032 To Save A Life or To Destroy It?
Luke 6:1-11
March 11, 2018
We have been walking through the gospel of Luke
As Luke the exact truth regarding the person and work of Jesus.
And if all we had about Jesus was the last few weeks of information we would just label Jesus as
THE ONE WHOM THE PHARISEES HATED.
Jesus went throughout the region of Galilee and CAUSED QUITE A STIR as He would preach and then validate that preaching with miracles.
• We heard outrageous claims
• We saw demons cast out
• We saw fevers removed
• We saw fish caught in record numbers
• We saw a leper cleansed
And those events certainly caused Jesus’ popularity to sky-rocket.
It was this popularity that caused
The religious leaders of the day to come and check Him out.
This evaluation occurred one day in Galilee at a house that was crammed full of people
When 4 men lowered their paralyzed friend down through the roof to see Jesus.
What Jesus did on that day threw down the gauntlet
And the fight has been on ever since.
Jesus declared that paralyzed man forgiven.
The immediate thought that traveled through that Pharisaic room was “This fellow blasphemes!”
They knew that only God had the authority to forgive sins,
And therefore they saw this Jesus as the worse of blasphemers.
However, Jesus proved His authority by instantly healing that paralytic.
Now what should have happened is that everyone should have rejoiced!
• Those Pharisees should have fallen on their knees in worship and immediately gone home and told all their disciples about this man named Jesus.
But that is not what happened.
Instead of rejoicing over Jesus, the Pharisees went on the war-path.
They hated Him.
WHY?
BECAUSE THEY WERE STEEPED IN LEGALISM.
Legalism is the doctrine that believes man is justified before God by means of their religious works.
You please God and earn His favor through your actions.
GRANTED legalists are all over the place regarding what those specific actions that God will accept are, but still at the end of the day, they all believe it is something.
• Some focus on your level of goodness
• Some focus on your level of suffering
• Some focus on your level of ministry involvement
• Some focus on your level of worldly withdrawal
• But they all agree that God’s favor must be earned and it is earned through human works.
The other thing all legalists agree on is that they unanimously hate grace.
Legalists hate the declaration that God will freely give His favor
To those who have done nothing to earn it.
AND THIS HAS BEEN TRUE SINCE THE BEGINNING.
Does anyone remember the brothers Cain and Abel?
• Cain sought to earn God’s favor by bringing a hard earned offering from the
ground.
• Abel simply sought God’s favor through faith.
God accepted Abel’s offering of faith (grace)
God rejected Cain’s offering of works
What was the result? Cain killed Abel.
Does anyone remember the brothers Ishmael and Isaac?
• Ishmael was the product of man’s works (Abraham and Haggar)
• Isaac was the product of grace (Abraham and Sarah)
Paul expounds on the tension between those boys.
Galatians 4:29-31 “But as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now also. But what does the Scripture say? “CAST OUT THE BONDWOMAN AND HER SON, FOR THE SON OF THE BONDWOMAN SHALL NOT BE AN HEIR WITH THE SON OF THE FREE WOMAN.” So then, brethren, we are not children of a bondwoman, but of the free woman.”
• Paul references the fact that Ishmael began to make fun of Isaac.
• When Sarah caught wind of this she demanded that Abraham send Hagar and
Isaac away.
• At first Abraham was unwilling, but God corrected him and told him to listen to
Sarah.
There was no place for legalism in the lineage of God’s people.
But there again the legalist persecuted the man of grace.
Does anyone remember the brothers Esau and Jacob?
• Esau was the skilled brother who had earned his father’s favor.
• Jacob was the momma’s boy who did nothing to earn his father’s favor.
However God had pronounced from the womb that
The blessing and the birthright would belong to Jacob.
It was given by grace, not works.
• And yet not only do we find Esau conspire with his father to try and steal from
Jacob what God had already promised him,
• We also find Esau threatening to kill Jacob for receiving it and forcing Jacob to
flee the land.
Again, the legalist persecuted the man of grace.
I think you get the picture of the tension that has existed.
WELL THAT TENSION IS ON FULL DISPLAY IN THE GOSPELS
AS THE LEGALISTS ARE IN ATTACK MODE AGAINST JESUS.
The Pharisees are attacking Jesus
Because He is seeking to freely give what they insisted must be earned.
• They weren’t upset that Jesus forgave the paralytic.
• They were upset that Jesus forgave the paralytic without making him earn it.
And Jesus knew that.
SO after healing the paralytic
• Jesus walked out of that house and did the absolutely unthinkable…
• He forgave and called a tax collector named Matthew.
• And if that was not enough Jesus then attended a banquet thrown in His honor in Matthew’s house where many other tax collectors and sinners attended.
This decision earned Jesus the derogatory title of “Friend of Sinners”.
And it made Jesus public enemy number 1 of the Pharisees.
Following that banquet
The Pharisees set out to prove to the world that Jesus was not from God, but was nothing more than a worldly licentious and irreligious man.
• They approached Him wanting to know what kind of a Rabbi would teach His
disciples to eat and drink with sinners as opposed to fasting and praying
with the Pharisees.
And Jesus humiliated them.
He pointed out that the fasting of the Pharisees is absolutely pointless,
In fact, when you think about it, it is downright dumb.
Who mourns when the Savior is present and sinners are being saved?
That is not a time for mourning, that is a time for celebrating.
BUT, AS YOU CAN SEE, THE BATTLE LINE IS CLEARLY DRAWN.
The Pharisees are out to discredit this “so-called” Savior
Who would set men free from their legalistic bonds
And freely give the salvation that they’ve been selling for years.
And this morning that battle surfaces yet again.
And all in regard to the SABBATH.
3 things
#1 A LEGALISTIC ATTACK
Luke 6:1-2
“He was passing through some grainfields on a Sabbath; and His disciples were picking the heads of grain, rubbing them in their hands, and eating the grain.”
Now, first of all, what the disciples were doing was TOTALLY LEGAL.
Deuteronomy 23:25 “When you enter your neighbor’s standing grain, then you may pluck the heads with your hand, but you shall not wield a sickle in your neighbor’s standing grain.”
This was a part of those LAWS OF COMPASSION which God so clearly set forth.
It runs up there with the command to not harvest your field a second time,
But to leave what you missed for the poor.
This was a command like that.
• God, in His Law, made provision for compassion.
• If a man entered your field, he was allowed to eat, but not to harvest.
• And since it was God who controlled the growth of your crop and the size of
your harvest, you were to live in faith that God would take care of you.
The disciples were simply eating lunch.
What was the problem?
They were doing it on the Sabbath
By Jesus’ day the Sabbath commands had gotten way out of hand.
• They understood that work was forbidden on the Sabbath.
• The interpretive challenge of the day was to define what “work” was.
• And boy did they run off the charts with it.
John MacArthur outlined a portion of the absurdity.
“For example, traveling more than 3,000 feet from home was forbidden. But if one had placed food at the 3,000 foot point before the Sabbath, that point would then be considered a home, since there was food thee, and allow another 3,000 feet of travel. Similarly, a piece of wood or a rope placed across the end of a narrow street or alley constituted a doorway. That could then be considered the front door of one’s house, and permit the 3,000 feet of travel to begin there.
There were also regulations about carrying items. Something lifted up in a public could only be set down in a private place, and vice versa. And object tossed into the air could be caught with the same hand, but if it was caught with the other hand, it would be a Sabbath violation. If a person had reached out to pick up food when the Sabbath began, the food had to be dropped; to bring the arm back while holding the food would be to carry a burden on the Sabbath. It was forbidden to carry anything heavier than a dried fig (though something weighing half as much could be carried two times). A tailor could not carry his needle, a scribe his pen, or a student his books. Only enough ink to write two letters (of the alphabet) could be carried. A letter could not be sent, not even with a non-Jew. Clothes could not be examined or shaken out before being put on because an insect might be killed in the process which would be work. No fire could be lit or put out. Cold water could be poured into warm water, but not warm into cold. An egg could not be cooked, not even by placing it in hot sand during the summer. Nothing could be sold or bought. Bathing was forbidden, lest water be spilled on the floor and wash it. Moving a chair was not allowed, since it might make a rut in a dirt floor, which was too much like plowing. Women were forbidden to look in a mirror, since if they saw white hair, they might be tempted to pull it out.
Other forbidden things included sowing, plowing, reaping, binding sheaves, threshing, winnowing, grinding, kneading, baking, shearing, killing, or skinning a deer, salting its meat, or preparing its skin.”
(MacArthur, John [The MacArthur New Testament Commentary: Luke 6-10, Moody Publishers, Chicago, IL, 2011] pg. 4)
And that isn’t even the tip of the iceberg.
It was out of control.
And yet, that is where the disciples of Jesus were being condemned.
They were “harvesting” on the Sabbath.
Clearly, according to Mosaic Law they were not
Since what they were doing in their neighbors field was declared legal and harvesting in their neighbors field was not.
All the disciples were guilty of was breaking their legalistic traditions.
The Pharisees were nit-picking.
They are looking for any way to condemn Jesus.
(2) “But some of the Pharisees said, “Why do you do what is not lawful on the Sabbath?”
Notice that the Pharisees had already
• Observed the action,
• Tried the action,
• And condemned the action.
They didn’t ask, “Do you think what you are doing is work?”
They already decided that it was.
They didn’t ask, “Did you realize that you are working?”
They already decided that it was an act of defiance.
Their question asks why Jesus and His disciples
Are so willing to adamantly break the commands of God.
It’s a loaded question filled with assumption.
They aren’t just trying to label Him a Sabbath violator,
They are seeking to label Him as an enemy of God.
#2 A SILENCING RESPONSE
Luke 6:3-5
Well, they asked, so Jesus answered.
And Jesus really gives two answers.
Matthew’s gospel records 2 more, but Luke just focuses on these two.
The picture is that Jesus stacks up the reasons
Why what His disciples are doing is legal.
The first answer comes almost in the form of a riddle.
(3-4) “And Jesus answering them said, “Have you not even read what David did when he was hungry, he and those who were with him, how he entered the house of God, and took and ate the consecrated bread which is not lawful for any to eat except the priests alone, and gave it to his companions?”
The incident referred to a time when David had fled from Saul.
1 Samuel 21:1-6 “Then David came to Nob to Ahimelech the priest; and Ahimelech came trembling to meet David and said to him, “Why are you alone and no one with you?” David said to Ahimelech the priest, “The king has commissioned me with a matter and has said to me, ‘Let no one know anything about the matter on which I am sending you and with which I have commissioned you; and I have directed the young men to a certain place.’ “Now therefore, what do you have on hand? Give me five loaves of bread, or whatever can be found.” The priest answered David and said, “There is no ordinary bread on hand, but there is consecrated bread; if only the young men have kept themselves from women.” David answered the priest and said to him, ” Surely women have been kept from us as previously when I set out and the vessels of the young men were holy, though it was an ordinary journey; how much more then today will their vessels be holy?” So the priest gave him consecrated bread; for there was no bread there but the bread of the Presence which was removed from before the LORD, in order to put hot bread in its place when it was taken away.”
According to Mosaic Law, that bread for the priest alone.
• But David asked for it
• The priest gave it to him
• And David ate it
• Not only that, but David gave it to the men with him.
Now, certainly we understand the concept of implied consent.
• We can certainly make the assumption that God was ok with that because He
did not confront David for it.
• What is more, we know that it must have been allowed, or else Jesus would
not have referenced it here.
But defending David is NOT the main point of Jesus.
Rather JESUS IS YET AGAIN EXPOSING
The ignorance and inconsistency of these legalistic Pharisees.
We first see that by the way Jesus FRAMES THE QUESTION.
“Have you not even read..?”
These men accused Him of condoning “what is not lawful”
And the first thing Jesus does is reveal that
Perhaps their knowledge of the Law is incomplete.
Were they not aware of the story of David?
Certainly they were, Jesus is just making a point.
And then Jesus referenced the story where David clearly did something “which is not lawful”.
But after mentioning the story
Jesus DOESN’T EXPLAIN why what David did was ok.
Now many have mentioned, and certainly I agree, that
The reason David was innocent was because the Law did not negate deeds of necessity.
• Had that priest had any other bread, he most certainly would have given it, but
the consecrated bread was all he had.
• His option was to either feed them the bread, or let them starve.
• At that point the heart of God became obvious to the priest and he fed the
men.
BUT JESUS NEVER MADE THAT EXPLANATION.
He’s not trying to correct their theology,
He’s trying to expose their inconsistency.
So He poses a riddle of sorts.
• The Pharisees accused Jesus of breaking God’s Law.
• Jesus responded by in effect asking them if they thought David also broke God’s Law.
Can you see the Pharisees staring at each other without a good answer?
If these Pharisees insist upon condemning Jesus
• Then they also have to condemn David,
• The priest who gave him the bread,
• And God who did nothing about it.
But if these Pharisees acquit David then they also have to acquit Jesus
Because David and Jesus both acted for the same reason…
Basic human necessity.
The only real difference is that David actually did violate the Law,
And Jesus actually did not.
So the Pharisees are caught in a dilemma.
• Do they condemn David or do they acquit Jesus?
But before they even come to a consensus on how to answer,
Jesus gives them another answer.
(5) “And He was saying to them, “The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.”
Now that is another one of those mind-blowing statements.
• That is right up there with His claims in Nazareth to be God’s anointed come to
usher in God’s kingdom.
• That is right up there with His claim to be able to forgive sin.
Jesus claims to sit in authority over the Sabbath.
Let me ask you a question.
If God decides to work on the Sabbath, is He guilty of breaking His Law?
• Of course not
• He is God and He can do whatever He wants.
Incidentally, that was the point Jesus made on another Sabbath discrepancy:
When Jesus healed the man at the Bethesda pool it was also on a Sabbath.
John 5:16-17 “For this reason the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because He was doing these things on the Sabbath. But He answered them, “My Father is working until now, and I Myself am working.”
There they accused Jesus of working on the Sabbath (He wasn’t, but that was the accusation). Jesus replied by saying, “Why not, My Father is working, and I’m just doing what My Father is doing.”
The statement here is even more direct.
Jesus declares Himself “Lord of the Sabbath”
It is a direct claim to deity.
It is a direct claim to be the chief authority.
And the statement here is:
• Even if I was working
• Even if I allowed My disciples to work
• Even then it would be ok because I am the author of that Law and I do not sit under its jurisdiction.
The Sabbath doesn’t define My actions, I define the Sabbath laws.
And incidentally, this is where OUR DOCTRINE on Sabbath worship rests.
Listen to what Paul said about it:
Romans 14:1-9 “Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions. One person has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only. The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him. Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand. One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God. For not one of us lives for himself, and not one dies for himself; for if we live, we live for the Lord, or if we die, we die for the Lord; therefore whether we live or die, we are the Lord’s. For to this end Christ died and lived again, that He might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.”
Our Sabbath commitment is not about commitment to a day,
It is about commitment to a person.
We don’t worship the Sabbath, we worship the “Lord of the Sabbath”.
That is where the Pharisees missed it.
• They worshiped the Sabbath and all of their traditions,
• But they had no regard for the “Lord of the Sabbath”.
Jesus just told them that.
AND THE PHARISEES CAN NO MORE DISPROVE THAT
Than they can disprove His authority to forgive,
For His power bears witness to His claims.
So they set out to expose Jesus as being LAWLESS,
All that happened is that Jesus exposed them for being CLUELESS.
#3 A HUMILIATING DEMONSTRATION
Luke 6:6-11
Luke says, “On another Sabbath” which indicates that this is not just a normal flow of events.
Rather, Luke is making a point about how the Pharisees attacked Jesus in regard to Sabbath Law and how He defeated them every time.
“On another Sabbath He entered the synagogue and was teaching;”
(That was His purpose right?)
“and there was a man there whose right hand was withered. The scribes and the Pharisees were watching Him closely to see if He healed on the Sabbath, so that they might find reason to accuse Him.”
Healing on the Sabbath was not forbidden by Mosaic Law,
• Only by the traditions of the Pharisees,
• But their traditions had become so engrained they were treated like Law.
And here again the Pharisees are just looking for their opportunity.
And the stage is set because their actually happens to be a crippled man in the congregation.
• A man “whose right hand was withered” sat there, and the Pharisees were curious.
Matthew records that it was actually the Pharisees who pointed out this man to Jesus wanting His take on whether or not it was lawful to heal on the Sabbath.
(8) But He knew what they were thinking, and He said to the man with the withered hand, “Get up and come forward!” And he got up and came forward.”
This is such a bold move by Jesus.
If you use Matthew and Mark to piece together the entire scene
• It was the Pharisees who asked first about healing on the Sabbath.
• And to answer their question Jesus responds by calling the crippled man up in front of everyone,
• And then Jesus turns the situation around on them.
(9) “And Jesus said to them, “I ask you, is it lawful to do good or to do harm on the Sabbath, to save a life or to destroy it?”
They asked if healing was allowed
So Jesus stood the man in front of them and basically asked them
To look this man in the eye and tell him it wasn’t.
I’ve often had conversations with people in regard to benevolence.
One thing I know about benevolence is that everyone knows exactly how to do benevolence until the needy person is standing right in front of you.
I’ve had people tell me, “We don’t need to help like that, or we don’t need to help so and so”
My response is, “That’s fine, so the next time they ask, I’m going to need you to come tell them that.”
THE POINT IS, rules are easy if you’re able to remove the human element.
But when you are forced to look people in the eye
The black and white nature of rules becomes much more difficult.
Well that’s what Jesus does here.
• He forces these Pharisees to look this man in the eye,
• To see his pain,
• To anticipate how badly he wanted healing.
And Jesus said, “I ASK YOU, is it lawful to do good or to do harm on the Sabbath, to save a life or to destroy it?”
And verse 10 says, “After looking around at them all…”
Man what a scene!
• Jesus makes eye contact with every one of those Pharisees,
• Just waiting to see if any one of them would have either the heart to want this man healed
• Or the audacity to say otherwise.
Mark’s gospel says:
Mark 3:5 “After looking around at them with anger, grieved at their hardness of heart…”
Luke doesn’t mention the anger, but I do think it’s implied.
What these men were doing was worse than trying to trap Jesus,
They are demonstrating a heartless attitude toward the afflicted.
And by the way: THEY ANSWERED THE QUESTION
By their silence their answer was “Don’t heal him”
• They are demonstrating the same cold enslavement that they have preached
for years. They have absolutely no concern for people, only for their own
legalistic traditions.
NO COMPASSION
Jesus “said to him, “Stretch out your hand!” And he did so; and his hand was restored.”
Now please pay close attention to what actually happened here.
First, the response of the Pharisees.
“But they themselves were filled with rage, and discussed together what they might do to Jesus.”
• There they are again mourning when they ought to be celebrating.
• They were about as far away from the heart of God as a person could get.
• These Pharisees were content to destroy life for the sake of their legalistic doctrine.
BUT WHY ARE THEY SO ANGRY?
If you say it’s because Jesus broke the Law by working, then tell me what did He do that they would have considered work?
• Did He operate on the man? No
• Did He help the man do some sort of physical therapy? No
• Did He even touch the man? No
All He did was talk.
He told the man to stretch out his hand, and the man’s hand was healed.
Even if healing was work
There was no possible way they could have condemned Jesus
For working here with as little physical effort as He exerted.
THESE MEN CANNOT BE MAD ABOUT THE SABBATH BEING BROKEN.
THE ONLY THING THEY CAN BE MADE ABOUT
IS A MAN BEING HEALED BY GOD.
Their true colors are showing.
• They didn’t love people.
• They didn’t love God’s Law.
• They didn’t love God.
They used God and His Law as a means of putting others down
And elevating themselves.
AND THIS WAS NEVER THE INTENT.
TURN TO: ISAIAH 56
• In Isaiah 56-58 you have a section where God is explaining to Israel exactly
what is wrong with their religion and why He finds it so detestable.
• It actually begins in chapter 56 with God explaining how beneficial it is to
keep His Law accurately.
READ ISAIAH 56:1-8
• God says if you do what is right and keep from profaning My Sabbaths then I
will bless you.
• And it doesn’t matter who you are, even a eunuch or a foreigner, I will bless
you if you keep My Sabbaths.
Now that sounds exactly like the argument the Pharisees might have made to Jesus doesn’t it?
Except they were totally missing the point
Of what it meant to keep God’s Sabbath.
TURN TO: ISAIAH 58
READ: ISAIAH 58:1-1-5
• They just couldn’t figure out why they were jumping through all of those hoops
and God wasn’t pleased.
• God says it is because you are only interested in fulfilling your desire, not
Mine.
Well what is God’s desire?
READ: ISAIAH 58:6-7
God wants compassion not oppression.
And that is what Jesus said.
“Is it lawful to do good or to do harm on the Sabbath, to save a life or to destroy it?”
Jesus wasn’t in violation of the Law here, the Pharisees were,
It’s just that they had convinced everyone that they were right.
But God had NEVER been pleased with them.
We could go back to Isaiah 1.
Isaiah 1:11-15 “What are your multiplied sacrifices to Me?” Says the LORD. “I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams And the fat of fed cattle; And I take no pleasure in the blood of bulls, lambs or goats. “When you come to appear before Me, Who requires of you this trampling of My courts? “Bring your worthless offerings no longer, Incense is an abomination to Me. New moon and sabbath, the calling of assemblies — I cannot endure iniquity and the solemn assembly. “I hate your new moon festivals and your appointed feasts, They have become a burden to Me; I am weary of bearing them. “So when you spread out your hands in prayer, I will hide My eyes from you; Yes, even though you multiply prayers, I will not listen. Your hands are covered with blood.”
Well then what does God want?
Isaiah 1:16-17 “Wash yourselves, make yourselves clean; Remove the evil of your deeds from My sight. Cease to do evil, Learn to do good; Seek justice, Reprove the ruthless, Defend the orphan, Plead for the widow.”
The religion God wanted was the religion that walked in truth and compassion, not condemnation and oppression.
THAT IS WHAT JESUS CAME TO EXPOSE
And the clear point from Jesus here is that
SALVATION REIGNS OVER CONDEMNATION.
Or as James put it, “mercy triumphs over judgment.”
Now certainly WE’RE NOT trying to make Jesus out as a sin-tolerating liberal, He most certainly was not. He always preached repentance.
However, He took much more delight
In seeing a sinner repent than He did in seeing a sinner condemned.
It is far better “to save a life [than] to destroy it”
Cain, Ishmael, Esau, the Pharisees – they all destroyed life
Jesus came to save it
It is not confusing where the church must dwell on this.
