Lost in Translation: Luke 6:5

Luke 6:5 looks like a simple verse. It only has a few words, both in English and in Greek. It is translated to simply say:

NIV: The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.

All versions of the Bible translate it this way. How can anything be lost in translation? Before we get into its serious mistranslation of the Greek, let us think about this as part of an argument. Jesus defends his followers for gleaning wheat on the Sabbath. Here is the accusation:

Luke 6:2 Some of the Pharisees asked, “Why are you doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?”

The first part of his argument is logical about Jewish law versus priestly rules. Jesus gave the example of King David who violated the rules and not the Law. The word translated as “lawful” and “unlawful” here doesn’t relate to Jewish law. It means, “not allowed.” In this context, but the priests and Pharisees.

Luke 6:3 Jesus answered them, “Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry?
Luke 6:4 He entered the house of God, and taking the consecrated bread, he ate what is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions.”

Does this “the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath,” flow from this argument? I can understand how this mistranslation might sound powerful to his followers hundreds of years later, but how would it sound at the time? Like he had lost the thread of his own argument, and, worse, that he had delusions of power.

But Jesus wasn’t crazy. He was clever and witty, and his listeners heard that in this final statement.

The Mistranslation

This verse doesn’t begin with “the son of man.” It begins with the Greek word that means “master” or “lord,” which means the person in authority. Who would Jesus’s listeners think this referred to? In the two verses prior to this, Jesus has been talking about a specific “master/lord,” King David. That is how they would have heard it.

This is a setup for a humor at the end of the verse.

Next, we have the verb “to be,” but the Greek “to be” works differently than our English “to be.” Our word basically works as an equal sign, equating two things or assigning characteristics. It doesn’t affect objects. The Greek verb does takes objects, but not direct objects. It takes what we would call indirect objects and possessive objects. In English, indirect objects are most commonly it the form “to him,” as in “I gave the translation to him.” And possessive objects are in the form “of his,” as in “this is a paraphrase of his.” Here, the possessive object of the verb is “of the Sabbath.”

“Lord of the Sabbath” looks like “of the Sabbath” modifies the word “master/lord.” It doesn’t. It is the object of the verb. How do we know? Because, in the Greek, it follows the verb “is” not the word “master/lord.” Nouns that modify other nouns either precede or follow them. They are not disconnected from them without a reason. Otherwise, they could modify any noun in the sentence.

A Master is of the Sabbath

What does, “is of” mean?” It can mean many things, and Jesus is forcing his listeners to think about how he means it. As possessive (called a “dative'“) object of “to be” has five possible meanings depending on the context. It can express:

1. a descent or extraction of a person,

2. the material of which a thing is made,

3. the class to which a person or thing belongs,

4. a thing that belongs to another,

5. something one it at the mercy of, or

6. something one is dependent upon.

Which of these six meaning would Jesus’s listeners have heard him saying? How is “a master” related to the Sabbath? They would easily eliminate the first four. The Sabbath cannot be a source of descent, of building material, a class or type of people or things, or something a master can belong to. That leaves them the last two possibilities.

A master is at the mercy of the Sabbath.
A master is dependent upon the Sabbath.

Which did Jesus mean? What fits best in the context?

If the first was said as a question, “Is a master at the mercy of the Sabbath?” It fits the context and offers a bit of wordplay. However, is a master dependent on the Sabbath? Certainly, if we understand what “sabbath” means.

The Day of Rest

“Sabbath” means “rest” or “rest day” in Aramaic. Jesus’s followers were criticized because they were “working” by picking and eating food because they were required to rest. Of the thirty-nine types of work prohibited by priests on the Sabbath, Jesus’s followers were accused of “harvesting” and “winnowing,” picking heads of grain and removing their husks by rubbing the kernels in their hands to remove the husk.

Let us put “rest” in the verse.

A master is dependent upon this rest.

This makes perfect sense. The fact is that we are all dependent on rest, even a master. But the context is also eating grain. However, there is also a Sabbath rule regarding eating on the Sabbath. People are required to eat three meals. Eating is part of resting.” Fasting is forbidden on the Sabbath.

This raises a legal question: what is worse for “rest,” the tiny bit of work involved or fasting because one doesn’t have food? This is Jesus’s logical point here, ending his argument.

However, because Jesus is having fun, this legal argument is a setup for the punchline.

The Son of the Man

This comes at the end of the verse not the beginning. Subjects can and often do come at the end of verses, but though “the son of the man” is in the form of a subject, it is not equated with “a master.” The verb “to be” has an object. It cannot also equate the son with a master. This subject doesn’t have a verb.

In Greek, this works easily. The verb is assumed either to means “to be” or the verb earlier in the verse is implied. It means:

Listeners Heard: A master is dependent upon this rest. The son of the man is!"

He is saying that he depends upon rest. He is claiming both to be a master, because he had followers, and that he depends on rest like they do. This is both proud and humble, but it is an argument that wins the debate.