DRAFT ONLY

Introduction
      The calling of Levi and the question about fasting is the fifth episode of six concerning the acts of messiah - the nature of his authority, 4:31-6:11. This episode, focused on the tax collector's banquet, serves as a sign of the new age, a sign of the ingathering of the lost. Something new is here. God is gathering the lost into the righteous remnant, therefore old religious forms no longer fit.

The passage
      v27-28. Tax in the first century was insidious. Not only was it too high, it was fraudulently collected. The tax collectors would often pocket up to 50% themselves. Levi, often identified by his common (possibly later Christian) name Matthew, the son of Alphaeus (probably not the brother of James, cf. Mk.2:14), was in his tax booth. Obviously he had already been touched by Jesus' ministry, and when asked to be a disciple, he jumps at the chance.
      v29. Levi then holds a farewell dinner for his old tax-collecting mates and his new friends.
      v30. Somehow the Pharisees get in on the act, although as the "separated ones" they would certainly not have entered Levi's home. Levi and his colleagues are both collaborators and thieves. They are unclean. In their question to the disciples, the Pharisees probe the issue of religious cleanliness. Jesus cannot be the messiah if he is ritually unclean. "Over against the Pharisaic idea of salvation by segregation, Jesus sets up the new principle of salvation by association" (Manson).
      v31-32. In line with the Old Testament prophets, Jesus declares that the dawning kingdom of God is for the lost, broken, dispersed, enslaved..... remnant of Israel. Messiah comes to gather outsiders who desire to be part of God's community. Jesus therefore invites ("calls") "sinners" (ceremonially unclean, religious outcasts) into the kingdom, rather than the "righteous" (ceremonially clean, purists, "separated ones", self-righteous). There is little point inviting the "righteous" for they don't know they are lost.
      v33. Not only does Jesus associate with the wrong people (unclean), and is a little too convivial in his social activities, but he also ignores his religious obligations. Even the disciples of John the Baptist fast. The law only required fasting on the Day of Atonement, although there is no evidence that Jesus would even bother with that. The Pharisees had turned fasting into a science.
      v34-35. The inauguration of the new age of the kingdom brings with it new religious responses. Messiah's presence with his disciples prompts joy. When the Suffering Servant ("bridegroom") is rejected and broken, then they will fast. Fasting was practiced in the early church, although it is not required.
      v36-38. The two parables illustrate the truth that the dawning of the new age of the kingdom promotes a situation that will not fit old patterns. Jesus does not come to either affirm an already accepted pattern of religion, or even dispense a new form of religion. He comes to inaugurate the new age of the kingdom. In the face of this reality, the old passes away and the new comes. The parables proclaim the complete dichotomy that exists between Christianity and Judaism. Although the issue here is fasting, it would soon involve all religious practice in the early church.
      v39. In a final note, only found in Luke's gospel, Jesus underlines the rejection of the Pharisees. They like the old wine, and it will damn them.

The relevant skin
      I was in a discussion with a young clergyman and we got onto the thorny issue of Anglican form. As one of the "young bloods", he wanted to throw out all the trappings of Anglican ritual and order. He felt that unless we adapted to the new Australian ethos (whatever that is!) we would undermine the work of the gospel in gathering and nurturing a people of God. As a church we would die. I, on the other hand, in favour of "The Country and Western Church of Australia", but still willing to do it by the book, argued for retaining Anglican ritual and order. He argued that I was hanging onto "old wine sins" of religious form. "New wine" was here and that required "new wine skins".
      We might be able to argue from Luke 5:36-38 that Jesus is intent on introducing a new religious form to house the new age of the kingdom, and thus replace the old religion of Israel. Yet it would be difficult to argue that this passage encourages the replacement of a "catholic" form of doing Church with a "Congregational" or "semi-Charismatic" form.
      Jesus is not concerned with religious form. He inaugurates the new age of the Kingdom. Clearly, the frame of temple worship can no longer contain a worship that is of "spirit and truth". The kingdom of God is no longer "a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit", Rom.14:17. A myriad of frames, of religious forms, of ways of doing church, may serve to express the new age, but none can contain it, for Christ's "kingdom is not of this world".
      For us to rely on any "wine skin" is dangerous in the extreme, particularly if we think a new "relevant" ("conformed") skin is somehow superior to a "traditional" one. Better to worship in "spirit and truth" whatever the skin.