Apart from the two references in 2 Corinthians, the rest of the epistles and Revelation do not explicitly mention fasting. This might lead to the idea that the practice was not important to the early church, or perhaps even viewed negatively.
Fink goes so far as to say that even the interest in fasting shown in Luke-Acts departs from the teachings of Jesus.91 Keith Main stresses the Pauline doctrine of justification by faith so much that for him fasting seems to imperil Christian doctrine.92 On the other hand, if the references to fasting in the NT already discussed (especially those mentioned in Acts) are understood as indicating that fasting was an accepted part of the life of the early church, then perhaps the absence of explicit references means very little. Perhaps the practice was assumed, and the
89 Philip Edgcumbe Hughes, Paul’s Second Epistle to the Corinthians: The English Text with Introduction, Exposition and Notes, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962), 226;
C. K. Barrett, A Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1973), 186; Victor Paul Furnish, II Corinthians, AB (Garden City, N.Y.:
Doubleday, 1984), 355.
90 Ralph Martin, 175, however, uses this point to follow just the opposite line of reasoning.
91 Fink, 283-85.
92 Keith Main, Prayer and Fasting: A Study in the Devotional Life of the Early Church (New York: Carlton, 1971).
CHAPTER 2
70
examples in the synoptics and Acts serve as a kind of narrative teaching, so that the lack of didactic teaching on fasting should not be overvalued.93
Within the backdrop of the theology of the changing of the ages in Christ is the apparent abolition of dietary regulations. This is most clearly seen in the account of Peter’s vision in Acts 10:9-23. The discourse begins with the intriguing statement that Peter “became hungry, and was desiring to eat” (10:10). Peter was commanded by the divine voice to “kill and eat!” While the account is first to be understood as about the acceptance of the Gentiles, it should also be noted that the Jewish concern about Peter was not that he preached to them, but that he “ate with them” (11:3). Whether or not this means he ate food that was not kosher is not explicit, but it is clear that Jew and Gentile were to enjoy table fellowship, and the revocation of food regulations is clearly implied (it was Peter, the Jew, who was commanded to eat the unclean food). This should also be read in conjunction with Mark 7:19. Here during a discourse of Jesus on internal versus external forms of righteousness, the writer inserts the parenthetical comment, “Thus he declared all foods clean.” Clearly the early church was coming to a position that the old covenant food regulations had been done away in the new era. This raised sensitive cultural issues for Jews, especially when added to the thorny association of eating foods sacrificed to idols. The apostolic council of Acts 15 specifically concluded against those arguing that the Gentiles needed to “observe the Law of Moses” (Acts 15:5). But in a kind of position of deference, they wrote that they should still abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood and things strangled, as well as fornication (Acts 15:20, 28-29). Paul addressed these concerns by also taking a middle road, clearly affirming that food regulations were not a part of Christian practice, but readily deferring to others’ sensitivities (Romans 14; 1 Corinthians 8).
Yet the writer of Revelation could condemn a “Jezebel” who encouraged Christians to eat things sacrificed to idols (Rev 2:20). So this theme of the abolition of dietary regulations implies that fasting could not be made mandatory in the New Covenant community. Yet at times, some forms of abstinence would be desirable to maintain personal purity and harmony within the community. The application to fasting would be that Christians should not presume to mandate such practices, but fasting could at least be a live option. Hopefully such fasting would promote purity and harmony.
A decent case study might be made of Paul’s discussion of bodily disciplines.
In Col 2:16-23 he appears to take a dim view of regulating food, drink, and holiday observances. He refers to such things as acts of “self-abasement” (2:18, 23, NASB, translating tapeinofrosuvnh) that are “of no value against fleshly indulgence.” The word tapeinofrosuvnh and related terms are sometimes used to refer to fasting in the LXX.94 Some commentators, like Markus Barth and Helmut Blanke, do not
93 For a discussion of deriving theological application from narrative literature, see Doriani, 161-212, and the more thorough interaction with these ideas at the beginning of the first chapter above.
94 Ps 34 [35]:13; Isa 58:3; Ezra 8:21; the Day of Atonement passages in Lev 16:29, 31, 23:27, 29.
think this text has anything to do with fasting.95 On the other hand, John Muddiman says this is “probably a Semiticism for fasting, since the practice is coupled with
‘angel worship,’ i.e., it was intended to induce visions of angels.”96 Perhaps a middle ground is best. As argued previously in relation to the Day of Atonement passages, the “self-abasement” in view may include fasting as an understood application, but is larger in scope. As Francis says, the term is “bound up with regulations of much broader effect than fasting.”97 So Paul is strongly opposed to the kind of regulatory actions (which would likely include certain kinds of fasting) in certain instances, such as that described in this passage. Yet he is not entirely opposed to voluntarily abstaining from foods, as his discussion of questionable eating practices in Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8 proves. He describes “bodily discipline” as of some value in 1 Tim 4:8.98 He also condemns those who live by their appetites, which might tacitly condone fasting (Phil 3:19; Rom 16:18; Titus 1:12). Additionally, the other NT appearances of the word tapeinofrosuvnh from Col 2:18 and Col 2:23 are all used positively (including a use in the very next chapter), as a virtue Christians are to cultivate (Acts 20:19; Eph 4:2; Phil 2:3; Col 3:12; 1 Pet 5:5). Louw and Nida offer this comment on the term in context:
The rendering of tapeinofrosuvnh in Col 2.18 as ‘false humility’ is justified in terms of the context, but there is nothing in the word tapeinofrosuvnh itself which means ‘false.’ It would be possible to render tapeinofrosuvnh in Col 2.18 as ‘subjection to,’ and one might render the entire expression as ‘in abject worship of angels.’ In other languages ‘false humility’ may be rendered as ‘just pretending to be humble’ or ‘appearing to be humble but really being proud.’99
It would seem reasonable that Paul would not outright reject a practice that he himself practiced, as evidenced in other texts. Rather, it would be consistent to see a passage like Col 2:16-23 functioning similarly to Jesus’ strong criticisms of certain kinds of fasting behaviors in Matthew 6 or Luke 18. It is not fasting itself, or bodily discipline in general, that are condemned, but rather the hypocrisy and poor theology that so often accompany them. In fact, it is reasonable to believe that the apostles and early Christians thought that fasting would be an appropriate means of bodily discipline if it were encouraging genuine humility.
95 Markus Barth, and Helmut Blanke, Colossians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, trans. Astrid B. Beck, AB 34b (New York: Doubleday, 1994), 344.
96 John Muddiman, “Fast, Fasting,” ABD (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 2: 775. See also Fred O. Francis, “Humility and Angelic Worship in Col 2:18,” in Conflict at Colossae:
A Problem in the Interpretation of Early Christianity Illustrated by Selected Modern Studies, ed. Fred O. Francis, and Wayne A. Meeks, Sources for Biblical Study (Missoula, Mont.:
Scholars Press, 1975), 167-71.
97 Francis, 168.
98 The phrase for “bodily discipline” in Greek here is swmatikhV gumnasiva, not askesis as Muddiman writes (“Fast, Fasting,” 775).
99 L&N 88.53.
CHAPTER 2
72