Yeshua and His Sabbath Observance

YESHUAANTDHIS SABBATHOBSERVANCE

/^r entral to showing Yeshua's Torah-observant life is an understanding\-rof his observance of the Sabbath (see Exod. 20:8;23:12-13; Lev.23:3). Sabbath observance was considered a prime duty and crucialmitzvah in the Second Temple era. Whatever particular wing of |udaism aperson may have adhered to in this period, all Jewry looked upon thekeeping of the Sabbath as extremely important.

HowDidYeshua Keep the Sabbath?

The evidence from the New Covenant clearly indicates thatYeshua kept theSabbath (see Matt. 5zI7-20; Luke 4:16-22,3l).Therefore, the question tobe considered is not whether Yeshua kept the Sabbath, but rather, "In whatmanner did he keep it?" Our conclusions will uphold the main assertion ofthis book Yeshua lived an undeniably Torah-observant lifestyle.

How is it thatYeshua actuallykept the Sabbath if he received so muchopposition from religious teachers concerning his Sabbath observance?(Please refer to Luke 6: 1-l I ;lohn7:22-24; and John 9:16 for examples ofthis opposition.) Jewish sources differ as to if and how Yeshua trans-gressed themitzvah of Sabbath observance. However, most sources agreethat Yeshua had differences with various movements of the Israeli Jewishworld of his time.

Four well known scholars-Klausner, Montefiore, Abrahams, andCohen-have asserted that Yeshua violated the mitzvah of keeping theSabbath, while two other scholars-facobs and Schonfeld-asserted thathe did not breakany scriptural rftitzvot regarding the Sabbath. Still fourothers-Kohleg Flusser, Lapide, and Vermes-asserted that he did not

violate scriptural mitzvot, nor did he have any major differences withaccepted Pharisaic sabbath keeping.tlndeed, Kohler suggested that the

ryh-olelabbathcglf hgre_ga1lingYeshuacouldBETnderrto-rstoaf iligFiofthe arguments of Rabbl Ftillbl with Rabbi Shammai cpnqer-lrng tr;Mocoriectly ftrlfill the Sabbath mitzvot.

l0 Yeshua and the Torah

, a

Yeshua and His Sabbath Observance l1

interpretational differences among allies in the first century. In part, thisis because interpretational differences involved political differences.

In the above situation, the Second Temple had already fallen (70c.n.). The Israeli city of Yavneh had absorbed many refugee Pharisees.Various Pharisaic schools of thought were jockeying for the head posi-tion from which to lead the Jewish people through this difficult period ofRoman oppression. Whomever you followed in terms of Torah interpre-tation was the one whose movement you supported in terms of politicalpower. This was unavoidable. Certainly, there were genuine points of in-terpretational conflict. However, the motivation of the Yavneh rabbis wasto follow God and preserve the Jewish people.

Many other halakhic conflicts portrayed in the Thlmud, although toonumerous to mention, can be seen in this light.a Such doctrinal and po-litical differences were a definite part of Yeshua's arguments with somePharisees. We will see that the doctrinal and political differences, as inRabbi Thrfon's case, yery much influenced the severity of the conflict be-tween Yeshua and the authorities that argued with him. In fact, Safrai

S*{ :,":9:-'.Ij *?r=

J00, p"t.""t=

".g the Law.,,2 Vermes agreed

wi thh im: . . [Yeshua 's ]bas ica t t i@] . ' .a re thesameas those of the rabbis."3 I believe, following Flusser, Lapide, andvermes, thatYeshua did not break any scriptural mitzvot.on."rtti.rg the sabbath. Hisdifferences with various religious leaders, as outlined in the New covenanr.should be understood as typical of the world of first-century Iudaism.

dTemple scholars of ourtime.Shmuel Safrai, noted that e@co*-

Historical Background on Sabbath Observance

Many examples of this type of hal"khic conflict are to be found in therabbinic literature of the first centuryn.c.r.Ei?ntioned above, the reli-gious sghogls of Rabbi Hillel and Rabbi shammai-both well within thenr ;-- : --n-:r--%r-_.- .-- i - -_*rnansalc tradltlon-are said to have had over 300 points of contention

l-"Jy:. tf ly goncelriin"g hbw tb.fulfilt the To1ah. rn *h..,"orJl.gb"r;'qquj',Ta,tTi',iy:r:. Ill.:.1viLli eseh-e1hsre,Isgifi.

wrt!h-q:ach oJher over the most importaniii:

noted that in Second Temple times verbal CpgfUg.g-ong_rabtis was a.o*il-on, u.- hG *Tt

-putii.ulutl/ ir"e betwii" Curil.un

--?-_=#

sue in IilFto all of them-undirstanding ihe Torah. yeshua simply took

----=--t----fl

and Judean religious authorities. Safrai commeqted that Galilee, where

of Yeshua's arguments with the religious authorities in Judah were com-mon to the rivalrybetween Galilean and |udean religious teachers of thisera. In fact, both Safrai and Young feel that Yeshua's approach to the To-rah was close to that of the "Hasidic" movement of his day.6

Case in Point T}ae Shabbat

Let us examine the scriptural evidence of Yeshua's Sabbath observance(see Mat t . 12 :9 ; Mark l :21 ;6 :2 ; Luke 4 :16 , 3 l ;6 :6 ;13 :10 ; 14 : l ; John5:1-16; John 9). In all of these narratives Yeshua is either in synagogueon the Sabbath or is teaching on the Sabbath. Luke 4:16 and 4:31 indi-cate that it was Yeshua's custom to pray in synagogue on every Sabbath,observing this day according to local custom. Luke 4:16 says, "On

Shabbat he [Yeshua] went to the synagogue as usual." This shows uswhat he normally did on the Sabbath. Luke 4:31 confirms this:"IYeshua] made a practice of teaching themffffiiilFat."'

ffi i<amp l., oTie snit s' sh, aliba rib s ervan ce th athave been brought into question, both by his contemporaries as well asby many interpreters down through the centuries.

part in this struggle. often, these differences of opinion, as in yeshua'sc-ase, took on proportions of life and death. we have an example of thesedifferences in the Thlmud. Rabbi rhrfon was traveling and itopped topray, praying after the manner taught by Rabbi Shammii.

i-'l nuuul rarfon said, "I was travelling on the road and I reclined torecite the shema [a special prayerl,according to the ruling of BetShammai. Robbers came, endangering -. . . . [so I flej].,,Hiscolleagues told him, "You would have deserved what you wouldhave gotten [death] for not adhering to Bet Hillel's ruling [onhow to pray]." (Mishnah Berakhot I:3) :i

Those Pharisaic rabbis who adhered to Rabbi Hillel's teaching on?ray?r !1d no sympathy for Thrfon in his near escape from death ai thehand of bandits, since Thrfon prayed according to R;bbi shammai's cus-tom. This reaction to Thrfon's predicament illustrates the seriousness of

Yeshua was educa

12 Yeshua and the Torah

Healing and Handling the Sick

Mark mentions the timing of one of Yeshua's acts of healing: "That eveningafter sundown, they brought to Yeshua all who were ill or held in the powerof demons" (I:32). The verse emphasizes that Yeshua publicly healed dur-i n g w h a t i s t e r m e d n t u ' N s : h ( H e b r e w , m o t z a ' e f f i e

rtrudition. arogxd the Sabbath cont rffi ort o?ffiiffi ersons.Aftfri-ugh what customr *educated guess about the general sentiment of the time. Lachs, comment-ing upon this verse, noted, "The people waited until evening lmotza'eyShabbat) to carry out their sick to him [Yeshua], and thus avoiding des-ecrating the Shabbat by carrying them, an act which was forbidden."T

It is also true that at other times (and as a principle) Yeshua healedpeople on the Sabbath (see Mark l:29-3I). The issue was not whetherhealing could take place on the Sabbath (see |ohn 5:1-16; 9:13-14).In bothof these instances,s\g? lSgghllthat healing could takg plage_on the Sab-b.allr, according to the ruling oiBevr Hil/e/. The issue rusThEf,EEffildauthorize and allow the transportation of sick people on the Sabbath.8

Put differently, the issue is whether Yeshua had the authority to teachanything other than the accepted custom concerning the transportationof sick people on the Sabbath. To know the answer to this, the exact iden-tity of Yeshua's opposition in fohn 5 and John 9 is crucial. Although wedo not know who these people were, they undoubtedly held to the opin-ion of Beyt Shammai on this issue. Yeshua did not agree with them. (It ispossible that this opposition came from one or more of Shammai's sec-ond-generation yeshivas, which held much political power among thePharisees in these years.)

The Sabbath healing texts of the New Testament present a difficultproblem concerning understanding howYeshua observed the Sabbath. Yet,one thing is certain: Yeshua is recorded as having observed it, and he en-tered into many arguments on how to correctly keep it. As Parkes noted,"T.he. sphere. qf _disagreemenlgf$::pftf_rf tl: development ofIqlachah. ... It is not the observance ofThe-sabbath itself which is at issue."e

Halakhic Argumentation Regarding the Sabbath

Matthew l2:I-8 provides another example of how Yeshua kept the Sab-

!"j!. Il verse 2, Y3gbgglvgl3ggUpgt of teaching his students to break the

fabb_q$. He-sguffercdthe atctrsatio! *ith @g:nrnr:P ( Hebrew, kal vachomer) argument. r0 He then b4gk.d his answervrth two scriptural proots. By doinq this, he demonstrated that thewrth two scriptural proofs. Bv doins this

Yeshua and His Sabbath Observance 13

order of priorities on the Sabbath. Perhaps what infuriated Yeshua's op-ponents, more than his actual halakhic argumentation, was the claim hemade in verse 6, "I tell you, there is in this place something greater thanthe Temple."

This point was central to Yeshua's argument. These particular Phari-sees probably perceived it as an outrageous, almost ridiculous comment,but it changed the essence of the argument from howto keep the Sabbathto Yeshua's true identity. The point to be made is that Yeshua argued forthe setting of proper priorities on the Sabbath. His argumentation ishalakhic and normal for first-century Judaism. A few years before Yeshuawas an adult, Rabbis Hillel and Shammai argued fervently with eachother for their understanding of the Torah, yet few would question theirloyalty to it. Their students also argued against each other regarding theirdistinct interpretations of the Torah, yet no responsible scholar couldquestion their loyalty to keeping it. Flere is an example of this type ofhalakhic argumentation.

Olives and grapes that have turned hard, the school of Shammaideclare susceptible to uncleanness, but the school of Hillel de-clare them insusceptible. The school of Shammai declare blackcummin insusceptible to uncleanness, and the school of Hilleldeclare it susceptible. So, too, do they differ concerning whetherit is liable to tithes. (Danby edition, Mishnah Uktzin 2:S)

On the issue of ritual uncleanness, Beyt Hillel andBeyt Shammai dif-fered regarding the categorizing of olives, grapes, and black cummin, aswell as what items were liable for tithing. More eWShammai arsumentations are foundjn the Talmud. ln fact, this passionate

halakhic argumentation did, on occasion, lead to bhanges of opinton re-garding how to fulfiIIthe Torah. Such argumentation was valuable in for-mulating halakhah. Here is an example of such a change of opinion.

If a woman returned from beyond the sea [abroad] and said,"My husband is dead," she may marry again; and if she said'"My husband died childless," she may contract levirate mar-riage. So [teaches] the school of Shammai. And the school ofHillel say: we have heard no such tradition save of a womanthat returned from the harvest. The school of Shammai an-swered: It is all one (the same set of circumstances)' whethershe returned from the harvest or from the olive-picking orfrom beyond the sea . . . the school of Hillel ghangg[!9i1opin-ion and tairght u..o. (Da-nby

customs and avottt that hii accusers accepted had corrupted the correct I t lon, l : l2a)


In the above incident, the argumentation betwe enthe yeshivas of Hilleland Shammailedto Beyt Hillel changing its opinion, and changing the waythey would fulfill this aspect of halakhah. After Beyt Shammai's representa-tives argued their case to Beyt Hillel's representatives, both Pharisaicschools accepted the opinion that a woman could remarry upon her owntestimony, either freely or according to the Deuteronomy 25:5 leviratemarriage law. The halakhic argumentation that took place served to pro-vide a way for the two schools to get their teachings and reasoning heard.Their goal was to influence the developinghalakhah. In all of this halakhicdisputation, the main motivation was the desire to fulfill the Torah.

Similarly, in Matthew 12, Yeshua was arguing for the correct manner inwhich to keep the Sabbath. It is not reasonable to think that he intended, inany way, to break the Sabbath-because then he would have had to breakthe Torah. The type of argumentation found in Matthew l2 demonstratesthe way in which the Jewish world of the first century taught the propermethod of understanding and fulfilling the Torah. Clearly, Yeshua was do-ing just that, arguing fervently about how to fulfill the Torah and how tocorrectly understand the Torah's requirements and priorities.

Plucking Grain

A few matters remain to be discussed concerning this issue. Regardingthe incident just cited, Rabbi Safrai noted, "Yeshua entered into ahalakhic argument and gave his reasoning. He did not break the Sab-bath."r2 Rabbi Safrai also observed that Yeshua and his students did not, . : : .@n. He reasoned that no group of people would en-ter into or trample upon an uncut field of grain, as it was not legal to do-so. However, Safrai noted. thut .cppllatere alreadlgl. Then, all who desire to do so, can enter, pick upgrain lying on the ground, husk it in their hands, and eat. In fact, theTorah allows such a practice.

Now when you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reapto the very corners ofyour field, nor shall you gather the glean-ings of your harvest. Nor shall you glean your vineyard, nor shallyou gather the fallen fruit of your vineyard; you shall leave themfor the needy and for the stranger. I am the Lord your God. (Lev.19:9-10 Nesn)

Rabbi Safrai understood thatYeshua's students, instead of plucking thegrain, picked up already cut grain off the ground. The Complete JewishBible correctly states, "Tbgy began picking heads of graiif,i?flatrS?Fm"

Yeshua and His Sabbath Observance l5

was probably on the ground) is what Safrai understood to be happening in

the text.r3Interestingly, the Talmud records a situation where we can see the

different positions Jews held concerning this halakhic issue.

The men of Jericho did six things: for three they were reproved,and for three, they were not reproved. . . . [The sages did not re-prove them when] they reaped and stacked [ripe barley] beforethe Omer. [The sages did reprove them when] they ate fromfallen fruit on the Sabbath. (Pesachim 4:8)

Here, we can see the difference in the interpretation of proper

halakhahbetween the Jews of Iericho and the stricter rabbis. The Jews of

Iericho did not see any halakhic fault with eating fallen fruit on the Sab-bath, yet the rabbis did. Here, the differences in halakhic interpretationare regional. Jericho, in the Jordan Valley, depended upon fruit for suste-nance and economic life. Pesachim 4:8 probably refers to incidents

around the time of Passover. Therefore, the issue being brought up is

similar to the one in Matthew 12,JWhat was permitted halakhically regarding eating produce on the

Sabbath? It is important for us to see that this kind of argumentation andregional understanding was standard for that day and age. First, who

were these particular Pharisees that were out on this Sabbath, observingYeshua and his students in the Matthew 12 text? Were they sent from

Jerusalem to spy out the actions of the Galilean rabbi? Were they' per-

haps, young, zealous yeshiva students eager to engage Yeshua in debate?

Were they sent to find promising Galilean students to become their dis-

ciples and party members? Were they teachers and rabbis passing

through the region, en route from teaching in one synagogue to the next?

Or, were they strict adherents to the teachings of Beyt Shammai?If we knew their identity, we could better understand the nature of

their charges against Yeshua. My guess is that they were zealous young

Pharisee party members from one of the ferusalem academies, sent to as-sess the ritual state of Galilean fews and to find promising candidates for

instruction back in ]erusalem. Even if they were Pharisees who lived in

the Galilee, this incident is very believable. Among Galilean sages them-selves, there was an argument as to what was permitted regarding the

husking, then eating, of grain on the Sabbath.'a

Made for Man

Yeshua made another point that could easily have been understood as con-

troversial, but would hardly have been grounds on which to establish a

charge of Sabbath breaking. In Matthew l2:8,Yeshua asserted that human

(

(Matt. 12:1). Picking heads of graffoFtE@fnd, or


beings have authority over the Sabbath. In addition, he inferred that he, asMessiah, had the right to teach the true means of keeping the Sabbathand define its priorities. Yeshua pointed out that mankind, collectively, isking over the Sabbath, and that this order should not be reversed. There-fore, the Sabbath should serve man. Man should not be enslaved by at-tempting to live according to various opinions concerning correctSabbath observance.

In Mark's version of this incident, Yeshua stated the same point:"Then he said to them,'Shabbatwas made for mankind, not mankind forShabb at. So the Son of Man is Lord even of Shabb at"' (2:27 -2 8 ). Verse 28expands upon the principle stated in verse 27. I understand Yeshua to besaying that collectively, men rule over the Sabbath. Yeshua, as a special"Son of Man" (in Second Temple language, "son of man" denoted anapocalyptic figure, or the Messiah), had authority from God to teach theJewish people about correct Sabbath priorities. This incident demon-strates that Yeshua honored the Sabbath by defending it-by arguing forits true meaning. He stood up for what he considered proper priority set-ting for Sabbath observance.

Yeshua's understanding of man's relationship to the Sabbath wasconsistent with that of many rabbis of his time. As Vermes wrote, " [Theidea that] the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath, is alsofirmly rooted in rabbinic thought. . . . Sabbath observance in the secondcentury, and probably also in the first, was subservient to the essentialwell-being of a |ew."'s

A merciful, grace-full keeping of the Sabbath with proper scripturalpriorities was not a new concept introduced by Yeshua. This was God'soriginal intention in giving the Sabbath to the Jewish people. Yeshua,however, heard, saw, and experienced wrong teaching as to how to keep

Shabbak To Do Good

Matthew 12:9-15 is another passage of Scripture where we can seeYeshua's attitude toward keeping the Sabbath. Here, he was accused ofviolating some unidentified group's customs of healing on the Sabbath.Again, with a rabbinic kal vachomer argument,16 he debated his accusers,giving them the correct understanding of Sabbath priorities. Verse 12


stands out as his "umbrella" teaching here: "Therefore, what is permittedon Shabbat is to do good."

A few observations may help us to see why the Pharisees wanted to"do away" with Yeshua (see v. 14). First, the accusers wanted to frameYeshua for some type of serious Torah violation (see v. 10b for insightinto their aim). Their question regarding healing may have been a lead-in, or trap, to get Yeshua to debate them. It may also have been designedto force Yeshua into contradicting their understanding of permissibleSabbath healings. Whatever their motive, we should read this situation asa confrontation between Yeshua and these particular Pharisees. ThesePharisees did not represent the viewpoint of all Israel. Verse 15 showsthat Yeshua was popular with the common people, while he threatenedthe popularity, mission, and authority of these particular Pharisees. Asmuch as he was a threat to their perception of proper Iewish Sabbathpractice, he was an even greater political threat. This aspect of the con-frontation should not be underestimated, especially as it relates to therole it played in Yeshua's eventual death. Yeshua made enemies in highplaces, as evidenced by this particular group of Pharisees.

In Mark's version of this incident (3:1-6), allies of King HerodAntipas (son of Herod the First) joined with these angered Pharisees (seeLuke 6:11) to form a plot to killYeshua. Antipas ruled over a smaller areathan his father did. Likewise, Mark 3:6 emphasizes the political aspect ofthe conflict at hand. This conflict had more to do with the struggle be-tween these Pharisees and Yeshua's perceived influence and role than itdid with the question of how the Sabbath was to be observed. Yeshua andKing Herod Antipas were at odds regarding their basic concepts of life. InLuke I 3 : 3 2, Yeshua called Antipas a fox. In rabbinic literatq{gra foIj"pt.-,-./-_:=.:.*-:---;--- ,-.9"tr_q qp.ljfqd gl buffoors4q.llrin,kqll. hi.t great power (but.in lgglityh;li-m"y). Antipas would have takin Yeshua's comment, rn slife ofiti-ffi_thllG'curious and hard insult. In this same verse, Yeshui toldAntipas what real power was: the ability to defeat death and rise again onthe third day. For Antipas, power lay in his ability to please the Romansuperpower and to spy on his people, controlling them by forcefulmeans. This gives us some insight into a powerful enemy that Yeshuamade, and why Antipas did not help Yeshua as he was facing death byRoman hands. In Luke 23:Ll-I2,we see that Antipas used Yeshua's deathas a means to befriend the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate. Yeshua was apolitical steppingstone for Antipas. Luke states that Antipas treatedYeshua with contempt (see v. 1l). In standing up for the Torah, Yeshuamade an enemy of the Herodian king, much as his cousin John had donebefore him.

the Sabbath. The Gospel narratives show us that YBshu4 as the Messiahof Israel. passionatelv tausht about correct Sabbatfr-ftEffiffiTE6f6b-

is of his one tifference is that Yeshua

I


Unloosing Oxen

Luke 13:10-17 is another Sabbath healing narrative. Here,Yeshua healeda handicapped woman, and was opposed by the chief synagogue official.

But the preside$_-of tb:-seggogqe, indignant that Yeshua hadhealed on the Shabbat, spoke up and said to the congregation,'lTher-e gt€ 9-i4*dgllrn the week for working; so come duringthose dayi'to ue rreat@l

This official understood that one could only receive healing on aweekdav (Hebrew, )tn Et', yoru hol). On the Sabbath, healing was forbid-

r o eSb U at n]h.e m e m b er t hat-R;55iStr?T;nai-fo u n d e d o n e o f t h e Pi a r i s a i c

E6ooti of thought in ferusalem, a generation or so before Yeshua. Here,Yeshua was teaching again on the proper priorities during the Sabbath.Probably, Yeshua is opposing the Shammaite school's understanding ofthe Sabbath. Commenting on Yeshua's healines on the Sabbath, Rabbis"rr"i rt"t"a, "lherewas ;'r affiafrililg-

that perhaps the head synagogue official was not as learned in theSabbath halakhah as was Yeshua. Safrai observed that only if Yeshua hadmade medicine on the Sabbath would healing have been forbidden.Yeshua, however, made no medicine on the Sabbath. Again, let us noteYeshua's presence in the synagogue on the Sabbath, worshipping with lo-cal fews according to local custom.

Verses 15-16 portray Yeshua's teaching on proper Sabbath obser-vance. On this occasion, he again used the rabbinic kal vachomer style ofargumentation in stating:

"You hypocrites! Each one of you on Shabbat-don't you un-loose your ox or your donkey from the stall and lead him off todrink? This woman is a daughter of Avraham, and the Adversarykept her tied up for eighteen years. Shouldn't she be freed fromthis bondage on Shabbat?"

The reaction of the ]ewish worshippers was one of joy and delight atthe Sabbath healings of Yeshua. "But the rest of the crowd were happyabout all the wonderful things that were taking place through him[Yeshua]" (v. 17). The common Jewish citizens embraced Yeshua's ac-tions and teachings. This should not surprise us. The people wanted to bemet by a God of grace and mercy on the Sabbath. This is precisely whatthey encountered in Yeshua.

My conclusion from this section of Luke is that Yeshua did end uparguing with some authorities that were in the synagogue. He was found


keeping the Sabbath, however, and his arguments concerned how toproperly keep the Sabbath, not z/the Sabbath should be kept. His teach-ing was that of a concerned, compassionate rabbi. Yeshua did indeedtransgress the synagogue ruler's understanding of what it meant to ob-serve the Sabbath. However, this was a typical rabbinical halakhic argu-rnent, which occurred all the time in Israel. The argument should notaffect our view of Yeshua's zealousness to observe the Sabbath. Yeshuacontested the synagogue ruler's interpretation of how to observe the Sab-bath, a ruler most likely from the school of thought founded by RabbiShammai.

In John 5:1-16, Yeshua healed a crippled man on the Sabbath. Thisoccurred at the Beyt Zata pool by the Sheep Gate in Jerusalem. Therewas a particularly negative reaction to this Sabbath healing by an uni-dentified group of Judean religious authorities (see w. 10, 16). Prob-lems have arisen from oversimplif ing this text, and it is wronglybelieved that this opposition was on behalf of the entire Jewish people.This recorded opposition was from a particular group of religious lead-ers. Possibilities as to their identification include a specific wing of pro-Shammai Pharisees, or certain Sadducean priests, or a mixture of both.The early portion of this text indicates that the point of contention wasnot necessarily that Yeshua healed on the Sabbath. The problem wasthat because of his healing, the once crippled man broke some group'sunderstanding of the avotlg of the Sabbath by carrying his rug or mat-tress. As Fischer noted, "Because He [Yeshua] might depart from someof the competing or varying traditions they departed from God's pur-pose in the Law."re

Safrai observed that even here,Yeshua broke none ofthe written To-rah. In a closed place such as this particular site, one could pick up a mat-tress and walk without actually transgressing the Torah. Not everyonewould do so, but it was not a transgression of the Torah.20 Vermes said, "Insum, whether in the domain of the Sabbath laws or in that of dietary regu-lations, it cannot be maintained that fesus opposed their observance."2l

Yeshua, then, was fiercely battling here for the correct observanceof the Sabbath. It is in this light that we must see all of his arguing re-garding the Sabbath.

In conclusion, the evidence shows that Yeshua fervently contendedfbr the Sabbath to be observed correctly. In his teaching and practice ofthe Sabbath, he strove for an understanding of the correct priorities. Heobserved the Sabbath with the same desire to fulfill this mitzvah as anyreligious leader of his time. In short, Yeshua's attitude toward keeping theSabbath reflects his attitude toward the Torah-one of respect and rever-cnce with a passion to fulfill it. This is entirely consistent with what hetaught in Matthew 5:I7-I8,to which I refer the reader.I

I

Yeshua and His Sabbath Observance

Documents

Transcript of Yeshua and His Sabbath Observance