§13 More Controversy with the Pharisees (Luke 6:1–11)
Jesus implied in the previous section (5:27–39) that his authority superseded the rules of ritual purity. Jesus demonstrates in this section that he has authority over the Sabbath. This is seen in the first episode where Jesus’ disciples picked and ate grain on the Sabbath (6:1–2), an action that Jesus defended against the charge that such activity amounted to “work” on the Sabbath (6:3–5). It reappears in the second episode when Jesus heals the man wit the withered (or paralyzed) hand and is accused of breaking the Sabbath (6:6–11).
6:1–5 / When one Sabbath Jesus and his disciples walked through the grainfields and began to pick some heads of grain, rubbing them in their hands and eating the kernels, they were doing what was permitted in the law of Moses (see Deut. 23:25 and note below). The issue, however, was whether or not they were actually doing what could be called “working” (i.e., the rubbing of the heads of grain) on the Sabbath. If they were, then they were violating the commandment forbidding work on the Sabbath (see Exod. 20:8–11; 23:12; Deut. 5:12–15). The Pharisaic understanding of what constituted work, however, was quite narrow. Consequently, in their eyes Jesus and his disciples were doing what is unlawful on the sabbath (v. 2; see note below).
Jesus, however, does not dispute about whether or not the rubbing of the heads of grain should be considered work. Rather, he cites the example of David who had entered the house of God and had eaten the consecrated bread, bread which is lawful only for priests to eat (see note below). Jesus argues that if it was lawful for David and his men to eat consecrated bread (and the rabbis agreed that David’s action was justified in this case), then why would it not be lawful for Jesus (the “Son of David”; see Luke 18:38, 39; 20:41, 44) and his disciples to glean from the fields for some food? Jesus is implying that just as David was going about the task of establishing a new reign in Israel, so now Jesus is going about a similar task. Just as David’s special circumstances made it permissible to eat the consecrated bread, so the present circumstances made it permissible for Jesus and his disciples to “harvest” some food for themselves. Jesus’ authority, however, is even greater than was David’s, for as the Son of Man he is Lord of the Sabbath (v. 5). Nevertheless, the next scene shows that the Lordship of Jesus will not be accepted by the Pharisees and their allies.
6:6–11 / In the episode of the healing of the man whose right hand was shriveled (lit. “withered” or “dried up”) conflict over the question of the Sabbath seemed planned on both sides. Since it was the Sabbath the Pharisees and the teachers of the law were watching Jesus closely to see if he would heal on the Sabbath (v. 7). If he did, they would then have grounds for accusing him. Jesus knew that he was being watched. He was in a synagogue, after all, and it was the Sabbath. Jesus just as easily could have made an appointment with the man for Sunday or Monday. But Jesus wanted to take the opportunity to make a point. His question cuts to the very heart of the issue: “I ask you, which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to destroy it?” (v. 9). Since the Pharisaic tradition allowed for deeds of mercy to be performed on the Sabbath (e.g., see m. Yoma 8.6 and b. Shabbath 132a), especially in life and death matters, Jesus’ questions have backed his opponents into a corner. Later in Luke’s Gospel, Jesus will accuse the Pharisees of being hypocrites for showing more concern for the well-being of an ox than a person on the Sabbath (see Luke 13:15; 14:5). Jesus then heals the man; but instead of praising God, as others had when Jesus had performed a healing or exorcism (see 5:26), the Pharisees were furious and began to discuss with one another what they might do with Jesus (see note below). The murmurs of “Blasphemy!” (5:21) and the questions about the company he kept had now given way to the beginning of a conspiracy to do away with Jesus (see note below).
6:1 / According to Deut. 23:25 grain could be picked from a neighbor’s field, but a sickle could not be used.
6:2 / what is unlawful: “What is lawful” or “unlawful” is an expression which may refer either to the law of Moses or to the oral laws and traditions of the scribes and Pharisees. The issue in the minds of the Pharisees was the work involved in picking and rubbing the grain. Among some rabbis even picking and rubbing grain was considered “harvesting” and so was forbidden, as was all other work, on the Sabbath (see m. Shabbath 7.2; b. Shabbath 73b).
6:3 / what David did: Luke wisely omits Mark’s reference to “Abiathar the high priest” (Mark 2:26) since according to 1 Sam. 21:1–6 Ahimelech, not Abiathar, was high priest when David and his men entered the house of God. Reference to David would emphasize further Jesus’ messianic status, for his action was comparable to that of Israel’s most famous king, from whom would descend the Messiah (see Isa. 11:1, 10; Jer. 23:5; Zech. 3:8).
6:5 / Lord of the Sabbath: Luke has derived this verse from Mark 2:28, but he did not, however, retain Mark 2:27, which reads: “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.” In the Marcan context the point seems to be that since the Sabbath is intended primarily for man’s benefit (and not vice versa), Jesus as “Son of Man” is therefore Lord of the Sabbath. Luke may have sensed that Mark 2:27 implied that the expression, “Son of Man,” meant no more than “human” (for whom the Sabbath was made). Luke, however, probably understood “Son of Man” as more of a messianic or even divine title (see note on 5:24 above); he therefore elected to omit the saying in Mark 2:27. Luke seems to conclude that since Jesus is Son of Man (in a messianic and probably even a divine sense), he is therefore Lord of the Sabbath (as well as Lord of everything else) and can dictate what is acceptable Sabbath activity and what is not. According to Tiede (p. 131), Jesus “is the embodiment of the reign of God, and his authority supersedes the Law itself.”
In the Greek ms. Codex D, following Luke 6:5 is this brief episode that some scholars think may be genuine: “On the same day he saw a man performing a work on the Sabbath. Then he said to him: ‘Man! If you know what you are doing, you are blessed. But if you do not know, you are cursed and a transgressor of the law.’ ” Presumably, if a person works on the Sabbath for proper reasons, or in a proper spirit, much as Jesus had done in healing the man with the paralyzed hand, then he is not guilty of violating the Sabbath laws. For a discussion of other potentially authentic sayings found outside of the canonical Gospels see J. Jeremias, Unknown Sayings of Jesus (London: SPCK, 1958), pp. 49–87.
6:6 / The right hand was thought of as the hand needed for work, and therefore the man’s condition of paralysis represented a serious disability. Again, it is likely that the man’s condition would have been thought of as brought on by sin.
6:9 / Is it lawful on the Sabbath … to save life …? Lachs (pp. 199–200) notes that the rabbis permitted healing on the Sabbath only if life is in danger (see m. Yoma 8.6). In the case of the man with the withered hand, Jesus could have—and from the Pharisaic point of view should have—waited until the next day.
6:11 / they were furious: The word translated “furious” connotes “mindless rage” and probably contributes to the theme of the hardened heart that stubbornly refuses to believe.
Mark 3:6 reads, “how to destroy him,” but Luke has elected to write, what they might do to Jesus. Luke’s modification probably reflects his desire to hold the reader in suspense a little longer before revealing the murderous plans of Jesus’ opponents. (It might also be noted that although the Pharisees in Luke appear as Jesus’ opponents, they are not presented as those who clamor for Jesus’ death.)