Daniel 6:16-28

16 Then the king gave the command, and Daniel was brought and thrown into the den of lions. The king said to Daniel, “May your God, whom you faithfully serve, deliver you!” 17 A stone was brought and laid on the mouth of the den, and the king sealed it with his own signet and with the signet of his lords, so that nothing might be changed concerning Daniel. 18 Then the king went to his palace and spent the night fasting; no food was brought to him, and sleep fled from him.

Daniel Saved from the Lions

19 Then, at break of day, the king got up and hurried to the den of lions. 20 When he came near the den where Daniel was, he cried out anxiously to Daniel, “O Daniel, servant of the living God, has your God whom you faithfully serve been able to deliver you from the lions?” 21 Daniel then said to the king, “O king, live forever! 22 My God sent his angel and shut the lions’ mouths so that they would not hurt me, because I was found blameless before him; and also before you, O king, I have done no wrong.” 23 Then the king was exceedingly glad and commanded that Daniel be taken up out of the den. So Daniel was taken up out of the den, and no kind of harm was found on him, because he had trusted in his God. 24 The king gave a command, and those who had accused Daniel were brought and thrown into the den of lions-they, their children, and their wives. Before they reached the bottom of the den the lions overpowered them and broke all their bones in pieces.

25 Then King Darius wrote to all peoples and nations of every language throughout the whole world: “May you have abundant prosperity! 26 I make a decree, that in all my royal dominion people should tremble and fear before the God of Daniel:

For he is the living God,

enduring forever.

His kingdom shall never be destroyed,

and his dominion has no end.

27 He delivers and rescues,

he works signs and wonders in heaven and on earth;

for he has saved Daniel

from the power of the lions.”

28 So this Daniel prospered during the reign of Darius and the reign of Cyrus the Persian. (Daniel 6:16-28, NRSV)

On April 28, 2007 (Saturday in the week of the Third Sunday of Easter, Year One), comments were repeated from April 16, 2005 (Saturday in the week of the Third Sunday of Easter, Year One); they are repeated again here with editing and supplement:

Our son Mark used to joke about the time when the lions invited Daniel to dinner, as the dinner! He knows very well, of course, that the story represents a most serious conflict between Daniel and his jealous accusers, the “other presidents and satraps” of the Persian court (Dan. 6:3 NRSV = Aram. 6:4). “By further extension, it is a story of a contest between immutable laws: ‘the law of the Medes and the Persians, which cannot be revoked’ (v. 8 [NRSV]), and the law of Daniel’s God” (W. Sibley Towner, Daniel, Interpretation, p. 78, on Dan. 6). In many respects, the story is as much or more about Darius than Daniel. Darius is tricked into issuing the decree (vv. 7-9 NRSV = Aram. vv. 8-10) to entrap Daniel, and surprised by the news that Daniel has disregarded it (vv. 13-14 NRSV = Aram. vv. 14-16). He was “very much distressed [and] determined to save Daniel” (v. 14 NRSV = Aram. v. 15), but he is reminded “that it is a law of the Medes and Persians that no interdict or ordinance that the king establishes can be changed” (v. 15 NRSV = Aram. v. 16). Apparently, no one spoke up to point out the obvious, “You’re the King, aren’t you? Can’t you change the law?” That might have worked in Egypt, where Pharaoh’s word was law, where there were no law codes such as those of Mesopotamia–the Code of Hammurabi, for example. But as noted, the laws of Persia and the laws of Israel’s God are set in sharp relief here.

So the king has Daniel “thrown into the den of lions” while offering a prayer, of sorts, for his deliverance. “May your God, whom you faithfully serve, deliver you!” (v. 16 NRSV = Aram. v. 17). This “shows that Darius knew of Daniel’s religious practices; in contrast [to] Nebuchadnezzar [who] did not (3:15)” (Amy-Jill Levine, NOAB, 3^rd ed., on Dan. 6:16 NRSV). As we are told that the Lion’s den was closed with a stone, we are reminded that Joseph of Arimathea “rolled a stone against the door of [Jesus’] tomb” (Mk. 15:46). In Daniel’s case, “A stone was brought and laid on the mouth of the den, and the king sealed it with his own signet and with the signet of his lords, so that nothing might be changed concerning Daniel” (Dan. 6:17 NRSV = Aram. 6:18). In spite of his participation in the matter, the king’s distress (cf. v. 14 NRSV = Aram. v. 15) lead to a sleepless night. “Then the king went to his palace and spent the night fasting; no food was brought to him, and sleep fled from him” (v. 18 NRSV = Aram. v. 19). The lions fasted too, a kind of “forced fast,” because God’s angel “shut the lions’ mouths” (v. 22 NRSV = Aram. v. 23).

“Then, at the break of day,” we are told, “the king got up and hurried to the den of lions” (v. 19 NRSV = Aram. v. 20). He must have dreaded what he would find, but what he found couldn’t have been more different than his expectation. “When he came near the den where Daniel was, he cried out anxiously to Daniel, ‘O Daniel, servant of the living God, has your God whom you faithfully serve been able to deliver you from the lions?’ ” (v. 20 NRSV = Aram. v. 21). And, to his surprise, Daniel answered: “O king, live forever! My God sent his angel and shut the lions’ mouths so that they would not hurt me, because I was found blameless before him; and also before you, O king, I have done no wrong” (vv. 21-22 NRSV = Aram. v. 22-23). “Sent his angel,” says Levine, “recollects the fourth man in the furnace (3:25)” (ibid., on v. 22 NRSV). For the king, this was welcome news, for we are told, “Then the king was exceedingly glad and commanded that Daniel be taken up out of the den. So Daniel was taken up out of the den, and no kind of harm was found on him, because he had trusted in his God” (v. 23 NRSV = Aram. v. 24).

So it turns out that the king himself can change “the law of the Medes and the Persians,” that earlier was said, “cannot be revoked” (v. 8 NRSV = Aram. v. 9; cf. v. 12 NRSV = Aram. v. 13). “The king gave a command, and those who had accused Daniel were brought and thrown into the den of lions–they, their children, and their wives” (v. 24a NRSV = Aram. v. 25a). The fate they meant for Daniel was inflicted upon them. “Before they reached the bottom of the den the lions overpowered them and broke all their bones in pieces” (v. 24b NRSV = Aram. v. 25b). According to Lawrence M. Wills, “The importance of family identity in the ancient Near East could result in family members receiving the punishment of the male heads; cf. Num. 16:25-33; 2 Sam. 21:1-9; Esth. 9:13-14; but in contrast to this, Jer. 31:28-29; Ezek. ch. 18” (The Jewish Study Bible, 2004, on v. 25 NJPS 1985, 1999 = Heb. = NRSV v. 24).

Like Nebuchadnezzar before him (4:1-3, 34-37), Darius publishes the news of this event, replacing the interdict against worshiping other Gods with a decree ordering people to “tremble and fear before the God of Daniel”: “Then King Darius wrote to all peoples and nations of every language throughout the whole world: ‘May you have abundant prosperity! I make a decree, that in all my royal dominion people should tremble and fear before the God of Daniel’ ” (vv. 25, 26a NRSV = Aram. vv 26, 27a). According to Pamela J. Milne, revised by John J. Collins, “Darius’s edict goes even further than that of Nebuchadnezzar (3:29) in ordering all to revere God” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Dan. 6:26a NRSV). They add that “the rationale for the edict is a doxology, as in 4:3, 34-35, 37, recognizing the sovereignty of God” (ibid., on vv. 26-27 NRSV):

For he is the living God,

enduring forever.

His kingdom shall never be destroyed,

and his dominion has no end.

27 He delivers and rescues,

he works signs and wonders in heaven and on earth;

for he has saved Daniel

from the power of the lions. (Dan. 26b, c, d, e, 27 NRSV = Aram. 27b, c, d, e, 28)

So Darius becomes the third foreign king to acknowledge Daniel’s God. The chapter concludes with the note that “this Daniel prospered during the reign of Darius and the reign of Cyrus the Persian” (v. 28 NRSV = Aram. v. 29). According to Levine, “Cyrus the Persian (ruled 559-530 BCE) promulgated the edict in 538 BCE that permitted the Jews in Babylon to return to Judea (Ezra 1:1-4; 6:3-5; Isa. 44:28; 45:1; 48:14)” (op. cit., on v. 28 NRSV). We may add reference to 2 Chronicles 36:22-23.

            Daniel’s Passion and Jesus’ Passion

Towner, who characterizes this story as an “uplifting moral fiction” (Towner, op. cit., p. 80, on Dan., chap. 6) nevertheless offers some interesting interpretations. He compare’s Daniel’s experience to the “Passion” of Jesus in the New Testament:

The chapter begins with an account of a conspiracy and betrayal by fellow satraps; in Matthew 26 Jesus' passion begins with his announcement of his own betrayal (26:2), word of the conspiracy of the chief priests, scribes, and elders to catch Jesus (vv. 3-5), and finally Judas' decision to betray him (vv. 14-16). The satraps despair of catching Daniel in any compromising situation and so seek to force a confrontation between his rocklike integrity and the law of the state; similarly, the accusers of Jesus can trap him only by reporting to Roman authority his messianic title, "King of the Jews" (Matt. 27:11). On the eve of his arrest Daniel "prayed and gave thanks before his God, as he had done previously" (Dan. 6:10); Jesus, too, is taken by the soldiers as he maintained his accustomed dialogue in prayer with God (Matt. 26:36-55). In the actual confrontation with the authority, the king sympathizes with the accused and works for his release until at last--with deep misgiving--he is forced by his own law to bind the prisoner Daniel over for execution; in Matthew 26:19 Pilate's wife warns her husband of Jesus' innocence; Pilate himself protests his innocence to the crowd (v. 23). In the end he honors the law that allows him to release to the crowd the one condemned man whom they demand. He then washes his hands of Jesus' innocent blood (v. 24). The parallel continues from this point, though without the ongoing participation of the authority; Daniel is executed and his torture chamber/tomb is closed with a stone and sealed (Dan. 6:17); Jesus is executed and his tomb is closed with a stone (Matt. 27:60) and sealed (v. 66). And of course the denouement of both accounts is the same: the person presumed dead reappears from the tomb, vindicated by God's saving power. The fundamental difference in the two accounts emerges just here, of course; Jesus really did die and was raised, whereas for Daniel an angel shut the lions' mouths and when he emerged from the den "no kind of hurt was found upon him, because he had trusted in his God" (Dan. 6:23). Jesus trusted God, too, but grievous--indeed, fatal–wounds were found upon him--and God's victory over them and death was therefore all the more overwhelming. Still the parallelism in the two accounts is striking and throws light upon the persistent tendency through all the ages of Christian interpretation of Daniel to see his descent into the pit as a type of Christ's crucifixion and descent into hell; and to understand his emergence as a type of Christ's resurrection-even though no metaphorical intention on the author's part can be detected. Further, to the degree that the experiences of Daniel in chapters 1-6 are to be seen in the light of their canonical juxtaposition to the eschatological hope of Daniel 7-12, the lions' den event can be understood as an anticipation (prolepsis) of the experience of the faithful in the face of ultimate testing. Even though the danger is extreme and the injustice is outrageous, God will prevail and will vindicate those who trust him. Daniel's courage and trust thus prove to be components of an interim ethic--just as Jesus' style and behavior are understood by the church to be dynamic guidelines on how to wait while the vision tarries (cf. Hab. 2:3). As is often the case in analogies, the antitype exceeds the prototype in this instance, for Jesus' story is understood not simply to be a foreshadowing of the new eschatological age, but as its actual first event (I Cor. 15:20). But the dynamic relation of faithful obedience and eschatological victory is already present even in the Old Testament prototype, the passion of Daniel. (Towner, 84-85)

            Is it Possible to Change?

But Towner finds even more meaning here.

To say that escape from the jaws of death is the point of the story is hardly to say enough even when that point is understood to have been capable of giving comfort even to the generation which suffered under Antiochus IV Epiphanes. The miraculous deliverance is only an illustration of the inevitability with which all human claims to immutability have always had to yield before the abiding law and will of God. It is really no contest between the law of the Medes and the Persians and the law of God.

Immutable human law also always threatens to trap its own makers. In verse 14 we saw the king struggling desperately to free himself from the consequences of his hasty decree. Daniel is the free man in this story, and the king--preeminent in the realm though his position was--is trapped in the myth of the immutability of his own law; he is thus in bondage. Had he been free to drop the notion that his law and decree could not be changed, he might have gotten out of the bind he was in, but he chose to live out the lie partly out of fear of the courtiers (who already knew it was a lie, or at least knew how to manipulate the fiction to serve their own ends). Were he to make public admission of the mutability of the law, his own boys could destroy him! We should never believe people who say that human decisions cannot be changed! That is more than a mere moral to this story; that is a vital truth for our times. It is a lie when they say that the troop train which is rolling toward the border to launch the First World War cannot be stopped; or that nuclear stockpiling cannot be stopped; or that Jim Crow or apartheid are the law of the land and cannot be changed. When unjust or wrong, human law and human praxis can always be changed, though it may seem more dangerous to admit that fact than to risk the consequences of refusing to change. (Ibid., pp. 88-89, on Dan., chap. 6)

3 John 1-15

Salutation

1 The elder to the beloved Gaius, whom I love in truth.

Gaius Commended for His Hospitality

2 Beloved, I pray that all may go well with you and that you may be in good health, just as it is well with your soul. 3 I was overjoyed when some of the friends arrived and testified to your faithfulness to the truth, namely how you walk in the truth. 4 I have no greater joy than this, to hear that my children are walking in the truth.

5 Beloved, you do faithfully whatever you do for the friends, even though they are strangers to you; 6 they have testified to your love before the church. You will do well to send them on in a manner worthy of God; 7 for they began their journey for the sake of Christ, accepting no support from non-believers. 8 Therefore we ought to support such people, so that we may become co-workers with the truth.

Diotrephes and Demetrius

9 I have written something to the church; but Diotrephes, who likes to put himself first, does not acknowledge our authority. 10 So if I come, I will call attention to what he is doing in spreading false charges against us. And not content with those charges, he refuses to welcome the friends, and even prevents those who want to do so and expels them from the church.

11 Beloved, do not imitate what is evil but imitate what is good. Whoever does good is from God; whoever does evil has not seen God. 12 Everyone has testified favorably about Demetrius, and so has the truth itself. We also testify for him, and you know that our testimony is true.

Final Greetings

13 I have much to write to you, but I would rather not write with pen and ink; 14 instead I hope to see you soon, and we will talk together face to face.

15 Peace to you. The friends send you their greetings. Greet the friends there, each by name. (3 John 1-15, NRSV)

On May 24, 2008 (Saturday in the week of the Sunday closest to May 18, Year Two), comments were repeated with editing and supplement from April 28, 2007 (Saturday in the week of the Third Sunday of Easter, Year One), when comments were repeated from December 30, 2005 (Friday in the week of Christmas Day, Year Two), when they were repeated from April 16, 2005 (Saturday in the week of the Third Sunday of Easter, Year One). They are repeated again here with some editing and supplement:

The opening of Third John is brief and to the point: “The elder to the beloved Gaius, whom I love in truth” (3 Jn. 1). The writer calls himself “the elder,” as in Second John 1, and though 1 John does not name it’s author, the church has traditionally accepted the three of them as from John, the author of the Fourth Gospel. The three letters reflect circumstances within what scholars call the Johannine community, probably a group of house churches separated by some distance and requiring hospitality for traveling missionaries–something Diotrephes has refused to offer (3 Jn. 10).

As in Second John, the “greeting” here takes an unusual form (cf. comments yesterday, May 1, 2009). The elder does not follow the reference to the recipient, “the beloved Gaius” (v. 1) with “grace, [mercy,] and peace to . . .” as in Paul’s letters, or even the simple “Greetings” (caivrein, chairein) of James (1:1). In fact the elder here omits the greeting as such, and moves on to the “health wish and/or prayer on behalf of the reader” (cf. Paul J. Achtemeier, Joel B. Green, and Marianne Meye Thompson, Introducing the New Testament; Its Literature and Theology, 2001, p. 276). “Beloved (ajgaphtev, agapēte, singular),” says the elder, “I pray that all may go well with you (se, se, singular) and that you may be in good health, just as it is well with your soul” (3 Jn. 2). Pheme Perkins calls this a “secular opening (contrast 2 Jn. 1-3) [that] indicates that this is a private letter from the Elder (of 2 Jn. 2) to Gaius” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., 2001, on 3 Jn. 1-2). By “secular” she apparently means the lack of such Christian terms as “grace, mercy and peace” (2 Jn. 3); but there is, of course, nothing overtly “pagan” here. And the term “beloved” here (v. 2) implies the relationship that characterizes the Johannine community, or at least the elder hopes so. For Perkins, “beloved (vv. 2, 5, 11) indicates the relationship of friendship and hospitality that this letter seeks to establish” (Ibid.).

In contrast to Diotrephes, Gaius, to whom Third John is addressed, is commended for his “faithfulness to the truth”: “I was overjoyed,” says John, “when some of the friends arrived and testified to your faithfulness to the truth, namely how you walk in the truth. I have no greater joy than this, to hear that my children are walking in the truth” (vv. 3-4). By “truth” John appears to mean especially the emphases of First John and Second John. “Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and everyone who loves the parent loves the child” (1 Jn. 5:1). “Little children, let us love, not in word or speech, but in truth and action. And by this we will know that we are from the truth and will reassure our hearts before him” (1 Jn. 3:18-19). “Many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh; any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist!” (2 Jn. 7). Gaius–probably not the associate of Paul (cf. Rom. 16:23; 1 Cor. 1:14), since it was a common name–is also commended for doing “faithfully whatever you do for the friends, even though they are strangers (xevnoi, xenoi) to you” (v. 5). The elder says that “they [apparently, the strangers] have testified to your love before the church” (v. 6a). “You will do well,” says the elder, “to send them on in a manner worthy of God; for they began their journey for the sake of Christ, accepting no support from non-believers” (vv. 6b, 7). “Therefore,” he explains, “we ought to support such people , so that we may become co-workers with the truth” (v. 8). From this description, it appears that the “strangers” are traveling Christian evangelists or missionaries. Perkins puts it this way: “Other missionaries have given a glowing report about Gaius, testified to your love before the church (v. 6). Traveling missionaries need to receive help from fellow Christians so that they will not have to turn to unbelievers (v. 7)” (ibid., on vv. 3-8).

The elder has severe criticism for Diotrephes. “I have written something to the church ( ejkklhsiva, ekklēsia),” he says, but Diotrephes, who likes to put himself first, does not acknowledge our authority” (v. 9). Diotrephes seems to feel threatened by leadership from outside his local community. “So if I come,” says the elder, “I will call attention to what he is doing in spreading false charges against us” (v. 10a). But there is more, for the elder adds, “And not content with those charges, he refuses to welcome the friends, and even prevents those who want to do so and expels them from the church” (v. 10b). Perkins puts it this way:

The Elder is turning to Gaius because a prominent Christian in the region, Diotrephes, now refuses to have anything to do with missionaries sent by the Elder (vv. 9-10) . . . Does not acknowledge our authority implies that Diotrephes refused to accept a previous letter from the Elder to the church in the region. However, a personal visit could heal the breach (v. 10). (ibid., on vv. 9-11)

The elder calls upon Gaius to do the right thing. “Beloved (ajgaphtev, agapēte, singular), do not imitate what is evil but imitate what is good. Whoever does good is from God; whoever does evil has not seen God” (v. 11). He gives strong praise to Demetrius, “who,” according to Perkins, “may have brought the letter to Gaius” (Perkins on v. 12). “Everyone has testified favorably about Demetrius, and so has the truth itself. We also testify for him, and you know that our testimony is true” (v. 12).

The elder has more to say, but prefers to do so in a personal visit, not in writing. “I have much to write to you, but I would rather not write with pen and ink; instead I hope to see you soon, and we will talk together face to face” (vv. 13-14; cf 2 Jn. 12). And so he closes the letter: “Peace to you. The friends send you their greetings. Greet the friends there, each by name” (v. 15). According to Achtemeier, Green and Thompson, Third John “may well have been a letter of commendation for Demetrius, to be carried by Demetrius himself” (op. cit., p. 551).

Luke 5:27-39

Jesus Calls Levi (Mt 9.9-13; Mk 2.13-17)

27 After this he went out and saw a tax collector named Levi, sitting at the tax booth; and he said to him, “Follow me.” 28 And he got up, left everything, and followed him.

29 Then Levi gave a great banquet for him in his house; and there was a large crowd of tax collectors and others sitting at the table with them. 30 The Pharisees and their scribes were complaining to his disciples, saying, “Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners?” 31 Jesus answered, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick; 32 I have come to call not the righteous but sinners to repentance.”

The Question about Fasting (Mt 9.14-17; Mk 2.18-22)

33 Then they said to him, “John’s disciples, like the disciples of the Pharisees, frequently fast and pray, but your disciples eat and drink.’ 34 Jesus said to them, “You cannot make wedding guests fast while the bridegroom is with them, can you? 35 The days will come when the bridegroom will be taken away from them, and then they will fast in those days.” 36 He also told them a parable: “No one tears a piece from a new garment and sews it on an old garment; otherwise the new will be torn, and the piece from the new will not match the old. 37 And no one puts new wine into old wineskins; otherwise the new wine will burst the skins and will be spilled, and the skins will be destroyed. 38 But new wine must be put into fresh wineskins. 39 And no one after drinking old wine desires new wine, but says, ‘The old is good.’” (Luke 5:27-39, NRSV)

On October 1, 2008 (Wednesday in the week of the Sunday closest to September 28, Year Two), April 28, 2007 (Saturday in the week of the Third Sunday of Easter, Year One), when comments were repeated with revision and supplement from October 4, 2006 (Wednesday in the week of the Sunday closest to September 28, Year Two), when comments were repeated from April 16, 2005 (Saturday of the week of the Third Sunday of Easter, Year One). The revised comments are repeated again here with some adaptation. For parallel accounts of the calling of Levi/Matthew and the Question about Fasting, see the separate file, Call of Levi.

            Jesus Reaches Out to Those whom Others Shun

In today’s reading we meet a man whom Jesus called who was sitting at the tax booth. Levi “got up, left everything, and followed him” (Lk. 5:28; cf. Mk. 2:14; and ‘Matthew’ in Mt. 9:9). The tax collectors of Jesus’ day were like Rodney Dangerfield–they had no respect! In fact they were hated!

The telw:nai [telōnai] in the synoptics [i.e. the Synoptic Gospels, Mt., Mk., Lk.] . . . are not the holders (Lat. Publicani) of the ‘taxfarming’ contracts themselves, but subordinates (Lat. Portitores) hired by them; the higher officials were usually foreigners, but their underlings were, as a rule, taken from the native population. The prevailing system of tax collection afforded a collector many opportunities to exercise greed and unfairness. Hence tax collectors were particularly hated and despised as a class [examples from Greece 4^th to 2^nd c. B.C.]. . . . A strict Israelite was further offended by the fact that tax-collectors had to maintain continual contact w. non-Israelites in the course of their work; this rendered an Israelite tax-collector ceremonially unclean. The prevailing attitude is expressed in [combinations such as “tax collectors (telw:nai, telōnai) and sinners,” Mt. 9:10-11;11:19; Mk. 2:15, 16; “a gentile and a tax collector,” Mt. 18:17; and “tax collectors and harlots,” Mt. 21:31, 32]. (Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich [BDAG], A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, 3^rd ed., 2000, s.v. telw:nai, telōnai)

If any part of this indicates how Levi felt about himself, he must have been only too glad to leave the tax booth. But his next action was not likely to win him the “Model Pharisee of the Year” award either. “Levi gave a great banquet for him [Jesus] in his house; and there was a large crowd of tax collectors and others sitting at the table with them” (Lk. 5:29; cf. “he sat at dinner in Levi’s house,” Mk. 2:15; cf. Mt. 9:10). But the “Pharisees and their scribes” were directing their complaints against Jesus (Lk. 5:30; cf. Mk. 2:16; Mt. 9:11), who replied, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick; I have come to call not the righteous but sinners to repentance” (Lk. 5:31-32; cf. Mk. 2:17). Matthew adds a quotation to this saying, “I desire mercy, not sacrifice” (Mt. 9:13; cf. 12:7), citing Hosea 6:6, “For I desire steadfast love (ds@H@, chesed) and not sacrifice.” Surely, if the sick and the sinners are included, then we are too! Unless we adopt a disdaining attitude similar to the Pharisees here.

In the account of the Question about Fasting, the question is put to Jesus by the people, according to Mark. “Now John’s disciples and the Pharisees were fasting, and people came and said to him [Jesus], “Why do John’s disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not fast” (Mk. 2:18). In Luke, the indefinite “they” (oiJ dev, hoi de, Lk. 5:33) who ask the question could be a reference to Mark’s “crowd” (Mk. 7:13), or the less definite “people” (the NRSV translation of the plural verb endings of “came,” e[rcontai, erchontai, and “said,” levgousin, legousin, Mk. 2:18), which, in Mark could well refer to “John’s disciples and the Pharisees” (Mk. 2:18). But Luke’s “they” is clearly separate from John’s disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees, for the question, or rather assertion, refers to them in the third person. “John’s disciples, like the disciples of the Pharisees, frequently fast and pray, but your disciples eat and drink” (Lk. 5:33). Matthew’s brief account agrees with Luke in assigning the question to “the disciples of John,” but Mark in the wording of the question. Why do we [cf. “John’s disciples,” Mk. 2:18] and the Pharisees fast often, but your disciples do not fast” (Mt. 9:14; cf. Mk. 2:18; Lk. 5:33). For the negative characterization of Jesus’ disciples as not fasting, Luke’s form of the challenge says, “but your disciples eat and drink” (Lk. 5:33).

In the accounts of Jesus’ response, according to Luke, Mark’s somewhat impersonal form, “The wedding guests cannot fast [cf. ‘mourn’ Mt. 9:15] while the bridegroom is with them, can they?” (Mk. 2:19a), is more direct–second person– in Luke. “You cannot make wedding guests fast while the bridegroom is with them, can you?” (Lk. 5:34). In each of the Gospels, this question is rhetorical, introduced by the negative particle mhv (mē ), and thus expecting the negative answer, “No, of course not!” (Mt. 9:15, Mk. 2:19; Lk. 5:34). Only Mark has Jesus make the answer his own question explicit. “As long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast” (Mk. 2:19b). The prediction of a future time of fasting for the disciples, “when the bridegroom will be taken away from them” (Lk. 5:35; Mk. 2:20; Mt. 9:15b) is essentially the same in the three Gospels.

Mark’s version of the saying about the piece of an unshrunk cloth, “No one sews a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old cloak; otherwise, the patch pulls away from it, the new from the old, and a worse tear is made” (Mk. 2:21) is essentially the same as Matthew’s version (Mt. 9:16); but Luke simplifies the reference to patching, “No one tears a piece from a new garment and sews it on an old garment” (Lk. 5:36a), and though mentioning the tearing, emphasizes the mismatch of the material, “otherwise the new will be torn, and the piece from the new will not match the old” (Lk. 5:36b). The sayings about the wine and the wineskins vary, but are essentially the same in the three Gospels. For Mark’s “And no one puts new wine into old wineskins; otherwise the wine will burst the skins, and the wine is lost, and so are the skins; but one puts new wine into fresh wineskins” (Mk. 2:22), Luke has “new wine” three times, whereas Mark’s second reference is to “wine” (Lk. 5:37-38). Where Mark says the wine “is lost,” Matthew says it “is spilled” (Mt. 9:17), but Luke says it “will be spilled” (Lk. 5:37. For each, the remedy is putting “new wine into fresh wineskins” (Mk. 2:22; Mt. 9:17; Lk. 5:38). Matthew adds the result, “and so both [i.e. the wine and the wineskins] are preserved,” but Luke adds another perspective. “And no one after drinking old wine desires new wine, but says, ‘The old is good’” (Lk. 5:39).

Eric Franklin comments:

Having shown God’s new approach in Jesus and the challenge this made to the Jewish religious tradition, this section emphasizes the move forward that was required if it was to be accepted. New material could not be made to fit in with the old; to use it as a patch to complete the old would not work, for not only would it tear the new garment and in effect destroy it, but it would also not match the old. Likewise, new wine needed new bottles. For all his understanding of God’s approach in Jesus as the climax of what he had done in Israel, Luke was aware of its radicality and of the jump that was required if members of the covenantal people were to receive it. v. 39, which is peculiar to him, gives his reason for the Jewish failure to respond to Jesus’ new challenge. (The Oxford Bible Commentary, 2001, p. 934 on Lk. 5:33-39)

David L. Tiede suggests that verse 39 may have been added later. He refers to the NRSV text note, “Other ancient authorities read better, others lack verse 39” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Lk. 5:39). Based on strong manuscript evidence, however, the editors of the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament (3^rd ed., 1975) include it with a rating of “B” implying some doubt. “If original,” says Tiede, agreeing with Franklin, “it may concede that those who valued old ways were not attracted to Jesus’ fellowship and practices” (loc. cit.). He refers to Sirach 9:10, “Do not abandon old friends, / for new ones cannot equal them. / A new friend is like new wine; / when it has aged, you can drink it with pleasure.” Clearly, many of the Jewish leaders did not accept Jesus’ message.

The commentary of Jamieson, Fausset and Brown comments as follows on this passage:

The incongruities mentioned in Lu 5:36-38 were intended to illustrate the difference between the genius of the old and new economies, and the danger of mixing up the one with the other. As in the one case supposed, “the rent is made worse,” and in the other, “the new wine is spilled,” so by a mongrel mixture of the ascetic ritualism of the old with the spiritual freedom of the new economy, both are disfigured and destroyed. The additional parable in Lu 5:39, which is peculiar to Luke, has been variously interpreted. But the “new wine” seems plainly to be the evangelical freedom which Christ was introducing; and the old, the opposite spirit of Judaism: men long accustomed to the latter could not be expected “straightway” “all at once” to take a liking for the former; that is, “These inquiries about the difference between My disciples and the Pharisees,” and even John’s, are not surprising; they are the effect of a natural revulsion against sudden change, which time will cure; the new wine will itself in time become old, and so acquire all the added charms of antiquity. What lessons does this teach, on the one hand, to those who unreasonably cling to what is getting antiquated; and, on the other, to hasty reformers who have no patience with the timidity of their weaker brethren!

(Jamieson, R., Fausset, A. R., Fausset, A. R., Brown, D., & Brown, D. 1997. A commentary, critical and explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments. On spine: Critical and explanatory commentary. Logos Research Systems, Inc.: Oak Harbor, WA.)

Ronald D. Worden, Ph.D.

rdworden@hgst.edu

deanworden@comcast.net