 209) states, “A character such as this could have been in-
vented, but one would expect to see clearer motivation for such a creation.”
71. The characterization of this man must be considered in light of the other charac-
ters in the narrative, most noticeably the man born blind in John 9. On the literary level,
some would argue that the author created this character as a foil for the more positive
character introduced later. However, within the framework from which I am arguing, it
is entirely reasonable to see a principle of selection at work here, not creation; that is, the
author included these two men because they embodied characteristics that fit his narra-
tive, literary goals.
Jesus, Sabbath Actions, and Divine Sabbath Work 125
work. The Jews infer from this defense that Jesus is claiming divine status
for himself, 72 and this results in attempts on Jesus’ life. 73
The rest of the chapter is an extended discourse extrapolating on the
theme of divine work that was introduced in v. 17. Jesus explicates his re-
lationship to God in terms of the Father/Son relationship and justifies his
actions on the Sabbath and his entire ministry in light of this relationship.
Jesus begins his defense by proclaiming in v. 19 that his actions as the Son
originate in what he sees God the Father doing. This provides a perfect de-
fense because it places his opponents in the position of opposing God. The
relationship between Jesus and God is not simply based on imitation but
on love between the Father and Son. In essence, Jesus acts on the Sabbath
because this is what he sees the Father doing, and the Father loves the Son
and shows him exactly what he is doing. Jesus further extrapolates on these
actions in vv. 21–23. The Father’s actions are defined as raising the dead and
giving life; the Son therefore takes on the same type of action. Within the
narrative, Jesus’ healing of the invalid is to be taken as just such an example
of giving of life. The Son not only takes on the Father’s work of giving life;
72. The exact issue that causes the controversy here may not be Jesus’ adversaries’
perception of a claim to divine status by Jesus but the simple fact that a claim to be Mes-
siah was even made. On the argument that God reserved the right to identify the Mes-
siah for himself, Jesus’ identification of himself as this Messiah would be tantamount to
blasphemy, because he would have taken this divine prerogative upon himself. See J. C.
O’Neill, “‘Making Himself Equal with God’ ( John 5.17–18): The Alleged Challenge to
Jewish Monotheism in the Fourth Gospel,” IBS 17 (1995): 50–61.
73. There is a difference of opinion about how 5:18 should be translated. The clause
in question is ἀλλὰ καὶ πατέρα ἴδιον ἔλεγεν τὸν θεὸν ἴσον ἑαυτὸν ποιῶν τῷ θεῷ. The tra-
ditional translation is as follows: “but he was also calling God his own Father, making
himself equal with God.” This understands the participle ποιῶν to be a participle of result
related to the main verb ἔλεγεν. In this translation, the second phrase is subordinated to
the first, both of which are object-complement constructions with double accusatives.
On the other hand, Funk et al. (The Five Gospels, 414) translates the sentence as follows:
“worse still, he would call God his Father and make himself out to be God’s equal.” John
Bligh (“Jesus in Jerusalem,” HeyJ 4 [1963]: 123) also favors the latter translation but offers
no support for the choice. The primary difference is that the verb ποιῶν is now parallel to
ἔλεγεν. The reason offered by Funk et al. for this translation is related to the context of
the narrative: Jesus is showing himself to be God based on the nature of his works. They
find support for this in an extrabiblical reference in the Epistle of Heraclitus to Hermodorus
that declared that Heracles was a god by “his own goodness and the most noble of his
‘works’ when he had concluded such great ‘labors’.” In this instance, the extrabiblical and
contextual evidence is weak; it cannot override a strong grammatical construction with
rather obvious meaning. The weakness of this argument is that the resulting translation
seems to ignore the appeal that Jesus makes to divine work on the Sabbath, focusing only
on his naming of God as “My Father.” Perhaps the narrative leads a way out of this di-
lemma. The most noticeable, obvious statement Jesus made was naming God as “My Fa-
ther”; this drew the attention of the Jews first. The more subtle argument was the appeal
to divine work on the Sabbath, and this was explained more carefully in the discourse
that followed.
126 Chapter 4
he takes on the Father’s work of judging. This places the Son in the same po-
sition of honor as the Father. Following this basic explanation of the type of
work the Father does that the Son imitates, Jesus gives an extended explana-
tion of the giving of life with an emphasis on resurrection. Thus within the
narrative, Jesus positions the type of work he is doing as Sabbath work that
the Father himself does, and this is explained as judging and giving life, with
an emphasis on resurrection as its ultimate expression.
The use of the Sabbath in the pericope. As in Luke 13 discussed above, the
Sabbath is a key part of John 5. The historicity of this narrative has already
been discussed, so I will not repeat it here. What is important to note is that
the narrator positions the Sabbath in a dramatic way as the day on which
the healing takes place by introducing it after the healing narrative itself.
Thus he formats this important aspect of the setting by presenting the nec-
essary information to understand the narrative in unusual order.
When the controversy begins between the Jewish leaders and the man
who was healed, the leaders refer to the well-known Sabbath rules that for-
bid his action. By carrying his mat outside of his residence, the man was in
violation of one of the 39 generative categories of work prohibited on the
Sabbath, as detailed in m. Šabb. 7:2. Following this initial confrontation, the
controversy between Jesus and the Jewish leaders takes on a different tone.
It covers a wider terrain than the occasion of this particular event, because
of the way the narrative is constructed. In essence, John 5:17 is positioned
as an isolated saying within the discourse; thus, this statement is presented
as somewhat programmatic rather than occasional. It both expands the
Sabbath controversy beyond the borders of this pericope and makes Jesus’
statement in 5:17 broader than the current context might imply. In 5:16, we
read, “Because of this, then, the Jews were persecuting Jesus because he was
doing these things on the Sabbath.” This verse is given as a general state-
ment, and ταῦτα (“these things”) in the latter part of the verse is plural, re-
ferring to more than just the one event detailed in 5:1–15. 74 The main verb in
5:16, ἐδίωκον, is imperfect; this is best seen as either an ingressive imperfect,
meaning that because of this controversy the Jews began their persecution
of Jesus, or a customary imperfect, meaning that the action of persecuting
Jesus occurred continually in the past. Broader literary and contextual fac-
tors point to the latter understanding. 75 The verb in the ὅτι clause is also
74. Bligh (“Jesus in Jerusalem,” 123) states, “John does not say in v. 16 that the Jews
began to persecute Jesus because he had ordered the man to pick up his stretcher on the
sabbath, but because he was performing ‘deeds like this’ on the sabbath. The pronounce-
ment in v. 17, ‘My father is always at work, and so too am I’, is not linked chronologically
with this particular cure, but with Christ’s sabbath-miracles in general.”
75. Because of the placement of the Temple cleansing earlier in the Gospel (2:12–22),
it is difficult to argue from the standpoint of the narrative that the author intended this
to indicate the beginning of the Jews’ persecution of Jesus. The implication is that perse-
cution was prevalent throughout Jesus’ ministry.
Jesus, Sabbath Actions, and Divine Sabbath Work 127
imperfect 76 and best taken as customary; this would show that the healing
in John 5:1–9 was meant to be representative of many other things that Je-
sus did on the Sabbath that the author did not record. In either case, it is a
summary statement that in effect brings a minor stop to the events of the
narrative.
The same thing happens on the back end of the saying. John 5:18 shows
the Jews’ reactions to Jesus’ defense, which involves the intent to kill: διὰ
τοῦτο οὖν μᾶλλον ἐζήτουν αὐτὸν οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι ἀποκτεῖναι. The inclusion of the
adverb μᾶλλον with a sense of “all the more” gives good reason to regard
the imperfect verb ἐζήτουν as customary. The action of seeking to kill Jesus
did not begin with his claim; it simply intensified. 77 So the author intends
John 5:18 to be a general statement about how the Jews were reacting to and
treating Jesus; it should not be construed as a continuation of the narrative
in strict chronological order. Thus, there is disjunction between 5:17 and its
context: 5:17 is a more general statement about Jesus’ work on the Sabbath,
which the author connects to this specific healing and the continued perse-
cution at the hand of the Jews. Why is this important? The author presents
this healing event as being representative of Jesus’ varied Sabbath activity to
provide a springboard for a programmatic explanation of Jesus’ actions. It
serves to describe Jesus’ ministry as a whole. Thus, his defense of his actions
and the discourse that follow should be given more weight in understanding
John’s portrayal of Jesus’ Sabbath work than it might otherwise be given.
The last mention of the Sabbath in John 5 is in v. 18. Here the narrator
gives the reasons that the Jewish leaders were seeking to kill Jesus, one of
which was that Jesus was breaking the Sabbath. This is given from the op-
ponents’ point of view and is not meant to be a statement with which the
narrator necessarily agrees.
Discussion of the pertinent Sabbath background. There is one strand of ar-
gument that deals with God’s working on the Sabbath by referring to the
regulations about carrying and lifting things on the Sabbath. The argument
basically proceeds in the following fashion: “(1) the entire universe is his
76. The textual variant on this word exchanges the imperfect ἐποίει for the aorist
ἐποίησεν, attested by Ï75, 579, and certain Bohairic manuscripts. Some scribes must have
felt a tension to tie the persecution detailed in 5:16 to the healing detailed in 5:1–9. This
tie would be made by the use of the aorist, making this phrase refer to the one event.
Notice that this variant is presented with a negative apparatus in NA27, indicating the
editors’ belief that this variant is relevant to the history of the text but that it does not
help to establish the original text. (For the function of the negative apparatus, see p. 50*
in NA27.)
77. The adverb μᾶλλον can also mean “rather” in the sense of “instead” (see BDAG,
“μᾶλλον,” 613–14, §3). If it has this meaning here, the sense of the statement would be
changed: “Therefore because of this the Jews instead began seeking to kill him.” This
would indicate a change from their previous action of persecution. This is possibly pref-
erable because of the lack of prior references in the Gospel to attempts to kill Jesus. Even
if this is so, the disconnection between the saying and its prior literary context remains.
128 Chapter 4
domain (Is. 6:3), and therefore he never carries anything outside it; (2) oth-
erwise put, God fills the whole world ( Je. 23:24); and in any case (3) God
lifts nothing to a height greater than his own stature.” 78 The primary pas-
sage for this line of argumentation is Exod. Rab. 30:9, where various rabbis
argue against a sectarian who claimed that God did not keep the Sabbath. 79
In this line of thinking, God does keep the Sabbath because he does not
break the Sabbath regulations. This is possibly what is in view in John 5, but
more likely it is not applicable as historical background to the text at hand.
No one accuses Jesus in John 5 of carrying something on the Sabbath. He
does not tell the man to carry his mat on the Sabbath, but this is neither a
point of contention for the Jews nor something that Jesus feels compelled
to explain in the discourse that follows. There is a different line of thought
that is more fruitful regarding God’s working on the Sabbath and has direct
bearing on the passage under consideration.
As mentioned in chap. 3 above, another line of thought in Jewish theo-
logical development was God’s working on the Sabbath with regards to
the wicked and the righteous. God was free, even on the Sabbath, to deal
with people as he saw fit, the two main categories of human beings being
wicked and righteous. The relevant passage is Gen. Rab. 11:10. 80 Although
the specific nature of the work or the acts that would constitute this work
are not mentioned in this passage, the idea is fairly clear: God has rested
from the work of creation, but he still works in that he punishes the wicked
and rewards the righteous. So God could work on the Sabbath and not be
in violation of his own established order or internal character. This does
not involve Sabbath regulations that the rabbis developed about carrying a
burden but God’s own work, which only he can do: dealing with the righ-
teous and wicked. When one examines the discourse connected to the con-
troversy in John 5, some of this idea becomes apparent. The two common
themes about the Son in the remainder of the chapter are giving life and
judging. Dodd states,
It seems clear that our evangelist is following a generally similar line of
thought when he isolates for special consideration two aspects of divine ac-
tivity which are indubitably perpetual, ζωοποιεῖν and κρίνειν, and claims that
Christ performs both these ‘works’. It might be held that ‘judgment’ here cor-
responds with ‘His work upon the wicked and His work upon the righteous’.
In that case we should have to assume that the argument runs: it is admitted
that God perpetually judges His world; but it has been shown (iii.17–21) that
judgment is not a substantive work of God, but an inevitable accompaniment
or consequence of His work for the salvation of men. Hence we must con-
clude that the work of salvation (ζωοποιεῖν), as well as the work of judgment,
is part of God’s perpetual activity. 81
The author of the narrative has understood this aspect of Jewish thought
and framed the narrative in this manner. This brings us much closer to the
mark in relation to the background in John 5, but we still not there.
Philo provides another link for reconstructing a pattern of thought that
is applicable to the passage at hand. Philo has a great deal to say about di-
vine activity as it relates to Sabbath rest, 82 but the most appropriate teach-
ing for illuminating the background of John 5 is his doctrine of the two pow-
ers in QE 2.68:
In the first place (there is) He Who is elder than the one and the monad and
the beginning. Then (comes) the Logos of the Existent One, the truly seminal
substance of existing things. And from the divine Logos, as from a spring,
there divide and break forth two powers. One is the creative (power), through
which the Artificer placed and ordered all things; this is named “God.” And
(the other is) the royal (power), since through it the Creator rules over created
things; this is called “Lord.” 83
It is obvious from a simple reading of John 5 that John speaks of these two
categories: ζωοποιεῖν being the creative power and κρίνειν being the ruling
power. The conclusion that is drawn from this in John 5 is that God is per-
forming these functions even now through Jesus.
The maxim, ὁ πατήρ μου ἕως ἄρτι ἐργάζεται, is specifically true in respect of
these two activities: even on the Sabbath, as always, God gives life and judges.
The words which follow, κἀγὼ ἐργάζομαι, imply that the life giving work
which Jesus has performed on the Sabbath is an instance of the divine activity
of ζωοποίησις, and as such is exempt from the Sabbath restrictions. 85
86. See, for example, Exod 4:22; Deut 32:6; Isa 63:16; Hos 11:1; Tob 13:4; Sir 23:1; 3 Macc
5:7, and many others.
87. The most notable example of this approach is Joachim Jeremias: see his Central
Message of the New Testament (London: SCM, 1965); The Prayers of Jesus (trans. John Bowden
et al.; SBT 2/6; Naperville, IL: Allenson, 1967); and New Testament Theology (trans. John
Bowden; New York: Scribner, 1971).
88. One assertion from this investigation—that ʾabbā was the intimate address of a
child to a father, akin to “daddy”—has been corrected by Jeremias (New Testament The-
ology, 67), who retracts a view he held earlier; James Barr, “ʾAbbā Isn’t ‘Daddy’,” JTS 39
(1988): 28–47; idem, “‘Abba, Father’ and the Familiarity of Jesus’ Speech,” Theology 91
(1988): 173–79. This correction, however, does not change the close emotional associa-
tion evoked by the term; for recent balanced assessments, see Scot McKnight, A New Vi-
Jesus, Sabbath Actions, and Divine Sabbath Work 131
sion for Israel (Studying the Historical Jesus; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999), 49–65;
Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 549–53, 715–18.
89. The following evidence does not include oblique references of Jesus to God as his
father but only references in which Jesus speaks directly of God as his father. If added
to the evidence, the oblique references, in which Jesus appears to speak of himself in the
third person (e.g., Matt 16:27; Mark 13:32; Luke 9:26; the greater part of John 5), would
strengthen the case considerably. It is clear that the references discussed below refer
to God either because of additional modifiers (cf. Matt 7:21, which includes the prepo-
sitional phrase ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς as a modifier, and Matt 15:13, which uses the adjective
οὐράνιος as a modifier) or because of context (cf. John 2:16, where Jesus refers to the Jeru-
salem Temple as “my father’s house”).
90. Matt 7:21; 10:32, 33; 11:27; 12:50; 15:13; 16:17; 18:10, 19, 35; 20:23; 26:29, 53; Luke 2:49;
10:22; 22:29; 24:49; John 2:16; 5:17, 43; 6:32, 40; 8:19 (twice), 49, 54; 10:18, 25, 29, 37; 14:2, 7,
20, 21, 23; 15:1, 8, 10, 15, 23, 24; 20:17.
91. Matt 11:25; 26:39; 26:42; Luke 10:21; 22:42; 23:34, 46; John 11:41; 12:27, 28; 17:1, 5, 11,
21, 24, 25.
92. Matt 11:26; Mark 14:32; Luke 10:21.
93. Matt 6:9.
94. Mark: 14:32 (= Matt 26:39/Luke 22:42, with modifications).
Q: 10:21 (= Matt 11:25–26/Luke 10:21); 10:22 (= Matt 11:27/Luke 10:22); 11:2 (= Matt 6:9/
[Luke 11:2, which is not included in the above evidence since it is not clear that Jesus is
speaking directly about God as his father]).
Material unique to Matthew: 7:21; 10:32, 33; 12:50; 15:13; 16:17; 18:10, 19, 35; 20:23; 26:29,
42, 53.
Material unique to Luke: 2:49; 22:29; 23:34 (this verse is textually suspect), 46; 24:49.
Material unique to John: 2:16; 5:17, 43; 6:32, 40; 8:19, 49, 54; 10:18, 25, 29, 37; 11:41; 12:27,
28; 14:2, 7, 20, 21, 23; 15:1, 8, 10, 15, 23, 24; 17:1, 5, 11, 21, 24, 25; 20:17.
132 Chapter 4
95. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “Abba and Jesus’ Relation to God,” in À cause de l’évangile (ed.
Joseph A. Fitzmyer; LD; Paris: Saint-André/Cerf, 1985), 31.
96. Jeremias (The Prayers of Jesus, 24–26) refers to the אהבה רבה, the second benedic-
tion, which introduced the morning Shema, and the New Year Litany, both of which con-
tain the phrase אבינו מלכנו, but he rightly argues that this address relates the fatherhood
of God to his kingship over the people of God. He states further on p. 29 that “there is
as yet no evidence in the literature of ancient Palestinian Judaism that ‘my Father’ is used
as a personal address to God.” The Qumran literature does have two instances of this
phenomenon, which were unknown to Jeremias. In 4Q372 1:16, Joseph in prayer refers to
God as “my father and my God” ( ;)אבי ואלהיsee Douglas M. Gropp et al., Wadi Daliyeh
II and Qumran Cave 4, XXVIII (DJD 28; Oxford: Clarendon, 2001), 167–69. In 4Q460 9
1:6, in the context of an individual’s prayer to God, the author addresses God directly as
“my Father and my Lord” ( ;)אבי ואדוניsee Stephen J. Pfann, Qumran Cave 4, XXVI: Cryptic
Texts and Miscellanea, Part 1 (DJD 36; Oxford: Clarendon, 2000), 382–83.
97. Revelation 2:28; 3:5, 21. The only exception might be Rom 8:15 and Gal 4:6, men-
tioned above, where the phrase αββα ὁ πατήρ is used. It can be argued, however, that in
each of these occurrences the emphasis is on the Christian community in relationship
with God, not the individual.
98. See D. R. Bauer, “Son of God,” DJG, 774–75, for verses and discussion.
Jesus, Sabbath Actions, and Divine Sabbath Work 133
Jesus continues in the discourse to connect himself with the Father, this
time by giving eternal life (v. 24), which can alternatively be pictured as res-
urrection (vv. 25, 28–29). Thus the line of thought is as follows: Jesus acts
to heal the invalid man on the Sabbath. This is an example of the Father’s
divine Sabbath work of giving life, which Philo explains as the continually
active creative power of God. The Son performs the same work by giving
life through healing as well as giving eternal life, expressed through resur-
rection. Because the Father is the only one who can raise the dead, and Jesus
makes this claim for himself, this passage is very nearly making a statement
about the identity of Jesus in terms of actions restricted to the Father.
John 5, in comparison with other passages that use the Sabbath as a key
part of the narrative, focuses more closely on Jesus’ identity vis-à-vis God.
This is achieved through the dual use of the motif of Sonship and the motif
of Sabbath work. Within the passage, these two motifs are intimately con-
nected. Why does Jesus act as he does and perform healings on the Sabbath,
both in this particular instance and throughout his ministry? It is because,
as the Son, he sees the Father doing this. What is the nature of this work?
As explained in Philo, it is creative power and ruling power—two powers
of God that are continually being exercised. The creative power finds ex-
pression in Jesus’ acts of healing and in the giving of life; the ruling power
finds expression in his authority both to act in imitation of the Father and
to judge as the Father directs. Thus Jesus as the Son acts just as the Father
does. This Sabbath work forms a basis for understanding Jesus’ actions in his
ministry as well as his identity as the Son who acts as the Father does. These
in turn explain the negative reaction of the Jews who were opposing Jesus at
this point. They saw Jesus acting in a way that only God could act, or at least
in a way that was too congruent with God for their comfort. They heard
him use the motif of Sonship to associate himself with God in a very inti-
mate way. They saw a man take on actions and identity that were associated
with God. Their desire to kill Jesus was plausible from within their context,
because he had, through his Sabbath work and proclamation of Sonship,
put himself in a position where only God should be.
Conclusion
When examining how the concept of Sabbath work is used of Jesus in
the Gospels, we find that there is no overt reference to divine Sabbath ac-
tivity. The closest approximation is John 5:17, but even this passage is some-
what cryptic. Although there are explicit references to divine Sabbath work
in the background literature, there is no clear, one-to-one correspondence
between the type of work that those passages indicate God does and what
Jesus does on the Sabbath. At the same time, Jesus’ Sabbath actions must be
explained in some way. The traditional explanation is hardly sufficient for
every passage that highlights Jesus’ Sabbath actions; much more is going on
134 Chapter 4
under the surface. There are emphases in the background literature that fit
well within Jesus’ Gestalt. How is one to assess the evidence as it has been
presented?
As has been said previously, Jesus acted with intention on the Sabbath.
The interpreter is left with a situation that requires explanation, because
Jesus chose to do what he did. The best solution is to view the passages on
a spectrum of sorts. John 5 is the passage that most clearly refers to divine
Sabbath work and makes a connection between God’s continual work and
Jesus’ Sabbath work. The connection comes to light when Jesus’ statements
and his discourse are examined in light of Philo’s doctrine of the two pow-
ers. Here are two powers of God, creative power and ruling power, that are
continually active and that find ready counterparts in Jesus’ discourse about
himself that follows his proclamation about working as the Father does.
Other passages are farther down the spectrum. Luke 13, for example, does
not explicitly refer to divine Sabbath work but does picture Jesus with a
full understanding of the meaning of the day and its implication for Israel.
He works on this day because a woman of Israel needs to be freed from her
infirmity, and this healing symbolizes all that the Sabbath means: God frees
Israel from oppression, releasing the people to rest. Other passages, such
as Luke 4, do not evoke the background of divine Sabbath work at all but,
instead, rely on the eschatological significance of the Sabbath to provide
their meaning.
How are these differences to be explained? Why is divine Sabbath work
prominent in one passage but nonexistent in another? First, as is clear from
the background information, there is no systematic theology of divine Sab-
bath work that is consistently found throughout the background literature.
To be sure, there are glimpses of it here and there, but there is no regular,
unified presentation of the idea on which Jesus could consistently act or on
which a Gospel author could depend. This becomes clear when we compare
divine Sabbath work with other ideas, such as the kingship of God or the
covenant between God and Israel. These ideas are regularly, consistently,
and systematically described in the literature. Divine Sabbath work is not
as clearly expressed.
Second, Jesus may have understood the inherent ideas that were later
given expression in rabbinic exegesis but, since most of the clear writing on
divine Sabbath work was not contemporary with him, he probably was not
evoking these ideas. The most likely situation was that, as an eschatological
prophet who was announcing the kingdom of God, Jesus understood better
than his contemporaries that the Sabbath was a day for God to graciously
give his blessings to human beings. The Sabbath commands had this idea at
their root, and Jesus acted on the Sabbath to reorient the Judaism of his day
back to this more appropriate understanding of the Sabbath.
Third, individual Gospel authors who knew this background probably
used it to frame their narratives when it fit their purposes. John more than
Jesus, Sabbath Actions, and Divine Sabbath Work 135
the other Gospels has a Christology that is framed “from heaven down.”
It is understood from the beginning that Jesus is divine, and the bulk of
the narrative is spent showing how his disciples on earth gradually came to
understand this. It would have made excellent sense for John to use divine
Sabbath work to illuminate Jesus’ activities, which appears to be what he
was doing in John 5. In a different vein, the Synoptic Gospels present Jesus
“from the earth up.” They do not have categories for ontological deity as
such, at least early on in the accounts, so they are more likely fitting Jesus
into a different mold. This seems to be the case in Luke 13. Jesus is presented
as the prophet who understands the true meaning of the Sabbath and acts
accordingly to heal the crippled woman. In short, the concept of divine Sab-
bath work does have an impact on certain passages in the Gospels, but its
application is not uniform or universal. The interpreter must sift carefully
to find the passages that do evoke this context. It is my opinion that John 5
is the only passage to do so explicitly.
Chapter 5
Summary
The purpose of this final chapter is to restate carefully the goal of my
research and its results in order to contribute to Jesus studies that address
the question of Jesus’ Sabbath actions. This book at its root is an attempt
to answer these questions: What did Jesus mean when he stated in John
5:17, “My Father is working until now, and I too am working”? To what type
of work was he referring? What did he mean to imply about himself in this
statement? The context of John 5, with its emphasis on Jesus’ Sabbath ac-
tions, implies that Sabbath work is involved on the part of both Jesus and
God. This entire study was thus organized to investigate the concept of di-
vine Sabbath work and to apply this concept to Jesus and his actions on the
Sabbath. In order to provide focus for the work, I consciously organized the
research around the validation or negation of this hypothesis: Jesus’ Sab-
bath activity can be explained through the concept of divine Sabbath work.
As I discussed in chap. 1, divine Sabbath work is a neglected aspect of in-
terpretation and commentary on Jesus’ Sabbath actions. Most all of the cur-
rent discussion centers on Jesus’ interpretation of Torah vis-à-vis the Jewish
leaders’ interpretation. This is lopsided, especially because John 5 so clearly
references divine activity relative to the Sabbath. Investigation of divine
Sabbath work can provide an appropriate cultural context for understand-
ing Jesus’ actions. As a historical Jesus study, this book presents a verifiable
aspect of Jesus’ contemporary context that elucidates his life and ministry.
I began with a defense of the historicity of Sabbath controversy in Jesus’
life. Many scholars still view Sabbath controversy as a retrojection of the
early church back into the life of Jesus. When the early church decisively
broke with Judaism, the celebration of the Sabbath became a major line
of demarcation. Thus the church made Sabbath controversy part of Jesus’
life in order to justify and explain its own battle (so the reasoning goes).
This theory, as many others dealing with similar issues, does not stand up
under the evidence. The criterion of multiple attestation shows beyond a
reasonable doubt that Jesus clashed with religious leaders over Sabbath ob-
servance. Controversy of this type appears in all strands of the tradition
and in various forms. It is also linked carefully to the miracle material; this
136
Summary, Assessment, and Future Direction 137
Assessment
In any investigation, an assessment is warranted to determine the value
of the results. As has been stated already, this study was organized to vali-
date or negate the hypothesis that Jesus’ Sabbath actions can be explained in
light of the background concept of divine Sabbath work and that his actions
Summary, Assessment, and Future Direction 139
may have constituted an implicit claim to deity. After working through the
background evidence and applying this literary context to a global picture
of Jesus’ life and to two particular passages, I conclude that the hypothesis
is true in a limited way. There are key passages that explicitly refer to divine
Sabbath work and a large number of passages that connect the Sabbath to
specific actions by God, but there is no direct, frequent connection in the
Gospels between what Jesus did on the Sabbath and explicit divine Sabbath
work as it appears in the background materials.
There is merit in this study, however, because of the controls built into
the process. From the beginning, I thought it necessary not only to examine
passages that directly refer to divine Sabbath work but also to examine pas-
sages in the background material that might explain Jesus’ actions as being
based on some other concept. This has proven fruitful, for there are many
passages that provide a conceptual grid for understanding the Sabbath, and
these concepts have greater influence on our understanding of Jesus’ ac-
tions: (1) The Sabbath was an eschatological sign, and this would have been
an appropriate day for Jesus to act with healings and exorcisms, which have
an eschatological flavor. (2) The Sabbath was a day that commemorated and
symbolized God’s blessings to Israel, and Jesus would have acted in keeping
with this underlying understanding in extending God’s blessing to needy
Israelites through healing. (3) On the Sabbath, God’s agents in past unusual
circumstances had taken the liberty to abrogate or ignore Sabbath restric-
tions, and Jesus who keenly felt the eschatological import of his ministry
would also have felt free to do this as needed in his ministry. These three
concepts prove more fruitful in understanding Jesus’ Sabbath actions as a
whole than the more restricted category of divine Sabbath work. An ancil-
lary goal of this study was to provide a different interpretive grid for under-
standing Jesus’ Sabbath actions than the commonly held interpretation that
Jesus was in a battle over interpretations of the law. By understanding Jesus’
Sabbath actions in light of these other three findings, I am able to provide a
different grid. His Sabbath actions are clearer and more important than we
previously understood. The three results of this research provide a deeper
theological understanding of his praxis and reveal the heart of his redemp-
tive, eschatological plan.
term is the word שַׁ ּבָתֹון, used 5 times alone and 6 times with the construct of
;שַׁ ּבָתit has various translations. Because the Sabbath was the seventh day of
the week, terms related to the number 7 are also important for this study, in-
cluding the cardinal numbers שׁ ְבעָה ִ and שׁבַע
ֶ and the ordinal number יעי
ִ שׁ ִב.
ְ
Related to the number 7 is שׁבּו ַע ָ , the word for “week” (a 7-day period). The
key term for work is ;מלָאכָה ְ this is often used in conjunction with the verb
עׂשה. All of these need to be examined more fully, and the lexicographical
base for this study needs to be expanded.
Second, with the current study as a foundation, future work can be or-
ganized to make a better contribution to Jesus studies in particular and NT
studies in general. This book was organized around a hypothesis; it was not
an open-ended study as such. An open-ended study would prove valuable
to Jesus and NT studies. By this, I mean a systematic investigation of the
Sabbath in the background materials, or at least certain aspects of it; an
organized presentation of the evidence; and an examination of Jesus’ Sab-
bath actions in light of this evidence. Research of this sort would seek to
describe Jesus’ Sabbath activity as it exists and not measure it against one
possible concept, as I have done in the current book. Thus, all aspects of
the Sabbath could be examined in light of Jesus’ activity: the Sabbath as an
eschatological sign, the Sabbath as a day of God’s blessing on Israel, and the
agents of God who acted on the Sabbath. This research would also form a
foundation on which the Sabbath as referred to throughout the NT could
be examined. The Sabbath is important to understanding various Pauline
passages and the book of Hebrews, for example, so a systematic investiga-
tion would also prove useful in interpreting them.
Bibliography
Primary Sources
Aberbach, Moses, and Bernard Grossfeld. Targum Onkelos to Genesis. New York:
Ktav / Denver: Center for Judaic Studies, University of Denver, 1982.
Blackman, Philip. Mishnayoth. 6 vols. Gateshead, U.K.: Judaica, 1983.
Cathcart, Kevin J., and R. P. Gordon. The Targum of the Minor Prophets. The Ara-
maic Bible 14. Wilmington, DE: Glazier, 1989.
Charles, R. H. The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English.
2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon, 1913.
_____ . The Ethiopic Version of the Hebrew Book of Jubilees. Oxford: Clarendon,
1895.
Charlesworth, James H., ed. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. 2 vols. Garden
City, NY: Doubleday, 1983–85.
Chilton, Bruce D. The Isaiah Targum. The Aramaic Bible 11. Wilmington, DE:
Glazier, 1987.
Clarke, Ernest G. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of the Pentateuch: Text and Concordance.
Hoboken, NJ: Ktav, 1984.
Collins, A. Yarbro. “Aristobulus: A New Translation and Introduction.”
Pages 831–42 in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 2. Edited by James H.
Charlesworth. Anchor Bible Reference Library. New York: Doubleday,
1985.
Díez Macho, Alejandro, ed. Neophyti 1: Targum palestinense ms. de la Biblioteca Va
ticana. Translated by Martin McNamara and Michael Maher. 5 vols. Madrid:
Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, 1978.
_____, ed. Neophyti 1: Targum palestinense ms. de la Biblioteca Vaticana. 5 vols. Eng-
lish translation by Martin McNamara and Michael Maher. Madrid: Con-
sejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, 1978.
Drazin, Israel. Targum Onkelos to Deuteronomy. New York: Ktav, 1982.
Elliger, K., and W. Rudolph, eds. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Stuttgart:
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1983.
Epstein, I., ed. Hebrew-English Edition of the Babylonian Talmud. 30 vols. London:
Soncino, 1960–90.
Etheridge, J. W. The Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan Ben Uzziel on the Pentateuch
with the Fragments of the Jerusalem Targum from the Chaldee. Repr., New York:
Ktav, 1968.
García Martínez, Florentino, and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar. The Dead Sea Scrolls
Study Edition. 2 vols. New York: Brill, 1997–98.
Harrington, Daniel J., and Anthony J. Saldarini. Targum Jonathan of the Former
Prophets. The Aramaic Bible 10. Wilmington, DE: Glazier, 1987.
141
142 Bibliography
Newsom, Carol A. Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice: A Critical Edition. Harvard Se-
mitic Studies 27. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985.
Philo. Translated by F. H. Colson et al. 10 vols., 2 supplements. Loeb Classical
Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1929–62.
Rahlfs, A., ed. Septuaginta. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1935.
Schäfer, Peter, and Hans-Jürgen Becker, eds. Synopse zum Talmud Yerushalmi,
vol. 1/1–2. Texte und Studien zum Antiken Judentum 31. Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 1991.
_____ . Synopse zum Talmud Yerushalmi, vol. 2/1–4. Texte und Studien zum Antiken
Judentum 82. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001.
Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum graecum auctoritae Academiae Scientiarum Gottin-
gensis editum. 16 vols. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1931- .
Shachter, Jacob, and B. A. Freedman, trans. Sanhedrin. In Hebrew-English Edition
of the Babylonian Talmud. Edited by Isidore Epstein. London: Soncino, 1969.
Shutt, R. J. H. “Letter of Aristeas: A New Translation and Introduction.”
Pages 831–42 in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 2. Edited by James H.
Charlesworth. Anchor Bible Reference Library. New York: Doubleday,
1985.
Sperber, Alexander. The Bible in Aramaic. 4 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1959–73.
Sukenik, E. L., ed. The Dead Sea Scrolls of the Hebrew University. Jerusalem:
Magnes, 1955.
Thackeray, H. St. J. “The Letter of Aristeas.” Pages 531–606 in An Introduction to
the Old Testament in Greek by Henry Barclay Swete. Rev. ed. Richard Rusden
Ottley. Repr., New York: Ktav, 1968.
Theodor, Julius, and Chanoch Albeck. Berischit rabba mit Kritischem Apparat und
Kommentar. 3 vols. Veröffentlichungen der Akademie für die Wissenschaft
des Judentums. Jerusalem: Wahrmann, 1965.
Wintermute, O. S. “Jubilees: A New Translation and Introduction.” Pages 35–
142 in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 2. Edited by James H. Charles-
worth. Anchor Bible Reference Library. New York: Doubleday, 1985.
Wise, Michael, Martin Abegg Jr., and Edward Cook. The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New
Translation. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1996.
Yonge, C. D., trans. The Works of Philo. Rev. ed. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson,
1993.
Zuckermandel, M. S. Tosephta: Based on the Erfurt and Vienna Codices with Parallels
and Variants. Rev. ed. Jerusalem: Wahrmann, 1970.
Secondary Sources
Abegg, Martin G., with James E. Bowley and Edward M. Cook, in consulta-
tion with Emanuel Tov. The Dead Sea Scrolls Concordance, vol. 1/1–2: The Non-
Biblical Texts from Qumran. Leiden: Brill, 2003–.
Alexander, Philip S. Mystical Texts. Library of Second Temple Studies 61. Lon-
don: T. & T. Clark, 2006.
_____ . “Targum, Targumim.” Pages 320–31 in vol. 6 of The Anchor Bible Diction-
ary. Edited by David Noel Freedman et al. New York: Doubleday, 1992.
144 Bibliography
Allen, Leslie C. Ezekiel 1–19. Word Biblical Commentary 28. Dallas: Word, 1994.
_____ . Ezekiel 20–48. Word Biblical Commentary 29. Dallas: Word, 1990.
Allison, Dale C. Jesus of Nazareth: Millenarian Prophet. Minneapolis: Fortress,
1998.
Andreasen, Niels-Erik A. “Sabbath and Synagogue.” Pages 189–211 in Pas-
sion, Vitality, and Foment: The Dynamics of Second Temple Judaism. Edited by
Lamontte M. Luker. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2001.
Ashley, Timothy R. The Book of Numbers. New International Commentary on
the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1993.
Asiedu-Peprah, Martin. Johannine Sabbath Conflicts as Juridical Controversy. Wis-
senschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 132. Tübingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 2001.
Bacchiocchi, Samuele. From Sabbath to Sunday: A Historical Investigation of the
Rise of Sunday Observance in Early Christianity. Rome: Pontifical Gregorian
University, 1977.
Baldwin, Jeffrey W. The Sabbath: A Biblical-Theological Study. Th.M. Thesis. Dal-
las Theological Seminary, 1992.
Barr, James. “‘Abba, Father’ and the Familiarity of Jesus’ Speech.” Theology 91
(1988): 173–79.
_____ . “ʾAbbā Isn’t ‘Daddy’.” Journal of Theological Studies 39 (1988): 28–47.
Barrett, C. K. The Gospel according to St. John. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Westminster,
1978.
Bauer, D. R. “Son of God.” Pages 769–75 in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels.
Edited by Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight, and I. Howard Marshall. Down-
ers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1992.
Bauer, Walter. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Chris-
tian Literature. 3rd rev. ed., Frederick William Danker. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press, 2000.
Beasley-Murray, George R. John. Word Biblical Commentary 36. Dallas: Word,
1989.
Bernard, J. H. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to
St. John. Edited by A. H. McNeile. 2 vols. International Critical Commen-
tary. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1928.
Bligh, John. “Jesus in Jerusalem.” Heythrop Journal 4 (1963): 115–34.
Block, Daniel I. The Book of Ezekiel, Chapters 1–24. New International Commen-
tary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997.
_____ . The Book of Ezekiel, Chapters 25–48. New International Commentary on
the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998.
Blomberg, Craig L. The Historical Reliability of John’s Gospel. Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity, 2001.
Bock, Darrell L. Jesus according to Scripture: Restoring the Portrait from the Gospels.
Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2002.
_____ . Luke 1:1–9:50. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament 3A.
Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1994.
_____ . Luke 9:51–24:53. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament
3B. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1996.
Bibliography 145
Borg, Marcus J. Conflict, Holiness, and Politics in the Teachings of Jesus. New ed. Har-
risburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1998.
Borgen, Peder, Kåre Fuglseth, and Roald Skarsten. The Philo Index: A Complete
Greek Word Index to the Writings of Philo of Alexandria. Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans / Leiden: Brill, 2000.
Bovon, François. L’Évangile selon Saint Luc (9,51–14,35). Commentaire du Nou-
veau Testament 3B. Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1996.
Briggs, Charles A., and Emilie Grace Briggs. A Critical and Exegetical Commen-
tary on the Book of Psalms. 2 vols. International Critical Commentary. Edin-
burgh: T. & T. Clark, 1906–7.
Bright, John. Jeremiah. Anchor Bible 21. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1965.
Brongers, H. A. “Einige Bemerkungen zu Jes 58:13–14.” Zeitschrift für die alttesta-
mentliche Wissenschaft 87 (1975): 212–16.
Brown, Francis, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, eds. A Hebrew and English
Lexicon of the Old Testament with an Appendix Containing the Biblical Aramaic.
Oxford: Clarendon, 1906.
Brown, Raymond E. The Gospel according to John I–XII. Anchor Bible 29. Garden
City, NY: Doubleday, 1966.
Bryan, Steven M. Jesus and Israel’s Traditions of Judgement and Restoration. Society
for New Testament Studies Monograph 117. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, 2002.
Budd, Philip J. Numbers. Word Biblical Commentary 5. Waco, TX: Word, 1984.
Bultmann, Rudolf. The Gospel of John: A Commentary. Translated by G. R.
Beasley-Murray. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971.
Buttenwieser, Moses. The Psalms. The Library of Biblical Studies. New York:
Ktav, 1969.
Carson, D. A., ed. From Sabbath to Lord’s Day: A Biblical, Historical, and Theological
Investigation. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1982.
_____ . The Gospel according to John. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1991.
_____ . “Matthew.” Pages 1–599 in vol. 8 of The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Ed-
ited by Frank E. Gaebelein. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984.
Cassuto, Umberto. A Commentary on the Book of Exodus. Translated by Israel
Abrahams. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1967.
Childs, Brevard S. The Book of Exodus. Old Testament Library. Philadelphia:
Westminster, 1974.
Chilton, Bruce. Rabbi Jesus: An Intimate Biography. New York: Doubleday, 2000.
Christensen, Duane L. Deuteronomy 1:1–21:9. 2nd ed. Word Biblical Commen-
tary 6A. Dallas: Word, 2001.
Craigie, Peter C. The Book of Deuteronomy. New International Commentary on
the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1976.
Craigie, Peter C., Page H. Kelley, and Joel F. Drinkard Jr. Jeremiah 1–25. Word
Biblical Commentary 26. Dallas: Word, 1991.
Cranfield, C. E. B. The Gospel according to Saint Mark. Rev. ed. Cambridge Greek
Testament Commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959.
Crenshaw, James L. “Wedōrēk ʿal-bāmŏtê ʾāreṣ.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 34
(1972): 39–53.
146 Bibliography
Davies, Eryl W. Numbers. New Century Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans, 1995.
Davies, W. D., and Dale C. Allison Jr. Matthew. 3 vols. International Critical
Commentary. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988–97.
Denis, Albert-Marie. Concordance grecque des pseudépigraphes d’Ancien Testament.
Louvain-la-Neuve: Université catholique de Louvain, Institut orientaliste,
1987.
Dodd, C. H. Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1963.
_____ . The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel. Repr., Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, 1968.
Doering, Lutz. “The Concept of the Sabbath in the Book of Jubilees.”
Pages 179–205 in Studies in the Book of Jubilees. Edited by Matthias Albani,
Jörg Frey, and Armin Lange. Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum 65.
Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997.
_____ . Schabbat: Sabbathalacha und -praxis im antiken Judentum und Urchristentum.
Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum 78. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
1999.
Driver, S. R. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy. 3rd ed. Inter-
national Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1902.
Dunn, James D. G. Christianity in the Making, vol. 1: Jesus Remembered. Grand
Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing, 2003.
Dunn, James D. G. The Theology of Paul the Apostle. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerd-
mans, 1998.
Durham, John I. Exodus. Word Biblical Commentary 3. Dallas: Word, 1987.
Ehrman, Bart D. Jesus, Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium. Oxford: Ox-
ford University Press, 1999.
Eichrodt, Walther. Ezekiel. Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster,
1970.
Ellis, E. Earle. The Gospel of Luke. 2nd ed. Greenwood, SC: Attic, 1974.
Evans, Craig A. “Inaugurating the Kingdom of God and Defeating the King-
dom of Satan.” Bulletin for Biblical Research 15 (2005): 49–75.
_____ . Jesus and His Contemporaries: Comparative Studies. Arbeiten zur Geschichte
des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums 25. Leiden: Brill, 1995.
_____ . Luke. New International Biblical Commentary on the New Testament.
Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1990.
Eve, Eric. The Jewish Context of Jesus’ Miracles. Journal for the Study of the New
Testament: Supplement 231. London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002.
Fanning, Buist M. Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek. Oxford Theological
Monographs. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990.
Fee, G. D. “On the Inauthenticity of John 5:3b–4.” Evangelical Quarterly 54
(1982): 207–18.
Fitzmyer, Joseph A. “Abba and Jesus’ Relation to God.” Pages 15–38 in À cause de
l’évangile. Edited by Joseph A. Fitzmyer. Lectio Divina. Paris: Saint-André/
Cerf, 1985.
Bibliography 147
_____ . The Gospel according to Luke. 2 vols. Anchor Bible 28–28A. Garden City,
NY: Doubleday, 1981–85.
France, R. T. Matthew. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. Grand Rapids,
MI: Eerdmans, 1985.
Fredriksen, Paula. Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews: A Jewish Life and the Emer-
gence of Christianity. New York: Knopf, 1999.
Freedman, H., and M. Simon, eds. The Midrash Rabbah. 3rd ed. 10 vols. London:
Soncino, 1983.
Funk, Robert W., and The Jesus Seminar. The Acts of Jesus: The Search for the Au-
thentic Deeds of Jesus. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1998.
Funk, Robert W., Roy W. Hoover, and The Jesus Seminar. The Five Gospels: The
Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco,
1993.
Geldenhuys, Norval. Commentary on the Gospel of Luke. New International Com-
mentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1954.
Gerstenberger, Erhard S. Leviticus: A Commentary. Translated by Douglas W.
Stott. Old Testament Library. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996.
Godet, Frederic Louis. Commentary on John’s Gospel. Translated by Timothy
Dwight. Repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 1978.
Goldberg, Abraham. “The Mishna: A Study Book of Halakha.” Pp. 211–62 in
Compendia rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum, Section 2: Literature of
the Jewish People in the Period of the Second Temple and the Talmud, vol. 3/1: The
Literature of the Sages. Edited by Shmuel Safrai and Peter J. Tomson. Assen:
Van Gorcum / Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987.
Goldstein, Jonathan A. I Maccabees. Anchor Bible 41. Garden City, NY: Double-
day, 1976.
_____ . II Maccabees. Anchor Bible 41A. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983.
Green, Joel B. The Gospel of Luke. New International Commentary on the New
Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997.
Greenberg, Moshe. Ezekiel 1–20. Anchor Bible 22. Garden City, NY: Doubleday,
1983.
Grossfeld, Bernard, and S. David Sperling. “Bible, Translations, Ancient Ver-
sions, Aramaic: The Targumim.” Pages 588–95 in vol. 3 of Encyclopaedia
Judaica. Edited by Fred Skolnik and Michael Berenbaum. Detroit: Macmil-
lan, 2007.
Guelich, Robert A. Mark 1–8:26. Word Biblical Commentary 34A. Dallas: Word,
1989.
Gundry, Robert H. Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross. Grand Rap-
ids, MI: Eerdmans, 1993.
_____ . Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church under Persecu-
tion. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1994.
Haenchen, Ernst. John: A Commentary on the Gospel of John. 2 vols. Translated by
Robert W. Funk. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984.
Hagner, Donald A. Matthew 1–13. Word Biblical Commentary 33A. Dallas:
Word, 1993.
148 Bibliography
Hanson, Howard E. “Num. XVI 30 and the Meaning of Bārāʾ.” Vetus Testamen-
tum 22 (1972): 353–59.
Hanson, Paul D. “The Song of Heshbon and David’s Nîr.” Harvard Theological
Review 61 (1968): 297–320.
Harner, Philip B. “Creation Faith in Deutero-Isaiah.” Vetus Testamentum 17
(1967): 298–306.
Hartley, John E. Leviticus. Word Biblical Commentary 4. Dallas: Word, 1992.
Hasel, Gerhard F. “‘New Moon and Sabbath’ in Eighth Century Israelite Pro-
phetic Writings (Isa 1:13; Hos 2:13; Amos 8:5).” Pages 37–64 in “Wünschet
Jerusalem Frieden”: Collected Communications to the XIIth Congress of the Inter-
national Organization for the Study of the Old Testament, Jerusalem 1986. Edited
by Matthias Augustin and Klaus-Dietrich Schunk. Frankfurt am Main: Pe-
ter Lang, 1988.
_____ . “Sabbath.” Pages 849–56 in vol. 5 of Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by
David Noel Freedman et al. New York: Doubleday, 1992.
_____ . “The Sabbath in the Pentateuch.” Pp. 21–43 in The Sabbath in Scripture
and History. Edited by Kenneth A. Strand. Washington, D.C.: Review and
Herald, 1982.
Hasel, Gerhard F., and W. G. C. Murdoch. “The Sabbath in the Prophetic and
Historical Literature of the Old Testament.” Pages 44–56 in Sabbath in
Scripture and History. Edited by Kenneth A. Strand. Washington, DC: Re-
view and Herald, 1982.
Hägerland, Tobias. “John’s Gospel: A Two-Level Drama?” Journal for the Study of
the New Testament 25 (2003): 309–22.
Hengel, Martin. The Johannine Question. London: SCM / Philadelphia: Trinity
Press International, 1989.
Hess, Richard S. “God and Origins: Interpreting the Early Chapters of Gen-
esis.” Pages 86–98 in Darwin, Creation and the Fall: Theological Challenges.
Edited by R. J. Berry and T. A. Noble. Nottingham: Apollos, 2009.
_____ . Israelite Religions: An Archaeological and Biblical Survey. Grand Rapids,
MI: Baker, 2007.
_____ . “Leviticus.” Pages 563–826 in vol. 1 of The Expositor’s Bible Commentary.
Edited by Tremper Longman III and David E. Garland. Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan, 2008.
Hodges, Zane C. “The Angel at Bethesda: John 5:4.” Bibliotheca Sacra 136
(1979): 25–39.
Holladay, William L. Jeremiah 1. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986.
Hooker, Morna D. The Gospel according to St Mark. Black’s New Testament Com-
mentaries. London: Black, 1991.
Horbury, William. “The Benediction of the Minim and Early Jewish-Christian
Controversy.” Journal of Theological Studies 33 (1982): 19–61.
Horsley, Richard A. Jesus and the Spiral of Violence: Popular Jewish Resistance in Ro-
man Palestine. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987.
Horst, Pieter van der. “The Birkat Ha-Minim in Recent Research.” Expository
Times 105 (1994): 363–68.
Bibliography 149
_____ . Évangile selon Saint Marc. Études bibliques. Paris: Lecoffre, 1966.
Lane, William L. The Gospel according to Mark. New International Commentary
on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974.
Lechner-Schmidt, Wilfried. Wortindex der lateinisch erhaltenen Pseudepigraphen
zum Alten Testament. Texte und Arbeiten zum neutestamentlichen Zeitalter
3. Tübingen: Francke, 1990.
Leonhardt, Jutta. Jewish Worship in Philo of Alexandria. Texte und Studien zum
antiken Judentum 84. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001.
Levine, Baruch A. Leviticus. Jewish Publication Society Torah Commentary 3.
Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989.
_____ . Numbers 1–20. 1st ed. Anchor Bible 4A. New York: Doubleday, 1993.
Léon-Dufour, Xavier. Lecture de l’évangile selon Jean, Chapitres 5–12. Paris: Seuil,
1990.
Liddell, Henry George, and Robert Scott, comps. Greek-English Lexicon. Re-
vised by Henry Stuart Jones and Roderick McKenzie. 9th ed. With a re-
vised supplement 1996, ed. P. G. W. Glare and A. A. Thompson. Oxford:
Clarendon, 1940.
Ludwig, Theodore M. “Traditions of the Establishing of the Earth in Deutero-
Isaiah.” Journal of Biblical Literature 92 (1973): 345–57.
Lundbom, Jack R. Jeremiah 1–20. Anchor Bible 21A. New York: Doubleday,
1999.
McKane, William. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah. Interna-
tional Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1986.
McKay, Heather A. Sabbath and Synagogue: The Question of Sabbath in Ancient Ju-
daism. Religions in the Graeco-Roman World 122. Leiden: Brill, 1994.
McKenzie, John L. Second Isaiah. Anchor Bible 20. Garden City, NY: Double-
day, 1968.
McKnight, Scot. A New Vision for Israel. Studying the Historical Jesus. Grand
Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999.
Marshall, I. Howard. The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text. New
International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerd-
mans, 1978.
Martin, A. “Notes sur le Sabbat.” Foi et Vie 74 (1975): 13–51.
Mathews, Kenneth A. Genesis 1–11:26. New American Commentary 1A. Nash-
ville: Broadman & Holman, 1996.
Meier, John P. “The Historical Jesus and the Historical Herodians.” Journal of
Biblical Literature 119 (2000): 740–46.
_____ . A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus. 5 vols. Anchor Bible Refer-
ence Library. New York: Doubleday, 1991–.
Milgrom, Jacob. Leviticus 1–16. Anchor Bible 3. New York: Doubleday, 1991.
_____ . Numbers. Jewish Publication Society Torah Commentary 4. Philadelphia:
Jewish Publication Society, 1990.
Miller, Patrick D. The Ten Commandments. Interpretation. Louisville: Westmin-
ster John Knox, 2009.
Morris, Leon. The Gospel according to John. Rev. ed. New International Commen-
tary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995.
Bibliography 151
Old Testament
Genesis Exodus (cont.) 1 Samuel
1 56 20–23 36 7:16 48
1:1 31, 52, 55 24 36
1:1–2:3 29, 52 25:1–31:11 37 2 Samuel
1:1–2:4 29 31 51 19:2 96
2:1 85 31:12 38
2:1–3 28, 29, 34, 37, 41, 31:12–17 36, 37, 45, 2 Chronicles
42, 52, 53, 58, 70, 94, 119 24:5 48
94, 100, 111, 118 31:13 51
2:2 30 32 53, 111 Ezra
2:2–3 52 34:1 53 10:8 25
2:3 31, 52 34:10 53
8:1 39 34:21 34 Nehemiah
17:13 36 35:1–3 36, 94 9:14 96
29:27 77 35:3 35 10:32 35
13:15 35
Exodus Leviticus 13:15–18 35
4:22 130 16:29–31 37
5 137 16:31 37 Psalms
15:22–17:7 93 23 38, 117 24 44
16 50, 51, 68, 76, 111, 25:10 117 51:12 57
118 73:22 42
16:1–36 32 Numbers 82:18 44
16:19 32 15:32–36 35, 36, 73 83 44
16:20–21 32 16 53 83:18 44
16:22–26 32 16:30 53 91:8 44
16:23 32 92 41, 43, 44, 82, 98,
16:25–26 32 Deuteronomy 119
16:27 100 1:1–21:9 40 92:1 98
16:27–30 32 5 39, 41, 55, 111, 118, 92:8 44
16:29 34, 35 137 131:12 44
17:8 100 5:12 39 131:14 44
19–20 93 5:12–15 39, 45, 51, 101, 132:12 44
20 39, 40, 41, 51, 137 118, 119 132:14 44
20:8 82 23:1 45
20:8–10 40 30:19 48 Proverbs
20:8–11 33, 38, 45, 50, 32:6 130 10:22 96
101, 118 32:13 47
20:11 82
155
156 Index of Scripture
New Testament
158
Index of Authors 159
OT Apocrypha
1 Maccabees 2 Maccabees Sirach
1:41–49 17 n. 34 8:21–29 65 23:1 132 n. 86
2:39–41 63, 64, 12:38 65 n. 114 23:3 132 n. 86
73 n. 141, 74 15:1–5 66 Tobit
9:43–49 64, 65, 3 Maccabees 13:4 132 n. 86
73 n. 141, 121 5:7 132 n. 86
OT Pseudepigrapha
Aristobulus Jubilees (cont.) L.A.E. (Apoc. Mos.)
Fifth fragment 70–72 2:29–30 68 43:2–3 69, 70
Jubilees 2:30 68 L.A.E. (Vita)
1 67 2:31 28 n. 2 29 69, 70
2:1 67 23:23–31 112 n. 23 51 69, 69 n. 125, 70
2:18 68 50:6–13 68 51:2 70
2:19–20 67 50:8 68 Testament of Moses
2:21 68 50:12–13 68 10 112 n. 24
2:25–33 68 50:13 67
161
162 Index of Nonbiblical Sources
Philo
Abraham Flight Questions (on Genesis)
28–30 77 170 77 2.13 79
Allegorical Interpretation 174 76 3.48 76 n. 152
1.5–6 74, 75 Hypothetica Special Laws
Cherubim 7.15 78 n. 157 1.10 76 n. 152
77 75 7.17 78 n. 157 1.170 78, 79
87 75 Migration 2.39 78 n. 157
87–90 75 92 76 n. 152 2.40 78
Creation Moses 2.59 79 n. 160
1.89 79 n. 160 1.207 79 n. 160 2.64 79
Decalogue 2.210 79 n. 160 2.70 79 n. 160
96–101 76, 79 Names 2.84 78 n. 157
99–100 76 258–60 77 2.86 78 n. 157
100 71 n. 134, 76 n. 153 259–60 113 n. 26, 121 2.97 78 n. 157
159 77 Questions (on Exodus) 2.105 78 n. 157
Drunkenness 2.68 131 4.215 78 n. 157
1.52 78 n. 157 Virtues
1.97 78 n. 157
Rabbinic Sources
Mishnah Tamid Šabbat (cont.)
7:4 42 n. 56, 43 n. 58, 10:19 82 n. 167
Beṣah
44 n. 64, 80 n. 162, 12:8 81 n. 165
5:2 81 n. 164
83, 83 n. 170, 12:13 81 n. 165
Kerithot
99 n. 194 12:17 81 n. 164
3:10 81 n. 164
Yoma 13(14):10 82, 83
Menaḥot
8:6 81 n. 165, 117 n. 36 14:3 81 n. 165
11:3 81 n. 164
15:5 81 n. 165
Pesaḥim Tosefta 15:11–13 81 n. 165
6:1–2 81 n. 164
ʿErubin 15:15–17 81 n. 165
Šabbat
3:5 81 n. 165 17:19 81 n. 165
1:4–8 21 n. 51
7:1 81 n. 164 3:8 81 n. 165
The Targums
7:2 80, 81 n. 163, 81, Menaḥot
128 11:5 81 n. 164 Fragmentary Targum
12:1 81 Pesaḥim Exod 20:8 83 n. 170,
14:3 81 5:1 81 n. 164 84
16:6 82 n. 167 Šabbat Exod 20:11 83 n. 170,
18:3 81 1:3 82 n. 167 84
19:1–3 81 n. 165 1:23 81 n. 165 Targum Isaiah
22:6 81 n. 165 2:7 81 n. 165 65:18 84
Sanhedrin 2:16–21 82 n. 167
5:6 81 n. 164, 81 n. 165 Midrashim
7:4 82
7:8 82 8:3 81 n. 164 Genesis Rabbah
8:5 81 n. 164 7:5 31 n. 12, 86, 88
9:22 81, 81 n. 165, 82 10:9 31 n. 12, 87
Index of Nonbiblical Sources 163