Luke records that the above question arose at a dinner party around AD29 (see Info AP), Earlier “the theologians and the Pharisees” were highly critical of Jesus and his disciples for dining, and engaging, with “sinners”.
In response to their fasting critique, Jesus drew a parallel with himself being “the bridegroom.” His “disciples” were paralleled as “the sons of the bridal bedroom.” If Jesus was the Son of God, then “the sons of the bridal bedroom” would be the children of the Son of God? Revolutionary.
And in fact, he also stated to them a parallel that: “No one, tearing a piece from a pristine garment, sets it upon an old garment. In fact, and if not, he will tear the pristine and also the piece from the pristine will not agree with the old. And no one puts new wine into old wineskins. And if not, the new wine will break the wineskins and it will be spilled out. and the wineskins will be destroyed. Instead new wine put into pristine wineskins. And no one drinking old desires new, because he states, ‘The old is beneficial.’”
Two more revolutionary parallels. First, something very new - a “pristine garment” – must not be torn so as to patch an old religion, which would “not agree” with the patch anyway. Second, not only will the “new wine” burst the “old wineskins” but drinkers of the old want the old. Failure.
|
|
In fact, it came to be, on a Sabbath, he was passing through growing crops and his disciples were plucking and eating the grain, rubbing with their hands. In fact, some of the Pharisees said, “Why are you doing what is not permitted on the Sabbath?” And Jesus, responding, said to them, “Then you have you not read that which David did when, being hungry, he even came into the house of God and took and ate the bread of the presence-of-God, and gave - to those with him - that which was not permitted to be eaten other than by the priests.” And he stated to them, “The Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath.”
|
.
|
No “rubbing” on the Sabbath because that was threshing work. Jesus reminds them that their illustrious ancestor, King David of Jerusalem, had set a precedent. The Pharisees knew from their Scriptures (the Bible’s Old Testament) that their Messiah would be a Son of David. King David gave his followers life-sustaining bread. Was Jesus there, “lord of the Sabbath”, to give his followers true “bread of the presence-of-God”?
|
|
In fact, it came to be on another Sabbath, he himself purposed to come into the synagogue and to teach, and a man was there and his right hand was withered. In fact, the theologians and the Pharisees were scrutinising him, if he heals on the Sabbath, so that they might find a way to accuse him. In fact, he himself had perceived their reasonings. In fact, he said to the male having the withered hand, “Rise! Stand in the middle!” And, rising up, he stood. In fact, Jesus said to them, “I question you if it is permitted on the Sabbath to do good or to do harm, to save a soul or to destroy?” And, looking around at them all, he said to him, “Stretch out your hand!” In fact, he did, and his hand was restored. In fact, they were filled full of mindlessness and were discussing with one another what they might do to Jesus.
|
.
|
The man who “rising up, stood” had no power to heal himself – no “right hand” with which to work to restore himself.
The problem for “the theologians and the Pharisees” was that this man, Jesus, was breaking their Law. In fact, this man (a) wanted to be with needy sinners, (b) was calling his disciples “sons of the bridal bedroom”, (c) was introducing “a pristine garment” and “new wine” and “new wineskins”, (d) was pointing towards people being fed with the life-giving “bread of the presence-of-God”, and (e) had totally restored a human being on God’s “Sabbath”.
With all this taking place around them, Luke recorded that “the theologians and the Pharisees … were filled full of mindlessness”.
|
|
|
