QUESTIONING BY THE DISCIPLES OF JOHN

“Christ Eating With Sinners” Artist Unknown, from Christ The King College, Isle of Wight

QUESTIONING BY THE DISCIPLES OF JOHN

Matthew 9:14-17; Mark 2:18-22; Luke 5:33-39

Jesus was at the banquet thrown by his latest recruit, Matthew Levi, the Tax Collector. The Pharisees and Scribes are critical of his sitting down with such people as Matthew’s friends. Jesus tells them, “I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” He then orders them to “go you and learn what that means, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”

What then did the Pharisees and Scribes think of this order? These were men that were very familiar with scripture. The would probably immediately turn to Hosea 6:6, “For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgement of God rather than burnt offerings.”

It is probably wise to look at the whole passage in Hosea, because I think it is key to understanding what Christ then tells the disciples of John and his two parables.

Come, let us return to the Lord. He has torn us to pieces, but he will heal us; he has injured us, but he will bind up our wounds. After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will restore us that we may live in his presence. Let us acknowledge the Lord; let us press on to acknowledge him. As surely as the sun rises, he will appear; he will come to us like the winter rains, like the spring rains that water the earth.”

What can I do with you, Ephraim? What can I do with you, Judah? Your love is like the morning mist, like the early dew that disappears. Therefore I cut you in pieces with my prophets, I killed you with the words of my mouth—
then my judgments go forth like the sun.

For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings. As at Adam, they have broken the covenant; they were unfaithful to me there. Gilead is a city of evildoers, stained with footprints of blood.

As marauders lie in ambush for a victim, so do bands of priests; they murder on the road to Shechem, carrying out their wicked schemes. I have seen a horrible thing in Israel: There Ephraim is given to prostitution, Israel is defiled. Also for you, Judah,
a harvest is appointed. Whenever I would restore the fortunes of my people.”

--Hosea 6: 1-11

Hosea was a prophet living in northern Israel between 780 and 725 BC. His name means, “He saves” and was the original name of Joshua. The Book of Hosea is prophecies concerning Israel’s infidelity to God. These prophecies came just before the Northern Kingdom fell. Using the marriage of Hosea to Gomer and their children, the Book outlines God’s “divorce” from Israel as his people, but with the promise he will one day restore them. The book points toward Christ as Savior and of a new covenant in which God makes the sacrifice and sheds his mercy on those people who will accept it.

In other words, in hindsight, we can see the coming of Christ to people who are not Israel, who will be accepting of God’s love and mercy, but with the promise that God will not desert Israel completely. It points to not following some list of rules to gain God’s mercy, but an acknowledgment of God.

The Pharisees, however, had long followed a growing list of dos and don’ts. This we see implied in their condemnation of Jesus sitting down to eat with Publicans and sinners. We see this futher in the question about fasting put forth by the disciples of John the Baptist and the Pharisees’ followers.

And Then came to him the disciples of John and of the Pharisees used to fast and they come and say to him, saying, “Why do we the disciples of John and likewise of the Pharisees fast oft, but your disciples fast not, but eat and drink?”

And Jesus said to them, “Can the children of the bridechamber mourn while the bridegroom is with them? As long as the bridegroom is with them they cannot fast? But the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken from them, and then shall they fast in those days.”

John the Baptist has been jailed. Perhaps his disciples have come to Jesus looking toward him as a possible new leader to follow. They have been devout Jews and now they find Jesus and his Disciples behaving in ways that seem wrong to them. John had lived an ascetic life, eating locust and honey and here is this man Jesus feasting and drinking with sinners. The disciples of John probably have more in common with the Pharisees and Scribes at this point than in what Jesus is teaching.

When they ask about this, Jesus’ explanation must have been somewhat mystifying to them. “Can the children of the bridechamber mourn while the bridegroom is with them? As long as the bridegroom is with them they cannot fast? But the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken from them, and then shall they fast in those days.” They would understand such a saying as it applied to the betrothal traditions, but how did that apply to this situation? We can look at this and associate it with Christ being the groom and the church being his bride. We can look at this and understand that Jesus will eventually be crucified. But John’s disciples would not have understood those things at this time. And then Jesus follows this up with a couple of mystifying parables that seem unrelated to anything.

And he spoke also a parable to them. “No man also sews a piece of new cloth to an old garment, for else the new piece that which is put in to fill it up takes from the old garment, and the rent is made worse. If otherwise, then both the new makes a rent, and the piece that was taken out of the new agrees not with the old. And neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the new wine burst the bottles and the wine is spilled, and the bottles will be marred, perish: but they put new wine into new bottles and both are preserved.

“No man also having drunk old wine straightway desires new: for he says, the old is better.”

From practical application we know what is stated is true. If you patch an old garment with new cloth that has not been shrunk, then the patch does not match the old garment so that when it is washed the new patch shrinks. When this happens the shrinking patch will pull taunt and make the original tear worse. We also realize that the bottles being referred to here are not glass, but animal skins. Wineskins are filled with new wine and as the wine ferments it stretches the skins. If the old wine is used up and the skins dry they become cracked and weak. When refilled with new wine they are at risk of bursting.

But what has patches and old wineskins to do with the question asked by John’s disciples and the Pharisees concerning their fasting verses Jesus and his band feasting? Everything. These parables are very difficult. I have heard people say the new wine and the new patch represent Christianity. It is said then that the old garment that is rent further by the new patch or the bottles destroyed by the new wine is Judaism. Christianity replaces Judaism and old wine is the Old Testament and the new wine the New Testament.

But this doesn’t make a lot of sense. Both parables say you don’t put something new on or in something old without destruction to the old. How could this be so? Did the appearance of the New Testament do away with the Old Testament? Was it Jesus’ purpose to destroy Judaism? If this is the meaning of these parables, than how do we square it with what Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount?

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.– Matthew 5: 17-20 (KJV)

And how does such an explanation fit with the statement stated immediately after he tells these parables? “No man also having drunk old wine straightway desires new: for he says, the old is better.”

Where did this section begin? It began with Jesus calling Simon Peter, Andrew, James and John from their nets to follow him and be fishers of men. This question by John’s Disciples about fasting is raised right after Matthew leaves his tax stand to also follow Jesus. What lies not far ahead in this time frame is Jesus is naming his twelve Apostles.

And who are these Disciples of Jesus in the eyes of the Pharisees and Scribes, and probably John the Baptist’s Disciples as well? They are riff-raff, common ignorant men, and in the case of Matthew, a traitor. Here comes this bunch of fishermen and a tax collector joining Jesus as his closest companions. Why these guys? Why didn’t Jesus take in John the Baptist’s Disciples or recruit from the highly educated Pharisee class? If you were sent from God, wouldn’t you surround yourself with the “godly” people?

When Jesus tells the two parables there is no indication anyone present asked any questions. Is this because the Gospel writers choose not to present any opposing remarks or is it that what Jesus said was not altogether unfamiliar to the “godly” people asking him about fasting?

There are Jewish writings called Avots that the Pharisees and Scribes were probably familiar with. These were writings by Rabbis and teachers that dealt with religious thought and interpretation of the Torah. Contained in one of these called the Pirkei Avot (Chapters of the Fathers or Ethics of the Fathers) is a discussion with some similarity to these parables.

Elisha ben Avuyah said: "He who studies as a child, unto what can he be compared? He can be compared to ink written upon a fresh sheet of paper. But he who studies as an adult, unto what can he be compared? He can be compared to ink written on a smudged sheet of paper.

Rabbi Yose ben Yehudah of the city of Babylon said, "He who learns from the young, unto what can he be compared? He can be compared to one who eats unripe grapes, and drinks unfermented wine from his vat. But he who learns from the old, unto what can he be compared? He can be compared to one who eats ripe grapes, and drinks old wine.

Rabbi (Meir) said: Do not pay attention to the container but pay attention to that which is in it. There is a new container full of old wine, and here is an old container which does not even contain new wine.

In essence, Jesus has chosen untrained men who will study ink on fresh paper. This will allow them to see clearly what the truth of God’s words are rather then losing sight of the meaning in old ink that shows through the smudges of used paper.

Jesus is not bringing a new religious, he is bringing the truth to the old, which has been distorted and smudged with the ideas of men to the point the original truth God intended seems like some radical new idea. The Pharisees and Scribes have been taught since youth the wrong things, but this makes them like used wineskins, they will not easily accept the truth. The old wine is the previous teachings of men and the new wine is Jesus’ new teaching of the truth. The old cloth are the over-educated, the new cloth those who are teachable. It will be easier for these uneducated fishermen and sinners to understand the message Jesus is bringing, that God desires mercy, not sacrifice, then those long fermenting in the idea of sacrifice, not mercy. They are, as an old saying goes, “Too heavenly minded to be any earthly good.” Or perhaps, they “can’t see the forest for the trees.”

“No man also having drunk old wine straightway desires new: for he says, the old is better.” Do you understand? This is like all those people who tell you, “That’s how we always did it.” Once you have been thoroughly inebriated on the old, it is difficult to enjoy the new.