Luke chapter 5

vs 31-32

It's Jesus who answers them. Did he come out of the house? Did the disciples go into ask him the question, and he passed it on?

Now, his answer is not as simple as it first sounds. Because of the generally negative attitude towards Pharisees in Luke, we can't assume that Jesus here is saying that the Pharisees are righteous and hence don't need him. Everyone's sinful, so Jesus has really come to call everyone to repentance. In a manner of speaking.

I think Jesus is really picking up on the idea that because the Pharisees think they are righteous, they don't see a need for Jesus. But the tax collectors and other 'sinners' know their lives aren't great, and so they are joyful that Jesus is here.

Sick people who know they're sick are more likely to seek out a doctor than sick people who think they're well.

vs 33

So they're trying to put the holy heavies onto Jesus' disciples now. Can't attack the man, attack his posse.

vs 34-35

The truth is that fasting for no reason is worthless. Fasting was most often a solemn and dour affair, and when you're happy, it's not a time to fast really. It is a practice meant to put you in such a mood.

As such, anyone who turned up to a wedding and was fasting would not be the life of the party.

Jesus is the life of the party of all parties. If you expect his disciples to be all morose and sad, then you really don't understand why he's here. More than anything else, these last two stories have shown just how the Pharisees did not understand the purpose of Jesus' coming.

vs 36

I don't think even the context of this parable makes it completely clear what Jesus is talking about here. People will talk about old and new covenants, or religious orders, or whatever. But the context seems to be simply talking about groups. The Pharisees are an old group. Even John TB and his disciples are an old group. Jesus' group is the new group. And you don't tear up the new thing to try and make the old thing better. You can repair old thing with old thing for a while, but eventually it's all too old. Then, you just chuck the old thing and replace it with the new thing.

A lesson some churches could afford to learn. While I don't think this verse is directly applicable to church practices (it possibly is, though, I mean we're talking about fasting earlier), I think it is applicable to theology. Now when I say that theology has a use-by date, some people go bonkers, as if I'm chewing on my Bible and spitting it out or something. But theology is a human construction - it's how we take the Bible and apply it to our circumstances (note also the practical application of theology). And since circumstances and understandings change, then theology changes too. Sometimes we need to stop patching up our old theology that simply doesn't work anymore, and replace it with completely new garments. Or theology. Perhaps both.

vs 37-38

I believe this is the same parable, put a different way. I am not an allegorist, and so I don't believe that the garments represent one thing, and the wineskins another, and we're meant to decode them with our magical decoding rings.

vs 39

Because if you do take these parables too literally, you're going to get caught up in this verse. Is the new wine the New Covenant? If so, then why does the Old Covenant taste better?

A few people (actually, probably quite a number) see this verse either as ironic comment, or warning, that lots of Jews will not come to Jesus because they think the old way is better. But lots of Jews did come to know Christ. 3000 of them at Pentecost alone. The response then, of course, is that "no one" is hyperbolic. And fair enough - if you want to interpret it that way, then seeing this comment as hyperbole is reasonable.

But it neglects to accept the fact that old wine really is better! It's nicer to drink than new wine. I think you've got to accept that this is a parable, and like all analogies, it falls down somewhere. But also, it's easy to neglect the fact that you can't have old wine without new wine. It had to be new sometime.

So what did Jesus mean? Don't know. He never really does make it clear what about his way is new. But certainly, you need to have the right practice for the context. For new context, new practice (or idea or theology). For old context, old practice etc.