172 Hanna Stettler no need for Jesus to heal that woman on the Sabbath. There is no danger to life — the only case in which most groups in contemporary Judaism would have allowed for immediate action (57). Calling the woman “a daughter of Abraham” and his healing act “a deliverance from the bondage to Satan”, Jesus clarifies that in restoring her he fulfils his ministry of restoring Israel. “The claim was that the sabbath day was the most appropriate day, because that day celebrated release from captivity” and from “bondage” (58). To discuss Jesus’ attitude towards the sabbath within the framework of the legal disputes of early Judaism, as E. P. Sanders does, therefore seems to miss the point. It makes it impossible to account for the Pharisees’ and the Herodians’ decision to kill Jesus, which Mark reports to have been a reaction to the Sabbath controver-sies (59). Jesus’ attitude towards the Sabbath differed fundamentally from that of the Pharisees in that “his opposition never took expression in specific regulations proposed as alternatives to Pharisaic ones” (60). “When opposed he does not reply by arguing that, counter to his opponents’ claims, work has not been done nor the command transgressed” (61). Even where he does take up the rabbinic discussion about what is permissible on a Sabbath (Mark 3,4; Luke 13,15-16; 14,5), “the dispute” is not “about the fine-tuned interpretation of Torah, such as might have taken place at any time” (62). He constantly argues from a perspective of love as the centre of the Sabbath commandment, rather than addressing its boundaries in a rabbinic manner (63). Jesus, as the messianic Son of God, claims to be Lord of the Sabbath (Mark 2,23-28 parr.). The story about the disciples plucking heads of (57) For the Jewish debate on the legitimacy of life saving actions on the Sabbath cf. BOCKMUEHL, Jewish Law, 7. (58) WRIGHT, Jesus and the Victory of God, 394f. (59) E.P. SANDERS, Jesus and Judaism (London – Philadelphia 1985) 264-267 and The Historical Figure of Jesus (London 1993) 212-218, as well as several exegetes following him have cast doubt on the authenticity of the stories in the synoptic gospels where the sabbath is the major issue. He claims that what Jesus did on the Sabbath did not transcend the range of current disputes and that as far as sabbath-observance is concerned, “there is no actual transgression of the law on the part of Jesus” (Jesus and Judaism 265). For a reply to Sanders cf. WRIGHT, Jesus and the Victory of God, 390-396. (60) WESTERHOLM, Jesus and Scribal Authority, 102. (61) S. WESTERHOLM, “Sabbath”, Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, 719. (62) WRIGHT, Jesus and the Victory of God, 393. (63) Cf. U. LUZ, Matthew 8-20. A Commentary (A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible; Minneapolis 2001) 188.