John 5:9

And straightway the man was made whole, and took up his bed and walked.

Every soul has the power to do what Jesus commands, granted only that there is the will to obey him. The man was made whole at a word from Jesus; and the man's response was prompt and obedient. What if he had said, "Look, Lord, I do feel a lot better; and, later on, if I still feel this way, I'll try to do what you said"? Who can doubt that such a response would have forfeited his blessing?

Now it was the sabbath on that day. So the Jews said unto him that was cured, It is the sabbath, and it is not lawful for thee to take up thy bed.

Christ had chosen deliberately to do such a deed on the sabbath as a platform from which to call attention to his authority and power, and also for the purpose of exposing the ridiculous extensions and additions to God's sabbath regulations which had been so mercilessly bound upon the people by their priests. Regarding the question if Jesus did or did not break the sabbath, it must be answered unequivocally that he did not break it. There are three legitimate grounds upon which all alleged guilt of Jesus in breaking the sabbath is totally removed. Thus: (1) It was well known among the Jews that a prophet might, for cause, set aside the sabbath; as the Prophet like unto Moses, Jesus had every right to do so; (2) as God incarnate, Christ had total authority, even referring to himself once as "Lord of the sabbath" (Matthew 12:8); and (3) the Lord's actions often referred to as breaking the sabbath, such as this man's carrying his bed, constituted no violation whatever of God's true law regarding sabbath observance, but only violated the hair-splitting interpretations of it so dear to the Pharisees.

Strong disagreement is registered here with that school of expositors who make the Lord's actions, here or anywhere else a violation of God's sabbath laws. See a full discussion of this in my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 12. As Barnes said:

The Jews extended the obligation of the sabbath beyond what was intended ... observed it superstitiously, and Jesus took every opportunity to convince them of their error ... This method he took to show them what the law of God really permitted on that day, and that works of necessity and mercy were lawful.[6]

Also, Hendriksen, quoting Jeremiah 17:19-27 and Nehemiah 13:15, usually cited by those who would make this cripple's carrying his pallet a violation of the sabbath, noted that:

In these passages, the reference is clearly to that type of burden-bearing which was connected with the performance of ordinary labor for gain, with trading and marketing. By forbidding a cured man to pick up his mat, as if that were comparable to a burden that he was carrying to the market-place in order to sell it at a profit, they were making a caricature of the law of God.[7]

The divine law also permitted the securing of one's property as Barnes noted in the above reference; and the carrying of his bed was necessary to that. If he had walked off and left it, it would have deprived him of it; and the Master's blessing would have been partially nullified. But, as Jesus noted on another occasion, the healing and rescue of a beast which had fallen into a ditch was freely allowed by those hypocrites as legitimate on the sabbath day; but the Christ of glory they accused of breaking the sabbath by healing a man, born in the image of God, on the sabbath day! Their error was great indeed, but it is no greater than that of modern commentators who denominate the Lord a sabbath-breaker, basing their allegation on the testimony of those hypocrites who first accused him of it! Not a jot or a tittle of the law did Jesus ever break.

The Jews ... who accused Jesus here were the Sanhedrinists, the ruling hierarchy of priests, including the Pharisees and the Sadducees, as well as all the leading persons of that class in the city. The words should not be read racially, for that is not the way John used them.

[6] Albert Barnes, Notes on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1954), p. 227.

[7] William Hendriksen, Exposition of the Gospel according to John (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1961), p. 193.