Though it often is given a “bad name” in our culture, religion is a good thing. The Bible is full of rituals, traditions, values, and beliefs intended to be shared and practiced together in an organized fashion. Although some suggest that Jesus was opposed to religion, Jesus was actually an active participant in it. He faithfully participated in Hebrew worship, rituals, traditions, and festivals. For this reason, we can confidently state that religion is good. It bears Jesus’ endorsement. Consequently, it is naïve and simplistic to suggest that Jesus was anti-religion.

However, religion, like all good things, can be corrupted. Instead of ennobling individuals, it can be a force of abuse and oppression. Instead of communicating health and wholeness, it can be a means of harm and division.

Religion can be liberating; it can also be oppressive. Religion can bring health and wholeness; it can also be toxic and destructive. True religion creates compassionate, loving, life-filled people. Toxic religion creates petty, demanding, legalistic people. Alan Jones illustrates the difference between the two possible expressions of religion:

A friend confided to me that there were difficulties with an upcoming wedding because the groom’s grandmother was “very religious.” I asked, “Is she lovingly ‘very religious’ or pain-in-the-ass ‘very religious’?” My friend confessed that Grandma was religious in the latter sense. People had to tiptoe around her, and she confused a spirit of condemnation with faithfulness.[1]

When Religion Becomes a Burden

Last week we encountered Jesus’ invitation extended to all those burdened with life’s demands, duties, and difficulties (Matthew 11:28-30). He offers rest from these things to all those willing to take up his yoke and learn his gentle and humble ways.

Religion can be just another wearisome burden from which we need relief when it becomes toxic in the hands of legalists. This is exactly what had happened in Jesus’ day in regard to the fourth commandment of the Decalogue: “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy” (Exodus 20:8-11; Deuteronomy 5:12-15). Concerns to enforce the command had reduced the day of rest to a burden, nullifying God’s original intent. This distortion is addressed in two “Sabbath controversies” immediately following Jesus’ invitation to share his rest (Matthew 12:1-14). In these encounters with the Pharisees we discover two fundamentally different ways of interpreting God’s law. One way – the way of the legalists – increases human burdens resulting in toxic religion; the other way – Jesus’ way – brings life, love, and healing in the name of God.

The Sabbath command celebrated the exclusive relationship between Israel and God (Exodus 31:12-17). Garland demonstrates its importance in ancient Jewish culture.

Many reveled in the fact that the Creator sanctified only Israel of all the nations to keep the Sabbath (Jubilees 2:31). The Sabbath was therefore considered to be a symbol of what made Israel distinct and special to God, and by observing it Israel celebrated the act of creation and imitated God, who rested on the seventh day (Gen 2:1-3; Exod 31:12-17). As a kind of national banner, the breach of the Sabbath would have been similar to desecration of the flag in modern times; and it triggered similar reactions.[2]

The Sabbath law contains both a positive and negative command. Positively, Israel was to “remember the Sabbath to keep it holy.” Negatively, they were to refrain from work. It is this negative command that caused problems. What exactly were they to refrain from? Larry Chouinard describes the dilemma. The Hebrew Scriptures

offered only minimal restrictions: no fire in your dwellings on the Sabbath (Exod 35:3); no plowing or harvesting (Exod 34:21); do not carry a load on the Sabbath (Jer 17:21-22); and excessive travel was prohibited (Isa 58:13; cf. Acts 1:12). However, scribal concerns for exact compliance to God’s Law, felt compelled to greatly expand explicit legislation by further defining and categorizing precisely what kind of activities constituted “work.” Eventually, their discussions were collected in the Mishna, resulting in thirty-nine distinct categories, with sub-groupings, of activities prohibited on the Sabbath.[3]

The Hebrew Scriptures provided few specifics concerning what work was forbidden on the Sabbath. This absence fueled the seemingly endless addition of complex guidelines. Most of these guidelines possessed no explicit scriptural basis. Keeping the Sabbath, which was intended to promote rest, was reduced to another tedious, difficult, demanding chore – just another religious burden to bear!

In their attempt to guarantee that God’s commands were precisely obeyed, the religious leaders had built a “fence” around the law. On the surface, this action appears to honor God’s law. But, over time, a subtle shift had occurred. The “fence” became a new standard – a new law – and the original intent of God’s law was lost in the shuffle of petty, precise, complex casuistries. When keeping the letter of the law becomes more important than expressing the spirit of the law, mercy, compassion, love, and grace are lost.

Even though this controversy occurred almost two thousand years ago, the Pharisee’s well-intended mistake continues in our day. Keener observes,

Some culturally conservative churches today interpret the Bible the way the Pharisees in this passage do, building an ever tighter fence around the strictest interpretation of the law to keep from breaking it. Thus, for example, I have known firsthand of some that misconstrue Scripture to condemn all divorced people, women’s wearing slacks to church, music relevant to youth, and anything else that violates their tradition. Conservatives can dishonor God’s Word through abuse and neglect just as liberals can dishonor it through neglect and rejection.[4]

Working Hands?

The first Sabbath controversy takes place in a grainfield. Jesus’ disciples become hungry and “pick the heads of grain and eat” (Matthew 12:1). Holding Jesus responsible for his followers’ behavior, the Pharisees challenge, “Behold, your disciples do what is not lawful to do on a Sabbath” (Matthew 12:2).

Clearly, harvesting was not permitted on the Sabbath (Exodus 34:21). The law did allow hungry folk to glean from a neighbor’s field as long as they did it with their hands and not with a sickle, which would constitute stealing (Deuteronomy 23:25). Nothing is explicitly said in the law about whether gleaning was permissible on the Sabbath. Obviously, the disciples were not harvesting the field, but they were gleaning to satisfy their hunger. Was it the fact that they were doing this on the Sabbath that was the focus of the Pharisees condemnation? Or, was the simple act of plucking the heads of grain perceived as work – an act of labor? Regardless of the reason, the Pharisees’ accusations imply that God’s law had been broken.

Jesus responds with a three-fold defense. First, he brings forth the precedent established by David (Matthew 12:3-4). David had been anointed by the Prophet Samuel as king, but had not yet been enthroned because of King Saul’s opposition. While on the run from Saul, David and his hungry men were given holy bread reserved exclusively for the priests in Shiloh (1 Samuel 21:1-6). Jesus argues that the same grounds that legitimized David’s partaking in the holy bread legitimize Jesus’ gleaning of the field. As the true heir to the Davidic throne, Jesus follows David’s lead. Like David, Jesus is anointed and not yet enthroned. Jesus is doing the deeds of David as the legitimate heir of David. His actions, therefore, have a biblical precedent, and are justified.

Second, Jesus argues from exceptions granted to those who perform the temple service (Matthew 12:5-6). The priests of the temple were not subject to the same Sabbath requirements as the people. By offering sacrifices and performing circumcisions, they effectively worked on the Sabbath (Numbers 28:9-10; John 7:22-23). If it was necessary to override the Sabbath law to satisfy the requirements of temple worship, then the law should also be overridden if, as Jesus put it, “something greater than the temple is here” (Matthew 12:6). It is impossible to overstate the shocking significance of this claim. Jesus states that his disciples are serving something greater than the temple – Israel’s principle meeting-place between God and humanity, the very center of their religious, social, and political life. Garland writes,

the implication is that the disciples of Jesus are able to break the Sabbath as the priests do because they are with him and are carrying on a greater work than the priests serving in the temple. The temple was the place of God’s presence (23:21). This statement implies that in Jesus God’s presence is more immediate than in the temple.[5]

Third, the Pharisees misunderstood the intention of God’s law. They had forgotten whose law it was and what the law was all about. God’s desire for compassion and mercy takes precedence over all religious rituals (Matthew 12:7). The purpose of the law was not petty precision at the expense of human wholeness; the purpose was to guide humans to reflect God’s heart to one another. God’s will – reflected in God’s law – places a priority on mercy over sacrifice.

They are guilty of insisting on punctilious obedience to their interpretation of Sabbath rules while condemning the hungry. God’s demand for mercy always overrides the command to observe rules or ritual. Jesus does not stand over against the law but over against the Pharisees’ interpretation of the law that discounts the principle of mercy.[6]

If God’s law truly had been guiding them, they would have “shown mercy to the disciples in their need, instead of condemning them for what, at the very most, was a minor infraction of the Sabbath law and was probably not regarded as a transgression at all by more lenient interpreters of the law.”[7] The heart of the Pharisees’ sin was that “knew the letter of the Law [but] failed miserably in the apprehension of the heart of the Lawgiver.”[8]

Jesus concludes by declaring the Son of Man (Jesus’ favorite self-referential phrase) is the Lord of the Sabbath (Matthew 12:8). As Lord of the Sabbath, Jesus rightly interprets what is permissible on the Sabbath. He declares that the Sabbath is not about endless rule-keeping but human well-being. In a parallel text, he teaches that “the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath” (Mark 2:27). In other words, human well-being takes priority over religious rituals, primarily because the very purpose of religious rituals (and thus, religious laws and principles) is to promote human wholeness in the presence of God.

Like a good rabbi, Jesus uses the Hebrew Scriptures to argue his case. To show the depth of his position, he appeals to all three sections of the Hebrew Scriptures: the law, the prophets, and the writings. This is proof that he is not simply condemning the law or religion. Instead, he condemns any use of God’s law or appeal to religion that is used to harm rather than heal. Thus, “Jesus challenges not merely their [the Pharisees] interpretation of the Sabbath but their entire method of legal interpretation.”[9] The Pharisees must begin to interpret the law through the lens of God’s mercy, compassion, love, and grace. Failure to do this distorts God’s intention for the law. Even worse, it creates toxic religion.

Withered Hand

The controversy intensifies when, later that same day, Jesus attends synagogue. It appears that the Pharisees stage an encounter “in order that they might accuse him” (Matthew 12:10). At the time, the general consensus of religious teachers was that unless life was in immediate danger, it was not lawful to heal on the Sabbath. Some even condemned the use of medicine on the Sabbath. By placing “the man with the withered hand” before Jesus, they present him with a person whose life is not in danger, and yet who is in desperate need of healing. Hoping to catch Jesus in their trap, they “egg him on” with the question, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?”

But Jesus does not fall for their bait. In good rabbinical fashion, Jesus argues from the lesser to the greater. “What man shall there be among you, who shall have one sheep, and if it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will he not take hold of it, and lift it out? Of how much more value then is a man than a sheep! So then, it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath” (Matthew 12:11-12).

After his challenge, Jesus “said to the man, ‘Stretch out your hand!’ And he stretched it out, and it was restored to normal, like the other” (Matthew 12:13). It is important to note that

Jesus does not even lay hands on the man, which some might have considered work. Instead, he simply orders the man to stretch forth his hand, an act that was not considered work by anyone’s standard; God alone performs “work” in this scene.[10]

In spite of this, “the Pharisees went out and counseled together against him, as to how they might destroy him” (Matthew 12:14). Keener writes, “No sect in early Judaism had rules that would have mandated Jesus’ death for his Sabbath practices… Yet these Pharisees are so enraged with Jesus that they resort to plotting his death – a heinous and obvious breach of the very law they purport to uphold.”[11] Garland adds, “They condemned Jesus for ‘doing good’ on the Sabbath but have no qualms about forming a caucus on the same Sabbath to conspire how to destroy him.”[12] They remind us of contemporary believers whose attitudes and actions while defending dogma hardly reflect God’s love, mercy, and compassion. Their concern for the letter of the law and complete lack of concern for how their own behavior affects other humans is a lethal mix that creates toxic religion.

Though Jesus is aware of their dark designs, he does not counter their hostile actions with violence. Instead, he withdraws and heals all who follow him. This leads to Matthew’s longest quotation from the Old Testament. Here, at the center of the Matthew’s gospel, is a summary that captures Jesus’ ministry. The text is one of Isaiah’s “suffering servant” passages. By choosing this text to describe Jesus, Matthew demonstrates how Jesus is not a political or warrior messiah, but is instead a suffering servant. As God’s suffering servant, Jesus is God’s chosen servant who comes with God’s authority (Matthew 12:18a), God’s Spirit-bearer who works in the power of God’s Spirit (Matthew 12:18b).

Contrary to the world’s patterns, he is a king who is humble and gentle. He is not great and mighty in the world’s terms. He does not shout to get his voice heard, nor does he push others out of the way to get ahead (Matthew 12:19-21). He is a humble king, a gentle king – the ideal king! Instead of plotting to kill his enemies, he withdraws before the opposition and continues to heal his followers. Instead of demanding rigid precision, his law reflects his character – and thus is saturated with humility, compassion, gentleness, and love. This is the heart of the Lawgiver. This is the yoke we share when we answer Jesus’ invitation to come to him (Matthew 11:28-30).

Toxic Religion Prevention

Jesus’ responses in the Sabbath controversies provide numerous insights on how to keep religion from becoming toxic.

God’s law is a gift, not a burden. The Sabbath was meant to be a divine gift, not a burden. God’s intention was to allow people to delight in God’s creation, reflect on God’s salvation, and rest completely in God’s provision. Our anxiety over observing it should not overshadow our joy in participating in it. We lose God’s rest when we complicate it with endless rules. A case could be made that all of God’s laws follow the principle of the Sabbath: “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath” (Mark 2:27). Ultimately, people matter more than law. The Pharisees’ mistake was that they were more concerned about their precise law-keeping than for expressing human mercy and compassion. This misguided focus made their religion oppressive – a burden rather than a gift. Even worse, it completely missed the mark of reflecting God’s heart to others.

No law should be interpreted in isolation from God’s love. God’s purpose in everything is blessing. The ultimate intention of all God’s laws, rituals, traditions, and beliefs can be summarized in the call to love God and love others (Matthew 22:37-40). Anything that does not lead to this end is dead legalism, for it cuts itself off from God’s intended purpose in giving the law. For this reason, the Apostle Paul declared that anything done – even the most selfless acts of devotion and highest expressions of religion – without love is nothing, indeed, less than nothing (1 Corinthians 13). No law, command, or principle should ever be allowed to get in the way of mercy, compassion, and love.[13]

More rules do not lead to more love. Greater legislation does not lead to greater love. There is no end to our obligation to love others: “Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law” (Romans 13:8). This is the one obligation in life that we will never completely fulfill. This is the reason that it is impossible to legislate love. No set of rules – no matter how great – can adequately delineate the full-orbed expression of love we are called to offer to others. Because there are no boundaries to mercy, compassion, and love, no amount of rules can ever suffice.

Love and mercy know no boundaries. Neither activity that spurred a “Sabbath controversy” was necessary. Jesus’ disciples, though hungry, could have survived without a meal. Likewise, the man with the withered hand could have suffered another day. However, Jesus did not allow this in order to show the boundlessness of God’s intention for the law:

The problem is that the man with the withered hand is not in a life-or-death situation. Jesus could ask him to come back tomorrow. It would not hurt the man unduly to go one more day with a withered hand, and controversy could be avoided. But it must be made clear that demands of love always override. The Pharisees were intent on setting up boundary stones that marked out clearly what could and could not be done on the Sabbath. Jesus shows that love and mercy can know no boundaries.[14]

In neither case did Jesus allow the demands of the law to overshadow the needs of individuals. The law is not the basis for compiling endless lists but of directing us to demonstrate God’s love and compassion to others.

Certainly, religion can be distorted. But it does not have to be. The problem is not with religion, but with those who pervert it through selfish concern for petty precision while simultaneously disregarding their obligation to show mercy, compassion, and love to others. This expression of religion is toxic to all it touches. But the kind of religion that Jesus advocates calls us to value people more than rules, mercy more than rituals, and love more than law. This is the kind of religion we can “rest” in and graciously invite others to share.

---

---

To listen to the audio message, right-click and "Save Target As"

• Toxic Religion (Mp3 - 16.8 mb)

© Richard J. Vincent, 2006