The setting of this controversy is the same as the previous one, Levi's banquet.
5:33 The religious leaders (v. 30; Mark 2:18) and John's disciples (Matt. 9:14; Mark 2:18) raised the question of fasting. They did so because it was another practice, besides eating with sinners, that marked Jesus and His disciples as unusual (cf. 7:34). Since Jesus preached repentance (v. 32), why did He not expect His followers to demonstrate the accepted signs that indicated it? These questioners made Jesus and His disciples appear to be out of step by contrasting their behavior with that of John the Baptist's and the Pharisees' disciples. All of those people appeared to be sympathetic to Jesus and righteous.
The Old Testament required only one day of fasting, namely the day of Atonement (Lev. 16:29), but over the years additional fasts had become traditional. Evidently John and his disciples fasted periodically. The Pharisees fasted every Monday and Thursday (cf. 18:12) as well as on four other days in memory of Jerusalem's destruction (Zech. 7:3, 5; 8:19).193Jesus did not oppose fasting, but He criticized its abuse (4:2; 22:16, 18; Matt. 6:16-18).
Luke alone mentioned the reference of Jesus' questioners to prayer. He probably did this to clarify the circumstances in which fasting happened for his readers. The questioners implied that Jesus' disciples neglected prayer as well as fasting.
5:34-35 Jesus compared the situation to a wedding, which calls for joy. He meant that He was the bridegroom who had come to claim His bride, Israel (cf. Isa. 54:5-8; 62:5; Jer. 2:2; Hos. 2:18, 21; Ezek. 16). His disciples were His friends who rejoiced at this prospect with Him. Therefore to compel them to fast was inappropriate. Thus Jesus rebuked His questioners. However, Jesus implied that the bridegroom would die. This was one of Jesus' early predictions of His death. Then His disciples would fast. They probably did this after His crucifixion but before His resurrection. They also do it after His ascension and before His return to the earth (cf. John 16:16-24).
5:36 Jesus next illustrated with parables the fact that His coming introduced a radical break with former religious customs. He did not come to patch Judaism up but to inaugurate a new order. Had Israel accepted Jesus this new order would have been the messianic kingdom, but since the Jews rejected Him it became the church. Eventually it will become the kingdom. Simply adding His new order to Judaism would have two detrimental effects. It would damage the new order, and it would not preserve the old order. It would also appear incongruous. Only Luke's account includes the first effect, that it would damage the new order. Luke evidently included this to help his Christian readers see that Israel and the church are distinct.
"The real point is the incompatibility of the two pieces of cloth, and the contrast of new and old is implicit. . . . Whereas in Mk. the deficiencies of Judaism cannot be mended simply by a Christian patch', in Lk. the emphasis is on the impossibility of trying to graft something Christian onto Judaism."194
5:37-38 The second illustration adds the fact that the new order that Jesus had come to bring has an inherently expanding and potentially explosive quality. The gospel and Christianity would expand to the whole world. Judaism simply could not contain what Jesus was bringing since it had become too rigid due to centuries of accumulated tradition. Here Luke's account is very close to Mark's.
5:39 Only Luke included this statement. Jesus' point was that most people who have grown accustomed to the old order are content with it and do not prefer the new. They tend to assume that the old is better because it is old. This was particularly true of the Jewish religious leaders who regarded Jesus' teaching as new and inferior to what was old.
Jesus contrasted four pairs of things that do not mix in this pericope. They are feasting and fasting, a new patch and an old garment, new wine and old wineskins, and new wine and old wine. His point was that His way and the way that the Jewish leaders followed and promoted were unmixable. The religious leaders even refused to try Jesus' way believing that their old way was better.
