There are parts of the Bible I’ve read so many times that I’m prone to mistake familiarity with them for understanding of them. But once in a while, when I set my familiarity aside, I can take a look at what’s actually there. This happened to me recently in a study of Luke 5.
At the end of the chapter, the Pharisees get upset with Jesus and his disciples for not fasting like either John or the Pharisees themselves. Part of Jesus’ response is a straightforward parable:
He also told them a parable: “No one tears a piece from a new garment and puts it on an old garment. If he does, he will tear the new, and the piece from the new will not match the old. (Luke 5:36)
The issue (the problem with my familiarity) is that I’ve spent years of my life studying Mark’s version of this story. This is the first time I’ve taken a close enough look at Luke’s account to realize that Luke is saying something quite different from Mark. Check out Mark’s version:
No one sews a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment. If he does, the patch tears away from it, the new from the old, and a worse tear is made. (Mark 2:21)
And just for the sake of completeness, here is Matthew’s version:
No one puts a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment, for the patch tears away from the garment, and a worse tear is made. (Matt 9:16)
Observe the Difference
Matthew and Mark are very similar. They talk about cutting an “unshrunk” garment to make a patch for an old garment. The problem is that the new patch will subsequently shrink and tear away from the torn garment, making the original tear far worse.
But Luke is using the same cast of characters to tell a completely different story. He speaks of ripping up a new garment to fix an old one. The problem here is twofold: 1) You’ve ruined a perfectly good (and new) garment, and 2) the fix won’t even match the original.
Why does this matter? What really is the difference between them?
Matthew and Mark are concerned with the damage to the old garment, while Luke is more concerned with the damage to the new garment.
Why Does This Matter?
The epiphany for me was simply to realize I was assuming Luke was telling the same parable as Mark. I needed a jolt to actually look at the text and observe the bare facts of Luke’s presentation. It is so easy to assume I know what a story says. And the unfortunate result of that assumption is that I stop looking!
As for how this affects interpretation: I’m not exactly sure yet, but perhaps you have some ideas. It’s surely related to the extra line Luke adds, which is not found in any other gospel: “And no one after drinking old wine desires new, for he says, ‘The old is good.’ (Luke 5:39).” The problem here is that the new thing is damaged to the point of being perceived as undesirable in comparison to the old thing. And this is a little different from the way Matthew and Mark present the situation.
Perhaps you’re already more familiar with Luke’s version, and it’s difficult for you to see what Mark/Matthew has to say. Either way, it’s another example of the danger of hasty harmonization. Let’s make sure to grasp the particular point each author seeks to make, and not lump them together, presuming they’re communicating the same thing!
I found Luke’s version difficult to understand. As I thought I understood the parables of the old and new cloth and the old and new wine being that Jesus was bringing a New Covenant, a new way, and that the old way of doing things doesn’t mix with the new way. However, Luke’s versions seams to imply (at least when it comes to the wine parable) that the old way is preferred. Which didn’t make sense to me. I am still struggling with Luke’s versions of events, but I’m praying for wisdom and discernment.
Hey Tracy! I am currently studying Luke’s Gospel account and I see where the confusion could possibly be, and it is simply how Luke is retelling Yeshua’s parable. But when you look closely and keep in mind the context, what Luke is saying in his account becomes clearer. I agree with you about this parable being about the contrast of the Old and New Covenants and the different ways each covenant is acted upon.
If we take the context into consideration, we see that the issue is about fasting. Much of, if not all, of Yeshua’s parables usually come after criticism from the scribes and Pharisees. Yeshua’s parable, I believe, is meant to show the purpose for why the disciples are not fasting and when they will fast. Yeshua makes the statement, in the beginning of his parable, “Can you make the friends of the bridegroom fast while the bridegroom is with them?” Keeping this in mind, and as I read the other Gospel accounts of this parable, I looked back at why the Israelites fasted under the Old Covenant/Law of Moses, and I found out that they were only required to fast, according to Leviticus 16:29, on the Day of Atonement, which was once a year; All other fasts were voluntary such as mourning, seeking divine guidance from Yahweh, showing repentance, etc. With this in mind, Yeshua is showing that there will be a new way of doing things as it pertains to the transition from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant, in which according to Hebrews 10:1, the law (law of Moses/Old Covenant) was a shadow of the good things to come (law of Christ/New Covenant) which was/is the substance of what the Old Covenant was pointing towards. So, in essence, what Christ and the Disciples were showing, I believe, was a preview of what life looks like under the New Covenant, showing the true understanding of what the Old Covenant represented.
The Scribes and Pharisees’ problem (one of many) is that there understanding of the Old Covenant was carnal, they were blind to the spiritual understanding and wisdom that Yeshua was showing, especially in his fulfillment of the Law and Prophets! And Yeshua’s parables exposed the Scribes and Pharisees lack of understanding, even though they were teachers of the Law.
All that to say, is that when we get to verse 39 of Luke 5, where Luke records Yeshua as saying “No man having drunk old wine immediately desires new, for he says, ‘The old is better.’”, I believe he is speaking to the attitudes of the Scribes and Pharisees, because under the Old Covenant or at least their “interpretation” of the Old Covenant allows them to practice their self-“righteousness” by not associating themselves with tax collectors and sinners which were the very people Yeshua came to bring healing and liberty to (verses 30-32). So in this case, the Scribes and Pharisees “prefer” the old way and were opposed to the new way that Christ was bringing under the New Covenant!
I know this was a long explanation, but I hope it was clear enough to understand, Lol!
Grace and Peace,
Joshua