KV18: Vain Imaginations Fail in the Presence of Truth

18: John’s disciples and the Pharisees were fasting; and they came and said to Him, “Why do John’s disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees fast, but Your disciples do not fast?”

18-20: The Presence of the Bridegroom
21-22: The Old Way and New Way Do Not Mix

Last time, we saw our Lord Jesus begin an argument with the establisment religion. In my view, this began at the public healing of the paralytic, although the Pharisees in the synagogue tyhat first Sabbath when Jesus cast out a demon. What a demoniac was doing in the synagogue in the first place is another question, but that seems to be where the Pharisees were directly alerted to Jesus, His teaching with authority, and His demonstrated divine power displayed. With the paralytic, Jesus answered the Scribes and Pharisees before they could articulate their concerns in a sentence aloud.

Then last time, in the calling of His disciple Matthew (Levi in Mark), The Pharisees and Scribes launched a rhetorical attack demanding to know why a Rabbi in Israel was eating with sinners (with whom the Pharisees would have nothing to do), and with tax collectors (the Mishna and Talmud equate tax collectors with thieves and murderers and would have considered them as traitors to Israel because they worked for Rome). In His response, telling the Pharisees that it was the sick who needed medical attention, therefore it was sinners that He came to call to healing, he used a ridiculing phrase, “go and learn,” which the Pharisees would have recognized as their cutting phrase of ridicule to dismiss foolish ignorance, making His point that compassion for others and obedience to the spiritual commands to have mercy on others rather than pure form-based observance of the “traditions of the elders,” which were nowhere written in Scripture as a prescription for righteous living. That said, let’s get into the study.

KV18: Vain Imaginations Fail in the Presence of Truth

18: John’s disciples and the Pharisees were fasting; and they came and said to Him, “Why do John’s disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees fast, but Your disciples do not fast?”

The reason I began with a bit of a recap is seen in my title and the verse that was key to my understanding of the text this evening. The Pharisees were in conflict with Jesus from the start because they had taken the truth of God and turned it into a false belief system. Jesus, as God Himself (in the person of God the Son), knew what He had said as God and what He meant by it. Peter told us in 2 Peter 1:20–21, “But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.” Paul says in 2 Timothy 3:16–17 that “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” That phrase “inspired by God” is one word in Greek, θεόπνευστος. It is literally translated as “God-breathed.” And if God breathed it, He knows what He said, and does not suffer the memory issues I do because of age and sickness (I’m often dealing with diabetic fog when I study, it’s just a cross I have to bear, and there are things I do to make it better).

The Pharisees, who were supposed to be masters of the Mosaic Law, and particularly the Scribes, who occupied the “seat of Moses” on the Jewish 70-member Sanhedrin Council (what passed for government that wasn’t Roman in Israel), had, with the assistance of the Scribes under Ezra at first, constructed a kind of fence to keep people away from the Law kind of like a fence for cattle away from hazards. I can see how such a thing could begin with the noblest of ideas, keeping people safe from violating the law. However, ultimately, that “fence” became a barrier to observing the Law, which is what the people were supposed to do. Jesus later (7:1) will chastize the Pharisees and Scribes for this, and we will say more when we get there. For now, we will just get into the text.

18-20: The Presence of the Bridegroom

The first shots here (as usual) are fired by the religious hypocrite Pharisees and Scribes. Many would have been serious about the Baptism of John with this as a legitimate question. John the Baptist was careful to adhere to the ideas of repentance of deeds to show the repentance of heart. Belief in the coming Messiah and a firm persuasion ( the meaning of the word for Faith in Scripture) that He would deal with one’s violations in some way (the idea of the suffering servant was unknown somehow, and I kind of understand it). This was how people had faith before the death of Christ on the cross. This was the gospel of the Old Testament saints. The Messiah, the Son of God, would take care of your sins if you would forsake your evil way and follow Him. We know now under the New Covenant that nothing has changed. Jesus is that Messiah. That’s the Hebrew word. In Greek, the word is Christos, which we Anglicize as Christ. In English, He is the Anointed One of God. God specially appointed and anointed Him to deal with the sins of those who would turn to Him. If you want more on how to do that, stay tuned. Let’s get into the text.

18: John’s disciples and the Pharisees were fasting; and they came and said to Him, “Why do John’s disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees fast, but Your disciples do not fast?”

Do you think that this phrase was delivered in a scholarly way? Maybe it was, but I hear the cutting undertones of a verbal shot fired here. Maybe that’s because that’s the kind of thing I grew up with, but I don’t think the Scribes and Pharisees are a friendly audience for the most part. There is a suggestion at the very least, and really, I think more of an accusation that is hurled as a public challenge. We can see this in today’s news. Politicians will often hurl a question like this, and hope the opponent is unprepared and cannot answer. You see, debates then and now are about what we call “soundbites.” If you can make your opponent stumble in thought and word while you do not, chances are, you will win the debate. I know from the wrong side of personal experience on this, and it is why I am not very good at debating. It’s a deliberate strategy that is very old because it is also very successful.

The acutal question is about why they are practicing differently from the Pharisees. I think John the Baptist’s followers were added as a way of touching the public, who thought of John as the first prophet in Israel in 400 years. I wonder if they knew that John would have sided here with their opposition, our Lord Jesus. The question was, “Why are you not fasting? We’re fasting! John the Baptist’s followers are fasting! Why aren’t you?” It’s a rthetorical question meant to bully Jesus and His followers into a confession of wrongdoing or embarrasing silence. It is not what happened, because as good at debate as the Scribes and Pharisees had to have been, Jesus invented the idea of debate, AND wrote the Law of Moses, and inherently understood what none of these pikers seemed to realize: This was about something outside of their traditions and jurisdiction.

You must understand that fasting was an important and common expression of piety in those days. We can see parallels today in what we would call “woke” theology where everything is put through a Marxist lens can calling it critical race theory and expressing the output of all that tripe as Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity, which we may appropriately abbreviate with the acronym DIE, because that’s what you will do if you trust that for salvation. Today, we just call that “vitue-signalling” (my friend Dustin calls it “vitue-twerking,” and he is not far off; it’s just as offensive to me). It was a way for these false religionists, the Pharisees, to express their hypocrisy, playing the part that they wanted the recognition for performing, something we can still do; CRT is a modern vehicle for this. Other expressions would be prayer and the giving of alms for charity. All of these things (fasting, prayer, alms) can be legitimate expressions of faith. The Pharisees did it for the praise of men in each case. We will comment on this as we come accross this in the gospels, and there are a good many examples. Jesus was teaching that religious expression was a matter of the heart, and it mattered what you did while no one else was watching.

Fasting specifically in the days of Jesus’ incarnation is how the Pharisees added their own traditions to the Law, incidentally. The Mosaic Law only commanded one annual fast, and that was on the Day of Atonement. The Pharisee fasted twice per week on the second and fifth day, though I cannot find data on what those days may signify under their traditions. It is possible they may not have had a significance other than to demonstrate (presumably to God) that they were trying to be separate from the sinners that they came to despise and avoid. It was simply a way to publicly display “piety,” which I would call “Hypocrisy.” Maybe they thought it meant they were “maintaining their atonement.”

I don’t think we’re so different today. The Charismatics who stutter in nonsense syllables are performing a very public form of virtue-signalling of their own salvation, with many of them believing that this is a sign of their salvation. No bible verse anywhere says that; in fact, it tells us that not everyone gets the same gifts, and that there is no common display to prove salvation. People who say this are in biblical error and need to see the truth. Because they will not accept it from me, I pray for them that God will open their eyes to the Truth, that Jesus saves, and the change in life that follows that is the only indication of their salvation. There are people who will call me a servant of Satan for saying that, but it is the biblical truth. Read 1 Corinthians 12-14 yourself. Read all of it slowly in context. That’s what we saw when we studied it, and I think that’s still over on our old Youtube channel. I’m slowly trying to migrate that over here. My point here is that hypocritical displayes of public religious practice do not indicate any kind of faith in God, only in yourself, and that betrays what you really believe. If I may quote Dr. MacArthur here, from His New Testament Commentary on this verse says, “Fasts motivated out of proud self-righteousness or calloused ritualism were wholly rejected by God.” (John MacArthur, Mark 1–8, MacArthur New Testament Commentary (Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers, 2015), 128) It says in Isaiah 58:3–4, “‘Why have we fasted and You do not see? Why have we humbled ourselves and You do not notice?’ Behold, on the day of your fast you find your desire, And drive hard all your workers. Behold, you fast for contention and strife and to strike with a wicked fist. You do not fast like you do today to make your voice heard on high.” God Himself answers this kind of behaviour through the Prophet Isaiah rather emphatically. It is clear from this that the very nature of the question itself shows that it was not holiness of any kind that motivated this question, but rather legalism and hypocrisy. Next verse.

19: And Jesus said to them, “While the bridegroom is with them, the attendants of the bridegroom cannot fast, can they? So long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast.

Here, the Lord uses an illustration to answer them, and this is often how He would answer them. His anaogy is in the form a rhetorical question, in this case, the kind of question that answers itself. “While the bridegroom is with them, the attendants of the bridegroom cannot fast, can they?” The Greek here is written in a form where the formal answer to the question must be “No.” We’ve run into this form before in our studies, in 1 Corinthians 12:29–30, which says, “All are not apostles, are they? All are not prophets, are they? All are not teachers, are they? All are not workers of miracles, are they? All do not have gifts of healings, do they? All do not speak with tongues, do they? All do not interpret, do they?” The use of the Greek Μὴ indicates this formal rhetorical question. So the question (and answer) that the Lord Jesus was asking was “They can’t fast while I’m here, can they? No, of course not.”

Notice also that Jesus is flat-out naming Himself in this statement as the “bridegroom.” Beloved, what exactly does that mean? I’ll tell you. Out of the 12 occurrences of the word in the New Testament, Jesus uses it nine times, and always in reference to Himself. It is used two other times in reference to Him, both by John, once in Revelation. Here is the important reference, spoken in the Gospel of John by John the Baptist: John 3:28–30 “You yourselves are my witnesses that I said, ‘I am not the Christ,’ but, ‘I have been sent ahead of Him.’ He who has the bride is the bridegroom; but the friend of the bridegroom, who stands and hears him, rejoices greatly because of the bridegroom’s voice. So this joy of mine has been made full. He must increase, but I must decrease.” I ask, somewhat rhetorically to make you remember, who is the “bride” mentioned here? Of the six uses of the word in the New Testament, four of those uses are clear, but I like this one the best: Revelation 21:9 “Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues came and spoke with me, saying, ‘Come here, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb.’” The bride of Christ is the Church, Beloved. I like this one, because it uses the language of union between Groom and Bride here. The church is the WIFE of the Lamb. Christ is the Lamb of God, who took away the sins of the world if it will do what the Scriptures tell us: Make a commitment in your heart (innermost being) to turn away from your sins and stop doing them (forsake them) and then turn to Christ in faith, that is the persuasion that He has paid the price for you and eliminated the penalty of sin in your life and broken its power. Someday He will deliver us from its very presence. That persuasion (faith) or opinion is so strong that it WILL change the way you’re living. That’s the gospel, Beloved. Turn to Him and be saved.

Why can they not fast while the Bridegroom is with them? Because fasting is for expressing sadness, grief, and sorrowful reflection. Can you really do that at a wedding? Probably not. MacArthur points out that would be both inappropriate and insulting. Because a wedding is a day of joy, the bride and groom do NOT fast on days where public fasting is prohibited. These also include what are considered joyful calendar days like Channukah or Purim, among others.

The disciples in this analogy are the “attendants of the Bridegroom.” We would call them groomsmen today, just for a frame of reference. The “Best Man” is one of those. The attendants were responsible for the carrying out of the wedding plans. Even in modern times, the best man throws the groom a party just before the wedding. Today’s debauchery is not a good practice, but I remember when I got married in my Brethren days, the other brothers threw me what we called a roast, and it was a good time, and if I’m being honest, there were some really funny things that happened, skit that were performed, gift given, like that., but without the worldly baccanalia and debauchery. My then-fiancee got the traditional bridal shower, again without the sinful garbage. So as long as they are with the groom, how can the guys responsible for the activities on the day of joy be sad and fast? I agree with MacArthur. That would be insulting and rude unless something horrible happened in your private life. Now leave the analogy and come back to reality. These were the disciples of the Messiah Himself. How could they express grief and mourning while He was there and leading and teaching them? He is the Messiah. Is there any higher joy for the believer? But the story will not always be happy. Next verse.

20: “But the days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast in that day.

Remember, Jesus is no ordinary Man. He is God hanging around in a Man-suit. He is definitely a man, but He is also wholly God. The reason this is important is that Jesus knows the whole story from the beginning. It would stand to reason that He knows why He is here, He knows what is happening, and He knows what is going to happen. Also, He knows with whom he is verbally sparring, and what that will cause, and here He is provoking it. He does so, because He wants the outcome that He will (and did) get. When Jesus was taken away very suddenly from them in the Garden of Gethsemane, He knew that was going to happen. In fact, I think if you would have pressed Him on it, He could have given you each second of that inexorable countdown to the cross. That’s a kind of trial I have experienced. The meeting with the boss. He called it at that time. He won’t talk to me ahead of time. It makes you nervous. (It turns out I was being promoted to Regional Sales Manager, so it isn’t always bad. It was for our Lord.)

However, when the groom is taken away violently and suddenly, it is not inappropriate to mourn and grieve on such an occasion. Isaiah 53:8 says it best in my opinion: “By oppression and judgment He was taken away; And as for His generation, who considered That He was cut off out of the land of the living For the transgression of my people, to whom the stroke was due?” It was truly an appropriate occasion to mourn. What Christ was saying here is that they would have a deep and abiding grief at the cross. And they did. for three long days, they had no idea what was going to happen, and then He rose from the dead, mission accomplished: Sins of those who would turn to Him were paid for, they were redeemed.

The foreshadowing of this verse fits into the greater story of the gospel. We have already talked about how the Messiah, the Son of God, would come and suffer and die for our sins, and then rise to show they had been paid for. Isaiah 53:2–12 tells the story, if the Pharisees and Scribes would have cared to look: “For He grew up before Him like a tender shoot, And like a root out of parched ground; He has no stately form or majesty That we should look upon Him, Nor appearance that we should be attracted to Him. He was despised and forsaken of men, A man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; And like one from whom men hide their face He was despised, and we did not esteem Him. Surely our griefs He Himself bore, And our sorrows He carried; Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, Smitten of God, and afflicted. But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed. All of us like sheep have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way; But the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all To fall on Him. He was oppressed and He was afflicted, Yet He did not open His mouth; Like a lamb that is led to slaughter, And like a sheep that is silent before its shearers, So He did not open His mouth. By oppression and judgment He was taken away; And as for His generation, who considered That He was cut off out of the land of the living For the transgression of my people, to whom the stroke was due? His grave was assigned with wicked men, Yet He was with a rich man in His death, Because He had done no violence, Nor was there any deceit in His mouth. But the Lord was pleased To crush Him, putting Him to grief; If He would render Himself as a guilt offering, He will see His offspring, He will prolong His days, And the good pleasure of the Lord will prosper in His hand. As a result of the anguish of His soul, He will see it and be satisfied; By His knowledge the Righteous One, My Servant, will justify the many, As He will bear their iniquities. Therefore, I will allot Him a portion with the great, And He will divide the booty with the strong; Because He poured out Himself to death, And was numbered with the transgressors; Yet He Himself bore the sin of many, And interceded for the transgressors.”

This is probably why even in the first century, the Rabbinic Jews started to alter their own manuscripts to say different things. I won’t get into the whole story, but you can ask why there is such a hatred of the Septuagint by rabbinic Jews today. It is because the Lord Jesus Himself quoted it, and so did the early believers. They altered their own texts and their commentaries to try to remove arguments that Christians could use to evangelize Jews, and they weren’t entirely successful, and their efforst will ultimately fail. Accoring to the Apostles Paul and John, this is the whole reason for a seven-year tribulation at the end of this age, and it is to convert those identifying as “Jews” and save a remnant of them as well for Himself. No one He has approved will be unsaved. Outside of that, we get into weird conspiracies, some true, some, pretty out there, although I’m undecided on most of those. Let’s go on to the next paragraph.

21-22: The Old Way and New Way Do Not Mix

It is here that our Lord gets into analogies to make points. These are not parables so much as metaphorical comparisons to make theological points to the hearers. I think Jesus wanted to be understood here. He used parables specifically when he wanted to teach things to His followers that would confuse hostile opponents to keep them under the coming punishment. We can understand and teach those because He explained most of those. This is different, at least in my opinion. He’s making a very relateable comparison that it is easy for a hearer to pick up on. MacArthur calls these “clairifying analogies.” Let’s get into the text and see.

21: “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.

The Lord Jesus is not simply giving laudry instructions. He is explaining that if one were to use unshrunk cloth as a patch on something that has been laundered before, that there would be problems. First, the unshrunk cloth will have brighter colours, so there would be a colour mismatch. Second, if the patch were applied, and then garment would be laundered, the patch would shrink, while the laundered garment had previously been shrunk, and the patch would pull away, tearing the original garment fabric, probably in a worse way than before the patch was applied. Everyone clear on that? Okay, we’ll go on.

This was our Lord Jesus making the point that His gospel of repentance from sin and His subsequent forgiveness of that sin could not simply be a patch job. One could not simply apply the figurative patch of legalism and tradition from Pharisaic Judaism and not have poor consequences. Neither does it work the other way. One cannot use the New patch of the gospel of Jesus Christ to cover the wear and tear on the superficial religion of the scribes and Pharisees. Besides, it wasn’t our Lord’s purpose. He had not come to “fix” their dead religion. He had come to bring life in His name, and to have relationship directly with His people. Our patches in that case would have been taken from those filthy rags of Isa. 64:6. The text in that verse in Hebrew is calling them not “filthy rags” like our modern translations all say. Isaiah called them used menstrual rags. A filthy stench-inducing bloody piece of fabric that will ruing the entire garment. No, He came to replace the garment (the religion itself, the way to Him) entirely.

It is an important thing to note here: This was not speaking of the Mosaic Law or Old Testament, as some scholars, particularly unstudied Charismaniacs, have suggested. Remember, He wrote the Law and inspired the entire Old Testament. He came to fulfil those. He came to destroy the false religion of the Pharisees. That, at this point in history, had very little to do with Scripture. An oral tradition called the Mishna had sprung up and was a kind of commentary on not only the Torah (Law), but on the commentaries of the rabbis on the Law. Later that was codified into writing and called the Talmud, and if you want to read and adhere to commentaries on commentaries and call that religion, go right ahead, but I have to warn you that isn’t going to end up anyplace you want to be.

The bottom line here is that the newness of life that Jesus brings will ruin the old religion that people like to wear like a suit of armour. The Old Testament is still a part of that newness when viewed properly through the lens of Christ. The Law is a tutor to bring us to Christ. Jesus did not come to destroy any of that (Matthew 5:17 ““Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.”) He came to end fake religion and replace it with the truth of Himself. Next verse.

22: “No one puts new wine into old wineskins; otherwise the wine will burst the skins, and the wine is lost and the skins as well; but one puts new wine into fresh wineskins.”

The Lord Jesus is echoing the same point. Perhaps you have heard the old saying from the point of view of God: “Once I have said it, twice I have confirmed it.” (cf. Psalm 62:11 “Once God has spoken; Twice I have heard this: That power belongs to God…”) In Hebrew poetry, this form of repetition is for emphasis. Jesus is making sure that His audience (the Pharisees and Scribes) know that He is emphasizing the point.

Just as an unshrunk piece of cloth will tear a garment the next time it is laundered, new wine will destroy old wineskins. If you’ve never seen one, a wineskin is made from the hide of an animal (probably a goat in those days). The problem here is that as new wine was placed into a wineskin, it gives off gas as it ferments. A NEW wineskin will stretch enough to allow for the offgassing. An old wineskin is pre-stretched, and the offgassing will cause a rupture. The wine will pour out of the rupture onto the ground and be lost in this analogy. A Torn wineskin is not really able to be repaired. To avoid this, new wine should be placed into new wineskins, amen? This is also an illustration from our Lord Jesus to explain that the gospel cannot be attached to a false system of religion. Every other religion teaches that you can earn your own salvation by your deeds. Christianity is unique in its view that God became a man and paid for the sins of all men so that those who will turn to Him can be saved. Jesus was making the point that the good news of salvation cannot be poured into the nonbiblical “traditions of the elders.” The Pharisees had invalidated Judaism by making it an apostate cultic religion. The Gospel of Jesus Christ cannot coexist with that. I’m not trying to be hateful with that statement, but my love for the Lord is making me tell you the truth. Your works-based religion is a proud vanity in thinking God would accept the filthy rags (Isa. 64:6). Remember, the prophet was calling it a filthy garment, and the sense of Hebrew is “used menstual rags.” So your works before God and a filthy, unclean, stinking, disgusting mess that you would hide from your mother, never mind offer to God. Something else is required here.

How much would I have to hate you to not tell the truth to you here? I know that judgment of hellfire is coming, and I know the way you can escape it. It would be actual hatred NOT to tell you that what you need to do is turn away from and forsake your sins (“repent”) and turn to Christ, trusting that He paid the penalty for your sins when He died on that Roman cross about 2000 years ago. This makes for a simple exchange. Exchange your precondemned life that will end in hell in eternal conscious suffering for His flawless, life of the ages, available to all who will turn to Christ regardless of ethnicity, politics, economic status, nationality, or anything else that matters. God is NOT partial to anyone who turns to His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. It doesn’t matter what you have done, either, although actions will still bear consequences. I think of the man who was crucified alongside the Lord Jesus. Can you imagine the fuss he would have kicked up at the entrance to heaven? The angel that greeted him at the entrance to heaven asked him a series of questions that would determine if he was truly saved. That man knew next to no theology and didn’t even have a basic understanding of the gospel. The angel called for his supervisor. The Supervisor went through the same stuff with the same result. He called for a council of his higher-ups. At the end, the head angel said something like, okay, why should we let you in? Allisair Begg knew – “The man on the middle cross told me I should come.” Entance granted.

My point here is that Jesus came to die for all of us after living a perfect life for us. He became our one perfect atoning sacrifice for the sins of all those who would ever turn to Him and away from their sins. None will be excluded or turned away if they are sincere in their seeking of the forgiveness of their sins by the One who paid for them. I’m talking about reconciliation with God for anyone who will turn from whatever sin they need to turn from.

The Pharisees lost condition is underlined here by their rejection of Christ in favour of their made-up rules. There is a close parallel in our own day, where people will reject Christ based on what they think is right, but the truth is that the sensibilities of our society have been numbed to what is actually right by our own holding of these mistaken notions in place of the true gospel of Jesus Christ. Only the real gospel of Jesus Christ can pardon our sins. Anything else leads in the opposite direction, straight to a burning lake of fire for eternity.

What we have seen here this evening in terms of broad brush strokes is that all of the made-up nonsense and vain imaginations of men will fail in the presence of Truth. It may seem like for a while that these pieces of insanity are winning, but we as Christians should play the long game. They may win a battle here and there, and that may even increase in the coming days, but the war has already been won. Our Lord died to pay the price for sins and rose in power to prove it, and now as a man, sits on the throne of God and oversees His own creation. Ultimately, victory is His. And in His perfect timing, He will take it, and all those who will not repent of their sins and turn to Him in faith will be forced to kneel before Him and spit out from between bleeding and broken teeth that Jesus Christ is Lord, all to the Father’s glory.

The false so-called “truths” of our day that really are not will not only fail, but all those who will adhere to such fallacies will ultimately be disappointed by the results when real truth takes its rightful place as the main engine that drives the universe. In the meantime, we should pursue that truth in the reality of our faith, that persiasion that we hold so strongly that it changes the way we live for all time. In this way, we should all come and stand before Him, who is our Lord and Saviour, and thus be with Him forever.

That’s what I saw in the text this time. Next time, we will be starting a two-parter, our first in a while, and we will be looking next time at Mark 2:23-28 as we consider the theme, “The Lord of the Sabbath, Part I.”

About Post Author