A Time To Fast?

Revised: 09-Jul-2009

And they said to him, “The disciples of John fast often and offer prayers, and so do the disciples of the Pharisees, but yours eat and drink.” And Jesus said to them, “Can you make wedding guests fast while the bridegroom is with them? The days will come, when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast in those days.” He told them a parable also: “No one tears a piece from a new garment and puts it upon an old garment; if he does he will tear the new, and the piece from the new will not match the old. And no one puts new wine into old wineskins; if he does, the new wine will burst the skins and it will be spilled, and the skins will be destroyed. But new wine must be put into fresh wineskins. And no one after drinking old wine desires new; for he says, ‘The old is good.’” (Luke 5:33-39. All biblical quotations follow the RSV.)

Jesus’ Discourse on Fasting at the House of Levi^[14]

Once, when Jesus and his disciples were enjoying themselves at a dinner party, a simple observation was made: “Your disciples don’t fast!” The observation was innocent and simple enough; it was not an accusation, but an honest exclamation of perplexity. Jesus’ response, however, was far from simple. There are some scholars who believe that Jesus’ original response has been entirely lost, and that Luke’s testimony comes from a much later tradition. Many scholars draw this conclusion because they understand Jesus’ response as a strong denunciation of the old traditions of Judaism in favor of the new way he had come to teach, and they rightly recognize that such a denunciation really has nothing to do with the simple observation about the disciples’ not fasting. Here, however, we suggest that, read in a different way, Jesus’ response does make good sense and that therefore we should read the observation and Jesus’ response as a single coherent unit. Therefore let us take another look at the observation made about Jesus’ disciples, and also his response as it is recorded in Luke 5:33-39, to see whether we can make any more sense of it. We will argue that in this pericope the authentic words of Jesus are preserved. We will also, by implication, argue against the prevailing opinion that Jesus’ reply constituted a strong renunciation of Jewish tradition, since, as we will discover, this was not Jesus’ concern in our passage. Instead, arguing for the unity of Luke 5:33-39, we shall attempt to prove that Jesus’ reply was pertinent to the issue raised, and dealt with it in such a way as to reveal Jesus’ skill and subtlety as a teacher.

---

• ^[1] R. S. Good, “Jesus Protagonist of the Old,” Novum Testamentum 25.1 (1983): 23. While in Luke the identity of the person who made the observation that Jesus’ disciples were not fasting is unknown, Matthew’s account is different. In Matt. 9:14 certain of John’s disciples approach Jesus with the question about fasting. However, although Matthew presents the question of John’s disciples in close proximity to the occasion of the banquet held in Jesus’ honor, it is not entirely clear that the question from John’s disciples came on that occasion. Could it be that Jesus was asked the same question both by guests at the banquet and by John’s disciples on different occasions and Matthew conflates them here? Or has Matthew imported John’s disciples into the banquet narrative? Note that later, in Matt. 11:2ff., John’s disciples are again portrayed coming to Jesus with questions. It is not impossible that Jesus should give the same reply to the same question, but does it make sense that the same question would be posed to Jesus twice? On the other hand, had Jesus been asked the same question and given the same answer on two occasions, would we not expect the Gospel writers to present a condensed version? In which case, we might conclude that Luke condensed the episodes by including the disciples of John in the dinner guest’s observation (Luke 5:33) while Matthew condensed the episodes by having John’s disciples show up at the banquet, or at least immediately after the banquet narrative. ↩
• ^[2] A. Kee, “The Question About Fasting,” Novum Testamentum 11 (1969): 162. ↩
• ^[3] That the inquisitors don’t include Jesus in their observation, although he must certainly also have been participating in the feast, was, perhaps, due to politeness. They were disinclined to accuse Jesus, even though their curiosity had been aroused. This is another reason why I am more inclined to identify the inquisitors with the guests rather than the Pharisees. ↩
• ^[4] Good, Good, “Jesus Protagonist of the Old,” 23. ↩
• ^[5] C. Mitchell, “The Practice of Fasting in the New Testament," Bibliotheca Sacra 147 (588) (1990): 460. ↩
• ^[6] It is, perhaps, significant that Jesus employs the imagery of a groom in his parable, considering that John the Baptist has been part of the discussion. In John 3:29 the Baptist compares Jesus with a groom, and it is possible that Jesus has chosen to draw on John’s imagery. ↩
• ^[7] Brad H. Young, Jesus the Jewish Theologian (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1995), 158. ↩
• ^[8] Kee, “The Question About Fasting,” 166. Kee contends that neither v. 34 nor 35, which must be understood as a unit, “constituted a relevant answer to the Question About Fasting” (p. 167). Kee attributes both verses to later Church tradition. Kee and other scholars have, I fear, failed to follow the very relevant argument that is made in response to the observation of v. 33. The flow of Jesus’ argument will be traced as we continue on. ↩
• ^[9] In large part this is due to the fact that both Mark and Matthew omit Jesus’ final assertion in their parallel accounts of this passage. However, we are not justified in regarding the statement spurious on those grounds. According to his own testimony, Luke investigated his sources carefully and was informed not only by written documents but also by the accounts of eyewitnesses. Neither do we need to feel that, simply because the other Synoptic writers omitted Jesus’ final argument, they are somehow inferior. Jesus’ reply can be understood without the final comment, although Luke’s inclusion does help to bring clarity and serves as a guide against misinterpretation. ↩
• ^[10] David Flusser, “Do You Prefer New Wine?” Immanuel 9 (1997): 30. ↩
• ^[11] See, “Fasting and Fast Days,” Encyclopaedia Judaica (Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House, 1971), 6:1194. ↩
• ^[12] See the account of Anna’s fasting in connection with the Messianic hope of Jerusalem’s consolation in Luke 2:36-38. ↩
• ^[13] Flusser, “Do You Prefer New Wine?” 31. ↩
• ^[14] I would like to thank Dr. Marvin R. Wilson of Gordon College for his encouragement in presenting this article, and also Miss Lauren Asperschlager for her critiques and suggested revisions. ↩