Questions about Fasting; New Wine and Old Wineskins

Study notes

The critics' objection isolates Jesus' disciples as the exception to recognized patterns of fasting and petition. Jesus relocates the issue to the bridegroom's presence, declaring that fasting belongs to the time of his removal rather than to the present feast. The two parables then illustrate why established forms cannot absorb the new without mutual damage: a new patch tears an old garment, and fermenting wine bursts old skins. The closing remark registers the further obstacle of preference for what is already known. Together these elements frame the question of observance as a matter of whether the reality brought by Jesus can be fitted into prior structures or requires forms suited to its own ferment.

What is Questions about Fasting; New Wine and Old Wineskins about?

Critics raise a direct question about religious observance. They point out that the disciples of John fast frequently and offer petitions in the same manner, while the Pharisees' followers eat and drink without such restraint. The remark singles out Jesus' own circle for not matching either pattern. Jesus answers by comparing the present moment to a wedding feast where the bridegroom remains with his attendants. No one forces the sons of the bridegroom to fast under those conditions. He adds that a time will arrive when the bridegroom is taken away, and fasting will then become appropriate. Two brief comparisons follow. A patch from new cloth ruins an old garment, and new wine splits old wineskins, spilling its contents and destroying the containers. Only fresh skins can hold the fermenting wine. The final observation notes that those accustomed to old wine show no interest in the new. This exchange stands immediately after the account of Jesus dining with Levi and other tax collectors. The question therefore tests whether the practices of Jesus' group can coexist with established patterns of piety or whether they signal an incompatibility that cannot be mended by simple addition.

Where does this passage sit in Luke?

This unit follows immediately on the meal at Levi's house, where the same group of critics had already questioned Jesus' choice of table companions. The new objection moves from the company at the table to the rhythm of fasting and petition that the disciples fail to observe, yet the underlying concern remains the same: Jesus' circle does not conform to recognized patterns of piety. The transition therefore tightens the sequence of confrontations that Luke has placed at the close of chapter five.

The bridegroom saying and the two short parables of garment and wineskins then function as a hinge. They answer the immediate complaint while also anticipating the Sabbath controversies that open chapter six. In both later scenes the same parties raise objections about lawful behavior, and Jesus again defends actions that appear to disregard older boundaries. The repeated presence of Pharisees and scribes across these units creates a running contrast between established practice and the new situation created by Jesus' presence.

Within the larger Galilean section, the exchange belongs to a cluster of episodes that test how Jesus' ministry relates to existing religious structures. After the calls of the first disciples and the healings that drew crowds, these disputes mark the point at which public resistance begins to organize around concrete questions of observance. The closing observation that those who have drunk the old wine find no desire for the new supplies an understated note of resistance that will recur whenever Jesus' actions challenge settled custom.

How is the passage structured?

The exchange begins with a single sentence of reported speech that places two established patterns of piety side by side and then isolates Jesus' circle as the exception. Jesus answers at once with a question that does not defend conduct but instead relocates the issue to the presence or absence of the bridegroom. The next sentence extends the same image forward in time, introducing a change of circumstance without naming it. After these two verses the discourse turns without connective particle to a fresh mode of speech introduced only by the narrator's label "parable." The first illustration states an action, names its double damage, and stops. The second illustration repeats the pattern of attempted combination followed by rupture, then adds the further result that the wine itself is lost and the containers ruined. A single affirmative clause breaks the sequence of negatives: new wine must be put into new wineskins. The unit closes with an observation that shifts attention from mechanical incompatibility to human preference, recording what the person who has drunk the old wine says rather than what happens to the containers. No further question or rejoinder follows.

What is the historical background?

Fasting formed a regular part of Jewish devotional life in the first century, especially among groups that stressed rigorous observance. The Pharisees maintained a twice-weekly fast, while the disciples of John appear to have followed an even stricter pattern of abstaining from food and offering petitions. These practices marked visible distinctions between one circle of disciples and another. In contrast, ordinary meals carried no such requirement, which is why the remark about the Pharisees' disciples eating and drinking highlights a difference in daily rhythm rather than a complete absence of discipline.

Wedding customs supply the immediate frame for Jesus' first reply. A marriage celebration in Galilean and Judean villages lasted several days, during which the bridegroom's attendants, called the sons of the bridegroom in the supplied wording, shared in continuous feasting. Fasting during such a period would have contradicted the social expectation that the presence of the bridegroom required joy and shared meals. The same social logic made the later statement about the bridegroom being taken away intelligible: removal of the central figure would end the feast and restore ordinary patterns of mourning or abstinence.

Storage practices for wine and cloth further clarify the two short comparisons that follow. Wine was commonly kept in skins made from animal hides. Freshly pressed grape juice continues to ferment, releasing gases that expand the container. An old skin, already stretched and brittle from prior use, could not accommodate the pressure without splitting. New wine therefore required new skins that remained supple. Similarly, a patch cut from unshrunk cloth would contract when washed, pulling apart the weaker fibers of an older garment. These material realities were familiar to any household that handled clothing repair or wine production, and they illustrate why established forms could not simply absorb the new without damage.

What does this passage teach about God?

The exchange locates the proper time for fasting in the presence or absence of the bridegroom rather than in a fixed calendar of observance. Jesus states that the sons of the bridegroom cannot fast while he remains with them, yet he also announces that days will come when the bridegroom is taken away and fasting will then be fitting. This framing treats the person of Jesus as the decisive marker of seasons in God's dealings with his people. The current period is defined by his company, and that company overrides the customary rhythms of John's disciples and the Pharisees.

The two short comparisons that follow sharpen the claim. No one tears a patch from a new garment and sews it on an old one, because the new will tear and the patch will not match. Likewise, new wine bursts old wineskins, spilling its contents and ruining the containers. These images insist that the reality brought by Jesus cannot be contained within the structures already in place. The old forms are not merely inconvenient; they are incompatible with what is now fermenting. Only new wineskins can hold the new wine without destruction.

The closing observation records a further human reality: those who have drunk old wine say the old is good and show no desire for the new. The remark does not moralize but simply registers the resistance that arises when the familiar is confronted by something that cannot be patched onto it. In this way the passage presents Jesus' mission as the arrival of a new order that reorders both practice and perception, and it presents attachment to the old as a standing obstacle to receiving what the bridegroom brings.

What are the interpretive difficulties?

The identity of those raising the question in 5:33 remains unspecified, leaving open whether the complaint comes from John's remaining followers, Pharisees themselves, or a mixed group observing the contrast in practice. The text records only that they point to the frequency of petitions and fasting among John's disciples and the Pharisees' circle, then single out Jesus' own for eating and drinking without restraint. This silence keeps attention on the substance of the reply rather than on the speakers' credentials.

Jesus' answer in 5:34-35 uses the bridegroom image to mark the present time as one of presence rather than absence, yet the phrase "when the bridegroom is taken away" introduces a future shift without clarifying its timing or manner within the narrative itself. Readers must decide how far this anticipates later events and whether the fasting then described is presented as obligatory or simply fitting for that later period. The passage does not prescribe a schedule for fasting after the bridegroom's departure.

The two short comparisons in 5:36-38 press the incompatibility of old and new without spelling out what counts as the "new garment" or the "new wine" in concrete terms. One may ask whether the images rule out any continuity with prior practice or merely warn against forcing the new into unchanged structures. The final observation in 5:39 notes that those who have drunk the old wine declare it good and show no desire for the new. This remark stands without further commentary, so the text leaves unsettled whether the preference is portrayed as understandable caution, settled resistance, or something else. The pericope therefore registers a genuine tension between established custom and the arrival of something that does not fit existing containers, without resolving how that tension is to be lived out beyond the immediate scene.

Notes accompany the Anselm Project Bible, an AI translation from the original languages. Tap any verse above for the committee's word-level decisions.