Jesus and Fasting (Mark 2:18-22)

This sermon was preached on 11/4/2010

I wonder what day of the week Levi was converted. It looks as if it was either a Monday or a Thursday because they were the two days of each week when the Pharisees fasted. Remember the parable Jesus told about the Pharisee and the tax-collector – one of the claims made by the Pharisee is that he fasted twice a week (Luke 18:12). It is interesting that Jesus chose to go to a feast on the day that prominent religious groups were having a fast. This practice of fasting twice a week was a man-made rule and Jesus had no intention of allowing his followers become ensnared by such religious actions. Instead he went to Levi’s home and participated in the celebration. This discussion about fasting is a continuation of the disagreement the Pharisees had over the company that Jesus was keeping.

It is important to note that this is not a passage on which to base the features of Christian fasting. A casual reading of it might deduce that Jesus did not approve of fasting or else that he did not regard it as an important spiritual discipline. The passage condemns wrong types of fasting, but only mentions one situation in which fasting was permissible (when the bridegroom was taken away). Yet Jesus does teach about fasting elsewhere, for example in the Sermon on the Mount when he links fasting to prayer and alms-giving. We cannot use this passage to minimise what Jesus teaches elsewhere about the important topic of fasting.

Confusion of religion

Mark mentions two groups that were fasting. One group, the Pharisees, were well-established in the community and the other group, the disciples of John, were a new group that had recently appeared. So here we have a reminder that the length of time that an organisation has existed is not the benchmark for whether or not its actions are appropriate. What matters is what Jesus thinks of the group, and it is clear that he did not approve of either group.

Not only were the groups different in length of existence, they were also poles apart in what they believed. The disciples of John believed he was the forerunner of the Messiah whereas the Pharisees did not think he was. Indeed John had clashed with some of the Pharisees, calling them ‘a generation of vipers’. In an intellectual sense, the disciples of John were closer to the truth than the Pharisees because in following John they had accepted his message. Yet the fact that they were closer than the Pharisees did not mean that they were close to Jesus.

There also seems to be a sense that the adoption of the Pharisees’ practice by the followers of John led to the situation that on matters on which they would have agreed with Jesus were hidden by their agreement with the rules of the Pharisees. The followers of John would have welcomed all kinds of sinners who repented of their sins – they would not have had any problem with Jesus mixing with a penitent sinner. Yet this very positive connection with the message of grace was distorted and obscured by their similarity to the Pharisees. Is that not a powerful message for us? Ideas of grace that we may espouse can become invisible because we adopt wrong visible behaviour.

The fact that Jesus and his disciples were at a feast was not lost on observers. They were used to religious groups having a public fast every Monday and Thursday, so they were puzzled by what Jesus did. Therefore they adopted the best response, which was to ask Jesus why his disciples were different. And Jesus gave an answer in which he used three illustrations to depict the differences between his kingdom and other religions. The illustrations are (1) bridegroom and wedding guests, (2) old garment and new patch, and (3) old wineskins and new wine.

Before considering the meaning of these illustrations, we can remind ourselves that we too have to cope with alternative religious claims. At one time, these claims were within Christianity, but now they extend far beyond it. Yet we can categorise them as far as our society is concerned as established or novel and we know that people are attracted to them either because a clinging to tradition or by a desire for newness. In any case, it is clear that there is great confusion within society concerning religion.

With regard to ourselves, it is more likely that we are prone to grade religions, and especially those within Christianity, according to how near or distant they are from our conception of what is true. Yet as we observed when suggesting that the disciples of John were closer to the truth than were the Pharisees, it does not matter very much if such are not close to Jesus. In fact, it is possible to have a precise understanding of the Bible’s teaching and yet remain detached from Jesus.

The essential requirement for each of us is that we go to Jesus for instruction. While we cannot do so in a physical sense, we can in a spiritual way. The way to approach Jesus is by prayer and by searching the Bible. Until one tries it, he or she cannot know if this method works. Yet we have the testimony of many who have discovered that Jesus is the truth, and their witness is an encouragement for all of us to try Jesus for ourselves.

The illustrations of Jesus’ religion

The common feature of the illustrations is that they depict something new – there is a new celebration (a wedding feast), a new piece of cloth, and new wine and new wineskins. Of course, we have to note that the newness refers to what Jesus was going to bring into the world and not to something that suddenly appears in 2010. This newness has now been available for almost 2,000 years.

In addition to referring to something new, the illustrations also refer to something old. It is important we do not deduce from this contrast that since the new refers to the New Testament type of religious experience, the old refers to Old Testament religious experiences. The contrast is not between what was practised by Old and New Testament believers. Instead the contrast is between humanly-devised religion and God-provided religion.

The illustration of the wedding feast reminds us that humanly-devised religion contains no happiness. No doubt Jesus is speaking about himself when referring to a bridegroom. What is the cause of joy at a wedding? It is not the food or the friends, instead it is the happy couple. If they are not happy, then there is no joy at the wedding. Part of the joy was the gracious giving of the bridegroom to his friends. They were not expected to purchase any thing.

We can easily see an allusion to Christian experience. In the wonderful relationship that his people have with Jesus, they receive from him freely many spiritual blessings. We have heard them described many times – forgiveness of sins, promises of provision and protection in the Christian pathway, and the prospect of heaven. All such blessings come to us without payment. Instead they are bestowed freely.

In contrast, the religion that focuses on behaviour as the means of purchasing divine favour is a religion without happiness. Of course, it is essential that we show devotion to Christ, but we show devotion because of what we have received freely. While there are other reasons, we often lose the joy of salvation when we forget that Jesus delights to give freely all the blessings of salvation.

What does Jesus mean when he says that the bridegroom will be taken away from the celebration? The taking away will be violent, so it is possible that Jesus is referring to the period connected with his death. When that will take place, Jesus says that his disciples will then engage in legitimate fasting. I don’t know if this is a prophecy of how the disciples would respond after they denied Jesus.

In any case, Jesus indicates that one reason for fasting is when the source of joy is absent. Obviously he is the source of joy. We can lose a sense of his presence by sin or we can lose it by providence. The point of fasting in such a situation points to the seriousness with which we regard his absence from our hearts. Just as the bridegroom’s presence and happiness brought joy to his friends, so the presence of Jesus gives great pleasure to his people. And when they cannot sense his presence, it becomes their main priority to recover it – they regard his presence as more important than even the legitimate things of life and will disregard them until they recover their spiritual state of joy in the Lord.

The next illustration is a person who sows a piece of new cloth on to an old garment. It was common knowledge that such a practice did not deal with the tear, but instead made it worse. If the old garment depicts legalism and man-made rituals, the piece of new cloth depicts grace. I suspect that this is an illustration of what the disciples of John were trying to do – mix the message of grace (the coming Deliverer) with the rituals of Pharisaism. Whether that is the case with regard to the disciples of John does not matter as far as we are concerned. Instead the point is that grace is not to be used to sort out the deficiencies in a human-originated religion. It will not work.

There is an obvious example of this in the change of heart of the Galatians who had been converted through Paul. After Paul had gone, they came under pressure from the Judaisers who taught them that the gospel was an add-on to the practices of Judaism. Paul would not allow such reasoning; in deed he regarded as evidence of a departure from the gospel. There cannot be any harmony between the gospel and mad-made religion.

The third illustration is of a person trying to put wine into an old wineskin. When the wine fermented, it would expand and burst the wineskin. The point is obvious – it is impossible for the religion of Jesus (the new wine) to grow if it is hidden within a system of man-made religion. We can see that the Pharisees, for all their religion, did not grow one spiritual centimetre. In order for spiritual growth to occur, we have to have the framework provided by grace. The church will not grow if it tries to confine the gospel to man-made religion.

What the Christian life is like

Jesus is teaching his disciples how to fish for men. In a sense, that is what the Pharisees and the disciples of John were doing also. They had their means, which included a system of outward rules not given by God. This was not the path that the disciples of Jesus were to follow. The legalistic path results in disappointment (no happiness), frustration (no power and no harmony when trying to mix Jesus and religious formality) and confinement (no growth).

In contrast, when we discover that Jesus provides all the items on the menu of grace and feast our souls upon them, we begin to experience joy in the gospel, fulfilment as we are enabled by the Spirit to obey God, and spiritual growth (personally and communally). Then we serve him out of gratitude for his mercy.