www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Scripture and Patristic Writings Matthew 9:14-17

Matthew 9:14-17

"Then the disciples of John came to him, saying, 'Why do we and the Phariseesfast, but your disciples do not fast? And Jesus said to them "Can the wedding guests mourn as long as the Bridegroom is with them? The days will come, when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast. And no one puts a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment for the patch tears away form 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 new wine skins, and so both are preserved."

I looked for a commentary in the fathers and could not find one.
I thought it meant that the Judaism that the Pharisees kept was incompatible with the teachings of Jesus.
Anyone have any comment?
Stephanos I

This is from a commentary and is not divinely inspired, of course. But it is one explanation. The Haydock Commentary on the Douay-Rheims says some of the following - I am not including everything, since it's too long to type - just main points.

v. 14: It is not without reason that the disciples of S.John should ask this question, fasting being always esteemed a great virtue, witness Moses and Elias.
v. 15: The disciples had not yet ascended to the higher degrees of perfection, they had not yet been renewed in spirit; therefore they required to be treated with lenity; for had the higher and more sublime mysteries been delivered to them without previous preparation, they would never, not even in the natural course of things, have been able to comprehend them.
v. 16: and no one putteth, ... Christ, by these similitudes, justifies the manner of life which he taught his disciples, which at first was adapted to their understandings; lest, if in the beginning, he had required them to fast contrary to what they had been accustomed, they might have been frightened at the austerity of his institute, and deserted him.
v. 17: They were to wait till they were renewed by the Holy Ghost, before they could enter with advantage on the hard ways of penance.

Stephanos,

My OSB notes say "The old garment and old wineskins stand for the Old Covenant and Judaism, viewed as imperfect and temporary, the new wineskins are the New Covenant and the Church, those in Christ. Wine represents the spirit and energy devoted to a covenant, the new wine of the New Covenant is the Holy Spirit dwelling within renewed men."

james

Dear Father Stephanos,

I can convey the understanding from the Orthodox Patristic perspective of the Blessed Theophylact below, but do keep in mind that it may differ from the Latin Churches understanding as other understandings of Holy writ do as well, which you are familiar with.

Matthew 9:14-17

"Then the disciples of John came to him, saying, 'Why do we and the Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not fast?

John's disciples were envious of Christ's fame and so accused Him of not fasting. And perhaps they were wondering how he conquered the passions without ascetic struggle, something which John could not do. For they did not understand that while John, a mere man, was righteous because of his virtues, Christ is virtue, as He is God."

And Jesus said to them "Can the wedding guests mourn as long as the Bridegroom is with them? The days will come, when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast.

"Now is the time for rejoicing as long as I am with My disciple," Jesus says. He calls Himself the bridegroom, as One Who betroths to Himself the new congregation, the old having died. The 'sons of the bridechamber" (i.e. the wedding guest) are the apostles. Jesus says, "After I have suffered and ascended, the time will come for them to fast with great hunger and thirst and to be persecuted." To show that His disciples are not yet perfected he adds:

"And no one puts a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment for the patch tears away form 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 new wine skins, and so both are preserved."

The disciples, He says, have not yet become strong, and therefore require forbearance. The heavy burden of the commandments out not to be laid upon them. Jesus also said these things to teach the disciples that later, when they would go out into all the world to make disciples, they too should use forbearance. (Note; The Greek word here is rendered as "forbearance" is synkatabasis. It means literally "condescension", that is lowering oneself to another's level of understanding and strength, out of compassion and love for that person. It is what a good teacher must do with a student; but the Supreme example is God the Word taking flesh and becoming man for our sake.)

The "piece of unshrunk cloth' means fasting, as does the "new wine". The "old garment" and "old wineskins' means the weakness of the disciples."

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

The parable of the new patch and the parable of the new wine both have the same meaning. Jesus said them one after the other - in answer to the same question.

Why don�t the disciples fast like the old laws of Moses prescribe?

As often, Jesus takes it off the physical and literal and raises it to the spiritual. Which he always considered the more real - and the physical or literal to be just a shadow and reflection.

They do not fast now because the goal of any ascetic practice is to ready oneself (clean house) for the visitation of God. If God (the bridegroom and the bread of life) is already present - why fast?? He is already present. No fasting needed. When the real thing is here - practice - is over.

Which is more important - fasting or feasting on the bread of life while it is present? Feasting of course.

In short time - the bread of life would be taken from them through his crucifixion - and then again through his ascension into heaven. They can mourn and long for his return - then. But not now - while He is with them.

The Latin church has always, to my memory and the way I was taught, taken the meaning of these two joined parables to be a hint at the passing and end times of the old church with its Jewish Temple cult and laws� and � the start of the new church and its laws. This moment of change-over would take place in the crucifixion and resurrection.

>I thought it meant that the Judaism that the Pharisees kept was
> incompatible with the teachings of Jesus.
Right.

Of course the form of Judaism they kept was corrupted from how Moses and the Prophets wanted it. So too was the Sadducees a corruption. They could not even agree on the date for Passover. At the time when Jesus died - the Sadducees ate the Passover on Thursday evening (as did Jesus and his disciples) and the Pharisees ate it on the next day which was Friday evening (John 18:28). And all these things had been all balled up for - generations. No one alive even remembered in what ways these things were done in the days of the Prophets. The spirit of the law had been lost and without that - everyone argued - the letter of the law.

The cloud of Presence was gone from the Temple, along with the Ark and its contents (tablets, rod of Aaron, manna). The line of sucession of the Sons of David - the oly legitimate heirs to the throne (Matthew 1) had been in hiding for several generations least they be murdered by the those illegitimates who occupied the throne by force. The High Priest was no longer appointed via Providential means (drawing lots) but was a now a political appointment.

The fig tree was Israel - that bore no fruit. It must now wither and pass away. God himself (Jesus) now placed the curses that Moses describe in his parting speech (the Song of Moses - Exodus I believe).

Jesus would not pour new wine (his spirit which would be in the apostles) into old skins (the ceremonies and laws of the Mosaic Temple cult). Because those so habituated to the messed up ways as to think they were right - simple would not accept things to be any other way - they would think the right ways to be wrong ways. Acts tells us how the Jews reacted when the apostles spoke in synagogues - they beat them as traitors and heretics. Preverters of the Law.

The new church suffered and languished while the apostles considered themselves still Jews and that their task was to straighten things out and restore Judaism to it pure spirit. Not until the gentiles flowed in and the apostle gave up trying to change all the gentiles into Jews - did the church really take off from the ground.

Anyway� you have got to be tired of listening to me lately so I will get to the point.

Bread - and - wine. We know who that is.

The problem is not the patch of new material - the problem is the old worn thin garment. Throw it away. Don�t bother trying to patch it.

Compare Matthew 9:16 and Mark 2:21 and Luke 5:36 - the patch of material is brand new material. �Unshrunk� was the translators choice. What Matthew and Mark mean is - not church by washing - it was brand new and never washed. As Luke makes clear - it was cut from new cloth. Why would someone take a brand new garment and cut a hole in it making it no good - just to get a patch to sew onto an old worn out garment rode? No matter what kind of patch one would put on the old garment - the old garment would soon rip further around the new material - making it now worthless - the patching effort worthless also. A waste of time. Throw it out. Take the new cloth - and make a new garment. A new church.

Least we ignore the very last lines of this parable � which ties it all together�
(Luke 5:39) �And no man so used to drinking the old wine has an immediate desire for new wine: for he will say �the old - tastes better.�

The name Jerusalem means �city of God�. I know - many say it means �city of peace� but its primary translation from the Hebrew would be �city of God�.

The age of the old Jerusalem with its Temple cult and ceremonies as a way to God - are over. Its time has ended. The fig tree bore no fruit. At the moment when Jesus is crucified and resurrected - his new church will become the new �city of God� come down from heaven.


You were right. I just added details.
-ray

Portions from the Letters Of Jerome.

Regarding that the spirit of the new church is the spirit of the new wine in the parable and it needed to be put in new wine skins.

Regarding that Jesus coming in the flesh and his death and resurrection took place at the 'end time'. The end of the old law and the birth of the new church. The end of one age and the beginning of another. Notice Jerome does not say 'had come' as if the event was past and over but uses 'has come' meaning His presence is continuing in the new 'city of God'.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-06/Npnf2-06-10.htm
Letters of Jerome Book I

Hope these help.

-ray

To add to the information given above I have found something from The Inheritance of the New Covenant by St. Gaudentius, Early Church Father. This is an excerpt from a homily by him. He was the Bishop of Brescia, Italy and a friend of St. Ambrose, bishop of Milan. St. Gaudentius lived in the late 4th and early 5th century.

Although this may not apply directly I think it shines some interesting light on the topic.

...the wine of Christ's blood, drawn from the many grapes of the vineyard that he had planted, is extracted in the wine-press of the cross. When men receive it with believing hearts, like capricious wineskins, it ferments within them by its own power."

Here St. Gaudentius is referring to the reception of the Body and Blood of Christ in communion. The use of the word, "capricious" did puzzle me, so I checked the definition which I find has another meaning besides fickleness and found it can also mean a sudden change of mind.

More of St. Gaudentius's homily, the context from which this is taken, can be found at:

www.crossroadsinitiative.com/inheritance.html [crossroadsinitiative.com]

In Christ and the Theotokos,

Porter(Mary Jo)

May I suggest that it may be that the word has come to be restricted in these days to a meaning of - fickle and impulsive change of mind. A wholly negative connotation.

May I suggest that it once had a positive meaning of - flexible, freedom, improvise, not ridged and not stiff.

In this use �capricious� would have the opposite idea of wineskins that have lost their oils and are now stiff and will split when the wine (new spirit) tries to expands their lives to a new freedom release from so many self-judgmental laws.

So it seems to mean one who has not overly burdened himself with rules in scruples ways.

The comparison here would be between the old ways of the Law which demand oneself to constantly be judging oneself and applying rules to oneself as a measurement of holiness - and on the other hand a spiritual freedom which Jesus said the Son of God are invited to. (James 1:25 and 2:12, Ephesians 3:12, 1 Peter 3:16, Matthew 26:50, Like 5:20, John 15:13-14-15, Matthew 13:30)

For many people the unfamiliar aspects of freedom can be an uncomfortable and insecure thing. As much as the soul longs for it they can not come to accept it. Some are more comfortable with God being a higher official (he is always right and I am always wrong) where one must always submit and think of himself habitually as always a sinner and never a real son. Always servant and never friend of God. In this way we gain a habit of seeing ourselves as so unlike him� and never see ourselves as becoming like him through a union of wills and minds (spirit) in friendship.

This is only a suggestion for consideration. It seems to fit the parable.

-ray

QUOTE from Ray. "May I suggest that it may be that the word has come to be restricted in these days to a meaning of - fickle and impulsive change of mind. A wholly negative connotation.

May I suggest that it once had a positive meaning of - flexible, freedom, improvise, not ridged and not stiff.

In this use �capricious� would have the opposite idea of wineskins that have lost their oils and are now stiff and will split when the wine (new spirit) tries to expands their lives to a new freedom release from so many self-judgmental laws."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Well, we would have to check out the original language because the translation might have lost something in the process, but, yes, I think it probably did have a more positive meaning than what 'caprious' usually means.

I should hope so anyway since the Church Father here is talking about the action of Divine grace in the soul when one receives Holy Communion.

In Christ,

Porter

Interesting... A few minutes with the epistemology of the word.

In early Greek the word Capri (kapos or kopos as in the word epis-kopos which is in English - bishop.

Kopos was the name of the white stone which the judge presented to the accused as a sign of a being judged innocent and entitled to be a free man. Revelations also uses it to mean that when the purified are presented with a white stone.

And it was also used to indicate an intoxicating drink (as new wine would be).

In Latin it is Capri~cio which is a musical instrumental that improvises in a free form style and is not restricted to the usual rules. As capri~cio~so it means to go in a livly and free direction.

If the translation is accurate Saint Gaudentius selected a most fine double-entendre in both the Latin and Greek languages.

-ray