I will Return
By J.D. Myers | October 18, 2011
Jesus said He would return again.
While I am not Jesus, I will get back to writing more Bible Commentary soon…
Stay tuned!
| Check out the Commentary Forum for all the most recent language study and commentary research on this passage.
Luke 6:6-11
By J.D. Myers | April 20, 2011
After the surprising claim of Jesus in Luke 6:1-5 that He and His followers are the new priesthood, the new sacrificial system, and the new center for the worship of God, Jesus reiterates this point through a dramatic healing in a Synagogue on the Sabbath. As with the account in 6:1-5, the issue of what is allowed on the Sabbath is secondary to the theological and practical point Jesus makes in 6:6-11. Truth and law are to help free people in life and in their worship of God; not hinder them. A proper understanding and application of God’s law will not result in the development of roadblocks to God, but will open up access for all people.
6:6. Jesus, as was His custom on the Sabbath, went to the synagogue to teach. Sabbath teaching in the synagogue usually focused on a particular passage of Scripture, with a few Rabbis reading, translating, explaining, and applying the text (cf. Luke 4:14-16). In this account, the focus is not so much on what Jesus teaches from the words of Scripture, but on how He interacts with the people who are present, and what He teaches through His actions.
On this particular Sabbath, there was a man present whose right hand was withered. Some speculate that the Pharisees had brought this man in order to trap Jesus (cf. v 7), but it is just as likely Jesus brought the man to teach the Pharisees and His disciples something. If the latter option is true, then the man with the withered hand could have been the object lesson for the teaching of Jesus that Sabbath. However, it is not likely that Jesus would use people this way, so the most likely option is that the man just came to the synagogue that day. Maybe he was a regular attender; maybe he was just visiting. The point is that he was there.
6:7. The scribes and Pharisees were also present at the synagogue, listening to and participating in the Sabbath teaching. But on this day, they were more interested in what Jesus did than what He said. They watched Him closely. There are numerous words for watching, looking, and seeing in Scripture, but the one Luke uses here (Gk. paratēreō), means “to spy on” or “to watch out of the corner of one’s eye” (cf. Ps. 36:12 LXX; Bock 1996:178). It carries the idea of watching someone with malicious intent. Luke puts this word first in the verse, to give it emphasis.
So the scribes the Pharisees are not in the synagogue to learn, but to find an accusation against Jesus. They wanted to discover some way to charge Jesus with wrongdoing. Jesus knew the Pharisees were trying to find fault with Him, but He does not shy away from the conflict. Instead, He seems to head directly toward it.
6:8. Jesus knew their thoughts, that they were trying to trap Him, and so He said to the man who had the withered hand, “Arise and stand here.” Frequently, synagogues followed many of the rules and regulations found in the Temple. Since teaching and discussion Scripture was considered to be a priestly duty, many of the laws and regulations about the priesthood were loosely applied to those who taught and discussed Scripture in the synagogue on the Sabbath. One such rule restricted people with a physical deformity such as a broken foot or broken hand (cf. Lev 21:19).
The deformity of the withered hand would have kept this man out of the Scripture discussion. Though he could attend and listen, he could not speak.
The fact that he was seated reveals his exclusion. In a typical synagogue of the time, the teaching Rabbi would sit, and those who were allowed to teach and interact with the Rabbi would stand near the front. Women, children, Gentile visitors, and those unqualified to participate in the dialogue, would sit in the back of the synagogue and around the edges of the room. Since this man was sitting, he was not being allowed to participate.
Yet, in obedience to Jesus, the man arose and stood. Jesus could have healed the man while he was sitting, but by asking the man to stand, Jesus indicates that the man is about to participate in the teaching.
6:9. Once the man had risen, Jesus said to the Scribes and Pharisees, “I will ask you one thing: Is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good or to do evil, to save life or to destroy?” By framing the question this way, Jesus reveals that there are only two options when it comes to helping other people: we either save life or destroy it. There is no neutral ground. If someone refrains from helping another, it is the same has hurting them.
But the question of Jesus is much deeper than this. The Jewish religious leaders had laws which essentially said the same thing that Jesus has just indicated. Jesus was not asking this question to teach them. He was not even asking this question to see if they knew the answer. Jesus was not asking the question because He thought they had never thought about it before. He asked the question to show them that neither the question nor the answer really mattered.
The question Jesus raises was very similar to a question which the Pharisees already answered in one of their many books on how to keep the law. When it came to the law, the Jewish religious leaders left no stone unturned. Every question had been asked and answered. They had considered all aspects of what could and could not be done on the Sabbath.
One of the questions in their books on the Sabbath was whether or not it was permitted to heal on the Sabbath. Here is the answer they had come up with in one of their books of Sabbath regulations:
1. On the Sabbath, healing to save a life is not only permitted, but a duty. Jews were required to perform work if it would save the life of a person who would otherwise die.
2. Caring for the seriously ill was sometimes allowed on the Sabbath, but only under certain restraints and conditions.
3. Treating minor ailments is prohibited. This is because a minor ailment is not life threatening, and can therefore wait until after the Sabbath is over. Also, treating minor ailments often required the grinding of herbs to prepare medicine, and grinding is one of the prohibited forms of work (Edersheim 1988:v2, 60-61; Stern 1992:117).
That was answer of the Jewish experts to the question of Jesus. Yet Jesus did not ask the question because He was ignorant of their answer, nor did He ask it because He thought they didn’t know the answer. He asked because He knew the answer, and He hated it.
It is not that the answer was wrong. It was technically the right answer. It was logical and consistent with the rest of Jewish law. It helped maintain the purity and sanctity of the Jewish Sabbath. But in this instance, Jesus doesn’t care about having the right or wrong answer to a theological question, nor does He want to debate with them about what is or is not work on the Sabbath.
In asking the question, Jesus is showing that the question itself is the problem. Neither the answer, nor the question, is what matters. What does matter? The person standing in front of them all is what matters. The man with the withered hand is what matters. It is not the time to develop theological answers to questions about human need and suffering when a person is standing in front of you who is suffering. At such times, debate and discussion is not helpful, but is only destructive and harmful. At such times, theological questions about what sort of people we can help, and when or why we can help them, are nothing more than theological excuses for a failure to help someone in need.
This was why Jesus asked the question. The religious leaders had all the right answers for why this man with the withered hand should be seated in back, kept quiet, and relegated to second-class citizenship within Israel. But Jesus wanted to show that their theological answers to the problem of human suffering did not help people, but hindered them. Their answers did not saves lives, but destroyed them.
6:10. After asking His pointed question, Jesus looked around at them all. This is an interesting detail that Luke includes. It is as if Jesus was challenging anyone to answer His question while the suffering man was standing in their presence. As Jesus looked around, it would be interesting to know if the other teachers averted their gaze.
Jesus was probably also looking upon them with sorrow. They had all the truth one could ask for, but none of the love. Yet truth, if it is properly understood, leads to love.
After looking around the room, Jesus spoke to the man saying, “Stretch out your hand.” When the man did so, his hand was restored as whole as the other.
Commentaries are often divided as to whether Jesus actually broke a Sabbath-day law here or not. Most argue that Jesus did break the Pharisaical understanding of the Sabbath law, but not any specific command of God. Some of these commentaries brought out how the Pharisees probably had some difficulty accusing Jesus here of any wrongdoing, since He didn’t actually grind any herbs or use any medicine. All Jesus did was command the man to stretch out His hand, which is not technically breaking the law.
One commentary rightfully points out that in the parallel passages of the other Gospels, and on other Sabbath-day conflicts, Jesus provides five reasons why He is allowed to heal on the Sabbath. The first reason, which Jesus gives in Matthew 12, is that the manmade laws of the Pharisees are not the same as the God-given laws of the Hebrew Scriptures. Although Jesus has broken man’s laws, He has not broken God’s laws.
Second, even according to the man-made Jewish laws, it was okay to rescue a sheep who had fallen into a hole on the Sabbath. Jesus argues that if it okay to rescue a sheep, it is definitely okay to heal a man.
Third, Jesus says in numerous places that the Sabbath was made for man; not man for the Sabbath. This means that God has given the law to help man better serve and glorify God, not to enslave man and require him to glorify the rules.
Fourth, Jesus states in other contexts that “My Father has been working until now, and I too am working.” This means that God works every day, even on the Sabbath, and if God can do it, so can Jesus.
Finally, another Jewish rule allowed circumcision on the Sabbath. Jesus argues that if circumcision is okay, then healing on the Sabbath should also be allowed (Stern 1992:117).
While all of these arguments are true, they still miss the entire point of the actions of Jesus. It is not about who has the better argument, who knows the law better, or who can present the most logical case. It is not about whether Jesus broke the Sabbath, or changed the Sabbath, or really wanted to teach anything about the Sabbath at all.
Jesus wanted the Pharisees and His disciples to see the man. Jesus saw the man and his need, and had compassion on Him to heal him. He saw something good to do for somebody, and He did it. He did not allow the finer points of legal and theological debate keep Him from helping another person in need.
Through these actions, Jesus shows the entire goal and purpose of the law: to help people love one another. If the law does not lead us to love, it has not been properly understood or applied. The truth of this is revealed by its opposite in the following verse.
6:11. After seeing that the man’s hand had been healed, the scribes and Pharisees were filled with rage. The word for rage (Gk. anoia) is where we get the English word “annoy,” but is much stronger than it’s English descendant. In Greek, it is describes irrational anger, even pathological rage (Bock 1996:179). The Pharisees were livid at Jesus.
This reveals that they never did see the man. In their minds, he was only a good illustration for a theological argument. But beyond this, they also missed out on seeing God at work. The religious leaders knew that healing only came from God. In John 3, the Pharisee Nicodemus says to Jesus that they all know no man can do the things Jesus does unless God is with Him. Yet the Pharisees, so intent on keeping the Sabbath, won’t even allow God Himself, who gave them the Sabbath, to go against their manmade traditions about the Sabbath and show love and mercy toward another human being.
But the worst part about this verse, is what they decide to do with Jesus. Luke records that discussed with one another what they might do to Jesus. In His initial question in v 9, Jesus asked if it was lawful on the Sabbath to do good or to do evil, to save life or to destroy? In such a way, He revealed that there is no middle ground. One who fails to do good, ends up doing evil. One who fails to save a life, destroys it.
The Pharisees prove this point when they get upset at Jesus for healing the man on the Sabbath. Though their regulations forbade them from helping the man, they were still allowed by the same law to plot how they might kill Jesus. In rejecting to do the good in front of them, they ended up doing evil.
To comment on this post, please use the forum.
| Check out the Commentary Forum for all the most recent language study and commentary research on this passage.
Luke 6:1-5
By J.D. Myers | March 7, 2011
Though on the surface, it seems that the issue in Luke 6:1-11 is the law and tradition surrounding the prohibitions for the Sabbath, the real issue is more cultural and theological. The actions that Jesus performed on the Sabbaths in this passage were allowed in certain situations by certain people. So when Jesus performs these actions—or instructs His disciples to do so—He is not violating the Sabbath law, or even the oral tradition about the law, but is instead making a startling claim about Himself, His ministry, and His followers.
When understood this way, the two events in Luke 6:1-11 starkly reveal the new wine that Jesus brings, and the new wineskins He puts it in (cf. Luke 5:33-39). Jesus shows how His interpretation and application of the Jewish Torah for His disciples is different than that of the Pharisees and John the Baptist. He does this by taking one of the key, identifying laws of Jewish life, the law of the Sabbath in Exodus 20:8-11, and interprets the law in such a way that does not break or abolish it, but fulfills and expands it for the benefit of all mankind.
Luke 6:1-5 will be considered here, and 6:6-11 in the next section.
6:1. Of critical importance to understanding Luke 6:1-5 is the difficult phrase at the beginning of the passage, on the second Sabbath after the first. This may be the most difficult and most discussed textual problem in the Gospel of Luke. The Greek phrase is sabbatō deuteroprōtō, and literally means “the second-first Sabbath.” Since deuteroprōtō is found nowhere else in Scripture or Greek literature, some believe it is a scribal error, and should be removed from the Greek text (cf. NIV, NAS; Bock 1994:534; Metzger 2002:116). Doing so, however, robs the passage of its force.
Among those who retain it, the word is usually translated as in in the NKJV, the second Sabbath after the first but this does not clarify which Sabbath is in view. Most scholars believe it doesn’t matter, and the events could have happened on any Sabbath of the year. This view notes that in the account that follows, the disciples of Jesus violate several of the 39 prohibited acts on the Sabbath as contained in the oral Torah, and based on this, the point of the passage is to show that Jesus followed the written Torah (the Pentateuch) but not the oral Torah (the Mishnah).
The point argued below, however, is quite different. Once it is determined which Sabbath Luke is referring to, it becomes clear that Jesus was not disobeying the oral Torah, but was in fact following it, and in so doing, made a provocative point about Himself and His ministry. To arrive at this conclusion, it must first be determined which Sabbath deuteroprōtō has in view.
A study of the Jewish background and the various views indicates that the Sabbath in question was Shavuot, the fiftieth day after Passover (see “What’s On Second? Who’s on First? Deuterōprotō in Luke 6:1” ). According to the instructions in the Torah, the Feast of Weeks (Shavuot) Sabbath, like the Passover Sabbath, is not a weekly Saturday Sabbath, but is a holiday Sabbath, and can fall on any day of the week (Lev 23:21). This was the second of three Feasts which required pilgrimage to Jerusalem (Deut 16:16-17). During the Feast of Weeks, travelers would bring seven different kinds of first fruit offerings to the temple: wheat, barley, grapes, figs, pomegranates, olives, and dates (Deut 8:8). Several special ceremonies were conducted as these offerings were brought in to the temple and presented before the Lord.
But there was another offering for this day that was prepared and brought specifically by the temple priests. It was twin loaves made from new wheat flour. These loaves were specially made and prepared by the priests, and most curious of all, they were the only loaves ever brought into the temple that contained leaven (Lev 23:17). A special ceremony was conducted to prepare these loaves.
On the day of Shavuot, the priests would enter a field specifically chosen for this ceremony, and would harvest three seahs (about 24 liters) of stalks of wheat. After harvesting the stalks, the wheat had to be prepared in a way the differed from the usual way of separating wheat from the chaff. Usually, when wheat was harvested, the grain and chaff were separated through the process of threshing and winnowing. But the preparation of the wheat for the twin loaves used a special procedure known as “rubbing and beating.” The wheat that had been harvested was rubbed in the palm of the hands and then beaten with the fist in the other hand, though some say the beating could be done with the foot on the ground (Neusner 1988:745, Mishna, Menahot 6:5). Later tradition required that the wheat be rubbed 300 times and beaten 500 times, but this was probably not in practice at the time of Jesus. These actions were performed, even though it was the Sabbath (Neusner 1988:756, Mishna, Menahot 11:1-3).
Finally, after the wheat had been threshed and winnowed by hand in the field, it was brought into the temple, where it was made into bread with leaven, before being presented before the Lord as an offering.
Two things are unique about this offering. First, it is the only offering that is presented to the Lord with leaven. Leaven, or yeast, is always a symbol for sin in Scripture, and so no other offering ever contained leaven. Second, this was the only offering that was prepared and shaped by the hands of men. Every other time, when grain or an animal was brought into the temple as an offering, it was offered just as it was. Yes, the grain might be roasted over a fire, and the animal would be slaughtered before it too was roasted, burned, or boiled, but no other actions of forming, shaping, or molding the offerings were to be performed. Only the two loaves on the Feast of Weeks were formed in such a way.
So in this context, what does the term deuteroprōtō mean? As stated, both the Feast of Unleavened Bread and the Feast of Weeks included offerings of the first-fruits. In Hebrew, the seven first fruit offerings of Shavuot are referred to as bikkurim, which is translated in the Greek Septuagint as prōtogenēmatōn (lit., “first ones.” Cf. Neusner 1988:168, 172, Mishnah, Bikkurim 1:6; 3:2). It is during the Feast of Weeks that the second first-fruits offering is brought into the temple (cf. Exod 23:19; 34:22; Lev 2:14; 23:17, 20; Neh 10:35; Ezek 44:30). So this seems to be the most likely explanation of deuteroprōtō. Deuteroprōtō is an abbreviated form of deuteroprōtogenēmatōn. The first first-fruits offering is the day after the first Sabbath of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, and the second first-fruits offering is fifty days later on the Sabbath of the Feast of Weeks.
All of this is significant due to what Luke records next, that on this particular Sabbath, Jesus and the disciples went through the grainfields. This should be read quite literally. They were not on a path or road that went through the grainfields, but were walking off the path, through the midst (Gk. diaporeuomai) of the grainfields.
As they walked, they plucked the heads of grain (Gk. stachus, lit., “ears, stalks”). While this word can be used to refer to any kind of plant that produces stalks or ears, such as corn, barley, or wheat, in the New Testament, it always refers to wheat (Louw-Nida “stachus,” cf. also NET). The disciples are not plucking barley (Gk. krithē, cf. John 6:9, 13; Rev. 6:6), but wheat. Certainly, there is a more specific word for “wheat” (Gk. sitos) that could have been used, but Luke is not as concerned with the wheat as he is with what the disciples are doing with it.
He writes that after they plucked the ears, they ate them, rubbing them in their hands. Though this could be just a description of what they did with the grain, it seems more likely that Luke points out their actions because of the symbolism of these actions on this particular day. These actions clearly resemble the actions of the priests as they harvest the grain and rub them in their hands to prepare the flour for bread.
6:2. The fact that some of the Pharisees were nearby and saw what the disciples of Jesus were doing shows that this was not just any grainfield, but was one specially tended and prepared for temple use on this day. If it were any random grainfield, one would have to conclude that the Pharisees were following Jesus around, or had coincidentally come upon Him as the disciples were picking grain.
Seeing what the disciples are doing, they ask them, “Why are you doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath?” The word Sabbath is plural, which may indicate that that the holiday Sabbath that year fell on Friday, causing back-to-back Sabbaths. But the issue of primary concern is why the Pharisees were questioning the disciples of Jesus.
Initially, people of western categories of thinking believe that the disciples of Jesus are stealing the wheat. The field was not theirs, nor was the wheat, and yet they plucked and ate of it as they walked along. But such is not the case. Land owners were required by Jewish law to let the poor and hungry eat from their fields. The poor could eat as much as they wanted as long as they did not do any harvesting, or collecting the grain in baskets. Even when it came time to harvest the field, the landowners were expected to leave the corners of the field uncut so that the poor could still eat (Lev 23:22; Deut 23:24-25). This was a form of practical welfare, and is seen in action in the book of Ruth.
So the Pharisees are not concerned that the disciples are eating grain that is not theirs. They are concerned that the disciples are plucking and eating this particular grain, in this grainfield, on this Sabbath. There were Jewish laws against thirty-seven types of work on a Sabbath, including harvesting, threshing, winnowing grain, and preparing food (Neusner 1988:187, Mishnah Shabbat 7:2). The disciples were technically doing all of these.
Sometimes priests could perform some of these prohibited acts on a holiday Sabbath if the holiday required it (Neusner 1988:756, Mishnah [i]Menahot 11:2-3; cf. Henry 1991:1671). For example, harvesting the firstfruits of barley for Passover was done on the holiday Sabbath by the temple priests (Neusner 1988:753, Mishnah [i]Menahot 10:3). Similarly, harvesting the firstfruits of wheat and preparing the twin loaves of bread could be performed by the priests on the holiday Sabbath (Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat 131a). So on both Passover and the Feast of Weeks (Shavuot, or Pentecost), the priests would enter into a field by the temple, harvest some grain, and then bring it into the temple to prepare as an offering.
It seems possible that the disciples were going through this particular grainfield on this particular holiday Sabbath, and performing actions that only temple priests were allowed to perform. The Pharisees, who are watching over the field, challenge the disciples for an explanation.
6:3. It is Jesus who answers the Pharisees, which may indicate that the disciples were acting on His instructions. As an answer, Jesus does not exactly defend the disciples or explain their actions, but provides a precedent from Israelite history. The account He chooses is when David…was hungry, he and those who were with him.
6:4. The account that Jesus refers to occurs in 1 Samuel 21. In 1 Samuel 20, King Saul’s son, Jonathan, told David to flee for his life because Saul wanted to kill him. In chapter 21, David and his companions have been on the run for three days, and have run out of food. After arriving in the town of Nob, David visits a priest in the house of God (this was before the temple was built), and asks the priest for five loaves of bread for him and his men. The priest tells David that the only bread he had was the holy bread, the showbread. The priest tells David that he can have the bread, if the men have not recently slept with women.
It is not important in this context why the priest required David and his men to have kept themselves from women, except to say that the showbread was holy and was intended for people who were ritually clean, as the priests usually were. What is important is that the priest recognized that according to the letter of the law, it was not lawful for any but the priests to eat the bread, the intent and purpose of the law enabled the priest to give the showbread to David and his men.
What did David and the priest know which Jesus also knew, but the Pharisees did not? The answer begins with understanding why the priests were given the bread in the first place. When God initially ordained the priesthood, He did not arrange for them to be paid. They did not receive a salary, a stipend, or any sort of monetary payment for their services. Nor were the priests allowed to own land. They were not given a portion of the land of Israel to grow crops or raise animals.
Instead, God provided for the needs of the priests through the grain and animal sacrifices of the people. When Israelites brought grain and animals to the tabernacle or the temple as an offering, a portion of it would be burned on the altar as an offering to God and the rest was usually reserved for the priests and their families.
Every week, to provide for their bread, the priests made twelve loaves of showbread (for more on the showbread, see Edersheim 1994:142). The loaves for the priests were made from the offerings of the first-fruits (which were stored in temple storehouses to last for the entire year), and any priest who had kept himself clean could eat of this bread (Num 18:11-13; 1 Sam 21:4-5). This bread for the priests was referred to as Terumah (or Terumah Gedolah) and is usually a food item given to the Priests as a gift. It is listed as one of the twenty-four priestly gifts.
These twelve loaves represented the twelve tribes of Israel, and were placed on a table in the Holy Place of the Tabernacle (Exod 25:23-30). Every Sabbath, new loaves replaced the loaves from the previous week, and the priests could then eat the loaves that had been removed (Lev 24:5-9).
The consumption of Terumah is guarded by numerous Torah-based restrictions and could be eaten by priests, their families, and their servants, as long as those who ate of these gifts were in a state of ritual purity. Interestingly, Teumah gifts were given to Elisha in 2 Kings 4:42, who gave them to other people who were in more need than he. While in this instance the loaves were made from barley, the point is still made that while the Terumah were generally reserved for priests, they could also be given to others who were in need. The intent and purpose of this law then, was to provide food for the priests, who had no other way of obtaining food.
When David came along, and he and his men were hungry, the priest recognized that at the core of this law, was God’s desire to provide food for those who did not have any. Even when the wheat was harvested for bringing it into the temple, God stated that some of the wheat be left in the field to provide for those who were poor and hungry (Lev 23:22). At this point in David’s life, he was both poor and hungry, and he was only asking for five loaves, which left seven for the priest, one for each day of the week.
So in 1 Samuel 21:5, David affirms that he and his men have kept themselves from women, and then goes on to point out that although the bread was consecrated in the vessel that very day, it had become common. This means that the day which David went to ask the priest for bread was a Sabbath day. The bread was changed every Sabbath. The fresh consecrated loaves were brought into the Holy Place and set upon the table, and the loaves from the previous week were brought out for consumption by the priests. The loaves that David was asking for were “in the vessel this day” which means that they had been brought out that very day, a Sabbath day.
Which raises the two points Jesus is making with this story.
Frist, the showbread was to be replaced early Saturday morning with freshly baked loaves. In order for the priests to accomplish this, they had to make the bread on the Sabbath. “The Sabbath-Law was not merely of rest, but of rest for worship. The Service of the Lord was the object in view. The priests worked on the Sabbath, because this service was the object of the Sabbath” (Edersheim 1988:v2,58). The Pharisees were allowed to do the work of baking bread on the Sabbath so that the loaves could be put out fresh on the table in the morning of the Sabbath.
The second point is that the loaves were intended as a provision for those who were hungry and in need. Usually, this was the priestly family, but, as in the case of the priest giving the bread to David, the priest could give the loaves to those who were hungry or who were also in the service of the Lord.
Both of these points relate to what Jesus and His disciples are doing in this grainfield on the Sabbath. By reminding the Pharisees of 1 Samuel 21, Jesus is implying that if the priests can make and exchange the loaves on the Sabbath, eat the old bread to satisfy their hunger, and give the bread to David who is also hungry, and none of this broke any of the Jewish law, then the disciples of Jesus can certainly eat a little grain on the Sabbath in order to satisfy their own hunger (cf. Matt 12:1). Jesus is saying that God’s law never intended to exclude people from basic needs, like eating, and David is an example of what the law really meant. In effect, if the Pharisees condemn the disciples, then they also condemn David and this priest who gave him the bread (cf. BKC 1983:219; Beale 2007:294).
Furthermore, if it is true, as argued above, that this Sabbath was the holiday Sabbath of the Feast of Weeks, then the actions of the disciples resembled that of the Temple Priests, who were not only allowed to perform these actions on this Sabbath, but were required to do so (cf. Henry 1991:1671). Jesus had His disciples perform similar actions to show that He was instituting a renewed Israel with a priesthood of all believers who did not require the mediation of temple or its sacrifices of sheep, bulls, and goats. Jesus was foreshadowing a means of direct access to God through Himself. This is the point of verse 5.
Jesus was acting as a priest in providing food for His followers. This action had precedent in the example of David in providing similar food for His men. Furthermore, by having the disciples pick the grain and rub it in their hands, Jesus was foreshadowing the renewal of Israel and the creation of a Kingdom of Priests.
Jesus was not simply trying to provoke an argument with the Pharisees about the nature and restrictions of the Sabbath. Rather, He was trying to teach an important lesson to His disciples about the His own nature, and the purpose behind His mission. Jesus is saying that in Him are fulfilled the Temple worship, the dwelling place of God with man. In Jesus and His followers are the new priesthood, the new sacrificial system, and new center for the worship of God.
6:5. Though this final statement of Jesus has caused much consternation among scholars, the statement is simplified by understanding that Jesus is not claiming to be God, or that He has the infallible interpretation of the Torah. Though He is God, and does have an infallible interpretation of the law, his is not what He is stating in Luke 6:5.
Rather, His statement is just another way of saying what He says elsewhere, that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. In other words, man is to rule over the Sabbath; the Sabbath is not to rule over man.
In the Gospels, when Jesus speaks of The Son of Man, while He is referring primarily to Himself, He is also speaking of all humanity. The phrase is the preferred title of Jesus for Himself. In using it, Jesus is not claiming to be a man (though of course He was human), but was making a claim to be the representative of all humanity. He was the son of Adam (Heb., ben Adam), the new man. Just as Adam represented all mankind when he sinned in the Garden of Eden, so Jesus also represents all mankind in His life, death, burial, and resurrection (see Rom 5:12-21). See Grace Bible Dictionary entry for more.
Based on this understanding then, when Jesus says that the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath, He is saying, “I, and all humanity with me, is Lord of the Sabbath.” In other words, humanity rules over the Sabbath; the Sabbath does not rule over humanity. The Jewish tradition had made the laws and regulations of the Sabbath too difficult and demanding. Keeping the Sabbath had become too much work. The purpose of the Sabbath was to give mankind a day of rest, reflection, and rejoicing in God, one another, and creation. But instead, it had become a burden, exactly the opposite of what it should have been. Jesus, as the representative of all humanity, was showing how the Sabbath was truly to be kept.
To comment on this post, please use the Forum.
| Check out the Commentary Forum for all the most recent language study and commentary research on this passage.
The Son of Man
By J.D. Myers | February 19, 2011
The phrase “the son of man” (o uios tou anthrōpou) occurs 82 times in the Gospels, and four additional times in the rest of the New Testament. In Hebrew, which Jesus may have been speaking, the term is ben Adam, literally, son of Adam. There are four common viewpoints regarding what Jesus meant by this phrase: he could be calling himself a human, the Messiah, a prophet, or simply speaking of himself in the third person using idiomatic Hebrew or Aramaic. Allow me to briefly summarize these theories before proposing a fifth.
1. Son of Man = Human
First, it is often thought that by using the phrase, Jesus was pointing out that he was human. It should be immediately obvious that this cannot be exactly true. Though Jesus was fully human, he cannot have been simply making that claim by using the phrase “son of man.” Nobody goes around declaring “I am a human” unless they are not straight in the head. Generally, those who hold this view believe that Jesus did not actually say these things, but the second-century church added these saying to the Gospels in order to defend against the heresy of Doceticism, which claimed that Jesus was not fully human. There is a way for Jesus to call himself “the son of man” and mean that he is human, but before we consider that, let us look at the two other common understandings for the term “the son of man.”
2. Son of Man = Messiah
The second option is that in using the phrase, Jesus was calling himself the Messiah. This view leans heavily upon Daniel 7:13, which speaks of one like a son of man coming on the clouds from heaven. Since the angels say something similar about Jesus in Acts 1:9-11, many equate the prophecy of Daniel 7 to the Messianic ministry of Jesus. Again, there are a few problems with this view. First, Daniel writes of one “like” a son of man. This was actually a key text for the Docetic heresy just discussed. They pointed to this verse and said, “See? Jesus was not actually a man. He was only like a man. He only looked like one.” So although Jesus was the Messiah, it is dangerous to use this verse as a key text to explain the phrase “the son of man” as Messianic title. Besides, it is much more likely that with this image, Daniel was referring to the people of God as a whole. This does not mean that the title “the son of man” is not Messianic. It is; but not through the Daniel 7 route.
3. Son of Man = Prophet
Third, many view the title “the son of man” as a prophetic title. The phrase is frequently found in the Hebrew scriptures as title for prophets. This is especially true of Ezekiel. From this it is argued that when Jesus used the term, he was calling himself a prophet. Not much can be said against this view except that in the vast majority of the places where Jesus speaks of “the son of man” he seems to be saying more than “I am a prophet.”
4. Son of Man = I
Finally, some have argued that maybe the term simply means “I.” Scholars have noted that in Hebrew and Aramaic, the phrase “son of man” is frequently a term of self-designation. It is another way of saying, “I” or “me.” Of course, it can also be used to refer to someone else, as in “he” or “that person.” Since Jesus was mostly likely speaking in Hebrew or Aramaic, this is a likely option. And yet, it does not seem to fit all of the instances in the Gospels. It frequently seems that Jesus is implying much more than simply “I.”
A Proposal
So what does the title mean? The way forward is to see how Jesus uses other titles, terms, and symbols in his teaching and in his miracles. For a comprehensive discussion on this, read Jesus and the Victory of God by NT Wright, who argues that through everything Jesus said and did, he was pointing out that he was the new temple, the new priesthood, the new Torah, the new land, and the new King. Jesus took every prominent symbol of Judaism, and directed them all at himself.
This, I believe, is what Jesus meant by the term “the son of man.” He used it as a way of directing the symbol of “Israel as the people of God” directly toward himself. Jesus was using the term to refer to himself as a collective entity. He is the one in whom all Israel—indeed, all humanity—is fulfilled, and through whom all humanity has a new beginning. In him, Israel and the entire world have been freed from exile. As “the son of man” (ben Adam) Jesus is the new and true son of Adam. Where Adam failed and led the entire human race into captivity to sin and death, Jesus, as the son of Adam—the second Adam to use Paul’s terminology (Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:47-49)—has brought life and freedom. When Jesus uses the term, he is referring not only to himself, but also to all those who will be in him. “The son of man” is an all-encompassing figure who is the representative of the entire human race.
In this way, the term is prophetic. Jesus is a prophet, speaking the will and word of God to the world. But it is more than prophetic. It is also Messianic. Only the Messiah can be the corporate and collective entity of all mankind. Which, of course, makes the term extremely human. Jesus was a man, but more than just a man. He was the representative of all people, in whom all humanity becomes fully human.
When Jesus says “the son of man” he is referring not only to himself, but to all humanity as well. A theologically-guided translation of “the son of man” could be “I, and all humanity with me.”
For more on this topic:
- Green, Joel; McNight, Scot; and Marshall, I. Howard. “Son of God” in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (Downers Grove: IVP, 1992), 777-780.
- Wright, NT. Jesus and the Victory of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), 360-367, 512-519, 624-651.
- Young, Brad. Jesus the Jewish Theologian (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995), 243-252.
- Flusser, David. The Sage from Galilee (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968), 107-116.
To comment on this post, please use the forum.
| Check out the Commentary Forum for all the most recent language study and commentary research on this passage.
Seminary Secrets Revealed
By J.D. Myers | January 22, 2011
When I was in seminary, I was married with three kids, I worked full time, and I attended school more than full time. Not to brag…okay, to brag…but I completed a Th.M. (120 credit hours) in three years. I do not recommend this, and neither does my wife. But at the time, it was what we thought was best for our family.
Of all my classes, Greek and Hebrew were the most difficult and time consuming. In class, we were taught to use books for exegetical papers, diagrammatical analysis, word studies, and everything else related to learning these languages and using them to study Scripture.
Eventually, a pastor friend of mine told me a secret for speeding up my language research. Prior to gaining this arcane knowledge, it was not uncommon for me to spend 20-30 hours per week on just Greek or Hebrew. After I learned the secret, I cut that time in half. This was still more than I spent on any other class, but it was a great improvement.
What is the secret? It’s one word. Or maybe it’s two. Whatever. The secret is this: BibleWorks.
BibleWorks is an all in one, exegetical research program that does almost everything you are taught to do in class, but at the touch of a button rather than with all the book pulling and page turning. Yes, you still have to know how the language works, memorize the vocabulary, understand the grammar, and be able to translate and diagram. If you cannot do this on your own, you will fail all the tests and quizzes. But when it comes to your homework and papers, using the program speeds up the process so you can do the same work in less time. That is invaluable for time-strapped fathers, parents, and students.
And if you’re a pastor who saw the value of exegetical research while in seminary but no longer have the time to do it each week, BibleWorks can help you continue to process of studying the original languages, even if you’re short on time or a bit rusty on all the details of language study.
Next week I’m going to post a list of everything that is in the newest version, BibleWorks 8. It will blow you away.
FTC Disclaimer: I was asked to review this software on my blog in exchange for a copy of BibleWorks 8.
| Check out the Commentary Forum for all the most recent language study and commentary research on this passage.
Bible Study Software
By J.D. Myers | January 17, 2011
You may remember my rant from last year about Bible Study Software. I wanted something that was quick, powerful, easy to use, and didn’t have built-in expiration dates. I recommended a few programs in that post, but over the past year have found myself using only one of them: BibleWorks.
I first discovered this software about 12 years ago when I was at Denver Seminary, and I have probably used it every week since then. The base software doesn’t have some of the commentaries and popular Christians books that other software packages might have, but when it comes to doing primary research on the text of Scripture, there is no better software package available. And besides, other similar Bible Study software packages (like Logos) are over three times the price!
Over the next several weeks and months, as I continue to study Scripture and write commentary, I will make posts about the strength of this software package. To read more about this software now, click on the picture above.
| Check out the Commentary Forum for all the most recent language study and commentary research on this passage.
Sabbath
By J.D. Myers | January 6, 2011
Sabbath (Heb. Shabbat):
Despite the mistaken belief by many Christians that Sunday is the Sabbath, it is actually the seventh day of the week, Saturday. And since Jewish days begin and end with the sunset, the Sabbath begins on Friday evening at sunset, and concludes on Saturday evening at sunset.
The origins of the Sabbath are found in Genesis 1 when God rested on the seventh day after creating the world and all that is on it. Similarly, the primary purpose of the Sabbath was for people to take a day of rest from their work. The fourth commandment in Exodus 20:6-11 states that no work is to be performed on the Sabbath.
The difficulty, of course, lies in knowing what constitutes “work.” The commandment in Exodus 20 does not provide specifics, and the rest of Scripture is somewhat vague as well (cf. Exod 16:29; 34:21; 35:3; Jer 17:22; Amos 8:5; Neh 13:15-22). The written Hebrew Scriptures provide very little specific instructions on what it means not to work on the Sabbath. As a result, there was a lot of room for various opinions and interpretations. In one instance, a group of Jews held to such a strict observance of the Sabbath, that when they were attacked by some enemies on the Sabbath day, none of the Jews defended themselves, or even ran away from the attacking army, because to do so would have been work, and in their minds, they would have violated the Sabbath (1 Macc 2:29-38; Jub 50:12). And so they were slaughtered.
Eventually, some Rabbis recorded a set of guidelines for what could and could not be done on the Sabbath. They wrote down 39 prohibited activities: plowing earth, sowing, reaping, binding sheaves, threshing, winnowing, selecting, grinding, sifting, kneading, baking, shearing wool, washing wool, beating wool, dyeing wool, spinning, weaving, making two loops, weaving two threads, separating two threads, tying, untying, sewing stitches, tearing, trapping, slaughtering, flaying, tanning, scraping hide, marking hides, cutting hide to shape, writing two or more letters, erasing two or more letters, building, demolishing, extinguishing a fire, kindling a fire, and transporting an object between the private domain and the public domain, or for a distance of four cubits within the public domain (ISBE IV:251).
It was also taught that this list did not originate with the Jewish teachers, but was given to Moses by God on Mount Sinai. It is part of the Mishnah, or the Oral Torah, the teaching of God through Moses which was not written down, but which was passed down from generation to generation. It was finally written down in the third century AD because the Jewish Rabbis feared the tradition would be lost and forgotten if it was not recorded.
In addition, there are other prohibited acts which are not stated in the list of 39. For example, Exodus 16:29 states that a person should not go out of their place on the Sabbath. Clearly, people needed to leave their homes on the Sabbath, and so the question arose about how far a person could walk before they violated the Sabbath. Using Joshua 3:4-5 as a guide (even though the verse has nothing to do with the Sabbath), it was determined that a person could not walk more than 2000 cubits (about 3000 feet) on the Sabbath. This became known as a “Sabbath’s Day journey.”
But even this required further clarification. Was this 2000 total for the day, or 2000 at a time? Was it 2000 cubits in a straight line, or could the distance be stretched if the route meandered? And over time, the Rabbi’s answered these questions. First, they decided it was not 2000 cubits total, but 2000 cubits at a time. If you stopped for a meal, you could then travel another 2000 cubits home. So the tradition developed that if you planned ahead, you could travel larger distances by pre-arranging a meal at the end of 2000 cubits.
If you were traveling only within a city, the 2000 cubit distance did not apply. Any distance could be traveled within the city, as long as you are within the populated area of the city. You only have to start watching how far you walk once you leave the city. In today’s cities, this means you could theoretically walk hundreds of miles, as long as the whole way is populated.
Clarification on the 39 prohibited acts was also provided. For example, the Rabbis felt the need to explain what counted as plowing and what did not. As a result, spitting became illegal on the Sabbath, for the spittle might dislocate some dirt, making a little indentation in the ground, which could be considered digging a hole, or plowing.
This is how the Sabbath day laws developed over time. What began as a law to do not work on the Sabbath was further defined and clarified over time to prohibit all sorts of things that few would consider “work.” The Jewish people recognized that they had exponentially multiplied the rules and regulations in an effort to obey the laws of God, but they were so intent on keeping the law, they felt it was necessary to “build a fence around the law” to make sure they kept the actual law (Pirkei Avot 1:1). They had a saying which said, “the rules about the Sabbath…are as mountains hanging by a hair, for Scripture is scanty and the rules many” (Bock 1996:171).
One Jewish scholar by the name of Yehoshua Neuwirth wrote a multi-volume work called A Guide to the Practical Observance of the Sabbath. It was written to explain how modern Jews could observe the Sabbath laws. Here are some of his instructions:
Cooking in most forms (boiling, roasting, baking, frying, etc.) is forbidden on the Sabbath, especially when the temperature is raised above 115 degrees.
If the hot water tap is accidentally left on, it cannot be turned off on the Sabbath.
Escaping gas may be turned off, but not in the normal way. One must turn off the tap of a gas burner with the back of the hand or the elbow.
One cannot squeeze a lemon into a glass of ice tea, but you can squeeze a lemon onto a piece of fish.
Since Exodus 34:3 teaches that one cannot light a fire on the Sabbath, it is also wrong to turn on electric lights. If you need to turn on the lights, you can get an automatic timer which will do the job for you.
So too, an air conditioner cannot be turned on by a Jew on the Sabbath, although a Gentile can turn it on as long as a Jew does not explicitly ask him to turn it on.
You cannot bathe with a bar of soap on the Sabbath, but you can use liquid soap.
If someone is walking on the Sabbath, and discovers that they are carrying something in their pocket that they forgot was in there, they have to stop carrying it immediately. But at the same time, since Jews are not allowed to lift anything on the Sabbath, a person is not allowed to simply take the item out of their pocket.
In order to get it out, he has to reverse his pocket so the item falls out. And then he must leave it there.
If the item is valuable, and he does not wish to leave it on the ground, he can ask a Gentile to watch it for him.
Or, if you must take the item with you, you can carry it, but not in the usual way. You can put it in your shoe, or tie it to your leg—as long as you do not tie a knot—or somehow suspend it between your clothing and your body.
Though some of these laws by Rabbi Neuwirth are a result of trying to apply Sabbath principles to modern technology, many similar laws were in place during the lifetime of Jesus. It is these rules and regulations that Jesus frequently confronted in the Gospel accounts and show that although He kept the Sabbath, there were certain man-made elements of the Sabbath tradition which He did not follow.
To comment on this post, please use the forum.
| Check out the Commentary Forum for all the most recent language study and commentary research on this passage.
Deuteroproto in Luke 6:1
By J.D. Myers | December 29, 2010
Ever wondered what deuteroproto means in Luke 6:1? If you’re like me, probably not.
But about two months ago, as I was preparing commentary on Luke 6:1-5, I fell headlong into the debate swirling around this difficult word. It literally means “second-first” and while the majority of scholars today believe the word is not original and should be removed from the text, I was uncomfortable with such a conclusion. It seemed to me they had little textual basis for removing the word, and were doing so only because they didn’t know what it meant in context.
So I started studying the word, and I made a post about my progress on it a few weeks ago. I came up with a theory which seems to make good sense of the word, and which helps bring significance to the surrounding context. I was pretty excited about it, but the explanation of the word for the commentary required less than one paragraph to explain. I had read about 1000 pages on the word, and spent dozens of hours reading and researching it. It seemed a shame to summarize all that into one paragraph.
So, simply to dignify the hours I spent studying one word, and to put all my research in one place for future reference, I wrote an article about my findings. If you are curious about it at all, you can read the article by clicking the link below. Also, if you follow me on Scribd, you can get it from there.
What’s on Second Who’s on First Luke 6 1
Happy studying!
| Check out the Commentary Forum for all the most recent language study and commentary research on this passage.
Luke 5:33-39
By J.D. Myers | October 22, 2010
Luke 5:33-39 contains three short parables, the first in Luke’s Gospel. The parables of Jesus are some of the most difficult passages to understand in the New Testament. Much of this is due to our separation in time, language, and culture from Jesus. But even the disciples of Jesus, who did not face these contextual challenges, often had trouble understanding what Jesus meant by His parables. The confusion is natural, however, since according to what Jesus says in Luke 8:10, He intended these pointed little stories to be confusing. We will explain why in that passage, but for now, it is best to recognize that if a parable is initially confusing, we’re on the right track.
And the parables of Luke 5:33-39 are some of the most confusing. For the last eighteen hundred years, these three short parables have been almost universally interpreted in a particular way. Almost all resources, whether Bible commentary, book on the parables, or journal article, interprets this passage in a particular way. In the past, when I’ve taught this passage, followed the traditional explanation.
The traditional explanation is that Jesus was starting something fresh and new, based on grace and truth. His new movement was incompatible with Judaism, especially the legalistic emphasis on the law. So in the parables, the old clothes and old wineskins are equated with Judaism, and the new clothes and new wineskins represent the new grace-filled teachings of Jesus.
One reason for the popularity of this traditional explanation is that it fits the passage (almost), and scratches an itch that we Christians have felt from almost the very beginning, namely, how to explain Christian departure from the Jewish roots of our faith. The traditional interpretation was first introduced by the heretic Marcion in the Second Century AD. Gentiles had become the majority among Christians, and were facing persecution from both the Roman Empire and traditional Jews. The Jewish people had revolted against Rome in 67-70 AD, and as a result, Jerusalem was razed and the temple destroyed. Since Christianity had a Jewish nature and foundation, the Roman military included Christians in their attempts to quell the Jewish rebellion. So some of the early Christians tried to separate themselves from Judaism to avoid further persecution. The Jewish people, of course, saw the Christians as a heretical offshoot, and so were also trying to destroy the fledgling faith. Many Christians defended themselves by attacking Judaism, both with pen and sword.
Aside from these cultural reasons, Marcion was heavily influenced by Gnostic dualism. He believed that matter as evil and only what was spiritual was good. Therefore, the creator God in Genesis 1-2 was evil. Also, Jesus could not have come in the flesh, because flesh, being matter, was evil. As a result of this thinking, Marcion rejected the entire Old Testament as the false Scriptures of the evil creator god of Judaism. He also rejected much of the New Testament Scriptures which taught that Jesus was the Son of God come in the flesh.
These were radical changes and departures from the Jewish roots of Christianity. One of the passages which Marcion kept in his Bible, and which he heavily used to defend his ideas, was Luke 5:33-39. Based on this passage, he taught that Judaism was like old clothes and empty wineskins which needed to be discarded and ignored. Jesus had brought new clothes, new wine, and new wineskins which could not mix in any way with the old.
And the church, though they eventually condemned Marcion as a heretic for many of his views, fully adopted and accepted this understanding of Luke 5:33-39, and for the most part, have not retreated from it for 1800 years. In fact, the interpretation lived on, and has been frequently used, especially since the Reformation in the 1500s, to justify the separation of a new group from the old, traditional group. Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and the other Reformers used Luke 5:33-39 to separate from Catholicism. In the past 500 years, almost every splinter group within Christianity has similarly used the passage in such a way to defend and explain their departure. Such an interpretation of the passage also explains the church’s almost total neglect—and even denial—of the Jewishness of Jesus and the apostles.
In recent decades, as scholars and pastors have rediscovered the Jewish roots of Christianity, questions have been raised about Marcion’s explanation of these parables. This challenge has come, in part, because the traditional understanding never really had an adequate way of explaining verse 39 where Jesus says, “And no one, having drunk old wine, immediately desires new; for he says, ‘The old is better.’” If Jesus was really teaching that He was separating from Judaism, how could He apparently agree with the consensus that “The old is better”? Though tradition is nearly unanimous on 5:33-38, there are at least a dozen explanations and interpretations of verse 39. There is even evidence of some early tampering of original Greek manuscripts to help make sense of the verse in light of the traditional explanation. Some of the possible explanations will be presented in verse 39.
So with all of this in mind, the explanation below will provide two things. First, the traditional explanation will be summarized. Then an attempt will be made to explain what Jesus was really teaching with these parables.
5:33. The parables of Jesus in 5:34-39 are in response to a question that He is asked in verse 33. The parallel text in Matthew 9:14 indicates that it is the disciples of John the Baptist who ask the question. They want to know why the disciples of John fast often and make prayers, and likewise those of the Pharisees, but the disciples of Jesus eat and drink.
The Jewish people had numerous laws and customs for fasting. Aside from the yearly fast days, many religious leaders would also fast every Monday and Thursday, and would whiten their faces with ash so everyone could see that they were fasting (Matt 6:16-18). Daily prayers were said promptly at noon, three, and six, no matter where they were or what they were doing. If they were in a marketplace or on a street corner, they would pray there (Matt 6:5).
While Jesus prayed frequently, and taught His disciples to do the same (Matt 6:6-17), there is no written record of Jesus or His disciples fasting. Instead, they seem to spend more time eating and drinking. At one point, Jesus is even accused of being a glutton and a drunkard (Luke 7:34).
But fasting and praying is only the topical question for a deeper issue. The real issue is why Jesus trains them the way He does. Jesus has already been challenged about His choice of Levi as a disciple (Luke 5:27-31), and now He is being asked about His training methods. As with everything in Judaism, there were set forms and guidelines for who a Rabbi should choose as his disciples, and how he should train them. The Pharisees followed this pattern, as did John the Baptist. Jesus, however, did not.
So both the Pharisees and the disciples of John were a little confused at the discipleship methods of Jesus. When they ask Jesus the questions of 5:30, 33, there is no animosity toward Jesus or criticism of His methods; just confusion and curiosity as to why Jesus was operating outside normal Jewish customs.
5:34. Jesus answers the question by speaking of a wedding feast. He asks if the friends of the bridegroom will [/b]fast while the bridegroom is with them.[/b] Jesus is identifying Himself as the groom, and His disciples as the friends. The question is rhetorical, as everybody knows that a wedding celebration is a time for feasting, not fasting. One who fasts at a wedding feast insults the bride and groom, especially if they are friends.
5:35. Jesus indicates that a time will come when the bridegroom will be taken away. Since Jesus is referring to Himself as the groom, many believe this is the first reference by Jesus to His future death and departure. Jesus says that when that day comes, then His disciples will fast. Jesus does not appear to be opposed to fasting, but only indicates that there is a proper time and place for it. He teaches His disciples how to fast (Matt 6:16-18), and seems to indicate here that a time will come when they will do so (cf. Acts 13:2; 14:23).
5:36. Having answered the questions from the Pharisees and John’s disciples with the two images of a doctor healing the sick and friends not fasting a groom’s wedding, Jesus further explains His answers with three parables. It is crucial to recognize that the parables are told not just in relation to the question of how Jesus makes disciples (vv 33-35), but also the earlier questions of who Jesus chooses to be His disciples (vv 30-32), and how Jesus can offer forgiveness of sins (v 21).
Though verse 36 says He spoke a parable, the repeated phrase no one (vv 36, 37, 39) indicates that this parable contains three pictures with one common message or theme. In attempting to understand the pictures, one must remember that they are not just illustrations. Parables are stories that use shock, surprise, and humor to challenge the listener’s thinking, values, and point of view. Parables are the seeds of a paradigm shift in the minds of those who hear and understand. The pictures within this parable use humor to show why Jesus chooses sinners and societal rejects to be His disciples, and why He trains them through eating and drinking at parties.
The first humorous picture concerns patching an old garment. This fits with the image of a wedding feast. Handing out clothes is something that bridegrooms did during wedding celebrations (cf. Judg 14:12-19; Rev 3:5; Isa 61:10).
Jesus says that no one puts a piece from a new garment on an old one. The picture is humorous because no one would be so foolish as to destroy a new garment just to fortify, strengthen, or patch an old garment. The new garment is made of unshrunk cloth, and so when a piece of it is sewn onto an old garment, and then washed, it makes a tear in the old garment, so that both old and new are destroyed.
Aside from destroying both garments, the new does not match the old. It is nearly impossible to find a piece of new cloth that perfectly matches the old in color and appearance. Such a patch would be embarrassingly visible to all.
The way this parable is typically taught is that the Pharisees have an old garment with holes in it and Jesus is bringing a new garment. A Jesus is not going to destroy His new way of doing things just to patch up the old way. That would destroy both. Instead, He is going to discard the old, and teach and practice the new way.
However, in the cultural context, Jesus is not stating that the old ways should be discarded. Today, when an article of clothing develops a hole, we typically discard it. But this was not the case in biblical times. Old garments were much too valuable to be thrown out. If a piece of clothing developed a hole, the person would first try to repair or patch the garment. If that was not possible, the garment would be saved for some other purpose, possibly to mend some future garment. Therefore, Jesus is not saying anything negative about the old garment, that is, the ways of the Pharisees. Nor is He saying that His new way is superior. Rather, Jesus is saying is that He has a new way, which is similar to the old, but still different enough that the two will not mix well.
This first parabolic picture of Jesus is in answer to the question of verse 33, and explains why Jesus teaches and trains His disciples the way He does. Jesus has a new way of making disciples which is not focused on fasting, but feasting. He wants people to see that life with God is full of joy and celebration. While there will be times for somber fasting, a life lived with Jesus is a life lived to the full (John 10:10).
5:37. The second picture is that of wine and wineskins. As with the garments, wine is a picture of festivity and celebration, and is often equated with the joy of a wedding feast (cf. John 2:1-10). In this picture, Jesus humorously points out that no one puts new wine into old wineskins. There were numerous types of vessels that carried wine, but the most common were made from goatskins. The goats were slaughtered, and the hides were cleaned. Then the hide was sewn up and the holes where the legs had been were tied, and the spout of the wineskin was where the neck used to be.
Newly pressed wine, or grape juice and other ingredients needed to make wine, was poured into the fresh wineskin through the neck, and when it was full, the neck was tied up to make the skin airtight. Over time, the juice would ferment. The fermentation process would produce gas. And this gas would cause the goatskin to expand. But once the skin had been used, and the wine drunk up, the skin would not shrink back to the original size. It would stay fully stretched out.
If someone tried to reuse the old wineskin with new wine, the fermentation process of the new wine would cause the old wineskin to stretch beyond its limit, and the new wine will burst the wineskins and be spilled, and the wineskins will be ruined. Both would be destroyed.
5:38. The proper way to make wine is that new wine must be put into new wineskins. The new wineskins are supple, so when the new wine ferments in the skins, the skins expand, and both are preserved.
The traditional explanation of this second picture is like the first. Jesus was bringing new teaching and new ideas which could not be contained in the old ways of the Jewish Law. Therefore, the old ways should be abandoned for the way of Jesus. Typically, the way of Jesus is equated with grace, and the way of the Jews with law and legalism.
As a result of this traditional interpretation, numerous groups throughout church history have used this image to justify their own departure from other groups. Reformers used it to defend their departure from the traditions of Catholicism. Mostly newly formed denominations use the passage to explain their new forms of church. Charismatic groups use the passage to defend their view of the new work of the Holy Spirit.
All of these uses are based on an improper understanding of the imagery. First, the interpretation is based on bad theology. The idea that Jesus brought grace to replace the legalistic Jewish Law is false. Jesus was Jewish and intended to affirm the Law and fulfill it; not abolish and destroy it (Matt 5:17-18). The Law was good and gracious, and this parable must not be thought to say anything different.
A proper understanding of the imagery helps support the Jewish Laws and traditions. Like the old clothes of verse 36, old wineskins were quite valuable. Nobody would throw out old clothes, and nobody would dream of discarding old wineskins. To the contrary, old wineskins were often more valuable than new. They were often coated on the inside with pitch or tar, which made them watertight containers for storing almost anything. There is evidence of old wineskins being used to store and transport water, oil, grain, and even important documents. Just because new wine does not get put into old wineskins, does not mean that the old wineskins are worthless and should be discarded. Rather, Jesus affirms the value of both old and new wineskins, and points out that each has its proper function. Using an old wineskin in a way it should not be used (to ferment new wine) will destroy the valuable wineskin and the ruin the wine.
Used in this way, Jesus is once again affirming the traditional method of making disciples by the Pharisees and John, and the types of disciples they gather around them. He is not saying their way should be discarded. In fact, He is actually praising their ways and disciples by equating them to the valuable and useful old wineskins. Why does Jesus need new wineskins? Because He has new wine (discussed in v 39). The new wine is like the new clothes. Jesus has a new way of training disciples. Since this is so, Jesus cannot use the old type wineskin, that is, the old type of disciple that fits the traditional discipleship pattern. Jesus needs a new type of disciple to fill with His new discipleship methods.
If the first picture of this parable is in response to the question of verse 33 about why Jesus trains His disciples the way He does, this second picture of the parable is in response to the question in verse 30 about who Jesus has chosen as His disciples. Since Jesus has a new way of training disciples (v 36), Jesus needs new vessels to start with. He cannot use the traditional type of disciple, the educated, morally upright, respected individual—as valuable and as wonderful as such people are—they would not be able to wrap their mind around what Jesus was trying to do. The first picture showed that the way of Jesus is full of joy and celebration. This second picture includes that idea, but also shows that this way of Jesus is open and available to all people, even those other Rabbis would reject.
5:39. The third picture in this parable has proven the most difficult to fit into the traditional understanding of this passage. The first picture was about the new clothes, and the second about new wineskins. This third picture is about new wine. Jesus says that no one, having drunk old wine, immediately desires new; for he says, “The old is better.” This verse is confusing at first because it is true that the old wine tastes better. Everybody knows that wine gets better with age, and this was true in Jesus’ day, as it is in ours. Ecclesiasticus 9:10b reads, “As new wine, so is a new friend; if it becomes old, thou shalt drink it with gladness.”
The reason for the confusion is because of the traditional understanding of verses 38-38. If Jesus is bringing superior clothes and superior wineskins, then shouldn’t He also have superior wine? But since old wine is better, does this mean that the new wine of Jesus in inferior?
There have been numerous ways of handling this verse. First, some, like Marcion, have simply removed the verse since it seemed to disagree with what they thought the passage was saying. Marcion also cut out of his Bible much of the Old Testament and many of the other difficult parables of Jesus (Mead 1988:234). There are, however, other less drastic solutions.
The second solution focuses in on the word old (Gk. palaios) and retranslates it as “former,” then draws a parallel between this passage and the first miracle of Jesus in John 2:1-10 where He turns water in wine. There, when the steward tastes the wine that came from water, he exclaims that while most people serve the best wine first, Jesus has saved the best wine for last. Seeing a similar idea here, verse 39 is understood as saying that the wine Jesus brings is superior, even though it follows the older, or former, wine.
Third, some focus in the word drunk (Gk. piōn) and understand the verse as saying that once a person has become drunk on old wine, they don’t really want more (“new”) wine, for they are already drunk. The old is good enough, and it accomplished its purpose. They’ll stick with what has worked. This imagery fits with the fact that Jesus is at a party where some of the participants may well have become drunk.
Fourth, there are several textual variants in the verse, which may indicate that from very early on, scholars have tried to make sense of this verse. Depending on which Greek manuscript is used will determine how the text is understood. For example, the Greek Majority Text, which is represented above with the NKJV translation, includes the word eutheōs, which is translated immediately. With this word, the verse could be understood as saying that people stick with what they are used to. They have developed a taste for a particular type of wine, and when they taste something different, they don’t like it at first. They believe that the former, or familiar, wine is better. But later, if they continue to drink it, may realize that the newer wine truly is better. “They can be brought round to new wine, given time” (Mead 1988:234). In this case, new wine does not refer to new in time, or “fresh wine,” but to a new kind of wine.
Finally, there is another textual variant with the word better (Gk. chrēstoteros), which in other translations is best (Gk. chrēstos). With this, the choice of wine becomes one of simple preference—“I like this wine better than that wine”—rather than an exclusive statement about which one is ultimately best.
The main difficulty with all of these options is in what they share: the assumption that Jesus was trying to do away with something bad in the discipleship methods of John the Baptist and the Pharisees. That assumption causes verse 39 to be difficult to understand. If, however, this assumption is abandoned, and it is recognized that Jesus is not criticizing the traditional pattern, but is simply introducing His own different way of choosing and making disciples, then the verse becomes clear.
The picture of new clothes (v 36) answers the question about the way Jesus is choosing to make disciples (v 33). The picture of new wineskins (v 37-38) answers the question about why Jesus calls sinners and tax-collectors like Levi to be His disciples (v 30). And finally, the picture of new wine (v 39) answers the question about why Jesus teaches what He does (v 21).
If Jesus had selected men who were already educated and trained through the traditional methods, they would not have accepted His teaching. Such disciples would have rejected His teaching, saying that the old way, the tried and true way, was better. Few would have listened to His words.
So Jesus uses new methods (new clothes) to provide new men (wineskins) with a new message (wine). Jesus is not saying that the message, men, and methods for making disciples of John the Baptist and the Pharisees are wrong. He is simply pointing out that their way is not for everyone, and leaves some people outside of the boundaries. Their way is good for those who fit the mold. But Jesus wants to reach those who have been abandoned, overlooked, bypassed, and rejected.
To comment on this post, please use the forum.
| Check out the Commentary Forum for all the most recent language study and commentary research on this passage.
Comment on the Forum
By J.D. Myers | October 22, 2010
Just a side note. Don’t forget that you can always comment or interact with the posts over in the forum. If you have a question on something I wrote, or if you have an insight I overlooked, you can post it there.
Also, don’t forget that what gets posted on this Blog is only an initial rough draft of the commentary. After I make a blog post on the passage, I open all my commentaries and study tools and really start to dig in. Lots of things get changed, added, or tweaked. The final version is then updated in the forum.
Of course, since this post will not be the forum, if you want to comment here, you may do so. Thanks!
| Check out the Commentary Forum for all the most recent language study and commentary research on this passage.
« Previous Entries