John 7:23

Should not be broken. Rabbi Eliezer (c. A.D. 90), whose thinking probably reflected that of the Jewish leaders in the time of Christ, reasoned thus: “Circumcision overrides the Sabbath; why? Because if one postponed it beyond the appointed time he would on its account render himself liable to extirpation. ... If he overrides the Sabbath on account of one of his members, should he not override the Sabbath for his whole body [if in danger of death]?” (Tosephta Shabbath 15. 16, cited in Strack and Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament, vol. 2, p. 488).

Every whit whole. Circumcision involved the mending of only one member of the body. Jesus had mended the entire body. The following statement of the Talmud dates from about A.D. 100, but probably reflects earlier thinking: “If circumcision, which attaches to one only of the two hundred and forty-eight members of the human body, suspends the Sabbath, how much more shall [the saving of] the whole body suspend the Sabbath!” (Yoma 85b, Soncino ed., p. 421). If life was in danger, the Jews permitted ministry to the sick; but if there was no immediate danger, treatment was forbidden and postponed (see on ch. 5:16). The case of the infirm man at Bethesda did not come under this category. The sufferer had waited for 38 years, and to have postponed his healing an additional day would have made no difference. Thus, according to the tradition of the Jews, Jesus stood condemned. However, their reasoning was illogical. If they permitted circumcision to override the Sabbath, much more should they permit an act of healing such as Jesus performed. Furthermore, they permitted the Sabbath to be overridden repeatedly, for there were many acts of circumcision performed every Sabbath, and yet Jesus was condemned for “one work” (ch. 7:21).