Luke 5:35-39

In Luke they are the same parties, particularly the scribes, who continue the conversation, and who allege, in favour of the regular practice of fasting, the example of the disciples of John and of the Pharisees. The scribes express themselves in this manner, because they themselves, as scribes, belong to no party whatever. In Matthew it is the disciples of John who appear all at once in the midst of this scene, and interrogate Jesus in their own name and in that of the Pharisees. In Mark it is the disciples of John and of the Pharisees united who put the question. This difference might easily find its way into the oral tradition, but it is inexplicable on any of the hypotheses which deduce the three texts from one and the same written source, or one of them from another.

Mark says literally: the disciples of John and the Pharisees were fasting; and we may understand that day. Devout persons in Israel fasted, in fact, twice a week (Luke 18:12), on Mondays and Fridays, the days on which it was said that Moses went up Sinai (see Meyer on Matthew 6:16); this particular day may have been one or other of these two days. But we may also explain it: fasted habitually. They were fasting persons, addicted to religious observances in which fasting held an important place. It is not easy to decide between these two senses: with the first, there seems less reason for the question; with the second, it conveys a much more serious charge against Jesus, since it refers to His habitual conduct; comp. Luke 7:34, “Ye say, He is a glutton and a winebibber (an eater and a drinker).” The word διατί, omitted by the Alex., appears to have been taken from Matthew and Mark.

Whether the disciples of John were present or not, it is to their mode of religious reformation that our Lord's answer more especially applies. As they do not appear to have cherished very kindly feelings towards Jesus (John 3:25-26), it is very possible that they were united on this occasion with His avowed adversaries (Matthew).

Jesus compares the days of His presence on the earth to a nuptial feast. The Old Testament had represented the Messianic coming of Jehovah by this figure. If John the Baptist had already uttered the words reported by John (John 3:29): “ He that hath the bride is the bridegroom; but the friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom's voice: this my joy therefore is fulfilled,” what appropriateness there was in this figure by which He replied to his disciples! Perhaps the Pharisees authorized a departure from the rule respecting fasting during the nuptial weeks. In this case Jesus' reply would become more striking still. Νυμφών signifies the nuptial chamber, and not the bridegroom (νυμφίος), as Martin, Ostervald, and Crampon translate. The true Greek term to indicate the nuptial friend would have been παρανύμφιος; John says: φίλος τοῦ νυμφίου. The expression of the Syn., son of the nuptial chamber, is a Hebraism (comp son of the kingdom, of wisdom, of perdition, etc.). The received reading, “ Can you make the marriage friends fast? ” (notwithstanding the joy with which their hearts are full), is preferable to that of the Sinait. and of the Graeco-Latin Codd., “Can they fast?” which is less forcible, and which is taken from Matthew and Mark. In the midst of this feast of publicans the heart of Jesus is overflowing with joy; it is one of the hours when His earthly life seems to His feeling like a marriage day. But suddenly His countenance becomes overcast; the shadow of a painful vision passes across His brow: The days will come...said He in a solemn tone. At the close of this nuptial week, the bridegroom Himself will be suddenly smitten and cut off; then will come the time of fasting for those who to-day are rejoicing; there will be no necessity to enjoin it. In this striking and poetic answer Jesus evidently announces His violent death. The passive aor. cannot, as Bleek admits, be explained otherwise. This verb and tense indicate a stroke of violence, by which the subject of the verb will be smitten (comp. 1 Corinthians 5:2). This saying is parallel to the words found in John 2:19, “ Destroy this temple; ” and Luke 3:14, “As Moses lifted up the serpent, so must the Son of man be lifted up. ” The fasting which Jesus here opposes to the prescribed fasting practised in Israel is neither a state of purely inward grief, a moral fast, in moments of spiritual depression, nor, as Neander thought, the life of privation and sacrifice to which the apostles would inevitably be exposed after the departure of their Master; it is indeed, according to the context, fasting in the proper sense of the term. Fasting has always been practised in the Church at certain solemn seasons, but it is not a rite imposed on it from without, but the expression of a sentiment of real grief. It proceeds from the sorrow which the Church feels in the absence of its Head, and is designed to lend intensity to its prayers, and to ensure with greater certainty that assistance of Jesus which alone can supply the place of His visible presence (comp. Mark 9:29 (?); Acts 13:2-3; Acts 14:23).

This remarkable saying was preserved with literal exactness in the tradition; accordingly we find it in identical words in the three Syn. It proves, first, that from the earliest period of His ministry Jesus regarded Himself as the Messiah; next, that He identified His coming with that of Jehovah, the husband of Israel and of makind (Hos 2:19); lastly, that at that time He already foresaw and announced His violent death. It is an error, therefore, to oppose, on these three points, the fourth Gospel to the other three.