Who is the son of man?

I turn now to the book of Mark, to the second chapter, with attention to verses 20-28. Two brief, but telling, parables present themselves in this text. They occur in the early portion of Christ's three-year ministry, and it is illuminating to read that more than disciples traveled with him. Pharisees seem to have dogged his early steps, and we have to ask 'why?'

It could be they traveled with him from town to town. Although new on the scene, Jesus had quickly become a person of interest. It could be that the Pharisees mentioned in this text merely came out to meet him as he entered their town. Christ had a routine of speaking at the synagogues of towns he visited. Perhaps word traveled ahead of him.

Turns out he had been in Capernaum healing the sick and amazing onlookers with unexpected miracles. He had been asked why his disciples did not fast. Perhaps there was a regular time for that ritual, but it appears Jesus and his disciples were maxed out with all the people brought to Peter's house for healing. He called the tax collector to be a disciple, there by the sea. He ate with him a feast that included not only his disciples, new and old; not only the women that ministered to him, and that would have included some children, but also forgiven sinners, publicans, and recently healed believers. The numbers could well have reached into the hundreds.

Let us not forget that church leaders and teachers of the law, Pharisees, Sadducees, and lawyers followed along. There was much interest from the latter as to whether Jesus and his following would 'get it right' – according to the law. They fasted, they observed the law, they wanted to know why Jesus and his disciples did not. Jesus had an answer in Mark 2:19-20. He said, “Can the children of the bridechamber fast while the bridegroom is with them? As long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast. But the days will come when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then shall they fast in those days.”

It is a short, but telling, parable. First of all, it tells us that we are not looking at guests to a wedding, as we have seen in other parables. These are neither guests nor attendees, they are children – and not only that, they are 'children of the bridechamber.' There was a certain mythos surrounding the concept of the bridal chamber. It was a secret place meant only for the union of a noble heir and his virgin bride. It was the place where future heirs were engendered.

Fasting is set forth in the light of two opposing associations. First is the joy of knowing you are heir to your father. Second is the void that is filled with rituals and customs of men. The one speaks of certainty while the other says we are on hold, waiting for a hope to be fulfilled. For those who followed Jesus, those whose faith proved them, that hope was fulfilled in Christ.

To further explain what he was saying, he added the parable of the patch and the wine bottles. These should not be viewed apart from what he just said about fasting. They are an addendum to that topic. They, along with the part about fasting, constitute the three witnesses that prove a point. When Christ says that a patch made from new material will only worsen the rent in an old garment, ask yourself what that has to do with fasting, with waiting for a hope to be fulfilled. When Christ says that new wine will burst used bottles, ask yourself what that has to do with fasting, with waiting for a hope to be fulfilled. Note the spirit and mental state of the children of the bridechamber and compare that with the spirit involved in mending a torn garment or ensuring the successful fermentation of a new batch of wine.

It is for you, the reader, to ascertain your own thoughts on this issue, for I will deal separately with the parable of mending and wine making. I will examine the wording and meaning of this important parable at length in another section of this study. For now, it is necessary that you keep the connection of these three alive in your thinking. As with the associations of the fasting issue, both mending and wine making also have two opposing associations. With the mending, it is old patch or new patch, and which one is the right choice. With wine making, it is old bottle or new bottle, and which one is the right choice.

Then Jesus walked through a field of wheat or barley. With him traveled the disciples, the women that served and attended the needs of his ministry, all the publicans and sinners and healed believers that followed him, and the Pharisees that observed and tested his ministerial strengths. It was the Sabbath, so that meant they couldn't walk awfully far. It also meant that a synagogue was the likely destination. The Pharisees brought a point to Christ's attention. His disciples were plucking grain on the Sabbath. Obviously, they saw it as a breach of Sabbath law. Why did the disciples do it?

It seems reasonable to assume that the disciples of Christ frequented synagogues and were as aware as any others of the laws of the Sabbath. We know that Christ was big on the law – that is, the core law – and often took a stand against legalisms and nitpicking. Were the disciples hungry, were they bored? Had their supplies run low? Had Christ asked his disciples to pick grains knowing the Pharisees would be keen to bring it up? Christ had a point to make, and while we may tire of the Pharisees' constant nagging and ragging, I think that Christ included them in his ministry as much as his disciples. I get the sense of Christ revamping an entire religious system on the go.

Christ answered the Pharisees with an example from scripture they would know well. David and his men ate showbread in the temple, and none of them were priests – but they were men. He explained to them that the Sabbath was made for men, therefore, the 'son of man' was also Lord of the Sabbath. He explained that men should not be slaves to the Sabbath, therefore, 'the son of man' was also Lord of the Sabbath. Why do you think Jesus used that expression? It is not said that Christ picked any of the grain; he was not defending himself, neither was he defending his disciples, but he was refuting the Pharisees' notions of what was right and wrong.

He could have said that the King of Kings was Lord of the Sabbath, but he didn't. He said the Lord of the Sabbath was the son of man. So, who was the son of man? Who is he still? Was the son of man the bridegroom? Of course he was. Then, aren't the children of the bridechamber, the heirs of all their father gives, also the sons of man? The question is, do men control their customs, or do the customs control men? Finally, are you a son of man? If so, then take control.