| AND ``WINESKINS'' OF LUKE 5:36-39 |
| by Doug Ward |
During his earthly ministry, Jesus often reached out to help people who were excluded or marginalized by the Jewish society of the time. This aspect of Jesus' activities is given special emphasis in the Gospel of Luke. It is Luke who records the well known words of Jesus, ``For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost'' (Luke 19:10, NIV).
Our Savior's concern for the outcast is evident in his selection of the tax collector Levi (a.k.a. Matthew) as one of the Twelve, a select group of disciples (Luke 6:12-16). Tax collectors were agents of the Roman government and often became wealthy at the expense of their countrymen by charging excessive amounts. As a result, they were typically despised by their fellow Jews.
When Jesus asked Levi to become his disciple, the tax collector did not hesitate. Giving up his lucrative position, he ``left everything'' (Luke 5:28) and did not look back. Like the merchant in a parable he would later hear Jesus tell, Levi knew that he had found the ``pearl of great price'' (Matt. 13:45). He was so honored and gratified by Jesus' invitation that he celebrated with a farewell banquet at his home (Luke 5:29). This banquet provided the setting for another of the Master's memorable parables.
| Questions about Fellowship and Fasting |
Jesus was the guest of honor at the banquet, which was also attended by some of Matthew's fellow tax collectors (v. 29). Jesus' presence there soon became known to some members of the sect of the Pharisees who were keeping close tabs on his activities. They had come from as far away as Jerusalem to observe his words and actions (v. 17), and they were puzzled by a number of things that they heard and saw (e.g., v. 21). In particular, they disapproved of the company he was keeping (v. 30). They wondered, ``Why do Jesus and his disciples associate with tax collectors and others of questionable reputation?''
A little background about the beliefs and practices of the Pharisees will
help us understand their concerns. According to current scholarly opinion (see
[3, pp. 117-122]), the Pharisees hoped to see Israel become ``a kingdom of
priests and a holy nation'' as God had intended (Exod. 19:6). Their program for
reaching this aspiration called for all Israelites to attain a high standard of
Torah observance, including a level of ritual purity usually only required of
priests. Dr. Oskar Skarsaune explains,
Given the priorities of the Pharisees, it is no wonder that they were surprised at Jesus' behavior. Sharing a meal with someone implied approval of that person. In their eyes, associating with tax collectors and other undesirables was conduct unbefitting a rabbi, let alone the Messiah.
But in his reply to them, Jesus suggested that a more inclusive approach
would better accomplish their overall goal of lifting Israel to a higher
standard of righteousness:
Jesus and his disciples also drew criticism for an apparent lack of attention to the discipline of fasting. While Pharisees and disciples of John the Baptist fasted as much as twice a week (Luke 18:12), the followers of Jesus feasted with tax collectors. Shouldn't they have been setting a better example and exhibiting a greater commitment to holiness?
He answered his critics by comparing his time on earth to a wedding banquet. Here he made an implicit claim that the messianic age had arrived-see Matt. 25:1-10 for a similar analogy-and added a prophecy of his coming death. Feasting and celebration were only to be expected in the presence of Israel's Messiah. His disciples would fast later, after he had been taken from them (Luke 5:33-35).
Jesus then told a two-part parable:
What did Jesus mean by these cryptic statements about garments and patches,
wine and wineskins? To gain some insight into the meaning of this perplexing
parable, let's look at some of the ways in which it has been interpreted,
keeping in mind its context as part of Luke 5-6.
| An Anachronistic Reading |
One fairly common interpretation of Luke 5:36-39 identifies the old garment and old wineskins with Judaism and the new garment and new wine with the gospel message. According to this view, Jesus was saying that his disciples didn't follow the customs of the Pharisees or John the Baptist's disciples because his new message of the kingdom of God just wasn't compatible with traditional Jewish practices. For example, one commentary on Jesus' parable states, ``This is what it is like when you try to contain the effervescent life of the kingdom of God within the traditional patterns of Jewish religion.''2 A similar comment appears in [2]: ``Jesus' teaching is like fermenting wine that seems to have inherent vigor and cannot be contained within an old rigid system.''
However, there are serious problems with such a reading of the parable. For one thing, the Pharisees and disciples of John the Baptist actually were innovators, people trying to promote spiritual revival within Judaism. Their customs could hardly be described as ``an old rigid system.'' Second, Jesus said that his disciples would themselves fast after his death (v. 35). Indeed, we have historical evidence of at least some early Christians who observed their own twice-weekly fasts (e.g., Didache 8:1). Third, the first Christians were faithfully observant Jews who saw the gospel as the truest expression of Judaism, not as some new religion. This point is one of Luke's main emphases in the book of Acts (see e.g. Acts 2:46; 3:1; 18:18; 21:20; 22:12; 23:1,6; 24:14-16; 25:8; 26:6-7, 22-25; 28:17).
The reading of Jesus' parable that equates the old garment and old wineskins with Judaism seeks to justify one of the most unfortunate aspects of Christian history-the alienation between church and synagogue that gradually occurred over the first several centuries A.D. This reading implies that the regrettable severing of Christianity from its Jewish roots was somehow inevitable and even carried Jesus' seal of approval. But in addition to being unscriptural, such a view is anachronistic, coming from a vantage point colored by the centuries of history that have passed since the time of Jesus and the early church. It is a product of Christian supersessionism, the belief that the church has displaced Israel in God's plan and rendered Judaism obsolete.
Many modern exegetes have recognized the problems with a supersessionist
interpretation of Luke 5:36-39. As a result, a number of explanations of the
parable have been given that seek to avoid these problems. In this article, I
will examine three such explanations. Two of the three, in my view, have serious
problems of their own. Still, I believe that an examination of all three will
help us to take a fresh look at the parable and reach a more accurate
understanding of its meaning.
| A Modern Messianic Model |
One thought-provoking interpretation of the parable has been given by
Messianic Jewish scholar David H. Stern in [4]. Stern identifies the old garment
with Judaism and the new one with Christianity, as in some traditional readings,
but he draws a decidedly nontraditional lesson from the first part of the
parable. Just as the new cloth must be properly treated in order to successfully
patch the old garment, he says, so Christianity must be well adapted to its
Jewish roots in order to be effective and accomplish its purpose:
In the second part of the parable, Stern identifies the new wine with
Christianity and the old wineskins with ``traditional Judaism,'' but he again
reaches a nontraditional conclusion about the meaning of the second half of the
parable. Stern interprets this part of the parable as a statement that Judaism
must be suitably ``renewed'' or ``reconditioned'' in order to successfully
absorb the new wine of faith in Yeshua (i.e., Jesus) as the Jewish Messiah. In
support of his interpretation, he notes that the Greek word for ``new'' in the
phrase translated ``new wineskins'' in v. 38 (``kainos'') has the sense
of renewal in quality rather than newness in time. Stern concludes,
I find David Stern's explanation of Luke 5:36-39 to be clearly preferable to
the supersessionist interpretations mentioned earlier. I also agree with his
views on the importance of Christianity and Judaism adjusting to each other. I
don't believe, however, that Stern's model gives the original intended meaning
of the parable. His explanation of the first part of the parable, especially,
seems to rely on hindsight just as much as the anti-Judaic readings do. His
model reflects concerns of modern Messianic Judaism that just wouldn't have
occurred to first-century Jews.
| ``The Old is Better'' |
Another novel interpretation of Jesus' parable comes from Dr. Brad H. Young of Oral Roberts University [5, chapter 14]. Observing that the fast days of the Pharisees and disciples of John the Baptist were an addition to previous Jewish practice, Young identifies their teachings as the ``new wine'' in the parable. In contrast, he describes Jesus' program for revival in Judaism as a return to the ``old wine'' of ``the ancient faith and practices of the Jewish people.'' In his teaching, Jesus tended to focus the attention of his listeners on the original intent of biblical commandments. He also emphasized the importance of spiritual renewal (e.g. John 3:3). Noting these things, Young writes,
Young's reading is noteworthy for its attention and sensitivity to the Jewish background of the New Testament. He correctly characterizes the parable as part of an intra-Jewish discussion rather than as the kind of blanket condemnation of Judaism described in some traditional interpretations.
Still, there are problems with Young's explanation of the parable. First, his explanation actually alters the parable by saying that the wineskins must be renewed in order to receive the old wine. In the parable, on the other hand, the wineskins are reconditioned to be able to contain the new wine.
A second weakness of Young's model is its reliance upon Luke 5:39 to support
the idea that the old wine in the parable is better than the new. This verse
does say that one who has tasted old wine will consider it to be better, but it
does not say that the old wine actually is better. In fact, Young's
interpretation assigns a meaning to Luke's version of the parable that couldn't
possibly be shared by the close parallels in Matthew (9:16-17) and Mark
(2:21-22), thus placing the Gospels in contradiction with each other. No one
reading just the versions in Matthew or Mark-neither of which explicitly
mentions ``old wine''-would come to the conclusion that Jesus' parable was
claiming superiority for the old wine.
| The Parable in Context |
A third interpretation is presented by Daniel Thomas Lancaster [1]. Lancaster bases his interpretation on two major considerations:
One example of (ii) is cited by Young [5]:
A second example comes from Pirkei Avot, the most famous tractate of
the Mishnah:
``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''' (Pirkei
Avot 4:20)
Although these sayings were compiled in written form two hundred years or more after the time of Jesus, similar metaphors were probably familiar in Jesus' day.
Taking into account (i) and (ii), Lancaster suggests that the garments and
wineskins in the parable represent individual disciples rather than any
religious system or movement. He offers the following paraphrase of Luke
5:36-39:
``No one teaches new Torah-teaching to old (previously educated) students.
If he does, the new teaching will be rejected, the student will be lost. No.
Instead new Torah-teaching must be taught to new students. And no one after
receiving old teaching (previous education) wants the new, for he says, `The
old teaching is better''' ([5, p. 19]).
In Lancaster's reading, Jesus is saying that although his disciples do not have advanced theological training (see Acts 4:13), they are receptive to the Gospel of the Kingdom of God, his ``new Torah-teaching.'' On the other hand, some who have already received training from other instructors-e.g., those who question Jesus in Luke 5-6-find it harder to accept the new paradigms of Jesus' teaching.
Lancaster points out that if his reading is correct, then the lesson of the
parable is similar to that of the first part of Pirkei Avot 4:20, the
second and third parts of which were quoted above:
Lancaster's interpretation fits well with both the biblical context and
cultural background of Jesus' parable. It is the best explanation of the parable
that I have yet encountered.
| References: |
1With this reply, he pointed his listeners toward the best of Pharasaic teaching. Hillel the Great, a famous Pharisee whose life overlapped with that of Jesus, is known for saying, ``Be of the disciples of Aaron, loving peace and pursuing peace, loving mankind and bringing them nigh to the Law'' (Mishnah Aboth 1:12).
2R.T. France, The Gospel of Mark, Doubleday, New York,
1998, discussing the parallel account in Mark 2.