052. Chapter 31 - Controversies in Galilee

Chapter 31 - Controversies in Galilee Matthew 9:1-17;Mark 2:1-22;Luke 5:17-39 Growing Hostility

It was not merely the unlearned multitudes that thronged about Jesus. The scholars from near and far gathered to investigate His ministry. When the public excitement had subsided, Jesus returned to Capernaum and resumed His preaching and healing ministry. The home of Peter seems to have been the location of the next great scene: “When he entered again into Capernaum after some days, it was noised that he was in the house.” The immense crowds that gathered when they learned He had returned filled the house and the street. The scholars who had been awaiting His return occupied seats in the midst: “there were Pharisees and doctors of the law sitting by, which were come out of every village of Galilee and Judaea and Jerusalem.” Such an imposing assemblage of the scholarship of the nation in a city of the provinces indicates the rising tide of Jesus’ fame and the serious nature of the national situation from the viewpoint of the Pharisees and Sadducees. The departure of Jesus from Jerusalem shortly after the first exciting clash with national leaders had reduced the tension. But the success of His Judaean ministry had caused their opposition to become active and formidable. The withdrawal from Judaea to the provinces again postponed any critical collision with the hierarchy. But the national leaders were keeping close watch upon the progress of Jesus’ campaign in Galilee, and when it began to assume extraordinary proportions, they sent picked leaders to prevent Jesus from wresting leadership of the nation from their hands. An exciting series of clashes occurred between Jesus and these scholars; three separate controversies in rapid succession show how tense the situation was becoming, and how bold and malicious was the opposition Jesus faced. The first of these controversies arose out of the healing of the paralytic and the claim of the power to forgive sins which Jesus attached to it; the second was caused by the breach of their whole system of pious conduct, when Jesus called a tax collector to be one of His immediate helpers and accepted the invitation to a banquet attended by publicans; the third was closely associated with the second and was a direct attack by the Pharisees upon Jesus’ failure to make His disciples observe the prevailing rules for fasting. The first of these was much more fundamental in character and the issues involved are rooted in the elemental teaching of the Old Testament and the claims of Jesus as to His divine person and power. The last two were rather matters that contravened the traditions of the scholars as the methods of Jesus boldly discarded the customs which the Pharisees had tried to bind upon the nation. The Paralytic

Four zealous friends came bringing on a stretcher or camp-bed a friend who was afflicted with palsy. Unable to approach even the door of the house where Jesus was preaching, they climbed to the roof of the house and, tearing a hole in the roof, lowered the man by ropes into the presence of Christ. Modernists have attempted to ridicule the idea of hoisting a sick man in a bed to the roof of a house and of digging up the roof for such a purpose. But a little investigation of the land of Palestine and its customs would have saved them “much ado about nothing.” The houses in Palestine have flat roofs and many of them have outside stairways which would have been easily ascended. The houses are built close together so that the men also might have entered an adjoining house by an inside stairway and crossed over from one roof to another without difficulty. The stretcher would have been laid aside and the man carried on the mattress. The roof of this house was made of tiles (Luke 5:19), as is common in Palestine. These can be removed easily and later replaced without damage to the house. Even if clay and mortar had to be dug out and some people in the main chamber below were sprinkled with dust and rubbish, this would not deter men who had strong faith. The hostile scholars would doubtless be indignant at such an interruption which, in the most dramatic manner imaginable, focused attention upon the miraculous power of Jesus. But Christ did not resent the bold conduct of the men; the more faith men showed, the better He was pleased. It took surprising faith on the part of the four men to persist in their determination to get their friend to Jesus, even though it required such startling procedure. It required great faith on the part of the man to endure the complicated ordeal by which he finally came into the presence of the Master. Each of the Synoptics emphasizes the faith of the men and the impression which it made upon Jesus. The throng must have become motionless and breathless as they watched the man lowered through the roof and as they awaited the answer of Jesus to such an astonishing appeal to Him for help. But their wildest expectations of a bold answer to such a bold appeal could not have anticipated the stunning declaration of Jesus to the man: “Son, be of good cheer; thy sins are forgiven.” Instead of pronouncing a cure of the pathetic physical ailment, Jesus granted forgiveness of sins to the man. This suggests some critical connection between the man’s past life and his present physical suffering. Jesus read the man’s heart and knew that he was repentant, even as He read his past and knew that he was responsible for his condition. The man had come seeking relief from physical paralysis, but God often grants to man more than he asks. The declaration of Jesus implies divine understanding of the human heart and of the deepest needs and possibilities of man, even as it Implies possession of the highest authority and power of heaven. The Necessity of Controversy

Jesus knew that such a declaration ,would bring upon Him the fierce denunciation of His enemies seated in the midst. Controversy was sure to result from such an assumption of divine prerogatives by Jesus. Evidently Jesus did not share the fear of controversy which causes so many preachers today to support all sorts of false teaching rather than have circumstances arise which might bring poverty or persecution. The primary consideration ‘gas that here one of God’s lost children was seeking his way back to the Father’s house. Jesus answered directly the unspoken outcry of the man’s faith-filled and repentant heart. Jesus might have given him assurance of forgiveness in a private conference, but Jesus had come to save not this one man alone: all men should hear the invitation to life. This could only be done if men were brought to understand the nature of God’s Son and the divine plan of redemption. The opposition of those whose hearts were filled with hatred and malice could not restrain Him from declaring in the most effective manner this revelation of His person and power. The Fundamental Issue A gasp of astonishment must have succeeded this pronouncement. The swift protest of the scholars, unspoken as yet, was: “Who is this that speaketh blasphemes? Who can forgive sins but God alone?” To blaspheme is “to rail at or insult God; to take God’s name in vain; to speak evil of God; to deny the existence, attributes, power or authority of God.” It also means “to arrogate or claim any attribute, power, or authority which belongs exclusively to God.” It is in this latter sense that the Pharisees accused Jesus of blasphemy. Their fundamental proposition was correct: God alone can forgive sins. But their application of the principle was false for Jesus is the Son of God. Their accusation of blasphemy would have been just, if He had been a mere man. He proves their accusation false by working a miracle which sets the seal of God’s approval upon His claim of identity with God implied in forgiving the man’s sins. Most of the attacks of the enemies of Jesus, then and now, center in the proposition as to whether He is God as well as man the son of God. In the midst of His most humble ministrations, the deity of Christ is gloriously revealed. Before He healed the paralytic, a dramatic revelation was made of His divine authority — the power to forgive sins. For a mere man to claim this power is blasphemy. It was then; it is now. It implies absolute perfection on the part of the one who offers such forgiveness to mankind. It implies supreme authority. It is a direct claim to deity. “Who can forgive sins but one, even God?” The Old Testament had provided that sins could be forgiven of God through the offering of bloody sacrifices in the temple by the priests, looking forward to final redemption in the death of the Messiah. Jesus claimed authority to forgive the sins of the paralytic and proved His claim by a miracle which baffled His enemies. The Claim Substantiated by the Miracle

Jesus answered the ferment of criticism in the hearts of the scholars. The first item of evidence which He offered them to prove His claims was to read their hearts and publicly state the evil thoughts they were thinking. He then laid (the proposition that He would prove that “the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins (as God has in heaven) by a miracle: “Which is easier, to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins are forgiven; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed and walk?” It would be easier to pronounce the forgiveness of the man’s sins for the reason that they would have no visible means of testing the truth of His claims to have such authority. But if He commanded the man to rise up healed of this fearful disease which had made him helpless, they would be able to test the reality of His authority. Thus Jesus proved the less difficult by the more difficult. The argument was valid because it was only by the exercise of God’s prerogatives and powers that He could accomplish either. Jesus left immediately after the healing and the people were filled with fear and amazement. His enemies were confounded, but we soon find them returning again to the attack.

Modern Attacks on This Account This incident naturally provokes just as bitter criticism from unbelievers today as it did in the beginning. It furnishes one of the strongest affirmations of the deity of Jesus. The attacks of the modernists come from several directions. (1) They attempt to deny that Jesus claimed the power to forgive sins. (2) An extreme group, led by Welihausen, try to deny that Jesus ever called Himself the Son of man (meaning the Messiah) and offered miraculous proof. (3) They declare He never worked miracles for evidence of His deity, but that His works of healing were done out of sympathy for the sufferer. The Power to Forgive Sins On the first problem, they maintain one of two positions. Jesus did not forgive the man’s sins, but merely announced that God had forgiven them. But this is a complete denial of the declaration of Jesus that He would heal the man as definite, indubitable proof that He had the power on earth to forgive sins. It is true Jesus did not say: “1 forgive thy sins” but “Thy sins are forgiven.” But that Jesus meant by this statement that He was forgiving the sins of the man is the plain meaning of the passage. (1) The entire portrait of Jesus as the Son of God presented in the New Testament shows this. (2) The Pharisees immediately interpreted His statement as a declaration that He was forgiving the sins of the man. Their unspoken protest was: “Who can forgive sins but one, even God?” Jesus did not reply that their accusation of blasphemy was the result of a misunderstanding of His statement, that He had only meant to inform the man that God had forgiven his sins. Their proposition that only God can forgive sins and their conclusion that Jesus had claimed to forgive sins are both accepted by Jesus as correct in His reply. (3) The reply of Jesus affirms that He has forgiven the sins of the man, for He declared that He will prove by a miracle that He has the right to forgive sins on earth. The evidence of this statement is simply unanswerable. Not even the perverted interpretation of the unbeliever is able to destroy the evidence of the passage for the deity of Christ. For how could Christ even announce that God had forgiven the sins of the man except by knowing in a miraculous way the mind of God and the heart and the life of the man? When Christ declared, “The Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins,” He uttered something entirely new. “We have seen strange things today!” “We never saw it on this fashion.” These conclusions by the crowd were both correct and natural. His declaration offered something entirely aside from the Old Testament provisions for the remission of sins. The only reason the Pharisees did not object to His astounding declaration as being against the Old Testament regulations which provided a temple, priests, and sacrifice, was that all of this was dwarfed by the larger claim of Jesus to be God — to have authority in Himself and upon earth to forgive sins. The Act of Forgiveness and the Act of Healing The second skeptical attempt to deny that Jesus forgave the man’s sins declares that He merely removed the penalty of the sin, the paralysis which had been caused by the sin. This is the position of Gould in his commentary on Mark. But it is impossible to identify the healing with the forgiving. They are two absolutely different acts. He proves one by the other. He contrasts the two: His declaration that He forgave the sins of the man, which His auditors cannot test; and His command which results in the healing of the man, which they can test. He reduces the whole proposition to something which they can test with their senses as they witness the healing of the man. He, also, is unable to explain why the scholars should have understood that Jesus claimed to forgive the man and why Jesus did not correct their misunderstanding, if all He claimed to do was to heal a disease caused by the man’s sin. The Son of Man The extreme modernists who attempt to break the force of the testimony of this passage to the deity of Christ by affirming Jesus did not mean to refer to Himself here by the title “Son of man” urge that “Son of man” was not a Messianic title in the mind of the people and that Jesus did not call Himself “Son of man,” meaning the Messiah. Those who admit that “Son of man” could have been a Messianic title, hold that He could not have used it publicly, at least not until after the scene at Caesarea Philippi. All the Synoptics agree that on that occasion Jesus commanded His disciples to tell no man that He was the Christ. The modernists claim that Mark gives the correct idea about the ministry of Jesus and that he does not record Jesus as using this title to mean Himself until after Peter’s confession (Mark 8:29), and then secrecy was enjoined. They claim that the term means merely man in Mark 2:10, Mark 2:28. They would interpret this declaration of Jesus as He healed this paralytic thus: “I will prove that man can forgive sins.” The plural in Matthew 9:8 is said to uphold this: “They were afraid, and glorified God, who had given such authority unto men.” But this verse does not record a declaration of Christ or of Matthew. It is the awed and obscure reflection of the multitude. They do not completely realize the relation of Jesus to God, but they see that He has proved that although actually in the flesh before them, He can forgive sins. The plural “men” means that they have seen one in the flesh claim to forgive sins and prove the claim He has made. Moreover, the miracle of Jesus proves that Jesus could forgive sin, and not that man in general can. The miracle proved the claim. What was His claim? If men generally, after laying claim to the power to forgive sin, could work miracles to prove the claim, then this proposition would be true. But there is no warrant in the Scripture for suggesting such a proposition. The Method of Jesus

There is a vast deal of misplaced emphasis in the critical discussion of the question as to whether the term “Son of man” (the same thing applies to the term “Son of God”) was in current use to mean the Messiah when Jesus came. Suppose the term was not so used by the scholars, writers and people before this time. What then? The objections of critics to this proposition rest upon two enormous assumptions, both of which are false. (1) That Jesus would not have used in His teaching and preaching terms and titles with which the people were not familiar or old terms and titles with a new significance which the people would not understand. This assumption overlooks the whole person and method of Jesus. This is the very sort of thing that Jesus repeatedly did and that caused scholars like Nicodemus or even the foremost disciples to protest that they did not understand His meaning. (2) That the people, even though they did not understand at first His use of new terms or the new meaning He gave to old ones, would not quickly recover from their astonishment and seize these terms and begin to use them with a growing understanding. The Gospels are full of evidence that this very thing did happen and it is true to human nature through the ages. If the term “Son of God” was not in general use to mean the Messiah when Jesus came, then the ready use which Nathanael made of the title, “Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel” (John 1:49) shows how quickly this apt student had taken up a title which he had just learned from his inspired master, John the Baptist (John 1:34). The same thing is true of the use of the term by the Roman centurion who could hot but have heard the raging discussion of the question as to whether Jesus was the Son of God, which took place during His trials, and the taunts of the Jews as Jesus died: “If thou art the Son of God….”

Use of the Term by Jesus The modernists claim that in Aramaic “a son of man” meant a human being and by mistake it was changed over, in writing the phrase in Greek, to “the Son of man.” This is a shallow theory which implies that Jesus did not make Himself clear, or the disciples did not know or properly represent what He said. The key citation to show that Jesus used “the Son of man” as a Messianic title and applied it to Himself is Matthew 16:13. and the parallel passages. Matthew 26:64 is also absolutely conclusive. From the first appearance of “Son of man” in John 1:1, it is clear that Jesus used it to mean Himself, and that it was a Messianic title, though veiled and not in general use since it emphasized the humanity of the Messiah, while the Jews painted a picture of worldly glory rather than humiliation for the Christ. The command at Caesarea Philippi that they should tell no man that He was the Christ was the result of the exciting circumstances following the climax of His Galilean campaign. While campaigning in remote Sychar of Samaria, He could proclaim Himself the Messiah to the people without fear of Zealot’s wresting His movement to violence (John 4:26,John 4:39-42). In the same way He commanded the Gadarene demoniac to broadcast through his native country the fact of his healing, because the Decapolis was unevangelized and not yet stirred to any great interest in Christ (Mark 5:19, Mark 5:20). But His command to the leper to tell no one of the miracle was the result of the overflowing excitement in the section where this miracle occurred (Mark 1:44). Harnack offers the following stinging rejoinder to Wellhausen on this point: “Some scholars of note, and among them Wellhausen, have expressed a doubt whether Jesus described Himself as the Messiah. In that doubt I cannot concur; nay, I think it is only by wrenching what the evangelists tell us off its hinges that the opinion can be maintained. The very expression ‘Son of man’ that Jesus used is beyond question. It seems to me to be intelligible only in a Messianic sense” (What Is Christianity?, p. 110). In other words, ‘Wellhausen’s view is absolute violence to the Scriptures and not an interpretation of it. It is like an effort to tear a door off its hinges instead of entering through it. The hinges are “the Son of man” and “the Son of God”; one, at the top; the other, at the bottom. The door swings on these hinges that affirm and reveal that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. Only those who are determined to deny that Jesus is the Son of God and the Savior of the world would make such a violent effort to deny that Jesus claimed the power to forgive sins.

Purpose of Miracles

Unbelievers use the third line of attack against all the miracles which the Gospels declare were worked as direct evidence of the deity of Christ. They hold that the mighty works, which they explain as more or less natural events, were worked solely out of sympathy for man’s suffering. This miracle of healing the palsied man is a good place to test their view, since Christ so clearly declared the miracle to be the proof of His divine claim. There is not the slightest incongruity in combining these two motives: sympathy for suffering, and desire to give proof of the divine person and message of Jesus. This passage plainly indicates that Jesus was moved by pity for the man’s suffering, but His regard for the needs of the man’s soul came first and were met first. Jesus might have managed the healing in such a way as to have avoided the public claim to the power to forgive sins, but the needs of the souls of all men came first and He placed the emphasis in the healing, not upon the physical but the spiritual condition of the man, not upon His power to heal so much as His power to save. The whole modernistic contention that Christ worked His miracles only out of sympathy for physical suffering argues that the body is more important than the soul. if He had sympathy for the spiritual ailments of men, then He would have used His miraculous power to bring faith to their hearts and forgiveness and salvation to them. This is exactly what He did. He declared He was working miracles for this purpose and argued afterward that they furnished an all-sufficient basis for faith in Him. “Because I said unto thee, I saw thee underneath the fig tree, believest thou? thou shalt see greater things than these” (John 1:50). “But the witness which I have is greater than that of John, for the works which the Father hath sent me to accomplish, the very works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me” (John 5:36). “But though he had done so many signs before them, yet they believed not on him” (John 12:37). The same undercurrent of argument underlies the Synoptics; a good illustration is the manner in which Jesus cited His miraculous works as proof of His claims in reply to the question of John the Baptist and the fearful denunciation of the unbelieving cities where most of His mighty works had been done (Matthew 11:2-6;Matthew 20:1-34;Matthew 21:1-46;Matthew 22:1-46;Matthew 23:1-39;Matthew 24:1-51). The Call of Matthew The calling of a tax-collector from his place of toll by the roadside to be one of the disciples of Jesus was the signal for another controversy. The publicans had a very profitable but disgraceful occupation. They were considered outcasts and traitors because they assisted Rome in collecting taxes from Israel. The temptations of their work, the possession of wealth, and the general scorn of the religious leaders usually led the publicans into dissolute living. The constant connection in the Gospels of “publicans and sinners” is most significant The narrative which describes the call of Matthew and the farewell banquet which he gave to his new Master and his old comrades in his home, throbs with the revelation of a great love. It was a love which sent Jesus into most unlikely places looking for lost souls. The publicans were usually a reckless and worldly set. But Jesus’ love sent Him into the highways and byways. If we do not go in like manner, we have not known true love. Jesus promised to make His disciples “fishers of men.” When men go fishing they must go where the fish are to be found. Jesus carried His message to the people; so He has sent us into all the world. Again, it was a love that made sinners love Jesus. James Barrie says that love is not blind, but has an extra eye which enables us to see the good in people. The great love of Jesus enabled Him to see the good under the tough exterior of the publicans. This immediately stirred the publicans to love Jesus. “We love Him who first loved us.” While we were yet in our sins, Christ loved us and died for us. It was a love which brought a glorious fellowship. Reckless men have a sort of sixth sense which enables them to recognize a hypocrite afar off. But the purity of Jesus’ life was self-evident. The fellowship which drew the publicans into the presence of Jesus was as natural as the mutual animosity which separated them from the hypocritical Pharisees A solemn hush must have come to this rude assembly when the great Prophet entered. What a beautiful picture this is of Jesus in the home of a publican approaching lost men on the social side to win them back to God. The Farewell Banquet The great love which Jesus revealed was matched by the great sacrifice which Matthew made. The call of Matthew produced an embarrassing situation. It costs much to cut loose from evil surroundings and companions. How often a man shrinks from changing his life because he lacks the courage to break with the crowd. It is a wonderful thing to see how Matthew faced this Situation. He invited his old comrades to this banquet in order that they might know Jesus. Did Matthew make a speech that day at the close of the banquet? It must have been a thrilling occasion. The best way to get his friends to understand the change in his life was to get them to see Jesus. What did Jesus say to the crowd? He never lost an opportunity to preach. What a sermon this must have been: the sympathetic attitude with which He touched their hearts and awakened memories of innocent childhood, the bold challenge to their life of recklessness which stirred their conscience, and the beacon light of hope which He swung out on their darkened pathway. The thing which crowned this occasion was the great sacrifice. Matthew left all and followed Jesus. This is the way to begin the Christian life. He met a great love with a great love. Jesus’ sacrifice for him stirred bin) to a great sacrifice for Christ. It must have meant more to Matthew to leave all than to the fishermen by the lakeshore. Wealth, luxury, and worldliness had to be surrendered.

Matthew the Apostle

What Matthew gave tip was not to be compared with what he gained. Back of the great love which brought forth a great sacrifice was the great Saviour who was able to save him from his past anti to call him into a great future. Matthew’s break with his past was definite anti final: he did not drift back into it. He became one of the apostles of Jesus. He became the author of the first Gospel — one of the most important documents of all history. The contrast between Matthew, the publican, and Matthew, the faithful apostle and biographer, reveals the great love and saving power of the Son of God. Matthew was saved to a glorious fellowship. The Self-Righteous Pharisees On this occasion, as the Pharisees walked the streets in front of Matthew’s house and voiced their sneering criticisms of the presence of the great Prophet in the home of a publican amid a motley crowd of sinners, Jesus joined battle with them and gave them a pungent and penetrating rejoinder. It is impossible to understand His words, unless they be interpreted as sarcasm. “They that are whole, have no need of a physician, but they that are sick.” Jesus is the physician: the publicans, the sick,. the Pharisees, the well. Are we to understand, then, that the Pharisees were perfect and did not need salvation? Are not all men sinners and dependent on God’s mercy? Here is the sarcasm: Jesus applies the titles “the whole” and “the righteous” to the Pharisees as their own estimate of themselves, but it is a patent absurdity. “You think you are well, but you are desperately sick and do not know it. A physician cannot help you until you realize your illness and are willing to take his medicine. You think you are so righteous that you do not need God. I can do nothing for you. The Great Physician

Jesus offered a most touching defense of His presence in the home of Matthew. He said in effect: “I know that these people are sick unto death with sin. But I am a physician. That is why I am here. I am not contracting their diseases nor carrying them to other people. I am healing them and sending them back to the noble tasks of life.” The courage and devotion which send a physician into the midst of all kinds of contagious and deadly diseases with his sympathetic touch and healing power is the type of Jesus, the Great Physician. The charge of the Pharisees that Jesus associated with sinners was His glory, not His shame. Judged by both His motives and the results, this association revealed Jesus as Lord and Saviour. The Controversy about Fasting The last controversy recorded in this period of His Galilean ministry bears evidence of arising out of this scene in the home of Matthew. Although silenced by the defense of Jesus, the Pharisees appear to have carried their campaign to the disciples of John the Baptist. Once before they had sought to stir the jealousy of John and his followers against Jesus. But John had replied in no uncertain terms: “He must increase but I must decrease” (John 3:22.). John was now in prison. Some of his faithful disciples still undertook to bring him comfort and to carry on as best they could his fading campaign. The Pharisees seem to have succeeded this time with the disciples of John and had them join in the protest against the manner in which Jesus’ disciples were failing to keep the fast days. Matthew states that the disciples of John addressed a protest to Jesus. Mark does not definitely identify the speakers, but associates the disciples of John and the Pharisees together in the protest. The Pharisees had set aside Mondays and Thursdays as fast days. The disciples of John “were fasting often,” which perhaps means they were keeping the days ordained by the Pharisees. and others in addition, as they were moved by the austere example of their leader and by their grief for his present misfortune. There is evident in their approach to Jesus a note of jealous complaint and criticism of the freedom and abundant character of the life of Jesus’ disciples as contrasted with the ascetic character of their own living: locusts and wild honey versus a banquet in the home of a publican! The Underlying Principles The reply of Jesus is in an entirely different mood from the cutting sarcasm which He had used toward the Pharisees on the subject of His association with the publicans. The disciples of John had been misled. They were not attempting to attack Jesus, but seeking to comprehend. They were assailed by jealousy, but their circumstances made life hard and made it difficult to understand this phase of Jesus’ ministry. Jesus used three figures in quick succession as a means of explaining His situation and program: a wedding, where mourning would be out of place, pictured the present phase of ministry where fasting would not be fitting. He added an ominous prediction of the tragedy before Him: “but the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then will they fast.” This is the first clear intimation of His death and departure. What was the effect of this prediction upon the disciples? Did they feel the chill of fear creeping over them as they listened to this prophecy? They may have been puzzled and dismayed; but the prediction was veiled and may have soon been forgotten in the rush and excitement of Jesus’ ministry. The other figures were familiar, but vivid: a person attempting to sew a piece of unshrunk cloth upon an old garment finds that the new patch, when it shrinks, will rend the old material. New wine placed in old skins, which have already been stretched to the fullest extent, will burst the skins when the new wine ferments ant! expands. The principle is that things which do not harmonize should not be put together. So fasting and His present program do not match. He does indicate that fasting is to have a place in the lives of His followers. But Jesus clearly condemned fasting as a set religious performance to be observed by the calendar no matter what the circumstances of the individual or the needs of the soul. Fasting should rise out of the heart and should not be imposed on the body by mere external custom. It is of great service, under certain circumstances, for the health of both body and soul. Frequently when a physician comes to visit the sick, he advises at least some sort of limited fast. Gluttony is disgusting. Overeating is a common failing of humanity and a prevailing cause of bodily ills. It is not possible to stir the soul very deeply when the body has been gorged with food. It is patent that fasting under certain circumstances would harmonize with the mood of the soul. When death enters a home, those who are bowed in sorrow do not desire food. This is the very illustration that Jesus uses: “the bridegroom shall be taken away.” The time and manner in which we should fast is left to our own discretion. The New Testament gives some interesting examples of how the early Christians applied this fundamental principle of Jesus under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (Acts 13:3; Acts 14:23; 2 Corinthians 6:5; 2 Corinthians 11:27). Their example furnishes a natural precedent to govern our choice in the matter of fasting.

Luke shows striking originality in his report of Jesus’ defense. The unseemly attempt to put a patch of new cloth on an old garment is made the more emphatic by tearing tip a new garment to get the new piece which is to be used as a patch. Luke alone rejects the final illustration: “And no man having drunk old wine desireth new; for he saith the old is good” (Luke 5:39). Again the same principle is urged: things that do not harmonize should not be put together. Fasting does not fit with His present joyous and victorious ministry. How much further does the force of this argument of Jesus reach? It certainly carries within its sweep the ascetic way of life which John’s disciples followed and the ceremonialism of the Pharisees, for the problem emanated from these two groups and the answer applies directly to them. Does it also mean that the whole Old Testament law with its intricate ceremonialism is the old wine skin which has been stretched to its fullest extent of usefulness and cannot contain the new wine of the gospel: a new revelation from God independent and all-sufficient is about to be given by Jesus? McGarvey argues that this cannot be the meaning because Luke’s last parable would make the gospel less desirable than the law, since it affirms that no one “having drunk old wine desireth new: for he saith the old is better” (Commentary on Matthew and Mark, p. 84). But this objection is based upon a positive identification of each detail of the last parable, which frequently cannot be done in parables. The fundamental principle that here receives repeated illustration and emphasis (things that are incongruous should not be combined) applies directly to the fasting problem, but the application to the law and the gospel seems to be in the background. The later discussions of the law and the gospel by Jesus confirm this conclusion.