These two verses offer us a glimpse into the religio-political
landscape facing Jesus. The Pharisees were mostly traditionalists, and they would eventually be a key
faction in the resistance to him. There
evidently was also a John party, which would have been a reform party, but here
the author/compiler of Matthew places the “John-ites” closer to the Pharisees
than to Jesus and his “party”. At, least
they are here presented as sharing the Pharisees’ criticism that Jesus’
disciples didn’t fast, which they took to be an important marker of true piety.
Some scholars have argued, however, that Jesus originally
was a disciple of John, which explains his baptism at John’s hands. If so, however, Jesus made it abundantly
clear, according to the gospel, that he was no longer associated with John and
his band of disciples. He referred to
himself as the “bridegroom” that Israel had been waiting for, that is the
Messiah, and so it was a time for celebration not fasting. There would be time for fasting later when
the bridegroom was to be ripped away from the people, which was a
foreshadowing of things to come.
In the meantime, Jesus also asserted that he represented something
entirely new in the history of the Jewish people. It could not have been made any clearer. Jesus was a party onto himself, intentionally
so.
How did our little church that we’ve been imagining hear
this vignette in the gospel? What value did it have for them? The basic message seems clear enough, namely that Jesus represented something new and different, something that fell outside of the boundaries of typical religious practice with all of its expensive ceremonies, rites, and practices. I'm not sure that the fasting thing was a big concern with the members of this congregation. They were mostly poor and sometimes fasted out of necessity not as a religious practice. We will remember from the sermon on the mount, moreover, that Jesus in any event frowned on fasting as being mostly for showing off one's piety. But the message of newness, reinforced in verses 16-17, would like have resonated with them. They "joined up" because Jesus represented something different, which offered them hope, comfort, and a way to get beyond just coping with a hard life. That is likely what they heard and why these verses resonated with them.
That being said, I do have to be careful to not claim that the compiler/author of the gospel had a Gentile audience in mind. Many scholars believe that it was addressed to Jewish Christians, probably especially those living in Palestine. I am assuming, however, that this gospel proved invaluable enough that copies of it soon circulated much more widely and reached a much larger audience within the Jesus Movement. That must have been the case. Otherwise, why did it become so prized across the early church that it became just one of four gospels to be included in the New Testament? There were dozens of other gospels circulating in the churches, but Matthew came to be valued above all of them excepting only three others (Mark, Luke, John). It circulated more widely, I assume, because verses like these hit home for Gentile followers of Jesus as well.
That being said, I do have to be careful to not claim that the compiler/author of the gospel had a Gentile audience in mind. Many scholars believe that it was addressed to Jewish Christians, probably especially those living in Palestine. I am assuming, however, that this gospel proved invaluable enough that copies of it soon circulated much more widely and reached a much larger audience within the Jesus Movement. That must have been the case. Otherwise, why did it become so prized across the early church that it became just one of four gospels to be included in the New Testament? There were dozens of other gospels circulating in the churches, but Matthew came to be valued above all of them excepting only three others (Mark, Luke, John). It circulated more widely, I assume, because verses like these hit home for Gentile followers of Jesus as well.
