Bradley Tibbs
Nov15, 2000
Dr. Lyons
BL425
A
Wedding, a Patch, and a Wineskin
Then the disciples of John came to
him, saying, “Why do we and the Pharisees fast often, but your disciples do not
fast?” and Jesus said to them, “The
wedding guests cannot mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them, can they? The days will come when the bridegroom is taken
away from them, and then they will fast. No
one sews a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old cloak, for the patch pulls away from the
cloak, and a worse tear is made. Neither is
new wine put into old wineskins; otherwise, the skins burst, and the wine is spilled, and
the skins are destroyed; but new wine is put into fresh wineskins, and so both are
preserved.” (Matthew 9:14-17)
The
illustration of the wedding, the patch, and the wineskin is given in all three of the
Synoptic Gospels. The situation preceding
them is the same in all three: Jesus has called Matthew (named “Levi” in Mark
and Luke) and then gone to his house for a banquet. Matthew
is a tax collector and the text reads “many tax collectors and sinners came and were
sitting with [Jesus] and his disciples.” When
the Pharisees saw Jesus with the sinners they asked the disciples, “Why does your
teacher sit with tax collectors and sinners?” According
to Mark and Luke, Jesus says the healthy do not need a doctor, but the sick do. Matthew then adds, “Go and learn what this
means, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’”
At this point the Evangelist report that some disciples of John came to Jesus
asking him why he and the disciples do not fast as they and the Pharisees do. In the previous scene the question is whether
Jesus should eat with outcasts. Now the
question is whether he should be eating at all. (Mounce 84). Perhaps this tension highlights the distinction
that was developing between the traditional worship practices of Judaism and the new
spirit of the messianic age (Mounce 85).
Exegesis
Even John the Baptist was confused as to who exactly Jesus was regarding his
messianic role. He had preached, “I
baptize with water … he will baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire … the
chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.” Yet
Jesus didn’t seem to be burning up much chaff. Actually,
he was spending a lot of time hanging around with
the “chaff” at parties and dinners. In
Matthew 11, two chapters after this passage about fasting, in order to clarify their
convictions, John’s disciples come asking if Jesus really is the one they should be expecting.
“Why do … your disciples not fast?” Jesus responds with a series of brief (aphoristic) parables. The first simply takes the form of a rhetorical question: “The wedding guests cannot mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them, can they?” The relationship between God and his followers was typically described as a marriage. Jesus acknowledges the importance of fasting, but denies its appropriateness in the present messianic situation. Fasting was an exercise of sadness or affliction. So as long as the bridegroom is here, there is no need to fast. “The days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast.” Here, Jesus’ words become prophetic, perhaps even eschatological. “Feasting” was a stock image for the future, messianic, eternal banquet in the kingdom of heaven.
Do the words “the
bridegroom will be taken away” imply that Jesus understood at this point that he was
going to be killed? Some scholars question
the authenticity of these words as from Jesus, because they turn the parable into an
allegory (Hill 177). But modern scholars are backing
away from the Nineteenth century assumption that Jesus' parables were never allegorical.
Furthermore, Jesus may have actually have said this at a later point in his
ministry than the Evangelists report it. Perhaps Jesus was merely indicating that he and
the disciples would not always be together -- death would eventually separate them,
whether he anticipated his crucifixion at this point or not. We should not read too much into this statement.
Jesus' point remains: Because God is bringing a new spirit to his people in his ministry,
it is right to rejoice and be thankful.
The next two short sayings are not associated as closely with the question John’s disciples asked. They emphasize the danger of mixing “the old with the new.” Jesus says you do not put a new patch on an old torn garment or put new wine into old wineskins. Some scholars suggest that the old garment and the old skins refer to the old Jewish traditions that could not contain the new Christian principles. This view is hard to see in Luke who emphasized the old: “And no one after drinking old wine desires new wine, but says, ‘the old is good.’” Matthew would also have difficulty with choosing the new Christianity over the old Judaism. Matthew walks the fine line between both traditions, as if you cannot have one without the other. Matthew’s concern is to use both the old and the new rightly — if you put the new wine into the old skins, you will end up with neither. Matthew adds, put the new with the new “and so both are preserved.” In essence, both the practices of John’s disciples and of Jesus’ disciples are important, but how can the two be simultaneously put together? They cannot.
Where do we draw the lines today? As
Christians, how responsible are we our Jewish roots?
Likewise, how much of our church today should reflect the early church, and how much should it reflect our contemporary society? In what ways do we remain patriotic and faithful
to our culture while embracing the increasingly multicultural society around us? I think we can learn something from Matthew’s
style, as well as from our own Wesleyan heritage. Maybe
when we try to draw lines, we’re asking the wrong questions. There is no single program for being a Christian
or being a church. The objective is to be
like Jesus, who set the example of holy living without clearly defining the limits of that
journey. It can be frustrating if we try to
find the religious answers in black and white. It
was frustrating for the disciples, and for those who came to Jesus with a tough question,
and Jesus simply responded to them with another question.
We ought to accept the paradox of life and do our best to remain faithful. After all, it is our obedience and not our
sacrifice that pleases God. The question is
not old versus new; it is obedience
to our best understanding versus disobedience. How can we appreciate God’s grace without
understanding the limits of the law? And how can we feast today without having been sad
and contrite yesterday? And what about tomorrow;
what will it hold? How would the branches be supported if there was no root (an
allusion to Paul's imagery in Romans 11)? All
are necessary, but the point is for all of us to do our part for God. For God is the gardener who does the growing, and
he is the judge of our hearts.
Bibliography
Hagner, Donald A. Word Biblical Commentary; the Gospel of Matthew
1-13. Vol 33a Dallas:
Word
Incorporated, 1993.
Hill, David. The New Century Bible Commentary; Gospel of Matthew
Grand Rapids, Mich.:
Eerdmans, 1981, c1972.
Manson,
T.W. The Sayings of Jesus. London: SCM Press Ltd., 1949.
Mounce, Robert H. New
International Bible Commentary; Matthew. Peabody,
Mass. :
Hendrickson
New Revised Standard Version of the
Bible.
Schweizer, Eduard. The Good News According to Matthew. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1975.