Divine Sabbath Work 9781575066721

Citation preview

Divine Sabbath Work

Bulletin for Biblical Research Supplements Editor

Richard S. Hess, Denver Seminary Associate Editor

Craig L. Blomberg, Denver Seminary

Advisory Board Leslie C. Allen Fuller Theological Seminary Donald A. Carson Trinity Evangelical Divinity School Donald A. Hagner Fuller Theological Seminary Karen H. Jobes Wheaton College

I. Howard Marshall University of Aberdeen Elmer A. Martens Mennonite Brethren Biblical Seminary Bruce K. Waltke Knox Theological Seminary Edwin M. Yamauchi Miami University

 1. Bridging the Gap: Ritual and Ritual Texts in the Bible, by Gerald A. Klingbeil  2. War in the Bible and Terrorism in the Twenty-First Century, edited by Richard S. Hess and Elmer A. Martens  3. Critical Issues in Early Israelite History, edited by Richard S. Hess, Gerald A. Klingbeil, and Paul J. Ray Jr.  4. Poetic Imagination in Proverbs: Variant Repetitions and the Nature of Poetry, by Knut Martin Heim  5. Divine Sabbath Work, by Michael H. Burer  6. The Iron Age I Structure on Mt. Ebal: Excavation and Interpretation, by Ralph K. Hawkins

Divine Sabbath Work

Michael H. Burer

Winona Lake, Indiana Eisenbrauns 2012

© Copyright 2012 Eisenbrauns All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. www.eisenbrauns.com

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Burer, Michael H. Divine Sabbath work / Michael H. Burer.    p. cm. — (Bulletin for biblical research supplements ; 5) Includes bibliographical references (p.  ) and indexes. ISBN 978-1-57506-815-2 (hardback : alk. paper) 1.  God—Biblical teaching.  2.  Work—Biblical teaching. ​ 3.  Sabbath—Biblical teaching. ​4.  Jesus Christ—Views on Sabbath. ​ 5.  Bible. N.T. Gospels—Theology.  I.  Title. BS2398.B87 2011 263′.1—dc23 2011034550 The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984. †Ê

Contents Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  vii Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   ix 1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   1 Scope of the Topic of Divine Sabbath Work  1 Method and Content of the Study  2 The Need for the Study  2 The Limitations of the Study  6

2.  Defense of Sabbath Controversy as Being Historically Plausible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8 Introduction 8 Assessment and Critique of Meier’s Treatment of Miracles in General  9 Assessment of Meier’s Treatment of Sabbath Controversy in Miracle Stories  14

3.  Investigation of Relevant Background Material . . . . . . . . .  27 Introduction 27 The Hebrew Scriptures  29 Theology of ‫ שַׁ ּבָת‬from the Old Testament  50 Qumran 58 The Septuagint  62 The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha  65 Josephus 71 Philo 73 Mishnah and Tosefta  78 The Targums  82 The Midrashim  84 The Palestinian Talmud   95 The Babylonian Talmud  96 Summary and Discussion  100

4.  Jesus, Sabbath Actions, and Divine Sabbath Work . . . . . . . 103 Introduction 103 The Global Question  104 Questions for the Global Picture  108 v

Contents

vi

The Specific Passages  112 Conclusion 133

5.  Summary, Assessment, and Future Direction . . . . . . . . . . 136 Summary 136 Assessment 138 Future Lines of Study  139

6.  Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 Primary Sources  141 Secondary Sources  143

Indexes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 Index of Scripture  155 Index of Authors  158 Index of Nonblical Sources  161

Preface Even though you, the reader, might be tempted to skip over this preface as simply the requisite thanks required when an author publishes a book, I ask you to stay here for just a minute. Anyone who has published a scholarly work knows that the author is influenced in many directions. Coupled with my personal conviction that scholarship and faith are at their very best when realized in community, it is with true conviction that I offer these accolades. This monograph grew out of my doctoral dissertation at Dallas Theological Seminary. Thanks are due to Darrell L. Bock, W. Hall Harris III, and Richard Taylor, formerly my readers but now gracious colleagues, for their guidance and encouragement. In seeking guidance on publishing my dissertation, I found expert help from many individuals who generously gave of their time and energy to improve the work. Thanks are due to the late Martin Hengel for his initial advice, Friedrich Avemarie for his keen eye, and Henning Ziebritski for his kind guidance. Thanks are due especially to Rick Hess and Craig Blomberg, editors of the BBRSup series, who saw the value of my work and helped me put it into final form. Expert library help was readily available because of Debbie Hunn. She helped me find resources and borrow materials from other libraries countless times, all with characteristic grace. Two people are due special thanks. Jeffrey Miller, my pastor and friend, joined me on this journey, with many conversations and a great deal of encouragement. Writing a book alone is a burden; sharing the burden with a friend is a joy. My dear wife, Melony, as spouses of scholars do, endured numerous hours of work and distraction with patience and love. Without her, I would not have published this book, nor would it really have mattered. I dedicate this work to the memory of Harold W. Hoehner. It was my distinct privilege to have an office next to his, and we often discussed matters academic and personal. He was a wonderful mentor and dear friend. I believe he would be proud of this work, but he would probably have preferred it to be in Turabian style, not SBL! To God alone be the glory. Maurepas, France February 2011 vii

Abbreviations General LXX MT net NT OT

Septuagint (Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible) Masoretic Text The NET Bible (New English Translation). 1st ed. Dallas: Biblical Studies Press, 2005 New Testament Old Testament

Reference Works AB ABD ABRL ACNT AGJU AnBib ArBib BBET BBR BDAG BECNT BHS BNTC BRS BSac CBQ CC CGTC CNT CRINT DJD DJG

Anchor Bible Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by D. N. Freedman et al. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992 Anchor Bible Reference Library Augsburg Commentaries on the New Testament Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums Analecta biblica The Aramaic Bible Beiträge zur biblischen Exegese und Theologie Bulletin for Biblical Research Bauer, W., F. W. Danker, W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich. GreekEnglish Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Edited by K. Elliger and W. Rudolph. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1983 Black’s New Testament Commentaries Biblical Resource Series Bibliotheca sacra Catholic Biblical Quarterly Continental Commentaries Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary Commentaire du Nouveau Testament Compendia rerum iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum Discoveries in the Judaean Desert Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Edited by J. B. Green and S. McKnight. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1992

ix

x DNTB EBC EBib EncJud EvQ ExpTim HALOT HeyJ HSS HTR IBC IBS ICC JBL JPSLJC JPSTC JSHRZ JSJ JSNT JSNTSup JTS LBS LD LSJ LSTS NA27 NAC NCBC NIBCNT NICNT NICOT NIGTC OTL OTM OTP PhAnt SBT

Abbreviations Dictionary of New Testament Background. Edited by Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000 Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Edited by T. Longman III and David E. Garland. 13 vols. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005–10 Études bibliques Encyclopaedia Judaica. Edited by F. Skolnik and M. Berenbaum. 22 vols. 2nd ed. Detroit: Macmillan, 2007 Evangelical Quarterly Expository Times Koehler, L., W. Baumgartner, and J. J. Stamm. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Translated and edited under the supervision of M. E. J. Richardson. 5 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1994–2000 Heythrop Journal Harvard Semitic Studies Harvard Theological Review Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching Irish Biblical Studies International Critical Commentary Journal of Biblical Literature Jewish Publication Society Library of Jewish Classics Jewish Publication Society Torah Commentary Jüdische Schriften aus hellenistisch-römischer Zeit Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods Journal for the Study of the New Testament Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series Journal of Theological Studies Library of Biblical Studies Lectio divina Liddell, H. G., and R. Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon. 9th ed. with revised supplement by H. S. Jones. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996 Library of Second Temple Studies Novum Testamentum Graece. Edited by Eberhard Nestle, Barbara Aland, and Kurt Aland. 27th ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2007 New American Commentary New Century Bible Commentary New International Biblical Commentary on the New Testament New International Commentary on the New Testament New International Commentary on the Old Testament New International Greek Testament Commentary Old Testament Library Oxford Theological Monographs Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by J. H. Charlesworth. 2 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1983 Philosophia antiqua Studies in Biblical Theology

Abbreviations SNTSMS SP TANZ TNTC TOTC TRE TSAJ TT TUGAL TynBul VT VTSup WBC WUNT ZAW

Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series Sacra pagina Texte und Arbeiten zum neutestamentlichen Zeitalter Tyndale New Testament Commentaries Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries Theologische Realenzyklopädie. Edited by G. Krause and G. Müller. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1977– Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum Texts and Translations Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur Tyndale Bulletin Vetus Testamentum Vetus Testamentum Supplements Word Biblical Commentary Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

xi

Chapter 1

Introduction Scope of the Topic of Divine Sabbath Work In any reading of the Gospels, Jesus’ actions are of central importance. They are important on both the level of history and the level of narrative to demonstrate his identity and his purpose and mission. Certain actions draw considerable attention because of two factors: they occur on the Sabbath, and they are construed as work, the consequence of which is intense conflict between Jesus and the Jewish religious leaders. The key to understanding the full import of Jesus’ actions that result in Sabbath controversy lies in understanding the importance of the Sabbath. The goal of this book is to address the Sabbath’s relation to Jesus’ activity by focusing on an aspect of Sabbath work neglected in current scholarly discussion. In this book, I will investigate the historical and cultural background of divine Sabbath work— that is, the type and extent of work that Judaism understood that God would do on the Sabbath and the relation of this conceptual background to key controversy passages in the Gospels. The genesis for this study was my personal study of an enigmatic passage that refers to this concept: ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς ἀπεκρίνατο αὐτοῖς, Ὁ πατήρ μου ἕως ἄρτι ἐργάζεται, κἀγὼ ἐργάζομαι. With eight cryptic words by Jesus in John 5:17, an enigma surfaces regarding God’s activity in his ministry that is not easy for us to solve. Jesus, in defending his actions in healing the lame man at the pool of Bethzatha, 1 makes a comparison that is simple enough on the surface: Jesus’ activity finds its basis in the Father’s current activity; thus, Jesus is not legally or spiritually culpable for breaking the Sabbath. What creates the enigma is the assumption that lies beneath the argument: the Father is working, and even more importantly, he is working on the Sabbath. Investigation of this assumption is the purpose of this book. With this book, I will contribute to the discussion surrounding Jesus’ Sabbath activity by augmenting current research on Sabbath work, which focuses primarily on rabbinic rules and interpretation of Torah. Other texts exist that highlight the issue of divine Sabbath work in addition to 1. The NA27 textual apparatus presents evidence for three other variant spellings of this name. The most well known is Βηθεσδα (Bethesda), the reading of the Byzantine text. A decision regarding the original reading is difficult. I have chosen to follow the text of NA27 on this issue.

1

2

Chapter 1

the works already cited by other scholars. These additional materials are insightful for our understanding of Jesus’ Sabbath actions.

Method and Content of the Study In this first chapter, I define the topic and justify the need for the study. The second chapter is a defense of the historicity of Sabbath controversy in the life of Jesus. This is necessary because of the appearance of a widely influential historical Jesus study that is generally skeptical on this issue, John Meier’s Marginal Jew. 2 My third chapter is an investigation of the specific concept—divine Sabbath work—as it is used in the relevant background literature, that is, literature that may or may not have been known to the writers of the NT but that illustrates the conceptual and cultural issues present in the text. The goal of chap. 3 is to display and explain texts that are appropriate to the topic. In chap. 4, I will use the material from chap. 3 to assess the use of the concept of divine Sabbath work in certain NT passages, address specific aspects of Jesus’ activity, and illustrate how the concept of divine Sabbath work explains this activity. Chapter 5 is a summary and conclusion with an assessment and suggested directions for future research.

The Need for the Study The need for this study can be demonstrated through a simple review of the commentary literature that addresses passages in which Jesus works on the Sabbath. Most commentators center their discussion of Jesus’ Sabbath work on the question of Pharisaical rules or proper interpretation of the Torah. 3 In discussing Mark 3:6 and its function as a summary to the conflicts described in Mark 2:1–3:5, William Lane makes an argument that is indicative of this approach to understanding Jesus and his Sabbath activity. The conflict is essentially one of authority: Jesus’ actions that brought healing and grace to the sick undermined the traditional Pharisaic interpretation of the Sabbath commands, and thus Jesus was a serious threat to 2. John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus (5 vols.; ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 1991–). 3. See, for example, D. A. Carson, “Matthew,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (ed. Frank E. Gaebelein; Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), 8:279–85; R. T. France, Matthew (TNTC; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985), 201–5; Marie-Joseph Lagrange, Evangile selon Saint Marc (EBib; Paris: Lecoffre, 1966), 51–60; William L. Lane, The Gospel according to Mark (NICNT; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974), 114–26; C. E. B. Cranfield, The Gospel according to Saint Mark (rev. ed.; CGTC; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959), 114–22; Morna D. Hooker, The Gospel according to St Mark (BNTC; London: Black, 1991), 101–8, especially p. 106; Vincent Taylor, The Gospel according to St. Mark (2nd ed.; repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1966), 214–24; Craig A. Evans, Luke (NIBCNT; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1990), 99–100; John Nolland, Luke 1–9:20 (WBC 35A; Dallas: Word, 1989), 251–62.

Introduction

3

the Judaism that the Pharisees practiced. “When Jesus failed to submit to the scribal regulation of the Sabbath he broke the tradition, and authority confronted authority. It was inevitable that conflict should ensue, and that the Pharisees should seek to destroy Jesus.” 4 In his recent major treatment of the Sabbath, Lutz Doering identifies six broad ways of understanding Jesus’ relation to the Sabbath: (1) Jesus was against the Sabbath commandment itself. (2) Jesus was not against the Sabbath commandment but against the subsequent Pharasiac Halakah. (3) Jesus was not against the Sabbath commandment but, rather, its universally binding application. (4) The eschatological focus of Jesus in his teaching governed his approach to the Sabbath. (5) Jesus handled the Sabbath commandment not as a strict ordinance but in keeping with its intent. (6) Jesus lived in complete accordance with the Sabbath commandment. 5 It is important to note that the question here revolves largely around Jesus and his relation to the Law. Few options hint at a deeper, theological issue that may lie beneath Jesus’ actions. My contention is not that Jesus’ interpretation of the Law is an inappropriate lens through which to view the issue of Jesus’ Sabbath work but that it is not the only lens that the interpreter can use; in certain cases, it is not sufficient to understand the full import of a passage. The investigation of Jesus’ work on the Sabbath is hampered when only one basic interpretive grid informs the scholarly discussion: his interactions about contemporary Jewish praxis based on written Torah or oral tradition. Often discussion of Jesus’ interactions with regard to Sabbath law will include more nuanced views of Jesus’ authority. 6 Many commentators view Jesus as offering not simply a different interpretation of the Law but, through his interaction about the Law, an indication that he is the one who has the inherent authority to interpret the Law appropriately in keeping with God’s initial design. In Donald Hagner’s comments about the nature of Jesus’ authority as it is expressed in Matt 12:1–8, Hagner argues along these lines. The issue begins with who has properly understood the Sabbath 4. Lane, Mark, 124. 5. Lutz Doering, Schabbat: Sabbathalacha und -praxis im antiken Judentum und Urchristentum (TSAJ 78; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999), 399–400 He also uses these headings to identify commentators who hold these positions; his comments serve to show the attitudes of the scholarly field. 6. See, for example, Craig S. Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999), 350–59; Robert H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church under Persecution (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1994), 220–28; Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 1–13 (WBC 33A; Dallas: Word, 1993), 326–34; Robert H. Gundry, Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1993), 139–56; Darrell L. Bock, Luke 1:1–9:50 (BECNT 3A; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1994), 522–33; David L. Tiede, Luke (ACNT; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1988), 131–33; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel according to Luke (AB 28–28A; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1981–85), 2:1012.

4

Chapter 1

commandment, but it quickly progresses to an assertion by Jesus that he himself holds the authority not only to understand the law properly but also to interpret it and apply it to the life of Israel. “The Son of Man is with his people as sovereign Lord and messianic king and acts as the final and infallible interpreter of the will of God as expressed in Torah and sabbath commandment. The rest and rejoicing symbolized by the sabbath find fulfillment in the kingdom brought by Jesus.” 7 These comments are indicative of this slant on the discussion, which is an escalation of the previous argument, that Jesus offers a more authoritative interpretation of the Law. This argument focuses on the nature and essence of Jesus’ authority intrinsic to himself, not simply its expression in his interpretation. Even so, this authority is viewed through his interpretation of the Law vis-à-vis the nonauthoritative interpretation of the Pharisees. My contention is that there is another element of Jesus’ authority that should be elucidated, which is his specific actions on a specific day. Some commentaries do take into account the issue of divine work on the Sabbath or the theological nature of the Sabbath. 8 These works come near making the point that I hope to make, but there is no systematic presentation of background evidence to bolster this claim. John 5 is the passage that most explicitly addresses the question of divine Sabbath work, so commentators on the Gospel of John tend to address the issue in a more developed manner. C. H. Dodd argued that the author of the Gospel of John was developing a line of thought in John 5 that had connections to rabbinic thought and Philo’s Hellenistic exegesis. 9 This was the beginning point for the discussion; since Dodd’s original work, no advance has been made in examining the background material further. D. A. Carson, for example, addresses the issue of Sabbath work through the same rabbinic rulings that Dodd referenced, which relate God’s action to Sabbath Halakah and the general character of God’s continual redemptive activity, in which Jesus 7. Hagner, Matthew 1–13, 331. 8. See, for example, Robert A. Guelich, Mark 1–8:26 (WBC 34A; Dallas: Word, 1989), 128–30; Joel B. Green, The Gospel of Luke (NICNT; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997), 251–53. See also Larry W. Hurtado (Mark [NIBCNT; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1989], 51–52), who states, “His [ Jesus’] healing on the Sabbath linked his miracles with a day that symbolized for ancient Jews the future kingdom of God, when bondage would cease and the time of joy and messianic celebration would begin.” Unfortunately, no background evidence is provided for this claim. Biblical passages that come close to connecting these ideas are Luke 4:16–30 and Matt 11:4–6 (= Luke 7:22–23), where Jesus cites Isa 61:1–2 and connects his ministry to the time of messianic fulfillment. The emphasis in these NT passages, however, is on Jesus’ healing ministry and its eschatological import, not on his Sabbath actions as such. They are suggestive but not definitive. 9. C. H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968), 320–24. Dodd’s thesis and materials will be discussed more fully on pp. 128–130 below as important background for John 5.

Introduction

5

participated. Following a short reference to Philo and his doctrine of God’s continual creative activity, 10 Carson states the following: The consensus among the rabbis, too, was that God works on the Sabbath, for otherwise providence itself would weekly go into abeyance. About the end of the first century, four eminent rabbis (Rabban Gamaliel II, R. Joshua, R. Eleazar b. Azariah, and R. Akiba) discussed the point, and concluded that although God works constantly, he cannot rightly be charged with violating the Sabbath law, since (1) the entire universe is his domain (Is. 6:3), and therefore he never carries anything outside it; (2) otherwise put, God fills the whole world ( Je. 23:24); and in any case (3) God lifts nothing to a height greater than his own stature. . . . But what are Jesus’ works? Because Jesus’ response has been cast in terms of his works, the issue is no longer simply a matter of carrying something between domiciles on the Sabbath day. Jesus was not guilty of that ‘work’. More important, his answer generalizes: the work Jesus does includes telling the healed invalid to carry his mat, but it also includes the healing itself, and, principally, all the redemptive activity Jesus undertakes. In the minute circumstances of the immediate crisis, the healed man is justified in carrying his mat because Jesus has ordered him to, and in doing so Jesus is ‘working’, just like the Father. Just as the fact that the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath can be used to defend the actions of Jesus’ disciples (Mk. 2:23–28), so the fact that Jesus’ works fall into the same category as his Father’s works serves to exonerate the man who carries his mat. 11

Raymond Brown has the fullest discussion of the issue of divine work on the Sabbath and how it relates to Jesus’ ministry. 12 His contention is that rabbinic material is the basis for this theological understanding of Jesus’ work on the Sabbath, but this is the same material in essence referenced by Dodd. In discussing John 5:17, Brown gives the following summation: Verse 17 must be set against the background of the relation of God to the Sabbath rest. In the commandment concerning the Sabbath (Exod xx 11, but contrast Deut v 15) we have this explanatory clause: “In six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth . . . but on the seventh He rested. That is why the Lord has blessed the Sabbath and made it holy.” However, the theologians of Israel realized that God did not really cease to work on the Sabbath. There are a whole series of rabbinic statements . . . to the effect that Divine Providence remained active on the Sabbath, for otherwise, the rabbis reasoned, all nature and life would cease to exist. 13 10. This is an important point that is more relevant to Jesus’ activity on the Sabbath than Carson indicates through his cursory reference. Relevant passages from Philo are discussed on pp.  73–78. 11. D. A. Carson, The Gospel according to John (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1991), 247–48. 12. Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel according to John I–XII (AB 29; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966), 216–21. 13. Brown, John I–XII, 216–17.

6

Chapter 1

Following this, Brown mentions specific arguments related to God’s giving life and judging men in death on the Sabbath. Barrett, Schnackenburg, Lagrange, and Léon-Dufour write in a similar vein. 14 This short rehearsal of the status quaestionis provides the starting point for my work on this matter. Simply put, the goal of this study is to expand on this evidence and argumentation through a systematic examination of all the background materials currently available—rabbinic and otherwise—to find the materials that touch on the concept of divine Sabbath work and then to discuss Jesus’ Sabbath work in light of these materials, providing further explanation of the intent and purpose for Jesus’ Sabbath activity.

The Limitations of the Study This study has been organized to test the following hypothesis: that Jesus’ actions on the Sabbath are best understood in light of the concept of divine Sabbath work and that in light of this concept Jesus’ actions imply a claim to deity or a close association with God’s divine plan and work. With this sort of limited focus, three possible outcomes may result. First, the investigation may conclude that there is little or no relevant background material to illuminate the concept of divine Sabbath work or to affect our understanding of Jesus’ Sabbath activity. If this is the case, the hypothesis will be invalidated, and Jesus’ activity will need to be understood in the traditional sense of controversy over rabbinic Halakah and Jesus’ assertion of his own authority over contemporary legal interpretation. The value of the study would then be in its validation of current discussion as it exists in the relevant literature. Second, the investigation may find a wealth of material that shows God’s work on the Sabbath to have clear and obvious ties to Jesus’ activity. If this is the case, then the hypothesis will be validated, and the goal of adding another element to the scholarly discussion of Jesus’ Sabbath activity will be realized. Third, the investigation may find material that illuminates the concept of divine Sabbath work but not in a direct way. The handling of the evidence will consist of making a case for connecting the material to Jesus’ Sabbath activity. The hypothesis will be validated based on a correct interpretation of the background material and its application to the biblical text. The study will have value in examining the evidence from a new angle and adding new elements to consider when the importance of Jesus’ Sabbath actions is examined. The third scenario is the most likely. The burden of proof rests 14. C. K. Barrett, The Gospel according to St. John (2nd ed.; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978), 255–56; Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Gospel according to St. John (3 vols.; New York: Seabury, 1968–82), 2:100–102; Marie-Joseph Lagrange, Evangile selon Saint Jean (5th ed.; EBib; Paris: Gabalda, 1936), 140–41; Xavier Léon-Dufour, Lecture de l’évangile selon Jean: Chapitres 5–12 (Paris: Seuil, 1990), 36–37.

Introduction

7

on me to find the relevant background literature and to make a persuasive case that it does help interpret Jesus’ activity as proposed by the hypothesis. Because of the centrality of the Sabbath to Jewish life, references to the Sabbath are numerous throughout all of the background literature. In order to have a manageable fund of passages from which to draw, I am limiting my search to the word “Sabbath” and the phrase “seventh day,” 15 a common circumlocution for the Sabbath. If other pertinent passages are found during these searches that do not include the word “Sabbath” or the phrase “seventh day,” whether through my reading of the texts or my reading of secondary sources, I will include them in the discussion, but I will not undertake a systematic search for any other terms. Background literature searched includes the Hebrew Scriptures, Qumran, the LXX, the OT Pseudepigrapha, Josephus, Philo, the Mishnah and Tosefta, the targums, the midrashim, 16 the Palestinian Talmud, and the Babylonian Talmud. The works will be discussed in this order in order to provide a loose chronological framework for my discussion of the results. The relevant passages are being searched both in electronic databases and in printed texts; these will be delineated in the appropriate sections, along with other pertinent comments regarding the method used. The selection of NT passages examined in depth is not exhaustive. In my estimation, the two NT passages that I will examine in depth, which are Luke 13:10–17 and John 5:1–30, best prove the hypothesis, because they most directly relate to the concepts discussed. 15. The majority of the literature examined is Greek or Hebrew. The noun ‫שַׁ ּבָת‬ and the phrase ‫יעי‬ ִ ‫שׁ ִב‬ ְ ‫ יֹום‬will form the basis for searches in Hebrew literature; the noun σάββατον, the phrase ἑβδόμη ἡμέρα and the term ἡ ἑβδόμη form the basis for searches in Greek literature. 16. This is limited to Midrash Rabbah, Mekilta on Exodus, Sipra Leviticus, Sipre Numbers, and Sipre Deuteronomy.

Chapter 2

Defense of Sabbath Controversy as Being Historically Plausible Introduction One fundamental assumption underlying this study is that Jesus was involved in Sabbath controversy. To many scholars, this is not a debated point, but some still question whether Sabbath controversy was part of Jesus’ life and ministry at all. 1 The goal of this second chapter is to determine whether a positive assessment of Sabbath controversy in Jesus’ life and ministry can be made, so that a foundation can be laid for the investigation of divine Sabbath work. This assessment will come through careful interaction with John Meier’s published comments on this issue in his historical Jesus study, A Marginal Jew. 2 Meier is the central focus in this chapter for two main reasons. First, he is fairly conservative overall in his conclusions about the historical Jesus compared with many other scholars in the field, such as the Jesus Seminar. Thus he is a good foil for dialogue; he does not subscribe overtly to anti­ supernaturalism, nor is he given to noncritical acceptance of the biblical data. Second, his method is the most refined of recent studies, because it carefully defines what historians may ask and answer, and he avoids various presuppositions that plague the field. My interaction with Meier will be quite focused. For each of the mir­acles that results in Sabbath controversy in the text, Meier denies that the Sabbath controversy has a historical basis. 3 This is quite interesting in light of his strong, positive stance toward miracles in the ministry of Jesus in gen1. Notable scholars in this regard are E. P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), 264–67; idem, The Historical Figure of Jesus (London: Penguin, 1993), 220– 23; Robert W. Funk, Roy W. Hoover, and The Jesus Seminar, The Five Gospels: The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1993); Robert W. Funk and The Jesus Seminar, The Acts of Jesus: The Search for the Authentic Deeds of Jesus (San Francisco: HarperSan­Francisco, 1998). 2. John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus (5 vols.; ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 1991–). 3. To be fair, Meier is quite nuanced in his presentation. The specific details will be discussed below.

8

Defense of Sabbath Controversy as Being Historically Plausible

9

eral. Jesus’ miracles and Sabbath activity often intersect, so one would think that a positive assessment of the more difficult category of miracles would lead to a positive assessment of the less difficult category of Sabbath controversy. My goal is to challenge his conclusion about the secondary nature of Sabbath controversy and also to examine evidence to the contrary. In order to provide a sufficient entrée into the discussion, I will need to interact with Meier carefully on the issue of miracles in general. This is both because of the intersection between miracles and Sabbath controversy mentioned above and because of the method that he uses to pronounce a positive judgment on miracles in Jesus’ life. In addition, Meier does not treat Sabbath controversy systematically in his work, so his discussion of miracles is the primary gateway to addressing his conclusions about Sabbath controversy. I plan to determine whether his historical method, which results in a positive assessment of miracles in Jesus’ life and ministry, leads to the same conclusion about Sabbath controversy when similarly applied.

Assessment and Critique of Meier’s Treatment of Miracles in General One of the most refreshing and positive aspects of Meier’s presentation in A Marginal Jew is his overarching desire to approach the material as a historian. By definition, the study of the historical Jesus involves examining the life and ministry of Jesus from a historian’s perspective to make claims about his life and ministry using the modern tools of historical criticism. This is something that Meier has done quite well. Although this takes us a bit far from his treatment of miracles in vol. 2 of his book, he makes salient points about his historical-critical presentation in vol. 1 that are worth mentioning because they directly affect his presentation of miracles, which I will explore below. Meier begins his introduction to vol. 1 with a paragraph that is eminently helpful in locating him on the historical stage. This book grapples with one of the greatest puzzles of modern religious scholarship, the historical Jesus. As I will explain at length in Chapter 1, by the “historical Jesus” I mean the Jesus whom we can recover, recapture, or reconstruct by using the scientific tools of modern historical research. Granted the fragmentary state of our sources and the often indirect nature of the arguments we must use, this “historical Jesus” will always remain a scientific construct, a theoretical abstraction that does not and cannot coincide with the full reality of Jesus of Nazareth as he actually lived and worked in Palestine during the 1st century of our era. Properly understood, such an approach seeks neither to prove any faith stance nor to attack it. My method follows a simple rule: it prescinds from what Christian faith of later Church teaching says about Jesus, without either affirming or denying those claims. 4 4. Meier, A Marginal Jew, 1:1.

10

Chapter 2

This in a nutshell is Meier’s approach to historical Jesus studies, and it is laudable for a number of reasons. To begin with, Meier, more than many others who work in this field, acknowledges that there is a disconnection between the real Jesus and the historical Jesus. The historical Jesus is a construct based on current historical methodologies; it cannot and never will explain the real Jesus in all his fullness. This is a helpful caveat from the very beginning because it guards against taking the historical Jesus as the fullest presentation of his person and then demanding grand changes in Christian theology as a result. 5 Meier’s stance is also laudable because it does not seek to deny or promote any particular faith stance. As far as he is concerned, true historical work is separate from faith. 6 Faith addresses realities that history cannot. This is not to say that realities known by faith are less real than realities known by history. Thus, history and faith are in a sense different realms that employ different methodologies. This is an important caveat, given the nature of so much historical Jesus work that actively sets itself against traditional Christian understanding. A historical Jesus construct provides a reasonable basis from which faith can spring, but it does not delimit faith, negate it, or even enhance it, as far as he is concerned. Although I might disagree with Meier regarding the extent of this disconnection, the underlying point has merit. Historical work can be undertaken that is separate from faith, and this is a positive and necessary step in the study of Jesus and his contexts. This attitude toward his historical work becomes prevalent when Meier takes up the discussion of miracles. The definition of miracle that he offers is quite nuanced: “A miracle is (1) an unusual, startling, or extraordinary 5. In my opinion, Funk et al. (The Five Gospels) are guilty of this very problem. The presupposition of their work is that the “real” Jesus must be rescued from the artificial construct of contemporary conservative, fundamental Christianity. Take, for example, the following statement from the preface regarding the advent of historical Jesus studies: “To know the truth about Jesus, the real Jesus, one had to find the Jesus of history. The refuge offered by the cloistered precincts of faith gradually became a battered and beleaguered position. In the wake of the Enlightenment, the dawn of the Age of Reason, in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, biblical scholars rose to the challenge and launched a tumultuous search for the Jesus behind the Christian façade of the Christ” (p. 2). In addition, the final general rule of evidence—“Beware of finding a Jesus entirely congenial to you” (p. 5)—is but a thinly veiled attack on individuals who accept the traditional orthodox understanding of Jesus. 6. This is not the same as arguing that history does not have an impact on faith. The connection between the historicity of events and the faith that results from these events is important. The point is that the practice of the discipline of history does not delve into matters that can only be known by faith. The difference can be illustrated with two sentences: “Jesus died” is a statement of history that can be addressed with historical methods; “Jesus died for my sins” is a theological statement that, on certain levels, history cannot address.

Defense of Sabbath Controversy as Being Historically Plausible

11

event that is in principle perceivable by any interested and fair-minded observer, (2) an event that finds no reasonable explanation in human abilities or in other known forces that operate in our world of time and space, and (3) an event that is the result of a special act of God, doing what no human power can do.” 7 This definition, although strict and direct, is useful because it forces the historian to approach miracles from a particular, historical viewpoint. First, this definition insists that miracle be publicly observable, even by individuals who would not be prone to accept it. This vitiates any talk of miracles generally, such as the “miracle of grace” in salvation spoken of by many Christians; it emphasizes that miracles must be validated historically by witnesses and other evidence. Second, this definition insists that the miracle come from outside the realm of human abilities or other known forces; it cannot be explained by any known entities available to the historian. Finally, this definition drives at the very essence of what, in religious texts, a miracle actually is: it is an event that can only be reasonably explained as a special act of God. Thus, a mere assertion that a miracle has or has not occurred is essentially a theological, philosophical judgment, not a determination of historicity. 8 This definition results in a situation particularly relevant to historical Jesus studies that affects both ends of the faith-perspective spectrum. Because the assertion that a miracle has or has not occurred is essentially a theological decision, this assertion cannot be made or denied within the realm of historical inquiry. A historian qua historian is not able to make a judgment either way about this. He or she is only able to sift evidence and essentially remain within the first two statements of the definition. This in essence restricts the historian to a focus on the results or effects of the event, not the cause of the event itself. This is not to deny that a particular faith stance is valid or invalid; it simply demarcates the area of historical inquiry. Meier carefully keeps what a historian is in fact able to ask within the historical realm. Granted the severe limitations of our data, I would suggest that we must be careful to keep both our questions and our conclusions modest. What may we reasonably ask in such a restricted situation? In my opinion, we may reasonably ask and hope to answer the following questions: (1) Are reports about Jesus performing miracles totally inventions of the early church as it developed its missionary apologetic and propaganda in a Greco-Roman world that expected miracles from divine figures visiting the earth? Or do at least some of the reports of Jesus’ miracles go back to the time and activity of the historical Jesus? (2) Do certain kinds of supposed miracles appear to be typical of reports of Jesus’ activity, while other kinds are relatively or completely 7. Meier, A Marginal Jew, 2:512. 8. Meier, A Marginal Jew, 2:513.

12

Chapter 2 absent, in comparison with other reports of miracles in the ancient world? (3) To move from reports to what Jesus actually did: Did in fact Jesus perform certain startling or extraordinary actions that he and his followers claimed to be miracles? (4) What ultimately did these supposed miracles mean to Jesus, his disciples, and other observers in the total context of his ministry? 9

These questions are important in that they restrict the historian to the investigation of historical data and are disconnected from any statements of faith about miracles in the life of Jesus. The first question focuses on the reports, and this most naturally leads one to the Gospel documents that contain accounts of Jesus’ miracles. The question is entirely valid historically since it is a question about what was reported, which is certainly within the realm of historical observation. The second question relates accounts of Jesus’ miracles to other contemporary miracle accounts and seeks to determine whether Jesus’ miracles were reported in ways that were similar to or distinct from other reports of miracles. 10 The third question is more difficult in that it seeks to determine Jesus’ actual actions, but this is still within the realm of historical inquiry, since Jesus lived and acted within history. The fourth question seeks the perceived meaning of Jesus’ actions within the community of his followers and those who wrote about him. All of these questions are historical in nature and are valid for this inquiry. They do not delve into theological questions, which are in fact matters of faith. Meier holds these questions in abeyance while first answering a global question regarding the historicity of Jesus’ miracles. On the whole, can the historian determine whether Jesus did startling, unusual deeds that would have been regarded by himself and other people who saw them as miracles? By walking through the criteria of authenticity, 11 Meier is able to answer this question positively. The criterion that has the most weight in answering this question is the criterion of multiple attestation: “Every Gospel source (Mark, Q, M, L, and John), every evangelist in his redactional sum9. Meier, A Marginal Jew, 2:517. 10. For a recent treatment that addresses this question, see Eric Eve, The Jewish Context of Jesus’ Miracles ( JSNTSup 231; New York: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002). His overarching conclusion is that “both the Gospel presentations of Jesus’ miracles and the miracles of the historical Jesus would appear distinctive within the Judaism of his time while making sense in a Jewish context” (p. 386). Eve’s arguments will be discussed more fully in chap. 4. 11. See Meier, A Marginal Jew, 1:167–95, for his discussion of the criteria of authenticity. For further analysis of the criteria, among others see Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz, The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide (trans. John Bowden; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998), 115–18; Stanley E. Porter, The Criteria for Authenticity in Historical-Jesus Research: Previous Discussion and New Proposals ( JSNTSup 191; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000); Gerd Theissen and Dagmar Winter, The Quest for the Plausible Jesus: The Question of Criteria (trans. M. Eugene Boring; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002).

Defense of Sabbath Controversy as Being Historically Plausible

13

maries, and Josephus . . . affirm the miracle-working activity of Jesus.” 12 This is strong attestation indeed. Multiple attestation not only extends to the sources of the stories but also the forms. 13 The criterion of coherence is also satisfied: these actions of Jesus cohere well with his sayings and form a large, connected picture of Jesus as in fact doing some startling, marvelous things that he and his contemporaries considered to be miracles. The criteria of discontinuity and embarrassment apply in only a limited degree. The criterion of discontinuity as it relates to miracles is helpful if one examines the entire scope of Jesus’ life and ministry. Still more to the point: the overall configuration, pattern, or Gestalt of Jesus as popular preacher and teller of parables, plus authoritative interpreter of the Law and teacher of morality, plus proclaimer and realizer of the eschatological kingdom of God, plus miracle-worker actualizing his own proclamation has no adequate parallel in either the pagan or the Jewish literature of the time. As I have already suggested, when the prickly question of the “uniqueness” of Jesus is raised, his uniqueness is best discussed not in terms of any individual aspect of his ministry taken in isolation but rather in terms of the total configuration of his words and deeds. If the criterion of discontinuity applies at all to the miracles of Jesus, it is only in this larger context or configuration. 14

The criterion of embarrassment does not apply since none of the events depicted would be embarrassing to the early church. As far as their connection to the arrest, trial, and crucifixion of Jesus is concerned, there is not much direct connection, although miracles could be seen as a mitigating circumstance in the events surrounding Jesus’ death. 15 Meier replies to the global question with a strong affirmation: Jesus did perform extraordinary deeds that he and others deemed to be miracles. In fact, the traditions about Jesus’ miracles are supported more strongly than other well-known, well-accepted aspects of his ministry. Put dramatically but not with too much exaggeration: if the miracle tradition from Jesus’ public ministry were to be rejected in toto as unhistorical, so should every other Gospel tradition about him. For if the criteria of historicity do not work in the case of the miracle tradition, where multiple attestation is so impressive, there is no reason to expect them to work elsewhere. 16

The case for historicity of the global question is quite strong, and it can be affirmed quite readily by those who are searching for the historical Jesus.

12. Meier, A Marginal Jew, 2:619. 13. Meier, A Marginal Jew, 2:622. 14. Meier, A Marginal Jew, 2:624–25. 15. Meier, A Marginal Jew, 2:627. 16. Meier, A Marginal Jew, 2:630.

Chapter 2

14

Assessment of Meier’s Treatment of Sabbath Controversy in Miracle Stories Presentation of Meier’s Position After the presentation of the global question, Meier then proceeds to address the historicity of individual miracles. He divides them into types: exorcisms, healings, raising the dead, and nature miracles. The question I wish to address in more depth is his approach to Sabbath controversy within the context of the miracles. Many of the healing miracles in the Gospels are connected to the Sabbath and thereby result in Sabbath controversy. This includes the healing of the man with the withered hand (Mark 3:1–6, Matt 12:9–14, Luke 6:6–11), the healing of the bent-over woman (Luke 13:10–17), the healing of the man with dropsy (Luke 14:1–6), the healing of the paralytic by the pool of Bethzatha ( John 5), and the healing of the man born blind ( John 9). Note that the only other pericope in the Gospels that indicates any type of Sabbath controversy is the plucking of grain on the Sabbath (Mark 2:23–28, Matt 12:1–8, Luke 6:1–5). 17 Thus, most of the Sabbath controversy in the Gospel traditions is embedded in miracle stories—more specifically, miracles of healing. Yet Meier essentially denies the historicity of Sabbath controversy in each of the above healing stories while affirming the miracles themselves. 18 This move effectively denies any Sabbath controversy in the life and ministry of Jesus. Meier’s skepticism is evident in many places. In discussing the healing of the man with the withered hand in Mark 3:1–6, 19 Meier argues that debate over healing and practicing medicine on the Sabbath is the domain of the strict adherents, not the average Galilean peasant. In fact, “religious pluralism extended even to Sabbath observance.” 20 More to the point, Jesus actually performs no action to heal the man; he simply speaks to him. It is not plausible to think that speaking a few words that healed a crippled man would result in controversy. Meier concludes, “Consequently, I do not think that the Sabbath controversy, as it is presented in Mark 3:1–6, goes back to a historical event in Jesus’ ministry.” 21 In his most recent volume, Meier reiterates the same conclusion but now on the grounds that “no Jewish document prior to a.d. 70 gives the slightest indication that an act of healing was considered a violation of the sabbath rest.” 22 Meier is more agnostic con17. There is one pericope in the Gospels where Jesus exorcises a demon on the Sabbath, but no controversy results (Mark 1:21–28). 18. He makes no definitive comment about the Sabbath controversy in the passage about plucking grain on the Sabbath. 19. Meier, A Marginal Jew, 2:681–84. 20. Meier, A Marginal Jew, 2:683. 21. Meier, A Marginal Jew, 2:683. 22. Meier, A Marginal Jew, 4:255 This same evidence is also determinative, in his estimation, for Luke 13:10–17, 14:1–6.

Defense of Sabbath Controversy as Being Historically Plausible

15

cerning the healing of the bent-over woman in Luke 13:10–17. 23 The story has a greater appearance of reality since Jesus actually touches the woman, but then he agrees with Sanders that “verisimilitude does not automatically equal historicity.” 24 When discussing the healing of the man with dropsy in Luke 14:1–6, Meier returns to the argument that Sabbath controversy over minute points of law would not occur among the general populace. The following quotation is in a discussion of whether Luke 14:1–6 is a variant of the healing of the man with the withered hand in Mark 3:1–6. However, if we try to go beyond the question of variant versions of the same story and raise the possibility of similar events in the life of Jesus, there is the persistent historical question we have already seen when treating the other stories of healing on the Sabbath: would Jesus’ cure by a mere touch have been considered a grave violation of the Sabbath by most Jews of the time? Probably not. 25

Meier argues against the Sabbath controversy in both the Johannine miracles as well. The healing of the paralytic by the pool of Bethzatha in John 5:1–9 did not have the Sabbath controversy as part of the original story; this is an addition by the evangelist. “An indication that at the very least the story is not simply a creation of the evangelist is the fact that he has to ‘tack on’ the motifs of Sabbath and sin (5:9b, 14) to a story that originally lacked them—and still lacks them in the miracle story proper.” 26 So the Sabbath motif was added by the evangelist to a story that already existed; the implication is that the Sabbath controversy represented in the story is not historical. Meier argues along redactional lines to dispute the historicity of Sabbath controversy in the story of the healing of the man born blind in John 9:1–41. Most probably a secondary addition to the miracle story, the motif of the Sabbath acts as a springboard for the evolving controversy that fills the rest of chap. 9: the controversy over who Jesus, a healer yet Sabbath-breaker, really is. There is no need to go into this controversy material, not only because it is not part of the miracle story in the narrow sense of the word, but also because this controversy material is suffused with Johannine theology, reflecting in particular the painful break of John’s church from the Jewish synagogue. 27

In his more recent work, Meier continues this same line of argumentation, concluding that “the once promising batch of dispute stories involving healing on the sabbath dissolves under the glare of critical analysis.” 28

23. Meier, A Marginal Jew, 2:684–85. 24. Meier, A Marginal Jew, 2:685. 25. Meier, A Marginal Jew, 2:711. 26. Meier, A Marginal Jew, 2:681. 27. Meier, A Marginal Jew, 2:695. 28. Meier, A Marginal Jew, 4:258.

Chapter 2

16

It is clear from his comments that Meier regards the historicity of the Sabbath controversy preserved in the healing stories in the Gospels as doubtful at best and at worst as totally secondary additions that are not historical. This in effect removes all Sabbath controversy from the life and ministry of Jesus. What I wish to argue for the balance of this chapter is that Sabbath controversy in the life of Jesus is historical with a high degree of probability. I will follow Meier’s lead and approach the question globally and particularly. The Global Question In approaching the global question of the historicity of Sabbath controversy, we find that the criteria of authenticity prove useful. As detailed by Meier, the primary criteria of authenticity are embarrassment, discontinuity, multiple attestation, coherence, and rejection and execution. 29 The secondary 30 criteria are traces of Aramaic, Palestinian environment, vividness of narration, tendencies of the developing Synoptic tradition, and historical presumption. 31 As with the global question of miracles, the global question of Sabbath controversy is best served by the criterion of multiple attestation. 32 Sabbath controversy occurs in Mark and parallels (Mark 2:23– 28; 3:1–6), in material common to Matthew and Luke (Matt 12:11–12; Luke 14:5), in material unique to Matthew (Matt 12:5–7), in material unique to Luke (Luke 13:10–17; 14:1–6), and in John ( John 5; 7:22–23; 9). Thus it occurs in every strand of the tradition. It also occurs in different forms. Sabbath controversy is found in pronouncement stories (Mark 2:23–28 and parallels), speeches (Matt 12:5–7, John 7:22–23), and miracle stories (Mark 3:1–6 and parallels; Luke 13:10–17; 14:1–6; John 5; 9). 33 Thus the criterion of multiple 29. “Rejection and execution” is one criterion. 30. Meier uses “secondary” to mean of less value than the primary criteria, or perhaps even dubious value. 31. Other scholars have ranked the criteria differently, a fact that contributes an additional layer to the debate. For one example, see Craig A. Evans, Jesus and His Contemporaries: Comparative Studies (AGJU 25; Leiden: Brill, 1995), 13–26. 32. Meier recognizes this and registers a slight change between vols. 2 and 3 of his work. In A Marginal Jew, 3:526, he states, Scholars continue to debate the historicity of individual stories of Jesus running afoul of certain observant Jews because of his ‘liberal’ views on the sabbath rest. Details of the individual stories and, in some cases, their connection with miracle-working, may be secondary. But, since we find such disputes multiply attested in Markan (Mark 2:23– 28; 3:1–6), L [an obvious reference to the Lukan source] (Luke 13:10–17; 14:1–6), and Johannine ( John 5:1–18; 9:1–17) traditions, it seems likely that Jesus was known to have held less-than-stringent views about the extent to which one was obliged to abstain from work on the sabbath.

33. Many of these stories have a mixed form precisely because of the combination of healing and Sabbath controversy. This perhaps warrants a form-critical category of its own.

Defense of Sabbath Controversy as Being Historically Plausible

17

attestation shows that Sabbath controversy is well attested in the ministry of Jesus. The criterion of discontinuity is helpful but in a more limited sense. It is well known that the Sabbath became crucial to the world view of Second Temple Judaism. 34 It became a distinctive with which the people of Israel could mark themselves as keepers of the Torah. This period saw the advent of legal discussions regarding restrictions on the Sabbath as well as possible exceptions to the rules. Thus, the whole tenor of Sabbath observance was strict observance of the law. Contrasted with this is Jesus’ attitude toward the Sabbath. The Gospel traditions in many places indicate Jesus’ attitude toward the law through issues surrounding his Sabbath observance. One aspect of his attitude involves his place of authority over the law. For him to say that “the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath” (Mark 2:28 and parallels) with obvious reference to himself, he must have regarded himself in some sense as authoritative over the Sabbath, not the other way around. In other words, the laws and legal discussions that had developed in order to ensure that Jews kept the Sabbath did not apply to him. On the other end of the spectrum, there were similarities with Judaism in the way that the early church handled the Sabbath, but there were also important differences. On the one hand, it is clear that for many in the early church the Sabbath was a normal part of religious life. Paul routinely entered the synagogue on the Sabbath to preach and teach (Acts 13:14, 42, 44; 17:2; 18:4), 35 which was also a routine aspect of Jesus’ life. 36 Sabbath did not come up as an issue at the Jerusalem Council; presumably many Christians were keeping the Sabbath as Jews were. On the other hand, there are signs that the Sabbath no longer held the same prominent place in the weekly calendar of the early church. Paul, for example, appears to argue in Col 2:16 that strict Sabbath observance was no longer required for believers. Two passages note that Christians gathered in some capacity on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7–12; 1 Cor 16:2), but these passages do not necessarily imply an abrogation of the Sabbath. What is certainly clear is that, in time, the first day of the week supplanted the Sabbath as the normal day of worship for the early church. 37 Thus Jesus’ observance of the Sabbath was distinct 34. This can be amply demonstrated from intertestamental documents such as the book of Jubilees with its strong emphasis on Sabbath observance and the book of 1 Maccabees with its recounting of persecution under Antiochus Epiphanes (see especially 1 Macc 1:41–49). For a definitive, seminal study on this issue, see E. P. Sanders, Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983). 35. S. Westerholm and C. A. Evans, “Sabbath,” DNTB 1035. 36. This is explicitly stated in Luke 4:16 and indicated by Jesus’ repeated presence in the synagogue on the Sabbath in Mark 1:21; 6:2; Luke 4:31 (compare with 4:33); 6:6; 13:10. By implication, other incidents of teaching in the synagogue very likely could have been on the Sabbath (Matt 4:23; 9:35; 13:54; Mark 1:39; Luke 4:15; 4:44; John 6:59; 18:20). 37. See Samuele Bacchiocchi, From Sabbath to Sunday: A Historical Investigation of the Rise of Sunday Observance in Early Christianity (Rome: Pontifical Gregorian University,

18

Chapter 2

from the Jewish culture of his time and the church’s ultimate practice that followed. This argues for a higher degree of historical plausibility for the Sabbath controversy. 38 The criterion of coherence also argues for the historical plausibility of Sabbath controversy in the life of Jesus. If we posit that a central issue in Jesus’ treatment of the Sabbath was authority, then coherence is very helpful. In actions and words accepted as historical by most scholars, Jesus claims authority over various aspects of the Judaism of his day. For example, with his action in the temple, which is generally recognized as historical, Jesus was claiming authority over holy space. It would cohere very well to see Jesus, in claiming authority over the Sabbath, as claiming authority over Israel’s holy time. Jesus’ preaching of the kingdom was an announcement of God’s coming rule and an invitation to participate. Many of his healings that were the center of Sabbath controversy can be viewed as the same kind of action. 39 So coherence lends plausibility to the Sabbath controversies.

1977); D. A. Carson, ed., From Sabbath to Lord’s Day: A Biblical, Historical, and Theological Investigation (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1982). 38. The applicability of the criterion of double similarity should be addressed at this point. This criterion is developed by N.  T. Wright (Christian Origins and the Question of God, vol. 2: Jesus and the Victory of God [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996], 131–33), works hand in hand with the criterion of dissimilarity, and is stated thus: Along with the much-discussed ‘criterion of dissimilarity’ must go a criterion of double similarity: when something can be seen to be credible (though perhaps deeply subversive) within first-century Judaism, and credible as the implied starting-point (though not the exact replica) of something in later Christianity, there is a strong possibility of our being in touch with the genuine history of Jesus.

Arguably, Jesus’ treatment of the Sabbath is both dissimilar from and similar to his Jewish context. As the central thesis of chap. 4 will argue, Jesus’ approach to the Sabbath bypassed the legal Halakah that had developed around the Sabbath and instead returned to its theological center as a proclamation of God’s activity of blessing on behalf of his people. In this sense, Jesus is in step with the Judaism of his day, because this view of the Sabbath arises directly out of the Hebrew Scriptures, which all Judaism accepted as normative; but in another sense, he is out of step with the Judaism of his day, because he shows no concern to maintain a particular behavior with regard to the Sabbath in order to standardize it as an appropriate identity marker for Jews. What cannot be argued as well is that Jesus’ attitude toward the Sabbath was both dissimilar from and similar with Christianity. As discussed in the text above, Jesus’ approach to the Sabbath was different from the early church’s, but how was it similar? There are no clear texts that deal with the Sabbath in a vein similar Jesus’ approach. One might expect some theological discussion along these lines somewhere in the NT, but they are noticeable by their absence. Further study will have to show whether there was similarity between Jesus and the early church in their approaches to the Sabbath. At this time, a judgment on the matter cannot be made. 39. See, for example, Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 191–96; Craig A.  Evans, “Inaugurating the Kingdom of God and Defeating the Kingdom of Satan,” BBR  15 (2005): 49–75.

Defense of Sabbath Controversy as Being Historically Plausible

19

The criterion of rejection and execution can also be marshaled to lend historical credibility to Sabbath controversy, although this is not uniformly so in every example. Some passages indicate intense controversy that does not explicitly lead to rejection and execution. For example, Luke 13:10–17 contains pointed controversy between Jesus and the synagogue leader specifically (v.  14) and between Jesus and his adversaries generally (v.  17), but there is no indication in this text that the controversy led to Jesus’ execution. The passages for which this criterion can be invoked are Mark 3:6 (and parallels) and John 5:18. In Mark 3:6, in direct response to Jesus’ Sabbath healing, his opponents seek out a way to kill him; 40 and in John 5:18, the Jewish leaders intensify their efforts to kill Jesus, implied as beginning after the Sabbath controversy, in light of his claim that God was his father. Thus in some texts, this criterion is satisfied. The remaining criteria are of more limited value. Controversy over the Sabbath and healings that caused it would not be embarrassing to the early church at all, so this criterion is not helpful in this instance. One could view Jesus’ attitudes and actions on the Sabbath as a mitigating factor in his trial and crucifixion, and in this sense the criterion of rejection and execution would be met, but there is little in the passion narratives to lend support to this notion. The secondary criterion of traces of Aramaic will not work with Sabbath controversy on a global scale; it is geared toward assessing individual sayings. The criterion of Palestinian environment is somewhat helpful in that it shows continuity between the known situation of Sabbath observance and related rules during the first century and the situation found in the Gospels—that is, it lends historical verisimilitude to the situation. The criterion of Synoptic tendencies is not helpful in this situation. 41 In short, the major criterion of multiple attestation answers the global question in the affirmative: Sabbath controversy in the life and ministry of Jesus is highly plausible historically. Now the individual pericopes can be examined in more detail. Examination of Specific Pericopes Meier has the most extensive discussion about Sabbath controversy in his section on the healing of the man with the withered hand (Mark 3:1–6 and parallels). 42 His first assertion that chips away at the historicity of the controversy in this pericope is the assertion that Mark has redacted received material. The final statement that closes Mark 3:1–6 is intended to close the 40. This example ceases to pertain to this criterion, though, if through redaction the author added this verse to material which had no association to Jesus’ rejection and execution otherwise. This issue will be discussed further below. 41. The final criterion of historical presumption which Meier lists (Meier, A Marginal Jew, 1:183) is not really a criterion to apply to the Gospel materials. It is instead a criterion to apply to the historian. 42. Meier, A Marginal Jew, 2:681–84, 4:254–56.

20

Chapter 2

whole complex of stories from 2:1 to 3:5: “So the Pharisees went out immediately and began plotting with the Herodians, as to how they could assassinate him.” 43 Meier notes as well that the placement of this healing following the pronouncement story in 2:23–28 is redactional: “No doubt Mark also sees the cure of the withered hand on the Sabbath as a confirmation of what Jesus affirms at the end of chap. 2: the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath (2:28).” 44 Meier argues that 3:6 links the final pericope of this extended unit with the first, where the charge of blasphemy is introduced; when coupled with the charge of blasphemy that condemns Jesus in Mark 14, the redactional loop is closed. “All of these redactional manipulations by Mark . . . point to earlier material that was inherited and reworked.” 45 In his more recent work, Meier adds the argument that the emphasis of the pericope is Christological, not legal, thus fitting Mark’s redactional concerns even more tightly. 46 In response, I do not disagree with Meier that redaction has occurred in this pericope with the use of 3:6 as a closing of the story cycle. My disagreement is with his subsequent doubt about the historicity of the Sabbath controversy. The fact that redaction has occurred is clear enough. The pericopes of this complex in Mark 2:1–3:6 are grouped together because of their controversy-story form; 3:6 functions as a story seam to close the cycle. It does not necessarily follow, however, that the content of any one of the stories is now in doubt, because the arrangement of individual stories does not automatically mean that the contents of the individual stories themselves have been altered. 47 More pointed is the argument (although Meier does not make it) that in contrast to Mark 3:6 there is nothing else in the Synoptics that supports a plot against Jesus so early in his ministry. When Mark 3:6 is compared with the parallel passage in Luke 6:11, however, this argument loses some of its weight. 48 In comparison with Mark 3:6, Luke 6:11 is more general in how it portrays the response to the controversy: αὐτοὶ δὲ ἐπλήσθησαν ἀνοίας καὶ διελάλουν πρὸς ἀλλήλους τί ἂν ποιήσαιεν τῷ Ἰησοῦ. Note that the pronoun αὐτοί leaves the specific actors vague (scribes and Pharisees were mentioned in v. 7), and the verb ποιήσαιεν describes action but does not specify exactly what action this was. On the basis of Markan priority, one must argue that Luke consciously changed this wording from specific to general, in contrast to Matthew, who only removed the historical 43. Unless otherwise noted, English Scripture citations are taken from the net. 44. Meier, A Marginal Jew, 2:682. 45. Meier, A Marginal Jew, 2:682. 46. Meier, A Marginal Jew, 4:254. 47. Indeed, see Meier, A Marginal Jew, 2:731 n. 16, for a discussion on this very point regarding Mark 3:1–6, where he seems more inclined to accept the core controversy in the story. 48. The parallel passage in Matt 12:14 reads almost exactly like Mark 3:6, except for the verb ἔλαβον in place of ἐδίδουν and omission of the reference to the Herodians.

Defense of Sabbath Controversy as Being Historically Plausible

21

difficulty of the Herodians. 49 Luke’s change is quite adept, and it solves the conundrum: it removes the historical difficulties in Mark 3:6 of the Herodians and the early plot on Jesus’ life, all the while retaining the truth that there was indeed controversy in the original event that generated a response on the part of Jesus’ opponents. This more primitive nature of the subsequent Gospel testifies to the historical core that was redacted by Mark. Meier then discusses two major points in denying the historicity of Sab­ bath controversy in this pericope. The first concerns the attitudes of the general population toward Sabbath observance. He argues that the average Galilean peasant would not quibble over minor points of Sabbath observance. Like most other Jews of 1st-century Palestine, Galilean peasants no doubt observed the basic rules of the Sabbath: no secular everyday work, no buying and selling, no lengthy journeys, no lighting or extinguishing of a fire, no cooking, no medical treatment of illnesses outside life-or-death situations, and no military activity except in case of self-defense. But ordinary Galilean peasants probably did not worry about the fine points over which special religious groups quarreled. 50

This argument makes a valid point, but it falls short in one major way: the controversy that ensued over Jesus’ actions was not with the local peasants. It was instead a controversy with a special religious group that did in fact quibble over rules regarding Sabbath observance. Meier himself notes that “the Mishna (compiled ca. a.d. 200) records disagreements between the House of Hillel and the House of Shammai on the issue of sabbath observance, some of which may indeed reach back to the pre-70 period.” 51 Other Scriptures indicate that the average peasant had no problem with Jesus’ deeds and in fact was glad to see them and benefit from them (e.g., Matt 9:8; Mark 5:20; Luke 13:17). Scripture is clear that the driving force for opposition to Jesus was from a special religious group in a position of leadership, not from the average Galilean peasant. To vacate the Sabbath controversy because of what the average Jew thought and believed is to miss the point. The second major point that Meier makes along these lines is that Jesus actually did not perform any work on the Sabbath in this instance; he merely spoke words to the man, and this speaking alone healed him. If we take the story in Mark 3:1–6 at face value, Jesus literally does nothing— that is, he performs no action—and so in no sense can he be said to break the Sabbath by working. Thus it is incredible that Pharisees or anyone else would seek to put Jesus to death for the event described in Mark 3:1–6. It is also difficult to believe that any group of Jews could or would accuse Jesus of breaking 49. For discussion, see John P. Meier, “The Historical Jesus and the Historical Herodians,” JBL 119 (2000): 740–46; idem, A Marginal Jew, 2:560–65. 50. Meier, A Marginal Jew, 2:682–83. 51. Meier, A Marginal Jew, 3:526–27. Here Meier cites m. Šabb. 1:4–8.

22

Chapter 2 the Sabbath when all Jesus did was to speak a few words that brought healing to a crippled hand. 52

This line of argument ignores a crucial aspect of Sabbath observance that is represented in the Qumran materials. Within these materials, there is a strong strain of prohibition against certain types of speech on the Sabbath: “And on the day of the sabbath, no-one should say a useless or stupid word. .  .  . He is not to discuss riches or gain. He is not to speak about matters of work or the task to be carried out on the following day” (CD 10:18–19). These prohibitions heavily restrict the speech one uses and the words one utters on the Sabbath day. Work should not only be avoided, it should not even be discussed. 53 Although there may not be a direct connection between the Qumran restrictions and the point of contention in this Sabbath controversy, it at least lends credence to the argument that the words Jesus uttered could be counted as Sabbath breaking, even more so since the words alone accomplished an action that could have been deemed work. 54 In sum, the controversy Jesus had over healing the man with the withered hand fits the historical environment. The arguments that Meier has against it are not as strong as they appear, so the controversy in this event can be affirmed as historically plausible with a reasonable degree of certainty. When discussing the healing of the bent-over woman (Luke 13:10–17), Meier in his earlier work acknowledged the historical verisimilitude of the account but decided on a judgment of non liquet. 55 This would be a positive judgment compared with the general agnosticism of Sanders, whom Meier quotes with approval. 56 In his more recent work, he argues that this pericope cannot be considered historical. 57 There are factors, however, that counter Meier and lead to a positive judgment, in my opinion. The fact that there are indeed “concrete details that serve no theological purpose” 58 is indicative of historicity. The length of time that the woman was in this condition is mentioned specifically. Eighteen years has no theological significance; why would this particular detail be created by the evan52. Meier, A Marginal Jew, 2:683, cf. 4:254. 53. This helps counter Meier’s argument related to the late appearance of restrictions against healing on the Sabbath (A Marginal Jew, 4:255); the healing may not have been the only legal point at issue. 54. Another obvious point to consider is the fact that Jesus’ words alone are presented as healing the man. Jesus’ words are authoritative in this instance, and this show of authority may have driven the controversy in part. 55. See Meier, A Marginal Jew, 1:183, for a discussion of this term. It is a Latin expression that means ‘not clear’. Meier uses it as middle ground when a decision for or against historicity cannot be made based on the available evidence. 56. Meier, A Marginal Jew, 2:685, referring to E. P. Sanders, Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah: Five Studies (London: SCM, 1990), 20. 57. Meier, A Marginal Jew, 4:256. 58. Meier, A Marginal Jew, 2:685.

Defense of Sabbath Controversy as Being Historically Plausible

23

gelist? It is a reasonable judgment to accept this detail as historical. Her physical condition is described in more detail than the afflictions in other healing miracles: she was bent over and could not straighten up. Again, no significance is granted to these details, so it is plausible to consider them accurate historical details. One interesting problem of the pericope is that only the synagogue ruler responds to Jesus’ actions that heal the woman. Yet Jesus responds to him using the plural ὑποκριταί, and the concluding verse of the pericope indicates that all his opponents (πάντες οἱ ἀντικείμενοι) were humiliated. This could be taken as a poor example of redaction, but perhaps it is a vestige of historicity. Throughout the Gospels, the Jewish leaders are depicted as slinking around in the background, trying to find a way to trick Jesus into making a mistake. 59 Jesus’ response to a group of people here may be an indication that the synagogue leader was not alone in his opposition or that he was the point man for the group. This certainly does not make an airtight case for historicity, but it does allow one to go beyond the general agnosticism expressed by Meier. I am comfortable with an assessment of probable historicity in this instance, although it is certainly a difficult decision. In discussing the case of the healing of the man with dropsy (Luke 14:1–6), Meier argues that Jesus’ healing with a mere touch would not have been seen as a violation of the Sabbath by the average Jew. 60 He adds that there is no action that would in pre-70 Judaism be construed as work, so this pericope cannot be considered historical. 61 To counter this, I simply refer to the argument expressed above: the controversy was not with the average Jew but with a special group. The Gospels indicate that the average Jew accepted and rejoiced at Jesus’ actions, but specific, distinct groups of Jews did not. This fact coupled with the arguments that Meier himself states make this healing distinct 62 enable one to make a decision that it is likely historical. The remaining miracles in the Gospels which involve Sabbath controversy both occur in John. In John 5, Jesus heals the paralytic by the pool of 59. See, for example, Mark 3:2. 60. Meier, A Marginal Jew, 2:711. 61. Meier, A Marginal Jew, 4:256. 62. Meier (A Marginal Jew, 2:711) states, Luke 14:1–6 does have characteristics that mark it off from all other stories of healing on the Sabbath: the healing takes place in the house of a Pharisee, not in a synagogue, and in the context of a meal. Dropsy as the ailment cured is unparalleled in the rest of the Bible. Jesus heals not with a word but with a touch. No opposition to Jesus is voiced, Jesus’ reaction to his adversaries is not as fierce as elsewhere, and no hostile action is planned against Jesus.

It is interesting to note that Meier regards Jesus’ touching the man as unique among Sabbath healings, but this is not so. Jesus touches the bent-over woman in Luke 13:10–17 and applies mud to the eyes of the man born blind in John 9:6; perhaps the latter is excluded because it involves a substance as means to enact the miracle.

24

Chapter 2

Bethzatha. Meier argues that the Sabbath controversy has been “tacked on” by the evangelist. 63 The best arguments against this are made by Raymond Brown. 64 It is true that the Sabbath theme is introduced in John 5:9 in a way that would appear to be an “afterthought.” 65 However, this might be an example of a Johannine technique as the Sabbath is introduced in John 9:14 in the same way. Brown, arguing against Haenchen who denies the originality of John 5:9b–13, 66 points out that without the Sabbath controversy this story would have little significance. It would not illustrate the faith of the one healed, as many synoptic healings do, nor would it adequately demonstrate Jesus’ concern for those who are suffering (cf. Luke 7:11–17). “One almost needs the Sabbath motif to give this story significance.” 67 This story exhibits parallels with Luke 13:10–17: Jesus heals, questions are raised about Sabbath observance, then Jesus speaks regarding the Sabbath. 68 These elements point to the originality of the Sabbath motif in John 5, and as such it has a claim to historicity greater than that which Meier assigns it. The healing of the man born blind is a more complex case because the ensuing Sabbath controversy involves what many believe to be a blatant anachronism, that is, the casting out of the man from the synagogue in John 9:34. Meier denies the Sabbath controversy because it is not connected to the miracle story proper but also because it “is suffused with Johannine theology, reflecting in particular the painful break of John’s church from the Jewish synagogue.” 69 The chapter endnote on this statement expands on this argument. Besides the typically Johannine language and style, John’s hand can be seen in (1) the depiction of the Pharisees as a juridically competent body with the authority to expel any Jew (including rulers, cf. 12:42) from the synagogue; (2) the expression of this state of affairs in 9:22 by a compound adjective apparently created by John (aposynagōgos, “cast out of the synagogue”), an adjective that appears in no other book in the NT; (3) John’s “realized eschatology,” expressed in the idea that Jesus as the Son of Man passes judgment not on a future “last day” but on the “last day” of decision that is right now, in the moment of belief or unbelief; (4) the theme of Jesus as the light of the world, who not only gives the blind man both physical sight and the insight of faith but also passes judgment on the Pharisees, who despite their physical sight plunge further and further into spiritual blindness (9:40–41). In particular, John’s depiction of the Pharisees and their authority over Judaism reflects the 63. Meier, A Marginal Jew, 2:681. 64. Brown, John I–XII, 210–11. His arguments are presented in the rest of the paragraph. 65. Brown, John I–XII, 210. 66. See Ernst Haenchen, John 1 (trans. Robert W.  Funk; Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 257–58. 67. Brown, John I–XII, 210. 68. Brown, John I–XII, 210. 69. Meier, A Marginal Jew, 2:695.

Defense of Sabbath Controversy as Being Historically Plausible

25

realignment of power-structures in Judaism after the First Jewish War and the destruction of Jerusalem in a.d. 70. . . . John is reflecting a new religious situation, one that did not hold true during the time of Jesus’ ministry. 70

Meier has adopted the traditional, skeptical view regarding John 9, that the depiction of the man being cast out of the synagogue did not occur during Jesus’ ministry and is in fact a retrojection of the conflict that John’s community was undergoing at a later time. Therefore, the controversy depicted there could in no way have originated in the ministry of Jesus. 71 This argument, however, ignores another feasible reading of the evidence that understands John to be referring to an informal, localized, early expulsion. On the basis of Ezra 10:8 and 1QS 6:24–7:25, it is possible that excommunication from the synagogue was pre-Christian. 72 At the least, this evidence shows that Jewish communities before and during the first century practiced a discipline of members that restricted their access to the community even to the point of complete expulsion from it. Evidence surrounding the Twelfth of the Eighteen Benedictions, which specifically excludes Christians from the synagogue, is inconclusive and cannot be used as a later starting point for any synagogue expulsions. Instead, it is best understood as the culmination of a rather involved history of Jewish persecution of Christians and gradual separation of the two communities. 73 In support of this point, Paul himself was cast out of a synagogue in Acts 13:50, and he speaks of prior persecution of Christians by Jews in Judea in 1 Thess 2:14. 74 On a related note, it is wrong to assume that the confession of Jesus as the Christ, which many argue is in view in the Twelfth Benediction, arose only after the resurrection. Jesus did in fact enunciate a test of discipleship during his ministry that included public confession of him according to Matt 10:32–33 and 12:8–9; this finds a conceptual parallel in Mark 8:38. 75 This is confirmed as well by the last Beatitude: Matt 5:11–12 is parallel to Luke 70. Meier, A Marginal Jew, 2:743 n. 82. 71. Other scholars generally support this viewpoint, albeit with some variations, for many of the same reasons, including Barrett, St. John, 361–62; and Brown, John I–XII, 380. This is the underlying assumption of Ernst Haenchen, John 2 (trans. Robert W. Funk; Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 39; and Rudolf Bultmann, The Gospel of John: A Commentary (trans. G. R. Beasley-Murray; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971), 335 n. 5. 72. Craig S.  Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary (2 vols.; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003), 1:787. 73. So William Horbury, “The Benediction of the Minim and Early Jewish-Christian Controversy,” JTS  33 (1982):  19–61; George R.  Beasley-Murray, John (WBC 36; Dallas: Word, 1989), 154; Martin Hengel, The Johannine Question (London: SCM / Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1989), 114–15; Pieter van der Horst, “The Birkat Ha-Minim in Recent Research,” ExpTim 105 (1994): 363–68; Tobias Hägerland, “John’s Gospel: A TwoLevel Drama?” JSNT 25 (2003): 316–17. 74. Craig L. Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of John’s Gospel (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2001), 154. 75. Carson, John, 370.

26

Chapter 2

6:22–23, which is very close conceptually to John 9. 76 The evidence from Jesus’ trial and crucifixion is also important: the charge of the high priest shows the currency of the confession of Jesus as Messiah, 77 while the titulus over the cross confirms the public nature of this confession. If there was controversy surrounding Jesus and individuals who professed allegiance to him, it is very likely that some form of synagogue discipline would be enacted. The use of ἤδη in John 9:22 may also favor a positive assessment of historicity because this word may indicate that during the life of Jesus threats of expulsion were already taking place. 78 In a recent treatment, Klink argues that John 9 contains points of historical contact with Jesus’ own ministry because the evidence from the chapter points to what had been occurring in Judaism for years—namely: “the Jewish-Christian tension in the first century was part of the larger intraJewish tension between related members of common familial roots,” not between unrelated groups, that is, Christians and Jews. 79 Even if one argues that the use of ἀποσυνάγωγος must refer to late first-century synagogue expulsions, it is possible that John is being intentionally anachronistic with his description of the expulsion during the ministry of Jesus so that his readers would understand the events surrounding this healing; this view simply explains why John uses the specific term and does not deny the underlying controversy and synagogue discipline that were imposed on the man in Jesus’ day. All of this evidence leads to the conclusion that Meier makes an inappropriate judgment concerning the controversy here in John 9. There are good reasons to regard it as historically plausible with an origin in the life and ministry of Jesus. In conclusion, although Meier argues against Sabbath controversy in the life of Jesus (his conclusions range from an agnostic stance to outright denial), the evidence is best taken as more positive historically. The global question certainly affirms Sabbath controversy in the life and ministry of Jesus, and it must be said that this global picture must have an appropriate genesis, most likely from events that took place in Jesus’ life. The examination of the individual events and the controversy depicted in them shows that there is good reason to accept these events as historical with a high degree of probability in what they affirm, including the Sabbath controversy. With this foundation laid, the way is now clear for an investigation of divine Sabbath work and its impact on Sabbath controversy in Jesus’ life. 76. Beasley-Murray, John, 154; Jerome H. Neyrey, The Gospel of John (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 176. 77. Carson, John, 370. 78. Carson, John, 371. 79. Edward W. Klink III, “Expulsion from the Synogogue? Rethinking a Johannine Anachronism,” TynBul 59 (2008): 111.

Chapter 3

Investigation of Relevant Background Material Introduction My goal in this chapter is to trace key ideas related to divine Sabbath work in the literature that illustrates the conceptual and cultural issues present but not necessarily explicit in the NT text. The primary problems faced at this juncture relate to methodology and results. The Sabbath was crucial to the life of Israel from its inception. It became a crucial sign to mark Israel as distinct from without and from within: that is to say, other nations noted Israel’s keeping of the Sabbath as distinct, 1 and Israel itself noted that the Sabbath was a unique institution, meant only for the people of Israel. 2 Because of the centrality of this institution to the life of Israel, 1. See, for example, Josephus, Ag. Ap. 1.209, where Josephus includes this report by Agatharchides: “There are a people called Jews, who dwell in a city the strongest of all other cities, which the inhabitants call Jerusalem, and are accustomed to rest on every seventh day; on which times they make no use of their arms, nor meddle with husbandry, nor take care of any affairs of life, but spread out their hands in their holy places, and pray till the evening.” 2. See, for example, Deut. Rab. 1:21, which reads, R. Jose b. Hanina said: A non-Jew who observes the Sabbath whilst he is uncircumcised incurs liability for the punishment of death. Why? Because [non-Jews] were not commanded concerning it. And what is your reason for saying that a non-Jew who observes the Sabbath becomes liable to the punishment of death? R. Hiyya b. Abba said in the name of R. Johanan: In mundane affairs, when a king and his consort are sitting and conversing together, should one come and interrupt them, does he not thereby make himself liable to the punishment of death? So, too, the Sabbath is [a reunion] between Israel and God, as it is said, It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel (Ex. xxxi, 17); therefore ay non-Jew who, being uncircumcised, thrusts himself between them incurs the penalty of death. The Rabbis say: Moses declared before God: “Master of the Universe, just because the Gentiles have not been commanded to observe the Sabbath, wilt Thou show favour to them if they do observe it?” God replied to him: “Do you really fear this? By your life, even if they fulfill all the commandments in the Torah, yet will I cause them to fall before you.”

Also, Jub. 2:31 reads, “The Creator of all blessed it [i.e., the Sabbath], but he did not sanctify any people or nations to keep the sabbath thereon with the sole exception of Israel. He granted to them alone that they might eat and drink and keep the sabbath thereon upon the earth.”

27

28

Chapter 3

understandably the literature that refers to it is immense. A very real challenge in this study is simply the process of working through the material— more specifically, determining the key terminology to search and the key bodies of literature in which to search. Once these searches are complete, the results may be organized in a coherent fashion. This in itself presents two major challenges. The first issue one must face is paucity. It should be stated that in the research done for this book very few passages were found that state explicitly that God works on the Sabbath. Consequently, I expanded my list of results to include not only passages that refer to divine work on the Sabbath but also passages that refer to the Sabbath in a way that may prove useful for interpreting Jesus’ actions, even if they do not focus on the issue of divine Sabbath work. I felt that this was necessary for three main reasons: to secure a sufficient database of material, to consider the problem from different angles, and to provide sufficient controls for my conclusions. 3 The second issue the researcher must face at this juncture is definition. The issue of divine work on the Sabbath—that is, work done by God—must be approached from a variety of perspectives, because the issue is dynamic and complex. Because of the overarching importance of Gen 2:1–3, the central scriptural passage to the entire question, the development of the concept of divine Sabbath work must be followed along lines predetermined by this passage. By using Gen 2:1–3 as a template for understanding the issues related to God and the Sabbath, I have found several passages that refer to divine activity in relation to the Sabbath, usually in some symbolic or referential form, and these passages will improve the database of the study. Terminology certainly is helpful in investigating the concept of divine Sabbath work (for example, it stands to reason that it would be difficult to refer to God’s activity on the Sabbath without referring to the Sabbath), but the investigation of the question must be broadened past simple references to the Sabbath in order to be viable. This is simply because so much of the background literature deals with humanity’s relation to the Sabbath instead of God’s relation to it. This emphasis renders many Sabbath passages irrelevant to the central topic under investigation. 4 During the study, however, other terms have come to light that do provide relevant material for understanding Jesus’ actions on the Sabbath, the ultimate question of this study, 3. This third reason is perhaps the most subtle but in a sense the most important. Since the goal of this research is to relate the issue of divine Sabbath work to Jesus’ actions on the Sabbath, the statistically small number of passages that discuss this concept might skew the results. Theoretically, it is entirely possible that this issue is the central cultural issue to explain Jesus’ Sabbath actions, but methodologically, if there are a host of other passages that provide a better explanation of Jesus’ Sabbath actions and I do not list them, I run the risk of forcing Jesus into an unlikely context. 4. I have chosen in places to discuss passages that deal with Sabbath prohibitions when in my judgment they are directly relevant to interpreting Jesus’ situation.

Investigation of Relevant Background Material

29

and these terms provide a control for my results. In essence, one finds a broad theological grid that joins the Sabbath, eschatology, God’s actions for his people, and God’s creative activity, and this grid provides a framework for understanding Jesus’ activity on the Sabbath.

The Hebrew Scriptures The Central Passage: Genesis 2:1–3 The Hebrew Scriptures are primary in any discussion of the religious, cultural background of the Judaism of Jesus’ day. And even within these Scriptures, particular passages become more important than others for particular theological issues. This is true for the Sabbath, because Gen 2:1–3 forms the canonical, chronological, and theological starting point for the discussion. 5 It should be acknowledged from the outset that the noun ‫שּׁבַת‬ ָ does not occur in this passage; 6 thus this passage cannot be regarded as an institutionalization of the Sabbath. 7 It should also be acknowledged that this passage centers on God’s rest and does not appear to describe any aspect of divine work on the Sabbath. Even so, no one would deny the centrality of this passage to the institution of the Sabbath with all its particulars and the question of Sabbath work as it was elaborated intertextually throughout the entire canon of Scripture and in nonbiblical texts. It deserves primacy in the discussion. My comments here will be focused on the particular aspects of this passage that provide a springboard for further investigation of the topic. These are issues that became relevant as I examined the literature in its entirety, and they have become central to proving my hypothesis. 8

5. For a discussion of the importance of the larger narrative unit of Gen 1:1–2:4, see Richard S. Hess, “God and Origins: Interpreting the Early Chapters of Genesis,” in Darwin, Creation and the Fall: Theological Challenges (ed. R. J. Berry and T. A. Noble; Nottingham: Apollos, 2009), 86–98. 6. The verb ‫שַׁבת‬ ָ does occur, once in v. 2 and once in v. 3. 7. It will become clear from many discussions about this passage, however, that it was interpreted in just this way. For example, several passages in the midrashim depict God and others as specifically keeping the Sabbath before it was ordained in the law by Moses. The law is thus viewed as retroactive, but this occurs because Gen 2:1–3 is programmatic in this regard. 8. A word about source-critical concerns is apropos here. I do not think it is necessary to delve into the documentary hypothesis and whether or not Gen 1:1–2:3 in fact is from the Priestly source. Since my goal is to address the historical, cultural background of the topic relative to the time of Jesus, the exact origins of the sources do not matter as much as the final form of the sources themselves, especially since they were written and formed before the time of Jesus. The proper question is how these sources formed the theology of the Judaism of Jesus’ time, no matter when they were originally written. This stance also pertains to other materials, the sources of which are debated—for example, the book of Isaiah.

30

Chapter 3

This passage is part of the creation narrative; it depicts the culmination of God’s act of creation and his subsequent change of activities from creation to rest. On its face, this narrative with its reference to the “seventh day” is not a command as such or even a direct reference to the Israelite institution of the Sabbath. 9 However, this passage becomes the basis for Sabbath legislation in the Torah, and it becomes the source of a rich theology regarding the Sabbath and rest for the people of God. There are several points to be noted at this juncture regarding this passage and its relation to divine Sabbath work. The passage states that God “finished” (‫ ) ַו ְיכַל‬his work and “ceased” (‫ִשּׁבֹת‬ ְ ‫ ) ַוּי‬from his labors. God rested from his labors on this day and did no more work. This becomes the standard of activity for this day and is commanded as the norm in later legislation. Not only is God’s rest a central focus, his response to the day is also imְ ‫ ) ַו ְי ָבר‬this day and “made it holy” (‫) ַויְקַ ּדֵ שׁ‬. Because portant: God “blessed” (‫ֶך‬ he had completed his work of creation, God set this day apart as a special day for rest. 10 God’s actions regarding the seventh day are both negative and positive: they are negative in that God stops a particular activity, but they are positive in that God blesses the day and bestows a sanctified status on it. 11 This allows the possibility of seeing divine action on the Sabbath: inasmuch as blessing and sanctification are divine activities, God has acted on the Sabbath. This is brought to light particularly well by textual variants for the Hebrew word ‫יעי‬ ִ ‫שׁ ִב‬ ְ in Gen 2:2. The textual apparatus of BHS indicates that the reading of the Syriac supports an underlying Vorlage of ‫ּשׁי‬ ִ ‫ַּשׁ‬ ִ ‫ה‬. The critical text of the Göttingen LXX reads τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ ἕκτῃ, and its textual apparatus indicates that the reading of the Samaritan Pentateuch indicates a Vorlage of τῇ ἕκτῃ, while the rest of the Greek translations and the manuscripts M, 17, 135, 127, and 344 attest a reading of ἑβδόμῃ. Arguably the variant τῇ ἕκτῃ arose to remove God’s actions of sanctification and blessing from the seventh day itself so they could not be construed as work. 12 Against this construal, however, is the argument that God “blessed” the day and “made it holy” simply through his inactivity, which made the day different from others. In addition, by blessing the day God in a sense had to be objectively separate from it or outside it. So it is reasonable to see God as totally separate from the Sabbath and in no way acting on it. I do not mean

9. To recognize it as such would be to put the legislative cart before the theological horse. 10. Mark S. Smith (The Priestly Vision of Genesis 1 [Minneapolis: Fortress, 2010], 106) notes that this “combination of blessing, sanctification, and rest appears in no other creation account.” 11. So Nahum M.  Sarna, Genesis ( JPSTC 1; New York: Jewish Publication Society, 1989), 14: “Its distinctive character is the desistance from labor and its infusion with blessing and sanctity.” God is understood to be the source of this blessing and sanctity. 12. Note also the exegesis found in Gen. Rab. 7:5; 10:9; 11:9.

Investigation of Relevant Background Material

31

for the argument I offer above to be definitive, but I do understand the wording of the text to suggest this possibility. Also important to the question is the particular activity that God ceased on this seventh day. Specifically, it was his creation work from which he rested. The verb ‫ ברא‬occurs in Gen 1:1 and 2:3 both to frame the narrative and specifically to define the action God was doing during this week. Because God stopped his work of creation, passages that indicate that God again created—using the verb ‫ ברא‬specifically as creation terminology—become important because they indicate that God continued work that he supposedly had ceased. This creates another suggested line of argumentation for my hypothesis: if the work God stopped was creative, then passages that indicate that he continued his creative work should be examined as potentially relevant to the issue at hand. There is another aspect of this central passage that becomes very important in the relevant literature. As stated above, this passage is not a command as such. However, because of God’s actions of blessing the day at the end of creation, God’s activity here is understood to be paradigmatic for the world in general and Israel in particular. Thus the day becomes a medium through which humanity and Israel can experience the blessing of God in the form of rest and freedom. As Hasel states, Rest-day holiness is something God bestowed onto the seventh day. God manifested himself in refraining from work and in rest as the divine Exemplar for humankind. The sequence of “six working-days” and a “seventh [sabbath] rest-day” indicates universally that every human being is to engage in an imitatio Dei, “imitation of God,” by resting on the “seventh day.” “Man” (ʾādām), made in the imago Dei, “image of God” (Gen 1:26–28) is invited to follow the Exemplar in an imitatio Dei, participating in God’s rest by enjoying the divine gift of freedom from the labors of human existence and thus acknowledging God as his creator. 13

The seventh day, then, does not represent for people simply an abstinence of activity but an opportunity for God to bless both through man’s imitation of him and through following God’s ordained order of creation—that is, six days of work, then a day of rest. Just as the day itself received blessing from God, the paradigmatic nature of the passage implies that it is a day through which man can himself receive blessing from God. Of all the days of the week, it becomes the primary day of blessing. Key Passages That Use ‫שַׁ ּבָת‬ There is considerable debate on the origin of the Hebrew root ‫שׁבת‬, and whether the verb ‫שׁבַת‬ ָ gave rise to the noun ‫ שַׁ ּבָת‬or vice versa, 14 but for the purposes of this study it is sufficient to note that the noun form occurs 13. Gerhard F. Hasel, “Sabbath,” ABD, 5:851. 14. See HALOT, “‫שׁבת‬,” 1407, for discussion.

32

Chapter 3

frequently in several important texts throughout the Hebrew Scriptures, a total of 111 times in 89 verses in the MT. 15 The verb ‫ברא‬, which means “to shape, create,” occurs 48 times in 41 verses. Following are passages that in my judgment are important to examine for their import on the larger question under discussion. Exodus 16:1–36.  Exodus 16:1–36 describes the provision of manna for the people of Israel in the wilderness after their exodus from Egypt. This is the first occurrence of the word ‫ שַׁ ּבָת‬in the MT. 16 It is important to notice that this is not a legal context; rather, this is a narrative describing God’s provision for his people in light of their deliverance. The context of the entire narrative, however, and its implication for the concepts involved are very important. In response to the murmurings and grumblings of the people about their lack of food, God promises to provide them with bread in the morning and quail in the evening. There are two restrictions on the people, however: First, on each regular day of the week they are not to keep any of the bread until morning (Exod 16:19). Second, on the sixth day, the day before the Sabbath, they are to gather twice their daily supply so that they will not need to gather on the seventh day (Exod 16:22–26). The people fail in two ways. First, some people keep some of the bread until morning and find it filled with worms; consequently, Moses censures the people (Exod 16:20–21). Second, and more importantly for the current question, some people go out looking for the bread on the seventh day, and thus the Lord censures them (Exod 16:27–30). The overall theology of the passage is one of provision and rest, and this is especially fitting given the situation of the Israelites after the exodus. God’s provision for Israel is complete in a number of ways. First and foremost, he provides for their needs regularly by supplying manna in the morning and quail in the evening. In addition, the provision is complete for the duration of the wilderness experience. More than these, however, God provides for Israel spiritually by providing for rest: the abundant provision on the sixth day for both the sixth day and the seventh allows Israel a period of rest and refreshment. All of this provision not only meets Israel’s basic physical and spiritual needs, it provides a tangible way for God’s presence to be felt among them. As Durham explains, “It proves Yahweh’s Presence, just as had the mighty acts in Egypt, the deliverance at the Sea, the water miracles, and the guidance through the wilderness. Yahweh is seen as provident, and as compassionately so: he provides for more than the barest needs 15. This figure was obtained through the BibleWorks software program using the WTM module, which is the Groves-Wheeler Westminster Morphology and Lemma Database, release 3.5, 2001. Thus WTM is essentially the morphologically tagged version of BHS. 16. The word occurs in Exod 16:23, 25, 26, and 29.

Investigation of Relevant Background Material

33

of subsistence, and he is tolerant of laxity and carelessness concerning his instructions.” 17 Of utmost importance to note is that in connection with the Sabbath day God provides abundantly: on the sixth day, he provides twice as much food so that there will be no need to gather food on the Sabbath. Within the narrative, then, this marks the Sabbath as very important to the Lord. The importance is not simply in the abstention of activity but on what this abstention allows Israel to concentrate: the Lord’s presence in its midst. Also important is what occurs when certain people go out on the seventh day looking for manna: the Lord becomes angry with them. This action on the part of the Lord is a form of judgment and discipline of his people, although it is certainly tempered with mercy. Thus there is a two-pronged emphasis in this passage regarding Sabbath: It is a time of God’s provision and presence, 18 and it is a time when God’s judgment can be brought forth against his people if they deny that very provision and presence. Exodus 20:8–11.  The Decalogue can be viewed as the heart of Israel’s covenant with God. It is of central importance, for it codifies many important distinctives that set Israel apart from the nations. 19 The Sabbath commandment is the first time in the Hebrew Scriptures that the day is mentioned in a legal context. Due to its placement in the Decalogue and its place as the first Sabbath legislation in the Torah, Exod 20:8–11 is a statement that has a tremendous effect on the institution of the Sabbath in Israel. This commandment can be divided into the command proper and two distinct explanation clauses. 20 The structure of the commandment is relatively straightforward. It focuses on the sanctity of the day through an 17. John I. Durham, Exodus (WBC 3; Dallas: Word, 1987), 227. 18. Brevard S.  Childs (The Book of Exodus [OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1974], 290) makes the valid point that the Sabbath is also a joyful day for the Israelites: In the verses which follow Moses explains in detail the nature of the sabbath and what it entails. It stems from a command of God; it is a day of special rest; it is set apart from the ordinary and dedicated to God. In anticipation for this special day, Israel is encouraged to be prepared. The manna can be baked or boiled—its properties are indeed wonderful—and kept in any form desired. When the people took Moses’ advice, it did not spoil or become rancid. There is a festive ring in Moses’ speech which continues in v. 25. The sabbath is not a day to go hungry and mourn. Rather Israel is to eat, for “today” is God’s special day. Later tradition expanded greatly on the theme of the joy of the sabbath, but the kernel of the theme is already present in the manna story.

19. For a very helpful overview of the Ten Commandments with a strong emphasis on theology and interpretation, see Patrick D. Miller, The Ten Commandments (IBC; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2009). 20. The development of this commandment is discussed often in the literature; see, for example, Gnana Robinson, The Origin and Development of the Old Testament Sabbath (BBET 21; New York: Peter Lang, 1988), 143–54. The common conclusion is that the basic kernel of the command existed first with two likely additions at later times before it received its final form in the Decalogue, although this is challenged by Gerhard F. Hasel,

34

Chapter 3

inclusio of sorts 21 as well as through content. The initial command requires that the Israelites remember the day for the purpose of sanctifying it. 22 The explanations that follow offer clarifications of this basic command: vv. 9 –10 specifically discuss the prohibition of work on the Sabbath as the means by which the day will be sanctified, and v. 11 relates it to God’s actions in creation. The command found in v. 8 focuses on sanctification of the actual Sabbath day. The Piel form of the infinitive ‫ ְלקַ ְּדשֹׁו‬is a factitive use; in essence the intransitive, stative sense of the verb in the Qal stem now “designates an effected state and governs an object.” 23 This implies intentional action on the part of individuals who obey this command. “The command to hallow is not identified simply with not working or resting, but over and above both of these is the positive action of making it holy.” 24 So the command to Israel is not at its root solely negative, requiring them to abstain from work, but it is also positive, requiring that they sanctify the day. 25 The means by which the positive command of sanctification is obtained is through the negative action of abstention from work; thus in a sense the negative and positive are two aspects of the same action. The word used here is ‫מלָאכָה‬. ְ This can be defined as “occupation,” 26 implying normal, everyday activities or customary, usual work. Sarna states, “The definition of prohibited labor (melaʾkhah) is not given here. Elsewhere in the Bible certain types of work are specified: ‘leaving one’s place,’ that is, walking beyond certain limits, agricultural activities, kindling fire, gathering wood, conducting business, carrying burdens, treading the winepress, and loading asses.” 27 These types “The Sabbath in the Pentateuch,” in The Sabbath in Scripture and History (ed. Kenneth A. Strand; Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1982), 28–29; and other scholars. 21. Verse 8 ends with the phrase ‫לקַ ְּדשֹׁו‬, ְ and v. 11 ends with the phrase ‫ ַויְקַ ְּדשֵׁהּו‬. 22. The combination preposition plus the infinitive construct here most likely indicates purpose, but it could also be epexegetical. 23. Bruce K. Waltke and M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 401. 24. Childs, Exodus, 415–16. 25. This is a very deliberate echo of the sanctification of the day that God accomplished in Gen 2:1–3. In much the same way that God acts on this day to sanctify it, the Israelites are to do the same. 26. BDB, “‫מלָאכָה‬,” ְ 521–22. HALOT (“‫מלָאכָה‬,” ְ 586) lists six categories of usage for this noun. Two of them refer to normal everyday activities: “1. trade mission, business journey”; “2. business, work.” Two of them refer to the results of this business activity: “3. handiwork, craftsmanship”; “4. objects, wares.” Two of them refer to specialized activities: “5. service”; “6. service in the cult.” There is no indication that ‫ ְמלָאכָה‬is meant to imply activity or exertion of any type. A defensible conclusion is that ‫ ְמלָאכָה‬refers to normal weekday activities associated with one’s occupation. 27. Nahum M.  Sarna, Exodus ( JPSTC 2; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1991), 112. His notes to this section list the following references for these classes of work: leaving one’s place, Exod 16:29; agricultural activities, Exod 34:21; kindling fire, Exod

Investigation of Relevant Background Material

35

of work would be normal and commonplace in Israel’s agrarian economy. The point, then, is not that Israel not do any activity but that the common tasks that form the warp and woof of every day work should not be part of the Sabbath; this day is something different and special that should not be tainted with the common. The catalog of creatures and individuals that were required to observe this command to rest could be an expression of humanitarian concern, 28 but the theological force of the passage does not have this as an emphasis. It emphasizes the extensiveness of the command. Everything associated with the Israelites should observe the Sabbath. Perhaps the most striking aspect of the command and the most important for this study is the rationale given for it in v. 11. Here the author states that God commands the Sabbath to be kept because “in six days Yahweh made the heavens and the earth and the sea and all that is in them, and he rested on the seventh day; therefore Yahweh blessed the sabbath day and sanctified it.” This reference to the capstone of the creation narrative can be viewed either as an etiology for the Sabbath 29 or as a simple reinforcement of the importance of the command: “Yahweh himself kept the sabbath, and blessed it: Israel therefore could hardly do otherwise.” 30 In either case, the very fact that God himself acted this way and commanded the Israelites to do likewise is evidence of the importance of the Sabbath and the emphasis it should have in the weekly life of every Israelite. At its root, this command extrapolates from God’s actions to Israel’s actions as a whole. “The etiology grounds the sanctity of the sabbath in the creative act of God; it is built into the very structure of the universe.” 31 As such it governs the life of Israel and demands that they sanctify the Sabbath day just as God did. 32 The import of this commandment does not rise solely out of imitation of God’s rest— that is, he rested on the seventh day, so his people must also rest; the words imply much more than this. It is a matter of honoring what the Creator has made holy. God created the world in six days and then rested on the seventh day. Consequently, this day has been blessed and sanctified by God. This commandment regarding the Sabbath codifies what should be Israel’s response to this holy day. In sum, the Sabbath commandment orients the legislation in the action of God in blessing the Sabbath day. By codifying it, God provides a means by which the Israelites can continually and repeatedly commemorate, duplicate, and enter into this blessing.

35:3; gathering wood, Num 15:32–36; conducting business, Isa 58:13, Amos 8:5, Neh 10:32, 13:15–18; carrying burdens, Jer 17:21, 24, 27; loading asses, Neh 13:15. 28. Durham, Exodus, 289. 29. So Childs, Exodus, 416. 30. Durham, Exodus, 290. 31. Childs, Exodus, 416. 32. This weekly observance was unique to Israel. See Richard S. Hess, Israelite Religions: An Archaeological and Biblical Survey (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2007), 166–67.

36

Chapter 3

Exodus 31:12–17.  In Exod 31:12–17, in the context of the construction of the Tabernacle, the Sabbath command is reiterated. This associates the Sabbath with the central place for Israelite worship and communion with God. This location of the command does two things. It shows that the Sabbath is regarded as more important than the building of the Tabernacle because the Israelites were to keep the Sabbath even during its construction, and it shows that the regular worship of God and his presence among them will be grounded in the Sabbath. There are many similarities between this Sabbath legislation and other Sabbath legislation in the OT. There is the obvious emphasis on abstention from work. The last verse cited above echoes the passage in the Decalogue, giving God’s rest on the seventh day as the reason for the Sabbath command. There are some significant additions here, however, which deserve to be noted. First, the Sabbath is said to be a sign (‫ )אֹות‬of the covenant. By keeping the Sabbath, the Israelites will show their special, covenant relationship with God and with all those around. This will be a perpetual sign that will mark the Israelites forever. 33 This is an important theological move that marks the Sabbath as profoundly important to Israel’s religious life. The covenant embodies God’s devotion to his people; he has entered into a relationship with them that requires their response in obedience and faith. By making the Sabbath a sign of this covenant, it in turn embodies the faith and obedience with which Israel is to respond. Keeping the Sabbath becomes an act of faith on the part of Israel. 34 More striking is the association of the Sabbath with holiness. God states that the Israelites are to keep the covenant as a perpetual sign that it is God who sanctifies them. This places the Sabbath on a very important level: it is a sign of God’s sanctifying activity within them. It becomes the outward sign by which they can know whether God is working in their midst; if the people of Israel keep the Sabbath, then God is sanctifying them and making them holy, as he is holy. The Sabbath itself is called holy, and defiling it is punishable by death. This is a new introduction to the Sabbath legislation, which indicates the gravity and seriousness of the command. 35 Abstention from work is reiterated, but there are no parameters given about what constitutes work in this section. This passage makes abundantly clear that the Sabbath has important religious implications for the people of God. It is a manifestation of God’s divine presence in their midst through the covenant. In light of the Book of the Covenant (Exod 20–23) and the people’s acceptance of it and feasting with God on Mt. Sinai (Exod 24), God essentially commits to maintain his 33. In a similar vein, circumcision is a perpetual sign of the Abrahamic covenant (Gen 17:13). 34. Sarna, Exodus, 201. 35. This punishment receives amplification in Exod 35:1–3, which connects the prohibition of work on the Sabbath to the kindling of fire. This connection becomes important in the incident of the man collecting wood on the Sabbath in Num 15:32–36.

Investigation of Relevant Background Material

37

presence with Israel by means of the Tabernacle (Exod 25:1–31:11) and the Sabbath (Exod 31:12–17). 36 By keeping the Sabbath as an eternal sign, the people of Israel would remember the covenant that codified God’s gracious gift of his presence. 37 Leviticus 16:29–31.  Leviticus 16:29–31 makes an important connection between the Day of Atonement and the Sabbath, primarily by way of imitation. In the first part of chap. 16, the ritual of the Day of Atonement is commanded and delineated. The primary purpose of the rites prescribed is to prevent the deaths of Aaron and subsequent high priests when they enter the presence of the Lord; the rites cleanse the Tabernacle from the sins of the people. 38 In an extension of this atonement, the sins of the people are then removed through the scapegoat, and thus they themselves are saved from death. Within the context of the entire ritual, then, all of Israel—from its place of worship to its high priest to its individual members—is purified. After the details of the ritual are finished, the connection to the Sabbath is made in vv. 29–31. The connection to the Sabbath is not one of calendar but one of attitude. The Israelites were to approach the Day of Atonement as they approached the Sabbath, but because of the supreme holiness of the day, it required an additional measure of solemnity, as indicated by the use of the word ‫  שַׁ ּבָתֹון‬39 in Lev 16:31. The question must be asked why the Sabbath was so pertinent to the character of the Day of Atonement that this connection was made in the first place. The answer lies in the emphasis placed on the sanctification of Israel in prior Sabbath contexts and the sanctification that is central to the ritual of the Day of Atonement. This sanctification finds its initial expression in God’s blessing of the day in Gen 2:1–3, which receives further expression in the foundation for the Sabbath 36. Thanks are due to Richard S. Hess for clarification of this point. In a different vein, Hasel, “Sabbath,” 852, argues that the Sabbath is a multivalent sign: Its “sign” signification is commemorative of God as Creator and Redeemer where the sabbath-keeping community confesses its continuing relationship to its covenant Lord; it is also prospective in signification in that it is a “sign” of the covenant history moving forward to its appointed goal; it is at the same time a “sign” signifying the believer’s present posture vis-à-vis God with physical, mental, and spiritual renewal taking place in each sabbath celebration.

37. Durham, Exodus, 413–14. 38. See Gordon J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus (NICNT; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1979), 236–37. 39. Regarding the suffix ‫ֹון‬-, HALOT (“‫שַׁ ּבָתֹון‬,” 1411) discusses three possible origins: (a) an artificial amplification of ‫( שַׁ ּבָת‬KBL); (b) a diminutive of ‫שַׁ ּבָת‬, so Barth Nominalbildung §196b; (c) by comparing the Akk. suffix -ān, ānum (von Soden Gramm. §56r) the suggestion emerges that ‫ שַׁ ּבָתֹון‬can be distinguished from the basic lexeme as signifying one individual and particular ‫שַׁ ּבָת‬, such as one that is to be observed in a particularly strict way, or one observed as a special celebration; the second of these suggestions (b) should probably not be considered any further, and the first (a) is extremely weak; this leaves the third (c) as the preferred explanation.

38

Chapter 3

command in Exod 20:8–11. It then receives more explicit expression in Exod 31:12, where the Sabbath becomes a sign of God’s sanctification of Israel. This passage in Leviticus provides an explicit connection between the Sabbath and the Day of Atonement precisely because of the sanctification motif. The people are to have the same attitude on the Day of Atonement as they do on the Sabbath because God is doing the same kind of activity in their midst, namely, sanctifying the people of Israel. Leviticus 23.  Leviticus 23 is an important passage related to the Sabbath, not so much because of its emphasis on the Sabbath itself, but because of the derivative festivals that are rooted and grounded in Sabbath observance. The paragraph begins with a short statement about the appointed times of Israel’s festival calendar: “The Lord spoke to Moses saying: ‘Speak to the children of Israel and say to them, “The Lord’s appointed times which you must proclaim as holy assemblies—these are my appointed times.”’” From this, the reader understands that the following content will be a description of the holy times that God will appoint for his people Israel to observe. What follows first, however, is a succinct reiteration of the Sabbath command: “Six days work may be done, but on the seventh day there must be a sabbath of complete rest, a holy assembly; you must not do any work, it is a sabbath to the Lord in all your places of residence.” 40 This placement of the Sabbath command at the head of legislation involving the festival calendar for Israel indicates a strong connection between the Sabbath and these festivals that Israel is to observe, because they all involve the sanctification of time. 41 Two simple things may be noted here regarding this formulation of the Sabbath command: the Sabbath is called a holy assembly, which links it to the festivals that follow in this calendar, and the Sabbath is specifically said to apply to all Israelite residences. The usual command to abstain from work is present here. 42 The more striking point is not the formulation of the command but its function in the whole of Lev 23. This chapter sets out the yearly festival calendar for the Israelites. Various feasts and holy days— for example, the Day of Atonement and Feast of Booths—are prescribed in this chapter. At their root, at the very beginning of the chapter, is this command to observe the Sabbath. Its placement is strategic and instructive. The Sabbath is the basis, both calendrically and theologically, for the whole system of Israelite feasts and festivals. 43 In positioning the Sabbath 40. This passage becomes the source of rich rabbinic discussion in the mishnaic tractate ʿErubin on how one might establish a temporary place of residence away from one’s customary place of residence. 41. See Hess, Israelite Religions, 167. 42. Baruch A. Levine (Leviticus [ JPSTC 3; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989], 155) states, “The main object of the Sabbath law, in this respect, is to avoid performing one’s daily tasks on the Sabbath.” 43. See Richard S. Hess, “Leviticus,” EBC, 1:781–83.

Investigation of Relevant Background Material

39

in such a way, the author carried over the theological motifs of the original Sabbath legislation into the yearly festival celebrations, most likely emphasizing remembrance of the Lord as one who sanctifies them. There are other practical reasons why the Sabbath legislation might be included here. Hartley argues, First, the people’s faithful observance of the Sabbath would establish the pattern for their faithful observance of the festivals. Second, the Sabbath plays a role in determining the time for the celebration of the Feasts of Weeks (vv 15–16). Third, the laws on Sabbath observance carry over to special solemn days during the feasts; i.e., certain days of a feast are to be observed like a Sabbath. 44

So in theology and practice, the Sabbath informed most special celebrations the Israelites had. The special celebrations were to emulate the character of the Sabbath and serve the same function in the life of the Israelites. Thus the festival system would be infused with Sabbath-ness, and the Israelites would have a clear reminder of God’s presence, his sanctifying action in their midst, and the sign of his gracious covenant with them. Deuteronomy 5:12–15.  In Deuteronomy’s restatement of the Decalogue, the fourth commandment appears with a change that brings a significant emphasis to the Sabbath observance. While the fourth commandment in Exod 20 focuses on God’s rest after creation, the fourth commandment in Deuteronomy focuses on God’s act of redemption in the exodus. There is a slight variation here in the wording of the command similar to that found throughout this re-presentation of the Decalogue. 45 Here in 5:12, the Israelites are commanded to “be careful to set apart” (‫שׁמֹור‬, ָ traditionally translated “observe”), while in Exod 20, the command was to “remember” (‫)זָכֹור‬. 46 Here in Deut 5, this verb is not in the initial command, but it does occur in the rationale in v. 15. 47 After the introductory command, prior legislation is referenced; this is certainly understandable given all the Sabbath legislation mentioned previously and Deuteronomy’s place as a restatement of the covenant between God and Israel. The presentation of the command here is a double obligation: observing the Sabbath and working only on six days. 48 The list of all who are also to keep the Sabbath in addition to the 44. John E. Hartley, Leviticus (WBC 4; Dallas: Word, 1992), 372. 45. S. R. Driver, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy (3rd ed.; ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1902), 84. 46. It should be noted that these Hebrew words are infinitives absolute used as commands, not imperatives proper. 47. In this text and others, ‫ זכר‬is tied to salvation. Here it occurs to recall Israel’s time of slavery in Egypt and God’s historic act of redemption. The first time it occurs is Gen 8:1, where God “remembers” Noah to save him from death. 48. Duane L.  Christensen, Deuteronomy 1:1–21:9 (2nd ed.; WBC 6A; Dallas: Word, 2001), 119; Peter C. Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy (NICOT; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1976), 156.

40

Chapter 3

male landowner is similar to the list in Exod 20; the list in Deuteronomy is slightly broader when it comes to listing the animals. 49 More importantly, it definitely extends the purpose of this command to include the others in the house in terms of their own rest and recuperation. The decisive difference here in the restatement of the Sabbath command and what is important to note for this study is its basis. In Exod 20:8–10, the basis for the command was God’s act of creation: in six days, he created the earth, and on the seventh day he rested. However, here in Deuteronomy the basis for the Sabbath command is God’s definitive display of power and salvation on behalf of his people in the exodus from Egypt. The focus is not on God as Creator but on God as redeemer and savior. By observing the Sabbath, the Israelites will remember and extol their redeemer, who delivered them from bondage. By releasing their animals and servants from work, they will emulate their redeemer, who released them from perpetual work. The Israelites were slaves in Egypt and were forced to work continuously, but now they were free under the authority of the Lord to rest one day out of seven. The more striking association, however, is the implication that the Sabbath is directly related to the exodus; God gave the Sabbath command as a direct result of the display of his divine power. Tigay states, Commentators are divided over what this motive emphasizes. Some believe that it is the memory of servitude, in order to create empathy for the servant’s need to rest. Others believe that it is God’s redemption of Israel, in order to either remind Israel of His kindness, to establish his authority to issue such a command, or to encourage the Israelites to emulate Him by temporarily relieving their servants’ bondage. 50

There are elements of both emphases in the presentation of the commandment in Deuteronomy, but perhaps the stronger of the two is the commemoration of the exodus. This is because on a theological level there is a strong connection to the command in Exod 20, which emphasizes God’s creation and his subsequent rest. As Craigie argues, The Exodus, too, was a type of creation and thus forms an analogy to the creation account in Genesis. The Exodus from Egypt marks in effect the creation of God’s people as a nation, and the memory of that event was also a reminder to the Israelites of their total dependence upon God. Whereas at one time the Israelites had been slaves in Egypt, with no appointed day 49. Neither lists the wife as one who should abstain from work. Christensen (Deuteronomy 1:1–21:9, 119) states, “This omission is probably not to be taken as a further instance of ‘sexism,’ so much as a subtle attempt to avoid any suggestion that the law also applied to necessary domestic activities.” It is appropriate to see these laws as given to the entire adult population, both male and female; only when the danger of lust between sexes arises, as in the tenth commandment, does it default to males only. 50. Jeffrey H. Tigay, Deuteronomy ( JPSTC 5; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1996), 69.

Investigation of Relevant Background Material

41

of rest from their continual and monotonous labor, God’s deliverance made them potentially a nation, and the sabbath was to function as a day of rest in which the deliverance from the former bondage could be remembered with thanksgiving. 51

It should be stated at this juncture that, if the exodus is in fact “a type of creation,” then there is theological warrant to see God taking on a form of work that he explicitly ceased in Gen 2:1–3, namely, creative work. It is entirely possible based on this wording to see the Sabbath as a weekly memorial to the exodus 52 in which Israel proclaims its dependence on God and independence of other powers 53 and in which Israel in effect re-enacts the exodus by entering rest and extending this rest to others. The Sabbath, then, is a remembrance of God’s salvation of his people. It is the same God who both creates and redeems, and historic redemption in the exodus is a new creation. 54 Exodus 20 and Deut 5 are complementary in their presentations of the Sabbath command. Both connect the command to the covenant between God and his people: Exodus connects it to the God of the covenant, and Deuteronomy connects it to the people of the covenant who have been redeemed; 55 Exodus focuses on the initial act of creation, while Deuteronomy focuses on the new act of creation, specifically the creation of Israel as the people of God. Deuteronomy commands Israel to “remember” God’s historic act of redemption of his people, and it does so at the beginning of the covenant stipulations. Psalm 92.  This psalm is the only one in the Hebrew Scriptures with an inscription that ties it to the Sabbath. 56 This marks it as important to the 51. Craigie, Deuteronomy, 157. 52. Driver, Deuteronomy, 85. 53. Durham, Exodus, 290. 54. This theme is developed in Isa 40–45. 55. Roland de Vaux, Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions (trans. John McHugh; BRS; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997), 481. 56. The originality of the inscription and psalm proper is debated, even though it occurs in both the MT and the LXX. Charles A. Briggs and Emilie Grace Briggs (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Psalms [2 vols.; ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1906–7], 2:283) argue that the inscription reflects a threefold Sitz im Leben: ‫שׁיר‬ ִ was the original, descriptive title, which was augmented later with the term ‫מזְמֹור‬. ִ The phrase ‫ ְליֹום הַּשַׁ ּבָת‬is the final addition, which reflects use of the psalm in the liturgy. Peter L. Trudinger (The Psalms of the Tamid Service: A Liturgical Text from the Second Temple [VTSup 98; Leiden: Brill, 2004], 150), due to the evidence of m. Tamid 7:4, suggests that the connection of the psalm to the Sabbath was accomplished later than its original composition; the implication then is that the inscription represents its later liturgical use. Emil Schürer (The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ [175 b.c.–a.d. 135] [new English ed.; 4 vols.; ed. Geza Vermes et al.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1973), 2:303 n. 41) states simply that the superscription of the LXX has found its way into the Masoretic Text. Arthur Weiser (The Psalms: A Commentary [trans. Herbert Hartwell; OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962], 614) argues that the psalm likely originated in public worship

42

Chapter 3

question at hand. 57 The inscription is simple: “a psalm, a song for the Sabbath day” (‫שׁיר ְליֹום הַּשַׁ ּבָת‬ ִ ‫)מזְמֹור‬. ִ  58 The mighty works of the Lord are the central idea of this thanksgiving psalm, and, since the psalm is explicitly tied to the Sabbath, it is entirely possible that the works of creation are in view to some extent. 59 However, even if this is the case, the psalm does not limit its praise to these works. The loyal love and faithfulness of the Lord are praised (v. 2). In addition, the sovereign reign of the Lord is proclaimed in v. 8, a verse that acts as a turning point in the message of the psalm. The remainder of the psalm proclaims the Lord’s victory over his enemies and his vindication of individuals who are loyal to him. 60 Sarna argues that there are two main reasons why this psalm would have been connected to the Sabbath. 61 The first is the creation motif present in the psalm through the invoking of the creation-combat myth present in many ancient Near Eastern texts. 62 Because of the close tie between creation and Sabbath, both in the central passage of Gen 2:1–3 and during a festival season. Frank-Lothar Hossfeld and Erich Zenger (Psalms 2: A Commentary on Psalms 51–100 [trans. Linda M. Maloney; ed. Klaus Baltzer; Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005], 436) argue that the psalm originated in a “Wisdom milieu.” No matter the redactional history of the psalm (e.g., Briggs and Briggs [Psalms, 2:284–86] argue for glosses and additions at various points by a later redactor), the final form is the most appropriate one for consideration, because this form would have been the form that had the strongest influence in Second Temple Judaism. 57. The question should be asked whether the themes in this psalm are distinctive and thereby contribute to the question. The themes of God’s reign, his defeat of the wicked, and the vindication of his loyal followers are not necessarily unique to this psalm, but this does not vacate the connection made by the inscription to the Sabbath day. This psalm simply does explicitly what many psalms do implicitly. 58. This inscription is cited in other passages discussed subsequently: m. Tamid 7:4, b. Sanh. 97a, b. Roš Haš. 31a, Mek. Shabbata 1:38–41. 59. Marvin E. Tate, Psalms 51–100 (WBC 20; Dallas: Word, 1990), 466. 60. Moses Buttenwieser (The Psalms [LBS; 1938; New York: Ktav, 1969], 841–42) argues that this psalm is essentially a crass defense of “material retribution” with little theological weight, lacking any tie to a specific historical situation. He makes this assessment partly from a hypothetical borrowing of v. 7a from Ps 73:22, an argument for which he offers no evidence. Weiser (Psalms, 613–16) argues differently, seeing serious theological reflection in the psalm’s argument. 61. Nahum M. Sarna, “Psalm for the Sabbath Day (Ps 92),” JBL 81 (1962): 155–68. 62. Specifically, this myth connects the creation of the world to a divine battle in which a particular god vanquishes his enemies, who often symbolize chaos. Trudinger (The Psalms of the Tamid Service, 154–55) argues against this cultural connection in the psalm on three grounds. First, there are enough differences between the Hebrew and Ugaritic texts used as evidence for the connection to undermine the association. Second, this connection requires v. 8 of the psalm to be interpreted in light of v. 10, essentially a backwards interpretive move, when it would be more natural to interpret v. 10 in light of v. 8 instead. Third, the psalm expresses conflict in “historical, not mythical, terms.” A similar assessment—albeit entirely as an argument from silence—might be made by David Toshio Tsumura (Creation and Destruction: A Reappraisal of the Chaoskampf Theory

Investigation of Relevant Background Material

43

elsewhere, the creation motif here would lend itself well to any liturgy that emphasized the Sabbath. The second is the sociomoral motif of the connection of creation to God’s righteousness, specifically in the defeat of his enemies, whose evil threatens the very foundations of creation and the exaltation of the righteous. This theme would naturally lend the psalm to use on the Sabbath with its emphasis upon God’s holiness and sanctification of his people. The impact of this psalm, then, on the present investigation is in the appropriateness of its themes for the Sabbath day. The creation(-com­ bat) motif was a theological link used by the author or redactor to connect this psalm to Sabbath, but with this would have been an implicit juxtaposition of God’s definitive actions against the forces of chaos. Thus every Sabbath the reading of this psalm reminded the hearers that God had acted decisively to bring about the world in his act of creation, essentially a defeat of chaotic powers. The sociomoral motif was another theological link used by the author or redactor to connect this psalm to the Sabbath, but this motif receives explicit expression in God’s acts against the wicked and for the righteous. Every Sabbath the reading of this psalm reminded the hearers that God acted for them against their enemies. Thus this Sabbath psalm focused the hearers on God’s actions and not on his restful state. Although this emphasis in the psalm is subtle, given the alignment it shows with other Sabbath concepts, such as God’s actions to sanctify his people, the themes are significant and contribute to the argument of this study. 63 Subsequent interpretation of the psalm in the rabbinic materials focused on the eschatology of the Sabbath motif, 64 ostensibly viewing the actions of God in the psalm as his ultimate eschatological actions. 65 Targum Psalms also augments this eschatological dimension. 66 Thus, through subsequent in the Old Testament [Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005]), who does not discuss this passage in his comprehensive treatment of relevant biblical texts. 63. Trudinger (The Psalms of the Tamid Service, 227–28) argues that the Tamid psalms form a coherent plot that deals with Yahweh’s rule of the earth and oppression of the righteous due to inappropriate worship of him. Psalm 92 is the denouement, depicting the blessed state of the righteous who praise Yahweh after resolution of their earthly problems. 64. See the discussion below on m. Tamid 7:4, on p. 82. 65. Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms 2, 443, state, To the extent that the Sabbath is the day on which the victory of the creator God over mythic chaos and its historical agents is celebrated, Yhwh’s victory over his enemies, hymnically celebrated in 92:5–12, and its concretization in the rescue of the petitioner acquires [sic] a universal-historical and eschatological relevance (cf. esp. the futuristic perspective of v. 10).

66. Hossfeld and Zenger (Psalms 2, 444) also argue that the LXX makes the same theological move, although this is not as clear-cut as it may first appear to be. Hossfeld and Zenger imply that the use of the future tense ἀγαλλιάσομαι in v. 5 in the LXX is an intentional addition to heighten the eschatalogical focus of the psalm. A more natural interpretation seems to be that the LXX has appropriately rendered the Hebrew imperfect

44

Chapter 3

interpretation of this psalm, the Sabbath gains an important eschatological nuance that has clear import for the present study. Isaiah 56:1–8.  In Isa 56:1–8, the Sabbath is connected to salvation for those who would never otherwise be able to enter God’s presence. Thus the Sabbath becomes a soteriological key through which God acts to extend his salvation to individuals excluded from worship in the Temple and even individuals outside Israel. The arrangement of the passage is fairly clear: the initial summons in vv. 1 and 2, directed to Israel as well as the nations, mandates keeping the requirements of the covenant. 67 Here Sabbath observance (‫ )שֹׁמֵר שַׁ ּבָת ֵמ ַחּלְְלֹו‬is set parallel to more general ideas (e.g., from v. 1, ‫שּׁפָט ַועֲשּׂו ְצ ָד ָקה‬ ְ ‫שׁ ְמרּו ִמ‬ ִ and from v. 2, ‫)שֹׁמֵר יָדֹו ֵמעֲשֹׂות ּכָל־רָע‬. This is a striking parallelism, in which general statements that could reasonably be taken as summations of the entire law are set apparently unequally against a single command from the Torah. On the one hand, it appears that Sabbath observance has received undue emphasis; 68 on the other hand, this could instead be an indicator of the basic character of the Sabbath, making a fundamental connection between what the Sabbath represents and what it indicates about Israel’s relationship to God. Other passages already discussed show verb ‫אֲרַ ּנֵן‬, which here indicates a future action based on the specific prior action implied in the perfective verb ‫;שּׂמ ְַחּתַ נִי‬ ִ see Waltke and O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 511. They also argue that the LXX translation of εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος for ‫ עֲדֵ י־עַד‬is an intentional change to heighten the eschatalogical focus of the psalm. This is not a unique modification, however, for the LXX. The phrase ‫ עֲדֵ י־עַד‬occurs in Pss 83:18; 92:8; 132:12; 132:14; Isa 26:4; 65:18. The LXX translates it as εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος in Pss 82:18 and 91:8, ἕως τοῦ αἰῶνος (which is perhaps more literal) in Ps 131:12 and Isa 26:4, and εἰς αἰῶνα αἰῶνος (which is semantically equivalent to the phrase with the articles) in Ps 131:14. (Isa 65:18 LXX has no Greek equivalent for the Hebrew phrase.) The argument could be made that the alteration in Ps 91:8 is not specific enough or unusual enough to mandate the conclusion drawn by Hossfeld and Zenger; no similar conclusion is drawn in their discussion of Ps 83. Two pieces of evidence are stronger than these: First, the superscriptions added to several of the psalms in the LXX provide an eschatological focus to Ps 92: “one begins the journey into the (new) week with the creation-theologically and Torah-theologically equipped ‘entry psalm,’ Psalm 24, and comes, at the end of the journey, to Psalm 92, in which one thanks Yhwh for rescue from evil/the evil one and receives blessing and fertility ‘in the house of Yhwh’” (Psalms 2, 444). Second, the LXX in 91:11 interprets ‫ ראם‬as μονόκερως, which in certain contexts can have “messianic overtones” (so Joachim Schaper, Eschatology in the Greek Psalter [WUNT 2/76; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995], 126). 67. John D.  W. Watts (Isaiah 34–66 [rev. ed.; WBC 25; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2005], 815–16) links Isa 56:1–8 to chap. 55 as a single unit. An important change in this section that distinguishes it from chap. 54 is the shift from the feminine singular there to the masculine plural here. The resultant interpretation is that the pronouncement’s focus is now on the nations as well as Israel. 68. Claus Westermann (Isaiah 40–66: A Commentary [OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1969], 310, 313) argues essentially that the particular command and the general command are equivalent.

Investigation of Relevant Background Material

45

that the Sabbath is a medium through which God extends his gracious presence and salvation to man (e.g., Exod 20:8–11, Deut 5:12–15); it is a sign of the covenant between Israel and God, a covenant in which God graciously takes Israel as his people (Exod 31:12–17). As such, the Sabbath itself becomes a shorthand for God’s gracious dealings with man. 69 So the parallelism here is in fact not unequal. Similar parallelisms are observed in vv. 3–7 but with the added surprise of specifically including individuals in God’s covenant community who otherwise could not be included. The structure of this subparagraph uses v. 3 as an introduction, in which both foreigners and eunuchs are mentioned. 70 Then in reverse order, eunuchs are highlighted in vv. 4–5 and foreigners in vv. 6–7. Verse 8 serves as a final proclamation to close the unit. The Lord promises eunuchs a permanent memorial 71 to them in his Temple if they do certain things: “[For the eunuchs] who observe my Sabbaths and choose what pleases me and are faithful to my covenant” (‫ִשׁ ְמרּו אֶת־שַׁ ְּבתֹותַ י‬ ְ ‫ֲשׁר י‬ ֶ‫א‬ ‫יתי‬ ִ ‫ִיקים ִּב ְבִר‬ ִ ‫חז‬ ֲ ‫ָצ ִּתי ּו ַמ‬ ְ ‫ֲשׁר ָחפ‬ ֶ ‫)ּו ָבחֲרּו ַּבא‬. As in the initial summons in vv. 1 and 2, Sabbath observance, highlighted in the first phrase, is set against two broad commands that act as summations of the entire Torah and covenant requirements, highlighted in the second and third phrases. This elevates the Sabbath to a place above a simple law in the Torah to a symbol of the entire relationship between God and Israel. 72 Foreigners will be included in the worship of God’s covenant people if they do certain things: “As for foreigners who become followers of the Lord and serve him, who love the name of the Lord and want to be his servants—all who observe the Sabbath and do not defile it, and who are faithful to my covenant” (‫ִלִוים עַל־‬ ְ ‫ּובנֵי ַהּנֵכָר ַהּנ‬ ְ ‫ִיקים‬ ִ ‫חז‬ ֲ ‫ָדים ּכָל־ׁשֹמֵר ׁשַ ּבָת ֵמ ַחּלְלֹו ּו ַמ‬ ִ ‫הבָה אֶת־ׁשֵם יְהוָה ִל ְהיֹות לֹו ַלעֲב‬ ֲ ‫ּול ַא‬ ְ ‫ׁש ְרתֹו‬ ָ ‫יְהוָה ְל‬ ‫יתי‬ ִ ‫)ּב ְבִר‬. ִ Again, as above, Sabbath observance (‫ )ּכָל־שֹׁמֵר שַׁ ּבָת ֵמ ַחּלְלֹו‬is set parallel to commands that ostensibly are summations of the entire covenant obligation under which Israel lives and the devotion to the Lord that the covenant embodies. Thus the Sabbath is no longer one law among many; it is a pinnacle that represents the totality of God’s relationship to man and 69. This is essentially the argument of Edward J. Young, The Book of Isaiah (3 vols.; NICOT; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1965–72), 3:390. 70. Eunuchs would be excluded from participation in Temple worship because of the command in Deut 23:1. Watts (Isaiah 34–66, 820) holds that eunuchs are symbolic of all people who would be excluded from worship by Torah regulations. Watts also argues here that the foreigner in view is specifically a proselyte and that the place of a proselyte in Judaism was controversial and unsettled. 71. HALOT (“‫יָד‬,” 388) specifically assigns the occurrence of ‫ יָד‬in Isa 56:5 the meaning of “monument.” 72. John N. Oswalt (The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 40–66 [NICOT; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998], 458) argues this on the basis of the first-person pronouns in v. 4. Young (Isaiah, 3:389–90) argues this on the basis of the regularity with which the Sabbath emphasized theological truth about God inherent within its celebration—namely, that God was Creator and Israel’s savior.

46

Chapter 3

his gracious dealings with him. Given the dual emphasis on Sabbath as commemorating God as Creator and redeemer in the Torah, this is appropriate. The import on the question of divine Sabbath work is subtle yet powerful. If the Sabbath day becomes a shorthand symbol for all of God’s gracious dealings with man, then it becomes the day par excellence on which God will act graciously toward his people. The Sabbath is not a day of total divine inactivity; instead, it is a day above all others when God will extend his blessings to Israel and to individuals who follow him in loyal love. Isaiah 58:13–14.  Isaiah 58:13–14 is similar to Isa 56 in that God will bless his people in response to proper Sabbath observance, which involves not only behavior but attitude as well. The larger context of this passage is an admonition for true and honest devotion to the Lord. This applies to various religious practices that Israel kept, such as fasting and caring for the needs of the poor. The Lord commands Israel to do such things with the right attitude of worship and honor, and in response he promises blessing. The Lord asks for fasting that brings freedom to the oppressed (v. 6), and in response he promises Israel’s restoration and his glorious presence among them (v. 8). The Lord commands that Israel feed people in need (vv. 7, 10), and in response he promises a reversal of their desperate conditions (vv. 10–12). The final admonition of the chapter in vv. 13–14 is a conditional sentence that serves rhetorically to motivate proper observance of and respect for the Sabbath. Underneath this condition is the theological thought that the day is a sign of the covenant that God has with his people; it is not simply out of respect for the day that Israel must honor the Sabbath but out of love and devotion to the Lord who sanctified this day for them. In response, the Lord promises full joy, complete agricultural abundance, and occupation of the land—eschatological blessings that are here connected directly to the Sabbath. The specific stance toward the Sabbath in v. 13 involves both attitudes and actions. The first and third clauses focus primarily on actions specifically related to work on the Sabbath. The first clause uses foot and Sabbath together metaphorically: ‫ׁשי‬ ִ ‫ח ָפצֶיךָ ְּביֹום ָק ְד‬ ֲ ‫ׁשיב ִמּׁשַ ּבָת רַ ְגלֶךָ עֲׂשֹות‬ ִ ‫ם־ּת‬ ָ ‫א‬. ִ  73 “In this instance the sabbath is presented as a defined area into which one must not tread to conduct business transactions.” 74 This is defined further by 73. I accept the textual emendation suggested by the BHS apparatus: with support from 1QIsaa and the Septuagint, the preposition ‫ ִמן‬should be prefixed to the participle ‫עֲשֹׂות‬. This is contra Young (Isaiah, 3:426 n. 13), who appears to argue that the preposition governs both clauses because they are coordinate. Note the comment by Paul Joüon and Takamitsu Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (rev. English ed.; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 2006), §132.g, 456: “In poetry, in the case of two parallel members, the preposition is sometimes understood before the noun of the second member; there are only few examples which are text-critically sure: Is 15.8 ‫ ;עַד‬48.9 ‫מעַן‬ ֫ ַ ‫ל‬.” ְ 74. HALOT, “‫שוב‬,” 1433, which references H. A. Brongers, “Einige Bemerkungen zu Jes 58:13–14,” ZAW 87 (1975): 213, who states, “An unserer Stelle wird der Sabbat als

Investigation of Relevant Background Material

47

the third clause that makes the prohibition against normal weekly business activities more explicit: ‫ֶפ ְצךָ ְודַ ּבֵר ָּדבָר‬ ְ ‫ו ִכּב ְַדּתֹו ֵמעֲׂשֹות ְּד ָרכֶיךָ ִמ ְּמצֹוא ח‬.ְ In between these two clauses is one which focuses on the attitude of the worshiper: ‫ָאת לַּשַׁ ּבָת עֹנֶג ִל ְקדֹושׁ יְהוָה ְמכֻּבָד‬ ָ ‫ו ָקר‬.ְ This clause’s placement in the center provides a point of emphasis through a small chiasm. It is not enough simply to refrain from various activities on the Sabbath. The worshiper must also find the Sabbath celebration a source of joy and delight, giving it honor due as a time ordained by God for rest and worship. The consequence of proper treatment of the Sabbath is given in v. 14. In keeping with the primary emphasis upon attitude, the first consequence listed involves the spiritual state of the worshiper (‫)אָז ִּת ְת ַעּנַג עַל־יְהוָה‬, and the second and third involve the physical benefits which the worshiper will receive (ָ‫ָביך‬ ֲ ַ‫אכ ְַל ִּתיךָ נ‬ ִ ‫חלַת יַעֲק ֹב א‬ ֲ ‫)ו ִה ְרּכ ְַבּתיךָ עַל־ ָּבמֳתֵ י ָארֶץ ְו ַה‬, ְ namely, agricul 75 tural fruitfulness and “undisturbed possession of the land.” 76 It is clear from the passage that the Lord is not promising a relationship if his people observe the Sabbath. He is approaching them based upon an already existing covenant relationship. Here he promises his eschatological blessing to them within that relationship, specifically joy and prosperity, based upon their attitude toward and conduct on the Sabbath. This is very much in line with other passages referring to the Sabbath already mentioned. The Sabbath becomes a vehicle for God’s blessing upon his people. Israel must honor the day which belongs to the Lord, and in turn the Lord will bless, because this day more than any other epitomizes the theological truth of the relationship between the Lord and his people, that of gracious care on the part of the Lord and humble dependence and submission on the part of his people. 77 Isaiah 66:23.  Isaiah 66:23, the final reference to the Sabbath in Isaiah, is perhaps the most important in the book. In the context of the final eschatological renewal that the Lord will accomplish, the Sabbath forms a framework within which eternal praise to the Lord will be offered. In this passage, the prophet declares the calendrical features of the eschaton, when the age to come is consummated and God receives worship eternally. One key feature of the age to come is the continued demarcation of the Sabbath. Along ein Raum vorgestellt, den man nicht zum Verrichten von Geschäftshandlungen betre­ten soll.” 75. The only other place the expression ָ‫( ָארֶץ עַל־ ָּבמֳתֵ י ְו ִה ְרּכ ְַב ִּתיך‬lit., “ride upon the backs of the land”) occurs in the MT is Deut 32:13. The context here implies sustenance from the produce of the land. Coupled with the use in the next phrase of the Hiphil stem of the verb ‫ אכל‬and the noun ‫חלָה‬ ֲ ַ‫נ‬, which routinely refers to land as an inherited possession, it is acceptable to understand the same basic concept in view here. This then becomes a metonymy for all the blessings implied with Israel’s restored residence in the land. James L. Crenshaw (“Wedōrēk ʿal-bāmŏtê ʾāreṣ,” CBQ 34 [1972]: 50–51) arrives at a similar conclusion. 76. Westermann, Isaiah 40–66, 342; Crenshaw, “W edōrēk ʿal-bāmŏtê ʾāreṣ,” 51. 77. See Oswalt, Isaiah 40–66, 508–9; Young, Isaiah, 3:427.

48

Chapter 3

with the new moon, it will mark the eternal worship of the Lord. Thus the Sabbath, a fundamental, programmatic calendrical feature of the present age, remains a fundamental calendrical feature of the age to come. 78 This passage marks the Sabbath as the day in the present age that symbolizes God’s act of inbreaking and consummation of the age to come. Although there is no specific mention of divine activity on this day, the very fact that the Sabbath is tied to the age to come makes its focus God’s eschatological activity. Jeremiah 17:21–27.  In Jer 17:21–27, the Lord warns the people of Israel regarding keeping the Sabbath and describes the blessing that will come from their obedience. There is a twofold emphasis on the blessing that God will bestow on the people of Israel if they properly observe the Sabbath. The first emphasis is contained in the very first line of the sermon: “Be very careful if you value your lives.” This is an echo of the covenant blessings and curses that appear in Deuteronomy. 79 The point of the admonition is that proper attention to the covenant requirements is a source of life to Israel. More to the point at hand, proper attention to the Sabbath will result in life for Israel, a particular blessing from God. The second emphasis is found in the latter half of the sermon, in which results from Sabbath observance are described: continuation of the reign of Davidic kings, a large influx of people into Jerusalem, and continual offerings to God in the Temple. There is considerable debate whether this situation depicts a restoration of prior conditions or a glimpse of future eschatological restoration. 80 Admittedly, if eschatological renewal were in focus, this passage would align well with 78. There is some debate about the meaning of the construction x + ‫ ְּב‬+ x + ‫מּדֵ י‬. ִ HALOT, “‫ּדַ י‬,” 219, offers the glosses “from month to month” and “from Sabbath to Sabbath” for the phrases ‫ָדׁשֹו‬ ְ ‫ ִמּדֵ י־חֹדֶׁש ְּבח‬and ‫מּדֵ י ׁשַ ּבָת ְּבׁשַ ּבַּתֹו‬, ִ respectively. Oswalt (Isaiah 40–66, 692) argues that the language here implies that worship is continuous. Young (Isaiah, 3:536) and Watts (Isaiah 34–66, 941) both suggest that the calendrical features implied by new moon and Sabbath are still in view. There are only three other passages in the MT with similar parameters—that is, x + ‫ ְבּ‬+ x + ‫ ִמּדֵ י‬where x is a calendrical term. 1 Samuel 7:16 reads ‫ׁשנָה‬ ָ ‫ׁשנָה ְּב‬ ָ ‫ ְו ָהל ְַך ִמּדֵ י‬in the context of Samuel’s judicial circuit; since v. 17 implies a regular return to his home in Ramah, a logical conclusion is that this refers to an annual trip. ׂ ְ ‫ְהּודה ְו ִק ְבצּו ִמ ָכּל־י‬ 2 Chronicles 24:5 reads ‫ׁשנָה‬ ָ ‫ִש ָראֵל ֶ ּכסֶף ְל ַחּזֵּק אֶת־ּבֵית אֱלֹהֵיכֶם ִמדֵ ּי‬ ָ ‫ְצאּו ְלעָרֵ י י‬ ‫ׁשנָה‬ ָ ‫;ּב‬ ְ this most naturally implies an annual collection of the tax. Zechariah 14:16 reads ְ ‫ׁשּתַ חֲֹות ְל ֶמל‬ ‫ֶך יְהוָה ְצבָאֹות ְולָחֹג אֶת־חַג ַהּסֻּכֹות‬ ְ ‫ׁשנָה ְל ִה‬ ָ ‫ׁשנָה ְב‬ ָ ‫ ְ;ועָלּו ִמּדֵ י‬this most naturally implies an annual pilgrimage to Jerusalem. This is evidence that here in Isa 66:23 the calendrical features of the new moon and Sabbath are still the primary focus of their use. 79. See especially Deut 30:19. 80. See William McKane (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah [ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1986], 1:419), who promotes an eschatological interpretation; J.  A. Thompson (The Book of Jeremiah [NICOT; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1980], 430), whose discussion allows for an eschatological viewpoint; and Jack R. Lundbom (Jeremiah 1–20 [AB 21A; New York: Doubleday, 1999], 807), who points simply to perpetual continuation of present circumstances.

Investigation of Relevant Background Material

49

other passages that also have this focus. From the passage itself, however, it is difficult to tell if this is in view. Regardless, the passage connects the Sabbath with an act of God on behalf of the community, whether for a restoration of prior conditions or for eschatological renewal. This connection further strengthens the connection between the Sabbath and God’s actions. Ezekiel 20:12, 20.  Ezekiel 20:12 and 20 are important because they repeat an emphasis seen before in Exodus: the Sabbath as a special sign between God and Israel. What is important to note is what the sign signifies. The first reference is given in conjunction with an explanation in Ezek 20:9–12 for the reason that God acted in the exodus. The use of the word ‫ אֹות‬in v. 12 is the same as in the passage in Exodus: the Sabbath is understood to be a special sign that shows that the Lord sanctifies his people Israel. The importance of this motif can hardly be stressed enough. By keeping the Sabbath, Israel participates in God’s gracious activity to make them holy. God thus acts in accordance with the Sabbath in a special way, in accordance with his initial activity on the day, on behalf of his people. Block fleshes out the argument slightly: For him [i.e., Ezekiel] the Sabbaths served two functions. First, they were a perpetual reminder of Yahweh’s covenant with them [i.e., Israelites]. What the rainbow was to the Noachian covenant (Gen. 9:8–17), the Sabbath was to Yahweh’s covenant with Israel—an attesting sign (ʾôt) of Israel’s relationship with him. Second, they had a didactic function: to remind the nation that their special status derives from Yahweh’s action alone. In a clever departure from the decalogic Sabbath, which called on Israel to sanctify the day (qiddēš), here the Sabbaths are perceived as gifts that declare that Yahweh had sanctified them (mĕqaddĕšām). 81

The connection between the Sabbath and God’s actions on behalf of his people is quite strong here. It receives further restatement later in the chapter in God’s proclamation to the children of the generation that died in the wilderness in vv. 18–20. The same basic argument is made here: the Sabbath acts as the sign of a relationship between God and Israel. The difference here between the prior declaration to the original generation and this declaration to the children of the wilderness generation is debated with regard to its emphasis. 82 Even if the emphasis is lessened in the second 81. Daniel I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel, Chapters 1–24 (NICOT; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997), 632. 82. Moshe Greenberg (Ezekiel 1–20 [AB 22; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983], 366) argues that “when this purpose clause is repeated in vs. 20 the last phrase is replaced by ‘that I, Yhwh, am their God’; consecration to Yhwh and having him as God are equivalent.” Block (Ezekiel 1–24, 635) argues differently: Although the Sabbaths remain a sign (ʾôt) reminding Israel of their relationship with Yahweh, with the deletion of mĕqaddĕšam from the recognition formula, the Sabbaths lose their function as reminders of Israel’s sanctified status. Instead, as in v. 16, the Sabbaths have become days that the people either sanctify (qiddēš) or defile (ḥillēl), as in

50

Chapter 3

pronouncement, it at least connects the Sabbath to an attestation of a relationship between God and Israel, which could very easily flow into an attestation of God’s presence in their midst, a key function of the Sabbath in the Exod 16 passage. Ezekiel 40–48.  The importance of the Sabbath in Ezek 40–48 comes from the broad context of these chapters: they depict an eschatological visitation from God as he returns to his Temple to set up his residence. 83 In a vein very similar to that of Isa 66, the Sabbath still forms a part of the calendar in this eschatological renewal. In Ezek 44:24, the Levitical priests receive special mention as individuals who will observe the Sabbath. In Ezek 45:17, the high priest will have the responsibility to continue all of the appropriate sacrifices on the Sabbath. In Ezek 46:1–8, the Sabbath becomes a central time of worship as all of the people of the land gather before God. Although these passages do not directly speak of God’s activity on the Sabbath, the question must be asked why the prophet understood the Sabbath to be necessary to the calendar of the future restoration of the Temple. The most logical answer is that the basic character of the Sabbath would receive complete fulfillment at this time: God’s presence among his people, his sanctification of them, and the celebration of his acts of redemption on behalf of his people. The Sabbath had tremendous eschatological importance, and its inclusion in passages such as these testifies to this fact.

Theology of ‫ שַׁ ּבָת‬from the Old Testament Because of the foundational importance that the Hebrew Scriptures provide for the concept of Sabbath, it is worthwhile to summarize the Sabbath theology that can be drawn from them, because this will certainly inform the place of the Sabbath in Jesus’ actions. Although some of this has been discussed already, a synthetic overview is also warranted. Much can be said regarding the theology of the Sabbath in the OT. The most obvious and important theological motifs associated with the Sabbath are the grounds given for it as an institution for Israel. In Exod 20:8–11, the Sabbath is grounded in the rest of God from his act of creation. God’s creation rest symbolized his transcendence over and separation from the creation; he was not subject to it or bound up with it, and he could rest when he was finished with it. By setting the day apart with his rest, God made the day holy, and man in imitating his Creator by keeping the day holy honors God qua Creator. This becomes even more pointed as God calls the people of Israel and places them in the role of his chosen people. As his chosen people, Isthe present case. The increasing seriousness of the tone suggests that Yahweh is losing patience [with the successive disobedient generations].

83. See idem, The Book of Ezekiel, Chapters 25–48 (NICOT; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998), 494; Leslie C. Allen, Ezekiel 1–19 (WBC 28; Dallas: Word, 1994), xxxiv–xxxvi; Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 4.

Investigation of Relevant Background Material

51

rael is to mediate God’s presence to all the world. Keeping the Sabbath became an important part of this function because Israel alone among all the nations knew God as Creator and acknowledged him as such in the keeping of the Sabbath. The creation rest is carried to a new level in Deut 5:12–15. In this restatement of the Decalogue, the Israelites are commanded to keep the Sabbath because God redeemed them from slavery in the exodus from Egypt. This is connected theologically to the statement of the Decalogue in Exod 20 because the exodus is routinely viewed as Israel’s creation as a nation through God’s redemption. In building on this theological base in the Deuteronomy text, Israel is to rest in commemoration of God’s creation of it as a nation just as God rested from his creation of the world. The Deuteronomy passage emphasizes God’s role not as Creator but as redeemer and savior. By keeping the Sabbath, the Israelites would continually remember that God had created them and acted to redeem them from a life of slavery in which they had no rest. The Sabbath is initially described as a day that God sanctifies. It receives its holiness only because God, who is holy, made it so. Thus the day becomes a mediator of God’s holiness to the Israelites. Siker-Gieseler states, “The Sabbath signifies God’s sanctification of Israel (Exod 31:13), thereby linking the Sabbath to Israel as that which calls Israel back into direct communion with God. It denotes the special relationship between God and Israel, for it points to the sanctification Israel receives from God as a result of the Sabbath.” 84 The keeping of the Sabbath also becomes an important indication of Israel’s relationship with God. Again Siker-Gieseler argues, The Sabbath as covenant points to the portrayal of the Sabbath as a sign in the OT (Exod 31:13, 16–17). It is an abiding sign that God sanctifies Israel (31:13), and that the Sabbath rest is grounded in creation and in God’s own resting (31:17). In both passages, however, the Sabbath is a sign only insofar as Israel keeps it. The extent to which Israel keeps the Sabbath is a sign of the degree to which Israel wishes to acknowledge God as sanctifier and creator. Thus, the Sabbath is both a positive sign of Israel’s observance of the Sabbath rest, manifested in God’s sanctification of Israel, and a negative sign of Israel’s failure to acknowledge God as the God of Israel, through neglecting the Sabbath. 85

Not only does the Sabbath emphasize God’s holiness that is extended to Israel; it also points to God’s very own presence in the midst of Israel. This is one of the primary emphases of the narrative of Exod 16, in the giving of the quail and the manna to Israel in the wilderness. This is extended further when the Sabbath is linked to a sign of the covenant in Exod 31. 84. J. S. Siker-Gieseler, “The Theology of the Sabbath in the OT: A Canonical Approach,” Studia biblica et theologica 11 (1981): 9. 85. Siker-Gieseler, “The Theology of the Sabbath in the OT,” 13.

Chapter 3

52

“The sabbath command in Exodus 31 is a sign of the covenant, but beyond that its purpose is in the recognition of Yahweh, the one who reveals himself in redemptive act and covenant.” 86 This point is all the more striking when seen in light of the Sabbath commands related to the construction of the Tabernacle. Israel was commanded to keep the Sabbath even during the construction of the Tabernacle. Why would Israel be commanded to halt construction on the building that enabled it in a tangible way to experience God’s presence? Construction would stop because in the Sabbath Israel was already experiencing God’s presence in a regular, powerful way. The Sabbath, then, is an all-important day in the life of Israel. In keeping it, the people participate in the creation rest of God and acknowledge him as Creator. They commemorate his saving power by reenacting their release from perpetual bondage in Egypt. They testify that it is God in their midst who sanctifies them and makes them holy. They demonstrate that God in his grace entered into a covenant with them, and they obey and respond in faith to the one who entered into a relationship with them. Key Passages That Use ‫ברא‬ The concepts of Sabbath and creation are closely connected in Gen 2:1–3. The sanctification of the Sabbath came when God ceased his work of creation, and this forms the primary reason for Israel’s observance of the Sabbath. The verb ‫ ברא‬is used in Gen 1:1 to describe God’s work of creation, and God ceases this work in Gen 2:3. This verb occurs frequently in other contexts, normally with God as its subject. It is often used simply to refer to God as the Creator of human or animal life, but it also occurs in much more significant contexts, describing God’s salvific or eschatological work on behalf of his people. In light of the paradigmatic nature of Gen 2:1–3, this further use of the creation motif is significant. In the Hebrew Scriptures, God again undertakes his work of creation, even though the programmatic creation narrative indicated that he ceased this particular work. Thus the passages that discuss God’s continued creation activity form another avenue of investigation for the concept of divine Sabbath work. Genesis 1:1–2:3.  Genesis 1:1–2:3 again is foundational because the verb ‫ ברא‬is the key term used to describe what God did in the creation of the world and from which God rested. Genesis 2:2–3 forms a concise summary. God is described as working, which is specified as creation, and God rests from and ceases this work. This rest then becomes the basis for the Sabbath commands issued to the Israelites: they are to rest on the Sabbath because God rested on this day and made it holy. However, this creation terminology continues to appear throughout the OT Scriptures and describes God creating, even though he ceased this work. Key passages will be described below. 86. Howard N. Wallace, “Genesis 2:1–3: Creation and Sabbath,” Pacifica 1 (1988): 244.

Investigation of Relevant Background Material

53

Exodus 34:10.  One key theme that will show up in this use of creation terminology to describe God’s activity outside the creation narrative is God’s salvific activity on behalf of his people. Exodus 34:10 is the first verse in canonical order outside the creation narratives that does this. The context of this passage is a reestablishment of the covenant between Israel and God. This reestablishment is needed because Israel has already strayed from complete devotion to God through the rebellion with the golden calf in Exod 32. God first commands Moses to remake the stone tablets (Exod 34:1) and to prepare for another meeting with him (vv. 2–3). When they meet, God proclaims to Moses his very nature (vv. 5–7), which consists of loyal love and mercy to people who are in relationship with him and judgment on people who sin against him. Moses responds by pleading with the Lord to take Israel graciously as his people (vv. 8–9). Then the Lord begins his proclamation of the work he is going to do. The creation and work terminology is used in this passage directly of God and his actions on behalf of his people in establishing the covenant with them and all that this entails. 87 The root ‫ עשׂה‬figures prominently in Exod 34:10; 88 it is used twice as the verb ‫ָשׂה‬ ָ ‫ ע‬and once as the noun ‫ֲשׂה‬ ֶ ‫ ַמע‬. The verse is clear regarding the newness of what God is going to do: “I will do wonders which have never been done in all the earth or in all the nations.” It is also important to note that the verb ‫ ברא‬figures prominently in the verse. 89 God is going to do something new, create something, that has not been seen before in all the earth: he is going to enter into a covenant with his people that will establish his relationship with them. In light of this covenant, he is going to perform awesome wonders, such as driving out enemy peoples from before the Israelites. This connection of the new activity of God to the covenant is remarkable. It makes a direct connection in terms of magnitude between the creation work that God ceased on the seventh day and the salvific action that he undertakes on behalf of his people in establishing the covenant with them. As Childs states, “God will make a covenant such that all people will testify to the wonder of God’s work. Indeed the intervention of God on Israel’s behalf requires the use of creation language: he will perform marvels never before created!” 90 Numbers 16:30.  Numbers 16:30 is important because it is in many ways a contrast to the other passages that will be examined in this section. It describes God as acting in creation not for salvation but for judgment. The event depicted in Num 16 is the rebellion of Korah against the leadership of Moses. Korah and his cohorts have refused to follow the leadership of 87. Durham (Exodus, 460) states that the driving out of enemy peoples from the land, indicated in v. 11, is the first of many wonderful deeds of this sort. 88. This verb is also important in the Gen 2:1–3 account. 89. The Niphal stem gives the verb passive voice. 90. Childs, Exodus, 613. See also Umberto Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Exodus (trans. Israel Abrahams; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1967), 441.

54

Chapter 3

Moses, and in preparation for their judgment, the Lord has separated the rebels from the larger community of the Israelites. In a dramatic show of his power to judge evil, the Lord uses Moses to enact their judgment: the ground opens up under the feet of Korah, his cohorts, and their families, and they are swallowed alive by the earth. Key creation terminology is again present, both in verbal and nominal form: “And if the Lord creates something entirely new” (‫ִברָא‬ ְ ‫ם־ּבִריאָה י‬ ְ ‫ְו ִא‬ ‫)יְהוָה‬. 91 Korah and his cohorts are about to receive judgment from the hand of God, and it is something that has never been seen before. The use of the cognate accusative emphasizes the newness and originality of what is to occur. Here again, creation terminology is used in a setting that shows creation work on the part of the Lord, this time for judgment. 92 In a fitting fulfillment of the creation motif, the creation itself becomes an actor in completing the judgment. Thus in this passage, God has worked, as indicated by the creation motif, and in this instance for judgment. Isaiah 4:5.  In Isa 4:5, the prophet describes how the Lord will establish his presence with his people in the age to come on Mount Zion. It is a description of his glorious presence among the remnant. The verb used here is ‫ברא‬. 93 The context of this oracle is of utmost importance: Isa 4:2–6 is an oracle describing the future state of Israel when God restores the righteous remnant and establishes his presence among his people. In conjunction with this eschatological renewal, the Lord will create something new to establish his presence with his people. More to the point, the new creation is in fact God’s presence itself, which offers the nation complete se-

91. Because of the parallelism with the fulfillment in v. 31b, Jacob Milgrom (Numbers [ JPSTC 4; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1990], 137) argues that a better translation would be “makes a great chasm.” Corroboration for this is sought in the Piel stem of ‫ ;ברא‬see Paul D. Hanson, “The Song of Heshbon and David’s Nîr,” HTR 61 (1968): 297–320; and Howard E. Hanson, “Num. XVI 30 and the Meaning of Bārāʾ,” VT 22 (1972): 353–59. The evidence from the use of the verb in the MT, however, is that in the Qal stem ‫ ברא‬regularly means “to create.” 92. In commenting on the background of this statement, Milgrom (Numbers, 138) states, “Perhaps it is the pagan background of the imagery that this verse tries to counter by emphasizing that it is solely the creative act of the Lord that is responsible for the activity of the earth.” 93. For ‫ּו ָב ָרא‬, the LXX here reads καὶ ἥξει, “and he will come,” which indicates a Vorlage of ‫ובא‬. It is entirely possible that the letter ‫ ר‬was accidentally omitted because of similarity to the letter ‫ב‬, but it is also possible that an intentional alteration is in view. The arrival of Yahweh in cloud and fire is common in the OT, but the primary issue here is protection of the remnant, not theophany; see John D. W. Watts, Isaiah 1–33 (WBC 24; Dallas: Word, 1985), 48; Hans Wildberger, Isaiah 1–12: A Commentary (trans. Thomas H. Trapp; CC; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), 163. In light of this, the reading of the MT should be retained.

Investigation of Relevant Background Material

55

curity through his protection. 94 There is a threefold convergence of ideas here that is quite unexpected. First, God’s presence with his people is an important aspect of the Sabbath, and this is exactly what God establishes here. Second, creation has an important association with the Sabbath, and the use of the verb ‫ ברא‬here creates this conceptual link. Third, in Deut 5 the exodus forms the basis for the Sabbath legislation, and here the images point back to the exodus, when God guided Israel by fire and smoke. This passage thus demonstrates the convergence of motifs that center on the Sabbath and in a sense invoke all of them. Sabbath is not mentioned in this passage, but the creative work of God is represented and marshaled as evidence of his eschatological care for his people. 95 Isaiah 41:20.  In the larger context surrounding Isa 41:20 (Isa 41:8–20), the prophet proclaims God’s care for his people in light of the antagonism they receive from their enemies. It is a call to faith in the power and protection of God. In the immediate context, the prophet declares what God will do to meet the needs of his people, and this is depicted as a re-creation of favorable agricultural conditions (Isa 41:17–20). The verse with the key terminology is v. 20: ‫ּוקדֹוׁש‬ ְ ‫ָׂש ָתה זֹּאת‬ ְ ‫ָׂשימּו ְוי ְַׂש ִּכילּו י ְַח ָדּו ִּכי י ַד־יְהוָה ע‬ ִ ‫ְל ַמעַן י ְִראּו ְוי ְֵדעּו ְוי‬ ‫ִׂש ָראֵל ְּב ָראָּה‬ ְ ‫י‬. The two verbs that are prominent in the creation account in describing God’s work there are also prominent here. Both ‫ עשׂה‬and ‫ברא‬ are used to describe what God is going to do for his people, but these words do not refer to any act of initial creation. They instead refer to an act of re-creation, which is essentially an act of salvation and provision for God’s people by God himself. Young states, In the usage of the verbs Isaiah introduces a certain gradation, proceeding from ʿaśah to baraʾ. This latter verb, employed in Genesis 1:1, points to the utterly new and marvelous character of the work God will accomplish. It is a work so radical and all-changing that it may be described with the very verb that depicted God’s first work of creation. This work is fundamentally new and marvelous, a new creation. 96

By casting God’s activity here in creation language, this passage represents a continuation of God’s creative activity in an act of salvation for his people. God is working to create—in this case for the salvation of his people—even during his time of creation rest. 97 94. So John N. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 1–39 (NICOT; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986), 148–49; J. A. Motyer, Isaiah: An Introduction and Commentary (TOTC 18; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1999), 60; Wildberger, Isaiah 1–12, 172. 95. For a seminal discussion of creation theology in Isaiah, see Carroll Stuhlmueller, “Theology of Creation in Second Isaias,” CBQ 21 (1959): 429–67. For a discussion of the relationship between creation faith, Exodus tradition, and salvation faith in Isaiah, see Philip B. Harner, “Creation Faith in Deutero-Isaiah,” VT 17 (1967): 298–306. 96. Young, Isaiah, 3:94–95. 97. For a similar conclusion, see Westermann, Isaiah 40–66, 81.

56

Chapter 3

Isaiah 43:1, 7, 15.  Isaiah 43:1, 7, and 15 can be treated together because of their similarity in the handling of the creation concept. Simply stated, each passage uses the verb ‫ ברא‬to describe God’s “creation” of Israel at the exodus, essentially a salvific event. This is further evidence that the formation of the nation is viewed in terms of creation. Regarding v. 7, Young states: Three words describe the formation of the people, and inasmuch as these three words are taken from Genesis 1, it would seem that they point to an event of as great significance as the creation itself. As God once created, formed, and made the world, so now He will create, form, and make His new creation, the redeemed. . . . Isaiah is speaking of an utterly new and supernatural work, the creation from an Israel that was such in name only and hence no Israel, of an Israel that is one in deed and truth. To compare this work with the original work of creation is to stress its magnificence and importance. The verbs are in the first person singular. It is God alone who performs the wonder of a new creation, the redemption of his elect people. 98

These words aptly describe the theological weight attached to the creation language used in this context, and they also emphasize the fact that the magnitude of what God is doing in this instance can only be construed as a divine work. The import of the passage is that, in speaking of past redemptive acts in terms of creation, the prophet opens the way for new redemptive acts to be considered in the same light. 99 Isaiah 45:8.  At the end of the oracle directed to Cyrus that proclaims God’s complete sovereignty, there is a short hymn, 100 Isa 45:8, that places salvation and deliverance in a context of creation: “O sky, rain down from above! // Let the clouds send down showers of deliverance! // Let the earth absorb it so salvation may grow, // and deliverance may sprout up along with it. // I, the Lord, create it.” This is an interesting use of metaphor, for the creation that God created is called on to produce the salvation that God will create anew. The verb ‫ ברא‬occurs in the final line, so the connection of the salvation and deliverance to the creation motif is clear. Isaiah 65:17, 18.  The eschatological climax to the book, Isa 65:17–18, relies on the creation motif in a way that is stunning in its scope. In essence, God promises a new creation fitting for the salvation he has extended to his people and fitting for the glory that he displays. The verb ‫ ברא‬occurs three times in these two verses, referring both to the new heavens and earth and to Jerusalem. Within this passage is the eschatological climax both of God’s creative work and his salvific activity; the metaphors in a sense coalesce and become almost indistinguishable. This passage above all other passages uses creation as a metaphor for God’s activity on behalf of his people. Not only is creation language used, but the entire concept is new creation: creation 98. Young, Isaiah, 3:146. 99. R. N. Whybray, Isaiah 40–66 (NCBC; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1981), 82. 100. Westermann, Isaiah 40–66, 163.

Investigation of Relevant Background Material

57

will be made again and never again will be subject to sin’s imperfection. This passage views God again as taking up his creative work, specifically in an eschatological context. 101 Psalm 51:12 (MT).  Psalm 51:12 is unusual compared with the other passages discussed above because it is the only place where ‫ ברא‬is used in what is most naturally understood as an individualistic, spiritual sense, as opposed to other occurrences that are national in scope. Despite these differences, this text is not out of concert with them, and in fact it serves to complement the broader focus that this motif receives elsewhere. In this penitential psalm, the author cries out to God to change his inner being: “Create for me a pure heart, O God! Renew a steadfast spirit inside me!” (‫לֵב טָהֹור‬ ‫ֱלה ֹים ְורּו ַח נָכֹון חַּדֵ ׁש ְּב ִק ְר ִּבי‬ ִ ‫ָא־לי א‬ ִ ‫)ּבר‬. ְ In light of the salvific and eschatological contexts in which ‫ ברא‬is used, the use of the verb here in reference to an individual—specifically to the inner being of the individual—is remarkable. The key to this use is found in the grievous result of the individual’s sin. 102 Whatever it was, the author’s sin had jeopardized his very own relationship to God. In the very next verse, the author pleads with God not to cast him from his presence or to remove his holy spirit. The whole tenor of the psalm is one of complete and utter dependence on God for mercy. In fact, there is no sacrifice to atone for the author’s sin. 103 The only things he can offer are “a broken spirit” and “a broken and crushed heart” (‫ִׁשּבָרָה‬ ְ ‫ רּו ַח נ‬and ‫לֵב־‬ ‫ִדּכֶה‬ ְ ‫ִׁשּבָר ְונ‬ ְ ‫)נ‬. This is the context for the author’s request that God create a 101. The verb ‫ ברא‬also occurs once in Jer 31:22. However, the third line of the verse, the “new thing” that the Lord will create, is almost indecipherable: ‫ ְנ ֵקבָה ְּתסֹובֵב ָּגבֶר‬. W. Rudolph, as indicated in the BHS apparatus, seeks to emend the text to read ‫נְקַ ּבה‬ ‫ּתסֹובַב ְג ִברָה‬, ְ and the reading of the LXX ( Jer 38:22) is entirely different: σωτηρίαν εἰς καταφύτευσιν καινήν, ἐν σωτηρίᾳ περιελεύσονται ἄνθρωποι. Standard commentaries routinely discuss variant interpretations. In light of the uncertainty surrounding the meaning of this verse, it is best not to include it in the present discussion. 102. The superscription of the psalm connects it to David’s repentance after his sin of adultery with Bathsheba, but this interpretation is not uniformly accepted. The dispute usually centers on the fact that in the psalm God is addressed directly (“against you only have I sinned”) when David clearly sinned against Uriah and Bathsheba as well. See Tate, Psalms 51–100, 8–12, for discussion. Briggs and Briggs (Psalms, 3–4) connect this psalm to the congregation in the time of Nehemiah; the historical allusion to David is “a conjectural illustrative situation, but without historical value.” Weiser (Psalms, 401) argues that the last two verses are a later addition, the earlier form of the psalm originating in preexilic times without any connection to David and the addition originating in the postexilic period of the reconstruction of the Temple. Buttenwieser (Psalms, 190–92) argues similarly but dates the addition during the exile. Hossfeld and Zenger (Psalms 2, 18) are convinced of a postexilic origin for the original psalm. Despite the difficulties of this critical problem, the import of the use of the verb ‫ ברא‬in the psalm can be understood well enough by the text of the psalm itself without reference to the exact historical situation. 103. It is generally argued that this is because of the willful, intentional, “highhanded” nature of David’s sin with Bathsheba and against Uriah, although this interpretation is contingent on the historical setting of the psalm.

58

Chapter 3

new heart within him. The only way the author can be saved from his sin is for God himself to act within him. This is a request for creative action but on an individual level. 104 Even though this request for action on God’s part is individualistic, the action is still salvific and as such is complementary to the other passages discussed. Here the author takes the creation motif as it has been used for salvation of a national scope and simply turns it inward. The salvation of the individual here complements the national salvation available through the covenant. Conclusion.  In the Hebrew Scriptures, God again takes up his creative work, even after he ceases this work in Gen 2:1–3. God still works on behalf of his people in marvelous ways, ways depicted as creation or re-creation. His ultimate action of eschatological renewal is indeed cast as a complete remaking of the initial creation. The work of God on the inner being of the sinner is called creation. These texts use the language of creation, God’s work par excellence, to describe God working in salvific or eschatological contexts. This is the key understanding to be drawn from this explanation of the OT context: God still works on behalf of his people. This must be understood in light of the central passage relative to the question, Gen 2:1–3, which declared that God ceased his creative work. In light of all of the passages mentioned in the Hebrew Scriptures above and the centrality that they will have for my overall argument, three summary statements can be made regarding the place of divine work on the Sabbath depicted in this corpus: (1) The Sabbath is a day on which God acts to extend his presence to his people and to sanctify them. (2) The Sabbath is an appropriate day to celebrate God’s work—as creator, redeemer, the one who acts in judgment on the wicked, and the onewho exalts the righteous. (3) The Sabbath is an appropriate day on which to look forward to the future work of the Lord, in which he will in a new act of creation usher in the age to come.

Qumran References to the Sabbath in the Qumran literature are quite numerous: the noun ‫ שַׁ ּבָת‬occurs 185 times within the nonbiblical manuscripts. 105 104. Briggs and Briggs (Psalms, 8) assert that the creation in view here is not creation out of nothing but transformation of the existing heart and spirit into something entirely new. 105. This number was gleaned from Martin G. Abegg with James E. Bowley and Edward M. Cook in consultation with Emanuel Tov, The Non-Biblical Texts from Qumran, in The Dead Sea Scrolls Concordance (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 1/2:712–14. Texts deemed appropriate for discussion were then checked again in Florentino García Martínez and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition (2 vols.; New York: Brill, 1997–98), and appropriate volumes in the Discoveries in the Judaean Desert series. The search was also done in BibleWorks and Accordance with some interesting differences that illustrate the importance of understanding how the different tools have compiled the data. Abegg lists 185 occurrences of the noun ‫שַׁ ּבָת‬: p. 712 has 42 instances, p. 713 has 60 in the left column

Investigation of Relevant Background Material

59

Almost uniformly, however, these references refer to the Sabbath from a context of prohibition of human activity as opposed to description of divine activity. In the practice of wider Judaism, however, Sabbath observance was a key way in which distinctiveness was maintained. Most of the Sabbath literature in the Qumran materials is similar in nature to later materials, such as the mishnaic tractates, in that it has a detailed set of legal clarifications about what is and is not permissible on the Sabbath. The key document in Qumran that details Sabbath commands is the Damascus Document (CD). The striking point to notice about this document is the convergence of two factors: its age and character. This document is dated usually between 100 b.c.e. and 70 c.e. This places it in a time contemporary with Jesus. It has an entire section (10:14–11:18) devoted to the Sabbath, and the character of these commands is quite similar to the mishnaic commands codified at a later date: they are legal Halakah devoted to interpreting the Torah command in light of the needs and circumstances of the community. The attitude toward the Sabbath in the Qumran documents is similar to one emphasis found in the Hebrew Scriptures: the Sabbath has taken such an important place in the life of the community that it becomes shorthand for the whole of the Torah. A quotation from CD 3:12–16 is illustrative: But with those who remained steadfast in God’s precepts, with those who were left from among them, God established his covenant with Israel for ever, revealing to them hidden matters in which all Israel had gone astray: his holy sabbaths and his glorious feasts, his just stipulations and his truthful paths, and the wishes of his will which man must do in order to live by them. 106

and 60 in the right column, and p. 714 has 23. A search for the triradical noun ‫ שׁבת‬in BibleWorks (using the command line syntax of .‫@שׁבת‬n* to limit the search to nouns) yields 276 hits in 240 verses, a difference of 91 hits, while a search in Accordance (using the command line syntax [noun]@‫ שׁבת‬to limit the search to nouns) yields 277 hits in 241 verses, a difference of 92. The differences can be accounted for as follows: Abegg includes words in the concordance that have been partially reconstructed, not entirely reconstructed, as long as the nonreconstructed letter is from the root or an inflected form. (The nonreconstructed letter can be doubtful; see Abegg, The Non-Biblical Texts from Qumran, 713, on the concordance entry for shabbat in 4Q321 1:8, which reads ˚‫בשׁ[ת‬.) Neither BibleWorks nor Accordance makes this distinction between reconstructed and nonreconstructed text in its Qumran modules, so each returns a larger number of hits. Two of the BibleWorks hits and Accordance hits are discounted because they are from the root ‫שׁבֶת‬, ֶ thus the numbers of hits that the computerized searches return are reduced to 274 and 275, respectively. BibleWorks returns 89 hits in reconstructed text contained in brackets, while Accordance returns 90 hits of this sort. The BibleWorks and Accordance searches differ by one because Accordance returns a hit in 11QT 26:0, entirely in reconstructed text, which BibleWorks does not. Thus Abegg’s number of 185 occurrences and the computerized results of 274 and 275 hits can ultimately be reconciled. 106. This and all other translations of Qumran texts are taken from García Martínez and Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition.

60

Chapter 3

A casual reading gives one the impression that the juxtaposition of the Sabbath and feast days with the Lord’s “just stipulations and his truthful paths, and the wishes of his will which man must do in order to live by them” is lopsided. This, however, is simply in keeping with the emphasis given to the Sabbath in passages such as Isa 56:1–8, in which the Sabbath is placed parallel to the Torah in general. The Qumran community has taken up a similar emphasis on the importance of the Sabbath. 107 A few quotations from the Damascus Document will suffice to explain the general character and nature of the Sabbath commands in these materials: “And on the day of the sabbath, no-one should say a useless or stupid word. He is not to lend anything to his fellow. He is not to take decisions with regard to riches or gain. He is not to speak about matters of work or of the task to be carried out on the following day” (CD 10:17–19). And again: No-one should go after an animal to pasture it outside his city, except for a thousand cubits. He is not to raise his hand to strike it with the fist. If it is stubborn, he should not bring it out of his house. No-one should remove anything from the house to outside, or from outside to the house. Even if he is in a hut, he should remove nothing from it nor bring anything into it. (CD 11:5–9)

These commands and their theological background are easily understood: they are legal Halakah designed to help the Qumran community keep the Sabbath according to the interpretation of this sect. There are other emphases in the Qumran materials that are important to note because they are in concert with emphases found in the Hebrew Scriptures. In the War Scroll (1QM), which depicts the eschatological battle between the Sons of Light and the Sons of Darkness, the Sabbath and related festival days continue to have a place in the community in the age to come. 1QM 2:4–9 discusses the continuation of the Sabbath in an eschatological context similar to the situation found in Ezek 40–48. The Qumran community has placed the Sabbath in new dress, but the underlying emphasis is the same: the Sabbath continues to be a regular calendrical feature in the eschaton. In sum, the Sabbath was important in the life of the Qumran community, and keeping the Sabbath was an integral part of its distinctiveness and community identity. This provides a great deal of the cultural backdrop for the importance of the Sabbath in Judaism at the time of Jesus, but it provides little data relative to the strand of thought being pursued in this book. There are no direct references to divine Sabbath work, nor are there passages that would even be tangential to the concept. 107. This connection could have been made because of the basic character of the Sabbath as a day that epitomizes what God does for man in his relationship to him. There is no explicit mention of this in the Qumran documents, but it is not unreasonable to see this presupposition operating under the surface.

Investigation of Relevant Background Material

61

God’s act of creation is connected to an eschatological context, however, in 11Q19 29:2–10. This passage looks ahead to a future day of creation in which God will create his Temple and establish it forever. It shows that even in the strict Qumran community God was viewed as continuing his creative work on behalf of his people in an eschatological context. This passage is similar to passages in the Hebrew Scriptures that emphasize God’s act of creation in the eschatological future. 108 One group of texts from Qumran that are worthy of mention, although for reasons other than a direct impact on the question at hand, are the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice. This is a liturgical text comprising 13 different hymns, one for each of the first 13 Sabbaths of the year, preserved in 8 different manuscripts. 109 There is nothing in them that speaks of divine or human work, so they do not address the question at hand directly, but they do provide an important context for understanding the balance of the Qumran texts, which are apropos to my thesis. In these texts, the earthly worshipers through the recitation of the hymns join in worship with the angelic host in the heavenly sanctuary. Newsom, one of the first scholars to investigate the Songs in depth, has argued that their purpose was not solely liturgical accompaniment to the Sabbath sacrifice but communal mysticism; association of this kind of mysticism with the Sabbath sacrifice was wholly appropriate, given the offering of sacrifices as an appropriate time for prayer and the connection between the human and the divine in Sabbath observance evidenced in the biblical text itself and in texts such as Jubilees. 110 Alexander has argued similarly, focusing on the transcendent nature of the worship that provided means for the human worshipers to approach the heavenly sanctuary in a mystical experience. 111 Regardless of the subtleties involved, it is clear that the primary focus of these songs is worship, and this provides an important balance to the other texts mentioned: 108.  There is another text that may refer to God’s act of creation of Israel in a salvific context. Michael Wise et al. (The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation [San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1996], 162) translate 1QM 13:9: “You, [O God], created us for Yourself as an eternal people.” A different translation is posited by García Martínez and Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, 135: “You, [God, have re]deemed us to be for you an eternal nation.” These differences arise because of a large lacuna in the center of this column, which has totally lost the first letter of a key word in the line and partially obliterated the second letter of the same word. Wise, Abegg, and Cook propose ‫ ב‬as the first letter and ‫ ר‬for the second, which would make the resultant root ‫ ;ברא‬García Martínez and Tigchelaar propose ‫ פ‬for the first letter and transcribe the second as ‫ד‬, which would make the resultant root ‫פדה‬. There is no way to reconstruct this text with certainty; therefore, it cannot be included in the discussion. See pl. 28 in E. L. Sukenik, ed., The Dead Sea Scrolls of the Hebrew University ( Jerusalem: Magnes, 1955). 109.  4Q400–407, 11Q17, and Mas1k (found at Masada). 110.  Carol A.  Newsom, Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice: A Critical Edition (HSS 27; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985), 19. 111.  Philip S. Alexander, Mystical Texts (LSTS 61; London: T. & T. Clark, 2006), 72.

62

Chapter 3

at Qumran, the teaching regarding the Sabbath was not simply negative, in terms of restrictions on behavior, but positive, in terms of appropriate worship given to God on that day. This shows continuity with biblical texts already discussed, although I must restate that these texts do not directly address the question at hand of divine Sabbath work. In sum, there are certain strands of thought continued in the Qumran materials that began in the Hebrew Scriptures: the Sabbath is shorthand for the entire Torah and covenant relationship, and the Sabbath continues to hold a place in the eschatological future. In addition, God is viewed as continuing his creative activity, which could be understood as a form of Sabbath work. In contrast to this continuity with the Hebrew Scriptures, however, there is a decisive change in the attitude toward the Sabbath. In the Qumran materials, there is equal emphasis on the particulars of Sabbath observance and the way that a member of the community is to fulfill the command but less emphasis on the meaning of the day, its theological basis, or its place as a day of blessing from God.

The Septuagint The terminology of the LXX is largely in line with what would be expected. The Greek term σάββατον figures prominently in the LXX as the word normally used to translate the Hebrew noun ‫ ;שַׁ ּבָת‬this is the case 96 times. Passages that do not essentially replicate the Hebrew Scriptures are discussed below. 112 1 Maccabees 2:39–41 In 1 Macc 2:39–41, many of the Jews who rebelled against the persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes are killed because they refuse to fight on the Sabbath, in direct obedience to their understanding of the prohibition against work on the Sabbath. The discussion between Mattathias and his friends concerning resolution of this problem is revealing about their attitudes toward the Sabbath. The conflict represented in Mattathias’s speech is between the accepted understanding of what was permissible on the Sabbath and an urgent need that overrode this requirement. Fighting was apparently not considered an acceptable activity for the Sabbath, but when faced with the alternative of extermination, people were permitted to rescind the Sabbath regulations against work, which had been overruled for this eventual112. The LXX was searched with BibleWorks on the BLM database, which is the BibleWorks LXX Morphology. The BLM morphology database is an extensive adaptation and correction of the 1991 LXX/OG Morphology and Lemma Database (LXM-2) from the CATSS project at the University of Pennsylvania. Texts deemed appropriate for discussion were then checked again in Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum graecum auctoritae Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum (16 vols.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1931–2006).

Investigation of Relevant Background Material

63

ity. The key point to recognize is the basis for the exception that Mattathias promotes: the Sabbath commands were not overridden simply for convenience but, rather, for an extreme circumstance. Mattathias does present the possible outcome as extreme—a complete extermination of the righteous Jews. This was a crisis of significant enough proportions to warrant abrogation of normal conduct on the Sabbath. In addition, the person who allows the abrogation of the commands must be taken into view. Mattathias had taken on a special role for Israel as the one—indeed, the only one—who was able to save it during this time of persecution. It is very reasonable to understand that this role for Mattathias at this juncture allowed him to make the exception. If a commoner had done the same thing in a different situation, it might not have been accepted. Therefore, this narrative about Mattathias’s change of Sabbath regulations opens the door to God’s special agents’ acting with regard to the Sabbath as needed for their time. 1 Maccabees 9:43–49 1 Maccabees 9:43–49 depicts a battle between Jonathan and Bacchides in which Jonathan mounts an attack on the Sabbath with God’s help and escapes to safety while at the same time killing a substantial number of enemy warriors. This passage is significant for a number of reasons. It represents an application of Mattathias’s decision to alter the prohibitions against Sabbath work by allowing fighting on the Sabbath for the purpose of defense and preservation. This passage represents another extreme situation that could result in utter destruction; Jonathan notes that there is no place where the Jews might escape. The main difference between this passage and 1 Macc 2:39–41 is that, here, Jonathan specifically instructs his men to cry out for God’s help in his situation. Jonathan was expecting God to act on his behalf to preserve him, even though the day was the Sabbath. Thus, not only is Jonathan acting on the Sabbath in a way that could ostensibly be construed as work on the Sabbath, he implores God to do the same. The obvious conclusion of the passage is that God does indeed help Jonathan and his men, for the last line indicates the extent of the damage that they were able to inflict on the enemy. Although not near the surface of the passage, a theological conclusion can be drawn about God’s activity on this day, especially on behalf of his agent. This passage is also interesting because of its function with regard to the author’s purpose of legitimizing Jonathan as being blessed by God. Goldstein argues, With Judas’ death, our author had to prove the legitimacy of Jonathan’s succession and does so with great care. Anti-Hasmonaean Pietists might claim that Jonathan, unlike Judas, was a wicked violator of the Sabbath and therefore had forfeited divine favor. Our author takes pains to tell how Jonathan, long before the time of his prosperity, violated the Sabbath in self-defense,

Chapter 3

64

fighting and swimming across the Jordan (I 9:43–49). Far from displeasing God, Jonathan’s escape was the beginning of his long series of successes. It was a feat worthy to be compared to the deeds of Joshua and David. 113

The point of the author of 1 Maccabees is that Jonathan’s supposed violations of the Sabbath do not negate the blessing that God had bestowed on him. As God’s agent, he was in a sense above Sabbath regulations and could act as needed to fulfill his mission, in this case overriding Sabbath regulations due to extreme necessity. This opens up the possibility that an agent of God may act as necessary on the Sabbath and receive no divine retribution. 2 Maccabees 8:21–29 2 Maccabees 8:21–29 relates a military event in which Judas routs Nicanor and his army. In comparison with the prior passage, in which Mattathias determines that it is acceptable to fight on the Sabbath, here Judas and his men do not pursue the enemy on the Sabbath. Instead they break off the pursuit, ostensibly because the enemy has been routed and defensive action is no longer necessary. Having won the victory, the Jews feel no compulsion to override the Sabbath commandments. 114 A major element in this passage is the celebration of the Sabbath and the narrator’s description of it. On the Sabbath, the Jews praise God, “who had preserved them for that day.” The immediate context implies that the preservation in view is the military victory that was secured on the previous day. Not only this, but God had actively “allotted [the Sabbath] to them as the beginning of mercy” (ἀρχὴν ἐλέους τάξαντος αὐτοῖς). Foundational to this statement is the view that the Sabbath represents a day of mercy. Although the terminology used here is unique, the underlying theological concept is similar to what has been seen before: the Sabbath is a day that both symbolizes and embodies God’s gracious care for his people. This forms the underlying theological framework of this text and its emphasis on proper observance of the Sabbath. 2 Maccabees 15:1–5 In the interesting passage 2 Macc 15:1–5, Nicanor plans a Sabbath attack. The interesting aspect of this passage is the juxtaposition of Nicanor’s intent and the Jews’ protest, which gives insight into the nature and character the Jews understand the Sabbath to have. It is clear that the concern of the Jews is not to ensure that Nicanor keeps the Sabbath holy by abstaining from work. Instead, his planned attack is considered heinous because

75.

113. Jonathan A. Goldstein, I Maccabees (AB 41; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1976),

114. Similar to this, Judas again keeps the Sabbath in the middle of a military campaign in 2 Macc 12:38.

Investigation of Relevant Background Material

65

it violates the very nature of the day. Killing people on the Sabbath is considered a violation of the day on which God brought rest and restoration to his people. Thus the Jews are aghast at the idea that this evil sovereign would carry out his plans to kill Jews on the Sabbath. This passage does not support the main thesis of divine Sabbath work, but it does show that the general character of the Sabbath that arises out of the Hebrew Scriptures still retains its currency. Conclusion The LXX shows evidence of the developing thought regarding the Sabbath. First and foremost is the precedence found for overriding the Sabbath commands: if there is an emergency, a crisis of significant proportions related to the preservation of human life, Sabbath regulations can be abrogated. In addition, there is a hint of movement toward God’s chosen agents as individuals who can act as needed on the Sabbath. They can avoid Sabbath prohibitions as necessary for their tasks and still retain the blessing of God upon them. Both of these themes are developments out of the Sabbath theology of prior texts. The former represents an application of the Sabbath commands to a new, unforeseen historical situation. Faced with complete extermination of the righteous Jews, God’s chosen people, Mattathias argues that the Sabbath prohibitions can give way to more expedient behavior. Mattathias’s importance as the leader of the Jews, God’s chosen agent to preserve them during this time of persecution, leads to an inference that God’s special agent can act as needed on the Sabbath to fulfill his mission without censure from God. Arguably, this viewpoint does not hold true for the entire Jewish people, but it does provide a possible way to understand particular Sabbath actions that might prove fruitful in Jesus’ case.

The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha The OT Pseudepigrapha do not yield many texts that touch on the Sabbath, but what is present is theologically rich. The relevant passages are in the book of Jubilees, two sayings from the Life of Adam and Eve, and the fifth fragment from the philosopher Aristobulus. 115 115. This literature is particularly difficult to search because it exists in several different languages. There is no comprehensive printed concordance for the entire corpus. I have used Albert-Marie Denis, Concordance grecque des pseudépigraphes d’Ancien Testament (Louvain-la-Neuve: Université catholique de Louvain, Institut orientaliste, 1987), for the Greek portions; Wilfried Lechner-Schmidt, Wortindex der lateinisch erhaltenen Pseudepigraphen zum Alten Testament (TANZ 3; Tübingen: Francke, 1990), for the Latin portions; and the Accordance Pseud module, essentially an electronic version of R. H. Charles, The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English (2 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1913), to access the remaining portions in English translation. A search for the word “sabbath” (with a wildcard character to find the plural as well) in the Pseud module yielded 66

66

Chapter 3

The Book of Jubilees Jubilees is a recasting of the biblical history of Israel found in the books of Genesis and Exodus as told to Moses when he was on Mount Sinai for 40 days. In retelling this history, the author seeks to instruct his readers about the supreme importance of following the Law. 116 It dates from well before the common era, most likely between 161 and 140 b.c.e., and is likely representative of a Hasidic or Essenic branch of Judaism. 117 A major emphasis of the writing is the delineation of a proper calendar, and in concert with this is the book’s emphasis on the Sabbath. As a whole, Jubilees indicates the importance attached to the day and how Israel is to observe it. From the outset, it should be noted that the Sabbath forms a literary frame for the content of the book. “Jub. 50:13 constitutes the end of the work, and in Jubilees 2, the creation account is shaped from the very beginning (2:1) by a series of allusions to the communication of the sabbath commandment. Only ch. 1, which specifies the narrative situation and the motivation of the book, precedes the issue of the sabbath.” 118 Thus the Sabbath for the book of Jubilees forms an inclusio that drives the distinctiveness of Sabbath observance for Jews. In the narrative, the angel of the presence issues a command to Moses that highlights the importance of the Sabbath as a sign for the people of Israel. “Write the whole account of creation, that in six days the Lord God completed all his work and all that he created. And he observed a sabbath the seventh day, and he sanctified it for all ages. And he set it (as) a sign for all his works” (Jub. 2:1). 119 To the author of Jubilees, Sabbath was linked to the very act of creation on the front end. The calling and creation of Israel are then linked directly to Sabbath observance: Israel is called out by God so that it might keep the Sabbath (see, e.g., Jub. 2:19–20). The identity of Israel and the Sabbath are inextricably linked in Jubilees. Interesting to note is that the author has not totally circumvented the biblical emphases given to the Sabbath in the Hebrew Scriptures: it is still pictured as a day on which God sanctifies Israel and gives his blessing to them. A very interesting assertion in the book is that the Sabbath was a heavenly institution, kept by God and his angels, before it was ever an institution for the people of Israel (see Jub. 2:18, 21, 30). Jubilees has an emphasis on supernatural community: Israel celebrates the Sabbath with divine beings, occurrences, 40 of which were in Jubilees. A search for the phrase “seventh day” yielded 14 occurrences. 116. O. S. Wintermute, “Jubilees: A New Translation and Introduction,” OTP, 2:38. 117. Wintermute, “Jubilees,” 44–45. 118. Lutz Doering, “The Concept of the Sabbath in the Book of Jubilees,” in Studies in the Book of Jubilees (ed. Matthias Albani et al.; TSAJ 65; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997), 179. 119. This and other translations of Jubilees are from Wintermute, “Jubilees,” 52–142.

Investigation of Relevant Background Material

67

thus elevating the Sabbath above a normal, earthly institution. 120 The Sabbath gains a supernatural focus. Part of the purpose of the book, then, is to emphasize the importance of the Sabbath for Israel and thereby promote its proper observance. As an outgrowth of this theological importance attached to the Sabbath, Jubilees contains two halakic sections that stress the importance of Sabbath observance, Jub. 2:25–33 and 50:6–13. These sections contain specific prohibitions for the purpose of helping Israel keep the Sabbath that are similar to the regulations that we’ve already seen in the Qumran literature and that we will see in the Mishnah. The first section does contain some passages that connect the Sabbath to God’s original ordination of the day, thus providing a theological understanding for the prohibitions, but the prohibitions themselves are still quite normal (see, e.g., Jub. 2:29–30; 50:8, 12–13). These Sabbath rules contain many of the same themes as in other passages—for example, preparation of food, journeys, and moving things in and out of a residence. Jubilees is slightly different, however, in that the theological importance of the Sabbath, with its emphasis on the divine origin and foreshadowing of the day, leads to a strict enforcement of the death penalty for Sabbath breaking, with no differentiation between intentional and unintentional actions. 121 A few comments regarding the attitude of Jubilees to the Sabbath are in order relative to the question of this study. This document goes to great lengths to show that the Sabbath was a divine institution, kept in heaven before it was kept on earth. The implication is that God kept the Sabbath and does so continually. By this very emphasis, there is little contributory material to the concept of divine Sabbath work. There is an emphasis on the blessing that God bestows on his people in conjunction with the Sabbath, but the connection is made between keeping the Sabbath and receiving this blessing. This book, arising as it does out of a stricter sect of Judaism, does not directly contribute to the question about divine Sabbath work except by way of contrast and by way of continuation of the theme of God’s blessing on Israel in conjunction with the Sabbath. As a whole, the work is a demonstration of the rigorous place that the Sabbath held in certain strands of Second Temple Judaism as an identity marker for Israel. Life of Adam and Eve The L. A. E. is a curious text in that it is extant in a Greek version (the Apocalypse of Moses) and a Latin version (Vita) with wide divergences between the two. Most likely the original document was composed in Hebrew, with the Greek following, and then the Latin being dependent on either the 120. Doering, “The Concept of the Sabbath in the Book of Jubilees,” 187–88. 121. Doering, “The Concept of the Sabbath in the Book of Jubilees,” 199–200.

68

Chapter 3

Hebrew or Greek. 122 The original composition was sometime between 100 b.c.e. and 200 c.e., with the Greek and Latin texts following a few centuries later. 123 There is one very important text that affects the question of this study. Upon the death of Eve in Vita 51, her children begin mourning for her. There is then an important interchange between Seth and the archangel Michael: “Then, when they had mourned for four days, the archangel Michael appeared to them and said to Seth, ‘Man of God, do not prolong mourning your dead more than six days, because the seventh day is a sign of the resurrection, the rest of the coming age, and on the seventh day the Lord rested from all his works.’” The parallel text in Apoc. Mos. 43:2–3 uses a different figure to make the same connection between the Sabbath day and the eschatological reality of resurrection: “And the archangel Michael said to Seth, ‘Thus you shall prepare for burial each man who dies until the day of the resurrection. And do not mourn more than six days; on the seventh day rest and be glad in it, for on that day both God and we angels rejoice in the migration from the earth of a righteous soul.’” 124 Both these passages are remarkable for the connection that they make between the Sabbath, eschatology, and the resurrection. It is clear that the Sabbath is in view because of the statement about the Lord’s resting from his work on the seventh day in the Vita passage. Each passage designates the Sabbath, then, as a sign of the future age. 125 Mourning is prohibited because, as a sign of the resurrection and the future age, the Sabbath should most naturally be marked by joy and celebration. This continues a clear emphasis found initially in the Hebrew Scriptures and in fact unites the eschatological emphasis of passages such as Isa 65 with the joy of the Sabbath in passages such as Exod 16. The question must be asked whether these passages could be construed as Christian interpolations. Regarding this question, Johnson states, The absence of apparent Christian allusions, except for the easily identifiable variants in Vita 29 and 51, does not necessarily argue for a date early in the Christian period since Christian allusions are rare in most Jewish writings of this time. However, given the fact that the document enjoyed wide circulation among Christians, the paucity of Christian interpolations is indeed striking. 126

The passages to which he refers in Vita 29 and 51 are indeed “easily identifiable.” There is an extensive interpolation found in certain manuscripts that 122. M. D. Johnson, “Life of Adam and Eve: A New Translation and Introduction,” OTP, 2:251. 123. Johnson, “Life of Adam and Eve,” 252. 124. Both of these translations are from Johnson, “Life of Adam and Eve,” 258–95. 125. Vita 51 does this more clearly by referring to resurrection as “the rest of the coming age.” 126. Johnson, “Life of Adam and Eve,” 252

Investigation of Relevant Background Material

69

contains a clear Christian interpolation and a possible one. 127 The appendix to the Vita is a Christian addition with its own tradition, referencing Jude 14–16. 128 There is no indication that Vita 51:2 or Apoc. Mos. 43:2–3 is a Christian interpolation. More to the point, there is no ostensible theological reason for a Christian to connect resurrection to the Sabbath, since the resurrection of Jesus took place on the first day of the week. 129 These passages in the Life of Adam and Eve stand as testimony to the connection between the Sabbath and eschatology, and as such they contribute to the theme of the Sabbath as symbolic of God’s actions on behalf of his people. The Fifth Fragment of Aristobulus Aristobulus was the earliest Jewish philosopher to relate Jewish religious thought to Hellenistic culture. His works are not extant except in fragments contained in other writers’ works. The fifth fragment is found in its entirety in Eusebius’s Praep. ev. 8.10 and 13.12. 130 Four parallel fragments are found interspersed throughout Clement of Alexandria’s Stromateis; a fifth fragment is also found in another Eusebius passage. 131 In these parallel fragments, however, Clement has only two specific attributions to Aristobulus; the extent of his remaining citations can be understood only from comparison with the Eusebius citation. 132 Thus the fragments from Clement must be handled carefully; only one place in Clement is pertinent to the present study, and it is found wanting. Aristobulus connects the Sabbath to Greek thought through two arguments. First is the connection of the Sabbath to “light,” a metaphor used for contemplative wisdom. And connected (with this) is (the fact) that God, who established the whole cosmos, also gave us the seventh day as a rest, because life is laborious for all. According to the laws of nature, the seventh day might be called first also, as the genesis of light in which all things are contemplated. And the same thing 127. See Johnson, “Life of Adam and Eve,” 268–70 n. 29b. 128. Johnson, “Life of Adam and Eve,” 294. 129. It is possible that this connection may have occurred if the first day of the week was viewed as the Christian Sabbath. See Ign. Magn. 9:1–4 for one early example. 130. See A. Yarbro Collins, “Aristobulus: A New Translation and Introduction,” OTP, 2:831–36, for discussion and introduction. The Greek text of Eusebius examined for this study is Karl Mras, Eusebius Werke (Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte; Berlin: Akademie, 1983). Another useful translation is Nikolaus Walter, “Fragmente jüdisch-hellenistischer Exegeten: Aristobulos, Demetrios, Aristeas,” in Unterweisung in lehrhafter Form ( JSHRZ; Gütersloh: Mohn, 1980), 257–96. 131. See, respectively, Strom. 6.16.137.4–138.4; 6.16.141.7b–142.1; 6.16.142.4b; 5.14.107.1– 4; Praep. ev. 7.13.7–14.1. For an index of editions and translation of all fragments, see Carl R. Holladay, Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors, vol. 3: Aristobulus (TT 39; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995), 107–13. 132. Nikolaus Walter, Der Thoraausleger Aristobulos (TUGAL; Berlin: Akademie, 1964), 8.

70

Chapter 3 might be said metaphorically about wisdom also. For all light has its origin in it. And some of those belonging to the Peripatetic school have said that wisdom holds the place of a lantern; for as long as they follow it unremittingly, they will be calm through their whole life. 133

In this line of thought, the Sabbath as the seventh day becomes a special day of contemplation in which the individual is connected to wisdom, which secures a peaceful life. 134 Aristobulus also points to the continual providential activity of God on the seventh day and beyond. In so arguing, he means that God continues working to maintain what he has created even on the seventh day. And it is plainly said by our legislation that God rested on the seventh day. This does not mean, as some interpret, that God no longer does anything. It means that, after he had finished ordering all things, he so orders them for all time. For the legislation signifies that in six days he made heaven and earth and all things which are in them in order that he might make manifest the times and foreordain what precedes what with respect to order. For, having set all things in order, he maintains and alters them so (in accordance with that order). And the legislation has shown plainly that the seventh day is legally binding for us as a sign of the sevenfold principle which is established around us, by which we have knowledge of human and divine matters. [italics original]

A striking aspect of this quotation is the reference to the debate over God’s activity. Aristobulus refers to others who understand Gen 2:1–3 to mean that God entered a period of inactivity after the creation of the world. He does not indicate who thinks this, but this is important evidence of the existence of the debate; the fact that Aristobulus precedes the time of the NT by relatively little is very worthy of note because it then becomes reasonable to see the debate as extant within the first century c.e. Aristobulus’s argument is that God continues his work by maintaining the order that he established in the creation. Thus God is characterized by continual work, not perpetual inactivity. The exact nature of this work concerns the continual management of the creation. The context of the latter half of paragraph 11 in fragment 5 is a discussion of Gen 2:1–3; Aristobulus is offering what amounts to an interpretive exegetical argument on the passage. The phrase that refers to the initial act of creation includes the related words τάξις and τάσσω: ἀλλ’ ἐπὶ τῷ καταπεπαυκέναι τὴν τάξιν αὐτῶν οὕτως εἰς πάντα τὸν χρόνον τεταχέναι. Thus Aristobulus conceives of creation as an act of arrangement, 135 specifically related to the numerical principle of seven, as he makes clear in the following discussion. As he discusses God’s ongoing activity vis-à-vis 133. This and all translations of Aristobulus are taken from Collins, “Aristobulus,” 837–42. 134. This line of thought is seen again in Philo; see Decalogue 100. 135. This is a major category of meaning for this word group; see LSJ, “τάξις,” 1756, and “τάσσω,” 1760.

Investigation of Relevant Background Material

71

his rest, Aristobulus writes the following: τάξας γάρ, οὕτως αὐτὰ συνέχει καὶ μεταποιεῖ. The aorist participle from τάσσω refers to the initial act of creation, and the present tense verbs συνέχει and μεταποιεῖ point to God’s current activity 136 of supporting and maintaining the creation. 137 It should be noted, however, that nowhere does Aristobulus say that God did anything on the seventh day but only after this day. There is a tantalizing section from a parallel fragment found in Clement that is important to note. In Strom. 6.16.141.7b, Clement writes, “Thus God’s resting does not imply, as some suppose, that God ceased from activity; for, being good, if He should ever cease from doing good, then would He cease being God, which is sacrilege even to say.” 138 God’s nature requires continual activity commensurate with this nature. Although this quotation probably has Aristobulus as its source, even though Clement does not mention him specifically, 139 it is so different from the parallel material clearly from Aristobulus that the most reasonable conclusion is that Clement has modified the original with his own conceptions and wording. Thus, this quotation should be excluded from consideration. Thus, in Aristobulus we see arguments that the Sabbath is an important day for the contemplation and acquisition of wisdom and that God continues to work after the seventh day to maintain his creation.

Josephus Josephus, the Jewish historian who lived 37 to ca. 100 c.e., mentions the Sabbath often, 140 yet his discussions of the day are in keeping with the human-oriented viewpoint of Sabbath legislation and do not venture into theological territory regarding God’s actions relative to this day. Many 136. These verbs are excellent examples of the present tense used to describe an action that was begun in the past but continues to the present; see Daniel B. Wallace (Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996], 519–20), who calls these types of present tense “extending from past present”; and Herbert Weir Smyth (A Greek Grammar for Schools and Colleges [rev. ed. Gordon M. Messing; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1956], 422–23), who calls these types of present tenses “present of past and present combined.” 137. The verb μεταποιέω could be construed to imply a recreation of sorts, but the context does not support this. More likely, Aristobulus uses the verb to emphasize God’s continual creative activity within the original creation; see Holladay, Aristobulus, 229, annotation 139. 138. Holladay, Aristobulus, 183. 139. Holladay, Aristobulus, 224, annotation 120. 140. The texts of Josephus were searched with BibleWorks on the JOM database, which is a morphologically tagged Josephus text prepared through the collaborative efforts of J.-N. Aletti and A. Gieniusz of the Pontifical Biblical Institute, and Michael Bushell of BibleWorks. Texts deemed appropriate for discussion were then checked again in Josephus (trans. H. St. J. Thackeray et al.; 9 vols., LCL; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1926–65). Translations of Josephus are taken from this text.

72

Chapter 3

references to the Sabbath are related to similar passages in 1 and 2 Maccabees; presumably, this is because he borrows from these writings to some degree. 141 Josephus does reference specific laws regarding activities prohibited on this day. He mentions a prohibition against making a journey on the day (Ant. 13.251). Similar restrictions are mentioned regarding fighting and food preparation (Ant. 14.226). It must be noted, however, that Josephus’s treatment of the Sabbath is general; he does not show a knowledge of intense, halakic debates, and his statements cannot be marshaled as evidence for this sort of study. 142 On the whole, Josephus views the Sabbath as an indication of personal piety. “While the truly pious observe the Sabbath those who are not demonstrate their impiety by breaking it. Josephus considers the Sabbath a barometer of piety and describes Sabbath observance as if it were a label with which to tag people.” 143 Weiss provides a good summary of Josephus’s views: From the evidence presented above it is possible to conclude that Josephus held the Sabbath in very high esteem and thought that its observance was of the utmost significance for the preservation of the nation. For him it was of the essence that on the Sabbath no work, not “even the most innocent of acts” (BJ. 2. 456), or one considered most beneficial or essential, be done. Like Philo, who is more emphatic on this issue, Josephus also considers the Sabbath as an opportunity to study the law. . . . Even though it seems that he cannot refer to it without mentioning the requirement to do no work in it, he refers to its positive aspects by arguing for its reasonableness, identifying it as the day of gladness and giving it eschatological significance within a sacred geography. 144

Josephus does provide some pertinent information regarding activity on the Sabbath by detailing two events that show how righteous Jews were capable of acting on the Sabbath. These indicate a similar line of thinking as in the passages from 1 Maccabees in which Jonathan acts on the Sabbath. In describing Cestius’s march on Jerusalem during the Feast of Tabernacles, Josephus describes the Jews’ response in J.W. 2.517–21. This passage is similar to 1 Macc 2:39–41, in that there is a threat of military danger, but it is also distinct, in that Josephus specifically cites the intense feeling of the people, using the words θυμός and ὁρμή. A similar emphasis is found in J.W. 2:289–90. Without using the same term, this passage also points to the intense passion of the people, specifically, the rage of observant Jews, which 141. See Ant. 12.271–77, which parallels 1 Macc 2:39–41; and Ant. 13.12–14, which parallels 1 Macc 9:43–49. J.W. 1.146 refers to the decision made in 1 Maccabees; Ant. 14.63 is related to this passage as well but offers a further clarification of that refinement of the Sabbath prohibitions. The story of Asineus’s military victory on the Sabbath in Ant. 18.318–24 is in the same vein as these passages. 142. Herold Weiss, “The Sabbath in the Writings of Josephus,” JSJ 29 (1998): 365. 143. Weiss, “The Sabbath in the Writings of Josephus,” 381. 144. Weiss, “The Sabbath in the Writings of Josephus,” 389.

Investigation of Relevant Background Material

73

motivates them to act aggressively on the Sabbath. The point to be drawn from these passages is that there is apparently a precedent among righteous Jews to act on the Sabbath when provoked in a way that could ostensibly violate the prohibitions against work on the Sabbath. The implication is that the act that provokes the action warrants this response, and there is no liability for the individual who acts in this sort of way. 145

Philo Philo, the Hellenistic Jewish philosopher who lived ca. 20 b.c.e. to ca. 50 c.e., contributes greatly to the theme of divine Sabbath work from a variety of perspectives. He speaks directly of the nature of God and of the Sabbath, and the themes that he details continue in the paths laid by passages already examined. 146 Allegorical Interpretation 1.5–6 Allegorical Interpretation 1.5–6 by Philo on the majority of the text of Genesis is one of the best sources for understanding his philosophical exegesis and the connections that he made between Judaism and Hellenistic philosophy. In describing the creation event, Philo argues that God by his very nature continues to create. 147 First of all, then, on the seventh day the Creator, having brought to an end the formation of mortal things, begins the shaping of others more divine. For God never leaves off making (παύεται γὰρ οὐδέποτε ποιῶν ὁ θεός), but even as it is the property of fire to burn and of snow to chill, so it is the property of God to make (οὕτως καὶ θεοῦ τὸ ποιεῖν): nay more so by far, inasmuch as He is to all besides the source of action. Excellently, moreover, does Moses say “caused to rest” not “rested”; for He causes to rest that which, though actually not in operation, is apparently making, but He himself never ceases making (οὐ παύεται δὲ ποιῶν αὐτός). For this reason Moses adds after “He caused to rest” the words “from what He had begun.” For whereas things produced by human arts when finished stand still and remain as they are, the products of divine skill, when completed, begin again to move. 148 145. This principle finds a parallel in Num 15:32–36, which appears to endorse at least acting on the Sabbath to restrain a law-breaker. 146. Philo was searched with BibleWorks using the PHI/PHM database, which is the Philo Concordance Database produced by Peder Borgen, Kåre Fuglseth, and Roald Skarsten, Institute of Education and Culture, School of Professional Studies, Bodø University College, Norway. This electronic database was supplemented with the use of Peder Borgen et al., The Philo Index: A Complete Greek Word Index to the Writings of Philo of Alexandria (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans / Leiden: Brill, 2000), to find appropriate texts. 147. For a study of Philo’s understanding of creation, see David T. Runia, Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus of Plato (PhAnt 44; Leiden: Brill, 1986). 148. All translations of Philo are taken from Philo (trans. F. H. Colson et al.; 10 vols., 2 supplements, LCL; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1929–62).

74

Chapter 3

In discussing the creation account, Philo begins a discussion on the phrase “God completed his works on the sixth day.” One of his assertions is that God ceased the creation of mortal creatures on the seventh day but then began the creation of divine beings. The underlying point is that, even though the biblical text states that God ceased from his creation, Philo knows that God in fact did not. Why? Because “it is the property of God to make.” By his nature and essence, God continues to create even after the initial act of creation was accomplished; this is seen in the continual moving of things that God has created. In addition, Philo makes a second argument on the basis of the active voice of κατέπαυσεν that God causes certain things to rest so that others might begin. 149 This text shows Philo’s conception of the nature of God and the plain meaning of the biblical text in tension. Philo resolves the tension on the side of his conception of God as a being who continually creates and in fact could not do anything else. On the Cherubim 87–90 On the Cherubim 87–90 is presented as an important corollary to the preceding text. Despite the fact that the topic of my book is divine Sabbath work, this passage in Philo is important to note because it speaks of God from the standpoint of the nature of his rest. The key statements are in 87 and 90, which essentially argue that God as an immutable being is the only being capable of perfect rest. This rest, however, does not mean inactivity. As Runia states, “God as cause never ceases to be active (Cher. 87). It is characteristic ( ἴδιον) of God to act, just as it is characteristic of that which has come into being to undergo action (Cher. 77).” 150 Just as God’s action is perfect in that it flows naturally from his being and creates no fatigue or need for recovery, God’s rest is perfect because it issues from his nature and not from any change that results in fatigue. This passage is critical to the present study because alongside the emphasis of God’s perfect, continual rest is an equal emphasis on his incessant activity. Philo is clear that God never ceases to act; in fact, “Philo insists that creation is a never-ending process, for the creator himself is eternally and never-ceasingly active.” 151 Creation is God’s unique activity, his work par excellence, 152 which he never ceases. The Decalogue 96–101 As part of his exposition of Scripture, Philo undertook a commentary on the Decalogue. As far as humans were concerned, the Sabbath was a special 149. Runia, Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus of Plato, 256–57. 150. Runia, Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus of Plato, 105. 151. Runia, Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus of Plato, 439. 152. This can be argued from passages where Philo discusses the meaning of circumcision. See Runia (Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus of Plato, 439), who cites Migration 92; Spec. Laws 1.10; and QG 3.48 in support.

Investigation of Relevant Background Material

75

day to imitate God, rooted in God’s creation of the world. It was a special day of rest for mortals: it meets their need for rest and leads them to virtue and piety. A key section is 99–100, where Philo argues that the Sabbath is not so much a day of worship as it is a day of imitation in which individuals act like God, emulating his rest and thereby increasing their piety and devotion toward God. 153 On this day, people may rest from their physical labors so that the mind may be engaged in contemplation of wisdom and ultimately approach the same immortal life that God himself possesses. 154 Interestingly enough, the end result in Philo’s thought is not very much different from the conclusions of the Hebrew Scriptures: the person who observes the Sabbath receives blessing and benefit from God as he or she obeys God’s command and emulates God’s pattern. On Flight and Finding 174 In a similar vein is Flight 174 from Philo’s discourse on the stories of various fugitives in the biblical text. One tangible benefit received in the Sabbath is rest: “So, taken in a symbolic sense, the words ‘And the sabbath of the land shall be food for you’ are to the point; for nothing is nourishing and enjoyable food save rest in God, securing as it does for us the greatest boon, the peace which is unbroken by war.” Here Philo is referring to the Sabbatical year, but the broader principle of Sabbath rest is also in view. Participating in the Sabbath—here Philo does not explain how one does that—confers true rest upon the participant, which is pictured as the greatest good for man. This then is a general description of the blessing that God bestows on individuals on the Sabbath. On the Life of Abraham 28–30 This connection between peace and Sabbath is found again in Abraham 28–30, which showcases well Philo’s Hellenistic roots, because the source of peace in the passage is not the Sabbath itself or the sanctity that God bestows on the day but the perfection of the number seven. In spite of this unusual basis, at least as far as Judaism is concerned, the connection between the Sabbath and peace is still maintained.

153. Runia (Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus of Plato, 345) argues that the term εὐδαιμονία, the final term of Decalogue 100, is a key Philonic theme: “God is, according to Philo, supremely εὐδαίμων as the result of the nature of his being and activity, i.e., his oneness, transcendence, eternity, impassibility, goodness, wisdom and intellectual mode of existence. Man is εὐδαίμων inasmuch as he receives these divine attributes as gifts and draws himself nearer to God.” This theme would augment the Sabbath in Philo as a source of divine blessing on man. 154. Jutta Leonhardt, Jewish Worship in Philo of Alexandria (TSAJ 84; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), 67.

Chapter 3

76 On the Change of Names 258–60

In Names 258–60, Philo sees the Sabbath as a time when God distributes wonderful benefits to the earth. Why then need you still wonder that God showers virtue without toil or trouble, needing no controlling hand but perfect and complete from the very first? And if you would have further testimony of this can you find any more trustworthy than Moses, who says that while other men receive their food from earth, the nation of vision alone has it from heaven? The earthly food is produced with the co-operation of husbandmen, but the heavenly is sent like the snow by God the solely self-acting, with none to share his work. And indeed it says “Behold I rain upon you bread from heaven.” Of what food can he rightly say that it is rained from heaven, save of heavenly wisdom which is sent from above on souls which yearn for virtue by Him who sheds the gift of prudence in rich abundance, whose grace waters the universe, and chiefly so in the holy seventh [day] 155 which he calls the Sabbath? For then he says there will be a plentiful supply of good things spontaneous and self-grown, which even all the art in the world could never raise, but springing up and bearing their proper fruit through self-originated, self-consummated nature.

There is an important translational problem in this passage regarding the referent of the time period to which Philo referred. In the phrase καὶ μάλιστα ἐν ἱερᾷ ἑβδόμῃ, ἣν σάββατον καλεῖ (translated above: “and chiefly so in the holy seventh [day] which he calls the Sabbath?”), the adjective ἕβδομος is functioning as a substantive; here the form is feminine singular dative. Because the gender in context is feminine, only the word ἡμέρα can reasonably be supplied. However, Colson and Whitaker justify the referent as the Sabbatical Year: Wendland gives the reference for this as Ex. xvi. 23 ff. But this can hardly be right, as no manna fell on the Sabbath. The reference is clearly to the Sabbatical year of Lev. xxv. 4, 5, definitely called ‘Sabbath,’ on which he has dwelt in De Fug. 170 ff. ἡ ἑβδόμη seems to be used for ἑβδομάς in De Decal. 159 and De Spec. Leg. ii. 40, as well as in §144 above. Presumably no noun but ἡμέρα can be understood, but by frequent use it has come to be a noun, which Philo can extend to cover any sacred period, day, month, or year. 156

Against this view is context, Philo’s use of lexeme, and grammar: the citation from Exod 16 quoted earlier in the context by Philo orients his discussion to the Sabbath day, and Colson and Whitaker’s argument that “no manna fell on the Sabbath” ignores the larger context of the events surrounding the Sabbath in Exod 16. The manna that fell did not fall on the Sabbath, but it certainly fell for consumption on the Sabbath so that its sanctity could be preserved. In addition, I find no other clear uses of ἑβδόμη in Philo to 155. On this point, I deviate from the translation of Colson and Whitaker for reasons to be specified in the subsequent discussion. 156. Philo, vol. 5, pp. 274–75 note a.

Investigation of Relevant Background Material

77

refer to the Sabbatical Year. When Philo does wish to refer to the seventh year, he normally uses the adjective ἕβδομος and the noun ἔτος with appropriate agreement to reflect the neuter gender of the noun. 157 Based on this evidence, it is my opinion that Philo is here referring to the Sabbath, not the Sabbatical Year. 158 In either case, the underlying philosophical principle remains the same: the time of Sabbath rest is a time when God extends marvelous benefits to the world. For the purposes of this study, the most important point to note is that Philo regards the Sabbath as the primary day on which God distributes his wisdom throughout the universe. The description of this day is very picturesque and implies a powerful working of God on this day in the life of the individual who contemplates him. This is both in line with passages that describe the Sabbath as a day of blessing and akin to passages from the Hebrew Scriptures that picture the Sabbath as the preeminent day on which God sanctifies his people. 159 On the Special Laws 1.170 Philo also views the Sabbath relative to eternity. Although he cannot be construed to contain the eschatological ideas present in other texts, there is a connection here in a similar vein between the Sabbath in the present and the symbolized perfected future. Speaking of the Sabbath sacrifices, Philo writes, On the seventh days he doubles the number of the victims. He makes this addition of a number equal to the original because he considers the seventh day, called also in his records the birthday of the whole world, to be of equal value to eternity, and therefore he purposes to assimilate the sacrifice of the seventh day to the ‘perpetuity’ of the daily offering of lambs.

The placement of the Sabbath at the beginning of the world marks its beginning, and thus the day takes on a character equal to eternity. 160 On the Special Laws 2.64 On the Special Laws 2.64 is similar to Decalogue 96–101 cited above, in that it shows the Sabbath as a time for man to contemplate teachings and lessons that bring him important personal benefit. Philo argues that Moses divided 157. See Spec. Laws 2.39, 84, 86, 97, 105; 4.215; Virtues 1.97; Hypothetica 7.15, 17. In Drunkenness 1.52, Philo cites the LXX of Gen 29:27: συντέλεσον τὰ ἕβδομα ταύτης. Here a likely referent of τὰ ἕβδομα is a period of seven years, but this is not certain. Since this is a biblical citation, it is difficult to say whether it reflects Philo’s own style. 158. This is the decision represented as well in C. D. Yonge, trans., The Works of Philo (new updated ed.; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1993), 363. 159. Runia (Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus of Plato, 343–44) points to heavenly food as another key Philonic theme. 160. The phrase γενέθλιος τοῦ κόσμου occurs as well in Creation 1.89; Moses 1.207; 2:210; Spec. Laws 2:59, 70.

78

Chapter 3

the week into two parts: six days for the body to work, and then one day, the Sabbath, for the soul to work. The ultimate goal of the Sabbath is for the soul of men and women to prosper through contemplation of teaching that benefits “knowledge” and “the intellect.” Although with less emphasis on the moral nature of man, this passage is similar to the text cited above in that it shows the Sabbath as a day of benefit to the individual. Questions and Answers on Genesis 2.13 This concept of Sabbath as related to eternity is mentioned in another place, where Philo discusses why the flood came seven days after Noah entered the ark. This passage is interesting because it associates the seventh day not just with creation but also with judgment. The seven days that passed before the rain came ultimately serve as a sign of God’s goodness and his authority to judge. In summary, Philo views God as constantly creating because this is his nature, yet at the same time he is the only being that experiences true rest. Humanity’s responsibility is to imitate God and rest on the Sabbath because this is when he bestows great benefit on the world. The most important emphasis that Philo adds to the conception of the Sabbath is God’s continual action as creator. Philo prefers this conception of God over the plain meaning of the biblical text and depicts God as continuing his creative work even beyond the seventh day. Thus divine Sabbath work for Philo is the creative work inherent in the very nature of God. The secondary emphasis in Philo is also important. If the Sabbath is viewed as the day when God dispenses his great blessings to the world, then this idea becomes vitally important for Jesus’ conception of his action on this day.

Mishnah and Tosefta With examination of the Mishnah and Tosefta, I now move out of the first century c.e. The Mishnah was collected and codified by Rabbi Judah ha-Nasi around 200 c.e. 161 The Tosefta is related to the Mishnah, but the exact circumstances surrounding its compilation are uncertain; a reasonable estimate is that it achieved final form ca. 250 c.e. For the overt purpose 161. H. L. Strack and Günter Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash (2nd ed.; trans. and ed. Markus Bockmuehl; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), 109. Abraham Goldberg (“The Mishna: A Study Book of Halakha,” in Literature of the Jewish People in the Period of the Second Temple and the Talmud, 2/3: The Literature of the Sages, Part 1 [ed. Shmuel Safrai and Peter J. Tomson; CRINT; Assen: Van Gorcum / Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987], 215) states regarding the work of Rabbi Judah ha-Nasi, “His political leadership and literary activity were within the confines of the last decades of the second century c.e., and at the very latest, the first two of the third.” In discussing the reduction of the Mishnah to writing, Goldberg on pp. 241–42 argues for a more complex argument about dating, positing that the Haggadah was written first, followed by the Halakah, with the written form of the Mishnah being finalized some time in the early part of the fourth century.

Investigation of Relevant Background Material

79

of my book—to illuminate the concept of divine Sabbath work—most of the passages in the Mishnah and Tosefta are not pertinent. There is simply no discussion of the category of divine Sabbath work, and only one overtly eschatological reference to the Sabbath. 162 There are many pertinent passages that relate to Sabbath prohibitions, however, especially regarding exceptions to the general command to avoid work on the Sabbath. Because these passages may ultimately be helpful in the discussion of Jesus’ actions on the Sabbath, they will be fruitful to discuss, but they will be handled in a summary fashion here. There are three broad categories of passages in the Mishnah and Tosefta that are not necessarily fruitful for the topic of divine Sabbath work but are useful for understanding the approach that this body of literature takes to the Sabbath: general rulings related to the Sabbath, rulings related to humanitarian or healing concerns, and rulings related to intentions. The most well-known passage with a general ruling related to the Sabbath is m. Šabb. 7:2, which delineates the 39 generative classes of labor prohibited on the Sabbath: The generative categories of acts of labor [prohibited on the Sabbath] are forty less one: he who sows, ploughs, reaps, binds sheaves, threshes, winnows, selects [fit from unfit produce or crops], grinds, sifts, kneads, bakes; he who shears wool, washes it, beats it, dyes it; spins, weaves, makes two loops, weaves two threads, separates two threads; ties, unties, sews two stitches, tears in order to sew two stitches; he who traps a deer, slaughters it, flays it, salts it, cures its hide, scrapes it, and cuts it up; he who writes two letters, erases two letters in order to write two letters; he who builds, tears down; he who puts out a fire, kindles a fire; he who hits with a hammer; he who transports an object from one domain to another—lo, these are the forty generative acts of labor less one. 163

This is often cited in discussions of Jesus’ actions on the Sabbath, although it is not the only ruling that might be useful in interpreting his actions. In m. Šabb. 12:1, there is a discussion of how much construction work is acceptable on the Sabbath; this discussion leads to a governing principle 162. The tool used for these searches was Davka Software’s Judaic Classics Deluxe Edition. This is a tool that allows for basic Boolean searches of words and character strings in a wealth of unpointed Hebrew and Aramaic texts. Mishnaic texts deemed appropriate for discussion were then checked again in Philip Blackman, Mishnayoth (6 vols.; Gateshead, U.K.: Judaica, 1983). The eschatological passage mentioned is m. Tamid 7:4, which is discussed on p. 82.  163. This and all translations of the Mishnah are taken from Jacob Neusner, trans., The Mishnah: A New Translation (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1988), but I have removed his lettering and numbering system to preserve space and to improve readability. Brackets and included material are original to Neusner’s translation; they indicate words and phrases that do not occur in the Hebrew text. Presumably, they are translational expansions designed to convey further the sense of the passage to the reader. In addition, there is an error in this particular citation of m. Šabb. 7:2 in Neusner’s edition: the first category of work listed is “he who sews.” I have corrected this in the citation above.

80

Chapter 3

regarding the endurance of the results of the labor: “He who builds—how much does he build so as to be liable [on that count]? He who builds—in any measure at all. He who hews stone, hits with a hammer or adze, bores—in any measure at all is liable. This is the governing principle: Whoever on the Sabbath performs a forbidden act of labor and [the result of] his act of labor endures is liable.” This governing principle would have an obvious impact on Jesus’ healing actions on the Sabbath, which could readily be regarded as enduring. 164 There are many passages in the Mishnah and Tosefta that present rulings related to healings, even the saving of life, and humanitarian concerns. Many of these would be of interest in a discussion of Jesus’ Sabbath activities. Certain activities are allowed on the Sabbath but not for the purpose of healing; thus the motive behind the action becomes important. M. Šabbat 14:3 elaborates this line of thought. M. Šabbat 18:3 is interesting because it juxtaposes suspension of Sabbath prohibitions for helping in the delivery of a child, ostensibly for medical care and preservation of life, with suspension of the prohibitions for circumcision, a Jewish distinctive. 165 Related to this is t. Šabb. 9:22, which implies that any action taken to preserve the life of a small child, in this instance one who still nurses, is acceptable on the Sabbath: “A woman should not squeeze her breasts and force the milk into a cup or plate and give her child milk. They do not suck from a gentile woman or from an unclean beast. But if it was a matter of danger to life—nothing whatsoever stands in a case of a threat to life.” 166 The context may indicate that the final ruling is applicable only to small children, not simply to anyone whose life is in danger. The third category of passages in the Mishnah and Tosefta that would be pertinent to Jesus’ actions are passages related to intention. In m. Sanh. 7:4, there is a list of offenses that are punishable by stoning to death:

164. This ruling would not immediately be applicable to the plucking of grain on the Sabbath, since this action was ostensibly to alleviate hunger, and there is no indication that satisfying hunger is considered an enduring result. For additional passages in this same vein, see m. Šabb. 7:1; m. Pesaḥ. 6:1–2; m. Beṣah 5:2; m. Menaḥ. 11:3; m. Ker. 3:10; t. Šabb. 5:6; 8:3, 5; 12:17; t. Pesaḥ. 5:1; t. Menaḥ. 11:5. 165. For additional passages in this vein, see m. Šabb. 19:1–3; 22:6; m. Yoma 8:6; t. Šabb. 1:23; 2:7; 5:6; 9:22; 12:8, 13; 14:3; 15:5, 11–13, 15–17; 17:19; t. ʿErub. 3:5, 8. 166. Passages from the Tosefta were examined in Saul Lieberman, Tosefot Rishonim (4 vols.; Jerusalem: Bamberger & Wahrmann, 1936–39); and M. S. Zuckermandel, To­sephta: Based on the Erfurt and Vienna Codices with Parallels and Variants (new ed.; Jerusalem: Wahr­ mann, 1970). Translations of the Tosefta are taken from Jacob Neusner, ed., The Tosefta: Translated from the Hebrew (New York: Ktav, 1977–86), but I have removed his lettering and numbering system to preserve space and to improve readability. Brackets and included material are original to Neusner’s translation; they indicate words and phrases that do not occur in the Hebrew text. They are translational expansions designed to convey further the sense of the passage to the reader.

Investigation of Relevant Background Material

81

These are [the felons] who are put to death by stoning: He who has sexual relations with his mother, with the wife of his father, with his daughter-in-law, with a male, and with a cow; and the woman who brings an ox on top of herself; and he who blasphemes, he who performs an act of worship for an idol, he who gives of his seed to Molech, he who has a familiar spirit, and he who is a soothsayer; he who profanes the Sabbath, he who curses his father or his mother, he who has sexual relations with a betrothed maiden, he who beguiles [others to idolatry], and he who leads [a whole town to idolatry], a sorcerer, and a stubborn and incorrigible son.

In m. Sanh. 7:8, the punishment regarding profaning the Sabbath is clarified relative to the intent of the act: “He who profanes the Sabbath—in regard to a matter, on account of the deliberate doing of which they are liable to extirpation, and on account of the inadvertent doing of which they are liable to a sin offering.” If the profanation of the Sabbath is deliberate, the sentence is death. If the profanation is inadvertent, the punishment is a sin offering. 167 This distinction is vitally important to understand in investigating Jesus’ Sabbath actions because all of them were intentional. In fact, perhaps the brazen intention of his actions helped lead to the intensity of the response to him. Another passage related to intentions is t. Šabb. 13(14).10, 168 which contains a discussion about when one may start a journey that will coincide with the Sabbath: They do not cast off for a voyage on the Great Sea less than three days before the Sabbath. Under what circumstances? When one goes down to the sea for an optional matter [‫]דבר הרשות‬. But even if he goes down to the sea for a matter of a religious duty [‫]דבר מצוה‬, even on the eve of the Sabbath it is permitted [to commence a voyage on the Great Sea].

Here a voyage that will coincide with the Sabbath is allowed if it is for a “religious duty.” What this means is not described further in the context, but very likely it involves a commandment of the law as opposed to a nonreligious purpose. 169 As with the previous passage, abrogation of certain Sabbath restrictions is allowed for the right reason. Of interest here is the underlying principle: the performance of a religious duty may override the Sabbath. This puts Sabbath observance in a conditional light and provides an instance when Sabbath prohibitions against work may be ignored. 167. For additional passages in this vein, see m. Šabb. 16:6; t. Šabb. 1:3; 2:16–21; 10:19. 168. This passage is alluded to or cited in y. Šabb. 1.11/3, b. Šabb. 19a, and Num. Rab. 16:1. There are some slight variations in the presentation of the teaching, but the overall understanding is the same in each. 169. See Marcus Jastrow (A Dictionary of the Targumim, Talmud Bavli, Talmud Yeru­ shalmi, and the Midrashic Literature [repr., New York: Judaica Treasury, 2004], 823, s.v. ‫)מ ְצוָה‬, ִ who states, “fr[equently] [‫ לדבר מ]צוה‬for a religious purpose, opp[osite] ‫לדבר‬ ‫ הרשות‬for a secular or religiously indifferent purpose.” This is the exact pair of expressions used above.

82

Chapter 3

Because there is no clear indication what this religious duty is besides travel on a ship, it is not unreasonable to see this is as a general principle with an intent to govern all Sabbath observance. More pertinent to the focus of this study is one passage in the Mishnah that clearly reflects on the character of the Sabbath. Tractate Tamid is a description of the daily service in the Temple. In m. Tamid 7:4, the sages discuss the psalms that were sung each day of the week by the Levites in the sanctuary. Regarding the psalm for the Sabbath, the following statement is made: “On the Sabbath day they did sing, A Psalm, A song for the Sabbath day (Ps 92)—A psalm, a song for the world that is to come, for the day which is wholly Sabbath rest for eternity.” 170 This statement is eschatological in focus and connects the Sabbath day celebrated in the present with the age to come. The connection is made through the embodiment of rest: on the Sabbath, the people of God are to rest. The day takes this on as its central focus. The future age will be perpetual rest, so the Sabbath as a foreshadowing of that day makes the connection quite natural. This passage complements many of the other passages in the Hebrew Scriptures that connect the Sabbath to the age to come as a sign. This passage, within the entire theological context of the Mishnah and Tosefta, is rather insignificant; however, the fact that this eschatological Sabbath theme is present at all in the documents of codified rabbinic Judaism speaks to its reality and its pervasiveness in Judaism during the Second Temple period.

The Targums The approach taken to the Sabbath in the targums 171 is similar to the approach in the Hebrew Scriptures. This is understandable, of course, because the targums are translating the Hebrew text. Because of the uneven nature of the translations, however, the targums are not without their unusual passages. 172 In a situation similar to the Mishnah, in the Fragment Targums to the Pentateuch there is one passage that makes an overt connection 170. This statement is alluded to or cited in the following passages discussed subsequently: b. Sanh. 97a; b. Roš Haš. 31a; Frg. Tg. Exod 20:8, 11; and Mek. Shabbata 1:38–41. Song Rabbah 4:4 §6 is similar to m. Tamid 7:4 in wording and scope and thus does not substantially add to the discussion, except to show that the concept retained its currency in later times. 171. Searching through the targums is difficult because of a lack of concordances. In order to access this literature, I examined standard editions of the targums for the key passages from the Hebrew Scriptures cited above; see the bibliography for the standard editions. 172. Targum Onqelos is generally considered the most literal of the targums, but even so, it exhibits extensive paraphrasing in places. At the other end of the spectrum is Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, which is almost twice as long as the Hebrew text. For discussion, see the following articles: Bernard Grossfeld and S. David Sperling, “Bible, Translations, Ancient Versions, Aramaic: The Targumim,” EncJud 3:588–595; Philip S. Alexander, “Tar-

Investigation of Relevant Background Material

83

between the Sabbath and the age to come. Fragmentary Targum Exod 20:8, 11 reads as follows: Remember : My people, My people, house of Israel, remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. For [in] six days, the Lord made the heavens and the earth and the sea and all that is in them, and He rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it. It is the first among the festivals, and most stringent among the fixed times, and the most desirable [of gifts] bestowed upon the Israelites by the Torah. And whoever honors the Sabbath he is considered before Me as one who honors Me upon My throne of glory; because on account of honoring the Sabbath, the Israelites will inherit the world to come, which is entirely Sabbath. 173

This passage connects the Sabbath to eschatology in a vein that is similar to the Mishnah. In that passage, the connection is made between the rest on the Sabbath and the rest in eternity. Here the wording is slightly different, but the connection is much the same: the age to come is entirely Sabbath, and theologically everything that the Sabbath represents, including its rest but also all the other blessings associated with the day, will characterize the coming age. There is also the connection of merit and keeping the Sabbath. 174 There is a slight change of emphasis in Tg. Isa. 65:18 that could be significant. In the Hebrew text of this verse, the emphasis is on God’s creating Jerusalem to be a source of joy to the world: “But be happy and rejoice forevermore over what I am about to create! For look, I am ready to create Jerusalem to be a source of joy, and her people to be a source of happiness” (‫ְרּוׁש ִ ַלם ִּגילָה ְו ַעּמָּה מָׂשֹוׂש‬ ָ ‫אנִי בֹורֵא ִּכי ִה ְננִי בֹורֵא אֶת־י‬ ֲ ‫ֲׁשר‬ ֶ ‫ם־ׂשיׂשּו ְו ִגילּו עֲדֵ י־עַד א‬ ִ ‫י־א‬ ִ ‫)ּכ‬. ִ The targum for this text makes a slight modification that is in keeping with the overall eschatological import of the passage but slightly modifies the view of God’s participation in this process: “But they will be glad in the age of the ages which I create; for behold, I create Jerusalem gladness, and her people rejoicing” (‫אלהין יבועון בעלם עלמיא דאנא ברי ארי האנא ברי ית ירושלם‬ ‫)ביעא ועמה הדי‬. 175 The slight modification represents an escalation of sorts. In the MT, God is viewed as creating Jerusalem as a source of joy in the age to come; in the targum, God is viewed as creating the age to come itself, gum, Targumim,” ABD 6:320–321; Peter Schäfer, “Bibelübersetzungen, Targumim,” TRE 6:216–228. 173. This translation is from Michael L.  Klein, The Fragment-Targums of the Pentateuch according to Their Extant Sources (AnBib; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1980), 2:53–54. 174. Despite often being similar to the Fragmentary Targum, here Targum Ps.-Jonathan and Targum Neofiti show no eschatological connections. 175. The Aramaic text is taken from Alexander Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic (4 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1959–73), 3:129. The translation is from Bruce D. Chilton, The Isaiah Targum (ArBib 11; Wilmington, DE: Glazier, 1987), 124.

Chapter 3

84

along with the change in Jerusalem as a source of joy. This is theologically connected to the view that the age to come will represent the action of God, but the escalation using creation language makes for a stronger image and a more important connection to the topic at hand. In sum, the targums continue the thread of connection between the Sabbath and the eschaton but add no new material to the concept of divine Sabbath work.

The Midrashim The midrashim provide a wealth of information relative to the topic at hand. 176 Interestingly, but not unexpectedly, this body of literature is not unified in its presentation. The texts searched for Sabbath references were Midrash Rabbah, Mekilta, Sipra, and Sipre. 177 These were chosen as the most relevant and exegetically significant of the midrashim. These texts represent a broad chronological period, sometimes well past the first century. Mekilta, for example, is dated to the second half of the third century c.e., 178 while some of Midrash Rabbah are dated to the medieval period. Even so, many contain older traditions which could be useful for the current study. Genesis Rabbah 7:5 Genesis Rabbah 7:5 is important because it runs counter to my thesis: God is depicted as being restricted from his creation work because of the Sabbath. And God made the beast of the earth (1, 25). R. Hoshaya the Elder said: This means the serpent. R. Hama b. R. Hoshaya said: In speaking of souls it enumerates four, but in speaking of bodies only three! Rabbi said: The [extra soul] refers to the demons whose souls the Holy One, blessed be He, created, but when He came to create their bodies the sanctity of the Sabbath commenced and He could not create them. This gives you a lesson in behaviour from Scripture, viz., that if a man is holding in his hand a costly article or a precious stone on the eve of the Sabbath about sunset, we say to him, ‘Throw it away,’ for He at whose behest the world came into existence was engaged in the creation of the world and had [already] created their souls, but when he

176. My initial theory regarding this is that, since the midrashim reflect homiletic haggadah as opposed to rabbinic Halakah, there was naturally more room for theological discussion about the nature of the Sabbath. 177. The tool used for these searches was Davka Software’s Judaic Classics Deluxe Edition. Citations in Genesis Rabbah were then checked against Julius Theodor and Chanoch Albeck, Berischit rabba: Mit Kritischem Apparat und Kommentar (3 vols.; Veröffent­ lichungen der Akademie für die Wissenschaft des Judentums; Jerusalem: Wahrmann, 1965). Citations in other Midrash Rabbah texts were checked in Moshe Aryeh Mirkin, Midrash Rabbah (11 vols.; Tel Aviv: Yavneh, 1956). 178. So Strack and Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash, 255.

Investigation of Relevant Background Material

85

came to create their bodies the holiness of the Sabbath commenced and He did not create them. 179

The discussion here centers on the wording of the creation account in Gen 1. The midrash begins with the citation from R. Hoshaya that identifies the specific “beast of the earth” in view, the serpent who tempted Adam and Eve. This is followed by a more intriguing comment by R. Hama, who notes a difference in the wording between v. 24 and v. 25 and then draws a theological point concerning the Sabbath. What R. Hama did in v. 24 was to interpret ‫ נֶפֶשׁ‬as a broad category within which ‫ ַחּיָה‬, ‫ּב ֵהמָה‬, ְ and ‫ַחיְתֹו־ ֶארֶץ‬ function as distinct, specific types; in v. 25, then, only three types are mentioned: ‫ ַחּיַת ָה ָארֶץ‬, ‫ה ְַּב ֵהמָה‬, and ‫ֲדמָה‬ ָ ‫ּכָל־ ֶרמֶשׂ ָהא‬. This leads to his conclusion that “[i]n speaking of souls it enumerates four, but in speaking of bodies only three.” 180 Following this is his explanation for the difference: God had created the souls of four different types of creatures in v. 24, and in v. 25 he was able to create the bodies for three of those types. However, the Sabbath commenced, and God had to rest; he was not able to make the bodies for the remaining type of creature as he did for the other creatures, and R. Hama identifies these entities as demons. This is a clear indication of the sanctity of the Sabbath and the approach taken toward the prohibitions against work on the Sabbath. One would expect that any discussion of God’s activity in creation would reflect the paradigmatic nature of the account and be prescriptive for all other Sabbath thought. In this case, the opposite has occurred. The Sabbath commands and prohibitions, not yet given relative to the time of the event described, are themselves paradigmatic and binding even on God himself. In this account, we see that God honors the sanctity of the Sabbath and does no creative work on this day; he cannot create the bodies in v. 25 for one of the categories of souls that he created in v. 24. There is no concept of God working on the Sabbath; this passage presents the exact opposite: God suspends even his creative work on this day. Genesis Rabbah 10:9 In Gen. Rab. 10:9, Gen 2:1 is carefully exegeted as to when God ceased his work. Rabbi asked R. Ishmael b. R. Jose: ‘Have you heard from your father the actual meaning of And on the seventh day God finished, etc.?’ Said he to him: ‘It is like a man striking the hammer on the anvil, raising it by day and bringing it down after nightfall.’ R. Simeon b. Yohai said: Mortal man, who does not know his minutes, his [exact] times or his hours, must add from the profane 179. This and all translations from the Midrash Rabbah are taken from H. Freedman and M. Simon, eds., The Midrash Rabbah (3rd ed.; 10 vols.; London: Soncino, 1983). For clarity and precision, I have chosen to retain the typesetting conventions in the original. 180. Freedman and Simon, The Midrash Rabbah, 52.

Chapter 3

86

to the sacred; but the Holy One, blessed be He, who knows His moments, His times, and His hours, can enter it by a hair’s breadth. Genibah and the Rabbis discussed this. Genibah said: This may be compared to a king who made a bridal chamber, which he plastered, painted, and adorned; now what did the bridal chamber lack? A bride to enter it. Similarly, what did the world still lack? The Sabbath. The Rabbis said: Imagine a king who made a ring: what did it lack? A signet. Similarly, what did the world lack? The Sabbath.

In this passage, the Sabbath is depicted as the culmination of the creative work of God; thus the interpretation is clear that God actually finished his work on the seventh day, not the sixth. 181 The Sabbath then more properly marks the culmination of God’s creative activity, not the cessation of it. Thus within this theological framework, it was not problematic to see God working on the Sabbath, as that day was the culmination of creation. Genesis Rabbah 11:5 In an argumentative discussion, Tinneus Rufus and Rabbi Akiba have the following interchange regarding the wind and the rain on the Sabbath. “Then he went back to R. Akiba and said to him: ‘If it is as you say that the Holy One, blessed be He, honours the Sabbath, then He should not stir up winds or cause the rain to fall on that day.’ ‘Woe to that man!’ he exclaimed; ‘it is like one who carries [objects] four cubits.’” Tinneus Rufus makes a very logical argument: if God honors the Sabbath by doing no work, then he should not stir up wind or cause rain to fall; those actions on the part of God are tantamount to work. Rabbi Akiba’s response is slightly cryptic but very understandable nonetheless: the entire universe is God’s domain, so any action he undertakes on the Sabbath would be as if he were carrying something within his own private domain, which is permitted on the Sabbath. 182 It is important to note that God is in fact depicted as working on the Sabbath, but it falls within the category of acceptable work based on the laws of the rabbis. Genesis Rabbah 11:9 Genesis Rabbah 11:9 is very similar to Gen. Rab. 7:5 in that it depicts God himself as refraining from work on the Sabbath even in the initial act of creation. Because that in it He rested from all His work which God created to make (ii, 3). R. Levi said in the name of R. Hama b. R. Hanina: The Holy One, 181. This interpretation is supported by Freedman and Simon, The Midrash Rabbah, 1:78, who state, “Thus by means of the Sabbath itself God completed His work, and so He actually finished it on the seventh day.” 182. This concept receives fuller expression in Exod. Rab. 30:9, which will be discussed below.

Investigation of Relevant Background Material

87

blessed be He, created three objects on each day: on the first, heaven, earth, and light; on the second, firmament, Gehenna, and the angels; on the third, trees, herbs, and the Garden of Eden; on the fourth, the sun, the moon, and the constellations; on the fifth, birds, fish, and the Leviathan; on the sixth, Adam, Eve, and moving creatures. R. Phinehas said: In the sixth He created six things: Adam, Eve, creeping things, cattle, beasts, and demons. R. Banayah said: Which God created and made is not written here, but Which God created to make: whatever the Holy One, blessed be He, was to have made on the seventh day, He created beforehand on the sixth.

The commentary by R. Phinehas and R. Banayah on this passage argues that God would not create anything on the Sabbath. Indeed, the way R. Banayah puts it God alters his initial plan of creation and moves the items for the seventh day up to the sixth. The import of the commentary is that God keeps the Sabbath and will not violate it with his own creative work. Genesis Rabbah 11:10 Genesis Rabbah 11:10 is vitally important, for it clearly states the continual work of God, specifically juxtaposed with his rest from creation. R. Phinehas said in R. Oshaya’s name: Although you read: Because that in it He rested from all His work which God created to make, He rested from the work of [creating] His world, but not from the work of the wicked and the work of the righteous, for He works with the former and with the latter. He shows the former their essential character, and the latter their essential character. And how do we know that the punishment of the wicked is called work? Because it is said, The Lord hath opened his armoury, and hath brought forth the weapons of His indignation, for it is a work that the Lord God hath to do ( Jer. l, 25). And how do we know that the bestowing of reward upon the righteous is called work? Because it is said, Oh how abundant is thy goodness, which Thou hast laid up for them that fear Thee, which Thou hast wrought for them that take refuge in Thee, in the sight of the sons of men (Ps. xxxi, 20)!

In this passage, there is clear discussion that God continues certain aspects of his divine work, although his creative work stopped on the seventh day; within the context of discussion of God’s rest after creation, the logical implication is that God continues certain types of work even during his proclaimed period of Sabbath rest. God is free, even on the Sabbath, to deal with people as he sees fit, the two main categories of people being wicked and righteous. Although the specific nature of the work is not mentioned in the passage, the idea is fairly clear: God has rested from the work of creation, but he still works, in that he punishes the wicked and rewards the righteous. Genesis Rabbah 17:5 In other literature above, the eschatological aspect of the Sabbath has been noted. This same emphasis is found in the midrashim. In Gen. Rab.

88

Chapter 3

17:5, 183 the Sabbath is viewed as a foreshadowing of sorts of the age to come: “R.  Hanina b.  Isaac said: There are three incomplete phenomena: the incomplete experience of death is sleep; an incomplete form of prophecy is the dream; the incomplete form of the next world is the Sabbath.” The connection made between the incomplete and full phenomena is one of partial experience or perhaps one of escalation. In sleep and dreams, one experiences something of what death and prophecy are like, but the experiences are not complete; there is a fuller experience yet to be tasted. The Sabbath is the same way: one experiences the Sabbath in the present, but this is only a partial experience of what the age to come is to be like. There is no discussion about the aspect of the Sabbath that is in view. It is not an unreasonable conjecture that it is the entire character of the Sabbath, drawn from the foundational Hebrew Scriptures, that makes it a fitting foreshadowing of the age to come. Genesis Rabbah 92:4 and Numbers Rabbah 14:2 In a vein similar to God’s keeping the Sabbath even before the legislation was given, indicating that the Sabbath is part of the very fabric of the universe, there are two passages that depict Joseph as keeping the Sabbath. Genesis Rabbah 92:4 states, And the men took that present . . . and when Joseph saw Benjamin with them, he said to the steward of his house: Bring the men into the house, and kill the beasts, and prepare the meat (xliii, 15f.). Prepare can refer only to the Sabbath, as in the verse, And it shall come to pass on the sixth day that they shall prepare that which they bring in (Ex. xvi, 5). Thus this teaches that Joseph kept the Sabbath before it was ordained.

In a similar approach, Num. Rab. 14:2 expands on this: Another explanation is that the text ‘Whoso hath anticipated Me, I will repay him’ speaks of Joseph who early observed the Sabbath before it was given, as may be inferred from the text, Kill the beasts and prepare—wehaken [sic] (Gen. xliii, 16). That day, said R. Johanan, was the Sabbath eve, and the word ‘haken’ [sic] is primarily used to express preparation for the Sabbath; as may be inferred from the text, And it shall come to pass on the sixth day, that they shall prepare—wehekinu [sic], etc. (Ex. xvi, 5). The Holy One, blessed be He, therefore said to him: ‘Joseph, you observed the Sabbath before the Torah was given. By your life! I shall repay your grandson by allowing him to present his offering on the Sabbath, an offering which an individual is otherwise not permitted to bring, and I undertake to accept his offering with favor.’

This passage serves to highlight the importance of the Sabbath to Jewish piety by stressing the “preexistence” of the Sabbath and the reward that God gave for complete obedience on this day. 183. This passage is repeated in Gen. Rab. 44:17.

Investigation of Relevant Background Material

89

Exodus Rabbah 25:12 In Exod. Rab. 25:12, a clear connection is again made between the Sabbath and eschatological fulfillment in the age to come. R. Levi said: If Israel kept the Sabbath properly even for one day, the son of David would come. Why? Because it is equivalent to all the commandments; for so it says, For He is our God, and we are the people of His pasture, and the flock of His hand. To-day, if ye would but hearken to His voice! (Ps. xcv, 7). R. Johanan said: The Holy One, blessed be He, told Israel: ‘Though I have set a definite term for the millennium which will come at the appointed time whether Israel returns to me in penitence or not, still if they repent for even one day, I will bring it before its appointed time.’ Hence, ‘To-day, [redemption cometh] if ye would but hearken to His voice’; and just as we find that the son of David will come as a reward for the observance of all commandments [one day], so also will he come for the observance of one Sabbath day, because the Sabbath is equivalent to all commandments. R. Eleazar b. Abina said: In the Torah, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa we find it stated that the Sabbath is equivalent to all commandments. In the Torah, because when Moses forgot to tell them the command of the Sabbath, God said to him: ‘How long refuse ye to keep My commandments and My laws?’ (Ex. xvi, 28), and immediately after this it says, See that the Lord hath given you the sabbath (ib. 29). In the Prophets, for it says, But the house of Israel rebelled against Me in the wilderness; they walked not in My statutes (Ezek. xx, 13), and immediately afterwards it says, And My sabbaths they greatly profaned (ib.). In the Hagiographa, because it says, Thou camest down also upon Mount Sinai, and spokest with them from heaven (Neh. ix, 13), and immediately afterwards it says, And madest known to them Thy holy sabbath. God said: ‘If ye virtuously observe the Sabbath, I will regard you as observing all the commands of the law, but if you profane it, I will regard it as if you had profaned all the commands’; for so it says, That keepeth the sabbath from profaning it, and keepeth his hand from doing any evil (Isa. lvi, 2). When man keeps the Sabbath, whatsoever he decrees God fulfills, for it says, If thou turn away thy foot because of the sabbath (ib. lviii, 13), and immediately after this it says, Then shalt thou delight thyself in the Lord (ib. 14), which has the same meaning as the verse, So shalt thou delight thyself in the Lord; and He shall give thee the petitions of thy heart (Ps. xxxvii, 4).

This passage is extensive and involved, but the importance for the understanding of the Sabbath is clear. There is a specific connection made here between the Sabbath and the coming of the son of David, the specific agent of God who will usher in the age to come. The connection is made by arguing that the Sabbath is the equivalent of all the commandments and that the age to come will arrive when Israel keeps all the commandments perfectly for a single day. Thus in this passage, the Sabbath is not only a sign of the age to come, it is also the medium through which this very age can be realized in the life of Israel.

Chapter 3

90 Exodus Rabbah 30:9

In Exod. Rab. 30:9, a theological conception of God is taught: the universe is his domain, and therefore God may work inside it on the Sabbath, with no violation of the prohibitions against Sabbath work. It is related of Rabban Gamaliel, R. Joshua, R. Eliezer b. ʿAzariah, and R. Akiba that they went to Rome and taught there: The ways of God are not as those of man, who makes a decree enjoining others to do a thing whilst he does nothing; God not being so. There happened to be a sectarian there, who accosted them as they were going out with a taunt: ‘Your words are only falsehood. Did you not say that God says a thing and fulfills it? Then why does he not observe the Sabbath?’ They replied, ‘Wretch! Is not a man permitted to carry on the Sabbath in his own courtyard?’ He replied: ‘Yes.’ Whereupon they said to him: ‘Both the higher and lower regions are the courtyard of God, as it says, The whole earth is full of his glory (Isa. vi, 3), and even if a man carries a distance of his own height, does he transgress?’ The other agreed. ‘Then,’ said they, ‘it is written, Do not I fill heaven and earth?’ ( Jer. xxiii, 24).

It should be noted that the dispute in the passage does not revolve around whether God works on the Sabbath; this is almost a prerequisite to the logic of the argument, that certain activities that God undertakes on the Sabbath can be construed as work. Instead, the argument revolves around how this work is not a violation of the prohibition against work on the Sabbath; since the universe is God’s domain, anything he carries inside it on the Sabbath is acceptable. Thus this passage testifies to the understanding that God continues his work even on the Sabbath but that there is no violation of legal Halakah involved. Leviticus Rabbah 3:1 and Qohelet Rabbah 4:6, §1 Leviticus Rabbah and Qohelet Rabbah include the same teaching with slight variation. Similar to the eschatological import of many discussions about the Sabbath, they focus on the salvific nature of the Sabbath. Presumably this salvation comes through eschatological renewal, but this connection is not explicit. R. Hiyya b. Abba said: ‘Better is a handful of quietness’ means the Sabbath; ‘Than both the hands full of labour’ refers to the six work days; but that there is ‘The desire of the spirit’; it is one’s desire to do his work in these [six days]. You have proof that this is so, in that Israel are to be redeemed only by the merit of the Sabbath, as it is said, Through rest and repose shall ye be saved (Isa. xxx, 15). 184

The implication is that the merit that Israel obtains by keeping the Sabbath is what secures its redemption. In this passage, the Sabbath is a soteriological key, as in other passages, but the emphasis is completely reversed. 184. This citation is from Lev. Rab. 3:1.

Investigation of Relevant Background Material

91

Instead of focusing on the Sabbath as a day on which God extends his salvation to Israel, this passage focuses on the Sabbath as a day on which Israel obtains merit. The lens for understanding the Sabbath has been inverted. Numbers Rabbah 14:1 Numbers Rabbah 14:1 does not speak directly of divine Sabbath work, but the topic at hand does provide a theological framework through which one can view Jesus’ Sabbath actions. As such, it is important. Another interpretation is that the text, ‘Ephraim also is the defence of my head  ’ speaks of Joshua who belonged to the tribe of Ephraim and carried out warlike operations on the Sabbath; as is proved by the text, And it came to pass on the seventh day, that they rose early at the dawning of the day, and compassed the city, etc. ( Josh. vi, 15). How do we know that it was the Sabbath? Because there can never be seven consecutive days without a Sabbath. And because the day on which they captured Jericho was the Sabbath, he therefore devoted Jericho as holy to the Lord, as you read, And the city shall be devoted, even it and all that is therein, to the Lord, etc. (ib. 17). Joshua argued: ‘The Sabbath is altogether holy, so let all that has been conquered on the Sabbath be holy to the Lord.’ Accordingly it says, But all the silver, and gold, and vessels of brass and iron, are holy unto the Lord; they shall come into the treasury of the Lord (ib. 19). . . . If a man should say to you: ‘How is it that Joshua desecrated the Sabbath?’ tell him that he did so at the bidding of the Holy One, blessed be He; as is proved by the text, And the Lord said unto Joshua: See, I have given into thy hand Jericho . . . and ye shall compass the city . . . and the seventh day ye shall compass the city seven times, etc. ( Josh. vi, 2), and it is impossible to have seven consecutive days without a Sabbath.

This passage is important because it places a distinct emphasis on God’s agent as someone who can act contrary to the intended purpose of the Sabbath but under God’s approval. These two subsections of the division are both important. The first makes the argument that Joshua captured Jericho on the Sabbath. Although this view presupposes that the siege of Jericho began on a Sunday, which as far as we know cannot be proven, the connection is still made. This brings up two points, one explicit and the other implicit. The explicit point made is that this military action would ostensibly have violated the Sabbath commands against work on this day. It is clear from the account in Joshua and here that the conquest of Jericho involved a great deal of walking. This in itself would have violated Sabbath legislation, not to mention the military offensive that Joshua launched later that day. Yet against this objection, the rabbis presented a key point: Joshua was directed to do so by God himself; therefore, he was not culpable for working on the Sabbath because he was acting under a divine directive. The theological principle at work is very important to understand: an individual who is directed by God to perform a particular action on the Sabbath, even if this action appears to be a violation of the command for Sabbath rest, is

Chapter 3

92

in no way culpable for this activity. The implicit point connects the fact that Joshua’s conquest of Jericho fell on the Sabbath to the action of God on the Sabbath. It is clear from the account in the Hebrew Scriptures that God is seen as a major actor in the conquest of Jericho. He directs Joshua and Israel to act in a certain way, and through their obedience God works to bring the walls of Jericho down. The underlying tension not addressed in this passage is that, if Jericho fell on a Sabbath, the logical deduction is that God did a mighty work on this day as well. Not much can be made of this since there is no explicit mention of it in the passage, but it must at least be acknowledged that this is a possible theological basis for the passage, because there is no hint of discomfort at the implication that could be drawn. 185 Ruth Rabbah 3:3 and Qohelet Rabbah 1:15, §1 Ruth Rabbah 3:3 and Qoh. Rab. 115, §1 tell the same story with slight variation. Two wicked men were friends on earth. Before death, one repented; the other did not. In the afterlife, the wicked man who did not repent complains to the angels and asks for mercy: “He thereupon says to them, ‘Permit me to go and repent!’ And they answer him and say, ‘You fool! Do you not know that this world is like the Sabbath and the world whence you have come is like the eve of the Sabbath? If a man does not prepare his meal on the eve of the Sabbath, what shall he eat on the Sabbath?’” 186 Although the point of the analogy is preparedness in the present life for the life to come, it is interesting that the analogy places the Sabbath as the afterlife or age to come. This is in keeping with many other passages in which the Sabbath stands for the life to come; this was a common way to understand the Sabbath. Qohelet Rabbah 11:2, §1 Qohelet Rabbah 11:2, §1 is similar to others in that it discusses the merit Israel obtains by keeping the Sabbath: Divide a portion into seven, yea, even into eight (xi, 2). R. Eliezer and R. Joshua comment. R. Eliezer says: Divide a portion into seven alludes to the seven days of the week, as the word is used in And it came to pass on the seventh [day] (I Kings xviii, 44), i.e. the Sabbath day. Yea, even into eight alludes to the eight days of circumcision, for it is written, And put his face between his knees (ib. 42). Why ‘between his knees’? He spoke before the Holy one, blessed be He, ‘Lord of the universe, even if there be in the possession of Thy children only these two commandments, Sabbath and circumcision, it is right that Thou shouldest have mercy on them.’ 185. A similar discussion is taken up in Num. Rab. 23:6, where the sin of Achan is discussed as a desecration of the Sabbath in that he took objects that had been devoted to the Lord because they were won on the Sabbath. 186. This is Ruth Rab. 3:3.

Investigation of Relevant Background Material

93

The implication is that Sabbath and circumcision by themselves are sufficient for Israel to obtain God’s mercy; even if Israel only had these two commands, they would be sufficient basis for God to be merciful to them. This is parallel to the other emphasis seen, of the Sabbath as being equal to all the commandments of the law. Mekilta Vayassaʿ 5:66–77 187 Tractate Vayassaʿ in Mekilta is an extended exegetical discussion on Exod 15:22–17:7. This passage reflects theological thought in which the Sabbath is a soteriological key for Israel: if Israel keeps the Sabbath, then God in turn will do certain things for the nation. And Moses Said: ‘Eat that today.’ R. Joshua says: If you will succeed in keeping the Sabbath, the Holy One, blessed be He, will give you three festivals, Passover, Pentecost and Tabernacles. In this sense it is said: “And Moses said: ‘Eat that today; for today is a sabbath unto the Lord; today ye shall not find it in the field.’” R. Eleazar of Modiʿim says: If you will succeed in keeping the Sabbath, the Holy One, blessed be He, will give you six good portions: The Land of Israel, the future world, the new world, the Kingdom of the House of David, the priesthood, and the Levites’ offices. In this sense it is said: “Eat that today,” etc. R.  Eliezer says: If you will succeed in keeping the Sabbath you will escape three visitations: The day of Gog, the suffering preceding the advent of the Messiah, and the Great Judgment Day. In this sense it is said: “Eat that Today.” 188

In this passage, keeping the Sabbath is connected to several important divine promises to Israel and key times of God’s judgment on the world. As is indicated in other passages, 189 the point of the Sabbath has been inverted from its original meaning as a sign of God’s blessing upon Israel; here it is the means to receive that blessing. Mekilta Baḥodesh 7:75–79 The tractate Baḥodesh in Mekilta is an extended exegetical discussion on Exod 19–20. Within the discussion on the meaning of the Sabbath commandment, there is a short passage that shows the extent to which individuals who keep the Sabbath should refrain from work: not only should they refrain from work, they should refrain from the thought of work. “Six Days Shalt Thou Labour and Do All Thy Work. But is it possible for a human being to do all his work in six days? It simply means: Rest on the Sabbath as if all 187. The numbering system for Mekilta is not standardized. Here the first number refers to the subdivisions of the tractate, and the second number refers to the Hebrew line number as given in Jacob Z. Lauterbach, ed., Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael (3 vols.; JPSLJC; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1933). 188. Translations of the Mekilta are taken from Lauterbach, Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael. 189. See, for example, Lev. Rab. 3:1 and Qoh. Rab. 4:6, §1.

Chapter 3

94

your work were done. Another Interpretation: Rest even from the thought of labor.” This is very similar to CD 10:19, which restricts the community member from speaking of work to be done. Each of these passages appears to be ensuring that the Sabbath command is followed by introducing further restrictions that would guarantee obedience. Mekilta Šabbata 1:38–41 Tractate Šabbata in Mekilta is an extended exegetical discussion on Exod 31:12–17 and Exod 35:1–3. Both passages deal with aspects of Sabbath observance, and for thematic reasons they have been grouped together. In this tractate are several passages that touch on the themes being developed in this book. Many passages refer to the Sabbath as a sign or symbol of the future world to come. Few texts actually explain what the similarity is, however, which allows this connection. Mekilta Šabbata 1:38–41 is an important text because it in fact makes the connection explicit: “That I Am the Lord Who Sanctifies You. In the future world, which is characterized by the kind of holiness possessed by the Sabbath of this world. We thus learn that the Sabbath possesses a holiness like that of the future world. And thus it says: ‘A Psalm: a Song of the sabbath day’ (Ps. 92.1), referring to the world in which there is Sabbath all the time.” This passage states that the connection between the Sabbath and the world to come is made through the link of holiness, although interestingly, the passage cited refers to God’s sanctification of Israel, not God’s sanctification of the Sabbath. There is certainly a conceptual connection between this passage in Exodus and God’s initial sanctification of the Sabbath in Gen 2:1–3, so perhaps that is implied here in the exegesis. The eschatological import of the Sabbath is achieved because of its holiness, and this holiness comes only through sanctification by God. Mekilta Šabbata 1:120–25 Mekilta Šabbata 1:120–25 is very important to my argument, for it specifically speaks of a category of work that God continues even though he has rested from his creation work: For in Six Days . . . And on the Seventh Day He Ceased from Work and Rested. He ceased from the thought of work. Perhaps also from administering justice? It says: “and rested.” This tells that His administration of justice never stops. And thus it says: “Righteousness and justice are the foundation of Thy throne” (Ps. 89.15), “Clouds and darkness are round about him, righteousness and justice,” etc. (Ps. 97.2), “The Rock, His work is perfect, for all His ways are justice,” etc. (Deut. 32.4).

This passage in the context of the creation discussion argues that God’s administration of justice never stops. The Scripture passages cited link this

Investigation of Relevant Background Material

95

both to God’s character and to his rule over his creation. The implication could certainly be that God’s rule over the world, because it is based on justice, never ceases either. In sum, the midrashim show a wide range of thought regarding the concept of divine Sabbath work. There are certain passages that indicate that God in no way works on the Sabbath, but there are others that do argue for God’s continued activity in some respects. The eschatological emphasis of the Sabbath continues in this literature, as well as the right of certain agents to override the Sabbath prohibitions. The Sabbath also begins to take on meritorious value for Israel. Thus, there are strands of development that show continuity with emphases in the Hebrew Scriptures, while at the same time there is development in new directions.

The Palestinian Talmud  The Palestinian Talmud 190 is a codification of rabbinic exegesis on the Mishnah and Tosefta, primarily halakic in nature, which was compiled in Galilee ca. 400–425 c.e. Because of this focus on legal rulings and explanations of these rulings, most all of the material related to the Sabbath reflects legal prohibitions placed on Israel and thus is not pertinent to the question of divine work. There are passages that are ancillary to the question of divine Sabbath work yet still useful for interpretation of Jesus’ Sabbath actions along the lines delineated in the Mishnah and Talmud above; two representative passages are discussed here. Y. Berakot 1.8/4 In y. Ber. 1.8/4, which focuses on the recitation of blessings at appropriate times, there is a short passage on the weight of the Sabbath command: [Rabbi teaches that the Sabvbath is equivalent in importance to all the commandments as follows:] Rabbi says, “[The phrase,] ‘All my commandments,’ refers to the commandment [to keep] the Sabbath, which is equivalent in weight to all the other commandments of the Torah. As it is written, ‘And you did make known to them thy holy Sabbath and command them 190. The tool used for this search was Davka Software’s Judaic Classics Deluxe Edition. Citations were then checked in the appropriate volumes of Peter Schäfer and HansJürgen Becker, eds., Synopse zum Talmud Yerushalmi (TSAJ; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991–). In addition, because of wide differences used in the numbering systems between Jacob Neusner, trans., The Talmud of the Land of Israel: A Preliminary Translation and Explanation (35 vols.; CSJH; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982–89), the edition of the Palestinian Talmud used in the Davka Software, and the Schäfer and Becker edition, the indexes in Neusner’s translation were used extensively for cross-checking references. The numbering of the citations from the Palestinian Talmud follows the Schäfer and Becker edition.

Chapter 3

96

commandments and statutes and laws by Moses thy servant’ [Neh. 9:14]. This informs you that it [the Sabbath] is equal in weight to all of the commandments of the Torah.” 191

This is an emphasis found in other rabbinic literature, which in turn has its roots in the Hebrew Scriptures. The Sabbath was viewed as the primary commandment for Israel, and the ascription to it of such weight indicates its importance both as a religious shorthand for all of the Torah and its function as an identity marker. Y. Berakot 2.7/6 The Palestinian Talmud also reflects the conception of the Sabbath as a source of joy to Israel. For this reason, mourning for the dead is prohibited on this day. “This incident teaches us that there may be no mourning on the Sabbath. [This is] in accord with what is written, ‘The blessing of the Lord makes rich’ [Prov. 10:22], this refers to the blessing of the Sabbath; ‘And toil [ʿṣb] adds nothing to it’ [ibid.], this refers to mourning. As it says, ‘The king is grieving [nʿṣb] for his son’ [2 Sam. 19:2].” Although this is reflected with a negative command, the underlying force of the ruling is clear, and the ruling has a clear theological basis. The Sabbath is meant to be a day of blessing from God, and consequently, mourning is out of character for the day; it is thus prohibited.

The Babylonian Talmud The Babylonian Talmud is a codification of rabbinic exegesis on the Mishnah and Tosefta, primarily halakic in nature, compiled in Babylonia toward the end of the fifth century c.e. Because of this focus on legal rulings and explanations of such rulings, as with the Palestinian Talmud most all of the material related to the Sabbath reflects legal prohibitions placed on Israel and thus is not pertinent to the question of divine work. There are some passages, however, that do imply divine action on the Sabbath, and there are others that are ancillary to the question yet still useful for interpretation of Jesus’ Sabbath actions. 192 B. Šabbat 86b B. Šabbat 86b does not speak of divine Sabbath work on the surface, but the implication is certainly here, because it depicts a definitive act of God, the giving of Torah, as occurring on the Sabbath: “Again, all agree that the 191. This translation and the next are from Jacob Neusner, The Talmud of the Land of Israel, vol. 1: Berakhot, trans. Tzvee Zahavy. For clarity and usefulness, I have retained the explanatory glosses and additions contained in the original translation, set in brackets. 192. The tool used for this search was Davka Software’s Judaic Classics Deluxe Edition. Texts deemed appropriate for discussion were then checked again in I. Epstein, ed., Hebrew-English Edition of the Babylonian Talmud (30 vols.; London: Soncino, 1960–90).

Investigation of Relevant Background Material

97

Torah was given to Israel on the Sabbath. [For] here it is written, Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.”  193 This implies that God acted in a decisive way for Israel on the Sabbath. There is no hint in the text of any discomfort with this interpretation; it is likely that the blessing of the Sabbath and the blessing of the Torah have coalesced in the theology of the rabbis. B. Taʿanit 8b B. Taʿanit 8b is also subtle, just as the previous passage was. It implies that God acts benevolently on the Sabbath toward the poor: “R. Isaac further said: Sunshine on the Sabbath is an act of kindness towards the poor, as it is said, But unto you that fear My name shall the sun of righteousness arise with healing in its wings.” This teaching depicts an action occurring on the Sabbath and calls this action an act of kindness without stating who the actor is. The implication is that God is being kind to the poor on the Sabbath, since no one else could make the sun shine on the Sabbath. Thus God is shown to act on the Sabbath in keeping with both his own nature and the nature of the day. B. Berakot 57b One emphasis seen consistently throughout the literature is the emphasis on the Sabbath as a symbol or foreshadowing of the age to come. This emphasis is in the Babylonian Talmud as well: “Five things are a sixtieth part of something else: namely, fire, honey, Sabbath, sleep and a dream. Fire is one-sixtieth part of Gehinnom. Honey is one-sixtieth part of manna. Sabbath is one-sixtieth part of the world to come. Sleep is one-sixtieth part of death. A dream is one-sixtieth part of prophecy” (b. Ber. 57b). Interesting to note is the way the concept is handled in this text compared with Gen. Rab. 17:5. There the Sabbath is an “incomplete form” of the world to come; here it is specifically 1/60th of the world to come—that is, the world to come is 60 times more wonderful than the Sabbath. This is a numerical metaphor meant to emphasize on the one hand the similarity between the Sabbath and the world to come and on the other hand the difference in their extent. B. Sanhedrin 97a and B. Roš Haššanah 31a One interesting turn in certain passages from the Babylonian Talmud is that the eschatological emphasis of the Sabbath is not positive. There are two passages that relate the Sabbath to the world to come but with a negative emphasis. B. Sanhedrin 97a reads as follows: It has been taught in accordance with R. Kattina: Just as the seventh year is one year of release in seven, so is the world: one thousand years out of seven shall be fallow, as it is written, ‘And the Lord alone shall be exalted in that day,’ 193. This and all other translations of the Babylonian Talmud are taken from Epstein, Hebrew-English Edition of the Babylonian Talmud.

Chapter 3

98

and it is further said, A Psalm, a song for the Sabbath day, 194 meaning the day that is altogether Sabbath—and it is also said, For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past.

The implication is that during the age to come the world will lie fallow, just as the earth does during the Sabbatical Year. This teaching of R. Kattina might not appear negative when viewed alone, but the interpretation changes when the statement is set alongside another of his teachings on this topic. The negative emphasis is more explicit in b. Roš Haš. 31a, 195 a section that details the weekly psalms of the Levites sung in the Tamid service: It has been taught: ‘R. Judah said in the name of R. Akiba: . . . . On the seventh day they said, A psalm, a song for the Sabbath day, to wit, for the day which will be all Sabbath. Said R. Nehemiah: What ground had the Sages for making a difference between these sections? . . . on the seventh day, because He rested. The point at issue between them is whether to accept or not the dictum of R. Kattina; for R. Kattina said: The world is to last six thousand years, and one thousand it will be desolate, as it says, And the Lord alone shall be exalted in that day. Abaye, however, said: It will be desolate two thousand, as it says, After two days He will revive us. 196

There is a connection in this text between the Sabbath, the age to come, and a thousand-year desolation on the earth. The Sabbath is still connected to the age to come, but the implication is entirely negative and does not connote any positive traits of this day, as was the case in other passages that make this eschatological connection. 197 B. Berakot 6b The Babylonian Talmud also indicates that certain Sabbath prohibitions may be circumvented for the right reasons. For example, in b. Ber. 6b, run-

194. This is apparently an allusion to m. Tamid 7:4. The citation of the line “A Psalm, a song for the Sabbath day” differs slightly from the line found in the standard English translation of the Soncino Talmud (see Jacob Shachter and B. A. Freedman, trans., Sanhedrin, in Hebrew-English Edition of the Babylonian Talmud [ed. Isidore Epstein; London: Soncino, 1969]), which reads, “A Psalm and song for the Sabbath day.” I have edited this line to match the translation in b. Roš Haš. 31a of the same line from Ps 92 on the grounds that the reading of the Talmud in each place is the same (‫ )מזמור שיר ליום השבת‬and that the two nouns are in apposition; the best way to render this apposition in English is through simple juxtaposition of the nouns, not with the connective “and” between the nouns. 195. Trudinger (The Psalms of the Tamid Service, 216–19) argues that the rabbinic association of the Tamid psalms with the seven days of creation is later than the Second Temple period. 196. This passage cites in order Ps 92:1; Isa 2:11; and Hos 6:2. 197. This may be an idiosyncratic teaching of R. Kattina, who lived during the third century, because it is connected to him in both passages.

Investigation of Relevant Background Material

99

ning, an activity that would normally not be allowed on the Sabbath, is allowed when one runs to hear Torah. R. Helbo, in the name of R. Huna, says [further]: When a man leaves the Synagogue, he should not take large steps. Abaye says: This is only when one goes from the Synagogue, but when one goes to the Synagogue, it is a pious deed to run. For it is said: Let us run to know the Lord. R. Zera says: At first when I saw the scholars running to the lecture on a Sabbath day, I thought that they were desecrating the Sabbath. But since I have heard the saying of R. Tanhum in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi: A man should always, even on a Sabbath, run to listen to the word of Halachah, as it is said: They shall walk after the Lord, who shall roar like a lion, I also run. R. Zera says: The merit of attending a lecture lies in the running. 198

Ostensibly, the running is allowed because it shows eagerness on the part of the hearer to learn the words of Torah. The underlying theological point is also important to note: Sabbath restrictions can be abrogated by certain individuals with the right motives. B. Yoma 35b There is one passage in the Babylonian Talmud, b. Yoma 35b, that is interesting to note because it allows for abrogation of Sabbath restrictions based on the character of the one for whom the action is done. Our Rabbis taught: The poor, the rich, the sensual come before the [heav­enly] court—They say to the poor: Why have you not occupied yourself with the Torah? If he says: I was poor and worried about my sustenance, they would say to him: Were you poorer than Hillel? It was reported about Hillel the Elder that every day he used to work and earn one tropaik, half of which he would give to the guard at the House of Learning, the other half being spent for his food and for that of his family. One day he found nothing to earn and the guard at the House of Learning would not permit him to enter. He climbed up and sat upon the window, to hear the words of the living God from the mouth of Shemayah and Abtalion—They say, that day was the eve of Sabbath in the winter solstice and snow fell down upon him from heaven. When the dawn rose, Shemayah said to Abtalion: Brother Abtalion, on every day this house is light and to-day it is dark, is it perhaps a cloudy day. They looked up and saw the figure of a man in the window. They went up and found him covered by three cubits of snow. They removed him, bathed and anointed him and placed him opposite the fire and they said: This man deserves that the Sabbath be profaned on his behalf.

Hillel had gone to extremes to hear the word of the Lord and needed care as a result, care that would require breaking Sabbath restrictions such as kindling a fire. Yet the final judgment is that the Sabbath breaking was acceptable because of the worthiness of Hillel. The underlying principle seems to 198. This passage cites in order Hos 6:3; 11:10.

100

Chapter 3

be that, if the individual is worthy, the Sabbath may be broken to care for his needs. B. Šabbat 118b One final passage from the Babylonian Talmud is worth mentioning. In a vein of thought similar to Lev. Rab. 3:1, the rabbis argue in b. Šabb. 118b that Israel’s salvation is tied to its keeping the Sabbath: Rab Judah said in Rab’s name: Had Israel kept the first Sabbath, no nation or tongue would have enjoyed dominion over them, for it is said, And it came to pass on the seventh day, that there went out some of the people for to gather; which is followed by, Then came Amalek. R. Johanan said in the name of R. Simeon b. Yohai: If Israel were to keep two Sabbaths according to the laws thereof, they would be redeemed immediately, for it is said, Thus saith the Lord of the eunuch that keep my Sabbaths, which is followed by, even them will I bring to my holy mountain, etc. 199

These teachings invert the original meaning of the Sabbath: it was to serve as a sign of God’s redemption of Israel and his sanctification of them. Instead, the Sabbath has become a requirement, the keeping of which will result in their salvation.

Summary and Discussion In the background literature to the NT, there are several broad themes related to the Sabbath that affect the issue of divine Sabbath work and therefore have an impact on the interpretation of Jesus’ Sabbath actions. In this concluding section, I will briefly review the themes as they are developed in the literature and hypothesize why the themes occur as they do. This discussion will pave the way for the next chapter, which places Jesus in the context of divine Sabbath work by providing a tentative theological construct within which Jesus would operate. The references to divine Sabbath work in the background literature can first be discussed thematically. There are four key themes that can be delineated in the materials that relate to the issue at hand. First, there are key passages that state outright that even within his proclaimed period of Sabbath rest God continues certain types of work. Philo, for example, depicts God as continually creating, because this is his very nature. Genesis Rabbah 11:10 argues that God continues his work of punishing the wicked and rewarding the righteous. Mekilta Šabbata 1:120–25 argues that God continues his work of administering justice, which is possibly identical to punishing the wicked and rewarding the righteous. On a related note, there is a whole host of passages that depict God continuing his work of creation in both salvific and eschatological contexts. Genesis 2:1–3 is programmatic in the 199. This passage cites in order Exod 16:27; 17:8; Isa 56:4, 7.

Investigation of Relevant Background Material

101

sense that it declares God’s rest, but within the Hebrew Scriptures this passage does not exhaust the possibilities of God and his work. God continues to create even during the proclaimed period of his rest but, specifically, in salvific and eschatological ways. Second, there are many passages that imply that God continues to work on the Sabbath; if they do not imply this fact, these passages at least associate the Sabbath with God’s work in such a fundamental way that the two cannot be separated. The two most prominent passages are the Sabbath commands in the Decalogue as given in Exod 20:8–11 and Deut 5:12–15. Striking to note, as discussed in the exposition above, is that the grounds for the Sabbath command differ in each place. In the Exodus passage, God’s role as the creator who rested is the grounds for Sabbath observance, while in Deuteronomy, it is God’s role as redeemer and savior that is stressed. In the Sabbath celebration, then, Israel celebrates God’s mighty actions on its behalf as its creator and redeemer by entering rest and extending this rest to others. Thus the Sabbath becomes a means by which Israel celebrates God’s mightiest works and remembers them perpetually. In much the same vein, in another Exodus passage, the Sabbath becomes a sign that God sanctifies Israel in gracious relationship. Just as God sanctified the day, he acts to sanctify Israel through the medium of the Sabbath. By obeying his commands and entering his rest on the Sabbath, Israel experiences God’s presence and blessing and is thereby sanctified. Third, the Sabbath becomes a sign of the eschatological renewal of the age to come. This receives expression in a number of ways. The Sabbath remains part of the calendar of the eschaton in biblical and extrabiblical passages, and it is used in many of the background materials as a shorthand way to connote the age to come. In these documents, the rest commanded for this day generally forms the bridge to link the concepts, but in one key text in the midrashim, it is the holiness of the day that makes the link. Fourth, there are several texts in the background material that depict either God’s agent or a righteous person doing things on the Sabbath that would normally not be accepted. These agents either receive explicit commands from God to act this way, or they are implicitly free of culpability because of the task in which they are involved. Jonathan fights in two military battles on the Sabbath and is victorious, even calling on God to act upon his behalf. Noted rabbis are not viewed as culpable on the Sabbath when they serve the needs of Hillel, a person who was worthy to be cared for, even if the care profaned the Sabbath. These individuals do work not allowed on the Sabbath, but they are not culpable for their actions. A thematic presentation of the data is helpful, but another fruitful way to sift the data is through theological, chronological development. At the least, this way of looking at the evidence points out which background materials could be construed as the most important for understanding Jesus’ actions. The passages examined above were listed in rough chronological

102

Chapter 3

order. There are differences between the passages in the Hebrew Scriptures and elsewhere. The Hebrew Scriptures have a different tenor about them; there is a sense of joy regarding the Sabbath, and all references to Sabbath ultimately point to the God who established this day as special among others. In other bodies of literature, more texts emphasize satisfaction of the legal requirement of Sabbath observance than reflection on its theological meaning. The Hebrew Scriptures evidence original theological depth regarding the Sabbath, while other bodies of literature represent legal discussion premised on the original theology but more centrally focused on the contemporaneous situation. The halakic discussion specifically, although based on the theological weight of the original Sabbath passages, differs significantly in its basic nature and character. In a very real sense, there is a shift in the center of gravity between the Hebrew Scriptures and extrabiblical texts and, because of their theological priority, the Hebrew Scriptures would be the paradigmatic passages. What would have caused this changed situation? Simply put, new historical, geographical, and political situations required a reinterpretation of the original legal texts. Israel felt the constant need to define itself as a nation, and the Sabbath—just like circumcision and dietary restrictions—was an appropriate identity marker to emphasize. 200 In order to maintain this distinctive and fulfill the Torah in situations unenvisioned by the original authors, Jewish leaders and theological thinkers had to apply the law to the new situation. Hence the different focus of the legal Halakah. This situation changed Israel’s theological thought radically enough, however, that the Sabbath ceased to be a sign of the relationship between God and Israel and became instead a meritorious act in certain texts. Thus in Jesus’ day, there was a theological basis for understanding the Sabbath one way, which arose out of the Hebrew Scriptures, as a day celebrating God’s mighty works and the preeminent day of God’s blessing of Israel. Then there was a legal and pragmatic basis for viewing the Sabbath another way, as a sign that would mark Israel as distinct from other nations and in effect lead to its deliverance. With this bifurcation in mind, we can now examine Jesus to see where he fits on this spectrum of thought. 200. For a discussion of this viewpoint, see James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998), 354–59.

Chapter 4

Jesus, Sabbath Actions, and Divine Sabbath Work Introduction Whenever one attempts to place Jesus in his context, whether historical, religious, social, or cultural, many difficulties arise. First and most important, the interpreter must reconstruct a valid context for Jesus’ life. If the reconstruction of the context is faulty, then the effort will be nullified from the very beginning. Second, the interpreter must decide whether his or her approach will be on a global level, looking at Jesus’ life and ministry as a whole, or on a particular level, looking at specific pericopes and events. Finally, the interpreter must link Jesus to this context, all the while using the appropriate tools—the tools of particular methods, such as form or redaction criticism, or tools of historical research, such as the criteria of authenticity. My goal in this chapter is to place Jesus in his religious context via the specific issue of divine Sabbath work. The burden of chap. 3 was to describe this issue accurately as it obtained in Jesus’ religious context. As I showed, the issue is multivalent; therefore, Jesus’ connection to this context may be approached from a variety of angles. The burden of chap. 4 is to explain Jesus’ Sabbath actions in light of the context elucidated in chap. 3 and to provide insight into the way that Jesus’ Sabbath activity, in light of this context, informed and amplified his message and ministry. The second problem discussed above that interpreters face comes to the forefront in the organization of this chapter. Benefits can be gained from both a global and a particular approach. A global approach allows one to see Jesus’ life and ministry as a whole; taking into account all the data and forming a global picture can illuminate Jesus’ activity in ways that a more limited view cannot. 1 But there are methodological problems here: What reconstruction of Jesus’ life and ministry does one accept as a global picture? There are many variations among popular reconstructions. Does one hold primacy of place above others? Would the issue of divine Sabbath work 1. This can be seen in Meier’s assertion of the historicity of miracles in Jesus’ life as a whole. This is also akin to the approach of Darrell L. Bock, Jesus according to Scripture: Restoring the Portrait from the Gospels (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2002).

103

Chapter 4

104

fit better within one framework than in others? The interpreter could easily favor one reconstruction over another because it answers the question in a way that another reconstruction might not. A more particular approach, in which individual events or passages are examined, allows one to see in the specifics of Jesus’ life whether the cultural issue does in fact come into play. Methodologically, this could prove to be more sound, because any reconstruction of Jesus’ context must begin with particulars, lest the resultant structure become a house of cards. At the same time, the import of all the data often provides insights that are not readily seen in a single event. In order to provide a balance in my approach in this chapter, I will examine Jesus’ connection to divine Sabbath work from both perspectives. I will take both a global and a particular approach in order to place Jesus within the context of divine Sabbath work. I will first analyze Jesus’ ministry as a whole, using a recent portrait that has been developed in Jesus scholarship. The goal will be to ask and answer several questions about Jesus and divine Sabbath work, using this reconstruction as the gauge. I will then examine two specific events in Jesus’ life to see how they read within the cultural script of divine Sabbath work and how this illuminates Jesus’ actions.

The Global Question A Foundational Portrait of Jesus It is difficult to find a unified portrait of Jesus and his mission in the third quest for the historical Jesus. This is in part due to the nature of the third quest and its focus on placing him within his historical context. The ancient world, especially the land of Israel, was such a mix of cultures that any major figure of that time is bound to show influence from all sides. The scholarship of the third quest has capitalized on this rich bounty and identified Jesus with a number of specific cultural pictures of that world. 2 Unfortunately, this emphasis on particulars has generated an improperly focused picture. Jesus is viewed through special lenses, but the wide-angle, panoramic view of his life and ministry is sometimes lost. There are four recent treatments of Jesus, however, that all seek to give a holistic view of his life and mission, and they show similarity in their conclusions: works by Darrell Bock, John Meier, N. T. Wright, and James D. G. Dunn. 3 Although 2. See, for example, Marcus J.  Borg, Conflict, Holiness, and Politics in the Teachings of Jesus (new ed.; Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1998); Sanders, Jesus and Judaism; Geza Vermes, Jesus the Jew: A Historian’s Reading of the Gospels (New York: Macmillan, 1973); Geza Vermes, Jesus and the World of Judaism (London: SCM, 1983); Geza Vermes, The Religion of Jesus the Jew (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993); Richard A. Horsley, Jesus and the Spiral of Violence: Popular Jewish Resistance in Roman Palestine (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987); Bruce Chilton, Rabbi Jesus: An Intimate Biography (New York: Doubleday, 2000); and many others. 3. Bock, Jesus according to Scripture; John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus (5 vols.; ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 1991–); N. T. Wright, Christian Origins

Jesus, Sabbath Actions, and Divine Sabbath Work

105

these works certainly do not represent a consensus view, they do provide a picture of Jesus that resonates with the data found in the Scriptures. This is a view of Jesus that is defensible and consequently can readily serve as a foundation from which to discuss Jesus vis-à-vis divine Sabbath work. As I stated in chap. 2, in A Marginal Jew John Meier seeks to explain the historical Jesus, by which he means “the Jesus whom we can recover, recapture, or reconstruct by using the scientific tools of modern historical research.” 4 From the beginning, then, his project takes on a holistic focus. Through his entire work, Meier discusses various aspects of Jesus’ life and ministry, including his relationship to John the Baptist; his proclamation of the kingdom of God, “a multifaceted and multilayered symbol”; 5 his use of miracles, which imparted life to his proclamation of God’s kingdom and caused it to have lasting effect; and the people with whom he interacted, both friends and enemies. Traveling down this path allows Meier to present a holistic synthesis of Jesus: (1) At the very least, in some vague sense Jesus was seen by others and himself as an eschatological prophet. He proclaimed the imminent coming of God’s kingly rule and reign. (2) Yet, unlike the Baptist, Jesus proclaimed and celebrated the kingdom of God already present in his ministry. It was present in his powerful preaching and teaching, present in his table fellowship offered to all, including toll collectors and sinners; but most strikingly it was present, palpable and effective for his Jewish audience in his miracles. (3) These miracles, especially the supposed miracles of raising the dead, would almost inevitably cast Jesus in the role of Elijah or Elisha. 6

Meier continues, Besides being the eschatological prophet and miracle-worker clothed in the aura of Elijah, Jesus not only taught his Jewish followers general ethical imperatives (e.g., love and forgiveness) but also presumed to give concrete directions on how to observe the Mosaic Law (hălākôt). . . . Some of his pronouncements on the Mosaic Law led to disputes with other Jewish groups, not least of all because at times Jesus, while certainly affirming the Law as God’s word to Israel, took it upon himself to rescind or change some individual institutions in the Law: e.g., divorce, oaths and vows, and, in the opinion of some exegetes, even the kosher food laws of the Torah. This element of concrete-andcontroversial directives as well as general teaching on the Law added further spicy ingredients to an already heady brew. Jesus not only presented himself and the Question of God, vol. 2: Jesus and the Victory of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996); James D. G. Dunn, Christianity in the Making, vol. 1: Jesus Remembered (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003). Meier’s and Wright’s books are specifically historical Jesus studies, while Bock makes clear that his study is not. Although Dunn’s present volume is primarily a historical Jesus study, it is part of a larger project designed to provide “a comprehensive overview of the beginnings of Christianity” (p. xiii). 4. Meier, A Marginal Jew, 1:1. 5. Meier, A Marginal Jew, 2:1042. 6. Meier, A Marginal Jew, 2:1044.

106

Chapter 4

as the eschatological prophet of the coming kingdom of God, not only presented himself as the Elijah-like miracle-worker who made the future kingdom of God already effective and palpable to his followers, but at the same time presented himself as a teacher who could tell Israelites how to observe the Law of Moses—indeed, who could even tell Israelites what they should or should not observe in the Law. 7

This holistic portrait in essence describes Jesus as an eschatological prophet who proclaimed the kingdom of God, worked miracles to validate and enact this proclamation, and authoritatively taught the Mosaic Law to Israel. 8 In positioning Jesus in this way, Meier more effectively deals with all of the evidence of Jesus’ life and ministry and provides a much more natural context to Jesus’ culture. In Jesus and the Victory of God, Wright seeks to ask and answer one major question about Jesus within the context of the third quest for the historical Jesus in order to explain the history of the Christian movement in the first century c.e. The avenue for answering the major question follows five subdivisional questions, each of which is designed to examine a particular aspect of Jesus’ life and mission. As Wright states it, the major question deals with history in a broad sense: How do we account for the fact that, by ad 110, there was a large and vigorous international movement, already showing considerable diversity, whose founding myth (in a quite ‘neutral’ sense) was a story about one Jesus of Nazareth, a figure from the recent past? How do we get, in other words, from the pluriform Judaism that existed within the Greco-Roman world of 10 bc to the pluriform Judaism and Christianity of ad 110—from (roughly) Herod the Great to Ignatius of Antioch? 9

The question is a valid one, and Jesus is at the center of its answer. To answer this question, five other questions must be answered: How does Jesus fit into Judaism? What were Jesus’ aims? Why did Jesus die? How and why did the early church begin? Why are the Gospels what they are? 10 Throughout the work, Wright answers these questions with a goal of determining who Jesus is and how he affected the history of his era. Wright’s conclusion is similar to other formulations but perhaps with a more radical conclusion: Jesus was an eschatological prophet, announcing the kingdom of God and dying to bring it about. As Israel’s Messiah, Jesus saw himself as “the focal point of the people of Yhwh,” 11 the one who through his own life and 7. Meier, A Marginal Jew, 2:1045–46. 8. This last aspect of Jesus’ ministry is discussed more fully in Meier, A Marginal Jew, 4:655–57. There he connects Jesus’ handling of the law with the eschatological, Elijah-like prophet whom many Jews expected in the end times. 9. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 90. 10. See Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 91–113, for discussion. 11. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 538.

Jesus, Sabbath Actions, and Divine Sabbath Work

107

ministry would bring about God’s plans for Israel. His death on the cross would be the means by which the victory of God would be won over all evil. His resurrection would show that he had succeeded and that his followers would now inherit the task of implementing what he had in his life and death achieved. Jesus was the Messiah who through his eschatological, prophetic ministry brought to completion God’s plan for Israel, which his followers were then to take to the world. In Jesus according to Scripture, Bock’s stated goal is not to produce a technical historical Jesus study but, rather, “to argue that a coherent portrait of Jesus emerges from the canonical Gospels that is both rooted in history and yet has produced its own historical, cultural impact because of the portrait these four Gospels give of him.” 12 The study is divided into four major sections. The first is an overview of the message and organization of each of the Gospels. The second and most lengthy section is a presentation of Jesus according to the Synoptics, and the third is a presentation of Jesus according to the Gospel of John. The fourth section is in some ways the most important section, because it serves to unite the threads of the individual Gospels into a coherent presentation of the theological themes that were the warp and woof of Jesus’ message and ministry. According to Bock, all of the theological threads presented in the Gospels point to Jesus as the uniquely authoritative revelator of God: The thrust of Jesus’ teaching was that he brought the promised new era of the rule of God. As prophet and as the one hoped for, Jesus both explained the divine program and embodied divine presence and authority. His mission began with and focused on Israel, but his ultimate goal was to bring the presence and promise of God to the world. The kingdom presence that he inaugurated opened the way for the victory of God and the Spirit of God because forgiveness was made possible along with the hope of everlasting life. . . . At the center of this newly announced divine program stood the person of the one who makes its presence and sustenance possible. Jesus portrayed himself as the Son of Man, a human being who possessed divine authority because he was also divine, as is shown by the fact that he has the right to sit in God’s very presence in heaven. Jesus according to scripture is far more than a prophet. He is far more than a king who promised deliverance. He is the revealer and explainer of God’s plan, as well as the bridge of access to God. 13

In Jesus Remembered, Dunn examines Jesus by painting a portrait of his life and aims through close interaction with the historical materials as tradition generated by Jesus’ impact; the verb “remember” in the title is specifically chosen to define both the nature of the tradition and its limits. An important contribution of Dunn’s work is a fresh assessment of the role of oral transmission on the tradition as it exists presently in the Gospels. 12. Bock, Jesus according to Scripture, 17. 13. Bock, Jesus according to Scripture, 646–47.

108

Chapter 4

His conclusion about Jesus seeks to highlight “the characteristic motifs and emphases of the Jesus tradition.” 14 The portrait is similar to the portraits already presented: Jesus was a Jew who taught Israel about the near arrival of the kingdom of God. His mission involved bringing good news to the poor and calling sinners, and he desired to motivate Israel to live rightly in light of the kingdom. He was a teacher, prophet, and healer who had an intimate sense of being God’s son but who also probably knew that his mission would end in his demise. 15 As can be seen from the summaries given above, there is a common view of Jesus in these portraits as an eschatological prophet who authoritatively pronounced the kingdom of God to Israel and who in turn was the primary agent through which this kingdom comes about. 16 This commonality is useful because it shows definite connections to particular strands of the conceptual background under discussion. This provides a foundation from which I will work to place Jesus within the context of divine Sabbath work.

Questions for the Global Picture Because of the diverse nature of the Sabbath references in the background literature, the global picture can be approached from a variety of angles. The few passages that speak of God’s continuing certain types of work after he ceased his work of creation allow us to pose this specific question: do Jesus’ Sabbath actions in light of his broad ministry as an eschatological prophet evoke any of these categories of divine Sabbath work? From the viewpoint of the other threads of discussion elucidated above, additional questions about Jesus’ Sabbath actions can be asked, providing controls for the question of divine Sabbath work. First, the Sabbath is seen as a special day, the day above others on which God bestows his blessings upon Israel—specifically his presence, freedom from bondage in light of the exodus, and Israel’s sanctification. Does Jesus act on the Sabbath in keeping with this emphasis? This question does not relate explicitly to divine Sabbath work but perhaps more appropriately addresses Jesus’ Sabbath activity. The Sabbath was also viewed as an eschatological foreshadowing, a precursor of the age to come, when God would act to bring his people complete rest. It held a place as a symbol of the eschaton 14. Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 882. 15. This is a summation of the conclusion presented in Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 884–90. 16. Others who argue similarly that Jesus was an “eschatological prophet” are Sanders, Jesus and Judaism; Dale C. Allison, Jesus of Nazareth: Millenarian Prophet (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998); Bart D.  Ehrman, Jesus, Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999); Paula Fredriksen, Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews: A Jewish Life and the Emergence of Christianity (New York: Knopf, 1999); Steven M. Bryan, Jesus and Israel’s Traditions of Judgement and Restoration (SNTSMS 117; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002).

Jesus, Sabbath Actions, and Divine Sabbath Work

109

in terms of its character and the calendar. A third question may be asked in light of this emphasis: does Jesus act on the Sabbath as an eschatological prophet with this emphasis in mind? Finally, there is a particular strand of discussion in the background literature regarding the performance of religious duty and someone’s acting as God’s agent on the Sabbath. Under certain circumstances, individuals who were engaged in special service to the Lord could ignore prohibitions against work on the Sabbath and receive no censure. Is this a factor that comes into play in Jesus’ Sabbath actions? The argument I wish to make at this juncture is that as far as the global picture is concerned Jesus’ Sabbath actions are best understood in light of the eschatological emphasis that the Sabbath received as representing the time when God would decisively act to fulfill the hopes of his people and in light of the Sabbath as a special day of blessing for God’s people. These appear to be the best arguments that can be made regarding Jesus’ Sabbath activity, the background concept as it has been developed, and a global conception of Jesus’ life and ministry. Exorcism and Healing as Eschatological Acts There is much evidence to show that, in Jesus’ miracles, both in specific examples and in general contours, he was making an eschatological claim. In an important study on exorcism, Graham Twelftree argues that Jesus was not unique in his practice of exorcisms but in his belief about their signification: “While exorcism was by no means the only aspect of his ministry, particularly in his exorcisms (carried out by the power-authority of the eschatological Spirit) he believed the first stage in the defeat of Satan and his kingdom was taking place in order that the kingdom of God could come.” 17 Craig Evans has recently argued very similarly regarding the relation between Jesus’ exorcisms and the presence of the kingdom of God. 18 This eschatological claim is also evident with regard to Jesus’ miracles as a whole. In a recent major study, Eric Eve places Jesus’ miraculous activity within the broad Jewish framework of the first century. 19 His overarching conclusion is that “both the Gospel presentations of Jesus’ miracles and the miracles of the historical Jesus would appear distinctive within the Judaism of his time while making sense in a Jewish context.” 20 The contextual 17. Graham H. Twelftree, Jesus the Exorcist: A Contribution to the Study of the Historical Jesus (WUNT 2/54; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1993), 228. Twelftree comes to a similar conclusion in his later work on miracles (Jesus the Miracle Worker: A Historical and Theological Study [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1999]; see especially p. 347). 18. Craig A. Evans, “Inaugurating the Kingdom of God and Defeating the Kingdom of Satan,” BBR 15 (2005): 49–75. 19. Eric Eve, The Jewish Context of Jesus’ Miracles ( JSNTSup 231; London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002). 20. Eve, The Jewish Context of Jesus’ Miracles, 386. Eve appears to be arguing for a form of similarity/dissimilarity as advanced by N. T. Wright.

110

Chapter 4

similarity is manifest because Jesus, in his overall ministry but also specifically with his miracles, takes on the role of a prophet, a role that is well attested throughout Jewish literature. The distinctiveness is based on several significant factors. First, Jesus is unique in that he is portrayed as performing a large number of healings and exorcisms, when Jewish literature as a whole did not attribute numerous miracles to any one agent. Second, the Gospels are clear in presenting the source of Jesus’ miracle-working power as the spirit of God, not his own spirit. Third, Jesus attached eschatological significance to his exorcisms and healings. 21 It is appropriate to review more carefully how Eve arrives at this third conclusion, because this will be important to this study. 22 There are a few Jewish texts that connect healing with eschatological hope; 23 most likely these texts used healings as metaphors for national renewal, but this understanding would have supported Jesus’ use of healing miracles as signs of eschatological fulfillment. Attached to this understanding at some point was the overthrow of demonic powers as a sign of the eschaton as well as healing as a metaphor for spiritual healing, “the need for turning to God for inner as well as outward healing.” 24 Into this mix stepped Jesus, who transformed this context into a specific aspect of his own ministry. Eve argues, How, then, does Jesus come to attach eschatological significance to healing and exorcism? The explanation may lie along the following lines. First, healing and exorcism were, perhaps, the only types of miracles available to Jesus. Secondly, he was nevertheless an extraordinarily gifted healer and exorcist who . . . excelled among the folk-healers of his time. Thirdly, he understood this gift as an even greater empowerment by God’s spirit than of the great prophets of old. This experience of divine empowerment (coupled with a special sense of a close relationship with God) prompted Jesus to reinterpret, combine and transform Jewish traditions. He then understood his individual acts of healing and exorcism as prophetic signs, not only of the imminence of the Kingdom of God, but of its nature. 25

Thus within Jesus’ ministry, healing and exorcism had an eschatological focus. How then does his work on the Sabbath come into play? The Sabbath as an Eschatological Sign in Jesus’ Ministry One of the clear foci of the review of background literature is that the Sabbath becomes a sign of the age to come. This connection is most likely due to the concept of rest inherent in the Sabbath celebration. In Jewish 21. Eve, The Jewish Context of Jesus’ Miracles, 378–79. 22. See Eve, The Jewish Context of Jesus’ Miracles, 379–81. 23. Eve lists the two most prominent texts as 4Q521 and Jub. 23:23–31. 24. Eve, The Jewish Context of Jesus’ Miracles, 380. For passages, see, for example, T. Moses 10 and 1QS 2–4. 25. Eve, The Jewish Context of Jesus’ Miracles, 380–81.

Jesus, Sabbath Actions, and Divine Sabbath Work

111

thinking, there probably was a lesser-to-greater comparison: the current Sabbath gives rest to the people of God, and the age to come will bring perfect, eternal rest. Thus the present Sabbath became a key sign of that eternal, future rest. It would not take a great leap to move from the Sabbath as a sign of the eschaton to Jesus’ ministry as an eschatological prophet to Jesus’ use of the Sabbath as a specific sign of this eschatological ministry. This would explain Jesus’ deliberate use of the Sabbath as a day to showcase his ministry. The Gospels’ presentation of Jesus’ Sabbath activity clearly shows that Sabbath action was deliberate on his part. He chose this day on which to perform actions that had an eschatological emphasis, thereby evoking this specific aspect of the Sabbath’s character. God would act in the future to restore his people, and the Sabbath prefigured this. In Jesus, God was acting now to fulfill the eschatological hope, and the Sabbath was a fitting day on which to do this. The Question of Sabbath as a Day of Divine Blessing There is another aspect of divine Sabbath work that should not be overlooked. I argued in chap. 3 that the Sabbath is viewed throughout the background literature as a specific day on which God acts to bestow his blessing on Israel. This begins with Gen 2:1–3, where God rests from his work of creation and blesses the seventh day. It becomes a paradigmatic day when the creation can imitate the creator and enter the blessing of rest ordained from the creation of the world. In Exod 16, the Sabbath becomes a day on which Israel experiences God’s presence in a real, tangible way through his abundant provision of their needs. In Exod 32, the Sabbath becomes a sign of the covenant between God and Israel, a gracious covenant in which God sanctifies his people. In Deut 5, the Sabbath is a day to commemorate God’s ultimate act of redemption for his people. Philo views it as the day among many during which God gives blessings to his people. 26 Primarily, it is meant to bring rest and refreshment to the people of God. This understanding of the Sabbath comes into play in Jesus’ activity on the Sabbath, when Jesus worked through healings and exorcism to bring rest to people who were oppressed, either physically or demonically. He mentioned on more than one occasion that the humanitarian concerns were appropriate to the day. He emphasized that the Sabbath was a day of blessing and concern for others, which was entirely in keeping with the nature of the day as it is described in the Hebrew Scriptures and much of the background literature. By acting in a visible way on the Sabbath, in ways that brought these blessings back to Israel, Jesus rightly focused Israel’s attention on God’s actions on their behalf on the Sabbath. Thus Jesus, by acting on the Sabbath, showed that God still acted on the Sabbath to bring blessing to his people. 26. See Philo, Names 259–60.

112

Chapter 4

The Specific Passages In approaching this problem from the viewpoint of particular events or passages, my goal is to discuss the passages that most likely depend on the concept of divine Sabbath work in their presentation of Jesus’ actions. That Jesus acted on the Sabbath is clear enough: the events are attested in multiple strands of the tradition 27 and in multiple forms of literature. 28 The point of this section is to show that Jesus acted with a particular conception of the Sabbath in mind, and for this purpose I will examine two passages. As will be argued below, John 5 is the passage that most clearly uses this background concept. In addition, in order to provide control over this investigation and to explain Jesus’ Sabbath actions significant, I will examine another outstanding passage to see how it handles the other threads of Sabbath that were delineated in chap. 3 above: Luke 13:10–17. In the discussion that follows, I will exposit each passage in its context, discuss the role of the Sabbath in it, and then examine it in light of the background on divine Sabbath work that we have appropriated. Luke 13:10–17 Exposition of the pericope.  In Luke 9:51, the evangelist turns the narrative toward Jerusalem. This major section of the Gospel, commonly known as the Jerusalem journey (9:51–19:27), shows Jesus traveling toward Jerusalem in light of his recently revealed mission: Peter had confessed Jesus as the Messiah (9:18–22), but the concept of Messiah that the disciples knew must be redefined in terms of Jesus’ mission, not popular conceptions. This larger section of Jesus’ Jerusalem journey alternates between Jesus’ teaching on discipleship and Jesus’ clashing with the Pharisees. It is within this broad context that the healing of the crippled woman falls. In this passage, a healing narrative unique to Luke, Jesus heals a woman who was permanently bent over. The malady has affected her for long time, and Jesus with a word heals her. Because the healing takes place on the Sabbath, the synagogue ruler reacts negatively, and in response Jesus defends himself on the basis of the day’s character. The pericope opens with a reference to Jesus teaching in a synagogue on the Sabbath. This in itself is striking. Jesus had not entered a synagogue since the inception of the Jerusalem journey, and he had recently identified the synagogue as a place of possible 27. Jesus acts on the Sabbath in the triple tradition (Mark 2:23–28 and parallels; Mark 3:1–6 and parallels), material unique to Luke (Luke 13:10–17; 14:1–6), material common to Mark and Matthew (Mark 6:1–6 and Matt 13:53–58), material common to Mark and Luke (Mark 1:21–27 and Luke 4:31–36), and material unique to John ( John 5 and John 9). 28. References to the Sabbath and actions on that day are found in pronouncement stories (Mark 2:23–28 and parallels; Mark 6:1–6 and Matt 13:53–58), speeches (Matt 12:5–7, John 7:22–23), and miracle stories (Mark 1:21–27 and Luke 4:31–36; Mark 3:1–6 and parallels; Luke 13:10–17; 14:1–6; John 5; 9).

Jesus, Sabbath Actions, and Divine Sabbath Work

113

persecution for his followers in Luke 12:11. 29 The question arises why Jesus would enter the synagogue at this point. Green argues cogently that this return to the synagogue is meant to evoke Jesus’ Galilean ministry, especially his preaching at the synagogue in Nazareth. 30 The implications of this nuance will be discussed more carefully below. 31 Following the description of the time and place of the setting, Luke introduces the crippled woman. His description of her is purposeful in that it explains her sickness and therefore sets the stage for the healing and controversy to follow; it also elicits a response of concern in the reader. The woman is described simply as “there”; she does not draw attention to herself intentionally, but her condition is certainly noticeable. Probably this condition has brought shame on her in some sense, and the further description of the length of her condition compounds the problem. Within the pericope, her condition is blamed ultimately on supernatural activity. She is described as “having a spirit of weakness” (πνεῦμα ἔχουσα ἀσθενείας), and Jesus later attributes her condition directly to Satan. 32 Arguably, this is not an instance of possession, because no exorcism is performed; it is oppression of some type, which manifested itself in her physical symptom. When Jesus sees her, he calls out to her. This is a prime example of Jesus’ intentions when he acts on the Sabbath: he initiates the healing. 33 People in need of healing came to Jesus on other days of the week, as a rule, but on the Sabbath, Jesus reaches out to offer healing to people in need, of whom this woman is an extreme case. Jesus first speaks to the woman: “Woman, you are freed (ἀπολέλυσαι) from your infirmity.” The importance of the verb 29. Green, Luke, 518. 30. Green, Luke, 519. 31. As Fitzmyer (Luke, 2:1012) notes, this is also the last time that Jesus will appear in a synagogue setting in the Gospel. This implies that a decisive turn in the narrative has occurred. 32. Arguing for the direct influence of an evil spirit are Norval Geldenhuys, Commentary on the Gospel of Luke (NICNT; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1954), 374–75; Robert H. Stein, Luke (NAC 24; Nashville: Broadman, 1992), 373; Darrell L. Bock, Luke 9:51–24:53 (BECNT 3B; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1996), 1215. Arguing for the more general (or perhaps ultimate) influence of an evil spirit are E.  Earle Ellis, The Gospel of Luke (2nd ed.; Greenwood, SC: Attic, 1974), 186; I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978), 557; Evans, Luke, 207; Green, Luke, 521. John Nolland (Luke 9:21–18:34 [WBC 35B; Dallas: Word, 1993], 723–24) is noncommital. 33. Almost every pericope in which Jesus heals on the Sabbath and controversy results indicates that Jesus acts intentionally by initiating the healing without request from the one who receives it; see Mark 3:1–6 and parallels; Luke 13:10–17, 14:1–6; John 5, 9. Mark 1:21–27 (par. Luke 4:31–36) does not indicate Jesus’ acting with this intention probably because of the outburst from the demon. Mark 2:23–28 and parallels do not involve a healing, but they do show that Jesus is acting intentionally, to which the Pharisees react. Mark 6:1–6 (par. Matt 13:53–58) is so cursory in its reference to Jesus’ healing actions on the Sabbath that it cannot be marshaled as evidence either way.

114

Chapter 4

is twofold. First, it is a perfect passive verb. The perfect tense regularly depicts the present results of past actions. There are two possibilities for the past action in view. It is conceivable that Jesus is speaking somewhat proleptically and referring to the act of healing that he is about to commence. This would be a very unusual use of the perfect, however. The other option is that the past event was a salvific event that forms the basis for Jesus’ actions. This is a more likely option with two primary possibilities: either the exodus or the inbreaking of the kingdom of God. Further discussion on the exodus option will appear below. The passive voice of the verb and the action that the verb describes logically make this verb a divine passive. Jesus speaks of the woman’s being freed from her infirmity, and then he points to God as the source of this freedom. The second important aspect of this verb is its connotation. It is rather unusual for the verb ἀπολύω to be used in reference to the healing of disease; its normal semantic domains are the physical location of someone, the social status of someone vis-à-vis another person (usually concerning the release of a slave or the divorce of a wife), or the release of debts. 34 But this information in itself is vitally important, for the use of this verb evokes a particular conceptual context that will come into play later as well. After speaking to her, Jesus places his hands on her, and she is immediately made well (παραχρῆμα ἀνωρθώθη). This is clear confirmation that God is working through Jesus, both because of the immediacy and because of the completeness of the healing. In response to her healing, the woman spontaneously rejoices by praising God. In response to this event, the leader of the synagogue speaks out to all who are present. In so doing, he becomes the antagonist, but he is also representative of all who have been opposing Jesus throughout the narrative. 35 The narrator gives the explicit reason that the leader speaks out against Jesus. He is “indignant (ἀγανακτῶν) because Jesus had healed on the Sabbath.” The leader’s response is directed to the attendees at large, but his obvious intent is to chastise Jesus for his action. His words are important because they explicitly reveal that the Sabbath is the central issue in the controversy. Underneath his response is an understanding of Sabbath observance that found explicit expression in the legal Halakah governing the Sabbath. 36 In

34. See BDAG, “ἀπολύω,” 117–18; LSJ, “ἀπολύω,” 208. BDAG mentions only this passage in connection with healing in section 2, and LSJ mentions only Hippocrates (Κωακαὶ προγώσιες 564) in conjunction with an illness in section A.II.2. 35. Fitzmyer (Luke, 2:1011) argues that, in light of the prior pericope in the narrative, which emphasizes “the need of repentance and timely reform,” this synagogue leader and all of Jesus’ opponents are “prime examples of those who stand in need of such reform.” A similar type of argument is made by Doering (Schabbat, 467), who states that for Luke perhaps the Sabbath Halakah is less the center of attention than the correlation between the synagogue leader and the unfruitful tree. 36. See, for example, m. Yoma 8:6.

Jesus, Sabbath Actions, and Divine Sabbath Work

115

his response, however, Jesus moves the focus off the legal Halakah and onto the character and nature of the Sabbath day. This is a decisive move that proves, at least for this pericope, that Jesus is not acting on the Sabbath simply to engage with Jewish leaders on the issue of their authority. Instead, he acts on the Sabbath because it is in keeping with his larger mission. Jesus’ response generally falls along the lines of a lesser-to-greater argument. First he acknowledges the actuality of Sabbath practice among Jews: “Does not each of you on the Sabbath untie his ox or his donkey from its stall, and lead it to water?” This is both an expression of agricultural reality regarding the care of animals and an expression of the humanitarian concern fundamental to the Sabbath commands in the Hebrew Scriptures. Using this as the “lesser,” Jesus immediately moves to the “greater”: “Then shouldn’t this woman, a daughter of Abraham whom Satan bound for eighteen long years, be released from this imprisonment on the Sabbath day?” The most important thing to discuss here is the analogy Jesus is making between the treatment of this woman and the treatment of animals. On the surface, Jesus makes a simple lesser-to-greater connection between animals and this woman: on the Sabbath day, animals are “untied” (λύει) from their bonds and led to water. In the same way, it is perfectly appropriate for this woman to “be released” (λυθῆναι) from her bonds on the Sabbath—even more so because she is not a simple farm animal but a “daughter of Abraham.” It is true to say that on a certain level the analogy does function in this way, but to view it only in this way is incomplete. There is an escalation in Jesus’ argument far beyond the simple recognition that a person is in view now instead of an animal. First, Jesus does not refer to the woman qua woman. More than this, she is identified as a “daughter of Abraham” (θυγατέρα Ἀβραάμ). This appellation makes the center of Jesus’ focus her identity as an Israelite: she is connected to the covenant that God made with Abraham. 37 Thus, Jesus introduces an entirely new dynamic into the equation that evokes her relationship to God as a member of the covenant community, not just as a member of the human race. 38 Second, Jesus speaks of her condition with terms that evoke the imagery of imprisonment or bondage. Jesus uses the verb ἔδησεν, from the root δέω, and the noun δεσμός to refer to her state. These words frequently refer to literal imprisonment, 39 and the imagery would not be lost in this instance. Third, Jesus states that her condition of bondage to this infirmity is due to Satanic oppression of some sort. His reference to Satan as the one 37. Contra Luke Timothy Johnson (The Gospel of Luke [SP 3; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1991], 212), who argues that essentially the animal-human comparison is in view. 38. As Fitzmyer (Luke, 2:1013) notes, the similar appellation of “son of Abraham” will be applied to Zacchaeus, so a similar dynamic is also in view in that pericope. 39. See BDAG, “δέω,” 221–22; LSJ, “δέω,” 383; BDAG, “δεσμός,” 219, section 1; LSJ, “δεσμός,” 380, §§1–2.

116

Chapter 4

who has bound the woman makes this clear in itself and, in conjunction with the narrator’s statement that the woman had a “spirit of infirmity” in v. 11, this implication becomes unavoidable. The convergence of these three allusions—the woman’s heritage as an Israelite, her infirmity as a form of bondage or imprisonment, and the influence of Satan—point to a specific image underlying the event: Israel and the exodus. This will be explained more fully below. Based on this allusion, then, Jesus closes his argument by pointing out that the Sabbath day is in fact the most fitting day for this woman to be released from her infirmity. To close the account, the narrator indicates the response to Jesus of all involved: the humiliation of his adversaries on the one hand and the rejoicing of the crowds because of his works on the other hand. The use of the Sabbath in the pericope.  The place of the Sabbath in this pericope is quite important. It first serves to highlight the setting for Jesus’ actions. As v. 10 indicates, on this day Jesus was teaching in one of the synagogues. On the surface, this appears to be simply an indication of which day of the week is in view. This is true in that it explains both Jesus’ teaching and the controversy that ensues. There is a greater allusion, however, that must be taken into account within the Lukan narrative. As mentioned above, Jesus had not entered a synagogue since the inception of the Jerusalem journey, and he had recently identified the synagogue as a place of possible persecution for his followers. The question must be asked why Jesus would enter the synagogue at this point. Green makes a cogent argument that this return to the synagogue is meant to evoke Jesus’ Galilean ministry, especially his preaching at the synagogue in Nazareth. This is done through Luke’s organization of three factors: synagogue, Sabbath, and Jesus’ teaching. 40 In addition, the very content of the pericope harks back to Jesus’ preaching in the synagogue at Nazareth through the concept of “release.” 41 The question must then be asked, What was the central message of Jesus’ preaching in the synagogue in Nazareth? Jesus’ preaching in the synagogue in Nazareth is recorded in Luke 4:16– 30. This pericope is programmatic for Jesus’ ministry in Luke because the author has intentionally placed the pericope in its present location. It is clear, based on a comparison of Luke 4:23 with 4:31–44 and with the parallel account in Mark 6:1–6, that Luke has intentionally moved this event forward in the narrative, out of strict chronological sequence. Within the narrative, this event is positioned as the beginning of Jesus’ Galilean ministry. This sort of intentional shift is an indication of the importance and programmatic nature it holds for the author. Furthermore, the content of

40. Green, Luke, 519. 41. Green, Luke, 519.

Jesus, Sabbath Actions, and Divine Sabbath Work

117

the pericope, including the emphasis on prophetic fulfillment and antagonism toward Jesus, lends credence to this conclusion. The central message of this pericope is that Jesus is fulfilling the eschatological hope of Israel in his life and ministry. The passage quoted by Jesus is a composite citation of Isa 61:1–2a and Isa 58:6. 42 The citation is full of “release” imagery, including release from prison, regaining of sight, and freedom from oppression. The citation ends with a reference to the Year of Jubilee, detailed originally in Lev 25:10. During this year, complete release from all debt for every Israelite is to be enforced. 43 Thus the content of the message is release as a metaphor for salvation. Jesus’ proclamation after the reading of the passage indicates that its fulfillment is taking place, even as the words are being read: “Today this scripture has been fulfilled.” The word σήμερον in Luke often indicates the dawning of the age of messianic salvation, 44 and this would certainly be the case here. However, what cannot be ignored is that this preaching takes place specifically on a Sabbath. The narrative could have been recast in a more general way, which is sometimes done by means of preaching summaries in Jesus’ ministry. The question must be asked, What about the Sabbath makes Jesus’ proclamation of release significant? In conjunction with Luke 13:10–17, which also uses the Sabbath in a significant way, one must recognize the possibility that in both pericopes the Sabbath is meant to imply additional significance for Jesus’ actions. This will be discussed further below. In Luke 13:10–17, the Sabbath has vital importance because it in essence becomes the source of the controversy. Had Jesus acted to heal the woman on any other day, presumably the synagogue leader would have had no complaint. But as it is, Jesus intentionally acts to heal the woman on the Sabbath and thus provokes the leader’s ire. Consequently, within the pericope two conceptions of the Sabbath obtain. The synagogue leader through his statement shows what could be termed a traditional understanding of the Sabbath’s prohibitions on work of certain kinds. Much of the background literature indicates that acts of healing were not permitted on the Sabbath. The narrative shows without a doubt that Jesus’ act of healing was intentional. He calls out to the woman of his own accord, he speaks a word of healing to her without her making a request, and he touches the woman. Within the framework of Sabbath law understood by the leader, Jesus has overstepped his bounds. Jesus’ conception of the Sabbath is altogether different. The implication that Jesus draws in his argument is that the Sabbath above all other days is a day on which this woman should be healed. The 42. Of interest to note is that in the original context, following Isa 58:6 is an admonition for Israel to observe the Sabbath in keeping with its original intent. 43. An important theological note is that this year ultimately finds its source in the Sabbath. See discussion of Lev 23 on pp. 38–39. 44. So Bock, Luke 1:1–9:50, 412.

118

Chapter 4

Sabbath is not incidental to Jesus’ action but is in fact essential. What about the Sabbath is so central that it can become for Jesus a sign or justification for his healing action? Discussion of the pertinent Sabbath background.  As I discussed in chap. 3, the Sabbath is an important day for a variety of reasons. It is a day that celebrates God as both creator and redeemer. It is a day that symbolizes God’s gracious role as Israel’s covenant God. It is a day that looks forward to the eschatological hope and fulfillment of God’s actions. Each one of these motifs comes into play in this passage and shows the underlying reasons that Jesus considered his actions justifiable. One of the primary emphases of the Sabbath is to celebrate God as the one who redeemed Israel and brought the people out of bondage in Egypt to a place of rest and freedom, as stated in Deut 5:12–15. Israel thus should keep the Sabbath, a day of rest, as a memorial to that day. This background understanding of the Sabbath lies under the surface when Jesus acts to heal the woman. He in fact invokes this background through two concepts: the reference to the woman as a “daughter of Abraham” and the use of bondage imagery. Referring to the woman as a daughter of Abraham emphasizes her identity as an Israelite. She is a member of the covenant community that was created when it was called out of Egypt by God, a covenant community to whom the laws regarding Sabbath observance were given. Using the bondage imagery in conjunction with this focus on her identity as an Israelite most naturally leads to a conclusion that exodus imagery is in view, especially when Deut 5 so closely connects these two concepts. In the pericope, Sabbath is not simply the day on which the healing occurs: it is the most appropriate day for the healing to occur. When the woman receives release from her infirmity, in a real sense she experiences exactly what the Sabbath is all about: freedom from bondage for her as an Israelite. Not only this, but the same actor is in place in both instances. The Sabbath commemorates God’s activity as redeemer when he led his people Israel out of bondage from Egypt. Here, through the use of Jesus as his agent, God again acts to lead this woman, an Israelite, out of bondage. On a personal level, this woman experiences physically what Sabbath is all about, and on a symbolic level, she represents the Sabbath that God uses to bring salvation to his people. Jesus makes this a central aspect of his action, indeed, his raison d’être. The Sabbath is also viewed as a day on which God graciously gives blessings to his people. This is more generally what could be said about Jesus’ point for acting on this day. Numerous passages point to this aspect of the Sabbath. The central Sabbath passage, Gen 2:1–3, implies that rest is a paradigm for this day and that by observing the Sabbath humanity enjoys the same rest as God does. A major aspect of Exod 16 is the Sabbath as a means through which God abundantly provides for his people. Exodus 20:8–11 exalts God as a Creator who extends life and breath to his creation.

Jesus, Sabbath Actions, and Divine Sabbath Work

119

Exodus 31:12–17 connects Sabbath to God’s sanctification of his people. Throughout Leviticus, many of the important festival days are linked to the Sabbath; they take on its character as a special day, and their emphases are echoed back onto the Sabbath, from which they derive. As discussed above, Deut 5:12–15 exalts God as redeemer, the one who granted his people rest from bondage. Psalm 92 emphasizes the creation motif as well as God’s vindication of the righteous and judgment of the wicked. In Isa 56:1–8, the Sabbath becomes a soteriological key through which God’s salvation will be extended both to Israel and to the world. In 1 Macc 9:43–49, God is depicted as helping his servants obtain victory over their enemies on the Sabbath. In Names 259–60, Philo depicts the day as the time when God pours out his blessings on the universe. Throughout the background literature, there is continual emphasis on the Sabbath as a day on which God seeks to bless his people. This forms a current that runs throughout the theological conception of the Sabbath. This broad view of the day would certainly be in view here, because Jesus positions himself as the one who specifically brings the blessing of God to this woman. What better day would there be to experience the blessing of God? No other day but the Sabbath, for the Sabbath is the day par excellence on which God works to bless his people. 45 The larger question of eschatological import is also in play here. The Sabbath was a day of eschatological significance. Would the Sabbath as a sign of eschatological fulfillment be in effect in the healing of the woman? Was this healing a sign that the new age had come? These questions can be answered positively based on the argument already made that the event in Luke 13:10–17 is meant to hark back to Jesus’ preaching in the synagogue in Nazareth, which itself is a proclamation of the eschatological fulfillment present in Jesus’ ministry. Jesus’ healing of the woman is an inbreaking of this eschatological fulfillment into the present age. How does Jesus fit into this picture? Is he simply acting as God’s agent, or is he acting as God? Within the foundational portrait offered above, Jesus’ actions in healing the bent-over woman naturally place him in the role of an eschatological prophet who acts as God’s agent to distribute his blessings. There is no indication in the pericope that any other association with God is being made. Jesus acts to bring blessing on the woman in keeping with the character of the Sabbath day. Thus, Jesus shows himself to be God’s agent, who understands more than the Judaism of his day that the Sabbath 45. For a similar argument, see Bock, Luke 9:51–24:53, 1218–19; François Bovon, L’Évangile selon Saint Luc (9,51–14,35) (CNT 3B; Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1996), 360. For a theologically developed argument that appeals directly to God’s working on the Sabbath, a claim that I do not think can be sustained for this event from the background materials, see Arthur A. Just Jr., Luke 9:51–24:53 (Concordia Commentary; Saint Louis: Concordia, 1997), 542. For commentators who do not mention this line of thought, see, for example, Marshall, Luke, 559; Nolland, Luke 1–9:20, 724–25; Green, Luke, 523–26.

120

Chapter 4

is meant to be a day of blessing for Israel and who acts to bring about this blessing. John 5:1–30 John 5 begins a new major section in the narrative of the Gospel. 46 Jesus had already performed two signs in Cana in Galilee 47 and conducted two private, telling interviews. 48 The author indicates by the inclusion of the temple cleansing in John 2:12–22 that in some way his ministry was going against the established religious system and its leaders. 49 John 5 marks a decided change to more public ministry by Jesus and more pronounced opposition to him by his opponents. Historicity of the pericope.  In light of scholarly skepticism regarding the event in John 5:1–30, a short discussion of its historicity is in order. 50 The very first issue on which one must pass judgment is the global question of Jesus’ miracles. As I concluded in chap. 2 after interaction with Meier, the tradition of Jesus’ miracles satisfies the criterion of multiple attestation more than any other tradition about him. 51 The next issue on which one must pass judgment is the relation of this pericope to the healing of the paralytic in Mark 2:1–12. It has often been asserted that these two passages are in fact different renderings of the same historical event and that the two paralytics are the same man in reality. Even Chrysostom was familiar with the view that the paralytic in John 5 was the same as in Matt 9:1–8, which is parallel with Mark 2:1–12. 52 There are indeed some similarities between the two pericopes: Jesus’ words in John 5:8 parallel the words in Mark 2:9, 46. Brown (John I–XII, xi) lists it as the beginning of a major section that deals with Jesus’ activity at various Jewish feasts. Carson (John, 105) lists it as the beginning of a major section that shows rising opposition to Jesus. 47. They were the turning of water into wine (2:1–11) and the healing of the nobleman’s son (4:46–54). 48. They were with Nicodemus (3:1–21) and the Samaritan woman at the well (4:1–42). 49. The placement of the cleansing of the Temple in John (2:12–22) has been perhaps the thorniest of problems in the historicity of John, because the author places it at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry, while the Synoptics place it at the end as a crucial part of the passion narrative (Matt 21:12–13, Mark 11:15–19, Luke 19:45–46). It is beyond the scope of this book to propose a solution to the problem of its historicity in the Gospel of John. However, I believe it can be said from a narrative viewpoint that the author means for this event to cast a long shadow over Jesus’ ministry; all of the interaction he has with the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem should be understood in light of this condemnation by Jesus of the Temple and its authorities and the resulting controversy. Either the Temple cleansing indicates that opposition to Jesus had already begun, or through foreshadowing it indicates where Jesus’ ministry would lead. 50. The historicity of the resultant controversy was addressed in chap. 2. 51. For a discussion of this criterion, see Meier, A Marginal Jew, 174–75; and Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz, The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide (trans. John Bowden; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998), 115–18. 52. See Chrysostom, Hom. Jo. 37.

Jesus, Sabbath Actions, and Divine Sabbath Work

121

they both use the rare and late word κράβαττος, 53 and there is a connection in both between the illness and sin. 54 Despite these similarities, however, there are differences that indicate that the two accounts are separate and distinct. Raymond Brown lists three: “in setting: Capernaum vs. Jerusalem; in local details: a man brought to a house by his friends and lowered through the roof vs. a man lying at the side of a pool; in emphasis: a miracle illustrative of Jesus’ power to heal sin vs. a healing with only passing reference to sin.” 55 These differences are striking enough that even Robert Funk, Roy Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar acknowledge that they are distinct. 56 C. H. Dodd argues that the similarity of the commands to the paralytic in Mark 2:11 (ἔγειρε ἆρον τὸν κράβαττόν σου καὶ ὕπαγε εἰς τὸν οἶκόν σου) and John 5:9 (ἔγειρε ἆρον τὸν κράβαττόν σου καὶ περιπάτει) are due to the formation of the forms in the tradition, which would have added appropriate words for Jesus to enact the healing, and not to any explicit borrowing by the author of the Gospel of John. 57 Therefore, the scholarly opinion is fairly settled that John 5:1–9 and Mark 2:1–12 do not relate the same event. There are now three other factors to consider regarding historicity: one grammatical, one geographical, and one literary. There is a great deal of discussion about the way in which Jesus learns about the man’s condition. John 5:6 reads τοῦτον ἰδὼν ὁ Ἰησοῦς κατακείμενον καὶ γνοὺς ὅτι πολὺν ἤδη χρόνον ἔχει, λέγει αὐτῷ· θέλεις ὑγιὴς γενέσθαι (“Jesus, having seen him lying there and having learned that he had been in that condition a long time, said to him, ‘Do you want to be made well?’”). There is intense focus on the means by which Jesus knew about the man’s condition. Often supernatural knowledge is seen as the means. 58 The grammatical construction of this verse, however, may point away from supernatural knowledge. The verb ἔχει in the phrase γνοὺς ὅτι πολὺν ἤδη χρόνον ἔχει is best classified as an extending-from-past present; the verb indicates an

53. BDAG, “κράβαττος,” 563; LSJ, “κράβαττος,” 988. 54. See John 5:14 and Mark 2:5. 55. Brown, John I–XII, 208–9. 56. Funk et al. (The Five Gospels, 414) state concerning John 5:1–9, Mark 2:1–12, and Acts 3:1–10, “Although these stories differ from one another in important ways, they have enough in common to suggest that they share a single oral tradition.” However, a “shared oral tradition” is immediately defined so that the uniqueness of each pericope can remain intact: “A shared oral tradition may mean only that the pattern for telling a story of this type became fixed at an early date.” The pericopes are only related in form, then, not content. 57. C. H. Dodd, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963), 176–77. 58. For example, Barrett, St. John, 254; Brown, John I–XII, 207; Carson, John, 243; Frederic Louis Godet, Commentary on John’s Gospel (trans. Timothy Dwight; repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 1978), 458; Haenchen, John 1, 1:245; B. F. Westcott, The Gospel according to St. John (repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1980), 183.

122

Chapter 4

action that was begun in the past and extends into the present. 59 This is apt, given the context of the man’s condition, the adverbial modifier ἤδη, and the attributive adjective πολύν modifying χρόνον. 60 However, this is not the only way the verb is used. The present tense is used here also as a present retained in indirect discourse. It is introduced by a declarative ὅτι, and it follows a verb of perception. 61 Based on these grammatical features, the inference could be made that Jesus was either told by someone else about the man’s condition or he observed it; from the standpoint of the narrative, then, he did not learn of it through supernatural means. 62 To support this point, another argument can be made: the author’s discussion of what Jesus knew is less specific than what had been mentioned earlier in the narrative. In John 5:5, the author specifically mentions the length of time that the man had been an invalid—38 years. However, in the very next verse, the author mentions only that Jesus knew he had been sick “a long time.” If the author had wanted to stress Jesus’ supernatural knowledge here, he would have made Jesus’ knowledge at least as specific as his own, if not more so. 63 If these arguments about this issue are correct, the impact on determining the historicity of the passage is clear enough. The early church or evangelists would have been reticent to introduce or create material in the Gospel record that did not manifest an exalted picture of Jesus—especially in this Gospel. Therefore, elements in the narratives that cast Jesus in a less-than-ideal light are presumed to have greater historical probability. This evidence—that either Jesus was told about the man’s condition or he observed it and did not have supernatural knowledge of it—is a very human element that the church would not create; therefore, it fits the criterion of embarrassment. Thus, it could be a historical element that goes back to Jesus himself. At the least, this interpretive option opens the door for greater historical plausibility. That Jesus knew about the man’s condition through supernatural means is certainly possible. Based on the fact that modern commentators seem to prefer the view that the author is presenting Jesus as learning about the man’s condition through supernatural means, it is reasonable to think that the ancient church, as well as scribes and editors, would have preferred this view as well. If so, the criterion of embarrassment would not apply. It is my opinion, however, that the retained indirect dis59. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics, 519–20. 60. So Buist M. Fanning, Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek (OTM; New York: Oxford University Press, 1990), 217. 61. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics, 537. See also p. 520 n. 18. 62. See Leon Morris, The Gospel according to John (rev. ed.; NICNT; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995), 268. 63. See Daniel B.  Wallace, “When Did Jesus Know? The Translation of Aorist and Perfect Participles for Verbs of Perception in the Gospels,” http://www.bible.org/page​ .php?page_id=1223 (accessed June 2008) for this argument about this passage and other arguments about the understanding and translation of these participles in general.

Jesus, Sabbath Actions, and Divine Sabbath Work

123

course points toward the option of historical probability, especially in light of the way these participles are used as a whole in the Gospels to refer to people growing in their knowledge. 64 The geographical information in the pericope centers on the pool where the man was found. It is now a well-known fact that the pool did exist. 65 Brown gives a description of it that fits very well with the information in the pericope: In this century the pool described in John has been discovered and excavated in Jerusalem on the property of the White Fathers near St. Anne’s Church. . . . The pool was trapezoidal in form, 165–220 feet wide by 315 feet long, divided by a central partition. There were colonnades on the four sides and on the partition—thus John’s “five porticoes.” Stairways in the corners permitted descent into the pools. In this hilly area the water may have come from underground drainage; some of it, perhaps, from intermittent springs. 66

The Copper Scroll from Qumran, which dates to between 35 and 65 c.e., also supports this archaeological evidence. 67 There are four main points of contact between the archaeological findings regarding this pool and the pericope in John: the five porticoes actually existed, there were ways for people to access the pool easily, there was a water source that may have been noticeable, 68 and the pool most likely existed during the time of Jesus. 69 These points of contact enable us to say with greater certainty that the healing story in John 5:1–9 is historically plausible. A final literary point to be made concerns the paralytic who is healed in this pericope. One would expect that, if the evangelist or the early church were the creator of this material, this man would act somewhat differently from the way he acts. One expects him to be more complimentary and worshipful toward Jesus, but this is not the case. In fact, he exhibits contrary qualities. He is spiritually dull (5:7). He is socially ignorant (5:13). He even 64. Again, see Wallace, “When Did Jesus Know?” 65. See the definitive study on the pool by Joachim Jeremias, The Rediscovery of Bethesda: John 5:2 (trans. J. Vardaman et al.; New Testament Archaeology 1; Louisville, KY: Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1966). 66. Brown, John I–XII, 207. 67. See 3Q15 11:12–13: “In Beth Esdatain, in the cistern, at the entrance to the ymwmyt (smallest water basin?) of it, tithe-vessels of lʾh, tithe of syrʾ.” This translation is from García Martínez and Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, 1:239. 68. This relates to the textually suspect v.  4. Even though it is not an original part of the Ġospel, John 5:4 does have claims on encapsulating an ancient tradition, and the archeological discovery of this pool proves just how ancient it may be. See Barrett, St. John, 253; Morris, John, 267–68; G.  D. Fee, “On the Inauthenticity of John 5:3b–4,” EvQ 54 (1982): 207–18. For the opposing view that regards the verse as original, see Zane C. Hodges, “The Angel at Bethesda: John 5:4,” BSac 136 (1979): 25–39. 69. Schnackenburg (St. John, 2:94) posits that the pool began humbly and was finished by Herod the Great with the erection of the porticoes.

124

Chapter 4

shows characteristics that could be called crafty or sneaky (5:15). As a person who has just been released from a lifetime of infirmity, he would make little sense as a fictional construction. 70 This man makes the most sense as a real person who, even though he was healed by Jesus, had no spiritual insight or sensitivity. Thus even in the characterization of the narrative, one can say that we are on historically plausible ground. 71 As a summary, the healing story found in John 5:1–9 has reasonable grounds to be considered historically plausible. The pericope is independent of other healing narratives in the Gospels, it highlights a rather human aspect of Jesus’ person, it is geographically accurate and appropriate, and it has a character that makes sense best as a real, live person. Thus it is fitting to use this passage as evidence of Jesus within his context. Exposition of the pericope.  The chapter begins with a story in which a man who has been an invalid for 38 years is healed at Jesus’ word (5:1–9b). Jesus goes up to Jerusalem for a feast, and while there he encounters the man at the pool of Bethzatha. After an intriguing interaction in which the man describes his lack of a helper to get down into the water, Jesus speaks to him directly and commands him to walk. The man is immediately healed and begins walking around with his mat in tow. The narrator notes in v. 9b that this day was the Sabbath. The man’s obedience to Jesus’ command and his natural response to the healing create problems for him with the Jewish authorities because they find him carrying his mat on the Sabbath, a violation of Sabbath rules; through further action in the story, involving what could be construed as a bit of subterfuge on the part of the healed man, the Jewish authorities determine that the man was healed by Jesus (5:9c–15). The controversy between Jesus and the Jews reaches full flower very quickly within the compressed time frame of the narrative: 5:16 gives a summary statement concerning Jesus’ activity on the Sabbath and the Jewish authorities’ negative reaction to him, 5:17 details Jesus’ defense of his actions, and 5:18 indicates the Jews’ response to his defense. It is in these three verses that the point of controversy is found. Jesus is doing miraculous activity on the Sabbath with consequences that cause others to violate the Sabbath. He gives a defense that positions God as his own Father and likens his work to the Father’s

70. Brown (John I–XII, 209) states, “A character such as this could have been invented, but one would expect to see clearer motivation for such a creation.” 71. The characterization of this man must be considered in light of the other characters in the narrative, most noticeably the man born blind in John 9. On the literary level, some would argue that the author created this character as a foil for the more positive character introduced later. However, within the framework from which I am arguing, it is entirely reasonable to see a principle of selection at work here, not creation; that is, the author included these two men because they embodied characteristics that fit his narrative, literary goals.

Jesus, Sabbath Actions, and Divine Sabbath Work

125

work. The Jews infer from this defense that Jesus is claiming divine status for himself, 72 and this results in attempts on Jesus’ life. 73 The rest of the chapter is an extended discourse extrapolating on the theme of divine work that was introduced in v. 17. Jesus explicates his relationship to God in terms of the Father/Son relationship and justifies his actions on the Sabbath and his entire ministry in light of this relationship. Jesus begins his defense by proclaiming in v. 19 that his actions as the Son originate in what he sees God the Father doing. This provides a perfect defense because it places his opponents in the position of opposing God. The relationship between Jesus and God is not simply based on imitation but on love between the Father and Son. In essence, Jesus acts on the Sabbath because this is what he sees the Father doing, and the Father loves the Son and shows him exactly what he is doing. Jesus further extrapolates on these actions in vv. 21–23. The Father’s actions are defined as raising the dead and giving life; the Son therefore takes on the same type of action. Within the narrative, Jesus’ healing of the invalid is to be taken as just such an example of giving of life. The Son not only takes on the Father’s work of giving life; 72. The exact issue that causes the controversy here may not be Jesus’ adversaries’ perception of a claim to divine status by Jesus but the simple fact that a claim to be Messiah was even made. On the argument that God reserved the right to identify the Messiah for himself, Jesus’ identification of himself as this Messiah would be tantamount to blasphemy, because he would have taken this divine prerogative upon himself. See J. C. O’Neill, “‘Making Himself Equal with God’ ( John 5.17–18): The Alleged Challenge to Jewish Monotheism in the Fourth Gospel,” IBS 17 (1995): 50–61. 73. There is a difference of opinion about how 5:18 should be translated. The clause in question is ἀλλὰ καὶ πατέρα ἴδιον ἔλεγεν τὸν θεὸν ἴσον ἑαυτὸν ποιῶν τῷ θεῷ. The traditional translation is as follows: “but he was also calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.” This understands the participle ποιῶν to be a participle of result related to the main verb ἔλεγεν. In this translation, the second phrase is subordinated to the first, both of which are object-complement constructions with double accusatives. On the other hand, Funk et al. (The Five Gospels, 414) translates the sentence as follows: “worse still, he would call God his Father and make himself out to be God’s equal.” John Bligh (“Jesus in Jerusalem,” HeyJ 4 [1963]: 123) also favors the latter translation but offers no support for the choice. The primary difference is that the verb ποιῶν is now parallel to ἔλεγεν. The reason offered by Funk et al. for this translation is related to the context of the narrative: Jesus is showing himself to be God based on the nature of his works. They find support for this in an extrabiblical reference in the Epistle of Heraclitus to Hermodorus that declared that Heracles was a god by “his own goodness and the most noble of his ‘works’ when he had concluded such great ‘labors’.” In this instance, the extrabiblical and contextual evidence is weak; it cannot override a strong grammatical construction with rather obvious meaning. The weakness of this argument is that the resulting translation seems to ignore the appeal that Jesus makes to divine work on the Sabbath, focusing only on his naming of God as “My Father.” Perhaps the narrative leads a way out of this dilemma. The most noticeable, obvious statement Jesus made was naming God as “My Father”; this drew the attention of the Jews first. The more subtle argument was the appeal to divine work on the Sabbath, and this was explained more carefully in the discourse that followed.

126

Chapter 4

he takes on the Father’s work of judging. This places the Son in the same position of honor as the Father. Following this basic explanation of the type of work the Father does that the Son imitates, Jesus gives an extended explanation of the giving of life with an emphasis on resurrection. Thus within the narrative, Jesus positions the type of work he is doing as Sabbath work that the Father himself does, and this is explained as judging and giving life, with an emphasis on resurrection as its ultimate expression. The use of the Sabbath in the pericope.  As in Luke 13 discussed above, the Sabbath is a key part of John 5. The historicity of this narrative has already been discussed, so I will not repeat it here. What is important to note is that the narrator positions the Sabbath in a dramatic way as the day on which the healing takes place by introducing it after the healing narrative itself. Thus he formats this important aspect of the setting by presenting the necessary information to understand the narrative in unusual order. When the controversy begins between the Jewish leaders and the man who was healed, the leaders refer to the well-known Sabbath rules that forbid his action. By carrying his mat outside of his residence, the man was in violation of one of the 39 generative categories of work prohibited on the Sabbath, as detailed in m. Šabb. 7:2. Following this initial confrontation, the controversy between Jesus and the Jewish leaders takes on a different tone. It covers a wider terrain than the occasion of this particular event, because of the way the narrative is constructed. In essence, John 5:17 is positioned as an isolated saying within the discourse; thus, this statement is presented as somewhat programmatic rather than occasional. It both expands the Sabbath controversy beyond the borders of this pericope and makes Jesus’ statement in 5:17 broader than the current context might imply. In 5:16, we read, “Because of this, then, the Jews were persecuting Jesus because he was doing these things on the Sabbath.” This verse is given as a general statement, and ταῦτα (“these things”) in the latter part of the verse is plural, referring to more than just the one event detailed in 5:1–15. 74 The main verb in 5:16, ἐδίωκον, is imperfect; this is best seen as either an ingressive imperfect, meaning that because of this controversy the Jews began their persecution of Jesus, or a customary imperfect, meaning that the action of persecuting Jesus occurred continually in the past. Broader literary and contextual factors point to the latter understanding. 75 The verb in the ὅτι clause is also 74. Bligh (“Jesus in Jerusalem,”  123) states, “John does not say in v.  16 that the Jews began to persecute Jesus because he had ordered the man to pick up his stretcher on the sabbath, but because he was performing ‘deeds like this’ on the sabbath. The pronouncement in v. 17, ‘My father is always at work, and so too am I’, is not linked chronologically with this particular cure, but with Christ’s sabbath-miracles in general.” 75. Because of the placement of the Temple cleansing earlier in the Gospel (2:12–22), it is difficult to argue from the standpoint of the narrative that the author intended this to indicate the beginning of the Jews’ persecution of Jesus. The implication is that persecution was prevalent throughout Jesus’ ministry.

Jesus, Sabbath Actions, and Divine Sabbath Work

127

imperfect 76 and best taken as customary; this would show that the healing in John 5:1–9 was meant to be representative of many other things that Jesus did on the Sabbath that the author did not record. In either case, it is a summary statement that in effect brings a minor stop to the events of the narrative. The same thing happens on the back end of the saying. John 5:18 shows the Jews’ reactions to Jesus’ defense, which involves the intent to kill: διὰ τοῦτο οὖν μᾶλλον ἐζήτουν αὐτὸν οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι ἀποκτεῖναι. The inclusion of the adverb μᾶλλον with a sense of “all the more” gives good reason to regard the imperfect verb ἐζήτουν as customary. The action of seeking to kill Jesus did not begin with his claim; it simply intensified. 77 So the author intends John 5:18 to be a general statement about how the Jews were reacting to and treating Jesus; it should not be construed as a continuation of the narrative in strict chronological order. Thus, there is disjunction between 5:17 and its context: 5:17 is a more general statement about Jesus’ work on the Sabbath, which the author connects to this specific healing and the continued persecution at the hand of the Jews. Why is this important? The author presents this healing event as being representative of Jesus’ varied Sabbath activity to provide a springboard for a programmatic explanation of Jesus’ actions. It serves to describe Jesus’ ministry as a whole. Thus, his defense of his actions and the discourse that follow should be given more weight in understanding John’s portrayal of Jesus’ Sabbath work than it might otherwise be given. The last mention of the Sabbath in John 5 is in v. 18. Here the narrator gives the reasons that the Jewish leaders were seeking to kill Jesus, one of which was that Jesus was breaking the Sabbath. This is given from the opponents’ point of view and is not meant to be a statement with which the narrator necessarily agrees. Discussion of the pertinent Sabbath background.  There is one strand of argument that deals with God’s working on the Sabbath by referring to the regulations about carrying and lifting things on the Sabbath. The argument basically proceeds in the following fashion: “(1) the entire universe is his 76. The textual variant on this word exchanges the imperfect ἐποίει for the aorist ἐποίησεν, attested by Ï75, 579, and certain Bohairic manuscripts. Some scribes must have felt a tension to tie the persecution detailed in 5:16 to the healing detailed in 5:1–9. This tie would be made by the use of the aorist, making this phrase refer to the one event. Notice that this variant is presented with a negative apparatus in NA27, indicating the editors’ belief that this variant is relevant to the history of the text but that it does not help to establish the original text. (For the function of the negative apparatus, see p. 50* in NA27.) 77. The adverb μᾶλλον can also mean “rather” in the sense of “instead” (see BDAG, “μᾶλλον,” 613–14, §3). If it has this meaning here, the sense of the statement would be changed: “Therefore because of this the Jews instead began seeking to kill him.” This would indicate a change from their previous action of persecution. This is possibly preferable because of the lack of prior references in the Gospel to attempts to kill Jesus. Even if this is so, the disconnection between the saying and its prior literary context remains.

128

Chapter 4

domain (Is. 6:3), and therefore he never carries anything outside it; (2) otherwise put, God fills the whole world ( Je. 23:24); and in any case (3) God lifts nothing to a height greater than his own stature.” 78 The primary passage for this line of argumentation is Exod. Rab. 30:9, where various rabbis argue against a sectarian who claimed that God did not keep the Sabbath. 79 In this line of thinking, God does keep the Sabbath because he does not break the Sabbath regulations. This is possibly what is in view in John 5, but more likely it is not applicable as historical background to the text at hand. No one accuses Jesus in John 5 of carrying something on the Sabbath. He does not tell the man to carry his mat on the Sabbath, but this is neither a point of contention for the Jews nor something that Jesus feels compelled to explain in the discourse that follows. There is a different line of thought that is more fruitful regarding God’s working on the Sabbath and has direct bearing on the passage under consideration. As mentioned in chap. 3 above, another line of thought in Jewish theological development was God’s working on the Sabbath with regards to the wicked and the righteous. God was free, even on the Sabbath, to deal with people as he saw fit, the two main categories of human beings being wicked and righteous. The relevant passage is Gen. Rab. 11:10. 80 Although the specific nature of the work or the acts that would constitute this work are not mentioned in this passage, the idea is fairly clear: God has rested from the work of creation, but he still works in that he punishes the wicked and rewards the righteous. So God could work on the Sabbath and not be in violation of his own established order or internal character. This does not involve Sabbath regulations that the rabbis developed about carrying a burden but God’s own work, which only he can do: dealing with the righteous and wicked. When one examines the discourse connected to the controversy in John 5, some of this idea becomes apparent. The two common themes about the Son in the remainder of the chapter are giving life and judging. Dodd states, It seems clear that our evangelist is following a generally similar line of thought when he isolates for special consideration two aspects of divine activity which are indubitably perpetual, ζωοποιεῖν and κρίνειν, and claims that Christ performs both these ‘works’. It might be held that ‘judgment’ here corresponds with ‘His work upon the wicked and His work upon the righteous’. In that case we should have to assume that the argument runs: it is admitted that God perpetually judges His world; but it has been shown (iii.17–21) that judgment is not a substantive work of God, but an inevitable accompaniment or consequence of His work for the salvation of men. Hence we must con-

78. Carson, John, 247. See discussion on p. 90. 79. See also Gen. Rab. 11:5. 80. See also Mek. Shabbata 1:120–25.

Jesus, Sabbath Actions, and Divine Sabbath Work

129

clude that the work of salvation (ζωοποιεῖν), as well as the work of judgment, is part of God’s perpetual activity. 81

The author of the narrative has understood this aspect of Jewish thought and framed the narrative in this manner. This brings us much closer to the mark in relation to the background in John 5, but we still not there. Philo provides another link for reconstructing a pattern of thought that is applicable to the passage at hand. Philo has a great deal to say about divine activity as it relates to Sabbath rest, 82 but the most appropriate teaching for illuminating the background of John 5 is his doctrine of the two powers in QE 2.68: In the first place (there is) He Who is elder than the one and the monad and the beginning. Then (comes) the Logos of the Existent One, the truly seminal substance of existing things. And from the divine Logos, as from a spring, there divide and break forth two powers. One is the creative (power), through which the Artificer placed and ordered all things; this is named “God.” And (the other is) the royal (power), since through it the Creator rules over created things; this is called “Lord.” 83

Philo conceives two different powers of God, one of which is creative power and the other is ruling power. Both of these are continually active, even on the Sabbath. The former attribute, Philo expressly says, must find continuous exercise, even on the seventh day of rest. He does not, I think, anywhere say explicitly that the attribute of kingly authority must similarly find perpetual exercise, but we may safely assume that he would not have differed from the later rabbinic ruling that God cannot rest for a moment from the moral government of the universe. 84

It is obvious from a simple reading of John 5 that John speaks of these two categories: ζωοποιεῖν being the creative power and κρίνειν being the ruling power. The conclusion that is drawn from this in John 5 is that God is performing these functions even now through Jesus. The maxim, ὁ πατήρ μου ἕως ἄρτι ἐργάζεται, is specifically true in respect of these two activities: even on the Sabbath, as always, God gives life and judges. The words which follow, κἀγὼ ἐργάζομαι, imply that the life giving work which Jesus has performed on the Sabbath is an instance of the divine activity of ζωοποίησις, and as such is exempt from the Sabbath restrictions. 85 81. Dodd, Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, 322. 82. See the discussion of appropriate texts on pp. 73–78. 83. This translation is taken from Colson et al., Philo. This argument was drawn from Dodd, Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, 322. 84. Dodd, Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, 323. 85. Dodd, Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, 323.

130

Chapter 4

So in the historical background, we find two distinct strands of thought. Mainstream Jewish thinkers saw the judgment of God as perpetually active, even on the Sabbath. The Hellenistic Judaism of Philo saw two distinct powers of God—one creative power, one ruling power—both of which were perpetually active, even on the Sabbath. Within John 5, then, the narrative alludes to a very specific concept of God with regard to his working on the Sabbath. The question remains how the narrative positions Jesus vis-à-vis this activity. In the Lukan passage, Jesus was acting in the realm of a prophet who understood the import of the Sabbath day and administered God’s blessing to the woman appropriately. In John 5, the connection is much more intimate. Here Jesus is not pictured as a healing prophet but as doing the very work of God, as being intimately connected to God through Sonship. This in itself creates a dynamic that goes beyond Jesus’ simply acting as God’s agent and moves toward Jesus’ acting in the role of God himself. This can be seen through the discourse that follows. Throughout the succeeding discourse, Jesus presents himself as the Son who sees the Father, who imitates the Father, who is loved by the Father. The actions he does are not on his own but rise out of the fact that he is intimately connected to the Father. In light of this important connection, the historicity of this Sonship motif needs to be addressed, and the meaning of Sonship in John should be summarized. The question before us now is whether Jesus referred to God as his own Father. This is an integral part of the saying and a crucial link in the controversy as it is developed in the narrative. There is no doubt that the metaphor of God as Father was well developed in Judaism; it is frequent enough in the OT and the intertestamental literature. 86 But the question we must ask is whether Jesus referred to God and himself as having a particular, special relationship. In recent times, the answer to this question was sought by looking for specific Aramaic terms that Jesus may have used that gave rise to the occurrences of Father terminology in the NT. 87 This approach has its problems, 88 and in terms of historical investigation perhaps a different 86. See, for example, Exod 4:22; Deut 32:6; Isa 63:16; Hos 11:1; Tob 13:4; Sir 23:1; 3 Macc 5:7, and many others. 87. The most notable example of this approach is Joachim Jeremias: see his Central Message of the New Testament (London: SCM, 1965); The Prayers of Jesus (trans. John Bowden et al.; SBT 2/6; Naperville, IL: Allenson, 1967); and New Testament Theology (trans. John Bowden; New York: Scribner, 1971). 88. One assertion from this investigation—that ʾabbā was the intimate address of a child to a father, akin to “daddy”—has been corrected by Jeremias (New Testament Theology, 67), who retracts a view he held earlier; James Barr, “ʾAbbā Isn’t ‘Daddy’,” JTS 39 (1988):  28–47; idem, “‘Abba, Father’ and the Familiarity of Jesus’ Speech,” Theology  91 (1988):  173–79. This correction, however, does not change the close emotional association evoked by the term; for recent balanced assessments, see Scot McKnight, A New Vi-

Jesus, Sabbath Actions, and Divine Sabbath Work

131

approach is warranted. A reasonable answer to the question can be found by looking at the occurrences of πατήρ on the lips of Jesus and examining them from the standpoint of the criteria of authenticity, specifically, multiple attestation and dissimilarity. This evidence will show that Jesus’ reference to God as his own Father is historically plausible. In the Gospels, Jesus directly speaks of God as his Father a total of 62 times. 89 Forty-two times Jesus refers to God as his Father using πατήρ plus the first-person genitive singular personal pronoun μου. 90 Nineteen times Jesus addresses God directly, 16 times using the vocative πάτερ 91 and 3 times using the nominative ὁ πατήρ for the vocative. 92 One time Jesus uses πατήρ plus the first-person plural personal pronoun and seemingly includes himself in the plural. 93 The number and extent of the references is impressive: Jesus’ references to God as Father occur in all independent strands of the tradition, thus satisfying the criterion of multiple attestation. 94 This breadth of evidence is bolstered by further evidence outside the Gospels. The use of the phrase αββα ὁ πατήρ in Rom 8:15 and Gal 4:6 is critical. Fitzmyer argues that ʾabbā “was preserved in [ Jesus’] own mothertongue, even in Greek-speaking communities, precisely as the sign of his sion for Israel (Studying the Historical Jesus; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999), 49–65; Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 549–53, 715–18. 89. The following evidence does not include oblique references of Jesus to God as his father but only references in which Jesus speaks directly of God as his father. If added to the evidence, the oblique references, in which Jesus appears to speak of himself in the third person (e.g., Matt 16:27; Mark 13:32; Luke 9:26; the greater part of John 5), would strengthen the case considerably. It is clear that the references discussed below refer to God either because of additional modifiers (cf. Matt 7:21, which includes the prepositional phrase ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς as a modifier, and Matt 15:13, which uses the adjective οὐράνιος as a modifier) or because of context (cf. John 2:16, where Jesus refers to the Jerusalem Temple as “my father’s house”). 90. Matt 7:21; 10:32, 33; 11:27; 12:50; 15:13; 16:17; 18:10, 19, 35; 20:23; 26:29, 53; Luke 2:49; 10:22; 22:29; 24:49; John 2:16; 5:17, 43; 6:32, 40; 8:19 (twice), 49, 54; 10:18, 25, 29, 37; 14:2, 7, 20, 21, 23; 15:1, 8, 10, 15, 23, 24; 20:17. 91. Matt 11:25; 26:39; 26:42; Luke 10:21; 22:42; 23:34, 46; John 11:41; 12:27, 28; 17:1, 5, 11, 21, 24, 25. 92. Matt 11:26; Mark 14:32; Luke 10:21. 93. Matt 6:9. 94. Mark: 14:32 (= Matt 26:39/Luke 22:42, with modifications). Q: 10:21 (= Matt 11:25–26/Luke 10:21); 10:22 (= Matt 11:27/Luke 10:22); 11:2 (= Matt 6:9/ [Luke 11:2, which is not included in the above evidence since it is not clear that Jesus is speaking directly about God as his father]). Material unique to Matthew: 7:21; 10:32, 33; 12:50; 15:13; 16:17; 18:10, 19, 35; 20:23; 26:29, 42, 53. Material unique to Luke: 2:49; 22:29; 23:34 (this verse is textually suspect), 46; 24:49. Material unique to John: 2:16; 5:17, 43; 6:32, 40; 8:19, 49, 54; 10:18, 25, 29, 37; 11:41; 12:27, 28; 14:2, 7, 20, 21, 23; 15:1, 8, 10, 15, 23, 24; 17:1, 5, 11, 21, 24, 25; 20:17.

132

Chapter 4

use of it. . . . Such preservation is a strong argument for the recollection of a term used by the historical Jesus himself.” 95 This unique preservation of an expression containing both Aramaic and Greek in the predominately Greek-speaking church is a sign of its authenticity. Adding strength to this argument is the criterion of dissimilarity. Direct address of God as “Father” does not appear in the OT, and it is extremely rare in postcanonical Jewish literature. 96 The same is true of the early church: God is never addressed as “my Father” outside the Gospels except by the risen Lord. 97 Thus it meets the criterion of dissimilarity: it differs from the culture of Judaism and the early church, both of which refer to God as Father in a corporate sense. From this evidence, then, one can conclude that Jesus’ reference to God as “my Father” rests on historically plausible footing. What then does this Sonship mean in John? John uses the Sonship motif uniquely of Jesus; Jesus is the only one who can be called the Son, and he is the only one who can call God Father. This marks Jesus as distinct and uniquely related to God: he does the Father’s will perfectly, shares in the Father’s work, and enjoys intimate fellowship with the Father. 98 Thus by using the Sonship motif, the evangelist is emphasizing the unique, intimate relationship of Jesus to God, and by using the motif of Sabbath action, the evangelist places Jesus in a position of acting as only God can act. There is a pregnant sense of ontology present in the passage, and the issue of divine Sabbath work is one of the two means by which this is achieved. Jesus is the Son in close association with the Father, not only in his action of healing the man on the Sabbath, but also in the discourse that follows. There, Jesus implies that the healing just enacted was an act that gave life. 95. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “Abba and Jesus’ Relation to God,” in À cause de l’évangile (ed. Joseph A. Fitzmyer; LD; Paris: Saint-André/Cerf, 1985), 31. 96. Jeremias (The Prayers of Jesus, 24–26) refers to the ‫אהבה רבה‬, the second benediction, which introduced the morning Shema, and the New Year Litany, both of which contain the phrase ‫אבינו מלכנו‬, but he rightly argues that this address relates the fatherhood of God to his kingship over the people of God. He states further on p. 29 that “there is as yet no evidence in the literature of ancient Palestinian Judaism that ‘my Father’ is used as a personal address to God.” The Qumran literature does have two instances of this phenomenon, which were unknown to Jeremias. In 4Q372 1:16, Joseph in prayer refers to God as “my father and my God” (‫ ;)אבי ואלהי‬see Douglas M. Gropp et al., Wadi Daliyeh II and Qumran Cave 4, XXVIII (DJD 28; Oxford: Clarendon, 2001), 167–69. In 4Q460 9 1:6, in the context of an individual’s prayer to God, the author addresses God directly as “my Father and my Lord” (‫ ;)אבי ואדוני‬see Stephen J. Pfann, Qumran Cave 4, XXVI: Cryptic Texts and Miscellanea, Part 1 (DJD 36; Oxford: Clarendon, 2000), 382–83. 97. Revelation 2:28; 3:5, 21. The only exception might be Rom 8:15 and Gal 4:6, mentioned above, where the phrase αββα ὁ πατήρ is used. It can be argued, however, that in each of these occurrences the emphasis is on the Christian community in relationship with God, not the individual. 98. See D. R. Bauer, “Son of God,” DJG, 774–75, for verses and discussion.

Jesus, Sabbath Actions, and Divine Sabbath Work

133

Jesus continues in the discourse to connect himself with the Father, this time by giving eternal life (v. 24), which can alternatively be pictured as resurrection (vv. 25, 28–29). Thus the line of thought is as follows: Jesus acts to heal the invalid man on the Sabbath. This is an example of the Father’s divine Sabbath work of giving life, which Philo explains as the continually active creative power of God. The Son performs the same work by giving life through healing as well as giving eternal life, expressed through resurrection. Because the Father is the only one who can raise the dead, and Jesus makes this claim for himself, this passage is very nearly making a statement about the identity of Jesus in terms of actions restricted to the Father. John 5, in comparison with other passages that use the Sabbath as a key part of the narrative, focuses more closely on Jesus’ identity vis-à-vis God. This is achieved through the dual use of the motif of Sonship and the motif of Sabbath work. Within the passage, these two motifs are intimately connected. Why does Jesus act as he does and perform healings on the Sabbath, both in this particular instance and throughout his ministry? It is because, as the Son, he sees the Father doing this. What is the nature of this work? As explained in Philo, it is creative power and ruling power—two powers of God that are continually being exercised. The creative power finds expression in Jesus’ acts of healing and in the giving of life; the ruling power finds expression in his authority both to act in imitation of the Father and to judge as the Father directs. Thus Jesus as the Son acts just as the Father does. This Sabbath work forms a basis for understanding Jesus’ actions in his ministry as well as his identity as the Son who acts as the Father does. These in turn explain the negative reaction of the Jews who were opposing Jesus at this point. They saw Jesus acting in a way that only God could act, or at least in a way that was too congruent with God for their comfort. They heard him use the motif of Sonship to associate himself with God in a very intimate way. They saw a man take on actions and identity that were associated with God. Their desire to kill Jesus was plausible from within their context, because he had, through his Sabbath work and proclamation of Sonship, put himself in a position where only God should be.

Conclusion When examining how the concept of Sabbath work is used of Jesus in the Gospels, we find that there is no overt reference to divine Sabbath activity. The closest approximation is John 5:17, but even this passage is somewhat cryptic. Although there are explicit references to divine Sabbath work in the background literature, there is no clear, one-to-one correspondence between the type of work that those passages indicate God does and what Jesus does on the Sabbath. At the same time, Jesus’ Sabbath actions must be explained in some way. The traditional explanation is hardly sufficient for every passage that highlights Jesus’ Sabbath actions; much more is going on

134

Chapter 4

under the surface. There are emphases in the background literature that fit well within Jesus’ Gestalt. How is one to assess the evidence as it has been presented? As has been said previously, Jesus acted with intention on the Sabbath. The interpreter is left with a situation that requires explanation, because Jesus chose to do what he did. The best solution is to view the passages on a spectrum of sorts. John 5 is the passage that most clearly refers to divine Sabbath work and makes a connection between God’s continual work and Jesus’ Sabbath work. The connection comes to light when Jesus’ statements and his discourse are examined in light of Philo’s doctrine of the two powers. Here are two powers of God, creative power and ruling power, that are continually active and that find ready counterparts in Jesus’ discourse about himself that follows his proclamation about working as the Father does. Other passages are farther down the spectrum. Luke 13, for example, does not explicitly refer to divine Sabbath work but does picture Jesus with a full understanding of the meaning of the day and its implication for Israel. He works on this day because a woman of Israel needs to be freed from her infirmity, and this healing symbolizes all that the Sabbath means: God frees Israel from oppression, releasing the people to rest. Other passages, such as Luke 4, do not evoke the background of divine Sabbath work at all but, instead, rely on the eschatological significance of the Sabbath to provide their meaning. How are these differences to be explained? Why is divine Sabbath work prominent in one passage but nonexistent in another? First, as is clear from the background information, there is no systematic theology of divine Sabbath work that is consistently found throughout the background literature. To be sure, there are glimpses of it here and there, but there is no regular, unified presentation of the idea on which Jesus could consistently act or on which a Gospel author could depend. This becomes clear when we compare divine Sabbath work with other ideas, such as the kingship of God or the covenant between God and Israel. These ideas are regularly, consistently, and systematically described in the literature. Divine Sabbath work is not as clearly expressed. Second, Jesus may have understood the inherent ideas that were later given expression in rabbinic exegesis but, since most of the clear writing on divine Sabbath work was not contemporary with him, he probably was not evoking these ideas. The most likely situation was that, as an eschatological prophet who was announcing the kingdom of God, Jesus understood better than his contemporaries that the Sabbath was a day for God to graciously give his blessings to human beings. The Sabbath commands had this idea at their root, and Jesus acted on the Sabbath to reorient the Judaism of his day back to this more appropriate understanding of the Sabbath. Third, individual Gospel authors who knew this background probably used it to frame their narratives when it fit their purposes. John more than

Jesus, Sabbath Actions, and Divine Sabbath Work

135

the other Gospels has a Christology that is framed “from heaven down.” It is understood from the beginning that Jesus is divine, and the bulk of the narrative is spent showing how his disciples on earth gradually came to understand this. It would have made excellent sense for John to use divine Sabbath work to illuminate Jesus’ activities, which appears to be what he was doing in John 5. In a different vein, the Synoptic Gospels present Jesus “from the earth up.” They do not have categories for ontological deity as such, at least early on in the accounts, so they are more likely fitting Jesus into a different mold. This seems to be the case in Luke 13. Jesus is presented as the prophet who understands the true meaning of the Sabbath and acts accordingly to heal the crippled woman. In short, the concept of divine Sabbath work does have an impact on certain passages in the Gospels, but its application is not uniform or universal. The interpreter must sift carefully to find the passages that do evoke this context. It is my opinion that John 5 is the only passage to do so explicitly.

Chapter 5

Summary, Assessment, and Future Direction Summary The purpose of this final chapter is to restate carefully the goal of my research and its results in order to contribute to Jesus studies that address the question of Jesus’ Sabbath actions. This book at its root is an attempt to answer these questions: What did Jesus mean when he stated in John 5:17, “My Father is working until now, and I too am working”? To what type of work was he referring? What did he mean to imply about himself in this statement? The context of John 5, with its emphasis on Jesus’ Sabbath actions, implies that Sabbath work is involved on the part of both Jesus and God. This entire study was thus organized to investigate the concept of divine Sabbath work and to apply this concept to Jesus and his actions on the Sabbath. In order to provide focus for the work, I consciously organized the research around the validation or negation of this hypothesis: Jesus’ Sabbath activity can be explained through the concept of divine Sabbath work. As I discussed in chap. 1, divine Sabbath work is a neglected aspect of interpretation and commentary on Jesus’ Sabbath actions. Most all of the current discussion centers on Jesus’ interpretation of Torah vis-à-vis the Jewish leaders’ interpretation. This is lopsided, especially because John 5 so clearly references divine activity relative to the Sabbath. Investigation of divine Sabbath work can provide an appropriate cultural context for understanding Jesus’ actions. As a historical Jesus study, this book presents a verifiable aspect of Jesus’ contemporary context that elucidates his life and ministry. I began with a defense of the historicity of Sabbath controversy in Jesus’ life. Many scholars still view Sabbath controversy as a retrojection of the early church back into the life of Jesus. When the early church decisively broke with Judaism, the celebration of the Sabbath became a major line of demarcation. Thus the church made Sabbath controversy part of Jesus’ life in order to justify and explain its own battle (so the reasoning goes). This theory, as many others dealing with similar issues, does not stand up under the evidence. The criterion of multiple attestation shows beyond a reasonable doubt that Jesus clashed with religious leaders over Sabbath observance. Controversy of this type appears in all strands of the tradition and in various forms. It is also linked carefully to the miracle material; this 136

Summary, Assessment, and Future Direction

137

provides further corroboration of its historicity. With this foundation laid, I moved on to an examination of the relevant background materials. I examined all the major bodies of literature related to the NT to find references to the Sabbath that would explain divine Sabbath work and provide material to validate my hypothesis. An ancillary goal for chap. 3 was to find in the thinking of Jesus’ time, through this literature that illustrates the conceptual and cultural cognitive environment of the NT, references to the Sabbath that would explain Jesus’ actions, even if the passage did not involve divine Sabbath work specifically. Understandably, a wealth of material was uncovered that touches on the Sabbath, and this can be organized based on four major emphases found that are related to the topic at hand. First, there are passages that explicitly mention God as working. Usually found in contexts discussing creation, these passages speak of work that God continued even after he entered his period of Sabbath rest. Specific types of work mentioned are creation, rewarding the righteous, and administering justice to the wicked. Second, there are many passages that refer to the Sabbath as it is connected to the work of God in some fashion. For example, both of the Decalogue Sabbath commands, in Exod 20 and Deut 5, refer to the work of God. Exodus 5 refers to God’s work in creation, and Deut 5 refers to God’s work of salvation in the exodus. Other passages refer to God’s administering of blessing and benefit to mankind on the Sabbath. These are fruitful passages to examine because they, more than others, provide a theological framework for understanding the Sabbath and what it was to mean for Israel. Third, many passages refer to the Sabbath in light of eschatology. The Sabbath became a sign of the future work of God in the eschaton, a precursor of the age to come. This was grounded both in the rest on the Sabbath day and in its holiness. Fourth, a number of passages speak of God’s agents and their activities on the Sabbath. Some of these agents abrogated or ignored Sabbath commands but were not censured. Even though only one of these categories directly applies to the topic at hand, the others are fruitful to examine and catalog because they provide a control for our results and for other interpretive possibilities in relation to understanding Jesus’ actions. The chronological development of the references to the Sabbath is quite interesting to observe. The Sabbath in the Hebrew Scriptures is a day filled with theological significance that explains God’s actions on behalf of his people Israel. It is a day that commemorates his creation of the world and his creation of Israel as his people. It is a day that signifies the loving covenant relationship that God and Israel share. It is a day that brings blessing to Israelites as they sanctify it and enter the rest available on the Sabbath. The Hebrew Scriptures speak with a unified voice on the nature and intent of the Sabbath in the life of Israel. Outside the Hebrew Scriptures, however, the tenor of references to the Sabbath changes somewhat. There are still strands of thought from

138

Chapter 5

Scripture that continue to be discussed, such as the eschatological emphasis of the Sabbath, but there is a decided change as well. The rise of Sabbath Halakah began in the Second Temple period, and this legal expression became the primary theological approach to the Sabbath as Judaism came to terms with the oppressive world in which it found itself. With this change, however, certain characteristics of the Sabbath were no longer emphasized. Instead of focusing on the joy of the day and what it signified regarding the Israelites’ relationship with God, the people turned to the Sabbath as an identity marker to distinguish themselves from the nations. This emphasis is found throughout the nonbiblical background literature. There are flashes of theological insight, but by and large the reasoning in the Hebrew Scriptures no longer holds currency in the intertestamental and postbiblical periods. After the background literature was examined, my next goal was to apply this context to Jesus and his Sabbath actions. The best way to do this was to take both a global and a particular approach. First, I examined Jesus and divine Sabbath work from the global perspective of his ministry as an eschatological prophet who announced the kingdom of God and actualized it in his ministry. Jesus is best seen as emphasizing two concepts regarding the Sabbath that appear in the background literature. First, Jesus understands the basic intent of the day and what it symbolizes regarding God’s love and care for his people. He acts on the Sabbath because this day above all others epitomizes God’s blessings given to his people. Second, the eschatological import of the day serves as a fitting frame for his eschatological actions of healing and exorcism. To understand Jesus’ work from the more focused perspective, I found two representative passages that most clearly used the concepts from the background literature that I had delineated in chap. 3 of this book: Luke 13 and John 5. Luke 13 does not explicitly refer to the concept of divine Sabbath work. However, Luke pictures Jesus as an eschatological prophet who understands the meaning of the Sabbath better than his contemporaries. It is the most fitting day of all days of the week for an Israelite woman to be healed on, because it is the day that commemorates God’s act of deliverance during the exodus of Israel from Egypt. John 5 most clearly evokes the concept of divine Sabbath work duscussed in the background literature by presenting Jesus as performing the same sorts of action that God performs on the Sabbath: giving life and judging.

Assessment In any investigation, an assessment is warranted to determine the value of the results. As has been stated already, this study was organized to validate or negate the hypothesis that Jesus’ Sabbath actions can be explained in light of the background concept of divine Sabbath work and that his actions

Summary, Assessment, and Future Direction

139

may have constituted an implicit claim to deity. After working through the background evidence and applying this literary context to a global picture of Jesus’ life and to two particular passages, I conclude that the hypothesis is true in a limited way. There are key passages that explicitly refer to divine Sabbath work and a large number of passages that connect the Sabbath to specific actions by God, but there is no direct, frequent connection in the Gospels between what Jesus did on the Sabbath and explicit divine Sabbath work as it appears in the background materials. There is merit in this study, however, because of the controls built into the process. From the beginning, I thought it necessary not only to examine passages that directly refer to divine Sabbath work but also to examine passages in the background material that might explain Jesus’ actions as being based on some other concept. This has proven fruitful, for there are many passages that provide a conceptual grid for understanding the Sabbath, and these concepts have greater influence on our understanding of Jesus’ actions: (1) The Sabbath was an eschatological sign, and this would have been an appropriate day for Jesus to act with healings and exorcisms, which have an eschatological flavor. (2) The Sabbath was a day that commemorated and symbolized God’s blessings to Israel, and Jesus would have acted in keeping with this underlying understanding in extending God’s blessing to needy Israelites through healing. (3) On the Sabbath, God’s agents in past unusual circumstances had taken the liberty to abrogate or ignore Sabbath restrictions, and Jesus who keenly felt the eschatological import of his ministry would also have felt free to do this as needed in his ministry. These three concepts prove more fruitful in understanding Jesus’ Sabbath actions as a whole than the more restricted category of divine Sabbath work. An ancillary goal of this study was to provide a different interpretive grid for understanding Jesus’ Sabbath actions than the commonly held interpretation that Jesus was in a battle over interpretations of the law. By understanding Jesus’ Sabbath actions in light of these other three findings, I am able to provide a different grid. His Sabbath actions are clearer and more important than we previously understood. The three results of this research provide a deeper theological understanding of his praxis and reveal the heart of his redemptive, eschatological plan.

Future Lines of Study I recognize two topics that need to be addressed in future research on my topic. First, more work needs to be done to isolate key terminology for investigation. The terms used regarding the Sabbath or regarding work on the Sabbath are numerous, but because of the limited scope of this study I was not able to delve into them. The preeminent term is ‫שׁבת‬. The noun form ‫ שַׁ ּבָת‬designating the specific day of the week (“the Sabbath,” that is, the seventh day of the week) appears 111 times in the MT. Related to this

140

Chapter 5

term is the word ‫ שַׁ ּבָתֹון‬, used 5 times alone and 6 times with the construct of ‫ ;שַׁ ּבָת‬it has various translations. Because the Sabbath was the seventh day of the week, terms related to the number 7 are also important for this study, including the cardinal numbers ‫שׁ ְבעָה‬ ִ and ‫שׁבַע‬ ֶ and the ordinal number ‫יעי‬ ִ ‫שׁ ִב‬. ְ Related to the number 7 is ‫שׁבּו ַע‬ ָ , the word for “week” (a 7-day period). The key term for work is ‫;מלָאכָה‬ ְ this is often used in conjunction with the verb ‫עׂשה‬. All of these need to be examined more fully, and the lexicographical base for this study needs to be expanded. Second, with the current study as a foundation, future work can be organized to make a better contribution to Jesus studies in particular and NT studies in general. This book was organized around a hypothesis; it was not an open-ended study as such. An open-ended study would prove valuable to Jesus and NT studies. By this, I mean a systematic investigation of the Sabbath in the background materials, or at least certain aspects of it; an organized presentation of the evidence; and an examination of Jesus’ Sabbath actions in light of this evidence. Research of this sort would seek to describe Jesus’ Sabbath activity as it exists and not measure it against one possible concept, as I have done in the current book. Thus, all aspects of the Sabbath could be examined in light of Jesus’ activity: the Sabbath as an eschatological sign, the Sabbath as a day of God’s blessing on Israel, and the agents of God who acted on the Sabbath. This research would also form a foundation on which the Sabbath as referred to throughout the NT could be examined. The Sabbath is important to understanding various Pauline passages and the book of Hebrews, for example, so a systematic investigation would also prove useful in interpreting them.

Bibliography Primary Sources Aberbach, Moses, and Bernard Grossfeld. Targum Onkelos to Genesis. New York: Ktav / Denver: Center for Judaic Studies, University of Denver, 1982. Blackman, Philip. Mishnayoth. 6 vols. Gateshead, U.K.: Judaica, 1983. Cathcart, Kevin J., and R. P. Gordon. The Targum of the Minor Prophets. The Aramaic Bible 14. Wilmington, DE: Glazier, 1989. Charles, R. H. The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon, 1913. _____  . The Ethiopic Version of the Hebrew Book of Jubilees. Oxford: Clarendon, 1895. Charlesworth, James H., ed. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. 2 vols. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983–85. Chilton, Bruce D. The Isaiah Targum. The Aramaic Bible 11. Wilmington, DE: Glazier, 1987. Clarke, Ernest G. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of the Pentateuch: Text and Concordance. Hoboken, NJ: Ktav, 1984. Collins, A. Yarbro. “Aristobulus: A New Translation and Introduction.” Pages 831–42 in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 2. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. Anchor Bible Reference Library. New York: Doubleday, 1985. Díez Macho, Alejandro, ed. Neophyti 1: Targum palestinense ms. de la Biblioteca Va­ ticana. Translated by Martin McNamara and Michael Maher. 5 vols. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, 1978. _____, ed. Neophyti 1: Targum palestinense ms. de la Biblioteca Vaticana. 5 vols. English translation by Martin McNamara and Michael Maher. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, 1978. Drazin, Israel. Targum Onkelos to Deuteronomy. New York: Ktav, 1982. Elliger, K., and W. Rudolph, eds. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1983. Epstein, I., ed. Hebrew-English Edition of the Babylonian Talmud. 30 vols. London: Soncino, 1960–90. Etheridge, J. W. The Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan Ben Uzziel on the Pentateuch with the Fragments of the Jerusalem Targum from the Chaldee. Repr., New York: Ktav, 1968. García Martínez, Florentino, and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar. The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition. 2 vols. New York: Brill, 1997–98. Harrington, Daniel J., and Anthony J. Saldarini. Targum Jonathan of the Former Prophets. The Aramaic Bible 10. Wilmington, DE: Glazier, 1987.

141

142

Bibliography

Harris, J. Rendel. Fragments of Philo Judaeus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1886. Hayward, Robert. The Targum of Jeremiah. The Aramaic Bible 12. Wilmington, DE: Glazier, 1987. Holladay, Carl R. Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors, vol. 3: Aristobulus. Texts and Translations 39. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995. Johnson, M. D. “Life of Adam and Eve: A New Translation and Introduction.” Pages 249–95 in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 2. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. Anchor Bible Reference Library. New York: Doubleday, 1985. Josephus. Translated by H. St. J. Thackeray et al. 9 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1926–65. Klein, Michael L. The Fragment-Targums of the Penteteuch according to Their Extant Sources. Analecta biblica. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1980. Lauterbach, Jacob Z., ed. Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael. 3 vols. Jewish Publication Society Library of Jewish Classics. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1933. Lieberman, Saul. Tosefot Rishonim. 4 vols. Jerusalem: Bamberger & Wahrmann, 1936–39. Migne, Jacques-Paul. Patrologiae cursus completus: Series graeca. 162 vols. Paris: Migne, 1857–86. Mirkin, Moshe Aryeh. Midrash Rabbah. 11 vols. Tel Aviv: Yavneh, 1956. Mozley, J. H. “The Vita Adae.” Journal of Theological Studies 30 (1928–29): 121–49. Mras, Karl. Eusebius Werke. Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte. Berlin: Akademie, 1983. Nestle, Eberhard, and Erwin Nestle. Novum Testamentum Graece. 27th ed. Edited by Kurt Aland et al. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1993. The NET Bible (New English Translation). 1st ed. Dallas: Biblical Studies Press, 2005. Neusner, Jacob, trans. The Mishnah: A New Translation. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988. _____ . Sifra: An Analytical Translation. 4 vols. Brown Judaic Studies 138–40. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988. _____ . Sifre to Deuteronomy: An Analytical Translation. Brown Judaic Studies 98. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987. _____ . Sifré to Numbers: An American Translation and Explanation. 2 vols. Brown Judaic Studies 118–19. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986. _____ . The Talmud of Babylonia. 36 vols. Brown Judaic Studies. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1984–94. _____ . The Talmud of the Land of Israel: A Preliminary Translation and Explanation. 35 vols. Chicago Studies in the History of Judaism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982–89. _____ . The Tosefta: Translated from the Hebrew. 6 vols. New York: Ktav, 1977–86. Reprinted in 2 vols. with a new introduction, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002.

Bibliography

143

Newsom, Carol A. Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice: A Critical Edition. Harvard Semitic Studies 27. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985. Philo. Translated by F. H. Colson et al. 10 vols., 2 supplements. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1929–62. Rahlfs, A., ed. Septuaginta. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1935. Schäfer, Peter, and Hans-Jürgen Becker, eds. Synopse zum Talmud Yerushalmi, vol. 1/1–2. Texte und Studien zum Antiken Judentum 31. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991. _____ . Synopse zum Talmud Yerushalmi, vol. 2/1–4. Texte und Studien zum Antiken Judentum 82. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001. Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum graecum auctoritae Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum. 16 vols. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1931- . Shachter, Jacob, and B. A. Freedman, trans. Sanhedrin. In Hebrew-English Edition of the Babylonian Talmud. Edited by Isidore Epstein. London: Soncino, 1969. Shutt, R. J. H. “Letter of Aristeas: A New Translation and Introduction.” Pages 831–42 in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 2. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. Anchor Bible Reference Library. New York: Doubleday, 1985. Sperber, Alexander. The Bible in Aramaic. 4 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1959–73. Sukenik, E. L., ed. The Dead Sea Scrolls of the Hebrew University. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1955. Thackeray, H. St. J. “The Letter of Aristeas.” Pages 531–606 in An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek by Henry Barclay Swete. Rev. ed. Richard Rusden Ottley. Repr., New York: Ktav, 1968. Theodor, Julius, and Chanoch Albeck. Berischit rabba mit Kritischem Apparat und Kommentar. 3 vols. Veröffentlichungen der Akademie für die Wissenschaft des Judentums. Jerusalem: Wahrmann, 1965. Wintermute, O. S. “Jubilees: A New Translation and Introduction.” Pages 35– 142 in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 2. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. Anchor Bible Reference Library. New York: Doubleday, 1985. Wise, Michael, Martin Abegg Jr., and Edward Cook. The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1996. Yonge, C. D., trans. The Works of Philo. Rev. ed. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1993. Zuckermandel, M. S. Tosephta: Based on the Erfurt and Vienna Codices with Parallels and Variants. Rev. ed. Jerusalem: Wahrmann, 1970.

Secondary Sources Abegg, Martin G., with James E. Bowley and Edward M. Cook, in consultation with Emanuel Tov. The Dead Sea Scrolls Concordance, vol. 1/1–2: The NonBiblical Texts from Qumran. Leiden: Brill, 2003–. Alexander, Philip S. Mystical Texts. Library of Second Temple Studies 61. London: T. & T. Clark, 2006. _____ . “Targum, Targumim.” Pages 320–31 in vol. 6 of The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by David Noel Freedman et al. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

144

Bibliography

Allen, Leslie C. Ezekiel 1–19. Word Biblical Commentary 28. Dallas: Word, 1994. _____ . Ezekiel 20–48. Word Biblical Commentary 29. Dallas: Word, 1990. Allison, Dale C. Jesus of Nazareth: Millenarian Prophet. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998. Andreasen, Niels-Erik A. “Sabbath and Synagogue.” Pages  189–211 in Passion, Vitality, and Foment: The Dynamics of Second Temple Judaism. Edited by Lamontte M. Luker. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2001. Ashley, Timothy R. The Book of Numbers. New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1993. Asiedu-Peprah, Martin. Johannine Sabbath Conflicts as Juridical Controversy. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 132. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001. Bacchiocchi, Samuele. From Sabbath to Sunday: A Historical Investigation of the Rise of Sunday Observance in Early Christianity. Rome: Pontifical Gregorian University, 1977. Baldwin, Jeffrey W. The Sabbath: A Biblical-Theological Study. Th.M. Thesis. Dallas Theological Seminary, 1992. Barr, James. “‘Abba, Father’ and the Familiarity of Jesus’ Speech.” Theology  91 (1988): 173–79. _____ . “ʾAbbā Isn’t ‘Daddy’.” Journal of Theological Studies 39 (1988): 28–47. Barrett, C. K. The Gospel according to St. John. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978. Bauer, D. R. “Son of God.” Pages 769–75 in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Edited by Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight, and I. Howard Marshall. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1992. Bauer, Walter. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd rev. ed., Frederick William Danker. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000. Beasley-Murray, George R. John. Word Biblical Commentary 36. Dallas: Word, 1989. Bernard, J. H. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St. John. Edited by A. H. McNeile. 2 vols. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1928. Bligh, John. “Jesus in Jerusalem.” Heythrop Journal 4 (1963): 115–34. Block, Daniel I. The Book of Ezekiel, Chapters 1–24. New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997. _____ . The Book of Ezekiel, Chapters 25–48. New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998. Blomberg, Craig L. The Historical Reliability of John’s Gospel. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2001. Bock, Darrell L. Jesus according to Scripture: Restoring the Portrait from the Gospels. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2002. _____ . Luke 1:1–9:50. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament 3A. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1994. _____ . Luke 9:51–24:53. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament 3B. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1996.

Bibliography

145

Borg, Marcus J. Conflict, Holiness, and Politics in the Teachings of Jesus. New ed. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1998. Borgen, Peder, Kåre Fuglseth, and Roald Skarsten. The Philo Index: A Complete Greek Word Index to the Writings of Philo of Alexandria. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans / Leiden: Brill, 2000. Bovon, François. L’Évangile selon Saint Luc (9,51–14,35). Commentaire du Nouveau Testament 3B. Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1996. Briggs, Charles A., and Emilie Grace Briggs. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Psalms. 2 vols. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1906–7. Bright, John. Jeremiah. Anchor Bible 21. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1965. Brongers, H. A. “Einige Bemerkungen zu Jes 58:13–14.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 87 (1975): 212–16. Brown, Francis, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, eds. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament with an Appendix Containing the Biblical Aramaic. Oxford: Clarendon, 1906. Brown, Raymond E. The Gospel according to John I–XII. Anchor Bible 29. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966. Bryan, Steven M. Jesus and Israel’s Traditions of Judgement and Restoration. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph 117. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Budd, Philip J. Numbers. Word Biblical Commentary 5. Waco, TX: Word, 1984. Bultmann, Rudolf. The Gospel of John: A Commentary. Translated by G. R. Beasley-Murray. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971. Buttenwieser, Moses. The Psalms. The Library of Biblical Studies. New York: Ktav, 1969. Carson, D. A., ed. From Sabbath to Lord’s Day: A Biblical, Historical, and Theological Investigation. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1982. _____ . The Gospel according to John. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1991. _____ . “Matthew.” Pages 1–599 in vol. 8 of The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984. Cassuto, Umberto. A Commentary on the Book of Exodus. Translated by Israel Abrahams. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1967. Childs, Brevard S. The Book of Exodus. Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1974. Chilton, Bruce. Rabbi Jesus: An Intimate Biography. New York: Doubleday, 2000. Christensen, Duane L. Deuteronomy 1:1–21:9. 2nd ed. Word Biblical Commentary 6A. Dallas: Word, 2001. Craigie, Peter C. The Book of Deuteronomy. New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1976. Craigie, Peter C., Page H. Kelley, and Joel F. Drinkard Jr. Jeremiah 1–25. Word Biblical Commentary 26. Dallas: Word, 1991. Cranfield, C. E. B. The Gospel according to Saint Mark. Rev. ed. Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959. Crenshaw, James L. “Wedōrēk ʿal-bāmŏtê ʾāreṣ.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly  34 (1972): 39–53.

146

Bibliography

Davies, Eryl W. Numbers. New Century Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995. Davies, W. D., and Dale C. Allison Jr. Matthew. 3 vols. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988–97. Denis, Albert-Marie. Concordance grecque des pseudépigraphes d’Ancien Testament. Louvain-la-Neuve: Université catholique de Louvain, Institut orientaliste, 1987. Dodd, C. H. Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963. _____ . The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel. Repr., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968. Doering, Lutz. “The Concept of the Sabbath in the Book of Jubilees.” Pages 179–205 in Studies in the Book of Jubilees. Edited by Matthias Albani, Jörg Frey, and Armin Lange. Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum 65. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997. _____ . Schabbat: Sabbathalacha und -praxis im antiken Judentum und Urchristentum. Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum 78. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999. Driver, S. R. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy. 3rd ed. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1902. Dunn, James D. G. Christianity in the Making, vol. 1: Jesus Remembered. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing, 2003. Dunn, James D. G. The Theology of Paul the Apostle. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998. Durham, John I. Exodus. Word Biblical Commentary 3. Dallas: Word, 1987. Ehrman, Bart D. Jesus, Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. Eichrodt, Walther. Ezekiel. Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1970. Ellis, E. Earle. The Gospel of Luke. 2nd ed. Greenwood, SC: Attic, 1974. Evans, Craig A. “Inaugurating the Kingdom of God and Defeating the Kingdom of Satan.” Bulletin for Biblical Research 15 (2005): 49–75. _____ . Jesus and His Contemporaries: Comparative Studies. Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums 25. Leiden: Brill, 1995. _____ . Luke. New International Biblical Commentary on the New Testament. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1990. Eve, Eric. The Jewish Context of Jesus’ Miracles. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement 231. London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002. Fanning, Buist M. Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek. Oxford Theological Monographs. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990. Fee, G. D. “On the Inauthenticity of John 5:3b–4.” Evangelical Quarterly 54 (1982): 207–18. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. “Abba and Jesus’ Relation to God.” Pages 15–38 in À cause de l’évangile. Edited by Joseph A. Fitzmyer. Lectio Divina. Paris: Saint-André/ Cerf, 1985.

Bibliography

147

_____ . The Gospel according to Luke. 2 vols. Anchor Bible 28–28A. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1981–85. France, R. T. Matthew. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985. Fredriksen, Paula. Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews: A Jewish Life and the Emergence of Christianity. New York: Knopf, 1999. Freedman, H., and M. Simon, eds. The Midrash Rabbah. 3rd ed. 10 vols. London: Soncino, 1983. Funk, Robert W., and The Jesus Seminar. The Acts of Jesus: The Search for the Authentic Deeds of Jesus. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1998. Funk, Robert W., Roy W. Hoover, and The Jesus Seminar. The Five Gospels: The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1993. Geldenhuys, Norval. Commentary on the Gospel of Luke. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1954. Gerstenberger, Erhard S. Leviticus: A Commentary. Translated by Douglas W. Stott. Old Testament Library. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996. Godet, Frederic Louis. Commentary on John’s Gospel. Translated by Timothy Dwight. Repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 1978. Goldberg, Abraham. “The Mishna: A Study Book of Halakha.” Pp. 211–62 in Compendia rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum, Section 2: Literature of the Jewish People in the Period of the Second Temple and the Talmud, vol. 3/1: The Literature of the Sages. Edited by Shmuel Safrai and Peter J. Tomson. Assen: Van Gorcum / Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987. Goldstein, Jonathan A. I Maccabees. Anchor Bible 41. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1976. _____ . II Maccabees. Anchor Bible 41A. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983. Green, Joel B. The Gospel of Luke. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997. Greenberg, Moshe. Ezekiel 1–20. Anchor Bible 22. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983. Grossfeld, Bernard, and S. David Sperling. “Bible, Translations, Ancient Versions, Aramaic: The Targumim.” Pages 588–95 in vol. 3 of Encyclopaedia Judaica. Edited by Fred Skolnik and Michael Berenbaum. Detroit: Macmillan, 2007. Guelich, Robert A. Mark 1–8:26. Word Biblical Commentary 34A. Dallas: Word, 1989. Gundry, Robert H. Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1993. _____ . Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church under Persecution. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1994. Haenchen, Ernst. John: A Commentary on the Gospel of John. 2 vols. Translated by Robert W. Funk. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984. Hagner, Donald A. Matthew 1–13. Word Biblical Commentary 33A. Dallas: Word, 1993.

148

Bibliography

Hanson, Howard E. “Num. XVI 30 and the Meaning of Bārāʾ.” Vetus Testamentum 22 (1972): 353–59. Hanson, Paul D. “The Song of Heshbon and David’s Nîr.” Harvard Theological Review 61 (1968): 297–320. Harner, Philip B. “Creation Faith in Deutero-Isaiah.” Vetus Testamentum 17 (1967): 298–306. Hartley, John E. Leviticus. Word Biblical Commentary 4. Dallas: Word, 1992. Hasel, Gerhard F. “‘New Moon and Sabbath’ in Eighth Century Israelite Prophetic Writings (Isa 1:13; Hos 2:13; Amos 8:5).” Pages  37–64 in “Wünschet Jerusalem Frieden”: Collected Communications to the XIIth Congress of the International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament, Jerusalem 1986. Edited by Matthias Augustin and Klaus-Dietrich Schunk. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1988. _____ . “Sabbath.” Pages 849–56 in vol. 5 of Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by David Noel Freedman et al. New York: Doubleday, 1992. _____ . “The Sabbath in the Pentateuch.” Pp. 21–43 in The Sabbath in Scripture and History. Edited by Kenneth A. Strand. Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1982. Hasel, Gerhard F., and W. G. C. Murdoch. “The Sabbath in the Prophetic and Historical Literature of the Old Testament.” Pages  44–56 in Sabbath in Scripture and History. Edited by Kenneth A. Strand. Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1982. Hägerland, Tobias. “John’s Gospel: A Two-Level Drama?” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 25 (2003): 309–22. Hengel, Martin. The Johannine Question. London: SCM / Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1989. Hess, Richard S. “God and Origins: Interpreting the Early Chapters of Genesis.” Pages 86–98 in Darwin, Creation and the Fall: Theological Challenges. Edited by R. J. Berry and T. A. Noble. Nottingham: Apollos, 2009. _____  . Israelite Religions: An Archaeological and Biblical Survey. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2007. _____ . “Leviticus.” Pages 563–826 in vol. 1 of The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Edited by Tremper Longman III and David E. Garland. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2008. Hodges, Zane C. “The Angel at Bethesda: John 5:4.” Bibliotheca Sacra  136 (1979): 25–39. Holladay, William L. Jeremiah 1. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986. Hooker, Morna D. The Gospel according to St Mark. Black’s New Testament Commentaries. London: Black, 1991. Horbury, William. “The Benediction of the Minim and Early Jewish-Christian Controversy.” Journal of Theological Studies 33 (1982): 19–61. Horsley, Richard A. Jesus and the Spiral of Violence: Popular Jewish Resistance in Roman Palestine. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987. Horst, Pieter van der. “The Birkat Ha-Minim in Recent Research.” Expository Times 105 (1994): 363–68.

Bibliography

149

Hossfeld, Frank-Lothar, and Erich Zenger. Psalms 2: A Commentary on Psalms 51– 100. Translated by Linda M. Maloney. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005. Houtman, Cornelis. Exodus. 4 vols. Historical Commentary on the Old Testament. Leuven: Peeters, 1993–2002. Hurtado, Larry W. Mark. New International Biblical Commentary on the New Testament. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1989. Jastrow, Marcus. A Dictionary of the Targumim, Talmud Bavli, Talmud Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature. Repr., New York: Judaica Treasury, 2004. Jeremias, Joachim. The Central Message of the New Testament. London: SCM, 1965. _____ . New Testament Theology. Translated by John Bowden. New York: Scribner, 1971. _____  . The Prayers of Jesus. Translated by John Bowden, Christoph Burchard, and John Reumann. Studies in Biblical Theology: Second Series 6. Naperville, IL: Allenson, 1967. _____ . The Rediscovery of Bethesda: John 5:2. Translated by J. Vardaman, C. Burchard, D. Hume, and M. Zalampas. New Testament Archaeology. Louisville: Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1966. Johnson, Luke Timothy. The Gospel of Luke. Sacra pagina 3. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1991. Joüon, Paul, and Takamitsu Muraoka. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Rev. English ed. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 2006. Just, Arthur A., Jr. Luke 9:51–24:53. Concordia Commentary. Saint Louis: Concordia, 1997. Keener, Craig S. A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerd­mans, 1999. _____  . The Gospel of John: A Commentary. 2 vols. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003. Kimbrough, S. T. “The Concept of Sabbath at Qumran.” Revue de Qumran  5 (1966): 483–502. Klink, Edward W., III. “Expulsion from the Synogogue? Rethinking a Johannine Anachronism.” Tyndale Bulletin 59 (2008): 99–118. Koehler, Ludwig, and Walter Baumgartner. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament: Study Edition. Revised by Walter Baumgartner and Johann Jakob Stamm. Translated and edited under the supervision of M. E. J. Richardson. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Kubo, Sakae. God Meets Man: A Theology of the Sabbath and Second Advent. Nashville: Southern Publishing, 1978. _____ . “The Sabbath in the Intertestamental Period.” Pages 57–69 in Sabbath in Scripture and History. Edited by Kenneth A. Strand. Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1982. Kugler, R. A. “Qumran: Place and History.” Pages 883–88 in Dictionary of New Testament Background. Edited by Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000. Lagrange, Marie-Joseph. Évangile selon Saint Jean. 5th ed. Études bibliques. Paris: Gabalda, 1936.

150

Bibliography

_____ . Évangile selon Saint Marc. Études bibliques. Paris: Lecoffre, 1966. Lane, William L. The Gospel according to Mark. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974. Lechner-Schmidt, Wilfried. Wortindex der lateinisch erhaltenen Pseudepigraphen zum Alten Testament. Texte und Arbeiten zum neutestamentlichen Zeitalter 3. Tübingen: Francke, 1990. Leonhardt, Jutta. Jewish Worship in Philo of Alexandria. Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum 84. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001. Levine, Baruch A. Leviticus. Jewish Publication Society Torah Commentary 3. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989. _____ . Numbers 1–20. 1st ed. Anchor Bible 4A. New York: Doubleday, 1993. Léon-Dufour, Xavier. Lecture de l’évangile selon Jean, Chapitres 5–12. Paris: Seuil, 1990. Liddell, Henry George, and Robert Scott, comps. Greek-English Lexicon. Revised by Henry Stuart Jones and Roderick McKenzie. 9th ed. With a revised supplement 1996, ed. P. G. W. Glare and A. A. Thompson. Oxford: Clarendon, 1940. Ludwig, Theodore M. “Traditions of the Establishing of the Earth in DeuteroIsaiah.” Journal of Biblical Literature 92 (1973): 345–57. Lundbom, Jack R. Jeremiah 1–20. Anchor Bible 21A. New York: Doubleday, 1999. McKane, William. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1986. McKay, Heather A. Sabbath and Synagogue: The Question of Sabbath in Ancient Judaism. Religions in the Graeco-Roman World 122. Leiden: Brill, 1994. McKenzie, John L. Second Isaiah. Anchor Bible 20. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1968. McKnight, Scot. A New Vision for Israel. Studying the Historical Jesus. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999. Marshall, I. Howard. The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978. Martin, A. “Notes sur le Sabbat.” Foi et Vie 74 (1975): 13–51. Mathews, Kenneth A. Genesis 1–11:26. New American Commentary 1A. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1996. Meier, John P. “The Historical Jesus and the Historical Herodians.” Journal of Biblical Literature 119 (2000): 740–46. _____ . A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus. 5 vols. Anchor Bible Reference Library. New York: Doubleday, 1991–. Milgrom, Jacob. Leviticus 1–16. Anchor Bible 3. New York: Doubleday, 1991. _____ . Numbers. Jewish Publication Society Torah Commentary 4. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1990. Miller, Patrick D. The Ten Commandments. Interpretation. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2009. Morris, Leon. The Gospel according to John. Rev. ed. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995.

Bibliography

151

Motyer, J. A. Isaiah: An Introduction and Commentary. Tyndale Old Testament Commentary 18. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1999. Neyrey, Jerome H. The Gospel of John. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Nolland, John. Luke 1–9:20. Word Biblical Commentary 35A. Dallas: Word, 1989. _____ . Luke 9:21–18:34. Word Biblical Commentary 35B. Dallas: Word, 1993. O’Neill, J. C. “‘Making Himself Equal with God’ ( John 5.17–18): The Alleged Challenge to Jewish Monotheism in the Fourth Gospel.” Irish Biblical Studies 17 (1995): 50–61. Oswalt, John N. The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 1–39. New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986. _____ . The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 40–66. New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998. Porter, Stanley E. The Criteria for Authenticity in Historical-Jesus Research: Previous Discussion and New Proposals. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement 191. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000. Rad, Gerhard von. Genesis: A Commentary. Rev. ed. Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1973. Rengstorf, Karl Heinrich. A Complete Concordance to Flavius Josephus. 4 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1973–83. Riaud, Jean. “Pâque et sabbat dans les fragments I et V d’Aristobule.” Pages 107– 23 in Le Temps et les Temps dans les littératures juives et chrétiennes au tournant de notre ère, vol. 112. Edited by Christian Grappe and Jean-Claude Ingelaere. Journal for the Study of Judaism Supplement 112. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Robinson, Gnana. “The Idea of Rest in the OT and the Search for the Basic Character of Sabbath.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft  92 (1980): 32–42. _____ . The Origin and Development of the Old Testament Sabbath. Beiträge zur biblischen Exegese und Theologie 21. New York: Peter Lang, 1988. Runia, David T. Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus of Plato. Philosophia antiqua 44. Leiden: Brill, 1986. Ruszkowski, Leszek. “Der Sabbat bei Tritojesaja.” Pages 61–74 in Prophetie und Psalmen: Festschrift für Klaus Seybold zum 65. Geburstag. Edited by Beat Huwy­ ler, Hans-Peter Mathys, and Beat Weber. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 280. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2001. Safrai, Shmuel, and Peter J. Tomson, eds. Compendia rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum, Section 2: Literature of the Jewish People in the Period of the Second Temple and the Talmud, vol. 3/1: The Literature of the Sages. Assen: Van Gorcum / Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987. Sanders, E. P. The Historical Figure of Jesus. London: Penguin, 1993. _____ . Jesus and Judaism. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985. _____ . Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah: Five Studies. London: SCM, 1990. _____ . Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion. London: SCM, 1977. _____ . Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983.

152

Bibliography

Sarna, Nahum M. Exodus. Jewish Publication Society Torah Commentary 2. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1991. _____  . Genesis. Jewish Publication Society Torah Commentary 1. New York: Jewish Publication Society, 1989. _____  . “Psalm for the Sabbath Day (Ps 92).” Journal of Biblical Literature  81 (1962): 155–68. Schäfer, Peter. “Bibelübersetzungen, Targumim.” Pages 216–28 in vol. 6 of Theologische Realenzyklopädie. Edited by Gerhard Krause and Gerhard Müller. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1980. Schaper, Joachim. Eschatology in the Greek Psalter. Wissenschaftliche Unter­ su­chungen zum Neuen Testament 2/76. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995. Schlatter, Adolf. Der Evangelist Johannes, wie er spricht, denkt und glaubt. Repr., Stuttgart: Calwer, 1960. Schnackenburg, Rudolf. The Gospel according to St. John. 3 vols. New York: Seabury, 1968–82. Schürer, Emil. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 b.c.– a.d. 135). New English ed. 4 vols. Edited by Geza Vermes, Fergus Millar, and Matthew Black. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1973. Siker-Gieseler, J. S. “The Theology of the Sabbath in the OT: A Canonical Approach.” Studia biblica et theologica 11 (1981): 5–20. Smith, Mark S. The Priestly Vision of Genesis 1. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2010. Smyth, Herbert Weir. A Greek Grammar for Schools and Colleges. Revised by Gordon M. Messing. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1956. Stein, Robert H. Luke. New American Commentary 24. Nashville: Broadman, 1992. Strack, H. L., and Günter Stemberger. Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash. 2nd ed. Translated and edited by Markus Bockmuehl. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996. Stuhlmueller, Carroll. “Theology of Creation in Second Isaias.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 21 (1959): 429–67. Tate, Marvin E. Psalms 51–100. Word Biblical Commentary 20. Dallas: Word, 1990. Taylor, Vincent. The Gospel according to St. Mark. 2nd ed. Repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1966. _____ . The Gospel according to St. Mark. 2nd ed. Repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1966. Theissen, Gerd, and Annette Merz. The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide. Translated by John Bowden. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998. Theissen, Gerd, and Dagmar Winter. The Quest for the Plausible Jesus: The Question of Criteria. Translated by M. Eugene Boring. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002. Thompson, J. A. The Book of Jeremiah. New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1980. Tiede, David L. Luke. Augsburg Commentaries on the New Testament. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1988.

Bibliography

153

Tigay, Jeffrey H. Deuteronomy. Jewish Publication Society Torah Commentary 5. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1996. Trudinger, Peter L. The Psalms of the Tamid Service: A Liturgical Text from the Second Temple. Vetus Testamentum Supplement 98. Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2004. Tsumura, David Toshio. Creation and Destruction: A Reappraisal of the Chaoskampf Theory in the Old Testament. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005. Twelftree, Graham H. Jesus the Exorcist: A Contribution to the Study of the Historical Jesus. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2/54. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1993. _____  . Jesus the Miracle Worker: A Historical and Theological Study. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1999. Vaux, Roland de. Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions. Translated by John McHugh. Biblical Resource Series. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997. Vermes, Geza. Jesus and the World of Judaism. London: SCM, 1983. _____ . Jesus the Jew: A Historian’s Reading of the Gospels. New York: Macmillan, 1973. _____ . The Religion of Jesus the Jew. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. Vogel, Dan. “A Psalm for Sabbath? A Literary View of Psalm 92.” Jewish Bible Quarterly 28 (2000): 211–21. Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996. Wallace, Howard N. “Genesis 2:1–3: Creation and Sabbath.” Pacifica  1 (1988): 235–50. Walter, Nikolaus. “Fragmente jüdisch-hellenistischer Exegeten: Aristobulos, Demetrios, Aristeas.” Pages 257–96 in Unterweisung in lehrhafter Form. Jüdische Schriften aus hellenistisch-römischer Zeit. Gütersloh: Mohn, 1980. _____ . Der Thoraausleger Aristobulos. Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur. Berlin: Akademie, 1964. Waltke, Bruce K., and M. O’Connor. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990. Watts, John D. W. Isaiah 1–33. Word Biblical Commentary 24. Dallas: Word, 1985. _____ . Isaiah 34–66. Rev. ed. Word Biblical Commentary 25. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2005. Weinfeld, Moshe. Deuteronomy 1–11. 1st ed. Anchor Bible 5. New York: Doubleday, 1991. Weiser, Arthur. The Psalms: A Commentary. Translated by Herbert Hartwell. Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962. Weiss, Herold. “The Sabbath in the Writings of Josephus.” Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Period 29 (1998): 363–90. Wenham, Gordon J. The Book of Leviticus. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1979. _____ . Genesis 1–15. Word Biblical Commentary 1. Waco, TX: Word, 1987. Westcott, B. F. The Gospel according to St. John. Repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1980.

154

Bibliography

Westerholm, S., and C. A. Evans. “Sabbath.” Pages 1031–35 in Dictionary of New Testament Background. Edited by Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000. Westermann, Claus. Isaiah 40–66: A Commentary. Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1969. Whybray, R. N. Isaiah 40–66. New Century Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1981. Wildberger, Hans. Isaiah 1–12: A Commentary. Translated by Thomas H. Trapp. Continental Commentaries. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991. Wright, N. T. Christian Origins and the Question of God, vol. 2: Jesus and the Victory of God. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996. Young, Edward J. The Book of Isaiah. 3 vols. New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1965–72. Zimmerli, Walther. Ezekiel 1–2. Translated by Ronald E. Clements. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979–83.

Index of Scripture Old Testament Genesis 1 56 1:1  31, 52, 55 1:1–2:3  29, 52 1:1–2:4 29 2:1 85 2:1–3  28, 29, 34, 37, 41, 42, 52, 53, 58, 70, 94, 100, 111, 118 2:2 30 2:2–3 52 2:3  31, 52 8:1 39 17:13 36 29:27 77

Exodus (cont.) 20–23 36 24 36 25:1–31:11 37 31 51 31:12 38 31:12–17  36, 37, 45, 94, 119 31:13 51 32  53, 111 34:1 53 34:10 53 34:21 34 35:1–3  36, 94 35:3 35

Exodus 4:22 130 5 137 15:22–17:7 93 16  50, 51, 68, 76, 111, 118 16:1–36 32 16:19 32 16:20–21 32 16:22–26 32 16:23 32 16:25–26 32 16:27 100 16:27–30 32 16:29  34, 35 17:8 100 19–20 93 20  39, 40, 41, 51, 137 20:8 82 20:8–10 40 20:8–11  33, 38, 45, 50, 101, 118 20:11 82

Leviticus 16:29–31 37 16:31 37 23  38, 117 25:10 117 Numbers 15:32–36  35, 36, 73 16 53 16:30 53 Deuteronomy 1:1–21:9 40 5  39, 41, 55, 111, 118, 137 5:12 39 5:12–15  39, 45, 51, 101, 118, 119 23:1 45 30:19 48 32:6 130 32:13 47

155

1 Samuel 7:16 48 2 Samuel 19:2 96 2 Chronicles 24:5 48 Ezra 10:8 25 Nehemiah 9:14 96 10:32 35 13:15 35 13:15–18 35 Psalms 24 44 51:12 57 73:22 42 82:18 44 83 44 83:18 44 91:8 44 92  41, 43, 44, 82, 98, 119 92:1 98 92:8 44 131:12 44 131:14 44 132:12 44 132:14 44 Proverbs 10:22 96

156 Isaiah 2:11 98 4:2–6 54 4:5 54 6:3 128 26:4 44 40–45 41 41:8–20 55 41:17–20 55 41:20 55 43:1 56 43:7 56 43:15 56 45:8 56 56 46 56:1–8  44, 60, 119 56:4 100 56:5 45 56:7 100 58:6 117

Index of Scripture Isaiah (cont.) 58:13 35 58:13–14 46 61:1–2  4, 117 63:16 130 65 68 65:17–18 56 65:18 44 66 50 66:23  47, 48 Jeremiah 17:21 35 17:21–27 48 17:24 35 17:27 35 23:24 128 31:22 57 38:22 57

Ezekiel 20:9–12 49 20:12 49 20:20 49 40–48  50, 60 44:24 50 45:17 50 46:1–8 50 Hosea 6:2 98 6:3 99 11:1 130 11:10 99 Amos 8:5 35 Zechariah 14:16 48

New Testament Matthew 4:23 17 5:11–12 25 6:9 131 7:21 131 9:1–8 120 9:8 21 9:35 17 10:32–33  25, 131 11:4–6 4 11:25 131 11:25–26 131 11:26 131 11:27 131 12:1–8  3, 14 12:5–7  16, 112 12:8–9 25 12:9–14 14 12:11–12 16 12:14 20 12:50 131 13:53–58  112, 113 13:54 17 15:13 131 16:17 131 16:27 131

Matthew (cont.) 18:10 131 18:19 131 18:35 131 20:23 131 21:12–13 120 26:29 131 26:39 131 26:42 131 26:53 131 Mark 1:21 17 1:21–27  112, 113 1:21–28 14 1:39 17 2:1 20 2:1–12  120, 121 2:1–3:5 2 2:1–3:6 20 2:5 121 2:9 120 2:11 121 2:23–28  14, 16, 20, 112, 113 2:28  17, 20

Mark (cont.) 3:1–6  14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 112, 113 3:2 23 3:5 20 3:6  2, 19, 20, 21 5:20 21 6:1–6  112, 113, 116 6:2 17 8:38 25 11:15–19 120 13:32 131 14 20 14:32 131 Luke 2:49 131 4 134 4:15 17 4:16 17 4:16–30  4, 116 4:23 116 4:31 17 4:31–36  112, 113 4:31–44 116 4:33 17

Index of Scripture Luke (cont.) 4:44 17 6:1–5 14 6:6 17 6:6–11 14 6:11 20 6:22–23 26 7:11–17 24 7:22–23 4 9:18–22 112 9:26 131 9:51 112 9:51–19:27 112 10:21 131 10:22 131 11:2 131 12:11 113 13  126, 134, 135, 138 13:10 17 13:10–17  7, 14, 15, 16, 19, 22, 23, 24, 112, 113, 117, 119 13:17 21 14:1 113 14:1–6  14, 15, 16, 23, 112 14:5 16 19:45–46 120 22:29 131 22:42 131 23:34 131 23:46 131 24:49 131 John 2:1–11 120 2:12–22  120, 126 2:16 131 3:1–21 120 4:1–42 120 4:46–54 120 5  4, 14, 16, 23, 24, 112, 113, 120, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 133, 134, 135, 136, 138

John (cont.) 5:1–9  15, 121, 123, 124, 127 5:1–15 126 5:1–18 16 5:1–30  7, 120 5:4 123 5:5 122 5:6 121 5:7 123 5:8 120 5:9  15, 24, 121 5:9–13 24 5:9–15 124 5:13 123 5:14  15, 121 5:15 124 5:16  124, 126, 127 5:17  1, 5, 124, 126, 127, 131, 133, 136 5:18  19, 124, 125, 127 5:43 131 6:32 131 6:40 131 6:59 17 7:22–23  16, 112 8:19 131 8:49 131 8:54 131 9  16, 25, 26, , 112, 113, 124 9:1–17 16 9:1–41 15 9:6 23 9:14 24 9:22  24, 26 9:34 24 9:40–41 24 10:18 131 10:25 131 10:29 131 10:37 131 11:41 131 12:27–28 131 12:42 24 14:2 131 14:7 131 14:20–21 131

157 John (cont.) 14:23 131 14:23–24 131 15:1 131 15:8 131 15:10 131 15:15 131 15:23–24 131 17:1 131 17:5 131 17:11 131 17:21 131 17:24–25 131 18:20 17 20:17 131 Acts 3:1–10 121 13:14 17 13:42 17 13:44 17 13:50 25 17:2 17 18:4 17 20:7–12 17 Romans 8:15  131, 132 1 Corinthians 16:2 17 Galatians 4:6  131, 132 Colossians 2:16 17 1 Thessalonians 2:14 25 Jude 14–16 69 Revelation 2:28 132 3:5 132 3:21 132

Index of Authors Abegg, M. G.  58, 59, 61 Albeck, C.  84 Aletti, J.-N.  71 Alexander, P. S.  61, 62, 82, 83 Allen, L. C.  50 Allison, D. C.  108

Colson, F. H.  76 Cook, E. M.  58, 61 Craigie, P. C.  39, 40, 41 Cranfield, C. E. B.  2 Crenshaw, J. L.  47 Denis, A.-M.  65 Dodd, C. H.  4, 5, 121, 122, 129 Doering, L.  3, 66, 67, 114 Driver, S. R.  39, 41 Dunn, J. D. G.  102, 104, 105, 107, 108, 131 Durham, J. I.  32, 33, 35, 37, 41, 53

Bacchiocchi, S.  17 Barrett, C. K.  6, 25, 121, 123 Barr, J.  130 Bauer, D. R.  132 Beasley-Murray, G. R.  25, 26 Becker, H.-J.  95 Blackman, P.  79 Bligh, J.  125, 126 Block, D. I.  49, 50 Blomberg, C. L.  25 Bock, D. L.  3, 103, 104, 105, 107, 113, 117, 119 Borg, M. J.  104 Borgen, P.  73 Bovon, F.  119 Bowley, J. E.  58 Briggs, C. A.  41, 42, 57, 58 Briggs, E. G.  41, 42, 57, 58 Brongers, H. A.  46 Brown, R. E.  5, 6, 24, 25, 120, 121, 123, 124 Bryan, S. M.  108 Bultmann, R.  25 Bushell, M.  71 Buttenwieser, M.  42, 57

Ehrman, B. D.  108 Ellis, E. E.  113 Epstein, I.  96, 97 Evans, C. A.  2, 16, 17, 18, 109, 113 Eve, E.  12, 109, 110 Fanning, B. M.  122 Fee, G. D.  123 Fitzmyer, J. A.  3, 113, 114, 115, 131, 132 France, R. T.  2 Fredriksen, P.  108 Freedman, H.  85, 86 Fuglseth, K.  73 Funk, R. W.  8, 10, 121, 125 García Martínez, F.  58, 59, 61, 123 Geldenhuys, N.  113 Gieniusz, A.  71 Godet, F. L.  121 Goldberg, A.  78 Goldstein, J. A.  63, 64 Green, J. B.  4, 113, 116, 119 Greenberg, M.  49, 50 Gropp, D. M.  132 Grossfeld, B.  82 Guelich, R. A.  4 Gundry, R. H.  3

Carson, D. A.  2, 4, 5, 18, 25, 26, 120, 121, 128 Cassuto, U.  53 Charles, R. H.  65 Childs, B. S.  33, 34, 35, 53 Chilton, B. D.  83, 104 Christensen, D. L.  39, 40 Chrysostom 120 Collins, A. Y.  69, 70

158

Index of Authors Haenchen, E.  24, 25, 121 Hägerland, T.  25 Hagner, D. A.  3, 4 Hanson, H. E.  54 Hanson, P. D.  54 Harner, P. B.  55 Hartley, J. E.  39 Hasel, G. F.  31, 33, 37 Hengel, M.  25 Hess, R. S.  29, 35, 37, 38 Hodges, Z. C.  123 Holladay, C. R.  69, 71 Hooker, M. D.  2 Hoover, R. W.  8, 121 Horbury, W.  25 Horsley, R. A.  104 Horst, P. van der  25 Hossfeld, F.-L.  42, 43, 44, 57 Hurtado, L. W.  4

Merz, A.  12, 120 Milgrom, J.  54 Miller, P. D.  33 Mirkin, M. A.  84 Morris, L.  122, 123 Motyer, J. A.  55 Mras, K.  69 Muraoka, T.  46

Jastrow, M.  81 Jeremias, J.  123, 130, 132 Johnson, L. T.  115 Johnson, M. D.  68, 69 Josephus  7, 13, 27, 71, 72 Joüon, P.  46 Just, A. A., Jr.  119

Robinson, G.  33 Rudolph, W.  57 Rufus, T.  86 Runia, D. T.  73, 74, 75, 77

Keener, C. S.  3, 25 Klein, M. L.  83 Klink, E. W., III  26 Lagrange, M.-J.  2, 6 Lane, W. L.  2, 3 Lauterbach, J. Z.  93 Lechner-Schmidt, W.  65 Léon-Dufour, X.  6 Leonhardt, J.  75 Levine, B. A.  38 Lieberman, S.  80 Lundbom, J. R.  48 Marshall, I. H.  113, 119 McKane, W.  48 McKnight, S.  130 Meier, J. P.  2, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, , 103, 104, 105, 106, 120

Neusner, J.  79, 80 Newsom, C. A.  61 Nolland, J.  2, 113, 119 O’Connor, M.  34, 44 O’Neill, J. C.  125 Oswalt, J. N.  45, 47, 48, 55 Pfann, S. J.  132 Porter, S. E.  12

Sanders, E. P.  8, 15, 17, 22, 104, 108 Sarna, N. M.  30, 34, 36, 42 Schäfer, P.  83, 95 Schaper, J.  44 Schnackenburg, R.  6, 123 Schürer, E.  41 Siker-Gieseler, J. S.  51 Simon, M.  85, 86 Skarsten, R.  73 Smith, M. S.  30 Smyth, H. W.  71 Sperling, S. D.  82 Stein, R. H.  113 Stemberger, G.  78, 84 Strack, H. L.  78, 84 Stuhlmueller, C.  55 Sukenik, E. L.  61 Tate, M. E.  42, 57 Taylor, V.  2 Theissen, G.  12, 120 Theodor, J.  84 Thompson, J. A.  48

159

160

Index of Authors

Tiede, D. L.  3 Tigay, J. H.  40 Tigchelaar, E. J. C.  58, 59, 61, 123 Tov, E.  58 Trudinger, P. L.  41, 42, 43, 98 Tsumura, D. T.  42 Twelftree, G. H.  109 Vaux, R. de  41 Vermes, G.  104 Wallace, D. B.  71, 122, 123 Wallace, H. N.  52 Walter, N.  69 Waltke, B. K.  34, 44 Watts, J. D. W.  44, 45, 48, 54 Weiser, A.  41, 42, 57

Weiss, H.  72 Wenham, G. J.  37 Westcott, B. F.  121 Westerholm, S.  17 Westermann, C.  44, 47, 55, 56 Whitaker, G. H.  76 Whybray, R. N.  56 Wildberger, H.  54, 55 Winter, D.  12 Wintermute, O. S.  66 Wise, M.  61 Wright, N. T.  18, 104, 105, 106, 109 Young, E. J.  45, 46, 47, 48, 55, 56 Zenger, E.  42, 43, 44, 57 Zuckermandel, M. S.  80

Index of Nonbiblical Sources Prerabbinic Jewish Sources Dead Sea Scrolls CD (Damascus Document) 3:12–16 60–61 10:18–19 22 10:14–11:18 60 10:17–19 61 10:19 95 11:5–9 61 1QIsaiaha 58:13 47 n. 73 1QMilḥamah 2:4–9 61 13:9 62 n. 108

1QSerek Hayaḥad 2–4 112 n. 24 6:24–7:25 25 3Q15 11:12–13 125 n. 67 4Q321 1:8 60 n. 105 4Q372 1:16 134 n. 96 4Q460 9 1:6  134 n. 96 11Q19 29:2–10 62 11QTemple Scroll 26:0 60 n. 105

Josephus Against Apion 1.209 28 n. 1 Jewish Antiquities 12.271–77 73 n. 141 13.12–14 73 n. 141 13.251 73 14.226 73 14.63 73 n. 141 18.318–24 73 n. 141 Jewish War 1.146  73 n.141 2.289–90 74 2.456 73 2.517–21 74

OT Apocrypha 1 Maccabees 1:41–49 17 n. 34 2:39–41  63, 64, 73 n. 141, 74 9:43–49  64, 65, 73 n. 141, 121

2 Maccabees 8:21–29 65 12:38 65 n. 114 15:1–5 66 3 Maccabees 5:7 132 n. 86

Sirach 23:1 132 n. 86 23:3 132 n. 86 Tobit 13:4 132 n. 86

OT Pseudepigrapha Aristobulus Fifth fragment  70–72 Jubilees 1 67 2:1 67 2:18 68 2:19–20 67 2:21 68 2:25–33 68

Jubilees (cont.) 2:29–30 68 2:30 68 2:31 28 n. 2 23:23–31 112 n. 23 50:6–13 68 50:8 68 50:12–13 68 50:13 67

161

L.A.E. (Apoc. Mos.) 43:2–3  69, 70 L.A.E. (Vita) 29  69, 70 51  69, 69 n. 125, 70 51:2 70 Testament of Moses 10 112 n. 24

162

Index of Nonbiblical Sources

Philo Abraham 28–30 77 Allegorical Interpretation 1.5–6  74, 75 Cherubim 77 75 87 75 87–90 75 Creation 1.89 79 n. 160 Decalogue 96–101  76, 79 99–100 76 100  71 n. 134, 76 n. 153 159 77 Drunkenness 1.52 78 n. 157

Flight 170 77 174 76 Hypothetica 7.15   78 n. 157 7.17   78 n. 157 Migration 92 76 n. 152 Moses 1.207 79 n. 160 2.210 79 n. 160 Names 258–60 77 259–60  113 n. 26, 121 Questions (on Exodus) 2.68 131

Questions (on Genesis) 2.13 79 3.48 76 n. 152 Special Laws 1.10 76 n. 152 1.170  78, 79 2.39 78 n. 157 2.40 78 2.59 79 n. 160 2.64 79 2.70 79 n. 160 2.84 78 n. 157 2.86 78 n. 157 2.97 78 n. 157 2.105 78 n. 157 4.215 78 n. 157 Virtues 1.97 78 n. 157

Rabbinic Sources Mishnah Beṣah 5:2 81 n. 164 Kerithot 3:10 81 n. 164 Menaḥot 11:3 81 n. 164 Pesaḥim 6:1–2 81 n. 164 Šabbat 1:4–8 21 n. 51 7:1 81 n. 164 7:2  80, 81 n. 163, 81, 128 12:1 81 14:3 81 16:6 82 n. 167 18:3 81 19:1–3 81 n. 165 22:6 81 n. 165 Sanhedrin 7:4 82 7:8 82

Tamid 7:4  42 n. 56, 43 n. 58, 44 n. 64, 80 n. 162, 83, 83 n. 170, 99 n. 194 Yoma 8:6  81 n. 165, 117 n. 36

Tosefta ʿErubin 3:5 81 n. 165 3:8 81 n. 165 Menaḥot 11:5 81 n. 164 Pesaḥim 5:1 81 n. 164 Šabbat 1:3 82 n. 167 1:23 81 n. 165 2:7 81 n. 165 2:16–21 82 n. 167 5:6  81 n. 164, 81 n. 165 8:3 81 n. 164 8:5 81 n. 164 9:22  81, 81 n. 165, 82

Šabbat (cont.) 10:19 82 n. 167 12:8 81 n. 165 12:13 81 n. 165 12:17 81 n. 164 13(14):10  82, 83 14:3 81 n. 165 15:5 81 n. 165 15:11–13 81 n. 165 15:15–17 81 n. 165 17:19 81 n. 165

The Targums Fragmentary Targum Exod 20:8  83 n. 170, 84 Exod 20:11  83 n. 170, 84 Targum Isaiah 65:18 84

Midrashim Genesis Rabbah 7:5  31 n. 12, 86, 88 10:9  31 n. 12, 87

Index of Nonbiblical Sources Genesis Rabbah (cont.) 11:5  87, 130 n. 79 11:9   31 n. 12, 88 11:10   88, 102, 130 17:5   89, 98 44:17   89 n. 183 92:4   89 Exodus Rabbah 25:12  90, 91 30:9  88 n. 182, 91, 130 Leviticus Rabbah 3:1  91, 92, 92 n. 184, 95 n. 189, 101 Numbers Rabbah 14:1 92 14:2  89, 90 16:1 82 n. 168 23:6 93 n. 185 Deuteronomy Rabbah 1:21 28 n. 2 Ruth Rabbah 3:3  93, 93 n. 186

Qoheleth Rabbah 1:15, §1 93 4:6, §1  91, 95 n.189 11:2, §1 94 Song of Songs Rabbah 4:4 §6 83 n. 170 Mekilta Baḥodeš 7:75–79 95 Mekilta Šabbata 1:38–41 43 n. 58, 83 n. 170, 95 1:120–25  96, 102, 130 n. 80 Mekilta Vayassaʿ 5:66–77 94

The Palestinian Talmud Berakot 1.8/4 97 2.7/6 97

163 Šabbat 1.11/3 82 n. 168

The Babylonian Talmud Berakot 6b 100 57b 98 Šabbat 19a 82 n. 168 86b 98 118b 101 Sanhedrin 97a  43 n. 58, 83 n. 170, 99 Roš Haššanah 31a  43 n. 58, 83 n. 170, 99, 99 n. 194, 100 Taʿanit 8b 98 Yoma 35b  100, 101

Christian Greek Sources Chrysostom Homily on John 37 123 n. 52

Eusebius Praeparatio evangelica 7.13.7–14.1 70 n. 131 8.10 70 13.12 70

Stromateis 5.14.107.1–4 70 n. 131 6.16.137.4– 138.4 70 n. 131 6.16.141.7b 72 6.16.141.7b– 142.1 70 n. 131 6.16.142.4b 70 n. 131

Ignatius (Letter to the) Magnesians 9:1–4 70 n. 129