John 5, verse 10, 11, and 12

So the Jews said to the man who had been healed, “It is the Sabbath, and it is not lawful for you to take up your bed.”

The man was carrying his bed while he walked, as Jesus had commanded. But now he’s being reminded that what he is doing is unlawful. Was it unlawful? Most modern commentary suggest the allegation is rooted in an early rabbinic tradition which was adding to the law of God.

In Sproul’s book on John (and in his sermons, which are identical in content to the book), he says:

Now, I ask you where in the Word of God does it say it is unlawful for a person who has been healed of paralysis to carry his bed? You know the answer to that question: nowhere. But the rabbis, in their historical interpretation of the law, had enumerated thirty-nine specific types of work that were illegal on the Sabbath (lay, and the thirty-ninth rule of Sabbath observance the very last one in the list was the prohibition against carrying something from one place to another. As a result of that human rule, the Jews reacted very negatively when they saw this man a man who had been lying paralyzed for thirty-eight years walking and carrying his bed.

It’s true the rabbis enumerated 39 prohibitions in the Babylonian Talmud, but that was written long after the time of Jesus. Despite being much later, the traditions are said to have originated during the time of Jesus.

Is the literature that Jesus was familiar with in his early years yet in existence in the world? Is it possible for us to get at it? Can we ourselves review the ideas, the statements, the modes of reasoning and thinking, on moral and religious subjects, which were current in his time, and must have been [resolved] by him during those silent thirty years when he was pondering his future mission? To such inquiries the learned class of Jewish rabbis answer by holding up the Talmud. Here, say they, is the source from whence Jesus of Nazareth drew the teaching which enabled him to revolutionize the world; and the question becomes, therefore, an interesting one to every Christian, What is the Talmud?

The Talmud, then, is the written form of that which, in the time of Jesus, was called the Traditions of the Elders, and to which he makes frequent allusions. – Rabbi Michael L. Rodkinson

And also from a Jewish Encyclopedia:

The Jewish religion as it is today traces its descent, without a break, through all the centuries, from the Pharisees.

Their leading ideas and methods found expression in a literature of enormous extent, of which a very great deal is still in existence. The Talmud is the largest and most important single member of that literature, and round it are gathered a number of Midrashim, partly legal (Halachic) and partly works of edification (Haggadic). This literature, in its oldest elements, goes back to a time before the beginning of the Common Era, and comes down into the Middle Ages. Through it all run the lines of thought which were first drawn by the Pharisees, and the study of it is essential for any real understanding of Pharisaism.

The 39th rule relates to carrying things, or transference from one domain to another. Presumably then that rule originates here during the time of Pharisees here in John 5.

Calvin understands the nature of the conflict and believes God’s law expressly forbids carrying burdens on the sabbath.

And it was the Sabbath. Christ was well aware how great offense would immediately arise, when they saw a man walk along laden with burdens; for the Law expressly forbids

to carry any burden whatever on the Sabbath-day, (Jeremiah 17:21.)

Jeremiah 17:21 reads:

Thus says the LORD: Take care for the sake of your lives, and do not bear a burden on the Sabbath day or bring it in by the gates of Jerusalem.

The Jews were right to interpret Jeremiah 17 as relevant for proper Sabbath observance, but what they were not considering were acts of mercy done on the Sabbath. At least, they weren’t being consistent in their consideration. In Matthew 12, Jesus reminds them of this inconsistency (verses 11 and 12):

He said to them, “If any of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will you not take hold of it and lift it out? How much more valuable is a person than a sheep! Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.”

It seems the religious leaders have missed the intent of the Sabbath. In verse 7 of the same chapter, Jesus had said (quoting Hosea 6.6):

If you had known what these words mean, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the innocent.

Acts of mercy were not a violation of sabbath ordinances. And the Jews knew that to some degree because, as Jesus pointed out, they engaged in acts of mercy on the sabbath when emergencies occurred (like an animal falling into a pit). They just weren’t consistent.

So in this man’s situation. Had he just been carrying his mat on the sabbath with no other reason than to transport it from one location to another, then it seems he would be in violation of the sabbath. But he had been healed on the sabbath. And this was an obvious act of mercy.

The context does not make it clear that the “Jews” (whomever that’s referring to, presumably Jewish leaders), knew that this man had been healed from his disability on the sabbath. If that was the case, then their accusation seems warranted. So the healed man explains to them:

But he answered them, “The man who healed me, that man said to me, ‘Take up your bed, and walk.’”

The man reveals to them that he had been healed. His defense is an appeal to the person that healed him. The person that had healed him told him to do these things.

Some commentators see this as similar to Adam’s defense in Genesis 3:

The man said, “The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate.”

Adam had violated God’s command and then blamed God for the conditions in which that violation took place. But that’s not what is happening here. This man had not sinned. On the contrary, he had obeyed Jesus’ command by carrying his mat and walking. His appeal to the man that healed him was an appeal to that man’s authority. He just didn’t know that man’s name:

They asked him, “Who is the man who said to you, ‘Take up your bed and walk’?”

I think the question is telling. They didn’t ask, Who is the man who healed you?, rather, they’re focused on the take up your bed and walk part as though there not even prepared to consider that acts of mercy are exceptions to sabbath prohibitions. They seem to have tunnel vision.

This is all the more indicting given they are standing in front of a pool called Bethesda. Which means House of Mercy.

Calvin has insightful commentary regarding the rashness of the Jews judgement:

It is the Sabbath. It was the duty of all to maintain the sanctity of the Sabbath, and, therefore, they justly and properly accuse the man. But, when the excuse offered by the man does not satisfy them, they already begin to be in fault; for, when the reason was known, he ought to have been acquitted. It was a violation of the Sabbath, as we have said, to carry a burden; but Christ, who laid the burden on his shoulders, discharges him by his own authority. We are therefore taught by this example to avoid every rash judgment, until the reason of each action be fully known.

This entry was posted in studies. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *