Parable Of The Patch And Wine Skins In Scripture
What is the meaning of the parables of fasting at the wedding feast. And the wineskins? In the first parable, if you put a new patch on an old garment. Parable Of The Cloth And Wineskins. Jesus told them this parable: 'No one tears a patch from a new. Scripture Range Ending.
Bible verses aboutParable of the Old and New Wineskins(From Forerunner Commentary)
The bridegroom's friends would not think of fasting while he was with them. For them, it was a time of festivity and rejoicing—mourning was not appropriate. When the bridegroom left them, their festivities would end, and the proper time for fasting and sorrow would begin. While Christ, the Bridegroom, was with His disciples, it was a time for joy. Expressing grief by fasting would have been inappropriate at that time. In addition, since Jesus was with them, they had no need to draw closer to Him through fasting. After Christ died, the disciples fasted when appropriate. Martin G. Collins |
Parable Of The Patch And Wine Skins
The new wine represents the inner aspects of a Christian life, and the new cloth pictures outward conduct and conversation. A person's behavior reflects his commitment, seen in the illustration of attaching new cloth to old clothing. The old clothing—our sinful, selfish life—cannot be mended but must be replaced. The new cloth is a righteous life. The Pharisees' ritual fasting was an old garment for which a new piece of cloth was useless. It is untenable to attach Christ's doctrine to the old corrupt doctrines of this world's religions. The righteous system Christ came to establish cannot be forced into an old system. To attempt to force His teachings into the ways of Judaism, Protestantism, Catholicism, or any other of this world's religions causes confusion. Christ is warning against syncretism of beliefs; it simply does not work (Matthew 24:4-5, 24; Romans 6:5-6; 16:17-18; Galatians 1:6-10; Ephesians 4:14; 5:6-11; I Timothy 6:3-5; Hebrews 13:9). Our Savior teaches that life cannot be a mixture of two opposite principles. We cannot serve two masters (Matthew 6:24). We cannot trust in our own works for salvation in Christ, nor follow the world and God. His new way must completely replace our old worldly ways so that we walk in newness of life. Martin G. Collins |
Jesus' illustration derives from a well-known fact: No one with a reasonable amount of experience in mending clothes would waste a piece of new cloth to repair an old garment. If new cloth is used to patch an old garment, and the patch becomes wet, it shrinks as it dries and puts strain on the old garment. The tear becomes worse than it was. Jesus is showing that His 'new' doctrines do not match the old rites of the Pharisees, which required a lot of fasting. If His 'new' doctrines were attached to their old ones, it would distort the truth. Christ is preaching against syncretism, the mixing of beliefs. We must completely replace the old human way of life with the new godly way of life (II Corinthians 5:17; Ephesians 4:22; Colossians 3:9-10). Because God's 'new' way is righteous and spiritually strong, it cannot be combined with the 'old' wicked and weak human way of life. They are incompatible. Martin G. Collins |
The new wine represents the truth of God, while the old wine represents the traditions of the culture that we have been born into. These traditions have produced the prejudices that we do not want to get rid of whenever the new wine comes. We are the vessel, and if we do not have the willingness to change, then we will be 'burst'—the old wineskin by the new wine. A process of destruction begins to take place unless we too become new. Jesus understood the principle that was working against Him in His own life. He was coming with the good news that was really new to these people, and what did they do? They hated it so much that they rejected not only the message, but they also rejected and put the Messenger to death. This lesson is in the Book so that we will understand how powerful the impulse to reject the truth of God is within us. This impulse makes us feel comfortable with the old and unwilling to face up to the new. We rationalize, 'Oh, it doesn't matter. It won't affect me,' which is, in a sense, gambling with the laws of God. As Paul shows in Romans 1-3, we cannot gamble against the laws of God and win. We will lose every time. So, why not face up to it? That is Jesus' point. Why not pay the price? Why not accept the truth of God? Why not repent and live? John W. Ritenbaugh |
While these examples are valuable in their own right, they do not stand on their own. If we were to begin here, it would be like coming in on the last part of a conversation; without understanding what led up to this, our comprehension will be spotty at best. Matthew, Mark, and Luke all put this parable at the end of a fairly lengthy, yet identical, record of Christ's actions and the Pharisees' objections (Matthew 9:1-17; Mark 2:1-22; Luke 5:17-39). His words here, then, are the summation and capstone of a much longer interaction. David C. M 5000 firecracker wiki. Grabbe |
Concluding His parable of new wine in old wineskins, Jesus laments what might be human nature's most perverse paradox: 'No one, having drunk old wine, immediately desires new; for he says, 'The old is better' (Luke 5:39). When it comes to physical matters, human nature is all too ready to accept the new. However, in spiritual matters, like Peter's dog returning to its vomit (II Peter 2:22), it all too readily turns away from the new. Rather than accept the plain truth of the gospel of God's Kingdom upon hearing it preached, all too many return to the false doctrines Satan taught the first man, Adam (I Corinthians 15:45-48). Adam and his family have believed those same old lies ever since. Human nature deceives too many into believing, 'The old is better.' Charles Whitaker |
On the physical level, a finely aged wine is obviously preferable to a new wine. One year at the Feast of Tabernacles, I had the rare opportunity to sample a Bordeaux bottled in the late 1970s or early 80s. Suffice it to say that the wine's depth and complexity of flavors would put to profound shame anything bottled recently. Curiously, though, in this parable, the new wine is the one that is to be preferred! This may seem incongruous at first, until we remember what these things represent. The new wine of Christ's sacrifice, of the New Covenant, and of God's Spirit being poured out on us is infinitely more valuable than anything before conversion. Whether the old wine represents physical abundance or the headiness of what Babylon entices us with constantly, nothing can be compared to the new wine—if we have God's Spirit. However, because we are still human, and the old man still remains in us to some degree, at times the old wine seems better. The old wine seems more gratifying to the senses. Before conversion, we certainly had no interest in this new wine because the old wine suited us just fine, even if it was making us miserable. Even after conversion, we sometimes reach for the old wine. When we are under that influence, we do not find the new wine appealing because we are hooked on the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life (I John 2:16). It requires spiritual sobriety to recognize the true blessing of the new wine, but we cannot do that easily—if at all—when the old wine is on our palate. It is only in abstaining from the old wine that we can truly appreciate the uniqueness and superiority of the new. David C. Grabbe |
The word 'new' is translated from the Greek word kaine. This is interesting because, while it does mean 'new' in terms of time, the emphasis in the use of the word, when compared to something of the same kind, in this case, covenants, is on quality - not time. Hence, the emphasis in the use of kaine is on this covenant being better rather than being newer. In Jesus' Parable of the Old and New Wineskins, kaine also appears. Using this understanding of kaine, the difference between the wineskins is not necessarily age (though that is implied) but quality. One wineskin is dried and cracked, while the other is supple and resilient. Though it may also be newer, it is decidedlybetter. Putting this into a modern context, we can make a comparison between a 1910 automobile and a 1995 automobile. The 1995 automobile is a continuation of the same general kind as the 1910 automobile. Both have the same necessary parts: engine, wheels, steering wheel, seats, transmission, brakes, lights, and a nut behind the wheel. But the 1995 model has made the 1910 model obsolete as a viable mode of transportation. So it is in the comparison between the Old Covenantandthe New. Both have the same necessary parts, so that they may be considered of the same 'kind,' but the NewCovenant is so much betterand has so much more going for it that it has made the Old one obsolete. Is there a difference between a testament and a covenant? The word 'testament' does not even appear in English translations of the Old Testament, but it appears thirteen times in the New Testament. The Greek word is quite interesting because it does not even mean 'covenant' as we think of it. In fact, researchers have been able to find only one usage outside of the Bible - in classical Greek - in which this word is used in the same way that the English and the Hebrew words are. The Greek word is diatheke, and it is the equivalent of our English word 'testament' or 'will' - not 'covenant.' A covenantis an agreement between two parties. The emphasis in on the words 'agreement' and 'parties.' However, a diatheke is a testament or will.As in English, it is a unilateral - a one-sided - declaration of the disposition of property that a person makes in anticipation of his death. Before we die, we usually draw up a declaration of what we want done with our property, and most people do not consult with the people they want to leave their possessions to. It is usually a private matter. Paul used this singular word - diatheke - where two different words normally would have been used. The interesting thing is that the Greeks have a word for a covenant, suntheke, 'a bilateral agreement,' but the apostle did not use it. The use of diatheke - which seemingly does not fit - has given the translators great difficulty trying to determine when Paul meant 'covenant' and when he meant 'will' or 'testament.' Why did he even do this when he could have used suntheke? The overall reason is very encouraging. Paul wanted to emphasize how much God has done unilaterally - that is, that He took upon Himself to do without consulting with others involved in the covenant - to tip the scales drastically in our favor for the purpose of our keeping the covenant and making it into His Kingdom. For instance, 'God so loved the world that He gave' Jesus Christ in our stead! It was a completely voluntary act on His part. God gives us grace and forgives our sins, and we are justified on the basis of that sacrifice and on the declaration of our faith and repentance. God gives us access to Him in prayer, again on the basis of the work of Jesus Christ. God gives us the very faith that saves. God gives us His Spirit, which is a downpayment of eternal life and empowers us to keep His laws. God gives us gifts, by that same Spirit, to serve Him and the church. He promises never to give us a trial that is too great - which translates into Him giving personal attention to each of His children! He promises never to forsake us and to complete the work that He has begun in us. Now, brethren, some of these - in a very limited form - appear in the Old Covenant. But it is no wonder that Paul wanted to emphasize better rather than 'new.' The Old Covenant (because of what God has unilaterally done) is but a pale shadow of the new (covenant) in terms of what God is working out. It is nothing more than a pale shadow of the promises and of the hope that is derived by those of us who understand the New Covenant's terms. To the unconverted who read the Bible - who look into these things - these terms are so enticing that it lures them into saying that there is nothing that we have to do. Some will go that far! They will say that it has all been done for us. They can read the terms, but they reach the wrong conclusion. It leads people to say, 'There is no law,' and 'You don't have to keep the Sabbath. It's just ceremonial.' However, the truth is that it is so one-sided, so much to our benefit, that it leaves us without excuse for failure to keep the terms - and those terms include lawkeeping. John W. Ritenbaugh |
Contents
Fvu file converter to excel. Sep 23, 2010 - If you want to view data available in fvu file. You can easily view it's data properly in excel. Fvu file relates to etds/etcs. It is generated with.
- Nobody seems to understand what the wineskins are about!
- Commentator opinions about Wineskins
- My own view about wineskins
A friend asked me what Jesus was talking about when he mentioned sewing patches onto garments, and putting wine into wineskins. I didn’t know the answer, and a quick overview of the commentaries revealed that nobody else does either.
Most theories produce problematic answers
Whereas there are many teachers who profess to know what the parable means, in every case I found, the teaching produced something which contradicts other parts of the New Testament.
So I’ve worked it through below, and proposed a meaning which does not contradict other parts of the Bible. Tell me what you think.
_____________________________________________________
Jesus said:
No one puts a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment, for the patch tears away from the garment, and a worse tear is made. Neither is new wine put into old wineskins. If it is, the skins burst and the wine is spilled and the skins are destroyed. But new wine is put into fresh wineskins, and so both are preserved.
– Matt 9:16-17, Mark 2:21-22, Luke 5:36-37 (with some minor differences between the three reports).
It’s a strange thing to say, isn’t it? So strange, in fact, that all the explanations I have found of this passage all seem to create teachings which contradict Scripture in various important ways.
Commentator opinions about Wineskins
Before we begin, here are some of the commentator opinions on what Jesus was supposedly talking about:
Reformation Study Bible
1. The old patterns of fasting are inappropriate for the fullness of the kingdom that has now arrived. – Reformation Study Bible
… but that can’t be so, because Jesus says, “The days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast.” (Matt 9:15, Mark 2:20, Luke 5:35).
_____________________________________________________
Matthew Henry
2. Christians ought to be considered: as the food provided for them must be such as is proper for their age (1 Cor. 3:2; Heb. 5:12), so must the work be that is cut out for them. Christ would not speak to his disciples that which they could not then bear, John 16:12.
Young beginners in religion must not be put upon the hardest duties at first, lest they be discouraged. – Matthew Henry’s Commentary
I actually agree with Henry up to the last sentence.
1 Corinthians 3:2 and Hebrews 5:12 both talk about stages of growth for the Christian, using the metaphor of breast milk and solid food. I think this is a vital part of understanding the passage. Also, John 16:12 provides a delicious tension: What else would Jesus have said if only his hearers had been able to bear it? We can only know by consulting the Holy Spirit (in the next verse).
But Henry’s conclusion is way off: Jesus did not teach that Christianity was a series of hard duties, from which beginners are exempted! Far from it. Jesus taught that mature Christianity was expressed this way:
The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit. – John 3:8
So what Henry concludes cannot be Jesus’ intended meaning.
_____________________________________________________
IVP New Testament Commentary Series
3. When sinners return to God through Jesus’ ministry, celebration rather than fasting is appropriate. – The IVP New Testament Commentary Series
Traditional rituals must never become a straitjacket that hinder us from celebrating sinners’ embrace of the good news of God’s kingdom. – The IVP New Testament Commentary Series
This fails because Jesus says, “The days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast.” (Matt 9:15, Mark 2:20, Luke 5:35), therefore fasting most certainly is appropriate, and Jesus did not consider fasting to be a hindrance in any way: “when you fast, put oil on your head and wash your face…” (Matt 6:17ff).
_____________________________________________________
New Bible Commentary
4. The patch and the new wine are images of a powerful, effervescent new relationship with God which bursts out of the dried-up confines of formal religion. – New Bible Commentary (Carson, France, Motyer, Wenham)
This one surprised me (I expected better from these experts!). Jesus most certainly did notconsider formal religion to be “dried-up”! Jesus tells the people, “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must be careful to do everything they tell you.” (Matt 23:2-3). Jesus was very pious and observed religious festivals and rituals. He had no problem at all with formal religion. He did, however, have a lot to say about the hypocrisy that he found in it.
_____________________________________________________
bethelimmanuel.org
5. In essence, Yeshua was saying to the Pharisees, “Look, You can’t teach an old dog new tricks.” – www.bethimmanuel.org
This careful explanation compares Jesus’ sayings to a Rabbinic writing, Pirkei Avot 4:20. It concludes that the “vessels” and “garments” are people. Essentially, it concludes that once a person has learned religion there is no point trying to unteach them, and that (the essay suggests) is why Jesus chose uneducated fishermen, etc.
Jesus’ disciples were indeed new converts, and they were fishermen and others who were from outside the cultured religious social set. But far from Bethimmanuel.org’s claim, Jesus most certainly was also into teaching “old dogs new tricks”, if that’s what the old dogs needed: So it was with the Rich Young Ruler, for instance (Matt 9:16ff, Mark 10:17ff, Luke 18:18ff), and Zacchaeus (Luke 19:1-10), and countless other “repent” situations.
And it doesn’t explain Jesus’ words, “no one after drinking old wine wants the new, for they say, ‘The old is better.’” (Luke 5:39), because you see… the old wine actually is better! That’s part of Jesus’ point.
_____________________________________________________
jesuswalk.com
6. It is easier to fall back to what is familiar and comfortable, and justify that, rather than launch out into a life guided not by laws and regulations but led by the Voice of the Spirit of God. The two are opposites, the old and the new. You cannot combine them without destroying both.
No, Jesus, insists, the Gospel of the Kingdom (new wine) must not be hindered by the man-made rules of the Pharisees’ religion (old wineskins). – www.jesuswalk.com
Again, Jesus is referring to wine. The old is better. It’s not just that people think it’s better – it actually is. Jesus did not see Judaism as “a life guided by laws and regulations”, nor “opposite” to the Gospel of the Kingdom. In fact, when discussing the need to be born again, Jesus said to a Pharisee, “You are Israel’s teacher, … and do you not understand these things?” (John 3:10). Clearly Jesus expected Israel’s teachers already to know the Gospel of the Kingdom. And indeed they did! Every one of them was familiar with:
How beautiful on the mountains are the feet of those who bring good news ( = “Gospel”), who proclaim peace, who bring good tidings, who proclaim salvation, who say to Zion, “Your God reigns!” – Isaiah 52:7
The Gospel message of the Kingdom was known for hundreds of years before Jesus came. What Jesus did was to announce that the time spoken of was now coming to pass (See Luke 4:21 in context).
… there are countless other examples. Simply Google “Jesus wineskins” or similar, for more.
My own view about wineskins
I mentioned above that Matthew Henry started off by hitting close to the mark. This was his opinion again:
Christians ought to be considered: as the food provided for them must be such as is proper for their age (1 Cor. 3:2; Heb. 5:12), so must the work be that is cut out for them. Christ would not speak to his disciples that which they could not then bear, John 16:12.
Young beginners in religion must not be put upon the hardest duties at first, lest they be discouraged. – Matthew Henry’s Commentary
As I say earlier, it is the last part of the last sentence which is a problem. I’m with Henry up to that point.
Judaism in the 1st Century
The Jewish religion was, by the 1st Century, both elaborate and cultured. There was a huge wealth of orthodoxy (doctrines) and orthopraxy (rituals) to comprehend, just in order to participate properly in the religion. Every single little element was rich with ancient meaning, and represented countless generations of godly contemplation. This included the detailed ritual feasts, the long liturgical prayers, even details of the clothing worn by the religious elite, such as phylacteries to hold prayer scrolls, and specially dyed tassels on their gowns. It also included hand-washing rituals. Jesus understood all of these traditions, and although he complained about the hypocrisy associated with such things in practice, he never disapproved of these religious trappings in principle.
Fasting
Fasting was another example of this cultured religion. There is tremendous potential in fasting to teach us all kinds of spiritual truths, from understanding that God is the source of our true nourishment (Deut 8:3), to the overcoming of temporal discomfort (Phil 4:12). I have used fasting to teach people many different things, perhaps the most dramatic of which is to experience the call of “the flesh” in a very real way.
The Jews fasted twice a week as part of their normal observance of religion (Luke 18:12). Jesus, when he talks about wineskins, is responding to a question about why his disciples are not observing that tradition (matt 9:14;mk 2:18;lk 5:33). His answer was, in my own paraphrase:
These are new converts. If you try to make them practice fasting, they won’t understand the spiritual benefit of it and you will shipwreck their faith. Leave them alone. When they’ve matured a bit as believers, then they will be able to appreciate fasting. Besides, one day soon I will be gone and they will be in mourning. Then they will be fasting anyway!
The modern application
I believe the same principle applies today. The “Seeker-Friendly” church service can be great for the new convert. Indeed, it is designed for them. But someone who has matured in their faith is ready for more. They need Bible study. They need opportunity to participate in ministry.
As they progress, the believer will naturally find their way into questions of fasting, of liturgy, of elaborate rituals, of hymns, of architecture, and all other areas where one can plumb the depths of contemplation by the Church’s earlier saints. It should be considered natural for a seasoned believer to become comfortable with fasting as they grow, but it should equally be considered natural for a new convert to be mystified by that.
The result
The old wine of liturgical contemplation, fasting, sacrificial service, love of the least, and willingness to be poured out for Our Lord, are indeed “better”, but the seasoned believers must remember that new wine of fresh converts cannot comfortably exist in such a seasoned wineskin. To attempt it is to cause trouble, first damaging the deep rituals, and then wasting the converts. Give them a “new wineskin” and let them begin maturing. Just be careful not to place a ceiling on that maturity, because believers need to continue the maturing process so that they become the very finest of “wines”, available as a worthy drink offering to be poured out, if it should so please God.
God dares to place his greatest ambassadors in chains – Watchman Nee
_____________________________________________________