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.”
34Jesus answered, “Can you make the guests of the bridegroom fast while he is with them? 35But the time will come when the bridegroom will be taken from them; in those days they will fast.”
36He 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. 37And 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. 38No, new wine must be poured into new wineskins. 39And no one after drinking old wine wants the new, for he says, ‘The old is better.’”
6:1One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and his disciples began to pick some heads of grain, rub them in their hands and eat the kernels. 2Some of the Pharisees asked, “Why are you doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?”
3Jesus answered them, “Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? 4He entered the house of God, and taking the consecrated bread, he ate what is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions.” 5Then Jesus said to them, “The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.”
Original Meaning
LUKE DESCRIBES A series of controversies in 5:33–6:11 that explain the kind of opposition Jesus’ ministry receives. The initial controversy concerns fasting, while the next two deal with the Sabbath. In each case, Jesus’ authority is expressed or implied, either because of who he is or because it reflects the new era he brings. After these controversies the Jewish leadership begins to discuss what they might do to Jesus, showing a solidification in the opposition.
Jesus does things differently from customary practice. Luke 5:33–39 discusses one example: his disciples do not fast.1 Fasting in Judaism was a major rite of piety. Highly regarded as an act of worship, it took place at major events, like the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16:29, 31). A four-day fast accompanied a commemoration of the fall of Jerusalem (Zech. 7:3, 5; 8:19). Fasts usually involved penitence, mourning, or a plea for deliverance. Pharisees fasted twice a week (Luke 8:12).2 Usually fasting was a one-day affair. However, a fast could run three days or even three weeks (Est. 4:16; Dan. 10:2–3). In the Judaism of Jesus’ time, fasting was regarded as a virtue (Testament of Joseph 3:4–5; 1 Enoch 108:7–9). The failure of Jesus’ disciples to fast could be read as reflecting a lack of respect for God, a severe absence of piety.
Luke’s account assumes that those who ask Jesus about fasting are the same as those who grumbled about his associations in 5:30. Given the Jewish respect for fasting, why do his disciples not fast? Jesus not only explains why he does not fast, he also explains the deep significance of the refusal. The picture he uses is a wedding—a symbol often used to describe God’s relationship with his people (Isa. 54:5–6; 62:4–5; Jer. 2:2; Ezek. 16).3 Since the groom is now present and the wedding is taking place, there is no need to mourn or seek deliverance. But in the future, the groom will be taken from them; then fasting will be appropriate. Here is the first hint of Jesus’ approaching suffering. It is no accident that Jesus makes this point as the opposition is arising. When the groom is gone, then God’s people will long for the completion of redemption (Rom. 8:17–30; 1 Cor. 15:20–28). Though no law is given about how often to fast, then it will be appropriate again.4
Jesus has not only answered the question; he develops his reply in three pictures, each using “no one” to make the point (vv. 36, 37, 39). A new era with new perspectives has arrived. (1) The time Jesus brings is like a new piece of cloth. One does not take such cloth and sew it onto an old garment. That is not a good use of what is new. Jesus knows that if one makes such a mismatch, the new cloth will shrink on washing while the old cloth will not, resulting in a tear and rendering both fabrics useless. Jesus’ point is simple: One cannot mix what Jesus brings with the old ways without creating a destructive mix. His new way needs new ways of doing things.
(2) Jesus’ era is also like wineskins in that were usually made from sheepskin or goatskin. The neck of the animal became the neck of the wineskin. Once the hide was stripped of hair and cured, it could be used to store wine. New wine put in old wineskins is another tragic error in judgment no one makes. Since the new wine is still fermenting, the old wineskin cannot expand with the fermentation. Its age and brittle quality causes it to rip, and the wine is lost. The story is told with a “what a waste” feeling. The point again is that the new era will bring new ways, which must therefore have new containers. Jesus is more than a reformer of Judaism; he has come to refashion it into something fresh.
(3) The last picture looks at how traditional Jews may have viewed the changes Jesus was bringing. Jesus uses a common proverb.5 Those who like old wine do not try the new, for their minds are already made up: “The old is good.” So Jesus expects many not to respond to his new way. They are comfortable with life and piety as it is. Jesus’ remark is both a description and a warning. John the Baptist came to tell the people that a new era and change was coming, but Jesus knows that some do not want change.
Luke moves immediately into the next event, the plucking of grain on the Sabbath (6:1–5). On a particular Sabbath the disciples are moving through a grain field.6 As they go, they pluck grain from the stalks in the field, rubbing them with their hands to get to the grain. The action on the surface seems innocent enough. The taking of grain itself is not a problem, since in Israel a portion of the field was to be left for those in need (Deut. 23:25). But it is the Sabbath, the holy day of rest. Jewish tradition specified what one could and could not do on the Sabbath. The Mishnah (an ancient Jewish rule book), contained instructions about Sabbath practice. Shabbath 7:2 gives a list of thirty-nine prohibited activities known as the “forty less one.”7 The Jews were aware of how particular these customs were, since they said that “the rules about the Sabbath … are as mountains hanging by a hair, for Scripture is scanty and the rules many.” (Mishnah, Hagigah 1:8). According to that list, the disciples have multiple violations: They are guilty of reaping, threshing, winnowing, and preparing food.
Some Pharisees just happen to be keeping an eye on Jesus’ disciples. The text does not tell us why, but the fact that they know what the disciples are doing shows how carefully the disciples are being watched. They ask them, “Why are you doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?” The question is specific, since it uses the legal term exestin, which refers to what is legally allowed. In the Jewish view, they should have prepared a meal ahead of time to be ready for the Sabbath.
Jesus defends the actions of his colleagues by citing the Scripture. He begins with the challenging remark, “Have you never read…?” Jesus knows the Pharisees have read 1 Samuel 21:1–7 and 22:8–9, but he argues they have misunderstood it. So his reply begins with an implied rebuke. In that passage, David gathers showbread from the tabernacle so that he and his men can eat it—a clear violation of the law.8 Jesus explicitly notes that they did what was not lawful (again using the legal term exestin). They ate “the consecrated bread” (“the bread of the Presence,” Ex. 25:30) that the law said was only for priests. Since David was not disciplined by the high priest at the time, the Old Testament suggests that what he did was appropriate. Jesus’ reply has the Pharisees in a dilemma. In effect, if they condemn him on this issue, they criticize David as well.9
The point of Jesus’ reply simply makes a comparison between David and himself. The thrust of his point has been defended in two ways. Either Jesus is arguing that God’s law never intended to exclude people from meeting basic needs like eating, so that David becomes an example of what the law really intended, or Jesus is arguing that in certain situations of need, the law can be superseded. The text itself is not clear which of these options is behind Jesus’ remark. However, it is no accident that this text follows the previous text on the new way Jesus brings, because this event shows a different approach to Sabbath issues than the traditions of the Jewish leadership. New wine is going into new wineskins.
But Jesus is not done. He adds a note about his authority, arguing that the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath. This argument goes one step further than the parallel with David. The fact that Jesus is Son of Man, that he is the commissioned agent of God, means that he has the right to regulate what takes place on the Sabbath. This remark underlines his unique position. His actions are not the issue; his authority is. He rules over the application of one of the Ten Commandments. The question for all to ponder becomes: “Does Jesus reveal God’s way and have authority over it, or does he not?” The statement at the end of the passage implies Luke’s reader should carefully consider the response.
Bridging Contexts
JESUS HERE DISCUSSES a change of administrative eras in the plan of God. A new dispensation is dawning, in which things will be done differently, though Jesus does not develop exactly how that will work here. The New Testament letters make it clear that the dynamic of the presence of the Spirit has brought major changes in how God works with us (2 Cor. 3–4; Heb. 8–10). Faith is still what saves and God still looks for faithfulness, but some of the regulations of worship have changed with the coming of Jesus. Thus, we do not come to church with sacrifices, nor do we worry about clean and unclean foods. Circumcision is no longer an issue for male believers. Gone are the long rules of details about how to worship, like those that run page after page in the Mishnah, though at the time of Jesus and the early church, they were heavily discussed and debated (see Mark 7:1–22; Acts 10–11 for clean and unclean foods; Acts 15 for circumcision).
Jesus’ way is revolutionary in the dynamic it calls for from God’s people—so revolutionary that we are tempted to slip back into a mode of approaching God through rules and regulations, as if spirituality is a matter of activities that can be separated from issues of the heart. The bridge into the present discussed in this passage is one of the most basic spiritual bridges that the Bible gives us. Jesus is bringing about the new era in which we now share. He is opening a door that is the entry way to God. The new way means the end of the old way. Christianity has its roots in Israel and in Jewish expectation, but old things have passed away and new things have come.
In the early church, this new way took on a focused character that should still be present in our communities. There was less concern with the externals of relating to God and more serious concern with nurturing the condition of the heart and the treatment of others, both in the community and outside of it. The privatized form of religion that our culture promotes can be slow to recognize how Jesus’ presence should impact the way we relate to others. We sometimes assess our spiritual life in terms of our feelings about God or the number of activities we are involved in completing, rather than in assessing the quality of our relationships with others or the quality of our private time with him.
God wants to be worshiped and praised, but a major way to make that happen is in the edifying activity of the church. Sections like Romans 12–16 and Ephesians 4–6 show how Paul’s applications majored on character, not on ritual (cf. also 1 Peter, with its call to live holy lives in an alien land). Christ’s words here warn us that it is what is inside that counts. External activity is not the issue, nor is merely going through certain religious exercises or attending so many services. God longs for a heart that celebrates his presence by responding to him and caring for others.
The Pharisees picture how resistant we can be to things being done in a different way under God. Jesus’ presence demands that we reflect on how he is leading us to manifest our piety. Ritual for sheer ritual’s sake receives no commendation from our Lord. His disciples could have continued fasting as a show of pietism, but Jesus wants them to reflect on the special time his presence indicates. There will be a time for fasting again after he departs, but a fast is the last thing to do in the period of the arrival of the new era.
Two issues are central in considering how to apply the plucking grain passage. (1) Jesus’ authority over something as fundamental as the Jewish Sabbath law indicates just how central a role he has in God’s plan. The law was the central regulating force for life in Israel for centuries. Jesus now claims that he has the right to exercise authority over it. This is a significant claim, since Yahweh himself had been responsible for setting up the law.
(2) As to the function of the law, though the text is not clear on exactly what logic is presupposed by Jesus’ reply in terms of the law’s scope, Jesus’ application reveals that the law is not to be applied in a casuistic manner, where every exception to the letter of the law is automatically a violation. There is no doubt that David’s men did something that was prohibited. While we may not know exactly what Jesus means here by this example, his point is still that what appeared on the surface as a violation was not one in the case of David or the disciples.
The passage, then, tells us something about how the law functions in the new era. The simple theological answer is that the law has passed away. But Jesus’ handling of such issues suggests a more fundamental answer as one sees what the law intended to accomplish. As later conflicts over the Sabbath will show, compassion is always to be available to people. A rigorous application of specific laws is not always correct, for they were not intended to prevent people from having a meal or from saving a person in need. The Sabbath law was to free humankind up to rest and enjoy God, not to shackle them from serving others or prevent basic needs from being met.
But neither is this an invitation to license. License is not caring about the law at all and arguing one can do anything one wants. Jesus is arguing that the law seeks to encourage righteousness and healthy involvement with people, not the creation of a host of rules. Jesus makes the point while also pointing to his authority, so that it is clear his insight on the law explains how it was designed to function.
Contemporary Significance
THE CHRISTIAN IS “between eras.” We share in the benefits that Jesus brings, yet we still await his full redemption. Jesus no longer tells us to fast regularly on fixed days set by the law, but acts of worship in anticipation of his future coming and our full redemption are commendable. The bridegroom has been taken from us, and we long for his return. Not only can we celebrate this reality through fasting, but it is recalled whenever we share in the Lord’s table—an affirmation not only of our relationship to Jesus but also of our belonging to the same confession with one another (1 Cor. 11:23–26). All of this makes us aware that though we share in the initial benefits of the new era, we have not experienced all God has for us, and life on this earth is but a preliminary stage in what God is doing.
The passage also warns against syncretism between Christianity and any other religion. If syncretism were possible, one would think that Judaism would be the best candidate. Judaism was older, worshiped the same God, shared the same hope in the Messiah, and prayed for the same deliverance. Jesus makes it clear that although he is the fulfillment of promise, the new way he brings is not to be mixed with the old. The old ways of worship and sacrifice are no longer necessary and the old signs of piety are no longer required. One may engage in them, as Jewish Christians did in the New Testament and still do today, but not on the basis of a moral necessity. If Christianity cannot be mixed with Judaism, its closest cousin, then certainly it cannot be mixed with anything else available in the world’s cafeteria of religions. To do so will destroy both.
We also learn how people resist change, even change directed by God. Most people are content with the way things are. The Jewish leadership was content with religious life under the law, so Jesus’ challenges to their religiosity were viewed as threats. Content in the limitations of the old system, they did not even consider the new era. Christians can fall into such ruts of ritual contentment today as well, assuming the way they worship is the way everyone must worship. This kind of a problem is more subtle than the Pharisees’ outright challenge of Jesus, for what may be a good and meaningful practice in one context may not need to be replicated by others in exactly the same way. Music styles or certain church practices are elevated to the level of necessity, rather than seen as means to an end.
I am reminded, for example, of exhortations that quiet times should always come first thing in the morning. The result has been that some people, who had fulfilling quiet times later in the day, felt guilty because they did not “get up with God first thing in the morning.” The timing of the act of worship became more important than having a time of worship and making a positive spiritual experience of that time. We must be careful not to make a law of that which Scripture does not command.
Rejection can take place in many forms. While some resist because they are hostile to what Jesus is doing, others resist because they are content with life as it is. We should be sensitive to the difference as we seek to share Jesus. It is hard to convince a person who is content that he or she is not; these are often the hardest people to reach. The best that can be done is to hold out the hope that life can be even better. But if the old wine seems good, often such people are not interested even in a sip of the new. Their security and identity are so clearly tied to other things that they will not even think of trying the new way God can bring to them. There are times when we must accept that is where some people are.
The primary application emerging from the disciples’ plucking of grain, as with so many texts in this section of Luke, centers around the authority of Jesus. In the end the correctness or error of what Jesus does with his disciples rests on his claims. Does he have authority as the Son of Man, so that his analysis of the Old Testament and the present situation are authoritative over the law? If so, who then is Jesus? This is the fundamental question within this text. The Pharisees do not believe Jesus has the authority to say what he is teaching. Today people still challenge Jesus’ authority. But if he is the interpreter of the law, he must be heard, for he reveals the way to God.
There is also an application about the law. God never intended for the law to be followed in such a way that basic needs like eating a meal are denied as a matter of regulation. It was never supposed to be applied so harshly. The relationship of the law to the Christian in this new era is still a debated matter.10 Even the present text is not clear on exactly how the argument is made. But whatever approach is taken, it is clear that the disciples did not violate the moral requirements of God by their meal.
One gets a sense of how things have changed when one considers how the issue of circumcision for Gentiles was handled by the early church. Here a central command about identification as the people of God is not applied to those who have entered into the Christian faith. Granted, this example is not one of basic need, but it does show how God reexamined the function of the law in the new era, where some formerly central laws ceased to have any role. What became the central mark for the Christian was not circumcision, but the indwelling Spirit (Acts 15:1–21). That indwelling was seen as equivalent to physical circumcision because it involved circumcision of the heart (Phil. 3:1–3). In other words, this change indicates that the new era approaches matters of the law in a fresh way. Jesus has the authority to explain and justify the shift of emphasis.