Jesus connects Fasting with Parable of New Wine and Old Wineskin

[OwenHeidenreich]

[h=3]Jesus Questioned About Fasting[/h]33 They said to him, “John’s disciples often fast and pray, and so do the disciples of the Pharisees, but yours go on eating and drinking.”


34 Jesus answered, “Can you make the friends of the bridegroom fast while he is with them? 35 But the time will come when the bridegroom will be taken from them; in those days they will fast.”


36 He told them this parable: “No one tears a piece out of a new garment to patch an old one. Otherwise, they will have torn the new garment, and the patch from the new will not match the old. 37 And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. Otherwise, the new wine will burst the skins; the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. 38 No, new wine must be poured into new wineskins. 39 And no one after drinking old wine wants the new, for they say, ‘The old is better.’”



It seems as though there is not a significant connection with Fasting and that parable. What is the connection, why do you think Jesus said the parable at this time?

 

[Spokenpassage]

From how I am reading it, it is separated. My version of verse 36 says, "And He was also telling them a parable:"

But I have noticed that giving alms, praying, and (personal) fasting are mentioned and connected in Matthew 6. Though the bible doesn't instruct us on any of them in the OT, God did not forbid them, especially prayer which is extremely important to the believer in Christ. There is no instructions or teachings on how to pray, (personally) fast, or give alms in the in the Old Testament, they were things people did whether for self gain or for God. Jesus makes a pivotal distinction on what is true prayer, fasting, and giving alms.

 

[Simona25]

I don't think that Jesus Christ is connecting fasting with this parable, but rather He tries to illustrate that each thing, each act that we do, must be adequated to a given situation. The pharisees imputed Jesus that the apostoles did not fast; and He replied (I rephrase):"do you fast when you go to a wedding?", "do you act to a wedding as if you were to a funeral?". No, because the wedding is a time of joy.
He continues with a parable that I understand on two levels:
1. The literal meaning is clear for everybody: you must act intelligently when you patch an old garment or when you pour the wine into the wineskin (you must adequate the wine to the right wineskin).
2. Jesus Christ uses the antinomy new-old to show that something is good especially if you are an intelligent person, if you relate in the right way to that specific thing. It depends on you to potentiate a cloth or a wine; the new cloth and the old wine are virtually good, but if you are a fool, you spoil them. So, both John the Baptist (the old) and Jesus Christ (the new) are good in themselves, but you also must understand them... understand who they are.
The fault lies in the pharisees, not in Jesus or John the Baptist. It is them (the pharisees) that lack coherence.

 

[Simona25]

Another parable that can be connected to this one is the parable of the children in the marketplaces:

Matthew 11:16-19:
[SUP]16 [/SUP]“To what can I compare this generation? They are like children sitting in the marketplaces and calling out to others:
[SUP]17 [/SUP]“‘We played the pipe for you,
and you did not dance;
we sang a dirge,
and you did not mourn.’

[SUP]18 [/SUP]For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon.’ [SUP]19 [/SUP]The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.’ But wisdom is proved right by her deeds.”

The pharisees are like the children that do not want to play, no matter what song the other children (Jesus Christ and John the Baptist) play.

 

[gzusfrk]

Jesus Questioned About Fasting

33 They said to him, “John’s disciples often fast and pray, and so do the disciples of the Pharisees, but yours go on eating and drinking.”


34 Jesus answered, “Can you make the friends of the bridegroom fast while he is with them? 35 But the time will come when the bridegroom will be taken from them; in those days they will fast.”


36 He told them this parable: “No one tears a piece out of a new garment to patch an old one. Otherwise, they will have torn the new garment, and the patch from the new will not match the old. 37 And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. Otherwise, the new wine will burst the skins; the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. 38 No, new wine must be poured into new wineskins. 39 And no one after drinking old wine wants the new, for they say, ‘The old is better.’”



It seems as though there is not a significant connection with Fasting and that parable. What is the connection, why do you think Jesus said the parable at this time?

To me He was talking about the old and new law, the law or ot can not mix with the new He was training His disciples for the new law or gospel as in Matthew 9: 14-17

 

[Simona25]

To me He was talking about the old and new law, the law or ot can not mix with the new He was training His disciples for the new law or gospel as in Matthew 9: 14-17

Was Christ training His disciples or was He responding to the pharisees? I think the parable was addressed to both apostles and pharisees. The parable could be about the old and the new law, indeed. I want to point out that Christ does not associate new with good and old with bad. In the first part of the parable, new is good, while in the second part of it, it is old that it is of value.

 

[oldhermit]

The context of the parable and the wine skins is in direct response to the question in verse 19 - “Why do John’s disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees fast, but Your disciples do not fast?” The parable of the new wine in old wine skins is related to incompatibility, they simply do not go together. Jesus used this comparison of incompatibility to illustrate the point that it is improper for the disciples to be fasting while the bridegroom is present. This is the proper time for feasting. When the bridegroom is taken away, then will be the proper time for fasting.

 

[Simona25]

I believe that the pharisees were too exigent (but also hypocritical) in their moral standard and neither John, nor Jesus have met their expectations. This, according to the parable of the children in the marketplace.
In the parable of the new cloth and old wine, I believe that Jesus Christ is the new cloth (new law) that the pharisee wants to "adjust" with John' s austerity (about whom, the same pharisee that know propose John as a standard for Jesus, said about John, in another occasion, that he had demon, precisely because of his austerity).
In the second part of the parable, John is the old wine and the same pharisee that accused Jesus for being too "soft" with His disciples, wanted to sugarcoat John's standard. Te pharisee simply did not adequate themselves with John (who was preaching repentance and was preparing the coming of Jesus Christ) and Jesus (who came with the good news, came to save the world).

 

[Grandpa]

Was Christ training His disciples or was He responding to the pharisees? I think the parable was addressed to both apostles and pharisees. The parable could be about the old and the new law, indeed. I want to point out that Christ does not associate new with good and old with bad. In the first part of the parable, new is good, while in the second part of it, it is old that it is of value.

He was training His Disciples. He said that He spoke to the pharisees in parables because they wouldn't understand.

Matthew 13:13-16
[SUP]13 [/SUP]Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
[SUP]14 [/SUP]And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:
[SUP]15 [/SUP]For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
[SUP]16 [/SUP]But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear.


Its not that the old is of value in the second. Its that people who have tasted of the old prefer it to the new. The Lord is awesome. He answers the pharisees question right away and then speaks of their error in a parable so everyone can see it except them.

 

[oldhermit]

I believe that the pharisees were too exigent (but also hypocritical) in their moral standard and neither John, nor Jesus have met their expectations. This, according to the parable of the children in the marketplace.
In the parable of the new cloth and old wine, I believe that Jesus Christ is the new cloth (new law) that the pharisee wants to "adjust" with John' s austerity (about whom, the same pharisee that know propose John as a standard for Jesus, said about John, in another occasion, that he had demon, precisely because of his austerity).
In the second part of the parable, John is the old wine and the same pharisee that accused Jesus for being too "soft" with His disciples, wanted to sugarcoat John's standard. Te pharisee simply did not adequate themselves with John (who was preaching repentance and was preparing the coming of Jesus Christ) and Jesus (who came with the good news, came to save the world).

This has nothing to do with the old Law or even the new law. Fasting was never part of the ritualistic law except on the national Day of Atonement in which the entire nation was commanded to fast. The Law is not even mentioned in the context. The question was not about the Law, it was about feasting and fasting.

 

[Simona25]

This has nothing to do with the old Law or even the new law. Fasting was never part of the ritualistic law except on the national Day of Atonement in which the entire nation was commanded to fast. The Law is not even mentioned in the context. The question was not about the Law, it was about feasting and fasting.

Someone here saw the pair new-old as a correspondent of new law and old law. You are right. New cloth and old wine are aspects of a feast. I didn't even saw the connection although Christ was talking about wedding before narrating this parable.
John the Baptist is fasting because Repentance means tears and sobriety, while with Jesus Christ we must feast and rejoice because He is the groom, the comforter that we long for.

 

[Simona25]

He was training His Disciples. He said that He spoke to the pharisees in parables because they wouldn't understand.

Matthew 13:13-16
[SUP]13 [/SUP]Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
[SUP]14 [/SUP]And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:
[SUP]15 [/SUP]For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
[SUP]16 [/SUP]But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear.


Its not that the old is of value in the second. Its that people who have tasted of the old prefer it to the new. The Lord is awesome. He answers the pharisees question right away and then speaks of their error in a parable so everyone can see it except them.

Sometimes, the pharisees understood that Jesus Christ was talking about them, which is why y I believe they hated Him. Not all the times the disciples of Jesus Christ understood His parables (to Jesus Christ's exasperation). The verses from Matthew, that you gave, represent the answer of Jesus Christ to the apostles question "why do you talk in parables?". I don't think that Jesus was training His disciples when He was telling parables. The same parables were heard by both disciples, pharisee and the mass of people.

 

[Grandpa]

This has nothing to do with the old Law or even the new law. Fasting was never part of the ritualistic law except on the national Day of Atonement in which the entire nation was commanded to fast. The Law is not even mentioned in the context. The question was not about the Law, it was about feasting and fasting.

What about the wedding garment?

The old being dirty rags and the new being white as snow?

What about the Holy Spirit being poured into old vessels vs. those vessels who are made new in Him?

2 Corinthians 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

 

[oldhermit]

What about the wedding garment?

The old being dirty rags and the new being white as snow?

What about the Holy Spirit being poured into old vessels vs. those vessels who are made new in Him?

2 Corinthians 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

Like the wine skin, the illustration of the garments is about incompatibility. Just as one should not put a new patch on an old garment because the garment will be damaged and one should not put new wine in an old wineskin because the skin will burst and both the skin and the wine will be wasted. So too, one does not mix fasting with the time of feasting as fasting is incompatible with celebration nor should one mix feasting with the time of sorrow and mourning because they simply do not go together. Nothing is mentioned in the text about the law or the Holy Spirit.

 

[Simona25]

What about the wedding garment?

The old being dirty rags and the new being white as snow?

What about the Holy Spirit being poured into old vessels vs. those vessels who are made new in Him?

2 Corinthians 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

I think you may be right about the old being dirty rags but only in the first part of the parable (the one with the cloth), because in the second part, it is the old wine that is the good, better one.

 

[Grandpa]

Sometimes, the pharisees understood that Jesus Christ was talking about them, which is why y I believe they hated Him. Not all the times the disciples of Jesus Christ understood His parables (to Jesus Christ's exasperation). The verses from Matthew, that you gave, represent the answer of Jesus Christ to the apostles question "why do you talk in parables?". I don't think that Jesus was training His disciples when He was telling parables. The same parables were heard by both disciples, pharisee and the mass of people.

Do you think someone who is in training always understands the Master? Nope.

The same parables were heard by all but only the ones who have blessed to hear and blessed to see have a chance to understand them, and be trained...

 

[Grandpa]

I think you may be right about the old being dirty rags but only in the first part of the parable (the one with the cloth), because in the second part it is the new wine that spoils the old good wine.

No where does it say that the old wine is good. Nor does it say that the new wine spoils the old wine. It says that if they are mixed the wineskin will burst.

 

[Simona25]

Do you think someone who is in training always understands the Master? Nope.

The same parables were heard by all but only the ones who have blessed to hear and blessed to see have a chance to understand them, and be trained...

I agree. I only want to say that Jesus Christ was teaching everybody through parables. He did not adapted his speech to certain, specific groups. The same message was heard by everybody, but not anybody understood Him.

 

[Simona25]

No where does it say that the old wine is good. Nor does it say that the new wine spoils the old wine. It says that if they are mixed the wineskin will burst.

Yes, I edited my post. It does say, however, that the old wine is better.

 

[Simona25]

There are two premises that have been proposed in order to understand the parable:

1. The first one is: the text is discontinuos, the parable has nothing to do with the question that has been asked by the pharisees. Jesus Christ says the parable in another occasion, in order to teach the disciples alone.
2. The second one is that the parable is a response to a question and a continuation of Christ's answer: "Can you make the friends of the bridegroom fast...?".

Because there is no clear indication that the text is discontinous, I read the text from the perspective of the second premise, hence I understand the parable as connected to fast and feast, rather than to new and old law.

We must first agree on what is actually a parable. The parable was a didactical method very spread in the Oriental world. Whenever the disciples dealt with a difficult text or a difficult concept, the master, instead of using an argumentative speech or established definitions, would rather illustrate the concept through a parable (something like "You don't understand? Let me put it for you this way, let me tell you a story"). So, a parable's purpose is to explain something abstract with the mean of concrete situations put in stories. The parable is a clarification. The fact that Jesus Christ used it with the opposite purpose, like you have noticed, ("Therefore, I talk to them in parables so that they don't understand") is something extra-ordinary and even scandalous (at the first sight).

If we look at what the parable literally says, it simply talks about incompatibility, like Olderhermit said. You don't tear a piece of a new garment to patch an old one, simply because it's very unwise (it's not imoral if you do so, it's simply stupid).
It doesn't say that the old garment is worthy to be thrown away, on the contrary, if you want to repair it, is because you want to keep that old garment too. So, the concrete story talks about wise and unwise, not about good or bad.

Now, if we accept the context in which the parable has been told and if we take in account what a parable actually is, there is no way that Jesus Christ could be talking about the law when the question was about fasting.

They said to him, “John’s disciples often fast and pray, and so do the disciples of the Pharisees, but yours go on eating and drinking.”

I have identified "they" with the pharisees (the haters), and I implied that the question was bad-intented. But, "they" could be others than the pharisees and the question could be candid. In their heads (whoever is behind "they". In Matthew 9, 14-17, is the disciples of John that ask the question), so, in their heads, according to their expectations, a moral man, a teacher should fast and be sober (John the Baptist was a model of morality and austerity).
The question "why don't your disciples fast", implies that the disciples are not moral men and that their master is, at least, a weird master (for someone, He was even an imoral person, because Jesus didn't fit their moral standard).

The question is asked from a moral point of view, but Jesus Christ shows them through His answers and through His parable that fasting and feasting are not matters of morality or imorality, but about adequation to the situation, about compatibility. The disciples of John are not more moral than Christ's disciples - they simply adequate their fasting to the proper time. Just like the disciples of Jesus Christ are not imoral for eating and drinking (feasting) - they are simply adequated to the given situation: they have Christ with them (the groom), so they feast.