Why Jesus Could Break the Sabbath Law and Still Remain Sinless

 People are usually upset when I point out to them that Jesus broke the Sabbath. We know this because He actually says it, but most people miss it because He says via implication. For instance, In John 5:16-18, the text says the following.

And this was why the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because he was doing these things on the Sabbath. But Jesus answered them, “My Father is working until now, and I am working.” This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God. 

Jesus says that by healing on the Sabbath, the Pharisees are right. He was working. This undermines any attempt from some people to argue that healing on the Sabbath isn't working. Jesus Himself confirms that it is. 

Furthermore, John confirms that the Jews wanted to kill him because he was breaking the Sabbath, confirming that Jesus' working on the Sabbath was actually breaking the Sabbath law. Many attempt to try and argue that John is only saying that the Pharisees thought Jesus was breaking the Sabbath law when he really wasn't, but this is negated by (1) Jesus just said He, in fact, was working on the Sabbath day which is to break it, and (2) the text doesn't say "they thought" He was breaking the Sabbath, but rather that He was actually breaking it.

In Matthew 12:1-8, the Pharisees accuse the disciples of breaking the Sabbath by harvesting food on it, which in fact is a violation of the Sabbath.

At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck heads of grain and to eat. 2 But when the Pharisees saw it, they said to him, “Look, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath.” 3 He said to them, “Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, and those who were with him: 4 how he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him to eat nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests? 5 Or have you not read in the Law how on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath and are guiltless? 6 I tell you, something greater than the temple is here. 7 And if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless. 8 For the Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath.” 

Jesus' response is not that the disciples technically weren't breaking the Sabbath, as many try to argue. Instead, his argument has three supporting points to it: (1) That there are examples in the OT of people breaking ritual law for moral reasons and are therefore guiltless, and (2) What God actually desires is for His people to show their devotion to Him by their love toward others and not rituals, and (3) He is actually the Lord of the Sabbath and therefore can choose to observe or dismiss it.

1. The first example He cites is that of David and his men going in and eating the showbread which Christ reminds us "was not lawful for them to eat." In other words, they broke the ritual law. The second example is that of the priests who work on every Sabbath day, which Christ says "profanes" the Sabbath. In each case, these people are considered innocent to God. 

2. The reason why they can be still considered innocent to God when breaking a ritual command is because there is nothing inherently evil in breaking a ritual command nor inherently good in observing it. God could have made the Sabbath Tuesday or made no Sabbath at all. There is no inherent goodness to it. It's a picture of a theology and ethic, not the theology and ethic themselves. Hence, it can be broken without transgressing the inherent character of God's goodness. In other words, it isn't really moral. It's just moral to obey God. If God expresses that He wants it set aside in view of an actual moral principle, that moral principle takes precedent. That is also why one ritual command (e.g., baking showbread on the Sabbath and setting it out) can override another (e.g., observing the Sabbath).

3. As noted in Point 2 above, God can give commands and express what is most important so that His people set aside the ritual commands in order to obey God's ultimate desires in that moment. Hence, since Jesus is the Lord, He has declared His disciples innocent in breaking the Sabbath because they were hungry, He had them out and about, and He judges the matter to be a case of the preservation of life in a context of obedience that overrides the need to obey a ritual law.

Hence, in Mark 3:4, this story is followed by Jesus healing on the Sabbath and Christ responds to their condemnation of Him by showing that the creational principle to preserve innocent life, which is the entire thrust of the law, is good to do on the Sabbath. He states:

“Is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good or to do harm, to save life or to kill?”

In other words, the moral principle can override the Sabbath law to do no work because the Sabbath law is not a moral law within itself.

This is why the new covenant is one of the moral law, not the ritual law. The pictures of the ritual law, in fact, are what is considered the old covenant. No longer will God make His people commit themselves to Him through the pictures, especially since Israel became confused with these and ended up just observing the pictures at the expense of the moral laws they represented. Instead, He would write the moral law on the minds rather than externally on tablets. 

This is why Paul says that he is not under the law anymore and when among Gentiles he does not practice the law (1 Cor 9:20), but v. 21 makes it clear that he is talking not about moral law, which he refers to as the law of Christ, i.e., the new covenant, but rather the ritual law. This could not be said if the ritual law were as binding as the moral law.

Likewise, in his statement to Peter in Galatians 2:14, "“If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?” Obviously, in the context, he says this to Peter because Peter is not observing the ritual law unless he is around Jews.

When speaking of the change in the priesthood, the author of Hebrews writes, For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well" (7:12). The new covenant does not have the same ritual laws that the old covenant has. 

Hence, Paul can argue against Jewish mystics who are demanding the ritual law be observed, "Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ. (Col 2:16-17). 

And

One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind. Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord. Whoever eats meat does so to the Lord, for they give thanks to God; and whoever abstains does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. For none of us lives for ourselves alone, and none of us dies for ourselves alone. If we live, we live for the Lord; and if we die, we die for the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord. For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living. You, then, why do you judge your brother or sister? Or why do you treat them with contempt? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat. (Rom 14:5-10).

Instead, Jesus breaks the Sabbath by working on it. His disciples break the Sabbath by working on it. The priests break the Sabbath by working on it. Yet, they are all innocent because they broke no moral law by doing so.