TEXT [Commentary]

7. A discussion about fasting (9:14-17; cf. Mark 2:18-22; Luke 5:33-39)

14 One day the disciples of John the Baptist came to Jesus and asked him, “Why don’t your disciples fast[*] like we do and the Pharisees do?”

15 Jesus replied, “Do wedding guests mourn while celebrating with the groom? Of course not. But someday the groom will be taken away from them, and then they will fast.

16 “Besides, who would patch old clothing with new cloth? For the new patch would shrink and rip away from the old cloth, leaving an even bigger tear than before.

17 “And no one puts new wine into old wineskins. For the old skins would burst from the pressure, spilling the wine and ruining the skins. New wine is stored in new wineskins so that both are preserved.”

NOTES

9:14 Why don’t your disciples fast like we do and the Pharisees do? The question of John’s disciples regarding fasting (cf. 6:16, 18; Mark 2:18-22; Luke 5:33-39) indicates that they and the Pharisees regularly fasted but that Jesus’ disciples did not. The phrase “like we do” should not be interpreted as meaning that Jesus’ disciples fasted in a different manner than John’s disciples and the Pharisees. John’s ascetic lifestyle is mentioned elsewhere in Matthew (3:4; 11:18). His disciples evidently felt that the absence of fasting was inconsistent with Jesus’ avowal of loyalty to God and the law of Moses. The fasting in question here was most likely the voluntary twice-weekly fast favored by the Pharisees (cf. Luke 18:12), not the obligatory fast commanded in connection with the Day of Atonement (Num 29:7-11), which Jesus and his disciples evidently kept. Didache 8:1 says the Pharisees fasted specifically on Monday and Thursday and encourages Christians to fast on Wednesday and Friday (cf. 1QpHab 11:7; Psalms of Solomon 3:8).

9:15 Do wedding guests mourn while celebrating with the groom? Jesus’ answer employs images from weddings (9:15; cf. 22:1-14; 25:1-13), garment mending, and wine making (9:16-17) in a metaphorical fashion. Just as it would be inappropriate for “wedding guests” (lit., “sons of the wedding hall”) to fast while they are with the bridegroom, so it was inappropriate for Jesus’ disciples to fast while he was with them. The arrival of the long-awaited Messiah is hardly the time to mourn or fast. Note also that in the OT (e.g., Isa 54:5-6; 62:4-5; Hos 2:16-23), God is sometimes pictured as a bridegroom, and that John the Baptist used this image to describe Jesus accordingly (John 3:29).

someday the groom will be taken away from them, and then they will fast. The mention of the groom being taken away (cf. Isa 53:8) is probably a veiled prediction of Jesus’ arrest and crucifixion (cf. 12:38-40; 16:21; 17:9-13, 22-23; 20:28; 26:11).

9:16-17 who would patch old clothing with new cloth? . . . And no one puts new wine into old wineskins. The second part of Jesus’ answer to the question of John’s disciples contains two metaphors about the incompatibility of the new with the old, the first concerning patching garments (9:16) and the second concerning wine and wineskins (9:17). No one would patch an old garment with new cloth, since the new cloth would shrink when washed and the old garment would be ripped worse than before. Similarly, no one would put new wine in old wineskins, since the pressure from the fermentation process would burst the old, brittle skins (cf. Job 32:19). Rather, new wine would be put into new, flexible skins.

How do these two metaphors connect with the bridegroom metaphor of 9:15, and what is the answer to the question of John’s disciples? Commentators (e.g., Blomberg 1992:159; Hagner 1993:244-245) take the point of the three metaphors to be the incompatibility of the old age, exemplified by the traditional piety of the Pharisees, with the new age, exemplified by the definitive climactic teaching of Jesus. The rule of God in Jesus’ life, words, and works cannot coexist with the old ways (e.g., fasting) of Pharisaic Judaism. The weakness with this interpretation is that Jesus was answering John’s disciples, not the Pharisees. The disciples were taught how to fast in 6:16-18. Also, Jesus indicates that his disciples would fast after he had gone. A different interpretive approach will be articulated in the commentary that follows.

COMMENTARY [Text]

This pericope concerning the question of John’s disciples about fasting is similar to the previous pericope on associating with sinners in that in both stories Jesus’ disciples did not follow the traditional practices of the Pharisees. They enjoyed table fellowship with undesirable persons and did not fast. So again the basic issue is the relationship of Jesus, his teaching, and his disciples, to Moses, his law, and his disciples (the Pharisees saw themselves in this role). While many interpreters argue that this pericope shows the fundamental incompatibility of Jesus and Moses, Israel and the Church, law and grace, this view cannot be sustained in light of Matthew 5:17-20. A more nuanced approach is needed, one that takes due note of the temporary presence of the bridegroom with the wedding guests. A wedding celebration obviously calls for a feast, not a fast. During the short time of messianic jubilation, while Jesus was with his disciples, fasting was inappropriate. But Jesus would not always be with the disciples (26:18), so the time while he was with them should be characterized by extraordinary joy and devotion. After Jesus was taken away, his disciples would fast once again.

Matthew 9:14-17 is a key text on the matter of continuity and discontinuity in biblical theology. While it has been argued above that the text does not teach a blunt supersessionism in which Jesus replaces Moses, it is clear that when the disciples fast after Jesus has been taken away, they will not go back to fasting as if he had never come. Jesus did not endorse the Pharisaic fasting traditions, but he did teach his followers how to fast (6:16-18). What did Jesus imply with the final clause of the pericope, “so that both are preserved”? Did he mean to say that the new wineskins and new wine are both preserved (Hagner 1993:244), or that the old wineskins and new wine are both preserved (Davies and Allison 1991:112, 115)? It appears, in light of 5:17-20 and Matthew’s overall teaching, that the second option is best.

Jesus, as the ultimate teacher of Israel, preserved the law and prophets by fulfilling them, not by merely reiterating past teaching (which overstates continuity) or by bluntly jettisoning past teaching (which overstates discontinuity). Fasting is preserved, but in the new context of the righteousness of the inaugurated Kingdom, not in the old context of Pharisaic tradition.