Chapter # 2 Paragraph # 3 Study # 1
August 6, 2019
Moss Bluff, Louisiana
(094)
1901 ASV
18 And John's disciples and the Pharisees were fasting: and they come and say unto him, Why do John's disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees fast, but thy disciples fast not?
19 And Jesus said unto them, Can the
sons of the bridechamber fast, while the bridegroom is with them? as long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast.
20 But the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then will they fast in that day.
21 No man seweth a piece of undressed cloth on an old garment: else that which should fill it up taketh from it, the new from the old, and a worse rent is made.
22 And no man putteth new wine into old
wine-skins; else the wine will burst the skins, and the wine perisheth, and the skins: but [
they put] new wine into fresh wine-skins.
- I. An Immediate Turn To "Fasting".
- A. The prior paragraph highlights the antagonism of the "scribes of the Pharisees" because of Jesus' call of "Levi" and his subsequent hospitality to Jesus and His disciples as well as "many" of the despised of Israel.
- 1. At issue in this previous paragraph is the hostile self-righteousness of those "scribes" as they witness Jesus "eating with" tax collectors and sinners.
- a. This was a full blown "violation" of their "rules".
- b. The strength of this "violation" is revealed by the fact that this "rule" was yet in existence sixteen years after the founding of the Church by "members of status" in that Church in Jerusalem (Acts 10:45 and 11:3).
- 2. Jesus justifies His actions by putting forth a truism: healthy people do not need a doctor, but diseased people do.
- a. This "truism" makes Jesus the "doctor", the "scribes" the "healthy", and the "tax collectors and sinners" the "diseased".
- b. These categories should not have "offended"; but, Jesus' follow-up, that He had not come "to call" righteous people, but, rather, "sinners" was a subtle exclusion of the "scribes", not because they were "righteous", but because they thought of themselves as such (Luke 18:9).
- 1) It is likely that the scribes picked up on this "exclusion" because Jesus was treating their "righteousness" as a flawed thing by violating one of their "pet" forms of it by "eating with tax collectors and sinners". His willingness to ignore their "rules" was inescapable and, in their eyes, inexcusable.
- 2) It is also highly likely that Mark recorded this event in order to put a critical issue on the front burner: Jesus' version of "righteousness" in contrast to that of the "scribes of the Pharisees" (Matthew 5:20).
- a) There is a "bottom line" in the Gospel that declares that all must come to "repentance" in order to "be forgiven" to be qualified in God's eyes to take part in His glorious kingdom.
- b) This "bottom line" automatically excludes anyone who views him/her self as not having a need for "repentance" because of "my righteous life". In other words, if one considers him/her self as "healthy", he/she is setting him/her self up for rejection by the King of God's Glorious Kingdom.
- 3. Thus, the most basic level of the antagonism of these scribes is unveiled: they are insulted by the idea that they are no better than those they despise. If this notion ever takes hold, their scratching and clawing to attain to the heights of human approval will be turned into vanity and their goal will be absolutely frustrated...and there goes their "joy" in life.
- B. The issue of "fasting".
- 1. This is the only time Mark mentions "fasting" (2:18, 19, and 20), though Luke 18:12 makes it clear that this activity was rather pervasive in "religious Israel".
- a. That both the disciples of John and of the Pharisees engaged in "fasting" is significant.
- 1) John included it under his "umbrella thesis" of "repentance unto forgiveness".
- a) In one case, Jesus declared a significant distinction between John and Himself in that John was characteristically somber ("...neither eating nor drinking...") and He presented the opposite characteristics ("...eating and drinking...") [Luke 7:32].
- b) With John's participation in, and focus upon, the real need for "repentance", this is what we would expect; and with Jesus' lack of participation in that "need", His personal demeanor was that of an abiding Joy (though He knew better than any the grief of the losses that impenitence produces as He observed it in the lives of all with whom He had contact, and especially those whose attitude in life was self-righteous).
- c) For John, "fasting" as a regular practice, means that he was heavily burdened with the reality of the depravity of the human heart; both his and those of the people of Judea.
- i. There really is no escape from the fact established by Jeremiah 17:9.
- ii. There is a really profound reason for the central promise of the New Covenant as given in Jeremiah 31:33 and embellished in Ezekiel 11:19 and again in Ezekiel 36:26.
- iii. The records of the Scriptures are that no matter how "dedicated" one is to God, this depravity claws its way to the surface and proves its deadly presence. Even the "classic" godly ones (Noah, Job, and Daniel -- Ezekiel 14:14 and 20) did not have sufficient "godly character" to have any to spare to impart to another.
- d) Thus, for John, "fasting" was an indication of his grief and "repentance" was his only answer. There was no "legal hypocrisy" in John. The major point: man's moral flaw is sufficiently profound as to require the live-in presence of God's own Spirit in order to keep it "under wraps".
- 2) The Pharisees included it under their thesis of "sacrifices unto righteousness".
- a) It is inescapable that those whose "lives" are bound up in the pursuit of acceptance by performance, and the blindness of feelings of success, typically went about casting the accusation that those who rejected their goals and methods were "possessed by a devil".
- i. They accused John of this: Luke 7:33.
- ii. They accused Jesus of this: Mark 3:22.
- b) This is the ultimate "projection" (they who drank most deeply of Lucifer's goals and methods went about accusing all who opposed them of being possessed by his cohorts in rebellion).
- c) For these, there was no deep sense of the depravity of the human heart, and, thus, there was no "fasting" as an expression of grief. Theirs was "fasting" to "impress" (Matthew 6:16-18). Thus, the very expression of grief over hypocrisy was transformed into hypocrisy.
- b. These two groups applied "fasting" to their lives in totally different ways.
- 2. It may be significant that "fasting", as referenced by this particular word, reveals that, though the Church engaged in the practice (Acts 10:30; 13:2, 3), there is no instruction to the Church regarding it in its biblical literature.
- a. It may be that the apostles and prophets considered the Old Testament revelation regarding fasting sufficient for the Church, though this speculation has the weakness of the need to assume that those not familiar with the Old Testament would be aware of it (as the constitution of the Church transitioned from "majority Jewish" to "majority Gentile", this assumption grows more unlikely.
- b. On the other hand, it may be that "fasting" lends itself too easily to "boastfulness" (Luke 18:12 compared with Jesus' instruction in Matthew 6:16, 17 and 18) for it to be given a high priority in the Church's marching orders.
- c. It may also be that the message of the Gospel, believed, leads to a kind of "joy unspeakable and full of glory" (1 Peter 1:8), so that the prerequisite "mourning" that leads to "fasting" (Matthew 9:15) simply isn't "there".
- 3. An interesting point of fact is this: it is an almost automatic reality that deep distress causes a loss of appetite (except for those who use eating as a way to handle such things). This "fasting" is a strain on the physical body that creates an empathetic sympathy in God so that He often provides relief through answered prayer.
- a. According to Matthew 9:15, "fasting" is a response to "mourning". It is an unsuitable activity in settings of joy.
- b. And, that same text indicates that, for the most part, the days between the "comings" of the Son, will have their share of "mourning" because of the rather shaky character of the "faith" of those in the path of learning to walk by it (Acts 6:5 and 8 compared with 9:55).
- 4. We are told that Jesus, Himself, "fasted" for 40 days and nights before He was confronted by Satan and successfully established His credentials as "God's Beloved Son" unto the identities of both Redeemer and King.
- a. The first implication of this action is that Jesus was heavily burdened with His task (as He clearly demonstrates in His desperate prayer in the Garden before His arrest).
- b. The second implication is that His physically weakened state was intended by His Father (Jesus' prayer to His Father, "Give Me this day my daily bread..." went without a positive answer and Jesus refused to 'answer it Himself') so that Satan would have every advantage in his attempt to press Jesus into at least one act of disbelief (a "love/faith" complex that collapses under pressure -- whether mild or extreme -- is of no real value).