Many commentaries use the keyword “incompatible” with reference to these two images (old and new don’t match). Is that what is meant? Or is it rather about the “risk of loss”?1 If the risk of loss were the focus, you would expect that the concluding sentence would have read, “Don’t put new wine into old wineskins!” Instead it is phrased positively: “But new wine is for fresh wineskins!” We may also ask whether it is correct to speak so quickly about the incompatibility of old and new, Jewish and Christian, etc. For the concluding sentence does not say, “Therefore get rid of the old wineskins!” Both images do not focus so much on the inferiority of the old or the superiority of the new, but on the need to make good use of new material and new wine. They are not meant for “patching up” and for “topping up.” They require the making of a new garment and the purchase of new wineskins. Continuity is maintained (it’s still about garments and wineskins, older or newer). The garment and the wineskin are not scrapped, but new material and new wine demand new garments and new wineskins.2
22 And no one puts new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the wine will burst the skins and the wine is destroyed, and so are the skins. But new wine is for fresh wineskins.”