This incident happened on a different Sabbath from the one in the preceding incident (v. 6). Note the similar terms Luke used to introduce both events. He evidently placed it here in his narrative because it builds on the idea of Jesus' authority over the Sabbath and advances it even further than the previous pericope does. As the authoritative Son of Man, Jesus declared that it was lawful to do good on the Sabbath. Both incidents involved a controversy about what is more important, ceremonial law or human need. The Pharisees believed that it was unlawful to do virtually anything on the Sabbath, though they hypocritically did good to themselves but would not do good to others. They did permit life-saving measures, midwifery, and circumcision on the Sabbath.196
6:6-8 Luke again noted the primacy of Jesus' teaching over His working of miracles (cf. 4:15-16, 31-33). He also mentioned that it was the right hand of the man that was useless, a detail of particular interest to a doctor. This detail shows the seriousness of the man's case. By now the religious leaders (cf. v. 7) were looking for an occasion to criticize Jesus publicly believing that they had a case against Him. Jesus probably knew their thoughts at least because their intentions were now clear (cf. 5:22). He could have known their thoughts because He was a prophet. He therefore consciously provoked conflict by calling the man forward for healing. His initiative demonstrates His authority and His sovereignty.
6:9 Jesus' question had two parts. He first asked if it was lawful to do good on the Sabbath or if it was lawful to do evil. The obvious answer was that doing good was lawful but doing evil was not lawful. God had instituted the Sabbath for the welfare of humankind. His attitude of love should have characterized the Israelites as they observed the day. They, too, should have made it a special day for the blessing of people. The second part of Jesus' question particularized it and pointed to its ultimate consequences. Obviously Jesus was speaking about saving a life (Gr. psyche) from physical destruction, not saving a soul from eternal damnation.
6:10 There was only one answer that the religious leaders could give. It was lawful to do good and unlawful to do evil on the Sabbath. However, they refused to answer because their answer virtually would have given Jesus their approval to heal the man. They did not want to do that because they wanted to retain their traditional abstinence from Sabbath activities. Jesus proceeded to do good and healed the man's hand, but He did so without performing any physical work. There was nothing the critics could point to as an act that Jesus performed for which they could condemn Him. This method of healing pointed to Jesus being a prophet sent from God at least and to His being God at most.
6:11 Understandably the response of Jesus' critics was violent. "Rage"or "furious"translates the Greek word anoia, which means senseless wrath (cf. 2 Tim. 3:9).
"He humiliated the religious leaders and healed the man all at the same time without even breaking the Pharisees' law. It is no wonder that the religious establishment was furious and sought a way to get rid of Him."197
Verse 11 is the climax of Luke's section that describes the beginning of Jesus' controversy with the religious leaders (5:12-6:11). Luke did not say that this incident led them to plot Jesus' death, as Matthew and Mark did. The intensity of the conflict did not interest Luke as much as Jesus' sovereign authority over His enemies.
