The Old Coat and the New Wine: A Parable of Repentance

Author(s): Alistair Kee

Source: Novum Testamentum, Vol. 12, Fasc. 1 (Jan., 1970), pp. 13-21
Published by: BRILL
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1560184 .
Accessed: 15/06/2014 01:08

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Novum Testamentum.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.96 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 01:08:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE OLD COAT AND THE NEW WINE
A Parable of Repentance
BY

ALISTAIR KEE
Hull

In its present position the double parable of the Old Coat and
the New Wine 1) is part of the Reply of Jesus to the Question
About Fasting. There are, broadly, two approaches to the double
parable. By some it is regarded as being in its proper historical
position. That is to say, it was spoken by Jesus on the same occasion
to illustrate his Reply to the Question 2) .The other approach is to
regard the double parable as probably authentic, but deriving from
another occasion, and included at this point in the narrative by
the Gospel writers. What these two approaches have in common
is the fact that they both agree on the interpretation of the parable,
that it illustrates admirably the Reply of Jesus to the Question
About Fasting. I believe this conclusion to be false. The parable
has a clear meaning, commensurate with the rest of the teaching
of Jesus, but it does not illustrate the Reply of Jesus.
There are many instances in the Gospels of words of Jesus being
misapplied 3). In fact the ending which Luke adds to his account of
the double parable destroys the meaning of the parable on any
interpretation. "And no one after drinking old wine desires new;
for he says, 'The old is good'." (v. 39) Jesus may well have spoken
these words to illustrate his teaching on some matter, but the
sentence is out of place here. We cannot assume that even if the
double parable is authentic it is appropriately applied when used
in connection with the Reply to the Question About Fasting.
1) Mk. ii 21-22; Matt. ix 16-17; Lk. v 36-39.
2) As in the previous study The Question About Fasting, NT XI, p. I6I ff.,
'Question' with a capital Q refers to Mk. ii 18 and par., whoever asked the
question, and similarly 'Reply' refers to Mk. ii 19-20 whether it was spoken by
Jesus or comes to us from the Church.
3) e.g. Matt. xx I-I6, where the conclusion added by the writer, "so the
last will be first, and the first last", comes from Jesus, but does not in fact
illustrate the preceding parable of the Labourers in the Vineyard. For
further examples see JEREMIAS, The Parables of Jesus, p. 8i.

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.96 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 01:08:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
I4 ALISTAIRKEE

As we shall see, the situation is even more complex than this.

As long as the Reply is read in the light of the double parable its
significance will be distorted: as long as the parable is associated
with the Reply it meaning will be obscured.

The Traditional Interpretation

The traditional interpretation of the double parable can be
summed up in one word, incompatibility. It is supposed to teach
that the Old and the New are incompatible, that Judaism is in-
compatible with Christianity. It is interesting to note how many
commentators find that they must use this actual term in ex-
pounding the parable. 'The geneial sense of this saying is the in-
compatibility of combining the new with the old' (TAYLOR) 1).
'The thought in these parables is of the incompatibility of the new
and the old' (BRANSCOMB)2). The double parable points the moral
'that the new Christian message and the old ceremonial forms of
Judaism are incompatible' (MACLEAN GILMOUR)3). NINEHAM says
that conduct in the new age 'is as incompatible with the practices
of Judaism as a new patch with an old garment or new wine with
old wineskins' 4). For JEREMIAS 'the parable sets forth the in-
compatibility of the new wine with the old' 5).
In some commentators the incompatibility goes beyond the New
and the Old to the incompatibility of Judaism and Christianity.
F. W. FARRARcould approve the view that in the phrase olvov
veov cS Coaxouq xoctiouS we have 'the essence of the Pauline
Gospel which is so elaborately developed in the Epistles to the
Romans and Galatians'6). Finally, LAGRANGE, who does not
clearly distinguish the Reply from the double parable can say of the
passage, 'The reply has a far wider significance, so wide that it
might be said to comprehend the whole Pauline doctrine of the
incompatibility of the new spirit and the spirit of Judaism, though
only in embryo...' 7).

1) The Gospel According to St. Mark (2nd ed New York, I966), p. 2I3.
2) The Gospel of Mark (London, I937), p. 55.
3) 'The Gospel According to St. Luke', Interpreter's Bible (New York, 1952),
vol. 8, p. Iio.
4) The Gospel of St. Mark (London, 1963), p. 102.
5) op. cit., p. 80, commenting on the Lukan version.
6) The Gospel According to St. Luke (Cambridge, 1912) p. 74.,
7) Evangile selon Saint Marc (9th ed. Paris, I966), p. 50.

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.96 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 01:08:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE OLD COAT AND THE NEW WINE I5

A substantial body of opinion, representing different critical

approaches, suppoits the view that the double parable illustrates
the theme of incompatibility, incompatibility of old and new, even
incompatibility of Judaism and Christianity. I do not believe that
this is in fact the meaning of the parable, and in a moment we shall
look at what I think is a more direct and consistent interpretation.
But first, let us put the interpretation of incompatibility to the
test. The double parable is supposed to illustrate the Reply to the
Question. This means that the Reply should make the point that
the old and new are incompatible, even that Judaism and Christi-
anity are incompatible.
I have argued in the previous discussion 1) that the Reply as we
have it does not come from Jesus. His reply has been completely
overlaid by the Reply as we have it now. I have argued that the
reply which Jesus did give would in substance, though not in form,
be that of his teaching on fasting in the Sermon on the Mount
(Matt. v i6 f). Such a reply would have nothing to do with in-
compatibility. It would criticise false attitudes to fasting and
commend true piety. In his reply Jesus would not even teach that
fasting and joy are incompatible. He expressly forbids his disciples
to "look dismal, like the hypocrites". Instead they should go about
quite normally ("anoint your head and wash your face"). In-
compatibility is not a term which could be used in connection with
the teaching of Jesus on fasting.
But what of the Reply as we have it, the passage which I believe
comes to us from the Church? The point of the Reply is quite
simple. The disciples did not fast while Jesus was with them, but
the Church now fast, because he has been "taken away". This
Reply-whether incidently, spoken by Jesus or the Church, is an
explanation and justification of the Church's position on fasting.
There is nothing about it which can be aptly termed incompatibility.
Contrast perhaps, but not incompatibility.
There is nothing in the Reply which can justify the use of the
term incompatibility, neither in the Reply as we have it nor in
the reply which Jesus might himself have given. How is it then
that in so many commentaries on this passage the idea of in-
compatibility recurs again and again? This is where we see the
rather complex interaction between the double parable and the

1) 'The Question About Fasting'.

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.96 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 01:08:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
i6 ALISTAIR KEE

Reply, an association which I believe has hindered their proper

exegesis. It is assumed that the double parable deals with the Old
and the New, and therefore with incompatibility. Later we shall
see that this is not in fact the case, but it is generally assumed to
be so. If the double parable deals with incompatibility, and it
illustrates the Reply, then the Reply itself must deal with in-
compatibility. The next step therefore is to look for incompatibility
in the Reply. Attention has focused upon the idea of joy and sorrow
of feasting and fasting. The conclusion is drawn that the Reply
deals with incompatibility, as exemplified in joy and sorrow. Upon
this tenuous foundation the whole edifice is now erected. The Reply
deals with the incompatibility of old and new, of Judaism and
Christianity. And all this is attributed to Jesus.
This is not only bad exegesis, but bad theology. It is bad theology
since the comparison of Judaism and Christianity as religions could
not take place till at least Pentecost; probably not for several years
after that. It is an anachronism to project such a distinction back
into the life of Jesus. The ministry of Jesus was not concerned with
a new religion, but with the eschatological event which was, not-
withstanding the present tokens of its coming, still in the future.
There is no denying that Jesus radically transformed, revolutionised
Judaism for his followers, but surely we need not labour the point
that it was in fact Judaism which he transformed for them. How
could Judaism be incompatible with Christianity, no matter how
sharp the contrast between them on specific points? On the
relationship of Jesus to the law and the prophets we should be
better guided by his claim, "I have come not to abolish them but
to fulfil them" (Matt. v I7) 1). For Jesus then to teach that his
ministry and Judaism were incompatible would be a strange use
of the verb to fulfil.
To attribute the idea of incompatibility to Jesus, as a way of
describing his relationship to Judaism, is bad theology and bad
history. It is also bad exegesis of the Reply to the Question About
Fasting. Neither in the reply which Jesus might have been expected

1) The tendancy to regard Judaism and Christianity as incompatible is

strengthened by the Reformation tradition, but this is an issue on which
the reformers were perhaps too polemical. For a further discussion of the
issue, and a healthy corrective to the assumption that incompatibility is
supported by Paul see C. . DODD, Gospel and Law (Cambridge, 1951),
chap. 4.

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.96 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 01:08:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE OLD COAT AND THE NEW WINE I7

to give, nor in the Reply as we have it are there grounds for in-
troducing the term incompatibility. The strongest term which could
be used is 'inappropriateness'. It is a question of timing. In-
compatibility would mean that the old had gone for ever, that the
Kingdom had come, that fasting could no longer take place. But
this is not the substance of the Reply at all. It is more practical
than this. It is inappropriate to fast now, but they will fast later.
It is a question of timing 1). The final argument against incompati-
bility is surely that the evidence of the Gospels is that Jesus and
his disciples did fast during his ministry.
Incompatibility is an extraneous idea introduced into the Reply
in order to find in it the same theme as in the double parable. And
here is the irony, for the theme of the double parable is not in any
case the idea of incompatibility.

The Old Coat and the New Wine-in the Teaching of Jesus
There is no reason why anyone should doubt the authenticity
of the double parable 2). The only question is what did Jesus intend
by telling it. If there had been strong evidence that the context,
the Reply, dealt with incompatibility, then this might be an
argument prima facie that the double parable also deals with this
theme. In the absence of such strong evidence, and not forgetting
what has been said already about the misapplication of authentic
sayings, we may feel free to look at the double parable afresh.
That is to say we shall now examine the parable in isolation from
its immediate context, though certainly not in isolation from the
general teaching of Jesus 3).
The parables of Jesus usually make their point clearly: that is
the purpose of teaching by this method. The point of the double
parable should emerge as we examine it, as long as we do not
prejudge it by imposing some extraneous idea. Even the longer

1) I have argued in 'The Question About Fasting' that Mk. ii 19-20 is

a unity, but even if I9a at one time stood by itself incompatibility is not
its theme either. It too is concerned with timing-"while the bridegroom is
with them".
2) Except of course BULTMANN, who believes that it belongs 'to the
secular meshalim which have been made into dominical sayings in the
tradition'. The History of the Synoptic Tradition (New York, 1963), p. I02.
3) This is the proper procedure regardless of whether or not the preceding
discussion on incompatibility is regarded as absolutely conclusive.
NovumTest. XII 2

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.96 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 01:08:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ALISTAIR KEE

parables of Jesus focus upon one main point, and this should
be true a fortiori of the short double parable. It should be an
everyday scene, making an obvious point to the contemporaries
of Jesus.
In the double parable of the Old Coat and the New Wine there
is no value judgment on the various elements 1). The new cloth is
not said to be better or worse than the old coat. The fact that this
obvious point has to be made explicit shows at the outset to what
extent our reading of the parable is still dominated by the idea of
old versus new, of incompatibility. Perhaps it would be better to
speak of the parable of The Patch and the Wine, leaving aside the
loaded words, 'old' and 'new'. The terminology, taken over here
simply by convention, already incorporates the very misapplication
we wish to avoid.
If the double parable dealt with the old versus the new, we should
expect to have the old coat and the new coat, old wine and new
wine. Luke does in fact introduce a new coat in his account, but
not with much success. The parables of Jesus begin from ordinary
situations, but in Luke's account a new coat is torn up to patch
an old one. His introduction of old wine in the second half of the
parable is even more disastrous, for then the old wine is preferred!
In the original parable as preserved in Mark (par. Matt.) there is
no value judgment between old and new, and this means no tension
between old and new. The tension has been later introduced by
Luke's additions, and the fact that his additions detract from (if
not ruin) the parable provides further confirmation that originally
the parable did not deal with the old versus the new.
A straightforward reading of the parable therefore, begins with
the point that the old coat is worth repairing, and the patch is to
hand. The new wine requires a container, and the old wineskins
are to hand. And yet such is the dominance of the idea of incompati-
bility, Judaism versus Christianity, that JEREMIAScannot even

1) For LOHMEYER the parable teaches 'that we should distinguish between

"Old" and "New", but that we should not decide in favour of the "New".'
Das Evangelium des Markus (i6th ed. Gottingen, I963), pp. 6I-2. 'The
parables teach that one must not mix the new with the old, but pass no
judgment on the relative merits of the one and the other.' MACLEAN GILMOUR,
loc. cit. 'Certainly the contrast of old and new seems to constitute the point
of the saying and not to be used just fortuitously as an example of irreconcil-
able opposites. But does it favour the old or the new ?' BULTMANN, op. cit.,
p. 98. Italics added in each case.

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.96 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 01:08:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE OLD COAT AND THE NEW WINE I9

accept this starting point. For him the interpretation of Mk. ii 2I

is that 'the old world's age has run out; it is compared to the old
garment which is no longer worth patching with new cloth' 1).
Wherever this view comes from it has no foundation whatsoever
in the text. Everything in the text points to the fact that the old
coat is worth patching and that the old skins are worth preserving.
We must read the double parable in a straightforward manner,
taking it at its face value. The coat is worth repairing: that is why
it is being patched. If it is badly done "a worse tear is made".
Surely we are supposed to understand by this that to make the
tear worse is a bad thing. The coat is old and not in very good
condition but it still has value, and a further tear should be avoided.
Similarly in the second part "the wine is lost, and so are the skins".
Of course it is a bad thing to lose the new wine, but apparently it
is a bad thing also to lose the skins. The conclusion of Matthew
may be a later addition, but it brings out this point: "and so both
are preserved". A concern also for the skins because they too have
value 2). Let us read the parable simply, without jumping to
allegorical application. Far from teaching incompatibility of old
and new, or the final rejection of Judaism the parable is about an
old coat which is still worth patching. It would be a pity to further
tear it, and an unfortunate thing if both new wine and old skins
were lost 3).
From this re-reading of the parable one point emerges. Not old
versus new, but the danger of loss. Not the danger of losing some-
thing which is not worth having, which like 'spring cleaning' might
not be a bad thing, but the danger of losing something which if not
perfect is still useful. The old coat requires a patch, and with a
proper patch all will be well. It is not rejected as worthless and it
is certainly not irrepairable. That is the whole point of concern:
the tear can be be made worse. The patch of unshrunk cloth will do
just that, and then the coat will be ruined. The point of the parable
is that through thoughtless and ill-considered action there is the
danger of loss. This is brought out even more clearly in the second

1) op. cit., p. 95.

2) This may be fortuitous, since whoever added this point may well have
been thinking that the old stood for Judaism, the new for Christianity'.
3) .. . the first comes out in favour more of the maintenance of the "Old",
the second that neither the new wine nor the old skins should be damaged'.
LOHMEYER, op. cit., p. 62 note I.

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.96 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 01:08:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
20 ALISTAIR KEE

part, where through laziness or thoughtlessness everything is lost,

wine and skins. The theme is not old versus new but the danger
of loss through thoughtless and inappropriate action.
It is often said that Jesus had a way with ordinary folk. Let us
put the new interpretation to this test. If Jesus spoke the double
parable to village people, how would they hear it ? If the village
tailor heard the first part, what would his reaction be? Would he
think of the new patch versus the old coat ? Would he think that a
piece of unshrunk cloth was more valuable than a coat with a tear
in it? What kind of calculation would that be. No, as he heard the
first words, "a piece of unshrunk cloth..." he would call out,
Stop! He would already know, with a dreadful certainty how the
whole thing would end. If a shopkeeper heard the parable of the
unfermented wine, his reaction would be as spontaneous. And that
is the way of Jesus with ordinary folk. The shopkeeper would not
mentally calculate whether new wine is better than old wineskins.
As he heard the situation described he too would be beside himself.
Stop, you will lose everything! Both wine and skins.
The double parable deals with danger of loss, not incompatibility,
It deals with inappropriate action and thoughtlessness. It speaks
of people not prepared for what they undertake. It is not that the
patch could not have done the job, but first it must be treated.
There is a way of taking delivery of new wine, or even using old
skins, but you must prepare in advance of the moment. The simple
point of the parable, the point the original hearers would under-
stand even before it was finished (the true mark of a good parable)
is that through ill-considered action, through being unprepared, a
man may suffer loss. The parable cries out to its hearers, Stop, you
will lose everything!
What is it that his hearers are in danger of losing ? It has been
said quite rightly, that we cannot now know the occasion on which
these words were spoken. That is true of most of the teaching of
Jesus. But while it would be idle to speculate on the occasion in the
life of Jesus, there is no problem in identifying the 'setting in the
life 'of Jesus. The parable belongs with the parables of the imminent
coming of the Kingdom. That awful Day may bring them joy or
sorrow, acceptance or rej ection. The parable belongs with those which
urge men to be prepared (Ten Maidens) and take appropriate action
(Tower builder, King going to war). It belongs with the warning of
Jesus that men must rouse themselves to take the action which

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.96 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 01:08:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE OLD COAT AND THE NEW WINE 21

might reasonably be expected of them (Talents and Pounds). It is

not too late for those who suddenly realise the position they are in:
it is almost too late for those who are complacent. In the Old Coat
and the New Wine Jesus warns his hearers, Stop, you will lose
everything! In the form of a parable it expresses the substance of
his preaching, -[T,avoiTs.

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.96 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 01:08:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions