Why did John's disciples and the Pharisees fast, but Jesus' disciples did not in Mark 2:18? Historical–Cultural Background of Fasting Outside the Day of Atonement, the Torah prescribes no regular fasts (Leviticus 16:29–31). During the Second Temple era, however, voluntary fasts multiplied. Zechariah 7:3–5 and 8:19 list four national fasts commemorating Jerusalem’s fall, and rabbinic tradition records private or communal fasts for drought, war, or personal contrition (m. Taʿanit 1–3). By the first century, the Pharisees typically fasted “twice a week” (Luke 18:12), usually on Mondays and Thursdays (Didache 8.1). These additions, though extra-biblical, were widely regarded as marks of piety. Fasting Among John’s Disciples John the Baptist called Israel to urgent repentance ahead of Messiah’s arrival (Mark 1:4; John 1:23). His followers continued rigorous ascetic practices after his imprisonment (Mark 2:18). Josephus notes John’s austere influence (Antiquities 18.116–119). Their fasting expressed mourning over sin and national corruption and, quite possibly, intercession for John’s release. Because their teacher was absent and unjustly confined, grief made fasting fitting. Fasting Among the Pharisees Pharisaic fasting emphasized visible devotion, often mingled with public display (Matthew 6:16). While rooted in sincere desire among some, Jesus exposed self-exalting motives (Luke 18:9–14). The twice-weekly custom developed from interpretive zeal rather than divine mandate, reflecting the Pharisees’ broader “fence around the Law” approach (m. Avot 1.1). Thus, their question in Mark 2:18 flowed from a framework that equated strict external practice with covenant faithfulness. Jesus’ Disciples and the Absence of Fasting Mark 2:18 states, “People came and said, ‘Why do John’s disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees fast, but Yours do not?’” . Jesus answers: “Can the wedding guests fast while the bridegroom is with them? As long as he is with them, they cannot fast” (Mark 2:19). His presence marked a messianic wedding celebration, not a funeral. Therefore, customary mourning was inappropriate. The Bridegroom Motif and Messianic Fulfillment Yahweh is repeatedly portrayed as Israel’s Bridegroom (Isaiah 54:5; Hosea 2:19–20; Jeremiah 2:2; Isaiah 62:5). By adopting that title, Jesus implicitly identified Himself with Yahweh. A wedding feast is a time of joy (John 2:9–11). Rejecting fasting in this moment underlined that the promised age of consolation (Isaiah 40:1–2) had dawned in Him. The New Covenant Symbols: New Cloth and New Wine Jesus added two illustrations (Mark 2:21–22): a new patch tearing an old garment and new wine bursting old skins. Both signify that the kingdom He inaugurates cannot be contained by Pharisaic traditions. The imagery affirms continuity with the Law’s moral core yet insists on discontinuity with man-made accretions. Fasting, like any rite, must align with covenantal reality, not preserve rigidity for its own sake. The Temporary Suspension: “The Days Will Come” Mark 2:20: “But the time will come when the bridegroom will be taken from them; then they will fast in that day.” The verb “taken” (ἀπαρθῇ) hints at violent removal—foreshadowing the cross. After Jesus’ ascension, the early church re-embraced fasting alongside worship and mission (Acts 13:2–3; 14:23). Thus, fasting is neither abolished nor salvific; it is reoriented to gospel realities—longing for Christ’s return and empowerment for service. Continuity and Discontinuity with Old Testament Law One mandated fast (the Day of Atonement) looked ahead to the ultimate atonement in Christ (Hebrews 9:11–14). With the substance present, voluntary fasts remain permissible but never obligatory for justification (Colossians 2:16–17). The incident shows ceremonial regulations subordinate to the incarnate Lord. Harmonization with Parallel Passages Matthew 9:14–17 and Luke 5:33–39 echo Mark yet expand details: Luke adds, “No one, after drinking old wine, wants new, for he says, ‘The old is good’ ” (Luke 5:39), highlighting resistance to change. All three Synoptics unite: Jesus sanctions post-resurrection fasting but repudiates legalistic impositions during His earthly ministry. Patristic and Early Jewish Corroboration Tertullian (On Fasting 2) draws precisely this lesson: Christ’s presence suspends mourning; His departure reinstates disciplined fasting. The Babylonian Talmud (b. Taʿanit 11a) parallels the bridegroom principle: “All who are joined in rejoicing with the bridegroom are exempt from the booth and from prayer.” Jesus situates Himself within, yet above, such reasoning—invoking divine prerogative. Practical and Theological Implications for Modern Believers 1. Fasting is a gift, not a gauge of worthiness. 2. True fasting centers on communion with the risen Christ, not public applause. 3. Legalistic scrutiny, akin to Pharisaic questioning, misreads kingdom priorities. 4. Joy in Christ’s accomplished redemption fuels worship; longing for His return fuels humble fasting. 5. The passage reinforces the sufficiency of Christ’s person and work—He alone redefines every spiritual discipline. Thus in Mark 2:18 Jesus neither despises fasting nor disregards piety; He unveils Himself as the long-awaited Bridegroom whose presence transforms the very timing and purpose of every religious practice. |
    |