“And no man having drunk old wine desires new, for he says, “The old is good.”
But there will always be those who cling to the old wine and prefer it to the new, saying the old is better. That is what both the disciples of John and the disciples of the Pharisees are doing. Let all therefore be warned. There is no longer any place for the old.
These illustrations reach far beyond just the question of fasting. They emphasise that there is a real sense in which Christianity is new. Through His death Jesus has fulfilled the old, and now we can look from it to the new way of living taught by Him. This claim to total newness is another example of the uniqueness of Jesus.
Chapter 6 Further Incidents and Teaching.
In this sixth chapter we have the incident of the grainfields where Jesus again describes Himself as the Son of Man, and as Lord of the Sabbath; the healing of the man with the withered hand, which again revels Him as the Great Restorer and Lord of the Sabbath; the appointment of the twelve Apostles; and the first extended example of His teaching.
Jesus is the Son of Man and the Lord of the Sabbath (Luke 6:1-5).
In this incident Jesus as the Son of Man puts Himself on at least the same level as David, and as such calls Himself ‘the Son of Man'. We are reminded again of Daniel 7:13-14 where the Son of Man, as the representative leader of Israel, claims His dominion and power. Jesus is claiming that He is this representative leader. He is the Greater David (compare the ‘Anointed One' (Messiah) in Daniel 9:26). As such He then claims to be Lord of the Sabbath, that is, able to make binding decisions concerning the Sabbath.
This incident also represents a hardening of the position of the Pharisees with regard to Him. They give to Jesus and His disciples an official warning (‘it is not lawful'). So to authorities are seen to be in conflict, on the one hand the heaven appointed Son of Man and on the other the earthly authority of the Pharisees. To disobey the latter was to run the risk of being beaten at the command of the synagogue elders.
It is difficult to overemphasise the importance of the Sabbath to religious Jews. It was to them the sign that they were God's holy nation, God's own people. But it had become overlaid with the traditions of the Elders who were so eager to prevent it being dishonoured that they had made strict rules about it, which had gone beyond what was reasonable, while at the same time allowing a certain amount of sophistry with regard to it. Thus there was a limit as to how far you could walk on the Sabbath (a Sabbath day's journey), but this was then allowed to be doubled by leaving food a Sabbath days journey from home, and treating that as ‘home' for the day. Then you could walk to it and after that go a Sabbath days journey beyond it. It might have been humerous if it had not been treated so seriously. They could do it without even the trace of a smile, and see no incongruity in it.
We should note that Jesus' claim to be Lord of the Sabbath was not a claim to be able to use it as He wished, but to be able to determine what the requirements of the Sabbath really were. Thus here He will counteract a pedantic interpretation of it, and in the next incident an uncompassionate one.
The passage can be analysed as follows:
a On a sabbath He was going through the grainfields, and his disciples plucked the ears, and ate, rubbing them in their hands (Luke 5:1).
b Certain of the Pharisees said, “Why do you do what is not lawful to do on the sabbath day?” (Luke 5:2).
c Jesus replied “Have you not read even this, what David did, when he was hungry, he, and those who were with him?” (Luke 5:3).
b “How he entered into the house of God, and took and ate the showbread, and gave also to those who were with him, that which it is not lawful to eat save for the priests alone?” (Luke 5:4).
a And he said to them, “The Son of man is lord of the sabbath” (Luke 5:5).
Note that in ‘a' we have the behaviour of the Jesus (the Son of Man) and His disciples in the grainfield, and in the parallel that as Son of man He has the right to determine whether it is right or not. In ‘b' we have the Pharisees declaring what is not lawful, and in the parallel we have Jesus' declaration of what was also not lawful, but which history demonstrates that the Pharisees do no criticise. Central to the incident is that what David does is considered to be right, and the same courtesy must therefore be extended to the Greater David.