Now John’s disciples and the Pharisees were fasting. And people came and said to him, “Why do John’s disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not fast?” And Jesus said to them, “Can the wedding guests fast while the bridegroom is with them? As long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast. The days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast in that day. No one sews a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment. If he does, the patch tears away from it, the new from the old, and a worse tear is made. And no one puts new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the wine will burst the skins—and the wine is destroyed, and so are the skins. But new wine is for fresh wineskins.”  -Mark 2:17

So I am still reading this and trying to figure out how these verses are a prescription to attack people for trying to follow the Old Testament Law.  Was that Jesus point?  Our pastor took a position that is common these days, that the old wineskins and the old cloth were meant to represent the Pharisees.  And the old wine was the Old Testament.  The new wineskins are the disciples of Christ and the new wine is the Old Covenant.  The problem with this theory is that he lumps the disciples of John in with the Pharisees.  So ok let’s say they are both part of the old school.  In a sense John the Baptist was the last Old Testament prophet, it’s probably more accurate to see Jesus as the last Old Testament Prophet.  So, fine they are currently or temporarily still under the old Covenant.  So how are the apostles exempt?  They are Jews, just because they follow Jesus around they aren’t under the old covenant?  I think we can conclude by the limited attacks on Jesus that the disciples followed the Law.  Basically all they accuse him of was blasphemy, eating with sinners, not fasting and violating the sabbath  The last of which was merely a violation of extra biblical sabbath rules they made up.

An even bigger problem is the fact that Jesus didn’t criticize anyone in these verses, either the disciples of John or the Pharisees.  Jesus’ whole point is that we should go easy on the old wineskins, because they are. . .old.  We shouldn’t expect them to accept new wine.  These days we automatically assume that ‘old’ equals evil and that new is better.  That is not a popular notion with most of humanity or most of the church throughout history.  Most people have had respect for those who have gone before them.  That is what separates us from the animals, we can learn from past mistakes and pass them on.  But today we have become darwinians, we think that what is new is that which has evolved.  New is always better, despite a fossil record replete with millions of creatures we no longer have.  So we throw out the past whenever we can.  It’s a clever trick by the enemy to separate us from our roots, after all we are people of the book, the Bible is an ancient text, maintained by the tradition of an old Church. He didn’t have to disprove the Bible, he just convinced everyone that all old stuff was uncool.  Jesus didn’t say the old was bad, the old wineskins did what they were supposed to do, now is a time for new wine and so we need new wineskins.  If anything he was attacking the harsh treatment of old wineskins.  So I’m attacking the harsh treatment expressed last Sunday.  It had nothing to do with this verse and seemed to be a previously provoked rant waiting for a verse to justify it’s exclamation.

So, as far as the task at hand.  What was Jesus saying?  Most of the early Church commentaries thought Jesus was referring to his disciples as the old wineskins.  This was a new thing and they were infant disciples.  They were not to be burdened with difficult fasts, because that might burst them.   It is natural that he would want to show them grace.  It is not clear whether Jesus was talking to the disciples of John or the Pharisees, but it is clear he was defending his disciples.  Looking at the larger context, not only were Jesus and his disciples not fasting, they were living it up having a feast with the sinners and tax collectors.  Matthew, Mark and Luke all have the events connected. First they objected to his company, they then objected to his feasting.  First Jesus calls himself a physician and then a bridegroom.  Sure the disciples would fast and mourn plenty after his death.  In fact they would prove that they were old wineskins by the fact that they all fled the scene after his arrest.  Now was not the time to mourn, they were with the bridegroom on his wedding night, it was feasting time.  He goes on with the cloth and wineskins comparison.  Why would he put the burden of a fast on his disciples?  Why are you asking me to do that? Jesus didn’t force this new wine into old wineskins, he first made new wineskins then he added the new wine.  And these skins did become new and were filled with that new wine at Penetecost.  Acts 2:13 says the towns people said of the Apostles “These men are full of new wine”.

Even if we were to suppose that Jesus meant the Pharisees by the old wineskins, they still had their place.  They did their job, they held the old wine. The Jews held their Old Testament.  Was this for nothing?  Paul tells us in Romans 3:1-8 that being a Jew was not for nothing.  They benefitted much in every way, they kept the Old Testament faithfully.  We can even see this today.  Sadly most Jews have missed their Messiah, but the Jews continue to be blessed by their old wine, the world over.  Despite everyone trying to wipe them out, they maintain wealth and influence unparalleled by any other people group.  So don’t be dissing on them!