And the disciples of John and the Pharisees were fasting; and they come and say to him, Why do the disciples of John and [the disciples] of the Pharisees fast, but thy disciples fast not?
John the Baptist's followers fasted. So did the Pharisees. The disciples of Jesus did not — and the question came straight to Him. Three groups of disciples stand behind it, and the questioners had missed one plain fact.
Earlier in the chapter they took their complaints about the Master to His disciples. Now they turn it around.
But the Pharisees grow more bold. First they went to the disciples with questions about the Lord, hoping to shake their confidence in Him. Now they come to the Lord with questions about the disciples, hoping to find fault with them.
The same practice joined John's followers and the Pharisees. The hearts behind it were not the same.
This shows that people may fast for very different reasons. John's disciples no doubt fasted out of self-judgment, for they were taught to judge the sin of the flesh. The disciples of the Pharisees likely fasted out of self-righteousness, as something to boast about, as in Luke 18:11-12. That was only an offense to God, while the first was honest and honorable.
The two groups did not ask in the same spirit.
It is hard to suppose that the Pharisees sincerely wanted to be taught... Most likely they hoped that some word of His would give them a basis for attack. John's disciples were different. They may well have been bringing the Lord a spiritual difficulty they could not get past. It rested on the striking contrast between John and Jesus, and their limited knowledge could not reconcile the two. John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine; the Son of Man came eating and drinking. Who was right?
John's followers had reasons for what they did.
They were not without support from Scripture for tying fasting to the coming of the Messiah's kingdom — though that support lay more in their own imagination than in reality. They would remember the long fast of Moses when God gave the law, and the long fast of Elijah in the days when the law was restored. John had come in Elijah's spirit. Zechariah prophesied of a fountain opened for sin and uncleanness, and of Jerusalem's rescue from the nations that oppressed her. Did he not also prophesy a great mourning in Jerusalem in that day? Joel too calls the people to fasting and prayer, because the day of the LORD is near.
Their problem was not what they knew of Scripture. It was blindness to the Person in front of them.
They had made the common mistake of thinking about the coming kingdom and forgetting that the King was already there with them. They were busy arranging the Bridegroom's affairs while overlooking the Bridegroom Himself. They were full of the sense of their own guilt as sinners, and ignorant of the presence of the Saviour of sinners. There is a time to fast and a time to feast. The real question was which of the two was in season.
Underneath the complaint lay a fixed idea about godliness.
The Pharisees' idea was that godly people should not be thoroughly happy, even if they could be! The complaints came both from them (Luke 5:33) and from John's disciples (Matthew 9:14).
The Lord's disciples had not fallen below John's. They had gone one step further.
All that John brought from God was true. All that his ministry produced in his disciples was right and fitting. But the Lord's disciples had gone one step further. They were no longer taken up with the badness of the flesh — still less with its supposed goodness. He who was all the delight of God's heart had won their hearts... It was He Himself who filled their hearts with joy; there was no fasting in His presence.
The Lord does not abolish fasting. He dates it.
The days were coming when Christ would no longer be present. That is a solemn thought for these opponents of grace. Then fasting would indeed be fitting — not only fasting from food, but from the pleasures of a world that has rejected Christ. As always, the Lord does more than answer their question. Their very question proves how unable they were to enter into God's new ways in grace.
- Question — The complaint moves from the disciples to Christ Himself. The Pharisees wanted a word to attack. John's followers brought a real difficulty.
- Motives — The same fast can come from self-judgment or from self-righteousness. One is honest before God. The other offends Him.
- Bridegroom — They were busy with the coming kingdom and missed the King already standing among them.
- Joy — Fasting stops in His presence. Not because holiness drops, but because the One who is God's delight has won their hearts.
- Season — Fasting is not cancelled but dated. Days were coming when Christ would no longer be present. Then His people would fast — from the pleasures of a world that rejected Him.
And Jesus said to them, Can the sons of the bride-chamber fast while the bridegroom is with them? As long as they have the bridegroom with them they cannot fast.
John's disciples and the Pharisees kept regular fasts. The Lord's disciples were sitting at a feast in a tax collector's house. Jesus answers the complaint with no rule about food, but with a wedding picture that tells them who He is.
They were asking when to fast, and missing the Person in front of them.
They had fallen into the common error of thinking of the coming kingdom and of forgetting that the King was already present with them. They were busy arranging the Bridegroom's affairs while overlooking the Bridegroom Himself. They were full of the sense of their own guilt as sinners, and ignorant of the presence of the Saviour of sinners. There is a time to fast and a time to feast. The real question was which of the two fitted the moment.
The words behind "wedding guests" mean "sons of the bridechamber." Older translations say "children of the bridechamber." They are the groom's own circle, not the bride.
The Lord was the Bridegroom. While He was on earth the 'sons' (companions, friends) of the bridechamber could not mourn or fast. In His absence they would. Matt. 9:15; Mark 2:19; Luke 5:34. The friend of the Bridegroom — the place John the Baptist gave himself — is kept distinct from the bride herself. John 3:29.
The picture He chose says what He had come as, and what He had not come as.
He was among them as One who served them all in love. He had not come in the majesty of His might to condemn. He came with the olive branch, not the iron rod — as the Bridegroom, not as the Judge.
The disciples were not less serious than John's followers. Something had taken hold of them that the others had never tasted.
But the disciples of the Lord had advanced one step further. They were not taken up with how bad the flesh is (still less with any supposed goodness in it). He who was all the delight of God's heart had won their hearts. So the Lord answered, "Can you make the children of the bridechamber fast, while the Bridegroom is with them?" He Himself filled their hearts with joy. There was no fasting in His presence.
The men who asked the question could not see that joy at all.
Those who were only disciples of John had no real sense of the Bridegroom's presence, and the Pharisees, full of forms and self-righteousness, had even less. It was joy to the believing disciples of Jesus. Feeble as they were, they had left their all for Him, and they tasted a divine bliss in Him wholly unknown to the others.
Jesus does not cancel fasting. He gives it a time. His next words look ahead to the day He is taken away, and to a fasting wider than skipping meals.
The days were coming when Christ would be no longer present. That was a solemn thing for these opponents of grace to weigh. Then fasting would be fitting — not only fasting from food, but from the pleasures of a world that has rejected Christ.
That absence is our own day, and it settles where we now stand:
Let us take note of this, for we live in the day when fasting is a fitting thing. The Bridegroom has long been absent, and we are waiting for Him... Now we have the place of the Bride rather than that of the children of the bridechamber, and that makes it clearer still that fasting, not feasting, fits us... Fasting is giving up lawful things to be more wholly for God. It is not only going without food for a set time.
Since He has gone, the two things His answer separated now run side by side in the believer's life.
It is true that for us, since He has departed, the fasting and the rejoicing go on together. We pass through a judged world where Christ is not, and so we fast. We also live in His presence and have Him always with us, and so we rejoice... But the lesson stands, and we cannot write it too deeply on our hearts: it is the presence of the Lord that is our joy. May we never seek it from any other source.
- Presence — the whole answer turns on one fact: the Bridegroom was there. They were busy with the coming kingdom and had overlooked the King already among them.
- Position — "sons of the bridechamber" are the Bridegroom's companions, not the bride. John the Baptist took that place too, as the Bridegroom's friend.
- Person — He came holding out the olive branch, not the iron rod — as the Bridegroom, not as the Judge. Joy, not mourning, matched that.
- Privilege — the disciples were not stricter than John's followers, only more taken with Christ. He had won their hearts, and a won heart cannot fast.
- Parting — He times the fast instead of cancelling it. With the Bridegroom gone, self-denial fits: giving up lawful things to be wholly for God. Yet He is still with us, so joy runs alongside the sorrow.
But days will come when the bridegroom shall have been taken away from them, and then shall they fast in that day.
John's disciples and the Pharisees fasted, and people asked Jesus why His own disciples did not. He answered with a wedding: no one mourns while the bridegroom is there — and in this verse He warns that the Bridegroom will not stay.
The Lord's answer works only if He Himself is the Bridegroom. That claim reaches back to the prophet Hosea.
It was clearly out of place for there to be fasting in the presence of a bridegroom, whatever the motive. A wedding season is, by common agreement, one linked with joy, from the days of Adam and Eve in Eden. John's disciples had to learn this. The Lord Jesus was presenting Himself to the daughter of Zion as her Bridegroom. He came to betroth Himself to her "in righteousness and in justice, in steadfast love and in mercy," in the spirit of Hosea's prophecies. God had raised up a horn of salvation for His people. Was that a day for a man to afflict his soul, to bow his head like a reed, and to cover himself with sackcloth and ashes?
The last words of the verse are worth a closer look. Mark ends with "in that day." Luke's account of the same moment reads "in those days."
In Mark 2:20 an article is needlessly inserted. Translate "days will come." At the end of the verse "in that day" has the best authority, not "in those days," which came in from the matching passage of Luke 5.
"Taken away" is not a gentle word. Long before He spoke openly of dying, the Lord let His followers hear that He would be taken from them — and that their grief would not last.
The Lord's disciples had good reason to rejoice at that time, since the Hope of Israel was with them. Yet the days would darken again before the millennial dawn. The Bridegroom would be taken away; then they would have reason to fast. So early in His ministry the Lord signalled to His own, in veiled but significant language, that He must be taken from their midst. As a result, sorrow would fill their hearts, and only His second coming would turn that sorrow into joy (see John 16:17-22).
Why should His absence bring fasting? The reason lies in the heart.
The Bridegroom was present, so it was not the time for fasting. His absence would turn the joy of His presence into sorrow, through the need that His absence would create in the heart.
Commentators differ over which days the verse means. One reading limits "that day" to the short period just before the Lord appears in public.
The coming days are marked by the absence of the Bridegroom. They are exactly the days just before He appears in public to bless Israel and the nations. Those will be days of unequalled tribulation for the Jews. The violence will be so great that if those days lasted longer, no one could be saved (Matt. 24:21-22). Then the faithful ones might well fast.
Others read the absence as covering the whole present age. That reading has a plain result for us now.
Let us take note of this, for we live in the day when fasting is a fitting thing. The Bridegroom has long been absent, and we are waiting for Him... This only makes it clearer still that not feasting but fasting suits us. Fasting means giving up lawful things so as to be more wholly for God. It is not just going without food for a time.
His absence is the reason for fasting. His nearness is the reason for joy. For believers now, both go on at once.
The presence of Christ is the only source of joy to His disciples. He convicted them of sin, took their sin away, and claimed their service. Now He would have them satisfied in Himself. So they cannot fast in His presence. It is true that for us, since He has departed, the fasting and the rejoicing go on together. We pass through a world under judgment, where Christ is not, so we fast. At the same time we dwell in His presence and have Him always with us, so we rejoice.
- Bridegroom. Jesus calls Himself the Bridegroom, come to betroth Himself to His people. Sackcloth is out of place while He is there.
- Taken. "Taken away" is His first veiled word about being taken from them. Their sorrow turns to joy at His return.
- Absence. Fasting is not a rule but a reflex: the need His absence creates in the heart.
- Days. Commentators differ. Some read "that day" as the tribulation just before He appears. Others read it as the whole time since He left.
- Now. The Bridegroom is still away, so fasting fits us: giving up lawful things to be wholly for God. His nearness keeps joy alive alongside the sorrow.
No one sews a patch of new cloth on an old garment otherwise its new filling-up takes from the old [stuff], and there is a worse rent.
Critics question Jesus about fasting, and He answers with a picture from ordinary mending. The torn garment shows that the new He brings cannot join to the old religious system.
The objection was about a religious habit. The answer reaches far deeper.
As always, the Lord does more than answer their question. He proves that their question exposes their total inability to enter into the new ways of God in grace. The new character of grace shows in life and walk and ways. No one could attach it to the older order, any more than they could attach a piece of new cloth to an old garment.
The word behind "unshrunk" is precise, and the Gospels use more than one word for "new."
The word ἄγναφος describes the new (unfulled, unfinished) cloth in Matthew 9:16 and Mark 2:21. Besides that, there are two words translated "new," and the difference between them is important. One is καινός, "new" in the sense of never having existed or been used before — new in the sense of "different." The other is νέος, "new" in the sense of "fresh, youthful."
The cloth is raw and unfinished, so it has not yet done its shrinking. Sew it to worn fabric, and as it shrinks it will pull the old cloth apart.
The picture describes what people try to do with God. They admit their own covering will not do, and they hope a scrap of His will make up the difference.
The raw cloth, which has not been shrunk, would make the tear in the old garment worse once it shrank... Isaiah had said, "all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment" (Isaiah 64:6), but men are unwilling to accept this verdict. They know that their own garment will not do for God's presence. But they think that if it could only be improved a little, they could stand before God in it. They think they can add a little of God's righteousness to their own self-righteousness, and so be fit for the holiness of God's eye.
The patch does not just fail to help. It leaves the garment worse than before.
The bridegroom was not just bringing a few corrections into the Jews' religion, like patching an old garment with a new piece of cloth. What He introduced was a totally new garment... To mix grace with something totally in ruins would only add to the tragedy of the ruin. Instead of helping, it would show their failure even more clearly.
The parable covers both the visible shape of religion and the life inside it.
The forms — the outward expression of what Christ was bringing in — will not suit the old elements of Judaism, and cannot mix with them. Still less will their inner principles agree... Christianity demands an outward expression that matches its own intrinsic and distinctive life.
One writer warns that people tried the mixture anyway.
When the new comes in, we cannot go back to the old. Sadly, Christendom has tried to do so by attaching the forms of Judaism to Christianity. It has acknowledged the doctrines of grace, while in practice adopting the forms of the law.
This is not only about the past. It speaks to anyone who hopes that self-improvement will make them fit for God.
God does no patching or mixing... With God it is new creation, not reformation. We are past mending as sinners, and now believers are looked at as having put on the new man. We are to be clothed in an altogether new character. It is not an improved or a mended self that will do for God — it has to be Christ now, and nothing but Christ.
God's side of this is not a scrap, but a whole robe.
But God's righteousness is given to us in a beautiful garment. It is the best robe the father kept ready for the son who came home (Luke 15), and the wedding garment provided for the marriage feast of the king's son (Matthew 22). And it is this garment that people would spoil, supposing that a bit of it would fit them, along with their own righteousness, for the presence of God.
- Old — the garment is the religious system already in place, worn and torn. Scripture's verdict on human righteousness is that it is like a polluted garment.
- New — the cloth is raw and unshrunk. And one word for "new" means never used before: new in kind, not just recent.
- Mix — the two will not join: not their outward forms, and even less their inner principles.
- Worse — the patch does not repair; it pulls, and it shows up the failure of the old more plainly than before.
- Whole — God does not mend; He creates. The answer is not an improved self, but Christ.
And no one puts new wine into old skins; otherwise the wine bursts the skins, and the wine is poured out, and the skins will be destroyed; but new wine is to be put into new skins.
People have just asked Jesus why His disciples do not fast. He answers with two everyday pictures: a patch of new cloth on a worn coat, and new wine poured into old skins. Both ask one question. Can what He brings fit inside what already exists?
The "bottles" of older translations were not glass. Commentators explain the word behind them, and what kind of container it names.
Then, as now in the East, people used skins, especially for larger vessels and ones carried about. In the New Testament the word is askos, and means a "wineskin," or "skin-bag." So new wine must go into new skins, which are more or less elastic. The Lord was teaching that the new principles of the kingdom would not suit the old forms of Judaism: everything must be new.
In Greek, the wine and the skins are not new in the same way.
The word neos (new in time) applies to the wine; kainos (new in quality) applies to the skins. A. B. Bruce remarks: "What is new in time does not have to get worse with age. It may even improve. What is new in quality always gets worse with age."
Why could the two not simply blend? One writer answers by naming what each stands for.
It was impossible to mix the two systems. The new wine — the truth and the spiritual power of Christianity — could not go into old bottles, into the old institutions and ceremonies of Judaism. If that happened, the new wine would destroy the bottles and spoil both: the wine lost, the bottles ruined... Indeed you cannot attach the spiritual power of Christianity to the fleshly ceremonies that human nature loves. Human nature can turn them into a religion that brings no new life and never touches the conscience. So an unconverted man, if he wishes, may do as much good as a converted man.
One writer traces the picture of wine through Scripture, and on to the day the Spirit came.
Wine is the familiar emblem in Scripture of joy. In Psalm 104:15 we read of "wine to gladden the heart of man." Christ has introduced new joys for His people... Notice the effect on the day of the Spirit's coming. The disciples were so full of overflowing joy and power that some mocked them and said: "They are filled with new wine" (Acts 2:13). They were indeed full of new wine, but it was not the vintage of earth. It was the new wine of heaven.
Notice what the verse never says. It does not tell us to patch up the old skins.
The worn-out Jewish garment and old skins disappear: new wine demands new skins. Christianity, in its principle and its practice, is a fresh and full development of Divine blessing. It was not a question of mending the old, but accepting the new.
The damage does not stop with the two systems. Writers show what mixing does to ordinary believers.
Mixing the new forms and spirit of the kingdom of God with the old ways of Judaism would not mend Judaism. It would not preserve Christianity either. It would only ruin both. And this is exactly what has happened in the history of Christendom... They cannot in such a state see the difference between grace and law.
The picture turns personal. Writers take the new skins to be people.
The new wine speaks of the inner power of the ministry of Christ. It must go into new vessels (wineskins), because old vessels could not be trusted to hold it. The new vessels are the true disciples of the Lord Jesus, those who have been born anew. Man in the flesh may be a zealous law-keeper. Even so, he could not hold the precious ministry of Christ, or value it as he should.
The vessel is not self-made:
If man is to receive and enjoy the heavenly and eternal thing made known by the Son on earth, and by the Spirit of God from heaven, he must receive a new capacity. He must be a new vessel. God has undertaken to form the new bottles that can hold the new wine. If a man tries to busy himself with the things of Christianity without a divine work in his soul, it will be to his utter ruin.
- New wine. The wine is the truth, power and joy Christ brought. It is new in time. The skins must be new in quality — unused, and able to stretch.
- New skins. Old wineskins had lost their stretch. The living power of what Christ brings needs a container able to expand with it.
- No patching. Christ did not come to mend the old system. The old garment and old skins go; He asks us to accept the new, not to tie it to the old.
- Double loss. Mixing rescues neither side. The wine spills and the skins tear. Writers see the same result in the history of Christendom, where people can no longer tell grace from law.
- New vessels. The new skins are people born anew, and God Himself forms them. So the wine and the vessel last together.