According to another Jewish maxim, to refuse to do good would be to inflict injury, to neglect to care for life would be to take life. But this man‘s life was not in danger, and the act of healing could therefore be postponed until after the Sabbath. But Jesus affirmed that it could not be wrong to do good on the Sabbath. From Jesus‘ point of view, to pass by the opportunity of bringing relief to the sufferer would be to do wrong. The scribes and Pharisees were thinking of their petty rule that would be violated; Jesus was directing their attention to the fundamental principle involved. Not to save a life would be to take it; not to do that which would enhance life would be to diminish it (see James 4:17). This was an extension of the principle of the sixth commandment, as illuminated by Christ in the Sermon on the Mount (see on Matt. 5:21-24), and the sixth commandment was in no way in conflict with the fourth. The Sabbath, Jesus said, was “made for man” (Mark 2:27), and acts of mercy and necessity were entirely in keeping with its objectives.

 The scribes and Pharisees had murder in their hearts. Their accusation was part of the plot to take Jesus‘ life (see on Luke 6:11; cf. Acts 3:15), and Jesus, knowing “their thoughts,” knew that they were plotting to destroy Him (see Luke 6:8). Probably Jesus had this in mind when He spoke about destroying life, and sought to direct their attention to the fact that their malice made them the real Sabbathbreakers.

 Matthew adds the significant illustration by which Christ called attention to the fact that they would do for a dumb animal that which they would be unwilling to do for a human being (see Matt. 12:11, 12). Some of them would let a man suffer, but would save an animal from suffering—lest, of course, financial loss result to the owner. Only a false concept of God could lead to any Sabbath regulation that places a lower value on human life than on the life of dumb brutes.

 Here in the sense of bringing benefit or harm. According to Matthew‘s account, the scribes and Pharisees had previously addressed the question to Jesus, as to whether it was lawful to heal on the Sabbath (Matt. 12:10). Rabbinical regulations made a careful distinction between cases of chronic sicknesses and cases involving immediate danger of death. Specifically, certain disease were named as being more grave than others, and those suffering from these diseases might be given help according to their need. On the Sabbath little provision was made for relieving pain that did not involve acute illnesses, or for helping those who had suffered long, such as the one Jesus was about to heal. It is probable that the law was more or less liberally interpreted, and that persons suffering from many other diseases were actually cared for on the Sabbath. For further information on the rabbinical principles for Sabbath care of the sick, see Mishnah Shabbath 14. 4; 22. 6, Soncino ed. of the Talmud, pp. 539, 540, 747.

 See on Mark 2:24. Rabbinical laws were again shown to be in conflict with the needs of humanity. Those who today claim that Jesus paid no regard to the law of God, in other words, that by precept and example He departed from the claims of the fourth commandment, join forces with the scribes and the Pharisees and partake of their spirit. At the close of His earthly life Jesus affirmed that He had kept His Father‘s every command (see John 15:10).

 According to Matthew‘s account of the incident, it seems that the Pharisees had already raised the question of the propriety of healing on the Sabbath (see Matt. 12:10).