A New Wineskin

[Edward]

What's a new wineskin? I want a new wineskin.

Mods, if you feel this thread takes a turn to where it is better suited to a different forum...be my guest. ;)

 

[reba]

A leather pouch formed to hold wine.

 

[Edward]

Spiritually speaking, reba. (You know the scripture, I'm sure!)

 

[reba]

O ok

Col 3:1 If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God.
Col 3:8 But now ye also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth.
Col 3:9 Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds;
Col 3:10 And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him:

Mat 9:17 Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are

2Co_5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
Gal_6:15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.

Luk 5:38 But new wine must be put into new bottles; and both are preserved.
Luk 5:39 No man also having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better.

 

[Deborah13]

KJV
Mat 9:17 Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved.

NIV
Matthew 9:17
Neither do people pour new wine into old wineskins. If they do, the skins will burst; the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. No, they pour new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved.”

 

[reba]

New wine was brought to the temple for the priest and for sacrifice
He is filling His temple (us) with new wine..

and both are preserved.”

 

[Edward]

reba... "new man...he is a new creature"...

Aha! So the new new wineskin is the new man, after the renewing of mind, heart, soul, & spirit...

That's exactly what I thought and I wanted confirmation. But this doesn't happen overnight. The process of sanctification is the process of renewel then?

 

[reba]

I would think there was some effort out into making the new wine skin....
first thing would be to grow the hide.....It would have been free of weak spots.... 'tanned' in some form.. stitched together and some form of a spout... this is just guessing on my part any one know how the new wineskins were made a few thousand years ago? jasoncran

 

[Edward]

I would think there was some effort out into making the new wine skin....
first thing would be to grow the hide.....It would have been free of weak spots.... 'tanned' in some form.. stitched together and some form of a spout... this is just guessing on my part any one know how the new wineskins were made a few thousand years ago? jasoncran

I hear you and think that is a great answer. (spiritually speaking), There would be work involved. This would be I think...praying (unceasingly), reading the scriptures daily (studying), and obedience. These would our responsibilities, to seek God with our whole heart...and after this (!!)...all these things shall be added unto you...(yes?)...and to those that have, more will be given.

Praise the Lord! I'm getting a handle on this.

 

[TOG]

I heard an interesting interpretation of these verses once. Just before Jesus spoke about the new wine skins and the new cloth, the Pharisees had been criticizing him for hanging around with sinners. They were basically saying "You're wasting your time with these sinner. You should have us for your disciples, since we already know how to follow the law." Jesus was replying to this criticism. I don't remember who it was, but there was a rabbi who told a similar analogy - "A man who does not know the law is like a blank parchment, while the one who is learned in the law is like a parchment written on front and back." The Pharisees had already learned a specific interpretation of the law, which was intermingled with the tradition of the elders, which they believed had as much authority as Scripture (in fact, more). They were like the parchment written on both front and back, the old wine skin and the old cloth. There was nothing more that could be done with them. It would have taken too long for them to un-learn all the errors they believed, and Jesus knew he had a limited time. The disciples he did choose, as well as the "sinners" who followed him were unlearned in the law. They were like the new wineskin, the new cloth and the blank parchment. Jesus could work with them and teach them his message, which was like the new wine, the new cloth and new writing. In other words, Jesus was saying "You can't teach an old dog new tricks".

The TOG​

 

[Deborah13]

I heard an interesting interpretation of these verses once. Just before Jesus spoke about the new wine skins and the new cloth, the Pharisees had been criticizing him for hanging around with sinners. They were basically saying "You're wasting your time with these sinner. You should have us for your disciples, since we already know how to follow the law." Jesus was replying to this criticism. I don't remember who it was, but there was a rabbi who told a similar analogy - "A man who does not know the law is like a blank parchment, while the one who is learned in the law is like a parchment written on front and back." The Pharisees had already learned a specific interpretation of the law, which was intermingled with the tradition of the elders, which they believed had as much authority as Scripture (in fact, more). They were like the parchment written on both front and back, the old wine skin and the old cloth. There was nothing more that could be done with them. It would have taken too long for them to un-learn all the errors they believed, and Jesus knew he had a limited time. The disciples he did choose, as well as the "sinners" who followed him were unlearned in the law. They were like the new wineskin, the new cloth and the blank parchment. Jesus could work with them and teach them his message, which was like the new wine, the new cloth and new writing. In other words, Jesus was saying "You can't teach an old dog new tricks".

The TOG​

I learned something very similar to this idea.
The old wineskin is the old covenant , that was fading away. The new wine, the Gospel of grace.
That one cannot walk in both at the same time.
So it's like you say. Those of the old covenant theology (saved by works) could not tolerate the Gospel (saved by grace). Not to mention that the old had been corrupted.
I believe Paul in Galatians teaches much about this.

 

[reba]

:amen

 

[farouk]

I learned something very similar to this idea.
The old wineskin is the old covenant , that was fading away. The new wine, the Gospel of grace.
That one cannot walk in both at the same time.
So it's like you say. Those of the old covenant theology (saved by works) could not tolerate the Gospel (saved by grace). Not to mention that the old had been corrupted.
I believe Paul in Galatians teaches much about this.

The wineskin analogy is a very good illustration of the dispensational incompatibility of trying to force an Old Testament mindset onto the New Testament's Gospel of the grace of God, and freedom in Christ.

Blessings.

 

[TOG]

I learned something very similar to this idea.
The old wineskin is the old covenant , that was fading away. The new wine, the Gospel of grace.
That one cannot walk in both at the same time.
So it's like you say. Those of the old covenant theology (saved by works) could not tolerate the Gospel (saved by grace). Not to mention that the old had been corrupted.
I believe Paul in Galatians teaches much about this.

That's not what I said. I believe Jesus didn't teach or do anything that was contrary to what God had already revealed in the Hebrew scriptures. To my mind, the idea that Jesus was doing away with God's revelations up to that point to bring in something new just won't work. The Pharisees had their own, often incorrect, interpretation of the scriptures, and Jesus was going to teach the correct interpretation, not do away with it. It was easier to teach people who didn't have preconceived ideas to start with. That way, he didn't have to "un-teach" them first.

The TOG​

 

[farouk]

That's not what I said. I believe Jesus didn't teach or do anything that was contrary to what God had already revealed in the Hebrew scriptures. To my mind, the idea that Jesus was doing away with God's revelations up to that point to bring in something new just won't work. The Pharisees had their own, often incorrect, interpretation of the scriptures, and Jesus was going to teach the correct interpretation, not do away with it. It was easier to teach people who didn't have preconceived ideas to start with. That way, he didn't have to "un-teach" them first.

The TOG​

Depends what you mean, IMHO. Romans and Galatians both indicate that the New Testament believer is under grace, not under the law.

 

[Edward]

To my mind, the idea that Jesus was doing away with God's revelations up to that point to bring in something new just won't work.

I agree with this. Jesus didn't do away with the law or anything. He fulfilled it. I don't know why so many people say that the law was done away with? True enough that we not under the law per se, but this has to do with living for the Spirit and not for the law.

 

[reba]

TOG you are the one person using the term 'doing away.'..

Do you take a lamb to the priest? or have things changed....

 

[TOG]

TOG you are the one person using the term 'doing away.'..

I may be the only one to use it in this thread, but I hear that phrase and other equivalent phrases all the time. People say the law has been "done away with", "abolished" or that it has "come to an end". It all means the same.

Do you take a lamb to the priest? or have things changed....

I always think it's rather funny when people ask things like this, mainly for 2 reasons . The first is that it shows that they don't know much about the law. The only place a proper sacrifice and be legally offered was the tabernacle, and later the temple in Jerusalem. Since we don't have either today, it would be a violation of the law to offer a sacrifice. The second reason is that it seems to be the people most against keeping the law that demand perfect obedience to it from others. It's like an environmentalist that demands that everyone else buy an SUV.

The TOG​

 

[TOG]

Depends what you mean, IMHO. Romans and Galatians both indicate that the New Testament believer is under grace, not under the law.

God has only ever given us one way of obtaining forgiveness - the shedding of innocent blood. Hebrews 9:22 tells us that there is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood. In the Old Testament, it was the blood of lambs, goats and bulls, through which God, in His grace, offered people forgiveness. Those sacrifices all pointed toward Christ. In the New Testament, God shows us His grace by offering us forgiveness through the blood of Jesus. Only the sacrifice has changed. God's grace and the actual method of redemption remain the same.

The TOG​

 

[reba]

I always think it's rather funny when people ask things like this, mainly for 2 reasons . The first is that it shows that they don't know much about the law. The only place a proper sacrifice and be legally offered was the tabernacle, and later the temple in Jerusalem. Since we don't have either today, it would be a violation of the law to offer a sacrifice

which is exactly my point.... things changed.

The second reason is that it seems to be the people most against keeping the law that demand perfect obedience to it from others. It's like an environmentalist that demands that everyone else buy an SUV.

Personally i believe there are lessons to be learned ( not going to have the exact right words to explain here) from the OT and the laws while they may not be exactly the same as before the Cross they have a great deal of value and deep meanings... As in we dont take a Lamb to the Priest Our High Priest is the Lamb.

Some folks have ideas and word meanings in their heads and then try to hold other folks to those meanings. I would rather like to think they just do not understand the other guy.