G’day All,

Thanks Nunc & Ian for your replies and exhortation to make sure I am reading the full context of the verses and not making a spurious conclusion - always a good thing to be challenged on!
[quote author="Nunc"]The end of the quote you paraphrase (the one about where he’s questioned why he and the disciples aren’t fasting) says:

Jesus answered, “How can the guests of the bridegroom mourn while he is with them? The time will come when the bridegroom will be taken from them; then they will fast.

The Mark & Luke passages do not use the word “mourn”, but rather “fast” - only Matthew does, which is curious. I’m not sure if that means we should draw a link between fasting and mourning, to imply that the disciples should fast as a way of mourning Jesus when he is taken from them ... I think that is probably a bit too tenuous, though others who have a greater knowledge of fasting as practised in the Bible could perhaps advise me here.

However, taking this part of the passage literally, as I seem to understand Ian and Nunc are suggesting, this would suggest the disciples should have fasted or did fast for three days until they were aware Jesus was raised, then not fasted for the forty days before his ascension, then resumed fasting in whatever pattern they deemed best. The spanner I would dare to throw into the works of this suggestion is the following:
[quote author="Matthew 28:16-20 (ESV)"]16 Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. 17 And when they saw him they worshiped him, but some doubted. 18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in [2] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

This, plus the general “vibe” of John 14-17 (I apologise for being so vague on this), plus the dramatic turn around in the disciples’ faith, commitment and understanding post-resurrection and especially post-Pentecost, all suggest to me that Jesus was with them for the rest of their lives, via the Spirit. I think it is sometimes very easy for us to wish we were, like the disciples, able to experience walking and talking with Jesus in the flesh. The dramatic change in the disciples that the gift of the Spirit brings and passages such as:
[quote author="John 20:27-29 (ESV)"]27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe.” 28 Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!” 29 Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

[quote author="John 16:5-7 (ESV)"]5 But now I am going to him who sent me, and none of you asks me, ‘Where are you going?’ 6 But because I have said these things to you, sorrow has filled your heart. 7 Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you.

help show us what an amazing privilege it is to be in the post-resurrection age, where we can have the Spirit and know God in a way not even the disciples could when they walked the earth with Jesus before his resurrection.

It’s for this reason I don’t see the passages I cited as grounds for an injunction for Christian believers now to fast - but as Ian indicated, this is not to say that Christians should not fast at all. The example of New Testament believers fasting and not being condemned for it is ample evidence of it being a matter of Christian freedom to do so with a godly purpose and attitude.

Ian, as you have pointed out, our different perspectives and methodologies do set our interpretations at loggerheads, and it appears we have reached an impasse on this point. Feel free to continue the discussion with me if you want, but I feel we’ve probably hit a terminal point here. Thanks for the respectful and helpful way you’ve debated the issue with me.

Cheers,

Timbo

lent observance

Thanks everyone for such a ‘meaty’ debate so far.  I apologise if I’m repeating anyone else’s contribution.

My only concern with fasting at “Lent” is that it can give the ‘fastee’ a false sense of being in a right relationship with God.  Here’s what I mean.

I have friends who fast at this time of the year and are not sure why. The two most popular answers are: “Because of church tradition”, and “Because Jesus did”. From what I understand, such traditions for these friends replace God’s grace shown in the risen Jesus.  They rely on adherence to tradition to ‘earn’ them God’s acceptance.  Some say it even makes them feel holier (makes me wonder what they feel the rest of the time...but I digress).

Then again, some friends fast because they are in a right relationship with God and see spending a day with God in bible reading and prayer a wonderful way to grow in their love and obedience to God.  They never begrudge the time of praying for the gospel to grow in this world and the lives of fellow believers.  Setting aside part of a day, or a whole day, allows for rich prayer and contemplation on God without the distraction of cooking and eating.

If I was to fast and pray I hope I would do it for the right reasons.  And if not, then for God’s spirit to search my heart and bring me to repentance.

cheers
Angela

[quote author="Tim Allen"]I’m not sure if that means we should draw a link between fasting and mourning, to imply that the disciples should fast as a way of mourning Jesus when he is taken from them ... I think that is probably a bit too tenuous…

There is indeed a strong link between fasting and mourning in the OT, although mourning is certainly not the only reason for fasting. See, for example, 1Sam 1:7-8; 1Sam 20:34; 2Sam 1:12; Neh 1:4; Est 4:3; Joel 2:12; Zech 7:5; and numerous other passages.

Earnestly seeking God’s favour appears to be another reason for fasting. Sometimes this is associated with mourning and repentance as well. Some examples: 2Sam 12:16; Acts 13:2-3.

One particularly instructive passage on fasting is Isa 58 which is worth quoting in full:
[quote author="Isaiah"]1 “Shout loudly! Don’t be quiet!
Yell as loud as a trumpet!
Confront my people with their rebellious deeds;
confront Jacob’s family with their sin!
2 They seek me day after day;
they want to know my requirements,
like a nation that does what is right
and does not reject the law of their God.
They ask me for just decrees;
they want to be near God.
3 They lament, ‘Why don’t you notice when we fast?
Why don’t you pay attention when we humble ourselves?’
Look, at the same time you fast, you satisfy your selfish desires,
you oppress your workers.
4 Look, your fasting is accompanied by arguments, brawls, and fist fights.
Do not fast as you do today,
trying to make your voice heard in heaven.
5 Is this really the kind of fasting I want?
Do I want a day when people just humble themselves,
bowing their heads like a reed
and stretching out on sackcloth and ashes?
Is this really what you call a fast,
a day that is pleasing to the Lord?
6 No, this is the kind of fast I want.
I want you to remove the sinful chains,
to tear away the ropes of the burdensome yoke,
to set free the oppressed,
and to break every burdensome yoke.
7 I want you to share your food with the hungry
and to provide shelter for homeless, oppressed people.
When you see someone naked, clothe him!
Don’t turn your back on your own flesh and blood!
8 Then your light will shine like the sunrise;
your restoration will quickly arrive;
your godly behavior will go before you,
and the Lord’s splendor will be your rear guard.
9 Then you will call out, and the Lord will respond;
you will cry out, and he will reply, ‘Here I am.’
You must remove the burdensome yoke from among you
and stop pointing fingers and speaking sinfully.
10 You must actively help the hungry
and feed the oppressed.
Then your light will dispel the darkness,
and your darkness will be transformed into noonday.
11 The Lord will continually lead you;
he will feed you even in parched regions.
He will give you renewed strength,
and you will be like a well-watered garden,
like a spring that continually produces water.
12 Your perpetual ruins will be rebuilt;
you will reestablish the ancient foundations.
You will be called, ‘The one who repairs broken walls,
the one who makes the streets livable again.’
13 You must observe the Sabbath
rather than doing anything you want on my holy day.
You must look forward to the Sabbath
and treat the Lord’s holy day with respect.
You must treat it with respect by refraining from your normal activities,
and by refraining from your selfish pursuits and from making business deals.
14 Then you will find joy in your relationship to the Lord,
and I will give you great prosperity,
and cause crops to grow on the land I gave to your ancestor Jacob.”
Know for certain that the Lord has spoken.

What is also interesting is that there is really very little said in the NT about fasting. For example, the post by Dan Summers of the point “Jesus said “when you fast”, not “if” or “don’t"” fails to acknowledge that Jesus is speaking these words to a Jewish audience in a Jewish context. They were almost certainly expected to fast in certain situations including ceremonial ones. It is certainly not immediately clear that these words translate directly to the lives of believers (particularly gentile ones) post-Pentecost (there were certainly no requirements to fast imposed on gentile believers by the Council in Jerusalem recorded in Acts 15).

OTOH, the fact that we do find the NT apostles fasting in Acts 13 demonstrates that it is not wrong for Christians post-Pentecost to fast. I think the main thing to be wary of is doing it for the wrong reasons. If we are earnestly seeking God then that is a good thing. If we are simply employing it for some form of spiritual one-upmanship, then that is clearly not good.

So I don’t think there is any mandate requiring all people to fast. However, some may find it beneficial, and I can see no reason to say it is wrong. Perhaps those who question its value ought to try it and see (unless you have a medical disorder which prevents you, in which case I suggest you be sensible and do not try it).

However, taking this part of the passage literally, as I seem to understand Ian and Nunc are suggesting, this would suggest the disciples should have fasted or did fast for three days until they were aware Jesus was raised, then not fasted for the forty days before his ascension, then resumed fasting in whatever pattern they deemed best. The spanner I would dare to throw into the works of this suggestion is the following:

Erm, I can’t speak for Ian, but I was not advocating a literal understanding, whereby we would expect the disciples to have fasted over between the crucifixion and resurrection. Although they may simply have forgotten to eat through grief and shock - and if they did I imagine they may have experienced adverse effects from stress… :S

I take it personally as a general principle: fasting is something that is part of the rhythm of life for all sorts of reasons - and while the circumstances might change because of the Incarnation, and no ground rules are laid down for when and where, I think it’s fair enough for the church to decide when fasting might be appropriate to the reflection associated with particular seasons. Though none of that should be binding.

Fasting is supposed to be for the purposes of reflection. Done over an extended period (eg 7-21 days) it apparently enhances the perception of the mind in the process of meditation. I havent’ tried it for that long, and probably wouldn’t, simply because prolonged fasts are not part of my experience or tradition, and I have a f#$%ed up metabolism in any case. But plenty of people have done and do…

Examples of where I may fast:
- I fasted before my confirmation
- on one day retreats
- before taking communion (sometimes)

I believe charismatics fast too to focus on prayer among other things. Maybe Craig could give us a bit more info about how fasting is used in pentecostal circles?

G’day Nunc,

Ah. Oops. Thanks for the clarification. By taking it literally, I only meant that you would (might?) be understanding that Jesus was suggesting fasting as a practice could be literally resumed once he had departed from earth - nothing more. The rest of my little construct was an extrapolation of where such a view might lead. But once again, thanks for the correction.

Timbo

Tis moments like these I give thanks for....juvenile diabetes.  (please note, tongue firmly implanted in cheek!!).

So, the challenge is out to God - heal me first, then I’ll fast (and tongue is still firmly implanted in cheek).  :P

Tim: some extra information I heard that I thought I’d pass on…

On the way on Friday evening to Punchbowl’s bestest chicken shop [which of course we couldn’t have being Lent and all; we had a wondrous “hot chip” falafel though - darn good...anyway] my priest told me that in the early days of the Church, Lent was the formal period for the preparation of candidates for baptism at Easter—for some time the only time it was possible to be baptized was at Easter.

Ian.

G’day Ian,

Gotta add the hot chip falafel to my must-do list.

[quote author="Ian Holder"]for some time the only time it was possible to be baptized was at Easter.

Wow! How unusual! Did your priest give any information as to why it was only possible to be baptised at Easter?

Timbo

[quote author="Tim Allen"][quote author="Ian Holder"]for some time the only time it was possible to be baptized was at Easter.

Wow! How unusual! Did your priest give any information as to why it was only possible to be baptised at Easter?

No: I’ll ask on Wednesday if you are truly curious.

I imagine as Easter was the “ultimate” Christian festival; but don’t take my word on that… I did a quick Google and no page said “why”.

Ian.

Ian,

Yes, I really am curious. Particularly as I cannot think of any scriptural warrant to deny baptism to a believer/recent convert simply because of the time of year. Can you imagine Philip responding to the Ethiopian’s request, “See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptised?”, with something like “Gee, I’m really sorry, but you’ll have to wait x months until Easter. Can you come back up from Africa then? I have to say I’m not sure where I’ll be then (as I seem to keep on being carried away all over the place), but I’m sure you’ll find someone to baptise you.”

;) ;)

Timbo

Without wanting to appear harsh, Tim, methinks you have already made up your mind, and even if I came back with an “answer” you would find it unsatisfactory. 

The time of Lent was used to instruct people in the faith...I know evangelicals are of a “turn or burn” bent [i.e. get people to confess Christ ASAP lest they go to hell], but most of Christendom is not.  They would have [and still do...at least the Orthodox and Catholics] expected people to learn the faith before being baptized and received into the Church.

Ian,

Fair call, I guess I have already made up my mind - precisely because the example I quoted above (as well as, for instance, Acts 2:41, Acts 8:12, Acts 10:48, Acts 16:33) shows that once someone believes, there is no need for any delay before baptism.

Indeed, the further instruction and teaching often appear to come after the baptism, presumably because in hearing and responding to the gospel they know all that is needed to undergo baptism - which is, of course, not to say there is not a great deal more for them to learn on their path to Christian maturity!

I should indicate that I don’t believe baptism to be salvific in itself - I’m of the school that see it as a sign of the salvific power of believing faith in the death and resurrection of Christ. Thus, it doesn’t really worry me if someone says, “you need to wait 11 months to be baptised, because that’s the only time when we do it”, as they will be saved (sorry, I know you have issues with that term, Ian) well before their baptism rolls around. Still, I’d be interested to hear why some traditions have felt it was best to wait until Easter each year - I’m curious to know what their reasoning is.

Timbo

Hey Tim…

Just a question in light of what you have written… where does infant baptism - still held as an integral part of the Anglican Church even in Sydney - fit into your viewpoint?

Not asking to stir the pot, I am genuinely interested.

G’day Mike,

Go ahead, you can stir this pot as much as you like - so long as you do it nicely!

I have to admit that although I would refer to the process as infant baptism, it is fairly different to how baptism is mostly presented in the NT. Good friends of mine at our church went through more or less exactly the same ritual for their son, with the same words and promises and prayers, as we did when we had our two boys baptised as infants - except they omitted the word baptism, and it was referred to as a dedication.

I see infant baptism as more of a dedication, as it involves parents and godparents giving a sworn undertaking to raise their children to know who Jesus is - in effect, to raise them as Christians. The liturgy used strongly affirms this can only be done through the parents being Christians themselves, and that the final responsibility of conversion rests with God. Prayers are thus made asking God to bless the parents’ undertaking by granting saving faith to the child being “baptised”.

The scriptural warrant for baptism of infants, as I understand it, is implied from encounters such as Peter at Cornelius’ house in Acts 10 and Lydia in Acts 16:11-15, where entire households are baptised. It is inferred that this included children members of the household/family in each case. Again, because baptism in itself is not of salvific value, I don’t see it as something infants must not undergo - but I would be more than happy to be a member of a Baptist church that would only permit “adult” baptism, with a type of dedication ritual for infants that involved no water washing at all.

The baptism of our boys served more as a way for my wife and I to declare publicly to our brothers and sisters in Christ that we would raise our boys to know and love the Lord Jesus, and that we expected them (our church) to hold us accountable to this; similar to the way in which our wedding was a public declaration of how my wife and I would conduct our relationship, with promises we expected to be held accountable to by our brothers and sisters in Christ gathered there with us. Additionally, infant baptisms and weddings (due to cultural associations) are two very good ways to get non-Christian family and friends to come to church and thus hear the gospel!

Cheers,

Timbo