(Bulletin For Biblical Research Supplements 5) Michael H. Burer-Divine Sabbath Work-Eisenbrauns (2012)

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 I. Howard Marshall
Fuller Theological Seminary University of Aberdeen
Donald A. Carson Elmer A. Martens
Trinity Evangelical Divinity Mennonite Brethren Biblical
School Seminary
Donald A. Hagner Bruce K. Waltke
Fuller Theological Seminary Knox Theological Seminary
Karen H. Jobes Edwin M. Yamauchi
Wheaton College 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
vi Contents
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 schol-
arly 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 Theo-
logical 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 im-
prove 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 count-
less 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 en-
couragement. 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 nu-
merous 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 mat-
ters 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 pre-
ferred it to be in Turabian style, not SBL!
To God alone be the glory.
Maurepas, France
February 2011
vii
Abbreviations
General
LXX Septuagint (Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible)
MT Masoretic Text
net The NET Bible (New English Translation). 1st ed. Dallas: Biblical Studies
Press, 2005
NT New Testament
OT Old Testament
Reference Works
AB Anchor Bible
ABD Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by D. N. Freedman et al. 6 vols. New
York: Doubleday, 1992
ABRL Anchor Bible Reference Library
ACNT Augsburg Commentaries on the New Testament
AGJU Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des
Urchristentums
AnBib Analecta biblica
ArBib The Aramaic Bible
BBET Beiträge zur biblischen Exegese und Theologie
BBR Bulletin for Biblical Research
BDAG Bauer, W., F. W. Danker, W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich. Greek-
English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature.
3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999
BECNT Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament
BHS Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Edited by K. Elliger and W. Rudolph.
Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1983
BNTC Black’s New Testament Commentaries
BRS Biblical Resource Series
BSac Bibliotheca sacra
CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly
CC Continental Commentaries
CGTC Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary
CNT Commentaire du Nouveau Testament
CRINT Compendia rerum iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum
DJD Discoveries in the Judaean Desert
DJG Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Edited by J. B. Green and
S. McKnight. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1992
ix
x Abbreviations
DNTB Dictionary of New Testament Background. Edited by Craig A. Evans and

Stanley E. Porter. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000
EBC Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Edited by T. Longman III and David E.
Garland. 13 vols. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005–10
EBib Études bibliques
EncJud Encyclopaedia Judaica. Edited by F. Skolnik and M. Berenbaum. 22 vols.
2nd ed. Detroit: Macmillan, 2007
EvQ Evangelical Quarterly
ExpTim Expository Times
HALOT 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
HeyJ Heythrop Journal
HSS Harvard Semitic Studies
HTR Harvard Theological Review
IBC Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching
IBS Irish Biblical Studies
ICC International Critical Commentary
JBL Journal of Biblical Literature
JPSLJC Jewish Publication Society Library of Jewish Classics
JPSTC Jewish Publication Society Torah Commentary
JSHRZ Jüdische Schriften aus hellenistisch-römischer Zeit
JSJ Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman
Periods
JSNT Journal for the Study of the New Testament
JSNTSup Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series
JTS Journal of Theological Studies
LBS Library of Biblical Studies
LD Lectio divina
LSJ Liddell, H. G., and R. Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon. 9th ed. with
revised supplement by H. S. Jones. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1996
LSTS Library of Second Temple Studies
NA27 Novum Testamentum Graece. Edited by Eberhard Nestle, Barbara Aland,
and Kurt Aland. 27th ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2007
NAC New American Commentary
NCBC New Century Bible Commentary
NIBCNT New International Biblical Commentary on the New Testament
NICNT New International Commentary on the New Testament
NICOT New International Commentary on the Old Testament
NIGTC New International Greek Testament Commentary
OTL Old Testament Library
OTM Oxford Theological Monographs
OTP Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by J. H. Charlesworth. 2 vols. New
York: Doubleday, 1983
PhAnt Philosophia antiqua
SBT Studies in Biblical Theology
Abbreviations xi
SNTSMS Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series

SP Sacra pagina
TANZ Texte und Arbeiten zum neutestamentlichen Zeitalter
TNTC Tyndale New Testament Commentaries
TOTC Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries
TRE Theologische Realenzyklopädie. Edited by G. Krause and G. Müller.
Berlin: de Gruyter, 1977–
TSAJ Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum
TT Texts and Translations
TUGAL Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen
Literatur
TynBul Tyndale Bulletin
VT Vetus Testamentum
VTSup Vetus Testamentum Supplements
WBC Word Biblical Commentary
WUNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament
ZAW Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
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 con-
flict between Jesus and the Jewish religious leaders. The key to understand-
ing 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 in-
fluential 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 lit-
erature, that is, literature that may or may not have been known to the writ-
ers 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 ap-
propriate to the topic. In chap. 4, I will use the material from chap. 3 to as-
sess 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 con-
clusion 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’ Sab-
bath 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 activ-
ity. The conflict is essentially one of authority: Jesus’ actions that brought
healing and grace to the sick undermined the traditional Pharisaic inter-
pretation 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 Sab-
bath commandment but against the subsequent Pharasiac Halakah. (3) Je-
sus 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 com-
mandment not as a strict ordinance but in keeping with its intent. (6) Jesus
lived in complete accordance with the Sabbath commandment. 5 It is im-
portant 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 Urchris-
tentum (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 at-
titudes 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: Double-
day, 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 sab-
bath commandment. The rest and rejoicing symbolized by the sabbath find
fulfillment in the kingdom brought by Jesus.” 7 These comments are indica-
tive 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 intrin-
sic 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 non-
authoritative 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 presen-
tation of background evidence to bolster this claim. John 5 is the passage
that most explicitly addresses the question of divine Sabbath work, so com-
mentators on the Gospel of John tend to address the issue in a more de-
veloped 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, ad-
dresses 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 Uni-
versity 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 there-
fore 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 car-
rying 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 justi-
fied 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 Sab-
bath rest. In the commandment concerning the Sabbath (Exod xx 11, but con-
trast 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 giv-

ing 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 argu-
mentation through a systematic examination of all the background materi-
als currently available—rabbinic and otherwise—to find the materials that
touch on the concept of divine Sabbath work and then to discuss Jesus’ Sab-
bath 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 Je-
sus’ 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’ as-
sertion 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 evi-
dence will consist of making a case for connecting the material to Jesus’ Sab-
bath activity. The hypothesis will be validated based on a correct interpreta-
tion 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 or-
der to have a manageable fund of passages from which to draw, I am lim-
iting 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 read-
ing of secondary sources, I will include them in the discussion, but I will
not undertake a systematic search for any other terms. Background litera-
ture 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 chronolog-
ical 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 com-
ments 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 ‫יעי‬ִ ‫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 in-
volved 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 Sab-
bath 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 gen-
1. 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 con-
troversy. My goal is to challenge his conclusion about the secondary nature
of Sabbath controversy and also to examine evidence to the contrary. In or-
der 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 judg-
ment 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 conclu-
sion 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 sa-
lient 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 re-
construct by using the scientific tools of modern historical research. Granted
the fragmentary state of our sources and the often indirect nature of the ar-
guments 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 Pales-
tine 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 con-
struct 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 dif-
ferent 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 con-
struct 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 discon-
nection, 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 of-
fers 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 stud-
ies: “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 tradi-
tional 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.
event that is in principle perceivable by any interested and fair-minded ob-

server, (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 spo-
ken 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 reli-
gious 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. Be-
cause 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 rea-
sonably ask and hope to answer the following questions: (1) Are reports about
Jesus performing miracles totally inventions of the early church as it devel-
oped 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 typi-
cal of reports of Jesus’ activity, while other kinds are relatively or completely

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 in-
vestigation of historical data and are disconnected from any statements of
faith about miracles in the life of Jesus. The first question focuses on the re-
ports, and this most naturally leads one to the Gospel documents that con-
tain 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 answer-
ing this question is the criterion of multiple attestation: “Every Gospel
source (Mark, Q, M, L, and John), every evangelist in his redactional sum-

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 authen-
ticity. 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 Re-
search: 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).
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 crite-
ria 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 con-
figuration 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 connec-
tion 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 tradi-
tion 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 historic-
ity do not work in the case of the miracle tradition, where multiple attesta-
tion 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.

14. Meier, A Marginal Jew, 2:624–25.
14 Chapter 2
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 para-
lytic 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 indi-
cates any type of Sabbath controversy is the plucking of grain on the Sab-
bath (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 con-
troversy 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 plu-
ralism 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 re-
iterates the same conclusion but now on the grounds that “no Jewish docu-
ment 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 con-
17. There is one pericope in the Gospels where Jesus exorcises a demon on the Sab-
bath, 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.
22. Meier, A Marginal Jew, 4:255 This same evidence is also determinative, in his esti-
mation, for Luke 13:10–17, 14:1–6.
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 fol-
lowing 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? Prob-
ably not. 25
Meier argues against the Sabbath controversy in both the Johannine mir-
acles 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 heal-
ing on the sabbath dissolves under the glare of critical analysis.” 28

16 Chapter 2
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 contro-
versy, we find that the criteria of authenticity prove useful. As detailed by
Meier, the primary criteria of authenticity are embarrassment, disconti-
nuity, multiple attestation, coherence, and rejection and execution. 29 The
secondary 30 criteria are traces of Aramaic, Palestinian environment, vivid-
ness of narration, tendencies of the developing Synoptic tradition, and his-
torical 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 ad-
ditional layer to the debate. For one example, see Craig A. Evans, Jesus and His Contempo-
raries: 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.
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 as-
pect 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 paral-
lels) 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 en-
tered 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 im-
ply 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 Mac-
cabees 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 Je-
sus’ 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 Je-
sus, in claiming authority over the Sabbath, as claiming authority over Is-
rael’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 subver-
sive) 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 Jew-
ish 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.
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 spe-
cifically (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’ execu-
tion. 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 Sab-
bath observance and related rules during the first century and the situation
found in the Gospels—that is, it lends historical verisimilitude to the situa-
tion. 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 ex-
ecution 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 im-
mediately and began plotting with the Herodians, as to how they could as-
sassinate him.” 43 Meier notes as well that the placement of this healing fol-
lowing 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 pe-
ricope 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 disagree-
ment is with his subsequent doubt about the historicity of the Sabbath con-
troversy. The fact that redaction has occurred is clear enough. The perico-
pes 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 sto-
ries 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 Synop-
tics 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 argu-
ment 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.
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.
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 Hero-
dians 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 subse-
quent 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 aver-
age 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 buy-
ing 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 re-
ligious 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 obser-
vance, 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 oppo-
sition 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 Je-
sus 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 diffi-
cult 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 Hero-
dians,” JBL 119 (2000): 740–46; idem, A Marginal Jew, 2:560–65.
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 be-
tween the Qumran restrictions and the point of contention in this Sabbath
controversy, it at least lends credence to the argument that the words Je-
sus 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 posi-
tive 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 theo-
logical significance; why would this particular detail be created by the evan-
52. 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 au-
thority 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 expres-
sion 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.
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 gen-
eral 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 ar-
gument 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 contro-
versy both occur in John. In John 5, Jesus heals the paralytic by the pool of
59. See, for example, Mark 3:2.

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 Sab-
bath 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 origi-
nality 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 dem-
onstrate 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 ele-
ments 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 the-
ology, 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 ap-
parently created by John (aposynagōgos, “cast out of the synagogue”), an adjec-
tive 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

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.
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 com-
munity 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 evi-
dence 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 sur-
rounding the Twelfth of the Eighteen Benedictions, which specifically ex-
cludes Christians from the synagogue, is inconclusive and cannot be used as
a later starting point for any synagogue expulsions. Instead, it is best under-
stood 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 dur-
ing 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: Hen-
drickson, 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 Two-
Level 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 titu-
lus 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 histor-
ical contact with Jesus’ own ministry because the evidence from the chap-
ter points to what had been occurring in Judaism for years—namely: “the
Jewish-Christian tension in the first century was part of the larger intra-
Jewish 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 ex-
pulsions, it is possible that John is being intentionally anachronistic with his
description of the expulsion during the ministry of Jesus so that his read-
ers 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 Je-
sus’ 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 examina-
tion 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 de-
gree 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: Cam-
bridge University Press, 2007), 176.
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 com-
manded 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 Uni-
verse, 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 sanc-
tify 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 chal-

lenge 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 co-
herent 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 re-
searcher 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 rela-
tion 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 irrel-
evant to the central topic under investigation. 4 During the study, however,
other terms have come to light that do provide relevant material for under-
standing 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’ ac-
tions 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 par-
ticular 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; Not-
tingham: 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 pro-
grammatic in this regard.
8. A word about source-critical concerns is apropos here. I do not think it is neces-
sary 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 cre-
ation 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 theol-
ogy regarding the Sabbath and rest for the people of God.
There are several points to be noted at this juncture regarding this pas-
sage 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 stan-
dard of activity for this day and is commanded as the norm in later legisla-
tion. Not only is God’s rest a central focus, his response to the day is also im-
portant: God “blessed” (‫ֶך‬ ְ ‫ ) ַו ְי ָבר‬this day and “made it holy” (‫) ַויְקַ ּדֵ שׁ‬. Because
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 vari-
ants 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. Argu-
ably 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 differ-
ent 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 cre-
ation 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.
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. Be-
cause God stopped his work of creation, passages that indicate that God
again created—using the verb ‫ ברא‬specifically as creation terminology—be-
come important because they indicate that God continued work that he
supposedly had ceased. This creates another suggested line of argumenta-
tion for my hypothesis: if the work God stopped was creative, then pas-
sages 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 impor-
tant in the relevant literature. As stated above, this passage is not a com-
mand 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 imi-
tatio 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 imita-
tion 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 ques-
tion 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 Sab-
bath, 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). Sec-
ond, 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 exo-
dus. 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 provi-
dent, 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 Da-
tabase, 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.
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 Sab-
bath. 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 im-
portant 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 state-
ment 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 encour-
aged to be prepared. The manna can be baked or boiled—its properties are indeed won-
derful—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 sab-
bath, 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; Lou-
isville: 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 Sab-
bath 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 hal-
low 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 indi-
cates purpose, but it could also be epexegetical.
23. Bruce K. Waltke and M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Wi-
nona 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 accom-
plished 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 ac-
tivities: “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
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 impor-
tant 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 repeat-
edly 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.
31. Childs, Exodus, 416.
32. This weekly observance was unique to Israel. See Richard S. Hess, Israelite Reli-
gions: 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 Sab-
bath 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 com-
mand. 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 associa-
tion 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 Sab-
bath, 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 re-
ligious 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 pro-
hibition of work on the Sabbath to the kindling of fire. This connection becomes impor-
tant in the incident of the man collecting wood on the Sabbath in Num 15:32–36.
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 imi-
tation. 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 empha-
sis 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: Eerd-
mans, 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 Nominal-
bildung §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 Is-
rael. 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 com-
mand: “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 calen-
dar 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 instruc-
tive. 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 trac-
tate 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 per-
forming one’s daily tasks on the Sabbath.”
43. See Richard S. Hess, “Leviticus,” EBC, 1:781–83.
in such a way, the author carried over the theological motifs of the origi-
nal Sabbath legislation into the yearly festival celebrations, most likely em-
phasizing 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 pat-
tern 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 Israel-
ites are commanded to “be careful to set apart” (‫שׁמֹור‬,ָ traditionally trans-
lated “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 legis-
lation 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 com-
mands, 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: Eerd-
mans, 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 de-
livered 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 continu-
ously, 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 command-

ment in Deuteronomy, but perhaps the stronger of the two is the commem-
oration 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 cre-
ation account in Genesis. The Exodus from Egypt marks in effect the cre-
ation 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 (Deuter-
onomy 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 en-
tire 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.
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 me-
morial 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 presen-
tations of the Sabbath command. Both connect the command to the cov-
enant 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 “remem-
ber” 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.
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 oc-
curs 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 con-
nection of the psalm to the Sabbath was accomplished later than its original composi-
tion; 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; Philadel-
phia: 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 Sab-
bath day” (‫שׁיר ְליֹום הַּשַׁ ּבָת‬ ִ 58 The mighty works of the Lord are the
ִ ‫)מזְמֹור‬.
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 be-
tween 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 ap-
propriate 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) ar-
gues that this psalm is essentially a crass defense of “material retribution” with little theo-
logical 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
elsewhere, the creation motif here would lend itself well to any liturgy that
emphasized the Sabbath. The second is the sociomoral motif of the con-
nection of creation to God’s righteousness, specifically in the defeat of his
enemies, whose evil threatens the very foundations of creation and the ex-
altation 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 juxtapo-
sition 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 hear-
ers 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 in-
terpretation 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 ob-
servance (‫ )שֹׁמֵר שַׁ ּבָת ֵמ ַחּלְְלֹו‬is set parallel to more general ideas (e.g., from v. 1,
‫שּׁפָט ַועֲשּׂו ְצ ָד ָקה‬ ִ and from v. 2, ‫)שֹׁמֵר יָדֹו ֵמעֲשֹׂות ּכָל־רָע‬. This is a striking
ְ ‫שׁ ְמרּו ִמ‬
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 obser-
vance has received undue emphasis; 68 on the other hand, this could instead
be an indicator of the basic character of the Sabbath, making a fundamen-
tal 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 He-
brew 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 su-
perscriptions 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 jour-
ney, 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: Westmin-
ster, 1969], 310, 313) argues essentially that the particular command and the general com-
mand are equivalent.
that the Sabbath is a medium through which God extends his gracious pres-
ence 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 be-
comes a shorthand for God’s gracious dealings with man. 69 So the parallel-
ism 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 oth-
erwise 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 ְבִר‬ִ ‫חז‬ֲ ‫ָ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 foreign-
ers 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
ִ ‫חז‬ֲ ‫ָדים ּכָל־ׁשֹמֵר ׁשַ ּבָת ֵמ ַחּלְלֹו ּו ַמ‬ִ ‫הבָה אֶת־ׁשֵם יְהוָה ִל ְהיֹות לֹו ַלעֲב‬
ֲ ‫ּול ַא‬
ְ ‫ׁש ְרתֹו‬ָ ‫יְהוָה ְל‬
‫יתי‬ ִ Again, as above, Sabbath observance (‫ )ּכָל־שֹׁמֵר שַׁ ּבָת ֵמ ַחּלְלֹו‬is set par-
ִ ‫)ּב ְבִר‬.
allel 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 em-
phasized 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 com-
memorating 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 di-
vine 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 vari-
ous 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 specifi-
cally 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
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 be-
tween these two clauses is one which focuses on the attitude of the wor-
shiper: ‫ָאת לַּשַׁ ּבָת עֹנֶג ִל ְקדֹושׁ יְהוָה ְמכֻּבָד‬ָ ‫ו ָקר‬.ְ This clause’s placement in the cen-
ter 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 (ָ‫ָביך‬ִ ‫חלַת יַעֲקֹב א‬ֲ ַ‫אכ ְַל ִּתיךָ נ‬
ֲ ‫)ו ִה ְרּכ ְַבּתיךָ עַל־ ָּבמֳתֵ י ָארֶץ ְו ַה‬,
ְ namely, agricul-
tural fruitfulness and “undisturbed possession of the land.” 76 It is clear
75
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 exist-
ing 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 eschat-
ological renewal that the Lord will accomplish, the Sabbath forms a frame-
work 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 fea-
ture 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 Sab-
bath” 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 (Isa-
iah, 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 ָ ‫ ְו ָהל ְַך ִמּדֵ י‬in the context of Samuel’s judicial circuit; since v. 17 implies a reg-
ָ ‫ׁשנָה ְּב‬
ular return to his home in Ramah, a logical conclusion is that this refers to an annual trip.
2 Chronicles 24:5 reads ‫ׁשנָה‬ ָ ‫ִש ָראֵל ֶ ּכסֶף ְל ַחּזֵּק אֶת־ּבֵית אֱלֹהֵיכֶם ִמדֵ ּי‬ ׂ ְ ‫ְהּודה ְו ִק ְבצּו ִמ ָכּל־י‬
ָ ‫ְצאּו ְלעָרֵ י י‬
‫ׁשנָה‬
ָ ‫;ּב‬
ְ this most naturally implies an annual collection of the tax. Zechariah 14:16 reads
‫ֶך יְהוָה ְצבָאֹות ְולָחֹג אֶת־חַג ַהּסֻּכֹות‬ ְ ‫ׁשּתַ חֲֹות ְל ֶמל‬
ְ ‫ׁ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 (Jer-
emiah 1–20 [AB 21A; New York: Doubleday, 1999], 807), who points simply to perpetual
continuation of present circumstances.
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 Sab-
bath with an act of God on behalf of the community, whether for a restora-
tion of prior conditions or for eschatological renewal. This connection fur-
ther 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 im-
portance of this motif can hardly be stressed enough. By keeping the Sab-
bath, 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 sancti-
fied 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 dif-
ference 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 equiva-
lent.” 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 Sab-
baths 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 re-

lationship between God and Israel, which could very easily flow into an at-
testation 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 Sab-
bath, 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 be-
half 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 Sab-
bath theology that can be drawn from them, because this will certainly in-
form 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 obvi-
ous 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 fin-
ished 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, Is-
the 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: Eerd-
mans, 1998), 494; Leslie C. Allen, Ezekiel 1–19 (WBC 28; Dallas: Word, 1994), xxxiv–xxxvi;
Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 4.
rael is to mediate God’s presence to all the world. Keeping the Sabbath be-
came 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 restate-
ment 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 pas-
sage 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 be-
comes 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 com-
munion with God. It denotes the special relationship between God and Is-
rael, 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 Sab-
bath 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 giv-
ing 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 Ap-
proach,” Studia biblica et theologica 11 (1981): 9.
85. Siker-Gieseler, “The Theology of the Sabbath in the OT,” 13.
52 Chapter 3
“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 him-
self 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 be-
half 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 av-
enue 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 terminol-
ogy 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.
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 con-
text 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 judg-
ment 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 ter-
minology 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 en-
tails. 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 ac-
tion 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 indi-
cated 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 de-
scription 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 righ-
teous remnant and establishes his presence among his people. In conjunc-
tion with this eschatological renewal, the Lord will create something new
to establish his presence with his people. More to the point, the new cre-
ation 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 (Num-
bers [ JPSTC 4; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1990], 137) argues that a bet-
ter 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 Vor-
lage 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.
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 evi-
dence 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 protec-
tion 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 ter-
minology 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 exo-
dus, 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 supernat-
ural 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 redemp-
tive acts in terms of creation, the prophet opens the way for new redemp-
tive 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, re-
lies 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.
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 pas-
sages 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 comple-
ment the broader focus that this motif receives elsewhere. In this peniten-
tial 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 rou-
tinely discuss variant interpretations. In light of the uncertainty surrounding the mean-
ing 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 con-
jectural 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 post-
exilic 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 crit-
ical 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, “high-
handed” nature of David’s sin with Bathsheba and against Uriah, although this interpre-
tation 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 un-
derstood 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 sum-
mary 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 numer-
ous: 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 Ed-
ward 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 appropri-
ate 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
Almost uniformly, however, these references refer to the Sabbath from a

context of prohibition of human activity as opposed to description of di-
vine 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 clarifica-
tions about what is and is not permissible on the Sabbath.
The key document in Qumran that details Sabbath commands is the Da-
mascus 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 con-
temporary 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 mish-
naic 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 re-
constructed, 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.) Nei-
ther BibleWorks nor Accordance makes this distinction between reconstructed and non-
reconstructed 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 recon-
structed 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 Sab-
bath 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 paral-
lel 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 Scrip-
tures. In the War Scroll (1QM), which depicts the eschatological battle be-
tween 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 com-
munity 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 commu-
nity, 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 pro-
vides 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 pas-
sages 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.
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 differ-
ent 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 ap-
proach the heavenly sanctuary in a mystical experience. 111 Regardless of the
subtleties involved, it is clear that the primary focus of these songs is wor-
ship, 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 sal-
vific 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; At-
lanta: 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 Sab-
bath 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 ex-
pected. 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 Sab-
bath, 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 to-
ward the Sabbath. The conflict represented in Mattathias’s speech is be-
tween 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 Sab-
bath regulations against work, which had been overruled for this eventual-
112. The LXX was searched with BibleWorks on the BLM database, which is the
BibleWorks LXX Morphology. The BLM morphology database is an extensive adapta-
tion 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).
ity. The key point to recognize is the basis for the exception that Mattathias
promotes: the Sabbath commands were not overridden simply for conve-
nience but, rather, for an extreme circumstance. Mattathias does present
the possible outcome as extreme—a complete extermination of the righ-
teous 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 Mat-
tathias 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 depicts a battle between Jonathan and Bacchides in
which Jonathan mounts an attack on the Sabbath with God’s help and es-
capes 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 de-
fense 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 pas-
sage, 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. Gold-
stein argues,
With Judas’ death, our author had to prove the legitimacy of Jonathan’s suc-
cession and does so with great care. Anti-Hasmonaean Pietists might claim
that Jonathan, unlike Judas, was a wicked violator of the Sabbath and there-
fore 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,
64 Chapter 3
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 vio-

lations 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 relates a military event in which Judas routs Nica-
nor 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 pres-
ervation 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 sym-
bolizes 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.
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 in-
tent 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 abstain-
ing from work. Instead, his planned attack is considered heinous because
113. Jonathan A. Goldstein, I Maccabees (AB 41; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1976),
75.
114. Similar to this, Judas again keeps the Sabbath in the middle of a military cam-
paign in 2 Macc 12:38.
it violates the very nature of the day. Killing people on the Sabbath is con-
sidered 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 Sab-
bath. First and foremost is the precedence found for overriding the Sab-
bath commands: if there is an emergency, a crisis of significant propor-
tions 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 bless-
ing 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, Mat-
tathias 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 infer-
ence 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 un-
derstand 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 Sab-
bath, 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 dif-
ferent 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 Pseudepig-
raphen 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 “sab-
bath” (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 repre-
sentative 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 Sab-
bath for the book of Jubilees forms an inclusio that drives the distinctive-
ness 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 Is-
rael 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 heav-
enly institution, kept by God and his angels, before it was ever an institu-
tion 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.
thus elevating the Sabbath above a normal, earthly institution. 120 The Sab-
bath 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 Sab-
bath 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 ori-
gin 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 Sab-
bath, but the connection is made between keeping the Sabbath and receiv-
ing this blessing. This book, arising as it does out of a stricter sect of Juda-
ism, 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 be-
tween 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 ap-
peared 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 resur-
rection, 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 es-
chatological 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, escha-
tology, 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 identifi-
able 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 writ-
ings of this time. However, given the fact that the document enjoyed wide
circulation among Christians, the paucity of Christian interpolations is in-
deed striking. 126
The passages to which he refers in Vita 29 and 51 are indeed “easily identifi-
able.” 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 com-
ing age.”
126. Johnson, “Life of Adam and Eve,” 252
contains a clear Christian interpolation and a possible one. 127 The appen-

dix 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 theo-
logical 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 frag-
ments 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 frag-
ments, however, Clement has only two specific attributions to Aristobulus;
the extent of his remaining citations can be understood only from compar-
ison 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 argu-
ments. 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 Un-
terweisung 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 rela-
tively 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 manage-
ment of the creation. The context of the latter half of paragraph 11 in frag-
ment 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 spe-
cifically 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.
his rest, Aristobulus writes the following: τάξας γάρ, οὕτως αὐτὰ συνέχει καὶ
μεταποιεῖ. The aorist participle from τάσσω refers to the initial act of cre-
ation, and the present tense verbs συνέχει and μεταποιεῖ point to God’s cur-
rent 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 Clem-
ent 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 activ-
ity; 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 men-
tion 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 contin-
ues 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 ac-
tion 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. Gor-
don 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, an-
notation 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 Uni-
versity 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 Mac-

cabees; presumably, this is because he borrows from these writings to some
degree. 141 Josephus does reference specific laws regarding activities prohib-
ited 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 in-
tense, 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 con-
siders 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 sum-
mary 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 ca-
pable 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 simi-
lar 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 in-
tense 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 par-
allels 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.
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 Sab-
bath, 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 ex-
egesis 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 Uni-
versity 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 Al-
exandria 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 be-
gan 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 pre-
ceding 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 char-
acteristic ( 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 per-
fect 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 em-
phasis 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 circum-
cision. 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.
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 individu-
als 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 vari-
ous fugitives in the biblical text. One tangible benefit received in the Sab-
bath 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 great-
est 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 be-
tween 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.
76 Chapter 3
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 Sabbati-
cal 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.
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 appro-
priate 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 de-
scription 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 be-
ginning, 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 sev-
enth 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 em-
phasis 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 mean-
ing 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 reason-
able 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 Gold-
berg (“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 liter-
ary 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.
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 pas-
sages that relate to Sabbath prohibitions, however, especially regarding ex-
ceptions 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 la-
bor 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 ap-
propriate 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 ex-
pansions 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 rul-
ings related to healings, even the saving of life, and humanitarian concerns.
Many of these would be of interest in a discussion of Jesus’ Sabbath activi-
ties. 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 circumci-
sion, 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 in-
cluded 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 con-
vey further the sense of the passage to the reader.
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 her-
self; 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 li-
able 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 investi-
gating 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 con-
tains 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 mat-
ter of a religious duty [‫]דבר מצוה‬, even on the eve of the Sabbath it is permit-
ted [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 non-
religious 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 pro-
vides 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 expres-
sions 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 Mish-
nah 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 foreshadow-
ing of that day makes the connection quite natural. This passage comple-
ments 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, be-
cause the targums are translating the Hebrew text. Because of the uneven
nature of the translations, however, the targums are not without their un-
usual passages. 172 In a situation similar to the Mishnah, in the Fragment Tar-
gums 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 subse-
quently: 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 substan-
tially 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 Tar-
gum 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-
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:> 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 Israel-
ites 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 differ-
ent, but the connection is much the same: the age to come is entirely Sab-
bath, and theologically everything that the Sabbath represents, including
its rest but also all the other blessings associated with the day, will charac-
terize 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 sig-
nificant. In the Hebrew text of this verse, the emphasis is on God’s creat-
ing 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 Penta-
teuch 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.
84 Chapter 3
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 Sab-
bath 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 repre-
sent 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 com-
menced 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 Cha-
noch 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.
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 identi-
fies 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 men-
tioned: ‫ ַ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 Sab-
bath 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 Sab-
bath 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 Sab-
bath 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.
86 Chapter 3
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 Rab-
bis 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 carry-
ing 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 dis-
cussed below.
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 cre-
ated 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 es-
sential 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 im-
plication is that God continues certain types of work even during his pro-
claimed 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 in-
complete experience of death is sleep; an incomplete form of prophecy is
the dream; the incomplete form of the next world is the Sabbath.” The con-
nection made between the incomplete and full phenomena is one of partial
experience or perhaps one of escalation. In sleep and dreams, one experi-
ences 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 discus-
sion about the aspect of the Sabbath that is in view. It is not an unreason-
able 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 legisla-
tion 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 in-
ferred from the text, And it shall come to pass on the sixth day, that they shall pre-
pare—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.

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 equiva-
lent 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 im-
mediately 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 profan-
ing 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 under-
standing 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 argu-
ing that the Sabbath is the equivalent of all the commandments and that
the age to come will arrive when Israel keeps all the commandments per-
fectly 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.
90 Chapter 3
Exodus Rabbah 30:9

In Exod. Rab. 30:9, a theological conception of God is taught: the uni-
verse 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 noth-
ing; 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 con-
tinues 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 soterio-
logical key, as in other passages, but the emphasis is completely reversed.
184. This citation is from Lev. Rab. 3:1.

Instead of focusing on the Sabbath as a day on which God extends his salva-
tion 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 war-
like 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 Sab-
bath but under God’s approval. These two subsections of the division are
both important. The first makes the argument that Joshua captured Jeri-
cho on the Sabbath. Although this view presupposes that the siege of Je-
richo 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
92 Chapter 3
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 acknowl-
edged 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 varia-
tion. 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 com-
plains 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 be-
tween 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 dis-
cussed 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.
The implication is that Sabbath and circumcision by themselves are suf-

ficient 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, Pass-
over, 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 di-

vine 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 com-
mandment, there is a short passage that shows the extent to which individ-
uals 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.
94 Chapter 3
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 fur-
ther 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 obser-
vance, 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 holi-
ness 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 concep-
tual connection between this passage in Exodus and God’s initial sanctifi-
cation 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 specifi-
cally 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 jus-
tice? 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
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 con-
cept 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 explana-
tions 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 ques-
tion 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 appropri-
ate 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 command-
ments,’ refers to the commandment [to keep] the Sabbath, which is equiv-
alent in weight to all the other commandments of the Torah. As it is writ-
ten, ‘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 Edi-
tion. Citations were then checked in the appropriate volumes of Peter Schäfer and Hans-
Jürgen 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 Ex-
planation (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.
96 Chapter 3
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 command-
ments 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 func-
tion 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 rul-
ings 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 inter-
pretation 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 Edi-
tion. 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).
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 deci-
sive way for Israel on the Sabbath. There is no hint in the text of any dis-
comfort 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 fur-
ther 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 Sab-
bath, 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 empha-
sis 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. Sab-
bath 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 nega-
tive 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.
98 Chapter 3
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. Kat-
tina 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 mak-
ing 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 dic-
tum 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., San-
hedrin, 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 as-
sociation 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.
ning, an activity that would normally not be allowed on the Sabbath, is al-
lowed when one runs to hear Torah.
R. Helbo, in the name of R. Huna, says [further]: When a man leaves the Syna-
gogue, 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 inter-
esting 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 kin-
dling a fire. Yet the final judgment is that the Sabbath breaking was accept-
able 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. In-
stead, 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 de-
veloped 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 de-
lineated 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 Sab-
bath 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 re-
warding 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.
sense that it declares God’s rest, but within the Hebrew Scriptures this pas-
sage 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 associ-
ate 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 sanc-
tifies Israel in gracious relationship. Just as God sanctified the day, he acts
to sanctify Israel through the medium of the Sabbath. By obeying his com-
mands and entering his rest on the Sabbath, Israel experiences God’s pres-
ence 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 re-
mains part of the calendar of the eschaton in biblical and extrabiblical pas-
sages, 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 com-
mands from God to act this way, or they are implicitly free of culpability be-
cause 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 ma-
terials 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 Scrip-
tures 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 satisfac-
tion 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 le-
gal discussion premised on the original theology but more centrally focused
on the contemporaneous situation. The halakic discussion specifically, al-
though 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 his-
torical, geographical, and political situations required a reinterpretation of
the original legal texts. Israel felt the constant need to define itself as a na-
tion, 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 situa-
tion 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 histori-
cal, religious, social, or cultural, many difficulties arise. First and most im-
portant, 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 minis-
try 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 con-
text, 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 pic-
ture? 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
104 Chapter 4
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 recon-
struction 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 or-
der 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, us-
ing 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 spe-
cific 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 Juda-
ism; 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 His-
torical 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 cel-
ebrated 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 pres-
ent, 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 im-
peratives (e.g., love and forgiveness) but also presumed to give concrete direc-
tions on how to observe the Mosaic Law (hălākôt). . . . Some of his pronounce-
ments 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 institu-
tions in the Law: e.g., divorce, oaths and vows, and, in the opinion of some ex-
egetes, even the kosher food laws of the Torah. This element of concrete-and-
controversial 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 primar-
ily a historical Jesus study, it is part of a larger project designed to provide “a comprehen-
sive overview of the beginnings of Christianity” (p. xiii).
106 Chapter 4
as the eschatological prophet of the coming kingdom of God, not only pre-
sented himself as the Elijah-like miracle-worker who made the future king-
dom 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 en-
act 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 con-
text 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 histori-
cal 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 vigor-
ous international movement, already showing considerable diversity, whose
founding myth (in a quite ‘neutral’ sense) was a story about one Jesus of Naza-
reth, 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 fo-
cal point of the people of Yhwh,” 11 the one who through his own life and

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.
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 fol-
lowers 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 tech-
nical 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 por-
trait 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 ac-
cording 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 pres-
ence and promise of God to the world. The kingdom presence that he inau-
gurated 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 tra-
dition generated by Jesus’ impact; the verb “remember” in the title is spe-
cifically 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 inti-
mate 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 back-
ground 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 es-
chatological 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 ad-
dresses Jesus’ Sabbath activity. The Sabbath was also viewed as an eschato-
logical 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 Sand-
ers, 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 Jew-
ish 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).
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 lit-
erature 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 min-
istry, 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 rela-
tion 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 Theolog-
ical 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 specifi-
cally with his miracles, takes on the role of a prophet, a role that is well at-
tested throughout Jewish literature. The distinctiveness is based on several
significant factors. First, Jesus is unique in that he is portrayed as perform-
ing 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 under-
standing would have supported Jesus’ use of healing miracles as signs of es-
chatological 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. Sec-
ondly, 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 heal-
ing and exorcism as prophetic signs, not only of the imminence of the King-
dom of God, but of its nature. 25
Thus within Jesus’ ministry, healing and exorcism had an eschatological fo-
cus. 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. Mo-
ses 10 and 1QS 2–4.
25. Eve, The Jewish Context of Jesus’ Miracles, 380–81.
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 per-
fect, eternal rest. Thus the present Sabbath became a key sign of that eter-
nal, 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 over-
looked. I argued in chap. 3 that the Sabbath is viewed throughout the back-
ground 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 op-
pressed, 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 mul-
tiple 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 in-
vestigation and to explain Jesus’ Sabbath actions significant, I will examine
another outstanding passage to see how it handles the other threads of Sab-
bath 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 Sab-
bath, the synagogue ruler reacts negatively, and in response Jesus defends
himself on the basis of the day’s character. The pericope opens with a refer-
ence to Jesus teaching in a synagogue on the Sabbath. This in itself is strik-
ing. 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 paral-
lels; Luke 13:10–17; 14:1–6; John 5; 9).
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 re-
turn to the synagogue is meant to evoke Jesus’ Galilean ministry, especially
his preaching at the synagogue in Nazareth. 30 The implications of this nu-
ance will be discussed more carefully below. 31
Following the description of the time and place of the setting, Luke in-
troduces the crippled woman. His description of her is purposeful in that it
explains her sickness and therefore sets the stage for the healing and con-
troversy 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 her-
self intentionally, but her condition is certainly noticeable. Probably this
condition has brought shame on her in some sense, and the further descrip-
tion 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 oppres-
sion 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.

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, Commen-
tary 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 per-
haps 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 re-
sults 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 prob-
ably 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 de-
picts the present results of past actions. There are two possibilities for the
past action in view. It is conceivable that Jesus is speaking somewhat pro-
leptically 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’ ac-
tions. 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 ac-
tion 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 con-
firmation that God is working through Jesus, both because of the imme-
diacy 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 rep-
resentative of all who have been opposing Jesus throughout the narrative. 35
The narrator gives the explicit reason that the leader speaks out against Je-
sus. 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 pas-
sage 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.
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 recog-
nition 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 cen-
ter of Jesus’ focus her identity as an Israelite: she is connected to the cov-
enant 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 im-
agery 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: Litur-
gical 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 adver-
saries 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 syna-
gogues. 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’ teach-
ing 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 Jerusa-
lem journey, and he had recently identified the synagogue as a place of pos-
sible 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’ teach-
ing. 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 par-
allel 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 min-
istry. This sort of intentional shift is an indication of the importance and
programmatic nature it holds for the author. Furthermore, the content of

the pericope, including the emphasis on prophetic fulfillment and antago-

nism toward Jesus, lends credence to this conclusion.
The central message of this pericope is that Jesus is fulfilling the eschat-
ological hope of Israel in his life and ministry. The passage quoted by Je-
sus 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 can-
not 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 some-
times done by means of preaching summaries in Jesus’ ministry. The ques-
tion 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 com-
plaint. But as it is, Jesus intentionally acts to heal the woman on the Sab-
bath 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 inten-
tional. 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 dif-
ferent. 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 admoni-
tion 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 cel-
ebrates 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 mo-
tifs 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 bond-
age 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 com-
munity 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 peric-
ope, 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 bless-
ings 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.
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 de-
picted as helping his servants obtain victory over their enemies on the Sab-
bath. 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 op-
position 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 ma-
jor section that shows rising opposition to Jesus.
47. They were the turning of water into wine (2:1–11) and the healing of the noble-
man’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.
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 illustra-
tive 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 condi-
tion. Often supernatural knowledge is seen as the means. 58 The grammat-
ical construction of this verse, however, may point away from supernatu-
ral 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 Uni-
versity 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 accord-
ing 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 narra-
tive, 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 nar-
rative. 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 deter-
mining 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—espe-
cially 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 Je-
sus 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 dis-
59. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics, 519–20.

60. So Buist M. Fanning, Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek (OTM; New York: Ox-
ford 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.
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 un-
derground 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 Je-
sus. 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 wor-
shipful 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).
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 indepen-
dent 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 be-
tween Jesus and the Jews reaches full flower very quickly within the com-
pressed time frame of the narrative: 5:16 gives a summary statement con-
cerning 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 in-
vented, 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 charac-
ters 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 narra-
tive, literary goals.
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 re-
lationship 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 de-
fense 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 Mes-
siah was even made. On the argument that God reserved the right to identify the Mes-
siah 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 tra-
ditional 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 di-
lemma. The most noticeable, obvious statement Jesus made was naming God as “My Fa-
ther”; 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 po-
sition 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 explana-
tion 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 nec-
essary 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 for-
bid 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 state-
ment, and ταῦτα (“these things”) in the latter part of the verse is plural, re-
ferring 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 fac-
tors 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 pronounce-
ment 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 perse-
cution was prevalent throughout Jesus’ ministry.
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 Je-
sus 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 perse-
cution 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 op-
ponents’ 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 ar-
gument 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 pref-
erable 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) oth-
erwise 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 pas-
sage 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 theo-
logical 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 righ-
teous and wicked. When one examines the discourse connected to the con-
troversy 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 ac-
tivity which are indubitably perpetual, ζωοποιεῖν and κρίνειν, and claims that
Christ performs both these ‘works’. It might be held that ‘judgment’ here cor-
responds 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.
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 di-
vine activity as it relates to Sabbath rest, 82 but the most appropriate teach-
ing for illuminating the background of John 5 is his doctrine of the two pow-
ers 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 rab-
binic 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 per-
forming 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.
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 ac-
tive, 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, Je-
sus 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 connec-
tion, 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 contro-
versy as it is developed in the narrative. There is no doubt that the meta-
phor 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, spe-
cial 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 The-
ology, 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 associa-
tion evoked by the term; for recent balanced assessments, see Scot McKnight, A New Vi-
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 at-
testation 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 Je-
sus 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 attesta-
tion. 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 mother-
tongue, 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 prepo-
sitional 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 Jeru-
salem 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 benedic-
tion, which introduced the morning Shema, and the New Year Litany, both of which con-
tain 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, men-
tioned 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 continues in the discourse to connect himself with the Father, this
time by giving eternal life (v. 24), which can alternatively be pictured as res-
urrection (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 resur-
rection. 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 con-
nected. 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 ex-
pression 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 inti-
mate 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 ac-
tivity. The closest approximation is John 5:17, but even this passage is some-
what 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 pow-
ers. 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 Sab-
bath 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
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 Sab-
bath 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 ac-
tions, 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 di-
vine 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’ Sab-
bath 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 in-
terpretation and commentary on Jesus’ Sabbath actions. Most all of the cur-
rent 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 understand-
ing 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 ob-
servance. 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 pro-
vide 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 mate-
rial 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 admin-
istering 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 ex-
ample, 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, pro-
vide 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 cove-
nant 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 em-

phasis 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 expres-
sion 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 em-
phasized. 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 escha-
tological 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 Sab-
bath 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 deliver-
ance 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 vali-
date 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 pas-
sages 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’ ac-
tions: (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 restric-
tions, 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 ancil-
lary goal of this study was to provide a different interpretive grid for under-
standing 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 redemp-
tive, 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, in-
cluding 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 or-
ganized 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’ Sab-
bath 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 investiga-
tion 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 Ara-
maic 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. Eng-
lish translation by Martin McNamara and Michael Maher. Madrid: Con-
sejo 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.”
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 So-
ciety 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 er-
sten 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 Univer-
sity Press, 1988.
_____ . Sifra: An Analytical Translation. 4 vols. Brown Judaic Studies 138–40. At-
lanta: 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: Schol-
ars 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 Se-
mitic 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 Gottin-
gensis 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.”
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. Charles-
worth. 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 consulta-
tion with Emanuel Tov. The Dead Sea Scrolls Concordance, vol. 1/1–2: The Non-
Biblical Texts from Qumran. Leiden: Brill, 2003–.
Alexander, Philip S. Mystical Texts. Library of Second Temple Studies 61. Lon-
don: T. & T. Clark, 2006.
_____ . “Targum, Targumim.” Pages 320–31 in vol. 6 of The Anchor Bible Diction-
ary. 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 Pas-
sion, 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. Wis-
senschaftliche 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. Dal-
las 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. Down-
ers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1992.
Bauer, Walter. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Chris-
tian 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 Commen-
tary. 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 Commen-
tary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997.
_____ . The Book of Ezekiel, Chapters 25–48. New International Commentary on
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. Har-
risburg, 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 Nou-
veau Testament 3B. Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1996.
Briggs, Charles A., and Emilie Grace Briggs. A Critical and Exegetical Commen-
tary on the Book of Psalms. 2 vols. International Critical Commentary. Edin-
burgh: 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 alttesta-
mentliche 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 Uni-
versity 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. Ed-
ited 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 Commen-
tary 6A. Dallas: Word, 2001.
Craigie, Peter C. The Book of Deuteronomy. New International Commentary on
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 Uni-
versity 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. Inter-
national 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: Eerd-
mans, 1998.
Durham, John I. Exodus. Word Biblical Commentary 3. Dallas: Word, 1987.
Ehrman, Bart D. Jesus, Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium. Oxford: Ox-
ford 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 King-
dom 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 Emer-
gence 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 Au-
thentic 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 Com-
mentary 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: Double-
day, 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 Ver-
sions, Aramaic: The Targumim.” Pages 588–95 in vol. 3 of Encyclopaedia
Judaica. Edited by Fred Skolnik and Michael Berenbaum. Detroit: Macmil-
lan, 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 Rap-
ids, MI: Eerdmans, 1993.
_____ . Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church under Persecu-
tion. 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 Testamen-
tum 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 Pro-
phetic 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 Inter-
national Organization for the Study of the Old Testament, Jerusalem 1986. Edited
by Matthias Augustin and Klaus-Dietrich Schunk. Frankfurt am Main: Pe-
ter 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: Re-
view 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 Gen-
esis.” 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 Com-
mentaries. 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 Ro-
man 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 Testa-
ment. 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. Naper-
ville, IL: Allenson, 1967.
_____ . The Rediscovery of Bethesda: John 5:2. Translated by J. Vardaman, C. Bur-
chard, D. Hume, and M. Zalampas. New Testament Archaeology. Louis-
ville: 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. En-
glish ed. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 2006.
Just, Arthur A., Jr. Luke 9:51–24:53. Concordia Commentary. Saint Louis: Con-
cordia, 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 Johan-
nine 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. Rich-
ardson. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2001.
Kubo, Sakae. God Meets Man: A Theology of the Sabbath and Second Advent. Nash-
ville: 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: Re-
view 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. Re-
vised by Henry Stuart Jones and Roderick McKenzie. 9th ed. With a re-
vised 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 Deutero-
Isaiah.” 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. Interna-
tional Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1986.
McKay, Heather A. Sabbath and Synagogue: The Question of Sabbath in Ancient Ju-
daism. Religions in the Graeco-Roman World 122. Leiden: Brill, 1994.
McKenzie, John L. Second Isaiah. Anchor Bible 20. Garden City, NY: Double-
day, 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: Eerd-
mans, 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. Nash-
ville: 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 Refer-
ence 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: Westmin-
ster John Knox, 2009.
Morris, Leon. The Gospel according to John. Rev. ed. New International Commen-
tary 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 Stud-
ies 17 (1995): 50–61.
Oswalt, John N. The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 1–39. New International Commen-
tary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986.
_____ . The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 40–66. New International Commentary on
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. Phil-
adelphia: 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 bib-
lischen 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 Gor-
cum / 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.

_____ . 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 The-
ologische 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: Sea-
bury, 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 Ap-
proach.” 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 Gor-
don 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: For-
tress, 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 Ques-
tion 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. Min-
neapolis: Augsburg, 1988.
Bibliography 153
Tigay, Jeffrey H. Deuteronomy. Jewish Publication Society Torah Commentary 5.

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 Chaos-
kampf Theory in the Old Testament. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005.
Twelftree, Graham H. Jesus the Exorcist: A Contribution to the Study of the Histori-
cal 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. Jü-
dische 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: Double-
day, 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. Phila-
delphia: 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 Exodus (cont.) 1 Samuel
1 56 20–23 36 7:16 48
1:1 31, 52, 55 24 36
1:1–2:3 29, 52 25:1–31:11 37 2 Samuel
1:1–2:4 29 31 51 19:2 96
2:1 85 31:12 38
2:1–3 28, 29, 34, 37, 41, 31:12–17 36, 37, 45, 2 Chronicles
42, 52, 53, 58, 70, 94, 119 24:5 48
94, 100, 111, 118 31:13 51
2:2 30 32 53, 111 Ezra
2:2–3 52 34:1 53 10:8 25
2:3 31, 52 34:10 53
8:1 39 34:21 34 Nehemiah
17:13 36 35:1–3 36, 94 9:14 96
29:27 77 35:3 35 10:32 35
13:15 35
Exodus Leviticus 13:15–18 35
4:22 130 16:29–31 37
5 137 16:31 37 Psalms
15:22–17:7 93 23 38, 117 24 44
16 50, 51, 68, 76, 111, 25:10 117 51:12 57
118 73:22 42
16:1–36 32 Numbers 82:18 44
16:19 32 15:32–36 35, 36, 73 83 44
16:20–21 32 16 53 83:18 44
16:22–26 32 16:30 53 91:8 44
16:23 32 92 41, 43, 44, 82, 98,
16:25–26 32 Deuteronomy 119
16:27 100 1:1–21:9 40 92:1 98
16:27–30 32 5 39, 41, 55, 111, 118, 92:8 44
16:29 34, 35 137 131:12 44
17:8 100 5:12 39 131:14 44
19–20 93 5:12–15 39, 45, 51, 101, 132:12 44
20 39, 40, 41, 51, 137 118, 119 132:14 44
20:8 82 23:1 45
20:8–10 40 30:19 48 Proverbs
20:8–11 33, 38, 45, 50, 32:6 130 10:22 96
101, 118 32:13 47
20:11 82
155
156 Index of Scripture
Isaiah Isaiah (cont.) Ezekiel

2:11 98 58:13 35 20:9–12 49
4:2–6 54 58:13–14 46 20:12 49
4:5 54 61:1–2 4, 117 20:20 49
6:3 128 63:16 130 40–48 50, 60
26:4 44 65 68 44:24 50
40–45 41 65:17–18 56 45:17 50
41:8–20 55 65:18 44 46:1–8 50
41:17–20 55 66 50
41:20 55 66:23 47, 48 Hosea
43:1 56 6:2 98
43:7 56 Jeremiah 6:3 99
43:15 56 17:21 35 11:1 130
45:8 56 17:21–27 48 11:10 99
56 46 17:24 35
56:1–8 44, 60, 119 17:27 35 Amos
56:4 100 23:24 128 8:5 35
56:5 45 31:22 57
56:7 100 38:22 57 Zechariah
58:6 117 14:16 48
New Testament
Matthew Matthew (cont.) Mark (cont.)

4:23 17 18:10 131 3:1–6 14, 15, 16, 19,
5:11–12 25 18:19 131 20, 112, 113
6:9 131 18:35 131 3:2 23
7:21 131 20:23 131 3:5 20
9:1–8 120 21:12–13 120 3:6 2, 19, 20, 21
9:8 21 26:29 131 5:20 21
9:35 17 26:39 131 6:1–6 112, 113, 116
10:32–33 25, 131 26:42 131 6:2 17
11:4–6 4 26:53 131 8:38 25
11:25 131 11:15–19 120
11:25–26 131 Mark 13:32 131
11:26 131 1:21 17 14 20
11:27 131 1:21–27 112, 113 14:32 131
12:1–8 3, 14 1:21–28 14
12:5–7 16, 112 1:39 17 Luke
12:8–9 25 2:1 20 2:49 131
12:9–14 14 2:1–12 120, 121 4 134
12:11–12 16 2:1–3:5 2 4:15 17
12:14 20 2:1–3:6 20 4:16 17
12:50 131 2:5 121 4:16–30 4, 116
13:53–58 112, 113 2:9 120 4:23 116
13:54 17 2:11 121 4:31 17
15:13 131 2:23–28 14, 16, 20, 4:31–36 112, 113
16:17 131 112, 113 4:31–44 116
16:27 131 2:28 17, 20 4:33 17
Index of Scripture 157
Luke (cont.) John (cont.) John (cont.)

4:44 17 5:1–9 15, 121, 123, 124, 14:23 131
6:1–5 14 127 14:23–24 131
6:6 17 5:1–15 126 15:1 131
6:6–11 14 5:1–18 16 15:8 131
6:11 20 5:1–30 7, 120 15:10 131
6:22–23 26 5:4 123 15:15 131
7:11–17 24 5:5 122 15:23–24 131
7:22–23 4 5:6 121 17:1 131
9:18–22 112 5:7 123 17:5 131
9:26 131 5:8 120 17:11 131
9:51 112 5:9 15, 24, 121 17:21 131
9:51–19:27 112 5:9–13 24 17:24–25 131
10:21 131 5:9–15 124 18:20 17
10:22 131 5:13 123 20:17 131
11:2 131 5:14 15, 121
12:11 113 5:15 124 Acts
13 126, 134, 135, 5:16 124, 126, 127 3:1–10 121
138 5:17 1, 5, 124, 126, 127, 13:14 17
13:10 17 131, 133, 136 13:42 17
13:10–17 7, 14, 15, 16, 5:18 19, 124, 125, 127 13:44 17
19, 22, 23, 24, 112, 5:43 131 13:50 25
113, 117, 119 6:32 131 17:2 17
13:17 21 6:40 131 18:4 17
14:1 113 6:59 17 20:7–12 17
14:1–6 14, 15, 16, 23, 7:22–23 16, 112
112 8:19 131 Romans
14:5 16 8:49 131 8:15 131, 132
19:45–46 120 8:54 131
22:29 131 9 16, 25, 26, , 112, 113, 1 Corinthians
22:42 131 124 16:2 17
23:34 131 9:1–17 16
23:46 131 9:1–41 15 Galatians
24:49 131 9:6 23 4:6 131, 132
9:14 24
John 9:22 24, 26 Colossians
2:1–11 120 9:34 24 2:16 17
2:12–22 120, 126 9:40–41 24
2:16 131 10:18 131 1 Thessalonians
3:1–21 120 10:25 131 2:14 25
4:1–42 120 10:29 131
4:46–54 120 10:37 131 Jude
5 4, 14, 16, 23, 24, 112, 11:41 131 14–16 69
113, 120, 125, 126, 12:27–28 131
127, 128, 129, 130, 12:42 24 Revelation
131, 133, 134, 135, 14:2 131 2:28 132
136, 138 14:7 131 3:5 132
14:20–21 131 3:21 132
Index of Authors
Abegg, M. G. 58, 59, 61 Colson, F. H. 76

Albeck, C. 84 Cook, E. M. 58, 61
Aletti, J.-N. 71 Craigie, P. C. 39, 40, 41
Alexander, P. S. 61, 62, 82, 83 Cranfield, C. E. B. 2
Allen, L. C. 50 Crenshaw, J. L. 47
Allison, D. C. 108
Denis, A.-M. 65
Bacchiocchi, S. 17 Dodd, C. H. 4, 5, 121, 122, 129
Barrett, C. K. 6, 25, 121, 123 Doering, L. 3, 66, 67, 114
Barr, J. 130 Driver, S. R. 39, 41
Bauer, D. R. 132 Dunn, J. D. G. 102, 104, 105, 107, 108,
Beasley-Murray, G. R. 25, 26 131
Becker, H.-J. 95 Durham, J. I. 32, 33, 35, 37, 41, 53
Blackman, P. 79
Bligh, J. 125, 126 Ehrman, B. D. 108
Block, D. I. 49, 50 Ellis, E. E. 113
Blomberg, C. L. 25 Epstein, I. 96, 97
Bock, D. L. 3, 103, 104, 105, 107, 113, Evans, C. A. 2, 16, 17, 18, 109, 113
117, 119 Eve, E. 12, 109, 110
Borg, M. J. 104
Borgen, P. 73 Fanning, B. M. 122
Bovon, F. 119 Fee, G. D. 123
Bowley, J. E. 58 Fitzmyer, J. A. 3, 113, 114, 115, 131, 132
Briggs, C. A. 41, 42, 57, 58 France, R. T. 2
Briggs, E. G. 41, 42, 57, 58 Fredriksen, P. 108
Brongers, H. A. 46 Freedman, H. 85, 86
Brown, R. E. 5, 6, 24, 25, 120, 121, 123, Fuglseth, K. 73
124 Funk, R. W. 8, 10, 121, 125
Bryan, S. M. 108
Bultmann, R. 25 García Martínez, F. 58, 59, 61, 123
Bushell, M. 71 Geldenhuys, N. 113
Buttenwieser, M. 42, 57 Gieniusz, A. 71
Godet, F. L. 121
Carson, D. A. 2, 4, 5, 18, 25, 26, 120, Goldberg, A. 78
121, 128 Goldstein, J. A. 63, 64
Cassuto, U. 53 Green, J. B. 4, 113, 116, 119
Charles, R. H. 65 Greenberg, M. 49, 50
Childs, B. S. 33, 34, 35, 53 Gropp, D. M. 132
Chilton, B. D. 83, 104 Grossfeld, B. 82
Christensen, D. L. 39, 40 Guelich, R. A. 4
Chrysostom 120 Gundry, R. H. 3
Collins, A. Y. 69, 70
158
Index of Authors 159
Haenchen, E. 24, 25, 121 Merz, A. 12, 120

Hägerland, T. 25 Milgrom, J. 54
Hagner, D. A. 3, 4 Miller, P. D. 33
Hanson, H. E. 54 Mirkin, M. A. 84
Hanson, P. D. 54 Morris, L. 122, 123
Harner, P. B. 55 Motyer, J. A. 55
Hartley, J. E. 39 Mras, K. 69
Hasel, G. F. 31, 33, 37 Muraoka, T. 46
Hengel, M. 25
Hess, R. S. 29, 35, 37, 38 Neusner, J. 79, 80
Hodges, Z. C. 123 Newsom, C. A. 61
Holladay, C. R. 69, 71 Nolland, J. 2, 113, 119
Hooker, M. D. 2
Hoover, R. W. 8, 121 O’Connor, M. 34, 44
Horbury, W. 25 O’Neill, J. C. 125
Horsley, R. A. 104 Oswalt, J. N. 45, 47, 48, 55
Horst, P. van der 25
Hossfeld, F.-L. 42, 43, 44, 57 Pfann, S. J. 132
Hurtado, L. W. 4 Porter, S. E. 12
Jastrow, M. 81 Robinson, G. 33

Jeremias, J. 123, 130, 132 Rudolph, W. 57
Johnson, L. T. 115 Rufus, T. 86
Johnson, M. D. 68, 69 Runia, D. T. 73, 74, 75, 77
Josephus 7, 13, 27, 71, 72
Joüon, P. 46 Sanders, E. P. 8, 15, 17, 22, 104, 108
Just, A. A., Jr. 119 Sarna, N. M. 30, 34, 36, 42
Schäfer, P. 83, 95
Keener, C. S. 3, 25 Schaper, J. 44
Klein, M. L. 83 Schnackenburg, R. 6, 123
Klink, E. W., III 26 Schürer, E. 41
Siker-Gieseler, J. S. 51
Lagrange, M.-J. 2, 6 Simon, M. 85, 86
Lane, W. L. 2, 3 Skarsten, R. 73
Lauterbach, J. Z. 93 Smith, M. S. 30
Lechner-Schmidt, W. 65 Smyth, H. W. 71
Léon-Dufour, X. 6 Sperling, S. D. 82
Leonhardt, J. 75 Stein, R. H. 113
Levine, B. A. 38 Stemberger, G. 78, 84
Lieberman, S. 80 Strack, H. L. 78, 84
Lundbom, J. R. 48 Stuhlmueller, C. 55
Sukenik, E. L. 61
Marshall, I. H. 113, 119
McKane, W. 48 Tate, M. E. 42, 57
McKnight, S. 130 Taylor, V. 2
Meier, J. P. 2, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, Theissen, G. 12, 120
16, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, , Theodor, J. 84
103, 104, 105, 106, 120 Thompson, J. A. 48
160 Index of Authors
Tiede, D. L. 3 Weiss, H. 72

Tigay, J. H. 40 Wenham, G. J. 37
Tigchelaar, E. J. C. 58, 59, 61, 123 Westcott, B. F. 121
Tov, E. 58 Westerholm, S. 17
Trudinger, P. L. 41, 42, 43, 98 Westermann, C. 44, 47, 55, 56
Tsumura, D. T. 42 Whitaker, G. H. 76
Twelftree, G. H. 109 Whybray, R. N. 56
Wildberger, H. 54, 55
Vaux, R. de 41 Winter, D. 12
Vermes, G. 104 Wintermute, O. S. 66
Wise, M. 61
Wallace, D. B. 71, 122, 123 Wright, N. T. 18, 104, 105, 106, 109
Wallace, H. N. 52
Walter, N. 69 Young, E. J. 45, 46, 47, 48, 55, 56
Waltke, B. K. 34, 44
Watts, J. D. W. 44, 45, 48, 54 Zenger, E. 42, 43, 44, 57
Weiser, A. 41, 42, 57 Zuckermandel, M. S. 80
Index of Nonbiblical Sources
Prerabbinic Jewish Sources
Dead Sea Scrolls 1QSerek Hayaḥad Josephus

2–4 112 n. 24
CD (Damascus Document) Against Apion
6:24–7:25 25
3:12–16 60–61 1.209 28 n. 1
3Q15
10:18–19 22 Jewish Antiquities
11:12–13 125 n. 67
10:14–11:18 60 12.271–77 73 n. 141
4Q321
10:17–19 61 13.12–14 73 n. 141
1:8 60 n. 105
10:19 95 13.251 73
4Q372
11:5–9 61 14.226 73
1:16 134 n. 96
1QIsaiaha 14.63 73 n. 141
4Q460
58:13 47 n. 73 18.318–24 73 n. 141
9 1:6 134 n. 96
1QMilḥamah Jewish War
11Q19
2:4–9 61 1.146 73 n.141
29:2–10 62
13:9 62 n. 108 2.289–90 74
11QTemple Scroll
2.456 73
26:0 60 n. 105
2.517–21 74
OT Apocrypha
1 Maccabees 2 Maccabees Sirach
1:41–49 17 n. 34 8:21–29 65 23:1 132 n. 86
2:39–41 63, 64, 12:38 65 n. 114 23:3 132 n. 86
73 n. 141, 74 15:1–5 66 Tobit
9:43–49 64, 65, 3 Maccabees 13:4 132 n. 86
73 n. 141, 121 5:7 132 n. 86
OT Pseudepigrapha
Aristobulus Jubilees (cont.) L.A.E. (Apoc. Mos.)
Fifth fragment 70–72 2:29–30 68 43:2–3 69, 70
Jubilees 2:30 68 L.A.E. (Vita)
1 67 2:31 28 n. 2 29 69, 70
2:1 67 23:23–31 112 n. 23 51 69, 69 n. 125, 70
2:18 68 50:6–13 68 51:2 70
2:19–20 67 50:8 68 Testament of Moses
2:21 68 50:12–13 68 10 112 n. 24
2:25–33 68 50:13 67
161
162 Index of Nonbiblical Sources
Philo
Abraham Flight Questions (on Genesis)
28–30 77 170 77 2.13 79
Allegorical Interpretation 174 76 3.48 76 n. 152
1.5–6 74, 75 Hypothetica Special Laws
Cherubim 7.15 78 n. 157 1.10 76 n. 152
77 75 7.17 78 n. 157 1.170 78, 79
87 75 Migration 2.39 78 n. 157
87–90 75 92 76 n. 152 2.40 78
Creation Moses 2.59 79 n. 160
1.89 79 n. 160 1.207 79 n. 160 2.64 79
Decalogue 2.210 79 n. 160 2.70 79 n. 160
96–101 76, 79 Names 2.84 78 n. 157
99–100 76 258–60 77 2.86 78 n. 157
100 71 n. 134, 76 n. 153 259–60 113 n. 26, 121 2.97 78 n. 157
159 77 Questions (on Exodus) 2.105 78 n. 157
Drunkenness 2.68 131 4.215 78 n. 157
1.52 78 n. 157 Virtues
1.97 78 n. 157
Rabbinic Sources
Mishnah Tamid Šabbat (cont.)
7:4 42 n. 56, 43 n. 58, 10:19 82 n. 167
Beṣah
44 n. 64, 80 n. 162, 12:8 81 n. 165
5:2 81 n. 164
83, 83 n. 170, 12:13 81 n. 165
Kerithot
99 n. 194 12:17 81 n. 164
3:10 81 n. 164
Yoma 13(14):10 82, 83
Menaḥot
8:6 81 n. 165, 117 n. 36 14:3 81 n. 165
11:3 81 n. 164
15:5 81 n. 165
Pesaḥim Tosefta 15:11–13 81 n. 165
6:1–2 81 n. 164
ʿErubin 15:15–17 81 n. 165
Šabbat
3:5 81 n. 165 17:19 81 n. 165
1:4–8 21 n. 51
7:1 81 n. 164 3:8 81 n. 165
The Targums
7:2 80, 81 n. 163, 81, Menaḥot
128 11:5 81 n. 164 Fragmentary Targum
12:1 81 Pesaḥim Exod 20:8 83 n. 170,
14:3 81 5:1 81 n. 164 84
16:6 82 n. 167 Šabbat Exod 20:11 83 n. 170,
18:3 81 1:3 82 n. 167 84
19:1–3 81 n. 165 1:23 81 n. 165 Targum Isaiah
22:6 81 n. 165 2:7 81 n. 165 65:18 84
Sanhedrin 2:16–21 82 n. 167
5:6 81 n. 164, 81 n. 165 Midrashim
7:4 82
7:8 82 8:3 81 n. 164 Genesis Rabbah
8:5 81 n. 164 7:5 31 n. 12, 86, 88
9:22 81, 81 n. 165, 82 10:9 31 n. 12, 87
Index of Nonbiblical Sources 163
Genesis Rabbah (cont.) Qoheleth Rabbah Šabbat

11:5 87, 130 n. 79 1:15, §1 93 1.11/3 82 n. 168
11:9 31 n. 12, 88 4:6, §1 91, 95 n.189
11:10 88, 102, 130 11:2, §1 94 The Babylonian Talmud
17:5 89, 98 Song of Songs Rabbah Berakot
44:17 89 n. 183 4:4 §6 83 n. 170 6b 100
92:4 89 Mekilta Baḥodeš 57b 98
Exodus Rabbah 7:75–79 95 Šabbat
25:12 90, 91 Mekilta Šabbata 19a 82 n. 168
30:9 88 n. 182, 91, 130 1:38–41 43 n. 58, 86b 98
Leviticus Rabbah 83 n. 170, 95 118b 101
3:1 91, 92, 92 n. 184, 1:120–25 96, 102, Sanhedrin
95 n. 189, 101 130 n. 80 97a 43 n. 58, 83 n. 170,
Numbers Rabbah Mekilta Vayassaʿ 99
14:1 92 5:66–77 94 Roš Haššanah
14:2 89, 90 31a 43 n. 58, 83 n. 170,
16:1 82 n. 168 The Palestinian Talmud 99, 99 n. 194, 100
23:6 93 n. 185 Berakot Taʿanit
Deuteronomy Rabbah 1.8/4 97 8b 98
1:21 28 n. 2 2.7/6 97 Yoma
Ruth Rabbah 35b 100, 101
3:3 93, 93 n. 186
Christian Greek Sources

Chrysostom Stromateis Ignatius
5.14.107.1–4 70 n. 131
Homily on John (Letter to the) Magnesians
6.16.137.4–
37 123 n. 52 9:1–4 70 n. 129
138.4 70 n. 131
Eusebius 6.16.141.7b 72
6.16.141.7b–
Praeparatio evangelica 142.1 70 n. 131
7.13.7–14.1 70 n. 131 6.16.142.4b 70 n. 131
8.10 70
13.12 70

(Bulletin For Biblical Research Supplements 5) Michael H. Burer-Divine Sabbath Work-Eisenbrauns (2012)

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

(Bulletin For Biblical Research Supplements 5) Michael H. Burer-Divine Sabbath Work-Eisenbrauns (2012)

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Divine Sabbath Work

Bulletin for Biblical Research Supplements

Winona Lake, Indiana

All rights reserved.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

The Specific Passages 112

DNTB Dictionary of New Testament Background. Edited by Craig A. Evans and

SNTSMS Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series

Scope of the Topic of Divine Sabbath Work

Method and Content of the Study

The Need for the Study

4. Lane, Mark, 124.

commandment, but it quickly progresses to an assertion by Jesus that he

7. Hagner, Matthew 1–13, 331.

participated. Following a short reference to Philo and his doctrine of God’s

Following this, Brown mentions specific arguments related to God’s giv-

The Limitations of the Study

on me to find the relevant background literature and to make a persuasive

Defense of Sabbath Controversy as

Assessment and Critique of Meier’s Treatment of

4. Meier, A Marginal Jew, 1:1.

This in a nutshell is Meier’s approach to historical Jesus studies, and it is

event that is in principle perceivable by any interested and fair-minded ob-

7. Meier, A Marginal Jew, 2:512.

absent, in comparison with other reports of miracles in the ancient world?

9. Meier, A Marginal Jew, 2:517.

12. Meier, A Marginal Jew, 2:619.

Assessment of Meier’s Treatment of

23. Meier, A Marginal Jew, 2:684–85.

The Global Question

29. “Rejection and execution” is one criterion.

attestation shows that Sabbath controversy is well attested in the ministry

The criterion of rejection and execution can also be marshaled to lend

Examination of Specific Pericopes

This line of argument ignores a crucial aspect of Sabbath observance that

52. Meier, A Marginal Jew, 2:683, cf. 4:254.

gelist? It is a reasonable judgment to accept this detail as historical. Her

59. See, for example, Mark 3:2.

63. Meier, A Marginal Jew, 2:681.

realignment of power-structures in Judaism after the First Jewish War and

70. Meier, A Marginal Jew, 2:743 n. 82.

understandably the literature that refers to it is immense. A very real chal-

The Hebrew Scriptures

This passage is part of the creation narrative; it depicts the culmination

for the argument I offer above to be definitive, but I do understand the

Key Passages That Use ‫שַׁ ּבָת‬

13. Gerhard F. Hasel, “Sabbath,” ABD, 5:851.

frequently in several important texts throughout the Hebrew Scriptures, a

of subsistence, and he is tolerant of laxity and carelessness concerning his

17. John I. Durham, Exodus (WBC 3; Dallas: Word, 1987), 227.

inclusio of sorts 21 as well as through content. The initial command requires

of work would be normal and commonplace in Israel’s agrarian economy.

Exodus 31:12–17. In Exod 31:12–17, in the context of the construction of

command in Exod 20:8–11. It then receives more explicit expression in

So in theology and practice, the Sabbath informed most special celebrations

44. John E. Hartley, Leviticus (WBC 4; Dallas: Word, 1992), 372.

There are elements of both emphases in the presentation of the command-

It should be stated at this juncture that, if the exodus is in fact “a type

51. Craigie, Deuteronomy, 157.

interpretation of this psalm, the Sabbath gains an important eschatological

pronouncement, it at least connects the Sabbath to an attestation of a re-

Theology of ‫ שַׁ ּבָת‬from the Old Testament

“The sabbath command in Exodus 31 is a sign of the covenant, but beyond