The last three weeks focused on the three times people washed Jesus’ feet. Today and in the coming weeks, I will explore conflicts between Jesus’ disciples and the Jewish religious leaders or other people. Three patterns are observable. The leaders complain to Jesus about the disciples, and Jesus responds. The leaders complain to the disciples about Jesus, and Jesus responds. The leaders complain to the disciples about themselves, and Jesus responds.
Jesus’ status in these conflict stories is not always clear-cut. The reason is that some conflicts were simply because the twelve were his disciples. In this case, Jesus is a party in the conflict. On the other hand, the Jewish leaders and others complained to Jesus about his disciples, making him a third party or mediator in the conflict.
Today’s post examines the conflict and controversy that ensued because Jesus’ disciples did not fast. It falls into the first category of complaint to Jesus about the disciples, and Jesus answers. Various groups asked Jesus why his disciples did not fast. It was a conflict because, with Jesus as a preacher of righteous life and teacher of the law, the disciples’ omission undermined the efforts of religious leaders towards communal fasting, thereby threatening the religious observance of the community. It was controversial because the disciples’ omission generated public debate and possible differing opinions, as seen in the number of groups questioning this omission.
Setting
The story appears in Matthew 9:14-18, Mark 2:18-22, and Luke 5: 33-39 with notable differences. In the three gospels, it happened in the house of Matthew (Levi), who had organised a great feast in his home after Jesus chose him as a disciple. There were tax collectors and sinners at that feast. Hence, the Pharisees and their scribes complained to the disciples about why Jesus ate with tax collectors and sinners. Immediately after, there was a role swap as they questioned Jesus on why his disciples did not fast.
Mark’s account begins with the premise that John’s disciples and the Pharisees were fasting, which raises questions about why Jesus’ disciples did not fast. However, there are some differences in the narratives. Mark narrates that based on the premise, people questioned Jesus (Mark 2:18). Matthew’s account says that only John’s disciples asked the question (Matt 9:14), while Luke narrates that the Pharisees and their scribes asked the question (Luke 5:30, 33).
The questions are the same, apart from Luke that included praying: “Why do John’s disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not fast?” (Mark 2:18); “John’s disciples, like the disciples of the Pharisees, frequently fast and pray, but your disciples eat and drink” (Luke 5:33). This comparative analysis shows a discrepancy in who questioned Jesus about his disciples as the three gospels mention four groups: John’s disciples, the Pharisees and their scribes, and the people. The content of the question was the same: why do Jesus’ disciples not fast?
The response of Jesus
Jesus’ response to the various groups and how the gospel narratives recount it are similar. The response is divided into four parables. The first is whether wedding guests fast while the bridegroom is with them. The second parable is about sewing a piece of unshrunk cloth to an old garment, further damaging the old cloth. The third parable is about putting new wine into old wineskins, which leads to losing the wine and the skins. The final parable is only recorded in Luke’s gospel and is a follow-up to the parable on the wine and wineskins. Jesus said: No one after drinking old wine desires new wine, but says, ‘The old is good’”(Luke 5:39).
The above shows that Jesus responded only through parables. Due to the nature of this conflict, I consider Jesus’ response as a party in the conflict and as a mediator. Jesus is a party because the other parties in the conflict compared Jesus’ disciples with John’s disciples and the Pharisees. They expected Jesus to encourage his disciples to fast as John must have done and as the Pharisees do to themselves.
Jesus’ response shows that the disciples should fast alongside prayer and almsgiving (Matt 6: 1-18). Hence, he did not focus on the wrongness of their concern but on why the disciples did not fast when he was physically around. His presence overshadows and supersedes all. He is the bridegroom, so the guests should not fast when he is around. He is the fullness and newness of life represented in the new cloth and wine. With him, old things and ways of doing things are no longer needed. As old wines taste better, Jesus represents vintage life, life in abundance.
The second dimension is Jesus’ response as a mediator because the concerned parties reported to him to intervene in his disciples’ religious observance. As a party in a conflict, these people imagined that the disciples’ omission threatened the religious observance of fasting in the community. If fasting is necessary, and while some religious leaders are trying to do so, another group does not, it undermines the collective spirituality. This is particularly so because Jesus was known in the community as a preacher of righteous life and teacher of the law.
As a mediator, Jesus knew that his disciples and those questioning their actions were right. Hence, he spoke in parables, in the form of a question and answer, and emphasised his role as God with whom all want to be. In doing so, he clarified why the disciples did not fast. He also explained why their omission was not detrimental to the community’s religious observance by stating that they would fast when he was no longer with them. In the final analysis, Jesus affirmed the concerns of both groups, resolving the conflict between them.
Lessons from Jesus
(a) The conflicting party is not always wrong:
Throughout the gospels, Jesus confronted the Jewish leaders who considered him a threat to their influence. The Jewish leaders always sought ways to trap Jesus to find something to hold against him. Hence, one might say that they were Jesus’ enemies. Yet, although they opposed Jesus and lived in ways contrary to Jesus’ love and care for all, it does not mean that all they did or argued for was wrong. Their question about Jesus’ disciples’ omission was right. Hence, Jesus responded, affirming their position whilst explaining why his disciples did not fast.
(b) Clarification in matters of public interest is necessary:
Jesus’ disciples ought not to fast when Christ was present. Yet, the three gospels show that various groups were concerned about the disciples not fasting—John’s disciples, the Pharisees and their scribes, and the people. This shows that the omission was controversial as it undermined the religious observance of fasting and threatened the community’s collective devotion to God.
Jesus’ response teaches us that irrespective of our status and those involved, we should clarify our right actions once they threaten the public interest and the common good.
(c) Navigating being a party and a mediator:
As conflicts are common, we are often in a conflict where we are both a party and a mediator. For instance, someone complains to us about the tensions between them and our family member or friend. We are sometimes directly or indirectly involved in causing that tension. Jesus’ presence was why his disciples did not fast and, ultimately, the cause of the conflict and controversy ensuing from that omission.
This is where navigating being a party and a mediator is essential. Jesus shows us that it is possible. He did not condemn any of those questioning him. Instead, his response joggled between being a party and a mediator—providing a sufficient explanation that defused the controversy and resolved the conflict.
May God continue to help us🙏🏾
K’ọdị🙋🏾♂️
