In all three Synoptic gospels, Jesus concludes a conversation about the contrast between his teaching and practice and that of the Pharisees (and John the Baptist) by means of a parable about wine and wineskins.
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. Neither do people 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. (Matt. 9:16–17)
No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment. If they do, the new piece will pull away from the old, making the tear worse. And people do not pour new wine into old wineskins. If they do, the wine will burst the skins, and both the wine and the wineskins will be ruined. No, they pour new wine into new wineskins. (Mark 2.21–22)
No one tears a piece out of a new garment to patch an old one. If they do, they will have torn the new garment, and the patch from the new will not match the old. And people do not pour new wine into old wineskins. If they do, the new wine will burst the skins; the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. No, new wine must be poured into new wineskins. And none of you, after drinking old wine, wants the new, for you say, ‘The old is better.’ (Luke 5.36–39)
The reference of the two parables is fairly straightforward. In most cultures, cloth shrinks when it is washed, and it you put an unprewashed piece of material onto cloth that has already shrunk, when it is washed it will itself shrink and tear a hole. Partially fermented wine (the ‘must’) was stored in wineskins, but as the fermentation process continued, it produced more gases and so stretched the wineskin which was made from the hide of a goat. An old skin which was no longer elastic could not stretch for this new wine, so you needed to use new skins for the current years’ wine production. As with most of Jesus’ parables, the information that it drew on was relatively mundane. But what is its significance? What is Jesus referring to?
The most common interpretation of this is the Jesus is showing the superiority of his teaching, and rejecting the Pharisees’ approach to religion—and more broadly, establishing the grounds for the rejection of Jewish belief and practice and the establishment of a new religion of Christianity. Here is a typical expression of such a view:
This, then, is the meaning of Jesus’ parables of the patched garment and the wineskins: the gospel of the Kingdom which Jesus brings cannot be fitted into the the Pharisees’ paradigm or way of living, for “by a mongrel mixture of the ascetic ritualism of the old with the spiritual freedom of the new economy, both are disfigured and destroyed”.
This was the use made of the parable by Marcion to establish a complete separation between ‘the religion of Jesus and Paul’ and the belief taught in the Hebrew Scriptures, which Marcion himself rejected along with most of the New Testament except Luke’s gospel. It has been used more recently to justify the establishment of new ‘churches’, since the new thing God is doing cannot be contained within the structures of the existing churches, which are not flexible enough to contain this new wine.
There are a number of problems with this way of understanding the parable. The first is Jesus’ general attitude to the Pharisees and the law. For one, Jesus at points appears to have no problem with the teaching of the Pharisees; it is their lack of living it out that he has a problem with (Matt 23.1–4). In other words, it is not that they are too ‘Jewish’ that bothers him—it is that they are not ‘Jewish’ enough. This fits with his wider attitude to the law: it might need reinterpretation in the light of his own ministry (and ultimately in the light of his death and resurrection, on which see Luke 24), but he has not come to ‘do away with it’ (Matt 5.17).
The second major problem is the language of the saying itself—at least in Luke’s version. Mark’s saying draws an absolute contrast by which we might think ‘new good; old bad’. Matthew introduces a hint of ambiguity; when he comments ‘both are preserved’ is he hinting that both old wine/skins and new wine/skins are kept? If so, this is made more explicit in Luke: people prefer the old wine, so perhaps the new is for a different purpose. In his NIC Commentary, Joel Green locates this in Luke’s emphasis on the rooting of this new movement within the expectations of Judaism.
The burden of the birth narrative, the genealogy, the temptation account, and the inaugural sermon in Nazareth (i.e. the greater part of Luke 1.5–4.13) is that Jesus is doing nothing more than bringing to fruition the ancient purpose of God. (p 250)
Matthew reinforces this idea explicit in his unique saying of Jesus, which he possibly sees as autobiographical:
Therefore every teacher of the law who has become a disciple in the kingdom of heaven is like the owner of a house who brings out of his storeroom new treasures as well as old. (Matt 13.52)
But the major problem with this ‘new structures/religion’ interpretation comes from the setting of the passage within its narrative context. In all three gospels, the parable follows the same sequence of conflict stories, though Matthew varies the stories that come after it:
| Matt 9 | Mark 2 | Luke 5 |
| Healing the paralytic | Healing the paralytic | Healing the paralytic |
| Dinner at Levi’s house | Dinner at Levi’s house | Dinner at Levi’s house |
| The question about fasting | The question about fasting | The question about fasting |
| Cloth and garment | Cloth and garment | Cloth and garment |
| Wine and wineskins | Wine and wineskins | Wine and wineskins |
| Synagogue leader’s daughter | Grainfields on the Sabbath | Grainfields on the Sabbath |
| Woman with issue of blood | Healing on the Sabbath | Healing on the Sabbath |
(Note that, as ever, Luke and Matthew never agree against Mark, which is a key argument for Marcan priority.) So the parable needs to be read in the context of these stories, and in particular the teaching about fasting. The argument I mentioned above continues thus:
These parables came in response to the Pharisees’ question about Jesus’ practice of fasting compared to their own and John the Baptist’s. Hence this parable also apparently applies to John the Baptist’s asceticism, which Jesus seemed to view as good but passing away, since it was part of the Old Covenant which he was fulfilling and renewing.
The problem here is that this assertion completely ignores Jesus’ actual teaching about fasting: ‘But the time will come when the bridegroom will be taken from them; in those days they will fast’ (Luke 5.34). This is supported by the Didache, and by the teaching of Christian leaders down the centuries (Wesley is a good example). In other words, Jesus is not rejecting ‘the Pharisees’ paradigm or way of living’ in any simple way since he assumes that his followers will indeed revert to this pattern once he has gone.
So if the parable is not about new structures, what is it about? An intriguing insight comes from the teaching of Elisha ben Abuyah (a near contemporary of Jesus) as recorded in the Talmud.
He who studies as a child, unto what can he be compared? He can be compared to ink written upon a fresh [new] sheet of paper. But he who studies as an adult, unto what can he be compared? He can be compared to ink written on a smudged [previously used and erased] sheet of paper. Rabbi Yose ben Yehudah of the city of Babylon said, “He who learns from the young, unto what can he be compared? He can be compared to one who eats unripe grapes, and drinks unfermented wine from his vat. But he who learns from the old, unto what can he be compared? He can be compared to one who eats ripe grapes, and drinks old wine. Rabbi (Meir) said: Do not pay attention to the container but pay attention to that which is in it. There is a new container full of old wine, and here is an old container which does not even contain new wine. (Pirkei Avot 4)
This offers a striking parallel not only to the parable but to Matthew’s comment about ‘treasures old and new’. And it makes common sense as well. After all, what functions as the ‘container’ for Jesus’ teaching—religious structures or religious people, in particular, his disciples?
In other words, the parable is not about creating new structures or institutions (which surely themselves, over time, will become rigid as the old wineskins have done) but about people who are willing to receive the teaching about what God is now doing. We don’t necessarily need to scrap the patterns created in response to earlier teaching (though we might be interested in reforming them). Much more important is whether, as people listening to this teaching, we enact the traditions we have received with flexibility, compassion and grace. It was this that the Pharisees lacked.
Two observations about the use of this term in the contemporary C of E. First is that the movement which derives its name from this parable, New Wine, has never called for new or separate structures within the denominations in which it works (principally but not exclusively the Church of England.) Secondly, David Pytches, the founder of the movement, famously called the parish system the ‘prophylactic of the Church of England’. But this structure has not been scrapped. Instead, partly through Bishop’s Mission Orders, and more recently with support from the Strategic Development Fund, church planting has been allowed to happen flexibly within and across this parochial structure without the structure itself being scrapped.
So, what is the ‘new wine’ God is pouring into your life at the moment, and are you being flexible like ‘new wineskins’ into order to receive it—without scorning the old thing that God did in your life yesterday?
(Published previously)
What does this ‘say’ to the Established Church’ at this critical time?
>>>First is that the movement which derives its name from this parable, New Wine, has never called for new or separate structures within the denominations in which it works (principally but not exclusively the Church of England.)<<<
While perhaps not directly relevant to the argument here, I think this may be changing since this article was first posted, as New Wine leaders past and present have been signatories to letters from The Alliance…
I think ‘Rabbi’ generally refers to Rabbi Yehuda haNasi, Rabbi Meir’s full name is generally used רַבִּי מֵאִיר. haNasi is simply referred to as Rabbi because he compiled the Mishna. Sefaria seems to agree with me (https://www.sefaria.org/Pirkei_Avot.4.22?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en)
“Much more important is whether, as people listening to this teaching, we enact the traditions we have received with flexibility, compassion and grace.”
Well quite.
And with scripture.
So… it’s “similar ” to the Parable of the Sower” which is better seen as about being receptive soil.
I had just been wondering if , back then, old wine was superior. If keeping it in goat skins actually caused a faster oxidation than a glass bottle. Doesn’t seem to matter with this understanding,
‘As ever, Luke and Matthew never agree [with each other] against Mark, which is a key argument for Marcan priority.’
‘Never’ seems a bit strong. Only in the 6th and 7th rows does Matthew have a different story at this point. And why could one not equally infer that Matthew was first, Mark, writing a shorter gospel, chose not to repeat Matthew 10-11, and Luke then followed Mark’s shorter version because he wished elsewhere to include material that was not in either Matthew or Mark?
I could have been clearer. The grainfield episode and the healing of the withered hand on the Sabbath, though not immediately following the wine & wineskins epigram, do appear later in Matthew, in ch 12. So Matthew still agrees with Mark and Luke (and conversely); it’s just that the latter either do not include the material of chs 10-11 or put it somewhere else.
As regards the epigram itself, there are (more materially) textual issues, which the modern translations get wrong (cf. the AV). The best reading of Luke is:
“But new wine must be put into fresh wineskins, and both are preserved together. And no one after drinking old wine immediately desires new, for he says [not having tasted the new], “The new is better.”
This well-supported reading has the further advantage of not making Luke implicitly contradict Matthew and Mark, where the suggestion is that the new wine is better. Jesus’s audience assume that the old wine (i.e. the Law, which Jesus affirms is good) is better only because they don’t know any different. ‘Immediately’ is the key word here – in due time they will desire the new wine and consider it better.
I agree that adding ‘immediately’ may clarify, but is the Greek for ‘immediately’ actually in the Greek text?
If not then Jesus, per Luke, may simply be saying many there were set in their old ways and understanding and were not prepared to accept the new thing He/God was doing.
His words here also remind me of ‘You must be born anew’.
Yes – hence my words ‘well-supported reading’. The texts vary.
which Lucan manuscript texts have ‘immediately’ in this sentence?
New wine is symbolic of the new covenant in Christ:s blood poured out on the wine press of the cross for the ‘joy set before him’.
It is also of the fulness, maturation, of the Old wine. There is here continuity and discontinuity; a completeness in Christ, a singular unrepeatable ‘vintage’
Here is an a not very detailed overview:
https://divinenarratives.org/the-symbolic-significance-of-wine-in-the-bible/
As for new wineskins: Jews and Gentiles, as one in unity, as worshippers of the one true God in Triunity.
Wine skins need to be hung up until they stop fizzing. The sides must not touch the walls. Once the fermentation is complete and the wine yeast is dead it is good to drink.
The fruit of the Spirit crushed into the span of a goat skin and hung up in the dark to die.
Aged wine, is I think, simply wine that has finished.
P.S. I made wine in 2l milk bottles this year. The positive pressure leaks around the cap preventing oxidisation.
Amateur…. my family (country folk) made it in 8 gallon barrels. Oxidation couldn’t have made some of it worse…
I cook with it.
No one copies all their old apps directly to their new phone. If they do they will fill the memory with things they no longer use and clog up space. Nor should one install new software onto an old computer. If they do, not only will the program not run, the computer will become slow and eventually crash.
No, new software must have the right hardware to support it. And none of you, running on a legacy system, wants to upgrade, for you say ‘This does the job just fine.’
-21st Century Jesus
LOL
Jesus trod the grapes of wrath on the cross. His new wine aged there in the dark until he stopped fizzing. Then he was placed in a cellar for a while/or decanted into a stone jar? Leaving the He was then taken to the Master of the Feast to be given to the wedding guests.
excellent modern analogy. Have to say I hate when I have to get a software upgrade!
So, in answer to the question posed, the answer is …Jesus!
He is the new wine skin that has aged in the tomb. He is talking about himself. It’s nothing to do with structures or people- only one person but we all share in him.
The “new wine” is the new life of grace and the “old wineskins” are our old fallen natures and the old law. Jesus is telling us is that if we wish to receive His grace and mercy in our lives we must allow Him to transform our old selves into new creations and embrace the new law of grace. We become a new “wineskin” for God to be poured into. This new “wine” is the Holy Spirit taking hold of and possessing our lives.
Hi HJ,
How does a new patch on an old garment work because wineskins and the patch’s are symbolic of one truth. Does it mean the new life of the spirit will wreck your old life? Tear it apart? It does but it’s an odd way of putting it. It makes me think a mature Christian is covered in patches. Am I extrapolating too far?
Yep – you’re overthinking it.
You’re right I am . I usually do.
Hello HJ…
Does this mean you reject the thrust of the article or have I misunderstood both it and you?
“So, what is the ‘new wine’ God is pouring into your life at the moment, and are you being flexible like ‘new wineskins’ into order to receive it—without scorning the old thing that God did in your life yesterday?”
I think HJ is being perfectly clear.
To press the point, the flesh represents the old wine skins.
Poring of the Holy Spirit, the love of God, into our hearts having been justified by faith into grace.
Romans 5.
A comparison is with hard hearted enemies of God.
Yet now baptised, buried with Him into death, the old crucified with him, united to him we walk in newness of life, dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus.
Romans 6:1-11, 23
I dont think Ian is saying old wine skins = the flesh.
Indeed. He isn’t. That’s quite clear.
That’s not quite my question Geoff
@ Ian
Like all metaphors, they can be received in a number of ways. Remember who this was directed at – the Pharisees; then and now.
What happens with new wine? It contains yeast and continues to ferment which causes expansion. Hence the need for new skins.
Jesus is showing us the pathway to an abundant life lies with the condition of our hearts – the readiness of our “wineskins” to receive His Gospel. Our hearts like wineskins must be renewed and refreshed ready to hold the “new wine” or grace.
The Pharisees were so concerned with the do’s and don’ts of their list that their identity as children of God was lost in a sea of narrow-minded laws and disciplines. They were giving up the opportunity for “new wine” in new hearts. Through spiritual blindness, the “wineskins” of the Old Covenant were rendered incapable of receiving the Good News of salvation. We read in Luke: “no one after drinking old wine desires new; for he says, ‘The old is good’” (Luke 5:39). A total transformation was necessary.
As Bishop Barron writes:
The Pharisees get a bad press. They were concerned about the national identity of Israel, rooted in the Covenant between God and the Chosen People. The Torah gave concrete instructions on how to live faithfully. The Pharisees sought a radical separation of the faithful Jew from the political and cultural forces of the time. They emphasised ritual purity and wholehearted compliance with the dictates of the Torah as essential to affect and maintain this separation from the defilement of the Roman Empire and Greek culture. Hence they placed such a strong emphasis on strict observance of the Law.
However, carried to an extreme, the practice of the Pharisees robbed the Law of its dynamism and life-giving power. “Blind guides,” Jesus calls them. The Pharisees’ attitude compromised their capacity to grasp Jesus’ teaching on the liberating power of the Law and His teachings.
@HJ thank you for your reply.
I don’t disagree with (if I dare! ) the spiritual landscape you describe. It’s was/is whether this is compatible with the article.
IanP wrote…
“So, what is the ‘new wine’ God is pouring into your life at the moment, and are you being flexible like ‘new wineskins’ into order to receive it—without scorning the old thing that God did in your life yesterday?”
You’ve replied :
“The Pharisees’ attitude compromised their capacity to grasp Jesus’ teaching on the liberating power of the Law and His teachings.”
I think they probably are?
Though I’m cautious about pressing metaphors too hard, shaping them around conclusions (however true in themselves) from elsewhere.
Blessings on your day…
I broadly agree with you, Ian. But I’d take it a step further. This isn’t just about new/renewed people as in individuals, but THE new/renewed collective people of God. Mere assent to Jesus as Lord isn’t enough. There must also be total renewal of the whole people from the inside out.