CRITICAL NOTES
Matthew 9:14. The disciples of John.—The passage is interesting as showing:
1. That the followers of the Baptist continued during our Lord’s ministry to form a separate body (as in Matthew 11:2, Matthew 14:12).
2. That they obeyed rules which he had given them, more or less after the pattern of those of the Pharisees. They had their own days of fasting (the context makes it probable that the feast in Matthew’s house was held on one of them), their own forms of prayer (Luke 11:1). They, it would seem, acting with the Pharisees, and perhaps influenced by them, were perplexed at conduct so unlike that of the master they revered, and came, therefore, with their question. But they were, at least, not hypocrites, and they are answered, therefore, without the sternness which had marked the reply to their companions (Plumptre).
Matthew 9:15. The children (sons, R.V.) of the bridechamber.—On the day of marriage the bridegroom went, adorned and anointed, to the house of the bride, attended by his companions (Judges 14:11), and led her, attended by her maidens, in festive procession, with music and dancing, at even, by torchlight, into the house of his father. The marriage feast, which was defrayed by the bridegroom, lasted seven days (Lange).
Matthew 9:16. New cloth.—Undressed (R.V.). It denotes cloth that has not passed through the process of fulling—that process by which cloth is thickened and made compact, as well as cleansed. When the up-filling patch shrinks it takes along with it a margin of the old and tender robe, and the rent is made worse (Morison). John was not a member of the newly inaugurated kingdom of God (Matthew 11:11). In accordance with this, Jesus declared the forms of righteousness practised by John’s disciples to be antiquated and out of keeping with the new righteousness which He taught as belonging to the kingdom of God (Wendt).
Matthew 9:17. Bottles.—Wine-skins (R.V.).
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.— Matthew 9:14-17
The law of fasting.—The connection of this passage with the preceding one may be only in the order of thought; the thought of “feasting” (Matthew 9:10) leading to that of “fasting” in the Evangelist’s mind, by the rule of opposites, as it were. Or there may have been a connection between them of a closer description. As some understand Mark 2:18, “the disciples of John and of the Pharisees were keeping a fast at that time” (Wordsworth, in loc.). If so, there would be both “fasting” and “feasting” side by side, as it were; and nothing would be more natural, therefore, than that those who were fasting should then and there ask the others why they were not. “Why is it that Thy disciples never do what is done so often by us?” (see end of Matthew 9:14). The Saviour’s answer seems to take in the case of all the parties concerned:—His own disciples; the “disciples of the Pharisees”; the “disciples of John.”
I. His own disciples.—Their case could be disposed of by the mere consideration of time. There was a time for everything under the sun (Ecclesiastes 3:1); amongst other things for lamentation and grief, and for that abstinence from food which is so usual an accompaniment and token of grief (2 Samuel 12:16). For that very reason such abstinence was not suitable for a season of joy; such a season, e.g. as when the “friends” of a “bridegroom” come to congratulate him on his happiness. This applied to the then condition of the disciples of Christ. Unlike the disciples of John (so it is supposed by some), who were then separated from their master and head in consequence of his imprisonment by Herod, these disciples were enjoying the full sunshine of the presence of their Head. The very thought of fasting, therefore, in their present circumstances, was wholly out of the question. The time would come, indeed, when their case in this respect would be different; when their “Bridegroom” also would be taken away. In one sense they would have “fasting” enough at that time. But for the time then present, and as things were then, the observance of fasting was not to be asked at their hands. “Can the children of the bride-chamber fast while the bridegroom is with them?”
II. The disciples of the Pharisees.—Their case, also, could be disposed of in an equally summary way. The question here was that of purpose and aim. If there were times, as implied before, in which it was not unbecoming to deny the body in a greater or less degree the support it required, with what object and in what spirit should such denial be practised? Our Saviour’s parable seems to answer this question by showing what ought not to be in this case. In particular, He warns men against the view which the Pharisees held on this subject. Their great idea in enjoining fasting was that of reparation and atonement. The mortification of the body was prescribed by them in order thereby to “make up” for the sins of the mind. Was there a “rent,” as it were, in the garment of righteousness through the commission of sin or omission of duty? They looked to “fasting” to mend it. See how this idea is involved in Isaiah 58:3; Luke 18:12. See, on the other hand, how emphatically it is here rejected by Christ. To “put” such a piece of “new cloth”—rather a piece of such “unfulled,” and therefore unfinished, and therefore imperfect and unsuitable material as this on the faulty garment—is not to improve the matter but to make it much worse. It is to “take away” in fact, and not to “make up”; to make the “rent” at once larger and more conspicuous; and to add to nothing, in any way, except the original fault. No guilt, in a word, can be atoned for by such a clumsy mockery of atonement! The very idea of it is sin.
III. The case of the disciples of John was the case of men in a transitional state. It was the kind of case, therefore, in which the disciples of Christ would find themselves before long, in passing from the comparative darkness and bondage of the law (cf. Acts 15:10) to the light and liberty of the gospel. The first thing for all persons so situated to remember is this, that no transition of the kind can take place without some amount of dislocation and shock. Also, that this dislocation will affect primarily the question of ordinances and customs. Customs proper enough where the light is partial may not be so proper where the light is complete; or, at any rate, may require to be greatly modified in order to render them so. It is like that, in a word, which is so well known to be true about wine-skins and wine. Old wine-skins do all that is wanted in the case of old wine. It is when men fill them with new wine that they make a mistake, and find that, instead of gaining much, they lose everything by so doing (Matthew 9:17). The same is true of the strictly parallel question of ordinances and doctrines. Some ancient ordinances were only intended for an undeveloped measure of truth. To try to use them, therefore, for a fully developed measure, is to make confusion of all. Let this be remembered, therefore, with regard to the special question at issue. How far can “fasting” be made to fit the new condition of things? How far, under it, can fasting be employed to do what it doubtless accomplished before? This is the direction in which they must search in order to settle this point. What He had said at first had settled it for the present. What He now says is in order to help them to settle it in the future. Much, in short, as they were seen to do afterwards in the kindred subject referred to in Acts 15.
On the whole, therefore, of this subject, we seem able to say:—
That Christ Himself does not positively settle it for us.—He does not say, in so many words, either fast or fast not. He does not forbid; neither does He enjoin. The utmost on one side seems to be, “It may have to be done.” The utmost on the other seems to be, “It is quite possible so to do it as to increase your transgression.”
2. That we cannot settle it for each other.—The considerations it depends on are of too private a nature to admit of interference on the one side, or to warrant it on the other. Whether we are rejoicing, individually, in the sense of Christ’s presence or lamenting His absence; whether we profit most by bewailing the one (1 Samuel 7:2) or by realising the other (Nehemiah 8:10; Matthew 28:20); whether we are of vigorous or weakly bodily health; whether we are most tempted to evil by fulness or want (Proverbs 30:9)—who can settle these questions for others? And yet who, without them, can settle that question at all? See therefore Romans 14:3.
3. That we ought to settle it for ourselves.—If a man thinks that the practice is not incumbent on him individually, he ought to know why. If he thinks that it is he ought to know why. Also, how far, at what times, and in what way too, ought these to be clear. Men may be wrong, of course, even so, in the conclusions they come to; but they can hardly, even so, be more wrong than in refusing to give it a thought.
HOMILIES ON THE VERSES
Matthew 9:14-17. Spiritual life more authoritative than custom.—The spirit of the Christian religion is the spirit of liberty and progress. The question “Why do we,” etc., shows the readiness with which men learn to worship a custom, and give to some temporary form all the dignity and authority of an everlasting law.… They made the mistake of supposing that what was good and helpful for them, must be binding upon every person in every condition; or in other words, that the religious observances which they had received and used, must be of constant and universal obligation. The same mistake is often made still. Because a custom is of service to us, we have no right to make it a hindrance to others; that which inspires and uplifts us may cramp and restrain them. Men do harm when they try to transform the temporary into the immutable, and the local into the universal; by seeking to gain undue reverence for forms which are of human origin, they lessen men’s regard for the invisible, changeless laws of God. The divine life survives all the changes of form and system. The teaching of the New Testament on this point seems to be that when men seek to give to outward forms of religious expression that importance which belongs only to the inner spiritual life, they hinder the free development of soul-life and stay the progress of divine truth.
I. The question propounded by these men rests upon a wrong assumption, viz. that all religious life should manifest itself in precisely the same way.—
1. This receives no countenance from the variety of life and beauty in nature.
2. The varied manifestations of intellectual life disprove it.
3. The diversity of character displayed in the Bible contradicts it.
II. This question leaves out of sight an important principle, which is that our spiritual experience must regulate the outer life, and not any mere custom.—Jesus says, “Can the children of the bridechamber mourn,” etc.? Or to put it into common speech, “Can you expect My disciples to mourn when they are just beginning a new and joyous life? They are realising the power of My teaching, and the inspiration of My presence; if they were to hang down their heads and look sad now, they would belie their experience and play the part of hypocrites. Let them be happy, they are serving God in their own simple way; and bear in mind the time will soon come when they shall fast, because it will be in harmony with their deep feeling. The Shepherd shall be smitten and the sheep scattered abroad. I shall be nailed to the bitter cross, and My followers will wander in sad, dark loneliness; they will feel themselves orphans in the world, desolate and bereaved, then shall they fast.”
III. After correcting these false assumptions, our Lord declares the principle that real spiritual life will always find appropriate forms of expression.—“No man putteth a piece of new cloth,” etc. We take this to mean that it is of no use attempting to bind new life down to old forms; whenever this is done there is conflict and confusion. Illustrate by reference to early attempt to chain the Christian religion to the old ceremonial forms of Judaism. “I am come that they might have life,” etc.—W. G. Jordan, B.A.
Matthew 9:16-17. Garments and wineskins.—By these illustrations our Lord conveyed a lesson on the charm of naturalness and the law of congruity in religion. Times of transition are critical. The disciples of John the Baptist were anxious to know whether Jesus meant only to reform the old Judaism, or to break away from it and introduce a new faith, with new rules and usages. On the question of fasting, for instance, they agreed with the Pharisees, and were concerned to find that the disciples of Jesus differed. Then the Lord answered them with heavenly metaphors which clothed a grave lesson with a veil of kindly humour. As old cloth and new cloth are one in being cloth, old wine and new are one in being wine; so the religion before Christ and that which He introduced are essentially one in kind, if not in quality. But it would not answer any good purpose to limit the new by the conditions of the old, or to place the Christian faith and life under the rules of the Pharisees, or even of thes disciples of John. So Jesus put it very plainly that He had not come to patch up Pharisaism, or garnish Rabbinism, or to pour His doctrine and all its vital force into the rigid forms of the later Judaism. The effect of a forced junction of the old and the new would be injurious to both. This is shown by throwing the illustration of the old garment patched with undressed cloth into two forms. St. Matthew and St. Mark report the Lord as indicating the damage to the old, whilst St. Luke reports Him as pointing out the injury to the new. In either case, it will be observed, the disruptive force is in the new. So to make Christianity a mere addendum to Rabbinical Judaism would only spoil the former, and would not preserve the latter. The second metaphor is to the same effect. To insist on the disciples of Jesus fasting because the Pharisees and the disciples of John fasted by rule, was to repress their joy at a time when they had a right to rejoice, and this was as unwise as to pour new wine into old wine-skins and shut it up. Thus again the Lord taught that a forced amalgamation of the old and the new dispensations would be disastrous to both. Let the law of congruity be observed.—D.Fraser, D.D.