9

The Exclusive Distinctiveness of the Gospel
(Mark 2:18–22)

John’s disciples and the Pharisees were fasting; and they came and said to Him, “Why do John’s disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees fast, but Your disciples do not fast?” And Jesus said to them, “While the bridegroom is with them, the attendants of the bridegroom cannot fast, can they? So long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast. But the days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast in that day. No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment; otherwise the patch pulls away from it, the new from the old, and a worse tear results. No one puts new wine into old wineskins; otherwise the wine will burst the skins, and the wine is lost and the skins as well; but one puts new wine into fresh wineskins.” (2:18–22)

The gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ is unique, matchless, and exclusive. It cannot coexist with any alternative religious system. In the same way that water cannot be mixed with poison and still be safe to drink, so the message of the water of life (cf. John 4:14) cannot be blended with error and retain its saving character. The renowned nineteenth-century pastor Charles Spurgeon expressed the exclusivity of the gospel with these inimitable words:

The absolute exclusivity of the Christian gospel runs contrary to the pluralistic mindset of contemporary culture. Religious diversity, relativism, and ecumenism are celebrated by the world. Consequently, the people our society most likely will not tolerate are those courageous enough to declare that Christianity alone is true and all other religions are false.

Where society celebrates ambiguity, Scripture demands absolute certainty. The Bible is clear that there is only one God, one authoritative divine written revelation, and one way of salvation. Jesus Himself could not have stated it any more directly than He did in John 14:6. Speaking of salvation, He declared, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me” (emphasis added). The apostle Peter echoed that truth in Acts 4:12, “There is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.” Many other biblical texts underscore the singularity and exclusivity of the Christian gospel (cf. Acts 10:43; 1 Cor. 16:22; Gal. 1:9; 1 Tim. 2:5), including this section of the gospel of Mark (2:18–22). These verses provide an unambiguous statement of the narrowness of the gospel—most specifically against the backdrop of apostate Judaism, but by extension in contrast to every other false religious system.

In the previous section (2:13–17), the Lord’s invitation to Levi (Matthew) constituted a baffling breach of cultural propriety and religious duty, at least as far as the scribes and Pharisees were concerned. They refused to have anything to do with tax collectors, whom they viewed as quislings and outcasts. The Pharisees espoused a religion of external separation and superficial holiness, making sure never to associate with those they deemed to be sinners. Yet Jesus ignored such legalistic stereotypes and artificial stipulations. He purposely reached out to the riffraff of society because, as He said, “It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick; I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners” (v. 17).

Jesus calling a tax collector to be His disciple produced a jarring impact, especially on the scribes and Pharisees. Since the Lord’s invitation to Matthew was public, taking place while He walked past the tax booth where Matthew was sitting, it constituted a flagrant violation of proper rabbinic conduct, confirming in the minds of the Jewish religious leaders that Jesus represented a serious threat to their form of Judaism. Convinced their religion came from God, they alleged that He was empowered by Satan (cf. Matt. 12:24). Their perception could not have been more backward. The true religion of the Old Testament was fulfilled in the Lord Jesus Christ. The Judaism that rejected Him was a false religion. Yet, in spite of their self-deception and apostasy, the scribes and Pharisees rightly understood that the message Jesus preached was utterly incompatible with the system they promoted. In fact, they knew that Jesus was so adversarial toward them that they had to end His existence.

All three of the synoptic writers record this conversation between Jesus and those who questioned Him (cf. Matt. 9:14–17; Luke 5:33–39), and all three place it immediately after the call of Matthew. The chronological sequence is not accidental. Shortly before this, Jesus had stunned the crowds when He declared that He possessed the authority to forgive sins (Mark 2:10). He then demonstrated His eagerness to extend that forgiveness to sinners by calling a tax collector to follow Him as a disciple, and even sharing a meal at the tax collector’s home with his consorts (vv. 13–17). Through His actions, Jesus made it crystal clear that the content of His preaching was diametrically opposed to everything the scribes and Pharisees represented. While they articulated a way of salvation through self-righteous effort and legalistic works, the gospel of Jesus Christ focused on divine grace being granted to those believing in Him, who humbly cried out for mercy and repented from sin (cf. Luke 18:9–14). Jesus’ message of forgiveness and repentance was rebuffed by the self-righteous, who self-righteously assumed they did not need it. But it was readily received by those who knew they were not righteous. So, Jesus focused His ministry on being a friend to sinners (Matt. 11:19).

It is on the heels of those earlier episodes that Jesus explains just how incompatible His message was with apostate Judaism, and by extension with any system of man-made religion. The passage contains three simple elements: a critical accusation, a corrective answer, and some clarifying analogies.

A CRITICAL ACCUSATION

John’s disciples and the Pharisees were fasting; and they came and said to Him, “Why do John’s disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees fast, but Your disciples do not fast?” (2:18)

The conflict between the Pharisees and Jesus revolved around questions related to His teaching or behavior. Whenever He or His disciples said or did anything contrary to their traditions and rules, they were quick to launch their protest in the form of a question. On this occasion, the group of inquisitors also included a number of disciples of John the Baptist. The parallel account in Matthew focuses exclusively on the disciples of John (Matt. 9:14), while Luke’s account centers on the Pharisees (Luke 5:33). As Mark explains, representatives from both groups participated in this encounter with Jesus.

The presence of John’s disciples alongside the Pharisees is surprising in light of John’s unwavering testimony regarding Jesus (cf. John 1:29; 3:28–30; 5:33). As the herald of the Messiah, John the Baptist boldly pointed his followers to Jesus (cf. Mark 1:7; John 1:36–37), and even baptized the Lord after faithfully proclaiming His arrival (1:9–11). On that occasion, the prophet saw the Holy Spirit descend and heard the affirmation of the Father’s voice (Matt. 3:13–17). Moreover, John had not hesitated to confront the scribes and Pharisees (cf. Matt. 3:7). Why then would some of his followers join them in questioning Jesus on this occasion?

The answer probably involves a number of factors. Perhaps this group of disciples was ignorant of the fact that Jesus was the one whose coming John had foretold. John ministered to tens of thousands of people, as multitudes traveled from Jerusalem and all over Israel to hear him preach in the wilderness and to be baptized by him in the Jordan River (cf. 1:5). Not all of his followers would have been present when he baptized Jesus. Many would not have witnessed that miraculous event, nor heard John’s clear testimony regarding Jesus on that day. Almost thirty years after Jesus’ baptism, the apostle Paul encountered a group of John’s disciples who still did not know that Jesus was the one to whom John’s ministry pointed (Acts 19:1–7). It is also possible that these disciples were motivated by feelings of jealousy toward Jesus. Though John personally felt no rivalry toward Jesus (cf. John 3:30), some of his disciples were less enthusiastic about Jesus’ growing popularity (John 3:26; 4:1). Perhaps similar feelings of contention motivated these followers of John. For his part, John the Baptist was already in prison (Luke 3:20), which meant he was not available to correct either the misguided ignorance or misplaced zeal of those loyal to him.

It should be noted that the baptism of John was a baptism of repentance signifying renewed spiritual commitment. Those who heeded John’s message were testifying of a desire to turn away from their sin in preparation for the Messiah’s coming. Having been baptized by John in the wilderness, they returned home more conscientious about spiritual matters and religious observances (like fasting). Thus, some would have naturally gravitated toward the scribes and Pharisees, who outwardly appeared to take religion seriously.

Whatever the specific reasons for their association with the religious leaders on this occasion, some disciples of John were present when the Pharisees came to ask Jesus a question. Both groups dutifully observed the religious traditions regarding fasting; and both groups became concerned when they noticed that Jesus’ followers did not. That Jesus and His disciples had just attended a banquet at Matthew’s house (vv. 15–16) only heightened their consternation. To eat with tax collectors and sinners, when custom required a fast, did more than just raise a few eyebrows. It raised serious questions. It is possible, of course, that the disciples of John may have merely wanted to know why Jesus approved of such behavior on the part of His followers. The Pharisees who accompanied them were clearly driven by rigid animosity. Their question did not express a desire for information. Rather, it was intended as a stinging rebuke. Indignant, they came and said to Him, “Why do John’s disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees fast, but Your disciples do not fast?”

Fasting, prayer, and almsgiving were common expressions of piety in Judaism. All three were performed publicly, providing the Pharisees with a platform to flaunt their ostentatious false devotion. Jesus had confronted directly such superficial spirituality in the Sermon on the Mount, where He taught that fasting, prayer, and almsgiving were to be done in secret, to honor God and not to impress others (cf. Matt. 6:2–6, 16–18).

Frequently flaunted fasting was another example of how the Pharisees added their own superficial traditions to the law of God. The Mosaic law commanded only one annual fast, yet the Pharisees proudly fasted twice a week (Luke 18:12), on Mondays and Thursdays. According to Leviticus 16:29–31, the Israelites were to “humble [their] souls” on the Day of Atonement. That act of self-denial included abstaining from food, making the Day of Atonement the only mandatory fast day delineated in the Old Testament. Because the Day of Atonement was set aside for mourning over sin, eating of any kind was deemed inappropriate. Additionally, the Old Testament mentions a number of other nonmandatory fasts (e.g., Judg. 20:26; 1 Sam. 7:6; 31:13; 2 Sam. 1:12; 12:16; 1 Kings 21:27; 2 Chron. 20:3; Ezra 8:21, 23; Neh. 1:4; 9:1; Est. 4:1–3; Ps. 69:10; Dan. 9:3; Joel 1:13–14; 2:12, 15), but they were voluntary, being associated with grief, sorrow over sin, and the sincere pursuit of communion with God. Fasts motivated out of proud self-righteousness or calloused ritualism were wholly rejected by God (cf. Isa. 58:3–4).

That the scribes and Pharisees had added their own superficial superstructure to God’s law (cf. Matt. 15:9) was exposed by their question. The true source of their indignation was not that Jesus’ disciples were violating God’s law but that they were failing to observe man-made traditions and rules. It was hypocrisy and legalism, not holiness or love for God that motivated the religious leaders’ confrontation.

A CORRECTIVE ANSWER

And Jesus said to them, “While the bridegroom is with them, the attendants of the bridegroom cannot fast, can they? So long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast. But the days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast in that day.” (2:19–20)

The chiding question deserved an answer, which Jesus readily gave. Rather than apologizing for causing an offense, the Lord escalated the conflict in order to expose the spiritual condition of those who asked. His response simultaneously eliminated the ignorance that might have existed on the part of John’s disciples and confronted the indignation that motivated the Pharisees and scribes. The Pharisees accused Jesus of being in conflict with the rules and rituals of Judaism. Jesus responded by pointing out that, in reality, they were the ones who were set in opposition to God’s saving purposes. If they had recognized that Jesus was the Messiah, they never would have posed their question in the first place.

The Lord used the illustration of a wedding celebration to make His point. And Jesus said to them, “While the bridegroom is with them, the attendants of the bridegroom cannot fast, can they?” The rhetorical question underscored an incontrovertible spiritual truth. Fasting was for times of grief and sorrowful reflection, but a wedding was a joyful and festive event (cf. Matt. 9:15). The attendants of the bridegroom, the groom’s closest friends, were responsible for the execution of the wedding plans. A typical ancient Jewish wedding lasted up to seven days, with the celebration starting once the bridegroom and his attendants arrived. To fast at a wedding would have been inappropriate and insulting, so much so that ancient rabbinic rules forbade the practice. Jesus’ words were emphatic: So long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast. For a member of the wedding party to mourn at such a joyous occasion would have been as ridiculous as it was rude. So, it was equally ludicrous to think that Jesus’ disciples ought to fast and grieve while the Messiah was in their midst.

Jesus used the anticipation and elation that accompanies a wedding to illustrate the joy surrounding His own presence. While it may have been acceptable to fast in preparation and anticipation of the Messiah’s arrival, it was not appropriate when He arrived. His long-awaited advent ought to be a time of celebration and rejoicing. Though the Old Testament never refers directly to the Messiah as the bridegroom, it does so indirectly, by referring to Israel as the bride of the Lord (cf. Isa. 62:4–5; Jer. 2:2; Hos. 2:16–20). Jesus was enriching that imagery in referring to Himself as the bridegroom (cf. Matt. 9:15; 25:1–13; Luke 5:34–35; John 3:29). The New Testament develops Jesus’ imagery even further, depicting the church as the bride of Christ (cf. Eph. 5:32; Rev. 19:7; 21:2, 9; 22:17).

Jesus’ statement about the joys of a wedding feast ends on a threatening note. “But the days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast in that day.” The disciples’ celebration would come to an abrupt end when the groom was unexpectedly snatched away. The verb apairō (taken away) conveys the idea of a sudden, violent removal and serves as a clear reference to Jesus’ crucifixion (cf. Isa. 53:8). At that time, mourning and grief would be warranted. On the night before His death, Jesus told His disciples in the upper room:

Their sadness at the cross was profound. It was transformed into immeasurable joy just three days later when Jesus rose from the grave. After Jesus’ ascension into heaven, His disciples did fast, but only as a voluntary act of humble dependence on God (cf. Acts 13:2–3; 14:23).

The disciples did not initially understand Christ’s predictions of His suffering and death (cf. Mark 9:31–32), and this is the first such reference recorded in Mark’s gospel. Yet, His substitutionary sacrifice on the cross was central to His earthly mission—an integral part of the gospel of forgiveness that He preached. As Paul explained in 1 Corinthians 15:1–4:

The celebration experienced by those at the heavenly wedding feast is only possible because the bridegroom was willing to die for His friends (cf. John 10:11; Rom. 5:6–11).

Jesus’ point to His questioners was simply this: Judaism at its most devout level, as exemplified by the scribes and Pharisees, was completely out of touch with God’s plan of salvation. They were mourning when they should have been rejoicing, because they had rejected Jesus the Savior and clung to their own rules and regulations to earn salvation. Consequently, they had nothing in common with Him. They were consumed with self-righteousness; He preached divine grace. They denied they were sinners; He preached repentance from sin. They were proud of their religiosity; He preached humility. They embraced external ceremony and tradition; He preached a transformed heart. They loved the applause of men; He offered the approval of God. They had dead ritual; He offered a dynamic relationship. They promoted a system; He provided salvation.

SOME CLARIFYING ANALOGIES

“No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment; otherwise the patch pulls away from it, the new from the old, and a worse tear results. No one puts new wine into old wineskins; otherwise the wine will burst the skins, and the wine is lost and the skins as well; but one puts new wine into fresh wineskins.” (2:21–22)

The Lord further illustrated His point through the use of several analogies or “parables” (Luke 5:36). Matthew (9:16–17) and Mark (2:21–22) record the first two of these metaphors, while Luke includes a third (cf. Luke 5:39). Together, they illustrate the absolute uniqueness of the gospel—demonstrating the fact that the true message of salvation is utterly incompatible with any false system of works-righteousness, including Judaistic legalism.

First, Jesus explained that no one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment; otherwise the patch pulls away from it, the new from the old, and a worse tear results. Repairing an old tunic with a piece of new, unshrunk fabric would be ill-advised. Not only would the new cloth not match the faded color of the old (cf. Luke 5:36), it would shrink when washed and pull the garment, causing it to tear. Our Lord’s point was that His gospel of repentance and forgiveness from sin could not be patched into the legalistic traditionalism of Pharisaic Judaism. The true gospel cannot be successfully attached to the tattered garment of superficial religion worn so proudly by the scribes and Pharisees. Apostate Judaism’s rituals and ceremonies were like filthy rags (Isa. 64:6); they were beyond repair. Jesus did not come with a message to patch up their old system. He came to totally replace it.

It is important to note that the old garment to which Jesus alludes is neither the Mosaic law nor the Old Testament as a whole. Jesus did not come to destroy the law but to fulfill it (Matt. 5:17–19). Moreover, the apostle Paul explains that the law of God is righteous and good (Rom. 7:16). The Jewish leaders had added their own rabbinic stipulations and traditions to God’s law to the degree that Judaism had more to do with keeping extrabiblical prescriptions than with honoring divine requirements. The old garment is the legalistic system of rabbinic tradition that had obscured the law of God (cf. Matt. 15:3–6). Jesus was not interested in mending the religion of the Pharisees. The good news of salvation by grace through faith in Him could not be combined with the works-righteousness of Judaism.

Jesus’ second analogy echoed that same point. He told His listeners, “No one puts new wine into old wineskins; otherwise the wine will burst the skins, and the wine is lost and the skins as well; but one puts new wine into fresh wineskins.” Just as an unshrunk piece of new cloth would destroy an old garment, so new wine would destroy old wineskins. Wine was stored in ancient Israel in containers made from animal skin (cf. Josh. 9:4, 13). Often goatskins would be used. The animal’s hide would be uncut except at the legs and neck, and sometimes would be turned inside out. The leg openings would then be sealed shut, and the neck would be used as a spout, so that wine could easily be poured in or out. As new wine began to ferment, gas would be released, causing the leather skins to expand. An old wineskin, having lost its elasticity, could break during the process of fermentation. Consequently, the wine would spill and the flask would be destroyed. In order to avoid this, new wine had to be placed in new wineskins—containers that had the strength and flexibility to hold up as the wine fermented.

Like the first illustration, which demonstrated that the true gospel cannot be attached to a false system of works-righteousness, this analogy exemplified the fact that the legalism of Judaism could not contain the message of salvation by grace. In the same way that new wine was incompatible with old wineskins, the true gospel is antithetical to any system of salvation by works (Rom. 11:6; Gal. 5:4). Jesus’ point was that the good news of salvation could not be poured into the brittle, cracked wineskins of apostate Judaism. Nor is it compatible with any other man-made or demonic religion.

Luke 5:39 records a third parable that Jesus shared on this occasion: “And no one, after drinking old wine wishes for new; for he says, ‘The old is good enough.’” That final analogy depicted the lost condition of the scribes and Pharisees, whose sensibilities had been deadened by the inebriating effects of their false religion. Those who would reject the true gospel in favor of a system of works-righteousness are like spiritual drunkards—desensitized to the point that they no longer care about how the wine tastes. Drunk on their old ways, they had no desire for the new. They would rather savor the foul flavors of false religion than imbibe the fresh purity of the true gospel. The Jews with their ancient traditions, passed down from generation to generation, were so deeply ingrained in rituals and ceremonies that it was difficult for them to relinquish them. They had cultivated such a taste for their own superficial system that, when offered something far better, they simply were not interested.

Taken together, these three metaphors illustrate the exclusivity of the Christian gospel, and the tragedy that results when any attempt is made to syncretize the truth with a false religious system. The only true message of salvation is the gospel of Jesus Christ, that pardon from sin comes by grace alone through faith in Him. Anything else is a false gospel that leads not to heaven but to hell (cf. Gal. 1:6–9). In an age where relativism reigns, believers need to be reminded of the fact that truth is exclusive and absolute. Rather than trying to build bridges of artificial unity with false religions, Christians ought to heed the words of the apostle Paul in 2 Corinthians 6:14–18: