18 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?”
Following the passages about Jesus’ eating with Levi the tax collectors, his co-workers and other sinners, Mark introduces one of the confrontational events in Jesus’ ministry. The gospel authors method of narration does not lock it to being chronologically after those events necessarily, they could have happened at any point during Jesus’ three year ministry and also it is not likely to have been the only time it happened.
Disciples of John the Baptist and the Pharisees are fasting. John was a very popular preacher and his disciples even exist to this day, his influence was so great that Herod feared him. The Pharisees were the most popular religious-political party of the Judeans of this time period, upper echelon of them were the rightful teacher of the Mosaic Law. They sat in what was called the seat of Moses, their rise grew during the Exile when the previous leading group, the ministerial priesthood who sat in the seat of Aaron and the Levites had to take a backseat with no Temple to worship in.
Basically what we see highlighted here is an act of piety, fasting, being practiced by the two most popular groups among the Jews. John’s disciples and the Pharisees were not friends so this point of agreement on fasting becomes a point of contradiction with Jesus and his disciples who are not. Fasting itself was an ancient piety practice that helped a person become closer to God, as you deny yourself sustenance, you turn to the true cause of it, not bread but He who made it, God. The Psalms of David speak of this and also in David’s own life he turned to fasting as a form of penance for his sins. A similar expression is found in the Ninevites when the Prophet Jonah preaches to them, they to fast and put ash on their heads for their sins.
Considering the historical and religious context, fasting is a mainstream practice, even opposing parties do it but Jesus does not and neither do his disciples, this is why they deem it necessary to ask why, to them this is almost required.
19 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.
Jesus responds to his questioners with another question, almost a parable, one that only thinly veils his identity if you take it literally. He asks if wedding guests can fast whilst the bridegroom is with them. Until he is married, a man has a much closer relationship with his friends and brothers than he does after he has cleaved to his wife to become one flesh. The build up until the marriage itself is one of feasting and joy, Jesus is essentially saying that he is like a bridegroom and up until his wedding he and his friends cannot fast, that would disrupt the festivities.
God throughout the Old Testament compares himself to a bridegroom betrothed to his bride Israel, the Old Covenants are all part of that promise stage of marriage, the betrothal. Eventually he would come to his people to enact the marriage itself, Jesus positioning himself as a bridegroom in his response to the question about fasting is a veiled claim of divinity. It only becomes obvious after the fact, the people cannot be blamed for not realising it.
20 The days will come, when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast in that day.
Jesus now prophecies his death, in the form of a marriage. Marriage is a type of death in a way, the death of the single man and woman and the birth of the new flesh bound in covenant. One day the bridegroom would be taken away, this is when his marriage is consummated and of course, then his friends would fast because they would lose their friend to his wife. Jesus is position the crucifixion as his wedding and then they will fast.
21 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.
22 And no one puts new wine into old wineskins; if he does, the wine will burst the skins, and the wine is lost, and so are the skins; but new wine is for fresh skins.”
Now Jesus goes into a saying that is most likely talking about the Old Covenant and its relation to the New. He talks about something common that they would all understand, cloth. Cloth shrinks after being washed and dried, if you try to patch old cloth with new cloth it simply breaks away when the new cloth shrinks. He repeats the same lesson with that of wineskins, wine exerts gas as it ages and the wineskin expands to accommodate, if you put new wine in there it can’t expand more than it has and breaks. He is saying that a new creation is required in order for the New Covenant to be fulfilled, we can’t just patch on some DLC and hope it sticks together.
Some consider this saying to be separated from the previous one about the wedding analogy, that Mark is just stitching sayings together when they don’t make sense but I think they’re wrong. A new creation is made when two become one flesh. No patching on the wife to the husband, a new being is made in covenant. The Old Covenant does not need patching, it is beyond fixing, but if a divine marriage took place and new creation was made, that would last and would fix everything that was broken because it would actually be something new.
Leave a Reply