Living in the Image of God M03S05
There should be no law, custom, or regulation against providing goods or service to alleviate the need in a call to compassion. Whereas the procurement of goods or service could be subject to laws, customs, and regulations; there should be no hindrance by any authority against providing procured goods or service in an act of compassion, such as humanitarian assistance to refugees. We draw parallels from Christ response to Pharisee challenge regarding compassion on the Sabbath.
We discuss Christ response to two challenges by the Pharisees regarding compassion on the Sabbath: to understand that there should be no law, custom, or regulation against providing goods or service to alleviate the need of others. Although the procurement of goods or service in a call to compassion could in general be subject to laws, customs, and regulations; providing the procured goods or service to alleviate the need, such as in humanitarian assistance to refugees, should not be hindered by any law, custom, or regulation.
We draw parallels based on Christ response to challenges by the Pharisees regarding acts of compassion on the Sabbath. One challenge was about the disciples picking and eating grains from a grainfield on the Sabbath. The other challenge was about Christ healing a man with shriveled hand on the Sabbath.
Jesus responded to the first challenge by referring the Pharisees to an interaction between David and the priest of Nob (1 Samuel 21:3–6), whereby the priest provided leftover consecrated bread to David and his men. He authorized them to eat the bread, having determined that he could give the bread to them without violating the religious custom regarding consumption of such bread. Similarly, Jesus, as the Lord of the Sabbath (Mark 2:27–28), authorized his disciples to pick and eat grains as they passed through a grainfield on the Sabbath, knowing that their action does not violate the spirit of the Sabbath law. The law calls for the seventh day of the week to be reserved as a day of rest so that the people and beasts of burden that provide household labor could rest and be refreshed for the next days of work (Exodus 23:12). Therefore, because the disciples were not at work in the grainfield but only picked grains as they passed through, they did not violate the spirit of the law.
He responded to the second challenge by explaining that an act of compassion, such as healing, has higher priority than observing the Sabbath; thus, does not violate the Sabbath law.
We discuss the challenges and Christ response. Additionally, we discuss the Sabbath law and David’s interaction with the priest of Nob, to understand the challenges and response.
Pharisees Accuse the Disciples
The first Pharisee challenge occurred while Jesus and his disciples passed through a grainfield on the Sabbath. The disciples were hungry and picked grains with their hands and ate as they passed through the grainfield. Picking grains with bare hands in another person’s grainfield was permitted under Jewish law: “If you enter your neighbor’s grainfield, you may pick kernels with your hands, but you must not put a sickle to their standing grain” [Deuteronomy 23:25]. Therefore, the disciples did not violate any law by picking grains from the field and the Pharisees did not accuse them of such violation.
However, the Pharisees accused that picking grains on the Sabbath was a violation of the Sabbath law [Mathew 12:2]: “When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, ‘Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath.’”
Jesus Responds to Pharisees
In response to the Pharisees, Jesus referred to an interaction between David and Ahimelek, the priest of Nob: [Matthew 12:3–4] “He answered, ‘Haven’t you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread—which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests.’”
The events occurred during David’s final escape from Saul’s service. He met with Ahimelek, the Priest of Nob and requested food from Ahimelek to take with him on an undisclosed mission. Ahimelek offered to David the leftover consecrated bread: “But the priest answered David, ‘I don’t have any ordinary bread on hand; however, there is some consecrated bread here—provided the men have kept themselves from women’” [1 Samuel 21:4].
Although leftover consecrated bread belongs to the priests (Leviticus 24:8–9), Ahimelek provided the bread to David, having determined that he could give the bread without violating the religious custom regarding consumption of such bread. He had authority to administer the affairs of the house of God and extended to David and his men the right to eat the leftover consecrated bread provided they met conditions he stipulated. Similarly, Jesus, as the Lord of the Sabbath (Mark 2:27–28), authorized his disciples to pick and eat grains as they passed through the grainfield, knowing that their action does not violate the spirit of the Sabbath law.
The purpose of the Sabbath law (the 4th Commandment—Exodus 20:8–11) was to set aside a day of rest so that the people and beasts of burden that provide household labor could rest and be refreshed for the next days of work: “Six days do your work, but on the seventh day do not work, so that your ox and your donkey may rest, and so that the slave born in your household and the foreigner living among you may be refreshed” [Exodus 23:12]. Therefore, because the disciples were not actually at work in the grainfield but only picked and ate grains to assuage their hunger as they passed through, their action was not a violation of the Sabbath.
Healing on the Sabbath
The second challenge by the Pharisees was about Christ healing on the Sabbath. After Jesus encountered a man with shriveled hand in the synagogue on the Sabbath, the Pharisees tried to preempt his interaction with the man by asking if it was lawful to heal on the Sabbath [Matthew 12:11]: “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?’”
His response conveys a message that providing compassionate care on the Sabbath does not violate the Sabbath law. If a person recognizes a need and is motivated by care of the needy to do something to alleviate the need, he or she would not be in violation of the Sabbath law if the interaction occurred on the Sabbath. Therefore, he added, “it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath” [Matthew 12:12]. There should be no law or any action of authority to hinder a person from providing goods or service to alleviate the need of others.
He healed the man with shriveled hands and set him free, there in the synagogue on the Sabbath.
Compassion and Laws
Human responsibility in a call to compassion could involve the procurement of goods or service and providing the procured goods or service to alleviate the need. Generally, procurement of goods or service could be subject to laws, customs, and regulations. For example, a person that wants to raise money or goods or service for charity or any purpose must obey the applicable laws, customs, and regulations. In contrast, providing the procured goods or service to alleviate the need is an act of compassion and should not be prevented by any law, custom, or regulation. For example, there should be no law or any action by the authority to prevent a person from providing food to refugees. That is, no law, custom, or regulation against humanitarian assistance.
Summary of What We Learned
There should be no law, custom, or regulation against providing goods or service to alleviate the need in a call to compassion.
Whereas the procurement of goods or service could be subject to laws, customs, and regulations; there should be no hindrance by any authority against providing procured goods or service in an act of compassion, such as humanitarian assistance to refugees.
We draw parallels from Christ response to Pharisee challenge regarding compassion on the Sabbath.