“Never read a Bible verse.”
Mark 2:21–22 is a confusing set of verses. Jesus is answering a question about fasting, then goes off in a seemingly unrelated tangent:
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 2:21-22 ESV)“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.”
The context explains and clarifies Jesus’ cryptic statement. In the immediately prior section1, Mark introduces the conflict between the Pharisees and Jesus. In first-century Judea, the Pharisees were the religious and cultural leaders. Balancing the demands of the Roman empire and of the Mosaic code, they were both rigidly legalistic and politically savvy. Jesus’ ministry and teachings threatened to upset their entire system. Mark’s introduction to this conflict is the Pharisaical response to Jesus’ ministry: they took issue with his associations with sinners and outcasts.
(more after the jump)
Jesus’ answer to queries about fasting illuminates much of the framework in which to view his ongoing conflict with the Pharisees. Jesus implies that his teaching about “the Kingdom” is not merely a new patch to cover up holes or problems in the existing fabric of Jewish religion. Rather, it is an entirely new thing that cannot fit into the existing frameworks and religious culture.
At first glance, this seems to conflict with Jesus’ assertion as recorded by Matthew: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.”2 If Jesus did not intend to abolish the Law, then why does he claim here in Mark that the Kingdom is “new wine” that won’t fit into the old skins?
Mark relates two separate incidents that help to explain this conundrum.
First, on a Sabbath, the disciples snacked on grain as they went through a field.3 This behavior is actually permitted under Mosaic law, but the Pharisees prohibited it out of a well-meaning concern that they might accidentally work on the Sabbath, thus violating law. Jesus responds in defense of his disciples’ actions, citing David and Abiathar as an example. Jesus’ response indicates that the demands for mercy in the Law supercede both human traditions and certain ceremonial aspects of the Law itself.
Mark’s second illustration comes from another Sabbath day event, in which Jesus healed a man on the Sabbath4. The Pharisees reacted, predictably, because they considered healing to be work. Jesus asks a pointed question to illustrate his point: “Is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good or to do harm, to save life or to kill?” The answer, of course, is to do good. To show mercy. This is, without a doubt, emphasized throughout the Law and the Old Testament. Nonetheless, his answer wasn’t good enough for the Pharisees. It blew apart their carefully constructed religious traditions and threatened their way of life.
Jesus’ destruction of their religion was why they sought to destroy him.
When viewed in the context of these incidents, Mark 2:21–22 makes more sense. The Kingdom was a new thing. It was the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophets and law, the inevitable conclusion to God’s story of redemption to this point. And while the Kingdom perfectly fulfills the Law and Prophets, it did not fit in the context or framework of first-century Jewish practice. It was not a patch, to cover up shortcomings of an existing system. And trying to fit the Kingdom into the existing religion5 would only result in the destruction of both.
A couple practical applications seem to jump out to me. First, this passage does seem to take issue with human systems and frameworks that go beyond God’s law. In each of the three events, the Pharisees got into trouble because the elevated their own guidelines above the bigger picture of doing good and loving mercy. Their guidelines were well-intended, at first: They wanted to keep people from accidentally violating God’s law, so they erected stricter laws around them. Unfortunately, many in the conservative American church do the same thing. I fear that in so doing, they commit the same error the Pharisees did and would come under the same censure from Christ.
Beyond that issue, though, is a greater lesson to be learned. This passage contains a strong caution to those, in certain circles, who idealize the first century Church and Jewish culture. Without a doubt, understanding that time and culture is important to properly interpreting Scripture. However, we should approach any emulation of that culture with the utmost care. First century Judaism was a human religion, one with a good foundation, but many not-so-good additions. Jesus censured it and warned that the Kingdom would not fit in it. While we should appreciate the roots of Christianity in that culture and religion, we must also be careful not to romanticize it and replace the Kingdom, as taught throughout our Scriptures, with a man-made framework.