Smoodock's Blog

In my previous study, I showed where John’s disciples were united with the Pharisees on the question of fasting, and this put them at odds with Jesus. It reminds me of a phrase that has come out of Shakespeare’s The Tempest. There, Trinculo sought comfort from a storm, and in doing so, it united him with his enemy, Caliban, whereupon he says: “…misery acquaints a man with strange bedfellows.”[1] The phrase has evolved over the centuries and many “enemies” unite to help or oppose a political scheme. So, contextually, the saying becomes: “Politics makes strange bedfellows!”

I hardly believe John the Baptist or his disciples would have the same interests as the Pharisees, whom John called a “generation of vipers” (Matthew 3:7). Yet, the subject of fasting united them, temporarily, for some reason. I hardly think that John fasted “twice in the week,” because that could only be done for a show of righteousness. The only reasonable explanation for the two groups to be “united” must have had something to do with the nation, a national interest, such as a national day of mourning. As I concluded in my previous study, only three of the four annual fasts, which were added after the Law was given, and the only one of these that Jesus would contextually oppose was the Fast of Gedaliah, which occurred on the third day of the seventh month. So, the most logical reason for John’s disciples to be united with the Pharisees was to collectively celebrate or mourn the reason behind a national holiday. Politics make such strange bedfellows!

Matthew has John’s disciples coming to ask why Jesus and his disciples were feasting at a celebratory event in Matthew’s home (Luke 5:29), when many religious folks observed a national day of fasting (cp. Matthew 9:14). Nearly all of the translations I have put the question in a sense that Jesus’ disciples never fast. Would this mean they didn’t observe the annual fast on Yom Kippur? Jesus said that the Law needed to be observed in every detail, until all things were fulfilled (Matthew 5:17-19). The single translation I have that appears to be at odds with most translations is the Concordant Literal Version. It translates the verse:

“Then coming to Him are the disciples of John, saying ‘Wherefore are we and the Pharisees fasting much, yet your disciples are not fasting.” (Matthew 9:14 – CLV)

If this is closer to the truth than the other English versions, then the fast was happening at the time the question was asked. Jesus’ disciples were presently eating, while John’s disciples and the Pharisees were presently fasting. Moreover, if, as I indicate above, the fast was the Fast of Gedaliah, John’s disciples were wondering about Jesus’ patriotism. If so, then the obvious question becomes: Is it possible that serving God and being patriotic can sometimes be in conflict?

Jesus’ reply is enlightening. First, let’s consider Jeremiah’s lamentation, when Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem. Jeremiah asked how Jerusalem had become a widow (Lamentations 1:1). In other words, the king was her husband, and Jerusalem no longer had a king. In this context we have Jesus’ words, “Can the children of the bridechamber mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them?” Why would Jerusalem mourn (fast), if the King is present (Matthew 9:15)? Jesus’ reply emphasized how he was rejected by both the Pharisees and many of John’s disciples. Why would one mourn (fast) over the murder of Gedaliah, the last governor of the Jews, representing home rule, if the King were present?

Jesus’ point was that the New Covenant (Jeremiah 31:31) was not like the Old Covenant. If it were, why would the Old Covenant have to end? Yet, it was ready to vanish away (Hebrews 8:13). What Christ came to do wasn’t simply to patch up the old (Matthew 9:16), because that would destroy both. Neither did he come to change the old and make **it** newer, because one cannot pour living truth into what is old and inflexible, because what can’t be molded would break and both it and the new would be destroyed (Matthew 9:17). In other words, the intention of the Old Covenant was to make men aware of their sins and the need of a Savior. The intention of the New Covenant was to save men from their sins and return them to the Presence of God, vis-à-vis although both have their contextual value, they are incompatible, which is why John couldn’t merely become one of Jesus’ disciples (cp. Matthew 3:13-15).

_________________________________________________________________

[1] The phrase, coming from the play, The Tempest, by William Shakespeare in 1610, is found in Act 2, scene 2