Wineskins, Patches and Old Wine
Luke 5.35-39: 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 guests 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 patch from a new garment and sews it on an old one. If he does, he 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. If he does, 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 he says, ‘The old is better.’”
To fast is to abstain from food and in some instances sexual relations for one or more days, most often from sunup to sundown. Fasting was not unique to Israel; it is found in many other religions. Initially, we are tempted to interpret this practice according to our own modern ideas, that is as an ascetic discipline designed to develop self-control and independence from physical or social comforts or as an exercise of “mortification”. That was not, at least directly, the religious meaning of fasting in the Jewish religion.
In the Old Testament, fasting was appropriate for two main circumstances: a tragedy that has happened, or an important event that is to be prepared for. The Jews fasted most often because of a death; fasting was then a sign of mourning (1 Samuel 31.13; 2 Samuel 1.1; 3.35). Fasting was also practiced to commemorate national tragedies (Zechariah 8.19; 2 Kings 24.1-4).
One fasted also to prepare to meet God (Isaiah 58.2-3), as did Moses and then Elijah at Mount Sinai. Fasting before a battle was probably less a supplication than a spiritual preparation: God will come fight at the head of his people (1 Samuel 14.24; 1 Maccabees 3.47). Daniel also fasts in order to prepare himself to meet God, and more specifically to receive his word (Daniel 10.1-3). If the Day of Atonement is a day of fasting (the only one required by the Law of Moses), it is not because fasting atoned for sin, but because it prepared the people for the coming of the Lord who alone can forgive sin (Leviticus 16.29; Numbers 29.7). That explains why prayer and fasting are usually found together (Matthew 6.5-18; Luke 2.37; Acts 13.2-3).
Sometimes, however, fasting became a purely outward act: people fasted not out of love for God (Zechariah 7.5), but as a cheap way to ease their conscience (Isaiah 58; Jeremiah 14.12) or to be seen of men. This is the reproach that Jesus levels at the Pharisees (Matthew 6.16; Luke 18.12), who, out of religious devotion, traditionally fasted twice a week (Monday and Thursday).
If John the Baptist makes it a rule to fast (Luke 7.33) and teaches his disciples to fast, it must be in the sense of preparing for the imminent coming of the kingdom which he preached. Jesus’ answer can only be fully appreciated in this context. Those who are scandalized to see that the disciples of Jesus do not fast do not themselves understand the true meaning of fasting. They give it a value in and of itself, as a spiritual discipline.
The Pharisees’s criticism is not aimed only at the disciples, but is directed in reality at Jesus himself. Other passages teach us, in fact, that a number of people are shocked at Jesus’ less than ascetic lifestyle. He frequently accepts invitations to banquets: a wedding feast at Cana, a great banquet at Levi’s house, etc. (Mark 2.16; Luke 15.2). It is to the point where people call him a glutton and a drunkard (Luke 7.34).
And yet, Jesus’ behavior is a sign: the messianic feast is ready. This is why Jesus takes delight in eating conspicuously with tax collectors and sinners. Fasting was appropriate for the time of preparation (Luke 16.16). But now the Messiah is here; the time to fast is over. Those who continue to hold on to fasting prove that they have not recognized the signs of the times (Matthew 16.3).
The miracles accomplished by Jesus are signs of the coming kingdom. The meals that Jesus eats with sinners and the fact that his disciples do not fast are also signs—for those who know how to read them. Jesus does not teach just with his words; his very way of living is itself a teaching. His actions are symbolic, just like those of the Old Testament prophets. That is why he seems to shock people on purpose. The prophets of Israel attracted, and even forced people’s attention by their eccentric behavior (Isaiah 20.1-6; Ezekiel 4). Jesus also, by his enigmatic behavior, makes people think.
So, if his disciples abstain from fasting, it is not due to a lack of piety. It is because they knew how to discern the signs of the times, contrary to those who are criticizing them. They knew how to recognize in the ministry of Jesus God’s long awaited intervention to fulfill his plan. Fasting, which is a sign of distress, does not befit the joy that the present time gives to the disciples. It is a time of rejoicing for those who are waiting for the salvation of Israel, not a time of fasting and mourning.
In fact, Jesus compares his coming to a joyous wedding banquet. The messianic feast is a wedding feast (Matthew 22.2); that is why Jesus does not hesitate to present himself as the bridegroom (John 3.29). His disciples are the friends of the bridegroom at the wedding. It would be just as out of place for his disciples to fast as it would be for guests at a wedding to moan and lament instead of livening up the party and rejoicing with the newlyweds.
Commentators have long pointed out that the verb used in Luke 5.35 (“taken from”, Gr. airô) is unusual. Is there not an allusion here to the prophecies about the suffering servant in Isaiah? Isaiah 53.8: 8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away. […] For he was cut off from the land of the living. In Biblical language, to “take away” someone means generally a tragic death. We know that the crowd will ask Pilate for the death of Jesus by crying out, “Away with this man!” (Luke 23.18). Thus Jesus is making in this verse a veiled prophecy of his separation from his disciples; a separation not by a natural death but by a violent, tragic death.
We cannot forget, however, that we find the same vocabulary applied to Enoch and Elijah, who were taken away by God to heaven (Genesis 5.24; 2 Kings 2.3ff; Psalm 49.16; 73.24). The two meanings are not mutually exclusive, since Luke uses the word “taken up” to designate in a global sense the destiny of Jesus (Luke 9.51): his death, resurrection and ascension.
Nevertheless, here the emphasis is put on the violent aspect rather than on the glorious aspect. For the first time in the Gospel of Luke, Jesus makes an allusion to his passion. Fasting, which was appropriate for preparing the coming of the Messiah, is out of place, now that he is here. But it will be appropriate again as a sign of mourning after the death of the Master.
The parables of the wineskins and the garments are not about the impossibility of grafting the new Christian spirituality onto the old forms of Judaism. They are rather to be understood in the context of the Pharisees’ accusation about the disciples not observing the traditional fasts. To try to impose fasting upon those who have recognized the imminence of the kingdom will serve only to spoil their rightful joy as well as the true meaning and value of fasting.
Just as trying to sow together two incompatible pieces of cloth would only ruin both of them; just as filling old wineskins with new wine would only result in the loss of both; so the act of fasting would be wasted if practiced during the time that the good news of the kingdom is being proclaimed in Israel. Putting together two things that are incompatible will only end up ruining both of them. The Pharisees are careful not to ruin clothes and wineskins. So why don’t they stop trying to spoil the joy of the disciples by imposing upon them something (fasting) that is not appropriate?
Luke 5.39 is actually a third parable that reinforces what Jesus says in Luke 5.34. The situation that is described is fairly simple, and it is easy to see that Jesus does not blame or disagree with the drinker of old wine. On the contrary, everyone prefers the old wine, which is more mellow, better than the new wine.
In the same way, the asceticism, the forced austerity that the Pharisees want to impose on the disciples doesn’t work with those who have tasted and found better the teaching of Jesus. Why would the disciples want to put themselves under the heavy yoke of the Pharisaical teachers (Matthew 23.4) when they have discovered in Jesus a master who is gentle and humble in heart, a master whose yoke is easy (Gr. chrestos: good, pleasant to carry, well suited; the same word as in Luke 5.39) and light (Matthew 11.28-30)?