And [Jesus] said unto them, "The Sabbath was made for man) and not man for the Sabbath: so that the Son of man is lord even of the Sabbath." (Mark 2:27-28)
What may have been one of the greatest points of contention among Jesus, the Pharisees, and other religious authorities involved the Sabbath. In the Law of Moses, God commanded the Israelites to sanctify the seventh day as a day of rest--the Sabbath day (Exodus 20:8-11). Israelites, their servants, their animals, and sojourners in their midst were not to do labor on that day.
For many years, the people profaned the Sabbath by treating it as though it was just another day of the week (cf. Nehemiah 13:15-22; Amos 8:5). After the exile, however, the Jews, for the most part, religiously observed the Sabbath Day. They would journey no more than three-quarters of a mile to go to a synagogue to read from the Law and pray (traveling further than three-quarters of a mile was considered work).
Before long, all kinds of traditions grew up around the Sabbath. The intentions of the traditions were good-to form a hedge around the Sabbath to ensure that no one violated it. The Jews could not do anything that remotely resembled labor or effort. Even spitting on the ground was forbidden; the spittle would likely disturb the earth, thus plowing it and representing an expenditure of effort!
As is evident, the traditions, despite the intentions behind them, became extremely burdensome. A person could easily live in fear on the Sabbath day, worrying that, in some way, he has or will violate it. By building up that hedge around the Sabbath, the religious authorities drained the life out of God's command to observe it.
Jesus did not come to break the Law (cf. Matthew 5:17-18; Luke 16:17). Therefore, He did not intend to break the Sabbath; as far as we can tell from what has been revealed, He never really broke the Sabbath. He did, however, break the Sabbath traditions of the Pharisees and other religious authorities, and for that they condemned Him as a sinner (cf. John 9:16). In the eyes of the Pharisees and the other religious authorities, Jesus did not keep the Sabbath--He healed on the Sabbath (Mark 3:1-6,) and He even allowed His disciples to pluck heads of grain and eat them on the Sabbath (Mark 2:23-26).
The Pharisees had difficulty understanding the latter example; after all, plucking grain heads and crushing them with your hands to extract the grain certainly is work. In response, Jesus reminded the Pharisees of how David and his men, even though they were not priests, ate the bread of the Presence (Mark 2:25-26; cf. 1 Samuel 21:1-7). Jesus was demonstrating that necessity can, in times of distress, lead to a little wiggle room in the Law. That wiggle room isn't there because of disobedience or rebellion but because of what Jesus said in verse 27: "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath." (Mark 2:27) The Son of Man, Jesus, is Lord of the Sabbath (Mark 2:28). Therefore, the disciples were not doing wrong. The Pharisees and their traditions may have been offended, but God was not!
This circumstance instructs us who now believe in God. Under the new covenant, the parallel to the Jewish Sabbath would be the assemblies of the saints. However, it must be stressed that the Bible never explicitly identifies Christian assemblies with the Sabbath, and it leaves no impression that Sunday is the new Sabbath.
As God commanded Israel to observe the Sabbath, He also commands Christians to assemble together (Hebrews 10:25). He specified the types of activities that occur in those assemblies--the Lord's Supper (Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 11:23-26), a collection for the work of the church (1 Corinthians 16:1-3; 2 Corinthians 8-9), praying (1 Corinthians 14:14-17), singing (Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16), Bible study (Acts 2:42), and preaching (Acts 20:7; 2 Timothy 4:1-2).
These acts of worship are all well and good, but it is also very easy to create traditions around them. If man was not made for the Sabbath, but the Sabbath for man, then man was not made for the assembly, but the assembly for man. The assembly was designed to encourage and edify the believers (1 Corinthians 14:23; Hebrews 10:24). This encouragement and edification is to be accomplished according to what is written in the Scriptures (cf. 2 Timothy 3:16-17), but we must take care not to drain the life out of the assembly as the Pharisees and religious authorities drained the life out of the Sabbath. God established worship and the acts of worship for our benefit.
The line between truth and tradition is easily blurred. We must never defend tradition as if it is truth. We must never be casual with truth, as we can be with tradition. In the end, we must keep a proper perspective. Let us assemble with fellow believers for encouragement and edification and not allow traditions regarding these assemblies to drain the life out of them!
In our own time, there are those in the Lord's church who oppose anything they label as church traditions. What makes something a tradition? Is it a tradition because we have always done it a certain way? Could there be a reason for doing things the same way year after year? "Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you." (1 Corinthians 11:2) "Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle." (2 Thessalonians 2:15) Could it be that some of these traditions are rooted in Scripture? Maybe we continue to follow them because they have been passed down through the inspired writers.
Change for the sake of change has no purpose or benefit. I'm afraid that some want to change things, not to make them better, but to make them more pleasing to themselves. In the past few years, there has been a real push to change the length of gospel meetings. When I was young, meetings lasted up to ten days, with two services per day. Members of surrounding congregations attended, and the building was always full. As our lives became busier, we shifted to Sunday-through-Friday meetings, with one service (in the evening) per day. Now, many congregations hold week-end meetings from Friday thru Sunday. There's nothing wrong with having a week-end meeting to discuss a special theme or deal with a particular problem. But, is this the reason for the change? Could it be that brethren no longer desire longer meetings because it's too difficult to fit them into their busy schedules? Does less preaching make us stronger and more knowledgeable?
Each congregation should make its worship services fit that congregation's own needs. But let's be certain that any changes are for the betterment of the church. Accommodating Christians because they desire to have less responsibility in their spiritual lives is a step in the wrong direction. (KMG)