2
Mark
Questions about Fasting; New Cloth and Wineskins
Mark 2:18-22
Key words in this passage
Cross-references
Study notes
The unit confronts the discrepancy in fasting practices by anchoring the difference to the bridegroom's presence rather than to any fixed rule of piety. Jesus declares that his companions cannot fast while he remains with them, then points ahead to a day of removal when fasting will resume. The two household images that follow demonstrate that fresh elements cannot be joined to settled forms without mutual destruction, whether an unshrunk patch on old cloth or new wine in brittle skins. The passage therefore presents the current moment as one whose joy overrides accustomed observance, while insisting that the new reality introduced by the bridegroom cannot be accommodated within prior patterns without loss.
What is Questions about Fasting; New Cloth and Wineskins about?
The scene presents a straightforward question directed at Jesus. Disciples of John and the Pharisees are fasting, and the questioners want to know why Jesus' disciples are not doing the same. The wording in the text keeps the focus on this observable difference in practice rather than on any larger occasion or location.
This exchange follows directly on the account of Jesus eating with Levi and other tax collectors. In that prior scene Jesus had already defended his choice of table companions by saying he came for the sick, not the well. The fasting question therefore continues the same line of scrutiny, now turning from table fellowship to a recognized act of religious observance.
The unit matters at this point in the narrative because it registers an early and concrete point of friction between Jesus' circle and two other groups that maintained regular fasts. The question itself does not accuse; it simply notes the absence of fasting among Jesus' disciples and seeks an explanation. What follows will address that absence through comparison, but the opening lines establish the issue as one of differing patterns of devotion right after the meal with those labeled sinners.
Where does this passage sit in Mark?
This unit follows directly on the meal with Levi and the tax collectors. That scene ended with Jesus’ claim that he came for the sick rather than the well; the fasting question now tests another observable practice that sets his disciples apart from the disciples of John and the Pharisees. The narrative supplies no new location or crowd size, so the exchange reads as a continuation of the same line of scrutiny rather than a fresh public confrontation.
Within the chain of episodes that occupy Mark 2, the passage occupies a middle position. It stands after the forgiveness granted to the paralytic and before the Sabbath controversies that stretch from 2:23 to 3:6. Each successive unit registers a different point of friction—authority to forgive, table companions, fasting, then Sabbath observance—yet the responses shift in form. The bridegroom saying and the two short illustrations about cloth and wineskins introduce sustained imagery for the first time, replacing the direct assertions used earlier.
The wording of the question itself echoes the earlier defense: attention remains fixed on what “your disciples” do or do not do. That repetition tightens the connection between the two scenes without requiring any additional explanation from the narrator. The unit then ends with the terse command about new wine in new wineskins, after which the story moves without transition to the grain fields. The absence of any bridging sentence leaves the incompatibility between old and new forms as an open claim that the following Sabbath stories will test in a different arena.
How is the passage structured?
The unit opens with a single sentence that establishes the observable fact of fasting among two groups and then moves immediately to their direct address to Jesus. The question in 2:18 is framed as a comparison of practice rather than an accusation, and it receives an answer that begins in the present tense. Jesus’ first statement in 2:19 uses the bridegroom image to declare an impossibility: the sons of the bridegroom cannot fast while the bridegroom remains with them. The repetition of “with them” anchors the prohibition to the current situation.
Verse 2:20 introduces the first clear turn. The temporal marker “but days will come” shifts the horizon forward and reverses the earlier impossibility: once the bridegroom is taken away, fasting will occur on that day. The sentence is brief and leaves the manner of removal unspecified, so the reversal stands on its own.
The two images that follow extend the contrast without returning to the original question. In 2:21 the patch of unshrunk cloth is placed on old clothing; the new material pulls away from the old, producing a worse tear. The sequence of actions is mechanical and irreversible. Verse 2:22 repeats the pattern with new wine and old wineskins: the wine bursts the skins, both wine and skins are lost, and the only alternative offered is new wine into new wineskins. Each illustration moves from an attempted combination to its destructive outcome and ends with a terse positive statement. The passage therefore proceeds from a present-tense defense, through a future reversal, to two parallel demonstrations of incompatibility that close the unit.
What is the historical background?
Fasting formed a recognized part of Jewish religious observance in the first century, though different groups observed it with varying frequency and purpose. The Pharisees maintained a schedule that included regular fasts, often twice each week, as an expression of piety and separation. Disciples of John appear to have followed a similar discipline, consistent with the ascetic character of John’s movement. The question posed to Jesus therefore assumes that fasting was an expected marker of serious religious commitment, and the absence of the practice among his disciples stood out as a noticeable departure.
The bridegroom image draws on ordinary wedding customs. In Jewish practice a wedding celebration lasted several days, during which the groom’s close companions shared in the festivities and were released from ordinary obligations such as fasting. Their presence with the bridegroom marked a time of joy rather than mourning or self-denial. The supplied wording in 2:19 anchors the illustration in this concrete social setting: the sons of the bridegroom cannot fast while the bridegroom remains with them.
The two short illustrations that follow rest on familiar household realities. When a tear appeared in a garment, mending required cloth that had already been washed and shrunk; otherwise the new patch would contract on its first washing and pull the surrounding fabric apart. Likewise, fermenting wine produced expanding gases. Old wineskins, already stretched and brittle, could not accommodate the pressure without splitting, whereas fresh skins retained the necessary elasticity. These details supplied the original hearers with immediate, observable points of comparison for the incompatibility Jesus describes.
No significant textual variants affect the wording of these verses in the earliest manuscripts, so the background supplied by the customs themselves remains the primary aid for reading the exchange as it stands.
What does this passage teach about God?
The answer Jesus gives ties the practice of fasting directly to the presence or absence of the bridegroom. While the bridegroom remains with the sons of the bridegroom, fasting is ruled out; the text states plainly that they cannot fast under those conditions. This claim treats the bridegroom’s presence itself as the decisive marker of time, one that overrides the regular calendar of religious observance maintained by John’s disciples and the Pharisees. The passage therefore presents Jesus’ own presence as an event that reorders the appropriate human response to God.
The two brief illustrations that follow reinforce the same point by showing that new elements require new containers. An unshrunk patch damages old clothing, and new wine bursts old wineskins, destroying both the wine and the skins. These images do not condemn the old forms outright; they simply record that the new cannot be fitted into them without loss. Applied to the fasting question, the illustrations indicate that the reality introduced by the bridegroom cannot be accommodated within the existing pattern of fasting without producing a worse tear or a burst container.
The text also registers a future shift. Days are coming when the bridegroom will be taken away, and on that day fasting will occur. The passage therefore distinguishes two periods without explaining the mechanism of the taking away. What it does make clear is that the period of the bridegroom’s presence is marked by a form of joy incompatible with fasting, while the period after his removal returns to fasting. Discipleship is thereby located within this sequence rather than defined by a single unchanging rule.
In this way the unit presents the mission of Jesus as the arrival of something that cannot be merged with prior expressions of piety. The questioners assume continuity between their fasting and the practice of Jesus’ disciples; the reply undercuts that assumption by grounding the difference in the bridegroom’s presence and by insisting that new reality demands new conditions.
What are the interpretive difficulties?
The question in 2:18 is posed by unnamed speakers who simply report the observable difference in practice. Nothing in the wording indicates whether they act from curiosity, disapproval, or a desire to test Jesus, and the text supplies no further indication of their intent. The pairing of John’s disciples with the Pharisees is also left without explanation; the narrative has not previously shown these two groups acting together, so their joint appearance here registers a shared concern without clarifying what unites them on this point.
Jesus’ answer in 2:19-20 introduces the bridegroom image and then states that the bridegroom will be taken away. The text does not define the image or identify the moment of removal, leaving readers to weigh how far the metaphor extends. The statement that the disciples “cannot fast” while the bridegroom remains is presented as a matter of fitness rather than permission, yet the passage offers no additional comment on whether this fitness is temporary, permanent, or subject to later change.
The two short illustrations that follow in 2:21-22 address incompatibility. The unshrunk cloth is said to produce a worse tear, and the new wine is said to burst the skins, destroy the wine, and ruin the containers. Both images emphasize irreversible damage, but the text does not specify which element in the current situation corresponds to the new patch or the new wine. The final clause of 2:22 simply states the alternative without elaborating its implications for existing practices.
The passage therefore registers a clear contrast between present joy and future fasting while remaining silent on several practical questions: whether Jesus’ disciples later adopted regular fasts, how the community should understand the “day” of the bridegroom’s removal, or whether the incompatibility applies only to certain observances or to all inherited forms. These silences keep the focus on the immediate claim that something new has arrived whose presence alters accustomed patterns, without settling how that alteration will unfold in detail.
Movement by movement
The Fasting Question2:18
The inquiry from John's disciples and the Pharisees highlights the observable difference in practice between their groups and Jesus' disciples. The opening sentence states that these two sets of disciples were fasting, then records the direct question put to Jesus: why his own followers do not join them. The wording keeps attention fixed on what can be seen—regular fasting by one side and its absence on the other—without naming any larger setting or motive. This question arrives immediately after the meal with Levi and the tax collectors, so the same line of scrutiny continues: Jesus' choice of companions had already drawn notice, and now another visible habit sets his circle apart. The question itself is framed as a straightforward comparison rather than an open charge, yet it assumes fasting belongs to the expected pattern of serious religious life. By placing the two groups together in the act of fasting and in the act of asking, the sentence registers a shared concern without explaining what draws them into temporary alignment on this point. The narrative therefore presents the difference in practice as the fact that must be addressed before any further explanation can follow.
Bridegroom Present2:19
Jesus’ reply centers on the impossibility stated in the present: the sons of the bridegroom cannot fast while the bridegroom is with them. The sentence repeats the phrase “with them” twice, anchoring the claim to the immediate situation rather than to any general rule about fasting. By naming the companions “sons of the bridegroom,” the wording draws the questioners’ attention to the relationship created by Jesus’ own presence among his disciples. That presence supplies the decisive condition. The question in the preceding verse had simply observed that Jesus’ disciples do not fast while others do; the answer reframes the difference as a matter of timing determined by the bridegroom’s nearness. No calendar of religious observance overrides this fact. The present-tense verbs keep the point fixed on what holds true now, before any later development is mentioned. In narrative sequence the image therefore functions as a direct counter to the comparison offered by the disciples of John and the Pharisees, asserting that the current moment belongs to celebration because the bridegroom has not yet been taken away.
Bridegroom Taken Away2:20
The verse shifts the image from the bridegroom’s present company to a future moment of removal. Jesus states that days will come when the bridegroom will be taken away from them, and then they will fast on that day. This single sentence introduces a temporal break that the earlier impossibility in verse 19 does not yet address. The language remains spare: no explanation is given for how or why the bridegroom departs, only that his absence will alter the practice of fasting. The phrase “on that day” singles out the moment rather than establishing a new ongoing schedule. In the flow of the exchange, this future reference answers the question about current non-fasting by locating the difference in time rather than in principle. The theological weight rests on the bridegroom’s presence as the factor that suspends fasting; its reversal therefore restores the practice without contradicting the earlier claim. The verse leaves the identity of the bridegroom and the circumstances of his removal unstated, so the saying functions as a pointer rather than a full disclosure. Within the larger unit the statement stands between the two illustrations of cloth and wineskins, both of which likewise describe an irreversible change once something new arrives.
Unshrunk Cloth Patch2:21
The illustration opens with a plain statement of what never happens in ordinary mending: no one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on old clothing. The new material still carries its full dimensions and will contract when washed, while the older garment has already settled into its final shape. The text therefore states that the new takes the fulfillment away from the old, and a worse tear results. Placed immediately after the announcement that the bridegroom will one day be taken away, the saying supplies no explanatory link, yet its position makes the connection unavoidable. The incompatibility is not merely inconvenient; the attempt to join the two produces greater loss than if they had been left separate. The wording keeps the focus on the physical outcome rather than on any stated meaning, leaving the reader to notice how the new element actively damages what it was meant to repair. In narrative sequence the image follows the bridegroom sayings without restating them, so the tear stands as a concrete picture of what occurs when the present reality Jesus describes is forced into patterns already fixed by prior custom.
New Wine and Wineskins2:22
The second illustration turns to fermentation and storage. No one puts new wine into old wineskins, the text states, because the fermenting liquid will burst the skins, destroying both the wine and the containers. The sentence then breaks off into the terse positive: but new wine into new wineskins. This terse ending leaves the required action implied rather than spelled out, mirroring the abrupt close of the preceding patch saying. Both images therefore work by showing what cannot be combined without loss. The new wine stands for the presence and activity of Jesus already declared in the bridegroom saying; the old skins represent the existing patterns of religious observance that the questioners assume must remain unchanged. The illustration does not claim that fasting itself is abolished, only that it cannot contain the present reality without rupture. The narrative places this warning immediately after the patch saying, so the two pictures reinforce each other without elaboration or application. The reader is left to notice that the loss described is total: both the new content and the old container are ruined when they are forced together.
Notes accompany the Anselm Project Bible, an AI translation from the original languages. Tap any verse above for the committee's word-level decisions.
Tap a verse