Original Meaning

THE INCIDENT IN verses 6–11 is the third in a series of controversies involving Jesus. Again this activity occurs on the Sabbath.1 While teaching in a synagogue, Jesus sees a person in need, a man with a shriveled right hand, and takes the initiative to heal him. Such an injury would prevent the man from pursuing a vocation. In other words, while not in mortal danger, the man is limited in what he can do.

The scribes and Pharisees watch Jesus. The Greek word for “watched” means “to spy on” or “to watch out of the corner of one’s eye” (cf. Ps. 36:12 LXX).2 They want to level a charge against Jesus. This attitude is emerging out of what is becoming a growing opposition. In the Jewish view, a person who is not in mortal danger can wait to be healed.3

Jesus raises a fundamental question before doing anything, for he knows the Pharisees’ thoughts. He tells the man to come and stand before him and then asks, “Which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or destroy it?” The question has an ironic edge, because Jesus is looking at the Sabbath from a relational angle. In fact, the way he pursues the question almost suggests that a failure to act here would be doing evil. The leadership, on the other hand, is plotting evil.

The action becomes a test. Will God allow the healing to take place? Will he vindicate Jesus and reveal the answer to Jesus’ question? Jesus looks at everyone and then acts. He asks the man to stretch out his hand, and the man is able to respond, indicating that healing has occurred. But rather than rejoicing at his restoration, the leadership becomes angry at Jesus’ success. The word for “anger” is a strong term, describing irrational anger, even pathological rage.4 A turning point has come. The authorities must do something to stop Jesus, and they begin their plan. Refusing to accept the evidence Jesus has laid before them, they reveal hardness of heart and cast their vote against Jesus.

Rising opposition means that Jesus must organize his followers. His selection of the twelve (vv. 12–16) is preparation for the missions to come (9:1–6; 10:1–12), as well as an anticipation of his future departure through death.5 At the top of this organized group of disciples stand these twelve men. All but Judas Iscariot will come to have a central role in the development of the early church.

The setting of Jesus’ selection is no accident. He spends the entire previous night in prayer. Thus his selection is set in a context of communion with God. This is the only place in the New Testament where an all-night vigil is noted. Jesus selects twelve men. The number is designed to suggest a parallel to Israel (cf. 22:29–30; Matt. 19:28). Only Luke calls the group “apostles” as he lists their names. That title indicates their role as commissioned representatives of Jesus on behalf of the kingdom message.6

Three facts dominate the list, along with its parallels: (1) Peter is always first; (2) the first four are Peter, Andrew, James, and John (though sometimes in different order); and (3) there are three groups of four, with Peter, Philip, and James son of Alphaeus leading each group.7

Peter is a key figure. He often speaks for the disciples and takes a key role in the group. His brother, Andrew, is hardly discussed outside the lists. The sons of Zebedee, James and John, complete the initial group and the sequence of four fishermen. In the second group, Philip is mentioned separately only a few times in John. Bartholomew may well be the same person as Nathaniel in John 1:45, since many Jews had two prominent names.8 Matthew is probably Levi, the tax collector.9 Thomas is the disciple who will have to be convinced of Jesus’ resurrection (John 20:24–29). In the third group, we know very little about James of Alphaeus. Simon the Zealot was a political nationalist before meeting Jesus.10 He would have hated someone like Matthew, who as a tax collector represented the despised Roman state. Judas, not Iscariot, may be Thaddaeus of other lists. Judas Iscariot will become infamous through his betrayal of Jesus. This diverse group of twelve men of the street forms the leadership base for Jesus.

Bridging Contexts

THIS PASSAGE AGAIN reveals the will of God by exploring what can be done on the Sabbath. Though the question of Jewish law is no longer a concern for the church, the issue of how others are treated, even on the day of rest, is. Jesus shows that God does not intend us to ignore acting with love and mercy whenever the opportunity to do so exists. Here is the “law of love” at work.

Christians still discuss how a day like the Sabbath (our Sunday) should be treated. Different traditions have different emphases.11 Some, arguing from the continuing validity of the Ten Commandments, see the day of rest principle as still in effect. This view has been called a “sabbatarian” position and has roots in Augustine and Thomas Aquinas. The result is a lifestyle on Sunday that purposely restricts activity and the scope of leisure so that the day can be given over for rest and the Lord. Other traditions argue that Christ is the end of the law, that the Sabbath principle is nowhere reaffirmed in the New Testament, and that all days are holy (cf. Rom. 14:5–8). Such traditions are less specific about what can and cannot be done on Sunday. I tend to think in the latter terms, because of reasons summarized in the second century by Justin Martyr in Dialogues 12:3:

The new law requires you to keep perpetual sabbath, and you, because you are idle for one day, suppose you are pious.… The Lord God does not take pleasure in such observances; if there is any perjured person or thief among you, let him cease to be so; if any adulterer, let him repent; then he has kept the sweet and true sabbath of God.

The values found in this quotation reflect those of Jesus here. Observance has no value, and neither does debate over the day if the attitudes of service and faithfulness are not pursued in everyday life. Psalm 118:24 says it best, as we consider any day to be the Lord’s: “This is the day the LORD has made; let us rejoice and be glad in it.”

God vindicates Jesus through this healing, which itself pictures God’s deliverance. Here is more evidence that God is behind Jesus. Had God rejected what Jesus was doing, he could have shut the door and prevented the healing. Jesus’ claims take on more significance because God is acting through him. It is this combination of word and deed that forms a powerful testimony for Jesus.

The passage focuses on the opposition to Jesus. Despite all the signs of God’s favor surrounding Jesus’ activity, the Jewish leadership gets more hostile. Jesus in effect charges the Pharisees with legalism—that is, overapplying the law to such an extent that people are crushed or ignored. The sovereignty of a rigid rule becomes a yoke too great to bear (cf. Acts 15:10). Even today sometimes, in our efforts to defend the law, we break it. I remember stories in my seminary days of a particular church fighting fiercely over the order of service as each side staunchly defended a certain sequence of hymns, announcements, and message. Though this may be an outrageous example, each of us have been guilty of more subtle forms of insisting that our way was the only way to do something. All too often when we discuss issues of form or style, we concentrate on legalism rather than matters involving explicit moral choices or correct theology. We must learn toleration and deference in such “neutral” topics, for each side is responsible before God for their actions and for pursuing a clear conscience before him (Rom. 14–15).

Jesus’ choosing of the Twelve reflects a unique, diverse group. He did not select a homogenous club. There were fishermen, tax collectors, a staunchly political person, and a few others whose identities are left undeveloped. These are everyday sorts of people, showing the grass-roots character of Jesus’ ministry. What a contrast to the selection of leadership we tend to make in our culture, where money, status, and power bring a person to the leadership table. There is something to be said for choosing a leadership mix that is sensitive to the key issues of character and integrity over status. How many churches have been damaged because the leadership is selected from people who do not have spiritual qualifications, but qualify for the Fortune 500 in terms of lifestyle, values, and use of power?

Contemporary Significance

THIS PASSAGE DEMONSTRATES the priority that showing mercy has in the mind of God. He is compassionate and wants us to help others whenever possible. Even a day of rest, like the Sabbath, is no reason to opt out of doing good. Jesus goes out of his way to show his opponents that this is how God desires others to be treated. He dedicated himself to serving others, especially others in need. One even notes an urgency in Jesus that help ought to be offered as soon as possible. Though this particular healing could have waited until after the Sabbath, sparing Jesus the leadership’s reaction, he acted at the first opportunity. Our rapid response should match his as well.

The major emphasis in the passage is the rising opposition to Jesus and its cold, irrational nature. Such a reaction to Jesus parallels opposition today and should not surprise believers, for it gives evidence of a sinful reaction to the mercy of God. The Jewish leadership ignored the restoration of the man’s hand, because all they could see was a Sabbath violation. Sometimes those who reject Jesus respond as if the pursuit of a morally sensitive and serving lifestyle represents the presence of a criminal element. This is the world turned morally upside down. I know, for example, of believers ministering in the “darker” side of town, who dress and present themselves with a style that is not out of place in such contexts. They do not engage in the activities of the people they seek to reach, but simply love them enough to make an effort to reach out to them by identifying with their dress, their style of music, and so forth. Sometimes such people are judged as sinners hanging out with sinners—a charge not unlike the one Jesus heard! But we should consider the evidence of compassion that accompanies such a ministry, motivated by a sincere and righteous desire to serve God.

Jesus met such opposition by simply continuing to minister with love to those who needed compassion. Here we see his heart in contrast to a heart that does not respond to the moral call of God to serve at all times. Paul calls this the “law of Christ” (1 Cor. 9:21) and James the “royal law” (James 2:8). Even if facing strong opposition, those who walk with Jesus are called to a ministry of service and love.

When we turn to the selection of the twelve disciples, Jesus consciously selected a diverse group of people, presumably to keep his ministry team balanced. Their central bond was Jesus. The new community he builds today is just as varied, and we should rejoice in that diversity. Jesus does not expect all of us to be the same. Our differences should not prevent a unity from forming among this nucleus, as Jesus bonds us together.

The inclusion of a Judas in the group also has its lesson. Not everyone remains a team player, and defection can come from the innermost ranks. Close association with Jesus does not necessarily reveal the real condition of the heart. Though John calls Judas “a devil” (John 6:70–71), for years he was viewed as one of Jesus’ closest associates. Unfaithfulness and denial eventually shows itself, but for a significant period of time it is hard to tell where Judas really is.

A final question emerges from this selection. How do we choose our leadership? What criteria do we use? Does character count for much? Do we consider those who have a good reputation outside the community as well as within (1 Tim. 3:7)? Is someone selected to our board simply because of his or her connections and the networking that person can help us do? Is someone chosen because he or she can give a lot financially? Jesus was looking for a few good men and chose them in the hopes of building their character to the point where they could lead the church he left behind.

That goal makes another key point about leadership. The best leader is one who so prepares his community for the future that when he departs, he is barely missed, since solid leadership is left behind. That principle warns us against a strong one-person show, which often sows the seeds for later destruction. The best leadership is frequently seen not in what happens while the person is still around, but by what develops after he or she has left. If the Twelve as a group are measured by this standard of leadership, then Jesus’ choice for successors was a strategic one, since this group came to shake and shape the world.