WHAT TO DO WITH OLD WINESKINS

by
James Craig

An excerpt from A Theology of Organizational Change by James Craig

©2006 James D. Craig. All right reserved.

 WHAT TO DO WITH OLD WINESKINS

One day, Jesus was asked a question about fasting:

14
Then John's disciples came and asked him, "How is it that we
and the Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not fast?" 15Jesus
answered, "How can the guests of the bridegroom mourn while he
is with them? The time will come when the bridegroom will be
taken from them; then they will fast. 16"No one sews a patch of
unshrunk cloth on an old garment, for the patch will pull away
from the garment, making the tear worse. 17Neither do men pour
new wine into old wineskins. If they do, the skins will burst, the
wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. No, they pour
new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved." (Matthew
9:14-17, NASB)

Usually when any reference is made to the teaching of Jesus at all with regard
to organizational change, it is to this illustration of the wine and the wineskins
(Mt. 9:14-17; Mk. 2:18-22; Lk. 5:33-39). Whatever change someone wants to
make is portrayed as the new wine and the existing structure or routines that
oppose the change are assumed to be the old wineskins in this illustration. The
basic message seems to be that the Gospel replaces the old legalistic Judaism,
therefore, out with the old and in with the new.

This idea has been generalized to serve as a biblical justification of any new
idea or proposal (which is seen as “new wine”) that seeks to supplant an
existing idea, custom or structure (the old wineskin). Howard Snyder is typical
of this approach:

Jesus distinguished here between something essential and primary

(the wine) and something secondary but also necessary and useful
(the wineskins)….There is that which is new and potent and
essential — the gospel of Jesus Christ. And there is that which is
secondary, subsidiary, man-made. These are the wineskins, and
include traditions, structures and patterns of doing things which
have grown up around the gospel [The Problem of Wineskins, 13].

Originally the church interpreted this illustration in terms of Christianity as the

new wine and Judaism as the old wineskin. This approach goes back at least to
Marcion, the heretical teacher who repudiated anything whatsoever to do with
Judaism. He rejected the Old Testament and believed that the creator God of
Genesis was not the Father of Jesus Christ and used only Luke’s Gospel and
some of the letters of Paul. Such a radically anti-Jewish stance by a teacher
universally condemned by the church is perhaps not the best place to go for an
accurate reading of this passage!
As explained above, the illustration itself seems to have taken on a life of its
own divorced from its original context and the reason Jesus gave it in the first
place. In addition, western culture has a powerful preference for anything new
which predisposes us to read this illustration in a certain way and to puzzle at
the remark recorded only by Luke: “and no one after drinking old wine wants
the new, for he says, ‘the old is better’ “ (Lk. 5:39). This last phrase, “the old
is better,” serves as a convenient summary of how the ancient world viewed
the relative merits of the new versus the old. This fact must figure significantly
in our interpretation of this passage.

In all three Gospels, the wineskin illustration is the last of three sayings Jesus
uses to answer a question posed by the disciples of John the Baptist: “How is it
that we and the Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not fast?” (Mt. 9:14). They
are referring to the mandatory fasts on certain days prescribed by rabbinical
tradition although not required by the Old Testament itself. Previous to this all
three Evangelists tell the story of the calling of Matthew (Levi) the tax
collector and the banquet with Jesus, the disciples and “many tax collectors
and ‘sinners’ ” (Mt. 9:10) that follows at Matthew’s home (Lk. 5:29).

This action of crossing the boundaries erected by Jewish tradition to maintain

the ritual purity prescribed by the extrapolations of the Old Testament dietary
laws is deeply disturbing to the Pharisees. For them the picture of a Jewish
teacher who presumed to show others how to serve God sharing the relational
intimacy of table fellowship with non-compliant Jews was unthinkable. This is
why they ask the disciples of Jesus, “Why does your teacher eat with tax
collectors and ‘sinners’?” (Mt. 9:11). For the Pharisees, these two things, a
rabbi and non-compliant Jews should never go together. Jesus responds with a
counter-argument that depends upon another incompatible situation. He says,
“It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick” (Mt. 9:12). In other
words, what He is doing is perfectly natural: the teacher of God’s way should
help those who are not following those ways. His response implies that the real
contradiction is a godly teacher who spends all of his time with his godly
followers, instead of reaching out to those who really need his teaching and his
acceptance.

This incident sets the stage for the question about fasting that follows. For the
Pharisees, it makes no sense to be feasting during a prescribed fasting time.
Jesus responds, “How can the guests of the bridegroom mourn while he is with
them?” (Mt. 9:15a). This is actually an incredible statement of Jesus’ divine
identity, given the Old Testament imagery concerning Israel as the (unfaithful)
bride of Yahweh in the Book of Hosea (Hos. 1:2; 2:1f; 3:1; cf. also Isa. 54:5-8).
He is suggesting that while He is present, fasting makes about as much sense as
refusing to eat during the week-long Jewish wedding festivities. Jesus then
says, “the time will come when the bridegroom will be taken away from them;
then they will fast” (Mt. 9:15). It is legitimate to see in Matthew’s phrase,
“taken away” a veiled reference to the cross. More importantly, Jesus points
out that there will be a time when fasting will be appropriate for his disciples.

Two things follow from this. First this exchange and the two which follow it
concerning the old garment and the old wineskins are not about replacing
Jewish legalism with Christian freedom. There will still be place for fasting by
Christ’s followers. Fasting or not fasting is not the issue. Second, the real issue
regarding spiritual observances is not the calendar, but the presence of Jesus.
This insistence on Jesus Himself as the determining factor whether His disciples
fast or not is even more significant in light of the fact that the prescribed fasts
the disciples of John are referring to may well have been those that were done
to mourn the destruction of the Temple by the Babylonians. This monumental
disaster had present significance because it signaled the start of the Exile, an
exile which spiritually and politically speaking was still going on. Given this
background, Jesus’ reorientation of the pattern of fasting around His own
person is another way of signaling that the Exile has ended and, as He has
constantly announced, the Kingdom of God has arrived. In His first-century
Jewish context, this is equivalent to saying that Jesus has replaced the Temple
as the centre of Israel’s worship, a statement that He makes more openly
elsewhere (Mt. 12:6; Mk. 14:58). The suggestion that the Exile has ended also
carries with it the idea that Jesus has done (or will do) something decisive to
remove Israel’s sin that caused it in the first place.

We are now in a position to see the significance of the two illustrations that
follow the reference to the bridegroom. The new patch on the old garment is
another reference to an incompatible situation. The “old garment” here is a
himaton, or outer cloak woven from camel or goat hair. It was expected to last
for many years and was so valuable that even a used one could be sold for
enough money to purchase a sword (Lk. 22:36). To His audience, this situation
Jesus describes would be considered ridiculous; who in their right mind would
destroy so valuable a garment? Most North Americans, however, understand His
words to mean, Why bother patching an old garment! Throw it out (and head
for the mall to buy a new one!).

The next illustration makes the same point. Old wineskins were very valuable
because, as they hardened with age, they become completely airtight and thus
capable of protecting mature wine from spoiling for a long time. The point is
not that new wineskins are superior and the old ones should be discarded. It is
a question of what is appropriate in the situation. New wine, which is still
fermenting and thus expanding, must be placed into a new flexible wineskin or
it will burst the skin and be lost. And even worse, the valuable old wineskin
will be ruined as well.

Jesus is not speaking here to the question of getting rid of old organizational
structures in favour of whatever is new. Nor is He addressing the issue of
change in the church per se, but rather, He is challenging those committed to
the legalistic performance of religious exercises to recognize that discernment
of what is appropriate in each situation should be the norm. The new locus of
commitment is not a tradition, but a Person, the bridegroom in whose presence
the church celebrates. In Jesus the Kingdom has arrived and the Exile has
ended. That is cause for celebration. Yet there will also come a time when
fasting is appropriate because the full and lasting realization of the Kingdom
still lies in the future.

There is a more general application of this illustration we need to consider. As

we have seen, the illustration of the wine and the wineskins was not intended
by Jesus to suggest the need to keep changing things in the church every time
something new comes along. We must exercise discernment. We must be wise
like the teacher who has become a disciple of the Kingdom and is like the
homeowner who brings out of his storeroom treasures both new and old (Mt.
13:52, emphasis added). This wise blend of the old as well as the new suggests
that change requires the recognition of some things that remain stable as well
as other things that must be replaced. This is the delicate balance between
identity and adaptation that lies at the core or organizational effectiveness.

The teaching of Jesus regarding wineskins also suggests we need to consider

how to accommodate the changes in style that are hurting many churches
today. Perhaps we need to look at initiating new wineskins for the new wine,
rather than damaging the old ones that cannot reasonably be expected to
accommodate the new cultural realities of upcoming generations of believers.
The ideal would seem to be a level of mutual acceptance that allows believers
of all generations to work together in unity as one body. I believe, however, we
need to consider the possibility that we face something of a new situation in
that the pace of cultural change in the West has created a situation where
there are radical differences or worldview between successive generations
within the same culture. This is the subject that requires a separate article.