Illustration (borrowed from Pete Rollins): There once was an old monk who met with his disciples at a monastery every evening for prayer. At that same time a stray cat also determined to join they, distracting the disciples from their meditations. So, the old monk determined to arrive early each evening, chase down and capture the cat, and tie it to a tree just outside the monastery. He did this regularly month after month for several years.
Disciples came and went. Finally, the old monk himself passed away. The students took up the old monks task of catching and tying the cat to the tree. Eventually, some years later, the cat died. The students decided to purchase a new cat. It was also tied to the tree each evening before prayers. A hundred years later the tree died. The students purchased a new tree and planted it where the old tree had been. They continued tying a cat to the tree.
A couple of hundred years after that first monk tied that first cat to that first tree so that no one would be distracted during evening prayers, scholars began writing books about the symbolic meaning behind tying a cat to a tree just outside a monastery before beginning evening prayers.
It is proverbial that over time we often lose sight of the original purpose for things. The religion of the Jews was certainly a case in point. Faith in a living God got replaced by faith in religion. Ancient prophecies got twisted by culturally influenced interpretations until good was labeled bad, and bad labeled good. Well-meaning, candidly minded, compassionate people were 'set up' to deny the very One for whom their religion had pointed them to.
Such grotesque evolutions of meaning couldn't be sugar-coated or 'fixed' by a nip and tuck here and there. The whole religious system was bankrupt. It had morphed into an obstruction, rather than a path, to the divine.
It was in that context that Jesus said (Mk 2), "no one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment; otherwise the patch pulls away from it, the new from the old, and a worse tear results. No one puts new wine into old wine skins; otherwise the wine will burst the skins, and the wine is lost and the skins as well; but one puts new wine into fresh wine skins" (Mt 9:16,17; Mk 2:21, 22; Lk 5:36-39).
Most people don't like change, unless it is subtle change. When we are confronted by the need for a change, we only want to 'add' a little of the 'new' to our 'old' so that we remain comfortable. This is probably why Luke added the following words, "And no one, after drinking old wine wishes for new; for he says, 'the old is good enough'" (Lk 5:39). Yet, sometimes, major change is called for.
Jesus invites us to step away from the 'old' entirely and to take hold of the 'new'. The 'new wine' requires a 'new wine skin'. All attempts to pour the 'new wine' into an 'old wine skin' will fail. A totally 'new wine skin' is needed for the 'new wine'.
Jesus is the 'new wine'. The 'old wine skin' is the 'old covenant'. Whenever Jesus, the 'new wine', came in contact with the 'old wine' - old covenant thinking - conflict arose and the proponents of the 'old' sought to destroy the 'new'.
The old covenant was designed as a 'good' thing until it became the 'only' thing. Its purpose was to be a 'preliminary' thing leading to the 'real' thing. It was to be a 'shadow' of the 'new', yet it became an obstacle to the 'true'. That was the problem Jesus faced among first century Jews.
The Christian religion has also, sadly, sought to insert Jesus into what is, for all intents and purposes, old covenant thinking. We have attempted to pour the New Wine back into the old wine skin. How? We don't sacrifice animals any more. True, but we have extracted from the old covenant that which was supposed to be 'cast out' with it. As the Jews had to either be guided by Jesus as the Son of God or reject him as the emissary of the devil, so Christians today must choose to be guided by either the Spirit as the gift of God or reject Him and 'bewitchingly' return to the Law as our guide (Gal 3:1-3). Living by law, including the ten commandments, formed the core of old covenant living.
In other words, we cling to the Law as if it was eternal and Jesus was merely something extra sent by God to keep us focused on the Law. Yet, Jesus came and said that the Law (the old covenant, including the ten commandments) pointed to Him (Jn 5:39). It is all about Him - the 'New Wine'. Now that He has come we must 'cast out' the 'old' (Gal 4:21-5:1). We are not counseled to modulate the old, but to jettison it. It's work is complete (Gal 3:24,25). We are simply, yet wonderfully, left with Jesus. Is there really anything else that we need?
The 'new wine skin' is the new covenant - based on grace. New 'Israel' finds citizenship in the kingdom of grace. Christians are Spirit-led, rather than Law led. Life by law was designed for those who still lived in the flesh, rather than in the Spirit. Jesus came to show us a new and living way. Keeping our eyes on Jesus we find the way, the truth, and the life. It doesn't get better than that - in this life.
This was what Jesus came for. This was the message he preached. This is the life-transformative power of the gospel of God (Mk 1:14, 21, 38; Rom 1:16,17). This was what the leper experienced when Jesus touched him - contrary to the Law (Mk 1:41). This was what the paralytic experienced when Jesus forgave his sins prior to healing him - contrary to the Law (Mk 2:5-7). This was what Matthew experienced when Jesus called him to follow Him and then feasted with him, his tax collector friends, and the irreligious - contrary to the Law (Mk 2:14-17). The scribes and the Pharisees didn't 'get it'. Jesus' disciples didn't really 'get it' even long after the resurrection.
Even now, some two thousand years after the cross, most of us still don't 'get it'. We tend to keep both feet safely anchored in Law, while with our mouths we talk about the love of God as seen in Christ. We miss the point of Paul's letter to the Galatians - one of his clearest presentations of the gospel of grace.
It is only as we grasp Jesus as the 'new wine' that the following account makes any sense. When Jesus said, 'No one puts new wine into old wine skins; otherwise the wine will burst the skins', he was correct. Jesus could not step into that 'old wine skin' without something catastrophic happening - which was exactly what happened. He knew 'it' would happen. He even knew 'it' must happen. No wonder Mark began this pericope with the words,
2:23 (Mt 12:1; LK 6:1)
"And it happened.."
Jesus met man where man was, yet revealed to man what God was doing. Jesus lived within the kingdom of man, born 'under the law'. Yet as the 'new wine' born into the 'old wine skin' all was about to 'burst'. A clash was inevitable. Fear and anger were palpable. And persecution was predictable.
"..that He was passing through the grain fields on the Sabbath.."
Israel was proud of their distinction from other people groups. The Law had commanded them to be separate. They were given practices that ran counter to the practices of other nations - practices that were designed to reinforce the notion that they were to be different. The Sabbath, the 7th day of the week, was one such distinctive. Anyone messing with the Sabbath was bound to be in trouble. The 'old' was 'good enough'.
"and His disciples (Mt 12:1 - 'became hungry') began to make their way along while picking the heads of grain." (Lk 6:1 - 'rubbing them in their hands, and eating the grain.')
They were hungry. Food was nearby. They took, they processed, and they ate. Reasonable, right? Well, all except for the fact that Jews were required to prepare their Sabbath 'bento' the day before - on Friday. Jesus and his disciples had disregarded this requirement. The 'new wine' was already 'fermenting' in the 'old wine skin', stretching that which had already lost all its elasticity. The rigidity of the law could not accommodate the power of the Spirit-led life of Jesus.
2:24 (Mt 12:2; Lk 6:2)
"The Pharisees were saying to Him.." (Mt 12:2 - 'but when the Pharisees saw this..') "Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the (Mt 12:2 - 'a') Sabbath?"
This was the fourth in an escalating series of conflicts, in Mark's gospel, that Jesus had had with the religious leaders. The first (2:7) had to do with forgiving the sins of the paralytic - contrary to the Law. The second (2:16) had to do with his disregard of the clean/unclean laws. The third (2:18) had to do with his disciples not fasting according to Jewish tradition. This fourth conflict involved the Sabbath - a sign that distinguished Jew from Gentile.
Even though the Pharisees said, 'look at what they are doing', their complaint wasn't actually the 'what', but the 'when' of what they did. The Scriptures made it clear that 'what' they did was quite permissible (Dt 23:25), but 'when' they did it was a different matter. They did a right thing on the wrong day - the Sabbath day. 'What' they did was supposed to have been completed on the 6th day so that on the 7th day they could 'rest'.
Also note that the issue wasn't whether or not the 'when' was according to the 'traditions' of the Jews, but whether it was in harmony with the 'Law' of scripture. In this case, both the Pharisees and Jesus were clearly speaking about the Law and not about Jewish traditions - a fact that Jesus confirmed in verse 26 and again in chapter 3:4.
The Pharisees and Jesus carefully noted the difference between the 'traditional' practices of the Jews and the 'law' of God (2:7, 24; 7:5). Many of their traditions were built upon clearly understood Law and were extrapolated applications of the Law. Sometimes, though, their interpretative applications ended up denying the Law, which Jesus often spoke to (7:6-13).
As a side note, the Pharisees weren't making an issue of how far the disciples of Jesus had traveled on the Sabbath - a 'traditionally' accepted notion - which was limited to a little less than a mile (the distance between the Mount of Olives and Jerusalem, Acts 1:12). So we can again assume that it was not 'tradition', but the law itself that at issue.
The Sabbath, the fourth commandment of the law, commanded the Jews not to work on the 7th day - from sunset Friday to sunset Saturday (Ex 20:10). God had already made clear what it meant 'not' to work on the sabbath. In fact He had already 'tested' them on this point. "Behold, I will rain bread from heaven for you; and the people shall go out and gather a day's portion every day, that I may test them, whether or not they will walk in My instruction. On the sixth day, when they prepare what they bring in, it will be twice as much as they gather daily...Six days you shall gather it (food), but on the seventh day, the sabbath, there will be none." (Ex 16:4,5,26).
This, of course, wasn't later Jewish 'tradition', rather it was God's 'law' to his people. This same point was made again when a Jew went out on the sabbath day to gather wood. The Lord commanded that the man be stoned to death by the congregation (Num 15:32-36). Gathering food or wood or anything on the sabbath day was against the 'law' of God.
Then again during the time of Nehemiah, Jews profaned the sabbath by treading wine presses, carrying sacks of grain, or by selling and purchasing food (Neh 13:15-22).
Finally, even the prophet Jeremiah spoke to the sabbath issue. "Thus says the Lord, 'take heed for yourselves, and do not carry any load on the sabbath day..you shall not bring a load out of your houses on the sabbath day nor do any work, but keep the sabbath day holy as I commanded your forefathers'" (Jer 17:21,22).
Again, my point - v. 24 was not referring to Jewish 'traditions' about sabbath - of which there were many - rather the Pharisees were, at this point at least, addressing the disciples failure to obey God's command about sabbath keeping.
We often hear folks say that Jesus spoke against the Jewish traditions that contradicted God's laws. While this is true, it isn't the whole picture. Jesus spoke against the Law as a rule for life. He did so because he was inaugurating a 'new' way of life. He was about to send a 'new' Guide for daily living. The whole 'law' was being cast out - including the ten commandment with the Sabbath - as a daily guide to life. A new Guide was in town - Jesus himself and his Spirit.
2:25 (Mt 12:3; Lk 6:3)
"And He said to them, 'Have you never read (Lk 6:3 - 'even read') what David did when he was in need and he and his companions became hungry?'"
As we can see, Jesus didn't defend the Sabbath law in particular nor even the Law as a whole. Instead He cited precedence in 'breaking' the Law (1 Sam 21:3-6). In fact, he calls them to task for being less than thorough students of scripture in this regard asking, '..have you never read..' But why defend law 'breaking'?
In the ancient story that Jesus referred to, the consecrated bread was - by Law - only to be used by the high priest and his sons. It was to be eaten, by law, only in the holy place. Fresh bread was, by law, set forth every sabbath. (Lev 24:5-9). Not only had David 'unlawfully' eaten consecrated bread, but he also took it from its holy place on the Sabbath day and brought it to his hungry companions waiting outside (1 Sam 21:1).
In other words, Jesus was not trying to clarify the Sabbath law as if the Jews had misinterpreted it because of their traditions. They had grasped that Law correctly. True, they had added many unnecessary prohibitions to sabbath practice, but, again, those 'traditions' were not then being addressed by Jesus. The point, for Jesus, was not the Sabbath, but the place of the Law as a whole. Type had met antitype. The Law had served its purpose. The Law, including the Sabbath, had had it's place and purpose. It was, though, limited in what it could do. All law is limited. But the One without limit was present. The One to whom the Law, all law, had pointed.
As King David cared for the physical needs of his companions - Sabbath day or not, consecrated bread or not - so Jesus, the Son of David, cared for his companions. Jesus, in referencing this story, was declaring that he was 'at least' as great as David.
The Pharisees had missed the point of the Law, as well as their traditions. They leveraged the Law to preserve their religion rather than to point to God. They were not using the 'law, lawfully' - as Paul once wrote to Timothy (1 Tim 1:8). The law itself pointed forward to the day when it would have accomplished its purpose and be set aside for the Spirit (Jer 31:31; Heb 8:6-13; 10:9).
Wrongly focused on the law rather than the purpose of law, they couldn't see 'other' as neighbor through the eyes of love, they could only see an 'other' through the eyes of law. Law separated from love is never 'good' law. Compassion falls prey to ambition. Hungry people become judged as lazy riff raff. The character of God is maligned.
The Pharisees were caught with their proverbial 'pants down'. Jesus evoked the name of 'David' placing the Pharisees squarely between a 'rock and a hard place'. They admired King David, yet King David also broke the law. David understood that human need trumped the law. The law was a tool to lead people to the God of grace. Jesus was the Son of David.
2:26 (Mt 12:4: Lk 6:4)
"..how he entered the house of God in the time of Abiathar the high priest and ate the consecrated bread, which is not lawful for anyone to eat except the priests, and he also gave it to those who were with him?"
All three synoptics quote Jesus as saying that it was 'not lawful' for anyone but the priests to eat this bread. David not only did what was contrary to the law, but then gave it to the others with him - again contrary to the law. Jesus pitted the law against human need, presenting human need as greater than law. Jesus moved the law into its rightful place. The law was 'holy, just, and good' (Rom 7:12) - but only as the 'servant' of God until the Servant of God arrived (Rom 8:3).
Sadly, many scholars, attempting to preserve the Law as our guide rather than the Spirit, ignore Jesus' plain words that David did that which was 'not lawful'. Mark said this twice (v. 24,26). Jesus' point was that David not only lied to the priest (law breaking), received consecrated bread that only the priests were permitted to eat (law breaking), removed this bread from the sacred place (law breaking), but he also did all this on the sabbath (law breaking). In other words, Jesus knew that his own 'companions', like David and his companions, were 'breaking the law'. That was his whole point. The law was being broken. The salient message was that the Law was not only being used unlawfully, but had fulfilled its purpose. In the kingdom of God believers would be guided by the indwelling Spirit rather than an external list of rules.
In Matthews gospel he reinforced this notion with the following:
(Mt 12:5-7) - "Have you not read in the Law, that on the Sabbath the priest in the temple break/profane the Sabbath and are innocent? But I say to you that something greater than the temple is here. But if you had known what this means, 'I desire compassion and not a sacrifice', you would not have condemned the innocent.' (Hosea 6:6).
How did the temple priest profane the Sabbath? They made bread. They 'worked'. Yet, they were innocent because their temple 'work' was greater than the Sabbath, as was the rite of circumcision (Jn 7:22,23). The law was not, obviously, absolute. The law was not 'king'. Jesus was.
Jesus said that something greater than even the temple was present. He didn't say 'someone', but 'something'. What was that 'something' greater?
Jesus made it clear that the 'something greater' than the Sabbath, the Temple, and the Law was 'compassion'. God loves man more than God loves law. The law was given simply to 'tutor' man to God, to help man see his need for God and thus receive compassionate grace. It was not merely the 'traditional' elaborations of the law that were burdensome, it was the law itself that was a burden to mankind because it had been exalted above God's love for man (Gal 4:9). Whether it was the Sabbath law or the temple law, the love of God for man trumped both.
Making his point crystal clear, Jesus said:
2:27
'The Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath."
Here is Jesus' pièce de résistance. The Sabbath law was made. It wasn't something that had always existed. This law was not from eternity past. It wasn't even 'made' for angels. It was 'made for man'. And, it was made for man's benefit, not the other way around, which would have implied that the sabbath pre-existed man. Jesus wasn't sent to save the sabbath or even the law as a whole. He was sent to save man.
In many religious circles one gets the impression that God loves his law more than he loves mankind. Jesus turned that notion on its' head. The law was given to serve man. Yet, the 'best' was yet to come. The law served man until the One who best serves man came. Contrary to what you may have been taught, the law had not always existed nor was it given at the 'beginning' of earth time. It was given at Sinai (Rom 5:20; Gal 3:17-19). It is important to also note that when we speak of the old covenant we are speaking of the whole law including the ten commandments - which, of course, include the sabbath command:
Dt. 4:10-13 "Remember the day you stood before the Lord your God at Horeb, when the Lord said to me, 'assemble the people to Me, that I may let them hear My words so they may learn to fear Me all the days they live on the earth..then the Lord spoke to you from the midst of the fire; you heard the sound of words, but you saw no form - only a voice. So He declared to you His covenant which He commanded you to perform, that is, the Ten Commandments' and He wrote them on two tablets of stone."
Dt. 5:2 "The Lord our God made a covenant with us at Horeb. The Lord did not make this covenant with our fathers, but with us, with all those of us alive here today."
2:28 (Mt 12:8; Lk 6:5)
"So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath."
Mark has presented Jesus as One with authority to teach scripture, to cast out demons, to heal the sick, and to forgive sins. In this pericope Jesus is given authority over the scripture.
Not only does the Son of Man perform great miracles and forgive sins, but he is also greater than the law. The old covenant was built on the law. The law had, for all intents and purposes, served as 'god' to the people of God. The leaders of Israel worked to conform the people to the law as if obedience to law was equivalent to a relationship with the Law giver. It wasn't and isn't. Law can be broken without breaking our relationship with God.
The law is a rough draft of God's will for man. It formed a 'fence' that kept the flesh in 'custody' (Gal 3:23) as it were, until the Spirit could take its seat upon the heart. It was a daily guide until the true Guide (Gal 3:24) - Christ and His Spirit - was received. The objective of scripture is not the law, but God.
The particular issue at hand is the sabbath, but the sabbath sat in the midst of the 10 commandment Law. What Jesus did with the sabbath, Jesus was doing with the whole Law, all 10 commandments.
Here is my point. The 10 commandments form the core of the 'old covenant'. They were not given to Adam or Abraham, but to Moses and the people of Israel. When Paul spoke about 'casting out' the 'bondwoman and her son' he spoke of this 'old covenant' including the 10 commandments (Gal 4:21-24, 30). Life under law is a curse (Gal 3:10), not because the Law was evil, but because it had no power to change our carnal hearts (Heb 7:11, 19; 9:9; Rom 8:3). It could only condemn us when we strayed from it's guidelines and point us to the promised Savior. The law is not what we desire. We desire what the law points us to - Jesus (Rom 10:4).
The sabbath was about a day of rest - on a very specific day - the 7th. Yet, the sabbath, like all law, points us to the Person - Jesus. In him we find true 'rest'. It is no longer about a symbolic 'rest' in a day - any day - but in a true 'rest' in a Person - 24/7 eternally. The 'day' has ended, but our 'rest' continues in the 'Person' (Heb 4:9)
The synoptics all elaborate on this theme with the following account:
3:1 (Mt 12:9; Lk 6:6)
"He entered again into a synagogue..." (Lk 6:6 - 'and was teaching..')
Jesus met the people where 'they' were - on the sabbath, in the synagogue. Yet, in meeting them 'where they were' he sought to lead them into a better understanding of God's kingdom.
"..and a man was there whose hand (Lk 6:6 - 'right hand') was withered."
This continues the consistent practice of Jesus found in Mark 1:21-28 when he healed a demon possessed man in the synagogue on the sabbath day.
3:2 (Mt 12:10; Lk 6:7)
"They were watching Him (Lk 6:7 - 'closely') (Mt 12:10 - 'questioned Him, 'Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath?') to see if He would heal him on the sabbath, so that they might (Lk 6:7 - 'find a reason to..') accuse Him."
It was acceptable to heal on the sabbath day if life was in danger, yet here was a 'healing' case that was not at all life-threatening. Having cast out a demon from a man in a synagogue on the sabbath probably hadn't offended the Pharisees. Having healed Peter's fever-stricken mother-in-law on the sabbath probably hadn't exceeded the Jewish notion of sabbath permissibility either.
But this situation was different. What would Jesus do?
He had already exceeded the law in a number of areas. He had touched a leper - contrary to the law. He had forgiven a paralyzed man of his sins - blasphemously usurping the authority of God. He followed that up by calling the tax-collecting Matthew to be His disciple and mingling uncouthly with the irreligious - in total disregard to the teachings of scripture. He had just permitted his disciples to pluck and process on the sabbath - against the teachings of scripture. Was there no law this powerful and radical new Teacher would not disregard?
Clearly, by this point, Jesus had been labeled as an unwelcomed, subversive influence. They were thus now looking for more ammunition to use against him - to destroy his character among the people who were quickly being influenced by him. The Pharisees attempted to condemn Jesus for law breaking, using the very laws that God had given to lead the Jews to Jesus. More so, the Pharisees themselves broke the law - planned to murder Jesus - in order to condemn Jesus for breaking the law.
Many reason similarly today - and also to their own destruction. They are pro-life, yet willing to 'kill' an abortion doctor, or support killing enemies, or favor water-boarding a suspected terrorist, or not seeing a need to make sure that every living human being as all that is needed to 'live'. Why value every conception regardless of who that being might become, yet later not care about the person that fetus actually became? The life of Jesus brought continuity and consistent compassion to all life.
(Mt 12:11,12a - "And He said to them, 'What man is there among you who has a sheep, and if it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will he not take hold of it and lift it out? How much more valuable then is a man than a sheep!)
Matthew added these two verses to this story which, it seems, must have exposed the hypocrisy of the Pharisees even further. Jesus was again appealing to that 'something greater' - compassion. Clearly, they not only put the Law above human needs, but they placed their own profits above the needs of other humans. They were spiritually bankrupt. He knew it and they now knew that he knew it. All this far exceeded mere careless or erroneous interpretations of the law or the cultural practices. Jesus was revealing that the religion of the Jews had itself become an obstacle to the kingdom of grace.
3:3 (Lk 6:8)
"He (Lk 6:8 - 'knew what they were thinking, and..') said to the man with the withered hand, 'Get up and come forward!"
This is quintessential 'in your face' Jesus. This healing wasn't a necessity. There wasn't any reason for a conflict to occur. The man sadly, yet simply, had a withered hand that Jesus could very well have waited to heal after the Sabbath hours - as he had at Peter's house (1:32). It was as though Jesus determined to precipitate the conflict! But, for what purpose?
Is there a 'time' to intentionally offend others?
This Sabbath incident reminds us of another presented in John's gospel when Jesus healed a man at the pool of Bethesda who had been crippled for 38 years (Jn 5:1-17). Again, Jesus could have waited until after sunset. He could have just healed the man without then commanding him to 'pick up his pallet' and carry it away on the Sabbath (contra the command of God - Jer 17:21,22 - not Jewish sabbath traditions).
In John's account of this incident Jesus was quoted as saying, 'My Father is working until now, and I Myself am working'.
Oops. The Father is 'working'? God doesn't 'rest' from creative acts on the 7th day? Then what was that creation story all about when it said that God 'finished' all his creative work on the sixth day and 'rested' on the 7th? Was that an accounting of what God actually did or a story later 'created' by the Jews to anchor their sabbath law as an eternal, universal rule for all? Jesus hadn't outright denied the creation story, but he - in saying this - revealed its more 'mythic' origins.
Jesus had invited the Pharisees to 'see' the truth, inviting them into the kingdom of grace, into the family of God (Mk 2:10). Yet, they persistently refused to let go of their preconceived notions and determined to label Jesus as 'of the devil' rather than 'of God'. That which we cannot understand gets placed in one or the other of these two categories - usually that means the category that requires the least amount of change in our own life.
3:4 (Lk 6:9)
"And He said to them, 'Is it lawful to do good or to do harm on the Sabbath.." (Mt 12:12b - 'So then, it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.')
Mark and Luke phrase this as a question Jesus asked of the Pharisees, while Matthew makes it a statement of fact spoken by Jesus to all present. Jesus, by the way, did 'good' every day. It wasn't about 'law', but about compassion. The Sabbath day wasn't any different.
"...to save a life or to kill?"
When the 'law' is used lawfully, it underscores compassion. Again, though the sabbath law had many prohibitions with severe consequences for those who neglected to obey, the ultimate purpose of the sabbath was to lead God's people to their true rest in Christ. If they had read the whole law they would have grasped that the law undermined itself as an absolute.
The Pharisees were already thinking about how to 'eliminate' Jesus. In this question Jesus revealed that they not only missed the point of the Sabbath commandment, but they were breaking another commandment in their hearts. They wrongly accused Jesus of being a lawbreaker when in fact it was they who broke the law. The law is fulfilled in loving one another (Rom 13:10), not in hating those who don't 'see as we see'.
"But they kept silent."
What could they say? He had 'nailed' them. They remained silent when Jesus could no longer remain silent. We all need to 'wrestle' through this. When do we speak up and when must we remain silent?
3:5
"After looking around at them with anger.."
Jesus was angry. Why?
Jesus had taken the offensive and was turning the Jewish religion upside down. It was not that he disdained the OT and it's teachings, but that he wanted the Jews to see that the whole purpose of the OT was not 'itself', but Him. They had removed God from their midst and placed their religion in the place of God. For the Jews it had become 'all about their religion'. For Jesus, it was 'all about God'. Yet, the Jews totally missed the point - as we often continue to do today, two thousand years later, as well.
"grieved at their hardness of heart..."
They had closed their hearts to Him, the Person, God in human flesh.
(Mt 12:13; Lk 6:10)
"He said to the man, 'Stretch out your hand."
The Pharisees and scribes were respected leaders in Israel. Their teachings and practices would either prepare the people to see God or obscure God. Jesus could not permit them to use their positions of power, prestige, and persuasion to continue in blinding the people to God. Nor can we. When it comes to this most important element of our existence - our relationship with God - we cannot remain silent.
"And he stretched it out, and his hand was restored." (Mt 12:13 '..to normal like the other')
Regardless of whether their notions of Sabbath were legally accurate or skewed through tradition, Jesus made it clear that the needs of people trumped the words of Law and/or the teachings of religion. Nothing is more sacred to God than our life.
3:6 (Mt 12:14; Lk 6:11)
The Pharisees (Lk 6:11 - 'were filled with rage..') went out and immediately began conspiring with the Herodians against Him, as to how they might destroy Him."
It was the Pharisees turn to be angry. Jesus was angered at their closed mindedness to the things of the kingdom. The Pharisees were angered at his interference with their comfort in the kingdom of flesh.
The scribes and Pharisees were glad to have a miracle working Jesus in their midst as long as He worked within their 'old wine skin' paradigm. They were pleased to 'patch' him into their status quo 'old garment', but were not at all interested in learning about or adopting a whole new paradigm - the 'new wine skin'. It was too much work. To make the change Jesus was instituting would mean that they would have to become humble learners rather than institutional leaders. Everything they believed in and had taught would require rethinking and redoing. It was far easier to destroy the Messenger and thus eliminate the message than to humble themselves. As a result of their rebellion, it would take a generation of intense suffering and losses before the 'old' would be jettisoned for the 'new'.
Sadly, from the moment the 'old' was destroyed as a 'Jewish' system, it was replaced by a 'Christian' system. The 'old' covenant was 'Christianized' and preserved. No wonder Paul wrote: 'You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified? This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive this Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? (Gal 3:1-3)
0 comments:
Post a Comment