When preaching Sunday before last on Luke 5:27-39, I was intrigued by the conclusion to the "parable" (vv. 36-39) of the new patch on the old garment and the new wine in the old bottles (skins). Here are some notes:
Jesus concludes in v. 39 by saying, “No man also having drunk old wine straightway
desireth new: for he saith the old is
better.”
Now, what
does this parable mean? We might think
it would have been nice if Jesus had given the authoritative interpretation as
in the parable of the sower (see Mark 4:13-20).
The standard
interpretation is that the new thing (patch, wine) refers to Jesus’ teaching
and to his disciples who would be joined to the old practices of the religious Jews
of their day with the result of schism and conflict. The new wine of Jesus’ teaching and way of
life would require a new wineskin of the church, apart from the synagogue. This would include the end of the civil and
ceremonial aspects the law, the end of the dietary rules, the end of the
sacrificial system, the transformation of the Sabbath from the seventh to the
first day of the week, etc. The final
quote then in v. 39 is meant to be taken ironically, indicating the hard
heartedness of those who reject the new teachings of Jesus. This line of interpretation seems to be the one followed by conservative men both past and present.
Another
possibility, however, would be to turn things on their head and say that Jesus
was in fact saying that it was the scribes and Pharisees who had introduced
something new; whereas, it was he who was the guardian of something that was
ancient and proved. Let’s take fasting
as an example (the point of conflict in this context; see vv. 30-35). Though there were many
times and occasions when Israel fasted in mourning or grieving over her sin,
the OT only prescribed fasting once a year on the Day of Atonement (Leviticus
16:29 speak of “afflicting yours souls” which is usually taken to be a reference to
fasting). The tradition which had
developed among the Pharisees, however, was that of twice weekly fasting (see the prayer of the Pharisee in Luke 18:12). This was a novelty that, in
fact, went beyond what was written in Scripture. One might say that it was Jesus himself and
his disciples who were upholding the old practices, and the Pharisees who were
offering something new that resulted in division and destruction. In that case, when Jesus cites the hypothetical man who prefers the old wine to the new by saing “The old is
better” (v. 39), he does not do so ironically but in a straightforward
manner. It is Jesus not the Pharisees
who is preserving the old paths.
JTR
8 comments:
I think you got that one backwards. Perhaps you should study this one out a bit more.
I think I accurately explained both the traditional interpretation of this passage and the alternative explanation. Please enlighten me as to what I got "backward."
Thanks for this interpretation, Jesus' conclusion at the end is indeed intriguing, after saying the parable.
I think you got it right. I heard a message on this yesterday, and the preacher said "The new wine is better". I've heard messages about the "new wine in new wineskins" for years, and its always taken as "God does new things in new ways and our old methods can't hold it". I don't disagree with that statement per se (Jeremiah 4:3-4; Hosea 10:12; Isaiah 43:19), but the messages usually left out Jesus' closing statement "The old is better".
A problem with thinking that Jesus was ironic / sarcastic is that its saying that the Holy Spirit "improved His methodology" the second time (or without the sarcasm: Got worse the second time!). So that doesn't hold water. Or wine.
Another thing: old wine was new wine once. Take it back through a few iterations, and the first move of God is (by logical extension) pretty ordinary. None of us would actually think that, but that's where the logic leads.
Also, there's no other parable or place in the gospels where Jesus makes a remark in parable that runs contrary to the point He was making, so to conclude that He was speaking ironically or sarcastically seems in-congruent.
So those are reasons why the new wine / new move of God interpretation may not hold.
The reasons why your interpretation does hold (in my opinion):
1. Jesus came to fulfil the Law & the Prophets, not do away with it (Matthew 5:17)
2. Jesus spoke against the ways & traditions of the scribes and Pharisees and the burden they put others (Matthew 23:15)
3. This one is possibly the most intersting: Matthew 19:8. Jesus said that because of the hardness of the people's heart, Moses made a concession regarding divorce "but from the beginning it has not been this way". If you think about it, Jesus is saying that old way is better...
Essentially, the journey from the Garden of Eden to the cross on Golgotha has been one of redemption and restoration. When God speaks, it is perfect, righteous, and just - including when it makes no sense to us. Man have consistently made their own additions and accommodations, but whatever God says, simply is (Matthew 24:35).
Sorry for the long post. I just heard something yesterday from a man I greatly admire but I just disagree with on this point. I have been reading a lot of views since then and trying to hold everything to the light of Scripture and trying to hear what the Holy Spirit is saying. Thank you for your post - it really spoke to me and helped me.
Hebrew 8:7 says Old one is a faulty system. Old covenant is faulty one cause it can't make us to produce fruit of spirit from outward righteousness by telling us to obey to the Law.As it is faulty one we are in need of new one.
God ordained the old one in order to let us know that we are in need of redemption.So we need a new covenant then we can produce fruit of spirit.
As the Lord said to Jeremiah a new covenant is gonna come.
Inspired by Zac Poonen
I believe Jesus was following up his point with prophacy as he does. He was saying in the future the Jews would say this and if you think about it they are doing this right now.
Interesting comments by all.
I think reading verse 36 and contextualising might help. Whatever way your read it, one certain thing the parable teaches is that you can’t mix old and new. I understand that what Christ is doing in forgiving sins, healing the lepers and the lame is superseding the law of Moses which said these were not accepted or allowed in the temple. People were not allowed to go near a leper or touch them or they will be defiled and here is Jesus doing the opposite of what the law instructs, touching and cleansing lepers, forgiving sins without a levitical sacrifice.
I know this is an old thread and may be dead, but as I was reading today and seeking wisdom on this very saying about vs.39 I came to this. It seems the Lord was saying from the context that both the new garment and old and the new wine and the old, along with their skins, both have a purpose. You can't patch the old with the new without destroying both. You can't mix new and old skins with the opposite wine without ruining the new and old. The Old Covenant, even according to Paul, was pure and only defiled and made imperfect because of the fact that we are sinners and imperfect. We, in our hearts, reject God's rule over us and so we break the perfection that is our part of the Covenant. This gets me to verse 38 where Christ is the giver of a New Covenant and where the Old Covenant was unable to save us because of the weakness of our flesh according to Paul also. Then it leads me to 39 where He again tells the Pharisees that they weren't getting the message because they still thought they could be right with God by following the Old Covenant and being good enough to earn salvation by their good works, in this case fasting and praying ritualisticly. He doesn't condemn fasting and praying only saying that the reason for the activities must be motivated by more than just ritual. He doesn't have to come across as sarcastic, as some say he is, to just do as He has done before and point out the deep seated hypocrisy to them by a story. Again and again Jesus trumps their questions of His authority and teaching with a finger pointed at their unrepentant hearts and their desire to be justified by keeping the Law.
Post a Comment