A Look At Fasting

Question: I am confused with the section in Mark 2 where John's disciples and some Pharisees questioned Jesus about fasting. I guess it may be because I am not familiar with any ceremonies.

Response: Mark 2:1 to 3:6 includes an account of an ongoing series of confrontations with scribes and Pharisees while Jesus was sojourning in Capernaum. Jesus' ministry had generated tremendous popular enthusiasm and curiosity. Jewish religious leaders, however, had an entirely different attitude toward the Nazarene. Many of His words and actions aroused their hostility. Mark reports some of the early manifestations of that hostility in a series of charges against Jesus. The scribes were upset by His claim to forgive sins (2:2-12), His fellowship with publicans (2:13-17), His supposed neglect of ascetic duties (2:18-22), and His violations of their Sabbath regulations (2:23-3:6). [Scripture quoted below is from the NASB]

The third ground of complaint against Jesus (Mark 2:18-22) was the failure of His disciples to keep the fast days that pious Jews observed. His open association with sinners seemed to have led to His neglect of devout practices. In Matthew 9:14-17 and Luke 5:33-39, the problem is also raised immediately after the feast in the house of Levi.

The words "And John's disciples and the Pharisees were fasting" are found only in Mark's Gospel, apparently as an explanatory note for his non-Jewish readers. The imperfect tense used in the Greek could point to their observance of regular times of fasting, or it could mean that they were fasting at the time their question was presented to Jesus, which is how I understand the passage. .

Mosaic Law prescribed only one fast day a year, on the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16:29), but fast days were often proclaimed in times of crisis. During and after the Babylonian captivity, the practice of fasting received increasing emphasis and came to be regarded as meritorious. At the time of Jesus' ministry, pious Pharisees fasted twice a week (Luke 18:12), on the second and the fifth day. If the feast in Levi's house had taken place on the evening beginning either of those weekly fast days, the disciples of Jesus would have been feasting at the very time the pious Pharisees were fasting. The Pharisees must have been shocked that Jesus and His disciples, who appeared to be a committed religious group, did not conform to pious practices.

John's disciples, who kept together as a group after John's imprisonment, apparently also kept the pious fasts. The Johanine disciples are mentioned in the Gospels as an identifiable group a number of times (Matthew 11:2; Mark 6:29; Luke 7:18; 11:1; and John 1:35-37). By keeping to themselves as a separate group among the Jews, they failed John's purpose, which was to prepare them to receive the promised Messiah. There is nothing in any of the Gospels to indicate that John taught on fasting; however, he likely would have approved of the practice as a means of deepening his disciples' awareness of sin and bringing them to repentance. Fasting by John's disciples would have been in keeping with the ascetic spirit of their master. The parallel verse at Luke 5:33 informs that John's disciples often fasted and prayed, which suggests the possibility that their fasting mentioned at this time was an expression of mourning for John's imprisonment.

"They came and said to Him" suggests that representatives of both John's disciples and the Pharisees confronted Jesus, a surprising alliance. Obviously both groups were concerned over the conduct of Jesus and His disciples. We know, from the parallel passage in Matthew 9:14, that John's disciples asked the question. Perhaps the Pharisees, noticing the confusion of John's followers, urged them to raise the issue. Jesus' answer seems to be directed to John's disciples.

In asking why, they indicated their desire to know what was behind the difference between their practices and that of Jesus' disciples. Though the question may have implied censure, they made no charges. Jesus' disciples were not violating the Law by not fasting. We cannot know from the text whether their question to Jesus was motivated by hostility or perplexity.

Jesus' response was given in two parts. Verses 19-20 record His explanation, while verse 21-22 set forth a large justifying principle.

His reply was an explanatory question; "Can the children of the bridechamber fast, while the bridegroom is with them?" Clearly, a negative answer was expected. Fasting during a wedding celebration would be inappropriate to the spirit of the occasion. 'The children of the bridechamber,” is a Hebrew idiom, referring to the groom's attendants who accompanied him to the house of the bride to bring her to the groom's house, which was now hers. They were responsible for providing what was necessary for the nuptials. Usually his closest friends, they shared in the bridegroom's joy.. According to Jewish custom, they were exempt from certain religious observances, including the weekly fasts. Weddings were occasions of laughter, merriment, and song.

"As long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast.." -- Jesus' answer to His own question, is recorded only in Mark. "As long as" introduces the condition which made fasting an incongruity for His disciples and indicates that it would not last. Now they cannot fast as an honest expression of their true feelings. For them it was a time of joy, since they have the bridegroom with them. Jesus' picture of the bridegroom was a veiled reference to Himself. He seems intentionally to be referring John's disciples back to John's own statement about Him given in John 3:29. They had forgotten John's witness to His true identity. His position on the problem of fasting was bound up with His identity as the bridegroom rejoicing with His bride.

"But the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them," - a clear indication that Jesus knew what awaited Him. "Days" is without an article in the Greek) and stresses the nature of the days as characterized by the removal of the Bridegroom. This indicated that He, rather than the disciples, would be removed. The verb 'taken from,' here used in all the Synoptics but nowhere else in the New Testament, means to lift off, to take away from someone, and implies a violent removal. It is the first intimation of the coming cross in Mark's gospel. "When," used with the subjunctive mode, "whenever," left the time undetermined.

"And then shall they fast in those days. " - when His removal has become a sad reality. The great sorrow they will know then will provide a proper occasion for fasting. The added "in those days" emphatically points to the coming day. The primary reference is to the time of the crucifixion. Matthew 6:16-18 shows that Jesus did not oppose fasting but rather assumed that His disciples would do so. He condemned fasting as a matter of outward form and show, but not when it was a genuine expression of inner sorrow. His words do not establish fasting as a prescribed institution in the church. Christ pictures the church as a widow who bewails her bereavement with recurrent periods of fasting and tears.

In verses 21-22, Jesus makes a twofold appeal to a recognized principle in life, adding a reminder of the results of its nonobservance. The principle confirmed His position concerning fasting. The teaching is parabolic, in that it employs a familiar practice of everyday life to convey spiritual truth. It is the first instance of the use of the parabolic method by Jesus in Mark's gospel. Luke specifically called His words a parable (5:36). The images indicated that the question of fasting was only part of a far greater truth. The new life in union with Him could not simply be confined to the old forms of Judaism.

In both verses, a negative principle is illustrated with an added reminder of the result of its violation. No one who was wise would attempt to patch an old, worn garment by sewing a piece of new cloth that had not shrunk over a hole in it. Should one attempt to do so, the result would be that the unshrunk patch, when it became wet, would shrink and tear away from the old garment at the sewn edges, leaving a larger hole than before. To seek to preserve the old by patching it up with what was new was worse than useless.

Verse 22 is another common-sense observation. The skins of goats, stripped off as nearly whole as possible and partly tanned, were commonly used in the Orient as containers for liquids. With age, such skins became stiff, and lost their elasticity. To put new wine fresh from the vat into them would inevitably result in the fermenting wine so stretching the old skins that they would burst. A double loss would result: the wine would be lost, and the skins would be ruined. The common-sense thing was to put new wine into fresh or unused wineskins. Because of their elasticity and strength, they would safely contain the fermenting wine.

The teaching of both parables is that the new life of redemption in Christ cannot be confined to the old, legalistic forms of Judaism. In the first, the new patch proved useless and the old was made worse; in the second parable the new was wholly lost and the old was ruined. The first figure seems specially applicable to the mistake of John's disciples, while the second seems to picture the utter impossibility of containing young Christianity as a mere 'Reformed Sect' within Judaism. Jewish Christianity and its forms perished, but the freedom of the gospel for which Paul contended, remained and developed as it found expression in new forms of life harmonious with its new nature.