Sabbath Wineskins New and Old (Mark 2:21-28)

In our previous commentary, we observed how the Pharisees had the audacity to criticize those who did not follow in the unrighteous traditions of their elders; and today their successors attempt to condemn men who do not abide in their unrighteous church tradition. Such men will fast according to supposed “holy days” such as Lent, which are found nowhere in the Bible, and think themselves righteous for doing so, while they promote the abominations which God hates. There is no piety on putting ash on your forehead, and so we can repeat to them that which Christ said to the Pharisees, “Leaving the commandment of Yahweh you hold to the tradition of men!” (Mark 7:8)

The traditions of men are one of the worst kinds of old wineskins - which are old misconceptions or heretical frameworks which prevent someone from integrating new truths into their understanding of the Bible. We discussed the parable of the new and old wineskins in the previous commentary, and it is very much relevant to the following two passages in the gospel of Mark, which both focus on the Sabbath.

The Pharisees in their minds held onto many old wineskins concerning the Sabbath, and even today, many people in Christian Identity are unclear on how to observe the holy day. In order to combat old misconceptions, we will look at what Christ teaches us regarding the Sabbath and how we can apply it to our own lives.

But before doing so, we will briefly revisit the parable of the new and old wineskins so that we can cover a few points which we did not mention in our previous video. Then we will proceed to this next account and drink the new wine which Christ provides.

2:21 No one sews a patch of uncarded cloth upon an old garment, but if it is, the new lifts its borders away from the old and the tear becomes worse. 22 And no one puts new wine into old skins, but if it is, the wine breaks the skins and the wine and the skins are lost. Rather, new wine is for new skins."

Mark alone has the word sew instead of put. Ἐπιῤῥάπτω (#G1976) instead of ἐπιβάλλω (#G1911).

In Part 7 of this commentary, titled Changes and Transitions, we noted how the name of Matthew’s father, Alphaeus, is believed to derive from the Hebrew noun chêleph (#H2500), which is related to the verb châlaph (#2498), and the verb can be used to refer to the passing or transition of things, or even a changing. If Matthew was indeed a Levite, the name of his father may have foreshadowed the coming change in the priesthood. We also explored how meaning of changing may have also been symbolic of the immediate proceeding account in the gospel of Mark's narrative, where many tax-collectors and wrongdoers at Matthew’s house were called to repentance, and since sin is often portrayed as old or filthy garments in Scripture, those sinners in Matthew’s house were effectively being called by Christ to change their garments, just as Jacob had exhorted his sons to “Put away the strange gods that are among you, and be clean, and change your garments”. (Genesis 35:2)

Now, with this in mind, it would be fair then to interpret the old garments of this parable of Mark 2:21, as representing sinful habits as much as old misconceptions, and those things often come hand in hand anyways. 

As Christ says, if an uncarded cloth is placed on the tear of an old garment, then “the new lifts its borders away from the old.” The Greek word translated as borders here is πλήρωμα (#G4138), meaning fullness; and so in other words, the new lifts its fullness away from the old. It is evident then, that truth is entirely lost or corrupted if mingled with heresy, just as the new wine breaks through the old skins and both are destroyed.

It would be natural to presume that the tear in the garments stands for heresy, and Christ adds that the tear becomes worse after the new uncarded cloth lifts its borders away from the old. This is precisely how the heresies of Aristotle and Plato became worse, when the uncarded cloth of Christianity was patched onto their torn pagan garments, thus creating the wicked and old cloak of Catholicism which looked like a lamb but spoke as a dragon (Revelation 13:11).

Paul used the word translated as worse, which is χείρων (#G5501), in his second surviving epistle to Timothy, where he warned his beloved friend concerning heretics who would all the more severely corrupt Christianity after the passing of the apostles: “all those wishing a pious life in Christ Yahshua will be persecuted. And evil men and enchanters will advance for the worse (χείρων), deceiving and being deceived themselves.” (2 Timothy 3:12-13) 

[Paul even wrote that there were heretics in his day who were “wishing to be teachers of the law, understanding neither the things they speak nor concerning things which they strongly maintain.” (1 Timothy 1:7) The heresies of such teachers of the law are reflected in the early (or ante-nicene) Christian writers who were demonstrably ignorant of the purpose of the gospel.]

It is important where Paul wrote at 2 Timothy 3:13 that these men would go on “deceiving and being deceived themselves”, because the evil enchanters always drink the ruined wine which they pass onto others and both the teachers and students are made drunk on foolishness. As Christ said concerning the bastard strange plants among the Pharisees, “Leave them alone, they are blind leaders, and if the blind should lead the blind, both shall fall into a ditch!" (Matthew 15:14) For those who have been raised in these systems of deception, it can often be difficult to leave, because as Christ says in Luke’s parallel account of this parable, “And no one drinking the old desires the new, for 'the old', one says, 'is good'." (Luke 5:39)

But Timothy did not drink old and ruined wine. Timothy did the opposite: he put the uncarded cloth given to him through Paul onto a new garment, and poured his new wine into new skins. Paul explains precisely how Timothy did this, continuing in the same passage:

2 Timothy 3:14-17 But you continue in those things you have learned and have been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned. And because from infancy you know the divine writings, which enable you to pursue wisdom unto preservation through faith that is in Christ Yahshua. All writing inspired of God is also beneficial for teaching, for evidence, for correction, for education which is in righteousness, that the man of Yahweh would be perfect, having prepared himself for all good works.

What we must understand from this is that a Christian should not learn from the vain traditions or philosophies of evil enchanters, but rather the “divine writings which enable you to pursue wisdom unto preservation through faith of that which is in Christ Yahshua”. This is where true wisdom comes from. Not from the literature of men like Plato or Aristotle, or their successors, men like Aquinas. As Paul says, all writing inspired by God is beneficial for teaching, and we must conform ourselves to that word without any adulteration from old wineskins, so that we can become prepared for good works.

To illustrate an example, if you are given the new wine understanding that all of Israel is saved without any exceptions, then you must read the rest of the Bible with that truth taken into account, because you know that the writings cannot be broken (John 10:35). When everyone exercises this method of study, the flock of God is unified and the alien wolves are forced to flee, realizing that there is no way for them to drag the sheep away from Yahweh’s Word and into the bondage of rituals and traditions.

Unification is imperative for the health of our assemblies, and in fact, the word translated as tear in this parable, where the uncarded cloth being sewn makes the tear worse, is σχίσμα (#4978), which means division, and it is where the English word schism is derived. Paul uses σχίσμα in 1 Corinthians where he addresses divisions in the assembly, and he writes early on in the epistle: “Now I encourage you, brethren, by the name of our Prince Yahshua Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and there may not be divisions among you; but that you are disciplined in the same mind and in the same purpose.” (1 Corinthian 1:10)

When the assembly is divided, then the doctrine becomes divided and garments end up torn. The only way for us to be disciplined in the same mind and in the same purpose is if we each conform our understanding of doctrine to the Scriptures alone, casting aside the old philosophies and starting afresh on the road of study. When we all do this, there is little room left for disagreements among Christians, and genuine friendship naturally follows. Being built upon the bedrock foundation of Christ, the assembly will be immovable.

For instance, if we all believe that Christ is the last prophet, just as the New Testament teaches, then no one can fall prey to false prophets who claim to have received new oracles from God (Hebrews 1:1-2, Revelation 5:5). If we all agree that we are a holy and separate people, our assemblies remain pure (Exodus 19:6, 1 Peter 2:9). If we all recognize that a family tree is known by its fruits, we gain mutual discernment in the dissolution of spirits as we test the fruits of others (1 John 4:1, 1 Corinthians 12:10). If we all agree on matters such as fasting and the Sabbath, no one will elevate himself.

We will now continue in Mark, examining an account of the Sabbath and the old-wineskin mentality which the Pharisees held regarding it.

2:23 And it came to pass for Him on the Sabbaths to be passing through the planted fields, and His students began to make a path, plucking the grain. 24 And the Pharisees said to Him: "Look, why do they do on the Sabbaths that which is not lawful?" 25 And He says to them: "Have you not ever read what David did when he had need and he himself had hungered, and those with him, 26 how he entered into the house of Yahweh at the time of Abiathar the high priest and he ate the bread of presentation, which is not lawful to eat except for the priests, and he gave it also to those being with him?" 27 And He said to them: "The Sabbath was for the sake of man and not man for the sake of the Sabbath! 28 Therefore the Son of Man is Prince of the Sabbath!"

This pericope is also recorded at Matthew 12:1-8 and Luke 6:1-5.

This is followed by another Sabbath account in the next chapter of Mark, and these two episodes are paired together in all three synoptic gospels. However, only Mark and Luke position them right after the parable of the old and new wineskins. I believe there is a lesson in that arrangement, because the common ritualistic attitude towards the Sabbath back then truly was an old wineskin. Even today in Christian Identity, there are many misconceptions about how the Sabbath should be observed, and it is often approached in a Pharisaical and boastful manner. We will seek to address many of those misconceptions in this commentary.

There are many records of Christ having been criticized for loving His brethren with good deeds on the Sabbath, since the Pharisees favoring pretense over mercy viewed those acts as violations of the law. As if God only wants us to love our brethren six days out of the week! Altogether, there are six instances in the gospels where Christ is criticized for doing good on the Sabbath, and two of those episodes are unique to Luke and John, respectively (Matthew 12:1-8, Mark 2:23-28, Luke 6:1-5 | Matthew 12:9-14, Mark 3:1-6, Luke 6:6-11 | Luke 13:10-17 | Luke 14:1-6 | John 5:9-17 (7:23-24) | John 9:14-16)

Christ and His students passing through the fields is the first of these accounts of Christ being criticized on the Sabbath which is recorded in the synoptic gospels, but the healing of the lame man at the pool of Bethzatha (Bethesda), which is unique to the gospel of John, likely occurred before this (John 5:9-17, John 7:23-24)

We will now examine the account in detail:

2:23 And it came to pass for Him on the Sabbaths to be passing through the planted fields, and His students began to make a path, plucking the grain.

The clause which mentions the students making a path is unique to this gospel. Mark appears to have favored the word παραπορεύομαι (passing), and four of its five appearances in the New Testament are found in the gospel of Mark, of which this is the first.

It has to be said that the gospels are an abbreviated record of important events from Yahshua’s ministry, which become more closely compacted as the narrative draws closer to His final week in Jerusalem. This makes the timeline of this earlier period quite vague, where each account might have been weeks or months apart.

Mark writes that it is the Sabbaths, and it is easy to wonder why the plural is used when it only refers to a single Sabbath day. The plural is found in all three synoptics, and while it might not feel natural in English, it is evident that in Greek the plural form of σάββατον (#G4521) can apply to multiple Sabbaths, but also to one Sabbath in an idiomatic sense. It is believed that this idiomatic use of the plural may be a reflection of how the word was transliterated from Aramaic into Greek, and there are several linguistic essays which expound on this, but it would be superfluous to discuss for our purposes here.

The students of Christ, which is a label not always exclusive to the twelve apostles, are solely recorded by Mark as having made a path through the field of grain. The use of the verb ποιέω (#G4160), meaning to make or to do, in conjunction with the noun ὁδός (#G3598), meaning way or road, suggests that the students were quite literally making a path as they walked through the field.

Making their way through the planted fields on their day’s journey is certainly a glimpse into the land of Judaea in the first century; a garden tilled with the hard sweat of an Aryan brow. The children of Israel have always been an agricultural people, and for that reason Yahshua often employed themes which were familiar to farmers in His parables. He taught those who were raised among fields of grain and rolling vineyards, fig trees and almond trees, olives, herds of cattle, and flocks of sheep. If we are to picture the Gospel in our minds, we should imagine bucolic fields and gentle forests with farms and villages throughout, a land flowing with milk and honey, the delightful Eden which the children of Israel were promised after being delivered from the hard bondage of Pharaoh:

Deuteronomy 11:8-12 (ESV) You shall therefore keep the whole commandment that I command you today, that you may be strong, and go in and take possession of the land that you are going over to possess, and that you may live long in the land that the LORD swore to your fathers to give to them and to their offspring, a land flowing with milk and honey. For the land that you are entering to take possession of it is not like the land of Egypt, from which you have come, where you sowed your seed and irrigated it, like a garden of vegetables. But the land that you are going over to possess is a land of hills and valleys, which drinks water by the rain from heaven, a land that the LORD your God cares for. The eyes of the LORD your God are always upon it, from the beginning of the year to the end of the year. 

As Yahweh says twice in the prophet Ezekiel, the land of Palestine is the most glorious of all lands (Ezekiel 20:6, Ezekiel 20:15), which might be hard to imagine when you look at it today and see a defiled hellscape inhabited by jewish devils (Edomites are devils, John 6:70). These difficult but necessary circumstances were prophesied of in Malachi, where the accursed Edomites are depicted as returning to rebuild the desolate places (Malachi 1:4), which must refer to the land of Judaea which was made desolate after the Roman kinsman avengers crushed Jerusalem under their feet. This destruction was announced by Christ near the end of His ministry, where He said “Behold, your house is left to you desolate!” (Matthew 23:38), and the fact that the desolation was vengeance for the murder of Christ is perhaps most evident in the Gospel and Psalms (Mark 12:1-12, Psalm 69:21-28, Psalm 40:15).

Christ made it clear in His Olivet Discourse that the Edomite dragon was to be “taken away captive into all nations” after the destruction of Jerusalem, which fulfilled the prophecy of the racially bad figs being scattered in Jeremiah (Jeremiah 24:9, Luke 21:24). But the dragon was later prophesied in Revelation to crawl out of the pit after a thousand years of total subjection under his brother’s sword, and the Edomites eventually returned to rebuild the desolate places in 1948 when they established their fraudulent state, which the Bible calls the border of wickedness (Revelation 20:7, Malachi 1:4-5). At no other time in history did the Edomites return as a unified people and establish a state upon desolate land.

Because of this, the land of Judaea today is quite bereft of farms in comparison to its former glory. It is written often that the earth is Yahweh’s and the fullness thereof, and God being sovereign over all has the divine right to give a land’s bounties to whomever He wishes and to withhold its fruits from others (Genesis 1:1-27, Exodus 9:27-30, 19:1-6, Deuteronomy 10:12-15, Job 41:10-11, 1 Chronicles 29:10-12, Psalm 24:1-2, 50:12, 89:6-13, 95:3-5, 135:5-7, 1 Corinthians10:25-26). There are likely more brothels and banks in the border of wickedness today than there are farms, since the Edomite jews are absolutely repulsed by the idea of honest labor. They would not be able to till the land with the same level of efficiency as the children of Israel even if they tried, for as Yahweh said to Cain, the father of the accursed Edomites: “you are cursed from the ground, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand. When you work the ground, it shall no longer yield to you its strength.” (Genesis 4:11-12)

There is no reason to fret when all things are in the plan of God. The Edomite thorns which have come up on the land of Palestine are promised to be burned, when Christ returns to throw down the border of wickedness and save His people from His enemies ( Zechariah 14:4, Malachi 1:5, Isaiah 34:5-6, Isaiah 63:1-6, Psalm 60:9-12, et al) But until that day they will continue to falsely accuse the children of Israel (Revelation 12:10), just as they are recorded as doing here in the next verse of Mark. Before we move on to that verse, we should first note that the students of Christ were not transgressing any law in plucking grain from their neighbor’s field. It is written in Deuteronomy:

Deuteronomy 23:24-25 When thou comest into thy neighbour's vineyard, then thou mayest eat grapes thy fill at thine own pleasure; but thou shalt not put any in thy vessel. When thou comest into the standing corn of thy neighbour, then thou mayest pluck the ears with thine hand; but thou shalt not move a sickle unto thy neighbour's standing corn. 

[While the King James might use the word corn in passages like these, the archaic use of the word in English should not be confused with maize. It is a reference to grain here in the original languages.]

Christ taught that the entire law and prophets hang upon the pillars of loving our God and brethren (Matthew 22:40), and we should never account it as theft if our brethren innocently pluck some grain or pick some grapes while they pass through on a journey. We should be overjoyed that our produce was able to satiate their needs! 

It is written in Matthew’s parallel account that the students were hungry (Matthew 12:1), but the Pharisees in their selfishness seemed to care more about maintaining the pretense of their righteousness than whether or not Christ’s students would have enough to eat:

2:24 And the Pharisees said to Him: "Look, why do they do on the Sabbaths that which is not lawful?"

The laws which the students of Christ are being accused of breaking are found in the body of Moses’ books. There are many witnesses, and we will provide two examples from Exodus and Deuteronomy:

Exodus 23:12 Six days thou shalt do thy work, and on the seventh day thou shalt rest: that thine ox and thine ass may rest, and the son of thy handmaid, and the stranger [gêr #H1616], may be refreshed. 

Deuteronomy 5:13-14 Six days thou shalt labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor any of thy cattle, nor thy stranger [gêr #H1616] that is within thy gates; that thy manservant and thy maidservant may rest as well as thou. 

Is casually plucking and eating grain as you pass by the field truly labor? Can that honestly be considered work? Many Judaeans in the first century had radical considerations for what constituted labor, as the Pharisees sought to regulate every act, even imposing their own arbitrary limit on how far a man could travel on the Sabbath day. This is seen where Luke refers to “a Sabbath day’s journey” in Acts, but the phrase is found nowhere in the Old Testament (Acts 1:12). Where Yahweh commanded the people to abide in their place in the Exodus, it was in relation to how they were not supposed to leave their tents in search of manna. There is no such instruction anywhere else in the law. If idleness was an intended requirement of the Sabbaths, then it would be transgressed whenever the people gathered in an assembly hall (Exodus 16:29).

The prevalent attitude in Christ’s day can be seen in how the Judaeans responded after Christ healed the lame man by the pool of Bethzatha:

John 5:8-10 Yahshua says to him "Arise, take your cot, and walk!" And immediately the man became healthy and took his cot and walked. And it was a Sabbath on that day, therefore the Judaeans said to the healed man: "It is a Sabbath, and it is not allowed for you to carry your cot."

The lame man ostensibly had no other bed, and the selfish crowds simply expected him to leave it behind. The Judaeans were not being righteous in trying to wrestle a poor man away from his livelihood, for it is written in the law, “If ever you take your neighbor's cloak in pledge, you shall return it to him before the sun goes down, for that is his only covering, and it is his cloak for his body; in what else shall he sleep? And if he cries to me, I will hear, for I am compassionate.” (Exodus 22:26-27 (ESV) A cot is a bed, so indeed, in what else shall he sleep? Were the Judaeans being compassionate in forbidding the man from his own bed? The cold heartless flood of legalism had supplanted brotherly love.

With compassion and brotherly love being a very pillar of the law, it is a wonder that the people held such a superficial understanding of its purpose. The things which Christ taught concerning the law and mercy should not have been new to their ears. but they were. And it displays just how lost the Society was. As Christ said: “I give to you a new commandment: that you should love one another; just as I have loved you that you also should love one another.” (John 13:34) But this was not at all a new commandment. It is written in the Old Testament. It was only new, because the Pharisees did not teach it.

The Pharisees were the very definition of legalism and had no qualms over criticizing hungry men for eating on the Sabbath day. Perhaps if the Pharisees were not fasting from the Word, then they wouldn’t have been so blind as to try to pressure the students of Christ into fasting from food! Our Prince rebuked the Pharisees for their heartlessness where He said “But woe to you Pharisees! Because you give a tenth of the mint and rue and every herb, and you elude the judgment and the love of Yahweh. Now these things it is necessary to do and the others not to pass by.” (Luke 11:42) Christ is recorded in Matthew’s parallel account as having called judgement and mercy and faith the weightier matters of the law (Matthew 23:23).

Because those matters have a greater weight, then they must be prioritized if a choice is ever forced upon us. If your brother is in trouble on the Sabbath, then it is necessary to choose mercy over the strictest observance of the law. Loving God and brethren is paramount above all (Luke 13:15-16). We must be compassionate, just as our Heavenly Father is compassionate (Luke 6:36). To demonstrate this, Yahshua Christ our God will now masterfully quote a relevant passage from the writings which will silence His critics:

2:25 And He says to them: "Have you not ever read what David did when he had need and he himself had hungered, and those with him, 26 how he entered into the house of Yahweh at the time of Abiathar the high priest and he ate the bread of presentation, which is not lawful to eat except for the priests, and he gave it also to those being with him?"

Only Mark records the mention of Abiathar the high priest.

The parallel account in Matthew informs us that the students were hungry, where it states, “And His students hungered and began to pluck and to eat the grain.” (Matthew 12:1) Mark does not explicitly mention their hunger, but Christ is clearly referring to it when He compares the students to David, and says that “he himself hungered.” The Pharisees thought it was more righteous for the students to abstain from food like bondmen to the Sabbath, but Yahshua defended His flock and literally fulfilled His words from the previous account, that the sons of the bridechamber are not able to fast for as long as they have the Bridegroom with them! (Mark 2:19) It is no accident that the accounts are side by side. The entire Gospel follows a deliberate and inspired structure, it is not randomly organized.

We can admire just how brilliantly our Christ exposes the lack of understanding among the supposedly studied Pharisees, where He rhetorically asks “Have you not ever read?”. The judgement of the Pharisees was not on course with Scripture, and it was justly necessary that their ignorance be exposed. We should not be afraid to do the same whenever our ears hear a supposed teacher flagrantly contradicting the writings, but unfortunately, many foolish Christians have been deceived into thinking that their so-called pastors are above criticism. This is an idolatrous assumption, and those who cling to it make themselves out to be cleaner than Yahshua Christ.

There is no room for idolatry in Christian brotherhood. We are all men and none of us are above rebuke (James 3:1-2). The righteous man welcomes correction and the fool disdains it, so any time our mouths are opened in reproof, our eyes can be shown the character of the rebuked. As Solomon wrote in Proverbs, “Whoso loveth instruction loveth knowledge: but he that hateth reproof is brutish” (Proverbs 12:1); and also “A reproof entereth more into a wise man than an hundred stripes into a fool.” (Proverbs 17:10) Solomon's father would agree, for David wrote in the 141st psalm, “Let the righteous smite me; it shall be a kindness” (Psalm 141:5)

It is both kind and loving to rebuke, since the law teaches us that we hate our kinsmen whenever we hold our tongues: “Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him.” (Leviticus 19:17) Our Christ stood on this law where He said “Now if your brother should do wrong, you must go censure him between you and him only. If perhaps he should hear you, you have gained your brother.” (Matthew 18:15)

Another reason why it is important to rebuke our brethren, is the fact that silence makes us liable. If we turn a blind eye to someone’s sin, then we are justly responsible for its pernicious consequences in our community, which is evident in Leviticus where it says “And if a soul sin, and hear the voice of swearing, and is a witness, whether he hath seen or known of it; if he do not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity.” (Leviticus 5:1) Paul of Tarsus was certainly alluding to this law where he wrote to the Romans, “that they practicing such things are worthy of death, not only they who cause them, but also they approving of those committing them.”( Romans 1:32)

(It should be noted that there may be circumstances where rebuke is not expedient, such as when our career is on the line, because it is also a weighty matter for us to provide for our families. These are difficult times of captivity, and Christians should wisely but innocently exercise discretion as they navigate each moment, and pray for guidance.)

Now, it is imperative that we always go back and read the full context whenever the Old Testament is being quoted, so that we can better understand why it is relevant to the New Testament passage in question. Christ is referencing an account found in 1 Samuel, where David was fleeing from Saul after Jonathan’s warning:

1 Samuel 21:1-6 (NKJV) Now David came to Nob [a priestly village near Jerusalem], to Ahimelech the priest. And Ahimelech was afraid when he met David, and said to him, “Why are you alone, and no one is with you?” So David said to Ahimelech the priest, “The king has ordered me on some business, and said to me, ‘Do not let anyone know anything about the business on which I send you, or what I have commanded you.’ And I have directed my young men to such and such a place. Now therefore, what have you on hand? Give me five loaves of bread in my hand, or whatever can be found.” And the priest answered David and said, “There is no common bread on hand; but there is holy bread, if the young men have at least kept themselves from women.” Then David answered the priest, and said to him, “Truly, women have been kept from us about three days since I came out. And the vessels of the young men are holy, and the bread is in effect common, even though it was consecrated in the vessel this day.” So the priest gave him holy bread; for there was no bread there but the showbread which had been taken from before the Lord, in order to put hot bread in its place on the day when it was taken away.

The Greek phrase which is used to describe the bread in the Septuagint of this passage, ἄρτους τῆς προθέσεως, is the same one used in the gospel account, though the phrase is apparently not used in every relevant passage of the LXX. As for the word προθέσεως (#G4286), it has several meanings, among which are a placing in public or an offering, as defined by Liddell and Scott. The King James translates both the Greek and its Old Testament Hebrew equivalent as shewbread. Here in the CNT, it is translated as bread of presentation.

The first mention of this consecrated bread is found at Exodus 25, where Yahweh gave instructions to Moses concerning the tabernacle in the wilderness, “And thou shalt set upon the table shewbread before me alway.” (Exodus 25:30) The presence of the bread and high priest demonstrates that the tabernacle was in Nob at the time, and thus Christ says that David “entered into the house of Yahweh”. It is manifest that the shrewbread was “not lawful to eat except for the priests” in Leviticus, where it says, “And it shall be Aaron's and his sons'; and they shall eat it in the holy place: for it is most holy unto him of the offerings of the LORD made by fire by a perpetual statute.” (Leviticus 24:9)

The shewbread was to stand before Yahweh until it was replaced with fresh hot loaves on the Sabbath, and the old loaves would then be eaten by the priests. These are what David requested when he said that the bread was “in effect common”, since being taken away it was no longer consecrated to Yahweh. The meaning of holy, is something which is set apart for the purposes of God, and so the old loaves were made common after being removed.

The old loaves were a form of payment to the sons of Aaron for their work in the tabernacle. David and his company were certainly not Aaronic Levites, but the high priest Ahimelech mercifully gave the bread at his own expense. Christ taught that mercy is a weightier matter of the law, and so He approves of what Ahimelech did for his brother, whom Christ describes as having been in “need”. The love of Yahweh abode in Ahimelech, and Christ smiles upon him:

1 John 3:17-18 Now who would have the substance of Society and should see his brother having need and shuts off his affections from him? How does the love of Yahweh abide in him? Children, we should not love in word nor with the tongue, but in deeds and in truth.

In our previous commentary, we discussed how Yahweh declares the fast He desires, which is “to deal thy bread to the hungry” (Isaiah 58:7), and Ahimelech did well in not holding back his hand. The gift of this decision was from God Himself, because He is sovereign over all, and consequently any opportunity or capacity to do well comes from Him. As James the brother of Christ wrote, “Do not be deceived, my beloved brethren, every good act of giving and every perfect gift is from above, descending from the Father of Lights, with whom there is not a variation or shade of change.” (James 1:16-17)

With the pragmatic matters of the account in 1 Samuel established, it should now be said that Christ seems to be making a comparison between David and Himself, and there is a mirror image of David and his company with Yahshua and His students. Perhaps there is a subtle compounding in Mark’s phraseology then, where Mark records Christ’s words as “those being with him” concerning David’s company, and then later in what is now the next chapter Mark writes “And He made the twelve (those whom He also named ambassadors), that they should be with Him”[ Mark 3:14]

David entered into the house of Yahweh, and entreated the high priest Ahimelech for the sake of his hungry company. But Christ is greater than the temple, as He says in the parallel account in Matthew, and so He directly defended His students for doing that which He Himself permitted as Prince of the Sabbath.

Matthew 12:5-8 Or have you not read in the law that on the Sabbaths the priests in the temple profaned the Sabbath, yet they are guiltless? Now I say to you that a greater than the temple is here! But if you had known why it is 'Mercy I desire and not sacrifice', you would not have condemned the guiltless! For the Son of Man is Prince of the Sabbath!"

Both David and Yahshua Christ provided for and fed their flocks. It is written in several places of how David fed his people, such as in the 78th Psalm, where Asaph writes “He chose David also his servant, and took him from the sheepfolds: from following the ewes great with young he brought him to feed Jacob his people, and Israel his inheritance. So he fed them according to the integrity of his heart; and guided them by the skilfulness of his hands.” (Psalm 78:70-72) With Christ comparing Himself to David, perhaps it is more appropriate than ever that we quote the Messianic prophecy found in Ezekiel 34, where it is written “And I will set up one shepherd over them, and he shall feed them, even my servant David; he shall feed them, and he shall be their shepherd.” (Ezekiel 34:23)

On the note of prophecy, it is also evident that the twelve loaves of shewbread and their constant presence before God served as a prophetic type for the Body of Christ as His symbolic communion with the twelve tribes of Israel, who are His body and blood. As Paul said, “Because one loaf, one body, we the many are, for we all partake from the one loaf.” (1 Corinthians 10:17) The one loaf is the bread of life, and this purpose of Christ was illustrated as early as His birth, when He was born in Bethlehem, which means house of bread, and was placed in a manger, which animals such as sheep feed from.

John 6:32-35 Then Yahshua said to them: "Truly, truly I say to you, Moses did not give to you bread from heaven, but My Father gives to you the true bread from heaven! For the bread of Yahweh is He descending from heaven and giving life to the Society!" Then they said to Him: "Prince, always give to us this bread!" Yahshua said to them: "I am the bread of life! He coming to Me shall not hunger, and he believing in Me shall not ever thirst!"

The Father gave the true bread from heaven by making the necessary decision to descend from heaven to earth as a man and die for His brethren, who are the Society which He came to save. Since only the wife can be saved through the mechanism of the Husband’s death on the cross, then it is the children of Israel only who partook of the one loaf, which was manifest from the beginning with the twelve loaves of shewbread. David gave the shewbread to his companions, and Christ gave Himself to His brethren.

Discussing Abiathar

Now, as a necessary digression, the mention of Abiathar the high priest is recorded only in Mark’s gospel, and some have wrongly assumed this to be anachronistic mistake either on the part of Mark or even (audaciously) Christ Himself. Admittedly, careful attention would cause one to scratch their head upon reading that Ahimelech was the high priest when David entered the tabernacle at Nob, but the reading of Abiathar is consistent throughout the manuscripts of Mark. There is no reason to suspect scribal error, and it is an impossibility that Christ misspoke, as He is God. I would not reason that Mark made a mistake either.

We should explain who these two men are, if we are to solve the puzzle.

Ahimelech and the other priests at Nob were condemned to death by King Saul shortly after David’s departure, but none of the Israelite footmen were willing to commit this heinous crime. Saul then turned to the accursed Edomite, Doeg, who being a bastard quickly and naturally complied to commit the slaughter. At least eighty-five men were killed, as the manuscripts differ (The LXX has 300. Josephus records 385 at Antiquities 6.12.6) 

We are not told anything else concerning Ahimelech in Scripture.

One of Ahimelech’s sons, Abiathar, was able to escape the massacre, and he is ostensibly the Abiathar whom Christ speaks of. This we read in the following chapter of 1 Samuel, where it is written “And one of the sons of Ahimelech the son of Ahitub, named Abiathar, escaped, and fled after David.” (1 Samuel 22:20 ESV) Abiathar would suffer alongside David throughout his trials, and was made high priest alongside Zadok after David's ascendance to the throne (1 Kings 2:26, 2 Samuel 8:17). But after David died, it happened that Solomon cast Abiathar off from the priesthood on account of Abiathar having sided with Adonijah, and the casting out of Abiathar fulfilled the prophecy spoken against his ancestor Eli’s house (1 Kings 2:27, 1 Samuel 2:27-36).

Abiathar was more well-known to posterity, appearing in several books of Scripture, whereas his father Ahimelech is recorded only in two passages of 1 Samuel. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that "the time of Abiathar the high priest" (Mark 2:26), may have been a much more recognizable period than the time of Ahimelech. Furthermore, it is not unusual for Christ to call Abiathar the high priest even though the title was not yet realized at the time, just as it would not be strange to say that “King David was born in Bethlehem”, even though David did not become king until he was thirty years old. There is nothing erroneous in Christ’s choice of words. Similar colloquialisms are used today. Am I an ignoramus if I say that President George Washington was born in Popes Creek? Am I wrong if I say that President Calvin Coolidge was born in Plymouth Notch, Vermont?

Colloquialisms aside, there is evidence that Christ was more precise than we might initially realize. It is probable that Ahimelech (which means my brother is king) was as much a title as it was a personal name, just as Abimelech (which means my father is king), the latter demonstrably being a title used by both Egyptians and Philistines (Genesis 21:22, 26:1). Now, it was not uncommon for men in the ancient world to be known by more than one name or title, and so if Ahimelech was a title, but the man was also known as Abiathar (which means my father is gracious), then any apparent discrepancy is immediately resolved.

This hypothesis would explain the following reading in 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles, where Abiathar is called Ahimelech, and then his father Ahimelech is called Abiathar:

2 Samuel 8:17 And Zadok the son of Ahitub, and Ahimelech the son of Abiathar, were the priests; and Seraiah was the scribe; 

1 Chronicles 18:16 And Zadok the son of Ahitub, and Abimelech the son of Abiathar, were the priests; and Shavsha was scribe; 

Unless these are scribal errors, it would certainly seem that Ahimelech, the high priest of 1 Samuel 21, was also known as Abiathar, and that his son took his name.

Now if Christ was referring to Ahimelech when He said Abiathar in Mark 2:26, His choice of words may have been deliberately precise, directing focus toward the prophetic foreshadowing found in Ahimelech’s son, also named Abiathar, and known better by that name. It may be a signal to observe certain similarities between the Gospel and 1 Samuel. David was an anointed (Christos) king on the run from a wrathful and jealous civil authority, and Abiathar joined David's band of followers after the massacre at Nob. Throughout David’s journey, he would often request Abiathar’s ephod at times where divine guidance was necessary, and perhaps that relationship was a figure of the kingly and priestly roles which are merged into one in the Messiah (Hebrews 7:14-16, Zechariah 6:13).

Solomon would later tell Abiathar, “you shared in all my father's affliction” (1 Kings 2:26), and so both David and Abiathar were indeed models of Yahshua’s suffering and persecution. On that note of persecution, it cannot be ignored that Abiathar’s father was murdered by an Edomite, a bastard race with an ultimate descent from Cain, and a race which Christ announced as guilty for the blood of all the prophets from righteous Abel to Zecharias (Matthew 23:35, Luke 11:51). As according to that word, Yahshua Christ was also murdered by Edomites, and the escape of Abiathar from certain death under the hand of Doeg the Edomite is certainly a foreshadow of Yahshua's Resurrection.

If we consider the implications, it is profound that in the moment while the Pharisees were persecuting Christ by the grain fields, that He chose to cite the name (in one way or another) of a man who stood as a type for His coming victory over their oppression. This victory resulted in abundant life for the children of Israel, and the name Abiathar means father of abundance. As Christ said “I have come in order that they would have life and they would have abundance!" (John 10:10).

On the other hand, Yahshua Christ was also citing before the Pharisees the name of the man who stood as a type for their imminent removal. For just as the high priest Abiathar supported Adonijah’s claim to the throne when he rejected Solomon, who was selected to be king by Yahweh God, so too would the high priests of the Sadducees proclaim to Pilate that they have “no king but Caesar” in their rejection of Christ (1 Kings 1:7, John 19:15). Abiathar was cast out by Solomon for his treachery, which is the only record of a high priest being deposed in the Old Testament:

1 Kings 2:27 So Solomon thrust out Abiathar from being priest unto the LORD; that he might fulfil the word of the LORD, which he spake concerning the house of Eli in Shiloh. 

Just like Abiathar, the Edomite high priests were also thrust out, for many of the survivors of the destruction of Jerusalem were “taken away captive into all nations” (Luke 21:24). And Christ had also said to them, “The kingdom of Yahweh shall be taken from you and given to a Nation producing its fruits!” (Matthew 21:43).

These three prophetic types would not be so instantly remembered, if Christ had used the name Ahimelech in this discourse. Every word matters, and none of the words of our God are ever used lightly. The choice of the name Abiathar is a signal for us to consider several prophetic types.

Having cited an account from 1 Samuel to demonstrate how Yahweh desires mercy over sacrifice, Christ will now succinctly expound on the purpose of the Sabbath:

2:27 And He said to them: "The Sabbath was for the sake of man and not man for the sake of the Sabbath!

This verse is unique to Mark.

The language in this peculiar verse of Mark could not be any more simple and straight to the point. And yet, even with such a frank exposition, the law is still misunderstood and even twisted into ritualism!

It must be clear: the moral precepts found in the law are not burdensome shackles meant to deprive men of livelihood and enjoyment (1 John 5:3). Yahweh did not burden the backs of Israel with the law simply to make them miserable. While the yoke of the Levitical rituals were necessarily burdensome until they were done away with (Acts 15:10), and served as a lesson in that form, the eternal moral precepts are the recipe of happiness and will never be discarded. The uncorrupt light of the law is the blueprint of a healthy and functioning society. It always will be. The children of Israel were given the law for their own good, as Moses says in Deuteronomy:

Deuteronomy 10:12-13 And now, Israel, what doth the LORD thy God require of thee, but to fear the LORD thy God, to walk in all his ways, and to love him, and to serve the LORD thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul, to keep the commandments of the LORD, and his statutes, which I command thee this day for thy good? 

Therefore, the Sabbath like any other law, is for our own good. Yahweh expressed this in Exodus where He commanded “Six days thou shalt do thy work, and on the seventh day thou shalt rest: that thine ox and thine ass may rest, and the son of thy handmaid, and the stranger, may be refreshed.” (Exodus 23:12) The word translated as refreshed is nâphash (#H5314), which is literally to breathe or passively to be breathed upon. The Sabbath, therefore, is a day to breathe and rest.

But if we deprive ourselves of even the simplest joys on the Sabbath, and refuse to eat a little bit of grain when we are hungry, then what is the Sabbath except a burden? Why would Yahweh ever want this for us? Could the Pharisees explain that? What are we giving to the Sabbath in making that sacrifice? It is not a ritual which demands appeasement for esoteric reasons. How can you give anything to a God who has everything? As Yahweh says in the 50th Psalm, “If I were hungry, I would not tell thee: for the world is mine, and the fulness thereof.” (Psalm 50:12)

The Sabbath was given to us for our own sakes, and it is not only for the health of our own minds and bodies, but also for the maintenance of the community as a whole. It is a day which like any other should be dedicated to our brethren and to our God. It escaped the minds of the Pharisees that they were violating the spirit of the Sabbath in their attempts to prevent men from eating stalks of grain, which can barely be constituted as labor. The Sabbath is described as a day to breathe, but the Pharisees were suffocating men with their legalism.

28 Therefore the Son of Man is Prince of the Sabbath!"

It is written explicitly in the ten commandments (and also illustrated in Genesis) that the Sabbaths originate with Yahweh, where it says that after resting on the seventh day, “wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.” (Exodus 20:11) For that reason, the holy day is sometimes referred to as “the sabbath of the LORD”, and Yahweh affirmed His authority over the Sabbaths when He commanded the children of Israel, “Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep” (Leviticus 23:3, Exodus 31:13). 

Therefore, this declaration of Christ is another witness of His divine authority. Yahweh, being Prince of the Sabbath, can excuse the overstepping of its boundaries when the weightier matter of mercy is paramount, and therefore He permits His students to pluck grain and eat.

This is the concluding verse of what is now the second chapter of Mark, and we have seen several such witnesses of Christ’s divinity throughout this chapter. In its opening, Yahshua was recorded as demonstrating with a miracle that “the Son of Man has authority to forgive errors upon the earth” (Mark 2:10).  As we explored in our commentary titled, Home is Where the Son of Man Is, sin is violation of the law (1 John 3:4), and therefore only Yahweh has the authority to forgive the transgression of His own commandments. Therefore, Daniel prayed, “To the Lord our God belong mercy and forgiveness, for we have rebelled against him” (Daniel 9:9 ESV) By forgiving sin, Yahshua Christ showed that He is the lawgiver who spoke to Moses in the cloud at Sinai.

Then in our previous commentary, titled Fasting for the Bridegroom, we saw Christ describe Himself as the Bridegroom, which demands that He is the same Yahweh God who promised to rebetroth His divorced wife in the prophets (Hosea 2:19-20, Isaiah 62:3-5, Jeremiah 31:3-4, et al). Otherwise, the sacrifice of Christ on the cross was meaningless, and He is a sinner for taking His Father’s wife (Deuteronomy 22:30).

The laws at Sinai were given as the conditions of the Old Covenant (Marriage Covenant), and for that reason Paul of Tarsus described it as the “law of the Husband” in Romans 7. Christ being that same Husband who spoke to Moses on the mountain, all of those laws certainly belong under His own authority, and He affirms such where He proclaims here that “the Son of Man is Prince (κύριος) of the Sabbath!” The primary definition of κύριος (Prince/Lord #G2962), fundamentally denotes one who has power or authority over someone or something, and only the Husband has such authority over the law.

Furthermore, because the Sabbath is a part of the law of the Husband, it should be clear that when Christ said that the Sabbath was for the sake of man, He did not mean the entire race of Adam. Only Israel was married to God and given the law at Sinai, and in fact, the Sabbath also served as a sign of that peculiar marriage and sanctification:

Exodus 31:12-17 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the LORD that doth sanctify you. Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant. It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed. 

As Yahweh says in the prophet Amos, “Can two walk together, except they be agreed?” (Amos 3:3). If the children of Israel were going to faithfully walk with Yahweh as His wife and be holy as He is, then they would have to keep the Sabbath which He Himself blessed and hallowed (Genesis 2:3). This would serve as a sign of their peculiar marriage relationship onto Yahweh God, and their sanctification (being set apart) from all other nations. As Yahweh said, “And ye shall be holy unto me: for I the LORD am holy, and have severed you from other people, that ye should be mine.” (Leviticus 20:26)

As the story unfolded, the children of Israel ultimately profaned their holiness and committed adultery with the bastard races. This was the principle cause of their being put away, and in that divorce, Yahweh said to Hosea “Call his name Loammi: for ye are not my people, and I will not be your God.” (Hosea 1:9) If the children of Israel were divorced and no longer the people of God, then the Sabbath sign of their sanctified marriage relationship would have to be taken away as well, which was announced shortly later in Hosea:

Hosea 2:2 Plead with your mother, plead: for she is not my wife, neither am I her husband: let her therefore put away her whoredoms out of her sight, and her adulteries from between her breasts; […] 10-11 And now will I discover her lewdness in the sight of her lovers, and none shall deliver her out of mine hand. I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast days, her new moons, and her sabbaths, and all her solemn feasts. 

The Hebrew is perhaps indirect in the King James translation, where it says “I will also cause all her mirth to cease”. In the English Standard Version it is assertively translated “And I will put an end to all her mirth”, which is close to how the Greek of the Septuagint is translated by Brenton, where it reads, “And I will take away all her gladness, her feasts, and her festivals at the new moon, and her sabbaths, and all her solemn assemblies.”

It is clear then that in their divorce, the marriage sign of the Sabbaths was taken away from the children of Israel, and it will not return until we are remarried to our God at the end of the age. It is obviously impossible for the entire nation to be obedient to the Sabbaths while under the bondage of captivity in Mystery Babylon, and it is also difficult for many of us to keep the Sabbaths in our own personal lives as we wrestle the nature of employment under captivity. Paul of Tarsus understood that the Sabbaths were taken away in Israel’s divorce, and for that reason wrote to the Israelite Colossians:

Colossians 2:16-17 Therefore no one must judge you in food and in drink, or in respect of feast or new month or of the Sabbaths, which are a shadow of future things. […]

Some in Christian Identity think that the Sabbaths are a ritual which must be practiced with a rigid precision, and they pharisaically exalt themselves over their brethren who do not follow the same calendar as they do. But we cannot even be sure that we are able to accurately reproduce the Hebrew solar calendar, since it is evident that Christ and His apostles did not observe the Passover on the same day as the Judaeans! The apostle John even distinguished the calendar of the Judaeans in his gospel (John 2:13, John 19:42). At some point in history, the Judaean calendar diverged from the Ancient Hebrew calendar, and our attempts to recreate it are likely muddied.

There is no doubt that this obfuscation was the will of Yahweh God, because after all, He took away the Sabbaths and feasts in our divorce. Therefore, again, as Paul wrote “no one must judge you in food and in drink, or in respect of feast or new month or of the Sabbaths”

It is written in the law for us to keep the Sabbath, and even though the children of Israel are divorced and cast off, it is still to our credit if we strive to keep it to the best of our ability regardless. This we read in the 56th chapter of Isaiah, where Yahweh addressed the divorced and estranged Israelites who were deported into the isles by the Assyrians:

Isaiah 56:2-8 Blessed is the man that doeth this, and the son of man that layeth hold on it; that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and keepeth his hand from doing any evil. Neither let the son of the stranger [Estranged Israelites born in captivity], that hath joined himself to the LORD, speak, saying, The LORD hath utterly separated me from his people [the deportations]: neither let the eunuch say, Behold, I am a dry tree. [Israel became a dry tree in her divorce - Hosea 2:3, Ezekiel 19:10-13, Luke 23:31] For thus saith the LORD unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths [only given to Israel], and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant [only given to Israel and none can add themselves]; Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off. [The Israelites who kept the laws even in their deportations would be greatly blessed] Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant; Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people. The Lord GOD which gathereth the outcasts of Israel saith, Yet will I gather others to him, beside those that are gathered unto him. [A prophecy of the reconciliation and gathering of the estranged outcasts of Israel in Christ]

Because of the circumstances of our captivity, in this age we can only do our best to keep the Sabbath in accordance with our own peculiar circumstances and schedules. Each man should set out a time, if able, which works best for him, and should not judge the way in which it is kept by others. In this sense, until the consummation of the age when future things come, every son of man is a prince of the Sabbath, and can lay hold on it according to his own discretion. We should also understand when it is necessary to have mercy over sacrifice, such as when there is an opportunity to pull our fellow sheep out of the ditch on a Sabbath day.

It is not fruitless to practice the Sabbath, “Blessed is the man that doeth this, and the son of man that layeth hold on it; that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and keepeth his hand from doing any evil.” (Isaiah 56:2) Although, it must be remembered that such blessings are largely found in the expectation stored up in the Kingdom, and have no relation to salvation, which is a gift apart from works (Ephesians 2:8).

This concludes our commentary on Mark through chapter two, but the chapter division was not very well placed by the scribes, at least thematically. 

Because this Sabbath account is paired with another in all three synoptic gospels, I had initially wanted to read them together in this commentary. But after noticing several prophetic types in the next account, I decided to save it for its own presentation. I am looking forward to it, Yahweh willing.

Thank you for reading and praise Yahweh, the God of Israel.