Skip to main content

January Fasting

Are you doing dry January? Or vegan January? Or are you fasting? Perhaps your church or mission is organising a fast or encouraging supporters to fast at this time of year. It seems natural, after so much feasting, to begin fasting.

Is this biblical?

The only concern I have is that Jesus seems to teach that fasting should be done in secret:
"When you fast, do not look sombre as the hypocrites do, for they disfigure their faces to show others they are fasting. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you fast, put oil on your head and wash your face, so that it will not be obvious to others that you are fasting, but only to your Father, who is unseen; and your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you." Mat 6:16-18
So, although fasting is a good thing, and I thoroughly encourage it, group fasting needs to be organised very carefully. Any encouragement to fast should be seen as optional, and private. It's better not to ask people how they are fasting. That is between them and the Lord.

I suppose Lent would come under the bracket of organised fasting (as would Ramadan, for Muslims, and Purim for Jews). Lent probably comes from the issue of not having enough food to last the winter, so people cut down the amount of meat, eggs, and so on they ate until Spring (actually Easter) arrived.

Ramadan is organised in such a way that it's easier to fast than not, as everyone (except pregnant women, those who are sick, the very young, etc.) fast during the daylight hours, then come together after dark (which is at the latest about 6-7 pm in most of the 10-40 window) for a big feast to break their fast. At the end of the fast is a festival called Eid al-Fitr (the Festival of Breaking the Fast). This is an even bigger feast.

Both these organised fasts have their pluses and minuses. But Jesus seems to be teaching us to fast alone, and in secret.


Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Flow Chart for Bible Translation (a Relevance Theory Approach)

One of the current theories behind modern translation work is Relevance Theory. [1] Here is a flow chart that explains the process often used to produce a draft when using such an approach: *Make sure your translation committee makes the decision as to what kind of translation they want. A domesticated translation is one that submits to dominant values in the target language [2] whereas a foreignized translation is one that is happy to import foreign terms and ideas from Hebrew, Greek, or the language of wider communication such as the Greek term baptizo . The chart looks something like this: Text                                   Communicated Ideas                  Context A sower went out to sow  A farmer went out to sow grain   People scattered/threw seed etc. The text has very little information, but behind i...
Post a Comment
Read more

A Plea Regarding Footnotes in Bible Translation

Recently I was giving input to a team who had worked on Psalms. I noticed that in several places they had included footnotes referring to the New Testament use of those Psalms. One example was a footnote in Ps 34:20 'not one of [his bones] will be broken' that referred to John 19:32, 33, 36 where this prophecy is fulfilled. Now, obviously this is a useful link for readers, but it is better to put it in John's gospel referring back to Psalms. Why? Because the New Testament is (to some extent) a commentary on the Hebrew Bible, whereas the reverse is not true (the Hebrew Bible never refers to the New Testament). There are often two possible ways of reading a Psalm: In its original context, and  As interpreted by the New Testament writers. This is quite important, as the Hebrew Bible belongs to two faith communities, the Jews and the Christians. (Muslims too, to some extent, though they refer to the Torah and the Psalms only). If we translate the Bible in such a way that it onl...
Post a Comment
Read more

Integral Mission vs. Holistic Mission - What's the Difference?

 A lot of people are talking about integral mission these days, whereas the idea of holistic mission seems to have fallen by the wayside. What's the difference? Holistic mission is mission to the whole person, taking into account their physical as well as spiritual needs. Evangelism is combined with social action. Unfortunately, this term has been used for some years now, and much mission that was labelled 'holistic' was mainly social action. Integral mission has more focus on communities and their felt needs. What issues of poverty and (lack of) justice are there? How can a given community begin to address these issues? What input do they need from outsiders as they do so? How can they define kingdom goals that will bring them out of their physical and spiritual poverty? Lausanne defines it here . The fact is that the neediest communities are often ones that lack the Bible, and lack a clear orthography (alphabet corresponding to the phonemic system of the language, and tha...
Post a Comment
Read more