Fasting

FASTING:
Beware of the
Traditions of Men
by Alvin Mitchell
Copright 2005
By Alvin Mitchell

Rebekah:

Here’s trusting that by now you have seen and read my “testimony”, based upon which you can now, moreover, see that in fact I am quite
American, my writing “style” notwithstanding.

The Logo

Per you request, the “mystery” of the logo is as follows:
The golden letters up top: King
The red letters: Jesus
The outer circle of letters: Chief Engineer
The inner half circle: Chief Architect
The remaining circles: The Atom (specifically, hydrogen, the lightest and simplest of all, it depicts the ingredients that make up the 92 naturally
occurring elements that in term make all the matter in the entire universe!)

The concept is one I stumbled upon while dickering with my font suite, just to see what I could come up with. It is significant because it
depicts our Lord and Savior as who He is if fact: A King, Sovereign and Supreme, Lord and Controller of the whole universe and Heaven. The
atom is, one might say, emblematic of His role as Creator—Chief Engineer and Chief Architect—of the earth and its host universe, suggesting
that there is a certain sameness endemic to the whole created order, in that everything—whether solids, liquids, or gases, all ultimately break
down to identically the same thing: “nothing”, just as the Word of God has said all along!

On Fasting
Beware of the traditions on Men

Regarding your understanding of fasting, nee-et! Nein! Non-kah! The instances you cite are at best “customary”, not per commandment.
Before we consider our Lord’s use of the term, let us ponder the Old Testament’s Law regarding the subject of fasting.

A brief History of Fasting

The term translated fast in the Old Testament is the Hebrew word “tsown” (tsome: “a covering over”, as in the mouth; i.e., an abstinence from
eating or, a fast). It is a derivative of the verb “tsuwm” (tsoom) which means “to cover over”. As a requirement or, as a occasion of law, this
word “tsowm” was never used by Moses as he laid down the Law, throughout the books of the Exodus and Leviticus. Instead, one finds the
curious expression “anah” (aw-naw’).

“Anah” is a term primitive in its roots but still in use in modern Hebrew. Its meaning is “to be afflicted, bowed down, humbled, or meek”. Moses
was first given command to write it, as a matter of practice, into Law in Leviticus 16:29-34. This particular provision of the Law was repeated
again in 23:26-32 of the same book. Once more, during Moses final moments—beginning in Numbers 27:12 continuing through to the end the
book of Deuteronomy—God calls to memory the Law regarding “anah nephesh” (Num. 29:7). “Nephesh” of course refers literally to any “living
creature”, although it can and often does mean “soul, self, life, person, or heart”. Hence, this ordinance called for and required one to
deliberately “afflict, bow down, or to humble himself or his soul”.

The above cited passages indicate clearly that this ritual—the Law of the “affliction of one’s soul”—was one of several specifics characterizing
another major event known as the Day of Atonement or the Day of a Covering [Yowm Kippur, “yome kip-poor’”]. Just as the Day of
Atonement itself was an annual occasion, so likewise the people of the nation of Israel were required to “afflict” their souls individually, in
conjunction therewith, only once per year—specifically on the tenth day of the seventh month, for one continuous period which actually was
reckoned from sunset of the ninth day to sunset of the tenth day (or, roughly 24 hours).

Neither the “affliction” nor the Day of Atonement was an option. All, including foreigners living among the Israelis, were to abide by the same
mandate, doing no work as the high priest offered burnt offerings by which to atone for the sins of each individual as a nation. There was no
other such time commanded by the Law.

At no time is any indication given by Moses as to just what constitutes this “affliction of the soul”. It seems to have been understood that
everyone knew already what was expected in the execution of this ritual. Those of us searching the scriptures from our vantage point today,
however, are left quite in the dark. Nonetheless, for enlightenment, one need only turn to the book of Ezra 8:21, 23. Here, it is clear that the
concept of the “afflicting” of the soul (voluntarily at this time) was primarily a “tsowm” (tsome), a covering over (of the mouth), a fast. Isaiah—
in his portrayal of Almighty God embroiled in a war of words and biting sarcasm with his outwardly religious but, spiritually dead people (the
Jews)—confirms this interpretation (58:1-7), as the prophet goes a step further by indicating that the “affliction” of the soul, whether
commanded by law or voluntarily, was never intended to be a ritual for ritual’s sake. God had a definitive purpose in Mind. Though He
expended no labor spelling it out for them, from His point of view, that purpose should have been a slam-dunk of a foregone conclusion. Aaah,
but alas, it was ultimately lost on the Jews in much the same way as it and other spiritual matters are lost on the local churches of our day. They
had, as they have, totally…missed…the point. They have all failed to realize that the intent of the “fast” was not to conjure within them
meaningless or pointless “feelings of a warm fuzziness” toward God or the things of God, inasmuch as rather it was to foster a spiritual climate
and build an actionable spiritual atmosphere of benevolence and good will towards one’s fellow human beings, on the basis of which Yahweh
Elohim—the Self-Existing, Eternal God, in multiple Persons—could draw more men to Himself and, thereby moreover, bring Glory to Himself
and His Holy Name. The “affliction of one’s soul”, the fast, was not (is not) some spiritual hoop through which the Christian or the Jew is
expected to jump periodically so as to impress God, or just to get His attention or to earn His affection. Empathy, sympathy: these be the
operative terms, the bottom line in terms of what the Almighty sought (seeks) to culture in His people. Moreover, one might add that empathy
(knowledge of what another feels, in a given situation without actually experiencing it oneself) and/or sympathy (been there, done that;
experience) are to be equally the basis upon which He expects to reap payouts and dividends in the form of newly harvested souls, all directing
their choruses of worship and praise to Him, in glorification of His Name. God goes on to declare through His “mouth-piece” Isaiah that there is
nothing to be gained—no merits, no brownie points can ever be earned—by the simple act of abstaining from food [this is particularly true
when—even though being “active” in the church, our lives steeped in religious fervor and mired in “pious platitude”—our hands are yet not clean,
and our hearts are not right toward God and the things of God (when we disdain to study and accurately handle His Word, applying it to our own
lives; proliferation of Bible studies and Sunday school classes and such notwithstanding), in the first place! Consider again the words of God
through His servant in Isaiah 58:1-7, and note the similarities between them and the modern church.].

Jesus and Fasting in the New Testament

So then, in light of all that has been said, what is one’s attitude to toward fasting in the New Testament? Does the fasting of the Lord Jesus
Christ make fasting a mandate for the Christian? How are we to view fasting, in light of the comments made to His disciples, following their
failed attempt to exorcise a demon, when at other times prior, given the same endeavor, they had known only success?

As has been shown above, the writing and wording of the Old Testament Law—still in force during the days of our Lord—was such that no Jew
should ever have known or submitted to more than one fast, by mandate. Every Pharisee, every scribe and everyone else knowledgeable of the
Law should have known and been fully apprised of this. Jesus certainly was very well aware of both “this” and their ignorance (willful or
otherwise). Observe three notable situations in which the issue of fasting intersects, in one way or the other, with the ministry of our Lord.

Matthew 6:16-18

As mentioned above, Jesus knew and understood well the Old Testament Law’s position on fasting. While on the one hand here, He is by no
means denouncing fasting (He Himself fasted for forty days and forty nights before subjecting Himself to temptation by the devil, in addition to
observing the one fast associated with the Day of Atonement, per the Law of Moses), He is on the other hand also not equating what might be
termed “traditional”, general or voluntary fasting with that prescribed by the Law. Whereas the fast per the Law was in fact “public” fasting, in
which case everyone always knew when everyone else was involved—given that the entire nation was required by Law so to engage, once per
year—it demanded none of the hypocritical stigma attached by tradition over time and so detestable in the eyes of God and of His Christ.
Furthermore, whereas Jesus stops short of canceling the traditional fasts altogether, He virtually does the next best thing by commanding that all
who wish to do so should proceed, but keep his mouth shut about it. No one else needs to know but God the Father. Thus then, we may all
safely gather via this deduction that the Lord’s position—and hence, the New Testament position—is such that all voluntary fasting should be
treated as a private matter between the practitioner and His God.

Matthew 9:14-18

This passage indicates several things about the general attitude toward traditional fasting in Jesus’ day: 1) all the religious leaders and clerics did
so, 2) even John the Baptist had taught his disciples to do so, 3) because these all were doing it, the thought was such that every other religious
leader and His disciples should have done so! Moreover, not only was the fast an occasion of public spectacle by means of which the deeply
devote flexed spiritual muscle through long-faced, outward displays of great sadness and mournfulness, but, it was equally fairly obvious to all in
the “know” that there was a “Non-conformist” in their midst. In keeping with His disdain for strictly traditional teachings which put
burdensome, unnecessary and unbiblical restrictions and prohibitions upon men (in the Name of God!), it was apparent to all, even without
fanfare, that Jesus was making no secret of the fact that succumbing to the traditions of the Pharisees and scribes might have been anything but
priority to Him. He had not taught, and was not going to teach His disciples fasting, beyond the one requirement affiliate with the Law’s Day of
Atonement [in fact, as we saw earlier (6:16-18), Jesus demanded of His followers—i.e., believers—that they do exactly the opposite of all
religious teaching (then and now; today and tomorrow!) not rooted squarely in the Word of God (6:1-18).]. His coming signaled the beginning,
the dawning of a new day, one of liberation from the encumbrances of tradition (11:28-30). All rules and regulations, all matters of religion (in
the Name of but) not in keeping with the Father’s Will and Word are to be exposed and disallowed, He later instructed His disciples, regarding the
lies of the Pharisees and Sadducees (15:1-13; 16:6-12; His teachings are as much applicable to the denominational, interdenominational, or non-
denominational religious fakes and charlatans of our day as to those of His day.). It is important to understand that at no point was Jesus ever in
a face-off with the Law, as rather His concern was always the additions and misrepresentations then (and now) being passed off as the Word
and Will of the Living God (5:17-20; 6:1-18; 15:1-13; Mark 7:1-13). This includes traditional teaching on fasting.

In addition, Jesus went on to point out, by way of analogy, that just as old cloth/new cloth unions and new wine/old wineskin (leathern bag, of
goatskin) unions are unthinkable due to issues of incompatibility, so likewise mixes of the traditions of men and the teachings of the Word of God
are at best mutually exclusive. Again, this was not an issue of the Law being outmoded, as is often taught, and therefore incompatible with the
“grace” brought by our Savior. Jesus always taught His disciples—being as they were yet under the Law of Moses, as long as He was alive, as
was He Himself—that they were obligated to obey the Law (5:17-20; 23:1-12). As was the case then, so it is today: in the end men promote
their own ever burgeoning, bloated agendas in the Name of God, but ahead of the things of God, thereby undercutting God’s authority (which
never changes) in favor of, and at the same time elevating theirs (thus, making themselves equal to or greater than their Maker!).

Matt. 17:14-19

When Jesus chose and prepared His 12 twelve, and later, the seventy (Matt. 10; Mark 3 & 6; Luke 9 & 10), giving them not only power and
authority to teach but, to heal and cast out demons as well, He made no distinction between demons; that is, He never said to them that they
really needed to be alert for this kind or that kind of demon, given that there is a kind which will only exorcise if you follow a certain set
protocol, or ritual. All the work assignments (whether simply teaching and preaching, or healing and exorcism required only one thing (one shoe
fits all, so to speak): faith on the part of the worker. Whenever their actions sparked a sour moment in demand of expressions of sore
displeasure form the Lord, disbelief or lack of faith—intangible, nonphysical, a condition of the heart, evinced outwardly, but seen only by God—
was always the draw. Life was no different, on this otherwise auspicious occasion.

This section records a third of several occasions where Jesus left certain of His followers alone out of His direct oversight, to minister and work
miracles. While He and three of the apostles—the ones who might rightly be considered the pillars of the faith—were away on the Mt. of
Transfiguration, a situation developed that should have been a matter of business as usual for them. The remainder of the twelve—Peter, James,
and John being with the Lord—found themselves in confrontation with a demoniac whose evil spirit refused to vacate its host. Upon the Lord’s
return, and per His command, the spirit departed, the lad was healed without a hitch and thereafter, all was well, but for the apostles’ perplexity.
What was the problem? Why could they not do a job for which they were certainly certified, fully qualified, and capable, having performed
many times before?

The Lord’s answer of indictment was sweet and simple: lack of faith. By this time the apostles appear to have taken their eyes off the ultimate
source of their power and authority, and had beyond to focus on themselves and their shortcomings. Jesus’ emphasis here is on “faith” (plus
nothing else), same as always for casting out this type of demon, not prayer and fasting. This being such as it is then, what was His point when
He mentioned “prayer and fasting”? Is it not that had the apostles been actively engaged in and watering this endeavor with prayer, or if they had
at least been discerning and foresighted enough to have resorted to prayer at the first sigh of trouble, these acts would then have demonstrated
that their eyes were focused in the right direction, which means their faith in the Source would have been active, in which case God could have
worked (as usual) and the healing of the demoniac would have been possible? Is this not reminiscent of the Moses/Israeli incident, where
Moses—contrary to God’s command to speak, before perhaps several million thirsting and cantankerous Jews—struck the rock in disbelief, to
the detriment both of himself and his older brother, thereby robbing God of an occasion for magnification in the eyes His often rebellious, self-
destructive people (Num. 20:7-13, 24-28; 27:12-14; Deu. 34:1-12)? As was the case then, so here. God sought to be uplifted in the eyes of the
people, at the hands of nine of His choicest servants, on the wings of their faith, only to have all drop the ball simultaneously! Not one was able
to produce.   They could have prayed and fasted until their brains popped out, but had they no faith, nothing would have occurred. Bear in mind
that when Jesus sent them out on two different occasions, armed with authority over demons, they did not look or feel any different than they
always had. All they ever had was their “faith”, trust and confidence in the Lord’s Word. Hence, it is only natural to assume that being the
ordinary men that they were, in time (for one reason or the other) doubt began to set in until at last they simply doubted themselves into total
ineffectiveness! Consider Peter’s walk on the water. There was never anything different about him, physically or morally, except that when the
Lord told him to walk He believed. What caused him to fall? Same thing as here! A slight shift in situations and circumstance caused him to
take his eyes off the Source, even though He who was the Source stood there, right in front of his nose!

In finale, we should all remember that one can fake prayer, as easily as anyone can fake fasting; either of which is more or less concrete.
Furthermore, one can even stand before the throne and very Eyeballs of the ever watching and contemplative God of all the universe, faking all
the way—either/or—and yet not have faith! One cannot, however, fake “faith”. Faith is, as was shown earlier, a matter of the heart; where the
Eyes of the Lord roam continuously. One having faith will doubtless pray, for he must commune with his God. He may even fast, not required
but always welcomed and accepted when served up on a platter of faith.