THE GOSPEL OF LUKE: - Vital Christianity

86“Of course no food could be cooked on the Sabbath for that would be consideredwork. All food had to be cooked on the Friday; and, if it was necessary to keepit hot, it must be kept hot in such a way that it was not cooked any more! So itis laid down that food to be kept warm for the Sabbath must not be put into “oildregs, manure, salt, chalk or sand, whether moist or dry, not into straw, grapeskins, flock or vegetables, if these are damp, though it may be if they are dry.It may be, however, put into clothes, amidst fruits, pigeons’ feathers and flaxtow.” 1It was such observance that the Pharisees and the scribes considered as religion. Is it anywonder that they could not understand Jesus and comprehend His message!By their interpretations, the rabbis had turned the Sabbath law into a minefield for theunwary. The original prohibition was against working on the Sabbath. The rabbis had changedthis into a prohibition against doing almost anything on the Sabbath such asLooking into a mirror (because you might see a gray hair and be tempted to pluckit)Giving alms to a beggar at your doorTaking a loaf of bread to a hungry neighbor next doorWalking through a field of grain that was a little too high--because you mightaccidentally knock down some grains and "harvest"These were all considered violations of the Sabbath law. None of this had anything to dowith what God had commanded. Such petty interpretations, which God intended to be a day ofrest, were turned into a grievous burden.In defining the word "work," the rabbis had concluded that giving medical attention to anindividual on the Sabbath constituted work. They ruled, for instance, that if someone broke his orher arm on the Sabbath, the arm could not be set until the Sabbath was over. They also ruled thata person with a toothache could not suck on vinegar (the common toothache remedy) to ease hisor her pain. (The sufferer could, however, choose to drink vinegar with his or her regular meals.)In light of these rulings, healing on the Sabbath was definitely out of the question.Jesus seemed to be indicating here that the alleged violation of the Sabbath by Hisdisciples did not constitute the kind of work the Sabbath law prohibited, but rather was aviolation of the far too strict interpretation of the law given by the rabbis. As such, the chargemade against his disciples was invalid.