Jesus' teachings and practices with respect to the Law of the Sabbath are instructive and shed much light upon how to apply biblical morality. It is beneficial to worship and reflect upon God, and to do so not infrequently and on a regular basis. There is even a clear and specific rule in the Law of Moses commanding us to do so. Therefore, it can be said that not observing the Sabbath is a sin. HOWEVER, depending upon the situation, sometimes the right thing to do is to break the rule. Jesus does so in order to heal someone and asks whether it is wrong to do good on the Sabbath.
What this implicitly means is that although, ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL, it is A GOOD to observe the Sabbath and AN EVIL to violate it, observing and violating the Sabbath are NOT the end-all and be-all of all good and evil. In other words, for each situation, we need to figure out which course of action brings about the greatest good. We don't make decisions in a vacumn--oftentimes, following one course of action (or not doing anything at all) will violate one rule or another and we have to choose the lesser evil. Also, Judeo-Christian morality cannot be reduced to a set of rules. There are general moral values such as justice, mercy, love, acceptance, and responsibility which should be of pre-eminent concern in any situation. In the situation which Jesus encountered, there was no rule requiring Jesus to heal someone on the Sabbath even though there was a rule against violating the Sabbath. Nevertheless, it was the right thing to do.
So that's what Jesus did. But what would liberal and conservatives do? Conservatives would say that it's good to do good, but only when you don't violate any of the rules. And so they would have Jesus wait until Monday. Liberals on the other hand would say just do whatever you feel is right irrespective of the rules--they would heal that Sunday but wouldn't feel compelled to come to church next Sunday (or the Sunday after that!) What do you think and how can this be applied towards other moral dilemmas?
What this implicitly means is that although, ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL, it is A GOOD to observe the Sabbath and AN EVIL to violate it, observing and violating the Sabbath are NOT the end-all and be-all of all good and evil. In other words, for each situation, we need to figure out which course of action brings about the greatest good. We don't make decisions in a vacumn--oftentimes, following one course of action (or not doing anything at all) will violate one rule or another and we have to choose the lesser evil. Also, Judeo-Christian morality cannot be reduced to a set of rules. There are general moral values such as justice, mercy, love, acceptance, and responsibility which should be of pre-eminent concern in any situation. In the situation which Jesus encountered, there was no rule requiring Jesus to heal someone on the Sabbath even though there was a rule against violating the Sabbath. Nevertheless, it was the right thing to do.
So that's what Jesus did. But what would liberal and conservatives do? Conservatives would say that it's good to do good, but only when you don't violate any of the rules. And so they would have Jesus wait until Monday. Liberals on the other hand would say just do whatever you feel is right irrespective of the rules--they would heal that Sunday but wouldn't feel compelled to come to church next Sunday (or the Sunday after that!) What do you think and how can this be applied towards other moral dilemmas?
