Objection 27: That the fourth commandment is ceremonial "is clearly proved by the fact that Jesus, according to the strictest Sabbatarians of His day, broke the fourth commandment, and the priests in the temple broke the 4th commandment. Would Jesus have broken the fourth commandment if it were eternal moral law?"
Two questions:
1. If Christ broke the fourth commandment, then why did He say, “I have kept my Father's commandments”? John 15:10.
2. The objector insists that all laws, both moral and ceremonial, were in force until the cross. Then if Christ actually did break the Sabbath commandment, even if that commandment was merely ceremonial, was He not a sinner? And yet we know that Christ did not sin (1 Peter 2:22; 2 Cor. 5:21). Something is wrong with the assertion that Jesus broke the Fourth Commandment.
What proof is offered that Jesus “broke the fourth commandment”? An inspired declaration of Holy Writ? No, only the assertion that the “strictest Sabbatarians of His day" said He broke it. The accusation that Jesus broke the Sabbath were made because Jesus healed on the Sabbath.
On a certain Sabbath day, while our Lord was in a synagogue, there came before Him a man with a withered hand. Divining that Christ might plan to heal the cripple, some “strict Sabbatarians” asked the Master:
"Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath days? That they might accuse him. And he said unto them, What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the Sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out? How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the Sabbath days." Matt. 12:10-12. Whereupon He immediately healed the cripple. “Then the Pharisees went out, and held a council against him, how they might destroy him.” Verse 14.
Another instance of Christ's healing on the Sabbath is recorded in John 5:2-18. In verse 18 we read that the judgment of the Jews was that Christ “had broken the Sabbath.” Here we see the charge of the “strictest Sabbatarians” in its Scriptural setting.
But note the question: “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath days?”
When the Samaritan woman at the well asked Christ where men should worship, a question that through the past centuries had had genuine importance, He dismissed it summarily by informing her that the time was at hand when the question no longer had significance. If Christ was soon to abolish the Sabbath law on the cross, would we not expect Him to dismiss it? And yet He gave no hint of impending abolition, but replied, “It is lawful to do well on the Sabbath days.”
There is no suggestion that Jesus considered He was breaking the Sabbath. Instead, He was interpreting its true meaning. Nor is there anything in His interpretation, or His miraculous action that followed, that warrants the conclusion that the Sabbath rests on a ceremonial law. it is always lawful to do good, or to do well, in relation to moral laws.
The “strict Sabbatarians” also accused Jesus’ disciples of harvesting grain, by snapping off a little wheat and eating it, but Jesus replied that David and his men ate the showbread; and likewise declared that the priests “profane the Sabbath, and are blameless.” (Mat. 12:1-8) Even the “strictest Sabbatarians” would agree that what the priests did on the Sabbath was in harmony with the law, and therefore they were acting lawfully, even though the priests each Sabbath had to engage in the work of slaying and offering sacrifices.
Christ's use of the word “profane” must be understood in the context of the controversy. His reasoning appears to be this: If His and His disciples' deeds were profanation of the Sabbath, then by the same token the deeds of the priests were profanation. To contend that Christ really meant that the priests, whose Sabbath deeds of sacrificing were done in harmony with the law, did, in truth, desecrate the Sabbath, would lead to an impossible conclusion. Christ would really be saying that God gave a holy law to guard the sacredness of the Sabbath and then gave to Moses another law that resulted weekly in the desecration of the Sabbath! Those who wish to may hold this conclusion. We do not.