Luke 5:33-39 - You Can’t Teach an Old Dog New Tricks

Aug 5

Photo: Old Middle Eastern wineskin made from an animals stomach.

And they said to him, “The disciples of John fast often and offer prayers, and so do the disciples of the Pharisees, but yours eat and drink.” And Jesus said to them, “Can you make wedding guests fast while the bridegroom is with them? The days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast in those days.” He also told them a parable: “No one tears a piece from a new garment and puts it on an old garment. If he does, he will tear the new, and the piece from the new will not match the old. And no one puts new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the new wine will burst the skins and it will be spilled, and the skins will be destroyed. But new wine must be put into fresh wineskins. And no one after drinking old wine desires new, for he says, ‘The old is good.’” (Luke 5:33-39, ESV Bible)

In Luke 5:33-39, people ask Jesus why His disciples do not fast like the disciples of John the Baptist and the Pharisees. Jesus responds with a metaphor about wedding guests not fasting while the bridegroom is with them but fasting when he is taken away. He then tells them a parable that mentions the new and old, saying in one parable that new wine must be put into new wineskins to preserve both. The story found in Luke 5:33-39 is also told in Matthew 9:14-17, and Mark 2:18-22. What was Jesus talking about in these passages?

A Question about Fasting and The Bridegroom

In Judaism, there were public days of corporate fasting, such as the Day of Atonement or the ninth of Av. The Day of Atonement, known in Hebrew as Yom Kippur, is considered the holiest day in the Jewish calendar. It is a day of fasting, prayer, and repentance, observed on the tenth day of the Hebrew month of Tishrei. It usually falls in September or October in the Gregorian calendar. The ninth day of the Hebrew month of Av (usually falls in July or August in the Gregorian calendar), known as Tisha B'Av, is a day of fasting and mourning in Judaism and commemorates a series of tragedies that have befallen the Jewish people on or around that date throughout history.

This question raised about fasting here in Luke 5:33 is not one of those corporate fasting occasions. Some Pharisees fasted twice a week, which was voluntary and represented personal discipline. Jewish sages often fasted and encouraged corporate fasting in response to tragedy, military threats, adverse political decrees, prolonged drought, or natural disasters. The specific mention of John's disciples and the possibility that John the Baptist could have been imprisoned by Herod at this point in the story may imply that John's disciples may have been fasting because of his absence and their hope for John's release.

Jesus explained why His disciples did not participate in the fast. He compared Himself to a bridegroom and His disciples to "the wedding guests." The term "bridal canopy" isn't mentioned in the Greek text, but the concept of "sons of the bridal canopy" is conveyed through the Greek term implied by the context and the cultural background of Jewish wedding customs. "Sons of the bridal canopy" is a purely Semitic expression for the wedding attendants or members of the bridegroom's party. The "sons of the bridal canopy" were close friends of the bridegroom who had specific duties and privileges during the wedding celebration. They were responsible for preparing the wedding feast, accompanying the bridegroom to the bride's house, and participating in the joyous celebrations. By referring to them as "sons of the bridal canopy," He highlighted their close relationship with Him and the joyous nature of His ministry. In Jewish tradition, weddings were grand celebrations and feasting, and Jesus used this imagery to illustrate the joy His disciples experienced in His presence.

John the Baptist referred to himself as the "friend of the bridegroom" and applied the title "bridegroom" to Jesus:

You yourselves bear me witness, that I said, 'I am not the Christ, but I have been sent before him.' The one who has the bride is the bridegroom. The friend of the bridegroom, who stands and hears him, rejoices greatly at the bridegroom's voice. Therefore this joy of mine is now complete. (John 3:28-29, ESV Bible)

Jesus employed John's metaphors to explain why He and His disciples were not fasting. In Judaism, weddings and mourning stand in antithesis to one another. Weddings require rejoicing. In Jewish law, a wedding procession takes precedence over a funeral procession. Jewish law suspends mourning rites for the sake of weddings and forbids weddings during times of national mourning.

It was appropriate for John's disciples to fast and pray for their master, John, because he was their bridegroom, and they were his wedding guests so to speak. Yeshua's disciples, however, still had their master present with them. It would have been inappropriate for them to fast. Instead, they rejoiced as if at a wedding banquet because the bridegroom was still with them. However, a time would come when their Master, like John the Baptist, would be taken away from them. Then it would be appropriate for them to fast. We should understand this bridegroom explanation as follows:

Bridegroom = a rabbi or teacher over a school of disciples

Children of the bridal chamber (son’s of the bridal canopy) = the rabbi’s disciples

Bridegroom taken away = death, arrest, or absence of the rabbi

Meaning = Jesus’ disciples are not fasting because He is still with them. A time will come when He will no longer be with them, then they will fast.

Jesus predicts, "The days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them." "One day, my disciples will no longer have Me with them." This comment is His first allusion to His destiny of suffering and the coming time of His absence. On that day, His disciples will fast.

I will get to this shortly, but Luke often discusses Jesus choosing disciples. The bridegroom metaphor is consistent with this theme, highlighting the teacher-student relationship. This bridegroom analogy is not meant to be taken as a sign that Jesus is incompatible with Judaism or Jewish teachings.

He also told them a parable: “No one tears a piece from a new garment and puts it on an old garment. If he does, he will tear the new, and the piece from the new will not match the old. And no one puts new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the new wine will burst the skins and it will be spilled, and the skins will be destroyed. But new wine must be put into fresh wineskins. And no one after drinking old wine desires new, for he says, ‘The old is good.’” (Luke 5:36-39, ESV Bible)

The Typical Christian Interpretation of the Double Parables

Jesus added two parables. He told the disciples of John and the disciples of the Pharisees that it is inappropriate to tear a piece of cloth from a new garment to patch an old garment. The patch will not match, and both garments will be ruined. Likewise, no one fills an old wineskin with new wine. If they do, the already stretched wineskin will burst from the pressure of the fermenting wine, ruining both wine and skin.

This passage is often interpreted as Jesus emphasizing the newness of His teachings and the incompatibility of trying to fit them into the old ways of thinking or religious practices. The new garment is often seen as the Gospel/Grace/Kingdom/Church, and the old garment is the Old Covenant/Law/Judaism. According to this interpretation, grace and the law do not mix. The message of Christ is too much to be wasted on old wineskins. Christ's coming and sacrifice fulfilled the law and inaugurated a new covenant. If you try to mix the old covenant with the new, it will not work and would ultimately tear apart the new work of Christ. They are incompatible. This incompatibility interpretation of Luke 5:33-39 is a widespread Christian interpretation.

The typical Christian interpretation of Luke 5:33-39, also highlights how subtle replacement theology is in the Christian church. Replacement theology, or supersessionism, is a theological framework that teaches that the Christian Church has replaced or superseded Israel in God's plan or covenant with humanity. According to this view, the promises and blessings given to Israel in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) are now fulfilled in the Christian Church, and Israel as a nation no longer has a unique role or status in God's plan. Along with Israel having no place in the "new" plan, neither does the law, old covenants, or Judaism have a place either.

One of my goals when studying this passage will be to discuss why this Christian interpretation of incompatibility is inaccurate and harmful to the proper interpretation of Jesus' message in Luke 5:33-39. Further, the incompatibility interpretation contradicts other teachings of Jesus. Let's dive right into interpreting this passage by looking at the context and analyzing the passage through a Jewish lens. We will also look at some of the issues with this incompatibility interpretation.

The Issues with the Incompatibility Interpretation

“Historical scholarship acknowledges that Jesus was not trying to start a new religion, and he was not trying to cancel Judaism or the Mosaic Covenant.”

Saying that Christianity and Jesus are incompatible with the Old Covenant is anachronistic. In other words, it would not apply to this moment in history. Historical scholarship acknowledges that Jesus was not trying to start a new religion, and he was not trying to cancel Judaism or the Mosaic Covenant. He says so himself in Matthew 5:17:

“Do not think that I have come to abolish [do away with or cancel] the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them [properly interpret, walk out and teach]. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:17-20, ESV Bible with bracketed commentary)

We spent some time studying Matthew 5 in the "Discipleship Study." To briefly summarize those lessons, Jesus says he came to interpret, teach, and live the Mosaic Covenant (Torah) accurately. He even states that not one aspect of the Torah (Mosaic Covenant) shall be done away with until heaven and earth pass, which is yet to occur. So, if we are saying that Luke 5 and the parable of the wineskins are about Jesus and the Law/Old Covenant, we have an apparent contradiction with Jesus' words in Matthew five.

During the first century, there was no "Christianity." The followers of Jesus represented a sect within greater Judaism that differed in that they believed Jesus to be the long-awaited Messiah. Alistair Kee, a theologian and academic known for his work in the field of Christian theology, particularly in the areas of biblical studies and ethics, says this of Jesus:

"There is no denying that Jesus radically transformed and revolutionized Judaism for his followers, but surely we need not labor the point that it was, in fact, Judaism which he transformed for them...To attribute the idea of incompatibility to Jesus, as a way of describing his relationship to Judaism, is bad theology and bad history."

The root of why we think Jesus is incompatible with Judaism and the Old Covenant stems from a supersessionist/replacement theology. We draw the wrong conclusions when we start with what we believe to be accurate and then try to interpret the Bible through that lens. We fail to see that even Jesus made his intentions very clear in Matthew 5. We must not assume an incompatibility between Jesus and Judaism.

“We draw the wrong conclusions when we start with what we believe to be accurate and then try to interpret the Bible through that lens.”

The Old Wine is Good, but Marcion Didn't Think So

Let's say that the parables in Luke 5 are Jesus emphasizing the newness of His teachings and the incompatibility of trying to fit them into the old ways of thinking or the religious practice of Judaism. In that case, we have another contradiction within the parable itself:

And no one after drinking old wine desires new, for he says, 'The old is good.'" (Luke 5:39, ESV Bible)

If we say that the old wine represents the Old Covenant and Judaism, then by that logic, this verse makes it sound like the Old Covenant is good. This logic reverses the value assigned to the "new wine." If the gospel is the new wine, it is "as if Jesus was comparing Judaism to good wine and the gospel to cheap wine." Marcion the Heretic deemed Luke 5:39 a Jewish addition to the Gospels and removed it from his canon.

Marcion the Heretic was a prominent figure in early Christianity known for his heretical beliefs. He lived in the 2nd century AD and was the son of a bishop in Sinope, a port city in Asia Minor (modern-day Turkey). Marcion's teachings were considered heretical because he rejected the Old Testament and certain parts of the New Testament. He believed that the God of the Old Testament was a different and inferior deity compared to the God revealed by Jesus Christ in the New Testament. Marcion considered the God of the Old Testament to be a harsh and vengeful God, while the New Testament was a God of love and mercy.

Marcion's rejection of the Old Testament led him to create his canon of Scripture, which included only the Gospel of Luke and several of Paul's letters (excluding the pastoral epistles). He rejected the other Gospels and the rest of the New Testament. Marcion's teachings were condemned as heretical by early Christian leaders, and he was excommunicated from the church. Despite this, Marcionism, founded on his teachings, persisted for centuries and influenced later Christian sects. His rejection of the Old Testament and emphasis on the contrast between the Old and New Covenants helped shape early Christian theology regarding the relationship between Judaism and Christianity.

Regarding Luke 5:39, the verse is omitted in some Western text-type manuscripts. The Western text type is one of the text types used in New Testament textual criticism to classify the textual variations among Greek manuscripts. The omission of this verse in some manuscripts could be due to various reasons, such as accidental omission by scribes or deliberate exclusion for theological reasons. However, it's important to note that the verse is present in most Greek manuscripts and is included in most modern translations of the Bible. The omission is likely due to an anti-Jewish bias in transcription. George Rice said, “by removing the statement “that the Old is good,” the editor felt that he had removed any suggestion that the Jews would reject the teachings of Christianity because they were well satisfied with Judaism.” Rice implies that the omission of Luke 5:39 in some texts is an editorial decision to modify the text to avoid any hint of Judaism, the Jews, and their pesky way of thinking. This indicates that the early church read the double parable according to the incompatibility-interpretation at a very early stage.

If the Incompatibility Interpretation is Flawed, How Should We Understand the Parables of Luke 5:33-39? A Closer Look at Context

“We are, of course, saying that this incompatibility interpretation is inherently flawed and inconsistent with the rest of the Gospels.”

We have recognized that the incompatibility interpretation is one way to interpret the parables. We are, of course, saying that this incompatibility interpretation is inherently flawed and inconsistent with the rest of the Gospels. There have been many scholarly attempts to salvage the meaning of the parables and many of these attempts have issues as well. If the double parable is not about the incompatibility of Christianity, perhaps a look at context could help to shed light on the meaning of the parables.

The double parables' context is relative to Jesus choosing his disciples. All of Luke chapter five and the first 16 verses of chapter six represent several stories that deal with the calling and selection of the disciples. Luke 5:1-11 records the story of the first miraculous catch of fish during which Jesus invites James, John, and Peter to become disciples. The narrative then turns to healing stories (Luke 5:17-26), but returns to the calling of the disciples with the call of Matthew in Luke 5:27 and 28.

Matthew holds a banquet for Jesus, and at this banquet, the Pharisees drop criticisms aimed at Jesus' disciples. They asked his disciples, "Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and 'sinners'?" They asked Jesus, "Why don't your disciples fast and pray like John's and our disciples?" Both questions are criticisms of Jesus' disciples and his choice of company.

Jesus replies to the question on fasting with the bridegroom statements of Luke 5:34, 35 and then tells the double parable. Following the double parable, Luke 6 begins with a short section that initially seems unrelated to choosing disciples. In the story (Luke 6:1-5), the Pharisees challenged Jesus on Sabbath issues, but the Pharisees criticized the disciples' behavior, not Jesus. They accused the disciples of breaking the Sabbath by picking the heads of grain and husking them in their hands. Again, the criticism is directed toward Jesus' choice of disciples.

Connected with the Sabbath observance conflict raised in Luke 6:1-5, Luke offers a matching section in Luke 6:6-11 that echoes and complements the first but is meant as an aside. Returning to the matter at hand, the call and selection of Jesus' disciples, Luke closes the section in which Jesus chooses the Twelve (Luke 6:12-16). With the choosing of the Twelve, the disciple issue is settled.

An Alternate Interpretation of the Double Parables Using Jewish Literature

Unlike us, the Pharisees probably knew precisely what Jesus meant because they were already familiar with the symbolism Jesus employed in his double parable. Jesus was comparing and contrasting different types of teachers and disciples. By comparing Luke 5:36-39 with the well-known Pharisaic proverb of Avot 4.20, a whole new interpretation arises and these parables become clear. Pirkei Avot 4:20 reads:

Elisha ben Avuyah said: "He who studies as a child, unto what can he be compared? He can be compared to ink written upon a fresh [new] sheet of paper. But he who studies as an adult, unto what can he be compared? He can be compared to ink written on a smudged [previously used and erased sheet of paper.

Rabbi Yose ben Yehudah of the city of Babylon said, "He who learns from the young, unto what can he be compared? He can be compared to one who eats unripe grapes, and drinks unfermented wine from his vat. But he who learns from the old, unto what can he be compared? He can be compared to one who eats ripe grapes, and drinks old wine.

Rabbi (Meir) said: Do not pay attention to the container but pay attention to that which is in it. There is a new container full of old wine, and here is an old container which does not even contain new wine. (Pirkei Avot 4:20, The Talmud)

Like the larger Gospel context of Luke chapters five and six, the Avot passage compares different types of teachers, disciples, and teachings. If we allow the similes of Avot 4 to inform the metaphors of Luke 5, we have surprising results. It could be argued that the two sages quoted are disciples from a century after the time of Jesus. Still, the metaphors and analogies that these disciples embraced and constituted the proverbs of Pirkei Avot belonged to a body of oral tradition, much of which predates the day of Jesus.

Elisha ben Avuyah's statement compares learning as a child versus learning as an adult. Learning as a child is compared to writing on a fresh sheet of paper, suggesting that it is pure and unblemished. Learning as an adult, however, is likened to writing on a smudged or previously used sheet, implying that it is more challenging or that previous knowledge and experiences may interfere.

Rabbi Yose ben Yehudah's statement contrasts learning from the young versus learning from the old. Learning from the young is compared to consuming unripe grapes and unfermented wine, indicating that the knowledge gained may be immature or incomplete. Learning from the old is likened to consuming ripe grapes and old wine, suggesting that the knowledge gained is mature and refined.

Rabbi Meir's statement emphasizes the importance of focusing on the content rather than the container. This can be interpreted to mean that the value of knowledge lies in its substance, regardless of the source or form in which it is presented. He illustrates this with examples of new and old containers containing either old or new wine, suggesting that value can be found in unexpected places.

Overall, these analogies highlight the different perspectives on learning and the value of knowledge gained at various stages of life and from different sources. In Avot, the vessels for containing wine are not institutions, religious movements or teachings. The vessels containing the wine are individuals. The wine is the teaching that the individual consumes or contains. This new interpretation is a natural complement to the passage's context and is more satisfactory than previously suggested interpretations. This interpretation is also an excellent example of why New Testament scripture should be studied from a Jewish perspective.

David Flusser, in an article from 1979, cites other related Rabbinical and Talmudic passages in which wine symbolizes Torah and the interpretation of Scripture. Applying this symbolism to Luke, we could parse out Luke 5:36-39 as follows:

New garment = previously uneducated students

Old garment = previously educated students

Patch = teaching

New wineskins = previously uneducated students

Old wineskins = previously educated students

New wine = new teaching

Old wine = previous teaching

Simply put, new teaching requires previously uneducated students in order to be received. No one takes a lesson meant for a new student and tries to teach it to an old (already educated) student. If he does, he will fail to teach the new student, and the lesson meant for the new student will be rejected by the old student.

No one teaches new Torah-teaching to old (previously educated) students. If he does, the new teaching will be rejected, the student will be lost. Instead new Torah-teaching must be taught to new students. And no one after receiving old teaching (previous education) wants the new, for he says, "The old teaching is better."

In his Commentary on the New Testament, Lichtenstein makes the same observation. He explains the double parable as follows:

The Master intends by these parables to explain why He has chosen disciples from the uneducated among the masses, and why He chose this tax collector and took him as His disciple. For His explanation that He came to call sinners to repentance suffices to resolve only the issue of His eating and drinking with sinners, but is inadequate to explain this: Why does He go further and choose them as disciples? Therefore He gives this additional parable... For if the Pharisees and the Torah scholars became His disciples, they would not abandon the ways of their earlier learning, and would remain with the old garment and from the new there would be only a patch. Likewise one does not put new wine into used skins- these are the Pharisees -rather the new wine should be put into new skins--that is, He is choosing new men to be His disciples, men who are ignorant and uneducated.

The Avot interpretation of the double parable offers several advantages. Unlike the incompatibility theory, the Avot interpretation is not anachronistic. It does not pit Jesus against Judaism or imagine a conflict between New Covenant Grace and Old Covenant Law. Instead, it pits Jesus' choice of disciples against the Pharisees' choice of disciples.

Unlike the incompatibility theory, the Avot interpretation fits the context in which the parable is found, namely the call and selection of Jesus' disciples. It addresses the Pharisee's criticism about fasting, and it answers the problems raised by Luke 5:39.

Unsmudged Paper

Luke has gone to some pains to demonstrate the unsavory character of Jesus' choice in disciples. They are fishermen, tax collectors, and "sinners." They are feasting and drinking instead of fasting and praying. They are ignoring Sabbath observance to feed their stomachs. They have not been educated with the sages. In this regard, they are like a clean slate, a fresh, unsmudged piece of paper for Jesus to write on.

This is not to suggest that the disciples had no education. Primary education in Jesus' day involved an extensive memorization of Scripture and knowledge of the Torah. Educational standards in the Galilee may have even surpassed those of Judah, so even fishermen and tax collectors had received training in the Scriptures. However, only the very gifted went on to study beyond the age of 12 or 13 and only the truly exceptional (and perhaps wealthy) became disciples of the sages.

The Pharisees, up to this point in the Gospel narrative, were not yet opponents of Jesus but were probably still contemplating whether or not to become his disciples. They could not understand Jesus' choice of disciples and must have been baffled that he had not yet approached them with the position. At Matthew's banquet, they criticized the character and behavior of Jesus' choice in disciples. Jesus responded with the double parable, which, in essence, explained to the Pharisees why they were not qualified for the job of disciple and why the low-life, whom he chose to associate with, were.

The double parable is not an attack against Judaism; it simply explains his choice of disciples. It also is not an attack against the Pharisees. Jesus was saying to the Pharisees, "Look, You can't teach an old dog new tricks." We can now understand how the double parable answers the question about fasting. They said, "John's disciples often fast and pray, and so do the disciples of the Pharisees (which is to say, so do we), but yours go on eating and drinking." Jesus' statements about the bridegroom answered directly to the issue of fasting, but the double parable answered the broader criticism being raised. That criticism was that Jesus' disciples were not like the disciples of John or the Pharisees.

Finally, the Avot interpretation solves the problems raised by Luke 5:39, "And no one, after drinking old wine wishes for new; for he says, 'The old is good.'" The meaning becomes evident if the parable compares Jesus' Torah teaching (New Wine) with the Pharisees' Torah teaching (Old Wine). Disciples who have already studied Torah under the Pharisaic schools (or under the tutelage of Yochanan) and have learned to interpret according to those traditions and models are unlikely to be interested in a new approach. Those students will be apt to disregard contradictory teaching because they have already formed opinions and judgments. They will regard the education they have already received as superior. Jesus has chosen fishermen and tax collectors precisely because they lack formal education.

Luke returns to the disciples' lack of formal education in Acts chapter 4 when the Sanhedrin questions Peter and John. In Acts 4:13 Luke writes:

Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were uneducated, common men, they were astonished. And they recognized that they had been with Jesus. (Acts 4:13, ESV Bible)

On that day, when two poorly educated fishermen stood before the Sanhedrin, they demonstrated the full caliber of their education under Jesus and vindicated his choice of disciples: New garments, new wineskins, and new students.

Another Story to Drive the Point Home

The Talmud tells a similar story in which the same symbolic values are assigned. The containers for holding the wine are compared to disciples, and the wine is compared to the Torah. The persistent use of the same imagery indicates a standard set of metaphors where the Torah symbolizes wine, and the containers that hold it symbolize the sages and their disciples:

The Emperor's daughter said to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chananiah:

"What beautiful teaching (Torah) in an ugly vessel." He replied, "Go and learn from the wine-cellar of your father. In what is the wine stored?" "In jars of clay," she answered. "But all the common people store their wine in jars of clay! The Emperor should keep his wine in jars of gold and silver!" She went and had the wine placed in vessels of gold and silver, and it turned sour. "Thus," said he to her, "It is the same with Torah!" She asked, "But are there not handsome people who are learned?" He replied, "If they were ugly, they would be even more learned!" (b. Nedarim 5ob)

The Emperor's daughter is impressed by Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chananiah's teachings but is taken aback by his humble appearance or the simplicity of his surroundings. She expresses surprise that such valuable teachings come from someone or something that appears unremarkable.

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chananiah responds by asking her about the vessels used to store wine in her father's wine cellar. She acknowledges that even though ordinary people store wine in simple clay jars, her father, the Emperor, stores it in jars of gold and silver.

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chananiah then explains that just as the Emperor's wine turned sour when stored in vessels of gold and silver, Torah (wisdom and teachings) can lose its value or potency when it is housed in vessels (people) who are too focused on external beauty or material wealth. The implication is that true wisdom is often found in humble or unassuming individuals. Overall, the story teaches that true wisdom and value come from within, and one should not judge the worth of teachings or individuals based solely on outward appearances or material wealth.

Summary

I will close with this, if we say Jesus is telling the Jewish version of "you cannot teach an old dog new tricks," it highlights that those older students will be apt to disregard contradictory teaching because they have already formed opinions and judgments. How many of you reading this are apt to disregard new teachings because you interpret the Bible by starting with what you believe to be true? Then, everything you read gets filtered through that lens. In Romans, Paul says:

"Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God." (Romans 3:1-2, ESV)

The parable told by Jesus in Luke 5:33-39 is not an attack against Judaism or the Pharisees. The new garment is not the Gospel/Grace/Kingdom/Church, and the old garment is not the Old Covenant/Law/Judaism. He is simply explaining in metaphors why he chose the disciples. We must not assume that because the Pharisees or Jewish leaders of the day were not chosen, it implies that Jesus was promoting doing away with Judaism and the Mosaic covenant. The Jewish people are entrusted with the oracles of God. They are the interpreters of Scripture. We should seek to understand the Bible from this Jewish perspective to seek truth. Sometimes, Christianity does not teach the Bible. It uses the Bible, out of context, to teach Christianity.

“The parable told by Jesus in Luke 5:33-39 is not an attack against Judaism or the Pharisees. The new garment is not the Gospel/Grace/Kingdom/Church, and the old garment is not the Old Covenant/Law/Judaism.”

References

This lesson was curated from teachings from First Fruits of Zion “Chronicles of the Messiah,” and teachings by Daniel Lancaster at Beth Immanuel Messianic Synagogue.

Disciple X